Part 1 (B)
Defining Contractural Relations
January 1963 through March 1963
1963 January
1963 February
1963 March
January 2
MSC awarded a $3.69 million contract to the Radio Corporation of
America
A drawing of the larger chamber, including the position of simulated solar sources.
RCA Service Company to design and build two vacuum chambers at MSC. The
facility was used in astronaut training and spacecraft environmental
testing. using carbon arc: lamps, the chambers simulated the sun's
intensity, permitting observation of the effects of solar heating
encountered on a lunar mission. At the end of July, MSC awarded RCA
another contract (worth $3,341,750) for these solar simulators.
MSC Release 63-1, "Contract Awarded to RCA Services Company"
[January 2, 1963]; MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the
Office of the Director, Manned Space Flight, July 21-August 17,
1963," p. 3.
January 8
After studying the present radar coverage provided by ground stations
for representative Apollo trajectories, North American recommended that
existing C-band radars be modified to increase ranging limits. The
current capability for tracking to 920 kilometers (500 nautical miles),
while satisfactory for near-earth trajectories, was wholly inadequate
for later Apollo missions. Tracking capability should be extended to
59,000 kilometers (32,000 nautical miles), North American said; and to
improve tracking accuracy, transmitter power and receiver sensitivity
should be increased.
Memorandum, C. H. Feltz, NAA, to MSC, Attn: J. T. Markley,
"Contract No. NAS 9-150, Research and Development for Project
Apollo Spacecraft, C-Band Coverage Preliminary Report," January 8,
1963.
January 8
Joseph F. Shea, Director of the Office of Systems in NASA's Office of
Manned Space Flight (OMSF), briefed MSC officials on the nature and
scope of NASA's contract with Bellcomm for systems engineering support.
Also, Shea familiarized them with the organization and operation of the
Office of Systems vis-a-vis Bellcomm. [Bellcomm, a separate corporation
formed by American Telephone and Telegraph and Western Electric early in
1962, specifically at NASA's request, furnished engineering support to
the overall Apollo program.] Bellcomm's studies, either in progress or
planned, included computer support, environmental hazards, mission
safety and reliability, communications and tracking, trajectory
analyses, and lunar surface vehicles.
Memorandum, Paul E. Purser, MSC, to Distribution, "Operations of OMSF
Office of Systems and Bellcomm," January 14, 1963.
January 10
MSC and OMSF agreed that an unmanned Apollo spacecraft must be flown on
the Saturn C-1 before a manned flight. SA-10 was scheduled to be the
unmanned flight and SA-111, the first manned mission.
Memorandum, John H. Disher, NASA, to MSC, Attn: Paul E. Purser,
"Review of Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 2," January 23,
1963.
January 16
The MSC Flight Operations Division's Mission Analysis Branch analyzed
three operational procedures for the first phase of descent from lunar
orbit:
- The first was a LEM-only maneuver. The LEM would transfer to an
orbit different from that of the CSM but with the same period and having
a pericynthion of 15,240 meters (50,000 feet). After one orbit and
reconnaissance of the landing site, the LEM would begin descent
maneuvers.
- The second method required the entire spacecraft (CSM/LEM) to
transfer from the initial circular orbit to an elliptical orbit with a
pericynthion of 15,240 meters (50,000 feet).
- The third technique involved the LEM's changing from the original
147-kilometer (80-nautical-mile) circular orbit to an elliptic orbit
having a pericynthion of 15,240 meters (50,000 feet). The CSM, in turn,
would transfer to an elliptic orbit with a pericynthion of 65 kilometers
(30 nautical miles). This would enable the CSM to keep the LEM under
observation until the LEM began its descent to the lunar surface.
Comparisons of velocity changes and fuel requirements for the three
methods showed that the second technique would use much more fuel than
the others and, therefore, was not recommended for further
consideration.
[Apocynthion and pericynthion are the high and low points, respectively,
of an object in orbit around the moon (as, for example, a spacecraft
sent from earth). Apolune and perilune also refer to these orbital
parameters, but these latter two words apply specifically to an object
launched from the moon itself.]
Memorandum, Stephen Huzar, MSC, to Chief, BOD, "Comparison of Fuel
Requirements for Three Near-Moon Orbital Techniques Associated With the
Planning of the Lunar Landing Mission," January 16, 1963.
January 16-February 15
North American awarded Airborne Instruments Laboratory, a division of
Cutler-Hammer, Inc., a contract for the CM recovery antenna system.
NAA,
"Apollo Monthly Progress Report," SID 62-300-10, March 1,
1963, p. 3.
January 16-February 15
Representatives of North American, Langley Research Center, Ames
Research Center, and MSC discussed CM reentry heating rates. They agreed
on estimates of heating on the CM blunt face, which absorbed the brunt
of reentry, but afterbody heating rates were not as clearly defined.
North American was studying Project Mercury flight data and recent
Apollo wind tunnel tests to arrive at revised estimates.
"Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 3," p. 33; "Apollo
Monthly Progress Report," SID 62-300-10, p. 7.
January 17
Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., of MSC's Flight Operations Division (FOD),
advised ASPO that the digital up-data link being developed for the
Gemini program appeared acceptable for Apollo as well. In late October
1962, representatives of FOD and ASPO had agreed that an independent
up-data link a means by which the ground could feed current information
to the spacecraft's computer during a mission was essential for manned
Apollo flights. Kraft proposed that the Gemini-type link be used for
Apollo as well, and on June 13 MSC ordered North American to include the
device in the CM.
Memorandum, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC, to Mgr., ASPO, "Apollo
Up-Data Link," January 17, 1963; letter, H. P. Yschek, MSC, to NAA,
Space and Information Systems Div., "Contract Change Authorization
No. Fifty-Four," June 13, 1963.
January 17
President John F. Kennedy sent his budget request for Fiscal Year 1964
to Congress. The President recommended a NASA appropriation of $5.712
billion, $3.193 billion of which was for manned space flight. Apollo
received a dramatic increase - $1.207 billion compared with $435 million
the previous year. NASA Administrator James E. Webb nonetheless
characterized the budget, about half a billion dollars less than earlier
considered, as one of "austerity." While it would not
appreciably speed up the lunar landing timetable, he said, NASA could
achieve the goal of placing a man on the moon within the decade.
The Houston Post, January 18, 1963.
January 18
Two aerodynamic strakes were added to the CM to eliminate the danger of
a hypersonic apex-forward trim point on reentry. [During a high-altitude
launch escape system (LES) abort, the crew would undergo excessive g
forces if the CM were to trim apex forward. During a low-altitude abort,
there was the potential problem of the apex cover not clearing the CM.
See November 1962. The strakes, located in the yaw plane, had a maximum
span of one foot and resulted in significant weight penalties. The size
of the strakes had to be increased later because of changes in the CM
which moved the center of gravity forward and because of the additional
ablative material needed to combat the increased heating of the strakes
during reentry. Removal of the strakes would cause a major redesign to
permit the apex cover to be jettisoned in the low angle-of-attack (apex
forward) region. In the summer of 1963, however, MSC and North American
representatives agreed that the strakes should be removed and an
apex-mounted flap be added. The flap could be jettisoned with the LES
tower during normal missions and retained with the CM during a LES
abort.
North American then suggested a "tower flap dual mode"
approach. This concept incorporated fixed surfaces at the upper end of
the LES tower which would be exposed to the air stream after jettison of
the expended rocket casing, For aborts below 9,140 meters (30,000 feet),
the jettison motor would pull away the expended motor casing, the LES
tower, and apex cover. The contractor carried out extensive wind tunnel
tests of this configuration and reported to MSC during October that a
0.5941-square-meter (920-square-inch) planer flap located in the upper
bay of the LES, coupled with a more favorable CM center of gravity,
would be required to solve the reentry problem.
An independent investigation of deployable aerodynamic surfaces, or
canards, at the forward end of the LES rocket motor was also being
conducted. These canards would act as lifting surfaces to destabilize
the LES and cause it to reorient the spacecraft to a heatshield-forward
position. (See November 12, 1963, February 7 and 25, 1964.)
"Apollo Monthly Progress Report," SID 62-300-9, p. 6;
ibid., SID 62-300-10, p. 5; ibid., SID
62-300-11, April 1, 1963, p. 7; ibid., SID 62-300-12, p. 8;
ibid., SID 62-300-15, August 1, 1963, p. 5;
ibid., SID 62- 300-16, September 1, 1963, p. 8;
ibid., SID 62-300-17, October 1, 1963, p. 5;
ibid., SID 62-300-18, November 1, 1963, p. 3;
ibid., SID 62-300-19, December 1, 1963, p. 5;
ibid., SID 62-300-20, January 1, 1964, p. 5;
ibid., SID 62-300-21, February 1, 1964, p. 3;
ibid., SID 62 300-23, April 1, 1964, p. 3; "ASPO
Weekly Activity Report, September 19-25, 1963," p. 3; "ASPO
Weekly Activity Report, September 26-October 2, 1963,"p. 2;
"ASPO Status Report For Period Ending October 16, 1963";
"ASPO Status Report For Period October 16-November 12, 1963";
"ASPO Status Report For Period December 18-January 14, 1964";
"ASPO Status Report For Week Ending December 4, 1963";
"ASPO Status Report For Week Ending December 17, 1963";
"ASPO Status Report For Week Ending January 7, 1964";
"Monthly ASPO Status Report For Period January 16-February 12,
1964"; "Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 3," p. 32;
"Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 4 for Period Ending June 30,
1963," p. 28; "Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 5 for Period
Ending September 30, 1963," p. 40; "Apollo Quarterly Status
Report No. 6 for Period Ending December 31, 1963,"p. 37; MSC,
"Weekly Activity Report for the Office of the Director, Manned
Space Flight, June 30July 6, 1963," p. 4; "Minutes of NASA-NAA
Technical Management Meeting, February 25, 1964"; Oakley,
Historical Summary, S&ID Apollo Program, p. 12.
January 18
NASA's Flight Research Center (FRC) announced the award of a $3.61
million contract to Bell Aerosystems Company of Bell Aerospace
Corporation for the design and construction of two manned lunar landing
research vehicles. The vehicles would be able to take off and land under
their own power, reach an altitude of about 1,220 meters (4,000 feet),
hover, and fly horizontally. A fan turbojet engine would supply a
constant upward push of five-sixths the weight of the vehicle to
simulate the one-sixth gravity of the lunar surface. Tests would be
conducted at FRC.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1963 (NASA SP-4004), p. 17;
Daily Press, Newport News, Va., January 13, 1963;
Wall Street Journal, January 22, 1963; Aviation
Daily, January 24, 1963, p. 161.
January 23
The Hamilton Standard space suit contract was amended to include
supplying space suit communications and telemetry equipment. (See
November 27, 1962.)
Hamilton Standard, "Monthly Progress Report for the Period of
January 1 through 31, 1963, for Apollo Space Suit Assembly,"
PR-4-1-63, p. 1.
January 24
The first evaluation of crew mobility in the International Latex
Corporation (ILC) pressure suit was conducted at North American to
identify interface problems. Three test subjects performed simulated
flight tasks inside a CM mockup. CM spatial restrictions on mobility
were shown. Problems involving suit sizes, crew couch dimensions, and
restraint harness attachment, adjustment, and release were appraised.
Numerous items that conflicted with Apollo systems were noted and passed
along to ILC for correction in the continuing suit development program.
(See March 26-28.)
"Project Apollo Spacecraft, Test Program Weekly Activities Report
(Period, 21 January 1963 through 27 January 1963)," p. 6.
January 26
MSC announced new assignments for the seven original astronauts: L.
Gordon Cooper, Jr., and Alan B. Shepard, Jr., would be responsible for
the remaining pilot phases of Project Mercury; Virgil I. Grissom would
specialize in Project Gemini; John H. Glenn, Jr., would concentrate on
Project Apollo; M. Scott Carpenter would cover lunar excursion training;
and Walter M. Schirra, Jr., would be responsible for Gemini and Apollo
operations and training. As Coordinator for Astronaut Activities, Donald
K. Slayton would maintain overall supervision of astronaut duties.
Specialty areas for the second generation were: trainers and simulators,
Neil A. Armstrong; boosters, Frank Borman; cockpit layout and systems
integration, Charles Conrad, Jr.; recovery system, James A. Lovell, Jr.;
guidance and navigation, James A. McDivitt; electrical, sequential, and
mission planning, Elliot M. See, Jr.; communications, instrumentation,
and range integration, Thomas P. Stafford; flight control systems,
Edward H. White II; and environmental control systems, personal
equipment, and survival equipment, John W. Young.
MSC Fact Sheet No. 113, "Specialized Assignments for MSC Astronauts
and Flight Crew Personnel," January 26, 1963; The Washington
Post, January 27, 1963.
January 28
NASA announced the selection of the Philco Corporation as prime
contractor for the Mission Control Center (MCC) at MSC. To be
operational in mid-1964, MCC would link the spacecraft with ground
controllers at MSC through the worldwide tracking network.
NASA News Release 63-14, "Philco to Develop Manned Flight Mission
Control Center at Houston," January 28, 1963; Wall Street
Journal, January 29, 1963.
January 28
Following a technical conference on the LEM electrical power system
(EPS), Grumman began a study to define the EPS configuration. Included
was an analysis of EPS requirements and of weight and reliability for
fuel cells and batteries. Total energy required for the LEM mission,
including the translunar phase, was estimated at 61.3 kilowatt-hours.
Upon completion of this and a similar study by MSC, Grumman decided upon
a three-cell arrangement with an auxiliary battery. Capacity would be
determined when the EPS load analysis was completed. (See March 7.)
"Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 3," pp. 27-28.
Ground was broken for the MSC Operations and Checkout Building at Merritt Island January 28, 1963. Participants were, left to right, Walter C. Williams, Director of Flight Operations, MSC; G. Merritt Preston, Director of Pre-Flight Operations Division, MSC; Kurt H. Debus, Director, Launch Operations Center; D. Brainerd Holmes, Director, NASA Office of Manned Space Flight; Wernher von Braun, Marshall Space Flight Center; Col. H. R. Parfitt, District Engineer, U.S. Army; and Col. E. Richardson, U.S. Air Force.
January 30
Grumman and NASA announced the selection of four companies as major LEM
subcontractors:
- Rocketdyne for the descent engine (see February 13)
- Bell Aerosystems Company for the ascent engine (see February 25)
- The Marquardt Corporation for the reaction control system (see March
11)
- Hamilton Standard for the environmental control system see (March
4).
MSC News Release 63-14, January 30, 1963; Aviation Daily,
January 30, 1963, p. 210; Wall Street Journal, January 31,
1963.
During the Month
MSC awarded a contract to Chance Vought Corporation for a study of
guidance system techniques for the LEM in an abort during lunar
landing.
NASA News Release 63-41, "January Contracts," March 4, 1963.
NASA authorized North American to extend until June 10 the CM heatshield
development program. This gave the company time to evaluate and
recommend one of the three ablative materials still under consideration.
The materials were subjected to tests of thermal performance, physical
and mechanical properties, and structural compatibility with the
existing heatshield substructure. North American sought also to
determine the manufacturing feasibility of placing the materials in a
Fiberglas honeycomb matrix bonded to a steel substructure. (See November
1962.)
Letter, H. P. Yschek, MSC, to NAA, Space and Information Systems Div.,
"Contract Change Authorization No. Thirteen, Revision 2,"
March 11, 1963.
February 1
Walter C. Williams, MSC's Associate Director, defined the Center's
criteria on the location of earth landing sites for Gemini and Apollo
spacecraft: site selection as well as mode of landing (i.e., land versus
water) for each mission should be considered separately. Constraints on
trajectory, landing accuracy, and landing systems must be considered, as
well as lead time needed to construct landing area facilities. Both
Gemini and Apollo flight planning had to include water as well as land
landing modes. (See December 1962.) Although the Apollo earth landing
system was designed to withstand the shock of coming down on varying
terrains, some experience was necessary to verify this capability.
Because of the complexity of the Apollo mission and because the earth
landing system did not provide a means of avoiding obstacles, landing
accuracy was even more significant for Apollo than for Gemini. With so
many variables involved, Williams recommended that specific landing
locations for future missions not be immediately designated. (See March
5 and February 25, 1964.)
Memorandum, Walter C. Williams, MSC, to NASA Headquarters, Attn: OMSF,
"Designation of Landing Sires for Projects Gemini and Apollo,"
February 1, 1963.
February 6
Aerojet-General Corporation, Sacramento, Calif., began full-scale
firings of a service propulsion engine with a redesigned injector
baffle.
MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director,
Manned Space Flight, January 27-February 23, 1963," p. 56.
February 7
NASA announced a simplified terminology for the Saturn booster series:
Saturn C-1 became "Saturn I," Saturn C-1B became "Saturn
IB," and Saturn C-5 became "Saturn V."
MSC Fact Sheet No. 136, "NASA Simplifies Names of Saturn Launch
Vehicles," February 7, 1963.
February 8
MSC issued a definitive contract for $15,029,420 to the Raytheon
Company, Space and Information Systems Division, to design and develop
the CM onboard digital computer. The contract was in support of the MIT
Instrumentation Laboratory, which was developing the Apollo guidance and
navigation systems. Announcement of the contract was made on February
11.
MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director,
Manned Space Flight, January 27-February 23, 1963," p, 29; MSC News
Release 63-18, February 11, 1963; Missiles and Rockets, 12
(February 18, 1963), p. 42.
February 11
The first inertial reference integrating gyro produced by AC Spark Plug
was accepted by NASA and delivered to the MIT Instrumentation
Laboratory. (See November 1962.)
MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director,
Manned Space Flight, January 27-February 23, 1963," p. 57.
February 12
NASA selected the Marion Power Shovel Company to design and build the
crawler-transport, a device to haul the Apollo space vehicle (Saturn V,
complete with spacecraft and associated launch equipment) from the
Vertical Assembly Building to the Merritt Island, Fla., launch pad, a
distance of about 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles). The crawler would be 39.6
meters (130 feet) long, 35 meters (115 feet) wide, and 6 meters (20
feet) high, and would weight 2.5 million kilograms (5.5 million pounds).
NASA planned to buy two crawlers at a cost of $4 to 5 million each.
Formal negotiations began on February 20 and the contract was signed on
March 29.
Saturn Illustrated Chronology (MHR-3, August 10, 1964), p.
73; NASA News Release 63-27, "Marion to Build NASA Crawler,"
February 12, 1963.
February 13
In a reorganization of ASPO, MSC announced the appointment of two deputy
managers. Robert O. Piland, deputy for the LEM, and James L. Decker,
deputy for the CSM, would supervise cost, schedule, technical design,
and production. J. Thomas Markley was named Special Assistant to the
Apollo Manager, Charles W. Frick. Also appointed to newly created
positions were Caldwell C. Johnson, Manager, Spacecraft Systems Office,
CSM; Owen E. Maynard, Acting Manager, Spacecraft Systems Office, LEM;
and David W. Gilbert, Manager, Spacecraft Systems Office, Guidance and
Navigation.
MSC News Release 63-27, February 13, 1963.
February 13
Grumman began discussions with Rocketdyne on the development of a
throttleable LEM descent engine. Engine specifications (helium injected,
10:1 thrust variation) had been laid down by MSC. (See May 1.)
MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director,
Manned Space Flight, January 27-February 23, 1963," p. 57;
"Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 3," p. 25.
February 15
A boilerplate spacecraft is dropped in the impact test facility at NAA's Downey, Calif., plant. The tower was 43.6 meters (143 feet) high, the pendulum pivot was 38.1 meters (125 feet), and maximum impact velocity was 12.2 meters (40 feet) per second vertical and 15.2 meters (50 feet) per second horizontal. (NAA photo)
The North American Apollo impact test facility at Downey, Calif., was
completed. This facility consisted mainly of a large pool with overhead
framework and mechanisms for hydrodynamic drop tests of the CM. Testing
at the facility began with the drop of boilerplate 3 on March 11.
Oakley, Historical Summary, S&ID Apollo Program, p. 8;
"Apollo Monthly Progress Report," SID 62-300-11, pp. 10,
21.
February 18
NASA issued a definitive contract for $6,322,643 to General Dynamics
Convair for the Little Joe II test vehicle. (See May 11, 1962, Vol. I.)
A number of changes defined by contract change proposals were
incorporated into the final document:
- Four instead of five vehicles to be manufactured and delivered
- Launching from White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), N.M., instead of
Cape Canaveral
- Additional support equipment, better definition of vehicle design,
and responsibility for launch support.
Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle, NASA Project Apollo: Final
Report, Vol. I, pp. 1-2, 1-4; MSC, "Consolidated Activity
Report for the Office of the Director, Manned Space Flight, January
27-February 23, 1963," p. 28.
February 18
North American selected Bell Aerosystems Company to provide propellant
tanks for the CSM reaction control system. These tanks were to be the
"positive expulsion" type (i.e., fuel and oxidizer would be
contained inside flexible bladder; pressure against one side of the
device would force the propellant through the RCS lines).
"Apollo Monthly Progress Report," SID 62-300-10, p. 3;
Aviation Daily, February 18, 1963, p. 312.
February 19
North American shipped CM boilerplate 19 to Northrop Ventura for use as
a parachute test vehicle.
MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director,
Manned Space Flight, January 27-February 23, 1963," p. 55.
February 20
At a meeting of the MSC-MSFC Flight Mechanics Panel, it was agreed that
Marshall would investigate "engine-out" capability (i.e., the
vehicle's performance should one of its engines fail) for use in abort
studies or alternative missions. Not all Saturn I, IB, and V missions
included this engine-out capability. Also, the panel decided that the
launch escape system would be jettisoned ten seconds after S-IV ignition
on Saturn I launch vehicles. (See March 28.)
MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director,
Manned Space Flight, January 27-February 23, 1963," p. 58.
February 20
In a reorganization of OMSF, Director D. Brainerd Holmes appointed
Joseph F. Shea as Deputy Director for Systems and George M. Low as
Deputy Director for Programs. All major OMSF directorates had previously
reported directly to Holmes. In the new organizational structure,
Director of Systems Studies William A. Lee, Director of Systems
Engineering John A. Gautraud, and Director of Integration and Checkout
James E. Sloan would report to Shea. Director of Launch Vehicles Milton
W. Rosen, Director of Space Medicine Charles H. Roadman, and the
Director of Spacecraft and Flight Missions (then vacant) would report to
Low. William E. Lilly, Director of Administration, would provide
administrative support in both major areas.
NASA News Release 63-32, "Holmes Names Two Deputies," February
20, 1963; The Washington Post, February 21, 1963.
February 21
MSC issued a Request for Proposals (due by March 13) for a radiation
altimeter system. Greater accuracy than that provided by available radar
would be needed during the descent to the lunar surface, especially in
the last moments before touchdown. Preliminary MSC studies had indicated
the general feasibility of an altimeter system using a
source-detector-electronics package. After final selection and visual
observation of the landing site, radioactive material would be released
at an altitude of about 30 meters 100 feet and allowed to fall to the
surface. The detector would operate in conjunction with electronic
circuitry to compute the spacecraft's altitude. Studies were also under
way at MSC on the possibility of using laser beams for range
determination.
Memorandum, George W. Brandon, MSC, to Asst. Dir. for Information and
Control Systems, "Request for Proposal, Low Level Radiation
Altimeter System," November 13, 1962; Aviation Daily,
February 21, 1963, p. 335.
February 24-March 23
The MSC Lunar Surface Experiments Panel held its first meeting. This
group was formed to study and evaluate lunar surface experiments and the
adaptability of Surveyor and other unmanned probes for use with manned
missions.
MSC, "Consolidated Monthly Activity Report for the Office of the
Director, Manned Space Flight, February 24-March 23, 1963," p.
44.
February 25
Grumman began initial talks with the Bell Aerosystems Company on
development of the LEM ascent engine. Complete specifications were
expected by March 2.
MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director,
Manned Space Flight, January 27-February 23, 1963," p. 28.
February 25
MSC ordered North American to provide batteries, wholly independent of
the main electrical system in the CM, to fire all pyrotechnics aboard
the spacecraft.
Letter, H. P. Yschek, MSC, to NAA, Space and Information Systems Div.,
"Contract Change Authorization No. Twenty-Eight," February 25,
1963.
February 25
Aerial view of the Michoud Operations Plant, New Orleans, La
NASA announced the signing of a formal contract with The Boeing Company
for the S-IC (first stage) of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the largest
rocket unit under development in the United States. The $418,820,967
agreement called for the development and manufacture of one ground test
and ten flight articles. Preliminary development of the S-IC, which was
powered by five F-1 engines, had been in progress since December 1961
under a $50 million interim contract. Booster fabrication would take
place primarily at the Michoud Operations Plant, New Orleans, La., but
some advance testing would be done at MSFC and the Mississippi Test
Operations facility.
NASA News Release 63-37, "NASA Contracts with Boeing for Saturn V
Booster," February 25, 1963; Aviation Daily, February
27, 1963, p. 361.
February 26
Two aerospace technologists at MSC, James A. Ferrando and Edgar C.
Lineberry, Jr., analyzed orbital constraints on the CSM imposed by the
abort capability of the LEM during the descent and hover phases of a
lunar mission. Their study concerned the feasibility of rendezvous
should an emergency demand an immediate return to the CSM.
Ferrando and Lineberry found that, once abort factors are considered,
there exist "very few" orbits that are acceptable from which
to begin the descent. They reported that the most advantageous orbit for
the CSM would be a 147-kilometer (80-nautical-mile) circular one.
Memorandum, James A. Ferrando and Edgar C. Lineberry, Jr., to Chief,
Flight Operations Div., "The Influence of LEM Abort Capability Upon
the Selection of the Command Module Lunar Orbit," February 26,
1963.
February 26
NASA selected Ford, Bacon, and Davis, Inc., to design MSC's flight
acceleration facility, including a centrifuge capable of spinning a
simulated CM and its crew at gravity forces equal to those experienced
in space flight.
Space Business Daily, February 26, 1963, p. 243;
Aviation Daily, February 26, 1963, p. 358.
February 27
Aviation Daily reported an announcement by Frank Canning, Assistant LEM
Project Manager at Grumman, that a Request for Proposals would be issued
in about two weeks for the development of an alternate descent
propulsion system. Because the descent stage presented what he called
the LEM's "biggest development problem," Canning said that the
parallel program was essential.
Aviation Daily, February 27, 1963, p. 362.
February 27
The Apollo Mission Planning Panel held its organizational meeting at
MSC. The panel's function was to develop the lunar landing mission
design, coordinate trajectory analyses for all Saturn missions, and
develop contingency plans for all manned Apollo missions.
Membership on the panel included representatives from MSC, MSFC, NASA
Headquarters, North American, Grumman, and MIT, with other NASA Centers
being called on when necessary. By outlining the most accurate mission
plan possible, the panel would ensure that the spacecraft could satisfy
Apollo's anticipated mission objectives. Most of the panel's influence
on spacecraft design would relate to the LEM, which was at an earlier
stage of development than the CSM. The panel was not given
responsibility for preparing operational plans to be used on actual
Apollo missions, however.
MSC, "Minutes of Meeting on Apollo Mission Planning Panel
Organization Meeting, February 27, 1963," March 7, 1963.
February 27
Elgin National Watch Company received a subcontract from North American
for the design and development of central timing equipment for the
Apollo spacecraft. [This equipment provided time-correlation of all
spacecraft time-sensitive events. Originally, Greenwich Mean Time was to
be used to record all events, but this was later changed. (See August
30-September 5, 1963.)]
Chicago Tribune, February 27, 1963; Wall Street
Journal, February 28, 1963.
During the Month
Grumman began fabrication of a one-tenth scale model of the LEM for
stage separation tests. In launching from the lunar surface, the LEM's
ascent engine fires just after pyrotechnic severance of all connections
between the two stages, a maneuver aptly called "fire in the
hole."
Also, Grumman advised that, from the standpoint of landing stability, a
five-legged LEM was unsatisfactory. Under investigation were a number of
landing gear configurations, including retractable legs. (See April 17
and May 20-22.)
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation [hereafter cited as GAEC],
"Monthly Progress Report No. 1, LPR-10-1, March 10, 1963," pp.
5, 6, 8.
During the Month
NASA amended the GE contract, authorizing the company's Apollo Support
Department to proceed with the PACE program. (See March 25, 1964.) [PACE
(prelaunch automatic checkout equipment) would be used for spacecraft
checkout. It would be computer-directed and operated by remote
control.]
GE, "Support Program Monthly Progress Report, February 1963,"
NASw-410-MR-2. [NOTE: Use of the acronym "PACE" was
subsequently dropped at the insistence of a company claiming prior
rights to the name.]
Grumman began initial discussions with Hamilton Standard on the
development of the LEM environmental control system.
MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director,
Manned Space Flight, January 27-February 23, 1963," p. 57;
"Consolidated Monthly Activity Report for the Office of the
Director, Manned Space Flight, February 24-March 23, 1963," p.
8.
March 4
As a parallel to the existing Northrop Ventura contract, and upon
authorization by NASA, North American awarded a contract for a solid
parachute program to the Pioneer Parachute Company. [A solid parachute
is one with solid (unbroken) gores; the sole opening in the canopy is a
vent at the top. Ringsail parachutes (used on the Northrop Ventura
recovery system) have slotted gores. In effect, each panel formed on the
gores becomes a "sail."] (See June 28.)
"Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 3," p. 18; letter, H. P.
Yschek, MSC, to NAA, Space and Information Systems Div., "Contract
Change Authorization No. Twenty-Seven," February 25, 1963.
March 4
MSC "acquired" under a loan agreement an amphibious landing
craft from the Army. Equipment to retrieve Apollo boilerplate spacecraft
and other objects used in air drops and flotation tests was installed.
The vessel, later named the Retriever, arrived at its
Seabrook, Tex., docking facility late in June.
MSC News Release 63-38, "MSC Acquires Test Vehicle," March 4,
1963; MSC, Space News Roundup, June 26, 1963, p. 1.
March 5
MSC awarded a $67,000 contract to The Perkin-Elmer Corporation to
develop a carbon dioxide measurement system, a device to measure the
partial carbon dioxide pressure within the spacecraft's cabin. Two
prototype units were to be delivered to MSC for evaluation. About seven
months later, a $249,000 definitive contract for fabrication and testing
of the sensor was signed. (See May 6.)
MSC, "Consolidated Monthly Activity Report for the Office of the
Director, Manned Space Flight, February 24-March 23, 1963," p. 30;
"Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director, Manned
Space Flight, September 22-October 19, 1963," p. 47.
March 5
NASA announced an American agreement with Australia, signed on February
26, that permitted the space agency to build and operate several new
tracking stations "down under." A key link in the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory's network of Deep Space Instrumentation Facilities would be
constructed in Tidbinbilla Valley, 18 kilometers (11 miles) southwest of
Canberra. Equipment at this site included a 26-meter (85-foot) parabolic
dish antenna and electronic equipment for transmitting, receiving, and
processing radio signals from spacecraft. Tracking stations would be
built also at Carnarvon and Darwin.
NASA News Release 63-47, "NASA to Establish Deep Space Tracking
Facility in Australia," March 5, 1963; Aviation Daily,
March 8, 1963, p. 52.
March 5
The Mission Analysis Branch (MAB) of MSC's Flight Operations Division
cited the principal disadvantages of the land recovery mode for Apollo
missions. (See February 1.) Of primary concern was the possibility of
landing in an unplanned area and the concomitant dangers involved. For
water recovery, the main disadvantages were the establishment of
suitable landing areas in the southern hemisphere and the apex-down
flotation problem. MAB believed no insurmountable obstacles existed for
either approach. (See February 25, 1964.)
Memorandum, John Bryant, MSC, to Chief, FOD, "Operational
Considerations in the Selection of Primary Land or Sea Return Areas for
Apollo," March 5, 1963.
March 6
North American completed construction of Apollo boilerplate (BP) 9,
consisting of launch escape tower and CSM. It was delivered to MSC on
March 18, where dynamic testing on the vehicle began two days later. On
April 8, BP-9 was sent to MSFC for compatibility tests with the Saturn I
launch vehicle.
MSC, "Consolidated Monthly Activity Report for the Office of the
Director, Manned Space Flight, February 24-March 23, 1963," p. 50;
Oakley, Historical Summary, S&ID Apollo Program, p. 8;
Birmingham Post-Herald, April 5, 1963; The Huntsville
Times, April 9, 1963; The Birmingham News, April 9,
1963.
March 6
The first Block I Apollo pulsed integrating pendulum accelerometer,
produced by the Sperry Gyroscope Company, was delivered to the MIT
Instrumentation Laboratory. [Three accelerometers were part of the
guidance and navigation system. Their function was to sense changes in
spacecraft velocity.]
MSC, "Consolidated Monthly Activity Report for the Office of the
Director, Manned Space Flight, February 24-March 23, 1963," p.
53.
March 7
Grumman representatives presented their technical study report on power
sources for the LEM. (See January 28.) They recommended three fuel cells
in the descent stage (one cell to meet emergency requirements), two sets
of fluid tanks, and two batteries for peak power loads. For industrial
competition to develop the power sources, Grumman suggested Pratt and
Whitney Aircraft and GE for the fuel cells, and Eagle-Picher, Electrical
Storage Battery, Yardney, Gulton, and Delco-Remy for the batteries.
"Activity Report, RASPO/GAEC, 3/3/63-3/9/63" (undated), pp.
1-2.
March 8
North American moved CM boilerplate (BP) 6 from the manufacturing
facilities to the Apollo Test Preparation Interim Area at Downey, Calif.
During the next several weeks, BP-6 was fitted with a pad adapter, an
inert launch escape system, and a nose cone, interstage structure, and
motor skirt. (See July 1-2 and November 7.)
MSC, "Postlaunch Memorandum Report for Apollo Pad Abort I,"
November 13, 1963, pp. A1-1 through A1-5.
March 10
Grumman presented its first monthly progress report on the LEM. In
accordance with NASA's list of high-priority items, principal
engineering work was concentrated on spacecraft and subsystem
configuration studies, mission plans and test program investigations,
common usage equipment surveys, and preparation for implementing
subcontractor efforts.
"Monthly Progress Report No. 1," LPR-10-1, p. 4.
March 11
Grumman completed its first "fire-in-the-hole" model test.
(See February 1963.) Even though preliminary data agreed with predicted
values, they nonetheless planned to have a support contractor, the
Martin Company, verify the findings.
"Activity Report, RASPO/GAEC, 3/10/63-3/16/63" (undated), p.
2.
March 11
NASA announced signing of the contract with Grumman for development of
the LEM. (See November 19, 1962.) Company officials had signed the
document on January 21 and, following legal reviews, NASA Headquarters
had formally approved the agreement on March 7. Under the fixed-fee
contract (NAS 9-1100) ($362.5 million for costs and $25.4 million in
fees) Grumman was authorized to design, fabricate, and deliver nine
ground test and 11 flight vehicles. The contractor would also provide
mission support for Apollo flights. MSC outlined a developmental
approach, incorporated into the contract as "Exhibit B, Technical
Approach," that became the "framework within which the initial
design and operational modes" of the LEM were developed.
NASA-MSC, "Lunar Excursion Module, Project Apollo, Exhibit B,
Technical Approach, Contract NAS 9-1100," December 20, 1962, p. 1;
MSF Management Council Meeting, January 29, 1963, Agenda Item 3,
"MSC Status Report," pp. 23, 26; MSF Management Council
Minutes, January 29, 1963, p. 3; MSC, "Consolidated Monthly
Activity Report for the Office of the Director, Manned Space Flight,
February 24-March 23, 1963,"p. 29; "Apollo Quarterly Status
Report No. 3," p. 1; NASA News Release 63-51, "Contract Signed
to Develop Lunar Excursion Module," March 11, 1963.
March 11
Grumman began early contract talks with the Marquardt Corporation for
development of the LEM reaction control system.
MSC, "Consolidated Activity Report for the Office of the Director,
Manned Space Flight, January 27-February 23, 1963," p. 57;
"Consolidated Monthly Activity Report for the Office of the
Director, Manned Space Flight, February 24-March 23, 1963," p.
7.
March 13
The first stage of the Saturn SA-5 launch vehicle was static fired at
MSFC for 144.44 seconds in the first long-duration test for a Block II
S-1. The cluster of eight H-1 engines produced 680 thousand kilograms
(1.5 million pounds) of thrust. An analysis disclosed anomalies in the
propulsion system. In a final qualification test two weeks later, when
the engines were fired for 143.47 seconds, the propulsion problems had
been corrected.
MSFC Historical Office, History of the George C. Marshall Space Flight
Center from January 1 through June 30, 1963 (MHM-7), Vol. I, pp. 21-22;
The Huntsville Times, March 14,1963.
March 14
A bidders' conference was held at Grumman for a LEM mechanically
throttled descent engine to be developed concurrently with Rocketdyne's
helium injection descent engine. (See February 27.) Corporations
represented were Space Technology Laboratories; United Technology
Center, a division of United Aircraft Corporation; Reaction Motors
Division, Thiokol Chemical Corporation; and Aerojet-General Corporation.
Technical and cost proposals were due at Grumman on April 8.
"Activity Report, RASPO/GAEC, 3/10/63-3/16/63" (undated), p.
1.
March 14
Homer E. Newell, Director of NASA's Office of Space Sciences, summarized
results of studies by Langley Research Center and Space Technology
Laboratories on an unmanned lunar orbiter spacecraft. These studies had
been prompted by questions of the reliability and photographic
capabilities of such spacecraft. Both studies indicated that, on a
five-shot program, the probability was 0.93 for one and 0.81 for two
successful missions; they also confirmed that the spacecraft would be
capable of photographing a landed Surveyor to assist in Apollo site
verification.
Memorandum, Newell, NASA, to Dir., OMSF, "Questions on the unmanned
lunar orbiter," March 14, 1963, with four enclosures; Bruce K,
Byers, "Lunar Orbiter: a Preliminary History" (HHN-71), August
1969, pp. 21-22.
March 20
John A. Hornbeck, president of Bellcomm, testified before the House
Committee on Science and Astronautics' Subcommittee on Manned Space
Flight concerning the nature and scope of Bellcomm's support for NASA's
Apollo program. In answer to the question as to how Bellcomm would
decide "which area would be the most feasible" for a lunar
landing, Hornbeck replied, ". . . the safety of the landing - that
will be the paramount thing." He said that his company was studying
a number of likely areas, but would "not recommend a specific site
at the moment." Further, "Preliminary studies . . . suggest
that the characteristics of a 'good' site for early exploration might be
(1) on a lunar sea, (2) 10 miles [16 kilometers] from a continent, and
(3) 10 miles [16 kilometers] from a postmarial crater." This type
of site, Hornbeck said, would permit the most scientific activity
practicable, and would enable NASA's planners to design future missions
for even greater scientific returns.
U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the
Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1964 NASA
Authorization, Hearings on H.R. 5466 (Superseded by H.R. 7500),
[No. 3] Part 2(a), 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963), p. 378.
March 21
MSC awarded the Philco Corporation a definitive contract (worth almost
$33.8 million) to provide flight information and flight control display
equipment (with the exception of the realtime computer complex) for the
Mission Control Center at MSC. NASA Headquarters approved the contract
at the end of the month.
MSC, "Consolidated Monthly Activity Report for the Office of the
Director, Manned Space Flight, February 24-March 23, 1963," p. 29;
"Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 3," p. 49; Space
Business Daily, April 4, 1963, p. 432.
March 25
General Dynamics Convair completed structural assembly of the first
launcher for the Little Joe II test program. During the next few weeks,
electrical equipment installation, vehicle mating, and checkout were
completed. The launcher was then disassembled and delivered to WSMR on
April 25, 1963.
Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle, NASA Project Apollo: Final
Report, Vol. I, pp. 1-4 and 1-6.
March 25-31
North American analyzed lighting conditions in the CM and found that
glossy or light-colored garments and pressure suits produced
unsatisfactory reflections on glass surfaces. A series of tests were
planned to define the allowable limits of reflection on windows and
display panel faces to preclude interference with crew performance.
"Project Apollo Spacecraft Test Program, Weekly Activity Report
(Period 25 March 1963 through 31 March 1963)," p. 5.
March 26
Hamilton Standard Division awarded a contract to ITT/Kellogg for the
design and manufacture of a prototype extravehicular suit telemetry and
communications system to be used with the portable life support system.
(See November 27, 1962.)
Memorandum, Michael B. Luse, MSC, to Crew Systems Division, Attn: M. I.
Radnofsky, "Extra-Vehicular Suit Telemetry and Communication
System," March 11, 1964.
March 26
MSC announced the beginning of CM environmental control system tests at
the AiResearch Manufacturing Company simulating prelaunch, ascent,
orbital, and reentry pressure effects. Earlier in the month, analysis
had indicated that the CM interior temperature could be maintained
between 294 K (70 degrees F) and 300 K (80 degrees F) during all flight
operations, although prelaunch temperatures might rise to a maximum of
302 K (84 degrees F).
"Apollo Monthly Progress Report," SID 62-300-11, p. 12; MSC
News Release 63-61, March 26, 1963.
March 26-28
A meeting was held at North American to define CM-space suit interface
problem areas. (See January 24.) Demonstrations of pressurized
International Latex suits revealed poor crew mobility and task
performance inside the CM, caused in part by the crew's unavoidably
interfering with one another.
Other items received considerable attention: A six-foot umbilical hose
would be adequate for the astronaut in the CM. The location of
spacecraft water, oxygen, and electrical fittings was judged
satisfactory, as were the new couch assist handholds. The astronaut's
ability to operate the environmental control system (ECS) oxygen flow
control valve while couched and pressurized was questionable. Therefore,
it was decided that the ECS valve would remain open and that the
astronaut would use the suit control valve to regulate the flow. It was
also found that the hand controller must be moved about nine inches
forward.
Memorandum, J. F. Saunders, Jr., RASPO/NAA, to L. McMillion, MSC,
"Data Transmittal," April 5, 1963, with enclosures: Agenda and
Minutes of Meeting, "Command Module-Space Suit Interface Meeting
No. 4, NAA, Downey - 26, 27, 28 March 1963."
March 27
The Apollo Mission Planning Panel (see February 27) set forth two firm
requirements for the lunar landing mission. First, both LEM crewmen must
be able to function on the lunar surface simultaneously. MSC contractors
were directed to embody this requirement in the design and development
of the Apollo spacecraft systems. Second, the panel established duration
limits for lunar operations. These limits, based upon the 48-hour LEM
operation requirement, were 24 hours on the lunar surface and 24 hours
in flight on one extreme, and 45 surface hours and 3 flight hours on the
other. Grumman was directed to design the LEM to perform throughout this
range of mission profiles.
MSC, "Abstract of Meeting on Apollo Mission Planning Meeting No. 1,
March 27, 1963," March 29, 1963; memorandum, Robert V. Battey, MSC,
to Action Committee, "Errata to Abstract of Mission Planning Panel
Meeting No. 1," April 1, 1963.
March 28
NASA launched Saturn SA-4 from Cape Canaveral. The S-I Saturn stage
reached an altitude of 129 kilometers (80 statute miles) and a peak
velocity of 5,906 kilometers (3,660 miles) per hour. This was the last
of four successful tests for the first stage of the Saturn I vehicle.
After 100 seconds of flight, No. 5 of the booster's eight engines was
cut off by a preset timer. That engine's propellants were rerouted to
the remaining seven, which continued to burn. This experiment confirmed
the "engine-out" capability that MSFC engineers had designed
into the Saturn I. (See February 20.)
Saturn Illustrated Chronology, pp. 76-77; History of
Marshall . . . January 1-June 30, 1963, Vol. I, pp. 16-18.
During a visit to NAA during March 1963, Astronauts M. Scott Carpenter, John H. Glenn, Jr., and Walter M. Schirra, Jr., took time out to "try the spacecraft of for size." The spacecraft mockup was one of the items inspected as they toured the NAA spacecraft facilities at Downey, Calif.
During the Month
North American selected two subcontractors to build tankage for the SM:
Allison Division of General Motors Corporation to fabricate the fuel and
oxidizer tanks; and Airite Products, Inc., those for helium storage.
"Apollo Monthly Progress Report," SID 62-300-11, p. 3.
During the Month
RCA completed a study on ablative versus regenerative cooling for the
thrust chamber of the LEM ascent engine. Because of low cooling margins
available with regenerative cooling, Grumman selected the ablative
method, which permitted the use of either ablation or radiation cooling
for the nozzle extension. (See September 19-October 16.)
"Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 3," p. 26; GAEC,
"Monthly Progress Report No. 2," LPR-10-2, April 10, 1963, p.
12.
During the Month
Grumman met with representatives of North American, Collins Radio
Company, and Motorola, Inc., to discuss common usage and preliminary
design specifications for the LEM communications system. These
discussions led to a simpler design for the S-band receiver and to
modifications to the S-band transmitter (required because of North
American's design approach).
"Monthly Progress Report No. 2," LPR-10-2, p. 15.
During the Month
MSC sent MIT and Grumman radar configuration requirements for the LEM.
The descent equipment would be a three-beam doppler radar with a
two-position antenna. Operating independently of the primary guidance
and navigation system, it would determine altitude, rate of descent, and
horizontal velocity from 7,000 meters (20,000 feet) above the lunar
surface. The LEM rendezvous radar, a gimbaled antenna with a two-axis
freedom of movement, and the rendezvous transponder mounted on the
antenna would provide tracking data, thus aiding the LEM to intercept
the orbiting CM. The SM would be equipped with an identical rendezvous
radar and transponder.
"Apollo Quarterly Status Report No. 3," p. 23.
During the Quarter
MSC reported that preliminary plans for Apollo scientific
instrumentation had been prepared with the cooperation of NASA
Headquarters, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the Goddard Space Flight
Center. The first experiments would not be selected until about December
1963, allowing scientists time to prepare proposals. Prime consideration
would be given to experiments that promised the maximum return for the
least weight and complexity, and to those that were man-oriented and
compatible with spacecraft restraints. Among those already suggested
were seismic devices (active and passive), and instruments to measure
the surface bearing strength, magnetic field, radiation spectrum, soil
density, and gravitational field. MSC planned to procure most of this
equipment through the scientific community and through other NASA and
government organizations.
Ibid., p. 30.
During the Quarter
To provide a more physiologically acceptable load factor orientation
during reentry and abort, MSC was considering revised angles for the
crew couch in the CM. To reduce the couch's complexity, North American
had proposed adjustments which included removable calf pads and a
movable head pad. (See April 3.)
Ibid., p. 6.
During the Quarter
MSC reported that stowage of crew equipment, some of which would be used
in both the CM and the LEM, had been worked out. Two portable life
support systems and three pressure suits and thermal garments were to be
stowed in the CM. Smaller equipment and consumables would be distributed
between modules according to mission phase requirements.
Ibid., p. 22.
