i

-

A CHRONOLOGY

NASA SP-4009

THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT

A CHRONOLOGY
VOLUME
Through November

I
7, 1962

by Ivan D. Ertel and Mary Louise Morse

THE

NASA

HISTORICAL

SERIES

Scientific OFFICE
t'. S. _.

and Technical lnf_Jrmaliope Dirisi*.e OF TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Washington,

1969 D.C.

NATIONAL

For sale by the Superintendent U.S. Government Price $2,50 Printing

of Documents D.C. 20402

Office, Washington,

(Paper Cover)

Library o[ CongressCatalog Card Number 69-60008

FOREWORD
The mission penings should chronology provides of the specific development documented of the information Apollo spacecraft a wide and range the lunar

covering

of hap-

both directly and indirectly related to the program. This wealth of material be of value to historians and others interested in the events of the great The foreword presents a synopsis of the first several years of the pro-

adventure.

gram as seen from the vantage point of the first Apollo It is hoped that it will aid the user of the chronology some of the material presented. A discussion of the Apollo Spacecraft Mercury and Gemini Programs, but because of the interrelationship organizations, and the differences Program must

Project Office Manager. by providing context for include reference to the

not because they are between the programs and similarities in

manned space programs in time, in people, and in the requirements of the

programs. The Mercury Program had a man in orbit and return him to earth. ferent. It was operating a number in the same earth which as its goal of objectives

a very specific objective, namely to place The Gemini Program was somewhat diforbital environment as Mercury but had our were intended to explore and develop

capabilities to work more resources than is more beyond Program operational like Mercury. that will required capability environment--deep

in this environment. In doing Mercury, in terms of increased It has a well-defined space--and to achieve what resources the Gemini objective that has which initiated to manage of the 1959, the

this, the Gemini Program had payload weight in orbit. Apollo that involves the moving into a new capability an

offer little if any payload Perhaps been has been Apollo to Mercury,

objective.

Applications establishing in a prior and at that and Pro-

be to Apollo

in an environment was formally was formed During related next

first explored 1958 This

program. The Mercury time others and gram studies, lunar the Space had other been NACA

project Task studying Centers. activity

in October the project.

Group

group

the specifics program out by the

program

for over a year of the Task had study Group. indicated this

at Langley In 1960, Committee that in mind, These were were the a

requirements mission Committee, objective. vehicles landing

Mercury

left no time for advanced such mission were unknowns as that should based carried be the

study by the Space Goett

the first organized

to advanced major manned that than mission

began.

With then and

series of technical guidelines capable enough

guidelines

was developed flight rather

to guide launch lunar that

the spacecraft

studies. planned that should there

on assumptions to the lunar

only of circumlunar related

the hardware

be equally liaison their

capable of advanced earth orbital Based on the technical guidelines, activity was set up with other

missions as an alternative. three efforts were undertaken. Centers iii to stimulate and

A formal encourage

NASA

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

research reference. design in June

and study 1961.

studies was

toward study

the

lunar contracts

mission, were Task

using Group

the

guidelines and held have This

as a general a preliminary total mission effort with to a of 1961, therein Washington

Three

system

let to industry personnel. in a conference

conducted one year studies hardware

by Space and were

took approximately These the intent that the later lunar mission. Concurrent two events suborbital after, lunar

culminated primarily

based

on a circumlunar would

elements

developed

application

with the completion of utmost flight, significance of Lt. Cdr. Alan

of this year of study effort to the program B. Shepard, took place. Jr., the national

in the Spring Shortly

The first U.S. manned objective of a manned were being be let to infor a launch would service which launch class

was successful.

President John F. Kennedy announced landing mission within the decade.

As a follow-on to the study effort of the previous year, specifications prepared for the command and service modules so a contract could dustry. These lunar landing vehicle specifications rather than

were changed to acknowledge the requirement a circumlunar mission. Since the lunar-mission it was assumed that a single launch vehicle trajectory and that the command and surface with the aid of a third module as it approached was never of 1961, fully work the defined statements surface. but was and The

had not been determined,

insert a spacecraft into the lunar modules would land on the lunar would vehicle referred During decelerate the total

spacecraft approach Summer

required for this to as the Nova. the Spring and

of the

specifications

were completed and issued to industry During the Fall, proposals were evaluated ber 1961. been Throughout toward this period, the command directed and

for the command and a contractor all Space modules; service

and .service modules. was selected in NovemTask Group activity vehicle of the had launch studies Saturn involvthe use module, space-

practically

by Marshall Space Flight Center and others had led to a selection C-5 as the lunar launch vehicle in the Fall of 1961. This decision eliminated ing the Nova class vehicle, of two Saturn C-5's plus an earth-to-moon

the lunar mission approach previously described, and offered two alternatives. The first involved orbit rendezvous This would allow to mate the spacecraft of the entire stage. a landing

and an earth rocket

craft, employing a third module to decelerate the command and to the lunar surface; then a launch from the lunar surface would module vehicle propulsion. carrying the The other alternative spacecraft, was to use a single consisting of three entire

service modules use the serviceC-5 The launch third

Saturn modules.

module, instead of being an unmanned module whose purpose was to decelerate the other two modules to the lunar surface, would be a manned module which would go to the lunar surface from lunar orbit and return, while the command service modules waited in lunar orbit to rendezvous with the third module. This others latter during approach 1960 Group and had 1961. been studied with by the the Langley received direct Research approach Center and and by the previously

At first it was not

enthusiastically

Space Task described.

in comparison

Nova

iv

FOREWORD

In late November remaining ducted

1961,

the Space

Task

Group moved by the

(redesignated to Houston C-5 and vehicle. other and groups.

Manned initiated The Studies

Spacecraft studies also Manned were

Center, of the two being conSpacecraft method Excurindito the and and in the the final wa_s and

1, 1961 ) personnel approaches by Marshall, offered

Headquarters,

Center study concentrated and the definition of the sion Module). cated earth the desirability orbit rendezvous It and was for the

on the feasibility of the lunar orbit rendezvous lunar module, then known as the LEM (Lunar of 1962, the Manned Spacecraft approach held with of the In early approach. This Center as opposed Headquarters work

In the Spring

studies

of the lunar orbit rendezvous approach. Discussions were to complete and to issue were orbit proposals preparation them evaluated. rendezvous LEM

Marshall. specifications Summer decision

decided

statement was done

to industry.

contractors'

November,

was made

to go the lunar

A contractor preparation,

selected and negotiations were completed Parallel to the effort related to mission contractor navigation selection and for the major system. modules, During

by the end of 1962. selection, specifications additional this 1960 work study

was being phase

done on the de-

guidance

previously

scribed, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,' (MIT) of concepts for the Apollo system. It was subsequently be given industrial support the navigation contractors. contractor and guidance The contract statements

was conducting a study decided that MIT would

system task, with support from appropriate with MIT was signed in August 1961, the and specifications were prepared and issued

work

in early 1962, and three contractors were selected in the Spring of that year. In summaD5 the period through 1962 was one of mission definition and major contractor selection. With the selection of the lunar orbit rendezvous mission mode and the LEM efforts. Robert Science and Applications O. Piland contractor, the program was in a position to move into specific design

Directorate Center

Manned

Spacecraft

CONTENTS
PAGE FOREWORD ..................................................

LIST

OF

ILLUSTRATIONS

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

viii xi xiii

THE KEY EVENTS .............................................
PREFACE ....................................................

PART PART

I: CONCEPT II:

TO APOLLO;

BEGINNINGS THROUGH

JULY

1960_--

I

DESIGN--DEciSION--CONTRACT;

NOVEMBER PART III:
LUNAR BER ORBIT

AUGUST 1960 THROUGH 1961...................................
RENDEZVOUS: MODE AND MODULE; DECEM-

49

1961THROUGH

NOVEMBER 7, 1962.................

129

APPENDIXES

I. Glossaryof Abbrcviations ................................ 2. Committees ........................................... 3. Major Spacccraft ontractors C ............................. 4. FlightSummary ........................................ 5. Funding ............................................. 6. OrganizationCharts .................................... 7. ApolloLaunch VchiclcFamily ............................
INDEX ......................................................

205 207 223 224 228 230 234 237

vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
All photographs and illustrations are U.S. Government in the photographs are included in the index.
PAGE

ones except as credited. Persons identified in the captions and PART I Egress Lunar Reentry Lunar-Earth Saturn Planned PART II Apollo Reentry seating module arrangement geometry C-1 space after lunar landing

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

30 30 30 37 39 48

liftoff ............................................. concept .......................................... Vehicle ................................

Return static-fired flight

..................................... program ................................

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

58 70 72 72 83 86 88 89 89 90 90 91 92 96 97 111 116 117 117 127

Configuration Reentry Early C-2 vehicle LEM mission

sketches ..................................... sketches ....................................

model ......................................... possibilities .................................... ................................

Suggested Lunar

spacecraft

concepts

mission ............................................ nearing of proposed sequence moon ................................... D-2 spacecraft ..........................

Spacecraft Cutaway A mission C-1 Lunar Lunar C-3 MSC SA-1

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

mission lander landing mission

possibilities comparison techniques possibilities

(architect's launch

impression)

............................................. ........................................... rendezvous .................................

A lunar Simplified A team

lander lunar and

a goal ........................................
.°°

7111

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

PART

III Circumlunar spacecraft configuration ......................... RASPO established ........................................ Lunar Apollo Saturn Lunar Little SA-2 landing techniques .......... , ........................ ............... 136 141 145 145 146 148-149 1.51 153 156 158 162 ................ 169-170 171 179 184 189 196 201

spacecraft configurations, mission oriented launch vehicle family ................................ landing sequence mockup (artist's concepts) module ..................................

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

Command

Joe II (artist's concept) ............................... launch .............................................

Spacecraft diagrams_ ...................................... Control system design work ................................. Proposed Mission Spacecraft lunar Control vehicle Center comparison (architect's evolution ......................... impression) ............................

configuration

Service module engine, prototype ............................. LEM model at Houston .................................... Three-man GAEC LEM moon vehicle ................................... model .......................................

ix

THE KEY EVENTS
1957 October 4: Sputnik I, the first man-made satellite, successfully launched by the Soviet

Union. 1958 October

1: NASA

officially

constituted

and

charged

with

responsibility

for

the U.S.

civilian 1959

space program.

April-December: Research 1960 April-May:

Detailed study of advanced manned space Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight

flight missions by NASA's (Goett Committee).

Preparation

of the

guidelines

for

the

three-man

advanced

spacecraft

by

NASA's Space Task Group July 28-29: The announcement

(STG). of the Apollo

program

to representatives

of American Division Apollo

industry. October 25: Selection of the General Electric Company, Convair/Astronautias of General Dynamics Corporation, and The Martin Company to prepare spacecraft 1961 April 12: First successful Soviet Union. May 5: First successful manned American orbital flight, by Cosmonaut flight, Yuri by A. Gagarin Astronaut feasibility studies.

of the Alan B.

manned

suborbital

Shepard, Jr. May 15: Completion of the Apollo spacecraft feasibility studies. May 25: President John F. Kennedy's proposal to Congress and the nation of an accelerated space program including a manned lunar landing within the decade. August 9: Selection of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory to develop under STG direction the Apollo spacecraft Instrumentation navigation and

guidance system--first major Apollo contract. October 27: First successful flight (SA-I) of the Saturn C--1 booster. November 28: Selection of North American Aviation, Inc., as prime contractor Apollo December: 1962 February 20: First successful by NASA American of the lunar manned orbit orbital rendezvous flight, mode by Astronaut spacecraft under Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) direction. Selection of the Saturn C-5 as the Apollo launch vehicle for lunar

for the landing.

John

H.

Glenn, Jr. July 11: Selection

for the manned Corporation

lunar

landing mission. November 7: Selection of the Grumman the lunar excursion module under

Aircraft Engineering MSC direction.

to develop

xi

PREFACE
Project manned As Apollo, exploration between conceived of space objective in space Mercury as a successor and originally lunar Apollo, and and a manned rendezvous to the Mercury planned landing the and Gemini program return in this nation's flight, has now the decade. provided of longas a circumlunar within program

has as its primary a bridge essential experience

demonstrated

the feasibility

duration space and interrelated recovery

flight. Like elements: This

Mercury and Gemini, Apollo is a program of complex launch vehicles; spacecraft; and launch, tracking, and is the first volume Spacecra[t: on development program. overview of a chronology A Chronology the important Apollo of the dealing in several events spacecraft with Center. official anconand comwith the

facilities.

spacecraft. It is planned The than intent the to cover affected authors

to publish authors concept, in detail

The Apollo and

volumes. that have rather the program,

of the

is to concentrate Apollo

design,

the entire

In keeping of the Apollo

this intent,

have tried

to give

a balanced

spacecraft

not limiting

the chronology

to the activities

of a single NASA

Part I, "Concept to Apollo," reviews the earliest )'ears up to the nouncement of the Apollo program. Part II, "Design--Decision--Contract,"

tinues through the selection of the principal contractor for the command service modules. Part III, "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous: Mode and Module," pletes Volume documents, I, ending Apollo with the naming sources status reports, of the contractor These Manned for the lunar included Center

module. and Apollo reports, reports, years volto releases, came

As far as possible,

primary program

were consulted.

congressional

Spacecraft

Spacecraft Project Office weekly activity reports, contractors' progress Apollo working papers, letters, memoranda, NASA and industry staff minutes of the ume of meetings, Apollo and and interviews In addition, articles several magazine revised with persons books, times directly involved accounts, program. newspaper press The

in the early present

chronologies,

were researched

for material.

was extensively

as new sources

of information

light. This and succeeding volumes reference work for the scientist, foundation Historical sources tions for Series. a narrative

are meant historian, of the

not only to provide and general reader, Apollo program

a useful and accurate but also to serve as a as part from of the NASA of a

history

The materials

used in this chronology are indebted and cooperation recognition Information invaluable

were accumulated to a number assistance. Some

a wide variety and organizato such assisted

and so the authors for outstanding

of individuals have

degree that special Redstone Scientific Center, for their

seems warranted. This group Center, and Lois Robert.son, assistance in research xiii and

includes : Rose Sidick, Marshall Space Flight retrieval;

documentation

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

Jack

C. Heberlig, MSC

MSC Apollo

Office

of Engineering Program

and

Development, who

and

J. Thomas many early

Markley,

Spacecraft

Office,

proffered

Apollo documents; Charles F. Allyn, Branch, for development of a technical of the Putnam, yeoman concerning Historian helped NASA research Historical NASA and Office Assistant Historian

MSC Technical documentation D.C., and offered for Manned service Space

Information Preparation retrieval system; the staff and especially Flight, many who cogent William performed suggestions D.

in Washington,

documentation and format chronology

the content on the Apollo

of this publication; Jean K. Bays, Contract project from the University of Houston, who of the appendixes and in the final revision of for his thorough A. De Leon and was responto Billie in setting D. up

materially

in the preparation

the comment draft; and MSC Historian James M. Grimwood review and constructive criticism of the draft version. Catherine Phyllis R. Hagan typed the comment of the final draft product. edition Especial and

Sally D. Gates thanks is given service

sible for preparation

Rowell, MSC Historical Office archivist, and maintaining the research files. This volume of the chronology its Manned Spacecraft Center, University of Houston.

for her outstanding

was written under the sponsorship of NASA at with principal reliance on a contract with the I.D.E. M. L. M.

August

1968

xiv

PART I
Concept to Apollo

Beginnings

through

July

1960

PART I

The Key Events

! 955 March: The feasibility of a million-pound-thrust liquid-fueled by the Rocketdyne Division of North American Aviation, 1957 April: Studies of a large clustered-engine booster to generate thrust begun by the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA). I, the first man-made satellite, successfully 1.5 million launched pounds of rocket engine Inc. established

October 4: Sputnik Union. 1958 ]anuary June Iuly 31: Explorer

by the

Soviet

I, the first U.S. satellite,

launched

successfully. liquid-

23: Preliminary design begun by Rocketdyne Division on a single-chamber fueled rocket engine (the F-l) of 1.5 million pounds of thrust. 29: The National Aeronautics and Space Act signed, authorizing of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). V (later 14. charged named with Saturn)

the establishment booster for the under U.S.

August 15: Development begun of the Juno Advanced Research Projects Agency Order October 1: NASA officially civilian space program. constituted and

responsibility

October 1 I: Letter contract signed by NASA with Rocketdyne Division for development of the H-1 engine designed for use in the clustered-engine booster. November 5: Space Task Group (STG) officially organized to implement the manned satellite project. 1959 January 19: Contract signed ment of the F-1 engine. by NASA with Rocketdyne Division for design and develop-

April 9: First group of astronauts selected for the manned space flight program. April-December: Detailed study of advanced manned space flight missions by the Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight (Goett Committee). August-September: Meetings of the STG New Proiects Panel to discuss an advanced manned space flight program. September moon 12: Launching about 35 hours by the later. Soviet Union of Lunik 1I, which crash-landed photographed and the on the the far

October 4: Launching by the Soviet side of the moon three days later.

Union

of Lunik C-1

III, which configuration

December 31: NASA approval of the Saturn development program. 1960

Saturn

long-range

January 28: NASA's Ten-Year Plan presented to Congress House Committee on Science and Astronautics.

during

testimony

before

the

THE

KEY

EVENTS

March

15: ferred

ABMA's to NASA Presentation program NASA of the All eight

Development cognizance. by of C-1. engines Vehicle to STG the

Operations

Division

and

the

Saturn

program

trans-

April-May: spacecraft April April May 26: (S-IV) 29: for 25:

members Centers. Douglas Saturn formed

of

the

guidelines Company first stage

for to

an build

advanced the

manned stage

to NASA

selection Saturn H-1

Aircraft C-1

second

of the Team the

ground-tested research for the and

simultaneously make preliminary multiman

the first STG

time. to conduct of requirements to develop leading definition Division an advanced

Advanced studies

design May

spacecraft. 3 !: Selection J-2 rocket The

of Rocketdyne engine. announcement

by NASA

200,000-pound-thrust

July

28-29: industry.

of

the

Apollo

program

to

representatives

of

American

334-987

0

-

69

-

2

PART I

Concept

to Apollo

Beginnings

through

July 1960

In a discussion circumlunar

of the uses of an interplanetary flight to explore the hidden

rocket,

Hermann and

Oberth discussed

proposed the possidock of a de-

1923
During the Year

face of the moon

bility of storing cryogenic fuels in space. A spacecraft could rendezvous and in earth orbit with a fuel capsule. When the spacecraft reached the vicinity planet, parture, trip.
Hermann Space) Oberth, (1923), pp. Die 94, Rakete 96-97. zu den Planetenuraiimen (The Rocket in Interplanetary

it would

detach

itself from would ascend

the capsule

and

descend

to the surface.

On

the spacecraft

and reconnect

to its fuel supply

for the return

Hermann Army)

Noordung expanded

(pseudonym the ideas

for

Capt.

Poto_nik

of the flight

Austrian

Imperial de-

! 929
JulySeptember

of Hermann

Oberth

on space

in a detailed

scription of an orbiting space communications, maintaining hicular chemical ciency, shipping
Science Ordway

observatory. The problems of weightlessness, space a livable environment for the crew, and extraveAmong the uses of such an observatory size and surveillance were effiof in a vacuum, surface, telescopes of great

activity and detailed routes,
Wonder III,

were physical mapping

considered. experiments

of the earth's

weather

observation,

and military
"The Stories, History

reconnaissance.
Problems and of Space 1929; Space Flying," Wernher (1966), translated yon Braun p. 202. from and the German, I. Frederick

Hermann

Noordung,

July-September,

o] Rocketry

Travel

As part of a summary of his work on rockets during World War Braun speculated on future uses of rocket power. These included space, planetary
Wernher Their Germany, January

II, Wernher von an observatory in mirror, and inter-

1945
During the Year

the construction travel,
yon Future

of space

stations

in earth

orbit,

a space

beginning
Braun, Prospects," Report 38-42. "Survey

with trips to the moon.
of F. No. the Development Report on of Liquid Rockets Phases Air of in War Germany Research Command, and in in Zwicky, Certain

Summary 1947), pp.

F-SU-3-RE

(Headquarters

Materiel

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1948
November 13

A paper manned

read lunar

to the landing

British mission

Interplanetary which would

Society require

by

H. E. Ross

described of the earth

a

a combination

orbit and lunar orbit rendezvous simultaneously into earth orbit, would The and transfer spacecraft descend to ship A, which would then discarded vicinity completely, of the moon,

techniques. Three spacecraft would be launched each carrying a pilot. After rendezvous, the crew would refuel from ships B and C. Ship C would with the surplus trajectory. orbit, not needed Upon detach reaching would be the be fueled by A.

but ship B would the spacecraft surface. refuel, to earth. would

be fired into a translunar would To return rendezvous The ability to earth,

go into lunar

fuel tanks, rendeztransfer would be this

to the lunar the spacecraft descend element

the spacecraft trajectory. in space weight

vous with the fuel tanks, ing the earth, to silip B, and the essential

and fire into a transearth to rendezvous

On approachwas seen to be

with ship B, the crew would at launch

of such a project.

The total payload

1326 tons equally divided among weight required for a direct ascent
H. E. Ross, 1-7. "Orbital Bases," Journal

the three ships as compared and return from the moon.
o[ the British Interplanetary Society,

to 2.6 times

8 (1949),

pp.

1949-1952

The

awakening

public

interest

in the scientific 1949 of The Featured using

exploration

of space

was shown description Again movie

by of a the pre-

the publication trations manned year direct miered on Space published lan, space, became the book Heinz lunar ascent

in September Bonestell. landing mode

Conquest the direct

o[ Space ascent into 1951,

by Willy

Ley, illus-

by Chesley

in this book Moon" lunar October On

was a detailed technique.

and return,

In the same

the Technicolor in New York

film "Destination was used City in a four-man in 1950.

went 12,

production. mission. the The First

landing

Symposium

Flight was held at the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, Collier's papers from this Symposium on March 22, 1952, under the title "Man Space were Soon." Willy flight, space. Contributors were Wernher and space First Fred observatory, station, The published C. Clarke's direct von Braun, L. Whipple. problems and the Joseph Among of survival question Kapthe in of Haber, Ley, Oscar a manned In 1952, Club Schachter, orbiting Arthur selection. to the

Will Conquer topics discu,_d

an orbiting

astronomical

circumlunar in outer included

sovereignty

Exploration in England

o[ Space in 1951, or

a Book of the

Month

an alternative

_kscent technique:

assembling

refueling the space vehicle in earth orbit before injection into translunar trajectory, to be followed, possibly, by rendezvous in lunar orbit with fuel tanker rockets launched from the earth.
Willy 22-36, 62-82. Ley, "Target Moon" 70-72, for Tonight: 74; Arthur Luna!," produced C. The by George Clarke, The Conquest Pal; o[ Space Collier's (1949), 22, o[ Space pp. (1952), 41-88; pp. pp.

"Destination 65-67,

(1950),

(March

1952),

Exploration

1951
September 7

The

uses of rendezvous International in refueling

techniques Congress in space might

in space

were

discussed considerably

in a paper England.

read

to the could

Second involved

on Astronautics

in London,

The

problems

be simplified

if astronauts

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

maneuver

freely,

perhaps

using

a gas-jet

pistol

and

a lifeline.

The

construction

of

1951
September

a space station might then be possible. Mechanical linkage of objects described as the most difficult task of all. While computing the position in orbit by impact approach.
R. A. Smith, "Establishing Society, Contact 10 ( 1951 Between 295-297. Orbiting Vehicles," Journal

in space was of an object damage attitude of

might

be comparatively require human

easy, linking intelligence

up with

the object error

without in the

would

to anticipate

o[ the

British

Interplanetary

), pp.

The lace

first symposium Foundation
Loyd Ocean: S. A Swenson, History

on space sponsorship
Jr., James

medicine

was held Air
and SP-4201,

under Force
Charles 1966),

U.S. Base,
C.

Air Force San

and

LoveTex.

November During the Menth

at Randolph
M. Mercury Grimwood, (NASA

Antonio,
This New

Alexander, p. 34.

o[ Project

Robert that

J. Woods a small study

of the group

Bell Aircraft be formed

Company to investigate

recommended the problems

to the

Committee (NACA) flight.

1952
January 3O

on Aerodynamics

of the National

Advisory

Committee

for Aeronautics

of space

On June 24, the NACA Committee adopted a resolution ( 1 ) that NACA research effort on problems of manned and unmanned flight in the upper stratosphere at altitudes between 12 and 50 miles and at Mach numbers between 4 and 10 be increased, manned from NACA later Mach and and (2) that NACA flight velocity devote a modest from from Laboratory effort earth's to problems to infinity gravity. On resolution associated and July and with 14, the a month study unmanned 10 to the Langley at altitudes of escape approved 50 miles identical at speeds

Executive authorized

Committee

an almost

Aeronautical

to set up a preliminary to submit comments study was forwarded

group. Other NACA laboratories mendations. Formal authorization on September
Minutes letters, nautical to Langley NACA,

were requested for the research

and recomto Langley

8.
of meeting, NACA Jr., 10, July Committee Acting 1952; John August on Assistant Aerodynamics, Director 14, 1952; for June Associate Research 24, 1952, to pp. for 19, 21 ;

Milton

B. Ames,

Research,

Langley

AeroA73L95,

Laboratory, Aeronautical

W. Crowley,

Director Authorization

Research,

Laboratory,

September

8, 1952.

Rocketdyne feasibility Force.

Division

of North

American

Aviation,

Inc. rocket

(NAA), engine

established for the U.S.

the Air

1955
March During the Month

of a million-pound-thrust

liquid-fueled

Rocketdyne

Skywriter,

May

20,

1960,

p. 1.

The RAND Corporation issued the first of a series of reports on the feasibility of a lunar instrument carrier, based on the use of an Atlas booster. A braking rocket would decelerate the vehicle before lunar landing, and a penetration spike on the

1956
May 28

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1956
May

fox,yard point of the instrument package second impact velocity. Instruments would surface to earth.
Historical Command, 1955-1960" Landing 33-34. Division, U.S. Air (1964), Factors, Office of Information,

would help to absorb the then transmit information

500 feet per on the lunar

Space of Early 5; H. A.

Systems Air Lang,

Division,

Air

Force

Systems Activity, Carrier:

Force, "Chronology unpublished, p. (The RAND

Force Man-in-Space Lunar Instrument June 4, 1956), pp. 1-3,

RM-1725

Corporation,

29,

31,

1957
April During the Month

The

U.S. Army

Ballistic

Missile booster

Agency,

Redstone During

Arsenal,

Ala., pounds

began

studies

of

a large man-hours
H.

clustered-engine group were
Koelle, Missile

to generate effort.
G. Huber, I): p. 1.

1.5 million 1957-1958,

of thrust,

as one 50,000

of a related

of space expended
F. L.

vehicles. in this
W. 13,

approximately

H.

Williams, Program; October

and Booster

R.

C.

Callaway,

Jr.,

]uno

Space (Army

Vehicle Ballistic

Det_'elopment Agency,

(Phase 1958),

Feasibility

Demonstration

October 4

Sputnik

I, the first man-made in orbit
Richter,

earth

satellite, 4, 1958.

was launched

by the

Soviet

Union

and remained
Henry ,Survey, L.

until January
Jr., Editor,

Instruments 1965 (NASA

and SP-3028,

Spacecra[t: 1966), p.

Space 2.

Measurements

October

1957-March

14

The Panel space such space

Rocket

and

Satellite Panel together

Research with would the be

Panel, American National

established the Upper Rocket Space

in 1946 Atmosphere Society Establishment. in space.

as the V-2 Rocket The

Upper

Atmosphere flight an

Research program

and renamed

Research a national mission excluding this Establanding landing. been by 1968. of

in 1948,

proposed specifically By 1959,

and a unified

Establishment development

nonmilitary

in nature,

weapons

and military

operations

lishment and, by Manned Beginning
U.S. pp.

should have achieved an unmanned instrumented hard lunar 1960, an unmanned instrumented lunar satellite and .soft lunar circumnavigation by 1965 in
Congress, on 17-19.

of the

moon lunar

with base
on No. 1,

return should

to earth mission be possible.
Astronautics, 2rid

should place

have

accomplished

with a manned

lunar

landing

taking

1970,

a permanent
Special and

Senate, Space

Committee

Space 85th

and

Compilation Session (1958),

o[ Materials

Astronautics

Congress,

November 14

The

General in part,

Assembly

of the through

United study outer

Nations space shall

adopted system

Resolution designed

1148

(XII), that and

calling,

for "the joint

of an inspection

to ensure

the sending of objects scientific purposes."
John HHN-64, Michael 1967), Kemp, pp.

be exclusively

for peaceful

Evolution 8-9.

Toward

a Space

Treaty:

An

Historical

Analysis

(NASA

December 9

The nology

Air

Force

Scientific

Advisory

Board

Ad

Hoc

Committee projects

on and

Space

Tech-

recommended

acceleration

of specific

military

a vigorous

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

space program with the immediate goal of landings on the moon because "Sputnik and the Russian ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capability have created a national
Thomas 1944-1964

1957
December

emergency."
A. Sturm, (1967), The pp. USAF 82-83. 10 Scientific Advisory Board: lts First Twenty Years,

The Army Ballistic Missile Agency completed and forwarded to higher authority the first edition of A National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program, cut total engine research payloads. the large tion and which booster development and One (1520 warfare."
Integrated 1957

had been in preparation program" of 1.5 cost for large pounds million some booster given million of $850

since April payload during carrying of thrust

1957.

Included covering 1958-1963 and

was a "shortthe in clustered1963. covered The 30 of space explora-

development

capabilities, the years manned

to be operational

development K-pounds Later

flights, thrust) vehicles
and

unmanned "Development

of six conclusions

in the document is considered thrust
Development

was that were

the key to space also described.
Program (Army

with greater
Space XV. Vehicle

A National Missile

Missile ), pp.

Ballistic

Agency,

3, 6, Table

The stage guard

Martin of the rocket

Company Titan to provide

proposed a launch

to the vehicle

Department missile surface. capable

of Defense be combined

(DOD) with the

that Vanpackage

a

intercontinental ultimately,
Lunar

ballistic on the lunar

During the Month

of placing

an instrument

into lunar
The

orbit and,
Company,

Martin

Vehicle

( 1957

), p. 2.

NACA

established

a Special

Committee

on

Space

Technology

to

study

the

1958
January 12

problems of space flight. H. Guyford Stever of the Massachusetts Technology (MIT) was named Chairman. On November 21, 1957, authorized formation of the Committee.
NACA January News Release, "Space Technology Committee Established by

Institute of NACA had

NACA,"

13, 1958.

NACA National and military interest

adopted effort Science space

a resolution by DOD, Foundation, companies. vehicles

recommending NACA, together NACA with viewed

that

the national Academy development while

space research and

program and

be a the of

16

cooperative industrial

the National the

of Sciences,

the universities, of DOD,

institutions, operation primary

as the

responsibility of space.
Aeronautics,

NACA's

lay in the scientific
Advisory Adopted

exploration
for

"National Flight,

Committee 16, 1958."

Resolution

on

the

Subject

of

Space

January

Explorer Ballistic Laboratory,

I,

the

first Agency

U.S.

earth

satellite, Explorer

was

launched

by

a

modified Jet

Army

31

Missile

Jupiter-C.

I, developed

by the

Propulsion experiment

carried

the U.S.-IGY

(International 9

Geophysical

Year)

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1958
January

of James the earth.
U.S.

A. Van

Allen

and

resulted

in the discovery

of the

radiation

belt

around

Congress,

Senate,

Special

Committee

on

Space

and

Astronautics, Session

Compilation (1958),

o[

Materials Fletcher

on Space G. Watson,

and Astronautics No. 2, 85th Congress, 2nd Between the Planets ( 1962 ), pp. 210-211.

p. 365;

February 7

To further tion, the (ARPA). of research tional Staff

the national Secretary ARPA and

space

effort

pending the

a decision Advanced

as to permanent Research advanced Projects projects to bypass was named

organizaAgency operaAgency ARPA in the field with the Army

of Defense was authorized

created to direct

or perform

development. on all aspects of Ordnance to be the

It was also empowered of ARPA project. projects; Roy in dealing

to deal directly Ballistic

elements was

for example, W. Johnson

and the Chief

with the Army

Missile

on what Director.

Saturn

U.S. Congress, Flight Program cury, Gemini,

Senate, o[ the and

Committee National Staff

on Aeronautical Aeronautics and Report, 87th

and Space

Space Sciences, Administration: 2nd Session

Manned Projects (1962), p.

Space Mer156.

Apollo,

Congress,

10

A greatly

expanded

NACA

program

of space

flight

research

was proposed

in a TechLabobe and w,_

paper, "A Program for Expansion of NACA nology," written principally by senior engineers ratory under the leadership basic research at $241
Staff, "A

Research in Space Flight of the Lewis Aeronautical The goal of the program of manned budget.
Flight 76-77. Technology,"

of Abe Silverstein. in support and nearby

would

"to provide the travel estimated
NACA February

of the development planets." the current
Research New

satellites

of man to the moon million
Program pp. 1-2,

The cost of the program NACA
in Space Ocean, pp.

per year above
for Expansion 29; Swenson

of NACA

10, 1958,

et al., This

March 5

President Committee effort

Dwight

D. Eisenhower in a strengthened and that

approved

the recommendations that the "leadership National to "give

of his Advisory of the Advisory civil space Committee the authority

on Government

Organization legislation

be lodged

and redesignated be enacted responsibilities.
History o[ NASA,

for Aeronautics," and flexibility"
Robert 1966),

NACA

to carry out its expanded
An Administrative

L. Rosholt, p. 8.

1958-1963

(NASA

SP-4101,

April 1

A $61,000 lunar lighting

contract

was signed Gerard

by the Yerkes principal

Observatory, investigator, would photographs be

University be divided taken from and with

of Chicago, a new varying following McDonald, 31, 1959. increase in into 44 areas, under the

and the Air Force. photographic would conditions. and each

P. Kuiper,

was to produce

atlas. The moon's be represented The Mount The photographs Wilson, 25,

visible surface four would

by at least

a_ssembled

observatories: Wilson-Palomar, Fort Davis,

Yerkes, Tex.

Williams contract

Bay, Wisc. ; Lick, Mount Calif.; 1959, Pic-du-Midi, April to September 10 was to run from

Hamilton, France;

Calif. ; Mount

1, 1958, 3,

to March

It was extended

on February

1959,

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

funds increase

of $52,500, in funds.

and

again

on November

18, 1959,

to April

30,

1960,

with

no

1958
April

U.S. tion

Congress, House, Committee on Science and and Mapping Program, Committee Report,

Astronautics, 86th Congress,

Army 2nd

Lunar ConstrucSession (1960),

Appendix.

President lishment Advisory conduct contract

Dwight D. Eisenhower, of a National Aeronautics Committee the and civilian would for Aeronautics space also program perform

in a me_age and Space would through military

to Congress, Agency into The research

proposed the estabwhich the National new agency facilities by DOD. would or by Projects

be absorbed. research

in its own required

primarily military tional Aeronautics of eminent persons

in character and Space outside

would Board,

remain the responsibility of DOD. A Naappointed by the President and composed and representatives of interested gov-

the government

ernment agencies (with at least one member from DOD), was to assist the President and the Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Agency.
Senate pp. Committee Print, Compilation o[ Materials on Space and Astronautics No. 2,

79-83.

The an

Air Air

Force Force The

Ballistic manned program management.

Missile military called missiles), The

Division space for the complete exploring

published systems on the

the first development program. moon The and priority objective return effort and

plan was him

for to to Air

25

"achieve to earth." that Force phases: third, a soft "Manned circumlunar animals. creased to the manned followed ditional

an early

capability

to land

a man start

safely

of a high

(similar single

enjoyed agency first, "Lunar landing

by ballistic

characterized second,

by "concurrency" would "Man-in-Space by television moon's first

program the moon on the which with would

be carried

out in four and by by be inflight be a be ad-

"Man-in-Space Reconnaissance," of an flights

Soonest";

Sophisticated"; camera and surface; capsules finally,

instrumented and to returning of project The return brief

package Return," earth development, an animal the lunar

Lunar

Landing

would

test equipment containing would would would gather

instrumented the payload then passenger. and surface undertake The

At this stage to 9000 moon lunar data. and safe

capacity climax

pounds. landing, flights program

spacecraft with surface

a full-scale This and

exploration,

return.

by other The

to explore

thoroughly

was scheduled

for completion

in December

1965 at a

cost of $1.5 billion.
Space Systems Division, Air Force Systems sion Liaison Office, "Chronology of Early (U.S. Air Force, 1965), unpublished, pp. Command, and the USAF Man-in-Space USAF Historical Activity, 1945 Divi1958"

21-22.

The design

U.S.

Air Force

contracted

with kerosene

NAA, and

Rocketdyne liquid-oxygen the last week designated
Program, p.

Division, rocket in July, the F-1.
158; Rocketdyne

for preliminary engine capable of was Rocketdyne

June 23

of a single-chamber, pounds the contract
Staff August Report, 1, 1958,

1 to 1.5 million awarded
Senate writer,

of thrust.

During

to develop
Manned p. 1.

this engine,
Space Flight

Valley

Sky-

11

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGy

1958
July 29

President of 1958, Space

Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act Public Law 85-568, which established the National Aeronautics and (NASA).
Manned Space Flight Program, p. 159; Eugene M. and Emme, Technology Aeroin

Administration
Staff Report,

Senate

nautics and the Exploration

Astronautics: o[ Space,

An American Chronology 1915-1960 (NASA, 1961 ), p.

o[ Science I00.

August 8

T. Keith

Glennan,

President

of Case Advisory

Institute Committee

of Technology, for Aeronautics,

and

Hugh

L. Dry-

den, Director

of the National

were nominated

by President Dwight trator of NASA. The
Rosholt, 15 An

D. Eisenhower Senate confirmed
History

to be Administrator their nominations
1958-1963, pp.

and Deputy Adminisone week later.
40-42.

Administrative

o[ NASA,

The

Advanced

Research

Projects

Agency

(ARPA)

provided

the Army

Ordnance the the

Missile Command (AOMC) with authority and initial Juno V (later named Saturn) launch vehicle. ARPA project: "Initiate of approximately engines. The

funding to develop Order 14 described

a development program to provide a large space vehicle 1.5 million pounds of thrust based on a cluster of available goal of this program is to demonstrate Within Agency a full-scale

booster rocket captive

immediate

dynamic firing by the end of calendar year 1959." project was assigned to the Army Ballistic Missile Huntsville, Ala.
Koelle 17 et al., Juno Space Vehicle Demonstration; (Phase

AOMC, the Juno V at Redstone Arsenal

I),

p.

2.

The

first Air Force ripped

lunar

probe

was launched, after
27.

using

a Thor-Able

booster.

An ex-

plosion

it apart
and

77 seconds
p.

launch.

Instruments

Spacecra[t,

September ll

A letter

contract

was signed H-1

by NASA engine,

with

NAA's

Rocketdyne for

Division

for the

development booster.
MSFC (George

of the

rocket

designed

use in a clustered-engine

Saturn Systems Office and C. Marshall Space Flight

MSFC Center,

Historical MHR-3,

Office, 1964),

Saturn Illustrated pp. 2-3.

Chronology

23

Following Army ects Agency November project. serve as advanced
H. H.

a Memorandum Missile and (ARPA) 4, ARPA The objective to "the

of Agreement Command Roy AOMC Director of ARPA development

between

Maj. and on this agreed changed high vehicle

Gen. date from

John and

B. Medaris Research a meeting the Juno

of on V to

Ordnance

(AOMC) W. Johnson representatives Order 14 was carrier of a reliable

Advanced

Proj-

to extend performance capable of

booster

feasibility booster performing

demonstration

the first stage missions."
Koelle, Agency, F.

of a multistage

L. Williams, Program 15, November

W.

G.

Huber, p. 2.

and

R.

C.

Callaway, 1958)

Jr.,

]uno (Army

V Space Ballistic

Vehicle Missile

Development

(Status 1958),

Report--15

November

12

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

NASA tember

was organized 30, with

and

NACA and

was abolished, facilities

at the close of business to the new agency.

on SepAt the

1958
October 1

all personnel

transferred

same time, several space projects were transferred to NASA from DOD. Among these were two Air Force and two Army lunar probes; the services kept the actual work of construction
Rosholt, This New An

and

launching.
History of NASA, 1958-1963, pp. 44_lr8; Swenson et al.,

Administrative p. 538.

Ocean,

Pioneer The

I, intended Missile

as a lunar Range,

probe, payload

was launched acting did not reach

by a Thor-Able as executive escape agent velocity.

rocket

from

11

the Atlantic 39-pound
Instruments

with the Air Force

to NASA.

instrumented
and Spacecra#,

pp.

30-32. 28

The on

Stever the

Committee, space

which program

had

been set up on January Among be made in the the

12, submitted recommendations: the problems environment

its report

civilian

to NASA. attack should of man

• A vigorous, taining the

coordinated

upon space

of mainas a pre-

periormance

capabilities

requisite to sophisticated • Sustained support development provision • Serious program, of a coordinated study

space exploration. should be given establishment series of vehicles be made

to a comprehensive dynamic launch flight for testing components

instrumentation simulators, and and subsystems.

of versatile

should

of an equatorial

capability. thrust upper should stages boosters

• Lifting reentry vehicles should be developed. • Both the clusteredand single-engine boosters be developed. • Research on high-energy propellant systems

of million-pound for launch vehicle

should receive full support. • The performance capabilities and upper stages promising
Special Civil

of various and

combinations categories

of existing of payload.
Regarding

should greatest
Committee Program,"

be evaluated, usefulness
on Space October

intensive

development

concentrated

on those
NASA tional

in different

Technology, 28, 1958, pp.

"Recommendations 1-2.

a Na-

Space

A contract the Air

was signed Force [AF

by the University 61(052)-168] information

of Manchester, on the lunar

Manchester, principal surface

England, for production

and of

November 1

for $21,509.

Z. Kopat,

investigator, in France, and Infor-

was to provide

topographical

accurate lunar maps. Kopal would and the data would be transmitted mation Center for reduction. The

work at the Pic-du-Midi Observatory to the Air Force Aeronautical Chart lunar charts produced would

be used for intelli-

gence purposes and for the national space effort led by NASA. The contract was extended on August 4, 1959, to April 30, 1960, and was to include exploratory spectroscopic
House Appendix.

observations
Committee Report,

of the
Army

moon.
Lunar Construction and Mapping Program,

13

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1958
November 5

The istrator been nated STG

Space

Task

Group Glennan

(STG) satellite had for some

was officially project approved months, Acting (later

organized Project

at Langley Mercury).

Field, NASA were

Va., Admin-

to had

implement

the manned T. Keith together

the formation on October Project Director

of the Group, 7. Its members Manager, and

which

working

desigCenter.

on November by Floyd report would
Memorandum, November

3 by Robert L. Thompson, directly

R. Gilruth,

authorization

was given

of Langley

Research

to NASA
Manager,

Headquarters.
to New Associate Ocean, Director, "Space Task Group,"

Gilruth, 3, 1958;

Project

Swenson

et al., This

p. 114.

Pioneer booster, mented

II

was launched intended
and Spacecra#,

from

the

Atlantic agent probe,

Missile failed

Range, The

using escape

a Thor-Able instruvelocity.

the Air Force payload,

acting

as executive

to NASA. to reach

86.3-pound

as a lunar
p. 34.

Instruments

DecembQr

By Executive sion Laboratory California JPL radio

Order, Institute telescope

President

Dwight

D. Eisenhower facility Army called

transferred staffed and

the Jet operated

Propulby the The new and Facility,

3

(JPL),

a government-owned from Calif., Irwin,

of Technology, at Camp

to NASA

jurisdiction. Tracking

the Goldstone

was capable of maintaining radio contact at distances was the first of NASA's deep-space tracking stations.
First Semiannual October Committee Events, 87th Report to Congress 31, and 1st Session o[ the 1959 National (1959), A pp.

of up to 400,000

miles

Aeronautics 24, 36,

and 42-43; o[

Space U.S.

AdminCongress,

istration, House, nautic

1, 1958-March on Science Congress,

Astronautics, ( 1961

Chronology

Missile

and

A_tro-

), p. 61.

Secretary Glennan tory, made Army "the

of the signed

Army

Wilber Missile

M.

Brucker

and

NASA NASA,

Administrator Jet Propulsion of the immediately, von

T.

Keith

cooperative The agreement and

agreements Command covering

concerning (AOMC), NASA organizations

Laborateam and

Ordnance AOMC

and Department

of the Army Braun directly,

relationships. continuously
First NASA

utilization

its subordinate to NASA
Report, pp.

responsive
Semiannual

requirements."
81-87.

Pioneer NASA

HI, with

the

third

U.S.-IGY acting

intended

lunar agent,

probe

under

the from

direction the Atlantic

of

the Army

as executive

was launched

Missile Range by a Juno II rocket. The primary objective, pound scientific payload in the vicinity of the moon, failed. an altitude of approximately at least
and

to place the 12.95Pioneer IH reached the earth's radiation

70,000

miles and bands.
York Times,

revealed

that

belt comprised
Instruments

two distinct
p. 35 ; New

Spacecra[t,

December

7, 1958.

17

NASA Administrator gram would be called
Swenson et al., This

T. Keith Glennan "Project Mercury."
New Ocean, p. 132.

announced

that

the manned

satellite

pro-

14

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

Representatives of Advanced Research NASA met to consider the development ment vehicle expected was reached systems on the principle of different thrust through
Plans

Projects Agency, the military services, and of future launch vehicle systems. Agreea small number the reliability services
(1960),

1958
December 17

of developing capabilities,

of versatile of which and NASA.
p. 2.

launch could be

to be improved
Program

use by both the military
Con[erence, July 28-29, 1960

NASA-Industry

The

H-1

engine

successfully Park,

completed Calif.
p. 4.

its first full-power

firing

at NAA's

Rocket-

17

dyne facility
Saturn

in Canoga

Illustrated

Chronology,

The tion

U.S. with Stage

Army the

Map U.S.

Service LAMP Geological

studied (Lunar Survey.

methods Analysis

of mapping and Mapping 1960, and

the moon. Program) the first

This

effort in

evolved

into Project Four

in cooperamaps were through photo1962

During the Year

By spring

preparation. 1960 graphic

stages map

were

incorporated

in the project: feasibility I, including 1961 mission, studies, balloon ($800,000) through

I : Moon II: III:

on scale and

of 1 : 500,000

($200,000) Stage Stage Expansion and design System acceleration per requirements program )
on Science and Astronautics, 86th Lunar Congress, Mapping 2nd and Session Programs, Hearings,

of Stage

reconnaissance

radar

investigation,

through of the lunar all system

($2 million ) Stage IV: mission,
U.S. (1960),

Operational 1963
House, in Support

assembling

components

for lunar

through
Congress, p. 4.

($5 million
Committee o[ Space

Construction

The

Soviet

Union

announced

the

successful

launching

of Mechta

("Dream"),

1959
January 2

popularly called Lunik I, toward ments, Lunik I missed the moon
Instruments and Spacecra[t, p. 38.

the moon. Carrying nearly 800 pounds of instruand became the first man-made solar satellite.

In a staff report ration, and Wernher return circumlunar Deputy Homer

of the House von Braun within a few

Select

Committee Ballistic eight

on Astronautics Missile and Agency T.

and

Space lunar

Explomanned landing

of the Army the next years

predicted Keith

flight mission

to ten years

a manned

thereafter.

Administrator

Glennan,

Administrator Hugh L. Dryden, Abe Silverstein, John P. Hagen, and E. Newell, all of NASA, also foresaw manned circumlunar flight within as well as instrumented of the expedition landings
House, Years 122,211.

the decade lunar mented
U.S. The

probes Space early

soft-landed Committee, 1970's with

on the moon. NAA, extensive

Roy K. Knuta manned instru-

son, Chairman landing soft lunar
Congress, Next Ten

Corporate for the during
Select in Space,

projected unmanned

the last half of the 1960's.
Committee 1959-1969, on Astronautics Report, and 86th Space Congress, Exploration, 1st Session

Staff

(1959),pp.

96,

15

TI'IE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1959
January 6

The

Army

Ordnance presented

Missile

Command

(AOMC),

the States

Air Force, Review to attain

and

missile their by

contractors

to the ARPA-NASA

Large Booster

Committee

views on the quickest

and surest way for the United

large booster

capability. The Committee AOMC was best and NASA
Senate 19 Staff Report, Manned

decided that the Juno V approach advocated started plans to utilize the Juno V booster.
Space Flight Program, p. 165.

NASA million

signed covering

a definitive the design

contract and

with

Rocketdyne

Division,

NAA,

for $102 to be used of Rocket-

development

of a single-chamber,

liquid-propel-

lant rocket engine in the 1- to 1.5-miUion-pound-thrust class (the F-l, in the Nova superbooster concept). NASA had announced the selection dyne on December 12.
First 27 NASA Semiannual Report, p. 27.

After vehicle vehicle launch and Nova stage be the ballistic

consultation program. should vehicle launch

and The

discussion central thus achieve

with idea

DOD, of the

NASA program series

formulated was of future of the that

a national a single space while and missions. Four

space launch The

be developed would could stage be varied were and would

for use in each a high according described: stage

degree Vega,

of reliability, Centaur, of four

the guidance generalThe Nova.

payload booster missile

to purpose by a cluster would a man

mission. Saturn, F-1

purpose

vehicles

be powered the third use liquid could

engines,

the second would return be

by a single F-l,

be the size of an intercontinental launch vehicle and to the lunar Four additional surface stages

but would

hydrogen mission.

as a fuel. This

first in a series that

transport ascent

him safely to earth in a direct required in such a mission.
"A National Space Vehicle

would

Program,"

NASA

report

to the

President,

January

27,

1959.

February 2

The Army from Juno Johnson,

proposed Director 3.
Staff Report, p. 5.

that

the name since

of the large clustered-engine was the next Projects planet Research Agency,

booster after Jupiter. approved

be changed Roy W. the name

V to Saturn,

Saturn

of the Advanced

on February
Senate

Manned

Space

Flight

Program,

p.

165;

Saturn

Illustrated

Chronology,

Maj. and

Gen. Roy

John

B. Medaris of the of early upper

of the Army Advanced Several AOMC agreement Johnson that

Ordnance Research ARPA to reach would

Missile Projects between participate and

Command Agency ARPA

(AOMC) (ARPA) dishad the upper

W. Johnson

cussed the urgency tion of the Saturn been held following stage week.

between expected

and NASA agreement upper

on the configuraand with NASA NASA

stages.

discussions

on this subject. He agreed to ensure
Report, Manned

in the

overall,

planning
Senate Staff

compatibility
Space Flight

of the booster
Program, p. 166.

stages.

16

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

A Working at Jet Missile fornia

Group

on Lunar Laboratory California

Exploration (JPL). Institute The

was established Members Working of NASA, and

by NASA JPL, the

at a meeting Army Ballistic of Calithe responcircumsatellites; the Saturn a Centaur on the

1959
Feb_a_ 5

Propulsion Agency, participated

of Technolog-y, program, hard lunar missile of about

University

in the meeting.

Group

was assigned

sibility of preparing a lunar exploration lunar vehicles, unmanned and manned; soft lunar landings stage, and (instrumented). would be capable booster spacecraft moon.
U.S.

which was outlined: impact; close lunar showed stage lunar that and

Preliminary ballistic of launching

studies manned

with

an intercontinental instrumented

as a second

as a third

circumnavigation landing

packages

one ton to a soft

Army

Ordnance Systems,

Missile

Command,

A

Lunar

Exploration 1, 1960), p. i.

Program

Based

Upon

Saturn-Boosted

DV-TR-2-60

(February

Roy W. Johnson, Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency testified before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics that ARPA Research had no lunar and landing program. testified Herbert that F. York, DOD of the Director moon was

(ARPA), DOD and of Defense a NASA

17

Engineering,

exploration

responsibility.
U.S. and Congress, Space House, Committee Hearings, 86th on Science Congress, and Astronautics, (1959), Missile pp. Development 346, 359.

Sciences,

1st Session

In testimony Deputy long-range several tory; lunar flight.
U.S. mental pp. 46,

before objectives operating manned

the Senate Hugh

Committee L. Dryden space days; and and

on Aeronautical DeMarquis program: an orbiting

and D. Wyatt

Space

Sciences, the with

2O

Administrator men, unmanned flight;

described station

of the NASA for several and landing lunar

space

a permanent lunar and, return;

manned probes; ultimately,

orbiting manned

laboracircum-

hard-landing

soft-landing

interplanetary

Congress,

Senate,

Committee ]or Fiscal Year

on

Aeronautical 1959, Hearings,

and 86th

Space

Sciences,

NASA

Supple(1959),

Authorization 81.

Congress,

1st Session

The

fourth

U.S.-IGY Agency

lunar and

probe Jet

effort, II rocket

Pioneer from

IV,

a joint

project the Missile

of the Army direction Range. orbit trajectory, around of In-

March 3

Ballistic NASA, tended

Missile to impact

Propulsion Pioneer before

Laboratory IV achieved

under

was launched 37,300

by a Juno

the Atlantic

on the lunar

surface,

earth-moon

passing within the sun.
Instruments

miles of the moon

going into permanent

and

Spacecra#,

pp.

45--46.

The Susana

thrust Air

chamber

of the

F-1

engine Propulsion

was successfully Laboratory the greatest

static-fired in California. amount

at the Santa More than to that attained

Force-Rocketdyne

one million pounds of thrust time in the United States.
Washington Evening Star, April

were produced,

I, 1959.

17

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1959
March 13

The

Army

Ordnance

Mi_ile

Command

(AOMC)

submitted

the "Saturn

System

Study" which had been requested by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) on December 18, 1958. From the 1375 possible configurations screened, and the selected inch 14 most promising as the most was acceptable. given detailed study study, staging. included the Atlas Either and the Titan 120-inch "An families or the were 160attractive for upper The

diameter

the statement:

immediate vehicle Saturn and

decision by is mandato_ schedule."

ARPA as to choice if flight hardware On March 17,

of upper stages on the first generation is to be available to meet the proposed presented the study to NASA, DOD,

AOMC

ARPA reiterating Johnson, ARPA personnel

the urgent need for an early decision on upper staging. Roy W. Director, formed a Saturn ad hoc committee of NASA and DOD upper
Manned

to recommend
Report,

stages
Space

and payload
Program,

missions.
p. 167; Saturn Illustrated Chronol-

Senate Staff ogy, p. 5. 20

Flight

An Army

task force

was formed

to develop

a plan

for establishing

a manned

lunar The time

outpost by the quickest practical means. The effort was called Project Horizon. first phase of the project was to make a limited feasibility study, with estimated

and costs. The task force worked under the direction of Maj. Gen. John B. Medaris of the Army Ordnance Missile Command and in full collaboration with the von Braun team. The report
Report,

was completed
Space Flight

on June
Program,

8.
p. 167.

Senate During the Month

Staff

Manned

H. Kurt scale would

Strass penetrate

and the

Leo T. earth's

Chauvin radiation

of STG reentry belt,

proposed This called was

a heatshield test, in which Project vehicle. The

test of a fullthe capsule An was Boomerang. project

Mercury

spacecraft

at lunar

speeds.

advanced postponed
Interview Strass August

version of the Titan missile was to be the launch and ultimately dropped because of cost.
with Strass, Manned Systems Spacecraft Division, Center, "Second November Meeting of

30, the

1966; New

Memorandum, Projects Panel,"

to Chief, Flight 26, 1959.

April 1-8

John (later Space Flight mittee,

W. Crowley, Flight Flight would which

Jr.,

NASA Center),

Director the Jet

of Aeronautical Centers, Propulsion

and the High

Space Speed

Research, Flight the

notiStation of

fied the Ames,

Lewis, and Langley Research Development that be formed. Harry would planning
NASA Flight

Research

Laboratory,

and

Office

a Research Steering Committee on Manned Space J. Goett of Ames was to be Chairman of the ComHeadquarters in carrying out its responsibilities on manned
Lewis, and on

assist NASA

in long-range
Memoranda, High 1959 ment, Speed

and basic research
Headquarters Station, "Steering and Committee to Ames,

space flight.
Langley Manned Flight," Steering Research Space of Space April Committee Centers April DevelopNASA Manned and 1,

Committee Space on Research Manned "Research

Flight," Flight 2, 1959; on

; Director "Research

of Aeronautical Steering to Jet April Propulsion 8, 1959.

to Director Space

Headquarters Space Flight,"

Laboratory,

18

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

The

advanced

manned Staff

space :

program

to follow

Project

Mercury

was

discussed for such a

1959
April 2-5

at a NASA program exploration (2) (3) Among of tracking

Conference

held in Williamsburg,

Va. Three

reasons

were suggested

( 1 ) Preliminary Extended Support areas stations

step to development duration study

of spacecraft

for manned

interplanetary

work in the space environment space mission. launch site, adequacy and the coordination of tracking systems, were the cost of an equatorial test stands
Va.,

of the military and

requiring

DOD-NASA

need for NASA's
"NASA Staff

own propulsion
Conference,

and facilities.
April 2-5, 1959," pp. 2-3.

Williamsburg,

NASA sequent Flight lishment in space;

Administrator techniques hearings, Development, of referencing the the

T. DeMarquis

Keith

Glennan of the NASA

requested budget funds the Assistant practical. lightweight

$3 million for Fiscal to the NASA

for research Year 1960. Director to resolve of two

into

rendezvous

as part explained space

In subof Space certain vehicles of very paths;

D. Wyatt, that rendezvous

these

would relative station; precisely

be used positions the

key problems

in making development supply and

Among

these were

the estabequipment

methods craft

for fixing

of accurate, to locate systems

target-acquisition development determined

to enable accurate

the space to permit

guidance

control

flight

and the development
U.S. nautical S. 1582, Science gress, Congress, and 86th and

of _urces
NASA Sciences, 1960 pp. 97,

of controlled
Authorization NASA NASA 170, (1959), 267-268.

power.
Subcommittee for 7; U.S. p. of Fiscal Congress, Hearings the Year Committee 1960, House, on H.R. on Hearings Committee 6512, 86th Aeroon on Con-

Senate, Space Congress, Astronautics, (1959),

Authorization Authorization,

1st Session

1st Session

Testifying Smith, necessary

before Chief

the

House

Committee probe

on Science

and

Astronautics, the network basis. The

Francis

B.

of Tracking

Programs

for NASA,

described

of stations should

for tracking

a deep-space

on a 24-hour

stations

be located about 120 ° apart in longitude. In addition site, two other locations had been selected : South Africa
1960 NASA Authorization, Hearings on H.R. 6512, p. 295.

to the Goldstone, Calif., and Woomera, Australia.

At a press nan

conference that

in Washington, seven pilots had

D.C., been

NASA selected

Administrator for the

T. Keith Mercury

Glen-

announced

program.

They were Lt. Cdr. Force; Lt. Col. John Lt. Cdr. Capt. Walter Leroy
U.S. nauts, (1959).

Alan B. Shepard, Jr., H. Glenn, Jr., Marines; Jr., Navy; Capt. Cooper, Jr., Air Force.
on Science and

Navy; Capt. Lt. Malcolm Donald

Virgil I. Grissom, Air Scott Carpenter, Navy; Air Force; and

M. Schirra,

K. Slayton,

Gordon
House,

Congress, Project

Committee Man-in-Space

Astronautics, Hearings,

Meeting 86th

with

the

Astro-

Mercury,

Program,

Congress,

1st Session

19
334-987 O 69 3

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1959
April 9-28

Members nominated Speed Office

of the new Research by the Ames, (HSFS) the Office and Station (JPL),

Steering Lewis, (later Space and

Committee Langley Research Flight Flight Research

on Manned Research Center), They Development

Space Centers, the Jet (OSFD), were:

Flight the and Alfred

were High the J.

Flight

Propulsion

Laboratory

of Space

of Aeronautical

(OASR).

Eggers, Jr. (Ames) ley) ; De E. Beeler (STG) Jr. ; George (part-time)
Memoranda, "Research Speed Manned Propulsion search, mittee 15 Development, Flight Space NASA, on Manned

; Bruce T. Lundin (Lewis) ; Laurence K. Loftin, Jr. (Lang(HSFS) ; Harris M. Schurmeier (JPL) ; Maxime A. Faget of NASA Headquarters (OSFD) ; and Milton B. Ames,

M. Low (OASR).
Ames, Lewis,

and on NASA 28,

Langley Manned 1959; w.

Research Space letter,

Centers Flight," "Research W. H.

to April

NASA 9 and

Headquarters, 17, 1959; of the High on Jet ReFlight ComCommittee and Space

Steering Station

Committee to April to Dr. 13, 1959; Flight,"

Headquarters, Crowley, and 13,

Steering

Flight," April

Picketing, of Aeronautical

Director

Laboratory, to Director Space

J.

Director Abe Space

memorandum, April

Silverstein, Research,

Director "Research

of Space Steering

of Aeronautical

1959.

In response Army System Study"

to a request Missile

by the

(DOD-NASA) (AOMC) Projects Research

Saturn sent Agency

Ad Hoc (ARPA)

Committee, describing

the the

Ordnance

Command

a supplement

to the "Saturn

to the Advanced

use of Titan tor, notified

for Saturn upper stages. AOMC that the Saturn

On May 19, Roy W. Johnson, ARPA Direcsecond stage would be the first stage of the Air Force, and Martin Company perinto direct contracts for modification on July Agency and 24 the appropriate (ABMA) The Martin Company. government letter Five days to conclude

Titan. After discussions by ARPA, sonnel, ARPA authorized AOMC and procurement offices contracts later, later were ARPA testified told with of Titan by Army Aerojet-General hardware, Ballistic

AOMC, to enter and Missile

Corporation

ordered all AOMC Saturn second-stage that Herbert F. York, DOD Director had informed there him: "I have decided that is no military not justification

effort suspended. Johnson of Defense Research and the Saturn program that by the than the that the been on the grounds as proposed thrust on the ground to terminate that he had

Engineering, on the grounds any military Air Force and Saturn

to cancel therefore, by Titan-C

requirement [Titan-C intended being could could then 16.
House_ and 412, Space 413;

can be accommodated

was a booster, the Defense conducted

yet developed, program], Johnson Saturn

of lower and testified

for use in the Dyna-Soar Department at ABMA." of the for about

by the cancellation costly operation ready that and ten on to concur the years. Titan-C York if the Titan-C September
U.S. Congress,

will be in a position program 75 percent missions

in the cancellation be developed accomplish

if it were projected

established for the next convened

of the cost of Saturn which

the military Evaluation

appointed

a Booster

Committee

Committee Act o[ Staff

on 1958,

Science

and

Astronautics, 86th Congress, Space

To Amend 2nd

the National (1960), pp. 171,

Aeronautics pp. 172, 408, 173.

Hearings, Manned

Session

Senate

Report,

Flight

Program,

2O

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

Testifying

before

the

Senate

Committee

on

Aeronautical of the should

and

Space

Sciences,

1959
April 24

Maj. Gen. Bernard A. Schriever, Commander Division, stated that all three military sera,ices of a base on the moon. blue thinking."
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee /or on Aeronautical Activities,

Air Force Ballistic Missile be studying the possibility had been "in the

Up to that

point,

he felt, all such studies

and

Space

Sciences, 86th

Investigation 1st Ses-

o[ Governmental sion (1959),

Organization p. 483.

Space

Hearings,

Congress,

The

Army

Ordnance Study

Missile booster.

Command Lunar

submitted

to NASA

a report

entitled

May 1

"Preliminary

of an Unmanned

Soft Landing

Vehicle,"

recommend-

ing the use of the Saturn
Senate Staff Report,

Manned

Space

Flight

Program,

p. 168.

STG Center

was transferred but remained

to the authority based at Langley

of the newly Field, Va.

formed

Goddard

Space

Flight

Memorandum, Flight Center, May ment, 1, 1959,

T. E. Jenkins "Organization with attachment: of

to Assistant Directors and Functions of Abe of Silverstein, Goddard

and Division the Goddard Director Space Flight of

Chiefs, Space Space Center,"

Goddard Space Flight Center," Flight May Develop1, 1959.

"Organization

Activities

The May

first Rocketdyne (ABMA). 7, first test-fired firing--151.03
Staff Report,

H-1 The

engine H-1

for the Saturn engine

arrived

at the Army in the ABMA on May

Ballistic test stand

Mison

sile Agency duration
Senate

was installed

on May

21, and fired for 80 seconds on June 2.
Flight Program, p. 168.

29. The

first long-

seconds--was
Manned Space

Milton

W.

Rosen

of NASA

Headquarters

proposed

a plan

for obtaining

high-

resolution photographs of the moon. A three-stage Vega within a 500-mile diameter circle on the lunar surface. fired at 500 to permit radio The would camera miles above could system, the moon would

would place A stabilized package picture of using

the payload retrorocket sufficiently A was taken. direct tele-

slow the instrument at a rate Kodak at which each

20 photographs

to be transmitted by the Eastman The

of one picture Company approach

per minute.

altimeter

be used to index developed the year.

the height alternative

for the Air Force,

be available

within

vision appeared less attractive at least an order of magnitude Because side and low described photography. pictures of the difficulty photographs resolution taken recorded by a vehicle on magnetic

because the resolution of the television system was lower than the comparable photographic system. an instrument the moon, for later from could package including surface. within in a close lunar those would taken probably orbit, have orbiting tape of the far 12, Rosen at lunar relay would

in placing

transmission, be used

owing The

to the distance system which

the lunar

On June attempts a year,

a new television system, comparable
Rosen "Lunar

which would

for early system.
May of May 9,

be available Kodak

to that of the Eastman
to A. Silverstein, "Lunar Photography, Revisions

camera

Memoranda, Silverstein, 1959.

Photography," to Memorandum

1959;

Rosen June

to 12,

9, 1959,"

21

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1959
May 25-26

The was Harry Alfred

first meeting held J. J. at NASA Goett, Eggers, Bruce T.

of the

Research

Steering Members A. Harris Faget;

Committee of the Jr. Laurence Milton

on Manned Committee (part-time); K. Loftin, Observers W. Rosen

Space De E. Jr.; were

Flight were: Beeler; George

Headquarters. Milton and Warren Jr.; Maxime

attending

Chairman; Lundin;

B. Ames,

M. Low;

M. Schurmeier.

John

H. and

Disher, Robert H. Kurt Strass. The purpose

M. Crane,

J. North,

(part-time),

of the

Committee

was

to take to ensure concerned

a long-term on future that would with the range specific

look Centers

at

man-in-space and on broad providing and configuraand Space

problems, aspects proper Dyna-Soar tions. The Research.
Minutes, pp. 25-26 1-2.

leading of Center information. but

eventually research would Committee would

to recommendations programs investigations directly

missions beyond vehicular

were

Mercury

not be overly report

Committee

to the Office

of Aeronautical

Research

Steering

Committee

on

Manned

Space

Flight,

May

25-26,

1959,

The

national Research

booster

program,

Dyna-Soar, space goal flight.

and

Project also

Mercury

were reviews of STG

discussed of Center endorsed the Head-

by the programs lunar quarters

Steering

Committee.

Members

presented A. Faget although M. Low

related

to manned as the present that

Maxime George

exploration

of the Committee travel.

recognizing of NASA

end objective

as manned

interplanetary the Committee:

recommended

• Adopt the lunar landing mission as its long-range objective • Investigate vehicle staging so that Saturn could be used lunar landings without a study complete of whether rocket reliance on Nova or airport po_ibilities landing for space plants • Make be emphasized • Consider parachute propulsion

for

manned should

techniques flight such

nuclear

• Attach importance oxygen systems.
Minutes, pp. 3-10. 25-26 Research Steering

to research

on auxiliary

power

as hydrogen-

Committee

on

Manned

Space

Flight,

May

25-26,

1959,

Tentative manned space flight Committee: Project Mercury, able manned lite, lunar Committee and return satellite, landing, agreed mission, that manned Mars-Venus each the study

priorities ballistic space NASA

were established by the Research Steering probes, environmental satellite, maneuverlaboratory, and should lunar reconnaissance landing. lunar vehicle satelThe landing Mars-Venus a manned

flight Center

reconnaissance, to include the type

study

of propulsion,

configura-

tion, structure, and guidance requirements. Such a mission was an end objective; it did not have to be supported on the basis that it would lead to a more useful end. It would
Minutes, 10, Space Manned

also focus
Research Research, Space 11 ; memorandum,

attention
Steering Harry "Interim " July

at the
Committee J. Goett Report 17, on 1959.

Centers
on to Manned Ira H.

on the
Space Abbott, of

problems
Flight, Director May

of true space
25-26, 1959, of Aeronautical

flight.
pp. and on

Operations

'Research

Steering

Committee

Flight,'

22

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

Director Charles Johnson, and advanced

Robert J. Charles manned

R. Gilruth James from

met with A.

members

of his STG Raymond and

staff

(Paul

E. Purser, W. Kemble of an

1959
May 27

Donlan, M. Low

Chamberlin, Maxime Headquarters

L. Zavasky, Charles the

W. Mathews, spacecraft.
Purser to Gilruth,

A. Faget,

H. Zimmerman) possibility

George

NASA

to discuss

Memorandum,

"Log

for

the

Week

of May

25,

1959,"

p. 2.

Construction eral, Fla.
Senate Staff

of the first Saturn

launch

area,

Complex

34, began

at Cape

Canav-

June 3

Report,

Manned

Space

Flight

Program,

p. 169.

At an STG be made would make

staff meeting, land landings
Paul

Director program

Robert areas.
"Log

R. Gilruth

suggested

that Mercury

study

should

of a post-Mercury

in which

maneuverable

spacecraft

in limited
to Gilruth,

Memorandum,

E. Purser

for

the

Week

of June

1, 1959,"

p. 4.

The

Project

Horizon

Phase would 1968.

I report average The

was completed. to be followed $667 million philosophy

In it, a U.S. in 1966 a year from

manned Fiscal

landing lunar 1960 Year

on the moon outpost. through

in 1965 was proposed, Year

by an operational

Expenditures Fiscal

guiding

of the report

was one of "enwas prefollowing

lightened conservatism sented to the Secretary the presentations, • The interests. • Project could should Horizon several

of technical of the Army conclusions U.S.

approach." On July 28 the report and the Chief of Staff. In discussion emerged manned : lunar outpost was vital

earliest

possible

to American States

was the earliest

feasible

means

by which

the United

achieve that objective. • The extensive and in many be used in the nation's

cases

exclusive

Army of who

capabilities would have of space

in this field the responoperations

service, accorded

regardless U.S.

sibility for the lunar outpost. • The general reception had

Army

proposals

not been uniformly enthusiastic. • The source of the proposal should

not be allowed

to prejudice

the reception

of the proposal. For these U.S. Army all po_ible reasons, military it was decided to manage and implications that the report inferences should be recast to eliminate the scientific any and report 4 was

organization

the lunar

operation,

at the same

time deleting

and emphasizing

inherently peaceful intent of the United States in its space operations. The was accordingly revised, leaving the time frame intact, and on September submitted to the Secretary (after of the Army. It was later forwarded to the of Defense and Administrator.
Senate Staff

Secretary

the transfer

of the von Braun

team

to NASA)

to the NASA

Report,

Manned

Space

Flight

Program,

pp.

169,

172.

23

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1959
June 18

NASA

authorized

$150,000

for Army

Ordnance

Missile

Command

studies

of a were lunar

lunar exploration program based circumlunar vehicles, unmanned impacts;
Senate

on Saturn-boosted systems. and manned; close lunar with stationary or roving
p. 170.

To be included orbiters; hard

and soft lunar
Staff Report,

landings
Manned

payloads.

Space

Flight

Program,

25-26

At

the

second held steps

meeting at the Ames toward

of the a manned

Research lunar

Steering landing Center

Committee presented return. and

on Manned reports

Space on inter-

Flight, mediate

Research

Center,

members

Bruce T. Lundin requirements 10,000-pound that a launch would foot orbit would descent. be more around

of the Lewis Research

reported

to members

on propulsion

for various spacecraft into lunar desirable the decelerating

modes of manned lunar landing missions, assuming a to be returned to earth. Lewis mission studies had shown orbit would require less energy would than a direct approach and a for guidance, impulse landing reliability, descend rocket launch etc. From before engine weight landing. a 500,000Research in the rocket

moon,

the spacecraft

in free fall, applying to be used of the lunar

constant-thrust be needed With

at the last moment the pounds.

to develop

the variable-thrust hydrogen,

the use of liquid would

and spacecraft

be 10 to 11 million concept mission,

If the earth orbit rendezvous taurs for the lunar landing Centaurs more complish to provide launches plex have storing Research lant, tions. accurate support, Lundin into earth would orbit orbit have and and Centaurs

were adopted, using Saturns to launch Cennine Saturns would be needed to boost nine to attain into The two payload. escape earth total The from orbit Centaurs of 14 earth would orbit; three to acfor assembly

for assembly landing; for the problem, operations two

to be launched

the lunar would

additional

be needed comwould on

for return and

Saturn/Centaur operation

be a formidable assembly within

not even considering in space. weeks entire because

the numerous of the limitations

rendezvous c_*ogenics would

to be accomplished in space. be needed engines of the weight a decision engine; was

to three

on propulsion landing; auxiliary payload on on

problems; power weight power the exact and

on reliable, systems; was weight and

precisely on

controlled, operamore for life

variable-thrust Reduction capsule felt that

for lunar ultimate

on a high-performance, extremely payload. or Nova and

storable-propelground vital, and

moon-takeoff information

needed

requirements

and

size, and

scientific

on whether since

to use the Saturn affect research

approach intermediate

should steps

be made as soon to be taken.
Minutes, pp. 2-5. Research

as possible

it would

Steering

Committee

on

Manned

Space

Flight,

June

25-26,

1959,

24

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

During quarters Missile

the Research discussed Agency

Steering the lunar :

Committee mission

meeting, studies

John

H. Disher way at the

of NASA Army

HeadBallistic

1959
June 25-26

under

(ABMA) had a large thrust Center.

lunar the

• ABMA mission.

and

competent

group agreed C-2 launch

concentrating well with those

primarily determined having stage, larger

on the by a 2and than a

• Velocity and Lewis Research • ABMA was

requirements

recommending first third stage, stage. a

a Saturn Another

launch vehicle

vehicle second six times to study lunar landed

million-pound-thrust 200,000-pound-thrust

1-million-pound-thrust

the Saturn C-2 was also being studied for direct ascent. • ABMA was interested in obtaining a NASA contract C-2 vehicle. • Two refueling moon and approaches orbit flight schedule were and being studied for the manned

the Saturn landing, one on the funding needed, should

in earth ABMA

the other (lunar dates

assembling were

separately

parcels present

for the return • The problem • Orbit

surface

rendezvous). unrealistic considering

complexities. control and landing

point

control experiments

experiments at lunar

were urgently reentry velocity

possibly with Mercury-type • Large-scale controlled begin The earth studies, High as soon Committee orbital while Speed
Minutes, pp. 5-6.

capsules. reentry

as possible. agreed assembly concentrating that and studies that Lewis should should continue become on the more problems
Space Flight,

direct familiar

ascent with

versus ABMA that the in orbit.
1959,

on the Nova

approach.

It was also suggested of assembly
June 25-26,

Flight
Research

Station
Steering

look into the operational
Committee on Manned

A report Committee cussion, space for the that lunar

on a projected by Laurence Chairman Harry ought landing was

manned K.

space Jr.,

station of the and

was made Langley his opinion coordinated of NASA step

to the Research Research that part Center. of the consideration

Steering In disof a warned of a be funded planning

25--26

Loftin,

J. Goett

expre_ed M. that the

laboratory lunar landing care should

to be an integral mission. George to assure since

Low each number

Headquarters toward that could

be exercised significant,

taken

the goal

of steps

was extremely
Minutes, p. 6.

limited.
Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight, June 25-26, 1959,

Alfred search on lunar

J. Eggers, Steering heat

Jr.,

of the Ames of studies structural systems that

Research concepts which had 25

Center and

told the

members lift

of the over

Redrag

25--26

Committee transfer, said and guidance Eggers

on radiation affected

belts, graze various

and orbit maneuvers aspects of the manned maneuver

reent_', mission.

requirements,

considerations,

Ames

concentrated

on a landing

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1959
June

involving a graze finally Manned

a reentry through the and

approach outer landing. Mercury, Vega

over edge

one of the

poles

to lessen to begin

radiation an earth

exposure, orbit, and

of the atmosphere

reentry

steps beyond use of the

he said, should or Centaur apogee,

be: to put men and flight orbit, a manned extended to the vicinity with satellite to gain manned into exspace

• The an orbit with

boosters two techniques

a 50,000-mile

carrying

for two weeks

perience beyond flight applicable ° The and return,

Mercury with reentry to the lunar mission. booster

use of the Saturn putting two men

in manned elliptical

of the moon of up to

in a highly

an apogee

250,000 miles or even one pass around the moon before heading back to earth. The flight time would be about one week, providing experience similar to that of the manned ° The and return. lunar mission, surface men including hyperbolic support out type this reentry lunar Saturn one-week to earth. A close, direct landing view of the lunar Two by man would would that the carry same landing. booster for a lunar to one-month capsule be used expedition. in all these the lunar certain radia-

use of the Nova

or clustered-engine

Eggers missions landing factors

recommended to build mission. related

of return with mission: should

up reliability Unmanned success lunar

and experience space probes of the lunar

the spacecraft polar

before

also be used to investigate radiation, lunar and micrometeoroids.

to the reentry,

tion, grazing The Committee necessary and look into Committee

surface

characteristics,

unanimously would require that would

agreed that an unmanned might check

investigation of a grazing reentry was space probe. NASA Centers would by a Scout the basic or Thor-Delta programs booster. in the Office

experiments members

be launched

to be sure that

of Space Flight for investigation
Minutes, pp. 25--26 6-7.

Development of the other
Steering

space sciences factors of special
Committee on

programs covered the requirements interest to the manned lunar mission.
Space Flight, June 25-26, 1959,

Research

Manned

Members

of the Research

Steering

Committee for manned work would

determined flight

the study from

and

research and

areas which would require emphasis for intermediate flight steps: Lunar mission studies: More

to and

the moon

be required payload vehicle and

on determining requirements configuration Mercu_

"end" and obin inter-

vehicle weight, life-support requirements, jectives, exploring the possibility of using mediate flight capabilities. Direct and become steps, booster requirement in earth Ballistic Flight orbit,

scientific the "end"

analysis, orbit: Missile Station and Lewis

stretch-out Nova work studies on the study of

ascent

versus with

assembly Army Speed in earth

to continue (ABMA) to study

familiar approach,

Agency (HSFS)

rendezvous

High

operational

requirements for assembly assembly in earth orbit.

recommended

for ABMA

26

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

A reliable,

precisely

controlled,

variable-thrust

engine

for lunar etc.).

landing.

1959
June

A storable propellant Storage of cryogenics Structural a contract on ablating radiation Space but on error

lunar takeoff rocket. in space (emissivity, of molybdenum to expedite for low heating

absorptivity, coating rates, research, and

work : a study materials suitable

life at higher emphasis study study

temperatures, on research of combination

for test specimens and ablation (short

NASA

techniques. term up to one month) : HSFS : contract proposed. to study desired specifications.

Life support

suit development

Guidance system studies focused on the lunar mission: development of light sophisticated onboard computers, data-smoothing techniques and effects midcourse analysis
Minutes, attached

guidance terminal and
Research summary

accuracies, guidance requirements
Committee

effects

of gravity

anomalies corridor
Flight,

on initial programming, on return
June 25-26,

instruand to earth.
1959,

mentation,

system

including

retrothrust

energy
Steering pages

for the entry
on Manned Space

1-2. During the Month

A report rection Several

entitled

"Recoverable Draper, had

Interplanetary Director of the

Space

Probe" which

was issued Laboratory, began
MIT,

at the diMIT.

of C. Stark organizations
with

Instrumentation

participated

in this study,

in 1957.
April 27, 1966.

Interview

Milton

B. Trageser,

Instrumentation

Laboratory,

Summer

Members Enderson, Corporation sions. The advanced
Interview

of STG--including Jr., goal Mercury
with

H. Kurt C. Grana--and design lunar

Strass,

Robert

L. O'Neal, orbital years,

Lawrence and rather lunar than

W. misan

and was

David

Thomas concepts landing within

E. Dolan of earth ten

of Chance

Vought

worked

on advanced a manned program.

H. Kurt

Strass,

November

30, 1966.

Advanced (MRS. which V). might

Research The require
Report,

Projects general

Agency

representatives was to identify

visited U.S.

Army

Ordnance Space before

MisVehicle 1970

July 23

sile Command

to discuss

studies purpose

of a Maneuverable

Recoverable space

needs

vehicles
Manned

of this type.
Space Flight Program, p. 171.

Senate

Staff

The

Advanced Command

Research in early

Projects calendar

Agency year

(ARPA) firing 1960

directed of the first firing.

the Army Saturn with ARPA

Ordnance vehicle, asked the to be

August 1

Missile program informed
David

to proceed to accelerate

with the static for a January

test booster

SA-T, and not

in accordance 1960

the $70 million

of the scheduled
S. Akens, Space Paul Flight D, K.

firing date.
Freiwirth, [tom and July Helen 1 T. Wells, 3I, History 1960 o[ the (MHM-2, George C.

Marshall Vol.

Center

to December

1961),

1, Appendix

p. 23.

27

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1959
Augusf 12

The

STG

New Alan lunar chosen practical

Projects

Panel

(proposed manned William

by H. Kurt space behind provide Each S. Augerson,

Strass Jack NASA's

in June) Present Funk, and proposed

held its first were other objective Strass, STG of

meeting Chairman, members. a manned carefully and mediate

to discuss

NASA's B. Kehlet,

future

program.

Strass summarized landing: projects, goal

the philosophy maximum utilization would

of existing

technology would and guide

in a series of be an internew tech-

each of which to focus attention

a firm basis for the next step project

be a significant

advance

in its own

right.

on the

problems

nological developments. the goal of lunar landing belts, mental (both would an earth generation" maneuverability, and advanced recovery satellite manned of radiation (three that

The Panel considered and return : a detailed belt probes for two carrying weeks), men

the following projects essential to investigation of the earth's radiation biological lunar probes, beacons at near and specimens, lunar and lunar leading space lunar and recovery a parachute stores. return an environreconnaissance The capsule recovery atmospheric velocity, Panel that for

and automatic), work start the following Kehlet capsule

and lunar immediately features:

landing reentry

recommended maneuverability

on an advanced

incorporate landing. space

velocity,

both in space and in the atmosphere, was assigned with to begin a three-man devices,

a program capacity, for near

to a "secondreturn

advanced abort recovery techniques.

poterrtial

Memorandum, Strass to Chief, ects Panel," August 17, 1959. 18

Flight

Systems

Division,

"First

Meeting

of

New

Proj-

At

its second

meeting,

STG's a chart

New

Projects

Panel

decided sequence

that reentry

the

first

major The

project Panel lunar

to be investigated was presented mission system
H. Projects

would

be the

second-generation

capsule.

outlining The target
to Chief, August

the proposed

of events landing
"Second

for manned was 1970.
Meeting

analysis.
Kurt Panel," Strass

date for a manned
Flight Systems

lunar

Memorandum, of the New 31

Division,

26, 1959.

A House

Committee

Staff

Report

stated

that

lunar

flights

would

originate

from

space platforms in earth orbit according to current planning. the method to be used, "which must be made soon," would the difficulty of space rendezvous between a space platform

The final decision on take into consideration and large space enough vehicles to proceed as

compared with the difficulty of developing directly from the earth to the moon.
U.S. Staff 31 Congress, Report, 86th House, Committee 1st Session on Science (1959), Congress,

single vehicles

and p. 2.

Astronautics,

Space

Propulsion,

In a paper England, vehicle F-1 The April.
Milton

presented Milton W.

to the Tenth Rosen and lunar power

International F. Carl The

Astronautical described ascent and direct

Congress

in London, launch be used The and vehicle.

Schwenk

a five-stage would

for manned would

exploration. spacecraft both in the paper

technique returning between

in landing engine

an 8000-pound presented

on the moon and been had

it to earth. February

the booster

second

stage

of the launch

concepts

developed

W.

Rosen o[ the

and Tenth

F.

Carl

Schwenk,

"A

Rocket

for

Manned

Lunar London,

Exploration," 1959 (1960).

Proceedings

International

Astronautical

Congress,

28

PART

I: CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

McDonnell

Aircraft

Corporation

reported

to NASA

the

results

of several

com-

1959
September 1

pany-funded studies of follow-on experiments using Mercury spacecraft with heatshields modified to withstand lunar reentry conditions. In one experiment, a Centaur reenter booster earth would orbit accelerate similar a Mercury of about required spacecraft for reentry plus from a third lunar stage into an eccentric with an apogee to that 1200 miles, so that to a speed the capsule orbit. The would third

at an angle then

stage would as it reentered
McDonnell Engineering

fire, boosting

the spacecraft

of 36,000

feet per second

the atmosphere.
Aircraft Report Corporation, 6919 (September Project Mercury Capsules, Follow On Experiments, 1, 1959 ), p. 6.0-1.

The

Soviet

Union

launched

Lunik

II, total a distance

payload of 236,875 Three

weight miles, radio

858.4 Lunik

pounds.

After sent

a the

12

flight of about first man-made signals

35 hours, object

covering to impact

II became

on the moon.

transmitters

back

until the crash
and

landing.
p. 63.

Instruments

Spacecra]t,

The DOD

ARPA-NASA Director

Booster of Defense

Evaluation Research launch showed

Committee

appointed April

by Herbert 15, 1959,

F. York, to

16-18

and Engineering, vehicles. that the

convened

review plans for advanced and the Titan-C boosters payload addition,

A comparison Saturn, with

of the Saturn its substantially

(C-l) greater

capacity, would be ready at least the cost estimates on the Titan-C Research Projects Agency

one year sooner than the Titan-C. In proved to be unrealistic. On the basis presentation, York agreed to continue

of the Advanced

the Saturn program but, following the meeting, began negotiations with NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan to transfer the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (and,
To Staff

therefore,
Amend Report, the

Saturn
National Manned

) to NASA.
Aeronautics Space Flight and Program, Space Act of 1958, Hearings, p. 410; Senate p. 175.

At

the

third

meeting for the three

of STG's occupants

New reentry

Projects capsule.

Panel, from

Alan a lunar

B. Kehlet mission

presented vehicle was at a velocity

28

suggestions proposed, of about

multimanned

A lenticular-shaped

to ferry 36,000

safely to earth

feet per second.
H. Panel," Kurt Strass to Chief, Flight Systems Division, "Third Meeting of

Memorandum, New Projects

October

1, 1959. Dudng _the Month

A study of the guidance and control design for a variety of space at the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory under a NASA contract.
Interview with Milton B. Trageser, Instrumentation Laboratory, MIT,

missions

began

April

27,

1966.

The

Soviet

Union

launched

Lunik called

III

toward

the moon

on the second

anniversary carried

October 4

of Sputnik

1. The spacecraft,

an "Automatic

Interplanetary

Station,"

345 pounds of instruments including cameras. On activated the cameras, which photographed about of the moon in 40 minutes. The photographs 29 were

October 7, a signal from earth 70 percent of the hidden side transmitted to Soviet stations

The artist's concepts on this page were used in a presentation by M. W. Rosen and F. C. Schwenk at the Tenth International Astronautical Congress in London, England, August 31, 1959. Above, astronauts egress from the spacecraft and prepare to investigate the lunar surface; at right, the takeoff from the moon; and, below, the reentry vehicle starts to enter the atmosphere while the jettisoned propulsion unit, shown more clearly the lunar takeoff concept, is at left. in

LUNAR RETURN MISSION TAKE-OFFROMMOON F WITH FIFTH STAGE

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

on October

18 and

released

to the

world

press

on October

27. First that

analyses

of

1959
October

the photographs the lunar surface
New York Times,

by Soviet astronomers had fewer craters than
October 27, 1959;

seemed to indicate its visible face.
and Spacecra[t,

the hidden

side of

Instruments

pp.

69-71.

After control sonnel

a meeting Dwight the Army

with

officials Missile program.
22,

concerned announced Agency's subject

with that

the

missile

and

space

program, to NASA perinclude

21

President

D. Eisenhower Ballistic The transfer,

he intended

to transfer would

Development to congressional

Operations approval,

Division

and facilities. development
York Times,

the Saturn
New

October

1959;

Emme,

Aeronautics

and

Astronautics,

p.

114.

At an STG tems. Charles Three man cabin, reentry Strass, ground attention

meeting,

it was decided Maxime

to begin Robert (1)

planning Robert

of advanced R. Gilruth, H. Kurt Caldwell and

spacecraft Strass,

sys-

November 2

Participants J. Donlan, John primary (probably and

in the meeting D. Hodge,

were Director James made: for

Paul E. Purser, Charles C. Johnson. of a multiparticular landing exit and planThe Merbe

A. Faget, were

O. Piland, The

W. Mathews,

A. Chamberlin, a circumlunar space analysis

assignments three-man)

preliminary mission,

design with

capsule (2)

to the use of the capsule deep-space probe; and corridors, Hodge, and weights, Johnson to the panel, necessary as 30 persons

as a temporary mission

laboratory, (3)

lunar

studies A panel

to establish test program composed

propulsion

requirements; of launches. to carry the work, of the

ning to decide

on the number

and purpose was appointed which to accomplish

of Piland, office, were : possibly

out these but STG

assignments.

rules given

was responsible

to the Director's staff) might

( 1 ) use personnel cury; (2) as many used in the future.
Memorandum,

do not slow down

( 10 percent

Purser

to

Gilruth,

"Log

for

the

Week

of

November

2,

1959."

In tance

a memorandum Space Flight, of the weight

to the

members Harry vehicle"

of the

Research

Steering the

Committee increased

on

19

Manned

Chairman

J. Goett

discussed landing

impor-

of the "end

in the lunar

mission.

This was to

be an item on the agenda December. ment, had

of the third meeting

of the Committee,

to be held in early

Abe Silverstein, Director of the NASA Office of Space Flight Developrecently mentioned to Goett that a decision would be made within the

next few weeks on the configuration of successive generations of Saturn, primarily the upper stages. Silverstein and Goett had discussed the Committee's views on a lunar spacecraft. Goett expressed the hope in the memorandum forthcoming that members of the Committee would have some specific the probable weight of the spacecraft. In addition, a possible sion. The generation
Space Mission

ideas at their

meeting

about

Goett booster primary Saturn

informed possibility and
Goett,

the Committee for the earth flight
the

that

the Vega

had been was

eliminated now Saturn.
on and Manned Return

a_s misfirst-

for use in one of the intermediate satellite the for the lunar
Chairman, of Weight of Booster to of 'End

steps leading mission second-generation
Steering Committee Soft Landing 19,

to the lunar the

Memorandum, Flight, To Aid

Research Vehicle' for

"Estimate in Choice

Lunar November

Configuration,"

1959.

31

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1959
November 26

An ing

intended the

lunar

probe detached

launched about

from

the Atlantic The probe and

Missile was

Range

by an Ariassheath by Air coverNASA, Force

Able booster

disintegrated

45 ,seconds later when Laboratory,

the protective sponsored launched

payload

prematurely.

developed by the Jet Propulsion Ballistic Missile Division.
Instruments and Sgacecra[t,

by the

p. 81 ; New

York

Times,

November

28, 1959.

27

While group DOD

awaiting

the formal

transfer

of the Saturn

program,

NASA

formed

a study

to recommend upper-stage configurations. Membership was to include the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and personnel from NASA, Research This group Committee
Staff Report,

Advanced Air Force. Silverstein
Senate

Projects

Agency,

Army both

Ballistic

Missile

Agency, Team

and and

the the

was later known (for Abe Silverstein,
Manned Space Flight

as the Saturn

Vehicle

Chairman).
p. 179.

Program,

December 1

Twelve Australia, South gested

nations Great

signed immune the

a treaty Chile,

making France, and bodies
on

the Antarctic New

continent Norway, Legal

a preserve Belgium, experts

for scienJapan, have sugde-

tific research, Africa, that

from political Union, Treaty

and military the United in space.

strife. Signatories Zealand, States.

were Argentina,

Britain, Soviet

the Antarctic the moon
Senate,

provided

a precedent

for similar

agreements

militarizing
U.S.

and other
Committee A Symposium,

Congress,

Aeronautical 87th Congress,

and

Space

Sciences,

Legal

Problems 1297-1303.

o[ Space

Exploration:

1st Session

( 1961 ), pp.

The initial plan for transferring the Army Ballistic Missile Agency and Saturn NASA was drafted. It was submitted to President Dwight D. Eisenhower December 11 and was signed by Secretary of the on 17.
C.

to on and

Army

Wilber

M. Brucker 16 and

Secretary of the Air Force James H. Douglas Administrator T. Keith Glennan on December
David (MSFC S. Akens, Historical Historical Monograph Origins No. o[ 1, the 1960), George p.

December

by NASA

Marshall C,

Space approval

Flight page.

Center

73, Appendix

The Army study thrust and the

Advanced Ordnance

Research Missile

Projects Command configuration and third stage

Agency (AOMC) with using

(ARPA) a second engines two

and stage (later what

NASA of four called

requested 20,000-poundS-IV program Year

the

to prepare

an engineering the (later in Fiscal 28.

and cost stage) im1960

for a new Saturn liquid-hydrogen a modified S-V stage). Centaur AOMC

liquid-oxygen

of these

engines

designated

was also asked could 10 and
Space

to indicate with The study submitted

significant

provements funding by AOMC
Senate 8-9

or acceleration on December
Staff Report, Manned

be achieved formally
Flight

an increase

if provided

late in the fiscal year.

was sent to ARPA on December

and NASA

Program,

p. 180.

At the third held steps leading

meeting

of the Research Center, lunar flight H.

Steering Kurt and

Committee Strass reported

on Manned on STG's

Space

Flight on space-

at Langley

Research

thinking

to manned

on a particular

capsule-laboratory

32

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

craft. space

The

project

steps vehicle

beyond

Mercury

were:

radiation

experiments,

minimum lunar

1959
December

and reentry

(manned),

temporary

space laboratory

(manned),

data acquisition (unmanned), lunar circumnavigation or lunar orbiter (unmanned), lunar base supply (unmanned), and manned lunar landing. STG felt that the lunar mission should have a three-man crew. A configuration was described in which tory would reentry. the capsule
Minutes, p. 3. 8-9

a cylindrical provide Preliminary

laboratory working estimates space

was attached put the capsule

to the reentry until weight

capsule. 6600

This laborabefore and pounds

for the astronauts 10,000 pounds.
Space

it was jettisoned

at about

plus laboratory
Research Steering

at about
Committee

on Manned

Flight,

December

8-9,

1959,

H. H. Koelle bilities being

told members considered

of the Research Ballistic

Steering Missile

Committee Agency.

of mission These included

possian

at the Army

engineering satellite, an orbital return manned orbital laboratory, a manned landing cluding than pounds and return ) would vehicle. He the "C" launch vehicle

capsule, a space crew training vehicle, a circumlunar vehicle, and a manned lunar the current pounds Saturn The into earth configurations, Saturn orbit and in25,000 in 1967. C (larger

described

to be operational 85,000

the C-1

be able to boost trajectory.
Steering Committee

into an escape
Research

Minutes, p. 4.

on

Manned

Space

Flight,

December

8-9,

1959,

Several studied

possible configurations at the Lewis Research by Seymour stages the fifth to boost

for a manned lunar landing by direct ascent being Center were described to the Research Steering A six-stage landing, and launch the vehicle would be required, to attain with a escape the spacecraft to orbital speed, sixth the fourth

8-9

Committee escape

C. Himmel. for lunar

the first three speed,

for lunar

10,000-pound return vehicle. One representative configuration had an overall height of 320 feet. H. H. Koelle of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency argued that orbital more of the problems Lewis assembly Lewis since or refueling Research handling Center liquid in orbit than felt [earth that orbit rendezvous] approach. in orbit in space.
Space Flight, December 8-9, 1959,

was more presented

flexible,

straightforward,

and easier

the direct

ascent

Bruce T. Lundin formidable

refueling fuels
Manned

hydrogen cryogenic
on

on the ground

was still not satisfactory.

was working
Research

on handling
Steering

Minutes, pp. 4-5.

Committee

The 1472

General (XIV),

Assembly establishing 27, 1961,

of the Committee. because

United There of

Nations were

unanimously no meetings on

approved Uses of Outer the composition

Resolution Space to until of the

12

the Committee failure

on the Peaceful to agree

replace

the Ad Hoc

of the Committee

November Committee.
Senate

Committee

Symposium,

Legal

Problems

of

Space

Exploration,

pp.

1274-1275.

33

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1959
December 21

A guideline Laboratory Flight

letter (JPL),

was sent to William from Abe outlining

H. Pickering, Director

Director

of the Jet Propulsion Office flights, of Space intended

Silverstein, a program

of NASA's spacecraft

Development,

of five lunar

primarily to obtain information on the lunar surface. JPL was requested to conduct tradeoff studies on spacecraft design and mission. The scientific objective would addition, a survivable developed quently
U.S. and sion 29

be to "acquire JPL package for NASA." the Ranger
Congress,

and

transmit to "evaluate

a number the a lunar provided

of images

of the lunar of useful data

surface." return

In from

was asked

probability the formal

incorporating.., This letter program.
Subcommittee on o[ Project

seismometer

of the type..,

being

basis for what

was subse-

House,

NASA

Oversight

of the

Committee Congress,

on

Science 2nd Ses-

Astronautics, Investigation (1964), p. 56.

Ranger,

Hearings,

88th

In a memorandum Programs, Associate ment Jet Missile Vehicle and Administrator Council,

to Don

R. Ostrander, Director would The the would 28-29,
Ostrander

Director of Office described

of Office

of Launch Programs, Space

Vehicle NASA Exploradevelopof the Ballistic have 1960].

and Abe Silverstein, Richard which

of Space Flight the proposed primarily be made Flight of the

E. Horner Council Goddard

tion Program Propulsion

be concerned would Space

with program up of the Directors the Army which

implementation. Laboratory, the Office Horner on January
Horner to

Center, and Council

Agency, Programs.

of Space

Flight 1960
and

Programs, changed
December

the Office

of Launch would

be Chairnmn [later
Silverstein,

its first meeting
Memorandum,

to February
29, 1959.

10-11,

31

NASA Saturn The

accepted program.

the recommendations Committee) A research would pounds and

of the Saturn C-1 development the S-I S-V plan stage

Vehicle

Evaluation and H-1

Commit-

tee (Silverstein C-1

on the Saturn include of thrust), and the

configuration (eight stage (two

on a long-range was approved. clustered, producing 40,000 engines

of ten vehicles (four

configuration 1.5 million

producing 80,000 pounds
Akens December

the S-IV stage

engines producing

pounds of thrust), of thrust).
et al., 3l, History 1960, o[ the Vol.

engines

George

C.

Marshall

Space

Flight

Center

]rom

July pp.

1 to 8-10.

1, Appendix

D, p. 33 ; Saturn

Illustrated

Chronology,

1959-1960

For Lunar 1960,

the first time, Research Mission the lunar

attention Center

was focused during studies This

on the lunar in support

orbit

rendezvous Re,arch and Division in 1959 Group

scheme 1960. prepared

at In

Langley"

of the Langley was active Steering Mechanics

Center

Steering trajectory the

Group. group

committee Mission

of the Theoretical to stimulate interest

information

for presentation

to the Lunar

and for circularelated to the

tion throughout lunar mission.
John at the D. Bird, Langley

laboratory

in problems

"Short Research

History

of

the

Development September 6,

of the 1963,

Lunar

Orbit

Rendezvous pp. 1-2.

Plan

Center,"

unpublished,

34

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

President

Dwight

D. Eisenhower

directed

NASA

Administrator

T. Keith

Glennan

1960
January 14

"to make a study, need for additional the super management
Letter,

to be completed at the earliest date practicable, of the possible funds for the balance of FY 1960 and for FY 1961 to accelerate program for which your agency recently was given technical and

booster

responsibility."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower to Dr. T. Keith Glennan, January t4, 1960. 28

In testimony before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Richard E. Horner, Associate Administrator of NASA, presented NASA's ten-year plan for 1960-1970. The essential elements had been recommended by the Research Steering Committee Evaluation, on Manned headed 1960: Space Flight. NASA's Office of Program the ten-year Planning plan. and

by Homer

J. Stewart,

formalized

First launching First launching First launching First launching First launching First suborbital

of a meteorological of a passive of the Scout of the Thor-Delta of the Atlas-Agena flight by an astronaut of a lunar impact vehicle

satellite reflector vehicle B (DOD) vehicle vehicle Project of Venus Mercury or Mars landing communications satellite

1961 : First launching First launching Attainment 1962: First launching

of an Atlas-Centaur manned of a probe

of orbital

space flight,

to the vicinity

1963 : First launching of a two-stage Saturn 1963-1964: First launching of an unmanned vehicle on the moon First launching laboratory 1964: First launching to earth First 1965-1967: Beyond On for plan 1970: First vehicle launching and lunar in a program and return the T. and leading near-earth of an unmanned of Mars circumlunar of an orbiting astronomical

for controlled and radio vehicle

astronomical and return

reconnaissance

or Venus,

or both,

by an unmanned circumlunar

to manned space station

flight Manned 19, NASA March 28,

to a permanent landing again landing

February 1965. On

officials soft NASA

presented with

ten-year vehicle Glennan

timetable had been described

to the added the

House

Committee. to the Senate

A lunar Committee

a mobile Keith Space

Administrator

on Aeronautical

Sciences.

He estimated

the cost of the program to be more than $1 billion in Final Year 1962 and at least $1.5 billion annually over the next five years, for a total cost of $12 to $15 billion.
U.S. Congress, Part Committee House, Committee 86th on Science 2nd and Astronautics, (1960), NASA p. on p. Review 189; o[ the U.S. Space

Program, House,

I, Hearings, on

Congress, and 2nd

Session 196l

Congress, Hearings

Science Congress, Subcommittee

Astronautics,

Authorization,

on H.R. 10246, 86th NASA Authorization

Session (1960), of the Committee

176; U.S. Aeronautical

Congress, Senate, and Space Sci-

35
334-987 O 69 4

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
January

ences, lights 3-5,

Hearings of GSFC 1960;

on

H.R. An

10809,

86th Goett,"

Congress, NASA History

2nd Staff o/

Session Conference, NASA,

(1960),

pp.

21-22; Calif., pp.

"HighMarch 130-131.

Program--Mr.

Monterey, 1958-1963,

Rosholt,

Administrative

During the Month

The

Chance

Vought

Corporation

completed landing Booster and

a company-funded,

independent, under the earth orbit includfor an entry

classified study on manned lunar supervision of Thomas E. Dolan. rendezvous vehicle module though would be necessary. 14-day lunar ing a two-man, landing

and return (MALLAR), limitations indicated that of lunar return. missions were This mission called

A variety

described,

of 6600 pounds, a mission module of 27,000 pounds. It incorporated not specifically
with John

of 9000 pounds, and a lunar landing the idea of lunar orbit rendezvous

by name.
D. Bird, Langley Research Center, June 20, 1966.

Interview During the Month

At

a luncheon

in Washington,

Abe

Silverstein,

Director

of the

Office

of Space

Flight Programs, suggested the name "Apollo" for the manned space flight program that was to follow Mercury. Others at the luncheon were Don R. Ostrander from NASA Headquarters J. Donlan from STG.
Interview with Charles J.

and Robert

R. Gilruth,

Maxime

A. Faget,

and

Charles

Donlan,

Langley

Research

Center,

June

20,

1966.

Febrvary !

The Lunar

Army

Ballistic

Missile Program

Agency Based

submitted Upon report

to NASA of October

the

study l, 1959,

entitled

"A

Exploration lunar

Saturn-Boosted

Systems."

In addition it included

to the subjects manned

specified landings.
Ordnance Systems,

in the preliminary

U.S. Army Saturn-Boosted 10-11

Missile Command, DV-TR-2-60

A Lunar Exploration (February 1, 1960).

Program

Based

Upon

The the at

first timely the

meeting The and to all

of the direct [NASA] were

NASA resolution Centers

Space of E.

Exploration was technical in the Hyatt, Space and

Council "to space and provide

was

held

at NASA for ... Present Abe Ballistic H. (Executive

Headquarters. common Silverstein, Secretary) Missile

objective

of the

Council

a mechanism problems program." R. Ostrander, Army L. King

managerial flight Don Robert Braun

engaged Homer, Abraham of Goddard

meeting

Richard E. Golovin,

Chairman, yon

Nicholas of NASA Harry

Headquarters; J. Goett

Wernher

of the Center;

Agency;

Flight

and William

Pickering of the Jet • Membership of Advanced Research • Meetings • A Senior issues systems concerning from initial Council was to develop • The

Propulsion Laboratory. of the Council would Programs. be quarterly. Group and would would NASA

Among the agreements be expanded to include

were: the Director

would Steering the policies

be appointed Headquarters final launch. to move

by Homer reliability

to resolve staff. reliability firing date This

policy staff

proposed

methods decide from

for ensuring whether

the functional up 1961.
February

of space of the

design

stage through mission

the

first Atlas-Agena
Minutes, Space

B lunar
Exploration

May to February
Council Meeting,

Program

10-11,

1960,

pp.

1,

3-5. 36

LUNAR-EARTH
RETURN VEHICLE

A concept of a Lunar-Earth Return Vehicle as envisioned at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) in early 1960. This illustration was prepared for use of Wernher von Braun in connection with an ABMA study, "A Lunar Exploration Program Based Upon Saturn-Boosted Systems." 1960
February 29

Eleven (S IV):

companies

submitted

contract

proposals The Boeing

for

the

Saturn

second

stage

Bell Aircraft General Aircraft North
et al., 31, History 1960,

Corporation; Dynamics Inc.;

Airplane

Company;

Chrysler Division;

Corporation; Douglas Lockheed Corporation;
Akens December

Corporation, Grumman The Martin Inc.;

Convair/Astronautics Aircraft and
Space

Aircraft

Company, American
o[ the Vnl.

Engineering Aircraft
Center

Corporation; Aircraft Corporation.
]rorn July I to

Corporation;

Company; United
Flight

McDonnell

Aviation,
George

C. Marshall D, p. 41.

1, Appendix

NASA Director. and dence on the

established The effects behavioral

the Office would and sciences.

of Life

Sciences biological

Programs investigations on

with

Clark and would

T. basic

Randt medical

as

March 1

Office

assist in the fields of biotechnology Proposed planetary and environmenLs living

include In

work on evi-

of space

organisms,

of extraterrestrial

life forms,

on contamination

problems.

addition,

37

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

196O
Ma_h

the Office center.
U.S. search, Session Li[e Link,

would

arrange

grants

and

contracts

and

plan

a life sciences

research

Congress, Hearings (1960), and Space

House, before p. 3; Space,

Committee the U.S. Special Congress,

on

Science Investigating House,

and

Astronautics, Subcommittee, on Session Science 2nd

Space 86th and p. (1960), 1965),

Medicine Congress, Astronautics, p. 13 ; Mac 38.

Re. 2nd Mills

Committee (NASA SP-4003,

Sciences

Hearings, in Project

86 th Congress, Mercury

Medicine

3-5

At a NASA

staff conference

at Monterey,

Calif.,

officials

discussed

the advanced to Conthe basic mission. and conSTG try to for prewould and

manned space flight program, gress in January. The Goddard assumptions tests required ditions that visit NASA representatives Some problems already to qualify would Centers were raised

the elements of which had been presented Space Flight Center was asked to define in the continuing of research in cislunar to define and study of the lunar firings, were : the type of heatshield flight. with needed Members request the

to be used by all groups it, the kind April

for reentry of STG assistance. and

development and

be encountered during directed

the tasks contact

to maintain

Centers responsibility

identify gaps in the technology. STG was also assigned the paring a first draft of specifications for a lunar spacecraft.
"Highlights March 3-5, of GSFC 1960. Program--Mr. Goett," NASA Staff Conference,

Monterey,

Calif.,

STG craft

formulated and system"

preliminary would were be they

guidelines developed. formally

by which These

an "advanced guidelines were Centers

manned further during April

spacerefined and

and elaborated; May.
STG, 15 "Ground

presented

to NASA

Rules

for

Manned

Lunar

Reconnaissance,"

March

8, 1960.

The Saturn limit

Army

Ballistic

Missile

Agency's on the the

Development to NASA on October "George 1.
C. Marshall

Operations the expiration proposal

Division of the

and 14. Order,

the [The the

program decision named transfer
Historical

were

transferred action facilities

after

60-day

for congressional the

President's C.

of January By Executive Space Flight

President's President Formal
Akens, 28

had been made on July
o[ the

21, 1959.] Marshall

Center."

took place
Origins

George

Space

Flight

Center,

pp.

76-7.

Two

of the eight

H-1

engines

of the Saturn

C-1

first stage were successfully at Redstone test booster Arsenal, (SA-T).

staticwas

fired for approximately designated
Saturn

eight seconds.

The test, conducted of the Saturn

SAT-01--the
Illustrated

first live firing
p. 1 I.

Chronology,

April l-May

3

Members

of STG

presented

guidelines research

for an advanced assistance

manned

spacecraft spacecraft

proand

gram to NASA mission design.

Centers

to enlist

in formulating

38

A cloud smoke ushroomed of m fromthebase thestatic-firing of facilityat Redstone Arsenal, Ala.,whentwo of the eightH-1 enginesf the Saturn o C-1 launch vehicle's firststage weretested thefirsttime. for To open these discussions, Director obertR.Gilruthsummarized R theguidelines: manned lunarreconnaissance a lunarmission odule, with m corollary earthorbital missions a lunarmission with module andwith a space laboratory, compatibility with the SaturnC-1 or C-2 boostersweightnot to exceed ( 15,000 pounds for a complete lunarspacecraft and25,000 poundsor anearthorbitingspacecraft), f 14-day flighttime,safe recovery fromaborts, ground andwaterlanding andavoidanceof localhazards, point (ten-square-mile) landing,72-hour ostlandingurp s vival period,auxiliarypropulsion maneuvering space,a "shirtsleeve" for in environment, three-manrew,radiationprotection, a c primarycommand f miso siononboard,andexpandedommunications c andtracking facilities.n addition, I a tentative timeschedule wasincluded, projecting multiman earthorbitqualification flightsbeginning eartheendof thefirstquarter f calendar n o ),ear1966.
STG, 1-5. April 1-May 3 "Guidelines for Advanced Manned Space Vehicle Program," June 1960, pp. ii,

1960
April 1-May 3

STG's vanced

Robert manned

O. Piland, spacecraft

during

briefings

at NASA propulsion,

Centers, and

presented flight time

a detailed in the ad-

description

of the

guidelines

for missions, program:

(1) The reconnaissance. planetary flight initial (2) would The

spacecraft should be capable ultimately As a logical intermediate step toward many of the problems should The be associated capable component need to be solved. spacecraft training.

of manned future goals with manned orbit

circumlunar of lunar and circumlunar missions for

landing

lunar and

of earth

evaluation

reentry 39

of this spacecraft

should

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
April 1-May 3

be capable

of missions lunar

in conjunction reconnaissance closer than should than

with before several

space

laboratories landing, miles.

or space it would

stations. be desir-

To accomplish able to approach to be a reasonable (3) C-1 The or C-2

a manned thousand

the moon first target spacecraft

Fifty miles appeared with advanced the Saturn and

for study purposes. be designed mission. pounds to be compatible The multiman including for auxiliary 14 days lunar 15,000 spacecraft

boosters

for the

should not weigh more attaching structure. (4) should power A flight-time

propulsion without

capability

of the spacecraft study would batteries by using

resupply auxiliary included shielding, versus two

be possible. Considerable units, and solar batteries of the power for the use of storage

of storage batteries, be necessary. Items in the "caboose" power and different types for both two

fuel cells, considered (space radiation of systems

the percentage preference

units to be placed

laboratory),

and redundancy for reliability of the same system.
STG, Aoril 1-May 3 "Guidelines for Advanced

Manned

Space

Vehicle

Program,"

June

1960,

pp.

6-14.

In discussing A. Faget (1) The

the advanced spacecraft

manned must

spacecraft have

program

at NASA of safe velocity, crew

Centers,

Maxime from to be avoiding force relative and a

of STG detailed

the guidelines

for aborted a capability

missions

and landing: recovery this capability and land, errors could the conditions wind,

aborted missions at any speed up to the maximum independent of the launch propulsion system. (2) on two landing superiority other tight, factors. and (3) designated A satisfactory considerations: on either of land The water versus spacecraft under landing surface landing by the spacecraft conditions and landing would local hazards in the recovery area, was necessary. accessibility to land

on both water This requirement or navigation depend for recovery

was predicated and

emergency or land; water should capability locations,

on local waves.

be able

in a 30-knot

be waterpreviously in area,

be seaworthy Planned ground

conditions each

of 10- to 12-foot approximately

by the spacecraft

at one of several 10 square

miles

would be necessary. Studies were needed to assess the value of impulse maneuvers, guidance quality, and aerodynamic lift over drag during the return from the lunar minion. Faget pointed out that this requirement orbit mission than for the lunar return. (4) hours neuvers, possible The spacecraft design should provide was far less severe for crew survival for the earth 72 maall

for at least emergency to cover mobilization

after

landing.

Because be impos_ble The

of the

unpredictability sufficient requirement

of possible recover3., would

it would landing

to provide 72-hour

forces permit

locations.

of normally existing facilities and enough time for safe recover3". Locating on the spacecraft should perform adequately anywhere in the world. (5) to effect Auxiliary a safe propulsion should be provided emergency. for guidance Accuracy and maneuvers capability return should reserve in a launch be studied propulsion

devices needed of the requirecorrec-

guidance system ments. Sufficient

to determine auxiliary propulsion should be included to accommodate

40

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

tions for maximum ance maneuvers
STG, "Guidelines

guidance or escape
for

errors.

The

single system

could

serve

for either

guidApril

1960
1-May 3

propulsion
Manned

requirements.
Space Vehicle Program," June 1960, pp, 15-23,

Advanced

Stanley (1) cabin might

C. White

of STG

outlined spacecraft flight.

at NASA

Centers :

the guidelines would

for human because

facof

April

1-May

3

tors in the advanced the long duration and some be provided from and on noise (2) the and

manned of the lunar

spacecraft

program environment

A "shirtsleeve" means

be necessary reliable Such gases,

This would against dioxide, pressure basic study.

call for a highly decompression. vapor, toxic suit. Problems water monitoring In addition, nutrition,

pressurized protection oxygen microand be reinterior that, was dose. a solar radiaand would

of protection carbon

rapid

by a quick-donning removing capsule design vibration crew mission, required. should that atmosphere;

of supplying instrumentation; research

to the spacecraft; organisms restraint quired couch

were all under

in the spacecraft, of three

waste

disposal, indicated that

arrangement

and displays, A minimum number crew shown solar-flare

and bioinstrumentation. men was specified. crews were Studies had and a safe equipment multiman necessary than and three

for a long-duration the minimum (3) Studies flare. protection, The had

not be subjected on structural minimum space.
Manned Space

to more materials radiation

radiation against and the

it was not yet possible

to shield

the crew

Research

was indicated in cislunar
for

for radiation

prediction,

trajectories,

tion environment
STG, "Guidelines

Advanced

Vehicle

Program,"

June

1960,

pp.

24-38. April 1-May 3

Command program spacecraft

and

communications command necessarily

guidelines Robert of the mission

for the advanced at NASA should complex

manned : Since

spacecraft a manned greater than

were listed by STG's would

G. Chilton more

Centers

( 1 ) Primary

be on board.

be much

and its cost much

an unmanned spacecraft, maximum use should be made of the command decision and operational capabilities of the crew. Studies would be needed to determine the extent tions. of these Onboard capabilities guidance devices; system. and ground tracking should be provided throughout the the spacecraft was behind the moon. Voice contact sufficient for orbital missions. For the lunar mission, only for backup might be desirable data since the crew would relay for the lunar mission. For ground once per telemetry tracking, under routine, and navigation guidance, computers; urgent, and extreme emergency condihardware would include inertial platfor abort and command, and for abort-reentry control would redisplays. Attitude

forms for monitoring navigation; quire optical a multimode

insertion

( 2 ) Communications mission except when orbit was considered would reports. a study modified midcourse network and be required Television

pericmtic voice

of the Mercury system and relocated to satisfy and circumlunar facilities facilities at Goldstone, should

would determine whether the network could be the close-in requirements of a lunar mission. The requirements Australia, to ensure 41 might and that be met by the deep-space Africa. Both existing frequencies for all systems Calif., South

tracking

proposed

be studied

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
April 1-May 3

could reentry

be made tracking.

compatible

to permit

use of a single

beacon

for midcourse

and

STG, 39-46.

"Guidelines

for

Advanced

Manned

Space

Vehicle

Program,"

June

1960,

pp.

April 5

John

C. Houbolt

of the Langley

Research

Center

presented with

a paper

at the National York City of expenditure the best A minimum orbital before a time

Aeronautical in which fuel were appeared amount

Meeting the problems considered.

of the Society of rendezvous To resupply the ferry

of Automotive in space a space rocket to inject was station, into

Engineers for example, an adjacent on the

in New

the minimum orbit. wait

solution

to be to launch of fuel would station.

then be needed Attention

the ferry rocket

into the same

plane as the space rendezvous launch. If launch correction, were

also focused

made

into

the correct

orbital

plane,

with

subsequent but if launch wait

lead were

or lag made

wait periods

of many

days would with a later

be necessary, plane correction,

into an incorrect orbital plane day or two would be feasible.
John paper April C. Houbolt, "Considerations at the Society

periods

of only a

of

the

Rendezvous Engineers,

Problems National

for

Space

Vehicles," Meeting,

presented 5-8, 1960.

of Automotive

Aeronautical

Four of the eight H- 1 engines of the Saturn C- 1 first-stage static-fired at Redstone Arsenal for seven seconds.
Saturn Illustrated Chronology, p. 11.

booster

were successfully

9-16

Detailed Air Air Force Force

lunar and

charts, the

consisting University since April

of 230 photographic of Chicago 1958, Press. The was assembled

sheets, atlas,

were

published P. Kuiper

by the under of the

in preparation

contract

by Gerard

Yerkes
New

Observatory.
York Herald Tribune, April 10, 1960.

15

Briefings presented

on the by STG

guidelines

for the

advanced

manned

spacecraft

program

were

representatives
John H. Disher

at NASA
to Abe Silverstein,

Headquarters.
May I0, 1960.

Memorandum, 18

In a memorandum Executive Secretary on the status ° Rather problems used. A working • Proposed earlier

to NASA actions

Administrator Exploration taken

T. Keith Program

Glennan, Council

Robert (SEPC),

L. King, reported

of the Space

of certain than

up at the first meeting Senior program, Steering SEPC for each

of the Council: to resolve system and policy be wot, ld for an

appoint with

a separate would policy of

Group major

connected

the reliability

itself tentatively

would

committee for broad rescheduling

be appointed guidance. the first

rely on the SEPC

Atlas-Agena

B lunar

mission

flight date was abandoned
King to Glennan via April

as impractical.
Richard 18, 1960. E. Horner, "SEPC Meeting of February 10-

Memorandum, 11, 1960--Status

of Actions,"

42

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

STG

members, manned Center of several

visiting

Moffett Flight would

Field,

Calif., Center, Ames

briefed

representatives Research then from and

of the Center described

Jet work

! 960
April 18

Propulsion advanced at their studies guidance near-escape configurations. advanced
Robert

Laboratory, which

Research program.

and Ames representatives

on the design

spacecraft aerodynamic

be applicable configurations studies, and simulation, heating Ames

to the potential pilot

program: reentry display

preliminary a lunar navigation lifting applicable heating

for reentry

trajectory, at studies. capsule to the

and control velocity, In

requirements flight addition,

experiments

STG asked Ames to investigate program
John Gilruth, R.

and aerodynamics to tailor Station
May 18, 1960."

on possible a payload launch.

offered Wallops

for a forthcoming
H. Disher for to the Abe Week "Log

Memoranda,

Silverstein, of April

10,

1960;

Paul

E.

Purser

to

Members and search and

of STG visited activities conducting

the Flight research

Research on large

Center

to be briefed

on current of the Flight of launch

effort Re-

21

planned Center's

there.

Of special and simulator

interest studies

were possibilities of pilot control lift over
10, 1960;

parachutes of low
May 18, 1960."

in cooperation drag
Paul

with Ames vehicles,

Research

Center,

analytical

full-scale
Memoranda, Robert R.

tests
John Gilruth,

of landing
H. "Log Disher for to the

capabilities
Abe Week Silverstein, of April

configurations.
E. Purser to

NASA second
Wall

announced stage
Street

the

selection

of the C-1
Emme,

Douglas launch

Aircraft vehicle.
and

Company

to build

the

26

(S-IV)
Journal,

of the Saturn
April 27, 1960;

Aeronautics

Astronautics,

p. 122. 26

NASA pound moon.

announced from instrumented The capsule payload payload

that

Aeronutronic for a $3.5 which under

Division million would

of the contract

Ford

Motor on the

Company and build surface

had a 300of the

been selected

13 bidders capsule would currently

to design

be crash-landed

be launched

by an Atlas-Agena television crash-land. would then

B and would When

be attached Laboratory.

to a larger The larger (later smaller

development to carry and a point

at the Jet Propulsion cameras. The 25 miles above transmit the lunar data

was intended detach

the spacecraft surface, including back to earth. the a

named capsule

"Ranger" would and
Times,

) had reached itself

instruments,

seismometer
New York

a temperature
April 27, 1960.

recorder,

At

Redstone vehicle pounds
York

Arsenal, were of thrust.
Times, April

all eight static-fired

H-1

engines

of the

first stage

of the and

Saturn achieved

C-1 1.3

29

launch million
New

simultaneously

for the first time

30,

1960.

A study Draper, could

report Director

was issued

by the MIT

Instrumentation that and a vehicle, guidance
Laboratory,

Laboratory approved manned capability.
MIT, April

on guidance by C. Stark or unmanned,

and control have
Interview

design

for a variety onboard

of space missions. showed navigation
Instrumentation

This report,

During the Month

of the Laboratory,

significant
with Milton

B. Trageser,

27,

1966.

43

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
Spring

Thomas design landing

E. Dolan study mission.
with

of the Chance lunar orbit

Vought

Corporation method

prepared

a company-funded the lunar

of the

rendezvous

for accomplishing

Interview May 1

H. Kurt

Strass,

MSC,

November

30,

1966.

An

additional

contract England,

for $10,000 and

was signed Observatory for the

by the University principal in France,

of Manchester, would maps. 1, the topographilunar

Manchester, continue The 1958, cal information contract and

the Air Force. surface May

Z. Kopal,

investigator, providing

to work [AF provided

at the Pic-du-Midi on the lunar 61 (052)380] from $40,000

production 31,

of accurate 1960.

was a continuation 1, 1960, to October reflector for a 40-inch

of one signed telescope

on November In addition,

was to run

Air Force

at the Observatory,

tremendously increasing 1960, information on produced.
House Committee Report,

its capability for lunar topographical research. By June one-fourth of the visible area of the moon had been

Army

Lunar

Construction

and

Mapping

Program,

Appendix.

Members to Wernher the ensuing were were

of STG

presented

the proposed

advanced

manned

spacecraft Flight Center. circumlunar Further

program During mission

von Braun discussion, with

and 25 of his staff at Marshall Space the merits of a completely automatic those of a manually operated mission.

compared scheduled.
Memoranda, R. Gilruth,

discussions

John "Log

H. for

Disher the Week

to Abe of May

Silverstein, 2, 1960."

May

10, 1960;

Paul

E. Purser

to Robert

STG

members

presented Center

the

proposed staff. Work

advanced

manned

spacecraft

program

to

the Lewis included trajectory control

Research : analysis analysis,

at the Center

applicable

to the program system, attitude

and preliminary development and development of small

of the onboard propulsion rockets for midcourse and

propulsion.
John H. Disher to Abe Silverstein, May 10, 1960.

Memorandum,

Clifford

I. Cummings,

Jet

Propulsion

Laboratory

spacecraft

program

director,

announced at a meeting of the Aviation that the spacecraft which would carry capsule to be crash-landed
Sun, May 5, 1960.

Writers Association in Los Angeles, Calif., television and a detachable instrumented would be called "Ranger."

on the moon

Baltimore

Robert

R. Gilruth,

Paul

E. Purser,

James

A. Chamberlin,

Maxime

A. Faget,

and

H. Kurt Str,_ss of STG met with a group from the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation to discuss advanced spacecraft programs. Grumman had been working on guidance requirements for circumlunar flights Navy and presented Strass with a report of this work.
Memorandum, Purser to Gilruth, "Log for the Week of May

under

the sponsorship

of the

2, 1960."

The

first

production was launched
et al., This

Mercury from
New Ocean,

spacecraft, Wallops
p. 262.

using

its launch

escape "beach

rocket

as protest.

pulsion,

Island

in a successful

abort"

Swenson

44

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

A discussion Research with Harry Director, figuration materials, George said

on the advanced Center M. that with Low members and

manned Ernest Space would

spacecraft and

program Langley Jr.,

was held at the Langley Research Center, Headquarters making together and Langley conheating,

1960
May 32

of STG Flight

O. Pearson, be studying Mercury),

of NASA Floyd

J. Goett

of Goddard Langley

Center.

L. Thompson, problem, aerodynamics,

the radiation and studying

tests (including and structures.
Paul E.

a lifting

Memorandum, 1960."

Purser

to

Robert

R.

Gilruth,

"Log

for

the

Week

of

May

9, ,15

The nated press,

Soviet Korabl

Union

launched

an unmanned

spacecraft and called 10,000

into near-earth Sputnik pounds IV

orbit. by the

DesigWestern a pres-

Sputnik

I by the Russians weighed approximately

the spacecraft

and contained

surized space the spacecraft ship into had separated
Wall Street

cabin with a dummy astronaut. On May 19, the attempt to bring back to earth failed when a flaw in the guidance system deflected the orbit. Soviet scientists said that conditions were
May 21,

a higher from

in the cabin,

which

the remainder
May 16, 1960;

of the spacecraft,
Baltimore Sun,

normal.
1960; Instruments and

Journal, p. 105.

Spacecra[t,

16-17

A meeting attended Goddard Propulsion Bernard programs ects. Many

on space Space Maggin of Flight

rendezvous from Center,

was Space

held Task

at the Group, and

Langley Langley Marshall

Research Flight Research Space Current

Center Center, Flight NASA on future

and Jet

by representatives Laboratory, on rendezvous the

NASA

Headquarters, Center, and

Research

Center, Center. Center projferry was

Lewis Research Headquarters reviewed in progress in cislunar would were

of NASA studies technique

was chairman. ideas were the involved space.

exchanged concept

of a space of the meeting the

rendezvousing experiments There

with a station should be made

The consensus and

that the rendezvous

be essential

in the foreseeable develop

future and that technique.

to establish

feasibility

was as yet no funding
Research Center, and May

for any rendezvous
Development 16-17, 1960. Centers

flight test program.
Discussion on Space Rendezvous,

Inter-NASA Langley

Research

25

STG formed Director

the Advanced

Vehicle program.

Team, The

reporting would

directly conduct

to Robert research

R. Gilruth, and make the the

of the Mercury,

Team

preliminary design studies for an advanced multir.an Team would maintain contacts and information Langley, Lewis, Ames, and Flight Research Centers

spacecraft. In addition, flow between STG and and the Jet Propulsion Space Flight with industrial be focused Vehicle G. Chilton, Team; Jack

Laboon and

ratory and would the development government Robert

effect necessary and planned on advanced

liaison with the Marshall Contacts would systems Head studies

Center groups

use of boosters.

agencies

in this group. other memFunk, Alan

O. Piland was appointed full-time Team were

of the Advanced Strass, retain 45 Robert their

bers assigned B. Kehlet, B. Eickmeier.

H. Kurt would

Jr., R. Bryan Erb, Owen members

E. Maynard,

Richard current

B. Ferguson, permanent

and Alfred

organizational

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960

status their

and

receive

technical

direction

and from

guidance other

in their

particular

areas

from

supervisors,
Memorandum,

as well as support
Gilruth to Staff, STG,

specialists.
Vehicle Team," May 25, 1960.

"Advanced

Assembly Center.
26 Senate

of the first Saturn

flight

booster,

SA-1,

began

at Marshall

Space

Flight

Staff

Report,

Manned

Space

Flight

Program,

p. 187.

Eight
26

H-1

engines

of the first stage

of the Saturn

C-1

launch

vehicle

were

static-

fired for 35.16 seconds, producing 1.3 million pounds of thrust. This demonstration of the H-1 took place at Marshall Space Flight Center.
Rocketdyne Skywriter, June 3, 1960, p. 1.

first public

31

NASA

selected

Rocketdyne

Division

of NAA to develop

the J-2,

a 200,000-poundwas

thrust rocket engine, burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. [A decision later made to use the J-2 in the upper stages of the Saturn C-5.]
Saturn
JunQ

Illustrated

Chronology,

pp.

13-14;

Rocketdyne

Skywriter,

June

3,

1960.

The

Saturn

C-1 Space

first stage Flight

successfully with
1960,

completed a 122-second

its first series of static firing of all eight

tests at the engines.

T5

Marshall

Center
June 24,

H-1

Rocketdyne 2T

Skywriter,

p. 4.

Robert White Office space versity

O.

Piland,

Head

of the a meeting Programs,

STG

Advanced

Vehicle

Team,

and

Stanley

C.

of STG of Life flight.

attended Sciences

in Washington, D. C., sponsored by the NASA to discuss radiation and its effect on manned their physicist; specializing views: John R. Winckler A. Tobias effects of the on cells of the Uniand Cornelius in radiation

Three

consultants

presented

University

of Minnesota,

a cosmic-ray a radiologist Col. John Medicine. the inner

of California,

other human subsystems; and Air Force School of Aviation impracticable shield against to shield the outer
Piland, on

E. Pickering, Director of Research at the Their research showed that it would be Van Allen amount
Team, 21

against

belt

radiation

but

possible

to

belt with a moderate
Head, Advanced Space Vehicle

of protection.
to Project Meeting, Director, Washington, "Radiation D.C.,"

Memorandum, and June Its Effects 24, 1960.

Manned

Vehicles--June

_UmI_QT

H. Kurt boilerplate launches. production flight Saturn STG

Strass

of STG

and John be are

H. Disher used and

of NASA development

Headquarters forthcoming vehicles center projected. Space plans. systems

proposed Saturn which of gravity.] and On

that C-1 These the 5, and

Apollo spacecraft

spacecraft

in some

of the mass, and

[Boilerplates provide

research needed Four

simulate utilize October

in size, shape,

structure, experience

tests would boosters was on tentative

with

Apollo

effectively. reached Saturn
Strass,

or five such members assignments
30, 1966.

tests were of Marshall and flight

agreement

between vehicle
MSC,

Flight

Center

Interview

with

November

46

PART

I:

CONCEPT

TO

APOLLO

The

House

Committee

on Science

and

Astronautics a manned should however,

declared: expedition be drawn

"A high on the moon

priority in this to

1960
July 5

program decade. the

should A firm goals, The

be undertaken plan with Such

to place a plan, total

this goal

in view

up and submitted integrated deserves

Congress

by NASA. attention

should

be completely phases be more the Nova

with other Particular program." be expedited on nuclear tee that

to minimize should Committee

costs. The modular immediately that

concept development that

close study. of such engine research concept, a

be paid

to long lead-time vehicle, before there

also recommended of the Nova launch engines be turned program

of the F-1

in expectation engines project 10-year

and less conventional

freezing

and that the Orion "NASA's not go far enough. cient energy."
U.S. Nation, Congress, 86th

over to NASA. is a good program

It was the view of the Commitas far as it goes, but it does pushed with suffiis not being

program,

Furthermore

the space

House, Congress,

Committee 2nd Session

on

Science pp.

and 55

Astronautics, 56.

Space,

Missiles,

and

the

(1960),

After Hughes

reviewing Aircraft Inc., studies

proposals Company, and Space were
through of June the 30,

by

37

companies,

NASA

awarded

contracts North

to

the

McDonnell Technology

Aircraft Laboratories, soft-landing their
(1961), and Los

Corporation, Inc., lunar

American competi-

Aviation, tive design The

for preliminary spacecraft,

of an instrumented scheduled
Report of September National 1961 (1961),

the Surveyor.

companies
Fourth April port 1960, 1, 1960, to

to submit
the National 30, 1960 p. 49,

reports
pp. Space Angeles 60

in December.
and 61; Space Fifth July Administration, Semiannual October 10, 1960. 14-15 Re1,

Semiannual

Aeronautics

Congress

Aeronautics

Administration, Times,

through

The

third

meeting The

of the Space question

Exploration

Program of Saturn

Council C-2

was held production

at NASA and the

Headquarters.

of a speedup

possibility of using nuclear upper stages with the The Office of Launch Vehicle Programs would using nuclear propulsion study substantiated such be determined.
Minutes, Space Exploration

Saturn booster were discussed. plan a study on the merits of

for some of NASA's more sophisticated missions. If the a need, the amount of in-house basic research could then

Program

Council

Meeting,

July

14-15,

1960,

pp.

1, 4

5. 25

NASA Director Glennan program. Program

Director had The Plans
"Official

of Space approved program

Flight Space would the name

Programs Flight "Apollo"

Abe Silverstein that NASA

notified

Harry

J. Goctt,
T. Keith flight

of the Goddard

Center,

Administrator manned

for the advanced

space

be so designated

at the forthcoming

NASA-Industry

Conference.
NASA Name Headquarters for the Advanced to Goddard Manned Space Space Flight Flight Center, Program," Attn: July Dr. 25, H. J. 1960. 28-29

Memorandum, Goett,

The D.C.

first The

NASA-Industry purpose was

Program to give

Plans

Conference management

was

held

in Washington, picture of the

industrial

an overall

NASA various

program NASA

and to establish a basis for subsequent conferences to be held at Centers. The current status of NASA programs was outlined, in47

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
July

cluding manned NASA manned Chief missions

long-range space Deputy space would of Manned lunar

planning,

launch

vehicles,

structures

and

materials

research,

flight, and life sciences. Administrator flight program Space be carried landing conferences in Washington, detailed briefings
Plans

Hugh had been stated

L.

Dryden that

announced "Apollo."

that flight would station.

the and lead

advanced NASA orbit earth

named 1970.

George

M. Low,

Flight, and

circumlunar This program space manned Goddard

out before

eventually

to a manned Three August tember, receive

a permanent were D.C.), planned: the

follow-up (held more

Space Flight

Flight Center

Center

in

Marshall phases

Space Industry

in Sepwould

and Jet Propulsion

Laboratory

in October.

representatives program.

on specific
Con[erence,

of the NASA
1960 (1960).

NASA-Industry 29

Program

]uly

28-29,

Mercury-Atlas of spacecraft

1 (MA-1 structural

) was launched integrity under

from

the Atlantic heating

Missile

Range upon

in a test 58.5 impact

maximum

conditions.

After

seconds of flight, MA-1 exploded and the spacecraft off-shore. None of the primary capsule test objectives
Swenson et al., This New Ocean, pp. 275-278.

was destroyed were met.

This

chart was used by George M. Low July 29, 1960, as he described the for Project Apollo during the NASA-Industry Program Plans Conference. NASA MANNED SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM

plans

I MERCURY PROJECT

t ADVANCED CIRCUMI I LUNAR MANNED H
SPACECRAFTI I FLIGHT

L
I LUNAR 1 LANDING _ / / l INTERPLANETARY FLIGHT i PLANETARY LANDING

LABORATORY

"--PROJECT

APOLLOs,

/
/

MANNED 1
SPACE STATION

I
PRESENTPROGRAM 1960 _- 1970

LONGRANGEGOALS _ BEYOND 1970 D-

PART II

Design--Decision--Contract

August

1960

through

November

1961

PART II

The

Key

Events

1960 August 30: Industry briefing the Apollo spacecraft. September I: The Flight Systems by Goddard Office Space formed Flight under Center the on the on feasibility Space Task studies for

Apollo Project Division.

Group studies

(STG) for the

September 13: STG briefing Apollo spacecraft. October 21: ST(; selection

for prospective

bidders

feasibility

of the Apollo

command

module

design. of General Company Dynamics to prepare

October 25: Selection by NASA of Convair/Astronautics Division Corporation, the General Electric Company, and The Martin feasibility studies for the Apollo spacecraft. 1961 January 6-12: First meetings of the Apollo ordinate NASA inter-Center information February 7: Six-month study contract for signed by NASA with the Massachusetts tation Laboratory.

Technical Liaison Groups, formed to coexchange. Apollo guidance and navigation support Institute of Technology (MIT) Instrumen-

February 7: Final report of the Low Committee outlining a manned lunar landing within the decade using either the earth orbit rendezvous or direct ascent technique. April 12: First successful manned orbital flight, by Cosmonaut Yuri A. Gagarin of the Soviet Union. May May May 5: First successful American suborbital flight, by Astronaut Alan B. Shepard, Jr. 5: Completion of the first draft of the Apollo spacecraft specifications by STG. 15-17: Submission of final reports by contractors on the feasibility studies on the Apollo spacecraft. by STG. of an ac-

May 22: Completion of the second draft of the Apollo spacecraft specifications May 25: President John F. Kennedy's proposal to Congress and the nation June

celerated space program including a manned lunar landing within the decade. 10: Report of the Lundin Committee recommending a low-altitude earth orbit rendezvous mission. mode using the Saturn C-3 to accomplish the manned lunar landing

June 16: Report of the Fleming Committee identifying the chief pacing items of a manned lunar landing mission within the decade as the development of and facilities for the launch vehicle. July 28: NASA contract. invitation to 12 companies to submit bids on the prime Apollo spacecraft

50

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT Laboratory system--first to develop under STG major Apollo contract.

August 9: Selection of the MIT Instrumentation direction the Apollo navigation and guidance

August: Report of the Heaton Committee recommending the earth orbit rendezvous technique and use of the Saturn C-4 for the manned lunar landing mission. October 1 I: Presentations to NASA representatives by five industrial teams bidding on the Apollo spacecraft contract. October 27: Successful flight of the first Saturn C-I (SA-1) booster. November 1: Formal redesignation of the Space Task Group as the Manned Center November (MSC). 8: First meeting of the MSC-MSFC Coordination Panels,

Spacecraft to find

formed

solutions to the interrelated problems of the Apollo launch vehicle and spacecraft. November 20: Report of the Rosen working group to the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, recommending direct ascent as the primary lunar landing mission mode with a backup rendezvous November 28: Selection Apollo spacecraft capability development. of North American Aviation, under MSC direction. Inc., as principal contractor for the

51
334-987 0 69 5

PART II
Desig n--DecisionmContract
August 1960 through November 1961

In a memorandum Programs, tentative At this Harry program conference,

to Abe J. Goett, of the more

Silverstein, Director Goddard details

Director of Goddard industry

of NASA's Space conference study Flight

Office

of Space

Flight the 30.

1960
August 8

Center, for

outlined on August an

to be held contracts

of proposed

advanced the guideApril and

manned spacecraft would be presented. lines set down by STG and presented May. Three six-month study contracts

The requirements would follow to NASA Headquarters during at $250,000 each would

be awarded.

Draft Memorandum, Secretary Brucker known program sisted diameter. naming

Goett to Director, Office of Space Flight Programs, August 8, 1960.
13

of the Interior announced photogeological to select lunar diagrams that

Fred the survey landing

A. Seaton U.S.

and

Secretary Survey of the and face the

of the had The

Army study,

Wilber the part

M. first of a con-

Geological

completed

of the surface the

moon.

sites for manned visible respectively,

unmanned of the physiographic photogeologic lunar rays.

spacecraft, moon lunar map

of three These features

diagrams,

all showing depicted, surface

at 36 inches regions, giving the

on the moon's

; a generalized and the prominent

age of craters

and structural

features;

Palo Alto Times, August 18, 1960. The Soviet Union V. The launched spacecraft Strelka and its second spaceship satellite, the Korabl on Sputnik May II,
19

or Sputnik carried plants, dogs television pressure, landed

was similar Belka,

to the one

launched rabbit,

15 and flies, to the a blood and to

two dogs, fungi, and linked camera, breathing,

in addition and

to a gray seeds.

rats,

mice,

microscopic with the enabled and

water spacecraft Soviet

plants, scientists

Electrodes system, the animals'

attached which hearts, reentered

communications to check

included

actions

during

the trip. After and biological

the spacecraft specimens

safely the next

day, the animals

were reported

be in good condition. Baltimore Sun, August 20, 1960; New York Herald Tribune, August 22, 1960; Instruments and Spacecraft, pp. 120-121. The Goddard Space D.C., Flight presenting Center details (GSFC) conducted projects, its industry current and conference future. in The
3O

Washington,

of GSFC

53

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
August

objectives spacecraft

of the proposed were announced a manned

six-month : spacecraft plan

feasibility

contracts

for an advanced

manned

• To define

system

fulfilling

STG

guidelines

• To formulate • To identify • To Fixed-fee would industry NASA; bidders' analyze contracts familiarization; (3) September awarded; conference

a program areas the requiring

for implementation research and development effort

long lead-time

cost of providing to be let The (2) August

the system. contractors only; several contracts 30, 1960, to 12,

were

to prime 31

be let concurrently.

timetable

w,_s announced: September 10, proposals conference; completed.
by

( 1 ) August (4)

6, expression received

of interest September ; (6) November

7, invitation (7) May

to bidders'

at STG ; (5)

October

14, contracts

15, 1961, contracts
to 1960. be

Presentations Flight Center,

for the Industry Conference Greenbelt, Md., August 30,

conducted

the

Goddard

Space

September 1

In an organizational change within of the Flight Systems Division and for Advanced Projects. The Apollo Head of the Office; members included W. Petynia, and H. Kurt Strass.
Memorandum, Space Task Robert R. Gilruth to Group," September 1, 1960.

STG, Maxime A. Faget was appointed Robert O. Piland was named Assistant Project John Office was formed with Markley, B. Lee, J. Thomas

Chief Chief as

Piland William

Staff,

STG,

"Change

in

Organization

of

the

NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan directed that an accelerated joint planning effort be made by persons at NASA Headquarters who were most familiar with the Saturn, programs. were development figurations. Apollo, They manned integrated had group been orbital and done responsible laboratory, whether whether to support for the John and unmanned the Saturn sufficient decisions study L. Sloop, and design consisted Oran lunar study of and planetary programs program conWood, Fred D. Saturn Lloyd and were to determine Saturn-use

effectively work The

on projected

Richard B. Canright, Alfred M. Nelson, Kochendorfer, and George M. Low.
Memorandum, Director, Programs," I0 Donald Space Flight September H. Heaton to "Integration

W. Nicks,

Directc_r, of the

Launch Saturn

Vehicle and Saturn

Programs, Applications

and

Programs, 2, 1960.

A NASA

contract

for approximately development
September

$44

million

was signed

by Rocketdyne

Divi-

sion of NAA
Rocketdyne 13

for the
Skywriter,

of the J '2 engine.
16, 1960, p. 1.

An STG

briefing

was held

at Langley

Field,

Va., for prospective

bidders

on three

six-month feasibility studies of an Apollo program. A formal Request
Ralph B. Oakley, Systems Study, Historical Division, Project Summary, January Apollo,"

advanced manned spacecraft as part of the for Protx)sal was issued at the conference.
S&ID Apollo Program (NAA, for Bidders' Space and Infor

formation a Feasibility

20, 1966). September

p. 3; "Agenda 13, 1960.

Briefing

54

PART

H:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

A formal agreement for the construction Johannesburg. contact with lunar
NASA

was signed by the United States and South Africa providing of a new deep-space tracking facility at Krugersdorp, near be one of three spacecraft.
p. 111.

1960
September 13

It would

stations

equipped

to maintain

constant

and planetary
Report,

Fourth

Semiannual

A staff meeting of the Flight Systems Division of STG was held constraints for an in-house design study of the Apollo spacecraft. 1960.]
Memorandum, Apollo Design H. Study Kurt Strass to Apollo and Design Team, October "Design 25, 1960.

to discuss design [See October 21,

2O

Restraints

for

FSD

(Information

Action),"

An

attempt stages

to launch of the
Post,

a Pioneer Atlas-Able

satellite rocket

into

lunar

orbit

failed

when

one of the

25

upper

malfunctioned.

Washington

September

26, 1960. 29

In

a memorandum L. King, at the July

to NASA Executive 14-15

Associate

Administrator

Robert taken

C. Seamans, on certain Program

Jr., items

Robert discussed

Secretary, meeting

described

the action

of the Space

Exploration

Council.

Among these actions to evaluate missions in the study operational requirements.
Memorandum, September 29, King 1960.

was the awarding for which nuclear aspects

of a contract to The RAND Corporation propulsion would be desirable. Included of availability and dates, cost of development, of research an evaluation

would

be the determination

costs, the safety

of the missions,

to Seamans,

"Actions

Since

SEPC

Meeting

of

14-15

July

1960,"

The

fourth

meeting The

of the Space results

Exploration

Program

Council

was held at NASA and utilization was

3O

Headquarters. presented determine

of a study Study

on Saturn Committee. C-2 launch

development Objectives vehicle should

by the Ad Hoc Saturn ( 1 ) if and when and spacecraft No change Committee (S-II be essential, unmanned to other stages. on the Saturn

of the study were to be developed vehicle was and develconshould

the Saturn planning in the recommended

(2) if mission opment templated. proceed The C-2 The

was consistent NASA that reported, Mars Fiscal

with the Saturn Year Year 1962 C-2 1962,

schedule. on schedule would lunar probes upper

budget

the Saturn

development manned orbiters

stage contract the study exploration, planets and

in Fiscal

first flight in 1965). circumlunar and capsule of

for Apollo and Venus and

missions, landers, nuclear During up:

out-of-ecliptic,

for orbital

starting

a discussion

program,

several

major

problems

were

brought

• The the complete launch

adequacy Apollo

of the Saturn spacecraft module

C-1

launch

vehicle Although

for orbital the C

qualification 1 could

of

was in question. of 5100 pounds, 55

be used to command

a command

it was probable

that

the

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
September

module

weight

would

increase

to as much

as 8000

pounds.

George

M.

Low

of

NASA Headquarters, in a critical review of the Apollo program, pointed out that a spacecraft for a circumlunar mission could be constructed within the payload limitation of the C-2 launch vehicle. Both the developmental craft could be available to meet the Saturn schedules. and production space-

• Much basic research would be needed before the first Apollo flight. In particular, the problem of reentry heating was of great concern. Low noted that a prediction safe manned additional
Minutes, Low, Program Ad Hoc

criterion was

for proton also

beam

events

had

been possible

developed, problem need and

making

possible of

circumlunar personnel
Space

flights

insofar

as the radiation program.
Meeting, September presentation of

was concerned. availability

• Concern

expressed

as to the

to support

the Apollo
Council Project 1960;

Exploration Requirements September

Program for 30, to Space

30, to of

1960, Space Saturn

pp.

1, 4-5;

"Saturn

Apollo," "Presentation

Exploration Study 30, by 1960.

Council, Study

Results

Committee

Exploration

Program

Council,"

September

September October

303

Charles sider craft, Flight Marshall

J.

Donlan

of STG, proposals Center, Flight

Chairman on feasibility of Ames Lewis

of the Evaluation studies Center, Research Center, Jet

Board

which

would

conspaceand

contractors' invited Research Space

for an advanced Propulsion Research Field,
F.

manned Center,

the Directors

Laboratory, Board.

Research to name

Langley

Center

representatives 10 at Langley
O. Sparks,

to the

Evaluation Va.
Bikle, Eugene

The first meeting
Letters, Manganiello, Donlan

was to be held on October
to Floyd Smith J. DeFranee, Wernher Brian von

Paul

J.

L. Thompson,

Braun,

September

30-October

3, 1960.

October 4

Members Board bers Maxime (NASA of

were the

appointed industry (STG)

to the Technical proposals Board ; Robert Office were: of Space

Assessment spacecraft J. (STG), Charles Flight

Panels Donlan

and (STG),

the

Evaluation MemChairman; H. Disher (Ames); (Goddard),

to consider A. Faget

for Apollo O. Piland

feasibility Secretary; Alvin

studies. John Seiff

Evaluation

Headquarters

Programs); Harry

John V. Becket (Langley); H. H. Koelle ex officio; and Robert R. Gilruth (STG),
Memorandum, Members Feasibility October for the Manned Study 4, 1960; Evaluation Spacecraft Donlan of Technical of of and an NASA, to Members, Panels Manned Space October

(Marshall); ex officio.
Assessment Spacecraft, Center, for and

J. Goett

Technical for Flight

Panels,

"Instruction Proposals (Project Apollo: an for Apollo),"

for a

Assessment Advanced Goddard Contractors' System,"

Evaluation

of Contractors' RFP-302 STG, Study "Project of

Plan

Proposals

a Feasibility

Advanced

6, 1960.

Members Saturn

of STG and Apollo

visited guidance

the

Marshall

Space

Flight

Center utilization

to discuss of Apollo

possible onboard

integration

and potential Agreement and

propulsion Saturn plans

to provide vehicle

a reserve

capability. study and 10.
Chief, Flight

was reached entry

on tentative on the

assignments guidance SA-6,
H. 5, Kurt 1960,

on abort system;

lunar

simulation; of tentative

use of the Saturn for Saturns
Memorandum, MSFC, October

on future

preparations

flight

8, 9, and
Strass by to STG

Systems October

Division, 5, 1960.

"Report

on

Visit

to

Personnel,"

56

PART

If:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

Contractors' were gram, pany; craft received and Chance

proposals by STG. Vought of these

on feasibility Sixty-four Corporation; Cornell Electric Engineering

studies companies

for an advanced expressed proposals: interest The

manned

spacecraft proComAir-

1960
October 9

in the Apollo Airplane Douglas Division Inc.;

14 actually

submitted

Boeing

Convair/Astronautics Aeronautical Company; Corporation; Laboratory, Goodyear Guardite

of General Corporation; of American Company; These 14 were subof spacecraft

Dynamics Grumman

Corporation; General Aircraft

Company;

Aircraft Division The Martin Corporation. withdrew, began

Marietta Company; Lockheed Aircraft Corporation; North American Aviation, Inc.; and Republic Aviation companies, sequently development contractors'
"Participating Board Piland, use; p. 4.

later invited in

reduced to submit 1961.

to 12 when prime The Technical

Cornell

and

Guardite Panels

contractor 10.
Teams,"

proposals

for the Apollo

Assessment

evaluation

proposals
Companies "Apollo

on October
or Company

partial unpublished,

set

of material annotated

for by

Evaluation Robert O.

Spacecraft

Chronology,"

In a memorandum Programs, increasingly should Apollo, "In and George tion of a working

to Abe Silverstein, M. Low, group that Apollo such Chief on the manned

Director lunar in order and

of NASA's Space landing to provide plans Flight, for

Office

of Space

Flight

17

of Manned

described lunar

the formalandings for

program: manned a proper

"It has become justification foundation. group, con-

apparent to place

a preliminary schedules a program,

program technical formed

be formulated.

This is necessary

on a firmer working

order

to prepare

I have

a small

sisting deavor prepare and and

of Eldon Hall, Oran Nicks, John Disher, and myself. This group will ento establish ground rules for manned lunar landing missions; to determine spacecraft an integrated system, picture, and weights; development launch and should to specify plan, identify vehicles. launch including This plan areas vehicle should requiring requirements; lunar studies include early and landing by field to the spacecraft,

reasonable takeoff funding

a time-phasing

organizations."
Memorandum, Programs," Low October to 17, Director 1960. 21 of Space Flight Programs, "Manned Lunar Landing

A staff meeting constraints Fundamental September ° The drag before ratio concept,

of STG's

Flight design

Systems study

Division

was held to fix additional spacecraft. a previous

design

for the in-house decisions 20 : entry of 0.35, in which vehicle and a module

of the Apollo

were

made

as a result

of this and

meeting

on

should an

have

a Mercury-type heatshield redundant and

configuration, should follow could the

a lift over modular be jettisoned propulsion. ultimate of

overall containing should

equipment

reentry. • Solid ° The propellant nominal systems design be used throughout be 8 g, with for onboard an emergency load should

20 g. 57

/

/
r/

/
/ •

/
/
./

/

"\\, \.

The

sketch above, drawn by Caldwell C. Johnson in October led to the development of the seating arrangement which Apollo command module.

1960, proposed and was adopted for the

1960
October

• For flight 0.35 constant, • Attitude vector, jets for (luring damping. corrections should

path roll

control control

in atmospheric only would be

flight, used; during

with for

lift over space units.

drag

ratio

of

flight, flight

midcourse by thrust

be made control flight

by fixed-impulse be maintained by control

solid-propellant

should

powered atmospheric special manual

space

jet, s, and during should utilize

flight by control purpose star-sight computers systems

• The and inertial with

onboard reference

guidance based

system use. should

on the use of fundamentally be studied atmosphere
Design Action)," Team, October

provision • Further
Memorandum, Apollo Design

for automatic research
H. Study Kurt

• Both parachutes

and rotors

for the touchdown would
"Design 25,

mode.

on the spacecraft
Strass (Information to Apollo and

be necessary'.
Restraints 1960. for FSD

58

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

The

Technical

Assessment

Panels proposals

presented

to the Board

Evaluation of an and findings

Board advanced

their

find-

1960
October 21

ings on the contractors' spacecraft. On were presented
"Apollo

for feasibility

studies

manned

October 24, the Evaluation to the STG Director.
Chronology," pp. 4, 5.

recommendations

Spacecraft

Included flights begin

in the with three-stage

current

Saturn stages;

flight early

schedule 1963,

were: begin

mid-1961, two-stage ten-vehicle

begin flights;

first-stage late 1963, and

25

dummy flight
Staff Report,

upper flights; test

early

1964,

conclude

research

development
Senate

program.
Space Flight Program, p. 193.

Manned

NASA advanced Electric

selected

three

contractors Division

to prepare as part of General Company.
to John Langley General Historical

individual Apollo. Dynamics

feasibility The

studies

of an were General

25

manned Company,
Goddard STG of General October

spacecraft and The
Space Public 25, Flight Affairs 1960;

of Project

contractors

Convair/Astronautics

Corporation,

Martin
Center Office,

TWXs, Langley; nautics Company,

A. Powers; Field, Summary, Electric

NASA Va.,

Headquarters to Apollo and The

to STG, Martin p. 3. October 272

Powers Company, S&ID

Convair/AstroProgram,

Dynamics

Corporation, Oakley,

Representatives Convair/Astronautics to conduct ber 25. company
Minutes Martin tion 1960; for

of the

General Division clarified

Electric of General

Company, Dynamics study areas

The contracts not

Martin Corporation

Company, visited covered

and STG in

November

negotiations The discussions proposals.
of Technical Company, Apollo and Systems Spacecraft

on the Apollo or Contracts
Negotiation Study

systems identified

announced completely 15.

on Octo-

were awarded
Meetings (RFP-302), p. 5. with

on November
the 27, General of November Division General

Electric

Company, November

The 2,

Convair/Astronautics

Dynamics 1, and

Corpora-

October

"Apollo

Chronology,"

Key staff members of NASA Research and Development Division, concern. Los Angeles, Calif.,

Headquarters Command, to attend

and the Commander, met at the Air Force briefings and discuss

U.S. Air Force Ballistic Missile of mutual

October 28

matters

At an executive refueling, a lunar and base were

session, descent by an

Air

Force orbit

and

NASA

programs Long-range for NASA

of orbital Air Force inspection plans

rendezvous, studies on such missions,

from

were

discussed.

in progress

as well as research satellite and reentry the possible orbital

on more immediate

as rendezvous manned lunar staging were

unmanned satellites, included

interceptor methods.

purposes,

maintenance landing mission

for the manned in an orbital Mercury

use of the Saturn Reentry and

booster

operation concentrated

employing on reentry

refueling. speeds

studies

beyond

at escape

on a spacecraft

configuration

capable

of aerodynamic
Donald of "Minutes 2, 1960.

maneuvering
H. the Heat(m, Executive

during
Assistant Meeting

reentry.
Administrator at AFBMD for on Resources, October 28, for the 1960,"

Memorandum, Record, Novemher

59

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
November 3

The Department of the Interior announced undertake detailed studies of lunar geology astrogeology of photographs vestigations extraterrestrial larger selected
New

that the U.S. Geological Survey would as part of a new $205,000 program in would and include crater related be studied areas in the geological studies, more material analysis and inand of possible closely of sites moon, terrestrial would landings.

financed into

by NASA. areas

The

program meteorites, features

of selected the origin origin. diagrams

on the

of tektites, lunar be made

Certain would

scale

of specific

vicinity

by NASA
York Times,

for unmanned
November 9,

spacecraft
1960.

At a meeting, Milton to set up information propulsion.

Charles

J. Donlan

of STG groups

and

George

M. Low, the base

John

H. Disher, a plan

W. Rosen, informal

and Elliott technical

Mitchell, liaison

all of NASA program

Headquarters,

discussed

to broaden

for inter-Center to onboard

exchange

on the Apollo

with particular

reference

Memorandum, Abe Silverstein Liaison Groups," November

to Director, 29, 1960.

Launch

Vehicle

Programs,

"Apollo

Technical

Little Island tions. ignited

]oe

5 with

a Mercury

production in an abort capsule, and

spacecraft simulating rocket tower

was motor

launched severe and tower mated

from launch jettison

Wallops condimotor ballistic

to test the spacecraft At 15.4 seconds prematurely. until
M.

the most remained

after liftoff, Booster, on impact.
Project New

the escape

through

trajectory
James Swenson

destroyed
This

Grimwood, et al.,

Mercury: p.

A Chronology 291.

(NASA

SP-4001,

1963),

p.

117 ;

Ocean,

12

Discoverer and revealed tissues pectedly

XVII that

was launched was recovered by Discoverer dose of radiation
November 14,

into

polar

orbit

from Vandenberg 14. On had had December been been obtained exposed

Air Force from

Base

the payload carried heavy

on November information The XVII.

2, the Air Force human to an unex-

exceedingly

valuable

tissues than

for more
1960; Los

50 hours
Times,

in flight.
3, 1960.

Baltimore

Sun,

Angeles

December

16

STG Groups

formulated were The

a plan to effect

for the proposed systematic and scope liaison

Apollo

Technical areas

Liaison related

Groups. to the

These Apollo

in technical were

project.

objectives

of the plan

as follows: on the Apollo project in specific

• Provide an up-to-date technical areas at the Centers • Give ensure their • Bring a regular

summary

of progress

summary

of Apollo

research

and

study

investigations

to

use in the project Apollo expert contractor consideration activity activities needed to Group in support members problems as they arose for its assignment of Apollo to the technical

° Report

• Point out research to the Centers • Assist panel members in monitoring

contractor

studies

through

participation

of individual

6O

PART

If: DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

• Develop activity • Provide To carry

requirements assessments

for flight of progress Technical studies

tests

resulting

from areas would

research

and

study

1960
November

in the technical Liaison

out these

objectives, Analysis: and

Groups

be formed: mission emergency studies for the navigamission during heating circumprotection suitof

" Trajectory including
maneuvers

related

to the phases

manned of

circumlunar and

atmospheric

nonatmospheric

normal

• Configurations of the aerodynamic manned circumlunar • Guidance tion, and control and • Heating: launch, through conditions; lunar vehicle abort, turbulent and

and Aerodynamics: theoretical and experimental characteristics and performance of vehicles proposed mission studies conductive, for various layers; distribution Materials: including and developments and radiative in the guidance, circumlunar studies heat-transfer investigations configurations concepts payload shapes for proposed distribution,

and Control: areas reentry boundary pressure and related convective,

to all phases

of the manned

configurations; ablation for various

of heat transfer

rates for materials of design

at different

• Structures

studies the

structures

optimum

against radiation and meteoroids, able for circumlunar missions • Instrumentation instruments required communications • Human ments, and and for the

and possible Communications:

and types and

of structures developments and

studies on voice,

mission; on

studies

telemetry,

tracking requirefor and

Factors:

studies

human and and

tolerance effects developments developments

levels,

life-support

the a_essment

of the biological

of radiation of systems in propulsion performance required systems

• Mechanical Systems: studies the manned circumlunar mission • Onboard components Propulsion: to meet studies

required

the abort

and

midcourse

requirements from each

Representatives in a given Group Center STG would be responsible
STG, "Apollo Technical Liaison

would be limited to a single for meeting arrangements
Plan," November 16, 1960

member

An attempt Missile but

was made After

to launch a fourThe
New

Mercury-Redstone liftoff, spacecraft
293-297.

1 (MR-1) MR-1 launched was recovered

from

the Atlantic tower

21

Range.

or five-inch

its escape for reuse.

not the capsule.
Swenson et al., This

undamaged
Ocean, pp.

STG held a meeting at Goddard tract with MIT Instrumentation for' Project studies Trageser which and Apollo. the The proposed

Space Flight Center to discuss a proposed conLaboratory for navigation and guidance support six-month design stage contract but for $100,000 hardware. work reent_" might Milton statement guidance, Ohservafund B.

22

through of the divided

preliminary

not actual

Instrumentation effort into three

Laboratory parts: study 61

presented midcourse

a draft

the

guidance,

a satellite

experiment

feasibility

using the Orbiting

Geophysical

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
November

tory. STG decided that the Instrumentation Laboratory should tailed draft of a work statement to form the basis of a contract. next day, (1) normal grammed procedures. (2) should Chilton emphasized aborted missions, objective that consideration in brief, the of the whole mission Robert The mission flight G. Chilton sequence of STG and Trageser and capability clarified would

submit a more deIn a discussion the points: program for a updated on the pro-

three

current If the crew

philosophy would

was that be provided return. No

an onboard

computer would would

be periodically continue exist

by the crew.

were disabled,

the spacecraft

for a normal

for emergency systems philosophy design for

reentry monitoring design should

include

all the guideline

requirements and,

for insertion

by the crew,

navigation for manned flight. (3) although Chilton design and

The long-term simplicity

of a lunar

landing

be kept in mind

was of great that flight

importance. purpose of the Apollo program was the

Trageser of manned

agreed space

the

development

system man.
Director,

capability,

not simply

circumnaviga-

tion of the moon
Memorandum, Laboratory ber 22 28, to 1960.

with an encapsulated
Chilton Discuss to Associate and Navigation

"Meeting Support

with for

MIT Project

Instrumentation Apollo," Novem-

Guidance

Charles Flight ratory drawn

J. Donlan, Research to participate

Associate

Director

of STG, Flight Liaison

invited Center,

Langley, in accordance

Ames, with

Lewis, the

and plan

Centers,

Marshall 16.

Space

and Jet Propulsion

Labo-

in Technical

Groups

up on November
Donlan Flight Abe Silverstein November to Center,

Letters, Space dum, Groups," 29

Langley, and 29, Jet to Director, 1960.

Ames, Propulsion Launch

Lewis,

and

Flight Programs,

Research November "Apollo 22,

Centers, 1960; Technical

Marshall memoranLiaison

Laboratory, Vehicle

A joint Flight STG Areas A. Faget

briefing Center MSFC

on the Apollo (MSFC), and attended MSFC would were:

and

Saturn

programs Wernher yon

was held of STG Braun and

at Marshall MSFC. that lunar agreed

Space Maxime a joint landing.

by representatives Director

of STG

program orbit,
between of MSFC

be developed MSFC--launch and return

to accomplish vehicle

a manned and landing

of responsibility

on the moon;

STG--lunar
Memorandum, "Meeting Summary 3O

landing,
J. Thomas MSFC Trips

to earth.
Project for December Office, Saturn to Associate C1 R and Director, D Program STG, and Mission

Markley, and STG

Apollo on

by J. T. Markley,"

8, 1960.

Smith

J. DeFrance,

Director

of the Ames Apollo Analysis), Smith (Structures

Research

Center, Liaison Control), A. Syvertson

designated Groups. Glen and They

Ames workwere Stanand (Heat-

ing members ley F. Schmidt Aerodynamics), ing), Charles (Human
I,etter, November

on six of the nine (Trajectory G. Allen A. Hermach

Technical Clarence and and

(Configurations Goodwin Harald

(Guidance

Materials),

S. Smedal

Factors).
DeFrance 30, to STG, 1960. Attn: Mr. C. J. D(mlan, "Apollo Technical Liaison Groups,"

62

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

The

Soviet

Union

launched

its third

spaceship

satellite,

Korabl

Sputnik

IH,

or

1960
December 1

Sputnik carried during

VI. The spacecraft, two dogs in addition reentry, the spacecraft
Post, December

similar to those launched on May 15 and August 19, to other animals, insects, and plants. The next day, disintegrated
2 and 3, 1960;

and burned.
Instruments and Spacecra[t, p. 143.

Washington

Eugene J. Manganiello, Associate Director of the Lewis Research Center, appointed Lewis members to six of the Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. They were Seymour C. Himmel E. (Trajectory Tozier Factors), (Onboard
Manganiello December

Analysis),

Jack and

B. Esgar (Mechanical

(Structures Systems),

and Robert and

Materials), F. Seldon R. Edmund

Robert (Human Jonash
Letter,

(Instrumentation Robert R. Goodman

Communications),

Propulsion).
to STG, AttnCharles J. Donlan, "Apollo Technical Liaison

Groups,"

1, 1960.

A meeting to discuss on the the centered

was held the about scope the

by representatives of the draft that studies system statement

of STG for the

and

the

MIT

Lincoln Lincoln The

Laboratory Laboratory discussion those at analysis 1961,

to be performed Apollo prepared should leading

by the by STG. conduct end

ground

instrumentation work Lincoln

program.

In general, an overall of December

meeting

agreed

Laboratory system,

of the requirements

for the ground

to the formulation

of a general

systems concept. The study with interim results available
Memorandum, rector, December "Meeting 5, Jack with 1960. Cohen, Lincoln

should be completed by the in the middle of 1961.
Operations Laboratory Representative, Personnel Apollo to Discuss

Office, Apollo

to Study

Associate Contract,"

Di-

Milton Project Apollo

B. Trageser of STG Apollo. spacecraft

of MIT the

Instrumentation of a study might navigation what and

Laboratory program contract on be covered

transmitted the guidance

to Charles aspects and of Inon the

J. Donlan

outline

He outlined guidance Laboratory

by a formal discussed 22.
Laboratory,

proposal by STG

strumentation
Letter, ciate

representatives
Director, MIT 2, 1960.

on November
Instrumentation

Trageser, Director

Assistant of STG,

to Donlan,

Asso-

December

The They

Director were V.

of the Donald and Cooney Systems),

Flight

Research to eight

Center,

Paul Apollo Analysis),

F. Bikle, Technical Hubert (Guidance Factors),

nominated Liaison M. Drake and Perry

Flight Groups. (Conand V. Row Control),

Research figurations Thomas

Center

members

of the nine

R. Bellman (Heating), Milton O.

(Trajectory Euclid Kenneth Thompson E. DeMar
J. Donlan,

Aerodynamics),

C. Holleman C. Sanderson (Onboard
"Apollo

(Instrumentation Propulsion).
Liaison Groups,"

Communications), ( Mechanical
Letter, December

(Human

and Norman
Attn: Mr. C.

Bikle

to

STG,

Technical

2, 1960.

Representatives of the nine

of Marshall Apollo Technical

Space

Flight

Center

(MSFC)

were Koelle,

assigned Director,

to eight Future

Liaison

Groups 63

by H. H.

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1960
December

Projects Edward Harvey David

Office, A.

MSFC.

They

were

Rudolph and E.

F. Hoelker Goerner

(Trajectory Werner and

Analysis), K. Dahm and Materials), Heinz Thornton Dual division

L. Linsley Connell

(Configurations (Heating), and

Aerodynamics),

Erich

(Structures (Onboard

M. Hammock and

Alexander and Groups and Herman

A. McCool F. Beduerftig would

Propulsion), Wilbur G. Systems). of the

Kampmeier (Guidance representation of technical

(Instrumentation Control), on two responsibilities
Koelle "Apollo to

Communications), be necessary

(Mechanical because

of the

within
STG,

MSFC.
Attn: Charles J. Donlan, Assistant Director, Project

Memorandum, Mercury,

Technical

Liaison

Groups,"

December

2, 1960.

6-8

The first technical was held at the

review contractor's

of the General Missile reports General and
Missile

Electric Space

Company Vehicle

Apollo

feasibility

study

and

Department. representatives

Company might NASA

representatives review or other
Minutes December

presented provide and

on the study Electric advise
and

.so that

STG

progress, sources,
of

with pertinent ,_s to the course
Space Vehicle

information of the study.
Meeting

from

discuss
Electric

General 6-8, 1960.

Department

No.

l,

Floyd

L. Thompson, to eight Jr.

Director

of the Langley Technical

Research Groups.

Center, They

assigned were

Langley H.

members Michael, dynamics), (Heating), son, Jr.

of the Apollo

Liaison

William and L. E.

(Trajectory John Roger M.

Analysis), Eggleston

Eugene (Guidance

S. Love and and

(Configurations Robert Wilford Adamson

AeroTrimpi Sivert-

Control), Materials), David Propulsion).
to Apollo

A. Anderson and

(Structures

(Instrumentation and Joseph

Communications), Jr. (Onboard

Human

Factors),
Letter, Groups,"

G. Thibodaux,
to STG, "Langley

Thompson December

Appointments

Technical

Liaison

7, 1960.

7-9

The study agreed orbits, initial

Martin

Company officials the

presented

the

first technical Md. areas: At the

review

of its Apollo of STG, emphasis and

feasibility Martin on lunar in the

to STG

in Baltimore, study in several system, and

suggestion more

to reorient putting design man

putting

in the

considering

landing

recovery

of the spacecraft.
of The Martin Company Apollo Technical Review No. I, December 7-9, 1960.

Minutes

Brian nated They rations Lucas Dipprey

O. Sparks, JPL

Deputy

Director

of the Jet Propulsion Apollo

Laboratory Technical Edwin and

(JPL), Liaison

desigGroups.

members

to serve

on six of the nine Jr. (Trajectory D. Acord

were Victor and

C. Clarke,

Analysis), (Guidance and

Pounder Control), and

(ConfiguJohn Duane W. F.

Aerodynamics), William Propulsion
to Charles

James J. Carley ).

(Heating), (Onboard
Sparks

(Structures

Materials),

Letter, 1960.

J. Donlan,

Associate

Director

of Project

Mercury,

December

9,

64

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

Representatives lunar orbit
Langley vous

of the Langley method

Research

Center

briefed landing
through use

members mission.
o Lunar-Orbit

of STG

on the

1960
December

of accomplishing
Center, Manned Center,

the lunar
Lunar-Landing

Research

Rendez-

10

(Langley

Research

1961

), p. 5.

Convair/Astronautics technical tions lar resentatives. concept, investigated.
Minutes 1960. of Meeting

Division of the Apollo by contractor STG suggested

of the General feasibility study and subcontractor

Dynamics technical

Corporation Calif. specialists toward concept

held Brief

its first repbe

14--15

review

in San Diego, was oriented spacecraft

presentathe modushould

were made but

to STG

Convair/Astronautics'

first approach that the integral

of Convair

Astronautics

Technical

Review

No.

1, December

14-15,

Associate briefed related

Administrator by Langley to the national and Ralph rendezvous with

of NASA Research Center space program. W. Stone, orbit

Robert Clinton

C. Seamans, on the E. Brown

Jr., presented

and

his staff method

were as it made of

14

personnel

rendezvous

an analysis

by himself lunar orbit in contrast vehicle John

Jr., describing lunar rendezvous

the general landing. The

operational advantages

concept

for the manned

of this plan launch were

the earth

method, Others

especially the

in reducing rendezvous

requirements, C. Houbolt,

were

illustrated.

discussing

John D. Bird, and Max
History of the Center," Development p. 2. of

C. Kurbjun.
the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Plan at the

Bird, Langley

"Short

Research

The

final launch

in the Pioneer went

lunar

probe and

program exploded

was unsuccessful; at an altitude

the Atlasfeet

15

Able booster off Cape
New

rocket

out of control

of 40,000

Canaveral.
York Times, December 16, 1960.

Mercury-Redstone Missile scheduled slightly Range. shortly higher than
Project

1A The

(unmanned) was Apart all flight

was launched to qualify from the the

successfully spacecraft vehicle

from

the

Atlantic flight being

19

objective

for a primate cutoff velocity

thereafter. normal,
Mercury:

launch

sequences
pp.

were satisfactory.
119-120.

Grimwood,

A Chronology,

The

MIT

Instrumentation of a navigation
Robert Guidance

Laboratory and
G.

submitted system
Associate Apollo,"

a formal

proposal

to NASA

for

22

a study

guidance
to for

for the Apollo
Director, January

spacecraft.
Institute of

Memorandum, Technology

Chilton Study

"Massachusetts 16, 1961.

System

The funded

Grumman lunar

Aircraft

Engineering feasibility
Grumman

Corporation study.
Aircraft

began

work

on

a company-

29

orbit rendezvous
with Saul Ferdman,

Interview N.Y., May

Engineering

Corporation,

Bethpage,

2, 1966.

65

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
January 3

STG, flight Flight

which

was responsible became at NASA
Semiannual

for Project Headquarters.
p. 2.

Mercury

and

other

NASA

manned

space of Space

programs, Programs
NASA

a separate

field element

reporting

to the Director

Filth

Report,

5..-6

During quarters, tations Flight Center), decided should which task sion was

a meeting the subject on earth Center), that proceed could

of the

Space

Exploration lunar (Wernher Savage landing (John

Program yon Braun, of NASA

Council Director

at NASA Following of Marshall

HeadpresenSpace Research

of a manned orbit should that

was discussed. C. Houbolt of these Another an orbital of the manned of the program Chairman, Eldon

orbit rendezvous lunar ascent

rendezvous (Melvyn not follow

of Langley

and direct NASA

Headquarters), specific outcome lunar insofar

the Council approaches, but of the discusprogram program. A as possible. A. M.

any one flexibility. have a part

on a broad stand alone

base to afford NASA as well as being

an agreement was named of the group

should

rendezvous

group

to define were

the elements M. Low,

Members

George

W. Hall,

Mayo, Ernest O. Pearson, Jr., and Oran W. Nicks, all of NASA Maxime A. Faget of STG; and H. H. Koelle of Marshall Space This group
Minutes, History search

Headquarters; Flight Center.

became
Space of the Center,"

known
Exploration

as the Low Committee.
Program of the Council Lunar Meeting, Orbit January 5-6, Plan 1961 at the ; Bird, Langley "Short ReRendezvous

Development p. 2.

Three

of the ).

Apollo

Technical

Liaison

Groups

held

their

first

meetings and

at STG Onboard

(Instrumentation Propulsion The ations, study Group

and

Communications,

Mechanical

Systems,

for Instrumentation on spacecraft study contracts concept was mission Centers. members

and

Communications and requirements. and the proposed instrumentation of studies Reports

discussed Progress MIT were and

a set of working tracking considerApollo required Laboratory by members of the three

guidelines feasibility

instrumentation communication was reviewed discussed.

communications,

and deep-space on a systems

Lincoln tracking given

for the ground

for the Apollo from the NASA

The Group should

recommendations be supplied

were: of the Apollo contrac°

• All Group tors' proposals. • Existing • Jet panel activities. • All Group Laboratory. Members NASA Work

with copies

ground

facilities Laboratory

should (JPL)

be used as much should

as possible. to participate of the in future

Propulsion

be asked with

members Statement.

should

be supplied

copies

STG-Lincoln

of the Group Centers. Some

for Mechanical specific points

Systems of interest

considered

studies were:

being

done

at

in these studies Langley

• Lewis

and Langley

work on reaction Space Flight

controls, Center

research investigations

on auxiliary on me-

power systems, Marshall chanical elements

(MSFC)

66

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

" A call for more

detailed

definitions

of the

environmental

control

system

1961
January

requirements, further investigation of chemical auxiliary power systems, consideration of artificial gravity configuration effects on mechanical systems, and development The and of reliable Group reported materials for use in the space Propulsion Among were: reviewed studies being an STG environment. the three undertaken consideration contractors' work on the Centers fuel abort and

for Onboard studies.

Apollo

feasibility system

by the NASA of midcourse

on at this meeting for a circumlunar

of an all-solid

propulsion

flight,

determination

propulsion system mental evaluation pellants very high (Lewis), mass

requirements based on Saturn trajectories at zero gravity of expulsion bag techniques analysis fraction and experiments methods the design using a contract ( NASA
Groups

(MSFC), experifor cryogenic prorocket and and motors of thrust reliable vector control versatile hydrazine

on solid

propellant

(Langley), of gases propellant (JPL), landings and and

of achieving of a highly hydrogen to examine Headquarters).
on Instrumentation January

by secondary bipropellant or hydrazine for space
Minutes cations,

injection spacecraft derivatives

system

tetroxide hardware

requirements

missions
of

and lunar
of

meetings

Technical and

Liaison Onboard

and

Communi-

Mechanical

Systems,

Propulsion,

6, 1961.

The

Manned

Lunar

Landing

Task

Group

(Low

Committee)

set

up

by

the

Space Exploration Program Council was instructed for the NASA Fiscal Year 1962 budget presentation to be a concise to present rendezvous lunar the statement lunar of NASA's in terms be designed to answering mission to land lunar program direct mission would addition two of both

to prepare a position paper to Congress. The paper was for Fiscal ascent would a manned Year and 1962 and was The capability for manned for not the it for The rendezvous.

program In

to develop such

spacecraft be needed as the reason

in near space, landing. eliminating terms.

regardless one of the mission that

of whether

such a technique approaches, a man the

questions Group

was to estimate though approved, capability

cost of the lunar Although lunar was to be stressed a manned first meeting
"Instructions

and the date of its accomplishment, on the moon goal, of the scientific NASA 9.
January

not in specific

the decision landing

had not been and technical

the development was a prime

though

not the only one.

of the Group
to Manned

was to be held on January
Lunar Landing Task Group,"

6 and

9, 1961.

At the first meeting istrator Abbott the Robert outlined Abe Silverstein, instructions,

of the Manned Jr.,

Lunar Director

Landing of the to the first the

Task Office

Group, of Space Research

Associate Flight Programs total

AdminPrograms Ira H. of NASA man-

C. Seamans, and Director the the purpose Group

of the Office of the Group considered

of Advanced

members. objectives

After

a discussion

of the

program: kind; flight logical steps and

( 1 ) the exploration (2) the development military, these : (1)

of the solar

system

for knowledge to permit

to benefit

of technology commercial In landing 67

exploitation lunar with program planning, return

of space was a three to earth,

for scientific, step were toward projected

and

uses. NASA's lunar on the moon

objectives. a manned

current

program

334-987

0

-

69

-

6

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
January

(2) plish

limited

manned

lunar a great

exploration, increase

and in launch

(3)

a scientific

lunar

base. To accomwould be needed

the first step,

vehicle

capability

beyond that provided by current thrust and a six-million-pound-thrust

funding. A comparison of a three-million-poundNova launch vehicle was made .It was estipayload to escape velocity would be needed

mated that a 60,000- to 80,000-pound for a manned lunar landing mission.
Manned Minutes, Lunar January Exploration 9, 1961. Working

Group

[Manned

Lunar

Landing

Task

Group]

10

Representatives Dynamics consisted specialists

of STG

visited

Convair/Astronautics

Division

of the

General

Corporation to monitor the Apollo feasibility study contract. of several individual informal discussions between the STG on configurations trajectory and aerodynamics, guidance heating, and structures control,

The meeting and Convair and materials, operation

human factors, implementation.
Memorandum,

analysis,

and

William Convair

W.

Petynia, Astronautics

Convair on

Liaison January

Engineer, 10

to

Associate Apollo

Director, Study,"

STG, "Visit to February 3, 1961.

Regarding

10

A conference was held at the Langley Research Center STG and Langley to discuss the feasibility of incorporating phase O'Neal, Center, Stone, showed opposed of from technique.
Memorandum, cussion Orbital with O'Neal, Dr. Houboh, Phase Systems LRC, Integration Concerning Section, the to Manned

between representatives of a lunar orbit rendezvous for STG for the J. Queijo, rendezvous were and Robert Research Ralph W. as which L. Langley

into

the Apollo

program. and

Attending H. Kurt

the meeting Stra.ss, and Manuel the lunar

Owen John Jr. The the

E. Maynard, C. Houbolt, presentation saving

Clinton

E. Brown, centered by

by Houbolt to be gained mode. could

on a performance

analysis

weight

technique

to the direct ascent 20 to 40 percent

According be realized

to the analysis, a saving in weight with the lunar orbit rendezvous

to Associate Possible Lunar Landing,"

Director, January

STG, of a 30,

"DisLunar 1961.

Incorporation

Rendezvous

as a Prelude

11

Three Human After

of the Apollo Factors reviewing

Technical

Liaison

Groups

(Trajectory

Analysis, Center.

Heating,

and

) held their the status

first meetings of the contractors' studies

at the Ames Apollo made model

Research

fea_sibility studies, at NASA of the Van Centers. Allen

the Group An radiation program. studies

on belt

Trajectory requirement which The rently heating ing area could Group

Analysis

discussed

being

urgent

was identified

for a standard

be used in all trajectory on Heating, after

analyses

related of NASA

to the Apollo and contractor

consideration

cur-

in progress,

recommended

experimental importance factors

investigation

of control

surface

and determination by relating The

of the relative "ignorance"

of the unknowns to resulting met heat weight

in the heatpenalties in

estimated next

the spacecraft. sions and

day, three

members for morc 68

of this Group study: radiant

for further inputs

discusand their

two areas

were identified

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

effect on the ablation faces, possibly The being ment, projects. NASA, Group done by wind on Human at NASA

heatshield, tunnel

and methods tests at high Mach considered In particular, Support to be carried

of predicting numbers.

heating

on control

sur-

1961
January

Factors Centers. Life were

contractors' the Group

studies discussed

and

investigations STG 41 docuresearch including which might

the

"Project These DOD,

Apollo projects industry, to Apollo

Programs," Medical

which support

proposed organizations, experience

out by various

and universities. was also reviewed.
of Technical January Liaison 11, 1961.

be applicable
Minutes and on of

meetings Factors,

Groups

on

Trajectory

Analysis,

on

Heating,

Human

J. Thomas
Director the been Vehicle Saturn. plans, results and Saturn formed

Markley of STG

of the Apollo J. Donlan

Spacecraft that on the

Project

Office briefing

reported had The

to Associate been given to had

11

Charles

an informal Apollo

Guidance by Don

Committee R. Ostrander, the

program.

Committee Office

NASA broad

Director and Space

of the control Flight

of Launch for

Programs, The review during

to survey was

guidance Marshall intended prepare including

requirements Center

Committee plans

to review groups who and

guidance an and

of mission system

to use Saturn, a report Robert

recommend

adequate

guidance

for Saturn,

of the evaluation O. Piland, Apollo

January. G. Chilton,

Members presented for Apollo.
to Associate

of STG, summaries

Markley, and

Robert

of the overall

program

guidance

requirements
Markley January

Memorandum, Committee,"

Director,

STG,

"Briefing

for

Saturn

Guidance

11, 1961. 11

President-elect Committee identify prompt man

John on Space

F. Kennedy named

released the

a report U.S.

made and

to him missile

by his Ad programs require whose space

Hoc and the chair-

to review

space

personnel, attention

technical, of the B. Wiesner

or administrative Administration. concluded that agency agency the of MIT,

problems The that

which

would

Kennedy

Committee,

was Jerome

the national Aeronautics the space

program Space that to

required Council there manage

a redefinition should be made be a single

of objectives, an effective responsible of the space emphasis set space
of the

National

and program,

for managing within that

should

the military NASA direction, government

establishment

the military with

part

program,

management and that

should organizaan

be reorganized tional machinery

stronger should cMlian be

on technical within the

up

to administer

industry-government
Report pp. to the New

program.
Ad Hoc Committee on Space, January 11, 1961,

President-Elect York Times,

1, 4-5;

January

12, 1961. 11

John moon.

Blake

of the Air Force to STG maps to the

Aeronautical the of scale

(;hart progress 1:5,000,000

and Information made and by ACIC

Center

(ACIC) the later 144were

described

representatives

in mapping

Lunar

1:10,000,000

requested

and received

by STG.

In addition, 69

the first two sheets of a projected

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
January

sheet

map

coverage

of the

lunar

surface

on a 1:1,000,000

scale

were

forwarded

to STG by the Center.
Letter, Foster, Charles ACIC, J. Donlan to STG, Commander, January 31, ACIC, 1961. January 17, 1961; Lt. Col. Ross J.

to Donlan,

12

Three

of the

Apollo and

Technical

Liason and Center. Materials, considered actMties control reentry

Groups Guidance

(Structures and

and

Materials, held their

Confirst

figurations meetin_ The the

Aerodynamics, Research and

Control)

at the Ames

Group Apollo

on Structures feasibility Among

after

reviewing on

contractors'

progress activities properties investigation

on at of of

studies, these

reports were work

Apollo-related

NASA material low-level landing studies to ensure

Centers. suitable cooling impact (Lewis),

on the radiative (Ames),

for temperature systems of proposed and in the

of spacecraft module shapes

(Langley), (Langley), criteria

experiments meteoroid and safety

on the damage factors

reentry

module

the definition integrity

of suitable

design (STG).

the structural

of the spacecraft

Three

prime

reentry

vehicles

under

consideration in the engineering

during

late

1960

and

early

1961

are shown

sketch.

_k

/.

z

rv,: m

......

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

The Group

on Configurations

and Aerodynamics the effects

recommended of aerodynamic center

: heating on control

1961
January

• Investigations surfaces • Studies control • Tests

to determine

of the roll control of packaging and the

maneuvers deployment effects

with

of gravity and

offset for range parachute static and

of paraglider of jet impingement

multiple upon the

landing systems • Studies to determine dynamic The study being cone, Martin with lifting vehicle (the stability

of the spacecraft. configurations reviewed: (1) under The consideration General by the Apollo Company cone), types. the vehicle the M feasibility effort was elliptical (2) The Mercu_ similar 1-1, a lifting Mercury Dynamics which was shape, the

various

spacecraft were

contractors concentrated half-cone, Company control flap, In

Electric

on the Mark-II, and Bell Aerospace was studying the (Avco Martin the Hydrag addition,

NERV, RVX Corporation M-1 was and M Corporation), proposing

(9 ° blunted Dyna-Soar 2 lifting and a winged to investigate

bodies,

to Dyna-Soar.

body halfway similar to the L-2C).

between the M-1 M 1 1 ; a lenticular (3) Convair/Astronautics

and the M shape; and DMsion

2; a flat-bottomed modified flapped of the General

Langley

Corporation had subcontracted looking into five configurations: M-l, The the flat-face Group

the major effort on reentry to Avco, a Mercury-type capsule, the lenticular

cone, and half-cone. and Control drew up a list of suggestions for research

for Guidance programs:

and development • An "absolute only a Land • The on Surveyor camera

emergency" and a slide rule applications

navigation

system

in which and

the

crew

would

use

possible

of the equipment

test programs

to be used

• The question whether Apollo lunar landing on minimum fuel expenditure--if so, doubts were concept would accomplish this goal radio ranging could • The question whether

trajectories raised that

should be based the current STG the accuracy would

be used to reduce such spacecraft and aboard a composite navigation navigation

requirements for celestial observations and whether fall within the limits set by the Apollo guidelines • The effects of lunar impact drift-error of rotating on the return • Studies components • A study of hardware of the effect

system

equipment systems and

in the guidance machinery the

the spacecraft disk was only

on attipartially

tude alignment and control • Problems of planet illuminated • A study • One analyzed and of the transient

requirements tracking when effects and

planetary updating

of guidance control

by external

information and errors

adequate evaluated

guidance

concept

to be mechanized

71

OOMPL£T[

GONFIGURAT

ION

CONVAIR

MARTIN

6ENERAL

I[LECTRIC

M-1

L-2C

I'T=18,615

N'T=14,577

556 p" --492 _._

L.

E

LINT

ICULAR

1-1

R-3

WT:19,357

1_:14,724

WT:18.543

"

365

R[[NTRY

VEHtCt[$

CONVAIR

MARTIN

fiENERAL

[LECTRI¢

L-2C

WT:5,711 IT:5,604 _ -.4 125

144

_

I13,2

L/D=,52 LID:.75 L/0:.62

W-1

L/g=.7

L/0:4-.4

J

68 L/D:.8

i

L 136 _

-

_42 -

i

Some

of

the

configurations for and

studied NASA lenticular (L-2C) ; and Dyna-Soar arc

by

the

three n on

companies this page. : Martin As

doing

the

feasibility Convair the modisimilar cone

studies emphasized tied, to the

r_n Apollo M-I

shox_

indicated,

configurations and General type the

Company, lifting vehicle

flapped M-l-1 and the

Mercury (W-l) Bell

ttat-1)_)ttome(t the

Electric, (R 3 ).

nine-degree

blunted

(D-2)

72

PART

II"

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

• The • The entire

effects

of artificial

g configurations display including

on observation mission an progress

and guidance. evaluation computer for an and eccen-

1961
January

development abort guidance

of a ground sequence

mission • An abort decision input

pilot tric

display • An earth orbit
Minutes

orbit evaluation to
and

of the position perigee,
Technical and

computer

in a highly

(500of

1000-mile
of Apollo Aerodynamics,

60,000-mile
Liaison Guidance Groups and

apogee).
on Control, Structures January and 12, Materials, 1961. 12--13

meetings

Configurations

Representatives the progress design control, Martin

of STG of the

visited human landing

The Martin study factors, and

Company contract. were propulsion,

in Baltimore, Discussions power held supplies, with

Md.,

to review and of the

Apollo and

feasibility

on preliminary guidance members

of the spacecraft, structures, staff.
John Martin of the B.

recovery

Memorandum, "Visit the to The Monitoring

Lee,

Apollo

Liaison

Engineer, Md., on

to January 6,

Associate 12-13, 1961.

Director, 1961,

STG,

Company, Apollo

Baltimore, Study Contract,"

Regarding

February

16--17

At the second mittee), port were
Minutes Group],

meeting position

of the paper

Manned

Lunar

Landing by George spacecraft, inclusion
[Manned

Task and

Group lunar

(Low Chairman. program

ComA sup-

a draft pre_nted
of

was presented capabilities, for possible
Working

M. Low,

series of reports

on launch and

vehicle considered
Landing

in the position
Lunar Landing

paper.
Task

Manned

Lunar 16 and

Group

January

17, 1961. 19

The

Marshall and

Space Chance expeditions

Flight

Center

awarded

contracts to study

to the the space from

Douglas earth

Aircraft of manned orbits.
and Admin-

Company exploratory
U.S.

Vought into lunar
Committee o[ 1961, 2nd

Corporation

launching

and interplanetary
on of (1962), Science the and

Congress,

House, Events

Astronautics, Aeronautics

Aeronautical and Space

Astronautical istration, 87th

Report Session

National p. 3.

Congress,

19

After

evaluating to build

preliminary seven

design

studies, spacecraft.

NASA This

selected 750-pound,

the

Hughes

Aircraft unteleand

Company

Surveyor

three-legged,

manned spacecraft would carry vision cameras, a drill to sample a seLsmometer.
Fifth NASA

200 pounds of instruments, including zoom the lunar soil, chemical analysis equipment, was scheduled
p. 49; Los An t,,eles

The

first Surveyor
Report,

to be launched
Examiner, January

in 1963.
20, 1961. 24

Semiannual

The

Manned

Lunar to NASA costs and

Landing Associate schedules

Task

Group

(Low

Committee)

submitted

its first

draft report on detailed backup

Administrator Robert still w_s in preparation

C. Seamans, Jr. A section and a detailed itemized

report

was expected
George "A Plan M. for

to be available
Low, Program Lunar

in mid-February.
Chief, Manned Space January Flight, 24, 1961. to Associate

Memorandum, Administrator,

Manned

Landing,"

73

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
January 25

NASA

announced

that

the

Lockheed Flight

Aircraft Center

Corporation to study

had

been

awarded of refueling

a

contract by the Marshall a spacecraft in orbit.
Baltimore Sun, January 26,

Space

the feasibility

1961.

26

Wernher

yon Braun,

Director

of Marshall

Space

Flight

Center,

proposed

that the

Saturn C-1 launch vehicle be changed from a three-stage to a two-stage configuration to meet Apollo program schedules. The planned third stage (S-V) would be dropped.
Saturn 3O Illustrated Chronology, p. 17.

President John as Administrator Hugh February. L.

F. Kennedy announced that he was nominating James E. Webb of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and as Deputy Administrator. in on February
1961 ; Filth NASA

D_,den

Senate 14.
Semiannual

confirmation

followed

on

9 and they were sworn
Post, January 31,

Washington 31

Report,

p.

2.

MeTcury-Redstone 2 was launched with Ham, a chimpanzee, aboard. vehicle, capsule

successfully from the Atlantic Despite the over-acceleration a higher altitude condition. than

Missile Range, of the launch planned, the

which caused the spacecraft to reach was recovered safely with Ham in good
Project Mercury: A Chronology, p

Grimwood,

12 I.

January 31February 1

Members of the progress Apollo of their

of STG General of the heating proposed

met

with

representatives Corporation and study.

of the Avco

Convair/Astronautics Corporation and indicated that aerodynamics

Divisi()n the and

Dynamics Apollo studies The spacecraft status were

to monitor

feasibility

Configurations plans would be made

discussed. configuration

Current

final selection by Avco

by Convair/A_stronautics was described

within a week. specialists.
Memorandum, ST(;, "Visit in,_ Monitoring

of the spacecraft

reentry" studies

William

W.

Petynia,

Convair

Liaison

Engineer,

to Associate 1, 1961,

Director, Regard-

to Avco, Wilmington, Mass., of Ap _11o Study Contract,"

on January February

3 l and February 13, 1961.

During the Month

Marshall

Space

Flight

Center

awarded

contracts

to NAA

and

Ryan

Aeronautical (S-I) of the

Corporation to investigate the feasibility Saturn launch vehicle by using a Rogallo
Saturn Illustrated Chronology, pp. 17-18.

of recovering the first stage wing (paraglider).

February 7

The

Manned

Lunar

Landing

Task

Group

( Low

Committee)

transmitted

its final

report to NASA that the manned

A_ssociate Administrator lunar landing mission

Robert C. Seamans, could be accomplished

Jr. The Group found during the decade,

using either the earth orbit ings of Saturn C-2 launch while the direct ascent

rendezvous or direct ascent technique. Multiple launchvehicles would be necessary." in the earth orbital mode, would require 74 the development of a Nova-class

technique

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRAGT

vehicle.

Information

to be obtained

through

supporting

unmanned

lunar

explora-

1961
,February

tion programs, such as Ranger out the manned lunar mission. just under $7 billion through
M.

and Surveyor, Total funding 1968.
Chief, Prepared February

was felt to be essential in carrying for the program was estimated at

Fiscal Year
Low, of Program Report Group],"

Memorandum, Administrator, [Manned Lunar

George "Transminal Landing

Manned by Manned

Space

Flight,

to

Associate Group

Lunar

Working

Task

7, 1961.

NASA

selected

the Instrumentation

Laboratory

of MIT spacecraft.
Procurement 2, 1967.

for a six-month

study

of

a navigation
Information Manned

and guidance
from Spacecraft the Apollo Center,

system for the Apollo
Procurement Houston, Tex., Branch, October

and

Contracts

Division,

A voice message of the moon. to Goldstone, at Woomera.

was sent from Washington, Deputy which Administrator "bounced" was conducted

D.C., Hugh as part

to Woomera, L. Dryden

Australia, spoke

by way station ceremony

10

NASA Calif.,

by telephone

it to the deep-space

instrumentation

The operation facility.
and Astronautical

of the official opening

of the Australian
Aeronautical

Events

o[ 1961,

p. 6. 10

Rocketdyne engine Force

Division's a thrust

first static of 1.550

test of a prototype million pounds

thrust

chamber

for the

F-1 Air

achieved Base, Calif.

in a few seconds

at Edwards

Rocketdyne

Skywriter,

February

17,

1961;

Washington

Post,

February

11,

1961.

At the first meeting of the House Committee the first session of the 87th Congress, Charles Chief study. the Counsel of the Committee

on Science and Astronautics, during F. Ducander, Executive Director and a number of proposed spacecraft member subjects similar had for to

10

staff, outlined interest

One subject spacecraft

was the Air Force's planned

in a three-man staff

Apollo

by NASA.

A Committee

been

assigned to investigate this duplication of effort. On February the Committee, Air Force Undersecretary Joseph V. Charyk Soar program was a direct approach Air Force interest in an Apollo-type program,
U.S. tee on

22, testifying before stated that the Dyna-

to manned spacecraft

military space applications. The was part of the post-Dyna-Soar

Charyk
Congress, Business, Science and (1961), 87th

said.
House, Committee on Research Science (1961 and and Astronautics, [or Miscellaneous House, 87th De[ense, CommitCommittee Congress, Congress, Astronautics, p. 161. 21 1st Session ), p. 6; U.S. Development Congress,

1st Session

Mercury-Atlas Range conditions.
Grimwood,

2 (unmanned) All test objectives
Project Mercury:

was launched heating were met.
A Chronology,

succe._sfully during

from the Atlantic the worst reentry,

Missile design

in a test of maximum

and its effects

p. 124. 27--28

A NASA

inter-Center

meeting programs

on space

rendezvous and

was held in Washington, the status of current studies

D.C. was

Air Force and NASA

were discussed 75

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
February

presented

by NASA

Centers.

Members

of the Langley method

Research

Center

outlined the lunar

the basic concepts landing mission.
"Apollo Lunar Landing Spacecraft

of the lunar

orbit rendezvous

of accomplishing

Chronology,"

p. 6;

Bird,

"Short Research p. 5.

History

of

the

Development p. 3 ; Manned

of

the

Orbit Rendezvous Plan at the Langley through use o[ Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous,

Center,"

Lunar-

March i

The current

Saturn

launch (eight

vehicle H-1

configurations engines, pounds

were

announced pounds ; and S-V

: of thrust) stage ; S IV LR(two

C--1 : S I stage stage (four LR-119 119 engines, 35,000 (:-2 (four-stage

1.5 million of thrust) (same

engines, 70,000 pounds of thrust) version) (same

: S I stage as second

its first stage

of the

C-1 ) ; S -II as third deter-

(not determined) stage of (1-1)

; S-IV

stage of the C-1

) ; S-V

(same

C 2 (three-stage version) : S-I (same as first stage of C---1 ) ; S I[ (not mined) ; and S-IV (same as third stage of C 1 ).
Senate Staff Repnrt, Manned Space Flight Program, p. 196.

1-,3

The

midterm were

review made

of the Apollo by officials on March and

feasibility 1, The future

studies

was held

at STG. on March the

Oral

status the CenApollo of thr

reports Dynamics General plished,

of Convair/Astronautics Martin plans. Company reports 3. The

Division described

of the General 2, and work accom-

Corporation Electric problems

Company unsolved, meetings, Groups.

on March including Members

Representatives

of all NASA

ters attended the Technical Liaison mid-term review lists of comments
Project Comments 1961 Comments Midterm Apollo, on ; Comments

it majority of the members of the of these Groups formed the nucleus

groups which met on the pre_ntations
A the on Feasibility The Martin Study of

during the three-day period and compiled for later discussions with the contractors.
an Advanced Company Midterm and (Missile Manned Midterm Presentation, Space Vehicle Spacecraft Presentati_m, March Divisi(m) and System, March 2, 1961 ; and COral)any 1,

Convair-Astronautics Company General March Electric 3, 1961.

on the Presentation,

The static

first flight test stand
Saturn lllu_t

model

of the

Saturn checkout
p. 21.

C

1 booster Marshall

(SA

I)

w,_s installed Flight Center.

on

the

for preflight
rated Chronology,

at the

Space

The

Soviet IX,

Union

launched beings.

and recovered The spacecraft

on the same and carried

day Korabl and

Sputnik

VI, or of and

Sputnik cosmic insects.

in a test of spacecraft

construction

systems

the influence pigs, mice,

rays on living

a dog, guinea

New York Spacecra[t, 2O

Time_, March pp. 162 163.

10,

1961

; Bahim,,re

Sun.

March

13,

1961

; Instrunlent_

and

Management requirements
"Apollo

personnel

from

NASA

Headquarters re:tuned

and

STG

met

to plan

general

for a proposal
Spacecraft Chrnnology,"

for advanced
p. 7.

spacecraft

development.

76

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

Representatives changes included for : the

of

Marshall C-1

Space launch

Flight

Center to

recommended NASA

configuration These

1961
March 23

Saturn

vehicles

Headquarters.

• Elimination than

of third-stage

development,

since Centaur

two engines safety

stages

could

put

more thrust

ten tons into earth orbit • Use of six LR-115 (15,000-pound) from 70,000 to 90,000 pounds) • Redesign of the first stage (S-I)

(second-stage for manned

thus increased

to offer more

missions.

Plans were also presented to accelerate the development of the Saturn C-2, and a recommendation was made that a prime contractor be selected to work on the second March stage 31.
Illustrated p. 196. 25 Chronology, pp. 21 22; Senate Staff Report, Manned Space Flight

(S-II)

of the C 2. NASA

Headquarters

approved

the C-2

plans

on

Saturn Program,

In an apparent duplication recovered Korabl Sputnik to 1)e recovered
Baltimore Sun,

of the March VII, or Sputnik

9 launch, the Soviet Union orbited and X. The spacecraft, the third of its kind a dog
Spacecra[t,

safely
March

by the Russians,
26 196l ; Instruments

carried
and

and other
p. 164.

animals.

President for NASA the Saturn Canaveral
Senate

John F. Kennedy submitted which totaled $1,235,300,000. Administration's and development request. and

to Congress an amended budget request This total was $125,670,000 greater than The $11 increase million included for the $56 extension million for of (;ape

28

Eisenhower research

facilities.
Staff Report, Manned Space Flight Program, p. 197.

William

W. Petynia

of STG

visited

the Convair/Astronautics

DMsion

of General A selection by Convair.

,29--30

Dynamics Corporation of the M-1 in preference May

to monitor the Apollo feasibility study contract. to the lenticular configuration had been made Convair
Engineer, 30, 196l,

17 was set as the date for the final
Memorandum, to Convair Study Petynia, Astronautics April Convair on 5, March 1961. Liaison 29

presentation
to Associate Regarding

to NASA.
Director, of ST(}, the "Visit Apollo

Monitoring

Contract,"

The dent moon

Space John and

Science planets

Board should

of the National its recommendation be clearly

Academy that

of Sciences "scientific

sul}mitted exploration

to Presiof the U.S. of the such as space on

31

F. Kennedy

stated

as the ultimate While stressing also emphasized from bold had 7.
Space Program,"

objective

of the

space program scientific goals "the actMty." February
Space

for the foreseeable future." of the program, the Board leadership emergent recommendations 11 and were made
Board, "Man's

the importance other factors imaginative U.S.

sense of national The 10

and

of the Board public
Role in

been

adopted

at a meeting

on August
the National

Science

August

7,

1961.

77

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
April 6

The Marshall was achieved Force Base,

Space Flight Center announced that 1.640 million in a static-firing of the F-1 engine thrust chamber Calif.
Sun,

pounds of thrust at Edwards Air

This
April

was a record
12, 1961;

thrust

for a single
Skywriter, April

chamber.
14, 1961.

Baltimore 10

Rocketdyne

A joint

meeting

of the Apollo and STG program. guidelines year

Technical

Liaison briefed

Groups members

was held at STG. of the Groups

NASA on the

Headquarters

representatives

status of the Apollo examine the Apollo ducted during use as background
Minutes dynamics, 10-12 of

The individual Liaison Groups were in the light of NASA and contractor and to help gather detailed technical spacecraft of the Apollo
Group,

asked to restudies confor specification.
and Aero-

the past

information

material

in the preparation
Apollo 1961. Technical

meeting of April 10-12,

Liaison

Configurations

At the second and at the lenticular dynamic tumbling Laboratory); steerable began NASA

meeting Centers: (Marshall

of the Apollo heatshield Space and and Flight spherically heat

Technical were (Ames blunted, tests

Liaison made reentry tests (Mars Research

Group

for Configurations activities reentry" conespecially system, Center); Propulsion and Work

Aerodynamics

at STG,

presentations

on Apollo-related Center); configurations, soft-landing Research (Jet Research

figurations

Center); transfer

(modified) stability entries parachute tests,

paraglider (Langley and (Flight spacecraft
Group,

in planetary system and

atmospheres reentry

Venus)

air launch

technique material

for Dyna-Soar spacecraft for the Apollo
Liaison

Center); (STG).

configuration

on the background

specification.
and Aero-

Minutes dynamics, 10-12

of meeting of Apollo April 10-12, 1961.

Technical

Configurations

The Apollo

Technical

Liaison

Group

for Heating Centers.

heard

reports

at STG

by Group concerning

members on current studies at the NASA the spacecraft specification included : • The contractor should present system the and

Recommendations

design discuss

philosophy the interplay

and of

criteria thermal

to be and

used for the heat protection structural design criteria. • The used material details of the the and

analysis various ablation

should modes

be presented: of the heating weight,

for example, load; of the the and safety

the methods listing the factors of the in that listing,

in calculating properties

effectiveness heat protection

of heatshields;

terms of temperature had been used.
Minutes 10-12 of meeting

or extra

of

Apollo

Technical

Liaison

Group,

Heating,

April

10-12,

1961.

At STG proposed

the Apollo Technical Liaison Group outline for the spacecraft specification. Headquarters of the Offices scientific should

for Human Factors Its recommendations appropriate to elicit

discussed the included: and for

• NASA other

contact laboratory

committees

representatives

community

recommendations

scientific experiments aboard the orbiting module for use with the Apollo spacecraft. 78

to be designed

as a mission

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

• NASA realistic radiation

should

sponsor design
Apollo

a conference limit for Apollo
Technical Liaison

of recognized crews.
Group, Human

scientists

to suggest

a

1961
April

dosage
of

Minutes and

of meeting

Factors,

April

10,

11,

12, 1961. 10--12

The Apollo Technical Liaison Group for Instrumentation and Communications met at STG and drafted an informal set of guidelines and sent them to the other Technical Liaison Groups : requirements: on the Apollo all Groups missions, should submit their requests circumlunar, missions add power would and restate might cost were be and not plan for

• Instrumentation measurements and lunar landing • Television: add

to be made

including television all others other pumped without

orbital, for the and Groups

operations. since full-rate, load not that

high-quality could swamp needed,

a communications requirements

bandwidth their made

otherwise

should

justification for television requirements. • Temperature environment: heat available • Reentry for temperature control

normally systems

overboard excessive

complexity. communications: could as though no continuous communications feet. reentry would communications that at exist altitudes yet feasible their about systems 250,000 and not be guaranteed. It was suggested all Groups

between

feet and 90,000

• Vehicle reentry and recovery: if tracking during reentry were desired, it would be far more economical to use a water landing site along the Atlantic Missile Range or another East Coast site. * Digital computer: the onboard the examination digital computer, data if it were flexible reduction enough, before

would permit transmission.

of telemetry

for bandwidth

• Antenna-pointing relative to its orientation tioned The toward Group the desired then discussed

information: the spacecraft should have information so that any high-gain directive antenna could be posilocation on earth. of material for the Apollo spacecraft

the preparation

specification.
Minutes munications, of meeting April of Apollo Technical 12, 1961. 10-12 Liaison Group, Instrumentation and Com10, 11, and

The tion. lems,

Apollo

Technical preparation that

Liaison there were

Group several and

for Onboard material problem assessment control, and
Group,

Propulsion areas thereof, for study

met

at STG

and

considered propulsion modes, confined engine

of background could temperature pump

for the Apollo : cryogenic propellant measurement
Onboard

spacecraft before

specificaonboard probabort in a main

It agreed booster space, systems,

final specifications explosion propulsion and system

be drafted

propellant spacecraft leakage, liquid system.
Propulsion,

storage system ignition

hazards

zero suction

proposals utilization

for c_*ogenic

bipropellant

propellant
of Apollo

Minutes 12, 1961.

of meeting

Technical

Liaison

April

10-

79

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
April 10-12

The STG that

Apollo

Technical

Liaison of material

Group

for Structures

and

Materials specification.

discussed It decided

at

the preparation many

for the Apollo for its study

spacecraft

most of the items proposed of the items areas

could

not be specified the structures to the work vibration
Group,

at that

time and area. protec-

also that A number tion,

did not fall within of concern radiation were effects,

and plan:

materials heat

of general

added and

meteoroid
Minutes of April 10-12,

protection,
meeting 1961. of

and

acoustics.
and Materials,

Apollo

Technical

Liaison

Structures

10--12

The began

Apollo

Technical material

Liaison

Group

for Trajectory spacecraft with

Analysis

met

at

STG

and :

preparing • STG

for the Apollo the up initiative and

specification. Headquarters model

It recommended in delegating of astronomical

should for

take setting

NASA

responsibility constants. • The clarify

updating

a uniform

name

of the

Group

should

be changed

to Mission

Analysis

to help

its purpose. • A panel should on board, be set up to determine with the scientific etc.,
Trajectory

experiments laboratorsT might

which , so that

could

be done

or in conjunction laboratory
Technical

the orbiting

equipment,
Minutes 10-12, 10-.-13

weight,
of 1961. meeting

volumes,
of Apollo

characteristics,
Liaison Group,

be specified.
April

Analysis,

In preparing the Apollo mental and recovery
Minutes 10-13,

background Technical systems, systems,

material Group

for the Apollo for Mechanical systems, sealing.
Liaison

spacecraft Systems

specification worked

at STG, on environlandin_

Liaison reaction and space
of Apollo

control

control cabin
Technical

auxiliary

power

supplies,

of meeting 1961.

Group,

Trajectory

Analysis,

April

10-.14

Meeting Technical were tion

at STG, Liaison

the Guidance Group for

and Control

Group

changed and

its name Control."

to the "Apollo Definitions and velocity), orientaon the

for Navigation, (the and

Guidance, determination "control"

established about

"navigation" vector control), of gravity--i.e.,

of position (control Work

':guidance"

(velocity the center

of rotational was started

attitude and

control). control

preparation spacecraft.
Minutes Control,

of the navigation,

guidance,

specifications

for the Apollo

of April

meeting 10-14,

of

Apollo

Technical

Liaison

Group,

Navigation,

Guidance,

and

1961.

12

NASA Saturn

Associate Program John Eldon

Administrator Requirements L. Sloop,

Robert

C. Seamans, Members

Jr., established were William

the permanent A. Fleming, John H.

Committee. Deputy

Chairman; Disher;

Chairman; and review 8O

Richard

B. Canright;

W. Hall; The

A. M. Mayo; would

Addison

M. Rothrock, basis

all of NASA the mission

Headquarters.

Committee

on a continuing

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

1961 planning Saturn for the utilization development of the Saturn plans.
Directors, "Establishment of Saturn Program Re-

and

correlate

such planning

with

the
April

and procurement
Seamans to Program

Memorandum, quirements

Committee,"

April

12, 1961. 12

The

Soviet

Union

launched to make

into orbit

the five-ton orbital

Vostok space

I, with Yuri

A. Gagarin included

as pilot, the first man

a successful

flight. The payload

life-support equipment and radio dition of the pilot. The spacecraft miles, Union.
New York Times, April 13, 1961

and television to relay information on the conapogee was 187.8 miles, the perigee was 109.5 period reentered 89.1 and minutes. landed After safely a 108-minute, in the Soviet pilot

inclination flight,

65.07 °, and the orbital the capsule and

one-orbit

; Instruments

and

Spacecra[t,

p. 170.

President John F. Kennedy, in his regular press conference, stated that "no one is more tired than I am" of seeing the United States second to Russia in space. "They secured large boosters which have led to their being first in Sputnik, and led to their first putting their man in space. We are, I hope, going to be able to carry, out our efforts, with due regard to the problem of the life of the men involved, this year. But we are behind.., the news will be worse before it is better, and it will be some time before
Washington

12

we catch
Post,

up ....
April

"

13, 1961.

Under questioning by the House Committee Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, in 1967 billion might a year be possible instead
Post,

on Science and Astronautics, NASA Jr., stated that a landing on the moon crash program billion. at a cost of $4 to $5

14

through

an all-out budget

of the current
April 15, 1961.

of $1.236

Washington

A circular, Houbolt

"Manned from material

Lunar

Landing

via Rendezvous," John

was prepared Max

by John

C. and

19

supplied

by himself,

D. Bird,

C. Kurbjun,

Arthur W. Vogeley, who were members of the Langley Research Center tion subcommittee on rendezvous. Other members of the subcommittee times William
Bird,

space staat various and

included D. Mace.
"Short

W.

Hewitt

Phillips,

John

M. Eggleston,

John

A.

Dodgen,

History Center,"

of the p. 3.

Development

of the

Lunar

Orbit

Rendezvous

Plan

at Lang-

ley Research

John C. Houbolt and members of the Langley Research Center rendezvous outlined the objectives of a rendezvous program ultimately orbital through would the to a manned operations, orbital accomplish (2) these lunar establish objectives. which landing: of units. would (1) Three The first require 81 establish for was manned were techniques accomplishing MORAD

subcommittee that would and space described (Manned

on lead

19

unmanned missions which Orbital and

assembly

key projects

Rendezvous

and Docking),

the use of the Mercury-Atlas

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
April

Scout craft

in the 1961-1963 period. Rendezvous and Scout payload would establish

in space between the Mercury spaceconfidence in manned rendezvous and increased reliability. The Phases), in which the Atlas, period. transfer, This program resupply of lunar moon Infor personnel

techniques and lead to simplification of equipment second key project was ARP (Apollo Rendezvous Agena, would and Saturn accomplish boosters rendezvous would with space stations,

be used in the 1962-1965 after coupling for subsequent (Manned of the Apollo landing
via

space laboratory, execution landing), and development missions. volving during the The third project Rendezvous), 1961-1967 operations,
Research

of space maneuvers of specifications was called Saturn After and lunar
Landing

(steps toward orbital and Lunar Landing would

MALLIR qualification

in which period.

components Saturn would
Rendezvous,"

be used

components

rendezvous
Langley 19

an early manned
Center, "Manned Lunar

take place.
April 19, 1961.

The booster requirements for Project MALLIR (Manned Lunar volving Rendezvous) would be satisfied by use of the Saturn C-2 launch vehicle. be substantially rendezvous. In The number of boosters needed reduced by using a combination a Project MALLIR to achieve of earth two

Landing Inas the basic

a lunar landing would orbit and lunar orbit Saturn C-2's would be

configuration,

required. The first would launch the command module, lunar lander, and propulsion unit for lunar braking. The second would launch a booster which would rendezvous in earth orbit with the spacecraft. This booster would be jettisoned after launching the configuration into a lunar trajectory. After reaching lunar orbit, the lunar lander would separate from the command module and descend to the lunar surface. One man would remain behind in the command module orbiting the moon. After a brief lunar stay, the two men would ascend in the lunar lander and rendezvous with the command trajectory,, leaving behind module. The command lander, module would then boost to return

the lunar

and reenter

after jettisoning 11,000

the propuland the

sion unit. The command module lunar lander 11,000 pounds.
"Manned Lunar Landing

was estimated

to weigh

pounds,

via Rendezvous."

19

Recommendations MORAD (Manned

on immediate Orbital

steps to be taken and Lunar

so that

the three ARP

key projects-RendezRendezvous)-

Rendezvous (Manned

Docking), Landing

(Apollo

vous Phases), and MALLIR could get under way were : " Approve aspects tie down cost the MORAD estimates of Apollo, more

Involving

project vehicle exactly. to STG

and let a study design, definite

contract planning

to consider

general and

of the Scout rendezvous responsibility

and schedules,

° Delegate vous aspects project.

to give accelerated

consideration into the

to rendezMALLIR and cost

tailoring

developments

to fit directly design,

• Let a study figures for the three
"Manned Lunar

contract projects.
Landing

to establish

preliminary

scheduling,

via Rendezvous."

82

An

early

lunar Center

excursion as the

model lunar

was

proposed for the

by

personnel Project

of

Langley MALLIR.

Research

lan(ler

suggested

334-987

0

-

69

-

7

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
April 20

A conference Prospector (JPL) more directly to soft-land kilometer tor wide was pounds program essential be a much transport manned several Fiscal the which area.

was held and Apollo discussed 2500

at NASA programs. space pounds of an

Headquarters Representatives redirection The lunar program. on the automatic

on the

relationship planning an

between Laboratory

the

of the Jet Propulsion of Prospector Prospector surface with spacecraft feature lunar

and STG about

the possible

to support of ±1 1500 over a

the manned

was intended of Prospecabout surface

accuracy

anywhere would

on the visible side of the moon. roving the most cargo such hmar piece permit detailed reconnaissance

An e_sential vehicle of the useful

development STG

weighing of the

representatives ability could

felt that be foreseen, of a manned However, and STG heavier

feature

Prospector to a desired aids seemed planning with within design Prospector JPL in and to support lunar

lay in its planned material lunar more in support

to soft-land

in close proximity of landing vehicle

site. Mall,," applications for a manned

as the deposit landing of hardware concerning decisions Year 1962, roving

or in continuing than closer on date. the a manned The program Future integration

expedition. reason, JPL

the Prospector

complicated involved flight and

and, for that space months,

did not support studies definitive in Fiscal contract

its development.

for Prospector

in-house study

requirements, a hardware

a contractor's

engineering

Year

1963,

at a future ability

planning would emphasize representatives stated.
Memorandum, "Conference and Apollo 25 H. Kurt

its cargo-carrying

as a prime

requirement,

Strass,

Apollo

Project

Office,

to

Associate Between

Director, the

STO,

at NASA Headquarters Programs, April 20, 1961

Concerning Relationship ," May 1, 1961

Prospector

Mercury-Atla.s

3 (MA-3)

was launched

from

the Atlantic orbital officer

Missile

Range,

carry-

ing a "mechanical astronaut" in an intended unmanned after liftoff, MA-3 was destroyed by the range safety guidance spacecraft
Swenson 25

flight. Forty seconds because the inertial the horizon. off shore. The

system

had

failed aborted
New

to pitch and
pp.

the

vehicle

over a short

toward distance

successfully
et al., This

was recovered
335-337.

Ocean,

A conference representatives source. United craft. should Lewis Aircraft STG and

was

held

at the

Lewis research cell

Research and as funds with agreed the

Center development primary Pratt that

between contract spacecraft

STG

and

Lewis liquidpower NASA of spaceGuide-

to discuss had been

for the electrical by

hydrogen--liquid-oxygen Headquarters to negotiate Corporation Lewis toward

fuel

provided a contract

(approximately & Whitney

$300,000) Aircraft and fuel

Division development cell.

for the development the liquid-hydrogen

of a fuel cell for the Apollo the research liquid-oxygen

representatives

be directed

lines were provided • Power output to three kilowatts. • Nominal • Regulation

by STG : requirement for the Apollo spacecraft was estimated at two

output

voltage

should

be about

27.5 volts. of nominal output voltage.

should

be within

+ 10 percent 84

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

• The

fuel cell should

be capable

of sustained should

operation

at reduced

output

1961
April

( 10 percent of rated capacity, if po sible). • The fuel cell and associated system environment. Lewis capable completed award. planned of to request unattended by May 2 and a pilot model operation. the model

be capable

of operation

in a space

of the fuel cell of about negotiations within delivered

250 watts expected of the

capacity, to contract be

Contract

were

12 months

Memorandum, Director Personnel (Research

Preston and to Discuss

T. R and

Maxwell, D Contract

Aeronautical STG, for H:_O=

Research with Cell," Fuel

Engineer, Lewis April 27,

to Research 1961.

Associate Center

Development),

"Conference

Little greater formed

]oe 5B was launched dynamic successfully.
e/' al., This New

from than

Wallops trajectory planned,

Island, which the

carrying subjected

a production the capsule escape and

Mercury to much persystem

28

spacecraft.

In spite of an erroneous pressures

spacecraft

Swenson

Ocean,

pp.

337-338.

The

first successful

flight

qualification 30 seconds.
p. 24.

test of the Saturn

SA-1

booster

took place

29

in an eight-engine
Saturn Illustrated

test lasting
Chronology,

The second

Douglas stage

Aircraft (S-IV)

Company was feasible.

reported

that

air transport

of the

Saturn

C

1

During the Month

Saturn

Illustrated

Chronology,

p. 22. May 1

Anticipating a manned which would and

the expanded spacecraft the controls.
"Manned

scope of manned center. project. The Mercury

space

flight

programs,

STG existed

proposed in STG, magnitude

development

nucleus and

for a center of much facilities and

was handling require management

A program

greater

a substantial

expansion

of staff

of organization

STG Staffing

Study,

Spacecraft May

Development

Center,

Organizational

Concepts

and

Requirements,"

I, 1961.

NASA Task

A._sociate Group

Administrator Headquarters.

Robert Lunar

C. Seamans, Study,

Jr.,

established to produce

the

Ad Hoc A.

for a Manned

Landing The study

to be chaired

by William

Fleming of NASA information :

was expected

the following

• All tasks _sociated • Interdependent rent • Areas requiring state of the art • Tasks for which action estimate

with the mission of the tasks technological solutions advancements were advisable plan resources required from the cur-

time-phasing considerable multiple

approach points

• hnportant for • A refined the mission

and decision

in the minion

by task and by tiscal year of the dollar

85

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
May

• Refined fiscal dollar The year • Tentative and study

estimates in-house

of in-house and

manpower task

requirements, assignments

by

task

and

by the

contractor requirements. the point final

accompanying

manpower began served

resource 8 and

on May

report

was submitted

on June

16.

Guidelines

as a starting

for the

study:

• The manned • Intermediate lunar by the the was missions • Man's tasks

lunar landing target date was 1967. missions of multiman orbital satellites at the earliest possible time. the study

and

manned

circum-

were desirable mission Task

on the moon Group--i.e., while the mission as compared and C-2 plan

as it affected the time there. plan, with

was to be determined surface and

Ad Hoc

to be spent

on the lunar C

to be performed

• In establishing to be evaluated thrust • The propulsion indicate mission leading when higher first stage

the use of the Saturn an alternative components. development pounds on the in earth Nova final launch

2 launch vehicle

vehicle having and a

upper-stage [400,000

was to include vehicle should

parallel

of liquid orbit]

solid

to a Nova

and should

the decision

be made

configuration.

The engineering sketch drawn by John D. Bird of Langley Research Center on May 3, 1961, indicated the thinking of that period: by launching two Saturn C-2's, the hmar landing mission could be accomplished by using both earth rendezvous and lunar rendezvous at various stages of the mission.

41,_o t_ _, "

0_ J/-

47_ >

_

C-_--1

/.
.dr

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

• Nuclear-powered first manned • The meet stages the and lunar flight needs landing

launch mission.

vehicles should should

should be laid

not be considered out with enough

for use in the launchings to upper

1961
May

test program program approaches modes.
Seamans Programs, Programs, May 2, 1961. to

of the

considering

the reliability'

requirements. areas--e.g.,

• Alternative mission

be provided

in critical

Memorandum, Launch Life Landing Vehicle Sciences Study,"

Directors, Office of

Office Advanced of Ad

of Hoc

Space Research Task

Flight Group

Programs, and Manned for

Office Office Lunar

of of

Programs,

"Establishment

STG

completed step

the first draft for a Manned toward

of "Project Space

Apollo, and

Phase

A, General

Requirements of Work], was the mission

for a Proposal an early b_sis for
"Apollo

Vehicle

System"

[Statement

the spacecraft

specification.

A circumlunar

planning.
Spacecraft Chronology," p. 8.

In the first American Shepard, Redstone speed landing Jr., was miles made

manned launched

space

flight, Freedom from capsule a flight from the to the

7, piloted Atlantic 116.5 launch

by Astronaut Missile

Alan

B.

successfully the Mercury After downrange

Range.

The the

rocket was

boosted 302

miles and

and

a maximum operaShepard

of 5180

per hour. miles

of 15 minutes

22 seconds,

site. Recovery

tions were perfect was in excellent
Grimwood,

; there was no damage condition.
Mercury: A Chronology,

to the spacecraft

; and Astronaut

Project

p.

137.

Albert NASA's vehicle a more Space ruth

C.

Hall

of The

Martin

Company that the

proposed Titan II

to Robert

C. Seamans, arranged Director Robert shortly

Jr., for of

Associate in the lunar formal Flight STG of the

Administrator, landing

be considered Seamans NASA's

as a launch

program. the next

Although day. Abe impressed

skeptical, Silverstein,

presentation Programs, to study possibility

was sufficiently, the possible of using

to ask Director II. Silverstein

R. Gilinformed Mercury

and

uses of Titan the Titan

Seamans spacecraft.
Interview

II to launch

a scaled-up

with

Seamans,

Washington,

D.C.,

May

26, 1966.

After STG adapter

study

and

discussion that Apollo

by STG

and would

Marshall diameter

Space

Flight for the

Center stage Apollo

officials, (S-IV) missions

concluded for the

the current spacecraft SA-8, SA

154-inch

of the second

be satisfactory

on Saturn
Letter, yon

flights SA-7,
Robert Braun, R. Gilruth, Director,

9, and SA-10.
STG, and to Marshall C-I Space Flight Report," Center, May Attn 8, : W. M. 196t.

Director, Adapter

"S-IV

Two-Stage

The craft

final reports were

on the feasibility to STG at

study

contracts Field,

for the advanced Va., by the

manned General

spaceElectric

15--17

submitted

Langley 87

Models of two spacecraft concepts for Apollo. The designs, a semiballistic vehicle and a winged glide-type spacecraft, resulted from the Project G.E. feasibility study in late 1960 and early 1961. (G.E. photo)

reentry Apollo

1961
May

Company, The Martin

Convair/Astronautics Company.
and p. 9.

Division studies
Euents

of General begun
o[ 196l,

Dynamics

Corporation, 1960.

and

These
Astronautical

had

in November
pp. 20, 23;

Aeronautical Chronology,"

"Apollo

Spacecraft

22

The

second

draft

of a Statement

of Work

for the

development results from

of an advanced NASA in-house

manned spacecraft was completed, and contractor feasibility studies.
"Apollo Spacecraft Chronology," p. 9.

incorporating

25

In

a special longer

message

to Congress

on

urgent new

national American

needs, program

President : "Now

John

F.

Kennedy to take

called

for new, long-range strides--time

goals for the space

it is time for this

for a great

enterprise--time

nation to take a clearly leading may hold the key to our future commit the period itself and to achieving returning moon him

role in space on earth .... before to the

achievement, I believe

which in many ways that this nation should a man on space project in this . . .

the goal, safely

this decade earth. or more

is out, of landing important

No single or expensive

will be more of space;

impressive and none

to mankind,

for the long-range to accomplish

exploration

will be so difficult 88

An

artist's design ducted

concepts was the

of

a spacecraft of G.E.'s for

on

a Project and

Apollo Space late

lunar Vehicle

mission. Department, early 1961.

The

spacecraft which con-

concept study

Missile

a feasibility

NASA

during

1960

and

(G.E.

photo)

89

D-2 CONFIGURATION
RE-ENTRY VEHICLE MISSION MODULE PROPULSION \ SOLAR COLL

A cross-section Missile t\pollo and

drawing Space

of

the

vehicle

(D

2)

recommended for the 1961. Apollo (G.E.

by

General

Electric's during the

Vehicle study,

Department in May

program illustration)

feasibility

completed

MISSION SEQUENCE TO EARTH

RE-ENTRY LANDING \

A mission

sequence study, reentry,

to

earth including and

landing, the

developed planned (G.E.

hy

G.E.

during through

its

Project the

Apollo

feasibility trajectol),,

configuration illustration )

lunar-earth

landing.

9O

___1

_-I_

I C-t

..._

7

\

.

/

J

/o __/ ] ,'_)l,d ,,, 0,h,¢-_,44. ¢,.,,,,_,/0._,t,
tl Modol_J t'o,,,,,c.4,,,.r

x" I

e i

.g" e-i g,O Iodr

""ro THE MOON WITH C-l's OR BUST" was the theme of the day at Langley Research Center May 22, 1961. The sketch by John D. Bird on that day portrays the means of completing the lunar mission by launching ten C-l's.

in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there." The President also called for the early development of the Rover nuclear rocket, the acceleration of the use of space satellites for worldwide communications, and the development projects totaling
U.S. on Report,

1961
May

of a weather satellite system. For these and associated

in space technolo_,, the President requested additional appropriations $611 million for NASA and DOD for Fiscal Year 1962.
Congress, International 88th Senate, Aspects Congress, Committee o] the 1st Session on Exploration (1963), pp. Aeronautical and Use 202,203. and Space Sciences, Documents Staff o[ Outer Space, 1954-1962,

Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA's Associate Administrator, requested the Directors of the Office of Launch Vehicle Programs and the Office of Advanced Research Programs to bring together members of their staffs with other persons from NASA Headquarters to assess a wide variety of possible ways of accomplishing the lunar landing mission. This study was to supplement the one being done by the Ad Hoc Task Group for Manned Lunar Landing Study (Fleming Committee) but was to

25

91

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
May

be separate (Lundin

from it. Bruce Committee).

T. Lundin

was appointed guidelines

Chairman

of the study

group

The following approaches period should type, launch landing and, disadvantages, based

were suggested: the manned launch etc. for use in the each technique methods lunar landing portion misof the

• All possible sion in the 1967-1970 • Primary system: vehicle

for accomplishing should be considered. on the be placed vehicles and on these,

emphasis size and lunar

vehicle

the use of rendezvous, should problems a relative

• Nuclear-powered early manned should should • Advantages, be indicated be established.

not be considered associated rating with

missions. of the various

° The time phasing and for each method considered. • The study should by the Ad Hoc Task

a rough

order

of magnitude

cost should

be indicated way

be completed on Manned

at about Lunar

the same time as the one under Landing Study.

Group

Lunar

lander

sizes under study in May 1962 as various groups were making tions on the best way to achieve the lunar landing goal.

determina-

COMPARISON
DIRECT LANDING

OF

LANDER

SIZES

LUNAR EXCURSION VEHICLE

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

The

Lundin
Memorandum, Advanced Manned o[ NASA,

Committee
Associate Research Lunar Landing

report

was submitted
to May 25,

June

10.
Launch Vehicle Ways An for Programs Accomplishing History and

1961
May

Administrator "Broad Mission,"

Directors, of 1961;

Programs,

Study

Feasible Rosholt,

Administrative

1958-1963,

p. 213.

STG and

submitted training: • There

to

NASA

Headquarters

recommendations

on

crew

selection

31

would

be no need from

to select

crews

within group,

the

next

12 months.

Pilots

could

be chosen ° Based on

as required extrapolations

the astronaut assigned from the

permitting STG

the prospective expected the that re-

crewmen

to be active

in test flying until

to Apollo program,

missions.

Mercury

12 months would be ample time for specialized • A maximum of 18 astronauts in 1965 quirements • All neering
Letter, stein,

training before a flight. would be needed to fulfill

of the flight schedule. crew members would capabilities
Gilruth, Selection Director, and

be experienced would
STG, Training,"

flight

personnel; crew
Attn:

special

engi-

or scientific
Robert "Apollo R. Crew

be provided
to NASA May

through
Headquarters,

indoctrination.
Abe Silver-

31, 1961.

The Saturn

Marshall vehicle

Space of even

Flight to

Center

began circumlunar

reevaluation missions. would

of the Results

Saturn showed

C-2

conthat a

figuration

capability

support greater

During the Month

performance
p. 26.

be desirable.

Saturn

Illustrated

Chronology,

Basic

concepts

of the

lunar

orbit

rendezvous of Langley
of the

plan

were

presented

to the

Lundin

Committee
Bird, Langley

by John
"Short History

C. Houbolt
of the

Research
Lunar

Center.
Orbit Rendezvous Plan at the

During the Month

Development p. 3.

Research

Center,"

NASA research increased

announced and

a change second stage

in the Saturn flights would (S-IV) and,

C-1

vehicle

configuration. instead

The flight

first ten because vehicle,

June 1

development capacity
Manned

have two stages, starting (S-I)
p. 199.

of three,

of the changed

with the seventh booster.

propellant
Staff Report,

in the first stage
Space Flight Program,

Senate

A meeting quarters. of NASA Faget, onboard prime design, onboard equipment. discussions.

to discuss Headquarters Six prime propulsion,

Project and contract lunar

Apollo Robert and areas landing

plans J. North, Robert

and programs John O. Walter Piland launch network,

was held at NASA and George participated (command (probably launch C. Williams, of STG vehicle and for the

HeadM. Low A. in the center), several and of the for the

Abe Silverstein, James

Warren

H. Disher,

R. Gilruth, were defined: propulsion,

Maxime

A. Chamberlin,

spacecraft

contracts), The engineering, and lunar

tracking prime and landing

and communications fabrication propulsion

facilities

contractor

for the spacecraft of the spacecraft; systems; 93

would

be responsible integration

and for the integration

of the entire

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
June

spacecraft system STG would : • Define • Prepare • Prepare agement, design,

with

the launch

vehicle.

In connection

with the prime

contract,

details

for specifications of work" evaluation and specifications

and justify for release qualified

choices to industry 1 the technical, manof the bidders. program, STG by July 1 by August to evaluate

a "scope spacecraft

statement team,

for release

• Set up a contract

engineering, with other

fabrication directly

capabilities relating

In connection was to: • Forward Programs, Saturn the

projects

to the Apollo

to Marshall spacecraft

Space systems

Flight part

Center,

via the

Office

of Space

Flight for

of a preliminary version Sciences

development of the Mercury

plan

reentry tests • Make recommendations • Designate a liaison Steering Sciences Committee.

on an advanced member for the Lunar

capsule of the

Subcommittee

Space The

Office

of Space Research

Flight

Programs STG, and

would

arrange

a meeting Research Center Research

with Center

the Office

of

Advanced Agena of Life flight

Programs, with

and Langley of Advanced Ames

on the AtlasOffice biomedical

reentry Sciences program.

tests and Programs,

the Office

Programs, on the

STG,

Research

Memorandum, of Space June 6, Flight 1961.

Low,

Assistant

Director

for

Manned with

Space Space

Flight Task

Programs, on June

to Director 2, 1961,"

Programs,

"Report

of Meeting

Group

The Flight Vehicles Integration included H. Kurt Strass, Robert Faget, The ments Chief, Branch Flight Systems and was to provide

Branch was organized L. O'Neal, and Charles Division, also served aid to STG in solving

within STG. Members H. Wilson. Maxime A. Branch Chief. requirecompatibility missions.
Flight Systems Divi-

as temporary flight
of

technical launch
STG,

for spacecraft
Faget 5, 1961.

vehicles
"Change

for manned
in Organization

Memorandum, sion," June

to Staff,

Saturn ceremony

Launch

Complex The movable
and

34 at Cape giant gantry, land structure
Events

Canaveral, 310 in North feet

Fla., high America.

was dedicated and weighing

in a brief 2800 tons,

by NASA.

was the largest
Aeronautical

Astronautical

o[ 196l,

p. 25.

A preliminary Senior, propelling critical and ration Of

study

of a fin-stabilized by members Apollo Saturn means reentry

solid-fuel of STG. spacecraft The The

rocket booster

booster, would

the

Little

Joe of

was completed a full-size portions of the

be capable

to velocities purpose from flight was

sufficient to provide

to match a simple configuintegrity. spacecraft

trajectory. of determining,

fairly

inexpensive systems

tests, full-scale structural Apollo of the

concepts,

hardware would

performance, be the 94 flight

and testing

vehicle

particular

importance

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

escape system under submitted a Request time renamed
NASA Stabilized Project

simulated maximum conditions. (On April for Proposal to bidders on the Little Joe Joe II.)
Working Rocket Booster Paper for No. Use 1020, with the "A Preliminary Spacecraft,"

6, 1962, NASA Senior, by that

1961
June

Little
Apollo

Study June

of

a

Fin-

Solid-Fuel

Apollo

7, 1961.

The

Lundin lunar

Commitee landing Robert and concept lunar

completed mission, C. Seamans, earth surface.

its study as requested Jr. The

of various on orbit, orbit May

vehicle 25 by

systems NASA

for

the

10

manned methods lunar C-3. C-3's Saturn future The

Associate alternative and and were the and

Administrator orbit,

Committee studied Reasons launch

had considered a combination were the Saturn

of rendezvous:

orbit, Launch

lunar earth

of earth C-2 two

vehicles

of a low-altitude preferred of launches

rendezvous required vehicle

using

or three

was clearly number C-3

by the Committee. and orbital to be an efficient

for this preference and the fact that of great utility

the small

operations

was considered

growth.
Committee, Mission," "A June Survey 10, 1961. of Various Vehicle Systems for the Manned Lunar

Lundin Landing

The report

Fleming to NASA could

Committee, Associate landing lunar

which

had

been The the

appointed Committee decade.

on

May

2, submitted that items the

its lunar the

16

Administrator program. within

Robert

C. Seamans, Chief

Jr., on the feasibility
pacing were

of a manned mission

concluded

be accomplished

first stage of the launch vehicle booster. It also concluded that surface would strong
Ad Part

and the facilities for information on solar as soon mention

testing and launching the flare radiation and lunar since of the these need factors for a

characteristics influence management
Hoe I, Task "Summary

should organization.

be obtained design. Special

as possible, was made

spacecraft

Group, Report

A

Feasible of Ad

Approach Hoe Task

/or Group

an

Early

Manned June 16,

Lunar 1961,

Landing, pp. 95-96.

Study,"

Robert grams, Chairman supporting

C. Seamans, Vehicle Life of an Ad resources and

Jr.,

NASA Programs Task

Associate Space Flight that Group. It

Administrator, Programs, would the Donald H. Heaton establish manned C-3 were would Flight

notified Advanced had

the been

Directors Proand appointed plans

2o

of Launch

Programs, Hoc

Research

Sciences

program lunar launch similar be landing

necessary

to accomplish using

mission with a

by the use of rendezvous target Fleming the date of 1967. Committee. of Launch

techniques,

the Saturn methods Group Space The

vehicle, to those appointed

Guidelines Members Vehicle

and operating of the Task

of the from

Offices

Programs,

Programs,

Advanced ( Heaton August.
Space Life Land-

Research Committee)

Programs, would

and Life Sciences be reviewed
Seamans Director, to

Programs. The
Launch Research

work of the Group during
Director, Director, Lunar

weekly.
Director,

study
Vehicle

was completed
Programs, and for Acting Manned

Memorandum, Flight Sciences Programs, Programs,

Advanced of June

Programs, Task Group

"Establishment Technique,"

Ad

Hoe

ing by Rendezvous

20,

1961.

95

LUNAR- LANDING
LANDING

MODULE

TECHNIQUES

P

m

m.

,._..'_11 :iIll

Two

methods

of landing

techniques lunar

proposed for the landing mission.

direct

ascent

mode

for the

1961
June

NASA Director I. Davis,

Associate of the

Administrator NASA Launch

Robert

C. Seamans,

Jr., requested and Maj.

Kurt Gen.

H. Debus, Leighton analysis

Operations Missile

Directorate, Test Center,

23

Commander factors

of the Air Force regarding of an early

to make methods, The

a joint and

of all major needed

the launch manned

requirements, lunar landing.

procedures and early

in support were

schedules

requirements Report, and C-3

to be considered flight to the moon

in two phases: would be

( 1 ) in line with using the

the Fleming Saturn C-1 Nova parallel Nova. range On and

a direct launch vehicles orbital

assumed, and

vehicles for the

in early lunar

support

phases (2)

liquid-

or solid-fueled alternative NASA-DOD allied subjects. or

launch program, The

landing; operations

as a possible C-3 mutual and on

rendezvous include

using Saturn

and liquid-fueled

analysis

should

recommendations structures, Davis that

responsibilities, June 30,

authority, notified should

management Debus and

other

Seamans stations land

the evaluation He stressed were launch those

of tracking that

command of immediate locations,

not be included regard requirements,

in the study. operations and spacecraft 96

the factors site preparation

concern

with

to launch

of launch

acquisition

vehicle

_l._O 2._"

,ln"_ m,"

l/
huge.

t_._ _1

_"'_

_'_'_

NASA-I.AN_L_

Another

John

D. Bird engineering sketch shows the potential of the for a lunar mission as visualized in June 1961.

Saturn

C-3

facilities, launch

vehicle site. (Phase

launch

facilities, Report
Commander, Facilities Dr. Debus, 30, 1961.

and

other

facilities

and

requirements 31.)
LOD, MSFC,

at

the

1961
June

I of the
Seamans to

was submitted
AFMTC, and

on July
Director,

Memorandum,

"Na-

tional Space Program Range Seamans to Gen. Davis and Resources Planning," June

and Resources Planning," "National Space Program

June 23, 1961; letter, Range Facilities and

NASA payloads

announced in earth
Staff

that orbit,

the Saturn would

C-1

launch

vehicle,

which

could

place

ten-ton

23

be operational
Space Flight

in 1964.
p. 200.

Senate

Report,

Manned

Program,

NASA ration

announced would

that

further

engineering and that

design effort

work on the Saturn would

C-2

configutoward

23

be discontinued

instead

be redirected

97

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
June

clarification directed supporting
Saturn

of the Saturn toward determining the Apollo
Illustrated

C-3

and

Nova

concepts. of the

Investigations proposed C-3

were specifically configuration in

capabilities

mission.
pp. 31-32.

Chronology,

26

Maxime Arthur Research part

A. Faget, W. Vogeley, Center

Paul

E.

Purser, E. Brown, landing"

and

Charles and Faget's

J. Donlan outline

of

STG

met

with with

Clinton

Laurence

K. Loftin,

Jr., of Langley

on a "lunar

paper.

was to be used,

of the information
Memorandum, Purser

to be worked
to Robert

up by Vogeley.
"Log for the Week of June 26, 1961."

R. Gilruth,

During the Month

STG studies Martin

completed submitted Company.

a detailed

assessment study of the

of the results contractors: General reflected contract were

of the Project the General

Apollo Electric

feasibility Company, and The sent

by the three Division (Their

Convair/Astronautics to prospective
"Apollo

Dynamics in the on July 28.)

Corporation, Statement

findings

of Work

bidders
Spacecraft

on the spacecraft
Chronology," p. 9.

During the Month

Members lunar orbit mission.
Manned

of Langley rendezvous

Research method

Center of

briefed

the

Heaton the

Committee lunar

on

the

accomplishing

manned

landing

Lunar-Landing

through

use

oJ Lunar-Orbit

Rendezvous,

p. 5.

Summer

Construction toward

began

at Langley program,

Research

Center

of facilities simulator.
June 20,

specifically

oriented

the Apollo
with

including
Langley

a lunar
Research

landing
Center,

Interview

Charles

J. Donlan,

1966.

July 6

At NASA Coordination roans, Fleming, Abe dinate period the

Headquarters, Group,

the first meeting attended Don Wyatt by NASA

was held of the Manned Associate Administrator Charles and

Lunar Robert

Landing C. SeaA. of

Jr., Ira H. Abbott,
DeMarquis This that D. Silverstein). problems while

R. Ostrander, (part-time), Group, several

H. Roadman, M. Low

William (in place

George

Headquarters jointly space affected flight NASA

appointed NASA

by Seamans, Offices, during formed. with

was to coorthe interim of by

the manned group

organization program Flight

was being directors,

Members

steering

included of Marshall

participation

Wernher and acted ment Wyatt

von Braun and

Space

Center,

Robert

R. Gilruth as required.

of STG, Fleming to impleagenda

Abraham

Hyatt

of NASA

Headquarters, and

as Secretary an accelerated

of the Group. lunar landing

A list of decisions program

actions

required

was drawn

up as a tentative

for the next meeting: • Begin ment of second Nova systems integration The studies studies and develop include the general arrangepropulsion

and third

stages.

should

spacecraft

stages and spacecraft. • Begin Saturn C-3 systems integration 98 studies.

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

• Begin letting studies contracts.

developing Launch and C-3 to bring

Nova

and

C-3

first-stage

specifications Force Range

in preparation Missile (AMR). for Nova engines Test

to

1961
July

• Continue of Nova • Take C-3 launch steps facility

Operations launch the contractor

Directorate-Air Missile aboard to provide

Center and for

sites at Atlantic

as soon as possible adequate production

and test stand engine

designs.

• Accelerate F-1 the Nova and C-3. • Examine test facilities examination. the

funding

Marshall vehicle

Space stages

Flight with

Center a view

(MSFC) toward

proposal

for static site

for large

beginning

detailed

• Accelerate • Determine liquid-oxygen

funding

of the J-2

engine

to provide

acceptance

test stands. liquid-hydrogen--

the necessity

for a one-million-pound-thrust

engine. studies on spacecraft responsibilities. for letting the contract for a spacecraft operations propulsion systems and develop specifica-

• Begin design tions. Define • Begin facility

management preparations

at AMR. the relationships and responsibilities of MSFC and STG on

• Determine guidance

and control.
Low, Flight Assistant Director "Meeting Director, 10, 1961. for Manned of Manned Launch Vehicle Space Lunar Flight Landing Programs, Coordination to Staff, "Manned to Director Group," Lunar

Memoranda, of Space

Programs,

July 8, 1961 ; Ostrander, Landing Program," July

Programs,

The

NASA

Administrator

and

the Secretary launch vehicles

of Defense

concluded space Planning and and
"Planning July 7, 1961 July

an agreement program. Group For was

to study this created, Secretary

development the reporting of Defense

of large DOD-NASA

for the national Vehicle of NASA Research

purpose,

Large Director

Launch of Defense
to the

to the Associate (Deputy

Administrator

to the

Assistant

Engineering).
of a DODJames

Memorandum, NASA E. Webb Program

Associate

Administrator of Large July

Administrator, Vehicles,"

for Development S. McNamara,

Launch

; letters, 7, 1961.

to Robert

7, 1961

; McNamara

to Webb,

Jet

Propulsion space solar

Laboratory simulator and radiation,

announced in the United Mariner cold space

that

construction capable

was

under

way

on

the

12

first large craft about simulated:

States Three

of testing space vacuum

full-scale effects

spacecould be to

of the

Ranger

classes. heat

primary a high

sink, and pressure
p. 32.

equivalent

one part in a billion
Aeronautical and

of the atmospheric
Events o[ 1961,

at sea level.

Astronautical

A NASA-Industry for representatives from NASA,

Apollo of about

Technical 300

Conference Project The

was held Apollo Martin

in Washington, contractors. Company, and

D.C., Scientists General

18-20

potential Company, the results 99

the General

Electric presented

Dynamics/Astronautics

of studies

on Apollo

requirements.

334-987

O

-

69

-

8

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
Ju|y

Within

the next

four to six weeks for the Apollo
Journal, Spacecraft July 18,

NASA spacecraft.

was expected

to draw

up the final

details

and specifications
Wall Street p. 33 ; "Apollo

1961;

Aeronautical p. 10.

and

Astronautical

Events

o[ 1961,

Chronology,"

2O

The Large Launch its formal existence

Vehicle Planning with seven DOD

Group, established and seven NASA

on July members

7, 1961, began and alternates.

The members of the Group included Technical Assistant to the Associate anau, Barlow, Jr., and Office U.S. Deputy Director of Defense J. Glasser, Office NASA Special of Naval of the Research Group, the Director

: Nicholas E. Golovin, Director of the Group, Administrator of NASA; Lawrence L. KavSpecial Assistant Warren STG; (Space) Amster Lt. Col. Col. in the David Harvey Wilson Rear Jr., Adm. Office L.' Carter R. Collins, Hall, and B. Schramm Levering U.S. Navy, U.S. Air and of J. and Edward

and Engineering; Aleck C. Bond, Systems

Aerospace Army,

Corporation; of Chief

and Col. Otto Milton Smith,

Air Force

Command; Eldon Flight Capt. Vehicle

Matthew

of Ordnance; Space Office;

W. Hall,

W. Rosen, U.S. Navy,

Office of Launch Marshall Projects

Programs; Center; Lewis

Francis

L. Williams,

J. Stecher, and

of the Chief

Operations;

H. J. Weigand, Planning

Headquarters,

Force; Kurt R. Stehling, NASA Office of Program William W. Wolman, NASA Office of Programs. The with Group, large and frequently launch called the Golovin including

Evaluation;

Committee, propulsion launch not

was to concern elements, vehicle only and NASA. the

itself

only and and lunar

vehicle

systems, taking into

guidance manned

control, operational landing
Report 21

instrumentation. procedures, but other

It was to suggest anticipated
Launch

configurations

consideration needs of DOD
Vehicle Planning

program

of DOD-NASA

Large

Group,

Vol.

1, 1961.

Liberty from rocket, After tions, the

Bell reached a flight

7, manned

by Astronaut Range. and The

Virgil

I. Grissom, capsule, the

was launched boosted of 5168 was

successfully

Atlantic

Missile

Mercury

by a Redstone miles per hour. made 302 miles operarecovery

a peak altitude of 15 minutes the launch Grissom
New

of 118.26 site. The

miles and a speed landing spacecraft

37 seconds,

downrange

from

was lost during

but Astronaut
Swenson et al., This

was rescued
pp.

and was reported

in excellent

condition.

Ocean,

370-377,640--641.

24

Changes

in Saturn

launch

vehicle

configurations

were announced and S-IV S-II,

:

C-1 : stages S-I C-2 : stages S-I, C-3
Senate 24

( 1.5 million pounds S-II, and S-IV (3 million
Manned Space

of thrust) of thrust),
Program,

: stages S-IB
Staff Report,

pounds
Flight

and S-IV.

p. 200.

NASA

issued

a letter contract

to the Astro-Electronic the high-resolution equipment)
and

Division for
Space

of Radio system Ranger the

Corporation (including program.
July 1,

of America associated
Sixth 1961,

to develop

and fabricate and

television

communication
Semiannual Report through December

electronic

o[ the National 31, 1961 ( 1962

Aeronautics ), p. 66.

Administration,

100

PART

If:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

NASA spacecraft poration, Electric tion,

invited

12 companies 9: The Aircraft Goodyear Lockheed Company,

to submit Boeing Aircraft Aircraft North Company,

prime Airplane General

contractor Company,

proposals Chance

for the Apollo Vought the CorGeneral EngineerCorporaRepublic

1961
July 28

by October Douglas Company,

Dynamics/Convair, Grumman McDonnell Aviation, Aircraft Aircraft Inc.,

Corporation, Corporation, American

ing Corporation, The Martin Aviation In the Apollo Phase and

and

Corporation. Statement program A: Manned of Work were sent to each prospective bidder, three phases of the

described: earth from orbital flights of up to two weeks' velocities. The duration de-

low-altitude reentry flights

unmanned

superorbital

spacecraft

signed for these missions should be capable of development for the lunar landing and return. The objectives of Phase A were to qualify the spacecraft systems and features orbital lunar for mission the lunar landing to qualify reentry, psychological mission the tests heat from and within protection superorbital capabilities the constraints and other velocities, of human of the earth for the the operand misenvironment, through and systems beings

to study

physiological

reactions

under

extended periods ational techniques

in the space environment, to develop flight and ground and equipment for space flights of extended duration, for the lunar

to conduct experimental investigations to acquire information sion. The Saturn C-1 would be used for Phase A missions. Phase B: Circumlunar, C-3 launch lunar vehicle orbital, and parabolic reentry

test flights

employing and

the Saturn operational

for furthering

the development

of the spacecraft

techniques

and for lunar

reconnaissance.

Phase C : Manned lunar landing and return missions using either the Nova class or Saturn C-3 launch vehicles and using rendezvous techniques for the purpose of lunar The observation contractor and the and exploration. was spacecraft navigation and scientific to design adapter and and manufacture associated system, the ground research and command support and module, equipment, the service exinstru"test"

module, cluding mentation, spacecraft

with

guidance

development

instrumentation; Saturn C-1

to design and

manufacture launch modules and

for use with the with

research and

development these system;

vehicles; with their launch and

to integrate ground vehicle and

spacecraft equipment the

modules and mockups.

to integrate compatibility support

support

ensure operational

of spacecraft

with

ground

to design

manufacture The contractor positions the overall STG studies. command had

spacecraft

was to prepare

the spacecraft support

for flight, system,

man and

the systems

monitoring of

in the ground space prepared Included and in service vehicle. the

operational

support

the operation

Statement Statement module

of Work, of Work

using was

both

contractor

and of

in-house the major

the

a description

systems. 101

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
July

Guidance Navigation Stable Space Radar

and

control and

system subsystem components:

guidance

platform sextant altimeter inertial elements

Secondary Computer Periscope Sun trackers Associated Displays Cabling Stabilization Flight-path stability

electronics and and controls control subsystem during after the launch to provide: thrusting escape and period system of atmospheric abort and

control

augmentation attitude abort

separation and control vehicle during while

Orientation, extra-atmospheric Stabilization in a parking Stabilization Rendezvous Attitude for entering Control

control,

reentry

stabilization

of the spacecraft orbit and and control docking

plus the final stage

of the launch

during

translunar landings orbits guidance command

and laboratory and

transearth module takeoffs

midcourse from the moon

flight and

with the space from lunar

control

for accomplishing for reentry control of the

and departing requirements and

Stabilization landing Vernier The propulsion system

module system

flight

direction members

in the

configuration,

as well as the landing

suspension

system would be included in the service module to provide longitudinal

velocity control not supplied by the reaction control system, mission propulsion system, or lunar landing module; and to furnish effective thrust-vector control during operation of the mission propulsion using storable hypergolic bipropellants. Mission propulsion system the and major portion and of propulsion velocity for translunar for lunar abort, launch, rocket lunar the system. It would be pressure-fed,

Representing orbit injection

rejection,

increment

system would comprise and would be included Reaction The vernier command pressure-fed, vernier type. control system system would

a number of identical in the service module.

solid-propellant

motors

provide system,

attitude and minor the fuel

control, velocity system tanks

stabilization, corrections. would be

ullage For

for both

the the

propulsion and and propulsion

service would

modules, use storable The

pulse-modulated, with that positive in the expulsion

hypergolic

fuel identical be the

system.

would

102

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

Launch

escape

system or imminent failure of the launch vehicle during all atmosseparate system the command module from would be a solid-fuel rocket

1961
July

During

failure

pheric mission phases, the system would the launch vehicle. The basic propulsion motor Earth with "step" or regressive consist of the module burning

characteristics. drogue satisfy parachute the vertical position impact to favor structures, systems. and a cluster satisfactory from velocity of three opera-

landing system The system would simultaneously tion The risers of any two command and

of a ribbon landing would hang

deployed

parachutes,

sized so that

three would through

requirement. the parachute

in a canted

be oriented

roll control load-carrying

attenuation. and servinherent

Structural system In addition to fundamental ice modules Crew systems Included were: Three Support couches, the center would in the structure, and passive

the command protection

car D • meteoroid

protection,

radiation

heat protection

one stowable at each duty station crew support and restraint systems

and restraint

systems

Shock mitigation devices for individual Pressure suits for each crewman Sleeping Sanitation Environmental area area control system environment oxygen-nitrogen

To provide a shirtsleeve would consist of: Cabin Removal Removal humidity Potable Controls Electrical The type water from atmosphere--an

in the

command stabilized and control

module,

the

system

mixture

at 7.0 psia burner and

of carbon dioxide by lithium hydroxide of noxious gases by activated charcoal water-separation the fuel cells humidity, and temperature system for

a catalytic of

Heat-exchanger

temperature

for pressure, system would prima_

power system fuel-cell

be composed carried, fuel, batteries

of nonregenerative with their fuel supply, reentry control and during

hydrogen-oxygen in the service and postlanding equipment,

Baconmodule; carried,

batteries

silver-zinc

required distribution,

with their associated mand module. Communication Communication Deep-space

in the com-

and instrumentation subsystems communication and receiver system :

system

Telemetry VHF transmitter Intercommunication

103

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
July"

Near-field Television

transceiver

C-band transponder Altimeter and rendezvous Minitrack beacon HF/VHF Antennas Instrumentation Sensors recovery

radar

subsystem

subsystem: and onboard (clock, cameras, but would recorders) telescope) be fitted into ten cubic feet and

Data disposition (telemetry Subsystem calibration Auxiliary instrumentation Scientific equipment The weigh In addition equipment 250 pounds. to the description was

unspecified

of the major the general

command concepts

and

service

module landing

systems, module

the Statement of Work outlined and space laboratory module. Lunar The landing module comprised:

of the lunar

basic systems

Lunar its period Guidance Main decrement propellant Terminal

touchdown system to arrest impact, support on the moon, and provide a launching base and required propulsion the control, system, provided by the command velocity using and control propulsion for translunar landing, to provide descent the

the

spacecraft modules

during

service and

the gross velocity

for lunar system,

liquid-hydrogen--liquid-oxygen and attitude hovering reaction and for the contranscom-

propulsion

trol to perform lation

terminal

maneuver,

including

Structural system, to meet mand and service modules Space laboratory The module It would without support
NASA, July 28 28,

same

requirements

as specified

module would on be used its own the three
Spacecraft 1-1 to 1-3,

in earth

orbital and

flights

for special control systems food
Phase 29,

experiments. system, and and
A 1961.

provide demand two of the
Apollo pp.

power command Apollo
A-2 to

supply, crewmen
A-21

environmental service except
Statement York

etc., could water.

module

for their
o[ Times, Work, July

Project 1961),

Development

(STG,

; New

NASA Source craft. Robert Charles C.

Associate Evaluation Walter O. Piland, W.

Administrator Board Wesley and James

Robert of STG

C. Seamans, contractors'

Jr., appointed proposals A. Faget, and

members

to the space-

to evaluate L. Hjornevik, Dave T.

for the Apollo members James

C. Williams

served

a_s Chairman,

included

Maxime

A. Chamberlin, M. Low, from Brooks NASA

Mathews, and

W. Lang,

all of STG; (nonvoting

George member)

Preacher,

Koppenhaver 104

PART

II :

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

Headquarters; and November 2, Faget as a member,
Memoranda, for Members Apollo nation

Oswald became

H. Lange from Marshall the Chairman, Kenneth was relieved

Space Flight S. Kleinknecht

Center. On was added

1961
July

and Williams
Robert Of the

from his assignment.
Source Evaluation for Evaluation of Board, Proposals "Instructions for Project "Redesig-

R. Gilruth to Member, Source Evaluation Board

Spacecraft, of Source

RFP No. 9-150," September 1, 1961; Seamans Evaluation Board Members," November 2, 1961.

to STG,

Phase

I of a joint

NASA-DOD

report

on facilities

and resources

required

at launch

31

sites to support Administrator Operations Air Force was based in a direct sites were

the manned lunar Robert C. Seamans,

landing program was submitted to Associate Jr., by Kurt H. Debus, Director, Launch

Directorate, Missile Test ascent mode,

and Maj. Gen. Leighton I. Davis, Commander of the Center. The report, requested by Seamans on June 23, launch vehicles for the manned missions. Canaveral ; Cape lunar Eight landing launch ; with the Saturn Cape Canaveral Missile Sands and C-3 in supporting

on the use of Nova-class considered:

(on-shore) Range Missile taking and areas.
on

(off-shore) Island, Island, time were because

Mayaguana Island (Atlantic Ga. ; Brownsville, Tex. ; White Pacific schedule, favored. of first-stage
NASA-DOD, Launch Site

downrange); Cumberland Range, N. Mex. ; Christmas into consideration Canaveral on launch the stringent

Ocean; White White

and

South

Point, Missile

Hawaii. Range serious

On the basis of minimum Cape

cost and use

of existing

national Sands

resources, Sands presented

(on-shore) azimuths

limitations

impact
Phase

hazards
I

on populated
]oint Manned Report

Report: NASA

Facilities Landing,

and July

Resources 31, 1961.

Required

at

to Support

Lunar

Langley feet

Research

Center

simulated the

spacecraft moon's

flights surface.

at speeds With control orbits and

of 8200

to 8700 preset to

per second

in approaching

instruments

During the Month

miss the moon's about all three the surface, an altimeter, and Queijo

surface by 40 to 80 miles, pilots with axes of the craft learned to establish a graph vehicle of vehicle attitude rate and of descent rate meters, and

of thrust and torques 10 to 90 miles above velocity, Manuel J. by

using Donald
and

circumferential

as reported

R. Riley
Astronautical

of Langley.
Events o 1 1961, p. 36.

Aeronautical

James Mercury lander." favored launched

A. Chamberlin spacecraft This payload direct landing

and James would on

T. Rose of STG payload, competition and

proposed including C-3 with a

adapting in the lunar the Apollo 150,000-pound

the improved "lunar that orbit rendezproposals payload of thrust.
Mo.,

to a 35,000-pound be launched the moon with was in direct vehicle

a 5000-pound

During the Month

by a Saturn involved

vous mode.

The proposal by a Nova-class
with 1966.

approximately
Tex., June 9,

12 million
1966; Rose,

pounds
St. Louis,

Interviews April 13,

Chamberlin,

Houston,

Ralph Polaris

Ragan guidance

of the

MIT

Instrumentation program, O. Piland, 105

Laboratory, in cooperation Robert

former with

director

of the

and navigation and with Robert

Milton

B. Trageser

Ourlng the Month

of the Laboratory

C. Seamans,

Jr., and Robert

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
July

G. Chilton, Polaris and

all of NASA,

had

completed and design

a study such

of what a system worked

had and into

been

done

on the system on an schedule

program

in concept

of a guidance the group

navigation production

the documentation

necessary

for putting

extremely tight schedule. Using this study, for a similar program on Apollo.
Interview with Ralph Ragan, Instrumentation

out a rough

Laboratory,

MIT,

April

27,

1966.

July-September

The

MIT

Instrumentation program for quotation
with Ralph

Laboratory for industrial
Ragan, Instrumentation

and

NASA

completed and

the work navigation

statements system and

for the

Laboratory's

on the Apollo support

guidance

the request
Interview August 2

was prepared.
MIT, April 27, 1966.

Laboratory,

NASA sible

Headquarters ]aunching

announced lunar or Nova available
August

that

it was making The size,

a worldwide power, noise, isolation

study and for

of pospossible public

sites for

spacecraft.

hazards of Saturn safety than currently
Washington Post,

rockets would require greater at NASA launch sites.

3, 1961.

The Titov

Soviet

Union The

successfully spacecraft,

launched which

Vostok

II into

orbit

with carried

Gherman life-support

S.

as pilot.

weighed

10,430

pounds,

equipment, recorder, control landed
New

radio and television for monitoring the condition of the cosmonaut, tape telemetry system, biological experiments, and automatic and manual After made
August

equipment. safely. Titov
York Times,

17.5

orbits,

the

spacecraft landing
and

reentered

on

August couch.
194.

7 and

a separate
7 and 8,

parachute
1961 ; Instruments

in an ejector
Spacecra#, p.

STG

appointed

members

to the

Technical of industry

Subcommittee proposals

and for the

to the

Technical of

Assessment the Apollo

Panels for evaluation spacecraft.

development

Memoranda,
committee, tion of

Wesley L. Hjornevik for Walter C. Williams to Member, Technical
"Instruction for Proposals for the Williams Technical Apollo Members for of Project the Technical Subcommittee RFP-9-150," for the Apollo Spacecraft August

Sub7,

Evalua-

Contractors'

1961; Hjornevik for Members of Proposals for

to Member, Assessment Spacecraft

Technical Panels for RFP-9-150,"

Assessment Panel, the Evaluation of August 7, 1961.

"Instruction Contractors

Project

NASA

selected

the Instrumentation

Laboratory

of MIT

to develop

the guidance

and navigation system had a long lead-time, directed by STG.
Memorandum, mentation Guidance 14 William Laboratory Contract,"

for the Apollo spacecraft. was basic to the overall

This first major Apollo mission,

Apollo contract and would be

W.

Petynia

to Associate

Director, 1961,

STG,

"Visit Apollo

to

MIT

Instruand

on September 12-13, September 21, 1961.

regarding

Navigation

STG ment

requested Laboratory,

that

a program Philadelphia,

be undertaken Penna.,

by the U.S. the

Navy

Air Crew

Equip-

to validate On November 106

atmospheric

composition experimental

requirement

for the Apollo

spacecraft.

7, the original

PART

II: DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

design was altered were : • Establish

by the Manned

Spacecraft

Center

(MSC).

The

new objectives

1961
August

the required

preoxygenation feet for equilibrium

time

for a rapid (partial

decompression

(80 at the

seconds) from sea level to 35,000 • Discover the time needed proposed feet pression-i.e., mined cabin atmosphere the

denitrogenation) decompression an early preceded results

for protection hazard

in case of rapid associated time with

to 35,000 decomthe deter-

• Investigate

potential the period additional

mission by of the

before

equilibrium tests

was reached, by the

preoxygenation • Conduct any

suggested

foregoing

experiments.
Letter, November Robert R. Gilruth, Director, MS(], to Director, Air Crew Equipment Laboratory,

7, 1961. 14-15

STG

held

a pre-proposal pertaining

briefing

at

Langley

Field,

Va.,

to answer

bidders'

questions spacecraft.
"Apollo

to the Request

for Proposal

for the development

of the Apollo

Spacecraft

Chronology,"

p. 11. 16

STG ment

appointed members Panels for evaluation

to the Business Subcommittee and to the Business Assessof industry proposals for the development of the Apollo

spacecraft.
Memoranda, Members Spacecraft, ment tion Panels, of Walter C. of the Business RFP Proposals No. for Williams to Member, Subcommittee for August for Project Members Apollo 16, of Business Evaluation 1961; the Subcommittee, of Proposals to Member, Assessment No. 9-150," "Instructions for Project Business Panels for undated. 23 for Apollo AssessEvalua-

9-150," the

Williams Business RFP

"Instructions

Spacecraft,

Ranger landing Agena craft could elongated

I, a test version on the moon, B booster. orbit The because

of the spacecraft was launched 675-pound of the misfiring

which

would

attempt Missile B rocket.

an unmanned Range Although

crash

from

the Atlantic

by an Atlasextremely the spaceexperiments

spacecraft

did not attain

the scheduled

of the Agena

systems were tested successfully, be carried out. Ranger I reentered
New pp. York Times, August 24, 1961;

only part of the eight project on August 29 after 111 orbits.
and Astronautical Events

Aeronautical

o[

196l,

41, 42, 84. 23

The

Large

Launch Space Laboratory

Vehicle Center (JPL)

Planning (MSFC), that

Group the Group

(Golovin

Committee) Center,

notified and the

the Jet

Marshall Propulsion parative manned lunar

Flight

Langley

Research

was planning

to undertake

a com-

evaluation of three types of rendezvous operations and direct flight for lunar landing. Rendezvous methods were earth orbit, lunar orbit, and surface. MSFC was requested to study earth orbit rendezvous, Langley to

study lunar orbit rendezvous, and NASA Office of Launch Vehicle

JPL to study lunar surface rendezvous. The Programs would provide similar information 107

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
August

on direct of vehicle In each vous, problems compared versus vous modes ing three

ascent. design case,

Emphasis which

was to be placed be handled conditions equipment as possible. mission that within profile, the range

on developmental

problems,

exclusive

would

separately. peculiar design, Examples capsule specified rendezvous and lunar to the particular were modes of problem surface by STG (s) should could areas mode of rendezso that the and

environmental effects on

and

their

to be considered were

characteristic as quantitatively operation, would

of the different

be separated

automatic All rendezof supportpounds).

manual men

conditions. be capable (about 8500

assume

the reentry

and weigh results
Harvey

The preliminary
TWX Planning 24 from

of the study
Hall, NASA Langley

were to be ready
Coordinator, Research

in 30 days.
Large JPL, August Launch 23, Vehicle 1961.

NASA-DOD Center, and

Group,

to MSFC,

Expanded of manned vehicles, Air Force

facilities lunar NASA Missile

in the Cape flights Test and Center, areas.
25, 1961.

Canaveral missions site of the

area

would

be the site for the the use of Saturn north and and west

launch Nova of the sur-

other The

requiring after

announced. launch
Post, August

new facilities, months

had been chosen

of NASA-DOD

veys of proposed
Washington 29

NASA vision above landed. About longer

announced cameras. the lunar The final 1600 carry

that They

planned spacecraft

Ranger would

launchings be equipped to begin moments from each

would

be increased at about the spacecraft eight

from

five tele-

to nine. These

additional surface pictures

with six high-resolution operating before than The surface

would and

be programmed continue record expected information until would were

800 miles crashacross. no of these of the

features

no more capsules.

inches

photographs previously

spacecraft,

which objective

would

planned

instrumented

spacecraft now was to provide manned lunar landing mission.
Sixth 31 NASA Semiannual Report,

on the

lunar

in support

p. 67.

C. Stark with

Draper,

Director

of the MIT James

Instrumentation Deputy

Laboratory, Administrator Jr., at NASA to perform 7, Draper

at a meeting Hugh L. Drytrained function proposed

NASA that

Administrator

E. Webb, Robert to train

den, and proposed individual than that

Associate since

Administrator be easier

C. Seamans, astronauts a scientist

Headquarters

at least one of the Apollo it would

should

be a scientifically a pilot's further

vice versa.

(In a letter )
G.

to Seamans

on November

he be that individual.
Ralph Draper Ragan and David

Hoag,

personal

notes

of meeting,

August

31,

1961

; letter,

to Seamans,

November

7, 1961.

During the Month

The

Ad

Hoc

Task Donald

Group H.

for Study Heaton,

of Manned

Lunar

Landing

by Rendezvous rendezvous Saturn

Techniques, offered the

Chairman,

reported lunar

its conclusions: landing, the

earliest

possibility

for a successful 108

proposed

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

C-4 lunar craft,

configuration landing and than

should the docking

offer a higher C-3, the in earth program orbit

probability

of an earlier unit and

successful a manned

manned involved spacewas

1961
August

rendezvous through

technique first lunar

recommended landing

rendezvous significantly
Summary Manned

of a propulsion

the cost of the total less than
report Lunar

by rendezvous

by direct ascent.
Hoc Task Part Group I, August Study, 1961. "Earth Orbital Rendezvous for an Early

of Ad Landing,"

John C. Houbolt of Langley Research dezvous and the lunar orbit rendezvous STG requested copies this work to the consideration.
Bird, Langley "Short

Center made a presentation to STG on renplan. At this time James A. Chamberlin of material and because other of the programs pertinence then of program under

During the Month

of all of Houbolt's Mark II

Mercury

History

of

the

Development p. 3.

of

the

Lunar

Orbit

Rendezvous

Plan

at

the

Research

Center,"

The

deep-space

tracking

station

at Hartebeesthoek, 8. NASA

South

Africa, the

was completed. capacity probes for condespite

Dedication tinuous the Calif., earth's

took place rotation.

on September The other

thus gained stations

During the Month

line-of-sight and Woomera,
NASA p. 45.

communication Australia.
Report, p.

with lunar and interplanetary deep-space tracking were

at Goldstone,

Sixth 1961,

Semiannual

76;

Aeronautical

and

Astronautical

Events

o[

The

Jet

Propulsion

Laboratory

selected

the

Blaw

Knox

Company

of Pittsburgh,

Penna., for second-phase feasibility and design studies to 250-foot diameter class. The first of these antennas, acquiring data from advanced lunar and planetary 1965.

of an antenna in the 200which were to be used in programs, would

During Ihe Month

exploration

be operational
Sixth NASA

at Goldstone,
Semiannual

Calif.,
Report,

by early

p. 76. September 7

NASA announced New Orleans, La., C-3

that the government-owned Michoud would be the site for fabrication and vehicles.
7, 1961.

Ordnance Plant near assembly of the Saturn

first stage as well as larger
St. Louis Post-Dispatch,

September

NASA launch about

selected vehicle. $140

NAA The

to develop cost, including The S-II each

the second

stage

(S-II)

for the advanced

Saturn total

11

development 200,000

of at least ten vehicles, for four J-2 pounds of thrust.

would

million.

configuration delivering
12, 1961.

provided

liquid-oxygen--

liquid-hydrogen
Wall Street

engines,
.lournal,

September

Representatives Laboratory and and progress guidance

of STG of MIT in the design system.

and and

NASA

Headquarters awarded that

visited

the

Instrumentation on August navigation final contract 9

12-13

to discuss They

the contract development mutually

to the Laboratory spacecraft of the a draft

of the Apollo

decided 109

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT;

A

CHRONOLOGY

! 961
September

should be completed the contract resolved of Work Laboratory, of the first ment lunar flight to define approach and

for review at Instrumentation Laboratory by October 2 and by October 9. Revisions were to be made in the Statement clearly details technical and guidance sextant of the contract. progress guidance functions and Milton equipment B. Trageser of the

more

in the first month's within

report,

gave a brief

description of the of

to the navigation and

and the arrangethe phases observations

of the equipment

the spacecraft.

He also presented making visual

the navigation

or tasks to be performed.

Other matters discussed were a space landmarks through cloud cover.
Memorandum, 13 William W. Petynia to

Associate

Director,

STG,

September

21,

1961.

Mercury-Atlas

4, carrying

an astronaut

simulator,

was launched

from

the Atlantic After one deviations,

Missile Range in the first earth orbital test of the orbit, the spacecraft reentered and was recovered the flight was highly successful.
Grimwood, 14 Project Mercury: A Chronology, pp. 148-149.

Mercury spacecraft. safely. With minor

In a memorandum to the Large Harvey Hall of NASA described vous modes for accomplishing from Langley requested Research

Launch Vehicle Planning Group (LLVPG) staff, the studies being done by the Centers on rendeza manned Center, lunar landing. Space These Flight studies Center, had and been the Marshall

Jet Propulsion Laboratory on August 23. STG was preparing tion on the lunar orbit rendezvous mode. An LLVPG team parative Members

separate documentato undertake a com-

evaluation of rendezvous and direct ascent techniques had been set up. of the team included Hall and Norman Rafel of NASA and H. Braham of Aerospace would consider: flight time on specifications in each and distance and case, from reliability including ground of equipment the number of Corporation.

and L. M. Weeks The evaluation

and

• Effect of total on personnel

• Effect of vehicle engine starts and restarts

system

reliability

• Dependence on data, trol of assembly and refueling • Launch • Effect • Relative orbital station and injection of differences merits for rendezvous

data-rate, operations windows in the total gravity

station

for con-

weight and

propelled

to earth

escape

velocity versus an

of lunar

of a lunar

base in general

and assembly would

purposes. be based on LLVPG types
Flight),"

Reliability equipment
of 17 Mission

estimates would

on vehicles

data;

estimates

on

rely on experience
Hall to Large Launch (Rendezvous

with similar
Vehicle versus Direct

in known
Group Staff, September

applications.
"Comparison 14, 1961.

Memorandum,

Planning

Alternatives

NASA advanced attend

invited Saturn

36 companies launch

to bid on a contract Representatives in New 110 Orleans,

to produce of interested La., on

the first stage companies September 26.

of the would Bids

vehicle. conference

a pre-proposal

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

were

to be submitted in November.
Street Journal,

by October

16 and

NASA

would

then

select the contractor,

1961
September

probably
Wall

September

18,

1961. 19

NASA space

announced flight research

that

a site near Houston, which would would be the space

Tex., design,

had been selected develop, for lunar center evaluate, flights for the

for the manned and test Apollo and other space lunar a manned had

center

spacecraft missions. landing nationwide
Washington

in addition The mission laboratory and

to training

the astronauts command flight sites.

subsequent

missions.

Selection

followed

study by NASA
Post, September

of prospective
20, 1961.

A major James

reorganization E. Webb. Four

of NASA new

Headquarters offices were

was announced to be formed,

by Administrator effective NovemDirector; of Manned direc20. He

24

program Research Homer

ber 1 : the Office the Office

of Advanced Sciences,

and Technology, E. Newell, had been Director; announced

Ira H. Abbott, the Office

of Space

Space torship had

Flight, vacant. been

D. Brainerd Holmes' Manager

Holmes, appointment

Director;

and the Office of Applications, on September Division to Robert Defense would Systems report

General

of the Major The new Directors

of the Radio C. Seamans,

Corporation Jr., NASA's At the same craft centers Center would,

of America. Associate time,

Administrator. R. Gilruth in Houston, appointed
24, 1961;

Robert

was named Tex. The

Director Directors Directors,
Daily News,

of the Manned of NASA's report
September

Spacenine field

to be located

like the newly
Post, September

program
Washington

to Seamans.
21, 1961.

Washington

An architect's

impression

of how the would

Manned

Spacecraft completed.

Center

at Houston,

Tex.,

look when

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
September During the Month

Richard

H. Battin

published

MIT

Instrumentation Procedure

Laboratory for Space Flight,"

Report

R-341, the computasize.

"A Statistical

Optimizing

Navigation

describing

concepts by which Apollo navigation equipment could tions of position and velocity with an onboard computer
Battin, Astronautical Guidance (1964).

make accurate of reasonable

October 3

The Charter Space Board assure and both MSFC Associate Flight

of the MSFC-STG Center (MSFC) Headquarters. coordination for the had responsibilities. (Wernher and (Walter Development,

Space Vehicle and The and STG, purpose cooperation manned Members MSFC

Board,

prepared

jointly

by Marshall of the was to MSFC of in which Directors DirecBoard

was approved between space of the (Eberhard The Board

at the first meeting Vehicle all flight levels were of the

at NASA complete STG Centers

of the Space

management

NASA

programs the

Board

and STG Director

von Braun C. Williams).

and Robert

R. Gilruth),

the Deputy for:

tor for Research

F. M. Rees), was responsible program

and the STG

• Management • Resolution and development • Approval • Direction

of the SFC-STG of all space tests, planning, of mission of the respective vehicle

Apollo-Saturn problems, such

as design

systems,

research

schedules,

and operations elements approval Coordination Board would in the conduct of the and of and

objectives organizational including Program STG. This program, Advanced and of the Sub-Board Board consider consisting policy

MSFC-STG Apollo-Saturn of the Coordination Panels • Formation of the

top personnel from program guidelines. A Sub-Board would Koelle), the Apollo tary, and alternate The Sub-Board • Resolve • Prepare

MSFC

comprise the Director, Project Manager, STG Board : coordination if required areas group Secretary.

Saturn Systems Office, MSFC (H. H. (Robert O. Piland), the Board Secre-

would

space-vehicle briefs

and

integration by the

problems Board

and

assign

these to the Coordination • Act as a technical

Panels, in problem advisory

not resolved to the Board through

or Sub-Board organizational working ade-

• Channel the decisions of the elements of MSFC or STG for proper • Ensure that the Saturn-Apollo quately and within • Recommend

Board action

the respective Panels were

Coordination

the scope of their charters to the Board modifications or integration

of the Panels problems of the Saturn launch

• Define or resolve systems vehicle and the Apollo spacecraft • Define • Analyze • Initiate vehicle systems mission objectives studies and report and guide progress

of the Saturn-Apollo of the Saturn-Apollo for the selection

space vehicle space vehicle Saturn-Apollo space of optimum

112

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRAGT

• Define • Establish The Secretariat

and establish

reliability

criteria

1961
October

and document set up under

flight safety philosophy. the Charter was to be responsible for the orderly

conduct Four

of business

and meetings. Coordination Panels were established to make available the

Saturn-Apollo

technical competence of the launch vehicle Mechanical Design,

of MSFC and STG for the solution and the spacecraft. The four included Electrical and Electronics Design,

of interrelated problems the Launch Operations, and Flight Mechanics,

Dynamics, and Control Coordination Panels. Although these Panels were designated as new Panels, the members selected by STG and MSFC represented key technical Saturn personnel working
of the

who

had

been included the Apollo

in the Mercury-Redstone Technical Liaison Groups, by von Braun
October 3, 1961.

Panels, and

the the

Mercury-Atlas

Program groups.
MSFC-STG

Panels, The Charter
Space

was signed
Board,

and Gilruth.

Charter

Vehicle

The S-IVB

MSFC-STG stage, which

Space would

Vehicle

Board

at NASA by the

Headquarters Douglas Aircraft Funds The (MSFC) Other

discussed Company

the to were

be modified with

replace allocated launch and such cussed flight

the six LR-115 for this operations operations were program study studies agreed and

engines

a single J-2 Space Flight group

engine. Center should SA-10,

of $500,000 status were

to be completed at Marshall that

in March

1962.

of orbital reviewed disto consider matters Apollo Board,

the Board

an ad hoc study as the for SA-5 MSFC orbital

be formed a review

the S-IVB plans planned meeting

launch

vehicle.

the mission schedule, for the first

through

of the

participation programs.
Spacecraft Staff

in the Dyna-Soar Program Coordination

program,

the agenda and joint
Minutes, Board Program,

of the Advanced

MSFC-STG
Marshall Meeting p. 202. No.

study of post-Apollo
Space Flight Center-Manned 7, 1961;

Center Manned

Space Space

Vehicle Flight

1, November

Senate

Report,

Representatives second speakers: vacuum ment monthly space navigation

of STG progress sextant

visited report visibility approach,

the

Instrumentation topics

Laboratory spacecraft presented gear theory, effort were

of MIT guidance train

for the and

meeting of technical and

on the Apollo geometry

contract. environmental and gyro.

A number

by Laboratory analysis, measurewas inertial

problems,

midcourse

guidance

unit,

The

organization'of estimate

the Apollo

at the Laboratory

also discussed. support million

A preliminary Apollo Fiscal
William Monthly 10, 1961.

of the cost for both and guidance system

Laboratory was

and industrial $158.4

for the through

navigation Year
W.

presented:

1966.
Petynia, Apollo Project Office, to Associate on Director, October 4,

Memorandum, "Second 1961," Apollo October

Meeting

at MIT,

Instrumentation

Laboratory,

Officials bidding

of STG

heard

oral

reports

from

representatives General

of five industrial Dynamics/Astronautics

teams

11

on the contract

for the Apollo

spacecraft: 113

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
October

in conjunction and Inc.; Space Grumman Corporation, tion, The at Old

with

the

Avco

Corporation; in conjunction Corporation, Company, Martin

General with and Space and Chance

Electric Douglas with Vought North and

Company, Aircraft Lockheed American

Missile Company,

Vehicle Aircraft

Department, Engineering Aircraft Inc; proposals were Aircraft The

Technology

Laboratories, Aircraft of Avia9. Hotel direction The Corporation on October the

McDonnell

Corporation

in conjunction Company; from Room began

Hughes

Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. Written presentations Point and

had been received in the Virginia

the contractors of the studying 11 panels, under the

made

Chamberlain proposals.

Comfort,

Va. Following Systems Heating;

the reports,

of the Business

Technical

Subcommittees,

Panels established were: Structures, Materials, and munications; Onboard

Integration; Propulsion; Flight Human Factors; Instrumentation Operational Support Systems

Mechanics; and Comand OperThe their Sub1.

Systems;

Ground

ations; Technical Development Plan; Reliability; Technical Assessment Panels completed their evaluation final report to the made Technical Subcommittee to the
November p. 12.

and Manufacturing. October 20 and made 25. The Board Technical on November
13, 1961, p. 7;

on October Evaluation
p. 8;

committee

its final report
Roundup, Chronology,"

Source
1, 1961,

MSC Space News "Apollo Spacecraft 2O

December

The would

MSFC-STG include the

Advanced entire that launch

Program vehicle compatible

Coordination of an automatic program with from should the

Board the

met Saturn

at C-1

STG

and which

discussed the Nova. spacecraft In further

the question It agreed electrical discussion,

of the development the Apollo

checkout be instructed

system

through the

contractor

to make

subsystems Paul

Saturn

complex. Center (MSFC) hmar neces-

J. DeFries guidelines

of Marshall for use

Space

Flight

presented a list of proposed landing missions: • The crew should draw

in studying only

early when

manned absolutely

on its own

resources

sary. Equipment and service much as possible.

personnel

external

to the spacecraft active only an external after

should support checked

be used as only out up to and on

• Early lunar expeditions would receive the time of the launch from earth orbit. ready • The crew would board the spacecraft for final countdown and launch. ° The the moon first which Apollo could crews afford should several have

it was

emergency vehicle

shelter and with

available a propulsion

months

of life support

protection.

• The capability stage--the "connecting able--should

for docking an orbital launch mode"should be possible. an orbital repairs, and launch

• The capability of fueling "fueling mode." • The capability be developed. ° For repairs, of making replacements,

vehicle or

should

be made

availin orbit vehicle

replacements,

adjustments orbital launch

adjustments

on the

in earth

orbit,

two support

vehicles

would 114

be necessary.

These

would

be a Saturn

PART

II :

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

C-1

launch

vehicle

manned repair

by Apollo kits. testing

technicians

and an unmanned

Atlas-Centaur

1961
October

launch

vehicle

carrying

• Development and training of man

of docking, in orbital capsule.

of components, could

and techniques out

for docking ferry

operations

be carried

by a space

loaded

with a Mercury

Some of the points • Orbital earth-launched

discussed

in connection

with these suggestions

were : complex, than

launch

operations

were just as complex,

if not more

operations. complex the crew the orbital could launch facility could be and the

• A question existed as to how and what its function should be. • There launch was a possibility Studies MSFC that

do most

of the checkout versus

operations.

should auxiliary

be made checkout

to define and

the role of the crew crew. agreed Both that STG

role of a proposed After rary would the discu_ion technology need

maintenance the Board operations.

on orbital

launch

operations, such

contempoand MSFC

was inadequate and
Thomas Space Board,"

to support both

to study
J.

develop
Markley, Vehicle

refueling

and connector
to Distribution

techniques.
Members Program of

Memorandum, the MSFC-STG

Acting "Minutes

Secretary, of

Board, 11,1961.

MSFC-MSC

Advanced

Coordination

December

NASA

selected

the Pearl River plant near New Space
October

site in southwestern Orleans, The Flight
26,

Mississippi,

about

35 miles from for Saturnunder and the

25

the Michoud Nova-class direction

La., as a static-test facility Center.
1961; Aeronautical and

facility

launch

vehicles.

completed

would

operate

of the Marshall
Daily News,

Washington 1961, p. 58.

Astronautical

Events

o[

The eral.

Saturn The

SA-1

first-stage

booster launch

was launched the largest

successfully known

from

Cape

Canav-

27

925,000-pound water-filled the Atlantic 1.3 million
Evening

vehicle, upper Range.

to be tested

up to that

time, carried miles down developed
Washington 1961, p. 58.

dummy Missile

stages to an altitude The booster's eight

of 84.8 miles and 214.7 clustered H-1 engines

pounds
Star,

of thrust.
28, 1961 ; Aeronautical and Astronautical Events o[

October

Under work

the direction entitled

of John

C. Houbolt

of Langley through

Research

Center,

a two-volume Rendezvous" The study W. Roy The had

31

"Manned

Lunar-Landing Committee John William a mission H. Tolson

use of Lunar-Orbit on July W. Vogeley, Max others 20).

was presented been Jr., prepared Manuel John

to the Golovin by Houbolt, J. Queijo, A. Dodgen, had requested and Robert

(organized Arthur Jr., and

D. Bird, H. Michael, D. Mace, plan

Ralph

Stone, F. BrisGolovin

William

C. Kurbjun, of Langley. orbit

senden,

Committee

using the lunar before

rendezvous

concept.

Bird, Michael,

appeared 115

the Committee

in Washing-

334-98'7

0

-

69

-

9

Launch

of

the

Saturn

SA-1

from

Cape 116

Canaveral,

Fla.,

October

27,

1961.

LUNAR

LANDER-ONE

MAN L_____B
I MAN AND LIFE SUPPORT CONTROLS STRUCTURE ENGINE AND TANKAGE FUEL AND OXIDIZER TOTAL 220 50 230 220 2500 3220

Above

is an surface,

artist's

concept

of

a small

lunar

lander

during

descent Center to

to

the

lunar 1961.

as proposed below mother craft

by personnel are actions

of Langley required along for

Research the lander

in October rendezvous by the in broken

Diagrammed with the

orbit line.

as it progresses

a path

indicated

SIMPLIFIED

LUNAR

RENDEZVOUS

(10o,o00 FT ORBIT)

i-2 2-3 3-4 4

VERTICAL THRUST (33.3 SEC) VERTICAL COAST (109SEC) HORIZONTAL THRUST (117SEC) RENDEZVOUS

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
October

ton to explain document.
Bird, Langley "Short

certain

matters

of trajectory,

and

lunar

stay time not covered

in the

History

of

the

Development

of

the

Lunar

Orbit

Rendezvous

Plan

at

the

Research

Center,"

p. 3.

31

Robert mation

G. Chilton based

of STG

gave jets.

the MIT studies

Instrumentation on the Apollo

Laboratory spacecraft

new inforpitch

on NASA

in-house

roll inertia,

and yaw inertia,
David G. Hoag,

and attitude
MIT, personal

notes,

October

1961.

November 1

The Space Task Group was formally Robert R. Gilruth, Director.
Grimwood, Project Mercury:

redesignated

the Manned

Spacecraft

Center,

A Chronology,

p. 152.

Marshall second million

Space stage pounds

Flight of thrust.

Center

directed

NAA

to redesign than four J-2

the

advanced

Saturn a

(S-II)

to incorporate

five rather

engines,

to provide

Saturn

Illustrated

Chronology,

p. 46.

An

Apollo on

Egress

Working

Group,

consisting Directorate, on that and

of personnel and and Atlantic Egress date

from

Marshall Range,

Space was in Group space

Flight formed

Center,

Launch

Operations 2. Meetings

Missile

November ground criteria

on November Criteria." criteria,

6 resulted The and

publication established vehicle design

of a seven-page rules,

document, operations

"Apollo control

procedures

and provided

requirements

for implementation

of emergency

egress systerrLs.
Memorandum, Bob Piland; "Apollo Emergency Walter Chief, Flight Egress C. Williams, Operations Requirements," Associate Division; Director, and Chief, MSC, Preflight 1 I, 1961. to Apollo Operations Office, Attn:

Division,

December

In

a memorandum (OMSF), described a large space NASA ()ffice flight

to D. Milton the launch and

Brainerd W. Rosen,

Holmes, Director

Director, of Launch group would

Office Vehicles meet

of Manned and

Space to the of utility from the

Flight OMSF, Director manned

Propulsion,

organization vehicle which would

of a working program which have The and broad group Propulsion Norman Space

to recommend national members Chairman, Melvyn Center

the requirements

and continuing would include

for other NASA

and DOD of Launch

programs. Vehicles Elliott the James (John The Fleming

(Rosen, Rafel, Flight and from

Richard Savage, and A. of

B. Canright, Adelbert Mrazek, Spacecraft w-_ts later the group (Golovin Heaton O. Hans

Eldon

W. Hall, and

Mitchell, Marshall

Tischler); H. Maus, Flight

from

(William Office

B. Bramlet); H. Disher). principal of the Large

the NASA

and added would

Missions

(David Launch the

M. Hammock material Vehicle Lundin Some Planning

of MSC Group the the

to the group.) consist the and the

background

to be used by Committee,

of reports

Committee), Committee,

Committee, Comnfittee.

Debus-Davis 118

of the subjects

PART

II:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

group orbital and future the realism ances).

would be considering were : ( 1 ) an assessment rendezvous, (2) an evaluation of intermediate C-5), course of the Rosen
to

of the problems vehicles (Saturn (4) (6) an (5)

involved in C-3, C4, of the of of the performprogram.
6, 1961; Pro-

1961
November

(3) of the

an evaluation solid-fuel III Titan

of Nova-class rocket motor for NASA

vehicles, and

assessment

of large

development, (schedules,

an evaluation weights,

utility

missions, program date
Vehicle

an evaluation

spacecraft set November
Rosen

development

20 as a target
"Large Launch for NASA

for a recommended
Program," Space November Flight Vehicle

Memoranda, Rosen gram,"

to Holmes,

Holmes,

"Recommendations 20, 1961.

Manned

November

Representatives tion Laboratory system, discussed for the logic guidance Topics estimated changes subjects computer gramming,
Memoranda, to MIT System," ciate oratory

of MSC to discuss technical included lunar design,

and NASA clauses questions

Headquarters in the contract proposed for the Presentations staff: and for guidance by

visited MSC,

the MIT and work

Instrumentanavigation flights and and and the in progress. velocity guidance pro-

7-9

for the Apollo SA-7 attitude were and SA-8 made gyro, guidance

the trajectories mission.

propellant by members horizon
Jack Instrumentation November MSC,

requirements landing computer

maneuvers

on the following Apollo computer

of the Laboratory sensor experiments,
Barnard, 15, Apollo Laboratory 1961; "Third 8-9," Apollo November Project

the spacecraft interfaces, guidance.
Associate Apollo Apollo at MIT

displays

and reentry
Office, W. Monthly 15, 1961. Petynia, Meeting to the Concerning

Director, Navigation Project

MSC, and Office, to

"Visit AssoLab-

Guidance

William

Director,

Instrumentation

on November

The Space the tions

four

MSC-MSFC Center and

Coordination (MSFC). Electronics Design Panel months,
Minutes,

Panels Panel and the
June

held

their was

first meeting the two decision new and intervals.

at Marshall to modify Panels: Communicathe

Flight

A significant the

event

Electrical Panel.
MSF

by creating Instrumentation met
Agenda

Electrical

Systems

Integration

In succeeding
Council

Panels
25, 1963,

at regular
Item 6.

Management

In a letter Houbolt plan vous and

to NASA outlined

Associate Research

Administrator Center presented exclusion

Robert the lunar of the

C. Seamans, orbit LOR booster and

Jr., manned from

John (LOR)

C.

15

of Langley programs.

rendezvous plan

certain This

deficiencies protested responsible

in the national

rendezserious program

letter

consideration for lunar
Letter,

by committees

for the definition

of the national

exploration.
Houbolt to Seamans, November 15, 1961.

NASA Saturn They contract,

announced first-stage would worth

that

the

Chrysler similar at the million,

Corporation Michoud would facility

had near

been New 1966,

chosen

to build La.

20 27. The

17

( S-I ) boosters about $200

to the one tested run through

successfully

on October

be constructed scheduled
Post,

Orleans,

with delivery

of the

first booster
Washington

for early
18,

1964.
1961.

November

119

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
November 10

Ranger

II was launched

into near-earth

orbit from

the Atlantic

Missile of the

Range spacecraft

by

an Atlas-Agena was not achieved
Washington

B booster. The scheduled deep-space trajectory when the Agena engine failed to restart in orbit.
Evening Star, November 18, 1961.

2O

Milton Manned

W. Rosen, Space

Director Flight

of Launch group were:

Vehicles which

and to D. had

Propulsion, Brainerd

NASA Holmes,

Office Director,

of 6.

(OMSF),

submitted

OMSF, the report The recommendations

of the working of the group

been set up on November

• The United States should capability on an urgent basis. • To exploit by rendezvous, or five J-2 be developed modified better flights match engines the possibilities in the second C-5). an intermediate (Saturn with

undertake

a program

to develop

rendezvous lunar landing four be a

of accomplishing vehicle stage, first with five F-1 should The and and one J-2 stage.

the first manned engines engine in the third

in the first stage, that it could provided and

stage should

The

vehicle

be so designed three-engine DOD

to use a three-engine a large of the number manned in support

vehicle

of NASA lunar

requirements

earlier

program. on the direct flight mode gave greater assurance of flight M-1 mode, engine a Nova second basis. for the

• The United States should place primary emphasis for achieving the first manned lunar landing. This mode accomplishment vehicle stage, consisting during this decade. F-1 third To implement engine of an eight engine first stage,

the direct a four

and a one J-2

stage should

be developed

on a top priority as a requirement for other purposes, first-stage

• Large solid-fuel manned lunar landing. manned to provide aiming third earth space flight

rockets should not be considered If these rockets were developed should for Nova. S-IVB stage C-1 (one J-2) 1964. support a solid-fuel

program capability of the

development

a backup flight

• Development toward

engine

should

be started, as the

tests on a Saturn and

in late

It should

be used

stage of both Saturn C-5 orbit rendezvous mode. • NASA had no present by DOD, to ascertain

Nova

and also as the escape

stage

in the single

requirement NASA if the

for the Titan should vehicle maintain could be

III

vehicle.

If the Titan liaison with NASA

III

were

developed

continuous used

DOD needs.

development

for future

Memorandum, Vehicle 27 Program,"

Rosen

to Holmes,

"Recommendations

for

NASA

Manned

Space

Flight

November

20, 1961.

The original expanded.

Apollo

spacecraft

Statement

of Work

of July 28 had been substantially

The requirements Control injection earth

for the spacecraft injection both

navigation

and guidance

system

were

defined

: of an

of translunar

of the spacecraft for direct ascent

and monitoring and

capability from

guidance orbit

to the crew

for injection

parking

120

PART

H:

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

Data

and computation

for mission

abort

capability

en route

to the moon

and

1961
November

for guidance to a point from which a safe lunar landing Guidance of the command module to a preselected safe reentry Guidance abort direct module for establishing lunar orbit and making into

could be attempted earth landing site after lunar landings; trajectory space mission by both laborato_"

capability from the lunar landing maneuver Control of launch from the lunar surface ascent and from lunar in earth vehicle navigation and guidance parking orbit orbit between the Rendezvous

transearth and

spacecraft

or other space of the platform sextant

Components Inertial Space Controls Electronics Chart Range and lunar Backup Computer

system

now

clearly

identified

were:

and displays assembly measuring equipment for emergency for terminal operation were revised during injection the after launch : thrusting period while of in system separation control in rendezvous and star catalog or velocity

landing inertial components

The stabilization Roll atmospheric earth parking control abort

and control as well and stability

system requirements as flight path and the control the lunar space augmentation

escape

Stabilization orbit Rendezvous vehicle Attitude entering Basic

of the spacecraft and control docking and lunar with

configuration module and

laboratory landings

or other

space for

hovering orbit

for lunar

launchings

and

and leaving

components of the stabilization Attitude reference Rate sensors electronics controls and rate supplies service propulsion velocity landing module systems. increments attempt and assembly displays

and control

system

were

defined:

Control Manual Attitude Power

A single-engine and mission

propulsion The

system

would would

replace be capable

the earlier of:

vernier

new sytem of the launch and midcourse

Abox t propulsion All major prior to the lunar Lunar Earth-storable, would include launch

after jettison

escape system velocity corrections velocity by the new for missions

propulsion

transearth would

midcourse be used

correction. system, which ratio

hypergolic single-

propellants

or multiple-thrust 121

chambers

with

a thrust-to-weight

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT"

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
November

of at least 0.4 tion) The each and would reaction consist

for all chambers have a pressurized systems independent

operating propellant

(based

on the lunar

launch

configura-

feed system. and capable service modules would and now torque the

control of two

for the

command both

systems, The fuel of nitrogen

of meeting

the total

and propellant oxidizer would The two The parachute FIST-type command

requirements. be a mixture system drogue module

would be monomethylhydrazine tetroxide and nitrous oxide. configuration by mortars. a ring-reinforced, was revised

for the earth parachutes structure

landing deployed

to include

was specified:

single-thickness

aluminum shell pressure vessel separated relatively rigid brazed or welded sandwich would be bonded to this outer structure. Service shell module compatible structure with was noise also detailed: and buffet and

from the outer support structure of construction. The ablative heatshield

an aluminum with meteoroid

honeycomb

sandwich The

requirements.

structural continuity be compatible with vehicle. The duties of the three Commander Control mission Selection, modes

would have the overall

to be maintained bending stiffness

with adjoining requirements

modules and of the launch

Apollo

crewmen

were delineated

:

of the spacecraft implementation,

in manual and

or automatic of the

mode

in all phases and

of the

monitoring

navigation during

guidance periods

Monitoring and control of key areas Station in the left or center couch Co-Pilot Second Support in command of the spacecraft

of all systems

time-critical

of the pilot as alternative

pilot or navigator of the spacecraft and propulsion sys-

Monitoring of certain key parameters tems during critical mission phases Station in the left or center couch Systems Engineer for all systems of propulsion placed couch critical for systems

Responsibility Responsibility Apollo spacecraft Station During

and their operation systems during critical mission phases for later on board primarily for evaluation

Primar T monitor

in the right-hand reentry,

launch,

or similar

mission would

phases,

the crew would

be seated

side by side. At other times, One crew two member primary food would duty

at least one couch stand stations. and watch during certain 122

be stowed. mission phases fixes, could at either be sepa-

noncritical scientific

of the

Areas

for taking

navigation observations

performing

maintenance,

preparation,

PART

II: DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT

rate from primary duty reflect the duties of each could return the spacecraft assume that each could Radiation modules.

stations. crewman.

Arrangements They would duties. would

of displays and controls would be so arranged that one crewman would be cross-trained so

1961
November

safely to earth.

All crewmen

the others'

shielding

for the crew

be provided

by the mass of the spacecraft

A description of crew equipment was added: The couch for each crewman would give full body all normal and emergency acceleration leg angles positions conditions. and and

and

head

support

during

It would

be adjustable

to permit changes in body and allow crewmen to interchange wearing a back or _at parachute. each couch for adequate restraint restraint system would furnish

would be so constructed as to to accommodate a crewman with and to

A restraint system would be provided during all flight phases. Each support vibration attenuation beyond that needed

maintain general spacecraft integrity. This system would keep crew vibration loads within tolerance limits and also enable the crew to exercise necessary control Pressure of cabin and monitoring functions. for extravehicular activity and for use in the event

suits would decompression.

be carried

The spacecraft for disinfecting able human Food stituted to the waste, would with

would be equipped with toilet facilities the human waste sufficiently to render crew. and Personal the hygiene needs, such control of infectious germs

which would include means it harmless and unobjectionthe handling for. be reconbe reof nonbe provided type that could

as shaving, would

be dehydrated, water

freeze-dried, Heating

or of a similar and chilling

if necessary.

of the foods

would

quired. The primary source of potable water would be the fuel cells. sufficient water would have to be on board at launch for use during landing requirement water. equipment parachutes survival and equipment: accessories from one three-man to support landing the area. would garments, spacecraft the liferaft, crew after In addition, be included. lightweight food, would include: in case of early abort. Urine would not have

In addition, the 72-hour

to be recycled

for potable Emergency Personal

Post-landing first for three supply purifying The crew

location

aids, water for

aid supplies, would

outside landing;

the spacecraft provision

days in any emergency be removed supply a three-day

a three-day

of sea water

would

be furnished equipment. would

"shirtsleeve"

cap,

and

exer-

cise and recreation Medical especially and lunar

instrumentation during stressful

be used of early

to monitor flights, and carry and

the

crew

during

all flights, to

periods

for special

experiments

be performed

in the space Each

laboratory crewman

module would 123

during

extravehicular dosimeter.

activity

exploration.

a radiation

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
November

The environmental control system, and a thermal control One sure air loop would suits. The other all phases

system system.

would

comprise

two

air loops,

a gas

supply or presventila-

supply would

the conditioned remove sensible including

atmosphere heat and postlanding.

to the cabin provide cabin

tion during The primary

of the mission would would

gas supply The supply

be stored be 50

in the service percent excess

module capacity

as supercritical over that rea

cryogenics.

quired for normal metabolic needs, two complete cabin repressurizations, minimum of 18 airlock operations, and leakage. Recharging of self-contained extravehicular Thermal coolant modes, Water rately would suit support would systems be achieved from would would by be possible. absorbing radiator. heat with a circulating certain mission system.

control and other

rejecting cooling

this heat systems

a space supplement

During

or relieve

the primary

collected from the separator and the fuel cells would be stored sepain positive expulsion tanks. Manual closures, filters, and relief valves be used where needed as safety devices. requirements for the environmental control mixture) system : 7±0.2 were: psia

Metabolic

Total cabin pressure (oxygen and nitrogen Relative humidity: 40 to 70 percent Partial pressure carbon dioxide--maximum Temperature: 75 o ±5 o F The major Three components nonregenerative intermediate electrodes, accessories, and of the electrical power

7.6 mm Hg

system fuel

were

described

more

fully: by nickel,

hydrogen-oxygen temperature, aqueous

cell modules utilizing

characterized porous

low pressure, unactivated Mechanical piping, etc. Three

Bacon-type, potassium

as the electrolyte components, reactant tankage,

including

control

silver-zinc

primary

batteries,

each

having (per

a normal battery)

28-volt when

output

and at

a minimum the ten-hour A display the system required and

capacity of 3000 rate at 80 ° F control for panel,

watt-hours

discharged

sufficient

to monitor

the operation power

and

status loads

of as

and

distribution

of generated

to electrical

The fuel cell modules piping, valves, total

and control, tanks (empty), radiators, heat exchangers, reactants plus reserves would be located in the service power distribution and con-

module. The silver-zinc batteries and electrical trols would be placed in the command module. Under normal operation, the entire electrical

power

requirements

would

be

supplied by the storage batteries operation.

three fuel cell modules operating in parallel. The primary would be maintained fully charged under this condition of

124

PART

n:

DESIGN--DEGISION--GONTRACT

If one trical would

fuel load

cell and

module

failed, two

the isolated

unit from

involved the fuel

would system and The

automatically the primary entire

be elec-

1961
November

electrically

mechanically by the

assumed

remaining

cells.

batteries

remain fully charged. failed, loads they would would within be isolated from the system by capacities and

If two fuel cell modules the spacecraft and manually remaining At reentry, sequent storage Each voltage percent electrical programmed

immediately

be reduced

the crew of the

to hold

the generating

fuel cell. the fuel cell modules electrical power and accessories would would be jettisoned. by the All subprimary

requirements

be provided

batteries. fuel celt module of 28 volts overloads and Under would and could have a normal density capacity of 1200 watts assigned normal and The at an output so that 50

a current

conservatively 60 psia a total

be continuously would conditions should

supplied. be about not exceed

fuel cell operat425 ° to 500 ° F fuel (hydro-

ing pressure respectively.

temperature normal consumption

of operation,

the specific

gen and oxygen) Self-sustaining

of 0.9 lb/kw-hr. begin at a tem-

operation

within

the fuel cell module

should

perature of about fuel cell module supply. The degree

275 ° F. A detection system would be provided with each to prevent contamination of the collected potable water

of redundancy would

provided

for mechanical

and

electrical

accessory

equipment The

be 100 percent. portion wiring of the protective electrical devices, power and system switching would and contain regulating all

distribution buses,

necessary equipment. Sufficient fuel cell reactants tankage The main

tankage modules would would oxygen

would be supplied and environmental be stored supercritically equal of two

to store controls volume would

all reactants required by the for a 14-day mission. The temperatures for each both and the vessels reactant.

at cryogenic storage supply

consist

and nitrogen

storage

the environmental

control The

system and the fuel cells. and instrumentation system was further to facilitate Flexibility detailed: by ground as possible to of future A patch

communication The equipment and removal

was to be constructed by the crew from and would would the spacecraft.

maintenance for incorporation the design. permit

personnel facilitate additions

to be as nearly be stressed be included

self-contained

or modifications panel from

throughout which signal would

and programming of signal inputs to any desired of "repatching"

the routing and from this the capability should be

sensors

to any selected

conditioner provide and

commutator during

channel. a mission.

Panel design The 125

would

equipment

system

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
November

capable

of sustained

undegraded

operation

with

supply

vokage

variation

of

+ 15 percent A circuit quired modulated The

to - 20 percent analysis exactly

of the normal for each

bus voltage. electrical voice, system and would television be redata

quafity

radiating

to show

how

ranging,

telemetry,

all transmitters

with which

they were used. would bc engineered for com-

equipment

and associated

documentation

prehensive Components Voice

and logical

fault tracing. subsystem would include :

of the communication

communication

Telemetry Tracking Television Radio Radar transponders aids (if required by the guidance be required system) to detect, measure, and display the integ_ty systems.

recovery altimeter

Antenna

subsystems

The instrumentation all parameters and environment Data would needed

system would

by the crew for monitoring and performance stations Information

and evaluating

of the spacecraft

of the spacecraft for assessment needed

be transmitted and for failurc

to ground analysis.

of spacecraft decisions The

performance and

for abort

aid in the selection would

of lunar

landing

sites would

also be provided.

mission Included

bc documented

through

photography

and recording. system were:

in the components

of the instrumentation

Sensors Data Tape disposition recorders indicators

Panel display Calibration Clock Telescope Cameras In addition the Statement laboratory

to the description of Work module, mission

of the major control center

command and ground

and

service landing

module module, support

systems, space system,

also included

sections test plan.

on the lunar

operational

and the engineering The propulsion

and development system

for the lunar system : multiple

landing lunar orbiting

module retrograde

would

now

comprise

a

composite velocity landing lunar

propulsion increments engine

engines landing;

for the gross and a lunar and the would

required

for lunar vector

and lunar

for velocity touchdown

control,

midcourse The lunar

velocity retrograde

control, engines

hover

and

maneuver. 126

PART II: use liquid-oxygen engine would and

DESIGN--DECISION--CONTRACT propellants. The would single lunar landing over ! 961 November

liquid-hydrogen

require

the same type of propellant, about the normal value,

be throttleable be capable

a ratio of -----50percent pie starts within No additions

and would

of multi-

the design

operating had been

life of the engine. made in the space laboratory module sys-

or changes

tems description. Overall mission liftoff, center earth control would mission at Cape and lunar phases of all Apollo be exercised launch flights support elements Control throughout Center. from be used module were Up all phases of a

by the Mission would

to the time of control

activities and

be conducted stations would

the launch during

Canaveral.

Remote

to support*nearreentry. :

track the command and test plan tests

Five major ( 1 ) Design (2) (3) (4) (5)

of a development

identified

information

and development and

Qualification, Major Major Flight ground missions.

reliability, tests

integration

tests

development

flight tests

NASA, Project Apollo Spacecraft Development Statement ber 27, 1961 ), Part 3, Technical Approach, pp. 35-96.

of Work (STG,

Novem-

A team

and

a goal--officials shortly after as the prime

of North

American Apollo

Aviation, that command

Inc., had and

study been

a replica selected

of by

the moon NASA From and

the announcement for the John A. Storms, program

the firm

contractor

service American's

modules. Space of Apollo;

left to right are Harrison Information Systems H. Feltz, Apollo

president W. Paup,

of North program (NAA photo)

Division;

manager

and Charles

engineer.

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
November 28

NASA American spacecraft.

announced Aviation, The

that decision

the

Space had

and

Information selected to

Systems design James and E.

Division build Webb 200 received

of North the Apollo a and were followed

Inc.,

been

by NASA both NASA

Administrator proposals DOD. 24. Although and

comprehensive engineers Evaluation and mand cost.

evaluation Board findings

of five industry on November

by nearly had technical

scientists the

representing

Webb

Source

evaluations

very close, NAA NAA landing module

had been selected would and service module. had

on the basis of experience, for the design NASA previously expected within and that the next Both

technical development a separate six months. the NAA

competence, of the comcontract The and for MIT of the MIT

be responsible

the lunar

system would Laboratory

be awarded

Instrumentation

been assigned

the development

Apollo spacecraft guidance and navigation system. contracts would be under the direction of MSC.
NAA 1961; Space Wall and Information Street ]ournal, and Part Research Operations Space 6, Launch p. Systems November Sciences, 513;

Division, News Release SP3-0610, 29, 1961; U.S. Congress, Senate, Accident, Marshall Space 1961. Hearings, to Group, Space Task 90th Ames, Wallops Flight

November Committee 1st Jet Station,

28, on Ses-

Aeronautical sion and sion (1967), Flight Laboratory,

Apollo and Center,

Congress, Langley, Centers,

TWX, Goddard November

NASA

Headquarters

Lewis, Propuland

Centers, Office,

Operations

Western

28,

29

The and later.

Mercury-Atlas carrying was 21 minutes, Enos flights scheduled
Space pp.

5 launch chimpanzee the capsule reported were for early
News Roundup,

from

the Atlantic and

Missile After No

Range a two-orbit

placed flight and

a Mercury of 3 hours 25 minutes or orbital

spacecraft

Enos into orbit. reentered condition. before

was recovered attempting

1 hour additional the

in excellent necessary 1962.
December

unmanned manned

primate mission
MSC Ocean,

considered

13,

1961,

p.

1;

Swenson

et

al.,

This

New

402-407.

29-30

On

a visit to Marshall guidance
G. Hoag,

Space

Flight

Center

by MIT vehicle
1961.

Instrumentation switchover guidance.

Laboratory from Saturn

representatives, to Apollo
David

the possibility systems
personal

was discussed

of emergency

as backup
notes,

for launch
29-30,

November

128

PART III
Lunar Orbit Rendezvous: Mode and Module

December

1961

through

November

7,

1962

PART III

The Key Events
1961 December 15: Selection of The Boeing Company for negotiations as the prime contractor Space stage for the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn C-5, under the direction of Marshall Flight Center (MSFC). December 20: Selection of the Douglas Aircraft Company to develop the S-IVB of the Saturn C-5, under the direction of MSFC.

December 21: Letter contract No. NAS 9-150 signed by NASA and North American Aviation, Inc. (NAA), authorizing work to begin on the Apollo spacecraft development program. December 21: Decision by the Manned Space Flight Management Council on the Saturn C-5 configuration. December 21: Four major subcontractors on the Apollo spacecraft systems chosen by NAA. 1962 January 15: Apollo (MSC). Spacecraft Project Office established at the Manned Spacecraft Center

February 20: First successful American orbital flight, by Astronaut John H. Glenn, Jr. March 12: Primary activities for the Apollo program relocated at MSC, Houston, Tex. A#ril 11: Assignment by the President of DX (highest) priority to the Apollo program. May 8: Three major associate contractors on the Apollo spacecraft guidance and navigation system selected by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Instrumentation Laboratory. May 11: General Dynamics/Convair awarded contract by NASA to design and manufacture the Little Joe II test launch vehicle. I1: Announcement by NASA that the Saturn C-IB launch vehicle would be developed to test the Apollo spacecraft in earth orbit missions. July 11: Selection by NASA of the lunar orbit rendezvous mode for the manned lunar landing mission. July 20: Announcement by NASA that the Mission Control Center would be located at MSC. July July luly: 25: Invitations contract. by NASA to 11 companies to bid on the lunar excursion module

Hamilton Standard Division of United Aircraft Corporation selected by NASA to develop the Apollo space suit. September 5: Nine industry proposals for the lunar excusion module contract received by NASA. October 50: Contract signed by NASA with NAA for the development and production of the S-II (second) stage of the Saturn C-5, directed by MSFC. November 7: Selection of the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation design and develop the lunar excursion module under MSC direction. by NASA to

1SO

PART III
Lunar
December

Orbit
1961

Rendezvous:
through

Mode

and

Module

November

7, 1962

The NAA

Project

Apollo

Statement letter

of Work based Field,

for development on the

of the of Work development

Apollo

spacecraft to

1961
December 4

was completed. for review. spacecraft

A draft

on this Statement conference Va.

was presented

A prenegotiation

of the Apollo

was held at Langley

"Apollo Spacecraft Chronology," p. 13. NASA Holmes, working Seamans tions. Associate Director, group expressed Administrator Office on launch himself Robert C. Seamans, Space which Flight, had been Jr., commented on the report submitted with the group's to D. Brainerd of the (Rosen) 20.

of Manned vehicles, as essentially

on November recommenda-

in accord

Memorandum, Seamans to Holmes, "Recommendations Vehicle Program," December 4, 1961. NASA Part their agreed these plates drop negotiations Va. 3, Technical recommended for action. on changes was the were impact addition tests and with Nine NAA Technical and on of the the Panels Apollo

for NASA Manned Space Flight

spacecraft of Work. questions NASA Two and

contract 11 and These to the NAA

were Panels Technical

held reported

at

5-20

Williamsburg,

met on December

12 to review SubAmong of boilerfor

Approach, changes Later intended of the the more

Statement

unresolved the

committee

in the negotiations, to clarify boilerplate those complex

representatives types

original program.

Statement distinct steel with

of Work.

to be fabricated:

of a simple models

cold-rolled to be used

construction the Little

Joe II

and Saturn launch vehicles. The Little Joe II, originally conceived in June 1961, was a solid-fuel rocket booster which would be used to man-rate the launch escape system for the command In addition, Systems responsible the Apollo would planning for module. Project now and Office, report directing project. which all had to the activities been MSC part of the MSC and with the Flight be comby the

Division,

directly

Director

would

associated

pletion of the Apollo Office would include • Monitor Contractors • Resolve Associate involved

spacecraft :

Primary

functions

to be performed

the work of the Apollo technical problems which were

Principal

Contractor the

(NAA)

and Associate Contractor the and parties

arising not 131

between directly

Principal

Contractors

resolved

between

334-987

0

-

69

-

10

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
December

• Maintain informed problems on the which

close liaison status might 15, impede

with

all Apollo work,

contractors potential

to keep fully and currendy delays, or technical

of contract

schedule

progress. Spacecraft Project Office was established at

[On January MSC.] Letter program ber 21. the contract

1962,

the Apollo

No.

NAS

9-150,

authorizing was signed

work

on the

Apollo and NAA and

development on Decemof

to begin Under

on January

1, 1962, NAA modules,

by NASA the design adapter,

this contract, and service

was assigned the

development ground contract

command

spacecraft

associated of the

support followed
Project

equipment, and spacecraft on December 31.
Apollo, "Minutes December pp. 30, 4, 27; Project p. 9; 1961 of Technical

integration.

Formal

signing

Panel Oakley,

Meetings

for

Negotiation Summary, No. 1 for

of

Spacecraft Apollo Ending of

Development," Program, September Work

12-15, Apollo MSC, ), Part

1961;

Historical Status Report

S&ID Period

Quarterly Project Apollo 1-2.

1962, 18,

Spacecraft

Development

Statement

(December

4, pp.

D. Brainerd liminary primary secondary memorandum

Holmes,

NASA

Director plan

of Manned for the Administrator

Space Robert rendezvous

Flight, Mark C.

outlined II program Seamans,

the prein a Jr. The

project objective

development to NASA of the program were The

Mercury

Associate

was to develop flights,

techniques; land

important and stated,

objectives

long-duration development

controlled

recovery, Holmes

astronaut training. was essential: • It offered than by direct

of rendezvous

capability,

the possibility

of accomplishing

a manned

lunar

landing

earlier

ascent. landing maneuver would require the development for the lunar to the Apollo of rendezvous mission. laboraorbiting

• The lunar techniques • Rendezvous tory missions The plan

regardless

of the operational and docking would

mode

selected

be necessary period. on December 3, 1962.]

planned

for the 1965-1970 by "Gemini"
to Plan,"

was

approved

Seamans

7. [The

Mercury

Mark

II

program

was renamed
Holmes

on January.

Memorandum, Project

Associate December

Administrator, 6, 1961.

"Mercury

Mark

II

Preliminary

Development

Plans Robert Donnell but

for the development R. Gilruth, Aircraft larger MSC Corporation, and two

of a two-man Director. would to three The times

Mercury two-man heavier. for flight

spacecraft spacecraft, Its booster test in early

were

announced spacecraft would One

by

to be built rocket 1962.

by Mcbe a of the

be similar

in shape

to the Mercury

slightly

modified major

Air Force objectives

Titan

II, scheduled would be launched stage

in the program would with an Agena

be a test of orbital into orbit by an Atlas

rendezvous, rocket. The

in which total cost

the two-man to rendezvous

spacecraft

by the Titan

II and attempt

launched 132

PART

III"

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

for a dozen two-man at $500 million.
Aeronautical and

spacecraft

plus boosters and other equipment
Events o[ 1961, p. 71.

was estimated

1961
December

Astronautical

NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., and DOD Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engineering John H. Rubel recommended to Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and NASA Administrator James E. Webb that detailed arrangements for support of the Mercury Mark II spacecraft and the Atlas-Agena vehicle used in rendezvous experiments be planned directly between NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight and the Air Force and other DOD organizations. NASA's primary responsibilities would be the overall management and direction for the Mercury Mark II/Agena rendezvous development and experiments. The Air Force responsibilities would include acting as NASA contractor for the Titan II launch vehicle and for the Atlas-Agena vehicle to be used in rendezvous experiments. DOD's responsibilities would include assistance in the provision and selection of astronauts and the provision of launch, range, and recovery support, as required by NASA.
Director NASA, of Defense Research to The Secretary of to the Division and and Engineering, Defense and the of Effort between DOD, and Administrator, the December NASA 7, Asand 1961. 15 Memorandum, Deputy sociate Administrator, NASA, DOD in "Recommendation the Development

Relative of Space

Rendezvous

Capabilities,"

NASA announced

that The Boeing Company

had been selected for negotiations

as a possible prime contractor for the first stage (S-IC) of the advanced Saturn launch vehicle. The S-IC stage, powered by five F-1 engines, would be 35 feet in diameter and about 140 feet high. The $300-million contract, to run through 1966, called for the development, construction, and testing of 24 flight stages and one ground test stage. The booster would be assembled at the NASA Michoud Operations Plant near New Orleans, La., under the direction of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
Saturn Illustrated Chronology, pp. 49-50. 18-19

Fred T. Pearce, Jr., of MSC visited the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory to discuss the first design-study space sextant produced at the Laboratory. The instrument was intended to be used with the guidance computer. The working mockup was demonstrated and the problem of the effect of the vehicle motion on the sextant was discussed.
Memorandum, and ber Ames 22, 1961. Pearce Research to Center Associate to Director, the STG, Apollo "Visits Navigational to Instrument Instrument," Laboratory DecemDiscuss

The General 1721 (XIV)
Kemp,

Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted Resolution on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space.
Toward a Space Treaty: An Historical Analysis, p. 55.

2O

Evolution

The Douglas Aircraft Company was selected by NASA for negotiation of a contract to modify the Saturn S-IV stage by installing a single J-2 Rocketdyne engine of 133

2O

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1961
December

200,000 Marshall
Saturn

pounds Space
Illustrated

of thrust. Flight Center.

The

contract

would

be under

the

direction

of the

Chronology,

p. 50.

21

D. Brainerd nounced Council, difficulties program. Robert Marshall M. Rees, quarters, Rosen, tor the

Holmes, formation was

Director of the to meet

of the NASA Manned at least Space once

Office Flight a month,

of Manned Management was

Space

Flight, and

anThe

Council.

which

to identify

resolve

and to coordinate Members of the and Flight Walter Space Deputy George

the interface problems in the manned Council, in addition to Holmes, were: C. Williams, Wernher Director von and Braun, and Associate Director, and from

space flight from MSC, Director; Eberhard NASA from F.

R. Gilruth

Center,

Director M. Low, of Launch Medicine;

for Research Director Vehicles William and Joseph

Development; and Flight ; Charles

HeadW. Direcand Engi-

of Spacecraft and Propulsion E. Lilly, F. Shea,

Missions;

Milton

Director

H. Roadman, Review

of Aerospace

Director Deputy

of Program Director

Resources neering. tories,

Management; Shea, formerly

for Systems

Space Calif.,

Programs had recently
January 10,

Director joined
1962, p.

for Space NASA.
1; Senate Staff

Technology

Labora-

Inc.,

Los Angeles,
News Program,

MSC Space

Space Flight

Roundup, p. 205.

Report,

Manned

21

The the

Manned Saturn and

Space C-5

Flight

Management would

Council have

decided

at its first meeting configuration The third the contractor and that the Contractor design assigning

that

launch

vehicle

a first stage

of five F-1 stage would for stage contractor work study large

engines

a second of the

stage configuration engine. C-1

of five J-2

engines. that

be the S-IVB integration for stage

with one J-2 Saturn

It recommended Corporation Boeing C-5 be The

be Chrysler

integration

of the Saturn proceed plan

Company.

on the Saturn and a detailed

C 5 should development

immediately before letting

to provide

a complete and Center

final contracts Space
21, 1961,

numbers
MSF 21

of contractor
Management

personnel
Council Minutes,

to Marshall
December

Flight
pp. 1-2.

or Michoud.

NAA's

Space

and

Information and build Cedar

Systems four

Division

selected Apollo received

four

companies

as subThe

contractors Collins systems

to design

of the major Iowa,

spacecraft the

systems.

Radio contract,

Company, worth

Rapids,

telecommunications Regulator control systems Garcontrol

more than Minn., AiResearch Angeles, million; and

$40 million; received Calif., was the

Minneapolis-Honeywell stabilization Company, the and

Company, contract, rett

Minneapolis, $30 million; Los $10

Manufacturing

division

of The

Corporation, contract, Calif.,

awarded Division

environmental

system Van more

Radioplane

of Northrop system

Corporation, contract, contract worth was

Nuys, than

was selected The $400 million.
Roundup,

for the parachute

landing phase

$1 million. to exceed
Space News

total cost for the initial

of the NAA

expected
MSC

December

27,

1961.

134

PART

HI:

LUNAR

ORB_

RENDEZVOUS

NASA

made

public

the

drawings

of the three-man

Apollo

spacecraft

to be used announced its

1962
January 5

in the lunar landing development program. On January 9, NASA decision that the Saturn C-5 would be the lunar launch vehicle.
Washington Evening Star, January 5, 1962; Washington Post, January 10,

1962. 11

In his State of the Union "With than the approval in outer and Charles new effort space.

message Our real

to the Congress, aim is not simply of this country

President

John

F. Kennedy

said : a great

of this Congress,

we have undertaken

in the past year

to be first on the moon, and other countries

an), more

Lindbergh's

aim was to be first to Paris. in making

His aim was to develop in the field of which the we hope of science, free world. not the

the techniques will place commerce

the authority

the air and the atmosphere, one of our citizens and cooperation, among

and our objective on the moon, the position

this effort, States among and

is to develop of the United it. And

in a new frontier the first--if

This nation belongs first--we shall be."
Senate Outer Staff Space, Report,

the first to explore

Documents p.

on 228.

International

Aspects

o[ the

Exploration

and

Use

o[

1954-1962,

The W.

Apollo Frick

Spacecraft was selected Frick had

Project been Chief Frick's

Office

(ASPO) of the new Staff

was established Office, for General of ASPO assigned

at MSC.

Charles in as

15

as Manager

to assume and

his duties would serve

February. Robert Acting direction spacecraft. Apollo would advised
MSC January

of Technical Deputy ASPO with through

Dynamics/Convair. for the technical on the Apollo on the of ASPO fully contractors Manager of MSC

O. Piland Manager of NAA project

was appointed until and other

Manager would NAA

arrival. industrial

be responsible or with other The

contractors

to work

All technical would

coordination be coordinated

this Office. and Associate

be responsible

for keeping

the Director

Director

on the status of the program.
Announcement 15, 1962. No. 10, Establishment of the Apollo Spacecraft Project Office,

The first Apollo engineering order command and service modules.
Oakley, Historical Summary, S&ID

was issued

to fabricate

mockups

of the Apollo

22

Apollo

Program,

p. 5.

Ranger

III

was launched B booster. missed

toward Because

the moon

from

the Atlantic in the Agena eventually completed pictures

Missile guidance went into

Range

by an the

26

Atlas-Agena spacecraft

of a malfunction miles and

system, solar

its target experiments surface.

by 22,862

orbit. readand to

Of four scientific ings of the lunar bounce
New

only one was partially to relay television at close range

: gamma-ray of the moon

Attempts

radar
York

signals
Times,

off the moon
29, 1962.

were

unsuccessful.

January

NAA module

engineers (CM)

began

preliminary

layouts

to define

the elements and

of the command imposed

configuration.

Additional 135

requirements

limitations

During the Month

APOLLO SPACECRAFT
CIRCUMLUNAR CONFIGURATION
COMMANDMODULE: I MISSION CONTROL • CREWQUARTERS • LIFE SUPPORT • RE-ENTRY

SERVICE MODULE: • MIDCOURSE CORRECTIONS • ABORTPROPULSION • ELECTRIC POWER • EXPENDABLE UPPLIES S

b GUIDANCE NAVIGATION & LUNARRECONNAISSANCE tHIGH SPEEDRE-ENTRY RECOVERY & The early 1962 concept of the configuration of the Apollo spacecraft for a circumlunar mission. The artist took seriously the requirement for a shirtsleeve atmosphere.

1962
January

on the CM included

reduction

in diameter,

paraglider

compatibility,

250 pounds control

of radiation protection water, redundant propellant tankage system, and an increase in system weight and volume.

for the attitude

Layouts were also being prepared to identify equipment requirements aft compartment, while layouts depicting the position and orientation crewmen during various phases of the lunar flight were complete.

in the CM of the three

Basic load paths for the CM inner structure, an access door through the outer structure, and the three side wall hatches for crew entrance and exit had been tentatively defined. The CM inner structure was currently of bonded aluminum honeycomb, the outer structure of high-temperature, brazed steel honeycomb.
NAA, Apollo Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-1, January 31, 1962, pp. 15-16.

During the Month

Command module heatshield requirements, including heating versus time curves, were established by NAA for several design trajectories. A computer program method of analyzing the charring ablation process had been developed. By this means, it was po_ible to calculate the ma._s loss, surface char layer temperature, amount of heat conducted through the uncharred ablation material and insulation 136

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

into the would

cabin,

and NAA

temperature determined

profile that

through

the a blator more refined

and insulation computer

layers. program

1962
January

In February,

a new and

be needed.
Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-1, p. I. During the Month

Apollo

The

solid propellant system under

called study

for in the original by a storable, to present

NAA

proposal

on the service Multitank

module con-

propulsion figurations missions.
Apollo

was replaced appeared

hypergolic otttoading

propellant. capabilities

for alternative

Monthly

Progress

Report,

SID

62-300-1,

p. 18.

The

Requests

for Quotation guidance

on production and navigation

contracts system,

for

major

components seven separate

of

January-February

the Apollo

spacecraft

comprising

items, were released to industry by the MIT Instrumentation Source Evaluation Board, appointed on January 31, began week of March
Interview Spacecraft dum, Source Robert with

Laboratory. (The its work during the

5 and
Ralph

contractors
Ragan,

were

selected

on May
MIT, March R.

8.)
April 5-10, 27, 1966; Apollo

Instrumentation Weekly to MSC, 31, Activity Attn:

Laboratory, Report, Robert

Project C. Evaluation

Office, Seamans, Board,"

MSC, Jr.,

1962;

memoranof

Gilruth,

"Appointment

January

1962.

The Grumman funded system dezvous) study (relative

Aircraft on the

Engineering lunar orbit ascent,

Corporation rendezvous earth orbit

developed technique: rendezvous,

a detailed, characteristics and lunar ; and appointed

companyof orbit the ren-

January--June

cost of direct

; developmental (tracking the

problems facilities,

(communications, etc.). Robert Joseph E.

propulsion) was

elements in the program

of the system spring manager.
Interview craft

M. Gavin was

to

head

effort,

and

Mullaney

designated

with

Saul

Ferdman,

Director May

of

Space

Vehicle

Development,

Grumman

Air-

Engineering

Corporation,

2, 1966. February 6

John made

C. Houbolt a presentation Space

of Langley of lunar Flight
Council

Research orbit Management
Minutes,

Center rendezvous Council.

and

Charles earth

W. Mathews orbit

of MSC to

versus

rendezvous

the Manned
MSF

Management

February

6, 1962

p.

1.

At his regular "evaluation had changed

press

conference,

President

John

F. Kennedy and whether

was

asked

for

his

of our progress its "timetable

in space

at this time" a man

the United He replied:

States "As into the by are I

for landing we have

on the moon." . . . and

said from difficulties making enormous recent

the beginning, which came

been behind late.

we are running are going in our space

from

starting

We, however,

to proceed program

a maximum

effort.

As you know,

the expenditures

. . . the time schedule, [Ranger
Post, February

at least our hope,

has not been changed

by the

setbacks

failuresj."
8, 1962.

Washington

137

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
February 7

On

the basis

of a study for to begin This

by NAA, the service to MSC

a single-engine module representatives

configuration and NAA thrust

was chosen The

as the of to issue Agreepounds allow a

optimum the study ment

approach

propulsion

subsystem.

results

were presented

was authorized level of 20,000

a work statement for the engine.

procurement maintain

of an engine on a vacuum a thrust-to-weight weight
SID

for this configuration. ratio of 0.4 and

was also reached increase
Apollo Monthly

at this meeting would in the lunar
Progress

considerable
NAA,

liftoff
Report,

of the spacecraft.
February 28, 1962, p. 46.

62-300-2,

Robert the what effort NASA module land launch direction

R. Gilruth, Lunar of the

MSC Landing

Director, Module Spacecraft Center.

in a letter Working Project Gilruth Group. part contain injection

to NASA Group The module this

Headquarters, Group were time, Eldon would W. Hall the system of the lunar would

described the determine to the represent landing actually for was Pending module

Ad Hoc

which

was to be under applicable

Apollo

Office. landing [At the into

constraints

on the design Research in this as being which surface mission and lunar

of the lunar Working that would and mode,

of the Lewis Headquarters

,asked that

was conceived from the

of the spacecraft propulsion transearth configuration

which

on the moon

necessary

trajectory.

a decision on the lunar not yet clearly defined.]
Lener, Landing Gilruth, Module

the actual

MSC, to NASA Headquarters, Attn: Ad Hoe Working Group," February

Mr. Rosen, 9, 1962.

"Formation

of

Lunar

NASA major total

announced supporting space vehicle

that

the

General

Electric project,

Company to provide

had

been ensure

selected analysis

for

a of

role in the Apollo (including and develop
Committee

integration system.

of the

booster-spacecraft and operate
on Science and the National p. 15.

interface), a checkout
Astronautics, Aeronautics

reliability

the entire
U.S.

space vehicle,
Congress, House,

Astronautical and Space

and Adminis-

Aeronautical tration, 88th

Events o[ 1962, Report of Congress, I st Session (1963),

13

A contract awarded were remove with motor, for

for the escape to the Lockheed

rocket

of the Apollo Company

spacecraft by NAA.

launch The motor was

escape initial with

system an

was active to the made

Propulsion After

requirements

a 200,000-pound-thrust subsystem. subsystem. and subsystem. thrust
Report NAA

solid-propellant extensive contract A letter manufacture In conjunction was reduced
No.

rocket study, change with the

thrust-vector-control the control Lockheed

Lockheed motor

was directed to replace pitch-control

subsequently

to develop

a pitch-control to 155,000
ttistorical

thrust-vector-control the escape-motor
Quarterly

use of the

pounds.
Summary, S&ID Apollo

Apollo Program, 13-15

Status

I, p. l 0; Oakley, February

p. 6; TWX,

to MSC,

12, 1962.

A meeting Headquarters. Rudolph, Jr., Ernst

on the technical Representatives Paul J. DeFries, and

aspects from Fred Wilson

of earth various

orbit Ludie

rendezvous offices G. Richard,

was

held

at NASA Arthur L.

NASA

attended: John Space Joseph

L. Digesu,

W. Hardin, Flight W. Center Siry, and

D. Geissler, ; James T.

B. Schramm Friedrich

of Marshall O. Vonbun,

(MSFC)

Rose of MSC;

138

PART

hi:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

James

J. Donegan

of Goddard

Space

Flight

Center J. North, (OMSF).

(GSFC)

; Douglas

R. Lord,

1962
Sebruary

James E. O'Neill, the NASA Office Director the goal developing presentations, • Gemini rience module with

Richard J. Hayes, Warren of Manned Space Flight OMSF, who had called to achieve approved operations

and Daniel D. McKee of Joseph F. Shea, Deputy defined approach ingeneral terms in and

for Systems, of the the earth the

the meeting, on the and and

meeting: Group

agreement technique. conclusions could guidance program the

to be used

orbit rendezvous

After two days of discussions recommendations: provide substantial

rendezvous

must

expedocking

rendezvous

techniques of the Saturn

pertinent

to Apollo. equipment and the in a scaled-down equipment availability for of the was not required. Apollo Saturn

• Incorporation for the Agenas • Complete rendezvous C-5 launch and

in the Gemini of

development docking should

technique before

be required

vehicle. docking equipment MSFC launch could would vehicle. profitably prepare and actual MSFC be developed an outline hardware would by three-di-

• Full-scale mensional • The tested with ground Apollo the

simulations. rendezvous C-1 Saturn

of such a program. could be flighta proposed prepare

technique

flight test program. • The future. The • The heavy relating station IThis choice MSFC of connecting Orbital or tanking Study modes program from must be made be used in the near Operations which tracking trajectory should to provide would provide place data

data to make this decision. rendezvous technique ground evolved this meeting GSFC should to

requirements the impact

on the of

network.

detailed

considerations

ground

tracking

requirements. meeting was part
Earth Orbital

of a continuing
Rendezvous Meeting,

effort

to select
13-15,

the
1969,

lunar
pp.

mission
2-4.

mode.]

Minutes,

February

NASA tion, ment, Saturn

signed and

a contract test,

with The Boeing to lead launch and

Company

for indoctrination, contract of the first stage

familiarizadevelopof the (S-IC)

14

planning, launch
Staff Report,

expected vehicle.
Manned

to a follow-on operations

for design,

manufacture, C-5

Senate

Space

Flight

Program,

p.

205.

NASA obtain

announced data

Project

Fire, heating

a high-speed rates,

reentry" signal

heat

research

program on spacecraft Information

to

18

on materials, the atmosphere would

and radio

attenuation per hour. and

reentering from from Project

at speeds support the

of about

24,500

miles

the program lunar

technology management

for manned of the

unmanned Research would

reentl), Center,

missions.

Under

Langley package

Fire would

use Atlas

D boosters (third
Events

and the reentry stage
o[ 1962,

be powered

by an Antares
Astronautical

solid-fuel
and

motor

of the Scout).
p. 17.

Aeronautical

139

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
*February 20

The

Mercury

spacecraft flight

Friendship

7, with Astronaut Missile and miles Range

John

H. Glenn, Friendship

Jr., booster. The

as pilot, After space-

was launched a three-orbit down craft

into orbit from of 4 hours, Ocean within With

the Atlantic 55 minutes, about 800

by an Atlas of Bermuda. was reported

23 seconds, southeast Glenn

7 splashed to be in exhad been

in the Atlantic was recovered

minutes,

and Astronaut the basic objectives

cellent condition. achieved.
Grimwood, 27

this flight,

of Project

Mercury

Project

Mercury:

A

Chronology,

pp.

159-160.

The

preparation

of schedules

based

on the NASA

Fiscal

Year

1962

budget

(in-

cluding the as submitted cussed at the

proposed supplemental appropriation), the Fiscal to Congre_, and Fiscal Year 1964 and subsequent Manned Space Flight Management von Braun, Council Director,

Year 1963 budget funding was disProgram Space asFlight

meeting. Marshall

sumptions Center

as presented (MSFC),

by Wernher

were approved C-5 mode launch

for use in preparation vehicle and earth

of the schedules: orbital rendezvous were con-

• The sidered

Saturn

the primary

for the lunar

landing. including upper stages. ground testing, would be

• Full-_ale accomplished, be planned

orbit operations using S-I boosters stages

development, and orbital and

This development would both

would

so that

upper

rendezvous Planning

techniques consider

be developed connecting and

by the time the C-5 fueling modes. • The both stages an developed alternative,

was operational.

would

development would for the would direct C-5.

of a two-stage as early mode flight

Nova the

with same

liquid-propellant feasible. orbital launch

engines provide vehicle

in as

be activated

as realistically

This would

carrying

• There Charles

be no solid-propellant and Hans

vehicle

development. would coordinate schedule

W. Frick

of MSC

H. Maus

of MSFC

assumptions
MSF

between

the Centers.
Council Minutes, February 27, 1962, Erratum Sheet, Agenda Item 3.

Management

During the Month

A NASA Division,

Apollo Office was established at NAA's Space and Information Systems under the direction of J. Thomas Marklev of MSC. The Office would as liaison at MSC.
News

serve primarily Project Office
MSC Space

between

the prime

contractor

and

the Apollo

Spacecraft

Roundup,

February

21,

1962,

p.

8.

During the Month

The

command

module

crew

couch

was

repositioned an adjustable

and hand

redesigned controller, rest. The while The the

because similar head

of to rest

numerous that could support support

problems.

In the new would

design,

used on the X-15, be regulated was limited included

be attached

to an adjustable four-inch movement,

arm

for an approximate in movement a foot controller

side head leg

for couch-module which 140 could

clearance. be folded up.

adjustable

Thefirstresident ApolloSpacecraft Program Office(RASPO) anager, Thomas m J. Markley, t theleft,thedaytheoffice a wasopenedt theNorthAmericanlant a p in Downey, Calif.Others thephotoareMSCemployees in HenryP. Yschek, center, andRaymond . Clemence. R The center ouch,includingthecrewman c parachute andsurvival it, couldbe k folded outto asleep position andstowed under eitherremainingouch. llowance c A was made forthecrewman toturnover. Principalproblemsemaining r werethe difficultyof removing centercouch the andproviding theclearances needed thecouchpositionspecified various for s for phases ofthelunarmission.
Apollo Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300 2, p. 43.

1962
February

NASA

wind tunnel launch

data

on the adaptation

of the Project The

Mercury booster

Little fins were

Joe booster
ineffective The a

During the Month

to the Apollo in maintaining later Little successful
Apollo Dynamics, (May

escape

system were analyzed. of the configuration on the inherent to test altitude.
Report, SID Launch 62-300-2, Vehicle, p. NASA

the stability

and the project stability of the total

was canceled. vehicle

Joe II depended ballistic
Monthly Little 1966),Vol.

to attain

trajectory
Progress Joe 1, p. II 117.

1;

Convair Project

Division Apollo:

of Final

General Report

Test

NASA Vought, contract to control

Headquarters

selected

the

Chance

Vought

Corporation

of Ling-Temcopart of the

March 1

Inc., as a contractor would be a flight

to study spacecraft simulation study

rendezvous.

A primary

exploring

the capability

of an astronaut

an Apollo-type
and

spacecraft.
Events o[ 1962, p. 27.

Astronautical

Aeronautical

141

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
March 2

The

Marquardt

Corporation

was selected

by NAA's

Space rocket

and

Information

Sys-

tems Division to design and build the reaction control spacecraft. The contract was signed during April.
Oakley, Report February Historical No. I, p. 25-March Summary, 17; Apollo 3, 1962. S&ID Spacecraft Apollo Project Program, Office, p.

engines

for the Apollo

6;

Apollo Weekly

Quarterly Activity

Status Report,

MSC,

The

Aerojet-General service module

Corporation propulsion
S&ID

was named system.
Apollo Program,

by NAA

as a subcontractor

for the

Apollo

Oakley,

Historical

Summary,

p. 6.

The organizational elements Office was announced: Office of Project Charles Manager Project Deputy Module

and

staffing

for the MSC

Apollo

Spacecraft

Project

W. Frick,

Manager Project Manager

Robert O. Piland, Command and Service Caldwell William Calvin David Wallace Milton (Vacant), Lunar Landing Robert Guidance David Systems

C. Johnson, F. Rector, H. Perrine, L. Winterhalter, D. Graves, C. Kingsley, Ground Module O. Piland,

Chief Special Flight Crew Assistant Technology Systems Sr., Power Mechanical Electrical Support Systems Systems Systems Equipment Chief

Lee N. McMillion,

Acting Chief

and Control W. Gilbert,

Development Office at MIT

Jack Barnard, Integration Paul F. Weyers, (Vacant), Emory Robert Owen

Apollo Chief

Reliability F. Harris, P. Smith,

and Quality Vehicle

Control Integration Support Systems

Operations Launch Mission

Requirements

G. Morris,

Engineering Operational

Marion R. Franklin, Apollo Office at NAA Herbert Alan B. Kehlet,

Ground

R. Ash, Acting Acting

Manager Manager, Manager, Quality Business Control and Engineering

Engineering Administration

Alan B. Kehlet, Herbert Planning Thomas
MSC Office,

R. Ash, Acting F. Baker, Chief
No.

and Resources

Announcement March 6, 1962.

30,

Personnel

Assignments

for

Apollo

Spacecraft

Project

142

PART

HI:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

NAA

awarded Aircraft

a development Division
Summary,

contract

for the ApoUo spacecraft Aircraft Corporation.
p. 5.

fuel cell to Pratt

&

1962
March 8

Whitney
Oakley,

of United
S&ID

Historical

Apollo

Program,

Primary Field,

MSC

activities

for the Spacecraft
21,

Apollo

program Houston,

were

relocated

from

Langley

12

Va., to the Manned
MSC Announcement No.

Center,
of MSC

Tex.
February 26, 1962.

Relocation

Headquarters,

A NASA status and

Headquarters-MSC project, and studies, lunar
Project

management Apollo Spacecraft and budgets

meeting Project schedules. module
Activity

was held Office

to discuss organization,

the general mission meeting

12--13

of the Apollo engineering

Participants would
Report,

at the

agreed

that a staged
Spacecraft

landing
Office,

propulsion
MSC, Weekly

be studied.
March 11-17, 1962. 13

Apollo

James ment

E. Webb, of critical

NASA materials].

Administrator,

recommended

to President [highest priority

John

F. KenLyndon requesting to the

nedy that the Apollo

program

be given DX priority

in the procure-

He also sent a memorandum Aeronautics and

to Vice President Space Council,

B. Johnson, that

Chairman

of the National advising

the Council list.
Webb

consider

the President

to add the Apollo

program

DX priority
Letter, National the Apollo

to

The

President, and March Space

March Council,

13,

1962; "Request

memorandum, for Highest

Webb National

to

Chairman, Priority for

Aeronautics Program,"

13, 1962. 14

NASA

and

the Jet Propulsion Division

Laboratory Inc., phases Australia, some

announced as the contractor of a program "S" near around and

the selection

of the

Military and test

Electronics radio

of Motorola,

to manufacture to augment the Deep South DSIF

equipment Calif.,

in the first two Facility located (DSIF) Woomera,

Space at Africa. have

Instrumentation Goldstone, With

by providing 120 ° apart

band the

capability earth, with

for stations would

Johannesburg,

these stations

a high-gain, ing of satellites
Astronautical

narrow-beam-width, noise and would

high-frequency provide much and nearby
o[ 1962, p. 35.

system, improved planets.

ve D' little

interferand track-

ence from cosmic

telemetering

as far out as the moon
and Aeronautical Events

Charles with Lee, NASA

W. Frick,

Manager

of the MSC

Apollo

Spacecraft Christopher of MSC NAA and

Project

Office, Jr.,

together John B.

15--16

Maxime Owen

A. Faget, E. Maynard, of Manned meeting areas,

Charles and

W. Mathews, B. Kehlet visited design

C. Kraft,

Alan

and George at Downey,

M. Low of the Calif. This was

Office

Space

Flight,

the first monthly progress in various service module.
MSF Management

of the Apollo including

review

team

to survey

NAA's

the Apollo

spacecraft

heatshield,

fuel cells, and

Council

Minutes,

March

27,

1962,

Agenda

Item

4.

143

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
March 18

Marshall launch

Space

Flight

Center's

latest

schedule and

on the Saturn

C-5

called

for the first

in the l_Lst quarter

of 1965

the first manned

launch

in the last quarter

of 1967. If the C-5 could flight in the second quarter reduced.
MSFC Consolidated Program

be man-rated on the eighth research and development of 1967, the spacecraft lead time would be substantially

Schedules

and

Funding,

M-CP-R2,

March

18,

1962.

23

The

Avco

Corporation

was selected outer
S&ID Report,

by NAA surface.
Program,

to design

and

install

the

ablative

material
Oakley, Office,

on the Apollo spacecraft
Historical MSC, Summary, Activity

Apollo March

p.

6;

Apollo

Spacecraft

Project

Weekly

18-24,

1962.

23

Wind

tunnel

tests were completed on two early
Summary,

at the Jet Propulsion of Apolh)
p. 6.

Laboratory spacecraft

and models.

at Langley

Research
Oakley, 25--31

Center
Historical

configurations
S&ID Apollo

Program,

NASA MSC

Headquarters vehicle. on April

approved Prospective

plans bidders

for

the

development notified would
March

of the

Little

Joe

II at

test launch

were

of a briefing

to be held

6, at which
Project

time Requests
Office, MSC, Weekly

for Proposals
Activity Report,

be distributed.
25-31, 1962.

Apollo

Spacecraft

29

Members Vought method connection Headquarters
John D.

of Langley Corporation with of accomplishing

Research the Vought
History Center,"

Center lunar

briefed Inc.,

representatives on the lunar The briefing

of orbit

the was

Chance made in

of Ling-Temco-Vought, landing 1. contract

rendezvous by NASA

mission.

the study

on spacecraft

rendezvous

awarded

to Chance
Bird, "Short Research

on March
Development

of the

of

the

Lunar

Orbit

Rendezvous

Plan

at the Langley

p. 4.

29

NASA tion public contract reentry

announced was selected was part into the

that

a $5 million eight

contract

would that

be awarded

to Republic spacecraft.

AviaRe12. The for the

Corporation

for the construction from earth's of Project during
30,

of two experimental submitted to develop from a spacecraft a hmar

reentry capable Plans

companies

bids on March called

Fire,

of withstanding

atmosphere

mission.

spacecraft
New

to be tested
York Times, March

the second
1962.

half of 1963.

During the Month

A small limina_, earth

group

within

the MSC direct of ground

Apollo ascent, rules : that

Spacecraft approaches and hmar

Project to the orbit

Office lunar rendezvous.

developed landing The

a premission: exercise

program a number

schedule

for three

orbit

rendezvous,

established

• Establish realistic schedules for exploitation of early success. • Schedule realistic dat_. circumlunar, lunar

would

"second

guess"

failures missions

but provide at the earliest

orbit,

and hmar

hmding

144

These

illustrations NASA, and

were

used

by D. Brainerd the House on

Holmes,

Director,

Manned Committee March

Space on 26,

Flight, Science

in testimony

before

of Representatives Manned Space Flight,

Astronautics,

Subcommittee

1962.

APOLLOPACECRAFT S
THREE CONFIGURATIONS

EARTHORBIT

CIRCUMLUNAR LUNARLANDING _°, ,_

1

1

r

S-I1

f54 in. die, PAYLOAD

S-IC 396 In. _a.

Saturn

launch

vehicles

that

were

under development early 1962.

or in planning

stages

during

1962
March

• Complete

the

flight

development

of spacecraft

modules

and

operational at

techniques, using the Saturn C-1 and C-1B launch vehicles, prior which a "man-rated" C-5 launch vehicle would become available. • Develop would progress the spacecraft from crew operational the simple at the techniques to the complex. earliest time and to the in "buildup"

to the time missions

that

generally

• Use the spacecraft commensurate its subsystems. The exercise schedules with safety

maximum

extent, and

considerations,

in the development

of the spacecraft

also provided

a basis for proceeding plan.
F. Baker, Chief, 23, 1962. Planning

with

the development

of definitive

and a program
Thomas Project Office,

Memorandum, Spacecraft

and

Resources,

to

Manager,

Apollo

March

March-November

The

Apollo

guidance from

and

navigation studies

system

was

defined

in more

detail

as more for the

information

NASA-MIT

was received 146

on new requirements

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

system. guidance

As a result, and

the scope of the component subcontractors
Ragan, MIT

development

tasks given increased.
April 27, 1966.

to all the

1962
March

navigation
with Ralph

was substantially
Laboratory,

interview

Instrumentation

NAA define

was directed the

by the MSC and maneuver
Project

Apollo design

Spacecraft criteria

Project

Office to begin module

a study

to

April 1-7

configuration landing

of the

sexMce

which

would

make the lunar
Apollo

and touchdown.
MSC, Weekly Activity Report, April I-7, 1962.

Spacecraft

Office,

A meeting mission from Lee, various

to review NASA R.

the

lunar Apollo James Mel_Tn

orbit

rendezvous : Joseph O'Neill,

(LOR)

technique W. Hall, Richard

as a possible Representatives William Friedrich Center; Space A. O. of Jet Jack Flight Center. of MSC; J. Hayes,

2-3

mode

for Project Lord, and

was held at NASA E. James of NASA (GSFC)

Headquarters. Eldon Turnock, ; Harris of Lewis and William

offices attended

F. Shea,

Douglas

Richard Vonbun Propulsion Funk, Paul Center Each The S-II, parking technique escape The

C. Henry, of Goddard Laboratory; Charles

Savage Center

Headquarters; Research of Marshall and William of Ames

Space

Flight Owen

M. Schurmeier F. Rector

Arthur

V. Zimmerman E. Maynard, and and Helmut John Merrill

W. Mathews, Ernst Research ; Clinton

J. DeFries, (MSFC) phase launch and orbit was

D. Geissler, Center; mission

J. Horn H. Mead separately.

E. Brown,

C. Houbolt,

H. Michael,

Jr., of Langley

Research

of the LOR vehicle S-IVB was

was discussed was a single For rather

required stages. To

Saturn

C-5, launch

consisting window, the

of the a low

S-IC, earth to

provide

a maximum greater than requiring

recommended. orbit. of the module Apollo vehicle

reliability,

two-stage-to-orbit of the S-IVB

recommended

reignition

from parking current concepts

command (LEV), launch. pad. control of the

and under Access

service intensive

modules study

would in 1961,

not be would an

altered. escape while

The lunar tower would

excursion

be aft of the service

and in front

S-IVB

stage.

For crew would

safety,

be used during

to the LEV

be provided

the entire vehicle and phase. for Provisions Saturn injection

was on the launch guidance into the and earth

Both Apollo the launch "primary" escape. provided

systems orbit

would and

be operating from earth system during

during would orbit should be to be

The Saturn for takeover

guidance

and control parking guidance tracking

system

in the S-IVB

of the Saturn Ground orbit.

and control was necessary would

in the command orbit.

module.

launch

and establishment

of the parking

MSFC

and GSFC

study the altitude

and type of low earth The lunar LEV would

be moved After

in front

of the command was staged

module

"early"

in the transinjection corconfor the

trajectory.

the S-IVB

off the spacecraft would

following

into the translunar rections. figuration Current along

trajectory, plans

the service

module

be used for midcourse If possible, would a symmetric

were for five such center

corrections.

the vertical

line of the vehicle 147

be considered

334-987

0

-

69

-

It

Four

artist's Center

concepts, in 1962,

prepared show the

by basic

artist mission

David flight

A.

Willment plan and and

at three

Langley major

Research phases of

activityLseparation for accomplishing

of lander, the lunar

takeoff landing

from mission

the moon, with lunar

rendezvous--proposed rendezvous.

orbit

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
April

LEV.

Ingress

to the LEV from the command The LEV A "hard needed would dock" have

module

should

be possible

during

the

translunar the support relocation Two module

phase.

a pressurized escape

cabin tower.

capability possibly

during using for study.

the translunar

phase. structure

mechanism

was considered, The module and S-IVB required rotating could

for the launch

mechanism further

of the LEV were

to the top of the command discussed: mechanical system. control The

possibilities

linkage

the command

by use of the attitude this maneuver. propulsion

be used to stabilize

the LEV during The lunar service orbit. a

module Selection

would orbit

be used and type seemed (_ have

to decelerate of lunar desirable mile) been orbit for

the spacecraft needed abort more

into study,

a

of the altitude

although The LEV

100-nautical-mile have a "point" liftoff, would It was

considerations. The landing site, inguidtypes of

would before

landing previously agreed that

capability. examined would have

selected strumented ance LEV were and

by

unmanned

spacecraft. control

the LEV

redundant Two analysis. radio aids

capability and control system system

for each systems employing which

phase were

of the lunar

maneuvers. for further plus

guidance an

recommended

These and a or

automatic controlled system.

an inertial

platform

manually as a primary The The this

could

be used if the automatic

system

failed

sen, ice module in lunar propulsion would LEV area

would orbit

provide and was

the prime from discussed

propulsion the lunar and the

for establishing orbit to earth consensus the that propulsion general that but

the entire trajecto_,. was that system

spacecraft

for escape

system further

require

study. near

It was the lunar

agreed surface

should have a hover capability also needed more study. It was recommended lunar time. have would that tion surface, It was and agreed that that that two

this requirement

men men

be in the should should

LEV,

which to leave

would the

descend

to the

both the

be able have

LEV cabin

at the same which LOR would mission

LEV

a pressurized

the capability be 24 hours. Langley procedures should were

for one week's The question continue discussed

operation, of lunar

even though

a normal

stay time was discussed the situation. for further

and it was agreed for sterilizatime for lunar

to analyze and

Requirements stud),. The

referred

landing In the studied,

was not resolved. discussion one of rendezvous and the LEV about the one and requirements, providing the orbiting it was agreed for a degree spacecraft that two systems be A lunar up the

automatic

of manual should technique during

capability.

line of sight between takeoff. possibility A question of keeping

exist before brought the

hard-docking LEV would attached provide

or soft-docking to the some

spacecraft command

transearth subs)stem

phase. This redundancy.

procedure

module

150

Twoviews a preliminary ockup of m command odule m built by NorthAmerican's Space andInformation Systems Division. 151

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
April

Direct link communications from earth to the LEV and from earth to the spacecraft, except when it was in the shadow of the moon, was recommended. Voice communications possibility A number should be provided coverage would from the earth to the lunar surface and the of television of problems be considered. the proposed mission plan were outlined

associated

with

for NASA Center investigation. way and the needed information [This meeting, like the one held to select the lunar mission mode.]
Minutes, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous

Work on most of the problems was already under was expected to be compiled in about one month. February 13-15, was part of a continuing effort

Meeting,

April

2-3,

1962.

A mockup Systems

of the Apollo Division of NAA,

command was

module, public

built for

by the the first

Space time

and during

Information a visit to

made

NAA by news media
Oakley, Historical

representatives.
Summary, S&ID Apollo Program, p. 6.

The

X-15 feet

was

flown

to a speed

of 2830

miles control

per

hour

and

to an altitude

of

179,000 Soar electronic

in a test of a new spacecraft. system had

automatic been

system only while

to be used the X-15

in the Dynawas in the

and Apollo control

NASA's

Neil A. Armstrong automatic in space

was the pilot. The previous

atmosphere;
Baltimore

the new system
Sun, April 6, 1962.

was automatic

as well.

The rocket launch

Thiokol motor abort

Chemical to be used or during

Corporation to jettison

was selected the Apollo

by NAA launch

to build tower

the

solid-fuel a

escape

following

a normal
S&ID

mission.
Apollo Program, p. 6.

Oakley,

Historical

Summary,

The

request

for a proposal by a letter from

on the Little MSC, together

II test launch with a Work

vehicle

was submitted Five launches, module first two

to bidders

Statement.

which were to test boilerplate models of the Apollo spacecraft command in abort situations, were called for: three in 1963 and two in 1964. The launches altitude abort exit in 1963 atmospheric and the final were to be max q abort tests and the third was

to be a high-

abort. launch the

The first launch a confirming launch (Evaluation

in 1964 was to be a very-high-altitude max q abort and 11. )
Activity Project Report, Apollo: April Final 1-30, 1962, Vol. I,

[max

q--the

point

in the to the April 23

trajectory

at which

vehicle on May
Monthly NASA

spacecraft

are subjected from

severest

aerodynamic

load].

of the proposals

took place

to 27, and the contractor
Apollo Spacecraft 1I Project Test

was selected
Oflfce, Launch MSC, Vehicle,

p. 3 ; Little Joe pp. 1-2, 4-1.

Report,

11

President spacecraft,

John

F. Kennedy vehicles,

designated and facilities)

the

Apollo

program

(including national

essential priority

launch

as being

in the highest

152

The firstartist's conception the Little JoeII solid-fuel of launch vehicle, elected s by Manned Spacecraft Centeror testing f Apollospacecraft unmannedubon s orbitalflights. hese T flightswere designed testthelaunch to escape system and the earthlanding system. ((;eneralI)ynamics/Convair photo) 153

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
April

category capability.
National

(DX)

for

research

and

development

and

for

achieving

operational

Security

Action

Memorandum

No.

144,

McGeorge

Bundy

to

the

Vice

Presiof the

dent (as Defense; Budget; Priority 16

Chairman, the Secretary Director, to the

National Aeronautics and Space Council); The Secretary of Commerce; Administrator, NASA; Director, Bureau of of Emergency Lunar Planning, Landing "Assignment Program," April of Highest 11, 1962.

Office APOLLO

National

Manned

Representatives of MSC made a formal presentation at Marshall Space Flight Center on the lunar orbit rendezvous technique for accomplishing the lunar mission.
Apollo SpacecrMt Project Office, MSC, Weekly Activity Report, April 15-21, 1962.

19-20

Discussions

at the monthly of an NAA night not provide system escape

NAA-NASA study enough was the system

Apollo

spacecraft control The

design system study

review (ECS) showed

included heating that the and the heating.

:

* Results capabilities system fuel inch escape could

on environmental were heating most and that

for lunar

operations

presented. source

the integration

of ECS

cell coolant • The launch tower, motor,

promising motor

for supplemental It embodied forward motor

configuration jettison

was approved. located angle the escape

a 120This to preand and

symmetrical and

nose cone,

of the launch nozzles.

an aerodynamic

skirt covering

configuration change in the escape rocket nozzle cant vent impingement of hot gases on the command module. • MSC scheduling lunar senior effects personnel of spacecraft techniques.
Report, MSC, SID Weekly 62-300-3, Activity

was intended penalties landing

directed design

NAA

to study

the technical direct hmar

capabilities

with

rendezvous
NAA, Apollo

Apollo Monthly Progress Spacecraft Project Office,

April Report,

30, 1962, pp. April 15-21,

19, 59; 1962.

23

Ranger Range, caused Tracking hour, second

IV

was launched a parking of the Agena internal maintained moon

by an Atlas-Agena orbit, and and ground was Failure with to land B engine. contact on April spacecraft objectives

B booster fired into over of a timer the spacecraft on the and

from

the Atlantic lunar The

Missile trajectory payload

attained

the proper the vehicle. until surface. at a speed lunar went

by the restart

in the spacecraft it passed of 5963 The

loss of both Station first of the passed

control

Goldstone behind miles Agena around per B the

the left edge the stage

26. It impacted

American

to the right

of the moon

later

into orbit

sun. Lunar

photography

were not achieved.
o/1962, pp. 59, 61 ; New York Times, April 24,

Astronautical and 1962, Washington

Aeronautical Post, April

Events 26, 1962.

24

Milton Vehicles

W. and

Rosen,

NASA

Office

of Manned that C-5 the

Space the S-IVB

Flight stage

Director

of Launch specifi-

Propulsion,

recommended

be designed

cally as the third for the manned

stage of the Saturn lunar landing using

and that lunar

the C-5 orbit

be designed

specifically The

rendezvous

technique.

S IVB stage would in space to place

inject

the spacecraft mission

into a parking

orbit and would trajectory.

be restarted Rosen also

the lunar

payload 154

into a translunar

PART

IH:

LUNAR

ORB_

RENDEZVOUS

recommended command (LEM) orbit and This S-IVB

that module

the S-IVB (CM), referred Saturn would would C-1

stage be used as a flight module lunar (SM), and to as the vehicle, excursion

test vehicle lunar vehicle with mission

to exercise

the

! 962
April

service

excursion (LEV)] SM, simulation operational the CM,

module in earth LEM, mating possible.

[previously missions. The stage,

in combination

be used on the most realistic also permit the most nearly prior to actual
April 24, 1962,

combination

complete flight.
Item 1.

of the CM,
MSF

SM, LEM,

and S-IVB
Minutes,

mission
Agenda

Management

Council

MSC Flight

Associate Management

Director Council

Walter that areas

C.

Williams of the

reported

to the on the lunar furnished
2.

Manned mission by NAA.

Space mode especially

24

the lack of a decision Apollo of the spacecraft
April 24, 1962,

was causing

delays

in various

spacecraft being

program,

the requirements
MSF Management

for the portions
Council Minutes,

Agenda

Item

The Manned Space Flight Management Council a Nova launch vehicle study contract until July an in-house for a manned
MSF

decided to delay the awarding of 1 at the earliest to allow time for examination of the schedule technique.
Agenda Item 4.

24

study lunar

of bids submitted landing
Council

and

for further

using the direct ascent
Minutes, April 24, 1962,

Management

The after second

Saturn liftoff and

SA-2

first

stage

booster

was

launched

successfully ballast The

from about from

Cape

Ca-

25

naveral.

The rocket third

was blown stages into

up intentionally dumping the upper

and on schedule the water

2.5 minutes the dummy Project

at an altitude

of 65 miles,

atmosphere.

experiment,

Highwater, produced clustered H-I engines the maximum tions to decrease speed

a massive ice cloud and in the first stage produced attained by the booster fuel sloshing encountered

lightning-like effects. The eight 1.3 million pounds of thrust and miles per hour. Modificanear the end of the previous

was 3750

the slight

flight test were successful.
New p. 61. York Times, April 26, 1962; Astronautical and Aeronautical Events o[ 1962,

The NAA

contract NAA

for the had

Apollo

service

module The

propulsion estimated authority April
News

engine

was

awarded work.
2, 1962, Monthly

by

3O

to Aerojet-General given
Status

Corporation. Aerojet-General
Report No.

cost of the contract 9 to begin
Roundup, Rocket May Engine

was $12

million.
Apollo p. 8;

Quarterly Aerojet-General Report,

1, p. 19; Apollo

MSC Service

Space

Corporation, 1962, p. 1.

Module

Progress

October

[ohn C. Houbolt of Langley Research Center, writing in the Astronautics, outlined the advantages of lunar orbit rendezvous lunar Under then would landing orbit, as opposed detach to direct a small craft, craft flight from earth would which then or earth fly directly would return land to earth. lunar this concept, return an Apollo-type which spacecraft craft would

April issue of for a manned rendezvous. moon, advantages and takeoff, go and to the The

During the Month

orbit

into lunar

landing

on the moon

to the mother smaller

be the much

performing 155

the difficult

landing

The second aturnlaunchat CapeCanaveral, S April 25, 1962. 156

PART

m:

LUNAR

ORB_

RENDEZVOUS

the possibility of the mother

of optimizing craft in event

the smaller of a landing a rescue
and

craft

for this one function, and

the safe return of using

1962
ApHI

accident, capability.
Manned

even the possibility

two of the small craft to provide
Houbolt, (April "Lunar-Orbit 1962), pp. 26-29,

Rendezvous 70, 72.

Lunar

Landing,"

Astronautics,

7

The

basic

design

configuration area,

of the of two where

command attitude less heat flux

module control would

forward from

compartment the lower during to

was changed the upper reentry.
Apollo

by the relocation compartment

engines

During the Month

be experienced

Monthly

Progress

Report,

SID

62-300-3,

p. 79.

Three

major (1) The

changes demand

were made oxygen

by NAA regulator

in the Apollo was moved

space-suit downstream

circuit: of the crew to to con-

During the Month

prevent a sudden drop of pressure when a crewman opened his face plate. (2) The suit manifold would now have a pressure-controlled bypass prevent oxygen nection crewman suit were (3) ture control In addition, and the cabin post-landing
Apollo

variable flow. The to prevent should

flow to other manifold rupture. water

crew members.if would also include

one crewman a venturi crew would

increased in each prevent

or decreased suit-inlet

a loss of oxygen exceeding

flow to other flow to make operation

members

if the suit of one the damaged of the suit

In this situation, the maximum evaporator for sunlight was added so that

the venturi

flow out from The circuit integrated

of demand it smaller.

regulators. A coolant-tempera-

and coolant

loop heat exchanger on the moon. module sleeping

into one by fluid exchange

was also provided a suit inlet-outlet fan was shifted phase.
Monthly Progress Report,

to the command operate

quarters, the

it would

as an intake

fan during

SID

62-300-3,

pp.

17-18,

65.

NAA axis

developed (see diagrams, on

a concept p. 158)

for shock edge

attenuation left and

along right walls.
p. 68.

the command couches would

module extend

Y-Y me-

by the use of aluminum of the the side compartment
Report, SID 62-300-3,

honeycomb

material.

Cylinders

During the Month

mounted chanically
Apollo

the outboard

to bear against
Monthly Progress

NAA

studies

resulted

in significant

changes

in the command

module :

environmen-

tal control (a) (b)

system

(ECS). modifications into in the ECS schematic water capacity module tank the potable water and one command were included in the cooling

During the Month

( 1 ) Among

Reduction Combining

cooling water needed during boost (c) Elimination of the water blanket (2) could More water would be generated lunar landing 157

for radiation by the and fuel

protection. cells than necessary and

be dumped

to decrease

lunar

takeoff

weight.

/DOCKING

TUNNEL ,FORWARD BULKHEAD

/

. HATCH

o ,,R
FORWARD SIDEWALL FORWARD INNER ", //_\ / '_->.<_" j / _-4ATTENUATION ",.

T _\ STRUT 4_// // / /ALUMINUM HONEYCOMB (BONDED)

S,DEWALL
""_ INNER STRUCTURE VESS EL ) -INNER AFT S I DEWALLJ-RIBS f / /'k \ "%.\ ,,/

\ "-

ATTACH POINTS -

////
/ AFT BULKHEAD/ .... / A FT HEATSH I ELD

"_////

,

/

,,A UM,NUM
SHEETS /INSULATION

,LOWER EQUIPMENT /L// /BaY (LEB) BATTERIES. //,_" INVERTERS, ETC. Y,_'_

//FACE // / /

O. 8 IN. j _ I! _ \STL \S_TL_FACE SHEETS (BRAZED)

.... C"_ ___IlI_

TOROI DAL _/ SECTION/

HONEYCOMB

/

ACCESS CYLINDER ASSEMBLY

FORWARD BULKHEAD

_

FORWARD LONGERON

_
,___X,,_
FORWARD ASSEMBLY

. CREW ACCESS
HATCHRAME F

_ ....... _ AFT BULKHEAD _ _1

y

INNERFACE SHEET ASSEMBLY

AFT BULKHEAD INNER FACE SHE_ASSEMBLY +Z _._ -Y 1962 April perform tor to

_---___-_Ill,. TH _'_
FWD +Y -Z

Jl_ AFr LO.OERO.

(3)

Airlock extravehicular

valving

requirements operation

would

permit Area

two control

or

more of the

crewmen space radia-

to

simultaneously. was specified. heat radiator for both rejection

prevent (4) A and would

coolant new the

freezing concept to one

integrate space

from was and

the

spacecraft This day

power zub-

system system and

ECS provide

into full weight

subsystem lunar night

developed. lunar

versatility and

conditions

would

decrease

complexity.

158

PART

Ill: LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

(5) tem and

Because

of the elimination

of the lunar

supplemental

refrigeration

sysheat check

1962
April

deployable radiators, the water-glycol (a) Removal from the sen, ice module (b) Replacement Changeover exchanger, a small, thc section unit by a liquid panels to a completely cabin heat valving

coolant system was modified: of the coolant loop regenerative arrangement system electronic was coolant provided of the gas-leak involving

exchanger provision (c) heat In addition, at the radiator

cascaded and exchanger system

the suit-circuit coldplate. command inertial critical

exchanger, heat electronic

component added branch in the

regenerative water-glycol. of the

module cooling

to preheat task required
Monthly

A separate

to the

measurement

for the more

in that area.
Report, SID 62-300-3, pp. 15, 17, 21, 64-65.

Apollo

Progress

NAA would and tective

determined consist a ground action

that visual

preliminary system would system

inflight to detect have eight

nuclear solar solar

radiation x-ray flare warning

instrumentation radiation to the to take prosignals

of an onboard The crew the arrival
Report,

or ultraviolet warning

During the Month

for telemetering

command

module. before

to ten minutes radiation.

of solar flare proton
SID 62-300-3, p. 22.

Apollo

Monthly

Progress

A presentation Holmes, the Apollo

on the lunar NASA Spacecraft Robert Project

orbit Office

rendezvous of Manned Jr.,

technique Space

was made Flight, 31.
May

to D. Brainerd of Associate

May 3

Director,

by representatives to NASA

Office.

A similar followed

presentation on May
Report,

Administrator
Apollo

C. Seamans,
Office, MSC,

Spacecraft

Project

Monthly

Activity

1-31,

1962.

The and the April

Source submitted Board's 5.
Apollo Weekly May

Evaluation

Board

for selecting

Apollo

navigation of bids and Prelimina

and

guidance

comof on

ponents

subcontractors findings had

completed been made

its evaluation Headquarters. to NASA

technical James

proposals E. Webb

its findings

to NASA

D" presentation

Administrator

Spacecraft Activity 5, 1962, p. 12.

Project Report for

ONce, the

MSC, Office

Weekly of the

Activity Director,

Report, Manned

April Space

1-7, Flight,

1962; April

MSC, 29-

At the monthly atives deemed
Apolo

Apollo

spacecraft that NAA the overall

design and

review

meeting

at NAA, prepare launch

MSC

representflight tests

4-5

recommended for verifying necessa_,,
Spacecraft

Avco for
Weekly

Corporation

a comprehensive availability.

test plan

integrity

of the heatshield anticipated
Activity

including vehicle
3-9, 1962.

without
Project ONce,

regard
MSC,

Report,

June

A prelimina pleted,
April

D" Statement

of Work mode
for 12.

for a proposed

lunar

excursion

module

was com-

although
Weekly 29-May

the mission
Activity 5, 1962, p.

had not yet been selected.
the ONce of the Director, Manned Space Flight,

MSC,

Report

159

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
May 5

A purchase from eter the data approximately

request Air Force's on static

was being Arnold

prepared Engineering wind

by NASA tunnel stability, tests

for wind were

tunnel

support design heat and July to fund

services of par_a-ntran_';fer 1962. the t,_sts

Development pressure in Fiscal

Center stability, Year 1963

in the amount: and

$222,000. stability, program.

These The

to provide June

dynamic funds

for the Apollo

were

to cover

tests during

Approximately $632,000 would scheduled to December 1962.
MSC, April Weekly 29-May Activity 5, 1962, Report p. 13. for

be required

the

Office

of

the

Director,

Manned

Space

Flight,

MSC from the type

processed $32 were
MSC, April

a purchase to $55 of a definitive

request contract

to increase NAA's (signed

NAA's August

spacecraft 30, 14, 1963),

letter 1962. actions

contract [Pending of 1:his

million

million

to cover

costs to June

execution

necessary.J
Weekly 29-May Activity 5, 1962, Report p. 13; for Oakley, the Office of the Director, S&ID Manned Apollo Space Program, Flight, p. 9.

Historical

Summary,

NASA tion The Plug

announced contracts system

the selection for major under

of three

companies of the by the MIT would

for the negotiation spacecraft Instrumentation be negotiated for fabrication for and for $2 the

of producguidance _Lnd Laboratory.

components development for $16 Motors of the The

Apollo

navigation largest

of the contracts, of General platform of ground parts with of the the

million, Corporation Apollo second

with AC Spark of the development inertial, _.nd _nd be

Division

gyroscope-stabilized construction testing negotiated aboard sextant,
Apollo Washington 11

spacecraft; equipment; contract,

support system. Under would Raytheon

and checkout Company the third build the

for assembling million, digital including would

all the

to manufacture contract, optical for about subsystems,

computer Kollsman a space

spacecraft. Corporation and

$2 million,

Instrument

sunfinders,
Spacecraft Evening

navigation
Office, May

display
MSC,

equipment.
Activity Report, May 5-11, 1962;

Project Star,

Weekly

9, 1962.

NASA

awarded the

a letter Little

contract

to General suborbital engines. to study

Dynamics/Convair which would The time, test flights. At the same Little

to design be used a separate Joe II max

_nd

manufacture the Apollo be powered contract Sands Missile

Joe II test launch
on unmanned solid-fuel to Convair N. Mex., missions.
Office, Vehicle, and MSC, NASA

vehicle

to be,ost 30-ctay White q abort

spacecraft

Joe II woad

by clustered Range, abort

was awarded

the control

system

requirements.

had been selected

for the Little

and high-altitude
Apollo Little 1-2, 24 Spacecraft Joe 4-1 lI

Project Launch

Weekly Project Events

Activity Apollo: o[ 1962,

Report, Final p. 82.

May Report,

13-19, Vol.

1962; I, pp.

Test

: Astronautical

Aeronautical

The

Aurora

7 flight,

spacecraft, by an the

with Atlas impact

Astronaut booster reentered point

M. from the

Scott Atlantic

Carpenter Missile Yaw

as Range. error

pilot, and

was a late

launched three-orbit retrofire

successfully caused

After

spacecraft

atmosphere.

the landing

to be over 200 miles beyond

the intended

160

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

area and

and

beyond

radio after

range

of the recover,,, Astronaut Carpenter

forces.

Landing

occurred

4 hours

i 962
May

56 minutes

liftoff.

was later

picked

up safely by a

helicopter.
Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology, pp. 164 165.

D.

Brainerd

Hohnes,

NASA's Operations (MSFC) Fiscal

Director Center, to prepare Year 1967 lunar engines, schedule

of Manned Manned supporting for each orbit was and and of eight major

Space

Flight, Center,

requested

the

25

Directors

of Launch Center through orbit engines, using engine.

Spacecraft

and Marshall and cost landing For also Nova

Space Flight breakdowns modes: direct of eight requested launch and ules earth ascent, F-1

component schedules of the proposed lunar and engine. direct MSFC two M-1 planned, summary F using of costs

rendezvous, eight the Each J-2

rendezvous, one J-2

ascent. was

a Saturn

C 8 launch a proposed Center

vehMe

a configuration for the

to submit vehicle,

configuration

1 engines, areas,

engines,

one J-2

was asked

to make problem

an evaluation

of the sched-

as to possibilities

of achievement,

and recommendations

for deviations.
Memorandum, craft Landing Center; Holmes and to Director, Director, May 25, Launch Operations Space Flight Center; Center, Director, "The Manned Manned SpaceLunar

Marshall 1962.

Program,"

The thrust)

F-1

engine for 2.5

was first minutes
Skywriter,

fired

at full power Rocket
p. 1.

(more Site,

than

1.5 million

pounds

of

26

at Edwards
June 1, 1962,

Calif.

Rocketdyne

A schedule

for the letting

of a contract

for the development

of a lunar

excursion

29

module was presented MSC Director Robert the lunar
MSF

to the Manned Space R. Gilruth in anticipation technique
Council

Flight Management Council by of a possible decision to employ mission.
Item 12. 29

rendezvous
Management

in the lunar
May 29,

landing
1962,

Minutes,

Agenda

The

Manned

Space

Flight C-5
Council

Management at Launch
Minutes,

Council Complex

approved

the Island,
9.

mobile Fla.

launcher

concept
MSF

for the Saturn
Management

39, Merritt
Agenda Item

May

29,

1962,

NAA outline

completed specified

a preliminary that

requirement

outline

for spacecraft to within

docking.

The

the two spacecraft

be navigated

a few feet of each

During 1'he Month

other and held to a relative velocity of less than six inches per second and that they be steered to within a few inches of axial alignment and parallelism. The crewman in the meteoric maneuver
NAA,

airlock

was

assumed and

to be to be

adequately able

protected the

against docking

radiation spacecraft

and and

bombardment it to the sealing
Apollo Monthly

to grasp

faces for final clamp.
Report, SID 62-300-4, May 31, 1962, p. 66. During the Month

Progress

A feasibility as a possible

study

was

completed flight mode

by NAA for lunar 161

on the mission

ballistic reentry.

(zero-lift) Based

maneuver upon single-

emergency

In

May

1962,

NASA's

Apollo

spacecraft

in mockup

form

was instrumented

and

computerized at Honeywell's Aeronautical Division for use in designing equipment to stabilize and control the vehicle in flight. The mockup, at the left, is electronically linked to the bank of analog computers on the right. Honeywell disclosed that ten weeks after agreement with the prime contractor, North American Aviation, Inc., on the job to be clone, a breadboard Apollo manual control and display for the assignment 1962
May

system was in design operation. in December 1961. (Itoneywell

The company photo)

was selected

pass and nautical percent

12 g maximum miles. When from standard),

load-factor

criteria,

the guidance

corridor

would

be nine

atmospheric density deviations were considered (--50 the allowable corridor would be reduced to four nautical 162

PART

HI:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

miles. miles.

Touchdown

dispersions

within

the defined

corridor

exceeded

2500

nautical

1962
May

Apollo

Monthly

Progress

Report,

SID

62-300-4,

p.

17.

Telescope had been .\ study

requirements completed on the direct direct

for the spacecraft by NAA. vision requirement

were

modified

after

two study

programs

DuHng the Mon_

for lunar landing point

landing and with

showed the landing a large requirement the

that,

to have

a sinmltaneous changing integrated eral-purpose telescope Another pounds, the

view of the lunar configuration, would thus

feet without field of view

spacecraft

a periscope be needed.

with a side window telescope design. study showed drift that, could

A similar reducing

on the genof the

be eliminated,

complexity

with

an additional for use after

weight parachute

penalty

of from

five to ten could easily

an optical

indicator

deployment

be incorporated
Apollo Monthly

into the general-purpose
Progress Report, SID

telescope.
62-300-4, pp. 29-30.

The NAA. native

first

reliability

prediction

study

for the

Apollo

spacecraft provisions,

was completed the study gave

by a of

Assuming modes, estimate

all systems redundancies, of 0.731. would

as series elements or inflight This analysis

and excluding provided

consideration which

of altermeans

During the Month

maintenance

reliability improving
Apollo

a basis from

reliability
Monthly

be evaluated
SID

and formulated.
p. 26.

Progress

Report,

62-300-4,

Layouts by NAA. feasible
Apollo

of three A stud), and that
Monthly

command disclosed windows
Progress

module that could
Report,

observation sufficient direct

window vision during

configurations for lunar reentry.

were

made

landing

was not

During the Month

not be uncovered
SID 62-300-4, p. 66.

NAA

began

compiling toxic

a list of command properties. These venting from

module materials

materials would

to be classified

selectively

for potentially location released amination to chemical
Apollo

be investigated exposure and Although could

to determine to excessive of gases exaccording

During the Month

(related under

to possible gases resulting and normal

of gases), thermal

fire resistance, decomposition, conditions. materials

temperatures,

toxicity

material-failure was not feasible,

a complete

of every material constituency
Monthly Progress

be grouped

and quantity
Report, SID

of gases released.
62-300-4, p. 10.

The

basic

spacecraft panels,

adapter

structure and

was defined forward and

as consisting aft bulkheads.

of six aluminum The design of

honeycomb

six longerons,

During the Month

the honeycomb
Apollo Monthly

panels
Progress

for the test requirements
Report, SID 62-300-4,

program
p. 89.

was complete.

163
334-987 0 69 12

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
May

NAA decided to retain the inward-opening crew hatch, which would use plain through manual jack-screw device to supply of NAA

pull-down concept for the spacecraft bolts for lower sill attachment and a to seat and unseat were in the hatch. [or

the force necessary latching concepts

During the Month

Concurrently,

a number

preparation

presentation to NASA, door without an outer complexity
Apollo

including that of an outward-opening, quick-opening crew emergency panel. This design, however, had weight and as well
Report, SID

disadvantages,
Monthly Progress

as requiring
62-300-4,

explosive
p. 68.

charges.

During the Month

The command system without For the service

module reaction interconnections. module RCS,

control system Either would a quadruple module

(RCS) selected by NAA was a dual be sufficient for the entire mission. arrangement was chosen that squib valves which and was burst

basically similar to the command discs were eliminated.
Apollo During the Month Monthly Progress Report,

RCS

except

SID

62-300-4,

p. 84.

NAA trol

evaluated system heat

the possibility rejection into being 300 pounds

of integrating one system. and heavier

the fuel cell and The integrated cortsiderably

environmental system proved than complex

conto be the possibly

unsatisfactory,

more

two separate systems. A preliminary design of separate located on the service module, was started by NAA.
Apollo During the Month Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-4, p. 82.

fuel cell radiators,

NAA couch another

studies

on the

prototype a crewman

crew

couch

included couches
p. 65.

one on the use of the center during for access lunar approach and areas. to equipment

for supporting on the
Monthly

at the astrosextant

displacement
Progress Report,

of outboard
SID 62-300-4,

Apollo

During the Month

Two

NAA analyses

showed module

that the urine management humidity load and atmospheric of urine

system

would

prevent of space

a rise co_.ld

in the command freeze-up be prevented
Apollo

contamination

and t_Lat

of the line used for daily evacuation by proper
Monthly

to the vacuum

orificing
Report,

of the line.
SID 62-300-4, pp. 10-11.

Progress

Juno 7

Wernher the NASA adopted

von

Braun, lunar

Director, landing

Marshall Space Flight one-way systems mission.

Space that He also Saturn

Flight the lunar C-5

Center,

recommended mode in support module the development ; the develop-

to be

Office for the

of Manned

orbit rendezvous logistics vehicle

recommended C-1B

of an unmanned, of the lunar ment of high-energy

fully automatic, propulsion

expedition;

the acceleration

of the Saturn as a backup

program

for the service

and

possibly the lunar engines to increase
"Concluding Landing Manned Space

excursion module; and further thrust or specific impulse.
by June Dr. to Dr. Wernher Joseph yon F. undated. Braun Shea,

development

of the F-1

and J-2

Remarks Program Given Flight,

about Deputy

Mode Director

Selection

for

the

Lunar of

(Systems),

Office

7, 1962,"

164

PART

IH:

LUNAR

ORB_

RENDEZVOUS

NAA

was directed

by the Apollo

Spacecraft

Project

Office

at the monthly

design

1962
June 10--1 1

review meeting to design an earth landing system to include the command module cant angle limited ing offset center of gravity, of the NAA no roll orientation

for a passive touchdown mode to about five degrees and favorno deployable heatshield,

control,

and depressurization At the same meeting, passive

reaction control system propellant prior to impact. was requested to use a single "kicker" rocket and a system for the spacecraft
Weekly Activity

thrust-vector-control
Spacecraft Project

launch
Report, June

escape
8-14,

system.
1962.

Apollo

Office,

MSG,

NASA tested

announced

that

the

Apollo Sands

service Missile

module Range,
p. 7.

propulsion N. Mex.

system

would

be

16

at a new facility
Oakley, Historical

at White
S&ID

Summary,

Apollo

Program,

Results reduce

of a preliminary control complexity.
Apollo June 22,

investigation module

by NAA would

showed save about

that

a 100 percent

oxygen and

16-22

atmosphere

for the command

30 pounds

in weight

NASA-Resident Week Ending

Spacecraft 1962, p. 3.

Project

Office,

NAA,

Weekly

Activity

Report

for

As the MIT the

result

of considerable module equipment reentry and and was bay. to align
notes,

joint changed The

engineering the location from instrument would

effort

and

discussion onboard the panel

by NAA sextant to the

and in wall navi-

18

Instrumentation command

Laboratory,

of the

space

the main would

instrument penetrate unit.

of the lower side during gation

hull on the hot to make

the navigator

have to leave

his couch

sightings
G. Hoag,

the inertial
June 18, 1962.

measurement

David

personal

MSC ment

Director Council would material

Robert that

R. Gilruth

reported

to the Manned material 1. The leading

Space

Flight

Managespacecraft strength

22

the selection be made was an epoxy

of the ablative resin with silica density.

for the Apollo contender

heatshield ablative and phenolic In addition, capabilities complete Complete
MSF

by September for reducing that

for the forebody char

fibers for improving

microballoons Gilruth appeared noted

a reevaluation that would
June

of the Saturn vehicle including the

C-1 lunar

and

C-1B

launch module.

to indicate qualification
Council Minutes,

neither require
22, 1962,

would

be able excursion

to test the C-5.

Apollo

spacecraft

configuration,

spacecraft
Management

the use of the Saturn
Agenda Item 2.

Joseph sented office,

F. Shea, NASA Deputy Director of Manned Space Flight (Systems), to the Manned Space Flight Management Council the results of the mission and mode selection. Space The study included The work by personnel used MSC, Marshall technique, rendezvous Flight Center. criteria

prestudy

22

on lunar

in Shea's

in evaluating

the direct ascent and lunar orbit accuracy,

earth orbit rendezvous connecting were: the mission itself, weight and tracking 165 requirements,

and fueling modes, margins, guidance (abort prob-

communications

reliability

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
June

lems), development military implications.
MSF Management

complexity,

schedules,

costs, flexibility,

growth

potential,

and

Council

Minutes,

June

22,

1962,

Agenda

Item

12.

22

After an extended discussion, unanimously decided :

the

Manned

Space

Flight

Management

Council

• Lunar orbit rendezvous, using the mission mode for lunar exploration. • The development of a lunar

the

Saturn

C-5 vehicle,

launch using

vehicle, the

should

be

logistics

Saturn

C-1B

or the C-5 launch vehicle, should ment should begin immediately. • Time mode. was too short and

be started

and a six-month too great

study

of this developbackup that its

the expense

to develop the

a parallel expectation looking

• Study of the Nova vehicle should continue with development would follow the C-5 by two or three years. • The C-1B launch vehicle should the first two-stage flight in mid-1965. • Development These decisions of a lunar excursion be started module

immediately, begin

toward

should Associate

at once. Robert C.

were to be presented

to NASA

Administrator and NASA

Seamans, Jr., istrator James
MSF 3O

NASA Deputy Administrator E. Webb for approval.
Council Minutes, June 22,

Hugh

L. Dryden,

Admin-

Management

1962,

Agenda

Item

12.

A thermal coverall for use in extravehicular in-house and would be shipped to Vought evaluation contract.
MSC, Weekly Activity June 24-30, 1962. Report for the Office of

space suit Astronautics

design was completed for use in the MSC

the

Director,

Manned

Space

Flight,

During the Month

Five NASA Rocketdyne

scientists, Division

dressed of the

in pressure feasibility

suits, completed of repairing,

an exploratory maintaining,

study

at and

replacing,

adjusting components investigated the design ent pressure
Rocketdyne Summer-Fall

of the J-2 rocket while in space. The scientific of special maintenance tools and the effectiveness maintenance
13, 1962

team also of differ-

suits in performing
Skywriter, July

work in space.

NASA circuit ration

and MIT

agreed

that

the Instrumentation

Laboratory

would

use the micr_Corp_-

for the prototype Apollo onboard computer. The Fairchild Controls microcircuit was the only one available in the United States.
with Ralph Ragan, Instrumentation Laboratory, MIT, April 27, 1966.

Interview July 1-7

The

delta

V

(rate

of incremental

change and

in velocity) with

requirements NAA

for the lunar Space-

landing mission were established craft Project Office.
Apollo Spacecraft Project Office,

coordinated

by the Apollo

MSC,

Weekly

Activity

Report,

July

1-7,

1962.

166

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

NASA

awarded

three

contracts for the further

totaling

an

estimated and

$289 production

million

to NAA's and

1962
July 2

Rocketdyne J-2 rocket
Wall

Division engines.
Journal,

development

of the F-1

Street

July

3, 1962.

The

document

entitled

"Charter

of the

MSFC-STG

Space

Vehicle

Board,"

adopted on October ordination Charter revision the tions were: Electrical Panel Space
Management

3, 1961, was revised to read "Spacecraft for the Apollo Program MSFC-MSC." the and recently Panel to establish (MSFC)
June 25,

Launch Vehicle CoThe reasons for the Council, and within to include CommunicaMSC and

to include Systems Flight

formed and

Management Instrumentation Offices Panels.
6.

Integration Center

responsibilities,

Integration the

Marshall
MSF

to manage
1963, Agenda

Council

Minutes,

Item

Employment an increase
Oakley,

at NAA's Space and Information of 7000 in seven months.
Historical Summary, S&ID Apollo Program,

Systems

Division

reached

14,119,

p. 7. 10

The MSC

first

Apollo

spacecraft Division.

mockup

inspection Manager,

was were

held Robert

at NAA's R. Gilruth, and Astronaut

Space

and I.

Information ; Charles Grissom.
Oakley,

Systems

In attendance Program

Director, Virgil

W. Frick,

Apollo

MSC;

Historical

Summary,

S&ID

Apollo

Program,

p. 7. 10-11

At the monthly directed From NAA

Apollo to design

spacecraft standpoint,

design

review

meeting atmosphere

with NAA, offered

MSC

officials oxygen. in

the spacecraft

atmospheric

system

for 5 psia pure

an engineering

the single-gas

advantages

minimizing extravehicular the mixed-gas of offering atmosphere

weight and leakage, in system simplicity and reliability, and in the suit interface. From the standpoint of physiological considerations, atmosphere protection afforded greater (3.5 against psia oxygen, dysbarism decompression 3.5 psia nitrogen) and atelecta-sis, protection. had the advantages the single-gas validation whereas

The atmosphere

program demonstrated the known fire hazard of a pure oxygen atmosphere. Two fires occurred, one at the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks Air Force Base, Tex., on September Penna., 10 and the other at the U.S. 17. The Naval Air Engineerto this problem to be aware sources and by NASA on

ing Center,

Philadelphia,

on November

answer

appeared to be one of diligent effort on the part of spacecraft of the fire hazard and to exercise strict control of potential material August
Apollo Apollo and grams (1965), Division,

designers ignition to NAA

selection. 28.
Spacecraft Quarterly Richard Leading pp. I-6; S.

The

official

authorization

was

issued

Project Status Johnston, to Spacecra[t letter, Change

Office, Report No. Gaseous C. D.

MSC, I,

Weekly Edward

Activity Considerations NASA NAA, 1," August

Report, and and 28,

July George Note Information

8-14, B. Smith,

1962; Jr., ProD-2506 Systems

p. 13;

L. Michel, Technical

Environment Selection, MSC, to No.

Evaluation TN

Atmosphere Sword, Authorization

Space

"Contract

1962.

167

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
July 10-11

Charles tation navigation

W. Frick, Laboratory

MSC

Apollo and other
Apollo

Project

Office lunar

Manager, landing

assigned trainer or proposed.
NAA, S&ID,

MIT

Instrumenand

to report

on a simulated displays
Design

using guidance

equipment

as necessary
Meeting,

Ralph Ragan, notes, 4th July 10 and 11, 1962. 11

Review

Downey,

Calif.,

NASA

officials

announced

at a Washington, technique had landing mission.

D.C.,

press conference

that

the lur,ar

orbit rendezvous (LOR) accomplishing the lunar C-5, with the smaller

been selected as the primary method of The launch vehicle would be the Saturn C-IB (S-IVB as second stage) used in

two-stage

Saturn

early earth orbital spacecraft would be issued immediately decision on lunar

qualification flights. Requests for industrial proposals on the lunar excursion module. The reasons for the were explained success success : equal earlier mission than safety o_er

orbit rendezvous

• A higher probability of mission was provided by this technique. • The modes. • LOR • LOR existing method promised mission

with essentially some months

costs would would

be ten to 15 percent the least

less than

other techniques. development technology. beyond

require while

amount

of technical

commitments

advancing that:

significantly

the national

In addition,

it was announced would continue

• Studies a two-man rendezvous

on the feasibility ascent be made approach

of using the Saturn to the moon logistics

C-5

to launch orbit

spacecraft mode.

in a direct study would would

or in an earth

• An in-depth • Investigations vehicle.
NASA, quarters "Lunar on July

on a lunar on the

vehicle. of the Nova launch

continue

development

Orbit Rendezvous: News 11, 1962," pp. 1, 3, 4.

Conference

on

Apollo

Plans

at NASA

Head-

16

Beech vessels reactants

Aircraft that

Corporation be used

was selected to store fuel cell power
Report No. I, p.

by NASA supply.
23; Oakley,

to build state

the spherical

pressure n

would

in the supercritical

the hydrogen-oxyge,

for the spacecraft
Quarterly Program, Status 6.

Apollo Apollo 17

Historical

Summary,

S&ID

p.

Joseph

F. Shea,

NASA

Deputy Society

Director

of Manned

Space Ohio,

Flight that

(Systems),

told

an American astronauts on either Shea and would mation said that

Rocket to land

meeting would

in Cleveland, come down

the first American within and ten degrees 260 degrees. potential infordown

on the moon equator

in an area 270

side of the lunar that the the actual Ranger and based

and

between

longitudes for its apparent would provide show

site would Surveyor Maps

be chosen programs on the scale which 168

scientific badly lunar

needed features

on the lunar be required,

surface.

of two fifths of a mile to the inch would

on photographs

NASA officialsames .Webb, J E Administrator; Dr.Robert .Seamans, C Jr.,Assocfi_te Administrator; Brainerd D. Hohnes, Director, fficeof Manned O Space Fright; andJoseph.Shea, F Deputy irector fSystems, of Manned D o Office Space light, F used modelsxtensively e astheyannounced thattilelunarorbitrendezvous mode hadbeen selected andcompared thismode withearthorbitrendezvous anddirect ascent. Shown npreceding andabove (1) lunarlanding thelunar o page are: of excursion odule, m with the commandndserviceodules overhead in lunar a m
orbit; (2) the lunar descent phase after braking, with the command, service, and lunar landing modules combined in the earth orbit rendezvous approach; (3) the lunar landing module landing gear extended following a lunar landing (direct ascent); (4) lunar takeoff and transearth flight configuration of the command and sel_'ice modules (direct ascent); and (5) the reent D, command module, virtually the same for any of the three modes.

1962 July

to five or six feet in size. The smallest objects on the lunar telescope were about the size of a football field. MSC Space News Roundup, August 22, 1962, p. 8. Rocket Chairman said that manned Society lunar missions

surface

yet identified

by

17

In an address Ohio, omy, James State

to the American A. Van University hazard Allen, of Iowa, for extended

meeting of Physics radiation nuclear

in Cleveland, and belt Astro:acould periozl,

of the Department protons space flight

of the inner and that

be a serious

detonations

might be able to clean out these inner making possible manned orbits about New York Timev, July 18, 1962.

belt protons, perhaps for a prolonged 300 miles ab.ve the earth.

170

An architect's conception oftheMission ontrol enterobeconstructedManned C C t at Spacecraft Center. NASAAdministrator James . Webbannounced E thattheMission ControlCenter for futuremanned space flightswouldbelocated MSC.The Center ouldbe at w operational timefor Geminirendezvous in flightsin 1964 andlaterApollolunar missions. Theoverriding factorin thechoice MSCwastheexisting of location of the Apollo Spacecraft ProjectOffice,the astronauts, Flight Operations and Divisionat Houston.
New York Times, July 22, 1962; NASA News Release, 62-172, July 20, 1962; memorandum, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., to Administrator, "Location of Mission Control Center," July 10, 1962. NASA 80,000 would Saturn announced include launch plans a building vehicle and for an advanced Canaveral. enough spacecraft. large Apollo Saturn The for the launch vertical complex Launch assembly to be built Complex on 39,
21

1962
July 2O

acres northwest

of Cape

new facility,

of a complete

Washington Sunday Star, July 22, 1962. MSC invited 11 firms to submit research The Inc., and development lunar landing Aircraft Dynamics North Airplane proposals mission. Company, The for the lunar firms were CorNorthrop
2_

excursion Lockheed poration, tion, Aviation

module Aircraft

(LEM)

for the manned Boeing General

Corporation,

Ling-Temco-Vought, Aircraft Aircraft of Work Corporation,

Grumman Company,

Engineering Corporation, American

CorporaRepublic Inc.,

Douglas

Company, Martin-Marietta Corporation. distributed

Aviation,

and McDonnell The Statement

to the

prospective

bidders

described

the

contractor's Detail

responsibilities: design and manufacture of the LEM and related test articles, mockups, equip-

and other hardware

with the exception 171

of certain

government-furnished

THE

APOLLO

SPACECIL_FT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
July

ment radar

[navigation altimeter), system

and flight

guidance research

system and portable and

(excepting development certain

the rendezvous instrumentation components systems, of and

radar the

and crew

system, personal

scientific equipment radiation Integration

instrumentation (space dosimeters)]

system, suits,

life support

of government-furnished

equipment

into the LEM;

development

of specifications for equipment performance, interfaces, and ment; and maintenance of interface control documentation validity Detailed rendezvous Specification of the effects and concurrence analysis related from lunar orbit separation

design environin a state of

trajectory directly

until

lunar

orbit

to the contractor's environment adapter

area of responsibility on the lunar surface and assessment

of the mission of the spacecraft

environment

on the LEM and mating

Detail design of the LEM-mounted the LEM to the command module Design the of the LEM-mounted Contractor

equipment (CM) within

for repositioning

equipment (NAA) of checkout

the overall

specification

of

Principal

Determination the translunar Identification whether Design

of the desirability period

or operation

of the LEM

during

of the flight to the LEM LEM before and during separation,

of crew tasks related performed in the

actually and

or CM equipment involved directly with the associated of LEM or

manufacture of all ground manufacture

of the ground support of certain

support

with the hardware compatibility Design ground Prelaunch contractors Coordination requirements Planning Provision contractor The mockups Complete Cabin Cabin Docking and

for which

the contractor

was responsible

and ensurance

equipment LEM

training

equipment

for flight

personnel

as required and

by NASA checkout of the LEM, working testing spacecraft prelaunch with the other

preparation in the same of all

manner

as during with

systems the

LEM

actMties

overall

and implementation of adequate logistic

of a reliability support

and quality equipment

assurance furnished

program by the

for the

to be delivered LEM interior exterior system control

by the contractor

would

include

but not be limited

to :

arrangement equipment system 172

Environmental

PART

HI:

LUNAR

ORB_

RENDEZVOUS

Crew support system Antenna radiation pattern Handling Module Before the and transportation interface midcourse correction, the LEM would be transferred

1962
July

first translunar

from its stowed position in the spacecraft the command and service modules ( CSM man LEM crew would enter the LEM

adapter to a docked configuration with ). At a later point in the mission, the twothe CSM by means of a hatch without to

from

being exposed to the environment of space. Another hatch would allow access the LEM during countdown and egress into space while docked with the CSM. The LEM systems were to operate at their normal design performance

level for a in the presa minimum would be of

mission surized

of two days LEM cabin

without resupply. Equipment normally operated environment would be designed to function for without cabin failure. The LEM and pressurization a continuous for a total operating cabin,

of two days in vacuum capable as 0.2 the resupply of six complete pound per hour.

system

repressurizations would which had

leak rate time

as high without

Provision system usual Under

be made

of six recharges

portable

life support

a normal in the LEM

of four hours.

conditions

the crew would

wear unpressurized space suits. Either crewman would be able, alone, to return the LEM to the CSM and successfully perform the rendezvous and docking maneuver. was The Of the overall 0.995. LEM would be capable of independently performing the separation from crew safety goal of 0.999, the goal apportioned to the LEM

the CSM, lunar descent, landing, ascent, rendezvous, and docking with the CSM. It would allow for crew exploration in the vicinity of lunar touchdown but would not be required Lunar landing to have lunar would surface mobility. from a lunar orbit of 100 nautical miles. After

be attempted would would and

separation, the LEM elliptical orbit which touchdown elliptical maneuvers, orbit.

transfer from the circular orbit to an equal-period not intersect the lunar surface. The hovering, final landing would be performed by the LEM from the

Normally there would not be a requirement to reposition lunar launch. To rendezvous and dock with the CSM, from The an elliptical LEM would to a circular orbit after lunar launch.

the LEM the LEM

attitude before would transfer

not be recoverable. of Work system system and system. would provide steering and thrust control were : control and was a description of the major LEM systems:

Included

in the Statement and control

Guidance

The navigation signals the lunar Inertial Optical

and guidance propulsion unit unit

for the stabilization excursion

control

system,

reaction

system,

Its basic components

measurement measurement

173

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT;

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
July

Range-drift Computer Power Control Displays Cabling and and and and

measurement servo assembly unit box

unit

(reticle)

display controls junction

Chart book Rendezvous The stabilization maneuver Attitude Rate Control Manual Displays Power Lunar excursion The system

and star catalog radar and radar and control

altimeter would would meet the attitude stabilization and

system and

control requirements reference

include:

sensors electronics controls assembly

supplies propulsion would use system storable Variable hypergolic thrust would bipropellants be required and from a pressurized a propulsion

propellant feed system. system to be designed. Propellants The fuel would and 50 percent nitrous oxide, as oxidizer. Reaction The ments pellant Lunar control system and

be monomethylhydrazine unsymmetrical added to depress

or a mixture point

of 50 percent Nitrogen would

hydrazine with be used

dimethylhydrazine. the freezing

tetroxide

if necessary,

system comprised each capable would providing two independent, the interconnectable, total torque about and control all axes. propulsion pulse-modulated impulse The requiresame pro-

subsystems,

of meeting be used

two-directional

combination system

a.s for the LEM

system.

touchdown Attached

to the LEM

by hard

points

which

would

accommodate

variations

of

landing gear geometries, the system compatible with anticipated landing protection and radiation protection

would have load distribution capabilities gear loads and would include meteoroid inherent in its structure. Normally, the

system would be deployed from within the spacecraft but could manually by the crew in space suits outside the spacecraft. Crew systems The flight crew would The man, crew equipment system consi_st of the Commander system would include and Systems

be operated

Engineer. crewspace

an adjustable water,

seat for each

restraint

for each seat, food and 174

first aid equipment,

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

suits, portable dosimeters. Environmental

life support

systems

for each

crewman,

and

personal

radiation

1962
July

control

system would be provided 5-----0.2 psia (maximum) : 7.6 mm Hg :

The following Total Carbon cabin

conditions pressure: partial 75°±5°F

Oxygen, pressure

Relative

humidity: dioxide

40 to 70 percent

Temperature: Electrical power

system of the source was still to be made for various mission and would depend largely during on the rendez-

Selection

time contingency vous maneuvers. Instrumentation The corder system

allowed

events,

especially

operational system,

instrumentation display and control

system

would

consist

of a clock, system,

tape

re-

system, sensors,

calibration

cameras,

and telescope. The flight research and development up of telemetry systems (including system, radar The return sensors transponder, scientific container, and signal and antennas. system would comprise a lunar atmosphere specimen equipment, instrumentation transmitters), calibration system would clock and tape system, power be made recorder supply,

conditioning,

instrumentation

analyzer,

gravitometer,

magnetometer, instrument.

radiation equipment,

spectrometer, seismographic

rock and soil analysis

and soil temperature
NASA, July 1962, 24, Project 1962), p. 130. Apollo pp.

Lunar 2-5,

Excursion A-89 to

Module A-108;

Development Astronautical

Statement and

o] Work

(MSC, o[

Aeronautical

Events

Wesley Sands

F. Messing Missile Range,

was

designated

as Acting

Resident MSC

MSC

Manager at that
at

at White site.
White

25

N. Mex.,
No. July 67, 25,

to coordinate
Establishment of

test programs
MSC

MSC Sands

Announcement Missile Range,

Resident

Manager

1962. 29-August 4

As a result

of an MSC

in-house

technical heatshield
MSC,

review,

NAA

was directed spacecraft.

to investigate

the adaptation
Apollo

of the Gemini-type
Project Office,

to the Apollo
Activity Report.

Spacecraft

Weekly

The Office of Systems under NASA's Office its conclusions on the selection of a lunar industry studies conducted were in 1961 and

of Manned Space Flight summarized mission mode based on NASA and

3O

1962: problems time and which money would were preclude available. the [The

• There acceptance

no significant

technical if sufficient 175

of any of the modes,

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
July

modes C-5 direct

considered lunar ascent.] • The C-5 orbit

were the C-5 rendezvous direct ascent

direct (LOR),

ascent, Nova

C-5

earth

orbit rendezvous and solid-fuel

(EOR), Nova

direct

ascent,

technique

was characterized probability require greater

by high of mission

development and the of larger from and an initial vehicle under

risk and the least flexibility

for further

development. success

• The C-5 EOR mode had greatest development complexity. • The launch Nova direct the ascent C-5. vehicles than

the lowest method

would and had

the

development complex safety crew

However,

it would

be the least

operational and subsystem standpoint mission capabilities than did LOR. • The development current budget solid-fuel parallel Nova direct flight Such to the C-5.

mode

would

necessitate could

a launch

a development

not be financed

allotments.

• Only the LOR and EOR modes would make full use of the development of the C-5 launch vehicle and the command and service modules. Based on technical considerations, • The pressed On strong the LOR Directors preference mode of MSC was distinctly and Marshall mode. mode [The was recommended studies summarized Council as most suitpreferable. Space Flight Center had both ex-

for the LOR

the basis of these conclusions, lunar 22.]
of Manned pp.

the LOR mission. Flight

able for the manned ment mode decision
Office

landing

in this docuin their mission

were used by the Manned on June

Space

Management

of Systems, July

Office 30,

Space

Flight,

"Manned

Lunar

Landing

Program

Comparison,"

1962,

145-146.

31

The Manned design Space systems spacecraft W. Hall detailed
MSF

Space should (OMSF)

Flight

Management

Council

decided

that the Apollo of the Office should

spacecraft of Manned in the on Eldon of the

criteria Flight

be worked Office should of Space

out under of Systems. take place Systems

the guidance These among would criteria

be included of information and OMSF. for control

specifications weight status of the Office systems
Management

to be developed.

A monthly

exchange the Centers

be responsible

weights.
Council Minutes, July 31, 1962, Agenda Item 16.

During the Month

The cipal

Hamilton

Standard was The

Division International contract
No.

of United Latex was signed
1, p. 29.

Aircraft space

Corporation suit assembly. which 5.

was selected Hamilton's would fabricate

by prin-

NASA

as the prime subcontractor garment.
Quarterly

contractor

for the Apollo

Corporation, on October

the pressure
Apollo

Status

Report

During the Month

The control This shield, revised

layout

of the command incorporated

module the new engines 176

aft compartment umbilical

was released in the

by NAA. heat-

drawing

locations

lower

relocated

the pitch-and-yaw

symmetrically,

eliminated

the ground

PART

hi"

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

support

equipment

tower umbilical,

and showed

the resulting

repositioning

of tanks

1962
July

and equipment.
NAA, Apollo Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-5, July 31, 1962, p. 96.

NAA completed heatshield

control

layouts

for all three Structural chart
SID 62-300-5,

command penalties prepared.
p. 98.

module

windows,

including window-

windows

and sightlines.

were investigated,

During the Month

panes sized, and a weight-comparison
Apollo Monthly Progress Report,

NAA's shaped with module prepared

evaluation explosive a backup to trap

of the emergency charge structure should and

blow-out

hatch

study annulus

showed on

that the

the linearmodule, of the were hatch

be installed and gases.

on the outside Detail drawings

of the command inside of the crew

During the Month

an epoxy-foam-filled

fragmentation

for fabrication
Monthly Progress

of actual
Report,

test sections.
SID 62-300-5, pp. 97-98. During the Month

Apollo

After studied landing

the determination of the system by NAA.

of the basic

design

of the spacecraft heatshield "necessary

sequencer tower escape system

schematic, jettison was and earth

the effect

deployment The sequence would be flights

of the forward affected, and making abort

before the

of events of both the launch

selection was

of different prepared to

sequences provide
Apollo

for normal

conditions.

A schematic

for these sequencing
Monthly Progress

alternatives.
Report, SID 62-300-5, p. 123. During the Month

NAA the

completed stiffness

the analysis aluminum

and

design

of the Fiberglas and would

heatshield. be used on

It duplicated all boilerplate

of the

heatshield

spacecraft.
Apollo Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-5, p. 93. D_ring the Month

Final

design

of the command

module

forward

heatshield

release

mechanism

was

completed
Apollo

by NAA.
Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-5, p. 79.

Air recirculation accommodate relieve

system

components fitting cabin the

of the command and pressure lines for the regulator

module center was

were

rearranged suit. and

to To

a disconnect

crewman's

During the Month

an obstruction,

relocated

a design

study drawing
Apollo

was completed.
Progress Report, SID 62-300-5, p. 73. Du'ring the Month

Monthly

A study spacecraft command weight

was made

by NAA to determine equipment. transponder The facility instead

optimum and power systems would 177

location amplifier

and configuration if a single were module, and deep carried

of the space in the

transponder module would

study showed

that,

instrumentation

of two complete the system

in the service

spacecraft and

be reduced,

be simplified,

command

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
July

service module interface problems would would be provided to ensure reliability.
Apollo Monthly Progress Report, SID

be minimized.

Spares

in excess

of normal

62-300-5,

p. 84.

During the Month

A modified

method

of coofing

crew

and

equipment

before

launch

and

during until by

boost was tentatively selected by NAA. Chilled, ground-support-equipment-supplied water-glycol would be pumped through the spacecraft coolant system 30 seconds before launch, when these lines would at the be disconnected. boiler, would After separation the glycol., as it evaporated Freon stored in the water tanks.
Apollo Monthly Progress Report, SID

umbilical

water

be chilled

62-300-5,

p. 75.

During the Month

NAA

selected

the lunar

landing radar.

radar

and

completed

the block

diagram on both

for the types of

spacecraft radar.
Apollo

rendezvous

Preliminary

design

was in progress

Monthly

Progress

Report,

SID

62-300-5,

p. 57.

During the Month

A 70-mm camera of space NAA vantages available craft. One

pulse camera and

was selected in the upper

by NAA power that and

for mission supply

photodocumentation. Because heating panel. display require

The of the lack element, The adbe

was to be carried was considering for changing

parachute behind

compartment. for a 35-watt the main would

the need for a constant placing were

the camera

of this arrangement

the camera could

less power,

magazines,

be removed

for use outside

the space-

16-mm

camera

was also planned to the telescope launch

for the spacecraft. head and directed motion activity.
p. 81.

This events

camera

would

be

positioned It could landing;
Apollo During the Month

level with the commander's be secured it could
Monthly

at the main excursion

display

panel.

for recording

in real time--such module, and earth

as rendezvous,

docking,

and recovery

of a lunar

be hand-held
Progress Report,

for extravehicular
SID 62-300-5,

NAA investigated draw the modules ball locators together; was open aMock lunar would
Monthly

several docking methods. These included extendable probes to together; shock-strut arms on the lunar excursion module with the modules Mylar module. and a crewman, until secured the spring latch caught, tubing. would fastening transfer command them polyethylene crewman to bring plastic Also considered into the module

to position inflatable in which excursion then

and

a system

by a lanyard, the modules

Another

in the open

reel in the lanyard
Progress Report, SID

together.

Apollo During the Month

62-300-5,

p. 99.

Command heatshield CM inner

module

(CM)

flotation

studies

were

made

by

NAA,

in which

the

was assumed to be upright with no flooding and outer walls. The spacecraft was found

having occurred between the to have two stable attitudes: 128 degrees much lower

the desired upright position and an unacceptable from the vertical. Further studies were scheduled 178

on-the-side position to determine how

PART

HI:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

the CM center of gravity would have to be to eliminate the unacceptable stable condition and to measure the overall flotation stability when the CM heatshield was extended.
Apollo Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-5, p. 27.

1962
July

A recent rendezvous been given

Russian method

article was

discussed a man reported ascent

various to the moon the most

methods during reliable,

which but

the

Soviet The

Union earth also

had orbital had

August 1

been studying

for sending

the decade.

consideration rocket.

to the direct
and

method,
Events

using

the "Mastodon"

Astronautical

Aeronautical

of 1962,

p. 136.

At MSC, J. Thomas craft command and Project
MSC

Markley was appointed service modules contract, excursion
August 22,

Project Officer for the Apollo spaceand William F. Rector was named contract.

Officer
Space

for the lunar
News Roundup,

module
1962,

p. 1.

NASA's and C-5

Office launch

of Manned vehicles.

Space Contract

Flight

issued

Requests could

for Proposals be handled by

for a study by the C-1B 1 and

oI the lunar

"bus"

and studies

for payloads awards 1.

which were

expected

September

completion
MSF

of the studies
Management Council

by December
Minutes, July

31, 1962,

Agenda

Item

7.

The

Apollo spacecraft configuration changed radically from May 1960 to July 1962. These are the major configuration changes during that period. The inset reentry bodies indicate the shapes which received the greatest amount of study.

SPACECRAFT

CONFIGURATION

EVOLUTION

4/62

5/60

7/61

7/62

[]

334-987

0

- 69

-

13

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
Augusf 2

The heatshield five days ahead
Oakley,

for Apollo of schedule.
Summary,

command

module

boilerplate

model

1 was

completed

Historical

S&ID

Apollo

Program,

p. 8.

The puter

MIT from

Instrumentation the

Laboratory

ordered

a Honeywell Company's

1800 electronic Electronic

comData

Minneapolis-Honeywell

Regulator

Processing installation

Division for work on the Apollo spacecraft navigation in 1963, the computer would aid in circuitry design and would tests.
Aeronautical

system. After of the Apollo com-

spacecraft computer puter during ground
Astronautical and

also simulate

full operation

of a spaceborne

Events

o[ 1962,

p. 141.

The first completed boilerplate subjected to a one-fourth-scale to Los Angeles Harbor. Three

model of the Apollo command module, impact test in the Pacific Ocean near additional tests were conducted

BP-25, was the entrance 9.
Report

on August
Activity

Oaakley, Historical Summary, for the Office of the Director,

S&ID Apollo Program, Manned Space Flight,

p. 8; MSC, Weekly August 5-11, 1962.

NASA design, ing three

awarded C-5

a $141.1 launch

million vehicle.

contract and The testing

to the

Douglas

Aircraft stage,

Company the flight. third units,

for stage

development, for ground
and

fabrication,

of the S-IVB called

of the Saturn

contract flight,

for 11 S-IVB

includ-

tests, two for inert
Aeronautical Events

and six for powered
p. 144.

Astronautical

of 1962,

Representatives the proposed Facility,
MSC, 1962,

of the MSC Gemini Project Office and Facilities Division inspected hangar and office facilities to be refurbished at E1 Centro Naval Air for joint
Gemini

Calif.,
Project p. 14.

use in the Apollo
Quarterly Status

and

Gemini
No. 2 for

drop-test
Period

programs.
Ending August 31,

Report

At a bidders' from Centers that C-5 could launch

conference and industry be adapted vehicles and

held

at NASA

Headquarters, logistic studies which C-1B

proposals : a spacecraft and could later

were "bus"

requested concept near stay on of be might

for two lunar a variety The latter and

for use first on the Saturn of payloads study how would man's

on the Saturn

be soft-landed how a crew's moon

manned the moon the moon facilitated.

Apoll O missions. might might

determine mobility on

be extended, be increased,

how human

capability

for scientific the

investigation

Astronautical

and

Aeronautical

Events

of 1962,

p. 144.

I0

MSC advance Launch

requested design

the reprogramming on construction Center

of $100,000 facilities. The

of Fiscal funds would

Year

1963

funds

for from

be transferred

Operations

to MSC

for use on the Little 180

Joe II program

at White

PART

nl:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

Sands work

Missile

Range,

N. Mex.,

and would

cover

Army

Corps

of Engineers

design

1962
August

on the launch
MSC, August Weekly 5-1

facility.
Report for the Office of the Director, Manned Space Flight,

Activity

I, 1962. 10

NASA Little

selected

the

Aerojet-General which would

Algol

solid-propellant

motor the command

to power and

the

Joe II booster,
of the Apollo
and

be used to flight-test

service

modules

spacecraft.
Events o[ 1962, p. 146. 11

Astronautical

Aeronautical

A NASA modules poses Space drawing June first budget 15,

program through

schedule calendar year

for

the

Apollo

spacecraft

command

and planning

service pur-

1965 NASA The

was established Office

for financial Space complete module

and Flight

distributed Center, May release, 1963;

to the and

of Manned were: command

Flight, service drawing February

Marshall module release, 1, 1964; on

MSC.

key dates

1, 1963;

complete

manufacture flight,

complete May 15,

on the first spacecraft, 1965. This tentative

manned

orbital

schedule

depended

appropriations.
Weekly 5-11, Activity 1962, pp. Report 4, 5. 11 for the Office of the Director, Manned Space Flight,

MSC, August

Of the

11 companies

invited

to bid on

the lunar MSC from the

excursion

module

on July

25,

eight planned contract. No poration respond.
MSC, August

to respond. information it was

NAA had notified had been received whether

that it would the McDonnell Northrop

not bid on the Aircraft Corwould

and

questionable

Corporation

Weekly 5-11,

Activity 1962, p. 4.

Report

for

the

Office

of

the

Director,

Manned

Space

Flight,

The

Soviet

Union piloted as pilot. orbit

launched by Andrian

Vostok

IH

into orbit at 11 : 30 a.m. At 11 :02 a.m. IV spacecraft with sighted This

Moscow

time,

the

1 1-12

spacecraft day, the Popovich same

G. Nikolayev. the made Vostok radio that an hour,

Moscow

time the next with Pavel R. in nearly Nikolayev. IV. In their a little landed

the Soviet

Union

launched about HI,

into orbit Cosmonaut Vostok

Within

Cosmonaut contact he had approach. period. 15.

Popovich,

traveling

as Vostok shortly

Nikolayev official over three

reported

thereafter

report,

Nikolayev spacecraft

and Popovich other within

said their

spacecraft Popovich

had been within and Nikolayev

miles of each

at their closest a 24-hour on August
22, 1962.

was the first launching

of two manned safely
New

in Kazakhstan,
York Times,

U.S.S.R.,
August 14 and

Ten team

Air Force pilots month of astronauts

emerged could work

from a simulated efficiently

space

cabin

in which mission

they had spent how long Project a in space.

13

the previous

participating

in a psychological

test to determine

on a prolonged 181

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
August

DirectorEarl Alluisi saidthe experiment had "farexceeded our expectations"and thatthemen could have stayed in thecabin for40 days with no difficulty.
New York Herald Tribune, August 14, 1962.

13-14

NAA suggested and navigation
MSC-NAA Calif., Item 14

that the pitch, roll, and yaw rates required for the Apollo guidance system would permit reduction in the reaction control thrust.
Apollo 5-6. Spacecraft Design Review No. 5, August 13-14, 1962, Downey,

The NAA spacecraft Statement for the lunar excursion module requirements were identical of Work of July 24. The command down module on land from (CM)

of Work was revised to include the requirements (LEM) as well as other modifications. The LEM given in the LEM Development Statement

with those

would and

now

be required

to provide at sea, the with egress

the crew week CM hatches

with after

a be of

one-day touching

habitable

environment or water. attitude any

a survival float

environment

for one

In case of a landing and upright

should free

able to recover water. The service

propulsion

system

would

now

provide corrections,

all major

velocity

increments

required

for translunar

midcourse

velocity

for placing

the spacecraft

into a lunar orbit, for rendezvous of the command and service modules (CSM) with the LEM on a backup mode, for transfer of the CSM from lunar orbit into the transearth missions. trajectory, and for transearth midcourse velocity corrections for lunar

Three FIST-type drogue earth landing system. The plays, CM and camera system

parachutes

would

replace

the original

two called

for in the

was revised

to require for lunar

one for monitoring photography and with the telescope

the

crew,

dis-

spacecraft

interior;

the other

stellar

studies.

The latter camera could at the crew's discretion.

be used in conjunction

or independently

A new communication concept vision, and ranging information mitted over a unified frequency

was described for near-earth system.

in which and lunar

all voice, telemetry, teledistances would be trans-

All references to the lunar landing module and dropped. Among other deletions from the previous Parawing and other earth landing The "skip" reentry technique HF beacon Radar as recovery from aid CSM communication Test Plan
Development Part Statement

space laboratory module were Statement of Work were : instead of parachutes

systems

altimeter

system

Crew recreational Engineering
NASA, 1961, 88. Project Revised

equipment

and Development
Apollo August Spacecraft 14, 1962),

of Work pp.

(MSC,

December

18, and

3, Technical

Approach,

3, 7, 12, 61, 84,

182

PART

HI:

LUNAR

ORB_

RENDEZVOUS

The water

first Apollo recovery

boilerplate and handling

command

module, Markley

BP-25, water

was delivered described

to MSC

for

1962
Mid-August

tests. Flotation,

stability, of MSC

and towing

tests were

conducted structural
Apollo 1962, August

with good results. J. Thomas tests thus far as "successful."
Quarterly p. 167; 18, Status Apollo Report No.

all spacecraft

1, p. 41 ; Astronautical Office, Weekly

and Activity

Aeronautical Report, Period

Events Ending

o[

Spacecraft

Project

1962. 16

The second stage (S-IV) of the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle fired for the first time in a ten-second test at the Sacramento, Douglas Aircraft Company.
and Aeronautical Events o[ 1962, p. 156.

was successfully Calif., facility

staticby the

Astronautical

17

Carl

Sagan,

University

of California

astronomer,

warned

scientists

at

a lunar

exploration craft and

conference, Blacksburg, Va., of the need for sterilization of lunar spacedecontamination of Apollo crewmen, pointing out that Lunik II and

Ranger IV probably had deposited terrestrial microorganisms on the moon. Even more serious, he said, was the possibility that lunar microorganisms might be brought to earth where
Post,

they could
18, 1962.

multiply

explosively.

Washington

August

,22

Responsibility Apollo

for

the

design

and

manufacture from The

of the

reaction

controls Corporation

for the to the

command

module

was shifted

Marquardt

Rocketdyne
Oakley,

Division
Historical

of NAA, with NASA
Summary, S&ID Apollo

concurrence.
Program, p. 7. 22

The

length

of the Apollo

service

module

was increased fuel.
Program, p. 7.

from

11 feet 8 inches

to 12

feet 11 inches to provide
Oakley, Historical

space for additional
S&ID Apollo

Summary,

Robert

R. Gilruth,

Director

of MSC, Sciences crew would couch

presented meeting be seated

details

of the

Apollo

spacecraft launch other of of feet during

at the Institute and reentry, phases movement.

of the Aerospace the three-man the center

in Seattle, in adjacent would

Wash. couches;

During

During the Month

of flight, The

would module

be stowed cabin

to permit have

more 365

freedom cubic

Apollo

command

volume, with the command is not attached, space without will be through
Astronautical

22 cubic feet of free area available to the crew: "The small end of module may contain an airlock; when the lunar excursion module the airlock would permit a pressure-suited crewman egress to exit to free while on earth

decompressing the cabin. Crew ingress and a hatch in the side of the command module."
and Aeronautical Events o[ 1962, p. 167.

The

first

tests

incorporating

data Calif.

acquisition They consisted test.
Program,

in the

Apollo

test

program returned

were by

conducted telemetry
Oakley,

at E1 Centro, during
Historical

of monitoring

data

During the Month

a parachute
Summary,

dummy-load
S&ID Apollo

p. 7.

183

A prototype General

of the main Corporation's

engine of the Apollo service module test-fired Azusa, Calif., plant in August 1962. The and had an ablative thrust chamber

at Aerojetengine used assembly.

storable liquid (Aerojet-General

propellants photo)

1962
August During the Month

The This

revised revision

NAA

Summary

Definitions the lunar

and orbit

Objectives rendezvous

Document concept, schedule, Apollo

was without

released. lunar the and

incorporated integration,

excursion deletion ments and released.
NAA,

module Apollo

and a revised service module. Specifications

master The

phasing NAA

reflecting reoriented

of the second-stage Requirements

Mission

Require-

were

also similarly

Apollo

Monthly

Progress

Report,

SID

62-300-6,

August

31,

1962,

p. 24.

During the Month

The

establishment

of a basic

command system,

module NAA

(CM) had

airlock based

and

docking NASA

design

criteria

were discussed

by NAA

and NASA

representatives.

While

preferred

a closed-hatch, hatch, two-man Another the CM would

one-man airlock airlock operation. configuration

its design

on an open-

closed-hatch airlock. be in a pressurized
Monthly

under

consideration to and from the

would lunar

entirely excursion

eliminate module

Astronauts

transferring environment
Report, SID

constantly.
62-300-6, p. 97.

Apollo During the Month

Progress

The

launch

escape

thrust-vector-control as directed be mounted

system

was replaced 10-11

by a passive design review system

system meetand phase

using a "kicker" ing. The rocket fired tangentially

rocket would

by NASA

at the June

at the top of the launch pitchover 184 motion

escape during

tower

to impart

the necessary

the initial

PART

m:

LUNAR

ORB_

RENDEZVOUS

of abort.

The

main aligned during

motor

thrust

was revised

downward

from

180, 000 to 155, 000 abort direction rotate in a heels

1962
August

pounds and was selected;

2.8 degrees off the center abort the spacecraft and

line. A downrange astronauts would

over head movement.
Apollo Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-6, p. 4. During the Month

A preliminary hazards showed in

NAA 100

report testing

was completed and would be warranted.
SID 62-300-6,

on a literature

search atmospheres.

concerning This

fire report

percent

oxygen

oxygen-enriched

that limited
Monthly

Apollo

Progress

Report,

p. 12.

A final radiator Pratt

decision and

was

made

by NAA

to redesign

the command a 30-psi their maximum pump

module

fuel

cell drop.

associated Aircraft
Progress

tubing

to accommodate agreed
62-300-6,

pressure

During the Month

& Whitney
Apollo Monthly

Division
Report, SID

to redesign
p. 109.

for this level.

Layouts upper would telescope

of a command parachute enter to extend on the window)

module

(CM) from

telescope

installation by NAA. main The

in the unpressurized concept The panel was for the light path

compartment ten inches bulkhead

were completed through the

During the Month

the left side of the spacecraft. display

the upper

to an eyepiece

presentation inch-thick partment. sion and control.
Apollo Report,

commander's side of the spacecraft. would be used to prevent leakage

A static seal (one-halfin the pressurized com-

The installation was suitable for use in the lunar orbit rendezvous miswould allow one man in the CM to accomplish docking with full visual

Monthly SID

Progress 62-300-6, pp.

Report, 72-73.

SID

62-300-5,

pp.

81,

83;

Apollo

Monthly

Progress

NAA stitution

established bags. This

design An order material

criteria would

for materials be machined

and and

processes material then

used

in food

recon-

was placed

for polypropylene

with

a contoured to a thermo-

During the Month

mouthpiece. plastic bag.

heat-fused

Apollo

Monthly

Progress

Report,

SID

62-300-6,

p. 56. During the Month

Preliminary

studies

were

made

by NAA

to determine

radiation

instrument

loca-

tion, feasibility of shadow-shielding, incidence of radiation. Preliminary and location
Apollo

and methods of determining direction of requirements were e_tablished for the number display.
p. 72.

of detectors
Progress

and for information
Report, SID 62-300-6,

Monthly

An NAA control

study

indicated be negligible.
Progress

that

the effects

of crew

motions

on spacecraft

attitude

would
Monthly

During the Month

Apollo

Report,

SID

62-300-6,

p. 53. During the Month

The tion

command valve,

module

waste

management odor 185

system removal

analysis, filter,

including and three

a new seleccheck valves,

revised

tubing

lengths,

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
August

was completed the flow rates
Apollo Monthly

by NAA through
Progress

for a 5 psia the separate
SID

pressure. branches
62-300-6,

There

was only a small of the change

change

in

as a result
p. 12.

to 5 psia.

Report,

During lhe Month

NAA tumbling feet.

completed command studies The

attitude module indicated

orientation (CM) that phase

studies, following with the

including high-altitude and CM in either

one

on abort

the control above system would

of a be trim

125, 000

the CM

stabilization

control

adequate during configurations.
Apollo Monthly

the reentry,

of the two

possible

Progress

Report,

SID

62-300-6,

p. 5.

During the ,Month

NAA finished the 154-inch
Apollo

structural diameter

requirements service
Report,

for a lunar

excursion

module

adapter stage.

mating

module
SID

to the 260-inch
62-300-6, p. 107.

diameter

S-IVB

Monthly

Progress

September 4

An interim calling

Apollo

flight

operation

plan

for Fiscal study

Year

1963,

dated

August

28, of

for funding

of $489.9

million,

was transmitted

to NASA

Headquarters the feasibility

from MSC. System requirements were under cost reduction to avoid schedule slippage.
MSC, Weekly Activity September 2-8, 1962, Report p. 4. for the Office of

to determine

the

Director,

Manned

Space

Flight,

Nine Boeing

industry

proposals

for the lunar Aircraft

excursion Company,

module General

were

received

from

The

Company, Aircraft

Douglas

Dynamics Northrop began teams the

Corporation, Inc., next LockInCorporation, day. Air Force be made to award

Grumman heed Aircraft and dustry Base, Republic Tex.

Engineering Corporation. be held visits After

Corporation, NASA on September

Ling-Temco-Vought, Corporation, evaluation 13 and

Corporation, Aviation One-day 17-19. within would

Martin-Marietta

presentations

14 at Ellington would

to company evaluation weeks.

sites by evaluation of the proposals,

September the contract

NASA

planned

six to eight

Apollo Spacecraft Project Office, MSC, Wall Street Journal, September 6, 1962.

Weekly

Activity

Report,

September

2-8,

1962;

Two lunar look

three-month landing Under the into

studies mission a $150,000

of an unmanned be negotiated contract, Space

logistic with

system three

to aid astronauts companies, NASA into

on a anwhich Space the

would

nounced.

Technology

Laboratories, spacecraft contracts, Centers

Inc., would

feasibility could

of developing be fitted. Aircraft a spacecraft trajectories, and
6, 1962;

a general-purpose two $75,000 carry.

varieties possible would touchdown
Wall 1962,

ol payloads and cargoes study that

Under might

Northrop would

Laboratories

Grumman such logistic

Engineering

Corporation NASA vehicles
and

study

simultaneously lunar landing surface.
o/

lunar dynamics,

launch

vehicle

adaptation,

scheduling,
September

use of roving
Astronautical

on the lunar
Events

Street Journal, pp. 173-174.

Aeronautical

186

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

Apollo Spacecraft Project Office module-lunar excursion module ations define and recommend to be considered. of minimum minimum a preferred interface. The

requested NAA to perform a study of command (CM-LEM) docking and crew transfer opermode, establish docking design criteria, satisfy and the

1962
September 5

the CM-LEM

Both translunar docking concept and

and lunar finally functional

orbital selected

docking would

maneu-

vers were requirements docking

weight, docking

design time,

simplicity, visibility.

maximum

reliability,

and maximum

The mission • The as possible • The

constraints first docking and hard

to be used for this study were: maneuver would would take place as soon after after S-IVB burnout. but not be limited burnout

docking methods

be within

30 minutes would

docking

to be investigated

include

to free fly-around, tethered fly-around, • The S-IVB would be stabilized • There the LEM it could capability maneuver. • An considered. • The initial system relative merit open-hatch, unpressurized would be no CM airlock.

and mechanical repositioning. for four hours after injection. Extravehicular the usefulness in the tunnel maneuverability, access techniques of a LEM during and through

would be shown would

be evaluated would that not

to determine be stationed of vision,

airlock. docking unless

• A crewman

his field

communication of the docking would not be

substantially

contribute

to the ease and reliability CM docking approach control

of using the CM environmental LEM instead of the LEM

system to provide control

pressurization would

of the

environmental

be investigated.
Project MSC, Office, MSC, Weekly Activity Change Report, September No. 2-8, 4," 1962 Septem;

Apollo letter, ber 22,

Spacecraft C. D. 1962. Sword,

to NAA,

"Contract

Authorization

NASA

deleted

five

Apollo

mockups, items from

three the

boilerplate NAA

spacecraft, because

and

several

ground support limitations.
Oakley, Historical

equipment

contract

of funding

Summary,

S&ID

Apollo

Program,

p. 7.

Apollo delivered impact impact

command

module

boilerplate

model

BP-1

was

accepted

by NASA and

and water

to the NAA tests. On

Engineering

Development

Laboratory with

for land good

September

25, BP-1

was drop-tested

results.

Earth-

attenuation
Historical No.

and crew shock
Summary, S&ID

absorption
Apollo

data were obtained.
Program, p. 7; Apollo Quarterly Status

Oakley, Report

l, p. 41. 10

Apollo

command interior,
Historical

module

boilerplate to MSC.
S&ID Apollo

model

BP-3,

showing

the

arrangement

of

the cabin
Oakley,

was shipped
Summary,

Program,

p. 7.

187

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
September I0

Fire

broke

out

in a simulated Air Force

space Base,

cabin

at the

Air Force

School

of Aerospace experiment space flight. of the fire was program and to Apollo

Medicine,

Brooks

Tex.,

on the

13th day

of a 14-day

to determine the effects of breathing pure oxygen in a long-duration One of the two Air Force officers was seriously injured. The cause not immediately determined. The pure experiment oxygen was part validate the spacecraft.
Washington Considerations pp. 5-6.

of a NASA Gemini

use of a 5 psia

atmosphere

for the

Evening and

Star, Evaluation

September Programs

10,

1962; Leading

Michel

et

al.,

Gaseous Atmosphere

Environment Selection,

to Spacecra[t

Ec_rly September

MSC

reported

that

it had

received

a completed

wooden

mockup

of the interior

arrangement of the Apollo command retained at NAA for design control. (SM) tation gation mockups cabin (two), and were crew guidance planned:

module (CM). Seven additional SM and

An identical mockup was CM and service module adapter A mockup by NAA interface, and mockup CM

a partial complete and

partial CSM's.

for exterior

equipment, support equipment

SM, been

spacecraft completed.

for handling A wooden

transporof the of

system, had

complete

of the navias part

lunar excursion module exterior configuration was fabricated an early stud), of spacecraft compatibility requirements.
Apollo 1! Quarterly Status Report No. l, p. 41.

J.

Thomas Range

Markley, details systems, (WSMR). the

command

and facility

service

module

Project by NASA include

Officer

at

MSC, Sands

announced Missile and abort

of the space WSMR

to be established would

at White

To be used in testing site facilities various

the Apollo and other

spacecraft's two utility

propulsion buildings, and

static-test-firing

stands, a control an administrative
MSC 12 Fact Sheet

center blockhouse, services area.
No. 97, Apollo

storage

at White

Sands,

September

11, 1962.

President said : "Man, deterred. leader "We they and

John

F. Kennedy

spoke

at Rice

University,

Houston,

Tex.,

where

he

in his quest The of other choose are

for

knowledge of space

and

progress, and

is determined whether which

and expects

cannot

be

exploration nations

will go ahead, to stay behind

we join in it or not, and to be the .... not because to organize is one that which we

it is one of the great

adventures

of all time,

no nation

can expect

in this race for space things, challenge and one

to go to the moon they

in this decade are hard, and

and do the other that goal that

easy, but because

because

will serve

measure

the best of our energies

skills, because

we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling intend to win, and the others, too. "It space made is for these from during low reasons to high that gear I regard as among the decision

to postpone,

last year important ....

to shift decisions "

our that

efforts

in

the most

will be

my incumbency

in the office of the Presidency
on International 328-330. Aspects of the

Senate o] Outer

Staff Report, Documents Space, 1954-1962, pp.

Exploration

and

Use

188

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
September

Armour material.

had

indicated

that

the lunar its findings
Events

surface during
o[ 1962,

might

be composed

of very

strong

Armour
and

reported
Aeronautical

the first week
p. 196.

of November.

Astronautical

September October

236

Deletion the weight reduction Among recreation the

of non-critical of 1500 pounds. the items deleted

equipment and

and service

improvement modules

of existing by 1239 pounds,

systems with

reduced a target

of the command

from survival

the

command and kits, solar

module radiation

(CM) garments,

were containers

exercise located and

and in and

equipment, individual

personal

parachutes

parachute

couches,

eight-ball

displays. A telescope, cameras and magazines considered scientific equipment, a television monitor were deleted from the CM instrumentation system.
Apollo October Spacecraft 6, 1962. Project Office, MSC, Activity Report for the Period September 23-

24

General

Dynamics/Convair Joe II launch

recommended vehicle

and obtained

NASA's

concurrence

that

the first Little payload.
Little Joe II

be used for qualification,

employing

a dummy

Test

Launch

Vehicle,

NASA

Project

Apollo:

Final

Report,

Vol.

I, p.

1-4.

26

NASA the struction

announced program would

that

it had

completed Test Facility. in 1962 and

preliminary The and first would stages;

plans phase

for the development of a three-phase four test stands and system 20 support

of confor

$500-million

Mississippi would C-5 be built

begin S-IC

include about

static-firing buildings

the Saturn

S-II

service

in the first phase.

A water

transportation

had been

selected, calling for improvement tion of about 15 miles of canals St. Louis, acquiring Department. from NASA
Astronautical

of about 15 miles of river channel and construcat the facility. Sverdrup and Parcel Company of design facility criteria; with Saturn
pp.

Mo., land

was preparing for NASA 13,500-acre

the the

Army Lands stages

Corps

of Engineers was 35

was miles

in cooperation where
o[ 1962,

Division Mississippi were

of the Justice

The

in southwestern

Michoud
and

Operations,
Events

fabricated.

Aeronautical

200-201.

During the Month

MSC ment ability initial

reported of Work that Work

that

the reliability

goal for design was 0.9. The

purposes probability limits

in the spacecraft that was 0.9, limits system and

State-

for the Apollo to conditions would

mission

the crew would the probThe would was 0.999. elements

not be subjected

in excess

of the stated

the crew Statement success

not be subjected for crew safety. the lunar
l, p. 37.

to emergency Other major

apportionment

for the lunar

excursion

module

was 0.984

for mission require

and 0.9995

reapportionment
Quarterly Status

to reflect
Report No.

orbit mission.

Apollo

During the Month

Release complete;
Apollo

of the

structural

design

of the

Apollo

command

module 1963.

was

65 percent

100 percent
Quarterly Status

release was scheduled
Report No. 1, p. 11.

for January

190

Theabove model f theApollolunarlanding o module wason display Manned at Spacecraft Center ndwasseen President a by JohnF. Kennedy uringhistrip d toHouston, Tex.,September 12,1962. Themodel wasconstructed byNAA.

NASA's ninenewastronauts named Houston, were in Tex.,by Robert .Gilruth, R MSCDirector. hosen C from253applicants, theformertestpilotswhowouldjoin theoriginal even s Mercuryastronauts trainingfor Projects eminiandApollo in G were: Neil A. Armstrong, NASA civiliantestpilot; Maj. FrankBorman, ir A Force;Lt. Charles onrad, Navy;Lt. Cdr.James . Lovell, r., Navy;Capt. C Jr., A J James . McDivitt,Air Force;ElliotM. See, A Jr.,civiliantestpilotfortheGeneral ElectricCompany; apt. ThomasP. Stafford,Air Force;Capt. EdwardH. C WhiteII, Air Force;andLt. Cdr.JohnW. Young, avy. N
Washington Daily News, September 18, 1962.

i 962
September 17

NASA

contracted likely

with

the Armour on the of landing

Research lunar

Foundation surface.

for an investigation would area, concentrate

of

21

conditions

to be found the effects with

Research

first on evaluating of the landing

velocity,

size of the landing of the lunar

and shape studies by

object

regard

to properties 189

soils. Earlier

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

The

lunar

excursion and

module

was

defined and

as consisting control,

of 12 principal reaction crew, and

systems: control, environexperiall

1962
September

guidance lunar mental mental systems under

navigation, structure electrical

stabilization including power,

propulsion, instrumentation, importance

touchdown, control,

landing

and docking

systems,

communications, of prime

During the Month

instrumentation. was the possibility

A consideration of using Gemini.
No. 1, p. 26.

to practically Mercury

components

from

Project

or those

development
Apollo Quarterly

for Project
Status Report

MSC Service

reported Parachute

that

renovation Facility was commitment obtained.

of available required of a C-133A

buildings the aircraft

at

the Apollo

E1 Centro earth the

Joint recovery

to support

During the Month

tests. The tion tests
Apollo

Air Force's had been

to support

qualifica-

Quarterly

Status

Report

No.

1, p. 52. During the Month

MSC homa, reaction

reported Tenn., control

that were and

Arnold being

Engineering scheduled for systems.

Development use in the The and service

Center development modules

facilities I altitude

at TullaApollo chamber

of the

propulsion

use of the Mark

for environmental
Apollo Quarterly

tests of the command
Status Report No. 1, p. 52.

was also planned.

MIT's

Lincoln

Laboratory and

began the

a study

program

to define with use

Apollo the of the

data unified lunar

processing telecommission

requirements munications transponder required

to examine The

problems would

associated permit and the eliminate

During the Month

system. during

system

near-earth spacecraft system.
Status Report

operations concept,

the

general

transmitters and

by the current

thus reducing

weight,

complexity,

cost of the spacecraft
Apollo Quarterly

No.

1, p. 47. During the Month

MSC plete. and were

reported The The

that

Apollo

training equipment and functions

requirements materials would included trajectory delivery crew where skills. The

planning begin earth control would activity launch

was 40 during and the

percent reentry, trainers,

comorbital which practice and

preparation and

of specific navigation simulators. mission

first quarter

of 1964.

crew training

rendezvous, special-purpose

part-task allow

An early

extensive

for the crew required mission simulators
Apollo

in those

was time-critical had

development capability, would
Quarterly

of particular providing visual at MSC
No.

mission

simulators

complete Mission

as well as instrument and at Cape Canaveral.

environments.

be located
Status

Report

I, p. 45. During the Month

The

Apollo

wind

tunnel

program

was in its eighth and private
I, p. 35.

month. facilities.

To date,

2800

hours

of

time had been used in 30 government
Apollo Quarterly Status Report No.

191

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
September

The

external

natural

environment

of the

Apollo

spacecraft

as defined

in the

December 18, 1961, Statement of Work had been used in the early Apollo design work. The micrometeoroid, solar proton radiation, and lunar surface characteristics were found
Apollo

During the Month

to be most critical
Quarterly Status Report

to the spacecraft
No. 1, p. 32.

design.

During the Month

The

freeze-dried lunar

food

that

would program. mission.

be used Forty-two Potable

in the water

Gemini of food would

program would be supplied

would by the water ration

also fuel if

be provided for a 14-day cells and of six pounds needed before
Apollo

for the Apollo landing processed

pounds

be necessary supply

by the environmental

control

system.

A one-day

per man would be provided at launch the fuel cells were fully operative.
Status Report No. 1, p. 13.

as an emergency

Quarterly

During the Month

The pound for

Apollo limit. each

spacecraft This weight had

weights been

had assigned.

been

apportioned

within of the

an assumed A lower target target weight

90,000weight would

was termed

a "design

_dlowable."

module

Achievement

allow for increased mission reliability. pounds; the target

fuel loading The design weight

and therefore allowable for pounds.

greater operational flexibility and the command module was 9500 module design allowable adapter module was pounds;

was 8500

The service

was 11,500 pounds; the target weight was l 1,000 pounds. The S-IVB design allowable and target weight was 3200 pounds. The amount of service useful propellant was 40,300 pounds design allowable; design the target 37,120 pounds. The lunar excursion module the target weight was 24,500 pounds.
Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 1, p. 31.

weight

allowable

was 25,500

During the Month

MSC reported to use as many

that the lunar excursion components as possible

module identical

,guidance system was expected to those in the command and and Laboratory continue indicated that the use of the

service modules. Studies at the MIT the changes required would simplify same inertial
Apollo

Instrumentation the computer scanning
p. 27.

measurement
Status Report

unit and
No. 1,

telescope.

Quarterly

During the Month

MSC

reported

that

the

three

liquid-hydrogen--liquid-oxygen

fuel

cells

would

supply the main and earth reentry phase. and and next supply decision heaters supply of peak one would exceeded quarter. supply

emergency power Two of the fuel emergency tests. power.

through the Apollo mission except for the cells would carry normal electrical loads Performance module predictions tests would reactants in spherical Three to the storage zinc-silver pressure oxide had begin ve_els. batteries the brief been during met the

in single-cell

Complete state heat

The liquid-hydrogen--liquid-oxygen in the supercritical to provide the water-glycol input

for the fuel cell power A recent would periods vessels with electrical

were stored rather power loads. than

had been made

loop. loads

for all the electrical One of the

during

reentry

and during

batteries

was

reserved

exclusively

for the

postlanding

192

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

phase. Eagle subcontractor
Apollo

Picher Company, for the batteries.
Status Report No.

Joplin,

Mo.,

had

been

selected

in August

as

1962
September

Quarterly

I, p. 23. During the Month

MSC reported that meteoroid tests and ballistic ranges had been established at the Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, and NAA. These facilities could achieve only about one half of the expected velocity for the critical-sized meteoroid. A measured improvement dict penetration General Motors velocities
Apollo

of 75,000 feet per second in the capability to pre-

would come Corporation,

from a test program being negotiated by NAA with whose facility was capable of achieving particle

of 75,000
Quarterly

feet per second.
Status Report No. I, p. 32. During the Month

MSC

outlined (1) (2) Pad

a tentative abort: Two

Apollo

flight

plan : an abort system launch on the pad. Three launch The purpose of tests system

tests to simulate escape II test and Joe

these tests was to qualify Suborbital with the objective

the launch

and its associated vehicle): of the

sequencing. suborbital escape

(Little

of development

qualification

and qualification of the command module structure. maximum dynamic pre_urc for the launch escape testing and high atmospheric altitudes for launch requirements SA-9, detection vehicle for the

Test conditions would include system and module structure system testing. The latter

escape

test requirement (3) Saturn flights ponents (4) manned environment flights. (5) flights. flights, flights. excursion though suitable advantage
Apollo

was being reviewed. C-1 : Current Apollo launch vehicles Four SA-7, launch

for the Saturn on SA-6 with

developmental SA-8 as backup. comto the launch system

were

to determine on launch C-1B: Flight

exit environment

Requirements

and SA-10 system. development unmanned vehicle

were to flight-test flights were prior one

of or the complete Saturn flight.

emergency

test objectives

flights emergency

flight with a spare

and two launch

detection

Saturn Flight

C-5:

Six unmanned were

Saturn

C-5 vehicle

launch

vehicle

development system

test objectives launch objectives qualification, flight earlier
Report

two launch

emergency three and

detection

one spacecraft Preliminary module for manned of possible
Quarterly Status

environment of manned lunar

flight, flights

and were

reentry lunar

qualification of the lunar Al-

completion

reconnaissance,

exploration. C-5

the first C 5 manned

flight was scheduled would be available development
No. 1, p. 48.

as the seventh for use on

C 5, a spacecraft to take

the sixth

success.

The

pad abort was A pad

boilerplate

command for delivery

module, to White

BP-6, Sands

to qualify Missile

the launch

escape

October 1

system, 1963.

scheduled abort

Range

by mid-April

test of BP-6
Status Report

was scheduled
No. 1, p. 42.

for May

15, 1963.

Apollo

Quarterly

193

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
October 3

The

Sigma

7 spacecraft

with

Astronaut

Walter vehicle flight from

M.

Schirra,

Jr.,

as pilot

was In the six

launched

into orbit by a Mercury-Atlas American to earth manned space

Atlantic Schirra

Missile Range. traveled Ocean

most successful orbits, returning

to date, point

nearly

at a predetermined

in the

Pacific

9 hours, were

13 minutes after liftoff. Within 40 minutes after landing, safely aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Kearsarge.
Grimwood, nautical Project Events Mercury: pp. A 208-209. Chronology, pp. 174-175;

he and his spacecraft

Astronautical

and

Aero-

o[ 1962,

Rocketdyne static firing
Rocketdyne

Division of the J-2
Skywriter,

successfully engine.
October

completed

the

first full-duration

(250-seconds)

12, 1962.

NASA Aircraft a space would

signed

a $1.55-million

contract

with Hamilton Latex

Standard

Division

of United of

Corporation

and International crewmen. responsibility system

Corporation contractor,

for the development Hamilton and would lunar the Standard develop suit,

suit for the Apollo have management backpack Latex Aviation

As the prime

for the overall by crewmen

program during

a life-support, International Republic

to be worn furnishing

expeditions. with and environthan previous

Corporation Corporation

as subcontractor human

would factors

fabricate information

mental testing. The suit would allow a crewman greater mobility space suits, enabling him to walk, climb, and bend with relative ease.
Astronautical Status Report and No. Aeronautical 2 [or Period Events Ending o/1962, December31, p. 211 ; MSC, Project Apollo

Quarterly

1962,

p. 22.

10

The Minneapolis-Honeywell stabilization ance and control with the current
Apollo Quarterly Status

Regulator system design
Report

Company

letter by NAA

subcontract and

for the Apollo in accord-

was suspended

amended

concepts.
No. 2, p. 16.

15

The

analysis that

of scientific gamma-ray NASA III

measurements intensity

made

by

the

Ranger was

IH ten

lunar times

probe greater

showed

in interplanetary,

space

than expected, eters on Ranger ever, changes
New

reported. after that

Measurements

were taken on January

by gamma-ray

spectromhowany

it was launched gamma-ray shielding

26. NASA enough spacecraft."

scientists, to require

did not believe in the design
York Times,

intensity

was "great

of radiation
16, 1962.

for manned

October

15

NASA lunar
New

announced exploration
York Times,

that

five additional raising
15, 1962.

Ranger the total

spacecraft

would

be added through

to the 1964.

program,
October

to 14 to be launched

194

PART

_:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

NASA

announced

the selection a ground-based

of the International computer be part
Events

Business for Projects control

Machines Gemini center

Corporaand Apollo.

1962
October 16

tion to provide The computer
Astronautical

system

complex
and

would

of the mission
p. 216.

at MSC.

Aeronautical

o[ 1962,

18

The

Ranger later

V lunar B launch reignited

probe vehicle.

was The

launched Agena V making Ranger

from B stage toward reception cameras and

Atlantic attained the of the useless. was

Missile parking moon. The

Range orbit

by and

an 25

Atlas-Agena minutes solar signal relayed capsule minutes, On

to send power,

spacecraft's correction V was to have

cells did not provide impossible television pictures

flight-path Ranger

and rendering

its television

of the lunar

surface

rough-landed tracked

an instrumented for 8 hours, 44

containing a seismometer. The spacecraft before its small reserve battery went dead. 29, Homer a Board E. Newell, NASA Director the entire

October

of the Office of Space Ranger program. The

Sciences, Board,

established

of Inquiry

to review

headed by Albert J. Kelley of NASA Headquarters, December 4 and found that, while the Ranger design improvements
Washington

submitted its report on concept was basically sound,

could
Post, and

be made
October 19

to increase
and 22,

flight reliability.
1962; U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on

Space Sciences and Astronautics, 1st Session

Advanced 1964 NASA pp. 1597-1598.

Research and Authorization,

Technology Hearings

of the Committee on Science on H.R. 5466, 88th Congress,

(1963),

The IH

Lunar differed

and from

Planetary reported that side,

Laboratory that

of the

University scientists. had The

of Arizona, most

directed

by

22

Gerard of the area Curie Mare

P. Kuiper, moon's far

its analysis by Soviet

of lunar

photographs been feature, by the named

taken extensive

by Lunik feature Soviet

announced

photographed was identified possibly

in 1959,

"The

Mountains"; of bright Crater" Novum

this feature patches (New

by the Arizona flat. Another by German

laboratory

as an elongated the "joliotlaboratory Julius as Franz

and rays, scientists, first Sea),

named

by Soviet

was re-identified identified

Arizona

astronomer

near the turn of the century.
New York Times, October 22, 1962. 23

At the request were examined

of NASA, by NAA

about

300

pieces

of Gemini that

ground about

support 190 items

equipment would be

engineers.

It appeared

usable on the Apollo
OakIey, Historical

program.
Summary, S&ID Apollo Program, p. 7. 24

The

Office

of Systems lunar and landing NASA

under mode

NASA's The

Office report

of Manned embodying was the studies

Space the most outgrowth on lunar

Flight recent

completed studies by decision modes

a manned contractors announced while (LOR) basing

comparison

Centers. on and July

of the landing orbit LOR

by NASA planning The

11 to continue primarily

procurement

on the lunar between the

rendezvous technique, a

technique.

results

of the comparison 195

334-987

O

-

69

-

14

A three-man oon m vehicle, whichcouldbedriven a newpower ystem by s designed at MartinCompany's Systems Space Division Baltimore, in prepares ground for a lunarbase thisartist's in concept. newsystem Tile wouldprovide electrical powerormotors drivethevehicle's f to tracks. xhausts thesystem E of wouldbe regenerated nuclear bya reactor ndreusedy thevehicle. a b Theprimary source of power ouldbea turbine-generator by hydrogenasunderpressure. w driven g Thisphotowasreleased October 8,1962. MartinCompany 1 ( photo)
1962
October

two-man
were :

C-5

direct

flight,

and

a two-man

earth

orbit

rendezvous

(EOR)

mode

• The C-5 direct flight even with a two-man spacecraft. • Both the LOR • The reliability and EOR differences

mode modes

required

c_'ogenic

fuels

and

was

marginal,

were feasible. LOR and EOR could not be demona higher

between

strated conclusively by analysis at this time. LOR appeared probability of mission success at less risk to the astronauts. • Designing and performing the vantages of rendezvous. • Human the addition the the LOR lunar mission excursion with module the specifically problems

to have

for the connected

lunar with

landing adLOR

a single offsetting

C 5 launch

vehicle

were important

mode,

factors

considerations

were

not significant for lunar

in the mode landing and

selections; reentry did

of rendezvous

to the requirement 196

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

not add mission.

appreciably LOR

to crew and EOR

stress

or fatigue the

or to the basis for

overall

hazards national

of the space

1962
October

• Both

provided

projected

requirements before the launch vehicle capability experience in EOR. • The lunar landing in personnel

development of Nova-class launch vehicles. met estimated payload requirements. LOR transfer between could spacecraft as contrasted

The C-5 provided

with fuel transfer one year and

mission

be accomplished

at least EOR. structure

probably 18 months sooner by using LOR rather than EOR. ° The LOR mode was 10 to 15 percent less expensive than • The NASA In LOR mode provided the cleanest management organization. the LOR mode lunar
of

within

the

conclusion,

offered landing

the within
Space

best

opportunity

of meeting

the goal

of an American
Office parison," of

manned
Office 24,

the decade
"Manned

of the sixties.
Lunar Landing Com-

Systems, October

Manned pp. 1, 5-6.

Flight,

1962,

Republic design Fire. and

Aviation build the

Corporation data

selected and

the

Radio

Corporation

of America

to

_5

acquisition

communications

subsystem

for Project

Astronautical

and

Aeronautical

Events

of 1962,

p. 222. 26

Flight future

missions according Pad aborts: Missions Missions Missions Missions

of the

Apollo

spacecraft scheme: etc.

were

to be numerically

identified

in the

to the following PA-1, PA-2, C-1 C-5

using Little Joe II launch using using using Saturn Saturn Saturn the launch launch C-1B

vehicles vehicles: vehicles: stood

: A-001, A-101, A-501,

A-002, A-102, A-502, vehicle

etc. etc. etc. etc. type or series, and

launch

vehicles:

A-201,

A-202,

The

A denoted

Apollo,

first digit the order

for launch

the last two digits
series. Memorandum, tribution,

designated

of Apollo

spacecraft

flights

within

a vehicle

Charles "Designations

W.

Prick,

Manager, Missions,"

Apollo October

Spacecraft 26, 1962.

Project

Office,

to Dis-

for Apollo

NASA Robert Associate Office manned Center, engaged Centers, Station)

announced C. Seamans,

the Jr. Space

realignment D. Brainerd while Flight.

of functions Holmes field Space (Ames, Jet F. Dixon, 197

under assumed

Associate new duties as engaged

Administrator as a Deputy of the in principally Spacecraft installations Research Wallops for Director

3O

Administrator

retaining NASA

his responsibilities installations Flight Langley, Propulsion Deputy

of Manned space and flight Launch

projects in other Space

(Marshall Center) projects

Center, Lewis, Associate

Manned and Flight

Operations

would

report

to Holmes;

principally Goddard would

Flight to Thomas

Center,

Laboratory,

and

report

Administrator

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
October

the past year. Previously most roans on institutional matters
Rosholt, Evening An Administrative Sta r, October 31,

field center directors had reported beyond program and contractual
o/ NASA, 1958-1963, pp. 256-257;

directly to Seaadministration.
Washington

History 1962.

3O

MSC

Director

Robert

R. Gilruth

reported

to the Manned would

Space be tested

Flight

Manage-

ment Council that the Apollo Research Center wind tunnels.
MSF 3O Management Council

drogue

parachutes

in the Langley

Minutes,

October

30,

1962,

Agenda

Item

1.

NASA tems (S II)

announced Division of the Saturn

the signing for the C-5

of a contract development vehicle.

with and

the Space production

and

Information under

Sysstage the

of NAA

of the second contract,

launch

The $319.9-million

direction of Marshall Space Flight Center, covered the production of nine live flight stages, one inert flight stage, and several ground-test units for the advanced Saturn launch S-II.
Wall 31

vehicle.

NAA

had

been

selected

on

September

11,

1961,

to develop

the

Street

Journal,

October

31,

1962.

NAA

completed

the firm-cost

proposal

for the definitive the contract

Apollo package

program and

and

suba

mitted it to NASA. MSC had reviewed program plan position with NAA.
Oakley, Report 31 Historical No. 2, pp. Summary, 5, 6. S&ID Apollo

negotiated

Program,

p.

7;

Apollo

Quarterly

Status

NASA million

announced contract
News

that

the Douglas the S-IVB
October

Aircraft stage
31, 1962.

Company

had been awarded C-1B

a $2.25program.

to modify
Release, 62-232,

for use in the Saturn

NASA During the Month

Proposed and these would earth port

designs landing covers

for view windows

port

covers

on the crew-hatch by NAA. and reentry
62--300-7,

window, Design

docking [Crew

ports, for

were during

prepared launch
SID

planning

called

to be removed

solely in the space

environment. phases.!
October 31,

members

not use such windows
Apollo Monthly

NAA, During the Month

Progress

Report,

1962,

p.

71.

Elimination a command latches a means

of the requirement module ICM) following

for personal emergency landing. crew hatch

parachutes escape The would

nullified hatch.

consideration to provide

of

blowout a forced

A set of quick-acting however, be operable from

for the inward-opening of egress

be needed, latches

would

outside as well as inside the pressure vessel. Outside hardware for securing the ablative panel over the crew door would be required as well as a method of releasing the panel from inside the CM.
Apollo During the Month Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-7, p. 70.

An NAA study entry proposed equipment

on the shift of the command module center of gravity during moving the crew and couches about ten inches toward the repositioning them 198 for landing impact.

reaft

bay and then

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

A review to shorten diagrams This angle

of body angle

angles could

used

for the

current

couch

geometry along

disclosed during the Z-Z

that axis.

the ISee leg

1962
October

thigh-to-torso

be closed length more adjustment

sufficiently by the required angle

for a brief travel _as desirable

period

reentry,

the overall on page

couch

158.1 The

acute would
SID

for high

g conditions. redesign.

change to gain
Apollo

in the couch structure
Progress

range,

a_s well as a revision considerable
68.

in the lower couch

During the Month

clearance,
Report,

necessitate
p.

Monthly

62-300-7,

Incandescent they weighed ability with

lamps

would

be used for floodlighting A 28-volt 28-volt that

the command lamp was most

module desirable Laboratory would

because relitests be a because not

less than

fluorescent

lamps and took up less space dc power heat

while increasing

During the Monlh

and reducing a 28-volt

system complexity. with the spacecraft lamp

of its compatibility

system.

incandescent

showed

dissipation

problem in the vacuum environment have to be developed to withstand studied
Apollo

but that a filament or shock mount would vibration. An incandescent quartz lamp was of light.

because
Monthly

of its small size and high concentration
Progress Report, SID 62-300-7, p. 89.

The

feasibility

of using

the Gemini because

fuel cell for the lunar of modifications lighter Gemini

excursion Apollo

module control

was and weigh

studied auxiliary about would

by NAA.

However,

to meet system the would Gemini mission.

During the Month

requirements,

the much

ultimately

as much

as the Apollo

fuel cell. In addition,

fuel cell schedule

slip if the system had to be adapted
Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-7,

to the Apollo
pp. 91-92.

Apollo

The

valves

of the

command the 5.0 psia were deleted

module oxygen from

(CM) operating

environmental requirements. and the relief

control

system

were partial of

modified pressure 7---0.2

to meet controls

All oxygen pressure

During the Month

the system CM

setting

psia was changed

to 6--+0.2 psia. The

now could

be repressurized

from

0 to 5.0 psia in one hour.
Apollo Monthly Progress Report, SID 62-300-7, p. 48.

The sisted

revised

NAA

recommendation capability data VHF receiver,
Progress

for a personal a simplex a break-in would backup.

communications Simultaneous would

system

con-

of a duplex and

with with

transmission Two

During the Month

of voice changes

biomedical

capability be needed:

be possible.

in spacecraft

equipment

a dual-channel duplex operation.

in place

of a single-channel
Apollo Monthly

and a diplexer
SID 62-300-7,

for use during
p. 57.

Report,

NAA space The

completed antenna

a preliminary facility be shifted

design antenna

for the deployment to the Y axis position

of the

spacecraft on page

deep 158].

instrumentation would

[see diagrams by actuation

During the Month

into the deployed

of a spring-

loaded

swing-out
Monthly

arm.
Progress Report, SID 62-300-7, p. 82.

Apollo

199

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
October Dur;ng the Month

An NAA digital computer program and couch system loads and landing five-degree
Apollo

for calculating command module heatshield stability was successful. Results showed that a was preferable for land
p. 14.

negative-pitch
Monthly Progress

attitude
Report,

landings.

SID

62-300-7,

During the Month

NAA space mand ment

completed suit inlet

a study temperatures inner wall

of reentry were parachute was predicted but then
SID

temperatures. expected deployment.

Without from average 150 ° F. The

additional heat

cooling, of the com-

to increase

50 ° F at 100,000 deploy-

feet to 90 ° F at spacecraft module and
Apollo

not to exceed to rise to nearly
p. 26.

75 ° F at parachute

95 ° F on landing,
Monthly Progress Report,

62-300-7,

During the Month

A new lyzed ring.

launch by NAA.

escape escape Exhaust

tower motor

configuration exhaust the plume

with

an internal by slanting tower and

structure

that and them

would anamemto a

clear the launch bers in the upper

at 30,000 of the

feet was designed attaching

impingement

was avoided interior

the diagonal

bay toward

Apollo

Monthly

Progress

Report,

SID

62-300-7,

p. 26.

During the Monlh

The thrust nique,

technique posigrade from control
Monthly

tentatively from rockets the

selected mounted would

by NAA on the be

for separating consisted module S-IV service on the

the command of firing adapter. or S-IVB with the With stages. service

and

serv-

ice modules

lower stages

during

an abort

four 2000-poundthis techNormal module

no retrorockets system.
Progress

be needed would

separation reaction
Apollo

S-IVB

accomplished

Report,

SID

62-300-7,

p. 17.

November 2

NAA module

completed

the

release

of the

layout

and

preliminary

design

of command

crew accessories
Apollo Monthly

and survival
Progress Report,

equipment.
SID 62-300-8, November 1962, p. 34.

NAA,

Firs_t Week

The might

Armour

Research harder

Foundation and denser had

reported in a higher

to NASA vacuum particles

that

the surface studies

of the moon that dust of as that bonded

not be covered become

with layers of dust. The not proved as the vacuum
Events

first Armour

showed such become

particles the moon, together

environment eventually

but the studies in a rocket
and

that

substance
Aeronautical

increases.
p. 234.

Astronautical

o[ 1962,

Four Murray The bare than

"hot

spots" and space with

on the moon L.

were

reported gold-plated that that the hot

to have been discovered Institute mirror spots could to detect infrared

by Bruce using radiation. areas

C. a of

Robert

Wildey speculated revealed

of California

of Technology, indicate became large during colder

new telescope two

a heat-sensitive, on the lunar also

scientists

rock exposed which previously

surface.

The spots lunar

were discovered surface

a survey at night heat-

of the moon

believed,

- 270 ° F compared 200

to - 243 o F recorded

by earlier

PART

III:

LUNAR

ORBIT

RENDEZVOUS

measuring

devices.

Murray

said

the

new

evidence

could

mean a thick

that dust

there layer

were on the

1962
November

prominences of heat-retaining lunar surface.
Washington Post, November

rock

protruding

through

4, 1962,

William required their

L. Gill, for the

Chief crew.

of Crew Astronauts

Systems would

Division's provide have

Radiation

Branch, devices

MSC, only

said for

that the walls of the Apollo eyes.
Astronautical and

spacecraft

would

most of the radiation shielding

shielding

special

Aeronautical

Events

o[ 1962,

p.

233.

NASA selected under worth project

announced to build the direction about would $350

that

the Grumman excursion The with

Aircraft module

Engineering of the

Corporation Apollo by the

had

been to be the [in

the lunar of MSC. million,

three-man as $1 billion

spacecraft time

contract, estimates

still to be negotiated, as high James

was expected

be completed. remarked: "We

NASA

Administrator

E. Webb, decision

in announcing of last July"

the selection,

are affirming

our tentative

A model of the lunar excursion module proposed by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation. The figure at the left demonstrates the relative size of an astronaut. Grumman was selected by NASA to build the module November 7, 1962.

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

1962
November

favor hours

of the lunar of some "added

orbit

rendezvous Space

approach]. Flight, scientists, during that noted

D. Brainerd that more and engineers,

Holmes, than results

NASA had

Direcmangone

tor of the Office into studies he said, mode been

of Manned 700

one million

outstanding mission

researchers is the

of the Apollo With

the past year. "The lunar orbit part

of these studies," preferable had program

up to the conclusion this award, contract.
November 8, 1962;

rendezvous

to take." placed
New York

the last major

of the Apollo

under
Times,

TWX,

NASA

Headquarters

to MSC;

Marshall and Flight Wallops

Space Flight Center; Launch Operations Research Centers; Goddard Space Flight Station; and Western Operations Office,

Center; Center; N_,wmaher

Ames, Langley, Lewis, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; 7, 1962.

202

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX
DOD MIT MSC NAA NACA NASA STG U.S. U.S.S.R.

1-GLOSSARY
Department

OF

ABBREVIATIONS

of Defense

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Manned Spacecraft Center North National National Space United Union American Advisory Aviation, Committee and Inc. for Aeronautics Space Administration

Aeronautics

Task Group States of America of Soviet Socialist Republics

205

APPENDIX
Special Date Date of organization of first meeting: : January February submitted Chairman Committee 12, 1958 13, 1958 to NASA : October

2-COMMITTEES
(Stever Committee )

on Space Technology

Recommendations H. Guyford Norman Abraham Wernher Stever,

28, 1958 Milton U. Clauser

C. Appold Hyatt yon Braun

Dale R. Corson James R. Dempsey Samuel K. Hoffman W. Randolph Lovelace II

Hugh L. Dryden Robert R. Gilruth H. Julian Allen Abe Silverstein H. W. Bode

William H. Pickering Louis N. Ridenour James Carl A. Van Allen B. Palmer, Secretary

Working James Dale Norman Robert A. Van Allen, R. Corson C. Appold Cornag Chairman

Group

on Space

Research Robert John Lyman Ernest

Objectives P. Haviland

R. Pierce Spitzer, Jr. Jr., Secretary

O. Pearson,

Working Wernher von Braun, Samuel K. Hoffman Norman C. Appold Chairman

Group

on Vehicular Krafft

Program A. Ehricke

M. W. Hunter C. C. Ross Homer George William J. Stewart S. Trimble, Jr. Secretary

Abraham Hyatt Louis N. Ridenour Abe Silverstein

H. Woodward,

Working Milton U. Clauser, Chairman

Group

on Reentry Harlowe J. Longfelder

H. Julian Allen Mac C. Adams Alfred J. Eggers, Jr.

J. c. McDonald S. A. Schaaf John Harvey P. Stapp Gornason, Secretary Secretary H. Brown,

Maxime A. Faget Alexander H. Flax Lester Lees 2O7

R. Fabian

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

Working James Robert Paul R. Dempsey, R. Gilruth T. Cooper Chairman

Group

on Range,

Launch,

and Tracking F. Freitag Hynek T. Mengel

Facilities

Robert J. Allen John

L. G. deBey Carl E. Duckett Working William H. Pickering, Louis N. Ridenour H. W. Bode Robert W. Buchheim Chairman Group

Grayson Merrill Carl B. Palmer, on Instrumentation Albert C. Hall

Secretary

Eberhardt Rechtin William T. Russell Robert Bernard Working Group on Space C. Seamans, Maggin, Jr. Secretary

Harry J. Goett

Surveillance

H. W. Bode, William

Chairman Jr.

H. Pickering

K. G. Macleish William B. McLean Alan H. Shapley

Wilbur B. Davenport, W. B. Hebenstreit Richard D. Leghorn

Fred L. Whipple Carl B. Palmer, Secretary Working Group on Human Factors and Training

W. Randolph Lovelace A. Scott Crossfield Hubert M. Drake Don D. Flickinger Edward B. Giller

II, Chairman

James D. Hardy Wright Haskell Langham Ulrich C. Luft Boyd C. Myers II, Secretary

Working Date of formation: First meeting February attended 5, 1959

Group

on Lunar

Exploration

by representatives

of NASA,

Jet

Propulsion

Laboratory,

California

Institute

of Technology,

and the University

of California Saturn

(names

of representatives Committee

are currently

unavailable).

DOD-NASA Date of formation: March 17, 1959 Committee 1959 8-9, 1959

Ad Hoc

Research Date Date Date Harry of formation: of first meeting: of last meeting: J. Goett,

Steering 1-8,

on Manned

Space

Flight

(Goett

Committee)

April May

25-26,1959 Harris Maxime George Milton M. Schurmeier A. Faget M. Low B. Ames, Jr. ( part time)

December

Chairman Jr. Jr.

Alfred J. Eggers, Bruce T. Lundin

Laurence K. Loftin, De E. Beeler

2O8

APPENDIX

2

Booster Date Dates of organization: of first meetings: York and April Hugh 15, 1959 16-18, Dryden,

Evaluation

Committee

September L.

1959 CoRichard Joseph And E. Horner V. Charyk a representative of the United States Army

Herbert F. chairmen Abe Silverstein

New Date Date of organization: of first meeting: Early July July,

Projects 1959

Panel

of the Space

Task

Group

12, 1959 Caldwell Harry Robert Stanley C. Johnson H. Ricker, Jr. G. Chilton C. White

H. Kurt Strass, Alan B. Kehlet William Jack

Chairman

S. Augerson

Funk

Saturn Date of formation: November submitted Chairman members

Vehicle

Team

(Silverstein

Committee)

27, 1959 to NASA : December 15, 1959

Recommendations Abe Silverstein, (Names

of committee

are unavailable.

)

Space Date Date Date of organization: of first meeting: of fifth meeting: January February January 1960 10-11, 5-6,

Exploration

Program

Council

1960

1961 Don Albert Richard Robert R. Ostrander F. Siepert E. Horner, L. King, ) Chairman Secretary (succeeded by John I.

Harry J. Goett Wernher yon Braun William H. Picketing Ira H. Abbott Abe Silverstein

Cumberland

Other officials, including T. Keith Jr., Aaron Rosenthal, and Donald

Glennan, Hugh L. Dryden, H. Heaton, attended from

Abraham Hyatt, time to time.

Robert

C. Seamans,

Advanced Date of formation: May Head 25, 1960

Vehicle

Team

(of Space

Task

Group)

Robert O. Piland, H. Kurt Strass Robert G. Chilton

R. Bryan Owen

Erb

E. Maynard

Jack Funk Alan B. Kehlet 209

Richard B. Ferguson Alfred B. Eickmeier

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

Integration Date Lloyd of formation Wood

of the Saturn 2, 1960

and Saturn

Application

Programs

Study

Group

: September

Oran

W. Nicks

Richard B. Canright :\lfred M. Nelson John L. Sloop

Fred D. Kochendorfer George M. Low

Evaluation

Board

(to consider

industry

proposals

for Apollo

spacecraft

feasibility

studies)

Date of appointment: October 4, 1960 Recommendations submitted to Robert R. Gilruth, Charles J. Donlan, Chairman

Director,

STG:

October

24, 1960

Maxime A. Faget Robert O. Piland John H. Disher Alvin Seiff Working Date of organization: George M. Low Eldon W. Hall Apollo Date First Joint Second of organization: meetings meeting meetings November April 22, 1960 6, 11, and 10, 1961 10-14, 1961 Technical October Group 17, 1960 on the Manned

John V. Becker H. H. Koelle Harry J. Goett, ex officio Robert R. Gilruth, ex officio

Lunar

Landing

Program

Oran W. Nicks John H. Disher Liaison Groups

of the groups: of the groups: of the groups:

January April

12, 1961

Group Alan B. Kehlet, Hubert (FRC) Edward Center Eugene (LaRC) L. S. Linsley, Love, Marshall Langley M. Chairman, Drake, STG

[or Configurations

and Aerodynamics Edwin Pounder, Jet Propulsion Ames Laboratory Center

Flight

Research Space Research Group

Center Flight Center [or Guidance

(JPL) Clarence (ARC) William

A. Syvertson, W. Petynia,

Research STG

(MSFC)

Secretary,

and Euclid Helmut

Control C. Holleman, A. Kuehnel, Smith, ARC MSFC STG Jr., Secretary, G. Thornton, P. Nolan, FRC STG

Richard James John Edmund

R. Carley, D. Acord,

Chairman, LaRC Goddard

STG

JPL Space Flight Center

M. Eggleston, J. Habib,

G. Allen Wilbur James 210

(GSFC)

APPENDIX

2

Group Kenneth Harvey Thomas Werner C. Weston, A. Connell, Chairman, MSFC STG

on Heating Glen Goodwin, John Robert W. Lucas, L. Trimpi, ARC JPL LaRC Secretary, STG

V. Cooney, FRC K. Dahm, MSFC Group

Leo T. Chauvin, on Human Factors A. Smedel,

Richard S. Johnston, Chairman, David Adamson, LaRC Bruce A. Aikenhead, C. Patrick Robert Laughlin, STG STG Lewis Research Group Ralph Dennis Heinz Kenneth Eberhardt S. Sawyer, E. Fielder, Rechtin, Chairman, STG MSFC JPL FRC STG

STG

Harald Milton

ARC Hq. FRC Secretary, STG

G. Dale Smith,

NASA

O. Thompson,

Lee N. McMillion, Center (LRC) and Communications E. Sivertson, E. Tozier, O. Vonbun, Markley,

F. Seldon,

[or Instrumentation

Wilford Robert Friedrich J. Thomas

LaRC GSFC Secretary, STG

LRC

W. Kampmeier, C. Sanderson,

Group Richard Peter B. Ferguson, Chairman, STG STG

for Mechanical Joseph John

Systems M. Hallissy, Jr., LaRC STG

J. Armitage,

Perry V. Row, FRC B. Lee, Secretary,

Herman F. Beduerftig, MSFC Robert R. Godman, LRC Group Maxime A. Faget, Chairman, STG [or Onboard

Propulsion David Edmund Alexander Joseph Robert M. Hammock, R. Jonash, A. McCool, G. Thibodaux, H. Rollins, Materials E. Goerner, E. Vale, MSFC ARC Secretary, STG STG MSFC LRC MSFC Jr., LaRC Secretary, STG

Henry Burlage, William Cohen, Norman Duane

Jr., NASA Hq. NASA Hq. FRC JPL Group on Structures

E. DeMar, F. Dipprey,

and Erich Charles Robert Herbert

Robert Roger William

O. Piland, A. Anderson, J. Carley, LRC

Chairman, LaRC JPL

STG

A. Hermach, G. Patterson,

Jack B. Esgar,

Group Jack Funk, Donald Victor James Seymour Chairman, STG FRC

on Trajectory

Analysis F. Hoelker, H. Michael, F. Schmidt, R. Squires, C. Cheatham, MSFC Jr., LaRC ARC GSFC Secretary, STG

Rudolph William Stanley Kenneth Donald 211

R. Bellman,

C. CIarke, Jr., JPL F. Dalby, STG C. Himmel, LRC

334-987

0

-

69

-

15

THE Manned Date Date Date Report of organization: of first meeting: of second submitted meeting: January January

APOLLO SPACECRAFT: Landing Task

A CHRONOLOGY (Low Committee)

Lunar 5-6,

Group

1961 16, 1961 Jr., NASA Associate Administrator: February 7, 1961

9, 1961 C. Seamans,

January

to Robert

George M. Low, Chairman Eldon W. Hall A. M. Mayo Ernest O. Pearson, Jr. Ad Hoc Committee Report submitted to President-elect Chairman John on Space

Oran W. Nicks Maxime A. Faget H.H. Koelle

(Wiesner January Max Bruno Harry Lehrer Edward

Committee) 10, 1961 H. Purcell

F. Kennedy:

Jerome B. Wiesner, Kenneth BeLieu Trevor Gardner

B. Rossi J. Watters

Donald F. Hornig Edwin H. Land Ad Hoc Task Date Report William Addi_n Albert of formation submitted : May Group 2, 1961 C. Seam ans, Jr., NASA for a Manned Lunar

Landing

Study

(Fleming

Committee)

to Robert

Associate

Administrator:

June

16, 1961

A. Fleming, M. Rothrock, J. Kelley

Chairman Deputy Chairman

Berg Paraghamian Walter W. Haase

Spacecra[t John Merle H. Disher G. Waugh Launch Eldon W. Hall Kenneth Alan Vehicles Norman Alfred Rafel M. Nelson S. Kleinknecht

B. Kehlet

Melvyn Savage H. H. Koelle

Facilities Samuel Secrest Snyder L. Berry Li[e Sciences James P. Nolan, Robert D. Briskman

Jr.
Advanced

A. H. Schwichtenberg Technology

Ernest

O. Pearson,

Jr. Space Sciences Robert 212 Fellows

William

Shipley

APPENDIX

2

Lundin Date of formation: Study completed 1961 May 25, 1961 and submitted

Committee

to Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Associate Administrator:

June

10,

Bruce T. Lundin, Chairman Walter J. Downhower Alfred J. Eggers, Jr. George W. S. Johnson Ad Hoc Task Group

Laurence K. Loftin, Jr. Harry O. Ruppe William J. D. Escher, Secretary Ralph W. May, Jr., Secretary for Study of Manned Lunar Landing (Heaton Committee) by Rendezvous Techniques

Date of organization: June 1961 Report submitted to Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Associate Administrator: Donald H. Heaton, Chairman Richard B. Canright L. E. Baird Launch Wilson B. Schramm L. H. Glassman Guidance Paul J. DeFries Robert D. Briskman Orbital John C. Houbolt Hubert M. Drake H. H. Koelle Advanced William H. Woodward Manned Date of first meeting: July 6, 1961 Lunar Landing Coordination Group Launch Norman Rafel Joseph E. McGolrick

August 1961

Vehicle Per[orrnance

and Logistics

John L. Hammersmith R. Voss and Control William H. Phillips J. Yolles Operations James P. Nolan, Jr. Warren J. North Harry O. Ruppe Technology

Robert C. Seamans, Jr. Ira H. Abbott Don R. Ostrander Charles H. Roadman William A. Fleming 213

DeMarquis D. Wyatt (part time) George M. Low (attended first meeting of Silverstein) Abe Silverstein

in place

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

DOD-NASA Date of organization:

Large

Launch

Vehicle

Planning

Group

(Golovin

Committee)

July 20, 1961 Milton Wilson Levering Lewis 1961) Kurt Jr. R. Stehling H. J. Weigand Francis L. Williams William W. Wolman J. W. Rosen (served B. Schramm Smith Stecher, Jr. (appointed August 29, until August 18, 1961 )

Nicholas Lawrence Warren

E. Golovin, Director L. Kavanau Amster

Edward J. Barlow Aleck C. Bond David Matthew L. Carter R. Collins,

Otto j. Glasser Eldon W. Hall Harvey Hall

Source Date Report Walter Robert Wesley Maxime Nonvoting

Evaluation

Board

(for evaluation

of contractors'

proposals

for the Apollo

spacecraft)

of appointment: submitted C. Williams, O. Piland L. Hjornevik A. Faget members:

July 28, 1961 to James E.Webb, NASA Administrator: November 24, 1961

Chairman

James A. Chamberlin Charles W. Mathews Dave Oswald W. Lang H. Lange Brooks C. Preacher

George

M. Low,

James

T. Koppenhaver,

Technical Date of appointment submitted O. Piland, G. Chilton, C. Johnson, S. Kleinknecht, C. Kraft, : August began: to Source Chairman, STG STG STG Jr., STG 7, 1961 October Evaluation STG 9, 1961 Board:

Subcommittee

Evaluation Reported Robert Robert Caldwell Kenneth Christopher

of proposals

November Andre Stanley

1, 1961 J. Meyer, C. White, Jr., STG STG

Alvin Seiff, ARC John V. Becker, LaRC William A. Mrazek, MSFC

Technical Report submitted to Technical Subcommittee: Systems Caldwell William John Alan Owen C. Johnson, Chairman, M. Bland, STG STG STG STG STG

Subpanels 25, 1961

October

Integration Alan B. Shepard, Hubert Stanley M. Drake, R. Reinartz, Jr., STG FRC MSFC STG

D. Hodge, B. Kehlet,

John J. Williams,

E. Maynard,

214

APPENDIX

2

Propulsion David Arthur Robert Robert M. Hammock, Chairman, STG Joseph G. Thibodaux, Edmund R. Jonash, John W. Conlon, Jr., LaRC LRC

M. Busch, STG H. Rollins, STG R. Brashears, JPL Flight

STG

Mechanics

Robert

G. Chilton,

Chairman,

STG (Aerodynamics)

Alan B. Kehlet, Clarence Edward

Group

Leader, ARC

STG

Eugene Warren ( Trajectory Analysis) Kenneth Tecwyn

S. Love, J. North,

LaRC STG NASA Hq.

A. Syvertson, L. Linsley,

Bruce G. Jackson,

MSFC

Jack John

Funk,

Group

Leader,

STG

R. Squires, Roberts,

GSFC

P. Mayer,

STG ARC (Guidance

STG

Luigi Cicolani,

and Control) Euclid Thomas Welby C. Holleman, V. Chambers, T. Risler, STG FRC STG

Robert Morris Richard John

G. Chilton, V. Jenkins, R. Carley, M. Eggleston,

Group STG STG LaRC

Leader,

STG

Structures, Robert Kenneth Glen Roger E. Vale, Chairman, C. Weston, ARC LaRC A. Anderson, STG Goodwin, STG

Materials,

and Harry Richard George

Heating L. Runyan, H. Kemp, J. Vetko, Jr., LaRC LRC MSFC

Human Richard S. Johnston, Chairman, STG (Crew Richard S. Johnston, C. Patrick Laughlin, Gerard J. Pesman, Group STG STG Leader, STG

Factors

Considerations) Walter Harald M. Schirra, A. Smedal, Jr., STG ARC STG

Lee N. McMillion,

(Training Robert Virgil Harold B. Voas, I. Grissom, I. Johnson, Group STG STG Leader, STG

and Crew Participation Richard Milton

) FRC FRC

F. Day,

O. Thompson,

215

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT: (Radiation)

A CHRONOLOGY

David Francis

Adamson, W. Casey,

Group

Leader,

LaRC

C. Patrick William

Laughlin, L. Gill, STG

STG

Jr., STG

Instrumentation Ralph S. Sawyer, Chairman, STG

and

Communications

(Instrumentation) Alfred B. Eickmeier, Group Jacob C. Moser, STG Kenneth C. Sanderson, FRC Leader, STG Harvey Marion John Golden, MSFC Jr., STG LaRC

R. Franklin,

A. Dodgen,

(Communications) Ralph Dennis Richard S. Sawyer, E. Fielder, Group STG JPL Leader, STG Robert William E. Tozier, R. Stelges, LRC STG

Z. Toukdarian,

Onboard Richard B. Ferguson, Chairman, STG

Systems

(Auxiliary Richard B. Ferguson, Group Preston T. Maxwell, STG Robert N. Parker, STG Leader, STG

Power

Supplies) Joseph M. Hallissy, Jr., LaRC Thomas Williams, STG

(Environmental Richard James Frank B. Ferguson, Group Leader, STG

Control Walter

Systems) M. Schirra, Jr., STG

R. Hiers, STG H. Samonski, Jr., STG

Edward L. Hays, STG James F. Saunders, STG

(Landing John W. Kiker, Group STG STG Leader, STG

and Recovery James

Systems) K. Hinson, STG STG

Peter J. Armitage, M. Scott Carpenter,

Rodney Samuel

G. Rose, STG T. Beddingfield,

(Mechanical Richard John F. Smith, FRC 216 STG STG

Systems) Herman Walter F. Beduerftig, J. Kap_'an, MSFC

Janokaitis,

STG

Perry V. Row,

APPENDIX

2

Ground Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.,

Operational STG

Support

Systems

and

Operations

Chairman,

(Ground Robert Howard John D. Harrington, C. Kyle, STG Jr., STG W. Small, Group Leader,

Operational STG

Support Friedrich Gerald Robert

Systems) O. Vonbun, W. Brewer, B. Voas, STG GSFC

STG

(Operations) Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., STG Philip Robert R. Maloney, F. Thompson, STG STG STG MSFC

Sigalrd A. Sjoberg, STG B. Porter Brown, STG L. Gordon Cooper, STG

Paul C. Donnelly, Emil P. Bertram,

Technical Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, Alan B. Kehlet, STG Donald C. Cheatham, Chairman, STG STG

Development

Plan

Donald K. Slayton, STG H. Kurt Strass, STG John H. Disher, NASA Hq.

Reliability F. John Bailey, John C. French, Edward H. STG STG STG Harold K. Fred D. Toy, Okano, STG NASA Hq.

Olling,

Manufacturing Joseph V. Piland, Chairman, Jack Kinzler, STG William T. J. Nesbitt, Air Force STG Systems Command Schaus, STG Clyde Thiele, LaRC Norman Levine, MSFC Frank Archibald M. Crichton, E. Morse, STG Jr., STG

Business Date of organization Evaluation Report Glenn PhiUip submitted F. H. Bailey, : August began: to the Source Chairman, STG Hq. STG Jr., STG 16, 1961 October Evaluation STG 9, 1961 Board:

Subcommittee

of proposals

November

3, 1961 NASA STG Jr., STG STG Hq.

Whitbeck,

John M. Curran, Wilbur H. Gray, John Thomas H. Glenn, F. Baker,

John D. Young, NASA Douglas E. Hendrickson, George F. MacDougall,

217

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

Business Organization Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Chairman, Air Force STG Systems

Assessment and

Panels

Management Nickolas Dugald Jevas, O. W. E. E. F. Black, Haase, Cushman, McGinty, MSFC LaRC Korycinski, STG STG STG NASA NASA NASA Hq. Hq. Hq.

J. B. Trenholm, Command Henry P. Yschek,

J. Thom_Ls Walter Ralph Earl Don Peter

Markley,

STG STG STG STG STG

Pinkney McGathy, Allen L. Granfield, James Bryant A. L. Bennett, John_n,

Hardin,

Logistics Lawrence Paul H. Richard Jacobson, Kloetzer, F. Baillie, Chairman, STG STG NASA Hq. Walter A. D. Wolhart, Eiband, STG STG

Martin

Subcontract Harry Wayne John L. Watkins, W. B. Lee, Corbett, STG STG STG

Administration James Eldon S. Evans, Western W. Kaser, ARC Operations Office

Cost

Charles A. E.

J. Finegan, Hyatt, STG Allison, Stewart,

Chairman, STG STG

NASA

Hq.

James Irving Adaron

H.

Sumpter, AF

Jr., AF

Army Systems

Audit General's

Agency Office

J. Sandler, B. Jordan,

Auditor

J. Howard Lester A.

Command

MSFC-MSC-LOC

Coordination

Panels

(originally

designated Coordination

M SFC-MSC Panels

Coordination

Panels);

also called Date of establishment: October November 3, 1961

Apollo-Saturn

Date of first meeting: Panels

8, 1961 MSC-LOC (Wernher invited Space Vehicle Review Board), von Braun, Robert R. Gilruth, personnel; to attend NASA Headquarters of by the Directors

reported to : Space Vehicle Review Board ( MSFC which consisted of the Directors of the three Centers and Kurt H. Debus) MSC, ; division directors and panel other representatives; MSFC, observers; and LOC. 218 specialists;

key technical

representatives

APPENDIX

2

Electrical MSC Milton Lyndon G. Kingsley, Robinson Co-chairman

Systems

Integration

Panel MSFC

Hans J. Fichtner, Co-chairman Richard G. Smith Robert David James M. Aden B. Gardiner, Vann Jr., Co-secretary

R. C. Irvin, Co-secretary Robert E. Munford W. E. Williams LOC Daniel D. Collins

Instrumentation MSC Alfred Clyde Robert James Howard Gordon William B. Eickmeier, Whittaker, L. Strickland C. Kyle Woosley R. Stelges LOC Daniel D. Collins F. Thompson Co-chairman Co-secretary

and

Communication

Panel MSFC

Otto

A. Hoberg, Golden,

Co-chairman Co-secretary

Harvey

Heinz W. Kampmeier Herman F. Kurtz JamesVann

Mechanical MSC Lyle M. Jenkins, Robert P. Smith, Percy Hurt Robert E. Vale Samuel T. Beddingfield Co-chairman Co-secretary

Integration

Panel MSFC

Hans Robert

R. Palaoro, O. Barraza,

Co-chairman Co-secretary

Jack H. Furman Tom Isbell Earl M. Butler Wallace Desmond Fred LOC Kistler Beck

G. Edwards

Andrew J. Pickett Robert Moore 219

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

Flight Mechanics, MSC Calvin H. Perrine, Jr., Co-chairman Robert J. Ward, Co-secretary Robert G. Chilton Aaron Cohen John P. Mayer LOC A. H. Knothe

Dynamics,

Guidance,

and Control Panel MSFC

R. F. Hoelker, Co-chairman Lewis L. McNair, Co-secretary Thom,xs G. Reed Hans H. Hosenthien F. Brooks Moore John W. Massey

Launch MSC John J. Williams Melvin Dell Philip R. Maloney Paul C. Donnelly LOC Rocco A. Petrone, Chairman Emil P. Bertram, Secretary, Robert E. Gorman

Operations

Panel MSFC

Robert E. Moser Joachim P. Kuettner

Mission MSC John D. Hodge, Co-chairman Dennis E. Fielder, Co-secreta_. Howard C. Kyle Tecwyn Roberts Gordon Woosley Eugene F. Kranz

Control

Operations

Panel MSFC

Fridjof A. Speer, Co-chairman Ernest B. Nathan, James T. Felder Wallace Kistler E. W. King Ludie G. Richard Grady Williams Co-secretary

LOC Rudolf H. Bruns Emil P. Bertram Walter W. Kavanaugh 220

APPENDIX

2

Crew MSC Alfred Donald Mardel, Co-chairman

Sa[ety

Panel MSFC Joachim P. Kuettner, Co-chairman

Art White,

Co-secretary

E. W. King,

Co-secretary

K. Slayton

Sigurd A. Sjoberg Warren J. North C. K. Anderson

James Powell Friedrich W. Brandner Jerry L. Mack

George Butler, Jr. Wallace Kistler Robert LOC James Frank M. Hunt P. Lindberg, Bryan Jr.

Emil

P. Bertram

MSFC-MSC Date of first meeting: first meeting: MSC Robert Walter R. Gilruth C. Williams October

Advanced

Program

Coordination

Board

20, 1961

Attended

MSFC Wernher von Braun

Paul J. DeFries Fred E. Digesu Ernst D. Geissler Joachim Charles P. Kuettner A. Lundquist

Aleck C. Bond Maxime Kenneth A. Faget S. Kleinknecht

J. Thomas Markley Charles W. Mathews Robert O. Piland Preston G. Merritt James Alan

Jerry C. McCall William A. Mrazek J. Unger H. H. Koelle

Paul E. Purser A. Chamberlin B. Shepard, Jr.

Rosen Date of organization: Recommendations November Milton November 6, 1961 to D. Brainerd submitted

Working

Group

Holmes,

Director,

Office

of Manned

Space

Flight:

20, 1961 Chairman Adelbert William Hans James O. Tischler A. Mrazek

W. Rosen,

Richard B. Canright Eldon W. Hall Elliott Norman Melvyn Mitchell Rafel Savage 221

H. Maus B. Bramlet

John H. Disher David M. Hammock

THEAPOLLOPACECRAFT: S A CHRONOLOGY
Manned Date of formation Holmes and first meeting: Space December Flight Management Council

21, 1961 George Milton Charles William Joseph M. Low W. Rosen H. Roadman E. Lilly F. Shea

D. Brainerd Robert Walter Wernher Eberhard

R. Gilruth C. Williams von Braun F. M. Rees

222

APPENDIX

3mMAJOR
August 9, 1961,

SPACECRAFT
through November

CONTRACTORS
7, 1962

Company

System

Potential Value of Contract (in millions)

Principal Contractor--Spacecraft North American Aviation, Space and Information Division Subcontractors Aerojet-General Avco Corp. Beech Aircraft Collins Radio Garrett Co. Lockheed Marquardt Corp., Corp. Corp. Co. AiResearch Co.

Inc., Systems

Command

and

service

modules

$900

Service Ablative

module propulsion heatshield

motor

Supercritical Communications Mfg. Environmental Launch escape motors

gas storage system and data control and pitch system control (service control

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

28.423 22.462 4 96.996 44.735 9.702 19.593

Propulsion Corp.

Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. Northrop Corp., Ventura Division Thiokol Chemical Hunter-Bristol Corp., Division Division

Reaction control module) Stabilization and Earth Escape Space Fuel landing system suit cell

motors flight

$104.064 $ 10.486 2.629 1.550

system jettison motors

$ $

United Aircraft Corp., Hamilton Standard

United Aircraft Corp., Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division Guidance and Navigation Massachusetts Institute nology, Instrumentation Laboratory General Motors Corp., Plug Division Kollsman Instrument Raytheon Co. Corp., Sperry Division Module Engineering Sperry Rand Gyroscope Lunar Excursion Grumman Corp. of Tech-

$ 43.531

Management navigation

of guidance development

and

$71

AC Co.

Spark

Inertial platform and associated ground support equipment Optical subsystems Onboard guidance computer Accelerometers

$ 44.545 $ $ $ 10 15 O.747

Aircraft

Lunar

excursion

module

Undetermined

223

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

O

O

o ,._

o ,._

o

g_

>

,<

_o 03
_,.Iv

o

L.

:> O

Z
_0 0
f..

.o

0

,_ 0

_ 0

_'_ 0

_:_ 0

"_ 0

"_

_', "_0

I

t_ 03 o o o o

'_

_

"_.)

Z

<

.<
Z
t_

_

_ o

_

_o

224

APPENDIX

4

0

0

0

0

,....

_

.-._

_

_

_

0

>,

6

6

o
• °

6

o _

o._.:._

•"_

o

_._

<

I

o,I I

<

._.._
_J

._

.o

¢q

¢j

_

_

<

_

z

z

_

_
225

_

_

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

-t...4-

O >.

I,)

om,=l

>

o

I *

c'q c.o o-_

_c:'_

___-_-_
-_ _ 4.o

___
..._

_
< ._

:__:_
m

0

z

_

¢_ .,..,

0 _

_ .,..,

_

i.,

_ ,._

._

_

._ _

0 _ ...,

'_ ,._

M

,_ ._ ._

N
2:

<
¢_

<

c_l

_

oo

226

APPEND_

4

0

0

0

0

>_

_._._

N__

o_
• _.._ _ _ _ _ _:

k_

0

_

m_

r--

_

oo

• _ o.._ _
_ _'_, _

_._:_

_

_

..__ _ ._ .g_._

.-_

-_:'_

_

_

• o '_ _ ._227
334-987 0 - 69 - t6

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CHRONOLOGY

© Z
0

I

°.

g_

_o o_

ce3 u,3 c-_ c,o c_4 c,4 (_, >

Z <

"-d
>

z_

<

z_>

Z<

I

o

0 228

APPENDIX

5

O O O O O

OO _O

O O

OOOO OOOO

,° 4_ .° °.

_o

_o

o _

.
• _ I::_,..N_

!__
,., _:_

0

,, _ _ a _ = ._ .= 0 ,.,_
O

0_-_
<
OO OO OO OO r--O OO OO OO OO OO O O

<

_r-2
t',_D 00 00

.<0 Z< Z Z_ I Z<
[

i

i_,

_"

_0

_

,

_._

v

229

APPENDIX

6reORGANIZATION
SPACE TASK GROUP 26, 1960]

CHARTS

[September

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR R.R. Gilruth, Director of Project Mercury C.J. Donlan Assoc. Director (Development) W.C. Williams, Assoc. Director Operations)

t

Project Mercury DOD Support

I
L Business ManagementI L

I
Offices Staff

I
Flight Systems Division ] M.A. Faget, Chief

J

J.A. Chamberlin, Chief I Engineering Division

C.W. Mathews, Chief Operations Division

I

I
[ _Ur_
L Electrical Systems Branch Flight Dynamics Branch Systems Engineering Branch Structures Branch

I
McDonnell i Field Office

I
Capsule Board Office 1

I
AMR Project Office

Contracts and Scheduling Branch Project Engineering Branch

Mission Analysis Branch ] Flight Control Branch RecoveryOperations Branch

1

APOLLO PROJECTOFFICE Robert O. Piland, Head John B. Lee J. Thomas Markley W.W. Petynia H. Kurt Strass

Located at Canaveral Launch Operations Branch

I

J

230

APPENDIX

6

|

E

,,_,- i

L .t (:Z.> I:

I

__-o
D.A _Va

"6'

v

e;_- I
U __ t_ tJ

g
_-_

g_r.._._

i
_E_' _'_-I
L ......

e-c..

._o

dq

I
o-r
I ._.., r-

a-E
0 .

_o.

I I I
L .......

_-F n_-F

231

THE

APOLLO

SPACECRAFT:

A

CIIRONOLOGY

1
I.--t =_

_k

o
_9
__

Lt:

0 o

r_/_ i

232

APPENDIX

6

Z
_q

Z

_r

233

APPENDIX
Little Joe II

7--APOLLO

LAUNCH

VEHICLE

FAMILY

Configuration: Single used Mission: The Little Joe II test launch vehicle, escape under construction during the period module. of this volume, was to stage test vehicle motors, powered by Algol liftoff solid-propellant thrust. motors. Recruit rocket motors were as booster to supplement

be used Saturn C-1

to man-rate (renamed

the launch Saturn I)

system

for the command

Configuration: S-I stage pounds ducing version S-V stage. Mission: Two successful launches would of the test Saturn C-1 took place during the period and service covered modules by this volume. under flight Later launches conditions. Saturn C-1B (renamed boilerplate Apollo command booster (four (eight engines H-1 ; and engines, S-V engine 29, 1961, clustered, stage The NASA producing and (two LR-119 pounds announced approved engines engine of thrust), that the 1.5 million pounds used pounds of thrust) and in the ; S-IV second 80,000 proand the using liquid-hydrogen third liquid-oxygen propellants producing S-IV

of thrust) 40,000

of the type (17,500

stage,

pounds March 1,

of thrust). 1961, NASA

of thrust), engines dropped

an uprated on the S-IV from

of the LR-115 On June On

( 15,000

was selected S-V had

to be used in the S-IV been

stages.

a change

to six LR-115

configuration.

Saturn

IB or Uprated

Saturn

I )

Configuration: S-IB S-IVB Mission: On July 11, 1962, Apollo NASA announced that the orbit. Saturn C-1B would be used to launch unmanned booster second (eight stage uprated H-1 engines, clustered, producing 200,000 1.6 million pounds of thrust); and (one J-2 engine, producing pounds of thrust).

and manned Saturn C-2

spacecraft

into earth

Four-stage S-I third stage). Three-stage S-I S-IV History: Plans for

configuration: (same (same as booster as Saturn stage C-1 of the Saturn stage) C-1 ; and ) ; S-II S-V fourth second stage stage (same (not defined) C-1 ; S-IV third stage second as Saturn

booster

configuration: (same stage as booster as Saturn stage C-1 of the second Saturn stage). C-1 ) ; S II second stage (not defined) ; and (same

booster third

the

Saturn

C-2

were

canceled

in June 234

1961

in favor

of the

proposed

Saturn

C-3.

APPENDIX

7

Saturn

C-3

Configuration: Booster engines, second History: Plans Saturn C-4 for the Saturn C-3 were canceled in favor of a more powerful launch vehicle. stage stage). (two F-1 engines, producing 3 million and pounds S-IV of thrust) third stage ; second (same stage (four J-2 C-1 producing 800,000 pounds of thrust); as Saturn

Configuration: Booster stage (four F-1 engines, clustered, pounds producing of thrust). 6 million pounds of thrust) ; second stage

(four J-2 engines,
History The : Saturn C4

producing

800,000

was briefly

considered C-5.

in planning

for the

advanced

Saturn

launch

vehicle

but

was rejected Saturn C-5

in favor

of the Saturn V)

(renamed

Saturn

Configuration: S-IC stage booster (five J-2 engine, Saturn (five producing C-5 was F-1 engines, producing 200,000 selected landing clustered, 1 million pounds producing pounds 7.5 million of thrust) pounds ; and of thrust) ; S-II stage second (one engines, the S-IVB third

J-2
Mission: The

of thrust). in December 1961 as the launch vehicle to be used in

by NASA mission.

accomplishing Saturn C-8

the lunar

Configuration: First (eight stage J-2 (eight engines, 200,000 C-8 F-1 engines, clustered, 1.6 million producing pounds 12 million of thrust) pounds third of thrust); stage (one second J-2 stage engine, producing pounds was ; and

producing History: The Saturn

of thrust). considered for the direct ascent lunar landing mission C-5 which during would the be

briefly

selection of the lunar landing mode. It was rejected used in the lunar orbit rendezvous mission. Nova Configuration : Several configurations

in favor

of the Saturn

were

proposed

during

the period

of this volume.

All were based

on the use engines, M-1 200,000

of the F-1 engine in the first stage. One typical configuration clustered, producing 12 million pounds of thrust); second engines, pounds Mission: The Nova was intended for use in a direct ascent hmar landing producing of thrust). 4.8 million Nuclear pounds of thrust) ; third stage upper stages were also proposed.

was: first stage (eight F-1 stage (four liquid-hydrogen (one J-2 engine, producing

mission.

235

INDEX
A
Abbott, Ablating Ira H., 22, 67, 98, 111,209, 213 materials, 165 Avco Corp. named by NAA to design and install on spacecraft surface, 144 research, 27 Ablation techniques, 27 charring, 27 surface char layer temperature, 136 ABMA. See Army Ballistic Missile Agency. Abort, 188 high-altitude, 152, 160, 186 launch, 152 max-q, 152, 160, 192 study, 56 Acord, James D., 64, 210 Acoustics, 80 AC Spark Plug Division, 160 contract for guidance and navigation system components, 160 Adams, Mac C., 207 Adamson, David, 64, 211,216 Aden, Robert M., 219 Ad Hoe Committee on Space (Wiesner Committee), 69, 212 report to John F. Kennedy, 69 Ad Hoe Committee on Space Technology. See Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. Ad Hoe Lunar Landing Module Working Group, 138 to determine design constraints, 138 under direction of ASPO, 138 Ad Hoc Saturn Study Committee, 20, 55 Ad Hoe Task Group for Manned Lunar Landing Study (Flemlng Committee ), 91, 212 established, 85 guidelines, 86 alternative approaches, 87 flight test program, 87 manned lunar landing target date--1967, 86, 95 mission plan, 86 reliability requirements, 95 pacing items, 50, 95 facilities for launching and testing, 95 first stage of launch vehicle, 95 report submitted, 95 See also Fleming Committee. Ad Hoc Task Group for Study of Manned Lunar Landing by Rendezvous Techniques (Heaton Committee), 213 established, 95 guidelines, 95 operating methods, 95 report submitted, 108 See also Heaton Committee. Advanced design concepts earth orbital missions. lunar missions, 27 27 Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced 40-45, manned space flight missions, 2 manned space flight program, 2, 38, 47, 48 manned space program, 19 manned spacecraft program, 2, 23, 31, 38, 39, 53, 54, 87 guidelines, 38-42 14-day flight time, 39, 40 auxiliary propulsion, 39, 40 compatibility with C-1 or C-2 boosters, 39, 40 earth orbital missions, 39 expanded communications facilities, 39, 41, 42 expanded tracking facilities, 39 flight time, 39 ground and water landing, 39, 40 manned lunar reconnaissance, 39, 40 missions, 39, 40, 101 onboard command, 41 point landing, 39 propulsion, 39, 44 radiation protection, 39, 41 safe recovery from abort, 39-40 "shirtsleeve" environment, 39, 41 three-man crew, 31, 39, 41 weight constraints, 31, 39, 40 presented to NASA organizations, 39, 40 spacecraft development proposal, 76 study contracts, 53 Statement of Work, 87, 88 incorporated in-house and contractor feasibility study results, 88 "Advanced manned spacecraft and system," 38 Advanced Advanced preliminary guidelines, 38 mission study, iii multiman spacecraft, 3, 40, 45 preliminary design studies, 3, 45 Advanced Program Coordination Board, 112, Sub-Board, 112 members, 112 responsibilities, 112 Advanced recovery capsule, 28 Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), 15, 18, 20, 27, 29, 32 Advanced Saturn launch vehicle, invitations to bid, 110 Advanced 109, 110, 133

113

2,

10,

12,

spacecraft mission analysis studies, 31 exit corridor, 31 reentry corridor, 31 planning, 31 programs, 44 systems, 31 Advanced Vehicle Team, 45, 46, 209 formed, 45 See also Space Task Group. Advisory Committee on Government Organization, Aerodynamics, 45, 68, 74

10

237

INDEX Aerojet-General Corporation, 20, 181,184 Algol motor selected to power Little Joe II, 181 contract for Apollo service module propulsion engine, 155 named by NAA as subcontractor for service module propulsion system, 142 Aeronautical Division, 162 designed stabilization and control system, 162 See also Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company. Aeronutronic Division named to build instrumented lunar-landing capsule ("Ranger"), 43 Aerospace Corporation, 100, 110 Aikenhead, Bruce A., 211 Air Force, 32 programs, 7, 10, 13, 14, 20 descent from orbit, 59 lunar base studies, 59 orbital rendezvous, 59 reentry methods, 59 refueling, 59 rendezvous by satellite interceptor, 59 Air Force Aeronautical Chart and Information Center, 13, 69 Air Force Missile Test Center, 96, 99, 105,108 Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, 167, 188 simulated space cabin, 167,188 fire, 167, 188 Air Force School of Aviation Medicine, 46 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 8 Ad Hoc Committee on Space Technology, 8 Aircraft C-133A, 191 X-15, 140, 152 AiResearch Manufacturing Company selected by NAA to design and build environmental control system, 134 Airlock, 161,187 and docking (command module) design criteria, 161,184, 187 configurations, 183, 187 Airport landing technique, 22 Akens, David S., 27 Alexander, Charles C., 7 Algol selected to power Little Joe II booster, 181 solid-propellant, 181 Allen, H. Julian, 187 Allison, J. Howard, 218 Alluisi, Earl, 182 Allyn, Charles F., xiv American Marietta Corporation, Guardite Division, 57 American Rocket Society, 8, 168, 170 Ames, Milton B., Jr., 7, 20, 22,208 Ames Research Center, 18, 20, 24, 25, 43, 56, 62, 68, 70, 78, 94, 147, 197 ballistic range established, 193 flight simulation, 43 heating and aerodynamic investigations on lifting capsule configurations, 43 meteoroid tests established, 193 potential reentry heating experiments at near escape velocity, 43 studies aerodynamic configuration for reentry from lunar trajectory, 43 guidance and control requirements, 43 pilot display and navigation, 43 AMR. See Atlantic Missile Range. Amster, Warren, 100, 214 Anderson, C. K., 221 Anderson, Roger A., 64, 211,215 Antarctic Treaty, 32 Antares solid-fuel, 139 Antenna, 109 AOMC. See Army Ordnance Missile Command. Apollo, 48, 54 program name approved, 47 program name suggested, 36 Apollo Applications Program, iii "Apollo Egress Criteria," 118 ground rules, 118 operations and control procedures criteria, 118 requirements for implementation of emergency egress systems, 118 space vehicle design criteria, 118 Apollo Egress Working Group, 118 formed, 118 prepared "Apollo Egress Criteria," 118 Apollo engineering order, first isused, 135 to fabricate command module mockup, 135 to fabricate service module mockup, 135 Apollo launch vehicle (Saturn), 50 See also Boosters; Appendix 4, 224-227; and Appendix 7, 234-235. Apollo program, xi, 3, 54, 62, 66, 78, 84 DX priority assigned, 130, 152, 154 flight operation plan for Fiscal Year 1963, 186 fli.ght plan outline, 193 mission objectives, 112 primary responsibilities relocated at Houston, 130, 143 schedule established by NASA Hq, 113, 186 STG responsibilities, I 13 Apollo Project Office, 131,132 formed, 50 responsible to MSC Director, 131 functions maintain liaison with contractors, 132 monitor contractor work, 131 resolve technical problems, 131 Apollo Project Office Manager, iii Apollo Rendezvous Phases (ARP), 82 Apollo-Saturn Coordination Panels, 218 See also MSFC-MSC Coordination Panels and MSFC-MSC-LOC Coordination Panels. Apollo space suit, 123, 194 circuit, 157 Hamilton Standard Division of United Aircraft Corporation selected to develop, 130, 194 International Latex Corporation to fabricate pressure garment, 194 Apollo spacecraft, iii, 50, 152, 154, 160 adapter, 101 attitude jets, 118 boilerplates proposed, 46, 131 concept, xiii, 65 configuration, 74, 136, 147, 165, 179 contractor selected, 51,106, 128 design, xiii, 73,136, 176 development program, xiii, 57, 130, 131, 132 DX priority, 152, 154 feasibility studies, xi, 50, 54, 56, 64, 66, 68, 73, 89, 98 ground support equipment, 101 guidance and navigation system study, v, 50, 65, 160 in-house design study, 55 invitation to bid, 50, 101 mockup, 162, 167, 188 computerized, 162 instrumented, 162 pitch and yaw inertia, 118 prenegotiation conference, 131 proposals submitted, 50, 113

238

INDEX reliability, 113 estimate, 163 prediction study, 163 Request for Proposal, 107 roll inertia, 118 Source Evaluation Board, 104 specifications, 50, 79, 80, 87, 100, 163 Statement of Work, 87, 98, 101, 104, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 137, 190, 192 completed, 131 engineering and development test plan, 126 deleted, 182 expanded, 120 ground operational support system, 101, 126 mission control center, 126 lunar landing module, 104, 126 deleted, 182 Phase A, 101 Phase B, 101 Phase C, 101 revised to include LEM requirements, 182 space laboratory module, 104, 126 deleted, 182 subcontractors selected, 130, 134, 138, 142, 143, 144, 152, 160 systems, 59 communication and instrumentation, 66, 103, 125, 126, 190 crew, 103, 140, 141, 164 earth landing, 103, 165, 177 electrical power, 103, 124, 125, 192 environmental control, 103, 124, 157, 164, 167 guidance and control, 102 launch escape, 103, 138, 141, 165, 177 mission propulsion, 121,142, 165 reaction control, 102, 142, 164, 176 structural, 103, 163 vernier propulsion, 102, 121 See also Spacecraft, Command module, Service module, Ltmar excursion module, Lunar excursion vehicle, and Spacecraft adapter. spacecraft contract negotiations with NAA, 130, 131 changes to original Statement of Work, 131 Technical Panels, 131 Technical Subcommittees, 131 Spacecraft Program, iii, 154 Spacecraft Project Office (ASPO), xiii, xiv, 69, 140, 147, 159, 166, 171,187 budgets and schedules, 143, 181 developed preliminary program schedule for three approaches to lunar landing mission, 144 direct ascent, 144 earth orbit rendezvous, 144 lunar orbit rendezvous, 144 directed Ad Hoc Lunar Landing Module Working Group, 138 directed NAA to design earth landing system, 165 command module cant angle, 165 depressurizatlon of reaction control system propellants, 165 no deployable heatshield, 165 no roll orientation control, 165 offset center of gravity, 165 directed NAA to design spacecraft atmosphere for 5 psla pure oxygen, 167 established at MSC, 130, 132, 135 mission and engineering studies, 143 monthly design review meeting, 143, 159, 165, 167 organization, 142, 143,232 Apollo Technical Liaison Groups, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 76-80, 113,210 Group for Configurations and Aerodynamics, 61-64, 70, 71, 78, 210 Group for Guidance and Control, 61-64, 71, 73, 80, 210 Group on Heating, 61-64, 68, 69, 78, 211 Group on Human Factors, 61-64, 68, 69, 78, 79, 211 Group for Instrumentation and Communications, 61, 63, 64, 66, 79, 211 Group for Mechanical Systems, 61, 63, 64, 66, 80, 211 Group for Navigation, Guidance and Control, 70, 71, 80 Group for Onboard Propulsion, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 79, 211 Group for Structures and Materials, 61-64, 70, 80, 211 Group on Trajectory Analysis, 61-64, 68, 80, 211 plan formulated by MSC, 60 objectives and scope, 60-61 to coordinate NASA inter-Center information exchange, 50 Apollo test program, 183, 193 boilerplate, 131 data acquisition, 183 Appold, Norman C., 207 Argentina, 32 Armitage, Peter J., 211,216 Armour Research Foundation, 190, 200 contract for lunar surface conditions investigation, 189 Armstrong, Neil A., 152, 189 Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA), 2, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 31-34, 36, 37 Development Operations Division, 31, 38 See also United States Army. Army Corps of Engineers, 181,190 Army Ordnance Missile Command (AOMC), 12, 14, 16, 20, 21 24, 27, 32 Arnold Engineering Development Center, 160, 191 Mark I altitude chamber, 191 environmental tests, 191 propulsion system development tests, 191 reaction control development tests, 191 wind tunnel tests for Apollo data, 160 dynamic stability, 160 heat transfer, 160 pressure stability, 160 static stability, 160 See also United States Air Force. ARP. See Apollo Rendezvous Phases. ARPA. See Advanced Research Projects Agency. ARPA-NASA Large Booster Review Committee, 16 Ash, Herbert R., 142 ASPO. See Apollo Spacecraft Project Office. Assembly operations in earth orbit, 24, 25 Astro-Electronics Division, 100 contract for television system, Ranger program, I00 See also Radio Corporation of America. Astronaut simulator, 110 Mercury-Atlas 4, 110 Astronaut training. See Crew training. Astronautics, 155 Astronauts, 6 selected, first group, 2 selected, second group, 189 Astronomers Soviet Union, 31 University of California, 183 Astronomical constants, 80 Astrosextant, 164

Apollo

Apollo Apollo 135,

239

INDEX

Atlantic Missile Range (AMR), 14, 17, 32, 48, 61, 65, 74, 75, 79, 84, 87, 99, 100, 105, 107, 110, 118, 120, 128, 135, 140, 154, 160, 194 Atlantic Ocean, 140 Atlas, 7, 18, 132, 140, 160 Atlas-Able, 32, 55, 65 Atlas-Agena, 132, 133 reentry tests, 94 Atlas-Agena B, 35, 36, 42, 43 launched Ranger spacecraft, 107, 120, 135, 154 lunar mission, 36, 42, 135, 154 Atlas-Centaur, 35, 115 Atlas D, use in Project Fire, 139 Atmosphere, 41 100 percent oxygen in spacecraft, 165, 188 30-pound weight saving, 165 advantages, 167 fire hazard, 167 reduced control complexity, 165 validation program, 106, 167, 188 earth's, 30 spacecraft, 41, 58, 167 Attitude control, 41, 58, 102, 136, 185 by control jets, 58 by thrust vector, 58 crew motion effects negligible, 185 engines relocated, 157 propulsion, 44 Attitude orientation studies, 178, 186 completed by NAA, 186 Augerson, William S., 28, 209 Aurora ? launch, 160 recovery, 161 See also Spacecraft, U.S. Australia, 32, 41 Austrian Imperial Army, 5 Automatic checkout system for launch vehicle programs, 114 Saturn C-1 through Nova, 114 "Automatic Interplanetary Station," 29 Auxiliary power, 40 system, 22 Auxiliary propulsion, 40 for guidance maneuvers, 40 Avco Corporation, 71, 74, 159 participated in Apollo spacecraft bid, 114 selected by NAA to design and install ablative material on spacecraft surface, 144 Aviation Writers Association, 44 Azusa, Calif., 184

B
Bailey, F. John, 217 Bailey, Glenn F., 217 Baillie, Richard F., 218 Baird, L. E., 213 Baker, Thomas F., 142, 146, 217 Ballistic Missile Division, 11, 21, 32, 59 Ballistic probes, 22 Ballistic trajectory, 60 Baltimore, Md., 64, 73 Barlow, Edward J., 100, 214 Barnard, Jack, 119, 142 Barraza, Robert O., 219 Batteries, 192, 193 Battin, Richard H., 112 Bays, Jean K., xiv "Beach abort" test, 44 Mercury spacecraft, 44 Beck, Desmond, 219 Becker, John V., 56, 210, 214 Beddingfield, Samuel T., 216, 219 Beduerftig, Herman F., 64, 211. 216

Beech Aircraft Corporation, selected to build hydrogenoxygen storage tanks, 168 Beeler, De E., 20, 22, 208 Behavioral sciences, 37 Belgium, 32 Be Lieu, Kenneth, 212 Belka, 53 See also Dogs. Bell Aircraft Company, 7 Bell Aircraft Corporation, 37 Bell Dyna-Soar. See Spacecraft configurations. Bellman, Donald R., 63, 211 Bennett, James A., 218 Bermuda, 140 Berry, Secrest L., 212 Bertram, Emil P., 217,220, 221 Bikle, Paul F., 56, 63 Bioinstrumentation, 41, 53 blood pressure, 53 breathing, 53 heart, 53 Biological investigations, 37 specimens, 53 Biomedical flight program, 94 Biotechnology, 94 Bird, John D., 34, 36, 65, 81, 86, 91, 115, 144 Black, Dugald O., 218 Blacksburg, Va., 183 lunar exploration conference, 183 Blake, John, 69 Bland, William M., 214 Blaw Knox Company, 109 antenna feasibility and design studies, 109 Blunted cone (RVX). See Spacecraft configurations. Bode, H. W., 207, 208 Boeing Airplane Company, The, 37, I01 bid on feasibility study, 57 bid on LEM, 186 invited to bid on LEM, 171 Boeing Company, The, 134 contract from NASA for S-1C stage, 130, 133, 139 familiarization, 139 indoctrination, 139 planning, 139 selection as prime contractor, 139 follow-on contract design, 139 development, 139 launch operations, 139 manufacture, 139 test, 139 contractor for stage integration of Saturn C-5, 134 Boilerplate (BP) 1 accepted by NASA, 187 delivered to NAA Engineering Development Laboratory for land and water impact tests, 187 heatshield, 180 Boilerplate (BP) 3 cabin interior arrangement, 187 shipped to MSC, 187 Boilerplate (BP) 6, 193 pad abort test scheduled, 193 Boilerplate (BP) 25 one-fourth-scale impact test, 180 delivered to MSC for tests, 183 flotation, 183 handling, 183 towing, 183 water recovery, 183 water stability, 183 Boilerplate program, 131,152, 177 Bond, Aleck C., 100, 214, 221 Bonestell, Chesley, 6 Booster Evaluation Committee, 20, 29, 209

240

INDEX

Boosters Atlas, 7,132,140, 160 Atlas-Able, 65 Atlas-Agena B, 35, 135, 154 Atlas-Centaur, 35 Atlas D, 139 clustered engine, 2, 8, 12, 13 1.5 million pounds of thrust, 2, 8, 9 Juno V, 2, 12, 16 Jupiter-C, 9 Little Joe, 141 Little Joe II, 131,141 Little Joe Senior, 94 Nova, 14, 22, 25, 47, 96, 98, 99, 105, 106, 155, 176 Redstone, 87, 100 Saturn, 10, 12, 16, 22, 24, 26, 46, 47, 54 development, 31 Scout, 35, 139 single-engine, 13 Thor-Able, 12, 13, 14 Thor-Delta, 35 Titan, 20 Titan II (modified), 132 Titan-C, 20, 29 See also names of each; Appendix 4, 224-227, and Appendix 7, 234-235. Borman, Frank, 189 Braham, H., 110 Bramlet, James B., 118, 221 Brandner, Friedrieh W., 221 Brashears, Robert R., 215 Brewer, Gerald W., 217 Briggs, Thomas W., 218 Briskman, Robert D., 212, 213 Brissenden, Roy F., 115 British Interplanetary Society, 6 Brooks Air Force Base, Tex., 167 Brown, B. Porter, 217 Brown, Clinton E., 65, 68, 98, 147 Brown, Harvey H., 207 Brownsville, Tex., 105 Brucker, Wilber M., 14, 32, 53 Bruns, Rudolph H., 220 Bryan, Frank, 221 Buckheim, Robert W., 208 Bundy, McGeorge, 154 Burlage, Henry, Jr., 211 Busch, Arthur M., 215 Business Assessment Panels, 218 for evaluation of proposals for Apollo spacecraft, 107 members appointed, 107 Business Subcommittee, 217 for evaluation of proposals for Apollo spacecraft, 107, 114 members appointed, 107 Butler, Earl M., 219 Butler, George, Jr., 221

Camp Irwin, Calif., 14 Canoga Park, Calif., 15 Canright, Richard B., 54, 80, 118, 210, 213, 221 Cape Canaveral, Fla., 94, 115, 116, 155, 156, 171, 191 Cape Canaveral, off-shore, 65, 105 Cape Canaveral, on-shore, 105 facilities extended, 23, 77, 108 possible direct ascent launch site, 105 Capsule, 32 size, 24 weight, 24, 32 Capsule-laboratory spacecraft, 32, 33 weight, 33 Carbon dioxide, 41 Carley, Richard R., 210, 215 Carley, William J., 64 Carpenter, M. Scott, 19, 160, 161,216 Carter, David L., 100, 214 Case Institute of Technology, 12 Casey, Francis W., Jr., 216 Cedar Rapids, Ia., 134 Centaur, 16, 26, 29 assembly in earth orbit, 24 modified, 32 Chamberlain Hotel, 114 Chamberlin, James A., 23, 31, 44, 93, 104, 105, 109, 214, 221 Chambers, Thomas V., 215 Chance Vought Corporation, 27, 38, 73 awarded contract by MSFC to study launching of manned exploratory expedition from earth orbit, 73 bid on feasibility study, 57 company-funded study (MALLAR), 36, 44 participated in Apollo spacecraft bid, 101, 114 selected by NASA Hq to study spacecraft rendezvous, 141, 144 briefed by Langley Research Center personnel on lunar orbit rendezvous, 144 See also Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. Charyk, Joseph V., 75,209 Chauvin, Leo T., 18, 211 Cheatham, Donald C., 211,217 Chemical analysis equipment, 73 Chile, 32 Chilton, Robert G., 41, 45, 62, 65, 69, 105, 118, 209, 214, 215, 220 Christmas Island, Pacific Ocean, 105 Chrysler Corporation, 37 contractor for stage integration of Saturn C-I, 134 selected to build 20 first stage boosters, 119 Cicolani, Luigi, 215 Circumlunar flight, xiii, 5, 6, 11, 44, 48, 56, 67, 87, 93, 101, 144 manned, 15, 17, 35 Circumlunar mission, iv, 24, 31, 35, 44 Circumnavigation, lunar, 62 Cislunar flight, 38 Cislunar space, 41, 45 Clarke, Arthur C., 6 Clarke, Victor C., Jr., 64, 211 Clauser, Milton U., 207 Clemence, Raymond R., 141 Cleveland, O., 168, 170 CM. See Command module.

C
C-133A, Cabin, 191 173 atmosphere, 107, 178 decompression, 107, 123 pressure regulator, 177 "Caboose" (space laboratory), 40 California Institute of Technology, Callaway, R. C., Jr., 8, 12 Cameras, 29, i08, 178,182,190 16-mm, 178 70-ram pulse, 178 by Eastman Kodak Company, location, 178

14, 17,200

21

Cohen, Cohen, Cohen, Collins, Collins, Collins

Aaron, 220 Jack, 63 William, 211 Daniel D., 219 Matthew R., Jr., Radio Company,

100, 214 selected

by system,

NAA 134

for

Apollo

spacecraft

telecommunications

241

INDEX

Command module (CM), 93, 101, 102, 103, 128, 147, 152, 170, 179, 183, 184, 185, 199 aft compartment, 176, 198 camera system, 182 center of gravity, 179, 198 configuration design work, 135, 157 crew couches, 41,122, 140, 164, 198, 200 design configuration change, 157, 179 forward compartment, 157 design selected, 50 earth landing system, 103, 122 environmental control system, 157, 187 changes, 157, 199 flotation studies, 178 hatches, side wall, 136, 164, 183, 198 heat exchanger, 103,159 heatshield, 136, 176-179, 200 requirements, 136, 177 humidity, 103, 164 increase in system weight and volume, 136, 183 interface problems, 177, 178 launch escape system, 103 mockup, 152, 162 first ptiblic showing, 152 ordered, 135 received by MSC (interior arrangement), 188 paraglider compatibility, 136 preliminary mockup, 151 radiation protection (water), 103, 136, 157 reaction controls, 183 reduction in diameter, 136 redundant propellant tankage, 136 reentry, 179 seating arrangement, 58, 164 shirtsleeve atmosphere, 136 specifications, iv structure, 103, 122, 136, 161, 190 survival environment, 182 weight, 55, 56, 82, 157, 165, 176, 177, 190, 192 See also Apollo spacecraft and Spacecraft. Command module-lunar excursion module (CM-LEM), 172 docking and crew transfer operations Committee on Aerodynamics, 7 See also National Advisory Aeronautics. study, Committee 187 for

VHF transmitter and receiver, 103, 199 voice communications, 126 instrumentation subsystems, 104, 126 auxiliary instrumentation calibration, 126 cameras, 104, 126 clock, 104, 126 telescope, 104, 126 data disposition, 104, 126 onboard recorders, 104, 126 telemetry, 104 panel display indicators, 126 sensors, 104, 126 Communications satellite, 35 worldwide, 91 Complex 34, 23, 94 Complex 39, 161, 171 Computers, 58, 119, 195 digital, 79, 160, 200 displays and interfaces, 119 guidance, 41,119, 133, 180 192 logic design, 119 programming, 119 Honeywell 1800 electronic, 180 onboard, 79, 166, 180 microcircuit, 166 Configurations, 45, 68, 74 Congress, xi, 2, 11, 38, 47, 50, 67, 77, 88, 135 Conlon, John W., 215 Connell, Harvey A., 64, 211 Conrad, Charles, Jr., 189 Control, 58, 68, 73, 152 Controlled land recovery, Mercury Mark II objective, 132 Controls and displays, 162 Convair/Astronautics Division, 37, 68, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 98, 99 bid on feasibility study, xi, 57 final report submitted, 77, 88 first technical review, 65 selected for Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 50, 59 See also General Dynamics Corporation. Cooney, Thomas V., 63, 211 Cooper, L. Gordon, Jr., 19, 217 Cooper, Paul T., 208 Corbett, Wayne W., 218 Cornag, Robert, 207 Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc., bid on feasibility study, 57 Corson, Dale R., 207 Cosmic noise, 143 Cosmic rays, 46 influence on living beings, 46, 76 Couch, 123, 140, 164 design, 41, 140 position, 140, 164 Crane, Robert M., 22 Crew environment, 167 Crew systems couches, 103, 140, 157, 164 emergency equipment, 123 personal parachutes, 123, 141, 190, 198 postlanding, 123 first aid supplies, 123 food, 123 location aids, 123 three-day water supply, 123 three-man liferaft, 123 exercise equipment, 123, 190 lightweight cap, 123 medical instrumentation, 123 sanitation area, 103 "s|firlsleeve" _zarments, 123

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 33, 133 Committees. See Appendix 2,207-222. Communications, 5, 41 deep-space network, 41 direct link, 152 earth to lunar excursion vehicle, 152 earth to spacecraft, 152 ground tracking network, 41 telemetry, 41, 182 television, 41,152, 182 voice, 41, 152, 182 Communications and instrumentation system, 66, 103, 125, 126 communications subsystems, 103, 126, 199 altimeter and rendezvous radar, 104, 126 deleted, 182 antennas, 104, 126 C-band transponder, 104 deep-space communications, 103 HF/VHF recovery subsystem, 104 intercommunication system, 103 minitrack beacon, 104 near-field transceiver, 104 radio recovery aid, 126, 182 telemetry, 103, 126 television, 104, 126 tracking transponder, 126

242

INDEX

shock mitigation devices, 103 support and restraint systems, 103 Crew Systems Division, 201 Radiation Branch, 201 See also Manned Spacecraft Center. Crew training, 93 equipment, 191 mission simulators, 191 part-task trainers, 191 special purpose simulators, 191 Mercury Mark II objective, 132 Crichton, Frank M., 217 Crossfield, A. Scott, 208 Crowley, John W., Jr., 7, 18, 20 Cryogenic fuels, 67 storage in space, 5, 24, 27, 33, 79 absorptivity, 27 emissivity, 27 Cumberland, John I., 209 Cumberland Island, Ga., 105 Cummings, Clifford I., 44 Curran, John M., 217 Cushman, Ralph E., 218 Cylindrical laboratory, 33

I)
D-2. See Spacecraft configurations. Dahm, Werner K., 64, 211 Dalby, James F., 211 Data and computation, 191,197 Davenport, Wilbur B., Jr., 208 Davis, Leighton I., 96, 105 Day, Richard F., 215 de Bey, L. G., 208 Debus, Kurt H., 96, 105, 218 Debus-Davis Committee, 118 Decompression, 41, 107, 167 Deep space, iii probes, 19 Deep Space Instrumentation Facility, 75, 143, 177, power amplifier, 177 "S" band capability added, 143 transponder, 177 Deep space tracking stations, 14, 41 Goldstone, Calif., 14, 19, 109, 143 Hartebeesthoek, South Africa, 109 Krugersdorp, South Africa, 55 Woomera, Australia, 19, 109, 143 DeFrance, Smith J., 62, 65 DeFries, Paul J., 114, 138, 147,213,221 DeLeon, Catherine A., xiv Dell, Melvin, 220 Delta V (rate of incremental change in velocity), 166 requirements established by ASPO, 166 DeMar, Norman E., 63, 211 Dempsey, James R., 207,208 Denitrogenation, 107 Department of Defense (DOD), 9, 13, 16, 17, 9t, 120 Director of Defense Research and Engineering, I00 Deputy, 99, 100, 133 Mercury Mark II responsibilities, 133 Development and test plan, 127 design information and development tests, 192 flight missions, 127, 192 major development flight tests, 127, 192 major ground tests, 127 quality, reliability, and integration tests, 127 Development Operations Division, 31,38 transferred to NASA, 38 See also Army Ballistic Missile Agency. Digesu, Fred E., 138, 221

199

32,

Dipprey, Duane F., 64, 211 Direct ascent, iv, 6, 16, 25, 26, 28, 33, 50, 51, 66, 67, 68, 74, 76, 107-110, 120, 132, 144, 168, 170, 176 launch vehicles, 105, 155, 168, 176, 196 Nova configurations, 105, 120, 155 Saturn C-8 proposal, 161 Discoverer XVII, 60 launched into polar orbit, 60 Disher, John H., 22, 25, 42-44, 46, 56, 57, 60, 80, 93, 118, 210, 212, 217, 221 Displays, 41 Dixon, Thomas F., 197 Docking, 198 methods, 150, 187 lunar orbital, 187 translunar, 187 requirements, 161, 187 design and functional simplicity, 187 maximum docking reliability, 187 maximum visibility, 187 minimum docking time, 187 minimum weight, 187 DOD. See Department of Defense. DOD-NASA Large Launch Vehicle Planning Group. See Golovin Committee. DOD-NASA Saturn Ad Hoc Committee, 208 Dodgen, John A., 81, 115,216 Dogs, 76, 77 Belka, 53, Strelka, 53 Dolan, Thomas E., 27, 36, 44 Donegan, James J., 139 Donlan, Charles J., 23, 31, 36, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 98, 210 Donnelly, Paul C., 217,220 Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 37, 73, 133, 183 awarded contract by MSFC on manned exploratory expedition launched from earth orbit, 73 bid on Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 57 bid on lunar excursion module, 186 contract to modify S-IVB stage for Saturn C-1B program, 113 invited to bid on lunar excursion module, 171 participated in Apollo spacecraft bid, 101, 114 reported air transport of S-IV stage feasible, 85 selected to build Saturn C-1 S-IV stage, 43 selected to develop S-IVB stage of Saturn C-5, 130, 180 Douglas, James H., 32 Downey, Calif., 141,143 Downhower, Walter J., 213 Drake, Hubert M., 63,208, 210, 213,214 Draper, C. Stark, 27, 43, 108 Drill, to sample lunar soil, 73 Dryden, Hugh L., 12, 15, 17, 48, 74, 75, 108, 166, 207, 209 Ducander, Charles F., 75 Duekett, Carl E., 208 Dynamic pressure, Little Joe 5B, 85 Dyna-Soar program, 20, 22, 75, 152 planned MSFC participation, 113 post-Dyna-Soar program, 75

I:
127, Eagle Picher Company, 193 selected as subcontractor for zinc-silver teries, 193 Earth landing system, 103, 153 3 landing parachutes, 103 FIST-type drogue parachutes, 122, 182 parachute risers, 103 ribbon drogue parachute, 103,198 Earth-moon trajectory, 17 oxide bat-

243
334-987 0 69 17

INDEX orbit, 5, 24, 33, 48, 147 qualification flights, 39, 168 schedule, 39 Earth orbit rendezvous, iv, v, 6, 24, 33, 36, 50, 65, 66, 74, 82, 86, 120, 137, 140, 144, 168, 170, 176, 179, 196, 197 Lundin Committee preference, 95 meeting at NASA Hq, 138, 139 MSFC to study, 107 multiple launchings of Saturn C-2 required, 74, 82 Earth orbital assembly, 25, 33 operational problems, 96 Earth orbital missions, 39 low-altitude, unmanned reentry flights from superorbital velocities, 101,147 spacecraft weight, 39 to test Apollo spacecraft, 130 Earth parking orbit, 120, 147 Earth satellite mission, 31 Eastman Kodak Company, 21 Eccentric earth orbit, 29, 73 Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., 75, 78 Edwards, Fred G., 219 Edwards Rocket Site, Calif., 161 F-1 engine firing, 161 Eggers, Alfred J., Jr., 20, 22, 25, 26, 207,208, 213 Eggleston, John M., 64, 81, 210, 215 Egress, crew, 30, 182,183 See also Hatches. Ehricke, Krafft A., 207 Eiband, A. Martin, 218 Eickmeier, Alfred B., 45,209, 216,219 Eisenhower Administration, 77 Eisenhower, President Dwight D., II, 12, 14, 31, 32, 35 El Centro Naval Air Facility, Calif., 180,183, 191 Apollo drop-test program, 180 Gemini drop-test program, 180 Electrical power, 192 primary source, 84, 192 Electrical power system, 103, 124, 125 display and control panel, 103, 124 fuel-cell modules, 103, 124, 125, 192 fuel equipment control, 103, 124 distribution, 124 heat exchangers, 124 radiators, 124 silver-zinc batteries, 103, 124, 125, 192, 193 requirements, 103, 124 Electronic Data Processing Division, 180 furnished Honeywell 1800 electronic computer to MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, 180 See also Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company. Ellington Air Force Base, Tex., 186 Elliptical cone vehicle, 71 Emergency detection system, 192 Enderson, Lawrence W., Jr., 27 Engineering satellite, 33 Engines F-l, 2, 75, 120, 161,164 H-l, 46, 76, 155 .1-2, 46, 109, 113,120, 161,164 LR-115 (Centaur), 77, lt3 LR-119, 76 liquid-hydrogen and liquid-.xygen, 32, 46, 99, 109, 127 lunar takeoff, 24 M-l, 120, 161 main, service module, 184 rocket, liquid-fueled, 2 variable thrust (descent), 27 See also names of each. England, 6 Entry corridor, 27 Earth

Entry vehicle, Environmental 199

57 control system, 103, 124, 125, 154, 164,

AiResearch Manufacturing Company named to design and build, 134 to provide shirtsleeve environment, 103 cabin atmosphere, 103, 167 carbon dioxide removal, 41,103, 124 heat rejection, 158, 168 humidity control, 103, 124 pressure control, 103, 124 temperature control, 103, 124 toxic gas removal, 41 Environmental satellite, 22, 28 Erb, R. Bryan, 45, 209 Escape rocket motor 200,000-pound-thrust, 138 contract to Lockheed Propulsion Company, 138 solid-propellant motor, 138 Escape system, 94, 95 Little Joe 5B, 85 Escape velocity, 13, 14, 68 Escher, William 1. D., 213 Esgar, Jack B., 63, 211 Evaluation Board (spacecraft feasibility studies), 56, 210 findings, 59 members, 56 recommendations, 59 Evans, James S., 218 Executive Committc_-. for Aeronautics. See National Advisory Committee

Experiments, 123 chemical, 5 Mercury follow-on, 29 physical, 5 scientific, 80 Exploration of solar system, 67 Exploration of space, 88, 188 Explorer I, launched, 2, 9 Extraterrestrial life forms, 37 Extravehicular activity, 5, 123 Extravehicular space suit design, 166 shipped to Vought Astronautics, thermal coverall, 166

166

F-1

engine, 28, 120, 133, 134, 161 accelerated funding proposed, 99 contract awarded to Rocketdyne, 2, 167 design, 2 development, 2, 47, 164 fired at full power, 17, 161 thrust chamber

static test at Edwards, 75, 78, 161 Division, 180 See also Manned Spacecraft Center. Faget, Maxime A., 20, 22, 23, 31, 36, 40, 44, 54, 56, 62, 66, 93, 94, 98, 104, 105, 143, 207. 208, 210, 211, 212, 214, 221 Fairchild Controls Corporation, 166 nficrocircuit manufacturer, 166 Feasibility study (spacecraft), 56, 59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70 74, 77, 89, 90 bidders briefing, 54 contractor proposals, 57 contractors selected, 59 final reports submitted, 87 rnidterm review, 76 objectives announced, 54 Request for Proposal, 54 timetable, 54 Felder, James T. 220 Facilities

244

INDEX

Fellows, Robert, 212 Feltz, Charles H., 127 Ferdman, Saul, 65, 137 Ferguson, Richard B., 45,209, 211,216 Ferry rocket, 42 Fichtner, Hans J., 219 Fielder, Dennis E., 211,216, 220 Finegan, Charles J., 218 Fire hazards, 185 First Symposium on Space Flight, 6 Fiscal Year 1960, 19, 23, 32, 35 Fiscal Year 1961, 35 Fiscal Year 1962, 35, 55, 67, 84, 140 budget presentation to Congress, 91 lunar program, 35, 67 Fiscal Year 1963, 84, 140, 160, 180, 186 Fiscal Year 1964, 140, 161 Fiscal Year 1965, 161 Fiscal Year 1966, 113, 161 Fiscal Year 1967, 161 Fiscal Year 1968, 23, 75 Flat-bottomed lifting vehicle, 71, 72 Flat-face cone, 71 Flax, Alexander H., 207 Fleming Committee, 50, 85, 91, 118,212 report submitted, 95 facilities, 50 launch vehicles, 50, 96 See also Ad Hoe Task Group for a Manned Lunar Landing Study. Fleming, William A., 80, 85, 98, 212,213 Flickinger, Don D., 208 Flight Mechanics Panel. See Technical Assessment Panels. Flight path control, 102, 121 Flight research and development instrumentation system, 172 lunar excursion module, 172 Flight Research Center, 18, 20, 43, 45, 56, 62, 63, 78, 197 Flight simulators, 13 Flight summary. See Appendix 4, 224-227. Flight Systems Division Apollo Project Office formed, 50 fix design constraints for Apollo spacecraft, 55, 57 in-house design study, 57 Flight Vehicles Integration Branch, 94 Organization chart, 231 See also Space Task Group. Flight tests, 159 Little Joe II, 153, 160 program, 181 suborbital, 153, 160 SA-1, 46 SA-2, 155, 156 Flight Vehicles Integration Branch. See Flight Systems Division. Food, 123 dehydrated, 123 freeze-dried, 123, 192 reconstitution bags, 185 design criteria, 185 Ford Motor Company, 43 Aeronutronic Division, 43 Fort Davis, Tex., 10 Foster, Ross J., 70 France, 10, 32 Franklin, Marion R., Jr., 142, 216 Franz, Julius, 195 Freedom 7, 87, first U.S. manned space flight, launched, 87 recovery, 87 See also Spacecraft, U.S.

Freltag, Robert F., 208 Freiwirth, Paul K., 27 French, John C., 217 Freon, 178 Frick, Charles W., 135, 140, 142, 167, 168, 197 Friendship 7, 140 first U.S. manned orbital flight, 140 launch, 140 recovery, 140 See also Spacecraft, U.S. Fuel cell, 40, 85, 103, 125, 143, 154, 168, 185, 192, contract for development to Pratt & Whitney, 143 Gemini, 199 heat rejection, 164 liquid-hydrogen, liquid-oxygen, 84, 168, 192 potable water, 192 progress reviewed, 143 radiators, 164, 185 Funding. See Appendix 5,228-229. Funk, Jack, 28, 45,147, 209, 211,215 Furman, Jack H., 219

199 84,

G
Gagarin, Yuri A. (cosmonaut, Vostok I), xi, 50, 81 Gantry, 94 Gardiner, David B., Jr., 219 Gardner, Trevor, 212 Garrett Corporation, AiResearch Manufacturing Company, 134 Gas-jet pistol, 7 Gates, Sally D., xiv Gavin, Joseph M., 137 Geissler, Ernst D., 138, 147,221 Gemini Program, iii, xiii, 192 rendezvous operations, 139, 171 to provide Apollo related experience, 139 Gemini Project Office, 180 See also Manned Spacecraft Center. General Dynamics/Astronautics, participated in Apollo spacecraft bid, 113 General Dynamics/Convair, 101, 135, 160, 190 awarded contract to design and manufacture Little Joe II, 130, 160 General Dynamics Corporation, 57 bid on lunar excursion module, 186 Convair/Astronautics Division, 71, 76, 99 invited to bid on lunar excursion module, 17 l General Electric Company, 64, 71, 72, 76, 98, 99 bid on spacecraft feasibility study, xi, 57, 89, 90 final report submitted, 87, 88 Missile and Space Vehicle Department. 64, 89, 90, 114 participated in Apollo spacecraft bid, 101, 114 selected for Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 50, 59 selected to develop and operate a checkout system, 138 to ensure reliability of the total space vehicle, 138 to provide integration analysis of total space vehicle, 138 General Motors Corporation, AC Spark Plug Divisic)n, 160 Gilbert, David W., 142 Gill, William L., 201,216 Giller, Edward B., 208 Gilruth, Robert R., 14, 23, 31, 36, 39, 43, 44, 45, 54, 56, 87, 93, 98, 105, 107, 111, 112, 113, 118, 132, 134, 138, 161, 165, 167, 183, 189, 198, 207, 208, 210, 218, 221, 222 Glasser, Otto J., 100, Glassman, L. H., 213 214

87

245

INDEX Glenn, John H., Jr., xi, 19, 130, 140, 217 Glennan, T. Keith, 12, 14, 15, 19, 29, 32, 35, 42, 47, 54, 209 Glossary of Abbreviations. See Appendix 1,205. Goddard Space Flight Center, 21, 34, 36, 45, 47, 48, 53, 61,139, 147, 197 industry briefing, 48, 50, 53 Godman, Robert R., 211 Goerner, Erich E., 64, 211 Goett Committee, iii, xi, 2,208 See also Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight. Goett, Harry J., 18, 22, 25, 3l, 36, 45, 47, 53, 56, 208, 209, 210 Golden, Harvey, 216, 219 Goldstone, Calif., 109 Goldstone Tracking Facility, 14, 41, 109, 143 contact with Ranger IV Golovin Committee (DOD-NASA Large Launch Vehicle Planning Group), I00, 107-108, 110, 115, 118, 214 established, 99, 100 responsibilities guidance and control, 100 instrumentation, 100 large launch vehicle systems, 100 launch vehicle configurations, 100 propulsion elements, 100 Golovin, Nicholas E., 36, 100, 214 Goodman, Robert R., 63 Goodwin, Glen, 62, 211,215 Goodyear Aircraft Corporation, 10t bid on spacecraft feasibility study, 57 Gorman, Robert E., 220 Gornason, R. Fabian, 207 Government-furnished equipment, 171, 172 Grana, David C., 27 Granfield, Allen L., 218 Graves, Wallace D., 142 Gray, Wilbur H., 217 Great Britain, 32 Grimwood, James M., xiv, 7, 60 Grissom, Virgil I., 19, 100, 167, 215 Ground operational support system, 101 Ground Operational Support Systems and Operations Panel. See Technical Assessment Panels. Ground support equipment, 176, 177 Ground tracking network, 139 Ground tracking station, 139 Group for Configurations and Aerodynamics, 71, 78 Center activities presentations, 78 configurations under study reviewed, 71 recommendations, 71 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Group for Guidance and Control, 71.73 changed name to Group forNavigation, Guidance and Control, 80 suggestions for research and development abort guidance sequence, 73 "absolute emergency" navigation system, 71 Land camera, 71 slide rule, 71 adequate guidance and control concept, 71 application of Surveyor equipment, 71 development of ground display mission progress evaluation, 73 effects of artificial g configuration on observation and guidance, 73 effects of lunar impact on return navigation equipment, 71 problems of planet tracking, 71 radio ranging to reduce accuracy requirements, 71 study of effect of onboard machinery on attitude alignment and control requirement, 71 study of guidance and navigation system hardware drift-error, 71 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Group on Heating, 68, 78 heat protection system, 78 investigation of radiant heat inputs and effects on heatshield, 68 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Group on Human Factors, 69, 78, 79 recommended experiment suggestions from scientific community, 69, 78 radiation dosage design limit, 79 reviewed investigations at NASA Centers, 69 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Group for Instrumentation and Communications, 79 discussed material for Apollo spacecraft specifications, 79 discussed working guidelines antenna pointing information, 79 deep-space communications requirements, 66 digital computer, 79 instrumentation requirements, 79 reentry communications, 79 spacecraft instrumentation and communications, 66 television, 79 temperature environment, 79 tracking considerations, 79 vehicle reentry and recovery, 79 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Group for Mechanical Systems, 80 considered NASA Center studies, 66 auxiliary power systems, 66, 80 chemical, 67 environmental control system, 67, 80 landing and recovery systems, 80 mechanical elements, 66 reaction control systems, 66, 80 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Group for Navigation, Guidance and Control definitions established control, 80 guidance, 80 navigation, 80 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Group for Onboard Propulsion, 67, 79 considered preparation of Apollo spacecraft specification, 79 reviewed feasibility study work on bipropellant spacecraft propellant system, 67 consideration of all-solid fuel propulsion for circumtunar flight, 67 determination of abort propulsion system, 67 determination of midcourse propulsion system, 67 solid-propellant rocket motors, 67 thrust vector control, 67 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Group on Structures and Materials, 70, 80 considered reports on activities of NASA Centers acoustics, 80 heat protection, 80 low-level cooling system in reentry module, 70 meteoroid damage studies, 70 meteoroid _rotection, 70, 80 radiation effects, 80 reentry module shapes, 70 temperature control of spacecraft, 70 vibration, 80 reviewed contractors' progress, 70 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups.

246

INDEX Hammersmith, John L., 213 Hammock, David M., 118, 211,215,221 Hardin, Don, 218 Hardin, John W., Jr., 138 Hardy, James D., 208 Harrington, Robert D., 217 Harris, Emory F., 142 Hartebeesthoek, South Africa, 109 deep-space tracking station, 109 completed, 109 dedicated, 109 Hatches, 173, 187 detail drawings prepared, 176 egress, 164, 182, 183 ingress, 164 emergency, study results, 164, 177, 198 inward-opening, pull-down concept, 164 outward-opening, quick-opening, 164 disadvantages complexity, 164 required explosive charges, 164, 176 weight, 164 side wall, 136 Haviland, Robert P., 207 Hayden Planetarium, 6 Hayes, Richard J., 139, 147 Hays, Edward L., 216 Heat, 160, 164 exchanger, 103 protection, 80, 101 Heating, 45, 58, 68, 74 Heaton Committee, 50, 95, 98, 108, 118, 213 established, 95 report submitted, .50, 108 See also Ad Hoc Task Group for Study of Manned Lunar Landing by Rendezvous Techniques. Heaton, Donald H., 54, 59, 95, 108, 209, 213 Heatshield, 38, 143, 159, 165, 175, 177, 178, 179 ablative material, 69, 122, 144, 165 aluminum, 177 Fiberglas, 177 forward, 177 overall, .57 progress reviewed, 143, 165 Heatshield test, 159 at Ames Research Center, 178 full-scale Mercury spacecraft, 18 lunar reentry speeds, 18 modified for experiments, 29 Heat sink, cold space, 99 Heat transfer, 25 tests at Langley Research Center, 78 Heberlig, Jack C., xiv Hebenstreit, W. B., 208 Helicopter, 161 recovery of MA-7, 161 Hendrickson, Douglas R., 217 Henry, Richard C., 147 Hermach, Charles A., 62, 211 Hiers, James R., 216 High Speed Flight Station (HSFS), 18, 20, 25, 26, 27 Himmell, Seymour C., 63, 211 Hinson, James K., 216 Hjornevik, Wesley L., 104, 106, 214 Hoag, David G., 108, 118, 128 Hoberg, Otto A., 219 Hodge, John D., 31,214,220 Hoelker, Rudolph F., 64, 21 l, 220 Hoffman, Samuel K, 207 Holleman, Euclid C., 63,210, 215 Holmes, D. Brainerd, 111, 118-120, 131, 132, 134, 145, 159, 161,170, 197, 202,221,222

Group

for Trajectory Analysis, 68, 80 changed name to Mission Analysis, 80 recommendations, 80 Van Allen radiation belt model required, 68 See also Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, 37, 44, 137, 201 began company-funded lunar orbit rendezvous feasibility study, 65 bid on Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 57 bid on lunar excursion module, 186 developed company-funded study on lunar orbit rendezvous technique, 137 invited to bid on lunar excursion module, 171 participated in Apollo spacecraft bid, 101, 114 selected to build lunar excursion module, xi, 130, 201 to study unmanned logistic system study, 186 Guardite Division, 57 bid on Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 57 Guidance, 68, 73, 119 Guidance and control system, 19, 68, 102, 147, 159 design study, 43 MSFC-STG relationships and responsibilities, 69, 99 Guidance and navigation system, 65, 130, 137, 159, 160 development, 109 further defined, 146, 147 MIT selected to develop, 106 work statements completed, 106 NAA suggested pitch, yaw,. and roll rates would permit reduction in reacuon control thrust, 182 onboard hardware, 41 Requests for Quotation, 137 released to industry by MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, 137 Source Evaluation Bcrard appointed by NASA Hq, 137 Guidance corridor, 27, 161,162 lunar mission reentry, 161 zero-lift maneuver, 161 Guidance system studies, 25, 27, 128 Apollo guidance requirements, 69 retrothrust programming, 27 terminal guidance system, 27 Gyro, 113

H
H-1 engine, 115, 155 arrived at ABMA, 21 long-duration firing, 21 static-fired, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46 test-fired, 3, 15, 21 See also Engines. Haase, Walter W., 212,218 Haber, Heinz, 6 Habib, Edmund J., 210 Hagan, Phyllis R., xiv Hagen, John P., 15 Half-cone configuration, 71 Hall, Albert C., 87,208 Hall, Eldon W., 57, 66, 80, 100, 118, 138, 147, 176, 210, 212, 214, 221 Hall, Harvey, 100, 108, 110, 214 Hallissy, Joseph M., Jr., 211,216 Ham (chimpanzee), passenger on Mercury-Redstone 2, 74 Hamilton Standard Division, 130 selected as prime contractor for Apollo space suit assembly, 176, 194 International Latex Corporation to fabricate pressure garment, 176, 194 See also United Aircraft Corporation.

247

INDEX sensor, 119 experiments, 119 Horn, Helmut J., 147 Horner, Richard E., 34, 35, 36, 42,209 Hornig, Donald F., 212 Hosenthien, Hans H., 220 Houbolt, John C., 42, 65, 66, 68, 81, 93, 109, 115, 119, 137, 147, 155, 213 House of Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics, 2, 17, 19, 35, 47, 75, 81,145 asked manned lunar expedition, 47 Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight, 145 Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, 15 Houston, Tex., 111, 130, 143, 171, 188, 189 selected as site for MSC, 111 selected as site for MCC, 171 HSFS. See High Speed Flight Station. Huher, W. G., 8 Hughes Aircraft Company participated in Apollo spacecraft bid, 114 selected to build Surveyor spacecraft, 73 Human factors, 41, 68, 73, 194, 196 guidelines, 41, 196 safe radiation dose, 41 "shirtsleeve" environment, 41 three-man crew, 41 Human Factors Panel. See Technical Assessment Panels. Hunt, Robert M., 221 Hunter, M. W., 207 Huntsville, Ala., 12 Hurt, Percy, 219 Hyatt, A. E., 218 Hyatt, Abraham, 36, 98, 207,209 Hydrogen-oxygen systems, 22, 168 Hydrag configuration (Avco Corporation), 71 Hynek, J. Allen, 208 Horizon

International Latex Corporation principal subcontractor to Hamilton Standard vision for Apollo space suit, 176, 194 Interplanetary flight, 17 Interplanetary rocket, 5 Interplanetary travel, 5 Irvin, R. C., 219 Isbell, Tom, 219

Di-

J
engine, 109, 113, 118, 161,164, 166, 194 200,000-pound-thrust, 3, 46, 109, 133 accelerated funding proposed, 99 C-5 upper stage use, 46, 120, 134 Rocketdyne selected to develop, 3, 46, 54, 167 See also Engines. Jackson, Bruce G., 215 Jacobson, Lawrence, 218 Janokaitis, John 216 Japan, 32 Jenkins, Lyle M., 219 Jenkins, Morris V., 215 Jenkins, T. E., 21 Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), 9, 17, 18, 20, 32, 34, 36, 43-45, 48, 56, 62, 64, 66, 67, 78, 84, 107, 109, 110, 143, 147, 197 announced construction of first large space simulator, 99 transferred to NASA jurisdiction, 14 wind tunnel tests, 144 Jevas, Nickolas, 218 Johannesburg, South Africa, 55, 143 Johnson, Bryant L., 218 Johnson, Caldwetl C., 31, 58, 142,209, 214 Johnson, George W. S., 213 Johnson, Harold I., 215 Johnson, Vice President Lyndon B., 143 Johnson, Roy W., 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20 Johnson, W. Kemble, 23 Johnston, Richard S., 167, 211, 215 "Joliot-Curie Crater," 195 Jonash, Edmund R., 63,211,215 Joplin, Mo., 192 Jordan, Adaron B., 218 JPL. See Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Juno II, 17 launched Pioneer 111, 141 Juno V, 2, 12, 16 authority, 12 initial funding, 12 renamed Saturn, 12 Jupiter-C, 9 Justice Department, 190 Lands Division. 190 J-2

I
IGY. See International Geophysical Year. Impact attenuation, 103 Inertial guidance system, 84 Inertial measurement unit, 113,159, 165, 192 Inertial platform, 41,160 Ingress, crew, 183 Institute of Aerospace Sciences, 183 Instrument package, 8, 21 soft landing on moon, 11 with penetration spike, 7 Instrumentation, 41 monitoring, 41 research and development, 27, 10 I scientific, 101 Instrumentation and Communications Panel. See Technical Assessment Panels. Instrumentation Laboratory, 27, 62 selected for six-month study of navigation and guidance system for Apollo spacecraft, 50, 61 selected to develop .guidance and navigation system for Apollo spacecraft, 61, 106 See also Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Instrumented capsule, 44 to crash-land on moon, 44 with animals, 11 Integration of the Saturn and Saturn Application Programs Study Group, 210 Intercontinental ballistic missile Titan, 9 Interface control documentation, 172 International Business Machines Corporation, 195 selected to provide ground-based computer system, 195 International Geophysical Year (IGY), 9, 14, 17

K
Kampmeier, Heinz W., 64, 21 l, 219 Kaplan, Joseph, 6 Kapryan, Walter J., 216 Kaser, Eldon W., 218 Kavanau, Lawrence L, 100, 214 Kavanaugh, Walter W., 220 Kazakhstan, U.S.S.R., 118 Kehlet, Alan B., 28, 29, 45, 142, 143, 209, 210, 214, 215:217 Kelley, Albert J., 195, 212 Kemp, John M., 8 Kemp, Richard H., 215 Kennedy Administration, 69 Kennedy, President John F., iv, 69 74, 77, 81, 88, 143, 188, 189, 212 assigned DX priority to Apollo program, 130, 154

212,

137, 152,

248

INDEX maneuver earth orbit, 25 graze and orbit, reentry approach tion exposure, point control experiments, 25 techniques, 96 Lang, Dave W., 104, 214 Lang, H. A., 8 Lange, Oswald H., 104, 214 Langham, Wright H., 208 Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, 7 Langley Research Center (LaRC), iii, iv, 14, 18, 20, 25, 32, 34, 42, 45, 56, 62, 64-68, 70, 76, 78, 81, 83, 86, 91, 93, 94, 98, 107, 109, 110, 115, 117, 119, 137, 139, 144, 147, 148, 155, 197 ballistic range established, 192 Lunar Mission Steering Group, 34 meteoroid test established, 192 simulated spacecraft flight, 105 space station subcommittee on rendezvous, 81 Theoretical Mechanics Division, 34 wind tunnel tests, 144, 198 Larg.e Launch Vehicle Planning Group. mittee. Large launch vehicle program, 99, 118 Laughlin, C. Patrick, 211,215, 216 Launch Complex 34, 23, 94 Launch Complex 39, 161, 171 Launch escape rocket, 44, 138 Launch escape system, 102, 103, 121, 192 ASPO requested, 165 passive thrust-vector-control 184 See Golovin Com25-26 over 26

proposal to Congress, iv, xi, 50 State of the Union message, 135 Kiker, John W., 216 King, E. W., 220, 221 King, Robert L., 36, 42, 55, 209 Kingsley, Milton G., 142, 219 Kinzler, Jack, 217 Kistler, Wallace, 219,220,221 Kleinknecht, Kenneth S., 105,212,214, 217,221 Kloetzer, Paul H., 218 Knothe, A. H., 220 Knutson, Roy K., 15 Kochendorfer, Fred D., 54, 210 Koelle, H. H., 8, 33, 56, 63, 112, 210, 212, 213, Kollsman Instrument Corporation, 160 contract to build optical subsystems, 160 navigation display equipment, 160 space sextant, 160 sunfinders, 160 Kopal, Z., 44 Koppenhaver, James T., 104 Korabl Sputnik I (Sputnik 1V), 45 dummy astronaut, 45 guidance system flaw, 45 launched, 45 pressurized space cabin, 45 weight, 45 See also Spacecraft, U.S.S.R. Korabl Sputnik II (Sputnik V), 53 animals, 53 communications system, 53 launched, 53 recovery, 53 reentry, 53 television camera, 53 See also Spacecraft, U.S.S.R. Korabl Sputnik III (Sputnik VI), 63 animals, 63 disintegrated and burned, 63 dogs, 63 See also Spacecraft, U.S.S.R. Korabl Sputnik VI (Sputnik IX), 76 launched, 76 recovered, 76 See also Spacecraft, U.S.S.R. Korabl Sputnik VII (Sputnik X), 77 launched, 77 recovered, 77 See also Spacecraft, U.S.S.R. Korycinski, Peter F., 218 Kraft, Christopher C., Jr., 143, 214, 217 Kranz, Eugene F., 220 Krugersdorp, South Africa, 55 deep-space tracking facility, 55 Kuehnel, Helmut A., 210 Kuettner, Joachim P., 220, 221,222 Kuiper, Gerard P., 10, 42, 195 Kurbjun, Max C., 65, 81, 115 Kurtz, Herman F., 219 Kyle. Howard C., 217,219, 220

pole

to

lessen

radia-

221

141,

177,

184,

185,

system,

165,

Launch Launch Launch Launch

L
L 2C. See Spacecraft configurations. Lamps for command module, 199 incandescent, 199 quartz, 199 fluorescent, 199 Land acquisition requirements. 190 Land, Edwin H., 212 Landing and recovery systems, 73

Launch

single "kicker" rocket, 165, 184 configuration approved, 154 120-inch tower, 154 aerodynamic skirt, 154 escape rocket nozzle, 154 jettison motor, 154 launch escape motor, 154, 185 symmetrical nose cone, 154 escape rocket, 44, 138 contract to Lockheed Propulsion Company, 138 flight tests, 153,192 propulsion system, 103 solid-fuel rocket motor, 103 motors, 138, 200 tower, 152, 177, 184, 200 jettison motor, 152 facilities, 108, 180 Operations Center (LOC), 161, 180, 197 Operations Directorate, 99, 118 sites, 105 considered for direct ascent missions, 105 Brownsville, Tex., 105 Cape Canaveral (off-shore), 105 Cape Canaveral (on-shore), 105 Christmas Island, Pacific Ocean, 105 Cumberland Island, Ga., 105 Mayaguana Island (AMR downrange), 105 South Point, Hawaii, 105 White Sands Missile Range, N. Mex., 105 vehicle studies, 15, 93 capability, 68 3-million-pound-thrust Nova, 68 6-million-pound-thrust Nova, 68 pilot control studies analytical, 43 simulator, 43 requirements, 33

249

INDEX Little 128 switchover 128 from Saturn to Joe 5B, 85 launched, 85 payload, 85 Little Joe II, 95, 141,152, 180 first vehicle used for qualification, 131, 190 General Dynamics/Convair awarded contract, 130, 160 NASA Hq approved development plan, 144 solid-fuel launch vehicle, 131,153, 160 See also Boosters and Launch Vehicles. Little Joe Senior, 94 fin-stabilized solid-fuel rocket booster, 94 for flight tests of Apollo reentry vehicle and launch escape system, 94 later named Little Joe II, 95 See also Boosters and Launch Vehicles. Living organisms effects of planetary environment, 37 effects of space environment, 37 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 74 awarded contract by MSFC to study feasibility of refueling spacecraft in orbit, 74 bid on Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 57 bid on lunar excursion module, 186 invited to bid on lunar excursion module, 171 participated in Apollo spacecraft bid, 101, 114 Lockheed Propulsion Company, awarded contract for launch escape system escape rocket, 138 Loftin, Laurence K., Jr., 20, 22, 25, 98, 208, 213 London, England, 28, 30 Long duration, xiii, 132, 188 mission, 41 Longfelder, Harlowe J., 207 Long-range planning, 18 Lord, Douglas R., 139, 147 I,OR. See Lunar orbit rendezvous. Los Angeles, Calif., 44, 59, 134 Los Angeles Harbor, 180 Love, Eugene S., 64,210, 215 Lovelace Foundati_>n, space medicine symposium, 7 Lovelace, W. Randolph, II, 207,208 Lovell, James A., Jr., 189 Low Committee, 66, 73, 74, 212 final report, 50, 74 NASA position paper, 67 See also Manned Lunar Landing Task Group. Low, George M., 20, 22, 23, 25, 45, 48, 54, 56, 57, 60, 66, 73, 75, 93, 98, 104, 134, 143, 208, 210, 212, 213, 222 LR-115 engine, 113 15,000-pound-thrust, 113 replaced in S-IVB stage, 113 See also Engines. LR-119, 77, 113 See also Engines. Lucas, John W., 64, 211 Luft, Ulrich C., 208 Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, 195 analysis of Lunik III photos, 195 Lunar approach, 164 base, 110, 196 permanent, 8 base supply, 33 unmanned, 33 "bus," 179, 180 charts, 13, 42 published by Air Force, 42 circumnavigation, 33 manned, 17 Analysis and Mapping Program (Project Return Vehicle, 37

Launch

vehicle guidance

systems system, emergency Apollo,

Launch

vehicles Atlas, 18 Atlas-Agena B, 135 Atlas-Centaur, 35, 115 Centaur, 16 Juno V, 16 Little Joe, 141 Little Joe II, 130, 131,141,144, 152, 160 Little Joe Senior, 94 Nova, 16,47, 74-75, 96, 119 Redstone, 87 Saturn, 16, 131 Saturn C-1, 96, 193 Saturn C-1B, 193 Saturn C-2, 74, 95 Saturn C-3, 95, 96, 119 Saturn C-4, 119 Saturn C-5, 119, 135, 193 six-stage, 33 Titan, 18 Titan II, 87, 133 Titan III, 119 Vega, 16 See also names of each; Appendix 4, 224-227; Appendix 7,234-235. Lee, John B., 50, 73, 143,211,218 Lee, William A., 147 Lees, Lester, 207 Leghorn, Richard D., 208 Lehrer, Max, 212 LEM. See Lunar excursion module. Lenticular configuration, 29, 71, 72, 77, 78 LEV. See Lunar excursion vehicle. Levine, Norman, 217 Lewis Aeronautical Laboratory, 10 Lewis Research Center (LRC), 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 33, 44, 45, 56, 62, 63, 66, 67, 70, 84, 85, 138, 147, 197 Ley, Willy, 6 Liberty Bell 7, 100 astronaut recovery, 100 launched, 100 spacecraft lost, I00 See also Spacecraft, U.S. Lick Observatory, 10 Lifeline, 7 Life sciences, 38 research center, 38 Life support, 81 Lift over drag, 40, 58 considerations, 25, 57 low lift over drag configurations, 40, 43 landing capability studies, 40, 43 Lifting Mercury, 45 Lilly, William E., 134, 222 Lincoln Laboratory. See Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindberg, James P., Jr., 221 Lindbergh, Charles A., 135 Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., 114, 141 bid on lunar excursion module, 186 Chance Vought Corporation, 144 invited to bid on lunar excursion module, 171 Linsley, Edward L., 64, 210, 215 Liquid-hydrogen, liquid-oxygen engine, 32, 46, 99, 109, 127 See also Engines. Liquid-hydrogen, liquid-oxygen fuel cell, 16, 24 Lithium hydroxide, 103 Little ]oe 5, 60 launched, 60

Lunar 15 Lunar-Earth

LAMP),

250

INDEX Lunar excursion module (LEM), 154, 161, 163, 165, 168, 172, 179, 181, 184, 196 cabin environment, 173 crew exploration in vicinity of touchdown, 173 flight configuration, 163, 173, 184 docked, 173 stowed in adapter, 173 Grumman selected to design and develop, 130 industry proposals received, 130, 186 invitations to bid issued, 130, 171 maneuver capabilities ascent, 172, 173 docking, 172, 173, 187 landing, 172, 173 lunar descent, 172, 173 rendezvous, 172, 173 separation from command and service modules, 172, 173 mockups, 172-173, 188 antenna radiation pattern, 173 cabin exterior equipment, 172 cabin interior arrangement, 172 complete lunar excursion module, 83, 172 crew support system, 173 docking system, 172 environmental control system, 172 handling and transportation, 173 module interfaces, 173 model, Grumman proposal, 201 portable life support system, 173 preliminary Statement of Work completed, 159 pressurization system, 173 research and development proposal invitations, 171 Statement of WoTk, 171, 173 contractor responsibilities, 171 See also Apollo spacecraft, Spacecraft, and Lunar excursion vehicle. Lunar excursion module systems, v, 191 communications systems, 191 crew systems, 174, 175, 191 crew equipment system, 174, 175 adjustable seats, 174 food, 174 personal radiation dosimeters, 175 portable life support systems, 173, 175 restraint systems, 174 space suits, 174, 175 water, 174 flight crew, 174 commander, 174 systems engineer, 174 electrical power system, 175, 191,199 environmental control system, 175, 186, 191 cabin pressure, 175 humidity, 175 temperature, 175 experimental instrumentation system, 191 guidance and control, 173, 174, 191,192 navigation and guidance system, 172, 173, 174, 191 cabling and junction box, 174 chart book and star catalog, 174 computer, 174, 192 control and display unit, 174 displays and controls, 174 inertial measurement unit, 173, 192 optical measurement unit, 173 power and servo assembly, 174 rendezvous radar and radar ahimeter, 172, 174 reticle, 174

Lunar

I,unar Lunar Lunar

Lunar Lunar Lunar Lunar

stabilization and control system, 173, 174, 191 attitude reference, 174 control electronics assembly, 174 display, 174 manual controls, 174 power supplies, 174 rate sensors, 174 instrumentation system, 175, 191 flight research and development instrumentation system, 175 antennas, 175 calibration system, 175 clock and tape record system, 175 power supply, 175 radar transponder, 175, 191 sensors and signal conditioning, 175 telemetry system (including transmitters), 175 operational instrumentation system, 175 calibration system, 175 cameras, 175 clock, 175 display and control system, 175 sensors, 175 tape recorder system, 175 telescope, 163, 175, 192 scientific instrumentation system, 175 gravitometer, 175 lunar atmosphere analyzer, 175 magnetometer, 175 radiation spectrometer, 175 rock and soil analysis equipment, 175 seismographic equipment, 175 soil temperature instrument, 175 specimen return container, 175 lunar touchdown system, 174, 191 load distribution capabilities, 174 meteoroid protection, 174 radiation protection, 174 propellants fuel, 174 oxidizer, 174 propulsion system, 164, 173, 174, 191 storable hypergolie bipropellants, 174 variable thrust, 174 reaction control system, 164, 173, 191 structural system, 191 excursion vehicle (LEV), 147,150 direct llnk communications, 152 guidance and control systems, 147, 150 automatic, 150 manual, 150 landing site, 150 location in configuration, 147 lunar stay time, 150 "point" landing, 150, 163 pressurized cabin, 150 two-man, 150 propulsion system, 150 redesignated lunar excursion module, 155 See also Lunar excursion module. expedition, 164 supported by Saturn C-5 logistics vehicle, 164 exploration conference, 183 Blacksburg, Va., 183 exploration program, 10l, 119, 123, 194 unmanned, 75 Ranger, 75, 194 Surveyor, 75 flights, 31, 4l geology, 60 gravity, 110 impact vehicle, 24, 35

251

INDEX Lunar observation, 101 Lunar orbit, iv, 55, 82, 101,102,173 close, 24 Lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR), v, 6, 36, 44, 64, 66, 68, 82, 95, 98, 109, 110, 119, 137, 144, 149, 154, 155, 159, 164, 170, 176, 185, 196, 197 advantages, 155, 168, 176, 196, 197 general operational concept, 65, 68, 76, 184 Langley Research Center to study, 107 NASA Hq meeting, 75, 76, 115, 118, 147 reasons for choice, 68, 168, 176, 202 cost, 168 mission success probability, 168 schedule, 168 technical development required, 168 selected as lunar landing mode, 130, 168,202 Lunar orbiter (unmanned), 33 Lunar photographic atlas, 10 Lunar photography, 53, 154, 168, 182, 195 Lunar probes, 28, 32,195 Air Force, 12, 13, 14 Army, 13 Pioneer, 55, 65 Pioneer I, 13 Pioneer II, 14 Pioneer III, 14 Pioneer IV, 17 unmanned, hard-landing, 54 unmanned, soft-landing, 54 Lunar reconnaissance, 22, 28, 40 before manned landing, 11, 26, 40, 101 Lunar rendezvous, 86, 161 technique, 161 Lunar soft-landing, 47, 180 Lunar spacecraft, 31, 34, 39, 43, 47 capable of earth orbit missions, 39 specifications, 38 weight, 31, 39 Lunar spacecraft flights JPL to study tradeoffs on design and mission, 34 program, 34 later designated Ranger Program, 34 Lunar surface, iv, 6, 30, 31, 34, 43, 44, 53, 148, 168, 170, 172, 186, 189, 190, 196, 200, 201 characteristics, 26, 95, 168, 192,200 exploration, 180 mobility, crew, 173, 180, 194 topographical information, 13, 44, 70, 108 use of roving vehicles, 186 Lunar surface rendezvous, 95 JPL to study, 107 Lunar takeoff, 30, 57, 102 engine, 24 Lunar trajectory, iv, 82, 172 Lundin, Bruce T., 20, 22, 24, 33, 92, 208,213 Lundin Committee, 50, 92,118,213 completed study, 95 guidelines, 92 lunar orbit rendezvous presentation, 93 mode preference stated, 50, 95 recommendations, 95 Lundquist, Charles A., 221 Lunik I, 15 Lunik II, 183 impacted on moon, 2, 29 launched, 2, 29 payload, 29 radio transmitters, 29 Lunik HI, 195 launched, 2, 29 photographed dark side of moon, 2, 195

Lunar Lunar

instrument carrier, 7 lander, 82, 83, 92, 105, 117 5000-pound, 105 competed with direct ascent approach, 105 launch by Saturn C-3, 105 lunar orbit rendezvous mode, 105 Lunar landing, iii, iv, 22, 39, 102, 132, 140, 163, 173 beacons, 28 development program, 8, 9, 22, 25, 135 goal, 27 maneuver, 147 mission, 25, 31, 44, 51, 62, 65, 76, 91, 96, 101, 119, 144, 149, 161, 164, 168, 186, 195, 197 delta V requirements, 166 hard-landing, 17 long-term objective, 22 soft-landlng, 8, 15, 17, 35, 180 unmanned, instrumented, 8, 15, 17, 186 weight, 31 module, 31, 36, 104, 126, 127,170 27,000 pounds (MALLAR), 36 design constraints, 138 from 100-nautical-mile lunar orbit, 100, 173 circular orbit to elliptical orbit, 173 hovering, 126, 173 touchdown maneuver, 126, 173 guidance and control system, 104, I 19 landing gear, 170 lunar touchdown system, 104, 186 main propulsion system, 104, 126 model, 82,189 propulsion system, 126, 138 lunar landing engine, 126 throttleable, 127 lunar retrograde en_ne, 126 structural system, 104 terminal propulsion system, 104 program, 98 simulator, 98, 168 construction started at Langley Research Center, 98 site selection, 53 soft, 180 touchdown, 126, 147 trajectories, 126, 138, 172, 186 unmanned, instrumented, 186 Lunar launch, 173 vehicle, 135 Saturn C-5 selected, iv, 135 Lunar logistics, 168, 180, 186 studies, 168, 180, 186 trajectories, 186 vehicle, 168, 186 Lunar maps, 13, 44, 69, 70 Lunar mission, iii, iv, 33, 38, 40, 67, 139, 141,144 14-day lunar landing and return, 36, 39 communications, 41 cost, 67, 81 date, 81 ground tracking, 41 launch vehicle, iv mode, 138, 139, 152, 155, 175, 176 module, 39 payload, 154, 180 scientific payload, 26 studies, 26, 34 life support requirements, 26 Mercury stretchout capabilities, 26, 33 vehicle weight, 26 Lunar Mission Steering Group, 34 See also Langley Research Center.

252

INDEX

M
M-1 lifting body configuration, 71, 77 M-I engine, 120, 161 See also Engines. M-I-I lifting body configuration, 71, 72 McCall, Jerry C., 221 McCool, Alexander A., 64, 211 McDivitt, James A., 189 McDonald, J. C., 207 McDonald Observatory, 10 McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 29, 37, 132, 181 awarded Surveyor design study, 47 invited to bid on lunar excursion module, 171 participated in Apollo spacecraft bid, 101, 114 McGathy, Pinkney, 218 McGinty, Earl E., 218 McGolrick, Joseph E., 213 McKee, Daniel D., 139 McLean, William B., 208 MeMillion, Lee N., 142, 211,215 McNair, Lewis L., 220 McNamara, Robert S., 99, 133 MacDougall, George F., Jr., 217 Mace, William D:, 81, 115 Mack, Jerry L., 221 MacLeish, K. G., 208 Maggin, Bernard, 45, 208 Magnetic tape, 21 Main engine, service module, 184 ablative thrust chamber assembly, 184 storable liquid propellants, 184 See also Engines. Major spacecraft contractors. See Al_pendix 3,223. MALLAR (manned lunar landing and return), 36 14-day lunar landing and return, 36 entry vehicle, 6600 pounds, 36 lunar landing module, 27,000 pounds, 36 mission module, 9000 pounds, 36 MALLIR (Manned Lunar Landing Involving Rendezvous), 82, 83 booster requirements, 82, 83 Maloney, Philip R., 217, 220 Manchester, England, 13, 44 Maneuverable manned satellite, 22, 28 Maneuverable Recoverable Space Vehicle (MRS. V), 27 Manganiello, Eugene J., 56, 63 Man-in-space problems, 22 "Man-in-Space Soonest," proposed Air Force program, 11 "Man-in-Space Sophisticated," proposed Air Force program, 11 Manned circumlunar flight, 39, 55, 86 reconnaissance, 39 vehicle, 33 Manned exploration of space, xiii Manned interplanetary exploration, 19, 22 Manned lunar exploration, 68 Manned lunar landing, ii, 36, 48, 50, 62, 66, 67, 81 by direct ascent, 33 by rendezvous, 65, 109, 120, 155 launch vehicle requirements, 96, 120, 155 launch requirements, 86, 155 methods, 25, 33, 67, 96, 120, 132, 161, 195, 196 procedures, 96, 155 target date, xi, 23, 27, 50, 86 "Manned Lunar Landing and Return," proposed Air Force program, 11 Manned lunar landing and return, xiii, 11, 15, 35, 67, 101 intermediate steps, 24, 35

study by NASA Centers, 22 guidance, 22 propulsion, 22 structure, 22 vehicle configuration, 22 Manned Lunar Landing Coordination Group, 98, 213 Manned lunar landing mission, iv, 6, 50, 57, 59, 74, 95, 98, 108, 111, 171 early, 92, 96 guidelines proposed, 92, 114 modes, xi, 6, 120, 130, 155, 161,176 propulsion requirement, 92, 161 national objective, iv pacing items, 95 within I0 years, 27, 28, 74 Manned Lunar Landing Task Group (Low Committee), 66, 67, 73, 75, 212 submitted draft report, 73 submitted final report, 74 See also Low Committee. "Manned Lunar Landing through use of Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous," 115 Manned lunar outpost, 18, 23 Manned lunar reconnaissance, 39 Manned lunar transport, 84 Manned military space systems program, 75 Manned orbital flight, xi, 130 first successful, xi, 50, 81 Manned orbital laboratory, 33, 54 Manned orbiting space station, 6 Manned satellite project, 2, 14 Manned space flight, 18, 22 Manned space flight laboratory, 22 Manned Space Flight Management Council, 140, 154, 161, 165, 166, 167, 176, 198, 222 Apollo spacecraft design criteria, 176 decision for lunar orbit rendezvous as mission mode, 166 development of LEM, 166 lunar logistics vehicle study, 166 Nova study, 166 Saturn C-1B, 166 Saturn C-5, 166 decision on Saturn C-5 configuration, 130, 134 delayed awarding Nova study contract, 155 formed, 134 members, 134 purposes, 134 results of studies on lunar mission mode selection, 165, 166, 195, 196 criteria, 165-166 communications and tracking requirements, 165 costs, 166, 196 development complexity, 166 flexibility, 166 growth potential, 166 guidance accuracy, 165 military implication, 166 mission, 165 reliability, 165 schedules, 166, 196 weight margins, 165 modes direct ascent, 165, 196 earth orbit rendezvous, 137, 165, 196 connecting mode, 165 fueling mode, 165 lunar orbit rendezvous, 137, 165, 196

mission

253

INDEX

Manned

space flight priorities ballistic probes, 22 environmental satellite, 22 lunar landing, 22 lunar reconnaissance satellite, 22 maneuverable manned satellite, 22 manned space flight laboratory, 22 Mars-Venus landing, 22 Mars-Venus reconnaissance, 22 Project Mercury, 22 See also names of each. Manned space flight program, 2, 66, 112, 120 extended scope anticipated, 85 Manned space flight research center (later designated Manned Spacecraft Center), 111 Manned space station, 48 Manned spacecraft, 59, 109 Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), v, xiii, 107, 111, 130, 137, 138, 140, 147, 152, 153, t61, 181, 189, 191, 197 Apollo Spacecraft Project Office established, 130, 132 Crew Systems Division, 201 designation, 50, 118 Facilities Division, 180 Flight Operations Division, 171 Gemini Project Office, 180 Integration Office established, 167 Mission Control Center, 171 location announced, 130, 171 move to Houston, v, 143 Office of Engineering and Development, xiv organization chart, 233 responsibilities, 111 site selection announced, 111 Technical Information Preparation Branch, xiv Manned spacecraft development center, 85 proposed t_y STG, 85 Manned suborbital flight, iv, xi, 87 Manufacturing Panel. See Technical Assessment Panels. Mardel, Alfred, 221 Mare Novum (New Sea), 195 Mariner spacecraft, 99 Mark II configuration, 71 Markley, J. Thomas, 54, 62, 69, 115, 140, 141, 179, 183, 188, 211,218, 221 Marquardt Corporation, The, 183 selected to design and build reaction control rocket engine, 142 Mars (planet), 78 probe, 35 unmanned reconnaissance, 35, 55 Marshall (George C.) Space Flight Center (MSFC), iv, v, xiii, 38, 44-46, 48, 52, 62, 63, 66, 67, 69, 73, 74, 76-78, 87, 93, 94, 98, 104, 107, 110, 112-114, 118, 119, 128, 130, 133, 134, 138, 144, 147, 154, 161, 164, 181, 197, 198 awarded contract to study feasibility of refueling spacecraft in orbit, 74 awarded contracts for study of exploratory expeditions launched from earth orbit, 73 Integration Office established, 167 named, 38 static test facility for large vehicle stages, 99, 115 Mars-Venus landing, 22 Mars-Venus reconnaissance, 22 Martin Company, The, 20, 37, 71, 72, 76, 87, 98, 99, 196 bid on Apollo spacecraft, 101, 114 bid on Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 57 final report submitted, 88 selected for Apollo spacecraft feasibility xi, 50, 59 Space Systems Division, 196 study progress reviewed, 9, 64, 73

Martin-Marletta Company bid on LEM, 186 invited to bid on LEM, 171 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), v, 9, 65, 69, 75 Instrumentation Laboratory, 29, 43, 63, 105, 106, 108-110, 113, 118, 119, 130, 133, 137, 160, 165, 168, 180, 191,192 selected to develop guidance and navigation system, xi, 50, 106, 128 study contract for Apollo guidance and navigation support, 50, 61 Lincoln Laboratory, 63, 66 studies on ground instrumentation system for Apollo, 63, 66 Massey, John W., 220 "Mastodon" 179 Materials, 45 Mathews, Charles W., 23, 31, 104, 131, Maus, Hans H., 118, 140, 221 Maxwell, Preston T., 85, 216 May, Ralph W., Jr., 213 Mayaguana Island (AMR downrange), Mayer, John P., 215,220 Maynard, Owen E., 68, 143, 147,209,214 Mayo, A. M., 66, 80, 212 Mead, Merrill H., 147 "Mechanical astronaut," on Mercury-Atlas 143, 147, 214, 221

105

3, 84

study,

Mechta ("Dream"), 15 Medaris, John B., 12, 16, 18 Medical sciences, 37 Mengel, John T., 208 Mercury-Atlas, 81,194 Mercury-Atlas l (MA-1) exploded, 48 launched, 48 spacecraft destroyed on impact, 48 Mercury-Atlas 2 (MA-2) launched, 75 maximum heating test, 75 Mercury-A tlas 3 (MA-3) destroyed, 84 launched, 84 "mechanical astronaut," 84 Mercury-Atlas 4 (MA-4) astronaut simulator, 110 launched, 110 recovered, 110 Mercury-Atlas 5 (MA-5) chimpanzee, Enos, passenger, 128 recovery, 128 reentry, 128 two orbits, 128 Mercury-Atlas Program Panels, 113 Mercury Mark II program, 109, 132, 133 project development plan, 132 astronaut training, 132 controlled land recovery, 132 rendezvous techniques development, long-duration flight, 132 renamed "Gemini," 132 spacecraft, 133 Mercury Mark II/Agena, 133 experiments, 133 rendezvous development, 133 Mercury Program, iii, xiii, 22, 85 astronauts selected, 19 follow-on experiments, 29 post-Mercury program, 23, 26, 32, 33 Mercury-Redstone 1 (MR-l) launched escape tower, 61

132

254

INDEX Mercury-Redstone IA (MR-1A) launched from AMR, 65 Mercury-Redstone 2 (MR-2) chimpanzee, Ham, passenger, 74 launched, 74 recovered, 74 Mercury-Redstone Panels, 113 Mercury spacecraft, 44, 45, 115, 140 advanced version recommendations, 23, first earth orbital test, 110 first production spacecraft in test, 44 improved, 105 proposed for lunar mission, 105 sealed-up, 87 two-man, 132 booster, 132 plans announced, 132 shape, 132 to be built by McDonnell, 132 Merrill, Grayson, 208 Merritt Island, Fla. Launch Complex 39, 161, 171 Messing, Wesley F., 175 Meteorites, 60 Meteoroid damage studies, 70 protection, 80 Meteorological satellite, 35 Meyer, Andre J., Jr., 214 Michael, William H., Jr., 64, 115, 147,211 Michel, Edward L., 167 Michoud Ordnance Plant, 109, 115 named for fabrication and assembly of C-3 stage, 109 Micrometeoroids, 26, 192 Microorganisms, 41 Mideour_e guidance theory, 61 propulsion, 44, 182 velocity corrections, 182 Electronics Division selected to manufacture and 143

94

first

Military

test radio

equipment,

Military reconnaissance, 5 Military space mission, 19 Minimum space and reentry vehicle (manned), 33 Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, 180, 194 Aeronautical Division, 162 Electronic Data Processing Division, 180 named to design and build Apollo stabilization and control system, 134 Minneapolis, Minn., 134 Missile and Space Vehicle Department See General Electric Company. Mission Control Center, 127, 171, 195 overall control of Apollo support elements, 127 site selection announced by NASA, 130, 171 See also Manned Spacecraft Center. Mission flight plan, 149 Mission mode, 107, 159, 175, 176 C-5 direct ascent, 176, 196 C-5 earth orbit rendezvous, 176, 196 C-5 lunar orbit rendezvous, 176, 196 direct ascent, 108, 161,170, 176 earth orbit rendezvous, 107, 161,170, 176 lunar orbit rendezvous, 107, 161, 170, 176, 195 Nova direct ascent, 161, 176 solid-fuel Nova direct ascent, 176 Mission propulsion system lunar launch velocity increment, 102 lunar orbit injection, 102 lunar orbit rejection, 102 translunar abort, 102

Mississippi Test Facility, 190 plans, 190 test stands, 190 water transportation system, 190 MIT. See Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mitchell, Elliott, 60, 118, 221 Mockups command module, 161, 188 lunar excursion module, 83, 171, 172-173, 188 service module, 188 Modified flapped Mercury configuration, 71, 72 Modular concept, 47, 57, 65 Moffett Field, Calif., 43 Molybdenum coating, 27 Monterey, Calif., 38 Moore, F. Brooks, 220 Moore, Robert, 219 MORAD (Manned Orbital Rendezvous and Docking), 81, 82 See also Scout. Morris, Owen G., 142 Morse, Archibald E., Jr., 217 Moser, Jacob C., 216 Moser, Robert E., 220 Motorola, Inc., 143 Military Electronics Division, 143 Motors Algol, 181 Antares, 139 See also names of each. Mount Hamilton, Calif., 10 Mount Wilson, Calif., 10 Mount Wilson-Palomar Observatory, 10 Mrazek, William A., 118,214, 221 MRS. V. _gee Maneuverable Recoverable Space Vehicle. MSC. See Manned Spacecraft Center. MSC-MSFC Coordination Panels, 50, 119 Electrical and Electronics Design Panel, 119 modified, 119 Electrical Systems Integration Panel created, 119, 167 Instrumentation and Communications Panel created, 119, 167 MSFC. See Marshall Space Flight Center. MSFC-MSC Advanced Program Coordination Board, 113, 114, 221 MSFC-MSC Coordination Panels, 218 See also MSFC-MSC-LOC Coordination Panels and Apollo-Saturn Coordination Panels. MSFC-MSC-LOC Coordination Panels, 218, 219, 220, 221 Crew Safety Panel, 221 Electrical Systems Integration Panel, 219 Flight Mechanics, Dynamics, Guidance, and trol Panel, 220 Instrumentation and Communication Panel, Launch Operations Panel, 220 Mechanical Integration Panel, 219 Mission Controt Operations Panel, 220 See also MSFC-MSC Coordination Panels Apollo-Saturn Coordination Panels. MSFC Orbital Operations Study, 139 MSFC-STG Apollo-Saturn program, 112 MSFC-STG Space Vehicle Board, 112, 113, 167 Charter, 112, 167 purpose, 112 responsibilities, 112 Sub-Board, 112, 113 membership, 112 responsibilities, 112, 113 See also Saturn-Apollo Coordination Panels. Mullaney, Robert E., 137 Multiman crews, 41 Multiman orbital satellites, 86

Con219

and

255

INDEX Multimanned reentry capsule, Munford, Robert E., 219 Murray, Bruce C., 200 Myers, Boyd C., II, 208 31, 40 Executive Committee, 7 Special Committee on Space Technology (Stever Committee), 9, 13, 207 National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, 2, 12 Public Law 85-568, 12 signed, 12 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2, 3, 16, 17, 24, 32, 47, 50, 59, 73, 91, 99, 115, 130, 132, 133,180, 181, t89 Administrator, 14, 19, 23, 29, 32, 35, 42, 47, 54, 74, 99, 108, 111, 128, 133, 143, 159, 166, 170, 171,201 announced C-1B to be developed, 168 announced MSC as location for Mission Control Center, 130 announced selection of Saturn C-5 as lunar launch vehicle, 135,168 announced selection of spacecraft contractor, 128 Associate Administrator, 34, 35, 55, 65, 67, 73, 74, 80, 81, 85, 87, 91, 95, 96, 98, 99, 104, 105, 108, 111, 119, 131,132, 133, 166, 170, 197 bidders' conference for two lunar logistic studies, 180 constituted, xi, 2 Deputy Administrator, 48, 74, 75, 108, 166 established, 2, 11, 12 long-range objectives, 59 manned lunar landing philosophy, 28 organized, 13 selected Hamilton Standard Division to develop Apollo space suit, 130, 176, 194 selected lunar orbit rendezvous for manned lunar landing mission, 130, 168 See also NASA Headquarters. National Aeronautics and Space Agency, proposed, 11 National Aeronautics and Space Board, 11 National Aeronautics and Space Council, 69, 143 National booster program, 22, 119 deficiencies outlined, 119 National Science Foundation, 9 National Space Establishment, 8 National space program, 13, 65, 69 development of large launch vehicles, 99 National space vehicle program formulated by NASA, 16 Navigation, sightlngs, 165 Navigation and guidance system, v, 43, 101, 102, 119 components, 159 associated electronics, 102, 121 cabling, 102 computer, 102, 121,180 displays and controls, 102,121,190 inertial platform, 121 periscope, 102 radar altimeter, 102 range or velocity measuring equipment, 121 secondary inertial elements, 102 space sextant, 102, 113, 121,165 stable platform, 102 star and chart catalog, 121 sun trackers, 102 draft work statement midcourse guidance, I 13 equipment, 110 formal proposal, 65 MIT selected, 50 Statement of Work expanded, 110, 120, 121 control of launch from lunar surface, 121 control of translunar injection, 120 data and computation for abort capability, 121 guidance for establishing lunar orbit, 121 rendezvous in earth orbit, 121 study, 75

N
NAA. See North American Aviation, Inc. NAA-NASA Apollo spacecraft design review, 154 environmental control system, 154 fuel cell, 154 launch escape system configuration approved, 154 monthly, 154 NACA. See National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA-DOD Facilities Report, 105 NASA-DOD range responsibility, 96 NASA Headquarters, v, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 36, 42, 46, 53-56, 59, 66, 76-78, 80, 84, 91, 93, 98, 104, 106, 112, 138, 141, 147, 159, 179, 180, 195 announced launch site study, 106 major reorganization, 111, 197 program offices Office of Advanced Research and Technology, 111 Office of Advanced Research Programs, 67, 91, 94, 95 Office of Aeronautical and Space Research, 18, 20, 22, 67, 91,94, 95 Office of Applications, 111 Office of Launch Vehicle Programs, 34, 47, 69, 91, 95, 107 Office of Launch Vehicles and Propulsion, 118, 120 Office of Life Sciences Programs, 37, 46, 94, 95 Office of Manned Space Flight, 51, 111, 118, 120, 131-134, 139, 143, 145, 154, 159, 164, 170, 175, 176, 179, 181, 195, 197, 202 Office of Program Planning and Evaluation, 35 Office of Space Flight Development, 18, 19, 20, 26, 31, 34 Office of Space Flight Programs, 36, 53, 57, 66, 67, 87, 94, 95 Office of Space Sciences, 111,195 Office of Spacecraft and Flight Missions, 118 NASA Historical Office, xlv NASA-Industry Apollo Technical Conference, 99, 100 results of Apollo feasibility studies, 99 Washington, D.C., 99 NASA-Industry Program Plans Conference, 47, 48 launch vehicles, 48 life sciences, 48 long-range planning, 48 manned space flight, 48 structure and materials research, 48 NASA Launch Operations Directorate, 96, 105 NASA Michoud Operations Plant, 119, 134, 190 S-1C stage assembly area, 133 NASA Staff Conference, 38 Monterey, Calif., 38 Williamsburg, Va., 19 NASA ten-year plan, 2, 35, 47 presented to Congress, 35 Nathan, Ernest B., 220 National Academy of Sciences, 9, 77 Space Science Board, 77 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), 10, 12 abolished, 11, 13 Committee on Aerodynamics, 7

256

INDEX Nuclear Nutrition, rocket 41 propulsion, 22, 47, 55

Navigation

equipment, 168 concepts, 112 onboard computer, 180 Nelson, Alfred M., 54, 210, 212 NERV configurations, 71 Nesbitt, William J., 217 New Orleans, La., 109, 110, 115, 119, 133 New Projects Panel, 2, 28, 29, 209 See also Space Task Group. New York City, 6 New Zealand, 32 Newell, Homer E., 15, 111,195 Nicks, Oran W., 54, 57, 66, 210, 212 Nikolayev, Andrian G., 181 cosmonaut, Vostok Ill, 181 Noise, in spacecraft, 41 Nolan, James P., Jr., 210, 212,213 Noordung, Hermann, 5 North American Aviation, Inc. (NAA), 2, 37, 127, 128, 131, 143, 147, 152, 155, 159, 162, 165, 175, 181, 189 assigned design and development associated ground support equipment, 132 command module, 132 service module, 132 spacecraft adapter, 132 spacecraft integration, 132 ballistic range, 192 bid on Apollo spacecraft, 101, 114 bid on Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 57 contract signed for development and production of S-II stage of C-5, 198 Corporate Space Committee, 15 directed to redesign S-II stage, 118 design study for Surveyor spacecraft, 47 directed to study penalties and scheduling effects of spacecraft design capabilities with direct ascent and LOR, 154 invited to bid on LEM, 171 letter contract for spacecraft development signed, 130, 132 meteoroid test established, 192 RASPO established, 140, 141 revised Apollo Mission Requirements, 184 revised Apollo Requirements Specifications, 184 revised Summary Definitions and Objectives Document, 184 Rocketdyne Division, 7, 11, 54 selected as principal contractor for Apollo spacecraft, xl, 51, 128 selected to develop S-II stage, 130. 198 Space and Information Systems Division, 127, 128, 134, 140, 141,142 subcontractors, 134 North, Warren J'., 22, 93, 139, 213, 215, 221 Northrop Corporation, 181 bid on lunar excursion module, 186 invited to bid on lunar excursion module, 171 Radioplane Division, 134 Northrop Space Laboratories unmanned logistic system study, 186 Norway, 32 Nova, 14, 16, 22, 25, 47, 74-75, 96, 98, 99, 105, 106, 155, 176 3-million-pound-thrust, 68 6-million-pound-thrust, 68 configurations, 86, 120, 161 design and development, 74, 75, 168 first-stage specifications, 99, 120 launch faeillty and test stand designs, 99, 108 lunar landing mission plan, 86, 161 systems integration studies, 98 two-stage Nova planned, 140 alternative direct flight mode, 140, 176 liquid-propellant engines, 140 119,

O
Oakley, Ralph B., 54 Oberth, Hermann, 5 Observatory in space, 5 Office of Advanced Research and Technology (NASA), 111 formed, 111 Office of Aeronautical and Space Research (NASA), 18, 20, 22, 67, 91, 94, 95 Office of Applications (NASA), 111 formed, 111 Office of Engineering and Development. See Manned Spacecraft Center. Office of Launch Vehicle Programs (NASA), 34, 47, 69, 91,95, 107 Office of Launch Vehicles and Propulsion (NASA), 118, 120 Office of Life Sciences Programs (NASA), 37, 46, 94, 95 established, 37 Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF, NASA), 51, 118, 120, 131-134, 139, 143, 145, 154, 159, 164, 170, 176, 179, 181, 195, 197,202 formed, 111 Office of Systems, 175 lunar mission mode conclusions, 175 Office of Program Planning and Evaluation (NASA), 35 Office of Space Flight Development (NASA), 18, 20, 26, 31, 34 Office of Space Flight Programs (NASA), 36, 47, 53, 57, 66, 67, 87, 94, 95 Office of Space Sciences (NASA), 111,195 formed, 111 Office of Spacecraft and Flight Missions, 118 Office of Systems (in Office of Manned Space Flight, NASA), 175 Office of Space Systems, 176 Apollo spacecraft design criteria, 176 control of detaile_i system weights, 176 See also Office of Manned Space Flight. Okano, K. Fred, 217 Old Point Comfort, Va., 114 Olling, Edward H., 217 OMSF. See Office of Manned Space Flight. Onboard guidance computer, 62, 112,166 Onboard guidance system, 43, 58 computer, 27, 58 inertial reference, 58 star sight system, 58 Onboard propulsion system, 44, 56 analysis and preliminary development, 44, 60 solid propellant system, 57 Onboard Systems Panel. See Technical Assessment Panels. O'Neal, Robert L., 27, 68, 94 O'Neill, James E., 139, 147 Operational techniques flight, 101 ground, 101 Optical devices, 41,163 Optical subsystems, 160 Orbital launch operations, 115 complexity, 115 connector technique, 115 refueling technique, 115 studies, 115 Orbital manned space flight, 35 Orbital rendezvous, 59, 119 in Mercury Mark II, 59 Orbital return capsule, 33 Orbital station, 110 Orbiting astronomical laboratory, 35, 80 Orbiting astronomical observatory, 6 Orbiting Geophysical Observatory, 61, 62

257

INDEX

Republic

Aviation Corporation, 101, 194, 197 awarded contract for Project Fire spacecraft, bid on Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 57 bid on lunar excursion module, 186 invited to bid on lunar excursion module, 171 Research and Development Command. See United Air Force. Research xi, 2,

144

Ryan Aeronautical stage recovery,

Corporation, 74

study

on feasibility

of S-I

$
States Sacramento, Calif., 183 Sagan, Carl, 183 Samonski, Frank H., Jr., 216 San Antonio, Tex., 7 Sanderson, Kenneth C., 63, 211,216 San Diego, Calif., 65 Sandler, Irving J., 218 Santa Susana Air Force-Rocketdyne tory, 17 Satellites

Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, 208 See also Goett Committee. Resident Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (RASPO), 140, 141 Resolution XII (United Nations), 8 Resolution XIV (United Nations), established Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 33, 133 Rice University, 188 Richard, Ludie G., 138, 220 Richter, Henry L., Jr., 8 Ricker, Harry H., Jr., 209 Ridenour, Louis N., 207, 208 Riley, Donald R., 105 Risler, Welby T., 215 Roadman, Charles H., 98, 134, 213,222 Roberts, Tecwyn, 215, 220 Robertson, Lois, xiii Robinson, Lyndon, 219 Rocket and Satellite Research Panel, established, 8 Rocket engines liquid-fueled, 2 variable thrust (descent), 27 Rocketdyne Division, 2, 7, 15, 21, 75, 166, t94 additional contracts, 167 assigned responsibility for reaction control system, 183 contract for F-1 engine, 11, 16, 167 contract for H-1 engine, 12 contract for J-2 engine, 3, 46, 54, 167 See also North American Aviation, Inc. Rockets Juno II, 17, 141 Juno V, 16 "Mastodon," 179 posigrade, 2000-pound-thrust, Rover (nuclear), 91 solid-fuel, 120 Vanguard, 9 See also names of each. wing (paraglider), 74 use in recovery of Saturn S-I

Propulsion

Labora-

Discoverer XVII, 60 Explorer I, 2, 9 Lunik 1, 15 Lunik II, 2, 29, 183 Pioneer, 55, 65 Sputnik 1, rd, 2, 8 See also names of each. Saturn (booster), I0, 12, 16, 22, 24, 26, 46, 47, 54 first-generation, 31 nuclear upper stages, 47 second-generation, 31 See also Boosters and Launch vehicles. Saturn (launch vehicle), 32, 106, 108, 146, 171 abort study, 192 development schedule, 55, 74 guidance system, 56, 69, 139 new configuration, 18, 31, 32, 74, 100, 147 study of S-I stage recovery, 74 two-stage, 35, 74, 147 upper-stage configuration, 16, 18, 20, 31, 32 vehicle assignments, 46, 56, 192 See also Boosters and Launch vehicles. Saturn-Apollo Coordination Panels, 112 established, 113 Electrical and Electronics Design, 113 Flight Mechanics, Dynamics, and Control, 113 Launch Operations, Mechanical Design, Saturn C payload, C-l, 193 113 113

200

Rogallo Roll

Saturn 146, stage, 74

33 85,000 pounds in earth orbit, 33 29, 33, 39, 43, 76, 91, 96, 101, 114,

115,

134,

control, 103, 121 rates, 182 Rollins, Robert H., 211, 215 Rose, James T., 105, 138 Rose, Rodney G., 216 Rosen, Milton W., 21, 22, 28, 30, 60, 100, 134, 154, 214, 221,222 Rosen Working Group, 118, 119, 120, 221 report, 51, 120, 131 Rosenthal, Aaron, 209 Rosholt, Robert L., 10 Ross, C. C., 207 Ross, H. E., 6 Rossi, Bruno B., 212 Rothroek, Addison M., 80, 212 Rotors, 58 Rover (nuclear rocket), 91 Row, Perry V., 63, 211,216 Rowell, Billie D., xiv Rubel, John H., 133 Rudolph, Arthur L., 138 Runyan, Harry L., Jr., 215 Ruppe, Harry O., 213 Russell, William T., 208 RVX (blunted cone) configuration, 71

118,

119,

120,

adequacy to qualify spacecraft questioned, 55 Apollo boilerplates proposed, 46 configuration, 34, 76 configuration approved, 2 configuration change announced, 93, 100 configuration change proposed, 74, 77 first flight, xi, 50 first stage, 3, 43, 46 engines static-fired, 3, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46 H-1 engines, 38, 42, 43, 46, 120 S-IV stage air transport feasible, 85 S-IV stage static-fired, 183 second stage, 3, 93, 120, 183 to test Apollo rendezvous technique and hardware 139, 165 Saturn C-1B, 146, 179, 180, 193, acceleration recommended, to test Apollo spacecraft 168 198 164 in earth

orbit,

130,

165,

Saturn

C-2, 39, 74, 77, 82, 86, 95 1-milllon-pound-thrust second stage, 25 2-million-pound-thrust first stage, 25 200,000-pound-thrust third stage, 25 configuration, 76, 100 configuration reevaluated, 55, 93

260

INDEX launchlngs increased from 5 to 9, 108 television system, 44, 100, 108 spacecraft contractor, 43 RASPO. See Resident Apollo Spacecraft Program Office. Raytheon Company, contract to manufacture digital computer for spacecraft, 160 Reaction control system, 122, 191 command module, 102, 122, 164 fuel, 102, 122 oxidizer, 122 rocket engines, 122 The Marquardt Corporation to design and build, 122 design and manufacture of rocket engines shifted from The Marquardt Corporation to Rocketdyne Division, 183 service module, 102, 164 thrust reduction suggested, 182 attitude control, 102 minor velocity corrections, 102 stabilization, 102 ullage for vernier propulsion system, 102 Rechtin, Eberhardt, 208, 211 "Recoverable Interplanetary Space Probe," 27 Recovery tests, 191 Rector, William F., III, 142, 147, 179 Redstone, 87, 100 Redstone Arsenal, Ala., 8, 12, 38, 39, 42, 43 Redstone Scientific Information Center, xiii Reed, Thomas G., 220 Reentry, 74 at near lunar return velocity, 25, 28, 144 capsule, 33, 108 second generation, 28 weight, 108 configuration: 7.8 from lunar missions, 29, 33 manned, 29 guidance, 61,102, 119 heating, 56, 144 hyperbolic, 26 parabolic, 101 systems design, 62 techniques "skip," 182 deleted from Statement of Work, 182 temperatures, 200 Reentry vehicle, 30 configuration, 59, 70, 78 lifting, 13 See also Entry vehicle. Rees, Eberhard F. M., 112, 134, 222 Refueling in earth orbit, 6, 33, 110 Reinartz, Stanley R., 214 Reliability, 36, 40, 113,163,190 lunar excursion module, 172 vehicle system, 36, 40, 87, 110 Reliability Panel. See Technical Assessment Panels. Rendezvous, iv, 26, 45, 65, 67, 109 and docking, 5, 109, 132, 139, 173 technique and equipment, 139 capability, 132 earth orbit, 24, 95, 107 experiments, 133 flight test program, 45 in orbit, 6, 117 in space, 6, 19, 42, 45 lunar excursion vehicle requirements, 173 lunar orbit, 95, 107, 109, 110 lunar surface, 95, 107 techniques, 6, 45, 95, 109, 132, 139, 140 Mercury Mark II objective, 132

R-3 (Bell Dyna-Soar) configuration, 72 Radar lunar landing, 178 spacecraft rendezvous, 178 Radiation, 46, 159, 170 dosage on Discoverer XVII, 60 dosimeter, 123, 172 effects, 46, 80 environment, 41 experiments, 33 lunar, 26 polar, 26 problems, 45, 56 protection, 39, 161 safe dose, 41 shielding, 40, 122, 201 trajectories, 41 Radiation belt, 10, 14, 25,170 probes carrying biological specimens, 28 Radio altimeter, 21 Radio astronomical laboratory, 35 Radio Corporation of America, 111 Astro-Electronics Division, 100 Ranger contract, 100 Major Defense Systems Division, 111 selected to design and build Project Fire data acquisition and communication subsystem, 197 Radioplane Division selected to design and build Apollo spacecraft parachute landing system, 134 See also Northrop Corporation. Rafel, Norman, 1 I0, 118, 212,213,221 Ragan, Ralph, 105, 106, 108. 137, 147, 166, 168 RAND Corporation, The, 7, 55 awarded contract to evaluate missions with nuclear propulsion desirable, 55 Randolph Air Force Base, Tex., 7 Randt, Clark T., 37 Range safety officer destroyed Mercury-Atlas 3, 84 Ranger I, 107 675-pound spacecraft, 107 Agena B misfired, 107 launched by Atlas-Agena B, 107 reentered, 107 Ranger II, 120 Agena engine failed, 120 launched, 120 Ranger III launched, 135 scientific experiments analysis of results, 135,194 gamma-ray spectrometer, 135, 194 Ranger IV attained parking orbit, 154 contamination of moon, 183 impacted on moon, 154 launched, 154 payload, 154 timer failure, 154 Ranger V failed, 195 launched, 195 lunar probe, 195 mission, 195 Ranger program, 43, 75, 100, 168 basis, 34, 168 failures, 137, 195 named, 44 program expanded, 108, 194 spacecraft, 43, 44, 99, 108, 194

259
334-987 O 69 t8

INDEX Aviation Corporation, 101,194, 197 awarded contract for Project Fire spacecraft, bid on Apollo spacecraft feasibility study, 57 bid on lunar excursion module, 186 invited to bid on lunar excursion module, 171 Research and Development Command. See United Air Force. Research Steering Committee on Manned xi, 2, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, See also Goett Committee. Resident Apollo Spacecraft Program Office 140, 141 Resolution XII (United Nations), 8 Resolution XIV (United Nations), established tee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Rice University, 188 Richard, Ludie G., 138, 220 Richter, Henry L., Jr., 8 Ricker, Harry H., Jr., 209 Ridenour, Louis N., 207, 208 Riley, Donald R., 105 Risler, Welby T., 215 Roadman, Charles H., 98, 134, 213,222 Roberts, Tecwyn, 215,220 Robertson, Lois, xiii Robinson, Lyndon, 219 Rocket and Satellite Research Panel, established, Rocket engines liquid-fueled, 2 variable thrust (descent), 27 Rocketdyne Division, 2, 7, 15, 21, 75, 166, 194 additional contracts, 167 assigned 183 responsibility for reaction control Republic

144

Ryan Aeronautical stage recovery,

Corporation, 74

study

on feasibility

of S-I

$
States Sacramento, Calif., 183 Sagan, Carl, 183 Samonski, Frank H., Jr., 216 San Antonio, Tex., 7 Sanderson, Kenneth C., 63, 211,216 San Diego, Calif., 65 Sandier, Irving J., 218 Santa Susana tory, 17 Satellites Air Force-Rocketdyne Propulsion Labora-

Space Flight, 35, 208 (RASPO)

Commit33, 133

Discoverer XVII, 60 Explorer I, 2, 9 Lunik I, 15 Lunik II, 2, 29, 183 Pioneer, 55, 65 Sputnik I, xi, 2, 8 See also names of each. Saturn (booster), I0, 12, 16, 22, 24, 26, 46, 47, 54 first-generation, 31 nuclear upper stages, 47 second-generation, 31 See also Boosters and Launch vehicles. (launch vehicle), 32, 106, 108, 146, 171 abort study, 192 development schedule, 55, 74 guidance system, 56, 69, 139 new configuration, 18, 31, 32, 74, 100, 147 study of S-I stage recovery, 74 two-stage, 35, 74, 147 32

8

Saturn

system,

Rockets

contract for F-1 engine, contract for H-1 engine, contract for J-2 engine, See also North American

11, 16, 167 12 3, 46, 54, 167 Aviation, Inc.

upper-stage configuration, 16, 18, 20, 31, vehicle assignments, 46, 56, 192 See also Boosters and Launch vehicles. Saturn-Apollo Coordination Panels, 112 established, 113

Juno II, 17, 141 Juno V, 16 "Mastodon," 179 poslgrade, 2000-pound-thrust, Rover (nuclear), 91 solid-fuel, 120 Vanguard, 9 See also names of each. Rogallo wing (paraglider), 74 use in recovery of Saturn S-I Roll control, 103, 121 rates, 182 Rollins, Robert H., 211,215 Rose, James T., 105, 138 Rose, Rodney G., 216

Electrical and Electronics Design, 113 Flight Mechanics, Dynamics, and Control, 113 200 Saturn C payload, C-1, 193 Launch Operations, Mechanical Design, 33 85,000 pounds in earth 29, 33.39, 43, 76, 91.96, orbit, I01, 33 114, 115, 55 134, 113 113

Saturn 146, stage, 74

adequacy to qualify spacecraft Apollo boilerplates proposed, configuration, 34, 76 configuration approved, 2 configuration change configuration change first flight, xi, 50 first stage, 3, 43, 46 announced, proposed,

questioned, 46

93, 100 74, 77

Rosen, Milton W., 21, 22, 28, 30, 60, 100, 134, 154, 214, 221,222 Rosen Working Group, 118, 119, 120, 221 report, 51, 120, 131 Rosenthal, Aaron, 209 Rosholt, Robert L., I0 Ross, C. C., 207 Ross, H. E., 6 Rossi, Bruno B., 212 Rothrock, Addison M., 80, 212 Rotors, 58 Rover (nuclear rocket), 91 Row, Perry V., 63,211,216 Rowell, Billie D., x,iv Rubel, John H., 133 Rudolph, Arthur L., 138 Runyan, Harry L., Jr., 215 Ruppe, Harry O., 213 Russell, William T., 208 RVX (blunted cone) configuration, 71

118,

119,

120,

engines static-fired, 3, 38, 39, 42, H-1 engines, 38, 42, 43, 46, 120 S-IV stage air transport feasible, 85 S-IV stage static-fired, 183 second stage, 3, 93, 120, 183 to test Apollo 139, 165 Saturn C-IB, 146, acceleration to Saturn test 168 39, Apollo rendezvous 179, 180, 193, recommended, spacecraft 86, 95 second stage, 25 first stage, 25 third stage, 25 100 55, 93 technique 198 164 in earth orbit and

43, 46

hardware,

130,

165,

C-2,

74, 77, 82,

1 -million-pound-thrust 2-million-pound-thrust 200,000-pound-thrust configuration, 76, configuration

reevaluated,

260

INDEX

development accelerated, 47, 77 development schedule, 55 engineering design work discontinued, 97 payload limitation, 56 schedule, 56 Saturn C-3, 96, 109, 119 Apollo support capability studied, 105 configuration, 98, 100 first-stage specifications, 99 first stage to be built and assembled at Michoud, 109 launch facility and test stand design, 99 production engines, 99 recommended for manned lunar landing mission, 50, 95, 101 systems integration studies, 98 Saturn C-4, 119 recommended for manned lunar landing mission, 50, 104, 105 Saturn C-5, iv, v, 46, 119, 130, 140, 164, 168, 176, 179, 190, 193,196, 198 announced as lunar launch vehicle, 135 availability, 139, 146 configuration approved, 130, 134 configuration proposed, 120, 147 launch schedule, 147 recommended launch vehicle for manned lunar landing by LOR, 154, 168 required for qualification of complete spacecraft, 165 S-IVB stage to be third stage, 154, 180 Saturn C-8 configuration, 161 planned for direct ascent, 161 Saturn/Centaur launches, 24, 32 Saturn development program, 2, 31, 55, 81 approved by NASA Hq, 2 Saturn flight schedule, 59 Saturn Guidance Committee, 69 formed, 69 objectives, 69 Saturn guidance equipment, 139, 147 Saturn launch area Complex 34, 23, 94 Complex 39, 161,171 program, 32, 38, 54, 62 research and development, 77 transferred to NASA, 38 transferred to NASA cognizance, 2 Program Requirements Committee, 80 established, 80 reentry tests, 94 preliminary development plan, 94 spacecraft systems, 94 S-I stage, 34, 76, 93, 140 1.5-million-pound thrust, 34 Chrysler Corporation selected to build, 119 eight H-1 engines, 34 feasibility study for stage recovery, 74 redesign proposed, 77 S-IB stage 3-million-pound thrust, 100 S-IC stage, 190 configuration, 133 first stage of Saturn C-5, 130, 133, 147 The Boeing Company selected as contractor, 133 S-II stage, 55, 77, 109, 118, 190 configuration, 76, 100, 109, 147 five J-2 engines, 118 four J-2 engines, 109, 118 NAA selected to develop and produce,

Saturn

Saturn

S-IV stage, 32, 33, 34, 37, 76, 100, 200 154-inch-diameter adapter, 87 80,000-pound thrust, 32, 34 air transport feasible, 85 Douglas Aircraft Company to build, 3, 43 four engines, 34 Saturn second stage, 37, 93, 168, 183 statlc-fired, 183 S-IVB stage, 113, 147, 200 adapter, 186 development plan, 120 Douglas Aircraft Company selected for development, 130, 180 modification by Douglas Aircraft Company, 113, 198 recommended as flight test vehicle, 113, 134, six LR-115 engines, 113 replaced by single J-2 engine, 113, S-V stage, 32, 34, 74, 76 40,000-pound thrust, 32, 34 two engines, 32, 34 SA-1, 46 assembly, 46 flight qualification test, 85 installed on static test stand, 76 launch, xi, 50, 115, 116 SA-2, 155 launch, 155, 156 Project Highwater, 155 SA-5, 113 SA-6, 56, 113, 193 tentative flight plan, 56, 193 SA-7, 113, 193 S-IV adapter approved for Apollo missions, trajectories, 119 SA-8, 56, 87, 113, 193 tentative flight plan, 56 trajectories, 119 SA-9, 56, 87, 113,193 SA-10, 56, 87, 113, 193 SA-T (test booster), 38 SAT-01 test, 38 static firing, 27 System Study," 18, 20 1375 possible configurations, 18, 20 Vehicle Team (Silverstein Committee), 32, 154 134

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn Saturn Saturn

87

Saturn

Saturn Saturn Saturn

"Saturn Saturn 209

Saturn

34,

Saturn Saturn

Saturn

Saturn Saturn

Saunders, James F., 216 Savage, Melvyn, 66, 118, 147, 212, 221 Sawyer, Ralph S., 211, 216 Schaaf, S. A., 207 Sehachter, Oscar, 6 Schaus, T., 217 Schirra, Walter M., Jr., 19, 215,216 Schmidt, Stanley F., 62, 211 Schramm, Wilson B., 100, 138, 213,214 Schriever, Bernard A., 21 Schurmeier, Harris M., 20, 22, 147, 208 Schwenk, F. Carl, 28, 30 Schwichtenberg, A. H., 212 Scientific equipment, 104 experiments, 194 exploration of space, 9, 77 lunar base, 68 Scout, 26, 35, 82, 139 MORAD, 81, 82 payload, 82 Seamans, Robert C., Jr., 55, 65, 67, 87, 91, 95, 96, 98, 104, 105, 108, 166, 170, 171,197, 198, 208,209,213 Seattle, Wash., 183

130,

Saturn

73, 74, 80, 81, 85, 119, 131, 132, 159,

130,

198

261

INDEX Seaton, Fred A., 53 - Second-generat i on " space capsule, 28 advanced abort devices, 28 advanced recovery techniques, 28 potential for near lunar return velocity, 28 space and atmospheric maneuverability, 28 three-man capacity, 28 Second International Congress on Astronautics, 6 Secretary of Defense, 12, 23, 99, 133 Secretary of the Air Force, 32 Secretary of the Army, 23, 32, 53 Secretary of the Interior, 53 See, Elliot M., Jr., 189 Seiff, Alvin, 56, 210, 214 Seismometer, 43, 195 lunar, 34, 43, 73, 195 Seldon, Robert F., 63, 211 Senate, 12, 74 Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 17, 21, 35 Senior Steering Group, 36, 42 See also Space Exploration Program Council. Service module (SM), 101, 124, 128, 147, 150, 170, 179, 190 adapter, 186, 200 fuel cell radiators, 164 interface problems, 178 length increased, 183 mockup ordered, 135 progress reviewed, 143 propulsion system, 102, 137, 150, 155, 164, 165, 182,200 ground tests, 165 reaction control system, 164 specifications, iv structure, 103, 122 Shapley, Alan H., 208 Shea, Joseph F., 134, 139, 147, 165, 168, 170, 222 Shepard, Alan B., Jr., iv, xi, 19, 50, 87,214, 221 Shipley, William, 212 Shock attenuation, 157 NAA concept, 157 Sidick, Rose, xiii Siepert, Albert F., 209 Sigma 7 launch, 194 manned, 194 mission, 194 recovered, 194 Silverstein, Abe, 10, 15, 20, 31, 32, 34, 36, 42, 43, 44, 47, 53, 57, 60, 62, 67, 87, 93, 98, 207,209, 213 Silverstein Committee, 32,209 Saturn Vehicle Team, 32, 34, 209 Simulators, mission, 191 complete mission capability, 19l instrument environment, 191 visual environment, 191 Siry, Joseph W., 138 Sivertson, Wilford E., Jr., 64, 211 Sjoberg, Sigurd A., 217, 221 S1ayton, Donald K., 19,217, 22l Sloop, John L., 54, 80, 210 SM. See Service module. Small, John W., Jr., 217 Smedal, Harald A., 62, 211,213 Smith, Francis B., 19 Smith, G. Allen, 62,210 Smith, G. Dale, 211 Smith, George B., Jr., 167 Smith, Levering, 100, 214 Smith, R. A., 7 Smith, Richard F., 216 Smith, Richard G., 219 Smith, Robert P., 142,219 Snyder, Samuel, 212 Society of Automotive Engineers, 42 National Aeronautical Meeting, 42 Solar batteries, 40 Solar cells, 195 Solar flares, 41, 95, 159 Solar satellite, 15 Source Evaluation Board, 104, 114, 128, 159, 214 South Africa, 19, 32, 41, 55 South Point, Hawaii, 105 Sovereignty of outer space, 6 Soviet Union, xi, 2, 8, 15, 29, 32, 45, 53, 62, 76, 77, 81, 106, 179, 181 Space and Information Systems Division, 128, 151, 152, 198 employment increase, 167 first spacecraft mockup inspection, 167 named subcontractors, 130, 134, 138, 142, 143 NASA Apollo Office established, 140 selected to design and build Apollo spacecraft, 128 See also North American Aviation, Inc. Space cabin, 80, 167,181,188 fire, 188 sealing, 80 simulated, 181,188 environment, 13, 19, 67, 85, 101, 173 physical reactions to, 101 psychological reactions to, 101, 167, 181 exploration, 9 ferry, 45, 115 flight, 5 flight research, cost, 10 goal, 10, 77, 88 laboratory, 25, 31,40, 102 module, 102, 104, 123, 127 temporary (manned), 33 medicine, first symposium, 7 mirror, 5 platforms, 28 probes, unmanned, 26 radiator, 159 sextant, 110, 160, 165 first design study, 133 visibility problem, 110 station, 5, 7, 17, 19, 35, 42, 45 in earth orbit, 39, 40 suit, 157, 172, 176, 194, 200 development, 27, 130, 166, 176, 194 See also Apollo space suit. vehicle, problems, 112 design studies, 112 operations, 112 planning, 112 refueling in earth orbit, 112 research and development tests, 112 schedules, 112 weight, 112 Space Exploration Program Council, 34, 36, 42, 47, 55, 66, 67, 209 Senior Steering Group, 36, 42 Space rendezvous, xiii, 45 NASA inter-Center meeting, 45 Space Science Board (National Academy of Sciences), 77 Space Sciences Steering Committee, 94 Lunar Sciences Subcommittee, 94 Space Task Group (STG), iii, iv, v, xi, 21, 32, 39, 40, 4145, 56, 60, 61, 66, 68-70, 73, 74, 76, 78, 84, 87, 93, 98, 104, 105, 107, ll0, 112, 113 Advanced Vehicle Team, 3, 35. 209 Apollo Project Office formed, 54 Flight Systems Division, 50, 54, 55, 94 formulated guidelines for advanced manned spacecraft, 38 New Projects Panel, 2, 209

262

INDEX Organization chart, 230 organized, 14 proposed a manned spacecraft development center, 85 redesignated, v, 50, 118 responsibilities with prime contract, 93, 94 responsibility for lunar spacecraft specifications, 94 transferred to Goddard Space Flight Center, 21 Space Technology Laboratories, Inc., 134 Apollo spacecraft bid, 114 design study for Surveyor spacecraft, 47 unmanned logistic system study, 186 Space Vehicle Review Board, 218 Spacecraft, 6, 197, 200 14-day flight-time capability, 39 compatibility with Saturn boosters, 39, 40 coolant system, 70, 154, 178 lunar liftoff weight, 138 propulsion systems, 24, 40, 99, 164 specifications, 176 Statement of Work, 13 l stability, 200 temperature control, 70 transponder equipment, 177 weight, 24, 40, 55, 56, 57, 165, 176, 177, 190, 192 See also Apollo spacecraft, Command module, Lunar excursion module, and Lunar excursion vehicle. adapter, 186 structure defined, 186 Spacecraft "bus," 180 lunar logistic study, 180 Spacecraft configurations, 59 Bell Dyna-Soar, 71, 72 D-2, 72, 90 elliptical cone, 71 flat-bottomed lifting vehicle, 71, 72 flat-face cone, 71 half-cone, 71 Hydrag (Avco Corporation), 71 L-2C (Langley), 71, 72 lenticular, 29, 71, 72, 77, 78 lifting Mercury, 45 M-l, 71, 77 M-l-l, 71, 72 M-2, 71 Mark II, 71 Mercury-type, 57, 71 Mercury with control flap, 71 modified flapped Mercury, 71, 72 NERV, 71 R-3, 72 RVX (blunted cone), 71 W-l, 72 winged glide, 88 Spacecraft contractors. See Appendix 3,223. Spacecraft design, 40 crew survival for 72 hours, 72 Spacecraft development program, 119 performances, 1 t9 schedules, 119 weights, 119 Spacecraft, U.S. Aurora 7, 160, 161 Freedom 7, 87 Friendship 7, 140 Liberty Bell 7, 100 Mariner, 99 Ranger I, 107 Ranger II, 120 Ranger III, 135, 194 Ranger IV, 154, 183 Ranger V, 195 Spacecraft

Sigma 7, 194 See also names of each. Spacecraft, U.S.S.R. Korabl Sputnik I (Sputnik 1V), 29, 45 Korabl Sputnik II (Sputnik V) , 53 Korabl Sputnik 1H (Sputnik V1), 63 KorablSputnik VI (Sputnik IX), 76 Korabl Sputnik VII (Sputnik X), 77 Lunik I, 15 Lunik II, 2, 29, 183 Lunik 1H, 2, 29, 195 Sputnik IV, 45 Sputnik V, 53 Sputnik VI, 63 Sputnik IX, 76 Sputnik X, 77 Vostok l, 81 Vostok lI, 106 Vostok IlI, 181 Vostok IV, 181 See also names of each. Sparks, Brian O., 56, 64 Special Committee on Space Technology (Stever Committee), 9, 13, 207-208 Speer, Frldjof A., 220 Spitzer, Lyman, Jr., 207 Sputnik L xi, 2, 8 Sputnik IV, 29, 45 Sputnik V, 53 Sputnik V1, 63 Sputnik IX, 76 Sputnik X, 77 Squires, Kenneth R., 211,215 Stabilization and control subsystem, 102, 121, 186, 194 attitude and rate displays, 121 attitude reference, 121 contract to Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company to design and build, 134 control electronics assembly, 121 manual controls, 121 power supplies, 121 rate sensors, 121 requirements, 102 Stafford, Thomas P., 189 Stapp, John P., 207 State University of Iowa, 170 Stecher, Lewis J., Jr., 100, 214 Stehling, Kurt R., 100, 214 Stelges, William R., 216, 219 Stever Committee, 9, 13, 207 Stever, H. Guyford, 9, 207 Stewart, Homer J., 35,207 Stewart, Lester A., 219 STG. See Space Task Group. STG-L[ncoln Laboratory Work Statement, 66 St. Louis, Mo., 190 Stone, Ralph W., Jr., 65, 68, 115 Storage batteries, 40, 125 Storms, Harrison A., 127 Strass. H. Kurt, 18, 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33_ 44, 45, 46, 54, 55, 56, 58, 68, 94, 209, 217 Strelka, 53 See also Dogs. Strickland, James L., 219 Structural system, 25, 48, 103 protection, 103 meteoroid, 103 passive heat, 103 radiation, 103 Structures, 45, 73 command module, 190 Structures, Materials and Heating Panel. See Technical Assessment Panels. Structures and materials, 68

263

INDEX

Sturm, Thomas A., 9 Suborbital flight, 35, 192 manned, 35, 50 Sumpter, James H., Jr., 218 Sun, 154 Super booster program, 35 Surveyor, 73, 75 contract award, 47 instrumentation, 73 program, 168 schedule, 73 soft-lunar landing, 47 spacecraft, 47, 73 Survival kit, 141, 190 Sverdrup & Parcel Company, 190 Swenson, Loyd S., Jr., 7 Sword, C. D., 167 Systems Integration Panel. See Technical Panels. Syvertson, Clarence A., 62, 210, 215

Assessment

T
Technical Assessment Panels, 56, 57, 106, 114 findings, 59 Panels, 214, 215, 216, 217 Flight Mechanics, 114, 215 Ground Operational Support Systems and Operations, 114, 217 Human Factors, 114, 215 Instrumentation and Communications, 114, 216 Manufacturing, 114, 217 Onboard Systems, 114, 216 Propulsion, 114, 215 Reliability, 114, 217 Structures, Materials and Heating, 114, 214 Systems Integration, 114, 214 Technical Development Plan, 114, 217 proposal evaluation, 57, 114 Technical Development Plan Panel. See Technical Assessment Panels. Technical Information Preparation Branch, xiv See also Manned Spacecraft Center. Technical Subcommittee, 106, 114, 131,214 Technology development, 67 Tektites, 60 Telecommunications system, Collins Radio Company selected to build, 134 Telemetry, 143, 182 data, 79, 183 Telescope, 5, 170, 182, 185, 190, 200 requirements for spacecraft, 163, 185 scanning, 192 Television, 81,182, 195 camera, 11, 44, 73, 108 direct, 21 monitor, 190 system, 21, 44 Temperature recorder, 43 lunar, 43 Tenth International Astronautical Congress, Terrestrial crater, 60 studies, 60 Theoretical Mechanics lunar trajectory See also Langley

Thompson, Robert F., 217,219 Thor-Able, 12, 13, 14 Thor-Delta, 26, 35 Thornton, Wilbur G., 64, 210 Three-man advanced spacecraft, xi, 135 Thrust requirements, 25 Thrust chamber assembly, ablative, 184 Tischler, Adelbert O., 118, 221 Titan, 18, 20 first stage, 20 hardware procurement, 20 second stage of Saturn, 20 Titan II, 9, 132, 133 proposed for lunar landing program, 87 Titan III, 119 NASA had no requirement, 120 Titan-C, 20, 29 Titov, Gherman S. (pilot, Vostok II), 106 Tobius, Cornelius A., 46 Tolson, Robert H., 115 Topographical research, 13 Toukdarian, Richard Z., 216 Toxic gases, 41 Toy, Harold D., 217 Tozier, Robert E., 63, 211, 216 Tracking requirements, 41, 42, 66 circumlunar, 41 midcourse, 41, 42 reentry, 42 Tracking stations deep-space stations, 14, 66 Tracking systems DOD-NASA coordination, 19 Trageser, Milton B., 43, 61, 62, 63, 105, 110 Trainers part-task, 191 simulated lunar landing, 168 Trajectory analysis, 44, 68, 172 lunar excursion module, 172 Transearth trajectory, 6, 102, 182 Translunar injection, 147 Translunar trajectory, 6, 102, 147, 150, Transponder, 177 Trenholm, J. B., Jr., 218 Trimble, George S., Jr., 207 Trimpi, Robert L., 64, 211 Tullahoma, Tenn., 191 Turnock, James, 147

154,

182

U
Unger, United J, 221 Aircraft Corporation, 37, 84, 143 Hamilton Standard Division, 130, 176, 194 Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division, 84, 143 United Nations, General Assembly adopted Resolution XII, 8 adopted Resolution XIV, 33, 133 United States, 32, 55 United States Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center, 160, 191 Ballistic Missile Division, 11, 21, 32, 59 Research and Development Command, 59 Scientific Advisory Board, 8 sponsored space medicine symposium, 7 United States Army Ballistic Missile Agency, 2, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 31-34, 36, 37 Chief of Ordnance, 10 Chief of Staff, 23 United States Navy, 44 Air Crew Equipment Laboratory, 106 Naval Air Engineering Center, 167 University of Arizona, 195 Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, 195 University of California, 17, 46

28,

30

Division, 34 group, 34 Research Center.

Thibodaux, Joseph G., Jr., 64, 21 l, 215 Thiele, Clyde, 217 Thiokol Chemical Corporation, selected escape tower jettison motor, 152 Thompson, Floyd L., 14, 45, 56, 64 Thompson, Milton O., 63, 21 l, 215

to

build

launch

264

INDEX

University of Chicago, 10, 42 University of Houston, xiv University of Manchester, 13, 44 University of Minnesota, 46 Unmanned logistic system studies, general-purpose spacecraft, 8 Upper Atmosphere Rocket Research Urine management system, 164 U.S. Army Map Service, 15 U.S. Geological Survey, 15, 53, 60 U.S.S. Kearsarge, 194

feasibility Panel, 8

of developing

V
V-2 Upper Atmosphere Research Panel, 8 Vacuum, environmental approach, 99 Vale, Robert E., 211, 215, 219 Van Allen, James A., 10, 170, 207 Van Allen radiation belts, 46, 68 inner belt, 46 outer belt, 46 Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., 60 Vanguard, 9 Vann, James, 219 Van Nuys, Calif., 134 Variable-thrust engines for lunar landing, 24 Vega, 16, 21, 26, 31 Velocity requirements, 25, 102 Venus (planet), 78 orbiter, 55 probe, 35 unmanned reconnaissance, 35 Vernier propulsion system, 102 Vetko, George J., 215 Vibration, 41, 80, 123 attenuation, 123 crew loads, 123 in spacecraft, 41,123 Voas, Robert B., 215, 217 Vogeley, Arthur W., 81, 98, 115 yon Braun team, 23 yon Braun, Wernher, 5, 6, 14, 15, 36, 38, 44, 56, 62, 66, 74, 87, 98, 112, 113, 134, 140, 164, 207, 209, 218, 221, 222 Vonbun, Friedrich O., 138, 147, 211, 217 Voss, R., 213 Vostok I launch, 81 payload, 81 reentry, 81 Vostok lI hunch, 106 manned, 106 payload, 106 reentry, 106 weight, 106 Vostok llI launch, 181 manned, 181 recovery, 181 rendezvous with Vostok IV, 181 Vostok IV launch, 181 manned, 181 recovery, 181 rendezvous with Vostok 111, 181 Vought Astronautics MSC space suit evaluation contract, 166

Washingon, D.C., iv, xlv, 19, 36, 46, 47, 53, 55, 99, 118, 168 Waste disposal, 41 Water boiler, 178 Water tanks, 178 Water vapor, 41 Water-glycol, 159, 178, 192 Watkins, Harry L., 218 Watson, Fletcher G., 10 Watters, Harry J., 212 Waugh, Merle G., 212 Weather observation, 5 Weather satellite system, 91 Webb, James E., 74, 99, 108, 128, 133, 143, 159, 166, 171, 201 Weeks, L. M., 110 Weigand, H. J., 100, 214 Weight, 31, 68, 165, 176, 190 Weightlessness, 5 Wells, Helen T., 27 Weston, Kenneth C., 211, 215 Weyers, Paul F., 142 Whipple, Fred L., 6, 208 Whitbeck, Philip H., 217 White, Art, 221 White, Edward H., II, 189 White, Stanley C., 41, 46,209, 214 White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), N. Mex., 165, 175, 188, 193 facilities, 165, 180, 181, 188 MSC test programs, 165, 175 potential direct ascent launch site, 105 selected as Little Joe II launch site, 160 Whittaker, Clyde, 219 Wiesner Committee (Ad Hoc Committee on Space), 212 Wiesner, Jerome B., 69, 212 Wildey, Robert L., 200 Williams Bay, Wise., I0 Williams, Francis L., 8, 100, 214 Williams, Grady, 221 Williams, John J., 214, 220 Williams, Thomas, 216 Williams, Waker C., 93, 104-107, 112, 118, 134, 214, 221,222 Williams, W. E., 219 Williamsburg, Va., 131 Willment, David A., 149 Wilson, Charles H., 94 Winekler, John R., 46 Wind tunnel

115,

170,

105,

69,

155,

W
W-1 configuration, 72 Wallops Island, Va., 44, 60, 85 Wallops Station, Va., 43, 197 Ward, Robert J., 219

program, 141, 191 tests, 69, 144 Windows, 163 spacecraft, 163, 177, 198 Winged-glide configuration, 88 Winterhalter, David L., Sr., 142 Wolhart, Walter D., 218 Wolman, William W., 100, 214 Wood, Lloyd, 210 Woods, Robert J., 7 Woodward, William H., 207, 213 Woomera, Australia, 19, 75,109, 143 Woosley, Gordon, 2 t 9, 220 Working Group on Human Factors and Training (Stever Committee), 208 Working Group on Instrumentation (Stever Committee), 208 Working Group on Lunar Exploration, 17,208 Working Group on Manned Lunar Landing Program, 57, 210 formed by George Low, 57 purposes, 57

265

INDEX Working Group on Range, Launch and Tracking Facilities (Stever Committee), 208 Working Group on Reentry (Stever Committee), 207 Working Group on Space Research Objectives (Stever Committee), 207 Working Group on Space Surveillance (Stever Committee), 208 Working Group on Vehicle Program (Stever Committee), 207 World War II, 5 WSMR. See White Sands Missile Range. Wyatt, DeMarquis D., 17, 19, 98, 213

Y
Yaw rates, 182 Yerkes Observatory, 10, 42 Yolles, J., 213 York, Herbert F., 17, 20, 29, 209 Young, John D., 217 Young, John W., 189 Yschek, Henry P., 141,218

Z
Zavasky, Raymond L., 23 Zimmerman, Arthur V., 147 Zimmerman, Charles H., 23 Zwicky, F., 5

×
X-15, 140, 152

266

THE AUTHORS

Ivan degree News, organ,

D. Ertel from

has been 1964. Georgia Suburban Georgia News Gemini

the Assistant Born College, (1954-1957). Third and flight.

Historian New Point, Before Army. authored Ertel Atlanta,

of the Manned York Georgia Georgia, coming (1914) (1958). and

Spacecraft

Center his B.B.A.

since September of Atlanta's Press Officer Space and Mercury

in Marion, East

he received the

State

He was news editor Decatur-DeKalb in 1961 sheets about he was each official news

Reporter,

Decatur,

to NASA and fact

at Headquarters, Roundup, manned

established and

the MSC

brochures

He is married

has three

daughters.

Mary History

Louise of the

Morse

has

been

a Research since

Associate the fall

with of

the

Department Born College, Univer-

of

University

of Houston

1966.

in Beverly,

Massachusetts, she received her B.S. in Education from Salem State Salem, Massachusetts (1947), and her M.A. in History from Columbia sity (1950). setts, before She was a senior editor moving to Houston. with the MIT Press, Cambridge,

Massachu-

267

NASA

HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS

HISTORIES MANAGEMENT * Robert 1966, PROGRAM • Loyd L. Rosholt, _ SERIES Jr., James Mercury, and SERIES Venture 1968, into $2.50. Space: Early Years o/ Goddard Space Flight Center, Milton M. Grimwood, NASA and Charles 1966, C. Alexander, $5.50. A History (1969). This New Ocean: HISTORY An SERIES Administrative History o[ NASA, 1958-1963, NASA SP-4101,

$4.00.

HISTORY S. Swenson,

A History • Constance CENTER * Alfred NASA

o[ Project McL. Green

SP-4201,

Lomask,

Vanguard:

HISTORY Rosenthal, SP-4301,

HISTORICAL * Eugene Culture nology • Mae

STUDIES M. Emme (ed.), History o[ Rocket Technology, special issue for the of Technology History 1965, of $1.00. and Tech-

(Fall (Detroit: Link, Sketch

1963); augmented and published Wayne State University Press, Space Medicine NASA in Project EP-29, Mercury, 1965 (Out o[ NASA,

by Society 1964). NASA of Print).

Mills

SP-4003,

• Historical

CHRONOLOGIES • Aeronautics the NASA, • Aeronautical Science • Astronautical on Science • Astronautics • Astronautics • Astronautics • Astronautics • Astronautics • Project • Project Barton *All Printing and and 1961 Astronautics: o[ Space, (Out and and and and and and and and of Print). Astronautical 1962 1963, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, Aeronautical Astronautics, Aeronautics, Aeronautics, Aeronautics, Aeronautics, Aeronautics, A Chronology, Technology Hacker, with and Peter ordered 20402. Events (Out Events $ 1.00. NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA by James Operations: J. Vorzimmer, from the SP-4004, SP-4005, SP-4006, SP-4007, SP-4008 M. 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, (1968), $1.75. $1.75. $2.25. $1.50. $2.25. NASA SP-4002 of SP-4001, (1969). Documents, Government 1963. and o[ 1961, of o[ Print). 1962, published by the House Committee published by the House Committee on An American Chronology compiled by o[ Science Eugene M. and Emme, Technology Washington: in

Exploration

1915-1960,

Astronautics,

Mercury: Gemini C.

Grimwood, NASA

A Chronology,

by James

M. Grimwood

titles with prices can be Office, Washington, D.C.

Superintendent

269
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 0--334--987

NATIONAL

AERONAUTICS WASHINGTON, OFI:ICIAL

AND

SPACE n.C.

ADMINISTRATION 20546

BUSINESS

FIRST

CLASS

MAIL
POSTAGE NATIONAL SPACE AND FEES PAID AND

AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION

POSTMASTER:

If Undeliverable Postal Manual)

( Settion 158 Do Not Return

"The aeronautical and space activities of the United States conducted so as to contribute ... to the expansion o[ human edge of phenomena in the atmosphere shall provide for the u'idest practicable of information concerning its activities
--NATIONAl. _"qb _f AERONAUTICS

shall be knowl-

and space. The and appropriate and the resuhs
AND SPACE

Administration dissemination thereo[."
ACT OF

1958

NASA
TECHNICAL technical complete, knowledge.

SCIENTIFIC
REPORTS: Scientific

AND
and

TECHNICAL
TECHNICAl. published to merit SPECIAl.

PUBLICATIONS
TRANSLATIONS: in a foreign language Information considered in English. Information to NASA activities.

information and a lasting

considered contribution

important, to existing

NASA

distribution

PUBI.ICATIONS: from or of value include data and

TECHNICAL in scope contribution TECHNICAL Information because tion, but

NOTES: nevertheless to existing

lnformati_)n of importance knowledge,

less broad as a

derived

Publications monographs, sourcebooks,

conference compilations,

proceedings, handbooks,

special

bibliographies.

MEMORANDUMS: receiving limited data, distribution ,;ccurity classificaTECHNOLOGY PUBI.ICATIONS: used Scientific under
an

UTII.IZATION Information on technology

of preliminary reasons.

or other

by NASA

tl_at may be of particular and other inchlde non-aerospace Tech Briefs,

CONTRACTOR technical contract information
or grant

REPORTS: generated
considered

and a NASA

interest

in o_mmcrcial Pubticati_ms

applications "l'cchn_h)gy and

l rt ilizat ion Reports Surveys.

and Notes,

and

important

Technology

contribution

to existing

knmvledgc.

Details

on the availability AND

of these

publications

may be obtained DIVISION

trom:

SCIENTIFI£

TE£HNICAL

INFORMATION

NATIONAL

AERONAUTI£S
Washington,

AND
D.C.

SPA£E
20546

ADMINISTRATION

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful