SP-4011 Skylab: A Chronology
 

PART II: Apollo Application Program (continued)

 

a. August 1965 to December 1966.

b. January 1967 to December 1968.

c. January 1969 to February 1970.

 

 

- 1969 -

 

January 8

[147] Installation and instrumentation of a 2.4-m-diameter tank in the MSFC vacuum chamber test tower for an OWS insulation liner outgassing test was completed. The testing simulated part of the passivation phase of the AAP-2 mission to evaluate the outgassing and heat transfer characteristics of the OWS insulation liner and the resultant atmosphere and environment inside the Workshop. Testing was performed by MSFC personnel with McDonnell Douglas test support personnel making the outgassing measurements.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 13 January 1969.

 

January 8

An AAP baseline configuration review was held at NASA Hq. Attendees included the Center AAP Managers, the AAP Director, and key Center and Headquarters personnel. Headquarters presented a new AAP 2 experiments list. MSC and MSFC presented the weight status of the AAP missions, recommended control weights for the modules, and proposed weight management systems. MSC presented a status report on a joint study by MSFC and MSC of the stowage list for the AAP flights and gave a status report on plans for AAP space suits and space suit support.

Letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, Leland F. Belew, MSFC, and Thomas W. Morgan, KSC, "Minutes of AAP Baseline Configuration Review Held January 8, 1969," 13 January 1969.

 

January 14

A controls and displays review, the third and final one, was held at North American Rockwell, Downey, with an astronaut review team in attendance. North American gave a review of the major reorientation of the controls and displays, and the significant systems modifications which occurred since the previous meeting. As a result of the three reviews, very little controls and displays activities would be necessary at the command module and service modules preliminary design review.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 27 January 1969.

 

January 14-15

A meeting was held at Martin Marietta, Denver, to discuss improvements to the experiment integration requirements document in the areas of experiment test and checkout. Representatives from KSC, MSFC, and MSC established a set of guidelines and instructions that would identify the hardware flow plan and test activity associated with the experiment integration and prelaunch phase. Martin Marietta was directed to use the instructions for future issues or revisions to the experiment integration requirements document.

[148] "Apollo Applications Test, Weekly Highlights Report," 22 January 1969.

 

January 15

Management of the Saturn IB project and AAP-assigned spacecraft was transferred from the Apollo program to AAP. This transfer of management responsibility included Saturn IB launch vehicles SA-206 through SA-212 and Saturn IB unique spares and unique facilities. The Apollo program would continue to fund the Saturn IB effort through FY 1969, except for that effort unique to AAP. Beginning in FY 1970, the Saturn IB funding would be an AAP responsibility. This transfer of responsibilities placed management of the Saturn IB project under control of the program that would use it and relieved Apollo management of some responsibilities, allowing more time for concentration on the mainline Apollo program.

Letters, S. C. Phillips and W. C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, "Transfer of Saturn IB Project Management to the AAP," 15 January 1969; George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, 22 January 1969.

 

January 15

NASA reported that considerable progress had been made during the underwater test program begun at MSFC's neutral buoyancy simulator several years earlier. The program was providing information essential for design of the first U.S. space station. Technicians, design engineers, and professional divers in space suits and scuba gear were conducting tasks similar to those necessary to activate an orbiting Workshop, in a 5300-cu-m (1.4-million- gal) tank containing mockups of the AAP cluster elements (Workshop, Apollo telescope mount, solar observatory, and airlock and multiple docking adapter), simulating weightlessness of space. Conclusions from the tests would be reflected in the Workshop's final design, with a decision expected in May 1969.

NASA News Release 69-4, 15 January 1969.

 

January 20

Following six weeks of familiarization with the OWS, R. Walter Cunningham made a number of recommendations for modification of its interior. Among these were discontinuance of hardware development conceived to support the concept of compression walking; elimination of a settee from the food management compartment; discontinuance of any consideration of a cot for zero-g sleep stations; simplification of fire extinguisher brackets; and discontinuance of development of a cargo transfer device in the OWS and AM.

Memorandum, R. Walter Cunningham, MSC, to Director of Flight Crew Operations, MSC, "Apollo Applications Program Orbital Workshop," 20 January 1969.

 

January 20

MSC announced a reorganization of the AAPO in Houston: the Future Missions Project Office was redesignated the Command and Service Module Project Office; the Program Control Office became the Management Operations Office; the Systems Engineering Office was redesignated the Engineering Office; the Test Operations Office became the Manufacturing and Test Office; the Mission [149] Operations Office was redesignated the Missions Office; and the MSC AAPO Resident Office at St. Louis was closed. This reorganization was a result of the reassignment of AAP management responsibilities to MSFC in September 1968, the transfer of which had recently been concluded.

MSC Announcement 69-7, "Organizational Changes and Personnel Assignments Within Apollo Applications Program Office," 20 January 1969.

 

January 24

A meeting was held at McDonnell Douglas, Huntington Beach, to discuss habitability support system requirements and concept selection. It was decided to investigate moving partitions between the waste management and food management compartments to improve the distribution of space. A quick analysis indicated little program impact from the change; however, the preliminary requirements review would be based on the existing floor plan.

MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report for Two Weeks Ending 2-4-69," 7 February 1969.

 

January 27

A meeting to discuss the feasibility of space stations as the major post-Apollo manned space flight program was held at NASA Hq. Some comments from attendees follow:

Edgar M. Cortright, Director, LaRC

 

Abe Silverstein, Director, Lewis Research Center

 

Wernher von Braun, Director, MSFC

 

Robert R. Gilruth, Director, MSC

 

George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight

 

James C. Elms, Director, Electronics Research Center

Extracts from NASA Administrator Thomas 0. Paine's "Notes From Meeting on Space Stations," 27 January 1969.

 

January 28

Development tests to verify the design concept of the chain drive mechanisms of the ATM solar array system were completed. Preliminary data and operation were very promising. This hardware would be utilized in assembly of a complete solar array to be used for deployment testing.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 3 February 1969; "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 29 January 1969.

 

January 30

MSFC definitized the existing letter contract with Martin Marietta for the payload integration and systems engineering effort for AAP, as well as the control and display console for the ATM. Estimated value of the contract was $98.2 million. The work, begun under letter contract in January 1968, would extend through the end of November 1972 and covered AAP Flights 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4.

MSFC News Release 69-43, 18 March 1969.

 

February 3

Director of AAP William C. Schneider emphasized the magnitude of procurement actions for the program. He pointed out that "procurement actions for AAP have in a sense pioneered a procurement philosophy that may be considered unique. We seem to constantly seek new ways, or develop procurement methods out of the ordinary to accomplish our changing program objectives. I am determined . . . that procurement will not be a hindrance, but rather take the lead in this effort.... I can foresee the need for even deeper and quicker and greater procurement involvement over the next 12 months as the tempo of our program increases." Schneider suggested that additional procurement personnel [151] be assigned to meet the needs as AAP emerged from its formative stage into full maturity.

Letter, W. C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to NASA Director of Procurement, "Procurement Support for AAP," 3 February 1969.

 

February 4-5

A meeting of the ATM Contamination Working Group was held at KSC. Representatives present were from NASA Hq, KSC, MSC, and MSFC. Experiment Principal Investigators also attended. Items covered included real-time contamination monitoring during thermal vacuum testing, thermal vacuum test plans, optical degradation from vacuum chamber operations, and cluster effluent studies. Several of the Principal Investigators expressed a desire for real- time contamination monitoring during thermal vacuum tests of the ATM. The Naval Research Laboratory was trying to develop a monitor for the ultraviolet region and was planning to submit an engineering change proposal to provide an ultraviolet source for the tests. This would allow them to operate their instruments and obtain data on their efficiency during such tests.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Status Report," 12 February 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 17 February 1969.

 

February 4-14

A preliminary design review for the AAP CSM mockup was held at Downey, 10-14 February. It followed an astronaut review of the mockup 4-6 February. A total of 404 review item discrepancies, consisting mainly of detailed changes to documentation and design, were identified. General satisfaction with the mockup was expressed by the astronauts.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report,' 17 February 1969; brochure, Space Division of North American Rockwell, "Apollo Applications Program Preliminary Design Review CSM SD69-252," undated.

 

February 4-19

Orbital Workshop solar array system preliminary requirements review presentations were made 4 February. On 5 February problem areas were discussed; no major problems were identified. Primary areas of concern were time of deployment, from power and thermal considerations, and contamination of solar cells after deployment. On 13 February the board convened to dispose of the accepted requests for change. The only request for change of programmatic importance was the need for a checkout of the solar array pointing system at the Sacramento Test Operations Facility.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 25 February 1969.

 

February 7

AAP Director William C. Schneider, in a letter to MSFC's AAP Manager Leland F. Belew, said that Belew's letter of 7 January 1969 reflecting the results of a preliminary investigation to determine the feasibility of operating the Harvard College Observatory's ultraviolet spectrometer experiment in an unmanned AAP mode was interesting. Schneider said the preliminary results indicated the possibility [152] of only minor programmatic impacts to provide a fixed pointing position capability during the aforementioned period and asked Belew to pursue this minimal approach coordinating directly with the observatory. Schneider suggested that MSFC should study ground support and Manned Space Flight Network requirements and coordinate them with MSC. He further requested that any significant impacts imposed on program costs, schedules, or performance as a result of the implementation of the proposed operational change be brought to his immediate attention.

Letter, William C. Schneider to Leland F. Belew, "HCO Proposal for Automated ATM Operation," 7 February 1969.

 

February 12

NASA launched another AAP-related Aerobee 150 sounding rocket from White Sands Missile Range. The rocket carried a Naval Research Laboratory payload to 187.9-km altitude to record photographically 18 extreme ultraviolet spectra of solar photosphere, chromosphere, and corona, using a flight design verification unit of the high-resolution spectrograph planned for ATM-A and ATM-B. Rocket and instruments performed satisfactorily.

NASA, "Report of Sounding Rocket Launching."

 

February 18

An early test model of the ATM control computer was delivered by Bendix Corporation to MSFC where it was undergoing performance tests. This was a preproduction unit and did not include all the functions that would be in the flight version. The first flight unit was scheduled for delivery in September 1969.

MSFC, "AAPO Weekly Activity Report," 24 February 1969; "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Status Report," 28 February 1969.

 

February 26

NASA announced it would negotiate with North American Rockwell for modifications to four Apollo spacecraft for AAP.

Letter, George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, 26 February 1969.

 

February 26

MSFC hosted an AAP medical experiments review attended by representatives from NASA Hq, KSC, MSC, and MSFC. Purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of the development of medical experiments and to assess their ability to meet program need dates. Medical experiments were being developed that would provide flight hardware to support scheduled launch dates. However, flight hardware would not be available to support fit and function tests of experiments in the OWS or the MDA. Alternate methods would be investigated using flight configured hardware rather than actual flight hardware to satisfy these test requirements.

Letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, and Leland F. Belew, MSFC, "Review of AAP Medical Experiments," 18 February 1969; "Minutes of Medical Experiments Meeting MSFC," 25 February 1969; "Apollo [153] Applications Test Weekly Status Report for Week Ending February 26, 1969," 28 February 1969.

 

During the month

Massachusetts Institute of Technology published its final report (R634 dated February 1969) covering a series of eight software tasks that had been assigned to them during the initial phases of AAP. Study results included a computer subroutine for CSM local vertical hold; a technique for performing differential CSM jet firings for more precise attitude control; and an autopilot, similar to the present one, to control attitude during spinup, spindown, and reorientation for the docked CSM/LM/ATM.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 24 March 1969.

 

March 4

A review of some potential color application processes for the OWS was held at MSFC with McDonnell Douglas. The prime contender for the exterior of the OWS was a gold porcelain enamel. Other processes in development testing were a teflon coating for the aluminum foil in the OWS interior and the application of porcelain enamel or micatex paint for other interior areas.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Apollo Applications Program," 20 March 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 24 March 1969.

 

March 4

An AAP baseline configuration review was held at NASA Hq. During the review, MSC and MSFC presented the results of a study of the AAP backup and alternate missions. MSFC led discussions on a proposed major design review and presented results of a study on a flexible airlock module, the status of work related to stowage problems, and a review of the cluster instrumentation and communications systems. MSC made a presentation on launch windows for the AAP missions, gave a status report on a study of combining the AAP-3A and AAP-4 missions, and proposed deletion of the lunar module abort guidance system.

Letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, Leland F. Belew, MSFC, and Thomas W. Morgan, KSC, "Minutes of AAP Baseline Configuration Review Held March 4, 1969," 11 March 1969.

 

March 4-22

A series of ATM extravehicular activity neutral buoyancy tests were performed at MSFC. Astronauts participated in both scuba gear and pressurized space suits. Purpose of the tests was to evaluate the performance and procedures for moving film cassettes to the two ATM work stations and to perform some of the tasks required at these stations. Recommendations were made for the improvement of most of the features evaluated. As a result of the tests, equipment and procedures modifications were made.

MSFC Process Engineering Laboratory, "Neutral Buoyancy Simulator Daily Log," 4 March 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator Apollo Applications Program," 6 March 1969; "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Status Report," 6 March 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for [154] the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 28 March 1969; "Apollo Applications Tests Weekly Highlights Report," 27 March 1969.

 

March 5-6

At Huntsville, representatives from Headquarters, MSC, KSC, and MSFC conducted a preliminary requirements review of various crew equipment aboard the Apollo Applications Program Workshop. The review constituted a significant milestone toward establishing firm requirements for items such as the waste management system, sleep restraints, and off-duty equipment for the crew. The continuous search to reduce program costs led to elimination of the automatic data management and optical verification systems and to simplification of the water system aboard the craft. Also, the hygiene system would be government-furnished equipment, and designers imposed strict limits on use of off-duty equipment.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 14 March 1969; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 14 March 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 17 March 1969.

 

March 10

A test to evaluate the hydrogen-helium outgassing characteristics of the OWS during passivation was conducted in the vacuum chamber at MSFC. Total pressure and partial pressure were monitored over a 40-hour simulated passivation period. Test reports indicated that all measurable traces of hydrogen disappeared in four to six hours, while traces of helium remained throughout most of the passivation period.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 10 March 1969.

 

March 11

During an AAP briefing at MSC, Deputy Director of Apollo Applications John H. Disher said ". . . we are in manned flight today, in a position roughly comparable to that in 1910 for airplanes . . . and in 1910, or in 1909, it was the well-known physicist of his day, Simon Newcomb, . . . who said anyone who thinks that the airplane will sometime replace the train is out of his mind...." Disher was describing AAP: what the program was and what it planned to accomplish.

Text of Apollo Applications Program Briefing, John H. Disher, NASA Hq, 11 March 1969.

 

March 18

A definitive contract for payload integration in support of AAP was awarded to Martin Marietta. In addition to systems engineering and integration relating to the payloads for each vehicle and the entire cluster, Martin Marietta would develop and fabricate the control and displays for the ATM. The major portion of the work would be performed at Martin Marietta's Denver plant.

NASA Hq News Release 69-43, "AAP Support Contract," 18 March 1969; letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, "Background Information on Martin and GE Support for the AAPO," 17 March 1969.

 

March 19

[155] The abort guidance system was deleted as backup to the primary navigation guidance system during unmanned rendezvous and docking in AAP. An important factor in the decision to delete it from the baseline configuration was the fact that the system provided only a partial backup to the primary navigation guidance system during unmanned rendezvous and docking. Deletion of the abort guidance system would result in a cost savings of approximately $8.7 million.

Letters, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, "Deletion of the Lunar Module Abort Guidance System as Backup o Primary Navigation Guidance System During Unmanned Rendezvous and Docking," 19 March 1969; William C. Schneider to Robert F. Thompson, Leland F. Belew, MSFC, and Thomas W. Morgan, KSC, "Minutes of AAP Baseline Configuration Review," 11 March 1969.

 

March 24

A meeting at MSFC examined design changes leading to weight increases in the OWS. The major changes were: a high-performance installation on the forward dome that increased weight because of purge requirements producing structural adjustments; thermal extensions to the meteoroid shield to minimize heat leaks; solar array system modification requirements; and updating of the intercommunication system weight.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 1 April 1969.

 

March 26-27

The interface status of the CSM and MDA was reviewed at MSFC with representatives from NASA Hq, MSFC, MSC, Martin Marietta, and North American Rockwell. The closing mechanism appeared to be working well; the caution and warning criteria would require additional systems engineering attention.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 7 April 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 4 April 1969.

 

March 28

As a result of the MSFC structural analysis meeting held at MSFC, the following actions were planned in the AM/MDA test program: to increase loading capacity, a small number of rivets would be changed to the next largest size in an area near the joint section; the structural test article would be shipped by Guppy, arriving at MSC by I May; integrated test preparations would begin at MSFC during the first week in May, and static tests would start on 15 June.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 7 April 1969; "Weekly Progress and Summary Report for the Administrator - Apollo Applications Program," 4 April 1969; "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Status Report," 3 April 1969.

 

During the month

The ATM would be a manned solar observatory making measurements of the Sun by telescopes and instruments above the Earth's atmosphere. The instruments would obtain data on the transitions occurring in elements ionized in the vicinity of the Sun's surface data contained in the ultraviolet and x-ray spectrum absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere. Orbiting telescopes would also observe [156] flares and regions of the corona hidden to Earth-bound telescopes or covered by scattered light.

NASA Technical Note D-5020, "Scientific Experiments for the Apollo Telescope Mount," March 1969.

 

April 1-3

A critical design review of the Bendix Corporation cryogenic storage system was conducted at Davenport, Iowa. The review item discrepancies were primarily in procedures and documentation rather than in design adequacy. A NASA, North American, and Bendix team was assigned action to update the process specifications, quality assurance controls, and buyoffs and to complete the qualification test plan.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 9 April 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 10 April 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 14 April 1969.

 

April 7

A small film canister, designed and fabricated at MSFC, was delivered to KSC for flight test on Apollo 10. The canister, packed with a variety of photographic film, would obtain information on the sensitivity of film to the thermal, pressure, and radiation environment of space, in part equivalent to those which would be experienced by the ATM in flight. The test would also complement ground testing and theoretical analyses that were conducted to evaluate potential film fogging in a space environment.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 10 April 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 14 April 1969.

 

April 7

MSFC and MSC recently reorganized their AAP offices to reflect the realignment of hardware development responsibilities within AAP. The MSFC AAP reorganization created project offices for each spacecraft module, e.g., AM, LM, and ATM. The MSC AAP reorganization was structured to include four functional and two project offices.

Memorandum, Robert F. Thompson, MSC, to Dist., "Procedures for AAP Correspondence to MSFC," 7 April 1969.

 

April 9-10

An AAP mission requirements meeting was held at MSC. The following items were among those on the agenda: weight and performance status; need for buoyancy tests and additional ballast for AAP CSM which were heavier than Apollo's; and the proposal that a flexible scientific airlock be abandoned due to high cost.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 23 April 1969.

 

April 9-11

[157] MSC conducted a formal mockup review of the CSM-airlock tunnel interfaces to establish detailed design requirements for all mechanical, umbilical, and electrical interfaces. Technical reviews underway at North American Rockwell and MSC included crew systems, fuel cells, and environmental control. North American was ordered to proceed with the AAP SM configuration. The return battery pack was deleted (batteries would be provided in the CM, and the fuel capacity of the reaction control system would he enlarged from 545 to 1633 kg).

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 14 April 1969.

 

April 10

An ATM-acceptance checkout equipment meeting was held at MSFC. The meeting ended with an informal concurrence on the content of an acceptance checkout equipment inter-Center agreement. The agreement covered deactivation, transportation, installation, and certification of satisfactory operation of the MSFC acceptance checkout equipment station. It also covered the responsibilities of each of the participating Centers (MSFC, MSC, KSC) with regard to the design, modification, maintenance, operation, and software development of the station.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Status Report," 16 April 1969; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 17 April 1969.

 

April 15-16

A meeting was held at MSFC with representatives of the camera manufacturers, North American, Grumman, and MSFC to review ATM camera stowage and handling and the CSM and LM stowage. The following areas were discussed and assigned for further study: environment (thermal, shock, and vibration); interface control documents for the cameras and carriers; LM and CM stowage volume and weight limitations and their effect on camera configuration; and camera extravehicular activities.

Memorandum, T. C. Winters, Jr., Naval Research Laboratory, to Dist., "ATM Camera Coordination Meeting," 16 April 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 5 May 1969.

 

April 17

A prenegotiation conference for the AM and OWS contracts was held at NASA Hq. The most significant program changes concerned the following:

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 28 April 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 28 April 1969.

 

April 18

[158] MSFC issued requests for proposals for manufacture of solar arrays to convert solar energy into electrical power to operate the OWS. The OWS would have two wings covered with solar cells a total area of 111 sq m. Each of the wings would be composed of 120 sections. Together the wings would produce 12 000 watts to power the OWS. A preproposal conference on the requests was scheduled for 1 May at MSFC.

MSFC News Release 69-116, 18 April 1969.

 

April 22

NASA Hq recommended that the palatability of food and water be enhanced for longer duration manned flight. To accomplish this, a food development plan would be directed toward the following objectives: utilization of more conventional foods; resolution of stowage and preservation problems for inflight foods; development of facilities to enable more conventional food preparation and eating in space; and application of principles and practices already utilized by the food industry for commercial products.

Letters, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, "In-Flight Food and Water System for AAP," 22 April 1969; William C. Schneider to Leland F. Belew, MSFC, "In- Flight Food and Water Heating and Cooling Capabilities for AAP," 22 April 1969.

 

April 29

Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager George M. Low advised Robert F. Thompson, MSC Apollo Application Program Manager, of the problems the Apollo program had encountered in caution and warning systems, saying that "during the past two years, we have had caution and warning changes at nearly every Configuration Control Board meeting." Low said that from that experience he had reached the following conclusions: "(1) Caution and warning parameters should be carefully selected and, when in doubt, the answer should be that the parameter should not be on the caution and warning system. Only those parameters that could change rapidly (e.g., between two ground stations) and that would require immediate action to avoid a catastrophic situation should be displayed on a C&W system. (2) The caution and warning limits should be easily adjustable, certainly up to the time of launch, and, preferably, even in flight. The settings should be adjustable so that a limit could be opened up or closed down as the need arises. (3) It should be possible to disable each individual caution and warning system in flight."

Memorandum, George M. Low to Robert F. Thompson, "Caution and warning systems," 29 April 1969.

 

May 1

An OWS meeting was held at MSFC in an effort to finalize the interior OWS color. Flaking from exposure to the cryogenic tam; temperatures precluded the use of an otherwise acceptable MSFC developed paint. During the meeting a presentation was given by McDonnell Douglas on coloring processes that were technically acceptable for preinstallation applications. Green alodine was approved for the coloring process to be used for the aluminum foil fire retardant [159] liner. Loewy and Snaith, Inc., was to prepare an OWS model with a recommended color scheme compatible with the green alodine foil liner.

MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 16 May 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 12 May 1969.

 

May 1

An AM arrived at MSFC for ground testing. It formed part of the AAP OWS cluster. The AM would be joined to the MDA and would provide an interconnecting passageway between the S IVB stage and the MDA in flight. The AM would also condition environmental gases and provide instrumentation, data management, intercommunications, and other services.

MSFC News Release 69-124, 1 May 1969; "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 8 May 1969; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 8 May 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 8 May 1969.

 

May 2

Acting on a suggestion made to him several months earlier by George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, AAP Director William C. Schneider established an AAP Software Board headed by Schneider and including members from the manned space flight Centers, as well as NASA Hq. Such a board, Schneider said, was needed so that AAP flight software could be developed promptly and smoothly-and with an eye toward overall system implications. Also, such a board would facilitate the task of coordinating software work between the Centers. The board, said Schneider, would review software-related problems and requirements and would afford an avenue for management visibility into the software area comparable to that available for hardware-type problems at periodic configuration reviews.

Letter, William C. Schneider to Leland F. Belew, MSFC, Robert F. Thompson, MSC, and Thomas W. Morgan, KSC, "AAP Software Board," 2 May 1969.

 

May 2

In response to a NASA Hq query regarding computer selection for the OWS attitude control system, MSFC responded that several factors influenced the decision to select an analog rather than a digital system. According to a thorough technical and cost evaluation tradeoff study, the analog computer would save half a million dollars, while providing required redundancy with less system complexity. In addition, there was an associated weight and power saving of 27 kg and 160 W.

Letter, Leland F. Belew, MSFC, to William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, "Workshop Attitude Control System (WACS) Control Computer Selection and Electronics Location," 2 May 1969.

 

May 13

A payload integration management meeting was held at Martin Marietta, Denver, with representatives from NASA Hq, MSFC, and MSC. Emphasis of the meeting was on Martin Marietta resources to continue the AAP, management of assigned tasks, and impact of the Viking Project, if Martin Marietta were selected [160] for it. A continuing review process had been employed by Martin Marietta to correlate tasks assigned by MSC, MSFC, and Headquarters and to eliminate redundancy and nonproductive effort.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 16 May 1969.

 

May 15

In reviewing the last three years of AAP-its changing objectives, late decisions, experiment priority shifts-and in looking forward to the uncertainties of NASA space flight after AAP, MSFC officials found it difficult to visualize that the Office of Manned Space Flight and the manned space flight Centers would be able to carry out a program defined for an integrated OWS/ATM in 1972. A major difficulty would be in keeping AAP from being continually impacted as the leading edge of space station activity.

Letter, Leland F. Belew, MSFC, to William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, "Impact Assessment to AAP Core Program Due to OMSF Proposed Saturn V Dry Launched Self Dependent Workshop with an Integrated ATM," 15 May 1969.

 

May 20

A payload shroud preliminary design review was held at MSFC. Representatives from NASA Hq, MSC, KSC, MSFC, Grumman, McDonnell Douglas, Martin Marietta and Bellcomm, Inc., attended. Areas that received the most discussion included access doors and platforms for on-pad servicing and checkout, acoustic criteria-requirements and tests, and the functional subsystems interfacing with the payloads.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 28 May 1969; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 22 May 1969.

 

May 21

MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth established a Space Station Task Group, headed by Rene A. Berglund, to oversee the Center's various studies (both in house and under contract) associated with the phase B definition of a space station. These studies were predicated upon a successful AAP which was essential for data in a number of areas of direct implication for more elaborate space stations: the physiological effects of weightlessness for extended periods of time; demonstrated performance capabilities of the crewmen aboard the station; data on the longterm habitability of the station; flight qualification of many new hardware components (e.g-., large solar arrays, control moment gyros, and molecular sieves); and broad experience in logistical and orbital operations in general, including crew transfers and resupply of scientific equipment and consumables.

MSC Announcement 69-67, "Establishment of Space Station Task Group," 21 May 1969.

 

May 21

At the Manned Space Flight Management Council meeting held at MSC, Associate Administrator George E. Mueller sounded out the Center Directors and AAP officials regarding program options facing AAP and the direction that the [161] program should take. These options, discussed at length during the meeting, derived primarily from the choice of a Saturn IB "wet" Workshop versus a Saturn V "dry" Workshop (with several possible approaches for ATM and CSM operation).

On 23 May, MSFC Director Wernher von Braun responded at length to Mueller's request for recommendations from the field. Foremost, von Braun stated, AAP's basic objectives (long-duration manned space flight and solar observations) could be achieved within present resources and schedules (though it would require some "hard-nosed scrubbing down" of current methods). Of the several possible program options, the MSFC Director voted for the Saturn V launched "dry" Workshop. His recommendation derived from several factors. A principal one was NASA's astonishing record of success with the basic Saturn V launch vehicle. Also, several important benefits derived from launching the Workshop in a fully equipped configuration rather than using the Saturn IB's second stage:

In short, von Braun told Mueller, the Saturn V-launched Workshop offered "real and solid" advantages without any attendant program perturbations. Such a move he called an "organic and logical step for gaining experience" in long-duration flight and said it would "allow us to qualify subsystems for the full-fledged space station/space base."

Three days later, MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth responded to Mueller and voiced almost the same ideas. Gilruth, too, recommended that AAP adopt the Saturn V Workshop concept, which was essentially the Saturn IB model launched aboard the first two stages of the Saturn V. Thus, AAP would enjoy the luxury of a "ready-for-use" vehicle of a much improved configuration. This latter concept pointed to achievement of AAP's basic objectives which remained unchanged: 56-day missions, solar astronomy, and-an implied AAP objective- early space flights at minimum cost looking ahead toward NASA's getting an early go-ahead on the space station and the space shuttle programs during the latter half of the 1970s.

[162] Letters, Wernher von Braun to George F. Mueller, 23 May 1969; Robert R. Gilruth to George E. Mueller, 26 May 1969; J. M. West, MSC, to Robert R. Gilruth, "Extended AAP Flight Program," 25 April 1969; Maxime A. Faget, MSC, to Robert R. Gilruth, "A Study of Apollo Applications Program Using Saturn V Launch Vehicles," 23 April 1969.

 

May 22

AAP baseline configuration review was held at NASA Hq. MSC and MSFC presented a status report on weight of flight modules, measurement lists by modules, plans for controlling the lists, and criteria for measurement selection. KSC gave a report on the status of LC 34/37 equipment and facilities and plans for getting them ready for AAP. MSFC presented the status of a joint MSC/ MSFC study of stowage on AAP-2, a status report on the caution and warning system, and the current plan for LM/ATM extravehicular activity film exchange. MSC reviewed plans for the development of mission operations documentation and presented the results of a joint MSFC/MSC study on the use of the CSM to rescue a malfunctioned LM/ATM.

Letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to AAP Program Managers, MSFC, MSC, and KSC, "Minutes of AAP Baseline Configuration Review," 22 May 1969.

 

May 22-23

KSC hosted a meeting of the AAP Principal Investigators to familiarize them with KSC facilities and equipment. Items covered included experiment timelining, ATM test and checkout, KSC AAP- 4 vehicle flow plans, and quick-look data systems.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 2 June 1969; "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 28 May 1969.

 

May 25

An OWS project management meeting was held at Huntington Beach. Representatives from MSFC, MSC, NASA Hq, and McDonnell Douglas attended. A summary of McDonnell Douglas' program status was presented, and immediate program problems were discussed. Some of these problems were interface documents, preliminary design review requirements, MDA weight and volume requirements, meteoroid shield icing, instrumentation, trajectory requirements, ventilation and thermal control, mission support, and engineering mockup fidelity.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 28 May 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 2 June 1969.

 

May 26

North American Rockwell briefed MSC on recommended service module reaction control system modifications to reduce system costs. The most significant of these changes was a recommendation to reduce the number of propellant modules from six to three as a means of cutting down the number of components in the reaction control system, the manufacturing and checkout time, and the complexity of the system.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Report," 26 May 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 28 May 1969.

 

May 27

[163] A spacecraft fire hazards meeting was held at MSC. Representatives attended from Lewis Research Center, NASA Hq, Electronics Research Center, MSFC, KSC, MSC, and the Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory Safety Office. Fire hazard detection techniques and systems suitable for development for use on spacecraft were discussed. Heat-sensitive, sniffer, radiation, radio- frequency, mass-spectrometer, and pressure-rise detector methods were discussed.

Letter, P. T. Hacker, Lewis Research Center to Dist., "Minutes of May 27, 1969 meeting," 23 June 1969.

 

June 10

The critical design review of the ATM control computer was held at MSFC. All submodules of the flight module control computer, with one exception, were reported as designed. An engineering model control computer was available for examination at the review.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 12 June 1969; "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 11 June 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 16 June 1969

 

June 10-23

The DOD announced cancellation of its MOL Program. The program was initiated in 1965 to advance the development of both manned and unmanned defense-oriented space equipment and to ascertain the full extent of man's utility in space for defense purposes. Following MOL termination, NASA requested that the MOL food and diet contract with Whirlpool Corporation and the space suit development contract with Hamilton Standard Division, United Aircraft Corporation, be transferred to NASA.

DOD Release 491-69, 10 June 1969; TWXs, J. W. Scheer, NASA Hq, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, 10 June 1969 William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, 10 June 1969; Robert F. Thompson to William C. Schneider, 23 June 1969; George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to James T. Stewart, USAF, 23 June 1969; letters, Robert F. Thompson to Dist., "MSC Involvement in USAF's MOL Program Phaseout," 11 June 1969; G. J. Vecchietti to all Center Procurement Officers, "Termination of MOL Contract by USAF," 1 July 1969; Robert F. Thompson to William C. Schneider, "Termination of USAF MOL Program," 2 July 1969.

 

June 11

KSC was examining alternate methods of nitrogen purging on LC-34 and LC-37 in order to reduce costs of line leakage during standby. Among alternatives being studied were using dry air for purging lines since dry air could be used for purging the payload shroud; starting up the nitrogen converter compressor facility rather than purchasing gaseous nitrogen from suppliers; or tapping into the supply of gaseous nitrogen being supplied through pipeline in bulk form at low cost to Launch Complex 39.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 11 June 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report," 12 June 1969.

 

June 18

North American Rockwell was directed to effect a three-month delay in the AAP CSM critical design review and in the delivery of flight spacecraft. The delay was authorized in anticipation of pending AAP modifications.

[164] TWXs, Robert F. Thompson, MSC, to William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, Leland F. Belew, MSFC, and Thomas W. Morgan, KSC, "AAP Core Program Flight Schedule," 19 June 1969; H. E. Gartrell, MSC, to L M. Tinnan and R. K. Swim, (North American Rockwell), 18 June 1969.

 

June 20

NASA Hq informed MSC that it was of immediate importance in planning future manned space flight programs to understand the extent to which a common CSM configuration could be used to satisfy the requirements for lunar exploration, as well as for the AAP in conjunction with the Saturn V Workshop and early support of the space stations. It was Headquarters' desire that a common CSM be evolved that could serve the purposes. Some compromise in performance might be necessary for one or the other of these uses, but the advantages of producing only one set of modifications should be great. MSC was requested to institute a feasibility study by the Apollo Space Program Office and Apollo Applications Program Office personnel, using North American personnel as appropriate. Headquarters asked an initial appraisal of the concept by telephone 23 June, and results of a more thorough assessment by 7 July.

TWX, George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, "CSM Configuration for Lunar Exploration and AAP," 20 June 1969.

 

June 23

In response to a TWX from NASA Hq (see 20 June entry) Kenneth S. Kleinknecht and Robert F. Thompson of MSC talked to John H. Disher (NASA Hq) at the suggestion of Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager George M. Low. Also listening to the conversation were Robert V. Battey and Harold E. Gartrell of MSC. (Low had suggested the call be made to William C. Schneider of NASA Hq, but he was not available.)

Kleinknecht reiterated to Disher that from the beginning of both the AAP and the Apollo Lunar Exploration Mission (ALEM) consideration had always been given to maintaining the maximum degree of commonality between the basic CSM and those required for both programs without creating severe constraints on the objectives of either mission.

Kleinknecht pointed out different requirements of the program and how they clearly indicated some major configuration differences between AAP and ALEM:

Kleinknecht added that "inasmuch as ALEM is still required to do lunar-landing missions as well as collect orbital scientific data, we cannot tolerate any weight penalties that may be associated with scar weights [weights incurred by using a [165] common CSM for multiple missions with modification kits used for each mission, and consequent weight in the basic CSM not usable for all missions] resulting from commonality with the AAP vehicle...." He also recognized that there would be more commonality between the AAP and ALEM should the Workshop become official because expendables could then be supplied to the CSM from the Workshop rather than carried in the CSM. He added that about three and one- half months had been spent in studying and defining the ALEM CSM, and a major change to provide commonality with the AAP CSM would result in that time being lost and at least three and one-half months delay in the launch readiness of the first ALEM mission.

Kleinknecht concluded that MSC agreed in principle with Headquarters in providing as much commonality as possible, but recommended that the 20 June TWX from Headquarters be rescinded and that MSC not pursue a commonality study with North American.

Four days later, MSC received another TWX from George E. Mueller (NASA Hq) saying, ". . . it is our understanding that you will continue your in-house evaluation of the differences in requirements and the impact of these differences on the configuration of CSM's to support lunar exploration, AAP Saturn V Workshop, and early space station missions. This further assessment should be available for discussion by July 7 and will likely be presented to the Management Council in executive session on July 8 or 9."

Memorandum, Kenneth S. Kleinknecht to Manager, Apollo Spacecraft Program, "CSM configuration for lunar exploration and AAP," 23 June 1969; TWX, George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, "Ref: My June 20, 1969 TWX to You Re. CSM Configuration for Lunar Exploration and AAP," 27 June 1969.

 

July 1

A study was conducted to determine the feasibility of providing an artificial gravity operating mode for a second OWS. Study results indicated there were several areas of the OWS that would require unique configuration characteristics. Among the areas of concern were antenna location and coverage; CSM/MDA docking interface strength; reaction control system characteristics, propellant consumption, and attitude control logic to maintain solar orientation in the face of gravity gradient torques; ATM mounting and deployment provisions; and the ATM solar array structure.

Letters, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, "Artificial Gravity Using a Second Dry Workshop," 1 July 1969; William C. Schneider to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, "Artificial Gravity Experiment in AAP," 22 August 1969.

 

July 1

A preliminary requirements review for an experiment support system was held at MSC. The system was being developed by MSFC for MSC. It was designed to provide fluids, electrical, and instrumentation support to a number of AAP biomedical experiments.

[166] "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 2 July 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 3 July 1969.

 

July 8-9

The results of a dry OWS study effort performed by KSC, MSFC, MSC, and major AAP contractors were presented to the Manned Space Flight Management Council. The basic dry OWS configuration and associated cost and schedule estimates resulting from the study were discussed and approved. The AAP Director then presented the proposal to the NASA Administrator. (See 18 July entry.)

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 11 July 1969.

 

July 9

A meeting was held at MSC to discuss a teleprinter system on the AM. MSFC presented a system that would be compatible with the Manned Space Flight Network and would utilize the digital command system. MSC presented a system that would utilize the CSM voice link, tying into the onboard audio system and not having to go through the environmental control system to get input data to the teleprinter. An evaluation of both systems would be made prior to making a final recommendation on a teleprinter system for the AM.

MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 29 July 1969.

 

July 11

MSC terminated the development of the A9L space suit. The AL7 space suit, used in the Apollo program, would continue in use until replaced by a flight-qualified, constant-volume suit. During the Mercury program a modified version of the Goodrich Navy Mark IV suit was used. In the Gemini program a modified version of a suit developed by David Clark Company for the USAF was used. Hamilton Standard had overall development responsibility for the Apollo suit and associated portable life support system. A subcontract was awarded to International Latex Corporation for development of this suit. After suit development was completed, the production contract was awarded to International Latex, and the initial suit was designated A5L. The A6L design incorporated a thermal/ meteoroid garment. Following the Apollo fire, the suit was redesigned to eliminate flammable materials and was designated A7L (designation A8L was never used). Two hard-shell, constant-volume suits were under development, an extravehicular suit was being developed by Litton Industries, and an intravehicular suit was being developed by AiResearch Corporation. Both of the latter would be used in the Apollo Applications Program.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 11 July 1969; letters, John H. Disher, NASA Hq, to Director Apollo Applications Program, "Synopsis of Space Suit Development for Manned Space Flight," 21 March 1969: William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, "MOL Suit Development Control," 11 July 1969.

 

July 15

A number of organizations were studying the possibility of zero-g showers for use in manned space flight. In a letter J. Hall (LaRC), C. C. Johnson (MSC) related [167] the following:

"MSC has some excellent films of Jack Slight showering in the KC-135 at zerogravity.

"The motion pictures of Jack showering are quite revealing-not of Jack, of the action of water at zero-gravity.... The interesting point is that the water strikes Jack, bounces off in droplets, but then recollects as jelly-like globs on various parts of his body. He can brush the water away but it will soon reattach elsewhere."

Letter, C. C. Johnson, MSC, to J. Hall, LaRC, "Zero-gravity showers," 15 July 1969.

 

July 16-24

Apollo 11 was launched from Pad A, Launch Complex 39, KSC, with astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., aboard. The flight went according to plan, and the spacecraft and lunar module entered lunar orbit three days later. On 20 July, at l :11 p.m. EDT, Armstrong and Aldrin separated the LM from the CSM and began descent to the lunar surface, landing safely in the Sea of Tranquility at 4:18 p.m. They stepped onto the lunar surface later that day, becoming the first men ever to achieve this goal. Then followed several EVAs, during which they collected samples, planted an American flag, and gained the first experience of man's ability to perform duties in the one-sixth gravity conditions. They lifted off from the Moon in the ascent stage of the LM 21 July, rendezvoused and docked with the CSM, transferred their cargo to the CSM, and started their homeward journey shortly after midnight 22 July, landing safely in the Pacific Ocean 24 July.

Apollo 11 Mission Report, MSC 00171, November 1969.

 

July 18

NASA Administrator Thomas O. Paine approved the shift from a "wet" to a "dry" Orbital Workshop concept for AAP following a review presentation by program officials on the potential benefits of such a change. On 22 July, AAP Director William C. Schneider ordered program managers at the three Centers to implement the change, abandoning the idea of using a spent Saturn IB second stage for a Workshop and adopting the concept of a fully equipped "dry" configuration-with the ATM integrated into the total payload-launched aboard a Saturn V. Schneider ordered the Centers to reorient their respective programs, both in house and under contract, as necessary, to accommodate the new program plan. Among the actions required were

Several other elements of the program also changed as a result of the reorientation: AAP changed from five to four launches, since a separate launch vehicle was not required to launch the ATM; Launch Complex 39 at KSC would be required for AAP, although Complex 37 would not be needed. Although these changes left basic program objectives unchanged, a secondary objective of an unmanned rendezvous between the LM/ATM and the cluster was eliminated. Finally, the launch date for the first AAP flight was slipped from November 1971 to July 1972.

Letters, George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, 28 July 1969; William C. Schneider to MSC, Attn: Manager, AAP, "AAP PAD Change Request," 29 July 1969, with attachment, "PAD Change Request/Authorization," 17 July 1969; William C. Schneider to Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, "AAP Contract Status Pending Saturn V Workshop Decision," 8 July 1969; TWXs, William C. Schneider to Leland F Belew, MSFC, Robert F. Thompson, MSC, and Thomas W. Morgan, KSC, "Re-Orientation of AAP to Saturn V- Dry Workshop Integrated ATM Configuration," 22 July 1969; Robert F. Thompson to William C. Schneider, 24 July 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 31 July 1969; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 29 July 1969.

 

July 18

A meeting at MSC with personnel from NASA Hq, MSC, and North American Rockwell resulted in an agreement that North American would present for a joint review by the Apollo and AAP offices its concept of a common approach for the AAP and ALEM and CSMs. The meeting was scheduled for 6 August 1969.

The meeting generated much discussion on definition of "common CSM," and the following summarizes the general conclusions or represents added guidelines arrived at following the meeting. (1) The real objective of achieving increased commonality in CSMs was to find a means of reducing the cost of procurement-modified spacecraft for both ALEM and AAP. In pursuing this objective, it was agreed the state of completion of the spacecraft involved and the design status for modifications must be carefully considered. (2) It was clear that in those areas where the two programs had identical requirements, and schedule considerations permitted, such requirements should be satisfied by common design. Where requirements were not identical, but were not conflicting, the desirability of commonality would be determined on a case-by-case cost and schedule analysis. (3) When requirements were conflicting, it should be determined if compromises could be achieved to remove the conflicts and permit consideration of a common approach.

Those attending the meeting included William E. Stoney and Philip E. Culbertson of NASA Hq, Wesley L. Hjornevik, Robert F. Thompson, and Kenneth S. Kleinknecht of MSC, and Dale D. Myers of North American.

Memorandum, John H. Disher and William E. Stoney, NASA Hq, to Samuel C. Phil lips [169] and William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, "Common CSM meeting at MSC, July 18, 1969," 28 July 1969.

 

July 22

NASA formally announced the AAP project reorientation to the "dry" Workshop configuration-both the fully outfitted workshop and integrated ATM launched aboard a single Saturn V (see 18 July). Program objectives for AAP remained unchanged, however. The schedule called for first launch in 1972. The Workshop would be placed in a circular orbit first. About a day later, the three-man crew would ride aboard a Saturn IB into orbit to link up with the Workshop-ATM cluster, thus beginning the manned portion of the mission.

NASA News Release 69-105, "AAP Orbital Workshop," 22 July 1969.

 

July 23

NASA announced selection of two aerospace firms--McDonnell Douglas and North American-to conduct phase B planning studies of 1 2-man orbiting space stations that could be developed by the mid-1970s. The parallel 11-month program definition studies were a prelude to even larger semipermanent space bases during the later 1970s and 1980s.

NASA News Release 69-108, 23 July 1969.

 

July 29-31

A critical design review was held on the two H-Alpha telescopes being provided for the ATM by Perkin-Elmer Corporation. Representatives from NASA Hq, KSC, MSC, MSFC, Harvard College Observatory, and Naval Research Laboratory attended. Except for the mechanical reticle subsystem, a requirement recently added to the telescope system, the Perkin-Elmer design appeared sound. Only minor discrepancies were noted.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Apollo Applications Program," 11 August 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 11 August 1969.

 

July 30

MSFC was studying three options for the ATM pointing control system dry OWS attitude control. Option one was basically the same ATM pointing control system as previously configured, with an additional digital computer; option two was an all-digital computer system; and option three was primarily digital, but retained portions of the analog computer for ATM experiment pointing control.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 30 July 1969.

 

August 4

Acting on an offer made by the Defense Department to assign a number of astronauts from the defunct MOL project to NASA, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller chose seven astronauts to augment MSC's flight crews. They were Karol J. Bobko, Charles G. Fullerton, Henry W. Hartsfield, and Donald H. Peterson (USAF); Richard H. Truly and Robert L. Crippin (USN); and Robert F. Overmyer (USMC). The decision to utilize these individuals, Mueller stated, derived from their extensive training and experience on the MOL project and the important national aspect of future manned space flight programs.

[170] Letters, George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, 4 August 1969; Robert R. Gilruth to Amil Rusk, NASA Hq, "Military detail of seven MOL astronauts to the Manned Spacecraft Center," 22 August 1969.

 

August 5

Following the decision to implement the Saturn V dry Workshop, LM-2 was the only flight LM article to remain on Earth. Therefore, NASA Hq requested MSC consideration for early disposition of it to the Smithsonian Institution as an artifact of historical interest. Since it was expected that the Smithsonian would exhibit LM-2 as a replica of LM-5, Headquarters also requested that MSC consider refurbishment to provide a more accurate representation of the LM- 5 configuration before its transfer to the Smithsonian.

TWX, S. C. Phillips, NASA Hq, to MSC, "LM 2 Disposition," 5 August 1969.

 

August 6-21

A neutral buoyancy chamber exercise for the ATM was conducted at MSFC. The purpose was to examine some extravehicular activity concepts under development to determine their validity for incorporation into the dry OWS configuration. Crewmen were somewhat constrained and uncomfortable because, while the suits were neutrally buoyant, crewmen inside the suits were not. The neutral buoyancy exercise was followed by an ATM extravehicular activity crew station engineering review. It consisted of a suited and unsuited walk through evaluation of the ATM film replacement work stations. Several modifications were recommended.

Memorandum, T. C. Winter, Jr., Naval Research Laboratory, to Dist., "EVA Review at MSFC on 20 21 August 1969," 21 August 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 14 August 1969 and 29 August 1969.

 

August 7

MSFC awarded a contract to Martin Marietta for the fabrication, testing, and delivery of 15 Saturn V OWS rate gyro processors, a module test set, and the retrofit of 22 ATM rate gyro processors. The rate gyro packages would fly on the OWS and would provide precise attitude control of the OWS cluster, including the ATM.

MSFC News Release 69-173, 7 August 1969.

 

August 7

A meeting at NASA Hq briefed George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, on problems connected with Apollo/Apollo Lunar Exploration Mission/AAP. Attending the meeting were J. Bates, W. B. Bergen, R. E. Carroll, E. R. Gross, G. W. Jeffs, D. D. Myers, and L. M. Tinnan, all of North American; P. E. Culbertson, J. H. Disher, A. J. Evans, C. C. Gay, Jr., G. H. Hage, J. W. Hughes, G. E. Mueller, S. C. Phillips, J. F. Saunders, Jr., M. Savage, W. C. Schneider, and J. B. Skaggs, all of NASA Hq; and H. W. Dotts, H. E. Gartrell, R. C. Hood, K. S. Kleinknecht, J. C. Shows, R. F. Thompson, and H. P. Yschek, all of MSC.

[171] In a memorandum for record, Kleinknecht outlined the activities of the meeting. The first two parts of the briefing covering North American manpower projections for AAP and joint use of test vehicles and mockups showed there would be a substantial reduction in required resources because of the decision to change from the AAP wet Workshop to the dry Workshop. They had, in fact, reduced their manpower by 400 by 8 August 1969, based on a July 1972 launch readiness for the first AAP mission.

Kleinknecht noted a personal concern with respect to the AAP/ALEM schedules, saying that AAP schedules were fluid and were being established before full definition of either the Workshop or the CSM. He said it was his understanding that NASA was committed to a July 1972 AAP launch, but there was no contingency in the schedule for problems or changes. "Experience has indicated," he said, "that, with such an approach, schedules cannot be met."

The remaining parts of the briefing covered the subjects of AAP/ALEM commonality, CSM status and earliest effectivity of common configuration, and refurbishment of the command module for future reflight. Kleinknecht said these subjects were very much related and the advisability of such an approach was questionable from both economical and technical considerations. Kleinknecht added that Mueller's line of questioning made it apparent that he was extremely interested in the basic approach of providing a common Apollo spacecraft that could be flown for either AAP or ALEM by incorporation of modification kits which could be installed even after delivery.

Kleinknecht, in turn, presented MSC's position that when you consider commonality there were two areas of concern-economics and performance. Expanding on this, he said: ". . . we should consider the current design and manufacturing status . . . what are the economical tradeoffs of delaying the spacecraft now for unnecessary modifications versus providing commonality, with some later effectivity; and from the performance standpoint, what is the impact of commonality weight on the service propulsion system propellant budget and its effect on getting to some of the proposed lunar- exploration sites."

Mueller also emphasized his interest in refurbishing and reflying as many as seven command modules in support of the integrated plan. Kleinknecht again interjected the concern of MSC with the technical aspects of refurbishment and reflight from the standpoint of structural degradation as a result of saltwater corrosion.

Memorandum for record, Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, "Meeting with Dr. G. E. Mueller on August 7, 1969, to discuss Apollo/ALEM/AAP commonality," 26 August 1969.

 

August 8

MSFC definitized the existing contract with McDonnell Douglas for two Orbital Workshops for the Apollo Applications Program, converted S IVB stages to be launched by Saturn V boosters. The contract was slated to run through July [172] 1972, with most of the work to be performed at the company's plant at Huntington Beach, California. The first Workshop was tentatively scheduled for flight in mid-1972, with the second article initially serving as a backup vehicle if needed.

MSFC Contracts Office, "Mod 9 to Contract NAS 9-6555," 8 August 1969.

 

August 12

A CSM technical management meeting was held at MSC. A status briefing was given by North American Rockwell on the environmental control electric power profile, telecommunications, and the service module reaction control system. MSFC agreed to investigate the concept of a thermal barrier between the CSM and the MDA located inside the MDA docking port. The barrier would isolate the CSM from the OWS atmosphere, thereby reducing condensation and heater power in the CSM.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 20 August 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator Apollo Applications Program," 25 August 1969; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 22 August 1969

 

August 13

Functional and environmental development tests were performed on the ATM H-Alpha telescope zoom lens, temperature control, and optical subsystems. The zoom lens subsystem failed during vacuum testing and was being reworked. At a later date, the camera electronics subsystem would be subjected to temperature tests, and the mechanical reticle subsystem to thermal-vacuum and vibration tests.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 13 August 1969.

 

August 13

NASA Hq revised AAP delivery and launch schedules, further altering the program in light of both changing resources and fiscal climate, as well as a maturing of program plans per se. The new schedule called for seven Saturn IB and two Saturn V launches, with flight of the first Workshop slated for July 1972.

NASA Hq Schedule, 13 August 1969, AAP Directive No. 4A, "Apollo Applications Program Work Authorization, 19 August 1969; Apollo Applications Program Specification, 15 August 1969.

 

August 14

A spacecraft fire hazards meeting was held at the Electronics Research Center, Massachusetts. A demonstration was given by General Electric Company of a condensation nuclei counter and by Walter Kidde and Company of a continuous-wire fire detector. Preliminary recommendations of personnel attending the meeting were that the condensation nuclei counter be considered as a backup overheat and fire detector for spacecraft and that the continuous-wire fire detector be considered as a primary overheat and fire detection system.

"Minutes of August 11, 1969, Spacecraft Fire Hazards Steering Committee," 9 September 1969.

 

August 21

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, under contract to MSC, submitted an eight-volume final report on a "Big G" study.

 


[173]

illustration of spacecraft crew carrying ablilty and parachute recovery potential

Three features of the McDonnell Douglas "Big G" study, performed under contract to MSC, are shown here. For additional information on the proposed system, see the 21 August 1969 entry. Graphics supplied by McDonnell Douglas.

 

[174] The study was performed to generate a preliminary definition of a logistic spacecraft derived from Gemini that would be used to resupply an orbiting space station. Land-landing at a preselected site and refurbishment and reuse were design requirements. Two baseline spacecraft were defined: a nine-man minimum modification version of the Gemini B called Min-Mod Big G and a 12-man advanced concept, having the same exterior geometry but with new, state-of-the-art subsystems, called Advanced Big G. Three launch vehicles-Saturn IB, Titan IIIM, and S-IC/S- IVB-were investigated for use with the spacecraft. The Saturn IB was discarded late in the study.

The spacecraft consisted of a crew module designed by extending the Gemini B exterior cone to a 419-cm-diameter heat shield and a cargo propulsion module. Recovery of the crew module would be effected by means of a gliding parachute (parawing). The parametric analyses and point design of the parawing were accomplished by Northrop- Ventura Company under a subcontract, and the contents of their final report were incorporated into the document. The landing attenuation of the spacecraft would be accomplished by a skid landing gear extended from the bottom of the crew module, allowing the crew to land in an upright position. The propulsion functions of transfer, rendezvous, attitude control, and retrograde would be performed by a single liquid-propellant system, and launch escape would be provided by a large Apollo-type escape tower.

In addition to the design analyses, operational support analyses and a program development plan were prepared.

The summary report acknowledged the cooperation of NASA Centers and companies that provided technical assistance during the study. Principal contributors were MSC, MSFC, KSC, AC Electronics Division of General Motors Corporation, Bell Aerosystems Company, Collins Radio Company, IBM's Federal Systems Division, Kollsman Instrument Corporation, Amecom Division of Litton Systems, Inc., The Marquardt Corporation, Denver Division of Martin Marietta Corporation, Government Electronics Division of Motorola Corporation, Rocketdyne Division of North American Rockwell Corporation, Space Craft, Inc., Science and Technology Division of TRW Systems Group, and Hamilton Standard System Center of United Aircraft Corporation.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. Report H321, Big G Final Report, Logistic Spacecraft System Euolving from Gemini, Volume I-Condensed Summary, 21 August 1969.

 

August 22

With the AAP work at Grumman canceled, NASA Hq directed the transfer of acceptance checkout equipment station number three from Grumman to MSFC. MSC would update the Grumman station to the same general configuration as KSC station number six, including documentation, and would make available to MSFC peripheral equipment not available from Grumman.

Letter, George M. Low, MSC, to S. C. Phillips, NASA Hq, "Availability of ACE-s/c station and associated peripheral GSE for ATM," 5 August 1969; TWX, S. C. Phillips to MSC, MSFC, and KSC, 22 August 1969.

 

August 26

[175] Discussions were held to determine the feasibility of achieving common command and service modules for use both in lunar exploration and for the OWS. The consensus was that the differences between the lunar and Earth orbital requirements were so significant that they precluded a completely common configuration.

TWXs, George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to Robert R. Gilruth, George M. Low, and Robert F. Thompson, MSC; William C. Schneider and S. C. Phillips, NASA Hq, to George M. Low and Robert F. Thompson, MSC; memoranda, Kenneth S. Kleinknecht to George M. Low, 23 June 1969; John H. Disher and W. E. Stoney, NASA Hq, to William C. Schneider and S. C. Phillips, 28 July 1969; note, John H. Disher to William C. Schneider, 24 June 1969; memorandum for record, Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, 26 August 1969.

 

August 27-28

An OWS habitability support system preliminary design review was held at MSFC. Representatives from NASA Hq, MSFC, KSC, MSC, and McDonnell Douglas attended. The investigators, astronauts, and industrial design consultants emphasized their desires for a more comfortable environment than would have been possible in the wet Workshop configuration.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 8 September 1969; "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 3 September 1969.

 

August 27-28

A preliminary requirements review of the OWS CSM flight systems was held at Downey. Discrepancies were discussed, and follow-up actions assigned. A number of technical requirements impacting the CSM were not adequately resolved and would require extensive coordinated study between MSFC and MSC.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Highlights Report," 3 September 1969.

 

August 28

KSC officials and AAP managers recommended to the Manned Space Flight Management Council that the Saturn IB AAP launches take place from LC-37 rather than LC-34. They were incorporating the recommendation into the latest program operating plan proposals. If the recommendation were accepted, LC-34 would be partially deactivated and placed in a "down- mode" condition.

Letter, Thomas W. Morgan, KSC, to William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, 8 August 1969, TWX, Thomas W. Morgan to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, Leland F. Belew, MSFC, W. Teir, MSFC, and William C. Schneider, "LC 34/37 Operations," 28 August 1969.

 

August 29

MSFC requested McDonnell Douglas and Martin Marietta to develop preliminary design and cost data on a number of OWS system elements that were previously planned for in-house development. Among these were fixed payload shroud, oxygen, and nitrogen bottle installation; cooling of the ATM control and display; deletion of the scientific airlock; design and fabrication of the solar array system; installation of experiments; and MDA integration and checkout.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 29 August 1969.

 

September 3

[176] A meeting was held at MSFC that provided the ATM Principal Investigators an opportunity to express their desires regarding experiment operation during unmanned periods of the ATM OWS mission. AAP personnel from NASA Hq, MSC, and MSFC, as well as ATM Principal Investigators, attended. The investigators felt strongly that their early participation in program decisions that affected experiments would permit a much more effective experiment program without significant budget or schedule changes.

Letters, G. Newkirk, Jr., High Altitude Observatory, to George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, 25 July 1969; George E. Mueller to G. Newkirk, Jr., 28 August 1969; unofficial minutes of the September 3 ATM Principal Investigator's meeting, 10 September 1969.

 

September 4

The critical design review on the ATM charger battery regulator module was held with satisfactory results. Numerous tests on the module components were conducted. An engineering prototype was undergoing thermal cycle, charge, and discharge test.

MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 11 September 1969.

 

September 5

Apollo documentation would be used as the initial baseline documentation for AAP. As AAP progressed, supplements or addenda would be prepared to meet AAP-peculiar requirements.

TWX, H. E. Gartrell, MSC, to G. W. Jeffs, North American, W. C. Schneider, NASA Hq, et al., "Contract NAS 9-9224, AAP Documentation," 5 September 1969.

 

September 5

The objectives, constraints, and guidelines for a second OWS were stated in general terms along the following lines:

Letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Managers, Apollo Applications Program at MSFC, MSC, and KSC, "Preliminary Mission Definition and Program Planning for the Second Saturn Workshop, ' 5 September 1969; memorandum, H. E. Gartrell, MSC, to Dist., "Second Workshop Mission Planning Task Force," 26 September 1969.

 

September 10

AM simulation test plans were reviewed by MSFC and McDonnell Douglas representatives at MSFC. It was agreed that MSFC would do minor hardware modifications and that McDonnell Douglas would deliver modification kits on major changes to MSFC for installation. McDonnell Douglas would support the various development tests as observers and would participate in the tests when requested by MSFC. Close liaison would be maintained between MSFC and McDonnell Douglas design engineers so that one-g, neutral-buoyancy and zero-g trainers would reflect the current design configuration of the AM.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Activity Report," 22 September 1969; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 22 September 1969.

 

September 10-11

An OWS test planning meeting was conducted at McDonnell Douglas with representatives from MSFC, KSC, NASA Hq, and McDonnell Douglas. The discussion covered the tests to be conducted on all systems of the Workshop flight item except the habitability support systems. A significant point in the general plan was that experiment equipment would be delivered to McDonnell Douglas, installed, and checked out, so that a completely integrated and checked out module would be delivered to KSC. The checkout sequence would include inverting the Workshop of the module to evaluate the crew quarters and experiment hardware in a simulated orbital configuration, as well as a launch configuration.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Status Report," 19 September 1969.

 

September 11

Two major directions were identified for manned space flight in the next decade. These were further exploration of the Moon, with possibly the establishment of a lunar surface base, and the continued development of manned flight in Earth orbit, leading to a permanent manned space station supported by a low-cost shuttle system. To maintain direction, the following key milestones were proposed:

1972

- AAP operations using a Saturn V launched Workshop

1973

- Start of post-Apollo lunar exploration

1974

- Start of suborbital flight tests of Earth to orbit shuttle

- Launch of a second Saturn V Workshop

1975

- Initial space station operations

- Orbital shuttle flights

1976

- Lunar orbit station

[178] - Full shuttle operations

1977

- Nuclear stage flight test

1978

- Nuclear shuttle operations-orbit to orbit

1979

- Space station in synchronous orbit

By 1990

- Earth orbit space base

- Lunar surface base

- Possible Mars landing

Letter, George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, 11 September 1969.

 

September 16

The change in AAP from the wet to the dry OWS substantially improved the probability of mission success and crew safety. Some of the hardware and operational improvements contributing to crew safety were increased payload capability, which would reduce risks from submarginal booster performance, launching the ATM as an integral part of the OWS, thus eliminating an extra launch that involved a complex and operationally difficult unmanned rendezvous and docking; standardizing the three manned launches, using proven software and training techniques, thereby reducing some of the risks associated with new operational phases and missions; and the powering down of the CSM to a quiescent state during the orbital period of operation, with a consequent reduction in wearout or limited-life failures.

Letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Acting Director Manned Space Flight Safety, "Semi- Annual Report on NASA Safety Efforts," 16 September 1969.

 

September 17

An ATM control moment gyro was subjected to thermal-vacuum, vibration, and electromagnetic interference development environmental testing. Tests indicated that, with proper insulation, no major problems existed in the thermal-vacuum area. However, with the extended requirements for the OWS, command moment gyro actuator lifetime was a concern. In addition to converting to a wet lubricant system, Bendix Corporation and Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, were asked to study other steps that might be taken to ensure a 300-day lifetime for the control moment gyro actuators.

"Weekly Progress and Program Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 22 September 1969; "Apollo Applications Test Weekly Activity Report," 22 September 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 22 September 1969.

 

September 23

An AAP test planning meeting was held at KSC. Representatives from KSC, MSC, MSFC, and NASA Hq attended. Purpose of the meeting was to review the status of factory acceptance test planning for all modules, the preliminary CSM interface test requirements at KSC, and the KSC planning pertinent to conducting AAP integrated module tests. Open issues that would require resolution included flight experiment delivery dates, flight ATM control and display availability for integration into the MDA and compatibility for integration into [179] the MDA, and compatibility of flight and prototype ATM delivery dates to support KSC checkout and integrated module test need dates.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Status Report," 25 September 1969; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 23 September 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Apollo Applications Program," I October 1969; KSC, "Weekly Progress Report," 24 September 1969.

 

September 23

A technical management review of the CSM caution and warning system was conducted at MSC. Among the topics discussed were caution and warning parameters, the effect of providing memory and inhibit capability, and the cluster interface. About 15 parameters would be monitored by the caution and warning system, a significant decrease from previous estimates. It appeared that ground monitoring would be adequate for the deleted parameters.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 29 September 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 1 October 1969.

 

September 25

A preboard preliminary requirements review was conducted at MSC. Among the topics discussed were the following:

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 3 October 1969.

 

September 30

An ad hoc group to formulate plans for defining a second OWS met at MSFC. The agenda included goals, constraints, guidelines, payloads, justification for the mission, output, schedule, work plan, and responsibilities for the definition activities. Tradeoffs between mission content and launch date, budget levels, and long-term evolution of manned space flight were some of the issues discussed.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 3 October 1969.

 

October 5

A meeting on the habitability support system and crew quarters layout was held at McDonnell Douglas. Representatives from NASA Hq, MSC, MSFC, and Loewy and Snaith, Inc., attended. McDonnell Douglas proposed an active, closed-loop cooling system to provide for food refrigeration, water chilling, and urine freezing capability. The proposed system would require less power than the existing system and would eliminate waste heat inputs to the Workshop [180] atmosphere. Agreement was reached on ways of improving crew comfort and convenience; however, implementation would depend on the results of tradeoff studies on cost, schedule, and technical factors.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 13 October 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 13 October 1969.

 

October 6

Program responsibility for Saturn launch vehicles at the Headquarters level was divided between the Apollo Program Office (APO) and AAP Office. Each office was responsible for ensuring that its actions with regard to common hardware elements and facilities were compatible with the other program. To accomplish this, APO would establish an individual as a point of contact on AAP-related matters. In like manner, AAP would establish an individual as a point of contact for APO-related matters.

Memorandum of understanding between the Apollo and Apollo Applications Program Offices on Saturn vehicle management interfaces, R. A. Petrone, APO, 6 October 1969, William C. Schneider, AAP, 13 October 1969.

 

October 7

MSFC signed a contract with General Electric Company for support work for AAP. Under the terms of this agreement, General Electric agreed to provide ground support equipment and launch systems for the ATM, MDA, and airlock, as well as for the Saturn V Workshop itself.

Contract NAS 8-25150, 7 October 1969.

 

October 8

For some time into the future, all personnel going into space, whether as crews or passengers, would need a reasonable level of training for the environment. This would include aircraft flying, zero-g, centrifuge, and altitude training. Depending on final definition and mission of the space station, crews would consist of pilots, flight engineers, technicians, and scientists. The last three categories would not be trained as pilots. A reasonably stringent selection process would still be required to ensure the compatibility of the crew.

Letter, Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, to George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, 8 October 1969.

 

October 8

A meeting was held at North American Rockwell to discuss the AM in connection with its modification and installation in the OWS. Representatives from MSFC, MSC, NAR, McDonnell Douglas, The Boeing Company, Brown Engineering Company, and Martin Marietta participated. Drawings, data, and an AM were examined. The AM would require replacement of certain materials as a fire preventive measure before use in the OWS.

Memorandum, W. K. Simmons, Jr., MSFC, to Leland F. Belew, MSFC, "Workshop Project Weekly Notes," 10 October 1969.

 

October 10

[181] NASA Hq defined the requirements, responsibilities, inter-Center coordination, and review necessary for the development, revision, and checkout procedures applicable to AAP hardware at KSC.

AAP Directive No. 26, "Intercenter Responsibilities for Support and Preparation of KSC Test and Checkout Plans and Procedures," 10 October 1969.

 

October 14

At a meeting with AAP officials in Washington, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George h. Mueller reviewed various habitability aspects of the AAP dry-launched Workshop concept. Mueller repeatedly emphasized that the fundamental goal of the AAP Workshop was to gain an understanding of habitability conditions wherein men could live and work in space over long periods of time-factors that could subsequently be applied to the design of a space station. The AAP Workshop, Mueller affirmed, should include a number of critical habitability devices, so that the crews could evaluate various alternatives and select the most desirable designs.

In line with this thinking, Mueller approved the "wardroom" concept for the Workshop, a combined dining and recreational area for the crew. Also, he approved deletion of the Defense Department's sleeping compartment experiment to allow more room inside the wardroom.

Letters, R. L. Lohman, NASA Hq, to Dist., "Space Station Inputs to AAP Habitability Experiment," 16 October 1969; William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Robert F. Thompson and C. C. Johnson, MSC, Leland F. Belew, MSFC, and Thomas W. Morgan, KSC, "Review of Habitability Aspects of the Saturn Workshop," 30 September 1969; Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to Manager, Apollo Applications Program Office, MSC, "Orbital Workshop Crew Quarters," 12 December 1969; Mueller Meeting, 15 October 1969.

 

October 15

To achieve clarity in AAP documentation relationships and to ensure that baseline controls were clearly identified and understood, the following relationships were delineated:

Manned Space Flight Management Council Meeting, 15 October 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 20 October 1969.

 

October 21

An MSC plan to do both Apollo and Apollo Applications work at North American Rockwell under a single contract was approved by NASA Hq. The Apollo Spacecraft Program Office and the Apollo Applications Program Office were working together on procedures for maintaining or reestablishing major CSM subcontractor capabilities. Fuel cells and cryogenic tanks were being given particular attention.

TWX, G. J. Vecchietti, NASA Hq, to D. W. Lang, MSC, "Letter Contract NAS 9-9224-Apollo Applications CSM Program--Definitization Under Basic Apollo Contract," 21 October 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 24 October 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 27 October 1969.

 

October 22

AAP was implementing manned space flight safety by establishing systems safety requirements; ensuring compliance with established safety requirements by formal audits of design, test, manufacture, operations, and reliability disciplines; participating in program milestone reviews; conducting formal reviews and checking concurrence in procedures to be used during hazardous testing, checkout, launch, and mission operations; and conducting formal tracking and disposition of safety problems identified in various engineering analyses, mockup reviews, and procedural reviews.

AAP Directive No. 31, "The Implementation of AAP System Safety Requirements," 22 October 1969.

 

October 24

A special reliability analysis, "Descent Battery Pack Monitoring," was completed. The study was performed to determine the monitoring parameters planned for the service module descent battery pack. The pack consisted of three 500-amp/hr silver-zinc batteries used for the CSM deorbit maneuver. Command module batteries provided redundancy for the deorbit maneuver.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Apollo Applications Program," 24 October 1969.

 

October 27

As a result of an AAP management meeting at MSFC, the AAP Director approved the following changes in the OWS: reinforced floor, hard ceiling, access hatch, window, and wardroom concept. Inversion of the Workshop floor was given tentative approval.

[183] NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 3 November 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report," 4 November 1969; NASA News Release 69-164, "Orbital Workshop Design Changes," 11 December 1969.

 

October 27

An ATM program review was held at MSFC. ATM Principal Investigators and representatives from NASA Hq, MSC, and MSFC attended. Among the areas discussed were unmanned operations, thermal control, operating lifetime, and availability of acceptance checkout equipment. A study was being conducted to identify the amount of thermal control required during inflight storage periods. In addition, life testing was being performed to determine capability for extending the operating lifetime of the ATM.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 4 November 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 3 November 1969.

 

October 31

MSFC was requested to manage a study to define the performance characteristics and related costs and schedules for development of an ATM-B stellar telescope to be used with a second OWS. Results of the study were considered to be significant in determining whether such a program should be undertaken and what measures were required to establish characteristics and requirements that would support development of large telescopes of the future.

Letters, George E. Mueller, NASA Hq, to Director, Marshall Space Flight Center, "Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM B) Stellar Telescope Study," 31 October 1969; George E. Mueller to Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, "Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM- B)," 31 October 1969.

 

November 1

A major study was performed by KSC, The Boeing Company, and Chrysler Corporation to determine the feasibility of launching S-IB vehicles from LC-39. Major facilities and equipment needed to convert LC-39 to an elevated pedestal configuration were studied, as well as estimated cost figures, program schedules, and interrelationships with other NASA programs. The study indicated that use of the elevated pedestal concept in LC-39 appeared technically and operationally feasible. However, because of the close operational coupling of the Apollo and AAP if this concept were implemented, it was decided to defer further consideration of this concept.

KSC AAPO, "Utilization of LC-39 for AAP Saturn IB Launches," 1 November 1969.

 

November 3

LaRC issued a request for proposal for a zero-g body shower that would be developed for use on extended manned space missions.

Letter, E. M. Cortright, LaRC, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, "Evaluation of Proposals in Response to NASA RFP L13-442, 'Development of a Zero Gravity Whole Body Shower," 3 November 1969.

 

November 4

[184] Two Apollo ATM-related Aerobee rockets were launched from the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. The rockets achieved expected performance, solar pointing systems functioned properly, payloads were successfully recovered, and preliminary results appeared excellent. The information obtained by the rocket flights on solar emission intensity, filter performance, film response, and exposure time would be available in time to provide a useful and effective feedback into the ATM instruments development program.

MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 3 and 17 November 1969; letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, "Apollo Telescope Mount (ATM) Rocket Flight," 7 November 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 14 November 1969; "Minutes, MSF Management Council Meeting," 5 December 1969.

 

November 4-7

A preliminary design review on the AAP CSM was held at North American Rockwell, Downey. Major configuration items which resulted from the review were reindexing the CSM by 180 degrees, based on a crew requirement to be able to realign the astronaut maneuvering unit before undocking from the cluster, and installation provisions for two reentry control system propellant tank farms. Both recommendations would be subjected to further review.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 10 and 17 November 1969; letter, G. W. Jeffs, North American Rockwell, to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, "Contract NAS 9 9224, Minutes of AAP PDR," 14 November 1969; "Minutes, MSF Management Council Meeting," 5 December 1969.

 

November 5

Olin E. Teague, Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight, suggested that space rescue and emergency coordination would offer opportunities to bring the space-faring nations of the world closer together. In an initial response to the letter, NASA Hq appointed a Space Station Safety Advisor and established a Shuttle Safety Advisory Panel.

Letters, Olin E. Teague to the President, 5 November 1969; L. A. DuBridge, Science Advisor, to T. O. Paine, NASA Administrator, 17 November 1969; M. L. Raines, MSC, to Manager, Advanced Missions Program Office, "Safety posture for advanced programs," 12 December 1969.

 

November 12-13

During a meeting at McDonnell Douglas, the following Workshop subsystems were reviewed: refrigeration, electrical power and waste heat, trash disposal, urine collection and processing, and crew compartment. Presentations were offered on the various subsystems. In the crew compartment, McDonnell Douglas was proceeding with a new access door arrangement in the experiment area with a window in the wardroom. This would eliminate disturbing the wardroom installation if on-the-pad access was required.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 21 November 1969.

 

November 13

[185] President Richard M. Nixon announced his nomination of George M. Low as Deputy Administrator of NASA. Low had served in the U.S. space program since 1949, when he joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, NASA's predecessor.

White House Press Release, " George M. Low Nominated Deputy Director of NASA," 13 November 1969.

 

November 18-19

A preliminary design review on AAP ground support equipment was held at North American Rockwell. Purpose of the review was to evaluate preliminary details of the ground operational system documentation and ground support equipment preliminary designs. Attendees recognized that the required AAP equipment should be adequate to do the job, but absolutely minimal in cost and simple to operate. It was agreed that design management meetings would be held periodically on each major piece of ground support equipment when 30 or 40 percent of the design was completed.

"Apollo Applications Test Weekly Status Report," 26 November 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Apollo Applications Program," 28 November 1969; "Minutes, MSF Management Council Meeting," 5 December 1969.

 

November 19

A meeting was held at North American Rockwell, Downey, to discuss MDA docking checkout features. It was agreed that docking tests would be conducted at MSFC with North American fixtures to verify the capability of the MDA ports for docking with the command modules.

MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 2 December 1969.

 

November 19-20

An AM system review was held at McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis. The review, plus a crew walk- through, provided the first concentrated crew input to the AM dry concept design. It also provided an up-to-date summary review of the overall AM design status.

MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 2 December 1969.

 

November 24

Inflight activities for AAP missions would be conducted on a 24-hour cycle. For previous manned space flights, the basic onboard time reference for manned space flights was mission elapsed time (MET), which began at liftoff and accumulated as hours/minutes/seconds for the flight duration. Reasons for the change from MET to the 24-hour cycle were that eating and sleeping activities would follow a 24-hour cycle, and the postflight data correlation, particularly with ground data, would be greatly assisted by a 24-hour timekeeping system. MET would continue to be used in the command module for contingency and final reentry planning.

[186] Memorandum, T. U. McElmurry, MSC, to Dist., "On-board time reference during Apollo Applications Flights," 24 November 1969.

 

December 2-4

A review team representing NASA Hq, the three manned space flight Centers, the several prime contractors involved, and many of the Principal Investigators for experiments conducted the AAP cluster systems review at MSFC. Cluster hardware subjected to scrutiny included attitude control, thermal, instrumentation and communications, structural, electrical, and crew systems, as well as mission requirements and the overall system-level capability of the AAP cluster to meet those objectives. In one significant design decision, program officials decided to parallel the electrical power system of the ATM with the rest of the cluster through the airlock to increase overall reliability of the cluster's electrical power system.

MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 9 December 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 8 December 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary for the Administrator Apollo Applications Program," 9 December 1969.

 

December 9

NASA Hq issued a directive which established program standards for achieving uniformity of terms, practices, and criteria for use throughout AAP in the generation of nonconformance data that could be readily combined, compared, and assessed for potential program impact. For the purpose of the directive, nonconformance was defined as a failure or defect.

AAP Directive No. 10A, "AAP Nonconformance Reporting and Corrective Action," 9 December 1969.

 

December 10

NASA Hq issued a program directive that authorized and directed the work to be accomplished in AAP for FY 1970. Its mission and major flight hardware summary provided flight numbers and objectives, assigned by number the launch vehicles and the CSM, and designated the launch complexes.

AAP Directive No. 4B, "Apollo Applications Program Work Authorization," 10 December 1969.

 

December 10-11

An AM management meeting was held at McDonnell Douglas. Based on a review of design, test, and procurement schedules, it appeared that an extremely tight schedule existed on all aspects of the project.

MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 18 December 1969; "Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 11 December 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Activity Report," 15 December 1969.

 

December 11

Recent discussions produced oral agreements by NASA Hq, MSFC, and MSC management to use progressive crew station reviews at prime hardware contractor plants for operational verification of hardware before critical design reviews. Some points relating to the crew station reviews were:

Letter, Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to Manager, Apollo Applications Program, MSC, "Progressive Crew Station Review of Saturn V Workshop Hardware, I I December 1969.

 

December 11

McDonnell Douglas evaluated a recent test failure of a structural transition section window in the AM. Preliminary findings were that an improper test setup and procedural error probably caused the window failure. The window failed under a pressure seven to eight times the maximum operating pressure of the AM. Test procedures were being reviewed and repeat testing was planned. The structural transition section contained four windows that provided visibility. When not in use, these windows were protected by an external movable cover actuated from within the AM.

"Weekly Progress and Problem Summary Report for the Administrator-Apollo Applications Program," 11 December 1969; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 15 December 1969.

 

December 15

Because of stringent budget restrictions MSFC was requested to carefully scrutinize the ATM experiment and supporting systems requirements and eliminate any existing or proposed modifications that were not mandatory to the successful accomplishment of the scientific experiment objectives. Modifications which were not yet implemented would be carefully examined to determine:

If the requirements matched the approved experiment objectives. If the requirements could be met without the change.

Letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Manager, Apollo Applications Program, MSFC, "ATM Schedules and Resources," 15 December 1969.

 

December 18

KSC Director Kurt H. Debus announced that LC-34 would be used for Saturn IB-related AAP manned launches (scheduled to begin in mid-1972), while LC-37 would be placed in a semi- deactivated "minimum maintenance" condition. Thomas W. Morgan, AAP Manager of the Florida Center, said that design of modifications to LC-34 to meet the needs of AAP would begin on 1 January [188] 1970, while the modifications to the pad itself would begin around the end of the summer. The current estimate for the cost of modifying the complex and bringing it to a state of readiness was about $3.7 million.

Spaceport News, Vol. 8, 18 December 1969, p. 8.

 

- 1970 -

 

January 2

MSFC shipped a test version of the Saturn V third (S-IVB) stage to McDonnell Douglas to be converted into a Workshop test article for use in AAP dynamics and acoustics testing. The stage had earlier been used as a Saturn V facilities vehicle to check out manufacturing, testing, and launching facilities during the Apollo/Saturn V program.

MSFC Project Logistics Office, Flight Operating Log, 2 January 1970; MSFC, "Weekly Activity Report," 15 January 1970; NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 19 January 1970.

 

January 3

AAP involved the conduct of long-duration manned missions under two concepts. The first was the conduct of long-duration orbital missions by the use of spacecraft originally developed for the Apollo lunar mission operating in conjunction with an OWS. This concept required providing sufficient expendables to sustain individual long-duration missions and planning so that they would continue for predetermined durations as long as no major flight hardware problems arise. The second concept was that of revisitation and reuse of multimodule assemblies left in orbit.

These concepts were influenced by two major factors. The first was the need to use Apollo and Gemini hardware and technology for the most economical accomplishment of significant advances in manned space flight orbital operations. The second factor was the desire to exploit the long-duration operational potential of the hardware as rapidly and economically as technology would permit.

Letter, William C. Schneider, NASA Hq, to Manager, Apollo Applications Program, MSFC, MSC, and KSC, "Test Requirements for AAP Long Duration Missions," 3 January 1970; NASA Handbook 8080.3, Appendix D, "Apollo Applications Test Requirements," Change 1, 23 December 1969.

 

January 6-9

An Earth resources experiments package (EREP) preliminary requirements review was held at MSC. Representatives from NASA Hq, MSC, MSFC, KSC, and Martin Marietta participated. Based on the results of the review, MSFC and MSC were reviewing the dynamic loads, vibration and acoustics, and film temperature environments for EREP. Discussions were also being held with the Office of Space Science and Applications to determine detailed plans on EREP.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 19 January 1970.

 

January 7

The Apollo 20 mission was deleted from the program. MSC was directed to take some immediate actions including determination of the disposition of CSM-115A, pending a final decision as to its possible use in a second Workshop mission.

[189] TWX, Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq, to MSC, "Apollo 20 deletion," 7 January 1970.

 

January 7

The Air Force Eastern Test Range was planning to deactivate two high-resolution tracking radars at the Cape. The radars provided the earliest acquisition of S-IB launches of all available radars and permitted lower visibility ceilings for these launches. KSC requested a temporary postponement of the deactivation until a determination could be made of the impacts, if any, to launch constraints and until alternate radars could be specified.

KSC, "Weekly Progress Report," 7 January and 14 January 1970.

 

January 7

Saturn V launch vehicle 513 was designated for the first AAP Workshop launch. For planning purposes, launch vehicle 515 was being considered for use with either a backup or second Workshop.

TWX, William C. Schneider and Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq, to MSFC, MSC, and KSC, "Saturn V Launch Vehicles for AAP," 7 January 1970.

 

January 8

Dale D. Myers was appointed NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight with an effective date of 12 January. He succeeded George E. Mueller, who left NASA on 10 December 1969 to become a vice president of General Dynamics Corporation. Prior to his acceptance of the NASA position, Myers was Vice President and General Manager of the Space Shuttle Program at North American Rockwell.

NASA News Release 70-4, 8 January 1970.

 

January 14-15

The mission requirements panel met at KSC. The baseline reference mission document was being updated to incorporate a 50-degree orbital inclination for the OWS. In current plans, AAP- 3 would be launched on day 183, mission elapsed time. This would permit daytime launches and recoveries for all the manned missions. The possibility that the orbit of the jettisoned payload shroud might recontact the OWS orbit was being evaluated in order to identify preventive measures.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 26 January 1970.

 

January 22

Apollo Applications Program Managers met at MSFC and conducted a full review of the ATM status. Among the items covered were the film vault design, film test program, subsystems status, module ground test program, quality and reliability, mission operations support to MSC, prototype refurbishment, project schedules, and funding.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 2 February 1970.

 

February 4

The recommendation was made that serious consideration be given to providing training in solar physics to the Skylab astronauts in the immediate future. Purpose [190] of the training would be to obtain maximum benefit from the ATM experiments by equipping the astronauts with a well-rounded knowledge of solar physics and the training required for them to become experienced solar observers.

Letter, R. Tousey, Naval Research Laboratory, to Robert F. Thompson, MSC, 4 February 1970.

 

February 6

NASA management conducted a briefing in the Health, Education, and Welfare auditorium, Washington. Purpose of the briefing was to explain to industry and labor NASA's plans for the coming year, following a 12-percent budget cut.

NASA Industry Briefing, 6 February 1970.

 

February 9

With the termination of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, the Air Force provided MSFC with three environment conditioning units capable of delivering fresh air into a small enclosed space at a desired temperature and humidity. The units would be used during bench checks and troubleshooting on the ATM experiments and the related ground support equipment during storage and the preinstallation period.

NASA, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," 9 February 1970.

 

February 13

A meeting was held at MSFC to discuss long-term storage of launch vehicle stages. A preliminary plan was to store four S-IVB stages and four S-II stages in the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC. Deletion of certain checkout functions formerly accomplished before delivery of hardware to KSC was also discussed.

KSC, "Weekly Progress Report," 18 February 1970.

 

February 13

Kenneth S. Kleinknecht was named Manager of MSC AAP, succeeding Robert F. Thompson who was appointed Manager of the newly established Space Shuttle Program Office at MSC. Clifford E. Charlesworth was appointed AAP Deputy Director.

MSC News Release 70-25, 13 February 1970; MSC Announcement 70-33, "Establishment of the Space Shuttle Program Office and Key Personnel Assignments," 13 February 1970.


PreviousIndexNext