The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume I (1969) - Lunar and

288 Pages·2015·13.25 MB·English

i -
A CHRONOLOGY

NASA SP-4009
THE
APOLLO SPACECRAFT
A CHRONOLOGY
VOLUME I
Through November 7, 1962
by
Ivan D. Ertel and Mary Louise Morse
THE NASA HISTORICAL SERIES
Scientific and Technical lnf_Jrmaliope Dirisi*.e
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION 1969
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
t'.S._.
Washington, D.C.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $2,50 (Paper Cover)
Library o[CongressCatalog Card Number 69-60008
FOREWORD
The chronology of the development of the Apollo spacecraft and the lunar
mission provides specific documented information covering a wide range of hap-
penings both directly and indirectly related to the program. This wealth of material
should be of value to historians and others interested in the events of the great
adventure. The foreword presents a synopsis of the first several years of the pro-
gram as seen from the vantage point of the first Apollo Project Office Manager.
It is hoped that it will aid the user of the chronology by providing context for
some of the material presented.
A discussion of the Apollo Spacecraft Program must include reference to the
Mercury and Gemini Programs, not because they are manned space programs
but because of the interrelationship between the programs in time, in people, and in
organizations, and the differences and similarities in the requirements of the
programs. The Mercury Program had a very specific objective, namely to place
a man in orbit and return him to earth. The Gemini Program was somewhat dif-
ferent. It was operating in the same earth orbital environment as Mercury but had
as its goal a number of objectives which were intended to explore and develop our
capabilities to work in this environment. In doing this, the Gemini Program had
more resources than Mercury, in terms of increased payload weight in orbit. Apollo
ismore like Mercury. It has a well-defined objective that involves moving into a new
environment--deep space--and resources that offer little if any payload capability
beyond that required to achieve the objective. Perhaps the Apollo Applications
Program will be to Apollo what Gemini has been to Mercury, establishing an
operational capability in an environment which has been first explored in a prior
program.
The Mercury project was formally initiated in October 1958 and at that
time the Space Task Group was formed to manage the project. This group and
others had been studying the specifics of the program for over a year at Langley
and other NACA Centers. During 1959, the requirements of the Mercury Pro-
gram left no time for advanced program study by the Space Task Group. In 1960,
the first organized activity related to advanced mission study began. Committee
studies, such as that carried out by the Goett Committee, had indicated that the
lunar mission should be the next major manned objective. With this in mind, a
series of technical guidelines was developed to guide the spacecraft studies. These
guidelines were based on assumptions that launch vehicles then planned were
capable only of circumlunar flight rather than lunar landing and that there were
enough unknowns related to the lunar mission that the hardware should be equally
capable of advanced earth orbital missions as an alternative.
Based on the technical guidelines, three efforts were undertaken. A formal liaison
activity was set up with other NASA Centers to stimulate and encourage their
iii
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT: A CHRONOLOGY
research and studies toward the lunar mission, using the guidelines as a general
reference. Three system study contracts were let to industry and a preliminary
design study was conducted by Space Task Group personnel. This total effort
took approximately one year and culminated in a conference held in Washington
in June 1961. These studies were primarily based on a circumlunar mission with
the intent that the hardware elements developed would have application to a
later lunar mission.
Concurrent with the completion of this year of study effort in the Spring of 1961,
two events of utmost significance to the program took place. The first U.S. manned
suborbital flight, of Lt. Cdr. Alan B. Shepard, Jr., was successful. Shortly there-
after, President John F. Kennedy announced the national objective of a manned
lunar landing mission within the decade.
As a follow-on to the study effort of the previous year, specifications were being
prepared for the command and service modules so a contract could be let to in-
dustry. These specifications were changed to acknowledge the requirement for a
lunar landing rather than a circumlunar mission. Since the lunar-mission launch
vehicle had not been determined, it was assumed that a single launch vehicle would
insert a spacecraft into the lunar trajectory and that the command and service
modules would land on the lunar surface with the aid of a third module which
would decelerate the total spacecraft as it approached the surface. The launch
vehicle required for this approach was never fully defined but was of the class
referred to as the Nova.
During the Spring and Summer of 1961, work statements and specifications
were completed and issued to industry for the command and .service modules.
During the Fall, proposals were evaluated and a contractor was selected in Novem-
ber 1961. Throughout this period, practically all Space Task Group activity had
been directed toward the command and service modules; launch vehicle studies
by Marshall Space Flight Center and others had led to a selection of the Saturn
C-5 as the lunar launch vehicle in the Fall of 1961.
This decision eliminated the lunar mission approach previously described, involv-
ing the Nova class vehicle, and offered two alternatives. The first involved the use
of two Saturn C-5's and an earth orbit rendezvous to mate the spacecraft module,
plus an earth-to-moon rocket stage. This would allow a landing of the entire space-
craft, employing a third module to decelerate the command and service modules
to the lunar surface; then a launch from the lunar surface would use the service-
module propulsion. The other alternative was to use a single Saturn C-5 launch
vehicle carrying the entire spacecraft, consisting of three modules. The third
module, instead of being an unmanned module whose purpose was to decelerate
the other two modules to the lunar surface, would be a manned module which
would go to the lunar surface from lunar orbit and return, while the command and
service modules waited in lunar orbit to rendezvous with the third module.
This latter approach had been studied by the Langley Research Center and
others during 1960 and 1961. At first it was not received enthusiastically by the
Space Task Group in comparison with the Nova direct approach previously
described.
iv
FOREWORD
In late 1961, the Space Task Group (redesignated Manned Spacecraft Center,
November 1, 1961 ) personnel moved to Houston and initiated studies of the two
remaining approaches offered by the C-5 vehicle. Studies were also being con-
ducted by Marshall, Headquarters, and other groups. The Manned Spacecraft
Center study concentrated on the feasibility of the lunar orbit rendezvous method
and the definition of the lunar module, then known as the LEM (Lunar Excur-
sion Module). In the Spring of 1962, the Manned Spacecraft Center studies indi-
cated the desirability of the lunar orbit rendezvous approach as opposed to the
earth orbit rendezvous approach. Discussions were held with Headquarters and
Marshall. It was decided to complete preparation of the work statement and
specifications for the LEM and to issue them to industry. This was done in the
Summer and contractors' proposals were evaluated. In early November, the final
decision was made to go the lunar orbit rendezvous approach. A contractor wa_s
selected and negotiations were completed by the end of 1962.
Parallel to the effort related to mission selection, specifications preparation, and
contractor selection for the major modules, additional work was being done on the
navigation and guidance system. During this 1960 study phase previously de-
scribed, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,' (MIT) was conducting a study
of concepts for the Apollo system. It was subsequently decided that MIT would
be given the navigation and guidance system task, with support from appropriate
industrial contractors. The contract with MIT was signed in August 1961, the
support contractor work statements and specifications were prepared and issued
in early 1962, and three contractors were selected in the Spring of that year.
In summaD5 the period through 1962 was one of mission definition and major
contractor selection. With the selection of the lunar orbit rendezvous mission mode
and the LEM contractor, the program was in a position to move into specific design
efforts.
Robert O. Piland
Science and Applications Directorate
Manned Spacecraft Center

CONTENTS
PAGE
FOREWORD ..................................................
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................
THE KEY EVENTS............................................. xi
xiii
PREFACE ....................................................
PART I: CONCEPT TO APOLLO; BEGINNINGSTHROUGH JULY 1960_-- I
PART II: DESIGN--DEciSION--CONTRACT; AUGUST 1960 THROUGH
NOVEMBER 1961................................... 49
PART III: LUNAR ORBIT RENDEZVOUS: MODE AND MODULE; DECEM-
BER 1961THROUGH NOVEMBER 7,1962................. 129
APPENDIXES
I.GlossaryofAbbrcviation.s............................... 205
2. Committees........................................... 207
3. Major SpacccraftContractor.s............................ 223
4. FlightSummary ........................................ 224
5. Funding ............................................. 228
6.OrganizationCharts.................................... 230
7.ApolloLaunch VchiclcFamily............................ 234
INDEX ...................................................... 237
vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
All photographs and illustrations are U.S. Government
ones except as credited. Persons in the photographs are
identified in the captions and included in the index.
PAGE
PART I
Egress after lunar landing ................................... 30
Lunar liftoff ............................................. 30
Reentry concept .......................................... 30
Lunar-Earth Return Vehicle ................................ 37
Saturn C-1 static-fired ..................................... 39
Planned space flight program ................................ 48
PART II
Apollo seating arrangement ................................. 58
Reentry module geometry ................................... 70
Configuration sketches ..................................... 72
Reentry vehicle sketches .................................... 72
Early LEM model ......................................... 83
C-2 mission possibilities .................................... 86
Suggested spacecraft concepts ................................ 88
Lunar mission ............................................ 89
Spacecraft nearing moon ................................... 89
Cutaway of proposed D-2 spacecraft .......................... 90
A mission sequence ........................................ 90
C-1 mission possibilities .................................... 91
Lunar lander comparison ................................... 92
Lunar landing techniques ................................... 96
C-3 mission possibilities .................................... 97
MSC (architect's impression) ............................... 111
SA-1 launch ............................................. 116
A lunar lander ........................................... 117
Simplified lunar rendezvous ................................. 117
A team and a goal ........................................ 127
.°°
7111