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