JSC-09423

APOLLO PROGRAM
SUMMARY REPORT

Nalinnal Aeronautics and Space Adminislralinn

LYNDON B. JOHNSON SPACE CENTER
Houston, Texm
April 1975
 JSC-09423

APOLLO PROGRAM SUMMARY REPORT

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

LYNDON B. JOHNSON SPACE CENTER
HOUSTON, TEXAS
April 1975
it

The Earth above the lunar horizon, photographed during the Apollo 8 mission
with a 70-mm electric camera equipped with a medium telephoto (250-mm) lens.
 111

FOREWORD

This report is intended to summarize the major

activities of Apollo and to provide sources of ref-
erence for those who desire to pursue any portion to
a greater depth. Personal recognition is not given
1n any case except for the crewmen who were assigned
to the missions. Indeed. any step beyond this would
literally lead to the naming of thousands of men and
women who made significant contributions. and. un-
avoidably, the omission of the names of many others
who played an equally significant part; however, all
of these people must undoubtedly have a feeling of
satisfaction in having been a part of one of man's
most complex and, at the same time. noble undertak-
ings.
iv
 v

COUTEJrrS

Section Page

1.0 UITROOUcrION. 1-1

2.0 FLIGHT PROGRAM 2-1

2.1 SATURN LAweN VEIIICLE AND APOLLO SPACECRAFT DEVELOPMENT FLICHTS 2-1

2.1.1 Mission SA-1 2-1

2.1.2 Mi8sion SA-2 2-3
2.1.3 Mi88ion SA-3 2-3
2.1.4 Mi88ion SA-4 2-4
2.1.5 Mis8ion SA-5 2-4
2.1.6 Mis8ion A-I0l 2-5
2.1. 7 Kinion A-I02 2-5
2.1.8 Mis8ion A-103 2-7
2.1. 9 Ki811ion A-104 2-'
2.1.10 Kiuion A-IDS 2-'
2.2 APOLLO SPACECRAIT ABORT TESTS 2-11

2.2.1 Pad Abort Tu' 1 2-11

2.2.2 Minion A-oOI 2-13
2.2.3 Hiuion A-002 • • 2-13
2.2.4 Mbaion A-003 2-15
2.2.5 Pad Abort Test 2 2-15
2.2.6 Hinion A-004 2-16

2.3 UNMANNED APOLLO/SATURN FLIGHTS 2-17

2.3.1 Misaion AS-201 2-17

2.3.2 Mission AS-203 2-19
2.3.3 Mission AS-202 2-21
2.3.4 Apollo
• Mission • 2-22
2.3.5
2.3.6 Apollo ,
Apollo 5 Mission
MiSSiOD
2-24
2-26

2.' MANNED APOLLO/SATURN FLIGHTS 2-27

2.4.1 Apollo 1 Mission 2-27

2.4.2 Apollo 7 Mission 2-27
2-29
2.4.3
2.4.4 Apollo ,
Apollo 8 Mission
Mission
• •
•
•
2-32
2.4.5 Apollo 10 Mission 2-34
2.4.6 Apollo 11 Mission • 2-36
2.4.7 Apollo 12 Mission 2-38
2.4.8 Apollo 13 l-lission 2-39
vi

Section Page

2.4.9 Apollo 14 Mission 2-41

2.4.10
2.4.11
2.4.12
Apollo I.
Apollo 15 Mission
Mission
Apollo 17 Mission
2-45
2-48
2-51

2.5 REFERENCES 2-54

].0 SCIENCE SUMMARY ]-1

).1 INTRODUCTION ]-1

3.2 LUNAR SURFACE SCIENCE ]-1

3.2.1 Geology of ,h. Apollo 11 Landing Site ]-4

3.2.2 Geology of <h. Apollo 12 Landing Site ]-8
3.2.3 Geology of <h. Apollo 14 Landing Site 3-11
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
Geology of <h. Apollo
Geology of ,h. Apollo
I.
Geology of the Apollo 15 Landing Site
Landing Site
17 Landing Site
3-15
3-19
3-23
3.2.7 Geology and Soil Kechanics EQuipment • )-26
3.2.1.1 Apollo lunar surface hand tools 3-26
3.2.7.2 Tool carriers )-29
3.2.7.3 Apollo lunar sample return container 3-29
3.2.7.4 Bags and special containers )-29
3.2.7.5 Lunar surface sampler 3-3)
3.2.7.6 Lunar roving vehicle soil sampler 3-33
3.2.7.7 Penetrometers )-33
3.2.7.8 Apollo lunar surface drill )-3)

3.2.8 Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Packagel

Central Station . . . • )-)6

3.2.9 Passive Seismic Experiment 3-41

3.2.10 Active Seismic Experiment )-44
3.2.11 Lunar Seismic Profiling Experiment 3-45
3.2.12 Lunar Surface Magnetometer Experiment ]-45
3.2.13 Lunar Portable Magnetometer Experiment • 3-46
3.2.H Heat Flow Experilllent • . . . . . . . 3-48
3.2.15 Lunar Surface Gravimeter Experiment 3-48
3.2.16 Traverse Gravimeter Experiment . . • 3-50
3.2.11 Surface Electrical Properties Experiment 3-50
3.2.18 Neutron Probe Experiment • . )-51
3.2.19 14ser Ranging Retroreflector 3-51
3.2.20 Charged-Particle Lunar Envtrolllllent ~eriment )-52
3.2.21 Solar WiDd Spectrometer £speriment 3-53
3.2.22 Solar Wind Co~sition Experiment 3-54
 vii

Section Page

3.2.23 Suprathcrmal Ion Detector and Cold-Cathode Cage ExperimentG 3-54

3.2.24 Cosmic Ray Detector Experiment . . . . 3-56
3.2.25 Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites Experiment 3-57
3.2.26 Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment 3-60
3.2.27 Lunar Dust Detector 3-62
3.2.28 Surveyor III Analysis • 3-62
3.2.29 Particle Implantation Studies 3-62
3.2.30 Long-Term Lunar Surface Exposure 3-63
3.2.31 Far-Ul t raviolet Camera/Spectrogr.1ph 3-63

3.3 LUNAR ORBITAL SCIENCE. 3-65

3.3.1 Bistatic Radar 3-65

3.3.2 S-Band Transponder 3-71
3.3.3 Infrared Scanning Radiometer 3-71
3.3.4 Lunar Sounder . • . . . . . 3-72
3.3.5 Particle Shadows/Boundary Layer )-73
3.3.6 Magnetometer 3-75
3.3.7 Subsatellite Performance 3-75
3.3.7.1 Apollo 15 3-75
3.3.7.2 Apollo 16 3-76
3.3.8 Cosmic Ray Detector (Helmets) 3-76
3.3.9 Apollo Window Meteoroid 3-76
3.3.10 Gamma-Ray Spectrometer 3-77
3.3.11 X-Ray Fluorescence . . 3-78
3.3.12 Alpha-Particle Spectrometer 3-79
3.3.13 Mass Spectrometer 3-79
3.3.14 Far-Ultraviolet Spectrometer 3-80
3.3.15 Lunar Mission Photography From the Command and
Service Module • . . . . . . 3-81
3.3.16 Lunar Multispectral Photography 3-82
3.3.17 Candidate Exploration Sites Photography 3-82
3.3.18 Selenodetic Reference Point Update 3-82
3.3.19 Transearth Lunar Photography • . . 3-82
3.3.20 Service Module Orbital Photographic Tasks 3-83
3.3.21 Command Module Orbital Science Photography 3-85
3.3.22 Visual Observations From Lunar Orbit 3-86
3.3.23 Gegenschein From Lunar Orbit • 3-87
3.3.24 Ultraviolet Photography - Earth and Hoon 3-87
3.3.25 Dim-Light Photography . . . . . . 3-88
3.3.26 Command Module Photographic Tasks 3-88
viii

Section Page

3.4 EARTH RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHY

3.4.1 Synoptic Terrain Photography 3-90
3.4.2 Synoptic Weather Photography • 3-90
3.4.3 Multispectral Terrain Photography 3-90

3.5 BIOtlEDICAL EXPERIMENTS . 3-91

3.5.1 Microbial Reaponse to Space Environment 3-91

3.5.2 Biostack Experiment .. • 3-95
3.5.3 Biological Cosmic Radiation Experiment 3-95

3.6 INFLIGlfi DEMONSTRATIONS 3-98

3.6.1 Fluid Electrophoresis 3-98

3.6.1.1 Apollo 14 3-100
3.6.1.2 Apollo 16 • 3-100
3.6.2 Liquid Transfer 3-100
3.6.2.1 Unbaffled tanks 3-101
3.6.2.2 Baffled tanks 3-102
3.6.3 Heat Flow and Convection 3-102
3.6.3.1 Apollo 14 demonstration 3-102
3.6.3.2 Apollo 17 demonstrations 3-103
3.6.3.3 Summary of interpretations 3-1G4
3.6.4 Composite Casting 3-104

3.7 REFERENCES . . 3-105

4.0 VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE 4-1

4.1 SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLES 4-1

4.1.1 Introduction 4-1

4.1.2 Saturn I • 4-1
4.1.3 Saturn IB 4-4
4.1.4 Saturn V 4-4
4.1.5 Design and Development 4-4
4.1.6 Mission Perfo~nce 4-6

4.2 LITTLE JOE II PROGRAM 4-6

4.2.1 Introduction 4-6

4.2.2 Launch Vehicle Development 4-7
4.2.3 Spacecraft • 4-7
4.2.4 Concluding Remarks 4-11
 ix

Section Page

4.3 COMMAND AND SERVICE ~DULE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 4-11

4.3.1 Introduction . . . 4-11

4.3.2 Block I and Block II Hardware 4-12
4.3.2.1 Boilerplate apacecraft 4-12
4.3.2.2 Block I apacecraft 4-12
4.3.3.3 Block I ground test vehicles and fixtures 4-12
4.3.3.4 Block II spacecraft 4-13
4.3.2.5 Block II ground test program 4-13

4.4 COMMAND AND SERVICE n)DULE SYSTEMS DEVELOPME1IT AND PERFORmNCE 4-13

4.4.1 Introduction 4-13

4.4.2" Structures. 4-13
4.4.3 Thermal Management Systems 4-19
4.4.3.1 Thermal protection 4-19
4.4.3.2 Thermal control 4-20
4.4.4 Mechanical Systems . • . . 4-23
4.4.4.1 Earth landing system 4-23
4.4.4.2 Docking mechanism 4-25
4.4.4.3 Crew support/restraint and impact attenuation
systems • . . . 4-25
4.4.4.4 Uprighting system 4-27
4.4.4.5 Side access hatch 4-29
4.4.4.6 Experiment deployment mechanisms 4-29
4.4.5 Cryogenic Storage System 4-29
4.4.6 Electrical Power System 4-35
4.4.6.1 Fuel cells 4-35
4.4.6.2 Batteries 4-41
4.4.6.3 Power conversion and distribution 4-41
4.4.7 Propulsion Systems • . • . 4-42
4.4.7.1 Service propulsion system 4-43
4.4.7.2 Reaction control systems . 4-44
4.4.8 Guidance, Navigation and Control System 4-46
4.4.9 Environmental Control System 4-50
4.4.10 Displays and Controls 4-53
4.4.11 Communications System 4-54
4.4.12 Instrumentation System 4-55

4.5 LUNAR I·(JDULE DEVELOPHENT PROGRAM 4-57

4.5.1 Introduction • . 4-57

4.5.2 Test Articles and Ground Test Program 4-57
4.5.2.1 Mockups 4-57
4.5.2.2 Test models • 4-59
4.5.2.3 Lunar module test articles 4-59
 x

Section Page

4.5.3 Urur.anood Flight Test Program 4-59

4.5.4 Manned Vehicles 4-59
4.5.4.1 ApoLlo' through Apollo 14 lunar modules 4-59
4.5.4.2 Exteaded-stay lunar modules 4-66

4.6 LUNAR MODULE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMEIlT AIlD PERF'ORlWICE 4-66

4.6.1 Introduction 4-66

4.6.2 Structures . 4-66
4.6.2.1 Shear panel fatigue and thickness control 4-66
4.6.2.2 Stress corrosion . . . . . 4-66
4.6.2.3 Internally machined struts 4-68
4.6.2.4 Part a interchangeability 4-68
4.6.2.5 Flight performance 4-68
4.6.3 Thermal Control System 4-68
4.6.4 Landing Cea r • • 4-69
4.6.5 Electrical Power System 4-71
4.6.5.1 Batteries 4-71
4.6.5.2 Power conversion snd distribution 4-72
4.6.6 Propulsion Systems . . . . 4-73
4.6.6.1 Descent propulsion system 4-73
4.6.6.2 Ascent propulsion system 4-75
4.6.6.3 Reaction control system 4-76
4.6.7 Guidance, NavigatiQn and Control Syatem 4-78
4.6.8 Environmental Control 4-82
4.6.9 Displays and Controls 4-85
4.6.10 Communications System 4-85
4.6.11 Radar Systems • . . . 4-87
4.6.12 Instrumentation System 4-89

4.7 ADDITIONAL SPACECRAF"f DEVELOP/lENT CONSIDERATIONS 4-90

4.7.1 Introduction • . . • . . 4-90

4.7.2 Electrical Wiring System • 4-90
4.7.3 Pyrotechnic Devices 4-92
4.7.4 Sequencing System 4-93
4.7.5 Optical and Visual Aids 4-95
4.7.6 Emergency Detection System • 4-96
4.7.7 Development Flight Instrumentation 4-96
4.7.8 Fracture Control . • . . . . • . . 4-97
 xi

Section Page

4.8 WNAR SURFACE MOBILITY .•. • 4-98

4.8.1 Modular Equipment Transporter 4-98

4.8.2 Lunar Roving Vehicle 4-98
4.8.2.1 Apollo 15 • 4-101
4.8.2.2 Apollo 16 4-103
4.8.2.3 Apollo 17 4-103

4.9 LUNAR SURFACE COMMUNICATIONS 4-103

4.9.1 Introducti(ln . 4-103

4.9.2 Extravehicular Communications Unit 4-104
4.9.3 Lunar Communications Relay Unit 4-101'
4.9.4 Television Camera Systems 4-107

4.10' FLIGHT CREW SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT 4-108

4.10.1 Extravehicular Mobility Unit 4-108

4.10.1.1 Pressure garment assembly 4-1G8
4.10.1.2 Portable life s~pport system 4-112
4.10.1.3 OXYi,en purge system .... 4-114
4.10.1.4 Buddy secondary life support system 4-115
4.10.1.5 Transearth extravehicular system 4-115
4.10.2 Crew Statl(1n Configuration and Equipment. 4-115
4.10.2.1 Command ~dule ~rew station and equip~nt 4-117
4.10.2.2 Lunar module crew station and equipment 4-119

4.11 REFERENCES . . . 4-121

5.0 SPACECRAFT DEVELOPMENT TESTING 5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION...... 5-1
5.2 WHITE SANDS tEST FACILITY 5-1
5.3 MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER 5-1
5.4 REFERENCES . • 5-2
6.0 FLIGHT CREW SUMMARY 6-1

6.1 CREW REPORT 6-1

6.1.1 Training 6-1

6.1. 2 Mission Experience 6-4
6.1.2.1 Launch through docking 6-4
6.1.2.2 Translunar and transearth coast 6-5
6.1.2.3 Command and service module thrusting maneuvers 6-5
6.1.2.4 Lunar module checkout 6-6
6.1.2.5 Lunar module thrusting maneuvers 6-6
6.1.2.6 Lunar module landings 6-1
6.1.2.7 Lunar surface operations 6-8
xii

Section Page

6.1.2.8 Rendezvous snd docking 6-12

6.1.2.9 Lunar orbit operations 6-13
6.1.2.10 Command module extravehicular activity 6-14
6.1.2.11 Crcw accommodation to zero gravity 6-14
6.1.2.12 Guidance and naviga~ion systems 6-14
6.1.2.13 Entry and landing 6-16

6.2 FLIGHT CREW TRAINING PROGRAM 6-16

6.3 FLIGHT PLANNING 6-19

6.3.1 Flight Plsn Development 6-23

6.3.1.1 Flight planning techniques 6-23
6.3.1.2 Alternate and contingency flight plans 6-23
6.3.1.3 Flight plan verification using simulators 6-24
6.3.2 Flight Plan Execution 6-24
6.3.3 Change Control 6-24

6.4 OPERATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY 6-25

6.4.1 Equipment Summary 6-25

6.4.2 Photographic Results 6-25
6.4.3 Conclusions • 6-33

6.5 REFERENCES. • • • 6-37

7.0 MISSION OPERATIONS 7-1

7.1 MISSION CONTROL 7-1

7.1.1 Mission Control Center 7-1

7.1. 2 Emergency Power Building and Backup Facility 7-4
7.1.2.1 Emergency power system . 7-4
7.1.2.2 Emergency lighting system 7-6
7.1.2.3 Emergency cooling system 7-6
7.1.2.4 Secondary Mission Control Center 7-6
7.1. 3 Hission Control Functions 7-6
7.1.3.1 Unmanned flights 7-6
7.1.3.2 Manned flights . 7-6
7.1.3.3 Dual-vehicle operation 7-7
7.1.3.4 Lunar operation 7-7
7.1.4 Concluding Remarks 7-8

7.2 MISSION PLANNING .. 7-8

7.2.1 Trajectory Design 7-8

7.2.2 Consumables 7-9
7.2.3 Lunar Landing Site Selection 7-9
7.2.4 Documentation ... 7-9
 x iii

Section Page

7.3 MANNED SPACE FLIGHT NETWORK 7-9

7.3.1 Colllll8nd Systems 7-10

7.3.2 Telemetry Systems 7-10
7.3.3 Tracking Systems • 7-11
7.3.4 Connunications Systems 7-11

7.4 RECOVERY OPERATIONS 7-11

7.4.1 Department of Defense Support 7-12

7.4.2 Recovery Posture . • . . . . • 7-12
7.4.2.1 Earth orbital missions 7-12
7.4.2.2 Lunar missions 7-12
7.4.3 Equipment and Procedures 7-17
7.4.4 Command Module Post retrieval and Deactivation Procedures 7-21
7.4.5 Concluding Remarks . • . . . 7-21

7.5 EFFECTS OF WEATHER ON MISSION OPERATIONS 7-22

7.5.1 Prelaunch Operations 7-22

7.5.2 Launch Phase 7-22
7.5.3 Recovery Operations 7-23

7.' APOLLO FLIGHT DATA . 7-23

7.6.1 Operational Data 7-23

7.6.2 Engineering Analysis 08" 7-23
7.6.3 Experiment Data 7-25

7.7 MISSION EVALUATION 7-25

7.7.1 Prelaunch Support 7-25

7.7.2 Real-Time Evaluation 7-25
7.7.3 Postflight Evaluation 7-26

7.8 REFERENCES 7-28

8.0 BIOMEDICAL SUMMARY 8-1

8.1 PREFLIGHT MEDICAL PROGRAM 8-1

8.1.1 Flight Crew Health Stabilization 8-1

8.1.1.1 Clinical medicine 8-1
8.1.1.2 Immunology . . . • 8-2
8.1.1.3 Exposure prevention 8-2
8.1. 2 Preflight Physical Examinations 8-4
xiv

Section Page
8.2 Hf.DTCAJ.ORSERVATTONS . 8-'
8.2.1 Cabin Environment and Toxicology 8-'
8.2.2 Radiation . . . . . . . 8-5
8.2.2.1 Radiation dose 8-5
8.2.2.2 Visual light flash phenomenon 8-5
8.2.3 Adaptation to Weightlessness 8-5
8.2.4 Work/Rest Cycles . . . . . . 8-6
8.2.5 Crew Illnesses and Medications 8-8
8.2.6 Cardiac Arrhythmias . . . . . 8-10
8.2.7 Postflight Medical Evaluation 8-10

8.3 BIOMEDICAL EQUIPMEm' PERFORMANCE 8-11

8.3.1 Instrumentation 8-11

8.3.2 Medication Packaging • 8-12

8.' FOOD • 8-12

8.5 APOLLO LUNAR QUARANTINE PROGRAM 8-13

8.5.1 Quarantine Program Guidelines 8-13

8.5.2 Program Elements . . . . . . . 8-14
8.5.2.1 Lunar surface contamination 8-14
8.5.2.2 Lunar sample collection 8-14
8.5.2.3 Inf1ight cont~nation control 8-15
8.5.2.4 Return to terrestrial biosphere 8-15

8.6 SPECIAL MEDICAL STUDIES 8-16

8.6.1 Microbiology . . 8-16

8.6.1.1 Apollo 7 through 12 8-17
8.6.1.2 ApollO 13 through 17 8-17
8.6.2 Virology 8-17

8.7 BIOCHARACTERlZATIQN OF LUNAR MATERIAL 8-17

8.7.1 Microbiology . . . . . . . . . 8-18

8.7.1.1 Virological investigations 8-18
8.7.1.2 Bacteriological and mycological investigations 8-18
8.7.2 Zoology 8-18
8.7.3 Botany 8-20

8.8 REFERENCES.. 8-21

 xv

Section Page

'.0 SPACECRAFT MANUFACTURING AND TESTING . . '-1

'.1 COM}WID AND SERVICE MODULE, LAUNCH ESCAPE SYSTEM AND SPACECRAFr/LUNAR
MODULE ADAPTER • . . • . • • . • '-1
9.1.1 Collllland Module Assembly and Checkout '-1
9.1.1.1 Heat shield structure '-1
9.1.1.2 Crew compartmeDt structure '-1
9.1.1.3 Final operations .... '-4
9.1.2 Service Module Assembly and Checkout '-4
9.1. 3 Launch Escape System Assembly and Checkout '-6
9.1. 3.1 Canard assembly . '-6
9.1.3.2 Skirt structural assembly '-6
9.1.3.3 Tower structural assembly 9-<>
9.1.3.4 Boo" protective cover 9-6
9.1.3.5 Final assembly. 9-6
9.1.4 Spacecraft/Lunar Module Adapter Assembly 9-6
9.1.5 Systems and Vehicle Checkout . . • • • 9-8
9.1.5.1 Integrated systems checkout 9-8
9.1.5.2 Integrated test 9-8
9.1.6 Facilities . . . . . 9-8
9.1.6.1 Bonding and test facility 9-8
9.1.6.2 Structure fabrication area 9-12
9.1.6.3 Electronic and electromechanical equipment
fabrication and checkout area 9-12
9.1.6.4 Tube fabrication and cleaning facility 9-12
9.1.6.5 Pressure testing facilities 9-12
9.1.6.6 Systems integration and checkout facility 9-12
9.1. 7 Equipment 9-13
9.1.7.1 Automatic circuit analyzer 9-13
9.1.7.2 Acceptance checkout equipment for spacecraft 9-13

'.2 LUNAR MODULE . 9-15

9.2.1 Ascent Stage Assembly and Checkout 9-15

9.2.2 Descent Stage Assembly and Checkout 9-15
9.2.3 Formal Engineering Acceptance Test 9-19
9.2.4 Facilities . . . . 9-19
9.2.4.1 Ascent stage structural/mechanical
manufacturing area . . . . . . . 9-20
9.2.4.2 Descent stage structural/mechanical
manufacturing area . • • . . . • 9-20
9.2.4.3 Centralized lunar module assembly, installation,
and final acceptance test area . . •• 9-20
9.2.4.4 High-pressure teat facility (cold-flow) 9-20
xvi

Section Page

9.2.5 Equipment .. . . . . . . . . . 9-20

9.2.6 Specialized Support Laboratories 9-20
9.2.6.1 Full-mission engineering simulator 9-20
9.2.6.2 Flight control integration laboratory 9-20
9.2.6.3 Data reduction facility 9-22
9.2.6.4 Primary gui4ance laboratOry 9-22

10.0 LAUNCH SITE FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND PRELAUNCH OPERATIONS 10-1

10.1 WIlITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE 10-1

10.1.1 Launch Complex. 10-1

10.1.2 Vehicle Assembly Building 10-1
10.1.3 Little Joe 11 Control System Test Facility 10-1
10.1.4 Little Joe 11 Launcher. 10-4
10.1.5 Croun4 Support Equipment 10-4
10.1.5.1 Little Joe II 10-'
10.1.5.2 Command and service module 10-4

10.2 EASTERN TEST RANGE/KENNEDY SPACE CENTER 10-5

10.2.1 Saturn 15 Launch an4 Checkout Facilities 10-5

10.2.2 Saturn V Launch and Checkout Facilities 10-5
10.2.2.1 Vehicle assembly building 10-5
10.2.2.2 Mobile launchers 10-10
10.2.2.3 Launch sitGG 10-10
10.2.2.4 Mobile service structure 10-10
10.2.2.5 Transporter .. 10-10
10.2.2.6 Launch control center 10-14
10.2.3 Vehicle Checkout Operations 10-14
10.2.3.1 Launch vehicle 10-14
10.2.3.2 Lunar module. 10-14
10.2.3.3 Command and service module 10-16
10.2.3.4 Launch pad operations 10-17

11.0 LUNAR RECEIVING LABORATORY 11-1

11.1 INTRODUCTION 11-1

11.2 ORIGINAL CONCEPT 11-1

11.3 FACILITIES. 11-1

11.3.1 Crew Reception Area 11-1

11.3.2 Sample Operations Area 11-)
11.3.3 Radiation Counting Laboratory 11-)
11.3.4 Thin Section Laboratory 11-)
 xvii

Section Page

11.4 OPERATIONS . 11-3

11.4.1 Preliminary Processing and Examination 11-3

11.4.2 Sample Processing 11-6
11.4.3 Gas Analysis . . . 11-6
11.4.4 Radiation Counting 11-11
11.4.5 Biological Testing 11-11
11.5 AFTER APOLLO. 11-11

APPENDIX A - APOLLO FLIGHT DATA • • A-1

APPENDIX B - APOLLO MISSION TYPE DESIGNATIONS • B-1

APPENDIX C - APOLLO SPACECRAFT WEIGHTS • C-1

APPENDIX D - MANNED SPACE FLIGHT RECORDS ESTABLISHED DURING APOLLO PROGRAM D-1

APPENDIX E - FLIGHT SPACECRAFT CHECKOUT HISTORY £-1

APPENDIX F FLIGHT ANOHALIES '-1

xviii
 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

TI~ Apollo Program Summary Report 1s a synopsis ot the overall program activities and the
technology developed to accomplish lunar exploration. The report is intended, primarily, for
the reader who desires a general knowledge of the technical aspects of the Apollo program, but
was also edited for coroprehension by the lay reader. l-luch of the infon:lation contained herein
has been extracted or summarized from Apollo Mission Reports, Apollo Preliminary Science Reports,
Apollo Experience Reports, and other applicable documents. However, some of the information has
not been published elsewhere. A summary of the flights conducted over an II-year period 1s fol-
lowed by specific aspects of the overall program, including lunar science, vehicle development,
flight operations, and biomedical results. Appendixes provide data on each of the Apollo mis-
sions (appendix A), mission type designations (appendix B), spacecraft weights (appendix C),
records achieved by Apollo crewmen (appendix D), vehicle histories (appendix E), and a listing
of ano~alous hardware conditions noted during each flight beginning with Apollo 4 (appendix F).
No attempt was made to include information pertaining to the lIlilnagement of the Apollo program
since this area deserves special treatment. Several other areas were also considered to be be-
yond the scope of this document, although they were of great importance in accomplishing the
established program objectives.

The names of installations and geographical locations used in the report are those that ex-
isted during the Apollo program. For example, the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center is referred
to by its former name, the Manned Spacecraft Center, and Cape Canaveral is referred to as Cape
Kennedy. Customary units of measurement are used throughout the report except in lunar science
discussions. Metric units were used in the lunar science discussions in the Apollo Mission Re-
ports and are also used in this report. All references to miles mean nautical miles rather than
statute miles.
1-2
 2-1

2.0 FLIGHT PROGRAM

the Apollo program consisted of 33 flights, 11 of which were .anned. The 22 unmanned flights
were conducted to qualify the launch vehicle and spacecraft for manned apace flight. Four of the
manned flights were also conducted to oan-rate tbe overall vehicle for lunar exploration. The
final seven flights were conducted to explore the lunar envlronaent and surface, providing man
with detailed data concerning the moon and lt8 characteristics.

Especially significant during tbe Apollo program was that no major launch vehicle failure
occurred to prevent a missIon from being ac~pl18hed and only one tnflight faIlure of a space-
craft (Apollo 13) prevented the intended mission from being accomplished. This section of the
report provides a sucmary of each of these flights and discusses soee of the more significant
findings.

2.1 SAIUJUI LAUNCH VElIlCLE AND APOLLO SPACECRAFT

DEVELOPMENT FLIGHTS

The early development of the Saturn launch vehicle ~aa conducted prior to the final decision
that man ~ould attempt to land on the lunar surf~=e. The initial 10 flights provided man with
the firat insight of the capabilities of large boosters and how such a booster would operate.
The primary purposes of these missions were to flight qualify the launch vehicle stsges and sys-
tems and to determine the compatibility of the launch vehicle/spacecraft combination. A by-
product of these flighta ~as data obtained from experiments conducted to extend the kno~ledge of
the ionosphere. Also, three Pegasus satellites were placed in orbit during this part of the
flight test progra~ to gather data on meteoroids.

2.1.1 Hission SA-l

Apollo mission SA-l was the first flight of the Saturn I launch vehicle. The mission was
unmanned and conducted for research and development purposes. The launch vehicle carried a
dummy second stsge and a nose cone from a Jupiter missile. The vehicle had no active path guid-
ance, and the flight trajectory was suborbital.

The objectives of the mission included:

a. Flight test of the eight clustered 11-1 engines

b. Flight test of the S-l stage clustered propellant tankage structure

c. Flight test of the S-1 stage control system

d. Performance measurement of bending and flutter, propellant sloshing, base heating, aero-
dynamic-engine torque, snd airframe aerodynamic he~ting

The SA-I vehicle was launched on October 27, 1961, from Launch Complex )4 of the Eastern Test
Range, Cape Kennedy, Florida, at 01:00:06 p.m. e.s.t. (15:00:06 C.m.t.). Two launch delays total-
ing 54 minutes were necessitated becsuse of cloud cover over the launch pad. The lift-off is
shown in figure 2-1.

The flight path of SA-I, from lift-off through the cutoff of the inboard engines. was very
close to that predicted. The trajectory was slightly hi~ler than predicted because of higher-
than-expected accelerations. The trajectory parameter. after inboard engine cutoff were propor-
tionally lower than predicted because the cutoff signal occurred 1.61 seconds early. The vehicle
reached a maxi.um altitude of 84.6 miles and a _xi_·range of 206 IDiles.

The mission wa. considered s coeplete success. The vehicle was instrumented for 505 inflight
messurementa, of which 485 performed reliably. All pri1l18ry flight objectives were lIiet.
2-2

Figure 2-1.- First Saturn vehicle lift-off.

 2-3

2.1.2 Hission SA-2

Apollo mission SA-2. an unn,anned, research and developmental mission, was the second flight
of the Saturn I launch vehicle. The vehicle carried a dummy second stage and a Jupiter missile
nose cone. The vehicle had no active path guidance, and the flight trajectory was suborbital.

The ohj ectives of the mission were:

a. Prove the first stage propulsion system, structural design, and control system

b. Prove the launch facilities and ground support equipment of Launch Complex 34

c. Confirm the vehicle aerodynamic characteristics in flight

d. Prove the inflight performance of first stage engines and their adequacy to reach de-
sign velocity

e. Verify the structural design of the booster airfrane

f. Demonstrate the capability of the guidance and cont!:"ol system to perfo!:"m as !:"equi!:"ed

g. Release 22 900 gallons of wate!:" in space as' Project High Wate!:" 1

Mission SA-2 was launched on "pdl 25, 1962, frOf.l Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 34 at 09:00:34
a.m. e.s.t. (14:00:34 G.m.t.L Thc!:"e was a 30-ninute launch delay because a ship was in the down-
range a!:"ea.

The flight path of SA-2 ag!:"eed closely with the p!:"edicted t!:"ajectory. However, the trajec-
tory during powered flight was somewhat lower because of lower-than-anticipated accelerations.
The destruct signal for detonating the water container of Project High Water 1 was transmitted
162.56 seconds after lift-off when the vehicle was at an altitude of 65.2 miles. Five seconds
thereafter, the water formed into a 4.6-mile-dianeter ice cloud, which continued to climb to an
altitude of 90 miles. The purpose of the Project High Water experiment was to upset the concen-
tration of water vapor in the ionosphere and to study the conditions as equilibrium was regained.
Several measurements were made during the experiMent. For exaf.1ple, the electron production proc-
ess rates in and near the E-region were measured. Measurements were also made of the rates of
reactions involving water, the hydroxyl ion, diatot:1ic and triatOMic oxygen, and hydrogen in the
region between 62 and 83.7 miles altitude. The experiMent was performed for NASA's Office of
Space Sciences and was the first such large-scale test ever f.lade in space.

2.1.3 Mission SA-3

Apollo mission SA-3 was the third flight of the Saturn I launch vehicle. Like SA-I and SA-2,
the mission was unmanned and conducted for !:"esearch and developf.1ent purposes. This launch ve-
hicle also carried a dummy second stage and a Jupiter missile nose cone. The vehicle had no ac-
tive path guidance, and the trajectory was suborbital. The payload was Project High Water 2-
The objectives were the sane as those of l"Iission SI\-2.

The SA-3 vehicle was launched on liovember 16, 1962, fron Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 34 at
12:45:02 p.m. e.s.t. (17:45:02 G.m.t.). There was a 45-minute launch delay due to a power fail-
ure in the ground support equipment.

The actual flisht path of SA-3 was close to the predicted one. to. slightly lower accelera-
tion than planned caused the altitude and range to be less than predicted throughout powered
flight. However, a longer firing period than planned caused both to be greater after first-stage
cutoff. The destruct signal for the container of Project High Water 2 was transmitted at 292
seconds afte!:" lift-off when the vehicle was at an altitude of 103.7 miles. The 22 900 gallons
of water fonned an ice cloud that continued along the flight path of the vehicle, as had the
cloud fonned by Project High Water 1 on the SI\-2 mission. All objectives of the mission were
met.
2-4

2.1.4 Mission SA-4

Apollo mission SA-4 was the fourth launch of the Saturn I launch vehicle. Like the three
previous missions, an unmanned, research and developmental vehicle was used. The SA-4 vehicle
was equipped with a dummy second stage and a Jupiter missile nose cone. The vehicle had no path
guidance, and the trajectory was suborbital.

The objectives of the mission were the same as those of SA-2 and SA-3, with the following
two exceptions.

3. Programmed premature cutoff of one of the eight engines of the firGt stage wac uced to
demonstrate that the vehicle could perform the mission with an engine out.

b. Project High Water payload was not carried on SA-4.

Mission SA-4 was launched on March 28, 1963, frota Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 34 at 03:11:55
p.m. e.s.t. (20:11:55 G.r.l.t.). Three technical delays, totaling 102 r:dnutes, were experienced in
the countdown.

The flight path was close to the predicted one. A slightly higher acceleration and an early
cutoff signal caused the maximul':'l altitude to be 0.96 mile higher and the range to be 0.13 mile
shorter than planned. First-stage engine 5 was cut off at 100.6 seconds after lift-off, 0.22
second earlier than planned. The vehicle responded to the early shutdown as predicted and the
flight continutld, 5ucctlssfully <icCQmpl1shlng LlJtl Qbjt!ctivt!.

2.1.5 Mission SA-5

Apollo mission SA-5 was the fifth launch of the Saturn I launch vehicle and the first of a
more advanced research and development configuration which had a live second stage and a func-
tional instrument unit for onboard guidance. The launch vehicle had a Jupiter missile nose cone
ballasted with sand to simulate the Apollo spacecraft mass characteristics.

SA-S was an unmanned, research and developl':'lental ~ission with the following objectives.

•• Flight test of ,h. launch vehicle propulsion. structure. and flight control systems

b. Flight test of ,h. live second stage

<- Flight test of <h. vehicle instrument unit

d. Separation test of the first and second launch vehicle stages

•• Checkout of Launch Complex 37B

f. Recovery of movie cameras and fill':'l showing oxidizer sloshing, stage separation and other
performance characteristics

g. Flight test of the S-I stage fins

h. De~onstration test of liquid hydrogen venting in the second srage

1. Functional test of the function of the eight holddown arms on the launcher

j. Functional test of the stage separation timer

k. Operational test of a passenger ST-124 stabilized platform In the guidance unit

1. Orbiting of a payload weighing 37 700 pounds

Mission SA-5 was launched on January 29, 1964, from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 37B at
11:25:01 a.m. e.s.t. (16:25:01 G.m.t.). Seventy-three minutes of launch delays during the count-
down were necessitated because of interference on the C-band radar and the co~and destruct fre-
quencies.
 2-5

The flight path of SA-5 was close to the predicted one. However, at outboard engine cutoff
of the 5-1 stage, the cross-range deviation was 1 mile to the left of the planned point. By the
end of the S-IV stage firing. the deviation had increased to 13.2 miles. The 37 700-pound pay-
load of nose cone, including 11 500 pounds of sand, was placed into an orbit with a perigee of
162.6 miles and an apogee of 478.3 miles. The flight produced several firsts for the Saturn I
vehicle. It marked the first flight of the ir'lproved. H-l engines in the 5-1 stage. The new model
produced 188 000 pounds of thrust. Also, several cameras that recorded data during flight were
ejected and recovered. Of the eight cameras used, seven were recovered. An onboard television
camera also transmitted data during the flight. The second or S-IV stage operated as planned,
as did the instrument unit.

2.1.6 Mission A-lOl

Apollo mission A-IOI was the first of two flights of Apollo boilerplate spacecraft to demon-
strate the compatibility of the Apollo spacecraft with the Saturn 1 launch vehicle in a launch
environment similar to that expected for Apollo Saturn V orbital flights. Another important ob-
jective of this mission was to demonstrate the pril:\3ry roode of launch escape tower jettison us-
ing the escape tower jettison motor.

In addition to the boilerplate command and service module, the spacecraft included a produc-
tion-type launch escape system and a service module/launch vehicle adapter. Also, the spacecraft
was equipped with instrumentation to obtain flight data for engineering analysis and evaluation.
The assembly was designated BP-13. The launch vehicle (SA-6) consisted of an S-1 first stage,
an S-lV second stage, and an instrument unit. Figure 2-2 shows the vehicle undergoing tests on
the launch pad approximately I month before launch.

The space vehicle was launched into earth orbit on ~lay 28, 1964, at 12:07:00 p.m. e.s.t.
(17:07:00 C.m.t.) from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 37B. The spacecraft, S-IV stage, and instru-
ment unit were inserted into orbit as a single unit.

The trajectory provided the launch environment required for the spacecraft mission, and all
spacecraft systems fulfilled their specified functions throughout the countdown and flight test.
Telemetry reception was continuous during launch and exit except for about 3 seconds during
launch vehicle staging. Data were obtained by telemetry until the batteries were expended in the
fourth orbital pass.

Aerodynanic heating produced a maxiMum truss member bond-line tenperature on the launch es-
cape tower that was less than 20 percent of the design limit (550 Q F). Postflight examination
of strain gage, pressure, and acceleration data indicated that the spacecraft structure was ade-
quate for the flight environment encountered.

The launch vehicle flight perforr.l311Ce was acceptable in meeting the required spacecraft test
objectives and all spacecraft objectives were satisfactorily fulfilled before insertion. The
network maintained radar skin tracking until spacecraft entry over the Pacific Ocean near Canton
Island during the 54th orbital pass. The spacecraft was not designed to survive entry and was
not recovered.

2.1.7 Mission A-I02

Mission A-I02 was the second of the two boilerplate spacecraft flights conducted to demon-
strate the compatibility of the Apollo spacecraft with the Saturn 1 launch vehicle. The alter-
nate mode of launch escape tower jettison was also to be demonstrated using the launch escape
lIlOtor and pitch control lIlOtor. The launch trajectory for this mission was similar to that of
mission A-lOl.

The spacecraft consisted of a boilerplate cornnand and service module, a launch escape sys-
tem, and a service module/launch vehicle adapter (BP-lS). The instrumentation was similar to
that of the spacecraft for the A-lOl mission. A significant difference, however, was that one
of the four simulated reaction control system assemblies on the service module was instrumented
to provide data on the aerodynamic heating and vibration levels experienced by the assemblies
during launch. The launch vehicle (SA-7) consisted of an $-1 first stage, an S-lV second stage,
and an instrument unit.
2-6

/' ...
•

,
''1' •"
,,
..",,• '."
-
•
"
"
"

- -• .-
- .- - .

Figure 2-2.- Saturn vehicle SA-6 undergoing tests on Launch Complex 378.
 2-7

The spacecraft was launched into earth orbit on Septcl:lber 18, 1964, at 11:22:43 a.m. e.s.t.
(16:22:43 G.m.t.) from Cape Kennedy Launch COr.lplex 378. The velocity, altitude, and flight-path
angle at the tme of 5-1 stage cutoff were slightly higher than planned. At S-IV stage cutoff,
the altitude was slightly lower and the velocity was sliGhtly higher than planned, resulting in
a more elliptical orbit than planned. The S-IV, instrument unit, and the attached spacecraft
(without the launch escape system which was jettisoned) were inserted into orbit as a single unit.

The instrumentation system was successful in deternining the launch and exit environment,
and telemetry reception of the data was continuous through launch and exit except for a short
period during vehicle staging. The measurements indicnted that the spacecraft performed satis-
factorily in the launch environment.

The launch-heating environment of the spacecraft \;a5 sinilar to that encountered on the
A-lOl mission. Peak values at most points for the two flights ....' ere approxinately equal: however,
the influence of surface irregularities and circunferential varilltions on the amount of heating
experienced was somewhat different for the two flit;hts because of differences in trajectory and
angle of attack. The command and service IOOdule heating rates were within the predicted range.
The heat protection equipment on the launch escape systeM was subjected to temperatures much
lower than the design limits, which were established on the basis of an aborted mission.

Jettisoning of the launch escape tOiler by the alternate mode was successful. Positive ig-
nition of the pitch control motor could not be. deterreined; however, the general trajectory indi-
cated that the IOOtor operated properly. The launch escape motor, together with the pitch control
motor, carried the tower structure safely out of the path of the spacecraft.

The command IOOdule instrur.lentation conpartment differential pressure reached a maximun of

13.3 psi, but vented rapidly after launch escape systelJ separation. A l.8g, peak-to-peak, l()-
hertz vibration was noted during holddown. Other vibration modes were similar to those experi-
i!nced during the A-lOl mission. The measured vibration levels of the instrumented reaction con-
trol system assembly were above the design limit.

Radar skin tracking of the spacecraft was continued by the network until it entered over
the Indian Ocean during the 59th revolution. Uo provisions had been lII3de for recovery of the
spacecraft and it disintegrated during entry. All spacccraft test objectives for the mission
were satisfactorily fulfilled; launch vehicle performance was also satisfactory.

2.1.8 Mission A-IO)

Mission A-lO) was the eighth unmanned Saturn flight. It was the initial vehicle in the
operational series of Saturn 1 launch vehicles and the third to carry an Apollo boilerplate pay-
load. The vehicle also orbited the first of three meteoroid technology satellites, Pegasus A
(fig. 2-3).

Of 12 flight objectives assigned, two were concerned with the operation of the Pegasus sat-
ellite, eight with launch vehicle systens pc;rfotr.l3.nce, one with jettisoning the launch escape
system, and one with separation of the boilerplate spacecraft. The satellite objectivcs were
(1) demonstration of the functional operations of the mechanical, structural, and eiectronic sys-
tems and (2) evaluation of meteoroid data sal'lpling in near-earth orbit. Since the launch trajec-
tory was designed to insert the Pegasus satellitc into the proper orbit, it differed substanti-
ally from the Apollo/Saturn V trajectory used in missions A-lOI and A-l02.

The launch vehicle (SA-9) consisted of an S-l first stace, an S-IV second stage, and an in-
strument unit. The spacecraft consisted of a boilerplate conmand and service module, a launch
escape system, and a service module/launch vehicle adapter (BP-16). The service module enclosed
the Pegasus satellite. The orbital configuration consisted of the satellite mounted on the
adapter, which remained attached to the instrul:lent unit and the expended S-IV stage. The launch
escape system was jettisoned during launch and the comnand module was jettisoned after orbital
insertion. The satellite weighed approximately 3080 pounds and was 208 inches high, 84 inches
wide, and 95 inches deep. The width of the deployed wings was 96 feet.
 ,,-po 1\0 boi I",plale c()\\\o,""d
InodLl\e aod {\looIHed
2-8 ser'Jice module

\nsuumeot
unit
F OTV'l3rd
50\3{
panel \
\

I
I
Later a\
solar p311e \
Meteoroid detector panel
 2-9

The vehicle was launched from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 37B at 09:37:03 a.m. e.s.t.
(14:37:03 Com.t.) on February 16, 1965. A hold of 1 hour and 7 minutes was caused by a power
failure in the Eastern Teat Range flight safety computer. A huilt-in hold of 30 minutes was
also used to discharge and recharge a battery 1n the Pegasus satellite as a check that i t was
functioning properly.

The launch was normal and the payload wss inserted into orbit approximately 10.5 minutes
after launch. The total mass placed 1n orbit was 33 895 pounds. The perigee was 307.8 miles,
the apogee wss 461.9 miles, and the orbital inclination was 31.76°. The Pegasus satellite had
a period of 97.1 minutes.

The trajectory sod space-fixed velocity were very nearly 8S planned. The Apollo shroud
separated from the Pegasus satellite about 804 seconds after lift-off and deployment of two me-
teoroid detection panel wings of the Pegasus satellite co~nced about 1 minute later. The pre-
dicted useful lifetime of Pegasus A in orbit was 1188 days. The satellite was COtr.landed off on
August 29, 1969. Although minor malfunctions occurred in both the launch vehicle and the Pegasus
A satellite, mission A-l03 was a succesa in that all objectives were met.

2.1.9 lUssion A-104

Mission A-l04 was the ninth test flight of the Saturn 1, This mission was the second flight
in the Saturn I operational series and the fourth vehicle to carry an Apollo boilerplate space-
craft. The vehicle also launched the Pegasus B meteoroid technology satellite. The two primary
mission objectives were (1) evaluation of meteoroid data sampling in near-earth orbit and (2)
demonsttation of the launch vehicle iterative guidance mode and evaluation of system accuracy.
The launch trajectory was similar to that of mission A-I03.

The Saturn launch vehicle (SA-8) and payload were similar to those of mission A-I03 except
that a aingle reaction control engine assembly was mounted on the boilerplate service module
(BP-26) and the assembly was instrumented to acquire additional data on launch environment tem-
peratures. This assembly also differed from the one on the A-IOI mission in that two of the four
engines were of a prototype configuration instead of all engines being simulated. Pegasus B
weighed approximately 3080 pounds and had the same dimensions as Pegasus A.

Mission A-I04 was launched from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 37B at 02:35:01 a.m. e.s.t.
(07:35:01 G.m.t.) on Hay 25, 1965, the first nighttime launch in the Saturn 1 series (fig. 2-4).
A built-in 3S-minute hold was used to ensure that launch time coincided with the opening of the
launch window.

The lavnch was normal and the payload was inserted into orbit approximately 10.6 minutes
after lift-off. The total mass placed in orbit, including the spacecraft, Pegasus B, adapter,
instrument unit, and S-IV stage, was 34 113 pounds. The perigee and apogee were 314.0 and 464.1
miles, respectively; the orbital inclination was 31. 78 0 •

The actual trajectory was close to the one predicted, and tl~ spacecraft was separated 806
seconds after lift-off. The deployment of the Pegasus B wings began about 1 minute later. The
predicted orbital lifeti~e of Pegasus B was 1220 days. The satellite instrumentation and beacons
were commanded off on August 29, 1968. Several minor malfunctions occurred in the S-1 stage pro-
pulsion system; however, all mission objectives were successfully achieved.

2.1.10 Mission A-IDS

Mission A-IDS, the third flight of an operational Saturn I, was the last in the series of
Saturn I flights. The payload consisted of an Apollo boilerplate spacecraft (BP-9A) which served
as a shroud for the third Pegasus meteoroid technology satellite, Pegasus C. The two primary
flight objectives were (1) the collection and evaluation of meteoroid data in near-earth orbit
and (2) the continued demonstration of the launch vehicle iterative guidance mode and evaluation
of system accuracy.
2-10

Figure 2-4.- Space vehicle lift-off for mission A-I04.

 2-ll

The Saturn launch vehicle (SA-IO) was similar to those of missions A-tOJ and A-I04. As on
the previous mission, the boilerplate service module was equipped with a test installation of a
reaction control engine package. Pegasus C weighed 31]8.6 pounds and had the saClC dimensions as
its predecessors.

Mission A-IDS was launched from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 37B at 08:00:00 a.m. e.s.t.
(13:00:00 C.m.t.) on July 3D, 1965. A planned 3D-minute hold ensured that launch time coincided
with the opening of the Pegasus launch window. The launch was normal and the payload was in-
serted into orbit approximately 10.1 minutes after lift-off. The total mass placed in orbit,
including the spacecraft, Pegasus C, adapter, instrunent unit, and S-IV stage, was 34 438 pounds.

The spacecraft was separated 812 seconds after 11ft-off. The separation and ejection system
operated as planned. The two meteoroid detection panel wings of the satellite were deployed from
their folded position 40 seconds after command initiation at 872 seconds.

The predicted useful lifetime of 'he satellite (720 days) was exceeded, and 'he beacons and
telemetry transmitters were comoanded off on August 29, 1968. Pegasus Centered the earth atmos-
phere on August 4, 1969. All primary and secondary objectives were attained.

Details of the three Pegasus flights are contained in references 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3.

2.2 APOLLO SPACECRAFT ABORT TESTS

The Apollo spacecraft abort tests consisted of s1x flights to demonstrate the adequacy of
the Apollo launch escape system and to verify the performance of the command module earth landing
system. These flights were launched fron Complex 36 at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico,
which is approximately 4000 feet above mean sea level. Two of the tests were conducted with the
launch escape system motors bein8 ignited at ground level, while tl~ remaining tests were con-
ducted using the Little Joe II launch vehicle to boost the spacecraft to various points in the
Saturn launch trajectory for abort initiation. A significant event in this series of flights
was an unplanced failure of a launch vehicle resulting in an actual abort situation in which all
spacecraft systems operated satisfactorily.

2.2.1 Pad Abort Test 1

Apollo Pad Abort Test 1 was an unmanned flight using the launch escape system to demonstrate
the capability of the Apollo spacecraft to abort fron the launch pad and thus provide crew safety.
Of the six Urst-order test objectives assigned, those of primary importance were to (1) deter-
mine the aerodynamic stability characteristics of the Apollo escape configuration during a pad
abort, (2) demonstrate the capability of the escape systeT:l to propel a command module a safe dis-
tance from a launch vehicle during a pad abort, and (3) demonstrate the earth landing timing se-
quence and proper operation of the parachute system.

The test vehicle consisted of a production launch escape system in combination with a boiler-
plate command module (BP-6), the first Apollo boilerplate spacecraft to be flown (fig. 2-5).
Since the command module was not representative of the actual spacecraft, no instrumentation was
provided to determine structural loads. Measurements of such characteristics 3S vehicle acceler-
ations, angle of attack, Mach number, and dynar.1ic pressure allowed determination of inflight
loads resulting from the external environment or vehicle dynamics. The co~nd module was mounted
in a vertical position on three bearin8 points of a supporting structure attached to a concrete
pad.

The test was initiated on November 7, 1963, at 09:00:01 a.m. m.s.t. (16:00:01 C.m.t.) by
transmitting a ground commanded abort signal to the COnJ:\and module. The signal activated the
abort relay in the launch escape system sequencer, which in turn sent a signal to ignite the
launch escape and pitch control motors. These motors ignited almost simultaneously and lifted
the command module along a planned trajectory. The launch escape tower was separated about 15
seconds after engine ignition and followed a ballistic trajectory. The conmand module made a
normal parachute descent at a velocity of 24 feet per second. Landing of the command IItOdule oc-
curred at 165.1 seconds.
2_12

------
 2-13

The vehicle exceeded the Apollo minimum altitude and range requirements for a pad abort by
970 feet and 1525 feet, respectively. Although the vehicle stability was less than predicted
during the pm.oered phase of flight, all objectives of the flight were satisfied.

2.2.2 Mission A-OOI

Mission A-OOl was the second in the series of tests conducted to denonstrate that the launch
escape system could safely remove the command module under critical abort conditions. Unlike Pad
Abort Test 1. In which the launch escape systel'l was ignited at ground level, this mission was
flown to demonstrate the capability of the escape systeM to propel the comoand module safely away
fron a launch vehicle while in the high-dynamic-pressure (transonic) region of the Saturn trajec-
tory.

The launch vehicle was the second in the series of Little Joe II vehicles, which had been de-
veloped to accomplish early and economical testing of the launch escape system. The Little Joe 11
was propelled by seven solid-propellant rocket motors - one Algol sustainer motor, which provided
thrust for about 42 seconds, and six Recruit motors, which burned out approximately 1.5 seconds
after ignition. The spacecraft consisted of a launch escape system and a boilerplate command and
service module (BP-12).

Unacceptable wind conditions had forced a 24-hour postponement of the launch, but the ve-
hicle was successfully launched (fig. 2-6) on May 13,1964, at 05:59:59.7 a.m. m.s.t. (12:59:59.7
C.m. t). A ground commanded abort signal teminated thrust of the launch vehicle (by rupturing
the Algol motor casing), ignited the launch escape and pitcl, control motors, and separated the
command module from the service module. Some structural dSl'lage was incurred by the command mod-
ule aft heat shield because of recontact with the boostel' ':It thrust termination. At approxi-
mately 44 seconds, the tower jettison motor W3S ignited ,Ind satisfactorily separated the launch
escape tower from tile command module.

The earth landing sequence was normal until a riser for one of the three main parachutes
broke as a result of its rubbing against the structure on the contlll3nd module upper deck. The
parachute separated; however, the command module, supporled by the two remaining parachutes, de-
scended at rates of 30 to 26 feet per second instead of the predicted 24 feet per second with
three parachutes. The command module landed 22 400 feet down range at 350.3 seconds after at-
taining an altitude of 29 772 feet above Illean sea level. Except for the parachute failure, all
test objectives were satisfied.

2.2.3 Mission A-002

Mission A-002 was the third in the series of abort tests to demonstrate that the launch es-
cape system would perform satisfsctorily under selected critical abort conditions. The main ob-
jective of this mission was to demonstrate the abort capability of the launch escape vehicle in
the I':laximum dynamic pressure region of the Saturn trajectory with conditions approximating the
altitude limit at which the Saturn emergency detection system would signal an abort.

The launch vehicle was the third in the Little Jo~ 11 series. This vehicle differed from
the previous two in that flight controls and instrum",,:~ation were incorporated, and the vehicle
was powered by two Algol and four Recruit rocket motors. The launch escape system was also
changed from previous configurations in that canards (forward control surfaces used to orient
and stabilize the escape vehicle in the entry attitude) and a command module boost protective
cover were incorporated. The Apollo spacecraft was simulated by a boilerplate contlll3nd and ser-
vice module (BP-23). The earth landing system was modified from the previous configuration by
the installation of modified dual-drogue parachutes instead of a single-drogue parachute.

The A-002 vehicle was launched on December 8, 1964, at 08:00:00 a.m. m.S.t. (15:00:00 C.m.t.)
by igniting all launch vehicle motors simultaneously. Conditions at abort initiation were selected
from Saturn boost trajectories, and a nominal test point was used for the maximum dynamic pressure
region. A pitchup maneuver and the abort \Jere initiated by using a real-time plot of the dynamic
pressure versus ~'ach number. However, an improper constant was used in the meteorological data
input to the real-time data system, resulting in the pitch up maneuver being initiated 2.4 seconds
early. Although the planned test point was not achieved, the early pitchup caused a higher maxi-
mum dynamic pressure than the design value.
2-14

Figure 2-6.- Vehicle lift-off for mission A-OOl.

 2-15

Canard deployment took place as expected 11.1 seconds after abort initiation. The launch
escape vehicle tumbled four times before stabilizing with the aft heat shield forvard. During
the first turnaround, the soft portion of the boost protective cover was torn away from the com-
mand lIIOdule. Maxl1~um altitude attail\ed by the launch escape vehicle was 50 360 feet above mean
sea level.

Baroswltches initiated the earth landing sequence at an altitude of approxlm..'ltely 23 500

feet above mean sea level. All parachutes deployed properly and the comnand module, supported
by the three main parachutes, descended at the planned rate of about 24 feet per second to an
earth landing 31 800 feet down range.

The abort conditions obtained were fOCIre than adequate in verifying the abort capability in
the maximum dynamic pressure region. Only one test objective ...,as not achieved; the boost protec-
tive cover ...,as structurally inadequate for the environment "xpcrienced during this mission.

2.2.4 Mission A-003

Apollo mission A-003 was the fourth mission to demonstrate the abort capability of the
Apollo launch escape system. The purpose of this flight was to demonstrate launch escape vehicle
performance at an altitude approximating the upper limit for the canard sul.>system.

The launch vehicle was similar to the one used for missIon A-G02 except that the propulsion
system consisted of six Algol motors. The unnanned Bieht tcst vehicle consisted of an Apollo
boilerplate command and service module. (HP-22) and a launch escape system similar to the one used
on the previous mission. The command module earth landing system configuration was refined to
be more nearly like that of the planned production systel'l. ;Ind a fOlVard heat shield jettisoning
system was provided.

The test vehicle was launched on Hay 19. 1965, at 06:01:04 a.m. m.s.t. (13:01:04 C.m.t.).
Within 2.5 seconds after lift-off, a launch vehicle malfunction caused the vehicle to go out of
control. The resulting roll rate caused tIle i.·unch vehicle to break up before second-stage ig-
nition. and a low-altitude spacecraft abort wa" initiated instead of the planned high-altitude
abort. The launch escape system canard surface", deployed and survived the severe environment.
The high roll rates (approximately 260 0 per second at the time of caMrd deployment) induced by
the launch vehicle malfunction stabilized the lal'nch esc<l!)c vehicle in a tower-forw;lrd attitude.
which overcame the destabilizing effect of the C~lIlilrds. Postflight simulations verified the in-
effectiveness of the canards at the high roll rate, but showed that the cannrds would be effec-
tive at the 20 0 per second roll rate limit of the Saturn chlergency detection system.

All spacecraft systems operated satisfactorily. The cOl:lllland module forward heat shield was
protected by the hard portion of the boost protective cover and Ims jettisoned satisfactorily in
an apex-forward attitude at low altitude. The soft portion of the boost protective cover remained
intact until tower jettison. At tower jettison. part of the cover stayed with the conmand module
for a short time although the rest of the cover moved aW>lY with the tower. The hard portion of
the boost protective cover remained intact until groulld impact. Both drogue parachutes inflated.
even under the severe conditions that existed; that is, coml'land module apex fOlVard and rolling.
The command IllOdule was eHectively stabilized and or~'~nted for deployment of the main parachutes.

Because of the early launch vehicle breakup. the desired altitude of 120 000 feet was not
achieved. Ilowever, the spacecraft did demonstrate a f"1.:(·cessful low-altitude (12 400 ft) abort
from a rapidly rolling (approxiT.lately 335 0 per second) launch vehicle. The ~lach number, dynamic
pressure. and altitude at the time of l\bort were similar to Saturn In or Saturn V launch trajec-
tory conditions.

2.2.5 Pad Abol"L Test 2

Apollo Pad Abort Test 2 was the fifth of six unr<\anned Apollo missions that flight tested the
capability of the launch escape system to provide for safe recovery of Apollo crews under critical
abort conditions. This flight was the second test of the launch escape system with the abort ini-
tiated from the launch pad.
2-16

The launch escape 8yatea included qual1fied launch escape and pitch control ClOcors and 'las
equipped with canards co orient the vehicle aIt heat shield forward prior to tower jettison and
parachute deployment. A boost protective cover vas also provided. The spacecraft was BP-2)A. a
boilerplate co~nd module that had been used on mission A-Q02 and refurbished to core nearly
silllUlate a Block-I-type cOJ:Dand lIIOdule in I:I3SS and other characteri.stics. The earth landing sys-
telll was sl1:l11sr to the one used in cisslon A-Q03.

The test flight was conducted on June 29, 1965. The vehicle was lifted rro~ Launch Complex
36 by the launch escape IllOcor at 06:00:01 a.n. III.S.t. (13:00:01 G.I:I.t.). The launch escape and
pitch control I!IOtors ignited simultaneously, placing the test vehicle into the planned initial
trajectory. A noderate roll rat~ developed at lift-off, which was due to tl~ aerodynamic asym-
metry of the vehicle configuration; however, the roll rate did not affect the success of the
test.

The canard surfaces deployed and turned the vehicle to the desired orientation for drogue
parachute deployment. During the turnaround IMncuver, the launch escllpe tower and forward heat
shield were jettisoned as planned. The boost protective cover, which was attached to the launch
escape system, protected the conical surface of the COT:V:lllnd CIOdule and remained intact through
a canard-induced pitch maneuver. At tower jett1son, tl~ soft 1»oost protective cover, as expected,
collapsed because of differential pressure during renoval fran the command module. No recontact
or interference between the major components was evident during tower jettison and parachute de-
ployment.

Although one of the pilot parachute steel cable risers \las kinked, the earth landing systelll
functioned properly. Tl~ drogue parachutes inflated and stabilized the comnand ~ule for pilot
and lIlain parachute deployment. and the rate of descent lo'hile on the lIl3in parachutes \las satis-
Cactory. The caximum altitude achieved was 9258 feet above cean sea level, appro~imately 650
feet higher than predicted. TI~ co~nd module landed about 7600 feet frolll the launch site, SOllIe
2000 feet farther than planned.

Four glass sacples had been QOunted on the cOl:ll!l3nd l:lOdule in the general srea planned for
the rendezvous and cre\l vindO\lS. No soot appeared on the sanples, but an oily film \las found on
the exposed surfaces of three of the four sanples. This fila, however, \las not expected to cause
excessive degradation to the horizon scan or ground orientation ability during an abort. The
tcst \las highly succeseful snd all planned objectives were fulfilled.

2.2.6 tlission A-004

Mission A-004 was the final test of the Apollo launch escape vehicle and the first flight
of a Block 1 production-type spacecraft. The mission WliS unmanned and \las conducted to demon-
strate that (1) the launch escape vehicle would satisfactorily orient and stabilize itself in
the proper attitude after being subjected to a high rate of tul:lbling during the powered phase
of an abort and (2) the escape vehicle would maintain its structural integrity under test condi-
tions in which the command module structure was loaded to the design limit.

The launch vehicle \las the fifth and final Little Joe 11 flolffl. The propulsion system con-
sisted of four Algol and five Recruit rocket motors. The attitude control system \las similar to
the one used on mission A-OO) except that the reaction control system \las deleted and the vehicle
\las provided \lith the capability of responding to a radio-translllitted pitchup cOmlll8nd. The pitch-
up maneuver \las required to help initiate tuabling of the launch escape vehicle. The spacecraft
for this mission consisted of a modified Block 1 comcand and service module and a modified Block
I launch escape system (airframe 002). The center of gravity and thrust vector were changed to
assure that power-on tumbling would be attained after abort initiation. The earth landing syste.
\las essentially the same as that used during Pad Abort Test 2.

The vehicle \las launched on January 20, 1966, at 08:17:01 a.m. III.S.t. (15:17:01 C.Q'I.t.) af-
ter several postponements due to technical difficulties and adverse weather conditions. The
pitchup maneuver \las coananded from the ground ~len telemetry showed that the desired altitude
and velocity conditions had been reached. The planned abort was automatically initiated 2.9 sec-
onds later. The launch escape vehicle tu~led Lomediately after abort initiation. Pitch and
ya\l rates reached peak values of 160 G per second, and roll rates reached a peak of minus 70 G per
second. The launch escape syste~ canard surfaces deployed at the proper time and stabilized the
 2-17

command module with the aft heat shield forward after the escape vehicle had tumbled about four
times. Tower jettison snd operation of the earth landing systems were normal, and the command
module landed about 113 620 feet form the launch pad after having reached a maximum altitude of
78 180 feet above mean sea level.

All systems performed satisfactorily, and the dynamic loads and structural response values
were within the design limits and predicted values. Although a structural loading value of pri-
mary interest was not achieved (local differential pressure between the interior and exterior of
the command module wall), all test objectives were satisfied.

2.3 UNMANNED APOLLO/SATURN FLIGHTS

The six flights of the unmanned Apollo/Saturn series were conducted to qualify all launch
vehicle systems (Saturn IB and Saturn V) and all spacecraft systems (command snd service module
and lunar module) for manned flight. Each flight built on the knowledge and experience gained
frol:l the previous flights, with the last two flights serving as final flight verification of all
systems. In addition, these flights provided the final verification of the ground support hard-
ware, launch checkout and countdown procedures, the COflmunications network (Manned Space Flight
Network), and the ground support personnel.

The first planned manned flight was originally scheduled for launch after the third unmanned
flight of this series; however, the first manned flight was not accomplished until six unmanned
flights had been completed.

2.3.1 Mission AS-20l

Mission AS-201 was the second flight test of a production-type Apollo Block I spacecraft
(airframe 009) and was the first flight test of the Saturn IB launch vehicle. Objectivea of
this unmanned suborbital flight were to demonstrate the compatibility and structural integrity
of the spacecraft/Saturn IB combination and to evaluate the spacecraft heat shield performance
during a high-he at-rate entry.

The Saturn IB consisted of two stages, an S-IB first stage and an S-IVB second stage with
an instrument unit. The spacecraft consisted of a coomand module, a service module, an adapter,
and a launch escape system. The vehicle is shown in figure 2-7 as i~ was undergoing the count-
down demonstration test approxi~tely 3 weeks before launch. The spacecraft differed from the
atandard Block I configuration in several respects. Fuel cells, crew equipment, suit loop, cabin
postlanding ventilation system, cryogenic storage tanks, and the guidance and navigation system
were not installed. In addition, a partial emergency detection system was flown. and the radi-
ators for the environmental control system and the electrical power system were inoperative.

Mission AS-20l was launched from Cape Kennedy Launch COl:lplex 34 at 11:12:01 a.m. e.s.t.
(16:12:01 G.m.t.), February 26, 1966. The co~nd module landed safely in rhe primary landing
area near Aacension Island approximately 37 minutes later and was recovered as planned. The se-
quence of mission events is given in reference 2-4.

The launch was normal except that S-IVB cutoff and S-IVB/command and service module separa-
tion occurred 10 seconds later than predicted. Also, because of the delay in S-IVB cutoff, the
mission control programmer was activated 10 seconds later than planned, and subsequent event
times reflected this 10-second delay. In general, sll spacecraft systems performed as expected
except for the service module reaction control system. An oxidizer isolation valve failed to
open, preventing operation of one of the service module reaction control system engine assem-
blies. Also, a negative yaw engine in another assembly was inoperative. However, the system
successfully prOVided spacecraft attitude and rate control, adequate translstion for the S-IVBI
command and service module separation, and ullage for the two service propulsion system maneuvers.

The AS-20I mission was the first flight test of the service propulsion system. Although the
reaction control system failure resulted in only 25 to 45 percent of the ullage velocity increment
expected, the first ignition of the service propulsion system was successful and performance was
near normal for the first SO'seconds of the l84-second firing. However, at engine cutoff. the
2-18

,l
I

Figure 2-7.- Apollo/Saturn vehicle underyoing countdown

demonstration test for mission AS-201.
 2-l9

chamber pressure had decayed to approximately 70 percent of no~l. The second firing, planned
for a lo-second duration, was erratic with chamber pressure oscillations that ranged from 12 to
70 percent of normal. The subnormal perfonnance of the service propulsion system was attributed
to helium ingestion.

Spacecraft communications blackout began at 1580 seconds snd lasted until 1695 seconds. En-
try was initiated with a space-fixed velocity of 26 481 feet per second. The co~and module was
subjected to a Daximum entry heating rate of 164 Btu/sq ft/sec at 1631.7 seconds and a maximum
deceleration of 14.38 at 1639.7 seconds. The co~and module structure and heat shields performed
adequately 1n the entry environment.

Loss of power to both command module reaction control systems at 1649 seconds resulted in an
uncontrolled rolling entry (in excess of 26° per second) instead of the planned lifting entry.
Power was returned to reaction control system A at 2121 seconds, and the required depletion burn-
ing of the corncand module reaction control system propellants was accomplished.

Forward heat shield jettison, dtogue parachute deployment. and main parachute deployment oc-
curred as planned. The command module landed in the Atlantic Ocean near Ascension Island at
2239.7 seconds and remained in an upright attitude. The landing time was 30.8 seconds earlier
than the preflight-predicted time. Touchdown was 45 miles up range (northwest) of the recovery
ship U.S.S. 8oxep. One of the main parachutes failed to disengage after landing and was cut
loose by a recovery force swimmer. The spacecraft was taken aboard the recovery ship at 02:20
p.m. e.s.t., 3 hours 8 minutes after lift-off. While all primary objectives were accomplished.
the subnormal performance of some systems necessitated further investigation and improvements
for future flights.

2.3.2 Mission AS-203

Mission AS-203 was an unmanned. rescarch and developmcntal tcst of the Saturn IB vehicle.
Major objectives of the flight were to (1) evaluate the S-IVB stage liquid hydrogen venting. (2)
evaluate the S-IVB engine chilldown and recirculation systems. and (3) determine fluid dynamics
of the S-IVB tanks. The data obtained were directly applicable to the Saturn V program. The
S-IVD was to be used as the third stage of the Saturn V on lunar missions. A second firing of
the S-IVB engine was necessary to insert an Apollo spacecraft into a translunar trajectory.
Therefore, the test was conducted to simulate Saturn V third-stage engine restart in earth orbit.

The vehicle was the second Saturn IB launched. The general configuration was similar to
that of mission AS-201 except that an aerodynamic fairing (nose cone) was installed in place of
the spacecraft (fig. 2-8). Telemetry and recoverable 16-mm cameras (ejected during launch) were
provided to furnish data on vehicle performance. In addition. two television cameras were
mounted on the forward bulkhead of the S-IVB liquid hydrogen tank to aid in determining the
amount of propellant sloshing.

Mission AS-203 was launched from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 37B at 09:53:17 a.m. e.s.t.
(14:53:17 G.m.t.) on July 5, 1966. The launch was delayed 1 hour and 53 minutes because of a
109S of signal from one of the television cameras. The S-IVB stage. instrument unit. and nose
cone were inserted into an orbit that was close to the planned 100-mile circular orbit.

Satisfactory system operation was demOnstrated on the first of four orbits in which the sys-
tems were planned to be active. and all mission objectives were achieved. The simulated S-IVB
engine firing duration was very close to the predicted time even though the chilldown valve failed
to close after engine ignition. Data were gathered on S-IVB stage behavior in other Saturn V
modes during the next three orbits. At the beginning of the fifth orbit. while a test was being
performed, pressure in the liquid hydrogen tank built up to a level in excess of the design value.
bursting the rank and resulting in premature destruction of the stage. IIDwever. all mission ob-
jectives had been accomplished.
2-20

Figure 2-8.- Space vehicle for mission AS-203 during prelaunch countdown.
 2-21

2.3.3 Hission AS-202

Mission AS-202 was an unmanned suborbital flight to further eV31uate the Saturn IB launch
vehit::le and the Apollo command and service IIIldule before committing them to manned flight. The
launch vehicle was the third Saturn IB and the spacecraft was tho third production-type Block I
cOll1lland and service module (airframe 011). The mission objectives were (1) to obtain further
launch vehicle and spacecraft infonaation on structural incebrity and compatibility, flight loads,
stage separation, subsystem operation, and emergency detection system operation and (2) to evalu-
ate the cOrml3.nd module heat shield at high heat loads during entry at approximately 28 000 feet
per second.

The Saturn IB was similar to the previous two launch vehicles. The spacecraft consisted of
an adapter, the cOlllflland and service module, and a launch escape system. The spacecraft systems
and equipment were generally like those of the AS-lOl mission spacecraft except that the fuel
cells and cryogenic reactants, the guidance and navigation system, the S-band communications
equipment, and the service propulsion system propellant gating eqUipment were being flown for
the first time. Also, the environmental control systehl ami electrical power system radiators
were operative on this mission and a closed-loop emergency detection system was provided.

The spacecraft was launched from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 34 at 12:55:32 p.m. e.s.t.
(17:55:32 C.m.t.), August 25, 1966. The spacecraft tining sequence was initiated by the S-IVB
stage separation corrrnand, which was 13.8 seconds early due to higher-than-expected performance
of the launch vehicle. Consequently, the flight events occurre<l earlier than planned (ref. 2-5).
The spacecraft landed in the Pacific Ocean near Wake Island.

All mission objectives were accomplished, including the performance assessment of the sys-
tems being flown for the first time. PerfOIT:lance of these systens is discussed in the following
paragraphs.

Fuel cell power plant electrical performance was normal, and current distribution between
the cells and auxiliary batteries followed the expected ratios. The condenser exit temperatures
on the two active fuel cells approached the m.:l.ximum limit <luring the flight. The problem was
attributed to entrapped air in the secondary coolant loop. Servicing procedures were changed for
later spacecraft to eliminate this probl",m.

The cryogenic system performance was satisfactory. Pressurization, temperature, and flow-
rate response to fuel cell reactant gas <lemands wcre as expected.

The guidance and navigation system performed normally. Attitude control, navigation thrust
vector and differential velocity control, and entry targeting were satisfactory. The command
module, however, landed approximately 200 miles short of the planned point because the preflight
prediction of the trim lift-to-drag ratio was not sufficiently accurate. The guidance and nav-
igation system responded properly in attempting to correct for the undershoot condition.

The S-band communications equip~lent performed satisfactorily. Simulated downvoice and up-
voice (via tone signals), down-link telemetry, and ranging modes were proper. Hinor signal re-
ception and station handover problems, not associated with the a.irborne equipment, were encoun-
tered.

The propellant gaging equipment for the service propulsion system functioned normally. Ap-
preciable biases were noted but were explainable on the basis of preflight loading conditions and
dynamic flow effects.

The environmental control system radiators provided proper heat rejection and compensated
for a malfunction of the water evaporator. Erratic evaporator cooling was attributed to excess
water which froze and plugged the overboard vent. Prelaunch servicing procedures were changed
for later spacecraft.

The emergency detection system operated properly in the closed-loop mode. The automatic
abort circuit was properly enabled at lift-off an<l deactivated by the launch vehicle sequencer
prior to staging.
2-22

2.3.4 Apollo 4 Hission

The Apollo 4 mission was the fourth unmanned flight test of a production type Block I Apollo
spacecraft and the initial flight of tile three-stage Saturn V. the launch vehicle that was to be
used for lunar missions. The first and second stages of the Saturn V (the S-IC and S-II stages)
had not been flown previously. The third stage (the S-IVB) had been used as the second stage of
the Saturn lB. The instrument unit configuration was basically the satTle. conflguration flight
tested during the Saturn IE development series. Figure 2-9 shows the vehicle and mobile launcher
as they were being positioned on the launch pad.

The mission had a number of inportsnt objectives applicable to both the launch vehicle and
spacecraft. The principal objectives were (1) to de~nsttate the structural and thermal integ-
rityand compatibility of the Saturn V and the Apollo spacecraft, (2) to verify operation of the
launch vehicle propulsion, guidance and control, and electrical systems, (3) to demonstrate sepa-
ration of the launch vehicle stages, (4) to verify the adequacy of the thermal protection system
developed for the Block II cOl'lr.land module under lunar return conditions, and (5) to demonstrate
a service propulsion system engine no-ullage start.

The Apollo 4 spacecraft (airframe 017) included a launch escape system, a cOllBlland and ser-
vice module, and a spacecraft/lunar module adapter. A lunar module test article was installed
in the adapter. The command module was equipped with the lunar-miss ion-type thermal protection
system that was to be tested and had other modifications applicable to the Block II spacecraft.
As on previous unmanned flights, the cOmr.land IOOdule contained a mission control programmer to
actuate functions that would normally be performed by the crew.

The space vehicle was launched from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A (the first use
of this facility) at 07:00:01 a.m. e.s.t. (12:00:01 G.rn.t.) on November 9, 1967. Detailed flight
events are given in reference 2-6.

Tlw launch phase was normal. All planned events occurred within allowable limits, and struc-
tural loading was well within the capability of the vehicle. r.leasurements telemetered from the
cOllffland module indicated that qualification vibration levels were not exceeded and verified the
adequacy of the~l prediction techniques.

The spacecraft was inserted into a circular orbit by the S-IVB stage after approximately
11 minutes of powered flight. Near the end of the second revolution, the S-IVB engine was suc-
cessfully reignited to place the spacecraft into a simulated translunar trajectory. At the com-
pletion of the maneuver, the cOO1Tland and service module was separated fror:J the S-IVB stage, and
the service propulsion system engine was fired for approximately 15 seconds to der:JOnstrate the
capability of starting the engine in zero gravity without perforning a reaction control system
ullage maneuver. There were no adverse effects, and the maneuver raised the apogee of the space-
craft trajectory from 9292 miles to 9769 miles. A few seconds after service propulsion system
engine cutoff, the spacecraft was oriented to an attitude in which the side hatch was pointed
directly toward the sun. This attitude was maintained for approximately 4-1/2 hours to obtain
thermal data.

After approximately 8 hours and 10 minutes of flight, a second service propulsion system
maneuver was performed to accelerate the spacecraft to a velocity representative of severe lunar
return entry conditions. Shortly afterward, the comnand module was separated from the service
module and oriented to the entry attitude.

The inertial velocity at atmospheric entry, which occurs at an altitude of 400 000 feet, was
approximately 36 000 feet per second, about 210 feet per second greater than predicted. This
overspeed was caused by a longer-than-planned firing of the service propulsion system. Because
of the change in entry conditions, the peak deceleration force was 7.3g rather than the predicted
8.3g.

The guidance and control system perforJ:led satisfactorily in guiding the spacecraft to the
desired landing point. Although the landing was about 5 miles short of the target point, it was
within the accuracy predicted before the mission. The forward heat shield and one of the main
parachutes were recovered along with the command module by the pri~ry recovery ship, the U.S.S.
Bennington. Postflight inspection of the command module indicated that the thermal protection
system withstood the lunar return entry environment satisfactorily.
2-23
 2-24

2.3.') Apollo 5 H{ssinn

The Apollo 5 mission was the first flight of a lunar IOOdule and the fourth flight test of
the Saturn 18 launch vehicle. The space vehicle consisted of an 5-18 stage, an S-IVB stage, an
instrument unit, an adapter, the lunar module, and a nose cone. Primary objectives of the mis-
sion were to verify the lunar module ascent and descent propulsion systems and the abort staging
function for manned {light. These objectives were satisfied.

Lift-off from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 37B (fig. 2-10) was initiated at 05:48:08 p.m.
e.s.t. (22:48:08 C.m.t.) on January 22, 1968. (The detailed sequence of mission events is given
in reference 2-7.) The lunar module and S-lVB stage werc inserted into earth orbit after 10 min-
utes and 3 seconds of powered flight. Lunar module loads and measured vibrations were within
the design capability of the structure during powered flight. Spacecraft cooling began after
S-IVB stage cutoff, and the equipment ter:Jperatures were properly regulated by the coolant system
for the remainder of the mission. The lunar module was separated from the S-lVB stage by using
the reaction control system engines. Separation disturbances were small. The lunar module was
maneuvered to a cold-soak attitude which was maintained by the guidance system until early in
the third revolution. A minimal reaction control system engine duty cycle was required to main-
tain the desired attitude.

Hidway through the third revolution, the first descent engine firing was initiated. The
planned duration of this firing was 38 seconds; however, after only 4 seconds, the guidance sys-
tem shut down the engine. Both the guidance systeo' and the propulsion system operated properly,
and the premature shutdown resulted from an incorrect definition of the engine thrust buildup
characteristics as used in the guidance system software.

After the premature shutdown, a planned alternate mission that provided minimum mission re-
quirements was selected. At approxir.1ately 6 hours and 10 minutes into the flight, the automatic
sequencer within the onboard mission progt<\!'lmer initiated the sequencing for the second and third
descent engine firings, the abort staging, and the first ascent engine firing. Attitude rate con-
trol was maintained with the backup control system. The descent engine gimbaled properly and re-
sponded smoothly to the commands to full throttle. The thennal aspects of the supercritical he-
liu'" pressurization system could not be adequately evaluated because of the short duration of the
three descent engine firings. During abort staging, all system operations and vehicle dynamics
were satisfactory for manned flight.

After the first ascent stage engine firing. the primary guidance and control system was re-
selected to control the spacecraft attitudes and rates. Because the primary system had been pas-
sive during the abort staging sequence, the computer program did not reflect the change of mass
resulting from staging. Therefore, computations of reaction control system engine firing times
were based on the mass of a two-stage vehicle and resulted in an extremely high propellant usage
by the reaction control system engines, eventually causing propellant depletion. Because of ex-
cessive reaction control system engine activity, the engine cluster red-line upper limit was ex-
ceeded; however, no detrimental effects were evident.

The reaction control system was later subjected to abnormal operating conditions because of
low manifold pressures after propellant depletion. Continued operation under these abnolll1al
conditions resulted in three malfunctions within the system, but none had an appreciable effect
on the mission,

The second firing of the ascent engine, initiated by the autom.'ltic sequencer, began at 7
hours 44 minutes 13 seconds into the mission and continued until thrust decay 5 minutes and 47
seconds later. During the initlal portion of the firing, attituue rate control was maintained
by using propellants from the ascent propulsion system tanks through interconnect valves to the
reaction control system engines. However, the sequencer automatically closed the interconnect
valves and switched the system over to the already depleted tanks. With the resultant loss of
rate control, the vehicle began tumbling while the ascent engine was firing. All tracking was
lost within 2 minutes after ascent stage engine thrust decay. The lunar module had been in a
retrograde orientation during the controlled portion of the firing, and trajectory simulations
indicated that the lunar module entered over the Pacific Ocean soon after the ascent stage en-
gine firing. The predicted point of impact was approximately 400 miles west of the coast of
Central America. The duration of the flight was approxinately 8 hours.
 2-25

Figure 2-10.- Lift-off of space vehicle for Apollo 5 mission.

2-26

The overall performance of the lunar module was good and met all requirements for manned
orbital flight. All operational systems were successfully verified, and the abort staging se-
quence was demonstrated.

2.3.6 Apollo 6 Mission

The Apollo 6 mission was accomplished on April 4, 1968. This was the second mission in which
a Saturn V launch vehicle was used with an UIll'\l1nned Bloc!;. 1 cOlJIMnd and service module and a lunar
module test article.

The space vehicle was launched from Kennedy Space Center Launch COl'lplex 39A at 07:00:01 a.m.
e.s.t. (12:00:01 G.I:I.t.), Lift-off was nonnal but a major structural anomaly in the spacecraft!
launch vehicle adapter occurred during first-stage boost. Approxirnstely 2 minutes 13 seconds af-
ter lift-off, abrupt changes were indicated by strain, vibration, and acceleration measurements
in the S-IVB, instrument unit, adapter, lunar module test article, and command and service mod-
ule. The anol:laly was apparently caused by 5-hertz oscillations induced by the launch vehicle;
these oscillations exceeded the spacecraft design criteria. Photographic coverage from ground
and aircraft cameras revealed material coning from the area of the adapter. (Sec. 4.4.2 of this
report and ref. 2-8 contain additional infOrMation concerning this anomaly.)

After second-stage ignition, the boost phase was nor~al until two engines in the S-11 stage
shut down early. The firing time of the re~aining three 5-11 stage engines was extended approxi-
mately I minute in an attempt to attain the desired velocity. The 5-1VB stage firing was also
longer than planned. At termination of the 5-1VB thrust, the orbit had a 198-nile apogee and a
96-mile perigee, instead of the planned IOO-mile near-circular orbit.

An attempt to reignite the 5-IVB engine for a simulated trans lunar injection firing was un-
successful. A ground command to the comnand and service module implemented a prcplanned alter-
nate mission that consisted of a long-duration firing (442 seconds) of the service propulsion
system engine. This firing was executed under onboard guidance computer control and the onboard
programmed apogee of 12 000 miles was attained. After the service propulsion system engine fir-
ing, the command and service module was aligned to a preset cold-soak attitude. The preflight-
planned second firing of the service propulsion systCT:l engine was inhibited by ground command.

Atmospheric entry at 400 000 feet occurred at an inertial velocity of 32 830 feet per sec-
ond and a flight-path angle of minus 5.85 degrees. The entry paraT:leters were lower than pre-
dicted because of the 5-IVB failure to reignite. The landing was about 36 miles up range of the
targeted landing point as a result of the abnormal launch and insertion trajectory. This was the
first mission in which the command module assuT:led the stable II (inverted) flotation attitude af-
ter landing. The command module was returned to the stable I (upright) attitude by the upright-
ing system. The mission duration was 9 hours 57 minutes 20 seconds.

The overall performance of the command and service module was satisfactory and none of the
system anomalies precluded satisfactory conpletion of the mission. The most significant space-
craft anomaly was the aforementioned structural anol'laly.

The abnormal occurrences during the boost phase subjected the command and service mdule to
adverse environment.s that would normally not. be seen during a flight test. program. The alternat.e
mission flown vas the more difficult to acco~plish of the two alternatives, which were (1) to at-
tempt to complet.e the planned trajectory and obtain new evaluation data points or (2) to abort
the mission and recover the spacecraft. The manner in which the command and service mdule per-
formed during the alternate mission, after the adverse initial conditions, demonstrated the ver-
satility of the systems.

The single primary spacecraft objective, demonstration of the performance of the emergency
detection system operating in a closed-loop mode, was achieved. The secondary spacecraft objec-
tives that were satisfied included demonstration of (1) effective operation of mission support
facilities during the launch, orbital, and recovery phases of the mission, (2) successful opera-
tion of the service propulsion system (including a no-ullage start), and (3) proper operation of
selected spacecraft systems (including electrical power, cOmDunications, guidance and control,
and environmental control). The secondary spacecraft objectives that were partially satisfied
included (1) demonstration of the adequacy of the Block II COr.u:land module heat shield for entry
 2-27

at lunar return conditions (not fully satisfied because of failure [0 achieve the high velocity
planned for entry), (2) demonstration of the structural and thennal integrity and compatibility
of launch vehicle and .<lpAc{!cr.:l.ft, and (3) confiYT'l.'ltinn of launch load!': :lnd dynamic chAr.<tC[l:!r-
lariea. Reference 2-9 provides details on spacecraft performance.

2.4 MANNED APOLLO/SATURN FLIGHTS

The manned flights of the Apollo program were to be initiated with the AS-204 mission; how-
ever, a fire in the command module during preflight checkout on the launch pad resulted in tl~
death of the three crewmen and an 18-month delay of the first manned mission. The manned phase
included two earth orbital missions, two lunar orbital missions, and seven lunar landing missions,
one of which was aborted. The six successful lunar landing rUssions allowed approximately 838
pounds (380 kilograms) of lunar material to be returned to earth. In addition, these missions
and the lunar orbital missions provided a wealth of scientific data about the moon and its en-
vironment for analysis by scientists throughout the world.

2.4.1 Apollo [ Mission

On January 27, 1967, tragedy struck the Apollo program when a flash fire occurred in com-
mand module 012 during a launch pad test of the Apollo/Saturn space vehicle being prepared for
the first manned flight, the AS-204 mission. Three astronauts, Lt. Col. Virgll 1. Grissom, a
veteran of Mercury and Gemini missions; Lt. Col. Edward H. White, the astronaut who had performed
the first United States extravehicular activity during the Gemini program; and Roger B. Chaffee,
an astronaut preparing for his first space flight, died in this tragic accident.

A seven-man board, under the direction of the NASA Langley Research Center Director, Dr.
Floyd L. Thompson, conducted a comprehensive investigation to pinpoint the cause of the fire.
The final report (ref. 2-10), cot'lpleted in April 1967, was subsequently submitted to the NASA
Administrator. The report presented the results of the investigation and made specific recom-
mendations that led to major design and engineering modifications, and revisions to test plan-
ning, test descipline, manufacturing processes and procedures, and quality control. With these
changes, the overall safety of the co~and and service module and the lunar module was increased
substantially. The AS-204 mission was redesignated Apollo I in honor of the crew.

2.4.2 Apollo 7 tlission

Apollo 7, the first manned mission in the Apollo program was an earth orbital mission. The
command and service module was the first Block II configuration spacecraft flown, and the launch
vehicle was a Saturn lB. Flight crewmen for the Apollo 7 mission were Walter M. Schirta, Jr.,
Commander; Donn S. Eisele, Command Module Pilot; and R. Walter Cunningham, Lunar Module Pilot.
The primary objectives of this flight were to demonstrate command and service module/crew per-
formance, crew/space vehicle/mission support facilities performance, and the command and ser-
vice module rende~vous capability.

The spacecraft was launched at 11:02:45 a.m. e.d.c. (15:02:45 G.m.t.) on October 11, 1968,
from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 34 (fig. 2-11). The launch phase was normal, and the spacecraft
was inserted into a 123- by l53-mile earth orbit. The crew performed a manual takeover of atti-
tude control from the launch vehicle S-IVB stage during the second orbital revolution, and the
control system responded properly. The command and service module was separated from the S-IVB
stage approximately 3 hours after launch; the separation was followed by spacecraft transposi-
tion, simulated docking, and stationkeeping with the S-IVB.

A phasing maneuver was performed using the service module reaction control system to estab-
lish the conditions required for rendezvous with the S-IVB stage on the following day. The ma-
neuver was intended to place the spacecraft approximately 75 miles ahead of the S-IVB. However,
the S-lVB orbit decayed more rapidly than anticipated during the six revolutions after the phas-
ing maneuver, and a second phasing maneuver was performed to obtain the desired conditions.
2_28

Figure 2-11. - Lift-off of space vehic Ie for Apollo 7 mission.

 2-29

Two service propulsion system firings were required for rendezvous. The first firing, a
corrective combination maneuver, was necessary to achieve the proper phase and altitude offset
so that the second firing would result 1n an orbit coelliptic with that of the S-IVB. The two
firings achieved the desired conditions for rendezvous te~lnal phase init1atlon. The terminal
phase initiatlon maneuver was performed with an onboard computer solution based on optical track-
ing of the S-IVB stage with the sextant. A small midcourse correction was then made, followed
by braking and final closure to within 70 feet of the S-IVB. Statlonkeeping was performed for
approximately 20 minutes, after which a 2-foot-per-second service module reaction control system
posigrade maneuver removed the spacecraft from the vicinity of the S-IVa atage. The next 24-hour
period was devoted to a sextant calibration test. a rendezvous navigation test, an attitude con-
trol test. and a primary evaporator test. The crew used the sextant to track the S-IVB visually
to distances of as much as 320 miles.

The service propulsion system was fired six additional times during the mission. The third
firing was a 9.l-second maneuver controlled by the stabilization and control system. The maneu-
ver was performed to increase the backup deorbit capability of the service module reaction con-
trol system. The fourth firing was performed to evaluate the minimum-impulse capability of the
service propulsion engine. The fifth firing was performed to position the spacecraft for an op-
timum deorbit maneuver at the end of the planned orbital phase. To assure verification of the
propellant gaging system, the firing duration was increased from that planned originally. The
67.6-second maneuver produced the largest velocity change during the mission, 1693 feet per sec-
ond, and incorporated a manual thrust-vector-control takeover approximately halfway through the
maneuver. The sixth maneuver, performed during the eighth mission day, was a second minimum-
impulse maneuver. The seventh firing, performed on the 10th mission day, placed the spacecraft
perigee at the proper longitude for entry and recovery. The eighth firing was performed to de-
orbit the spacecraft.

Tests performed during the mission included a rendezvous radar trsnsponder test and a test
to determine whether the environmental control system radiator had degraded. The radar test was
pedormed during revolution 48, and lockon was accomplished by a radar site at the White Sands
Missile Range at a range of 415 miles. The radiator test was also successfully conducted, and
operation of the systelll was validated for lunar flight.

The final day of the nUssion was devoted primarily to preparations for the deorbit maneuver,
which was performed at 259:39:16. The service module was jettisoned, and the entry wss performed
using both the automatic and manusl guidance modes.

The parachute system effected a soft landing in the Atlantic Ocean nesr the recovery ship,
U.S. S. Essex. On landing, the spacecraft assumed a stable II flotation attitude, but was suc-
cessfully returned to the normal flotation position by the inflatable bag uprighting system. The
crew was retrieved by helicopter, and the spacecraft was later taken aboard the recovery ship.
Mission duration was 260 hours 9 minutes 3 seconds.

All spacecraft systems operated satisfactorily, and all but one of the detail~d test objec-
tives were met. Additional information is given in reference 2-11.

2.4.3 Apollo 8 Nission

Apollo 8, the first flight to take men to the viCinity of the moon, was a bold step forward
in the development of a lunar landing capability. Also, Apollo 8 was the first manned mission
to be launched with the three-srage Saturn V vehicle. Figure 2-12 shows the vehicle being trans-
ported to the launch pad. The crewmen were Frank Borman, Commander; James A. Lovell, Jr., Com-
mand Module Pilot; and William A. Anders, Lunsr Module Pilot. The mission, originally planned
as an earrh orbital flight, was changed to a lunar orbital flight after an evaluation of all as-
pects of the progress of rhe program. To accor.llllodate this change, crew training and ground sup-
port preparations were accelerated.
2-30

E
0)
o

..
is.

....,
N

N
~
~

.~
"-
 2-31

The primary ohjecttves for the Apollo 8 mission ~re ~n demonstrat~ the combined performance
of the crew, space vehicle, and mission support teal:l during a manned Saturn V mission using the
command and service module and to demonstrate the perfor~nce of noninal and selected backup
lunar-orbit-rendezvous procedures. The spacecraft was a Block II command and service module. A
lunar IlIOdule test article was installed for mass loading purposes in the spacecraft/launch vehicle
adapter In place of an actual lunar module.

The space vehicle was launched from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A at 07:51:00 a.m.
e.s.t. (12:51:00 C.m.t.) on December 21, 1968, and the spacecraft ....as inserted luto a 103- by
98-ml1e earth parking orbit. After the spacecraft had been in earth orbit almost 3 hours for in-
flight systems cl~cks, the translunar injection maneuver was performed. The spacecraft was sep-
arated from the S-JVB approxiT:lately 25 minutes later using the serviclit lIIXIule reaction control
system and was turned around to pemit observation and photography of the S-IVB stage. The crew
then performed two reaction control system maneuvers to increase the separation distance. A
ground-commanded liquid oxygen dump provided impulse for targeting the S-IVB stage to fly past
the moon and into solar orbit.

The translunar injection maneuver was so accurate that only one small midcourse correction
""ould have been sufficient to achieve the desired lunar orbit ins.ertion altitude of approximately
65 miles. However, the second of the two maneuverS that separated the spacecraft from the S-IVB
altered the trajectory so that a large midcourse correction at 11 hours was required to achieve
the desired traje<:tory. For this tnidcourse correction, the service propulsion system was used
to reduce the altitude of closest approach to the moon from 459 eiles to 66.3 miles. An addi-
tional small midcourse correction was performed approximately 50 hours later to refine further
the lunar insertion conditions. During the 66-hour translunar coast. t.he crew lIla.de systems checks
and navigation sightings, tested the spacecraft high-gain antenna (installed for the first time
on this mission), and televised pictures to earth.

Lunar orbit insertion was perfomed with the service propulsion system a.nd the resultant or-
bit was 60 by 168.5 wiles. After approxi~tely 4 hours of navigation checks and ground-based
determination of the·orbital parameters, a lunar orbit circularization maneuver was performed.
which resulted in an orbit of 60.7 by .59.7 miles.

The next 12 hours of crew activity in lunar orbit involved. photography of both the near and
far sides of the llIOon. landing-area sightings, and television transf:lissions. Host remaining non-
critical flight plan activities were deleted during the final 4 hours in orbit because of crew
fatigue. and this period was devoted to crew rest and preparation for transearth injection. The
injection maneuver ",as performed approximately 89 hours into the flight and resulted in a veloc-
ity change of 3517 feet per second.

The transearth coast activities included star/horizon navigation sightings using both ~on
and earth horizons. Passive thernlal control. using a roll rate of approximately 1 revolution per
hour, was used during lWst of the tranalunar and transearth coast phases to ma.1ntain nearly stable
onboard temperatures. Only one small·transearth midcourse correction, made "'ith the service mod-
ule reaction control system. was required.

Command module/service module separation was performed at approximately 146-1/2 hours, and
command module entry occurred approximately 17 minutes later. The cocmand module followed an
automatically guided entry profile arad landed in ·the Mid-Pacific after a flight duratwn of 147
hours 42 seconds. The transearth injection targeting and separation and the entry guidance were
so precise that the command module landed about 1 1/2 miles from the planned target point. Tbe
crew were retrieved and taken aboard the U.S.S. yopktrun at 17:20 C.m.t. on December 27, 1968.

With only minor problems. all spacecraft systems operated as intended, and all primary mis-
sion objectives were successfully accomplished. Crew performance was admirable throughout the
mission. The navigation techniques developed for trans lunar and l~r orbital flight proved to
be more than adequate to maintain required accuracies {or lunar orbit insertion and transearth
injection. Communications and tracking at lunar distances were excellent in all IlIOdes. Addi-
tional infoIT.llltion on the Apollo 8 mi6s10n is contained In refereoce 2-12.
2-32

2.4.4 Apollo 911ission

The Apollo 9 mission was a lO-day flight in earth orbit to qualify the lunar module for lunar
orbital operations. The crewmen were James A. McDivitt, Commander; David R. Scott, Command Module
Pilot; and Russell L. Schweickart, Lunar ~Iodule Pilot. The primary objectives of the mission were
(1) to demonstrate the performance of the crew, space vehicle, and mission support facilities dur-
ing a manned Saturn V mission using the lunar module and the command and service module; (2) to
demonstrate the ability of the crew to operate the lunar module systems for periods of tir.le com-
parable to those of a lunar landing mission; and (3) to deDOnstrate some of the nominal and backup
lunar landing mission activities, including docking, intravehicular transfer, rendezvous, and ex-
travehicular capability. To meet these objectives, the lunar module vas evaluated during three
separate manning periods that required multiple activation and deactivation of systems, a situa-
tion unique to this mission.

The space vehicle vas launched from Launch COl:lplex J9A at the Kennedy Space Center. The
launch occurred on Harch J, 1969, at 11:00:00 a.m. e.s.t. (16:00:00 G.m.t.)' and the insertion
orbit was 102.3 by 103.9 mUes. After postinsertioll checkout, the cornrnand and service module
was separated from the S-IVB stage, transposed, and docked with the lunar module. At approxi-
mately 4 hours, an ejection mechanism, used for the first time on this mission, ejected the
docked spacecraft from the S-IVB. After a separation maneuver, the S-IVB engine vas fired twice
by remote control, and the final maneuver placed the spent stage into a solar orbit.

Crew activity on the second day was devoted to systems checks and to three service propul-
sion system maneuvers while docked. On the third day, the Comr.mnder and the Lunar Module Pilot
entered the lunar module to activate and check out the systel:ls and to fire the descent engine
with the vehicles still docked. Attitude control with the digital autopilot and manual throt-
tling of the descent engine to full thrust were dCl:lonstrated.

Extravehicular operations were demonstrated on the fourth day of flight. The actual opera-
tions were abbreviated from those of the flight plan because of a minor inflight illness experi-
enced by one crewmember on the preceding day and because of the many activities required for ren-
dezvous preparation. Wearing the extravehicular mobility unit, the Lunar Uodule Pilot egressed
the depressurized lunar module and remained near the hatch for approxilll1ltely 47 minutes. During
this same period, the Co=nd Hodule Pilot, dependent on tILe co=nd and service module systems
for life support, partially exited through the c01Tlr.land module hatch for observation, photography,
and retrieval of thermal samples (fig. 2-13). The Lunar Module Pilot also retrieved thermal sam-
ples from the spacecraft exterior. A planned extravehicular transfer from the lunar module to
the command module was not conducted because of the abbreviated operation.

On the fifth day, the COl:l!ll3nder and the Lunar Nodule !'ilot agnin transferred to the lunar
module, this time to perform a lunar-module-active rendezvous. The lunar module primary guidance
system was used throughout the rendezvous; howev<lr, mirror-image backup maneuver computations
were made in the command module. The lunar module descent propulsion system was used to perform
the phasing and insertion maneuvers, and the ascent engine was used to establish a constant dif-
ferential height after the coelliptic sequence had been initiated. After redocking and crew
transfer back into the command module, the lunar module ascent stage was jettisoned and the as-
cent engine was fired to oxidizer depletion.

The sixth service ptopulsion maneuver, to lower the perigee, was performed successfully dur-
ing the sixth day. In the final 4 days, a series of landm.1rk tracking exercises and a multispec-
tral photography experiment were perfonned .. The service propulsion system was fired for the
seventh time at approximately 169-1/2 hours as a test and for the eighth time at 240-1/2 hours
to deorbit the command and service module. This last ~neuver was performed one revolution later
than planned because of unfavorable weather in the planned recovery area. After a normal entry
using the primary guidance system, the command module landed within 2.7 miles of the target point
in the Atlantic Ocean after 241 hours 54 seconds of flight. The crewmen were recovered by heli-
copter and were aboard the primary recovery ship, the U.S.S. CuadalcanaL. 49 minutes after
landing. Further details of the Apollo 9 mission are given in reference 2-13.
2-33

>
~
u
'"

-
o
Cl.

'"
~
-0
o
:;;
-0
=
'"
E
E
o
U
~
o
~

>'"
2-34

2.4.5 Apollo 10 Mission

Apollo 10 was an 8-day mission to qualify the combined spacecraft in the lunar environment.
Particular primary objectives were to demonstrate the capability for rendezvous and docking in
the lunar gravitational field and to evaluate docked and undocked lunar navigation. The mission
events simulated those for a lunar landing mission. In addition, visual observations and stere-
oscopic strip photography of Apollo Landing l:iite Z, the planned location of the first lunar land-
ing. were accomplished.

The Apollo 10 space vehicle, with crewmen Thomas P. Stafford, Commander; John W. Young, Com-
mand Module Pilot; and Eugene A. Cernan, Lunar Module Pilot: was launched on Hay 18, 1969, from
Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B at 11:49:00 a.m. e.s.t. (16:49:00 C.m.t.). The spacecraft
and S-IVB stage combination was inserted into an earth parking orbit of 102.6 by 99.6 miles. Af-
ter onboard systems were checked, the S-IVB engine was ignited at 2-1/2 hours elapsed time to
place the spacecraft on a translunar trajectory.

At 3 hours after lift-off, the command and service module was separated from the S-IVB stage
and then transposed and docked with the lunar module. The docked spacecraCt were ejected 40 min-
utes later. and a separation maneuver was performed. The S-IVB stage was placed into a solar or-
bit by ground command for propulsive venting of residual propellants.

A preplanned midcourse correction executed at 26-1/2 hours adjusted the trajectory to coin-
cide with a July lunar landing trajectory. The passive thermal control technique was employed
to maintain desired spacecraft temperatures throughout the trans lunar coast except when a spe-
cific attitude was required.

At 76 hours mission elapsed time, the spacecraft was inserted into a lunar orbit of 60 by
171 nautical miles. After two revolutions of tracking and ground updates, a maneuver was per-
formed to circularize the orbit at 60 nautical miles. The Lunar Module Pilot entered the lunar
module, checked all syste~s, and then returned to the command module for the scheduled sleep
period.

ActivatioD of the lunar module systems began at 95 hours, and the spacecraft were undocked
approximately 3 hours later. Figure 2-14 shows the co~nd and service module as viewed from
the lunar module. After stationkeeping, the lunar module was inserted into the descent orbit.
An hour later, the lunar module made a low-level pass over Apollo Landing Site 2. The pass was
highlighted by a test of the landing radar, by the visual observation of lunar lighting, by ster-
eoscopic strip photography, and by the execution of the phasing maneuver using the descent en-
gine. The lowest measured point in the trajectory was 47 400 feet above the lunar surface. Af-
ter one revolution in the phasing orbit of approximately 8 by 194 miles, the lunar module ascent
stage was separated from the descent stage and the ascent engine was used to perform an inser-
tion maneuver. The rendezvous that followed was representative of one that would follow a nor-
mal ascent from tl~ lunar surface. The rendezvous operation commenced with the lunar module co-
elliptic sequence initiation maneuver approximately one-half revolution from insertion, followed
by a small constant differential height maneuver and the terminal phase initiation maneuver.
Docking was complete at 106-1/2 hours, and the'lunar module crew transferred into the command
module. The lunar module ascent stage was jettisoned, and the ascent engine was fired by remote
control to propellant depletion at 109 hours. After a rest period, the crew conducted landmark
tracking and photography exercises. Transearth injection was performed at 137-1/2 hours.

The passive thermal control technique and the navigation procedures used on the translunar
portion of flight were also used during the earth return. Only one mtdcourse correction of ap-
proXimately 2 feet per second was required; this correction was made 3 hours before command mod-
ule/service module separation. The command module entry was normal, and the spacecraft landed
near the primary recovery vessel, the U.S.S. Princeton. after an elapsed flight time of 192
hours 3 minutes and 23 seconds. At daybreak, the crewmen were retrieved by helicopter.

All systems in the command and service module and the lunar module were managed very well.
Although some problems occurred, most were minor and none caused a constraint to completion of
mission objectives. Valuable data concerning lunar gravitation were obtained during the 60 hours
in lunar orbit.
 2-35

Figure 2-14.- Apollo 10 command and service module as viewed

from lunar module after undocking.
 2-36

Spacecraft systems performance was satisfactory. and all mission objectives were accomplished
(ref. 2-14). All detailed test objectives were satisfied with the exception of the lunar IlI)dule
steerable antenna and relay ~odes for voice and telemetry commonications.

2.4.6 Apollo 11 Mission

The Apollo 11 mission accomplished the basic objective of the Apollo program; that is landing
two men on the lunar surface and returning them safely to earth. Crewmembers for this historic
mission were Neil A. Armstrong, Commander; Michael Collins, Co~nd Module Pilot; and Edwin E.
Aldrin, Jr., Lunar ~~dule Pilot.

The Apollo 11 space vehicle was launched from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A on
July 16,1969, at 08:32:00 a.m. e.s.t. (13:32:00 G.m.t.). The spacecraft and S-IVB stage of the
launch vehicle were inserted into a 100.7- by 99.2-mile earth parking orbit. After a 2-l/2-hour
checkout period, the spacecraft/S-IVB stage combination was injected into the translunar coast
phase of the mission. Trajectory parameters after the translunar injection firing were nearly
perfect. A midcourse correction of 20.9 feet per second was made during the translunar phase.
During the remaining periods of free-attitude flight, passive thermal control was used to main-
tain spacecraft temperatures within desired limits. The ComlllSnder and the Lunar Module Pilot
transferred to the lunar module during the translunar phase to make the initial inspection and
preparations for the systems checks that would be made shortly after lunar-orbit insertion.

The docked spacecraft were inserted into a 60- by l69.7-mile lunar orbit at approximately
76 hours after launch. Four hours later, the lunar-orbit circularization maneuver was performed
to place the combined spacecraft in a 65.7- by 53.8-mile lunar orbit. The Lunar Module Pilot en-
tered the lunar module at approximately 81 hours after launch for initial powerup and systems
checks. After a planned sleep period was completed at 93-1/2 hours elapsed time, the lunar Ib:)d-
ule crewmen transferred to the lunar module and made final preparations for descent to the lunar
surface. The lunar module was undocked from the conmand and service module at a mission time of
approximately 100 hours. The lunar module descent orbit insertion maneuver was performed with
the descent propulsion system at 101-1/2 hours into the mission, and the powered descent initia-
tion occurred 1 hour later. The lunar module was maneuvered manually approximately 1100 feet
down range from the preplanned landing point during the final 2-1/2 minutes of descent.

Han first landed on the moon at 03:17 p.m. e.s.t. on July 20, 1969. 102 hours 45 minutes
39.9 seconds mission elapsed time. The spacecraft landed in Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tran-
quillity) at latitude 0°41'15" N. and longitude 23°26' E. based upon the coordinates of refer-
ence 2-15. After a 2-hour post landing checkout of all lunar module systems, the crew configured
the spacecraft controls for lunar stay and ate their first meal on the lunar surface. A crew
rest period had been planned to precede the extravehicular activity of exploring the lunar sur-
face but was not needed. After donning the back-mounted portable life support and oxygen purge
systems the Commander egressed through the forward hatch and deployed an equipment module from
the descent stage. A camera in the equipment module provided live television coverage of the
Commander as he descended the ladder to the surface. The Commander made first contact at
09:56:15 p.m. e.s.t. on July 20, 1969, or 109 hours 56 minutes 15 seconds into the mission. The
Lunar Module Pilot egressed soon thereafter, and both crewmen used the initial period on the sur-
face to become acclimated to the reduced gravity and the unfamiliar surface conditions. A con-
tingency soil sample was taken from the surface, and the television camera was deployed to in-
clude most of the lunar module in the field of view. Figure 2-15 is a photograph of the Commander
as he stood beside the deployed United States flag during this part of the extravehicular activ-
ity. The crew then activated scientific experiments Wllich included a solar wind detector, a pas-
sive seismometer. and a laser retroreflector. The Lunar Module Pilot evaluated his ability to
operate and move about, and he was able to do so rapidly and confidently. The crew collected
approximately 21 kilograms of lunar surface material for analysis. The surface exploration was
concluded in the allotted time of 2-1/2 hours, and the crewmen reentered the lunar module at a
mission time of 111-1/2 hours.

After a rest period, ascent preparation was conducted and the ascent stage lifted off the
surface at 124-1/4 hours from earth launch. A nominal firing of the ascent engine placed the
vehicle into a 45- by 9-roile orbit. After a rendezvous sequence similar to that perfonned on
Apollo 10, the two spacecraft were docked at the mission time of 128 hours. After transfer of
the crew and samples to the con:rnand and service module, the ascent stage was jettisoned, and the
command and service module was prepared for transearth injection.
 2-37

Figure 2-15.- Apollo 11 Lunar Module Pilot on the Lunar surface

2-38

The return flight started with a ISO-second firing of the service propulsion engine during
the 31st lunar revolution at 135-1/2 hours into the mission. As in translunar flight, only one
midcourse correction was required, and passive thcIT.Ial control was exercised for roost of the
transearth coast. Because of inclement weather in the planned recovery area, the landing point
was moved 215 miles down range. The service module was separated from the command module 15 min-
utes before reaching the entry interface altitude of 400 000 feet. Following an auto~atic entry
sequence and landing 8yste~ deployment, the co~nd module landed in the Pacific Ocean after a
flight duration of 195 hours 18 minutes 35 seconds. The landing coordinates, as determined from
the spacecraft computer, were latitude 13°19' N. and longitude 169°9' W.

After landing, the crew donned biological isolation garl!lents; they were then retrieved by
helicopter and taken to the primary recovery ship, the U.S.S. lfOl'"llet. The crew and lunar mate-
rial samples were placed in a mobile quarantine facility for transport to the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory in Houston.

All spacecraft systems performed satisfactorily and, with the completion of tl~ Apollo II,
mission, the national objective of landing men on the moon and returning them safely to earth,
before tl~ end of the decade, was acco~plished. Additional information on the Apollo 11 mis-
sion is given in references 2-16 and 2-17.

2.4.7 Apollo 12 Mission

Apollo 12, the second lunar landing mission, demonstrated the capability to land at a pre-
cise point and on a rough lunar surface. The landing location was in the Oceanus Procellarum
(Ocean of Storms) region. The primary objectives assigned were (1) to perform selenological in-
spection, survey, and sampling in a mare area; (2) to deploy the Apollo lunar surface experiments
package; (3) to develop techniques for a point landing capability; (4) to develop further man's
capability to work in the lunar environment; and (5) to obtain photographs of candidate explora-
tion sites.

The space vehicle, with crewmen Charles Conrad, Jr., Co~nder; Richard F. Gordon, Jr., Com-
mand Module Pilot; and Alan L. Bean, Lunar Module Pilot, was launched from Kennedy Space Center
Launch Complex 39A at 11:22:00 a.m. e.s.t. (16:22:00 C.m.t.) on November 14, 1969. The activities
during earth-orbit checkout, translunar injection. and translunar coast were similar to those of
Apollo II, except for the special attention given to verifying all spacecraft systems as a result
of lightning strikes on the space vehicle at 36.5 seconds and again at 52 seconds after launch.
A non-free-return translunar trajectory profile was used for the first time in the Apollo program.

The docked command and service module and lunar module were inserted into a 168.8- by 62.6-
mile lunar orbit at approximately 83-1/2 hours into the mission. Two revolutions later, a second
maneuver was performed to achieve a 66.1- by 54.3-mile orbit. At approximately 104 hours after
launch, the Commander and the Lunar Module Pilot entered the lunar module to prepare for descent
to the lunar surface. About 4 hours later. the two spacecraft were undocked and descent orbit
insertion was performed. A precision landing was accomplished through automatic guidance, with
small manual corrections applied in the final phases of descent. The spacecraft touched down
110 hours 32 minutes 36 seconds into the mission, with landing coordinates of latitude 3°11' 51" S.
and longitude 23°23'8" w. (ref. 2-18). One objective of the Apollo 12 mission was to achieve a
precision landing near the Surveyor III spacecraft, which had landed on April 20, 1967. The
Apollo 12 landing point was 535 feet from the Surveyor Ill.

Three hours after landing, the crewmen began preparations for egress. As the Commander de-
scended the ladder to the lunar surface, he deployed the modularized equipment stowage assembly
which automatically activated a color television camera and permitted his actions to be televised
to earth. The television camera was subsequently damaged. After the Lunar Module Pilot had de-
scended to the surface, he erected a solar wind composition experiment. Both crewmen then de-
ployed the first Apollo lunar surface experiments package. On the return traverse, tile crew col-
lected a core-tube sample and additional surface samples. The first extravehicular activity
period lasted 4 hours.
 2-39

The second extravehicular activity period began after a 7-hour rest period. Documented sam-
ples, core-tube sar.1ples, trench-site samples, and gas-analysis samples were collected on a trav-
erse to the Surveyor III spacecraft. The crew photographed and removed parts from the Surveyor
(fig. 2-16). After the return traverse, the crew retrieved the solar wind composition experiment.
The second extravehicular activity period lasted 3-3/4 hours. Crew mobility and portable life
support system operation, as in Apollo II, were excellent throughout both extravehicular periods.
The Surveyor parts and approximately 34 kilograms of lunar material were returned to earth.

The lunar module ascent stage lifted off tbe lunar surface at a mission elapsed time of 142
hours. After a nor-dnal rendezvous sequence, the two spacecraft were docked at 145-1/2 hours into
the mission. The ascent stage, jettisoned after crew and sample transfer to the command module,
was maneuvered by remote control to impact on the lunar surface; impact occurred at a mission
time of 150 hours approximately 40 miles frOM the Apollo 12 landing site. Extensive landmark
tracking and photography from lunar orbit was then conducted using a SOO-mm long-range lens to
obtain mapping and training data for future missions. At 172-1/2 hours into the mission, trans-
earth injection vas accomplished by using the service propulslon system engine.

Two small midcourse corrections were executed during transearth coast. The entry sequence
was normal, and the co~nd module landed in the Pacific Ocean. The landing coordinates, as de-
termined from the onboard computer, were latitude l5 Q S2' S. and longitude l65 Q lO' W. Duration of
the mission was 244 hours 36 minutes 25 seconds. After landing, biological isolation precautions
similar to those of Apollo 11 were taken. The crew, the lunar material samples, and the space-
craft were subsequently transported to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory.

All spacecraft systems operated satisfactorily, and all priAary mission objectives were ac-
cOT:1plished. Additional information concerning the Apollo n mission is contained in references
2-19 and 2-20.

2.4.8 Apollo 13 Mission

Apollo 13, planned as the third lunar landing mission, was aborted during translunar flight
because of the loss of all the oxygen stored in two tanks in the service module. The primary ob-
jectives assigned to the mission were (1) to perform selenological inspection, survey, and sam-
pling of materials in a preselected region of the Fra !lauro formation: (2) to deploy and activate
an Apollo lunar surface experiments package; (3) to develop further man's capability to work in
the lunar environment: and (4) to obtain photographs of candidate exploration sites.

The launch vehicle and spacecraft were similar to those of Apollo 12; however, the experi-
ment complement was somewhat different. The crewmembers wcre James A. Lovell, Jr., Commander;
Fred W. Haise, Jr., Lunar Module Pilot: and John L. Swigert, Jr., who had been the backup Com-
mand Module Pilot until the day before launch. Because the prime COllTlland Module Pilot had been
exposed to German l:lCasles 8 days before the scheduled launch date and was shown during his pre-
flight physical examination to be susceptible to the disease, the decision was made to replace
him with the backup pilot as a precautionary measure.

The space vehicle was launclled from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A at 02:13:00 p.m.
e.s.t. (19:13:00 G.m.t.) on April 11, 1970. During the launch, the second-stage inboard engine
shut down early because of high-amplitude longitudinal oscillations: however, near-nominal tra-
jectory parameters were achieved at orbital insertion. The earth orbital, trans lunar injection,
and early trans lunar coast phases of flight were no~~l, and operations during these periods were
similar to those of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 with one exception. On previous lunar missions, the
S-IVB stage had been maneuvered by ground command into a trajectory such that it would pass by
the moon and go into a solar orbit. For Apollo 13, the S-IVB was targeted to hit the moon so
that the vibrations resulting from the impact could be sensed by the Apollo 12 seismic station
and telemetered to earth for study. The S-IVB impacted the lunar surface about 78 hours after
launch, approximately 140 kilometers west-northwest of the Apollo 12 experiment station. The im-
pact point was very close to the desired target.

Photographs of the earth were taken during the early part of translunar coast to support an
analysis of atmospheric winds. After approximately 31 hours of flight, a midcourse correction
lowered the closest point of spacecraft approach to the moon to an altitude of approximately 60
miles. Before this maneuver, the spacecraft had been on a free-return trajectory, that is, one
2-40

"-
t-

Figure 2-16.- Apollo 12 Commander examin~ng Surveyor ill spacecraft

with lunar module in background.
 2-41

on which the spacecraft would have looped around the moon and returned to earth without requir-
ing a major maneuver. At approximately 56 hours. one of the two cryogenic oxygen tanks in the
service module failed. (The cause of the failure is discussed in ref. 2-21.). The irmnediate re-
sult was that the oxygen in the failed tank was abruptly lost. Later. it was discovered that the
panel had been blown off the bay in which the tank was located (fig. 2-17). The oxygen system
with which the second tank was associated also lost pressure, but at a slower rate. These tanks
contained most of the oxygen for breathing in the command IlIOdule and the oxygen for the fuel
cells (the primary source of electrical power). Sufficient oxygen remained in the second tank
to maintain primary electrical power in the command and service module for ap~roximately 2 hours,
which gave the crew time to power up the lunar IIlOdule, align the inertial reference platform, and
shut down the command and service module systems. The docked spacecraft ....ere then maneuvered
back into a free-return trajectory using the lunar module descent engine.

From this point on, all systems in both vehicles were powered down except when absolutely
required. With no further maneuvers, the command IIlOdule could have landed in the Indian Ocean
at 152 hours mission elapsed time, and the lunar IIlOdule systems ....ould have been required to sup-
port the cre.... for about 90 hours. However, because consumables were extremely marginal under
these conditions and because only minimal recovery support existed in the Indian Ocean, a trans-
earth injection maneuver using the lunar module descent propulsion system was executed to speed
up the return to earth after the docked spacecraft had swung around the far side of the moon.
Because of this maneuver, the landing was predicted to occur at about 143 hours mission elapsed
time in the South Pacific, ~lere prinary recovery support was available. Guidance errors during
the transearth injection maneuver necessitated a small transearth midcourse correction at approx-
imately 105 hours to bring the projected entry flight-path angle within the specified limits.
During the transearth coast period. the docked spacecraft were maneuvered into a passive thermal
control mode.

The unprecedented powered-down state of the command module required several new procedures
for entry. The command module was briefly powered up to assess the operational capability of
critical systems. Also, the command module entry batteries were charged through the umbilical
connectors that had supplied any necessary power from the lunar module while the command IIlOdule
was powered down. Approximately 6 hours before entry, the passive thermal control mode was dis-
continued, and a final midcourse correction \oIas made using the lunar module reaction control sys-
tem to refine the flight-path angle slightly.

The service module was separated 4-3/4 hours before entry; the separation affo["ded the crew
an opportunity to observe and photograph the damage caused by the failed oxygen tank. The lunar
module was retained until 70 minutes before entry to minimize usage of command module electrical
power. At undocking, normal tunnel pressure provided the necessary force to serarate the two
spacecraft. From this point, the events were similar to those of previous flights, and the COll'l-
mand module landed approximately I mile f["om the target point. Some pieces of the lunar module
survived entry and projected trajectory data indicated that they impacted in the open sea be-
tween Samoa and New Zealand. The three crewmen were on board the recovery ship, the U.S.S. I~o
Jima, \oIithin 45 minutes of landing. Reference 2-22 contains details of the Apollo 13 mission.

2.4.9 Apollo 14 Mission

.Apollo 14 was the third mission to achieve a lunar landing. The landing site was located
in the Fra Mauro highlands, the same area that was to have been explored on Apollo 13. Although
the primary mission objectives for Apollo 14 were the s~e as those of Apollo 13, provisions were
made for returning a significantly greater quantity of lunar material and scientific data than
had been possible previously. An innovation that allowed an increase in the range of lunar sur-
face exploration and in the amount of material collected \oIas the provision of a collapsible two-
wheeled cart, the modular equipment tran6porter, for carrying tools, cameras, a portable magne-
tometer, and lunar samples (fig. 2-18).

An investigation into the cause of the Apollo 13 cryogenic oxygen tank failure led to three
significant changes in the command and service module cryogenic oxygen storage and electrical
power aystems. The internal construction of the oxygen tanks was modified, a third oxygen tank
was added, and an auxiliary battery was installed. These changes were also incorporated into
all subsequent spacecraft.
2-42

Figure 2-17.- Photograph of damaged service module taken during Apollo 13 mission.
 2-43

Figure 2-18.- Apollo 14 lunar surface extravehicular activity.

2_44

The mission. manned by Alan B. Shepard, Jr., Comnander; Stuart A. Roosa, Command Module
Pilot; and Edgar D. Mitchell, Lunar Module Pilot, was launched from Kennedy Space Center Launch
Complex 39A at 04:03:02 p.m. e.s.t. (21:03:02 G.m.to) on January 31, 1971. Because of weather
conditions which might have triggered lightning, the launch was delayed approximately 40 minutes.
The operations In earth orbit and trans lunar injection were similar to those of previous lunar
missions; however, after translunar injection, several docking attempts were made before the
convnand and service lIOdule was successfully docked with the lunar module.

As on Apollo 13, the S-IVB stage wss targeted to impact the moon within a prescribed area
to supply seismic data. The vehicle struck the lunar surface approximately 160 miles from the
target, within the desired area, at 82:37:52 mission elapsed time. The Apollo 12 seismic sta-
tion, located approximately 94 miles southwest of the i~pact point, recorded th~ event 37 sec-
onds later and responded to vibrations for more than 3 hours.

Translunar activities included star and earth horizon calibration sightings in preparation
for a cislunar navigation exercise to be performed during transearth coast, and dim-light photog-
raphy of the earth. At approximately 61 hours, the lunar module crew spent approximately 2 hours
in the lunar module cabin for housekeeping and systens checkout. While there, the crew photo-
graphed a waste-water dump from the command module to obtain data for a particle contamination
study being conducted for the Skylab program. Two spacecraft translunar midcourse corrections
achieved the traje~tory desired for lunar-orbit insertion.

The joined spacecraft were inserted into a 169- by 58-mile lunar orbit with the service pro-
pulsion system. After two revolutions, the same propulsion system was used to insert the space-
craft into the descent orbit, which brought the docked vehicles to within 10 miles of the lunar
surface. On previous missions, the descent orbit insertion maneuver had been performed with the
lunar module descent propulsion systen. A change was made on this mission to allow a greater mar-
gin of lunar module propellant for landing in a lJI)re rugged area.

The COmr.13nder and Lunar Module Pilot entered the lunar rodule, performed systems checks, and
undocked during the 12th lunar revolution. After vehicle separation and before powered descent,
ground personnel detected the presence of an abort cOlfnand at a COMputer input channel although
the crew had not depressed the abort switch. The failure was isolated to the abort switch, and,
to prevent an unwanted abort. a workaround procedure was developed. The procedure was followed,
and the powered descent was performed successfully. The vehicle touched down 12 minutes 45 sec-
onds after engine ignition and came to rest on a slope of about 7 degrees. Sufficient propellant
remained for approximately 70 additional seconds of engine firing time. The coordinates of the
landing site are latitude 3°40'24" S. and longitude 17°27'55" W. based upon reference 2-23.

After undocking and separation, the command-and-service-module orbit was circularized to an

altitude of approximately 60 miles. While the landing crew was on the lunar surface, the Command
Module Pilot performed tasks to obtain data for scientific analyses and future mission planning.
These tasks included orbital science photography of the lunar surface, photography of the pro-
posed Descartes landing site for site selection studies, photosraphy of the lunar surface under
high-sun-angle lighting conditions for operational planning, photography of low-brightness astro-
nOr.lical light sources, and photography of the Gegenschein and Noulton Point regions.

Preparations for the initial period of lunar surface explorntion began approximately 2 hours
after landing, and the crew egressed about 5-1/2 hours after landing. During the 4-3/4-hour ex-
travehicular period, the crew deployed and loaded the rodular equipment transporter; collected
samples; photographed activities, panoranas, and equipr:lent; and deployed the second Apollo lunar
surface experiments package.

After a rest period of approximately 6-1/2 hours, the crew prepared to travel to the area
of Cone Crater, approximately 1.3 kilor:leters east-northeast of the landing site. Although the
crew experienced difficulties in navigating, they reached a point within approximately 15 meters
of the rim of the crater, and the objectives associated with reaching the vicinity of this crater
were achieved. Various rock and soil samples were collected nenr Cone Crater, and, on the return
to the lunar module, the crew also obtained magnetometer measurenents at two sites along the tra-
verse. This second extravehicular period lasted approxinately 4-1/2 hours for a total extrave-
hicular time of approximately 9-1/4 hours. Approxifi~tely 43 kilograms of lunar samples were col-
lected during the two periods.
 The lunar module ascent stage lifted off after a surface stay time of 33-1/2 hours, and the
vehicle ~as inserted into a 51.7- by 8.5-mile orbit. A direct rendezvous ~as performed (the first
use of a direct rendezvous in the Apollo program), and the cOll'U':lilnd-module-active docking opera-
tions ~ere normal. After cre~ and sample transfer to the cOl:lllland module, the ascent stage ~as
jettisoned and a pre-programmed maneuver caused lunar impact approximately 36 miles west of the
Apollo 14 landing site. On previous lunar missions, lunar surface dust adhering to equipment
being returned to earth had created a problem. Special dust control procedures used on this mis-
sion, ho~ever, effectively decreased the amount of dust in the cabins.

Transearth injection occurred during the 34th lunar revolution. During transearth coast,
one midcourse correction was made usinG the service module reaction control system. In addition,
a special oxygen flow-rate test was performed to evaluate the system for planned extravehicular
activities on subsequent flights, and a navigation exercise simulating a return to earth without
ground control was conducted using only the guidance and navigation system. Inflight demonstra-
tions of electrophoretic separation, liquid transfer, heat flow and convection, and composite
casting under zero-gravity conditions were also perforned and televised to earth.

Entry ~as normal and the command module landed in the Pacific Ocean at 216:01:58 mission
elapsed time. The crewmen were retrieved by helicopter and were aboard the primary recovery ship,
U.S.S. New Or~ean8, approximately 48 minutes after landing.

As ~as the case follo~ing the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions, the Apollo 14 cre~ and lunar
samples were isolated and tests conducted to assure that they ~ere not biologically hazardous.
The test protocols showed no evidence of lunar micro-organisms at the three sites explored, and
this was considered to be sufficient justification for discontinuance of the quarantine proce-
dures.

All of the objectives and experiment operations were accomplished satisfactorily except for
some desired photography that could not be obtained. Details of the mission are given in ref-
erence 2-24 and preliminary scientific results in reference 2-25.

2.4.10 Apollo 15 Mission

Apollo 15 was the first of the three J ~issions (appendix B) designed to conduct exploration
of the moon over longer periods, over greater ranges, and ~ith more instruments for scientific
data acquisition than on previous Apollo missions. Major modifications and augmentations to the
basic Apollo hard~are were made. The most significant cl~nge was the installation of a scien-
tific instrument module in one of the service module bays for scientific investigations from
lunar orbit. Other hardware changes consisted of lunar oodule modifications to accomodate a
greater payload and permit a longer stay on the lunar surface, and the provision of a lunar rov-
ing vehicle (fig. 2-19). The landing site chosen for the mission was an area near the foot of
the Montes Apenninus (Apennine Mountains) and adjacent to Hadley Rille. The primary objectives
assigned to the Apollo 15 mission were: (1) to perform selenological inspection, survey, and
sampling of materials and surface features in a preselected area of the lIadley-Apenninus region;
(2) to emplace and activate surface experil:lents; (3) to evaluate the capability of the Apollo
equipment to provide extended lunar surface stay time, increased extravehicular operations, and
surface mobility; and (4) to conduct inflight experilJents and photographic tasks from lunar
orbit •

The space vehicle ~as launched from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A at 09:34:00.6
a.m. e.d.t. (13:34:00.6 G.m.t.) on July 26, 1971. The spacecraft was manned by David R. Scott,
Commander; Alfred M. Worden, Co~nd Module Pilot; and James B. Irwin, Lunar Module Pilot. The
spacecraft/S-IVB combination was inserted into an earth parking orbit approximately 11 minutes
44 seconds after lift-off. The S-IVB restart for translunar injection was initiated during the
second revolution at approxiJ:Jately 2 hours SO minutes mission elapsed time. The maneuver placed
the spacecraft/S-IVB combination on a translunar trajectory that would allow return to an accep-
table earth-entry corridor using the service module reaction control system engines. Approxi-
mately 27 minutes after injection into the translunar trajectory, the command and service module
was separated from the S-IVB and docked with the lunar module. The lunar module was then ex-
tracted from the spacecraft/launch vehicle adapter. Shortly thereafter, the S-IVB tanks were
vented and the auxiliary propulsion system was fired to target the S-IVB for a lunar impact.
The impact of the S-IVB stage was sensed by the Apollo 12 and 14 lunar surface seismometers.
2-46
 2-47

The docked spacecraft were inserted into a lunar orbit of approximately 170 by 51 miles and
about 4 hours later, injected into a 58- by IO-mile orbit. Lunar module undocking and separation
were performed at approximately 100 hours 39 minutes into the mission. The command and service
module was then placed in a near-circular lunar orbit in preparation for the acquisition of sci-
entific data.

The lunar module touched down on the lunar surface approximately 1800 feet from the planned
target point at 104 hours 42 minutes 29 seconds after 11ft-off. The landing point was latitude
26 0 6'3" N. and longitude 3°39'10" E. based on the coordinates of reference 2-26. Sufficient de-
scent stage propellant remained after lunar touchdown to have prOVided a hover time capability
of about 103 seconds.

Approximately 2 hours after landing, the Commander photographed and described the area sur-
rounding the landing site by standing in the open top hatch. This extravehicular activity period
lasted approximately 33 minutes. The first lunar surface extravehicular activity was initiated
about 12-1/2 hours later. During the surface operations, the crew collected and stowed a contin-
gency sample, deployed the lunar roving vehicle, unstolled the third Apollo lunar surface experi-
ments package and other equipment, and configured the lunar roving vehicle for lunar surface op-
erations. Some problems were experienced in deploying and checking out the lunar roving vehicle,
but these problems were worked out. The crew then drove the vehicle to Elbow Crater where they
collected and documented samples and gave an enthusiastic and informative COMmentary on lunar
features. The Hission Control Center provided television control during various stops. After
obtaining additional samples and photographs near St. George Crater, the crew returned to the
lunar module using the lunar roving vehicle navigation system. The distance driven was approxi-
mately 10.3 kilometers. The crew then proceeded to the selected Apollo lunar surface experiments
package deployment site, approximately 110 meters west-northwest of the lunar module. There, the
experiments were deployed essentially as planned, except that the second heat-flow experiment
probe was not emplaced because drilling was more difficult than expected /lnd the hole was not com-
pleted. The first extravehicular activity lasted approxinately 6 hours 33 minutes.

The crew spent approximately 16 hours in the cabin benleen the first and second extravehic-
ular periods. On egress for the second extravehicular activity, the lunar roving vehicle was
checked out and prepared for the second traverse. The first stage of the l2.5-kilometer round
trip was south to the Apennine front., but east of the first traverse. Stops were made at Spur
Crater and other points along the base of the front., as well as at Dune Crater on the return
trip. The ret.urn route closely followed the outbound route. Documented samples, a core sample,
and a comprehensive sample were collected, and photographs were taken. After reaching the lunar
module, the crew returned to the experiments package site where the Co~nder completed drilling
the second hole for the heat flow experiment and emplaced the probe. During this period, the
Lunar Module Pilot performed soil mechanics tasks. The Cor.unander also drilled to obtain a deep-
core sample but terminated the drilling because of time constraints. The crew then returned to
the lunar module and deployed the Unit.ed States flag. The second extravehicular activity ended
after approximately 7 hours 12 minutes.

The crew spent almost 14 hours in the cabin after the second extravehicular period. The
third extravehicular activity beean later than originally planned to allow additional time for
crew rest. Because of this delay and later delays at the experif.lents package site, the planned
trip to the North Complex was deleted. The first stop was at the experiments package site to
retrieve the deep-core sar.lple. Two core sections were disengaged, but the drill and the remain-
ing four sections could not be separated and were left for later retrieval. The third geologic
traverse took a westerly direction and included stops at Scarp Crater, Rim Crater, and the Ter-
race, an area along the rim of Hadley Rille. Extensive samples and a double-core-tube sample
were obtained. Photographs were taken of the west. wall of Hadley Rille, where exposed layering
was observed. The return trip was east toward the lunar module with a stop at the experiments
package site to retrieve t.he remaining sections of the deep-core sample. One fOOre section was
separated, and the remaining three sections were returned in one piece. After returning to the
lunar module, the lunar roving vehicle was unloaded and parked for ground-controlled television
coverage of the lunar module ascent. A distance of approximately 5.1 kilometers was traveled
during the third extravehicular activity, which last.ed approximat.ely 4 hours 50 minutes. The
total distance traveled with the lunar roving vehicle during the three extravehicular periods
was 27.9 kilometers, and the tot.al weight of lunar samples collected was approximately 77 kilo-
grams. The areas traversed on the lunar surface are illustrated in section 3.2.1
2_48

While the lunar module was on the surface, the Command Module Pilot completed 34 lunar or-
bits conducting scientific instrument module experiments and operating cameras to obtain data
concerning the lunar surface and the lunar environment. Some scientific tasks accomplished dur-
ing this time were photographing the sunlit lunar surface, gathering data needed for mapping the
bulk chemical composition of the lunar surface and for determining the geometry of the moon along
the ground track, visually surveying regions of the moon to assist 1n identifying processes that
formed geologic features, obtaining lunar atmospheric data, and surveying gSlIlr.la-tay and X-ray
sources. High-resolution photographs were obtained with the panoramic and mapping cameras dur-
ing the mission.

The ascent stage lifted off after 66 hours 54 minutes 53 seconds on the lunar surface. The
mission elapsed time of lift-off was 171 hours 37 minutes 23 seconds. A nominal lunar-module-
active rendezvous was performed followed by docking at approxinately 173 hours 36 minutes.

The lunar module ascent stage was jettisoned at approximately 179 hours 30 minutes into the
mission. Jettison had been delayed one revolution later than planned because of some difficulty
with verifying the spacecraft tunnel sealing and astronaut pressure suit integrity. Approximately
1-1/2 hours later, the lunar module was deorbited with lunar impact occurring at latitude 26°21'
N. and longitude 0°15' E. Impact was approximately 23-1/2 kilometers from the planned point and
approximately 93 kilometers west of the Apollo 15 landing site. The impact was recorded by the
Apollo 12, 14, and 15 lunar surface seismic stations.

Before the command and service module was maneuvered from lunar orbit, a subsatellite was
deployed in an orbit of approximately 76 by 55 miles. The subsatellite was instrumented to meas-
ure plasma and energetic-particle fluxes, vector magnetic fields, and subsatellite velocity from
which lunar gravitational anomalies could be deternined. All systems operated as expected. The
transearth injection maneuver was initiated approximately 223 hours 49 minutes into the mission.

At a mission time of approximately 242 hours, a transearth coast extravehicular activity be-
gan. Television coverage was provided for the 39-minute extravehicular period during which the
Co~nd Module Pilot retrieved film cassettes and examined the scientific instrument module for
possible abnormalities. Total extravehicular time during the mission was 19 hours 47 minutes.

A small midcourse correction of 5.6 feet per second was performed at the seventh midcourse
correction opportunity. The command module was separated from the service module as planned, and
a normal entry followed with the spacecraft being observed on the main parachutes from the recov-
ery ship, U.S.S. Okinawa. During the descent, one of the three main parachutes failed, but a
safe landing was made. The best estimate of the landing coordinates was latitude 26°7'48" N. and
longitude 158°8'24" W., approximately 1 mile from the planned landing point. The crew was brought
on board the recovery ship by helicopter about 39 minutes after landing. Duration of the mission
was 295 hours 11 minutes 53 seconds.

The mission accomplished all primary objectives and provided scientists with a large amount
of new information concerning the moon and its characteristics. References 2-27 and 2-28 provide
details on the performance of the systems and the preliminary results of the experiments.

2.4.11 Apollo 16 Mission

Apollo 16 was the second in the series of lunar landing missions designed to optimize the
capability for scientific return. The vehicles and payload were similar to those of Apollo 15.
Primary objectives assigned were (1) to perform selenological inspection, survey. and sampling
of materials and surfsce features in a preselected area of the Descartes region of the moon; (2)
to emplace and activate surface experiments; and (3) to conduct inflight experiments and photo-
graphic tasks.

The space vehicle was launched from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A at 12:54:00 p.m.
e.s.t. (17:54:00 G.m.t.) on April 16. 1972. The crewmen for the mission were John W. Young.
Commander; Thomas K. Mattingly II, Command Module Pilot; and Charles M. Duke, Jr., Lunar Module
Pilot. The launch was normal. and the spacecraft. the launch vehicle third stage (S-IVB), and
the instrument unit were inserted into earth orbit for systems checkout before the vehicle was
committed to translunar flight. The launch sequence was similar to that described preViously for
a Saturn V launch.
 Translunar injection was initiated during the second revolution in earth orbit. The space-
craft separation, transposition, docking, and ejection operations were performed successfully,
and, on ground command, the S-IVB was maneuvered to reduce the probability of recontact with the
spacecraft. Approximately 20 minutes later, the propulsive force froT.! a liquid-oxygen dump was
used to target the S-IVB for impact on the moon near the Apollo 12 landing site. As on the three
previous missions, S-IVB impact was desired to produce seismic vibrations that could be used to
study the nature of the lunar interior structure. Although launch vehicle systems malfunctions
precluded a planned trajectory refinement, the impact point was within the desired area. How-
ever, loss of S-IVB stage telemetry prevented establishment of the precise time of impact, there-
by making the interpretation of seismic data uncertain.

During translunar coast, a false gimbal lock warning was issued by the command module com-
puter. To prevent the inertial platform fron being caged during critical operations, a procedure
was developed to inhibit the co~puter from responding to the false indications. Activities dur-
ing translunar coast included a navigation exercise, ultraviolet photography, a demonstration of
the effects of zero gravity on the process of electrophoresis, and the first of two sessions to
acquire data to be used in trying to determine the mechanisms involved in the production of light
flashes seen by some crewmen on previous flights.

The crew inserted the docked spacecraft into lunar orbit by firing the service propulsion
system engine in the retrograde direction. The initial 170- by 58-mile orbit was maintained for
two revolutions. The crew then inserted the spacecraft into a descent orbit that took them within
approximately 10 miles of the surface. After three revolutions the lunar module crew undocked
and separated the spacecraft in preparation for the lunar landing. Figure 2-20 shows the lunar
module just after undocking.

As the Command Module Pilot prepared to transfer hia spacecraft to a circular lunar orbit,
oscillations were detected in a secondary system that controlled the direction of thrust of the
service propulsion system engine. The spacecraft was maneuvered to place it close to the lunar
module while the problem was being evaluated. Tests and analyses showed that the system was still
usable and safe; therefore, the vehicles were separated again, and the miSSion continued on a re-
vised time line. The command and service module circularization maneuver was performed success-
fully with the pri~ary system.

After devoting approximately 5-3/4 hours to evaluation of the secondary control system prob-
lem, powered descent of the lunar module was initiated. The lunar module landed approximately
270 meters northwest of the planned landing site. The location of the landing site is latitude
8°59'29" S. and longitude 15°30'52" E. based on the c90rdinates of reference 2-29. Propellant
for approximately 100 seconds of hover time remained at touchdown.

The first extravehicular activity was started after an a-hour rest period. Television cov-
erage of surface activity was delayed until the lunar roving vehicle systems were activated be-
cause the lunar module steerable antenna, used for initial lunar surface television transmission,
remained locked in one axis and could not be used. The fourth lunar aurface experiments package
was deployed, but accidental breakage of the electronics cable rendered the heat flow experiment
inoperative. After completing their activities at the experiments site, the crew drove the lunar
roving vehicle west to Flag Crater where they made visual observations, photographed items of in-
terest, and collected lunar samples. The inbound traverse route was just slightly south of the
outbound route, and the next stop was Spook Crater. The crew then returned by way of the ex-
periment station to the lunar module, at which time they deployed the solar wind composition ex-
periment. The first extravehicular activity lasted approximately 7 hours 11 minutes, and the
crew traveled approximately 4.2 kilometers in the lunar roving vehicle.

The second extravehicular traverse was south-southeast to a mare sampling area near the
Cinco Craters on the north slope of Stone Mountain. The crew then drove in a northwesterly di-
rection, making stops near Stubby and Wreck Craters. The last leg of the traverse was north to
the experiments station and the lunar module. The second extravehicular activity lasted approx-
imately 7 houts 23 minutes, and the crew traveled 11.1 kilometers in the lunar roving vehicle.

Four stations were deleted from the third extravehicular traverse because of time limita-
tions. The crew first drove to the rim of North Ray Crater ~lere photographs were taken and
samples gathered, some from House Rock, the largest single rock seen during the extravehicular
activities. The crew then drove southeast to the second sampling area, Shadow Rock. On comple-
ting activities there, the crew drove the vehicle back to the lunar module retracing the outbound
2-50

Figure 2-20.- Apollo 16 lunar module after undocking.

 2-51

route. The third extravehicular activity lasted approxicately 5 hours 40 ~inutes. and the dis-
tance traveled totaled 11.4 kilometers. The total weight of the lunar s~ple5 collected was
94 kilograms. The areas explored are described in greater detail 1n section 3.2.1.

While the lunar module crew was on the surface. the Command Module Pilot obtained photographs,
measured physical properties of the moon, and made visual observations. Also the Command Module
Pilot made comprehensive deep-space measurements, providing scientific data that could be used
to validate findings from the Apollo 15 mission.

Lunar ascent, initiated after the crew had spent more than 71 hours on the lunar surface, was
followed by normal rendezvous and docking. Attitude control of the lunar module ascent stage was
lost at jettison; consequently, a deorbit maneuver was not possible. Analysis indicated that the
ascent stage impacted the lunar surface before the Apollo 17 mission cOllllllenced; however, no data
were available for substantiation.

A particles and fields subsatellite like that launched from Apollo 15 was launched into
lunar orbit, and systems operation was normal. A planned spacecraft orbit shaping maneuver was
not perforDed before ejection of the subsatellite; therefore, the subsatellite was placed in a
nonoptimulII orbit that resulted in a much shorter lifetime than planned. Loss of all subsatellite
tracking and telemetry data on the 425th revolution (May 29, 1972) indicated that the subsatellite
had impacted the lunar surface.

The mass spectrometer deployment boom stalled during a retract cycle and was, therefore,
jettisoned before transearth injection. The second plane-change maneuver and so.e orbital sci-
ence photography were deleted so that transearth injection could be perfo~ed approximately 24
hours earlier than originally planned.

Activities during the transearth coast phase of the mission included photography for a Sky-
lab program study of the behavior and effects of particles emanating from the spacecraft. and the
second light-flash observation session. During an extravehicular operation. the Command Module
Pilot retrieved film cassettes from the scientific instruaent module caoeras, visually inspected
the equipment, and exposed an experiment to provide data on microbial response to the space envi-
ronment. Two midcourse corrections were made on the return flight to achieve the desired entry
interface conditions.

Entry and landing sequences were no~l. While on the drogue parachutes, the command module
was viewed on television, and continuous coverage was provided through crew recovery. The space-
craft landed in the mid-Pacific near the planned target. Although the vehicle came to rest in
the stable II attitude. it was up righted in approximately 5 minutes. The crew was delivered on
board the primary recovery ship, the u.s.s. Ticonderoga, 37 minutes after landing.

All of the primary mission objectives and most of the detailed objectives were met, even
though the mission was terminated one day earlier than planned. Especially significant scien-
tific data obtained were images and spectra of the earth's atmosphere and geocorona in the wave-
length range below 1600 angstroms. Additional information about the Apollo 16 mission is con-
tained in references 2-30 and 2-31.

2.4.12 Apollo 17 Mission

Apollo 17. the final Apollo mission, was the third in the series of lunar landing missions
designed for maximum scientific return. As such, the spacecraft and launch vehicle were similar
to those for Apollo IS and 16. Some experiments included in the payload, however. were unique
to this mission. The selected landing site was the Taurus-Littrow area.

The apace vehicle was launched fron Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A at 12:33:00 a.m.
e.s.t. (05:33:00 C.m.t.) on December 7, 1972. the only nightti~ launch of an Apollo spacecraft
(flg. 2-21). The crewmen for the flight were Eugene A. Cernan, Connander; Ronald E. Evans, Com-
mand Module Pilot; and Harrison H. Schmitt, Lunar Module Pilot.

The launch countdown had proceeded smoothly until 30 seconds before the scheduled ignition
when a failure in the automatic countdown sequencer occurred and delayed the launch 2 hours 40
--
o
-,
o

""
...J
 2-53

minutes. A successful launch placed the $-IVB!spacecraft co~bination in a circular earth orbit
in preparation for translunar injection. After ejection of the docked spacecraft, the S-lVB
stage was maneuvered for lunar impact, which occurred approximately 84 miles from the planned
point. The impact was recorded by the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 passive seismometers.

Translunar coast time was shortened to compensate for the launch delay. Activities during
trans lunar coast included a heat flow and convection demonstration, a continuation of the series
of light-flash investigations conducted by previous crews, and a midcourse correction to achieve
the desired altitude of closest approach to the lunar surface. The scientific instrument module
door was jettisoned as planned approximately 4-1/2 hours before lunar orbit insertion. The in-
sertion maneuver resulted in a 170- by 53-nile orbit. Approximately 5 hours later, the first of
two descent orbit insertion maneuvers was performed lrn.ering the orbit to 59 by 15 miles. The
command and service module/lunar module combination were retained in this orbit approximately
17 hours before the spacecraft were undocked and separated. After undocking, the command and
service module orbit was circularized; and the second lunar module descent orbit insertion mrllleu-
ver was performed, lowering the pericynthion to approxi~tely 6 miles. Powered descent was ini-
tiated from thia orbit, and the lun.:lr module l.:lnded within 200 meter/;: of the preferred l.:mding
point. The landing site location is latitude 20"9'55" N. and longitude 30"45'57" E. based on
the coordinates of reference 2-32. Approximately 117 seconds of hover tine remained at engine
shutdown .

The first extravehicular activity began 4 hours after landing. The lunar roving vehicle
was off-loaded, equipment was unstowed, and the lunar surface experinents package was deployed
approximately 185 meters west-northwest of the lunar module. At the experiments package deploy-
ment site, the Co~nder drilled two holes for heat-flow experinent probes and one deep-core
hole. The crew sampled two geologic units, deployed two explosive packages, and took seven
traverse gravimeter measurements during the extravehicular activity. The crew also collected
samples weighing approximately 14 kilograms during the 7 hours 12 minutes of extravehicular
activity.

The second extravehicular activity began at approximately 138 hours mission elapsed time.
During the traverse, the extravehicular plan was modified to allow more time at points of geo-
logical interest. Three explosive packages were deployed in support of the lunar seismic pro-
filing experi~ent and seven traverse gravimeter measurements were taken. Approximately 34 kilo-
grams of samples were gathered during the 7 hours 37 minutes of extravehicular activity.

The crew commenced the third extravehicular activity after a l5-l/2-hour period in the lunar
module. Specific sampling objectives were accomplished, and nine traverse gravimeter measurements
were made. The surface electrical properties experiment was teminated because the receiver tem-
perature was increasing to a level which could have affected the data tape. Consequently, the
tape recorder was removed on the way back to the lunar module. Samples weighing approximately
62 kilograms were obtained during the 7-hour IS-minute extravehicular period for a total of ap-
proximately 110 kilograms for the mission. The lunar roving vehicle was driven about 34 kilo-
meters during the three extravehicular activities. The total extravehicular time was 22 hours
4 minutes.

Numerous science activities were conducted in lunar orbit while the surface was being ex-
plored. In addition to the panoramic camera, the mapping camera, and the laser altimeter (which
were used on previous missions), three new experiments were included in the service module. An
ultraviolet spectrometer measured lunar atmospheric density and composition, an infrared radiom-
eter mapped the thermal characteristics of the moon, and a lunar sounder acquired data on subsur-
face structure. The command and service module orbit did not decay as predicted while the lunar
module was on the lunar surface. Consequently, a small orbital trim maneuver was performed to
lower the orbit. In addition, a planned plane-change maneuver was made in preparation for ren-
dezvous.

Lunar aocent wao initiated after a our face stay time of almost 75 hours. Rendezvous and
docking were normal; and, after tranSfer of samples and equipment from the ascent stage to the
command module, the ascent stage was jettisoned and deorbited. The impact point was about 10
kilometers southwest of the Apollo 17 landing site. After spending an additional day in lunar
orbit performing scientific experiments, the crew perfo[T:'led the transearth injection maneuver
at the planned time.
2-54

During transearth coast, the Comnand Module Pilot conducted a I-hour 6-fflinute extravehicular
operation 1n which he retrieved film cassettes fro~ the scientific instrument module bay. The
crew later performed another light-flash experiment, operated the infrared radiometer and ultra-
violet spectrometer, and made a transearth midcourse correction.

Entry and landing sequences were normal with the command module landing in the Pacific Ocean
west of Hawaii, approximately 1 mile from the planned location. Apollo 17 was the longest mission
of the program (301 hours 51 minutes 59 seconds) and brought to a close one of the most ambitious
and successful endeavors of man. The Apollo 17 mission, the most productive and trouble-free
lunar landing mission, represented the culmination of continual advancements in hardware, proce-
dures, and operations. Reference 2-33 contains detailed information on the mission operations
and hardware performance, and reference 2-34 has prelininary science results.

2.5 REFERENCES

2-1. Results of the Ei~hth Saturn 1 Launch Vehicle Test Flight, SA-9. IIASA Harshall Space
Flight Center Report MPR-SAT-FE-66-4, Feb. 28, 1966.

2-2. Results of the Ninth Saturn I Launch VEhicle Test Flight, SA-8. NASA Marshall Space
Flight Center Report MPR-SAT-FE-66-10. June 13, 1966.

2-3. Results of the Tenth Saturn I Launch Vehicle Test Flight, SA-lO. NASA Marshall Space
Flight Center Report MPR-SAT-FE-66-ll, July 14, 1966.

2-4. Postlaunch Report for Mission AS-20l. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-A-R-66-4,
May 6, 1966.

2-5. Postlaunch Report for Mission AS-202. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-A-R-66-5,
Oce. 12, 1966.

2-6. Apollo 4 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-68-l, Jan. 7, 1968.

2-7. Apollo 5 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-68-7, March 27, 1968.

2-8. Apollo 6 Anomaly Report No. 6 - Abnormal Structural Performance. During Launch. NASA
Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PT-R-68-22, April 1969.

2-9. Apollo 6 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-68-9, June 1968.

2-10. Report of Apollo 204 Review Board to the Adffiinistrator, National Aeronautics and Space
Administ ration. AprilS, 1967.

2-11. Apollo 7 Mission Report • NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-P,\-R-63-15, De<.:emher 1968.

2-12. Apollo 8 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-69-l, February 1969.

2-13. Apollo 9 Mission Report. NAS,\ Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-69-2, Hay 1969.

2-14. Apollo 10 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report ~L')C-00126, August 1969.

2-15. Map ORll-1l-6 (100) 1:100 000. First ed., prepared for NASA by Army Map Service, Corps
of Engineers, December 1967.

2-16. Apollo 11 Mission Report. NASA SI'-238, 1971.

2-17 • ,\pollo 11 Preliminary Science Report. NASA SI'-214, 1969.

2-18. Surveyor [11 Site Map 1:2 000. First ed., prcp<lred for NASi\ by Army Map Service, Corps
of Engineers, January 1968.

2-19. Apollo 12 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center !leport USC-018S5, Mi,lrch 1970.
 2-55

2-20. Apollo 12 Prell~inary Science Report. NASA 51'-235, 1970.

2-21, Apollo 13 Anomaly Report No.1 - Cryogenic Tank 2 Anonaly. NASA Johnson Space Center
Report MSC-02545, July 1970.

2-22. Apollo 13 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-02680, September 1970.

2-23. Lunar Topographic Photonap of Fra Mauro 1:25 000. Third ed., prepared by Mapping Sciences
Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center. November 1970.

2-24. Apollo 14 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report ~~C-04112. May 1971.

2-25. Apollo 14 Preliminary Science Report. NASA $1'-272, 1971.

2-26. Rima Hadley Lunar Photomap. Orbiter V Site 26.1 1:250 000. First ed., prepared by
U.S. Army Topographic Conmand, April 1970.

2-27. Apollo 15 Mission Report. NASlI Johnson Space Center Report MSC-05161, December 1971.

2-28. Apollo ·15 Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-2a9, 1972.

2-29. Lunar Topographic Photonap of Descartes 1:25 000. First ed., prepared by U.S. Army
Topographic Command, January 1972.

2-30. Apollo 16 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-07230, August 1972.

2-31. Apollo 16 Prel1r:linary Science Report. NASA SP-315, 1972.

2-32. Lunar Topographic Photomap of Taurus-Littrow 1:25 000. First ed., prepared by U.S.
Army Topographic Command, Septel:lber 1972.

2-33. Apollo 17 tUssion Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report JSC-07904, March 1973.

2-34. Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-330, 1973.

2-56
 ~l

3.0 SCIENCE SUMMARY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The reality of, and enthusiasm for, lunar science greatly increased with the safe return of
the Apollo 11 astronauts from man's landing on the moon. Although serious effort in planning,
designing, developing, testing, and training for the scientific aspects of the Apollo program
had been started much earlier by NASA, the greater emphasis had been correctly concentrated on
the accomplishment of the safe lunar landing and return of the crews. Early accomplishment of
the spacecraft operational objectives opened the way for more attention to be focused on the
scientific potential of Apollo missions. The operational and scientific success of each succes-
sive mission stimulated a more vigorous interest in the solar system and established the study
of the moon as a modern interdisciplinary science.

Although a considerable amount of scientific data was obtained during the early Apollo mis-
sions (Apollo 7 through 14), a significantly greater amount of data was obtained as the result
of the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions. For each of the latter missions, a diverse set of exper-
iments was installed in the service module and collected data during lunar orbit. These experi-
ments increa~ed the scientific scope of the missions, and the data obtained complemented the data
from the experiments being operated on the lunar surface. In addition, more extensive first-hand
exploration of the lunar surface was accomplished by the crews on these missions because longer
stay times were allowed, and because the addition of the lunar roving vehicle increased the range
of travel on the lunar surface as well as the load of instr~ents. equipment, and lunar sample
material transported on crew traverses. Also, more science data were provided by the lunar sur-
face complement of experiments operated by the crews during the extravehicular activities and by
the continuing postmission telemetry from the science stations established at each site.

The large amount of data and material collected as the result of the lunar missions will con-
tinue to provide study sources for many years. The crews took thousands of science-quality pho-
tographs on the lunar surface and from lunar orbit. Approximately 380 kilograms of lunar soil
and rocks were brought back to earth in the returning spacecraft. Five long-term science sta-
tions were established on the lunar surface with 22 operating experiments continuing to transmit
science data to the earth. The Apollo 12 crew retrieved selected components of a previously
landed Surveyor spacecraft. Many materials were transported to the moon, exposed in the lunar
environment, and returned for analysis and study.

Findings resulting from the Apollo lunar science program are discussed in the following sec-
tions. Science hardware performance is also discussed in conjunction with each experiment. Much
of the information in these sections was extracted from the Apollo Preliminary Science Report
series. In some cases, publication of results was scheduled by NASA before sufficient data were
available to the principal investigators for comprehensive analyses. Thus, results published in
the early reports were not as complete as in later reports. In these cases, an attempt has been
made to include the latest information. References 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 provide reviews of the pres-
ent understanding of the moon's composition and history.

3.2 LUNAR SURFACE SCIENCE

During each Apollo lunar landing mission, the crewmen emplaced and activated a lunar geo-
physical observatory to be controlled and monitored from earth, collected samples of lunar soil
and rock, photographically documented the geologic features of the landing area, and performed
other exploration activities. The locations of the Apollo landing sites are shawn in figure 3-1
and the lunar surface science activities (formal experiments and science detailed objectives) are
identified in table 3-1. The Apollo missions during which the activities were accomplished are
also indicated in the table.
3-2

15W o 45E 60E

~
45W _ 30W
30N;.-'.....-. ~'_.t
~.!t:'9•.!!.!:'!!-,00lkI0· I M 8 R

,).}) I
, . l

r) ,-' I
"~
I
,.-- :

-'
U:) . ................ ..,.,
. .
If",""

~ ,.

15N' "'.,-'\. Iobi<>'~

1"., • "'0;.''l!tt..r..LoTllY I. P4'~tf"'.~~
.. __. . " \ 4 . . '1;,;
IT'
1".. _",- .... (
(€tMoriuo •

I.. K......
~
.,.
-p
o-+-t+-le-l I 11fll;':
$
.,f\o.... -

ME~CATO~
.......... '~I ."0......>(" c~..t ""'. ""C•.
LUNAR CHART (LPC-l) PIlOJECTION (."N 10 .5'S)
s.colo 1,10.000.000., :W'N a.d S l.~'"d ••.
"'","'N ""'" 00u",,,"
'"' .,,,e,,o.. "'''1 .,. 'OtC', ."."
'"' ", .." .., .. , 0' OlOlNSI
SCAlE 1:10,000.000
. . -*-'-_.....-
--~""~""""',""
*'-'-0< .......
.,"-,_ _ ._ .,.".

Figure 3-1.- Apollo landing sites and impact locations on the lunar surface.
 3-3

TABLE 3-1.- APOLLO LUNAR SURFACE SCIENCE SUMMARY

Mission
ExperIment/objective Expe rimen t I--,--,--,-.,.---,----j
number
11 12 14 15 16 17

~unar geology investigation 5-059 x X X X X X

Soil mechanics experiment 5-200 X X X X X X
Lunar sample analysis X X X X X X
b
Passive seismic experiment 5-031 X X X X X
b
Active seismic experiment 5-033 X X
b
Sesimic profiling experiment 5-203 X
b
Lunar surface magnetometer experiment 5-034 X X X
Portable magnetometer experiment 5-198 X X
b
Heat flow experiment 5-037 X X X
bLunar surface gravimeter experiment 5-207 X
Traverse gravimeter experiment 5-199 X
Surface electrical properties experiment 5-204 X
Lunar neutron probe experiment 5-299 X
b
Laser ranging retro-reflector 5-078 X X X
b
Charged-particle lunar environment
experiment 5-<l38 X

bSolar wind spectrometer experiment 5-035 X X

Solar wind composition experiment 5-<lSO X X X X X
b
Suprathermal ion detector experiment 5-<l36 X X X
b
Cold cathode gage experiment 5-058 X X X
Cosmic ray detector (sheets) experiment 5-152 X X
bLunar dust derector experiment H-5l5 X X X X
bLunar ejecta and meteorites experiment 5-202 X
bLunar atmospheric composition experiment 5-205 X
5urveyor III analysis X
Long-term lunar surface exposure X
Far ultraviolet camera/spectrograph 5-201 X

aField geology activities included documentary photography, collection of lunar

material samples, and crew observations.
b
Part of an Apollo lunar surface experiments package.
;,-4

As noted in table 3-1, some experiments are part of the geophysical observatories called
Apollo lunar surface experiments packages. Using a long-life self-contained power source (radio-
isotope thermoelectric generator) and communications equipment, each Apollo lunar surface experi-
ments package operates as a remote science station to collect and transmit to earth scientific
and engineering data obtained over extended periods of time. The system was flown on Apollo 12
and all subsequent Apollo missions. The aborted lunar landing of Apollo 13 resulted in the loss
of the package of experiments; however, the overall program objectives were met by rearranging
the experiment assignments of the subsequent flights. A variation of the Apollo lunar surface
experiments package, known as the early Apollo scientific experiments package, was flown on the
Apollo 11 mission. This package was selected to minimize deployment time and to simplify crew
tasks during the first extravehicular activity on the lunar surface.

Rock and soil samples have been collected f["Om roost of the major physiographic or photogeo-
logic units identified on the lunar surface prior to the Apollo missions. This collection has
and will continue to provide a steady flow of data on the history of the moon. The staggering
amount of published material presenting the results of experiments and the analyses of lunar
samples cannot be covered in this document. However, the major findings are briefly summarized.

The moon may have accreted to its present mass 4.6 billion years ago. Early activity may
have included large-scale magmatic differentiation to produce an anorthositic crust. Throughout
early lunar history until about 3.9 billion years ago, the lunar surface was subjected to in-
tense bombardment which produced most of the large ring basins and the deposits of the lunar
highlands. Samples from the highlands indicate a very complex history of shock melting and frac-
turing of the anorthositic crust. Fragments interpreted as plutonic rocks from the crust have
been found in some breccia samples collected at highland sites.

Millions of years after the period of intense bombardment, volcanism along the margins of
the large ring basins, such as Mare Imbrium, began to fill the basins with lava flows. In a
period from about 3.8 to 3.1 billion years ago, these basins were filled with iron- and titanium-
rich basaltic lavas; these are now the flat, dark colored mare plains.

Meteoritic bombardment of the lunar surface has continued to the present, although less vig-
orously than in the past, foming craters and covering the surface with loose debris or regolith.
Studies of soil samples from the regolith sections (cores) reveal an incredibly complex history
of bombardment by meteorites and galactic and solar radiation through time.

The moon is now inactive, having cooled to a state of inactivity more than 3 billion years
ago, the time of formation of the youngest lavas. In contrast with the earth, there is no water
and there are no life forms. The surface is, however, constantly changing due to bombardment by
cosmic debris.

3.2.1 Geology of the Apollo 11 Landing Site

Tranquillity Base, the Apollo 11 landing site, is approximately 20 kilometers south-southwest

of the crater Sabine 0 in the southwestern part of Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquillity) and
41.5 kilometers north-northeast of the western promontory of the Kant Plateau, which 1s the near-
est highland region. The Surveyor V spacecraft is approximately 25 kilometers north-northwest
of the Apollo 11 landing site, and the impact crater formed by Ranger VIII is 68 kilometers north-
east of the landing site (ref. 3-4). Figure 3-2 shows the Apollo 11 landing site relative to the
Surveyor V and Ranger VIII locations. Figure 3-3 is a diagram of the lunar surface activity
areas.

The following observations suggest that the mare material is relatively thin.

a. An unusual ridge ring named Lsmont, which occurs in the southwestern part of the mare,
may be localized over the shallowly buried rim of a premare crater.

b. No large positive gravity anomaly, such as those occurring over the deep mare-filled
circular basins, is associated with the Sea of Tranquillity (ref. 3-5).
~

;; 10'
2
Ii r
r:. 1-\\'~~QlL
I
\ I

L'moot
I
Mare T, allqUlllitatis
.
1, ,0._) Ii ,,~
orr \I \
I I

5"~,yo~,\-+=::;-e
Ranger11JlJ ;;sabine E

O' I / /M"'k"Y", G MarelSpumans

i I '1""';;:--------W 0.:- Sabine 0

Apo 110 1l--------..lD.
~ .._ I 7' v \!'\.
...... r
/ 1--- ~~ I
3 ..wilke

Kant Plateau Mare Fecuooitatls

AlfraganusA

~~ 10'\ I Ti" Tyoho

17\
-bkb )/'=J I
, I
\' "
I I I
O' 10' 20' 30' 40' SO' 60' 70° 80°
Longitude, east

Figure 3·2.- Apollo 11 landing location relative to SurveyorJl"and Ranger"SZIJI.

w,
'"
3- 6

\ \

/
..../' - \
"-.
Television
camera

./
.
../.~
.
) I
I

.~)
\. /'rArea from which core
7·.. . ...( sample 2 was taken
I
/
"-"_.,J
Bulk sample
area
52 meters to
33-meter-
diameter crater
--r/
•
--._-_.-----
• Contingency
400 meters to/
est Crate~,L~
/
•
.~
.--,")...
sample area
. <) -
k "'(" '"
'r-.. ....,,~.~~...
"" ~
." .....'<U
... . -y
;.\
t i ",
J '
DOCllnle!1ted
sample area
( ..... •
\ j·../i.·)
/\. · 7 '.. ·····.·/
•\...• 1',;, Television
{ .'"-~.'-< .....c/' ( \. field of view

\. / . ••

•
•• •
0 5 10
I , I

Passive seismic Meters

e)(periment
- - - Very subdued crater
~ - Subdued craler
~I
.......... - .......... Relatively sharp crater
• Rock

Figure 3-3.- Diagram of Apollo 11 lunar surface activity area.

 3-7

The southern part of the Sea of Tranquillity 1s crossed by relatively faint hut distinct
rays trending north-northwest and by prominent secondary craters associated with the crater The-
ophUus, which is located 320 kilometers southeast of the landing site. Approximately 15 kilo-
meters west of the landing site is a fairly prominent ray that trends north-northeast. The crater
with which this ray is associated 1s not definitely knOVll; the ray may be related to the crater
Alfraganus, 160 kilometers southwest of the landing site, or to Tyella, approximately 1500 kilo-
meters southwest of the landing site. Neither the ray that trends north-northeast nor any of the
rays that trend north-northwest cross the landing site; these rays are sufficiently close, how-
ever, so that material from Theophilus, Alfraganus, or Tycho is possibly found near the landing
site. Craters such as Sabine 0 and Sabine E (fig. 3-2), with a diameter greater than 1 kilome-
ter, may have been excavated partly in premare rocks; and premare rock fragments that have been
ejected from these craters may also occur near the lunar module landing site (ref. 3-6).

Based on albedo and crater density, three geologic units can be distinguished in the mare
material near the landing site. The lunar module landed on the most densely cratered unit of
these three geologic units. These units may correspond to lava flows of different ages; if so,
the unit at the landing site is probably the oldest.

The approximately 21 kilograms of lunar material returned by the Apollo 11 crew were charac-
terized by the lunar sample analysis planning team as follows (ref. 3-7): The samples from Tran-
quillity Base consist of basaltic igneous rocks; microbreccias, which are a mixture of rock,
glass and mineral fragments; and lunar soil. The soil is a diverse mixture of crystalline and
glassy fragments with various shapes; the soil also includes fragments of iron, some of which
may be of meceoric origin. Most rock fragments are similar to and apparently derived from the
larger igneous rocks; the rocks in turn were probably once part of the underlying bedrock. A
few of the crystalline fragments are totally different from any of the igneous rocks of the Tran-
quillity site. A strong possibility exists that these fragments represent samples from the
nearby highlands.

Many rock surfaces and individual fragments in the soil show evidence of surface erosion by
hypervelocity impacts. Examination of the surfaces of the glassy fragments, which are themselves
formed by impact processes, shows that these objects contain beautifully preserved microscopic
pits as small as 10 microns in diameter. These pits are the result of high velocity impacts by
tiny particles. There is also evidence that the impact process is accompanied by local melting,
splashing, evaporation, and condensation.

The crystalline rocks, which have typical igneous textures, range from very-fine-grained
vesicular rocks to medium-grained equigranular rocks. The most common minerals are pyroxene
(often highly zoned with iron-rich rims), plagioclase, ilmenite, olivine, and cristobalite. Free
metallic iron and troilite, both of which are extremely rare on earth, are COml:lOn accessory min-
erals in the igneous rocks. All the silicate minerals are unusually transparent and clear because
of the complete absence of hydrothermal alteration. Laboratory experiments with silicate liquids
similar in composition to the lunar liquids show that, at the time of crystallization, the ob-
served phases can have coexisted only in a ver~ dry, highly reducing system; the partial pressure
of oxygen in this system is estimated to be 10 13 atmosphere. This pressure is more than five
orders of magnitude lower than that for typical terrestrial basaltic magmas. The very low abun-
dance of ferric ions in pyroxenes, determined by Mossbauer spectroscopy and electron spin reson-
ance, is further evidence of the low oxidation level of the magmas. The melting experiments also
indicate that 98 percent of the primary igneous liquid crystallized in the temperature range 1480°
to 1330° K, with minor interstitial liquids continuing to crystallize down to temperatures around
1220° K. Microscopic and microprobe examination provides clear-cut evidence for the existence
of an interstitial liquid rich in potassium and aluminum that probably was immiscible with the
main liquid. Further, calculations indicate that the viscosity of the lunar magmas was approxi-
mately an order of magnitude lower than that of terrestrial basaltic magmas. This characteristic
may playa significant role in the explanation of the textural features, the differentiation mech-
anisms that produced the observed chemical composition, and the morphological features of the
lunar seas themselves.

The regolitll consists chiefly of particles less than 1 millimeter in diameter. The regolith
is weak and easily trenched to depths of several centimeters. Surface material was easily dis-
lodged when kicked. The flagpole for the United States flag and the core tubes, when pressed
into the surface, penetrated with ease to a depth of 10 to 12 centimeters. At that depth, the
5- 8

regolith was not sufficiently strong, however, to hold the core tubes upright; a hammer was needed
to drive the core tubes to depths of 15 to 20 centimeters. The tubes, rods, and scoop chat were
pressed into the subsurface at several saJ:lple aires encountered rocks 1n tbe subsurface.

The crewman's boots left prints approximately 3 millimeters to 3 centimeters deep 1n the
fine-grained regolith material. Smooth molds of the boot treads were preserved 1n the bootprints,
and angles of 70° were maintained 1n the walls of the bootprints. The fine-grained surficial ma-
terial tended to break into slabs, cracking as far as 12 to 15 centimeters from the edges of the
footprints.

The finest fraction of the regolith adhered weakly to boots, gloves, space suits, handtools,
and rocks on the lunar surface. on repeated contact, the coating on the boots thickened until
boot color was completely obscured. When the fine particles of the regolith were brushed off,
a stain remained on the space suits.

In places where flne-grained material ",as kicked by the crewmen, the freshly exposed mate-
rial was conspicuously darker than the undisturbed surface. The subsurface material probably
lies at depths no greater than a millimeter from the surface. The existence of a thin surface
layer of lighter colored material at widely scattered localities indicates that sOme wideapread
process of surface material alteration is occurring on the moon.

Fillets (fine-grained material which is banked against the sides of some of the larger rock
fragments) were observed at least as far as 70 meters from the lunar module, and most fillets
are almost certainly natural features of the surface. On sloping surfaces, the crew observed
that the fillets were larger on the uphill sides of rocks than on the downhill sides. The sides
of rocks are ballistic traps, and the fillets have probably been formed by the trapping of 10101-
velocity secondary particles. Asymmetric development of fillets around rocks on slopes may be
caused partly by preferential downhill transport of material by ballistic processes and partly
by downhill creep or flow of the fine-grained material (ref. 3-6).

3.2.2 Geology of the Apollo 12 Landing Site

The Apollo 12 landing site is on the northwestern rim of the 200-meter-diameter crater in
which the Surveyor III spacecraft (fig. 3-4) touched down on April 20, 1967, in the eastern part
of Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms). approximately 120 kilo~eters southeast of the crater
Lansberg and due north of the center of Mare Cognitum (Known Sea). The landing site is on a
broad ray associated with the crater Copernicus, 370 kilometers to the north. The landing site
is characterized by a distinctive cluster of craters ranging in diameter from 50 to 400 meters.
Two geologic traverses (fig. 3-5) were made on or near the rims of these craters and on deposits
of ejecta from the craters. During the traverses, the crew collected approximately 34 kilograms
of lunar material.

The lunar regolith at the Apollo 12 landing site is composed of fragmental material which
ranges in size from particles too fine to be seen with the naked eye to blocks several meters in
diameter. Along several parts of the traverse made during the second extravehicular activity
period, the crew found fine-grained material of relatively high albedo that in some places was
in the shallow subsurface and in other places lay on the surface. Some of this light-gray mate-
rial may constitute a discontinuous deposit that is observed through telescopes as a ray of
Copernicus.

Darker regolith material that generally overlies the light-gray material is only a few cen-
timeters thick in some places but probably thickens greatly on the rims of some craters. The
darker material varies from place to place in the size, shape, and abundance of its constituent
particles and in the presence or absence of patterned ground. Most local differences are prob-
ably the result of local cratering events.

Hany crew comments concerned the large amount of 81ass contained in the regolith. Irregu-
larly shaped. small fragments of glass and glass beads are abundant both on and within the rego-
lith; glass is also splattered on some blocks of rock at the surface and is found within many
shallow craters.
 3-9

<l>

o"
"0

E
16
<=

N
"
....
o

8-
«

t +
 Large - ,
LV

boulders
.I \\
I \ ;;smalJ mound i5
• ../~~~:~i~Xlra\lehiCUlar
/ •ALSEP~""
\n ..... Y
Lunar modu Ie
Middle crescent crater
/
.ILarge mound c.P
/ r r Solar wind
./ ~ If composition
....-'-'
//. O· :--....~
\ .......
}.J
Conlingency
l.. ,JBlock' .. craler
i
sample
, LRolling rock () I \
of\. j I Surveyor craler \

\N
(')
,-.
'.
....... _._
Head craler
.........
/
Ii
.

\
,.-)
~.~
Surveyor m r·
oyj' "
. .J
o \ . /
r.
....J
Second exlraveniculai
'- """"- _._'-'
n . . --'
/,'
/
r' activity
~.)
- .'"
,
\ '"
Bench
craler
'-._/
J'
() V

Halo crater

Sharp crater Double core tube sample

• Sample sites , 1'1111 I I

100 50 0 50 100m
Figure 3-5. - Apollo 12 traverse diagram.
 3-11

Much of the surface in the area of the geologic traverse made during the second extravehic-
ular activity period 1s patterned by s~ll, linear grooves. These grooves are visible on the re-
turned photographs and W(!;re reported from several localities by the crew. The grooves are similar
in appearance to those which are visible in sone of the photographs from the Apollo 11 mission.
The linear features 113ve been interpreted as being caused by drainage of fine-grained material
into fractures in the underlying bedrock. This interpretation would imply northesst- and north-
west-trending joint sets in the bedrock of the Apollo 11 site and north- and east-trending joint
sets in the Apollo 12 site bedrock.

One notable difference bet\,een the collection of rocks obtained at the Apollo 12 landing
site and the collection obtained at Tranquillity Base is tlle ratio of crystalline rocks to micro-
breccia. At the Apollo 12 site, the rocks collected were predominantly crystalline, whereas, at
Tranquillity Base, approximately half the rocks collected were crystalline and half were micro-
breccia. This difference is probably attributable to the fact that the rocks collected at the
Apollo 12 landing site were primarily on or near crater rims. On the crater rims, the regolith
is thin or only weakly developed, and many rocks observed are probably derived from craters that
have been excavated in bedrock that is well below the regolith. By contrast, Tranquillity Base
is on a thick, mature regolith, where l:Iany observed rock fragments were produced by shock lithi-
fication of regolith material and were ejected from craters too shallow to excavate bedrock
(ref. 3-8).

Analysis of the returned Apollo 12 lunar samples showed the following:

a. Although still old by terrestrial standards, the Apollo 12 rocks are approximately 600
to 700 million years younger than the rocks from the Apollo 11 site.

b. Whereas the Apollo 11 collection contained approximately half vitric breccias, the
Apollo 12 collection contained only two breccias in the 45 rocks collected.

c. The regolith at the Apollo 12 site is approxinately half as thick as the regolith at
the Apollo 11 site. Complex stratification within the regolith is evident.

d. A bright-colored layer of material referred to as KREEP was sampled at varying depths.

It consists of fragments rich in potassium, rare earth elements, and phosphorous. It may have
originated as ejecta from a distant, large crater, perhaps Copernicus_

e. The amount of solar wind material in the Apollo 12 fines is considerably lower than that
in the Apollo 11 fines.

f. The lavas, in contrast to those fron Apollo 11, display a wide range in both modal min-
eralogy and primary texture, indicating a variety of cooling histories.

g. Chemically, the "nonearthly" character of the Apollo 11 samples (high refractory element
concentration and low volatile element concentration) is also noted in the Apollo 12 samples but
to a lesser degree.

The soil at the Apollo 12 site is similar in appearance and behavior to the soils encountered
at the Apollo 11 and the Surveyor equatorial landing sites. However, local variations in soil
texture, color, grain size, compactness, and consistency are evident. No direct correlation be-
tween crater slope angle and consistency of soil cover is apparent. The consistency of the soil
cover depends mainly on the geologic history of lunar terrain features and local environmental
conditions.

3.2.3 Geology of the Apollo 14 Landing Site

The Apollo l4-landing site is in a broad, shallow valley between radial ridges of the Fra
Mauro Formation, approximately 500 kilometers from the edge of Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains, and
also referred to geologically as the Imbrium Basin), vhich is the largest circular mare on the
moon. The crater Copernicus lies 360 kilometers to the north, and the bright ray material that
emanates from Copernicus covers much of the landing site region. The Fra ~lauro region is an
area of prime scientific interest because this region contains sone of the most clearly exposed
geological formations that are characteristic of the Fra ~lauro Formation.
 3-12

The Fta Mauro Formation is an extensive geological unit that 1s distributed in an approxi-
mately radially symmetric fashion around the Sea of Rains over much of the near side of the moon.
Stratigraphic data indicate that the Fta Mauro Formation is older than the mare at the Apollo 11
and 12 sites. The Formation 110 thought to be part of the ejecta blanket that resulted from the
excavation of the Imbrium Basin. The Apollo 14 landing site thus offered an opportunity to sam-
ple material that had been shocked during one of the major cataclysmic events in the geological
history of the moon and, thereby, to determine the date of tIle event. Furthermore, because of
the size of the Imbrium Basin, the belief was that some material had come from deep (tens of kil-
ometers) within the original lunar crust. Thus, a landing at the Fra ~l.auro Formation, in prin-
ciple, was expected to offer an opportunity to sample the most extensive vertical section avail-
able of the primordial moon (ref. 3-9).

The lunar module landed approximately 1100 meters west of Cone Crater,* which is located on
the ridge of the Fra ~~uro Formation. Cone Crater is a sharp-rimmed, relatively young crater ap-
proximately 340 meters in diameter that ejected blocks of material as much as 15 meters across,
which were derived from beneath the regolith. Sampling and plwtographing of these blocks were
the primary objectives of the mission. Rays of blocky ejecta from Cone Crater extend westward
beyond the landing site. The landing took place on a smooth terrain unit recognized in photo-
graphs previously taken during earlier Lunar Orbiter and Apollo missions. Sampling and describ-
ing this geological unit was another iMportant objective of this mission.

During the first period of extravehicular activity, the crew traversed westward over the
smooth terrain for a round-ttip distance of approximately 550 meters and deployed the Apollo
lunar surface experiments package (fig. 3-6). The crew covered a round-trip distance of approx-
imately 2900 mete~s eastward from the lunar module during the second extravehicular activity
(fig. 3-6). During the traverse, the crew crossed the smooth terrain, the Fra Mauro ridge unit,
and a section through the continuous ejecta blanket of Cone Crater to within 20 meters of the
crater rim crest. Forty-eight rock samples, the locations of which have been determined, were
collected at points along the traverse. The modular equipment transporter (set. 4.8) was used
to transport the samples and the collection tools. Approximately 43 kilograms of lunar material,
including 69 rock samples, were collected during the two periods of extravehicular activity.

Although the soil surface texture and appearance at the Apollo 14 landing site are similar
to those at the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites, a greater variation exists in the characteristics
of the soil at shallow depths (a few centimeters) in both lateral and vertical directions than
had previously been supposed. The stratigraphy at the trench site showed a dark, fine-grained
material (to a depth of 3 to 5 centimeters) underlain by a very thin glassy layer that, in turn,
is underlain by a material of medium to coarse sand gradation. As had been the case in previous
missions, dust was easily kicked up and tended to adhere to any surface contacted; however, over-
all dust was less of a problem than on previous missions. No difficulty was encountered in "dig-
ging a trench into the lunar surface. Because of unexpectedly low cohesion of the soil at the
trench site, the trench sidewalls caved in at somewhat shallower trench depths than had been pre-
dicted.

The Apollo 14 site is densely covered with craters in all stages of destruction. Some
craters as much as 400 meters across have undergone nearly complete destruction, and the over-
lapping of relatively large, very gentle depressions gives the topography at the site a strongly
undulating aspect. In contrast, the largest craters that have undergone nearly complete destruc-
tion at the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites are approximately 50 to 100 meters in diameter.

The lunar regolith at Fra ~lauro is thicker than at the mare sites. The surface material is
finer grained in the western portion of the site away from the Cone Crater ejecta blanket than
in the continuous ejecta blanket itself. Rock fragl:lents larger than a few centil:leters in diam-
eter are rare in the western part of the site and become progressively more abundant toward Cone
Crater. The regolith appears to be looser and less cohesive than that developed on the mare ma-
terial; downslope movement of this loose debris has caused the eradication of small craters on
slopes and extensive slumping of crater walls.

Boulders a6 large as 15 meters in diameter are present on the rim of Cone Crater; photo-
graphs of these boulders provided the first dramatic glimpse of relatively large segments de-
rived from lunar bedrock and of detailed rock structures (fig. 3-7). Smaller boulders occur
throughout the Cone Crater ejecta blanket and as isolated occurrences on raylike extensions of
the ejecta blanket.

*Informal designation.
 3-13

• •
• " , " . ,

•
•, .•,

,',
•

•
• ,~ ,
, "
' ,
.,",
•
.., " ,
:
"

"
••
• "
,
•
"
J;
"&
~

<

"i
--,
~

•
,2'

.'

•
.-
~

•
3-14
 All the boulders for which stereophotographs are available appear to be coherent breccias,
some with discrete clasts as much as 150 centimeters in diameter, larger than any returned sam-
ples. Both light and dark clasts are recognizable. Resistance of the breccias to the weathering
effects of the lunar environment varies considerably; some breccias have weathered to smooth, re-
sistant surfaces and others to hackly, rough surfaces that may be rubbly. Significant and strik-
ing features within the boulders are sets of parallel fractures spaced at several millimeters to
approximately 1 centimeter. Several intersecting sets of differently spaced fractures are pres-
ent in some boulders.

Portions of some boulders close to the rim of Cone Crater are crudely layered with very
light material that forms irregular bands from 25 to 40 centimeters thick. The light bands con-
tain both lighter and darker clasts up to 10 centimeters across, and the host rock of the bands
contains light clasts up to 10 centimeters across. Irregular parts of other boulders are also
very light, but a layered relationship is not evident. Boulders containing light layers occur
only near the rim of Cone Crater and, hence, may come from deeper levels in the crater.

Most large blocks have fillets of lunar fines and fragments embanked against the basal edges.
The size of a fillet is commonly proportional to the size, degree of rounding, and apparent fria-
bility of the host rock. Fillets are preferentially developed against outward-sloping rock sur-
faces and contain coarse fragments spalled off the host rock. Burial of rocks is a combined prod-
uct of (1) ejecta blanketing by adjacent impact events of all sizes, particularly on well-rounded
rocks the tops of which are close to the surface, and (2) self-burial by micrometeorite and ther-
mal erosion of the exposed rock surfaces.

Two well-developed sets of surface lineaments have the northwest and northeast trends ob-
served at the Apollo 11 and 12 sites. A secondary set trends north. The large number of very
long, straight lineaments is unique to the Apollo 14 site. These lineaments may be the result
of very small, recent, vertical displacements along fractures or of the sifting of fine-grained
material down into fractures that were propagated to the surface from a more coherent, joint
substrate.

The samples consist almost entirely of complex breccias, displaying shock and thermal ef-
fects that are consistent with their postulated origin as debris from a large cratering event.
The breccias are noritic in bulk composition. Some of the samples are vitric breccias which
may have been formed by welding within the ejecta blanket of a smaller or local cratering event.
Many of the breccia samples contain veins or pods of impact melt. On a larger scale, a plagio-
clase-rich basalt sample collected at the site may have been a lava, but was more likely crystal-
lized in a pool of impact melt.

Radiometric ages for the Apollo 14 site cluster around a value of 3.9 billion years; if the
Fra thuro site is truly ejecta from Imbrium, then the Imbrium event occurred at that time (ref.
3-10).

Apollo 14 soil and breccia are enriched in the siderophile elements (iridium, rhenium, gold,
nickel), relative to soils from mare surfaces. They may be derived from the Imbrium projectile
itself or bodies which impacted the lunar surface to form pre-Imbrium craters.

In summary, the compositions of the Apollo 14 rocks are compatible with their derivation as
an ejecta deposit fro~ the Imbrium Basin. These rock samples are largely fragmental and show pro-
nounced shock effects, and the composition of most samples is distinctly different from that of
basaltic rocks from lunar maria. The crystallinity observed in many fragmental rocks is compat-
ible with a single very large impact event in which annealing took place within a thick, hot
ejecta blanket.

3.2.4 Geology of the Apollo 15 Landing Site

The landing site of Apollo 15 is on a dark mare plain (part of Palus Putredinis, or the
Marsh of Decay) near the sinuous Rima Hadley (Hadley Rille) and the frontal scarp of the Montes
Apenninus (Apennine MOuntains) (fig. 3-8). This scarp is the main boundary of the Imbrium Basin,
which is centered approximately 650 kilometers to the northwest. The largest mountains of the
Apennines are a chain of discontinuous rectilinear massifs 2 to 5 kilometers high that are in-
terpreted as fault blocks uplifted and segmented at the time of the Imbrium impact. Between the
massifs and beyond them outside the basin are hilly areas that merge southeastward with a terrain
3-16

20°30'

.~

-
"'AUD U'CI'" , . . DfI:lcnoN 01' TIC W .. ~,_ Of DUfH$f _
" ' * - 0 IY '"I: U .......Y 10I'0GlAI'HIC C~. W...-c;TOOl D C

4"30'

SCALE 1:250,000
kEJ"33bd bd bdll W· 'Ed'
uO",UlflS
I

Figure 3-8.- Lunar module landing site on photomap of Hadley Plain. •

 3-17

interpreted as a blanket of ejecta fron the ImbriUl,\ Basin, known as the Fra Naura Formation. The
hills appear to be jostled blocks mantled and subdued by the Imbrium ejecta. The large massifs,
however. are not similarly subdued and so may be composed mainly of pre-Imbrium ejecta. The area
is near the old Mare Serenitseis (Sea of Serenity) basin, which suggests that at least part of
the pre-Imbrium material in the massifs is ejecta from the Sea of Serenity.

The mare material of the Marsh of Decay fills the lowlands at the base of the Apennines and
creates a dark plain. The regional relations to the west show that several events occurred be-
tween the formation of the Imbrium Basin snd the emplacenent of the mare materia!. These events
included the deposition of the premare plains-forming material and the cratering event that formed
the crater Archimedes. The morphologies of the craters on the mare surface at the landing site
indicate that the age of the surface is late Imbrian or early Eratosthenian.

Some hills and mountains in the area are dark like the mare and may be coated by a thin
mantle of dark material. The region contains numerous diffuse light-colored rays and satellitic
clusters of secondary impact craters from the large Copernican craters Autolycus and Aristillus
to the north.

Hadley Rille (fig. 3-8) follows a winding course through the mare and locally abuts premare
massifs. Hadley Rille appears to be one of the freshest sinuous rilles, and rock outcrops are
common along the upper walls. The rille is more than 100 kilometers long, 1500 meters wide, and
~OO meters deep.

The regional relations indicate that the mare rocks may rest on faulted pre-Imbrium rocks,
breccia from the Imbrium impact, and light plains-forming units such as the Apennine Bench Forma-
tion. Whether or not the rille penetrates the premare material is unknown. The mare surface is
covered with regolith approximately 5 ~eters thick.

Two major Apennine massifs, Mons Hadley (Hount Hadley) to the northeast and Hadley Delta
Just south of the landing site (fig. 3-8), tower over the Hadley plain to heights of ~.5 to 3.5
kilometers, respectively. The face of Mount Imdley is steep and high in albedo. The northern
face of Hadley Delta, called the Front during the Apollo 15 mission, rises abruptly above the
younger mare surface, except near Elbow Crater* where the contact is gradational, apparently be-
cause of the accumulation of debris from the slopes. As elsewhere on the moon, the steep slopes
of the massifs are sparsely cratered because the craters are destroyed by the downslope movement
of debris. A prominent exception is St. George,* a subdued crater 2.5 kilometers in diameter
that predates the mare. The scarcity of blocks on both massifs indicates a thick regolith. The
lower slopes of Hadley Delta were visited, and rock sal:lples collected there indicate that the
bedrock beneath the regolith consists of breccias.

The areas traversed by the Apollo 15 crew are shown in figure 3-9. The surface of the mare
in the area visited is generally a plain that slopes slightly downward to the northwest. To the
crew, the surface appeared hummocky or rolling, with subtle ridges and gentle valleys. The sor-
face texture appeared smooth with scattered rocks occupying less than 5 percent of the total
area. Widely separated, locally rough areas occur where recent impacts have left sharp crater
rims and small boulder fields. The visible ridges and valleys are largely the forms of greatly
subdoed large craters, and the smoothness is caused by the destruction of blocks by erosion from
small impacts. A large but indistinct ray shown on premiss ion maps as crossing the mare surface
was not visible to the crew as either a topographic or compositional feature, but the crew did
note patches of lighter-colored Qaterial that may represent re~ants of rays that have been
largely mixed with the mare regolith.

The contact between the mare and the front of Hadley Delta is marked by a change of slope
and a band of soft material with f~~er large craters than are typical of the mare. The soft ma-
terial of the band 1s probably a thickened regolith that includes debris derived from the slope
by both cratering processes and downslope creep. Samples from talus at the base of highlands
terrain (Imdley Delta) consist of breccias rich in fragments of plagioclase-rich basalt and an-
orthosite. They may have been deposited as ejecta by pre-Imbrium events or the Imbrium event.
One of the anorthosite samples had a radiOf.1.etric age of 4.1 billion years, a lower limit, since
this rock has experienced a complex history of brecciation. There is a variety of mare basalt
samples and a clastic rock composed of green glass spheres which may be of volcanic origin. The
basalt (lava) samples are rich in iron and poor in sodium, as are other mare lavas. They have
an age of 3.3 billion years.

*lnformal designations.
>-18

7 ContKl'
SO'
0 1 b. b 2
I I I
Kllometen

Figure 3-9.- Apollo 15 lunar surtace traverse routes.

 3-19

A 2.4-rneter-deep core of the regolith revealed that i t is composed of many soil layers rang-
ing in thickness from a few millimeters to several tens of centimeters. The regolith Is composed
of layers of ejecta from impact craters, which are, in turn, reworked and mixed by micrometeorite
bombardment. The 2.4-meter section at this site has undergone reworking and mixing for about
500 million years.

Soil mechanics analyses (frof:l pene-trone-ter tests, core sampling, and trenching performed by
the astronauts; from photographs; and from other data) for the Apollo 15 site indicate the fol-
lowing:

a. Soil densities range from 1,36 to 2.15 grams per cubic centimeter.

b. No evidence of deep-seated slope failures is apparent, although surficial downslope

movement of soil has occurred and the soil on steep slopes along the Apennine Front is in a near-
failure condition.

3.2.5 Geology of the Apollo 16 Landing Site

The Apollo 16 lunar module landed at the western edge of the Descartes Mountains approxi-
mately 50 kilometers west of the Knnt Plateau, part of the highest topographic surface on the
near side of the moon. The Apollo 16 mission accomplished the first landing in the central lunar
highlands, and the crew successfully explored and sampled a kind of terrain not previously visited.
The landing site was selected as an area characteristic of both terra plains and rugged hilly and
furrowed terra. The consensus of pre~ission photogeologic interpretation was that both units
were of probable volcanic origin. However, surface observations indicated that few or no vol-
canic rocks or landforms existed at the landing site but rather that the area is underlain by a
wide variety of impact-generated breccias (ref. 3-11).

Ray materials derived from North Ray and South Ray Graters (fig. 3-10)'" are the two most ap-
parent sources of surface debris on the Cayley Plains. Ejecta from South Ray Crater also appear
to mantle much of the surface of Stone Mountain near sampling stations 4 and 5 (fig. 3-10), so
that uncertainty still exists as to whether Descartes materials were, in fact, sampled. Size
distribution studies of fragments on the lunar surface suggest th.'lt the ejecta units of these
two craters differ in character. Rock fragments are much less abundant in the North Ray ejecta
blanket, which suggests that the North Ray impact may have excavated more friable material, that
the length of time since the cratering event has been sufficient for subsequent impacts to de-
stroy the smaller blocks, or both. South Ray ejecta, as mapped, include bright and dark areas,
but the only surface differences observed are that the brightest areas have larger block sizes
and a greater abundance of blocks. The mapped interray areas have no lunar surface characteris-
tics that distinguish the~ fror.! adjacent South Ray ejecta; they are, IIDre or less, free of coarser
rock fragments. Both ray and interray areas show a progressive northward decrease in total rock
abundance and in relative abundance of the coarser sizes.

The regolith present on the ejecta blanket of North Ray Crater is only a fe~ centimeters
thick. Where ejecta blankets or ray deposits are not identifiable, the regolith is 10 to 15
meters thick. The surface of the regolith is medium gray, but high-albedo soils are present at
depths of 1 to 2 centimeters in most of the traverse area.

The net weight of returned samples was approximately 94 kilograms. Of tl:t: total sample
weight, almost 75 percent consists of rock fragments larger than 1 centimeter in diameter. nearly
20 percent consists of soil or residue fines, and the remainder consists of core and drive tube
samples. The Apollo 16 rocks may be divided into three broad groups: fine- to coarse-grained,
mostly homogeneous crystalline rocks; rocks composed substantially of glass; and fragmental rocks
(brecc ias). The proportion of fragmental rocks in the returned samples exceeds 75 percent. Of
25 rocks classified as crystalline, 7 appear to be igneous. AltllOugh all the igneous rocks have
been shattered and deformed to some extent, the predeformation textures are substantially intact.
The two largest samples returned are coarse-grained nonvesicular rocks composed largely of pla-
gioclase. These rocks resemble an Apollo 15 anorthosite sample but are probably more severely
shock-deformed. Three are fine-grained, highly feldspathic rocks with crystal-lined vugs. Eight-
een crystalline rocks appear to be metaclastic rocks with generally small proportions of lithic
debris; these are hard, angular rocks characterized by fine-grained sugary textures. Five sam-
ples largely composed of glass were returned. Two of these are spheres, one hollow and one solid.

"'Designations of lunar features shown in figure 3-10 are inforoal.

 3- 2 0

I I I I I I I
Figure 3-10.- Apollo 16 landing area and traverse routes.
o 500 1000
 3-21

-N
Stone Mountain

~hanlom

OO'Jble S~l

Sp~ok

.- Scale: meters
I I I I I I I
o 500 1000

Figure 3-10.- Apollo 16 la~din9 area and traverse roules (concluded>'

3-22

The remaining three glass samples are irregular, coarse, agglutinates with numerous small lithic
inclusions. The fragmental rocks have been divided into five main groups on the basis of pro-
portions of light and dark clasts and matrix color. All five groups are varieties of impact-
generated breccias; none appear to be of volcanic origin. The majority of the rocks are polymic-
tic breccias, but a substantial minority are monomictic. Two types of clasts are clearly domi-
nant: one type is dark, aphanitic to finely crystalline metaclastic rocks; the other is white,
partly t:rushed to powdered feldspathic rocks. Less common clR,st types include light-gray or
white rocks with granoblastic textures, a variety of gabbroic to anorthositic rocks with medium
to coarse grain size, and rare feldspar-poor basaltic rocks. Matrices of the light- and medium-
gray-matrix breccias are, for the most part, friable and not visibly altered by subsequent ther-
mal events, whereas those of dark-matrix breccias are coherent and annealed or fused.

The rock distribution suggests that the section underlying the Cayley Plains is stratified,
with an upper unit of medium-gray breccia and lower units composed mainly of light- and dark-
matrix breccias. The extent of the supposed upper unit is not known but presumably extends at
least between stations 1 and 6; considering the relative scarcity of the medium-gray breccias,
the unit is probably not more than a few meters thick. Evidence derived from the photographs,
crew descriptions, and samples collected at station 11 suggests that light-matrix breccias over-
lie dark-matrix breccias, whereas the color of ejecta on the rims of South Ray snd Baby Ray
Craters suggests that dark-matrix breccias overlie light-matrix breccias near those craters.
Such a stratographic sequence in the South Ray area is consistent with the dominance of dark-
matrix breccias described and photographed in South Ray ejecta between the landing site and
station 8.

The Cayley Formation at the Apollo 16 site is a thick (at least 200 and possibly more than
300 meters), crudely stratified debris unit, the components of which are derived from plutonic
anorthosites and feldspathic gabbros and from metamorphic rocks of similar composition. The for-
mation has an elemental composition similar to that observed over large regions of the lunar high-
lands by the orbital X-ray experiments of the Apollo 15 and 16 missions. The observed textures
and structures of the breccias resemble those of impact breccias. The textures and structures of
the breccias do not resemble those of volcanic rocks nor do the plutonic or metamorphic source
rocks of the breccias have the textures or compositions of terrestrial or most of the previously
sampled lunar volcanic rocks.

The physical and lI"Iechanical properties of the soil at the Apollo 16 landing site are gener-
ally similar to those of the soils encountered at the previous Apollo sites. Data obtained using
the self-recording penetrometer have provided a basis for quantitative study of stratigraphy, den-
sity, and strength characteristics. These results and crew observations, photographs, and soil
samples (particularly the core-tube samples) have been used to develop the following preliminary
conclusions.

a. Soil cover appeared to blanket all areas visited or observed at the Descartes landing
area.

b. Soil properties are variable on r~gional and local (1 meter) scales.

c. Visibility degradation by blowing dust was less during the Apollo 16 lunar module de-
scent than during previous missions, probably because of a faster descent rate and a higher sun
angle rather than a difference in soil conditions.

d. The grain-size distributions of soil samples from the Descartes area are comparable to
those from other areas of the lIK)on, although distributions for most Descartes samples fall toward
the coarser edge of a composite distribution.

••The drive-tube samples indicate that soil density increases with depth, but the overall
range of densities (1.40 to 1.80 grams per cubic centimeter) is slightly less than the range
(1. 36 to 2.15 grams per cubic centimeter) found for Apollo 15 core-tube samples.

f. South Ray crater material appears to cover the station 4 area to depths of 20 to 50 cen-
timeters. Descartes Formation material may have been found at greater depths.

g. Density distributions with depth for the Apollo 16 deep-drill-stem samples are distinctly
different from those of Apollo 15 and suggest that the modes of SDil deposition at the two sites
may have been different.
 3-23

3.2.6 Geology of the Apollo 17 Landing Site

The Apollo 17 landing site was named Taurus-Littrow because of its proxinity to the Montes
Taurus (Taurus Mountains) and the crater Littrow. The lunar module landed on the flat floor of
a deep narrow valley bounded by steep-sided mountain blocks that form part of the mountainous
eastern rin of Mare Serenitatis (Sea of Serenity, referred to geologically as the Serenitatis
Basin). The blocks are thought to be bounded by high-angle faults that are largely radial and
concentric to the Serenitatis Basin. lienee, the valley itself is interpreted as a graben formed
at the time of the Serenitatis impact. Figure 3-11 shows the landing site and the major geolog-
ical features* that were eXUT:lined by tlle Apollo 17 crew. During their stay on the lunar surface,
the Apollo 17 crew traversed a total of about 34 kiloT:leters, collected over 110 kilograms of
rocks and soil, and took more than 2200 phot08raphs. Their traverses span the full width of the
Taurus-Littrow valley, as shown in figure 3-12.* Much of the following discussion was exerpted
from reference 3-12.

The highlands surrounding the valley can be divided on the basis of morphology into (1) high
smooth massifs; (2) Sr.Jaller, closely spaced domical hills referred to as the Sculptured Hills;
and (3) materials of low hills adjacent to the massifs and the Sculptured Hills. Boulders that
had rolled down the slopes of the massifs north and south of the valley provided samples of that
area. These boulders are composed of complex breccias that are generally similar to those ra-
turned from the Apollo 15 and 16 missions.

Materials of the valley fill were sampled at many stations. Ejecta around many craters on
the valley floor consists of 3.8-billion-year-old basalts, showing that the graben was partly
filled by lava flows. A relatively thick layer (approxiT:lately 15 meters) of unconsolidated ma-
terial overlies the sub floor basalt; this debris consists largely of finely comminuted material
typical of the lunar regolith. For the most part, this is impact-generated regolith similar to
that developed on mare basalts elsewhere on the moon. The central cluster ejecta, the light
mantle, and the ejecta of Shorty and Van Serg Craters are discrete deposits recognized within
the regolith.

The young pyroclastic "dark mantle" anticipated before the mission was not recognized in the
traverse area as a discrete surface layer. lrowever, soil consisting of orange glass spheres was
collected. This soil most likely originated fron volcanic fire fountains that acconpanied lava
extrusion to form irregularly shaped layers that are now buried. Strong photogeologic evidence
for the existence of a dark mantle in parts of the highlands still exists. Albedo measurements
show that abnormal surface darkening, consistent with the concept of the introduction of exotic
dark material increases to the east and south in the Taurus-Littrow area. The dark mantle may
have accumulated shortly after the extrusion of the sub floor basalt.

The "light mantle" is an unusual deposit of high-albedo material with fingez:-like projec-
tions that extend 6 kilometers across daz:k plains from the South Massif. Rock fragments col-
lected from the light mantle are similar in lithology to the breccias of the South Uassif. This
similarity supports the hypothesis that the light mantle is an avalanche deposit formed from
loose materials on the face of the South 11<1ssif. A cluster of secondary craters on the top of
the South Massif may record the impact event that initiated the avalanche. Size-frequency dis-
tribution and morphologies of craters on the light mantle suggest that its age is comparable to
that of Tycho Crater, on the order of 100 million years.

Fine-grained soil, darker than the underlying unconsolidated debris, was recognized at the
surface at Shorty Crater, at Van Serg Cratez:, on the light mantle, and on the massif talus. The
soil is thin (e.g., 0.5 centimeter at Shorty, and about 7 centi~ters on the flank of Van Serg)
and probably repz:esents the regolith that has formed on these young ejecta or talus surfaces.
Relatively young structural deformation in the landing area is recorded by the Lee-Linclon Scarp
and by small fresh grabens that trend northwest across the light ~~ntle. The sharp knickpoint at
the base of the massifs may indicate that some fairly recent uplift of the massifs has kept the
talus slopes active.

*The designations of the features shown in figures 3-11 and 3-12 are informal.
3-24

Figure 3-11.- Taurus-Littrow landing area.

 3- 2 6

3.2.7 Geology and Soil tlechanic!:I Equipment

3.2.7.1 Apollo lunar surface handtools.- The Apollo lunar surface handtools consisted of
the items listed in table 3-11 and illustrated in figure 3-13. The tools were continually up-
graded as the lunar landing missions progressed based on the results of preflight and postflight
evaluations and on geology requirements. The more significant chanses are discussed in the fol-
lowing paragraphs.

a. Harraner: The hammer was used during all Apollo lunar surface extravehicular activities.
As experience was gained, the hammer was IOOdlUed as follows.

1. The spray aluminum coating on the head was changed to vacuum-deposited aluminum.

2. The originally pinned handle-to-head connection was changed to·a "magnaformed" head.

3. The head was made heavier and larger to assist in obtaining better drive tube pene-
tration.

4. Room-temperature-vulcanizing material strips were added to the handle to minimize

twisting of the hammer in the hands.

b. Scoop: The scoop originally had a large pan and was nonadjustable. On Apollo 15, the
design was changed to incorporate a smaller pan and an adjustable head. On Apollo 16 and 17. the
adjustable feature was maintained but the pan was enlarged to obtain a larger sample.

c. Extension handle: The extension handle ~as designed to be mated with core tubes, scoops,
haIJw.ler, and rake. Field tests and flight evaluation indicated that the original handle design
should be changed to prevent shearing of the core-tube adapter pins. Also, further evaluations
indicated that a longer handle was desirable. Two handles were carried on the Apollo 16 and 17
missions instead of one.

d. GnomOn: The gnomon consisted of a gimbaled rod and a color chart mounted on a tripod.
The rod indicated the gravitational vector, and the chart provided a standard for color compari-
son in photographic processing. (Before the Apollo 14 mission, a color chart was carried sepa-
rately.) Postflight evaluations following the initial lunar landing missions indicated that the
rod would oscillate for long periods of tine before damping to a fixed position. The cumulative
time in awaiting rod arrestment was severely restrictive to the overall surface activity. There-
fore, a damping change was incorporated for the Apollo 15 through 17 missions. On Apollo 16, the
gimbaled rod separated from the leg assembly while the gnomon was being removed from its stowage
bag. To prevent recurrence on Apollo 17, the gimbal pivot pins were strengthened and additional
lubrication was applied to the pivot/bearing interface.

e. Tongs: The tongs consisted of a set of opposing spring-loaded fingers attached to a

handle and were used for picking up samples. Postflight evaluation of Apollo missions II, 12,
and 14 indicated a need for increased length, larger jaws, and additional closing force. These
changes were incorporated for Apollo missions 15 through 17. Also, to conserve traverse time
and to afford maximum flexibility in obtaining samples. two sets of tongs were carried on the
Apollo 16 and 17 missions.

f. Adjustable trenching tool: The trenching tool was used on only one mission. Apollo 14.
Experience indicated that the adjustable scoop could perform the trenching task on subsequent
missions.

g. Rake: A rake was designed and built for the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions to meet the
requirement of efficiently obtaining a number of small rock samples from the lunar surface or
just below the surface. The rake served its purpose satisfactorily.

h. Core tubes/drive tubes/caps: The core tubes were originally designed to be driven into
the lunar surface with the hammer. Postflight examination of the Apollo 11 samples indicated
that the bit was degrading the samples. Furthermore, additional information on the cohesiveness
of the lunar soil indicated that a "drive tube" with a larger diameter (increased from 2 to 4
centimeters) and an integral bit could be used. Effective with the Apollo 15 mission, drive
tubes were successfully used to obtain samples. The components of a drive tube set consisted of
 3-27

TABLE 3-11.- GEOLOGY AND SOIL MECHANICS TOOLS AND EQUIPMKNT

Mission use
I tern
11 12 14
l' 16 17

Apollo lunar surface hand tools:

Hammer 1 1 1 1 1 1
Large scoop 1 1 1
Adjustable scoop 1 1 1
Extension handle 1 1 1 1 2 2
Gnomon 1 1 1 1 1 I
Tongs 1 1 1 1 2 2
Adjustable trenching tool 1
Rake 1 1 1
Core tubes 2 4 6
Core tube caps
Drive tubes (lower)
2 1
, , ,
Drive tubes (upper)
Drive tube cap and bracket assembly
Drive tube tool assembly
4
3 ,
4
,
4

1 1
Spring scale 1 1
Sample scale 1 1 1 1
Tool carrier 1 1
Sample return container 2 2 2 2 2 2
Bags and special containers:
Small samp Ie bags 5
Documented sample bags (IS-bag disp) I 3 1
Documented sample bags (20-bag disp) 6 7 6
Documented sample bags (3S-bag disp) 1 2
Round documented sample bag 48
Protective padded sample bag 2
Documented sample weigh bag 2 4 4
Sample collection bag 2 2 2
Gas analysis sample container 1 1
Special environmental sample container 1 3 3 1 1
Core sample vacuum container 1 1
Solar wind composition bag 2 1 1
Magnetic shield sample container 1
Extra sample collection bags 4 6 6
Organic control sample 1 2 2 2
Lunar surface sampler (Beta cloth) 1
Lunar surface sampler (velvet) 1
Lunar roving vehicle soil sampler 1
Magnetic sample assembly 1
Tether hook 1 1 1
Lunar surface drili 1 1 1
Core stem with bit
Core stems wi thout bit ,1
,
1
,
1

Core stem cap and retainer assembly 2 2 2

Seif-recording penetrometer 1 1
3-28

• •
.8 <;
3 S
•
0
<.>
•
"•
0
£
U
•e
, • Q
g
.•
~

••u~ 0
•
.
:;;
~ .:
- ~
~

. ".,
, Q
-e
~.
•
0
•
" ~

•,
0
=~
• ";: " ~
u~

~ .~• '",
~
"' 0u
• ••
•
o~
• '"•,
, 0
~.
...
.~
 3-29

the drive tube, a drive-tube tool, and a cap dispenser. Deep sa~ples were obtained by joining
tubes in series. The drive-tube tool was used to position a keeper against the core sample to
preserve its integrity. The cap dispensers were mounted on the hand tool carrier and contained
Teflon caps to seal the tubes after sa~ple collection.

1. Sample scale: The sample scale was used on Apollo 14 through 17 to weigh lunar samples
before lift-off to assure that the total weight did not exceed the permitted weight.

3.2.7.2 Tool carriers.- The original Apollo lunar Iw.ndtool carrier was designed to accom-
modate the early tool configurations and to be hand-carried or mounted on the modular equipment
transporter used on the Apollo 14 mission. With the advent of the lunar roving vehicle, a new
tool carrier was needed that could be mounted on that vehicle or. if the vehicle became inopera-
tive. could be removed and hand-carried during walking traverses. The modified tool carrier was
used as a stowage rack for the hammer, gnol!lOn. scoop. and the drive··tube tool assembly; the tool
carrier also accommodated the extension handle and the tongs.

3.2.7.3 Apollo lunar sample return container.- The Apollo lunar sample return container
(fig. 3-14) was designed to provide a vacuum environQent for the return of lunar samples. The
containers and their contents were cleaned at the manufacturing facility to a cleanliness level
of less than 10 nanograms of residue per square centimeter. The containers and their contents
were then shipped to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory for premission conditioning, which consisted
of sterilization to remove earth organisns before sealing under a vacuum (approximately 10- 6 torr).

No major design changes were made throughout the lunar landing flights. However, the fol-
lowing minor changes were incorporated.

a. A York mesh liner was added on Apollo 12 to give better protection to the container and
its contents. and the liner was reduced in thickness to increase the volume of the container.

b. On Apollo 14 and subsequent missions, a skirt was added to prevent debris from getting
into the seal, to facilitate closing. and to ensure maintenance of vacuum.

Two organic samplers (fig. 3-15). each consisting of several rolls of York mesh packing ma-
terial in a Teflon bag, were used to determine the quantity of organic compounds introduced be-
fore and during the translunar portion of a mission. One sampler was analyzed and sealed before
flight. The other was placed in the sample return container. removed for environmental exposure
while on the lunar surface. sealed, and returned to the container.

3.2.7.4 Bags and special containers.- In addition to the actual collection of samples. a
requirement existed to protect, document. and identify the various samples. To perform these
tasks, numerous types of bags and special containers were designed. some of which are described
in the following paragraphs and illustrated in figure 3-16.

a. Documented sample bags: The crewmen used documented sample bags to identify and docu-
ment the individual samples as they were collected. On Apollo 17, a quantity of round sample
bags were supplied. These bags were used in conjunction with the lunar roving vehicle soil sam-
pIer (par. 3.2.7.6).

b. Special environmental sample container: These devices were designed to contain samples
of lunar soil and/or rocks to be used in specific experiments on return to earth. The containers
provided a vacuum environment to protect the samples from contamination in case the Apollo lunar
sampl¥ return container leaked.

c. Core sample vacuum container: The core sample vacuum container was provided as a recep-
tacle for a drive tube so that a pristine subsurface sample could be protected in a vacuum.

d. Protective padded sample bag: The protective padded sample bag was used for returning
a fragile lunar sample so that maximum protection could be afforded to the surface of the sample.
Bags of this type were carried only on the Apollo 16 mission.

e. Documented sample weigh bags/sample collection bags: The weigh bags (Apollo 11. 12. and
14) and the sample collection bags (Apollo IS, 16. and 17) were large bags into which the docu-
mented samples were placed for insertion into the Apollo lunar sample return container for return
3-30

Figure 3-14.- Apollo lunar sample return container.

3-31
 , t,
:, ~ J
~--:\. \
'-J
Special environmental
sample container
Documented sample
bag dispensers

Sample collection bag

Core sample
vacuum container

Figure 3-16.- Sample bags and special containers.

 3-33

to earth. The bags were originally made of Teflon film; however, after postflight evaluation in-
dicated that this material would tear, the design was changed to incorporate a laminated Teflon
fabric/Teflon film, and the name was changed from sample weigh bags to sample collection bags.

3.2.7.5 Lunar surface sampler.- The lunar surface sampler was used with the universal
handling tool. The device, which consisted of a plate assembly that contained either a Beta
cloth or a velvet cloth accumulation surface, was used to obtain undisturbed surface layer lunar
samples. A hinged cover plate protected the sample on the return-co-earth flight.

3.2.7.6 Lunar roving vehicle soil sampler.- The lunar roving vehicle soil sampler was a
device that when mated with the universal handling tool, allowed the lunar surface crewman to ob-
tain soil samples without dismounting from the lunar roving vehicle.

3.2.7.7 Penetrometers.- On the Apollo 14 mission, the active seismic experiment geophone
cable anchor shaft was used as a simple penetrometer to obtain soil mechanics data. The 0.B7-
centimeter-diameter 6B.O-centimeter-long aluminum shaft had a 30° core tip at the bottom and was
attached to the extension handle at the top. Alternating black and white stripes, each 2.0 cen-
timeters long, provided a depth scale reference in photographs of the penetrations achieved. The
crewman pressed the penetrometer into the lunar surface with one hand for a first measurement and
then with two hands for a second measurement. Preflight l/6-earth-gravity tests prOVided a com-
parative calibration for the penetrometer.

A self-recording penetrometer, used on the Apollo 15 and 16 missions (fig. 3-17), provided
for the first time quantitative measurement of forces of interaction between the soil near the
lunar surface and a soil testing device. The instrument prOVided data on soil penetration re-
sistance as a function of depth below the lunar surface. The penetrometer could penetrate the
lunar surface a maximum of 76 centimeters. On the Apollo 15 mission, the penetrometer could
measure a penetration force to a maximum of III newtons. As a result of the Apollo 15 experi-
ence, the force spring was changed to increase the maximum measurement to 215 newtons. On the
later lunar landing missions, the successful functioning of the self-recording penetrometer and
core tubes, as well as the general surface-contact equipment, resulted in data which provided a
basis for the quantitative study of stratigraphy, density, and strength characteristics of the
lunar soil.

3.2.7.8 Apollo lunar surface drill.- The purpose of the Apollo lunar surface drill (fig.
3-18) was to provide two 2.4-meter deep holes for emplacement of probes for the heat flow exper-
iment. The drill was also used to obtain a continuous subsurface core sample that was 2.4 to
3.0 meters long to be returned to earth for laboratory analyses. In addition, on Apollo 17, the
hole produced by the core drilling was used for emplacement of the neutron probe experiment.

The drill was a battery-powered, electric-drive, rotary-percuss ion-type drill which delivered
vertical blows to the rotating spindle, driving carbide-tipped hollow bore stems and core stems.
The boron-fiberglass bore stems and titanium core stems were sectionalized, allowing the desired
penetration into the lunar surface while maintaining the capability for handling and stowage by
the lunar surface crewmen.

Two significant hardware changes resulted from mission experience: bore stem joint redesign
and the incorporation of a deep-core extractor. Both changes were made because of the high den-
sity of the lunar subsurface encountered on Apollo 15. Before that mission, the subsurface den-
sity data had been based on drive-tube core information, which supported Surveyor data that showed
the bulk density of the regolith to be relatively low (90 to 110 pounds per cubic foot). This
soil density was used for drill testing. However, these samples had been taken from a depth of
only 0.6 to 0.9 meter. When the Apollo 15 drill went beyond this depth, the density increased
significantly (to 130 pounds per cubic foot). With this additional knowledge, a new bore stem
design was introduced and tested in simulated soil models compacted to a maximum bulk density.
Other changes included a core-stem extractor that was developed to provide additional capability
for jacking the deep-core sample from the subsurface. The changes were incorporated for the
Apollo 16 mission.

A continuous improvement in drill performance was obtained from one mission to the next. In
each case, the effectiveness of the hardwilre improvements was demonstrated. Time lines for the
drill-associated tasks were nominal for Apollo 16 and 17.
·._4
•

"'"
"0
~
o
"'"t
-
 3-35

Figure 3-18.- Apollo lunar surface drill.

3-36

3.2.8 Apollo Lunar Surface Experl~ents Package/Central Station

As reflected in table 3-1, a number of experiments were deployed or conducted on the lunar
surface during the six lunar landing missions. To minimize weight, volume, and power require-
ments, several experiments were integrated into a single system, the Apollo lunar surface exper-
iments package. The experiments that comprised the package varied from mission to mission, as
shown in table 3-111. The other lunar surface experiments were self-contained.

Figure 3-19 illustrates a typical Apollo lunar surface experiments package (Apollo 15 con-
figuration). Subpackage 1 contained magnetometer, passive seismic, and solar wind spectrometer
experiments. The lower portion of subpackage I housed the central electronics which included
the data handling, radio-frequency up-link and down-link, and power conditioning and distribu-
tion subsystems. In the erected configuration, the electronic and thermal control portions of
subpackage 1 are known as the central station. A helical S-band antenna was also carried on
subpackage 1. The antenna ....as attached to an aioing mechanism and an antenna mast that ....as
locked into the primary structure. Subpackage 2 consisted of a rigid structural pallet on ....hich
were mounted one or two experiments, a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, the antenna aiming
mechanism, special deployment tools, and, on two flights only, the geological handtool carrier.
All equipment was removed from subpackage 2 except the generator. Because the fuel element for
the generator was very hot, the fuel element was carried to the moon in a separate protective
<:ask assembly. The fuel cask assembly and the two subpa<:kages were sto....ed as shown in figure
3-20.

The radioisotope thermoelectric generator developed for the Apollo lunar surfa<:e experiment
package was designated "system for nuclear auxiliary power no. 27" (SNAP-27). Differing in de-
sign and materials from the previously developed SNAP-19 generator (for Nimbus and Pioneer),
SNAP-27 has been the only nuclear power generator developed for manned fueling and has the larg-
est power output of those developed for space use. Although the original design specification
was for a 50-watt generator, the output developed by the actual flight hardware exceeded 70 watts
in the hard vacuum environment - sufficient to handle the Apollo lunar surface experiment pack-
age power requirements whi<:h kept increasing for the growing science program. Initial power
output for Apollo 12 on the lunar surface was 74 watts (66.5 watts after 4 years), for Apollo 14
was 73 watts (68 watts after 3 years), for Apollo 15 ....as 75 watts (69.4 watts after 3 years),
for Apollo 16 was 70.9 watts (69.5 watts after 2 years), and for Apollo 17 was 77.5 watts (76.9
watts after I year). The actual rate of decrease in output (primarily the result of changes in
the lead telluride material from time, temperature, and pressure) for all five flight radioiso-
tope thermoelectric generators has been <:onsiderably less than calculated predictions (about one-
fourth the design specification rate).

The Apollo lunar surface experiments package systems flown on Apollo missions 12 through 16
were designed for a nominal lunar operating period of 1 year. The system flown on Apollo 17 in-
corporated various design improvements to meet a requirement of 2 years of lunar operation and to
eliminate operational problems encountered on earlier systems. These changes can be broadly <:ate-
gorized into: the use of logic elements with improved reliability, added redundancy with refined
techniques for redundant component selection, and design improvements based on lunar operating
experience. Plans were that when the output of the radioisotope thermoelectric generator de-
creased to a level too low to provide enough power for the full complement of experiments in the
worst case condition (lunar sunrise), selected experiments would be commanded off or to a standby
mode for lower power demand. Consequently, on June 14, 1974, three experiments (Apollo 12 lunar
surface magnetometer, and Apollo 15 lunar surface magnetometer and solar ....ind spectrometer, all
of which had been unable to provide science data for an extended period) were terminated so as
to make more power available for other experiments. These were the first experiments in the
Apollo lunar surface experiments pa<:kage program to be terminated by command. The only other
experiment to have its operation on the lunar surface tenninated was the Apollo 12 cold cathode
gage experiment, which turned itself off in November, 1969, because of a circuit failure.

Overall operation of the Apollo lunar surface experiments package central station has been
excellent in all areas of the me<:hanical, thermal, and electrical designs. All central stations
deployed on the lunar surface continue to operate as planned; the Apollo 12 central station has
exceeded its I-year life requirement by more than 3 years. Although no signal processing compo-
nent failure has occurred during lunar operation, numerous operational abnornalities have re-
quired procedural changes. The more signifi<:ant problems and failures occurring during the hard-
....are test phase and lunar operation are summarized in the follo....ing paragraphs.
 TABl.E 3-111.- APOLLO LUNAR SURFACE EXPERIMENTS PACl(ACE ARRAYS ANI> STATUS

Apollo 12 Apollo 13 A-pollo U A-poll0 15 Apollo 16 Apollo 17

Experi_nt
Array A Array 8 Array C Array A-2 Array I> Array E
apasSive setsmic Short-period Z axis ~t deployed. Long-period Z axis Full Of>"ration. Full operation.
has displsyed re- inoperative since
duced sensitivity 3/20/72. Notay data
alnce deployment. on long-period Y axis
since 4/14/73.

Active seislllic Mortar not fired. Three of four gre-

Ceo phone 3 data nades launched.
noisy since 3/26/11. Mortsr pitch senSor
Ceophoo.. 2 data io- off acale after third
valid since 1/3/14. firing on 5/23/72.

l.un"r surface Permanently co=- Permanently co-anded Full operation.

magnetollleter "",nded off 6/14/74. off 6/U/14.

Solar "ind Full operation e,,- Permanently com-

spectrom.. te ... cept rur Intel'1llic- manded off 6/14/74.
tent m<>dulation drop
in t"o proton energy
levels each lunation
since 11/5/11.

Supra thermal Periodically CO/ll- Periodically Com- Periodically com-

ton detector manded off to pre- manded co standby manded ta standby
vent high voltage ope ...ation to avoid operation Co avoid
arcing at elevated mode changes at roode changes at
lunar day tempera- elevated lunar day elevated lunar day
tures since 9/9/72. temperatures since temperatures since
3/29112. 9/13/73.

Ileat flo.. Nat deployed. Probe 2 not Co full Inoperative since Full ope ...ation.
depth intended, but emplacelll<:lIt •
experimenc provides
useful data.

Cold cathode Inoperative. raUed Not deployed. Intel'1llittent science Intel'1llittent science
ioo gage 14 hours after turn- data since 3/29/72. data since 2/22/73.
on 11/20/69.

Lunar ejecta Ther=al control de-

and meteor- sign !lot optl.lllum for
ites A-pollo 17 sHe. ,,-
strument operaced for
about 75 percent of
lunation.

'",
O:J
3-38

•
-
~
<

•
-~
<

--
"•
;

•
""", f 1"•
•
" "
~ -]-
"
"
N

"o <
>]
o. .
·- . •8.-
"" _
-" ! ' •
~ : ... :2 " ..
"" - " " ..."
"....
. .........
~ .
-:-
0" 0 0
< ~
<
. ......... "
."

oJ <>''''' Ii 0
.!lg.,;:;g-~

,, ,•""•
-
j ---,••
-
! -
."
, •
•
 3-39

Dust, thenllal, and radiation

engineering measurements package

Central
station ~~~~~
(deployed) '(
Lunar surface
magnetometer
---_ _ experiment
Sunshield },,~"G:t--. ~--.J,deploved)

::;:~;~'-'~~·t;Q 1/t1~)
~
,"'tMn ~ S,de c"lam ~ Passive seismic
Reflector
Thermal
" -
'l /" Thermal plate
experiment
(deployed)
ba9 (mou.nling centr~1 , Solar wind
. p'" statIOn electronics)
Pr1mary spectrometer
structure Boom attachment assembly experiment
Structure/thermal subsystem components (deployed)

(a) Subpackage 1

Pal let and

/-:~Co Id cathode
gage experiment radiosotope
(deployed) thermoe lectr ic
generator
•
'dPl'l"i~~ (deployed)

Suprathermal ion detector

experiment (deployed)

~J~I-----
, ~HealflOW
::--~Fuel \~ .I~xperlment
Dome~ranSfer tOOI~
~.;,.~. t Antenna ,~~-.
- <,
removal
tool
~ lr-Alltellila mast
~ .. secllons
Structure/thermal almmg ... ~ :=:::. Universal handlmg tools
subsystem components mechanism

(b) Subpackage 2

Figure 3-19.- Apollo 15 lunar surface experiments package.

 3-40

I Lunar module
/ centerline
I I

" :
Fuel caskl
location " /
I
I
J
/
"-..' Com part-
ment 2
'/

Lunar module scientific

equipment bay

Apollo lunar surface experiments package

Figure 3-20. - Stowage of Apollo lunar surface experime"ts package in lunar modu Ie.
 3-41

a. Analog multiplexer - analog/digital connector: The system uses a 90-channel analog

multiplexer the output of which Is digitized to an 8-hit word. Earlier designs used plastic-
encap.sulated fleld~effect tran"i",tor switche" in the multiplexer input; the transistors were sub-
jected to prescribed tests and burn-in to assure reliability. During ground tests, numerous tran-
sistor failures occurred. The faUures were traced to contamination due to the transistors not
being adequately sealed. However, no Apollo 12 and 14 lunar surface experiments package failures
occurred on the lunar surface. The design used on the Apollo 15 experiments package was upgraded
to use a field-effect transistor in a ceramic package. The co~ponents used on the Apollo 16 and
17 experiments packages were completely redesigned I.I1th full redundancy on all 90 analog channels.

b. Unexpected status changes: The demodulator section of the cOllllland decoder proved to be
sensitive to receiver noise output occurring in the absence of an up-link signaL In operation,
however, this condition did not prove to be a major problem. Operational procedures were modi-
fied to assure that the system was illuminated with an up-link signal, rendering the demodulator
section insensitive to noise when the crew was on the surface imnediately following deployment.
On the Apollo 16 package, a new receiver design resulted in a lower noise sensitivity; on the
Apollo 17 system, a new decoder design completely eliminated the problem.

3.2.9 Pa.'-lsive Seismic Exper:lr.lent

The passive seismic experiment was designed to detect vibrations of the lunar surface and
provide data that can be used to determine the internal structure, physical state, and tectonic
activity of the moon. A secondary purpose is to determine the number and mass of meteoroids that
strike the lunar surface. The instrument is also capable of measuring tilts of the lunar surface
(tides) and changes in gravity.

The first; of Cive passive seismometers was emplaced on the lun':H surface during the Apollo
11 mission. This instrument was part of the early Apollo scientific experiments package and was
powered by a solar panel array rather than by the radioisotope thermoelectric generator used on
the later missions. The instrument supplied long-period seismometer data for 20 days during the
first and second lunar days after emplacement (a period of about 1 month). Short-period seis-
mometer data were received for a longer time, with down-link transmissions ending approximately
4-1/2 months after activation.

The four seismic stations emplaced during the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 missions comprise a
network that spans the near side of the moon in an approximate equilateral triangle with 1100-
kilometer spacing between stations. (The Apollo 12 and 14 stations are 181 kilometers apart at
one corner of the triangle.) As shown in figure 3-21, four seismometers are included in the ex-
periment package at each station: three low-frequency components fonning a triaxial set (one
sensitive to vertical motion and two sensitive to horizontal motion), and a high-frequency com-
ponent sensitive to vertical motion. Of the 16 separate seismometers, all but three are pres-
ently operating properly. The high-frequency component at the IIpollo 12 station has failed to
operate since initial activation. One of the low frequency seismometers at the Apollo 14 sta-
tion (Z-axis) became inoperative after 1 year of operation and another ('I-axis) began transmit-
ting noisy data midway through 1974. The frequency ranges of the passive seismic experiment
components are compared to the ranges of other lunar surface seismic instruments in table 3-IV.

Several of the stations have exhibited thennal control problems. For collection of tidal
data, limiting the instrument operating temperature to a band of approximately 1.1 0 K is desir-
able. This limitation was not achieved, partly because of problems with deployment of the ther-
mal shroud. Corrective actions included the addition of weights to the outer edges of the shroud,
the use of a Teflon layer as the outer shroud covering, and stitching of the shroud to prevent
layer separation. Even so, an optimum shroud deployment was not achieved. thus, the heat loss
during lunar night and the solar input incurred during the lunar day have been greater than de-
si red.

The major findings to date are swnmarized (ref. 3-13):

Data from the impacts of lunar module ascent stages and launch vehicle S-IVB stages, com-
bined with data from high-pressure laboratory measurements on returned lunar samples, provide
information on lunar structure to a depth of approximately 150 kilometers. Information on lunar
structure below this depth is derived principally from analysis of signals from deep moonquakes
and distant meteoroid impacts.
 Horizontal IX, Y! sensors Vertical (ll sensor
Y'
.e-
LaCoste spring N

Capacitor
Capacitor plate
plate

Mass---
Mass iH

£Iectromagnet __----~ Wormdriver

for calibration spring adjust.
Bellows
{retract for uncage)- L Caging bellows
'- Long-period seismometers {retract for uncageJ
v -I

Upper delta S~spension rsu~pension

Gnomon rods (3)
w"e~ng~
'~ ~~,
(sun compass!
[
Level sensor'
Magnet assembly
Insulation :% I. S ,~ /. {suspended by
(aluminized Mylar)- delta rods and
long-period suspension spring!
seismometers (3) Short-period
Short-period
seismometer, heater seismometer Coil assembly
and controller (fixed to
electronics - instrument frame)

I 1.52 meter '1

Figure 3-21. - Seismometer elements.

 3-43

TABLE 3-IV.- RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR APOLLO SEISMIC EXPERI}ffiNTS

Frequency
Experiment Sensors Apollo sites range,
Hz

Passive seismic:
a
Short period 1 vertical 12 , 14, IS, 16 0.05 to 20
Long period 2 horizontal 12, 14, 15, 16 0.004 to 3
1 vertical 12, b14 , IS, 16 0.004 to 3

Active seismic 3 vertical °14 , 16 3 to 250

Lunar seismic 4 vertical 17 3 to 20

profiling

Lunar surface 1 vertical 17

gravimeter
d
Seismic 0.05 to 16
Free modes eO.00083 to
0.048

a
Short-period sensor data has displayed reduced sensitivity since
deployment.
bLong-period vertical sensor data invalid since }mrch 20, 1972.
cGeophone 2 data invalid since Jan. 3, 1974.
d
Instrument error restricting frequency range to approximately
0.001 to 2.0 Hz with poor sensitivity.
elnstrument error resulting in invalid data.
)-44

Analysis of the Qanmade impact data has revealed a major discontinuity at a depth of between
55 and 6S k110llleters in the eastern part of the Ocean of StOl"l:l.S. By analogy ..ieh the earth. the
7.one above the discnnt lnuf ty ill called the [Tust and the zone below. the -anele. Below the crust.
a relatively homogeneous zone extending to a depth of approxioately 1000 kilometers 1s suggested
by the nearly constant velocity of seismic waves. Although available data are not sufficient to
derive a detailed seismic velocity model for the deep interior, observations of signals origin-
ating from a large meteoroid that struck the far side of the moon and from far-side moonquakes
can be explained by introducing a "core" with a radius between 600 and 800 kilometers that has
markedly different elastic properties than the Mantle. Current moonquake activity is concentra-
ted near the boundary between these two zones.

Moonquakes have been detected by the low-frequency seismo~ters of each station at average
rates of between 600 and :1000 per year, depending on the station; all the moonquakes are quite
small by terrestrial standards (Richter magnitude 2 or less). Thousands of even smaller moon-
quakes are detected by the high-frequency seismometers. Meteoroid impacts are detected by the
low-frequency seismometers at average rates of between 70 and 150 per year. Although less numer-
ous than lIlOonquakes, mcteorid impacts generate the largest signals detected.

Lack of shallow seismic activity indicates that the moon is neither expanding nor contract-
ing appreciably at the present time. Thus, the rate of heat flow out of the moon must be approx-
imately equal to the rate of internal heat production. The presence of a thick lunar crust sug-
gests early, intense heating of the outer shell of tl~ moon.

3.2.10 Active Seis~ic Experioent

Active seis~ic experiment operations were conducted on the moon during the Apollo 14 and 16
missions. The purpose of the experiment ~as to generate and monitor seismic waves near the lunar
surface. The data are being used to study the internal structure of the moon to a depth of ap-
proximately 460 meters. A secondary objective still in progress is to monitor high-frequency
seismic activity during periodic listening modes.

The active seis~ic experiment equip~ent consisted of a thumper device that contained small
explosive initiators, a ~rtar package that contained high-explosive grenades, geophones, elec-
tronics within the Apollo lunar surface experiments package central station, and interconnecting
cabling. Crewmen operated the thu~pers during lunar surface activities. The mortars were de-
signed to be fired by remote command after crew departure.

The Apollo 14 geophones were deployed as planned, and the thumper part of the experiment was
completed. The thumper produced excellent seismic data although the crewman was able to fire only
13 of the 21 charges. Postflight investigation showed that a malfunction occurred because. lunar
sol1 got into the ann/fire switch mechanism and the initiator selector switch was not properly
seated in the detents. For Apollo 16, the thumper was successfully modified to improve switch
dust seals and to increase the torque required to IOOve the selector switch from one detent to
the next.

The Apollo 14 mortar package was deployed too close to the central station and in a position
where debris would be directed toward the central station if grenades were launched. The off-
nominal deployment was necessitated because of a crater at the optimum mortar package deployment
location. Postflight tests showed that the central station would probably be damaged if the gre-
nades were launched. Therefore, the Apollo 14 station grenades have not been launched.

Three grenades were launched frOl:l the Apollo 16 mortar package, but the mortar pitch sensor
reading varied after the first t~~ firings and became inoperative after the third. Since the
scientific objectives of the experiment had been met, the planned fourth firing was deleted.

Analysis of the seismic signals generated by the thumper during Apollo 14 has revealed im-
portant information concerning the near-surface structure of the moon. Two compressional wave
seismic velocities were measured at the Fra Mauro site. The near-surface ~terial has a seis~ic
wave velocity of 104 meters per second. Underlying this surficial layer at a depth of 8.5 meters,
the lunar material has a velocity of 299 meters per second. The measured thickness of the upper
unconsolidated debris layer is in good agreement with geological estimates of the thickness of
the regolith ~t this site.
 3-45

Combining the seismic refraction results [rom the active seismic experl~nt and the lunar
module ascent seismic data recorded by the Apollo 14 passive seismic experiment allows estimates
of the thickness of the underlying material to be IlI3de. These estimates range £rolll 38 to 76 1Ile-
tet'G and l113y LndLc3te the thickness of the Fr. Mauro Fonnation at this pa.·tlcular .. it" ( ....c. 3-14).

Two compressional wave seismic velocities have been recognized so Car in the Apollo 16 data.
The lunar surface material has a seismic wave velocity of 114 melers per second. Underlying this
surficial material at a depth of 12.2 meters, the lunar rocks have a velocity of 250 meters per
second. The 114-meter-per-second velocity agrees closely with the surface velocity measured at
the Apollo 12, 14, and 15 landing sites, thus indicating that no Ill3jor regional differences exist
in the near-surface acoustical properties of the lIIOon.

The seismic wave velocity of the material underlying the regolith at the Apollo 16 landing
site does not indicate that competent lava flows exist in the Cayley Formation at this location.
Instead, this velocity suggests the presence of brecciated material or impact-derived debris of
currently undetermined thickness.

3.2.11 Lunar Seismic Profiling Experiment

The purpose of the Apollo 17 lunar seismic profiling experiment was to record the vibrations
of the lunar surface as induced by explosive charges, by the thrust of the lunar module ascent
engine, and by the crash of the lunar module ascent stage. Analyses of these seismic data were
planned to detenlline the internal characteristics of the lun.:u crust to a depth of several kilo-
IlIeters. ,\ secondary objective of the e>lperiment was to ""nitol'" lunar se15,1I1e activity during
pel'"iodic listening intervals.

Strong seismic signals were recorded from the detonation of eight explosive charges that
were armed and placed on the lunar surface by the crewmen at various points along the traverses.
Recording of these seismic signals generated traveltime data to a distance of 2.7 kilometers.
The seismic signals received from the lunar module ascent stage i~act provided a valuable
travelt~ datum for dete~ining the variation of seis~ic velocity with depth in approximately
the upper 5 kilometers of the ~n.

The IIIOst significant discovery resulting from the analysis of the data recorded by the lunar
seis,1I1c profiling experiment is that the seismic velocity increases in a III.lrked stepwise IIl3nner
beneath the Apollo 17 landing site. A surface layer with a seismic velocity of 250 meters per
second and a thickness of 248 meters overlies a layer with a seismic velocity of 1200 meters per
second and a thickness of 927 meters. with a sharp increase to approximately 4000 meters per sec-
ond at the base of the lower layer. The seismic velocities for the upper layers are compatible
with those for basaltic lava flows, indicating a total thickness of approximately 1200 meters
for the infilling mare basalts at Taurus-Littrow. ~bjor episodes of deposition or evolution are
implied by the observed abrupt changes in seismiC velocity (ref. 3-15).

3.2.12 Lunar Surface Hagnetometer Experiment

Magnetic field measurements have proved to be one of the most useful tools for detennining
the electromagnetic properties of the earth interior and solar-wind and ionospheric environments.
This method was extended to the .con with the emplace~ent of a three-axis fluxgate magnetometer
on tt~ lunar surface during the Apollo 12 lunar stay. Similar magnetometers were deployed and
activated during the Apollo 15 and 16 lunar stays.

The instrument has a sensor located at the end of each of three orthogonal boolllS. Three
vector field components are measured in the normal mode of operation; however, the sensors lI.3y
be rotated such that they simultaneously align parallel in each of the three boom axes. This
alignment permits the calculation of the vector gradient in the plane of the sensor and permits
an independent measurement of the magnetic field vector at each sensor position. The sensors
and bo~s are located on a central structure which !louses the central electronics and gimbal-flip
unit. An evaluation of the performance of the Apollo 12 instrument resulted in the following
changes to the Apollo 15 and 16 instruments.

a. The measurement range was changed from -100, -200. and -400 gammas to -50. -100, and
t200 gamtnas.

b. A curtain was added over the electronics box to improve thel:'Tl\31 control.
3-46

Intrinsic steady (reoanent) magnetic fields provide a record of the magnetic field environ-
ment that existed 3 to 4 billion years ago when the lunar crustal material cooled below the Curie
temperature. The Apollo 12 lunar surface magnetometer detected a remanent magnetic field of ap-
proximately 38 gammas superimposed on the ge~gnetic tail, transition region, and interplane-
tary fields through which the moon passes during each orbit around the earth (ref. 3-16). The
remanent magnetic field at the Apollo 15 site was calculated to be approximately 6 gammas (small
compared to the fields at the Apollo 12, 14, and 16 sites). Since the Apollo 15 site lies near
the edge of the Hare t~rlum mascon basin, the existence of little or no remanent field at that
site suggests that masc;ons are not highly magnetic; (reL 3-17).

The bulk relative magnetic permeability of the moon has been calculated from measurements
obtained in the geomagnetic-tail region to be u/uo • 1.03 to.13. Electric;al-conductivityand
temperature profiles of the lunar interior have been determined from solar wind magnetic field
step-transient event measurements. The data presented in the following table fit the three-layer
model of the moon shown in figure 3-22 (ref. 3-18). Temperature calculations are based on con-
ductivity as a function of tenperature for pure olivine.

Electrical conductivity,
Region mho/_ Temperature, "K

1 <lO-g <440
2 .....3.5 x 10- 10 890
J .....10- 2 1240

Qualitatively, the inductive eddy-current response at the Apollo 15 site is similar to that
at the Apollo 12 site. Observations show that the solar wind compresses the steady remanent field
at the Apollo 12 site during periods of high solar plasma density (ref. 3-17).

On June 14, 1974, the Apollo 12 and Apollo 15 instruments were permanently commanded off.
The Apollo 12 instrument science and engineering data had been invalid for 1 year and that of
the Apollo 15 instrument for 6 months. Because of decreasing output from the radioisotope ther-
moelectric generators and the criticality of reserve power during lunar night, spurious func-
tional changes could have caused the loss of functional instruments. The Apollo 16 instrument
was operative at the time of publication of this report.

3.2.13 Lunar Portable MagnetOmeter Experiment

Portable magnetometers were used by the Apollo 14 and 16 crews. The objective of the lunar
portable magnetometer measurements was to determine the remanent magnetic field at various lunar
surface locations. The magnetometer actually measured low-frequency (less than 0.05 hertz) compo-
nents of the total magnetic field at the surface, which includes the remanent field, the external
solar field, fields induced in the lunar interior by changing solar fields, and fields caused by
solar wind interactions with the lunar remanent fields. Simultaneous measurements made by the
lunar surface magnetometer of the time-varying components of the field were later subtracted to
give the desired resultant remanent field values caused by magnetized crustal material.

The lunar portable magnetometer consisted of a set of three orthogonal fluxgate sensors
mounted on top of a tripod. The sensor-tripod assembly was connected by a ribbon cable to an
electronics box. On Apollo 14, the electronics box was mounted on the modular equipment trans-
porter; on Apollo 16, the box was mounted on the lunar roving vehicle. After positioning the tri-
pod at the desired location, a crewman turned the power switch on. read the digital displays in
sequenc;e, and verbally relayed the data back to earth.

The Apollo 14 instrument recorded steady magnetic fields of 103 t5 gammas and 43 =6 gammas
at two sites separated by 1120 meters. These measurements showed that the unexpectedly high
(38 gamma) steady field measured at the Apollo 12 site 180 kilometers away was not unique. In-
deed, these measurements snd studies of lunar samples and lunar-orbiting Explorer 35 data indi-
c;ate that much of the lunar surface material was magnetized at a previous time in lunar history
(ref. 3-19). The magnetic; field of 313 gammas measured in the North Ray Crater area during the
Apollo 16 mission to the lunar highlands proved to be the highest ever measured on another body
of planetary size. Other field measurements obtained by the Commander and Lunar Module Pilot at
different sites along the three surface traverses varied from 121 to 313 glUlllllas.
 3-47

I .

Figure 3-22.- Three-layer moon model.

3-48

Magnetic studies of returned samples indicate that they famed in a reasonably strong mag-
netic field (a few thousand gammas), yet there is no such field affecting the moon today. It
is hypothesized that the moon had a reasonably strong magnetic field throughout much of its early
history.

The surface fields provide reference values for extrapolation of subsatellite magnetometer
measurements to the lunar surface. Further analysis should yield information on the geological
nature and origin of lunar remanent fields, including the possibility of an ancient lunar dynamo,
shock-induced magnetization, or another mechanism to account for the strong magnetization found
in lunar surface samples.

3.2.14 Heat Flow Experiment

The purpose of the heat flow experiment is to determine the rate of heat flow from the lunar
interior and the thermal properties of the lunar subsurface, thereby contributing to an under-
standing of the thermal history of the moon. Heat loss is directly related to the internal tem-
perature and the rate of internal heat production; therefore, measurements of these quantities
enable limits to be set on long-lived radioisotopic abundances (the chief source of interior
heating) and the internal temperature.

The experiment hardware consists of two temperature-sensing probes and electronics for con-
trolling and processing the measurements. Two holes, spaced about 9 meters apart, were drilled,
and the probes were inserted into these holes. Sensitive thermometers within the probes accu-
rately measure the vertical temperature gradient over approximately the lower 100 centimeters of
each hole. These readings, over an extended period of time, yield the heat-flux data. Each
probe also contains heating elements. When one of these elements is energized, a known quantity
of heat is generated at a known distance from a temperature sensor. The resulting amount and
rate of temperature change at the sensor are used to detemine the thermal conductivity of the
lunar material near the probe.

Ileat flow 'experiments were successfully deployed and activated on the Apollo 15 and 17 mis-
sions. Deployment of a heat flow experiment was attempted during the Apollo 16 lunar stay; how-
ever, the cable connecting the electronics package with the Apollo lunar surface experiments pack-
age central station was inadvertently broken during experiment package deployment activities,
rendering the heat flow experiment hardware inoperative. The only operational problem with the
emplaced instruments has been the loss of one reference temperature reading on the Apollo 15 heat
flow experiment. Because reference junction temperature measurements are redundant, there has
been no loss of data. No specific failure mechanism was revealed during investigation of the
circuits; therefore, no design changes were made on the Apollo 17 instrument.

The Apollo 15 and 17 measurements were made in similar regional settings, that is, on the
margins of large mascon basins. Though the possibility of regional biases to these measurements
remains, the evidence is strong that a major part of the lunar surface is characterized by heat
flow at the upper limit of that expected from geochemical models and thermal history calculations.
Results to date indicate that the average heat flow from the interior of the moon outward is ap-
proximately 3 microwatts per square centimeter, about half that of the earth (ref. 3-20).

3.2.15 Lunar Surface Gravimeter Experiment

The lunar surface gravimeter was designed to assist in the search for gravitational radia-
tion from cosmic sources. A secondary objective is to measure tidal deformation of the moon.

The lunar surface gravimeter has three basic components: a gravity meter, a structural!
thermal-control package, and an electronics package. The gravity meter uses the LaCoste-Romberg
type of spring-mass suspension to sense changes in the vertical component of local gravity. The
major fraction of the force supporting the sensor mass (beam) against the local gravitational
field is provided by a zero-length spring (one in which the restoring force is directly propor-
tional to the spring length). As shown in figure 3-23, small changes in force tend to displace
the beam up or down. This imbalance was to be adjusted to the null position by repositioning the
spring pivot points with micrometer screws. Incremental masses added by command to the sensor
mass and the position of the coarse and fine micrometer screws I as read out by the shaft encoder
logic, were to provide the gravity measurement.
 3-49

Screw shaft
(to motor)

Zero-length spring ---.t.L

Sensor beam I-HFine

(eag ing mec.h.a::.n~i:.::s:::m:""'_-:7"'" screw
not shown) _

Note:
Scale modified Fixed
for clarity capacitor
Mass- plates
of gravity adding (detector)
mechanism
Spring-~.

-+-- Wire
Sensor
beam Cross section
of mass adding
Cup mechanism

Access holes
for cagi ng
fingers /

Sensor ;
housing --/'
Shaft (to motod

Figure 3-23. - Lunar surface gravimeter mechani sm.

3-50

The instrument was deployed during the Apollo 17 lunar stay; however, following the initial
experiment turn-on, the setup procedure of nulling the sensor beam in the proper stable position
between capacitor plates could not be accomplished. When the command was given to add any or all
of the nulling masses to the sensor beam assembly, the data indicated that the beam would not move
away from the upper capacitor plate. The only way to lower the beam was to cage the beam against
the lower capacitor plate. During the s",cond and third extravehicular activities, the Lunar Mod-
ule Pilot rapped the exposed top plate on the gimbal; rocked the experiment 1n all directions;
releveled the instrument, working the base well against the surface; and verified the sunshade
tilt. These actions were taken to free a mass assembly or a sensor beam that was suspected of
being caught or binding, but no change was apparent. Review of sensor records revealed that an
error in arithmetic resulted in the sensor masses being approximately 2 percent lighter than the
proper nominal weight for l/6-earth-gravity operation of the flight unit. The sensor mechanism
allows a 1;1.5 percent adjustment by ground <..:ommand to <..:orrect mass !n3<..:CUIC3<..:!es.

Several reconfigurations of the instrument have been commanded. The sensor beam has been
centered by applying a load on the beam through the mass support springs by partial caging of
the mass weight assembly. In this configuration, the instrument is supplying some seismic data
(ref. 3-21).

3.2.16 Traverse Gravimeter Experiment

The primary goal of the traverse gravimeter experiment was to make relative gravity measure-
ments at a number of sites in the Apollo 17 landing area and to use these measurements to obtain
information about the geological substructure. A secondary goal was to obtain the value of the
gravity at the landing site relative to an accurately known value on earth. The instrument pack-
ege conteined e vibreting string eccelerometer from which the grevity value& could be determined.
The preliminary gravity profile is based upon the assumption that the material underlying the
valley floor consists of basalt that is 1 kilometer thick and has a positive density contrast of
0.8 grams per cubic centimeter with respect to brecciated highland material on either side. Us-
ing this model, the gravity values at the edges of the valley are 25 milligals lower than at the
lunar module site, and a variation in the central part of the valley floor is within 10 milli-
gals of the value at the lunar module site. These values will be refined based upon more elab-
orate models. A value of g - 162 694.6 ~5 milligals was measured at the lunar module site
(ref. 3-22).

3.2.17 Surface Electrical Properties Experiment

The surface electrical properties experiment was used to explore the subsurface material of
the Apollo 17 landing site by means of electromagnetic radiation. The experiment was designed
to detect electrical layering, discrete scattering bodies, and the possible presence of water.
The experiment data may help others interpret many observations already made with both earth-
based and lunar orbital bistatic radar. In addition, the experiment provides data needed to in-
terpret observations made with the lunar sounder (sec. 3.3.1.5), and the results are expected to
help define the stratigraphy of the Apollo 17 landing site.

The crewmen deployed a small, low-power transmitter and laid on the surface two crossed di-
pole antennas that were 70 meters long tip to tip. A receiver and receiving antennas were mounted
on the lunar roving vehicle. Inside the receiver, there was a tape recorder which recorded the
data on magnetic tape. In addition to the surface electrical properties experiment data. in-
formation on the location of the lunar roving vehicle. obtained from the lunar roving vehicle
navigation system, was also recorded on the tape.

The basic principle of the experiment is the interference of two or more waves to produce
an interference pattern. Electromagnetic energy radiated from a transmitting antenna travels at
different velocities through different media. Thus, distinctive patterns were recorded as the
lunar roving vehicle moved along the surface. Values of the electrical properties of the sub-
surface material (dielectric constant and loss tangent) were obtained from analysis of the data.

Two quite different structural models of the Apollo 17 site have been developed to account
for the observations. Although neither is based on rigorous theory, the experiment team believes
that each is correct in the essential features. The first model, preferred by most members of
 3-51

the team, is one 1n which the dielectric constant increases with depth from a value of 2.5 to 3
near the surface to approximately 5 at a depth of 50 to 60 meters. A discontinuity is present
at SO to 60 meters, where the dielectric constant increases to a value of 6 to 6.5. On the basis
of a low value of the loss tangent, water is probably not present at the Apollo 17 site.

In the alternate structural model, the cause of the apparent change of dielectric constant
with depth is assigned to a sloping interface between a thin upper layer and a thick lower layer.
The upper layer is, perhaps, 20 meters thick beneath the experiment site and thins to 15 meters
at station 2 (fig. 3-12). In addition, there is a hint of a discontinuity in the dielectric
constant at a depth of approximately 300 meters.

Additional theoretical and scale model work is being done to determine which model is more
nearly correct (ref. 3-23).

3.2.18 Lunar Neutron Probe Experiment

The lunar neutron probe experiment, one of the Apollo 17 surface experiments, was designed
to measure the rates of low-energy neutron capture as a function of depth in the lunar regolith.

Various studies of the lunar samples, particularly those involving isotopic variations in
gadolinium and samarium, have documented the effects of long-term exposure of lunar materials to
neutrons and have shown how such data can be used to calculate regolith accumulation and mixing
rates and ages for stratigraphic layers in lunar core sanples. Comparison of a neutron capture
product with a spallation product in lunar rocks can also be used to infer average irradiation
depths that are required to obtain accurate exposure ages. In addition, the Apollo 15 orbital
gamma ray experiment has detected gamma rays from neutron capture on such elements as iron and
titanium, from which the relative chemical abundances of these elements could be inferred. In
all these cases, the strength of the conclusions has been necessarily limited by the lack of ex-
perimental values for the relevant rates of neutron capture. The neutron probe experiment was
proposed to obtain these data.

The experiment used two particle track detection sy~tems. A cellulose triacetate plastic
detector was used in conjunction with boron-lO targets to record the alpha particles emitted with
the neutron capture on boron-lO. For the second system, mica detectors were used to detect the
fission fragments from neutron-induced fission in uranium-235 targets.

The lunar neutron probe experiment was assembled, activated, and deployed in the hole formed
by the drilling and extraction of the deep-core sample. The probe was deployed during the first
extravehicular activity and retrieved at the end of the third extravehicular activity for a total
activated exposure period of 49 hours.

When the probe was disassembled, the targets and detectors were all in excellent condition,
and indicators show that the probe temperature never exceeded 335° K. The possibility that the
probe would reach higher temperatures was a serious concern before the mission, because thennal
annealing of the particle tracks in the plastic could occur.

Although only the mica detectors had been analyzed at the time of publication of reference
3-24, it appears that good agreement exists between the results of the experiment and theoretical
calculations of neutron capture rates and the equilibrium neutron energy spectrum. If this agree-
ment is confirmed, interpretations of lunar sample data to determine regolith mixing rates and
depths, depths of irradiation for lunar rocks, and accumulation rates and deposition times can
be verified.

3.2.19 Laser Ranging Retroreflector

Arrays of optical reflectors were emplaced on the lunar surface during the Apollo II, 14,
and 15 missions. Each of the arrays consisted of a compact assembly of solid fused silica corner
reflectors, 3.8 centimeters in diameter, mounted in an aluminum panel. Fused silica was used be-
cause of its known radiation resistance, thermal stability, high transparency to most wavelengths
in solar radiation, long life, and operation in lunar day and lunar night. Each reflector was
recessed 1.9 centimeters in the panel mounting socket to minimize temperature gradients.
3-52

Accurately timed pulses of light from a ruby laser at a ground station observatory are di-
rected through a telescope aimed at one of the reflector packages. The light is reflected back
on a path parallel to the incident beam, collected by the telescope, and detected by special
receiving equipment. The time required for a pulse of light to reach the reflector and be re-
turned is used to establish the distance from the earth ground station to the reflector site
on the lunar surface at that time. Even though the illuminated spot on the moon (the reflector)
is small, the fact that each corner reflector sends the light back in almost the same direction
it came from causes the return signal at the earth from the reflector panel to be 10 to 100 times
larger than the reflected intensity from the lunar surface.

The overall design for the Apollo 14 and 15 reflector arrays was similar to that for Apollo
11 except the half-angle taper of the reflector cavities was increased so as to increase the ar-
ray optical efficiency 20 to 30 percent for off-axis earth positions. The number of reflectors
in the array was increased from 100 for Apollo 11 and 14 to 300 for Apollo 15 to permit regular
observations with simpler ground equipment, especially for groups mainly interested in obtaining
geophysical information from observing only one reflector. The increase also allowed the use of
a number of permanent stations on different continents for the determination of polar motion
and earth rotation with high accuracy, as well as the use of movable lunar ranging stations to
monitor movements of a large number of points on the earth's surface.

Ground stations obtaining successful measurements from the Apollo arrays include the
McDonald Observatory in Texas, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory's Lunar Ranging Observa-
tory in Arizona, Lick Observatory, Pic du Midi Observatory in France, Tokyo Astronomical Obser-
vatory in Japan, Crimean Astrophysical Observatory in the Soviet Union, and the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory.

The three Apollo reflector sites form an almost equilateral triangle with sides 1250, lIDO,
and 970 kilometers, and are almost centered on the near side of the moon. The complex angular
motions of the moon about its center of mass thus can be separated with high accuracy from the
range changes due to center-of-mass motion by differential range measurements to different re-
flector locations.

The accuracy already achieved in lunar laser ranging represents a hundredfold improvement
over any previously available knowledge of the distance to points on the lunar surface. Extremely
complex structure has been observed in the lunar rotation, and significant improvement has been
achieved in the lunar orbit. The selenocentric coordinates of the retroreflectors give improved
reference points for use in lunar mapping, and new information on the lunar mass distribution
has been obtained.

Full use of the Apollo arrays will require an observing program continuing many years and
using ground stations arouno the world. No evidence of degredation with time in the return sig-
nals from any of the Apollo reflectors has been observed so far, and thus an operational lifetime
of at least 10 years may be expected for these passive retroflector arrays.

Further information is contained in reference 3-25.

3.2.20 Charged-Particle Lunar Environment Experiment

The charged-particle lunar environment experiment was deployed at Fra Mauro as part of the
Apollo 14 experiments package system. The instrument was designed to measure the fluxes of elec-
trons and protons with energies ranging from 40 to 70 000 electron volts and their angular dis-
tribution and time variations.

The basic instrument of the experiment consists of two detector packages (analyzers A and B)
oriented in different directions for minimum exposure to the ecliptic path of the sun. Each de-
tector package has six particle detectors; five provide information about particle energy distri-
bution, and the sixth provides high sensitivity at low particle fluxes. Particles entering the
detector package are deflected by an electrical field into one of the six detectors, depending on
the energy and polarity of the particles.
 3-53

On April 8, 1971, the analyzer B detector voltage failed. Subsequent playback of the data
from various remote sites revealed that the anomalous condition occurred abruptly. As a result,
analyzer B is not providing any scientific data. The analyzer A detector voltage decreased sig-
nificantly on June 6, 1971. The charged-particle lunar environment experiment continued to oper-
ate until June 16, 1971, when, after another significant analyzer A voltage decrease, the exper-
iment was commanded to the standby mode. Since then, the instrument has been operated under a
revised procedure to avoid further degradation.

The data have application to investigations of various particle phenomena, including solar
wind, the magnetosphere, and low-energy solar cosmic rays. Preliminary data analyses have shown
the presence of a lunar photoelectron layer; an indication of modulation or acceleration of 10w-
energy electrons near the moon; penetration of auroral particles to lunar distances in the magnet-
ospheric tail; and electron fluxes in the magnetospheric tail, possibly associated with the neu-
tral sheet (ref. 3-26).

3.2.21 Solar Wind Spectrometer Experiment

Two solar wind spectrometers were deployed and activated on the lunar surface - one during
the Apollo 12 mission and the other during the Apollo 15 mission. The two instruments, separated
by approximately 1100 kilometers, provided the first opportunity to measure the properties of the
solar plasma simultaneously at two locations a fixed distance apart. The instruments were de-
signed to measure the velocity, density, and angular distribution of the solar wind plasma strik-
ing the lunar surface. Thus, the interaction of the solar wind with the moon may be studied and
inferences made about the physical properties of the moon. the nature of the magnetospheric tail
of the earth, and general solar wind properties.

To be sensitive to solar wind plasma from any direction (above the horizon of the moon) and
to ascertain its angular distribution, the solar wind spectrometer has an array of seven Faraday
cups. Because the cups are identical, an isotropic flux of particles produces equal currents in
each cup~ For a flux that is not isotropic, analysis of the relative amounts of current in the
seven collectors determines the mean direction of plasma flow and is a measure of the anisotropy.

Indications of anomalous behavior of the Apollo 12 instrument were traced to August 1971 af-
ter initial discovery in November 1971. Subsequent investigation revealed that the anomaly has
occurred intermittently since June 13, 1971. The periods of abnormality always occur when the
sun is between 120 0 and 135 0 from the dawn horizon, and their duration increases steadily month
after month. The effect of this anomaly is simply to restrict the range of energy over which
positive ions can be detected, reducing the upper limit by a factor of 2. The instrument was
designed to go as high as 9600 electron volts per unit charge to accommodate the helium component
of the solar wind at the highest velocities that had ever been observed. In the high-gain mode,
detectable currents of hydrogen ions are never found in the two highest energy levels, and helium
ions are detectable in these levels only rarely. Thus, the absence of these two levels in the
high-gain mode does not seriously compromise the validity and usefulness of the data. In the
low-gain mode, hydrogen ion energies still do not extend into these levels, but data on helium
ions will be lost more frequently. Thus, the occurrence of this anomalous performance necessi-
tates operation of the solar wind spectrometer in the high-gain mode if possible.

The Apollo 15 solar wind spectrometer telemetry data became invalid coincident with a cen-
tral station reserve power decrease of approximately 7 watts on June 3D, 1972. The power de-
crease indicated that the experiment which is current limited was drawing approximately 13 watts
of power. During real-time support periods, the experiment was cycled from the standby mode to
the operate mode, and verification that the instrument was demanding excess power from the cen-
tral station was obtained. The instrument was permanently commanded off June 14, 1974.

Preliminary results from the data analyzed include indications that the solar plasma at the
lunar surface is superficially indistinguishable from that at a distance from the moon, both when
the moon is ahead of and behind the bow shock of the earth. No detectable plasma appears to ex-
ist in the magnetospheric tail of the earth or in the shadow of the moon (ref. 3-27).
 3.2.22 Solar Wind Composition Experiment

The purpose of the solar wind composition experiment is to determine the elemental and iso-
topic composition of the noble gases and other selected elements in the solar wind by measurement
of particle entrapment on exposed sheets of foil.

The average isotopic compositions of the solar wind are of significant importance because
comparisons can be made with ancient compositions derived from solar wind gases trapped in lunar
soil and rocks. Because solar activity varies with time, the isotopic abundances in the solar
wind are expected to vary also. Therefore, to obtain accurate average abundances which exist
during this age of the solar system, this experiment was performed numerous times, separated in
time and with extended foil exposure times.

The experiment was deployed on five missions (Apollo 11, 12.14, IS, and 16). On each mis-
sion, the experiment consisted of an aluminum foil sheet on a reel and a staff to which the foil
and reel were attached. The apollo 16 experiment differed from those of the previous missions in
that pieces of platinum foil were attached to the aluminum foil. This change was made to deter-
mine whether or not the platinum foil pieces could be cleaned with fluoridic acid to remove lunar
dust contamination without destroying rare gas isotopes of solar wind origin up to the mass of
krypton. The foil was positioned by a crewman perpendicular to the solar rays, left exposed to
the solar wind, retrieved, and brought back to earth for analysis. Exposure times for each de-
ployment were as follows.

Exposure time,
Mission hr:min

Apollo 11 01:17
Apollo 12 18:42
Apollo 14 21:00
Apollo 15 41:08
Apollo 16 45:05

The relative elemental and isotopic abundances of helium and neon measured for the Apollo 12,
14, IS, and 16 exposure times are quite similar but differ from those obtained during the Apollo
11 mission. Particularly noteworthy is the absence of any indication of electromagnetic separa-
tion effects that might have been expected at the Apollo 16 landing site because of the relatively
strong local magnetic field. Weighted averages of ion abundances in the solar wind for the five
foil exposure periods are given in table 3-V. The errors cited are an estimate of the uncertainty
of the averages for the indicated period. The errors are based on the variability of the observed
abundances obtained from the four long exposure times (ref. 3-28).

3.2.23 Suprathermal Ion Detector and Cold-Cathode Gage Experiments

The suprathermal ion detector and cold-cathode gage experiments are conveniently discussed
together because the data processing system is common to both experiments and because the elec-
tronics for the cold-cathode gage are contained in the suprathermal ion detector package. These
two experiments were part of the 'Apollo 12, 14, and 15 lunar surface experiments packages.

The supra thermal ion detector experiments measure the energy and mass spectra of positive
ions near the lunar surface. A low-energy detector counts ions in the velocity range from 4 x 10~
to 9.35 x 10& centimeters per second with energies from 0.2 to 48.6 electron volts, enabling the
determination of the distribution of ion masses as large as 120 atomic mass units. A higher-
energy detector counts ions in selected energy intervals between 1 and 3500 electron volts. The
ions generated on the moon are of interest because possible sources are sporadic outgassing from
volcanic or seismic activity, gases from a residual primordial atmosphere of heavy gases, and
evaporation of solar wind gases accreted on the lunar surface. Ions that arrive from sources
beyond the near-moon environment are also being studied. For example, the motions of ions in the
magnetosphere can be investigated during those periods when the moon passes through the magneto-
spheric tail of the earth.
 TABLE 3-V.- COMPARISON OF WEIGHTED AVERAGES OF SOLAR WIND ION ABUNDANCES a

b 4 3 4 2O 2O 22 Ne 22 /Ne 21 2O 36
Sources He /He He /Ne Ne /Ne Ne /Ar

Solar wind (average from 2350 ±120 570 ±70 13.7 ±0.3 30 ±4 28 ±9
solar wind composition
experiments)

Lunar fines 10084 2550 ±250 96 ±18 12.65 ±0.2 31.0 ±1.2 7 ±2

Ilmenite from 10084 2720 ±100 218 ±8 12.85 ±0.1 31.1 ±0.8 27 ±4

Ilmenite from 12001 2700 ±80 253 ±10 12.9 ±0.1 32.0 ±0.4 27 ±5

Ilmenite from breccia 10046 3060 ±150 231 ±13 12.65 ±0.15 31.4 ±0.4 (e)

Terrestrial atmosphere 7 X 105 0.3 9.80 ±0.08 34.5 ±1.0 0.5

a
Obtained from the solar wind composition experiments with abundances in surface-
correlated gases of lunar fines and a breccia, and in the earth's atmosphere.
b
Data for surface-correlated gases in lunar materials are from references 3-29 and
3-30.
e
Variable.

W
I
'"
'"
3-56

The cold-cathode gages measure the density of neutral atoms comprising the ambient lunar
atmosphere. The range of the instruments corresponds to atmospheric pressures of 10- 12 to 10- 6
torr. Neutral atoms entering the sensor become ionized and result in a minute current flow that
is proportional to the atmospheric density. These instruments were included in the experiments
packages to evaluate the aJrounc of gas present on the lunar surface. The gage indications can be
expressed as a concentration of particles per unit volume or as pressure, which depends on the
ambient temperature in addition to the concentration. The amount of gas observed can be compared
with the expectation associated with the solar wind source to obtain an indication of the presence
of other gas sources.

The Apollo 12 suprathermal ion detector and cold-cathode gage were commanded on after exper-
iments package deployment and functioned satisfactorily for approximately 14 hours. At that time,
the 3500-volt power supply for the supra thermal ion detector and the 4500-volt power supply for
the cold-cathode gage were turned off automatically. Analysis indicates that arcing resulted
from the outgassing of the electronics potting material and that the arcing protection provisions
turned off the power supplies.

The 4500-volt power supply was immediately commanded on several times unsuccessfully. All
attempts to command the 4500-volt power supply on have been unsuccessful because of damage in-
curred by the arcing. After a waiting period for gases to dissipate, the 3500-volt power supply
was commanded on successfully, and the Apollo 12 supra thermal ion detector has been able to func-
tion since that time.

The Apollo 14 and 15 suprathermal ion detectors have experienced numerous arcing anomalies
since lunar deployment and initial activation; however, these instruments continue to function.
The Apollo 14 experiment also has experienced an anomaly in the positive analog-to-digital con-
verter, causing a loss of all engineering data processed through that converter. This anomaly
has had no adverse effect on the scientific outputs of the experiments.

The suprathermal ion detectors have detected numerous single-site ion events. Multiple-site
observations of ion events that possibly correlate with seismic events of an impact character
(recorded at the seismic stations) have resulted in information about the apparent motions of the
ion clouds. The 500- to lOOO-electron-volt ions streaming down the magnetosheath have also been
observed simultaneously by all three instruments (ref. 3-31).

On March 7, 1971, the Apollo 14 suprathermal ion detector recorded 14 hours of data that ap-
pears to be primarily a result of clouds of water vapor. Studies of all possible sources of
such an event leads to the conclusion that the water is of lunar origin (ref. 3-32). In view of
the almost total lack of water in returned samples, this is an unexpected result.

Before the Apollo program, optical and radio observations had been used to set lower limits
on the density of the lunar atmosphere; apart from that, nothing was known. The Apollo program
has demonstrated that the contemporary moon has a tenuous atmosphere although by earth standards
the lunar atmosphere is a hard vacuum. The cold-cathode gage experiment measured the concentra-
tions of neutral atoms at the lunar surface to be approximately 2 x lOS atoms per cubic centi-
meter. This measurement corresponds to a pressure between 10- 12 and 10- 11 torr (a vacuum not
achievable in earth laboratories).

3.2.24 Cosmic Ray Detector Experiment

The relative abundances and energy spectra of heavy solar and cosmic ray particles convey
much information about the sun and other galactic particle sources and about the acceleration
and propagation of the particles. In particular, the lowest energy range, from a few million
electron volts per nuclear mass unit (nucleon) to 1000 electron volts per nucleon (a solar wind
energy), is largely unexplored. The cosmic ray experiment contained various detectors designed
to examine this energy range.

The experiment was carried on the Apollo 16 and 17 missions and was the outgrowth of ear-
lier cosmic ray experiments on the Apollo 8 and 12 missions. The early experiments consisted
basically of a detector affixed to crewmen's helmets to assess the amount of cosmic ray radia-
tion to which the crewmen were subjected in space. The purposes of and the hardware for the
Apollo 16 and 17 experiments were considerably more exotic and complex.
 The detection basis of nearly all the cosmic ray experiments is that particles passing
through solids can form trails of damage, revealable by preferential chemical attack, which al-
lows the particles to be counted and identified. The Apollo 16 detector hardware consisted of
a foldable four-panel array (fig. 3-24). The panels were mounted on the outside of the lunar
module descent stage so as to directly expose three panels to cosmic ray and solar wind parti-
cles after the spacecraft/lunar module adapter had been jettisoned. During the first extrave-
hicular activity on the lunar surface, a crewman pulled a lanyard to expose the hidden surfaces
of panel 4 to the lunar surface cosmic rays and the solar wind. Exposure ended just before the
termination of the third extravehicular activity, at which time the four-panel array was pulled
out of its frame and folded into a compact package for return to earth. Because the folding
and stowing of the device ended the period of useful exposure of the detectors, provision was
made to distinguish particles detected during the useful period from particles that subsequently
penetrated the spacecraft and entered the detectors.

The full planned exposure of the four panels was not obtained on Apollo 16 because the sched-
uled sequence of events did not occur completely as planned.

a. Panel 4 contained a shifting mechanism that activated several experiments, most notably
the neutron experiment, on the lunar surface. Because of a mistake in the final assembly, the
shifting was only partially successful. This circumstance caused degradation of the information
that can be obtained from the neutron experiment and made it difficult to obtain information on
the time variation of light solar wind nuclei.

b. A temperature rise in the package exceeded design specifications. Although this temper-
ature rise has rendered the anlaysis of the experiment difficult, the effects of the temperature
rise can be taken into account.

c. At some time during the mission, panel 1 became covered with a thin, dull film that
seriously degraded the performance of panel 1.

d. During the translunar phase of the mission on April 18, 1972, a medium-sized solar flare
occurred. Detectors exposed to the solar flare showed that the flare contained approximately 10 8
protons per square centimeter with energies greater than 5 million electron volts.

The Apollo 17 hardware (fig. 3-25) consisted of a thin aluminum box with a sliding removable
cover. Four particle-detector sheets were attached to the interior wall of the box, and three
were attached to the inside surface of the cover. Opening was accomplished by two opposing rings,
one mounted on the cover and the second mounted on the box. During the first extravehicular ac-
tivity, a crewman removed the experiment from the lunar module and pulled the cover portion off
the box. The cover was hung on the lunar module structure in the shade, with the detector sur-
faces oriented away from the sun and facing the dark sky. The open box was then hung by a Velcro
strap on a lunar module strut in the sun, with the detector surfaces perpendicular to the sun.
The detectors were exposed to the lunar environment for 45-1/2 hours. The experiment was re-
trieved at the beginning of the third extravehicular activity, earlier than planned, because of
an apparent increase in the flux of low-energy particles caused by a visually active sunspot that
was present during the entire mission.

Three teams of investigators are using data from the cosmic ray detector experiment. The
preliminary findings from the Apollo 16 data are given in reference 3-33. Included are the ob-
servations that the differential energy spectrum of nuclei with Z > 6 falls by seven orders of
magnitude over the interval from 0.1 to 20 million electron volts per nucleon. then remains al-
most flat up to approximately 100 million electron volts per nucleon. The two parts correspond
to contributions from the sun and from galactic cosmic rays.

3.2.25 Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites Experiment

This experiment, emplaced on the lunar surface during the Apollo 17 mission, measures im-
pacts of primary cosmic dust particles (10- 9 grams or less) and lunar ejecta emanating from the
sites of meteorite impacts on the moon. Specific objectives are to (1) determine the background
and long-term variations in cosmic dust influx rates, (2) determine the extent and nature of
lunar ejecta produced by meteorite impacts on the lunar surface, and (3) determine the relative
contributions of comets and asteroids to earth meteoroids.
3-58

Figure 3-24.- Cos·

mlc ray detector expe rlment.
.
3-59

o
&
<
 3-60

The experiment consists of an array of sensors that detect micrometeorites and yeild data
throughout the lifetime of the Apollo 17 lunar surface experiments package. The follow1ng parti-
cle parameters can be derived.

a. Speed (within ~5 percent): 1 to 75 kilometers per second range

b. Kinetic energy for particles having energies of 1 to 1000 ergs

c. Flight path (within ~26~)

d. Particle momentum: 2.5 x 10- 5 to 7 x lO-~ dyne-seconds

e. Mass and diameter for assumed particle densities

The thermal control provisions for the lunar ejecta and meteorites experiment do not maintain
the operating temperature below the qualification test maximum level during the lunar day because
the thermal conditions at the Apollo 17 site are different than those of the design site (level
plain at equator). However, the current thermal profile permits experiment operation during 100
percent of each lunar night and approximately 30 percent of each lunar day. Since the experiment
components are rated higher than the maximum qualification test temperature, the allowable maxi-
mum temperature of operation has been increased in small increments each lunation.

Meaningful results from the experiment can only be derived from a long-term statistical and
correlative study between primary particle events and ejecta events. In view of the relatively
short-term measurement of primary particles as of the time of publication of reference 3-34, no
results were reported.

3.2.26 Lunar Atmospheric Composition Experiment

The lunar atmospheric composition experiment is a three-channel, magnetic-deflection-type

mass spectrometer. The spectrometer was deployed as part of the Apollo 17 lunar surface experi-
ments package. The purposes of the experiment are to obtain data on the composition of the lunar
ambient atmosphere in the mass range of 1 to 110 atomic mass units and to detect transient changes
in composition caused by the venting of gases from the lunar surface or other sources.

This experiment augments data from the lunar orbital mass spectrometer experiments conducted
during the Apollo 15 and 16 missions, and the far ultraviolet spectrometer experiment of Apollo 17.

From the data obtained during the first three lunations after deployment of the lunar atmos-
pheric composition experiment instrument, three gases - helium, neon, and argon - have been iden-
tified as being native to the lunar atmosphere. A summary of the measured concentrations of
these gases compared with several predictions is presented in table 3-Vl. The helium concentra-
tions and the diurnal ratio are in excellent agreement with predictions based on the solar wind
as a source, indicating that the basic tenets of the theory of a noncondensable gas are correct.
However, the neon measured concentration is a factor of 20 below predictions, indicating possibly
some adsorption or retention on the night side of the moon. If true, this phenomenon is unex-
pected because of the very low freezing temperature (27 0 K) of neon. The Apollo 16 lunar orbital
mass spectrometer experiment did detect neon on the night side near the sunset terminator at a
concentration approximately I x lOS molecules per cubic centimeter. This is approximately a
factor of less than 2 higher than the present value and is within the experimental errors of the
measurements. This discrepancy between theory and measurement for neon is a serious problem and
Is one of the major tasks to be considered in the future.

Argon appears to be adsorbed on the late night (coldest) part of the lunar surface as none
of its isotopes are detected at this time. A significant predawn enhancement of argon-40 indi-
cates a release of the gas from the warm approaching terminator region. The total nighttime gas
density of 4.6 x 10 5 molecules per cubic centimeter is a factor of 2 higher than the measured
values from the Apollo 14 and 15 cold cathode gage experiments. This is not surprising (notwith-
standing errors in calibration of both instruments) because the mass spectrometer ion source is
warmer than the cold discharge source of the gage and therefore would have a higher outgassing
rate. However, the residual being measured by both instruments is clearly not entirely neon but
a multitude of gases, including helium (ref. 3-36).
 TABLE 3-VI.- CONCENTRATIONS OF GASES DETERHWED FRON CURRENT LUNAR HASS
SPECTROMETER DATA, COLD CATHODE GAGE DATA, AND PREDICTIONS

~mss spectrometer data, Cold cathode gage data, Predicted data,

Gas molecules/cm 3 TilOlecules/cm 3 molecules/cm 3

Day Night Day Night Day Night

Hydrogen 1 x 10 8 1 x 10 5 83 . 6 x 10 3 a Z . 3 x lOll

Helium 2 x 10 3 4 x 10 4 { b J x 10 3
a1.7 x 10 3 a 4 . l x 10 1,
Neon c 7 x 10 4 bS X 10 4 br.3 x lOG

Argon-36 c2. x 10 3 b 3 x 10 2 b a x 10 3

Argon-40 C z x 10 3
d
Total 4 x 10 8 4.6 x lOS 1 x 10 7 2 x lOS

apredicted by R. R. Hodges, Jr., in unpublished data.

b
Reference 3-35.
cUpper limit; argon freezes out at ni8ht.
dTotal gas concentrations from mass spectrometer during second lunar day and third lunar
night after deployment; from cold cathode gage after 10 lunations.

'"g;,
 3-62

The multiplier high voltage power supply of the instrument apparently failed on October 17.
1973, resulting in the loss of science data. Periodic checks are being made to assess the per-
formance of the instrument, but no significant improvement has been obtained since that date.

3.2.27 Lunar Dust Detector

Dust detectors were included with the Apollo II, 12, 14, and 15 experiment complements. The
detectors were mounted on the Apollo lunar surface experiments package sunshields. The Apollo
II, 14. and 15 detectors were designed to obtain data for assessing dust accretion, lunar radi-
ation, and lunar surface brightness temperature. The Apollo 12 detector was designed only for
assessing dust accretion and measuring thermal surface degradation.

All dust detectors have shown no measurable dust degradation effects caused by lunar module
lift-off debris. A cell degradation rate of from 3 to 4 percent per year has been measured for
the solar cells having 0.006-inch protective glass covers and about 7 to 8 percent per year for
unprotected cells. Thesc degradation ratcs arc very close to the expected cell damage during a
year due to the high energy cosmic and solar radiation received at the lunar surface. Most of
the degradation of the cells can therefore be attributed to radiation since a dust accretion
process would cause both bare and cover-glass-protected cells to decay at the same rates.

Yearly cyclic variations in the cell temperature of as much as 6° K have been measured.
These variations are due to the difference in distance from the sun during the lunar "winter"
aphelion (July) and lunar "sUllllller" perihelion (December). Similarly, the cell output voltages
show a yearly cyclic variation of approximately 8 percent because of the difference in received
solar radiation through the year.

3.2.28 Surveyor III Analysis

Several pieces of hardware were removed from the Surveyor III spacecraft by the Apollo 12
astronauts and returned to earth for analysis. The Surveyor III spacecraft had landed on the
lunar surface in the Ocean of Storms 2 1/2 years earlier and had been exposed to the lunar par-
ticle environment during that timc.

Traces of induced radioactivity and meteoroid impact craters ranging from 0.025 to 0.25
millimeter in diameter were found in the recovered Surveyor hardware. Crater sizes and the in-
dicated flux were compatible with predicted values.

An unexpected discovery in the study of solar flare particles occurred when the relative
abundances of very heavy nuclei were determined from a sample of Surveyor III glass. The discov-
ery (now confirmed by independent satellite measurements) was that the lowest energy solar cosmic
rays are highly enriched in very heavy nuclei compared to normal solar material. This discovery
is the first demonstration of the preferential heavy-ion acceleration by a natural particle ac-
celerator. This discovery also casts an entirely new light on two decades of solar and cosmic
ray research during which a basic assumption has been the absence of such preferential accelera-
tion processes.

3.2.29 Particle Implantation Studies

The flux of particle fields and solar radiation and of meteorites on the lunar surface has
left evidence of the history of the solar system implanted on the surface materials.

a. Solar wind particles: Although the solar wind has been studied for years using unmanned
satellites, the Apollo program has contributed the following important new information.

1. From solar wind ions captured in aluminum foils and subsequently analyzed in the lab-
oratory (sec. 3.2.22), isotopic information on heavy rare gases has been obtained for the first
time. This information 1s fundamental to the understanding of the evolution of the earth atmos-
phere.
 3-63

2. Lunar samples give a wealth of information about directly implanted atoms origina-
ting from the sun. This information 1s basic to an understanding of the sun and all other solar
system objects. The elements krypton and xenon show isotopic differences, still unexplained. be-
tween the earth atmosphere and meteorites. Therefore, studies of surface implanted ions of kryp-
ton and xenon have been particularly important. Deuterium has been shown to have a very low
abundance with respect to hydrogen abundance.

3. The abundance of argoo-40 1s greatly in excess of what was expected; the most likely
interpretation 1s that the 8r800-40 was originally emitted by the moon and was then reimplanted
by interaction with the solar wind.

4. Amorphous surface films, very likely produced by solar wind bombardment. are ob-
served on many lunar grains. Artificial irradiation produced similar films, the thicknesses of
which vary with bombarding energy. Theae observations indicate that the lunar soil will be use-
ful in studying the ancient solar wind and its energy fluctuations.

5. The concentrations of hydrocarbons (mainly methAne And ethane) ~nrr~late with the
solar wind irradiation of different lunar soils. These compounds are possibly formed in the
superficial layers of individual dust grains that have been heavily irradiated with solar wind
ions. Since interstellar space contains both dust clouds and sources of energetic particles,
these processes may be important for organic synthesis in the galaxy as a whole. Some effects
may also be due to local melting resulting from meteorite impacts and subsequent redeposition.

6. Related studies in lunar soils on the light, stable isotopes of carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, silicon, and sulphur show significant departures from terrestrial and meteoritic values;
values are also different from those of the lunar basalts themselves and are apparently produced
by the unique irradiation and bombardment history of the soil. Nitrides, cyanide, and phosphides,
as well as benzene, also are present, and their production may be due to similar processes.

b. Solar-flare particles: For the first time, information about the solar-flare activity
on the sun over geologic times has been obtained. This information is contained in the induced
radioactivities and nuclear-particle tracks produced in the outer layers of lunar surface mate-
rial. One important conclusion is that the average solar-flare activity has not changed appreci-
ably over the past few million years. It has also been shown that solar flares were active at
least 0.5 billion years ago and probably date back to the original formation of the lunar surface.
The observed constancy of solar flares suggests that major climatic changes during the last mil-
lion years have not been associated with large-scale changes in solar activity as had previously
been postulated.

3.2.30 Long-Term Lunar Surface Exposure

Selected hardware was photographically documented and left on the moon during the Apollo 17
mission. Samples of similar material were set aside for long-term storage on earth. The purpose
is to allow comparison of the materials at some future time. The long-term effect of the lunar
environment on the materials thus can be evaluated if the Apollo 17 lunar site is revisited.

3.2.31 Far-Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph

A far-ultraviolet camera/spectrograph experiment (fig. 3-26) was operated on the lunar sur-
face during the Apollo 16 mission. Among the data obtained were images and spectra of the ter-
restrial atmosphere snd geocorona in the wavelength range below 1600 angstroms. These data gave
the spatial distributions and relative intensities of emissions due to atomic hydrogen, atomic
oxygen, molecular nitrogen, and other elements - some observed spectrographically for the first
time. A more detailed account of the findings of this experiment can be found in reference 3-37.
3-64

-.,-~(
- '".....- .,...-:r ~
l."\o\·"d~
.... I. •• ~ .;,.","'. .
. •.•:.. ",
• • 4"04.. • '...
.'
'.. •j"
••
.' .
• •
Figure 3-26.- Far ultraviolet camera/spectrograph experimenl.
 3-65

3.3 LUNAR ORBITAL SCIENCE

The results of scientific experiments and detailed objectives performed while in lunar or-
bit and, in some cases, during flight to and from the moon are summarized in this section. Table
3-VII lists these experiments and objectives and identifies the missions to which they were as-
signed. Many of the experiments complement each other, and some complement experiments placed
on the lunar surface or flown on other programs. Some also support more than one science dis-
cipline.

Through the Apollo 14 ~881on, the science-related activities were limited almost entirely
to those that could be accomplished through crew photography or visual observations, to lunar
surface experiments, and to ground-based investigations that utilized spacecraft systems. The
principal portion of the lunar orbital science program was accomplished on the final three
(J-series) misaions. A scientific instrument module was installed in a section of the service
module 8S shown in figures 3-27 and 3-28.

As described in paragraph 4.4.4.6, mechanical deployment devices were developed for the
Apollo 15, 16, and 17 scientific instrument modules so that certain instruments could be moved
away from X-ray secondary radiation and the contamination cloud that surrounded the spacecraft,
or so that the desired photographic angles could be obtained. These devices and the instruments
themselves were remotely controlled by the crew from the command module. In addition, provisions
were made for the Apollo 15 and 16 crews to launch particles-and-fields subsatellites into lunar
orbit by means of remotely controlled deployment mechanisms located in the scientific instrument
module bays (fig. 3-29). The subsatellites contained charged particle detectors, a biaxial flux-
gate magnetometer, an optical solsr aspect system (for attitude determination), a data storage
unit, a power system; a command decoder, and an S-band communications system.

Experiment design and allocation were constrained by the usual spacecraft limitations of
weight, volume, and power. The total weight of the scientific instrument module experiments was
limited to approximately 700 pounds per mission. In addition, there were other constraints and
requirements that were unique to theae instruments. For example, individual, deployable covers
were required for most of the instruments to protect them from the effects of service module re-
action control system plume heating and contamination and from possible contamination from space-
craft effluents (waste water dumps, urine dumps, and fuel cell purges). During the missions,
when these protective covers were open for data acquisition, it was necessary to inhibit the fir-
ing of four of the reaction control system thrusters - the two that fired across the scientific
instrument module bay and the two that fired downward, alongside the scientific instrument module
bay. Additionally, whenever the covers were open, the spacecraft attitude had to be constrained
to prevent entrance of direct sunlight into several of the instruments' fields of view; otherwise,
data degradation or permanent instrument damage would have occurred. Until several hours prior
to lunar orbit insertion, the instruments were protected by a panel that enclosed the entire
scientific module bay. This panel was cut and jettisoned by pyrotechnic devices.

About 30 000 photographs of the lunar surface were obtained from lunar orbit on the Apollo
missions. Approximately 15 000 of these were taken by hand-held 70-millimeter electric cameras
during Apollo missions 8 through 17; 10 000 by mapping cameras during the Apollo 15, 16, and 17
missions; and 5000 by panoramic cameras during the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions. Only a frac-
tion of the large number of photographs obtained have been studied in detail. Most of the com-
pleted analyses have been used to support mission operations and science objectives of many ex-
periments and detailed objectives.

3.3.1 Bistatic Radar

The bistatic radar experiment was conducted on the Apollo 14, 15, and 16 missions, and uti-
lized existing command and service module S-band and VHF radio communication systems. Its pur-
pose was to determine the principal electromagnetic and structural properties of the lunar sur-
face from observations of S-band and VHF signals which were transmitted from the command and
service module in lunar orbit, reflected from the moon, and monitored on earth. The S-band
(13-centimeter-wavelength) transmissions were received by the 64-meter-diameter antenna located
at Goldstone, California, and the VHF (116-centirneter-wavelength) transmissions by the 46-meter-
diameter antenna erected on the Stanford University campus at Palo Alto, California.
3-66

TABLE 3-VII.- APOLLO ORBITAL SCIENCE SUMMARY

Hinion
Experiment/objective
Experiment
number
8 , I. 11 12 I' 15
l' 17

Biat.tlc radar experiment 5-170 X X X

S-band tranlponder experiment 5-164
CSK/LH X X X X
S\,Ib.atellire X X
Infrared leanning radio_tet
expert_nr 5-171 X
Lunar lounder expertClenr 5-209 X
'Particle ah,dows/boundary
layer experiment 5-173 X X
~gnetollll!ter experiment 5-174 X X
eo,mit 'fay detector (helmets) 5-151 X X
Apollo ~ndow meteoroid 5-176 X X X X
Gamma-ray spectrometer
expefiment 5-160 X X X
X-ray fluorescence experiment 5-161 X X
Alpha-particle spectrometer
experiment 5-162 X X

~I' spectrometer experiment 5-165 X X

Far ultraviolet spectrometer
experiment 5-169 X
Lunar 1Il18sion photography
from the command and
service lDOdule -- X
Lunar multispectral photography 5-158 X
Candidate exploration sites
photography -- X X
SelenodetiC reference point
update -- X X
Transearth lunar photography -- X
b5ervlce IIlOdule orbital
photographic tasks -- X X X
Command IIlOdule orbital
science photography -- X
Viaual observations from
lunar orbit -- X X X
Cegenschein [rom lunar orbit
experiment 5-178 X X X
Ultraviolet photography -
earth and moon 5-177 X X
Dim light photography -- X
Command module photographic
taaks -- X X X

·Part tcles and [telds subsatellite expertlllents.

blncluded panoramic camera photography, ~pptng camera photography and laser
sltbletry. Also supported geology objectives.
+

+ +

Figure 3-27.- Scientific instrument module bay viewed tram the lunar module.
 ,
co

Mapping camera

laser altimeter~
Mapp'o, "m", ~~
. ~:2
! ;1
~
jp ,_
0, ,~.r
Mapping camera
litm cassette

Mapping camera
laser altimeter
Ii 1m cassette
Multiple operations module~

Extravehicular activity
fj~ Gaseous nitrogen
Extravehicular activity foot restraint~ controt
loot restraint
Gaseous nitrogen
control .,',

-'.
---.!

Particles and
.
Panoramic camera
~ -
Coherent
synthetic apertu::mr;;'-
radar _
Panoramic camera

fields subsatellite V=f1~,'" Ounar sounder)

~p,o",m""m."
V .' .',.' _HIm cassette
g~. 'Panoramic camera
~ ~
:::Iilm cassette ~ i' __ : ''::--''Removable
cover

"

Note:
- _~I.J~:- .> ~~sspe<:trometer

~:~~~~:{er :~~r:~:t:;r~:using
---- - wee I
Ultraviolet spectrometerI
\J ~ ~
\'Infrared scanning
radiometer
Optical recorder
/lunar sounder!

Mass spe<:tromeler and gamma-ray spectrometer are shown partially deployed.

Some protective COiers are not shown. (b) Apollo 17 configuration

(al AJXlllo 15 and 16 configuration

Figure 3-28. - Scientific instrument module configurations.

 3-69

Deployable booms

Launch mechanism
S-band
antenna

Subsatellite

(a) Subsatellite predepJoyment configuration

r:J--- S-band antenna

. l~l:'"
, 1::.. I
,10'
::I;,::t ,
Solar cells
!iiii2 I

Magnetometer

(b) Deployed subsalellite

Figure 3-29.- Subsatellite.

 ~70

On the Apollo 14 mission, observations were conducted using the S-band and VHF systems
simultaneously on nearly one-third of a near-side pass, and with the VHF system alone during four
complete near-aide passes. Good data were obtained during all observational periods. Echoes re-
ceived at antennas of the earth monitoring stations were of predicted strength with signal fre-
quency, phase, polarization, and amplitude being recorded. Comparison of the received echoes
with the known characteristics of the transmitted signal yielded quantitative information about
lunar crustal properties such as dielectric constant, average slope and slope probability, and
small-scale surface roughness. Effects of bulk surface electrical properties such as the Brew-
ster angle were clearly visible at both the S-band and VHF frequencies. Comparisons of radar
experiment results with interpretive geologie maps and quantitative topographic work using, pri-
marily, photogrammetric techniques showed excellent agreement.

The radar experiment configuration for the Apollo 15 mission differed from that of the Apollo
14 mission in that the S-band high-gain antenna was used instead of the S-band omnidirectional
antenna aystem. This change resulted in a significant improvement in the quality of both S-band
and VHF data. Simultaneous S-band and VHF observations were successfully conducted during one
complete near-side pass, and VHF data were obtained during four complete near-side passes. Excel-
lent data were received during these five observation periods, representing nearly an order-of-
magnitude improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio with respect to the Apollo 14 experiment. For
the first time, bistatic radar data were received from significant lunar features which included
the Sea of Serenity, the Apennine Mountains, the middle portion of the Ocean of Storms, and the
Marius Hills. The S-band data analysis indicated that the area surveyed during the Apollo 15
mission is largely homogeneous and very similar to the regions sampled at lower altitudes during
the Apollo 14 mission. Although distinct variations in centimeter-to-meter-length slopes exist,
the vertical structure of the surface appeared remarkably uniform.

The Apollo 16 experiment configuration was the same as that for Apollo 15. Simultaneous
S-band and VHF observations were conducted during one complete near-side pass, and VHF data ob-
servations were made on four complete near-side passes. Although the S-band data received were
of excellent quality, the VHF echoes were weak due either to a command and service module atti-
tude problem or to an inflight equipment malfunction. Another problem was interference from NASA
satellite TETR-D, originally launched for Apollo communication system testing and training exer-
cises.

Results of data reduction and analyses for all three missions reveal that the oblique geom-
etry scattering properties of the moon's surface are wavelength-dependent in the decimeter-to-
meter range, that the scattering law is highly dependent on local topogrsphy, and that systematic
differences exist in the average scattering properties of mare and highland units. At 13 centi-
meters, the reflectivity of mare surfaces is remarkably uniform except for local deviations asso-
ciated with specific features; the 116-centimeter results are frequently in sharp contraat with
those at the shorter wavelength. The highlands ejecta south of Mare Crisium (Sea of Crises) ex-
hibit a dielectric constant of about 2.8 at the l16-centimeter wavelength and a lower value at
the 13-centimeter wavelength. In the Apennines and centrsl highlands, both wavelengths show a
reduced reflectivity consistent with a dielectric constant decrease from 3.1 to 2.8.

The l16-centimeter variations that do not correlate with the 13-centimeter data cannot be
caused by surface effects because such effects would also be observed at the shorter wavelength.
Explanation of the differential behavior, in some cases, requires layering or an inversion of
density with depth such as might be produced by a flow over older regolith.

Apollo 14 observations suggest that the upper S to 50 centimeters of the crust must be ex-
tremely uniform over the surface of the moon or that the change with depth must be gradual.
Surface-modifying processes have apparently acted to these depths along the major portion of the
radar groundtracks. Further, the l16-centimeter data suggest that there must be large variations
(on the order of 2 to 1) in impedance contrast within 1 to 10 meters of the surface. Variation
in depth of a thin regolith or covering blanket is one obvious candidate to model this effect.

The root-mean-square slopes deduced from the Apollo 14 and 15 spectra exhibit very system-
atic behavior with respect to maria, highlands, and discrete features such as craters. Typical
highland slopes are in the range of S to 7 degrees at both wavelengths suggesting that, on the
scale lengths of 30 to 300 meters, the surface has equal roughness. Within the maria, the
l3-centimeter slopes are typically within 2 to 4 degrees, but those obtained at 116 centimeters
are only half as large (ref. 3-38).
 3-71

3.3.2 S-Band Transponder

The S-band transponder experiment was successfully conducted during the Apollo 14, 15, 16,
and 17 missions. On all four missions, experiment data were derived from the lunar-orbiting
command and service module and lunar module. In addition, the experiment was supported during
the Apollo 15 and 16 missions by an S-band transponder mounted in the subsateilltes that were
launched fro~ the command and service modules into lunar orbit. The purpose of the experiment
was to measure the lunar gravitational field which, in turn, provided information on the dis-
tribution of lunar mass and its correlation with surface features such as craters, mountains,
and maria.

No instruments were required on the command and service modules and lunar modules other than
the existing S-band communications systems. A transponder system designed specifically for the
experiment was contained in the two subsatellites. These systems operated in conjunction with
the earth-based radio tracking system. Experiment data consisted of variations in spacecraft
speed as measured by the tracking system. However, these line-of-sight velocity measurements
could be obtained only while the spacecraft were in view of the earth. Information about the
far side gravity field must therefore be indirectly inferred from spacecraft conditions imme-
diately after lunar occultation and over many revolutions.

Good command and service module and lunar module data were obtained despite some degradation
resulting from a high-gain antenna problem during the Apollo 14 mission and spacecraft attitude
instability during the Apollo 15 and 16 missions due to reaction control system thruster atti-
tude control firings. Both the Apollo 15 and Apollo 16 subsatellites provided excellent quality
tracking data until May 29, 1972, when the Apollo 16 subsatellite crashed on the moon; the
Apollo 15 subsatellite continued to provide tracking data until August 23, 1973.

In general, comparison of tracking data from the three spacecraft and from lunar areas over-
flown on more than one mission shows close agreement in the results. The following general con-
clusions have been drawn from reduced data (refs. 3-39 and 3-40).

a. All unfilled craters and those having diameters less than 200 kilometers are negative
anomalies (negative gravity regions); Ptolemaeus Crater is an example of the latter type.

b. Filled craters and circular seas with diameters greater than about 200 kilometers are
positive anomalies (positive gravity regions), or are mascons. The smallest of this type is the
crater Grimaldi, which has a diameter of 150 kilometers; an exception is the unique Sinus Iridum
(Bay of Rainbows).

o. The largest mascons detected are in the region of the Sea of Nectar, the Sea of Seren-
ity, and the Sea of Crises. Part of. the central highlands appears as a positive anomaly, and
mountain ranges observed thus far (Marius Hills and Apennine Mountains) are positive anomalies.

3.3.3 Infrared Scanning Radiometer

Accomplished successfully during the Apollo 17 mission, the infrared scanning radiometer
experiment obtained thermal emission measurements of the lunar surface for use in developing a
high-resolution temperature map of the lunar surface. The experiment instrument, located in the
scientific instrument module, operated normally throughout the mission, and all mission objec-
tives were achieved.

Infrared radiometer data were obtained for 100 hours in lunar orbit during which time about
30 percent of the lunar surface was scanned. Approximately 100 million temperature measurements
were obtained over the full lunar temperature range of 80· to 400· K. Temperature resolution
was 1· K with a precision of about !2° K; spatial resolution was approximately 2 kilometers over
most of the horizon-to-horizon scan. The experiment was also operated for 10.5 hours during
transearth coast to support a study of the contamination environment in the vicinity of the
spacecraft.
 ~-72

Data analyses disclose that the nighttime cooling behavior of the moon varies. The Ocean
of Storms shows a substantial number of thermal structure variations, ranging from large crater
anomalies to small-scale features below the instrument resolution of less than 2 kilometers.
Far fewer thermal features are evident in other aress along the spacecraft lunar surface ground-
track; in particular, only a few anomalies are revealed by nighttime scans of the lunar far side.
Although cold anomalies are evident throughout the data, they are usually small features which
may represent indigenous activity geologically recent In time. Additional information may be
found In reference 3-41.

3.3.4 Lunar Sounder

The lunar sounder experiment, flown on the Apollo 17 mission, obtained electromagnetic
soundings of the moon for use in developing a selenological three-dimensional model to a depth
of about 1.3 kilometers. The equipment was installed in the service module and consisted of a
coherent synthetic aperture radar, the associated antennas. and an optical recorder. The radar
system operated in the two HF bands of 5 megahertz (HF 1) and 15 megahertz (HF 2), or in the VHF
band of 150 megahertz, and transmitted a series of swept frequency pulses. A small part of the
pulse energy was reflected from the lunar surface and subsurface features and subsequently was
detected by a receiver on the spacecraft. The radar video output from the receiver was recorded
by the optical recorder on film, and the film cassette was retrieved during transearth extrave-
hicular activity.

Experiment data were obtained in lunar orbit for 10 hours. The HF I, HF 2, and VHF data
vere collected during six complete revolutions (two for each frequency band) and from specific
lunar targets. The instrument was operated in the receive-only mode on both the lunar near side
and far side, and near the landing site with and without transmission of signals by the surface
electrical properties experiment deployed on the lunar surface. The experiment was also oper-
ated in the receive-only mode for 24 hours during transearth coast to determine sources of ter-
restrial noise.

Several experiment hardware anomalies occurred during the mission. The most serious was
failure of the VHF echo tracker to keep the leading edge of the return signal on film; as a re-
sult, nadir return from both mare and highlands (and thus, sounding capability) was lost up to
50 percent of the time. Sounding data were also limited because the HF 2 channel energy was
down 10 to 20 decibels relative to the HF 1 channel, as compared to premission values of 7 to
8 decibels. In addition, operational delays were caused by a faulty antenna extension/retrac-
tion mechanism and talkback indicator (attributed to low temperatures); however, neither data
quantity nor quality was lost.

The VHF images produced by optical processing were of excellent quality and the VHF profile,
where available, was quite satisfactory for addressing local selenomorphological problems. Ten-
tative subsurface returns have been identified in both the HF 1 and VHF channels. Based on pre-
liminary analyses, the data appear to have satisfied experiment requirements. Telemetry monitor-
ing of average reflected power indicated that the mare and highlands exhibited markedly different
reflectivity for both HF and VHF radar frequencies. Data were consistent with distinct layering
in the mare as would be expected were the mare flooded by successive layers of lava; predicted
topographic signatures over features such as craters and mare ridges have been confirmed in prin-
ciple. A preliminary scan of a limited length of film indicates that both the radar images of
lunar surface at the ~IF frequency and the echoes delayed in time relative to the surface echo
at the HF frequencies have been imprinted on film.

Preliminary data analyses also reveal that the power levels of VHF- and HF-reflected sig-
nals were very close to those predicted from premiss ion system analyses and the known dielectric
constant of the lunar surface. Electromagnetic radiation from earth in the HF 2 mode is much
stronger than expected but does not appear to have degraded the active radar sounding of the
lunar near side. Earth radiation is occulted by the moon and can be minimized by proper orien-
tation of the radar antenna. Additional preliminary results are given in reference 3-42.
 3.3.5 Particle Shadows/Boundary Layer

The instruments for the particle shadows/boundary layer experiment were installed in the
subsatellites launched into lunar orbit during the Apollo 15 and Apollo 16 missions. The instru-
ments in each subsatellite consisted of two silicon nuclear particle telescope detectors and four
spherical electrostatic analyzer detectors. The objectives of the experiment were to describe
the various plasma regimes in which the moon moves, to determine haw the moon interacts with the
plasma and magnetic fields in the environment, and to determine certain features of the structure
and dynamics of the earth magnetosphere.

Shortly after launch of the Apollo 15 subsatellite in lunar orbit, an inconsistency was
noted in the particle experiment count data. This was traced to a design error. The data were
not lost, but data reduction was more complex. The design error was corrected in the Apollo 16
subsatellite. Failures of the Apollo 15 subsatellite on February 3 and February 29, 1972, re-
sulted in the loss of most operational and experiment data. As noted in section 3.3.7, the
Apollo 16 subsate1lite impacted the lunar surface after orbiting for approximately 1 month.
During its lifetime, however, it provided excellent quality data.

Data were obtained as the subsatellites encountered four distinct regions of magnetized
plasma (fig. 3-30): the solar wind; the baw shock, which appears on the sunward side of the earth
magnetospherej the magnetosheath, which lies between the bow shock and the earth magnetospherej
and the magnetotai1. In addition to the plasma and energetic particle characteristics of these
regions, particles from the sun also appear after chromospheric flares occur or active centers
pass across the solar disk. Results from the Apollo 15 and 16 experiments essentially agree
(refs. 3-43 and 3-44). The findings are summarized as follows.

a. A wide variety of particle shadows has been measured; the shadow shapes agree well with
the theory that has been developed and verify that the magneto tail magnetic field lines are gen-
erally "open" in the sense that they connect directly from the earth polar caps to the interplan-
etary magnetic field.

b. The cavity formed in the solar wind by the moon has been observed in the fast-electron
component of the solar wind. When the interplanetary magnetic field is aligned approximately
along the solar wind flow, the electrons are almost completely excluded from the cavity. When
the magnetic field is aligned more nearly perpendicular to the solar wind flow, the solar wind
shadow structure (as defined by the fast-electron component) becomes extremely complex. The
shadow structure becomes much broader than the lunar diameter and may become very shallow.

c. A weak flux of electrons in the energy range of 25 000 to 300 000 electron volts was
able to move predominantly in a sunward direction for a period of several days while the moon
was upstream from the earth in interplanetary space. No determination has been made as to
whether these particles have a solar or terrestrial origin.

d. Flux of solar electrons was measured after two important solar flares occurred. An
electron spectrum for the energy range of 6000 to 300 000 electron volts was determined from
Apollo 15 measurements of the first flare that occurred on September I, 1971. After a major
hydromagnetic shock wave that was generated on May 15, 1972, the Apollo 16 experiment measure-
ments indicated that fluxes of electrons at energies above approximately 2000 electron volts
increased by more than an order of magnitude above background levels; energetic proton fluxes
throughout the event were typically higher than electron fluxes at the same energy by a factor
of 10.

e. Magnetotail electric fields have been determined from particle shadow boundary displace-
ments. Their magnitude ranges from zero to more than I volt per kilometer, typically, 0.2 to
0.3 volts per kilometer, oriented in a generally east-to-west direction, indicative of solar
wind induction driven convection toward a magnetic neutral line merging region in the center of
the magnetotall.

f. Low energy electron fluxes characteristic of the plasma sheet observed by satellites
passing through the magnetotail nearer the earth are also frequently observed from lunar orbit.
The location of plasma sheet encounters appears to be less closely confined to regions near the
magnetic neutral sheet (field reversal region) than is observed closer to the earth.
 ,
u.>

1-

Bow shock

Plasma I " ,
flow

Solar magnetic field

Geomagnetic cavity
if To Sun

20 40 60 80 100 120 RE

Note: Dot adjacent to

lunar surface shows
approximate location
of Apollo 12 lunar
surface maynetometer.

R = Earth radii. Not to scale

E

Figure 3-30.- Near-earth space traversed by moon.

 3-75

g. Areas are observed to exist where 15 ODO-electron-volt electrons are reflected back to
the spacecraft from the direction of the moon, probably by regions of remanent surface magnetism
of sufficient magnitude to exceed the "llI.1rrorlng" value for electrons.

3.3.6 Magnetometer

A biaxial flux-gate magnetometer was also included in the Apollo 15 and Apollo 16 subsatel-
lites to calculate the interior electrical conductivity of the moon, to survey the remanent mag-
netization of the lunar surface, and to study the interaction of the moon with its plasma envi-
ronment. The magnetometer was boom-deployed from the subsatellite and measured the magnitude
and polarity of two mutually orthogonal vector components, one parallel and the other perpendic-
ular to the spin axis of the subsatellite. Experiment results (refs. 3-45 and 3-46) are sum-
marized in the following paragraphs.

Data obtained in the magnetotail by the Apollo 15 and Apollo 16 experiments show that lunar
remanent magnetism can be mapped froD a single orbiting vehicle. However. high-resolution maps
of magnetic features can be achieved only with dual magnetometer surveys in order to separate
temporal and spatial changes in the fields, or with low-altitude data below 70 kilometers. The
latter data are available from the Apollo 15 and Apollo 16 missions only for limited areas. Al-
though the character of the magnetic features observed tends to follow the character of the lunar
topography beneath the subsatellite. there is no one~to-one correlation of magnetic signature
with surface features.

The approximate nature of this correlation was shown by constructing a high-resolution con-
tour map of lunar contribution to the solar-directed component of the magnetic field as measured
on the Apollo 15 subsatellite at an altitude of 67 kilometers in the Van de Graaff region. The
map shows a well-defined feature with a 4.5 gamma peak-to-valley variation. This feature is
clearly not centered over Aitken or Van de Graaff, which suggests that these magnetic features
are not necessarily associated with crater formation (ref. 3-46).

The subsatellite data obtained in the solar wind indicate that diamagnetic enhancement and
rarefaction dips discovered by Explorer 35 magnetometers are also Jistinctly present at the much
lower altitude of apptoximately 100 kilometers. The phenomenon of large increases in the field
external to the rarefaction dips is also clearly observed and appears to be stronge~ at the sub-
satellite altitude.

3.3.7 Subsatellite Performance

The two particles and fields subsatellites were launched from the Apollo 15 and 16 conmand
and service modules and were to be operated in lunar orbit for a I-year period.

3.3.7.1 Apollo 15.- Th~ Apollo 15 llubsat~llittl Wall laUlu.;hed inlu lumu orbil AUgUliL 4, i97l,
and performed satisfactorily in all modes of operation until February 3, 1972. Data were lost
from about one-third of its measurements beginning on February 3. 1972. during its 2203rd lunar
revolution. Data from additional measurements were lost beginning February 29, 1972. during its
2520th lunar revolution.

Analysis of the data indicated the data loss was the result of multiple failures within a
single integrated circuit flat pack in the bilevel. main-frame. and drivers board of the digital
electronics unit. The cause of the integrated circuit failure is not known. Following the fail-
ure. the subsatellite continued operation with the remaining particles experiment measurements.
but primarily as an S-band transponder lunar gravity experiment.

The last tracking pass for the subsatellite was on August 23. 1973, on its 9046th lunar rev-
olution. One of the requirements for the silver-cadmium battery was for a cell life for a 365-
day space mission with 5000 charge/discharge cycles. The flight battery was activated in August
1971. and accumulated over 8000 charge/discharge cycles by April 1973 when it began showing charg-
ing problems and data became intermittent. This performance was in agreement with battery life
predictions based on the results from the Pioneer spacecraft battery life tests. It ceased charg-
ing in August 1973 after approximately 9400 cycles.
3-76

3.3.7.2 Apollo 16.- The Apollo 16 subsatellire was launched into lunar orbit April 24, 1972,
.nd performed satisfactorily in all modes of operation until impacting the lunar surface on May
29. 1972.
The executioll of a co=nd and service module orbit shaping maneuver had been planned before
launching the subsatell1te so as to place it in an orbit which would insure I-year operation.
However, the orbit-shaping lMneUVer ....as deleted because of a cotrr.land and service module IlllIlfunc-
tion, and the subsatellite was placed in an orbit which wus different from the one planned. The
orbit into which the subsatellite was launched resulted in a short orbital life with an early im-
pact of the subsatellite on the lunar surface.

3.3.8 Cosmic Ray Detector (Helmets)

Five hell:lets were used as heavy-particle dosir.1eters in the cosmic ray detector experiment:
one worn during the Apollo 8 mission (December 21 to 27, 1968), three worn during the Apollo 12
mission (Novel'lbcr 14 to 24, 1969); and a control helr.1et that was exposed to cosmic rays at a bal-
loon altitude of 41 kilometers (July 11 and 12, 1970). After exposure, the helmets were chemi-
cally etched to reveal tracks caused by heavy cosmic ray nuclei.

Track observations show that the integrated flux of heavily ionizing cosmic rays striking
Apollo 12 helmets was 3.1 times greater than that of the Apollo 8 helmet. The track formation
rate for Apollo 12 helmets was 2.0 times higher than that of the Apollo 8 helmet, even when al-
lowances were made for the differences in mission duration; the rate for the control helmet was
3.1 times higher than that of the Apollo 8 helmet and about 1.45 times higher than that of the
Apollo 12 helmets. Helmet locations in the spacecraft and variations in spacecraft shielding
produced no meaningful statistical differences between the track densities of the Apollo 12 hel-
met exposed only in the command and service module and those exposed in the lunar module and on
the lunar surface. Instead, doses at the helmet depended primarily on the intensity of solar ac-
tivity during the mission.

3.3.9 Apollo Window Meteoroid

The Apollo window meteoroid experiment utilizes heat shield windows from the recovered com-
mand module spacecraft (1) to obtain information about the flux of meteoroids with masses of
10- 7 gram and less, (2) to examine the residue and morphology of the craters produced by these
meteoroids for information regarding the dynamic and physical properties of the meteoroids, (3)
to discover possible correlations with lunar-rock-craters studies, and (4) to obtain information
on meteoroid composition and mass density.

The Apollo window meteoroid experiment was officially assigned to Apollo missions 14, IS,
16, and 17. With the exception of Apollo II, however, the windows of all Apollo command modules
have been examined for contamination and for meteoroid impact craters having diameters of 40 mi-
crometers and larger. Contamination by hard chemical deposits was observed on the outer sur-
faces of all returned windows. Chemical analyses show that the contamination sources were the
Mylar coating on the heat shield surface, reaction control system thruster nozzle residue, and
charred heat shield material (ref. 3-47). A high percentage of sodium was produced by the
thruster nozzles and heat shield char, of magnesium by thruster nozzles, and of titanium and
silicon by the Mylar coating. A number of other surface effects from low-velocity particles
has also been found after many of the missions, probably originating from the reaction control
system thrusters and the jettison rocket of the command module launch escape system.

Approximately 3.5 square meters of Apollo window surfaces have been scanned at a general
level of 20x magnification. Ten meteoroid impact craters have been found: five of these were on
the Apollo 7 windows, one each on the Apollo 8, 9, and 13 windows, two on the Apollo 14 windows,
and none on the Apollo IS, 16, and 17 windows. Data for craters ranging from 1 to 40 micrometers
indicate that the meteoroid mass limit at the detection threshold for the 20x scan is about 10- 11
gram. Combining these test data with previous hypervelocity data in glass targets indicates that
several crater regimes exist for craters ranging from 250 micrometers to 4 centimeters: Initi-
ally, there is a hemispherical crater, typical of those in soft metal, with a lip extending
around the target surface; a space zone then forms at a higher energy, removing the lip; and,
 3-77

at still higher energy levels, outer space zones appear and the original hemispherical crater
is ejected, leaving a conical residual crater with conchoidal ridges. The mass limit of 10- 11
gram for the 20x scan represents a meteoroid of approximately 4 micrometers in diameter at the
average meteoroid velocity of 20 kilometers per second and mass density of 2 grams per cubic
centimeter.

Experiment results indicate that the flux represented by the number of observed impacts and
area-time exposure is compatible with the flux estimates obtained from the results of penetration
sensors mounted on the Pegasus I, 2, and 3 satellites and on the Explorer 16 and 23 satellites;
from Surveyor III data; and from a near-earth environment model. Although the extent of window
contamination leaves some doubt that meteoroid composition can be positively distinguished from
residue associated Iorith each crater, the capability of this experiment to detect meteoritic resi-
due cannot be discounted.

3.3.10 Ga~-Ray Spectrometer

Gamma-ray spectrometer instruments "'ere flown on the Apollo 15 and 16 missions. The exper-
iment was conducted while in lunar orbit to obtain data on the degree of chemical differentiation
that the moon has undergone and the composition of the lunar surface. The equipment was also
operated during transearth coast to provide calibration data on spacecraft and space background
fluxes, and to provide data on galactic gamma-ray flux. A ga~~~-ray detector, capable of meas-
uring gamma radiation in the energy range from 200 000 to 10 mUlion electron volts, was mounted
on an extendable boom located in the scientific instrument module. The boom could be extended
25 feet, extended to two intermediate positions, retracted, or jettisoned by the crew by using
controls in the cormnand module crew station. Controls were also provided to activate or Jeac-
tivate the spectrometer, incrementally alter the sensitivity (gain) of the detector, and select
either of two detector counting modes.

On the Apollo 17 mission, a sodiul:! iodide crystal identical to those used as the detector
scintillator on the Apollo 15 and 16 missions was flown as a calibration reference for interpre-
tation of Apollo 15 and 16 data.

On the Apollo 15 and 16 missions, data were collected in lunar orbit and during transearth
coast for 215.2 and 109.5 hours, respectively. Of the lunar orbital data hours, 111.8 were prime
data obtained after lunar module separation from the command anci service module and 103.4 were de-
graded by the Apollo lunar surface experiments package fuel capsule (att<lched to the lunar mod-
ule) when the spacecraft were docked. All science objectives were satisfied on both missions
in spite of the following minor anomalies: During the Apollo 15 mission, the spectrometer ex-
perienced a gain shift of approximately 30 percent. Compensation for the shift was l!l3de opera-
tionally and, by the end of the mission, the spectrometer was operating in a relatively stable
state near the end of its adjustment. After transearth injection, a temporary zero-reference
shift occurred, causing the first eight channels of data to be grouped into one reportlng channel;
however, there was no loss of experiment data. This anomaly was determined to be a one-time fail-
ure of a component and no corrective action was required for the Apollo 16 instrument. Tests con-
ducted with the qualification unit verified that the earlier problem was caused by aging of the
photomultiplier tube in the gamma-ray detector assembly as a result of high cosmic ray flux rates
in lunar operation. To correct for this, the Apollo 16 flight unit was subjected to high levels
of radiation, thereby aging the detector photomultiplier tube. During the Apollo 16 mission,
the instrument boom mechanism stalled and would not retract fully on three of five retractions.
No corrective action was taken since this mechanism was not scheduled for further use.

Analyses of the experiment data frOM the Apollo 15 and 16 misSions relating to radioactiv-
ity levels of specific lunar surface areas are in agreement. The results of these analyses
(refs. 3-48 and 3-49) are summarized as follows.

a. Regions of highest activity are the western maria, followed by the Sea of Tranquillity
and the Sea of Serenity. Detailed structure exists within high-radioactivity regions. High ac-
tivity observed in the Fra Mauro area during the Apollo 16 mission is at approximately the same
levels as those observed around Aristarchus Crater and south of Archimedes Crater during the
Apollo 15 missions. These levels are also comparable to that of the soil returned from the
Apollo 14 mission.
3-78

b. Radioactivity 1s lower and more variable in the eastern maria. Considerably lower ac-
tivity is found 1n the far-side highlands with the eastern portion containing gamma-ray activity
lower than that found 1n the Ocean of Storms and the Sea of Rains by an order of magnitude. The
Descartes area appears to have undergone some admixing of radioactive material.

c. Preliminary data show intensity peaks that correspond to the characteristic energies of
the isotopes of iron, aluminum, uranium, potassium, and thorium.

d. Discrete, celestial gamma-ray sources were detected. These sources include 'h. Crab
Nebula, Sagittarius, local clusters of galaxies, and the super cluster that contains tho Virgo
cluster.

3.3.11 X-Ray Fluorescence

Identical X-ray fluorescence experiments flown on the Apollo 15 and 16 missions were used
principally for orbital mapping of the composition of the moon and, secondarily, for X-ray gal-
actic observations during transearth coast. Lunar surface measurements involved observations
of the intensity and characteristic energy distribution of the secondary or fluorescent X-rays
produced by the interaction of solar X-rays with the lunar surface; astronomical observations
consisted of relatively long periods of X-ray measurements of preselected galactic sources such
as Cyg X-I, Sco X-I, and the galactic poles.

The X-ray fluorescence experiment equipment consisted of an X-ray detector assembly capable
of detecting X-rays in the energy range from 1000 to 7000 electron volts, a solar monitor, and an
X-ray processor assembly. The X-ray detector assembly, located in the scientific instrument mod-
ule, detected X-rays reflected from the lunar surface or emitted by galactic X-ray sources. The
solar monitor, mounted in sector IV of the service module (displaced 180° from the X-ray detector
assembly), measured solar X-ray flux. The measurement of fluorescent X-ray flux from the lunar
surface and the direct solar X-ray flux that produces the fluorescence yielded information on the
nature of the lunar surface material.

X-ray fluorescence data were collected for totals of 186.1 hours in lunar orbit (143.9 hours
of prime data and 42.2 hours of degraded data) and 52.5 hours during transearth coast. Except
for minor noise problems which did not adversely affect experiment data, no equipment anomalies
occurred during the two missions.

Data were collected from slightly more than 20 percent of the total lunar surface, all
within a band between 30° north to 30° south latitude which included some area of overlap on the
two missions. Results of Apollo 15 and 16 data analyses agree closely. Confirmation of these
results by analyses of lunar surface samples indicate that the X-ray method is reliable for geo-
chemical mapping and that it can be used to determine both the major and more subtle composi-
tional differences between lunar maria and highland areas. The following summary results of the
two experiments were obtained from references 3-50 and 3-51.

a. Apollo 15 and 16 overlap regions were located between 50° to 60° east longitude, and
covered such areas as the Sea of Fertility, Smyth's Sea, Langrenus Crater, and the highlands west
of Smyth's Sea (fig. 3-1). Aluminum/silicon and magnesium/silicon concentration ratios in these
areas, determined from Apollo 15 and 16 data, agree within 10 percent or better. Aluminum/sili-
con concentration ratios range from about 0.36 to 0.60 for Apollo 15 and 0.41 to 0.61 for Apollo
16; magnesium/silicon concentration ratios range from about 0.25 to 0.21 for Apollo 15 and 0.26
to 0.20 for Apollo 16.

b. The Apollo 16 data show that for areas between 9° and 141° east longitude, aluminum/
silicon concentration ratios ranged from about 0.38 to 0.71, and those for magnesium/silicon from
about 0.40 to 0.16. Aluminum concentrations in the mare regions are 2 to 3 times lower than in
the terra and highland regions; magnesium concentrations in the mare regions are 1.5 to 2 times
higher than in the terra regions.

c. Aluminum/silicon and magnesium/silicon ratios indicate that the highlands have a wide-
spread differentiated crust having a materials composition that varies between anorthositic gab-
bro and gabbroic anorthosite, with probable occurrences of anorthosite, felsite and KREEP (a ma-
terial rich in potassium, rare-earth elements, and phosphorous).
 3-79

d. Th. aluminum/silicon ratios and optical albedo values correspond closely, thus estab-
1ishing that the albedo 1s a good guide to highland composition, specifically the plagioclase
content.

e. During transearth coast, X-ray data were obtained on several discrete X-ray sources and
other targets dominated by diffuse X-ray flux. The behavior of pulsating X-ray stars eyg X-I and
Seo X-I may be characterized by quiet periods and activity periods with durations up to a day.
Ten to thirty percent changes in X-ray intensity occur 1n a few minutes; the intensity of eyg X-I
can double within a day or so. This increase occurs in the three energy levels measured: 1000
to 3000 electron volts, 3000 electron volts, and 7000 electron volts.

3.3.12 Alpha-Particle Spectrometer

Identical alpha-particle spectrometer experiments flown on the Apollo 15 and 16 missions

were designed to map differences in uranium and thorium concentrations across the lunar surface.
These differences were identified by measuring the alpha-particle emission of two gaseous daugh-
ter products of uranium and thorium, radon-222 and radon-220, respectively. Because radon it-
self is the product of the decay of uranium and thorium, mapping of the concentrations of these
two elements can be accomplished by identifyin~ regions of high radon activity.

The experiment equipment consisted of an alpha particle sensing assembly that could detect
alpha particles in the energy range from 4.7 million to 9.1 million electron volts, supporting
electronics, and temperature monitors housed in the same enclosure as the X-ray fluorescence ex-
periment assembly. Controls were provided in the command module crew station to deploy a shield
protecting the experiment detectors from spacecraft contamination sources and to activate and de-
activate the experiment.

Experiment data were collected for 211.6 hours in lunar orbit (160.4 hours of prime data and
51.2 hours of degraded data) and 110.3 hours during transearth coast. No equipment anomalies oc-
curred that required remedial action; although two of the ten detectors in the Apollo 15 instru-
ment were noisy intermittently, data validity was not affected. The following summary of results
of the experiments was obtained from reference 3-52.

a. Radon emanation from the moon was positively detected although the average level is
about three orders of magnitude below terrestrial levels.

b. Several interesting characteristics in the spatial and temporal distribution of lunar

radon were observed. An area of relatively high radon emanation includes Aristarchus Crater,
Schroter's Valley, and Cobra Head.*

c. The most conspicuous localized feature is Aristarchus Crater where the counting rate of
radon-222 alpha particles is at least four times the lunar average. Grimaldi Crater appears to
be the site of another localized concentration, and the edges of the great maria basins are also
sites of increased activity.

d. Transient radon emanation from the moon also occurs, based on detection of large amounts
of polonium-2l0 (a daughter product of radon-222 and a decay product of lead-2l0). Polonium-2l0
was detected in a broad area extending from west of the Sea of Crises to the Van de Graaff-Orlov
Crater region; polonium-2lD levels of concentrations were much higher than required to be in
equilibrium with radon-222. An area having even higher concentrations of polonium-2ID is located
approximately 40 6 east longitude and centered around the Sea of Fertility.

3.3.13 Mass Spectrometer

Objectives of the mass spectrometer experiment, flown on the Apollo 15 and 16 missions, were
to measure the composition of the lunar atmosphere and to search for active volcanism on the lunar
surface. These data are important to understanding the evolution of the moon and the gas trans-
port mechanisms in other more complete planetary exospheres. Lateral transport can be observed
in an idealized form in the lunar atmosphere because gas molecules do not collide with each
other but, instead, travel in ballistic trajectories to form a nearly classical exosphere after
encounters with the lunar surface.

~Informal designations.
 3-80

The experiment assembly consisted of the mass spectrometer and its electronic components
mounted on a boom which was extended 24 fOElt from the scientific instrument module. The instru-
ment was capable of measuring the abundance of particles in the 12- to 66-atomic-mass-unit range.
A shelf-lllOunted shield to protect the spectrometer from spacecraft contamination sources when 1n
its stowed position opened and closed automatically when the boom was extended and retracted. In
addition to acquiring data while in lunar orbit, the spectrometer was operated at various inter-
mediate boom positions for specified periods during transearth coast to determine the concentra-
tion of constituents forming the so-called contamInation cloud from the cormnand and service mod-
ule. Command module crew station controls were provided to extend, retract, and jettison the
boom; activate and deactivate the spectrometer; select high and low spectrometer discrimination
modes and multiplier gains; and control ion source heaters and filaments.

Experiment data were collected for 134 hours in lunar orbit (127 hours of prime data and 7
hours of degraded data) for both missions, and 48 hours during the transearth portion of the
Apollo 15 mission. Boom retraction anomalies occurred on both missions. On the Apollo 15 mis-
sion, the bl,lom did not fully retract on 5 of 12 occasions. On the Apollo 16 mission, the boom
never fully retracted and then stalled at the two-thirds position during final retraction (or the
transearth injection maneuver. Because the maneuver could not be performed with the boom extended,
it was jettisoned, thereby preventing collection of data during transearth coast. In the absence
of specific evidence, tl~ incomplete retractions were assumed to have been caused by jamming of
the cable in the boom housing because of stiffenlng during periods of cold soak. The repeated
and prolonged stalling of the motors on the Apollo 16 mission caused the final failure of the
boom in mid-stroke. Results of data analyses (refs. )-53 and 3-54) are summarized as follows.

Large quantities of gas wer:e observed in lunar orbit that could neither have orginated in
lunar orbit nor resulted from spacecraft direct outgassing. The plausible source of these gases
Is the waste liquids periodicall)' dumped from the spacecraft. These liquids quickly freeze,
forming gases into solid particles that co-orbit the moon with the spacecraft. Subsequent evap-
oration produced many of the gases obscrved.

Data were obtained on the partial pressure of neon-20. At the 100-kilometer orbital alti-
tude, the concentration is (8.3 :t5) x 10 3 atoms per cubic centimeter. ThIs value transiated into
the nighttime surface concentration becomes (4.5 13) x lOS atoms per cubic centimeter. The valuc
is lower than previous estimates by approximately a (actor of 3 but is in fair agreement with the
data fr:om the Apollo 14 and 15 cold cathode ionization gages operating on the lunar surface.

3.3.14 Far Ultraviolet Spectrometer

The ultraviolet spectrometer was a scientific instrumcnt module experiment flown only on
the Apollo 17 mission. The purpose of this experiment was to measure the density, composition,
and temperature of the lunar atmosphere. The instrument developed for this purpose was a large
and highly sensitive far ultraviolet spectrometer which scanned the spectral region of 1180 to
1680 angstroms every 12 seconds with a spectral resolution of 10 angstroms. The experiment in-
strument was sensitive to all possible atmospheric species except argon, helium, and neon.

The most definitive information previously obtained about the density of the lunar atmos-
phere was with cold cathode ion gages deployed on the lunar surface on the Apollo 14 and 15 mis-
sions. Data obtained by these gages indicated that the lunar surface is an exosphere, with the
lunar surface defining the exobase and, therefore, controlling the "temperature" of the atmos-
phere. More specifically, the data showed that there are no collisions between the atmospheric
molecules or atoms and that the sources of the lunar atmosphere are the solar wind, lunar degas-
sing, and radiogenic gases (argon and radon) formed by lunar radioactivity.

The ultraviolet spectrometer experiment was designed to optimize the observation of atomic
hydrogen and xenon by spending about 45 percent of each spectral cycle scanning the resonant emis-
sions of these two species. Optimization for xenon detection at 1470 angstroms was planned on the
basis that this heaviest of the naturally occurring gases would probably be the most resilient to
the loss processes that had reduced the primordial lunar atmosphere density to at least 10- 12 of
the density at the surface of the earth.
 3-81

Far ultraviolet spectr.:ll data were collected for 80 hours in lunar orbit and for approxi-
lIlately 60 hours during transearth coast, a solar atmospheric observation ....as added In real time.
All planned observations ~,Iere accomplished, including those of lunar atlllClsphere cOl:lpositlon and
tlensity; lunar ultravioLet albedo; solar systetl L)"IlIlln-alpha (l216 angstroms); ultraviolet lodia-
cal light; and ultraviolet spectra of the earth, several stars, and extragalactic sources. Equip-
ment performance was nominal with t ....o minor exceptions - failure of internal tel:lperature sensing
clrcuJts and an unexpected high background count rate attributed to cos~lc background. These
problems did not impair collection of data or degrade its quality. Experiment results based on
preliminary analyses are su.~arlzed as follows (reC. 3-SS).

a. The present results indicate that tl~ lunar surface concentration of atomic hydrogen
is less than 10 atollls per cubic centimeter, alQOst three orders of nragnltude less than predicted.
This is consistent ""ith the hypothesis that the solar Iorind protons are completely converted into
hydrogen 1l101ecules at the lunar surface. The fact that xenon IIlUst be at best a minor component
of the lunar atlllOsphere, despite its large mass, indicates that the l:QCchanism of photoionization
loss followed by acceleration in the solar wind electrJc field dominates over Jean's evaporative
escape, at least for the heavy gases. The soall concentrations of hydrogen, carbon nitrogen,
oxygen, and carbon ~noxide, which are photodissociation products of .any gases of volcanic or-
igin, also place severe restrIctions all. present levels of lunar volcanism.

b. tunar albedo I:le3surel:lents confim those made on lunar s3lllples frolll the Apollo II, 12
and 14 missions.

c. Information was obtained on ultraviolet zodiacal light ClIlissions from the inner solar
atflWsphere. These data generally support the ultraviolet zodiacal light observations by Orbiting
Astronomical Observatory 2.

d. During transearth coast, data were collected on stellar and extragalactic sources, and
a general ultraviolet survey of the sky was conducted. Preliminary analysis of the spectra of
isolated bright stars demonstrates that significant data were obtained. The observed ultravio-
let spectral distributions agree Yith previous observations and provide the most precise measure-
ment of the absolute ultraviolet brightness obtained to date.

3.3.15 Lunar Mission Photography From the Command and Service Module

Photographs of the lunar surface were taken from the cOl:lllland module on the Apollo 8 mission
primarily for geodetic and operational purposes. The principal objectives were to obtain over-
lapping or stereoscopic-strip photographs, to photograph specific targets of opportunity, and to
photograph a potential landing site through the sextant.

Approximately 90 percent of the objectives were met despite curtailment of photographic ac-
tivities toward the end of the lunar orbit period because of crew fatigue and spacecraft opera-
tional requirements. The results were as follows:

a. Excellent coverage was obtained of selected areas on the far side of the moon complemen-
ting near-side photographs taken during the Lunar Orbiter series. Photographs were taken through
the entire range of sun angles, and revealed albedo variations not previously detected as ""ell
ae many bright-rayed craters ringed with high-albedo materiel.

b. Vertical and oblique stereoscopic photographs between terminators were obtained with the
70-millimeter camera from about ISO° west longitude to 60 0 east longitude. Sufficient detail was
available to permit photographic reconstruction of the lunar surface.

c. Of 51 planned targets of opportunity using the 70-millirneter electric camera, time per-
mitted photography of only 31. The targets were selected to enhance knowledge of specific fea-
tures or to provide broad coverage of areas not adequately covered by Lunar Orbiter photographs.

d. Photography using the l6-millimeter data acquisition camera in conjunction with the sex-
tant was performed over the proposed first lunar landing site and three control points. This pho-
tography indicated that landmark identification and tracking could readily be performed on lunar
landing _iss ions.

An analysis of the Apollo 8 photography is given in reference 3-56.

 3-82

3.3.16 Lunar Multispectral Photography

The multispectral photography experiment was sucesssfully accomplished on the Apollo 12 mis-
sion. Its purpose was to obtain lunar vertical strip photographs in the blue, red, and infrared
portions of the optical spectrum. Equipment consisted of an srray of four lO-millimeter electric
cameras with aD-millimeter lenses. three to satisfy experiment objectives and a fourth, with
green filter, for operational purposes.

In addition to photographs of three planned targets of opportunity. continuous vertical strip

photographs were obtained over the lunar surface from 118 0 east to 14° west longitude. The num-
ber of photographs obtained by each of the red-. green-. and blue-filtered cameras totaled 142,
and the number of photographs taken by the infrared camera was 105. These photographs provided
the firat high-resolution (about 30 meters) look at subtle color variations on the lunar surface
and the first study of color behavior at and near the point directly opposite the sun (zero phase).
The experiment demonstrated the feasibility of multispectral photogrsphy and methods used to
display color contrast (ref. 3-57).

3.3.17 Candidate Exploration Sites Photography

This detailed objective was accomplished on the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 missions. Photo-
graphic tasks were intended to provide data for evaluating potential sites for follow-on lunar
landing missions. Primary targets on Apollo 12 were three potential landing sites: Fra Mauro,
Descartes, and Lalande. Although a malfunctioning film magazine prevented accomplishment of all
desired photography, mandatory requirements were satisfied. These included the following:
terminator-to-terminator stereoscopic coverage over three sites using the 70-millimeter electric
camera with an gO-millimeter lens, and concurrent landmark tracking with the 16-millimeter data
acquisition camera through the command and service module sextant; high-resolution photography
of the three sites with the 70-millimeter electric camera with a SOO-millimeter lens; and medium-
resolution photography of other interesting areas such as Davy Rille with the 70-millimeter elec-
tric camera and 2S0-millimeter lens.

The primary photographic target for Apollo 14 was the area of Descartes Crater, the tenta-
tive landing site for Apollo 16. A main objective was to obtain high-resolution photographs of
Descartes at both high and low altitudes using the lunar topogrsphic camera. This objective was
not completely satisfied becsuse of improper operation of the lunar topographic camera. As a
contingency measure, the 70-millimeter camera with a SOO-millimeter lens was used to obtain high-
resolution photographs of the Descartes area. Stereoscopic coverage of the area was also accom-
plished, although no camera shutter-open telemetry data were obtained because the S-band high-
gain antenna did not operate properly.

3.3.18 Selenodetic Reference Point Update

The detailed objective of obtaining landmark tracking photographs for use in updating selen-
odetic reference points was successfully accomplished on the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 missions.
Lunar landmark tracking targets included the crater Lansberg A on the Apollo 12 mission and 11
landmarks on the Apollo 14 mission, ranging from 141 0 east longitude to 40 0 west longitude; major
landmarks were the craters Daguerre 66, Dollond E, Mosting A, Enke E, and Ansgarius N. Landmark
photographs were taken through the command and service module sextant using the 16-millimeter
data acquisition camera; supporting photographs were taken with the 70-millimeter electric cam-
era with an aO-millimeter lens.

3.3.19 Transearth Lunar Photography

Assigned to the Apollo 14 mission, the transearth lunar photogrsphy detailed objective was
intended to provide photographic coverage of large areas on the far side and eastern limb of the
moon. These photographs were to be obtained for use in extending selenodetic control and improv-
ing lunar maps. Both the 70-millimeter electric camera and the lunar topographic camera were
scheduled for use; however, the lunar topographic camera malfunctioned in lunar orbit as dis-
cussed in section 3.3.17, and only the 70-millimeter camera was used. Both the 80- and 2S0-
millimeter lenses were used with the 70-mill1meter camera to photograph the visible disk of the
moon after transearth injection. Features shown at high latitudes in these photographs were then
related to features at lower latitudes which appeared in landmark tracking and stereoscopic pho-
tographs.
 3-83

3.3.20 Service Module Orbital Photographic Tasks

Service module orbital photographic tasks were accomplished on the final three Apollo mis-
sions. The objectives of these tasks were to provide a data package consisting of tracking data,
terrain photography, stellar photography, and altimetry. Tracking data essentially relate the
spacecraft to an earth coordinate system. Terrain photography gives the relationship of the
lunar surface to the spacecraft. In turn, the relationships between the lunar surface, lunar
coordinate system, and earth coordinate system can be determined, yielding refined information
about the lunar ephemeris with respect to the earth coordinate system. Terrain photography is
also used in triangulation, an operation in which the geometry of all photographs taken on one
or more missions can be integrated into a single unified coordinate system with a precision of
about 20 meters in all three axes. Stellar photography, synchronized with metric photography
of the lunar surface, relates the lunar and celestial coordinate systems and gives refined in-
formation about the lunar rotation rates, the orientation of its axis with respect to the celes-
tial coordinate system, and its physical librations. Stellar photographs also permit the atti-
tude of each terrain photograph to be determined independently so that lunar surface photographs
can be related more precisely. Altimetry data, obtained from the command and service module in
lunar orbit, gives a profile of the subtrack on the lunar surface as well as distance measure-
ments of lunar surface features appearing in stereoscopic photographs; the altitude data allow
photographs to be tied together rigidly.

Service module orbital photographic tasks involved operation of a panoramic camera, a map-
ping camera, and a laser altimeter. Instrument operation, anomalies, and the results of photo-
graphic tasks are summarized in the following paragraphs.

a. Panoramic camera photography. The panoramic camera was an adaptation of a military

panoramic reconnaissance camera designed for high-altitude applications. From an altitude of 60
nautical miles, the camera covered a swath about 300 kilometers wide on the lunar surface, and
provided photographs with a resolution of 1 to 2 meters. Panoramic photographs, in conjunction
with 70-millimeter still camera photographs, were used for detailed photointerpretive studies.
After rectification, panoramic photographs were also used for the production of large-scale top-
ographic maps of landing sites and special features such as rilles, domes, and craters. Figures
3-9, 3-10 and 3-12 are examples of photographs taken with the panoramic camera.

The panoramic camera was flown successfully on the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions and pro-
duced outstanding photography of lunar features of very high resolution in bot~ stereo graphic and
monographic modes. On each of these missions, the lunar module could be seen in photographs of
the landing areas and, in some instances, soil disturbances caused by the lunar roving vehicle
and foot traffic could be seen. A total of 4697 photographs was recorded from these three mis-
sions. The areas of coverage are identified in references 3-58, 3-59, and 3-60.

The areas photographed on Apollo 15 included the Hadley Rille landing site, several areas
being considered as the Apollo 17 landing site, the Apollo 15 lunar module ascent stage impact
point, near-terminator areas, and other areas of general coverage. About 12 percent of the lunar
surface was photographed. Anomalous operation of the velocity/altitude sensor was indicated on
the first Apollo 15 panoramic camera pass on revolution 4 and on subsequent pass~s; however, good
photographs were obtained over all critical areas and less than 1 percent of the total film ex-
posed was seriously degraded by the sensor malfunction.

The velocity/altitude sensor measured the angular rate of travel of the spacecraft relative
to the lunar surface. The sensor output was used to control the cycling rate of the camera, the
forward motion compensation, and the exposure. The sensor normally operated in the range of 45
to 80 miles altitude. If, at any time, the indicated velocity/altitude was out of this range,
the sensor automatically reset to the nominal value of 60 miles. The sensor operated properly
for brief periods of time, but would drift off-scale high (saturate) and then reset to the nomi-
nal value corresponding to a 60-mile altitude. The results of tests, coupled with analyses of
the basic sensor design, indicated that the problem was related to the optical signal-to-noise
ratio. The remaining flight hardware was modified to improve this ratio.

Apollo 16 panoramic camera photography increased lunar surface coverage to about 15 percent,
and included the Descartes landing area and prime targets at King Crater and in the Fra Mauro re-
gion. In addition, photographs of the lunar surface were obtained after transearth injection.
During the mission, camera operation was stopped when an abnormal bus voltage condition was ob-
served; subsequent inspection revealed that the condition was due to the spacecraft configuration
 3-84

and not to a camera problem. Photography was rescheduled to obtain photographs lost while the
camera was stopped. In addition to this anomaly, the camera exposure sensor consistently read
lower light levels than were present. Postflight analysis indicated that frames taken about 25°
away from the terminator were overexposed by 1-1/2 to 2 f-stops. To prevent recurrence of the
anomaly on the Apollo 17 mission, sensor output voltage limits were added to preflight test pro-
cedures. A special process used to develop overexposed portions of film rolls compensated for
the sensor problem. Task objectives were satisfied by the excellent quality photographs that
were obtained.

Panoramic camera photographs obtained on the Apollo 17 mission increased total coverage of
the lunar surface to approximately 20 percent. Nultiple high-resolution photographs were obtained
of the Taurus-Littrow landing site and of regions east and west of the areas photographed during
the Apollo 15 and 16 missions. Photographs of the moon were also taken after transearth injec-
tion. The camera operated satisfactorily throughout the mission until the stereo drive motor
failed just before the final photographic pass in lunar orbit; although some stereoscopic photog-
raphy was lost and resulting monographic photography was degraded, mandatory photographic require-
ments were met.

b. Mapping camera photography. The mapping camera was designed to obtain high-quality met-
ric photographs of the lunar surface from lunar orbit combined with time-correlated stellar pho-
tography for selenodetic/cartographic control. The camera received altitude information from a
laser altimeter (discussed in the next subsection) once per frame in serial form. Timing signals
were provided to the laser to permit the altitude to be obtained within 3 milliseconds of the
center of exposure of the mapping camera.

Cartographic-quality photographs of all sunlit lunar surface areas overflown by the space-
craft as well as oblique photographs of large areas north and south of the groundtracks were ob-
tained on the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions. Areas of coverage are identified in references
3-58, 3-59, and 3-60.

On the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions, the times required to extend and retract the mapping
camera were considerably longer than those of preflight tests. Several corrective actions were
taken, but the problem was not resolved. Although the mapping camera was left in the extended
position for longer periods than planned, neither the quantity nor quality of photographic cover-
age was adversely affected.

Two other anomalies that occurred during the Apollo 16 mission concerned stellar camera glare
shield jamming and metal chips in the film cassettes. During the extravehicular activity for film
retrieval, the stellar camera lens glare shield was found in the extended position and was jammed
against the service lIIOdule handrail. Photographs taken from the lunar lIIOdule indicated that the
glare shield was properly retracted at rendezvous. As a result of this problem on the Apollo 16
mission, the Apollo 17 mapping camera drive rack was carefully realigned for proper pinion gear
engagement when the camera assembly was fully deployed. The aforementioned metal chips were
found during the reprocessing inspection of the Apollo 16 returned f11m. The chips were removed
at the start of processing and caused no loss of data on the film.

Despite the problems described, photographic requirements were satisfied on all three mis-
sions.

c. Laser altimetry. The laser altimeter marked the first use of a solid-state laser in a
spacecraft application. It was flown on each of the J-series missions: Apollo 15, Apollo 16,
and Apollo 17.

The purposes of the laser altimeter operations were to provide a measurement of the distapce
from the spacecraft to the lunar surface in synchronization with each mapping camera exposure,
and to provide topographic profiles for correlation with gravity anomalies obtained from track-
ing data.

During the first operating period on the Apollo 15 mission, the orbit was highly eccentric,
causing the spacecraft to be below the laser altimeter minimum range of 40 nautical miles approx-
imately half the time. Whenever the altitude was within the design range of the altimeter, valid
data were obtained. In the second and third operating periods, the laser output began to degrade,
 3-85

accompanied by a gradual decrease 1n the number of valid altitude measurements. A subsequent

failure in the high-voltage section caused total loss of receiver sensitivity. No data were ob-
tained during the last half of lunar orbital flight. The cause of the decreased laser output was
thought to be contamination of the optical surfaces 1n the laser module. As a result. more strin-
gent cleaning and assembly procedures were implemented, and a control circuit was added to sense
the output and to increase the input voltage to the laser if the output decreased. The source
of the high-voltage problem was verified by duplication in the laboratory. High-voltage break-
down 1n a vacuum relay was generating electromagnetic interference which was picked up by the
receiver automatic gain control circuit. The automatic gain control circuit held the receiver
at its minimum sensitivity, thereby causing loss of the return signal. The problem was cOrrected
by removal of the relay from subsequent units.

On the Apollo 16 mission, the laser altimeter was operated for seven periods in accordance
with the flight plan, as revised during the mission to accommodate a delay in the lunar module
landing. The laser output again began to degrade during the second operating period but was com-
pensated for by the control circuit ~lich had been added after the Apollo 15 mission. During the
seventh operating period, the control circuit had reached the limit of its compensation capabil-
ity, and the percentage of valid data showed a marked decrease. Of the total quantity of data
obtained on the illuminated side of the moon, approximately 70 percent was valid. Because re-
duced laser output had less effect on operation over nonilluminated areas, approximately 80 per-
cent of the dark-side measurements was valid. The decrease in laser output during this mission
was a repeat of that experienced during the Apollo 15 mission, except that the added control cir-
cuit did prolong the effective life of the altimeter. The cause of the problem was found to be
contamination of the laser module optics by bearing lubricant and a decrease in flash lamp energy
due to solarization of the quartz envelope. The bearings in the Q-switch rotor were changed to
a type having the lubricant vacuum-impregnated into the ball retainer. The flashlamp envelope
material was changed to a higher purity grade of quartz to eliminate solarization. In addition,
the control circuit was modified so that its compensation was added in smaller increments.

The effectiveness of the changes implemented in the laser altimeter hardware as a result of
the previously mentioned problems can be seen by performance of the instrument on the Apollo 17
mission. The number of operations that produced valid data exceeded 99 percent. No altimeter
anomalies occurred during the Apollo 17 mission.

Apollo program laser altimeter data reveal that the mean radius of the nnon is approximately
1738 kilometers. The data also show that the center of figure is offset from the center of mass
by 2 to 4 \dIameters along the earth-moon line. Additional details of the laser altimeter
studies are given in references 3-61, 3-62 and 3-63.

3.3.21 Command Module Orbital Science Photography

The command module orbital science photography detailed objective was conducted during the
Apollo 14 mission. The purpose was to obtain photographs of lunar surface areas of prime sci-
entific interest and of specific segments of the lunar surface in earthshine and in low-level
light near the terminators*.

The lunar topographic camera with an 18-inch lens was provided to obtain high-resolution
(2 meters) stereoscopic photographs (with 60 percent overlap) of four lunar surface targets; the
target having the highest priority was an area north of Descartes Crater, a candidate landing site
for the Apollo 16 lunar module. Operation of the camera was noisy on the first of three scheduled
passes, indicating a camera malfunction. An extensive postmission film development plan insti-
tuted for analysis of the two exposed 5-inch film rolls resulted in the recovery of 193 usable
photographs. These photographs covered a segment of the central lunar highlands from the eastern
rim of Theophilus Crater to a point northwest of Kant Crater. Two major units were included:
Theophilus Crater ejecta and Kant Plateau materials.

High-resolution photographs of eight lunar surface targets were scheduled to be obtained

with a 70-millimeter electric camera: three with a SOO-millimeter lens, and five with a 2S0-
millimeter lens. The SOO-millimeter targets were photographed successfully, but only two of
the 2S0-mUlimeter targets were obtained; photographs of the other three targets were deleted
because of operational considerations. The 70-millimeter camera was also used to photograph a
number of targets that had been scheduled to be photographed with the lunar topographic camera.

*Oividing line between illuminated and unilluminated lunar surface.

 3-86

A sequence of photographs showing the lunar surface in earthshine and in low light levels
near the terminator was accomplished successfully. A 70-millimeter electric camera with an 80-
millimeter lens and a 16-millimeter data acquisition camera with an 18-millimeter lens were used.
The photographic sequence started just before the command and service module crossed the sunrise
terminator and continued past the terminator. Photographs covered the area located 1n the south-
central portion of the Ocean of Storms 1n the vicinity of Kunowsky Crater and approximately 210
kilometers southeast of Kepler Crater. Details of the orbital science photography conducted on
the Apollo 14 mission are given in reference 3-64.

3.3.22 Visual ObSQrvations from Lunar Orbit

Visual observations were an integral part of lunar exploration because the dynamic range
and color sensitivity of the human eye cannot be matched by anyone film type or sensing instru-
ment and because, in special cases, on-the-scene interpretation of observed features or phenom-
ena was needed. Visual observations were intended to complement photographic and other remotely
sensed data obtained from lunar orbit. This detailed objective was successfully accomplished on
the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions. The locations of many of the areas referred to in the fol-
lowing paragraphs may be found in figure 3-1.

The extraordinary success of the visual observations on the Apollo 15 mission proved the
outstanding capabilities of man and his use in space flight. All 13 scheduled targets were ob-
served and crew comments were relayed to earth. Targets were the craters Tsiolkovsky, Picard,
Proclus, Cauchy, Littrow, Dawes, and Sulpicius Gallus; Hadley Rille; Imbrium Basin flows; the
Harbinger Mountains; the Aristarchus Plateau; and areas to be observed after transearth injec-
tion. The following significant observations were made during this mission (ref. 3-65).

a. Fields of possible cinder cones were discovered on the southeast rim of rhe Sea of
Serenity (Littrow Crater area) and on the southwest rim of the same mare basin (Sulpicius Gallus
Crater area).

b. The lineated segment of the northwestern rim of Tsiolkovsky Crater on the lunar far side
was interpreted as a landslide.

c. An excluded zone in the ray pattern around Proclus Crater on the west rim of the Sea of
Crises was interpreted as caused by a fault system at the west rim of the crater.

d. Recognition of layering along crater walls (as opposed to terracing by faults and mass
wasting by downward movement of materials along the walls) was achieved for the first time. This
recognition gives a new dimension to thinking relative to the nature of the upper layers of the
lunar crust.

Targets scheduled for visual observation on Apollo 16 were the farside highlands; the cra-
ters Mendeleev, King, Goddard, and Kapteyn; the Colombo highlands; the craters Isodorus-Capella;
the Descartes landing site; and Alphonsus Crater. All but one of the targets were successfully
observed; the Goddard target area was deleted because of time constraints. Items used to aid in
observations were site graphic materials, a pair of lO-power binoculars, and a reference color
wheel. The following significant observations were made (ref. 3-66).

a. The crew's first impression of the moon from lunar orbit was that of a brilliant, heav-
ily battered, and uniformly colored body. Toward the end of lunar orbit, they felt that the de-
tailed characteristics of units commonly mapped on the lunar near and far sides were surprisingly
similar.

b. Fine scarps, generally irregular and somewhat subdued, were observed on the far side,
but none wss seen in the near-side highlands.

c. The Cayley Formation generally had the same appearance as large basin fill, as small
patches in the bottom of the steep-sided craters, and as valley filling in the hummocky far-side
highlands.

d. Mare surfaces provided the setting for the most obvious color contrasts.
 3-87

e. Numerous terrace-like rims were detected along highland hills in the Sea of Clouds, the
Known Sea, and the Ocean of Storms, these are interpreted as "high-water marks," representing
the maximum depth of filling by mare lavas.

Nine lunar surface targets were scheduled for visual observation on Apollo 17. They were
the craters Aitken, Arabia, and Copernicus; the Seas of Crises and Serenity; D-Caldera; the
Taurus-Littrow landing site; Smyth's Sea; Reiner Gamma Crater; and Tsiolkovsky Crater. Four ad-
ditional targets observed were Euler Hills, and the craters Gagarin, Korolev. and Pasteur. Crew
aids were onboard graphic materials, a pair of IO-power binoculars, and a reference color wheel.
All aids were useful except the color wheel which apparently did not include a color range com-
parable to actual lunar colors.

Because the Apollo 17 groundtracks repeated approximately 80 percent of the lunar surface
area previously overflown on Apollo IS, much was already known about the features 1n question.
For this reason, emphasis was placed on color tones of geologic units and details of small-scale
features. Detailed descriptions of the observations are given in reference 3-67.

3.3.23 Gegenschein from Lunar Orbit

The Gegenschein from lunar orbit experiment was performed on the Apollo 14, 15 and 16 mis-
sions. Its purpose was to determine if a detectable accumulation of dust exists at the Moulton
point of the sun-earth system and, thus, to establish whether sunlight reflected from dust par-
ticles at this location contributes significantly to the Gegenschein phenomenon. The l6-milli-
meter data acquisition camera with an 18-millimeter lens was used on the Apollo 14 mission, and
a 35-millimeter camera with a 55-millimeter lens was used on the Apollo 15 and 16 missions.

On the Apollo 14 mission, three sets of photographs were required to meet experiment objec-
tives. Each set consisted of two 20-second exposures and one S-second exposure in quick succes-
sion. For the first set the camera was pointed near the antisolar direction; for the second set
the camera was pointed midway between the antisolar direction and the computed direction of the
Moulton point, as viewed from the moon; and for the last set the camera was pointed near the di-
rection of the Moulton point. All requirements were satisfied. Both aiming and filming were
excellent. and the experiment demonstrated that long exposures were practicable.

As planned for the Apollo 15 mission, photography of the Gegenschein and Moulton point was
performed twice, and at least six exposures were obtained during each sequence. All photographs
were unusable because of incorrect spacecraft attitudes resulting from errors incurred during
analytical transformation of target coordinates to spacecraft attitudes. However, the opera-
tional performance of the 35-millimeter camera system, used for the first time on the Apollo 15
mission. demonstrated its feasibility for Gegenschein photography.

The Apollo 16 experiment objectives were the same as those for the Apollo 14 and 15 missions,
and were accomplished satisfactorily. Ten desired exposures were obtained, five with I-minute
durations and five with 3-minute durations. Pointing accuracy and spacecraft stability were
within specified limits. Photographic quality was good, and the solar radiation caused less deg-
radation of the Apollo 16 film than that of the Apollo 14 and 15 film. Analysis of the photo-
graphs shows that the sky is definitely brighter in the antisolar direction than in the direc-
tion of the Moulton region and that much less than half the light seen on earth as the Gegen-
schein comes from particles lingering in the Moulton region.

3.3.24 Ultraviolet Photography - Earth and Moon

This photography experiment was conducted on the Apollo 15 and 16 missions. Its purpose
was to obtain imagery of the earth and the lOOon at a series of wavelength intervals in the near-
ultraviolet portion of the spectrum. Photographs of the earth were required to provide calibra-
tion data to support the study of planetary atmospheres by telescopic observations in the ultra-
violet spectrum; photographs of the moon were needed to investigate short-wavelength radiation
from the lunar surface. Accompanying color photographs were obtained to help interpret the ul-
traviolet appearance of other planets in our solar system, especially Mars and Venus.
 3-88

Equipment for recording required experiment spectral data consisted of a 10-millimeter elec-
tric camera with a IDS-millimeter ultraviolet transmitting lens, a spectroscopic film sensitive
to the shorter wavelengths, a special command module window fitted with quartz panes to pass a
large fraction of incident ultraviolet radiation, and four filters. One filter was centered at
3750 angstroms, a second at 3050 angstroms, and a third at 2600 angstroms; the fourth passed vis-
ible radiation above 4000 angstroms. The command module window was covered by a shield most of
the time to limit periods of crew exposure to high ultraviolet radiation levels in direct sun-
light or in light reflected from the lunar surface.

Apollo 15 photographic activity began in earth orbit when the first several sets of ultra-
violet photographs were taken. During translunar coast, three sets of ultraviolet photographs
recorded the spectral signature of the earth from distances of 50 000, 125 000, and 175 000 nau-
tical miles. Lunar orbit activities included ultraviolet photography of the earth above the
lunar horizon and two series of ultraviolet photographs that recorded the spectral data for lunar
maria and highlands. Ultraviolet photographic activities were concluded during transearth coast
by photographs of the earth taken shortly after the crew extravehicular activity to retrieve film
cassettes from the service module cameras, and by two more sets of earth photographs obtained
during the final 2 days before landing.

Apollo 16 ultraviolet photographs were scheduled to be obtained during translunar coast, in

lunar orbit, and during transearth coast. Time constraints, unsatisfactory performance of the
2650-angstrom bandpass filter, and lunar image centering problems resulted in the loss of some
data. However, 66 high-quality images of the earth and moon were recorded at varying distances.
Four sets of ultraviolet photographs of the earth and one set of the moon were exposed at sched-
uled times during translunar coast. During lunar orbit, spectral data of highland terrain near
the Descartes landing site were recorded. A sequence of ultraviolet photographs of the moon
shortly after transearth injection and another of ultraviolet earth photographs taken a few
hours before landing completed experiment activities.

3.3.25 Dim-Light Photography

Primary objectives of the dim-light photography detailed objective, accomplished on the

Apollo 14 mission, were to obtain photographs of diffuse galactic light, zodiacal light, and
lunar libration region L4; also, the dark side of the earth was photographed through the sextant.
Many of these observations were of the nature of an operational test to determine the feasibility
of obtaining photographs of astronomical phenomena from the co~nd and service module using a
l6-millimeter data acquisition camera. A total of 56 exposures were made: 13 of galactic light,
30 of zodiacal light, 4 of lunar libration region L4, and 9 of the dark side of the earth through
the sextant.

Zodiacal light could be seen with the unaided eye on about 15 photographs; galactic light
and lunar lib ration photographs, though faint, were usable. Earth dark-side photographs were
unusable because scenes were obscured by scattered light from the sextant optics, from sunlit
areas of the earth, and perhaps from portions of the docked lunar module during trans lunar coast.

3.3.26 Command Module Photographic Tasks

The command module photographic tasks were performed on the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions.
The portions of this detailed objective that supported astronomy investigations involved photog-
raphy of the solar corona, zodiacal light, lunar surface areas in earthshine and in low light
levels near the terminator, galactic light, and lunar libration region L4. Also the dark side
of the earth and selected star fields were photographed through the sextant. Specific tasks as-
signed and cameras used included the following.
 3-89

Cameras, IIIIl

Observations of solar corona '0 and I'

Moon during eclipse by the earth '0 and 35

Star fields through the command

lDOdule sextant
I'
Lunar lib ration region L4 I' and 35

Zodiacal light I' and 35

Specific segments of lunar surface:

tn earthshine 35
Near terminator '0
Galactic light 16 and 35

Dark side of the earth through

command lDOdule sextant
I'
Command lDOdule photographic tasks scheduled for the Apollo 15 mission were designed to con-
tinue and expand those accomplished on the Apollo 14 mission. Photographs of star fields through
the sextant were obtained during translunar and transear~h coast periods; solar corona calibration
photographs and a sequence of photographs documenting the lunar eclipse were taken during trans-
earth coast. All other photographic objectives were achieved in lunar orbit.

Objectives of the co~nd module photographic tasks for the Apollo 16 mission were to obtain
photographs of the diffuse galactic light of celestial subjects, the solar corona, the zodiacal
light, and specific se~ents of the lunar surface in earthshine and in low light levels near the
terminator. These objectives were a continuation of the diffuse galactic light photographic task
accomplished on the Apollo 14 mission and the dim-light command module photographic tasks per-
formed during the Apollo 15 mission. Pril'll8rlly because of time constraints, photographic objec-
tives were not fully satisfied: only t",o of the four scheduled solar corona photographic sequences
were completed, and lunar earthshine photography was not accomplished, although some photographs
were obtained over areas less desirable than those planned. Otller requirements were satisfied
by photographs taken of lunar surface areas in low light levels near the terminator and two
S-minute exposures of diffuse galactic light in the Gum Nebula.

Apollo 17 command module photographic task objectives, a repetition of those for the Apollo
15 and 16 missions, were to obtain photographs of the solar corona, zodiacal light, and specific
segments of the lunar surface in earthshine and areas in low light levels near the terminator.
The first of two planned solar corona photographic sequences was successfully accomplished, but
the second was o~itted because of an extended crew sleep period. Seven photographs provided data
on the east limb of the sun; two coronal streamers are evident in photographs taken just before
sunrise, one lying nearly along the ecliptic. Exposure durations were as planned, permitting
good photometry using preflight calibrations.

Zodiacal light, extending east~ard from the lunar-occulted suo, was recorded in three sepa-
rate series of photographs. A red filter was used for the first series, s blue filter for the
second series, and a polariZing filter for the third series. When corresponding red and blue i~
ages were compared, the inner zodiacal light within about 15· of the sun sho~d a atronger red
component in and close to the ecliptic plane, whereas inner zodiacal light well out of the eclip-
tic plane and almost all of the outer zodiacal light produced a stronger blue component; although
a similar visual comparison of equivalent polaroid frames did not show any obvious variation in
features, excellent isophote maps can be made for the most sensitive comparison necessary in the
future.
 3-90

Hlgh-quali~y photographs of lunar surface targets in earthshine were obtained. These targets
were the craters Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Reiner Gamma, Riccio!!, and Orientale. Other crew-
option targets that were photographed using blue, red, and polarization filters included 18101-
kovsky Crater, the Sea of Rains, and the Taurus-Littraw landing site, Photographs of lunar sur-
face areas in low light levels near the terminator were of excellent quality, particularly those
located 1n the near-side mare areas.

3.4 EARTH RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHY

Earth resources photography included synoptic terrain photography and synoptic weather pho-
tography, performed on Apollo 7. and multispectral terrain photography, performed on Apollo 9.
The purposes of these experiments were to obtain high-quality color, panchromatic, and multispec-
tral photographs of selected land and ocean areas of the earth and of clouds and other weather
phenomena. Data from these photographs supplemented existing earth resources data, thus enhanc-
ing meteorological and ecological knowledge.

Photographs for all experiments were obtained by using modified lO-millimeter electric cam-
eras. For the multispectral terrain photography experiment, an array of four electric cameras
was used with four film/filter combinations: Panatomic-X film with red and green filters, infra-
red black-and-white film with a red filter, and color infrared film with a Wratten 15 filter.

3.4.1 Synoptic Terrain Photography

More than 500 synoptic terrain photographs were obtained during the Apollo 1 mission. Of
these, about 200 satisfied experiment objectives. Photographs obtained were used to support
studies of the origin of the Carolina bays in the United States, wind erosion in desert regions,
coastal morphology, and the origin of the African rift valley. Near-vertical, high-sun-angle
photographs of Baja California, other parts of Mexico, and parts of the Middle East were useful
for geologic studies. Photographs of New Orleans, Louisiana, and Houston, Texas, were generally
better for geographic urban studies than those available from previous programs. Areas of ocean-
ographic interest, particularly islands in the Pacific Ocean, were photographed for the first
time. In addition, the first extensive photographic coverage of northern Chile, Australia, and
other areas was obtained.

3.4.2 Synoptic Weather Photography

Of the approximately 500 synoptic weather photographs obtained during the Apollo 1 mission,
)00 showed clouds and other items of meteorological interest, and 80 contained features of ocean-
ographic interest. Categories considered worthy of additional interest included weather systems
such as tropical storm; winds and their effects on clouds; ocean surfaces; underwater zones of
Australian reefs, the Pacific Atolls, the Bahama Islands, and Cuba; landform effects; climatic
zones; and hydrology. Of particular interest were photographs of Hurrican Gladys and Typhoon
Gloria, photographed on October 17 and October 20, 1968, respectively.

3.4.3 Multispectral Terrain Photography

Photographic targets for the multispectral terrain photography experiment were primarily in
the United States and Mexico. Coast-to-coast coverage of parts of the United States and parts of
southern Mexico and Central America was accomplished; partial photographic sets were obtained of
test areas specifically designated for oceanographic and meteorological studies. Typical sites
were Phoenix and Yuma, Arizona; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and Mexico City, Mexico.
Secondary targets were located in Africa. A total of 584 frames were exposed by all four cameras,
yielding 127 complete photographic sets.

Except for some cloud cover, the quality of the multispectral terrain photographs ranged
from very good to excellent. Photographic coverage of clouds and specific meteorological phe-
nomena had greater value for meteorological application than photographs obtained during any pre-
vious manned orbital mission. Of the four film/filter configurations used, the color infrared
 3-91

film/Wratten 15 filter combination provided the best photographic information snd resolution,
and rapid discrimination was possible between features such as water, types of vegetation, and
rocks or's011. Of the three black-snd-white fllm/filter combinations, Panatomic-X film/red fil-
ter produced the best tone differentiation, contrast, and resolution; infrared film/red filter
provided the best discrimination between types of vegetation snd provided the ability to recon-
stitute color imagery; snd Panatomic-X film/green filter, the least effective of the four filml
filter combinations, yielded a lower variation in shades of gray snd less resolution than those
obtained with the Panatomic-X film/red filter.

3.5 BIOMEDICAL EXPERIMENTS

Three inflight biology experiments were conducted during the Apollo series of space flights.
Each study investigated the effects of space flight, including ambient radiation, on one or more
species of living organisms. A brief and general description of each experiment with a synopsis
of previously reported observations is included.

3.5.1 Microbial Response to Space Environment

The objectives of the microbial response to space environment experiment were twofold. The
first objective was to establish a statistically valid relationship between space flight and the
viability of several different microbial systems. A second, more extensive objective was to ana-
ly~e accurately the effect of space flight conditions on the rate of mutations and developmental
changes in different micro-organisms.

The experiment systems are summari~ed in table 3-VIII. In most cases, the studied phenom-
ena represent well-known model systems that. can be directly correlated with disease or other
medicslly important conditions that could affect the health of future astronauts. Investigators
were invited to study those phenomena within their area of expertise and to conduct critical in-
vestigations in their laboratories. This method allowed many individual studies to be conducted
in a coordinated manner and permitted a variety of micro-organism species to be housed within a
single piece of flight hardware.

Each investigator selected a species of micro-organism that was nonpathogenic to man (to
avoid possible contamination of the crew), that was well characteri~ed relative to the phenomenon
to be studied, that was well suited to simple and rapid screening tests, and that was compatible
with the unique environment of the flight hardware. Dose-response studies were made possible by
providing a mechanism to expose test systems to the full light of space or to components of the
solar ultraviolet spectrum at peak wavelengths of 254, 280, and 300 nanometers, over a range of
energy values.

During the Apollo 16 transearth coast extravehicular activity, the experiment hardware was
removed from the crew compartment and affixed to the distal end of the television boom, which was
then attached to the handle of the opened hatch door (fig. 3-31). Following a small command mod-
ule attitude adjustment, the experiment was opened to expose the test systems to the direct rays
of the sun. After exactly 10 minutes, the device was closed, brought back into the command mod-
ule, and subsequently returned to earth for analysis.

A summary of the preliminary results of each microbial system is presented in the following
paragraphs.

Aeromonas proteoZyti~a produces an endopeptidsse that can cause intracutaneous hemorrhage

and necrosis in laboratory animals and another factor that can hemoly~e human erythrocytes. This
microbe was retained in fluid suspension and was exposed to all wavelengths of ultraviolet irra-
diation. Comparisons of survivors recovered from the experimental and control units indicate no
significant differences in viability. The more sensitive characteristics of endopeptidase and
hemolysin production are still being investigated.
 TABLE 3-VIII.- MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT
EXPERIMENT SYSTEM COMPONENTS

Phenomenon studied Assay system Micro-organism

Biological Components

Lipolytic a toxin Lytic zone

production on agar
Deforming l3 toxin Saroina flava Bacillus
production and house fly thuringiensis
Fatal 6 toxin Silk worm and
production crystal assay

Infectivity Mouse
Nematospiroidee
dubiue
Hemorrhagic factor Guinea pig and
production hemoglobin Aeronmonas
pl"oteolytica
Hemolytic enzyme Human erythrocytes
procuction

Bacillus 8ubtilis
spores. strains
Genome alteration Spore production
HA 101 (59) and
HA 101 (59) F

UV and vacuum
Colony formation
Bacillus subtilis
sensitivity spores, strain 168

Bacteria phage
Host lysis
Escherichia coli
infectivity (T-7 phage)

Cellulolytic Chaetomiwn
Cloth fibers
activity globosU1n
Animal tissue
Human hair
Trichophyton
invasion . terrestre

Antibiotic sensi-
Rhodotorula l"ubra
Drug sensitivity Saccha.1'omyces
tivity in agar
cerivisiae
Dosimetry Components

Lexan
High-energy multi- Passive nuclear Cellulose nitrate
charged particles track detectors Photographic emulsion
Silver chloride

Potassium ferrioxal-
Ultraviolet light Passive dosimeters ate actinometry
Photographic emulsion

Penetration of gal- Thermoluminescent

actic irradiation Lithium fluoride
dosimeters
 3-93

I ,

I
I
 Two species of filamentous fungi, Trichophyton terrestre and Chaetomium gZobosum, were se-
lected because these species are active against human hair and cloth fibers, respectively. The
two species of yeasts, RhodotoruZa rubPa and Sacch~myces ce~visiae, were included because they
may be used as biological indicators in several aasay procedures. Detailed results of analyses
have not yet been released.

Two different investigative groups evaluated different strains of BaciZZus aubtiZis. Spores
of B. subtiZis strain 168 were exposed in monolayers to space vacuum and/or to ultraviolet irra-
diation at a peak wavelength of 254 nanometers. Detailed analyses of recoverable colony-forming
units demonstrate that neither space vacuum nor ultraviolet irradiation in space nor a combina-
tion of these factors affected the survival of this strain in a manner discernible from the
ground control and ground test subjects.

Spores of B. subtiZia strains HA 101 (59) and HA 101 (59) F were exposed to the space flight
environment in aqueous suspensions and in dry layers. Spores of these strains were selected be-
cause of their known stability in extreme environments. As with strain 168, comparisons of non-
irradiated flight cells with ground controls as yet have failed to demonstrate any space-flight-
mediated effect.

The species BaciZlus thuringieneis var. thuringiensis was chosen for the experiment because
it produces a lipolytic a toxin, a deforming B toxin, and a crystalline 0 toxin, and because it
has been Widely used as a biological insecticide. Aa with the other bacilli, the space-flight
conditions appear to have had no effect on cell viability as measured by surviving colony-forming
unita.

Survival studies of the T-7 bacteriophage of Escherichia coZi were performed in an attempt
to relate the present experiment to the space-flight-mediated effects reported by Russian scien-
tists for E. coZi phage specimens flown on numerous manned flights. Rather than the I-lor K-12
(~) phage commonly used on the Russian flights, the simpler and more stable T-7 phage was chosen
for this study because this phage was expected to be more resistant to the rigors of space flight
and thus would be a better ultraviolet test subject. Early calculations support this hypothesis
because large losses in the flight subjects, as compared to the ground controls. are not indi-
cated. Critical comparisons of flight and control test samples demonstrate no discernible space-
flight-mediated antagonism or synergism.

The nematode Nematoapiroides dubius was chosen for study because this complex multicellular
organism has been successfully cultured in vitro from the egg to the third-stage infective larvae,
is pathogenic to laboratory mice but not to humans, and is quite insensitive to the special hold-
ing conditions of the flight hardware. A comparison of nonirradiated flight and ground control
subjects revealed no differences in survival, infectivity in mice, formation of adults, or sub-
sequent egg productions. However, data analyses indicate that the space-flight environment (ex-
cluding ultraviolet irradiation and vacuum) profoundly affected the ability of the resulting eggs
to develop to infective larvae.

Galactic irradiation measurements were conducted in response to current concern for the ef-
fect of high-energy multicharged particles on bi910gical systems. Several systems including
lithium fluoride, cellulose nitrate, texan, Ilford G5, and silver chloride crystals were used in
the flight hardware and ground controls. The mean dose within the flight hardware was 0.48 ±0.02
rad with a range of 0.44 to 0.51 rad. This dose represents a total sbsorption of 48 12 ergs of
ionizing energy per gram within the biological systems. Doses to the crewmen were slightly
higher, rsnging from 0.48 to 0.54 rad with s mean of 0.51 10.02 rsd. Analyses of the Lexan and
cellulose nitrate tracks and lithium fluoride values indicate that the microbial response hard-
ware was better shielded during the flight than were either the Apollo light flash moving emul-
sion detector, the crew passive dosimeters, or the bios tack experiment.

In conclusion, none of the available data indicate space-flight-mediated changes in cell

viability or recovery. One significant observation is that N. dubius eggs produced after mice
had been infected with space-flown N. dubius larvae demonstrated a significant decrease in hatch-
ability when compared to identicsl ground controls. Except for the fact that the Apollo 16 flight
larvae had been on board the command module, treatment of the flown larvae and ground control lar-
vae was the same; neither had been exposed to ultraviolet irradiation.
 3- 95

3.5.2 Biostack Experiment

The bIostack experiment studied the biologic effects of individual heavy nuclei of galactic
cosmic radiation during space flight. A consortium of European scientists and engineers proposed
and conducted the experiment. Although officially sponsored by the German Bundesministerium fur
Bildung und Wlssenschaft. the biostack was a representative segment of the scientific program of
the Council of Europe designed to promote European research on the effects of high-energy/high-
atomic-number particles of galactic cosmic radiation on a broad spectrum of biologic systems,
from the molecular to the highly organized and developed forms of life. Two experiments were
conducted - biostack I on Apollo 16 and bios tack lIon Apollo 11. The experiment approach was
identical on both ~ssions, and only a slight change in exposed biologic material was made be-
tween the two flights.

The objectives of the biostack experiment were achieved by using a hermetically sealed alu-
minum container (fig. 3-32) that contained a series of monolayers of biologic material ssndwiched
between several different types of detectors of galactic cosmic radiation particles. The bio-
logic effects of high-energy particles under consideration included the following.

a. Physicochemical inactivation of molecular and cellular function

b. Radiation-induced mutations leading to genetic changes of biologic significance

c. Modification of the growth and development of tissues

d. Radiation-induced damage to nuclei and other subcellular functions

The biologically passive or dormant systems used in the bios tack experiments were alternately
stacked between physical detectors of high-energy/high-atomic-number particle tracks. which in-
cluded nuclear emulsions (Ilford K2 and K5) and plastics (cellulose nitrate and polycarbonate),
as well as lithium fluoride thermo luminescent (radiation) dosimeters located at the top and bottom
of the bios tack. A typical configuration of biologic layers and detectors is illustrated sche-
matically in figure 3-33. This arrangement was used because the configuration permitted corre-
lation of the incident high-energy/high-atomic-number particle with its interaction with the
"hit" biologic material and the physicochemical characteristics and properties of the particle.
This characterization of a apecific particle identified with a specific biologic hit is critical
in the evaluation of high-energy effects.

The following biologic system were included in bios tack I on board Apollo 16.

a. Spores or inactive forms of the bacterium Bacillus subtilis

b. Dry seeds of Arabidopsis thaliana, commonly known as the European watercress

c . . Radiculae or embryos of the bean Vicia [aha

d. Encysted eggs of the brine shrimp Artemia salina

The systems in biostack lIon board Apollo 11 included, once again, Bacillus subtilis spores and
Artemia salina eggs. Vicia [aha and Arabidopsis thaliana were deleted, and cysts of the proto-
zoan Colpoda cuculus, eggs of the flour beetle Tribolium con[usum, and eggs of the grasshopper
Carausius morosus were added.

3.5.3 Biological Cosmic Radiation Experiment

The biological cosmic radiation experiment was a passive experiment intended to determine
if heavy particles of galactic cosmic radiation have the capability to inactivate nondividing
cells such as thoae in the brain and the retina of the eye. The experiment was conceived as a
logical extension of earlier biological cosmic radiation studiea that used balloon-borne animals.
In this experiment. five perognathus longimembris (little pocket mice) were exposed to the gal-
actic cosmic radiation encountered during the Apollo 17 lunar mission. This species was selected
because the adult animal is small and these mice do not require water. A radiation dosimeter was
implanted underneath the scalp of each animal to permit correlation of tissue lesions with the
passage of radiation particles into the brain.
3-9E

•
 3-97

o Cellulose nitrate, 250 ,urn deep

_ Polycarbonale, 250 ""m deep

_ IHord nuclear emulsion (KS)t 600 .urn deep

'--:i\~~~:;~ IIford nuclear emulsion (K2), 600 .urn deep

~ Biological layer (seeds of Arabidopsis thaliana in

polyvinyl alcohoD, 400 "m deep

Figure 3-33.- Typical configuration of biologic layers and detectors in the bioslack.
 The hardware consisted of a hermetically sealed, cylindrical aluminum canister (approxi-
mately 13.5 inches long and 7 inches in diameter) that contained seven perforated, cylindrical
metal tubes (fig. 3-34). Attached to one end of the canister were redundant pressure relief
valves and two manually controlled purge valves. Six of the seven tubes were arranged around
the inside wall of the canister. Five of these I-inch-diameter aluminum tubes contained a mouse
and its food supply. The sixth mouse tube was flown empty. The seventh tube, made of stainless
steel, was centrally located in the six-tube circular arrangement. This center tube contained
potassium superoxide granules for life support and operated by converting the carbon dioxide
from the mice into oxygen. Two self-recording temperature sensors were located in two of the
mouse tube end caps. A separate radiation dosimeter was located in the stowage locker adjacent
to the experiment hardware.

The experiment was secured in the command module with its longitudinal axis perpendicular to
the thrust axis during launch and recovery. The mice were loaded into the hardware approximately
4 days before the scheduled launch, and the experiment hardware was stowed in the command module
approximately 36 hours before launch. The hardware was removed from the command module approxi-
mately 3 hours after landing and delivered to the Principal Investigator on American Samoa. The
initial poatflight processing of the flight mice was accomplished at a laboratory established for
that purpose on American Samoa.

Four mice survived the Apollo 17 mission. The survivors appeared to be physiologically nor-
mal and displayed no behavioral manifestations indicative of sny untoward effects of space flight.
The death of the fifth mouse did not appear to be related to space flight stresses. The tissues
of the mice are in pathological and histochemical analyses for any evidence of interaction be-
tween the tissues and heavy cosmic particles and subsequent biological damage. The subscalp do-
simeters indicated penetration by a significant number of cosmic particles. Performance of the
potassium superoxide granules in providing life support oxygen was considered to be normal.

3.6 INFLIGHT DEMONSTRATIONS

lnflight demonstrations were small carry-on experiments operated by several crews during
translunar or transearth coast. The purpose of these experiments was to demonstrate the effects
of near-zero gravity on various phenomena and processes. Demonstrations of fluid electrophoresis,
liquid transfer, heat flow and convection, and composite casting were conducted on the Apollo 14
mission. In addition, another fluid electrophoresis demonstration was conducted on Apollo 16,
and the heat flow and convection demonstration was repeated on Apollo 17. The composite cast-
ing demonstration was scheduled to be conducted again on the Apollo 15 mission but was canceled
because of a hardware malfunction. Each demonstration is summarized briefly in the following
subsections.

3.6.1 Fluid Electrophoresis

Electrophoresis is a separation technique used for classifying and analyzing delicate and
complex mixtures of biological materials, for purifying biochemical products, and for medical
diagnosis. Electrophoresis means "borne of electricity" and is the lIIOvement of charged par-
ticles in solution under the influence of an electric field. Host materials that can be div-
ided into fine particles take on a charge when dispersed in an aqueous solution. The particles
move through the fluid to the oppositely charged electrode at velocities dependent on their ac-
cumulated charge, size, and shape. After a period of time, particles separate into distinct
zones, just as runners in a race spread out over the course. Each distinct zone of purified
particles can then be extracted. Investigators believed that this separation process would be
substantially improved in the near-zero-gravity space environment by reduction in the sedimen-
tation and thermal convection mixing. The objective of this experiment, therefore, was to dem-
onstrate electrophoresis separation in the space environment and, if proven effective, to show
that small but significant quantities of biological materials such as vaccines, viral insecti-
cides, and other valuable materials and products could be economically purified in space.
 Potassium Canister
dioXide
caniSter

end cap and

filter aSSembly --......... ~
Relief val1.les

Ii}'
\
I~Heat sinks
13.5 inches

Purge valves

'~POtassium dioXide
caniSter cover
Fiberglass felt

Figure 3~34.~

BiOlogical cOSmic "dialio n (biocorel exPerime", package.

't'
18
 3-100

3.6.1.1 Apollo 14,- The Apollo 14 electrophoresis demonstration (ref. 3-68) was conceptu-
alized and developed because of the great potential uses for this process. The experi~nt ap-
paratus weighed about 5 pounds and was contained in a metal case (4 by 5 by 7 In.). The appara-
tus consisted of the electrical system, three electrophoresis cells, and a system to circulate
the electrolyte through the cells. Each cell contained a different specimen: a red and s blue
dye (for intense color and stability), hemoglobin (8 high-molecular-weight biological material),
and salmon sperm deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in an aqueous solution of boric acid.

The three experiments were run In parallel, and data were collected by photographing the
action in the tubes sequentially with a 70-millimeter camera. The time required for the demon-
stration was 57 minutes. The results showed that the red and blue dyes separated as expected;
but, because of apparatus and material problems, no action was seen in the hemoglobin or DNA
tubes. (The hemoglobin and DNA may have been consumed during storage by bacterial action.)
Nevertheless, much was learned about the technique and about the requirements for performing
electrophoresis in space.

Conclusions drawn from analysis of the results are that (1) the resolution of the dye sep-
aration was much better in space than on earth, and (2) the shape and sharpness of the advanc-
ing boundary of separated materials was improved in space by the lack of sedimentation and con-
vection currents, which were suppressed by the near-zero-gravity environment.

3.6.1.2 Apollo 16.- The Apollo 16 demonstration was designed to use the same basic opera-
ting elements used on the Apollo 14 mission. Although the case size and components were the
same, the apparatus was heavier, weighing 7.5 pounds.

Two different particle sizes of polystyrene latex (O.2-micrometer and C.S-micrometer diam-
eter) were selected as the sample material to simulate the size and density of living cells.
Three experiments were performed in parallel: cellI contained a mixture of the two sizes of
latex particles, cell 2 contained only large particles, and cell 3 contained only small parti-
clea. The same experiment was done on earth to establish a control sample. nata were obtained
from pictures taken automatically at 20-second intervals; the commentary transmitted by the
flight crew prOVided additional information.

The flight pictures clearly showed the stability of the bands and the sharpness of the par-
ticle fronts during electrophoresis. By the time the samples were visible in the photographs,
the front of each sample group had become pointed or bullet shaped. This shape was due to
electro-osmosis of the buffer. Electro-osmosis is defined as the movement of liquid with re-
spect to a fixed solid as a result of an applied electric field. Electro-osmosis was expected.
and the apparatus was designed to minimize the effect~ Large bubbles near the positive elec-
trode distorted the electric field in this area. slowed the bands of particles in the area, and
produced a corkscrew motion of the O.8-micrometer particles in cells 1 and 2.

Interaction between identical and different particles was measured. The nose of the com-
bined-particle band in cellI was composed primarily of O.B-micrometer particles. and migration
was slower than that of the a.B-micrometer particles alone in cell 2. The leading band in both
cells 1 and 2 was significantly more pointed than that of the D.2-micrometer particles in cell 3.
This phenomenon was attributed to interaction among the particles. Although a separation occur-
red, the O.2-micrometer and O.8-micrometer particles in cell I did not separate into distinct
bands as expected.

The difficulties that limited the results of the Apollo 14 demonstration did not recur dur-
ing the Apollo 16 demonstration. although the occurrence of electro-osmosis and formation of
large bubbles near the positive electrode reduced the effectiveness of the demonstration. Future
experiments will be aimed at solving these problems.

3.6.2 Liquid Transfer

One element of propellant management that will be necessary in future space operations will
be transfer of liquid from a tanker vehicle to a receiver vehicle. The transfer of liquid from
one container to another in a weightless environment was demonstrated by the Apollo 14 crew to
determine the effectiveness of two configurations. each designed to achieve:

a. Gas-free outflow from the supply tank while obtaining a high total delivery efficiency.
 3-101

b. Orderly inflow into the receiver tank with no liquid 10s8 through the gss vent.

c. Location of the gas at the gss vent and the liquid at the drain/fill port.

To satisfy these conditions, the designs combined the desirable characteristics of existing
baffle and screen concepts; one configuration was a standpipe-liner baffle design and the other
was a curved-web baffle design. Reference 3-69 gives detailed descriptions of the two baffle
configurations.

The demonstration apparatus consisted of a tank assembly unit, a hand-operated piston pump,
and interconnecting flexible tubing. The tank assembly unit contained two pairs of model tanks.
One pair had the internal surface-tension baffles that were to be demonstrated; the second pair
had no baffle devices so that a comparison could be made. The model tanka were cylindrically
ahaped to simulate in two dimensions the three dimensional flow that would occur in a spherical
tank. The tanks were 4 inches in diameter and the flat faces, separated by 0.25 inch, were of
clear pIss tic for photographic purposes. Each tank contained two ports positioned 180 0 apart,
repreaenting drain/fill and vent lines. The drain/fill ports on each pair of tanks were con-
nected by a transfer tube that contained a slide-action isolation valve. The vent ports had
identical slide-action valves. A lighting frame containing six incandescent lamps and using
spacecraft power provided the illumination necessary for photography. The external plastic sur-
faces that faced the lighting frame section were frosted to provide diffuse illumination, and
all external plastic surfaces were covered with laminated safety glass and an overlay of thin
fluoroplastic sheet to ensure maximum crew safety. The hand-operated piston pump was a screw-
driven piston providing positive pressure on one side while creating suction on the other aide.
The pump could be operated in either direction. The tubing, si~ed for a friction fit over pump
and tank port connections, could be easily switched to permit pumping between tanks in the
baffled set or in the unbaffled set. The liquid used in the tanks was an inert chemical that
satisfied the safety requirements for the spacecraft and simulated the static contact angle of
most propellants on tank surfaces (nearly zero degrees). A small amount of dye was added to the
liquid to improve the quality of the photographs.

The vent sides of a pair of tanks were connected to the pressure and suction sides of the
pump. closing the system. The isolation valves on the vent ports were then opened. as well as
the valve on the transfer tube interconnecting the drain/fill ports. Operation of the piston
pump crank resulted in transfer of liquid from one tank to the other. On completion of a trans-
fer operation, the crank was turned in the opposite direction to reverse the flow. One crew-
member photographed the tanks either with the l6-millimeter sequence camera or the onboard tele-
vision camera while the other operated the piston pump at a prescribed rate.

Several transfer operations were performed by the crew. The results of four of the opera-
tions are given in reference 3-69 as being representative of the results - three for the baffled
tank system and one for the unbaffled tank system. The results are briefly summarized in the
following paragraphs.

3.6.2.1 Unbaffled tanks.- In the weightless environment, the liquid/vapor interface for
liquid transfer using unbaffled tanks is expected to be circular in shape, forming a gas bubble
randomly located within the tank. The configuration at the start of liquid transfer consisted
of a circular vapor bubble in the supply tank located such that a liquid layer covered both the
drain and vent sides of the tank. The liquid filling was estimated to be 36 percent of the tank
volume, with an additional 10 percent contained in the transfer tube connecting the two tanks.
A gas bubble formed directly over the vent or pressurant inlet as the tank was pressurized to
start the transfer.

During transfer, the liquid/vapor interface in the receiver tank was deformed because of
the incoming liquid jet; however, the interface appeared stable. (The stability of the interface
during liquid inflow is a function of the liquid jet velocity and, therefore. of the flow rate.)

Gas from the supply tank was ingested into the transfer tube when the liquid remaining was
24 percent of the tank volume. Continuation of the operation resulted in bubble entrainment and
growth in the receiver tank. As expected, liquid eventually was ingested in the receiver tank
vent.
 3.6.2.2 Baffled tanks.- In the first of the three liquid-transfer operations performed with
surface-tension baffled tanks, the curved-web-baffled tank waa the supply tank and the standpipe-
liner-baffled tank was· the receiver tank. In the aecond test, the procedure was reversed. For
these tests, the flow rate waa the same order of magnitude as for transfer with the unbaffled
tanks. The third tranafer operation was performed at about four times the previous flow rate.

a. First operation: Liquid was transferred from the curved-web supply tank to the standpipe-
liner receiver tank at an estimated flow rate of 0.83 cubic centimeter per second. As the trans-
fer operation progressed, the liquid/vapor interface in the supply tank receded in an orderly
fashion down to the point of incipient gas or vapor ingestion. During the same time, the re-
ceiver tank filled in an orderly manner with liquid filling the standpipe last. With the ex-
ception of a small amount of liquid in the capillary tube above the drain, nearly all the liquid
in the supply tank was delivered to the receiver tank without gas ingestion from the supply tank
and without liquid loss through the vent of the receiver tank, thereby successfully demonstra-
ting the three design objectives.

b. Second operation: Liquid was transferred from the standpipe-liner supply tank to the
curved-web receiver tank at an estimated flow rate of 0.67 cubic centimeter per second. As
liquid drained from the supply tank, the standpipe emptied first, with the space between the
standpipe and the liner draining next. The annular volume between the lirier and the tank wall
for this application is designed to remain full of liquid at the termination of transfer. This
quantity represents the residual liquid inherent to this design. (Continuation of draining would
result in an unpredictable vapor penetration anywhere along the wall liner, trapping liquid in
the annulus.) Nearly all the supply tank liquid, with the exception of the liquid within the
wall liner, was emptied without gaa ingestion. During the filling of the receiver tank, the
curved-web baffle controlled the interface position with no liquid loss through the gas vent.
This transfer operation also demonstrated the orderly and efficient transfer of liquid in a
weightless environment using surface-tension baffles.

c. Third operation: Liquid was transferred from the curved-web supply tank to the standpipe-
liner receiver tank at a flow rate of 3.5 cubic centimeters per second. The receiver tank wall
liner was full before initiation of flow. Again, during transfer, the interface in both tanks
was stable and moved in an orderly fashion. At this higher flow rate, however, some differences
occurred that are interesting to note. In the supply tank, the volume between the outermost web
and the tank wall was the last to drain. These differences were attributed to variations in the
dynamic pressure lQsses among the web channels. This conclusion indicates that the spacing of
the webs and their perforations can be optimi~ed by readjustment to provide uniform draining be-
tween webs. In this case, however, transfer was terminated when the interface for the inner
webs reached the capillary tube over the drain, leaving a somewhat larger residual than for the
transfer cases at lower flow rates. Similarly, the filling of the standpipe in the receiver
tank lagged behind the filling of the rest of the tank, even more noticeably than for the first
liquid transfer operation. However, unlike that transfer, the standpipe did not fill completely
even at the end of transfer. This fact also indicates that the standpipe could be optimized by
redesigning the spacing and perforations to improve the tank performance characteristics.

3.6.3 Heat Flow and Convection

A heat flow and convection demonstration was conducted on the Apollo 14 mission (ref. 3-70)
during transearth flight and on the Apollo 17 mission (ref. 3-71) during translunar flight. For
both missions, the demonstration unit contained three separate experiments. A flow pst tern ex-
periment was included to investigate convection caused by surface tension gradients resulting
from hesting a thin layer of liquid. A radial heating experiment was included to obtain infor-
mation on heat flow in a confined gas under low-gravity conditions. A ~one heating experiment
was included to investigate heat transfer in confined liquids in a low-gravity environment.

3.6.3.1 Apollo 14 demonstrations.- The Apollo 14 demonstration apparatus consisted of a

9.0- by 9.0- by 3.8 inch box weighing 7 pounds. Four experiment configurations were mounted in
the box - a flow pattern cell, a radial heating cell, and two zonal heating cells. Each cell
contained a small electric heater powered by the spacecraft 28-volt-dc power source. The data
were recorded by the l6-millimeter data acquisition camera attached to the unit and operating
at a rate of one frame per second. Seven experiment operations were performed, each requiring
10 to 15 minutes.
 3-l03

8. Flow pattern cell: The flow pattern cell was designed to show the convective flow pat-
tern induced In a thin layer of heavy all (Krytox) by establishing a thermal gradient across the
all. The cell consisted of a shallow aluminum dish that was uniformly heated from the bottom.
The all was introduced from a reservoir. and a thermal gradient was established across the all
layer when the window to the cell was opened, with the heat being dissipated into the spacecraft
atmosphere, Aluminum powder suspended in the all allowed the flow patterns to be observed.

As a result of previous experiments that were conducted under one-g conditions, it was pos-
tulated that surface tension gradients (resulting from temperature gradients) are the predomi-
nant cause of cellular convection in thin layers of fluids (S-mm or less). The possibility re-
mained, however, that gravity was an indispensible ingredient in all cellular convection, par-
ticularly as some second-order effect. The Apollo 14 experiment conclusively demonstrated that
surface tension aloDe can generate cellular convection. The pattern of the convection was par-
tially defined, but not in the desired constant depth configuration because wetting of the cell
liner occurred.

b. Radial heating cell: The purpose of the radial heating experiment was to obtain infor-
mation on the rate of temperature propagation in csrbon dioxide gas while in the spsce environ-
ment. The cell was a cylindrical dish covered by a glass window. The glass was coated with a
film containing a liquid crystal material that changes color when heated. The film was divided
into quadrants, and different sectors were sensitive in different temperature ranges. The gas
was heated by a small electrical stud heater mounted in the center of the cell. Changing color
patterns indicated the temperature dist!ibution as it developed, and the pst terns were recorded
by the camera. Two radial heating operations were performed, and the data quality was excellent.

Comparisons were made between flight data and analytical predictions based on the assump-
tion that conduction and radiation were the only modes of heat transfer. It was concluded that
convection was occurring in the radial cell, causing faster changes in temperature than can be
attributed to thermal conduction and radiation. Although the convection could have been csused
by low-graVity forces, it is more likely that some other unidentified non-gravity influence was
responsible.

c. Zonal heating unit: The objective of the zonal heating experiment was to obtain data
on the mode and magnitude of heat transfer in liquids subjected to zonal heating in a low-gravity
environment. Heat transfer in configurations of the geometry of the zonal heating unit was of
interest because this geometry is basic for many projected space manufacturing processes. The
zonal heating cells consisted of two glass tubes with cylindrical heating elements surrounding
the center portions of the tubes. One tube contained distilled water and the other, a 20-percent
sugar solution. The sugar solution was used so that a comparison could be obtained between pure
water and a fluid having a viscosity of approximately twice that of pure water. Temperature
changes were sensed by liquid-crystal strips located along the center axes and along the walls
of the tubes. Color patterns on the strips were monitored as heat flowed from the centrally
heated zone toward the tube ends. Two zonal heating operations were performed and data quality
appeared to be excellent.

3.6.3.2 Apollo 17 demonstration.- The Apollo 17 heat flow and convection demonstration was
conducted as a follow-on to the Apollo 14 dettonstration. The apparatus was similar to that used
on Apollo 14, and the data were obtained in the same manner.

a. Flow pattern cell: Baffles were added around the periphery of the pan to maintain the
liquid level at 2 and 4 millimeters in depth. Otherwise, the flow pattern experiment configura-
tion was like that of the Apollo 14 unit. The experiment was operated twice, once with the 2-
millimeter fluid depth and once with the 4-millimeter fluid depth. The fluid was contained by
the baffles around the periphery and assumed a convex shape, similar to a lens.

The pattern of convection obtained for the 2-millimeter depth of oil was less orderly and
less symmetrical than the patterns obtained with a ground-based unit, but they were more orderly
and symmetrical than the pattern obtained on the Apollo 14 demonstration. The 4-millimeter-depth
run showed more regular and larger cells. The results show that surface tension alone can cause
a cellular convection flow of relatively high magnitude.
 3-l04

b. Radial heating and lineal heating units: The Apollo 17 radial and lineal (zonal) heat-
ing experiments were conducted to obtain additional information on heat flow snd convection in
confined gases and liquids. The experiment configurations were similar with the following major
differences. In the radial heating expt!cilllt!uL. the ct:!ll conta.!ut!d argon ga", !ulltt!ad uf <,;srbou
dioxide. In the 1inesl heating experiment, a single glass tube containing Krytox all was used
instead of two tubes containing water and a sugar-water solution. Also. the liquid in the
Apollo 17 unit was heated by a disc heater at one end of the tube instead of a centrally located
cylindrical heater. Temperature changes were monitored by liquid-crystal tapes immersed in the
fluids.

3.6.3.3 Summary of interpretations.-

a. Flow pattern experiment:

1. The sizes of the observed surface tension-driven convection cells agree fairly well
with those predicted by linear analysis of surface tension-driven cellular convection.

2. Convection occurred at lower temperature gradients in low-g than in one-g. Surface

tension and gravity, therefore, apparently do not reinforce each other in a manner predicted by
one analysis of cellular convection.

3. The flow pattern experiment data substantiate in principle the postulate that grav-
ity modulates cellular convection onset.

4. The onset of a concentric side roll and center polygonal cells in the flow pattern
experiment occurred at about the same time. The occurrence of a roll is contrary to expectations
based on latest literature. The observed onset pattern tends to confirm an earlier view that
rolls are sidewall effects and are not particularly characteristic of the driving mechanism.

b. Radial and lineal heating experiments: No significant convection was observed in the
radial or lineal heating experiments. The data, however, validate the accuracy of the measuring
technique and allow the conclusion that convection observed in the Apollo 14 radial and zone
cells was probably caused by the heat flow and convection unit and spacecraft vibrations.

3.6.4 Composite Casting

Composite casting is defined as the casting of a material from a mixture of a liquid matrix
and solid particles. A variation of composite casting is obtained when gas is added to form
voids in the material to reduce weight and to control the material density. Another variation
is obtained when normally immiscible (nonmixing) liquid materials such as oil and water are dis-
persed one in the other and solidified. On earth, materials of different specific gravities
normally segregate from a mixture (e.g., sand and water) when at least one of the components of
the mixture attains the liquid state. The purpose of the composite casting demonstration was to
show that mixtures of materials having different specific gravities would remain stable (mixed)
in the liquid state and during freezing in the low-gravity environment of space.

The composite casting demonstration was·performed on the Apollo 14 mission during the trans-
lunar and transearth coast periods (ref. 3-72). The apparatus consisted of an electrical furnace,
a heat sink device for cooling, and sealed metal capsules containing materials having a low melt-
ing point and dispersants (nonmelting particles). The furnace and heat sink package weighed
slightly more than 2 pounds and measured 3.5 by 4.5 by 5.5 inches. The sample capsule weighed
less than 0.5 pound and was 0.75 inch in diameter and 3.5 inches long. Procedures called for a
crewman to insert each capsule into the furnace; to heat the capsule for a prescribed time; shake
the materials in some cases in order to mix them; and to cool the furnace and capsule by placing
them onto the heat sink.

Although 18 samples were provided, only 11 samples were processed because of time limita-
tions. The evaluation of the 11 processed capsules consisted of comparing the space-processed
(flight) samples with control samples processed on the ground under otherwise similar conditions.
From the results, it was concluded that, in the low-gravity environment of space, the disper-
sions of particles, fibers, and gases in a liquid metal (matrix) were maintained during solid-
ification.
 3-105

The demonstration showed qualitative results in a very limited range of materials and under
processing conditions that were not instrumented or closely controlled. Even so, the demonstra-
tions were encouraging in that unique material structures were produced which provide a prelim-
inary basis for processing materIals and products in space. New problems were raised which can
be solved by future ground and flight experiments. It 1s now evident that several factors must
be considered for process and experiment design. These factors include the control of heating
and cooling in low gravity when contact with heaters and heat sinks may be intermittent, control
of nucleatIon and mixing, and control of gases for distribution in the melt or for removal from
the melt.

3.7 REFERENCES

3-1. Brett, R.: Lunar Science. Essays in Physics, vol. 5, Academic Press, 1973, pp. 1-35.

3-2. Harvin, U. B.: The Moon After Apollo. Technology Review, vol. 75, no. 8,1973, pp. 13-23.

3-3. Hinners, N. W.: The New Moon: A View. Revs. Geophys. and Space Phys., vol. 9, no. 3,
1971, pp. 447-522.

3-4. Milton, D. J.: Geologic Map of Theophilus Quadrangle of the Moon: Geologic Atlas of the
Moon, Scale 1:1 000 000. U.S.G.S. Map 1-546 (LAC 78), 1968.

3-5. Huller, P. H.; Sjogren, W. L.: Mascons; Lunar Mass Concentrations. Science. vol. 161,
1969, pp. 680-684.

3-6. Shoemaker. E. H.; Bailey, N. G.; Batson, R. H.; Dahlem, D. H.; et al.: Geologic Setting
of the Lunar Samples Returned by the Apollo 11 mission. Sec. 3 of the Apollo 11 Prelim-
insry Science Report, NASA SP-2l4. 1969.

3-7. Lunar Sample Analysis Planning Team: Summary of Apollo 11 Lunar Science Conference.
Science, vol. 167. no. 3918, 1970, pp. 449-451.

3-8. Lunar Sample Preliminary Examination Team: Preliminary Examination of Lunar Samples
From Apollo 12. Science, vol. 167, no. 3923, 1970, pp. 1325-1339.

3-9. Chapman. P. K.; Calio. A. J.; Simmons. H. G.: Summary of Scientific Results. Apollo 14
Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-272. 1971.

3-10. Lunar Sample Analysis Planning Team: Third Lunar Science Conference. Science, vol. 176,
no. 4038, 1972. pp. 975-981.

3-11. Huehlberger, W. R.; Batson, R. H.; Baudette, E. L.; Duke, C. H.; et a1.: Preliminary Geo-
logic Investigation of the Apollo 16 Landing Site. Sec. 6 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary
Science Report, NASA SP-3l5, 1972.

3-12. Huehlberger, W. R.; Batson, R. H.; Cernan. E. A.; Freeman. V. L.; et al.: Preliminary
Geologic Investigation of the Apollo 17 Landing Site. Sec. 6 of the Apollo 17 Prelimin-
ary Science Report, NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-13. Latham, G. V.; Ewing, H.; Press, F.; Dorman, J.; et al.: Passive Seismic Experiment.
Sec. 11 of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-14. Kovach, R. L.; Watkins, J. S.; and Landers, T.: Active Seismic Experiment. Sec. 7 of the
Apollo 14 Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-272, 1971.

3-15. Kovach, R. L.; Watkins, J. S.; and Talwani, P.: Lunar Seismic Profiling Experiment.
Sec. 10 of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-16. Dyal, P.; Parkin, C. W.; and Sonnett, C. P.: Lunar Surface Magnetometer Experiment.
Sec. 4 of the Apollo 12 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-235, 1970.

3-17. Dyal, P.; Parkin, C. W.; and Sonnett, C. P.: Lunar Surface Magnetometer Experiment.
Sec. 9 of the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-289, 1972.
 3-106

3-18. Dyal. P.; Parkin. C. w.; Colburn, D. S.; and Schubert, G.: Lunar Surface Magnetometer
Experlmen~. Sec. 11 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SF-31S. 1972.

3-19. Dyal, P.; Parkin. C. W.; Sonnett, C. P.; DuBois, R. L.; and Simmons, G.: Lunar Portable
Magnetometer Experiment. Sec. 13 of the Apollo 14 Preliminary Science Report, NASA
SP-272. 1971.

3-20. Langseth. K. G.; Keihm, S. J.; and Chute, J.L.,Jr.: Heat Flow Experiment. Sec. 9 of
the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-21. Gigsnt.i, J. J.; Larson, J. V.; Richard, J. P.; and Weber. J.: Lunar Surface Gravimeter
Expe rimen t • Sec. 12 of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-22. Talwan!, H.; Thompson, G., Dent, B.; Kahle, H.; and Buck, S.: Traverse Gravimeter Exper-
iment. Sec. 13 of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-330. 1973.

3-23. Si1lJllons, G.; Strangway, D.; Annan, P.; Baker. R; et a1.: Surface Electrical Properties
Experiment. Sec. 15 of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-24. WOolum, D.; Burnett, D. 5.; and Bauman, C. A.: Lunar Neutron Probe Experiment. Sec. 18
of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-25. Faller. J. E.: Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector Experiment Final Report. Contract
NAS 9-11025, September, 1973.

3-26. O'Brian. B. J.; and Reasoner. D. L.: Charged-Particle Lunar Environment Experiment.
Sec. 10 of the Apollo 14 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-272, 1971.

3-27. Snyder. C. W.; Clay, D. R.; and Neugebauer, N.: The Solar Wind Spectrometer Experiment.
Sec. 5 of the Apollo 12 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-235, 1970.

3-28. Geiss, J.; Buehler, F.; Cerutti, H.; Eberhardt. P.; and Filleux, Ch.: Solar Wind Compo-
sition Experiment. Sec. 14 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-315. 1972.

3-29. Eberhardt, P.; Geiss, J.; Graf, H.; Grogler. N.; et al.: Trapped Solar Wind Gases, Ex-
posure'Age and K/Ar Age in Apollo 11 Lunar Fine Material. Proceedings of the Apollo 11
Lunar Science Conference, BUpp. I, vol. 2, Pergamon Press (New York), 1970. pp. 1037-1070.

3-30. Eberhardt, P.; Geiss, J.; Graf, H.; Grogler, N.; et al.: Trapped Solar Wind Noble Gases
in Apollo 12 Lunar Fines 12001 and Apollo 11 Breccia 10046. Proceedings of the Third
Lunar Science Conference, vol. II, MIT Press (Cambridge), 1972. pp. 1821-1856.

3-31. Hills, H. K.; Heister, J. C.; Vondrock, R. R.; and Freeman, J. W., Jr.: Suprathermal Ion
Detector Experiment. Sec. 12 of the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-289,
1972.

3-32. Freeman, J. W.; Hills, H. K.; and Vondrock, R. R.: Water Vapor, Whence Comest Thou?
Proc. Third Lunar Science Conf., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 1972. pp. 2217-2230.

3-33. Fleischer, R. L.; Price, P. B.; Burnett, D.; et a1.: Cosmic Ray Experiment. Sec. 15 of
the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-315, 1972.

3-34. Berg, O. E.; Richardson, F. F.; and Burton, H.: Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites Experiment.
Sec. 16 of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-35. Johnson, F. S.; Carroll, J. J.; and Evans. D. E.: Lunar Atmosphere Measurements. Pro-
ceedings of the Third Lunar Science Conference, vol. 3, MIT Press (Cambridge), 1972,
pp. 2205-2216.

3-36. Hoffman, J. H.; Hodges, R. R., Jr.; Johnson, F. S.; and Evans. D. E.: Lunar Atmospheric
Composition Experiment. Sec. 17 of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-330,
1973.
 3-107

3-37. Carruthers, G. R.; and Page, T.: Far W Camera/spectrograph. Sec. 13 of the Apollo 16
Preliminary Science Report. NASA SF-3IS. 1972.

3-38. Howard, H. T.; and Tyler, G. L.: Blstatlc Radar Investigation. Sec. 25 of the Apollo 16
Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-315, 1972.
3-39. Sjogren, W. L o ; Muller, P. H.j and Wol1enhaupt, W. R.: S-Band Transponder Experiment.
Sec. 24 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-3IS, 1972.

3-40. Sjogren. W. to; Wollenhaupt. W. R.; and Wimberly, R. N. : S-Band Transponder Experiment.
Sec. 14 of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-J30, 1973.

3-41. Low, F. J.; and Mendell, W. W. : Infrared Scanning Radiometer. Sec. 24 of the Apollo 17
Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-42. Phillips, R. J.; Adams, G. F.; Brown, W. E., Jr.; Eggleton, R. E.; et al.: Apollo Lunar
Sounder Experiment. Sec. 22 ,of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-330,
1973.

3-43. Anderson, K. A.; Chase, L. M.; Lin, R. P.; McCoy, J. E.; and McGuire, R. E.: Subsatellite
Measurements of Plasmas and Solar Particles. Sec. 21 of the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science
Report, NASA SP-289, 1972.

3-44. Anderson, K. A.; Chase, L. M.; Lin, R. P.; McCoy, J. E.; and McGuire, R. E.: Subsatellite
Measurements of Plasma and Energetic Particles. Sec. 22 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Sci-
ence Report,NASA SP-3lS, 1972.

3-45. Coleman, P. J., Jr.,; Schubert, G.; Russell, C. t.; Sharp, L. R.: the Particles and Fields
Subsatellite Magnetometer Experiment. Sec. 22 of the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report,
NASA SP-289, 1972.

3-46. Coleman, P. J., Jr.; Lichtenstein, B. R.; Russell, C. T.; Schubert, G.; and Sharp, L. R.:
the Particles and Fields Subsatellite Magnetometer Experiment. Sec. 23 of the Apollo 16
Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-3lS, 1972.

3-47. Cour-Palais, B. G.; Brown, H. L.; and McKay, D. S.: Apollo Window Meteoroid Experiment.
Sec. 26 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-3lS, 1972.

3-48. Arnold, J. R.; Peterson, L. E.; Metzger, A. E.; and trombka, J. 1.: Gamma-Ray Spectrom-
eter Experiment. Sec. 16 of the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-289, 1972.

3-49. Arnold, J. R.; Metzger, A. E.; Peterson, L. E.; Reedy, R. C.; and Trombka, J. 1.: Ga_-
Ray Spectrometer Experiment. Sec. 18 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA
SP-3lS, 1972.

3-50. Adler, 1.; Trombka, J.; Gerard, J.; Schmodebeck, R.; et al.: X-Ray Fluorescence Exp~r~­
ment. Sec. 17 of the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-289, 1972.

3-51. Adler, 1.; trombka, J.; Gerard, J.; Lowman, P.; et al.: X-Ray Fluorescence Experiment.
Sec. 19 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-3l5, 1972.

3-52. Gorenstein, P.; and Bjorkholm, P.: Alpha-Particle Spectrometer Experiment. Sec. 20 of
the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-3lS, 1972.

3-53. Hoffman, J. H.; Hodges, R. R.; and Evans, D. E.: Lunar Orbital Mass Spectrometer Experi-
ment. Sec. 19 of the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-289, 1972.

3-54. Hodges, R. R.; Hoffman, J. N.; and Evans, D. E.: Lunar Orbital Mass Spectrometer Experi-
ment. Sec. 21 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-3lS, 1972.

3-55. Fastie, W. G.; Feldman, P. D.; Henry, R. C.; Moos, H. W.; Barth, C. A.; et a1.: Ultra-
violet Spectrometer Experiment. Sec. 23 of the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report,
NASA SP-330, 1973.
 3-108

3-56. Analysis of Apollo 8 Photography and Visual Observations. Compiled by Johnson Space
Center. NASA SP-201, 1969.

3-57. Goetz, A. F. H.; Billingsley, F. C.; Yost., E.; and McCord, T. B.: Apollo 12 Multispectral
Photography Experiment. Sec. 9 of the Apollo 12 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-235.
1970.

3-58.

3-59.
Apollo

Apollo ,.
15 Mission Report.

Mission Report.
NASA Johnson Space Center Report. MSC-05161, Dec. 1971.

NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-07230, Aug. 1972.

3-60. Apollo 17 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report JSC-07904, Mar. 1973.

3-61. Roberson, F. 1.; and Kaula. W. M. : Apollo 15 Laser Altimeter. Sec. 25, Part D, Apollo 15
Preliminary Science Report, NASA SF-289. 1972.

3-62. Wollenhaupt., W. R.; and Sjogren, W. L.: Apollo 16 Laser Altimeter. Sec. 30, Part A,
Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-315, 1972.

3-63. Wollenhaupt, W. R.; Sjogren, W. L.; Lingenfelter, R. E.; Schubert, G.; and Kaula, W. H.:
Apollo 17 Laser Altimeter. Sec. 33, Part E, Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report,
NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-64. El-Baz, F.; Scott, D. H.; Hilton, D. J.; Hodgea, C. A.; Pohn, H. A.; Head, J. W.; et a1.:
Orbital Science Photography. Sec. 18 of the Apollo 14 Preliminary Science Report, NASA
SP-272 , 1971.

3-65. El-Baz, F.; and Worden, A. M.: Visual Observations from Lunar Orbit. Sec 25, Part A,
Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-289, 1972.

3-66. Mattingly, T. K.; El-Ball, F.; and Laidley, R. A.: Observations and Impressions from
Lunar Orbit. Sec. 28 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-3l5, 1972.

3-67. Evans, R. E.; and El-Baz, F.: Geological Observations from Lunar Orbit. Sec. 28 of the
Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA SP-330, 1973.

3-68. McKannan, E. C.; Krupnick, A. C.; Griffin, R. N.; and McCreight, L. R.: Electrophoresis
Separation in Space - Apollo 14. NASA 1M X-646ll, 1971.

3-69. Abdalla, K. L.; Otto, E. W.; Sumons, E. P.; and Petrash, D. A.: Liquid Transfer Demon-
stration On Board Apollo 14 During Transearth Coast. NASA TM X-24l0, 1971.

3-70. Bannister, T. C.: Heat Flow and Convection Demonstration, Apollo 14, Summary Report.
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Report S~E-SSL-TR-71-1, 1971.

3-71. Bannister, T. C.; Grodzka, P. G.; Spradley, L. W.; Bourgeois, S. V; Heddon, R. 0.; and
Facemire, B. R.: Heat Flow and Convection Experiments. NASA 1M X-64772, 1973.

3-72. Yates, I. C., Jr.: Apollo 14 Composite Casting Demonstration Final Report. NASA TM
X-6464l, 1971.
 4-1

4.0 VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE

The first announcement of the Apollo program and its objectives was made in 1960. At that
time, two techniques, direct ascent and earth-orbit rendezvous, were being considered for achiev-
ing a manned lunar landing. A third technique, lunar orbit rendezvous, was later determined to
be more feasible and was eventually adopted in July 1962. Before this decision had been made,
however. a preliminary program for manned lunar landings was formulated. Sufficient broadly ap-
plicable launch vehicle and spacecraft design requirements were identified in the preliminary
studies to permit hardware development to proceed. Consequently, the basic Apollo spacecraft
contract for the command and service module was awarded in 1961, and development of a large
launch vehicle, which had begun in 1958, was changed and expanded to meet the goal of landing on
the moon. The contract for the lunar module was awarded in November 1962.

The following discussion is divided into ten subsections. The first covers the design, de-
velopment, snd testing of the three series of Saturn launch vehicles used in the Apollo program.
The second covers the Little Joe II test program. The remaining subsections contain discussions
of the development and performance of the spacecraft and their major systems.

4.1 SATURN LAUNCH VEHICLES

4.1.1 Introduction

The Saturn family of large launch vehicles consisted of the Saturn I, Saturn IB, and Saturn
V (fig. 4-1). Each of these played an important role in the Apollo program. Saturn I, the ear-
liest of the vehicles, was used to test the structural integrity of the Apollo command module
and the ability of its heat shield to withstand the temperatures generated on entry into the
earth's atmosphere. The Saturn IB launch vehicle was used to launch the Apollo command and ser-
vice module and the lunar module into orbit about the earth for testing in the space environment.
The Ssturn IB also launched the first manned Apollo spacecraft into orbit to check out both crew
and spacecraft in space. When the Apollo program becm~e operational, the Saturn V was used to
launch the spacecraft into a translunar trajectory. The operational-payload configuration is
shown in figure 4-2.

As early as April 1957, a team of engineers at the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency, under
the direction of Dr. Wernher von Braun, began studies of a large launch vehicle that could place
20 000- to 40 ODO-pound satellites into orbit about the eatth or send 6000- to 12 OOO-pound pay-
loads on escape missions from earth. In December 1957, this tean proposed to the Department of
Defense a large rocket with a thrust of 1.5 million pounds. A research program for such a ve-
hicle was approved by the Advanced Research Projects Agency on August 15, 1958. The vehicle was
originally named Juno 5, but the name was officially changed to Saturn on February 3, 1959. This
Saturn became the first stage of the Saturn I and the forerunner of the first stage of the Sat-
urn lB.

On July I, 1960, the team developing the Saturn was transferred by President Eisenhower from
the U.S. Army to the newly established National Aeronautics and Spsce Administration. Thus was
formed the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. While developing the Saturn I, the new cen-
ter also began looking toward even larger launch vehicles in the summer of 1961. On January 25,
1962, the Saturn V was authorized as the launch vehicle for the Apollo program.

4.1.2 Saturn I

The Saturn I was a liquid-propellant, two-stage rocket. The first stage (5-1) consisted of
a cluster of nine propellant tanks and eight H-l engines, each producing 165 000 pounds of thrust.
Using liquid oxygen and RP-l (kerosene), the stage produced 1 320 000 pounds of thrust initially.
Later, when the H-1 engine was uprated in performance to 188 000 pounds, the first stage had a
thrust of 1 504 000 pounds. The second stage (S-IV) used liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen in
six RL-lOA-3 engines, each producing 15 000 pounds of thrust for a total stage thrust of 90 000
pounds. An instru~ent unit on the forward end of the S-IV stage housed the vehicle's inertial
4-2

8.&
~ ~!:f---+----~ ~"''----t-----~~'------_i
.. i¥-----~I---1iI
<II",
V)-:;:

~ .. l_r-1l--
]]

I-------~-------,I

"
I--------~-------­
N

H
E

!-- ;
H
c_l

"
~--~---i
~
 4-3

Command
module

Service
module

Spacecraft! lunar
module adapter

Launch
vehicle

Figure 4-2.- Apollo launch configuration for lunar landing mission.

4-4

guidance and control equipment, instrumentation snd measuring devices, power supplies, and tel-
emetry transmitters. Thrust vector or path control of the 5-1 stage was by means of four gimbal-
mounted outer engines moving in response to computer-generated commands in the instrument unit.
The Saturn I. 188 feet in height and 21.7 feet in diameter, typically weighed 1 140 000 pounds
when fully fueled.*

4.1.3 Saturn IB

The Saturn lB, also a liquid-propellant, two-stage rocket, was. for the most part, an up-
rated Saturn I. Construction of the first stage (S-IB) was similar to, but 2.4 inches shorter
than the 5-1 stage. The eight H-l engines were uprated to produce 200 000 pounds of thrust each
for a total stage thrust of 1 600 000 poundS. The second stage (S-IVB) had a single J-2 engine,
using liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to generate 225 000 pounds of thrust. The instrument
unit attached to the forward end of the S-IVB stage performed the SaDe functions as that of the
Saturn I. The Saturn IB was 224 feet in height and 21.7 feet in diameter. The weight of the ve-
hicle at launch was typically 1 300 000 pounds.*

4.1.4 Saturn V

The Saturn V was a liquid-propellant, three-stage rocket. The first stage (S-IC) had five
engines, using liquid oxygen and RP-l. Each engine produced 1.5 million pounds of thrust. Thus,
the S-IC stage generated 7.5 million pounds of thrust. The second stage (S-II) had five J-2 en-
gines and produced 1 125 000 pounds of thrust. The third stage was an S-IVB, essentially the
same as that of the Saturn lB. Similarly, the Saturn V instrument unit was basically the same
as that of the Saturn lB. The Saturn V, 363 feet in height and 33 feet in diameter at the S-IC
stage, typically weighed 6 500 000 pounds When fully fueled.*

4.1.5 Design and Development

The design safety factors for the Saturn vehicles were based originally on those required
for an aircraft. These values were adjusted downward in view of the experience gained in the
Mercury and Gemini programs and because of the proposed structure of the Saturn vehicles.

The design mission of the Saturn I was to place a 38 OOo-pound payload consisting of the
Apollo boilerplate command module into a lOa-mile orbit on a launch azimuth between 100 6 and
90 6 east of north from Cape Kennedy. On a secondary mission, a ballasted Jupiter nose cone con-
tained a Q-ball transducer for measuring vehicle angle of attack. The major design criteria for
the Saturn I were:

a. Minimum vehicle lift-off weight to thrust ,ratiO

b. Man-rated vehicle

c. Self-supporting structure

d. Unipotential electrical structure

e. Mission achievement with one engine out in the first or second stage

f. Yield safety factor of 1.10 times design load

g. Ultimate safety factor of 1.40 times design load

The design mission for the Saturn IB was to place a 41 600-pound Apollo spacecraft into a
lOS-mile orbit at a launch azimuth of 70 6 east of north from Cape Kennedy. The major design
criteria were the same as those for the Saturn I. The design mission for Saturn V was to place
250 000 pounds into a 100-mile orbit at a launch azimuth of 70 6 east of north from Cape Kennedy.
Agsin, the major design criteria were the SaDe.

*Vehicle heights and weights are for final configurations and include Apollo spacecraft
payloads.
 4-5

The testing program developed for the Saturn vehicles was designed to ensure a high degree
of reliability and mission success. The degree to which it Bucceeded 1s demonstrated by the fact
that, at the end of the Apollo program, the success records of the Saturn I, Saturn IB, and Sat-
urn V vehicles were lOa, lOa, and 92 percent, respectively. Moreover, these results were achieved
by launching far fewer research flights than had been the practice during the development of large
missiles such 8S the Atlss and Titan, which preceded Saturn as the first carrier vehicles for U.S.
manned flights. The Saturn I was declared operational after the seventh flight; the Saturn IB was
certified for manned flight after only three flights; and the far more complex Saturn V was ready
for launching its first manned payload after only two flights.

The concept of "all up" testing was instituted with the advent of the Saturn V. With this
procedure, all three stages were flight tested on the first vehicle launched. The AS-SOl
(Apollo 4) vehicle, launched on November 9, 1967, was the first application.

The testing program for the Saturn vehicles was purposely designed to be conservative to en-
sure the highest reliability possible. The five essential phases were qualification, reliability,
development, acceptance, and flight teating. Qualification testing assured that individual parts
and subassemblies performed as required as a result of special tests that subjected parts to the
vacuum, vibration, sound, heat, and cold levels that would be experienced in operational use.
Reliability analysis consisted of determining the range of failures or margins of error for com-
ponents. Development testing used "battleship" test stages of the vehicle to verify design fea-
tures such as propellant loading, electrical continuity, and engine firing procedures. As a part
of the developmental testing, a Saturn V test vehicle with an Apollo spacecraft in place was sus-
pended in the 42o-foot-high dynamic test stand at the Harshall Space Flight Center and shaken to
simulate flight forces to determine vehicle bending modes snd vibration frequencies. Acceptance
testing included a functional checkout at the manufacturer's facility to ensure thst the compo-
nents or stage performed to design specifications. For example, ultrasonic techniques were used
to inspect a fourth of a mile of welding and 5 miles of tubing in the Saturn V. The same tech-
nique was also used to verify the integrity of adhesive bonding in over 1 acre of such surfaces.

During the development of the Saturn V, a number of problems arose, the solution of which
materially advanced the state of the art of design and manufacture of large rockets. Typical of
these was the realization that the emergency detection system of the vehicle would not be effec-
tive in the case of an engine going out in the S-IC stage or an actuator of such an engine lock-
ing in the hardover position. The problem was solved by redesigning the stage control system
and increasing structural tension capability at critical joints within the stage.

Several major problems that arose during manufacture were successfully solved. When conven-
tional forming methods for producing large, curved panels with irregular cross sections proved
insufficient for the size, shape, and tolerance demanded by the Saturn V, engineers developed
special forming processes to meet the requirements. One of the great problems encountered dur-
ing the development of propellant tanks was providing adequate insulation for liquid hydrogen at
minus 423 0 F. The problem was solved by the development of a special polyurethane foam with the
insulative properties of balsa wood. Although balsa wood had been an early, almost ideal candi-
date for such a job, it was difficult to obtain in the desired quantities, difficult to machine,
and could not be found in a flawless state. Thus, imaginative materials engineering produced,
in effect. a plastic substitute for flawless balsa wood. The plastic foam proved to be effi-
cient, economical, and easy to shape.

In the course of the development of the Saturn vehicles. most operational problems had been
foreseen. There were, of course, minor technical problems involved in the many mechanical, elec-
trical, and pneumatic interfaces between the launch vehicle and its associated ground support
equipment. In the case of the Saturn V, these were, for the most part, resolved through the use
of a facilities model. The SA-500F vehicle was not meant to fly but was similar in every respect
to· a flight vehicle. Its purpose was to verify launch procedures, train launching crews, and
develop checkout procedures. The SA-500F was rolled out from the Vehicle Assembly Building at
Cape Kennedy on Hay 25. 1966.
4-6

4.1.6 Mission Performance

The mission performance of the Saturn vehicles proved that their design and manufacture were
equal to the requirements placed upon them. The Saturn 1 vehicle made 10 flights between 1961
and 1965, all of which were successful. Similarly, the Saturn IB made five flights between 1966
and 1968, all of which were also successful. Of the 12 Saturn V flights through the· end of the
Apollo program, only one flight had a launch vehicle failure which precluded attainment of the
primary mission objectives. On the Apollo 6 mission, an unmanned development flight, two of the
second stage engines shut down early, and the third-stage engine failed to start after a pro-
grammed orbital coast period.

Relatively few Saturn V design changes were made from mission to mission because of the lim-
ited number of vehicles planned and built. Changea were made only to reduce weight, increase
safety or reliability, or improve payload capability.

Typical of the early changes resulting from mission performance was the removal of air scoops
from the S-IC stage of SA-S02, the Apollo 6 launch vehicle, when it was found from the Apollo 4
flight that they were not needed and that their absence increased ground clearance at lift-off.
Similarly, on the same vehicle, it was found that four ullage rockets were sufficient to seat
propellants in the S-IVB stage; thus, four of the original eight were eliminated with a concom-
itant weight saving.

A major modification was made on SA-503, the Apollo 8 vehicle, as a result of the Apollo 6
mission. A longitudinal oscillation or "pogo" effect was experienced as a result of engine thrust
variations coupling through propellant feed lines to the structure of the vehicle to produce a
pronounced Vibration, Helium gas was injected into the liquid oxygen prevalves of the suction
lines to dampen the unwanted oscillations.

On SA-504, the Apollo 8 vehicle, a number of changes were made in the S-IC and S-II stages
to reduce the vehicle weight and provide greater payload capacity. Typical of these were the re-
design of the liquid oxygen tank of the S-IC stage to make it lighter and the uprating of the
J-2 engine of the S-II stage from 225 000 to 230 000 pounds of thrust.

For the Apollo 15 mission (launch vehicle SA-SIO), an increased payload capability of about
5000 pounds was required. This increase resulted from the additional weight of consumables and
hardware for aupporting the longer duration lunar stay requirements of the J-series missions, as
well as the addition of the scientific instrument module in the service module and the lunar rov-
ing vehicle. Many minor modifications were made to the launch vehicle and to the mission require-
ments to meet this payload increase. Part of this gain in payload capability came through up-
rating the five F-I engines of the S-IC stage from I 500 000 pounds to 1 522 000 pounds of thrust.
Additional payload capability was gained by eliminating the four solid-propellant retromotors
from the S-IC stage and by deleting the remaining four ullage motors from the S-II stage. In
addition, the flight program of the instrument unit had to be changed to place the S-IVB stage
into an earth parking orbit at 90 miles. No significant changes were made to the Saturn V for
the two remaining missions, Apollo 16 and 17.

4.2 LITTLE JOE II PROGRAM

4.2.1 Introduction

From August 1963. to January 1966, a series of unmanned flight tests was conducted at the
White Sands Missile Range to demonstrate the adequacy of the Apollo launch escape system and to
verify the performance of the command module earth landing system. The launch vehicle used for
four of these tests was the Little Joe II. The size of this vehicle is compared to that of the
Saturn vehicles in figure 4-1. Its predecessor, the Little Joe, had been used in testing the
launch escape system for the Mercury spacecraft. In addition to the Little Joe II flights, two
pad abort tests were conducted in which the launch escape system was activated at ground level.
Details of the six flights are given in appendix A.
 4-7

The program was originally planned [0 be conducted at the U.S. Air Force Eastern Test Range
at Cape Kennedy. However, because of a heavy schedule of high-priority launches at that facility,
other possible launch sites were evaluated. Launch Complex 36 at the White Sands Missile Range,
previously used for Redstone missile tests, was ultimately selected as the most suitable for meet-
ing schedule and support requirements. Also, the White Sands Range allowed land recovery which
was less costly and complicated than the water recovery procedure that would have been required
at the Eastern Test Range or at the NASA Wallops Island facility.

The 'program was conducted under the direction of the Manned Spacecraft Center with joint
participation by the prime contractors for the launch vehicle and spacecraft. The White Sanda
Missile Range administrative, range, and technical organizations provided the facilities, re-
sources, and services required. These included range safety, radar and camera tracking, command
transmission, real-time data displays, photography, telemetry data acquisition, data reduction.
and recovery operations.

4.2.2 Launch Vehicle Development

Man-rating of the launch escape system was planned to be accomplished at minimum cost early
in the Apollo program. Since there were no reasonably priced launch vehicles with the payload
capability and thrust versatility that could meet the requirements of the planned tests, a con-
tract was awarded for the development and construction of a specialized launch vehicle. Fabrica-
tion of detail parts for the first vehicle started in August 1962, and final factory systems
checkout was completed in July 1963. The original fixed-fin configuration and a later version
using flight controls are shown in figure 4-3.

The vehicle was sized to match the diameter of the Apollo spacecraft service module and to
suit the length of the Algol rocket motors. Aerodynamic fins were sized to assure that the ve-
hicle was inherently stable. The structural design was based on a gross weight of 220 000 pounds,
of which 80 000· pounds was payload. The structure was also designed for sequential firing with
a possible 10-second overlap of four first-stage and three second-stage sustainer motors. Sus-
tainer thrust was provided by Algol solid-propellant motors. Versatility of performance was
achieved by varying the number and firing sequence of primary motors (capability of up to seven)
required to perform the mission. Recruit rocket motors were used for booster motors as required
to supplement lift-off thrust. The configurations of the five vehicles flown are summarized in
table 4-1.

A simplified design, tooling, and manufacturing concept was used to limit the number of ve-
hicle components, reduce construction time, and hold vehicle costs to a minimum. Because overall
weight was not a limiting factor in the design, overdesigning of primary structural members greatly
reduced the number and complexity of structural proof tests. Whenever possible, vehicle systems
were designed to use readily available off-the-shelf components that had proven reliability from
use in other aerospace programs, and this further reduced overall costs by minimizing the amount
of qualification testing required.

4.2.3 Spacecraft

The command and service modules used in this program evolved from the simple structure of
boilerplate 6, representing only the proper aerodynamic shape, to the production spacecraft struc-
ture of airframe 002, a flight-weight Block I structure with crew couch struts, flight-weight
heat shield, crew windows, and other Apollo flight hardware.

The launch escape system consisted of the major structures and systems shown in figure 4-4.
The launch escape tower was attached to the command module by explosive bolts. For a normal tower
jettison, the bolts were pyrotechnically severed and the tower jettison motor was ignited. For
aborts requiring use of the launch escape system, the launch escape motor (and pitch control
motor for low-altitude aborts) would have been fired to propel the command module away from the
launch vehicle. After launch escape vehicle turnaround, the tower would have been separated from
the command module by ignition of the explosive bolts and firing of the tower jettison motor.
4-8

Original configuration Final configuration

Figure 4-3.- Little Joe IT vehicle.

 4-9

TABLE 4-1.- LAUNCH VEHICLE CDrWIGURATION smn.fARY

Item '<[N A 001 A-002 A-DO) A-004

Launch weight. 1b
·· · 57 165 57 939 94 331 177 '.9 139 731
Payload:
Weight, 1b
Ballast, 1b
· · · · ·· ·· · ·· · 24 225
-
25 33S
-
27 692
-
27 .36
-
23 ,.5
9361

Airframe:
Weight including motors. 1b 32 941 32 595 5. 030 144 3D' 101 32.
Ballast. 1b
..·· · . ··· · -X -X 8609 5044 5867
Fixed fin
· ·· - - -
Controllable fin
· · - - X X X

Propulsion:
First stage (Recruit)
· 6 6 4 - 5
First stage (Algol)
· 1 1 2 3 2
Second stage (Algol) .
· · · - - - 3 2
Attitude control:
Pitch programmer
· ·· · -
-
-- X X X
Pitchup capability
·· -- -
X - X
-X
Reaction control
Aerodynamic control
·
·· · ·
-
X
X
X
X

RF command:
Range safety destruct
· · X - X X X
Thrust termination ~d abort.
· -- X -X - -X
Pitchup .nd abort . · ·· · - -
Abort . · · · - - - X X

Electrical:
Primary . . . · ·· · · - - X X X
Instrumentation X - X - X

Instrumentation:
RF transmitters
· · · · 3 (h) 2 (h) 1
Telemetry measurements
· · ·· 66 3 5. 13 39
Landline measurements
· · 24 24 J7 45 36
Radar beacon:

-X -X -X
· · ·· · ·
Launch vehicle • · X -
Payload . - X

aQualification test vehicle.

bLocated in payload.
4-10

Nose cone and

Q-ball assembly

.r-Ballast enclosure
Canards

~_--Pltch control motor

,~ _ _- - Tower jettison
motor

Launch escape motor

Structural skirt
+x

+y ~+Z Tower structure

Tower separation
Boost protective cover bolts

Command modu Ie

Figure 4-4.- Launch escape vehicle configuration for mission A-003.

 4-11

Early in the flight testing phase of the Little Joe II program, data from other sources in-
dicated that previously designed destabilizing sttakes on the command module were ineffective 1n
assuring a blunt-end-forward attitude following an abort. (The design of the parachute recovery
system required that the forward heat shield and parachutes be deployed into the wake of the com-
mand module when descending at high velocities.) To assure the proper command module attitude
for all abort conditions, two wing-like surfaces, called canards, were added to the forward end
of the launch escape system (flg. 4-4). The canards were deployed by a pyrotechnic thruster act-
ing through a mechanical linkage. The thruster also contained a hydraulic attenuator for control
of the deployment speed and a mechanical lock to maintain the surfaces in the fully open position
following deployment. The launch escape system was never required to be used during any of the
Apollo missions; however, the tests conducted during the Little Joe II program demonstrsted that
the system would have performed its function successfully had it been required.

At about this same time in the program, severe abrasion of the command module windows was
found to have been caused by the launch escape motor exhaust. Since visual references were re-
quired by Apollo crews in the event of an abort after launch escape tower jettisoning, a boost
protective cover was designed to envelop the command module during the early boost stage of an
Apollo mission. The cover was fabricated from fiberglass cloth to which an outer layer of cork
was bonded. Windows were also installed to allow visibility from within the command module. The
cover assembly was attached to the lsunch escape tower base and was separated from the command
module when the tower was jettisoned.

4.2.4 Concluding Remarks

The Little Joe II launch vehicle proved to be very acceptable for use in this program. Two
difficulties were experienced. The qualification test vehicle did not destruct when commanded
to do so because improperly installed primacord did not propagate the initial detonation to the
shaped charges on the Algol engine case. The fourth mission (A-003) launcp vehicle became un-
controlled about 2.5 seconds after lift-off when an aerodynamic fin moved to a hardover position
as the result of an electronic component failure. These problems were corrected and the abort
test program was completed.

Minor spacecraft design deficiencies in the parachute reefing cutters, the drogue and main
parachute deployment mortar mountings, snd the command module/service module umbilical cutters
were found and corrected before the manned Apollo flights began. However, all command modules
flown achieved satisfactory landing conditions and confirmed that, had they been manned space-
craft, the crew would have survived the abort conditions.

4.3 COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

4.3.1 Introduction

The Apollo program was, from the outset, planned as a multiphase program with each phase
serving, to the extent possible, as qualification for subsequent phases. The phases were planned
to overlap and were originally defined as follows.

The first phase was limited to manned. low-altitude, earth-orbital flights using a Saturn I
launch vehicle. Contractor and subcontractor efforts emphasized detail design and analysis,
preparation of detail specifications, development of special manufacturing techniques. and the
fabrication of breadboards and flight test hardware. The spacecraft was designed to be capable
of lunar landing and return.

The second phase consisted of circumlunar, lunar-orbital, and parabolic entry test flights
using the Saturn-V-type ~_aunch vehicle for the purpose of further development of the spacecraft
and operational techniquel and for lunar reconnaissance.

The third phase consisted of manned lunar landing and return missions using either Nova-class
launch vehicles or Saturn-V-type launch vehicles.
4-12

The spacecraft design concept at the initiation of the Apollo program was a vehicle capable
of descending directly ,to the lunar surface. Thus, the decision in 1962 to use the lunar ren-
dezvous technique had a major impact on the design. Since the direct landing capability was no
longer needed, the propulsion requirements were changed to provide only for midcourse corrections,
lunar-orbit insertion, and transearth injection. The new mission profile also necessitated re-
visions to the command module to incorporate provisions for rendezvous and docking with a lunar
module and crew transfer between vehicles.

During the early conceptual design period, the need for a number of additional changes be-
came evident. For instance, the original concept of employing a land landing system on the com-
mand module was discarded in favor of a water landing system, and the heat shield design was
changed from one utilizing ablative tiles to one in which honeycomb cells were filled with abla-
tive material. Because of the complexity of the program, the state-of-the-art development, and
concurrent activities, these and other changes could not be accommodated with the existing facil-
ities, test equipment, and special skills. As a result, a program definition study was conducted
in 1964 to define the functional realignment of the command and service module systems that was
mandatory for the lunar mission vehicles. The results dictsted a two-phase development program
whereby the command and service module would first be developed without the lunar mission capa-
bility (Block I) and subsequently redesigned to accommodate the lunar mod~le and other systems
advancements (Block II). The purpose in dividing the program was to test the basic structure
and systems as quickly ss possible, while providing the time and flexibility to incorporate
changes. Thus, in addition to the incorporation of equipment for lunar missions, Block II space-
craft contained a great number of refinements and improvements of systems and equipment. Some
of these were the result of continuing research, whereas some evolved from unmanned flights and
ground tests.

4.3.2 Block I and Block II Hardware

4.3.2.1 Boilerplate spacecraft.- The first vehicles used in the test program were known as
boilerplate spacecraft. These were pre-production spacecraft that were similar to their produc-
tion counterparts in size, shape, mass, and center of gravity. These vehicles were used for par-
achute research and development, water drop tests, studies of stability characteristics, vibration
tests, flight tests, and other purposes leading to the proper design and development of the actual
spacecraft and its systems. Each boilerplate was equipped with instrumentation to permit record-
ing of data for engineering study and evaluation.

4.3.2.2 Block I spacecraft.- The Block I spacecraft were limited-production flight-weight

spacecraft used for flight systems development and qualification. The initial missions were con-
ducted to verify production spacecraft structural integrity, systems operation, and systems com-
patibility. After the structure and systems tests were completed, a series of unmanned flight
missions was conducted to confirm the compatibility of the spacecraft and launch vehicle and to
evaluate prelaunch, mission, and postmission operations. A manned Block I spacecraft mission
(originally designated AS-204 and later designated Apollo I) was planned to confirm the compati-
bility of the spacecraft and crew; however, the spacecraft was destroyed during a prelaunch test
on January 21, 1961, and the crew, astronauts Virgil I. Grissom, Edward H. White II, and Roger
B. Chaffee, were lost in the resulting fire. While an investigation of the accident was being
conducted and corrective actions taken, there was a hiatus of about 19 months before another
manned mission was ready.

4.3.2.3 Block I ground test vehicles and fixtures.- One boilerplate and several spacecraft
modules were used in various ground tests at the manufacturer's facility and at the Manned Space-
craft Center to provide data on systems performance prior to flight testing.

Service propulsion system ground testing was accomplished with three test fixtures. The fix-
tures were unique platforms for the tests and were fully instrumented to record engine and propel-
lant system performance through varied operating ranges. A service module having a complete
flightworthy service propulsion system and electrical power system was used to demonstrate that
the service module was compatible with all interfacing systems and structure and to evaluate the
performance of the service propulsion system.
 4-13

4.3.2.4 Block II spacecraft.- The command and service modules used for all manned missions
were of the Block II design (fIg. 4-5). Although similar to the Block I spacecraft, a number of
changes were made as a result of the program definition study of 1964 and the Apollo I fire in
1967. The major changes are listed in table 4-11. Design changes continued to take place
throughout the program as studies and analyses progressed, 8S hardware failures occurred, and as
new requirements developed. Major modificatIons were made for the final three missions because
of expanded requirements for scientific data acquisition from lunar orbit. While these modifi-
cations were being implemented, the investigation accruing from the cryogenic oxygen system fail-
ure experienced on Apollo 13 dictated additional changes. These changes are also summarized in
table 4-11.

4.3.2.5 Block II ground test program.- A considerable number of ground tests were conducted
in support of the Block II changes. The test program was not formulated all at once but, rather,
was developed over a period of several years as the spacecraft design was reevaluated. The test
program embraced the original concept of minimizing flight tests and maximizing ground tests.

4.4 COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE

4.4.1 Introduction

Significant aspects of the development and flight performance of individual command and ser-
vice module structures and systems sre summarized in this section. Brief descriptions of the
systems are given where necessary but are not generally included. Complete descriptions of the
boilerplate and Block 1 spacecraft systems are given in references 4-1 through 4-12. The initial
Block 11 command and service module is described in reference 4-13, and subsequent changes are
noted in references 4-14 through 4-23. The topics discussed, in some cases, have been treated
in greater detail in other individual reports and these are referenced where appropriate.

4.4.2 Structures

The boilerplate flight test vehicles were designed primarily to demonstrate the capability
of the launch escape system and to obtain aerodynamic flight data. Therefore, design requirements
were to sustain ground and flight loading environments and to present a configuration similar to
that of the production flight articles. The Block 1 and Block II flight spacecraft were designed
to sustain normal flight, entry, and recovery loadings, and to provide protection from meteoroids,
radiation. and thermal extremes.

Most of the problems encountered in the development and verification of the structure were
discovered in the ground test program when the structure failed to meet specified criteria, en-
vironment, or loads. Each failure was carefully analyzed; and the specific test criteria were
reassessed. In some cases, the reassessment revesled that the test conditions were too severe
and should be changed to more realistic conditions. In other cases, structural inadequacies
that reqUired design changes were identified. Some modifications were retested. whereas others
were certified by analysis. Many of these structural failures were due to inaccurate predictions
of load paths and load distribution. The capability of structural analysis methods improved con-
tinually during the Apollo program. The structural aspects of the ground and flight test pro-
grams as well as significant problems encountered in the test programs and their resolutions are
discussed in reference 4-24.

On the Apollo 6 mission, a local structural failure of the spacecraft/lunar module adapter
occurred during first-stage boost (ref. 4-12). Approximately 2 minutes 13 seconds after lift-
off, sbrupt changes of strain, vibration, and acceleration were indicated by onboard instrumen-
tation. Photographs showed objects falling from the area of the adapter; however, the adapter
continued to sustain the reqUired loads.
 'I' Nose cone and "Q-ball"

1 _ Canard
I
assembly
,
Pitch control motor
I
- --, ~ Docking mechanism
~

...•
I ~ Drogue parachutes (2)
I Main parachutes <.3) ----;'
UJ- Tower jettison motor 1
Side hatch

Aft compartment
(tanks, reaction
control engines,
Launch escape motor
LAUNCH wiring, plumbing) COMMAND
I
ESCAPE Electrical power system MODULE
ASSEMBLY radiator panels (8) ~~I
SERVICE
Fuel cells (3) MODULE
Reaction control
thruster assembly. Helium tanks (2)
(4 locations)
Cryogenic oxygen and
hydrogen storage tanks < : [ Reaction control
VHF scimitar 'antenna (2) ~ system assembly
(4 locations)
Environmental control system
radiator panels (2) - - - - -
I
Launch escape tower
I
Forward boost Service propulsion
protective cover system tanks (4)

~'\ I
!-----.r:\r ~ '-'-Aft boost ~ ( ) ~ S~rvice propulsion
protective cover engIne nozzle
1
. I

" oo};) I
I __ ~ High-gain (deep space) antenna

Figure 4-5.- Command and service modules and launch escape system.
 4-15

TABLE 4-11.- SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES

TO COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE

Function/ system Changes

Changes Resulting From Program Definition Study

Structures and thermal Forward tunnel structure changed to

protection accomodate docking mechanism and
lunar module/command module umbili-
cals added
Antenna protuberances removed from
command module
Parachute attachment redesigned
Command module/service module umbil-
ical relocated
Equipment rearranged in service module
to provide an empty bay in sector I
for later installation of scientific
instrument module
Micrometeoroid protection added to
service module
Extravehicular activity provisions
incorporated
Boost protective cover added
Heat shield ablator thickness reduced

Mechanical systems Docking mechanism added

Earth landing system capability
improved
Unitized couch changed to foldable
type and impact attenuation system
improved

Thermal control Changes incorporated for use of

p'assive thermal control

Envir onrnen t al control Radiator size increased

Selective fluid (water/glycol) freezing
and thawing used to accomodate variable
heat loads and external environment
4-16

TABLE 4-11.- SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES

TO COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE - Continued

Function/system Changes

Changes Resulting From Program Definition Study - Continued

Communications and VHF transceiver redesigned

instrumentation
C-band transponder deleted
HF recovery transceiver and antenna
deleted
Electronics packages hermetically
sealed with built-in and switchable
redundancy

Guidance, navigation Smaller, lighter, and more reliable

and control sy s terri used
Electronics packages hermetically
sealed with built-in and switchable
redundancy
New entry monitor system scrolls
incorporated
Flight director attitude indicator
redesigned

Propulsion Service module reaction control system

propellant storage capacity increased
Size and thickness of service propul-
sion tanks reduced
Service propulsion system main propel-
lant valve control redesigned

Sequential events Reliability of events controllers

control improved
Motor switches, instead of relays, used
to arm pyrotechnic bus
Events controllers added to accomodate
lunar module

Crew equipment Rendezvous and docking aids provided

 4-17

TABLE 4-11.- SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES

TO COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE - Continued

Function/system Changes

Changes Following Apollo I Fire

Mechanical Unitized, quick-opening side hatch

incorporated
Earth landing system modified to with-
stand opening loads resulting from in-
creased command module weight
Uprighting system redesigned as a re-
sult of change in the command module
center of gravity

Environmental control Provisions made for nitrogen/oxygen

cabin atmosphere prior to launch
Rapid cabin repressurization system
added
High pressure lines changed from alum-
inum to stainless steel, and joints
welded instead of soldered

Electrical Wiring protection added

Harnesses rerouted

Crew station Use of nonflammable materials expanded

Changes Implemented as a Result of the Apollo 13 Abort

Cryogenic storage Oxygen tank redesigned

Third oxygen tank installed
Isolation valve installed between
oxygen tanks 2 and 3
Controls and displays added

Electrical Lunar module descent stage battery

added for emergency power
Fuel cell reactant shutoff valves
relocated

Crew equipment Contingency water storage system

added
4-18

TABLE 4-11.- SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES

TOGOMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE - Concluded

Function/system Changes

Changes Implemented for Apollo 15 and Subsequent Missions

Structural Scientific instrument module installed

Extravehicular handholds and restraints
installed

Mechanical systems Experiment deployment devices added

to the service module

Cryogenic storage Third hydrogen tank installed

Environmental control Components added to accomodate extra-

vehicular activity

Communications and Scientific data system integrated with

instrumentation existing telemetry system

Crew station Controls and displays added

Additional stowage proviged
 Extensive study of the photography and other evidence indicated that a large area of the
adapter had lost inner facesheet from the honeycomb sandwich panels. Loads and stresses result-
ing from vibration were determined to be insufficient to initiate such a failure. The investi-
gation was then directed toward determining the range of pressures that could have been trapped
in the Apollo 6 adapter sandwich panels, and toward determining the tolerance of the panels to
withstand pressure with various degrees of flaws such as adhesive voids and facesheet dents. The
degradation effects of moisture and heat exposure on the adhesive strength were also studied and
tested. These tests and analyses led to the conclusion that pressure internal to the sandwich
panels could have caused the failure, if a large flaw existed. The pressure buildup would have
been caused by aerodynamic heating effects on air and moisture trapped in the panel.

The most probable cause of the failure was an abnormal splice assembly, resulting in a face-
sheet bond too weak for the internal pressure achieved. Sufficient information was developed to
verify that deficient assembly techniques had resulted in abnormalities along a panel splice in
several of the adapters to be used on subsequent flights.

Before the splice abnormalities were pinpointed, corrective action was taken to reduce pres-
sure buildup in the honeycomb panels and to reduce heat degrading effects on the adhesive. This
was done by drilling vent holes in the inner facesheet and covering the outer facesheet with
cork. The adapters haVing splice abnormalities were repaired, and an internal splice plate was
eliminated to allow more accurate inspection.

4.4.3 Thermal Management Systems

Management of temperatures within the limits necessary for proper spacecraft systems opera-
tion and human occupancy was accomplished by three separate systems: the environmental control
system, the thermal control system, and the thermal protection system. The environmental control
system is discussed in section 4.4.9. It contained a water/glycol flow system which transferred
heat to radiators located on the service module surface and a water boiler for the sublimation
of water in the space environment. These functioned as a thermodynamic unit to maintain a habit-
able cabin thermal environment and to cool electronic equipment located within the cabin. The
thermal control system regulated temperatures of the structure and components outside the pres-
sure vessel. The thermal protection system consisted of components which protected the cabin
and crew from the entry environment.

Both active and passive means of temperature management were utili~ed. The active means
consisted primarily of the water/glycol flow system and water boiler used for environmental con-
trol, as well as electrical heaters. The passive means included: ablative materials that accom-
modated high heating rates, thermal control coatings, insulations, heat sink materials, and space-
craft orientation.

4.4.3.1 Thermal protection.- The lunar return trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft resulted
in an atmospheric entry inertial velocity of over 36 000 feet per second, and this created an
aerodynamic heating environment approximately four times as severe as that experienced by either
the Mercury or Gemini spacecraft. The induced thermal environment resulting from such an entry
necessitated the installation of a heat shield 9n the command module capable of sustaining, with-
out excessive erosion, the temperatures caused by the high heating rates on the blunt face of the
vehicle while preventing excessive substructure temperatures. The concept initially considered
consisted of ablative tiles made from phenolic-nylon material bonded to a honeycomb-sandwich sub-
structure made of aluminum. However, in April 1962, recovered heat shields from Mercury space-
craft were found to hsve experienced debonding of tiled ablative material, and an alternative
study was conducted of the ablator insulation method being successfully demonstrated at that time
on the Gemini spacecraft. The Gemini heat shield consisted of a fiberglass honeycomb core filled
with an elastomeric ablator. Initially, the cells Were filled with the sblstor by a tamping
proceas, but this caused concern with respect to quality assurance, and the composition of the
ablative material was modified so that it could be gunned in a mastic form into the honeycomb
cells. Stainless steel was chosen for the substructure in preference to aluminum because of the
increased safety provided by the higher-melting-point alloy in the event of a locali~ed 10S6 of
ablator. .
4-20

Unmanned flights provided test verification of the thermal protection system for earth-
orbital and lunar-return missions. The measured data obtained from these flights (table 4-111)
and from the first two manned flights were used to correlate the analytical models used for the
required certification analysis.

Table 4-IV is a summary of the actual entry conditions for the Apollo 8 mission and the
Apollo 10 through 17 missions. As indicated in the table, the maximum downrange entry distance
was 1497 miles compared with the established Block II design requirement of 3500 miles. The
shorter downrange entry distance resulted in a maximum integrated heat load of 28 000 Btu/sq ft,
which was appreciably less than the design requirement of 44 500 Btu/sq ft.

4.4.3.2 Thermal control.- The evolution of the thermal control system revealed that mis-
sion operational constraints could be used to minimize weight and power requirements. The orig-
inal concept was that the spacecraft should be insensitive to attitude and position in space.
However, unconstrained operational attitudes dictated system design for the worst-case mission
environment, which would then have involved the use of such devices as multiple cooling loops
and large heaters. The consequences would have been increased spacecraft weight and larger pro-
pellant expenditures. After consideration of all aspects of the mission, a plan was developed
which made optimum use of the natural space environment to provide passive temperature control.
The spacecraft longitudinal axis was aligned normal to the direction of the solar radiation and
the spacecraft was rotated about this axis at a nominal rate of 3 revolutions per hour during
the translunar and transearth coast phases; the alignment and rotational operations were termed
the passive thermal control mode. Another passive thermal control mode was used during sleep
periods while in lunar orbit. The command Bnd service module was held in an orientation with
solar radiation impinging directly on reaction control system quad B. (The service propulsion
system oxidizer sump tank sdjscent to quad B acted as a thermal sink.) Utilization of these
modes permitted the definition of a large operational envelope in which the spacecraft could
function and was used in the planning of each mission to define the thermodynamically related
constraints on the vehicles. The flight plan for a nominal mission placed the vehicle in the
center of the design envelope in order to maximize its capability to accommodate mission con-
tingencies.

During the evolution of the thermal control design, many tests were conducted to determine
insulation performance and installation techniques, thermal control coating properties, coating
application processes, thermal shielding performance, and shielding manufacturing techniques.
Additional tests were performed to determine the environment to which these materials would be
exposed such as rocket engine plume characteristics and aerodynamic heating rates. The results
of these tests were used in the development of the thermal mathematical models utilized to de-
termine the adequacy of each thermal control design concept. It was necesaary, however, to ver-
ify the many assumptions and engineering idealizations which were made in order that the inter-
dependency of the spacecraft structure and systems could be adequately mathematically represented.

Full-scale thermal vacuum testa were performed to provide a means of verifying the space-
craft thermal control system design and the adequacy of the mathematical modela used for thermal
analysis. Two integrated command and service module prototypes were tested in a thermal vacuum
chamber at the Manned Spacecraft Center. Both prototypes (SC-OOa and 2TV-I) were exposed to
combinations of hot and cold soaks in addition to paasive thermal control rolling modes while
manned with all systems except the propulsion system operating. In general, the assumptions
made in the thermal analyses were found to be conservative (i.e., the measured maximum and min-
imum temperatures were within the predicted extremes).

No serious problems or anomalies were associated with the thermal control and thermal pro-
tection systems on the earth-orbital and lunar missions. The success of the systems can be at-
tributed to the somewhat conservstive design phil080phy that was adopted and to the rigorous
analytical and test certification requirements that were imposed. More detailed information on
thermal protection during launch and entry may be found in references 4-25 and 4-26.
 TABLE 4-III.- FLIGHT VERIFICATION OF THE THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM

Mission
Entry conditions
AS-20l AS-202 AS-SOl AS-502

Inertial velocity at enrry, ft/sec .

· · . 26 482 28 512 36 545 32 830

Relative velocity at entry. ft/sec . · 25 318 27 200 35 220 31 530

Inertial flight-path angle at entry, deg . -8.60 -3.53 -6.93 -5.85

Range flown, miles . ... .. .··· ·. 470 2295 1951 1935

Entry time. sec ...... . .··.·. 674 1234 1060 1140

···.
2
Maximum heating rate. Btu/ft /sec · 164 83 425 197

· . .
2
Total reference heating load, Btu/ft 6889 20 862 37 522 27 824

,
-F

IS
 -r
'"'"
TABLE 4-IV.- SUMMARY OF ENTRY CONDITIONS FOR OPERATIONAL LUNAR MISSIONS

Hission
Entry conditions Apollo 8 Apollo 10 Apollo 11 Apollo 12 Apollo 13 Apollo 14 Apollo 15 Apollo 16 Apollo 17
,
Inertial velocity at
entry, ft/sec . ... ·.. J6 221 36 314 36 19/0 36 11£. 36 211 36 170 36 096 36 090 36 090
Relative velocity at
entry, ft/sec . _ . .. . 35 000 34 968 35 024 )4 956 34 884 34 996 34 928 35 502 35 502

Inertial flight-path angle

at entry, deg . • . ·. -6.48 -6.54 -6.98 -6.50 -6.49 -6,37 -6.51 -6.49 -6.49
Lift-co-drag ratio ·... 0.300 0.30 O. )00 0.309 0.291 0.260 0.290 0.286 0.290

Range flown, lIdles ... 1292 1295 1497 1250 1250 1234 1184 1190 1190

Entry riale, sec. ... 868 871 815 801

Maximum heating rate.
'" 835 853 778 814

Stu/ftz/sec . • • • . ·. .. 296 286 m

Total reference heating load
'" 285 310 289 346
'"
Btu/tt Z . • • . . • . . . . 26 140 25 728 26 482 26 224 25 710 27 111 25 881 27 939 27 939

~~ta shown are prefl18ht predictions. Actual dsta were not obtained.
 4-23

4.4.4 Mechanical Systems

The major mechanical systems incorporated in the command and service modules are discussed
in this subsection.

4.4.4.1 Earth landing system.- The earth landing system consisted of three main parachutes,
two drogue parachutes. a forward heat shield separation augmentation parachute, snd related elec-
tromechanical and pyrotechnic actuation components required to decelerate and stabl11~e the com-
mand module to conditions that were safe for landing after either a normal entry or a launch
abort. The recovery sequence was initiated automatically by the closure of barometric pressure
switches or by manual initiation of time-delay relays.

In addition to stringent program requirements, several specific technical problems, the so-
lution of which required the development of innovative methods and techniques, were encountered.
The most severe problem was a continual increase in command module weight. This condition re-
sulted in a major program of redesign and requalificatipn of the Blo~k II earth landing system.
The command module weight increases and certain program events are depicted in figure 4-6.

The first three Block I developmental aerial drop tests (single parachutes) were conducted
with a parachute constructed from lightweight material and having a minimum of reinforcing tapes.
Because major damage was sustained on two of the three tests and because of the first announce-
ment of a command module weight increase, the first modification was made to strengthen and to
improve the main-parachute design. The initial changes increased the strength of the structural
members of the psrachute. These changes cau~ed s significant incresse in parachute weight, and
the attendant bulk created new problems because limited stowage volume was available. Shortly
after the start of main-parachute-cluster tests, modifications had to be made to the main para-
chutes to change their opening characteristics to achieve more evenly balanced load sharing among
the three parachutes, thereby reducing the peak opening loads.

By the time qualification testing of the Block I earth landing system was completed. each
system of the spacecraft had progressed to the point that accurate total weight estimates were
available. Although the maximum projected weight for a Block II spacecraft was more than the
specification value, the overweight condition was not sufficient to justify major design changes
in the earth landing system. Therefore, the Block II parachute qualification program was pursued
as a minimum-change effort.

During the months i~ediately following the Apollo I fire, numerous modifications were made
to the command module. By mid-April 1967, weight estimates indicated that the projected space-
craft weight had increased to a value greater than that at which the earth landing system could
recover the command module with an acceptable factor of safety. The implemented solution con-
sisted of incressing the size of the drogue parachutes and of providing the existing main para-
chutes with an additional reefing stage. The two changes ensured an adequate factor of safety
for the parachutes and the command module structure at the projected recovery weight of 13 000
pounds. Larger drogue parachutes on the heavier command module reduced the dynamic pressure at
drogue disconnect/pilot mortar fire to a level near that obtained with the smaller drogue para-
chutes on the lighter spacecraft. The additional reefing stage in the main parachutes reduced
the individual and total main-parachute loads to values no greater than the design loads for an
11 OOO-pound command module.

In addition to resolving difficult design problems, devising and optimizing component manu-
facturing and assembling techniques were also necessary to ensure that each part would function
properly once it was assembled and installed on the spacecraft. None of the previous space pro-
grams required the high density of parachute packing to suit the allotted volume that was neces-
sary in the Apollo program. This requirement necessitated the development of precise techniques
for packing the parachutes at very high densities without inflicting damage to the parachute sys-
tem during packing or deployment. Substitution of steel cables for nylon risers in the parachute
system required the development of stowage techniques that provided safe deployment of the cable.

Modifications or procedural changes were made several times in the program because of poten-
tially hazardous conditions thst were discovered during mission operations. On the AS-20l mis-
sion, the forward heat shield jettisoning system did not provide sufficient energy to thrust the
heat shield through the wake of a stabilized command module. To ensure separation, a conventional
 ,
.,,-
~

14 x 10 3
I 13 000
13

~
. 12
:!
11 000
-50 11
E
-g 10
~ 9500
E
8u 9 Biock I
~
0
~
I 8150 qual i ficalian
Increased capabi lity
8 Block n qualification
~
~

'"
~ Block n
7 qualification
'"
~

~ First earth landing

'">
0 system aerial drop
u
'" 6 test
'"
5

4
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
Year

Figure 4-6.- Increases in command module recovery weight.

 4-25

pilot parachute mortar assembly was mounted in the forward heat shield and was activated by the
same slgnal that initiated the forward heat shield jettisoning devices. On Apollo 4, small burn
holes were found in the canopy of a recovered main parachute. Investigation showed that the holes
were caused by oxidizer expelled from the command module reaction control system during descent.
The condition was corrected by controlling the ratio of fuel to oxidizer loaded on the command
module to ensure that the oxidizer would be depleted before the fuel. Although the fuel (mono-
methylhydrazene) does not degrade nylon, the excess fuel condition was later found to be hazard-
ous as well. One of the main parachutes collapsed during final descent of the Apollo 15 command
module. Investigation showed that the most probable cause of the failure was burning fuel coming
in contact with the parachute fabric riser. This condition was corrected on the final two mis-
sions by retaining excess propellants aboard the command module for normal landings. Also. the
propellants were loaded so that there was a slight excess of oxidizer to allow for the low-alti-
tude abort possibility. These problems are discussed in greater detail in references 4-27 and
4-28.

4.4.4.2 Docking mechanism.- The announcement that the lunar landing mission would be accom-
plished by using the lunar orbit rendezvous technique established the requirement for a docking
system that would provide for joining. separating. and rejoining two spacecraft. as well as al-
lowing intravehicular crew transfer. In addition, the Apollo program schedules required that a
docking system be selected approximately 2 years before the first Gemini docking mission.

Many design concepts were evaluated, including the Gemini design which was rejected because
of its weight. Types of the designs considered included both impact, or "fly-in," systems and
extendible systems. The type selected was an impact system consisting of a probe mounted on the
forward end of the command module and a drogue installed on the lunar module. The configuration
of the Apollo docking system is shown in figure 4-7.

Design of the Apollo docking system began in December 1963 and evolved through a rigorous
program of development tests. performance analyses. design studies, and qualification tests. Al-
though many problems were encountered during the development period, most were relatively minor.

Perhaps the primary disadvantage of the system was that i t blocked the crew transfer tunnel
and. therefore, had to be removable. The original design philosophy had been to simplify the de-
sign and reduce the weight of the system. This required that all functions be perform~d manually
by the crew using a special tool or wrench. However, to meet a subsequent requirement to simplify
the crew/hardware interface. the complexity of the probe was increased by providing integral, 101.'-
force actuation devices, thus reducing the number of manual tasks. These changes were implemented
in 1967. after the development test program and after some of the qualification tests of the basic
probe assembly had been performed. The development and testing of the system are described in
greater detail in reference 4-29.

The docking system was used successfully on nine Apollo missions. as planned. Docking sys-
tem anomalies occurred only on the Apollo 9 and Apollo 14 missions. During the Apollo 9 mission,
difficulties were encountered in undocking the command module from the lunar module and in pre-
paring for 1unar-modu1e-active docking. Postflight ground testing demonstrated that both condi-
tions were related and were inherent normal features of the docking probe. The undocking proce-
dure was modified to preclude recurrence of these difficulties. On the Apollo 14 mission. six
docking attempts were required to successfully achieve capture latch engagement during the trans-
lunar docking phase of the flight. Although the docking system performed successfully for the
remainder of the mission, the docking probe was stowed in the command module after lunar orbit
rendezvous and was returned with the command module so that a thorough investigation could be
conducted. The results of the investigation disclosed two possible causes for the docking prob-
lem - one related to the design and one attributed to foreign material restricting mechanical
operation. Although a minor design modification was incorporated to preclude such a failure
mode for future miSSions, most evidence indicated that foreign material was the cause of the
Apollo 14 anomaly. Additional details of these anomalies are given in references 4-29 and 4-30.

4.4.4.3 Crew support/restraint and impact attenuation systems.- These systems consisted of
(1) a three-man couch assembly used to physically support the crew, especially during launch. en-
try. and landing; (2) a restraint system with a single buckle release; and (3) a shock attenuation
system that held the couch in position throughout s mission but allowed couch movement if landing
impact forces exceeded a safe level. The attenuation system was developed, primarily, to protect
the crewmen in the event of a land landing.
 .c-
o

'"0'

Drogue assembly Forward tunnel hatch

Drogue mounts Probe assembly Docking ring

Dump valve

lunar module latch assemblies

Lunar module tunnel

~'
upper hatch

lunar module forward bulkhead

tunnel ring

Figure 4-7. - Major assemblies of the docking system.

 4-27

Tbe original design requirements for the couch and restraint system were based upon the prem-
ise that the crewman should be held as rigidly as possible. the then existing philosophy of human
impact protection. The prototype couch designed according to this philosophy was excessively mas-
sive snd impaired the crew's inflight mobility. Subsequent testing reduced the requirement for
rigid restraint of the crewman within the deceleration loads specified for the Apollo spacecraft
crew couch. The result was a change from the contoured couch concept used in Mercury and Gemini
to a universal couch that would fit all crewmen within the lOth- to 90th-percentile sizes. The
first couch designed to the new requirements was flown on the Apollo 7 mission.

The Block II redefinition of the Apollo spacecraft emphasized the requirements for more work
volume to allow an increase in intravehicular mobility and an open center aisle for side-hatch
extravehicular activity by a suited crewman wearing a portable life support system. These re-
quirements could not be met without a major redesign of the unitized couch. Therefore, a new
foldable couch was developed and used for all manned missions after Apollo 7.

During the Block II redefinition, because the location of the lsunch pad and the height of
the launch vehicle resulted in a high probsbility of a land landing from a launch pad abort or s
very low altitude abort, the crew couch was made to provide crew protection for land landing.
Because the command module did not have facilities for limiting the landing impact, attenuators
were required to support the crew couch during all mission phases and to limit the energy trana-
mitted to the crewmen during landing impact. Development efforts resulted in a double-acting,
cyclic-strut attenuator which used a unique concept of cyclic deformation of metal to absorb
energy. Energy absorption wss accomplished by rolling a ring of metal between two surfaces with
a separation distance of less than the diameter of the ring thereby causing the ring to contin-
ually deform as it rolled. More detailed information on the design of the attenuation system
may be found in reference 4-31. Several drop tests were performed to provide a better under-
standing of the dynamics of the couch and attenuation systems. Data obtained from the tests
permitted refinement of the initial impact load to an acceptable rate of acceleration for crew
tolerance.

The folding, stowing, and reassembling of the couch in flight were achieved without problems
on all missions except Apollo 9 and Apollo 16. During these missions, the crew had some diffi-
culty in reassembling the center body support of the couch.

4.4.4.4 Uprighting system.- Early studies of the command module showed that it had two
stable flotation attitudes: stable 1 (vehicle upright) and stable II (vehicle inverted). The
stable II attitude could be attained either by landing dynamics or by post landing sea dynamics.
Allowing the command module to remain in the stable II attitude for more than several minutes
was undesirable primarily because the postlanding ventilation system and the locstion aids were
inoperative. The command module could not be configured to be self-righting and still maintain
an acceptable aerodynamic lift-to-drag ratio. Therefore, a requirement was established to pro-
vide a means of uprighting the command module.

The selected design consisted of three inflatable bags located on the upper deck of the com-
mand module, two air compressors, and the associated plumbing and wiring. When use of the system
was required, a crewman initiated inflation of the bags by turning on the air compressors. By
this action, ambient air was pumped through a series of valves to each of the bags.

In addition to the overall weight increase, a center-of-gravity shift resulted from the
changes made to the command module after the Apollo I fire. Full-scale performance definition
tests required by these changes showed that the uprighting capability of the Block II command mod-
ule was marginal with the two Y-axis bsgs inflated (one on each side of the upper deck as shown
in fig. 4-8). Moreover, a combination of an inflated Y-axis bag and the Z-axis bag (on the side
opposite the hatch) resulted in a roll of the command module about its X-axis to a new stable
position where uprighting did not occur. Development tests were conducted at the Manned Space-
craft Center to investigate different suspension systems for the bags and to investigate the abil-
ity of a smaller Z-axis bag to reduce the roll problem and provide enough buoyancy to assure up-
righting. Also, tests were performed to determine the feasibility of two crewmen lowering the
center of gravity by moving from the couches to the aft deck. As a result of these tests, the
uprighting aystem was redesigned to provide uprighting capability with any two bags inflated af-
ter two crewmen had moved aft. The final configuration was capable of uprighting the command
4-28

,
----

.~-
x
'"
N,

, coo
'"
"

',
J) ,
) I' )J I

l"
) )
) ll'
I ) ) )
I
 4-29

module in 5 minutes if both compressors and all three bags were operative. With either a failed
bag or compressor, 12 minutes was the maximum time required for uprlghting. The system could not
upright the command module If both a bag and a compressor failed.

The Block II spacecraft was much less stable during water landing than the Block I space-
craft. This lack of stability is attributed to the higher center-ot-gravity locations at landing
for the Block II spacecraft. All the Block II command module landing centers of gravity and at-
titudes are plotted on the uprlghting capability curve shown in figure 4-9; also shown for ref-
erence is the center of gravity of the Block I command module flown on the Apollo 6 mission.

Five of the Block 11 spacecraft went to the stable II attitude and were uprighted by three
bags in approximately 5 minutes. No problems with the system were encountered. The Apollo 7
command module would have been prevented from uprighting if one of the three bags had failed.
While the vehicle was in the stable II attitude, water seeped through a faUlty hatch valve, and
the tunnel was flooded with approximately 400 pounds of water. As can be seen in figure 4-9,
the flooded tunnel adversely affected the command module center of gravity; however, because all
three bags inflated, the vehicle uprighted. The hatch valve design was changed for all subsequent
spacecraft. Additional information on the development and performance of the uprighting system
is given in reference 4-32.

4.4.4.5 Side access hatch.- The original Apollo spacecraft side hatch was configured as
shown in figure 4-10. An outer ablative hatch provided thermal protection during entry through
the earth's atmosphere and an inner pressure hatch sealed the cabin. With this two-hatch design,
the hatches maintained the continuity of the structure for predicted loads, thereby reducing the
vehicle weight. Although the hatch design fulfilled the program requirements relative to normal
ingress-egress and emergency egress, the hatches were awkward to handle in a one-g environment
since they were not hinged. In addition, there was no provision to open the inner hatch with the
spacecraft pressurized. The tragedy of not haVing this requirement was demonstrated in the dis-
astrous Apollo I fire.

In the period following the fire, the command module main hatch was redesigned to provide
the single-piece, hinged, quick-opening hatch shown in figure 4-11. Although much heavier and
more complex, the redesigned main hatch was used without difficulty on all of the Apollo manned
missions. Details of the design and development of the hatch are given in reference 4-33.

4.4.4.6 Experiment deplOyment mechanisms.- To accommodate orbital science equipment on

Apollo IS, 16, and 17, one section of the service module was modified to allow installation of
a scientific instrument module. The modules for the three missions included a variety of equip-
ment such as cameras and spectrometers. Two of the modules contained a deployable subsatellite.
Deployment devices were developed for all three modules to move certain instruments away from the
contamination cloud that surrounded the spacecraft or to extend antennas. Figure 4-12 is an
'artist's concept of the spacecraft in lunar orbit as configured for the Apollo 15 and 16 missions.
Figure 4-13 shows the Apollo 17 spacecraft configuration. Problems experienced with several of
the deployment mechanisms during flight are discussed in section 3.3.

4.4.5 Cryogenic Storage System

A multiple-tank cryogenic fluid storage system mounted in the service module provided gase-
ous oxygen and hydrogen to the fuel cell power generation system and metabolic oxygen to the crew
via the environmental control system. The system for missions through Apollo 13 contained two
oxygen tanka and two hydrogen tanks. This design provided for an emergency return to earth in
the event of the loss of a hydrogen tank, an oxygen tank, or both. For Apollo IS, 16, and 17,
a third tank was added for both hydrogen and oxygen storage to provide for more extensive oper-
ational requirements as well as the contingency requirement. The Apollo 14 system contained only
two hydrogen tanks, but a third oxygen tank was added for redundancy after the failure of the
Apollo 13 system.

The storage of cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen reqUired judicious selection of pressure vessel
materials. A materials screening program led to the selection of type 5Al-2.5 tin-titanium alloy
for the hydrogen storage and Inconel 718 alloy for the oxygen storage. These materials were se-
lected because they had attractive combinations of weight, strength, and ductility, and were com-
patible over the operating temperature ranges.
4-30

41
- /Three-ba g
uprighting
limit
-
40 0 Stablel
• Stable]I ,,-Apollo 7
, (Shift due to
I tunnel flooding)
. I
<= 39

x
-u I
I
Movement by
Apollo 9 I two crewmen
'"-
x
I
'"
X 38 Apollo 8 -_.l. I
I --,.---
g'"
'"o<=
Apollo 10
/
,
I
r
_
Nocrew
movement
-
"'g 37

t Apollo 11 Two-bag
uprighting
> lim it
\:! Apollo 13
'" Apollo 12
-Apollo 15
• ' Apollo 16

35 Apollo 6 - Block!

34'------'----'------'-----'-------'
3 4 5 6 7 8
Center of gravity location along Z-axis, ZC' in.

Figure 4-9.- History of landing center of gravity

locations and ianding attitudes.
 r Oute<halch
£ Annulus

I
\
•
I

,~
I
,I Outboard Inboard
II
II
II

Q
, ,,,I 'I
,,I 1\" ,I
II
I
Seals

II \, ,I
'I..J;
Il~ ..." l
\L_J
Outer hatch

Section A-A

Inner hatch latching mechanism

Outer hatch latching mechanism

T
Figure 4~lO.- Original side access hatch mechanism. ~
4-32

Extravehicular
activity handle
Press~::tion
eqUall.:...._,
valve
Boost
cover
release

Purge port [ UKUI

(a) Exterior view.

Drive hole
external hate
f0t.
' - - Actuating opening tool
handle Latches US)

1t.:~U--If!+t-- equalization
1£
Pressure.
Control valve
lever

Release
handle

Control
lever

Overcenler lock

Track

(b) Interior view

. (hatch o~~ ::::::::~~j~
Figure 4 - 1 1 . - Bloc k n side hate h configuration.
 4-33

X-ray and alpha-ray

spectrometer door
(note 3)
Mapping camera
(note 1) -----

Gamma-ray spectrometer
(note 2)

Mass spectrometer
(note 2) _______

Notes

1. Mapping camera extended and retracted on rails with

linear ball bushing, driven by screw with ball nut.
2. Gamma-ray spectrometer and mass spectrometer
extended and retracted on spiral-wrapped steel tape
booms, driven by dual tape reels.
3. Experiments were protected from optical and
thermal control surface degradation during firing of
adjacent service module reaction control system
firings by mechanically actuated covers.

Figure 4-12.- Apollo 15 command and service module in

lunar orbit configuration.
4-34

Scientific instrument
module

VHF Vagi antenna

(note 2) -----

HF dipole antenna

Notes

1. HF dipole antenna extended and retracted as interleaving steel

tapes, driven by dual tape reels. Combined length when extended
was approximately 80 feet.
2. VHF Vagi multiple element antenna extended once and locked
as a rigid, spring-loaded, hinged assembly. Not retractable.
Extended length 103.8 inches.

Figure 4-13.- Apollo 17 command and service module with antennas

extended for lunar sounder experiment.
 4-35

Several titanium alloy pressure vessel problems occurred in the early developmental S[age8.
These vere (1) overly large grain size (which was eliminated by a vendor change) and (2) prema-
ture failure during proof-pressure testing caused by a phenomenon known as creep. Increased wall
thickness of the pressure vessel allowed certification of the vessel for flight. Other problema
resulted from hydride formation on various welda, dissimilar metals joining, and quality control
of electron-beam welding. In all cases, a materials or process change was found to adequately
resolve the problem.

Uniform depletion of the tank content was necessary so that, at any time during a mission,
emergency quantities of fluid were available in each tank. Equal depletion was maintained by
internal heaters. The original design for the heaters was a concentric aluminum sphere that was
perforated to reduce weight. The heater element was a high-resistance film (electro film) sprayed
over the aluminum sphere.

High heat rates from small areas can result in zones of fluid adjacent to the hester with
significant temperature and density gradients. Vehicle accelerations can suddenly mix these ther-
mally stratified zones and, under some fluid conditions, significant pressure decays can result.
The potential problem of thermal stratification was circumvented by the installation of a fan
and heater combination instead of using the coated aluminum spheres. In this design, a fan was
installed at each end of a perforated, cylindrical tube, and the heater element was brazed in a
barberpole manner around the tube. As a result of the Apollo 13 failure. however, the fan motors
were'removed from the tanks to reduce potential ignition sources (fig. 4-14). In the final con-
figuration. heat was transferred by natural convective processes.

The method of insulating the tanks was developed through extensive analysis and was optimized
by a comprehensive test progrsm. Tests were conducted on removable outer shells that were clamped
together; then the entire assembly was placed in a vacuum chamber. This configuration permitted
rapid modification of the test article. These tests led to the conclusion that a vapor-cooled
shield was required to achieve the specified thermal performance. The vapor-cooled shield pro-
vided an intermediate cold boundary layer within the insulation. The oxygen tank had eight se-
quences of insulation, and the hydrogen tank had 28 sequences. One sequence consisted of six
layers: three of aluminum foil (each 0.0005 inch thick), two of paper, and one of fiberglass.
All of the tanks were vacuum jacketed. A monocoque outer shell was selected, and a thickness of
0.020 inch was found to withstand the buckling stresses brought about by the I-atmosphere load.

By far the most serious flight problem was the one that occurred during the Apollo 13 mis-
sion when oxygen tank 2 failed at almost 56 hours into the mission and caused the loss of the
entire cryogenic oxygen system. An accident investigation board determined that two protective
tank heater thermal switches failed closed during an abnormal detanking procedure prior to flight.
Subsequent fan motor wire insulation damage caused a fire in one of the oxygen tsnks and subse-
quent loss of the system. The changes made as a result of the investigation, in addition to the
elimination of the fan motora, included reducing or eliminating internsl materials with relatively
low burning points (such as magnesium oxide. silicone dioxide, and Teflon).

The development of the cryogenic storage system resulted in significant technological devel-
opments for cyrogenic applications. particularly in fabrication and welding of pressure vessel
shells, metallurgy associated with titanium creep and hydride formation. application of vapor-
cooled shields in high-performance insulation, and vacuum acquisition and retention. Most of
these advances are directly applicable to other required cryogenic developmental programs. Ad-
ditionally. preflight analytical predictions and subsequent correlations with flight data have
contributed much information on heat tranafer and stratification of cryogens at low-gravity
levels. Reference 4-34 provides more detailed information regarding the development and per-
formance of this system.

4.4.6 Electrical Power System

The electrical power ayatem consisted of a fuel cell power generation system, a battery
power system. and a power conversion and distribution system. The development and performance
of each system is discussed.

4.4.6.1 Fuel cells.- The fuel cells provided all electrical power reqUired by the command
and service module from launch to command module separation prior to entry. although batteries
4-36

Blowout disc ..,---- Closeout cap

~-e::::;:----C::!(
Fan motor

Temperatllre sensor --~:""--ii'-1 t~~...-...-..),\:--Thennostat

_-I,-Heater

Capacitance gage -
7--lnsulalion

~~::.;;,<~Fan motor
(a) Configuration before Apollo 14.

Fluid temperature sensor - .....__.J.~ L_-

rt~'IIP-;s;;2""..
_--Sheathed temperature
sensor wires (2),
density probe wires (2),
and heater wires (6)

Lower
fill tube -t--_
Lj~---'-- temperature
Heater-
sensor

sensor,
Density -~~;;;e:;;:;;;;~---~~
inner tube

Density
sensor ,.~-Heater
probe---- assembly

(b) Configuration for Apollo 14 and subsequent spacecraft.

Figure 4-14.- Oxygen lank.

 4-)7

were available for power augmentation such as might be required during service propulsion engine
firings.

Before the selection of a power system to meet the requirements of the Apollo program.
various nuclear. chemical. and solar energy devices were considered. The fuel cell system was
selected because of its favorable developmental atatus, relatively light weight, and great op-
erational flexibility. Following the selection of fuel cells for the primary power generation
system. the mission electrical energy requirements were defined and specified 8S 575 kl1owatt-
hours of energy from three fuel cells at a minimum rate of 563 watts per hour and a maximum rate
of 1420 watts per hour per fuel cell.

The system contained three fuel cell modules, each having four distinct sections: an energy
conversion section (the basic cell stack), a reactant control section, a thermal control and
water removal section, and the required instr~entation. Figure 4-15 shows one of the modules.
The fuel cells consumed hydrogen and oxygen from the cryogenic storage system and produced elec-
trical energy, water, and heat. The electrical energy was produced at a nominal 28 volts de and
was distributed, conditioned, and used throughout the command and service module. The water was
stored in tanks in the command module and used for drinking and cooling. The heat produced by
the fuel cells was rejected by means of radiators around the upper part of the service module.

The available fuel cell technology at the beginning of the program was inadequate to fabri-
cate an operable system that would be reliable under the expected mission conditions. The more
significant problems encountered in the development of the flight system are discussed.

An early developmental problem was leakage of electrolyte at the periphery of the unit cell
(fig. 4-16). The electrolyte is highly concentrated potassium hydroxide, a very corrosive solu-
tion that is difficult to contain. The use of Teflon as a seal material and the incorporation
of design improvements eliminated the leakage problem.

The two half cells (electrodes) that formed the single-cell assembly (fig. 4-16) were com-
posed of dual-porosity sintered nickel formed from nickel powder that was pressed into sheets.
The liquid-electrolyte/gas-reactant interface was maintained within the sintered nickel by means
of a controlled 10.5-psi pressure differential between the electrolyte and the reactant compart-
ments. If either the hydrogen or oxygen gas pressure was more than 2.5 psi below or 15 psi above
the electrolyte pressure, a breakdown of the liquid/gaa interface was possible. In the early de-
sign stages, many electrolyte leaks developed that allowed potassium hydrOXide to enter the gas-
reactant cavities. As a result, individual cells failed to maintain an electrical load. The
manufacturing procedure was changed to obtain a more uniform porosity of the nickel electrodes,
thus increasing the bubble pressure and decreasing susceptibility to flooding. Also, a coating
of lithium-impregnated nickel oxide was added to the electrolyte side to inhibit oxidation. These
modest improvements helped, but the fundamental problem of ground test cell flooding caused by
gas pressure imbalance remained throughout the ~rogram. This ground test operational defect was
minimi~ed by improved ground aupport equipment, better gas distribution systems, improved test
procedures, and more careful handling.

The fuel cell showed signs of internal shorting during qualification testing. The cause
was the formation of nickel dendritea between the electrodes due to electrochemical reaction.
The reaction rate was found to be dependent upon temperature and time. Therefore, operational
procedures were changed to minimize fuel cell operation during cell buildup and launch checkout.
The problem did not recur after this change.

An accumulator was prOVided as part of the water/glycol coolant system to maintain a constant
coolant pressure without regard to the volumetric changes due to coolant temperature variations.
This pressure was controlled by a flexible bladder that imposed a regulated nitrogen blanket pres-
aure on the coolant system. During ground tests using boilerplate spacecraft 14, thermal expan-
sion of the water/glycol extended the accumulator bladder to its dimensional limit, causing the
coolant pressure to increase. A larger accumulator was added to production fuel cells and no
problems were encountered thereafter.

The electrolyte, 80 percent potassium hydroxide, was a porous solid at ambient temperature.
Therefore, small quantities of reactant gases could permeate the electrolyte as it dried and hard-
ened during shutdown of the fuel cell. The early method of shutdown depressurization was to open
the reactant-gas purge valves and thereby rapidly reduce cell pressure. When the cells were rap-
idly depressurized, the expansion of the trapped gases could break the bond between the electrode
4-38

Nitrogen storage Hydrogen

tank fegu lator

----- Hydrogen PUlll pi

waler separator
Coolant pump

Oxygen regu lalor

Nitrogen
regu lator --,,'

.__--- Pressure vessel

containing 31
single cells

Fluid line
connections

Electrical
connections - - -

Figure 4-15.- Apollo fuel cell module.

 4-39

Nickel backplate Nickel plus nickel

diaphragm section oxide electrode

Hydrogen
Nickel electrode reactant
cavity
Electrolyte seal

Section A-A

Cerami~
piglet tube

Nickel plate Nickel fitting

Weld

Molybdenum/manganese slurry, fired

Figure 4-16.- Single-cell assembly.
 4-40

and the solidified potassium hydroxide. On restart of the cell, the trapped reactant gas formed
a bubble between the electrolyte and the electrode. This reduced the active electrode area and
caused a decrease in performance. Careful adherence to a controlled, slow repressurlzation of
the cell reactant gases eliminated the bubbles, because the trapped gases could diffuse out
slowly from the solidifying electrolyte.

During acceptance tests. several of the water/glycol pumps tended to stick on initial fuel
cell start. Examination of failed pumps showed that, during a final flush-and-dryout procedure
before storage, a residue was left on the ahaft. Therefore, the shaft could not rotate because
the pump had a low (4 inch-ounce) starting torque. After the water/glycol pumps were started.
the residue would dissolve and the failure did not occur during operation. A new rinse-and-
dryout procedure was adopted and the residue problems ended.

Two reactant purge ports. one for hydrogen and one for oxygen. were provided on each fuel
cell to allow purging of impurities (nonreactant gases) that accumulated in internal cell reac-
tant cavities. During testing with airframe 008. water vapor condensed and froze at the purge
opening under extreme thermal conditions. preventing further hydrogen purging. To correct the
condition. two heaters. connected electrically in parallel for redundancy, were added to subse-
quent flight vehicles. The heaters were activated 20 minutes before a fuel cell hydrogen purge
and turned off 10 minutes after the purge was terminated.

Only one fuel cell problem was encountered during the Block I command and service module
flights. Cooling system temperature excursions observed during the AS-202 mission were found to
be caused by inadequate radiator coolant loop aervicing. which permitted gas bubbles to remain
in the system and caused the coolant pump to cavitate. Improved servicing and checkout proce-
dures corrected the problem.

Condenser exit temperature problems were experienced on most of the early Block II flights
through Apollo 10. The fuel cell condenaer served as a means of controlling the humidity of the
fuel cell hydrogen loop; the condenser exit temperature determined the position of a secondary
coolant loop bypass valve and was. therefore. a prime determinant of the thermal condition of the
fuel cell. The combination of coolant. corrosion inhibitors. and aluminum plumbing caused the
formation of a gelatinous product over long dormant periods. The formation of this product in
the coolant loop on Apollo 7 and 9 affected secondary loop bypass valve performance. Servicing
procedures were revised to service the coolant system at the Kennedy Space Center as late as
possible prior to launch and to sample the coolant loop fluid. The radiators were hand-Vibrated
and flushed if any of the coolant samples were questionable. The fuel cells for Apollo 11 and
subsequent spacecraft were retrofitted with Block 1 bypass valves which were shown by tests to
be less susceptible to contamination than the improved Block II valves.

Another condenser exit temperature problem was observed on the Apollo 10 mission. The con-
denser exit temperature oscillated well out of the normal control band during lunar orbit and
caused repeated caution and warning system alarms. Investigation showed (1) that the fuel cell
thermal control system was marginally stable under certain conditions of high loads and low ra-
dlator temperatures such as those experienced during lunar orbit dark-side passes and (2) that
thermal oscillations could be induced if the system was adequately "shocked. tt This was simulated
in ground tests by alternately stopping and starting the coolant pump while in the proper fuel
cell operating conditions. Analysis determined that the shock. or trigger. for the inflight os-
cillations was the result of water slugging out of the condenser in large subcooled quantities
rather than in the uniformly sized droplets that had always been observed in ground operations.
Although nothing could be done to prevent this zero-gravity phenomenon from recurring (which it
did, several times). procedures were developed to stop the oscillations when they occurred. and
the circumstances necessary to develop oscillations were carefully avoided whenever possible.
Temperature oscillations were not observed on flights after Apollo 10.

The ingestion of hydrogen gas into the drinking water caused discomfort to the crewmen until
a hydrogen gas separator was developed and added to the drinking water system. This device r,e-
moved a sufficient amount of hydrogen from the water so that it was no longer a serious problem
to the crewmen.
 4-41

The fuel cell proved to be a reliable and versatile electrical power generation device 1n
the Apollo program. The fuel cell operated satisfactorily during spacecraft launch/boost vibra-
tion and in the space environment. and met all electrical demands imposed on It. When problems
did occur, the redundancy of the fuel cells prevented catastrophic results, and the extreme op-
erational flexibility of the system usually permitted operation in modes that obviated or mini-
mized the likelihood of recurrent failures. Additional information on the fuel cell power gen-
eration system 1s contained in reference 4-35.

4.4.6.2 Batterlea.- As stated previously, batteries were used to augment the fuel cells
during periods of high current demand. Battery power was also used (1) to supply low-level
loads that had to be isolated from the ~in buses, (2) to supply electrical power after jetti-
soning of the service module, and (3) to provide power for pyrotechnic devices.

The battery complement on ~nned missions through the Apollo 13 mission consisted of five
silver-oxide/zinc batteries located in the command module. Three of these (entry-and-postlanding
batteries) were rated at 40 ampere-hours each and were rechargeable. The remaining two (pyro-
technic batteries) were each capable of aupplying approximately 2 ampere-hours of energy. (The
specified capability was 0.7S ampere-hour.) As a result of the Apollo 13 cryogenic oxygen sys-
tem failure, an auxiliary battery having a capacity of 400 ampere-hours was installed in the ser-
vice module for the Apollo 14 and aubsequent missions. This battery could hsve proVided 12 kilo-
watt-houra of emergency energy and could have been connected to the command module main buses
through the distribution system for fuel cell 2.

The requirements established for the Apollo command and service module batteries were well
within the existing state of the art for batteries; hence, no unique problems were identified or
experienced during battery development and qualification during short-time unmanned flights.

The only significant battery problems on the operational flights resulted from the use of a
relatively new type of nonabsorbent separator (Permion 307) in the command module entry-and-post-
landing batteries and from failure to verify the effectiveness of the battery-charging system for
those batteries. These two factors jointly resulted in severe undervoltage on the command module
main buses at command module/service module separation during the Apollo 7 mission. The final
solution of these problems for the flight of Apollo 11 was achieved by reverting to the origin-
ally used absorbent cellophsne separator material and by raising the output voltage of the com-
mand module battery charger. With the possible exception of an auxiliary battery in the unmanned
Apollo 6 flight (there was insufficient data to prove a battery failure), no command and service
module battery failure occurred in any flight. Reference 4-36 contains more detailed information
on battery perforoance.

4.4.6.3 Power conversion and distribution.- Two systems for power conversion and distribu-
tion were designed and flown during the Apollo program. The first was used in the launch escape
vehicle test program conducted at the White Sands Missile Range. The design philosophy for this
system was based upon returning performance data for evaluation. Thus, the design was quite
simple and NASA facilities were used for fabrication. The second was the operational system
used on the manned Apollo flights. Since high reliability was required to assure crew safety,
this system was more complex and was fabricated by the command and service module contractor.

a. System for early development flights: Off-the-shelf hardware components that had been
qualified on previous space programs were used in the launch escape vehicle test program. This
assured early delivery and low cost as well as giving a high probability that these assemblies
would pass the Apollo environmental qualification tests after having been installed in higher
level assemblies. As an example, the relays. connectors, wire, current shunts, and fuses were
qualified in the Mercury progrsm. The fuse holders were qualified in the X-IS aircraft program.

All loads were protected by fuses except those that were essential to the primary mission
objectives. The philosophy was that, if a load was of secondsry importance and could short cir-
cuit, a fuse should be in the line to remove the shorted load from the bus, thereby allowing the
other loads to operate properly. If the load was of primary importance, however, a short circuit
could cause the loss of the pri~ry mission objectives and, thus, it did not matter whether the
load was fused or not. Also, since reliability analysis showed that a fuse would be one more
series element that could fail, the loads of primary importance were not fused. In addition to
the hardware selection and circuit design considerations, redundancy and fail-safe techniques were
used, good wiring practives were followed, and good quality control was ~intained. No flight
failures occurred in this system.
4_42

b. Operational system: The operational system used on the manned Apollo flights took
longer to design because. with the manned mission requirement, a stricter design philosophy was
followed to assure crew safety.

Although a great deal of the required system reliability was achieved through the design
Itself. performance was enhanced by extensive testing of indtvidaul components, separate assem-
blies. the total distribution system. and the entire vehicle. In addition to evaluation and de-
sign proof tests, a random production sample of e8ch component was subjected to a sertes of elec-
trical, mechanical. and environmental tests before certifying that part for flight. Finally,
various selected parameters of each component or assembly were measured during acceptance test-
ing before installstion of the components into higher level assemblies.

The direct-current distribution, designed around two isolated main buses, received power
from any combination of three fuel cells and/or three command module bstteries. Redundant loads
were connected to esch bus, nonredundant critical loads were connected to both buses through iso-
lation diodes, and noncritical loads were connected to either bus as required to equalize the
loads. This configuration prevailed until the Apollo 13 failure highlighted the need for the
additional battery that was installed in the service module for the Apollo 14 through 17 missions.

Based on the experience of the Mercury and Gemini programs, wherein it was demonstrated that
many of the inflight tssks did not need to be automated, sutoDatic functions in the electrical
power system were kept to a minimum. The only functions that were automated were those which had
to be initiated faster than a crewman could react. For instance, the power system was designed
to connect the command ~ule batteries to the buses automatically in the event of a pad abort.

The alternating-current distribution aystem contained circuitry to disconnect a bus from its
source sutomatically if the voltage became too high. This was necessary because electrical equip-
ment, especially semiconductor devices, can be damaged by instantaneous excessive voltage. The
alternating-current sensor and associated circuitry therefore monitored each alternating-current
bus for voltage and current. If the voltage became too low or the current too great, the sensor
signaled the crew, notifying them of the need for action. If the circuit sensed an abnormally
high voltage, th~ circuit automatically removed the affected bus from the inverter and signaled
the crew regarding the changeover.

Distribution of alternating current was schieved through a system similar to that of the
direct-current system. Three static dc-to-ac three-phase inverters prOVided alternating-current
for the vehicle, each phsse furnishing lIS-volts at 400 hertz. Although each of the inverters
was capable of providing 1250 volt-amperes of power, more power than was required for the entire
vehicle, three were installed for increased reliability. During normal operation, two inverters
supplied power while the third inverter remained on standby.

Alternating and direct current were used to provide power to the battery charger used to
charge the three command module entry-and-postlanding batteries. To provide maximum reserve
power for emergencies and for recovery aids after landing, the batteries were recharged as soon
as possible sfter each use.

Fuses, circuit breakers, and sensors were all used so that faulty loads could be removed from
the bus and the sources protected from downstream failures. Mission success and crew safety de-
manded that failures not be allowed to propsgate to other areas and thst the sources and buses
be protected.

The electrical power distribution system performed satisfactorily throughout the flight pro-
gram. Further information may be obtained from reference 4-37.

4.4.7 Propulsion Systems

The command and service module propulsion systems consisted of the service propulsion system,
used for major velocity changes, and two separate reaction control systems, one in the command
module and one in the service module.
 4-43

4.4.7.1 Service propulsion 8Y8te~.- Early requirements for the service module included ver-
nier and main propulsion systems for a direct lunar landing profile. The main propulsion system
was to consiat of several identical solid-propellant motors which would provide thrust for trans-
lunar abort and lunar sscent. A separate module was to be designed that would provide for ter-
minal descent. These requirements were changed early in 1962 to specify a single service module
engine. Earth-storable liquid hypergolic propellants were to be used by the new system, which
could include stngle or multiple thrust chambers. The service propulsion system was to be capa-
ble of providing for abort after jettison of the launch escape system, for launch from the lunar
surface, and for uddcourse corrections during earth return.

When the lunar orbit rendezvous mode was selected over the direct lunar landing mode in
July 1962, the service propulsion system requirements were reduced to provide for midcourse cor-
rections, lunar-orbit insertion, and tranaearth injection. The final service propulsion system
design had a single pressure-fed-liquid rocket engine which used nitrogen tetroxide as the oxi-
dizer and hydrazine (Aerozine-50) as the fuel. The propellants were stored in four tanks located
in the service module. The tank pressurant gas was helium, which was supplied from two bottles
located in the center bay of the service module. Isolation valves, check valves, and regulators
for the helium supply system were mounted on a panel in one of the service module bays. A pro-
pellant utilization and gaging system was used to maintain the correct oxidizer-to-fuel ratio
for the engine.

In the early stages of system development. materials and processes were investigated. Mate-
rial-properties research was conducted to determine the emissivities of nozzle and nozzle-coating
materials. Tube brazing and weld techniques were improved by means of propellant-metal compati-
bility studies and brazing~elding metallurgical investigations. Thrust chamber ablative mate-
rials were selected after the completion of laboratory tests that limited the materials list be-
fore thrust chamber testing. Laboratory studies were conducted on 42 potential thrust chamber
material samples; the studies included high-temperature vacuum tests and thermal- and structural-
properties investigations. Seal materials for propellant equipment were selected after investi-
gation of elastomer and pseudoelastomer compounds to screen for propellant compatibility, swell,
creep, resilience, and other seal properties.

Zero-gravity propellant motion problems were investigated by means of theoretical and exper-
imental research in fluid mechanics. The goals of this research were new modeling and scaling
techniques for earth simulation of zero-gravity effects on the propellant and an improvement in
the understanding of fundamental phenomens.

The complete propulsion system was subjected to a test program using heavyweight test rigs
and a flight-type system at the White Sands Test Facility. These tests were conducted at ambient
conditions and explored the full range of potential system use. The engine was qualified pri-
marily through simulated altitude testing at the Arnold Engineering Development Center.

Throughout the engine development and qualification phase, many configuration changes oc-
curred as a result of knowledge gained in the test programs. One of the more significant changes
resulted in the incorporation of a baffled injector to reduce the risk of combustion instability.

Inflight testing was the final phase of the service propulsion system development. Qualifi-
cation of the system under all space-operational conditions was attempted during the ground test
program. However, the impracticability of simulating all space conditions in ground testa pre-
vented complete demonstration of system performance. Thus, the service propulsion system was
used conservatively in the early flights. As the flight program progressed, the complexity of
operating modes and system demands were increased.

Several notable problems were encountered during the flight program. First, the propellant
gaging system, while operating as designed, was not matched to the system in a manner that allowed
a direct reading of actual propellants without correction throughout the misaion. Thia required
interpretation of indicated quantities by system specialists and was a source of crew irritation
on several missions. Secondly, incomplete bleeding of gas trapped in the engine and feedlines
during propellant loading resulted in unusual start transients on the Apollo 8 mission. Improved
engine bleed provisions were incorporated on later spacecraft. In another case, the engines were
re-orificed to eliminate unbalance between the propellant flow rates. Prior to the re-orificing,
the propellant utilization valve was used to correct the unbalance. These and other problems
noted during the operational phase of the program are discussed in more detail in reference 4-38.
 4-44

The most significant leS80n that was learned fro. the service propulsion system development
program was the need to first develop basic technology for propulsion .ystems before 1nitiat1ns
full-scale hardware designa. Besides the anticipated technical problems such 88 engine perfo~
ance and combustion instability. schedule delay. were experienced during hardware development.
and these delays generally were associated with the high reliability requirements of the Apollo
program and the lack of experience with the propellants and their effects on .aterlals.

4.4.7.2 Reaction control systema.- Initially, the reactton control ayatem capabilities were
to include attitude control, stabilization, propellant settling for the aforementioned vernier
propulsion system, and minor velocity corrections. The system was to be pulse modulated and pres-
sure fed. and was to use storable hypergolic propellants. When these requirements were changed
to delete the vernier propulsion system. a requirement was added to prOVide (1) ullage maneuvers
(propellant settling) for the service propulsion system and (2) a deorbit capability to back up
that of the service propulsion system. The redundant system concept was also expanded such that
the command module reaction control system consisted of two independent systems and the service
module reaction control system consisted of four independent systems. each having a four-engine
cluster (quad).

The basic design of the command and service module reaction control systems was not changed
appreciably from the originsl concepts. The only major change to the service module reaction
control system was to increase the propellant storsge cspacity of the Block 11 system by adding
one sdditional fuel tank and one additional oxidi%er tank to each quad 8ssembly.

In each service nodule reaction control system assembly, high-pressure (4150 psis) helium
vas stored in a spherical titanium alloy tank. The helium flewed through two-way solenoid-con-
trolled isolation valves to regulators. After being regulated to the desired working pressure
(181 psia) , the helium passed through check valves and into the gas side of the propellant tanka.
Pressure relief valves were prOVided between the check valves and the propellant tanka to prevent
overpressurization of the tanks. The propellant forced from the propellant tanka by the collaps-
ing bladders flowed through solenoid-controlled isolation valves and in-line filter assemblies
into the engine assemblies. Each of the four engines on' each quad was a pulse-modulated, radis-
tion-cooled, lOO-pound thrust unit. The service module reaction control system slso included
hester assemblies and controls to maintain safe operating temperatures in the systems, many sc-
cess ports for checkout snd servicing, and an instrumentation system, including a propellsnt
quantity gaging syatem, to monitor system perfo~nce.

The command module reaction control system wss similar to the service module system with the
tol!owing e~ceptions. ft had two rather than four independent assemblie" each capable of pro-
viding entry control. The system also had pyrotechnic, normally closed, helium isolation valves
rather than solenoid valves. These valves were opened just before entry and no provision was made
for isolating the helium supply. To provide sealing of the system before use, burst-disk-type
isolation valves were installed in the propellant feedlines between the tanks and the solenoid-
type propellant isolation valves. The limited-life engines were ablatively cooled. The command
module reaction control system also had proviaions for interconnecting the two redundant systems.
Additionally. the propellants and the pressurizing gaa could be dumped rapidly in case of an
abort.

Although none of the co~nents were off-tbs-ahelf items, most of them were state of the art.
For these, the develop~t program was rather straightforward and usually consiated of (1) teats
of pre-prototype hardware to define the design, (2) a design verification test of prototype hard-
ware to verify design adequacy, and (3) qualification teats to demonstrate the adequacy of produc-
tion hardware.

In addition to the component tests, a considerable number of system-level tests was conducted.
Several of the system-leve! tests constituted a part of tbe formal certification. The system-
level evaluations included system perfoc.ance demonstration tests, vibration tolerance demonstra-
tion tests, and thermal vacuum tests. A detailed discussion of the system-level test program ia
contained in reference 4-39.
 4-45

A certification and qualification test program was conducted for each component in the co~
mand and service module reaction control system. These tests included a demonstration of the
capability to withstand exposure to temperature, vacuum, vibration, shock, propellants. and ac-
celeration conditions, and demonstrations of operational capability such 8S functional cycling.
proof pressure tests, leakage tests. and pressure-drop tests. Tests were also conducted to dem-
onstrate tolerance to particulate contamination and to determine the quantity of contaminants
generated. Additionally, selected components were tested under conditions that were more severe
than those expected during flight, including vibration to 1.5 times the normal qualification
levels and pressurization to the component burst point. A number of problems encountered during
these tests necessitated modifications or imposed operational limitations.

Two hardware failures occurred during flight missions in the service module reaction control
system and five in the command module reaction control system. There were also five electrical-
type failures, all on the command module reaction control aystem. Because many of these failures
occurred on early missions that were flown at the same time that the qualification and system-
level ground tests were being conducted, the failures were not unique to flight experience. Those
failures experienced only in flight are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Apollo 7 postflight tests revealed that the command module reaction control system propellant
isolation valves would not latch in the closed position. The tests showed that if the valve was
closed at the time of system activation, the valve bellows were damaged to the point of causing
the failure. The corrective action was to open the isolation valve before the systems were ac-
tivated.

During Apollo 9 and several subsequent missions, some of the service module reaction control
system propellant isolation valves inadvertently closed during separation of the spacecraft from
the S-IVB launch vehicle stage. Investigative testing revealed that the pyrotechnic shock was
sufficient to cause the valve to close but did not damage the valve. The valves were simply re-
opened and no further corrective action was required.

Another flight failure involved the interface between the reaction control system and the
parachute system. As discussed previously, small holes were found in the canopy of a recovered
main parachute on an early flight. These holes were caused by raw oxidizer which was expelled
from the command module reaction control aystem after the fuel was expended during the propellant
depletion firing after entry. (The firing was accomplished after the main parachutes were de-
ployed.) On the Apollo 1 mission, the depletion firing was not accomplished and the excess pro-
pellants were left on boara: For" the"" Apollo" 8 tIlis"sion, the cOlllll8nd"llOdule reaction control sys-
tem was loaded with an excess of fuel so that, during the depletion firing, the oxidizer WQuld
be expended before the fuel; the firing was satisfactorily accomplished. On the Apollo 15 mis-
sion, several riser lines on one of the main parachutes failed. Investigative testing dellOn-
strated that burning fuel from the depletion firing caused the parachute failure. Consequently,
the Apollo 16 and Apollo 11 command llOdules were landed with the excess propellants on board.

The last corrective action brought about a hazsrdous situation that occurred during post-"
flight deservicing of the Apollo 16 command module. On previous flights, essentially no residual
propellants were left on board. However, the deservicing procedures used on these earlier mis-
sions were also used for the Apollo 16 command module, Which had about 200 pounds of residual
propellants on board. During the offloading of the oxidizer, an incorrect ratio of neutralizer
to oxidizer resulted in an explosion that destroyed the deservicing cart. After Apollo 16, the
deservicing procedures and ground support equipment were changed so that the fuel and oxidizer
were put in separate containers and neutralization was accomplished at a remote site.

In retrospect, certain problem areas were common to many of the component development ef-
forts. Recommendations to minimize the impact of the problema on future programs are as follows.

The initial component function design specifications often were more stringent than was nec-
essary because actual requirements were not known. In some cases, the specification requirements
were "the projected limits of the state of the art at the anticipated time of use. As the require-
ments were defined more fully, there was hesitancy to relax the specifications, which might have
resulted in some unnecessary and, perhaps, unfruitful efforts. An intensive effort ahould be made
to define requirements accurately as early as posaible. Also, as a relaxation in requirements
become evident, the specification should be relaxed if cost or schedule savings can be realized.
4-46

A lack of compatibility of the system and Its cOMpOnents with the propellants was a recog-
nized problem early in the Apollo program. The major deterrent to efficient resolution of the
problem was the unavailability of elsstomeric materials that were compatible with propellants
under long-duration exposure. A problem that was not recogrlized until considerably later in the
program involved the incompatibility of the system and components with the flush fluids (or com-
binations of flush fluids) and propellants. At such time that compatibility of a system and its
components with fluids Is established, all fluids and mixtures of fluids that might be introduced
into the system should also be established. Particular attention should be given to determining
the specific fluids that ~ght be used during manufacturing and checkout of the aystem and its
components When the materials are selected. Provisions for adequate drying of systems should be
made and verified if fluid ~xing cannot be tolerated.

Cleanliness control was a problem because of the many small orifices and the close tolerances
of moving par~s. Assembling a clean system was difficult, and the need for component removal and
replacement further increased the probelm. To minimi~e the problem, filters were sdded to protect
components that had an unusually high failure rate because of contamination. On future programs,
all components ahould be designed to be as insensitive to contamination as possible. Addition-
ally, auch components should be protected by integral filters. A further recommendation is that,
if fluids are reverse-flowed through any component during a flushing or filling operation, both
the inlet and outlet ports on the component should be protected against contamination. If large
quantities of contaminants are expected, filters should also be prOVided at the fluid source.

A considerable number of unnecessary and costly situations occurred during the development
and qualification tests, because the production of components was well underway before the test
programs were completed. particularly during the system-level tests. Corrective action for prob-
lems that existed during these programs almost always involved the retrofit of production units
and the modification of completed systems. Some problems were tolerated because of the extensive
vehicle rework that would be required for corrective measures. These shortcomings were compen-
ssted for by either tolerating higher rejection rates or modifying operating procedures. Only
limited changes were made to the systems as a result of these late tests. Consequently, the
test results did little 'for the development of more reliable systems but, rather, were uBeful in
instilling confidence in equipment or defining operating constraints. A further recommendation,
therefore~ ia that extensive efforts be made to integrate the test program schedules with the
master production schedules. Specifically. the overall schedule should be adjusted to provide
time to implement the production hardware changes dictated by the test program.

4.4.8 Guidance, Navigation, and Control System

The functions of the guidance, navigation, and control system may be divided as follows:

a. Navigation is the process of determining spacecraft position and velocity at a given

time in a basic reference coordinate system. The position and velocity data for a given time
are referred to as a state vector.

b. Guidance and control are the functions that furnish commands to the engines to change or
correct vehicle trajectory and to control vehicle attitude. The engines ate controlled automat-
ically in some modes and by the crew in other modes.

The two baaic system configurations were referred to as Block 1 and Block II. The Block I
system was designed When the command and service modules were to be landed on the moon. To
achieve the system reliability required by this plan, spare units were to be carried on board,
and inflight maintenance was to be performed. However, inherent problems existed in this concept
that were never really solved, such as moisture getting into electrical connectors during change-
out. The adoption of the lunar orbit rendezvous plan provided a logical time to change to the
Block II configuration which, because of redundant paths, negated the inflight maintenance re-
quirement and thereby avoided the connector problem. The Block II system was smaller, lighter,
and more reliable than the Block 1 design. Another advantage was that the primary guidance sys-
tems for the command module and the lunar module could be nearly alike. The Block 1 system was
flown on unmanned miasions only. Therefore, this discussion pertains primarily to the Block 11
system.
 4-47

The Block II configuration has a primary and secondary gUidance and control system 8a illus-
trated in figure 4-17. Although navigation could be performed on board with the primary system.
the primary method of naVigation was to use data transmitted from the Mission Control Center,
and the onboard system served as a backup. the redundancy of the Block II system assured that
no single failure would cause total loss of any function.

The primary guidance, navigation, and control system consisted of inertial, optical, and
computer systems. The inertial system provided a three-gimbal gyroscopically stabilized platform
upon which three accelerometers were mounted, one for each orthogonal axis. Any rotational m0-
tIon of the spacecraft about the platform was detected by the gyros and measured by resolvers
built into the gimbals. Attitude information could thus be continuously sent to the computer.
The three integrating accelerometers detected translational acceleration of the spacecraft and
provided continuous velocity information to the computer. The inertial system also contained
tbe electronics and power supplies required by the gUidance and control system.

The optical system consisted of a sextant, a telescope, and associated electronics. Optical
sightings were made on celestial bodies snd on earth or lunar landmarks to accurately determine
inertial position. When an optical sighting was made, a set of dsts consisting of time, space-
craft attitude, and optics pointing angles was recorded by the computer. By taking successive
sightings, navigstion data were obtained to solve the navigation equations.

The computer system received input data from the inertial and optical systems and manual
commands from the crew through a hand controller. Operating on these inputs, the system solved
navigation equations, generated on-off commands to the 16 attitude thrusters and the main engine,
generated steering commands to the engine gimbal actuators, and generated appropriate control and
display data. The computer contained a digital autopilot to control the vehicle during all flight
phases. Three types of attitude control were available: automatic maneuvering to any desired at-
titude, maintenance of a desired attitude within selectable limits, and manual control by the crew
through the use of rotation and translation hand controllers. During thrusting maneuvers, the
autopilot automatically generated commands to the engine gimbal actuators to keep the thrust vec-
tor aligned with the center of grsvity of the spacecraft. Engine ignition and cutoff commands
were issued to achieve the desired velocity changes for that maneuver. During earth entry, the
system automatically performed entry navigation and guided the spacecraft to a safe landing by
controlling vehicle attitude to achieve the desired aerodynamic lift vector.

The secondary system consisted of attitude control, attitude reference, and thrust vector
control systems, and the required displays and controls. The attitude control system received
manual commands from two rotation and two translation hand controllers, and data from two body-
mounted rate and attitude gyro packages. Operating on these inputs, this system generated on-off
commands to the 16 attitude thrusters to maintain the desired attitude and perform the desir~d
maneuvers. The attitude reference system provided display information and mwintained an inertial
attitude reference. It could be aligned to the primary gUidance system inertial platform or to
its own control panel thumbwheel settings. Total attitude, attitude errors, and spacecraft at-
titude rate were displayed on either one of two flight director attitude indicators. The thrust
vector control assembly provided two backup modes of controlling the engine gimbal actuators dur-
ing thrusting maneuvera if the primary system failed. An automatic mode and a manual mode were,
prOVided. Command inputs were routed to one of two servo systems which positioned the redundant
gimbsl actuators. Had a failure occurred in the primary system autopilot, servo system, or actua-
tor, the crew could have switched to the secondary guidance system, servo system, and actuator.

The design and development of the primary guidance, navigation, and control system evolved
from error analyses performed on early missile trajectories. The Polaria inertial guidance sys-
tem concept was thought to be adequate to accomplish the Apollo program. Error analyses deter-
mined that moderate errors in the inertial instruments (gyros and accelerometers) could be toler-
ated because of the inflight realignment capability of the inertial system. The Polaris system
was therefore modified and repackaged as necessary. The modifications prOVided (1) inflight
alignment capability, (2) a general purpose computer, (3) mode selection by the crewmen, and (4)
inflight maintenance capability (later deleted). Studies were made of strapdown guidance systems
and of three-gimbal versus four-gimbal systema before the final configuration was determined.

The computer was developed through three configurations: the first was primarily for research
and development, the second for unmanned flight, and the third for manned flight. The aoftware
was changed as required to meet specific requirements. The flexibility of the software proved to
be a great asset late in the program.
 ,
Attitude Analog-to-dlgltal Sighting data
'ff- ,
jOe

jOe

Inertial ~ and / CD
guidance ~ Attitude error dlgltaHo-analog /
converters /
t9 ~
~N
~~
~ Coupling data unit

i
/1
~k
in~r
Velocity Command E
'----+--...:::::::"'---1 module E Opllcal
computer t-- 8 navigation
1- To attitude ~ ~

Attitude set .g
...
~
E
1 f\..
t'""
~ 8 ] ...
8::::: E
m
::::: ? (3
---------------- --------- ---.- 0-- - - - - - -
c: 0 • 28Vd ,tem
0 ~ Engine
I

~
t ....- gimbal
Rate
needles
:.'
I
I Attitude
I needles I- Rotational To .
~
l;
g trim
c::J r:::::::::I ~..
~
I--
I Ball I controller
(2)
aoort -
system
Translatlon
controller
I- I
L _ _-l
J
From Inertial ... Servo .
Ice system
guidan 'g amplifier Service.
E assembly propulSion l-
E system
~r~~ay ~ ~~itUde I--
coupler
To direct
L.....- coils
~
::
t Position feedback
Rate feedback
il.
'2
E ~ Reaction control and
Engine 00-011
command
LJ"V"
Attitude error rale L- Control <:3 service propulsion u10matlc
Attitude and electronics systems solenoid coils
rate gyros assembly Thruster on-ofl driver assembly From
commands rotation _ Direct ~

Delta-velocity
counter
Engine off command I controller
/
colls
\

Entry
l]
L_-1 I monitor
. system

Figurt 4-17. - Block II Command and service mlXlule guidance, naVigation, and control system.
 The optical system, at one time, included a map and data viewer and a atar-tracker/horizon-
photometer assembly. The map and data viewer was intended to display information such as flight
plan data, checklists, and maps on rolls of film that could be projected. The viewer was de-
leted because of cost and schedule implications. The star-tracker/horizon-photometer assembly
was intended to track celestial bodies automatically and to aid in tracking lunar and earth land-
marks. This assembly was deleted because of cost and schedule impacts, and a rate-aided tracking
routine that used computer softwsre and existing optics equipment was substituted.

The test program consisted of four basic phases: development, qualification, acceptance; snd
installation and checkout. ~~nctiona1, environmental, and evaluation tests were performed on ma-
terial, parts, and components during the development test phase. Environmental and performance
evaluation tests were performed on production parts, assemblies, subsystems, and systems during
the qualification test phase. In general, systems were tested to nominsl ~ssion levels, wheteas
subsystems and below were tested to the stres~ level for critic~l environwentH. Accepl~lce teHts
and installation tests to specified limits were conducted to verify acceptable systems perform-
ance.

The performance of the Block I and Block II primary and secondary systems was excellent.
The anomalies that did occur were of a ~nor nsture and most were circumvented by workaround pro-
cedures.

The most significant anomaly that occurred in rhe primary system was in the inertial system.
A voltage transient occurred when a set of relay contects was transferring a voltage. The tran-
sient was electromagnetically coupled to other wiring within the electronics package and resulted
in an erroneous indication to the computer th~t the inertial attitude reference had been lost.
The crew reestablished the inertial reference by taking star sightings.

The mOst significant anomaly that occurred in the secondary system was in the redundant en-
gine gimbal actuator assembly. An open giribal rate feedback circuit caused unexpected oscillation
of the engine gimbal. The oscillation was detected in the redundant servo system While the pilot
was performing preignition checks which verify the primary and secondary servo systems.

A good indi~ation of system performance of the inertial and optical systems was available
from realignment data. Realignment of the inertial platform was performed periodically during
each flight to correct for the very small drift rate of the gyros. The realignment was accom-
plished by sighting on two known stars using the sextant. The computer compared the measured
angle between the atara to the known value and diaplayed a star angle difference to the crew.
The star angle difference waa an indication of sighting error (instrument error plus operator
error). A I-sigma value sighting error had been computed for each lunar mission. The largest
value was 0.016 degree, and the I-sigma value for eight lunar ~ssions (Apollo 13 excluded~) was
0.011 degree. This compared well with the error analysis value of 0.012 degree for the two-star
alignnent procedure.

From the sighting data, the computer calculated the small angular position errors of the
platform caused by the small gyro drift rates. For eight lunar missions (Apollo 13 excluded~).
a I-sigma drift rate of the command module system was 0.00765 degree per hour. This value co~
pared well with the specification value of 0.030 degree per hour. Accelerometer bias errors
(erroneous velocity output when no input acceleration is applied) were equally small. The aver-
age bias error for the Block II command module system was 0.00239 foot per second per second.

The performance of the digital autopilot during all thrusting maneuvers of the Apollo pro-
gram was excellent. The digital autopilot guided the vehicle during thrust maneuvers to achieve
a targeted velocity-to-be-gained. The residual velocity-to-be-gained after engine cutoff was an
indication of overall system performance. Residuals were caused by accelerometer errors, gyro
errors. computational errors, or engine thrust errors. The worst-case velocity residual of the
Block II system was 4.4 feet per second. This was attributed to helium ingestion in the engine
propellant, which caused a momentary low-thrust condition. Typi~ally, the velocity residuals
were on the order of 0.3 foot per second or less.

*Becauae of operational constraints, normal realignment procedures could not be followed.

Consequently, the inaccuracies were larger than would normally be expected and the data were ex-
cluded from the calculation of the I-sigma values.
4-50

The performance of the computer was flawless. Perhaps the most significant accomplishment
during Apollo pertaining to guidance, navigation, and control was the demonstration of the versa-
tility and adaptability of the computer software. For instance. the crews gained additional con-
fidence in the digital autopilot with each mission. During the last mission, a special software
procedure was used in lunar orbit to maintain precise spacecraft pointing attitudes, despite hav-
ing normally used attitude thrusters turned off. The only consistent method of initiating the
passive thermal control mode was to use a software routine, Which was modified slightly to ac-
complish special results, Workaround procedures, called erasable memory programs, were used
time and again to accomplish special jobs and lighten crew tasks. Hardware modification to ac-
complish these changes WQuld not have been feasible.

As stated earlier, the Mission Control Center provided the primary navigation mode. However,
the onboard computer and the sextant and telescope did prOVide onboard navigation capability. Cis-
lunar navigation (to and from the moon) was demonstrated, particularly during the Apollo 8 and 10
missions. Star-horizon optical sightings were made using the earth and moon horizons. Postflight
analysis of these data verified the crew's capability to navigste to the moon, compute the lunar-
orbit-insertion maneuver, snd place the vehicle in a safe lunar orbit. The same navigation tech-
nique was used to demonstrate the crew's capability to return to earth and to accomplish a safe
earth landing.

In lunar orbit, the intended navigation technique was to use the telescope to track known or
unknown landmarks. In practice, the sextant, which was a more accurate instrument, was normally
used because a computer routine called rate-aided optics was available. This routine made the
sextant tracking task much easier. Postflight analysis of data from the landmark tracking nav-
igation technique demonstrated the capability to successfully compute a transearth injection ma-
neuver.

For detailed discussions of the development and performance of gUidance, navigation and con-
trol systems, see references 4-40 through 4-49.

4.4.9 Environmental Control System

The three major functions of the environmental control system were atmospheric control, ther-
mal control, and water management. Six systems operating in conjunction with each other provided
these functions.

a. The oxygen system controlled the oxygen flow within the command module, stored a reserve
supply of oxygen for use during entry and emergencies, regulated the pressure applied to compo-
nents of the oxygen system and pressure suit circuit, controlled cabin pressure, controlled pres-
sure in the water tanks and water/glycol reservoir, and provided for purging of the pressure suit
circuit.

b. The pressure suit circuit system provided the crew with a continuously conditioned atmos-
phere. With this system, suit gss circulation, pressure, and temperature were automatically con-
trolled, and debris, excess moisture, odors, and carbon dioxide were removed from both the suit
and cabin gases.

c. The water system supplied water for drinking, food reconstitution, and evaporative cool-
ing. Water produced by the fuel cells was pumped into a potable water storage tank. Waste water
(primarily perspiration condensed by the suit heat exchanger) was stored in a waste water tank
and distributed through the control valvea of the water/glycol evaporators. Waste water could
be augmented by excess potable wster for evaporative cooling. If the water production rate ex-
ceeded the usage rate, water was dumped overboard.

d. The water/glycol system provided cooling for the presaure suit circuit, the potable water
chiller, and the spacecraft equipment mounted on coldplates. The aystem also heated and cooled
the cabin atmoaphere. Temperature control was obtained by the circulation of a mixture of water
and ethylene glycol through primary and aecondsry coolant loops. The temperature of the heat-
transport fluid was controlled either by radiators or by glycol evaporators.
 4-51

e. The waste management dump system provided for dumping urine and excess water overboard
and venting the waste storage compartment.

f. The postlandlng ventilation system provided a means of circulating ambient air through
the command module cabin after landing.

To provide the high degree of reliability required for lunar ~881ons. the 8~8tem was de-
signed with redundant components. backup systems. and alternate modes of operation. For example,
parallel system regulators and relief valves were contained in a single housing and had Isolat10n
selector valves. Suit compressors, condensate pumps, and cabin fans had separate backup units.
The primary coolant system contained redundant pumps, and a secondary coolant system with radia-
tors, evaporator. and cabin and suit heat exchangers was prOVided. However. some electronic com-
ponents were not serviced by the secondary loop. Also, the secondary radiators could not reject
sufficient heat for a normal mission and were therefore considered a contingency system.

Major changes to the environmental control ~ystem during the development program included
the redesign of the coldplates, control of the glycol evaporator, and the 'composition of the
cabin gas during preflight operations. More detailed information is gi~en in references 4-50.
4-51, and 4-52.

The most significant change to the Block II environmental control aystem was the addition
of hardware for extravehicular activity from the command module. A lo-pound-per-hour oxygen
purge system was added to supply suit pressure, breathable atmosphere, and thermal control to
the extravehicular crewman in the event of an emergency. For normal operation, the spacecraft
suit circuit system regulated the upstream pressure through a 25-foot umbilical hose to an ori-
fice assembly attached to the extravehicular crewman's pressure suit. Flow was regulated by a
suit outlet relief valve which controlled suit pressure at 3.75 psia. The other two crewmen
were supported by the spacecraft pressure auit circuit while the cabin was depressurized.

With the exception of the Apollo 13 oxygen source failure. the oxygen system operated satis-
factorily throughout the entire flight program. Cabin pressure relief and regulation were main-
tained at nominal values of 6 and 5 psia. respectively. and sll scheduled cabin repressurizations
were accomplished without incident. No emergency pressure regulation was required. Inflight
cabin leakage varied from about 0.10 pound per hour to 0.02 pound per hour with improvement noted
in the later vehicles.

The pressure suit circuit system also generally performed acceptably and met mission require-
ments. As confidence wss gained in the dependability of the spacecraft cabin environment, fully
suited operation was eventually limited to the launch and lunar module jettison events. Depres-
surized cabin operations were handled routinely. and no emergency suit circuit conditions were
encountered. Carbon dioxide removal, obtained by alternately replacing the lithium hydroxide
elements on a nominal 72 man-hour rotation. was satisfactory. Carbon dioxide partial pressure
seldom rose above an indicated 3 torr. Some excessive element swelling due to moisture absorp-
tion was noted during solo crewman operation on one lunar flight. Procedures were subsequently
incorporated to prevent recurrence of the problem.

Water servicing of the sintered. porous metal plate in the suit heat exchanger proved to be
a major system problem. Gas breakthrough and/or degraded flow rate led to extensive ground test-
ing to better understand the physical phenomena involved and to develop an adequate wetting tech-
nique. Humidity control and water removal were satisfactory under the flight-imposed coolant
loop conditions. and no evidence of gas breakthrough or flow degradation was observed during a
mission.

The water system proved to be a source of both positive and negative crew reaction. On the
plus side, the hot water provided for food reconstitution was greatly appreciated and was noted
as a considerable improvement over the cold food available on earlier spacecraft. On the minus
side. gas in the potable water caused problems in filling the food and water bags and in the di-
gestive processes of individual crewmen. The gas consisted of hydrogen from the hydrogen-saturated
fuel cell water and oxygen (used to pressurize the water tanks) permeating through the tank blad-
ders. A silver-palladium tube separator was installed to remove hydrogen. To remove the oxygen,
a gaa separator cartridge assembly that used hydrophobic and hyrophyllic membranes was added for
attachment to the water supply ports. This membrane assembly met with only limited success.
 4-52

Additional crew problems occurred during the daily water sterilization procedures when sep-
arate chlorine snd buffer solutions were injected into a port in the water system. Leakage at
the port was noted during the Apollo 15 mission and breakage of the bags containing the solutions
increased during the later missions. Revised assembly methods eliminated the port leakage.

The water/glycol coolant system provided adequate thermal control in spite of several hard-
ware failures. Built-in manual operating modes were successfUlly used to replace the normal auto-
matic control. Early glycol evaporators showed tendencies to dry out under low hest loads and
were reservlced by the crew. Subsequent modifications. which included the previously mentioned
relocation of the wetness sensors and trimming of the surrounding sponges, provided satisfactory
units. After the radiator system demonstrated acceptable heat rejection, evaporator operation
was limited to launch and entry periods only. The radiator and flow-control system provided typ-
ical heat rejection in the range of 4000 to 5000 Btu/hr.

Noise from the cabin fans was considered objectionable by the crews, and use of the fans
was discontinued on the later flights except to remove lunar dust from the cabin environment.

During the Apollo 16 mission, the automatic controller for the command module water/glycol
temperature control failed. Manual positioning of the mixing valve was successfully accomplished
by the crew.

The addition of lunar orbital science experiments to the later spacecraft required holding
attitudes during experiment operation in lunar orbit Which resulted in undesirable radiation
environments for the space radiators. Also, operation of the glycol evaporators was undesirable
because of possible contamination of the experiment lenses and fields of view, and because of the
propulsive reaction of the vehicle. Therefore, during each lunar orbit, spacecraft temperatures
cyclically roae to levels from 70 0 to 85 0 F rather than being controlled to 50 0 F, maximum, as
intended by design.

On early flights, checks of redundant components were performed each night during the mis-
sion. On later flights, the secondary coolant loop and oxygen regulator checks were performed
in earth orbit and a secondary coolant loop check was performed just before lunar orbit inser-
tion. Nightly checks were eliminated. No redupdant component failure was detected by an in-
flight check. The only redundant component that may have failed during the Apollo missions was
a main oxygen regulator isolation valve which failed closed due to shearing of the actuation
handle pivot pin. The failure, however, was believed to have actually occurred after the flight.

An aroa.of deviation from the intended procedure was the use of the glycol evaporator only
in earth orbit until the radiators cooled down from the launch heating, and during chilldown for
entry. This resulted in higher cabin temperatures during certain fixed attitudes and excessive
temperature cycling that ranged from 45 0 to 85 0 F during lunar orbit. As a result, condensation
occurred on cold surfaces after the higher temperatures of tbe cycles because the dew point tem-
perature is directly related to the coolant temperature.

Other minor deviations from designed operating modes were (1) use of the carbon dioxide ab-
sorber elements for more than 72 man-hours and (2) use of the coolant temperature control valve
in manual mode, at s higher temperature than the normal automatic 45 0 F, to increase cabin tem-
perature and crew comfort. This action was taken because of attitude holds in transearth coast
which prevented exposure of the radiators and side structures to the sun and resulted in lower
overall temperatures.

When ground thermal vacuum tests indicated that intermittent, automatic overboard relief of
excess water might result in dump nozzle freeze-up, a manual method of dumping was developed and
used successfully in flight. On later missions, half of the redundant relief valve was removed,
and the manual method was simplified by dumping directly through the normal water dump nozzle.

During several of the later missions, urine was stored for medical experiments and du~ped
overboard only once a day. Crystals which formed in the stored fluid caused plugging of the reg-
ular in-line system filter. A special high-capacity, open-cell polyurethane core filter wss de-
veloped and used successfully for dumping stored urine on subsequent flights.
 4-53

4.4.10 Displays and Controls

The displays and controls system served 8S the interconnecting link between the crew and the
spacecraft. The interior and exterior lighting devices and the malfunction detection devices
(known as the caution and warning system) were also a part of the system. The system contained
toggle switches, event indicators, electrical meters. panel asseMblies (some of which had elec-
troluminescent lighting overlays), rotary switches. pushbutton switches, digital timers (mission
ti~r8 and event timers). snd several other types of control and indicating devices. The types
snd numbers of devices varied from mission to mission because of different mission requirements.

Many problems became evident during the sY6te~ developmental phase snd much testing snd eval-
uation was required to produce the flight-qualified components for final vehicle installation.
With only a few exceptions, identical components were used in the Block I snd Block II vehicles.

One of the problems encountered during the development phase was the unsuccessful use of a
hermetically sealed snap-action switch unit in conjunction with an unsealed mechanical toggle ac-
tuator. The toggle switch was pressure-sensitive and functioned erratically. The toggle switch
finally used on Block II vehicles was a completely hermetically sealed unit. A number of discrep-
ancies was encountered during the development of the hermetically sealed switch. For example,
extra pieces and parts were found inside the switch. poor welds were observed, snd inverted con-
tact buttons on internal terminal posts were found. In spite of the poor preflight record, only
one switch of this type fsiled in flight.

Other items with which problems were encountered during the development and test phases were
electrical indicating meters, event indicators. interior floodlights, mission timers, and poten-
tiometers. The electrical indicating meters snd the event indicators contained internal contam-
inants which caused the movements to bind excessively. The interior floodlights had several de-
velop~ent problems, some of which were not solved until after the third manned flight. The use
of starting diodes that were of better quality and operated at higher voltages corrected the con-
dition that caused the earlier lamp failures. Another corrective action was a change in the lamp-
use procedure. Restricted use of the secondsry lamps in the dim mode vastly extended the life of
those lamps. The Block II mission timer had a solder joint breakage problem because of the dif-
ference in expansion rates between internal components and the potting compound. A redesign of
the timer reduced the solder joint problem. In addition, the glass faces of some timers cracked.
This condition was corrected by a design change to the case seal which had been stressing the
glass. The mission ti~er problems started with Apollo 7 and continued sporsdically until the re-
designed unit was introduced on the Apollo 14 mission. The potentiometer problem was isolated to
a shaft that was being deformed under load and breaking or overriding an internal atop, as well
as giving erratic resistance readings. The corrective action was to install a bearing support
and an external stop for the shaft and to require a calibration curve with each potentiometer de-
livered by the vendor.

Because of the thorough development and test program, the flight displays and control system
problems were minimal. Some examples of the problems encountered during flight and corrective
actions taken are as follows. On the Apollo 15 mission, a shorted filter capacitor tripped a
circuit breaker which made some of the lower equipment bay lights and the guidance and navigation
display keyboard unusable. Installation of a fuse in the offending circuit prevented recurrence
of this problem. There were several instances of poor performance of the event timer during
flight. Erratic timing and obscuring of the timer numerals by paint particles resulted from
mechanical wear and friction.

Very few changes were made in the displays and controls system during the flight program ex-
cept to accommodate changes made in other systems. These were usually the addition of items such
as switches, circuit breakers, or meters. However, following the oxygen tank failure on the
Apollo 13 mission, several changes were made. First. the oxygen tank fan and thermostat controls
were removed and two switches were added to connect the auxiliary battery power supply to the
distribution system and activate an isolation valve between oxygen tanks 2 and 3. Secondly, the
reactant valves in the hydrogen and oxygen lines of all tanks were coupled to the caution and
warning system as well as to the event indicators. Finally, the indicator circuitry was changed
to indicate when either valve was closed rather than to indicate when both were closed. Addi-
tional information on the development and performance of the controls and displays is given in
reference 4-53.
4-54

4.4.11 Communications System

The communications system included the equipment required for voice communications, data op-
erations, tracking and ranging, and onboard television transmission. The system included both
VHF and 5-band equipment to accommodate the various radio frequencies used in air-eo-ground trans-
missions.

Voice communications included spacecraft intercommunications between crewmen. hardline two-

way voice communications with the Launch Control Center through the service module umbilical dur-
ing the prelaunch period. inflight t~ay voice communications with the Manned Space Flight Net-
work (later designated the Space Flight Tracking and Data Network) by VHF/AM and S-band systems,
and postlandlng voice communications with recovery ships and aircraft.

Data operations included time-correlated voice tape recording of flight crew comments and
observations; S-band transmission of real-time or stored telemetry data; and S-band reception of
updata (guidance and navigation data, timing data, and real-time commands) from the Space Flight
Tracking and Data Network.

As with other systems, the communications system had a major design change point that divided
the development program into Blocks I and II. Although certain functional design changes were
made for the Block II communications system, the basic change was from a mechanical standpoint.
Inflight-replaceable modular-type equipment was replaced with sealed units that had built-in and
switchable redundancy where reqUired to meet program objectives. The Block I and Block 11 com-
munications systems differed in three major aspects.

a. Equipment that waa not conaidered necesaary to the lunar landing miasion waa deleted
from the Block II spacecraft.

b. Deficiencies that were noted in the Block I design were corrected in the Block II design.

c. New equipment was added to the Block II system because of the requirement for combined
lunar module/command and service module operations.

The deleted equipment consisted of a VHF/FM transmitter and a C-band transponder. Functions
of this equipment (data transmission and ranging) were absorbed by S-band equipment. In addition.
a high-frequency transceiver and antenns were also removed from the program.

Electrical wiring problems were experienced during the Mercury 9 flight wherein contaminants
(water, urine, sweat, etc.) migrated to exposed electrical terminals in the zero-g environment.
These problems led to the decision to seal all Apollo electrical wiring and connectors. However,
the Block I Apollo hardware was slready designed and was being built in accordance with the in-
flight maintenance concept. This meant that many module-to-black-box connectors and many self-
mating black-box-to-apacecraft connectors were required. The attempt to make connectors and mod-
ules humidity proof was lengthy, sometimes futile, and practically eliminated sny possibility of
fnflight maintenance. The Block II design change involved repacking the crew compartment equip-
ment into completely sealed units and incorporating built-in and switchable redundancy, as well
as backup modes, to achieve the desired reliability and to satisfy the lunar rendezvous mission
requireme~ts.

The development of the individual equipment parameters was based on the total communications
system requirements. The interface parstteters defined in the equipment specifications were vali-
dated and verified in laboratory system tests conducted by the major subcontractor as psrt of the
ground test program. Further laboratory tests were performed at the Manned Spacecraft Center to
verify overall system compatibility with the Space Flight Tracking and Data Network and the lunar
module. However, development snd qualification were performed on the basis of individual equip-
ment tests.

Flight tests were performed to ensure that the system would meet the requirements of space
operations. Unmanned flights qualified the portion of the system that was required for manned
earth-orbital flights. The manned earth-orbital flights, together with supporting laboratory
evaluation, qualified the system for the lunar mission operations.
 4-55

The ~jor problem area in the design. development. and production of the cOmMunications sys-
tem hardware was t.he S-band high gain antenna. The high gain antenna was the pacing item of com-
munications equipment and underwent extensive redesign to correct for major deficiencies and
failures experienced during Its development and qualification. As a result. the antenna could
not be flown on the Apollo 7 mission as originally planned. and it waa necessary to waive the
qualificstion requirement and install the antenna assembly at the launch site to permit. its use
on the Apollo 8 mission. Ho~ver. operation during the Apollo 8 mission wss considered satis-
factory. Data obtained during this mission were valuable in developing procedures and as a ref-
erence for evaluating high gain antenna performance during SUbsequent missions.

The equipment malfunetiona that were experienced throughout the program are mentioned here.
and additional details may be obtained from the mission reports referenced.

Apollo 9: On one occasion. the updata link would not accept commands until the decoder logic
was reset by cycling the spacecraft uptelemetry switch from the NORMAL to OFF to NORMAL positions
(ref. 4-15).

Apollo 12: Problems experienced during the Apollo 12 mission were poor VHF voice quality
during lunar module ascent and rendezvouw and an occasional decrease in S-band signal strength
when operating through the high gain antenna. These problems are discuss~d in reference 4-18.

Apollo 13: Difficulty was experienced in obtaining high gain antenna aCquisition and subse-
quent tracking (ref. 4-19).

Apollo 14: Comaunicstions system problems were (1) poor VHF performance for voice and rang-
ing during lunar module ascent and rendezvous and (2) the high gain antenna failure to aCquire
and track properly at various times during the mission (ref. 4-20).

Apollo 16: On two occasions. the updata link did not accept commands until the decoder logic
was reset. This condition was the same as that experienced on Apollo 9 (refs. 4-15 and 4-22). A
second problem was that, on one occasion, the high gain antenna failed to operate properly in the
reacquisition/narrow-beamwidth mode until the logic had been reset by momentary selection of the
manual mode by the crew (ref. 4-22).

Information obtained during the missions was fed back into the operational procedures and
the grouna test program. The high gain antenna was the major area in which ground tests were
changed. A speciai system-level high gain antenna thermal/functional acceptance screening test.
introduced prior to the Apollo IS mission, was instrumental in id~ntifying an antenna g1mbal
radio-frequency rotary joint design deficiency that was not detected during development or ac-
ceptance testing.

As the result of flight experience, changes were incorporated in the areas of crew-adjustable
controls for VHF squelch and for microphone placement. Training simulator fidelity was improved
and the crews were briefed and trained to recognize and correct idiosyncrasies and problems pre-
viOusly experienced in flight. The area of antenna management vas improved by the incorporation
of high gain antenna gimbal angle and mode switch telemetry, updating procedures, and developing
a look-angle display for determining optimum up-link command times. The command snd service mod-
ule communications system is diSCussed further in references 4-54, 4-55, and 4-56.

4.4.12 Instrumentation System

The instrumentation system of the command and service modules consisted of data acquisition
and storage components and central timing equipment. Transducers and signal conditioners were
located throughout the spscecraft. each in the proximity of the parameter to be measured. On a
typical manned spacecraft, about 125 parameters were measured by this system. Which interfaced
with all other systems. Sensors were provided to measure pressure. temperature. quantity, flow,
attitude. attitude change rate, voltage. current, frequency, radio power, vibration, strain.
acoustic noise level, acceleration. heat shield char, ablation and heat flux, nuclear particle
flux, biomedical parameters. and to perform gas analysis of the spacecraft atmosphere. There
were different meaRurements for each spacecraft because the mission objectives were different for
each flight and instrumentation emphasis changed as experience was gained. The data storage
 4-56

equipment was a magnetic tape recorder large enough to hold all data generated by the spacecraft
while out of communications with a ground station. This condition occurred when the direct line
between the spacecraft and ground station was occluded by a portion of the earth or moon. The
central timing equipment provided timing signals to other systems, including elapsed time from
launch. to the telemetry system.

In some cases. instrumentation hardware was integrated with other systems and delivered to
the prime contractor already installed. Such items were not considered a part of the instrumen-
tation system, per se, snd are not included in this discussion.

The first stage in the instrumentation development process was the establishment of measure-
ment requirements. An instrumentation equipment list was then compiled and procurement activity
was undertaken to obtain the items on the equipment list. As the hardware was developed, it was
subjected to testing that provided assurance that the hardware (1) could perform in the operational
environment to which it would be subjected, (2) could conform to the accuracy requirements of its
specification, and (3) could reasonably be expected to last as long as necessary. Design proof
tests, qualification tests, off-limits tests to destruction, and accuracy determination were per-"
formed on each type of measurement device. After passing these tests, the hardware was subjected
to acceptance testing, pre-installation testing, testing after installation on the spacecraft,
and system checkout.

Because of the extensive testing, nearly all the following deficiencies were discovered early
in the program.

a. A rather high rate of rejection at pre-installation inspection

b. Mechanical damage by personnel working in the spacecraft

c. Susceptibility of some instruments to radio-frequency interference

d. Calibration changes

e. Instability of output

The high rate of rejection was found to be caused by a difference between the acceptance
test procedure used at the vendor's plant before shipment and the pre-installation test procedures
performed at the prime contractor's plant. This was solved by making the two procedures identical,
including the fail/pass criteria. The mechanical d~age problem was solved by providing apprQpri-
ate precautionary instructions to the manufacturing and checkout personnel. Susceptibility to
interference was reduced to an acceptable level by changing the electrical grounding techniques.
Calibration shifts and instability of output were both traced to oscillations of the scaling am-
plifiers and regulators within the signal conditioners and were eliminated by the addition of
small shunt capacitors.

The tape recorder used for data storage was initially designed and built to the requirements
of the reference lunar mission; the recorder had to be modified for the earth-orbital missions
and the lunar-orbital science missions. The first modification, to meet the requirements of the
esrth-orbital missions, consisted of strengthening the transport mechanism to extend its speci-
fied life from 14 to 200 hours. The second modification, for the lunar-orbital science missions,
added a digital channel for mission scientific data and doubled the recording time capacity.

The central timing equipment was modified to provide a serial time code output for the scien-
tific experiment hardware and data system, in addition to the original parallel output.

Very few flight failures occurred. From Apollo 7 through Apollo 17, there were three cases
in which the measurement hardware produced no output, three cases of noisy outputs from which
data could be derived by averaging, and three cases in which the output was slightly out of tol-
erance. These nine cases represent only about 0.6 percent of the instrumentation system hardware
flown on the 11 spacecraft.
 4-57

The data storagQ equipment operated thousands of hours without data loss except for a few
minutes during the entry of the Apollo 10 command module and about a half minute during transearth
coast of the Apollo 15 command and service module. The Apollo 10 data loss was caused by defor-
mation of the tape recorder case due to the pressure increase of entry; strengthening the case
corrected this condition for later flights. The half-minute loss of data on Apollo 15 was traced
to the tape leader material, which had transferred to the first few feet of the magnetic tape.
This problem was corrected for later missions by carefully wiping the first few feet of the tape
and leader material before installing the magnetic tape.

Several recommendations for instrumentation systems may be made from rhe experience derived
from rhe Apollo program. A realistic approach to measurement requirements and to rhe accuracy ac-
tually needed makes it possible to instrument for almost any operational parameter. Attempts to
provide large numbers of exotic measurements at unattainable accuracies merely waste time and
money. In nearly all measurements, an overall accuracy of plus or minus 5 percent will suffice.
A workable ground rule for establishing the number of measurements is that one measurement at each
point in each system where a change of physical state occurs is necessary and sufficient. Simple
hardware redundancy is not as effective in protecting against instrumentation hardware failures
as is a matrix of measurements whereby data missing due to hardware failures can be derived from
other measurements. Flexibility to change measurements by deletion, addition, and substitution
should be built in from the beginning.

The development and performance of the command and service module operational instrumentation
system is discussed in greater detail in reference 4-57.

4.5 LUNAR MODULE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

4.5.1 Introduction

The decision to utilize a lunar rendezvous mission technique was made in July 1962, and the
contract for the design and development of the lunar module was awarded four months later. The
lunar module was unique in that it was the first manned spacecraft which was specifically de-
signed for operation totally outside of the earth's environment. Based on the mission plan, the
spacecraft was designed to (1) land two astronauts on the moon from lunar orbit, (2) support lunar
surface exploration and the deployment of scientific experiments, and (3) return the astronauts
and lunar samples to the command and service module in lunar orbit.

No parallel equivalent to the command module Block I and Block II development philosophy ex-
isted in the lunar module development, although the lunar module was reconfigured in the late
stages of the Apollo program to accommodate an extended lunar stay capability. Unlike the com-
mand module development program, the lunar module development program emphasized ground tests and
minimized unmanned flight development tests. As planned, LM-1 was the sale unmanned lunar module
which was flight tested with operative systems. In all, only three prcduction lunar modules were
flight tested prior to the Apollo 11 lunar landing mission (see sections 2.3 and 2.4) and there
were no active boilerplate flight items in the program. The general configuration of the lunar
module is shown in figure 4-lg. .

4.5.2 Test Articles and Ground Test Program

The lunar module development program utilized a series of ground test vehicles for estab-
lishing the production configuration and man-rating the flight vehicles. In increasing order of
development complexity, the types of vehicles employed were mockups (M series), test modules
(TM series), and lunar module test articles (LTA series). In some instances, the total lunar
module configuration was simulated; however, in other instances, only the area of test interest
wss simulated. The follOWing paragraphs identify the test articles snd indicate the types of
ground test programs that they supported.

4.5.2.1 Hockups.- Five lunar module mockups were constructed during the course of the de-
velopment program. A wooden mockup, designated M-l, was constructed for the purpose of studying
the ascent stage cabin configuration requirements. M-3 was an ascent and descent stage external
 4-58

Rendezvous Alignment
radar antenna -----l' optical telescope
~ S-band steerable
Inertial
Environmental control measuring unit__.._.r.il'1 antenna
system module-~,
Crew compartment---... ~~~6~~~~d~~~--- Docking tunnel
ASCENT
Crewman in ...___VHF antenna STAGE
flight position - _
Aft equipment bay
Crewman sitting
on engine cover Gaseous oxygen tanks (2)

Reaction control
1-\1&:- S-band inflight
antenna (2 locations)
thruster assembly
(4 locations)
Ascent propulsion Ascent eng ioe cover
fuel tank
(2 locations)
Modularized equipment stowage
Red docking - - - - - "......--;/'\
assembly (quadrant 4)
light

Egress platform---& ';it~!i§~j5Bi''''';;:;;:J~TVcamera

).-_.J!C~~:---- Fuel lank
... (2 locations)

~
~~;~==3~~~~~~ Descent
Oxidizerengine
tank
(2 locations)

Lunar surface
sensing probe

DESCENT
STAGE

Early Apollo Landing pad

scientific
experiments
package
(quadrant 2) .

Figure 4-18.- Lunar module configuration for initial lunar landing.

 4-59

configuration article. It was used for verification of the spacecraft/launch vehicle adapter in-
terface and for facility verification. The H-4"mockup was constructed to study the descent stage
engine compartment requirements. M-5 was a mockup for the evaluation of the spacecraft equip-
ment installation. Mockup H-6 was developed to support new flammability test requirements im-
posed after the Apollo I fire.

4.5.2,2 Test Hodels.- Sixteen test models were used in the lunar module development program.
Most of the test models were specialized for specific investigations and were Dot complete ascent
snd descent stage configurations. These models were used for such things as crew vlsshil1ty and
mobility studies (1M-I), radio frequency tests (TM-3) , pyrotechnic studies of ascent/descent
stage separation (TM-4). lightweight descent stage landing studies and stowage reviews (TM-5).
rendezvous radar antenna tests (TM-6 and TM-7). landing radar tests (TM-8) , reaction control sys-
tem plume impingement rests (TM-9). battery installation thermal tests (TH-13), docking tunnel
tests (TH-l4). descent stage thermal tests (1M-15 and TM-17) , and descent stages structural tests
(TH-l6).

4.5.2.3 Lunar Module Test Articles.- Eight lunar module test articles were constructed. The
LTA-B article was used solely to provide ballast. in the form of the lunar module configuration.
for the Apollo 8 mission. The LTA-l test article was used for ground testing the lunar module
electrical and electronic systems and to verify the checkout procedures which were developed for
flight spacecraft. Like all of the LTA series. LTA-l was constructed. inspected. and tested by
the same controlled process as a production flight vehicle. Also. this test article was designed
in parallel with the LH-I unmanned flight vehicle. but had an earlier forward hatch configuration.
Test article LTA-2 was first used to test the response to the launch vehicle vibration environ-
ment. It was later refurbished and used as payload ballast for the Apollo 6 launch vehicle.
LTA-3 was a static and dynamic structural test article. Designed in parallel with LH-3, the
LTA-3 test article was a product of the so-called super weight improvement program which was i~
plemented for 1M-3 and subsequent vehicles to decrease and control the growing lunar module
weight. The LTA-5 test bed was a complete descent stage and was used for descent stage propul-
sion testing at the White Sands Test Facility. Man-rating testing was performed on LTA-8 in the
Space Enviro~ent Simulation Laboratory at the Manned Spacecraft Center (sec. 11.4). This test
article was essentially the aame as the 1M-I spacecraft. Originally built as a test article for
use by the command and service module prime contractor. LTA-IO was later used on the unmanned
Apollo 4 mission as instrumented ballast for the launch vehicle. The LTA-ll test vehicle sup-
ported the extended lunar stay requirements for the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions. and was used
8S a drop test vehicle in conjunction with the testing of the lunar roving vehicle.

4.5.3 Unmanned Flight Test Program

The Apollo 5 mission featured the unmanned flight testing of the first production lunar mod-
ule, designated LM-l. As an unmanned veHicle, LH-l had both automatic and remote-controlled
programming capability to operate the active onboard systems. The LH-2 vehicle was produced as
a "sister ship" to LM-I. but had optional manned/unmanned flight capability. Originally intended
to be used as the first manned lunar module on Apollo 8, it was diverted to support the ground
test program in the Manned Spacecraft Center's vibro-acoustic test facility after Apollo 8 be-
came the command-and-service-module lunar orbital mission.

4.5.4 Manned Vehicles

The lunar module development program was continued during the production of the flight space-
craft by the continual updating of flight hardware to reflect changes indicated from mission ex-
perience and new program requirements. The most program-effective single step was the aforemen-
tioned super weight improvement program. This program employed some of the DIOst sophisticated
engineering design and manufacturing techniques used to date in the production of manned space-.
craft.

4.5.4.1 Apollo 9 through Apollo 14 Lunar Modules.- The vehicles used in the Apollo 9 and
Apollo 10 miasions were developed for use in earth orbit and lunar orbit and, 8S such. had nu-
merous differences from the lunar landing spacecraft. Table 4-V indicates the major differences.
4-60

TABLE 4-v.- SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES TO LUNAR MODULE

Function/System Changes

Changes Implemented for Apollo 9 and Apollo 10 Missions

(LM-3 and L..'1-4)

Structures Doublers added to upper deck of descent stage.

Apollo lunar surface experiment package and
modular equipment stowage assembly mass
simulated.
Descent battery support structure modified
to mount two batteries in quadrant I and
two batteries in quadrant IV.
Emergency detection relay box support struc-
ture modified to mount one box on ascent
stage and one box on descent stage.
Crushable honeycomb inserts added to landing
gear leg assemblies.

Thermal control, Insulation lightened by reducing number of

passive layers of insulation in blankets.
Window shade material thermal capability
increased from 200 0 to 300 0 F.

Pyrotechnics Electro-explosive devices batteries and relay

boxes relocated, one mounted on ascent stage
and one mounted on descent stage.
Number of circuit interrupters reduced from
three to two (LM-4) •

Electrical power Four descent stage batteries relocated.

Descent electrical control assembly modified
to allow command module to power ascent
stage alone.

Instrumention Development flight instrumentation deleted

(Apollo 10 only).

Communications Digital uplink assembly added to replace

digital command assembly.
Ranging tone transfer assembly added for
command and service module/lunar module
VHF ranging.
Radar systems Landing radar modified for earth orbital
mission and lunar orbital mission, pet
respective flights.
 4-6~

TABLE 4-V.- SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES TO LUNAR MODULE - Continued

Function/System Changes

Changes Implemented for Apollo 9 and Apollo 10 Missions - Concluded

(LM-3 and LM-4)

Guidance and control Ascent engine arm assembly modified to allow

unmanned abort guidance system firing.
Alignment optical telescope weight reduced.
Reaction control system thruster-on time was
increased for a given input signal.

Descent propulsion Helium explosive valve reinforced by adding

an external braze.

Ascent propulsion Rough combustion cutoff assembly deleted.

Propellant tank support cone installation
changed from rivets to bolts.
Relief valves modified to gold braze with
notched poppet step.

Environmental control Suit circuit assembly changed from titanium

to aluMinun for better fan operation.
Primary sublimator feedline solenoid valve
deleted in water management system.

Changes Impler.tented for Apollo 11 Through Apollo 14 Missions

(LM-S Through LM-B)

Structures Provisions added for scientific equipr.tent

package.
Nodular equipment stowage assembly added in
quadrant IV of descent stage.
Docking structure, descent stage shear webs
and base heat shield modified as part of
weight reduction program.
Quadrant IV modified to support modular equip-
ment transporter (LM-B only).
Forward landing gear surface sensing probe
removed and length of remaining probes in-
creased.
4-62

TABLE 4-V.- SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES TO LUNAR MODULE - Continued

Function/System Changes

Changes Implemented for Apollo 11 Through Apollo 14 Missions - Continued

(LM-5 Through LM-B)
Thermal control, Descent stage base heat shield changed
passive from Kaptan to Kel-F to prevent landing
radar interference.
One layer each of nickel foil and lncouel
foil added to landing gear struts.
Landing gear insulation reduced for weight
savings of 27.2 pounds.
Thickness of forward hatch outer shielding
increased.

Electrical power Descent stage batteries modified by adding

potting insulation across top of cells
and providing an overboard vent manifold
for cell vent valves. Manifold vent valve
and core vent valve added to control dif-
ferential pressure across cell cores (LM-8).

Instrumentation Ascent propulsion system helium tanks tem-

perature measurements deleted and redundant
pressure measurements added. Temperature
measurements added to ascent stage water
lines and descent propulsion system engine
ball valves.

Communications Extravehicular activity antenna and S-band

erectable antenna added.
Television camera stowed on modular equip-
ment stowage assembly.

Radar Crew control added to break lock and search

for main beam of landing radar; circuitry
provided to prevent computer strobing pulse
from appearing as two pulses.
Override switch added to rendezvous radar for
primary or secondary gyro select; heaters
added to gyro assemblies.

Guidance and control Primary guidance and navigation control func-

tion to descent engine gimbal drive ac-
tuators changed from brake to constant
damping.
Primary guidance program changed to allow re-
turn to automatic control for landing in
the event that dust obscured visibility.
Ascent engine arming assembly removed from
control electronics.
 4-63

TABLE 4-v.- SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES TO LUNAR MODULE - Continued

Function/System Changes

Changes Implemented for Apollo 11 Through Apollo 14 Missions - Concluded

(LM-5 Through LM-B)

Reaction control Regulator pressure upper warning limit in-

creased from 205 to 218 psta.

Descent propulsion Bypass line added around fuel/helium heat

exchanger for pressure equalization in
case of heat exchanger freezeup.
Anti-slosh baffles added to descent propul-
sion tanks; propellant quantity "gaging
system modified to increase accuracy at
lov levels.
In-line orifice added to lunar dump valve
system and installation of valve assembly
reversed.

Ascent propulsion Lightweight thrust chamber incorporated

in engine assembly.
O-ring added to flanged joints between
feed lines and fill and drain lines;
Teflon used on oxidizer side and butyl
rubber on fuel side.

Environmental control:
Atmospheric revital- Suit water cooling assembly added.
ization section
Cabin temperature valve, regenerative heat
exchanger and cabin air recirculation
assembly deleted.
Accumulator quantity indicator in suit
cooling assembly modified.
Carbon dioxide sensor line relocated up-
stream of suit fans.
Pressurization Water and oxygen quick disconnects changed
to allow 5-degree misalignment.
Descent stage high pressure oxygen regulator
pressure increased from 950 to 990 psig.
Water management Redundant water regulator added in secondary
coolant loop.
Spool in water tank select valve redesigned.
Backup measurement added for descent stage
water tank pressure.

Thermal control, Muffler added to water/glycol pump outlet.

active
4-64

TABLE 4-V.- SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES TO LUNAR MODULE - Continued

Function/System Changes

Changes Implemented for Apollo 15 Through Apollo 17 Missions

(LM-lO Through LM-12)

Structures Lower midsection and lower left and right

side consoles of ascent stage modified
to carry an additional 40 pounds of lunar
samples at each location.
Descent stage modified to accept larger
propellant tanks, one additional oxygen
tank and one additional water tank.
Quadrant I modified to accept lunar roving
vehicle.
Quadrant III modified to accept lunar roving
vehicle tool pallet.
Descent stage batteries relocated to rear
outrigger.
Size of modular equipment stowage assembly
increased.

Electrical power Fifth battery added to descent stage.

Battery relay control assembly added.
Capacity of descent batteries increased
from 400 to 415 ampere-hours.

Displays and controls Caution and warning modified to prevent

spurious signals.
Guards added over several displays and
meters to prevent glass breakage from
internal pressure.

Reaction control Engine isolation valves deleted.

Descent propulsion Capability added for 1200 pounds of addi-

tional propellant.
Thrust chamber changed from ablative sili-
cone to ablative quartz.
Ten-inch nozzle extension added.
Propellant tank balance lines deleted and
trim orifices added.
Oxidizer lunar dump valve changed to fuel
type.
 4-65

TABLE 4-v. - SUNHARY OF MAJOR CHANGES TO LUNAR HODULE - Concluded

Function/System Changes

Changes Implemented for Apollo 15 Through Apollo 17 Missions - Concluded

(LM-IO Through LM-12)

Environmental control Additional lithium hydroxide canisters provided

for extended stay.
One descent stage oxygen tank added and
portable life support system fill pressure
increased to approximately 1400 psi.
One descent stage water tank added.

Thermal control, Heaters added to modular equipment stowage

active assembly.
Hanua! shutoff valve added to descent stage
coolant loop to allow increased battery
operating temperatures.
 4-66

4.5.4.2 Extended-Stay Lunar Modules The Apollo 15 through Apollo 17 mission lunar modules
were modified to support the program requirements for greater science payload and a longer stay
time, and to carry a lunar roving vehicle for lunar surface exploration. These vehicle changes
are also shown in table 4-V.

4.6 WNAR MODULE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE

4.6.1 Introduction

Significant aspects of the development and flight performance of the lunar module systems
are presented in this section. Brief systems descriptions are given where necessary but are not
generally included. Complete descriptions of the lunar module systems are given in references
4-15 through 4-23 and 4-45. The topics discussed in this section have, in many cases, been dis-
cussed in more depth in individual Apollo Experience Reports. These and other documents are ref-
erenced where appropriate.

4.6.2 Structures

The structure of the lunar module was designed and manufactured to keep weight at a minimum.
The design certification depended primarily on the ground test program. Formal analyses were made
to supplement the test program and to serve as a baseline for each mission. Testing at the compo-
nent level was conducted when it was impractical to impose the required environment at the vehicle
level.

Significant problem areas encountered were shear panel fatigue, panel thickness control,
stress-corrosion cracking, machined strut tolerances, and interchangeable parts similar in ap-
pearance but structurally different.

4.6.2.1 Shear panel fatigue and thickness control.- The descent stage primary structure was
made up mainly of shear panels (fig. 4-19) that were designed as diagonal tension field beams.
Under load, this type of beam developed the required strength after the shear web had developed
buckles. The shear panel webs were chemically milled to provide a minimum-weight structure.
The minimum thickness of the original panels was 0.006 inch with a tolerance of ±0.OO2 inch.
During dynamic testing, fatigue cracks (fig. 4-19) were noticed at the transition zone between
the shear web and the peripheral rivet land. The diagonal tension buckles in the shear web ter-
minated at the rivet land with a small radius of curvature that resulted in a region of stress
concentration. The dynamic test data indicated that the buckles oscillated in the plane of the
web. Under static load, the stresses induced in the panel were not excessive; however, the dy-
namic test environment caused high-stress low-cycle fatigue at the web/land intersection. As
an interim modification on the early vehicles, a fiberglass frame was applied around the periph-
ery of each panel of the shear panel as shown in figure 4-19. Because the fiberglass modifica-
tion was heavy, all shear panels in the descent stage were later redesigned to reduce weight.

While a solution to the shear web fatigue problem was being developed, the thickness of the
chemically milled webs was found to be under tolerance, and small holes were discovered in some
of the webs. These defects were attributed to inadequate control of the original sheet thickness
and the fact that the variation in thickness was duplicated by the chemical milling process.
This problem was solved by more rigorous selection of the original sheet material and by closer
final inspections.

4.6.2.2 Stress corrosion.- In November 1967, while the LTA-3 aft equipment rack support
struts were being load-calibrated for static tests, cracks were discovered on the ends of the
struts where the end fittings were mechanically attached. Investigation of all struta revealed
23 cracked struts in 264 parts inspected. These failures were attributed to stress corrosion
caused by the stresses induced when the end fittings were clamped. The large number of failures
precipitated a review of the entire structure for parts susceptible to stress corrosion in Jan-
uary 1968. As a result of the review, all aluminum fittings susceptible to stress corroaion were
identified snd inspected, the heat treatment was changed from 7075-T6 to 7075-T73, required shims
were provided, and protective paint was added to susceptible fittings on all unassembled vehicles.
During the inspections, many stress corrosion cracks were found, which indicated that the problem
was chronic throughout the structure. In december 1968, an additional review was conducted to
determine which stress-corrosion-sensitive fittings were structurally critical; that is, which
 4-67

Stiffener

Shear web Fatigue crack

Rivet
land

Fiberglass layers

A-A
Interim modification

Figure 4-19. - Lunar modu Ie desent stage structure.

4-68

part, 1f cracked in the predicted location, would not meet the required factor of safety. Ap-
proximately 40 criticsl fittings were identified and were re-heat-treated, redesigned, or modi-
fied. Also, liquid shimming was used to guarantee a perfect match between the critical parts
and to prevent any potential stress corrosion cracking from clamp-on stresses. Additional in-
formation on the problem of stress-corrosion cracking may be found in section 4.7 and in refer-
ence 4-59.

4.6.2.3 Internally machined struts.- Sixteen outrigger struts (four per beam) provided the
support for the lunar module in the lunar module adapter and for the primary landing gear struts
(fig. 4-19). The lower outrigger struts were straight tubular members approximately 53 inches in
length and 3.5 inches in diameter. Each strut had a wall thickness of 0.039 inch and had closed,
integral, tapered end fittings. The struts were machined from bar stock and had to be blind-
machined over the entire length with a varying internal diameter.

During the static structural test to verify structural adequacy of the descent stage for the
Apollo 15 lunar module and those of subsequent lunar modules, a lower outrigger strut failed be-
cause an erroneously machined groove on the internal diameter was not discovered by inspection.
The groove was located at the transition from the tube to the end fitting. The inspection method
used at that time consisted of a spot check of the wall thickness. This method detected overall
discrepancies but was not capable of detecting local defects such as grooves. The inspection
methods were improved and approximately 25 structural parts with manufacturing defects were
found.

4.6.2.4 Parts interchangeability.- During the inspection of the internally machined struts,
parts aimilar in appearance but structurally different were found to have been interchanged on
the vehicles. Because of the emphasis on lunar module weight reduction. many parts were iden-
tical except for a difference in thickness of a few thousandths of an inch. The entire structure
was reviewed and approximately 2700 parts were identified that could possibly be interchanged.
Each part was reviewed structurally to determine whether the required factor of safety would be
maintained if the part were interchanged. Approximately 260 parts were identified that would
not provide adequate strength. These parts were inspected on all vehicles to verify that each
part was installed in its proper location.

4.6.2.5 Flight performance.- The adequacy of the lunar module structure to meet the condi-
tions of the design environment was verified on 12 Apollo missions. These missions included two
developmental flights in which test articles were flown (Apollo 4 and 6), one unmanned lunar mod-
ule flight (Apollo 5), and nine manned flights (Apollo 9 through 17). No problems associated
with the primary lunar module structure occurred. However, there were several secondary struc-
ture anomalies. These anomalies and the corrective actions taken are summarized in reference
4-60 and are reflected in appendix F.

4.6.3 Thermal Control System

The basic thermal control philosophy was to make the lunar module a spsceborne thermos bottle;
thst is, to isolate the interior structure and equipment from the external environment so that it
would remain within acceptable temperature limits without the need of any power or moving mechan-
ical devices such as heaters or louvers. Multilayer insulation blankets and external thermal con-
trol coatings were used to isolate structure and components from the space environment and to
minimize the average internal temperature change.

To realize the maximum benefits from isolation, internal temperature gradients had to be re-
duced. Many components within the cabin dissipated heat and were not actively cooled. To prevent
overheating of these components, high-emittance coatings were used over large portions of the
cabin interior to distribute the heat more uniformly. The thermal mass of water and propellant
tanks was very high in relation to the heat rejection capability. For this reason, tank temper-
atures did not change as rapidly or as extensively as those of the structure. Moreover, the ac-
ceptable operating range was also more restrictive and great care was used in selecting tank
coatings. Moderately low-emittance coatings (e • 0.20 to 0.30) on the tank yielded good results.
Thus, the tanks radiated part of the heat stored in them to the structure and part to the compo-
nents to compensate for heat loss through the insulation blanket, while still providing accep-
table propellant and water temperature. The performance of the multilayer insulation blankets
(thin sheets of plastic coated on one side with a microscopic layer of aluminum) was therefore
extremely critical.
 Although multilayer insulation had been used on small pieces of equipment, none had been
used on a vehicle the size of the lunar module and under conditions requiring such a high level
of effectiveness. The role of the insulation was to prevent heat transfer into or out of the
vehicle by thermal radiation. The aluminized sheets were to serve as multiple radiation shields
and, as such, should not contact each other. Therefore. means of fastening the sheets to the
structure without compacting them had to be devised. An additional problem was that any gases
trapped between the layers would expand in the vacuum of space and cause the sheets to balloon.
The multilayer insulation blankets were vented to space in order to reduce blanket internal pres-
sure, which was necessary for an extremely effective insulation system.

An extensive fastening and venting test development effort not only yielded a lunar module
thermally similar to a thermos bottle (the lunar module average temperature decreased from 70 0 F
to 65° F during the translunar coast period) but greatly advanced the knowledge of insulation
manufacturing and application for nonaerospace usage. Aluminum-coated Kapton used for the mul-
tilayer insulation blankets had previously been available only in l-inch-wide strips similar to
everyday plastic adhesive tape; now this material can be obtained in continuous sheets 5 feet or
more in width. Thermal control coatings previously available only in laboratory specimen sizes
can now be found in gallon quantities.

4.6.4 Landing Gear

The landing of the lunar module on the ,surface of the moon was one of the crucial events of
an Apollo mission. During touchdown, the lunar module landing gear brought the vehicle to rest,
prevented toppling, absorbed the landing impact energy, and limited the loads on the lunar mod-
ule structure.

A landing gear assembly, in the deployed position, is shown in figure 4-20. Energy absorp-
tion capability was prOVided by honeycomb cartridges in the single primary and two secondary
struts. The deployment truss served as a structural-mechanical assembly between the landing
gear struts and the descent stage structure. Each landing gear leg was retained in the stowed
position by s pyrotechnic uplock device. When the device was fired, a titanium strap attached
to the primary strut and descent stage was severed, thus allowing the landing gear to be deployed
and locked by mechanisms on each side of the landing gear assembly.

The primary strut, shown in figure 4-20 was attached to the lunar module descent stage out-
rigger assembly and consisted of a lower inner cylinder that fitted into an upper outer cylinder
to provide compression stroking at touchdown. The footpad, which was attached to the lower end
of the inner cylinder by a ball joint fitting, was approximately 3 feet in diameter and was de-
signed to support the lunar module with a surface bearing strength of 1.0 pound per square inch
as well as to maintain sliding capability after having impacted rocks or ledges during touchdown.
Attached to each of three of the footpads was a 68-inch probe designed to sense lunar surface
proximity and to signal the Lunar Module Pilot so that he could initiate descent engine shutdown.
The secondary struts (fig. 4-20) also had an inner and an outer cylinder and were capable of
both tension and compression stroking.

During ground tests, the landing gear was exposed to all significant flight environments,
including vehicle drop tests under simulated lunar gravity conditions. The landing gear touch-
down performance results may be summarized by considering two of the more important parameters:
touchdown velocities and surface slope at the touchdown point. In all cases, the touchdown ve-
locities were within design limits, averaging apprOXimately 3.5 feet per second vertical velocity
and approximately 2.0 feet per second horizontal velocity. Specification touchdown velocities
were as high as 10 feet per second vertical and 4 feet per second horizontal. Generally, the
landings occurred on low slopes, averaging approximately 5 to 6 degrees. The steepest touchdown
slope of 11 degrees occurred on Apollo 15.

Gear stroking in all landings was minimal. The lunar soil absorbed an estimated 60 percent
of the touchdown energy through footpad penetration and sliding, resulting in secondary strut
tension stroking of about 4 inches. A small amount of primary strut stroking occurred in some
instances.

The performance of the landing gear was satisfactory and met the design requirements. De-
tails of the landing gear performance may be found in reference 4-61.
4-70

Deployment and
downlock mechanism

" "

--
---:::::~ Honeycomb
cartridge

Separation plate
Deployment
truss
Deployment truss
side brace--"
11-- Secondary strut

'----Primary strut

Outer cylinder

Lunar-surface-
sensing p'obe

Inner cyUnder

~~- Honeycomb cartridge

(compression)

Piston Inner
cylinder
Tension rod
Outer cylinder

Figure 4-20.- Landing gear.

 4-71

4.6.5 Electrical Power ~ystem

4.6.5.1 Batteries.- The basic lunar module prl~ry power requirements through Apollo 14
were met by two ascent batteries rated at 296 ampere-hours each aod by four descent batteries
rated at 400 ampere-hours each. With the increased lunar stay time requirements of Apollo mis-
sIons IS through 17, the descent stage batteries were redesigned to deliver 415 ampere-hours each
and five batteries were installed. Both the oseent and descent b3ttori8S were delivered dry and
fully charged. They were activated at the launch site by adding potassium hydro~lde electrolyte
Just prior to installation into the spacecraft.

Each ascent battery weighed 124 pounds and was approximately 5 by 8 by 36 inches. The two
batteries normally prOVided power for lunar lift-off and power for rendezvous snd docking with
the command and service module. If necessary, they also could have provided on-line support of
the descent batteries in the event of an abort during lunar descent. In case one ascent battery
had failed, the other could hsve prOVided sufficient power to accomplish safe rendezvous snd
docking.

Each descent bsttery weighed 133 pounds and was approximately 9 by 10 by 17 inches. The
descent batteries provided small heater loads early in the mission, lunar descent power. and
lunar surface stay power. In terms of total energy requirements for both the four- and five-
battery-configuration .ta.ions, there was an energy margin of approximately one battery; however,
in terms of the rate of energy withdrawal, one battery could. under emergency conditions, meet
the entire lunar module power demands. Two batteries could nominally supply power to the limits
of their specified capacity at total spacecraft loads.

The lunar module electroexplosive device power requirements were met by the same pyrotechnic
battery design used in the command module. However. the battery was requalified to the lunar ~­
ule power and environmental requir~nts. The battery weighed 3.5 pounds, was approximately 3 by
3 by 6 inches. and has a capacity rating of 0.75 ampere-hours. Two batteries were installed-
one on the ascent stage and one on the descent atage. Each of the batteries could ~et all power
requirements and the circuits were designed so that redundant power was prOVided for the electro-
explosive devices. The lunar module and command module pyrotechnic batteries were identical,
with one exception. The lunar module battery contained a test port that had been in the original
design of the command module battery but was removed to allow terminal guards to be installed.
The test port was removed from the Apollo 16 and 17 lunar module batteries to allow complete in-
terchangeability with the command module batteries.

The lunar module batteries performed above the specified requirements when emergency power
was needed during Apollo 13 after the loss of command and service module fuel cell power. How-
ever, postflight analysis revealed that an unexplained current spike occurred during transearth
coast. The spike was associated with the occurrence of a "thump and snowflakes" reported by the
crew. The postulated cause was that venting of potassium hydroxide by one of the descent bst-
teries created a short circuit, igniting the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen normally produced
by a silver-zinc battery. The resulting explosion blew the battery cover off and vented the
electrolyte to space, thua causing the "thump and snowflakes." Although this specific failure
mode could not be reproduced and the battery under question continued to operate satisfactorily
throughout the mission. a number of s1gn~ficant design changes was made to preclude the possibil-
ity of any future explosions.

Another flight proble. occurred during the translunar coast period of the Apollo 14 mission.
A lunar module aacent: battery indicated a lower-than--expected open circuit voltage (O.l-volt de-
cay). Syatems specialiata vere concerned that the battery might not support lunar descent or
ascent, leaving the ascent stage w.1th no power source redundancy. Also, mission rules precluded
making a lunar landing with only one good battery. Real-time ascent battery testing. both on
the ground and in the lunar module, supplied the necessary confidence that the battery would per-
form the required flight functions. No differences between the test battery and the flight bat-
tery were observed throughout the mission.
4-72

Two significant battery problems occurred in connection with the Apollo IS mission. First,
cracked cell cases were found In two descent batteries being prepared for installation on the
lunar module (LM-lO), the first lunar module with the five-battery configuration for a lunar sur-
face stay of up to 72 hours. The cracks were primarily due to faulty assembly techniques. In
addition, it was discovered that a bad batch of plastic was used In that production lot of bat-
tertes. Although extensive analysis, testing, and modification of flight preparation procedures
allowed sufficient confidence to fly the LM-IO battery design, drastic structural deficiencies
were postulated. As a result, even more extensive design changes were incorporated than those
following the incident of Apollo 13.

The second problem, low battery capacity, became evident after the Apollo 15 mission during
ground testing of spare lunar module descent batteries that had been activated prior to flight.
The cause of the low capacity was a high percentage of zinc oxide in the negative plates. Im-
provements were made in manufacturing process control, acceptance test procedures, and inspection
and asoembly techniques with the result that a very high degree of confidence in battery perform~
ance was achieved. Adequate performance of the batteries on the last two Apollo missions demon-
strated that the corrective measures were Successful.

4.6.5.2 Power conversion and distribution.- The lunar module power distribution system con-
sisted of equipment that controlled and regulated the electrical power; transmission lines that
routed the power from the sources to the primary buses and from the primary buses to secondary
local or remote buses; distribution boxes that controlled the switching and provided circuit
protection; and conversion equipment such as inverters, converters, battery chargers, trans-
formers, and rectifiers.

The system voltage and power quality were among the first requirements defined. Standards
were set for voltage, steady-state voltage regulation limits, abnormal voltage limits, and volt-
age transients. Thus, all users of power could design and test to the same electrical specifica-
tions. Additional requir~ents were defined such that wiring for redundant systems and controls
was physically separated and routed through separate connectors, and control circuitry was de-
signed to preclude the switching of return power. These additional requirements were to preclude
problems similar to the following experienced on Gemini flights. In one case, switching func-
tions for three redundant inverters were routed through the same electrical connector. When
moisture entered the unsealed connector, these functions were disabled, thereby causing complete
loss of alternating-current power. The second problem was inadvertent reaction control system
thruster activity believed to have been caused by a return power circuit faulting to ground.

During tests of the power distribution system to determine adequacy of the control, protec-
tion, and component sizing, the contactors used for battery power were found to be undersized.
The design required switching a maximum of 1100 amperes (based on use with fuel cells), but the
batteries were capable of delivering 1700 amperes under short-circuit conditions. Therefore,
the contractors were redesigned. When the fitch descent battery was added later, no additional
development tests were required.

The first flight test of the electrical power distribution system showed unexpected inverter
output voltage fluctuations. A review of the flight plan and data showed that pulsing gimbal
motors constituted the only inverter load. When this same configuration was ground tested with
the load turned off, the inverter, while trying to maintain a regulated voltage. produced an
oscillating output that lasted 100 milliseconds. In flight, the gimbal motors had been turned
on and off several times each second as required. This switching therefore caused the fluctua-
tions on the inverter output that were observed during flight. When the inverters were more
heaVily loaded in subsequent missions, the fluctuations did not occur.

The lunar module power distribution system was also used to provide power to the command mod-
ule, even though this was not a design requirement. Normally, during the translunar phase of the
mission, the command module provided power to the lunar module heating loads; however, during the
flight of Apollo 13, power was prOVided to the command module from the lunar module.

A more detailed discussion of the battery system and the power conversion and distribution
system may be found in references 4-36 and 4-62.
 4-73

4.6.6 Propulsion Systems

4.6.6.1 Descent propulsion system.- The propulsion system for the lunar module descent
stage was designed to deorblt the lunar module and to allow it to hover above the lunar surface
before landing. To accomplish this maneuver, a propulsion system was developed that used hyper-
golie propellants and a glmbaled. pressure-fed, ablatively cooled engine that was capable of be-
ing throttled. The propellants selected ~re nitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) and a mixture of 50
percent unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine and 50 percent hydrazine (fuel).

The development and qualification of the descent propulsion system in support of the first
lunar landing mission covered a period of approximately 6 years, from August 1963 to April 1969.
Included within this period were component-level and system-level developmental and qualifica-
tion testing. In many cases, pre-production configuration components were used in early system-
level developmental testing. In the developmental and qualification testing of components and
systems, extensive design-limit tests, off-limit tests, and component malfunction tests were
used to determine potential design deficiencies and to document operational limits of the sys-
tem. Significant problems encountered during this time period are discussed.

In the initial concept of the pressuri~ation system for the descent propulsion system, he-
lium was to be stored in two high-pressure tanks. As the design of the lunar module progressed,
vehicle weight became a critical factor; therefore, a feasibility study was initiated early in
1964 to evaluate the use of a supercritical helium storage tank in the pressurization system.
The concept consisted of storing helium at approximately minus 450 0 F in a thermally insulated
pressure vessel. Pressure in the storage tank was allowed to rise because of a heat leak into
the tank (approximately 8 to 10 Btu/hr). As helium was used from the tank, additional heat was
provided to the helium to maintain the pressure. The heating was accomplished by the use of an
external fuel-to-helium heat exchanger and a helium-to-helium heat exchanger located within the
tank. A second fuel-to-helium heat exchanger increased ~he helium temperature to near ambient
conditions (approximately 40 0 F) before the helium was supplied to the pressure regulators in
the pressurization system.

By late 1964, the analysis and feasibility testing of the supercritical helium system indi-
cated that it was operationally feasible and that a weight saving of 280 pounds could be realized
by using the supercritical helium system rather than the ambient storage system. Consequently,
the descent propulsion pressurization system was redesigned to incorporate a supercritical helium
storage tank. Because the pressure in the supercritical storage tank increased with time, a min-
imum required standby time of 131.5 hours from prelaunch topoff until first usage in the nominal
lunar landing was defined.

During design and development of the supercritical helium pressurization system. freeZing
of the fuel in the fuel-to-helium heat exchanger was found to occur during the start sequence
under certain start conditions. The freezing condition was caused by the flow of a substantial
amount of helium needed to bring the propellant tanks from pre-pressurization levels to regulator
lockup pressure conditions, during which time no fuel was flowing through the fuel passages of
the heat exchanger. A study was made of various systems to alleviate the flowing of cold helium
with no fuel flow. An ambient helium pre-pressurization start bottle and an electrical heater
system were the two main methods considered. The use of an ambient helium pre-pressurization
start bottle was selected for overall simplicity and reliability.

In the initial fuel-to-helium heat exchanger configuration, a nickel-chromium alloy was used
in bonding the side panels to the core. During the testing of LTA-5 at the White Sands Test Fa-
cility. one of the side panels separated from the core and ruptured. This rupture resulted in
a gross fuel leak and subsequent fire. The cause of the failure was traced to the factory test
of the rig. The heat exchanger had been subjected to cryogenic temperatures with water in the
fuel passages; cryogenic temperatures caused freezing of the water that resulted in structural
failure of the nickel-chromium braze material. Subsequent exposure to system operating pressure
at the White Sands Test Facility resulted in rupture of the side panels. Two items were imple-
mented to avoid this problem on subsequent vehicles. The nickel-chromium braze material was
changed to a gold alloy to increase the bonding strength, and water was eliminated from cold-
flow testing of vehicles when cryogenic helium was to be used in a system.
4-74

The development of the helium pressure regulator was plagued by problems. Among these prob-
lems were excessive external and internal helium leakage, cracking of the main poppet during slam
starts, and the inability of the vendor to meet delivery schedules. To ensure that an acceptable
regulator was available to meet flight schedules, a second source vendor was selected to develop
a regulator in parallel with the original vendor.

In the initial phases of engine design definition and development. two different throttling
concepts were considered. In one concept, a fixed-area injector with helium injection at reduced
thrust was [0 be used [0 maintain adequate combustion efficiency. Propellant flow variation was
controlled by throttling valves that used system fuel pressures to actuate the hydraulic servo-
control valves. In the other concept, a single movable sleeve was used to modulate the injector
fuel and oxidizer flow area. The injector sleeve was linked mechanically to two cavitating flow
control valves and an electrically driven throttle actuator assembly. The variable-area injec-
tor throttling concept was selected after approximately 18 months of parallel development of the
two concepts.

The descent propulsion system flight program consisted of three preliminary earth orbital
and lunar orbital flights, one aborted lunar landing, and six lunar landings. All flights were
successful; however, anomalies did occur during the flight program that required modifications
to procedures and hardware. The significant anomalies are discussed.

A premature descent engine shutdown occurred on Apollo 5 when the descent propulsion system
was fired for the first time in space. The early shutdown occurred because the descent engine
thrust monitor was programmed to stop the engine if any three consecutive 2-second accelerometer
samples (taken after the engine was commanded on) indicated an accumulated velocity of less than
45 centimeters per second. This criterion was based on s nominal engine start with the propel-
lant tanks initially at full operating pressure and with the helium supply on line. The lunar
module for this mission did not have an ambient-start helium storage tank. and the supercritical
helium tank was isolated by the three explosive valves that were fired automatically by the pyro-
technic system 1.3 to.3 seconds after the first engine-on command. Therefore, the system pres-
sures during the first descent propulsion system start, which were normal for this particular
system configuration, did not rise fast enough to meet the thrust-time criterion programmed into
the guidance computer. All logic circuits that could command engine cutoff or inhibit an engine
start were reevaluated to prevent an unnecessary engine shutdown on subsequent flights.

During the first 35 seconds of the first descent engine firing on Apollo 9. the regulator
outlet manifold pressure decreased from 235 to 188 pounds per square inch, whereas the pressure
should have been ~intained at 247 pounds per square inch. The temperature data indicated that
the internal heat exchanger was initially blocked. At approximately 35 seconds after engine ig-
nition, the blockage cleared and allowed the regulator outlet manifold pressure to rise to the
proper operating level. An evaluation of this problem revealed that the supercritical helium
servicing procedures could have entrapped air in the pressurization system, which then froze on
contact with the cold helium flow in the heat exchanger. This problem was eliminated on later
flights by modifying the servicing procedures to preclude the entrapment of air in the system.

The pressure in the Apollo 9 lunar module supercritical helium tank began decaying immedi-
stely after termination of the first descent engine firing; however. the normal tank response
is to increase in pressure. An external helium leak was suspected as the most likely cause of
the pressure decay. This suspicion was amplified by failure of an internally brazed squib valve
during drop tests on LH-2 st the Manned Spacecraft Center. The failure was caused by a crack in
the brazing material, which was thin in the failed area. The leak experienced during Apollo 9
was probably caused by a defective braze that was internal to the squib valve and could not be
inspected. A redesigned valve that could be completely inspected was used on all subsequent
vehicles.

Two problems occurred on the Apollo 11 lunar module, the first lunar landing vehicle, that
reqUired modifications to the descent propulsion system of subsequent vehicles. The first prob-
lem occurred at 685 seconds into the powered descent initiation firing. The propellant low-
quantity warning light was triggered in one of the four propellant tanks, indicating a shortage
of propellant. Based on remaining calculated quantities and corrected propellant quantity gag-
ing system indications, the occurrence of the propellant low-quantity wsrning was discovered to
 4-75

be premature by 36 seconds. The early warning was the result of propellant sloshing created by
sudden vehicle maneuvers and by attitude changes. Slosh baffles were incorporated on the lunar
modules for Apollo missions 14 through 17 to minimize the slosh In the tanks.

Secondly, when the propellant and the supercritical helium tanks were vented after lunar
landing, the fuel-co-helium heat exchanger froze. Consequently, fuel was trapped In the fuel
line between the frozen heat exchanger and the engine shutoff valves. Subsequent heating of
this section of the fuel line from engine heat soakback increased the pressure In this line to
an unsafe level. After 30 minutes, the fuel pressure was relieved by thawing of the heat ex-
changer, by failure of the line-bellows linkage, or by failure of the seals in the prevalve.
The exact cause of relief was not determined. On subsequent flights, the venting procedure was
modified to isolate the supercritical helium tank with the latching solenoid valves during vent-
ing of the propellant tanks and to delay supercritical helium venting until immediately before
ascent from the lunar surface. On the lunar modules for Apollo 13 and subsequent missions, a
bypass line around the heat exchanger was incorporated as an added safety feature to relieve
the trapped fuel pressure if freezing of the heat exchanger should occur.

Because of the requirement to increase the firing time of the descent propulsion system to
ac~ommodate the increased lunar landing payload, major modifications were made to the lunar mod-
ules for the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions. The two most significant modifications were an in-
crease in the volume of the propellant tanks and the use of new chamber material in the descent
engine. As a result of these changes, the hover time was increased by approximately 100 seconds.

Further details of the development. testing, and flight performance of the descent propul-
sion system are given in reference 4-63.

4.6.6.2 Ascent propulsion system.- The ascent propulsion system was designed to provide
propulsive power for launching the ascent stage of the lunar module from the surface of the moon
into lunar orbit for rendezvous with the orbiting command and service module. The ascent engine
was a fixed-thrust, restartable. bipropellant rocket engine that had an ablatively cooled com-
bustion chamber, throat, and nozzle. Propellant flow to the ascent engine combustion chamber
was controlled by a valve package assembly that was equipped with dual passages for the fuel and
the oxidizer and had two aeries-connected ball valves in each flow path.

Proven manufacturing techniques, design integrity, and ground-based testing were used in the
development of the ascent propulsion system. The plan was to test snd evaluate materials, compo-
nents, and assemblies in progressively integrated configurations, using various test rigs and
prototype structural simulators. The most significant tests conducted during the development
and qualification of the ascent propulsion system were accomplished by using propulsion system
test vehicle PA-l at the White Sands Facility. This test vehicle incorporated essentially all
of the flight-weight components and functionally duplicated the flight ascent propulsion system.
The intent of these tests was to demonstrate that the system could function properly under all
conditions that could be expected during a lunar ascent.

During the development of the ascent propulsion system, leakage and functional failures of
the helium solenoid valvea and the helium pressure regulators occurred. which required a redesign
of each component; however, the most significant problem was related to the ascent engine. The
original ascent engine injector experienced thrust chamber compatibility problems and several
cases of combustion instability when subjected to bomb tests. The time required for fabrication
of the injector was also high, which resulted in unacceptably long periods to obtain the hardware
needed for testing redesigns. Because of these problems and a pressing schedule, a backup ascent
engine injector program was initiated with another contractor. The original contractor made nu-
meroua modifications to the injector design and the fabrication procedures in an effort to meet
the injector completion schedule. However, the alternate contractor already had an acceptable
injector that passed all tests with no reservations before the original contractor's testing was
completed. Consequently. the alternate contractor was selected to fabricate the injector and
assemble the engine for all flight vehicles subsequent to the Apollo 5 lunar module.

The ascent propulsion system performance was satisfactory throughout the flight program.
The development and performance of the ascent propulsion system is discussed in greater detail
in reference 4-64.
4-76

4.6.6.3 Reaction control 8ystem.- The Apollo missions required that the lunar module main-
tain various attitudes with respect to Its flight path and be able to maneuver in three axes.
Separation from the command and service module, docking with the command and service module, and
various translation maneuvers during the lunar-orbit rendezvous were required. In addition, x-
axis longitudinal translation was required to provide propellant-settling thrust for the descent
and sscent propulsion systems. To meet the objectives, the lunar module reaction control system
had two independent bipropellant systems. Each system provided the vehicles with attitude con-
trol and X-axis translation when used independently. When used together, Z- and Y-axis transla-
tion could be obtained. The two systems were identical in all respects other than engine loca-
tions and thrust vectors.

Each engine was a pulse-modulated, radiation-cooled, IOO-pound thruster nearly identical to

those used on the service module. Major engine components included inlet filters, two solenoid-
operated propellant injection valves, an injector, and a nozzle skirt. The propellant and pres-
surizing gas storage components were grouped for the purpose of simplifying the checkout and re-
pair procedures. The system was installed in two bay areas and on four outrigger booms. The
tankage modules (helium, nitrogen tetroxide, and Aerozine-50) were installed on the left- and
right-hand sides of the lunar module directly above the ascent propulsion system tanks. The
engines were installed in clusters of four on the outriggers which were located around the per-
iphery of the ascent stage at 45° to the orthogonal (pitch and roll) axes. Two of the four en-
gines in each cluster were fed from each propellant supply.

In addition to the two separate systems, redundancy also extended to components within each
system such as regulators, check valves, and explosive pressurization valves. Command and ser-
vice module components that had already been developed were used wherever possible. Whenever
such a component could not be used directly but could be made usable on the lunar module with
minor modification, a common-technology approach was followed. The manufacturer of the command
and service module part was given the task of modifying his product to make it usable on the
lunar module. Significant cost savings and increased reliability resulted.

The environmental constraints for the lunar module reaction control system generally were
less severe than those of the service module reaction control system; therefore, the experience
gained with the service module components in the areas of vibration, shock, thermal vacuum, pro-
pellant compatibility, and susceptibility to contamination could be applied directly to the lunar
module design. Two specific areas in which environmental conditions differed significantly were
the vibration and the cold soaking of the four lunar module engine clusters. Also, because the
lunar module propellant tanks and the helium tank were larger than those of the service module,
the vibration test experience with the service module tanks could not be applied directly to the
lunar module hardware. In these instances, the components were subjected to environmental test-
ing dictated specifically by the lunar module environments.

The develop~nt and certification of the lunar module reaction control system consisted of
nine major ground test programs. A brief discussion of several of the test programs follows.

The pre-production system development test was the first test in which the proposed config-
uration of the lunar module reaction control aystem was hot fired. The primary and secondary
objectives, respectively, were to investigate the dynamic characteristics of the propellant-feed
system and to evaluate propellant manifold priming procedures and engine performance during
multi-engine firings. The test disclosed higher-than-predicted feed pressure fluctuations dur-
ing the short-pulse high-frequency firings. As a result, a complete reevaluation of the control
system requirements helped to define the interface between the guidance system and the reaction
control system. The net effect was changing the maximum pulse frequency from 25 to 7 pulses per
second. The test also resulted in modification of the planned flight-activation procedure to
eliminate high transient pressures during priming of the propellant manifolds. Priming would
be accomplished at tank pad pressures versus nominal operating tank pressures.

The production system development program objective was to determine if the system could
meet fundamental design requirements. As such, the test configuration was almost identical to
that of the reaction control system on the Apollo 5 lunar module. The test program demonstrated
the capability of the system design to meet fundamental requirements. However, salient charac-
teristica of some components were disclosed which altered the planned system operational mode.
An outstanding example was the discovery that high flow rates or pressure surges would cause the
propellant latching valves to unlatch and shift position. This valve problem was resolved for
flight by requiring the crew to ascertain correct valve positions during critical mission phases.
Other component problems discovered were (1) transducer diaphragm incompatibility with propellant
combustion residuals and (2) an inadequate seal design in the ground half of the propellant-
servicing quick-disconnect coupling. The contamination control requirements (particle size,
sampling procedures, etc.) and the cleaning procedures (flushing sequence, etc.) used for the
production system were not adequate to preclude numerous failures of components because of par-
ticulate contamination. The test program provided valuable experience in helium and propellant
servicing that was used in the design of ground support equipment at the launch site.

The third system-level test program, a design verification test program, was broader in
scope than the production system development program. Not only was acceptable operation of the
system demonstrated, but other factors such as manufacturing and checkout procedures, contamina-
tion control techniques, snd propellant decontamination procedures used on flight systems were
verified.

The structural integrity of the engine cluster and vehicle mounting hardware was ve~ified
during the production cluster environmental test program. The cluster design withstood all the
mission-level random and sinusoidal vibration loads to which it was subjected, with the exception
of the failure of a chamber pressure transducer bracket. This failure resulted in a redesign of
the bracket assembly, which was retrofitted on the first flight lunar module.

The lunar module production cluster firing test program objectives were (1) to evaluate
flightworthy lunar module engine cluster performance under simulated altitude conditions and (2)
to determine the heat-transfer characteristics of the cluster during steady-state and pulse-mode
duty cycles. The firing program consisted of single and multiengine firings that simulated se-
lected portions of expected mission duty cycles. During the low-temperature mission duty cycle
part of the program, the combustion chamber of an upfiring engine was destroyed by an explosion
due to an accumulation of nitrate compounds. Contributing factors were found to be the upfiring
attitude of the engine, low engine temperatures, helium saturation of the propellants, short-
pulse firings, and relatively high test-cell ambient pressures. For lunar module application,
engine failure was determined to be unlikely when the flange temperature was maintained above
120 0 F. Heater integration tests were performed following this requalification program. The
tests demonstrated that, for certain combinations of short pulses, the engine flange cooled
faster than the heaters could warm it. The net result of the tests was establishment of a safe
engine operating regime that satisfied mission requirements.

Evaluation of the interconnect propellant feed mode was accomplished durin& the integrated
reaction control system/ascent propulsion system PA-I test program. The test program and analy-
sis demonstrated that neither the reaction control system nor the ascent propulsion system ex-
perienced any detrimental effects during the interconnect feed operation. The test program did.
however, indicate a potential problem with a pressure rise of trapped propellants in the inlet
manifolds. This rise resulted from thermal soakback of a hot engine. Consequently. the Apollo
malfunction procedures incorporated a pressure relief procedure.

An in-house lunar module reaction control system test program was conducted at the Manned
Spacecraft Center (1) to define the general operational characteristics of the lunar module re-
action control system under simulated altitude conditions and (2) to obtain performance data on
individual subsystem components. Anomalies that were observed, investigated, and resolved in-
cluded propellant latch valve leakages, pressure switch failures. and injector cooling below
120 0 F. The propellant latch valve leakage was caused by particulate contamination; system
cleanliness was emphasized. The pressure switch failures could be of two types - failed closed
and failed open. Contamination of the switch mechanism by semiliquid combustion products was
the cause of a failed open switch. The design deficiency was corrected for flight hardware.
The injector cooling problem was traced to the engine duty cycle.

The first lunar module flight, Apollo 5. was conducted to verify the lunar module ascent
and descent propulsion systems and the abort staging function for manned flight. Because of
problems with the guidance system, the reaction control system operated in several off-limit
conditiona and resulted in failures in the system. Within 3.1 minutes, the system A propellant
was depleted to 27 percent, and that system was isolated to conserve propellant. System B con-
tinued at a rapid duty cycle until propellant depletion 5 minutes later. at which time helium
started leaking through the collapsed system B fuel bladder. Satisfactory vehicle rates were
 4-78

restore4 by the 8Y8te~ B thrust reduction (resulting from propellant depletion) and by the iso-
lation of system A propellant tanks. While system B was operating with two-phase oxidl~er and
heliu.-lngested fuel, the quad 4 upfirlng engine failed. When system A was reactivated, the
system A main shutoff valve on the oxidizer aide inadvertently closed. The ascent propellant
interconnect valves were later opened. returning operation of the engines to normal until the
Interconnect valves were closed. The depletion of all propellant during the last minutes of
the second ascent engine firing allo~d the spacecraft to tumble. Each of these specific re-
action control system anomalies (i.e .• the bladder, the engine, and the oxidizer main shutoff
valve failures) was duplicated when a ground test system was exposed to siailar duty-cycle and
environmental conditions after the flight.

Also during the Apollo 5 lunar module flight, the upper liait of 190· F on the engine cluster
was exceeded on numerous occasions with no deleterious effects; the Apollo 9 lunar module slso
exhibited this phenomenon. As a result, additional vendor tests were conducted to define a maxi-
~m temperature to which the engine valves could be subjected without degradation of performance.
The tests were terminated at 375 0 F when no degradation in performance was experienced. An in-
strumentation change (increasing the upper limit to 260· F) was made to acco~date the expected
operating temperature of the clusters.

Extremely good reliability of the lunar module and service module reaction control system
engine injector valves was demonstrated on flights through Apollo 14. No engine injector valve
leakage due to engine operation or malfunction was observed. A 25-pound weight aaving was ac-
complished by the deletion of the valves froo the systea for all later flights.

During system pressuri%ation on the Apollo 16 lunar module, system A regulator outlet pres-
sure continued to rise after reaching noainal lockup pressure. The leakage persisted throughout
the mission after presauri%ation. When the regulator output pressure reached 209 pounds per
square inch, the system A interconnect valves were opened to transfer propellant to the ascent
propulsion system. To per-it aission continuation, this operation vas repeated tvice until suf-
ficient blovdown capability existed. The pressure in system A eventually increased to 237 pounds
per square inch, at which point the relief valve operated. Subsequently, periodic pressure re-
lief occurred. Postflight analysis and tests showed thst the most likely cause of the malfunc-
tion was contamination csused by a set of unique events; specifically, numerous replacements of
components involving bra%ing downstream of the regulator, and subsequently subjecting the regu-
lator to reverse flow conditions.

The design, development, and performance of the lunar module reaction control system are
discussed further in reference 4-65.

4.6.7 Guidance, Navigation, and Control System

The lunar module guidance, navigation, and control system performed the necessary descent
and ascent navigation, generated guidance commands in the form of thrust-level and attitude com-
mands, and controlled vehicle attitude.

Navigation for descent to the lunar surface vas the continuous process of estimating and
updating the vehicle's position and velocity components in the reference coordinate system (de-
termining the state vector) at given times using landing radar and accelerometer data. The
lunsr landing guidance equations calculated thrust-level and attitude commands baaed upon the
updated state vector. The thrust-level and attitude commands were then executed by the control
system.

The ascent maneuver required that the guidance, navigation, and control system be initiali%ed
with the orbit insertion parameters necessary for rende%vous with the command and service module.
The ascent engine had no th.rust direction control capsbility and could not be throttled. There-
fore, the guidance aystea controlled the thrust vector by generating attitude commands to control
the direction of the vehicle by use of the reaction control syste.. When the insertion velocity
vas achieved, engine thrust vas tel'1llinated.
 The guidance. navigation. and control system originally consisted of a guidance and naviga-
tion system and a stabilization and control aystem (ref. 4-66). The stabilization and control
syste~ contained an abort guidance systeo Which was to be used if the primary guidance and nav-
igation system failed. Late in 1964, a design review of guidance and control requirements re-
sulted in the integration of the guidance, navigation. and control functions. At the same time,
the capabilities of the abort guidance system were expanded and a general-purpose computer was
added to the system.

Figure 4-21 is a functional diagram of both the primary guidance and navigation system and
the abort guidance system. and the interfaces of each with the control electronics system. The
primary system was essentially the same as that in the command and service module. The signifi-
cant differences between the two systeos were:

a. The lunar module optical system included a periscope-type telescope with a 6o-degree
field of view between mechsnical stops. Six detents allowed a full 360-degree viewing capability.

b. The lunar module primary system included computer programs required for the descent and
ascent phases and the control laws used in the digital autopilot.

c. The landing radar and rendezvous radar were part of the lunar module primary system.

The abort guidance system assumed control of the lunar module if the primary system failed
at any time in the mission. This system could guide the lunar module to a safe lunar orbit and
execute rendezvous commands. The abort guidance system consisted of an abort sensor. abort elec-
tronics. and a data entry and display assembly.

The abort sensor assembly was rigidly mounted to the vehicle and con~ained three rate inte-
grating gyrQs and three pendulous accelerometers. These inertial sensing units provided attitude
and velocity data to the abort electronics assembly Which was a general-purpose computer. Oper-
ating On the attitude and velocity data from the inertial sensors. the computer generated guid-
ance commands and engine on-off commands that were sent to the control electronics system. The
abort guidance system was initialized with, and periodically realigned to, the primary guidance
system.

The control electronics system consisted of the attitude and translation control assembly;
the descent engine control assembly; descent engine gimbal drive actuators; rate gyro assemblies;
rotation, translation, and throttle hand controls; ,flight director attitude indicators; and var-
ious other control assemblies. The control electronics provided the interface which drove the
propulsive ,devices; that is, the 16 attitude control thrusters, the gimbaled and throttleable
descent engine. and the ascent engine.

The development and testing of the primary guidance and navigation system was essentially
the same as that discussed in section 4.4.8. The only differences were the interfaces with the
landing radar and rendezvous radar and the autopilot interface with the engine. The types of
testing performed during the control electronics development program were design feasibility,
design verification. and quslification. The significant problems encountered are listed in
table 4-VI. The types of testing performed during the abort guidance system test program were
design feasibility design verification. and design proof to qualification limits. A full mis-
sion engineering simulatiOn was performed to verify the compatibility between the hardware snd
computer software. The significant problems encountered are summarized in table 4-VII. A de-
tailed discussion of the development and testing of the abort guidance system is given in ref-
erence 4-67.

Performance of the primary and abort gUidance systems throughout the Apollo flights was ex-
cellent. No failures required the use of a backup system in any of the manned flights. During
the unmanned Apollo 5 mission, the first scheduled maneuver was terminated early and the subse-
quent maneuvers had to be performed by using the backup control electronics system. The act.ual
thrust bUildUp profile was different from the profile stored in the computer. The computer de-
tected a difference in thrust levels and automatically shut the engine down.
 , i ,.
-ie-
'~/, '
,
".

/' 15'
-....
Attituoe Coupling
data unit
./
/
/

I t
~
lunar module
guidance computer ••1
Sighting data -<
(r
~ ~
From landing From rendezvous W<-
rallar rallar .:g Primary guidance 'is""'
.- - ---1Oiai - - - - - - - - - . -'-Co-;;-t;I-- - - ---~: - - -ElectroniCs- - - - - - - - ---r:pr;P;;isi;n---
Rates attitude Altitude - - - - -- E E 1
, errors
~I 1-....-- Translation ~ Throttle commands I
Rotation hand controller ~ Descent

r i () j '1- hand
controller .
. 'td
e
e. c:
Manual throltle
engine
control
assembly
Gimbal
commands
Gimbal
drive
actuatlr
I
I
Descent
engine +-

~~,
.....&..- I I -----
1 Flight director altitlJde indicator • _ command On-oil commands I
~'- I On-oil commands
I
I
Rate gyro I
assembly I
I Manual off-on) I .I Control On-off commands I Ascent
commands assembly 1 engine
To Translation commands '-- I
direct I
coils Rotation commands I I
I
, __--',,",m, I
Reaction
L.-.. Altitude Auto coils on-oil commands I
translaUon i I control
thrusters

OI""COIIS~ qp
control
landing Rendezvous assembly
radar radar
, errors
Altitude
Radar ,I
Figure 4-21. - lunar roodule guidance, navigation and control system,
 4-81

TABLE 4-VI. - CONTROL ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS

Equipment. Problem Corrective action

Attitude and translation Solder cracks were caused by e,- The joint was made stronger
control assembly panding urethane filler. by making it a refloved
convex solder joint.

Thrust/translation con- Switch adjustment changed. The switch adjustment pro-

troller assembly and cedures were revised.
attitude controller
assembly

Gimbal drive actuator Brake failed to engage and the The motor was redesigned to
actuator would coast. include contact drag
principle.

TABLE 4-VII.- ABORT GUIDANCE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS

Equipment Problem Corrective action

Abort sensor assembly Single-point temperature sensor Nine redesigns of beryllium

for thermal control. block.

Abort sensor assembly Fatigue and vibration failures. Two redesigns of mounting
mounting feet feet.

Gyro Asymmetrical scale factor Redesign of pulse torque

loop.

Abort electronics Excessively rapid fall time of Redesign for slower fall
assembly read and write pulse. time.

Abort electronics Penetration of matrix board split Change of manufacturing

assembly pin wire wrap. procedures.

Abort electronics Solder reacted with gold in com- Component leads were pre-
aasembly ponent leads causing solder to tinned to prevent solder
become brittle and crack. from coming into contact
with gold.

Data entry display Cracks and bonding separation of Better screening procedures.
assembly electroluminescent segments.

Data entry display Pushbutton was binding. Incorporation of test and

assembly screening procedures.
 4-82

The most significant failure in the primary guidance system was the occurrence of five com-
puter alarms during the Apollo 11 lunar module descent. The alarms indicated to the crew that
the computer program was being called upon to perform too many tasks and that some tasks would
not be executed. The problem was avoided on subsequent flights by not requiring the computer
to process rendezvous radar data, which 1s not needed during descent. The computer workload was
thus relieved, and no further alarms of this type were experienced.

The most significant failure in the abort guidance system occurred on Apollo 14. A failure
of the 4-volt power supply in.the abort electronics assembly caused the system to switch to the
standby mode, making it unusable. Fortunately, the failure occurred after rendezvous was com-
plete and the system was no longer needed. The cause of the failure could not be determined be-
cause the lunar module hardware could not be returned to earth.

The most significant failure in the control electronics system occurred during the unmanned
Apollo 5 mission. Excessive thruster activity occurred during the ullage maneuver prior to the
last ascent engine maneuver. The cause of the problem was a control system instability for the
light ascent stage configuration and was corrected by a minor design change in the pulse-ratio-
modulator electronics.*

The performance of the guidance and navigation systems was evaluated by studying the descent
and ascent trajectories. A set of velocity curves was generated using data from the primary guid-
ance system, the abort guidance system, and radar tracking. System performance was evaluated by
comparing the velocity curves. Each gyro and accelerometer could be the source of small but
unique errors in the velocity data. The alignment accuracy of the platform was also a source of
error. By methodically varying the error sources, the velocity curves could be made to fit each
other. The error sources were varied until the best curve fit was obtained, and that set of er-
ror sources was considered to be the most probable. For the descent analysis, time-of-ignition
and time-of-touchdown were accurately known and, of course, the velocity relative to the lunar
surface approached zero at touchdown. Velocity relative to the surface at ignition was not so
well known snd contributed to velocity error. The ascent analysis is much the same except that
final velocity was not zero.

A summary of the significant error sources for the first five lunar landing missions is pre-
sented in table 4-VIII. The only significant error sources observed in the primary guidance sys-
tem were accelerometer biases and platform alignment. (The accelerometers were mounted on the
stable platform.) Both error sources caused errors that were less than that expected. In prep-
aration for sscent, the platform alignment technique used one star and the gravity vector. Con-
sequently, the expected error was different for each axis as shown. If the gravity vector was
not vertical because of local gravity excursions, the alignment accuracy was affected. Gravity
variations at the Apollo 15 landing site caused a misalignment of about 2 arc minutes, the largest
alignment error of any Apollo mission. If the Apollo 15 misalignment were not included, the
average and standard deviation vslues for ascent in table 4-VIII would be hslf as large. Analy-
sis of data from the abort guidance system precludes isolation to a single error source. Errors
slong the spacecraft thrust axis (X-axis) may be caused by accelerometer bias or scale factor
errors, whereas errors perpendicular to the thrust axis may be caused by accelerometer bias or
misalignment errors. Table 4-VIII also summarizes abort guidance system performance during the
lunar landing missions. Actual and expected uncertainties are almost the same.

4.6.8 Environmental Control

The lunar module environmental control system was made up of four main subsystems which per-
formed the following functions: atmosphere revitalization, oxygen supply and cabin pressure con-
trol, water management, and heat transport. System performance is discussed, including consum-
abIes usage, cabin leakage, and changes as a result of experience.

The modular concept was necessary because of the weight and volume constraints, but use of
this concept led to a number of problems. When equipment was modified or changed, the certifi-
cation testing program was modified accordingly. Requalification tests, which caused the same
basic package to be subjected to a number of different qualification tests, were required in
many instances to qualify the revised equipment. The interdependence of packaging and functional
efforts was demonstrated by tests, but a great number of tests and a considerable amount of time
were required.
*Thia problem was not related to the excessive thruster activity that occurred when the pri-
mary guidance system was selected subsequent to the first ascent engine firing.
 4-83

TABLE 4-VIII.- SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DURIllG DESCENT AND ASCENT

Expected Average Standard

Source
error error deviation

Primary Guidance

Descent:
Accelerometer bias, ~g 200 -6.5 32.7
Misal ignmen t , arc sec 210 -20 107

Ascent:
Accelerometer bias, ~g 500 10.8 119.1
~isalignment) arc sec X - 148
y = 57
-52 104

z = 88
Abort Guidance

Descent:
X (scale fa~tor + bias), ~g 40 -68 43
y (misalignment + bias), ~g 70 -24 87
z (misalignment + bias), ~g 70 -80 97
Ascent:
X (scale factor + bias), ~g 50 -102 70
y (misalignment + bias), ~g 70 -31 80
z (misalignment + bias), ~g 70 -32 69

a
The star plus gravity alignment technique results in a different
expected error for each axis.
 The environmental control system design concept of modularized subassemblies led to an early
decision to perform certification testing at the module level for examining and verifying all
possible component interactions during dynamic testing. Because of a stipulation that any field
failure of a single component would require replacement of the complete module or lowest replsce-
able element, it was ressonable to assume that certification should be performed at the aame ve-
hicle replacement level of aasembly. Component-level teats were primarily used to verify design
and to establish performance curves, and subsystem-level teats were performed to identify compo-
nent interaction and to verify that system design performance requirements were met.

Two sets of flight hardware were subjected to qualification testing. One set of hardware
was tested to design-limit certification levela consiating of mission-design extreme environ-
ments, and one set was subjected to two normal mission level environment tests plus ground-based
environment teats. Design changes resulting from component failures during initial certifica-
tion testing, plus component additions and redesign imposed by changes in system requirements,
were responsible for incorporating a delta qualification program following the initial logic-
group qualification program.

To certify the life support section of the environmental control system, a complete test
facility was built at the prime contractor's site. The man-rating test facility consisted of a
vacuum chamber, a vacuum system. a data system and a life support section of the environmental
control system, Which was installed in the simulated lunar module cabin of the vacuum chamber.
Using the simulator, the environmental control system manrating was accomplished in two steps.
The first step (Phase I) used some pre-production hardware that differed from production hardware
only in physical layout. The second step (Phase II) used production hardware that was modified
to provide instrumentation points necessary for gathering parametric data.

To ensure compatibility between all subsystems during vehicle exposure to expected environ-
ments, the LTA-8 vehicle was installed in a special thermal-vacuum chamber in Which six manned
tests were conducted at design-axtreme metabolic and thermal loads to verify flightworthiness.
The significant hardware problems encountered during development and testing are discussed in
detail in reference 4-68.

Some flight problems were encountered in the environmental control system, although none en-
dangered the crewmen. One of the more annoying problems was the noise produced by the suit cir-
cuit flow, the glycol pumps, and the cabin fans. A muffler was added to the outlet of the glycol
pumps to reduce the noise to an acceptable level.

Erratic carbon dioxide sensor readings on the lunar modules for the Apollo 10, 11, and 12
missions and crew reports of water entering the pressure garment assemblies prompted two revi-
sions to the suit circuit assembly. A sense line from the water separator drain tank was re-
routed from a point upstream to a point downstream of the carbon dioxide sensor and crew oxygen
umbilicals. Also, a restrictor was added to the lithium hydroxide cartridges to limit the flow
in the suit circuit and thus reduce the speed of the gas-driven water separators, which did not
remove water effectively at high speeds. These changes were incorporated for Apollo 13.

The Apollo 11 crew, the first to sleep in the lunar module, found that sleeping on the floor
was uncomfortable and cold. Consequently, hammocks were provided on all subsequent vehicles.

Internal leakage through an oxygen shutoff valve from the oxygen control module into one of
the sscent stage oxygen tanks was experienced on Apollo 13. The problem was identified as a dam-
aged O-ring, and new checkout procedurea and hand-selected O-rings were incorporated. A similar
a-ring problem occurred later in the Apollo program during bench checkout of the water control
module valves. Again, hand selecting the O-rings and new installation procedures solved the
problem which seems to be inherent in the multivalve manifold design.

Although no free water was reported in the suit circuit. the water separator speed remained
high on Apollo 14. Consequently, a procedural change was instituted on the Apollo 15 vehicle and
subsequent vehicles to increase the system pressure drop and thereby decrease the flow. This
change was accomplished by reconfiguring the suit circuit assembly valves when the crew was
suited without helmeta and gloves. However, another problem was encountered in the ground check-
out before the Apollo 15 mission. The requirement for unsuited rest periods resulted in low suit
circuit differential pressure (high water separator speeds and whistling noises) when the hoses
 4-85

were disconnected from the suits. Therefore, stowage brackets with orifices simulating pressure
garment assembly pressure drops were designed for the oxygen umbilicals. A pressure garment as-
sembly dryout procedure was also developed to remove perspiration from the suits after use.

Most redundant components included in the environmental control system were used for various
reasons at some time during the Apollo flights. However, the redundant coolant loop and redun-
dant water regulators were never needed because the primary systems performed satisfactorily.

4.6.9 Displays and Controls

The displays and controls were the interface between the crewmen and the lunar module. Con-
trols were prOVided for manual operation of all systems, for making adjustments, and for selec-
tion of alternate operating modes. To permit easy observation or control, prsctically all dis-
plays and controls were located within reach on display panels. There were 160 circuit breakers,
144 toggle switches, 16 rotary switches, and other control equipment. Digital voltmeters, servo-
meters, and two- and three-position flags displsyed information such ss time, altitude, range,
pressure, and temperature.

About halfway through the Apollo program. after several broken or actuated circuit breakers
had been found, films made of crew activities within the spacecraft showed that these conditions
were often caused by crewmen inadvertently bumping the circuit breakers. Consequently, the
bumper guards were modified to better protect the breakers and wicket-type guards were installed
over critical switches. Other inadequacies encountered during the development program included
failure of electronic parts, improper sizing of mechanical parts. breaking of glass. failure of
solder joints, and failures due to contamination. Several failures also occurred during flight;
however, the systems were so designed that the failures did not present a dangerous situation.

Two items that were not adequately developed were the circuit breakers and the digital
timers. Hermetically sealed circuit breakers were specified; however, the manufacturer was un-
able to qualify this type of breaker because of assembly problems. One of the assembly problems
involved the process of fitting the major circuit breaker assembly (containing a pushbutton.
bridge contacts. and a bimetallic element) into a hermetically sealed can. Because the can case
contained the contacts that mated with the inner bridge contacts, a specific contact pressure
was difficult to obtain when the two parts were assembled and sealed with solder. Failures re-
sulting from the lower contact pressure included contact chatter, high contact resistance in dry
circuit testing. and high voltsge drop. Development was discontinued and the qualified command-
module-type breakers (not hermetically sealed) were used. The original digital timers of modu-
lar "cordwood" construction, had numerous problems. In this type of construction, electrical
components (resistora. capacitors, diodes, etc.) were soldered between two printed circuit
boards and the void between the boards was filled with a potting compound. The differential ex-
pansion between the potting compound and the circuit boards caused the solder joints to crack
and thus break electrical contact. Rework of units could not correct the problem. The units
were also susceptible to electrical noise. Eventually, a complete redesign and repackaging by
a new manufacturer was required.

The altitude!range!range-rate meter glass face was discovered to be broken during the
Apollo 15 flight. Newly developed information on stress corrosion was applied in a review of
glass strength and stress. Spacecraft meters with similar glass applications had shields and
doublers installed fo~ subsequent flights.

A more detailed discussion of the lunar module displays and controls is given in reference
4-69.

4.6.10 Communications System

the lunar module communications system prOVided the voice link between the lunar module and
the earth; between the lunar module and the command module; and, by means of a relay function.
between the earth and the crewmen on the lunar surface. The system also provided the capabil-
ities for:

a. Ranging between the earth and the lunar module

 4-86

b. Ranging between the command module and the lunar module

c. Transmitting instrumentation data to the earth

d. Transmitting television to the earth

e. Voice intercommunication between crewmen

f. Up-linking digital commands from the earth

the communications system was cocposed of VHF snd S-band equipment. The VHF portion was
selected for short ranges (between the lunar module and the command module, and relay between
the lunar module and extravehicular crewmen); and the S-band portion was selected for deep-space
communications.

During the early phases of the program, the method of providing voice, data. and ranging
functions went through several iterations as a result of changes in mission requirements. For
instance, the VHF system first included one receiver and one transmitter. then two receivers and
three transmitters. and finally two receivers and two transmitters. Both transmitter/receiver
psirs (transceivers) were combined into a single unit along with a diplexer assembly that allowed
aimultaneous use of a single antenna for two separate frequencies. The channel A transceiver
operated on a frequency of 296.8 megahertz; channel B operated on 259.7 megahertz. The control
panel configuration allowed the selection of any combination of transmitters or receivers to give
simplex or duplex operation. A range tone tranafer assembly was added to provide turnaround of
ranging tones received from the command module. The antenna system for the VHF equipment con-
sisted of two inflight antennas located on opposite sides of the spacecraft and a lunar surface
antenna on a ~st that was cranked up and down from inside the crew compartment.

The S-band system consisted of a transceiver containing two identical phase-locked receivers.
t~o phase modulators with driver and multiplier, and one frequency modulator. The S-band opera-
ting frequencies were 2282.5 megahertz for transmission and 2101.8 megahertz for reception. The
nominal power output was 0.75 watt in a low-power mode. In the high-power mode, the output of
the transceiver was increased to 18.6 watts. The original concept for power amplification was
to use a traveling wave tube. However, because of weight and power limitations, an amplitron-
type tube was incorporsted into the design. During esrly development, unstable operating char-
acteristics and very limited life were experienced with the amplitron tubea.

Three types of S-band antennas were used. A steerable antenna with s 26-inch-diameter para-
bolic dish automatically tracked the incoming signal to ~intain an antenna poaition that pointed
the dish centerline toward the earth. The antenna, operated either ~nually or automatically.
provided a coverage of 174~ in azimuth and 330· in elevation. It was used for transmission and
reception while the lunar module was in lunar orbit, during descent, after landing, and during
aacent from the lunar surface. The second type was an omnidirectional antenna. Two were used
(one on the front and one on the rear of the ascent stage) to provide the required coverage.
These antennas were used before activation of the steerable antenna and as its backup in case
of a failure. The third type of S-band antenna was erectable and consisted of a lo-foot-diameter
gold mesh parabolic reflector, an aiming device, and a tripod. The antenna, folded and carried
in the descent stage, was erected by the crewmen on the lunar surface and used for television
transmission. For Apollo IS, 16. and 17. the lunar communicstions relay unit (sec. 4.9) mounted
on the lunar roving vehicle was available for lunar surface television, snd the erectable antenna
was not needed.

The remainder of the system consisted of a signal processor assembly, a digital up-link as-
sembly. and a pulse-code-modulation and timing ~lectronica assembly. The signal processor assem-
bly provided signal modulation, mixing, mode switching, keying. and relay. An audio center for
each crewman provided individual selection, isolation, and amplification of audio signals received
and transmitted by the communications system. Also included was the capability for intercommuni-
cstions between crewmen. The digital up-link assembly received an up-link 7Q-kilohertz subcarrier
from the S-band transceiver, demodulated and decoded the up-link commands on this subcarrier and
applied these commands to the lunar module guidance computer. It also prOVided capability for
backup up-link voice on the same subcarrier. The pulse-code-modulation and timing electronics
assembly received instrumentation information from throughout the spacecraft and processed this
into a data bit stream which was placed on a subcarrier in the signal processor assembly and
tranamitted to earth by the S-band equipment.
 One of the major design changes in the lunar module communications system. which affected
three different units, resulted from an unpredictable condition in the aft equipment bay. It
was originally assumed that the equipment bay. where the communications system units were mounted,
would be at a vacuum when in space. Because of the slow vent rate of the thermal blankets and
unavoidable cabin leakage, however, this area maintained a small pressure that caused a corona
condition inside the units. This condition is an electrical arcing caused by ionization of the
partial air pressure around high-voltage components. The corona resulted in degradation (and.
sometimes. complete loss) of transmitted signals. This condition existed to various degrees in
the S-band transceiver. the S-band power amplifier, and the VHF transceiver. Several modifica-
tions were attempted, including increased insulation and the use of various types of potting
materials. The use of Teflon baffles between high-voltage parts inside the transmitter was
successful in the VHF portion of the system, but the only solution that proved effective on the
S-band transceiver and power amplifier was to put them in a sealed pressurized case.

Developmental problems that were discovered during the extensive testing program included
cracked solder joints in the steerable antenna; extensive wire breakage in the signal processor
assembly cable; relay reliability problems in the VHF transceiver; integrated circuit and tran-
sistor contamination problems in the digital up-link assembly, the VHF transceiver, and the
steerable antenna; and structural vibration failures in the signal processor assembly and steer-
able antenna.

Flight performance of the communications system was very good. Various improper switch con-
figurations caused the VHF voice link between the lunar module and command module to be inter-
rupted temporarily during the Apollo 10. 12, and 15 missions. As soon as the improper switch
configuration was identified. the voice link was restored.

Because the VHF ranging requirement was added to the system late in the development program.
certain limitations were imposed on the system to keep design modifications to a minimum. One
limitation. a time-sharing of voice and ranging tones. resulted in a certain amount of voice dis-
tortion during ranging operation. Also, it was necessary to preclude all conversation during
ranging acquisition. Preflight briefings and laboratory demonstrations for each crew helped to
prevent flight problems because of these limitations.

Two major problems were encountered in the flight performance of the steerable antenna.
Several times during Apollo 14, the antenna dish experienced divergent oscillations. After a
few seconds, the movement became too great for the antenna to remain locked on the up-link sig-
nal. Communications were then lost and the reacquisition procedure was reqUired. Data from the
Apollo 10, II, 12. and 15 missions showed that a similar condition had existed. but to a much
lesser degree. Hany possible causes were investigated, including vehicle blockage of the sig-
nal, multipath reflections from the lunar surface, transmission of unwanted signals from the
earth. and interference from other systems on the spacecraft. No conclusion was reached about
the exact cause of the problem. With the exception of these auto-track losses, the tracking
performance was excellent during all vehicle maneuvers. The second steerable antenna problem
was experienced on Apollo 16. The mechanical drive mechanism was designed to be held in place
with a locking pin that was electrically released during antenna activation. The locking pin
did not release in the yaw axis and the antenna could not be used to track automatically.

Additional information on the design. development. and performance of the lunar module com-
munications system is contained in references 4-55, 4-56, and 4-70 through 4-73.

4.6.11 Radar Systems

Two unique and independent radar systems provided guidance and navigation information to
the guidance and control system during the lunar landing and rendezvous phases of the Apollo
missions.

The lsnding radar system consisted of an antenna assembly and an electronic assembly which
shared the processing of velocity sensor and altimeter data to measure lunar module velocity and
range relative to the lunar surface. The Doppler principle was used for velocity determination;
propagation time delay was used for slant range determination. To measure velocity. three beams
of continuous microwave energy were transmitted to and reflected from the lunar surface. The
4-88

Doppler shifts along these beams were extracted by the velocity sensor. The slant range was ob-
tained from a single beam of continuous microwave energy which was frequency-modulated by a
linear sawtooth waveform. Comparison of the return signal with the transmitted modulation was
made in the altimeter portion of the radar.

The rendezvous radar, located on the lunar module ascent stage, consisted of an antenna as-
sembly and an electronics assembly. An active transponder was installed in the command and ser-
vice module. The radar was a continuous-wave type, which operated in a beacon mode and acquired
and tracked the transponder at ranges up to 400 miles. The radar provided precision range,
range-rate, angle, and angle-rate data relative to the transponder. Range data were derived
from the propagation delay of tones modulated on the transmitted carrier of the radar which was,
in turn, received, filtered, remodulated, and retransmitted by the transponder and then received
back at the radar. Range rate was determined from the two-way Doppler shift of the carrier fre-
quency. Angle tracking of the transponder in azimuth and elevation was accomplished using an
amplitude comparison technique.

The landing and rendezvous radar systems were the first all-solid-state radars to be de-
signed for and flown in space. Sophisticated signal processing techniques were used in the ren-
dezvous radar and transponder which minimized weight, size, and power requirements. (The radar
and transponder met all the established performance requirements at the 400-mile range with only
300 milliwatts of radiated X-band power.) The unique requirements for environment, reliability,
size, and weight led to the selection of "cordwood" construction (a multilayer circuit board de-
sign). However, this construction technique resulted in a number of development problems. Two
significant problems were not identified until after production was initiated, and extensive re-
placement of electronic assemblies was required. These problems were (1) open circuits in in-
terlayer columns of the rendezvous radar multilayer circuit boards at hot and cold temperature
extremes and (2) cracked solder joints in the landing radar as a result of stress exerted on
solder joints during thermal cycling.

Operational evaluation tests simulating lunar mission phases were performed to fully eval-
uate performance of the radars before the first lunar mission. These tests are discussed briefly
in the following paragraphs.

Rendezvous radar flight testing was conducted to verify the capability of the radar to meet
Apollo mission performance requirements. The objective of the tests was to verify that the track-
ing, ranging, and velocity loops of the rendezvous radar operated properly during a simulated
lunar stay. A jet aircraft and a helicopter were used try fly the radar transponner, testing it
against an instrumented ground-based lunar module radar at the White Sands Missile Range. The
tests simulated several orientations along each of the probable lunar module rendezvous and lunar-
orbit trajectories and demonstrated that the rendezvous radar performed within the required ac-
curacy range at distances representative of the design range. The performance of the rendezvous
radar/transponder link was evaluated at the maximum range during the Apollo 7 mission. The test
conditions simulated the lunar stay phase of a lunar mission by acquiring and tracking the or-
biting ~ommand and service module transponder with a ground-based radar to verify that the track-
ing, ranging, and velocity loops of the rendezvous radar and the tracking loops of the trans-
ponder functioned properly at the extreme limits of their capabilities. The rendezvous radar
was activated for the first time in the space environment during the Apollo 9 mission. the ac-
curacy of the rendezvous radar and the techniques for using it were verified by performing ~n
active command module/lunar module rendezvous in earth orbit.

Landing radar flight testing was also conducted. The objectives of this testing were to
(1) evaluate the performance of the landing radar under dynamic flight conditions, (2) verify
the landing radar mathematical model, (3) evaluate the combined performance of the landing radar
and the lunar module guidance computer, (4) verify the adequacy of the landing radar to meet
mission requirements, and (5) define the constraints or necessary design changes. The tests
were conducted (within the capabilities of the test aircraft) under flight conditions that sim-
ulated each of the probable lunar-descent trajectories.

Radio-frequency view factor testing was performed on the ground on a lunar module mockup to
determine if any false lock-on effects would be caused by Doppler returns from lunar module struc-
tural vibrations during descent engine firings. The areas investigated were the lunar module
legs, engine skirt, and bottom structure. The test results indicated that some degradation of
landing radar performance had occurred. For this reason, the following changes were made to cor-
rect the problem.
 4-89

a. The frequency response of the preamplifier was changed to decrease the landing radar
sensitivity to low-frequency vibrations exhibited by the lunar module structure.

b. The antenna was rotated to prevent the landing radar beam from impinging on the lunar
module leg structure.

c. A baffle was installed to shield the radar beams from descent engine bell reflections.

To test the lunar module landing radar in a space environment with the descent engine firing,
special instrumentation was installed on the Apollo 9 lunar module to measure the signals in the
velocity and altimeter preamplifier outputs. Following ignition of the descent engine. spurious
signals appeared which were attributed to flaking of the Mylar thermal blanket. The problem was
corrected by replacing the Mylar thermal blanket with an ablative paint on a portion of the d~­
scent stage.

Mission performance for the lunar module rendezvous and landing radar systems was satisfac-
tory on all lunar Apollo missions. velocity and range data were provided by the landing radar
from the point of lock-on to touchdown. The rendezvous radar acquired the service module trans-
ponder at an average range of 130 miles.

Additional information on the development, testing, and flight performance of the landing
and rendezvous radar systems is contained in reference 4-74.

4.6.12 Instru~entation System

The lunar module instrumentation system provided the measurements necessary to ascertain
whether the vehicle systems were operating properly. These measurements consisted of pressure,
temperature, voltage, quantity, and discrete (switch closure) measurements that were displayed
to the crew on meters and transmitted to the ground over the communications link. The instru-
mentation system also provided onboard voice recording and caution and warning monitoring of
parameters critical for crew safety. The equipment required to accomplish these functions in-
cluded transducers (sensors), a signal conditioning electronics assembly, the pulse code modu-
lation and timing electronics assembly mentioned in section 4.6.10, a data storage electronics
assembly (voice recorder), and a caution and warning electronics assembly.

In developing the hardware, a primary requirement was not to interfere with the system be-
ing monitored. This requirement did not have much effect on measurement of physical parameters
(such as pressure, temperature, and quantity) because a sealed probe compatible with the moni-
tored substance was generally available. However, monitoring electrical parameters presented a
problem. A failure in the measuring circuit could cause the measured circuit to become comple-
tely inoperative or could activate a circuit that was not supposed to be operating. To prevent
these problems, large resistors and transformers were used in the interface circuits so that no
instrumentation system failure could cause an unwanted voltage or produce a short circuit in the
measured circuit.

Various test programs were conducted to eradicate weak components. Temperature and vibra-
tion tests appeared to be the most effective. Expansion from temperature changes and flexing
from vibration caused weak solder joints, thin insulation, and weak components to fail during
these tests rather than later during lunar module operation. This technique was fairly success-
ful, but failures still occurred on the vehicle. One interesting point was that all of these
failures occurred before 2000 hours of operation, whereas several units accrued 6000 hours of
operating time before flight and never experienced additional failures.

The early decision to require a high-accuracy system meant that the entire system had to be
optimized. However, two highly accurate items that were already available were (1) the signal
conditioners that amplified the small electrical signal from the transducers to a standard 0- to
5-volt de level. and (2) the pulse code modulation devices that converted the 0- to 5-volt dc
analog signal to an eight-bit word.

The caution and warning electronics assembly was designed so that critical measurements
could be monitored automatically, releasing the crew for other tasks. Pressure, t~mperature,
and quantity levels were determined by the other subsystems and, if the measurements exceeded
4-90

predetermined levels, the caution and warning electronics assembly initiated a master alarm tone
snd a light identifying the affected system. When these levels were established, the system
eccentricities were not all known, snd many erroneous nuisance alarms were generated during nor-
mal operations. For instance, an alarm might be generated when a system was turned on. Even
though only a short time elapsed (less than a second) before the system reached a normal opera-
ting range, the caution snd warning electronics assembly would immediately detect an out-of-
tolerance system. Alarns also were generated when other systems momentarily exceeded safe limits
during switching to different modes of operation. Most of these nuisance alarms were corrected
by placing time delays in the caution and warning electronics assembly circuits, which allowed
the systems to reach or return to their normal operating levels in a reasonable time. A few
nuisance alarms could not be eliminated without a great deal of expense. These occurred during
system activations.

Although a few measurement problems and nuisance master alarms were experienced, the overall
instrumentation system met all requirements.

A more detailed technical discussion of the lunar module instrumentation system is given in
reference 4-75.

4.7 ADDITIONAL SPACECRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

4.7.1 Introduction

Aspects of spacecraft systems development and performance which could not be conveniently
discussed within the context of a specific spacecraft module are included here.

4.7.2 Electrical Wiring System

The electrical wiring system included the interconnecting wiring between the various system
components. the associated electrical connectors and termination devices, and the required elec-
trical harness support and protective hardware such as harness clamps and tubing. These items
were established as a system to (1) provide management control over the types of hardware selec-
ted and the processes and procedures to be used, (2) facilitate understanding and assistance in
the resolution of problems, and (3) provide management control for initiating or assisting in the
development of new hardware or technology whenever necessary.

The design requirements for the command module and lunar module wiring and connecting de-
vices were essentially the same. The wiring insulation was selected to withstand test voltages
up to 1500 volts dc; the conductors were selected to conduct rated currents at temperatures up
to 500° F without significant degradation of insulation characteristics. Extruded Teflon insul-
ation with a wall thickness of 15 mils was used for the Block I command module wiring to provide
protection against sbrasion and damage during the fabrication and installation of harnesses.
This type of insulation had been used successfully on many aircraft. Because of the emphasis on
weight reduction, the Teflon wiring insulation for the Block II vehicles was changed to a 7-mil
wall thickness, and a l/2-mil polyamide dispersion coat was added for additional abrasion protec-
tion. This change resulted in a weight saving of approximately 500 pounds. Approximately
110 000 feet of wiring weighing nearly 1350 pounds was used in the Block II command and service
module. The smallest wire used was 24 gage, and most of the conductors were nickel-plated copper.

Approximately 75 000 feet of wire weighing nearly 750 pounds was used in the lunar module.
The wiring was silver-plated copper except for some of the minimum-size wire (26 gage), which
was copper-chromium-constantan. The thin-wall insulation (7 mils) consisted of a tape-wrap con-
struction which was covered with a l/2-mil dispersion coat of Teflon. The tape was made up of
a layer of polyamide bonded to one or more layers of Teflon. One tape was wrapped around the
conductor in one direction with a 50-percent overlap; a second tape was wrapped in the opposite
direction, alBo with a 50-percent overlap. These layers were bonded together by a heat sinter-
ing process and then covered with the Teflon diapersion coat. The dispersion coat sealed the
exposed edges of the tape and provided a chemically resistant barrier to the polyamide, which
 4-91

degraded when exposed to lunar module engine fuels. This coating provided additional abrasion
resistance and a smooth outer surface for better environmental sealing in the grommet wire seals
of connectors.

The connecting devices used on both the command module and lunar module were similar with a
few exceptions. Most of the round connectors were of the bayonnet locking type, and individual
environmental interfacial seals were incorporated for each connector contact. A one-piece sili-
cone rubber seal was used at the wire-entry end of the connector to prevent contaminants from
entering the connector and causing short circuits between contacts or wiring. As an added pre-
caution, a silicone potting material was used in the lunar module connectors for additional en-
vironmental sealing at the wire-entry end. Some hermetically sealed connectors were required at
the cabin pressure bulkheads. Most of these were rectangular and had a glass seal around each
pin to prevent leakage of cabin pressure through the con~ector.

Connecting devices other than the aforementioned connectors were slso used for interconnect-
ing wiring between system components. On the command module, these devices consisted of modular
terminal boards and crimp-type wire splices. The modular terminal board was basically a small
rectangular block incorporating eight socket contacts that could be bussed together in various
combinations. A mating pin was crimped onto a wire, and the pin was then inserted into the ap-
propriate socket. The modular terminal board also had one-piece silicone rubber grommets that
provided an environmental seal for each wire. similar to the wire grommet seal used on the com-
mand module and lunar module connectors.

For maximum wiring reliability, an early command module ground rule prohibited the use of
wire splices; however. approximately 250 crimp splices were eventually used. No significant
problems were encountered.

The modular terminal board was not used on the lunar module; however. both the solder-type
and crimp-type wire splices were used. The early developmental vehicles had more than 4000
splices, but this number was finally reduced to approximately 1500. Generally, the solder splice
was used for bench operations and the crimp splice fbr rework or vehicle installations.

Wiring harnesses and connecting devices do not generally appear to be fragile or easily dam-
aged; however, discrepancies often occurred during fabrication and installation. The number of
discrepancies had to be reduced to zero during the last stages of checkout before launch of the
spacecraft. To help eliminate these discrepancies, specific fabrication, processing, handling,
installation, and checkout techniques were developed. Fabrication and processing techniques in-
cluded daily calibration of splice-crimping tools, and the development of potting and environ-
mental sealing techniques. three-dimensional harness tooling boards, special harness handling
fixtures, and special protective enclosures for unmated connectors. Protection for harnesses
after installation in a vehicle included the use of special tubing and wire routing trays, chafe
guards at sharp corners, and adherence to specific criteria for harness support and clamping.
For checkout of wire harnesses, procedures were developed to make sutomated electrical measure-
ments, which included conductor continuity, conductor resistance, and insulation dielectric
strength. These measurementa were made on the tooling board and again after installation in the
vehicle to verify the integrity of the wiring in every harness.

Several significant wiring problems occurred during the Apollo program. Radial cracking of
the polyamide diapersion coating on the command module wire insulation was determined to have re-
sulted from an incomplete curing of this coating. A chemical test was developed to ensure the
adequacy of the cure, and a large amount of unsatisfactory wire had to be removed from stock and
from aeveral spacecraft to eliminate the problem.

As a result of the Apollo I fire, numerous changes were made in the kinds, amounts, and tem-
perature limitations of materials that could be used in the spacecraft. A maximum allowable tem-
perature limit of 400 0 F was established for wiring inaulation. To ensure that this limitation
waa not exceeded, an evaluation was made of all system circuitry to determine the adequacy of
the related circuit breakers under worst-case short-circuit conditions. As a reault of this
evaluation, a number of wire and circuit breaker sizes were changed to maintain wire/circuit
breaker compatibility.
 4-9 2

Two problems occurred with the lunar module wiring. First, because the vendor had changed
the amount of carbon in the black-colored wire insulation, the resistance of the insulation was
decreased from more than 100 megohms to as low as 5 megohms. Under certain conditions, this
change could have affected instrumentation measurements or given a false caution and warning
signal. Although a critical review of the circuits where this wiring was used determined that
a failure would not affect crew safety or mission success, the method of checking insulation re-
sistance in acceptance testing was changed from spot checking to IOO-percent testing. As a re-
sult of the change, a large amount of unsatisfactory wiring was located and returned to the vendor.
The second problem concerned the use of small-gage wire. A large amount of silver-plated-copper
26-gage wire was used, mainly for instrumentation purposes, on the first three lunar module de-
velopment vehicles. Because of handling problems and the considerable rework that was required,
breakage of this wire became a significant problem. To alleviate the problem, 22-gage wire was
specified as the smallest wire for use on concrol and display panels of subsequent vehicles. For
the balance of the 26-gage wire applications, the wire material was changed to a copper-chromium-
constantan high-strength alloy. Wire breakage, although not completely eliminated, was reduced
to a more acceptable level.

A considerable number of problems with connectors on both the command module and lunar mod-
ule was caused mainly by bent pins, recessed contacts, and damaged environmental seals. To
combat these problems, more effective procedures were developed for assembly and handling, pro-
tective features were incorporated, and additional inspection points were used during fabrication
and installation. Specific improvements also resulted from more extensive use of pictorial aids
in training and the introduction of a quality awareness program. The overall result was a sub-
stantial reduction of discrepancies.

In the early lunar module vehicles, wire splices became a considerable problem, mainly be-
cause of the failure of many solder splices during qualification. Unfortunately, a large number
of the faulty splices was contained in harnesses already installed on the spacecraft. Faulty
splices were caused by underheating, which often produced cold solder joints, or overheating,
which caused wicking of excessive solder into the wire and resulted in insufficient solder to
adequately hold the wires together. Development of the aforementioned fabrication techniques
and more exacting inspection criteria virtually eliminated the problem on later vehicles.

The use of modular terminal boards became a problem on early Block II command modules. The
dimensional tolerances between many of the detailed parts that made up the modular terminal board
were excessive. An out-of-tolerance condition accumulated from parts that were, individually,
within acceptable limits. This deficiency was not noted in time to preclude installation of de-
fective boards on several spscecraft. In many cases, the out-of-tolerance condition resulted in
intermittent contact or no contact between an inserted pin and the mating socket contact. A
critical evalation of the circuits for which the modular terminal boards were used revealed that,
in some cases, a failure could affect crew safety or mission success. Consequently, a number of
modular terminal boards were removed and replaced with components of known quality. Several anom-
alies are known to have been caused by faulty modular terminal boards, but because of criteria
established for circuit evaluation, crew safety or mission success was not jeopardized.

A more complete discussion of the electrical wiring system is given in reference 4-76.

4.7.3 Pyroteclmic Devices

The most significant decisiona concerning pyrotechnic devices were made very early in the
Apollo spacecraft program. These decisions were (1) to develop a single, standard, separable
electroexplosive device as a small, common-use item for initiation of all pyrotechnic functions
and (2) to use booster modules into which the standard electroexplosive device would be installed
and sealed to provide both general- and special-purpose cartridge assemblies for a wide variety
of pyrotechnic functions.

Initially, the standard electroexplosive device, designated as the Apollo standard initiator,
provided dual-bridgewire circuits for redundancy. Later, as the spacecraft pyrotechnic system
designs matured, one bridgewire was found to be adequate. Other highly significant improvements
were incorporated, and the resulting configuration was redesignated as the single-bridgewire
Apollo standard initiator. About 25 000 dual-bridgewire Apollo standard initiators were manu-
factured and used without any known failures attributable to the device; about 9000 single-
bridgwire Apollo standard initiators were also used in the Apollo spacecraft program with equally
successful results.
 ~93

Byt~~doft~ Apollo program, pyrotechnic systems and devices performed a wide variety
of critical functions. Typical functions and the devices used to accomplish them are described
in reference 4-77.

In general, a serial-qualification test program was followed for each pyrotechnic system;
that is, the components were qualified first, the devices next, then the assemblies, and finally,
the complete functional system.

Additional information on Apollo pyrotechnics experience may be found In reference 4-77.

4.7.4 Sequencing System

The spacecraft sequencing system is the system that prOVided the automatic timing and con-
trol of the pyrotechnic devices used to separate spacecraft stages, fire mortars for deploying
parachutes, fire pyrotechnic propellant valves, and perform mission aborts.

The function performed by the sequencing system on the AS-lOl and AS-l02 flights (boiler-
plates 13 and 15) was to initiate jettisoning of the launch escape tower. The sequencing system
for these early research and development flights utilized motor switches for the pyrotechnic
firing output circuits and solid-state circuitry for the timing and control. Motor switches were
chosen for output devices because of their insensitivity to vibration and high power switching
capability. Solid-state control devices were chosen because of their small volume, light weight
and low power requirements.

Failures occurred during the early preflight testing of the solid-state sequencer that re-
sulted in premature operation. Consequently, a relay was added to apply power to the sequencer
only when the launch escape tower was to be jettisoned. Because of the test failures and numer-
ous single-point failures, the solid-state sequencer was redesigned to eliminate the single-
point failure modes, and the solid-state logic was replaced with relay logic. Relays were also
used in place of motor switches because of problems experienced with motor switches during ther-
mal testing. The redesigned sequencer was used on the PA-I, A-DOL, and A-002 flights (boiler-
plates 6, 12, and 23) launched from the White Sands Missile Range to test the spacecraft abort
snd parachute systems. The sequencing system (redundant A and B systems) for these flights con-
sisted of a mission sequencer, an abort backup timer, two earth landing sequence controllers
(used to sequence parachute deployment), two tower sequencers. and four silver-zinc batteries
(two pyrotechnic and two logic batteries).

During a design review of the operational sequencing system, single-point failure modes were
found to exist in the earth landing sequence controllers being built by the parachute contractor.
Because eliminating these failure modes would severely impact cost and schedule, a design change
was implemented so that pyrotechnic power would not be applied to the earth landing sequence con-
trollers until the time for jettisoning of the forward heat shield. This design was flown on
the A-003, PA-2, and A-004 flights (boilerplates 22 and 23A and airframe 002).

The sequencing system for Block I and Block II command and service modules consisted of
two redundant systems with two master event sequence controllers, two service module jettison
controllers, two reaction control system controllers, two earth landing sequence controllers,
and a pyrotechnic continuity verification box. The system was powered by two 3/4-ampere-hour
silver-zinc batteries for pyrotechnic functions, and two 4Q-arnpere-hour silver-zinc entry bat-
teries supplied power for logic and bus 1 and 3 of the emergency detection system. A third en-
try battery powered emergency detection system bus 2. (The emergency detection system is dis-
cussed in section 4.7.6.)

During checkout of airframe 009 for the AS-20l flight, a main parachute deploy relay contact
in the earth landing sequence controller welded closed due to an overload. Because of this fail-
ure, the pyrotechnic simulator and the sequencing system circuitry were modified to prevent over-
loading. For this modification, series relays were added to the pyrotechnic continuity verifi-
cation box to eliminate the earth landing sequence controller single-point failure modes and to
do away with the need to delay powering of the earth landing sequence controller pyrotechnic bus.
The new design was flown on all subsequent spacecraft.
4-94

During the AS-201 flight. a spare wire that went through the command and service module um-
bilical without being deadfaced, shorted during entry. This wire was connected to the arming
circuit breaker of the sequencing system; the short opened the circuit breaker and removed power
from sequencing system B. Although the remaining system A successfully performed the required
earth landing and postlsnding functions. this event indicated the requirement to have separate
and isolated syscems for redundancy.

Two lunar docking event controllers and two lunar module/adapter separation controllers were
added to the Block II system to perform the lunar mission functions. Also, the reaction control
systea controller was redesigned to fit in the aft compartment to allow accessibility to the con-
troller without removing the aft !~at shield on the Block II command module. Because of the
smaller volume available, the redundant circuits were put into one controller box rather than
having two separate boxes.

Another change to the sequential events control system was made because the mission require-
ments specified that the lunar module crewmen should be able to dock with the command and service
module without assistance from the Command Module Pilot. For this operation, the pyrotechnic bus
had to remain armed from the time of undocking until redocking after lunar module ascent from
the moon. Therefore, to save battery power and still have the panel toggle switch remain in the
activated position, motor switches, rather than relays, were used to arm the pyrotechnic bus.

In reviewing the sequencing system before the Apollo 11 mission, two aingle-point failure
modes were identified that could have caused a mission abort. Two emergency detection system
abort signals were passed through the same electrical connector, and two booster-engine cutoff
commands went through another single connector on the master events sequence controller. Al-
though a change had been made on the Block I command and service module to eliminate these fail-
ure modes, the change had not been carried over to the Block II command and service module. The
corrective action was to safety-wire the connectors on the Apollo 11 and 12 spacecraft; on sub-
sequent spacecraft, the functions were routed through separate connectors.

A review of crew safety switching functions (explosive device and engine firing functions)
on the lunar module identified four single-point failure sources in the engine firing circuitry
that could have inadvertently shut down the descent engine: (1) a relay in the stabilizat~on and
control assembly, (2) the engine stop pushbutton switches, (3) the abort stage pushbutton switch,
and (4) the engine arm toggle switch. Also, the plus-X translation pushbutton switch was a
single-point failure source for firing the reaction control system engines. All of these poten-
tial failure sources were eliminated by wiring the switch contacts in series.

After the postflight investigation of the problems encountered with the docking system dur-
ing the Apollo 14 mission, a recommended backup method of docking was provided for Apollo 15 and
subsequent flights. A cable was connected to the lunar docking events controller ground support
equipment connector in the co~and module, Which would allow power to be applied to the docking
probe retract mechanism. Thus, the probe could be retracted and docking would be possible, even
if the capture latches on the docking probe did not work.

An emergency cable also was made for the lunar module that would apply power directly to
the ascent engine valves if the engine failed to start by either the automatic or the manual fir-
ing paths. This cable could also apply power to the explosive devices box through the ground
support equipment connect9r if the explosive devices batteries or arming relays failed. Unlike
the command and service module, normal switching of other spacecraft batteries to the explosive
devices bus could not be accomplished.

Additional sequencing system functions were uaed for the J-series missions to jettison the
scientific instrument module bay door, to launch the subsatellite, and to jettison the high-
frequency antennas. The relays for performing these functions were incorporated into the mul-
tiple operations module box.

Reference 4-78 gives a more detailed technical diacussion of the sequencing system.
 4-95

4.7.5 Optical and Visual Aids

Optical snd visual aids were developed to enable the Apollo crewmen to rendezvous and dock
and to increase the precision of lunar landings.

The rendezvous and docking aids were required to furnish the following visual cues to the
crewmen.

a. Visual acquisition and gross attitude determination at a minimum distance of 1000 feet

b. Indication of relative attitude and alignment from a minimum distance of 200 feet

c. Range and range-rate information from a minimum distance of 200 feet

d. Indication of fine alignment from a distance of apprOKlmately 50 feet to the precontact

alignment position

Devices were incorporated in the co~nd and service module snd in the lunar module to meet
these requirements. Tracking and running lights were provided for visual acquisition and track-
ing, and optical aida were provided for spacecraft alignment.

The primary docking aid was the crewman optical alignment aight, a collimator device that
consisted of a lamp with an intensity control, a reticle, a barrel-shaped housing and mounting
track, a combiner glass, and a power receptacle. The reticle had vertical and horizontal 10-
degree graduations in a 10-degree segment of the circular combiner glass and an elevation scale
of minus 10 degrees to plus 31.5 degrees. The crewman optical alignment sight was focused at
infinity so that the reticle image appeared to be superimposed on the docking target located on
the other spacecraft.

The lunar module was originally planned to be the active vehicle during docking after ascent
from the lunar surface. In the first lunar module design, the forward hatch was also to be the
docking port. No auxiliary alignment devices were to be provided aboard the lunar module be-
cause the forward hatch was visible to the lunar module crewmen, who could directly observe the
docking operation. However, during lunar module development, the forward hatch was enlarged and
the shape was changed. The overhead hatch, not directly visible to either of the lunar module
crewm~n, became the docking port. This necessitated the addition of an alignment device.

For a command-module-active docking, a docking target mounted on the lunar module provided
pitch, yaw, and roll alignment. For a lunar-module-active docking operation, a docking target
was installed in the right-hand rendezvous window of the command module.

During the transposition and docking phase of an Apollo ~ssion, the command and service
module separated from the spacecraft/lunar module adapter and S-IVB, translated forward 100 to
150 feet, pitched 180 degrees, rolled 60 degrees, and translated toward the lunar module for
docking. If the translation and docking had to be accomplished in the dark, it was necessary
to light the lunar module. This was accomplished using a spotlight mounted on the command and
service module.

Both electronic and visual aids were provided for the lunar rendezvous and docking phase of
a mission. Range and range-rate data were provided by the rendezvous radar previously discussed
in section 4.6.11. A high-intensity tracking light on the lunar module ascent stage permdtted
visual tracking from the command module and a flashing rendezvous beacon on the side of the ser-
vice module permitted visual tracking from the lunar module. The lunar module crewmen performed
a gross attitude determination at a distance of approximately 2000 feet after command and ser-
vice module acquisition. This was achieved by viewing the running lights on the service module
exterior.

The rendezvous and docking aids performed well during Apollo missions 9 through 17. How-
ever, during the Apollo 9 lunar-module-active rendezvous and docking, reflected light cauaed the
lunar module crewman optical alignment sight reticle image to wash out (ref. 4-15). The problem
wa~ solved by removing the internal neutral density filter in the alignment sight and replacing
it with an external removable filter.
 A landing point designator consisting of scales etched on the inner and outer panes of the
Commander's window in the lunar module was used in conjunction with hand controller inputs to
the guidance and navigation system to redesignate the computer-stored landing point. After pitch-
over in the landing sequence, the Commander could see whether or not preselected landmarks were
in the proper relationship to the window marks, and thus estimate the direction and magnitude of
the correction required to effect a landing in the desired area. The capability to manually re-
designate the landing poirit also permitted the Commander to avoid an unexpected obstacle if neces-
aary, thus increasing the margin of safety. Redesignations were made as early as possible during
the landing sequence to conserve propellant.

4.7.6 Emergency Detection System

The emergency detection system sensed launch vehicle emergency conditions. Parameters sensed
included angular rates, guidance platform failure, engine thrust, stage separation, and angle of
attack. Displays of emergency conditions would have prOVided the crew with the information for
determining the necessity for abort action from lift-off through separation from the S-lVB stage;
however, provisions were also made for initiation of abort automatically during first-stage boost
in the event of extremely time-critical emergencies. Concurrent with abort initiation, the ac-
tive engines of the launch vehicle would have been shut down to insure safe separation of the
spacecraft from the launch vehicle. In addition, the crew could have been requested by ground
personnel to manually initiate an abort independently of the sensing parameters of the emergency
detection system. Signals originating from either the Launch Control Center or the Mission Con-
trol Center would have illuminated an abort light in the crew station to indicate a requested
abort. The technique selected for enabling the automatic abort system for flight provided for
crew selection of the automatic mode prior to launch followed by automatic enabling in two steps
at lift-off. The two final inputs were (1) the commit command from launch vehicle ground sup-
port equipment and (2) the separation of the instrument unit umbilical.

The first two Saturn V flights (unmanned) qualified the emergency detection system for use
with the large launch vehicle. The system was satisfactorily tested with the automatic abort
capability disabled on the Apollo 4 flight. The Apollo 6 spacecraft was flown with the automatic
abort capability enabled.

Critical analysis of Saturn V malfunctions in the high-dynamic-pressure region in mid-1967

led to a recommendation that the Saturn guidance platform be backed up during first-stage flight
to ensure a safe abort from platform failures. Two approaches considered were:

a. Integration of the launch vehicle rate gyro output

b. Implementation of a spacecraft guidance system interface to the launch vehicle flight

control computer

The latter approach had been shelved earlier because of the anticipated difficulty of fil-
tering the effects of vehicle dynamics; however, additional studies indicated that the approach
was feasible. NASA management thereafter approved the implementation of spacecraft guidance to
the time of earth orbit for the Apollo 10 mission and through translunar injection for Apollo 11
and subsequent missions.

The emergency detection system performed as designed on all manned missions.

4.7.7 Development Flight Instrumentation

Development flight instrumentation systems were used to acquire spacecraft flight nerformance
data during the development phsse of the Apollo program. Complete systems were furnished for 25
vehicles; however, only 18 systems were actually flown on missions. The remaining seven were
used in ground test vehicles or were reassigned for use as spares because of program changes.
In several applications, partial development flight instrumentation systems augmented the opera-
tional instrumentation systems discussed in sections 4.4.12 and 4.6.12. High reliability and
flexibility of use characteri~ed the development flight instrumentation systems. Some of the
major factors in obtaining these benefits are discussed.
 4-97

The peak environmental test levels used in qualification testing were founded on values above
the maximum design limits; that is, the levels exceeded any level expected in any vehicle area
that might contain development flight instrumentation equipment. This was a major difference be-
tween the development flight instrumentation and operational instrumentation qualification phil-
osophy. Most development flight instrumentation components were qualified at a single maximum
level, whereas the operational instrumentation system components were tailored for specific en-
vironmental zones within the vehicles. The standardized concept was used on the development
flight instrumentation to ensure that most equipment could be used in any part of a vehicle with-
out requiring different or additional qualification testing. The use of this concept not only
permitted general flexibility in mounting equipment but also simplified procedures, procurement,
and paperwork.

Flexibility in accomodating variations in quantity and types of measurements was obtained

by using a building-block approach. A syatem was designed that was basically common to all space-
craft, a maximum degree of standardization was used for component input/output characteristics
and test procedures, and programmable signal conditioning units were used. Measurement changes
were sometimes implemented on flight vehicles within a matter of hours following a new require-
ment. Some small systems were designed, qualified, and installed within a period of 3 months.

The control, power wiring. and calibration functions of the development flight instrumenta-
t~on systems were generally independent of other onboard systems. Because of this independence,
development flight instrumentation modifications (particularly late ones) could be implemented
with little or no impact on the vehicle operational systems. Also, the development flight instru-
mentation could be checked out without disturbing other systems. Unscheduled vehicle downtime
was frequently used for sdditional testing of the development flight instrumentation because of
its overall independence of operation. The instrumentation could be quickly energized and checked
with its own support equipment. Consequently, testing of the development flight instrumentation
was easily dovetailed into the vehicle master test plans and provided a convenient means for sched-
ule optimization during the vehicle test operations at the prime contractor plants.

Further details of the design, development and use of the development flight instrumentation
are given in reference 4-79.

4.7.8 Fracture Control

Stress-corrosion cracking can occur in certain metal alloys when they are simultaneously
exposed to a corrosive environment and an appre~iable, continuous, tensile stress. A number of
structural failures due to stress-corrosion cracking occurred during ground testing of Apollo
hardware. Problems encountered with lunar module structural components are discussed in sec-
tion 4.6.2 and in reference 4-59.

The problem of stress-corrosion cracking in pressure vessels is especially serious because

it can result in catastrophic failure of the vessel and d~ge to hardware near the vessel. In
1965, several titanium pressure vessels containing the propellant nitrogen tetroxide failed in
pressure-hold tests. In late 1966, two titanium pressure vessels containing methanol failed.
(Methanol is substituted for the propellant Aerozine-50 for test purposes.) In early 1967, two
launch escape system steel rocket motor cases failed during acceptance tests. These failures
occurred even with rigorous control of materials and fabrication processes. Investigation showed
that crack-like flaws had started and grown under test conditions, or that flaws were in exist-
ence under actual use conditions and had grown.

The concepts of linear-elastic fracture mechanics were used in late 1966 to examine the re-
lationship between potential flaw si~es in a pressure vessel and the subsequent crack growth pos-
sible with different fluids and environments. This examination showed that the sensitivity of
a flawed material to existing Apollo pressure vessel environments varied greatly. Methanol and
"white" nitrogen tetroxide were particularly aggressive to titanium. Untreated water was found
to be very aggressive to certain types of steel.

By the end of 1967, a program was in effect to eliminate compatibility-related failures.

As a result, three fluids were restricted from use - methanol, "white" nitrogen tetroxide, and
trichloromonofluoromethane. In addition to the restricted use of fluids, the use of Apollo pres-
sure vessels was controlled so that the "compatibility threshold" would not be exceeded for any
environment to which the vessels would be subjected. This was accomplished by controlling the
number of pressure cycles, the temperature during pressurization, and the fluids used.
4-98

Details concerning the problems experienced, the application of fracture mechanics criteria,
and a description of the control program for Apollo pressure vessels are presented in reference
4-81.

4.8 LUNAR SURFACE K>BILITY

4.8.1 Modular Equipment Transporter

To obtain the maximum possible return of data and samples before the lunar roving vehicle
bec~ma operatlona~. an interim mobility device called the modular equipment transporter wac de-
veloped. The modular equipment transporter, shown in figure 4-22, was a two-wheeled tubular-
aluminum cart which could be folded for stowage in the modular equipment stowage assembly of the
lunar module descent stage. Although the unloaded transporter weighed only 30 pounds. it was
capable of carrying 360 pounds; however, the actual load was much lighter. The low temperature
limit to which the tires were designed (_70 0 F) required the use of a special synthetic rubber
for both tires and tubes.

The transporter was used only on the Apollo 14 mission and it permitted the range of the
lunar surface traverse to be increased beyond that of the previous lunar landing missions. The
device was designed to be pulled behind a crewman and it could carry various items of equipment
for lunar surface exploration as well as lunar samples. The items of equipment included cameras,
geological sampling tools and bags, and a portable magnetometer experiment. The transporter also
served as a mobile workbench.

Since constant gripping of the pulling handle against the suit pressure would have tired the
hand and arm muscles of the crewmen, the handle was designed to permit control of the transporter
without requiring constant gripping. A triangular shape was used. The base of the triangle was
long enough for insertion of the hand but the dimension perpendicular to the base was shorter
than the width of the hand. Rotation of the hand toward the shorter dimension applied sufficient
pressure for pulling and rotational control.

The transporter was stable, easily pulled, and proved to be very advantageous for both ex-
travehicular activities on the Apollo 14 mission. Only at maximum speeds did the transporter
evidence any instability and, then, only because of rough terrain. The instability was easy to
control by hand motion.

4.8.2 Lunar Roving Vehicle

The lunar roving vehicle (fig. 4-23), used for the three extended-stay lunar missions, was
a four~heeled manually-controlled, electrically-powered vehicle that carried the crew and their
science equipment over the lunar surface. The increased mobility and ease of travel made pos-
sible by this vehicle permitted the crew to travel much greater distances than on previous lunar
landing missions. The vehicle was designed to carry the two crewmen and a science psyload at
a maximum velocity of approximately 16 kilometers per hour on a smooth, level surface, and at
reduced velocities on slopes up to 25 degrees. It could be operated by either crewman from a
control and display console located on the vehicle centerline. The deployed vehicle was approxi-
mately 10 feet long, 7 feet wide and 45 inches high. The chassis was hinged such that the for-
ward and aft sections folded back over the center portion, and each wheel suspension system ro-
tated so that. the folded vehicle would fit in quadrant I of the lunar module descent stage for
transport to the moon. The gross operational weight ranged from approximately 1530 pounds to
1600 pounds, of which 450 pounds was the weight of the vehicle itself and the remainder was the
weight of the crewmen, tools, communications equipment, and the science payload.

The wheels had open-rnesh tires with chevron tread covering 50 percent of the surface contact
area. A separate traction drive consisting of a harmonic-drive reduction unit, drive motor, and
brake assembly was provided for each wheel. A decoupling mechanism permitted each wheel to be
decoupled from the traction drive, allowing any wheel to "free-wheel." An odometer on each trac-
tion drive transmitted pulses to a navigation signal processing unit. The harmonic drive re-
duced the motor speed and allowed continuous application of torque to the wheels at all speeds
 4-99

'. ,
•

, ,

.,
•
'f
."
· , ,
,
••

"

•
, .;
) \' N

...,
N

- [.
'.
>
•

. "
•
, ..
.. .•.
. ,
'
' •
.
• . .'
• •
•
.'
, .
•
4-100

f
". ~

,
.. "~
,
•

~
j
'"E
;:
~
~
U
"0
~

'"
~

.~
~
~
>
'">
~

0
~

'"
~

.2
'j

"
•
'"
.-<
0
0
0.

""
~
0

~
>

'",
N
<t
~
~
~

'"
 4-l0l

without requiring gear shifting. Speed control for the motors was furnished by pulse-width mod-
ulation from the drive controller electronic package. The motors were instrumented for thermal
monitoring and the temperatures were displayed on the control and display panel.

Steering was accomplished by two electrically driven rack and pinion assemblies with each
assembly steering a pair of wheels. Simultaneous use of both front and rear wheel steering re-
sulted in a minimum turning radius of 122 inches. Steering was controlled by moving the hand
controller left or right from the neutral position. This operation energized the separate elec-
tric motors, and through a servo system, prOVided a steering angle proportional to the position
of the hand controller. The front and rear steering assemblies vere electrically and mechanically
independent of each other. In the event of a malfunction. steering linkages could be disengaged
and the wheels centered and locked so that operations could continue by using the remaining active
steering assembly.

Speed control was maintained by the hand controller. Forward movement proportionately in-
creased the forward speed. To operate the vehicle in reverse. the hand controller was pivoted
rearward. However, before changing forward or reverse directions. the vehicle had to be brought
to a full stop before a commanded direction change could be made. Braking was initiated in ei-
ther forward or reverse by pivoting the hand controller rearward about the brake pivot point.
Each wheel was braked by conventional brake shoes driven by the mechanical rotation of a cam in
response to the hand controller.

The vehicle was powered by two 36-volt silver-zinc batteries. each having a capacity of
120 ampere-hours. During lunar surface operations, both batteries vere normally used simultane-
ously on an approximate equal load basis. The batteries were located on the forward chassis and
were enclosed by a thermal blanket and dust covers. The batteries were monitored for temperature.
voltage. output current. and remaining ampere-hours by means of displays on the control and dis-
play panel. The circuitry was designed so that if one battery failed. the entire electrical load
could be switched to the remaining battery.

The control and display console was separated into two main functional parts: navigation
on the upper part and monitoring controls on the lower part. Navigation displays included pitch.
roll, speed, heading, total distance traveled, as well as the range and bearing back to the lunar
module. Heading was obtained from a sun-aligned directional gyro, speed and distance from wheel
rotation counters, and range and bearing were computed from these inputs. Alignment of the di-
rectional gyro was accomplished by relaying pitch, roll. and sun angle readings to earth where
an initial heading angle was calculated. The gyro was then adjusted by slewing with the torquing
switch until the heading indicator read the same as the calculated value.

Thermal control devices vere incorporated into the vehicle to maintain temperature sensitive
components within the necessary temperature limits. The thermal devices consisted of special
surface finishes, multilayer insulation, space radiators, surface mirrors, thermal straps, and
fusible mass heat sinks. The basic concept of thermal control for the forward chassis components
was to store energy during operation and to transfer energy to deep space while the vehicle was
parked between extravehicular activities. The space radiators were mounted on the top of the
signal processing unit. on the drive control electronica, and on the two batteries.

The mission performance of the lunar roving vehicles used on the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 mis-
sions was excellent. The vehicles significantly increased the capability to explore and enhanced
data return. Performance data for the three vehicles are given in table 4-IX. Several of the
minor problems encountered during lunar surface operations are discussed in the following para-
graphs.

4.8.2.1 Apollo 15.- After lunar module ascent, the video signal was lost from the lunar sur-
face television camera mounted on the lunar roving vehicle. Postflight analysis and ground tests
showed that the loss had probably been caused by opening of the auxiliary power circuit breaker
under combined electrical and thermal loads. For the Apollo 16 and 17 missions, the auxiliary
circuit breaker capacity was increased from 7.5 to 10 amperes. and a switch waa added so that
the circuit breaker could be bypassed at the end of the final extravehicular activity, preventing
loss of power after lunar module ascent. Further details of the Apollo 15 lunar roving vehicle
performance are given in reference 4-21.
4-102

TABLE 4-IX.- LUNAR ROVING VEHICLE PERFORMAnCE

Values Apollo 15 Apollo 16 Apollo 17

Drive time, hr:min

········· 03,02 03,26 04,29

Surface distance traveled, km

··· 27.9 26.7 33.8

Extravehicular activity dura-

18 : 35
tion. hr:min
··········· 8 20,14 22,04

Average speed. km/hr · · ·

····· 9.2 7.7 7.6

Energy rate. A-h/km (lunar roving

vehicle only)
··· ······· 1.9 2.1 1.64
Ampere-hours consumed (242 avail-
able) ...··········· 52.0 88.7 73.4

Navigation closure error.

····
km 0.1 0 0

Number of navigation updates

···· 1 0 0
~ximum range from lunar mod-
ule, km . .
··········· '-4.4 '\.4.6 "'7.3

Longest extravehicular activity

traverse. km
· ····· ··· ·· 12.5 11.4 18.9

8Does not include standup extravehicular activity time of 33 minutes

7 seconds.
b
Map distance measured radially.
 4-103

4.8.2.2 Apollo 16.- The significant problems that occurred during the Apollo 16 mission were:

a. The rear steering was temporarily lost.

b. Meters gave anomalous indications.

c. A rear fender extension was lost.

The rear steering was inoperative after initial powerup of the vehicle. However, the next
time the vehicle was driven, both front and rear steering were operative. No corrective action
was taken because the problem could not be isolated and the vehicle design and teating were con-
sidered adequate.

Anomalous electrical system meter indications were noted at initial powerup of the vehicle
and during the second and third extravehicular activities. No single cause could be postulated
to explain all of the indications. Since the cause could not be determined, no corrective ac-
tion was taken for the Apollo 17 lunar roving vehicle.

On the second traverse, the attitude indicator pitch scale fell off but the needle could
still be used to estimate pitch attitudes. Also. incorrect matching of switches caused removal
of drive power from a pair of wheels and a resultant loss of navigation displays. This problem
cleared when the normal switch configuration was restored.

The right rear fender extension was knocked off during the second traverse. As a result.
a great deal of dust was thrown over the top of the vehicle. showering the crew and the vehicle
during the remainder of the lunar surface activities. Corrective action for Apollo 17 consisted
of adding fender extension stops to each fender. Additional details of mission performance are
given in reference 4-22.

4.8.2.3 Apollo 17.- At initial powerup, the lunar roving vehicle battery temperatures were
higher than predicted. This was partially due to the translunar attitude profile flown and par-
tially to a bias in the battery temperature meter. Following adequate battery cooldown after the
first extravehicular activity, temperatures for the remainder of the lunar surface operations were
about as predicted.

The significant problems that occurred during the mission were:

a. The battery 2 temperature indication was off-scale low.

b. The right rear fender extension was broken off.

The off-scale battery 2 temperature indication was noted at the beginning of the third ex-
travehicular activity and the condition continued for the remainder of the lunar surface opera-
tions. The most probable cause was a shorted thermistor in the battery. The same condition was
noted on ground testing of two other batteries.

The right rear fender extension was accidentally knocked off at the lunar module site during
the first extravehicular actiVity. The fender extension was replaced and taped into position.
but the extension was lost after about an hour's driving. Prior to the second extravehicular
activity, a temporary fender was successfully imprOVised from maps and clamped into position.
Further details on the performance of the Apollo 17 lunar roving vehicle are given in reference
4-23.

4.9 LUNAR SURFACE COMMUNICATIONS

4.9.1 Introduction

The lunar surface communications system. as flown on the final three missions, consisted of
(1) an extravehicular communications unit in each of the two lunar surface crewmen's bsckpacks,
(2) a lunar communications relay unit on the lunar roving vehicle. and (3) a ground-commanded
television assembly on the lunar roving vehicle.
4-104

Earlier system configurations were less complex. In the initial concept, the extravehicular
and lunar module communications systems were to support a single extravehicular crewman with the
second crewman remaining in the lunar module connected to the lunar module communications system.
However, as the result of the decision to perform a two-man extravehicular activity, a new extra-
vehicular communications system was developed, without modification to the lunar module, wherein
the Lunar Module Pilot's voice snd telemetry data were combined with the Commander's voice and
telemetry data and transmitted as a co~poslte signal to the lunar module. The composite signal
was then relayed to the earth.

The development of the lunar roving vehicle meant that the crew would have the capability
of going beyond the range of reliable radio communications if the existing communications sys-
tem were used. Therefore, a lunar communications relay unit was provided on the lunar roving
vehicle that operated independently of the lunar module.

Television camera equipment used to provide live coverage of lunar surface extravehicular
activity underwent several changes during the Apollo program. On the Apollo 11 Kdssion, a black-
and-white slow-scan camera was mounted in the lunar module descent stage and was energized from
the lunar module cabin to obtain coverage of the Commander descending the ladder and stepping
onto the lunar surface. Subsequently, this camera was mounted on a tripod to monitor the extra-
vehicular activities. On Apollo 12 snd aubsequent missions. the black-and-white camers was re-
placed with a color camera modified for operation on the lunar surface. Beginning with Apollo
15, a ground-commanded color television camera was mounted on the lunar roving vehicle. The
lunar-communications relay unit transmitted the video signal to the earth and received commands
from the earth for control of camera pointing and light settings.

4.9.2 Extravehicular Communications Unit

On the Apollo II, 12, and 14 missions, the extravehicular communications units transmitted
voice and telemetry data from the crew to the lunar module in VHF ranges. The signal was re-
transmitted to earth through the lunar module S-band communications link as shown in figure 4-24.
Conversely, voice communications from earth were received by the lunar module on the S-band
equipment and retransmitted to the crew on the VHF equipment. The small power output of the
transmitters in the extravehicular communications units limited lunar exploration travel to line-
of-sight distances (less than 2.5 miles from the lunar module).

The extravehicular communications unit was required to fit into a 5-cubic-inch volume that
was available in the portable life support system. Therefore, Kdnimizing the physical size of
the unit was important. Standard miniaturization techniques served for the transmitters. re-
ceivers, and signal processors; but the triplexer, which allowed a single antenna to be used on
three frequencies by three devices at one time, required extensive design effort to fit the unit
within the available space.

The extravehicular communications units were used on the six Apollo lunar landing Kdssions,
and the units operated satisfactorily. The quality of the voice transmission permitted identi-
fication of the crewmen, and the accuracy of telemetry data transmission allowed precise monitor-
ing of life support functions.

4.9.3 Lunar Communications Relay Unit

The lunar communications relay unit was developed for the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions.
The unit was made up of four major components: an electronics assembly that contained radio
transmitters and receivers. a battery, a low-gain antenna, and a high-gain antenna. This equip-
ment was stowed in the lunar module until the lunar roving vehicle was deployed. The crew then
installed the system on the lunar roving vehicle. The electronics assembly was 22 by 16 by 6
inches in size and weighed 54 pounds. Power for the electronics assembly was supplied by a 29-
volt battery that was installed by a crewman. However, provisions were also made to use the
lunar roving vehicle batteries as an alternate power source. The low-gain and high-gain anten-
nas were installed on the lunar roving vehicle and connected to the electronics assembly by the
crew. The low-gain antenna was used for earth voice/data transmission when the lunar roving ve-
hicle was in motion. The nigh-gain antenna was accurately pointed to earth manually when the
lunar roving vehicle was stopped so that television signals could be transmitted to earth. The
system capabilities are shown in figure 4-25.
 4-105

0,

,< n
\ '

, 0
C",
,
c
,
• ,
.
.
,

N
or C ;
:or ~

o
o ,
" r
~ o, '"
",-
~c
~

~ •
~

'5
>
-~~~
,lj~
u
, , "
•
0'
, ~

, 0

0,

• ,
0

~ ". ~
"(
, ,, v
,
.r
r•
,r
'0

"
.• ~,
."

,
'v •

o• IJ ,

,• •
 1101.8 MHz
~

to
'"
1181.5 MHz

Extra- • "'77
~ ~-O",":",".--". ~'_'
vehicular
crewman 2~
.. r-' =.
~

~~
~ . _. To and from '.~

~.,
"" -:>. . =. lunar: module =
v~ '"
5S'-' . ...
..,. ~
-= =
-co
,r-=~~=,~:.-
r" ... _;.......-
\ , -' 0

'~'-.., ~
~:-
.'
::::=..~~
---'
. . ~~ .-:---'
, ---=00.. .~-
--
~
~
_.~~..-r ...
~
-~~
..,.:-
.. ~

. . ~~
C\\':) 159.7 MHz =/1'.
--=-:~~
.
... ..' . .• ~'.
~,~,:::--
., .
. • --= .. ~.
. -~:.~ ~~
~~-=: -= ~-
'.
'-'" ...... -.~ ,

~ 'p.~

... .:~-
""3
~.
-ztf-:: . ~

Extravehicular cr~wma~":' ;:;::;?"~.'"

,.
•
.. ...
o' -=-
~,--~
.,-
.- , <.

::=:'__..-7
=1l<l. .
If:.,.... '"" ....
<-
~. ~
<.
.~c
•. r -~ ~-----=- .~
~
~
• ~
:;.-.,.;:::::
c:: _ _ - . . c. . . . , . .
-........-. .-
~--
,--.--.
.
....~ .. . -
... ~
- ~
---.----:"'
. - --.....,..-.---.
- . - ..
Figure 4-25. - Communications capabilities during extravehicular activities of Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions.
 4-l07

The system development problems were primarily associated with the requirements for minimum
weight and power consumption, high reliability, independent operation, ease of system installa-
tion, and control by a pressure-suited crewman. Independent operation meant that the system had
to supply ita own power and ~lntain its proper thermal environment. In the event of lunar rov-
ing vehicle failure, the system also had to operate while being hand-carried by a crewman.

The reliability of the lunar communications relay unit system was evidenced by the fact that
no failures occurred during the prelaunch testing nor during the lunar missions. The system was
used for approximately 6 hours on each of the three extravehicular activities of each mission.
The quality of the transmitted voice and data was excellent. The received television quality was
dependent on the available tracking coverage of the earth stations. Stations with 85-foot-diam-
eter antennas were located geographically to provide 24-hour reception, and the signal strength
received by these stations resulted in a relatively good television picture, although some noise
was evident. Reception with 2l0-foot-antenna stations, when available, increased the signal
level and prOVided excellent picture quality.

4.9.4 Television Camera Systems

Experience during the early Apollo missions showed that an inordinate amount of crew time
was being spent in adjusting and pointing the television camera, and that useful coverage was
available only within a small area on the lunar surface for each setting of the camera. (COver-
age was limited by the lOO-foot length of the cable which connected the camera to the lunar mod-
ule.) With the planned addition of the lunar roving vehicle on the Apollo 15 mission, the capa-
bility for remote control of the television camera from the Mission Control Center was incorpo-
rated and changes were made in the camera which would also provide the capability for optimum
public affairs and scientific operations coverage.

The overall ground commanded television assembly consisted of a color television camera and
a television control unit. The television camera with its positioning assembly, was connected
to the lunar communications relay unit by a cable which carried ground commands to the television
control unit and returned the television pictures to the lunar communications relay unit for
transmission to earth. The television camera used a silicon intensifier target tube and a field
sequential color wheel. Use of the silicon intensifier target tube prOVided freedom from burn,
even if the camera was pointed directly at the sun. Also, the camera's automatic light control
permitted operation over an extremely wide range of scene brightness levels. The camera weighed
approximately 13 pounds, reqUired 11.5 watts of power, and was 4 inches high, 6.5 inches wide,
and 16.5 inches long (including a 6 to 1 zoom lens). Camera azimith. elevation. power, automatic
light control, lens zoom, and lens iris position were capable of being remotely controlled by
ground command with manual override provisions for crew operation.

Experience with the ground controlled television assembly on the Apollo 15 mission revealed
a much greater problem with flying dust from the lunar roving vehicle than had been anticipated.
Crispness of the televiaion picture was badly degraded. particularly when sunlight impinged di-
rectly on the dusty camera lens. For the Apollo 16 and 17 missions, the crews were furnished
with a brush that was used to clean the lens at the beginning of each science station stop. In
addition, a lens hood was attached to the front of the camera to reduce the effect of the sun-
light on the lens. Resolution and clarity of the picture were sufficient to assist the geolo-
gists in guiding the crewmen and. in some cases, picture detail was good enough to allow flight
controllers to assist the crews during the extravehicular activities.

On the Apollo 15 mission, the elevation mechanism of the ground controlled television as-
seuWly failed because of high temperatures. The failure occurred in a plastic clutch-facing
disc. The enrire clurch assembly was redesigned prior to the Apollo 16 misaion using a metal-
to-metal clutch.

On the Apollo 17 mission, the camera tripod and cabling which had been used to connect the
ground controlled television assembly camera to the lunar module ro save weight were omitted and
television signals were sent to earth only through the lunar communications relay unit while the
camera was mounted on the lunar roving vehicle.

Additional information on the Apollo television system 1s contained in reference 4-81.

4-108

4.10 FLIGHT CREW SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

Two major hardware areas - the extravehicular mobility unit and the crew station configura-
tion and equipment - are described in this section. Similar to the Mercury and Gemini space
suits, the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit was an anthropomorphic miniature spacecraft capa-
ble of providing the crewman with life support and mobility. The unit served as a life-sustain-
ing pressure vessel during lunar exploratons and transearth extravehicular activities and as a
backup to the command module pressure system, The crew station configuratIon and the crew equip-
ment for both the command module and the lunar module changed constantly throughout the Apollo
program becau8~ of expanded mission objectives, flight experience, correction of design defi-
ciencies, new interface requirements, and crew recommendations. These changes as they relate
to program development are discussed.

4.10.1 Extravehicular Mobility Unit

The extravehicular mobility unit (fig. 4-26) was comprised of two main subsystems: (1) the
pressure garment assembly and its accessories and (2) the portable life support system. Emer-
gency oxygen and water-cooling systems were prOVided in case of portable life support system
failure. The subsystems and some of the accessories of the extravehicular mobility unit sre
shown in figure 4-27.

4.10.1.1 Pressure garment assembly.- The pressure garment assembly was a man-shaped pres-
sure vessel which enclosed snd isolated the crewman from the space environment. In addition to
providing protection against the vacuum and temperature extremes of space, the extravehicular
suit permitted the crewman to move about freely on the lunar surface and perform useful work.
Such mobility requirements as crawling through the small hatch of the lunar module, climbing the
lunar module ladder, walking over rough terrain, and driving the lunar roving vehicle were met.

The pre88ure garment assembly designed to satisfy these requirements was a multilayered,
custom-fitted, flexible garment (fig. 4-28). Progressing from the crewman's skin outward, his
lunar attire consisted of:

a. A liquid-cooled garment (a separate underwear garment containing small tubing through

which cool water was circulated to transfer metabolic heat from the body)

b. A comfort liner of lightweight nylon fabric

c. A gas-tight layer of Neoprene-coated nylon acting as a bladder

The bladder layer included convoluted joints at the ankles, knees, thighs, waist, shoulders.
elbows, and neck. These bellows-type joint sections were molded of a special latex and natural
rubber compound that gave the auit its bending capability. Gas-containing eiements had a nylon
fabric restraint layer that prevented the suit from ballooning excessively and caused the suit
to assume the anthropomorphic shape. The entire suit was ventilated with oxygen for body cool-
ing, carbon dioxide removal, and maintaining the helmet visor in a fog-free condition.

The pressure garment assembly was covered with a series of conformal material layers to re-
duce the heat flow into and out of the suit. The cover also scted as a micrometeoroid protection
layer and was referred to as an "integrated thermal micrometeoroid garment." The cover consisted
of seven separate layers of aluminized plastic film separated by very thin Dacron material. In
space. a vacuum between the layers eliminated heat transfer by convection. since the layers did
not effectively contact each other, heat flow by conduction was very small. Heat flow by radi-
ation was reduced by the reflective aluminum surfaces.

The crewman wore an almost unbreakable plastic helmet that had the appearance of a fish bowl.
Special visors covered the helmet to reduce the amount of light and heat that reached the head.
The crewman's gloves were custom molded to provide the best finger tactility.
 4-109

t
,
:~-
..-"". "-
r
,
.
;
-~<
.. .. ,
l' -'--
~

"
.-

, , , • ,. .,, .,
"

,. ,

,.
, ... , "
" '.
,
- .. , ,
.•
"
r
• ,',
, "

<,+ :-- ..
"
•
..~ -•• ..-• , t •

.. .., •. -... ":-

,
'

~ ,.
"
•
• ' .• • . •
Figure 4-26.- Lunar surface extravehicular mobility unit supporting astronaut activity.
 -r
~

Figure 4-27.- Major subsystems of the extravehicular mobility unit.

4-111

-
.!! co
,
N

. ""..-
0
~
~

U
U ~
~ ~

"~ u.
-.
~

..-
E
~
~

--..
>
u
0
0--.-
-
~
0

-
~
 4_112

Other items used in conjunction with the pressure suit, depending on the specific situation,
consisted of:

a. Constant. wear garment

b. Fecal containment system

c. Communications carrier

d. Bioinstrumentation

•• Urine collection and transfer assembly

f. Lunar extravehicular visor assembly

g. Lunar boots

h. Purge valve

Several of these items sre included in figure 4-27.

The suit and ita related equipment were tested in rigid teat programs to demonstrate their
performance. Basic development testing was conducted to determine the ultimate capability of the
equipment. Interface testing was conducted to verify the limits of the compatibility of each
item with the mating equipment. Environmental testing demonstrated system performance during and
after exposure to all the environmental conditions in which the suit was designed to operate.
Another form of testing, cycle qualification. was undertaken to establish the wearability or use-
ful life.

Several significant problems were revealed tbat required changes to the initial suit config-
uration as a reault of the testing and actual flight experience. In cycle testing, a particular
movement used for picking up rocks from the lunar surface loaded a restraint line of the suit to
a much higher level than anticipated. The entire line of restraint was redesigned to take the
induced loads. This redesign required new cable swages, stitching techniques. and cord termina-
tions. Field testing of training suits revealed deterioration of one of the rubberized components.
The cause of the degradation was determined to be an insufficient quantity of an ingredient that
retards aging and oxidation. a change was made in the formulation of the material and. as a re-
sult, much of the qualification testing had to be repeated.

With the introduction of the lunar roving vehicle, a new requirement was impoaed on the pres-
sure garment assembly: the crewmen had to sit in a normal driving position. A waist joint was
designed into the suit to meet this need. Another change was that the vertical entrance zipper
on the back of the suit had to be relocated. A different type of zipper was used because the or-
iginal configuration could not seal reliably in the new application. As testing progressed. the
need to improve some of the zipper manufacturing equipment was identified and X-ray inspection of
each zipper was performed. Each zipper had approximately 700 teeth, each of which had to meet
eight different dimensional criteria. The detailed inspection. although very tedious, eliminated
the possibility of using potentially defective units.

4.10.1.2 Portable life support system.- The portable life support system (fig. 4-29) was
a self-contained unit that controlled the environment within the space suit during extravehic-
ular activities on the lunar surface. The unit was worn as a backpack (fig. 4-26) and was con-
nected to the suit by umbilicals. System development was based on previous spacecraft (Mercury
snd Gemini) environmental control system technology, but the Apollo unit was the first truly
portable, self-contained life support system to be used in the space program.

Five subsystems made up the portable life support system: a primary oxygen subsystem. an
oxygen ventilating circuit, a water transport loop. a feedwater loop. and a communications sys-
tem. The primary oxygen subsystem supplied oxygen for breathing and pressurization of the pres-
sure garment assembly. The oxygen ventilating circuit cooled oxygen through the pressure garment
assembly and the portable life support system. In doing 90, the circuit removed carbon dioxide
and contaminants by interaction with lithium hydrOXide and activated charcoal and removed excess
water entering the oxygen flow (mainly from the crewman's respiration and perspiration) by use
 4-113

f~----------- __ Antenna (erect)

____-----Locking mechanism
_ _ _ _ _ Oxygen hose
_----Actuator mechanism
::.-_--Main power switch
:...-_-- Oxygen bottles
Oxygen purge
system
iI- Heater
~- __ Battery

_ _ _ Sublimator
_ _ _ Lithium hydroxide canister reservoir
_-_Hard-point mounts
_-;>_Terminal boxes

Portable life-
support system
- _ _ Pump
_ _ _ Primary oxygen supply bottle
- _ _ Battery
_ - - Oxygen fj II co nnector
_ _- Drain connector
____ Oxygen regulator
----Vent connector
=---- Sight glass
' - - - - - - - - - W a t e r fill connector

Figure 4-29. - Portable life support system and oxygen purge system.
 4-114

of a water separator. The water transport loop circulated cool water through the liquid-cooled
garment to cool the crewman by removing metabolic heat and any heat leaking Into the suit from
the external environment. The feedw3ter loop supplied ~xpcndablc water. orared in a rubber-
bladder reservoirs, to a heat-rejecting porous plate subllmator, a self-regulating heat exchanger.
The co~nlcations system provided primary and backup dual voice transmission and reception, tel-
emetry [rans.laslon of physiological and portable life support system performance data, and an
audible warning signal.

A remote control unit, attached to the suit chest area, contained the portable life support
system water pump and fan switches, a four-position communications ~e selector switch, dual
radio vol~e controls, a push-to-talk switch, an oxygen quantity gage, five warning indicators,
the mounting for an oxygen purge system actuator, and brackets for mounting cameras. Each port-
able life support system could be recharged fro~ expendables carried on board the lunar ~ule.
The expendables were oxygen, water, batteries, and lithiua hydroxide cartridges. When fully
charged, the portable life support system, control unit, and oxygen purge system weighed 135
earth pounds.

The portable life support system was originally designed for 4 hours of use at a ~tabolic
rate of 930 Btu/hr. The system designed to meet those requirements used only gas ventilation
for cooling. Extravehicular activity experience froa the Gemini program showed that the meta-
bolic rates were higher than expected and that gas cooling was inadequate. The portable life
support system was redesigned to provide liquid cooling through a liquid-cooled garment (fig.
4-27) to handle the higher metabolic rates.

The liquid-cooling design was used during all Apollo extravehicular activities and proved to
be extremely successful. The portable life support system was flight tested on the Apollo 9 mis-
sion and, for the first time, a man's life was sustained by a completely portable environmental
control system. Based on the success of the Apollo 9 mission, the decision was made to perform
extravehicular activities outside the spacecraft with two crewmen on the lunar surface. Origi-
nally, one crewman was to remain in the spacecraft while the other collected lunar samples. The
change in requirements necessitated replacing the communications system in the portable life sup-
port system with a unit that would allow the transmission of voice and telemetry data from both
crewmen simultaneously. The Apollo 9 portable life support system configuration did not have
this capability. The addition of the extravehicular communications system was the only major
change between the portable life support system used on the Apollo 9 mission and that used on
the Apollo 11 mission.

The system, as used on the Apollo II, 12, and 14 missions, was capable of providing life sup-
port for 4 hours and could be recharged from the lunar module to support two two-man extravehic-
ular activity periods. The portable life support system was changed to accommodate three two-man
extravehicular activity periods of 7 hours duration each for the Apolln IS, 16, and 17 missions.
In addition to increasing the consumables capability, the portable life support system water di-
verter valve (te~perature controller) was changed 50 that the crewmen would not be excessively
cooled during low-activity periods.

4.10.1.3 Oxygen purge system.- Three emergency oxygen systems were developed during the
Apollo program. The first and second configurations, called the emergency oxygen system, were
extremely si~ple and performed identical functions. Both units prOVided for 5 minutes of emer-
gency flow at a rate of 2 pounds per hour.

The mission requirements were reviewed and revised in mid-1967 to provide additional emer-
gency oxygen and to permit extravehicular excursions to distances from the lunar module that were
greater than previously planned. The oxygen purge system (fig. 4-29) designed for the new require'
ments, performed the same function as the emergency oxygen system; however. the oxygen purge sys-
tem provided a minim~ of 30 qinutes of flow at a rate of 8 pounds per hour (for increased meta-
bolic heat rejection) snd permitted the extension of the safe extravehicular activity range. The
rate of flow was determined by a purge valve located on the pressure garment assembly. A full-
open valve position created an 8-pound-per-hour deliberate "leak" in the system; a second valve
setting created a 4-pound-per-hour flow that could be used to conserve oxygen and to provide at
least I hour of emergency "get back" capability when the buddy secondary life support aystem
was used to prOVide the majority of heat removal.
 4-115

The original oxygen purge system, as flown on the Apollo 9 mission, incorporated a heater to
preheat the gas introduced to the regulator and to maintain the temperature of the gas delivered
to the suit above 30° F. Subsequent testing indicated that flow, pressure regulation, and ther-
mal comfort could be maintained without the oxygen purge system heatez-. Therefore, the healer
was deleted for Apollo 11 and subsequent missions. The only other oxygen purge system change
was the addition of hardware required for "helmet lIIOunting" the system for transearth extrave-
hicular activities.

4.10.1.4 Buddy secondary life support system.- The buddy secondary life support system
(fig. 4-30) was designed as an emergency system to permit a crewman whose portable life support
system was not cooling properly to share the cooling system of his companion's portable life
support system. The addition of the buddy secondary life support system allowed the crewmen to
travel farther from the lunar module during extravehicular activities than they otherwise could
have. The system was made up of two hoses protected by a single thermal insulation cover. A
connector divided the cooling water of one portable life support system between both crewmen.
If the oxygen purge system had been required for use, the buddy secondary life support system
would at least have doubled the time allowed for return to the lunar module because the oxygen
purge system would not have been needed for cooling and could have supplied oxygen at a slower
rate.

4.10.1.5 Transearth extravehicular system.- The requirements for the extravehicular mobil-
ity unit were different for non lunar-surface extravehicular activity operations; consequently,
changes were made to the unit for these operations.

The transearth extravehicular system was designed and configured for operation in zero grav-
ity in free space. The system included a command module suit, an extravehicular visor, gloves,
a constant~ear garment, a urine collection and transfer assembly, bioinstrumentation, an oxygen
purge system, and a purge valve. These items were used during the Apollo IS, 16, and 17 missions
when film magazines were retrieved froro the scientific instrument module bay. Special require-
ments for the system included modifying the command module and suit oxygen and electrical sub-
systems.

The command module modifications included the following provision.

a. A gaseous oxygen supply through an umbilical

b. An electrical cable that transferred communications and special warnings (low ventila-
tion oxygen flow and low suit pressure)

c. A braided interlocking tether designed into the umbilical as a restraining device and
attached to the vehicle and to the crewman for safety

The suit modifications included the following.

a. Addition of a pressure control valve that regulated the suit pressure in conjunction
with the umbilical oxygen supply

b. Remounting of the secondary oxygen system (one of the oxygen purge systems retained from
lunar surface operation)

During development of the system, cooling from an open-loop oxygen system was determined to
be sufficient because of the low metabolic rates required.

4.10.2 Crew Station Configuration and Equipment

The crew station included such items as displays, controls, supports, restraints, and stow-
age areas. The specific items considered as crew equipment were also extremely diverse. This
equipment consisted of such items as flight garments, accessories, medical and bioinstrumenta-
tion components, survival equipment, and docking aids. Hany of these items are discussed else-
where in this report; therefore, the discussion here is limited to only general aspects.
4-116
 4-117

4.10.2.1 COmmand module crew atation and equipment.- Figure 4-31 shows the general arrange-
ment of the command module crew station. Changes snd additions to the crew station and crew
equipment were continuous throughout the Apollo program. The development of the couch, restraint
snd impact attenuation systems are discussed in section 4.4.4. The development of displays and
controls are discussed In section 4.4.10. The problems associated with the development of the
crew equipment items were discovered from use and comments by crewmen. Prior to the approval of
a design for flight, the items were subjected to hardware design reviews, bench evaluations,
mockup evaluations, zero-gravity water tests, high-fidelity fit snd function tests, and, finally,
manned-chamber evaluation under simulated altitude conditions. During the early crew interface
tests, the design remained fluid and changed, as required, with each review.

Crew equipment engineers learned to remain closely involved with the equipment from the time
of initial design concept until completion of the postflight analysis. After the Apollo I fire,
it became mandatory to make spacecraft csbin materials less flammable. This new emphssis com-
pletely changed the design philosophy of the crew equipment. The design process began with new
ground rules and new restrictions that required the use of nonflammable materials.

AS experience increased, changes to the equipment decreased. Designers were better able to
anticipate the requirements of the Apollo missions. Eventually, a point of minimum change and
maximum efficiency was attained, this being a fine blend of design intuition and crewman partic-
ipation in the development effort.

As the program advanced, additional mission activities included wide-ranging scientific

endeavors. This change was reflected into the crew station/crew equipment systems. For example,
the adqition of the scientific instrument module bay in the service module resulted in the re-
quirement for transearth extravehicular activities. Film magazine retrieval was accomplished
through crewman extravehicular activity via side-hatch egress and body translation to and from
the scientific instrument module bay. The crewman was aided in this endeavor by equipment such
as restraints, tethers and umbilicals.

Stowage items used most during a mission (clothing, food, bags, etc.) received prime con-
sideration with respect to optimum stowage locations. Stowage volumes were made as uniform as
the vehicle configuration would allow and common mounting designs were utilized. Every effort
was made to understand the crew station environments during launch, orbit, return, and ground
handling activities because stowage designs based on unrealistic design loads have proven to be
troublesome. Except for a very few unique situations, return stowage did not present a problem.
Since the couch stroking envelope for a water-landing was much less than for a land-landing, the
amount of available stowage volume was adequate for return items.

It became obvious as Apollo neared the end of the program that certain stowage concepts were
proven from both an operational and budgetary standpoint. Specifically, the basic concepts were:

a. Provide specific stowage locations and arrangements for all items of loose equipment,
to be determined based on mission time lines and crew operational requirements.

b. Provide individual structural restraints for high density and fragile items to preclude
stowed items from being supported by other stowed items.

c. Provide individual zero-gravity restraints for all stowed loose equipment in such a way
that anyone item can be removed without adjacent loose equipment floating away.

d. Utilize stowage provisions (bags, cushions, brackets, and straps) as required to pre-
vent contact of the equipment to the metal stowage lockers, thus meeting vibration and shock
protection requirements.

e. All materials that support combustion must be stowed in a closed metal locker or inside
a double layer of fiberglass material (Beta cloth) containers. Also, these materials cannot be
stowed near potential ignition sources even though they are in metal lockers or Beta cloth con-
tainers.

f. Clearances must be maintained outside the couch loading (stroking) envelope for land-
landing pad abort and water-landing return. SOme exceptions can be allowed if the materia! is
crushable, (i.e., liquid cooling garment, some food items, etc.).
4-118

--.
; •t
,
•
·,.
I
·

,i I .~>
-
,
I,
)
•• 'I:
• i I:
1= i I:
I'
...
r-
J.....
il:
,-
-:::::;

,II C,~
...... ....•
t1~
t
r:i ',.. , .,.'",
~ ~
f~
.~
LL
 4-119

H1gh fidelity mockups and trainers were invaluable in evaluating stowage configurations. They
were also used continuously by many other Manned Spacecraft Center elements to develop proce-
dures, equipment modifications, and to demonstrate new concepts. Any program in the future
should be well equipped with this type of hardware and every effort should be made to keep it
current through all phases of the program.

Additional information on command module crew provisions and equipment 1s contained in

reference 4-82. Stowage 1s discussed in references 4-82 and 4-83.

4.10.2.2 Lunar module crew statIon and equipment.- A number of lunar module crew station
and equipment configurations were developed as earth orbit experience from previous p~grams and
analysis of lunar gravity and acceleration profiles were introduced.

Initially, conventional crew seating at the controls was provided in the early lunar module
concept. This concept was changed in favor of the crew standing at the cont~l station. Accel-
eration loads less than one-g during lunar descent and ascent on the crewmen allowed minimal
body restraints, thus providing the capability of crew viewing out the windovs along the module
thrust axis with minimum window area (fig. 4-32).

Operational procedures developed in full-scale mockups provided insight in problem areas

of crew mobility in pressuri~ed suits. Egress and ingress th~ugh the forward hatch proved to
be a laborious task while pre8suri~ed. As a result. the forward hatch vas modified and enlarged.
and the docking procedure was changed from using either the forward or top hatch to using the
top hatch only.

For the first manned lunar landing. cabin stowage was limited to equipment necessary to sup-
port life, lunar sample containers. and photography equipment. A modular pallet in one sector
of the descent stage contained some equipment to be deployed by the crew in addition to tele-
vision for the hiatoric first step onto the lunar surface. After return of the Apollo 11 crew.
specific vehicle and equipment changes were identified. Sleeping hammocks were added. additional
cameras and film were provided. and lunar surface equipment was changed and increased to provide
for more efficient ope,ration.

The retrieval of Surveyor III components on the Apollo 12 mission reqUired the development
of special tubing cutters, wire cutters. sampling methods. safety lines. and equipmeqt necessary
for expanded scientific operations. In conjunction with the Surveyor hardware retrieval. lunar
samples were gathered, and scientific lunar experiments were deployed.

After the Apollo 12 mission, it became evident that no two lunar landing missions were
going to be alike. Therefore. the crew station for each succeeding vehicle was custom designed.
Stowage. both internal and external to the cabin, became more complex to facilitate handling of
the increased quantity of equipment required to accomplish the mission objectives.

The Apollo 13 lunar module was configured for the maximum lunar stay time (2 days) of the
H-series missions. When this spacecraft became the life support system for a circumlunar flight,
it brought the crew safely to the point where command module entry was assured.

The lunar module configuration was revised, beginning with the Apollo 15 vehicle. to pro-
vide capability for the longer duration J-series missions. The cabin stowage concept was changed
to a semi-modularized configuration to allow more flexibility of loading. The descent stage mod-
ular equipment stowage asse~ly was enlarged to carry more equipment, and potential growth capa-
bility was prOVided, which became of great value later in providing stowage apace for new mis-
sion equipment with a minimum expenditure of funds. In addition, stowage pallets were added to
quadrant III of the descent stage to carry the large scientific payloads being identified. The
lunar roving vehicle, which also required a stowage interface on the lunar module. was being de-
signed in parallel.

All these changes were identified and s detailed design was initiated using the experience
gained on previous lunar missions. For the first time, on the J-series spacecraft, allowance
was made in the design of the crew station and the exterior crew-operated stowage areas for ex-
pected programmatic changes. Indeed, the full capability of the lunar module was used for the
final three missions.

Additional information on stowage may be found in references 4-82 and 4-83.

4-l20

-'"
~

--
~
0
~
~

~
0
0

~
.~

--
>
0

.:"
~

I "
~

'"
I~I
~
~
~

I-
~

"
'~-'
'"
~
~
~
0

'"-
E

~
~
...J

'"<t,
-"
~
~

U-
 4-121

4.11 REFERENCES

4-1. Postlaunch Memorandum Report for Apollo Pad Abort I. NASA Johnson Space Center Report
(unnumbered), Nov. 13, 1963.

4-2. Postlaunch Report for Apollo Mission A-OOI. NASA Johnson Space Center Report
lISC-R-A-64-1, Hay 28, 1964.

4-3. Postlaunch Report for Apollo Mission A-IOI. NASA Johnson Space Center Report
HSC-R-A-64-2, June 18, 1964.

4-4. Postlaunch Report for Apollo Mission A-102. NASA Johnson Space Center Report
MSC-R-A-64-3, Oct. 10, 1964.

4-5. Posrlaunch Report for Apollo Mission A-G02. NASA Johnson Space Center Report
HSC-R-A-65-1, Jan. 22, 1965.

4-6. Postlaunch Report for Apollo Mission A-Q03. NASA Johnson Space Center Report
HSC-A-R-65-2, June 28, 1965.

4-7. Postlaunch Report for Apollo Mission PA-Z. NASA Johnson Space Center Report
MSC-A-R-65-3, July 29, 1965.

4-8. Post1aunch Report for Apollo Mission A-004. NASA Johnson Space Center Report
HSC-A-R-66-3, April IS, 1966.

4-9. Post1aunch Report for Mission AS-201. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-A-R-66-4.
May 6, 1966.

4-10. Post1sunch Report for Mission AS-202. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-A-R-66-5.
Oct. 12, 1966.

4-11. Apollo 4 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-68-1. Jan. 7. 1968.

4-12. Apollo
• Mission Report. NASA JohnsoD Space Center Report HSC-PA-R-68-9, June 1968.

4-13. Apollo 7 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-68-15. December 1968.

4-14. Apollo 8 Mission Report. NASA JohnsoD Space Center Report HSC-PA-R-69-1, February 1969.

4-15. Apollo 9 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-PA-R-69-2, Hay 1969.

4-16. Apollo 10 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-00126, August 1969.

4-17. Apollo 11 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-OOl71, November 1969.

4-18. Apollo 12 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-01855, March 1970.

4-19. Apollo 13 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-02680. September 1970.

4-20. Apollo 14 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-04ll2. Hay 1971.

4-21. Apollo 15 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-OS161, Decembe r 1971.

4-22. Apollo ,. Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-07230. August 1972.

4-23. Apollo 17 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report JSC-07904, March 1973.

4-24. Smith, P. D. : Apollo Structure Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-7780.
September 1974.
 4-122

4-25. Dotts, R. L.: Spacecraft Heating Environment and Thermal Protection for Launch Through
the Atmosphere of the Earth. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-6085, July 1972.

4-26. Pavlosky. J. E.• snd 5t. Leger. L. G.: Apollo Thermal Protection Subsystem. Apol,lo
Experience Report, NASA TN D-7564, January 1974.

4-27. West:, R. B.: The Apollo Earth Landing System. Apollo Experience Report. NASA TN 0-7437,
September 1973.

4-28. Arabian, D. D., and Hechelay, J. E.: Apollo 15 Main Parachute Failure. 7th Aerospace
Mechanisms Symposium, NASA 1M X-S8106, November 1912.

4-29. Langley, R. D.: The Docking System. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-6854, March 1972.

4-30. Langley, R. D.: The Apollo 14 Docking Anomaly. 7th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium,
NASA 1M X-58106, November 1972.

4-31. Drexel, R. E., and Hunter, H. N.: Command Module Crew Couch/Restraint System and Load
Attenuation System. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-7440, September 1973.

4-32. White, R. D.: Command Module Uprighting System. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN
0-7081, April 1972.

4-33. Walkover, L. J.; Hart, R. J.; and Zosky, E. W.: Apollo Command Module Side Access
Hatch System. 4th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, NASA JPL TM 33-425, 1970.

4-34. Chandler, W. A., Rice, R. R., and Allgeier, R. K.: Cryogenic Storage System. Apollo
Experience Report, NASA TN 0-7288, June 1973.

4-35. Bell, O. III, and Plauche, F. M.: Power Generation System. Apollo Experience Report,
NASA TN D-7l42, March 1973.

4-36. Trout, J. B.: Battery Subsystem Experience. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-6976,
September 1972.

4-37. Munford, R. E., and Hendrix, B.: Command and Service Module Electrical Power Distribu-
tion System. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-7609, March 1974.

4-38. Gibson, C. R., and Wood, J. A.: Service Propulsion Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report,
NASA TN D-7375, August 1973.

4-39. Taeuber, R. J., and Weary, O. P.: C01'llllland and Service Module Reaction Control System.
Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-7151, June 1973.

*4-40. Wilson, R. E.: Guidance and Control Systems. Apollo Experience Report.

*4-41. Holley, M. D.: Primary Guidance, Navigation and Control Systems Development. Apollo
Experience Report.

4-42. Cox, K. J., and Peters, W. H.: Apollo Digital Autopilot Design and Development. Apollo
Experience Report, NASA TN D-7289, June 1973.

4-43. Gilbert, D. W.: Engineering Simulation Program. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN
0-7287, June 1973.

4-44. Littleton, O. P.: Command and Service Module Stabilization and Control System. Apollo
Experience Report, NASA TN D-7785, September 1974.

*4-45. McMahon, W. A.: Command and Service Module Propulsion Gimbal Actuators. Apollo Experi-
ence Report.

4-46. Reina, B.: Command and Service Module Entry Monitor System. Apollo Experience Report.
TN D-7859 • Jan. 1975.

• These reports are being processed for publication in NASA TN D series.

 4-123

4-47. Parker, R. B., and Sollock, P. E.: Orbital Rate Drive Electronics. Apollo Experience
Report, NASA TN 0-7784, September 1974.

*4-48. Holloway, G. F.: Automated Control System for Unmanned Mission AS-20l. Apollo Experi-
ence Report.

*4-49. Holloway. G. F.: Mission Control Programmer for Unmanned Missions AS-Z02. Apollo 4 and
Apollo 6. Apollo Experience Report.

4-50. Thermal Design and Performance of the Apollo Block II EGS Radiators. NASA Johnson Space
Center Report MSC-06949.

4-51. Tucker, E., and Samonski. F. H., Jr.: Command and Service Module Environmental Control
System. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-6718, March 1972.

4-52. Ellis. W. E., and Blakemore, T. L.: Considerations Toward the Selection of a Ground
Checkout and Launch Atmosphere for the Apollo Command Module. NASA Johnson Space Center
Working Paper 1343, November 1971.

*4-53. Olsen, A. B., Jr., and Swint, R. J.: Command and Service Module Displays and Controls
Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report.

4-54. Lattier, E. E.: Apollo Command and Service Module Communications Subsystem. Apollo
Experience Report, NASA TN D-7585, February 1974.

4-55. Dabbs, J. H•• and Schmidt, O. L.: Voice Communications Techniques and Performance.
Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-6739, March 1972.

4-56. Travis, D. A., and Royston, C. L.: Communications System Flight Evaluation and Veri-
fication. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-6852, June 1972.

4-57. Rotramel, F. A.: Command and Service Module Instrumentation Subsystem. Apollo Experi-
ence Report, NASA TN 0-7374, August 1973.

4-58. Apollo 5 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-68-7, Mar. 27, 1968.

4-59. Johnson, R. E.: The Problem of Stress Corrosion Cracking. Apollo Experience Report,
NASA TN 0-7111, March 1973.

4-60. Weiss, S. P.: Lunar Module Structural Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN
D-7084, March 1973.

4-61. Rogers, W. F.: Lunar lokldule Landing Gear Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report,
NASA TN 0-6850, June 1972.

4-62. Campos, A. B: Lunar Module Electrical Power Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report,
NASA TN 0-6977, September 1972.

4-63. Hammock, W. R., Jr.; Currie, E. C.; and Fisher, A. E.: Oescent Propulsion System.
Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-7143, March 1973.

4-64. Humphries, C. E., and Taylor, R. E.: Ascent Propulsion System. Apollo Experience
Report, NASA TN 0-7082, March 1973.

4-65. Vaughan, C. A.; Villemarette, R.; Karakulko, W.; and Blevins, D. R.: Lunar Module Re-
action Control System. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-6740, March 1972.

*4-66. Shelton, D. H.: Lunar Module Stabili~ation and Control System. Apollo Experience Re-
port.

*4-67. Kurten, P. K.: Lunar Module Abort Guidance System. Apollo Experience Report.

*These reports are being processed for publication in NASA TN D series.

 4-124

4-68. Gillen, R. J.j Brady, J. C.; and Collier, F.: Lunar MOdule Environmental Control Sub-
system. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-6724, March 1972.

4-69. Farkas, A. J.: Lunar Module Display and Control Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report,
NASA TN D-6722, March 1972.

4-70. Dietz, R. H.; Rhoades, D. E; and Davidson, L. J.: Lunar MOdule Communications System.
Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-6974, September 1972.

4-71. Rosenberg, H. R. (ed.); S-Band System Signal Design and Analysis. Apollo Experience
Report, NASA TN D-6723, Harch 1972.

4-12. Panter, W. Very-HIgh-Frequency Ranging System. Apollo Experience Report, NASA

TN D-6851, 1972.

4-73. Ohnesorge, T. E.: Electronic Systems Test Program Accomplishment and Results. Apollo
Experience RePQrt, NASA TN 0-6720, Harch 1972.

4-74. Rozas, P., and Cunningham, A. R.: Lunar Module Landing Radar and Rendezvous Radar.
Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-6849, June 1972.

4-75. O'Brien, D. E. III, and Woodfill, J. R. IV: Lunar Module Instrumentation Subsystem.
Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-6845, June 1972.

*4-76. White, L. D.: Electrical Wiring Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report.

4-77. Falbo, H. J., and Robinson, R. L.: Spacecraft Pyrotechnic Systems. Apollo Experience
Report, NASA TN D-7l4l, March 1973.

*4-76. Johnson, G. W.: Sequential Events Control Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report.

4-79. Farmer, N. B.: Apollo Development Flight Instrumentation Program. Apollo Experience
Report, NASA TN D-7598, Harch 1974.

4-80. Ecord, G. H.: Pressure Vessels. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-6975, Sept. 1972.

4-81. Coan, P. P.: Apollo Television System. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN D-7476,
November 1973.

4-82. McAllister, F. A.: Crew Provisions and Equipment Subsystem. Apollo Experience Report,
NASA TN 0-6737, Harch 1972.

4-83. Hix, H. W.: Apollo Stowage and Support Team Concept. Apollo Experience Report, NASA
TN D-7434, September 1973.

*These reports are being processed for publication in NASA TN D seriea.

 5-1

5.0 SPACECRAFT DEVELOPMENT TESTING

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The development of the Apollo spacecraft and associated flight equipment required extensive
testing. A large part of the command and service module and the lunar module teating, especially
at higher levels of assembly, was conducted at the White Sands Test Facility and the Manned
Spacecraft Center.

5.2 WlIiTE SANDS TEST FACILITY

The White Sands Test Facility operates as an element of the Manned Spacecraft Center and
1s devoted to propulsion and power systems development and certification testing, and special
testing of materials, components, and subsystems used with propellants or other ha~ardous fluids
or environments. The facility has five operational propulsion test stands located in two sepa-
rate areas. Three of the stands have altitude simulation capabilities (up to approximately
140000 feet for 12 OOO-pound-thrust engines). Each test stand is essentially self-contained
and is separately maintained and controlled.

Testing accomplished at the White Sands Test Facility consisted of integrated systems ground
testing of the following service module and lunar module systems:

Service Module Lunar Module

Service propulsion system Ascent propulsion system

Reaction control system Deacent propulsion system

Electrical power system (fuel cells Reaction control system

and cryogenic storage subsystem)

Screening of a wide variety of Apollo program materials for ignition and combustion hazards,
toxicity, and odor outgassing required the development of new "standardized" test methods and
test devices. The White Sands Teat Facility took the lead "in developing these teats and, as a
result, has become an "industry-standard" test agency for this type of testing. Standard teats
now capable of being performed at the White Sands Test Facility satisfy all of the requirements
as specified by NASA Handbook 8060.1 "Fl8Jllll\ability, Odor and Offgassing Requirements, and Test
Procedures for Materials in Environments that Support Combustion." The testing includes combus-
tion propagation rate tests. thermogravimetric analysis, flash point and fire point determina-
tion, offgassed and combustion products" analysis, odor evaluations, mechanical and pneumatic
impact ignition sensitivity tests, and vacuum stability tests. Tests can be performed in gas-
eous and liquid oxygen, in hydrogen, and in earth storable propellants.

5.3 MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER

Testing accomplished at the Manned Spacecraft Center included vibration, acoustic, and
thermal-vacuum tests of the command and service module and the lunar module; water- and land-
landing impact tests of the command module; and lunar landing impact tests of the lunar module.
Command module and lunar module docking simulations were performed as well as modal surveys of
the docked configuration. Numerous other tests at various levels of assembly were also con-
ducted on Apollo program hardware. These tests are documented in summary form in references
5-1, 5-2 and 5-3. A description of the test facilities used in this testing can be found in
reference 5-4.
 5-2

5.4 REFERENCES

5-1. Major Test Accomplishments of the Engineering and Development Directorate - 1968,
HSC-00121. April 1969.

5-2. Major Test Accomplishments of the Engineering and Development Directorate - 1969,
HSC-02531, June 1969.

5-3. Major Test Accowplishments of the Engineering and Development Directorate, HSC-07194,
August 1972.

5-4. Major Test Facilities of the Engineering snd Development Directorate, HSC-03415,
October 1970.
 6-1

6.0 FLIGHT CREW SUMMARY

Considering the available resources snd the time spacing for launches, each Apollo mission
represented a considerable increase In sophistication and conplexity from the standpoint of crew
performance. The mission reports (refs. 6-1 to 6-11) for 11 manned missions show a continual im-
provement In flight crew performance. Tbis improvement was possible because each mission sup-
ported the next one with a wealth of pertinent crew experience. The increased complexity in the
objectives of each mission was possible, In part, because new operational experience was used
where appropriate to standardize and revise crew operations as each mission was flown, especially
in the areas of preflight training, flight procedures, and equipment operation. This standardi-
zation allowed follow-on crews to concentrate on the development and execution of those flight
phases which were new.

An important factor in the demonstrated success of each flight crew, especially in view of
additional operational and scientific requirements for each mission, was the continually increas-
ing effectiveness and validity of crew training, particularly training conducted in the mission
simulators.

The 22 three-man flight crews (primary and backup) assigned for the 11 manned Apollo mis-
sions are listed in table 6-1. Thirty-two different astronauts received assignments to this
team. Of 29 astronauts who flew Apollo missions, four flew two missions each. Twenty-four dif-
ferent crewmembers participated in the lunar missions, and 12 men landed on the lunar surface.

6.1 CREW REPORT

This section summarizes and presents an overview of the significant contributions and exper-
iences of all crewmen during the flight program, particularly in areas where flight crew experi-
ence was used to improve performance for subsequent missions. Attention is directed primarily
to lessons learned, both in flight and on the lunar surface.

6.1.1 Training

Training for the early manned flights (Apollo 7 through 10) leading to the first lunar land-
ing concentrated on continuous in-depth reviews of the command and service module and lunar mod-
ule systems, with major crew participation in nearly every phase of spacecraft test and checkout.
This involvement was necessary because total vehicle systems performance, both for normal aod
abort operations, was neither well understood nor well documented. Preflight training usually
began with the checkout, integration, and verification of the command and service module and
lunar module simulators because the availability and effectiveness of these simulators was a
major crew concern. In every case, however, the simulators supported each mission effectively
and provided the most valuable crew training for the dynamic phases of the mission for spacecraft
system operating procedures and for simulations of integrated time-line activity with the flight
controllers in the Mission Control Center.

Crews participated only in major spacecraft test and checkout activities during training for
the lunar landing missions and devoted proportionately more time to training on new scientific
mission activities with the attendant development of new procedures and checklists. Much wider
use was made of such specialized training devices and techniques as the lunar landing training
vehicle (fig. 6-1), high-fidelity stowage mockups, 1/6-earth-gravity and zero-g aircraft train-
ing flights, the zero-g water tank, and suited training for the lunar surface and transearth ex-
travehicular activity phases. The increasing effectiveness of standardized crew training for
operational mission aspects, the continuous addition of crew experience, and the greater spacing
between launches permitted the crews of the later science-oriented missions to devote 30 to 40
percent of their time to the development of, and training for, lunar orbital and lunar surface
science procedures. The effectiveness of the standardized training program was dramatically
demonstrated during the aborted Apollo 13 flight. Furthermore, mission results showed that sub-
stituting the backup Apollo 13 Command Module Pilot for the prime crew Pilot 2 days before flight
was practical and effective, even under conditions of stress.
6-2

TABLE 6-1.- APOLLO FLIGHT CREW ASSIGNMENTS

Apollo Prime crew Backup crew

mission Ca) Ca)

7 Walter M. Schirra, Jr. Thomas P. Stafford

Donn F. Eisele John W. Young
R. Walter Cunningham Eugene A. Cernan

8 Frank Borman Neil A. Armstrong

James A. Lovell, Jr. Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr.
William A. Anders Fred W. Haise, Jr.

9 James A. McDivitt Charles Conrad, Jr.

David R. Scott Richard F. Gordon, Jr.
Russell L. Schweickart Alan L. Bean

10 Thomas P. Stafford L. Gordon Cooper, Jr.

John w. Young Donn F. Eisele
Eugene A. Cernan Edgar D. Mitchell

11 Neil A. Armstrong James A. Lovell, Jr.

Michael Collins William A. Anders
Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr. Fred W. Raise, Jr.

12 Charles Conrad, Jr. David R. Scott

Richard F. Gordon, Jr. Alfred M. Worden
Alan L. Bean James B. Irwin

13 bJames A. Lovell, Jr. John W. Young

John L. Swigert, Jr. Thomas K. Mattingly II
Fred W. Haise, Jr. Charles M. Duke, Jr.

14 Alan B. Shepard, Jr. Eugene A. Cernan

Stuart A. Roosa Ronald E. Evans
Edgar D. Mitchell Joe H. Engle

15 David R. Scott Richard F. Gordon, Jr.

Alfred M. Worden Vance D. Brand
James B. Irwin Harrison H. Schmitt

16 John W. Young Fred W. Haise, Jr.

Thomas K. Mattingly II Stuart A. Roosa
Charles M. Duke, Jr. Edgar D. Mitchell

17 Eugene A. Cernan John W. Young

Ronald E. Evans Stuart A. Roosa
Harrison H. Schmitt Charles M. Duke

~isted in order of Commander, Command Module Pilot, and Lunar

Module Pilot.
b
Backup Command Module Pilot Swigert replaced prime crewman
Mattingly 2 days before flight.
6-3

"'"
."

"'"
&4

6.1.2 Mission Experience

6.1.2.1 Launch through docking.- The crew and the spacecraft test team were normally 10 to
20 minutes ahead of the final countdown for all missions. The Apollo 7 crew, launched on a Sat-
urn IB, reported an uneventful launch phase. However, all crews launched aboard a Saturn V re-
ported varying degrees of first-stage vibration and noise from lift-off through the region of
maximum dynamic pressure. The most unusual first-stage experience was the Apollo 12 lightning
strike, which caused the loss of onboard backup booster control capability.

Beginning with the Apollo 10 mission, all crews noted the rapid fore-aud-aft longitudinal
oscillations occurring at S-IC shutdown, and several crews commented on small longitudinal vibra-
tions in the latter portion of S-II stage flight. On the Apollo 13 mission, S-II center engine
shutdown was approximately 2 minutes early, but adequate compensation wss made through outboard
engine and S-IVB stage performance. Positive suppression of S-11 longitudinal oscillations was
incorporated on later vehicles. Several crews commented on a small high-frequency S-IVB vibra-
tion, which was attributed to valve chatter and which was not really objectionable.

Except for a temporary loss of inertial reference on the Apollo 12 mission because of the
lightning strike, the primary navigation system enabled the crew to monitor booster-steering per-
formance throughout the launch phase and to confirm satisfactory orbit insertion conditions.
During simulations for Apollo 10 and subsequent missions, all crews demonstrated a satisfactory
backup capability for steering the booster, in the event of a Saturn platform failure, into an
acceptable orbit using the independent command module inertial measurement unit. The flight-crew
backup steering mode was included in the training program because a less precise orbit was pref-
erable to a launch phase abort in case a launch vehicle platform failed.

An unexpected phenomenon reported by the Apollo 7 crew was the gravity-gradient effect on
the command and service module when the perigee was between 90 and 120 miles. Similarly, the
Apollo 9 crew reported that, in drifting flight, the longitudinal axis of the two docked space-
craft tended to align with the orbital plane with the lunar module closest to earth. This crew
also reported that the autopilot was effective in rotating the spacecraft about any axis while
holding attitude about all other axes. This feature later became a major factor in the accurate
positioning of the spacecraft in lunar orbit for service module experiments, thus freeing the
Command Module Pilot to perform other experiments and observations.

The Apollo 9 crew experienced the first of several instances of propellant valve closure in
the reaction control system because of shock during launch or pyrotechnic firings. After the
Apollo 9 mission, the standard crew procedure was to check all valve positions following any
pyrotechnic system firings.

Although several different manual control techniques were used for transposition and docking,
maximum use of the digital autopilot both in simulations and in flight proved to be the most sat-
isfactory technique for frugal propellant ussge. The Command Module Pilot executed the docking
maneuver by manual activation of the reaction control thrusters in an attitude-hold mode and by
aligning the two spacecraft optically with a sight in the command module and a target cross on
the lunar module. As a reault, docking misalign@ents never exceeded 5~, lateral velocities were
generally less than one-tenth of a foot per second, and closing rates ranged from one-tenth to
three-tenths of a foot per second. Six contacts of the probe and drogue were made during the
Apollo 14 mission before docking was successfully achieved. The crew was unable to discover any
obvious contamination or mechanical problems with the docking system, which later functioned
properly during lunar orbit docking. Several crews reported that as many as three of the 12
docking latches showed lack of closure, thus requiring the latches to be manually recocked and
triggered. A design improvement in the probe capture-latch mechanism was incorporated in the
Apollo 15 and subsequent spacecraft to eliminate this problem.

The Apollo 9 crew reported that the docking hardware and hatches could be removed from the
tunnel in 5 to 7 minutes. Movement of large masses from the tunnel to a stowage position in the
command module, such as the 84-pound tunnel hatch and the 80-pound probe, was found to be easy
to control in zero gravity.
 6.1.2.2 Translunar and trsnsearth coast.- A passive thermal control mode was established
for trans lunar and transearth coast, Wherein the spacecraft was rotated about its longitudinal
axis at a rate of 3 revolutions per hour. The attitude deadbands for the Apollo 8 spacecraft
using this mode were quite restrictive; however, the procedures were modified for the Apollo 10
mission by opening the allowable deadbands. This change saved considerable reaction control sys-
tem propellant, and the crew's sleep was not continuslly interrupted by thruster firings. On
Apollo 12 snd subsequent missions, an improved computer routine and revised crew procedures re-
sulted in no thruster firings once the passive thermal control mode was initiated. When the
spacecraft were in the docked configuration. all crews noted that small ripplelike oscillations
were introduced into the spacecraft structure while the service module reaction control system
thrusters were firing.

Star and horizon navigation sightings were made during the translunar phase of all lunar mis-
sions and during the transearth phase of all lunar landing missions through Apollo 14. On several
flights, the auto-optics control mode would not position the star properly with respect to the
sextant horizon fiduciary marks. When this deficiency occurred, the minimum-impulse controller
was used ·to position the star on the horizon. Since the opticsl viewing axes were between the
service module reaction control system roll and yaw thruster firing axes. this control mode was
expensive in terms of both time and propellant.

The failure of cryogenic oxygen tank 2 during translunar coast on the Apollo 13 mission re-
sulted in an abort of the lunar landing mission into a lunar flyby mission. This aborted mission
required the use of the lunar module to supply power, oxygen, water, and attitude control. In
addition, the lunsr module descent propulsion system was used to place the docked combination
into a free-return trajectory and to speed up the return to earth. The crew efficiently exer-
cised onboard contingency procedures for fast powerup of the lunar module in preparation for the
first descent propulsion firing. Also, following ground instructions, the crew used command mod-
ule lithium hydroxide cartridges in the lunar module to remove carbon dioxide from both space-
craft. A manual descent propulsion midcourse correction was also conducted on the Apollo 13 mis-
sion using the cusps of the esrth terminator in the optical alignment sight to align the docked
configuration for a maneuver which corrected the entry angle. Before entry, the lunar module
batteries were used to recharge the command module entry batteries while supplying power to the
lunar module systems. The ability of the crew to handle the time-critical phases of this aborted
mission demonstrated successful crew performance of complex tasks while under stress in a space
environment.

6.1.2.3 Command and service module thrusting maneuvers.- The Apollo 7 crew verified the per-
formance of the service propulsion system, including manual thrust-vector control, using the backup
stabilization and control system, and minimum-impulse velocity changes. The Apollo 9 mission fur-
ther verified service propulsion system performance, this time in the docked configuration where
inflight bending response (stroking tests) snd manusl thrust-vector control were evaluated. After
the Apollo 9 mission, there were more than 60 service propulsion maneuvers using the primary
guidance and navigation system for thrust-vector control with excellent results. On each lunar
mission. at least one translunar midcourse correction was made using the service propulsion sys-
tem for a combined trajectory change maneuver and performance verification test.

Although service propulsion system maneuvers normally demanded the attention of the entire
crew, the Command MOdule Pilots of Apollo 12 and subsequent missions performed them by themselves
during lunar orbital solo operations. Such a maneuver normally requires, among other tasks, po-
sitioning 72 switches and circuit breakers. Major factors in the successful conduct of these
maneuvers by only one crewman were the abbreviated checklist csrds attached to the main display
control panel and more intensive Command Module Pilot preflight training.

Once the inflight performance of the propellant utilization and gaging system was understood,
crews had no trouble limiting fuel and oxidizer imbalance. Because of an open circuit in the
secondary gimbal rate-feedback loop during the Apollo 16 mission, the lunar-orbit-circularization
maneuver was delayed, causing a major change in the crew procedures and mission time line. As a
result, onboard techniques for troubleshooting this kind of malfunction were incorporated in the
Apollo 17 training.
~6

The descent orbit insertion maneuver using the service propulsion system was initiated for
the Apollo 14 mission to conserve lunar module propellant. Crew monitoring of this maneuver was
critical because a I-second overthrust could have placed the docked spacecraft In a moon-impacting
trajectory. The crew. therefore. used an accurate prediction of firing duration from the Mission
Control Center aa the cue for a possible manual shutdown, thereby virtually eliminating the pos-
sibility of an unacceptable deorbit condition. The excellent performance of the service propul-
sion system In the minimum-impulse mode relegated the reaction control system to only the smaller
velocity changes. such 8a orbit trIm, lunar-orhit-phase ullage maneuvers, transearth midcourse
corrections, and lunar module extraction and separation maneuvers.

6.1.2.4 Lunar module checkout.- The preliminary lunar module communications and telemetry
checks and the stowage transfers were routinely made during translunar coast and in the initial
phases of lunar orbit. In addition, several early entries were made into the lunar module because
of ground instructions to verify systems performanc~, such as a systems verification check after
the Apollo 12 lightning strike and a battery-data check on the Apollo 15 mission. These early
entries were factors in the decision to make the entire preliminary lunar codule checks earlier
in a more leisurely phase of translunar coast to permit an early identification and collection
of trend data on potential syste~s problems.

Activation of the lunar module was essentially an inflight operational checkout procedure.
The Apollo 9 crew verified the lunar module powerup and checkout procedures in earth orbit. The
Apollo 10 crew demonstrated these systems checkout activities in a period beginning 6 hours be-
fore undocking in lunar orbit. On several missions, because of various systems or procedural
problems, crews were required to reverify checks or rearrange activities in real time to complete
lunar module checkout on time. For example, during the Apollo 10 mission when the tunnel would
not vent before undocking, the lunar module crewmen modified the hatch integrity check in real
time. Also, the Apollo 12 crewmen modified their pressure suit donning sequence in real time to
provide sufficient clearance at the lunar module navigation station for landmark tracking. Ap-
proximately 2 hours was deleted from the lunar module activation and checkout sequence during
the Apollo 16 mission to shorten that workday to a more reasonable 22 hours. All lunar module
systems were verified as satisfactory within the shortened time line, even with an S-band antenna
failure (which required extensive manual updates to the computer), a double failure in one reac-
tion control system, and several real-time revisions and repetitions of checkout procedures.

All crews reported that reaction control firings were much more audible in the lunar module
than in the command module. Crews also reported hearing the sharp shotgunlike report made by the
closure of the cabin repressurization valve, the glycol pump whine, the grinding of the S-band
antenna, and several pyrotechnic firings. Although sometioes annoying, these noise cues were
often helpful as indications of proper syste~ functioning.

All Apollo crews required almost 10 minutes to vent the tunnel for the hatch integrity check
before lunar module undocking. The Apollo 10 crew could not vent the tunnel for lunar module
jettison. Because of the sharp pyrotechnic report at jettisoning, this crew recommended that
future crews wear helmets and gloves to guard against a possible loss of cabin pressure caused
by increased pyrotechnic shock with an unvented tunnel. As a result of this recommendation and
because of a Soviet Soyuz accident in which cabin pressure was lost, the procedure was implemented
for the Apollo 15 and subsequent crews.

6.1.2.5 Lunar module thrusting maneuvers.- Manual throttling of the descent propulsion sys-
tem was first tested on the Apollo 9 mission in both the docked and undocked configurations.
Hanual control was used for the descent propulsion thrusting during descent orbit insertion for
the Apollo 11 and 12 lunar missions and for the three descent engine firings of the Apollo 13
mission. Automatic throttle control and throttle-up were used during powered descent initiation
for every landing mission except Apollo 14. The crews reported no vibrations except for a short
period of roughness during the phasing maneuver throttle-up on the Apollo 9 mission. In 16 de-
scent engine firings, the physiological cue of throttle operation was always noticeable. All
lunar module crews commented on small lateral oscillations in the attitude control deadbands.
These oscillations were attributed to propellant slosh. For all landings, the rate-of-descent
throttle control mode was used to specify altitude rate. This control mode was easy to operate
and allowed the Commander to concentrate on landing in the area of his choice.
 ~7

Crew firing of the ascent engine was first performed on the Apollo 9 mission, and the sys-
tem subsequently performed flawlessly In the automatic control mode during the 12 firings in the
flight program. Considerable training time was spent in maintaining pilot proficiency in manu-
ally controlled ascent thrusting profiles using the rate-command attitude-hold, rate-command, and
direct control modes. While the first two control modes, which were senimanual in operation,
were quite practical, the latter, a completely manual mode, was very difficult to perform but was
stIll preferable to the final alternative of being stranded on the lunar surface. Manual atti-
tude control of the unstaged lunar module, using either the primary guidance system or abort guid-
ance system, in the rate-eommand, pulse, or acceleration (direct) mode was responsive and precise.
For example, the pulse mode was used to position stars in the one-power telescope in aligning the
inertial platforms. Small star-angle measurement differences during these alignments proved the
precision of this control mode technique.

The ascent stage thrusting maneuvers using the reaction control system were performed manu-
ally for the rendezvous maneuvers of concentric sequence initiation, constant differential height,
terminal phase initiation, midcourse corrections, and final braking. The precision of this man-
ual control technique was first noted during the Apollo 9 mission, and all crews commented on the
control of the light ascent stage in response to the 100-pound thruster firings.

6.1.2.6 Lunar module landings.- For the Apollo 11 mission, visual checks by the lunar mod-
ule crew showed the spacecraft to be 2 to 3 seconds early over known landmarks. After these
checks, the lunar module was yawed to a faceup position approximately 4 minutea after powered
descent initiation. For subsequent missions, powered descent was begun in the faceup position
to accommodate S-band antenna acquisition and landing radar lockup. To maintain S-band antenna
acquisition with earth during the Apollo 17 mission, various yaw angles of as much as 70° were
used, but these angular shifts had only a slight effect on the crew's ability to monitor descent
parameters.

For the Apollo 12 vehicle to land acceptably near the Surveyor site, all docked maneuvers
were made using balanced thrust coupling, and s soft undocking was performed in a radial atti-
tude with respect to the lunar surface. This procedure eliminated the possibility of orbital
perturbations from reaction control maneuvers that could have compromised the accuracy of the
state vector. After undocking, maneuvering waa held to a minimum to avoid further affecting the
established orbit. All crews after the Apollo 12 mission conscientiously followed this minimum-
maneuver requirement, since the precision landing requirement became a factor in surface opera-
tiona. The precision landing capability for these missions was further increased by permitting
computer entries after powered descent initiation.

A series of alarms during the Apollo 11 descent indicated a computer overload which occasion-
ally precluded computer monitoring of descent trajectory information. During the Apollo 14 mis-
sion, the landing radar circuit breaker had to be recycled to enable landing radar lockup. Nei-
ther of these unexpected procedural changes affected crew performance appreciably. At pitchover
during the Apollo 11 descent, the crew prediction that the landing point was down range of the
target location was confirmed. The Commander transferred from the automatic to the attitude-hold
control mode to extend the range beyond a boulder field in which the automatic guidance program
would have placed the vehicle. For Apollo 12 and subsequent missions, planned landmark recogni-
tion was instituted as soon after pitchover as possible so that manual redesignations of the land-
ing site could be made to allow landing either near the target point or in a more suitably flat
area.

The Apollo 11 crew reported that lunar surface dust began to move noticeably when the space-
craft was at an altitude of 100 feet and became incressingly dense as altitude decreased. The
Apollo 12 crew noted dust motion at an altitude of 175 feet and reported that the surface was
completely obscured at 50 feet. Dust was not detrimental to out-the-window visibility cues dur-
ing the Apollo 14, 16, and 17 landings, but it completely obscured visibility from 60 feet to
the surface during the Apollo 15 landing. The effect of dust on the Commander's ability to judge
and control altitude, altitude rate, and lateral velocities was a function of such factors as the
sun angle at landing, the cohesiveness of the surface regolith, and the presence of blocks or
shadowed crater rims on the surface, which might be seen through the dust.
 All lunar module crews noted that the lunar module simulator and the lunar landing training
vehicle control system responses were representative of the flight hardware. The simulator and
the training vehicle (figs. 6-1 and 6-2), together with the high fidelity of the visual landing
and ascent television presentation, proved to be excellent training devices for the msnually con-
trolled final portion of the landing.

Commencing with the Apollo 15 mission, the angle of the final descent trajectory after pitch-
over was changed from 14° to 25°. This modification allowed for improved clearance over the Apen-
nine Mountains and provided better visibility of the landing site after pitchover. For the Apollo
16 and 17 missions, the steeper descent angle permitted the crews to asseas landing site targeting
while still well above the nominal 7200-foot pitchover altitude. In training simulations, crews
repeatedly demonstrated the ability to land safely using manual throttle, landing radar, and the
abort (backup) guidance system from altitudes above 20 000 feet. In addition, by using the lunar
module shadow on the surface as a descent altitude and altitude-rate indicator, crews demonstrated
the capability to land safely without landing radar and within the 3-sigma altitude/targeting dis-
persion criteria of the Mission Control Center.

6.1.2.7 Lunar surface operations.- As experience was gained, the time required for extrave-
hicular activity preparation was considerably shortened. For the Apollo 11 simulations, 2 hours
had been allocated for extravehicular activity preparation, which consisted of film transfer,
portable life support system (backpack) donning, and remote control unit attachment as well as
checkout and pressure integrity checks of the extravehicular mobility unit. The close confine-
ment impoaed by backpack/suited work in the. lunar module cabin and the less-than-orderly config-
uration of various items resulted in exceeding the planned preparation time on that mission. The
Apollo 12 crew devoted more training time for extravehicular activity preparation than did the
Apollo 11 crew; and, because of a very detailed high-fidelity cabin-stowage configuration, both
crewmen prepared for egress in a rather routine fashion. On the Apollo 15 mission, the first of
the 3-day lunar stay missions, the crew found that, with donning practice in the 1/6-earth-gravity
environment and the confidence developed in extravehicular mobility unit performance, egress prep-
aration times were consistently shorter than planned. Later crews confirmed that preparation
times were considerably shortened after the initial extravehicular preparation. After each mis-
sion, preparation difficulties were quickly corrected. For example, a problem in mating the elec-
trical remote control unit csble connector during the Apollo 11 mission resulted in the use of a
more easily mated connector for later flights. Also, the preparation checklist was changed to
eliminate communications checkout problems encountered during the Apollo 12 mission.

The Apollo 11 crew reported that preflight training at simulated 1/6-earth-gravity was rea-
sonably adequate in preparing the crew for lunar module egress. Body-positioning techniques were
necessary to prevent the backpack from engaging the instrument panel and the upper portion of the
hstch frame. The Apollo 11 crew noted that egress operations around the hatch, porch, and ladder
were performed easily without losing body balance. This crew found that they could jump verti-
cally up the ladder to the third rung, thereby facilitating ingress past the high first step.
They also noted the requirement to srch the back when halfway through the hatch to keep the back-
pack from snagging on the hatch frame. On subsequent missions, crewmen talked each other through
the egress and ingress activity to minimize the snagging possibility.

A typical example of the evolution of lunar surface activity techniques resulting from 1/6-
earth-gravity experience was the method of equip~nt transfer. Initially, a pulleylike double-
strsp conveyor was used to lower equipment to the surface and raise it into the cabin. The
Apollo 11 crew found that, when the straps became heavily coated with dust, the dust fell on the
suit of the surface crewmember and was also deposited in the lunar module cabin. The dust ulti-
mately seemed to bind the pulley so that considerable force was required to operate the conveyor.
A single-strap conveyor was used for Apollo 12 operations, but the crew reported that this con-
veyor also collected dust which was subsequently deposited in the cabin. In lieu of using a con-
veyor system, the Apollo 14 crew reported that stability and mobility on the ladder, maintained
by using only one hand for support, seemed adequate to allow carrying equipment up the ladder.
For Apollo 16 and subsequent missiona, sample contsiner bags, sample return containers, and pal-
lets were quite easily hand-carried up the ladder, thus alleviating the dust problem with the
conveyor. The conveyor had been further modified to a single shor~ strap (which retained the
camera/film/map equipment transfer bag) and was easily hoisted by one hand.
 6-9

• __ t'
. ' ,.·r:. N,
~/I" . -0

-"
&::.. .
~

~
.!<'
u.

~.L.b.'
~.
r

. .;'".;'
;
•

...-
~

•
 As first reported by the Apollo 11 crew, working in the lJ6-earth-gravity environment was
not difficult and adaptation was quite natural. Movement was facilitated by using either a nat-
ural loping gait in which both feet were briefly off the surface or by using an earth-type run-
ning gait. Host crewmen preferred the loping movement. When the loping movement was used, the
inertia of the crewman wearing the extravehicular mobility unit (representing an earth weight of
360 pounds) and the sometimes slippery effect of the lunar regolith required the crewman to plan
for a finite stopping distance in advance of the selected point.

No crew reported significant discomfort because of insufficient heat removal by the liquid-
cooling system in the backpack, even under the high surface temperatures encountered in the
latter part of the lunar day and after some degradation of the suit heat-rejection capability
because of lunar dust. The gradual increase in suit temperatures during the three long-duration
extravehicular activities, first reported on the Apollo 15 mission, was handled by increasing
the control setting to intermediate cooling and, occasionally, during high workload conditions,
to maximum cooling.

With the outer visor down, the Apollo 11 crewmen noted that a brief period of dark adapta-
tion was required when walking from sunlight into shadow. The Apollo 12 crewmen commented that
the brightness was extreme when looking toward the sun while the sunlight was at low incidence
angles, and they recommended an opaque upper visor in addition to the two side-shield visors.
The sun elevation also affects the color of rocks and lunar soil. All crewmen noted washout of
horizontal terrain and reduced visibility of vertical features when looking directly away from
the sun while the sunlight was at low incidence angles. Crewmen frequently raised the outer
visor for better viewing in shadowed areas and to compensate for the effect of the sun angle on
mineral colors in rocks. As noted during the Apollo 17 mission, raising this visor greatly im-
proved rock composition descriptions under some sunlight conditions and in the shadows.

The Apollo 11 crewmen recommended that future crewmen should consider kneeling and working
with their hands to increase productivity on the surface. The Apollo 12 crewmembers reported
that the efficiency of lunar surface work could have been increased by 20 to 30 percent if they
had been able to bend over at the waist to retrieve surface samples. The capability for bending
was made possible on the last three missions after the pressure suits were modified with a waist
joint which was required to allow the crewmen to sit in the lunar roving vehicle. The improved
waist fleXibility permitt~d static kneeling for retrieval of samples during the Apollo 15 lunar
surface activities and single-motion dynamic retrieval of samples during the Apollo 16 mission.
Several falls to the surface were experienced and, on earlier missions, one crewman usually as-
sisted the other in regaining his footing. With the improved-mobility pressure suits of later
missions, footing was frequently regained without assistance.

Hand fatigue was the only memorable fatigue from lunar surface operations. The Apollo 12
crewmen reported that carrying the Apollo lunar surface experiments package was tiring to the
hands because the carry bars had to be gripped tightly. Also, the Apollo 16 crewmen commented
that [he pressure suit glove required [he crewman to maintain pressure on an object to grip it.
A crewman's hand strength could not be relied on to apply the required pressure to grasp, hold,
or manipulate objects on a continuous basis.

The Apollo 11 crewmen reported some physical exertion while transporting the lunar sample
return container to the lunar module but indicated that tasks requiring greater physical exertion
could have been undertaken. Both Apollo 12 crewmen believed, in general, that they were working
at the maximum practical level needed for lunar surface activities. As a result of the success-
ful 4-hour extravehicular activities during Apollo 12, the crewmen suggested that extravehicular
periods could be extended to periods lasting as long as 8 hours without causing excessive fatigue.
Thus, beginning with Apollo 15, three 7-hour extravehicular activities were scheduled. The Apollo
17 crew completed more than 22 hours of extravehicular lunar surface operations without apparent
detriment to their working efficiency or well-being.

The methods of transporting samples, tools, and equipment on the lunar surface were contin-
ually improved. The Apollo 11 crew reported that 20 trips were required to fill up one sample
return container positioned on the lunar module worktable. For the longer traverse of Apollo 12,
a portable handtool carrier for geology tools and samples was taken to the lunar surface. How-
ever, the crewmen reported that holding the carrier at arm's length for rapid movement became
tiring after a number of samples had been collected and later recommended attaching the carrier
to the backpack in a manner similar to that used for carrying parts collected from Surveyor III.
 6-11

Rock-sample bags were mounted on the backpack beginning with the Apollo 15 mission. The Apollo
14 crewmen used the modular equipment transporter to haul the tool carrier, lunar samples, and
a portable lunar magnetometer. The transporter was reported to be stable and easily pulled; far
leas dust was kicked up by the wheels than had been anticipated before flight.

Beginning with the Apollo 15 mission, a lunar roving vehicle was taken to the moon for trans-
portation on the longer traverses. The Apollo 15 crewmen reported that the steering of the lunar
roving vehicle was quite responsive below a speed of 5 kilometers per hour but that sharp turns
at 10 kilometers per hour resulted in breakout of the rear wheels. Incorporating a more positive
seat restraint was recommended to minimize the effects of motion feedback to the directional hand
controller. The crewmen noted that forward visibility was excellent except when driving away
from the sun, which caused image washout and made obstacle avoidance difficult. With an improved
seat restraint system, the Apollo crew drove the lunar roving vehicle over very hummocky and
blocky terrain and up slopes in excess of 20°. They reported that the dynamics of the vehicle
suspension system were excellent. The Apollo 17 crew traversed the same type of terrain while
the lunar roving vehicle was loaded with a traverse gravimeter, a surface electrical properties
experiment, and explosive packages for a lunar seismic profiling experiment. They reported a
top speed of 17 to 18 kilometers per hour and covered a total distance of approximately 34 kil-
ometers.

The Apollo 12 crew believed that efficiency on the surface would be enhanced by performing
actual traverses under simulated lunar conditions during preflight training. As a result, later
crews devoted the maximum practical amount of time to lunar surface science training, particu-
larly geology. The crews of the last three missions devoted an average of 2 days per month to
field geology training at lunarlike sites to sharpen their observational techniques and to become
familiar with the mechanical aspects of collecting and documenting samples. On the last three
missions, the character of lunar surface exploration changed drastically because of the capabil-
ity for longer stay times on the surface and the availability of the lunar roving vehicle.

In an effort to obtain maximum scientific return from surface operations, the surface science
time lines were generally overcrowded, especially when unforeseen equipment deployment problems
were encountered. Although all crews trained with high-fidelity lunar surface hardware and tools,
every lunar crew had to solve unanticipated problems. For example, the Apollo 12 fuel element for
the experiments package became stuck in its cask, and the crew was required to hammer the cask
to free it. During Apollo 14 surface activities, the Lunar Module Pilot's right glove developed
an anomalous condition of assuming a neutral position to the left and down, thus requiring this
crewman to perform geologic sampling tasks essentially with one hand during the second extrsvehic-
ular period. On Apollo 15 operations while holes were being drilled for the heat flow experiment
probes, the drill chuck became bound to the stem because of high torque levels. The stem had to
be destroyed to remove the chuck for later deep-core drilling. A pair of pliers was used during
the Apollo 16 activities to free the cosmic ray experiment when the experiment unexpectedly stuck
in its frame. Finally, during Apollo 17 activities, both crewmen were able to retrieve the deep
core only after considerable effort and after using a real-time-developed 1/6-earth-gravity "fall"
upon the extraction tool.

Science return was improved by using crew experience to benefit follow-on crews. On the
Apollo 11 mission, for example, the core sample tube could be forced to a depth of only 4 or 5
inches by hand and driven only 6 inches with a hammer. The tubes were redesigned for Apollo 12
activities; the crew reported that the tubes were easy to drive but that space remained in the
tube because of soil compaction. For Apollo 14 operations, the tubes were plugged with caps to
help retain the cores. The Apollo 14 crew reported that finding rocks small enough to fit in
the small bags was difficult; therefore. the Apollo 15 crew was given larger sample bags. The
Apollo 15 crew reported that collection of the deep-core sample was difficult and required far
more time and effort than was anticipated; thus. the Apollo 16 crew was given a redesigned ex-
traction tool that was excellent in aiding deep-core recovery. The Apollo 16 crew experienced
numerous equipment problems which were corrected for the Apollo 17 mission.

The Apollo 11 crewmen reported that their sleep on the lunar surface was a complete loss be-
cause of light leakage into the cabin, excessive cabin noise, and an uncomfortably cool cabin
temperature. The Apollo 12 crewmen, who slept in their pressure suits in sleeping hammocks,
noted that the cabin noise was loud, but not loud enough to prevent adequate sleep. The Apollo
14 crew reported that very little sleep was obtained on the surface, primarily because they were
6-12

uncomfortable in the suits, and recommended that crews remain unsuited during sleep periods.
When this recommendation was adopted for Apollo 15 and subsequent missions, crews obtained ade-
quate sleep. Also, a correlation was noted between the ability of the crews to sleep soundly
and their increasing confidence in the proper operation of lunar module systems, baaed on proven
performance.

All crews reported that food preparation and waste management functions were easier to per-
form in the lunar gravity field as compared to the zero-gravity conditions of flight. On the
lunar surface, for example, food bags conveniently stayed where they were placed. also, air
bubbles in water, permanent in zero gravity, automatically floated out of the in-suit drink con-
tainer and the hydrated food bags.

A troublesome and ever-present problem that was corrected only partly during lunar surface
missions was that of dust. On all missions, large ~unts of floating dust were present in the
lunar module cabin aftet insertion into lunar orbit. The Apollo 12 crew noted that dust made
breathing without helmets both difficult and hazardous. Although all crews, before entering the
lunar module, spent considerable time removing dust from their shoes, legs, arms, pressure suits,
and lunar surface equipment, the cohesive nature of the dust prevented its complete removal. Dur-
ing the Apollo 17 mission, dust on the lunar ~dule floor was swept into floor receptacles which
were sealed before lift-off, but some dust was still present in the cabin at~sphere after lunar
orbit insertion. Because of dust. the Apollo 16 crew had difficulty with the installation of
their pressure gloves, and the surface equipment locks and handles on Apollo 17 equipment were
barely operating by the end of the last extravehicular activity.

6.1.2.8 Rendezvous and docking.- Rendezvous of the Apollo 7 command and service module with
the S-IVB booster stage was the first rendezvous performed in the Apollo progrsm. The crew re-
ported that the manually controlled braking maneuver was very discomfiting because no reliable
backup ranging information was available to compare with computer solutions as was the case for
a lunar module rendezvous. The first rendezvous of the command and service module and the lunar
module was performed in earth orbit on the Apollo 9 mission. A similar rendezvous was de~nstrated
on the Apollo 10 mission in lunar orbit to check the maximum range performance of the rendezvous
sensors. In this latter mission, the lunar module was visually tracked through the command mod-
ule sextant against the lunar surface to a distance of 125 miles in daylight, above the horizon
in daylight to 275 miles, and at night to 230 miles. In earth orbit. the Apollo 9 crew Visually
acquired and tracked the jettisoned lunar module, again using the sextant, at a range of 2500
miles.

Rendezvous thrusting maneuvers in the lunar module were protected by "mirror image" readiness
in the command and service module to perform a backup thrusting maneuver in case the lunar module
propulsion system failed. This backup technique was initiated for the Apollo 9 mission and was
continued for all subsequent rendezvous operations.

For rendezvous missions through Apollo 12. the lunar-orbit-rendezvous sequence consisted of
concentric sequence initiation, a possible plane change. and constant-differential-height maneu-
vers before a terminal phase initiatipn. These maneuvers allowed the proper correction of sizable
trajectory dispersions. However, beginning with Apollo 14. the ~recision of rendezvous maneuver
calculations and performance analyses made possible the deletion of the three smaller maneuvers
before terminal phase initiation by substituting a ground-calculated trajectory-adjustment maneu-
ver shortly after lunar module ascent stage orbit insertion. The terminal phase initiation ma-
neuver was then performed with the sscent propulsion system. Any midcourse corrections performed
during the several lunar rendezvous sequences were conducted manually using the lunar module re-
action control system. The braking phase waa also performed manually in a rate-command attitude-
hold mode. with the rendezvous radar supplying accurate range, range-rste, and inertial line-of-
sight data to reveal any dispersions in maneuver calculations or in the performance of previous
maneuvers.

For the Apollo 16 mission. a "brute force" re-rendezvous was conducted with the command mod-
ule active to bring the two spscecraft back together after aD aborted command and service module
circularization maneuver. In this case. the lunar module radar was used to supply accurate range,
range-rate, and line-of-sight data. which were conveyed to the Command Module Pilot through crew
radio coordination using instructions similar to those of a ground-controlled approach aircraft
landing. These data allowed the Command MOdule Pilot to maintsin the planned range rate snd to
null the line-of-sight rates using the more accurate lunar module data.
 6-13

Lunar module crews were trained to be proficient in using the backup maneuver charts, which
permitted semi-independent checks of maneuver calculations and actual performance in case 8 crit-
ical computer failure occurred. Use of the charts was based on range, range-rate, and sngular-
rate data provided by the lunar module radar.

All reasonably high velocity braking phases were performed comfortably by all lunar module
crews during simulations, as were the actual flight braking phases, because of the optimum lunar
module reaction control system thrust-to-weight ratio using the lunar module reaction control sys-
tem. However, rendezvous simulations showed the command and service module performance to be
marginal during dispersed braking thrusting in excess of 40 feet per second.

At the completion of lunar-module-active rendezvous on the Apollo 9 mission, the lunar mod-
ule was used as the active docking vehicle. Review of this procedure indicated that docking would
be easier, more accurate, and less time-consuming if the command module were the active vehicle.
Thus, for subsequent missions, the lunar module was maneuvered to the docking attitude and the
command and service module was used to complete final approach and docking. One factor in the
difficulty of controlling the lunar module for final docking was the 90 0 mental reorientation of
the translation axis required of the Commander. This axis reorientation and the 90 0 body/head
rotation required for overhead viewing of the docking aids relegated the lunar-module-active
docking maneuver to a backup procedure, even though excess reaction control propellant was aboard
the lunar module on every flight.

6.1.2.9 Lunar orbit operations.- The Apollo 8 crew reported that ground track determination
on the far side of the moon was more difficult than expected because of the large uncertainty in
the accuracy of the preliminary maps of that region. Haps of the far side were improved through-
out the program as a result of Apollo lunar-orbit photography and landmark tracking.

The Apollo 10 crew conducted lunar surface photography of proposed Apollo landing sites and
landmark tracking of the proposed Apollo 11 landing site. On Apollo II, selected landmarks were
tracked from the command module while the lunar module was still docked. In addition, the Command
MOdule Pilot tracked selected landmarks during solo flight and searched for the lunar module on
the surface, examining an estimated I square mile on each overhead pass. During Apollo 12 solo
operations, with the lunar landing site being northwest of the recognizable Surveyor crater, the
Command MOdule Pilot was able to locate the lunar module on the surface by using the sextant. He
reported the lunar module as a bright object with a long, pencil-thin shadow and also observed the
Surveyor III spacecraft as a bright spot in the crater. During Apollo 17 solo operations, the
Command Module Pilot's low-altitude landmark tracking data for'the Taurus-Littrow site was in-
corporated into lunar module targeting and was a factor in the precision of the actual landing.

The Apollo 14 spacecraft was equipped with a large, hi~l-resolution topographic camera for
so-called bootstrap photography of Descartes, the Apollo 16 landing area. (Data from the photo-
graphs were to be used for the selection of landing sites.) Although the high-resolution camera
malfunctioned, the Command Module Pilot was still able to record more than 120 pictures of the
proposed Descartes site using another camera with a 500-mm lens in support of the site selection
analysis for Apollo 16.

For Apollo 15 and subsequent missions, the Command Module Pilot had to time the operation
of scientific instrument module experiments. The crewmen developed various reminder techniques
for performing the required operations. The computer timer was used for Apollo 15 operations.
During Apollo 16 operations, the Capsule Communicator prOVided ground voice assistance, and the
Command Module Pilot used a "kitchen timer" onboard.

Because the ability to make accurate observations of surface features during lunar orbit was
demonstrated on early lunar landing missions, the Command Module Pilot of each later mission de-
voted considerable training time to preparing for lunar geology observations, including flying
over and describing selected earth analogs. Their flight performance indicated that this train-
ing was extremely effective. For Apollo 16 and 17 activities. the Command Module Pilots apent
considerable time reviewing lunar orbit flight plans in the simulator before flight to verify
such items as the adequacy of planned maneuver times, maneuver gimbal lock avoidance, the fea-
sibility of dim-light photographic techniques, and the proper time line integration of scientific
instrument module operating procedures. Thus, the use of simulators to verify and correct lunar
orbit time lines before flight relieved the Command Module Pilot of the need for continual maneu-
ver monitoring and provided time for the important lunar orbit photography and surface observa-
tions.
6-14

6.1.2.10 Command Module e~travehicular actlvlty.- The command module cabin depre8surl~ation
systems were exercised for the first time on the Apollo 9 mission, including hatch opening and
closing. The Apollo 9 Command Module Pilot was able to move easily within the open hatch and
center couch envelope. (The center couch was stowed.) For Apollo 15 and subsequent missions,
the Command Module Pilot performed an extravehicular activity during transearth cosst to retrieve
film from the scientific instrument module and to operate certain experiments directly. An oxy-
gen purge system (retained from lunar surface operations) wss installed in the "helmet-mounted"
mode behind the Command Module Pilot's shoulders to provide backup breathing oxygen and cooling
in case the umbilical line failed. In zero gravity, the oxygen purge system tended to hang up
on the many protrusions in the center couch envelope and hatch area during egress and ingress.
Generally, comments from the other two crewmen on the Command Module Pilot's body-positioning
sided his egr~ss and ingress.

On Apollo 15, 16, and 17, each Command Module Pilot moved from the command module to the
scientific instrument module bay along a handrail traverse path and returned the film cassettes
without incident. All pilots reported that the handrails were excellent as mobility aids, allow-
ing for flexibility in body orientation and in operation sequence.

6.1.2.11 Crew accommodation to zero gravity.- The Apollo 7 crew reported that they adjusted
to zero gravity quickly and completely. They stated that at no time was intravehicular activity
a problem, although suited movement was awkward as compared to unsuited motion. The main physi-
cal problem encountered during Apollo 7 operations was the extreme discomfort caused by head
colds. The crew noted that the mucus did not leave the head area but congested and filled the
sinus cavit.ies.

Adaptation to zero gravity varied widely from one crewman to anot.her. Some crewmen noted
a t.emporary fullness of the head, others noted a desire to move slowly at first, and still others
commenced immediate and rapid body movements wit.hout. adverse effects. Most crewmen reported that
the adaptation to body maneuvering in zero gravity could be speeded considerably by conducting
vigorous aerobatics before flight in a T-38A jet. aircraft which was prOVided for astronaut flight
proficiency training.

Sleep habit.s in zero gravity also varied widely among the Apollo crewmen. For example, some
crewmen thought that they slept best when they were restrained in the sleeping bag or when they
were strapped in the couches. Others found that they could sleep soundly while floating freely
in the cabin. Some crewmen, however, slept. too well. For example, the Apollo 17 crewmen were
difficult. to awaken on several occasions during their mission. Other crewmen slept fitfully one
night and well the next. The general subjective opinion was that not nearly as much sleep was
required in zero gravity as was required on earth unless a crewman was part.icularly fatigued
from t.he day's activities.

Food preparation in zero gravity was a time-consuming process becsuse of prelaunch package
stowage, package control, use of package overwraps, manual mixing of water and food in the re-
hydratable packages, and the requirement to restow the used food packages in a small volume.
In zero gravity, when the food packages were rehydrated with water containing gas bubbles, the
bubbles could not be removed from the food. The hydrogen gas separator used on lunar flights
did not successfully remove the gas from the water on every occasion. Gas bubbles in t.he food
and water contributed to intestinal problems experienced by the crewmen during the last two mis-
sions.

The Apollo 15 crew reported that more time than had been anticipated was required for normal
housekeeping functions. This condition was attributed to the fact that. addit.ional equipment from
t.he lunar aurface (such as experiments and rock bags) and the new bulkier pressure suits crowded
the crew compartment. The Apollo 16 crew noted the same problem and recommended that. additional
time be allotted for stowage and for personal hygiene.

6.1.2.12 Guidance and navigation systems.- All flight crews reported great confidence in the
performance of the primary guidance and navigation systems in both spacecraft. Power permitting,
crews unanimously chose to keep the inertial measurement unit (platform) powered up and aligned
because the unit would permit very rapid and accurate response to every conceivable abort situa-
tion requiring immediate velocity changes. The platform was not powered down on the lunar land-
ing missions until the power requirements for the 3-oay surface stays dictated the necessit.y for
conserving power.
 6-15

Alignment of the platform in the coamand module was readily achieved. Commencing with the
Apollo 7 mission, all crews reported that several minutes were required for the eyes to adapt to
the recognition of constellations when the command module telescope was used at night in either
earth orbit or lunar orbit and in earthshine light conditions. With the lunar module attached
during translunar coaat, sun reflections from the lunar module into the optics prevented any but
the brightest stars from being seen with the telescope. During transearth coast, constellations
could usually be recognl~ed when the telescope was pointed away from the sun, earth, or moon.
In general, to maintain platform alignment during translunar cosst, the Command Module Pilot re-
lied on automatic optics positioning to place reference stars in the field of view of the 28-
power sextant.

Upon activation of the docked lunar module, initial alignment was accomplished by transfer-
ring the command module platform angles to the lunar module platform. (Initially, ground-computed
angles had been used to correct the angular platform misalignments between the two vehicles.) For
Apollo IS and subsequent missions, the lunar module telescope was used for fine alignments of the
platform while docked. The Apollo 9 crew reported that visibility through the lunar module tele-
scope was adequate to identify bright stars and the more proninent constellations at night.

Every flight crew was concerned with the prospect of losing inertial attitude reference when
maneuvering to an attitude in which the yaw angle exceeded 8S G • This condition was called gimbal
lock. Many simulations of dynamic flight situations showed that maneuvers leading to gimbal lock
could have been hazardous under certain conditions, such as postatmospheric launch abort (possibly
causing an aft-end-forward entry). Therefore, many autopilot maneuvers had to be stopped before
completion and the spacecraft maneuvered manually to avoid gimbal lock. The Apollo 9 crew com-
mented that greater-than-desired amounts of time and propellant were required to keep the docked
configuration out of gimbal lock in drifting flight. The Apollo 11 platform was inadvertently
placed in gimbal lock when the lunar module was maneuvered to avoid bright sunlight in the for-
ward window. Just before entry of Apollo 13, close cooperation between the Command Module Pilot
and Lunar Module Pilot was required to avoid gimbal lock in the platforms of both vehicles. This
procedure used considerable lunar module reaction control fuel and still placed the command mod-
ule platform close to gimbal lock. The command module platform was placed in gimbal lock during
drifting flight of Apollo 17 while a waste-water dump was being performed. The possibility of
platform gimbal lock thus restricted many spacecraft maneuvers.

Crew/computer operstional compatibility improved continuously throughout the Apollo missions.

Computer programs were changed to delete extraneous displays; to eliminate unnecessary delaya;
and to provide the crews with meaningful monitoring capability of computer navigation computa-
tions, autopilot operations, and velocity changes. The Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot recalled
that he had little time to analyze off-nominal rendezvous trends or to cope with system malfunc-
tions because he was busy with hundreds of computer entries and numerous lunar module tracking
marks. For Apollo IS operations, an automatic sequencing cocputer program, designed to relieve
the Command Module Pilot's workload, was available for the rendezvous phase. The program was
functional as designed and allowed the Command Module Pilot much more time for optics tracking
and systems monitoring.

Because of a malfunction during the Apollo 14 mission, an abort discrete signal was set in
the lunar module computer before powered descent. Such a signal during powered descent would
automatically initiate an unwanted abort. To prevent an abort, ground personnel devised a real-
time workaround erasable memory program which inhibited the abort capability of the primary guid-
ance system, and the program was entered in the computer. This abort discrete was inhibited on
subsequent missions. Although no major changes in computer programs were made on the last three
miss~ons, erasable memory programs were devised for many critical guidance and navigation system
failure possibilities. In fact, one such program was used during the Apollo 16 mission to pre-
vent recurrence of a loss in platform reference and to correct an intermittent, and apparently
erroneous, indication of failure of the coupling data unit. The operational requirements for
designing flexibility into future spacecraft computers and for having a better balance between
fixed and erasable memories were demonstrated by the sweeping revisions made to the Apollo com-
puter programs until late in the Apollo missions and by the extensive development of the erasable
memory programs to correct potential hardware and computer software failures.
6-16

The abort guidance system was an efficient backup system to the primary guidance and naviga-
tion system. On all lunar flights, good agreement was achieved between the abort and the primary
guidance systems In the solutions for ascent stage orbit insertion snd terminal phase initiation.
A feature of the abort guidance system was that there was no gimbal lock to restrict lunar mod-
ule maneuvering or cause loss of attitude reference.

6.1.2.13 Entry and landlng.- The Apollo 7 crew performed entry while Buited but with helmets
and gloves removed. The crewmen had developed head colds, and removal of the helmets provided a
means of clearing the sinus snd inner ear cavities. Follow-on crews entered the earth atmosphere
with their suits stowed under the couches.

The Apollo 8 and 10 crews reported that the appearance of the ionization envelope around the
spacecraft preceded the 0.05g indication of entry by approximately 15 seconds. These crews also
noted that the ionized plasma streaming by the windows bathed the cockpit in light that was as
bright as normal daylight. All entries were flown using the entry autopilot or the primary guid-
ance and navigation system. Crews verified that the primary guidance system never violated the
skip-out tangency lines of the entry monitor system. Because of thunderstorms in the primary
recovery area, the Apollo 11 crew made a long-range entry of 1500 miles instead of the planned
1285 miles.

Crew training for supercircular entry was initially accomplished through closed-loop centri-
fuge runs using the entry monitor system. The crews felt confident (and the simulations demon-
strated) that they could monitor and take over the control of entry for a wide range of failure
conditions in the primary guidance and navigation system. In the simulators, supercircular en-
tries could be flown fairly accurately to landings near the recovery ship when using the second-
ary (entry monitor system) displays and to a safe landing in the ocean using only the gravity
meter.

When one of the main parachutes failed during the Apollo 15 parachute descent, the resulting
increased descent rate caused a landing that was 32 seconds early, but the crew felt no physio-
logical effects from the harder landing impact. A considerable variation in the force of the
landing impact was subjectively described by each crew. The hardest landing probably occurred
during the Apollo 12 mission, in which an impact acceleration of 15g was produced. The impact
jarred a l6-millimeter camera loose from its mounting bracket, and the camera hit the Lunar Mod-
ule Pilot's head.

Of the 11 landings, five resulted in the spacecraft coming to rest in the stable II position
(heat shield up), but the spacecraft was always righted without problems by inflating the upright-
ing bags. When the Apollo 11 crew donned the biological contamination garments required for the
initial lunar landing missions, their visibility was substantially degraded because of conden-
sation on the faceplates. The contamination-prevention procedures were modified to include the
use of a portable face mask for the Apollo 12 and 14 missions, after which the requirement for
the procedures was eliminated.

The thorough egress and recovery training program provided each crew by qualified landing
and recovery peraonnel was a major factor in the satisfactory recovery of all crews.

6.2 FLIGHT CREW TRAINING PROGRAM

The fidelity of crew training improved with each mission as the flight results and crew ex-
perience proVided the necessary feedback to the training program. Through this process, crew
procedures, flight plans, and checklists that had once required an appreciable amount of crew
time to develop and verify became standardized. With this maturity and standardization in the
program, crew training time for the later missions could be more heavily focused on scientific
aspects,

The training of flight crews may be conveniently divided into five major categories: simu-
lators, special-purpose activities, procedures, briefings, and spacecraft tests. A delineation
of the activities for each category and a summary of the hours logged by the assigned crewmembers
are presented in table 6-II. The 37 953 hours of operations in the command module and lunar mod-
ule simulators, with briefings, represents 45 percent of the total training time expended. As
 6-17

TABLE 6-11.- TRAINING TIME SUMMARY

Number of
Type of training
hours

Simulator

Command module
Command module simulator 17 605
Command module procedures simulator 1 204
Simulator briefings 1 195
Contractor evaluations 866
Dynamic crew procedures simulator 741
Other simulators 156
Rendezvous and docking simulator 87
Centrifuge 58
Massachusetts Institute of Technology hybrid 48
Subtotal 21 960

Lunar module
a
bLunar module simulator 13 317
Lunar landing training vehicle 1 130
Lunar module procedures simulator 770
Simulator briefings 533
Full mission engineering simulator 179
Translation and docking simulator 64
Subtotal 15 993
Total 37 953

Special Purpose

cLunar science 11 408

Water immersion facility checkout 1 248
Stowage 993
Extravehicular mobility unit checkout 919
Egress 820
dBench checks 802
Walkthroughs 719
Medical 601
Water immersion facility (zero g) 516
Planetarium 448
Fire 174
Total 18 648

aIncludes lunar roving vehicle navigation simulator.

bIncludes lunar landing training vehicle flights (at 2
hours per flight), vehicle systems briefings. lunar landing
research facility, and lunar landing training vehicle sim-
ulator time.
e
Includes briefings, geology field trips, lunar surface
simulations. and lunar roving vehicle trainer operation.
dRelated to zero-g flight operations.
6-18

TABLE 6-11.- TRAINING TIME SUMMARY - Concluded

Number of
Type of training
hours

Procedures

Mission techniques 2 730

Checklist 2 334
Flight plan 1 987
Mission rules 1 039
Design, acceptance 1 011
Test reviews 814
Team meetings 541
Training meetings 393
Rendezvous 288
Extravehicular contingency transfer 88
Flight readiness reviews 48
Total 11 273

Briefings

Command and service module 4 060

Guidance and navigation 2 397
Lunar module 2 130
Lunar topography 1 458
Launch vehicle 656
Photography 405
Total 11 106

Spacecraft tests

Command and service module 3 332

Lunar module 1 759
Total 5 091
Program total 84 071
pointed out in other sections, the Apollo simulators provided the most valuable source of crew
training for each mission. A description of these simulators is provided in reference 6-12. The
time listed for lunar science training, shown in table 6-11 as a special-purpose activity, is the
third highest total behind command module and lunar module simulator training. Science training
included geology field trips, lunar surface activity simulations, extravehicular preparation and
postactivity operations, and lunar roving vehicle trainer operation.

Table 6-111 shows these same training data grouped into three different mission categories:
missions before lunar landing (C-. D-, and F-series missions), the first four lunar landing mis-
sions (G- and H-series missions), and the final three lunar landing missions (J-series missions).
The trend in training emphasis across the three categories is interesting. Simulator training,
besides being the largest single training activity, increased significantly for the early lunar
landing missions and then decreased for the J-series missions. The special-purpose training
steadily increased in its percent of the total, with lunar science activities for the J-series
missions making up more than one-third of the total training effort. The training categories
of briefings, procedures, and spacecraft tests exhibited a decreasing level of training effort.
These decreases are, indeed, signs of maturity and standardization of flight procedures.

A further delineation of the training accomplished by the crews of the lunar landing missions
is provided in tables 6-IV and 6-V, which summarize the number of lunar surface simulations and
geolog~ field trips. The lunar surface exercises in table 6-1V include training for operations
before, during, and after extravehicular activity. Lunar surface training made use of a full-
scale, high-fidelity. lunar module mockup and actual lunar surface equipment. Training exercises
commenced after egress through the hatch and terminated before ingress. following closely the
planned lunar surface time linea. The training for the periods before egress and after ingress
provided rehearsals for the necessary crew procedures before and after the lu~ar surface activ-
ities. Major tasks in this training included backpack donning and doffing, cabin decompression
and repressurization, lunar surface sample stowage, and equipment cleaning. The geology field
trips presented in table 6-V, especially for the J-series missions. generally followed an order
of increasing complexity. Earth features analogous to certain lunar geologic formations were
studied on the early field trips. These trips were followed by field exercises of lunar surface
traverse simulations using some of the lunar surface sampling and geologic equipment. The latter
field trips rehearsed a nearly complete mission simulation and included the science support
teams in the Mission Control Center working with the suited astronauts on location.

For each mission, full dress rehearsals of the various flight phases were accomplished where
integration of the crew, the flight plan, and the ground support elements was an essential part
of the preflight preparation. These simulations were as valuable in preparing the ground crews
as they were for the flight crews. The scope of this phase of the simulation training program is
presented in table 6-V1 in which the days spent conducting full-scale mission simulations for the
flight crew and Mission Control Center personnel are listed.

6.3 FLIGHT PlJUlllING

Any major manned spaceflight project requires a documented flight plan which brings man,
machine and operational techniques together to execute a mission. The need was particularly im-
portant in the complex Apollo program. Among the factors considered and eventually integrated
into the Apollo flight plans were:

a. Mission objectives and their related constraints

b. Vehicle system constraints and operations

•• Crew and ground procedures and their relationships

d. Duration and sequence of crew activities

e. Division and interaction of onboard tasks

f. Consumable constraints

g. Alternate and contingency plans

 '"
N
I
o

TABLE 6-111.- APPORTIONMENT OF TRAINING ACCORDING TO MISSION TYPE

Missions before Early lunar Final lunar

first lunar landing landing missions landing missions
Training (Apollo 7 through 10) (Apollo 11 through 14) (Apollo 15 through 17)
category Percent of
Percent of Percent of
Hours Hours Hours total
total total

Simulators 11 511 36 15 029 56 11 413 45

Special purpose 4 023 13 5 379 20 9 246 36

Procedures 7 924 25 2 084 8 1 265 5

Briefings 5 894 18 3 070 11 2 142 9

Spacecraft tests 2 576 8 1 260 5 1 255 5

Total 31 928 100 26 822 100 25 320 100

 6-21

TABLE 6-IV.- LUNAR SURFACE ACTIVITY SIMULATIONS

(Number of training sessions)

Operations before Total

Apollo Surface
mission
and after extra- per
operations
vehicular activities mission

11 20 10 30

12 31 4 35

13 42 11 53

14 43 18 61

15 91 20 III

16 67 10 77

17 47 20 67

Total 341 93 434

TABLE 6-V.- GEOLOGY FIELD TRIPS'

Apollo Number of
mission trips

11 1

12 4

13 7

14 7

15 12

16 18

17 13

a Each field trip lasted

from 1 to 7 days.
6-22

TA8LE 6-VI.- nlTEGRATED CREW/GROUND MISSION SIMULATIONSa,b

(Number of days)

Command Lunar Command module Total

Apollo
module module and lunar mod- per
mission
simulator simulator ule simulators mission

7 18 0 0 18

8 14 0 0 14

9 10 2 8 20

10 11 0 7 18

11 6 (1) 4 7 17 (1)

12 10 3 12 25

13 13 5 9 27

14 12 (3) 5 (2) 12 (1) 29 (6)

15 13 (6) 5 7 25 (6)

16 16 (5) 7 (1) 10 33 (6)

17 13 (2) 6 9 28 (2)

Total 136 (17 ) 37 (3) 81 (1) 254 (21)

8rncludes participation of Mission Control Center personnel.

b
Numbers in parentheses indicate simulations accomplished by
follow-on or support crewmen.
 6-23

By the interaction of the preceding factors, the flight plan ultimately communicated to
project participants their roles and responsibilities, served as a guide for mission execution
and, in the end, was the means by which performance was measured.

6.3.1 Flight Plan Development

Flight plana, in a variety of forms and for a variety of purposes, were required from the
embryonic program definition stage through the culmination of the program with the lunar landing
missions. Through early experience, flight plan concepts matured and the flight plan became re-
cognized as a valuable tool In integrating many disciplines.

Apollo flight plans varied in complexity from that of the relatively simple Apollo 7 mis-
sion, involving one spacecraft in earth orbit, to those of the lunar landing missions, wherein
two spacecraft were active simultaneously in a fully integrated time line. Flight plans, tried
and proven from each mission were progressively improved so that, even though flights became
more complex, the crews became more efficient.

6.3.1.1 Flight planning techniques.- All activities identified for Apollo flights were
scheduled in the flight plan in a sequence required to accomplish certain objectives. The ac-
tivity sequence fell into two basic categories:

a. Consecutive activities - These consist of a series of related activities which must

be performed in a fixed sequence to accomplish a desired goal. Lunar module activation fell in
this category. Consecutive flight plan activities have the advantage of changing very little
from mission to mission and, therefore, provide the crew with tried and proven sequences during
critical mission phases.

b. Non-consecutive activities - These consist of a series of activities which need not

be performed in a fixed sequence to accomplish a desired goal. Lunar orbit science activities
fell in this category. Non-consecutive flight plan activities have the advantage of allowing
the crewman, from his vantage point, to select the best activity sequence to optimize a particu-
lar situation.

Within each category, certain activities are necessarily dependent on time and place of ex-
ecution. These activities are called dependent activities. Activities which are not constrained
by time or place are called independent activities. "Padding" was allowed in consecutive flight
plans to ensure that dependent activities would be performed at the appropriate time or place.
For non-consecutive flight plans, dependent activities were easily schedulable since the activity
aequence was flexible.

6.3.1.2 Alternate and contingency flight plans.- Apollo flight plans were constructed to
provide a maximum accomplishment of mission objectives assuming no major off-nominal situations.
These were called prime flight plans and one was generated for each mission. Unfortunately, be-
cause of the complexities of vehicle systems and operational constraints, no Apollo flights were
executed exactly as planned preflight.

In addition to the prime flight plan, two other types of flight plans were developed to sup-
port probable and/or predictable off-nominal situations. Each flight plan attempted to optimize
the mission based on the given off-nominal situations.

a. Alternate flight plans - In the event the launch could not occur on the planned day and
time. alternate launch day flight plans were developed. Each flight plan was highly dependent
on a detail trajectory. Because the lunar trajectory is influenced by time and launch data, a
great deal of effort was spent developing unique trajectories and flight plans for each launch
opportunity. The alternate flight plans were equal to the prime flight plan in mission objectives.

b. Contingency flight plans - Flight plans were developed to support missions brought about
by the failure of some critical system. While it was difficult to plan for all situations, only
those system failures which could radically affect the completion of the mission were considered
(e.g •• no translunar injection; no transposition, docking and extraction; lunar module failure;
etc.). Contingency flight plans attempted to glean as much as possible from the given situation
but fell far short of the objectivea of the prime or alternate flight plans. By the time of the
Apollo 17 mission, five distinct alternate mission plans, 20 contingency plans, and eight lunar
orbit alternate plana were developed.
 ~24

6.3.1.3 Flight plan verification using simulatora.- Early flight experience indicated that
the portions of a mission that were simulated most thoroughly were those that were best executed
and virtually free of unexpected situations except for systems anomalies. Consequently, more
emphasis was placed in later missions on simulating as much of the mission as possible. In fact,
for the Apollo 16 and 17 missions, vIrtually the entire mission was being verified In the simu-
lators.

Crew simulations were very important to the flight planning and procedures development proc-
ess. Simulations provided a near-actual flight environment using equipment that closely matched
actual vehicle performance. In this situation the crew could execute portions of the flight plan
and could verify the sequence of activities, the length of activities. and the activity interac-
tion with trajectory and systems. The flight plan was tested and consequently optimized from
these simulations.

6.3.2 Flight Plan Execution

The onboard flight plan served as a crew guide in the execution of a mission. In some mis-
sion phases. the flight plan prOVided all of the execution data required to perform that phase.
In other phases. especially those that were critical and complex, the flight plan served as an
index to checklists required in that phase by providing book names and page numbers where pro-
cedures were to be found. In these cases, the flight plan would set the sequence of activities
but checklists prOVided the actual procedural information.

Major emphasis during the Apollo program was placed on the execution of the mission exactly
as planned. In general. flight crews executed their flight plans with few missed activities.
The major contributors to off-nominal activities were equipment malfunctions. In order to pre-
vent major deviations from the prime flight plan, a close interface between the flight crew and
ground support team was required to quickly provide alternatives or solutions to problems. This
cooperation yielded a near-noYmaI flight plan execution and, at the same time, optimized the mis-
sion.

Changes to the flight plan during a mission were communicated by voice to the crew. The
crew would then work the changes on the prime flight plan. This technique was somewhat cumber-
some since it reqUired much crew time, and was inherently confusing. It was therefore important
that the execution of the flight plan be as close to the preflight plan as practical.

6.3.3 Change Control

The Apollo flight data file consisted of documents placed aboard the spacecraft for crew
reference in flying a mission. In addition to the flight plan. the following types of documents
were included.

a. Integrated flight procedures checklists (generally providing all information required

to conduct specific phases of a mission)

b. Systems checklists (procedures for operating specific systems)

c. Malfunction checklists (procedures for isolating and correcting certain failures)

d. Systems data book

e. Graphics and maps

f. Cue carda (abbreviated procedures for crew use during time-critical high-density ac-
tivities)
 6-25

At the beginning of the Apollo program, the crew procedures control process was intended to
cover system operating procedures documents acquired from the hardware suppliers and internally
generated procedures documents which were not used in flight. As the program developed, it be-
came obvious that attempting to control crew procedures through documents that were not used di-
rectly by the crews was difficult and expensive. The interrelationships between the various con-
trol documents and the onboard documents were not adequately defined. nor was the purpose of
control documentation well understood. During the course of the program, procedural change con-
trol gradually evolved until on Apollo 17 all procedures change control was directed toward the
flight data file. In general, in the latter stages of the program, the change control techniques
were to maintain overall cognizance and control of the flight data file contents and schedules.
Requirements for new flight data file articles or procedures were reviewed by the crew procedures
control board. Mature articles or procedures remained under direct control from mission to mis-
sion, thereby requiring that change control procedures be followed for all changes. New articles
or procedures normally came under direct control after the basic article was published. Items
thst were highly trajectory dependent were updated to the new trajectory without a requirement
for crew procedures control board concurrence.

Additional information on flight planning for Apollo missions is given in reference 6-13.

6.4 OPERATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY

In the course of the Apollo program, a varying complement of photographic equipment was car-
ried aboard each spacecraft to perform operational documentation. record crew observations, and
accomplish many scientific objectives. This photographic equipment most often consisted of a
l6-millimeter sequence camera system, two 70-millimeter still camera systems. and a 35-millimeter
still camera system. A l27-millimeter lunar topographic camera was used to a limited extent.
The equipment complement also included a light-metering system and various brackets and filters
to meet the required photographic objectives. The photographic equipment used on each flight
through Apollo 13 is tabulated in reference 6-14. The reference also containa a discussion of
equipment hardware and operational development for three manned programs. Further details on
equipment characteristics can be found in reference 6-15. This report deals primarily with pho-
tographic equipment snd use for Apollo missions 14 through 17. thereby supplementing the contents
of reference 6-14.

6.4.1 Equipment Summary

A typical complement of photographic equipment and accessories is listed in table 6-VII

and depicted in figure 6-3. Miscellaneous operational equipment is also included in the figure.
The three camera systems identified in the table are illustrated indiVidually in figures 6-4,
6-5, and 6-6. Table 6-VIII lists crew-operated photographic equipment used for Apollo missions
14 through 17 and includes the types of lenses and film and a brief statement of usage for each
item. These missions were characterized by an increasing scientific emphasis which resulted not
only in the addition of new photographic equipment but also in a more diverse use of equipment.
The expanded use is reflected in table 6-VIII.

6.4.2 Photographic Results

Photographs taken under operational conditions supported postflight anomaly analyses, ve-
hicle documentation and inspection requirements, crew mobility studies. scientific evaluations,
and equipment evaluations. Perhaps the most important photographs supported lunar sample docu-
mentation, lunar experiments location. and lunar terrain description, since photographs were the
primary data source for satisfying lunar exploration objectives in these areas. The photographs
also served the function of reiaying to the scientific community and the public at large the
exploration reaults in space and on the lunar surface, thereby sharing Apollo achievements ~th
people throughout the world. Early photographs of the lunar surface during the lunar landing
development missions served to update existing lunar maps. The revised maps were used exten-
sively for crew familiarization and training in the actual types of lunar terrain that would be
encountered. The improved maps were also used in selecting landing sites.
(>.26
TABLE 6-VII.- TYPICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMErn
COMPLEMENT FOR LATER APOLLO MISSIONS

Quantity
Item
Command Lunar
module module

16-mm sequence camera system:

Data acquisition cameras 1 "2
b
Film magazines 10 3
7S-mm lens 1
18-mm lens 1
lO-mm lens 1 1
Right-angle mirror 1
Power cable 1
Remote control cable 1
Spare fuse 1 2
Mounting bracket 1

70-mm still camera system:

Electric camera 1
c
Electric data cameras 3
b
Film magazines 8 15
60-mm lens 2
80-mm lens 1
250-mm lens 1
50Q-mm. lens 1
20-sec intervalometer 1
8-sec intervalometer 1
Polarizing filter 1
d
Ring sight 1

3S-rnm still camera system:

Camera body 1
Film cassettes 8
Film canisters 7
55-mm lens 1
Polarizing filter 1
Red filter 1
Blue filter 1
Mounting bracket
e
Spotmeter 1

3Stowed in lunar module and transferred to lunar roving vehicle.

bStowed in command module and transferred to lunar module.
cOne long-focal-length camera used with a SOO-mm lens; two
electric data cameras used for lunar geology and crew operations
documen ta t ion.
dAiming device for long-focal-Iength camera.
~ight-measuring system.
 ,------ ~6-27

(.

•
a.
E
o
u
~
'"
.-S-
g"
u
:E
a.
~
•• S
o
..r::
a.
.2

•
I I 'r'
'"
0>

-
.>

_..-
Lunar surface
16-mm system

•
Command modu Ie Lunar modu Ie
16-mm system 16-mm system \

Figure 6-4.- The 16-mm sequence camera system.

 6-29

,
,')
6-30

"'
E
E,

'"'"'"
.s::;
f-
 6-31

TAllLE 6-VIII.- PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT USAGE (APOLLO 14 THROUGH 17)

FUll
Lens focal
Camera type Usage or target
length, lID (.)

Apollo 14

COIIIIlISnd module 70_ ao 3400 Transposition, docking. and undocking; infl1ghr

electric 500 50368 de1llonstrations; orbital science; landing sites;
250 3400 earth and moon
Command module 70-mm ao 3400 Zero phase: earthshine; stereograph!c strip of lD(Ionj
electric data S0349 visibility study
2485
Command llIOdule 16_ 18 50368 Transposition. docking, and undocking: landmark
data acquisition 5 50168 tracking: spacecraft interior: lunar dark Sid~;
10 2485 Gegenschein; ~odlacal light; galactic survey;
earth entry
COllllllsnd PlOdule 12.7-i11!ll 18 '0. 50349 Landing sites of follow-on missions
lunar topographic 3400
Lunar surface 70_ 60 50168 Lunar geology documentation, lunar surface doc-
electric data 3-00 umentation, lunar module on surface, crew
operations
Lunar module 16_ 10 S0368 Lunar descent wd ascent
data acquisition
Lunar surf ace 16_ 5 S0368 Modular equipment transfer evaluation .od lunar
data acquisition surface experiments traverse

Apollo 15

COIIlIIIand module 70- ao, 250 S0368 Lunar eclipse; esrth and moon; stereographic strip;
electric 500, 250 3414 solar corona; terminator; Gegenschein; Ctsns-
2465 poaition and docking; rendezvous; lunar orbit s<:1-
ence; ultraviolet clouds, land, water, and esrth;
bIOS r1o-o lunar horizon and features
Lunar surface 70_ SOO 3401 Panorama; geology and s8lllple documentation;
electric distant surface features
Lunar surface 70~ 60 3401 Geology and sample documentation; docking;
electric data S-166 panor8lllaj lunar surface experiment documen-
tation; lunsr module; crew; scientific
strument module
'0-
Command module 35-<1lJ1l 55 2485 Lunsr. surface in earthshinej terminator; '0-
diacal light; Milky Way; Gegenschein; lunar
eclipae; lunar libra(ion point
COIIlIIIand module 16_ 18 2485 Solar corona; contamination; twiat of lIaas
data acquisition S0166 apectrometer boom; tranapo$1tion and docking;
S0366 rendezvous; entry
Sextant S0368 Lunsr surface frolll orbit
adapter
Lunar llI(}dule 16_ 10 S0366 Undocl<.1ng; deacent; lunar aurface; aSl:ent
data acquisition
Lunar surface 16-<1lJ1l 7S S0368 Jettis.on of scientific ins.trument module
data acquisition 10 S0368 door; launch of subsatellite; lunar roving ve-
S0166 hicle traverse and evaluation; aurface geology

a 3414 and S0349 SlO\l'-speed black and white.

3400 and 3401 Medium-speed black and wh.1te.

""
SOl66
BW168
Very-high-speed black and ~te.
High-speed color exterior.
High-speed black and white exterior.
S0366 Medium-speed color exterior.
lIa..(l Ultraviolet spectro$copic.
bUltraviolet.
6-32

TABLE 6-VIII.- PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT USAGE (APOLLO 14 THROUGH 17) - Concluded

FUm
Lens focal
Camera
length, mm
type Usage or target
(.)

Apollo 16

COllllIland module 70_ 80 2485 Window calibration for solar corons; mooo;
electdc 250 JioOl earth; electrophoresis; orbital science;

bIOS
50168
50368
lunar ll>Odule inspection; ultravIolet earth
moon; lunar terrain. maria, and horizon
,,'
,.....
Ila...(}
Lunar $urface 60 50168 Geology sample documentation; lunar surface
electric data '00 3401 experiment layout data; lunar module; dis-
tant lunar features
Co....and IQQdule ,,- 55 2485
S0168
Gegenschein; galactic; Gum Nebula; zodiacal
light j earthshine; contamination; light flash
moving emulsion detector position data
BW168
Comroand module 16-tmll
data acquiaition "
10
18
50168
2485
Twist of 1llaSS spectrometer boom; food evalu-
ation: intravehicular tranafer: solar corons;
contamination; traosearth extravehicular op-
7S 50368 erstion!;: trsnspollition and docking; lunar module
inspection; rendezvous; landmsrk trscking;
entry
Lunar module 16_ 10 S0368 Lunar module descent. ascent. and docking
data acquisition
Lunar surface 16_ 10 S0368 Lunar roving vehicle traverse; crew mobility;
data acquisition soll dynamics

Apollo 17

COQlIand module 70_ 80 S0368 Undocking; ejection; lunar module inspection;

electric 250 2485 rendezvous; docking; earth and moon; orbital
science; solsr corona; stereographic strip;
contamination
Lunar surface 70_
electric "
'00
S0368
3401
Geology sSlllpie documentation; surface panorama;
lunar surface experilDent deployment; soll mechan-

CDlD/lIand module ,,_ 55 50168

ics; lunar module inspection; distant featurea
Light flssh moving emulsion detector poaition data;
2485 zodiacal light; galactic; lunar libration
poLot; lunar surface in earthshine; dim-light
phenomena
Command module 16_ 7S 50368 Transposition and docking; undocking; rendezvous;
data acquisition 18 50168 lunar module inspection: scientific instru-
10 2485 ment module door jettison; Command Module Pilot
extravehicular activity; heat flow demonstra-
tion; comet; contamination; intravehicular op-
erationa; lunar strip photography: entry; parachute
deployment
Lunar module 16-mm 10 50368 Lunar descent; surface sctivity; lunar sscent;
data acquisition rendezvous

S3414 snd S0349 Slow-speed black and white.

3400 and 3401 Medium-speed black and white.
2485 Very-high-speed black and white.
50168 High":speed color exterior.
gW168 High-apeed black and white exterior.
50368 Medium-speed color exterior.
lIa-o Ultraviolet spectroscopic.
bUltraviolet.
 6-33

On each of the lunar landing missions, an average of approximately 3400 frames of 70-milli-
meter film, 2000 feet of 16-millimeter film, and 250 frames of 35-millimeter film were exposed.
The 35-millimeter photographs supported, primarily, dim-light phenomena for the Apollo 16 and 17
missions, and a limited number of I27-millimeter photographs were taken for the Apollo 14 ~sslon.

Several examples of crew photography are included in this section. In addition, crew photo-
graphs are used 1n other sections of this report. Of the many examples of long-range photography
from lunar orbit that are available, figures 6-7 snd 6-8 were selected as being typical. Fig-
ure 6-9 was taken of the fully illuminated moon just after the Apollo 17 transearth injection.

6.4.3 Conclusions

Crew photography was a primary source of data for the Apollo program and provided documenta-
tion of vehicle conditions and dynamics, crew operations, celestial phenomena. lunar aurface fea-
tures and geology, and surface experiment location data. The following conclusions are drawn
from the Apollo experience.

With one exception, all photographic objectives were met with the operational camera systems
even though occaaional problems required a second attempt in obtaining the data. The exception
was an instance in which high-resolution photographs of Descartes were not obtained because of
a transistor failure in the primary camera system seconds before the primary photographic site
was reached. The Descartes data, however, were obtained with a backup camera and were of suffi-
cient resolution to meet minimum objectives.

The complement of camera equipment and lenses was properly selected to meet mission require-
ments and was obtained within budget gUidelines. The use of professional quality commercial equip-
ment. when available in the format sizes required and with minor modification to meet space en-
vironmental criteria, was an adequate approach which resulted in quality photography at minimum
cost.
Figure 6-7.- View of lunar surface taken from command module on Apollo 17.
 6-35

Figure 6-8.- View of lunar surface as taken from command module.

6-36

Figure 6-9.- View of fully illuminated moon taken after transearth

injection on Apollo 17.
 6.S REFERENCES

6-1. Apollo 7 HiBsion Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-PA-R-6S-l5, December 1968.

6-2. Apollo 8 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-PA-R-69-l, February 1969.

6-3. Apollo 9 Mission Report. NASA Johnaon Space Center Report HSC-PA-R-69-2, Hay 1969.

6-4. Apollo 10 Kission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-Q0126. August 1969.
6-S. Apollo 11 Mission Report. NASA SP-238, 1971.

6-6. Apollo 12 Kission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-QlSSS. March 1970.

6-7. Apollo 13 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-Q26S0, Septe=ber 1970.

6-S. Apollo 14 Hission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-Q41l2. Hay 1971.
6-9. Apollo 15 Hission Report. NASA johnson Space Center Report HSC-QSI61. December 1971.

6-10. Apollo 16 Hission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report HSC-Q7230, August 1972.

6-11. Apollo 17 Hission Report. NASA Johnson Space center Report JSC-Q7904, Harch 1973.

6-12. Woodling, C. H.; Faber. 5.; Van Bockel, J. J.; 01asky, C. C.; et al.: Simulation of
Hanned space Flight for Crew Training. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-7112,
July, 1972.

6-13. O'Neil, J. w.; Cotter, J. B.; Holloway, T. W.: Flight Plsnning for Hanned Space Opera-
tions. Apollo Experience Report. NASA TN 0-6973, January 1972.

6-14. Kuehnel. H. A.: Photographic Equipment and Operations During Hanned Space-Flight Pro-
grama. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-6972, September 1972.

6-15. Flight Crew Integration Division: Handbook of Pilot Operationsl Equipment for Hanned
Space Flight. HSC-Q7210, June 1972.
6-38
 7-1

7.0 MISSION OPERATIONS

Apollo mission operational activities encompassed several diversified support disciplines.

The largest number of supporting personnel were located at the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center in
Houston, Texas; numerous other supporting organizations were located throughout the United States
and the world. All organizational elements functioned as a unified team during a mission, with
some elements remaining active until a postflight report of the mission had been published and
all conditions causing anomalous performance of the mission hardware had been resolved. This
section summarizes the activities of the major support disciplines and gives examples of the
problems encountered.

1.1 MISSION CONTROL

The basic objectives and responsibilities of mission control were established in previous
manned space flight programs. In the Apollo program, the flight control team continued its pri-
mary role in trajectory determination, maneuver computation, overall spacecraft systems evalua-
tion, and crew assistsnce as required. The capabilities involved in mission control were in-
tended to aid the crew in accomplishing the mission objectives and to preserve crew safety under
normal snd contingency conditions. Even though the objectives remained unchanged, the role and
capability of mission control increased throughout the program to meet the additional require-
ments of each new mission.

7.1.1 Mission Control Center

The focal point for ground-based Apollo mission operational activities was the Mission Con-
trol Center located at the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center. The Mission Control Center contains
two identical mission operations control rooms (fig. 7-1). Either can be used, or in some cir-
cumstances, they can be used simultaneously. The mission operations control room provided the
working space for three basic groups of flight controllers: mission command and control, systems
operations, and flight dynamics. Each group was assigned a nearby staff support room (fig. 7-2)
where data on the missions were monitored and analyzed in detail. Other support areas within
the facility included a meteorological room, a spacecraft planning and analysia room, a recovery
operations control room, and a lunar surface experiments package support room. The consoles at
which the flight controllers worked in the mission operations control room, and those in many of
the support rooms, included one or more television screens and the necessary controls to display
data on a number of different channels. The data could be the same as that displayed on large
screens on the front wall of the mission operations control room, or other data could be "called
up" by changing channels. Static information wss obtained from a library of reference dats,
while digital-to-television display generators prOVided constantly changing data.

A real-time computer complex on the first floor of the Mission Control Center processed in-
coming tracking and telemetry data and compared actual mission conditions with predetermined
parameters. Of five primary computers in the real-time computer complex, two were used to sup-
port one mission operations control room, snd two were used for the other. The fifth served as
a backup, or could be used to develop and perfect computer programs.

Another facility on the first floor that was essential to the success of a mission was the
communications, command snd telemetry system. The system processed the incoming digital data
and distributed it on a real-time basis to the mission operations control room snd support rooms
for display. The system also handled the digital command signsls to the spacecraft.

Another important facility was the voice communications system. It enabled the flight con-
trollers to talk to one another without having to leave their consoles, and it connected them
to the specialists in the support rooms, to flight crew training facilities where specific pro-
cedures could be tried out on spacecraft simulatora before they were recommended to the mission
crew, and to personnel along the Manned Space Flight Network. It also prOVided the voice link
between the control center and the spacecraft.
7-2
 7-3

• )

" \: N ,
....
l!!
,

~
.~
lJ..

••
7- 4

A separately located simulation checkout and training system enabled flight controllers in
the Kission Control Center and flight crews in spacecraft simulators at the Hanned Spacecraft
Center and the Kennedy Space Center to rehearse a particular procedure or even a complete mis-
sion. The system even simulated voice and data reception from the far-flung stations of the
Hanned Space Flight Network.

7.1.2 Emergency Power Building snd Backup Facility

The Mission Control Center was supported by an emergency power building which housed gen-
erators and air conditioning equipment, and was backed up by a secondary Mission Control Center
at the Goddard Space Flight Center.

7.1.2.1 Emergency power aystem.- Electrical power Is distributed to the Mission Control
Center and within the emergency power building by either a "category-A" or "category-B" distri-
bution system (fig. 7-3). Category-A power is defined as the uninterruptible power supplied to
all critical loads in the Mission Control Center. The power is generated in the emergency power
building for two separate electrical buses which are electrically isolated from the commercial
power system and from each other. Category-B power is defined as interruptible power supplied
to all loads other than the category-A power loads in the Mission Control Center. Under normal
operating conditions, the category-B power is supplied by commercial power; however, when a com-
mercial power failure occurs, the category-B power is generated in the emergency power building
by two diesel generators which start picking up the load within 25 seconds after the commercial
power failure. Depending upon conditions, the category-A power generating system is capable
of operating in anyone of three different modes.

a. Mode 1. During normal operation in which the commercial power system is intact, cate-
gory-A power is obtained from a 350-kilowatt electric motor-generator and a 350-kilowatt diesel
generator operating in parallel with each other. The diesel generator and motor-generator each
supply approximately one-half of the load to the appropriate A bus. Either generator is capable
of assuming the full load upon failure of the other. A third 350-kilowatt diesel generator acts
as the standby or "swing" generator and is capable of being substituted for any of of the cate-
gory-A power generators.

b. Mode 2. During periods in which the commercial power system supply has been interrupted
or has failed, both electric motor-generators cease to operate and the diesel generators tempo-
rarily assume the full load for the category-A power system. As soon as the category-B power
system generators have started. the category-A power system electric motor-generators are manu-
ally restarted and are operationally powered by the category-B power generators.

c. Mode 3. During periods in which one of the category-B buses has been removed from ser-
vice, the respective category-A aystem electric motor-generator that was receiving power from
the bus ceases to operate. The standby diesel generator then operates in parallel with the op-
erating diesel generator to provide uninterruptible power to the A bus. The remaining A bus op-
erates normally vith the electric motor-generator operating in parallel with the diesel gener-
ator.

Depending upon conditions, the category-B power generating system is also capable of opera-
ting in anyone of three modes.

a. Mode 1. During normal operation in which the commercial power system is intact, each
of the B buses receives power from the commercial power system through step-down transformers
located on a substation pad adjacent to the emergency power building.

b. Mode 2. During periods when the commercial power system supply has been interrupted
or has failed, the B buses are tied together through bus-tie circuit breakers and the entire
category_B system losd is supplied from two l360-kilowatt diesel generators. Each generator is
capable of automatically starting and synchronizing with the other generator. and, as previously
mentioned, can begin to supply system power to the B buses within 25 seconds. A third 1360-
kilowstt diesel generator is provided as s standby unit capable of being substituted for anyone
of the l360-kilowatt generators.
 7-5

'l---1V From main substation <12.47 kV)

....- - - - T o administrative
wing transfer

B-system engine generators - 1360 kW

o 0 ~
~~a~~~V~o. 1 T ~ ~ ~ T~~~~f~v~O' 2

) ) ) ) )
_B:;:;"::;S:,:B:;:;-..;1:--1_"';~ Bus B-:3 I ~:-...._..:B::":;:STB;.-.::2_
4BO/277 V 480/277 V

~ '-,"," ,",c,. "m_. -m ~

Motor- 0 0 0 0 0 Motor-
generator
sel No.1
350 kW
I
Q' c;? rZl
Y rZl
Y
I
I
I
I
G
I I .,]enerator
sel No.2
350 ,N

» »
_ .....;;B;;;"''rA
..;-..;1'-'--'''':.....L....:''''-....B:;:;"::s"A;.-.::2..a._
120/208 V

Figure 7-3.- Mission Control Center power system.

7-6

c. Mode 3. During periods when one of the substation pad transformers becomes inoperative
because of failure or a maintenance requirement, caregory-B buses may be tied together and power
supplied from the remaining transformer and one diesel generator operating in parallel. If one
of the B buses is out of service, the loads on that bUB may be manually transferred to the other
B bus and the entire category-B power load supplied from the remaining operational transformer
and one diesel generator operating in parallel.

1.1.2.2 Emergency lighting system.- A battery-operated emergency lighting system in the

emergency power building Is also prOVided for the safety of personnel In the event of a total
power failure. Should a power failure occur, the emergency lighting system will automaticslly
switch on and supply power to light fixtures strategically located in each area and in the cor-
ridors.

7.1.2.3 Emergency cooling system.- The emergency air conditioning equipment for the Mission
Control Center consists of two 700-ton water chillers, a 70-horsepower heating boiler, circula-
ting pumps, heat exchangers, automatic controls, and accessories. A cooling tower, erected ad-
jacent to the emergency power building, provides condensing water to the chillers and jacket
cooling water to the diesel engine power generators.

7.1.2.4 Secondary Mission Control Center.- If an unforeseeable failure had prevented the
Control Center from continuing its support of a flight. an emergency facility at the Goddard
Space Flight Center in Greenbelt. Maryland, could have" been activated. The emergency center was
a stripped-down version of the one in Houston •.incorporating just enough equipment to let the
controllers support the flight to its conclusion.

7.1.3 Mission Control Functions

7.1.3.1 Unmanned flights.- Unmanned test flights for design verification of critical flight
equipment were relatively short. and only specific flight conditions had to be satisfied. Be-
cause execution of these flights was controlled mainly by the onbosrd guidance and navigation
system, the mission control function was limited. A real-time interface, however, did exist with
the Mission Control Center through the communications system, which provided up-link transmission,
telemetry, and tracking capability. Thus, the flight control team had the capability to adjust
flight events and control systems operation to ensure that system evaluation requirements were
met. This control was used during the Apollo 6 mission when the S-IVB stage of the launch ve-
hicle failed to restart, as planned, after schieving earth orbit. Through up-link commands, the
flight control team commanded ignition of the service propulsion system to achieve an alternate
trajectory that satisfied the mission objective.

7.1.3.2 Manned flights.- With the first manned flight (Apollo 7). mission complexity snd
duration increased. Likewise, the scope of mission control operations was expanded, snd execu-
tion of additional and more complex duties demanded greater preparation and training of the
flight control tearn. The value of thia comprehensive preparation was demonstrated when develop-
ment of contingency plans was necessitated by the Apollo 13 cryogenic oxygen tank failure. As
the program progressed. each flight presented new objectives which required additional ground
support capability. Objectives such as translunar injection and high-speed entry on Apollo 8.
dual spacecraft operations snd actual rendezvous on Apollo 9. lunar-orbit insertion and trans-
earth injection on Apollo 10 and .. finally, the actual lunar landing on Apollo 11 all required
specialized support. Also required with each additional activity were new data computation
capabilities, monitoring techniques, operating procedures for normal and contingency events, and
new system operational criteria. With the successful completion of the Apollo 11 mission. all
major lunar landing mission events had been accomplished; however, modifications were made to
improve the execution techniques or to provide increased capability. For example, the accuracy
of the Apollo 11 lunar landing was degraded by a position navigation error. To compensate for
such degradation, a technique was developed to bias the Apollo 12 landing target point during
the descent maneuver by a differential distance equivalent to the position error. When the mis-
sion control team observed the error from radar tracking, the required bias was provided to the
crew by voice transmission.
 1-1

7.1.3.3 Dual-vehicle operation.- Several new operational changes were required of the mis-
sion control team for dual-vehicle operation. Although dual-vehicle operation had been intro-
duced on the Gemini program when two spacecraft first accomplished rendezvous. the Apollo oper-
ation was unique because the configuration of the two spacecraft was vastly different: each was
designed for a special function. The vehicle differences required additional flight controller
positions and modification of other positions in the Mission Control Center to accommodate data
display and to allow separate systems evaluation and support for each spacecraft. The increased
level of activity and the limitations In the ground data-processing equipment required a cooper-
ative operating discipline within the Mission Control Center for the support of two active ve-
hicles. Special procedures were adopted to maintain coordination between responsible atations
for such operations as up-link transmissions to each spacecraft, high-speed data format selection,
and non-real-time data retrieval. Throughout the critical phases of lunar module deacent and
ascent, the number of available television displays wss decreased to reduce the workload on the
real-time computer complex. The remaining number was allocated by console position to ensure
distribution of mandatory monitoring data. Mission control was essentially split into two oper-
ational divisions to manage the high activity of dual-vehicle support. Each division had a sep-
arate flight director and spacecraft communicator supporting an individual spacecraft.

7.1.3.4 Lunar operation.- Another change in mission control for the Apollo program was the
operation in the lunar environment. Because the spacecraft were operating at much greater dis-
tances from earth, emphasis was placed on maintaining the mission abort and return capability.
Also, spacecraft systems management and evaluation became more critical. Before executing each
major lunar mission event, the systems status was verified to satisfy required minimum capabil-
ity. For example, the service propulsion system control integrity was in question before the
Apollo 16 lunar orbit circularization maneuver (ref. 7-1). Consequently, a delay of the lunar
landing was necessary to understand the malfunction fully and to ascertain the remaining capa-
bility, even though the landing conditions and subaequent surface activities would be affected.

Precision trajectory management was required to achieve the desired conditions for all lunar
landings. The effects of spacecraft attitude thruster firings and the lunar gravitational vari-
ations introduced errors in predicted trajectories. The thruster effects were minimized by ad-
justing the planned spacecraft activities so that attitude maneuvers during the critical tracking
intervals were avoided. The development of improved lunar gravitational potential models and nav-
igation biasing techniques compensated for the gravitational effects. As each lunar mission was
accomplished, more knowledge was gained to provide greater confidence in maintaining predicted
lunar mission trajectories.

The initial lunar landing. Apollo II, initiated still another expansion to mission control
operations. In previous flights, the misaion control objective had been to verify the equipment
and techniques reqUired to place man on the moon. For Apollo 11 and subsequent missions, the
operational objective was expanded to include the scientific exploration of the lunar surface.
To achieve the lunar surface extravehicular activity objectives. mission control served as the
interface between the flight crew and the ground-based scientific investigators. In this role,
mission control assumed responsibility for the real-time management of experiment deployment,
traverse planning, sample collection, surface photography, and experiment dats retrieval. Addi-
tional operational support was prOVided to monitor and evaluate the status and performance of
surface equipment such as the extravehicular mobility unit and the lunar roving vehicle. This
capability also provided general crew assistance in manipulating the lunar roving vehicle tele-
viaion camera and in recording such data as sample container numbers, film magazine codes, and
crew observational comments. The management of and data retrieval from the Apollo lunsr surface
experiments package central ststioo and associated experiments was unique for mission control be-
cause of this activity extended beyond the end of the mission. Between missions, a small segment
of the mission control team continued active support of the Apollo lunar surface experiments from
previous missions by collecting and distributing instrument observation data. In addition, up-
link commands were sent to manage some of the instrument packages on the lunar surface. Begin-
ning with the Apollo IS mission, science support was again expanded to include operations of
lunar orbital experiments. A special mission control function was established to manage the
time-line execution and real-time evaluation of the crew-operated equipment. Assistance was
prOVided to the crew in management of equipment configuration and on-off operating time.
~8

7.1.4 Concluding Remarks

In summary, mission control maintained a flexibility of operation to support the program re-
quirements. Although the basic intent remained constant, mission control capabilities and respon-
sibilities expanded as required to support the variety of missions undertaken.

7.2 MISSION PLANNING

7.2.1 Trajectory Design

Initial mission planning and trajectory design early in the Apollo program transformed the
broad lunar landing objectives into a standard mission profile and sequence of events against
which the many spacecraft systems could be designed. Preliminary trajectory design. like the
spacecraft hardware design. was developed from specified objectives within a framework of system
functional characteristics and mission operational constraints. The process consisted of a se-
ries of iterative cycles in which the basic lunar mission trajectory wss increasingly refined as
the program progressed and as the flight hardware and operational planning became more definite.

As might be expected, incompatibilities arose between aystem capabilities and trajectory

performance requirements which necessitated tradeoff studies so that compromises could be reached.
In this respect, trajectory design activity was one of the primary means of achieving the overall
syatems integration on which the success of the program rested. As hardware designs became final,
the trajectory design was more operationally oriented to conform to the expected capabilities of
the spacecraft and ground support equipment.

The final mission design effort occurred largely in the year preceding each launch and in-
volved the development of an operational trajectory and the associated detailed procedures, tech-
niques, mission rules, and flight software. The operational documentation and data were used by
the flight crew and ground control personnel for both nominal and contingency trajectory control
and monitoring. The major problems encountered in the design of the various Apollo trajectories
were not as technical as they were accommodative to the myriad user requirements. hardware and
launch schedules, and the presentation of the proper data formats.

Another area in which problems were more bothersome and time consuming than they were tech-
nically difficult was that of designing the trajectory and providing associated data to overcome
systems limitations, particularly those discovered immediately before launch. and accommodating
last-minute changes. Trajectory engineers demonstrated a great deal of ingenuity, for example,
when retargeting was required on several of the earlier missions and when a precision lunar land-
ing was dictated on later missions. In the latter case, a new technique of updating the target
vector in the onboard computer during the actual descent maneuver was very successful.

Early in the trajectory design effort, the need became apparent for some type of configura-
tion control to ensure that all elements were using the same systems performance parameters.
The proposal for a data management system to provide this necessary control was accepted and re-
sulted in the production of the Spacecraft Operational Data Book. This document, with its con-
tinuous updates, and the data management elements in other organizations provided a common data
base for all users.

In the early stages of the program, much more effort was devoted to planning for contingen-
cies than to planning the nominal trajectory. This fact was also true for the two previous pro-
grams. As more confidence was gained in the systems performance and the basic trajectory design
techniques, the concentration of effort on contingencies was somewhat reduced. The effort toward
contingency planning was not wasted, however, aince the ability of trajectory design engineers
to respond rapidly to the Apollo 13 emergency was instrumental in returning the crew safely to
earth.
 7-9

7.2.2 Consumables

During the early Apollo mission planning, the need for a single authoritative consumables
data source became apparent. A consumables analysis group was therefore chartered to define all
major consumables data for the spacecraft. The trajectory design team was given this responsi-
bility because of the close relationship of trajectory design to overall mission planning and
systems functional performance, which included consumables usage.

7.2.3 Lunar Landing Site Selection

Lunar landing site selection was a complex process which involved technical tradeoffs among
diverse interests. The scientific considerations were balanced against the system capabilities
by a Site Selection Board and a recommendation was then made to agency management where the final
selection was made. The trajectory design team provided inputs to the Site Selection Board on
the suitability of several candidate sites for a given mission based upon operational considera-
tions such as the translation of spacecraft performance capability into accessible areas on the
lunar surface. The accessible areas were then correlated with the candidate landing sites to
determine which sites were available. Reference 7-2 describes in detail the site selection proc-
ess and the various trade-offs required.

Among the various organizations responding to the Site Selection Board on the acceptability
of the various sites, trajectory design personnel probably appeared to be one of the least con-
servative. This lack of conservatism probably stemmed from the fact that numerous proven analyt-
ical tools and trajectory shaping techniques prOVided great confidence in the face of new mission
requirement uncertainties. For example, without these tools and the wealth of mission planning
experience, the scientifically valuable Taurus-Littrow site probably could not have been approved
for the Apollo 17 mission. Based on the accuracy of both the lunar and the earth landings, the
tools and techniques were demonstrated to be effective, and the recommendations made to the Site
Selection Board regarding site accessiblity were timely and correct.

7.2.4 Documentation

Because of numerous inputs that influenced the trajectory design and because of the many
users of operational trajectory data, adherence to a strict control procedure was necessary to
provide the trajectory design within the time constraints of the program. To determine and de-
fine the proper input data and to provide the data on schedule, a mission documentation plan was
established which integrated the various requirements of the organizations involved in the flight
planning and the actual operations. This documentation plan defined the types of data required
and specified the established user need dates so that publication of final trajectory data would
be timely. The plan included the standard time, position and velocity trajectory information,
as well as specific information such as tracking station data, attitude data, contingency data,
dispersion analyses, consumables analyses, simulator input data, and onboard crew charts. Ref-
erences 7-3 through 7-12 are representative documents.

7.3 MANNED SPACE FLIGHT NETWORK

The initial support of the Apollo program by the Mission Control Center/Manned Space Flight
Network (later called the Spaceflight Tracking and Data Network) began during the terminal phases
of the Gemini program with the three short orbital flights of Apollo missions AS-20l, AS-202, and
AS-203. These unmanned flights were supported with the ground systems hardware snd software used
in the Gemini program. Systems such ss the unified S-band communications equipment, which were
to become well known in the Apollo program, were in their infancy and were used only on a ground
systems test basis. Remote control from the Houston Mission Control Center was almost nonexist-
ent, and the flight controllers were sent to many of the Manned Space Flight Network stations to
support each flight.
7-10

7.3.1 Command Systems

The radio-frequency communications links between the ground and the Apollo spacecraft ~ere
similar to those of the Gemini program and used the l-kilohertzj2-kl1ohertz phase-shift-keyed
modulation techniques; however, the equipment for command generation differed. A computer-
operated digital command system was used for Gemini flights and the first three Apollo flights
in which command execution from the Mission Control Center was limited to special interfaces
with three range stations through the use of a down-range up-link system. The commands to be
transmitted to the spacecraft were transferred from the master digital command system in Houston
through commercial carrier facilities to a station down-range up-link system which in turn pro-
vided the radio-frequency modulation to the spacecraft. At remote stations, such as Guaymas,
Mexico, and Canarvon. Australia, flight control teams sent from Houston used station digital
command systems to execute the commands.

The main-line Apollo program was to provide a different operation. The computer had matured,
as had the use of digital communications. While radio-frequency modulation remained the same,
modified 642B computers replaced the digital command system. Up-link commands were no longer
transmitted directly from Houston. Each remote station computer was programmed with unique com-
mand words, and the execute decision from the Mission Control Center became requests for the pre-
programmed command words. Additionally, the Mission Control Center was no longer limited to com-
mand execution through three stations because 13 prime range stations within the Manned Space
Flight Network were linked to a 494 computer in Houston by a similar 494 computer at the Goddard
Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Modulation techniques remained the same; however. the radio-frequency link changed. Gemini
and early Apollo missions were conducted in near-earth orbit. using an ultrahigh-frequency com-
mand system. To communicate effectively at greater than near-earth orbital distances, the
Apollo program used a unified S-band system, and the up-link commands became an integral part of
that system with commands modulating a 70-kilohertz subcarrier.

The practice of sending flight control teams to selected remote stations to execute commands
and monitor telemetry was gradually discontinued. Confidence was established in tbe new system.
and the Apollo 7 mission was supported with all the flight control personnel being located at
the Manned Spacecraft Center and operating with s totally remote Manned Space Flight Network.

After the Apollo 7 mission, the command system configuration remained relatively unchanged.
The only significant change was the adoption of the universal command system concept with the
Mission Control Center complex during the later lunar missions. The universsl command system in-
creased system flexibility by providing the capability to execute real-time commands from any
command panel by means of a thumbwheel selection. Until this time, real-time commands were in-
dividually selected by unique pushbutton indicators at specific consoles. Previously. if a spe-
cific console was not functioning, command capability for the discipline controlled from that
console was lost. The universal command system allowed the flight controller to move to another
console or to hsve someone else execute his command if his console malfunctioned.

7.3.2 Telemetry Systems

Telemetry, like the command system, was subjected to major changes. Only two sources of
real-time digital telemetry existed at the Hanned Spacecraft Center for the initial Apollo flights.
The primary source came from the Kennedy Space Center and was known as the Gemini launch data sys-
tem (later called the Apollo launch data system). The data were received on ultrahigh-frequency
links, decommutated. sent to the data core system at Kennedy Space Center, and than transmitted
to Houston at a 40.S-kilobit rate. The only other digital source was a 2.0-kilobit link from
Bermuda. Real-time telemetry from the remaining Manned Space Flight Network stations was lim-
ited to critical events and was transmitted by frequency modulation on voice-quality long-line
circuits. The primary method for providing telemetry data to the Manned Spacecraft Center was
via teletype. Down-linked data received at the Hanned Space Flight Network stations were decom-
mutated and routed into 12lS-type computers. Selected parameters were then extracted from the
computer, on manual request, in teletype format and transmitted to the Manned Spacecraft Center.
At the Mission Control Center, the teletype telemetry data were routed to the real-time computer
complex for processing. After processing, summary messages were transmitted from Houston to the
remote stations so that the onsite flight controllers would know the vehicle status before an up-
coming pass over the range station.
 ,-ll
With the availability of 642B computers, a different and more suitable system was developed.
All the data were now decommutated, sent to the 642B computers, and formatted for digital output
to the Mission Control Center in the same manner that commands were sent to the range stations.
Two 2.4-kl!oblt lines from each range station to the Goddard Space Flight Center provided digi-
tal data in real time. Each line was dedicated to a selectable telemetry format. Each format
contained specific data from a certain vehicle or vehicles, snd the format was selectable by ei-
ther the Mission Control Center or the remote statton. The link between the Mission Control Cen-
ter snd the Goddard Space Flight Center consisted of two 40.S-kilobit lines and could provide
data from multiple stations to the Mission Control Center, thereby providing either redundant
data from one vehicle or data from multiple vehicles during periods when the vehicles were sep-
arated. These data were received and decommutated by 494-type computers at the Manned Spacecraft
Center and transferred to either the real-time computer complex, the telemetry ground stations,
or directly to console event lights. This configuration was used until the Apollo 15 mission,
when the data rate of the lines was increased to 4.8 kilobits. At this time, the two telemetry
formats were transmitted on one line only, and the second line was used for the transmission of
digital biomedical data. Also at this point, frequency-modulated telemetry - the last of the
Gemini systems - became a backup system to be used only in a contingency mode.

7.3.3 Tracking Systems

As was the case with the command and telemetry systems, tracking systems needed significant
upgrading to provide adequate support for the Apollo program. Although, unlike other systems,
the Gemini systems, for the most part, were retained. A significant change, however, was the
use of the unified S-band system as a source of trajectory data. During the Gemini program, the
primary source of trajectory data was C-band radar. To support Apollo, something else was needed
because C-band radar, like ultrahigh-frequency and very-high-frequency telemetry. was serviceable
only in earth orbit.

Ground systems processing of the resultant unified S-band trajectory data remained relatively
unchanged. Teletype was still the method used to transmit the trajectory information and, al-
though the computers involved were of a new generation, the software programs accomplished the
same tasks.

7.3.4 Communications Systems

The communications systems, although often overlooked, probably underwent the most signifi-
cant reconfiguration. The communications for the Gemini Manned Space Flight Network consisted
primarily of voice and teletype circuitry used in a postpass or near-real-time fashion. The
Apollo program required that digital data be routed to Houston in real time; voice communication
with the spacecraft was no longer the responsibility of an on-station flight control team but re-
qUired routing to a single point in the Mission Control Center; and television from the lunar
surface was relayed to Houston from Madrid. Spain, Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, and Goldstone,
California. Each change in a data system or the addition of a new system constituted a similar
change in the communications system.

In the Gemini program, the communications network consisted of facilities leased from vari-
ous commercial carrier companies. These facilities consisted of landline, submarine cable and
microwave systems; the latter being avoided whenever possible because of uncertain reliability.
The required circuitry, circuit reliability, and circuit quality for Apollo increased an order
of magnitude over those of Gemini. Contributing to the overall improvement was the shift from
the use of submarine cables to communications satellites for global communications.

7.4 RECOVERY OPERATIONS

The decision to use the water-landing mode for the Apollo program allowed the basic recovery
concepts and techniques developed during the Mercury and Gemini programs to be retained. Although
these concepts and techniques were generally applicable, the recovery requirements resulting from
flying a new spacecraft on a translunar trajectory necessitated the development of some new re-
covery force deployment concepts and also the development of specialized equipment, tools. and
procedures. The aspects of recovery unique to the Apollo program are discussed.
7-12

7.4.1 Department of Defense Support

In consonance with the intent of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, existing
Department of Defense resources were integrated into the Apollo program where possible to avoid
unnecessary duplication of effort. facilities, and equipfflent. Department of Defense support re-
sponsibilities were assigned in the areas of launch and recovery operations, communications, med-
icine, meCeorology, and public affairs. Personnel support ranged from approximately 4000 for the
AS-20I mission to more than 9000 for the Apollo 8 mission. The greater portion of this support
was for recovery operations. For a manned mission, the major recovery responsibilities entailed
locating the command module; providing on-the-scene assistance to the crew if necesssry; retriev-
ing the crew and command module; and providing for the return of the crew, lunar samples, data.
and equipment.

7.4.2 Recovery Posture

7.4.2.1 Earth orbital missions.- A four-zone recovery concept was used for the Apollo 7 and
Apollo 9 manned earth orbital missions. Two zones were located in the Atlantic and two in the
Pacific Ocean areas. The West Atlantic zone contained the ptimary landing area, which was sup-
ported by an aircraft carrier. Secondary landing areaa, supported by destroyers and ships of
similar capability. were located within or near all four zones.

7.4.2.2 Lunar missions.- The recovery posture for the lunar missions differed from that of
the earth orbital missions in several ways. The concepts and support prOVided are perhaps best
discussed as they relate to specific types of landing areas defined for different mission phases.

a. Launch phase. As in the previous manned space flight programs, recovery forces were de-
ployed in the so-called launch site area to rescue the crew if it had been necessary to initiate
an abort while the spacecraft was on the launch pad or during the first seconds of flight. The
recovery area was defined by the range of launch azinuths, which were dependent on the launch
window. For a given wind profile and launch azimuth, the loci of possible landing points lay in
a narrow corridor within this area. The location of the corridor was identified and transmitted
to the recovery forces before launch.

The next area of coverage required for the launch phase was the so-called launch abort area
in which the command module would land if an abort were initiated between about 90 seconds after
lift-off and the time of insertion into an earth-parking orbit. Figure 7-4 illustrates a typical
launch abort area based on a range of launch azimuths from 72° to 106°. As in the launch site
area, the loci of possible landing points lay within a relatively narrow corridor once the ac-
tual launch azimuth was established.

The probability of a landing in sector B of the launch abort area (from 100 to 3400 miles
down range) was relatively low because the capability to insert the spacecraft into earth orbit
using the S-IVB stage and the service propulsion system was present after reaching a downrange
distance of less than 1000 miles. Therefore, a lower level of recovery support for sector B was
justified. As the program progressed, the support for both sectors was reduced and dependence
was placed on ships of opportunity for retrieval of the command module. The maximum time spe-
cified for providing pararescue assistance to the flight crew. however, was maintained at 4 hours
for all flights. HC-130 search-and-rescue aircraft with para rescue personnel aboard were airborne
in the launch abort area before launch. These aircraft were positioned so that the 4-hour access
time requirement could be met. When a launch delay occurred, the aircraft moved south and main-
tained advantageous positions with respect to the updated launch azimuth.

The most significant change in the launch abort recovery force deployment was that, beginning
with Apollo 16, the requirement for recovery ship support of sector A was deleted. The launch
site HH-53C helicopter was used instead because, with inflight refueling, the aircraft had become
capable of retrieving the flight crew to a distance of 1000 miles. Also, the insertion tracking
ship U.S.N.S. Vanguard could have provided assistance if a contingency landing had occurred in
its vicinity.
 EastiWest longitude. deg WestlEast
100 120 140 160 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80

80 111 ~ ~ III UJ II 80
J:J7l, ,'fI1" I
70 ' ~ I i ::LQ ?0 . ,I I ." ~I , II 70
.l.f' ~' I ,
60 I •I I •
!
' , .
I,. I I
"
I
I .; ;I II~· lie If'! I I I I I I I I I I I II 60
50 i/t'...:...., I I " J .•• '''h- I. I I ffil-... _ i: I (iT .T I 50
40 ~-t1!i..."i-' . I . il C-l!-'-:-r-: !iii'.t: 'Sector B O

' "q. I 0 40
•
en •
r: I •, ' 0
7 2' ~
"'tJ 30 I , I . . I 30 ~
.. ! :. ,I I ;.........

~
• 20
-g.
...J
10 'I~-
0,'
.
. ,.
I.": "
, I
'~.B ..... _SectorA

I <

'lObo
~~!, I ~
~-,
"
I , ,
I 1.l~1 I
: I I I

I
,
'10
0
- 20 ,;
"'0

~
...J

10 '~""
I
,,\ . I I I I
10
2 0 ' I 20
30 30
40 I I 40
50 50
60 60

70 70
100 120 140 160 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
I
East West Longitude, deg West East I

Figure 7-4.- Typical launch abort area.

0'
f-'
'"
7-14

b. Earth-parking-orbit phase. The second phase of lunar mission recovery support was 1m-
ple~ented at insertion of the spacccraft/S-IVB stage Into earth orbit. Two recovery ~ones were
defined. One was located In the West Atlantic, and a larger zone was located In the mid-Pacific
(fIg. 7-5). Secondary landing areas, supported by ships and/or aircraft, were designated within
or near these zones 80 that assistance could be provided [0 the crew within 6 hours If a landing
became necessary before translunar injection.

A lower level of recovery support was provided for all the area (exclusive of the secondary
landing areas) which was within the 40· latitude lines. This area was called the orbital con-
tingency landing area. The recovery support consisted of specially equipped HC-l30 aircraft
(where possible, the same aircraft that supported the launch abort and secondary landing areas).
These aircraft were deployed to staging bases from which they could have provided assistance to
the crew within specified times, generally not to exceed 48 hours. Although some portions of the
area were beyond the 48-hour capability of the aircraft, a degree of risk was accepted based·on
the low probability of a contingency landing in these locations weighed against the cost of main-
taining higher support levels.

To provide for the possibility of an earth orbital alternate mission if the trans lunar in-
jection ~neuver could not have been performed, additional target points were selected to provide
a landing opportunity on each revolution. Whenever possible. these points were chosen within the
West Atlantic and mid-Pacific zones. On determination that an earth orbital alternate misaion
would be flown, the aizes of the zones would have been reduced and the recovery forces redeployed
to provide optimum support. If a secondary recovery ship (destroyer or similar sized ship) had
initially been supporting the mid-Pacific zone, the primary recovery ship (aircraft carrier) would
have relieved the secondary ship.

c. Translunar injection to end of mission. After performance of a successful translunar

injection maneuver, designated ships were deployed to support so-called deep-space secondary
landing areas located on the north-south trending lines in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans shown
in figure 7-2. These lines were known as the mid-Pacific line and the Atlantic Ocean line. In
addition, HC-130 aircraft were available to support these landing areas as well as the entire
area within the 40· latitude lines where a landing could occur, shown by the shaded area in fig-
ure 7-2. As a mission progressed, the ships maintsined positions that would allow them to re-
trieve the crew within specified times (ranging from 16 to 32 hours) in case of a deep-space
abort. The spacecraft, preferably. was to be targeted for a landing area on the mid-Pacific line
since the primary recovery ship was there. If this had not been possible, a landing would have
been made where a secondary recovery ship was available. A ship was positioned on the Atlantic
Ocesn line for five of the nine lunar missions. The requirement was not levied for the later
missions. If an Atlantic Ocean landing had been necessary for these missions, recovery of the
command module would have been effected by a ship of opportunity.

When the Apollo 13 mission was aborted, the spacecraft was initially placed on a free-return
circumlunar trajectory that would have resulted in a landing in the Indian Ocean. To shorten the
return time and to provide primary recovery ship support, a transearth injection maneuver was
performed approximately 2 hours ,after passing lunar pericynthion. This maneuver and two mid-
course corrections placed the spacecraft on a trajectory that permitted a landing on the mid-
Pacific line. Because of the emergency, additional support was provided by the Department of
Defense and offers of assistance were made by many nations. Including voluntary support, 21
ships and 17 aircraft were available for an Indian Ocean landing, and 51 ships and 21 aircraft
were available for an Atlantic Ocean landing. In the Pacific Ocean, 13 ships and 17 aircraft
were known to be available in addition to the designated forces.

d. Normal end-of-mission landing. Before the command module entered the earth atmosphere.
the primary recovery ship was positioned a few miles fron the end-of-mission target point and
aircraft were typically positioned as shown in figure 7-6. Shipborne aircraft were positioned
in the immediate area, and land-based HC-l30 aircraft were positioned up range and down range
for tracking snd for providing pararescue capability in case of an undershoot or overshoot.
 EasqWest longitude, deg West! East
100 120 140 160 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80

~ ,~~ ~~ ~~~\~:> :: ~
80 80

2 v i-£jf(
1.I1? J:;7" / ( u
60 60
« I I.• ,./~."\ ~~ M<~ ~~
/\y' . 'l' - c3lr'l'-.~ C::: «, ..
40
;Ilp: lJ' V ~
40

e
~ M;d- Wes' u :;r
-1: Pacmc ~ ~ -.® Atlant;c.' "' '" ~

M-<¥'4i--+--I--+I- ~ ~. _z~one
,; 20
~

~
:1 0
.~ JA '\ \
-zone
etyr;cal)
'\
~ 1":1" \.,
\'
rf \ 20 ,;

o j
3
~

'"
~L;-_?:... .", De~p space landing [) ~~ I

20 M~;;;;;
,r" 1\ • ~,~and (typical) .\' I( 20
<Q<~~~ ~;::; >00<: ~ 'Y'X Y;<::; ~P'X ~~pOO< <;;
40
'"' .". Mid-
Pacific
fl.'; Atlantic
Ocean
40

line line
60 60
. ~ ~ ~
100 120 140 160 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
I
East West Longitude, deg I
West East

Figure 7-5.- Earth orbital recovery zones, deep space recovery lines and landing latitude band.

,
---l

t;:
7-16

158" 30' 157" 30'

°

,
..., I
Recovery

..., ..., 'ttd....

Swim 1
USS Okina~a

I PhO/ Relay
- - - ; - : - Target point
Landing point ~
26 °
Swim 2

West longitude
162" 1610 160" 159" 158" 157" 156 0
30°

,
Hawaii rescue 2
29°

•
~ 28°
3
5
25" '"
~~- 27"

USS Okinawa

26°
• Hawai i rescue 1 'I
Target po i nt

24° 30
, 25°
159" 158" 30' 158" 157" 30'
Wesl longitude
Figure 7-6.- Typical end-of-mission recovery support.
 7-l7

Elaborate precautions were taken for the first three lunar landing missions to prevent con-
tamination from possible alien micro-organisms during retrieval and transportation of the crews
and their spacecraft to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at the Manned Spacecraft Center. At that
time, the presence of lunar micro-organisms was thought possible, snd the precautions taken were
based on recommendations from an interagency committee on back contamination and the desire of
NASA to be cautious. Because no micro-organism could be identified after three lunar aites had
been explored, the precautions were eliminated for the final three missions.

Table 7-1 gives the overall ship and aircraft support provided for the Apollo program. Ad-
ditional landing and recovery data are given in appendix A.

7.4.3 Equipment and Procedures

Primary recovery ships and sttendant swimmer/helicopter teams were used for recovery of all
crews. In general, the normal crew retrieval procedures consisted of deploying swimmers, a flo-
tation collar, and a sea anchor from helicopters; attaching the sea anchor and collar to the com-
mand module; deploying rafts from a helicopter; attaching a raft to the collar; opening the com-
mand module hatch; and assisting each crewmember, in turn, into a raft from which they were helped
into a rescue net suspended from the pickup helicopter (fig. 7-7). These procedures were prac-
ticed by the Apollo crews before their missions and by the helicopter and swimmer teams both be-
fore the missions and while en route to recovery stations.

For the first three lunar landing missions, special equipment and procedures were used to
isolate the Apollo crewmen and the recovery personnel required to enter the command module, to
isolate the command module interior and its contents, and to decontaminate any areas that might
have been exposed to contaminants. During the swimmer/helicopter operations, the crewmen donned
biological isolation garments before egress and wore the garments until they were inside a mobile
quarantine facility on the hangar deck of the recovery ship. The command module, when hoisted
aboard, was positioned near the quarantine facility and connected to the facility by a tunnel
which provided access to the cabin for removal of lunar samples and other items (fig. 7-8).

Airborne electronic location equipment consisted of NASA-furnished search-and-rescue-and-

homing systems snd AN/ARD-17 direction finder sets. The search-and-rescue-and-homing equipment
was installed on primary recovery ship helicopters and on the helicopters used in the launch site
recovery area and was compatible with the command module recovery beacon and survival beacon fre-
quency of 243 megahertz. The AN/ARD-l7 sets, developed especially for the Apollo program, were
installed in HC-130 aircraft. Two aircraft were generally located approximately 200 miles up
range and down range of the predicted landing point and offset from the command module ground track
(fig. 7-6). The S-band tracking was used from the end of the communications blackout until ap-
proximately 1 minute before the predicted main parachute deployment. (The VHF recovery beacon
was activated at that time.) The S-band tracking mode was used to help determine whether the
landing would occur up range or down range of the particular aircraft. The set was then switched
to the VHF mode to attempt recognition of the recovery beacon signal as soon as the beacon was
turned on. Immediate recognition of the recovery beacon signal was desirable because the line-
of-sight range was approximately 300 miles when the command module was at an altitude of 10 000
feet compared with a 195-mile range when the command module was on the water.

Small waterproof radios vere issued to Air Force pararescue personnel and Navy swimmers to
permit communications with aircraft, the recovery ships, and the Apollo crews during recovery
operations. The radios had three operating modes: voice or beacon when operating on a frequency
of 282.8 megahertz and voice only when operating on a frequency of 296.8 megahertz.

The special equipment carried aboard the HC-130 aircraft also included an aircraft-deployed
drift reduction system. The system consisted of two parachute-delivered drag packages connected
by a buoyant line. The drag packages were dropped in the path of the command module so that the
line could be snagged as the command module drifted across the line. A grappling hook could have
been deployed through the command module side hatch pressure equalization valve port (after re-
moval of the valve) by a crewman to snag the line or, if the command module went underneath the
line, the inflated uprighting bags would have snagged it. Tests of the system showed that the
parachutes, acting as sea anchors, effectively slowed the drift rate of the command module, in-
creasing the probability of reaching the command module quickly.
7-18

TABLE 7-1.- APOLLO RECOVERY SUPPORT

Overall recovery forces

Navy ships Aircraft
Mission
Atlantic Pacific
Navy Air Force
Ocean Ocean

AS-201 8 - 16 16

AS-202 4 3 43 4

Apollo 4 5 2 37 5

Apollo 5 1 - - -
Apollo 6 5 2 25 10

Apollo 7 4 5 8 23

Apollo 8 6 6 21 22

Apollo 9 3 3 7 22

Apollo 10 4 4 10 20

Apollo 11 3 2 13 18

Apollo 12 3 2 9 17

Apollo 13 2 2 8 14

Apollo 14 3 2 5 14

Apollo 15 2 2 5 12

Apollo 16 a
1 3 6 11
a
Apollo 17 1 2 5 10

a
Small ships were used for sonic boom measurements in addition to
the ship indicated.
 7-19

Figure 7-7.- Helicopter pickup of Apollo crewman.

7-20

Q/
c:
~
c:
'"ra
a.
-g
'"
Q/

"
"t:l
o
E
"t:l
c:
'"E
iu5
c:
Q/
Q/

!
.8
Q/
§
.3
Q/
-5
~
o
c:
o
ii:i

<Xl
I
.....
Q/
~

"'"
lJ..
 7- 21

Much special equipment was carried aboard secondary recovery ships to facilitate command
module retrieval snd handling. The major item on destroyers was a NASA-developed davit crane
that incorporated a hoidoff ring to stabilize the command module during pickup. A boilerplate
command module was furnished to all secondary recovery ships 80 that retrieval training could be
conducted while the ships were en route to assigned areas. In addition, a kit containing auxil-
iary retrieval equipment was provided. Included in the kit were such items 8S line threaders,
threaders, poles. hooks, fending pads, and a cradle to support the boilerplate command module
during training or the actual command module, if recovered. No special facilities were furnished
for the biological isolation of lunar landing mission crews; however, if a secondary recovery
ship had performed a recovery, the Apollo crewmen would have been quarantined in whatever facil-
ities were available.

The vehicles, equipment, and procedures used in the launch site recovery area were similar
to those used for Gemini flights; however, several procedural changes were made and some new
equipment was introduced. Starting with Apollo 7, the HH-53C heavy-lift helicopter was added to
the complement of launch site recovery vehicles for uprighting the command module and for deliv-
ering pararescue personnel, firefighters, and equipment. For surf operations, the same type of
amphibious vehicle used during Gemini was initially adapted for command module retrieval, but
the use of this vehicle was discontinued after Apollo 11 when surf retrieval procedures using
the HH-53C helicopter were developed. Examples of equipment developed or adapted for crew rescue
from the command module include a "jaTlU1l.ed hatch kit." containing special tools for gaining access
to the command module crew compartment, and a helicopter-deployable fire suppression kit for ex-
tinguishing hypergolic fires. In addition. improved protective clothing was developed for fire-
fighting personnel.

7.4.4 Command Module Post retrieval and

Deactivation Procedures

Shipboard recovery activity after command module retrieval included photographing the com-
mand module; documenting observations and inspections; verifying electrical shutdown of the ve-
hicle; and removing and expediting the return of lunar samples. data. and specified equipment.

On arrival at a designated deactivation site. the command module was inspected and its con-
dition evaluated by a landing safing team. The pyrotechnic devices were safed. and the reaction
control system propellants were removed according to prescribed procedures. Deactivation opera-
tions were carried out without incident except for the one performed on the Apollo 16 command
module (sec. 4.4.7.2). While the oxidizer was being removed. the scrubber tank of the decontam-
ination unit exploded, destroying the ground support equipment unit and damaging the building
where the operation was being performed. The personnel in the area received only minor injuries,
and the command module was not damaged. Tests showed that the explosion was caused by excessive
gases produced because the quantity of neutralizer was insufficient for the quantity of oxidizer
being removed. Corrective actions were implemented for the Apollo 17 command module and all sub-
sequent vehicles. the primary action being to eliminate the requirement to neutralize residual
propellants at the deactivation site.

7.4.5 Concluding Remarks

The effectiveness of the overall recovery support was maintained even with a trend toward
the use of fewer ships and aircraft as the program progressed. The force reductions were based
on several factors: a continually increasing confidence in the reliability of the spacecraft and
launch vehicles. the availability of a tracking ship (the U.S.N.S. Vanguard) that could serve as
a recovery ship during the launch abort phase. the deletion of the requirement for quarantine.
and the availability of long-range heavy-lift helicopters late in the program.
7-22

7.5 EFFECTS OF WEATHER ON MISSION OPERATIONS

The weather had no significant effect on the major operations of the Apollo program. Some
weather considerations are noteworthy, however, and are discussed briefly. The discussion Is
divided into three parts: operations during vehicle testing at the launch complex, the launch
phase, and recovery operations.

7.5.1 Prelaunch Operations

Spanning a period of 7 years, approximately 106 instances in which weather had an impact on
prelaunch operations were recorded. As the program progressed, work curtailments and interrup-
tions decreased because of improved weather proofing, improved adverse weather warning systems,
facility modifications, and less stringent ground rules governing work activity during adverse
weather. Weather-related work interruptions during prelaunch operations caused no launch delays.

Several ground support units were damaged by the electromagnetic effects of lightning strikes
during the prelaunch checkout of Apollo 15. Five incidents of lightning strikes on Launch Com-
plex 39 were recorded during the prelaunch period. The first strike, one of 98 000 amperes,
caused damage to eight units of ground support equipment. The second strike, one of 31 200 am-
peres, occurred the following day but damaged only one ground support unit. Ten days later, a
strike of 22 000 amperes damaged two units of ground support equipment. The damage from the
three strikes was attributed to improper grounding of cable shields and signal returns associated
with the affected equipment. Modifications to the support equipment and facility grounding sys-
tems corrected these inadequacies and prevented equipment damage during two subsequent strikes
of 23 000 and 6500 amperes.

7.5.2 Launch Phase

Only two Apollo missions experienced launch delays because of weather conditiona. Mission
AS-201 was delayed three times because of local cloudiness that was unsatisfactory for the re-
quired camera coverage. The Apollo 14 flight was delayed 40 minutes because of weather condi-
tions that exceeded mission rule guidelines established after lightning struck the Apollo 12
space vehicle during launch (ref. 7-13).

Apollo 12 was the only mission affected by weather conditions during a launch. Before
launch, launch officials were concerned about the approach of a cold front with its associated
cloudiness and precipitation; however, these weather conditions did not exceed the then existing
mission rule guidelines. At 36.5 seconds and again at 52 seconds after lift-off lightning caused
major electrical disturbances. Many temporary effects were noted in both the launch vehicle and
the spacecraft, and some permanent effects involving the loss of nine nonessential instrumenta-
tion sensors were noted in the spacecraft. After a thorough systems checkout in earth orbit,
however, the spacecraft was found to be operating satisfactorily and the mission was continued.

Investigation of the Apollo 12 lightning incident showed that lightning can be triggered by
a space vehicle and its exhaust plume in an electrical field that would not otherwise have pro-
duced natural lightning. Weather conditions such as the clouds associated with the cold front
through which the Apollo 12 vehicle was launched can be expected to contain electrical fields
and sufficient charge to trigger lightning. The possibility that the Apollo vehicle might trig-
ger lightning had not been considered previously. Consequently, the launch rule guidelines were
revised to restrict launch operations in weather conditions with potentially hazsrdous electric
fields and charge centers. Additional instrumentation on the ground and in aircraft was used
to monitor the launch mission rule parameters after the Apollo 12 incident.
 7-23

7.5.3 Recovery Operations

The weather interrupted training operations of recovery teams in many instances but did not
seriously affect the Apollo recovery operations, The weather affected recovery operations on
only three occasions. Although the Apollo 7 command module landed 1n the Atlantic Ocean, the
alternate landing area 1n the Western Pacific was moved to the Central Pacific because of high
winds and seas caused by typhoon Gloria. The Apollo 9 deorbit maneuver was originally planned
to occur on the ISlet earth revolution with the landing to be made in the Western Pacific re-
covery zone. Because marginal wind and sea conditions were predicted for this area. the mis-
sion was extended an additional revolution and the landing area was moved 500 miles south. For
Apollo II, the nominal end-of-mission landing area in the Central Pacific was located near the
northern boundary of the intertropical convergence zone - a region of significant shower and
thunderstorm activity. Weather satellite information and aircraft reconnaissance reports indi-
cated that a northward extension of the zone would affect the planned landing area. Consequently,
the area was moved 200 miles northeastward where acceptable weather was assured.

7.6 APOLLO nIGHT DATA

The three basic purposes for which flight data were used during the Apollo program were (1)
operational monitoring and control of the spacecraft during various mission phases, (2) evalua-
tion of spacecraft performance to resolve anomalous operation and to determine design changes
required for future flights, and (3) collection of data from various mission experimenrs. Data
from the Apollo spacecraft, lunar subsatellites, and lunar experiments were transmitted to the
Manned Space Flight Network. Remote site telemetry data were retransmitted to Houston and also
recorded on magnetic tape for possible later use. Figure 7-9 shows the telemetry portion of the
command. communications, and telemetry system and illustrates the final system configuration
after several changes were made during the program to increase the capacities of the data systems.

7.6.1 Operational Data

The data for operational control and preliminary anomaly identification and resolution were
transmitted from the Manned Space Flight Network sites through high-speed data channels. Because
of limited bandwidth, the available high-speed data channels would not accommodate all spacecraft
telemetry data. Two methods were used to decrease the amount of retransmitted data. First, the
data were thinned by reducing the sample rate. In most cases, selected measurements were trans-
mitted to the Manned Spacecraft Center at one-tenth the normal sample rate. The second method
was to transmit only those data that were of most interest during a particular mission phase.
Thus. planned sets of measurement/sample-rate formats were used. Each of these formats was used
for a particular mission activity or function. For example, a format containing mostly command
and service module data was transmitted during the translunar coast mission phase, and a format
containing both lunar module and command and service module data was transmitted during lunar
orbit operations.

Data channels were also available to transmit selected full-rate data. Biomedical and lim-
ited amounts of critical-systems data were transmitted in this manner.

Once these data were received in Houston, several display methods were available to the
analysts. Real-time data were available on television displays. strip charts, or high-speed
printers.

7.6.2 Engineering Analysis Data

The prime sources for engineering analysis data were the magnetic tapes recorded at the re-
mote sites. Data from these tapes were processedselectively. First, data retransmitted to
Houston for operational control purposes were evaluated and specific times. where additional data
were required, were identified; data from these time periods were then retrieved from the remote
site magnetic tapes. Details of the engineering analysis data techniques are available in ref-
erence 7-14.
 I'
'i?-
Hawaii
Guam Goldstone

~
Honeysuckle Texas

/'
Carnarvon ~--------..
- Goddard space
flight center
,- - Merritt island
launcn area

--~ "--
f...

----- -- --- ~
~ '\, ' .........
", ' ....
"', "
Vanguard
, Bermuda
", " "',
,, '....
", "

- - -
Data via high speed lines

Data via satellite

50 Kilobits per second data

••
Mission
""
'"
'"
Ascension

circuit control
center
Madrid Canary Islands

Figure 7-9.- Spacecraft tracking and data network data flow.

 7- 25

7.6.3 Experiment Data

Experiment data were reduced, primarily, from remote site magnetic rapes. Some of the data
returned to Houston for operational control was also used for preliminary experiment analysis.
This reduction was accomplished by using computer programs developed by principal investigators
and processed on Manned Spacecraft Center computers.

The prime data for experiment evaluation were prepared from the remote site magnetic tapes
and furnished to the principal investigators as merged computer-compatible tspes from which each
principal investigator could perform additonal analyses on his own computers.

7.7 MISSION EVALUATION

An essential activity during the Apollo manned missions was the mission evaluation provided
by an organized team of engineering specialists who resolved technical problems associated with
the spacecraft systems. This team of engineers provided direct support to the Kennedy Space Cen-
ter during prelaunch testing and to the flight control organization in the Mission Control Center
during mission operations. Details concerning activities related to mission evaluation are
given in references 7-15 through 7-18.

7.7.1 Prelaunch Support

The Apollo 13 Accident Review Board recommended that cognizant design personnel should be
more closely associated with the prelaunch checkout activity. Based on the successful real-time
mission evaluation team support, this concept was implemented during the prelaunch checkout.
Starting with the Apollo 14 mission, prelaunch testing was monitored both at the Manned Space-
craft Center and at the contractor's mission support rooms. When the launch center requested
support, the mission evaluation team was called on to evaluate the problem and provide a tech-
nical solution. As in the real-time mission support, government technical specialists and space-
craft contractor personnel were combined in a joint effort, under a NASA team leader, to provide
the required answers.

The effort was typified by the retest requirements which were necessitated by the prelaunch
lightning discharges that occurred first on the Apollo 15 vehicle and then on several subsequent
spacecraft. The initial concept of retest, if a lightning discharge occurred in the vicinity of
the spacecraft, was to retest all spacecraft systems. This concept proved to be impractical since
all systems could not be checked because of safety considerations or time constraints. The re-
test philosophy that was developed was first to assess those vehicle measurements that would
most likely be affected and then to verify Visually whether any further retests were required,
depending on the damage assessment. This technique permitted a rapid assessment of the initial
damage and allowed the retest requirements to be limited to a reasonable minimal level.

7.7.2 Real-Time Evaluation

The analysis of spacecraft operations and performance was exercised at two levels of effort
for separate reasons. During the conduct of a mission, the evaluation of spacecraft and/or crew
status was required in real time to exercise proper mission control. When an abnormal condition
occurred, alternate procedures, techniques, or activity plans were developed to ensure crew
safety and to accompliah the mission objectives. After mission completion, a more detailed anal-
ysis was performed on equipment anomalies or failures. The postmission evaluation was intended
to determine the solutions to experienced problems and the corrective actions to prevent recur-
rence on subsequent flights. Each type of evaluation was extremely important in the successful
accomplishment of the Apollo program.

The real-time evaluation was conducted both by the mission control team in the Mission Con-
trol Center and by the mission evaluation team. The many systems specialists involved with mis-
sion preparation of the flight crew and/or equipment provided extensive support. The real-time
evaluation of systems served two purposes. The first was to improve or optimize systems perform-
ance under normal operating conditions. Examples of work accomplished for this purpose were bias
7- 26

compensation for gyro/accelerometer values and attitude control configuration for the reaction
control system propellant balance. The second purpose was. after a detection of a system anomaly
or failure, to determine the remaining systems capability and required alternate operations. Per-
haps the best example of effort of this type was the operational control exercised during the
Apollo 13 mission after the oxygen tank failure described in section 4.4.5.

The real-time ~valuatlon of a problem involved three actions: understanding the anomaly or
failure, assessing its impact, and selecting an adequate solution [0 the problem. The symptoms
of a problem were identified by means of spacecraft telemetry and by crew verbal descriptions.
Often, special system configurations or operational modes were used to gain greater insight into
the existing conditions and the extent of the problem. The data obtained were then used, in con-
junction with reference documentation such as systems drawings and operations handbooks to iso-
late the source of the problem. This effort was conducted to identify the fault, but not neces-
sarily to discover why the fault occurred.

Once a problem was detected and/or identified, its impact on the remaining mission activities
had to be assessed. As with the problem itself, the resulting consequences were sometimes obvious
but at other times were complicated and involved. Where possible, a component anomaly or failure
would be duplicated in a simulator and the affected operations exercised. In this manner, the
full implications of a problem could be determined under realistic conditions.

After the impact of a problem was determined, the next step was to develop alternate tech-
niques or procedures to protect against or completely bypass the particular problem. This was
the actual intent of real-time evaluation. The technical expertise of the mission control team
and the mission evaluation team was used to find the best solution within the time frame allowed.
Sometimes the solution was simple. For example, a problem wherein the Apollo 16 lunar module
steerable antenna would not release was overcome by adjusting the spacecraft attitude to point
the immovable antenna directly at the earth. Attitude was maintained until a 210-foot-diameter
ground antenna acquired contact with the spacecraft on the landing revolution, as was originally
planned. With the large ground antenna, high-bit-rate telemetry data could be received from
other transmitting antennaa on the lunar module. Other problems were more difficult to deal with,
requiring new or additional crew checklist procedures. Perhaps the most difficult challenge of
the Apollo program was encountered on the Apollo 13 mission as a result of the previously men-
tioned oxygen tank failure. New techniques had to be developed to operate the lunar module sys-
tems in a manner for which the systems had not been designed. The lunar module electrical and
environmental resources had to be carefully managed for life support over a longer-than-normal
timespan. Even as the mission neared completion, new procedures were necessary to separare the
lunar module and then the crippled service module safely from the command module before entry.
The techniques described, as well as those used to overcome problems on other missions, were
thoroughly examined before they were actually applied. Where possible, all resolutions to prob-
lems were demonstrated on ground training or simulation facilities before actual use during the
mission. The ground trainers and simulators proved to be valuable tools in the verification
of new techniques. The verification process was used to ensure reasonable execution feasibility,
time-line compatibility, crew safety, and a successful solution to the problem.

The real-time evaluation effort served to resolve the problems occurring during the mission
that threatened crew safety or the accomplishment of mission objectives. The complexity and long
duration of the Apollo missions prOVided ample opportunity to challenge the resources of the prob-
lem resolution teams. The successful achievements of the program were enhanced by the real-time
evaluation capability.

7.7.3 Postflight Evaluation

Anomalies that involved flight safety or that would compromise the accomplishment of follow-
on mission objectives required corrective action before the next flight. The frequency of the
Apollo flights demanded that the anomalies be quickly identified and resolved so that prompt cor-
rective action could be taken. Consequently, analysis of the pertinent data had to be compressed
into a relatively short time frame. Also, within this time frame, the anomalies had to be ana-
lyzed to the extent that the mechanism for the cause was clearly understood.
 7-27

The first problem was to identify the anomalies. Many anomalies were simple to recognize
because a component failed to operate. The more difficult cases occured, however, when accrued
datB from the system operations were not sufficient to understand all the normal operating char-
acteristics. A typical example of this condition occurred on the Apollo 7 mission when the bat-
tery recharging characteristics were below predicted levels throughout the flight. Preflight
tests had been conducted at the component level; however, an integrated test of the entire sys-
tem, 8S installed in the spacecraft, had not been conducted. Postflight testing of the flight
hardware showed the same characteristics as those experienced in flight. A detailed analysis
indicated that high line resistance between components of the system greatly limited the amount
of electrical energy returned to the battery. The corrective action for this anomaly was to re-
quire integrated system testing to establish overall system characteristics of each spacecraft
installation and thus to ensure adequate battery recharging capability. In this case, if the
total system operating characteristics had been established in ground tests, no flight problem
would have occurred.

At times, sufficient flight data were not available for an accurste analysis of the problem.
This situation existed because of insufficient flight instrunentation or absence of recorded data.
For these cases, the mission evaluation personnel relied on the information from previous mis-
sions, the experience gained from ground tests and checkouts, and the failure history of the sys-
tem components.

After an anomaly was identified, the next steps were to determine the cause and implement
the corrective action. Two basic techniques were used to determine the answer. The first was
experimental, and testing of the actual or identical flight hardware was conducted under simu-
lated static or dynamic conditions of temperature, pressure, load, or electrical environment.
The second technique was analytical, and classical methods were generally used. One or both
techniques were used, depending on the nature of the problem. In all cases, the most expedient
approach in terms of time and cost was taken.

The depth and the extent of the analysis varied considerably, depending o~ the significsnce
of the problem. For example, the failure of the Apollo 6 spacecraft/lunar module adapter (dis-
cussed in sec. 4.4.2) required the investigation of several possible failure modes and the im-
plementation of a number of corrective measures. In other cases, because of the nature of the
problem, no corrective action was taken. For example, an electroluminescent segment of the
Apollo 11 entry monitor system velocity counter would not illuminate. A generic or design prob-
lem waa highly unlikely because of the number of aatisfactory activations before the recorded
failure. A circuit analysis produced numerous mechanisms which could cause the failure; however,
no previous failure had occurred in any of these areas. The spacecraft was designed with suffi-
cient redundancy to accommodate this type of problem. Consequently, no corrective action was
taken in such cases.

The causes of anomalies involved quality, design, and procedure considerations. The sub-
standard quality items included broken wires, improper solder joints, incorrect tolerances and
improper manufacturing procedures. The structural failure of the Apollo 6 adapter is an example
of a quality problem. System anomalies caused by design deficiencies were generally traced to
inadequate design criteria. Consequently, the deficiency passed development and qualification
testing without being detected but appeared during flight under the actual operational environ-
ment. For example, a design deficiency became apparent during the Apollo 7 flight when the com-
mand module windows fogged between the inner surfaces of three windowpanes. A postflight exam-
ination showed that the fogging was produced by outgassing of room-temperature-cured material
that had been used to seal the window. The design criteria had not required the sealing material
to be heat cured or vacuum cured, a procedure that would have prevented outgassing when the mate-
rial was exposed to the operating temperature and pressure environment of the spacecraft during
flight. Correction of procedural problems in operating various systems and equipment was usually
simple. An example of a procedural problem occurred when a camera struck an Apollo 12 crewman
at landing. Had the flight plan or the crew checklist required stowage of this camera before
landing, the incident would not have occurred.

An additional search for causes of anomalies was conducted when the command module was r~­
turned to the contractor's facility for a general inspection. Those systems or components that
had been identified as having a problem or failure were either removed from the vehicle and
tested or tests were performed with the affected equipment in position in the command module.
In general, the postflight tests were limited to those components thst were required to solve
the inflight problem.
7-28

The concerted effort initiated to solve anomalies during the flight was continued after the
mission until each problem was resolved and the required corrective action vas established. This
activity required close coordination and cooperation between the various government and contrac-
tor elements. Prompt and exact analysis for the understanding and tImely solution of each prob-
lem was emphasized. To accomplish this tasK, a problem liat vas maintained during and after each
flight. The liat contained a discussion of each problem, the action being taken to resolve the
problem, the name of the government engineer or contractor responsible for completing the action,
and the anticipated closure date.

A discussion of the MOst significant problems vas published sfter the flight in a 3O-day
failure and anomaly report. Discussed in this report were analyses of the snomalies snd correc-
tive actions that had been or would be taken. The Hiasion Report, which was published approxi-
mately 60 to 90 days a.fter the udssion, included a section which discussed the most significant
flight ano~lies and the corrective action for each anomaly that was closed out at the time of
publication. Problems of lesser significance were discussed in the appropriste system or ex-
periments aection of the Hission Report. A separate report was published subsequently for each
anqmaly that had not been resolved in tice for publication in the Mission Report.

7.8 REFERENCES

7-1. Apollo 16 Hission Report, HSC-07230, 1972.

7-2. Cappellari, J. 0., Jr., ed.: Where on the Hoon? An Apollo Systems Engineering Problem.
Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 51, no. 5, 1972.

7-3. Apollo 17 Descent Targeting Errors, HSC-07002, 1972.

7-4. Apollo 17 Lunar Landmark Locations and Offsets, HSC-07503, 1972.

7-5. Apollo 17 Lunar Trajectory Notes, IffiC-07565, 1972.

7-6. Final Flight Crew Charts for Apollo 17 - Launch December 6, 1972, c.s.t. (Dec. 7, 1972,
C.m.t.), HSC-076l4, 1972.

7-7. Final Prelaunch Navigation Erasable Load for Apollo 17, MSC-07373, 1972.

7-8. Operational Abort Plan - Apollo 17, Launch December 6,1972, c.s.t. (Dec. 7, 1972, C.m.t.),
Volume I - Launch Phase, HSC-07372, 1972.

7-9. Operational Consurnables Analysis - Apollo 17, Launch December 6, 1972, c.s.t. (Dec. 7,
1972, C.m.t.), Volume - ECS and EPS Analyses, MSC-07354, 1972.

7-10. Operational Spacecraft Attitude Timeline - Apollo 17, Launch December 6, 1972, c.s.t.
(Dec. 7, 1972. C.m.t.). HSC-Q7568, 1972.

7-11. Operational Trajectory Simulator Data Package for Apollo 17, Launch December 6, 1972,
c.s.t. (Dec. 7, 1972, C.m.t.), HSC-07271, 1972.

7-12. Spacecraft Operational Trajectory - Apollo 17. Launch December 6, 1972, C.S.t. (Dec. 7,
1972, C.m.t.), Volume I - Hission Profile, HSC-07197, 1972.

7-13. Analysis of Apollo 12 Lightning Incident, HSC-01540. 1970.

7-14. Foater, C. B., Jr.: Data Hanag~ent for Postflight Engineering Evaluation. Apollo Ex-
perience Report. NASA TN 0-7684, Hay 1974 .

• 7-15. Fricke. R. Y.: Engineering and Analysis Hisslon Support. Apollo Experience Report.
 7- 29

*7-16. Lobb, J. D.: Flight Anomaly Resolution. Apollo Experience Report.

7-17. Hamilton, D. T. Postflight Testing of Apollo Command Modules. Apollo Experience Report,
NASA TN 0-7435, September 1973.
*7-18. Dodson, J. W. and Cordlner, D. H.: Mission Evaluation Team Postflight Documentation.
Apollo Experience Report.

*These reports are being processed for publication 1n NASA TN D series.

7-30
 8.0 BIOMEDICAL SUMMARY

The initial medical consideration in the Apollo program was the preservation of the health
and safety of the flight crews. However, many of the biomedical activities were based upon other
considerations as well. The acquisition of new medical ·and biological data was made possible by
astronauts traveling to another planetary body. Several biomedical experiments were conducted
during the missions. Along with the opportunity to acquire new knowledge, however, was the fact
that extraterrestrial exploration carried with it the possibility of introducing foreign material
into the earth's biosphere that might be harmful to life. This possibility was minimized by the
institution of a lunar quarantine program. The fear of biological back contamination proved to
be unfounded after careful examination of the crews and lunar samples after each of the first
three lunar landings. Therefore, the quarantine requirement was eliminated for the final mis-
sions.

Man's ability to tolerate the conditions of space flight for periods up to 2 weeks had been
demonstrated in the Gemini program. Since all Apollo flights were planned to be of shorter dur-
ation, the effects of weightlessness on the body were not expected to be a serious threat to crew
health or a detriment to the accomplishment of the Apollo program. This was indeed the case,
although some cardiovascular deconditioning did occur.

A few new medical problems arose in the course of the program. Motion sickness occurred on
several flights while the crewmembers were adapting to the zero-gravity environment and large
departures from normal circadian periodicity on several flights resulted in crew fatigue. An
initial concern was the degree of radiation to which the Apollo crewmen would be exposed. For-
tunately, a major flare did not occur during a mission, and the radiation dose was below the
threshold of detectable medical effects for all crewmen. Exposure of crewmembers to infectious
diseases prior to flight was s problem for the first seversl flights but was adequately managed
by the establishment of a preflight crew health stabilization program.

The crews of the eleven Apollo flights accumulated a total of approximately 7506 man-hours
of space flight. Physiological measurements obtained during the flights remained within expected
limits during all flights except the Apollo 15 mission. The life support systems of the command
modules, lunar modules and extravehicular mobility units provided environments that allowed the
program objectives to be achieved without compromising crew health or safety. Details of biomed-
ical results are contained in references 8-1 through 8-11.

8.1 PREFLIGHT MEDICAL PROGRAM

8.1.1 Flight Crew Health Stabilization

Many conditions that are characteristic of the environment within a manned spacecraft are
conducive to the development and transmission of disease. Since infectious disease represents
a serious threat to the health of crewmembers and to the successful completion of missions, con-
trol and prevention are the most effective ways to deal with this potential problem. Control
and prevention are most critical during the last few weeks before a manned mission.

Statistics recorded during the Apollo 7 through Apollo 11 missions show that 57.2 percent of
the crewmembers were ill at some time during the preflight period. Based on observations of the
first several flights and on the observation of crewmember activities during earlier manned Mer-
cury and Gemini missions, the flight crew health stabili~ation program was developed and imple-
mented for the Apollo 14 and subsequent missions. The elements of the program were designed to
minimize exposure of crewmembers to infectious disease which might result in the subsequent de-
velopment of symptoms during flight. Each program element is discussed.

8.1.1.1 Clinical medicine.- A clinical medicine program was provided for all crewmembers
and their families. The program was continuous as long as the crewmembers were on flight status.
Both routine and special physical examinations were provided. Rapid diagnosis of disease and
effective treatment were ensured by the virology, bacteriology, immunology, serology, snd bio-
chemistry laboratoriea at the Manned Spacecraft Center.
~2

8.1.1.2 Immunology.- All known immunizations were carefully reviewed by NASA medical per-
sonnel and by a special microbiology advisory committee. The immunizations listed in table 8-1
were those used for crewmembers and their families. Other available immunizations were not in-
cluded if:

a. Disease prevention was questionable.

b. A high percentage of traumatic side reactions occurred.

c. The probability of crew exposure [0 the disease agent was so remote that immunization
was unwarranted.

Crewmembera and their families were immunized only after serological tests were performed
to determine immunity levels.

8.1.1.3 Exposure prevention.- Prevention of crew exposure to disease was the most important
aspect of the program. Regardless of the effectiveness of all the other phases of the program,
if the exposure to infectious diseases had not been minimized or eliminated, the program as a
whole would not have been successful.

Contaminated inanimate objects probably represent the least hazardous source of infectious
diseases. However. certain spacecraft areas such as the communications equipment were controlled
by providing individual headsets and microphones for each crewman.

To prevent air-borne transmission of an infectious disease, a closely controlled environment

was provided in which crewmembers could reside during the prelaunch period. All areas which the
crewmembers inhabited had to be modified by the installation of ultrahigh-efficiency bacterial
filters in all air-supply ducts. Thus, an environment was provided in which crewmembers could
reside and work without being exposed to microbial agents from other sources. In addition to
providing filtered air, the air-handling systems were balanced in a manner that provided higher
atmospheric pressure in those areas inhabited by the crew. In this situation. all air leakage
was outward rather than inward.

The food consumed by the crew was also a potential source of infectious micro-organisms.
No set pattern of food procurement was established to reduce accidental sources of infection.
The procurement of food for the living quarters was handled by cooks under the direct supervision
of the medical team. Portions of each lot of food purchased were subjected to microbiological
evaluation to ensure the safety of the food. Also, all food preparation areas were inspected
daily for cleanliness and maintenance of sanitary conditions.

Drinking water was another potential source of infectious disease agents. Sources of drink-
ing water were limited to drinking fountains in the crew quarters and various working areas. To
insure that the municipal water-treatment procedures were satisfactory and that safe water was
provided, daily water samples were taken and subjected to microbiological evaluation.

Personal contacts represented the grestest source of infectious disease; consequently, min-
imizing possible exposure to disease from this source was required. First, the areas visited by
crewmembers were very restricted, and the number of persons in contact with the crew during pre-
mission activities was limited to approximately 150. Second, a medical surveillance program of
the primary contacts was instituted. The purpose of the program was to ensure that the probabil-
ity of disease transmission from the persons who did have contact with the flight crewmembers
~sl~.

The success of the flight crew health stabilization program, implemented in support of the
Apollo 14, 15, 16. and 17 missions. was evidenced by the complete absence of illnesses during
the preflight, inflight. or postflight periods.
 8-3

TABLE 8-1.- APOLLO PROGRAM IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENTS a

Required
Required immunization
Disease irrununization for members
for crewmen of crewmen's
families

Diptheria Yes Yes

Pertussis No Yes
Tetanus Yes Yes
Typhoid Yes No
Influenza Yes No
b
Mumps Yes Yes
Poliomyelitis Yes Yes
b
Rubella Yes Yes
b
Rubeola Yes Yes
Smallpox Yes Yes
Yellow Fever Yes No
Other (c) (c)

~ecommended by personnel of the United States Public

Health Service and of the American Public Health association.
b
Immunization if no serologic response was obtained.
c
Only as indicated for travel to endemic areas.
 8.1.2 Preflight Physical Examinations

Preflight physical examinations were performed to evaluate each flight crew's physical con-
dition, and to detect and treat any minor physical problems which might compromise flight objec-
tives, or the health and safety of the crew. For Apollo 7, the comprehensive preflight examin-
ation was performed 4 days prior to flight, while a preliminary examination was accomplished 14
days prior to launch and a cursory physical examination was performed on the morning of launch.
For Apollo missions 8, 9, and 10, four preflight medical evaluations were accomplished, beginning
approximately 30 days prior to the scheduled launch date. A 3-day postponement of the Apollo 9
launch resulted when all the crewmen developed common colds. Starting with Apollo 11 and con-
tinuing through Apollo 17, daily examinations were conducted for the 5 days immediately preced-
ing launch.

The Command Module Pilot on Apollo 13 was exposed to rubella 8 days before the flight and
since laboratory studies failed to demonstrate an immunity to rubella, a decision was made on
the day prior to launch to replace the primary Command Module Pilot with the backup Command Mod-
ule Pilot. A complete physical examination was conducted on the backup Command Module Pilot and
he was found fit for flight.

8.2 MEDICAL OBSERVATIONS

8.2.1 Cabin Environment and Toxicology

Prior to the Apollo program, United States spacecraft were launched with a lOO-percent oxygen
cabin atmosphere. Following the disastrous Apollo I fire, one of the safety measures introduced
was the use of a mixed oxygen and nitrogen cabin atmosphere during the prelaunch and launch peri-
ods. The cabin atmosphere was changed to pure oxygen during the early phase of flight. The
flight ~rew denitrogenated prior to launch and remained isolated in the 100-percent oxygen en-
vironment of the auit loop until helmets and gloves were doffed.

The Apollo 7 spacecraft was the first to be launched with the mixed-gas cabin atmosphere.
The oxygen enrichment curve followed the predicted curve fairly well, but it did not increase as
fast aa predicted because the cabin leak rate was lower than expected. The maximum cabin oxygen
concentration measured during the flight was 97 percent (255 mm Hg) at 236 hours. The altitude
equivalency was never above sea level (i.e., oxygen partial pressure was always greater than
that at sea level). The cabin oxygen enrichment technique was thus verified by the Apollo 7
flight and used on all successive flights through Apollo 17.

During the Apollo 10 mission, the H-film insulation near the command module hatch vent de-
tached when the docking tunnel was pressurized, and fiberglass insulation underneath this film
was blown into the tunnel (ref. 8-4). When the hatch was opened, the fiberglass material perme-
ated the atmosphere of the command module. Also, when the lunar module was pressurized through
the command module hatch vent, a large amount of fiberglass was blown into the lunar module.
Pieces of the material ranged from 2 inches in diameter to dust-size particles. Wet paper tissues
and utility towels were used to collect part of the loose fiberglass. Most of the remaining ma-
terial was collected in the filters of the environmental control system. However, small parti-
cles of fiberglass were still present in the command module cabin atmosphere at recovery. Fiber-
glass insulation is a skin and mucous membrane irritant and caused the crew to be uncomfortable
in flight. The effects on the Apollo 10 crew consisted of scratchy throats, coughing, nasal
stuffiness, mild eye irritation, and some skin rash.

After the Apollo 13 abort decision, one major medical concern was the possibility of carbon
dioxide buildup in the lunar module atmosphere. Although the allowable limit of csrbon dioxide
buildup was increased the carbon dioxide level was above the nominal 7.6 mm Hg for only a 4-hour
period. and no adverse physiological effects or degradation in crew performance resulted from
this elevated concentration. Modified use of the lithium hydroxide cartridges (ref. 8-7) main-
tained the carbon dioxide partial pressure well below 1 mm Hg for the remainder of the flight.
 ~5

8.2.2 Radiation

Various instruments were used during the Apollo program to monitor and record the degree of
crew exposure to radiation. Each crewman carried a personal radiation dosimeter to measure the
total absorbed dose received. In addition, the crewmen wore passive dosimeters to measure total
radiation received at specific body locations such as the chest, thigh and ankle. Other instru-
ments were installed in the spacecraft which provided data to the ground and ~ermitted monitoring
of the radiation environments. A moving emulsion particle detector apparatus was worn for short
periods by crewmen of the final two missions to provide data for investigation of visual sensa-
tions of light flashes experienced by several crewmen on previous flights.

8.2.2.1 Radiation dose.- No dsta were reported for the Apollo 7 and Apollo 8 missions. For
the remaining missions, the total radiation dose absorbed by any crewman was well below the thresh-
old of detectable medical effects (ref. 8-12).

During the Apollo 12 mission, approximately half of the total dose recorded on the personal
radiation dosimeters was received during the phase just prior to entry. This disparity was ex-
pected because of a different trajectory which resulted in a longer time going through the Van
Allen belts.

The radiation doses received by the Apollo 14 crewmen were the largest observed on any
Apollo misaion; however, they were well below the threshold of detectable medical effects. The
magnitudes of the radiation doses were apparently the result of two factors: (1) the translunsr
injection trajectory lay closer to the plane of the geomagnetic equator than that of previous
flights and, therefore, the spacecraft traveled through the heart of the trapped radiation belts;
(2) the space radiation background was greater than that previously experienced.

Three minor solar flares occurred on the Apollo 16 mission. Although the nuclear particle
detection system registered a slight increase in proton and alpha particle fluxes, no measureable
radiation dose increment was received by the crew from these flares.

8.2.2.2 Visual light flash phenomenon.- Astronauts of Apollo 11 and subsequent lunar mis-
sions reported seeing flashes of light while relaxing in the darkened command module or while
wearing light-tight eye shades. These events were generally described as colorless star-like
flashes, narrow streaks of light, or diffuse light flashes. The flashes were observed during
translunar coast, in lunar orbit, on the lunar surface, and during transearth coast. The fre-
quency of occurrence of the light flashes typically averaged about one flash every I to 2 min-
utes.

Evaluation of reports obtained from Apollo crewmen has established the reality of the phe-
nomenon. The hypothesis generally accepted to explain the origin of the light flashes involves
exposure to high-energy cosmic ray particles. One or both of the following mechanisms are sug-
gested: (1) relativistic cosmic ray particles passing through the eye emit Cerenkov radiation
that produces the light flash sensations; (2) direct interactions of high-energy cosmic ray par-
ticles or their secondaries with the retinal cells or associated optic nerve tissues produce the
light flash sensations. Results of laboratory experiments during which human subjects were ex-
posed to X-ray and several types of particulate radiation have shown that such radiation does
produce similar light flash sensations, and further suggests that most of the light flashes ob-
served by the Apollo astronauts are due to direct interactions of ionizing radiation with cells
of the visual nervous system.

8.2.3 Adaptation to Weightlessness

With only two exceptions, the crewmen for all eleven flights experienced a fullness-of-the-
head feeling upon orbital insertion. The persistence of the feeling was variable, lasting from
4 hours to 3 days.

All three Apollo 8 crewmembers experienced nausea soon after leaving their couches. The
Apollo 9 Command Module Pilot and Lunar Module Pilot, the Apollo 10 Lunar Module Pilot, the
Apollo 13 Lunar Module Pilot, and the Apollo 15 Lunar Module Pilot also experienced nausea. In
addition, the Apollo 9 Command Module Pilot and Lunar Module Pilot reported momentary episodes
8-6

of spatial disorientation. All three members of the Apollo 17 crew had "stomach awareness" but
did not experience any pronounced nausea. In some of these cases. the nausea appears to have
been the result of rapid body movement before adaptation to weightlessness. Symptoms subsided
or were absent when the crewmen performed all movements slowly during the period of adaptation.
There was no recurrence of the problem after adaptation to the ~ightle8s state. Specific head
movement exercises also helped to accelerate adaptation to weightlessness.

The crews of the Apollo 7, 12, 14, and 15 missions reported soreness of the back muscles.
This condition was relieved by exercise and hyperextension of the back. Although a calibrated
Inflight exercise program was not planned for any of the flights. an exercise device was pro-
vided. The crewmen typically used the exerciser several times a day for periods of 15 to 30
minutes when in the command module.

Another condition r~&ultin8 from thQ lack of gravitational pull was puffinQ&& of thQ face.
This symptom was specifically reported by the crews of the Apollo II, 12, 13 and 15 missions;
however, it probably occurred on all the flights.

8.2.4 Work/Rest Cycles

Based on previous flight experience, simultaneous crew rest periods were instituted, and
were referenced to s crew's normal launch site sleep cycle. The Apollo 9 crew was the first to
utilize the simultaneous rest periods. Departures from the crew's normal circadian periodicity
caused problems during most of the flights. Since the problems impacting the scheduled sleep
programs differed, unique occurrences for each flight are discussed individually.

a. Apollo 7: At least one crewman remained on watch while the others slept during the
Apollo 7 mission. Simultaneous sleep was precluded because it was the first manned flight of a
new spacecraft. Large departures from the crew's normal circadian periodicity caused problems
during the mission. The crew slept poorly for about the first ) days of the flight and experi-
enced both restful and poor sleep after that period of time. The amount of sleep each crewman
obtained was indeterminable.

b. Apollo 8: A very busy flight schedule for Apollo 8 precluded simultaneous sleep and
resulted in large departures from normal circadian periodicity and consequent fatigue. Changes
to the flight plan were required because of the crew fatigue, particularly during the last few
orbits before the transearth injection maneuver.

c. Apollo 9: Apollo 9, the first mission in which all three crewmen slept simultaneously,
was s definite improvement over the previous two ~ssions in observed estimated quantity and
quality of sleep. The lack of postflight fatigue was correspondingly evident during the physi-
cal examination on recovery day. However, the crew workload during the last 5 days of flight
was significantly lighter than on previous missions, which undoubtedly contributed to the ab-
sence of fatigue.

The flight plan activities for the first half of the mission resulted in excessively long
work periods for the crew, and the time allocated for eating and sleeping was inadequate. Crew
performance, nonetheless, was outstanding. Departures from the crew's normal circadian perio-
dicity also contributed to some loss of sleep during this time. The crew experienced a shift in
their sleep periods which varied from 3 to 6 hours from their prelaunch sleep periods.

d. Apollo 10: The three Apollo 10 crewmen were scheduled to sleep simultaneously and, in
general, slept very _11 during the nine perioda.

e. Apollo 11: The crewmen slept well in the command module. The simultaneous sleep periods
during the translunar coast were carefully monitored. and the crew arrived on the lunar surface
well rested. A 4-hour sleep period prior to the extravehicular activity was prOVided in the
flight plan but the sleep period was not required. The crewmen slept very little in the lunar
module following the lunar surface activity; however. they slept well during all three transearth
sleep periods.
 ~7

f. Apollo 12: Sleep periods during the tranalunar cosst phase of the Apollo 12 mission
began approximately 7 to 9 hours after the crew's normal bedtime of 11 p.m. The crew had no
particular trouble in adapting to the shifted sleep periods; however, the first flight day was
extremely long, and the crew was thoroughly fatigued by the time the first sleep period began
17 hours after lift-off.

The crewmen slept well in the command module during the translunar and transearth coast
phases. Even though the Lunar Module Pilot took at least two unscheduled naps during trsnaearth
coast, sleep periods were considered by the crew to be longer than necessary. since they would
invariably awaken about 1 hour ahead of time and would usually remain in their sleep stations
until time for radio contact.

The crew slept approximately 3 hours in the lunar module on the lunar surface prior to the
second extravehicular activity period. In the next sleep period, follOWing rendezvous and dock-
ing, all three crewmen in the command module slept only 3 or 4 hours, which was less than desir-
able.

g. Apollo 13: The Apollo 13 crew slept well the first 2 days of the mission. All crewmen
slept about 5-1/2 hours during the first sleep period. During the second period, the Commander,
Command Madule Pilot and Lunar Madule Pilot slept 5, 6, and 9 hours, respectively. The third
sleep period was scheduled to begin 61 hours after lift-off, but failure of the oxygen tank at
56 hours precluded sleep by any of the crew until approximately 80 hours of flight time had
elapsed.

After the incident, the command module was used as sleeping quarters until the cabin temper-
ature became too cold (approximately 43- F). The crew then attempted to sleep in the lunar mod-
ule or the docking tunnel, but the temperature in these areas also dropped too low for prolonged,
sound sleep. In addition, coolant pump noise from the lunar module and frequent communications
with the ground further hindered sleep. The total sleep obtained by each crewman during the re-
mainder of the mission is estimated to have been 11, 12, and 19 hours for the Commander, Command
Module Pilot, and Lunar Module Filot. respectively.

h. Apollo 14: The shift of the Apollo 14 crew's normal terrestrial sleep cycle duting the
first 4 days of flight was the largest experienced in the Apollo series. The displacement ranged
from 7 hours on the first mission day to 11-1/2 hours on the fourth. The crew experienced some
difffculty sleeping in the zero-gravity environment, particularly during the first two sleep
periods. They attributed the problem principally to s lack of kinesthetic sensations and to
muscle soreness in the legs and lower bsck. Throughout the mission, sleep wss intermittent; deep
and continuous sleep never lasted more than 2 to 3 hours.

The lunar module crewmen received little, if any, sleep between their two extravehicular ac-
tivity periods. The lack of an adequate place to rest the head, discomfort of the pressure suit,
and a 7-degree starboard list of the lunar module on the lunar terrain were believed responsible
for the lack of sleep. The crewmen looked out the window several times during the sleep period
for reaSSurance that the lunar module was not starting to tip over.

Following transearth injection, the crew slept better than they had previously. The lunar
module crewmen required one additional sleep period to make up the sleep deficit that was incur-
red while on the lunar surface.

The crewmen reported during postflight discussions that they were definitely operating on
their physiological reserves because of inadequate sleep. This lack of sleep caused them some
concern; however, all taSks were performed satisfactorily.

i. Apollo 15: Very little shift of the Apollo 15 crew's normal terreatrial sleep cycle
occurred during the trsnslunar snd transearth coast phases of this mission. As a result, all
crewmen received an adequate amount of sleep during these periods.

Displacement of the terrestrial sleep cycle during the three lunar surface sleep periods
ranged from 2 hours for the first sleep period to 7 hours for the third sleep period. This shift
in the sleep cycle, in addition to the difference between the command module and lunar module
sleep facilities, no doubt contributed to the lunar module crewmen receiving less sleep on the
lunar surface than was scheduled in the flight plan. However, the most significant factors caus-
ing loss of crew sleep were operational problems. These included hardware malfunctions as well
8-8

as insufficient time in the flight plan to accomplish assigned tasks. Lengthening the work days
and reducing the planned sleep periods on the lunar surface, coupled with a significant altera-
tion of circadian rhythm, produced a Bufficient fatigue level to cause the lunar module crewmen
to operate on their physiological reserves until they returned to the command module.

j. Apollo 16: In comparison to his Apollo 10 experience, the Commander slept better dur-
ing all the scheduled Apollo 16 sleep periods. The Lunar Module Pilot slept well during all
sleep periods except the first. However, the Command Module Pilot had uninterrupted sleep only
two nights of the ~88ion and, characteristically, would awaken about once every hour. He re-
ported that he never felt physically tired nor had a desire for sleep.

On this mission, displacement of the terrestrial sleep cycle ranged from 30 minutes to 5
hours during translunar coast, and from 3-1/2 hours to 7 hours during the three lunar surface
sleep periods. This shift in the sleep cycle on the lunar surface contributed to some loss of
sleep; however, this was the first mission in which the lunar module crewmen obtained an adequate
amount of good aleep while on the lunar surface. this assessment of the amount of sleep is based
on a correlation of heart rate during the mission sleep periods with preflight sleep electroen-
cephalograms and heart rates. The estimates of sleep duration made by ground personnel were in
general agreement with the crew's subjective evaluations.

k. Apollo 17: As on previous missions, displacement of the terrestrial sleep cycle con-
tributed to some loss of sleep for the Apollo 17 crew. In addition, changes to the flight plan
occasionally impscted previously planned crew sleep periods. In general, however, an adequate
amount of good sleep was obtained by all crewmembers during both translunar and transearth coast,
as well as during lunar surface operations. All three crewmen averaged approximately 6 hours of
sleep per day throughout the mission. Only during the first inflight sleep period was the amount
of sleep obtained (approximately 3 hours) inadequate from a medical point of view.

8.2.5 Crew Illness and Medications

The only medical problem commonly shared by all of the flight crewmen was skin irritation
caused by the biosensors. Skin cream was used to relieve this condition. Since each flight
crew experienced a different set of problems requiring the use of medications, each mission is
discussed separately.

a. Apollo 7: Three days prior to launch, the Commander and Lunar Module Pilot experienced
slight nasal stuffiness and were successfully treated.

Approximately 15 hours after lift-off, the crew reported that the Commander had developed
a bad head cold. Aspirin and decongestant tablets (Actifed) were taken for relief. The Command
Module Pilot and Lunar Module Pilot experienced cold symptoma 24 houra later and used the same
treatment.

Middle ear blockage was of concern because it was considered necessary for the crew to wear
pressure suits during entry. Equali~ation of pressure within the middle ear cavities is diffi-
cult in the pressure suit with the helmet on. Consequently, 48 hours prior to entry, the deci-
sion was made that the crew would not wear helmets or gloves.

In the postflight physical examinations, the two crewmen who had experienced the most dis-
tressing in flight symptoms showed no obvious evidence of their colds. The other crewman did ex-
hibit a slight amount of fluid in the middle ear.

b. Apollo 8: After the Commander's symptoms of motion sickness dissipated, he experienced

symptoms of an inflight illness believed to be unrelated to motion sickness. When the Commander
was unable to fall asleep 2 hours into his initial rest period, he took a sleeping tablet
(Seconal) which induced approximately 5 hours of sleep, described as "fitful." Upon awakening,
the Commander felt nauseated ~nd had a moderate occipital headache. He took two aspirin tablets
snd then went from the sleep station to his couch to rest. The nausea, however, became prQgres-
sively worse and he vomited twice. After termination of the first sleep period, the Commander
also became aware of some increased gastrointestinal distress and was concerned that diarrhea
might occur. No medication was taken for this illness, which was described as a "24-hour in-
testinal flu." (Just prior to launch, an epidemic of acute viral gastroenteritis lasting 24
hours was present in the Cspe Kennedy area.)
 ~9

c. Apollo 9: Three days before the scheduled launch, the Commander reported symptoms of
general malaise, nassl discharge, and stuffiness. These common cold symptoms were not present
on the physical examination performed the previous day. The Commander was treated symptomati-
cally and his temperature remained normal throughout the course of his illness. Two days before
the scheduled launch, the Command Module Pilot snd the Lunar Module Pilot also became ill with
common colds and were treated symptomatically. However, because the symptoms persisted, the
launch was postponed for 3 days.

During the flight, the Lunar Module Pilot experienced motion sickness snd vomited twice,
once while preparing for transfer to the lunar module, and again after transfer. After about
50 hours of flight, the Lunar Module Pilot was still not feeling well but had experienced no
further vomiting. He reported that his motion sickness symptoms subsided when he remained still.
The Lunar Module Pilot took Seconal several times during the mission to induce sleep.

d. Apollo 10: The crewmen experienced abdominal rumblings caused by the ingestion of hy-
drogen gas present in the potable water, and were concerned that diarrhea might develop. A.-
pirin was taken occasionally by all crewmen.

e. Apollo 11: The Commander and Lunar Module Pilot each took one Lomotil tablet to prevent
bowel movements when on the lunar surface. Four hours before entry, and again after splashdown,
the three crewmen each took scopolamine/dextroamphetamine anti-mot ion-sickness tablets. Aspirin
tablets were also taken by the crewmen.

f. Apollo 12: All crewmen took Actifed decongestant tablets to relieve nasal congestion
at various times throughout the flight. The Lunar Module Pilot also took Seconal throughout
most of the mission to aid sleep. Aspirin was taken occasionally by all the crewmen.

g. Apollo 13: Upon awakening on the second day of the mission, the Lunar Module Pilot
took two aspirin to relieve a severe headache. After eating breakfast and engaging in physical
activity, the Lunar Module Pilot became nauseated and vomited. One Lamotil tablet was taken by
the Command Module Pilot after 98 hours of flight. All crewmen took scopolamine/dextroampheta-
mine anti-motion-sickness tablets prior to entry.

h. Apollo 14: No medications were used other than nose drops to relieve nasal stuffiness
caused by the apacecraft atmosphere.

i. Apollo 15: Aspirin and nose drops were the only medications used. The Commander took
14 aspirin tablets during the laat 4 days of the mission to relieve pain in his right shoulder
that had developed after difficult deep core tube drilling on the lunar surface. The Command
Module Pilot used nose drops just prior to earth entry to prevent possible middle ear blockage.

j. Apollo 16: The Lunar Module Pilot used three Seconal capsules for sleep. One capsule
was taken on the night prior to lunar descent and the other two capsules were used for the first
and second lunar surface sleep periods. In the postflight medical debriefing, the Lunar Module
Pilot reported that the Seconal was effective in producing a rapid onset of good sleep.

k. Apollo 17: More medications were taken on Apollo 17 than on any of the previoua mis-
sions. Seconal was used intermittently for sleep by all three crewmen and simethicone was used
daily for symptomatic relief of flatulence. The Commander took a acopolomine/dextroamphetamine
tablet on the second day of flight as a substitute for the simethicone tablets, which he could
not initially locate.

the Command Module Pilot and the Lunar Module Pilot experienced one loose bowel movement
each on the 11th and 12th days of flight, respectively. In each case, Lamottl was taken and
was effective.
8-l0

8.2.6 Cardiac Arrhythmias

Both of the Apollo 15 lunar surface crewmen demonstrated cardiac arrhythmias at various
times during the mission. The Lunar Module Pilot experienced these irregularities during trans-
lunar and transearth coast, and during the lunar stay. The Commander experienced them only dur-
ing transearth coast. A loss of body potassium during flight was considered to be an important
factor in the genesis of the Apollo 15 arrhythmias. As a result, several changes were instituted
on Apollo 16 to reduce the likelihood of tnflight arrhythmias and to further investigate the
causes of body potassium 1088 during space flight. These changes included provision of a hlgh-
potassium diet, commencing 72 hours prior to launch and continuing until 72 hours after the
flight, and provision of cardiac medications (procaine amide, atropine, and Lidocaine) in the
onboard medical kits. In addition, a daily high-resolution electrocardiogram was obtained from
each crewman, and an accurate metabolic input/output report was transmitted daily during flight.

No medically significant arrhythmias occurred during the Apollo 16 and 17 flights, but iso-
lated premature heart beats were observed in two of the three crewmen on each flight, the fact
that the frequency (less than one per day) and character of these prematurities remained consist-
ent with electrocardiographic data obtained on these same crewmen during ground-based tests
clearly indicates that they were not related to or resultant from space flight. Apollo 16 post-
flight exchangeable body potassium intake apparently was effective in maintaining normal potas-
sium balance.

Even though "ignificant cardiac arrhythmias _ore not eXf'""r1""nc""d on the Apollo 16 and 17
missions, the:l.r absence cannot be attributed to the high potassium diet because fatigue, stress,
and excitement can also produce arrhythmias. the absence of arrhythmias on Apollo 16 and 17 can
best be attributed to a combination of factors such as high dietary intake of potassium, better
fluid and electrolyte balance, more adequate sleep, and less fatigue.

8.2.7 Postflight Medical Evaluation

Comprehensive medical evaluations were conducted immediately after recovery to determine

any physical effects of the flight upon the crew and to detect and treat any medical problems.
the medical evaluations included microbiology and blood studies, physical examination, ortho-
static tolerance tests, exercise response tests, and chest X-rays. Although all of the crewmen
were shown to be in good health, they exhibited varying degrees of fatigue and weight 108s, snd
suffered varying degrees of skin irritation caused by the biosensors. The skin irritation sub-
sided within 48 hours without medical treatment.

All crewmen tested demonstrated some degree of cardiovascular deconditioning during the
lower body negative pressure measurements and bicycle ergometry tests, as compared to preflight
tests. Individual variations in the time required to return to preflight baseline levels were
observed, taking from 2 days to 1 week. Both the Apollo 15 Commander and Lunar Module Pilot had
a cardiovascular response to the bicycle ergometry tests not observed after previous flights.
This response was characterized by an almost normal response at low heart rate levels and pro-
gressively degraded response at the higher heart rate levels. The lack of a significant decre-
ment in the Apollo 16 Command Module Pilot's exercise performance was a surprising postflight
finding. Because of the high degree of preflight aerobic capacity demonstrated by this crewman,
a significant postflight decrement had been anticipated. One Apollo 17 crewman was within his
preflight bicycle ergometry baseline when tested postflight; the other two crewmen returned to
their preflight baseline by the second postflight day.

AS already noted, the Apollo 10 cabin atmosphere became contaminated with fiberglass parti-
cles. Postflight examinations of the Apollo 10 crewmen showed no significant changes attribut-
able to their exposure to the fiberglass. Four days after recovery, the Lunar Module Pilot de-
veloped a mild infection in his left nostril which may have been caused by a small piece of
fiberglass; he responded rapidly to treatment.

Other significant immediate postflight findings were as follows.

s. A definite residual of an inflight upper respiratory infection was noted in one of the
Apollo 7 crewmembers.
 8-11

b. The Apollo 9 Commander suffered from bilateral aerotitis media. This condition re-
sponded rapidly to decongestant therapy and cleared after 2 days.

c. The Apollo 11 Commander had a mild serous otitis media of the right ear but no treatment
wa~ neCtltllUl.Cy w)..",,, he found that l1<:! could choat h1.a ear", t1stil:lfll<;Lurl1y.

d. The Apollo 12 Lunar Module Pilot had a small amount of clear fluid with air bubbles In
the middle ear cavity which disappeared after 24 hours of decongestant therapy.

e. The Apollo 13 Lunar Module Pilot had a urinary tract infection.

f. The Apollo 14 Commander snd Command Module Pilot each exhibited a small amount of clear.
bubbly fluid in the left middle ear cavity with slight reddening of the ear drums. These find-
ings disappeared in 24 hours without treatment. The Lunar Module Pilot had moderate eyelid ir-
ritation in addition to slight redness of the eardrums.

g. The Apollo 15 Commander had hemorrhages under some of his fingernails of both hands and
a painful right shoulder. These hemorrhages were attributed to an insufficient arm-length size
of his pressure suit which caused the fingertips to be forced too far into the gloves during
hardsuit operations. The painful right shoulder was due to a muscular/ligament strain which re-
sponded rapidly to heat therapy.

h. The Apollo 16 Commander had some sinus congestion which responded to medication, and
also a slight reddening and retraction of the right eardrum.

i. The Apollo 17 Commander and Lunar Module Pilot both exhibited subunguinal hematomas
from the pressure suit gloves; these were more extensive and vivid on the Lunar Module Pilot.

j. The Apollo 17 Commander had a herpetic lesion on the right side of the upper lip. which
was approximately 72 hours old at the time of recovery.

During the landing of the Apollo 12 command module, a camera came off its window bracket
and struck the Lunar Module Pilot on the forehead, causing him to lose consciousness for about
5 seconds. He suatained a 2-centimeter laceration over the right eyebrow. The cut was sutured
soon after the crew was recovered and it healed normally.

Delayed postflight minor illnesses occurred as follows:

a. Six days after recovery of Apollo 8, the Lunar Module Pilot developed a ~ld pharyngitis
which evolved into a common cold and nonproductive cough. He recovered completely after 6 days
of treatment. The Commander developed a common cold 12 days after the flight, and treatment re-
sulted in complete recovery 7 days later.

b. Four days after recovery, the Apollo 9 Lunar Module Pilot developed sn upper respiratory
infection with a secondary bacterisl bronchitis. He was treated with penicillin and was well
7 days later. The Commander developed a mild upper respiratory syndrome 8 days after recovery.
He was treated and recovered 4 days later. Both of these cases were determined to be type-B
influenza virus.

c. On the day after recovery, the Apollo 12 Commander developed a left maxillary sinusitis
which was treated successfully with decongestants and antibiotics.

B.3 BIOMEDICAL EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE

8.3.1 Instrumentation

In genersl. the biomedical instrumentation system worked well. although some ~nor losses
of data were experienced throughout the program. Problems with lead breakage and pin connector
disconnection encountered on the Apollo 7 mission were corrected for subsequent flights. Some
degradation of physiological data was caused by loose biosensors, but restoration of good data
was usually obtained by reapplication of the sensors. Sponge/pellet electrodes were used in the
8-l2

bloharnes8 for the first time on the Apollo 15 mission. This type of biosensor was developed
to reduce skin irritation produced by the continuous-wear electrodes used previously. The qual-
ity of the datB obtained with the new electrodes was good and less skin irritation was seen at
the biosensor sites than had been seen after previous missions. Physiological data losses re-
sulting from trapped air under the electrodes were not experienced after the Apollo 15 mission
because small vents were added to the electrodes.

8.3.2 Medication Packaging

All the medications 1n tablet and capsule form were packaged 1n individually sealed plastic
or fol1 containers. On the Apollo 11 mission when the medical kit in the command module was un-
stowed, the packages had expanded because insufficient air had been evacuated during packaging.
This ballooning prevented restowage of the items in the kit until a flap was cut away from the
kit. Venting of each of the plastic or foil containers prevented this problem from recurring
on subsequent flights. The nasal spray bottles in the inflight medical kits were replaced by
dropper bottles for Apollo 14 and subsequent missions because previous crews had reported dif-
ficulties in obtaining medication from spray bottles in zero-gravity.

8.4 FOOD

The Apollo program food was primarily of the freeze-dried variety which could be reconsti-
tuted with water. This type is low in weight and volume, is stable without refrigeration, can
be readily packaged, and can withstand the stresses and environmental conditions of space flight.
Preparation of these meals requires cutting of the package, measuring and adding water, kneading
the mixture. and waiting for the rehydration process to be completed. Although the rehydrated
foods were generally the most satisfactory, the texture and flavor of this type of food was af-
fected by the command module potable water (fuel cell product water). Complete rehydration was
prevented because excessive hydrogen gas dissolved in the water expanded the packages, reducing
the transfer of water to the food. Offensive tasting food resulted from ionic contaminants in
the water and difficulties in the chlorination procedures. These problems were alleviated on
the later flights because of improvements in the potable water system and methods of treatment.

Bite-size compressed or freeze-dried products with special coatings to inhibit crumbling

were also used. These foods, designed to have an average moisture content of only 2 to 3 per-
cent. were intended to be rehydrated in the mouth with saliva or with small quantities of water
when saliva was inadequate. In general, the crews found the bite-size foods to be too dry and.
therefore. undesirable.

Special thermostabilized wet-pack foods were added to the flight menus to provide variety.
improved taste. and a closer similarity to conventional food. Both bite-size and wet-psck foods
required minimum preparation time and. therefore, were more convenient than the rehydrated meals.
The main disadvantages of the wet-pack foods were that some of the foods which are normally
eaten hot (such as potatoes and grsvy) were not as palatable when eaten cold.

In an attempt to make the food pleasant to the crew. menus were designed to meet the psy-
chological as well as the physiological needs of each crewmember. Prior to flight, each crew-
man was provided with a 4-day supply of flight food for menu evaluation and selection. Flight
menus were them established to provide each crewman with adequate nutrients to meet basic physio-
logical requirements. No foods were included in the final flight menus which had been rejected
during the preflight evaluations.

A control diet was used for the first time on Apollo 16 to insure that each crewman was in
an optimum nutritional condition prior to launch, snd to facilitate postflight interpretation of
medical data. The diet was initiated 3 days prior to launch and was terminated 2 days after re-
covery. In addition, food and fluid intake were closely monitored during the flight.

In-suit food bars were used by the Apollo 15 and Apollo 17 lunar module crewmen, and in-
suit beverage assemblies were used by the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 lunar module crewmen. The bev-
erage assembly consisted of a drinking device and a 32-ounce bag containing water or potas8ium-
fortified orange drink. Several minor problems were experienced in using the assembly during
 8-13

the Apollo 16 mission. Inadvertent activation of the tilt valve by the communications cable or
the microphone caused some release of fluid into the Lunar Module Pilot's helmet prior to lunar
landing. Prior to the first extravehicular period, the Commander installed the in-suit beverage
assembly after donning his pressure suit and could not properly position it. Thus, he was un-
able to consume any fluid during the first extravehicular activity.

Four different types of Skylab food packages were evaluated on Apollo 16 for function under
zero-gravity conditions by each crewman. These included a rehydratable soup package, a beverage
package, a peanut wafer package, and a liquid table-salt package.

The menus for the Apollo 17 mission were designed to meet physiological requirements of each
crewmember as well as requirements of a food compatibility assessment study. This study was im-
plemented (1) to determine metabolic requirements of space flight, (2) to assess compatibility
of menus with respect to gastrointestinal function, and (3) to acquire data on the underlying
endocrinological control of metabolism.

Negative nitrogen and potassium balances occurred during the Apollo 17 flight and confirmed
a loss in total body protein. In addition, a loss of body calcium and phosphorus was demon-
strated. This is consistent with previous flights. Although some of the observed weight loss
can be attributed to changes in total body water, the hypocaloric regimen in conjunction with
the well-known tendency to lose body tissue under hypogravic conditions indicates that a consid-
erable portion of weight loss is from fatty and muscle tissues.

Water intake and output data were generally consistent throughout the Apollo 17 flight.
However, when insensible water loss is considered, the crew on this mission were in a state of
~ild negative water balance. These data are consistent with water-balance data from Apollo 16.
During the immediate postflight period, only the Lunar Module Pilot's urine volume was signifi-
cantly decreased; the other two remained normal. This postflight finding, along with the slight
decreases in total body water, confirms the normal-to-decreased level of antidiuretic hormone.
This observation differs from that of Apollo 15 where high urine volumes and increased levels
of antidiuretic hormone were observed. The more complete data from the Apollo 17 mission sug-
gests that the major weight loss resulted from loss of tissue mass rather than loss of total
body water. The lack of weight gains during the first 24 hours postflight provides additional
evidence that fatty and muscle tissues were the predominant components of the observed weight
loss.

8.5 APOLLO LUNAR QUARANTINE PROGRAM

The Apollo lunar quarantine program was instituted to deal with the remote possibility that
micro-organisms hazardous to life on earth could be introduced into the biosphere by the crew-
members of lunar landing missions and the material brought back by them. Representatives of the
National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Public Health Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
and the U.S. Department of the Interior reviewed and approved plans proposed by NASA; the details
of implementation of the program were the responsibility of NASA. Much of the following discus-
sion has been excerpted from reference 8-13.

8.5.1 Quarantine Program Guidelines

The coordination of the multidisciplinary and often contradictory requirements of the lunar
quarantine programs presented a unique series of problems. Many of these problems were associ-
ated with the hypothetical nature of an unknown lunar hazard. Therefore, if precise scientific
and technical decisions were to be made, basic assumptions and guidelines had to be followed.
The basic guidelines that were established for development of the program were as follows.

a. Hazardous, replicating micro-organisms exist on the moon.

b. The preservation of human life should take precedence over the maintenance of quarantine.

c. Biological containment requirements should be based on the most stringent means used for
containment of infectious terrestrial agents.
 d. The sterilization requirements ahould be based on the methods required for the deatruc-
tion of the ~8t resistant terrestrial forms.

e. Hazard detectIon procedures should be based on an alteration of the ecology and classi-
cal pathogenicity.

f. The extent of the biological test protocol would be limited to facilities approved by
the Congress of the United States, to well-defined systems, and to biological systems of known
ecological importance.

8.5.2 Program Elements

8.5.2.1 Lunar-surface contam1natlon.- Nations involved in the exploration of extraterres-

trial bodies have agreed to take all steps that· are technically feasible to prevent the contam-
ination of these bodies during exploration. The primary reasons for preventing contamination of
extraterrestrial bodies are (1) to ensure that scientific analyses for the detection of viable
life originating from an extraterrestrial body can be conducted without the complications asso-
ciated with terrestrial contamination of such a body, and (2) to ensure that, if life does exist
on an extraterrestrial body, the ecological balance existing on that body is not disturbed by
the introduction of terrestrial microbial life-forms.

Several problems complicate the implementation of this agreement. First, if unmanned landers
are used, the problems associated with minimizing or eliminating contamination sources are prin-
cipally those technological problems involved with the design and fabrication of hardware that
will withstand decontamination or sterilization or both. The problems associated with this tech-
nology development should not be minimized, as evidenced by the amount of engineering and design
effort already expended in planning for unmanned vehicle exploration of other planets. However,
these decontamination problems are simple when compared to those associated with manned explora-
tion of other planets, because man is a virtual factory for the production and dissemination of
viable microbial contaminants. The other main problem associated with preventing contamination
of extraterrestrial bodies is the probability that a terrestrial life-form can establish itself
and survive in the alien environ~nt.

The physical evidence concerning the environment of the moon indicated that the probability
waa extremely small that a terrestrial life-form could establish itself. This, in addition to
the low probability that a viable ecological systea could exist on the moon, resulted in the
relaxation (but not elimination) of the requirements for the prevention of lunar surface contam-
ination. The Apollo crewmembers represented the prime source of contamination of the lunar sur-
face. Three other sources were determined to be (1) waste products such as feces, urine, and
residual food; (2) viable terrestrial micro-organisms released during lunar module depressuri-
zation; and (3) micro-organisms present in the lunar module waste-water system. Procedures were
defined to eliminate massive contamination of the lunar surface from these three sources.

8.5.2.2 Lunar sample collection.- Because one of the primary objectives of the Apollo pro-
gram was the collection and return of lunar material, advisory groups were established to deter-
mine the requirementa for sample collection. One requirement was that lunar samples should be
collected by using only sterile tools and should be returned to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory
in a sterile environment. The collection of lunar samples with hardware that contained minimum
organic snd inorganic contamination was also established as a physical science requirement. The
types of materials that could be used for fabricating tools and other items that would come in
contact with lunar material were severely limited by the scientific requirements and weight re-
strictions. A high-temperature bakeout under vacuum conditions was the best method for removing
volatile terrestrial contaminants from the hardware. This treatment, at a sufficient temperature
for a sufficient period of time, also satisfied the sterilization requirements for the hardware.

The procedures and hardware necessary for the stowage of the collected lunar samples were
considered next. The physical scientists decided that the lunar samples should be transported
to earth under environmental conditions as nearly like those on the moon as was technically fea-
sible. This decision necessitated the design and fabrication of a pressure vessel that could be
filled with lunar samples and sealed on the lunar surface, and in which the internal environment
could be maintained throughout the sample transfer from the lunar surface to the Lunar Receiving
 8-15

Laboratory. Because the pressure vessel had to be an ultraclean, gastight container, no addi-
tional requirements were necessary in terms of quarantine contrel. The Apollo lunar sample re-
turn containers (fig. 3-14) were designed to contain approximately 1 cubic foot of lunar mate-
rial and to be sealed on the lunar surface.

8.5.2.3 Inflighr contamination control.- It was anticipated that during lunar surface ex-
travehicular operations the exterior of the crewmen's suits and the equipment used on the lunar
surface would become contaminated with lunar material. As a result, specific hardware and pro-
cedures were developed to minimize the transfer of contamination from these sources to the bio-
sphere. The procedures were initiated before the crewmen entered the lunar module after each
extravehicuiar activity. Each crewman brushed the other crewman's suit to remove as much loose
lunar material as possible. A footpad was provided on the steps of the lunar module so that
lunar material could be scraped from the boots. Also, the sample return containers and other
items were brushed off before being returned to the lunar module. Once inside the lunar module,
all items to be transferred to the command module were placed in sealed Beta-cloth bags to mini-
mize the leakage of lunar dust into the lunar module or command module environment. Items that
were not transferred to the command module, such 8S the gloves and overboots, were discarded onto
the lunar surface. After the last hatch closure on the lunar surface, the crewmembers cleaned
the interior surfaces of the lunar module using a vacuum cleaner in conjunction with the envi-
ronmental control system.

After the lunar module ascent from the lunar surface and rendezvous with the command module,
the lunar module crewmen transferred hardware and lunar materials to the command module. Because
the command module entered the biosphere, procedures were developed to minimize the possible
transfer of lunar contaminants from the lunar module to the command module. These procedures
included wiping and vacuuming all items being transferred from the lunar module to the command
module, establishing a positive air flow from the command module to the lunar module to prevent
atmospheric contaminants in the lunar module from entering the command module, and bagging and
storing items after transfer to the command module. When the transfer of the crewmembers and
all hardware to the command module was completed and the lunar module had been separated from
the command module, the command module interior was vacuumed and cleaned.

Other potential quarantine considerations involved the exterior of the command module. Al-
though the command module exterior was considered to be an unlikely source of potential contam-
ination, a concern waa that lunar-surface contaminants would be transferred from the lunar mod-
ule to the command module exterior during docking. However, this possibility was remote because
the docking area of the lunar module was never in direct contact with the lunar surface and was
subjected to solar radiation during the lunar surface operations.

8.5.2.4 Return to the terrestrial biosphere.- Once the command module containing the crew-
men and lunar samples entered the terrestrial environment, careful control of potential lunar
contamination was required. Because the exterior of the command module was not considered to be
a source of extraterrestrial contamination, it was determined that landing in the ocean could oc-
cur without any special precautions against contamination. After landing, the command module
environmental control system was to be deactivated snd a postlanding ventilation system was to
be activated. The system consisted of a fan that circulated fresh air from the outside through
the command module and forced the air to the outside through a vent valve. The system, which
had been incorporated in the command module before the lunar quarantine requirements had been
formulated, presented a problem in that potentially contaminated air would be exhausted from
the command module. The postlanding ventilation system was not modified, however, primarily be-
cause the measures taken to minimize posaible contamination of the command module atmosphere,
and the use of protective garments and biorespirators by the crew were judged to be adequate pro-
tective measures.

Next, in terms of contamination control, the procedures for removing the crewmembers, lunar
samples, and hardware items from the command module and transporting them to quarantine isolation
in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory were developed. The crewmembers left the command module before
it was lifted to the deck of the recovery vessel. Swimmers assisted the crewmembers in egressing
the command module. The swimmers were protected from potential lunar contamination by using their
breathing apparatus during installation of the flotation collar on the command module. Further-
more, the swimmers sprayed areas of potential contamination, such as the hatch and docking areas,
with a germicidal solution to decontaminate these areas before the hatch was opened. The crew-
members emerged from the command module wearing biological isolation garments which effectively
prevented the transfer of microbial contaminants from the respiratory tract and body surface to
the exterior environment. After pickup by helicopter, the crewmen, still wearing the biological
isolation garments and physically isolated fro~ the helicopter crewmen, were transported to the
recovery vessel. The flight surgeon, who was quarantined with the crewmembers, was also on board
the helicopter. Upon arrival at the primary recovery vessel, the helicopter was towed close to
a mobile quarantine facility and the crewmembers and flight surgeon walked to the facility. The
deck area traversed by the crewme~bers during the transfer was decontaminated.

The command module hatch was sealed after egress of the crewmen, and the area surrounding
the hatch was decontaminated with a germicide. All decontaminstion equip~nt and the life rafts
used by the Apollo crewmen were then sunk at sea. Later, the command module was hoisted aboard
the primary recovery vessel and placed near the mobile quarantine facility. A flexible plastic
tunnel was then Installed between tbe command module and the mobile quarantine facility to allow
removal of lunar samples and other dats by a recovery technician. The c~nd module hatch was
then sesled, the surrounding area vas decontaminated, and the tunnel was drawn inside the mobile
quarantine facility.

Because some experiments planned for the lunar materials were time-critical, the samples
removed fro~ the command module were packaged in vacuum-sealed plastic bags, sterilized, and air-
locked out of the mobile quarantine facility. The packages were placed in shipping containers
and transP9rted immediately by aircraft to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. The crewme=hers, the
flight surgeon, and the recovery technician remained in the mobile quarantine facility until the
pr~ry recovery vessel reached the nearest port. There, the mobile quarantine facility and the
occupants were transferred to a transport plane and flown to Houston, Texas. Upon arrival, the
mobile quarantine facility was transported to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. The operations
performed in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory are described in section 11.

8.6 SPECiAL MEDICAL STUDIES

Special medical studies conducted in support of the Apollo program included a crew microbi-
ology program and a virology program.

8.6.1 Microbiology

The microbiology program was instituted in response to a requirement by the Interagency Com-
mittee on Back Contamination that identified a need to produce a catalog of micro-organisms car-
ried to the moon by Apollo crewmen. The primary use of the catalog was to provide a means of
recognizing whether a micro-organism, if found in lunar material, was of terrestrial or extra-
terrestrial origin. The catalog was also used for operational medical purposes.

The return of sterile lunar soil indicated that the preventive measures and handling methods
developed to prevent contamination of lunar soil were successful. If a terrestrial micro-organism
had been found in lunar soil, the catalog would have been extremely useful as aupportive evidence
to the laboratory analysis of the contaminant. The micro-organism could posaibly have been shown
to possess the same morphological and bioche~ical characteristics as one identified prior to a
particular mission.

The operational medical objectives were the s~ for each flight. The primary objective was
always to detect the presence of potentially pathogenic micro-organisms on the crewmen so that
possible medicsl problema could be recognized and preventive measures established. A second ob-
jective was to identify medically important micro-organisms fro~ crew specimens collected as a
result of illness events so that the flight surgeon could use these data to aid in diagnosis and
treatment of inflight illnesses. A third objective was to collect microbial data which could aid
in explaining the responses of the crew microbial autoflora to the space flight environment and
the resultant effects on crewmembers. In order to accompliSh the three stated objectives, a
variety of specimens were collected. In general, eight body surface swabs as well as fecal,
urine, and gargle samples were collected from each of the crewmembers. Although the exact sam-
pling schedule varied from flight to flight, specimens were usually obtained approximately I
month prior to launch, 2 weeks prior to launch, the morning of launch day, and immediately upon
recovery. In sddition to the specimens obtained from the crewmen, swab samples were obtained
 O-l7

from selected sites in the command module cabin immediately prior to launch and after recovery.
Following identification of all micro-organisms, the laboratory data on each isolate were stored
1n a computer. A computer program was developed to provide a "match test" of the stored data
with data that might be collected from an unknown micro-organism. The program was designed to
AesTch the catalog until an identification was made of thoRe micTo-organisms thAt hAd the er~~t­
est number of similar characteristics. Although no micro-organisms were found 1n the lunar ma-
terial, significant medical data were produced. Specific observations sre summarized for Apollo
missions 7 through 12, and 13 through 17.

8.6.1.1 Apollo 7 through 12.- Considerable variation in the micro floral response was ob-
served. Staphy~OCOCCU8 aureus was shown to increase in number, and transfers were effected be-
tween crewmen during two of the six missions. Although the micro-organism was present on two of
the remaining four missions, an increase was not detected postflight. The variables of host sus-
cepribility, external environmental factors, and ecological relationships between competing
species of micro-organisms are undoubtedly responsible for the observed response of the micro-
flora. Increase in numbers and spread of Aspergi~lu8 fumigatus and beta-hemolytic streptococci
were also shown on Apollo 7. The increase was not detected on any of the remaining five missions.

Preflight and postflight microbial analysis of samples obtained from the command module
showed that a loss of the preflight micro-organisms occurs during the mission. The preflight
micro flora at the sampling sites were replaced by micro-organisms from the crew micro flora.

8.6.1.2 Apollo 13 through 17.- Immediately upon return from a space flight, species of
micro-organisms were recovered from a particular crewmember that had not previously demonstrated
the presence of this species. This phenomenon occurred on all flights with several different
species, implying that intercrew transfer of microbes is a regular occurrence during space flight.
Transfer of micro-organisms between crewmernbers and the command module or extravehicular clothing
is even more obvious because the preflight microbial loads of these inanimate objects are quite
different from the microbial loads of the crewmembers. Occupation of the command module during
the space flight does not generally effect a significant change in the numbers of different con-
taminating species. However, there is an obvious loss of the original contaminants on each site
with a concurrent invasion of microbes belonging to different species. In addition, there is
a buildup of medically important species during the space flight. In particular, the buildup of
Proteus mi~ilis on the urine collection device has been a recurrent problem throughout most of
the Apollo missions. Close contact of susceptable parts of the body with these contaminated
urine collection devices presents a significant medical hazard.

8.6.2 Virology

The virology program conducted in support of the Apollo missions consisted of characteriza-
tion of the viral and mycoplasma flora of the crewmemhers; viral serology on crewmemhers, crew
contacts and key mission personnel; and an analysis of specimens obtained as a result of crew
illnesses, the mission personnel surveillance program, and the flight crew health stabilization
program. Serology studies were initiated with Apollo 14; the mission personnel surveillance pro-
gram was in effect during Apollo missions 11 through 14; and the flight crew health stabiliza-
tion program was in effect during Apollo missions 14 through 17.

The characterization of the viral and mycoplasma flora was accomplished by utilizing state-
of-the-art procedures and consisted of challenging tissue cultures, embryonated eggs, suckling
mice, and mycoplasma media with specimens obtained at various preflight and postflight times.

8.7 BIOCHARACTERIZATION OF LUNAR MATERIAL

Immediately after lunar samples were unpacked, small, yet representative, samples were dis-
tributed to biological test lsboratories within the Lunar Receiving Laboratory where the samples
were assessed to insure that they were not biologically hazardous, and to otherwise study the ef-
fects of lunar material on various plant and animal species. As mentioned previously, the con-
tainment aspects of the quarantine program were discontinued after the Apollo 14 postflight eval-
uation. As a result, the number of tests was substantially reduced for the Apollo 15 studies,
and the scope of the testing was further reduced for the final two missions.
8-18

8.7.1 Microbiology

Microbiological tests for viruses, bacteria, snd other agents were performed on specimens
from the crew, on lunar samples, snd on various test species that had been exposed to lunar ma-
terial. The host systems used for the Isolation of viruses from crewmembers and contacts within
the crew reception area helped the biologists isolate and identify member viruses representing
essentially all known groups capable of producing acute illnesses in human populations. In ad-
dition to the host systems used for crew virology, supernatant fluids from lunar soil suspensions
were tested in tIssue cultures of mammals, birds, and cold-blooded species.

8.7.1.1 Virological Investlgatlons.- The Virological studies conducted on the lunar mate-
rial obtained during the Apollo missions consisted primarily of analyses for replicating agents.
The materials tested and the systems challenged are presented in table 8-11. The supernatant
fluid obtained from centrifuging 50 percent weight/volume suspensions of lunar material in ster-
ile media was used as the inoculum. There was no evidence of replicating agents in any of the
systems utilized.

Additional studies were performed on the Apollo 15 lunar material to assess alterations in
host susceptibility. No significant differences were observed between terrestrial basalt (sim-
ulated lunar material) and actual lunar material suspensions. Colonies grown on agar containing
lunar material were similar to those grown on agar medium alone or agar containing simulated
lunar material. Another study was conducted to determine the effect of lunar materials on the
stability of poliovirus. No significant differences were detected between the simulated lunar
material and the actual lunar material suspensions.

8.7.1.2 Bacteriological and mycological investigations.- Samples from all six lunar explor-
ation missions were examined for the presence of biologically formed elements or viable organisms.
No evidence of viable organisms was obtained from any of these analyses.

Following incubation of the lunar material in the culture media complexes. microbial growth
dynamics studies were conducted with known test species to evaluate the possible presence of
toxic factors. Only extracts of culture media which had been in contact with a mixture of lunar
material from both Apollo 11 core tubes proved to be toxic to all species tested (refs. 8-14 and
8-15). Attempts to reproduce this toxic effect with individual Apollo 11 core samples obtained
at other parts of the core stem and analyzed under somewhat different conditions were unsuccess-
ful. In all, 48 different lunar samples, collected to a depth of 297 centimeters from six dif-
ferent landing sites, were examined.

8.7.2 Zoology

Various types of animals and invertebrates were exposed to lunar material to test for pos-
sible harmful effects. Maintenance of germ-free animals under positive pressure conditions was
forbidden, and a special procedure using a double biological barrier was developed. The germ-
free mouse was chosen as the prime test subject to represent the mammalian portion of the zoolog-
ical program. A second category of the program was the exposure of various aquatic species to
lunar material. These test subjects included marine and freshwater species and ranged from pro-
tozoa to the oyster, the shrimp, and various types of fish. A third category was the terrestrial
invertebrate, represented by the insects. It was impossible to cover all the taxa in this enor-
mous group, but the three major orders were represented by the German cockroach, the fly, and
the greater wax moth. The animals were exposed orally and by inhalation, injection, and direct
contact.

Following the Apollo II, 12 14, and 15 missions, fifteen species of animals representing
five phyla were exposed to untreated lunar material. These tests were complementary to the other
protocols and were designed to detect any viable or replicating agents capable of infecting and
multiplying in animals. Results of exposure of the various animal species were uniformly nega-
tive (refs. 8-16 and 8-17). No viable or replicating agents. other than identifiable terrestrial
micro-organisms, were ever recovered or observed in the test animals. In addition, only minimal
and transitory inhibition or toxicity followed exposure of some of the animals to the lunar ma-
terial.
 8-19

TABLE 8-1I.- SYSTEMS CHALLElIGED III THE VIROLOGICAL ANALYSES OF LUNAR MATERIAL
OBTAINED OURING THE APOLLO IHSSIONS

Systems challenged
Number of
Hission samples Tissue cultures
Embryonated Suckling Mycoplasma
tested
eggs mice media

11 3 African green monkey kidney, x x

primary human embryonic kidney,
diploid hunan embryonic lunR,
pri~ry bovine embryonic kidney,
primary duck embryonic fibroblast,
rainbow trout gonadal tissue,
Pimepho~es promeLas, grunt fin,
Haemulon Bciuras
12 2 African green monkey kidney, x x
primary human embryonic kidney,
diploid human embryonic lunK,
heteroploid bovine kidney, hetero-
ploid porcine kidney, prlt:"1ary duck
embryonic fibroblast, rainbow trout
gonadal tissue, salma gai~neri,
fathead minnow, Pimepholea prome-
~s, grunt fin, HaemuLon Bciuraa

14 6 African green monkey kidney, x x x

primary human embryonic kidney,
diploid human embryonic lung,
heteroploid bovine kidney, hetero-
ploid porcine kidney, primary duck
embryonic fibroblast, rainbow trout
gonadal tissue, SaLmo gairdneri,
fathead minnow, Pimepho~ea prome-
las, grunt fin, Haemu~on Bciuras
15 1 African green monkey kidney, x x x
primary human enbryonic kidney,
diploid human embryonic lung

16 1 African green monkey kidney, x x x

primary human embryonic kidney,
diploid human embryonic lung

17 1 African green monkey kidney, x x x

primary human embryonic kidney,
diploid human embryonic lung
8-20

Following relaxation of the containment requirements after the Apollo 14 mission, life-span
studies were initiated with germ-free mice inoculated with lunar material. Classical inflammatory
reactions were noted and lunar fine material was observed to persist for the life of the animal
(20 months). The observations suggest the lunar fine material Is relatively insoluble in tissue
and that, while acting as a low-grade irritant, it has little tendency to evoke reactive fibrosis.
The significance of such a chronic low-level stimulus and the various factors governing the re-
tention, elimination, and turnover of lunar fine material in mammalian tissue sre not clear at
this time.

8.7.3 Botany

The botany program emphasized exposure of 33 plant species to lunar samples for the detec-
tion of possible plant pathogens. Sterile cabinets were maintained to grow pure cultures of
algae and diatoms, to germinate surface-sterilized seeds, to grow pathogen-free seedlings, and
to develop tissue cultures, all of which were exposed to lunar material in various forms.

The same materials and methods were used in botanical investigations following all of the
lunar exploration missions, except that fewer species were employed in the studies for the last
three missions. Emphasis in these latter investigations was placed upon collection of more de-
.finitive data on changes of pigmentation and cytoplasm density of lunar or terrestrially treated
cells, tissues, and whole plants. Methods unique to these studies are described in references
8-18 through 8-22. Of potential interest was the application of many principles of germ-free
animal research to the culture of the large number of plant seedlings required for the biochar-
acterization program. Lunar samples used in these studies were either composites of representa-
tive rock fragments and surface fines (Apollo II, 12 and 14), or composites of surface fines
(Apollo 15, 16 and 17). Descriptions of the terrestrial controls may be found in references 8-23.

Treatment of algal cultures with lunar material caused growth inhib;tlon in dense cellular
suspensions and growth stimulation in cultures grown on semisolid mineral media. Growth promo-
tIon was evident by marked increase in cell density in areas adjacent to lunar particles. Treat-
ment of algal cells by exposing them to lunar material suspended via gently agitation resulted
in cultures having higher respiration rates than untreated controls. Microscopical examination
of treated cultures revealed no significant differences between cells treated with lunar material
or terrestrial material.

The fern, Onoa~ea sensibi~i~i8 L. , which was tested with each composite lunar sample, ap-
peared to be the most sensitive plant for demonstrating that lunar material can act as a source
of n~trients for plants. Clumps of spores germinating on lunar material placed within a well
cut into mineral agar showed a several-fold increase in mass. The resulting gametophytes were
also greener than those treated with terrestrial basalts. Other lower plants such 8S Lycopodium
ae~uum L. and Ma~hantia polymorpha L. (liverwort) exhibited similar stimulation. Within the
treated plants, measurements of chlorophyll-a showed significantly higher concentrations of the
pigment, but not chlorophyll-b or carotenoids.

Seeds germinated in the presence of lunar materials grew vigorously and absorbed significant
quantities of aluminum, chromium, iron and titanium (ref. 8-21) and a variety of others including
rare earth elements. In addition, cabbage and brussels sprouts absorbed large amounts of mangan-
ese. Lettuce seedlings generally did much better in the presence of lunar material.

Germ-free plants of bean, citrus, corn, sorghum, soybean, tobacco and tomato showed no del-
eterious effect when their leaves or roots were treated with 0.2 gram of lunar material per
specimen. Plants of citrus, corn and soybean appeared to grow consistently better if treated
in the sand-water culture system originally described by Hoagland and Arnon (diacussed in ref.
8-18). Histological apecimens taken from lunar treated plants revealed no deleterious effects
of prolonged contact between lunar particles and leaf, meristematic, or root cells.

Twelve plant tissue culture systems employed in the biocharacterization program (ref. 8-20)
appeared to be the most useful for studying cell-lunar particle interactions. Tobacco cells
treated with lunar material accumulated approximately 30 percent more chlorophyll-a than un-
treated ones (ref. 8-23). Relative and absolute concentrations of fatty acids and sterols were
changed by lunar-material treatment (ref. 8-24). Many cellular differences were noted. Both
stationary and suspension-cultures of lunar-material-treated tobacco tissue cultures exhibited
 8-21

an increased maturation of chloroplasts, and apparent secretory activity (ref. 8-25). Pine
cells, on the other hand, exhibited a remarkable increase in tannin accumulation hut not fatty
acids or sterols.

B.B REFERENCES

8-I. Apollo 7 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-68-1S, December 1968.

8-2. Apollo B Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-69-1. February 1969.

8-3. Apollo 9 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-PA-R-69-2, NAy 1969.

8-4. Apollo 10 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-00126, August 1969.

8-5. Apollo 11 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-OOl71, November 1969.

8-6. Apollo 12 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-01855. March 1970.

8-7. Apollo 13 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-02680, September 1970.

8-8. Apollo 14 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-04ll2, May 1971.

8-9. Apollo 15 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-0516l, December 1971.

8-10. Apollo 16 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report MSC-07230, August 1972.

8-ll. Apollo 17 Mission Report. NASA Johnson Space Center Report JSC-07904, March 1973.

8-12. Biomedical Results of Apollo. NASA SP (number not assigned), 1975.

8-13. Wooley, B. C. : Protection of Life and Health. Apollo Experience Report, NASA TN 0-6856,
June 1972.

8-14. Taylor, G. R.; Ferguson, J. K.; and Truby, C. P.: Methods used to monitor the microbial
load of Returned Lunar Material. Appl. Microbiol. vol. 20, no. 2, 1970, pp. 271-272.

8-15. Taylor. G. R.; Ellis, W. L.; Arredondo, M.; and Mayhew, B.: Growth Response of Paeudomonas
Geruginosa (ATCC 15442) to the Presence of Lunar Material. Bacterial Proc. 1970, p. 42.

8-16. Simmonds, R. C.; Holland, J. M.; Young, E. L.; and Boyd, J. F.: Animal Maintenance fo,
Biomedical Evaluation of Lunar Material. J.A.V.M.A. vol. 161, 1972, pp. 720-727.

8-17 . Benschoter, C. A.; Allison, T. C.; Boyd, J. F.; Brooks, M. A.; et al.: Apollo 11: Ex-
poaure of Lower Animals to Lunar Material. Science. vol. 169, 1970, pp. 470-472.

8-18. Walkinshaw, C. H.; Sweet, H. C.; Venketeswaran, S.; and Horne, W. H.: Results of Apollo
11 and 12 Quarantine Studies on Plants. Bioscience. vol. 20. 1970, pp. 1297-1302.

8-19. Walkinshaw, C. H.; Wooley, B. C.; and Bozarth, G. A.: Technology Advancements in the
Growth of Germ-Free Plants at the Manned Spacecraft Center. In: Germ-Free Research
Biological Effect of Gnotobiotic Environments. Academic Press, 1973.

8-20. Walkinshaw, C. H.; Venketeswaran, 5.; Baur, P. S.; Hall, R. H.; et al.: Effect of Lunar
Materials on Plant Tissue Cultures. Space Life Sciences. vol. 4, 1973, pp. 78-79.

8-21. Walkinshaw, C. H.; and Johnson, P. H.: Analysis of Vegetable Seedlings Grown in Contact
with Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Fines. Rort. Science. vol. 6. 1971, pp. 532-535.

8-22. Walkinshaw, C. H.; Johnson, P. H.; and Venketeswaran, 5.: Elemental Abundances in Callus
Tissues of Carrot, Pine, Rice, Soybean, and Tobacco. In Vitro. vol. 7,1972, pp. 391-396.
8-22

8-23. Johnson, P. H.; Walkinshaw, C. H.; Martin, J. R.; Nance, W. B.; and Bennett, A. D.:
Elemental Analysis of Apollo 15 Surface Fines Used in Biological Studies at the Lunar
Receiving Laboratory. Bioscience. vol. 22, 1972, pp. 96-99.

8-24. Weete, J. D.; and Walkinshaw, C. H.: Apollo 12 Lunar Material: Effects on Plant Pigments.
Can. J. of Bot. vol. 50, 1972, pp. 101-104.

8-25. Weete, J. D.; Walkinshaw, C. H.; and Laseter, J. L.: Apollo 12 Lunar Material: Effects
on Lipid Levels of Habituated Tobacco Tissue Cultures. Science. vol. 175, 1972, pp. 623-
624.
 9-1

9.0 SPACECRAFI MANUFACTURING AND TESTING

Complete systems, subsystems, and individual components for the Apollo spacecraft were fur-
nished by numerous subcontractors. Subcontracts were generally managed by the prime contractors,
although in a number of cases the government furnished hardware directly to the prime contractor.
During the manufacturing process, subcontractors were required to observe the same rigor that
was imposed by NASA upon the prime contractors with regard to the selection of materials, main-
tenance of dimensional tolerances, environmental control, and the demonstration of proper per-
formance. The majority of subcontractors manufactured and assembled the contracted hardware in
their own facilities; however, numerous orgsnizations that specialized only in design and con-
struction required the services of independent testing and certification organizations to per-
form the required test and checkout functions. In all eases, the subcontractors were respon-
sible for the checkout of the hardware to be delivered to the prime contractors and the prime
contractors were responsible for the end-to-end checkout of the spacecraft.

This section presents the sequences of operations that began with the assembly of space-
craft components to form the primary vehicle structures and terminated with final inspection
before shipment. No attempt is made to establish the schedules or to describe the processes by
which each separate component or assembly was produced. Each component or assembly was inspected
and/or tested according to a rigoroua set of quality and reliability requirements and determined
to be flightworthy before installation. The described sequence is representative of operations
for a typical flight spacecraft rather than for a specific vehicle. Modifications, mission re-
quirements, schedule commitments, hardware availability, personnel, experience, facility loading,
and other factors influenced the sequence of operations to an extent that required constant man-
agement. The individual vehicle time lines used to achieve the basic objectives of the manufac-
turing program are reflected in appendix E.

9.1 COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE, LAUNCH ESCAPE SYSTEM

AND SPACECRAFr/LUNAR MODULE ADAPTER

9.1.1 Command Module Assembly and Checkout

The command module was comprised of two major structural elements the heat shield struc-
ture (outer) and the crew compartment structure (inner). The sequence of assembly of these two
structures and systems installation snd checkout operations are described in the following para-
graphs.

9.1.1.1 Heat shield structure.- The heat shield structure consisted of brazed stainless
steel honeycomb sandwich panels which were welded into three separate major assemblies: the for-
ward compartment heat shield, the crew compartment heat shield and the aft heat ahield. Figure
9-1 shows the assembly flow of the crew compartment heat shield. This is typical of all three
heat shield assemblies.

The completed heat shield structural assemblies were delivered to a subcontractor for ap-
plication of the ablative thermal protection material. The heat shields were returned from the
subcontractor and installed on the command module during final assembly.

9.1.1.2 Crew compartment structure.- The crew compartment structure consisted of bonded
aluminum honeycomb sandwich construction with the inner shell (facesheet) of the sandwich being
s welded assembly to minimize cabin leakage. Figure 9-2 shows the assembly flow of the two major
subassemblies of the inner shell. These subassemblies were welded together to complete the crew
compartment pressure vessel assembly. The honeycomb core. the outer facesheets and splice plates
were then fitted to this assembly and bonded in place. This completed the fabrication and assem-
bly of the crew compartment primary structure and pressure vessel.

A second major bonding operation was performed to install the various ties and angles re-
quired on both the inaide and outside for attachment of the secondary structural assemblies.
The main display console, equipment support structures, cold plates, guidance and control sys-
tem support structure, and interior equipment bays were installed. The crew compartment struc-
ture was then proof pressurized to demonstrate structural integrity. Throughout the assembly of
the crew compartment structure, component locating, machining operations, fitting and trimming
were controlled by master tools which assured proper assembly and fit of all components.
 'P
'"
?~
~
o
(J .. ~ tji~ ~... ~
~
..
~ ~ d:ors, hatches, and window frames
, 0 ""'., ' ' '~, """~,
.... " ...

~
Circumferential trimming' ~ C ' t
and welding of forward ~ _

Q~"
and aft rings to 360 0 0 " - ~ /J
panel assembly,. 0'J. \?d C

~
~ 6"~o 0
Forward section of crew
compartment heal sh Ie Id Crew comparmenl heal shield
joined by closeout welding of '., 0 ,

,·
-1l ~. Mold line check. Drilling and
stud bolt welding to support

1
~ ~ ~ ~ ...
~ ~ ~ fA1\. ~ 0 __ __
a
.
,;'
subsequent installations of

Finish-machining of latching
forward and aft
360" circumferential
rings
systems Items
~lechanisms,
instrumentation, antennas,
and

~
Circumferential trimming and

~
... fCe(..)/ welding of aft ring to 360"
l" c.,:.....:.--- panel assembly
Aft section of crew compartment
heal shield

Figure 9-1.- Command module crew compartmenl heat shield assembly flow.
 ~
Trimming and welding of forward
access tunnel ring to bulkhead

/'~ ~:. ~

Trimming and welding of three 90·

panel segments and
two 1000gerons

Trimming and welding of 270· 0

.. Machining operations ~
sidewall panel weld
assembly to 90· performed
sidewall assembly

Trimming and welding of :360· Forward sidewall and

girth ring to forward sidewall forward bulkhead weld
assembly

o
~,
,/ " r

(~
.~~

I
.. -------- .. ~

(~.....
~
"-...:
Aft sidewall and aft
bulkhead weld assembly
Aft. sidewall weld IS5!mbly

Trimming and welding of aft ring to Trimming and wl!:ldinlj of aft sidewall
aft sidewall to aft bulkhead

Figure 9-2.- Command module crew compartment structure inner shell assembly flow.
'f'
'"
 On completion of the structural assembly, the crew co~artment was cleaned in a tumble-and-
clean positioner and prepared for systems installation at an installation workstand. Systems
were tested before installation in the spacecraft. All electrical systems, wire harnesses, and
related wiring were then installed, and a high-potential test, a continuity test, and circuit
analyzer tests were performed. Plumbing was installed, and flushed, purged and dried. The as-
sembly was moved to pressure test cells where each fluids system was subjected to a complete
performance and functional teat series and verified if operational and within specified limits.
This test series contained such operations as flow checks, leak tests, contingency and backup
mode checks, regulator operation checks, proof checks, and instrumentation output cbecks. The
assembly was then transferred back to the installation workstand for completion of systems in-
stallation.

When the electrical and fluids systems installations were complete, the crew compartment
was connected to the service module and launch escape tower by cables (soft mate) for individual
and combined systems tests. Throughout this period, each system was subjected to a series of
carefully controlled functional tests that demonstrated proper operations. These tests estab-
lished the performance data baseline to support all downstream test activities. The crew com-
partment was then placed in a workstand for installation of the heat shield, a fit check of the
booat protective cover, installation of parachutes, a fit check of the crew couches, and final
modifications, if necessary. This operation virtually completed the command module assembly.

9.1.1.3 Final operations.- In the final phase of command module manufacturing, the vehicle
waa cycled through another tumble-and-clean operation in which the vehicle was rotated through
360 0 in each axis to dislodge and remove debris. The weight and center of gravity were then de-
termined, and the vehicle was subjected to an integrated test (sec. 9.1.5). The command module
was subsequently moved to the shipping area and prepared for shipment. Such items as crew
couches and crew equipment were removed, packed, and shipped separately.

9.1.2 Service Module Assembly and Checkout

In the service module manufacturing cycle, maximum use was made of jigs and fixturea to as-
sure proper fit and clearance of all components and subassemblies and to provide good accessibil-
ity for removing, replacing, and interchanging components. A generalized flow through the manu-
facturing and assembly process is shown in figure 9-3.

Three major stands were used in the assembly flow. The primary structural assembly stand
was used to assemble six radial beams to fore and aft bulkheads. To this structure were attached
bonded-aluminum-honeycomb-structure equipment support shelves and other secondary structural at-
tachment provisions for mounting of wire harnesses and tubing assemblies. In the next series of
operations, the bonded-aluminum-honeycomb outer shell panels and reaction control system panels
were prefitted and located, and the attaching holes drilled. Holes were then drilled for in-
stallation of tanks and other equipment.

The service module was then mounted to a support stand where command-to-service-module
fairing panels and the aft heat shield were installed, and provisions were made for service pro-
pulsion engine installation. The weight and center of gravity were determined and axis markings
were completed. The module was then cycled through the tumble-and-clean facility during which
rotation through 360 0 in each axis was used to separate or dislodge any debris from manufacturing
operations.

After being cleaned, the module was installed 1n a large workstand for systems installation.
Components and systems installed included tubing, propellant storage and distribution systems,
the cryogenic storage system, the service propulsion drain and vent system, the environmental
control system, the helium pressurant system, the electrical power system. the main service mod-
ule electrical harness, terminal boards, coaxial cables, and the lower engine bay structure. Low-
pressure gross leak tests, flushing and cleaning of fluid lines, and automatic circuit analyzer
checks were performed after installation but before electrical hookup.
 9-5

:D
e
~

..,
••
11
e
.•>e
Ji

]
cDBa .- .. E~
._~

OQW .
~e
-8~
••
.8';:
-••
-~
~.=!
~.8
1- t t
t
~ rj
~
~~
9-6

The service module was then transferred to pressure test cells where each fluids system was
subjected to a series of carefully controlled functional tests that demonstrated proper opera-
tion 1n the prime, backup, contingency, and redundant modes. Examples of operations performed
to ensure vehicle integrity were proof tests, leak tests at joints (brazed and mechanical), over-
all systems leakage checks, flow checks, pressure regulator checks, relief valve functional
checks, transducer verification, snd cryogenic tests.

Following the tests. the vehicle was cycled through the tumble-aod-clean positioner to dis-
lodge and remove debris. The cleaned vehicle was then weighed and its center of gravity deter-
mined. On completion of these operations, the vehicle was placed in the integrated test stand
for the integrated test series described in section 9.1.5. The integrated test completed the
manufacturing, test, and checkout operations, and the vehicle was mounted on a shipping pallet
and prepared for shipment.

9.1.3 Launch Escape System Assembly and Checkout

The launch escape system consisted of a nose cone, a canard system, launch escape and tower
jettison motors, skirt and tower structures, and soft and hard boost protective covers. Subcon-
tractors fabricated and assembled the nose cone, the launch escape motor, and the tower jettison
motor. These units were installed as components at final assembly of the launch escape system.
A generalized flow of components and subassemblies as they were manufactured is shown in figure
9-4.

9.1.3.1 Canard assemb1y.- The canard assembly consisted of rings, longerons, a bulkhead,
outer skins, an actuating mechanism, and right- and left-hand doors. The structural sections
were riveted and bolted together in a jig fixture. The sctuating mechanism was installed,
checked for proper functioning, and forwarded to final assembly.

9.1.3.2 Skirt structural assembly.- The skirt structural assembly consisted of longerons.
circular ring segments, and skin segments that were fusion welded and then riveted together into
an assembly. The assembly was finish-machined as a unit and then forwarded to final assembly.

9.1.3.3 Tower structural assembly.- The tower structural assembly was a fusion-welded t1-
tanium tubular structure with fittings at each end. The assembly steps sre shown in figure 9-4.

9.1.3.4 Boost protective cover.- The boost protective cover consisted of two major assem-
blies. The forward assembly (hard cover) provided the structural attachment to the launch es-
cape tower which was necessary to allow the cover to be jettisoned along with the launch escape
system. This assembly covered about the forward one-third of the command module. This assembly
was fabricated on a tool (form) and consisted of fiberglass facesheets and phenolic-honeycomb-
core sandwich construction. A lsyer of cork thermal protection material was bonded to this and
the assembly costed with a temperature resistsnt paint.

The aft assembly (S9ft cover) prOVided the thermal protection needed over the remaining
two-thirds of the command module. It consisted of an inner layer of Teflon-coated fiberglass
cloth to which was bonded the cork thermal protection material. The assembly was made in seven
segments to facilitate shipment and final installation. A plaster-splash process was used to
obtain the required fit between the soft cover and the command module. An exact duplication of
the command module mold line resulted. A mold line simulator tool was then constructed and used
to fit snd assembly the soft cover. The operation was performed on each spacecraft because of
variations of the command module exterior surfaces.

9.1.3.5 Final assembly.- The elements of the launch escape system were assembled, and a
final mechanical fit check with the assigned command module was performed. The assembled unit
was then uaed in support of downstream systems checkout activities.

9.1.4 Spacecraft/Lunar Module Adapter Assembly

The spacecraft/lunar module adapter consisted of a forward and an aft section. Each section
consisted of four bonded-aluminum-honeycomb-construction subassemblies. Each subassembly was
trimmed and assembled on a major assembly fixture in a pit in the floor which was 28 feet deep
 9-7

'"
1
-•
Ji•
'"
!l
•
t "•
t t ~

!
..•
c
•
lr

0 ~.b
-11
.
.-g'5:
~-
t t •
o
U

••
t
t
t

t
9-8

and 35 feet square (fig. 9-5). This fixture was unique because it was constructed below ground
level. The honeycomb panels that Made up the subassemblies were prefltted for bonding on assem-
bly jigs, adhesive was applied, and curing was accomplished in one of the largest autoclaves in
the United States (fIg. 9-6).

Installations of secondary structure and equipment were performed after the assembly was
removed from the pit and placed in an above-floor-level vorkstand. On completion of final 88-
8e~ly. the unit was fitted with a shipping cover and transported to the using site. The first
three assemblies were transported by helicopter in approximately 3OD-mile legs (fig. 9-7). The
remainlnl assemblies were transported by the Super Guppy, a specially modified aircraft.

9.1.5 Systems and Vehicle Checkout

9.1.5.1 Integrated systems cbeckout.- The integrated systema checkout verified the opera-
tion of the electrical. electronic. environmental control. and mechanical systems of the elec-
trically and mechanically .ated co~nd and service aodule. Before power was applied to the
spacecraft, a bus continuity check was performed to insure that the power distribution syatem was
wired correctly and that there were no grounded (short-circuited) power circuits. The spacecraft
power distribution system was then verified using external power sources and the data systems
were checked so that the operational instrumentstion systems could be used during systems check-
out. Finally. the environmental control system was verified. After completion of the syatems
testing. the spacecrsft was readied for integrated test.

9.1.5.2 Integrated test.- For integrated test, the command module, the service module, and
the launch escspe tower were electrically mated; electrical simulators were substituted for the
spacecraft/lunar module adapter, the launch vehicle, and the spacecraft pyrotechnics; and an in-
ertia simulator vas substituted for the service propulsion system nozzle. Cround power was sub-
stituted for fuel cell power but batteries with power supply backup were used for the entry bat-
teries.

The integrated test vas originally performed in two phases: "plugs-in" testing vas conducted
with the ground checkout equipment connected 804 "plugs out" testing was conducted with the ground
checkout equipment disconnected in an attempt to electrically isolate the spacecraft from the
facility grounding syatem. Beginning with CSH-I07 (the Apollo 11 spacecraft), the "plugs-out"
phase was abandoned, basically for two reasons. A review of test records revealed that no prob-
lems could be identified as resulting specifically from the "plugs-out" configuration and that
the vehicle could not, in fact, be electrically isolated.

The integrated test included the abort modes (pad, low-altitude and high-altitude aborts)
and the normal mission profile. The normal mission simulation consisted of the following phases:
launch profile, orbit insertion, earth orbit, translunar injection and coast, lunar orbit inser-
tion, lunar orbit, transearth injection and coast, entry, and earth landing. The spacecraft sys-
tems were exercised as they were expected to be during the various mission phases.

9.1.6 Facilities

The command and service module and the launch escape tower were engineered, designed, as-
aembled. and acceptance tested at the prime contractor facilities at Downey. California. Ap-
prOXimately 400 000 square feet of floor space was used for the Apollo activities. The contrac-
tor's facility at Tulsa, Oklaho~, was used to manufacture the spacecraft/lunar module adapter
and most of the larger honeycomb subassemblies of the service module.

9.1.6.1 Bonding and test facility.- A 26 OOO-square-foot building housed the bonding and
test facility. Operations performed in this building conaiated of honeycomb preparation, metals
processing, adhesive preparation, and inspection operatione (including ultrasonic). The building
contained a temperature- and humidity-controlled rooa for the adheaive preparation, provisions
for overhead handling, complete metal processing facilities. areas for refrigerated storage, mix-
ing equip_nt, and cutting and spreading tables. Two autoclaves were available for curing the
bonded asaemblies. One autoclave was especially designed to accommodate the size and shape of
the co~nd module. The second autoclave. a standard cylindrical type, was used for smaller
panels aDd eubaseemblies.
 9-9

0
0
::;
-"!
"5
•
.S
~
~

~
••
~
~

~
~
0
~ ••E
,•" ••
-
~
~
~
0
~
~
0
~
,,;
~ E
••
~

.- "0
~
-
~

~
0
~

'" -",
~
0
E
~
0

..."u
~

•u
~
~ 0
:0 'J>

••E
••0 "',
-
.:"
"
0
'",•"
."
-•
•
0

E
~
"-

••
•0
'"•
-
~

a
~
0
E
••"
....
9-10
9-ll
 9-12

9.1.6.2 Structure fabrication area.- Fabrication of the command and service modules, space-
craft/lunar module adapters, and launch escape towers was performed in approximately 85 000
square feet of high-bay manufacturing area.

Automatic alternating-current and direct-current fusion-welding was used to weld the command
module segments. Mechanical equipment was used for trimming and cutting inner and outer panels
and holding track-mounted skate heads for all circumferential and longitudinal welding operations.

Protective covers were provided for all spacecraft parts and assemblies to prevent damage
to fragile skins, and a special high-lift crane fixture supported tank prefittlng and installa-
tion operations for the service module.

Manual fualon-welding equipment was used in launch escape tower fabrication operations.
Bridge cranes, slings, pickup dollies, and special racks facilitated the handling and transport-
ing of subassemblies and assemblies.

9.1.6.3 Electronic and electromechanical equipment fabrication and checkout area.- An area
of approximately 60 000 square feet was provided for the fabrication of electronic and electro-
mechanical equipment. This equipment included deliverable airborne modules, ground support equip-
ment, and systems measuring devices. Operations performed in the production area consisted of
wire and sleeving preparation, wire harness and cable assembly fabrication, wiring continuity
verification, potting and encapsulation, electronic subassembly fabrication, electronic instal-
lation and final assembly, and module and console functional tests.

Standard wire preparation equipment included wire cutters, wire stampers, thermal wire strip-
pers, and small processing ovens. All soldering was performed in an environmentally controlled
area thst met NASA specifications. This ares was air-conditioned; had dust-resistant floors,
walls, and ceilings; had 7S-foot-candle general illumination and high-level lighting at produc-
tion work atations; and waa equipped with shoe cleaners.

9.1.6.4 Tube fabrication and cleaning facility.- A facility of approximately 12 000 square
feet was used for tube fabrication and cleaning. The tube fabrication equipment consisted mainly
of cut-off saws, deburring and flaring equipment, and tube bending equipment. Cleaning facilities
were provided for the prec1eaning and final cleaning of stainless steel tubing and for the pre-
cleaning, plating, and final cleaning of aluminum tubing. The final cleaning area was environ-
mentally controlled.

9.1.6.5 Pressure testing facilities.- All pressure-testing operations that could not be
performed in the final assembly and checkout facility (because of the hazards involved) were per-
formed in ~pecia1 test cells. Hazardous systems and command module tests were performed in a
pressure test cell that provided gas pressures and environmental control. Hazardous pressure
tests on the service module were performed in an environmentally controlled pit-type test cell
that was 25 feet deep, 25 feet long, and 23 feet wide.

9.1.6.6 Systems integration and checkout facility.- An area of approximately 133 000 square
feet was provided for spacecraft systems integration and checkout. The interior of the building
consisted of four general sections. The sections nearest the east and west walls were of two-
story construction to accommodate offices, assembly and maintenance sreas, crib control rooms,
servicing equipment rooms, and other general supporting areas. The center of the building con-
sisted of a low-bay and a high-bay section. The ceiling of the low-bay section was 42 feet high,
and the section had two la-ton bridge cranes that traveled the full length of the building. This
section was used for spacecraft installation, modification, and preparation operations. The
ceiling of the high-bay area was 63 feet high, and the section had two IS-ton bridge cranes that
also traveled the full length of the building. This area was used for individual systems check-
out and integrated systems checkout after module mating.

The primary purpose of this facility was to provide an area in which temperature, humidity,
and dust were controlled during installation and checkout operstions to assure maximum reliabil-
ity of the spacecraft integrated systems. Functions performed in this facility included final
assembly of systems and subsystems, installation of these components in the spacecraft, individ-
ual systems checkout of the command and service module, combined systems checkout of the command
and service module, test instrumentation installation, modification and updating to the latest
design configuration, integrated test and shipping preparation.
 9-13

9.1.7 Equipment

The items of ~nufacturlng and test fixtures and equipment used to support the assembly and
checkout of the Apollo command and service module were numerous. Some of the more important
ite~ are described and listed in table 9-1 [0 provide a generalized concept of overall opera-
tIons.

9.1.7.1 Automatic circuit analyzer.- The large ~unt of wiring on the spacecraft required
that an automatic circuit analysis test program be instituted for validating interconnecting wir-
ing systems. Time for validating wiring systems was reduced by one-fourth, thus decreasing the
overall flow time of the vehicle in manufacturing. Test results were displayed and all anoma-
lies recorded to expedite error location. failure analysis, and the required corrective action.
The followina were typical tests.

a. Continuity of wiring

b. Noncontinuity of unused pins and connectors

c. Short-circuit detection

d. Leakaae detection

e. Insulation resistance

f. Electrical connection bonding resistance

9.1.7.2 Acceptance checkout equip~nt for spacecraft.- The acceptance checkout equip~ent
was a computerized syste~ that provided centralized, programmed control and monitoring of space-
craft checkout operationa. The automatic checkout system, coupled with interface equipqent, a
digital test co~nd system. and a digital test uonitor system, provided manual, semiautomatic,
snd automatic modes of operation to accommodate syste~ testing. integrated testing, and launch
support.

The testing of spacecraft systems was controlled from modules located in system consoles.
The modules facilitated the input of the appropriate command selections, computer subroutine
selections, or spacecraft guidance computer information to the spacecraft.

Each system console had a variety of test-command capabilities that were necessary for the
testing and checkout of a particular system. A console could operate independently simultane-
ously with other system consoles. The up-link computer interpreted and reacted to the commands
initiated from the system console. The signals generated by the acceptance checkout equipment
ground station were transmitted by hardlines to the digital test command system. Redundant trsns-
mission checks and verification tests were accomplished to ensure maximum confidence in proper
command transmisaions.

Test data to be down-linked were obtained from sensora in the spacecraft and from the ground
support equipment. These data were aignal-conditioned in the digital test monitor system and
trana~itted 8S serial pulae-code-modulated data to the recording and display equipment that re-
ceived, recorded, and displayed the spacecraft performance data, as required by the specific test
being conducted.

The down-link computer performed the required processing functions such as predetermined
liDdt checka, engineering unit conversions, and data compression. The data were converted to
aignals displayed aa alphanumeric characters on the appropriate system consoles. Displays in-
cluded unique outputs based on special requirements, the status of automatic test sequences. and
the status of specific parameters. Blinking displays indicated that parameter limits were being
exceeded.
9-14

TABLE 9-1.- COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE MANUFACTURING

FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT

Fixture/equipment Purpose

Bonding autoclaves: Bonding operations.

Cylindrical (12 x 20 ft)
Clamshell (IS-ft diam.)

Weld fixtures:
Circumferential skate-type Trim and weld inner shell and ring
tool assembly (crew compartment) to
inner aft bulkhead.

Headstock and tal1stock Position, support and rotate crew

positioner compartment horizontally during
final assembly.

Ferris wheel inner sidewall Assemble, trim and weld inner

assembly tool sidewall components.

Ogive bulkhead tool Trim and weld bulkhead segments.

Forward inner structure Trim and weld forward inner struc-

assembly tool ture subassembly.

Tumble-aud-clean fixture Dislodge and remove debris result-

ing from manufacturing operations.

Weight and balance fixture Determine dry weight and center of

of gravity of command module and
service module.
 9-15

9.2 LUNAR MODULE

9.2.1 Ascent Stage Assembly snd Checkout

The ascent stage structure consisted of four subassemblies: the front face, the cabin skin,
the midsection, and the aft equipment bay. Fabrication of these four subassemblies was accom-
plished in fixtures; on completion, the subassemblies were placed in an ascent structure main
fixture for final assembly snd mating operations. The structural assembly was then subjected
to a cabin proof snd leak test. Optical alignment of the navigation base and secondary struc-
ture installation were completed in an ascent structure workstand. The completed structural
assembly was then installed in an environmentally controlled ascent stage general fixture for
1nstallation of electrical equipment, fluids systems, the reaction control system. the environ-
mental control system module, and other equipment. as shown in figure 9-8.

The ascent stage was then moved to a cold-flow facility for the initial fluids test and
checkout operations. Each fluids system was subjected to a set of carefully controlled func-
tional tests that demonstrated proper operation. Testing was conducted to proof the system;
test for leaks at joints (both brazed and mechanical); check overall systems leakage, flow rates,
pressure regulators, and relief valve functions; and verify orifice configuration to assure
proper fluid ratios of oxidizer and fuel for the propulsion system.

From the cold-flow facility. the ascent stage was processed through a rotate-And-clean oper-
ation. The cleaned stage was then transferred to an integrated general fixture where the elec-
tronic equipment was installed, thermal insulation and thermal shielding were prefitted, the as-
cent engine was installed, and the primary guidance and navigation system was installed and
aligned.

Final test and checkout of the systems (integrated systems tests) were accomplished after
the ascent and descent stages had been mated. An entire complex of ground support equipment was
interfaced with the assembled atages and. with a carefully controlled set of operational checkout
procedures, each system was subjected to controlled stimuli. The responses of the vehicle sub-
systems were recorded for comparison to the pass/fail criteria required for acceptance. Dis-
crepancies, if found were recorded; troubleshooting was performed to isolate the anomalous con-
dition; corrective action was provided; and retests were conducted to demonstrate satisfactory
resolution.

The ascent atage was moved back to the cold-flow facility for final fluids systems test.
The ascent stage propulsion and resction control systems were subjected to procedural tests
which demonstrated that the fluid flows, pressures, and functional paths conformed to specifi-
cations and could support mission requirements as complete systems. Final verification of the
coolant-loop servicing and functional capability was also performed at this time. The ascent
stage was then moved back to the integrated general fixture and mated to the descent stage in
preparation for the formal engineering acceptance test described in section 9.2.3. On comple-
tion of the test, the ascent stage was transferred to a weighing fixture. The stage was weighed,
the center of gravity located. and a final inspection made to confirm readiness for shipment.
After removal of some of the more fragile equipment such as antennas, which were shipped sep-
arately, the ascent stage was packaged for shipment.

9.2.2 Descent Stage Assembly and Checkout

The descent stage structure consisted of machined parts and panel stiffener assemblies that
were mechanically joined. The engine compartment was assembled, the tank compartments formed,
the upper and lower deck assemblies added. and the machined interstage fittings attached to com-
plete the structural assembly. This assemblage was accomplished in a descent structure main fix-
ture. The stage was then moved to a descent structure workstand where the fluids equipment and
wiring was installed. Gross leak checks and harness verification tests were subsequently per-
formed within an environmentally controlled fixture as shown in figure 9-9. Following the equip-
ment installation operations, the stage was moved to the cold-flow facility for testing similar
to that described for the ascent stage.
 \0
I
I-'
'"
1II11111111111~qlq/,
W/~
Aft equipment Aft bulkhead
bay

~
Optical alignment of navigation
base and complete major
1
• 111111\1 ' 111I111111l11ll11I'" structural installation
rlllllllll/,
Engine deck/skin ~ Docking tunnel! WII~.
Midsection buildup
subassembly skin subassembly

111111I111' ~ ~ ~ 11I11I11111'

Cabin skins Ascent structure mating, sealing

bench bui Idup and crew provision structural
We Id ing area
bui Idup

iillllllllllllllllllllllllili' ~ 111111I1111 1• 111I11I1111111111I111111111111I111I11I1111I11I11 rr.

Front face buildup

Figure 9-8.- Ascent stage assembly and checkout.

 111I1111 10

Final fluids systems tests Install insulation and Pack for shipment.
thermal shielding. Clean
Install electrical and fluids
ascent stage and determine
systems, reaction control system, = weight.
and other equipment. Conduct
gross leak check.

=
. - Fonnal engineering
acceptance test
=

11I11I111I11I11111' 11111111I11I11 rr.

Proof preSSure
checkout and fluids
systems tests Install ascent engine and electronic
equipment. Prefit thermal shielding
and insulation. Install and align
primary quidance and navigation system.
Align and mate ascent and descent stages.
Integrated systems tests.

Figure 9-8.- Ascent stage assembly and checkout - Concluded.

'".':,:0
 'f'
b',

<:>

illl~s 111111 1' 1111111111 1

>

Proof pressure
checkout and fluids
systems tests Pack for shipment.
Descent structural bui ldup
Install electrical and
fluids equipment. Conduct
gross leak check and harness
verification tests.

Install descent engine, batteries,

electronic and scientific equipment.
1I1l!;

~
Prefit thermal shielding and
insulation. Align and mate ascent ~
and descent stages. Integrated ~
systems tests. ~
-
Scientific equipment bay #' §
~ Formal engineering
: ,...~ ~.;# acceptance lest
- ~ ~
~,

11I1111 1'

Install and test landing

Final fluids gear, determine weight,
Panels and bulkheads systems tests remove landing gear and
Install insulation clean descent stage.
and thermal shielding

Figure 9-9.- Descent stage assembly and checkout.

 9-19

From the cold-flow facility, the descent stage was processed through the rotate-and-clean
operation. The cleaned descent stage was then ~ved to the integrated general fixture for in-
stallation of electronic and scientific equipment, the descent engine, and for alignment and
mating with the ascent stage in preparation for integrated systems teats. On completion of the
tests, the descent stage was again moved to the cold-flow facility where final verification was
made of the engine installation and the descent propulsion system. When these tests were com-
pleted, the descent stage was transferred back to the integrated general fixture and mated to
the sscent stage in preparation for the formal engineering acceptance test (sec. 9.2.3). After
the test was completed. the landing gear were attached and tested for functional operation. the
stage was weighed, the center of gravity was determined, and the landing gear were removed. Af-
ter a final inspection to confirm readiness for shipment, the descent stage was packed for ship-
ment.

9.2.3 Formal Engineering Acceptance Test

The formal engineering acceptance test was designed to exercise all functional paths of the
lunar module vehicle systema. Four ground support equipment/vehicle test configurations were
used during the test to provide, as nearly as possible, flight stimuli and response conditions
without compromising the vehicle hardware.

The first test configuration consisted of the integrated vehicle with simulated reaction
control system thrusters, power supplies instesd of batteries, and all the ground support equip-
ment instrumentation associated with the automatic checkout equipment. This test verified the
total lunar module systems electromagnetic compatibility performance in typical mission modes.
The ascent and descent stages were electrically and mechanically mated for the descent abort and
abort staging phases of the mission simulations. The ascent stage was electrically disconnected
for the ascent stage simulations.

The second test configuration consisted of the ascent stage and special timing equipment
attached to the ground support equipment connectors on the reaction control thruster solenoid
circuits. This test was conducted after final wiring of the flight thrusters was completed, and
proper timing of the thruster valves and proper primary-to-secondary coil identification were
verified.

The third test configuration consisted of the mated descent and ascent stages supported in
a fixture that prOVided motion in the pitch, roll, and yaw axes on command. The end-to-end po-
larity of the attitude control loop was verified by physically rotating the vehicle and verify-
ing proper response of the rate gyros and the abort sensor gyro assemblies about the vehicle
axes.

The fourth test configuration consisted of the mated stages connected to a very minimum of
ground support equipment. The vehicle waa equipped with flight-type batteries. Each functional
phase of a manned lunar mission was performed with switch sequences programmed to duplicate pre-
launch checkout, earth-orbit operstions, translunar preparation, separation and lunar-orbit in-
sertion, lunar descent and landing, lunar stay, pre-ascent checkout, primary guidance powered
ascent, and a demonstration of the abort guidance system abort and rendezvous capability. The
test was performed by radio up-link to the lunar module and monitored by radio down-link dis-
plays on consoles in an automatic checkout equipment station control room.

9.2.4 Facilities

The lunar module was engineered, designed, manufactured, and acceptance tested at the prime
contractor's plant in Bethpage, Long Island, New York, before shipment to the Kennedy Space Cen-
ter in Florida for launch preparations. The plant consisted of 21 major facilities with more
than 5 million square feet of operating space. Since virtually all the prime contractor's manu-
facturing and testing tasks were to be performed within the Bethpage complex, the facilities se-
lected for lunar module manufacturing and testing were located within a I-mile radius, thua al-
lowing for an efficient flow of parts, components, and subassemblies to a centralized final as-
sembly and test area.
9- 2 0

9.2.4.1 Ascent stage structural/mechanical manufacturing area.- An assembly area of approx-

imately 20 000 square feet was allocated exclusively for the ascent stage structure and mechani-
cal systems installation. An additional 200 000 square feet of facilities and equipment were
made available for lunar module use on a time-sharing basis with other programs of the prime con-
tractor. This area was selected because of the complete range of equipment snd facilities avail-
able for manual or fusion welding, resistance welding, chemical milling, spin forming, honeycomb
bonding, heat treating, inspection, shipping, and receiving.

9.2.4.2 Descent stage structural/mechanical manufacturing area.- An assembly area of approx-

imately 15 000 square feet was allocated exclusively for the descent stage structure and subassem-
bly elements. An additional 120 000 square feet of facilities and equipment were available on a
time-sharing basis for the manufacture of lunar module detail parts. This area was selected be-
cause the descent stage structure, which consisted of machined aluminum beams, chemically milled
skin panels, and sheet metal parts, was compatible with the manufacturing techniques used in this
area in the production of virtually all sheet metal parts for other programs of the prime con-
tractor.

9.2.4.3 Centrali~ed lunar module assembly, installation, and final acceptance test area.-
The overall lunar module support area and facilities required for the finsl assembly, installa-
tion, and test of the lunar module before shipment consisted of approximately 70 000 square feet
of space for exclusive lunar module use and an additional 40 000 square feet of facilities and
equipment made available on a time-sharing basis with other programs of the prime contractor.
The final assembly area was capable of supporting three vehicles in integrated testing at one
time besides individual work station areas for two descent stages and three ascent stages. The
individual work station areas were used to prepare the vehicle for final acceptance tests and
shipment.

9.2.4.4 High-preasure test facility (cold flow).- The high-pressure test facility had spe-
cial features that permitted remote controlled static and dynamic testing of high-pressure fluid
operating systems. Acceptance and development tests were conducted on lunar module propulsion,
environmental control, and reaction control systems. Two control rooms housed the operating con-
soles and data-acquisition instrumentation equipment. A room for electrical and mechanical sup-
port equipment was centrally located so that each test cell could be equipped with the necessary
plumbing, wiring, and manifolding for supplying electrical, fluid. and gas requirements.

9.2.5 Equipment

Numerous items of manufacturing and test equipment were used to support the assembly and
checkout of a lunar module. Some of the fixtures snd equipment used during vehicle assembly and
testing are listed in table 9-11.

9.2.6 Specialized Support Laboratories

Hany specialized facilities were used to troubleshoot specific problems, check electronic
packages, environmentally exercise co~onents for acceptance, or otherwise indirectly support
operations. The more important facilities and tasks performed are described.

9.2.6.1 Full-~ssion engineering simulator.- The lunar module full-mission engineering sim-
ulator was a manned simulation facility that prOVided a means of verifying the actual lunar mod-
ule flight article capabilities, using an integrated system approach. The simulation profiles
consisted of descent from lunar orbit to the surface, ascent to rendezvous, and docking with the
command and service module. Simulation also verified the ability to perform various mission
soorts. The dynamics of the vehicle were simulated with six degrees of rigid-body freedom us-
ing a combination of flight-type and commercial-type equipment.

9.2.6.2 Flight control integration laboratory.- The flight control integration laboratory
was used for the integration and verification of the flight abort guidance and flight control
systems hardware. The ability to operate and control the entire system in a realistic ~ssion
situation was verified before use on a flight vehicle. Preinstallation checkout and system
troubleshooting of flight hardware were also performed in this laboratory.
 9-21

TABLE 9-11.- LUNAR MODULE MANUFACTURING

FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT

Fixture/equipment Purpose

Ascent stage general fixture Installation of electrical equip-

ment, fluids systems, reaction con-
trol system, environmental control
system module, and other equipment.

Descent structure workstand Installation of electrical equip-

ment and fluid systems.

Integrated general fixture Installation of ascent and descent

engines, electronics equipment,
primary guidance and navigation
system, antennas and other equip-
ment. Alig[lJTlent and mating of as-
cent and descent stages. Accept-
ance testing.

Rotate-aud-clean fixture Tumbling of either ascent or de-

scent stages to remove debris from
manufacturing operations.

Landing gear fixture Temporary installation of landing

gear for functional demonstration
of system.

Weight-aud-balance fixture Determine dry weight and center of

gravity of ascent stage or mated
ascent and descent stages.

Automatic circuit analyzer See sec. 9.1.7.1.

9- 22

9.2.6.3 Data reduction facl11ty.- An automated data reduction facility. applicable to all
spacecraft programs, was used to process telemetry data in automatic, semiautomatic, or manned
control modes. Output devices included strip-chart recorders, oscillographs, event records, an
X-Y plotter, a digital printer plotter, and card and tape punch equipment.

9.2.6.4 Primary guidance laboratory,- The primary guidance laboratory was used by associate
contractors for prelnatallation testing, troubleshooting, and acceptance testing of government-
supplied hardware for the navigation system and electronic systems before installation in the ve-
hicle. This unique laboratory was staffed by associate contractor personnel who also supplied
the necessary ground support equipment to perform all test requirements.

Additional facilities for specialized support included a laboratory for the development of
environmental control systems, a simulator for testing of life support systems, a hydrostatic
test laboratory, a drop-test fixture, a thermal-vacuum facility, a facility for conducting heat
transport and vater management tests, and a laboratory for conducting component tests to verify
environmental test requirements.
 l~l

10.0 LAUNCH SITE FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT, AND PRELAUNCH OPERATIONS

10.1 WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE

The Apollo launch escape and earth landing systems were quaflfied at the White Sands Missile
Range by a flight test program conducted from 1963 to 1965. The test program also accomplished
significant certification testing of the command and service module structures, batteries, and
certain flight instrumentation. Another important task was the first use, including fit and
function tests, of the handling and checkout ground support equipment for the command and ser-
vice module. All the property and equipment sssets of the NASA White Sands Missile Range Flight
Test Office were dispositioned within 60 days of the last Little Joe II flight test.

10.1.1 Launch Complex

All of the vehicles launched in the course of the flight test program at White Sands were
launched from Complex 36. The major facilities are shown in figure 10-1.

As originally constructed. Launch Complex 36 consisted of a blockhouse, service tower, and

launch pad designed for firing Redstone missiles. After completion of the Redstone program, the
service tower and half of the blockhouse were assigned to the Apollo program for Little Joe II
launch vehicle qualification and spacecraft abort tests. The other half of the blockhouse and
the launch pad were assigned to another program.

Requirements to support the Little Joe II effort included a new launch pad, permanent tracks
on which the service tower could be moved to the new launch pad area, a cable trench between the
pad and the blockhouse, a facility transformer station, and a transfer and power room near the
launch pad. The transfer and power room, known as the power building, contained junction boxes,
regulated power supplies, and monitoring equipment. The service tower (fig. 10-2) required exten-
sive modification to accept the Little Joe II/Apollo vehicle which was larger than the Redstone
missile. The service tower was configured such that the spacecraft, when attached to the launch
vehicle, was enclosed in a clean room for installation and checkout of components and instrumen-
tation.

10.1.2 Vehicle Assembly Building

A vehicle assembly building (fig. 10-1) was constructed approximately 1 mile from the launch
area. The building included a high bay area. electromechanical· laboratories, storage facilities,
and solid propellant rocket motor checkout areas. The little Joe II launch vehicles were un-
loaded at this building on arrival and, occasionally. the building was used to store an Algol
rocket motor overnight. Later, a portable clean room was added in the building to permit final
installation of the reaction control and hydraulic actuation systems under a controlled environ-
ment.

Permanent office space for operations personnel was not constructed because of the relatively
short duration of the program. Instead, 15 mobile office trailers were provided for use during
vehicle assembly and checkout activities. Trailers in the launch pad area were moved to a safe
site just before initiation of the final systems checks before each launch and were returned af-
ter launch.

10.1.3 Little Joe II Control System Test Facility

The control system test facility was located at an isolated site (fig. 10-1) and contained
all the equipment required to test and service the reaction control system and the hydraulic-
powered aerodynamic control system. The facility included a concrete test pad and a prefabri-
cated steel building that was environmentally controlled to a temperature of 70 G ±5° F. The
pad and building were separated by a distance of 45 feet for operator safety. The building was
 10-2

Service tower
I
L---Nor'h
(nominal
Vehicle ....;;~~/~ launch
On launcher direction)

Pyrotechnic read
PO"".er room in storage y
barncaded magazines
structure

Cable trench

Fin test pad

Control systems Blockhouse
test faCility,
~con,ml systems
"--d test facility
bV~hiCle aSSembly

yt;
UJ/ding

PyroteChnic ch k
ec Out van

N
/
Figure lO~l
. - launch Complex 36
 10-3

Clean ,Servic
Payload tower
umbilical
retractor
I

,.."'"
-
roo",\
_-._-
-•
_ .

~
I
•
D•
T•
•
••
•r
r rJ _

Figure 1U-2. - Prelaunch operations at Launch Complex 36.

10-4

designed to withstand an overpressure of 42 pounds per square foot, equivalent to the simultane-
ous explosion of all four reaction control system tanks. The pad included floodlights for night
operations, showers and water flushing for hydrogen peroxide safety, tledowna for the fin stand,
and electrical power outlets. The ground-support equipment used for fin servicing was placed
on a paved area of the facility. A hydrogen peroxide servicing trailer could be placed inside
the building for hydrogen peroxide surveillance. An attitude control fin test control was used
to control and monitor fin testing. and portaole recording equiprnent was used to monitor system
performance.

10.1.4 Little Joe II Launcher

The launcher (fig. 10-2) was a mechanical structure used for the final assembly and launch-
ing of the Little Joe II/Apollo vehicles. Heavy steel I-beams formed the major structure so that
a minimum amount of refurbishment was required between launches. The launcher mast, attached to
the support platform. supported the payload umbilical retracting assembly and provided the base
for two support arms that stabilized the vehicle during thrust buildup and lift-off. The launcher
was swiveled on electric-mator-driven crane-type trucks for azimuth positioning. The aupport
platform was pivoted by means of electric-mator-driven screw jacks for elevation positioning.
The positioning controls and indicators were located in the blockhouse. In addition, a control
panel in the blockhouse contained valve and pressure controls and indicators for the pneumatic
systems which operated the vehicle support arms and the payload umbilical retracting assembly.

Changes made to the launcher during the program included (1) redesign of the payload umbil-
ical system for the A-OO) mission to accommodate repositioning of the umbilical on boilerplate
spacecraft 22. and (2) incorporation of an extension on the mast for the A-004 mission because
of the mare forward location of the umbilical on spacecraft 002.

The launcher performed as designed for all five Little Joe II launches. All mechanisms per-
formed smoothly before and after each lsunch, and refurbishment was held to a minimum. Actual
launcher positioning was within 6 minutes of the desired angle in azimuth snd 1.5 minutes of the
desired angle in elevation.

10.1.5 Ground Support Equipment

10.1.5.1 Little Joe 11.- The major ground support equipment items for the Little Joe II
launch vehicles were consoles and equipment racks used for system control; air conditioning for
maintaining motor grain temperature; reaction control system and attitude control system testing
and servicing equipment; an environmental tent; handling equipment; and miscellaneous items gen-
erally used for test and checkout. There were 248 items of ground support equipment. Of this
total, approximately 70 were commercial standard ite~s purchased by NASA, and 50 were commercial
standard items purchased by the contractor. The remaining items were manufactured specifically
for the Little Joe II program. The launch vehicle manufacturer furnished slings and dollies for
handling the vehicle airframes and all components except Algol rocket motors; the rocket motor
subcontractor furnished all handling equipment for these motors.

Vehicle systems varied from mission to mission; therefore. continuous surveillance of ground
support equipment was conducted. Every effort was made to use available equipment. In general,
the ground support equipment performed well.

10.1.5.2 Command and service module.- The command snd service module contractor furnished
handling, checkout and servicing ground support equipment. The handling equipment (45 units)
consisted of support stands. workstands. lifting slings and beams. weight and balance equipment.
and transport dollies. The checkout equipment (22 units) included the launch escape and earth
landing systems checkout and test equipment. test conductor consoles in the launch control cen-
ter. and miscellaneous smaller articles for operations such as battery checkout and wire harness
continuity checks. Servicing equipment (9 units) included a battery charger. test pressure units.
and related equipment. In addition, the contractor furnished miscellaneous auxiliary equipment
(28 units) such as tool kits and shipping covers.
 1~5

10.2 EASTERN TEST RANGe/KENNEDY SPACE CENTER

10.2.1 Saturn IB Launch and Checkout Facilities

AS-IOl and AS-102 were missions 1n which Apollo boilerplate spacecraft were launched from
the U.S. Air Force Eastern Test Range in support of spacecraft development objectives. The facil-
ity requirements for these launches were minimal in that the Saturn IB development was already
well underway and Launch Complex 37 (flg. 10-3) had been 1n use for a considerable length of time
prior to the AS-IOO series of flights. Pre-mate checkout of boilerplate spacecraft 13 and 15 was
accomplished in Air Force hangar AFt which was also used for the launch vehicle S-IV stage pre-
mate checkout. Spacecraft ground support equipment was provided to check the sequential, pyro-
technic, telecommunications, and environmental control systems. Flight development instrumenta-
tion was provided as government furnished equipment and existing FM/~1 ground stations at hangars
Sand D were availsble for telecommunications reception.

During the period folloWing the b~ilerplate flights, new facilities were constructed and ac-
tivated for the AS-200 series of unmanned flights to qualify all spacecraft and launch vehicle
systems for manned flights. Initial concepts required specific facilities for individual check-
out of the various spacecraft systems. Checkout included static firing of the reaction control
and main propulsion systems, with an eventual mating of modules and a final test in altitude
chambers prior to stacking on the launch vehicle. Figure 10-4 is an artist's conception of the
industrial area faciliti~s. The following facilities were constructed: a solid-propellant stor-
age facility, a pyrotechnics and parachute installation building, two cryogenic test buildings,
two hypergolic test buildings consisting of two test cells each, a fluid test support labora-
tories building, an environmental control system test building consisting of two test cells, an
ordnance test facility, an operations and checkout building equipped with two altitude chambers
and numerous integrated test stands, and a parachute packing building. Also provided were ware-
houses, repair and maintenance facilities, office space, and a flight crew training building
which housed various simulators and trainers for the flight crew. Living quarters and medical
and recreational facilities were prOVided for the flight crews in the operations and checkout
building. Sites and the basic industrial needs (e.g., water and power) were planned for a main
propulsion static firing facility; however, final construction of the complex was not accom-
plished. Instead, Air Force Launch Complex 16, an obsolete Titan I launch pad, was equipped to
provide static firing and hypergolic ground support equipment maintenance capability at a con-
siderable program cost savings. A surplus w~ter tank was used for environmental protection for
the service modules and ground support equipment during hydrostatic testing of replaced service
propulsion system tanks and for a static firing of the Apollo 7 service propulsion system before
launch.

10.2.2 Saturn V Launch and Checkout Facilities

A procedure in which the space vehicle was assembled and checked out at the launch pad was
entirely satisfactory for the Saturn 18 flights. However, the size and complexity of the Saturn
V vehicle and the scheduled frequency of flights dictated the uae of a new mobile launch concept
wherein the vehicle ~as assembled and checked out in a protected environment, and the flight-
ready vehicle waa transported to the launch site for final servicing and propellant loading.
Launch Complex 39 (fig. 10-3) was constructed to carry out the mobile launch concept. The com-
plex was located approximately 5 miles north of the Kennedy Space Center industrial area.

10.2.2.1 Vehicle assembly building.- The Apollo/Saturn V space vehicles were assembled in
the vehicle assembly building (fig. 105). The building contains a high bay area 525 feet high
and a low bay area 210 feet high. With a length of 716 feet and a width of 518 feet, the build-
ing has 343 500 square feet of floor space. By volume, it is one of the largest buildings in
existence, containing 129 482 000 cubic feet of space.

A cutaway view of the interior of the vehicle assembly buidling, as configured for the
Apollo program, is shown in figure 10-6. The high and low bay areas, serviced by a transfer.
aisle for movement of vehicle stages, formed two distinct operational elements of the building.
The high bay area contained four separate bays for the assembly and checkout of the Saturn V
stages, instrument unit, and Apollo spacecraft. Access to the space vehicle was provided by
work platforms in each high bay. Each platform was constructed in two parts. The parts could
10-6

Environmental
control
system

t
N
Liquid
hydrogen
storage
Launch Complex 39A

Liquid
oxygen
Lightning storage
warning
Launch Complex 39B station
o

""';Jf'- H; gh
pressure
gas
storage
Azimuth
alighment
station
Crawlerway
Vehicle
assembly KSC/ Cape Kennedy
building Air Force Station boundary

Launch Complexes 37A

KSC and 37B
industrial
",ea

~~f~,L.1~,.---Launch Complex 34

Figure 10-3.- Kennedy Space Center/Cape Kennedy Air Force Station facilities.
 Hypergolic
test
Ordnance facilities
Pyrotechnic
storage installation Cryogenic
Ordnance test facilities
laboratory

- Fluid test support building

Environmental systems test faci lity

Radar base sight range

~a 7
Public
f/ ~ ~affairsg-----;J Supply shipping
,/buildin and receiving
building

Flight crew
training building

-----
'-- '-.7:1
,
:: .::-~-
;;=-~~
,
/_.---. -'
.,,''-:'-;7'-/J/7.--:-:-"'
//,,/,,';'-;'
-

-- ,-:-.:_-='---:,'
'il'-- - , ,
?">;,,, ,>/. i
... _.. L'i.l.e. " _~_eill_-
-C'
: ==::::' .
-
u,
J;'== ------,
- ---,
_.1 )

----- -
Operations and

....?
checkout building
Figure 10-4.- Artist's concept of Kennedy Space Center industrial facilities.
10-8
 10-9
,
_._._.
--._..
.

-.

i
•
\
10-10

be moved together and mated, affording 360 0 access [0 the vehicle. The low bay area, approxi-
mately 442 feet by 274 feet, contained eight stage preparation and checkout cells 8S well 8S
quarters for flight crews and support personnel who were required to remain nearby durIng criti-
cal periods of assembly and checkout. Additional aress were used for office space and storage.

Control rooms for automatic spacecraft checkout operations were located in the operations
and checkout building, with stimuli and response signals carried by hardline to the vehicle as-
sembly building and launch pads.

10.2.2.2 Mobile launchers.- Each apace vehicle undergoing assembly inside the vehicle assem-
bly building was supported by a mobile launcher (fig. 10-7). The 18 OOO-square-foot base of the
launcher later served as the launch platform. The base contained holddown arms and masts for
servicing the first stage of the vehicle. The base also housed computer systems, digitally con-
trolled equipment for propellant and pneumatic lines, and electrical power and water systems.
A 45-foot square opening was built into the base for rocket exhaust at lift-off.

Permanently positioned on the base of the mobile launcher was a 380-foot-high launch umbil-
ical tower that prOVided support for nine swing arms for direct access to the vehicle. The tower
also contained 17 work platforms and distribution equipment for propellant, pneumatic, electrical
and instrumentation systema. Two high-speed elevators afforded access to the work platforms.
MOunted on top of the tower was a 25-ton-capacity crane. The height of the combined base and
umbilical tower was 445 feet.

10.2.2.3 Launch sites.- Two launch pads were constructed at Launch Complex 39. The facil-
ities that comprised pad A are shown in figure 10-8. The mobile launcher, with the flight-ready
space vehicle mounted on it, was secured to six mounting mechanisms located on the concrete sur-
face of the pad. Other fixed components to service and effect launch of the space vehicle in-
cluded liquid oxygen and hydrogen service towers, a fuel system service tower, snd an electrical
power pedestal.

A steel-reinforced concrete enclosure, covered with as much as 20 feet ·of earth fill, housed
electronic equipment which was part of the communications link between the mobile lsuncher and the
launch control center. Similar enclosures housed a terminal connection room, an environmental
control systems room, a high pressure gas storage room and an emergency egress room. Located
near the perimeter of the pads were kerosene, liquid oxygen, and liquid hydrogen storage facil-
ities, and a remote air intake facility. Holding ponds for retention of fuel spill and waste
water and a burn pond for disposal of hydrogen gas boiloff were also located within the launch
site area.

A flame trench partially bisected each pad. Prior to launch a 700-ton wedge-shaped flame
deflector, was moved by rsil into the flame trench and positioned directly beneath the space ve-
hicle so that it would deflect the flames and channel the exhaust along the flame trench. To
dissipate flames and minimize daaage to the pad, a water deluge system was available which could
pump 40 000 gallons of water a minute into the flame trench.

10.2.2.4 Mobile service structure.- The mobile service structure (fig. 10-9) was a steel
trussed tower that was positioned adjacent to the space vehicle on the launch pad to provide ac-
cess for connecting certain ordnance items, performing checkout functions, servicing spacecraft
systems. and fueling the spacecraft. The structure had five work platforms which closed around
the space vehicle. Two platforms were self-powered for positioning at the desired levels; the
remaining three could be repositioned but were not self-powered. Two elevators provided access
to the work platforms. Located in the base portion of the structure were a mechanical equipment
room, an operations support room. and areas for equipment storage. The structure weighed
10 500 000 pounds and was 410 feet in height.

10.2.2.5 Transporter.- Two transporter units were manufactured to move the mobile launchers
and the mobile service structures. First, a transporter moved a mobile launcher into the vehicle
assembly building. On completion of vehicle assembly, a transporter was again used to move the
mobile launcher and vehicle (a load of more than 11 million pounds) approximately 3 1/2 miles
over a specially constructed crawlerway to one of the launch sites (fig. 10-7). During the trip,
the load was maintained within 10 minutes of arc from vertical, even while the transporter
 lo-U

Figure 10-7. - Mohile launcher and space vehicle being transported to launch pad.
 ~
Ii;
Envlronmenlal
control system Terminal
connection
room

-
High-pressure gas storage battery

Kerosene ltench
Data-II nk lunnel

Fresh air supply

from remote air Intake
building

Figure 10-8.- Cutaway view of Pad A, Launch Complex 39.

10-13
10-14

climbed a 5 percent grade to the launch pad. In order to accomplish this, the transporter was
equipped with both automatic snd manual leveling devices. After depositing the mobile launcher
and space vehicle on the pad, the transporter moved the mobile service structure from Its park-
ing area to the launch pad. Finally, the transporter returned the service structure to the park-
ing area before launch.

The transporter was 131 feet long, 114 feet wide, and weighed 6 million pounds. It had a
load capacity of 12 million pounds and, when loaded, had a maximum speed of 1 mile per hour.
The vehicle moved on four double-tracked crawlers, each 10 feet high snd 40 feet long. Each
shoe on a crawler track weighed approximately 2000 pounds.

Motive power was provided by two l750-horsepower deisel engines that drove four IOOO-kilowatt
generators. The generators. in turn, powered 16 traction motors. Power for steering, ventila-
tion and electrical systems was provided by two 1065-horsepower deisel engines that drive two
750-kilowstt generators. The smaller engines also powered a hydraulic jacking system that raised
and lowered the load.

10.2.2.6 Launch control center.- Final countdown and launch were controlled from a four-
story building located just east of the vehicle assembly building. The launch control center was
also used in conducting many of the checkout and test operations required during space vehicle
assembly. Facilities for various service and support functions are located on the ground floor.
The second floor contains telemetry, radio, tracking, instrumentation, data reduction and evalu-
ation equipment. The third floor has four firing rooms which contain monitors and control con-
soles. One of these rooms is shown in figure 10-10. The fourth floor has projection screens
for display of launch site information and conference rooms.

10.2.3 Vehicle Checkout Operations

Prelaunch checkout of the Apollo spacecraft and launch vehicles at the Kennedy Space Center
underwent a number of variations from the relatively simple flow of operations for the boiler-
plate flights to the more complex flow for the sophisticated J-missions. The following descrip-
tion applies to the final missions. The flows for the launch vehicle, the lunar module, and the
command and service module are described separately up to the point where the vehicles were mated
and moved to the launch pad. The description of the launch pad operations pertains to the en-
tire stack.

10.2.3.1 Launch vehicle.- The initial assembly and checkout activities of. the launch ve-
hicle were accomplished in two major areas of the vehicle assenbly building, the high bay area
and the low bay area. The low bay area activities included receipt and inspection of the S-II
stage, S-IVB stage and the instrument unit, and the assembly· and checkout of the S-Il and S-IVB
stages. An insulation leak check, J-2 engine leak check and propellant level probe electrical
checks were performed on the S-II stage. A fuel tank inspection, engine leak test, hydraulic
systems test, and propellant level sensor electrical checks were made on the S-IVB stage.

In the high bay area. the S-IC stage was positioned and secured to the mobile launcher, ac-
cess platforms were installed and umbilicals were secured. Electrical continuity checks were
then made followed by pneumatic, fuel, and engine leak checks, and instrumentation and range
safety system checks. The S-II stage was then mated to the S-IC stage, and the S-IVB stage and
instrument unit were added. As each stage was mated, electrical continuity and system tests
were performed. Following completion of the stage systems tests, launch vehicle integrated tests
were accomplished. Vehicle separation, flight commands, sequence malfunction. and emergency de-
tection system checks were made. The spacecraft was then mated and the space vehicle was ready
to move to the launch pad.

10.2.3.2 Lunar module.- The lunar module was received at the Kennedy Space Center in two
major subassemblies, the ascent stage and the descent stage. The stages were inspected for dam-
age on arrival. In parallel, the landing gear, explosive devices, batteries, rendezvous radar,
and aDort sensor assembly were received and inspected. The rendezvous radar was then sent to
the radio-frequency test facility for checkout, and the abort sensor assembly was sent to the
stability and control laboratory for calibration.
10-15

.
....o,
....o
~
50
ii:
10-16

The ascent stage was positioned on the ascent stage work stand and. similarly, the descent
stage was positioned on the descent stage work stand. Propulsion and reaction control system
gss leak and functional tests were then performad on the two stages. Upon completion of these
tests, the descent stage was placed in the altitude chamber and the ascent stage underwent an
S-band ateerable antenna functional test. The ascent stage was then inverted for a mechanical
docking test conducted in conjunction with the command and service module. The ascent and de-
scent stages were then mated in the altitude chamber in preparation for combined systems tests
at sea-level pressure and altitude tests. FollOWing combined systems tests, the abort sensor
assembly was installed in the spacecraft, after which crew provisions stowage checks were con-
ducted on both the ascent and descent stages. Environmental control system functional tests
were then performed at sea-level pressure, the gaseous oxygen and water management system tanks
were serviced, and systems to be operated during the altitude tests were verified.

A simulated altitude test run was conducted with a fully stowed cabin using both the prime
and backup crews. An unmanned altitude test (run 1) was conducted to verify cabin integrity and
environmental control system functions. Two manned altitude tests (runs 2 and J) were then con-
d~cted with the prime and backup crews. After altitude chamber deservicing, an additional cham-
ber run (run 4) was made for systems drying. Following the altitude tests, all descent stage
crew provisions, the lunar roving vehicle, and experiment items were stowed and deployed by the
flight crew. The lunar roving vehicle was then installed for flight and the lunar module was
moved to the landing gear fixture for landing gear installation and testing. The mated lunar
module with the landing gear retracted ~as then installed in the lower section of the spacecraft/
lunar module adapter.

10.2.3.3 Command and service module.- The command and service module was received at KSC
in four major subassemblies: the launch escape system, the spacecraft/lunar module adapter, the
serVice module, and the command module. The subasse~blies underwent the follOWing operations:

a. Launch escape system. The launch escape system components were inspected and taken to
the pyrotechnics installation building for assembly, weight and balance measurements, and thrust
vector alignment. The subassembly was then transferred to the vehicle assembly building and
mated to the command module just prior to moving the space vehicle to the launch pad.

b. Spacecraft/lunar module adapter. The ~dapter was inspected and delivered to the opera-
tions and checkout building integrated test stand where the upper section of the,adapter was re-
moved in preparation for installation of the lunar module. After the installation of the landing
gear (sec. 10.2.3.2), the lunar module was installed in the lower section of the adapter and
alignment was optically verified. The upper section of the adapter was then reinstalled and in-
terior work platforms we're added for later operations.

c. Command and service modules. Upon delivery of the command and service modules to the
operations and checkout building, the command module heat shield was inspected, and the two
spacecraft modules were moved to the altitude chamber and mated. A receiving inspection and
side hatch functional test were then performed, umbilical buildup was accomplished, the environ-
mental control system was connected and checked for leaks, and the command and service modules
were electrically mated. A cabin leak test was conducted followed by alignment of the crew op-
tical alignment sight and the lunar module active docking target. The lunar module ascent stage
was then inverted over the top of the mated command and service modules (sec. 10.2.3.2) and s
mechanical docking test was performed. This was followed by a leak test and functional test of
the scientific instrument module door thruster system. The scientific experiments were then
installed and a combined systems test was performed during which the experiments were function-
ally verified and selected spacecraft interfaces and syst'elils were checked out.

A simulated altitude test was performed in preparation for manned altitude testing. The
command and service modules were then serviced and an unmanned and two manned altitude tests
were performed (one with the prime crew and one with the backup crew). Operations following the
manned altitude testing included transferring inertial measurement unit power to ground support
equipment, draining and drying the environmental control system water system, performing an open-
loop communications test, performing a service propulsion system ball valve leak test, removing
stowed equipment, performing a post-egress inspection, and powering down the spacecraft. The
mated command and service modules were then transferred to a work stand for installation and leak
check of the service propulsion system engine nozzle extension, and installation and checkout of
the high gain antenna. After antenna checkout, the command and service modules were moved to
 10-17

the integrated test stand and mated to the spacecraft/lunar module adapter. Ordnance items (ex-
cept for detonators) were then installed. Upon completion of the ordnance installation, the
work platforms were removed and the assembled spacecraft was transferred to the vehicle assembly
building. While at the vehicle assembly building. the spacecraft was mechanically mated to the
launch vehicle and the launch escape system and hard boost protective cover were installed. The
complete space vehicle and mobile launcher were then transported to the launch pad.

10.2.3.4 Launch pad operatlons.- Upon arrival of the space vehicle snd mobile launcher at
the launch pad, the mobile service structure was positioned adjacent to the space vehicle, ground
support equipment was connected, and the white rool!l was positioned around the command module.
An integrated systems test was performed using a launch vehicle simulator to validate command
and aervice module systems and verify ground support equipment interfaces. In parallel, a com-
bined systems test was performed on the lunar module to functionally verify the electronic sys-
tems. and leak and functional tests of the gas subsystems were accomplished. Following these
tests, a systems interface test was performed to verify the electrical interface between the com-
mand and service module and the lunar module. The spacecraft was then electrically mated to the
launch vehicle and two space vehicle overall tests were performed. A "plugs out" test was made
to verify radio frequency, ordnance. pressurization. propulsion, guidance and control, propel-
lant, and emergency detection systems. A "plugs in" test was performed to verify proper opera-
tion of all systems during an automatic firing and flight sequences.

A flight readiness test with simulated aborts and normal mission sequences was performed
followed by crew emergency egress practice and a cabin leak test. A test was then conducted to
verify hypergolic propellant systems readiness, and hypergolics were loaded in preparation for a
countdown demonstration test. The countdown demonstration test verified that the space vehicle
and the ground support equipment were in launch status. The test was performed in two stages.
wet and dry. In the wet portion of the test, the launch vehicle propellants were on board, the
spacecraft was unmanned. and the vehicle was counted down to T minus zero. After recycling the
space vehicle to a dry condition (propellants drained), the last hours of countdown were simu-
lated with the crew on board.

Following the countdown demonstration test, preparations were started for the actual count-
down. The countdown began approKimately 4 days before the launch readiness day. and the final
space vehicle checkout and servicing operations were performed. The final phase of the count-
down started approximately 9 hours prior to lift-off. During the final phase, the cryogenics
were loaded, conditioned, and pressurized; final checks were made on all systems; the propulsion
systems were serviced and prepared for launch; and the crew manned the command module. Auto-
matic sequencing started at T minus 187 seconds. The S-IC stage ignition command was given at
T minus 8.9 seconds and, at T minus zero. the launch commit was given which caused the holddown
arms to retract hydraulically. The holddown arms restrained the launch vehicle until a satis-
factoty thrust level was achieved, after which the controlled release assemblies provided for
gradual release of the vehicle during lift-off.
10-18
 ll-l

11.0 LUNAR RECEIVING LABORATORY

11.1 INTRODUCTION

The Lunar Receiving Laboratory was originally conceived and constructed to provide rigid
quarantine conditions for members of the Apollo flight crews, Apollo command modules, and re-
turned lunar samples. The facility was operated in this capacity for the Apollo II, 12, and 14
missions. Although the quarantine requirement was subsequently relaxed, the facility continued
to operate in full aupport of the returned sample program. This effort, which formed the bulk
of the laboratory activities, involved the processing, examination. preliminary analysis, and
distribution of lunar material. The laboratory was occupied in 1967 and was certified as ready
for quarantine support in June 1969. In the following month, the Lunar Receiving Laboratory
commenced operations in support of the Apollo 11 mission.

11.2 ORIGINAL CONCEPT

A special subcommittee of the Space Sciences Board, National Academy of Sciences, was con-
vened in 1964 to consider the potential ramifications of working with material, personnel, and
equipment returned from the lunar surface. The subcommittee recommended that a facility be con-
structed for the following purpoaea:

a. Quarantining returning Apollo crewmembers, equipment, and lunar samples for a specified
period

b. Conducting specific biomedical evaluations of lunar samples while isolated to determine

whether any lunar sample contained hazardously replicating micro-organis~s

c. Conducting time-critical physical science investigations of lunar samples while isolated

during the quarantine period

d. Controlling, processing, and preparing lunar samples and distributing samples to desig-
nated principal investigators for scientific analysis

e. Providing a repository and curatorial facility for all retained lunar samples

The Lunar Receiving Laboratory was designed and constructed in response to this recommendation.

11.3 FACILITIES

The Lunar Receiving Laboratory was designed to provide the functional areas illustrated in
figure 11-1. The administrative snd nonisolated support areas were separated from the isolated
operations areas by a biological barrier that was activated during specified quarantine periods.
Each operationsl unit behind this barrier, as shown in the figure, represented a unique part of
the facility.

11.3.1 Crew Reception Area

The returning crewmen who had been exposed to lunar material and also to potentially haz-
ardous lunar biological elements were quarantined for a period of approximately 21 days, begin-
ning at departure from the moon. The crew reception area not only prOVided the facilities for
sustenance and comfort of the flight crews and support personnel during the quarantine period,
but also provided the capability to house other personnel who might have become exposed to haz-
ardous biological elements in the sample laboratory. The area contained complete living facil-
ities, a recreational area, a medical facility, and an isolated interview room. This entire
system was separated from other areas of the laboratory complex and the ambient environment by
primary and secondary biological barriers. Since the interior of the command module could also
have been contaminated, the spacecraft was sealed and store4 in the crew reception area for the
duration of the quarantine period.
 ........
,
N

Radiation counting
laboratory (partly
underground)
Sample operations area

Administration and
support area
BiOlOgical barriers

Figure 11-1.- Lunar Receiving Laboratory functional areas.

 11-3

11.3.2 Sample Operations Area

The lunar sample containers were opened and sample examinations were conducted behind a tvo-
way biological barrier system composed of gas-tight glove cabinets and vacuum chambers. This
handling and containment system was unique in that conventional containment units are designed
to prevent contamination in only one direction. The two-way system was designed to protect lab-
oratory 8clQntists and tQchnicians from contact with lunar material while protecting the D3mplcs
from terrestrial contamination.

The immediate operations performed on returned lunar samples in the sample operations area
included sterilization of the exterior of sample containers. opening and unpacking of the con-
tainers in a near vacuum, sampling of effluent gases, visual examination and photography of the
samples, division of samples, and preparation of portions of the samples for detailed physical-
chemical and biological examinations. The requirement for a vacuum system was later withdrawn,
after which a dry nitrogen syatem wss used.

The physical-chemical examination included tests for reactions with atmospheric gases and
water vapor, and preliminary examination of the mineralogy, petrography, and chemistry of the
lunar aamples. Examinations of this kind and of a biological nature were performed in greater
detail by other laboratories after the quarantine period.

Lunar samples were used for the following kinds of biological examinations: aerobic and an-
aerobic culturing; inoculation of plants, eggs, tissue cultures, invertebrates, and vertebrates
(normal and germ free); and biochemical analysis.

11.3.3 Radiation Counting Laboratory

A radiation counting laboratory (fig. 11-2) was included in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory
because some of the induced radioactivity of lunar samples would decay in less time than the
quarantine period.

11.3.4 Thin Section Laboratory

A thin sectiorl laboratory was included in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory to facilitate pro-
duction of petrographic thin sections of lunar soil and rock fragments. This provided the capa-
bility to study in detail the crystal structures of many samples in a timely manner.

11.4 OPERATIONS

11.4.1 Preliminary Processing and Examination

Closely guarded quarantine control procedurea were used for the preliminary processing and
examination of the lunar material returned during the Apollo II, 12, and 14 missions. Figure
11-3 illustrates lunar sample processing for these missions. Included are operations that were
accomplished under quarantine conditions and the investigations that came after quarantine was
lifted. Quarantine was not required for the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions because examination
of samples during the early missions had shown a complete absence of pathogenic substances.

The sample laboratory and the vacuum laboratory, located in the sample operations area,
were the primary locations for initial sample processing. The vacuum system was used only dur-
ing the processing of the Apollo 11 snd 12 samples. After Apollo 14, the samples were initially
processed in two sterilized cabinet systems. The vacuum system and, later, the other cabinet
system served primarily as a receiving point from which the lunar samples were distributed to
other portions of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory and eventually to the scientific community.
All of the initial processing occurred in the same two cabinet systems on Apollo missions 15,
16 and 17 without sterilization of the cabinets.
11-4

1Il(~, :'-
..
.J. i

. ----"

Gamma~ay detector
" InSlrumentation - ......
J

Counting room [
Control room
Argon counler
I I Dunile
Elevator

Airlock I
tJ)
Concrete

Figure 11-2. - Radiation counting laboratory.

 • •

Receipt and external Container opening, Preliminary examination and sample storage Decisions and preparalions Outside
decontamination of sample examination, for distribution research
sample containers and sample division
Quarantine tests
• Observation for
----- ..
micro~organisms

• Virology
• Bacteriology
Data for
release
decision
~,
• Invertebrates and
lower vertebrates
Residue 5 I
.............
, I
I
Glove thamber
operated in I • Mammals
• Botany
from tests
I
I
Sample preparation
Receipt of
lunar sample
• Bulk sample
vacuum

"
Glove chamber
II ,,
t Vacuum packaging
• aclCagUlg
m Principal
operated in Sample nitrOllen
• Documented storage Early Investigators
nitrogen packagi jt'etrographi

,,,J
sample
,," Physical scierlCes testi
;"
nitrogllfl
hin
section
Class m

,,,
Separated
ablnet operated
in nitrogen
-Visual and microscopic
examination
• Petrography and
Residue
from tests
5 I minerals

Mineralogy

... Data ,for

I-!
-- -- -- --
• X-uy diffraction and
Contingency Fluorescence ~----- sample
sample distrib-
• Physical properties
tote box utlon

~
• Chemical properties
- - . .Inorganicga"sanarysis
• Organic gas analysis
• Radioactivity
• Magnetic properties
• ~gnetic monopoles
• Spectroscopy

Quarantine period

Lunar Receiving Laboratory operations

.
,
t::::
~igure 11-3.- Lunar sample flow diagram.
'"
11-6

The processing which occurred in these systems included:

a. Unpacking samples from the return containers

b. Weighing

c. Photography (orthogonal and stereoscopic)

d. Sieving fines

e. Dusting rocks
f. Microscopic examination

g. Modeling (rocks)

h. Determining lunar orientation

i. Initial allocation, including some chipping.

When the quarantine requirements were discontinued after Apollo 14, the complexity of lab-
oratory operations decreased considerably. Although no lunar-derived biological contaminants
had been found, certain tests were continued as a safeguard. All subsequent sample processing
operations were conducted in nitrogen cabinetry instead of the vacuum system since only the ex-
posure of the lunar material to terrestrial contaminants was of primary interest.

11.4.2 Sample Processing

Although lunar samples were cataloged, photographed, and described in the preliminary opera-
tions phase, such activity was only the beginning of the scientific work. A portion of the sam-
ples from each mission was selected by a Lunar Sample Analysis Planning Team composed of eminent
members of the scientific community. This team transmitted an allocation plan to the lunar sam-
ple curator, who then implemented the sectioning and packaging of samples. To illustrate the
work required, reference is made to sample 12021, which is sample 21 from Apollo 12. Figure
11-4 shows sample 12021 on the slab saw in the beginning stages of sectioning. Before this op-
eration, a detailed cutting plan was prepared with reference to specified allocation requirements.
The cutting plan began with the inatruction, "Separate from large end, by chipping, all pieces
which can be removed by taking advantage of the numerous existing fractures ••. make the initial
cut with a circular saw Buch that the thickness of the resulting slice is about 1.5 centimeters."
Figure 11-5 illustrates the two "daughter" samples produced. Figure 11-6 illustrates the pre-
cise documentation detail which follows the sectioning of a lunar rock. Such draWings, together
with laboratory test results, formed data packages that were individually prepared for the sam-
ples distributed to selected scientists. These principal investigstors were allocated the mini-
mum amount of sample consistent with their intended research, and the detailed drawings were nec-
essary to identify precisely the particular portion of rock allocated for their study.

A Preliminary Examination Team, consisting of between 20 and 40 scientists, was assigned

the responsibility of describing the returned lunar samples. The team was made up of NASA sci-
entists and visitors who represented the scientific community. The visitors represented both
universities and agencies. The descriptions of the samples are documented in reports published
in the periodical Science, in the Preliminary Science Reports (NASA SP series), and in an infor-
msl publication of the lunar sample curator's office.

11.4.3 Gas Analysis

The functions of the gas analysis laboratory, located in the sample operations area, are
broadly grouped into mission-support and mission-related activities. Figure 11-7 is a schematic
representation of this laboratory as it existed during the Apollo program.
11-7

•
g'
.-I:
o
'"~
V>

.-g'o
.,f:'
-g
...."
N
o
....
N

..0-
E

j
..V>
~

I:

•
<t
........
I

~
.-"
'"
u.
11-8

Figure 11-5.- Plan for cutting luna r sample 12021.

 1l.-9

49,50,51,56 through 62,108 and 121

came from here; remainder of 36 was
homogenized to become 63 and 123
128 112 118
129 113 119
~~~

A4' P.l' 46 54
and the rest of
109 came from 54
this areal--- " ~-53-'
108 came from , 1(--12
here or here /~ 11 ~~"""'I08 I? I
./ I 154 l09.~·
... 126 1 I ,:8
127 I 52~'

_ ~-
~_/
..... / "
III
.....117
-.-

112~tl:
J
15%: o.j;.~ 5
'/"1
1l8~"'(! i I I 07
4 4
...} F P' : J'C'ol4
,r43~' 41,42, and the rest of • "0
48, I ~ 43 came from this I
\ ", ~/ area 15119'70 o
,/ ?~---' 11,12

,. ~'" :r::::.:._~/-;;~,-f>."
JOY
~
Ia; ,
Note: I
104 ~11 Exploded view is at a Bottom
103
\.I difJer!:nt scale than
this diagram

1111 I 121 0
74
I ~06:,~-,~ ~ 107 Pieces 65 through
115 120
. / x., .. 105 75, 1111 through 107,
114,115,120,121,
~~::'."I~'~ReViSl0n , A' -
103 130, and IJl
2, 6112/70
131
130 ~ ~~_& ~ ~ -121
_ ,,--
I,,"" 115
came from
" 52
Slce.
IJl
E
u
~
',.- _
:i;;....r..~ %
1 130
75 E
u l";"r . '>, I -75
131
(revision 2)
o
.,:f
E,VU;
'-' ,.. .~f
,•
. . /, 66

~
Eil~E 76
0.. 351·-
_," 65
oJ u
~

5,.....j Top of rock

~

ci Slice 82, 52 before cut

Figure 11-6. - Documentation of slice B, lunar sample 12021, after cutting.

 "'"'
I

Wat Rad·
"'
o

\ I
:" .... '..............

WAutomatic voltage
Spec-
regulator

trometer Turbomolecular
console pump I
Mass Mass
spec- Mass spectrometer ~
trometer spec- L.r
trometer Gas U
extraction
~Video display system
Vacuum pump Tel;type
system plotter B
Spectrometer
console
'-- Furnace
I
n
I I
Control
Computer console
unit

- I .....
0

Gas calibration \...- Argon system

system

Figure 11-7.- Gas analysis laboratory floor plan.

 11-11

Hission-support activitle. vere those operations carried out during the prel~nary examin-
ation phase of the progralll and included:

8. Organic cone_inatioo llIOoitoring

b. Inorganic trace-gas contamination lIIOoltorlng

o. Prel1Dinary analyses of organic materials in lunar siU:lplea

d. Pre11lllinary aoalyses of total carbon content of lunar samples

e. Analyses of trace gases and radioactive gases in sealed-sample container.

f. Preliminary analyaes of noble gases In lunar samples

g. Detet1ll1natlon of radioactive gases in lunar samples in conjunction with radiation count-

ing activities

11.4.4 Radiation Counting

The radiation counting laboratory was used to measure the emitted radiation from lunar sa.-
plea through gamma-ray apectrollletry. This facility provided the Lunar Receiving Laboratory with
the capability to perform nondestructive analysis of lunar samples during the quarantine period
and before the short-lived nuclides could aignificantly decay. The luna.r s_plea selected for
radiation counting were packaged in stainless steel vacuum-tight containers. Several saaples
that weighed between 200 and 2000 grams were counted in thia laboratory during the prelilllinary
exall1nation. The s&lllpies selected for analyaia were purposely varied ao that all, or lIIOst, geo-
logical types were represented.

11.4.5 Biological Testing

Portions of the returned lunar samples were distributed to the biological test laboratories
located in the sample operations area. The personnel in these laborstories, under quarantine
conditions and uaing extenaive test procedures, determined vhether the returned samples contained
detr~ental alien life-forms. All biological teating was performed within apecial biological
cabinetry designed to contain extremely hazardous pathogenic material. The Lunar Receiving Lab-
oratory is the only facility in the world capable of handling a large variety of plant and animal
teat aubjecta under such containment conditions. Details of the biological tests conducted dur-
ing the progrsm are given in section 8.7.

11.5 AFTER APOLLO

The Lunar Receiving Laboratory was closed to lunar sample handling when the Apollo 17 pre-
l~inary examination phase was concluded. Only a small portion of the material returned from
each lunar landing adssion was allocated for research. Host of the lunar material is being con-
served intact, under nitrogen storage conditions, for future studies when scientific measurement
technology is expected to far surpass present capabilities. All sample distribution, storage,
and. packaging activities have been transferred to the office of the lunar sample curator. Al-
though priorities change with science and technology, the Lunar Receiving Laboratory will reaain
in hiatory as the first facility designed solely for the containment of extraterreatrial material.
11-12
 A-l

APPENDIX A - APOLLO FLIGHT DATA

A-2

' ....LI A-I.- 1IN'IoI.to'llED SIlTlllll t.WIlCH VDIICLE A/Io'l) AI'OLLO UACIClArT DEYUOPKEIlT n.l\OllTS

~. ....told. e.... U!l"u.IOB

_'U
-
IU. .1..., ",. ~,.
TI:M. e.•.•.. ~. ••lIld. ,,",71_ MdHl.....1 dan
(0' Il,'''''': ••
"-, oet. .,
"-"",,,II ..../ltel. _ 1 -
0 _•• , -..dll ••1
~ U. 1.961 U:OO:06
...............
500 ...... I vi,..
J\IfIlter _ c_
"-1 Vell1cl• •dltc_ oIt n .....
&Ii.6 .1.1.••• 0Il ....." of
206 .n..

"-, ~d._tcl.
0 _ _ , .....rbHu.
u-.a. ~ ....t. 23. 1962 ll:00:lIi Soot ...... I "Ub " ' - " 11 900 .. U_ of
..._ at. . . _
"otn ror 'rojaet
11<0.0. ,,"" .... 1.........
. . . . . . t duo..... of 'S.2
"' .......
J",tUt _ C_ Iitl-.u. 1 • .11. . dut 161.6 ...oN.
of nip.
~, t....,,, .....lc1e .....1- ~ Ibo. 16, 1962 l1:U:Ol SOO ...... I vi,.. "'_, 11 900 . .U _ of
Meood ..... _
11.00. . <_,.1IM . . . . . ~,-
_ c , ._riolt"t ...... for PrOIK' u" at alUWol. of 103.1
J\lflttu _ c_ .lthw.... 1. ..n"••ft .. 192 ...-..1. of
fU....

..-. " - I I _lela __ 1_

0 _ ' .......1>1..1
~ Ilo.t. 28. 1963 2O:I1:S5 sa...... I vicll - , .
.. ~ a.... _
.1",lu< _ _

"-, u"",,10 .....1c1. . . . .1- no J .... n. 1964 16,23:01 S....... I .I.H"...... . . - n.". Sat..... I law.'" ......
a'''.
_.
0_" .. nil onUal ....UiDlo, . - Id.t. vit..ll 11..... <:oM
".Uut to .1-.lU.
",.,110 8P..,acnh

A-IOI L.oUlltl> .....tcl• ...t

.....,acnh ••• al..,...
". llay 18. 1964 11:01:00 sat,,", I (SA-6) 1011.11'1••• t-.do Spacacuft aad I-IY ......
."" urvlee -o<Iul•• 'laiU••uted ...rtq _.tl'
... t. unl> ."Iul "".p''' • •04 1."",,10 lato ...nlo .'_p"'n .... r
(;~).y .... PacUlc 0<-. . . ' .. rtas S4th
u,""I.. U ....

A-IO: t.ouoch _tel......

....ucuh ......1..,...
". .... II. 1964 16,ZZ:U sat".n I (SA-1) Iolhl1'l••• c _
."" •• rvtt. _ul••
Sp.t.tuft I-rv .....
.1&la.......<1 e1u.iD.... ny
"" ....nb o.bltal .... p.... I.""
.........y....
IaUlltl>
I""lan 0.._
Into ....." ......plla .........
d".tas )"h
(ar-u) r .....lu.I""
01.-103 IUcr_taonold . _
P".laoOnt •••••h or-
bltal
m r.b.
". "" U:3/:03 s...".... 1 (1"-') IoU"plau t ~ I..HI.I ~opo .. tl..... l~ 1.""c"
• "" ..... t •• _"I•• ".blel. la sa,,, ... I .. rl•••
.d.p. . . . ."" b ..... b sa..lU ...... t-...dec! off
....p• •y.... " ....... 2'. 1968
(.P-16) • h ...". "
.... UIt • •...,loaec!
by ..... t •• "'d"h
"n.1l orb lui tn-
.... 10..

"'-10lI "t • . -••orotd . _ ,,, lIay 25. 1965 01:35:01 Iu".n 1 (SA-B) 101hrplU.
,-'" 5...111 ...... c_n.ad .u
""rill.nt a'" apac.- &n' ..... Ic. ",'ul ••
ad.p . . . .nel lun.h
........" 29. 1%8
••• ft ..... lopMnt,
.. rtl> orbital ..c.... • y••••
(1P_26) • Po...... I
NulU ......10N'
by .....1•• -0<1,,1.

..........
unUl ...bHd In-

"-IDS Il1c.- .....ol. u- no J"ly :10, 1965 13:00:00 sa.urn I (SI.-IO) Iolla.pla•• co_... ...o1U.. v" c.-o..... of{
"".l_t, . .rth 0'_ .......... leo _ul•• .......... t :9, 1968..... '1011>-
blUl .4ap......... lau""I> ............. iD.....r, tntO
...."" .,.t. . N ..II I.,_pllar• .w..... 01. •
(IP_9A) • , ....... C 1969
....lIlU ....1......
by ..... I. . . . . .1a
"DtU orbhal 10-
...Uoo
 TABLE A-II.- UNMANlJED APOLLO SPACECRAFT ABORT TESTS a

Launch Vehicle confisuration Trajectory data

Mhdon FHaht duration,
T",. Time. G.IlI.t., Altitude. Ranie , hr:minaec
Do" hr:a.in:sec Launch vehicle Spececntc
ft, lII.a.l.
PA-l Fad abort telt Nov. 7, 1963 16:00:01 Boilerplate co=nand 9 270
"
8 220 00:02:45.1
module and launch
..cape .yltelll
(BP-6)
A~Ol Hiah-dynalllic pre.- May 13, 1964 13:00:00 Little Joe U Boilerpl.te command 29 772 22 400 00:0.5:50.3
eun (tran.onic) (12-50-2) and .ervica module,
abort tut and launch e.cape
.yatem (BP-12)

A-002 bKaximum_dynamic_ Dec. 8, 1964 15:00:00 Little Joe 11 Boilerplate command .50 360 32 800 00:07:23.4
prea.ure abort test (12-51-1) and service module,
and l.unch esc'pe
.y.tem (1IP-23)

A-003 cHiah_altitude abort May 19, 1965 13:01:04 Little Joe 11 Boilerpl.te command 19800 18 200 00:0.5:02.8
tut (12-51-2) and .ervice module,
and launch e.cape
.yste. (BP-22)
PA-2 Pad abort tut June 29, 1965 13:00:01 Boilerplate coraand 9 258 7 620 00:01:52.6
module and launch e.
cape aystem (BP-23A)

'-004 Power-on tUlllblina

.bort reat
Jan. 20, 1966 15:17:01 Little Joe 11
(12-51-3)
Hodified Block I
co_nd and ••rvice
78 180 113 624 00:06:.50.0

module and launch a.

cape ey.telll (SC-002)

aAll tlisht. were .uborbital end were launched fr~ Complex 36 of the ~te Sands Hia.i1e Ranse. New Mexico. The launch .ite
altitude wa••pproximately 4000 ft above mean sea level.
bCanard. u.ed for fir.t time to orient and stabilize launch escape vehicle.
CLaunch vehicle failed atructurslly prior to achieving desired altitude of 120 000 feet above m.an .e. lev.l. Low-.ltitude .bort
initi.ted .t 12 400 feet.
dTumblini of launch escape vehicle and automatic abort were initiated by pitcl~up maneuver of launch vehicle at altitude of approx-
imately 60 000 feet above mean .ea level.
,
>-
'"
 TABLE A-III.- U1R1ANIlED APOLLO! SATURU FLIGHTS
,
".
~

Launch Vehicle configuration

Typo Flight duration,
Mission Time, G.m.t., hr:min:sec
(.) Site Complex Date Launch vehicle Spacecraft
hr:min:sec

bAS_20l Spacecraft and launch A.F. Eastern 34 Feb. 26, 1966 16:12:01 Saturn IB Modified Block I com- 00:37:19.7
vehicle development, Test Range (SA-20l) mand and service mod-
suborbital ule, adapter and
launch escape system
(SC-009)

AS-203 Launch vehicle devel- AS. Eastern 37B July 5, 1966 14:53:17 Saturn IB with (0)
opment, earth or- Test Range nose cone
bital (SA-203)

AS-202 Spacecraft and launch A.F. Eastern 34 Aug. 25, 1966 17:55:32 Saturn IB Block I command snd 01:33:02
vehicle development, Test Range (SA-202) service 1lIOdule,
suborbital adapter, and launch
escape system
(SC-Oll)

dApollo A Kennedy 39A Nov. 'I, 1961 12:00:01 Saturn V Block I command and 08:37:09.2
4 Space Center (SA-SOl) service 1lIOdule,
adapter, and launch
escape system
(SC-Oll), and lunar
module test article

eApollo , A.F. Eastern 3" Jan. 22, 1968 22:48:08 Saturn IB MOdified lunar module f01:52:10
5 Test Range (SA-204) (ut-l), adaprer, and
nose cone
Block I c01'MD8nd and
SApollo A Kennedy 39A Apr. 4, 1968 12:00:01 Saturn V service lIlIOdule. 09:57:19.9
4 Space Center (SA-502) adapter and launch
escape system (SC-020)
and lunar 1lIOdule test
article

~ission types A and B are defined in table B-1.

bInitisl flight of Saturn IB launch vehicle.
c S_ IVB stage destroyed after four revolutions.
dInitial flight of Saturn V launch vehicle. Spacecraft boosted to apogee of 9769 miles after two revolutions to simulate lunar-
return entry conditions.
eInitial flight of lunar 1lIOdule.
fFinal communication with ascent stage prior to i~act.
gS-IVB failed to restart at end of second revolution. Spacecraft propulsion used to achieve 12 020-mile apogee to simulate lunar-
return entry conditions.
 A-5

,>,.
(., ,,~
L.",,~h da.. V.Mel ..
11I.. !on 11_, C.". t •• Launch ,- PHSh. duntion.1
"..-ldo'.1t<:
, ,
'" Sit. C,n".,lu ~'" ",.,dn'... V<lhlel.
n...crlpHon
("
,
Apollo Prtaa,
Schlrra
A.l. E.....n
Too' RonS·
• M. H_
""
15,02,H Sauro
(SA_205)'" ",.
alock
and H '_M
. . .vl,. __ Apollo 260:09'0)
£l. . t. (C~lOl).
CunnlnJ~'" odop •• r, end lUl>Ch
!.atkop: "'epa eye...
Stafford

Apollo 8 ,-
Young
<:*,"'0
Prl... ,
~_.
Kennedy
S,..,. Cen... '"
_. U_ ,,,. H:51:00 Satu,n V
(SA-SOl)
8loek H «>_od
'M M.vlca _"Ie
Apollo
• 147:00:42

Lovell
...
&&.ko,,'
"" ... ..,
(CSK-10J), adapte.,
hunth . .cepe .yo-
'-. .... lunar 1104_
....... uon&
Aldrin
",. utleh

HalO..

Apollo
• " PrtlM'
IIeOlv!«
Scott
KIInnedy
Spet. Cenur '" ~,.
'- 1969 16:00:00 Saturn V
(SA-SOlI) ..,
Block H c05IIIl&nd CSH-<J-.lrop
..,<vlce .,dol. ut.Spid. .
(CSH_l04), lunar
241'00'54

Sthvde1ulr.
&lockup'
Conrad
-,
_dole (Uf-J) ,
edept . . ,
u.epe eyet . .
lunch

,,_
Cordon

Apollo
'"
, Prtaa:
Stafford
Young
Cern.n
J.ackup'
Kennedy
Space Centu '" ~,
'"- 1969 16:49:00 Saturn V
(SA-50S) ..,
Bln~~ n ~_nd
.uvlce .,dule
(CSH-l06). lun&<
.,dule (Ul-4).
edap.er, .nd l.unch
.-
CS*<:harl.y

ut_S"""py
19l:0),n

~~< esc.pa .y.t. .

!lui.
KI.chdl
, Prl.a,
"- ,%. 1):32,00 Blo<:~
Apollo
" A"....ong
Kennedy
Sp.ce C....tor '" July Saturn V
(SA_506) " c..-and
'M ocrvlce .,dul.
CSlH:olu.bl.
~_Eql.
195:18:35

Colltu
Aldrtn
!.c~up,
l,.ovdl
AMon
.dap.er , ...
(CSH-IOn. lunar
_ule (U1-S).

esc.pe .y. . . .
l.unch

~u.

Apollo 12 • Ptl.: Kennedy

'" ~.
"- 1969 16:22:00 Saturn V
..,
Block
" co-.and CSH·Y.nkoo 244:36:2S

..
~<.. Spao. Center (SA_SOn ocrvlce """uh C11pper
Gordon (CSIl--I08) , luner U1-lnuepld
"
J.ackup, adapeer. ..,
.,dule (Ul-6),
hunch
Scott ncapa eyot ••
I/ord.n
l""ln
d
Apollo
" • Pdne'

a~:~;t
11I.1..
Konnedy
Spac. C....tor '"
Apr. H_ 1970 19:13:00 Saturn V
(SA-508) ...
B10<:~ n c_nd CSH-ody. .ey
.......10. """ul• ~-Aqu"lua
(CSIl--I09) • lun. .
.,dul. (Ul-71.
142:$4:41

J.ao~up: adapter, and launoh

Young . .capa aya •••
KatUngly

Apolln .. •
~

lrae,
ShepaTd
Konnady
Spao. Coontor ." .... n_ 1971 1l:03:01 Saturn V
(5A-509)
!lod< n oo-.and
'M ......10. """ule
CSH-~Itty
..W
116,01,S&

11I>0. .
K1tcl>ell
kohp'
_ula (Ul-8) •
adape ••• ...
(CSIl--110) • lunar

launch
ut-AlIUt..

...,.
~-
~-
ncapo: ayat...

Apollo IS
• PrJ. .,
Scott
\lord....
Kon04ldy
Space Center
... July
"- an 13:)4:00 Soturn V
(SA_SiO) ...
Blo<'\: H oo-.and

,-,
.uvl~ • .,dul •
(CSH_I12) •
CSJoI-lnd. .vor
LH-Faloon
259:U:Sl

,,-
,~. """ula (Ul-10) ,
"okup, adapt.r and launch
Cordon . .capa ayat...

Sohattt
A-6

-
La>.u><b u •• V.Md..
111•• 1.00 ,.)
",. ,,~

(0)
Stto -,- ~u
f t . , C••••••
1>,:lO!o, .."
~_.

••lI.tdo
_ulpUoa
(,)
flip' duu.......
hr:od.. :scc

, ........ ,
.... -..,-

-_.
"polio 16 P'rt.o: ... .....r. 16, 1t72 U:S4:00 Sat..... , II"". II ~ u~:n:o)

'
"'t.~l,
s.-o e-tu (SA-SUl ...........tea_l.
(CSli-U)). 1 _ .
l.J'l.-O.t....
_.1. (lJt-l1),

...
.....k..,
~
.,1<_
..., ....... l.~
..cape

IlHu.ll
, ........
-,-.--....
......110 11 ,.t.o, ». n.c. 1. If" 05:JJ'OO Sa."", • 'locb II . - . . 4 ~.lu lOl:SI;S9
u_ $f>OoCo e.-.u (s&-U2) ........1•• _ ..1. ~
(CSI'-ll'). 1 _ . Clwoll_o,
$<_" _.1. (lJt-ll),
""ur, _1_10
' ...,opt .,..t_

~1 ..lu .,.,. f1_ lol .uto "'1.

· e . _ .r. II 1.0 ord•• of eo-od.t, e-ood _,,1. PUo., _ ~. _,,1. '!loc.
"s,.....u.t. _ .. 01,- fo. 1_.UlcaUoa lJo .adlo _ _ lu.I.....
"'1.001 ... eon'" ,.1.0. to . .",""..t.d 1...... 1. 11 .
.........., u _ _ '0'" ..-pl..,M , t t . c._ tUFt 2 ....,. "'"f.... 1......,11.,
 A-1

~o •
~
0 •• o
o
1•
.
o
••• ~
~"'!!
•, • ,
o

"

o
•o •.. · •.. ., "".........
" •
•
.... ....
'0
"' .......
r-
'oQ
~
o

... ~ it.
:::
•
•• "to
0
••
..... ....
..... .. ..
•••
:: 3 ~
;;.: :?
... <:....
::3!; :l
=.:::;
...

{!
.. .....
.0" "
i::Jlt:
•
:.

!
•·:•
o

: 0
~
•••
..... g
•
~~
" .
w •
-5, ~

1
.s•
, o
•
• w
~
~ o

'. •• 1
~ ,• ,• •, !
,•
•• •• •• •• Ji
~
~
>
~ ..;
•
g
>
•• ~
•
••
o

~ ~~: .:. ~ ~ • •
~ f--c.".t-'---=----...:.:..-----'-------'-----=------I

f~ aJ .•::: ·
•" ·"
i -
e
o
~
•g j
1
] •
·"
• ·•
•..; " ••• •
•
.l "" g
]
-,
>
••
:::
i •
o

..,.
H
,.
-
o
•
o ,.
~ ;o
".
__ w
00 o
••
o •
& ow
"" o 0 0

h
•
••
••
. !. !.
j
u 80
••

•-
•
!
:
i i< •i
<
A-8

TABLE A-VI.- MANNED ORBITAL OPERATIONS AND mFLIGHT EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY

Earth orbital
r"'1I'l'M.nd Jokldnle Pilot solo 01'".r .. t1008
extravehicular activity Lunar
Earth
Mission revolutions tevolutlons Transearth ext rave-
Crewmen Duration, Lunar
Pilot hicubr activity,
(0) hr:min revolutions
hnlllin:sec (b)

Apollo 7 163 - - - - - --
Apollo 6 "1 - - 10 - -- --
Apollo , 151 Scott e 1 : 01 - - - -
Schweickart 1:07

Apollo 10 "1 - - )l -- -- --
Apollo 11 "1 - -- 30 -- -- --
Apollo
"
"1 - - 45 - - --
Apollo 13 "1 -- - - - - --
Apollo ,. "1 - - 34 - - --
Apollo 15 "1 -- - 74 I«:Ir<.len 36 00:39:07

Apollo
" "1 -- -- 64 Mattingly 40 01:23:42

Apollo 17
" - - " Evans
" 01:05:44

Screwmen listed in order of Command Module Pilot and Lunar Hodule Pilot.
bExtravehicular activity time based upon times at which cabin pressure reached 3.0 psi during
depressurization and repressurization.
cTranslunar injection performed over Pacific Ocean before completion of second revolution.
dTranslunar injection performed over Atlantic Ocean.
eExtrsvehicular activity durations shown sre based upon times at which cabin pressure reached 3.0 psi
during depressurization snd repressurization. Durations based on other events are as follows.
(1) Hatch open to hatch closed: CKP - 47 min, LMP - lhrlmin.
(') Egress to ingress: LMl' - 47 min 3 see.
0) Arrive at and leave EVA station: LMl' - 37 min.
 TABLE A-VII.- RECOVERY DATA

Landing data
Distsnce from Time required for U.S.S.
Millsion
Date Time, C.m. t., Latitude Longitude COllll'land module uprighting, IIlin recovery ship
hr:lIlin:aec
Ocean
(.) (.) -,.i
target, mi.
flotation attitude

Unmanned Missions

AS-201 Feb. 26, 1966 16:49:20 Atlantic 8·11'S 1l009'W

'" Upright -- Boxer

AS-202 Aug. 25, 1966 lS:4S: 34 Pacific 16·07'N 168·54'£ "'200 Upright - Hornet

Apollo 4 Nov. 9, 1967 20:37:10 Pacific 30 006'N 172°32'''' 10.3 Upright - Bennington

Apollo 6 Apr. 4, 1968 21:57:21 PacifiC 27°40'N 157°55'W '36 (b) '2 Okinawa

Manned Missions

Apollo 7 Oct. 22, 1968 11:11:48 Atlantic 27°3S'N 64·09'11 1.' Inverted '12 Essex

Apollo 8 Dec. 27, 1968 15:51:42 Pacific 8°Q6'N 165°01'W 1.4 Inverted 6.0 Yorktown

Apollo 9 Mar. 13, 1969 17:00:53 Atlantic 23°13'N 67°59'Y 2.7 Upright -- Guadalcanal

Apollo 10 May 26, 1969 16:52:23 Pacific 15°04'S 164°39'W 1.3 Upright - Princeton

Apollo 11 Jui. 24, 1969 16:50:35 Pacific 13°18'N 169·09'W 1.7 Inverted 7.6 Hornet

Apollo 12 Nov. 24, 1969 20:5g:25 PacifiC 15°47'S 165·09'w 2.0 Inverted 4.' lIornet

Apollo 13 Apr. 17, 1970 18:07:41 Pacific 21°38'S 165°22'''' 1.0 Upright - Iwo Jima

Apollo 14 Feb. 9, 1971 21:05:00 Pacific 27·01' S 172°40'''' o. , Upright - New Orleans

Apollo lS Aug. 7, 1971 20:4S:S3 Pacific 26°0S'N lSS·08'w 1.0 Upright -- Okinawa

Apollo 16 Apr. 27, 1972 19:45:0S Pacific 0042'S 156°13'W 3.0 Inverted 4.' Ticonderoga

Apollo 17 Dec. 19, 1972 19:24:S9 Pacific 17°S3'S 166·07''01 1.0 Upright - Ticonderoga

a lhe coordinates shown are the best estimate of the actual command module landing point and may be based upon recovery ship position
data, command module computer data, or trajectory reconstruction.
b eommand module was upright when sighted; however, loss of VHF recovery beacon for a period of 2 minutes indicated that the command
module had probably beeu inverted prior to sighting.
CUprighting bag inflation was not initiated until approximately S minutes after landing.

",
\()
A-10
 B-1

APPENDIX B - APOLLO MISSION TYPE DESIGNATIONS

B-2

TABLE 8-1.- APOLLO MISSIOH TYPE DESIGHATIOllS

Mission Purpose
Type Trajectory
assignment

A Apollo 4 Earth orbital Launch vehicle and spacecraft development.

Apollo 6

B Apollo 5 Earth orbital Lunar module unmanned flight evaluation.

C Apollo 7 Earth orbital Command and service module manned flight

der.1Oustra tion.

C· Apollo 8 Lunar orbital Command and service module manned flight

demonstration.

D Apollo 9 Earth orbital Lunar module manned flight demonstration.

E - Earth orbital Lunar module manned flight demonstration,

augmenting mission type D objectives.

F Apollo 10 Lunar orbital Lunar module manned flight demonstration.

G Apollo 11 Lunar landing Manned lunar landing demonstration.

H Apollo 12 Lunar landing Precision manned lunar landing demonstra-

Apollo 13 tion and systematic lunar exploration.
Apollo 14

J Apollo 15 Lunar landing Extensive scientific investigation of

Apollo 16 moon on lunar surface and from lunar
Apollo 17 orbit.
 C-l

APPENDIX C - APOLLO SPACECRAFT WEIGHTS

 ,
(")

TABLE C-I.- APOllO SPACECRAYl' WEIGIITS a

(Unmanned Flighta) '"
Spacecraft/mission
Mission phase/assembly
CSM-002 CSM-009 CSM-Oll CSM-017/LTA-10R LH-l CSM-020/LTA-2R
A-004 AS-201 AS-202 Apollo 4 Apollo 5 Apollo 6
Spacecrsft at launch:

bCommand and service modules (0) 33 805 44 385 51 591 - 55 420

b
Lunar module or test article - - - 29 500 31 528 26 001
Spacecraft/lunar module adapter (0) 3 691 3 725 3 880 (d) 3 886
Launch escape system (0) 8 334 8611 8 710 - 8 886
Tota! weight: 32 680 45 830 56 721 93 681 31 528 94 193
b
Command module at entry interface - - - 11 949 - 12 508
b
Command module at landing e lO 286 (0) (0) 10 540 - 11 260

aAll values in pounds.

b
Propellants and other expendables included.
cOata not available.
d
Adspter was considered part of launch vehicle.
eBased on meaaured weights at launch.
 a
TABLE C-I.- APOLLO SPACECRAFT WEIGHTS - Continued
(Apollo 7 through Apollo 12)

Spacecraft/mission
Mission phase/assembly CSH-lOl CSM-l03/LTA-B CSM-l04/LM-3 CSM-l06/Ul.-4 CSM-107/LH-5 CSH-I08/LH-6
Apollo 7 Apollo 8 Apollo 9 Apollo 10 Apollo 11 Apollo 12

Spacecraft at launch:
Command and service modules 32 586 63 531 59 086 63 567 63 508 63 578
Lunar module or test article - 19 900 32 132 30 735 33 297 33 587
Spacecraft/lunar module 3 852 3 951 4 012 3 970 3 951 3 962
adapter
Launch escape system 8 874 8 890 8 869 8 934 8 910 8 963
Total: 45 312 96 272 104 099 107 206 109 666 110 090

Spacecraft after lunar orbit

insertion:
Command and service modules - 46 743 - 38 697 38 743 38 751
Lunar module - - - 30 732 33 295 33 584
Total: - 46 743 - 69 429 72 038 72 336

Lunar module at lunar landing:

Ascent stage - - - - 10 914 10 827
Descent stage - - - - 5 239 5 737
Total: - - - - 16 153 16 564

Lunar module ascent stage

at lunar lift-off
- - b lO 216 b 8 273 10 777 10 750

c
Lunar module ascent stage
at jettison
- - d 5 616 d 5 243 5 463 5 437

Command module at earth 12 356 12 171 12 257 12 137 12 096 12 277

entry interfaca
Command module at landing 11 409 10 977 11 094 10 901 10 873 11 050

a
All values are in pounds and include propellants and other expendables. ,
()

b
At staging.
'-"
cUnmanned.
 a
TABLE C-I.- APOLLO SPACECRAFT WEIGHTS - Concluded \'.,,-
(Apollo 13 through Apollo 17)

Spacecraft/mission
Mission phase/assembly CSM-113/LM-ll CSM-ll4/LM-12
CSM-I09/LM-7 CSM-ll0/LM-8 CSM-112/LM-IO
Apollo 13 Apollo 14 Apollo 15 Apollo 16 Apollo 17

Spacecraft at launch:
Command and service modules 63 812 64 464 66 955 67 010 66 953
Lunar module 33 502 33 652 36 222 36 255 36 279
Spacecraft/lunar module adapter 3 947 3 967 3 964 3 961 3 961
Launch escape system 8 991 9 037 9 108 9 167 9 104
Total: 110 252 111 120 116 249 116 393 116 297

Spacecraft after lunar orbit insertion:

Command and service modules - 38 174 40 109 41 395 40 264
Lunar module - 33 649 36 220 36 252 36 276
Total: - 71 823 76 329 77 647 76 540

Lunar module at lunar landing:

Ascent stage - 10 898 10 960 10 958 10 989
Descent stage - 5 474 7 215 7 250 6 819
Total: - 16 372 18 175 18 208 17 808

Lunar module ascent stage at lunar

lift-off
- 10 780 10 915 10 958 11 005

b •
Lunar module ascent stage at jettison (0) 5 307 5 325 5 306 5 277

Command module at earth entry interface 12 361 12 704 12 953 13 015 13 140
Command module at landing 11 133 11 481 11 731 11 995 12 120

a
All weights are in pounds and include propellants and other expendables.
bUnmanned.
c The lunar module was docked to the command module until just prior to entry. At that time, the weight of the
lunar module ascent and descent stages was 24 647 lb.
 D-1

APPENDIX D - MANNED SPACE FLIGHT RECORDS ESTABLISHED DURING THE APOLLO PROGRAM

The records listed in tables 0-1, D-l1, and D-l11 were obtained from the record dossiers
of the National Aeronautic Association. The presently held records are officially recognized
by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (F.A.I.). Special conditions are that a record
must be applied for In advance and must exceed the existing record by 10 percent for a new rec-
ord to be established. For these reasons, not all of the Apollo performances were documented,
even though better performances were attained in some csses. The English unit of measurement
for distance In the tables is statute miles.
D-2

-
,

~
•
," " ;
-..
:: :3
••
,
-
"
•o
o
:
••
~ 'I
-....
NO

g.
"
- --
!

,,
"
! •
- -~j..•
,
~ -
~ -
-.
gH-+-+-i~
..-
.r -o

I E
"il ~ .:.: ~ -,
•o
•• i
o
j 1--1__-+__+__-1__-1
-0
.::8
0
o

"o
-j o
o
•
~

.._0 o •
;;2
~
•
••
,""
o

:i!< • ~"

~
•
o

1
"o
•o
•o
!
"

- .-- .--
~-
• ••, ••
0'
~..• --i
f.
o

---" .. ,
O •

-" -.
•
" -
NO

,-
'<
~S
~
••
•

--
•• ..:1
.:::::
•• ;
- IJl
o • -[
•

-• •!"
:~
J_ . ~
•
, !-. .-~
o

•"
" i
,"
-"•'. o

"-
0
• -
0

~'f
•
o o
o •
0

"o•
a
.0 "
:o

- --" I - -,
~
j o o

:
"
o
"o

" ; ; - •
"
f. -!
"

j -
~

" ! i ,f
• •

,- • -o.I: !;
o
o o
•
_

H
0

..
o
o
o
.=
"
."-j J ~
 D-3

•? 5
...
"e
""
N

.;>
,"
~:n:l

""c
~O
•• 0

..•
~3
""

§1-t--t--t--t-+-t--t-----1I---t--t---j
"~ .. .. " ".
•
""
o • • e,
.. , NO' '0

';;8'" ;:.8
o
"

,•
]

I
~

•• N
•
""
~~ 8
"
'.
::>8 .l',
"!
•
j
1
•
] •• •
o
!
•
• ::
·!
oo •
~o
•
] I
i
•
"•
•o
o

! .••
]
o~

".
.~

,.
i~ i
•
:
"
"-

J
D-4
 E-l

APPENDIX E - FLIGHT SPACECRAFT CHECKOUT HISTORY

 TABLE E-I.- BLOCK I FLIGHT COMMAND AIID SERVICE mDULE CHECKOUT IIISTORY ,
OJ
OJ

Spacecraft/mission
Test/operation CSM-002 CSM-009 CSM-012 CSM-D17 CSM-020
CSU-Dll
A-004 AS-201 AS-202 Apollo I Apollo 4 Apollo 6

Factory

Individual and combined Sept. 3, 1965 Sept. 19, 1965 Har. I, 1966 June 13, 1966 a Nov . 27, 1966 Oct. 10, 1967
systems test completed

Integrated systems test Sept. 30. 1965 Oct. 19, 1965 Apr. 2, 1966 July 14, 1966 Dec. 3, 1966 Oct. 27, 1967
completed

Ready to ship:
Command module Oct. 8, 1965 Oct. 24, 1965 Apr. 15, 1966 Aug. 25. 1966 Dec. 22, 1966 Nov. 22, 1967
Service module Oct. 6, 1965 Oct. 22, 1965 Apr. 9. 1966 Aug. 9. 1966 Dec. 19, 1966 Nov. 9. 1967

bLaunch Site

Delivered:
Co1lDUand module Oct. 10, 1965 Oct. 26, 1965 Apr. 18. 1966 Aug. 26, 1966 Dec. 24. 1966 Nov. 23, 1967
Service module Oct. 7, 1965 Oct 27, 1965 Apr. 11, 1966 Aug. 10. 1966 Dec. 21, 1966 <'J
d
Command and service Oct. 29, 1965 Nov. 27, 1965 May 11, 1966 Aug. 29, 1966 Dec. 28, 1966 Dec. 5, 1967
modules mated
d
Combined systems test - Dec. 6, 1965· May 14, 1966 Sept. 14, 1966 <eJ -
completed

dAltitude tests - Dec. 20. 1965 June 11, 1966 Nov. 29, 1966 - -
completed

Command and service mod- Oct. 29, 1965 Dec. 27.1965 July 2. 1966 Jan. 6, 1967 - -
u1e moved to launch
complex

Command and service mod-

u1e moved to vehicle
- - - - June 20, 1967 Dec. 8, 1967

assembly building
 TABLE E-1.- BLOCK I FLIGHT COHMAlID AND SERVICE II)DULE CIIECKOUT IlIStORY - Concluded

Spacecraft/mission
Test/operation
CSH-002 CSH-009 CSM-Oll CSM-012 CSH-017 CSM-020
A-004 AS-201 AS-202 Apollo I Apollo 4 Apollo 6
Command and service mod- Nov. 8, 1965 Jan. 18, 1966 July 5, 1966 Jan. 11, 1967 June 28, 1967 Dec. 30, 1967
ule integrated sys-
tems test completed

Co~nd and service mod- Nov. 19, 1965 Jan. 19, 1966 July 21, 1966 (e) July 23, 1967 Jan. 12, 1968
ule electrically mated
to launch vehicle
f
Overall test completed Nov. 22, 1965 Feb. 2, 1966 July 24, 1966 8Jan • 27, 1967 Aug. 2, 1967 Jan. 24, 1968
Assembled space vehicle
lIlOved to launch
- - - - Aug. 24, 1967 Feb. 5, 1968
complex

Flight readiness test

completed
Jan 13, 1966 Feb. 13, 1966 Aug. 9, 1966 - Oct. 24, 1967 Mar. 12, 1968

Countdown demonstra-
tion test completed
- Feb. 10, 1966 July 29, 1966 - Sept.. 27, 1967 Mar. 31, 1968

Final phase of count-

down and launch
Jan. 20, 1966 Feb. 26, 1966 Aug. 25, 1966 - Nov. 9, 1967 Apr. 4, 1968

•SM-017 was destroyed during testing on 10/25/66. The service module was replaced with SM-020, and SH-014
was assigned for use with CM-020 •
•CSM-002 launched from White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. All other flight command and service modules
launched from Air Force Eastern Test Range or Kennedy Space Center.
cData not available.
dConducted in Operations and Checkout Building.
e
No testing in the Operations and Checkout Building was planned for CSH-017 snd CSM-020; however, because of the
Apollo I fire, an integrsted systems test was performed on CSH-017 in the Operations and Checkout Building, after
which modifications were made. CSll-017 was then moved to the vehicle assembly building snd the scheduled checkout
was resumed.
f
Interface/integrated test. '",
CO
gSpscecraft destroyed by fire on January 27, 1967, during "plugs out" portion of overall test.
 TABLE E-II.- BLOCK II FLIGHT COMMAND MID SERVICE M)DULE CHECKOUT HISTORY ,
OJ
".
(Apollo 7 through Apollo 12)
Spacecraft/mission
Test/operation
CSM-I0l CSM-I03 CSM-I04 CSH-I06 CSM-I07 CSM-I08
Apollo 7 Apollo 8 Apollo 9 Apollo 10 Apollo 11 Apollo 12

Factory

Individual and combined Mar. 18, 1968 June 2, 1968 July 20, 1968 Sept. 8, 1968 Oct. 12, 1968 Jan. 20. 1969
systems test completed

Integrated systems test Apr. 29, 1968 July 21, 1968 Aug. 31, 1968 Oct. 19, 1968 Dec. 6. 1968 Feb. 3, 1969
completed

Ready to ship May 29, 1968 Aug. 11, 1968 Oct. 5, 1968 Nov. 24, 1968 Jan. 22, 1969 Mar. 27, 1969

Kennedy Space Center

Delivered May 30, 1968 Aug. 12, 1968 Oct. 6, 1968 tiov. 25, 1968 Jan. 23, 1969 Har. 28. 1969

aCommand and service June 11, 1968 Aug. 22, 1968 Oct. 8, 1968 Nov. 26, 1968 Jan. 29, 1969 Apr. 2. 1969
modules mated
•Combined systems test June 19, 1968 Aug. 27, 1968 Oct. 24, 1968 Dec. 16, 1968 Feb. 17, 1969 Apr. 21. 1969
completed

aAltitude tests July 29, 1968 Sept. 22, 1968 Nov. 18, 1968 Jan. 17. 1969 Mar. 24, 1969 June 9, 1969
completed

Command and service mod- Aug. 9, 1968

ule IQJved to launch
- - - - -
complex 34

Command and service mod- - Oct. 7, 1968 Dec. 3. 1968 Feb. 6, 1969 Apr. 14, 1969 June 30. 1969
ule moved to vehicle
assembly building

Assembled space vehicle - Oct. 9, 1968 Jan. 3. 1969 Mar. 11. 1969 May 20. 1969 Sept. 8, 1969
moved to launch com-
plex 39
 TABLE E-II.- BLOCK II FLIGHT COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE CHECKOUT HISTORY - Continued
(Apollo 7 through Apollo 12)
Spacecraft/mission
Test/operation
CSM-lOl CSM-l03 CS11-l04 CSM-I06 CSM-107 CSM-l08
Apollo 7 Apollo 8 Apollo 9 Apollo 10 Apollo 11 Apollo 12

b
Command and service mod- Aug. 27, 1968 Nov. 2, 1968 Dec. 11, 1968 Feb. 13. 1969 Apr. 22. 1969 July 7. 1969
ule integrated sys-
tens test completed
b
Command and service mod- Aug. 3D, 1968 Nov. 4. 1968 Dec. 26, 1968 Feb. 27, 1969 Hay 5, 1969 July 16, 1969
ule electrically
mated to launch
vehicle
b
Overall test completed Sept. 4, 1968 Nov. 6, 1968 Dec. 27, 1968 Mar. 3, 1969 May 6, 1969 July 17. 1969

Flight readiness test Sept. 25, 1968 Nov. 11, 1968 Jan. 18. 1969 Apr. 7, 1969 June I, 1969 S·];pt. 29, 1969
completed

Countdown demonstra- Sept. 17, 1968 Dec. 5, 1968 Feb. 12. 1969 Apr. 29. 1969 June 26, 1969 Oct. 23, 1969
tion test completed

Final phase of count- Oct. 11. 1968 Dec. 21, 1968 Mar. 3. 1969 Hay 18, 1969 J\lly 16, 1969 Nov. 14. 1969
down and launch

•Performed in Operations and Checkout Building (renamed Manned Spacecraft Operations Building).
b
Integrated systems test, electrical mate and overall test were conducted in the vehicle assembly building on the
Apollo 9, 10, 11 and 12 vehicles. These operations were conducted at the launch site on the Apollo 7, 8, 13, 14, 15,
16 and 17 vehicles.

"''","
 TABLE £-11.- BLOCK II FLIGHT COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE CHECKOUT HISTORY - Continued
(Apollo 13 through Apollo 17)
'",
(J'

Spacecraft/mis.ion
Test/operation CSH-109 CSM-110 CSM-ll2 CSH-1l3 CSM-1l4
Apollo 13 Apollo 14 Apollo 15 Apollo 16 Apollo 17

Factory

Individual and combined Har. 16. 1969 Apr. 2. 1969 c Nov . 5. 1969 c Dec . 3. 1970 May 8. 1971
systems test completed
d
Integrated systems test Apr. 8. 1969 May 7. 1969 Nov. 24. 1970 Mar. 17. 1971 Aug. 2, 1971
completed

Ready to ship June 25. 1969 Nov. 17. 1969 Jan. 11. 1971 July 26, 1971 Mar. 17. 1972

Kennedy Space Center

Delivered June 25. 1969 Nov. 19, 1969 Jan. 14. 1971 Aug. 1. 1971 Har. 24. 1972

aCommand and service June 30. 1969 Nov. 24. 1969 Jan. 18. 1971 Aug. 2. 1971 Kar. 28. 1972
modules mated

aCombined systems test July 7, 1969 Feb. 2. 1970 Kar. 8. 1971 Sept. 13. 1971 Hay 9. 1972
completed
·Altitude te8ts Sept. 12. 1969 eSept . 1. 1970 Apr. 9. 1971 Oct. 21. 1971 June 19. 1972
completed

Conmand and service mod- Dec. 9. 1969 Nov. 4. 1970 Hay 8. 1971 Dec. 7. 1971 Aug. 22, 1972
ule moved to vehicle
aS8emb1y building

Aa.embled space vehicle Dec. 14. 1969 Nov. 9. 1970 May 10, 1971 Dec. 13. 1971 Aug. 28. 1972
moved to launch com-
plex 39

bCommand and service med- Jan. 5. 1970 Nov. 18. 1970 May 18. 1971 f Jan . 3. 1972 Sept. 11. 1972
u1e integrated test
completed
 TABLE E-II.- BLOCK II FLIGHT COMMAND AND SERVICE MJDULE CHECKOUT HISTORY - Concluded
(Apollo 13 through Apollo 17)
Spacecraft/mission
Test/operation CSM-1l3 CSM-1l4
CSM-I09 CSM-110 CSM-1l2
Apollo 13 Apol~o 14 Apollo 15 Apollo 16 Apollo 17

bCommand and service mod- Jan. 18, 1970 Dec. 13, 1970 June 7, 1971 Feb. 21, 1972 Oct. 11, 1972
ule electrically mated
to launch vehicle
b
Overall test completed Jan. 19, 1970 Dec. 14, 1970 June 7', 1971 Feb. 22, 1972 Oct. 17, 1972

Flight readiness test Jan. 25, 1970 Dec. 16, 1970 June 13, 1971 Feb. 29, 1972 Oct. 19, 1972
completed

Countdown demonstration Mar. 18, 1970 Jan. 12, 1971 July 7, 1971 Mar. 27, 1972 Nov. 15, 1972
test completed

Final phase of count- Apr. 11, 1970 Jan. 31, 1971 July 26, 1971 Apr. 16, 1972 Dec. 7, 1972
down and launch

aperformed in Operations and Checkout Building (renamed Manned Spacecraft Operations Building).
b
Integrated systems test, electrical mate and overall test were conducted in the vehicle assembly building on the
Apollo 9, 10, 11 and 12 vehicles. These operations were conducted at the launch site on the Apollo 7, 8, 13, 14, IS,
16 and 17 vehicles.

,cJ-mission modifications and retest were accomplished prior to integrated systems test.
Command and service modules stored at factory for approximately two months prior to shipment.

,eCryogenic system modifications and retest performed after altitude test.

Following integrated test, the Apollo 16 spacecraft was moved back to the Manned Spacecraft Operations Building
for replacement of a command module reaction control system propellant tank and modification of the docking ring.
The spacecraft was then reinstalled on the launch vehicle in the vehicle assembly building and the stack was moved to
the launch pad on 2/8/72. Retest was conducted 2/14/72.

...,,
t=i
 E-8

TABLE E-tII.- FLIGHT LUNAR MODULE CHECKOUT HISTORY

(Apollo 5 through Apollo 12)

Spac~craft/m1ss1on

Test/operation
'UH
Apollo 5
UH
Apollo , Apollo
"'-. "'-5
Apollo n
"'-6
Apollo l '

Factory
"
Integrated test Mo, • >0, 1967 Jan. 31. 1968 Kay 25, 1968 "",. n, 1968
"" . n, 1968
Final engineering """lustloD ,,,. n, 1967 17. 1968 Oct. 1968 Dec. n. 1968 Feb. '", 1969
acceptance test
May
"
Re... dy to ship:
Ascent stage n. 1967 J~. 12, 1968 Oct. 12. 1968 Jan. 1969 n, 1969
Descent stage
June
June n, 1961 J~.
" 1968 Oct. 9. 1968 Jan. "
n, 1969
Mo' •
Mo, • n, 1969

Kennedy Space Center

Delivered:
Ascent stsg" June n, 1967 ,~. n, 1968 Oct. 16, 1968 Jan. 8, 1969 Mo' • n, 1969
D"s<:ent stage J~. n, 1967 ,~. 9, 1968 Oct. n, 1968 Jan. 1', 1969 Mo, • n, 1969

bAscent and descent atages lllated

"'" n, 1967 J~. 3D, 1968 Nov.
" 1968 Feb. n. 1969 "', . 16, 1969
bcolllbined ayate.... test cOtllpleted July 30, 1967 J"'ly I, 1968 lIov. 6, 1968 feb. n, 1969 Kay I, 1969

bAltirude testa completed - Sept. 22, 1966 Dee. 6, 1968 16, 1969

..
Mo' • 29, 1969 ,~.

Lunar module OlOved to launch

complex 37
"" '", 1967 - - - -
Spacecraft moved to vehicle - Dec. 3, 1968 Feb. 6, 1969 Apr. lA. 1969 June 20, 1969
assembly building

Assembled space vehicle

to launch cOllplex 39
_., - ,=. 3, 1969 Mo' • 11, 1969 Mo, 20, 1969 Sept. 8, 1969

Lunar lIlOdule combined systelllS

test completed
,,' doer. 7, 1968 d Feb • 10, 1969 d Ape • 18, 1969 d
Ju1y 5. 1969

Flight readiness test completed

"" . 22, 1967 Jan. 19, 1969 ,,",. 22, 1969 J"~ 2, 1969 Sept. 18, 1969

Countdown demonstration test

completed
Jan. 18, 1968 Feb. 12, 1969 Apr. 29, 1969 ,- 26, 1969 Oct. 23, 1969

nnd phase of countdovn Jan. 2Z. 1968 Mo, • 3. 1969 MIIy 18. 1969 July 16, 196'1 !Iov. 14, 1969
snd launch

a LH_1 was the only unmanned flight lunar module.

bOpe .... rions ..ete performed in the Operations and Cbeckout Building (renamed Manned Spacecraft Operationa Building).
cApollo 5 launch pad testa prior to flight readineaa teat consisted of lunar ~dule integtated systems test,
sillulated lliadon, and overall testa 1 and 2.
~eata were conducted in vehicle aaae..bly building.
 E-9

TABLE £-111.- FLIGHT LUNAR !«lDULE CHECKOUT HISTORY - Concluded

(Apollo 13 through Apollo 17)

Spacecraft/miasion
Teat/operation ,,<-7
Apollo 13
U<-'
Apollo
ut-lO
Apollo IS
LM-ll
Apollo 16
U1-12
Apollo 17

Factory
"
Integrated test (.) (.) (.) (.) (.)

Final engineering evaluation

acceptance test
Ma, ". 1969 Aug. 25. 1969 Sept. 21. 1970 Feb.
". 1971 ..., 23, 1971

, ,.
Ready to "hip:
Ascent stage
Descent Btag..
,=. ". 1969
lS. 1969
June
,,,. '.
"' 13, 1969 .. 1969

Kennedy Space Center

"'..
.". 4, 1970
16, 1910
...
Ma,
1971
1. 1971
June
".
,=. ". 1971
1971

"'"'.... ". "'.. .......... U.U.

Ddivered:
Ascent atage June
".1969 1969 6. 1970 May 14, 1971 1972
Dese"nt stage June l6. 1969
". 1969 Nov. 16. 1970 May 6, 1911 1972

bAacent and descent stages IlIIlted July lS. 1969 Jan. 20. 1910 Feb. 9. 1971 (0 May 18. 1972

bCClllblned sy8te.... test co",pleted Jan. 22. 1970 ,.

'"
July 22. 1969 Feb. 12, 1971 June 1972

bAltttude tesu completed Sept. 20. 1969 ,=. 22. 1970 Apr. ' . 1971 OoL
". 1971 July lS. 1912

Spacecraft lIlOved to vehicle

aaaembly building
,.,. 10. 1969 ..
"' '. 1970 May 8. 1971 ,.,. 8, 1971 Aug.
". 1912

Auembled epace vehicle lIlOved

to launch complex 39
"". t>. 1969 ..
"' '. 1970 Moly 11, 1971 ,.,. 13. 1971 Aug. 28. 1912

Luna.. lIlOdule combined lIyllte....

test cOfllpleted
Jan. 5. 1970 "',. 16. 1970 May 17, 1971 gJan. 4, 1972 Sept. 6. 1912

Flight readiness tellt completed Feb. 24. 1970 ,.,. ". 1970 ,=. 10. 1971 Feb.
". 1912 OoL 4. 1912

Countdovn delllOnat ..ation teat

completed
..... 18. 1970 Jan •
". 1971 July
'. 1971 Ma,. ". 1912 Nov. 15. 1912

Final phase of countdown and

launch
Apr. H. 1970 Jan. 31. 1971 July 26, 1971 Ap ... 16, 1912 Dec. ,. 1912

~-l was the only unmanned flight lunar lIlOdule.

bOperatiOnB .......e perfonoed in the Operations and Checkout Building (rena..ed Manned Spacecraft Operations Building).
cApollo 5 launch pad teata prio.. to flight readineaB teBt consisted of lunsr module integrated systems teat.
simulated IlLission. and overall tellts 1 and 2.
dTeata .......e conducted in vehicle assembly building.
eintegrated teat combined vith final engineering evaluation acceptance teat.
f Data not available.
s,ohe Apollo 16 apacec ..dt wa. IIIOved back to the Manned Spacecraft Operationa Building afte .. cO<llbined syatelll8 te'Jt"
for com.and module modificationa. The apacecraft waa ..einatallad on the launch vehicla in the vehicle assembly build-
ing and the stack was moved back to the launch pad On 2/8/72.
E-10
 F-1

APPENDIX F - FLIGHT ANOMALIES

This appendix contains abbreviated descriptions of significant spacecraft systems malfunc-

tions as well as ot.her flight hardware problems that were termed "anomalies" and are discussed
in the anomaly ~ectlons of the Apollo 4 through Apollo 17 Mission Reports. The lists consist
of problems which occurred or were noted during flight and, in some cases, after flight. In ad-
dition to the statement of the problem, the causes and corrective actions are briefly described.
In general, the anomalies pertain to the spacecraft (CSM, LM, and SLA), government-furnished
equipment used by the crews (GFE). lunar surface experiments (ALSEP), lunar orbital experiments
(SIM), and the lunar roving vehicles (LRV). In cases ~ere the same problem or a closely re-
lated problem occurred on more than one mission, the appropriate missions are identified. The
reference given for each anomaly is the applicable Mission Report. When more than one reference
is given, the additional references are applicable Anomaly Reports that were published for anom-
alies that were not co~pletely resolved at the time of Mission Report publication.
F-2

<PO"'" •

Veh1~le/
Mo. £q1l.1~Dt
CallS .. Corrective Action Mbdons

1 bltr_Utioo ~-Vd" CSK-oll Ol/SK _puat10........ ltor bun, ru.. bole vlrin. errOTS 5-202 MSC-PA-R-68-1
rderenu Yolu,a de· CSK-Ol1 off durina _tTy and vtTin. 1 corre<:ted and inspec- pollo 4 !lSC-PT-R-67-4
cna..d .fter Of/Sl'l Hp .",posed t atTy pb_. Arc t ion pToce<!uras chan." (Rev. A)
.raUon. ina dL:l n t bl_ fu.e beeau..
of WTOft. ruse si",. aftd .rrora
in virinl'

2 Hoi•• 1n eM aft heat CSK-ol1 K.nuractuTiol and quality de- I-rays tabn afur lou Apollo 4 KSC-PA-R-68-1
shield ebheor. ficiency at vel'lllor. shields co.pleted. ItSC-PT-R-67-l
, ae.l-t1Ae t_lMI (llrC) KSnf OpetatlOfta pTocedural erTor _ Nonc. pollo 4 MSC-PA-I-68-1
13 waa not [[...-feted. c_nd e....:uted befoTe verl_ KSC-PT-I-67-10
fl..catlon received fT_ pTe-
"loul c_ad.

• Pyrotechnic: battery
Diu,. . did not nturn
CSH-Ol1 Leak&&e current of pyrotech-
nie iftitLltor• •fter (Irina.
Hone required. pollo 4 l1SC-PA-68-1
KSC-PT-ll.-61-lJ

.....
to open-<lrcult level-
, lot VHF recovery antenna CSH-ol1 !iarlind dqllo~nt .prlna. polio 4 MSC-PA-Il-68-1
bUe<! to lock Into pol KSC-PT-ll.-67-6
IUon.

• J<;.... 10at S-band down-

link ,lanai at CHISM """ Signal perturbations by acs
thn,luu pl..-, and upeoper
Acqutettlon data hand-
1 tn .. procedures t.- pollo 4 XSC-PA-ll.-68-1
KSC-PT-l-68_1
Mpantlon. reac'l..,iaitlon procedur•. vleword to Ina"re cor-
rect data in tbe anten
paddon proln_c.
, kSH S_bJ,n<l CSK-Ol1 ~ulls 1n IpacecTaft antenna None. Apollo 4 KSC-PA-R-68-l
lock. patteTn. KSC-PT-R-68-4

• SPS .hutdo.... v .... lua

durlnl ~cond f1rin•.
CSH-ol1 Data delaYI due to mUTUMn-
tation, trans..hdon snd proc
Procedures and _hdon
rulea clv.nled.
polIo 4 ~SC-PA-R-68-l
I1SC-I"T-R-68-3
esslnl .... re ITeater t"-n ele-
peeted.

, State vee tor update COm

lIIIl.ndl not lICcepted by
Poor a1181'_nt of upd..ta but_
fer at gr-ound staUon cauled
Sl81'al chaTacteT1st1cs
incorporated into per-
Apollo 4 MSC-PA-R-6S-1
MSC_Pl'_R_68_10
lpacecrart • distortlon of tranlQdtted siS tor.....nce and lnterface
"". Ipot<:l.

10 Space(:rllrt internal he.. CSM_017 Heat 10&4$ were vithln pre- Evaporator back pres_ Apollo 4 MSC_PA_R_6S_1
lo..d ""'" lover than pre <llcU ve capability. sure control valve ~:~ MSC-Pl'-R-66-5
dicted, relultinjl in ting for Apollo 6 b .. a~
lover_than_expected eVll on updated predlctions.
orator inlet and outht Block II design and _
temperaturel and ate~ uat control capabillty
back preuure. eli=unates problem on
...nnad vehicl...

n Interference betveen CSN-OI7 At apex COVeT jettllOn, 10"eT Clearance 1ncre. .ed to Apollo 4IMSC_PA._R_68_1
a~le co.,.r and RCS en- lip of apex cover caUSht on Apollo 6; block II cOn MSC-Pl'-R-61-14
gl.n... lover len. corner of engl.ne flsuratiOll lias adeq..... t j
..aunt! ng paneL cl.....ance • I
D_ge to. reeoverN mal CSH-OIT RCS oJddher dUlllp durlng land OJ:1dlxer q ......t1ty de_ Apollo 4 MSC_PA._R-68_1
r-nchute. tng sequence. erealed and/or 1ahdinS polIo 15 MSC-PT-R-68-9

13 1"0rdAn . .terh.l in CSM_Ol1 K-Na ingested during ent..,..

..
with pJ"O~Uanu on
""""
Ifone required.
pollo 1 (Rn. A)

Apollo 4 MSC_PT_R-68-l1
cabin preasure rellef
val",.
 F- 3

APOLLO ....l..

AnOlllll.lJ'
Vellich/
Cause Correct1 ve Act~on ~issions ~~rerenccs
~o. State~ent Equll""ent

1 Premature shutdown ot Slover-than-norMl thrust None. Apollo MSC_PA_R-6B_7

first elescent engine buildup caus ..el by atart at MSC_PT.R_68_l
firing. less than full tank pr..ssure,
, Abrupt change in cabin Unknown. None. Apollo MSC_PA_R_68_7
pressure leak rate.

3 Out-<>f_phase indication Possible open Or shorted cir_ Val"" packages replaeeel. Apollo MSC_PA_R_68_7
!"rom elescent engine pro cult causing shutOff ball on Apollo 9 and 10 luna: MSC_PT_R_69-2
pellant shutoff valves. val"" to close, or possible ~ules, improved man_
reed s"itch lIlalrunction. ufacturing techniques,
and added el!lphasis on
quality control.

4 Abrupt changes in space "'_4 Intermitt ..nt ope......tion of RF Ne" acceptance vibratio Apollo MSC.PA_R-6B_7
cratt-receiveel UHF stage ot the el.igital cOl:lll\ll.nd test le""ls (phnned MSC-PT_R-68_15
signal strength. a$llembly or the coaxial cable prior to lJol-l minion). (Report no. 5)
connecting the diplexer to
the digital COMlllllrlel. 9,5selllbly.
, Excessive control engin
propellant usage (itellls
"'_4 Incorrect configuration ot
Pc:llCS eligital autopilot after
None requlred. Apollo MSC_PA_R-68_7
MSC_PT_R_68_1 5
6,7,8 and 9 are re_ staging. Calculations for (Report no. ~)
latd). thruster "on" ttlill' used COm-
bined descent/Il$cent stage in 1
ertia constants after ducent

6 Oiscrepant propellant "'_4

stage separation.

Fuel clepletion "as obscurred None. Apollo MSC-PA-R-68_7

!
lIlanitolel pri!ssure in_ by the ettects of bladder MSC_PT_ft_68_l5
dications. leakage and the ....nitold pres (Report nO. ~)
sure sensor sensing helium
pressure.

7 System A oxieli:er shut_ "'-4 I'<>"er w"'" inadvertently ap-

plied to the val"" close coil
None. Apollo 5 MSC_PA_R_68_7
MSC_PT_ft_68_15
orr valve Wllatched fro
open position without for 51 minutes, raising its (Report nO. ~)
eOllllll&nd. teOlPera'ture 'to 325 0 F. Sub_
sequent valve opening, ..apor_
haUon ot oxUlter trappeel.
above upper .... goet in valve,
and croureed opening pres_
sure drop unlatched the valve

8 Thrust chll.Dlber of up- U+-l Excessive thrus'ter ac'tivity None. Apollo 5 MSC_PA_R_68_7
tiring Mgine in cluste resulted in operation .. ith MSC_PI'_R_68_l5
4 failed. 10" oxidizer manifold pres_ (Report. no. ~)
sure anel. ..lth helium/fuel mix
'ture in fuel Mntrolel.. (this
condition cauSeS accumulation
or explosive residue in com_
bWltion ch .....ber.)

9 Higll engine clWlter Elc.cessive c<mtrol engine &eM None. Apollo 5 MSC_PA_R_68_7
temperatures. tlvity (see ite= 5).

10 Descent stage fiber- U!-l High te"'Perature indicaUons Apollo 5 MSC-PA-R-68-7

glass thermal shielel from sensors beneath therlllal
tailed. shielcl. at abort staging "ere
probably causeel. by themal
shielel. failure.

u No inelication of adapt_ Panels deployed but no indi_ None requireel {aystem

er panel eleployment. ca'tion "a8 received from lim_ not useel on _nned
it s"i't"hes. Cause W1known. fUghts}.

12 Sep"'ration distance Uol-l UnlcnoVll. Ilone requIred (not used Apollo MSC_PA_R_68_7
DIOnitors elid not !\Ulc- on IllII.nned flights).
tion eluring abort stag_
ing.
 F- 4

APOLLO L

A.10maly
Vehicle'
CaWle Corrective Action Missions ~"f"rences
:00. S<tatement Equi!?",ent

B Five pressure and tem_

perature s"lIsors failed
"'-, Unknolll"J. Kone. Apollo 5 M$C_PA_R_68_7

during abort staging.

"'-, Possible (allure of trans_ Apollo 5 NSC-PA-R-68-7

" Rendezvous radar antenn

.,.
vibration "",asurelQent
intermittent .
dueer signal .,ires.
tlone.

A.-:ol'"..aly Vehicle!
No. Statelr.ent EquiplOent
CaUlle Corrective Action rUssions References

An a-c essential elec_ CSM-020 Short in cryogenic te.nk 1 fan None required. Fans Apollo 6 MSC-PA-R-68-9
trical load transfer DC circuit. redesigned for IHock I1 IolSC_PT_R_68--23
curnd. vehicles.

2 Erratic data. CSM_020 Corona discharge of 3000_volt VAC_ION pumps disabled Apollo 6 MSC_PA_R_68_9
cl.c potential of VAC_ION pUlllpS on Apollo 7. 8 and 9. MSC_PT_R_68_36
Pumps redesigned for
Apollo 10 and subse-
<l.uent •

3 Computer update reJec- CSM-020 Noise pulses illlPressed on ser Multi_point grounding Apollo 6 MSC_PA_R_6B_9
tiOllS. vice module umbll1c&l. prob- used on shields for MSC_P'!'_R_68...liO
ably becsuse of inadeq,uate Block II sp&C~rat't.
shielding. Uplink blocked on Apol
7 ~hen not updating.
Relay to preclude nob
transmission added to
spacecrat't tor Apollo
9 and subse<l.ucnt.

Excessive cabtll-to-embi CSM_020 No vent hole through boost Mandatory inspection Apollo IolSC_PA_R_68_9
"lit differential pres_ protective cover at ste.... points established to MSC-P'!'-R-68-41
Sure. duct cutlet. sssure proper manufac-
turing and slignment.

, OXygen surge tanJ<. pru-

sure varied abnorm&l.ly.
C$M-020 One or both oxygen check
v&lves did oot seat properly.
Spring added to assur"
proper seating at lo~
Apollo KSC-PA-R-6B-9
MSC-P'!'-R-68_31
differential pressure.

6 Abnol"lll&1 structural. per SLA Fscesheet bond too weak for COrk covering add.. d to Apollo MSC-PA-R-68-9
forman"" during launch internal panel pr.. ssures reduce t"ll:Perature a~d MSC-PI'-R-6B--22
ptl!we. achieved. internal pr"ssure. Pa-
eis vented to ambient.
Inspection and <l.uality
control procedures
changed to verify SOUl'
construction.

7 VHF recovery beacon or CSM_020 Poatrligl!t an&lysis showed None req,uired. Apollo 6 MSC_PA_R_68_9
survival bsacon signoJ. that surrlv&l beacon signal MSC_PI'_R-68--26
not received by ARIA. vas not r .. ceiv.. d. cause un-
knoVIl.

8 Dosimeter measurements CSM-02O Ele<:tric&l noise on dosimeter None required. Apollo 6 KSC-PA-R-68-9
erratic. output lines. MSC_PI'_R_68_32

, Propellant voJ.vea croSs

ired.
liiring to ya~ engines .....s re-
vers"d at tel'lllina.l boards dux
Functional tests per-
rorllled 011 SpIlCecTaft
Apollo 6 MSC_PA_R_68_9
HSC-PI'-R-68-29
ing engine inst&llation. for Apol.lo 7. 8 and 9.
Identification deev;:~
added on 8ubseq~nt
spacecraft in addition
to functional tests.
 F- 5

A."lo::al.)' Vehicle!
". Sta.te:lent Equip:<ent
Cause Correct! VOl Action :-lis sian .. Refe"(!:lccs

W LoY ul:Iperature excur_ CsM-020 Probable falllty connection None requlre4. Apollo 6 MSC_PA_R_68_9
sions indicated for ser transducer. " MSC_Pr_R_68_37
vice module quad C in-
Jector.

11 SM!S-rVD separation
n,nsient. """"'0 DalIla~ to
{see :Itelll ''''
61.
during boost 1I0ne required. Apollo 6 MSC_PA_R_68_9
MSC-Pr_R_6S-22

rn~ awdliary battery Overcharging of battutes Charging procedUN!s re Apollo 6 MSC_PII._R_66_9

" ad lov voltage und.er
108d and (our other bat
""-020
prior to tllgtlt. vised. separator ma_
terlal changec1 for bat
MSC_PI'_R_6S_30

.. riee had internal teries to be used on

horts postflight. Apollo 9 and subsequen

B ~rd vires in CM/SM CSH-020 Wires damaged during Installa None requiTed. Block Apollo 6 MSC_PT_R_68-28
llicsl found post_
light.
tiell of umbllic8.1 _ none "SO
oie.ted vith flight 8.Ilo..a!y.
II contiguration
oludes problem.
"'.-

<POW> T

llne"'.lI.ly Vehiob!
1:0. State",ent Eq'Jip:aent CaUlle Correetive Action :~hsions References

, PCM and voice .ub- CSM_IOI No aboormlities feund poat_ None required. Apollo 7 MSC-PA-R-6il-l5
earriers lQSt on second flight; problelll IM.Y have been
a.ry S-band transponder. oaused by improper switohing
of transponder select sVitoh.

2 f1iOllledio8.1 instrumenta_ CSM_IOI Harnesa and potting not sur- Wiring insulation Apollo 7 MSC_PA_R_6il_15
tion lelLdll broken. tic1ently nexible. ohanged from Teflon to
polyvinyl ohloride Md
sotter potting material
used.

3 TriW r on "ater gun CSM_IOI O_ring svelling caUlled >, O_ring material changed Apollo 7 MSC_PA_R_68_15
.tuck. sodi\llll hypochlorite 1n drink_ to ethylene propylene.
ing water.

4 AttitUde displayed on CSM-IOI Solder ball found in relay All relays involved 1n Apollo 1 MSC-PA-R-66_15
FDAI sh1fted in pitch """y have caUlled the oondit10n critical sVitching tunc
ax1s "hen souroe svitoh tiolls "ere made redund-
from C and H to S &lld C. ~,.

5 Rotation hand controlle CSM_IOI Anomaly could not be repro- Hone required. Improve Apollo 7 MSC_PA_R_68_15
ralled momentarily. produced postrtight; symp_ design used for Apollo
tOJl\S indicated breakout 8 and subsequent.
s"itch temporarlly failed to
open when controller waa re-
turned within the detent.

6 Entry moni tor system CSM-lOl Quality control problelllS. M&llur"ctur1ng &lld test Apollo 1 MSC-PA-R-68_15
.....If\lnctions. procedures improved. pollo 8 MSC-02~17
pollo 9
polloI
pollo 11

Panel tully deployed initi_ one required. Panela Apollo 7 MSC-PA-R-68_15

T dapter panel not l"ully
eployd. '''' 8.1ly, .but rt!bounded because jettisoned On Apollo 8
retention cable "&8 caught in and subsequent.
channel. Retention cable Ill\.S
later released &lld panel "as
retained f\Illy deployed.

8 indows fogged. CSM-IOI Outgassing of silicone oil! arts using RTV materia Apollo 7 Io5C-PA-R-68-15
from RTV se8.1ing mater18.1. reoured in V&cU\llIl at Apollo 8 MSC-PT-R-69-1
levated temperatures, pollo 12
effective on Apollo 9.
F- 6

APOLLO 7_

Al'lo:tlaly
Vehicle/
Stat":r:,,nt Equlp::lont Cause Corrective Action Missions

9 ~light qualif1cat1ol1 CSM-IOI Probable internal rallure of one required. Only Apollo 1 MSC-PA-R-68_15
fo~~utator railed. thung 8equenee logic circuit ther use on Apollo 9 MSC-PT-R-69-1
unar ll>Odule and f'&1lllX'
~~d not prevent ntis

<>tcr lcGk nc...- ....."t" CSM_IOI Poor "'eto.l-on_taJ. 8ee,J. at

tying mission objective
-ring seal used, effee Apollo 7 MSC_PA_R_G8_15
i
ater disconnect. E_nut connection. the "ith Apollo 6.

..
II OIllentary loss of a-<: CSM_IOI Overvoltage caused by corona an.....l s"itching of fan Apollo 1 MSC_PA_R-66-15
usses, ar<::ing of a-e po""r \lith in sed in order to bypass
motor-<:>per..ted cryogenic fan SM motor-operated s"itc
svi tch.
nexpected 10v charge CSM-IOI Line resistance not consid_ Individual charger char Apollo 7 MSC-PA-R-68-l5
ate on batteries A and ered in predictiOllS. acteristics "ith asso_
iated spacecraft \/ir_
ing vill be cheeked.
ndervoltage indications CSM-IOI Condition tesulted from mid_ atteries var .... d by Apollo 1 MSC_PA_R_68_15
n d-<: busses A and B. range state Qf battery charge placing th .... on _in
and low temperature. usses 12 IlI.inutes prior
to CM!SM separation.
Fuel cell .2 rell\Oved !roo
usses and SPS gimbal
~tors turned on to les ,
transient loads lit sepa
ation.
Condenser exit tempera_ CSM_IOI Secondary b~ss val?es op_ Ra<1iator half of Apollo Apollo 1 MSC-PA-R-66-l5
ture of ruel cell in- ,,",ted erratically because or 6 cooling system flushe .Apollo 6
Studies mllde to deter_ Apollo 9 .
I
cre ..sed. contaminants.
mine if modification
necessary.
p::>l1o 10
pollo 11
I
I
Propellant isolation CSM_IOI Valves vere in closed 1'0"1- Proper procedllX'e in_ Apollo 1 .HSC_PA_R-66_l5!
aJ,ves open "ith volt_ tion "hen system ",as activa_ clUded in crev checklis Ap::>llo ,
age removed. ted.. BellOils vas dame.ged AOH and briefings.
t'rol\l hydraulic hallllllering.
I
16 oice communications Improper procedures used at Procedures changed so Apollo 1 MSC_PA_R_68_151
arbled during launch ground statlons. that patching of voice
phase. to MCC accomplished onl
at Goddard.
1
PrilllS.ry evaporator op_ CSM_IOI Low. variable heat loads. Sensor response to 'lick Apollo 1 MSC_PA_R_66_l51
rated erratically in increased by ~location
the automatic ~e. of sensors and removal
of sponge materil.l in
SenSOr areas for Apollo
10 and subsequent space
crart,

Condensation in cabin. CSM_IOI Condition expected beeau"e Lines inaulated on Apollo 7 MSC_PA_R_66_15
of uninsulated coolant line". Apollo 10 and subsequen
spacecrart.

19 oed bags split and Bag q.....lity problems and menu Menu changed and ba.gs Apollo 1 MSC_PA_R_66_15
toe~cTUlllbled. '" choice. inspected tor defects.

Entry battery manifold CSM_IOI Cause not determined; prob_ Check B_nut torques. Apollo T MSC_PA_R_66_l5
leak. able under_torqued B-nuts as
experienced On 2TV-1.

21 ~~h primary lamps

failed in lover eqll1p-
ent bay floodlights.
CSM-IOI Excessive operation \lith Procedures changed to
lights di_d prior to flight 111l1.it preflight uSe.
caused cathodes to degrade
prematurely.
Apollo
Apollo 9
T MSC-PA-R-68-l5j
I
 F-7

APOLLO l
AA0<lI8.1y Vehicle!
:/0. Statement Eq,ulpcent
Cause Corrective Action ltiasions R"rere:lCell
CSM_1Ol Crads probably resulted from Manufacturing procedure Apollo 7 MSC_PA_R-68_15
" Face glass on miuion
tImers eracked. propa~tlon of hairline crack revised.
introduced during bonding or
pollol MSC_P'rMR-69-l1

glass to frame.

Vater in docking tunnel Ct;M-J.Ol Interim b&ll Check valve 11'- None. Used for ApollO ApollO 7 MSC.PA-R_68_1'
" after l&l\ding. nallec1 in top hatch leaked. 7 only.

Apollo 7 MSC-PA-Il-68-15
" IfF r~overy bl!IlCOn slg CSM~lOl Cause unknmm. Antenna may Ilone.
nal not received during not have deployed properly
descent. Wlttl stable I attitude on
water 1I'lI.8 achieved.

Apparent free water CSM-1Ol \/ater separator operated 10_ Reservicing procedure Apollo 7' MSC_PA_R_6{!_15
" "uit. sllPply noses. '" efficiently because of reser- changed. W..ter relDOval
vicing procedure used .. fter c ..pability rechecked
MSC_PT_R_69_5
1
altitude run. prior to flight.

Apollo 1 MSC_PA_R_68_15
" Electromagnetic inter_
ference problems experi
enced during ground te..
CSM_lOl Iione. Hllrd"..re change ..
not 1oI&l'r..nt..d.

..
and flight:
MilI"ion timer ..tart
inadvertently.
..
,~
AlI&Oci ..ted "ith oXygen
cycle.

••"'~.
CoJIIPuter program •• A....oci ..ted "ith turning
int.. rior 11gM.. On brigl>t.
o • Central timing "'lui o. UnIrnO\lll.
....nt reset.

APOLLO 8

A..'1C_ly
V.. hicle!
'0. Statement E<:,uiPQent Cause Corrective Action ,Unions ~ef"re~ces

1 Entry monitor ..ystem CSM_103 Bubble and leal< in ILCceler_ Unit ....ubjected to Apollo 1 MSC-PA_R_69_1
error... ometer. tilt-table tests. Apollo 8 MSC-02411
Apollo 9
pollo 10
pollo 11

2 Windo"s fogged. CSM_I03 Outg&.!ldng or silicone oils Cur...... teri..l prior ~Apollo 1 MSC-PA_R-69_1
rrom RTV mAt ..ri&1. insta.llation. Apollo 8
M£!!:.~ 1
J Cabin fan .. noisy. CSM_I03 P<:>ssible resonant condition Iione. COl!Ifortable en_ Apollo 8 MSC-PA_R_69_1
in ducting. vironment can be lI\8;in- Apollo 15
tain.. d ...ithout fan...
, Po.... ible entry of sea CSM_I03 Water may have been condensa_ Ilone required.
Apollo 16

Apollo 8jMSC-PA-R-69-1
"ater into cabin th~ugt tion. Postnigtlt tests did
cabin pressure relier not reveaJ. any pre.... ure re_
valve. lief valve abnorlQll.1ities.
, Steel cables in recover) CSN-I03
loop broke.
Recovery loop had exhibited
r .. nures previously and _s
Steel-<:able loop re_
placed by peI'lll8llent ny
Apollo 8 MSC-PA-R-69-1

&UFnted "ith an auxiliary lon loop for Apollo 12

nylon loop in..talled by s\li ..- and subsequent ..pace_
-". craft.

6 \li~r interphone
perative.
,"- CSM_103 Probable incorrect operation
or interphone.
Training procedures
ill\proved.
Apollo 8 MSC_PA_R_69_1
 F- 8

A::~~
Vell.1cle!
110. I S~at.e=..nt :lquir;::;e::t CII'S. Correct!" Act.lo~ :~1asi.",.. ;=tet'ere:l~es

7 h-otllble vater tank qWlll CSH.IO) Evidence wu found ot .,11_ 1'&.'11< nlle4 to 80 per_ Apollo a
ICSC_PA_R_69_1

"I
tit,. .... &Sure_ot arraU turf! 1n indicator OOu.ina and cent of ".. ~1t,. tor pollo 12
oxy~n 11de of tank pN. .url_ Apollo 9. Urine 4uapl
ntion sratew. eaUlled by bacll_ oxygen vent interface ""no
up of urine dwop in potable changed tor Apollo 10.
"ater tank OlQ'gell vent line.
Moisture ~ ~.ve caused er_
ratic readinS"
I
.\POllO 9

k.c=.l~-
Ve~.lelel
Cause Corr~etlve ~tlon ~~~.liO'" :1e~ere:l=,r&
;10. ~tate::<!r.t ~'.l1~::t

, Pr?pell&nt holatlon CSM_IOlo pyrot~hnlc lbock. ~ve. to be cheeked Apollo 9 MSC.PA_R-69-2

-.lve 1'1011=.... ftc. separation or CSM po110 11
Ih-- $-tvB. Val"1 hI'"
in« no "abin in41eatOTI
pollo 12
pallo l~
Ito be c~lf'd .rter up- poll0 15
~.tiQ<l.

2 ~ancl"l!: tdeseopfl aMort

tuck t"ten::d.tU...t!J' and
""'",,. ,.u
Pin 1n "tl!fll.hs" eoWltcr drUll
dropped Ollt and J _ d
f'roP"" ...lnapectloc
Oll:'lt~
ot
to tnillre cor_
Apollo 9 MSC.PA_R-69-2

fecbantc&1 counter Ibl.ft on lhaft relolftr. eel. tolerances.

..
ecaae tnoperattYi.
, '''~ '"' .._,,, I"",.W'
Olltrol or ct')'08fllic hy-
Probably an intn-lII1ttent open
drcll1t in the . .tor-control
~ Apollo 9 MSC_PA--R-69_2

rogen tank pl"eslllr~ c1r<:ll1t.

I
ailed.

• rronealls docking probe

ndtcations.
CSM_101i Extend/releale_retr..::t Ivttch
I{8.s not ..::tllated ror a sllrrt-
ro~ changed to r~lI.w. r~
oldlng svttch In e~tend
Apollo 9 MSC_PA_R_69-2

dent Hille to allov docking eleu~ posltlOtl W'ltll

probe to Mly extend. h~lcal separation.
,
, pUnk co_nds not IC_
"pted.
CSM-lOIi Unknovn. ecycle up_tel~llIetry
vltch to restore opera
Apollo 9 MSC-PA-R-69-2
pollo 16
ton.

6 ~~ry monltor systelll CSM_1OIi Scribe coat hardened on ~e tollovlng vere per- Apollo 7 MSC-PA-R-69-2
1I.11ed to scrlbe dllrlng Icroll. Styl.. holder and orllll!d for Apollo 10 and Apollo 8 SC-02lin
fentry. bushin6 contaadnated vith ubsequent spa'acraft. Apollo 9 I
Lock_tite. · Glyptol IIsed inlteac
r lock_tHe.
• Sty1.. sp.rine loa4
pollo 10
lpo110 11
,, I
Ilncreued.

,...
· Di.... ioa or styl..
~lder and b\lsh1na "'erl I,
· Acceptance tests to
rerlCy Icribine. I
7 tndicatioal ot lerYice
ropull1on syst~ pro-
pellant unbalanc:e.
C$)6-10~ Klet:trical 1ero bt... In 0>:-
idiur .U1lr1ll6 drcuit
t-er sto.... tank depletion.
.t_ Master 1.1..... UId vun- Apollo 9 IoGC_PA_R_b9..:.1
inp ror this 17st_ IlO
equired ....d have been
cle~eted for Apollo 10
~ sublequent lpac.cra
Procedural ch&t\&e _de
;.1~h:du e1~ctrtcal uro<
,~.

8
u_.
~:XPlained master CSM-lotl Probably call..d by external
inPllts to calltion and ."...n_
in6 s:rlt~m.
None. pollo9 !olSC_PA_R_69-2
pollo 10
 F- 9

:.?OL.lO L

Ar.oll'aly 'le}'.!cle!
110. Equlp.e:>t Corrective Action iHssio"s

9 Fuel cell 2 condenser CSM_I04 Possible eoolant loop Contam- Procedures developed to polIo 7 MSC_?A_R-69_2
exit temperature out- ination buildup in secondary damp oscillations if pollo 8
side normal range. bypass valve. they occur. Secondary pollo 9
bypBSs valve design pollo
changed tor Apollo 14
and subse«uent space-
"
pollo n

craft •

Docking spotlight faile CSM_IO~ Circuit breaker not closed. Cre" checkUst changed pollo 9 MSC_PA_R_69-2
to include closing of
circuit breaker prior t
spot.light deployment.

II Interior floodlight CSM-lO~ Cathode erosion caused fll.11- ?rocedures incorporated polIo 7 MSC_PA_R_69-2
&nOl!I&liea. ure of one laonp _ broken wire to insure operation of polio 9
caused second lamp to fail. lamps in rull-bright co _
figuration in ground
tests and in night.

" Cot!lJluter did not respon

to llI&llual entries.
CSM_I04 Possible procedural errors. None. poUo9 MSC_PA_R_69-2 I
Slo~ repressurlzatlon CSM_I04 Valve in "l'<lng position be_ Proper alignment to be MSC_PA_R-69-2 i
" surge tfUlk.
0
cause of misaligned ....rkings. verified on subse«uent
spacecraft.
rpollO 9

I
Holder was not properly re- Retention spring in- Apollo 9 MSC-PA-R-69-2
" Docking ring separation CSM_I04
charge holder came out tained. stll.lled. Apollo I
of ChMnel Md extended
beyond periphery of tun
nel structure.

15 Descent propulsion sys_

tem regulator manifold
"'-3 Air dravn through manifold
into tllnk heat exchanger dur_
Ground support equip_
ment and procedures lI:od ,
Apollo 9 MSC-PA-Il-69-2

~
pressure dropped. ing servicing resulting in ified for Apollo 10 and
partially blocked heat ex- subse«uent sps.cecraft.
changer.

""-eA-'-69-'
I
" Supercrltical heU= rP.-3 Probable del~ctive braze Valve configuration Apollo
tank pressure de<:s,yed. squib iSOlation valve. '" changed for Apollo 10
and subse«uent spacecra L
I
n Tracking light fdled. "'-3 Probll.ble high-voltage break- Additional testing for Apollo 9 MSC_PA_R_69-2
dm.-n in pulse-forming netllQrk Apollo 10 light. Mod_ Apollo 1
ified lir.ht used for
Apollo 11 and 12.

Push-to-talk s>l1 tches "'-3 Probable broken common \lire Operll.ting procedures to Apollo MSC_PA_R_69_2
inoperative. to svitches. include troUbleshooting
procedures to circWD.ven
problem.

Activation of abort "'-3 Probable open or short in Trip levels are meaSure Apollo MSC-PA-R-69-2
guidance system cllus",d 26_gage \lire bet\leen abort for each vehicle lI.t
varning indiclltion. electronics sssembly and sig_ launch site. Output pa _
nal conditioner electronics ameters for lI.bort elec_
assembly. tronics assembly and
transfer functions for
signal conditioner elec
tronics assembly mell.s-
ured on bench.
Binding of fOlVard
hatch.
"'-3 Interference by insulll.tion
blllnkets and possible inSUf_
Top hatch shi"'ld ex_
tended to hll.tch struc_
Apollo 9 MSC-PA-R-69-2

ficient hlltcll cle....ance. ture and clell.r&llce in_

cre.... ed for Apollo 10
and subsequent spacecra
 F-lO

Vehicle!
Ccrrec~ive Actlon !Hssiolls
1,0. Sta't"!::,,nt

Forvard hatch door stop

(snubber) lIould not hoI
"'-3 Excesslve clearance betveen
snUbber and velcro.
Snubber redesigned for
Apollo 11 and ..ub.. e'luen
'l<pIlcecraft .
,.",. 9"C-,,-'-69-' I
ateh open.

Cabin noise level high. "'-3 Operation of cabln rans,

water/glycol pumps and suit
Ear plecea prOVided and Apollo 9 MSC-PA-R-69-2
procedures changed. Ef Apollo 1
I
COlllPreuors durlng he1lDets_
orr perlods.
teetlve vith ApollO 14,
Illuffler added In line a
outlet of vater/glycol
i
pump assembly.

Structural contact at
S_IC shutdovn.
"'-3 Lateral loads probably caused Loads predlcted to be
heliUlB dlftuaer flange to leu on Apollo 10. Top
Apollo 9 MSC_PA_R_69_2

coot&<:t top deck nange. deck nange modl f'ied on

Apollo 11 and subseQ.uen

',0'" ~ ",,-,,-,-.;-,
spe.cecrat"t.

" Data entry &",1 display

assembly operator error
LM-3 Pos .. lble bent 'l<vitch leaf or
contam1natlon preventing lII1-
cro..vitch oont&<:t.
Mlcroswltches modlfled. I
Hl'JIL

"'-3 Suspected hellum ingestlon No detrllDental effect. Apollo MSC-PA-R-69-2!

"
Descent engine firing
mush at 21_perclmt Into englne by uncoverlng
throttle. of ~er<l-g can. due to hlgh
ullage.

"'-3 MSC-PA-R-69-2
" ReguJ.ated helium pres_
sure to propellant tank
decrelL3ed in ascent pro
PI:>.... lble regulator cont&lll1na- Procedure.. developed fo
tlon by hack now during $01-
enoid valve replacement.
prevention of contamina
tlon when replacement 0
Apollo
(MisB1on Rept)
MSC-PA-R-69-2
pulsion systelll. COlllponents is neeesssry (Anonaly Rept
No. 1) I
[,andine: rll.dar Inter_ "'-3 Interference Va.!! produced by Sprsy costing of KEL-F Apollo 9 MSC-PA-R-69-2.
" terence. pleces of H_ti1lll frOlll the
ba.!!e heat ..hield.
plastic substltuted for
H-tilm on ba.!!e heat
(M18s10'1 Rept)
MSC_PA_R_69_2
shleld for Apollo 11 an (Anonaly Rept
subseQ.uent sp&<:ecrart. No.2)

28 Air bubbles in l1q.u!d Air ingested througn .ubl1.... _ Mftke-up line on PLSS n Apollo 9 MSC-PA-R-69-2
cooled gll.l'/llent tubes. '" tor into coolant loop vhen
PISS vas being connected to
located to upstream 81d
or vater shutoff and re
liquid coole<:l garlDent. lief valve for Apollo 1
and sub'l<equent oUs'l<ions.

29 Oxygen purge system pal GFE Lo<:king pin could not be in_ Oxygen purge syste.. to Apollo 9 MSC-PA-R-69-2
let was difficult to at serted thro\l6h bulkhead be stoved in different
structure into pallet because ares and lIlore easily op
of location of hole. angle of erated locklng pins "'I<~
lnsertion and poor liglltl.ng. for Apollo 10 and sub-
sequent Illiuions.

..
ackground brightness Tv<> range.. of reticle
30
"vashed_out" reticle tm '" Neutral dem;ity filter and
retlectl.on from C<llllllland 1IlOd_ 1l1Ulll1nation intensity
Apollo 9 MSC_PA_R-69_2

age or cnvman optical

alignment sigllt during
"' to be provided and dit-
ferent lighting condlt! 'I<
docking. expected for Apollo 10
and sub ..equent Illi ..slons.

xygen purge syste.

" checkout light tailed. '" Maln power ..vltch actuator
meehanislll did not clo .. e
svitch.
ActUII.tor IDechanhm modl
tied tor Apollo 10 and
sub ..eQ.uent Illi .... ion...
Apollo 9 MSC-PA-R-69-2

32 Communications lost vhe Posslbly caused by loose air- Apo1.10 9 MSC_PA_R-69-2

using lightlleight heed-
set and communications
'" lock ..leeve on connector or
improper matlng of ligllt_
Alrlock sleeves to be
torqued to betveen 45
and 50 Inch_pounds and
carrier. welg1lt helLdaet connector to Loek_tlte applled to
.."it harness and T-adapter. secure sleeves to con_
nector.
 F-ll

APOLLO 10

A::o:l81y
V"hic1"1
!lo. Stat"~,,nt
Cause Correcti,e kct!on ~iss!ons Ref~rer.c(!!
EquiJ:lll"nt
1 BUI"lIt e1.isc in reaction CSM_I06 OverprellSurlzation during Caution notes incorpo_ Apollo 1 MSC-00126
control system ruptur"e1. preflight eheckout. rated in proc"e1.ures.
prior to fllght. U:llk check to be _e1.e
after propellant servic g.
, Helium manifOlel. pres_ CSK-I06 l<.:N-pressure heliws manifold ~stem to be pressuri~e pollo 1 MSC_OOl26
sur" in ""ll.Ction contro in fuel leg ot systelll A leak- to 100 ps1e. about 30
syste.. e1."cay"e1.. ed sUghtly. cl.ays prior to flight to
insure leaks are detect

3 Rendezvous radar trans- CSM_106 Possible intermittent fa11_ Non". po110 10 MSC-OOl26
pond"r failed to operat ure in SM wiring, renel.ezvous
telllPOrarily. radar control box, Or trans-
ponder; possible improper
switch configuration.

4 Pri_ry evaporator drie CSM-106 !n.suffic1ent tn""l of vater Actuator rigging proce_ po110 1 MSC_OO126
out atter a fe>l minutes control drcui t switCh actu- dll.ns modi ned to sssur
ot operation. ator. proper overtre.""l.

5 Translllissions from LH 0 CSH_106 Both ""hiclu vere probably None. po110 10 HSC_OO126
VHF simplex_A not re_ not configur"d simultaneously
cd""d 1n CM. for communications on simpl"x A.

6 Crev couch stabiliter CSM_I06 Stabilizer should have been Mandatory inspection MSC-00126
lett cOlUlecteel. during relllOved prior to laUlleh to point addeel. to pre-
launch. allov stroking of couch ingress checklist.
struts it an abort had been
required.

7 Fuel cell 1 pump Pad<- CSM-I06 Phue-to_phue short, prob_ None. Major red~ .. tgn of MSC-OOl26
age failure. ably caused by brellkdown of hydrogen PUlllP vOuld be
in.sulation in hydrogen pump. required.

8 Hydrogen flov to fuel CSM_106 Extended purge created lev &>:tended hydrogen purge pollo 10 MSC_OOl26
cell decayed slevly at- tempel'll.tures on regulator and not to be performed and
er extenel.ed hydrogen consequent regulator l"aka!". vent line heater to be
purge of ruel cell 1. left on for 10 minutes
"1'ter termination of
[hYel.rogen purge.

9 uto_tic prenure con~ CSM_I06 PTeSSIl.n transducer shitt re- ElI:t"nded hydrogen purge pollo 10 HSC-00126
ro1 system did not tUr!" Sulted fl'ollI colel. sollk e1.uring not to be performed on
ydrogen tank heaters extendeel. purge. SUbsequent fl1gtlt.s.
tf during ruel cell 1
purge.

yro display coupler C8M-I06 Dritt rates in postflight None. pollo 10 HSC-00126
rift vas felt by crev tests vere not indicati"" ot
o be excessive. reported pertor""",ce.

H ata atorage equipment CSM-106 Cover detormed because of Relief valves to be pallo 10 HSC-00126
ost data. differential pressure. Cover sed that operate at
oontacted and sleved tape oyer differential pres
reel. sure.

!E?try lItOni tor SYStelil CSM-106 Emulsion had hardened be_ Nev lIlS.nutacturing proc_ pollo 1 HSC_OOl26
tylus cut through cause ot chemdcal reaction. sSes implelilented for poll06 HSC_02~17
r-;Usion on .scroll dur_ pollo 11 and precau- pallo 9
ing pre_entry tests. ionary llleull.nS tllken pallo 10
~. prevent hll.l"dening. pollo 11
Different seroll coat_
ing to be used for
po110 12 and subsequen
pacecratt ,

13 rmr recovery antenna 1 C8H-I06 Ground-plane radial hllllg up

on guide ramp.
one. po110 10 MSC.. OOl26
iel. not deploy properly.
 F-12

An0:D31y
Vel"liehl
No. Cause Corrective Action ;'i1ssions Rcfere""es
Stat"",ent <:quip"'ent
Potable water contained C3M-I06 Oxygen from pressure system Membrane dence instal_ polIo 10 HSC_OO126
gas. and hydrogen /'rom fuel cells. led on "ater gun for
Apollo 11 and subsequen
spacecraft. Hydrogen
separator installed in
"ater system for Apollo
12 and subsequent space
craft •

15 Flo" from vater gun ap_ CSM_I06 ExcellB lubrication /'rom 0_ Procesa specirications polIo 10 MSC-00126
peared to be le"s than ring partially clogged gun. changed to insure that
norma.l for about 2 hour excessive lubricant is
not used.

16 Tunnel "ould not vent CSM_I06 Incorrect fitting installed End_to_en<1 test ~r_ pollo 10 MSC-00l26
prior to LM separation. on vent prior to fUght. formed on Apollo 11 and
subsequent spacecraft
to verifY system.

17 Therm&1 coating c"""" CSM_I06 Insulation vent holes "ere Evaluation shoved that pollo 10 MSC_00126
off torvard hatch ..hen obstructed. insulation is not nec-
LM cabin v&s pressurize essary. Single layer
of H-film tape applied
to hatch ablator for
Apollo 11 ,."d subsequen
spacecraft.

L&u.nch vehIcle englne CSM_I06 Cold solder joints. Uni ts screene<1 for polIo 10 MSC_OO126
warning indicators op- Apollo 11 ,.,,<1 subaeQ.uen
..rat"ed intermittently spacecraft.
uring preflight t" .. t-
'''' .
Digital event timer CSM_I06 Spurious noise input prob- Screening test <1evelop- pollo 101 MSC_OOl26
juro,.ed 2 minutes. At ably caused 2~nute Jump. ed. polIo 15
ther times. t"n8-<>1'·· ~n8-of-seconds problelll va. pallo 16
....conda failed to ad_ caused by contamination (pain
vance. !lakes trom units ..-heel) pre_
venting electrical contact be
tveen tab and brush.

Dcx:king ring cha.r~ CSM_I06 Retention spring design mar_ Improved retention polIo 10 IoISC_DOl:.?!>
holder not captured by ginal. ....thod to be used for
retention sprlop. Apollo 15 and subseq,uen
spacecraft .

Fuel cell <' exit telllPer CSM_I06 Undetermined. Block II retrortt secon pollo 7 MSC-00126
sture oscIllated. dary coolant bypass polIo 8 HSC-02~26
valve (Block I v&lve pallo 9
poppet) used on Apollo polIo 10
u. pollo 11

Couch heat strut lock- CSM-I06 Spring in locting mechanism Mandatory inspection polIo 10 MSC-OOl26
out handle in locked improperly installed after point added to manut'B.e_
pition. IlOdi ft cati on. turing process.

Recovery (lashing l1sht CSM-I06 Thermally-induced stresses Aoa changed so that pollo 10 HSC-OOI26
ceued to operate arter between the !l""h tube and light is to be operated HSC-02623
landing. its encapsulant caused the only in low_flash_rate
nash tube to crack. lIDde <1uring descent.

Enstne pi tch gimbal An uncoam:Bnded gimbal IllOve- Brake mechanism vas re- polIo 10 HSC_OOl26
dr! ve actuator fail ment probably occurred due to designed. Time alloved
dlestlon received. failure of the spring-loaded for uncolllllll1nded gimbal
brake to engsge sfter re_ IllOvement without caus_
IllOVal of drive signal. ing a fail indication
"as increased.
 A::OI:>&ly \·e~~elcl
~o.
Call5C COr:-ec<;.iva kHon ;':h.ions
S~at~"t !4\:i~e'.t

Malter alua. and de- ,

• LM....II Delcent propellant lov- polIo 1 HSC-OOI26
" s""nt propellant lov_
level lndicatlooa durl~
lenl indicator r
troa __ tel' al
Ye4
for
desocent plI.uill& .anauve Apollo 11 ... d sllbseCl.uen
spacecr.tt .

26 5-b&nd backup 6ovn-yolc KSP1l Operator e>Tor vitbln Cold_ None. Apollo 1 !'ISC...OQl2b
"cd'l'41l !'rOIl LM dllrlDC "tone "tatiOft.
rewluUon 1) ..... un_
uaable.
27 S-band ateerable antenn 1M-lI Tracl< -.:>de avUdI ..... prob_ /kloe. Apollo 1 MSC-OOl26
did not track. ably In.ad,'n:rt.entlJ" avltehd
to OfT.

" Optlcal a,.su. prohl....

a. COntall1 .....tlon Ol:l " a. Contamination =u.ld have e. Reticle and prhm
pollo 1 MSc-00126

icll! of alipulleot opti- entered. tbroug!l air gap at vera cle.ned vnen .un_
cal ul ...cope. interlace of II1rror and tele_ lhade ..... lnltalled 00
scope ""lllIing subsequent to Apollo 11 IpKacratt.
prelaunch cleanlng. Same proeadllre to be
used tor _lIbaequant _pa< -
cr.tt.
b. Retlcle di.-.r con_ b. Operation no..-1. b. None.
trol required _oual
holding 10 brlght posl_
tion.
c. Stan cou.ld not be c. Prism vas ~Iib~ con_ c. $UIII!" (a).
leen .i. Itar diUlll!tera taminated durlng flnal in-
fr"OSl center or .... ticle. stall.tion of telelcope lun_
"hade.

Apollo I
"
OrinkloS vater contalne Probable sourCe of pi ..... Prel.uncb proeedurea MSC-OOl26
,u. nitrogen pressurant 1n tank ehaogad to include .er_
and air entrapped 1n .... ter vielnS vater hose and
bose, gun and connecting connectins pl..-b1nS·
pl\lJllbing. Bacteria tilhr
(whicb helps remOve gal) Val
not used on thil lIlisdon.
Glycol pump. Ear plua- prOVided for Apollo 9 HSC-00126
.leep periods. Muffler Apollo 1
.&tad at outlet of pump
tor Apollo l~ and aub_
IItquent lpaeecrart.
31 Keater Haht on 0X1'geo Gl'E Unknovn. Failu.... cou.ld not Mona. Operation with_ pello 10 M$C_OOI26
purse Iy.tem dld not be duplicated in postflight out h.,.terl acceptable.
COIDe on. tests.

32 ReconUn& of U4 lov.blt CSM-I06 CH ee-unicatiOft. re<:onNS_ Ilone. pollo 10 MSC_OOl26

ate POt daU in CM ured f'l'oa voice and d.ta aode
~"ed betore all data to ranpnS before c01lpletion
~cdved. of m.p.

33 _-rate gro outpllt Kost prol>a.bly caused by Apollo 11 gro hhtory ~llo 10 Msc-ocu26
nor. atatie t'rictlon tram eont..._ analysed and 00 41.-
inatian t.hat -.y have been crepancla. foun4.
lntroduced dur10S ....bu1141oS.
 F-14

APOLLO ...!.Q.

A.'lomaly Vehicle!
No. Statelllent Equip:1ent Cause Corrective Action IoIhllionll Re!ere::ces

In8t~ntation dis_ pollo 10 HSC_OOl26

crepancies :
a. ReS chlUlber pns_
Sure switches (all"'"
a. Probably "aused by resi-
due Wlder 8vitch dh.phragroa.
•• 1I0ne.

losed.
• Indicat~d glycol b. Possible broken Jumper 1I0ne.
l!fIlperature vas zero II.Cross pump svitch contacts,
hen pump slIitch """ in Or incolllPlete contact in
ump 2 position. pump 2 811iteh position.

RCS manifold prea_ c. Possible defective con_ c. Cri tical measureJQen

ure indications er_ nections and calibration o be instrUllll!nted v1th
Fn""W<. shirts. improved transducer on
pollo 15 and subsequen
pacecral't •
. Temperature ~&5ure d. Probable broken ...ire, • Inat1'Wllentation ... 1r
~nt of therm&1 shidd failed trllllsducer, or baro_ ing to be checked al'ter
or r&dioisot.ope thermo s ...itcll faHure. final installation.
Ieetric generator cask
neorreet.
Descent oxidizer e. Probably faulty trllllll_ Kone.
ani< ul.1age pressure dueer or "'lring betll~n trlllla
",Heation in cabin \/11.8 dueer and cabin diaple,y.
ero prior to deacent
ngine firing.

35 Cabin preasun dropped ",-, Hatch latch !aUed becaUlle None required. Apollo 1 HSC-OOl26
raplcD.y a!'teT Uo! Jet_
tison.
twme1 could not be vented
prior to Jettillon (see item , ).

36 Unexpected carbon dt- ",-, Probable grell.ter_thllll_pre_ Predictions to be ..00- Apollo 1 MSC_OOl26
odde levels in cabin. dicted lithiUlS hydrodde eled around IDOre rell.1is
cartridge per!Ol"lllll.nce vari_ tic operational charac-
aUona. terisUcs.

37 Large attitude exC\ll'4 Abort guidance mode control Crev briefins. Apollo 1 MSc-00026
sions occurred at itag- svitch "'as inadv"rt"ntly cy-
ing. cled, follolled by an incor-
rect output of ttl" yay rate
gfro. In reacting to yav
rat" gyro prob1" .. , the guid-
ance mode control sll1\:.ch \1M
transt'<!:rr"d to AlIro, resultin
in higt> rat"s.

38 Nuter alal'D and ascent Sensor uncov"red by gas Kone. Propellants ...ill Apollo 1 IoISc-ilol26
propellllllt low_level in bubble. b" settled lIhen aacendi g
dication during fint from lunar ..urface.
ascent engine firing.

39 LM 70-<lllll camera stopped ". FUm lias bindillt': in Ill&gtlldne

because of dlllSllged film &<1_
Prefii!#>t inspection to Apollo 1
be improved. FulIe to b
HSC_OOl26

vance mechlllllllm. Drive motor changed fl'Olll 1.6 amp to

becuoe overloaded and fal1ed. 1.2 &IIIp.

UI l6_0IlII camera failed

to operate vith one m.ag
". Marginal dearance betlleen
camera and m.aga:tine required
M!I.g&:tines to be checked Apollo 1
for proper clearances.
HSC-OOl26

a:tine. elttra care to obtain proper

alignment.

M!I.g&:t1ne interlock lIl1cro_ NSC_OO126

CM 16...... Camera ceased
to operate in pulse mod '" sllitch. failed.
High reliability
..... itche .. insta11ed in
Apollo 1

Cuoeras for Apollo 11

and subsequent lII188ions
 F-15

APOLLO lL

Vehicle!
Csuse Corrective Action Missions Ref'erC:lCeS
'0. StQtement Equipment
Nitrogen pressure de_ CSH_107 Leal<sge due to contlllll1nation Filters installed in Apollo 1 HSC_OOl71
ClL)'ed in s",condary Ser_ induced failure or solenoid Apollo 12 and subsequen
vice propulsion engine control valve. spacecraft. Nitrogen
actuation system. facility cleanliness
more closely controlled

2 Heater element in ox- CSM-lOT Probsble open On tenaJ.nal La.unch site test re_ pello 1 l~C-00171
ygen tank 2 inopersti ve bosrd in heater circuit. In_ quirements changed to
operative condition existed speciO' ""'l'erage level
during countd""". to veriO' that both tan
heaters are operstional

3 Autol:l&tic coil of CM CSM_I07 Intermittent terminal board Records researched and Apollo 1 MSC-OOlTl
RCS minus yaw engine connection. nO questionable tel"llli-
vatve responded errat_ inal boards used in cri -
ically to firing comman iCal circuits on sub_
sequent spacecrsft.

4 Electroluminescent seg- CSM-I07 Probable short due to pWlC- Insure that relll8ining Apollo 7 MSC-OOl71
ment on EMS numeric dis tured insulation. units have properly Apollo 8 MSC_02li17
pl~ "as inoperative. routed wires. Apollo 9
Apollo 1
Apollo 1

5 Oxygen flo" rate IlI8.ster CSM_I07 Probable faulty capacitor in None. No previous rail Apollo 1 MSC_OOl71
alarms during initial L alanD cireuit. ure hhtory of capaeito s.
pressurization.

6 Propellant isolation CSM_I07 Pyrotechnic shock, None required other Apollo 9

vat".,s closed at CSM! than procedures stated Apollo 1
S_IVB separation. for Apollo 9. Apollo 1
Apollo 1
Apollo 1

7 Peculiar odor in dock- CSM-I07 Odor resembled burned "ire Brief cre"s. pollo 11 MSC-00171
ing twmel. insulation; ho"ever, i t """
probably call8ed by outgassing
from hatch ablator material.
(Hist>er ablator temperaturea
IDII.Y h&ve been experienced be_
cal18e or removal of hatch
outer insulation.)

8 Indication of 0ll¥gen CSM-I07 Transducer negatively b1"" ..d None. pollo 11 MSC_OO171
tlO\l rate "as lo"er thllJ because of change in heater
normal. resistance "ithin 1'10\1 sensOr
bl'1dge-.

9 Tie-\lrap knots be<:ame CSM-I07 Knots illlproper1.y 'tied. More detailed procedure pollo 11 MSC_OOITl
untied on forvard heat developed. All subse-
Shield mortar umbilicaJ. quent spacecraft re"ork

I
lanysrd.

Primary "ater/glycol CSH_I07 A bearing usembly on the Hone reQ.uired, VaJ.ve pollo 11 MSC-QOl71
evaporator outlet tem_ I "arm gear shaft or the tem_ can be manually set, pollo 16 MSC_03460
perature did not stlL)' perature control valve &<:-
!thin nonosl limits. tuator fa11ed.

n Service module did not CSM-I07 Thruster firing times "ere Jettison control se_ pollo 8 MSC_OOl71
skip out ot earth'S at_ not optimhed for propellant quence modified for pollo 10 MSC_03466
Fosphere. sloshing effects. Apollo 13 and subsequen pello 11
vehicles.

~l cell 2 exit tem_ CSH_I07 Probable condenser "ater re_ ProcedUl"es developed to pollo 7
perature periodically tention and ~riodic rele..."e, dlUllP oscillations i f poll08
disturbed. Not detri ....ntal. they occur. pollo 9
pollo 10
pollo 11
F-16

APQLLO !L

AnOlll!Lly
Vehiclel
Stllt"",ent EQ.uipr:ent Cause Corrective Action Missior.s

inion timeT stopped. "'-5 Probable cracked solder Joint New timers using integ_
associated with cOrdvood ""- rated circuits and
polIo 11
pell0 12
:~SC_OOITl

selllhly of electrical cOlllpon_ other design changes to pollo 15

ents. be incorporated when
vailable.

truel in the d.escent pro- LM-5 Simultaneous venting of pro_ elium solenoid valve polIo 11 MSC_OOITI
ulsion system fw:l/he- pellant ....d Bupercrit1cal he- 0 be closed prior to
tum heat exchanger "8.8 Hum tanks. lrue!venting and opened
~ozen by helium ~lovlng ome time later.
hrough the heat exchang
r, causing high ruel
ine pressure "hen heat
r?Wted back trOIll the en_
~ne atter landing.

llbin indication of car- LM-5 Condensate got into BenBor rain tank vent line pollo 11 MSC_OO171
on dioxide partial pres causing erroneous indications elocated on Apollo 13
ure 111gb after Mcent. land subseQ.ucnt apace_
ran.

o~icatlons difficult "'-5 Vehicle blockage and multi_ perational procedures polloll MSC_OOll1
o maintain using steer_ path interference. o be changed to .. ini_ pollo 12
sble antenna. ~~e vehicle blockage pollo 14
and multi path condi_ pollo 151
tions •

OPlPuter alarlll8 Occur_

I'd during descent.
"'-5 Executive o .... rOov alarlll9.
caUlled by autOlll8ltic multiple
Rende~vous radar coup-
ling data unit counter
pollo 11 MSC-00171

rescheduling of the same Job. interrupts not process~

The multiple rescheduling was using Luminary IB pro_
caused by counter interrupts gram on Bubseq~nt mis-
from the rende~vous radar sions. lIot as much
coupling data unit. computer time reQ.uired
fer descent monitoring.

Cabin depressurization
time longer than expect
"'-5 Depres'uri~ation through bac_ Bacteria filter not uss<
teria filter required more on Apollo 12 and subse_
pollo 11 MSC-OOll1

time than predicted. quent Bpacecraft. re-

ducing decompression t1

Electroluminescent seg_ LM-5 Probable COlllPQnent or wiring More comprehend ve pre_ pollo 11 MSC_OOl71
lllI'nt on abort guidance fallure. launch testing required
system entry and dlspll\l
a,sseillbly vas inoperaUV<

reMUp of voice trMs_ LoM-5 Probable inadvertent lov set_ Brief crews. pollo 11 MSC-OOl71
fission occ.urred during ting of sens1tivity control.
extravehicular act! vit)'.

~ho reed ved d1,lring LM-5/1olSfN Inherent in cO/lllllWlications Dovnlink voice inhibite pollo 11 MSC-00171
plink voice translll1s- system. during periods of uplin
dons. Fice transmission.

jData storage electron_

ics assembly did not
"'-5 Probable open in timing sig_
nal return line and veice
ire harness at connec_ pol10 11
tor wrapped with tape· t<
MSC-oOITl

ecord properly. aignal line. prevent rlexure d8Jllll.ge

on Apollo 12 and sub_
sequent spacecraft.

iKnob on engine ...... cir_ LM-5 Knob vas probably broken by Circuit breaker guards pollo 11 MSC-OOl Tl
uit breaker was broken. impact of oxygen purge sys_ installed on Apollo 12
tem during EVA preparations. and subsequent space_
craft •

~':""t chaaiber pressure

switch had slov respons
"'-5 Probable particulate contam_
ination in switCh inlet pas-
Brief Crews to recog-
nize and handle dlllilar
pollo 11 MSC-OOlll

o Jet driwr cOl!l!Bllds. sage. problems •

 F-17

lio. "''''"'''
Stne:>ent
Vehicle!
tqlllpa:cr.t
Cause Corrective Action ,Huions p..ercn:ncea

"'-,
" ater entered au1t
hroUfl> luit halt vent
1'-0'.
Probable luka«e thToqtl
..ater
nJ._.
.epara~ ••lector
A.lJ.ovablfl "alYe .etua_ "Polio U
Uon toree lovered and
i"flpe<:t1on for l1nkase
KSC-OOlll

ind1nc inc::orporated til

ta"tory and It.uneh

..
to
If te p.-oeedtln'f1 •

f1KUOll control .,.flU. lM-, Probable erroneo\ll "f1uUon .~. 10 hlat-a..,. 0' polloll MSC-ooll1
~tnc nap obnnoe4 .ad varniq ""fltft: OJ" 411_ d1l11.... fallures.
tor three a"&1". f*1r1. plq n_!; opeT&Uon " ... ed
b,. interruptton of 28 V&:: Ivp
ply or oscUlator r.u.....e.

>1 Lwl .... f1W'fac:e tderlal0 on ~ry is inhertnt. cbar.eter_ tlepl.~nt ae.-try ~ ,.,u. II MSC-ollll1
c.-no eahla retained. hUe or cable. be d1U1Fd.

.. coiled wpee .
atln& .1eetric&! Can_
n"ctoon f'roIl ralOte CO"
trol unit to poru.blt.
on Male eonneetor cou.ld not be
nn.1y ua.ped ... 4 a.l1sned.
ale eQftoot<:tor
.lpd.
...
~ pollo 11 MSC-OOlTl

ure f1Upport -rUg vas

1mewt.
on Lubricant burnished on
" 1011n& or .~le re_
urn eontainerfl _. 41 r
ricu.lt.
F11"t COiDt&1nen had not
been s~J~tll!1l. t.o repnted
clo.ings ... had tbe t.-.1l1ina:
.t't~r "l...nina:.
pollo 11 MSC-OOl71

conUJ.llen, Mel l\ll:lrieUlt

Md been ...... ved rroa Incb
11nlr.-.g.e 4I.lTinr; cluning.

A:lo:uly
V"H"lel
C&\:$c Correctlve Actior; !-lissio'ls Refere:>ces
f'o. St"Umant ~ulp:.;er;t

, D1I pl&y Ikeybo&rd M'_ CSM_l06 Probable rel..y cont~n.tlon. F&brlc.tlon proceu i._ polloI MSC-01855
t\lnetioned prior to proved to &lnb.he eon_
buneh. - dhpbyed .11 t . .lnation • •ereenins
8' •• procedure. ll11pro ..ed, an
.... ltuP"tion procedure
developed to cle.... con_
dition.
, KydroS'ln tank 2 hnt CSM_I08 Jnco"'Plete bond In .tdnh.. Apollo 12 t~ v •• re- pollo 1 MSC-01855
leak prior to laun"h. st ....l/titanlum bi~tllilc &Qved ...d repl&cll!1l.. polIo 1
Joint. Tank. rrO& lots suspee_
Ud or h&v1na poor 'I.U&l
it)' joints recllied ror
replalle""nt of Joints.

3 1..1"'tnlns .truck .peee- CSM-l06 Vebiele bunehltd dW'ina: L&unch rill. . changed to ""'0 , MSC-01855
I
.. MSC..¢l~O
cr&t't and 1.W><:h vell1d thundersto.... .pllcHy &llovable ute_
r . .ultlnc In: orologle&1 condition•• KSC-ok1l2
Loll of nine In.tru Pro~na: chance Mde (Suppl_nt 8)

,.
Mnte.tton . . . .W-e1Ient ••
to.. of inertilll
to inhibit .ctivation
ot pl.ttor. coarse-ells
plat to... reterellC •• *l4e durinS 1.lIllCh.
,. 01seonnectlon or
tuel eelb.

• St&l>llhatiOll &lI<1 eon_

trol _,.ste. elrc:u1t
CSK_l06 Breaker wu prob.bl,. not u<
dw-lnS prtlauneb ebe<:l<s.
Ql.eek. to b • ...te .....
eu.f'\lll,..
Apollo 1 MSC..¢1655

breaker ..... ope" durinS

p:l&ti....rtion <:heeb.

, Prope1U.nt and hell ....

holation val.... cloud.
CSM-I08 P)'roteelmie _hoek. Haintain .... of proce_ Apollo 9
dur.. d.eveloped to ...r_ Apol.lo ~
MSC-OlB55

.t CSM/s_rva eepuat.101l It)' podtion of ¥&lYe •• ....u.".

Apol.lo 1
Apollo 1
 F-18

APOL:.c 1l....

Ar:Oltoa1y

'0.
6
Stat_nt
Vehlcle'
tqutp::ent
Operation of S_band h:'~ CSM_l08
Cause Correetlve ~~lon

Probable fa.HuTe of elu.l ell_ Pbue III antentl& strlp. Apollo I

"'lIs10::=

KSC-01855
~!"l'e::ec,
I
&&1n antenna In n&rrOV_
bee.a .,;>de n.ulted In
plexe.. 0.. "'ITOV-~"" eo.pv_
Hor eoooponent. ",. "'" ..... 0' j:""'0 ,
Apollo 13 and ,ub.eqlleo polIo 110. I
1<N Ilan&l .tnneth OIl
.....e ..&1 oc:culon,.
.'*'ec.... n. Apollo 19
II
1 Dhcnpaney In
K''''
( . .u\lAd) and c&1eulat
oqpn Ul&p.
CSM_l06 Leak&£e tr_ 9OO-p"1 ox;rpn ..... Pnnllllt t ...u
.yst. . vlthln ,erY1ce .a4ul•• c:onslelencl adequate.
~10 1 lISC...ol855 I
!
8 Ul c .. ev ",v atrap_lU,e
~terl&l In ncWty of
CSM-l06 bten&1 ..... d.1.1.... to 100'"
piece. shown OIl Apollo 10
.....
Con4iUoa con-
d4ered ItOt eletrlaent.&1
polloI MSC.01855
iI

._.
SM/SLA lnurtace Just
i,
,..,~.

I
prlor to cloc:klll'.
, AnlfUlar polltion of op- CSM_l08 Pl:>n1ble _tor clrh-e upU_ 110 nicleoc:e of pollo 1 MSC-01855
Uc. ,ban nu.o:t. .ted
111 ~ero optics ao4e.
t1e.. aodule ...It'\ur.cUon. S"oerlc probl_ or de- TIOllo 13 !
dO' <on"..".
10 illnokw, vere COllt&a1l1_
ated.
<SOW'" R&1n _ter. rea1dlle troll
l.unch e,c.pe syst. . enpne.
f'or Apollo 13 and s\lb_
sequent .paeecr.ft.~
polIo 7
pollo 8
MSC-Ol855

and. OIltr;aslln& of sUlcone •• se&la added to boo, polio 1

oUs rro. v1noiav sull protecth'e cover to pre
(batch Ml1'). vent r.11I vater leak'S'"
b. Hatch vuulov canty
purp prtor to fUII>t.
,. InsulaUon _tert&1
re_\"O!d froll bet...,.n 1n
ner and outer h.tch vtn
dOYs.

n reeovery antenna :1 ""'",OS

""" not eleploy properly.
Adheslve substance probably Clart f)' 101t&11aUon In pollo 1.2 MSC...o1855

'" held protecUve tl.p over strueUons to "sure re

ground plane r-.dI&l,. _ .....1 ot adhutves and
proper deploYRnt ot
r&dIds.
I
C_nd .adule RCS Oll- Apollo 7
" Ieliter hol.Uon "&l,,e
vould not relOltn doseel
CSM-l08 Damaged bel10ys. probably re- Brhf creve.
sulttng troll pres,url:atlon
of systelll vith holation
Apollo 1
MSC-01855

elurlng po'tfllght oper- 11&1 ves do. ed •

• Uon••

13 Retention bracket tor CSM_I08 Bracket not properly bond",d Manut&ctuJ'lng requ1re_ Apollo 1 MSC-01855
oxygen ho.e c.... loo.e to panel. ..ents to Inc:1ude torque
durIn, landln" testing Of bracket.

Foocl prepar.tton unlt CSM_l08 'I\lo ,,&lye O-rln61 ~ged Check "'I.1vu tor leak- Apollo 1 MSC-Ol855
leaked aft.er hot ....ter t'rotIl particle contULltl&Uon. ... vhen II&ter tnrper&_ Apollo 1
elhpen,ed. ture II 1500 PO.

f'Ol'Y&rd heat shield lIDr Probably broken by drogue lIone. Lanya,rd f'\lnc:tion Apollo 1 MSC_01855
tar ..-btUc&l lanyard .teel cable rher vhen drogue co.plete before drogue
v ... ''''''Ired. v." deployed. deploy.ent.

16 rnetnmentaUon diac:rep CSM-I08 MSC-01855

ancte.:
a. IlCS 'l.U&<1 D he U UII a. Probable veakentng of •• Iklne. Meuureaent Apollo
_nttold preu ...... 1Dd1_ I t.... ln gage bon4ine. not neeenary for ntgh •
caUons erroneoUi.
b. Suit preu ...... trana b. 'l'ransdu.o:er lnternal.ly b. !$one. Probl.... con_ Apollo 1
du.o:er indic.ted loy. contwtl&ted vith IItckel.- ,tdcreel to be holated Apollo I
plati0s particles. occ .....renc:e.
c. I'\)tabl. v.ter quant c. Stain found. on potenUoa- c. lIone. Alternat" Apollo 8
ity clata err.Uc. eter ~lItance vafer. 110 _tllodl .Ta1lable for 'Poll<> •
"note""e o! _hture or ....1"'" detera1l1tna vater quant ",no
cont&a1"aUoa ot _uur1n& tty_

.....
.y.t". c:c.pon"ntl U on

el. hel cell J relfUl.-

Apollo 8.
d. Probahle leak in pre._ ,.
ted lQ-dro&en pre......" ....." tranldu.o:".. dl.phr....
4ece;red.
 }'-19

A?OllO 12

State=.er.t
Panel 2 mInIon clock
tuning fork display op_
Ve~ielef
~"iI""'cr.t
CSM_IOS Probable cracked $Older Joint
anociated "lth cordllQOd con-
C"rreed"e Aeti"n
lie" mlnlon timers de_
veloped for Apollo 13
po11o
polIo
7
11
I MSC-01l155
i
uated Intermit tently structIon. Manufacturing and subsequ..nt .pace- pollo 1.2
and cloek had craeks in proeen induces stress Into crart. Clear pr ..... ur .. - pollo 15
face glan. glass. sensitive tape placed
Over glasa.

VHF eommunieaHons bf!_ CSM-lOS Improper squelch sensitivity Brief Crevs and use com polIo 12 MSC-01655
tveen CSM and LM during settIng In CM. Improper '''II ..unications .. arrier he~
ascent and rende~vous of light"eIght headset In CM. set.s durIng criU .. al mi
"ere unreadable. slon pl... ses.

19 DockIng hatch tlood- Insufficient plunger travel. Plunger travel In_ polIo 12 MSC-01855
ligllt ."ltch'dld not creased.
l
operate properly.

\later c"'"" out of .uit lIater bypa.sed wter separlL- lIater separator speed pollo 12 MSC-01655
Inlet hoses. tor beclLU5e of exces.ive reduced by addIng flo"
"lLter separator .peed. limitor to pri ...ry 11th
1\lIII hydroxide canilter
tor Apollo 13 and sub_
sequent sp&('ecraft.

Cabin IndIcation of car Probably caused by "ater en_ Water separator swap pollo 11 MSC_01655
bon dioxide parH&1. pre tllrlng senllOr. tank vent Bne rerouted pollo 1
sure erraHc. for Apollo 13 s.nd sub_
seQ,uent space..raft,

Tracking light faHed. Corona In high-VOl tage .ec_ TrackIng Hght rede_ polIo 9 MSC-01655
tion of l1gl1t resulting froll sIgned tor ApollO 13
rpollO 12
hIgh temperatures degradIng and subseQ,uent space_
pot.tlng compound, crart .

MESA handle could not 0<_6 D_rlng stuck in retention O-ring elimInated, and polIo I MSC_01655
be released fr<»o sup- socket b...,ause of bindIng of loop cl&l!lped to end of
port bracket. ball de~ent Or pullIng D_rlng deployment cable for
at an angle, Apollo 13 and subseQ""n
sp&Cecrart.
Hatch therlM1 shield PLSS snagged on shield dur_ Shield thicknen in_ Apollo I MSC_0l855
torn, causing potential ing cre""""n egren. crea.ed and di ...... ter of
hazard to suIt. shield mountIng holes

I
Increased.

Lo,,_le~l descent pro_ 0<-6 S&I!1pl1ng rate increued Apollo 1 MSC_01855

" pellant quanti ty light
I11Wll.1nated early.
Loll-level point Sensor un-
covered by propellant slosh_
ing.
and data averaged auto_
matically for Apollo 13
IlIld subsequent spo.ee-
crart •

Lunar surfacll color

television C",""ra Csile '" Im&ge SensOr ""s llXp<)sed. to
extreme light levlli. d&lllll.g-
ing a portion of tile target..
Cr ...... training and 01"'1'- ApollO 1
aHond procedures
changed.
MSC-0l855

16_ camerll. o1"'rll.ted Interlll1ttent actuation of Design of interlock Apollo 1

interuo1ttently during .....gadne Interlock micro_ s"itch actuation .... ch_
ascent. s"ltch eontscts. anlam changed.

Fuel capsu.le for radio_ BInding bet"een t.hll contact f'u.eI capsule backplatllS Apollo 1 MSC-01855
isotope thermoelectric surface of t'uel capsule back~ re'lOrked to Increase
generator ",.. dlff1cu.lt plate and thll latch on thll clearance for Apollo 13
to remove from cuk as_ cask. and subsequ.ent mInIons
sembly.

'the""",l shroud on pll.S_ Effect of lf6_gravity greater LaminatIons spot-se"ed Apollo 1 MSC-01855
slve seislll1c experi ....nt than expect.ed, and IIelghts added.
'IOu.ld not lIe flat and
lll..lll.i.nations sepll.J"ated.

Cold-<:athocl.e Ion gage Cable st.1 ftness and eff!K'ts DIfferent experi ....nt. Apollo 1 MSC-01855
"ould not re... In up_ of If6-grll.v1ty. conf1guration used for Apollo I
right. Apollo 13, Por subse_
Q,uent Ill1ssions, cable
IIrll.p relllOved to reduce
cable stiffness.
 F-20

APOLLO l2.....

Anortaly
Ve~~elel
No. Statement E'l.ll,il)l:ent
Cao.:se Corrective Action Missions ilc!"~rences

ElDpty oollection bag Single spring clip on right_ Double spring clip to b pollo 12 MSC_01855
" tended to come loose '" hand bag vu not ade'l.U&.te s<1ded for Apollo 13.

.-
hom tool curiel'. tor bag retention.
0 __ counting on eM ,IT
" ..... camera did not
with crew count •
Maaazine was inadvertently
opened allOlo'ing fil.. holder
to COIOl! o\lt. This ruulted
in improper fU.. transport.
Film ~lease lulob taped
after ma~zine loading
and cre"S briefed.
pollo 12 MSC_01855

33 uit pressure pulses 'IT Ho evidence of systelll Ml-

function.
None. pollo 12 MSC-01855
ere felt by 1M' during
extravehicular activity.
I
J4 Exposure count"r on lu-
nar surface close_up
'IT Temperature exceeded lIlechani- C""",r& hancl.1e painted
cal intert'erence point of white (counter is house
pollo 12 HSC_01855 I
camera did not always counter. in handle).
COWlt.

35 Shutter, counter and ,IT Loose handle and trigger as_ 'l'hWllb wh .... l secured by pallo 12 IolSC_01855
rillll advance actions s<=bly. star vasher and roll pi
or 70...... lunar surface instead of spring washe
camera lIere intermittent and set screw.

J6 EVA cOlllllUllicat1ons,,- ,IT 'rone caused by interference Brief Crell and illlprove pallo 12 M$C-01855
grade'" by tone and nois from fan llIOtor IIhen micro_ quality control. !
phone amplifier supply volt_
age lias below regulator thres -
old of 12.5 volts. Random
noise may have been caused by
interlll1ttent open in prilll!U'y
lIinding of amplifier trans_

-
fOrlllCr.

n Weigh bags cracked and ,IT Material (Tenon film) Containers IIlade of Tef_ Apollo 1 MSC-01855
tore when handled on lu too brittle and Covel'S vere lon cloth for Apollo 13
nar surface. and vhen not provided. and aubsequent. Collec
used 1'01' tote bags. tion containers provide
samples bounced out. 1I1th llIeans of closing f
Apollo 14 and subsequen
•
I

A?OLlIJ ...ll

An,,:t.aJ..y
Ve~iclel
". State,.e"t EquiPltect
Cause Corrective Action .'~issio"s !lefcr<,:.cn

1 Cryogenic oxygen tank 2 CSM-109 A rire "hich vas started by The tank design Vas pollol MSC-02680
lost pressure. electrical stlort_c1rcuits in changed. a third cryo_ HSC-02545
the wirlng to the ran IIlOtors genic oxygen tank va.s
Indd.. the tank led to struc_ added. an isolation val ,
tural. railure or the tank. 1'01' tank 3 lias added. a
an auxiliary battery 1111.
installe'" On Apollo 14
and subsequent space<:n
, P<»tl&ndlng vent valve CSM_109 Poller lias applied to the Caution note was added pollo 13 MSC-02680
malfUnctioned durlng valves "hen the valve unlock to AOH to insure that
postl.anding activities handle was pulled partially handle is moved 1ta ful
(exhaust valve open _ out. travel berore switching

:~
inlet valve closed). on postlanding vent ran

l Optics shaft angle nuc CSM-I09 Probable CaWle lias resistance n,. only effect is sys- pallo MSC_02680
tuated in tero optics
IllOde.
betlleen brushes and slip ring ,,"
readout vllen optics
On halr-speed resolver due to are not in use. ",.,.,
pollo

vacU\IID and tero_g. IIIOve"",nt ~vipes av$,Y"

resistance. Crevs brie O.

I i
 F-2l

APOL.LO !L

Vel'.iele!
~o. S~at ........nt Zquip:ller.t Cause Corrective Action MisUo:lS

4 Difficulty WaB experi_ CSM-l09 Probable short in prilllfLry Launch site tests added jA,pollo l~ MSC_02660
enced in obtaining high winding of C-axls induetion to ensure proper fUnc_ !AllOllo l~ MSC-03753
gain antenna acqui8itio potentiol\leter resulting in tions prior to flight. IApcllo ll,j
and tracking. shift of Bcan limit and scan Procedure developed to IApollo 16
limit "arning functions. determine acceptable
Bpacecraft attitudes in
the event of a sbl11ar
fs11ure on sUbsequent
nigllts.
, Entry monitor system
0.05g light did not il_
CSM-109 Condition could not be dupli_ None.
cated in postflight testing.
pello 13
pollo l~
MSC_02680

luaUnate at proper time. Possible procedural error or

IllOmentary failure.
6 U leaked rro.. gullllet_ CSM-109 Possible out-of tolerance sae=bly procedureB im_ pollo 13 MSC_02680
breech ullembly in parts or illlProper assembly. proved and thermal bar-
orvard heat shield Jet ier added to breech-
i.oning syste.. and plenum &$sembly.
urned hole in gusset
Over plate.
1 CS fuel isolation valV<l CSK-109 Valve ",as III.1swired. Pre- Resistance checks to be pollo 13 MSC-02660
as found open during flight functional checks did performed in addition
;;;tfligllt inspection. not reveal discrepancy. to functional checks on
Apollo l~ and subsequen
spacecraft.
e r.table "ater quanti ty CSK-109 Probable errBtic operation of None requ.1red. \later pollo 6 MSC_02680
paeasurement fluctuated. transducer. Specific evi_ quantity can be deter- pollo 12
denee of contlUll1n ..tion or Fined vith! BCceptable pollo 13
corrosion could not be found. Bccur..ey by other lIU!ans.
9 uit pressure lIIeasure- CSM-109 Tr&n3dueer prob..bly cont ....in_ Apollo l~ c ..bin pres_ pollo 12 MSC_02680
~nt was erratic. ated by nickel particles. sure trBnsducer d18as-
~~:Wled and cleaned.
~th ..uit ..nd csb~n
transducers disasseJ:lble
and cleaned for Apollo
15 and sub ..equent space
craft.
lectrical circuit in_ CSM-l09 O-ring displace"",nt greater None required. pollo 13 MSC-02680
errupter leaked gas than norlll&1. Not detr1mentsl
hen it operated prior
o CM/sM separation.
n upercritical heli~ '-"-1 Prob..ble degradation of tank Screening test vas pello 13 MSC-02680
ressure rise rate 1I&S insulation due to annular ~~ed to supplell\ent nOr
reater than expected vaCUWll contslSination. F.'l testing for Apollo
uring CDl1l'. l~, 15 and 16 tanks.
For lIew tanks, gas .. es
relllOV<ld from vaeuWl j .. c, ,
periodlcall,y analyzed f
ont8lllinants during man
fscturing.
be crew heard a "thump '-"-1 Probable electrolyte leakage Descent batteries, &S- pollo 13 MSC_02680
ng" noise and Saw snow in battery <' resulting in the ent b ..tteries, new "er pollo l~
flakes venting frOtll b ..ttery lid being blown off. ice module battery, an
r<,:",drant ~ during trans un"'r surface drlll bat
I""rth flight. tery were modified for
pello 1~ and sub .. e'luen
1.... 1olls. The design 0
ther Apollo batteries
as considered safe.

100~cent battery 2 '-"-1 Fal.. e indlcBtion. Tempera_ Corrective action taken pollo 13 MSC_02680
psalfUnction light n- ture switch "ires possibly to prevent electrolyte
UIIlinated. shorted to ground by electro_ leakage (see iteJ:l 12).
lyte, Or ..uxiliary relay pos_
8lbly contlUll1nated in elec_
trical control assembly.
 F-22

'0.
,,"'"'"
Stat.~t
Vehide!
Eqll!p!!:IOn'l.
c_. CorTeet~ve ~tlo" .:11110<:.. Sl!~ere:>C"5

" ,,"nUl''' b ..cent .t~~

~~n t.nl< 2 Inenned
"'-1 Shllt.orr n l..... leped. prob-
ably e ....ed by D-rinll: d ~
Val~ tested tor both
!onlard &lid ""ftr.e leu
pollo 13 1CSC_0'2680

indiclldll& ....ver." leg

,as".....rro.. .......1ro14 into

during a. . ~q ot' eonta.in_
.ted v&l..-e ....'1.. Luk tnt.
"ere in&d"'l.... t •.
• at high and loy PTe
aures. I
Let'\.-han'" vindO\l shade "'-1 Acl.ar covering ...... not .ur· Sba<l"s fabric_ee4 rr_ pollo 13j HSC_02680
" a' cracked. (1<:tentl)' duetl1e_ improved Aclu &lid re_
inforced with Mylar be·
fore 6'1.1 tchlng.
,n: Insufrident friction betv""n /oIlI.ting surfaee 0' pollo 1 MSC_02680
" Bumper separated trom
10...... lens or lWlal' lllOd.
ule 16....... camera.
_Ung .urracu. bumper ."awed.

n ~t knob CUll! of! or ,n: Gripping COlllpOWl4 ..."" to ,~,

seeW"ed "lth roll po110 1 MSC_02680
interTal tilDer. '«url! set. acrev did not pro_ pin.
vide .utt1dent ntantl_
(oree.

18 . . .&1 Ipn,y bot.tl", ,n: . PKt.ag1ng did not pendt aat.1Paek&ginc _thod pollo 1 ",,-m""
"'ere dirf1C\llt to _e. j hractory operation in fiiFtjch&nged.

i I

"''''"''' Vehiclel c_.

'0.

--
St.ate:>ent CorrectiYe Action Whllens P.erere:\Ces
!quJ.pae"t
1 Sh att~ts "'ere ~- CSM_110 Most probably, either ronien 5e~ra.l chanp. "'eN! poJ.lo 1. MSC-oIill2
quire<! to acb!eYe _terial interrered >t1 th the F-~ to preYent toRiS" MSC..05101
ina probe capture >auo oper..tion or the c ..pture _terial trow. ptttna
engage_nt durlna tr...,. l ..tch weh.....i_, or l,he l,r...... Into the probe _ch....._
lunar <loc:lt1ng. 1.1.1Ol> c. . J _ d . h., inel\ldina • COY'ft'
1,0 be ueed prior 1,0
r1181>t. Also, the l,r..n
hUon c .... .... efllbly .....
lllOd1f1ed IUld tests ...ere
&<Ided.
, High_gain IUltenna track CSM_110 A rtve_ to eight-degree Connector. reworked and pallo MSC-04112
ina "'as d.1 rf1cult sev_
eral 1.1..... during t...,..
boresight .hin. or ... iot. beM
"Il' pouibly c..uaed b)' raulty
in.pec1.1on procedures
1.1ghtened. Thenul ac-
",ilo 1
pallo l~
"
lunar ""... t and lun.... couial cable connector Or cept&nCe te.t perton>ed pallo 16
orbit. .hack trOll SLA .epara1.1on. ...hile antenna radlating
and under operatlnc con
dition ••

) Urine dWOP DOnIe _ . CSK-110 Freedq or DOn1e prol:Iel>l)' Proc:edunJ. chanee •• polIo lil MSC-OIIll2
obstructed .eveno.l ti_ c ..~ed ob.truction. otrrer_
W"ing .tallon. ~ purp and dry proeedW"u
.....<1 colder DO••le eond.1l,ioll.

• ~ c-.ul1ceUonl be_
"'een CSH ...,d 1M ...eN!
eVaded prior to 1 .......
.....
CSM·110
could haYe cauud trees1ng.

ST-1,_ oper..ti~ M ....

llaits.
~ . Re<:ei_r AOC .asllrl_
~ntl added 1,0 CSM and
LM to .tudy proble••
pollo 1 MSC-o/Ill2

llrt_rr and durln, Rn en.... l,ralnll1& el<}l&Dd.ed.

de:tVO.... to 1.De:I\1lde et1'e<:tI or
...eak IlCl&l .trenel,bl.
, Entry _nitar Iyn_
O.05g light dld not 11_
CSM-110 C...... '. Ti_ or 11cM ..... ob_
.t..,..,ted by neutral den.lt)'
Clear glu. siauJ.et.or
lliter replaced ...11.b
pollo 1
polloI
MSC-OIIll2

h.ainate at proper ti_. rilter. 11l~red night unit.

Filter repolitioned nor
entry on luble-quent
filgllts.
 ;"-23

Vehicle!
No. Statement Equi pn:ent
Cauae Corrective Aetion flcr<lrc:lces

6 .1n bus A remained en_ CSM-110 Motor-driven s... itch did not S... ltch ~apon"e time pollo 14 MSC_0411:?
ergized vhen main bus_T. oper..te becauae motor atalled checked for Apollo 15 MSC_05242
switches were placed 1n u a result of contamination and aub.. equent space_
the "orr" position at of co,"",utator. craft, and bad a... itches
800 feet. replaced 1f necessary.

7 ~aln bUll B _ battery C CSM-110 Contacta did not t:l&ke bec ..use Iione required. pollo 14 MSC-04112
circuit breaker contact of glass particlea on cont ..ct MSC_05814
....... " intermittent. sur!'&ce.

8 Food preparation unit CSM_110 Stroke time of valve usembly Kot "'ater explusion pollo 12 MSC_04112
leaked 1lIO",.mtarily art.. \l8.s slO\l becauae of di"""n_ tests conducted on pollo 14 MSC_04751
hot water vas dispensed. aional interference bet...een Apollo 15 and aubsequen
the cylinder and piaton ..t spacecr..ft.
higher temper..tures.

9 Rapid repressurization CSM_110 FUl valve "aa closed before C~s briefed on re_ MSC_Ob1l2
system required recharg system .....s rully charged. charging techniques for
ing 1n ftddttion to nor_ l.e&ka~ rate ....s not exces_ other_than_normal re-
Ill!Il ",chargi"6'I. sive. chargings.

Ascent battery 5 volt- ,"-8 Possible short bet...een plates Stricter Inspection and polloI MSC.QIl1l2
age decreased. of battery cell, short from improved procedures use polloI MSC_05257
cell to case, or external for plug inst ..ll..tion
battery load. an<1 ""sl!lllbly of cell
pl ..tes. Test added at
launch site to measure
parasitic load" prior t
battery installation.

,"-8

..
II Abort co""""nd I<U set Probable metallic cont"",ina_ All s"itches of this Apollo 1
in computer although tion "ithin abort s"itch o:>d_ type replaced ... ith
abort 8"iteh had not
been depresse<l.
"' a"itchea screened by X-
ray and vibration. Cir
cuit modif1e<1 to elimin
ate single_point fail-
ures. Pri ....ry guidance
computer software modif ed.

12 -band steerable antenn ,"-8 Undeterlll1ned. Incidental amplitude pollo 11 I.fSC-OOl71

peration vas inter~t­ ~dulation of uplink polIo 14 MSC-04112
aignal minimi~ed for pollo IS I-lSC_07505
ent.
polIo 15 and aubaequen
, issions.

13 anding radar system ,"-8 S"itching to low_scale range iring mo<1if1cation mad polIo 14 I'SC_04112
....itched seales and 1n1_ was caused by turning on ra- o enable holding "yste
1al slant range indica- dar too soon. Initial slant in high-scale while in
ion "as high. r&llge reading " .... caused by antenna position 1. Lo
side lobe look-on. scale s"itching enabled
in position 2. Positio
2 automatically selecte
at high gate.

bort guidance syste", ,"-8 Failure could have been Design, IlIIlnufacturing, pollo 14 MSC_QIlIl2
hUed during rendezvous caused by any of 27 compon- esting and inst&11.8tio
raking ph&ae. ents in the +4_volt logic etho<1s considered ade-
po"er supply, the sequencer, uate. No corrective
Or thO! interconnections be_ action required.
tween the t"o lDOdules.

Ius cracked on data ,"-8 Possible internal Btress in leer plsst1e tape ap- pollo 14 MSC-QIl1l2
15
entry and display as- glass, improper IlX:IWlting, or plied to glass silll11ar
sembly. glass "as inadvertently hit. to mission timer "'indo...

16 Lunar topographic Climer Transistor in shutter control None. Screening and pollo 14 MSc-e4112
fat f'unctioned. '" circuit was s:lorted, causing tests considered adequa
continoous shutter operati0l).
and tearing sprocket holeB in
shutter curtain.
 F-24

AnOOl&ly
Vehicle!
~o. Stet~~~t E.;ui p::lent Cause Corrective Action Missions Refere'l"es

17 Lunar Module Pilot's Glove vrist-eontrol cable None. pollo 14 MSC-04112

rigbt glove pulled to
the lett and do"" dur_
'" system design inherently al_
levs glove to take various
ing.the s~ond EVA. neutral positions.

nter_lo"",ter double_ GFE Inter_lometer reaponded to one. Condition does pella l~ Msc-04112
yeUng occur«d 13 random pulses from motor cur_ at degrede photography.
tIDeS out ot 263 exposur s. rent.

o....W11eations \lith Com_ Condition vas corrected vhen lonl'. pello 14 Msc-04112
Moder ""I'"
interllli t'tent '" constant wear gar ....nt elee_
trical adapter \las replaced
v1th spare unit. No abnorlllll.l
ities fOlUld postflight.

ct1ve seismio experi- selector svitch dial rray not ~tent mechanism rede- poJ.lo 14 MSc-04112
ent thumper misfired have been held in position by esigned and dust pro_
lve ti_s. detl'nt, and firing svitch may tection added.
have been contaminated by dus

I'ranslll1ssion ot operate Probable .... cing or corona peration prior to dust pello 14 MSC-Oli1l2
..leet eo~d to 8upra- vithin supratherroa1 ion de- .::?:""r relllOval limited t
herm&l 10n detector re- tector e'l.uipment prior to IIUnillUID "on" ti.... for
ulted In noisy data fro dust cover removal. pollo 15 (last mission
hre .. experi"""'ts. for experh,ent).

WlV portable ....gnet_ No provision for locking reel Ratchet and pawl lock_ pello 14 loGC_04112
"",tel' cable ",..s dif'f'i- during revind. Gripping reel ing device, and better
ult to r ..vind. and crank .....s difficult vith grip for reel and crank
gloved hand. added for Apollo 16 (no
carried on Apollo 15).

entral station 12-hour Solid-state tiroer used pollo 12 MSC-04ll2

" 1mer pulses did not
!occUr ,,1'ter initial ac_
M"chanlcaJ. s"ction of timer
did not drive svitches. Loss for Apollo 15 and sub-
of ti ....r has no adverse ef_ se'l.uent missions.
pello 14

tivation. fect on experiJ:lents.

Y-axis leVf:l1ng of pe;s- Probable intermittent opera- None. pollo 14 MSC_O~1l2

sive seismic experiment tion of a component in the
lUI intermittent. """tor control c1rcuit.

Long_period vertical Unknown. None. Satis:l'actory pol1o 14 Msc_ollU2

sdsl!>OlIIeter of pessive data obtained by opera_
seismic experiment vas ting experiment in t i l t r_
unstable vhen operated out mode.
\lith the feedback filte
<0.

" Active aeismic experi _

ment geophone 3 de,ta
shoved intermittent
ALS£F Probable open in posi ti ve-
going diode_wired transistor
in the logarithmic compressor
None. pollo 1 Msc_04ll2
MSC-07638
spikes to off_scale hig! for geophone 3.
during hi/ltl-bit-ratl'
listening llIOde.

Suprathl'rllllL1 ion detec_ Probable intermittent com- None. Apollo 15 is pollo 1 Msc-04ll2
tor data vas intermit- ponent or vire connection re- last m1lsion for experi
tently erroneoua. sulting in an intermittent ment.
failure of the start reset
pulse for the politi"" log
A!D converter control logic.

Charged particll' 1 = Probable short to ground in Hone. Experiment vas Apollo 1 IolSC_o4112
environlll"nt experiment the analyzer B paver supply not carried arter Apoll
analyzer B data lost. filter, the analyzer, Or the
interconnections betveen the
tvo.
".
 F-25

APOLLO !L

Momaly Vehiclel
Statel:'.ent £quir::::ent CallSe Correcti"," ActiQn ~Ussions R"rere'lce"
, s",rvice lJlOdll1," r,"""Uon CSM-1l2 Latching magnets may have )olagnetic latching force pollo 9 MSC-0516l
contr<.>l 8ySt,"J:1 propella been p&rthlly deg&llSsed dur- tests perforlll'"d prior pollo 11
isolation valves clos,"d. ing preflight tests by appli_ to night for Apollo 16 pollo 12
cation ot reverse voltage to and sub"e'l.uent sp&Ce_ pollo Ib
co11s. crart. pollo 15
, ater panel Chlorine CS~_112 InSUfficient septll,1ll compres_ Shim added under insert pello 15 MSC-05161
inJe<:tion port leaked. sion. Septwo retention in:' shoulder and installa-
sert "as loos,"n,"d yhen cap tion tor'l.ue increased
yaS removed. for Apollo 16 and sub_
se'l.uent spacecraft.

3 Service propulsion sys_ CSM_1l2 Loose strand Of "ire yithin /ley screening proce_ pollo 15 MSC_05l6l
tem thr""t light 11- delta-V thrllSt s"itch prob- dures U8ed for cri tical
1lllll1nated "hen no en_ ably <>a""ed a "hort to ground syitches On Apollo 16
gine tiring COll\llllUld y"",, and subse'l.uent space-
pr,"s,"nt. crart •

Integral lighting cir- Input filteT ca.P<5eitor in FWle5 added to units pollo 15 MSC-0516l
cuit br,"aker open,"d. loyer-e'l.u1p""'nt-bay mission for Apollo 16 and 11
timer "as shorted. spacecraft •

, Batt,"l'y relay bus volt-

age r,"ading \(fl.S lOll
CSM-1l2 InstT\lllll'!ntation problem.
Exact cause not determined.
/lone. Isolated c ....se
and other measure~nts
pello 15 MSC_05161

(13.66 volta versus ava.llabl,".

32 volts).
6 M...n spectro.... ter boo," CSM_1l2 Cable probably j....,...d in The follOlo'ing changes Apollo 1 MSC_05161
did not fI1lly retract boom housing during retrac- "ere .IO,lI.de for Apollo 16 pollo 1
on 'rive Of t"elve oc_ tion. 1. The mechanism ...... s
cllSions. llIOdi1'i ed.
2. A prol:imlty "....itch
Wl" added to indicat,"
r,"tn<ction to Yltltin 1-
root or rull retraction
3. A then:l8.l_vacuwo
test ""'S added.

1 Potable "",ter tank CSM_1l2 Cheek valve betye,"n ruel cell /lone. Isolated cue. pollo 15 MSC-05161
faHed to refill. and yute tank dUJllP leg If probl,"," recurs, po_
leaked.. A s . .ll pie<>e Of ta.ble yater tank "111
Yir," "as found bet"een poly_ till yhen yaste _ter
mer umbrella and seating sur_ tank 1& full.
face.

8 Panel 2 mission timer CSM-1l2 Probable intermitt"nt com_ None. Time can be ob_ polIo 11 MSC_05l61
stopped. ponent lIhich healed itself, tained from other ti"",r polIo 12
Or Mission Control Cen- polIo 15
ter.

9 One main parachute col_ C$M-1l2 Ra" fuel ,"xpell,"d during de_ Propellant load biased pollo b MSC_05l6l
lapsed at 6000 feet al_ pletion tiring became ignited to provide slight eJ(- pollo 15 MSC-05805
titude. and dalDaged the p .... achute cess of oxidizer. Pro_ poUo 1
riser and susp"naion lines. pellant depletion 1'irin
elilll1nated. Suspension
line conn,"ctor link llIa-
terial changed.

Data TlOCorder tape de_ CSM-1l2 Scratched recorder heads Removabl," head oovers Apollo 1 M$C-0516l
teriorated. dalllaged tape, provided to prevent
handling d~l!" during
installation.

n Seconds digit of digita CSM-1l2 Slon~tion of idler ge.... Units inspected visuall Apollo 1 MSC_05161
event U"",r blOCame ob_ bearing points allOlled abaft for signs Of y"..... and Apollo 1
scured, to tilt a.nd caused ge.... to paint flakes. Apollo 1
scrape paint f'tOIll nUJllber
"heel.

Crey restraint h .....ne"" CSM-l12 Plug-and-<:ap uaelllblies that Threa.d locking sealant Apollo 1 MSC_05161
c ...... ap.....t On center attach Testnint harnesses used. to prevent WlScre"
and right couches. to oouch seat came ap..... t. ing Of plug and ca.p.
 ;"-26

APOLLO hL

Ano"",,l)'
Veh!.clef
Cau..~e Corrective Action ;~issions References
~o. Statc:lcnt Equl"",~nt

>J Loose object vu strik- CSlol-1l2 A 1/4_inch vasher IIIl.s found None. No detrimental Apollo 8
ing bhdes of caMn tan. in the ducting at'ter 'Che effects. Apollo 15
night. The "asher could Apollo 16
have drit'ted in and out of
the fan outlet during flight.

habllity througll scan_ CSM-1l2 COndenSl'ltioll v"" probably ~ater ,,,.s added to pollo 15 MSC_05161
ing telescope _. not present On the eyepiece vin_ F"'veble eyepiece.
Bdequate to identity dov and on prisllUl in the re-
constellations. IDOvable eyepiece"

15 !Ron ads did not align

properly vhen gyro 418_
CSM_1l2 Pouible cOlltSlllillatioll he-
tveen uip-ringa and thumb
AtHtu:le aet control pollo 15 MSC-05161
panel resolvers lIiped.
jiuay alignment pushbut_ wheel resolvers ill attitude clean by rotating 'Chem,
on vas pressed. set control pallel, or COIl- Or replaced if necessar
talllination of either of t'110 yro diaplay coupler" an
"golden_g" relays in gyro electronic display u-
display coupler. se..bly replace<l 011 Apol
16 lUI a ruult of re_
evaJ.uatioll of all denc
used ill stabilization a
control system.

Clrcui t breaker supply_ CSM-1l2 Corroaion 00 indicator ate", None. polIo 15 M5C_05161
ing t:l8in bus A poYer to prevented operation. Cor_
/b"ttery charger could rosion could have ~ell caused
not be ~ned Jl8.nua.ll)' by sea vater, urine or .veat.
urinS postfligllt testi

17 /Toggle-arm pivot pin for CSM_1l2 Illlproper shillll:ling allolled Nell inspection criteria pollo 15 MSC_05161
side_A shutoff valve at pivot pin to cOM out of one developed to assure
&in oxygen regal-ator side of calli holder. Pin proper ""sembly of valv
"",,,s sheared. failed in single shear and
hending.
18 rev optical alignment CSM-l12 Locking pin did not engage ell fit checks used to pollo 15 MSC_05161
because the rSlllp llhich IIIOveS ""'aure proper operation
igl>t fell oft sto"ll.ge
~Unt during landing. the pin into the locking pod
tion II"" gouged.
r.:. lat.ehillg ",echani.llI.
1"'-'11 IlIId cre'll checklists
hanged to illclude veri
rtcation of latching pi
nga.ge..ent.

II.ter/glyeol pu:r:p 411'- LM_IO Condensation On water/glycol one. Systelll operation pollo 15
erential pressure rluc_ sensing lines froze and sub_ ot affected.
uated arter cabin de_ lillled at cabin depressuriza_
ressur1zatlona for stan _ tion. This froze the fluid
p £VA and se<:ond EVA. in the lines, causing the in_
dications.
atel' separator speed Uot-lO Condensation on outside of one. System not dam- pollo 15 MSC-05161
ecreased during ,,<lbin line between vater separator ~d from freezing, and
epreuurhatfon for pitot tube and ""ter IIl&nage_ ther separator can be
tandup EVA. lIIent system tNze and sub_ sed.
111l1ed at cabin depressuriza_
tion. This froze the lIater
in the 11ne, causing the sep_
arator to UOII do"" because
of excessive water.
stel' gun/ba.cter1& fil- Uot_lO Illlproper stovage eaUlled ex- lastic parts replaced pollo 15
er <luiek disconneet cessi ve force to be applied y ateel inserts in all
~oke. to quick disconnect by bend_ pplicatiolls of quick
ing hose. L~~~collllect in lUll&r lWd
ru-e and co.....nd lIlodule.
nterrupUon of S_band Ullexpl&1ned. No aMitional cO.... ec- polloll MSC_05161
teerable antenn... track_ ive action taken (aee polIo 12 HSC-07505
"ng prior to povered de_ pollo 14). pollo Ih
cent. pollo 15

'J pescent engine control LM_IO Breaker waS probably let't one. pollo 15 MSC_05161
sumbly drcuit breaker open by crev.
aa open when checked
t'ter l"",ar lllodule aepa_
aHon.
 F-27

Ano=:Ly
Vehiele!
St... te",ent Ec;.uipolent
Cause Corrective Action loUsaions References
boTt guidance system Probably ca""ed by Dll frOlll Lov sUe of input to pollo 15 MSC_O~lb1
far'lltngs and. lllut".. test nK>de fatl butfer IIIO/Ill!n_ uffer grounded to sap_
~~ occurred arter in tarily turning on test mode Ten noise feedback,
..reton into lunar orbit taU driver. this could have
F.'~ prior to lunar mod- latched the master alarm and
r-ue deaTllit. abort guidance s)'tem warning
light on.

o l1ne-<:>f-dg/lt rate Uol-IO The lllOst probable cause was None. All-up thermal! pollo 15 !oISC_05161
ata on Co"""",oder's an open in the rendezvous ra_ acuum test or each spae _
rosspointers during dar signal return line. crart lIOuld be reQ.uired
ende~vous braking. to deteot this type ot
etect.

!Range/range-rate roet"r LM-IO Surf&ce nav in glass prob- lass doubler added. pollo 15
" Indov broke prior to
re.... ingress.
able existed ...hich was deeper ther spacecraft glus
than threshold depth of glass applications revielled
operating stress. and appropriate cOrrec_
tive ~easures taken vhe
required.

Panoramic C!Ullera veloc_ Problem re1&te<! to optlca.1 Optical signal enhanced pollo 15 MSC_05161
ity/altitude sensor did sign.al_to-noise ratio. Y increasing lens aper
ot provide proper con- ature and ddeting in-
rol tor Camera. frared. tilter. Optical
noise reduced. Manual
override of velocity}
altitude SenSOr provide<

wer a.1ti/lll!ter 8.ltitud sn< The interlllittent condition Automatic power compen- pollo 15 MSC_05161
ata became intermitten "'as caused by " decrease in s.aUen circuit added to pollo 16 HSC-072l0
after revolution 2~ and 1&ser output pa... er. 'Ihe faul lllBintllin po"er outPllt a
no altitud" data vcr" 0 ""s not determined. ade<lU&te level. Rela,y
sined after revolution which "8" SOurce of DlI
38. ·"as re!!lOved from relll81n
ling flig/lt altimeters.

apping camera "nen_ Undetermined. Dr)' t11~ lubricant on pallO 15 MSC-05161

ion and retraction time ead screv replaced vit pallo 16 JSC-079$4
ere longer than n0rlll91 et t11111 silicone greaa pallo 17
rod camera vOuld not re- Wld oil mixture. llwobe
ract after 15th Clut) t extend/retract oper_
xtenalon. tions reduced.

amm& ray spectrometer sn< Ga1n shift caused by ae;ing pallo 16 spectrometer pollo 15 MSC_05161
xperienced gain shift of photomultiplier tube in aged prior to night at
~d temporary spectr\lll gamma r8¥ detector assembly xpected nux rates. II
ero reteren<!e shift. due to high cosmic ray flux orrecti ...... action taken
rates. Zero ahift probably tor zero reterence Shte,
" ..used by open or short vithi
pulse height ana.lyzer.

31 ~_ar surtace drilling

rOblems:
Penetration to rull a. Reduced depth of flutes Bore stem joints pallo 15 MSC-05161
epth rith bore ste_ at joints caused binding ot redesigned to 8.l10v con
ot achieved. stem.s. tinuous nutes.
• Releasing bore stems b. Lu.nar sol1 did not hold • Wrench provided tha pollo 15 MSC_05161
l'1'01ll drill ad.apter ...as bore stem stationary and core tits both core steJllS an
itticult. stem ...rench did not f1 t bore bore stems. Bore stem/
stems properly. drill adapter elbl1nate
Bore at"", dSll\Sged c. Up_and-dovn move..ent ot Bore stem joints pallo 15 MSC-05161
ear first joint. drill separated first Joint. edesigned.
Core stem ditticult d. Friction from compacted Mechanic8.l extrac- pallo 15 MSC_05161
o remove from drilled materi..l in flutes. ion device provided.
ole.
• Core stem sections e. Kolding vise Ya8 mounted Installation drav- polIo 15 MSC-05161
itticult to separate. backward on LRV pa.llet. 1n- ing corrected.
st&ll..tion dr..... ing in errOr.
 F-28

APOLLO ...!l

Anmuly Vehielel
No. State",ent CaUlle Corrective Action Missions References
E'luipllle"t
Central station rear Force required to remove pins Lanyard ~aterial change pollo 15 MSC-05161
curtain retainer rel:\OVII was gr<!&ter th"n expected. f'r0lll 50-pound test to
la.nyard broke. lBo_pound test.

33 n1 versal handling tool Fitting in ali'kv.... d poB1tioll None. Last mission tor polIo 15 MSC-05161
did not lock in place i for inserting and locking experiment.
supr.. ther~ 10n detee- tool.
tor fitting.

r<>und....,ommanded tele_ Elastomer clatch facing ll\8,- Clutch design changed pollo 15 MSC-05l61
vilian could not be de '" terial degraded under opera_ amI. clutch torque in_
vated &8 unit approache ting conditions. erelLSed.
limits of travel.

35 Lunar co"""""lcat1ons re ,IT Current c&pacity of 7.5-am- A lO-alllpere circuit pollo 15 M$C-05l61
lay unit dovnlink d~a.: p..r .. UlV circuit bres.ker "as breaker "as substituted
lost arter lunar module degraded because Of elevated for the 7.5-ampere cir-
a.scent. temper&tures. cuit breaker. A manual
svitch vas added to al_
10'W overriding of the
U!V circuit breaker aft
the final EVA. The lu-
nar communications rel&
unit \I&S modified "" th
the intern&1 7. 5-ampere
circuit breaker is by_
passed 'When operating i
the extern&1 pover mode

Lan".,. surf....,e 16....... TtIIpe on c&:ller& C&used mis_ Crew training improved. pallo 15 MSC_05161
ealll!!ra magazine J_d. mating of ma~zines and cam_ Tape flagged for relllOva
era. l'Xcess1ve manu&1 ad_
v&!lce.... nt of film depleted
film loops.

Lunar surface 70-_ ,IT Two set Scr......s in drive pin_ Flats ground On motor pollo 1 MSC-05l6l
camera stopped at end 0 ion 'Were slipping on IlIOtor sh&ft. !..ocking c0"'l'Oun
second EVA. shaft . used on set scr......s.

ater \I&S difficult to Devic.. s ver" not properly dditional crew tr&in- pallo 15 MSC_05l6l
bt&in from insU! t drink podtioned vithin th .. suits. ing giv..n in making pallo 16
ing device. position adJustments.

39 ~~n purge system a.n- ,IT Inadvertent flexure &lid con_ [Jrotecti ve cover pro- pollo 15 MSC-05l61
lOnna broke. tact. Inded to protect antenn pallo 16
h11e stoved and during
nsuiting. Antenna not
deployed until after
egress.

etre.et&ble tethers ,IT Spring ..xpanded and jammed Knots changed and crew pallo 15 1015<:-05161
fdl..d. after no-lo&d release. Knots training improved. pollo 16
untied allOYing cord to re_
tract into housing.

eployment 8&dd.le vas

ifficult to releas ..
t'rom vehicle.
"" Vehic1 .. vas tilted. causing
stress prelo&ding of vehicle!
saddl .. interface.
r"V training improved. pollo 15 MSC-05l61

&tt..ry 2 volt/ammeter Unknovn. None. pollo 15 MSC_05l6l

&s inoper&tt ve. "'''
ront st ....ring system Possible motor/gear trdn Fl1gl:lt unit r ..placed pollo 15 Msc_05161
&s inoper&ti ve upon
ehic1e &ctivation &lid'
"" ass ....bly b1nding. by spare uni t and ha.nd_
controller-commanded
pollo 16 KSC-072JO
MSC-07683
uring first EVA. tests run for Apollo 16.
 F-29

k.o".aly Vehicle!
1,::0. State",ent. Cause Corrective Action lHssions Refer""",",,,
Equip:::aent

44
..." belt proble"",:
~lt hooks slipped
through handhold. when
'"
".aU rf.Belts ,,' sUfriciently
"vide"-.
. Stitter belts pro_ pollo 15 MSC_05161

". in use.
a"lts snagged on OS ,. Belts not sufficiently ,. Stiffer belts ,"0- po110 .15 MSC-05161
oooo""tor when displace stirr. vid,,"-.
!'rOil proper st""age loe
tions.
Belts not long enou
o secure hooks to out_
'. Confonmnce
seated posit,ion
close ILfI
of suits
vas "0<
u,pected.
"."
.. Overcenter tight_
ening mechanism prOVide
pollo
" MSC-05161

Iooard !l&ndholds eas11y.

Veh1cle/
;;0. Cause Corrective Action :Ussions References
Stll.teme",t Equipment
, Water/glycol t.-mper&tur CSM-1l3 Crack in output silicon-<:on_ All remaining control- polloH
lers te"ted for tOlVard Apollo 1
IolSC_07230
MSC-07598
control circuit railed trolled reeU f'ier Wled in
1n the auto_tic IOOde. t""'p"Tature eontroller eall!l ..d breakdown volt~, &1-
recti tier to self-gate on and thoU(lh test is not con_
re"",in on, resulting in "ec_ C1Wl1ve. It probl..m rIO
ondary failure of feedbaek oocurs, ....nual control
eapacHor. is satisfactory.

, SPS oxidizer t&Jlk pru-

sure l\le&"urement shi n.0!<
CSM-113 Pressure transducer refer_
ence cavity le&l<ed.
Transducers replaced
after a1titude chamber
pollo 1 MSC-07230

upvard. testing v&cU\IIll che<:ked

prior to instal1ation.
Redundant devices added
for crHical measure..en s
on Apollo 17 and subse_
quent sp&Ceeraft.

3 Computer issue<! gilltlal CSM_1l3 Probably call!led by voltage Filter added across Apollo 1 MSC_07230
lock indic&Uon lIhen nO transient from contact bounce prim!lry of transfoTl'ler
gilllbal look con~ition Of thrust vee tor ""abl.. relay in dig! tal-to-tlnalog co -
existed. verter portion Of cou-
pling data unit.

4 Inertial subsystem Yarn Conducti ve contaminMt in None. No hazard to Apollo 1 MSC-07230

ings and coupling data diode located in faU deteet ere" if derect reoceurs MSC-07571
Mit faU indications dreuit of coupling data unit in this and other ap-
occurred during trans- probably eaused false indica_ plications or diode in
earth flight. tions. guidance system.

, le,,", int'O hydrogen

311M lIhnon:l&1ly
CSM-ll] klbient air probably leaked
into insulation va.cU\llll an-
None. Preflight pro_ Apollo 1
c"dures and inspection Apollo 1
HSC_07230

early in mission. nulus during boost. or tanks eonsidered ade

'loote.

6 Spacecraft did not re- Hone. I f condHion 00- ApollO 9 MSC-07230

spolld to uplink real- curs again, nor....l oper pollo 1
time COll::llal>ds tvie... ation Can be restored b
cycling up_telemetry cO _
mtmd reset svitch.

7 hlorine .&lll.pule leue"- CSM-1l3 Teflon bladder was probably jAmpules eheeked for polIo 16 HSC_07230
uring one of th.. d&1ly pinched bet"een base plate l&dd.. r adhesion to Bid
ater system chlorina- and sidevall Of l\l;IJ>ule. all. Entrapped &1r re
ions. PoV<!d to reduce bladder
e"PlLns ion •
8 """ spectro....ter would CSM-l13 Initial stalls vere probably one. Failure eaWle polIo 15 MSC_07230
ot tully retract and eaWled by j&r.lllling of c ..bIe.in ot applicable to polIo 16
!rtna11y sta11ed tvo_ boom ooWling. Final stall pollo 17 and subse'luen
hirds out. vas probably caused by inop- spacecrart .
eTII.ti v.. motor due to pre_
viOWl stalling vith motor on.
 F- 30

Ve!:l.ielel
Cau:se CoT~o:t1v, ~tlon
So. St&te::ent Eql.lip.unt

, _ r~ Ipeetl'OMter
~_vould not tully re
cs...", Cable prot>abl,. J.-d in boo-. one. '.llun cause
bousillg dllTlnK retr..::t1on. not applleable UI
polIo 15
po110 16
MSC-072)O

rllCt. pollo 11 aD4 lubnquell

Pl""~un..

10 CSH-1l3 ap.,n in rate feedback loop

or Ie<:ondary yaw I.TWO .,....
~~in. or cable bar:.. ,
~ . . to act\l&tor ..nea...
po110 16 K:>C-01230

tell. Open ...... JlOu1bl)' hanpd J.O ~orlde .t....

caused by eable flen",_ ~l1d and p-e_nl flu
In£.
II CSl&-1l3 An object probab11 &ot lnto 00•• polio 8 MSC-07230
the ran and ... later heed.. polIo 15
polio 16
uit presSUN! trans_ CSM_1l3 Lunar d_t parUele vaa (0....4 ift_aicrOll N.lter 1Ji4- pollo 16 KSC-07230
ucer rea4ill& __ h18t'e in tn.nlllhK'er. 11..." lIawe ed in au.1t pre..ure
han ,,~ durin& <:"""t ill air pop or ...rtable s~... li"e tor Apollo 1
ran.eartll EVA. ....l""taDc:e ele1leDt. and aubseqUoent al*"ec",

13 CSM_1l3 Bearl... poillU in _&!led.... tun~t ...

t,..-.lly inspee_
.,tor platea bee&llle doncated le4 for Apollo 17.
poilo 10
pollo 15
KSC-01230

by vu". peraitting idler Skylab \II'IUI to be .0<1- pollo 16

~ ..r to rub .1"11. mlllbn 1t1eil i f elan require
vbeel. Paint partidu fT_ opeoIllna: tor other rr.l'Or
nUllber "beel Intertend v1tJl
proper eounti,,&.
SClUlnIn, telescope .... n CSM_U3 Broken locket aprin. in \"le- Apollo 17 ""'ne.. in_ pollo 16 llSC-07230
...h drove erratically. .cope harnen eonneetor. apected tor broken KSC-01513
sprinp. Hev harne..es
to be ...,utaetured tor
Skylab sl*"eerart.

~. lithium hydroxide CSM-1l3 Canister expanaion from lKIi,_ Re..oval torce .pedti- polio 16 MSC_01230
cani.ter• •tU(:k in tide lure buildup V"s greater than cation cbanged. Flight
when belng re..oved. no ......l during solo flight be_ procedure. cbansed to I
c"Wle suit control valve. sure th..t .uit control
"ere positioned to Nl tlov. vdvea are positioned t
Also. the side_B ti t .... cabIn flov tor 1010 op-
tighter than that ot tide A. erations.

High-s-ln antenna could CSH-113 Undetermined. Po•• ible logic None. It proble...... pollo 12
not be acquired tor ap- circuit _lrunction. In electronic. box, i t pollo 1
hu a lov probe.biHty pallo l~
vhile spacecraft
pas.ive thermal control
va.
proxillllltely 1 1/2 hour.
in at recurring. Alao.
secondary unlt can be
pallo 16

and ere" vas asleep. selected.

FJttendlnll and loekillg CSM-1.l3 InSUfficient cleaTance. None. AOK h. . 1ntli8t't pollo 1 MSC-07230
't_'t strut in prepara_ p~edure tor .trut ad_
tion for entry vas dit_ JWlt ....nt.
ficult.

18 On, or recovered IHin CSM-1l3 RCS yav enSine. vere fired C-..d . .dule 1~e4 pallo 4 MSC-OT230
parachutes had n......roUl at 350 teet altitude to vent vith RCS preuuri:ed polloI KSC-01641
small hoI,. in canopy. trappe'd propell .... ts oind pru_ and propellant 1Iolt._ poUo 1
sure. Holes ....n ca. .ed by tio" valves dOlled.
oddh.er expelled trOll pl...
7av engines.

Vater/~ol toWld on <:Sol-H3 Fiber \lllder tva G-rh.s s..-ls B7PNs valve, B_nut polloI KSC-07230
c-...4 .odule floor 1n suit h.,.t ueh.t.nser b7- conneetions. and e_in
durin& po.ttl1&ht oper- pass valve. floor ill'p'cted tor lea:
ationa. prior to aWlC:h.
 F-31

APOIJ.O 16

Vell.lele/
:'10. St.at.e;aeot.

SCrubber tank ot decon_ Rapid OY'erpreaaurlu.Uon ot Deeontllll1naUon p:roe.- Apollo I

t.1lIk occurred. bee.,....
ot in_
t&a1n.Uon unlt tatled
durl ... po.tnlllbt de...,_ autftc1..,t qUlJlUt:r ot _u_ d ..... ehanced. Control
ot proeedure and paper_
.....n. tor-.lhed. 0.._
ttvat.lon ot ..... actton eo tra.ll:<er tor t.he q...,Ut:r ot
trol .,.Itea. oxidh.r. aetlvatlon/Deeontaain._
Uon ~ r appolnt.ed.

'l'wo .... lICtion eootrol

.:rn. . rep,lator Inlet
0lN-ll3 I'Ut.er ele.ent. eDd cap.
bW.&e'd b:r heHua preaaure
VU'<l lone required. Apollo 1 >=-<>I,,"
KSC-ol640
nlt..r sere.... were de_ aurse durillll .,.at... a.eU .... _
tonsed. t.1011.

'nw..-J. eoatt"ll pHled.

Il'a:y rr.. .Kent ltase
eo.Unll vu not eo.peUbl.
vlth the ther-.l e0n41t1~
eo.Una vu rftIOvd
tMia Apollo 17
er.n. bee.,....
.pac._
ad.q,...t.
Apollo 1 1ISC-oT230

th• .--.l shleld pane1l. experh'llc.d.

th • ..-J. protectlon va.
pnn1ded by tank 10...11
Uon.

2) Four th.r-.l IMelda U<_ll Prob.b1:r e.,...elI b)' In.utr1el_ Tller-.l .hleld eonfta- Apollo I MSC-o'l'230
v...... torn 100.11.
..
cent .tar .ft
~
tMia . .
equi~n
ent. _nUna ot t.be..-J.
bl.anl<et. dur10a earc.h launeh,
and ueent enpne ellha,...t .n_
terlnll e.rit:r belllnd th~l
allielda durloS ueeot tr_
uraUon "".....d. Md.1_
Uonal venUna ot ther_
.a1 blank.t. prorided.

IW\u .urr-.<:e.

S-ba.nd stn.-.ble an- LH-ll Stow 1.tch . ."han1l. dld not !:ltpond 801dn tillet Apollo I KSC-o'l'230
te....... woul.d not 110" In release ant....,I>II.. Exact "....e reaoftd rro•• tow l.t"h
:r.v ut. •. """"""" . _ehantsa. In.peeUon
and eh.ekout procedures
Il1proved. \/lr1011 added
to prov1de red.und.nt
path. tbr0"llll ute/an
III11.eh to 80lder .... lUn
el".nh.

Reaetlon <:antrol .y.tell MolIt prob.bly " ....ed by eOn_ 110 eollpOn.nt. rep1l.ad pollo 16 HSC-OT230
" heHUIll rejJul.ator
eu.ed.
U<-ll
taa1n.Uon introduced dur1nll
component repl." .... nt and,
down.t ...... ot Apollo IT
r.llul.tor.. Ch&oge.
subsequently • •v.pt Into r.ll- Mde to launeh site tea

r
ulator outl.t by ba"ktlow. los to eHllinate resul.

'" ,."nw.
Cabln p ' return valve U<_.H ProbAbly "II.Wled by "ontam1oa_ ~.t ll4ded to pretllght polio 16 MSC_OT2JO
apparently talled to Uon on 1nlet .creeo or on cheekout ot Apollo IT
~~ 10 ~.utou.t1e~ n.pper val"". .pace"r.n..
po.11.lon.

ontrol. ot •• eent .tage

.tUtllde 10.1. .n.er
JetU.on.
LH-ll 'I'h" 110'1. l1.1r.ely "ause 11&1 an Non. requJ.red..
open clr<:u1t breaker vblch
provides 28 volt. to t.he prl_
polio
"I MSC_0T230

IIIILr)' preUlpl1t1er.. It .ith"

did not 1lIILk. eontact or v•• I,
iOll.dvert.nt1y l.ft open.

In>ort
" suidanee .,..ate. U<_.H Thf: _t. 1111."1)' elWle ...... Abort ' ....or ........ly polio 16 MSC-07230
ut-ot_pla.ne error ...... "ontMinaUon Or an air bub- In.ta.11ed in Apollo 17
l.-ger tha.n upec:ted. ble in the nuid betveen the .paceer.ft eheeked. tor
fI:Ir<> float. aDd " .... eontu1oa1.1OtI and air
bubblea.

Indic.ted. ...,ent .Il.pne Indic.1.1on. ".,...ed by ehuaC'_ None required.

"
U<-ll
<:I. ....r pre........hoofed. t..r1lUea ot pre ....... tra.n.-
two te.por&r)' rhea d...,.r.
bo.,. nor-.l.
e - . l d .odul.e \de- ca... ed by .ither an Int.nt1 1._ ~-voltaee P"'"'r .uppl

'" ~slOCl e_ra 8Ordtor

10.1. boritolltal .)'Debro
'"' tent c:oadiUon io preehion
voltar "'p,lator circuit ... -
voltap rep,lat.on re·
placed on. ~lnl,,&
1l.1ut.10Cl tvtce. ' ' ' ' 4 111. low_voltase power t11.,.t udt.. v op-
'''Pp1;J, or shln. 1Il .t~l. 1.1_ .etUns ka ap-
range ot borhont.a.1 -pot.n_ pUd to '!V _itor c...
U.-ter "'tUns.
 F-32

Cor~etlve ActIon ;.I:1. .10:ls

>0.

~~11 purge
enna I>...x.e"
_,.at... an_ on Antenna l..-dYert.entq lett
un.toved during tnue•• , and
pare antenna st_ed on
unar roTer ror Apollo
pollo 15
pollo 16
1tSC-oT230

probabq atruck ueent en_ 1.

gine coYer.

on one. Ilene.. not nown pollo 16

" jExperl_nt-.l &. . I ..at"r
"parator vas cracked
~d leued.
Unit ...... cade tor dellOnUra·
Hon purposes and aterlal
..... lIi"'l,. s ..""eptible to
po subaequent . i .. lona.
IlSC-oT230

cra"king_

rilt diaconneeta ...... ~

J3
ard to rotaU "rt.. r ex·
IPnsur.. to lun"", surface
'" ~&r dust get betv".." aHd_
ing .ur:!'...::....
Rubber dust COWIn add·
d for Apollo 17.
pollo 16 MSC.OT230

nvirol'll:lent.

eadset microphone booM on polIo 16 MSC...()7230

Up ..... loose.

35 Hl!&dset earphone <>pera_

Ion ..... lntend.ttent.
". Electrieal capter 21_pln
conne<:tor vas pro~1J' not
None. pollo 16 HSC-oT230

aeated H<:\lNl,r.

on ,",,"..ad _alant on spool ahart. Unita tested for !'"rle_ pollo 15 HSC-oT2JO
" t""""UN rrl"UOtl. tion buildup prIor to
niAllt.
pallo 16

PrHSIU'lO 1ndieate4 by on Cc:au.a1ll&flt ~ ha_ te.po- Jone required. pallo 16 MSC412311

cuff Pee ..... t - d....- .....11:1 ".... ed ~l.hnee 111
1.... transearth tU.. ae<:hanha .,_"t. or • •
II8.J' baYe beoen ailN!ll4"

'" Extravehicular .abUit,. Vet_lI1pe 5*Cketa expan4ed 1lI SoDe ysrlaUon in ex_ f0'P0llo 1
unit _laU"."ce kit ctbln ennrollJllent. pando.. can be expect"'"
expanded_ Apollo 17 Crew brie1'&4.

Pre ..uu. a....... t a.· Pin vas prO"-I>I)' pulled O\lt Purae "alve a,,,,"bly polio I ItSC-01230
" _bl,. p...,e val...e pIn
c. . . out an three "",ea-
by red apple on lanyard ...,- -edifIed by dtJoinnlna
ging on lUlI"or r ..... r lap wIt" barrel actuator spr1na

. • 10na.

Tool earri.. r fell off

poruble life support
syste.. during EVA preps
Snap buckle ute- •• pin ....
inadvertently pulled.
and abortIOn In, lanyard .

Pin pull foree iner.....

fr(>llll 5 Ib to bet_en 10
and 20 lb.
pollo 16 MSC-01230

ntions.

Lunar Module PUot'.

watth-crysul e _ out
". lIarpage of ctyUd !fOIl ther- lion... Watch not edtl-
_1 cycUnS ea"..'" i t to pOp eal to .lulon aucee..
pollo I 1tSC-01230

durin, lunsr aurhee ac: ~,. or er......fety.

thity.

cable broke on beat no

ex"pertJoeM.
.,'" \<11th <:.. _a'.
Ribbon ubi.. btoc_ antanl1ed Connee:tor .... -.l1fied
fMt .tId .... to provide nrain reUe
pulled lOOH at .,... nal ata- -..I ,ruter pull strena
pollo 1 MSC-01230

tton coll....:t"r. for Apollo 11.

., Qlle of four atakes on .,'" hi..... pift .... betlt and Ilone. bptrI.a>t not
... heduled for ...b...._
Apollo I MSC"'()7230
atth'e ...I_k experi- J-'.
.....t ..,nar padt~•• pal .hslon .

. let did lIOt d.~loy.

Tel_try 1JIdlc:at1_ of
aetlve _I_Ie ...... rl-
_ t ..,nar box roU.n It
.usEr sen..:>.. ehe-ute hUu....
Odw .. Ibn 1llIdlut-.! that
a11&nMDt ...... tllfaetor)'.
_ e . bptr1Aent DOt
sebeduled for ""b....uen
al... loa.
polio 1 MSC-012JO

_ . oH-cule ldah.
., Co-.le ray deteetor Lunar .",,- In""fflc1ent clen...u k · Hoo.e. Exptr~t IIDt pollo 1
paod sbade did not fa". £x_ t_en aUtionn)' bl"",kphte seheduled for alb.....u...
full)' deploy and lan· parlatDt and .avable taraat plate k- .h.lon.
yard broke. c:ause of projec:t1na .cre....
 F-33

APOLLO ~

Vchtclcl
:10. Sto.tement Cause Corrective Action i~hsions ~eferencea

46 Vertical ataff of gno- Lunar sur- The II\Ost probable cau........ a Pivot pins for che polIo 16 MSC-07230
mon separated from l .. g face ex- brlOaking of the inner g1lll- Apollo 17 gnomon weu_
asse ..bly. peri"ent bal pivot pins. given additional tem-
pering and a thin film
of 011 waa applied to
protect ..ga1nst corro-
ston.

47 Bag dispenser aa""",- Lunu aur- Method of latching dispenser Adaptu redesigned. pollo 16 MSC-07230
bUes reputedly fell fate ex- adapter to ca"",ra "a. inad-
off brackets on 70-... pert..ent equate.
cameras.

Documented sa",ple bag HSC-07230

" dhp"nser support
bracket came apart.
Lunar aur-
face ex-
periment
Sere"s c ...... loose. Apollo 17 dhp""sera
inepected to assure
proper staking 01 sere",
Apollo 1

" Sample collection bag

tame loose fro.. portabl
11fe support sYfte.. too
Lunu aur-
face ex-
per!...ent
Hethod of attachment "aa in-
adequate.
Bag hooks redesigned. pollo 1 MSC-07230

carrier several <i...,s.

Lunar .urface far ul- Lunar sur- Crease in adtlUth ring bear- No correctlve action Apollo 1 MSC-07230
traviolet ca..era ad- face ex- ing beca..e stiff. was taken stnce this
IlUth adjust .."nt beca.." perl..eM experiment wa. not
difficult. scheduled for another
flight,

" Velcro patch ca..e off

padd"d ...... pl" bag •.
Lunar aur-
face ex-
p..ri..ent
t",proper bond .... terial use<l
for Velcro hook patch,
:10 corrective aclton
taken stnce this equip_
ment wa.. not SCheduled
Apollo 1 MSC-01230

for another flight.

Loop c ..." off lanyard Lunar aur- Lanyard loop "35 probably Cable ai"e changed from Apollo 1 MSC-07230
for pen"uo....rer .cow- hce .. x- not properly crimped to 3/64 inch to 1116 inch
age. rehase pin. pul..ent cable. and pull tested.

Active aei"",lc experi- Ba."d on ground t".ta. "",rtar No corr ..ctive action pollo 16 HSC_01230
ment pitch ....nsor in- .........bly i. pitched up above taken as the experiment
dkated off-scale high nor.... l 45· elevation or pitch >ta. not scheduled for
after launching third sensor has failed. Ho.t another .. i,,81on.
grenade. likely cause is failure In
pitch sensor circuit.

Happing Camera extend Unknmm. (5 ..... Apollo i7

retract tlmea were ab-
normally long.
"" ite.. 23.)
Opening. In gear box
sealed "Ith pre.aure-
.en.itlve tape. Exce""
pollo 1
polIo 1
pollo 17
MSC-05161
MSC~07230
JSC-01954
lubrlcant removed from
drive screw. Cover ove
rear transfer gear. re-
designed.

Happing c....era stell.r

glare shield failed to
retract.
"" llndet .. t1llined. Possible cause Ddve rack aUgned
va. mtaaUlIn"",nt of drive proper pinion gear
rack and pinion gear ""en as- gag....ent.
pollo 1
Apollo 1
MSC-01230
JSC-0795~

sembly .... fully extended.

" La .... r altimeter output

<legraded • "" Ho.t probable cause of Apollo
15 and Apollo 16 failures
wa9 contalOination of optical
Apollo 17 la.er "",dule Apollo 1
modHied to incorporate Apollo 1
Q-swltch bearings "itll
HSC-05161
HSC-\)7230

aurfaces within laser uodule oil-iOlpregnated ball u

by lubricant fro.. Q-a...itch tainera. High purity
bearings. Quartz uaed in flaShlam ••

" Panoramic c ....era auto_

.... tic expoaure control
indicatlOd 10" light
Proble.. could have resulted
fr"", contamination on Ught
.lOnaor optica, or a failure
No chang..a ""re ....de to Apollo 1
hardware because there
"a. no previous history
HSC-01230

levels. in the sensor or it. a.soci_ of the type. of fallure

ated circuitry. Problelll ex- that could have caused
isted preflight but "as not the problem. Sensor ou -
deucte<l. put voltage limits ""re
sdded to prefllght test
procedur .. ,
 F-34

APOLLO ....1.6.

Anomaly
Vehiclel
Sto.tc..cnt £qui"",.""
Cause Corrective Action lHssions

Laser atriaeter photo-

" multiplier tube voltage
was erratlc.
'" SOUle ano..... l0118 voltages prob- No corrective action
ably cuased by sunlight re- taken because qualifies
Apollo 1 HSC-07230

flections. An 1n1'e1'..11'1'"n1' tlon tesr results and a -

condition could have ~en ceptance teats wete con
eaund by cyclic thermal en_ sidered adequate.
vironment of lunar orbit.

" Ntne fumes of mapping

camera .etrle photo-
graphs overexposed.
SUI Nolae voltage on pover sup-
plied to ahift regiater Or
generated by aOlle intendt-
NO correctlve actIon
waa taken because qual-
ification test reaulta
Apollo 1 HSC-07230

tent condition in camera muat and acceptance teata

have switched one or more were considered adequat
atages In regiater on or off.

60 Happing camera fU.. was

eont ....mate<! • '" Hoat likely cauae waa reaidue Hore thorough cleaning
irOll manufacturing or contam- and inspecUon proce-
inants introducIOd fro.. SOme dures implemented.
Apollo 1 HSC-072JO

out81de source.

" Electrical syeep

an0lll41ies;
,",1'<!-1' Undetermined. Intermittent
eonditions must have eXiated
No eorreetive action
taken beeauae eauae of
Apollo I MSC-07230
HSC-07684
a. Battery 2 volt~eter in several multiple_ire inter"Ittent conditions
lnd1.cated off-scale 10l‫ס‬I aplkes, eould not be determined
b. !lattery 2 ...pere_
bout meter indieated
off-seale low.
e, Battery 1 and 2 u ..
perature metera indicae
off_scale lOll.

62 Rear steering :lJ\opers- Open elreuit may have oe- Uo correetive action Apollo 1 HSC-05161
ttve. eurred in hand eontroller taken. Proble.. could Apollo 1 HSC-07230
potentiometer, or betwen not be further isolated HSC-07683
l'OtentlO11leter wiper and sum- and IOdating deaign and
..inS diode, testing _rIO conddered
sdequate.

HavISaUon ayat"", cOfll- Circuit break1'r and awiteh NO eorrective action Apollo 1 HSC-07230
puted puametera did no
update.
'" configuration was probably
incorreet.
requ1r1'd.

Scale debonded trOll The IIIOst probable cause waa NO eorrective action Apollo 1 HSC-07230
pItch attitude senaot. a fhw in the bondIng. required.

,,",- Vehlelel

,".
Cause Corrective Action Missions Re/erenee ..
Statement Equipment
CSH-ll4
SpurIous master Alarms
occurred without acCOlll-
panylng eautlon and
Inter.. lttent ground 1,:, panel None requIred.
2. CIrcuitry 111 current li ..-
Ited so no "'nard resulted.
pollo
" JSC-07904

warnIng lights.

,.-
2 HIssion U .... r vas
seconds slov at about
2 hours after lift-off •
" CSM-ll4 Not determined. None - vehicle ha ..
dundant t1.lllera.
poUo 17 JSC-07904

3 R'ltract limit awitch

lunar sounder HF an-
tenna bo"", 1 did not
•• CSl1-114 Abnor..al frictIon on "
1111dt switch ca.. follover
. None - device not ,,""
£1""" on future .. isslon
poUo
" JSC-07904

tuate. " '''. defeetive limit avitch

a~tustins mechaniam spring,
misalignment of tha antenna
tape element slot, or a ooal-
function In the l1Joit switch
assembly.
 F- 35

Ko. """'"
St&t..-nt
Vehicle!
Equip>ent
Corrective Aetlon Mi•• ion. ~rerence.

, Lunar ..,..nder hilh frlt_ CSH-1l4 lIot detenolned. low:ua• .,d NOCle - d."ic .. "Ot to be pollo 11 J5C-01904
quency anUQtl& t.oc. 2 ,lid v.-ryll1g loadl in .. that- fl""" on futu~.. at.don KSC-DS161
deplo)'Dtnt .... dowr ..1/...<:........."lr_tlc u·. MSC-(12)(l
than upected. I pecuUarlt,. upe~i....ceel in
Mchani......v.. ~&1 t t . . on
Apollo_
, !ntt,. -onltor .".t..
&<:<:",I" .. _ t... null b1&.
CSI'l-U4 Cont_inatlOQ itl .celtle.......
etef or open or "bort circuit
I'ofte requite,!. polio 11 J5C-01904
.hilted. in the .-"c..ler __ te .. coatrol
cirCuit •.
, CSI'I-1l4 lta<1de~ va. DOt cOllpl.. t .. ly Skylal> and Apollo-So,.... polloi JSC-Q79Oo\
c..., .........d in the. 1. c~ .... n.inecl to p... op_
bo...... When i .. jecto~ t .... n • ... ly c_p...... t .... blad-
aated ..ith the ..at .... po~t. de~ befo~e aati .. , i"jec
back p u ..... ballOOlleel ....t to... to ... t .. ~ po~t.
to~.. t bl.add ......
, Happ1nl C..era plu.e
_hi.ld door faIled to
CSM-U4 Not dete .... ined. I .. c~....d IlolM: - devic .. DOt to be JAPoUo 1 JSC-01904
and " • ...,ina I....t. in • tha ... - fl""" OIl fut .. ~. ai._ JSC-05161
clo", . .I/vac ....a l'nvt ..._ n t .~e • .ion•• !'lSe-07230
peeuIht1ty e"pe~i.. nc..t in
.echani_....v...... l ti.e. OIl
Apollo.

s Hydn••ell Uflk, 1 and 2 CSH-llio P... obably cont...ination in t .... Non. requl~ed. P~ob­ pollo 11 JSC-01!H>4
pr......... operat1na dead hydro,en unk Po MII- leaa of thh nat ....... call
bInd deere •••d in , .. to- .i"a .v1tch .top ed ..c..d the. be handl.d by ""ual co
...ttc ",",'tlr lIOde. switch' • •haft t av.. i that trol of tank f...a and
~educed the upp.. r and 10.... ....at.~
cycl••.
dudband p ...e .... ~. ap .....ad.
, Erroneo........,r.Mne. CSM.-U4 A f.Uu~e occu~ .....d .0IIf!"""~" A . . tin, conll.ctor fo~ pollo 17 JSC~01904
trln.-teted by taleaecr i .. t .... laat fou~ ataa"a of the POI p.cka,.. CSt con JSC-07985
p",oa~_'" counter A. If the n..cto ... will be carried
failure had not !>eCOll.. int .... _ in the Skylab &lid the
..ittent. autOll.ltic coullter ASTP apac"c ... aft. The
IN1tchov.. ~ would not have oc- connactor wHl hav.. an
curred and the aff ..ct.d Maa- illte~n.l jump.... that
u.........nta would have be"n p...... g~ounda the proper pin
anently lost. all that th.. c~.w c.n
avitch to the d...ir..d
progre.... e~ counter A or
S.
Waele/.lyeol t • • plra_ CSK-1l4 Stickina OcCu~a in v.l"e •• ar NOn. - . .nual valve op- pollo 17 JSC-07904
turl control "live rIll tr.in after drivilla h.rd .ratton ia .atiafactor, KSC-072)O
to Mintlln the evapo_
rator uaperacuta. aition. Pitch c1~cl... of tWO
g... r pai s in the vdv. gesr
...
.a.inst full cloaed .top po- aa .hown during Apollo

nain s a_th,e. not tan-

aent. Causes cont.ctiT\& t •• t
to &lid...... the ... than ~oll.
Alan an'" ae.r t~.ina h.v .. dr
lubric.nt scrap..d off the ....
teeth in the .re. of con .... ct.
cau.ina htah slidtna f ... iction

11 lattery " volta... read- U"l-12 latt ....., • voltaa" ~"ecIlna wa. ~on. - thi. circuitry polloi JSC-01904
ina .... lowr than that • true
.... t dina. the v111 not be fl...... on .n
of bUnt, ). volt.,e .e&sur nt .ien.l pl-..ned f .. tur. ai•• ion.
cOlld1tio....... ba• • n input r.-
aiativ.. d1vld .. r n..twork. A
r i.tiv.. incr of 1 per-
c t in thi two ...k _ld
acc....nt for tbs 1 _... volt. . .
of batn..., 4. .Another~­
.ibllity of thi. type ."i.t.
in "the nro-SodjllSt net_...k.
 F-36

APOLLO 17

Vehicle!
Cause Correcti VII AcUon
". Statem..nt Equipment Missions References

Oxygen deund regulator lJoI-12 Could have been caused by None - this equip"",nt pallo 17 JSC-0790~
leaked. contamination of regulstor A; is not to be used on
8 2.5-mlcron particle betveen future spacecraft.
the regulaeDt (ball) poppet
and the seat. Also possible.
but not lIkely, the crew cou1
have inadvenently bumped the
regulator handle.

l3 No extravehicular ac- Warning tone loss and left Crew training and pro- 1"'110 17 JSC-07904
tivity warning tone in earphone loss ~..-e caused by cedures revised to re-
COlOlllllnd Module Pilot' a two wire leada broken 1/4~ flect 3 harness config-
co_unications carrier. inch below their exit point uration that prevents
frOlll the potting of the flex twisting of the wire
reUef attached to the lover harneu.
end of the co...unications
carrier splice block.
Lunar surface gravim- ALSEI' Mathe~tical design error te- The bea.. has been bal- 1'0110 17 JSC-07904
eter beam cannot be sulted in the SenSor maas snced and centered by
atabilized in the null weight being about 2 percent partisl caging of the
position. lighter than the prope..- noll1- l:lS.U...... ight assembly.
ins! weight for 1/6g opera- Further analyais of dat
tion. channels i/l in progress
to determine if free
mode oscillations and
gravity wavea are being
detected with this con-
figuration.

Surface electrical Luna.. Sur- A dust fil.. covering 10 per- None - this experiment Apollo 17 JSC-01904
properties receiver face ex- cent of the optical solar is not scheduled for a
t""'perature higher than per1~nt reflector (Mirror) on top of future mission, however
predicted. the receiver could reault in si .. Uar bonding config-
the indicated degradation of urations ",ill,require
ther l control. Also, the stringent Quality con-
ther l Kapton bag top cover trol.
flaps could not be tightly
cloaed to keep out dust and
sunlight.

Lunar ejecta and ..... te_ ALSEP Error in calculating thenftal Instrument is operating pallo 11
orite experiment te.... c<>netol configuration capa- properly but 18 cOlllJMnd
perature high. bility for Apollo 11 site. off each lunar day unti
its temperature cools
doWll again. T.... perstur
of operation is being
increaaed in controlled
increments each lunar d y
until allowable maxi..u..
18 reached.

cask dome rell>Qval was ALSEP R""",val tool pins ..... re not The dome was easily p<>110 17 JSC-07904
difficult. locked into the recess In the wedged off the cask wit
dome. the hamMer. 110 further
Investigation was per-
fo .... ed since the cask 1
not scheduled to be £10'1
on future ~Iaslons.

The condition 1s stable polIo 17 JSC-079G4

" Background no18e in
the lunar at""'spheric
COtllposition experiment
ALSEP Cause Is not known.
and has caused no lou
of data. No further
data. ground testa are planne
since this "xperi..ent
"ill not be flown on
future mIssIons.
 F-37

APOLLO .!2....

Vehicle/
No. Statement Eqldpment Cause Corrective Action Missions References

19 Psnoramic camera ve- SIM Analysis indicates that the The override capability polIo 17 JSC-07904
locity/altitude sensor erratic operatien may have was used for the re~in
operated erratically. resulted fro.. a downward dec of the mission.
shift in the scaling of the This locks out the sen-
senSOt eutput signal. This ser and substitutes pre
would most likely be caused set voltages which cor-
by a"failure within the sen- responds to erbital
sor hesd circuitry. travel ratea for ~5 and
60 mile altitudes. Thi
was the last mission fo
the panoramic camera an
no further investigatio
is necesssry.

Mapping cuera exposure The light aen..or circuitry The film was preperly Apello 17 JSC-01904
pulse absent at law experienced .. threaheld expesed ..howing th.. t ..... MSC-05161
light leveb. shift. Thi....hift could have nothing was reducing t,~ MSC-07230
been the reault nf .. pheto- light being transmitted
diode faIlure or a change in to the fU,.. The only
the perfor.... nce of the .. mpU- less vss the telemetry
fier, the one-shot multi vl- Indlcstion that confIrm
brator er the circuitry be- that the light had been
tween these two elements. tranamitted. Since thi
waS the last mi ..sion £0
this camer.. , no further
analysIs ia nece ....ary.

Panera"'!c Camera &10.- Host likely, the gimb.. 1 drive NO cerrective action
bal dr!ve failed during motor failed !Iince the motor wall t ..ken aince thill ., polio 11 JSC-07904

Hnal pa!ls. brushe.. are lillited life

items. Another possibIlity
the last mi .... ion for
camera.
",
is failure of the electrical
circuitry that provide.. power
to the motor.

Z2 UltnIViolet speetrom- s'" Probably a cempenent failure These were housekeeping polio 17 .ISC-07904
eter temperature meas- or a short in the circuit measurements and were
urement failures. viring in t~ reference volt- independent of aclentH
age er the minus 15 volt data circuitry. Since
..upply. this was the only ,.issi
for th1a in .. trument, no
corrective action was t '0.
Mapping c..mera deployl The behavior was quite si",- Since this was the last polio 17 !'1SC-O~161
retract time .. were ex- ilar to that dutin& the missien for this instru HSC-07230
cessIve. Apoilo 1~ and 16 IIl.1niens" ment, no corrective ac- JSC-07904
Other anO/lla1ies in the scien- tion was taken. "o,,",ve JSC-07954
ttfic instrument module bay the general problem 1s
suggest a coMmen unknown fac- being studied for futur
tor. In all cases, some de- missions at Lewis Re-
gree of sliding between metal sesrch Center.
surfacea was required. The
friction between those sur-
faces ..ay have been signifi-
cantly increased by tbe ef-
fects of a hard vacuu.. in spa e
that 1a unobtainable 1n greun
test ing.
F-38