NOV.-DEC.
1965 ENGINEERING NOTES 1005
consumption and pointing accuracy results were discussed.
No absolute standard of performance was specified. In
general, the pilots ."feel" for his performance on a particular
run agreed with measured values.
Significant Results
Prior to this test program, there existed some variations of
opinion as to whether the star acquisition task could be
readily performed manually with the type of control used in
this simulation. The test results (and pilot opinion) indicate
that it can. Star acquisition was accomplished in all but one
of the "runs" (96% of the time), and there is evidence that
performance during this "run" may have been affected by
the quality of the TV monitor image.
Based on fuel consumption, there was an improvement in
performance of both pilots with experience. The best per-
formance was achieved from the 8th to 12th day in "orbit"
with the last days being slightly worse, but not as bad as the
initial five days. The initial improvement with time during
the first several days of the test tends to indicate a learning
Downloaded by 121.200.6.58 on November 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28344
curve especially in view of the brief training period. No
reason or correlation with other tasks explains the slight de-
gradation during the final days of the test
There was little correlation between precision-pointing
capability and performance of the star acquisition. Since
these were essentially different and separate elements within
the task, no correlation would be expected unless psychologi-
cal and physiological factors influenced both with the same
effect. There was reasonably good correlation between fuel
consumption during acquisition and time to accomplish
acquisition. (The time to perform the task was emphasized
as not being a significant performance requirement, however.)
A direct comparison of fuel consumption for the manual and
automatic modes may be misleading since the system was not
optimized for either mode of control. For the system as
assembled, average manual performance resulted in 30% less
fuel consumption than the automatic mode for similar initial
conditions.
Final attitude control accuracy using power gyros was
measured by the maximum (peak-to-peak) attitude excursions
per axis during the final 60-sec period of "precision pointing."
The average accuracy achieved was 5.7 min of arc excluding
transients due to gyro resets. No significant difference in
performance was noted on various days of the mission.
(Operation in automatic closed-loop mode resulted in com-
parable results of 2.0 min of arc without reset transients.)
No significant difference in performance was noted between
the two members of the crew either in fuel consumption or
pointing accuracy.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The simulated control system was assembled from flight-
type hardware in a relatively short time. No attempt was
made to optimize the system for either manual or automatic
operation. Despite these limitations, the pilots performed
extremely well. Full use of the adaptability and flexibility of
man for control of space vehicles would make the use of exist-
ing hardware extremely economical.
The feasibility of precision manual attitude control of a
space vehicle was demonstrated. High quality and meaning-
ful visual indicators are imperative for the performance of
such a task. An additional three-axis, three-dimensional
display would have been a useful adjunct to the panel meters
used in this simulation. More sensitive instrumentation
might improve the precision-pointing capability of the pilot.
The capability of experienced, well-trained personnel to per-
form navigation and control tasks should be given full con-
sideration in the design of manned space vehicles, for either
primary or backup modes of operation.
Pilot performance exceeded initial expectations. This is
concluded to be the result of the use of a well-trained, highly
skilled crew as opposed to the use of relatively unskilled"
operators (with respect to pilot skills) during early experi-
ments.
The value of this type simulation early in the development
phase of future manned programs cannot be overemphasized,
both from the over-all mission aspects, as well as from the
point of view of individual mission tasks. The cross fertiliza-
tion resulting from designer-crew participation is most desir-
able.
Integrated Operating Mode of the
Apollo Mission Simulator
SAMUEL H. NASSIFF*
NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas
AND
FRED O. MARTiKANf
Link Group of General Precision, Binghamton, N. Y.
T HE Apollo Mission Simulator (AMS) will be used by
NASA Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston, Texas to
train astronauts in the performance of their tasks. One mode
of operation of the AMS requires integration with another
complex known as the Mission Control Center (MCC). This
control center is used for the ground control of all manned
spaceflight missions and to train flight and ground crews for
both planned and unexpected mission events. To this end,
the AMS must reflect adequate spacecraft dynamics. A
second AMS will be located at Cape Kennedy, Florida.
The AMS simulates, by use of a complex mathematical
model mechanized on digital computers, all mission phases:
launch-boost, earth orbit, translunar, lunar orbit, transearth,
re-entry, and landing. The resulting outputs are used to 1)
drive the flight instruments and out-the-window visual dis-
plays, 2) provide a reference against which astronaut per-
formance as well as simulated guidance and navigation sys-
tem operation can be measured, and 3) provide continuous
trajectory and telemetry data for combined operations with
the MCC. The equations of motion will be solved at a
rate sufficient to provide smooth visual cues for the astronaut.
Hence, the mathematical model and algorithms must be as
simple as possible and flexible enough to cover the entire
mission from lift-off to touchdown. The AMS is also re-
quired to simulate the following vehicle systems: environ-
mental control, stabilization and control, guidance and
navigation, service module propulsion, command module re-
action control, service module reaction control, cryogenic
storage, electrical power, caution warning, entry monitor,
emergency detection, and communications and telemetry.
These systems are not completely described in this note, but
the simulation philosophy used for the guidance and naviga-
tion system (G and N system) is presented.
The Apollo G and N system is the first complete self-con-
tained guidance and navigation system that has been in-
Presented as Preprint 65-266 at the AIAA/AFLC/ASD Sup-
port for Manned Flight Conference, Dayton, Ohio, April 21-23,
1965; revision received June 11, 1965.
* Head, Simulation Dynamics Section of the Flight Simulation
Branch, Flight Crew Support Division.
t Manager of Aerospace Technical Staff. Associate Fellow
Member AIAA.
 1006 J. SPACECRAFT
Communications processor
(UNIVAC) (490)
Downloaded by 121.200.6.58 on November 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28344
Fig. 1 MCC and AMS integrated operation.
eluded in a mission simulator. The system in the actual
spacecraft is comprised of a telescope, a sextant, an inertial
measuring unit (IMU), an onboard guidance computer, and
associated equipment. In flight, navigational observations
are made by the astronaut using the telescope and/or sextant.
These observations are inserted into the Apollo guidance
computer (AGO) that uses a statistical filtering scheme in
processing the data. The data are then used to update a
reference trajectory that is also computed in the AGO. The
reference trajectory is based on previous navigational sight-
ings during free flight and accelerometer outputs from the
IMU during powered flight. In the AMS, navigational ob-
servations made using simulated optics in the visual system
are inserted into the simulated AGO, which also includes the
statistical filtering scheme for processing the data. Close
correspondence between the simulated and actual G and N
systems must be achieved for guidance during free flight,
rendezvous, powered flight maneuvers, and re-entry steering.
Most of the AGC input-output logic and executive routine
are included in the G and N mathematical model. Care is
taken to duplicate the computer time delay that the astronaut
experiences, as a result of the finite AGC solution time. The
G and N dynamics and hardware are also simulated. The
simulated system provides the crew with complete capability
to navigate and guide the spacecraft independent of nominal
trajectories or communications with the ground complex;
however, ground commands can be accepted by the simulated
G and N system in the same way as in the actual spacecraft
system, thus fulfilling a monitoring or backup guidance
function.
VOL. 2, NO. 6
The simulation of a self-contained G and .N system pre-
sents several problems if realistic training of the astronaut is
to be performed. The visual sextant and telescope scenes,
as well as the simulated optics equipment, must be rendered
with approximately the same accuracy as the optical system
is expected to achieve in the actual spacecraft. The system
simulates the location and magnitude of the navigational
stars accurately and presents realistic views of the earth and
moon as well as rendezvous vehicles under the proper illumi-
nation. The images are superimposed and appropriate por-
tions are occluded. Each of the four spacecraft windows
and the simulated telescope have their own infinity-image
optical system that corrects for parallax. Additional cor-
rections for projection errors and repeatable hardware char-
acteristics are incorporated into the mathematical model for
the simulated telescope sightings. Efficient fuel manage-
ment in the service module propulsion and reaction control
systems is another important training function; hence, navi-
gational inputs as well as guidance and steering equations
must correspond closely to the actual spacecraft operation.
A realistic simulation of the optics hand-controller dynamics
during navigational observations is also required.
This level of dynamic, although not literal, simulation for
the Apollo G and N system is needed to achieve the same
characteristics and flexibility that the operational spacecraft
equipment exhibits in coping with all situations expected
during the Apollo missions. A similar approach has been
taken in deriving mathematical models for other spacecraft
systems, thus insuring that telemetry requirements are
satisfied realistically and that proper training of the astronaut
is obtained without penalizing him by degraded systems
simulation.
Integrated Mode of Operation
Integrated AMS-MCC operations dictate that similar
trajectory computations be performed in each computer com-
plex. However, the differing functions and tasks required in
each complex result in dissimilar mathematical models that
have to be standardized in certain areas for a meaningful
data transfer across the interface between the systems during
combined operations. The AMS tasks consist of 1) familiariz-
ing the astronaut with the command module, including aural
and visual effects for the complete mission; 2) training him
for normal mission procedures and unexpected spacecraft
malfunctions (catastrophic failures are not simulated since
they provide no training value); and 3) supplying sufficient
information to the MCC to provide ground crews with train-
ing in operational procedures for the actual mission. The
MCC tasks consist of 1) training the ground crew prior to an
actual mission, 2) receiving and interpreting down telemetry
(booster vehicle and spacecraft systems data, biomedical
data, and spacecraft flight data), 3) monitoring the mission
by inputs from simulated remote sites and controlling the
mission through digital command system commands to the
simulated AGC, and 4) providing primary G and N for the
spacecraft in the event the onboard system malfunctions.
Figure 1 shows a functional block diagram with the flow of
information required. The AMS is comprised of the com-
mand module, instructor console, telemetry console, out-the-
window visual displays, monitoring systems, and two DDP-24
and one DDP-224 digital computers with the associated peri-
pheral equipment. The AMS computers operate primarily
in real time, but are capable of being operated in the following
modes: accelerated time, hold, and reset. In the latter
case, the AMS computer can be started from a number of
initial conditions. The MCC is basically composed of the
mission operations control room consoles (MOCR) which are
supported by other units such as a UNIVAC 490 communica-
tions processor, the simulation operational computer (SOC),
 NOV.-DEC. 1965 ENGINEERING NOTES
ground systems simulation computer (GSSC), TV monitoring
systems, simulation checkout and training system (SCATS),
and simulation control consoles. Four IBM 7094 computers
are contained in the MCC. However, a minimum of two
computers are required for a simulated mission, one SOC and
one GSSC. These two computers solve the equations of mo-
tion to generate Saturn and necessary systems telemetry data,
displays, data for simulated remote sites, etc. The mathe-
matical model programed in the SOC is identical to the one
used during an actual mission. The two other computers
can be operational during an actual mission; therefore, it is
possible to conduct a complete simulated mission during an
actual mission.
Division of Functions
The division of functions is influenced by the requirement
that the AMS computer complex be capable of operating in-
dependently, of driving all command module instruments (in-
cluding booster vehicle status displays), and of simulating the
digital command system and the voice link with the ground.
Downloaded by 121.200.6.58 on November 30, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28344
From launch into earth orbit, the simulation of all launch
vehicle systems and G and N computations will be performed
by the MCC. Command module systems and displays, in-
cluding booster status displays, will be simulated in the AMS.
In this phase, the Apollo G and N system is primarily in a
monitoring mode; however, in the event that the Saturn
inertial guidance platform fails, it is planned that the space-
craft G and N system may be used as a backup to control the
SII or SIV-B thrust vector. Any possible manual control
of the launch vehicle system is implemented in the AMS so
that the MCC is not required to simulate astronaut control
(e.g., manual abort, staging over-ride, activation of the
emergency detection system, or deactivation of the automatic
abort). This manual control requires that crew override
and abort logic be simulated in the AMS and transferred to
the MCC so that the latter computer complex is aware of crew
actions. The normal sequence of events during powered
flight, such as staging, must also be included in the AMS
mathematical model. The MCC, in turn, will send to the
AMS those malfunction signals introduced into the booster
vehicle simulation that affect spacecraft systems and the
limited SIV-B simulation required in the AMS. If the mal-
function signal introduced in the MCC indicates an automa-
tic abort condition, the AMS takes control. A smooth
transition is realized without requiring initialization data,
since the AMS has been computing spacecraft position and
velocity concurrently, based on vehicle accelerations trans-
ferred from the MCC to the AMS equations of motion.
For the independent mode of operation, the launch-boost
phase will be simulated in the AMS by obtaining data from
off-line computations. These data will be stored on mag-
netic tape, resulting in a "canned" launch-boost trajectory
for an independent training exercise.
The earth orbital phase is the segment of the mission from
orbit insertion until the SIV-B stage is separated from the
command and service modules after the docking phase has
been completed. The attitude of the space vehicle can be
controlled by one of the following four modes: 1) automatic
mode, spacecraft/SIV-B attitude is controlled by the SIV-B
instrumentation unit; 2) manual mode, spacecraft/SIV-B
attitude is controlled by the astronaut using the SIV-B reac-
tion control jets; 3) backup mode, spacecraft/SIV-B is con-
trolled by the Apollo G and N system; and 4) minimum im-
pulse mode, spacecraft/SIV-B is controlled by the Apollo G
and N system during navigational observations.
The automatic mode is simulated in the MCC, whereas the
AMS will simulate the SIV-B booster vehicle systems for the
manual, backup, and minimum impulse modes to the extent
necessary for flight and ground crew training. Transfer of
1007
control will be required between the computer complexes.
It is conceivable that the same event may be simulated at dif-
ferent times in the AMS and the MCC when the AMS is in
control, since information received in the MCC on astronaut
actions will be delayed: the time difference being equal to
the transmission time delay. This problem does not exist
when the MCC is in control, since the MCC simulates auto-
matic events and, hence, can compute the spacecraft trajec-
tory ahead of real time. Outputs from the MCC to the
AMS are then transmitted in real time plus the transmission
time delay.
During the translunar, lunar orbit, and transearth phases,
independent trajectory computations, as well as independent
guidance and navigation computations, will be performed in
both the AMS and the MCC. In the powered flight mode of
operation, outputs from the AMS trajectory computations
will be supplied to the MCC so that correspondence can be
maintained. In the free-flight mode of operation, provisions
for the AMS to accept an update from the MCC have been
made. However, an update may be avoided if the AMS tra-
jectory computations fall within predescribed acceptance
limits.
During re-entry and descent, the AMS will provide tra-
jectory data and command module system status informa-
tion at the required rate to the MCC.
Mathematical Model Compatibility Requirements and
Data Flow
Parallel and independent trajectory computations will be
conducted in both the AMS and the MCC during certain
phases of the mission; therefore, mathematical model com-
patibility for trajectory correspondence is required for both
computer complexes in the following areas: coordinate sys-
tems, physical constants, and ephemeris data. Standardiza-
tion in symbology and units of measurement is required at
least for output quantities. Simplification of the equations
of motion in the AMS to conserve computer storage space and
computing time, differing integration techniques and rates,
and differing machine accuracies all contribute to possible
noncorrespondence between the AMS and the MCC computed
trajectories. In order to achieve correspondence, the AMS
(using the DDP-24 computer) should be capable of comput-
ing the trajectory parameters within certain limits. When
these limits are exceeded, an update will be required from the
MCC (employing the IBM 7094).
The following list of items represents functional data flow
from the AMS to the MCC for the integrated mode: 1)
trajectory and systems data: position and velocity during
earth orbit, lunar orbit; translunar, transearth, and re-entry
phases; command module systems status (all mission
phases); and appropriate booster vehicle systems status;
2) telemetry data: spacecraft telemetry and dump tele-
metry; 3) closed-circuit television; and 4) voice communica-
tions: instructor and astronaut voice lines.
The required flow of information from the MCC to the
AMS is as follows: 1) trajectory and systems data: booster
vehicle systems status, trajectory update during free flight
and powered flight, and ground systems data; 2) digital
command system (DCS) commands, and 3) voice communica-
tions: instructor voice lines and simulated manned space-
flight network lines (tracking network).
Conclusion
The success and experience obtained during the Mercury
Program was achieved largely through extensive use of
simulators for astronaut and flight controller training prior to
each mission. Combined operation of the AMS and the
MCC for the effective training of astronauts and flight con-
trollers prior to an actual mission will play an important part
in achieving future success.