Appollo Spacecraft PDF

NASA SP-4009
THE
APOLLO SPACECRAFT
VOLUME IV
January 21, 1966-July 13, 1974
hy
Ivan D. Ertel and Roland W. Newkirk
with
Courtney G. Brooks
Scientific and Technical Information Offwe 1978

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPA(IE ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D.C.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data (revised)
Main entry under title:
The Apollo spacecraft.
(The NASA historical series) (NASA SP-4009)

CONTENTS: v. 1. Ertel, I. D. and Morse, M. L. Through Nov. 7, 1962.--v. 2. Morse,
M. L. and Bays, J. K. Nov. 8, 1962-Sept. 30, 1964. [etc.]
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Project Apollo. I. Ertel, Ivan D., 1914- II. Title. III. Series: United States.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA historical series. IV. Series:
United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA SP-4009.
TL789.8. U 6A5135 629.47 69-60008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Stock Number 033-000-00732-9
Library o/Congress Catalog Card Number 69-60008
FOREWORD
This fourth and final volume of the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology

covers a period of eight and a half years, from January 21, 1966, through July
13, 1974. The events that took place during that period included all flight
tests of the Apollo spacecraft, as well as the last five Gemini flights, the
AS-204 accident, the AS-204 Review Board activities, the Apollo Block II
Redefinition Tasks, the manned Apollo flight program and its results, as
well as further use of the Apollo spacecraft in the Skylab missions.
The manned flights of Apollo, scheduled to begin in early 1967, were
delayed by the tragic accident that occurred on January 27, 1967, during a
simulated countdown for mission AS-204. A fire inside the command
module resulted in the deaths of the three prime crew astronauts, Virgil I.
Grissom, Edward H. White II, and Roger B. Chaffee. On January 28, 1967,
the Apollo 204 Review Board was established to investigate the accident. It
was determined that action should be initiated to reduce the crew risk by
eliminating unnecessary hazardous conditions that would imperil future
operations. Therefore, on April 27, a NASA Task Team--Block II
Redefinition, CSM--was established to provide input on detailed design,
overall quality and reliability, test and checkout, baseline specification,
configuration control, and schedules.
Months of scrutinizing and hard work followed. The testing of the
unmanned spacecraft began with the successful all-up test launch and
recovery of the Saturn V-Apollo space system on November 9, 1967. This
flight, designated Apollo 4, marked the culmination of more than seven
years of developmental activity in design, fabrication, testing and launch-
site preparation by tens of thousands of workers in government, industry
and universities. The unmanned Apollo 4 placed 126 000 kilograms in earth
orbit. It accomplished the first restart in space of the S-IVB stage; the first
reentry into the earth's atmosphere at the speed of return from the moon,
nearly 40 200 kilometers per hour; and the first test of Launch Complex 39.
As time for the first manned Apollo flight neared, a decision was reached
to use a 60-percent-oxygen and 40-percent-nitrogen atmosphere in the
spacecraft cabin while on the launch pad and to retain the pure oxygen
environment in space. By March 14, 1968, testing of the redesigned interior
of the vehicle demonstrated that hardware changes inside the cabin,
minimized possible sources of ignition, and materials changes had vastly
reduced the danger of fire propagation.
During the beginning of the period covered by this chronology (from
March through November 1966) the last five Gemini spacecraft were flown.
The objectives of the Gemini program that were applicable to Apollo
included: (1) long-duration flight, (2) rendezvous and docking, (3)
111
THEAPOLLO
SPACECRAFT:
ACHRONOLOGY
postdocking maneuver capability, (4) controlled reentry and landing, (5)

flight- and ground-crew proficiency, and (6) extravehicular capability. The
prelaunch checkout and verification concept as originated during the
Gemini program was used for Apollo. The testing and servicing tasks were
very similar for both spacecraft. Although complexity of the operations
substantially increased, the mission control operations for Apollo evolved
from Projects Mercury and Gemini. The medical data collected during the
Gemini flights verified that man could function in space for the planned
duration of the lunar landing mission. Many of the concepts for crew
equipment--such as food and waste management, housekeeping, and
general sanitation--originated from the Gemini experience with long-
duration missions. The Gemini missions also provided background
experience in many systems such as communications, guidance and
navigation, fuel cells, and propulsion.
While the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft were being developed and
operated, the three-man Apollo program had grown in magnitude and
complexity and included a command module, a service module, a lunar
module, and a giant Saturn V rocket. The spacecraft and launch vehicle
towered 110 meters above the launching pad, and weighed some 3 million
kilograms. With the Apollo program, the missions and flight plans had
become much more ambitious, the hardware had become more refined, the
software had become more sophisticated, and ground support equipment
also grew in proportion.
In October 1968 Apollo 7 became the first manned flight test of the
Apollo command and service modules in earth orbit and demonstrated the
effectiveness of the manned space flight tracking, command and communi-
cations network. This first mission was a rousing success, with all systems
meeting or exceeding requirements.
The second Apollo flight was the much-publicized Apollo 8 mission in
December 1968, during which man for the first time orbited the moon. Aside
from the fact that the flight marked a major event in the history of man, it
also was technically a remarkable mission. The purpose of the mission, to
check out the navigation and communication systems at lunar distance, was
accomplished with a complete verification of those systems.
Apollo 9 (March 1969) was an earth-orbital flight and included the first
engineering test of a manned lunar module and the first rendezvous and
docking of two manned space vehicles.
In May 1969 Apollo 10 journeyed to the moon and completed a dress
rehearsal for the landing mission to follow in July. This mission was
designed to be exactly like the landing mission except for the final phases of
the landing, which were not attempted. The lunar module separated from
the command module and descended to within 15 kilometers of the lunar
surface, proving that man could navigate safely and accurately in the
moon's gravitational field.
With the flight of Apollo 11, man for the first time stepped onto the
lunar surface on July 20, 1969. The mission proved that man could land on
iv
FOREWORD
the moon, perform specific tasks on the lunar surface, and return safely to
earth.
Apollo 12 (November 1969) was the second manned lunar landing.
Pieces from the unmanned Surveyor III spacecraft were recovered, and the
first Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) was deployed.
Apollo 13 (April 1970) had been scheduled to be the third manned lunar
landing. However, the lunar landing portion of the mission was aborted
because of the explosion of an oxygen tank in the service module en route to
the moon. A cislunar mission was accomplished and the lunar module was
used to provide life support and propulsion for the disabled command and
service module en route home. A safe return and landing was effected in the
Pacific.
Apollo 14 (January-February 1971) successfully landed on the lunar
surface, with the crew performing two extravehicular activities (EVAs),
deploying the second Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, and
completing other scientific tasks with the aid of a rickshawlike mobile
equipment transporter (MET). The crew remained on the lunar surface 33_
hours.
The fourth manned lunar landing, Apollo 15 (July-August 1971), was
the first mission to use the Lunar Rover, the first to deploy a subsatellite in
lunar orbit, the first to perform experiments in lunar orbit by using a
scientific instrument module (SIM) in the service module, and the first to
conduct extravehicular activity during the journey back to earth. Lunar stay
time was 66 hours and 55 minutes.
Apollo 16 (July 1972), the fifth manned lunar landing, was essentially
identical to Apollo 15 and configured for extended mission duration, remote
sensing from lunar orbit, and long-distance surface traverses. The scientific
instrument module was included in the service module.
The splashdown ofApoUo 17 on December 19, 1972, not only ended one
of the most perfect missions, but also drew the curtain on the manned flights
of Project Apollo. It was the most ambitious moon probe, the longest moon
mission--about 40 hours longer than Apollo 16, with 75 hours on the lunar
surface from touchdown to liftoff. The extensive scientific exploration
utilized a new generation of experiments. The crew traversed from the LM
farther than ever before, traveling 32 kilometers in the Lunar Rover.
Although Apollo 17 was the last of the manned flights to the moon, it
was not the last of the Apollo spacecraft. Apollo paved the way for missions
to follow. The next program using an Apollo command module was Skylab
(May 14, 1973-February 8, 1974), occurring within the time frame of this
chronology, as studies of lunar samples and data returned from Project
Apollo continued in laboratories throughout the world. Skylab was man's
most ambitious and organized scientific probing of his planet and proved
the value of manned scientific space expeditions. Skylab proved man's value
in space as a manufacturer, an astronomer, and an earth observer, using the
most sophisticated instruments in ways that unmanned satellites cannot
match. Skylab also demonstrated man's great utility as a repairman in space.
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT: A CHRONOLOGY
Detailed studies of man's physiological responses to prolonged

exposure to,weightlessness proved his ability to adjust to the space
environment and to perform useful and valuable work in space. In solar
physics, Skylab enriched our solar data more than a hundredfold, with a
total of some 200000 photographs of the sun made from the Apollo
Telescope Mount. As observers of earth resources from Skylab, the crews
returned over 40000 photographs and more than 60 kilometers of high-
density magnetic tape. Data were acquired for all 48 continental United
States and 34 foreign countries.
Beyond the period covered by this chronology, but before its
publication, the Apollo spacecraft was used again in the Apollo-Soyuz Test
Project (ASTP), July 15-24, 1975. This joint space flight culminated in the
first historical meeting in space between American astronauts and Soviet
cosmonauts. The event marked the successful testing of a universal docking
system and signaled a major advance in efforts to pave the way for joint
experiments and mutual assistance in future international space explora-
tions. There were some 44 hours of docked joint activities during ASTP,
highlighted by four crew transfers and the completion of a number of joint
scientific experiments and engineering investigations. All major ASTP
objectives were accomplished, including testing a compatible rendezvous
system in orbit, testing androgynous docking assemblies, verifying
techniques for crew transfers, and gaining experience in the conduct of joint
international flights.
We will continue to apply what we learned from Apollo, as well as
Skylab and ASTP, as we venture into the next manned program, known as
the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle will be another leap forward. It will be the
first reusable space vehicle. It will consist of three components : solid rocket
boosters, a jettisonable external propellant tank, and an orbiter. The Space
Shuttle will be launched like a rocket, fly in orbit like a spaceship, and land
like an airplane. These vehicles are being designed to last for at least a
hundred missions. The reusability will reduce the cost of putting men and
payloads in orbit to about 10 percent of the Apollo costs.
In this chronology, as with any collection of written communications
on a given project, the negative aspects of the program, its faltering and its
failures, become more apparent because these are the areas that require
written communication for corrective action. However, it should be stressed
that in spite of the failures, the moon was reached by traveling an
unparalleled path of success for an undertaking so complex. The disastrous
fire at Cape Kennedy had given the Apollo program a drastic setback. But
when Apollo 7 was launched, the first manned flight in nearly two years, it
was a success. Every spacecraft since that time improved in performance
with the exception of the problems experienced in Apollo 13. For example,
consider the Apollo 8 spacecraft and booster, which contained some 15
million parts. If those parts had been 99.9 percent reliable, there still would
have been 15000 failures. But it had only five failures, all in noncritical
parts.
vi
FOREWORD
To summarize Project Apollo--there were 11 manned flights;

27 Americans orbited the moon; 12 walked on its surface; 6 drove lunar
vehicles. Perhaps one of the most important legacies of Apollo to future
programs is the demonstration that great successes can be achieved in spite
of serious difficulties along the way.
No other event in the history of mankind has served to bring the peoples
of the world closer together than the lunar landings of Project Apollo. This
feeling of "oneness" was fully displayed during the flight of Apollo 13 when
many nations of the earth offered assistance in recovering the voyagers from
their crippled spacecraft. From nearly every country came prayers and words
of encouragement. The crippling of the Apollo 13 spacecraft en route to the
moon called forth maximum cooperative use of the ability of astronauts, the
ground support organization, and the contractors. The men and the
equipment they designed and operated proved capable of handling this
emergency.
Besides the demonstration of the power of teamwork, many areas of
understanding have come out of the lunar landing program. The command
and service modules on the last three lunar missions carried some 450
kilograms of cameras, sophisticated remote-sensing equipment, and
additional consumables to investigate the moon thoroughly from orbit.
Detailed studies of the moon were accomplished--of its size, shape, and
surface, and the interrelationship of the lunar surface features and its
gravitational field. On the surface of the moon, where there is no atmosphere
to erode, secrets were uncovered that have long since been worn away here on
earth. Understanding the geology of the moon improves the understanding
of our own planet.
Twelve men, who spent a total of 296 hours exploring the lunar surface
in six radically different areas, mined 382 kilograms of lunar rocks and
material. Scientists have catalogued, distributed, and analyzed this lunar
material. Much of the real discovery is still being unraveled in laboratories
around the world.
Five lunar science stations, orginally designed to last a minimum of a
year, are still at work on the lunar surface, continuing to transmit to earth
technical data about the moon.
The national space program became an example of a successful
management approach to accomplish an almost impossible project. The
task of going to the moon required a government, industry, and university
team which, at its peak, organized 400 000 people, hundreds of universities,
and 20 000 separate industrial companies for a common goal. This project
was accomplished in full public view of the world. These management
techniques are available to our country to use again on what are considered
almost impossible tasks.
The Apollo photographs of the entire earth in one frame have made us
realize how small and finite and limited are the resources of spaceship Earth.
Apollo not only brought home to us more clearly the problems we must face
in protecting this tiny planet, but it also suggested solutions. As we now
vii
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT" A CHRONOLOGY
turn some of our attention to such problems as mass transportation,

pollution of our atmosphere and our fresh water resources, urban renewal,
and utilization of new power sources, the same management approach,
techniques, and teams that landed men on the moon can combine to help
solve these kinds of problems. The photographs of our earth taken by
astronauts on Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, and ASTP have clearly demonstrat-
ed that we can make ecological surveys from space in geography, in
agriculture and forestry, geology, hydrology, and oceanography. We can
update maps, study pollution, predict floods, and help locate our natural
resources and good commercial fishing grounds. We have only scratched the
surface in the application of space technology.
The Apollo spacecraft not only made history, but laid a great
foundation of hope for a better future. The really important benefits are yet
to be derived, for we have merely cracked open the door to a completely new
laboratory in which to pursue knowledge.
October 1975 Kenneth S. Kleinknecht

Director o] Flight Operations
Johnson Space Center
viii
CONTENTS
PAGE
FOREWORD ................................................. iii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...................................... x
PREFACE .................................................. xiii
PART I: PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT, THE ACCIDENT, AND
INVESTIGATION ...................................
PART II: RECOVERY, SPACECRAFT REDEFINITION, AND THE
FIRST MANNED FLIGHT ........................... 115
PART III: MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, THE EAGLE LANDS, AND
MANNED LUNAR EXPLORATION .................... 263
APPENDIXES
1. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms ............. 367
2. Major Spacecraft Component Manufacturers .......... 372
3. Official U.S. IAF World Records ..................... 373
4. Flight Summary ................................... 377
5. Primary Apollo Flight Objectives .................... 401
6. Crews and Support for Manned Apollo Flights ........ 408
7. Funding ........................................... 410
8. Block II vs. Block I Apollo Spacecraft ................ 413
9. Apollo Experiments ................................ 42O
10. Organization Charts ................................ 427
INDEX ..................................................... 439
ix
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
All photographs and illustrations are furnished by the U.S. Government

except as credited. Persons in the photos are identified in the captions and
included in the index.
PART I
PAGE
Mating of launch escape system and spacecraft 009 ........ 10

One-sixth-g simulator .................................. 11
Space Environment Simulation Chamber cutaway ......... 13
Cutaway view of Vehicle Assembly Building .............. 23
First full-scale rollout of Apollo-Saturn V ................ 23
F-1 rocket engines installed ............................. 35
F-1 rocket engine firing ................................ 35
F-1 thrust chamber manufacturing line .................. 43
Apollo spacecraft flotation test .......................... 45
AS-204 altitude chamber test ............................ 51
LM ascent stage in thermal vacuum chamber ............. 51
Apollo egress training .................................. 53
Command module 012 after AS-204 fire .................. 64
Most probable area of origin of Apollo 204 fire ........... 111
PART II
CM wire harness manufacturing ......................... 121

"Tiger Team" results .................................. 135
X-ray inspection ...................................... 141
LM-I ................................................ 153
CM unified hatch ...................................... 154
Apollo 4 recovery ...................................... 173
Apollo Mission Simulator .............................. 197
Apollo 6 liftoff ........................................ 216
CSM 2TV-1 checkout .................................. 221
CM 101 ............................................... 233
Block II CSM cutaway view ............................. 248
AS-503 rollout ........................................ 255
Apollo 7 activities ..................................... 258,259
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PART III
Earth-rise over lunar horizon ........................ 276

Apollo 8 recovery .................................. 276
Slide-wire training ................................. 280
KSC Firing Room ................................. 285
Apollo 9 earth orbital activities ...................... 287
Apollo 10 ......................................... 297
LM cutaway view .................................. 305
Apollo 11 activities ................................ 308,309
Launch Control Center ............................. 317
Apollo 12 EVA .................................... 320
Mobile Quarantine Facility after splashdown ......... 321
Lunar sample collected by Apollo 11 ................ 326
Apollo 13 ......................................... 330,331
Space Environment Simulation Laboratory ........... 336
Mobile equipment transporter ....................... 338
Changes in SM oxygen tank ......................... 339
Lunar landing training vehicle ...................... 340
Apollo 14 ......................................... 343
Apollo 15 crew, equipment, experiments ............. 344
Extravehicular mobility unit ........................ 345
Apollo 15 ......................................... 346,347,349
Apollo 16 ......................................... 353
Subsatellite and experiments in SIM bay ............. 355
Apollo 17 ......................................... 359
Lunar science stations .............................. 361
Washington Cathedral Space Window ............... 363
xi
PREFACE
Project Apollo was announced to representatives of American industry

during a conference in Washington, D.C., July 28-29, 1960, as a program to
land men on the moon and return them safely to earth. President John F.
Kennedy proposed to Congress on May 25, 1961, that this goal be attained
before the end of the decade, stimulating an accelerated program. That
challenge resulted in an ultimate success when Apollo 11 landed on the
lunar surface July 20, 1969; two astronauts walked on the moon; and they,
along with their spacecraft, returned safely to earth and were recovered from
the Pacific Ocean on July 24, 1969.
The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume I, was published in
1969. It covered the concepts that led to the Apollo program; design--
decision--contract; and the lunar orbit rendezvous--mode and module.
The last activity covered in Volume I was November 7, 1962.
Volume II of The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology was published in
1973 and covered the period November 8, 1962, through September 30, 1964.
It, too, was broken down into three major subject areas : defining contractual
relations, developing hardware distinctions, and developing software
ground rules.
Volume III appeared in 1976. It covered activities beginning with
October 1, 1964, and ending January 20, 1966. This was a one-part volume
because almost the total emphasis during that period was on advanced
design, fabrication, and testing.
This fourth and final volume of the chronology is also divided into
three parts. The first, "Preparation for Flight, the Accident, and
Investigation," covers the period January 21, 1966, through April 5, 1967.
Part II, "Recovery, Spacecraft Redefinition, and the First Manned Flight,"
includes activities from April 6, 1967, through October 22, 1968. Part III,
"Man Circles the Moon, the Eagle Lands, and Manned Lunar Explora-
tion," covers October 23, 1968, through July 13, 1974.
Volume IV is more extensive than the three preceding volumes because
of both the nature of events during the period covered and the length of that
period.
As far as possible, primary sources were used to document the entries,
with the main documentation coming from the archives of Johnson Space
Center Historian James M. Grimwood. These primary sources included
congressional documents, official correspondence, government and contrac-
tor status and progress reports, memorandums, working papers, and
minutes of meetings. Additionally, a relatively few entries are based on
NASA and contractor news releases and newspaper and magazine articles.
XII1
An effort was made at all times to cover only the most relevant events
throughout the program, without concern for whether the item was about a
contractor, NASA installation, or NASA Headquarters.
We have often used acronyms for the NASA installations most
frequently mentioned in the text; for instance, NASA Hq., MSC for Manned
Spacecraft Center (after February 17, 1973, JSC for Johnson Space Center),
KSC for Kennedy Space Center, MSFC for Marshall Space Flight Center,
and LaRC for Langley Research Center. A glossary of abbreviations and
acronyms is given in Appendix 1.
For any errors discovered the authors accept the responsibility. For the
good qualities that may be found we are indebted to the many NASA and
contractor personnel members who contributed materials and gave us
advice. These include Grimwood and Sally D. Gates from the JSC History
Office; Frank W. Anderson, Jr., of the NASA History Office for his patience
and prompt responses to many questions; Lee D. Saegesser, who kept a
constant flow of documentation uncovered by him coming our way; and
Hilda J. Grimwood, who typed this effort and fought the battle of
converting seemingly never-ending statistics from the U.S. standard units of
measure to the metric system and managed to keep a smile on her face while
doing so.
I.D.E.
R.W.N.
C.G.B.
April 1975
xiv
PART I
Preparation for Flight, the Accident, and Investigation
January 21, 1966, through April 5, 1967

PART I
The Key Events
1966
February 14: First scientific experiments for lunar surface investigations were selected.
February 26: Apollo Saturn 201--an Apollo Block I spacecraft (CSM 009) on a Saturn IB launch vehicle--
was launched from Cape Kennedy on a suborbital test mission.
March 8: First integrated test of service propulsion system, electrical power system, and cryogenic gas
storage system was successfully completed at White Sands, N. Mex., Test Facility.
March I6: Gemini VIII mission was launched with astronauts Nell A. Armstrong and David R. Scott. The
crew rendezvoused with the target vehicle, and the first docking in space was confirmed 6 hours 33
minutes after liftoff.
During Marc/J: NASA Hq. told Congress run-out cost of Apollo program would be an estimated $22.718
billion.
May 5: The Apollo Spacecraft Program Office was asked to reassess spacecraft control weights and delta V
budget and prepare recommendations for first lunar landing mission weight and performance budgets.
May 19: After a fire in the environmental control system unit at AiResearch, a concerted effort was under
way to identify nonmetallic materials and other potential fire problems.
June 2: Surveyor 1 softlanded on the moon and began transmitting the first of 10000 clear, detailed TV
pictures to earth.
July 5:AS-203 was launched on an unmanned orbital test mission. All objectives were achieved. No
recovery was planned.
July 26: Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Deputy Administrator, assigned specific space flight program
responsibilities to the offices of each of the Associate Administrators.
August I O: Lunar Orbiter I was launched. By the time of completion of photo readouts from the spacecraft on
September 14, it had photographed 9 primary potential Apollo landing sites and ! 1 areas on the back of
the moon.
Augu.*t 25:AS-202 was launched on an unmanned suborbital test mission. The space vehicle comprised
S-IB stage, S-IVB stage, instrument unit, CSM 011. Spacecraft recovery was in Pacific Ocean.
October 19: NASA announced that AS-204 would be the first Apollo manned flight (earth orbital).
Crewmen named were Virgil I. Grissom, Edward H. White I1, and Roger B. Chaffee.
Noz_ember 6: Lunar Orbiter 11 was launched. During a 23-day operational period it photographed 13 Apollo
primary potential landing sites and a number of secondary sites. Two micrometeorite hits were
detected.
December 13." Lunar landing research vehicle No. 1 was received at MSC.
December 22: NASA announced names of crews selected for second and third manned Apollo missions.
1967
January 19." Numerous deficiencies were noted in the AS-204 spacecraft (CSM012) during testing at
Downey, Calif., and KSC.
January 20: The S-IVB stage for Saturn launch vehicle 503 exploded and was destroyed at the Douglas Co.,
Sacramento, Calif., Test Facility.
January 23: The Lunar Mission Planning Board held its first meeting, Principal topic was photography
from Lunar Orbiter missions and application to Apollo landing site selection.
January 27." During a simulated countdown for the AS-204 mission, a flash fire swept through command
module 012, taking the lives of the crew, Virgil 1. Grissom, Edward H. White ll, and Roger B. Chaffee.
PARTI: PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT AND THE ACCIDENT
January 28: The Apollo 204 Review Board was established by NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C.
Seamans, Jr., to investigate the AS-204 accident.
February 1: Manned Spaceflight Center directed contractors and government agencies to stop all MSC-
related manned testing in environments with high oxygen content until further notice.
February 7: The Apollo 204 Review Board Chairman established 21 Task Panels to support the Board in its
investigation.
February 10: The Board of Inquiry into the January 20 S-IVB stage explosion identified the probablecause
of the accident.
March 14: Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips appointed a team to make a special audit of quality
control and inspection procedures and contractors and NASA Centers.
April 5: The Apollo 204 Review Board sent its final report to NASA Administrator James E. Webb.
3
PART I
Preparation for Flight, the Accident, and Investigation
January 21, 1966, through April 5, 1967
NASA converted one of its major contracts from a cost-plus-fixed-fee to a 1966

cost-plus-incentive-fee agreement. The contract was with North American January
Aviation's Space and Information Systems Division, Downey, Calif., for
21
development of the Apollo spacecraft command and service modules (CSM)
and spacecraft-lunar excursion module adapter (SLA).
NASA News Release 66-15, "Apollo Spacecraft Major Contract Is Converted," .]an. 21, 1966.
21
NASA negotiated a contract with Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) for a program of radar and radiometric measurements on the surface
of the moon. The program, which would be active until March 31, 1967,
would have Paul B. Sebring of MIT's Lincoln Laboratory as principal
investigator. Results would be used to select areas for intensive study to
support investigations related to manned landing sites.
Arthur T. Strickland of NASA's Lunar and Planetary Programs Office

would be the technical monitor. Andrew Patteson of the MSC Lunar Sur-
face Technology Branch was requested as alternate technical monitor.
Ltr., Oran W. Nicks, NASA Hq., to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, "Alternate Technical Monitor for
MIT Contra(t NSR 22-009-106," .]an. 21, 1966.
The Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) Checkout and Test Division was 28
informed by the Flight Crew Operations Director that in reference to a

request for "our desires for altitude chamber runs on Apollo spacecraft, we
definitely feel three runs are mandatory on CSMs 012 and 014. For planning
purposes I think we should assume this is a steady-state requirement
although it should be a subject for review as we accumulate experience."
Runs on backup crews had been deleted in several instances if they had
already flown and the mission was essentially the same. The value of
chamber runs in terms of crew confidence was great and it was assumed that
no one would care to make a manned run without a previous unmanned
run.
Memo, Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to Chief, Checkout and Test Div., MSC, "Altitude Chamber
runs on manned spacecraft," Jan. 28, 1966.
1N6 NASA Hq. requested the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office at Manned
Janua_ Spacecraft Center to evaluate the impact, including the effect on _ound
support equipment and mission control, of a dual AS-207/208 flight as
early as AS-207 was currently scheduled. ASPO was to assume that launch
vehicle 207 would carry the Block II CSM, launch vehicle 208 would carry
the lunar excursion module (LEM), and the two launches would be nearly
simultaneous. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Marshall Space Flight
Center (MSFC) were asked to make similar studies for their systems.
Response was requested by February 7, 1966.
TWX, Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF. to Joseph F. Shea, MSC, .Jan. 28, 1966.
February MSC's Robert R. Gilruth, Maxime A Faget, and William E. Stoney visited
1 Langley Research Center to discuss the Orbiter program status and plans for
distributing photos obtained from Orbiter with Floyd Thompson, Charles
Donlan, and other Langley personnel members connected with the Orbiter
program. Important aspects of the program were presented, with particular
emphasis on the camera system and the kind and quality of photography to
be obtained. In the discussion of data handling it was apparent there were no
conflicts of purpose or planned activity between LaRC and MSC. It was
determined that strong MSC representation at Langley during the photo
screening period would be advantageous to MSC and of great benefit in
MSC's subsequent lunar landing site evaluation.
Memo for Record, Faget, "Discussion between MS(-; and Langley Research Center regarding
reduction of Orbiter data," March 1, 1966.
MSC Assistant Director for Flight Crew Operations Donald K. Slayton said
he did not think that current testing or proposed evaluation would do
anything to resolve the basic debate between optics versus radar as a primary
LEM rendezvous aid. Slayton said, "The question is not which system can
be manufactured, packaged, and qualified as flight hardware at the earliest
date; it is which design is most operationally suited to accomplishing the
lunar mission. The 'Olympics' contribute nothing to solving this
problem." He proposed that an MSC management design review of both
systems at the earliest reasonable date was the only way to reach a
conclusion, adding, "This requires only existing paperwork and knowl-
edgeIno hardware."
Memo, Slaytnn to Chief, Guidance and Control l)iv., MSC, "LORS-RR 'Olympics,'" Feb. 1,
1966.
MSC awarded $70000 contract to Rodana Research Corp. to develop

emergency medical kits that would "satisfy all inflight and training
requirements for the Apollo Command Module and the Lunar Excursion
Module." Under terms of contract, two training units would be delivered for
each flight, in addition to one mockup and six prototype models. The small
kits would contain loaded injectors, tablets, capsules, ointments, inhalers,
adhesives, and compressed dressings.
MSC News Release 66-8, Feb. 2, 1966.
PART
I: PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT AND THE ACCIDENT
In response to a January 28 TWX from NASA Hq., MSC personnel made 1966
recommendations after evaluating the impact of a dual AS-207/208 flight February
on ground support and mission control. On February 2, John P. Mayer, 2-24
Chief, Mission Planning and Analysis Division, told the Assistant Director
for Flight Operations that the sole area of concern would be in providing the
necessary Real Time Computer Complex readiness in a time frame
consistent with the AS-207 launch schedule. Mayer also recommended that
a decision be made in the very near future to commit AS-207 and AS-208 to a
dual mission and that, if possible, IBM personnel knowledgeable in the
Gemini dual vehicle system be diverted to the proposed mission if major
modifications were not required for the Gemini XI and Gemini XII
missions.
On February 4, John D. Hodge, Chief of the Flight Control Division, listed

for the Technical Assistant for Apollo some problem areas that could arise
in the operational aspects of the proposed mission with AS-207 carrying a
manned CSM and AS-208 carrying only a LEM. Hodge recommended that
the two launches not be attempted simultaneously, saying that some time
between the launches should be determined, which would eliminate most of
the problems anticipated.
Howard W. Tindall, Jr., Assistant Chief, Mission Planning and Analysis

Division, in a memo documented some design criteria and philosophy on
which the AS-207/208 rendezvous mission plan was being developed by the
Rendezvous Analysis Branch. Tindall pointed out that, from the Gemini
program experience, the plan was felt to be relatively firm. Tindall named
some of the basic features recommended by the study : (1) The CSM should
be launched before the LEM. (2) The first CSM orbit should be 482 km and
the LEM orbit should be 203 km high, both circular. The inclination
should be about 29 ° . (3) There should be two "on-time" launch
opportunities each day of about three minutes each, during which a LEM
launch would provide ideal in-plane and phasing conditions. (4) It was
anticipated that the basic rendezvous could be completed within four-and-a-
half hours after LEM liftoff. (5) It was estimated that about 1317 km per hr of
spacecraft in-orbit propulsion would be required to carry out the
rendezvous, with about seven service propulsion system maneuvers
including terminal phase initiation.
MSC Memos, Mayer to Assistant Director for Flight Operations, "Dual Apollo Missions," Feb.
2, 1966; Hodge to Technical Assistant for Apollo, "Simultaneous Launch for AS-207 and AS-
208/' Feb. 4, 1967: Tindall to distribution, "Apollo AS-207/208 rendezvous mission
planning," Feb. 24, 1966.
Alfred Cohen, head of the ground support equipment (GSE) office of the
Resident Apollo Spacecraft Office (RASPO) at Grumman Aircraft
Engineering Corp., objected to the unrealistic production schedule set up by
Grumman Manufacturing for LEM GSE. Cohen pointed out that
Grumman had been notified many times that NASA did not believe that
1966 GSE could be produced in the short time spans formulated by Grumman.
Cohen added that Grumman had been informed that this disbelief was based
February
on actual experience with North American Aviation and McDonnell
Aircraft Corp. Tracking of the manufacture of such items showed that
Grumman was unable to produce in accordance with schedules. Cohen
cited that Grumman had planned to complete 99 GSE items in December
1965 and had completed 27; in January it had scheduled 146 items for
completion and had completed 43. Cohen requested that the RASPO
Manager confront Grumman management with the facts and suggest that
they (1) establish realistic schedules for fabricating GSE based on past
experience; and (2) step up efforts in expediting purchase of parts and
adding manpower that would be required.
Memo, Cohen to Manager, RASP(), "Manula_ truing o( (;SE, Unrealistic Planning," Feb. 4,
1966.
6-8 The first test of the cryogenic gas storage system was successfully conducted
from 12:30 p.m. February 6 through 8:50 p.m. February 8 at the White Sands
Test Facility (WSTF), N. Mex. Primary objectives were to demonstrate the
compatibility between the ground support equipment and cryogenic
subsystem with respect to mechanical, thermodynamic, and electrical
interfaces during checkout, servicing, monitoring, and ground control. All
objectives were attained.
TWX, MS(; WSTF to MS(;, "Pleliminary Rcl)O_t, Filst CI yogenic System "Yes! at WSTF,'" Feb.
9, 1966.
The CSM weight program was reviewed by James L. Bullard of MSC and D.
Morgan of North American Aviation at a meeting in Houston. The CM 011
projected weight was at its upper limit as designed by the earth-landing-
system restraint, about 68 kilograms above the maximum weight used for
mission planning. Data to revise the 011 specification to show a CM weight
of 5352 kih)grams were being prepared.
CMs 012 and 014 would present definite weight problems. At the time the
CM weight vs earth-landing-system factors of safety relationships were
investigated in the study of the possibility of shaving ablator material from
the heatshield, a maximum weight of 5296 kilograms was established for the
manned spacecraft. Bullard had discussed the possibility of a higher CM
weight with James M. Peacock of the Systems Engineering Division and the
earth-landing-system subsystem manager but had received no definite reply.
Bullard said it was imperative that a firm weight be established, above which
the weight could not grow, before any weight reductions could be seriously
considered. It appeared that 90 to 136 kilograms would have to be eliminated
from the spacecraft, and that the reduction would have to be accomplished
primarily by removing items.
Memo, Bullard to Chief, Systems Engincerin_ I)iv., "CSM weight status." Feb. 7, 1966.
PART
I: PREPARATION
FOR FLIGHT AND THE ACCIDENT
NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications Homer 1966
E. Newell advised MSC that he had selected space science investigations to Febma_
be carried to the moon on Apollo missions, emplaced on the lunar surface by
14
Apollo astronauts, and left behind to collect and transmit data to the earth
on lunar environmental characteristics following those missions. Newell
assigned the experiments to specific missions and indicated their priority.
Any changes in the assignments would require Newell's approval. The
experiments, institutions responsible, and principal investigators and
coinvestigators were :
• Passive Lunar Seismic Experiment, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Frank Press; Columbia University, George Sutton.
• Lunar Tri-axis Magnetometer, Ames Research Center, C. P. Sonett;
MSC, Jerry Modisette.
• Medium-Energy Solar Wind, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), C.
W. Snyder; JPL, M. M. Neugebauer.
• Suprathermal Ion Detection, Rice University, J. W. Freeman, Jr.;
MSC, F. C. Michel.
• Lunar Heat Flow Management, Columbia l:niversity, M. Langseth;
Yale University, S. (;lark.
• Low-Energy Solar Wind, Rice [lniversity, B. J. O'Brien.
• Active Lunar Seismic Experiment, Stanford University, R. L.
Kovach; U.S. Geological Survey, J. S. Watkins.
By separate actions, Newell asked the Associate Administrator for Manned

Space Flight to approve the assignment of these experiments to the Apollo
Program and the Director of the Apollo Program was asked to assign the
experiments, part of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package, to the
missions indicated. MSC was authorized to use not in excess of $5.109
million to develop the experiments through flight-qualified prototype,
including provision for all necessary software for operational and support
purposes, as well as data analysis.
Ltr., Newell to MSC, Atm: Manager, Experiments Program Office, "Authorization 1o Procure
Space Science and Applications Investigations for Atx_llo Lunar Missions," Feb. 1't, 1966.
15
NASA announced conversion of its contract with Grumman Aircraft
Engineering Corp. for development of the LEM to a cost-plus-incentive
agreement. Under the terms of the new four-year contract Grumman was to
deliver 15 flight articles, 10 test articles, and 2 mission simulators. The
change added 4 flight articles to the program. The contract provided
incentive for outstanding performance, cost control, and timely delivery as
well as potential profit reductions if performance, cost, and schedule
requirements were not met.
TWX, NASA Ifq. It) MSC, MSI"C, Western Operations Otfi(e, KS(;, Aun : Publi( Inlolmation
Oflice_s, NASA Conw'lts Apollo ContJact to Cost-l)lus-lncvntive, '' Feb. 15, 196(i.
9
The launch escape system is
mated to Apollo spacecraft 009
atop the Launch Complex 34
service tower at Cape Canaver-
al, in December 1965 prepara-
tions for the February 26, 1966,
AS-201 mission.
1966 The LEM Configuration Control Panel approved Grumman's request for
February government-furnished-equipment (North American Aviation-manu-

factured) optical alignment sights (OAS) for installation in the LEM.
A total of 21 OAS units would be required (including 2 spares). Detailed
interface requirements between the OAS and LEM would be negotiated
between North American and Grumman and delivery dates would be
specified during negotiations.
Memo, Project Officer, LEM, MSC, to Project Office1, CSM, MSC, "PCCP SID-150-551 Optical
Alignment Sights for Use in LEM," Feb. 25, 1966.
26 Apollo-Saturn 201 was launched from Cape Kennedy, with liftoff of an

Apollo Block I spacecraft (CSM009) on a Saturn IB launch vehicle at
11:12:01 EST. Launched from Launch Complex 34, the unmanned
suborbital mission was the first flight test of the Saturn IB and an Apollo
spacecraft. Total launch weight was 22 000 kilograms.
Spacecraft communications blackout lasted 1 minute 22 seconds. Reentry

was initiated with a space-fixed velocity of 29 000 kilometers per hour. CM
structure and heatshields performed adequately. The CM was recovered
from the Atlantic about 72 kilometers uprange from the planned landing
point. (Mission objectives are listed in Appendix 5.)
Missions Opelations Div., MSC, "Postlaunch Report fr)T Mission AS-201 (Apollo S/C 009),"
May 6, 1966.
March Recent discussion between Axel Mattson of LaRC and Donald K. Slayton of
1 MSC concerning the possibility of astronauts' using the Lunar Landing
Research Facility (LLRF) at Langley led to agreement that astronauts
10
PART I: PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT AND THE ACCIDENT
should fly the LLRF for a week before flying the MSC lunar landing training 1966
vehicle. An evaluation of the proposal at MSC resulted in a letter from March
Director Robert R. Gilruth to LaRC Director Floyd L. Thompson
indicating the desirability of using the LLRF and also the desirability of
some equipment modifications that would improve the vehicle with a
minimum effort. These included such items as LEM flight instruments,
hand controllers, panel modifications, and software changes. Also discussed
was the training benefit that could be realized if the facility were updated to
use a vehicle like the LEM so the pilots could become familiar with
problems of a standup restraint system, pressure suit and helmet interface
with the cockpit structure and window during landing operations, and
sensing and reacting to the dynamic cues of motion while standing up.
Ltr., Gilruth to Thompson, March 1, 1966.
ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea informed Apollo Program Director Samuel

C. Phillips, in response to a January 28 TWX from Phillips, that MSC had
evaluated the capability to support a dual launch of AS-207/208 provided
an immediate go-ahead could be given to the contractors. Shea said the
evaluation had covered mission planning, ground support equipment
(GSE), flight hardware, and operations support. Modifications and
additional GSE would be required to update Launch Complex 34 at Cape
Kennedy to support a Block II CSM. The total cost of supporting the AS-
207/208 dual launch was estimated at $10.2 million for the GSE and
additional boiler plate CSM configuration, but Shea added that these costs
could be absorbed within the FY 1966 budget. Shea recommended that the
dual mission be incorporated into the program.
TWX, Shea to Phillips, "Saturn IB Dual Launch," March 1, 1966.
The l/6-g simulator, developed at

the Manned Spacecraft Center, is
shown in action as a suited subject
crosses the "lunar landscape" at
the Center in March 1966. The
simulator was designed to give
astronauts experience in the activ-
ities they would perform during
missions on the moon, with
gravity one-sixth earth's.
1966 Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, in a memo to the Director,

Ma_h ONce of Advanced Research and Technology, NASA Hq., pointed out that
in July 1965 the Apollo program encountered stress corrosion of titanium
7
tanks from nitrogen tetroxide propellant, and that through his auspices
Langley Research Center initiated a crash effort that had been a key factor
in solving the problem. Phillips said that Langley's effort had been
vigorous, thorough, and of the highest professional calibre. An excellent
team relationship had been maintained with MSC, MSFC, KSC, vehicle
contractors, and tank subcontractors and LaRC personnel had given
dedicated and outstanding support. Fie cited that ( 1) within nine days from
go-ahead a test facility was constructed, equipped, and in operation; (2)
within one hour after the request from MSC, coupon tests were under way in
support of the Gemini VII flight; (3) glass bead peening was demonstrated as
a solution and many tanks were peened on a crash schedule for flight and test
use; and (4) coupon tests in direct support of AS-201 were instrumental in
providing confidence for proceeding with that flight.
Memo, Phillips to Director, Research Div., NASA ()ART, "Compatibility of Titanium
Propellant Tanks with Nitrogen Tetroxide," March 7, 1966.
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips notified the three manned

space flight Centers that they were requested to plan for a dual AS-207/208
mission, assuming that launch would occur one month later than the 207
launch now scheduled.
TWX, Phillips to MSC, MSFC, and KS(;, "Saturn IB Dual Launch," March 8, 1966.
9--10 The first integrated test of the service propulsion system, electrical power
system, and cryogenic gas storage system was successfully conducted at the
White Sands Test Facility.
TWX, ._avnut'l C. Phillips to .]OSel)h F. Shca, "Blo(k I CSM Delivery I);tles," March l.t, 19(_i.
101," March 10, 1966.
14 NASA Hq. told MSC that delivery changes should be reflected in manned
space flight schedules as controlled milestone changes and referred
specifically to CSM008_April 1966; CSM011_April 15, 1966; and
CSM007--March 31, 1966. Headquarters noted that the "NAA [North
American Aviation Inc.] contract delivery date remains 28 February 1966"
for each and that "every effort should be made to deliver these articles as
early as possible, since completion of each is constraining a launch or other
major activity."
TWX, Samuel C. Phillips (o Joseph F. She;_, "BIo, k 1 (:SM l)elivery Dates." March 14, 1966.
16-17 The Atlas-Agena target vehicle for the Gemini VIII mission was successfully
launched from KSC Launch Complex 14 at 10 a.m. EST March 16. The
Gemini VIII spacecraft was launched from Launch Complex 19 at 11:41
a.m., with command pilot Neil A. Armstrong and pilot David R. Scott
aboard. The spacecraft and its target vehicle rendezvoused and docked, with
12
f l_,J _., _ '
TOP SOLAR .f_ "
SIMULATION -_/F_ )
SOURCE _l'_
A cutaway view of the large space

environment chamber in the
Space Environment Simulation
Laboratory at Manned Spacecraft
Center shows how Apollo space-
craft components were tested at
the extreme temperatures they
would meet in space.
docking confirmed 6 hours 33 minutes after the spacecraft was launched. 1966
About 27 minutes later the spacecraft-Agena combination encountered March
unexpected roll and yaw motion. The crew reduced the rates sufficiently to
undock from the target and began troubleshooting to determine the cause of
the problem. The problem arose again and when the yaw and roll rates
became too high the crew activated and used both rings of the reentry con-
trol system to reduce the spacecraft rates to zero. This action required that
the mission be ended, and splashdown was scheduled for the western Pacif-
ic during the seventh revolution. The spacecraft landed at 10:23 p.m. EST
March 16 and Armstrong and Scott were picked up by the U.S.S. Mason at
1:37 a.m. EST March 17. Although the flight was cut short by the incident,
one of the primary objectives--rendezvous and docking (the first rendezvous
of two spacecraft in orbital flight)--was accomplished.
Memo, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight to Administrator. "Gemini
VIII Mission, Post Launch Re[xJrt No. 1," March 23, 1966 (Mission O[)eration Rel×)rt M-913-
66-09).
16
NASA Administrator James E. Webb and Deputy Administrator Robert C.
Seamans, Jr., selected Bendix Systems Division, Bendix Corp., from among
three contractors for design, manufacture, test, and operational support of
four deliverable packages of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments
Package (ALSEP), with first delivery scheduled for July 1967. The estimated
cost of the cost-plus-incentive-fee contract negotiated with Bendix before
the presentation by the Source Evaluation Board to Webb and Seamans was
$17.3 million.
Memo, NASA Deputy Associate Administrator to Associate Administrator [or Manned Space
Flight, "Selection of Contractor for Phase D (Phase If) for Apollo I+unal Surface Extwriments
Package," March 17, 1966+
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips informed MSC Director 16
Robert R. Gilruth of specific NASA Hq. management assignments that had

been implemented in connection with the ALSEP program. He told Gilruth
he had asked Len Reiffel to serve as the primary focus of Headquarters on
13
1966 ALSEP and that he would be assisted by three members of the Lunar and
Ma_h Planetary Program Office of the Office of Space Science and Applications:
W. T. O'Bryant, E. Davin, and R. Green.
Ltr, Phillips to Gilruth, March 16, 1966.
16 MSC analysis of Grumman ground support equipment (GSE) showed that

a serious problem in manufacturing and delivery of GSE would have a
significant program impact if not corrected immediately. Information
submitted to NASA indicated a completion rate of 35 percent of that
planned. Grumman was requested to initiate action to identify causes of the
problem and take immediate remedial action. A formal recovery plan was to
be submitted to NASA, considering the following guidelines: (1) the plan
would take into account the interrelations of the LEM vehicle, site
activation, vehicle checkout, and GSE end-item manufacturing schedules;
(2) a priority system should be established by which "critical" equipment
would be identified, with all other equipment identifed in either
"preferred" or "not essential" categories ("critical" was defined as that
mission-essential or mission-support equipment without which the
successful completion of the vehicle test or launch would be impossible);
and (3) manufacturing schedules should be revised to emphasize completion
of all critical category equipment, including such means as two- or three-
shift operation or additional subcontracting, or both. Grumman was
required to initiate the recovery plan as soon as possible but not later than 30
days from receipt of the instructions, and progress reports were to be
submitted to NASA biweekly, starting two weeks from receipt of the TWX.
TWX, James L. Neal, MSC, to Grumman, Attn :J. C. Snedecker, "LEM GSE," March 16, 1966.
17 John D. Hodge, Chief of MSC's Flight Control Division, proposed that

time-critical aborts in the event of a service propulsion system failure after
translunar injection (TLI; i.e., insertion on a trajectory toward the moon) be
investigated. Time-critical abort was defined as an abort occurring within 12
hours after TLI and requiring reentry in less than two days after the abort.
He suggested that if an SPS failed the service module be jettisoned for a

time-critical abort and both LEM propulsion systems be used for earth
return, reducing the total time to return by approximately 60 hours. As an
example, if the time of abort was 10 hours after translunar injection, he said,
this method would require about 36 hours; if the SM were retained the
return time would require about 96 hours.
He added that the LEM/CM-only configuration should be studied for any

constraints that would preclude initiating this kind of time-critical abort.
Some of the factors to be considered should be: (1) maximum time the LEM
environmental control system could support two or three men on an earth
return; (2) maximum time the CM electrical system could support
minimum power-up condition; (3) time constraints on completely
powering down the CM and using the LEM systems for support; (4) effects
14
on planned landing areas from an open loop reentry mode; (5) stability of 1N6
the LEM/CM configuration during the descent and ascent propulsion March
burns; (6) total time to return using the descent propulsion system only or
both the LEM's descent propulsion system and ascent propulsion system;
and (7) communications with Manned Space Flight Network required to
support this abort.
Memo, Hodge to Technical Assistant [or Apollo, MSC, "Time critical translunar coast aborts
for SPS failure case," March 17, 1966.
28
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips discussed cost problems of the
contract with General Motors' AC Electronics Division, in a memo to NASA
Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller. One
of the problems was late design releases from Massachusetts Institute of
Technology to AC Electronics, resulting in an increase of $2.7 million.
Phillips also pointed out that computer problems at Raytheon Corp. had
increased the program cost by $6.7 million, added that many of these
problems had their origins in the MIT design, and listed seven of the most
significant technical problems. Phillips stated that MSC in conjunction
with AC Electronics had taken several positive steps: (1) to establish a
factory test method review board to review all procedures encompassing
fabrication of the computer in the manufacturing process; (2) to schedule
100-percent audit of all hardware in fabrication; and (3) to increase the AC
Electronics resident technical staff at the Raytheon plant.
Memo, Phillips to Mueller, "Cost problems on AC Electronics Contract NAS 9-497 for G&N
Systems," March 28, 1966.
29
MSC requested use of Langley Research Center's Lunar Orbit and Landing
Approach (LOLA) Simulator in connection with two technical contracts in
progress with Geonautics, Inc., Washington, D.C. One was for pilotage
techniques for use in the descent and ascent phases of the LEM profile, while
the other specified construction of a binocular viewing device for simplified
pilotage monitoring. Langley concurred with the request and suggested
that MSC personnel work with Manuel J. Queijo in setting up the program,
in making working arrangements between the parties concerned, and in
defining the trajectories of interest.
Ltrs., Director, MS(;, to Director, LaRC, March 29, 1966, "Use of Lunar Orbit and Landing
Approach Simulator (LOLA)"; Director, LaRC, to Paul E. Purser, April 29, 1966, "Proposed
pilotage study using interim LOLA simulator."
3O
NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., said he had been
reflecting on network coverage for Apollo, as a result of the Gemini VIII
experience. He recognized that Apollo had more weight-carrying ability
and stowage space than Gemini and that as a consequence live TV from the
spacecraft might be a good possibility. This coverage could allow for
extensive TV during travel to and from the moon as well as during lunar
landing, disembarkation, and lunar exploration. The TV equipment would
not be solely for news purposes but he felt "all manner of demands will be
15
1966 placed upon us for continuous live coverage." He requested a review at an

March early date as to (1) the technical capability of planned equipment, (2)
preliminary plans for network coverage, and (3) possible modification of
Apollo equipment to provide greater capability for scientific, technical,
operational, and information coverage of the missions by camera and
television techniques.
Memo, Seamans to George Mueller, OMSF, and Julian Scheer, NASA Hq., "Potential TV
Coverage on Apollo," March 30, 1966.
31 A Space Science Office was established as an interimorganizational element

of MSC's Engineering and Development Directorate, pending development
of a permanent organization. The Office would report to the E&D Manager,
Experiments, and would be responsible for providing support technology
for manned space flight in environmental elements such as space radiation,
micrometeoroid flux, lunar surface conditions and planetary atmospheres.
It would also participate in making measurements and conducting
experiments with and from manned spacecraft. Robert O. Piland was
named Acting Manager of the Office.
Memo, Maxime A. Faget, MSC, to distr., "Establishment of a Space Science Office within
E&D," March 31, 1966.
Ourlng NASA OMSF prepared a position paper on NASA's estimated total cost of
the
Month
the manned lunar landing program. Administrator James E. Webb
furnished the paper for the record of the FY 1967 Senate authorization
hearings and the same statement was given to the House Committee. The
paper was approved by Webb and George E. Mueller and placed the run-out
costs for the program at $22.718 billion.
MSF Staff Paper, "Statement on Cost of Manned Lunm Landing Program," March 1966.
April MSC sent proposed organizational changes to NASA Hq. for approval by
4
the Administrator. The two basic changes to be made were ( 1) establishment
of a Space Medicine Directorate and (2) establishment of a Space Science
Division within the Engineering and Development (E&D) Directorate. Both
proposals, it was pointed out to Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight George E. Mueller, had been discussed with him and other key
members of the Headquarters staff. The proposed Space Medicine
Directorate would combine the functions of the Chief of Center Medical
Programs and the Center Medical Office, along with biomedical research
functions currently performed in the Crew Systems Division of the E&D
Directorate. The Offices of Chief of Center Medical Programs and Center
Medical Office would be abolished by the change.
The Space Science Division had been discussed with NASA Associate
Administrator for Space Science and Applications Homer E. Newell and
would consolidate into a single organization several of the space science
activities of MSC, including those under the Assistant Chief for Space
Environment in Advanced Spacecraft Technology Division as well as the
16
PART I" PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT AND THE ACCIDENT
planned Lunar Sample Receiving Laboratory. The four basic functions of 1966
the Division, reflecting the increased scientific program emphasis, would be April
(1) interpretation of environmental data for spacecraft design and
operations criteria, (2) experiments, (3) obtaining lunar samples, and (4)
astronaut training.
In addition a name change was proposed for heads of the five major
operating elements of MSC, from "Assistant Director for" to "Director of";
e.g., from Assistant Director for Flight Operations to Director of Flight
Operations. This change was suggested to eliminate frequent and
continuing misunderstandings in dealing with persons outside the
organization who assumed that the "Assistant Director for Flight
Operations," etc., was the number two man in that organization, rather
than the number one.
Ltr., MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth to Mueller, "Changes in MSC Basic Organization," April
4, 1966.
In response to an April 1 query from George E. Mueller, NASA OMSF,

asking, "Could GE or Boeing help on GAEC [Grumman Aircraft
Engineering Corp.] GSE?" Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips
replied that on several occasions in the recent past he had made known to
both Center and industry representatives that a highly capable, quick-
response ground support equipment (GSE) organization had been built by
and through General Electric, which the Centers and other companies
should take advantage of whenever it could help with schedules or costs. He
also recalled that "in one of our last two meetings with Grumman" he had
reminded them of this capability and had suggested they consider it.
Notes, Mueller to Phillips, April 1, 1966; Phillips to Mueller, April 6, 1966.
In response to the March 30 memo from NASA Deputy Administrator

Robert C. Seamans, Jr., regarding potential uses of TV on Apollo, Associate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller replied that "...
we have been making a progressive review of the Apollo electronic systems.
Performance and application of the Apollo TV system are being looked at as
part of the review." He added that he expected to be in position by mid-May
to discuss plans with Seamans in some detail.
Memo, Mueller to Seamans, "Potential TV Coverage on Apollo," April 7, 1966.
Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., received a letter from John S.

Foster, Jr., Director of Defense Research and Engineering, expressing
pleasure that the agreement between the Department of Defense and NASA
on extraterrestrial mapping, charting, and geodesy support had been
consummated. He was returning a copy of the agreement for the NASA files.
Ltr., Foster to Seamans, April 8, 1966.
17
1N6 A Bellcomm, Inc., memo to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips

April presented the status of the Apollo Block I spacesuit assembly. A modified
Gemini suit manufactured by the David Clark Manufacturing Co., the
12 overall assembly consisted of a constant-wear garment and a pressure
garment assembly. Crew members would also be provided with coveralls to
wear in a pressurized cabin as desired. The primary functional requirement
of the Block I suit was to provide environmental protection in a
depressurized CSM cabin. Therefore, it did not incorporate a thermal and
micrometeoroid-protection garment or the helmet visor assembly, which
were required for extravehicular operation. The memo listed seven major
modifications required to adapt the Gemini suit to make it acceptable for use
as an Apollo Block I item.
Memo, Bellcomm, Inc., to distr., "Status of Block I Space ._uit Assembly (SSA) Development--
Case 330," sgd. T. A. Bottomley, Jr., April 12, 1966, with Bellcomm routing slip to Phillips
from J. Z. Menard, April 13, 1966.
15 MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth told Associate Administrator for Manned

Space Flight George E. Mueller he felt it was necessary either to proceed
with the Apollo Experiment Pallet program or to cancel the program,
reaching a decision not later than April 22. Gilruth pointed out that four
contracts had been initiated in December 1965 for Phase C of the program,
that the contracts were completed on April 6, that full-scale mockups had
been delivered, and that documentation with cost proposals were due April
22. The four contractors were McDonnell Aircraft, Martin-Denver,
Northrop, and Lockheed Aircraft-Sunnyvale. Gilruth said it was apparent
that all contractors had done an exceptionally good job during the Phase C
effort. Low cost had been emphasized in every phase of the program, with
contractors responding with a very economical device and at the same time a
straightforward design that offered every chance of early availability and
successful operation.
Of equal significance, he said, "the Pallet offers the opportunity to

minimize the interface with both North American and the Apollo program.
It provides a single interface to Apollo and NAA, allowing the multiple-
experiment interfaces to be handled by a contractor whose specific interest is
in experiments. If experiments are to be carried in the Service Module, the
Pallet both by concept and experience offers the most economical
approach." Gilruth said the following plan had been developed: (1) April
22--receive documentation and cost proposals. (2) April 22-May 22--
evaluate four proposals and negotiate four acceptable contracts in the same
manner as for ALSEP. (3) May 23-24--Source Evaluation Board Review. (4)
May 25-June 1--Center and Headquarters Review. (5) June 1--date of cost
incurrence for selected contractor. Gilruth strongly recommended that the
pallet program be implemented as planned. On April 22, Mueller gave his
approval to proceed as planned. (See August 22.)
Ltrs., Gilruth to Mueller, April 15, 1966; Mueller to Gilruth, April 22, 1966.
18
Spacecraft 007 and 011 were delivered to NASA by North American

Aviation. Spacecraft 007 was delivered to Houston to be used for water April
impact and flotation tests in the Gulf of Mexico and in an environmental 18

tank at Ellington AFB. It contained all recovery systems required during
actual flight and the total configuration was that of a flight CM.
The CM of spacecraft 011 was similar to those in which astronauts would

ride in later flights and the SM contained support systems including
environmental control and fuel cell systems and the main service
propulsion system. Spacecraft 011 was scheduled to be launched during the
third quarter of 1966.
TWX, NAA Space and Information Systems Div. to MSC, April 18, 1966.
18
ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea and members of his organization were
invited to attend the formal presentation by the Aeronutronic Division of
Philco Corp. on a "Study of Lunar Worm Planetary Roving Vehicle
Concept," at LaRC on May 3. The exploratory study to determine the
feasibility of a bellows-concept mobile vehicle included a mobility and
traction analysis for several kinds of bellows motion and several soil
surfaces; analysis of both metallic and nonmetallic construction to provide
the bellows structure; brief design studies of the concept as applied to a
small unmanned vehicle, a supply vehicle, a small lunar shelter, a large
lunar shelter; and an overall evaluation of the suitability of the concept for
carrying out various missions as compared with other vehicles.
Ltr., Floyd L. Thompson, LaRC, to Shea, "Final Briefing, Contract NAS-1-5709, 'Study of
Lunar Worm Planetary Roving Vehicle Concept,' by the Aeronutronic Division of the Philco
Corp.," April 18, 1966.
21
MSC announced the establishment of a Flight Experiment Board. The
Board would select and recommend to the Director space flight experiments
proposed from within the Center and judged by the Board to be in the best
interest of the Center and the NASA space flight program. MSC-originated
flight experiments were expected normally to be designated as one of two
general classifications: Type I--Medical, Space Science, Flight Operations
or Engineering that would yield new knowledge or improve the state of the
art; Type II--Operational, which would be required in direct support of
major manned flight programs such as Apollo.
Members appointed to the Board were George M. Low, chairman; Warren

Gillespie, Jr., executive secretary; Maxime A. Faget; Robert O. Piland;
Charles A. Berry; Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.;Donald K. Slayton; Kenneth S.
Kleinknecht; and Joseph N. Kotanchik. The Board would meet bimonthly
on the first Friday of every even month, with called meetings at the direction
of the chairman when necessary to expedite experiments.
MSC Announcement 66-47, MSC Flight Experiments Selection Board, April 21, 1966.
19
1966
NASA Office of Manned Space Flight policy for Design Certification
Apdl Reviews (DCRs) was defined for application to manned Apollo missions by
22 a NASA directive. The concept stressed was that design evaluation by NASA
management should begin with design reviews and inspections of
subsystems and culminate in a DCR before selected flights. Documentation
presented at DCRs were to reflect this sequence of progressive assessment of
subsystems.
Ltr., Samuel C. Phillips to R. A. Petrone, KSC; J. F. Shea, MSC; and E. F. O'Connor, MSFC:
"Program Directive No. 7--Apollo Design Certification Review," April 22, 1966.
28
J. K. Holcomb, Director of Apollo Flight Operations, NASA OMSF,
reported to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips that the NASA
flight scoring system was considered satisfactory in its present form. NASA
Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller had
taken exception to including a statement of primary and secondary
objectives in the AS-202 Mission Rules Guidelines. The scoring system,
established by the Office of Program Reports, labeled each flight a success or
a failure in a report to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator and was
used in briefing Congress and the press. Flights were categorized only as
"successful" or "unsuccessful." Criteria for judging success of a mission
were based on the statement of primary objectives in the Mission Operations
Report. If one primary objective was missed the flight was classified as
"unsuccessful."
Memo, Itolcomb to Phillips. "NASA Scoring System," April 28, 1966.
May
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth wrote George E. Mueller, NASA OMSF,
3 that plans were being completed for MSC in-house, full-scale parachute
tests at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), N. Mex. The tests would be
part of the effort to develop a gliding parachute system suitable for land
landing with manned spacecraft. Tests were expected to begin in July 1966,
with about six tests a year for two or three years. Gilruth pointed out that
although full-scale tests were planned for WSMR it would not be possible to
find suitable terrain at that site, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., or at El
Centro, Calif., to determine operational and system requirements for land
landing in unplanned areas. Unplanned-area landing tests were cited as not
a major part of the program but a necessary part. He pointed out that the
U.S. Army Reservation at Fort Hood, Tex., was the only area which had the
required variety of landing obstacle sizes and concentrations suitable for the
unplanned-area tests. Scale-model tests had been made and would be
continued at Fort Hood without interference to training, and MSC had
completed a local agreement that would permit occasional use of the
reservation but required no fiscal reimbursement or administrative
responsibility by MSC. This action was in response to a letter from Mueller
July 8, 1965, directing that MSC give careful consideration to transfer of
parachute test activities to WSMR.
Ltr., Gilruth to Mueller, "Parachute landing test areas for MSC land landing development
tests," May 3, 1966.
2O
NASA Hq. requested the MSC Apollo Spacecraft Program Office to reassess 1966
the spacecraft control weights and AV budget and prepare recommenda- May
tions for the first lunar landing mission weight and performance budgets.
S
The ASPO spacecraft Weight Report for April indicated that the Block II
CSM, when loaded for an 8.3-day mission, would exceed its control weights
by more than 180 kilograms and the projected value would exceed the
control weight by more than 630 kilograms. At the same time the LEM was
reported at 495 kilograms under its control weight. Credit for LEM weight
reduction had been attributed to Grumman's Super Weight Improvement
Program.
Memo, Apollo Program Director to Manager, ASPO, "Lunar l.anding Mission Weights and
Performance," May 5, 1966.
Engine testing at the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) had

been the subject of discussions during recent months with representatives
from MSC, Apollo Program Quality and Test groups, AEDC, Air Force
Systems Command and ARO, Inc., participating. While AEDC had not
been able to implement formal NASA requirements, the situation had
improved and MSC was receiving acceptable data.
In a letter to ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea, Apollo Program Director

Samuel C. Phillips said, "... I do not think further pressure is in order.
However, in a separate letter to Lee Gossick, I have asked that he give his
personal attention to the strict adherence to test procedures, up-to-date
certification of instrumentation, and care and cleanliness in handling of test
hardware."
Ltr., Phillips to Shea, May 5, 1966.
The Grumman-directed Apollo Mission Planning Task Force reported on

studies of abort sequences for translunar coast situations and the LEM
capability to support an abort if the SM had to be jettisoned. The LEM could
be powered down in drifting flight except for five one-hour periods, and a
three-man crew could be supported for 57 hours 30 minutes. It was assumed
that all crewmen would be unsuited in the LEM or tunnel area and that the
LEM cabin air, circulated by cabin fans, would provide adequate
environment.
Grumman LEM Engineering Memo to distribution, "LEM Consumable Capability for Abort
to Earth from Translunar Coast," May 9, 1966.
11
MSC Deputy Director George M. Low recommended to Maxime A. Faget,
MSC, that, in light of Air Force and Aerospace Corp. studies on space rescue,
MSC plans for a general study on space rescue be discontinued and a formal
request be made to OMSF to cancel the request for proposals, which had not
yet been released. As an alternative, Low suggested that MSC should
cooperate with the Air Force to maximize gains from the USAF task on space
rescue requirements.
Memo, Low to Faget, "Space rescue," May 11, 1966.
21
1966 A memo to KSC, MSC, and MSFC from the NASA Office of Manned Space
May Flight reported that the NASA Project Designation Committee had
concurred in changes in Saturn/Apollo nomenclature recommended by
12
Robert C. Seamans, Jr., George E. Mueller, and Julian Scheer:
• lunar excursion module to be called lunar module.

• Saturn IB to become the "uprated Saturn I."
The memo instructed that the new nomenclature be used in all future news
releases and announcements.
Memo, NASA Hq. to Center Public Affairs ()filters, May 12, 1966.
19
George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight, forwarded views and recommendations of the Interagency Commit-
tee on Back Contamination to MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth for
information and necessary action. The Committee had met at MSC to
discuss the status of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) on April 13.
The committee agreed in general philosophy and preliminary specific detail

with the overall design plan, schedule, size containment provisions, and
functional areas of the LRL; it approved the plan to secure Baylor Medical
School or an equally qualified institution to head a development for the bio-
analysis protocol; it expressed its concern with the possibility of
uncontrolled outventing of CM atmosphere following splashdown; and it
recommended that MSC investigate alternate means of treatment and
isolation of Apollo space crews and associated physicians and technicians.
MSC replied on June 8 that the analytical work in the engineering and
biologic areas of the recommendations had been started and that the date for
review and evaluation of the studies would be June 27.
Llrs., Mut'ller to Gilruth, May 19, 1966; Gilruth to Mueller, June 8, 1966; "Intcragen(v
Committee on Back Contamination Views and Retommendations," updated.
19 E. E. Christensen, NASA OMSF Director of Mission Operations, in a letter

to Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC, said he was certain the problem of
potential mission abort was receiving considerable attention within the
Flight Operations Directorate. The resulting early development of related
mission rules should provide other mission activities with adequate
planning information for design, engineering, procedural, and training
decisions. Christensen requested that development of medical mission rules
be given emphasis in planning, to minimize the necessity for late
modification of spacecraft telemetry systems, on-board instrumentation,
ground-based data-processing schemes, and training schedules.
Ltr., Christensen to Kraft, May 19, 1966.
19 As a result of a fire in the environmental control system (ECS) unit at

AiResearch Co., a concerted effort was under way to identify nonmetallic
materials as well as other potential fire problems. MSC told North American
22
Aviation it appeared that at least some modifications would be required in 1966

Block I spacecraft and that modifications could be considered only as May
temporary expedients to correct conditions that could be more readily

resolved in the original design. MSC requested that North American
eliminate or restrict as far as possible combustible materials in the following
categories in the Block II spacecraft: (1) materials contained in sufficient
quantities to contribute materially to a fire once started, (2) materials present
in lengths which could propagate a flame front over 46 centimeters, (3)
materials used with the electrical system, and (4) materials that could be
ignited by a spark source. Additionally, North American Aviation was
requested to review, evaluate, and institute design measures to eliminate
other potential fire hazards, such as hydrogen leakage from batteries,
overheated lamps, and large areas of exposed fabric or foam.
TWX, C. L. Taylor, MSC, to North American Aviation, Atm: J. C. Cozad, May 19, 1966.
25
AS-500-F, the first full-scale Apollo Saturn V launch vehicle and spacecraft
combination, was rolled out from Kennedy Space Center's Vehicle
Assembly Building to the launch pad, for use in verifying launch facilities,
training crews, and developing test procedures. The 111-meter, 227 000-kilo-
gram vehicle was moved by a diesel-powered steel-link-tread crawler-
transporter exactly five years after President John F. Kennedy asked the
United States to commit itself to a manned lunar landing within the decade.
Marshall Space Flight Ca'nter News Release 66-114; MSFC, Marshall Star, June I, 1966.
The high and low bay areas of the Vehicle

Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center
provided vast space for assembling the
Saturn launch vehicles and Apollo space-
craft. At right, the first full-scale Apollo-
Saturn V, AS-500-F, roils out from the VAB
on the crawler-transporter May 25, 1966, five
years after President Kennedy set a goal of a
manned landing on the moon within the
decade.
1966 ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea informed Rocco A. Petrone, KSC, that
May structural problems in the CSM fuel and oxidizer tanks required standpipe
modifications and that they were mandatory for Block I and Block II
27
spacecraft. Retrofit was to be effective on CSM 011 at KSC and other vehicles
at North American's plant in Downey, Calif.
TWX, Shea to Petrone, May 27, 1966.
June
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips asked NASA Procurement
1 Director George J. Vecchietti to help ensure there would be no gap in the
Philco Corp. Aeronutronic Division's development of penetrometers to
assess the lunar surface. Originally the penetrometers were to be deployed
from a lunar survey probe, but the Apollo Program Office had concluded
that they should be further developed on an urgent basis for possible
deployment from the LEM just before the first lunar landing. Phillips
sought to prevent development gaps that could critically delay the landing
program.
Memo, Phillips to Vecchietti, "Lunar Penetrometer Development," June 1, 1966.
Surveyor I, launched May 30 from Cape Kennedy on an Atlas-Centaur,

softlanded on the moon in the Ocean of Storms and began transmitting the
first of more than 10 000 clear, detailed television pictures to Jet Propulsion
Laboratory's Deep Space Facility, Goldstone, Calif. The landing sequence
began 3200 kilometers above the moon with the spacecraft traveling at a
speed of 9700 kilometers per hour. The spacecraft was successfully slowed to
5.6 kilometers per hour by the time it reached 4-meter altitude and then free-
fell to the surface at 13 kilometers per hour. The landing was so precise that
the three footpads touched the surface within 19 milliseconds of each other,
and it confirmed that the lunar surface could support the LM. It was the first
U.S. attempt to softland on the moon.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966 (NASA SP-4007, 1967), pp. 203-204.
MSC top management had agreed with Headquarters on early Center

participation in discussions of scientific experiments for manned flights,
Deputy Director George M. Low informed MSC Experiments Program
Manager Robert O. Piland. NASA Associate Administrator for Space
Science and Applications Homer E. Newell had asked, during a recent
OSSA Senior Council meeting at MSC, that the Center and astronauts
comment on technical and operational feasibility of experiments before
OSSA divisions and subcommittees acted on proposals. Low and Director
Robert R. Gilruth had agreed. Because of manpower requirements MSC
refused a request to be represented on all the subcommittees, but MSC would
send representatives to all meetings devoted primarily to manned flight
experiments and would contribute to other meetings by phone.
Memo, Low to Piland, "Feasibility review of manned space science experiments," June 2, 1966.
24
PART I; PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT AND THE ACCIDENT
Headquarters informed MSC that MSFC had been assigned development 1966
responsibility for the S027 X-ray Astronomy experiment for integration June
with the Saturn S-IVB/instrument unit. Should development be found not
2
feasible, a modified version of the equipment was planned. MSC was
requested to study (1) the practicality of modifying the equipment to
perform the scientific objectives and (2) the feasibility of integrating the
modified experiment hardware in a Block II SM on an early Apollo
Applications flight. Study results were requested no later than July 1, 1966,
including cost, schedule, and technical data.
Ltr., John H. Disher, NASA ttq., to George M. Low, MSC, June 2, 1966.
In response to a query on needs for or objections to an Apollo spacecraft TV

system, MSC Assistant Director for Flight Crew Operations Donald K.
Slayton informed the Flight Control Division that FCOD had no
operational requirements for a TV capability in either the Block I or the
Block II CSM or LM. He added that his Directorate would object to
interference caused by checkout, crew training, and inflight time require-
ments.
Memo, Slayton to Chiet, Flight Control Div., MSC, "Apollo Spacecraft Television System,"
June 6, 1966.
A series of actions on the LM rendezvous sensor was summarized in a memo

to the MSC Apollo Procurement Branch. A competition between LM
rendezvous radar and the optical tracker had been initiated in January 1966
after discussion by ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea, NASA Associate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller, and MSC
Guidance and Control Division Chief Robert C. Duncan. On May 13, RCA
and Hughes Aircraft Co. made presentations on the rendezvous radar
optical tracker. The NASA board that heard the presentations met for two
days to evaluate the two programs and presented the following conclusions :
(1) both sensors could meet the difficult environmental requirements of the
lunar mission with near specification performance, (2) the tracker had
several possible specification deviations, (3) optical production training
represented a difficult schedule problem at Hughes, and (4) either sensor
could be produced in time to meet LM and program schedules.
The board's evaluation, an analytical presentation by Donald Cheatham, a

weight-and-power comparison by R. W. Williams, and a cost presentation
by the two contractors were given MSC management May 19. Management
recommended that RCA's radar be continued as the main effort and that a
backup optical tracker program be continued by Hughes on a greatly
reduced level. The recommendations were made to Apollo Program
Director Samuel C. Phillips and NASA Associate Administrator George E.
Mueller at KSC on May 25. Phillips and Mueller concurred but stipulated
that the optical tracker program was to be completed on a fixed-price basis
and that MSC would qualify the optical tracker using the facilities of the
MSC laboratories. Mueller expressed concern about developmental
25
1966
difficulties and possible production problems in the radar program. RCA
June representatives visited MSC May 27 and reviewed all developmental
difficulties and their potential effect on production.
Memo, Robert C. Duncan, MSC, to Henry P. Yschek, MSC, "LEM Rendezvous Sensol
Evaluation," Jtme 7, 1966.
MSC informed the NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight
that it had established a Lunar Receiving Laboratory Program Office with
Joseph V. Piland as Program Manager. The office included the functions of
program control, procurement, requirements, engineering, and construc-
tion.
Ltr., MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth to George E. Mueller, NASA OMSF, June 9, 1966.
16
The MSC Flight Experiments Selection Board reviewed and endorsed three
proposals for analysis of lunar samples and forwarded them to NASA Hq.
for consideration. Titles of the proposals and principal investigators were:
1. Cataloging and Preliminary Examination of Lunar Samples--E. A.

King, MSC
2. Study of Alpha Particle Activity of Returned Lunar Samples--K. A.
Richardson, MSC
3. Analysis of Lunar Sample Effluent Gases for Organic Compo-
nents--G. G. Meisells, University of Houston, and D. A. Flory, MSC.
Ltrs., MS(; Director to NASA Hq., Arm: Homer E. Newell, "Proposals for analysis of lunar
samples," June 16, 1966.
16
Joseph N. Kotanchik, MSC, told H. E. McCoy of KSC that his April 4 letter
discussing problems and solutions in packing parachutes at KSC by
Northrop-Ventura Co. had been studied. To effect economies in the
program and move forward delivery of a complete spacecraft to KSC, the
upper-deck buildup would be done at North American Aviation's plant in
Downey, Calif., and therefore parachutes would be packed at Northrop-
Ventura beginning with spacecraft 017. Kotanchik requested KSC to
support the parachute packing at Northrup-Ventura by assigning two
experienced inspectors for the period required (estimated at two to four
weeks for each spacecraft).
Ltr., Kotanchik to McCoy, "Apollo Spacecraft parachute packing," June 16, 1966.
23
A memorandum for the file, prepared by J. S. Dudek of Bellcomm, Inc.,
proposed a two-burn deboost technique that required establishing an initial
lunar parking orbit and, after a coast phase, performing an added plane
change to attain the final lunar parking orbit. The two-burn deboost
technique would make a much larger lunar area accessible than that
provided by the existing Apollo mission profile, which used a single burn to
place the CSM and LM directly in a circular lunar parking orbit over the
landing site and would permit accessibility to only a bow-tie shaped area
26
approximately centered about the lunar equator. On August 1, the memo 1966
was forwarded to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, stating that June
the trajectory modification would increase the accessible lunar area about
threefold. The note to Phillips from R. L. Wagner stated that discussions
had been held with MSC and it appeared that the flight programs as planned
at the time could handle the modified mission.
Memo for file, Bellcomm, Inc, "A Generalized Two Burn Deboost Technique which Increases
Apollo Lunar Accessibility--Case 310/' June 23, 1966; note, Wagner to Phillips, "Working
Note," Aug. 1. 1966.
3O
Grumman LM thermodynamics studies showed the LM thermal shield
would have to be modified because fire-in-the-hole pressures and tempera-
tures had increased. Portions of the LM descent stage would be redesigned,
but modification of the descent stage blast deflector was unlikely.
Apollo Spacecraft Program Quarterly Report No. 16, [or Period Ending June 30, 1966.
3O
Crew procedures in the LM during lunar stay were reported completed and
documented for presentation to NASA Hq. personnel.
Apollo Spacecraft Program Quarterly, Status Report No. 16, for Period Ending June 30 1966.
Melvyn Savage, Apollo Test Director in NASA Hq., was named to head the July
Apollo Applications Program Test Directorate. LeRoy E. Day was named to 1

replace Savage in Apollo.
Note, John H. Disher, NASA OMSF, to Monte Wright, NASA History Orifice, "Comments on
Volume IV--The Apollo Spacecraft, Draft Copy," May' 21, 1975.
Week
The Quarterly Program Review was held at Grumman by NASA Associate
Ending
Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller and Apollo
July 1
Program Director Samuel C. Phillips. Attendees included MSC's Robert R.
Gilruth, Joseph F. Shea, and William A. Lee. The meeting focus6d on
excessive costs experienced by Grumman and Grumman President L. J.
Evans's announcement of the immediate establishment of a Program
Control Office with a subcontract manager reporting directly to Vice
President Joseph Gavin. Hugh McCullough was appointed to head the
Program Control Office.
The next week Evans made the following appointments : Robert Mullaney
was relieved as Program Manager and appointed Assistant to Senior Vice
President George F. Titterton; William Rathke was relieved as Engineering
Manager and named Program Manager; Thomas Kelly was promoted from
Assistant Engineering Manager to Engineering Manager; and Brian Evans
was relieved as corporate Director of Quality Assurance and appointed LEM
Subcontract Manager, reporting to Gavin.
Memos, Frank X. Battersby to Chief, Apollo Procurement Br., Procurement and Contracts Div.,
MS(;, "Weekly Activity Report, BMR Bethpage, Week Ending July 1, 1966," July 6, 1966; and
"Weekly Activity Report, BMR Bethpage, Week Ending July 8, 1966," July 12, 1966.
27
1966 Director of Flight Operations Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., said that MSC had
July been directed by NASA OMSF to outline technical problems and both cost
and schedule impact of adding three backup Apollo missions to the planned
1
flight schedule. The missions to be evaluated would be AS-207/208 or AS-
206/207; AS-503D; and AS-503F. Each of these missions would provide
alternate means of obtaining primary program objectives in the event of
flight contingencies during tests or of major schedule adjustments. They
had been constructed using as much of the primary mission characteristics
as possible. The goal was to be able to switch from a primary to a backup
mission within three or four months before a launch without any schedule
slip. Kraft pointed out that it was unlikely that additional funds would be
available to cover the additional work and that it was important to
determine areas in the primary mission plan that would suffer from either
dilution or deletion should a decision be made to make these missions a part
of the test development program. Recognizing that a number of man-weeks
of effort would be required for adequate evaluation, Kraft requested that any
impact determined from inclusion of the flights in the test program be made
available at MSC for coordination and presentation to Apollo Program
Director by July 15.
Memo, Kraft to distr., "Evaluation of the technical problems, cost and schedule impact of
adding Apollo backup missions to the flight test programs," July 1, 1966.
AS-203 lifted off from Launch Complex 37, Eastern Test Range, at 10:53
a.m. EDT in the second of three Apollo-Saturn missions scheduled before
manned flight in the Apollo program. All objectives--to acquire flight data
on the S-IVB stage and instrument unit--were achieved.
The uprated Saturn I--consisting of an S-IB stage, S-IVB stage, and an

instrument unitmboosted an unmanned payload into an original orbit of
185 by 189 kilometers. The inboard engine cutoff of the first stage occurred
after 2 minutes 18 seconds of flight and the outboard engine cutoff was 4
seconds later. The S-IVB engine burned 4 minutes 50 seconds. No recovery
was planned and the payload was expected to enter the earth's atmosphere
after about four days.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966, (NASA SP-4007, 1967), p. 233; memos, Mission Director
for Apollo-Saturn 203, "AS-203 Mission Director's Post Mission Report," undated; Associate
Administrator [or Manned Space Flight to Administrator, "Apollo-Saturn Flight Mission
AS-203, Post Launch Report No. 1" (Mission Operation Report M-932-66-02), July 15, 1966.
NASA requested assignment of three additional sanitary engineers from the

Public Health Service. Pointing out that one sanitary engineer had been on
detail to NASA since 1964 and that his effort had been directed primarily to
the control of outbound contamination, NASA said this problem and that of
back contamination had reached proportions that required a more
intensified effort. NASA would reimburse the Public Health Service under
contract.
Ltr., Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., to William Stewart, Public Health .Service,
July 5, 1966.
28
North American Aviation informed Grumman that it was closing out its 1966
office at Grumman's Bethpage, N.Y., plant at the close of business on July 8. July
If study found that reestablishment of a Space and Information Division
6
resident representative at Bethpage was in the best interest of the program,
North American Aviation would comply.
TWX, North American Aviation, Space and Information Systems Div., Downey, Calif., to
Grumman, Bethpage, N.Y., July 6, 1966.
Homer E. Newell, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and

Applications, told George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for
Manned Space Flight, that "the highest scientific priority for the Apollo
mission is for return to earth of lunar surface material." He added that the
material would have a higher scientific value for geologists if the location
and attitude of each sample were carefully noted and for the biologists if
collected in an aseptic manner. He suggested the following sequence:
l. Collect an assortment of easily obtainable samples of any surface

material at the landing site. The grab samples would be placed in the LM for
easy packaging preparatory to return to earth for analysis if the planned stay
time on the lunar surface was cut short.
2. Deploy the ALSEP.
3. Perform the lunar geological equipment experiment, which was a
detailed geological and biological traverse by an astronaut. During this
traverse both representative and unusual rocks or formations should be
photographed and sampled.
Ltr., Newell to Mueller, "Apollo Lunar Surface Scientific Operational Procedure," July 6,
1966.
11
In reply to a letter from Grumman, MSC concurred with the recommenda-
tion that a 135-centimeter lunar surface probe be provided on each landing-
leg footpad and that the engine cutoff logic retain its basic manual mode.
MSC did not concur with the Grumman recommendation to incorporate
the automatic engine cutoff logic in the LM design. MSC believed that the
planned descent-stage engine's manual cutoff landing mode was adequate
to accomplish lunar touchdown and had decided that the probe-actuated
cutoff capability should not be included in the LM design.
TWX, James L. Neal, MSC, to Grumman, Arm: R. S. Mullaney, "LM Lunar Touchdown,
Logic," July I l, 1966.
13
MSC Director of Flight Crew Operations Donald K. Slayton and Director of
Flight Operations Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., told ASPO Manager Joseph F.
Shea : "A comprehensive examination of the Apollo missions leading to the
lunar landing indicates that there is a considerable discontinuity between
missions AS-205 and AS-207/208. Both missions AS-204 and AS-205 are
essentially long duration system validation flights. AS-207/208 is the first of
a series of very complicated missions. A valid operational requirement exists
to include an optical equal-period rendezvous on AS-205. The rendezvous
29
1966 would be similar to the one initially planned for the Gemini VII flight
July using, in this case, the S-IVB as the target vehicle." The maneuver would
give the crew an opportunity to examine the control dynamics, visibility,
and piloting techniques required to perform the basic AS-207/208 mission.
Memo, Slayton and Kraft to Shea, "Equal-Period Rendezvous for AS-205," July 13, 1966.
2O MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth informed MSFC Director Wernher von

Braun that for the past two years MSC had studied the use of the mapping
and survey system (M&SS) in conjunction with the Apollo program. The
system objective would be lunar mapping and landing site certification, and
management responsibility was assigned to the MSC Experiments Program
Office. System parameters had been established and a decision made to
configure the MgzSS hardware and supporting systems in a cylindrical
container. The container--a "payload module"--would be carried in the
spacecraft-LM adapter in place of the LM during the boost phase of flight.
The payload module would have docking capability with the CSM like the
LM's and, in the docked mode, would map and survey the moon in a
programmed lunar orbit.
The M&SS experiment had already been funded by NASA OMSF and would
support five possible flights beginning with AS-504. Gilruth forwarded a
statement of work and requested MSFC to study it and furnish MSC a cost
estimate, technical proposal, and management plan by July 29.
Ltr., Gilruth to yon Braun, July 20, 1966.
26
NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., told the Associate
Administrators that it was NASA's fundamental policy that projects and
programs were best planned and executed when responsibilities were clearly
assigned to a management group. He then assigned full responsibility for
Apollo and Apollo Applications missions to the Office of Manned Space
Flight. OMSF would fund approved integral experiment hardware, provide
the required Apollo and Saturn systems, integrate the experiments with
those systems, and plan and execute the missions. Specific responsibility for
developing and testing individual experiments would be assigned on the
basis of experiment complexity, integration requirements, and relation to
the prime mission objectives, by the Office of Administrator after receiving
recommendations from Associate Administrators.
The Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) would be responsible

for selecting scientific experiments for manned missions and the experimen-
ter teams for data reduction, data analysis, and dissemination. OSSA would
provide to OMSF complete scientific requirements for each experiment
selected for flight.
The Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART) was assigned the
overall responsibility for the technology content of the NASA space flight
program and for selecting technology experiments for manned missions.
OART would provide OMSF complete technology requirements for each
30
experiment selected for flight. When appropriate, scientific and technical 1966
personnel would be located in OMSF to provide a working interface with July
experimenters. The office responsible for each experiment would determine
the tracking and acquisition requirements for each experiment; then OMSF
would integrate the requirements for all experiments and forward the total
requirements to the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition.
Seamans also spelled out Center responsibilities for manned space flight
missions: MSFC, Apollo telescope mount; MSC, Apollo lunar surface
experiment package (ALSEP), lunar science experiments, earth resources
experiments, and life support systems; and Goddard Space Flight Center,
atmospheric science, meteorology, and astronomical science experiments.
Memo, Seamans to distr., "Management Responsibilities for Future Manned Flight
Activities," July 26, 1966.
28
NASA Hq. authorized MSC to proceed with opening bids on August 1 for
Phase I construction of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. MSC was
requested to announce the name of the contractor selected for final
negotiations for Phase II construction, before opening bids for Phase I
construction.
TWX, NASA Hq. to MSC, "Lunar Receiving Laboratory," July 28, 1966.
29
In response to a request from Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips,
Bellcomm, Inc., prepared a memorandum on the major concerns resulting
from its review of the AC Electronics report on the Apollo Computer Design
Review. In a transmittal note to Phillips, I. M. Ross said, "We have
discussed these items with MSC. It is possible, however, that [Robert]
Duncan and [Joseph] Shea have not been made aware of these problems."
The Bellcomm memorandum for file, prepared by J. J. Rocchio, reported
that in late February 1966 MSC had authorized AC Electronics Division
(ACED) to initiate a complete design review of the Apollo guidance
computer to ensure adequate performance during the lunar landing
mission. A June 8 ACED report presented findings and included
Massachusetts Institute of Technology comments on the findings. In
addition to recommending a number of specific design changes, the report
identified a number of areas which warranted further review. MSC
authorized ACED to perform necessary additional reviews to eliminate all
indeterminate design analyses and to resolve any discrepancies between the
ACED and MIT positions. At the time Bellcomm prepared the memo many
of the problem areas had been or were in process of being satisfactorily
resolved. However, several still remained: (1) MSC had not had the
opportunity to review an approved version of the final test method for the
Block II/LM computer and as a result there was no official acceptance test
for computers at that point, although the first of the flight-worthy
computers had left the factory and the second was in final test at the factory.
(2) The Design Review Report classified the timing margin of the Block II
computer as indeterminate, since the team was unable to make a detailed
31
1N6 timing analysis in the allotted time. (3) Both Block I and Block II Apollo
July guidance computer programs had experienced serious problems with parts
qualification and with obtaining semiconductor devices which could pass
the flight processing specifications. (4) The lack of adequate documentation
to support the Block II computer and its design was cited "as perhaps the
most significant faulf uncovered" by the design review team.
Bellcomm, Inc., Memo for File, "Apollo Block II/LM Guidance Computer--Case $30," sgd.
J. J. Rocchio, July 29, 1966, note, Ross to Phillips, July 29, 1966.
August
NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller
1 informed MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth that the MSC Procurement Plan
for procurement of three lunar landing training vehicles and the proposed
flight test program was approved.
Ltr., Mueller to Gilruth, Aug. 1, 1966.
NASA signed a supplemental agreement with Chrysler Corp.'s Space

Division at New Orleans, La., converting the uprated Saturn I first-stage
production contract from cost-plus-fixed-fee to cost-plus-incentive-fee.
Under the agreement, valued at $339 million, the amount of the contractor's
fee would be based on ability to perform assigned tasks satisfactorily and
meet prescribed costs and schedules. The contract called for Chrysler to
manufacture, assemble and test 12 uprated Saturn I first stages and provide
system engineering, integration support, ground support equipment, and
launch services.
NASA News Release 66-201, "Agreement with Chrysler Converts Saturn I Contract to
Incentive-Type," Aug. 1, 1966.
The architect-engineer of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, Smith,

Hinchman g: Grylls, proposed using a much darker tint in the exterior
windows of the LRL than used in other buildings at MSC. J. G. Griffith,
Chief of the Engineering Office, inspected samples of the glass and reported:
a. when the building is viewed from the exterior, the windows might
seem slightly darker than others at MSC.
b. the ability of personnel inside to see through the glass was not
restricted but brightness was considerably reduced.
c. heat transfer through the glass would be reduced by about 40 percent
from glass used in other windows at MSC.
Memo, Program Manager, LRL, to Deputy Director, MSC, "Exterior windows of the Lunar
Receiving Laboratory," Aug. 3, 1966.
MSC requested LaRC to study the visibility of the S-IVB/SLA combination

from the left-hand couch in the command module with the couch in the
docked position. (Two positions could be attained, one of them a docking
and rendezvous position that moved the seat into a better viewing area from
the left-hand window.) LM and CM mockups were already at Langley from
the CM-active moving-base docking simulation conducted May-July 1965.
32
The request was initiated because the flight crew had to rely on an out-the- 1966
window reference of the S-IVB/SLA to verify separation of the LM/CSM August
combination from the S-IVB/SLA. The question arose as to whether the
out-the-window reference was sufficient or whether an electromechanical
device with a panel readout in the CM was required to verify separation.
Ltr., Director, MSC, to LaRC, Atm : Floyd L. Thompson, Director. "Apollo visibility study,"
Aug. 3, 1966.
NASA modified its contract with IBM to provide for work to be performed
under a multiple-incentive arrangement covering cost, performance,
schedule and equipment management. It also ordered the Real Time
Computer Complex (RTCC) at MSC to be converted to IBM System
computers, which would increase the operational capability for Apollo.
The contract with IBM's Federal Systems Division, Gaithersburg, Md.,
provided the computing capability required for mission monitoring,
inflight mission planning and simulation activities.
NASA News Release 66-205, "Apollo C_-Jmplex to Be Converted in IBM Contract," Aug. 3,
1966.
Maxime A. Faget, MSC, informed Center Director Robert R. Gilruth there

was a continuing effort on lightweight, energy-absorbing, and stowable net
couches, and development had been redirected to a nonelastic fabric net
couch system attached to existing Apollo attenuation struts. North
American Aviation had previously been given the task of investigating the
use of net couches on Apollo. Results of that investigation indicated the
spacecraft attenuation-strut-vehicle attachments would be overloaded when
using net couches. The North American Aviation investigators made their
calculations by assuming no-man attenuation in the lateral and longitudi-
nal force directions. Those calculations were recomputed using the design
criteria and proper loadings and the results indicated no overloading when
using net couches. MSC's Advanced Spacecraft Technology Division had
reviewed and approved the efforts, permitting use of the net couches on
Apollo and Apollo Applications missions.
Memo, Faget to Gilruth, "Net couches for Apollo or Apollo Applications Missions," Aug. 5,
1966.
MSC requested Ames Research Center to conduct a manual control

simulation of the Saturn V upper stages with displays identical to those
planned in the spacecraft. On August 5, Brent Creer and Gordon Hardy of
Ames had met with representatives from ASPO, Guidance and Control
Division, and Flight Crew Operations Directorate to discuss implementa-
tion of a modified Ames simulation which would determine feasibility of
manual control from first stage burnout, using existing spacecraft displays
and control interfaces. Simulations at Ames in 1965 had indicated that the
Saturn V could be manually flown into orbit within dispersions of 914
meters in altitude, and 0.1 degree in flight path angle.
33
Ames responded on August 24 that setting up the flight simulator had been
August initiated and that the project was proceeding according to a schedule
arranged by Warren J. North of MSC and Creer.
Memo, Chief, Flight Crew Support Div., "Saturn V. Manual Control," Aug. 8, 1966; Itrs.,
Robert R. Gilruth, Director MSC, to H. ,Julian Allen, Director, Ames Research Genter, Aug. 8,
1966; Allen to Gilruth, Aug. 24, 1966.
MSC worked out a program with LaRC for use of the Lunar Landing
Research Facility (LLRF) for preflight transition for LM flight crews before
free-flight training in the lunar landing training vehicle. LM hardware sent
to Langley to be used as training aids included two flight director attitude
indicators, an attitude controller assembly, a thrust-translation controller
assembly, and an altitude-rate meter.
Memo, George C. Franklin, MSC, to W. A. Lee, MSC, "Status of Lunar Module hardware [or
Langley Research Center Lunar Landing Research Facility (LaRC LLRF)," Aug. 9, 1966.
August 10- Lunar Orbiter I was launched from Cape Kennedy Launch Complex 13 at
September 14
3:26 p.m. EDT August 10 to photograph possible Apollo landing sites from
lunar orbit. The Atlas-Agena D launch vehicle injected the spacecraft into
its planned 90-hour trajectory to the moon. A midcourse correction maneu-
ver was made at 8 p.m. the next day; a planned second midcourse maneuver
was not necessary. A faultless deboost maneuver on August 14 achieved the
desired initial elliptic orbit around the moon, and one week later the space-
craft was commanded to make a transler maneuver to place it in a final close-
in elliptic orbit of the moon.
During the spacecraft's stay in the final close-in orbit, the gravitational
fields of the earth and the moon were expected to influence the orbital
elements. The influence was verified by spacecraft tracking data, which
showed that the perilune altitude varied with time. From an initial perilune
altitude of 58 kilometers, the perilune decreased to 49 kilometers. At this
time an orbit adjustment maneuver began an increase in the altitude, which
was expected to reach a maximum after three months and then begin to
decrease again. The spacecraft was expected to impact on the lunar surface
about six months after the orbit adjustment.
During the photo-acquisition phase of the flight, August 18 to 29, Lunar

Orbiter I photographed the 9 selected primary potential Apollo landing
sites, including the one in which Surveyor I landed; 7 other potential Apollo
landing sites; the east limb of the moon; and 11 areas on the far side of the
moon. Lunar Orbiter I also took photos of the earth, giving man the first
view of the earth from the vicinity of the moon (this particular view has been
widely publicized). A total of 207 frames (sets of medium- and high-
resolution pictures) were taken, 38 while the spacecraft was in initial orbit,
the remainder while it was in the final close-in orbit. Lunar Orbiter I
achieved its mission objectives, and, with the exception of the high-
resolution camera, the performance of the photo subsystem and other
spacecraft subsystems was outstanding. At the completion of the photo
34
1966
readouts, the spacecraft had responded to about 5000 discrete commands
from the earth and had made about 700 maneuvers. August
Photographs obtained during the mission were assessed and screened by

representatives of the Lunar Orbiter Project Office, U.S. Geological Survey,
DOD mapping agencies, MSC, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Memo, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications to Administrator,
"Lunar Orbiter I Post Launch Report," Oct. 20, 1966 (Mission Operation Report S-814-66-01,
Oct. 19, 1966).
11
MSC suggested that Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. redesign the
injector for the Bell Aerospace Co. ascent engine as a backup immediately.
The Center was aware of costs, but the seriousness of the injector fabrication
problem and the impact resulting from not having a backup was felt to be
justification for the decision.
TWX, MSC to Grumman, Aug. 11, 1966.
16
The mockup of LM test model No. 3 (TM-3) was shipped by Super Guppy
aircraft to Cape Kennedy, on the first trip of the Super Guppy from
Grumman, Bethpage, N.Y.
Memo, Frank X. Battersby to Chief, Apollo Procurement Br., Procurement and Contracts Div.,
MSC, "Weekly Activity Report, BMR Bethpage, Week Ending August 19, 1966," Aug. 24, 1966.
Five F-1 rocket engines, above, are

installed in the massive first flight S-IC
stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle at
NASA's Michoud Operations plant in
New Orleans. At right, an F-I engine is
tested in the NASA High Thrust Test
Area, Edwards, California. The rockets
were developed under Marshall Space
Flight Center direction by Rocketdyne
Division of North American. Rocket-
dyne photos.
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT; A CHRONOLOGY
1966 In a letter to the President of Westinghouse Electric Corp., George M. Low,

Auguot Acting Director of MSC, expressed his concern about the lunar television
camera program. Low pointed out that Westinghouse had been awarded the
22
contract by MSC in October 1964, that delivery of the cameras was to be
made over a 15-month period, and that the total value of the original cost-
plus-fixed-fee contract was $2 296 249 including a fee of $150 300. The cost
reports required by the contract (at the time of Low's letter) showed that
Westinghouse estimated the cost to complete at $7 927 000 and estimated the
hardware delivery date as January 31, 1967. Low pointed out that the
proposal letter from Westinghouse in May 1964 stated that "the Aerospace
Division considers the Lunar Television Camera to represent a goal
culminating years of concentrated effort directed toward definition, design,
and verification of critical elements of this most important program.
Accordingly, the management assures NASA Manned Spacecraft Center
that the program will be executed with nothing less than top priority
application of all personnel, facilities, and management resources." Low
said that despite these assurances the overrun and schedule slippages
indicated a lack of adequate program management at all levels and a general
lack of initiative in taking corrective actions to solve problems encountered.
Westinghouse replied to Low on September 1 that it, too, was disappointed

"when technology will not permit a research and development program
such as this to be completed within its original cost and schedule
objectives." The reply stated "Our people have taken every precaution--
gone to the extreme, perhaps, in its impact on cost and schedule--to achieve
the required mission reliability .... " The letter concluded by expressing
pleasure in the harmony that had existed between Westinghouse and MSC
personnel and by praising the performance of the Gemini rendezvous radar,
holding it up as an objective for excellence of performance for the lunar
television camera.
Ltrs., Low to D. C. Burnham, President, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Aug. 22, 1966; Charles
H. Weaver, Group Vice President, Atomic, Defense _: Space Group, Westinghouse Electric
Corp., to Low, Sept. 1, 1966.
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth requested of Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Director William H. Pickering that JPL fire the Surveyor spacecraft's
vernier engine after the Surveyor landed on moon, to give insight into how
much erosion could be expected from an LM landing. The LM descent
engine was to operate until it was about one nozzle diameter from landing
on the lunar surface; after the Surveyor landed, its engine would be about
the same distance from the surface. Gilruth told Picketing that LaRC was
testing a reaction control engine to establish surface shear pressure forces,
surface pressures, and back pressure sources, and offered JPL that data when
obtained.
Ltr., Gilruth to Pickering, "Surveyor spacecraft experiments," Aug. 22, 1966.
36
NASA informed four firms that had completed design studies on the Apollo 1966
experiment pallet that there would be no hardware development and August
fabrication of the pallet. The four firms had been selected in November 1965 22
to make four-month studies of a pallet to carry experiments in the spacecraft
SM during the Apollo manned lunar landings. The firms were Lockheed
Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Calif.; The Martin Co., Denver, Colo. ;
McDonnell Aircraft Corp., St. Louis, Mo.; and Northrop Space Laborato-
ries, Hawthorne, Calif. (See April 15.)
NASA News Release 66-224, "Apollo Pallet Development Phase Vetoed," Aug. 22, 1966.
25
The unmanned suborbital Apollo-Saturn 202 mission was successfully
flown--the third Saturn IB flight test and the second CM heatshield flight
test. The 202 included an uprated Saturn I (Saturn IB) launch vehicle (S-IB
stage, S-IVB stage, and instrument unit) and the Apollo 011 spacecraft
(spacecraft-lunar module adapter, service module, command module, and
launch escape system). Liftoff was from Launch Complex 34 at Cape
Kennedy at 1:15 p.m. EDT. The command module landed safely in the
southwest Pacific Ocean, near Wake Island 1 hour 33 minutes after liftoff. It
was recovered by the U.S.S. Hornet about 370 kilometers uprange from the
recovery ship.
Spacecraft 011 was essentially a Block I spacecraft with the following

exceptions: couches, crew equipment, and the cabin postlanding ventila-
tion were omitted; and three auxiliary batteries, a mission control
programmer, four cameras, and flight qualification instrumentation were
added.
Of six primary test objectives assigned to the mission (see Appendix 5), the
objectives for the environmental control, electrical power, and communica-
tions subsystems were not completely satisfied. All other spacecraft test
objectives were successfully accomplished.
"MSC-A-R-66-5, Postlaunch Report for Mission AS-202 (Apollo Spacecraft 011 )," MSC, Oct.
12, 1966, pp. 1-1, 2-1, 3-1; memo, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight to
Administrator, "Apollo Saturn Flight Mission AS-202, Post Launch Report No. 1" (Mission
Operations Report M-932-66-03), Sept. 1, 1966.
Week
The Bethpage RASPO Business Manager and Grumman representatives
Ending
met to choose a vendor to produce the orbital rate drive electronics for August 26
Apollo and LM (ORDEAL). Three proposals were received: Arma Division
of American Bosch Arma Corp., $275000; Kearfott Products Division of
General Precision, Inc., $295 000; and Bendix Corp., $715 000. Kearfott's
proposal was evaluated as offering a more desirable weight, more certain
delivery, and smaller size within the power budget and consequently was
selected although it was not the low bid. Evaluators believed that Arma's
approach would not be easy to implement, that its delivery schedule was
37
1966 unrealistic, and that its proposal lacked a definite work statement in the
August areas of testing, quality control, reliability, and documentation.
Memo, Frank X. Battersby to Chief, Apollo Procurement Br., Procurement and Contracts Div.,
MSC, "Weekly Activity Report, BMR Bethpage, Week Ending August 26, 1966." Aug. 31, 1966.
26
Because of the reported NASA OMSF rejection of funding responsibility for
prototyping and equipping the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) and the
strong NASA Office of Space Science and Applications concern over the
quarantine facilities and techniques, Craig K. Peper of OSSA suggested that
(1) each concerned program office make a scientific review of OMSF's
proposal for facility construction to determine its adequacy to meet the
scientific requirements and (2), from those reviews the Director of Manned
Space Flight Experiments, OSSA, would submit to the Associate
Administrator, OSSA, a consolidated recommendation on additional
requirements to satisfy the scientific standards the LRL facilities must meet.
Memo. Peper, NASA Hq., to Director, Manned Flight Experiments, OSSA, "Lunar Receiving
I,aboralory," Aug. 26, 1966.
29
MSC's Flight Crew Support Division prepared an operations plan
describing division support of flight experiments. Activities planned would
give operational support to both flight crew and experimenters. Crew
training, procedures development, and integration, mission-time support,
and postmission debriefings were discussed in detail.
Menlo, Warren J. North, MSC, to Technical Assistant for Apollo, "Flight Experiments
Operations Plan of the Flight Crew Supl, x_rt Division." Aug. 22, 1966.
3O Because the Apollo Mission Simulator (AMS) was one of the pacing items in
the Apollo Block II flight program, a critical constraint upon operational
readiness was the availability of Government-furnished equipment (GFE)
to the AMS contractor, General Precision's Link Group. For that reason
MSC ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea asked A. L. Brady, Chief of the Apollo
Mission Simulator Office, to establish controls to ensure that GFE items
were provided to Link in time to support the program. He requested that an
individual be appointed to be responsible for each item and that a weekly
report on the status be submitted on each item.
Memo, Shea to Manager, Apollo Mission Simulator Program, "GFE Support to AMS Block 11
Modifications," Aug, 30, 1966.
31
MSC Director of Flight Crew Operations Donald K. Slayton informed
ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea that total management during thermal
vacuum testing of spacecraft 008 was inadequate, resulting in misunder-
standings between personnel and organizational groups concerned with the
test. Slayton offered a number of suggestions for future, similar tests:
• Overall planning policies and practices should be reviewed and

further defined before commitment of future test crews.
38
1966
• Timeline testing philosophy was not realistic or practical in a one-g
environment. It was mandatory that test plans be developed with maximum August
data gain and minimum crew and hardware risks consistent with overall
program objectives. For example, long thermal responses during manned
tests.
• A crew systems operations office should be established within the
Space Environmental Simulation Laboratory to tie down the interface
between crew, hardware, and management. Its scope of operation should
include representation, training, and scheduling.
• The Environmental Medicine Office should define all crew and test
medical requirements before crew selection. To help in this area, a flight
surgeon should be assigned to each vehicle's prime and backup crews, to
ensure adequate knowledge of crew members and test objectives for training
and the real-time mission.
• It must be recognized that test crew participation in thermal vacuum
testing was completely voluntary and that each member volunteering
must weigh the hazards of such testing against the benefits to the program in
general and his welfare in particular.
Memo, Slayton to Shea, "Management improvement of follow-on thermal vacuum testing,"
Aug. 31, 1966.
September
In response to a query from NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C.
Seamans, Jr., Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications 7
Homer E. Newell said that no laboratories had been selected for receiving
lunar materials but proposals had been solicited and were in process of
review. Newell said the lunar samples fell under the planetary and planetary
biology disciplines primarily. The Planetary Biology Subcommittee of the
Space Science Steering Committee had four working groups evaluating the
proposals--geophysics, geochemistry, geology, and Lunar Receiving
Laboratory (LRL). The working groups were expected to complete their
evaluations in September and, following review by the program office,
recommendations would be prepared for the Space Science Steering
Committee. Following appropriate review by that Committee, Newell
would select the Principal Investigators for approved experiments.
Funding for the analyses could be determined only after selections had been
made, but budget estimates for that purpose had been made for $2 million in
FY 1968 and $6 million in FY 1969, exclusive of laboratory upgrading and
funding of the LRL. As a part of the continuing research effort, 33
laboratories had received support during 1966 for upgrading their ability to
handle and examine lunar material. Newell added that 125 proposals for
handling lunar material had been received and were under review.
Memo, Newell to Seamans, "Lunar Sample Analysis Program," Sept. 7, 1966.
14
MSC Deputy Director George M. Low submitted information to NASA
Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller on
manpower requirements and operating costs for testing in MSC's large
39
1966
thermal vacuum chamber. Spacecraft 008 testing reflected a manpower cost
September (civil service and contractor) of $7034000, chamber operating cost of
$321 000, and material costs of $277 000. The spacecraft had been in the
chamber 83 days, during which time a 92-hour unmanned test and a 163-
hour manned test had been conducted.
Ltr., Low to Mueller, Sept. 14, 1966.
20
Surveyor II was launched from Cape Kennedy at 8:32 a.m. EDT. The Atlas-
Centaur launch vehicle placed the spacecraft on a nearly perfect lunar
intercept trajectory that would have missed the aim point by about 130
kilometers. Following injection, the spacecraft successfully accomplished
all required sequences up to the midcourse thrust phase. This phase was not
successful because of the failure of one of the three vernier engines to ignite,
causing eventual loss of the mission. Contact with the spacecraft was lost at
5:35 a.m. EDT, September 22, and impact on the lunar surface was predicted
at 11:18 p.m. on that day.
Memo, Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications to Administrator,

"Surveyor II Lunar Flight Project, Post I.aunch Report No. 1," Oct. 7, 1966 (Mission
Operation Report S-803-66-02).
21
NASA awarded a $4.2-million contract to Honeywell, Inc., Computer
Control Division, Framingham, Mass., to provide digital computer systems
for Apollo command and lunar module simulators. Under the fixed-price
contract, Honeywell would provide six separate computer complexes to
support the Apollo simulators at MSC and Cape Kennedy. The complexes
would be delivered, installed, and checked out by Honeywell by the end of
March 1967.
NASA News Release 66-254, Sept. 21, 1966.
23
A Planning Coordination Steering Group at NASA Hq. received program
options from working groups established to coordinate long-range
planning in life sciences, earth-oriented applications, astronomy, lunar
exploration, and planetary exploration. The Steering Group recommended
serious consideration be given a four-phase exploration program using
unmanned Lunar Orbiters, Surveyors, and manned lunar surface explora-
tion. The first phase, consisting of Ranger, Surveyor, Orbiter, and the initial
Apollo landing was under way. The second phase would match the Apollo
Applications program and would extend surface sampling and geologic
mapping beyond the walking capability of a suited astronaut. The group
recommended this phase launch one 14-day two-man mission per year
beginning in 1970, with one or two Surveyors, and one unmanned Orbiter
per year. The third phase would consist of one three-man 90-day mission per
year. The final phase would consist of semipermanent manned stations.
Memo, Edgar M. Cortright, Alfred J. Eggers, Jr., James C. Elms, and Gerald M. Truszynski,
Cochairmen, Planning Coordination Steering Group, to Associate Deputy Administrator,
"Preliminary Reports of Working Groups," Sept. 23, 1966.
40
NASA Hq. informed MSC that the second phase of the vacuum system in the 1966
Lunar Receiving Laboratory ($480 200) was to be deferred because of the September
austerity of the NASA FY 1967 program. MSC was instructed, however, that 28
sufficient redundancy in the central vacuum pumping systems should be
provided to ensure the highest degree of reliability.
TWX, NASA Hq., to MSC, "Lunar Receiving Laboratory," Sept. 28, 1966.
28
MSC ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea wrote Grumman Aircraft Engineering
Corp. Senior Vice President George F. Titterton that he was encouraged by
the good start Grumman had made on work packages for the LM program,
which he hoped had set the stage for effective action to curtail the creeping
cost escalation that had characterized the program during the past year. He
said: "To me, the most striking point noted in engineering activities
projected a relatively high change rate from vehicle to vehicle, even though
the program logic calls for identical vehicles from LM 4 on, and minimum
change from LM 3 to LM 4. This, too, was apparent in the engineering
related activities. The only changes which should be planned for are those
rising from hardware deficiencies found in ground or flight test, or those
resulting from NASA directed changes."
Shea had written to Joseph G. Gavin, Jr., Grumman Vice President and
LEM Program Manager, in April concerning cost escalation. He had said
"A significant amount of the planning for your contract is based upon
management commitments made to us by Grumman... [and] your esti-
mates have helped significantly (and indeed are still changing) and
currently significantly exceed the amounts upon which our budget has been
based." In another letter, in September, to Grumman President L. J. Evans,
Shea remarked: "The result of our fiscal review with your people last week
was somewhat encouraging. It reconfirmed my conviction that Grumman
can do the program without the cost increases which you have been recently
indicating, and, depending on how much difficulty we have with the
qualification of our flight systems, perhaps even with some additional cost
reduction."
In a November letter to Titterton, Shea again referred to work packages and

reaffirmed that permission to exceed approved monthly levels should be
granted only by the LM Program Office. He said, "Unless this discipline is
enforced throughout the Grumman in-house and subcontract structure, the
work packages could turn out to be interesting pieces of paper which
contain the information as to what might have been done, rather than the
basis for program management."
Ltrs., Shea to Gavin, Apr. 14, 1966; Shea to Evans, Sept. 19, 1966; Shea to Titterton, Sept. 28,
1966; Nov. 18, 1966.
29
The second planned manned Apollo flight crew was named by NASA.
Prime crew members were Walter M. Schirra, Jr., command pilot; Donn F.
Eisele, senior pilot; and R. Walter Cunningham, pilot. Backup crewmen
41
1966 were Frank Borman, command pilot; Thomas P. Stafford, senior pilot; and
September Michael Collins, pilot. The flight was scheduled for 1967. It would be the
first space mission for Eisele and Cunningham.
The second manned Apollo mission was planned as an open-ended earth

orbital mission up to 14 days. Increased emphasis on scientific experiments
as well as repeating some activities from the first planned manned flight
would characterize the mission. [The first planned manned Apollo mission
was ended by a tragic accident during a test January 27, 1967.]
NASA News Release 66-260, Sept. 29, 1966.
Week LM test model TM-6 and test article LTA- 10 were shipped from Grumman
Ending
on the Pregnant Gupp_y aircraft. When the Guppy carrying the LTA-10
September 30
stopped at Dover, Del., for refueling, a fire broke out inside the aircraft, but it
was discovered in time to prevent damage to the LM test article.
Memo, Frank W. Battersby to Chief, Apollo Procurement Br., Procurement and Contracts
Div., MSC, "Weekly Activities Report, BMR Bethpage, Week Ending September 30, 1966," Oct.
4, 1966.
October
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth told Langley Research Center Director
4
Floyd Thompson, "Lunar Orbiter I has made significant contributions to
the Apollo program and to lunar science in general. Details visible for the
first time in Orbiter I photographs will certainly add to our knowledge of the
lunar surface and improve our confidence in the success of the Apollo
landing.
"Screening teams ... are studying the photographs as they become

available at the Lunar Orbiter Project Office, Langley Research Center.
Several promising areas for Apollo landing sites have been studied here in
Houston by the screening teams and will be studied in more detail later.
This preliminary study has already influenced the selection of sites to be
photographed on the next Orbiter mission .... "
TWX, Gilruth to Thompson, Oct. 4, 1966.
NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller,

at the conclusion of the AS-204 Design Certification Review (DCR),
requested each NASA manager to reexamine his stages, modules, systems,
and subsystems upon substantial completion of the review's closeout
actions and to file an updated certification statement to the Design
Certification Board.
On November 16, Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips asked ASPO

Manager Joseph F. Shea tO submit the updated certification statements and
supporting data to him by December 14 to permit him to submit the
statements and his affirmation to the Board before the December 20 Manned
Space Flight Review. He pointed out that each certification statement
should affirm : (1) that the reservations previously cited had been dispelled by
appropriate action; (2) that design problems identified subsequent to the
42
I
,A
The manufacturing line for

thrust chambers of the F-I
rocket engine shows the size
of the powerful engine. Five
of the engines were used in a
cluster to launch each of the
Saturn V space vehicles.
Rocketdyne photo.
review had been resolved; (3) that actions identified during the review had 1966
been completed (except where specifically noted); and (4) that his previous October
certification of the design of flight systems for flight worthiness and manned
safety, or of the capability of Launch Support to support a manned mission,
remained valid. Any residual contingencies or actions, schedulcd for
completion at the Flight Readiness Review, should be specifically listed.
Ltr., Phillips to Shea, "AS-204 Design Certification Review," Nov. 16, 1966.
In a memorandum to the NASA Deputy Administrator, Associate

Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller commented on
the AS-202 impact error. Mueller said trajectory of the August 25 AS-202
mission was essentially as planned except that the command module
touched down about 370 kilometers short of the planned impact point. A
detailed study indicated that the command module had a lower than
predicted angle of attack and a correspondingly lower lift-to-drag ratio. "In
retrospect, it appears that our wind tunnel testing did not provide a
complete understanding of... hypersonic aerodynamic characteristics of
the command module." Plans were being made to fly AS-204 and AS-205
with the lower lift-to-drag ratio.
Memo, Mueller to Deputy Administrator, "205 Nautical Mile Error in AS-202 Impact," Oct. 7,
1966.
43
1966 Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips was informed of increasing
Octol_r engineering orders for spacecraft 012. C. H. Bolender, OMSF Mission

Operations Deputy Director, reported information received from John G.
11
Shinkle, Kennedy Space Center Apollo Program Manager, on October 10.
At the time of spacecraft shipment to Cape Kennedy on August 25, 164
engineering orders were identified as open work, although the data package
appeared to identify only 126. These orders were covered by 32 master
change records, which reportedly were the documentation approved by the
MSC Change Control Board rather than by individual engineering orders.
By September 24, engineering orders totaled 377--213 more than on August
25--and the master change records had increased to 77. KSC estimated that
some 150 of the 213 additional orders should have been identifiable within
North American Aviation at the time of the Customer Acceptance Readiness
Review. Bolender said that, if this were true, North American Aviation
should be asked to provide better visibility for CSM changes that would be
sent to the Cape for installation at the time of the review.
Memo for Record, Shinkle, KSC, "Engineering Orders for Spacecraft 012," Oct. l 1, 1966; NASA
Routing Slip, Bolender to Phillips, Oct. ! 1, 1966.
11 NASA reiterated its intention of examining the question of tracking ship

Vanguard support for the AS-204 mission in the South Pacific as soon as
mission plans were resolved. It informed the Department of Defense
Manager for Manned Space Flight Support Operations, the Navy Deputy
Commander for Ship Acquisitions, and Goddard Space Flight Center that
plans could not be completed for the support of AS-205 at the time but,
should the services of the Vanguard be required, an Atlantic Ocean location
would be acceptable. NASA also expressed concern about the late delivery
forecast for the Redstone and the Mercury tracking ships and requested top
management attention within government, contractor, and subcontractor
organizations be directed to the problems and that a special effort be made to
accelerate delivery.
TWX, NASA Hq. to Lt. Gen. Leighton I. Davis, Rear Admiral J. Adair, and Goddard Space
Flight Center, Oct. I 1, 1966.
12 MSC Apollo Spacecraft Program Office Manager Joseph F. Shea reported

that LM-I would no longer be capable of both manned and unmanned
flight and that it would be configured and checked out for unmanned flight
only. In addition, LM-2 would no longer be capable of completely
unmanned flight, but would be configured and checked out for partially
manned flights, such as the planned AS-278A mission (with unmanned
final depletion burn of the ascent stage) and AS-278B (with all main
propulsions unmanned).
Memo, Shea to distr., "Change in policies for LM-I arid LM-2," Oct. 12, 1966.
12 Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips told Mark E. Bradley, Vice

President and Assistant to the President of The Garrett Corp., that "the
environment control unit, developed and produced by Garrett's AiResearch
44
-%-
Apollo CM 007 bobs in the swells of the Gulf of Mexico during 1966 tests for the
lunar missions. Three test subjects from Manned Spacecraft Center remained in
the spacecraft 48 hours during the sea-qualification test of postlanding systems.
Division under subcontract to North American Aviation for the Apollo 1966
spacecraft was again in serious trouble and threatened a major delay in the October
first flight of Apollo." He pointed out, "This current difficulty is the latest in
a long string of failures and problems associated with the AiResearch
equipment." Phillips told Bradley that he was about three levels removed
from the subcontract project details and thus could not give him a point by
point discussion of the problems or their causes. Phillips felt, however,
"they seem to lie in two categories_those arising from inadequate
development testing, and those related to poor workmanship." Phillips
hoped that Bradley could find what was needed to get the project on the right
track.
Ltr., Phillips to Bradley, Oct. 12, 1966.
13
KSC proposed to MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth that the two General
Electric Co. efforts at KSC supporting automatic checkout equipment
(ACE) for spacecraft operations be consolidated. KSC pointed out there was
a supplemental agreement with MSC for General Electric to provide system
engineering support to ACE/spacecraft operations. Both the KSC Apollo
Program Manager and the Director of Launch Operations considered that
merging the two GE efforts into a single task order under KSC
administrative control would have advantages. The proposal listed two:
45
1966 1. A single interface would exist between KSC and all local GE
Oclober AEC/spacecraft operations.
2. Through more efficient use of personnel, the contractor should be
able to reduce the manpower level and still be responsive to the demands of
the Apollo program.
Gilruth replied Nov. 1 to KSC Director Kurt H. Debus that MSC had
evaluated advantages of transferring certain ACE/spacecraft responsibili-
ties to KSC and had also considered advantages of continuing the existing
system. These advantages were:
1. "To maximize manpower utilization, the current ACE management

philosophy provides only optimum manpower for each operational site. A
central support group, located at Houston, supplies the required support to
any site experiencing special peak activity. This philosophy has created
maximum management flexibility."
2. "The original intent in establishing ACE-S/C checkout philosophy
was to assure standardization in checkout procedures and/or program unity
from factory checkout through launch activities. By continuing to have all
GE ACE-S/C site personnel responsible to the central design/engineering
group located in Houston, this continuity is assured."
3. "Logistics support to KSC ground stations is unified under the
present management control. Personnel responsible for providing logistics
support to KSC ground stations are administratively linked to the personnel
at KSC requiring the support."
4. "MSC currently provides reliability support, configuration manage-
ment support, engineering support, management support and logistics
support to all ACE-S/C ground stations. By continuing the present
contractual arrangement we avoid the possibility of costly duplication in
these areas."
Gilruth said that it was the MSC intent to support system engineering
requirements in ACE/spacecraft areas and that further support in these
areas was normally supplied by the spacecraft contractor. "Actually it has
been our impression that GE/MSC ACE/spacecraft support at KSC and all
other locations was sufficient to meet all requirements .... It is our opinion
that the existing ACE/spacecraft management organization is required to
assure optimum fulfillment of the Apollo program."
Ltrs., Dcbus to Gilruth, Oct. 13, 1966; Gilruth to Debus, Nov. 1, 1966.
19 Marshall Space Flight Center Director Wernher von Braun wrote MSC
Director Robert R. Gilruth that MSFC had spent a considerable effort in
planning the transfer of study and development tasks in the lunar
exploration program to MSC. Von Braun said, "We feel it is in the spirit of
the MSF Hideaway Management Council Meeting held on August 13-
15, 1966, to consider the majority of our Lunar Exploration Work Program
for transfer to MSC in consonance with Bob Seamans' directive which
designates MSC as the Lead Center for lunar science." He added that MSFC
46
had formulated a proposal which it felt was in agreement with the direc- 1966
tives and at the same time provided for management interfaces between the October
two Centers without difficulty.
Briefly MSFC proposed to transfer to MSC (1) planning for Apollo

Applications lunar traverses; (2) lunar surface geological, geophysical,
geochemical, biological, and biomedical experiments; and (3) emplaced
scientific station experiments. MSFC proposed to retain (1) the local
scientific survey module and related mobility efforts, (2) Apollo Applica-
tions program lunar drill, (3) lunar surveying system, and (4) lunar flying
device (one man flying machine). He added that MSFC had been working in
specific areas of scientific technology that promised to furnish experiments
that could be used on the lunar surface or from lunar orbit as well as from a
planetary vehicle for planetary observations. Among these were radar and
laser altimetry and infrared spectroscopy.
Von Braun said that Ernst Stuhlinger of the Research Projects Laboratory
had discussed the proposed actions for transfer of functions to MSC, and
MSC Experiments Program Manager Robert O. Piland had indicated his
general agreement, pending further consideration. He asked that Gilruth
give his reaction to the proposal and said, "It would be very helpful if our
two Centers could present a proposal to George Mueller [OMSF] on which
we both agree."
Ltr., yon Braun to Gilruth, Oct. 19, 1966.
19
Apollo-Saturn 204 was to be the first manned Apollo mission, NASA
announced through the manned space flight Centers. The news release,
prepared at NASA Hq., said the decision had been made following a Design
Certification Review Board meeting held the previous week at OMSF. The
launch date had not been determined. Crewmen for the flight would be
Virgil I. Grissom, command pilot; Edward H. White II, senior pilot; and
Roger B. Chaffee, pilot. The backup crew would be James A. McDivitt,
command pilot; David R. Scott, senior pilot; and Russell L. Schweickart,
pilot. The AS-204 spacecraft would be launched by an uprated Saturn I
launch vehicle on its earth-orbital mission "to demonstrate spacecraft and
crew operations and evaluate spacecraft hardware performance in earth
orbit."
TWX, NASA Hq. M-N-311 to KSC, MSC, MSFC, Oct. 19, 1966.
MSC's ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea proposed to KSC Apollo Program 21
Manager John G. Shinkle thatmbecause the program was moving into the
flight phase and close monitoring of the hardware configuration was
important--they should plan work methods in more detail. He reminded
Shinkle that he had named Walter Kapryan Assistant Program Manager "to
provide the technical focal point.., to maintain the discipline for the total
spacecraft"; therefore Shea would like to transfer the chairman of the Apollo
47
1966 Configuration Control Panel from Shinkle's organization to Kapryan

October effective Nov. 1, 1966.
Ltr., Shea to Shinkle, Oct. 21, 1966.
21
Langley Research Center informed MSC that the Apollo Visibility Study
requested by MSC would be conducted. Langley mockups could be used
along with an SLA panel to be provided by MSC from Tulsa North
American. The proposed study would be semistatic, with the astronaut
seated in the existing CM mockup and viewing the S-IVB/SLA mockup.
The positions of the mockups would be varied manually by repositioning
the mockup dollies, and the astronaut would judge the separation distance
and alignment attitude. The study was expected to start at the end of October
or early November and last two or three weeks.
Ltr., Director, LaRC, to MSC, Attn: Robert R. Gilruth "Apollo Visibility Study," Oct. 21, 1966.
24
MSC established a committee to investigate several nearly catastrophic
malfunctions in the steam generation system at the White Sands Test
Facility. The system was used to pump down altitude cells in LM
propulsion system development. Committee members were Joseph G.
Thibodaux, chairman; Hugh D. White, secretary; Harry Byington, Henry
O. Pohl, Robert W. Polifka, and Allen H. Watkins, all of MSC.
Memo, MSC Director to distr., "Committee for investigation of malfunctioning steam

generation system at White Sands Test Facility, New Mexico," Oct. 24, 1966.
25
Propellant tanks of service module 017 failed during a pressure test at North
American Aviation, Downey, Calif. The planned test included several
pressure cycles followed by a'48-hour test of the tanks at the maximum
operating pressure of 165 newtons per square centimeter (240 pounds per
square inch). Normal operating pressure was 120 newtons per square
centimeter (175 pounds per square inch). After 1 hour 40 minutes at 165
newtons the failure occurred.
SM 017 (designed for SA-501) had been pulled for this test after cracks had
been detected in the tanks of SM 101. SM 017 had been previously proof-
tested a short time (a matter of minutes) at 220 newtons per square
centimeter (320 pounds per square inch).
A team was set up at North American Aviation to look into the failure and its
possible impact on the Saturn IB and Saturn V Apollo missions. MSC had
two observers on the team, which was to make its findings and recommen-
dations available by November 4.
North American Aviation identified the problem as stress-corrosion

cracking resulting from use of methanol as a test liquid at pressures causing
above threshold stresses. No tanks subjected to methanol at high stress levels
would be used. Freon and isopropyl alcohol, respectively, were recom-
mended for test fluids in the oxidizer and fuel systems, with the stipulation
48
that the equipment had not previously seen propellant and would receive a 1966
hot gaseous nitrogen purge after completion of the cold flow operation. October
Note, Frank Magliato, NASA Hq., to NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator, "Test
Failure of Service Module 017/' Oct. 26, 1966; TWX, Dale D. Myers, NA, to J. F. Shea, MSC,
Nov. 11, 1966.
Owen E. Maynard, Chief of the MSC Missions Operations Division, said the 27
flight operations plan had proposed communication constraints be resolved

by reducing the accessible landing area on the lunar surface to a region
permitting continuous communication with no restriction on vehicle
attitude during descent and ascent. Maynard said, "Such a proposal is not
acceptable." Contending interests were the desire to maintain communica-
tions in the early part of the descent powered flight and to avoid the
definition of attitude restrictions in this region.
Acknowledging that both of these were desirable objectives, Maynard said

that mission planning should be based on access to previously defined
Apollo zones of interest and to designated sites within those zones with
vehicle attitude maneuvers to provide communications when required.
Memo, Maynard to distr., "LM communication capability during lunar descent and ascent,"
Oct. 27, 1966.
NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips indicated his concern to November
MSC over the extensive damage to a number of fuel cell modules from 4
operational errors during integrated system testing. Phillips pointed out
that in addition to the added cost there was a possible impact on the success
of the flight program. He emphasized the importance of standardizing the
procedures for fuel cell activation and shutdown at North American
Aviation, MSC, and KSC to maximize learning opportunities.
TWX, MAT-91, NASA Hq., to MSC, Atm: Joseph F. Shea, "Fuel Cell Operation Failures,"
Nov. 4, 1966.
Lunar Orbiter H was launched at 6:21 p.m. EST from Launch Complex 13 November 6-
at Cape Kennedy, to photograph possible landing sites on the moon for the December 6
Apollo program. The Atlas-Agena D booster placed the spacecraft in an
earth-parking orbit and, after a 14-minute coast, injected it into its 94-hour
trajectory toward the moon. A midcourse correction maneuver on
November 8 increased the velocity from 3051 to 3133 kilometers per hour. At
that time the spacecraft was 265 485 kilometers from the earth.
The spacecraft executed a deboost maneuver at 3:26 p.m., November 10,

while 352 370 kilometers from the earth and 1260 kilometers from the moon
and traveling at a speed of 5028 kilometers per hour. The maneuver
permitted the lunar gravitational field to pull the spacecraft into the
planned initial orbit around the moon. On November 15, a micrometeoroid
hit was detected by one of the 20 thin-walled pressurized sensors.
49
1966 The spacecraft was transferred into its final close-in orbit around the moon
November at 5:58 p.m. November 15 and the photo-acquisition phase of Lunar Orbiter
//'s mission began November 18. Thirteen selected primary potential
landing sites and a number of secondary sites were to be photographed. By
the morning of November 25, the spacecraft had taken 208 of the 211
photographs planned and pictures of all 13 selected potential landing sites.
It also made 205 attitude change maneuvers and responded to 2421
commands.
The status report of the Lunar Orbiter II mission as of November 28

indicated that the first phase of the photographic mission was completed
when the final photo was taken on the afternoon of November 25. On
November 26, the developing web was cut with a hot wire in response to a
command from the earth. Failure to achieve the cut would have prevented
the final readout of all 211 photos. Readout began immediately after the cut
was made. One day early, December 6, the readout terminated when a
transmitter failed, and three medium-resolution and two high-resolution
photos of primary site 1 were lost. Full low-resolution coverage of the site
had been provided, however, and other data continued to be transmitted.
Three meteoroid hits had been detected.
Memos. l.unar Orbiter Program Manager to NASA Administrator, "Lunar Orbiter II Post
Launch Report #1" through "#15," Nov. 7, 8, 14, 16, 17, 21, 25, and Dec. 9, 1966 (Mission
Operation Reports S-814-66-02).

reported on technical feasibility and cost tradeoffs of real-time television
coverage of Apollo missions. Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr.,
had requested an evaluation during a July 8 program review. Highlights of
the report were:
• Lunar missions would be the most complex attempted in manned

space flight. Even with optimum training, astronaut capabilities would be
heavily taxed and availability of real-time TV coverage could provide an
opportunity in trouble-shooting spacecraft anomalies or in performing
scientific experiments.
• To transmit TV video to Mission Control Center in Houston, scan
conversion from the Apollo format to the standard commercial format
would be required as well as a communications capability. For the lunar
mission, implementation at Goldstone and Madrid would provide 62- to 91-
percent TV coverage with an estimated initial investment of $500 000 and an
operating cost of $1 2000 000 per year, based on four seven-day missions per
year with 8 to 14 hours a day possible coverage for each station.
• The most optimistic minimum procurement and installation time
for the first unit would be 10 months and, to provide real-time TV for the
first lunar mission, the system should be exercised at least one mission before
AS-504. Mueller recommended approval for additional equipment and
communication services necessary for live TV coverage from the Goldstone,
Calif., and Madrid, Spain, stations.
5O
1966
Seamans approved the proposal on November 17, with the following
condition, which was later transmitted to MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth : November
"Before NASA commitments of any sort are made to the networks for Apollo
capsule TV coverage, the plans and procedures must be approved by the
Administrator."
Ltr., NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight to Deputy Administrator, "Real
Time TV Coverage of Apollo Missions," Nov. 9, 1966; approval, with condition, by Seamans,
Nov. 17, 1966; NASA Routing Slip to MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth from Jack T.
McClanahan, Chief, Apollo Mission Requirements, OMSF, received at MSC Dec. 12, 1966.
Astronaut Roger B. Chaffee

prepares to enter Apollo space-
craft AS-204 in Kennedy Space
Center's Manned Spacecraft
Operations Building during
October 1966 tests for the first
manned Apollo mission.
Phases of the mission--from
countdown through liftoff,
orbital insertion, and orbital
exercises--were simulated in
the altitude chamber.
Interested engineers watch as the

LM ascent stage of TM-2 is
readied for tests in the thermal
vacuum chamber at Grum-
man's Bethpage, New York,
plant in 1966.
Perkin-Elmer Corp., Norwalk, Conn., and Chrysler Corp., Detroit, Mich.,

November were authorized about $250000 each to continue studies of optical
technology for NASA. The nine-month extension of research by the two
22
companies was to evaluate optical experiments for possible future extended
Apollo flights. The proposed experiments included control of optical
telescope primary mirrors, telescope temperature control, telescope
pointing, and laser propagation studies.
NASA News Release 66-300, Nov. 22, 1966.
25
MSC was requested by NASA Hq. to take the following actions:
1. Delete all experiments assigned to AS-205.

2. Assign experiment M005 (Bioassays Body Fluid, modified version) to
AS-205/208.
3. Assign experiment M006 (Bone Demineralization) to AS-205/208.
4. Assign experiment M011 (Cytogenic Blood Studies) to AS-205/208.
5. Assign experiment M023 (Lower-Body Negative Pressure) to AS-
205/2O8.
6. Redesignate experiments assigned to AS-207/208 to AS-205/208.
TWX, NASA Hq. to MSC (APO-CCB Directive No. 80), Nov. 25, 1966.
MSC's Director of Flight Crew Operations Donald K. Slayton said that the
Block I flight crew nomenclature was suitable for the AS-204 mission, but
that a more descriptive designation was desirable for Block II flights. Block I
crewmen had been called command pilot, senior pilot, and pilot. Slayton
proposed that for the Block II missions the following designations and
positions be used: commander, left seat at launch with center seat optional
for the remainder of the CSM mission, and left seat in the LM; CSM pilot,
center seat at launch with left seat optional for remainder of mission; and
LM pilot in the right seat of both the CSM and LM.
Memo, Slayton to distr., "Block 11 Apollo flight crew designation," Nov. 29, 1966.
In response to a request from Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips

5 on November 21, MSC reported its evaluation of Atlantic versus Pacific
Ocean prime recovery areas for all Saturn V Apollo missions. MSC said that
a change of recovery area to the Atlantic for AS-501 and AS-502 would cause
some schedule slip and compromise of mission objectives and would not
necessarily save recovery ship effort. For AS-503 and similar nonlunar
missions, adjustments could be made to the mission profile to result in a
prime recovery in the Atlantic area. Secondary support would be necessary
in the Pacific, however. The report stressed that confining recovery to the
Atlantic area for lunar missions would severely curtail the number of launch
windows available.
52
Astronauts
DonnF.Eisele,Wal-
ter M. Schirra,Jr., and R.
WalterCunningham,left to
right,participate
in 1966Apol-
lo egresstraining in a water
tankin Building260, Manned
Spacecraft Center.
In a December 30 letter to MSC, KSC, and MSFC, the Apollo Program

Director referred to the study and said it had been determined that plans for December
Pacific recovery for the AS-501 and AS-502 missions were justified.
Ltrs., Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC Director o[ Flight Operations, and Joseph F. Shea,
Manager, ASPO, to NASA Hq., Arm : S. C. Phillips, "Atlantic Recovery," Dec. 5, 1966; Apollo
Program Director, Office of Manned Space Flight, to MSC, KSC, and MSFC, "Atlantic Versus
Pacific Recovery for Saturn V/Apollo Missions," Dec. 30, 1966.
During reassembly of LM Simulator (LMS) 1 at Houston, MSC personnel

discovered that the digital-to-analog conversion equipment was not the unit
used during the preship tests at Binghamton, N.Y.; it was apparent the unit
had never been checked out, because at least five power-buss bars were
missing. The unit had not checked out in the preship tests, and at the
simulator readiness review test on October 14 Grumman had been
authorized to replace the defective digital-to-analog core memory after the
unit arrived at Houston. MSC questioned whether the delivery requirement
of LMS-1 had been met and asked Grumman to explain why the switch was
made without MSC knowledge and what steps Grumman expected to take
to correct the situation.
TWX, MSC LM Project ()/ricer to Grumman LM Program Manager, Dec. 5, 1966.
MSC Director of Flight Crew Operations Donald K. Slayton pointed out to

ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea that LM-to-CSM crew rescue was
impossible. Slayton said (1) there was no way for the portable life support
system and crewman to traverse from the LM front hatch to the CSM side
hatch in zero-g docked operations, because there was no restraint system or
tether attach points in the vicinity of the CSM hatch to permit the crewman
to stabilize himself and work to open the hatch; and (2) there was no way to
control the Apollo inner hatch (35-43 kilograms) to ensure that it would not
inadvertently damage its seals, the spacecraft wiring, or the pressure
53
1966
bulkhead. Slayton added that several spacecraft changes, additional
December training hardware for valid thermal testing, zero-g simulator demonstra-
tion, and crew training effort would be required to permit extravehicular
crew rescue from LM to CSM. Until this total rescue capability was
implemented, manned LM to CSM operations would constitute an
unnecessary risk for the flight crew.
Memo, Slayton to Shea, "Apollo EVA," Dec. 6, 1966.
Langley Research Center reported on its November study of visibility from

the CSM during extraction of the LM from the S-IVB stage. The study had
been made in support of the AS-207/208A mission, with assistance of MSC
and North American Aviation personnel, to (1) determine if the CSM pilot
could detect the signal indicating that the CSM had detached from the S-
IVB, (2) determine if he could recognize a misalignment between the
CSM/LM combination and the S-IVB during withdrawal, and (3)
investigate simple aid techniques to make the pilot's task easier. Results
indicated that (1) LM docking did not provide adequate indication of
detachment of the LM from the S-IVB, but (2) in misalignment tests
subjects could recognize errors as small as two to three degrees in yaw and
five to seven centimeters in lateral translation except when the CSM/LM
was yawed right and translated left relative to the S-IVB. The configuration
of the model used prevented studying pitch, roll, or vertical translation
misalignments.
Jack E. Pennington, "Results o[ Apollo Transl_-,silion Withdrawal Study," Langley Working

Paper No. 335, Dec. 6, 1966.
In a memo to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, Associate

Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller approved
assignment of experiment S068, Lunar Meteoroid Detection, to the Apollo
Program Office for implementation, provided adequate funding could be
identified in the light of relative priority in the total science program. The
experiment had been recommended by the Manned Space Flight Experi-
ment Board (MSFEB) for a lunar mission. Also, as recommended by the
MSFEB, the following experiments would be placed on the earliest possible
manned space flight: S015 (Zero g, Single Human Cells); S017 (Trapped
Particles Asymmetry); S018 Micrometeorite Collection); and T004 (Frog
Otolith Function).
Memo, Mueller to Phillips, "Experiment Assignments," Dec. 7, 1966.
Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller

requested Leonard Reiffel, NASA Hq., "to be thinking about an
appropriate name for the Lunar Receiving Laboratory--a descriptive kind
of name rather than one that doesn't signify exactly what it is."
Note, Mueller to Reiffel (telecon), "[.unar Receiving I.aboratory," Dec. 7, 1966.
54
The number one' lunar landing research vehicle (LLRV) test vehicle was 1966
received at MSC December 13, 1966. Its first flight at Ellington Air Force Base December
following facility and vehicle checkout was expected about February 1,
13
1967, with crew training in the vehicle to start about February 20. A design
review was held at Buffalo, N.Y., during the week of January 2, 1967, in
connection with Bell Aerospace Company's contract for three lunar landing
training vehicles (LLTVs) and associated equipment. No major design
changes in the vehicle baseline configuration were requested. Crew training
in helicopters and in the Lunar Landing Research Facility at Langley
Research Center and the LLRV fixed base simulator was continuing.
Memo, Director of Flight Crew Operations, MSC, to Deputy Director, MSC, "LLRV/TV
Monthly Progress Report," Jan. 19, 1967.
MSC Director of Administration Wesley L. Hjornevik informed NASA Hq. 15
that Frank Smith had told him on December 14 of his meeting with NASA
management on Lunar Receiving Laboratory plans. Smith advised that
MSC should take necessary actions immediately to begin operation of the
LRL. MSC advised Headquarters that it planned to expand one of the two
facility operation contracts at MSC to include the LRL and designate an
LRL organization, staffed with qualified civil service personnel for
immediate full-time operation.
TWX, Hjornevik to NASA Hq., "Lunar Receiving Laboratory Operations Plans," Dec. 15,
1966.
19
A meeting at NASA Hq. discussed plans for the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory, noting that some problems were time-critical and needed
immediate attention. Attending were Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Willis B.
Shapley, George E. Mueller, Homer E. Newell, and Francis B. Smith, all of
NASA Hq.; and Robert R. Gilruth, George M. Low, and Wesley L.
Hjornevik of MSC.
The group agreed on the following interim actions:
1. Continued efforts to develop clearer definition of tasks that should be

initiated to ensure the LRL would be ready for operation in time to handle
returned lunar samples.
2. Creation of a task group at MSC to prepare for initial operation of
the LRL. The task group would consist of MSC personnel plus a few new
hires in critical skill areas.
3. Extension of the existing MSC support contract to provide
minimum LRL technical and engineering support needed during the next
few months.
4. Development of a clearer definition of the role and method of
operation of the U.S. Public Health Officer to provide for more effective use
of his recommendations for quarantine requirements.
55
1966 On December 21, Shapley informed Mueller and Newell that NASA
December Administrator James E. Webb and Deputy Administrator Seamans had
approved the proposed actions.
Memos, Smith to Webb and Seamans, "December 19th meeting to discuss plans for the Lunar
Receiving Laboratory," Dec. 19, 1966; Shapley to Mueller and Newell, "Lunar Receiving
Laboratory," Dec. 21, 1966.
22
Lewis L. McNair, MSFC Chairman of the Flight Mechanics Panel, told
Calvin H. Perrine, Jr., MSC, that the Guidance and Performance Sub-Panel
had been unable to reach an agreement on venting the liquid-oxygen (LOX)
tank of the Saturn V S-IVB stage during earth parking orbit. McNair
pointed out that MSFC did not want a programmed LOX vent and that
MSC did. He added that the issue must be resolved in order to finalize the
AS-501 attitude maneuver and venting timeline.
Ltr., McNair to Perrine, Dec. 22, 1966.
22
In a memo to Donald K. Slayton, MSC Deputy Director George M. Low
indicated that he understood George E. Mueller had stated in executive
session of the Management Council on December 21 that he had decided a
third lunar module simulator would not be required. Low said, "This
implies that either the launch schedule will be relieved or missions will be so
identical that trainer change-over time will be substantially reduced."
Memo, Low to Slayton, "Third LM Mission Simulator," Dec. 22, 1966.
22
NASA announced crew selection for the second and third manned Apollo
missions. Prime crew for AS-205/208 would be James A. McDivitt,
commander; David R. Scott, CM pilot; and Russell L. Schweickart, LM
pilot. The backup crew would be Thomas P. Stafford, commander; John W.
Young, CM pilot; and Eugene A. Cernan, LM pilot. The crew for AS-503,
the first manned mission to be launched by a Saturn V, would be Frank
Borman, commander; Michael Collins, CM pilot; and William A. Anders,
LM pilot. The backup crew would be Charles Conrad, Jr., commander;
Richard F. Gordon, Jr., CM pilot; and Clifton C. Williams, Jr., LM pilot.
NASA News Release 66-326, "NASA Names Crews [or Apollo Flights," Dec. 22, 1966.
23
Handling and installation responsibilities for the LM descent stage
scientific equipment (SEQ) were defined in a letter from MSC to Grumman
Aircraft Engineering Corp. The descent stage SEQ was composed of three
basic packages: (1) the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package
(ALSEP) compartment 1, which included the ALSEP central station and
associated 1unar surface experiments; (2) ALSEP compartment 2, composed
of the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) and Apollo lunar
surface drill (ALSD); and (3) the RTG fuel cask, thermal shield, mount and
RTG fuel element. The following definition of responsibility for handling
and installation had been derived:
56
1. The SEQ would be installed in the LM descent stage while the LM

was in the LM landing gear installation stand before LM-SLA mating, with December
the exception of the RTG fuel cask, thermal shield, mount and fuel element,
and the ALSD.
2. The RTG fuel cask, thermal shield, mount and fuel element and the
ALSD would be installed in the LM descent stage during prelaunch
activities at the launch site.
3. Grumman would be responsible for SEQ installation with the
exception of the RTG fuel element. The ALSEP contractor, Bendix
Aerospace Systems Division, would provide the installation procedure and
associated equipment. Bendix would also observe the installation operation
and NASA would both observe and inspect it.
4. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) would be responsible for
handling and installing the RTG fuel element. Bendix would provide
procedures and associated equipment. Grumman and NASA would observe
and inspect this operation. If for any reason the RTG fuel element was
required to be removed during prelaunch operations, the AEC would be
responsible for the activity. Removal procedures would be provided by
Bendix. MSC requested that Grumman's planned LM activities at Kennedy
Space Center reflect these points of definition.
Ltr., MSC to Grumman, "Contract NAS 9-1100, Handling and installation responsibilities for
the LM descent stage Scientific Equipment (SEQ)," Dec. 23, 1966.
23
NASA Administrator James E. Webb approved establishment of a Science
and Applications Directorate at MSC. The new directorate would plan and
implement MSC programs in space science and its applications, act as a
focal point for all MSC elements in these programs, and serve as the Center's
point of contact with the scientific community. In addition to the Director's
office, the new directorate would encompass an Advanced Systems Office,
Lunar Surface Project Office, Space Physics Division, Applications Plans
and Analysis Office, Applications Project Office, Lunar and Earth Sciences
Division, and Test and Operations Office. In a letter on January 17, 1967,
NASA Associate Administrator George E. Mueller told MSC Director
Robert R. Gilruth the new Directorate was "another significant milestone in
your effort to support the Agency and the scientific community in the
exploration of space .... "
Organization Chart, MSC, Dec. 23, 1967; hr., Mueller to Gilruth, Jan. 17, 1967.
26
Donald K. Slayton said there was some question about including
extravehicular activity on the AS-503 mission, but he felt that, to make a
maximum contribution to the lunar mission, one period of EVA should be
included. Slayton pointed out that during the coast period (simulating
lunar orbit) in the current flight plan the EVA opportunity appeared best
between hour 90 and hour 100. Two primary propulsion system firings
would have been accomplished and the descent stage of the LM would still
be attached.
57
1966
Slayton specified that EVA should consist of a crewman exiting through the
December LM forward hatch and making a thorough orbital check of the LM before
reentering through the same hatch. He said EVA on AS-503 would provide :
(1) flight experience and confidence in LM environmental-control-system
performance during cabin depressurization; (2) flight confidence in the
Block II International Latex Corp. pressure garment assemblies; (3)orbital
time-line approximation of cabin depressurization times, forward hatch
operation, flight crew egress procedures, and LM entry following a
simulated lunar EVA; (4) visual inspection and photography of LM landing
gear for possible damage during withdrawal from the S-IVB stage; (5)
external inspection and photography of the LM to record window and
antenna contamination caused by SLA panel pyrotechnic deployment; (6)
inspection and photography of descent engine skirt and adjacent areas for
evidence of damage from two descent propulsion system firings; (7)
inspection and photography of possible damage to the upper LM caused by
the SM reaction control system during withdrawal; (8) possible additional
data regarding EVA metabolic rates, etc., as applied to the Block II pressure
garment assembly; and (9)additional orbital confidence in the portable life
support system operational procedures.
Memo, Slayton to Technical Assistant for Apollo, "AS-503 Mission," Dec. 26, 1966.
3O
Homer E. Newell, NASA.Associate Administrator for Space Science and
Applications, pointed out to MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth that during a
program review he was made aware of difficulties in the development of the
Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package. The problems cited were with
the lunar surface magnetometer, suprathermal ion detector, passive
seismometer, and the central station transmitter receiver. Newell, who had
been briefed on the problems by NASA Hq. ALSEP Program Manager, W.
T. O'Bryant, said: "I felt they were serious enough to warrant giving you my
views in regard to the importance of having the ALSEP with its planned
complement of instruments aboard the first Apollo lunar landing mission.
It is essential that basic magnetic measurements be made on the lunar
surface, not only for their very important planetological implications, but
also for the knowledge which will be gained of the lunar magnetosphere and
atmosphere as the result of the combined measurements from the
magnetometer, solar wind spectrometer, and suprathermal ion detector."
MSC Deputy Director George M. Low, in a January 10 letter to Newell,

thanked him and said he would discuss the problems with Newell more
fully after receiving a complete review of the ALSEP program from Robert
O. Piland.
Low wrote Newell on April 10, 1967, that there had been schedule slips in
the program plan devised in March 1966--primarily slips associated with
the lunar surface magnetometer, the suprathermal ion detector, and the
central station receiver and transmitter. "In each case, we have effected a
programmatic workaround plan, the elements of which were presented to
58
Leonard Reiffel of OMSF and William O'Bryant of your staff on December 1966
5, 1966, and in subsequent reviews of the subject with them as the planning December
and implementation progressed .... "

Ltrs., Newell to Robert R. Gilruth, Dec. 30, 1966; Low to Newell, Jan. 10, 1967; and Low to
Newell, Apr. 10, 1967.
B. Kaskey, Bellcomm, Inc., gave NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C. 1967
Phillips three reasons why an AS-204 rescue of or rendezvous with a January
biosatellite would be impracticable: (1) The Block I spacecraft hatch was
3
not designed to open and reseal in space, therefore no extravehicular activity
could be planned for AS-204. (2) The launch window for 204 was five hours
on each day, set by lighting available for launch aborts and normal recovery;
rendezvous would reduce the launch window to minutes. (3) More than half
of the reaction control system propellant was committed because of the
requirement that deorbit be possible on every orbit without use of the serv-
ice propulsion system. Phillips sent the information to ASPO Manager
Joseph F. Shea at MSC.
Note, Kaskey to Phillips, NASA Hq., "Working Note," Jan. 3, 1967.
An MSC meeting selected a Flight Operations Directorate position on basic

factors of the first lunar landing mission phase and initiated a plan by which
the Directorate would inform other organizations of the factors and the
operational capabilities of combining them into alternate lunar surface
mission plans.
Flight Operations Director Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., conducted the

discussion, with Rodney G. Rose, Carl Kovitz, Morris V. Jenkins, William
E. Platt, James E. Hannigan, Bruce H. Walton, and William L. Davidson
participating.
The major factors (philosophy) identified at the meeting were:
• "The astronauts should be provided with an extravehicular (EVA)

timeline framework and objectives and then be given real time control of
their own activities. This approach should better accommodate the first
lunar surface unknowns than if rigorous activity control were attempted
from earth."
• "The LM should always be in a position to get back into lunar orbit
in the minimum time. Specifically the merits and feasibility of maintaining
the LM platform powered up and aligned should be evaluated. Any other
LM systems requiring start up time after powering down should be
identified."
• "The constraints affecting the minimum time required to turn
around and launch after LM landing and the time line should be deter-
mined. This time was estimated to two CSM orbits. The effects of Manned
Space Flight Network (MSFN) support should be considered."
• The first EVA should be allocated to LM post landing inspection,
immediate lunar sample collection, lunar environment familiarization,
59
photographic documentation, and astronaut exploration prerogatives. Any

second EVA would include deployment of ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package) and a more systematic geological survey. Therefore,
a mission nominally planned for only one EVA would not have to include
an ALSEP in the payload. Any flight operations benefits resulting from
deletion of the ALSEP weight and deployment operations (such as
replacing weight with more fuel) must be determined."
Other less important factors were discussed and several action items were
assigned: Rose would be responsible for successful implementation of plans
resulting from the meeting. Hannigan would determine the LM, portable
life support system, and ALSEP systems constraints and determine if the
ALSEP weight allowance could be beneficially applied to LM consumables.
The Operations Analysis Branch would investigate the MSFN support.
Memo, Chief, Operations Analysis Br., MSC, to Chief, Flight Control Div., MSC, "Operations
viewpoint on first lunar surface mission plan," Jan. 5, 1967.
Charles A. Berry, MSC Director of Medical Research and Operations,

proposed establishment of an MSC management program for control of
hazardous spacecraft materials, to provide confidence for upcoming long-
duration Apollo missions while simultaneously saving overall costs. Berry
pointed out that no unified program for control of potentially toxic or
flammable spacecraft materials existed and, in the past, individual Program
Offices had established their own acceptance criteria for toxological safety
and fire hazards.
Memo, Berry to Deputy Director, MSC, "Management Program for Control of Hazardous
Spacecraft Materials," Jan. 4, 1967.
Director of Flight Crew Operations Directorate (FCOD) Donald K. Slayton

discussed the 2TV-1 (thermal vacuum test article) manned test program in a
letter to the ASPO Manager. Pointing out that FCOD was providing an
astronaut crew for the vacuum test program in support of the AS-258
mission, Slayton said the FCOD objective was to test and evaluate crew
equipment, stowage, and system operations procedures planned for Block II
flights. Slayton acknowledged that this objective was not identical with
ASPO's requirement for thermal and vacuum verification of integrated
system design, but felt that it was of equal importance and should be given
equal priority in planning the test. To achieve the FCOD objective, he
requested that specific conditions be met in spacecraft configuration, test
planning, and test conduct.
Ltr., Slayton to Manager, ASPO, "2TV-I Manned Test Program," Jan. 4, 1967.
10
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips told NASA Associate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller that studies had
been completed on the use of "direct translunar injection" (launch directly
into a trajectory to the moon) as a mode of operation for lunar landing
missions. The principal advantages would be potential payload increases
60
and elimination of the S-IVB stage restart requirement. The disadvantage 1967
was that there would be no usable launch windows for about half of each January
year and a reduced number of windows for the remainder of the year.
Phillips was confident the launch vehicle would have adequate payload
capability, since Saturn V performance continued to exceed spacecraft
requirements. Confidence in successful S-IVB restarts was also high. For the
lunar missions, therefore, direct launch was considered as a fall-back
position and the effort was concentrating on the parking orbit mode.
Ltr., Phillips to Mueller, "Saturn V Direct Lunar Injection," Jan. 10, 1967.
12
The NASA Western Support Office, Santa Monica, Calif., reported two
accidents at North American plants, with no personal injuries:
• Apollo CM 2S-l--being hoisted into a cradled position at North

American Aviation's Space and Information Systems Division, Downey,
Calif.--was dropped 1.8 meters onto a concrete floor Jan. 12. The first re-
port was that the CM apparently suffered considerable damage.
• The S-II-5 interstage received possible structural damage when the

protective metal roof covering of a handling fixture was struck during the
swing opening of the six-story east door of Station 9 at the Seal Beach plant.
The structural connections of the handling fixture to the interstage
indicated damage. The S-II-5 interstage had been improperly parked
within the swing opening of the east door.
Memo, William E. Lilly, NASA Hq., to George E. Mueller, NASA Hq., "Incident Reports:
Damage to the Command Module 2S-1 and S-II-5 Interstage," Jan. 23, 1967.
19
Testing of CSM 012 at Downey, Calif., and KSC revealed numerous failures
in the communications cable assembly caused by broken wiring, bent pins,
and connector malfunctions. Certain design deficiencies in the system had
been remedied by adding adapter cables in series with the cobra cable, but
these additions had resulted in additional weak points in the system and in
an unacceptably cumbersome cable assembly connected to crew members.
For these reasons, Donald K. Slayton, Director of Flight Crew Operations,
ruled the existing communications assembly unsafe for flight and requested
that the biomedical tee adapter, cobra cable, sleep adapter, and noise
eliminator be combined into one new cobra cable for CSM 012.
Memo, Slayton to Manager, ASPO, "Communications cables [or Spacecraft 012," Jan. 18, 1967.
2O
The Saturn 503 S-IVB stage exploded and was destroyed at the Douglas
Sacramento, Calif., Test Facility at 4:25 p.m. PST during a countdown. The
exercise had progressed to 10 seconds before simulated launch (about 8
minutes before S-IVB ignition) when the explosion occurred. Earlier that
day the countdown had progressed to about 6 minutes past simulated
launch when a problem with the GSE computer tape carrier head required a
hold and a recycling in the countdown. No one was injured.
61
1M7 A Douglas Aircraft Company investigating team under Jack Bromberg

January started operations the next morning, and an MSFC-appointed investigating
board chaired by Kurt Debus, KSC, began operating three days after the
accident.
TWX, MSFC to addressees, "Explosion of S-IVB-503 Stage," Jan. 23, 1967.
23
The Lunar Mission Planning Board held its first meeting at MSC. Present,
in addition to Chairman Robert R. Gilruth, were Charles A. Berry, Maxime
A. Faget, George M. Low, Robert O. Piland, Wesley L. Hjornevik, and
acting secretary William E. Stoney, Jr., all of MSC. Principal subject of
discussion was the photography obtained by Lunar Orbiter I and Lunar
Orbiter I1 and application of this photography to Apollo site selection. The
material was presented by John Eggleston and Owen Maynard, both of
MSC. Orbiter I had obtained medium-resolution photography of sites on
the southern half of the Apollo area of interest; Orbiter H had obtained both
medium- and high-resolution photographs of sites toward the northern half
of the area. Several action items were assigned, with progress to be reported
at the next meeting, including a definition of requirements for a TV land-
ing aid for the lunar module and a report on landing-site-selection restraints
based on data available from Lunar Orbiter I and H only, and another on
data from Lunar Orbiter I, H, and llI.
Minutes of the Lunar Mission Planning Board, Jan. 23, 1967.
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips sent a message to the manned

space flight Centers indicating that he wanted to supplement the findings of
the S-IVB Accident Investigation Board with a review by the Crew Safety
Panel of the possible impact on manned Apollo flights. He requested Crew
Safety Panel members and any other necessary crew safety representatives to
go to Sacramento, Calif., immediately, review the 20 January accident, and
answer a number of questions:
1. What would have happened if a crew had been on board the space
vehicle at the time of the accident?
2. What feasible methods were there within existing system
capabilities to escape such an explosion? What other escape methods might
be evolved beyond existing system capabilities?
3. How would the EDS (emergency detection system) have functioned
if the accident had occurred on a manned flight? Should there be any
changes to the EDS?
4. Should any changes be made to AS-204 to increase the probability of
a safe escape?
Phillips said the panel's recommendations were needed by February 6 to

help assess any impact on AS-204 and subsequent flights.
TWX, NASA Hq. to addressees, "S-IVB Stage Accident Investigation," Jan. 26, 1967.
62
Representatives of 62 nations signed the space law treaty, "Treaty on 1967

Principles Covering the Activities of the States in the Exploration and Use January
of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," at separate
27
ceremonies in Washington, London, and Moscow. The treaty, which
limited military activities in space, had been agreed upon by the U.S. and
U.S.S.R. December 8, 1966, and unanimously approved by the United
Nations General Assembly December 19. It was to become effective when
ratified by the U.S., U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, and two other countries.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 (NASA SP-4008, 1968), p. 23; and text of treaty.
27
Fire sweeping through command module 012 atop its Saturn IB launch
vehicle at Launch Complex 34, KSC, took the lives of the three-man crew
scheduled for the first manned Apollo space flight.
ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea sent a flash report to NASA Hq. : "During a
simulated countdown for mission AS-204 on January 27, 1967, an accident
occurred in CM 012. This was a manned test with the prime astronaut crew
on board. A fire occurred inside the command module resulting in the death
of the three astronauts and as yet undetermined damage to the command and
service modules." The launch had been scheduled for February 21.
The Director, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, was

alerted during late evening and informed that the accident had taken the
lives of astronauts Virgil I. Grissom, Edward H. White II, and Roger B.
Chaffee.
Later that evening a request for autopsy support was received and three
pathologists and a medical photographer were sent to Cape Kennedy on an
Air Force aircraft. Team members were Col. Edward H. Johnston, USA;
Cdr. Charles J. Stahl, USN; Capt. Latimer E. Dunn, USAF; and T/Sgt
Larry N. Hale, USAF.
The postmortem examinations began at 11 a.m. January 28 at the USAF

Bioastronautic Operational Support Unit and were completed at 1 a.m. the
following day.
TWX, Shea to NASA Hq., Arm: Apollo Program Director, Jan. 28, 1967; Append. D, "Panel
11," Report o[ Apollo 204 Review Board to the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space
Adrnmt._tratton, Apr. 5, 1967, 17. D-I 1-13.
2B
The Apollo 204 Review Board was established by NASA's Deputy
Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., to investigate the Apollo 204 accident
that had killed the 204 prime crew January 27. The Board would report to
the NASA Administrator.
Appointed to the Board were:
• Floyd L. Thompson, Director Langley Research Center, Chairman.

• Frank Borman, astronaut, MSC.
• Maxime A. Faget, Director of Engineering and Development, MSC.
63
Effects of the flash fire on CM 012, photographed shortly after the fatal January 27,
1967, Apollo 204 accident: exterior of the command module, left, and interior,
right.
• E. Barton Geer, Associate Chief of Flight Vehicles and Systems

Division, LaRC.
• George Jeffs, Chief Engineer, Apollo, North American Aviation, Inc.
• Frank A. Long, President's Science Advisory Committee member,
Vice President for Research and Advanced Studies, Cornell University.
• Col. Charles F. Strang, USAF, Chief of Missiles and Space Safety
Division, Air Force Inspector General, Norton Air Force Base, Calif.
• George C. White, Jr., Director, Reliability and Quality, Apollo
Program Office, NASA Hq.
• John Williams, Director of Spacecraft Operations, KSC.
George Malley, Chief Counsel, LaRC, was named to serve as counsel to the
Board.
The Board was told it could call upon any element of NASA for support,
assistance, and information, and was instructed to:
• Review the circumstances surrounding the accident to establish the

probable cause or causes and review the findings, corrective actions, and
recommendations being developed by the program offices, field Centers, and
con tractors.
• Direct any further specific investigations necessary.
• Report its findings on the cause of the accident to the NASA
Administrator as expeditiously as possible and release the information
through the Office of Public Affairs.
64
• Consider the impact of the accident on all Apollo equipment 1967

preparation, testing, and flight operations. January
• Consider all other factors related to the accident, including design
procedures, organization, and management.
° Develop recommendations for corrective or other action based upon
its findings and determinations.
° Document its findings, determinations, and recommendations and
submit a final report to the Administrator, which would not be released
without his approval.
Memo for the Apollo 204 Review Board from Seamans, Jan. 28, 1967.
The Chairman and several members of the Apollo 204 Review Board 28
assembled at KSC and met with NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C.

Seamans, Jr., Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, and other
personnel from NASA Hq., KSC, and MSC. The officials were given a quick
appraisal of circumstances surrounding the January 27 accident and actions
taken after the fire. The meeting was followed by an initial general session of
the Board in the Mission Briefing Room, an area assigned to the Board to
conduct its business. The Board adjourned to visit the scene of the accident,
Launch Complex 34, and then reconvened to plan the review.
"Board Proceedings," Report of Apollo 204 Rez, iew Board to the Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Apr. 5, 1967, p. 3-13.
29
Astronaut Frank Borman briefed the Apollo 204 Review Board after his
inspection of the damaged command and service modules. A main purpose
of the inspection was to verify the position of circuit breakers and switches.
In other major activities that day, the Pyrotechnic Installation Building was
assigned to the Board to display the debris and spacecraft components after
removal from Launch Complex 34; the Board began interviewing
witnesses; and the Board Chairman asked NASA Associate Administrator
for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller for assistance in obtaining
flame propagation experts to assist the Board. Experts might be obtained
from Lewis Research Center, the Bureau of Mines, and the Federal Aviation
Agency. The Board Chairman established an ad hoc committee to organize
task panels to make the accident investigation systematically. The
committee was composed of John J. Williams, KSC; E. Barton Geer, LaRC;
Charles W. Mathews, NASA, Hq.; John F. Yardley, McDonnell Aircraft
Corp.; George Jeffs, North American Aviation, Inc.; and Charles F. Strang,
USAF.
"Board Proceedings," p. 3-13.
3O
Robert W. Van Dolah of the Bureau of Mines, I. Irving Pinkel of Lewis
Research Center, and Thomas G. Horeff of the Federal Aviation Agency
joined the Apollo 204 Review Board as consultants. Membership of the
special ad hoc committee established January 29 to recommend special
panels for the investigation was changed to Frank Borman and Maxime A.
65
TIlE APOLLO SPACECRAFT: A CHRONOLOGY
1967 Faget, both of MSC; Charles W. Mathews, NASA Hq. ; George Jeffs, North
Jaunary American Aviation, Inc.; John F. Yardley, McDonnell Alrcratt Corp.; and
John J. Williams, KSC, Chairman. Mathews outlined 19 recommended
panels and the work objectives of each. A Board member was assigned to
monitor each panel and to serve as a focal point through which the panels
would report to the Board. Lt. Col. James W. Rawers (USAF) of the Range
Safety Division Analysis Section presented an oral report on what Air Force
Eastern Test Range personnel saw at the time of the accident. In other
activities that day Faget introduced Alfred D. Mardel, MSC, who presented a
briefing on data and sequence of events.
31 Col. Charles F. Strang advised the Apollo 204 Review Board of an accident
in an altitude chamber at Brooks Air Force Base, Tex., that morning. A flash
fire had swept the oxygen-filled pressure chamber, killing Airman 2/C
William F. Bartley, Jr., and Airman 3/C Richard G. Harmon. Col. Strang
presented a short briefing on the circumstances and was asked by Chairman
Floyd Thompson to provide follow-up information.
Lt. Col. William D. Baxter, Air Force Eastern Test Range representative to
the Board, advised the group of existing Apollo spacecraft hazards,
including :
• high-pressure oxygen bottles that might be pressurized to 335

newtons per square centimeter (485 pounds per square inch) and be subject
to embrittlement;
• pyrotechnics on the service module; and
• a launch escape system with a 40-kilonewton (9000-pound-thrust)
rocket motor.
An engineering review was made of these hazards and it was agreed that
these items must be removed before any work could proceed.
In other actions on January 31, the Chairman of Panel 4, Disassembly

Activities, briefed the Board on the Spacecraft Debris Removal Plan and the
group approved the plan to the point of removing the astronauts' couches.
In addition, Panel 19, Safety of Investigation Operations, was formed.
"Board Proceedings," pp. 3-14, 3-15; Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 (NASA SP-4008,
1968), p. 29.
31
A TWX from NASA Headquarters to MSC, MSFC, and KSC ordered
checkout and launch preparation of AS-501 to proceed as planned, except
that the CM would not be pressurized in a.n oxygen environment pending
further direction. If AS-501 support, facility, or work force should conflict
with the activities of the AS-204 Review Board, the Board would be given
priority.
TWX, Samuel ('. Phillips to MSC, MSFC, and KS(', Jan. 31, 1967.
66
Funeral services were held for the Apollo crewmen who died in the January 1967
27 spacecraft 012 (Apollo 204 mission) flash fire at Cape Kennedy. All three January
were buried with full military honors: Virgil I. Grissom (Lt. Col., USAF), 31
and Roger B. Chafee (Lt. Cdr., USN), in Arlington, Va., National
Cemetery; and Edward H. White II (Lt. Col., USAF), at West Point, N.Y.
Memorial services had been held in Houston January 29 and 30.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 (NASA SP-4008, 1968), pp. 27, 29.
February
MSC management directed contractors and other government agencies to
stop all MSC-related manned testing in environments with high oxygen 1
content. The message dispatched stated: "Until further notice, each

addressee and his subcontractors is directed to cease all MSC related manned
testing in an environment containing high oxygen concentrations. This
restriction applies to all tests in chambers, enclosures, spacecraft, space
suits, and includes any other procedure which may require any human
activity within a concentrated oxygen environment. Unmanned
qualification and development tests may continue in accordance with
established plans as long as the contractor can assure that human safety is
not jeopardized.
"Waivers for test continuation due to urgent programmatic schedules and

commitments will be granted only by the Director of MSC. Each addressee
should review all test procedures and use of equipment for unmanned
testing using concentrated oxygen under pressure to assure that the tests are
necessary and will be conducted safely.
"This message is precautionary in nature. It should not be construed to

imply that any preliminary conclusions have been reached in the
investigation of the recent Apollo accident.
"Unmanned buildup and preparations should proceed as planned, so that

testing can be resumed when this restriction is lifted .... "
TWX, George M. Low, MSC, to addressees, Feb. 1, 1967.
The task of removing the launch escape system from AS-204 was delayed
until retrorockets and other ordance devices could be removed from the
launch vehicle and spacecraft.
Apollo 204 Review Board Chairman Floyd L. Thompson appointed a

committee of two Board members and three consultants to coordinate panel
activities and to bring to the attention of the Board the actions requiring
specific approval. This Panel Coordinating Committee was required to
present daily activity reports to the Board. Thompson announced that an
executive session (Board members) would be held at 4 p.m. daily.
67
1967 Command module 014 arrived from the North American Aviation plant in
February Downey, Calif., and was placed in the Pyrotechnic Installation Building at
KSC. The module was to be used for training the technicians who would
2
disassemble command module 012, the module in which the AS-204 fire had
ignited. Before removal of any component from 012, the technicians were to
perform similar tasks on 014, to become familiar with all actions required to
remove any single component and minimize damage during removal. As a
component was removed it was transported from the launch complex to the
Pyrotechnic Installation Building. All equipment associated with the
accident would also be placed in the PIB, including command module
hardware and support equipment.
The Apollo 204 Review Board was informed that the most significant event
in the investigation to date was the removal of the launch escape system
from the command module, eliminating the greatest potential hazard to
disassembly operations. With this task finished, members of the Fire
Propagation Panel were expected to enter the command module the
following day. Removal of the launch escape system also permitted
extensive photographic coverage of the interior of the 012 command
module.
Col. Charles F. Strang distributed copies of a status report of the January 31

accident at Brooks AFB, Tex., for the Board's information. NASA Deputy
Administrator Robert C. Seamans attended the session.
"Board Proceedings," pp. 3-15, 3-16, 3-47.
MSC issued instructions to contractors and employees regarding release of

information on any aspect of the AS-204 accident or investigation. The
message said : "In accordance with the Apollo Failure Contingency Plan...
and so this work may proceed rapidly and with complete integrity, all NASA
and contractor employees are directed to refrain from discussing technical
aspects of the accident outside of assigned working situations. This is meant
to rule out accident discussion with other employees, family friends,
neighbors and the like. All press information will be channeled through the
Public Affairs Office.
TWX, MSC to distr., "MSC Posture on Apollo 204 Investigation," Feb. 2, 1967.
NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., reported to

Administrator James E. Webb on progress of the Apollo 204 Review Board
investigation of the January 27 spacecraft fire. Specific cause of the fire had
not been determined from the preliminary review. Official death certificates
for the three crew members listed cause of death as "asphyxiation due to
smoke inhalation due to the fire." Webb released the report to Congress and
the press.
Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller an-

nounced that the unmanned flights AS-206 (on uprated Saturn I) and AS-
68
1967
501 and AS-502 (first and second Saturn V launches) would proceed as
scheduled in 1967. Manned flights were postponed indefinitely. February
"Board Proceedings," p. 3-47; NASA News Releases 67-21 and 67-22, Feb. 3, 1967.
In memoranda for the Apollo 204 Review Board, NASA Deputy

Administrator Seamans noted changes in the Board:
• Frank A. Long, President's Scientific Advisory Committee member

and Vice President for Research and Advanced Studies at Cornell Universi-
ty, was no longer a member of the Board, effective February 1.
• Robert W. Van Dolah, Research Director for the Explosive Research
Center of the Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior, was appointed to
the Board effective February 1.
• George Jeffs--Chief Engineer, Apollo, North American Aviation,
Inc.--was consultant rather than member of the Board effective February 2.
Seamans also amplified and documented the oral instructions given to the
Chairman January 28, 1967:
• The Chairman was to establish procedures for the organization and
operation of the Board as he found most effective, and the procedures were to
be part of the Board's records.
• Board members were to be appointed or removed by the Deputy
Administrator after consultation with the Chairman as necessary for the
Board's effective action.
• The Chairman could establish procedures to ensure the execution of
his responsibility in his absence.
• The Chairman was to appoint or designate representatives,
consultants, experts, liaison officers, observers, or other officials as required
to support Board activities. He was to define their duties and responsibilities
as part o[ the Board's records.
• The Chairman was to advise the Deputy Administrator periodically
on the organization, procedures, and operations of the Board and its
associated officials.
• The Chairman was to ensure that the counsel to the Board
maintained memoranda records covering areas of possible litigation.
Memos, Seamans to Apollo 204 Review Board, Feb. 3, 1967.
The Apollo 204 Review Board Chairman requested that a document be

written to establish procedures for entry into CM 012. Coordination o[
requirements and priorities would be controlled by the Panel Coordinating
Committee, and entry into the CM by Frank Borman, MSC, or his delegated
representative.
A display showing the sequence of events immediately preceding and

following the accident was prepared from telemetry data and placed in the
Mission Briefing Room. Time span of the display was from 6:30 p.m. to 6:33
69
1967
p.m., January 27. Significant information was included on communica-
February tions, instrumentation, electrical power, environmental control, guidance
and navigation, and stabilization and control.
Borman reported that the debris removal plan approved by the Board was
progressing satisfactorily and that the next phase would use protective
plywood covers for the couches to permit detailed examination of the
command module interior.
Homer Carhart, Chief of Fuels Research, Chemistry Division, Naval

Research Laboratory, was assigned to the Fire Propagation Panel. Board
Chairman Floyd Thompson made the following appointments as Repre-
sentatives of the Board : C. H. Bolender and Charles W. Mathews, both of
NASA Hq.; Joseph F. Shea and G. Fred Kelly, MSC; Rocco Petrone, KSC;
and William D. Baxter, Air Force Eastern Test Range.
"Board Proceedings," pp. 3-16, 3-17.
Apollo 204 Review Board Chairman Floyd L. Thompson established an

Advisory Group to support the Board in its investigation. The group
consisted of representatives, consultants, liaison officers, observers, and
secretariat and would report to the Board Chairman.
Duties were defined as follows:
• Representative: represent a major element of NASA or other

government agency having programs and activities associated with the
Apollo Program.
• Consultant: serve as an adviser to the Review Board by providing
opinions, information, and recommendations, as appropriate, based on his
field of competence.
• Observer: acquire information relative to his area of expertise and
normal responsibility.
• Secretariat: provide administrative, secretarial, clerical, and other
supporting services to the Review Board.
The following were designated to the Advisory Group by Thompson:
Representatives: C. H. Bolender, NASA Hq., representing the Apollo

Program Director; Charles W. Mathews, Director, Apollo Applications
Program, NASA Hq.; Rocco A. Petrone, Director, Launch Operations,
KS(;; Joseph F. Shea, ASPO Manager, MS(I; Lt. Col. William D. Baxter,
USAF, Chief, Range Safety ONce, Air Force Eastern Test Range; G. F.
Kelly, Flight Medicine Branch, Center Medical Office, MSC.
Consultants: Frank A. Long, Vice President for Research and Advanced

Studies, Cornell University; John Yardley, Technical Director, Astronau-
tics Co., Division of McDonnell Co.; George W. Jeffs, Chief Engineer,
Apollo Program, North American Aviation, Inc., or alternate R. L. Benner,
Assistant Chief Engineer, Apollo Program, North American Aviation, Inc.;
Irving Pinkel, Chief, Fluid Systems Research Division, Lewis Research
7O
Center; Thomas G. Horeff, Propulsion Program Manager, Engineering

and Safety Division, Aircraft Development Service, Federal Aviation
Agency; Homer Carhart, Chief, Fuels Branch, Chemistry Division, Naval
Research Laboratory; and John S. Leak, Chief, Technical Services,
Engineering Division, Bureau of Safety, Civil Aeronautics Board.
Liaison Officer: Duncan Collins, Special Adviser, Secretary of the Air Force,
Skylab Program.
Observers: All MSC astronauts; John D. Hodge, MSC; P. A. Butler and W.

Dugan, both USAF, George E. Mueller and Samuel C. Phillips, both NASA
Hq.; Kurt H. Debus, Paul C. Donnelly, John W. King, H. E. McCoy, R. E.
Moser, W. P. Murphy, G. Merritt Preston, J. G. Shinkle, A. F. Siepert, and
W. Williams, all of KSC.
Secretariat: Ernest Swieda, Executive Secretary.

Memo for Record, Floyd L. Thompson, "Establishment of Apollo 204 Review Board Advisory
Group," Feb. 4, 1967.
Maxime Faget, MSC, distributed a draft report on the use of internal and
external power on the command module for the information of the Apollo
204 Review Board.
Scott Simpkinson, MSC, Chairman of the Disassembly Activities Panel,

presented the disassembly schedule. He expected removal of the couches
from command module 012 by 5 a.m., followed by installation of the false
floor by 12 noon on February 5. The false floor had previously been installed
in command module 014 as a training exercise.
Frank Borman, MSC, was granted release of the impounded flight suits of
the backup crew, for egress testing. The Board was to observe the test
February 5.
Lt. Col. William D. Baxter, Air Force Eastern Test Range, reported to the
Apollo 204 Review Board that copies of statements by 90 witnesses of the
January 27 fire had been transcribed. George Jeffs of North American
Aviation announced that an NAA and AiResearch team had arrived to
inspect the 012 command module and to propose further action on the
environmental control unit and system.
Col. Charles F. Strang, USAF, said Board Chairman Floyd Thompson had
asked that the "Life Sciences" portion of the final report include an analysis
of the escape system, with redesign recommendations. The system fell
within the purview of the Ground Emergency Procedures Review Panel, the
In-Flight Fire Emergency Provisions Review Panel, the Design Review
Panel, and the Medical Analysis Panel. G. Fred Kelly, MSC, was asked to
coordinate findings.
71
1967 The Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences met in executive
_bma_ session to hear NASA testimony on the Apollo 204 fire. NASA Deputy
Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., said the cause of the accident had not
7
yet been found. Corrective actions under study included choices of CM cabin
and suit atmospheres, improved accessibility into and out of the CM cabin,
and procedures to minimize the possibility of fires and to extinguish fires if
they should occur.
Charges that the Apollo program was taking chances with lives in the effort
to beat the U.S.S.R. to the moon were "completely unfounded;.., before
every one of our manned flights, as well as our ground test simulations, we
have taken stock to be sure that there is nothing.., undone or... done, that
would in any way increase the risk to the astronauts." The astronauts had
been party to decisions and part of the review process to make sure this was
true. Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller
emphasized that the Apollo program had been "paced at a deliberate pace";
it was the longest research and development program the U.S. had ever
undertaken.
MSC Chief of Center Medical Programs Charles A. Berry testified that the
cabin atmosphere used in the Apollo program--100 percent oxygen at
pressure of 3.5 newtons per square centimeter (5 pounds per square inch)-
was based on extensive research over more than 10 years. The one-gas
selection was based on tradeoffs among oxygen toxicity, hypoxia, spacecraft
leakage, weight, and system reliability. And cabins had been purged with
oxygen at some 10.3 newtons per square centimeter (15 pounds per square
inch) during the prelaunch period for all manned launches since 1960 and
all spacecraft vacuum chamber tests in Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo
programs--primarily to prevent astronauts from getting the bends.
Three previous fires had occurred in the pure oxygen environment, but these
had been in simulators and caused by test equipment and procedures that
would not be used in spacecraft.
The three-door hatch, requiring 90 seconds to open, was used for the first
time on CM 012, which had an inner pressure hull and an outer shell to carry
the structural loads of reentry into the atmosphere on a return from the
moon. Danger of a fast-opening escape hatch's accidentally opening in
space--as the Mercury program's Libery Bell hatch had opened after
splashdown in July 1961--had to be considered. Research on cabin
accessibility, ongoing before the 204 accident, was now intensified.
Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Apollo Accident: Hearing, 90th Cong.,
1st sess., pt. i, Feb. 7, 1967.
Irving Pinkel, of Lewis Research Center and the Fire Propagation Panel,
presented a preliminary report to the Apollo 204 Review Board. The report
described the areas of the command module most damaged by the January
27 fire, the most probable fire paths, and the combustible materials in the
72
CM. The oxygen in the CM would permit burning of only 5.4 to 6.8 1967
kilograms of material. Solid combustibles in the CM included plastics in the February
nylon, polyurethane, and silcone rubber classes. The liquid-coolant
ethylene glycol could also become a fuel if it escaped from the closed coolant
system.
The technical team from AiResearch and North American Aviation (under
NASA supervision) completed inspection of the CM 012 spacecraft
environmental control unit, preparatory to removal.
Panel 21 was formed for service module disposition. It would plan and
execute SM activities and obtain Board approval for demating the command
and service modules.
Floyd L. Thompson, Chairman of the Apollo 204 Review Board, formally

established 21 task panels to support the investigation. He appointed a
Board member as monitor for each panel.
Duties of the panels were to:
• Perform all functions within their respective statements of work as

approved by the appropriate Board monitors.
• Submit work plans through the Panel Coordination Committee to
the Review Board for approval.
• Provide reports to the Review Board, when required, on the progress
of work.
• Work with each other under the guidance of the Panel Coordination
Committee.
Following are the names of the panels and the panel chairman and Board
monitors assigned to each panel.
Apollo 204 Review Board Task Panels

Panel
No. Panel Title Panel Chairman Board Monitor
1 S/C and GSE Configuration J. Goree, MSC J. Williams, KSC

2 Test Environments W. Hoyler, MSC G. White, NASA Hq.
3 Sequence of Events D. Arabian, MSC M. Faget, MSC
4 Disassembly Activities S. Simpkinson, MSC F. Borman, MSC
5 Origin gc Propagation
o[ Fire F. Bailey, MSC R. Van Dolah
6 Historical Data T.J. Adams, MSC G. White, NASA Hq.
7 Test Procedures Review D. Nichols, KSC J. Williams, KSC
8 Materials Review W. Bland, MSC M. Faget, MSC
9 Design Reviews R. Williams, MSC G. White, NASA Hq.
10 Analysis of Fracture
Areas P. Glynn, MSC B. Geer, LaRC
73
11 Medical Analysis G. Kelly, MSC F. Thompson, LaRC

G. Malley, Counsel
February
12 Witness Statements N. Vaughn, MSC G. Strang, USAF
G. Mailey, Counsel
13 Ground Emergency
Provisions G. Page, KSC F. Borman, MSC
14 Security of Operations C. Buckley, KSC C. Strang, USAF
15 Board Administrative
Procedures A. Griffin, KSC B. Geer, LaRC
16 Special Tests G. Stoops, MSC M. Faget, MSC
17 Final Board Report K. Hinchman, USAF C. Strang, USAF
18 Integration Analysis A. Mardel, MSC M. Faget, MSC
19 Safety of Investigation
Operations J. Atkins, KSC B. Geer, LaRC
20 In-flight Fire Emergency
Provisions Review J. Lovell, MSC F. Borman, MSC
21 Service Module
Disposition W. Petynia, MSC J. Williams, KSC
Memo/or Record, Floyd L. Thompson, "Establishment of Apollo 204 Review Board Panels,"
Feb. 7, 1967.
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth asked LaRC Director Floyd Thompson to

conduct a study at Langley to familiarize flight crews with CM active
docking and to explore problems in CM recontact with the LM and also
LM withdrawal. MSC would provide astronaut and pilot-engineer support
for the study. Al_llo Block II missions called for CM active docking with the
LM and withdrawal of the LM from the S-IVB stage, requiring
development of optimum techniques and procedures to ensure crew safety
and to minimize propellant utilization. LM withdrawal was a critical area
because of clearances, marginal flight crew visibility, and mission
constraints. Previous simulations at LaRC indicated the possibility of using
the Rendezvous Docking Simulator.
Ltr., Gilruth to Thompson, Feb. 7, 1967.
MSC ASPO Manager Joseph Shea reviewed with George Jeffs of North
American Aviation a deficiency in the mission control programmer (MCP)
in spacecraft 017. Certain diodes--intended to prevent propagation of a
single-point failure into redundant circuitry--had been omitted from the
flight unit. The diodes appeared on MCP schematics but had been omitted
from the hardware because of problems in ground testing. A fix appeared
mandatory before flight. The MCP unit in spacecraft 020 would be similarly
modified before final integrated tests, to confirm that the design change had
not introduced other problems.
Shea requested a full explanation from North American "as to how the
schematics and/or drawings being used by the responsible design review
engineers did not reflect the as built conditions." A report detailing the loop-
holes in North American procedures that permitted such a condition and
74
PART I" PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT AN'D THE ACCIDENT
the corrective actions taken to prevent such incidents in the future was 1967
requested no later than March 1. February
Memo, Shea to distr., Feb. 8, 1967.
10
William W. Petynia, MSC, was given ASPO responsibility for use of the
spacecraft 012 service module in nonflight support of the Apollo program
when the Apollo 204 Review Board released the SM from further
investigation. It was to be used in subsystem tests or tests of the complete
module.
Memo, Petynia to Assistant Manager, ASPO, and Head, Apollo Support Office,"Disposition of
the SC 012 Service Module," Feb. 10, 1967.
NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., and members of his 10
staff were briefed at KSC on aspects of the Apollo 204 investigation: final
report, fire propagation, photographic control, data integration, and
medical analysis. The group also visited the Pyrotechnic Installation
Building and other areas under the control of the Apollo 204 Review Board.
Board Chairman Floyd Thompson announced that the panel reports would
be signed by the panel chairmen only and that the Board monitors assigned
to the panels would be responsible for ensuring that minority views be given
proper consideration. In the event that serious differences were not resolved,
they were to be included in the panel reports for the Board's consideration.
"Board Proceedings," pp. 3-20, 3-51 through 3-53.
10
The Board of Inquiry into the January 20 S-IVB-503 explosion at the
Douglas Sacramento Test Facility identified the probable cause as the
failure of a pressure vessel made with titanium-alloy parent-metal fusion
welded with commercially pure titanium. The combination, which was in
violation of specifications, formed a titanium hydride intermetallic that
induced embrittling in the weld nugget, thus significantly degrading the
capabilities of a weldment to withstand sustained pressure loads. The Board
recommended pressure limitations for titanium-alloy pressure vessels.
TWX, NASA Hq. to MSC, KSC, and Grumman, Feb. 8, 1967; TWX NASA Hq. to MSF C, MSC,
KSC, "Pressure Limitation on Titanium Alloy Pressure Vessels," Feb. 10, 1967; hr., William
Teir, MSFC, to MSC, Arm: Joseph F. Shea, "Titanium Pressure Vessels," Feb. 10, 1967.
13
Apollo 204 Review Board Chairman Floyd Thompson requested the NASA
Office of Manned Space Flight, MSFC, KSC, and MSC to furnish a detailed
description of their responsibilities, organizational relationships, and
alignment in the Apollo program. Robert W. Van Dolah (Bureau of Mines),
Chairman of the Origin and Propagation of Fire Panel, was asked to
prepare a report on fire propagation by February 15 for submission to NASA
Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
Specially built tables had been placed in the Pyrotechnic Installation

Building to display items from CM 012 for inspection without handling.
75
1967 The Board also decided to ask that special studies of the spacesuits be made
February by the manufacturer and the MSC Crew Systems Division, to provide expert
opinions on possible contributing factors to the fire and information for
future spacesuit design.
14 NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., gave Administrator

James E. Webb a second interim report on the Apollo 204 Review Board
investigation: "At this time there has been no determination as to the source
of the ignition itself," but the fire apparently had varied considerably in
intensity and direction and might have had more than one phase. All three
crew spacesuits had been burned through, although extent of damage
varied. Spacecraft disassembly was proceeding carefully, with detailed
mapping and photography. Webb released the report to the press February
15.
"Board Proceedings," pp. 3-51 through $-55; NASA News Release 67-28, Feb. 15, 1967.
14
Selected Apollo 204 Review Board members and panel chairmen were
instructed to prepare an interim report on actions to date. The Board was to
review the report February 19 for a briefing of NASA Deputy Administrator
Seamans on February 22. Robert W. Van Dolah presented a report on
findings by the Origin and Propagation of Fire Panel, for submission to
Seamans.
Command module 012 was scheduled for removal from its launch vehicle
February 17 because of satisfactory progress in removing systems from it.
1S The Apollo 204 Review Board received a detailed briefing on the anomalies
recorded before and during the CM 012 fire. The following anomalies were
transmitted by the command module telemetry system to several recording
stations: ( l ) communication difficulties, (2) high flow rate in oxygen system,
(3) disruption of alternating current, (4) telemetry readings from a
disconnected gas chromatograph connector, and (5) change in the gimbal
angle of the inertial measurement unit, which might indicate movement in
the command module. The Board asked additional testing and analysis.
16 NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., informed Associate

Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller that, in view of
the interim nature of schedule outlook for manned uprated Saturn I and
Saturn V missions, he had decided to show these missions as "Under Study"
in the Official NASA Flight Schedule for February 1967. As soon as finn
approved dates for the missions were available the schedule would be
updated. He said that all participants in the Apollo program should be
advised that--except for unmanned missions 206, 501, and 502--official
76
1967
agency schedule commitments had not been made and certainly could not be
quoted until management assessments of the program had been completed February
and schedules approved by the Office of the Administrator.

Memo, Seamans to Mueller, "Official NASA Apollo Schedules for Manned Missions," Feb. 16,
1967.
17
The Apollo 204 Review Board classified the materials in and around
spacecraft 012 into three categories. Categories A and B were materials that
had significant bearing on the results of the findings or were considered
relevant to the investigation. Category C was essentially material not
involved in the event, or only affected as a consequence of the event. Most of
the Category C material would, at the time of its designation, be released to
the program office for disposition and use within what might be termed
normal program channels.
Memo, Joseph F. Shea, MSC, to distr., "Policy with respect to the use of material released from
Apollo 204 Review Board jurisdiction," Feb. 16, 1967.
17
Command module 012 was separated from the service module and moved to
the Pyrotechnic Installation Building for further disassembly and investiga-
tion.
2O
The Apollo 204 Review Board approved a plan to remove the spacecraft 012
service module from the launch vehicle on February 21. The service module
was to be taken to the Manned Spacecraft Operations Building at KSC for
detailed examination and testing. Board Chairman Floyd Thompson
directed that a plan be developed to release Launch Complex 34 from
impoundage and to return it to KSC for normal use after the SM was
removed. Preparations were being made to remove the aft heatshield from
the command module to permit inspection of the CM floor from the lower
side.
2O
Kenneth S. Kleinknecht was designated Chairman of the CSM Configura-
tion Control Panel in the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, MSC. He
would have authority to approve CSM changes within the limits outlined in
the ASPO Configuration Management Plan.
Memo, Manager, ASPO, to distr., "CSM Configuration Control Panel Chairman," Feb. 20,
1967.
21
Apollo program officials were briefed on significant information, tentative
findings, and preliminary recommendations developed by the Apollo 204
Review Board. Those present included George E. Mueller, Samuel C.
Phillips, C. H. Bolender, Frank A. Bogart, and Julian B. Bowman, all of
NASA Hq.; Robert R. Gilruth, George M. Low, and Christopher C. Kraft,
Jr., all of MSC; Kurt H. Debus, KSC; and Wernher von Braun, MSFC.
77
1967 Ashmun Brown, Office of Chief Counsel, KSC, was assigned to assist the
February counsel to the Board.
22
A formal briefing on progress of the Apollo 204 Review Board was presented
to NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., David Williamson
of Seamans' staff, and Charles A. Berry, Joseph F. Shea, Donald K. Slayton,
and Walter M. Schirra, Jr., all of MSC.
In a general session of the Board, Chairman Floyd Thompson stated that

1500 persons were giving direct support to the accident investigation. This
number, considered to be conservative, consisted of 600 persons from NASA,
Air Force, Navy, Department of the Interior and other government agencies,
and 900 from industry and universities.
23
Apollo Program officials, headed by NASA Associate Administrator for
Manned Space Flight Mueller, briefed Deputy Administrator Seamans,
Apollo 204 Review Board members, and those present at the February 22
briefing. The presentation included a status report on the Apollo program,
on special tests being conducted and planned as a result of the January 27
fire, and on proposed actions on the tentative Review Board findings.
Board Chairman Floyd Thompson, LaRC; Robert Van Dolah, Bureau of

Mines; and Frank Borman, MSC, accompanied Seamans to Washington the
following day, to brief Administrator James E. Webb on the tentative
findings and preliminary recommendations of the Board (see February 25).
The spacecraft-lunar module adapter (SLA) was removed from the launch
vehicle and moved to the Manned Spacecraft Operations Building for
examination.
"Board Proceedings," pp. 3-24, 3-25, 3-55 through 3-59.
23
William A. Lee was redesignated from Assistant Program Manager, Apollo
Spacecraft Program Office, to Manager for the LM, ASPO, at MSC. Lee
would be responsible for the management of the lunar module program,
including MSC relations with Grumman and other supporting industrial
concerns. Lee would report to ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea and would
assist him in the following areas:
1. Directing the design, development, and fabrication program

contracted by NASA with Grumman.
2. Directing and planning detailed system engineering and system
integration functions for the project, including review of engineering
design work and system engineering studies by the contractor.
3. Development of the program of ground and flight tests at White
Sands Missile Range, MSC, and KSC.
78
4. Monitoring contractors' operations to ensure adherence to specifica- 1967

tions, to identify and solve problems which might impede the development February
of systems or subsystems.
5. Directing subordinate functional chiefs on all vehicle problems in
the project and resolving or securing resolution of major technical, flight,
and program problems.
6. Chairing the Change Control Panel for LM.
Manned Spacecraft Center Announcement, 67-34, "Manager for Lunar Module Apollo
Spacecraft Program Office," Feb. 23, 1967.
25
NASA Administrator James E. Webb released a statement and Deputy
Administrator Robert C. Seamans' third interim report on the Apollo 204
Review Board investigation, including tentative findings and preliminary
recommendations.
Webb said the risk of fire in the 012 command module had been greater than
recognized when procedures were established for the January 27 manned test
that had ended in a fatal flash fire. Successful Mercury and Gemini flight
experience with pure oxygen atmospheres and the difficulty of keeping
dropped items out of complex wiring and equipment had led to placing
Velcro pads, covers over wire bundles, and nylon netting in the CM cabin.
Although mostly of low combustion material, they were not arranged to
provide barriers to the spread of fire. Soldered joints also had melted, and
leaked oxygen and fluids had contributed to the fire. The capsule rupture
caused flames to rush over and around astronaut couches to the break,
preventing the crew from opening the hatch. And the environmental
control unit would require careful examination and possible redesign.
Seamans reported an electrical malfunction was the most likely source of

ignition of the fire, which apparently had three distinct phases. Principal
preliminary recommendations of the Review Board were:
• Combustible material in the CM should be replaced whenever

possible by nonflammable materials, all nonmetallic materials should be
arranged to maintain fire breaks, oxygen or combustible liquid systems
should be made fire resistant, and full flammability tests should be
conducted with a mockup of each new configuration.
• A more rapidly and more easily operated CM hatch should be
designed.
• On-the-pad emergency procedures should be revised to recognize the
possibility of cabin fire.
The Board also suggested some subsystems and procedures could be

improved for safety. It did not recommend that cabin atmosphere for
operations in space be changed from pure oxygen at pressure of 3.5 newtons
per square centimeter (5 pounds per square inch), but did recommend that
tradeoffs between one-gas and two-gas atmospheres be reevaluated and that
pressurized oxygen no longer be used in prelaunch operations.
"Board Proceedings," pp. 3-55 through 3-59; NASA News Release 67-38, Feb. 25, 1967.
79
1967 NASA officials testified in an open hearing of the Senate Committee on

February Aeronautical and Space Sciences on the Apollo 204 fire. MSC Chief of Center
Medical Programs Charles A. Berry reported that the cause of the three
27
astronauts' deaths could be refined to asphyxiation from inhalation of
carbon monoxide, bringing unconsciousness in seconds and death rapidly
thereafter. The astronauts were believed to have become unconscious 18 to
20 seconds after the fire began.
Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller said

NASA was introducing a three-pronged effort to prevent fire in the future : it
would continue to minimize the possibility of ignition but would recognize
the possibility would always exist, would seek to eliminate the chance of
propagation if a fire began, and would seek to minimize consequences of a
fire to the crew. Newly developed nonflammable materials would be used
wherever possible and would be arranged to maintain fire breaks. Systems
would be made more fire- and heat-resistant. The new CM cabin would be
verified by full boilerplate flame tests. Design work was under way on a new
unified hatch--a single integrated hatch to replace the double hatch and
permit emergency exit in two seconds, yet remain safely sealed in flight.
Emergency procedures were being revised. Spacecraft system design and
qualification were being thoroughly reviewed. Alternative cabin atmos-
pheres for checkout and launch were being studied, but during flight itself
pure oxygen at 3.5-newtons-per-square-centimeter (5-pounds-per-square-
inch) pressure still appeared safest for crews, with best balance among fire
hazard, system reliability, and physiological risks.
First Apollo Block II spacecraft--CSM 101, the next in line at North

American Aviation--was to incorporate all changes determined necessary
by the investigation.
Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Apollo Accident: Hearings, 90th
Cong., 1st sess., pt. 2, Feb. 27, 1967.
March
Apollo 204 Review Board Chairman Floyd Thompson announced that the
1 NASA Deputy Administrator had signed a memorandum February 27
designating the Director, Langley Research Center, custodian of the Review
Board material.
Maxime Faget, MSC, presented a plan for screening equipment removed

from the CM. The plan was intended to reduce the effort and time required
to investigate and analyze the equipment. The Board agreed that the Panel
Coordination Committee would establish an ad hoc committee to perform
the screening.
MSC ASPO reported to NASA Hq. that, because of many wiring

discrepancies found in Apollo spacecraft 017, a more thorough inspection
was required, with 12 main display control panels to be removed and wiring
8O
1967
visually inspected for cuts, chafing, improper crimping, etc. The
inspection, to begin March 2, was expected to take three or four days. March
The two crates containing the mission control programmer (MCP) for CSM
017 had been delivered to Orlando, Fla., February 26 with extensive damage.
Damage indicated that one crate might have been dropped upside down; its
internal suspension system was designed for right-side-up shock absorp-
tion. The second crate contained holes that might have been caused by a fork
lift. The MCP was returned to Autonetics Division of North American
Aviation for inspection; barring dynamic programmer problems, the
equipment was expected to be returned to KSC by March 7. The crates bore
no markings such as "This Side Up" or "Handle with Care."
Ltr., Assistant Manager, ASPO to NASA Hq., Arm: Samuel C. Phillips, "ASPO Weekly Project
Status Report to MSF," March 2, 1967.
The Apollo 204 Review Board decided to classify all material from
command module 012 as Category A or Category B items. Category A would
include all items that were damaged or identified as suspect or associated
with anomalies. Category B would include items that appeared to be
absolved of association with the January 27 accident; these would be
available to the Apollo Program Office for use in nondestructive tests, but
the Board would require copies of all test reports. Frank Borman, MSC,
announced that disassembly of the command module was scheduled for
completion by March 10.
Although the final recommendations of the Apollo 204 Review Board were
not yet in hand, MSC Deputy Director George M. Low believed the program
"should start preparing a set of criteria which must be followed before we
can resume testing in an oxygen environlnent. These criteria can then be
used either to allow us to sign waivers on our testing embargo, or to go
forward with additional messages, permitting testing, provided our criteria
are met." He said the criteria would probably differ for: (1) spacesuit testing,
(2) testing in oxygen chambers, and (3) testing within spacecraft. "They
would probably include such things as the exact environment within and
outside the exclosure; the type of flammable material; safety precautions
and procedures; and emergency procedures."
Memo, Low, MSC, to A. C. Bond, MSC, "Resumption of testing in an oxygen environment,"
March 6, 1967.
During a House Committee on Science and Astronautics hearing on

NASA's FY 1968 authorization, NASA Administrator James E. Webb
replied to questions by Congressmen John W. Wydler, Edward J.Gurney,
and Emilio Q. Daddario about the impact of the Apollo 204 accident on
schedules for accomplishing the lunar landing. Webb said:
81
1967 "As the man asked by President Kennedy and later by President Johnson to
March take the responsibility for this program, I have provided to you information
showing the need for the 12 Saturn 1-B's and the 15 Saturn V vehicles, and
have stated that if we could get the kind of developed performance out of
these vehicles on the early flights that would give us confidence that we could
turn some of the earlier flights loose to go to the Moon, we might do this
earlier than later.
"I have stated that if it took all 15 Saturn V's to complete the mission, it
would not be done in this decade.
"Now the charts that you have seen this morning show that we are going to
exercise the Apollo Command Module, the Service Module, and the Lunar
Excursion Module around the Earth with the Saturn I-B vehicle, and that
we will be doing this in this year and next year.
"It also shows that if we can fully test out and be very sure of the performance
of the Saturn V vehicle with all of the equipment that is riding on it, we
would put men into the third or more likely the fourth vehicle. Now that
vehicle will have on it everything necessary to go to the Moon. But I cannot
tell you today that it will be turned loose to the Moon even if everything on it
is perfect, because my judgment as Administrator is that we are going to
exercise this equipment around the Earth more than that before we start for
the Moon.
"On the other hand, if everything is working perfectly, it would be logical to

start; whether we get halfway and come back, I don't know. But many
people who are very optimistic have assumed that because you plan now
before any large rocket has ever flown to put all the equipment on the
fourth flight that you are going to completely succeed and therefore you will
in fact turn that loose to the Moon next year.
"I do not believe so, and have so stated time and time again, publicly and to
this committee.
"I would like to say one other thing. In order to mobilize this effort to make
everything fit together, we have prepared schedules that have target dates on
them, and the target date for flying the fourth Saturn V has been in the
summer or early fall of 1968. So many people have said, 'What is the earliest
time you could go, isn't that really your target?' Well, obviously we want to
go as soon as we can, and obviously if everything worked perfectly, this
vehicle would be fully equipped to go. But my own judgment is that if we
get this done by the end of 1969, we will be very, very fortunate; that the
chance that we will do so, the odds that we will do so, the possibility of doing
all the work necessary is less this year than it was last. And I testified at this
table last year that it was less at that time than it had been the previous year.
So we have had in my judgment some accumulation of difficulties which
make the problem of doing it in this decade more difficult. But it is still not
82
out of the picture, and shall I say, not impossible, although almost 1967
impossible to think of a 1968 date." March
House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1968 NASA Authorizatmn: Hearings, pt. 1,
90th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 28, March 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 1967, pp. 186-87.
The aft heatshield was removed from CM 012. A close inspection disclosed
that the rupture in the floor extended about two-thirds of the circumference,
a rupture much greater than originally estimated.
Maxime A. Faget, MSC, presented the Apollo 204 Review Board a follow-up
report on analysis of the arc indication on the lower-equipment-bay
junction-box cover plate. The plate had been delivered to the KSC Material
Analysis Laboratory and, in addition to the analysis of the arc indication,
molten material found on the bottom of the plate would also be analyzed.

stated that the February completion of MSFC studies of the Saturn V launch
vehicle's payload and structural capability would permit an official revision
of the payload from 43 100 kilograms to 44 500 kilograms; the CM weight
would be revised from 5000 to 5400 kilograms; and the LM from 13 600 to
14 500.
Memo, Mueller to Seamans, "Weights of Major Apollo Flight Systems for Official Quotation,"
March 8, 1967.
10
J. Thomas Markley, Assistant Manager of ASPO, pointed out that within a
few weeks MSC would face sustaining engineering problems. Many
subcontractors not affected by the January 27 Apollo 204 accident would be
phasing out of work; also many of them would be out of business long
before the major flight program would start. He asked, "How do we now
retain that talent for some necessary period of time?" He requested that
Systems Engineering define requirements for retaining the technical
capability for the overall systems, as well as the unique subsystem capability
potentials that might need to be retained. He requested the package be
prepared for his review by April 3.
Memo, Markley to John B. Lee, R. W. Williams, and J. G. McClintock (all of MSC),
"Sustaining Engineering," March 10, 1967.
13
The Apollo 204 Review Board met with chairmen of Panels 12, 16, 19, and 20
(see February 7 and following entries) for critical review of their draft final
reports. The reports were accepted subject to editorial corrections. The
Witness Statements Panel (Panel 12) task had been to collect all data from
witnesses of the 204 accident, including both eyewitnesses and console
monitors, and to prepare the data for publication as appendix to the formal
83
report. The panel also was to analyze the sequence of events and summarize
any testimony that was contradictory to the main data.
Eyewitnesses and television and audio monitors from 18 agencies and

contractors had been queried. Responses from 590 persons totaled 572
written and 40 recorded statements--adding up to 612 statements obtained
(some persons submitted more than one statement or were interviewed
twice).
The sequence of events, as reconstructed from witness statements, follows:
Between 6:31:00 and

6:31:15 p.m. EST Jan. 27, 1967
Witnesses in launch vehicle Felt two definite rocking or shaking

aft interstage, Level A-2: movements of vehicle before "Fire"
report. Unlike vibrations experienced
in past from wind, engine gimbal-
ing, or equipment input.
Witnesses on Levels Heard "Fire" or "Fire in Cockpit"

A-7 and A-8: transmissions. Heard muflied explo-
sion, then two loud whooshes of
escaping gas (or explosive releases).
Observed flames jet from around edge
of command module and under
White Room.
TV monitors: Heard "Fire" or "Fire in Cockpit"

transmissions. Observed astronaut
helmet, back, and arm movements;
increase of light in spacecraft win-
dow; and tonguelike flame pattern
within spacecraft. Observed flame
progressing from lower left corner of
window to upper right; then spread-
ing flame filled window, burning
around hatch openings, lower por-
tion of command module, and cables..
Between 6:31:15 and

6:33 p.m. EST
Witnesses on Levels Repeated attempts to penetrate

A-7 and A-8: White Room for egress acdon.
Fought fires on CM, SM, and in White
Room area.
TV monitors : Observed smoke and fire on Level A-

8. Progressive reduction of visibility
84
of spacecraft hatch on TV monitor 1967

because of increasing smoke. Ma_h
Between 6:33 and Repeated attempts to remove hatch

6:37 p.m. EST and reach crew. Spacecraft boost
protective cover removed by North
American personnel J. D. Gleaves and
D. O. Babbitt. Spacecraft outer hatch
removed by North American person-
nel J. W. Hawkins, L. D. Reece, and S.
B. Clemmons. Spacecraft inner hatch
opened and pushed down inside by
Hawkins, Reece, and Clemmons,
approximately 6:36:30 p.m. EST. No
visual inspection of spacecraft inte-
rior possible because of heat and
smoke. No signs of life.
Between 6:37 and Remains of fires extinguished. Fire

6:45 p.m. EST and medical support arrived. Fireman
J. A. Burch, Jr., and North American
technician W. M. Medcalf removed
spacecraft inner hatch from space-
craft. Examination of crew and
verification of condition.
Between 6:45 p.m. EST Jan. 27 Service structure cleared. Photo-

and 2:00 a.m. EST ]an. 28 graphs taken. Crew removed. Com-
plex and area under secure condi-
tions. Personnel from Washington
and Houston arrived and assumed
control.
In its final report to the Review Board the panel indicated it believed that all
persons with pertinent information regarding the accident had been
queried.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panels 12 thru 17,"Report o/Apollo 204 Review Board
to the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, April 5, 1967, pp. 3-28,
5-29, and D-12-3 through D-12-12.
13
The report of the Apollo 204 Review Board's In-flight Fire Emergency
Provisions Review Panel (No. 20) listed seven findings and accompanying
determinations. The panel had been charged with reviewing the adequacy
of planned inflight fire emergency procedures and other provisions, as well
as determining that emergency procedures existed for all appropriate
activities. Among findings and determinations were:
85
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT' A CHRONOLOGY
1967 • Finding--An inflight fire procedure was published and available to

March the Apollo 204 crew. The procedure was analyzed with reference to the
Apollo 204 CM 012 configuration.
• Determination--Existing inflight fire procedures were deficient in
the following areas:
(a) Turning off the cabin fans should be the first item of the procedural
check list. This might help prevent the spread of fire by minimizing cabin
air currents.
(b) The procedure should have specified the length of time to keep the
cabin depressurized to ensure the fire had been extinguished and that all
materials had cooled to below their ignition temperature.
• Finding--The command module depressurization time to drop from

3.5 to 0.4 newtons per square centimeter (from 5 to 0.5 pounds per square
inch) could vary from 1 minute 45 seconds to 3 minutes 20 seconds,
according to the flight-phase ambient temperature.
• Determination--The depressurization time was too slow to combat a
cabin fire effectively
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panels 19 fln-u 21 ," Report of Apollo 204 Re,dew Board,
pp. 3-29 and D-20-3 through D-20-9.
13
The Special Tests Panel (No. 16) report to the Apollo 204 Review Board
summarized activities from January 31 to February 23, when it had been
merged with Panel 18. Panel 16 had been established to coordinate tests by
other groups into an overall coordinated test plan. For example,
flammability would be tested at several locations and the panel would
ensure coordination. Major tests such as mockups of actual configurations
and boilerplate destructive combustion tests would be considered by the
panel. (See March 31 for Panel 18 report).
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panels 12 thru 17," Report of Apollo 204 Review Board,
pp. 3-29 and D-16-3.
14
The Service Module Disposition Panel (No. 21) report accepted by the
Apollo 204 Review Board said test results had failed to show any SM
anomalies due to SM systems and there was no indication that SM systems
were responsible for initiating the January 27 fire.
Panel 21 had been charged with planning and executing SM activities in the
Apollo 204 investigation, beginning at the time the Board approved the
command module demate. The task was carried out chiefly by Al_)llo line
organizational elements in accordance with a plan approved by the Board
and identifying documentation and control requirements.
The panel's major activities had been:
• Demating the service module and service module-lunar module

adapter from the launch vehicle and moving them to the Manned Spacecraft
Operations Building.
86
• Inspecting the exterior and interior areas of the service module. 1967
• Making detailed system tests of all service module systems that were March
mechanically or electrically connected to the command module at the time
of the accident.
"Board Proceedings," and Append. D, "Panels 19 thru 21," Report of Apollo 204 Review
Board, pp. 3-29 and D-21-3 through D-21-6.
14
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips appointed a team to make a
special audit of quality control and inspection. The audit would encompass
Apollo spacecraft operations at Downey, Calif., KSC, and elsewhere as
required and would consider both contractor and government activities to
determine if problems or deficiencies existed and recommend corrective
action. The team was to use to the maximum extent the results of quality
and inspection audit activities already under way at MSC and KSC.
Specifically, the team was to (1) review inspection standards for compatibil-
ity with Apollo program requirements, the degree to which these standards
had been reduced to effective instructions and criteria for use by individual
inspectors, and consistency between sites; (2) evaluate at each activity the
program for selection, training, and evaluation of quality control and
inspection personnel; (3) evaluate the adequacy of follow-up, closeout
action and treatment by management of reported discrepancies in quality
reports, failure reports, and program action requests; (4) evaluate the
effectiveness of materials and parts control in ensuring that all materials and
parts in end items as well as those used in processing and testing were in
accordance with drawings and specifications; and (5) evaluate methods used
to ensure quality of product from vendors and subcontractors.
Phillips named Rod Middleton of NASA OMSF to chair the team. Other
members were Willis J. Willoughby, OMSF; Martin L. Raines, White Sands
Test Facility; John Berkebile, MSFC; John D. Dickenson, KSC; and Jeff
Adams and Robert Blount, MSC. Phillips requested a report by March 31.
TWX, NASA Hq. to MSC, MSFC, KSC, and White Sands Test Facility, March 14, 1967.
15
CSM 017 was in hold because of numerous discrepancies found in the
spacecraft (see also March 2). Of 1368 "squawks" concerning exposed
wiring, 482 had been resolved by March 14. Spacecraft mechanical mating
with the launch vehicle was projected for April 29 (but see also April 10 and
June 20).
Ltr., Assistant Manager, ASPO, MSC, to NASA Hq., Atm: Samuel C. Phillips, "Weekly Project
Status Report to MSF," March 15, 1967.
15
MSC informed Kennedy Space Center that, on release of the 012 service
module from further investigation, the MSC Apollo Spacecraft Program
Office would use it for program support. ASPO was establishing tests and
87
1967 test locations and asked KSC to deactivate SM systems and store the SM in a
March remote area for up to four weeks.
TWX, J. Thomas Markley, Assistant Manager ASPO, MSC, to Eugene McCoy, KSC, Marth 15,
1967.
15 MSC Director of Flight Crew Operations Donald K. Slayton requested that a

rendezvous of the CSM with its launch vehicle S-IVB stage be a primary
objective of the Apollo 2 mission [i.e., Apollo 7; Slayton apparently wanted
to acknowledge only scheduled manned flights in the sequentially
numbered Apollo missions]. He stated that the exercise could be conducted
after the third darkness without interference with normal spacecraft
checkout. "We believe a rendezvous with the booster on the first manned
Apollo mission would be compatible with developing lunar mission
capability at the earliest opportunity and request its incorporation into the
primary mission objective." A memorandum from Flight Operations
Director Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., on April 18 recognized "the need for CSM
active rendezvous early in the Apollo flight program, but recommends that
rendezvous not be considered during the first day of the Apollo 7 [the official
flight designation for the first manned flight] mission .... "and presented
four reasons : ( 1) the initial manned flight should concentrate on systems, (2)
there was a reasonable probability that system problems or other unknowns
would cause cancellation of rendezvous activity, (3) the early part of a first-
of-a-kind mission was open-ended, and (4) crew and flight control
experience was limited in updating and preparing for contingency deorbit,
which would be further complicated by maneuvering effects on the orbit.
The Flight Operations Directorate recommended "that any rendezvous
activity be scheduled after a minimum of one day of orbital flight, and that it
be limited to a simple equiperiod exercise with a target carried into orbit by
the spacecraft."
Memos, Director of Flight Crew Operations to Manager, ASPO, "Rendezvous exercise for the
Apollo 2 Mission," March 15, 1967; Director of Flight Operations to Manager, ASP(), and
Director of Flight Crew Operations, "Proposed rendezvous exercise for the At_llo 7 mission,"
April 18, 1967.
16
LeRoy E. Day, NASA OMSF, suggested to Apollo Program Director Samuel
C. Phillips that, "if we are going to achieve a tight schedule of redesign and
test activity as a result of AS-204 [accident], a number of changes in our
mode of operation may be necessary." He recommended a concerted effort to
systematize and discipline the scheduled reporting system between OMSF,
ASPO, and the contractor. Day further suggested monthly "Black Saturday
Reviews" by ASPO with OMSF participation. The reviews would be
detailed and cover all spacecraft activities and should be given against the
same set of baselines as all program reviews. Slips against such schedules
would have to be thoroughly reviewed and a recovery plan developed.
Note, Day to Phillips, "Spacecraft redesign/test activity," March 16, 1967.
88
1967
The Apollo 204 Review Board accepted the final report of its Administrative
Procedures Panel (No. 15). The panel had been established February 7 to March
establish and document such activities as control of spacecraft work,

16
logging and filing exhibits, logging Board activities, scheduling meetings,
preparing agendas, and arranging for secretarial services and reproduction.
During the investigation into the January 27 spacecraft fire, the panel had:
• Issued 25 Board administrative procedures.

• Established the administrative and Secretarial Support Office, which
had provided support in two shifts seven days a week, unless otherwise
required, with some additional third-shift support.
• Established the Photographic Data Control Center to correlate and
distribute photographs and maintain a film library.
• Processed letters, telegrams, and telephone messages received
offering assistance, recommendations, and comments.
• Periodically issued approved schedules of work.
• Established the Audio Magnetic Tape Library to control 0.64-
centimeter voice-transmission tape recordings about spacecraft 012 during
the Space Vehicle Plugs-Out Integrated Test.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D. "Panels 12 thru 17," Report of Apollo 204 Review
18
The Apollo 204 Review Board accepted the final report of the Fracture Areas
Panel (No. 10). The panel had been charged with inspecting spacecraft 012
for structural failures in the January 27 fire and analyzing them from the
standpoint of local pressure, temperature levels, direction of gas flow, etc.
The panel inspected the spacecraft structures while they were still at Launch
Complex 34 and continued through removal of the CM heatshield.
Structural damage reports were made coinciding with spacecraft disassem-
bly phases. As major subsystems were removed from the spacecraft they were
visually inspected. Buckles, fractures, cracks, melted areas, localized arcing
or pitting in metal components, and obvious direct wire shorts were noted
and documented.
Panel findings and determinations included:
Finding--Spacecraft data during the Plugs-Out Test gave indications

from which a spacecraft pressure history could be estimated.
Deterrnination--(a) The CM cabin structure had ruptured at 6:31:19.4
(±0.1) p.m. EST January 27 at an estimated minimum cabin pressure of 20
newtons per sq cm (29 psia).
(b) The CM cabin structure had sustained cabin pressure in excess of its
designed ultimate pressure of 8.9 newtons-per-sq-cm (12.9-psi) differential
(19 newtons per sq cm; 27.6 psia). Cabin pressure at rupture probably
reached 20 to 26 newtons per sq cm (29 to 37.7 psia).
(c) The estimated average gas temperature at rupture exceeded 644
kelvins (700°F).
89
1967
Finding--The CM cabin ruptured in the aft bulkhead adjacent to its
March juncture with the aft sidewall.
Determination--The failure occurred because of excessive meridional
tensile stress in the inner face sheet at the junction of the weld land to the
thinner face sheet. The fracture originated on the right-hand side of the
command module.
FindingIThe CM cabin structure was penetrated in the aft bulkhead

beneath the environmental control unit and the aft sidewall.
Determination--(a) The loss of structural integrity at these penetra-
tions occurred after the primary rupture.
(b) Failure of the water glycol and oxygen lines near the environmental
control unit resulted in local burning and melting of the adjacent structure.
Finding--The aft heatshield stainless-steel face sheets were melted and

eroded.
Determination--The temperature of the flame and gas exiting from
the fracture origin exceeded 1640 K (2500°F).
"Board Plo¢ eedings" and Append. D, "Panels 6 thru Ill," Report oJApollo Review Board, pp.
3-30 and D-10-3 through D-10-7.
18-19
The final report of the Spacecraft and Ground Support Equipment
Configuration Panel (No. 1) was accepted by the Apollo 204 Review Board.
The panel had been assigned the task of documenting the physical
configuration of the spacecraft and ground support equipment immediate-
ly before and during the January 27 fire, including equipment, switch
position, and nonflight items in the cockpit. The panel was also to
document differences from the expected launch configuration and
configurations used in previous testing (such as altitude-chamber testing).
During the investigation the panel had discovered a number of items which
might have had relevance to flame propagation:
• An engineering order, released at North American Aviation's

Downey facility on January 20, provided direction to inspect the
polyurethane foam in specified areas and coat the silicone rubber to meet
flammability requirements. The direction was not recorded in the
configuration verification record as of the start of the Space Vehicle Plugs-
Out Integrated Test and was not accomplished on spacecraft 012. This item
was considered as possibly significant in terms of fuel for the fire and a
medium for flame propagation.
• Polyethylene bags covered the hose fitting for the drinking water
dispenser and the battery-instrumentation cable and connectors and
transducer, which were placed on the aft bulkhead near the batteries. The
bags were made of nonflight materials.
• Two polyurethane pads, covered with Velostat, were stowed over
couch struts. The pads were placed in the spacecraft to protect the struts,
wiring, and aft bulkhead during the planned emergency egress at the end of
9O
the test. These items were of nonflight material and were not documented by 1967
quality inspection records. March
• Three packages of switching checklists from the Operational

Checkout Procedure and one package of system malfunction procedures, in
a manila folder, were stowed on the crew couches and on a shelf. These items
were on unqualified paper and, while required for the test, they were not
documented by quality inspection records.
• Nylon protective sleeves were covering all three crewmen's oxygen
umbilicals. These sleeves were nonflight items.
• Three ground-support-equipment window covers had been tempo-
rarily installed to protect the windows and were nonflight items in the
spacecraft at the time of the accident. Another such cover for the side hatch
window was removed by the crew and stowed inside the command module.
These covers were of nylon fabric; flight covers were made of aluminized
Mylar.
• Velcro pile had been installed to protect the Velcro hood on the
command module floor. It would have been removed before the flight.
• "Remove before flight" streamers installed in the command module
interior were additional nonflight items.
• Polyethylene zipper tubing, installed to protect hand controller
cables, was a nonflight item and was additional material in the command
module.
The panel's summary of findings and determinations included:
Finding--Eighty engineering orders effective for spacecraft 012 had not

been carried out at the time of the accident. Of these, twenty were specified to
be completed after the test; four did not affect configuration.
Determination--Test requirements had no defined relationships with
the open status of 56 engineering orders. The reason not all work items and
engineering orders were closed was late receipt of changes or further work
scheduled to be completed before launch.
Finding--Items not documented by quality inspection records had

been placed on board the spacecraft during preparation for the Space
Vehicle Plugs-Out Integrated Test.
Determination--Procedures for controlling entry of items into the
spacecraft were not strictly enforced.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panels 1 thru 4," Report oJ Apollo 204 Re_,iew Board,
pp_ 3-30 and D-I-5 through D-l-19.
18-19
The Apollo 204 Review Board accepted the final report of the Security
Operations Panel (No. 14). The panel had been assigned to review existing
security practices at KSC and supporting areas for adequacy and
recommend any needed changes. Practices included access control,
personnel sign-in requirements, buddy systems, and background investiga-
tion requirements.
91
1N7 The panel's report submitted six findings and determinations, which
March included:
Finding--KSC security personnel or uniformed security personnel had

been assigned to all locations requiring safeguarding measures, including
launch vehicle stages and spacecraft from the time of arrival at KSC until the
time of the January 27 accident.
Determination--The number of KSC and uniformed security person-
nel members used was adequate.
Finding--The Apollo Preflight Operations Procedures--dated Octo-

ber 17, 1966, and January 24, 1967--for access control of test and work areas,
required that ( 1) access controls to spacecraft work areas be exercised by the
contractor; (2) the contractor maintain a log of all personnel permitted
access during off-shift and nonwork periods; and (3) the contractor control
and log command module ingress and egress.
Determination--The procedures established in the Apollo Preflight
Operations Procedures were not followed for spacecraft 012 in that (1) the
contractor failed to exercise adequate access controls on the fifth, sixth, and
seventh spacecraft levels; (2) the contractor failed to maintain an off-shift
log; and (3) the command module ingress-egress log was inadequately
maintained.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panels 12 thru 17," Report of Apollo 204 Re_)tew Board,
18-20
The Apollo 204 Review Board accepted the final report of its Origin and
Propagation of Fire Panel (No. 5). The panel task had been to "conduct
inspections, chemical analyses [and] spectrographic analysis of spacecraft,
parts or rubble, or use any other useful techniques to establish point of [the
CM 012] fire origin, direction and rate of propagation, temperature
gradients and extremes. The nature of the fire, the type of materials
consumed, the degree of combustion shall be determined."
Following an intensive study--which considered ignition sources, descrip-

tion, and course of the fire--the panel listed 10 findings and determinations
in its final report, including:
Finding--Severe damage to wiring was found at the bottom of the

lower equipment bay along the aft bulkhead. Evidence of arcing was found
and damage was less severe in the right-hand direction of this bay.
Determination--Electrical arcing in the extreme lower left-hand corner
of this bay could have provided a primary ignition source.
Finding--Right-hand portions of the left-hand equipment bay were

severely damaged. Wiring, tubing, and components in the carbon dioxide
absorber compartment and oxygen/water panel compartment were burned
and melted. Penetrations in the aft bulkhead and pressure vessel wall were
observed. The carbon dioxide absorber compartment showed heavy fire
92
1967
damage; failure was due to pressure overload and melting caused by the fire
in this area. March
Determination--Electrical arcing in the right-hand portion of this bay
could have provided a primary ignition source.
Finding--Evidence of electrical arcs from conductor to conductor and
from conductor to structure were found.
Determination--No arc could be positively identified as the unique
ignition source. Three were found that had all the elements needed to cause
the disaster. Two of these showed evidence of poor engineering and
installation.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panel 5," Report olApollo 204 Review Board, pp. 3-30
and D-5-3 through D-5-15.
19
The final report of the Ground Emergency Provisions Panel (Panel 13)
accepted by the Apollo 204 Review Board submitted 14 findings and
determinations. The panel had been charged with reviewing the adequacy
of planned ground procedures for the January 27 spacecraft 012 manned
test, as well as determining whether emergency procedures existed for all
appropriate activities. The review was to concentrate on activity at the
launch site and to include recommendations for changes or new emergency
procedures if deemed necessary.
The panel approached its task in two phases. First, it reviewed the
emergency provisions at the time of the CM 012 accident, investigating(l)
the procedures in published documents, (2) the emergency equipment
inside and outside the spacecraft, and (3) the emergency training of the flight
crew and checkout test team. Second, the panel reviewed the methods used to
identify hazards and ensure adequate documentation of safety procedures
and applicable emergency instructions in the operational test procedures.
Findings and determinations included:
Finding--The applicable test documents and flight crew procedures for

the AS-204 Space Vehicle Plugs-Out Integrated Test did not include safety
considerations, emergency procedures, or emergency equipment require-
ments relative to the possibility of an internal spacecraft fire during the
operation.
Determination--The absence of any significant emergency preplan-
ning indicated that the test configuration (pressurized 100-percent-oxygen
cabin atmosphere) was not classified as potentially hazardous.
Finding--The propagation rate of the fire in the accident was extremely

rapid. Removal of the three spacecraft hatches, from either the inside or the
outside, for emergency exit required a minimum of 40 to 70 seconds,
respectively, under ideal conditions.
Determination--Considering the rapid propagation of the fire and the
time constraints imposed by the spacecraft hatch configuration, it is
doubtful that any amount of emergency preparation would have precluded
injury to the crew before egress.
93
1967 Finding--Procedures for unaided egress from the spacecraft were

March documented and available. The AS-204 flight crew had participated in a
total of eight egress exercises employing those procedures.
Determination--The 204 flight crew was familiar with and well trained
in the documented emergency crew procedures for effecting unaided egress.
Finding--The spacecraft pad work team on duty at the time of the

accident had not been given emergency training drills for combating fires in
or around the spacecraft or for emergency crew egress. They were trained
and equipped only for a normal hatch removal operation.
Determination--The spacecraft pad work team was not properly
trained or equipped to effect an efficient rescue operation under the
conditions resulting from the fire.
Finding--Frequent interruptions and failures had been experienced in

the overall communications system during the operations preceding the
accident. At the time the accident occurred, the status of the system was still
under assessment.
Determination--The status of the overall communications was
marginal for the support of a normal operation. It could not be assessed as
adequate in the presence of an emergency condition.
Finding--Emergency equipment provided at the spacecraft work levels

consisted of portable carbon dioxide fire extinguishers, rocket-propellant-
fuel-handler's gas masks, and 4.4-centimeter-diameter fire hoses.
Determination--The existing emergency equipment was not adequate
to cope with the conditions of the fire. Suitable breathing apparatus,
additional portable carbon dioxide fire extinguishers, direct personnel
evacuation routes, and smoke removal ventilation were significant items
that would have improved the reaction capability of the personnel.
Finding--Under the existing method of test procedure processing at

KSC, the safety offices reviewed only" the procedures noted in the operational
checkout procedure outline as involving hazards. Official approval by KSC
and Air Force Eastern Test Range Safety was given after the procedure was
published and released.
Determination--The scope of contractor and KSC Safety Office
participation in test procedure development was loosely defined and poorly
documented. Post-procedure-release approval by the KSC Safety Office did
not ensure positive and timely coordination of all safety considerations.
"Board Proceedings"; Append. A, "Board Minutes"; and Append. D, "Panels 12 thru 17,"
in Report o[ Apollo 204 Review Board, pp. 3-28 through 3-30, A-112, and D-13-3 through
D-13-13.
19
The Materials Work Panel (Panel 8, also referred to as Materials Review
Panel) in its final report accepted by the Apollo 204 Review Board cited a
number of findings on flammable materials in spacecraft 012. The panel's
task had included the following, from its detailed work statement:
94
"* Assemble, summarize, compare and interpret requirements and data 1967
describing the flammability of nonmetallic materials exposed to the crew March
bay environment of the spacecraft and in related applications.

"° Specify and authorize performance of tests and/or analyses to
furnish additional information as to flammability characteristics of these
materials alone, and in combination with fluids known or postulated to
have been in the spacecraft 012 cabin.
"° Panel No. 8, in support of Panel No. 5 (Origin and Propagation of
Fire) shall interpret and implement the requirements for analyses of debris
removed from the spacecraft."
Panel 8 classified its findings in six categories: Materials Configuration;

Routine Materials Test; Fire Initiation Special Investigation; Fire
Propagation Special Investigation; Materials Installation Criteria and
Controls; and Technical Data and Information Availability. The findings
and determinations included:
Finding--Complete documentation identifying potentially combusti-

ble nonmetallic materials in spacecraft 012 was not available in a single
readily usable format. A total of 2528 different potentially combustible
nonmetallic materials that were probably used on spacecraft 012 was found
by a review of available documentation.
Determination--The program for identiIying and documenting
nonmetallic materials used in the spacecraft, including their weights and
surface areas, was not adequate.
Finding--Raschel Knit, Velcro, Trilock, and polyurethane foams burn

about twice as fast (in the downward direction) in oxygen at a pressure of
11.4 newtons per sq cm (16.5 psia) as at 3.5 newtons per sq cm (5 psia).
Determination--The primary fuels for the fire burned more than twice
as fast in the early stages of the spacecraft 012 fire in accident conditions
(pressure of 11.4 newtons per sq cm) as in the space flight atmosphere for
which they were evaluated (3.5 newtons per sq cm).
Finding--Surface and bulk damage of materials in spacecraft 012

varied from melting and blistering of aluminum alloys, combustion of
Velcro, and burning of Teflon wire insulation to slight surface damage and
melting of nylon fabrics.
Determination--The fire filled the spacecraft interior. The most intense
heat was in the lower left front area around the environmental control unit.
Surface temperatures in excess of 800 kelvins (1000°F) were reached in areas
such as the front and left side of the spacecraft. Surface temperatures were
less than 500 K (400°F) in isolated pockets above the right-hand couch.
Finding--The rate of flame propagation, the rate of pressure increase,

the maximum pressures achieved, and the extent of conflagration in 3.5-
newtons-per-sq-cm (5-psia) oxygen boilerplate tests was much less severe
than observed in the l l.4-newton (16.5-psia) oxygen boilerplate tests.
95
1967 Burning or charring was limited to approximately 29 percent of the

March nonmetallic materials by oxygen depletion.
Determination--The conflagration that occurred in spacecraft 012 at a
pressure of 11.4 newtons per sq cm would be far less severe and slower in a
spacecraft operating with an oxygen environment at 3.5 newtons, if
additional large quantities of oxygen are not fed into the fire.
Finding--North American Aviation materials selection specification

requires that a material pass only a 500 K (400°F) spark-ignition test in
oxygen at 10.1 newtons per sq cm (14.7 psia).
Determination--NAA criteria for materials flammability control were
inadequate.
Finding--No flammability criteria or control existed covering

nonflight items installed in CM 012 for test.
Determination--Lack of control of nonflight material could have
contributed to the fire.
Finding--The NASA materials selection criteria required that a

material pass a 500 K (400°F) spark-ignition test and a 1.27-cm-per-sec
combustion rate (measured downward in oxygen at 3.5 newtons per sq cm).
Raschel Knit and Velcro (hook) pass this test.
Determination--The NASA criteria for materials flammability were
not sufficiently stringent.
Finding--The system for control of nonmetallic materials use at MSC

during the design and development of government furnished equipment
used in CM 012 depended on identification of noncompliance with criteria
by the development engineers.
Determination--The NASA materials control system was permissive to
the extent that installation or use of flammable materials were not
adequately reviewed by a second party.
Finding--Nonmetallic materials selection criteria used by North

American and NASA were not consistent. The NASA criteria, although
more stringent, were not contractually imposed on the spacecraft contrac-
tor.
Determination--Materials were evaluated and selected for use in CM
012 using different criteria. Application of the NASA criteria to the
command module would have reduced the amount of the more flammable
materials (Velcro and Uralane foam).
Finding--Alternate materials that are nonflammable or significantly

less flammable than those used on spacecraft 012 were available for many
applications.
Determination--The amount of combustible material used in
command modules can be limited.
96
Finding--Current information and displays of the potentially 1967

flammable materials configuration of spacecraft 012 were not available March
before the fire.
Determination--Maintenance of data and displays at central locations
and test sites for management visibility and control of flammable materials
is feasible and useful.
"Board Proceedings"; Append. A, "Board Minutes"; and Append. D, "Panels 6 thru 10," in
Report o[ Apollo 204 Review Board, pp. 3-30, A-112, and D-8-3 through D-8-35.
2O
NASA announced it would use the Apollo-Saturn 204 launch vehicle to
launch the first lunar module on its unmanned test flight. Since the 204
vehicle was prepared and was not damaged in the Apollo 204 fire in January,
it would be used instead of the originally planned AS-206.
NASA News Release 67-67, March 20, 1967.
2O
The Deputy Administrator of NASA designated Langley Research Center
custodian of all materials dealing with the investigation and review of the
January 27 Apollo 204 accident. Review Board Chairman Floyd Thompson,
LaRC, who had the responsibility of determining the materials to be
included in the final repository, determined that the following categories of
materials were to be preserved:
1. Reports, files, and working materials;

2. Medical reports;
3. Spacecraft 012 command module, its systems, components, and
related drawings.
Category 1 materials would be stored at LaRC, Category 2 at MSC, and

Category 3 at KSC.
In other actions Robert W. Van Dolah, Chairman of the Origin and

Propagation of Fire Panel, reported on a test being conducted in CM 014 to
attempt to establish the amount of static electricity that might be generated
by a suited crewman; and members of the Board met with MSC Director
Robert R. Gilruth and members of his staff, as well as management and
engineering personnel of North American Aviation, for a presentation
concerning solder joints in the CM.
21
Final report of the Disassembly Activities Panel (No. 4) was accepted by the
Apollo 204 Review Board. Panel 4 had been assigned to develop procedures
for disassembly of spacecraft 012 for inspection and failure analysis.
Disassembly was to proceed step by step in a manner permitting maximum
information to be obtained without disturbing the evidence--in both the
cockpit and the area outside the pressure hull. Cataloging documentary
information within the spacecraft and dist)laying the removed items were a
part of the required procedures.
97
1967 Procedures followed included the following actions:
March
• Immediately after the January 27 accident, NASA KSC Security
placed Launch Complex 34 under additional security. Special guards were
assigned to the service structure and to the adjustable level at the entrance of
the CM. Controls were established for personnel access to the service
structure and the CM.
• After the accident, before disturbin._ any items in the spacecraft, a

series of photographs was taken. A step-by-step photography method was
established as a standard operating procedure for the Disassembly Activities
Panel.
• The first step toward an orderly disassembly was to ensure safe
working conditions at the spacecraft. A meeting with KSC and Air Force
Eastern Test Range Safety personnel established procedures and safety
rules.
• After the couches were removed, a special false floor was suspended
from the couch strut fittings to provide access to the entire inside of the
spacecraft without disturbing any evidence. The false floor was fabricated
from aluminum angles supporting 2-centimeter-thick, 46-centimeter
plexiglass squares.
• The Review Board appointed a Panel Coordination Committee to
carry out new procedures to ensure closely controlled and coordinated
equipment removal.
The Disassembly Activities Panel cataloged and displayed the 1261 items
removed from spacecraft 012 during the investigation. The Pyrotechnics
Installation Building (PIB) at KSC was assigned as an area in which
components removed from the command module could be placed in bonded
storage yet still be available for inspection by investigative personnel. The
following areas were established in the PIB:
1. Bond room--a bonded area to receive components as they were

removed from CM 012. This area was provided with a receiving table; l0
storage cabinets for small components; and areas for large components and
items associated with the investigation but not from the command module
itself.
2. Astronaut equipment room and work room--an area in which the
spacesuits and other government furnished crew equipment were investi-
gated.
3. Bonded display area--an area in which components could be
displayed under controlled conditions to permit investigators to examine
CM 012 components visually.
4. Command module 012 work area--The command module was
placed in a supporting ring within an existing workstand in the PIB and
remained in this area until the aft heatshield was removed. The CM was then
transferred to a standard support ring in the north end of the building.
Technicians continued the disassembly activities while the CM was in these
areas.
98
1967
5. Spacecraft 014 CM--Spacecraft 014 CM (identical in configuration
to spacecraft 012) was shipped to KSC on February 1 to assist the Apollo 204 March
Review Board in the investigation. This CM was placed in the PIB and was
used for practicing difficult removals of CM 012 components.
6. Mockup No. 2--Mockup No. 2, a full-scale plywood command
module, was brought to KSC and placed in the PIB February 8. The mockup
had been configured with Velcro, debris traps, couch positioning, etc., to
duplicate CM 012 configuration at the time, of the fire.
7. Half-scale mockup--A half-scale mockup of the CM interior was
placed in the bonded display area February 8 to display half-scale interior
surface photographs taken after the fire in CM 012.
"Board Proceedings," and Append. D, "Panels 1 thru 4," Report o I Apollo 204 Rev,iew Board.
25
The Apollo 204 Review Board accepted the final report of its Test
Environment Panel (Panel 2). Panel 2 had been assigned responsibility for
the history of all test environments encountered by spacecraft 012 that were
considered germane to system validation from a fire hazard standpoint,
including qualification testing of systems and subsystems. The panel was
particularly to emphasize qualification tests in pure oxygen with regard to
pressures, temperature, time of exposure, and simulation of equipment
malfunctions. It was also to indicate any deficiencies in the test program
related to the problem; comparison with previous tests of appropriate
flight, house, or boilerplate spacecraft; and documentation of any problems
encountered which related to fire hazard.
The panel reviewed all tests pertinent to the investigation. The qualifica-
tion tests were reviewed at MSC, covering more than 1000 documents.
Vehicle tests were reviewed at North American Aviation's Downey, Calif.,
facility, covering more than 500 documents. Summaries of these efforts were
reviewed by the panel at KSC to determine any test program deficiencies.
The final report of the panel included six findings and determinations.
Among them were:
Finding--Not all crew compartment equipment had been tested as

explosion proof.
Determination--Testing of possible ignition sources had been insuffi-
cient.
Finding--Some CM equipment exhibited arcing or shorting either

during certification or during spacecraft 012 testing. There was no positive
way to determine from the records reviewed whether spacecraft anomalies
(possibly caused by an arc or a short) were reviewed by system engineers and
the test conductor before a test.
Determination--Review of possible ignition sources before manned
testing was inadequate.
99
1967 Finding--Not all equipment installed in CM 012 at the time of the

March accident was intended for flight (some components were installed for test
purposes only).
Determination--The suitability of this equipment in the CM for this
test was not established.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panels 1 thru 4," Report o/the Apollo 204 Review
March 25-
NASA Hq. Office of Manned Space Flight informed KSC, MSFC, and MSC
April 24 of approved designations for Apollo and Apollo Applications missions:
( 1) all Apollo missions would be numbered sequentially in the order flown,
with the next mission to be designated Apollo 4, the following one Apollo 5,
etc., and (2) the Apollo Applications missions would be designated sequen-
tially as AAP-1, AAP-2, etc. The number designations would not differen-
tiate between manned and unmanned or uprated Saturn I and Saturn V
missions.
In a letter to George E. Mueller, OMSF, on March 30, MSC Deputy Director

George M. Low offered two suggestions, in keeping with the intent of the
NASA instruction yet keeping the designation Apollo 1 for spacecraft 012.
NASA Hq. had approved that designation before the January 27 fire claimed
the lives of Astronauts Virgil I. Grissom, Edward H. White II, and Roger B.
Chaffee; and their widows requested that the designation be retained. The
suggestions were :
1. Consider the AS-201,202, and 203 missions part of the Saturn I (as
opposed to uprated Saturn I) series; reserve the designation Apollo 1 for
spacecraft 012; and number the following flights Apollo 2, etc., or
2. Designate the next flight Apollo 4, as indicated by Headquarters, but
apply the scheme somewhat differently for missions already flown.
Specifically, put the Apollo 1 designation on spacecraft 012 and then, for
historic purposes, designate 201 as mission l-a, 202 as mission 2 and 203 as
mission 3.
A memorandum to the NASA space flight Centers, North American

Aviation, and certain Headquarters personnel from the NASA Assistant
Administrator for Public Affairs on April 3 stated that the Project
Designation Committee had approved the Office of Manned Space Flight's
recommendations and that Mueller had begun implementation of the
designations.
On April 24, OMSF further instructed the Centers that AS-204 would be
officially recorded as Apollo 1, "first manned Apollo Saturn flight--failed on
ground test." AS-201, AS-202, and AS-203 would not be renumbered in the
"Apollo" series, and the next mission would be Apollo 4.
TWX, Mueller, NASA OMSF, to KSC, MSFC, MSC, "Apollo and AAP Mission Designation,"
March 25 and April 24, 1967; hr., Low to Mueiler, March 30, 1967; memo, Julian Scheer, NASA
Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs, to distr., April 3, 1967.
100
1967
A meeting at MSC considered fire detection systems and fire extinguishers.
Participants were G. M. Low, K. S. Kleinknecht, A. C. Bond, J. N. March
Kotanchik, J. W. Craig, M. W. Lippitt, and G. W. S. Abbey. Craig and 27

Lippitt had visited Wright Field, Ohio, and from their findings the
following conclusions were reached: (1) no fire detection system was
available for incorporation into the Apollo spacecraft; (2) a reliable system
would be desirable, but the system must not give false alarms when used in a
closed spacecraft environment and yet must give adequate warning of fire;
(3) two kinds of systems appeared to be in varying states of development--
systems using infrared or ultraviolet sensors and systems sensing ionized
particles or condensation nucleii in the atmosphere; (4) a work statement
should be prepared, with the help of personnel at Wright Field, for the
purpose of receiving specific proposals on available systems; and (5) the
ultimate goal should be to develop a system ready for flight use within six
months.
Memo for the Record, George M. Low, "Fire detection/extinguishment," March 27, 1967.
28
Apollo 204 Review Board Chairman Floyd Thompson asked for a report on
the Pyrotechnic Installation Building activity. Disassembly of spacecraft
012 had been completed March 27. Of 1261 items logged through the bond
room for display to Board and panel personnel, about 1000 items were from
the CM.
The final report of the Screening Committee was distributed to the Board by
George T. Sasseen, KSC, f' r review. Sasseen stated that the following items
would be retained as Category A (items damaged or identified as suspect or
associated with anomalies).
• Lower equipment bay junction box cover plate

• Command pilot's torso harness
• Velcro and Raschel netting
• Static inverter 2
• Main display control panel 8
• Instrumentation data distribution panel J800/J850
• Octopus cable.
Maxime A. Faget, MSC, advised the Board that the lithium hydroxide
cartridge had been sent to MSC for analysis. Hubert D. Calahan, OMSF, was
appointed courier to handcarry the item to MSC and Richard S. Johnston,
MSC, was designated the Board's witness for the analysis. MSC's Crew
Systems Laboratory was to make the analysis and report to the Board. The
analysis was to identify contaminants to determine the quantity of carbon
dioxide in the lithium hydroxide.
William D. Mangan, Langley Research Center, joined the legal staff

supporting the Board.
101
1967
At the request of the Manager of the MSC Lunar Surface Programs Office,
March NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications Homer
E. Newell considered alternate Array B configurations of the Apollo Lunar
29
Surface Experiments Package to alleviate a weight problem. Instead of a
single array, he selected two configurations for ALSEP III and ALSEP IV :
ALSEP III Experiments: Passive Seismic, Heat Flow (w/Lunar Drill),

Cold Cathode Gauge, and Charged Particle Lunar Environment.
ALSEP IV Experiments: Passive Seismic, Active Seismic, Suprather-
real Ion Detector/Cold Cathode Gauge, and Charged Particle Lunar
Environment.
Newell requested that both configurations be built but that, if program

constraints permitted the fabrication of only one array for ALSEP II and IV,
ALSEP III should be given the preference. The Apollo Program Director
concurred in the Newell recommendation.
Ltr.. Apollo Program Director, NASA Hq., to R. O. Piland, MSC, March 29, 1967.
29-30
The Apollo Site Selection Board meeting at NASA Hq. March 29 heard MSC
presentations on lunar landing site selection constraints, results of the
Orbiter H screening, and reviews of the tasks for site analysis. MSC made
recommendations for specific sites on which to concentrate during the next
four months and recommended that the landing sites for the first lunar
landing mission be selected by August 1. The Board accepted the
recommendations. A Surveyor and Orbiter meeting the following day
considered the targeting of the Surveyor (; mission and the Lunar Orbiter
V mission. MSC representatives at the two meetings were John Eggleston
and Owen E. Maynard.
Memo, Chief, Mission Operations Div., MSC, to Manager, ASPO, "Trip Report--Apollo Site
Sele_ tion Board and Surveyor 'Orbitcl (qilization C()mmittee Meetings," April 20, 1967.
March 29-
H. C. Creighton, A. R. Goldenberg, and Guy N. Witherington, all of KSC,
April 4 inspected spacecraft 101 wire bundles March 29 at the request of CSM
Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht of MSC. Kleinknecht had asked that they
give him a recommendation as to whether the bundles should be removed or
whether they could be repaired in place. On April 4, they reported to
Kleinknecht that time had not been sufficient to determine the complete
status of the wiring. A superficial inspection about five-percent complete
had indicated some serious discrepancies, for which they made some
recommendations, but they recommended a more detailed inspection of the
spacecraft 101 wire bundles.
Memo, C]eighton, Goldenberg, and Wilherington to Kleinknecht, "Condition of Spacecraft

101 Wire Bundles," April 4, 1967.
3O
The Apollo 204 Review Board accepted the report of its Sequence of Events
Panel (No. 3), which had been charged with analyzing data from
immediately before and during the January 27 fire, including digital,
102
analog, voice communications, and photography. The data was required to 1967
display significant events as they occurred with the precise time tag. Time March
histories of all continuous or semicontinuous recorded parameters and
correlation of parameter variations and events were to be recorded, as well as
interpretation of the analysis results. Where pertinent, normal expected
variations were to be compared with those actually obtained.
Panel 3 had served as a separate panel from January 31 through February 23,
when it was merged with the Integration Analysis Panel (No. 18). Panel 3
reported one finding and one determination:
Finding--The data recorded from the spacecraft and ground instru-

mentation system during the Spacecraft Plugs-Out Test were found to be
valid except for three brief dropouts after 6:31:17 EST, January 27 (13
seconds after the pilot reported "fire in the cockpit"). All onboard data
transmission ended about 6:31:22 EST.
Deterrnination--The onboard instrumentation system functioned
normally before and during the initial phase of the fire. There were no
indicated malfunctions in any of the instrumentation sensors during this
period.
"Board Proceedings" and Aptx'nd. D, "Panels 1 thru 4," Report of Apollo 204 l¢,eview Boar(t,
3O
The Apollo 204 Review Board met with its Test Procedures Review Panel
(Panel No. 7) to complete acceptance of the panel's final report. The panel
had been established February 7 to document test procedures actually
employed during the day of the January 27 accident and to indicate
deviations between planned procedures and those used. The panel was to
determine changes that might alleviate fire hazard conditions or that might
provide for improved reaction or corrective conditions and review the
changes for applicability to other tests.
Among the panel's findings and determinations were:
Finding--209 pages of the 275-page Operational Checkout Procedure

(OCP) were revised and released on the day before the test. However, less
than 25 percent of the line items were changed. Approximately one percent
of the change was due to errors in technical content in the original issue of
the procedure. In addition, 106 deviations were written during the test.
Determination--Neither the revision nor the deviations were known to
have contributed specifically to the incident. The late timing of the change
release, however, prevented test personnel from becoming adequately
familiar with the test procedure before use.
Finding--During the altitude chamber tests, the cabin was pressurized

at pressures greater than sea level with an oxygen environment two and a
half times as long as the cabin was pressurized with oxygen before the
accident during Plugs-Out Test.
103
Determination--The spacecraft had successfully operated with the

same cabin conditions in the chamber for a greater period of time than on
the pad up to the time of the accident.
Finding--Troubleshooting the communication problem was not

controlled by any one person, and was at times independently run from the
spacecraft, Launch Complex 34 Blockhouse, and the Manned Spacecratt
Operations Building. Communications switching, some of which was not
called out in OCP, was performed without the control of the Test
Conductor.
Determination--The uncontrolled troubleshooting and switching
contributed to the difficulty experienced in attempting to assess the
communication problem.
Finding--KSC was not able to ensure that the spacecraft launch

operations plans and procedures adequately satisfied, in a timely way, the
intent of MSC. Changes in spacecraft testing by KSC could not be kept in
phase with the latest requirements of MSC. Prelaunch checkout require-
ments were not formally transmitted to KSC from MSC.
Determination--Prelaunch-test-requirements control for the Apollo
spacecraft program was constrained by slow response to changes, lack of
detailed KSC-MSC inter-Center agreements, and lack of official NASA-
approved test specifications applicable to prelaunch checkout.
Finding--The decision to perform the Plugs-Out Test with the flight

crew, closed hatch, and pure oxygen cabin environment made on October
31, 1966, was a significant change in test philosophy.
Determination--There was no evidence that this change in test
philosophy was made so late as to preclude timely incorporation into the
test procedure.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panels 6 thru 10," Report of Apollo 204 Review Board,
3O
The Apollo 204 Review Board was scheduled to review the final report of its
Historical Data Panel (Panel No. 6). The panel had been assigned to
assemble, summarize, and interpret historical data concerning the
spacecraft and associated systems pertinent to the January 27 fire. The data
were to include such records as the spacecraft log, failure reports, and other
quality engineering and inspection documents. In addition the panel
prepared narratives to reflect the relationship and flow of significant review
and acceptance points and substantiating documentation and presented a
brief history of prelaunch operations performed on spacecraft 012 at
Kennedy Space Center.
In its final report to the Review Board the Historical Data Panel submitted
eight findings and determinations. Among them were:
104
Finding--The Ingress-Egress Log disclosed several instances where 1967

tools and equipment were carried into the spacecraft, but the log did not March
indicate these items had been removed.

Determination--Maintenance of the Ingress-Egress Log was inade-
quate.
Finding--Inspection personnel did not perform a prescheduled

inspection with a checklist before hatch closing.
Determination--Inspection personnel could not verify specific func-
tions during that period.
Finding--At the time of the spacecraft 012 shipment to KSC, the

contractor submitted an incomplete list of open items. A revision of that list
significantly and substantially enlarged the list of open items.
Determination--The true status of the spacecraft was not identified by
the contractor.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panels 6 thru 10," Report oJ Apollo 204 ReY,iew Board,
3o
The Apollo 204 Review Board accepted the final report of its Design Review
Panel (No.9), whose duty had been to conduct Critical Design Reviews of
systems or subsystems that might be potential ignition sources within the
Apollo command module cockpit or that might provide a combustible
condition in either normal or failed conditions. The panel was also to
consider areas such as the glycol plumbing configuration; electrical wiring
and its protection, physical and electrical; and such potential ignition
sources as motors, relays, and corona discharge. Other areas would include
egress augmentation and the basic cabin atmosphere concept (one-gas
versus two-gas).
The contemplated spacecraft configuration for the next scheduled manned

flight (spacecraft 101, Block II) was significantly different from that of
spacecraft 012 (Block I), in which the January 27 fire had occurred.
Therefore, both configurations were to be reviewed--the Block I configura-
tion as an aid in determining possible sources for the fire, the Block II to
evaluate the system design characteristics and potential design change
requirements to prevent recurrence of fire.
The panel's final report to the Review Board contained findings on ignition
and flammability, cabin atmosphere, review of egress process, and review of
the flight and ground voice communications. Among them were:
Finding--Flammable, nonmetallic materials were used throughout

the spacecraft. In the Block I and Block II spacecraft design, combustible
materials were contiguous to potential ignition sources.
Determination--In the Block I and Block II spacecraft design,
combustible materials were exposed in sufficient quantities to constitute a
fire hazard.
105
1967
Finding--The spacesuit contained power wiring to electronic circuits.
March The astronauts could be electrically insulated.
Determination--Both the power wiring and potential for static
discharge constituted possible ignition sources in the presence of
combustible materials. The wiring in the suit could fail from working or
bending.
Finding--Residues of RS89 (inhibited ethylene glycol/water solution)

after drying were both corrosive and combustible. RS89 was corrosive to
wire bundles because of its inhibitor.
DeterminationwBecause of the corrosive and combustible properties of
the residues, RS89 coolant could, in itself, provide all of the elements of a fire
hazard if it leaked onto electrical equipment.
Finding--Waterglycol was combustible, although not easily ignited.

Determination--Leakage of water/glycol in the cabin would increase
risk of fire.
Finding--Deficiencies in design, manufacture, and quality control

were found in the postfire inspection of the wire installation.
Determination--There was an undesirable risk exposure, which
should have been prevented by both the contractor and the government.
Finding--The spacecraft atmosphere control system design was based

on providing a pure oxygen environment.
Determination--The technology was so complex that, to provide
diluent gases, duplication of the atmosphere control components as well as
addition of a mechanism for oxygen partial-pressure control would be
required. These additions would introduce additional crew-safety failure
modes into the flight systems.
Finding--Sixty seconds were required for unaided crew egress from the
CM. The hatch could not be opened with positive cabin pressure above
approximately 0.17 newtons per sq cm (0.25 psi). The vent capacity was
insufficient to accommodate the pressure buildup in the Apollo 204
spacecraft.
Determination--Even under optimum conditions emergency crew
egress from Apollo 204 spacecraft could not have been accomplished in
sufficient time.
Finding--During the January 27 Apollo 204 test, difficulty was

experienced in communicating from ground to spacecraft and among
ground stations.
Determination--The ground system design was not compatible with
operational requirements.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panels 6 thru 10," Report oJ Apollo 204 Review Board,
pp. 3-33 and D-9-3 through 3-9-13.
106
The Integration Analysis Panel (No. 18) was rewriting its final report to the 1967
Apollo 204 Review Board. Panel 18 had been assigned to review information
March
from all task groups and make the final technical integration of the
31
evidence. Panels 3 and 16 had been merged with Panel 18 on February 23. In
its final report to the Review Board, Panel 18 listed:
Findings--Several arcing indications were observed in the CM left

front sector and a voltage transient was noted in all three phases of AC Bus 2.
This transient was most closely simulated by a power interruption or short
circuit on DC Bus B. Physical evidence and witness statements indicated the
progress of the fire to be from the left side of the spacecraft. Simulations and
tests indicated that combustion initiation by electrostatic discharge or
chemical action was not probable. No physical evidence of prefire
overheating of mechanical components or heating devices was found.
Determinations--No single ignition source could be conclusively
identified. The most probable initiator was considered to be the electrical
arcing or shorting in the left front sector of the spacecraft. The location best
fitting the total available information was that where environmental control
system instrumentation power wiring ran into the area between the
environmental control unit and the oxygen panel.
Finding--All spacecraft records were reviewed by the various panels

and the results were screened by Panel 18.
Determination--No evidence was found to correlate previously known
discrepancies, malfunctions, qualification failures or open work items with
the source of ignition.
Finding--At the time of the observed fire, data including telemetry and
voice communications indicated no malfunctioning spacecraft systems
(other than the live microphone).
Determination--Existing spacecraft instrumentation was insufficient
by itself to provide data to identify the source of ignition.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panel 18," Report of Apollo 204 Review Board, pp. 3-
33 and D-18-3 through D-18-51.
31
The final report of the Medical Analysis Panel (No. 11) to the Apollo 204
Review Board was processed for printing. The panel had been assigned to
provide a summary of medical facts with appropriate medical analysis for
investigation of the January 27 fire. Examples were cause of death,
pathological evidence of overpressure, and any other areas of technical value
in determining the cause of accident or in establishing corrective action.
The panel report indicated that at the time of the accident two NASA
physicians were in the blockhouse monitoring data from the senior pilot.
Upon hearing the first voice transmission indicating fire, the senior NASA
physician turned from the biomedical console to look at the bank of
television monitors. When his attention returned to the console the
bioinstrumentation data had stopped. The biomedical engineer in the
107
1967 Acceptance Checkout Equipment (ACE) Control Room called the senior
March medical officer for instructions. He was told to make the necessary alarms
and informed that the senior medical officer was leaving his console. The
two NASA physicians left the blockhouse for the base of the umbilical tower
and arrived there shortly before ambulances and a Pan American physician
arrived at 6:43 p.m. The three physicians went to the spacecraft; time of their
arrival at the White Room was estimated to be 6:45 p.m. EST.
By this time some 12 to 15 minutes had elapsed since the fire began. After a
quick evaluation it was evident that the crew had not survived the heat,
smoke, and burns and it was decided that nothing could be gained by
attempting immediate egress and resuscitation.
Panel 1l's 24 findings included:
Finding--Biomedical data at the time of the accident were received

from only the senior pilot. The data consisted of one lead of electrocardio-
gram, one lead of phonocardiogram, and impedance pneumogram
(respiration). The data was received by telemetry and from the onboard
medical data acquisition system.
Determination--This configuration was normal for the test.
Finding--At 6:31:04 p.m. there was a marked change in the senior

pilot's respiratory and heart rates on the biomedical tape. There was also
evidence of muscle activity in the electrocardiogram and evidence of motion
in the phonocardiogram. The heart rate continued to climb until loss of
signal.
Determination--This physiological response is compatible with the
realization of an emergency situation.
Finding--Voice contact with the crew was maintained until 6:31:22.7

p.m.
Determination--At least one crew member was conscious until that
time.
Finding--Hatches were opened at approximately 6:36 p.m. and no

signs of life were detected. Three physicians looked at the suited bodies at
approximately 6:45 p.m. and decided that resuscitation efforts would be to
no avail.
Determination--Time of death could not be determined from this
finding.
Finding--"The cause of death of the Apollo 204 Crew was asphyxia

due to inhalation of toxic gases due to fire. Contributory cause of death was
thermal burns."
Determination--It could be concluded that death occurred rapidly and
that unconsciousness preceded death by some increment of time. The fact
that an equilibrium had not been established throughout the circulatory
system indicated that blood circulation stopped rather abruptly before an
equilibrium could be reached.
108
PART I" PREPARATION FOR FL1GHT AND THE ACCIDENT
Finding--Panel 5 had estimated that significant levels (more than 1967

two percent) of carbon monoxide were in the spacecraft atmosphere by March
6:31:30 p.m. EST. By this time at least one spacesuit had failed, introducing
cabin gases to all suit loops.
Deterrnination--The crew was exposed to a lethal atmosphere when
the first suit was breached.
Finding--The distribution of carbon monoxide in body organs

indicated that circulation stopped rather abruptly when high levels of
carboxyhemoglobin reached the heart.
Determination--Loss of consciousness was caused by cerebral hypoxia
due to cardiac arrest from myocardial hypoxia. Factors of temperature,
pressure, and environmental concentrations of carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, oxygen, and pulmonary irritants were changing at extremely rapid
rates. It was impossible from available information to integrate these
variables with the dynamic physiological and metabolic conditions they
produced, to arrive at a precise statement of the time when consciousness
was lost and when death supervened. Loss of consciousness was estimated as
at between 15 and 30 seconds after the first suit failed. Chances of resuscita-
tion decreased rapidly thereafter and were irrevocably lost within 4 minutes.
FindingmThe purge with 100-percent oxygen at above sea-level

pressure contributed to the propagation of fire in the Apollo 204 spacecraft.
Determination--The oxygen level was the planned cabin environment
for testing and launch, since prelaunch denitrogenation was necessary to
forestall the possibility of the astronauts' suffering the bends. A comprehen-
sive review of operational and physiological tradeoffs of various methods of
denitrogenation was in progress.
"Board Proceedings" and Append. D, "Panel 11," Report of Apollo 204 Review Board, pp. 3-
33 and D-II-3 through D-11-9.
31
ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea requested that the White Sands Test Facility
be authorized to conduct the descent propulsion system series tests starting
April 3 and ending abol_t May 1. The maximum expected test pressure
would be 174 newtons per sq cm (253 psia), normal maximum operating
pressure. The pressure could go as high as 179 newtons per sq cm (260 psia)
according to the test to be conducted.
Required leak check operations were also requested at a maximum pressure

of 142 newtons per sq cm (206 psia), with a design limit of 186 newtons per
sq cm (270 psia). The test fluids would be compatible with the titanium alloy
at the test pressures. The test would be conducted in the Altitude Test Stand,
where adequate protection existed for isolating and containing a failure.
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth approved the request the same day.
Memo, Shea to (;ilruth, "Request [or authorization to conduct a pressure test," March 31, 1967.
April
In reply to a request from NASA Hq., CSM Manager Kenneth S.
Kleinknecht told Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips that 1
109
1967 replacement of the service module 017 oxidizer tank was based on a double
Aprll repair weld of the method 2 kind in that tank. This kind of repair, he said,
resulted in a weld chemistry similar to the weld on the S-IVB helium bottle
that had failed, as had only recently been determined by examination of the
secondary-propulsion-system tank repair weld. There was insufficient proof
that titanium hydride concentrations could not occur in the double meth-
od-2 repair weld, and replacement of the tank would preclude any question
as to the integrity of the tank. The decision was delayed as long as possible in
the hope of developing technical justification of weld integrity. When that
was not achieved and there was little confidence that justification could be
developed in the near future, the decision was made directing the tank
change. The activity would not cause additional schedule time loss, as it was
already necessary to repeat the spacecraft integrated test because of wiring
rework.
Ltr., Kleinknecht to Phillips, "Delay in Direction to Effect Service Module Tank Change,"
April 1, 1967.
The mission profile for the first manned Apollo flight would be based on
that specified in Appendix AS-204 in the Apollo Flight Mission
Assignments Document dated November 1966, the three manned space
flight Centers were informed. Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips
said the complexity of the mission was to be limited to that previously
planned, and therefore consideration of a rendezvous exercise would be
dependent upon the degree of complication imposed on the mission.
"There will be no additions that require major new commitments such as
opening a CM hatch in space or exercising the docking subsystem."
TWX, Phillips to MS(;, MSFC, and KS(;, "First Manned Mission," April 5, 1967.
The Apollo 204 Review Board transmitted its final formal report to NASA
Administrator James E. Webb, each member concurring in each ot the
findings, determinations, and recommendations concerning the January 27
spacecraft fire that took the lives of three astronauts.
During the review the Board had adhered to the principle that reliability of
the CM and the entire system involved in its operation was a requirement
common to both safety and mission success. Once the CM had left the earth's
environment the occupants were totally dependent on it for their safety. It
followed that protection from fire as a hazard required much more than
quick egress. Egress was useful only during test periods on earth when the
CM was being readied for its mission and not during the mission itself. The
risk of fire had to be faced, but that risk was only one factor pertaining to CM
reliability that must receive adequate consideration. Design features and
operating procedures intended to reduce the fire risk must not introduce
other serious risks to mission success and safety.
The House Committee on Science and Astronautics' Subcommittee on

NASA Oversight held hearings on the Review Board report April 10-12, 17,
110
The Apollo 204 ReviewBoardstudiedApollo spacecraft014 (left) in its
investigation of the January 27, 1967, fire in the similar CM 012 (right,
photographed after the fire). The interior views show the forward section of the
left-hand equipment bay, below the environmental control unit in each
spacecraft. The DC power cable crosses over aluminum tubing and under a
lithium hydroxide access door (removed in the photo of the damaged CM 012).
The Board determined this was the area of the most probable initiator of the fire.
and 21 and May 10. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences 1967
hearings were held April 11, 13, and 17 and May 4 and 9 (see May 9-10, 1967, Aprll
and Appendix 8).
Findings, determinations, and recommendations of the Apollo 204 Review

Board were:
1. Finding--(a) A momentary power failure occurred at 6:30:55 p.m.

EST (23:30:55 GMT). (b) Evidence of several arcs was found in the postfire
investigation. (c) No single ignition source of the fire was conclusively
identified.
Determination--The most probable initiator was an electrical arc in
the sector between the -Y and +Z spacecraft axes. The exact location best
fitting the total available information was near the floor in the lower forward
section of the left-hand equipment bay where environmental control system
instrumentation power wiring led into the area between the environmental
control unit and the oxygen panel. No evidence was discovered that
suggested sabotage.
2. Finding--(a) The CM contained many classes of combustible

material in areas contiguous to possible ignition sources. (b) The test was
conducted with a 100-percent oxkgen atmosphere at 11.5 newtons per sq cm
(16.7 psia).
Determination--The test conditions were extremely hazardous.
Recommendation--The amount and location of combustible
materials in the CM must be severely restricted and controlled.
lll
1967 3. Finding--(a)The rapid spread of fire increased pressure and

Apdi temperature, rupturing the CM and creating a toxic atmosphere. "Death of
the crew was from asphyxia due to inhalation of toxic gases due to fire. A
contributory cause of death was thermal burns." (b) Non-uniform
distribution of carboxyhemoglobin was found by autopsy.
Determination--Autopsy data led to the medical opinion that
unconsciousness occurred rapidly and that death followed soon thereafter.
4. Finding--Because of internal pressure, the CM inner hatch could

not be opened before rupture of the CM.
DeterminationmThe crew was never capable of etfecting emergency
egress because of the pressurization before the rupture and their loss of
consciousness soon after rupture.
Recommendation--The time required for egress of the crew should
be reduced and the operations necessary for egress be simplified.
5. Finding--The organizations responsible for planning, conducting,

and safety of this test failed to identify it as being hazardous. Contingency
preparations to permit escape or rescue of the crew from an internal CM fire
were not made.
(a) No procedures for this kind of emergency had been established
either for the crew or for the spacecraft pad work team. (b) The emergency
equipment in the White Room and on the spacecraft work levels was not
designed for the smoke condition resulting from a fire of this nature. (c)
Emergency fire, rescue, and medical teams were not in attendance. (d) Both
the spacecraft work levels and the umbilical tower access arm contained
features such as steps, sliding doors, and sharp turns in the egress paths
which hindered emergency operations.
Determination--Adequate safety precautions were neither estab-
lished nor observed for this test.
Recommendations--(a) Management should continually monitor
the safety of all test operations and ensure the adequacy of emergency
procedures. (b) All emergency equipment (breathing apparatus, protective
clothing, deluge systems, access arm, etc.) should be reviewed for adequacy.
(c) Personnel training and practice for emergency procedures should be
given regularly and reviewed before a hazardous operation. (d) Service
structures and umbilical towers should be modified to facilitate emergency
operations.
6. Finding--Frequent interruptions and failures had been experi-

enced in the overall communication system during the operations preceding
the accident.
Determination--The overall communication system was unsatis-
factory.
Recommendation--(a) The ground communication system should
be improved to ensure reliable communications among all test elements as.
soon as possible and before the next manned flight. (b) A detailed design
review should be conducted on the entire spacecraft communication system.
112
PART I2 PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT AND THE ACCIDENT
7. Finding--(a) Revisions in the Operational Checkout Procedure for 1967

the test were issued at 5:30 p.m. EST January 26,1967 (209 pages), and 10:00 Aprtl
a.m. EST January 27, 1967 (4 pages). (b) Differences existed between the
ground test procedures and the inflight checklists.
Determination--Neither the revision nor the differences contributed
to the accident. The late issuance of the revision, however, prevented test
personnel from becoming adequately familiar with the test procedure before
use.
Recommendations--(a) Test procedures and pilot's checklists that

represent the actual CM configuration should be published in final form and
reviewed early enough to permit adequate preparation and participation of
all test organizations. (b) Timely distribution of test procedures and major
changes should be made a constraint to the beginning of any test.
8. Finding--The fire in CM 012 was subsequently simulated closely by

a test fire in a full-scale mockup.
Determination--Full-scale mockup fire tests could be used to give a
realisticappraisal of fire risks in flight-configured spacecraft.
Recommendation--Full-scale mockups in flight configuration
should be tested to determine the risk of fire.
9. Finding--The CM environmental control system design provided a

pure oxygen atmosphere.
Determination--This atmosphere presented severe fire hazards if the
amount and location of combustibles in the CM were not restricted and
controlled.
Recommendations--(a) The fire safety of the reconfigured CM
should be established by full-scale mockup tests. (b) Studies of the use of a
diluent gas should be continued, with particular reference to assessing the
problems of gas detection and control and the risk of additional operations
that would be required in the use of a two-gas atmosphere.
10. Finding--Deficiencies existed in CM design, workmanship and

quality control, such as: (a) Components of the environmental control
system installed in CM 012 had a history of many removals and of technical
difficulties, including regulator failures, line failures, and environmental
control unit failures. The design and installation features of the environ-
mental control unit made removal or repair difficult. (b) Coolant leakage at
solder joints had been a chronic problem. (c) The coolant was both corrosive
and combustible. (d) Deficiencies in design, manufacture, installation,
rework, and quality control existed in the electrical wiring. (e) No vibration
test was made of a complete flight-configured spacecraft. (f) Spacecraft
design and operating procedures required the disconnecting of electrical
connections while powered. (g) No design features for fire protection were
incorporated.
Determination--These deficiencies created an unnecessarily hazard-
ous condition and their continuation would imperil any future Apollo
operations.
113
Recornmendationsm(a) All elements, components, and assemblies

April of the environmental control system should be reviewed in depth to ensure
its functional and structural integrity and to minimize its contribution to
fire risk. (b) The design of soldered joints in the plumbing should be
modified to increase integrity or the joints should be replaced with a more
structurally reliable configuration. (c) Deleterious effects of coolant leakage
and spillage should be eliminated. (d) Specifications should be reviewed;
three-dimensional jigs should be used in manufacture of wire bundles; and
rigid inspection at all stages of wiring design, manufacture, and installation
should be enforced. (e) Flight-configured spacecraft should be vibration-
tested. (f) The necessity for electrical connections or disconnections with
power on within the crew compartment should be eliminated. (f) The most
effective means of controlling and extinguishing a spacecraft fire should be
investigated. Auxiliary breathing oxygen and crew protection from smoke
and toxic fumes should be provided.
11. FindingmAn examination of operating practices showed the

following examples of problem areas: (a) The number of open items at the
time of shipment of the CM 012 was not known. There were 113 significant
engineering orders not accomplished at the time CM 012 was delivered to
NASA; 623 engineering orders were released subsequent to delivery. Of
these, 22 were recent releases that were not recorded in configuration records
at the time of the accident. (b) Established requirements were not followed
with regard to the pretest constraints list. The list was not completed and
signed by designated contractor and NASA personnel before the test, even
though oral agreement to proceed was reached. (c) Formulation of and
changes in prelaunch test requirements for the Apollo spacecraft program
were responsive to changing conditions. (d) Noncertified equipment items
were installed in the CM at time of test. (e) Discrepancies existed between
NAA and NASA MSC specifications regarding inclusion and positioning of
flammable materials. (f) The test specification was released August 1966 and
was not updated to include accumulated changes from release date to the
January 27 test date.
Deterrnination--Problems of program management and relations
between Centers and with the contractor had led to some insufficient
responses to changing program requirements.
Recornrnendation--Every effort must be made to ensure the
maximum clarification and understanding of the responsibilities of all
organizations in the program, the objective being a fully coordinated and
efficient program.
Report o[ Apollo 204 Review Board to the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, April 5, 1967, transmittal letter and pp. 6-1 through 6-3; House (_mmittee on
Science and Astronautics, Subcommittee on NASA Oversight, Investigation into Apollo 204
Accident: Itearings, 90th Cong., 1st sess., vols. 1-3, April 10, 11, 17, 21, May 10, 1967; Senate
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Apollo Accident: Hearings, 90th Cong., 1st
sess., pts. 3-7, April 11, 13, and 17, May 4 and 9, 1967.
114
PART II
Recovery, Spacecraft Redefinition,

and First Manned Apollo Flight
April 6, 1967, through October 22, 1968

PART II
The Key Events
1967
April 6: A program of biology training for lunar mission crews was formulated.
,Spri/10: MSC's ASPO Manager George M. Low established two task teams to investigate CSM electrical
systems and flammable materials.
/Ipri/27: NASA Task TeamlBIock II CSM Redefinition was established in residence at North American
Aviation to provide timely decisions during spacecraft redefinition following the January 27 AS-204
fire.
May I: NASA estimated that the impact of the AS-204 accident on program corn for FY 1967 and 1968
would be $81 million.
May 18: Crew members for the Apollo 7 (first manned Apollo flight) were named: Walter M. Schirra, Jr.,
Donn F. Eisele, and R. Walter Cunningham.
]Rne I: A meeting at MSC discussed CSM and LM changes, schedules, and related test and hardware
programs.
A_g_st l: Lunar Orbiter V was launched; five potential Apollo landing sites were photographed during
mission.
A_g,,st 18: The NASA Block II CSM Redefinition Task Team, established April 27, was phased out.
September 6: An Apollo System Safety program was established by NASA Hq.
October 5: An Apollo Spacecraft Incident Investigation and Reporting Panel was established at MSC.
October 24-November 3: Eberhard F. M. Rees made a preliminary survey at North American Rockwell
before forming an Apollo Special Task Team to support MSC on manufacturing problems.
November 4: NASA announced an Apollo mission schedule for six flights in 1968 and five in 1969.
November 9: The Apollo 4 mission was successfully flown. The spacecraft landed in the PacificOcean after
an 8-hour 37-minute flight.
December I6: NASA and North American Rockwell personnel reached decisions on flammability
problems related to coax cables in CMs.
December 17: A LM test failed at Grumman when a window shattered during the initial pressurization test
of the LM-5 ascent stage.
December 25: The first fire-in-the hole test was successfully completed at White Sands Test Facility. The
vehicle test configuration was LM-2.
January 2: The Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight summarized key decisions required to
certify the Apollo system.design for manned flight.
]ans_ary 17: Eberhard Rees, Director of the Apollo Special Task Team at North American Rockwell,
Downey, told ASPO Manager George M. Low he had found "serious quality and reliability resources
deficiencies."
]anxary 22: NASA launched Apollo 5, the first LM flight (unmanned). The AS-204 launch vehicle was used.
]anHary 24: CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht listed what he thought were the chief problems facing
the program.
Febrr, ary 5: The Senior Flammability Board decided on action to prepare for a 60-percent oxygen/40 per-
cent nitrogen prelaunch atmosphere in CSM 101.
February 28: Priorities for scientific objectives vs mission operations for the first lunar landing mission
were established.
116
PART II: RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
April 4: Apollo 6 was launched on a Saturn V booster, with an unmanned Block I CSM and a lunar test
article. The spacecraft landed in the Pacific Ocean in good condition.
April 5-7: A 48-hour delayed-recovery test was successfully conducted in the Gulf of Mexico with three
astronauts in CSM 007.
April I0: The Apollo Program Director said a TV camera would be carried in CM 101 (Apollo 7).
May 6: Lunar landing research vehicle No. 1 crashed at Ellington AFB, Tex., during a training flight.
Astronaut Nell A. Armstrong ejected and suffered minor injuries. The vehicle was a total loss.
May 28: The LM ascent engine problem was resolved, with North American Rockwell's Rocketdyne
Division responsible for delivery. The engines would be furnished by Bell Aerosystems Co. to
Rocketdyne, and the Rocketdyne injector installed in the engine.
July 3: The final drop test to qualify the CSM earth landing system was successfully conducted.
August 9: ASPO Manager George M. Low initiated a series of actions that resulted in the ultimate decision
several months later to send Apollo 8 on a lunar-orbit mission.
Asgust 30: The Director of the Apollo Special Task Team at North American Rockwell, notified the
contractor that the facilities there were relinquished to the company. The team's mission was ended.
September 23: The Apollo Guidance Software Task Force submitted its final report.
October 11: Apollo 7 was successfully launched from Kennedy Space Center on a Saturn IB launch vehicle.
The first manned Apollo flight was completed October 22.
117
PART II
Recovery, Spacecraft Redefinition,

and First Manned Apollo Flight
April 6, 1967, through October 22, 1968
1967
A program of biology training for lunar mission crews was formulated as
part of a comprehensive Block II Training Plan being reviewed by the Aprll
Flight Crew Operations Directorate at MSC. The program was to provide 6

flight crews with rudimentary facts about microbial life forms, an
understanding of the bioscientific importance of lunar exploration, and
training in collection of lunar samples (biological requirements) and the
various aspects of the quarantine program. The biology training was to be
divided into five lecture and demonstration sessions, with one field trip to
observe desert ecology.
Memo, Director of Flight Crew Operations to Special Assistant to the Director, "Bioscience
training of lunar mission crews," April 6, 1967.
Joseph F. Shea, MSC Apollo Spacecraft Program Office Manager, was

appointed NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight,
with responsibility for technical aspects of the program.
George M. Low, MSC Deputy Director, would succeed Shea as ASPO

Manager. Changes were to be effective April 10.
MSC Announcement 67-51, "Key Personnel Change," April 7, 1967.
A flash report sent to the NASA Apollo Program Director by ASPO Manager
George M. Low at MSC informed him that all the fuel-cell gaseous-nitrogen
titanium-alloy tanks were suspected of having contaminated welds. The
problem was detected during an acceptance test. Preliminary investigation
revealed the weld had become contaminated during girth weld repair,
because of incomplete purging of the tank's interior. All rewelded tanks
were therefore liable to be contaminated and records were inadequate to
identify which tanks had been rewelded. The following actions had been
directed by Low for use on spacecraft 017 and 020: (1) cyclic and proof
pressure test at pressures well above normal operating followed by x-ray and
dye penetrant inspection on replacement tanks for spacecraft 017 fuel cells;
119
1N7 and (2) removal of the spacecraft 017 tanks and replacement with tanks
/_rll subjected to (1) above was planned. It was expected that this could be
accomplished without removal of the fuel cells, and the replacement of the
three tanks was not expected to affect the 017 schedule.
TWX, Low to NASA Hq., April 8, 1967.
MSC Structures and Mechanics Division Chief Joseph N. Kotanchik had

strongly recommended that all B-nuts already installed in spacecraft be
loosened to relieve any residual strain on nearby solder joints, ASPO
Manager George M. Low informed CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht.
Kotanchik thought the leaks found in spacecraft 012 at KSC and in
spacecraft 101 during test were most likely caused by creep. Loosening all
joints, replacing them with voishan washers, and then retorquing them
with procedures known not to cause strain, should be given serious
consideration. Low pointed out this would also accomplish Kleinknecht's
desires of being sure that all joints were torqued to proper limits.
Memo, Low to Kleinknecht, "Creep of solder joints," April 8, 1967.
10
MSC informed NASA Hq. that the spacecraft 017 inertial measurement
unit (IMU) was being removed to replace capacitors that were suspect after a
number of failures with qualified mylar capacitors. Replacement was
expected to delay mechanical mating of the spacecraft and launch vehicle an
estimated two days. The guidance and navigation subsystem would be
retested during the integrated spacecraft system tests with the launch vehicle
simulator. Headquarters was also advised that all other IMUs in the
program had been retrofitted to eliminate the suspect capacitor. Five days
later, CSM Manager Kenneth Kleinknecht told KSC that MSC understood
that the original impact had been increased to five days, but asserted the
change was still mandatory.
TWXs, George M. Low, MSC, to S. C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, April 10, 1967; Kleinknecht,
MSC, to KSC, April 15, 1967.
lO
MSC ASPO Manager George M. Low told Sydney C. Jones, Jr., MSC
Communications and Power Branch, that he wanted to establish two task
teams on CSM electrical systems. The first team would study the wiring
harnesses on spacecraft 2TV-1 and 101 and all subsequent spacecraft to
determine actions needed to save the harnesses as installed. Low asked:
"Can a sufficient number of nylon wire bundle ties be replaced to meet the
requirements of our new materials specification? Can silicone rubber
padding and chafing guards be replaced? What fixes must be incorporated to
meet requirements of the recent inspection activities? Has the harness been
mistreated in recent months, as was mentioned to me by some of the
astronauts? How about water glycol spillage in 101?" The task team was to
include members from the Engineering and Development and Flight Crew
Operations Directorates, the Flight Safety Office, and the Reliability,
Quality, and Test Division. Low asked firm recommendations concerning
the harnesses in spacecraft 2TV-1 and 101 by April 15 if possible.
120
North American manufacturing personnel route electrical wires on a jig board as
they prepare the CM 107 crew compartment wiring harness.
The second task team would study flammable materials used with all other 1967
electrical systems. Low referred "specifically to the RTV [room temperature /_orll
vulcanizing] used on the backs of circuit-breaker panels and elsewhere; the
circuit breakers themselves; the electroluminescent panels; and any other
materials generally associated with the electrical system." Low said
Structures and Mechanics Division (SMD) had done some very promising
work with coatings for the circuit-breaker panels but these coatings might
not be applied to some of the panels because of the open mechanical
elements of many of the switches. He recommended that Jones ask
representatives from SMD, the Instrumentation and Electronics Systems
Division, and the Flight Safety Office to work with him. Low asked Jones to
let him know by April 12 when it would be possible to make specific
recommendations as to what needed to be done.
Memo, Low to Jones, "Task Team assignments," April 10, 1967.
10
George Low requested William M. Bland, MSC, to take action on two
recommendations made by MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth: (1) Take stereo
color photos of all spacecraft areas before they were closed out. This
procedure had been invaluable during the Apollo Review Board's activities
121
1967
at KSC, and the same technique, applied during the manufacturing process
Aprll of current spacecraft, might help answer questions raised subsequent to the
closeout of an area and thereby save time. (2) Make additional requirements
for the use of cover plates over spacecraft wire bundles. Greater use of cover
plates during manufacturing, test, and perhaps even flight would prevent
damage during subsequent activities.
Memo, Low to Bland, "Stereo photographs of spacecraft activities," April 10, 1967.
10
An investigation at Grumman compared flammability characteristics of
blankets representative of the external LM vehicle insulation with those of
unshielded mylar blankets. When subjected to identical ignition sources,
the mylar specimens burned during all phases of testing. Localized charring
and perforation were the only visible signs of degradation in specimens
simulating the LM shielding. The conclusion was that the protection of
mylar blankets by H-Film in the LM configuration effectively decreased the
likelihood of ignition from open flame or electrical arcing.
LM Engineering Memo, LMO-562-11, to addressees from B. Bell, "Flammability Characteris-

tics of LM Thermal Shielding," April 10, 1967; hr., E. Stern to MSC, Atm: R. Wayne Young,
"Contract NAS 9-1100, Flammability Characteristics of LM Thermal Shielding," April 17,
1967.
14
NASA Hq. informed the Directors of the manned space flight Centers that
responsibility for approval of pressure vessel tests was being returned to
normal Center management channels. Because of the failure of the 503
launch vehicle S-IVB stage and other pressure vessel problems, testing had
been restricted by the office of the Apollo Program Director. The Program
Director now returned to the Center Directors "responsibility for approving
pressurization tests of pressure vessels in spacecraft modules, launch vehicle
stages, and ground support equipment within their Apollo program
responsibilities."
TWX, Apollo Program Director to Center Directors,"Responsibility for Approval of Tests and
Pressure Vessels," April 14, 1967.
14
CM mockup tests by the Structures and Mechanics Division at the MSC
Thermochemical Test Area had shown that significant burning occurred in
oxygen environments at a pressure of 11.4 newtons per square centimeter
(16.5 psia). The tests, in which most of the major crew bay materials had
been replaced by Teflon or Beta cloth, consisted of deliberately igniting crew
bay materials sequentially in two places. The Division recommended that
operation with oxygen at 11.4 newtons in the crew compartment be
eliminated and that either air or oxygen at 3.5 newtons per sq cm (5 psia) be
used. In reply, the ASPO Manager pointed out that "Dr. Gilruth has
indicated a strong desire to avoid the use of air on the pad which requires
subsequent spacecraft purges. Accordingly, we should maintain the option
122
1967
of launching with a pure oxygen cabin environment until such time as
additional tests indicate it would not be feasible." April
Memos, Chief, MSC Structures and Mechanics Div., to Manager, ASPO, "Use of 16.5 psia
oxygen as a cabin environment," April 14, 1967; Manager, ASPO, to Joseph N. Kotanchik,
"Command and Service Module environment at launch," April 18, 1967.
17
A meeting at MSC considered requirements of the Apollo flight program
before the first lunar landing mission. Present were C. H. Perrine, MSC
Mission Operations Division, and Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Sigurd A.
Sjoberg, John D. Hodge, Eugene F. Kranz, Morris V. Jenkins, and Robert E.
Ernull, all of Flight Operations Directorate. Most significant opinions
resulting from the meeting were:
• Demonstrations of extravehicular transfer and CSM rescue of LM

were not considered prerequisite to manned LM earth-orbital operations
separated from the CSM.
• A rendezvous exercise on Apollo 7 (CSM 101) with a "pod" would be
worth attempting some time after the first day of the mission.
• Unmanned burns of the LM ascent and descent propulsions systems,
including fire-in-the-hole burns, were considered prerequisites to manning
those functions. This prerequisite included manning of descent propulsion
system burns.
• Three manned earth-orbital flights of the CSM and LM in joint
operations, plus a single CSM-alone flight, were considered the minimum
number of missions in the primary program before the first potential lunar
mission.
• Although a lunar orbit mission should not be a step in the primary
program, it should be part of the contingency plan in the event the CSM
achieved lunar-mission capability before the LM did. The gains in opera-
tional experience were considered sufficient to justify the risk of such a
mission.
• Saturn V launch vehicles should be manned (i.e., should launch
manned spacecraft) as soon as possible.
• There was some question about the "manability" of LM-2.
Memo for File, Perrine, "Meeting with FOD on Apollo Flight Program," April 17, 1967.
18
ASPO Manager George M. Low pointed out to MSC Director of
Engineering and Development Maxime A. Faget that apparently no single
person at MSC was responsible for spacecraft wiring. Low said he would
like to discuss naming a subsystem manager to follow this general area,
including not only the wiring schematics, circuitry, circuit-breaker
protection, etc., but also the detailed design, engineering, fabrication, and
installation of wiring harnesses.
Memo, Low to Faget, "Subsystem manager for spacecraft wiring," April 18, 1967.
18
NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips signed a directive
defining the requirements, responsibilities, and inter-Center coordination
123
1967 necessary for development, control, and execution of test and checkout
April plans and procedures for preparing and launching Apollo-Saturn space
vehicles at KSC.
Memo, Chief, Apollo Program Planning, NASA OMSF, to distr., "Apollo Weekly Status
Report," April 21, 1967.
A fire broke out in the Bell Aerosystems Test Facility, Wheatfield, N.Y., at
2:30 a.m. April 20. Early analysis indicated the fire was started by
overpressurization of the ascent engine's propellant-conditioning system,
which caused the system relief valve to dump propellant into an overflow
bucket. The bucket in turn overflowed and propellant spilled onto the floor,
coming into contact with a highly oxidized steel grating. Contact was
believed to have initiated combustion and subsequently an intense, short-
duration fire. The fire began in the test facility building near the altitude
chamber and fuel tanks and spread to the inside of the altitude chamber.
Among the effects of the fire on the program were (1) about four weeks'
requirement to repair the LM ascent engine test facility, (2) tests delayed
accordingly, and (3) delay of the acceptance test of the LM-2 ascent engine.
On April 26, a small localized fire occurred in Test Cell No. 3G at the Bell
Aerosystems Test Center in Porter, N.Y. Preliminary reports indicated that a
LM ascent engine bipropellant valve had been tested as a valve injector
assembly but was not connected to an injector at the time of the fire. This
valve was being purged with nitrogen on the fuel side and water on the
oxidizer side in preparation for flushing. A very small quantity of fuel had
spilled from the valve during hookup to the flush stand. When the water
started to flush through the oxidizer side, a loose connector allowed oxidizer
to come in contact with the spilled fuel and the fire resulted. No one was
injured; damage was estimated at $250.
ASPO Manager George Low received a message from NASA Hq. May 3
expressing concern that the two fires within one week might be symptomatic
of inadequate test procedures and personnel training, which could lead to a
more serious accident. Headquarters requested results of the investigations
and notice of corrective action taken to prevent future incidents.
TWXs, Low to NASA Hq., Atm : Apollo Program Director, April 26, 1967; NASA Hq. to Low,
May 3, 1967.
21
instructed NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, MSC
Director Robert R. Gilruth, and KSC Director Kurt H. Debus to review all
findings and recommendations of the Apollo 204 Review Board and assign
responsibility to an appropriate person for (a) program office evaluation of
the findings and recommendations, (b) the action to be taken on each
finding or recommendation, (c) the date on which this action was to be
completed, and (d) the preparation of a report closing out the accident.
124
PART II" RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
Upon completion of items (a) and (b) above, the responsible subsystem or
system manager was to review his evaluation and planned actions with the
Chairman of the Board panel responsible for determining the findings and
recommendations, to be sure that they had been properly interpreted.
Appropriate certification of facts would be signed by the panel Chairman.
Mueller specified that "Review Boards at the two Centers, either assistingor
set up for this review, should review the above actions with respect to the
findings and recommendations of the 204 Review Board; and to each other
to be sure that we have a consistent and adequate approach to the problems
and that the statement of actions and the actions themselves are feasible, and
are clearly enough expressed so as to be unambiguous in content."
The above actions were to be completed by April 28 and reported to NASA

Hq. in a form that could be presented to Congress. (See May 9-10 entry.)
Memo, Mueller to Phillips, Gilruth, and Debus, April 21, 1967.
25
Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Apollo Program Director, formed a task group
under the direction of Harold Russell of NASA Hq. to begin preparation of
a detailed inspection standards publication.
The task force would use pictures and discrepancy reports, the Apollo 204
Review Board report, and special inspections of spacecraft 012, 014, 017,020,
and 101 and LM-1.
During preparation of the uniform set of manned space flight standards, the
quality control and inspection standards Centers had previously imposed
upon their contractors would not be changed without approval of the
Apollo Program Office. Phillips estimated that the project might be
completed in about a month.
TWX, Phillips to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, Kurt H. Debus, KSC, and Wernher von Braun,
MSFC, April 25, 1967.
Because of the amount of flammable material in spacecraft 017 and 020,

MSC decided to purge these two spacecraft on the pad with gaseous
nitrogen. The total amount of oxygen in the spacecraft at time of reentry
would not exceed 14 percent. No tests would be conducted on these
spacecTaft with hatches closed when men were in the spacecraft.
TWX, ASPO Manager to NASA Hq., Atm: Apollo Program Director, April 26, 1967.
NASA Task Team--Block If Redefinition, CSM, was established by ASPO.

The team--to be in residence at North American Aviation during the
redefinition periodmwas to provide timely response to questions and inputs
on detail design, overall quality and reliability, test and checkout, baseline
specifications, configuration control, and schedules.
125
1967 Astronaut Frank Borman was named Task Team Manager and group
Apdl leaders were: Design, Aaron Cohen; Quality and Reliability and Test and
Checkout Procedures, Scott H. Simpkinson; Materials, Jerry W. Craig;
Specifications and Configuration Control, Richard E. Lindeman; and
Scheduling, Douglas R. Broome.
Memo, Manager, CSM, Apollo Spacecraft Program, to addressees, "Block II redefinition,

command and service modules," April 27, 1967.
27
Astronaut Donn F. Eisele. a member of the Block II Wiring Investigating
Team, wrote the ASPO Manager his reservations as to whether the wiring in
spacecraft 101 could be salvaged and made safe for flight. "To render
positive assurance of wiring integrity, strong consideration should be given
to replacing the entire 101 harness with a new, like item--made to the same
drawings as the present harness, but constructed and installed under more
rigorous quality control measures; and using non-flammable materials.
The replacement harness should be installed at the outset in protective trays
and covers now being implemented at NAA [North American Aviation]. A
wiring overlay could be installed later, to accommodate recent spacecraft
design changes, if adequate space is provided in the protective trays,
connector support provisions, etc. This should provide a harness of good
quality and known condition to start with; and the protection and quality
control measures should keep its integrity intact." (Eisele was the pilot on
the Apollo 7 mission--the first manned Apollo mission and the one on
which spacecraft 101 was used.)
Ltr., Eisele to ASPO Manager, "Spacecraft 101 wiring," April 27, 1967.
April 28-
Spacecraft delivery date and ground rule discussions were summarized by
May 16 MSC ASPO Manager George M. Low in a letter to North American
Aviation's Apollo Program Manager Dale D. Myers. Low referred to an
April 23 letter from Myers and April 25 talks at Downey, Calif.
Basic was "an MSC ground rule that the first manned flight should be an
open-ended mission; and that 2 TV 1 (a test spacecraft) would be a constraint
on that mission. I also stated that I would like to achieve a delivery date for
Spacecraft 101 that is no later than November, 1967, and that all
constraining tests on 2TV 1 should be completed one month before the
flight of 101. I further stated that the proposed delivery dates for Spacecraft
103 and subsequent spacecraft were not good enough and that we should
strive to achieve earlier dates.
"In summary, we did not agree with the basic ground rules stated in your
April 23, 1967, letter. These ground rules essentially implied that 101 was to
be limited to a six-orbit mission, and to be delivered as early as possible at the
expense of all other spacecraft. Instead, we stated that it is NASA's position
to achieve a balanced program involving the earliest possible deliveries
when all spacecraft are considered and not just the first one."
126
1967
A further exchange of letters May 8 and 16 reached agreement on target
delivery dates and ground rules. Testing of thermal vacuum test vehicle Aprll
2TV-1 would be as originally planned except that extravehicular activities

would not be included in tests constraining CSM 101. Delivery date was to be
October 14. CSM 101 was to be delivered December 8 and would be launched
on a Saturn IB to verify system performance. The mission was to be open-
ended, up to 10 days, with no LM and no docking or EVA provisions
included. New delivery date for CSM 103 was March 23, 1968.
Ltrs., Low to Myers, April 28 and May 8, 1967; Myers to Low, May 16, 1967.
May
MSC estimated the effect of the Apollo 204 fire on program costs for FY 1967
and 1968, in reply to April 26 instructions from NASA Apollo Program 1
Manager Samuel C. Phillips. Estimates were:
Command and service modules $25 million

Lunar module 21 million
Other 35 million
Total $81 million
Further, the program extension resulting from the accident would require
an additional budget allocation during FY 1969 and continuing through
program runout. A May 4 message from MSC confirmed the information
telephoned to Headquarters May 1.
The following ground rules had been used in estimating the cost impact:
• All changes planned as of May 1 for the command and service

modules and the lunar module were included.
• Vehicle delivery dates were as of April 29. Guidance and navigation
schedules were adjusted to support revised CSM and LM need dates.
TWXs, NASA Hq. to MSC, "Cost hnpact of 204 Accident," April 26, 1967; MSC to NASA Hq.,
"Cost Impact of the 204 Accident," May 4, 1967.
The Space and Information Systems Division of North American Aviation,

Inc., was renamed Space Division, effective May 1.
TWX, North American Aviation Space Div., Downey, CaliL, to NASA Hq., MSFC, MSC, and
KSC, "Redesignation of S&ID as Space Division," May 9, 1967.
George C. White, Jr., NASA OMSF Director of Apollo Reliability and

Quality, told Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips that an MSC
presentation on April 29 had restored confidence in Apollo's future, but
three areas caused him concern as possible compromises with crew safety
and mission success in the interest of near-term schedule and cost consider-
ations. They were:
• Soldered joints in coolant system plumbing. Design of the joints was

basically wrong; the insertion of the tubing into the sleeve was less than the
tube diameter. Shear strength of the solder had to be depended upon for
127
1967
mechanical integrity against bending and vibration as well as for sealing.
May Insertion should be two to three times the diameter so that bending could be
carried by the bearing of the tube in the sleeve, and the solder would only
have to seal.
• Wiring harnesses. Wiring in the Block II spacecraft had a number of
problems, the real significance of which was difficult to evaluate. Numerous
instances of damaged insulation (bare conductor) had been found and the
repairs had, in turn, resulted in more damage. At least once, split insulation
(bare conductor) had been found inside a wire bundle; it could have been in
the wire as received or could have resulted from cold flow.
• Modification procedure. MSC planned to make the changes in the
Block II spacecraft by working directly from mockup to the spacecraft, using
sketches and a minimum of paper work. While this kind of an operation
could get a job done in a hurry, it required a strong leader, thoroughly
experienced in working with engineering and factory people and
procedures, and rigorous adherence to a minimal streamlined paper system.
All "engineering" must be on drawings and all fabrication work must be
inspected at least as rigorously as in a normal manufacturing process.
White urged close management attention to ensure quality.
Memo, White to Phillips, "MSC plan presented on April 29, 1967," May 1, 1967.
The Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory Systems Program Office

requested that MSC present a briefing to selected office and contractor
personnel on NASA's progress in safety studies and tests associated with fire
hazards aboard manned space vehicles. Information was requested for the
MOL program to help formulate studies and activities that would not
duplicate MSC efforts. The briefing was given at MSC May 10.
TWXs, MOL Systems Program Office, Los Angeles, to MSC, "Request for Briefing on Safety
Studies and Associated Tests," May 2, 1967; MSC to Space Systems Div., USAF, May 3,1967.
ASPO Manager George M. Low asked the Chairman of the Apollo 204
Review Board to consider releasing CM 014 for use in the Apollo program. If
the Review Board had a continuing need for the CM, Low requested that
consideration be given to release of certain individual items needed for the
Apollo Mission Simulator program. Board Chairman Floyd L. Thompson
notified Low on June 22 that the CM mockup and CM 014 were no longer
required by the Review Board and that their disposition might be
determined by the ASPO Manager.
Memo, Low to Chairman, Apollo 204 Review Board,"Release of Command Module 014," May
2, 1967; TWX, Thompson to MSC, Atm: George M. Low, June 22, 1967.
2-4
NASA Block II Redefinition Task Team group leaders and CSM Program
Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht arrived at North American Aviation Space
Division at Downey May 2, followed by Task Team Manager Frank Borman
the next day. Borman met with North American management May 4 to
128
1967
ensure understanding of the team plan and objectives. An afternoon
meeting with NASA and North American Task Managers and group leaders May
reviewed the status of the Block II Redefinition task.
Following is a summation of the technical status at the time:
1. Ninety-five percent of the wires and break points had been defined,
including additional wires for changes (approximately 200) plus the
existing open items on spacecraft 101. Schematics for manufacturing and
preparation of integrated schematics were to be available May 30.
2. AiResearch environmental control system components had been
reviewed by North American and direction transmitted for materials
changes.
3. North American was planning no compartment closeouts behind
the front panels. This was unacceptable to NASA and closeouts would be
required.
4. North American definition and review of all spacecraft materials
applications were in progress, but Borman reported the progress was too
slow to date and that a plan for expediting was under consideration.
5. Fire extinguisher interfaces had not yet been identified. A meeting
was planned during the next week to resolve the problem.
6. NASA reaffirmed to North American the intention that DITMCO
(an inspection process) of the completed installed harness be performed as
late as possible and that harness protection be reinstalled immediately
after DITMCO. Connectors which could not be DITMCOed must be
reviewed with NASA, connector by connector.
7. NASA reaffirmed that a crew compartment fit and function test was
required on each spacecraft at Downey.
8. Two meetings had been held on the Downey spacecraft 101 test and
checkout. Definition of requirements was progressing rapidly and was
expected to be completed and signed off by May 5. A schedule would be
prepared for distribution on May 9, for the preparation, review and final
approval of the operational checkout procedures necessary for the approved
test requirement. The launch site test plan for spacecraft 101 would be
discussed in a meeting at Downey May 9, and this meeting would be
followed by a discussion of spacecraft 2TV-1 Downey test requirements as
related to the Houston tests for the spacecraft 101 mission.
9. The Test Group of the Task Team planned to work closely with the
Checkout Working Group and would be represented in its next meeting in
Downey on May 11.
10. Rework resulting from the wiring inspection of spacecraft 101 was
not proceeding as rapidly as desired; however, Borman reported that more
efficient procedures were being prepared and would be carried out as soon as
possible.
I 1. The Apollo spacecraft quality requirements were being reviewed
and the North American Quality Plan would be checked against these
requirements in detail.
129
1967 Borman reported on plans and schedules:

May
1. A documentation center was being established to provide configura-
tion documentation to the North American and NASA teams. A master
change status board would be maintained in the NASA Task Team Office,
and Block II specifications would be updated to provide the predesign
baseline.
2. North American had released Master Development Schedule-10
ahead of its May 12 schedule, and detailed engineering, manufacturing, and
AlSollo test operation schedules were being prepared.
Critical open items were: (1)TV monitor requirements and interfaces,

(2) flashing beacon mechanization and requirements, (3)material for the
lithium hydroxide canister, (4)emergency oxygen mask mechanization,
(5) water chlorination mechanization, (6) rapid repressurization-mechani-
zation or surge tank, and (7)cabin recirculation valve requirement.
TWX, RASPO at Downey, CaliL, to distr., "Block II Redefinition Daily Report No. 1, dated
May 4, 1967," May 5, 1967.
NASA's Space Science Steering Committee approved establishment of a

facility on the moon consisting of arrays of solid corner reflectors. The first
array was to be established by the earliest possible lunar landing mission,
with other arrays to be carried on subsequent missions. Until the
Committee and Manned Space Flight Experiment Board agreed on
assignment of priorities among the various lunar science experiments, this
experiment was to be considered a contingency experiment to be carried on
a "space available" basis. The facility on the moon would be available to
the principal investigator--C. O. Alley, University of Maryland--as well
as to other scientists.
TWX, NASA Hq. to MSC, Attn: Robert Piland, May 3, 1967.
Directions had been prepared to designate mission AS-501 formally as

Apollo 4, AS-204/LM- 1 as Apollo 5, and AS-502 as Apollo 6, NASA Apollo
Program Director Samuel C. Phillips informed Associate Administrator for
Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller. Phillips said he thought it was
the right time to start using the designations in official releases and
appropriate internal documentation. Mueller concurred.
Note, Phillips to Mueller, May 4, 1967.
Circuit breakers being used in both CSM and LM were flammable, MSC
ASPO Manager George Low told Engineering and Development Director
Maxime A. Faget. Low said that although Structures and Mechanics
Division was developing a coating to be applied to the circuit breakers, such
a solution was not the best for the long run. He requested that the
Instrumentation and Electronics Systems Division find replacement circuit
breakers for Apollo--ideally, circuit breakers that would not burn and that
would fit within the same volume as the existing ones, permitting
130
PART n." RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
1967
replacement in panels already built. On July 12 Low wrote Faget again : "In
light of the work that has gone on since my May 5, 1967, memo, are you now May
prepared to propose the use of metal-jacketed circuit breakers for Apollo

spacecraft? If the answer is affirmative, then we should get specific direction
to our contractors immediately. Also, have you surveyed the industry to see
whether a replacement circuit breaker is available or will be available in the
future?" Low requested an early reply.
Memos, Low to Faget, "Apollo circuit breakers," May 5, 1967; "Apollo circuit breakers,
continued," July 12, 1967.
After review of operational considerations for a minimum restart capability

in the Saturn launch vehicle's S-IVB stage, MSC's Director of Flight
Operations reported to NASA Hq. that an 80-minute restart capability was
believed the best compromise for the early lunar missions, "for the primary
reason of providing sufficient time for ground support in verifying
navigation, and flight crew checkout of CSM and S-IVB systems prior to
TLI [translunar injection], while providing for two injection opportunities
in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (second and third revolutions). For
later missions, consideration should be given to the hardware implications
of providing a restart capability with minimum (zero) restrictions, so that
advantage may be taken of confidence in onboard systems to gain additional
payload."
Ltr., Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC, to NASA tiq., "S-IVB Restart Capability," May 5, 1967.
9-10
NASA reported to Congress on actions taken on the Apollo 204 Review
Board's findings and recommendations concerning the January 27
spacecraft fire. Administrator James E. Webb, Deputy Administrator
Robert C. Seamans, Jr., and Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight George E. Mueller testified before the Senate Committee on
Aeronautical and Space Sciences May 9 and before the House Committee
on Science and Astronautics' Subcommittee on NASA Oversight May 10.
(See also September 21 and Appendix 8.)
Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Apollo Accident: Hearings, 90th
Cong., 1st sess., pts. 6-7, May 9, 1967; House Committee on Science and Astronautics,
Subcommittee on NASA Oversight, Investigation into Apollo 204 Accident: Hearings, 90th
Cong., 1st sess, vol. 3, May 10, 1967; Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 (NASA SP-4008,
1968), pp. 144-148.).
10
MSC responded to a March 29 letter from NASA Hq. concerning two arrays
of Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) experiments. MSC
said it had reviewed schedules, cost, and integration aspects of the requested
configurations and that four areas of the project apparently should be
modified to allow proper inclusion of the configurations: (1) extension of
mission support efforts by Bendix Aerospace Systems Division (BxA) for the
fourth ALSEP mission; (2) extensio_l of KSC's support efforts by BxA for the
fourth ALSEP mission; (3) extension of the ALSEP prototype test program
to encompass three distinct system configurations rather than the two in the
131
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT." A CHRONOLOGY
1967
original plans; and (4) extension of the ALSEP qualification test program to
May encompass three distinct configurations rather than the original two. The
cost impact was estimated at $670000, and completion of the ALSEP
contract was expected to be extended three months to allow for mission
support for the fourth flight.
Ltr., Robert R. Gilruth, Director, MSC, to NASA Hq., Arm: Samuel C. Phillips, "Selection of
Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package System Configurations," May 10, 1967.
11
NASA Administrator James E. Webb issued a statement on selection of the
Apollo spacecraft contractor: "In the 1961 NASA decision to negotiate with
North American Aviation for the Apollo command and service modules,
there were no better qualified experts in or out of NASA on whom I could
rely than Dr. Robert Gilruth, Dr. Robert C. Seamans, and Dr. Hugh L.
Dryden. These three were unanimous in their judgment that of the five
companies submitting proposals, and of the two companies that were rated
highest by the Source Evaluation Board, North American Aviation offered
the greatest experience in developing high-performance manned flight
systems and the lowest cost.
"In the selection of North American Aviation, the work of the Source
Evaluation Board was not rejected or discarded. It was used as the basis for a
more extensive and detailed examination of all pertinent factors than the
Board had performed at the time its report was presented to Dr. Gilruth, Dr.
Seamans, Dr. Dryden and to me.
"At that point it became the responsibility of NASA's Associate
Administrator, Dr. Seamans; its Deputy Administrator, Dr. Dryden; and its
Administrator, myself, to take all steps necessary to determine whether the
facts then available formed an adequate basis for our selection of a
contractor. We decided in the affirmative and then proceeded to select the
contractor the facts indicated offered the most to the government."
NASA News Release 67-122, May 1 I, 1967.
12
George M. Low, Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program, notified NASA
Hq. that Grumman was committed to a June 28 delivery for lunar module 1
(LM-1). This date included provisions for replacement of the development
flight instrumentation harness with a new one. Low's assessment was that
the date would be difficult to meet.
TWX, Low, MSC, to NASA Hq., Attn, Lee James, "LM-1 delivery schedule," May 12, 1967.
12
Anthony W. Wardell of the MSC Flight Safety Analysis Office wrote Apollo
Manager Low that "the May 10 inspection further substantiates my
previous recommendation to replace, rather than rework, the [spacecraft 101
wiring] harness. In addition to the visual evidence of wire damage noted, a
book containing about 100 outstanding wire damage MRB (Material
Review Board) actions was noted on a work table near the spacecraft." He
did, however, list seven recommended suggestions to be followed in the
event the harnesses were reworked rather than replaced. The suggestions
132
1967
were passed on to CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht by Low in a
memorandum on May 13. Low requested that the suggestions be passed to May
North American Aviation as soon as possible, with additional suggestions
from MSC Quality Control Chief Jack A. Jones, who had also inspected the
harness.
Memos, Jones to Low, "Inspection of SC-101 Wire Harness Assemblies," May 10, 1967;
Wardell to Low, "Inspection of Spacecraft 101 Wiring Harnesses," May 12, 1967; Low to
Kleinknecht, "Spacecraft 101 wiring," May 13, 1967.
12
Apollo 204 Review Board Chairman Floyd L. Thompson appointed a
subcommittee to examine the final report of Panel 18 and prepare
recommendations regarding its acceptability for inclusion in the Board's
Report. Thompson named Maxime A. Faget, MSC, to chair the subcommit-
tee. and Frank Borman, MSC, George C. White, NASA Hq., and E. Barton
Geer, LaRC, as members. Thompson asked that the subcommittee forward
its recommendations at the earliest possible date and that it also review the
comments of North American Aviation on the validity of the findings of the
Board and its Panels.
TWX, Thompson to addressees, May 12, 1967.
15
The NASA Block II CSM Redefinition Task Team was augmented by the
assignment of Gordon J. Stoops as Group Leader-Program Control, with
the following functions:
• Liaison with North American Aviation Program Control and

Contracts to expedite updating of the contract change authorizations and
the issuance of timely program technical direction.
• Liaison with the ASPO CSM Project Engineering and Checkout
Division and CSM Contract Engineering Branch at MSC to expedite
contract change authorizations and ensure timely program technical
direction.
Memo, Manager, CSM, ASPO, to distr., "Block II redefinition, command and service modules,"
May 15, 1967.
18
Prime and backup crews for Apollo 7 (spacecraft 101) were named, with the
assignments effective immediately. The prime crew for the engineering-test-
flight mission was to consist of Walter M. Schirra, Jr., commander; Donn F.
Eisele, CM pilot; and R. Walter Cunningham, LM pilot. The backup crew
was Thomas P. Stafford, commander; John W. Young, CM pilot; and
Eugene A. Cernan, LM pilot. Names had been reported to the Senate
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences on 9 May.
Memo, Astronaut Office to distr., "Astronaut Technical Assignments," May 18, 1967; Senate
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Apollo Accident: Hearings, 90th Cong., 1st
sess., pt. 6, May 9, 1967.
19
A Block II spacecraft vibration program was begun to provide confidence in
CSM integrity and qualify the hardware interconnecting the subsystems
within the spacecraft. A test at MSC was to simulate the vibration
133
1967 environment of max-q flight conditions. The test article was to be a Block II
May CSM. A spacecraft-LM adapter, an instrumentation unit, and an S-IVB
stage forward area simulation would also be used.
Memo, Chief, Systems Engineering Div. (MSL to Manager, ASPO, "Block II spa(ecraft
vibration program," with encl., "Block I1 Spa, e(J,dt Vil,lacion Progzam," May 19, 1967
2O
MSC notified NASA Hq. that--with the changes defined for the Block II
spacecraft following the January 27 Apollo 204 fire and with CSM delivery
schedules now reestablished--it was necessary to complete a contract for
three additional CSMs requested in 1966. North American Aviation had
responded September 15, 1966, to MSC's February 28 request for a proposal,
but action on a contract had been suspended because of the AS-204 accident.
NASA Hq. on June 27, 1967, authorized MSC to proceed.
TWXs, Manager, ASPO, co NASA Hq., Attn: Samuel C. Phillips, "Authorization |or
procurement of three additional Block If CSM's," May 20, 1967; NASA [tq, Asso(iate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight to MS(:, Atm: George l.ow, June 27, 1967.
22 MSC ASPO Manager George Low informed Grumman Senior Vice

President George Titterton that he had asked North American Aviation
assistance in improving access to the LM when placed inside the spacecraft-
lunar module adapter (SLA). He also ordered a change request, in response
to Grumman's April 18 request that MSC consider an SLA design change.
Low had visited the pad at KSC Launch Complex 37, agreed action was
necessary, and on May 19 asked North American's Apollo Program Manager
Dale D. Myers for recommendations. Low said improved access to the LM
was needed "both for rapid emergency egress and for normal servicing."
An emergency method of cutting through the SLA structure in premarked

locations with a "cookie cutter" portable handsaw device was adopted--
primarily for exit in an emergency occurring after hypergolics were loaded
into the LM.
Ltrs., Titterton to MSC, Apr. 18, 1967; Low to Myers May 19, 1967; Low to Titterton, May 22,
1967; memo, ASPO Manager to R. W. Williams, "Preparation of ,hange request," May 22.
1967; Myers to Low, Aug. 11, 1967.
25
MSC submitted requirements to KSC that TV signals from cameras inside
the LM and CM be monitored and recorded during manned hazardous tests,
with hatch open or closed, and tests in the Vehicle Assembly Building,
launch pads, and altitude chambers. A facility camera was to monitor the
propellant-utilization gauging system during propellant loading. MSC
specified that the field of view of the TV camera should encompass the
shoulder and torso and portions of the legs of personnel at the normal flight
stations in both the CM and the LM.
Ltr., Owen G. Morris, MSC, to KSC, "Continuous Teh'vision Recording in Support o1 Manned
Apollo Tests at KSC," May 25, 1967.
26
ASPO Manager George Low told Charles A. Berry, MSC Director of Medical
Research and Operations, that it had been determined there was no suitable
134
substitute for water glycol as a coolant and it would continue to be used in 1967
the Apollo spacecraft. Low recognized that it was "essential that the effects May
o[ any possible glycol spill be well defined and that procedures be

established to avoid any hazardous conditions." He asked Berry's office to
define the limits of exposure for glycol spills of varying quantities and for
recommendations concerning cabin purge in the event of a spill. Low also
wondered, assuming development of a smelling agent, if it would be
possible to determine the concentration of water glycol by the strength of the
smell in the spacecraft. Berry's office replied June 22 that it was working
with Crew Systems Division to identify an odor additive for leak detection.
They would begin a program to establish a safe upper limit for human
exposure to ethylene glycol and had asked the National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Toxicity for information. Animal exposure tests probably
would be necessary; if they were needed, a test plan would be submitted
before July 1.
Memos, Manager, ASPO. to Berry, "Water glycol toxicity," May 26, 1967; Berry to Low, June
22, 1967.
Views of bay 21 before and after a "Tiger Team" checked spacecraft 101.
_AFT COMPTFRAMES21-22
BEFORE AFTER
REVIEWED
8' CORRECTED
oWlRE ROUTING8. SLACK • IMPROPERINSTALLATION

OF CLAMPS
eWIRE DAMAGE
• RELOCATED
WIRE BREAKOUTS
1967 NASA Headquarters and MSC officials attended a review of the CSM at
May North American Aviation in Downey. Following the North American
28 briefing, the group visited the wire-harness layout and assembly areas.
with Anthony W. Wardell and Jack A. Jones of MSC, inspected the wiring
in spacecraft 101 and 2TV-1 in detail.
Mueller stressed the importance of improving spacecraft delivery schedules,

with particular emphasis on spacecraft 020 and the second and third
manned spacecraft, working up to two-month delivery intervals. He was
concerned about the five- to six-week spacecraft 020 hatch delay and stated
that Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips must approve the
proposed change. North American pointed out that it was using the
resources of the corporation toward the two-month delivery schedule, and
that a modification task-team approach would be used as long as it was
effective in improving schedules. Tiger teams of engineering, quality,
manufacturing, and materials personnel were working on wiring and
plumbing in spacecraft 101. CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht
reviewed the Block II Redefinition Task Team effort for Mueller and he
indicated that Phillips had considered an industry tiger team to assist in the
overall spacecraft effort.
Memo, Kleinknecht to ASPO Manager, "Review of command and service modules," May 26,
1967.
26
Apollo 204 Review Board Chairman Floyd L. Thompson wrote NASA
Deputy Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., "The Apollo 204 Review
Board respectfully submits that it has fulfilled all of its duties and
responsibilities as prescribed by the Deputy Administrator's memorandum
of February 3, 1967. Accordingly, it is requested that the Apollo 204 Review
Board be dissolved."
Ltr., Thompson to Seamans, "Report of Completion of Apollo 204 Review Board Activities,"
May 26, 1967.
29
W. R. Downs, Special Assistant for Advanced Systems, MSC Structures and
Mechanics Division, discovered that bare or defectively insulated silver-
covered copper wires exposed to glycol/water solutions would ignite
spontaneously and burn in oxygen. Copper wire or nickel-covered copper
wire under identical conditions did not ignite. The laboratory results were
confirmed in work at the Illinois Institute of Technology. In a June 13
memorandum, the Chief of the Structures and Mechanics Division
recommended that if additional testing verified that nickel-coated wires
were free of the hazard, consideration should be given to an in-line
substitution of nickel-coated wires for silver-coated wires in the LM. It was
understood that the Block II CSM already had nickel-coated wires. In a June
20 memo to the ASPO Manager, the Director of Engineering and
Development pointed out that silver-plated pins and sockets in connectors
would offer the same hazards. He added that Downs had also identified a
136
1967
chelating agent that would capture the silver ion and apparently prevent the
reaction chain. In a July 24 memorandum, ASPO Manager George Low May
said that, in view of recent spills of ethylene glycol and water mixtures,
spacecraft contractors North American Aviation and Grumman Aircraft
Engineering had been directed to begin actions immediately to ensure that a
fire hazard did not exist for the next manned spacecraft. Actions were to
include identification of the location of silver or silver-covered wires and
pins and of glycol spills.
Memos, Special Assistant for Advanced Systems to Chief, Structures and Mechanics Div.,
"Chemical reactivity of silver covered copper wires with glycol/water solutions compared to
copper or nickel covered copper wires," May 29, 1967 (rev. June 12, 1967); Chief, Structures and
Mechanics Div., to Director of Engineering and Development,"Silver-covered copper wires as a
fire producing hazard in spacecraft," June 13, 1967; Director of Engineering and Development
to Manager, ASPO, "Silver-covered copper wires as a fire producing hazard in spacecraft," June
20, 1967; Manager, ASPO, to distr., "Silver-covered copper wires as a fire producing hazard in
spacecraft," July 24, 1967.
31
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.'s method of building wiring harness
for the lunar module was acceptable, George Low, MSC Apollo Spacecraft
Program Office Manager, wrote Apollo Program Manager Samuel C.
Phillips at NASA Hq. Low had noted on a visit to Grumman on May 9 that
many of the harnesses were being built on two-dimensional boards. In view
of recent discussions of the command module wiring, Low requested
Grumman to reexamine their practice and to reaffirm their position on two-
versus three-dimensional wiring harnesses.
In his May 31 letter to Phillips, Low enclosed Grumman's reply and said
that, in his opinion, Grumman's practice was acceptable because (1) most
wire bundles on the LM were much thinner than the CSM wiring bundles
and were much more flexible; (2) portions of the LM harness were often
fabricated on a three-dimensional segment of the harness board; and (3)
connectors were usually mounted on metal brackets with the proper
direction and clocking.
Ltrs., Low to Phillips, May 31, 1967; J. G. Gavin to Low, "Use of Two andThree Dimensional
Harness Boards in Fabrication of LM Wiring," May 24, 1967; Grumman LM Manulacturing
Memo, W. B. Atchison to C. W. Rathke, "Harness Board Design--2D vs. 3D," 17 May 1967.
31
George M. Low told Joseph N. Kotanchik, Chief of MSC's Structures and
Mechanics Division, that actions were pending on Pratt g: Whitney pressure
vessel failures. The pressure vessels were used in the Apollo fuel cell system.
Kotanchik had spelled out a list of problem areas in connection with both
the vessels and management interface between MSC and principal
contractor North American Aviation, and between North American and its
subcontractor Pratt 8e Whitney.
Memos, Chief, Structures and Mechanics Div., to Manager, ASPO, "Conduct of Pratt and
Whitney Aircraft (PWA) on pressure vessel failure analysis," May 18, 1967; Low to Kotanchik,
"Pratt _ Whitney pressure vessel failures," May 31, 1967.
137
1967 MSC's Director of Flight Operations Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., told ASPO
June Manager George M. Low that his Directorate was willing to support the
flight test program presented in late May and felt that the computer
1
programs and operational support he had in development would support
the flights as currently scheduled. He did offer some comments on the
proposed flight test program and asked that the NASA Office of Manned
Space Flight be given an indication that his suggested program was being
considered as a future alternate approach. The comments included: "a. The
first manned LM flight appears to be most ambitious. We believe that when
the time comes, a much more conservative approach to the flight plan will
be taken because of the lack of experience with the LM spacecraft .... b. We
have the general feeling that there are insufficient flight tests scheduled in
order to prove the worthiness of the LM and that a lunar landing flight could
only follow a successfully completed schedule of LM flights .... c. We
believe that a lunar orbit flight with the CSM/LM should be included in the
flight test program, as an alternate to the third CSM/LM flight you have
proposed, or as an additional flight to the program .... d .... we believe it
feasible that one of the LM development flights could be conducted as safely
in the vicinity of the moon as in earth orbit, assuming that the CSM has been
proven at that time .... e. Finally, we believe that the lunar type flight
programs we propose would have great impact on the stature of the nation's
space program ....
Memos. Owen E. Maynard, MSC, to Kraft, "Apollo Flight Program Delinition." May 31, 1967;
Kraft to l,ow, "Requested comments on Apollo Flight Program Definition," June 1, 1967.
A meeting at MSC discussed CSM and LM changes, schedules, and related

test and hardware programs. On June 26, NASA Apollo Program Manager
Samuel C. Phillips summarized the discussion in a letter to George Low. He
pointed out that certain problems could result in serious program impact if
not solved expeditiously and specifically mentioned couch design, the
weight problem in the CSM and LM, docking changes, and delivery
schedules.
Minutes (d Apollo Program Meeting, June 2, 1967; hr., Phillips to Low, June 26. 1967.
Bendix Corp. demonstrated the operation of a sliding boom concept to

prove that the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) could
be removed from the LM at various attitudes. MSC representatives viewing
the demonstration at Ann Arbor, Mich., were Aaron Cohen, Don Weissman,
Paul Gerke, Don Lind, and Harrison Schmitt. Cohen reported that the
mockup was crude but indicated that the concept was satisfactory to both
Grumman and NASA. Design refinement, qualification, and effect on LM
structure would have to be looked into. It was believed an additional seven
kilograms of weight would be added to the LM descent stage. Two interface
problems were defined at the meeting: (1) Bendix and Grumman required
maximum and minimum attitude position for the LM to complete the
design of ALSEP handling equipment. (2) Both Grumman and Bendix
138
required temperature criteria for the outer shield of the cask, which would 1967
contain radioactive material. June
Memo, Cohen to A. L. Liccardi, RASPO, Grumman, "Trip Report to Bendix, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, on June 6, 1967," June 13, 1967.
NASA Office of Manned Space Flight had redefined the Apollo Block II
manned mission flight plan, ASPO informed the MSC Director of Science
and Applications. The first manned flight plan called for (1) an open-ended
mission up to 10 days, (2) sufficient instrumentation, (3) no extravehicular
activity, (4) a CSM rendezvous with the S-IVB stage, and (5)no experiments
that required spacecraft integration. The redefinition resulted in OMSF's
indicating that no scientific experiments would be flown on the mainstream
Apollo flights unless they would contribute to the accomplishment of the
lunar mission. ASPO therefore had told North American Aviation that
certain scientific experiments planned for spacecraft 101 would now be
deleted from the program. The experiments were Simple Navigation
(DO 19), Urine Volume Measuring System (M005), UV Stellar Photography
(S019), and UV/X-ray Solar Photography (S020).
Memo, Manager, MSC ASPO, to MSC Director of Science and Applications, "Apollo Earth
Orbital Experiments," June 7, 1967.
At a NASA and North American Aviation management meeting, North

-American was directed to proceed with development of larger drogue
parachutes and staged main chute disreefing, using 5- and 8-second reefing-
line cutters. Later analysis of the system and the proposed modifications still
indicated only a marginal capability to offer adequate factors of safety, and
North American was directed to use 6- and 10-second reefing-line cutters. In
a letter to Headquarters, MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth mentioned that a
review of these modifications had been covered at the September Manned
Space Flight Management Council and, since no objections were voiced at
that time, MSC assumed concurrence with the changes and would
implement modifications for spacecraft 101 and subsequent Block II
spacecraft.
"Minutes of Apollo Program Meeting" (June 2, 1967); hr., Gilruth to NASA Hq., "Command
Module Earth Landing System modification," Sept. 29, 1967.
In a memorandum to the Chief, Systems Engineering Division, MSC, ASPO

Manager George M. Low pointed out the weight problem in the CSM and
LM was critical. Low called for a detailed review of weight effects along with
any proposed design change. The weight estimate was to be submitted by
the affected contractor as a part of his change proposal, and this would then
be verified by the subsystems manager and Systems Engineering.
To provide timely weight status to the Configuration Control Board,

Systems Engineering Division was given the responsibility of presenting
CSM and LM weight status at each weekly Board meeting as follows:
(1) control weight, (2) current weight, and (3) estimated weight at time o[
139
lg67 launch. These figures would be shown for three spacecraft: first manned,
June second manned, and lunar configuration. Both launch weight and reentry
weight were to be included.
Memo, Low to Chief, Systems Engineering Div., MSC, "Spacecraft Weight," June 8, 1967.
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, in a message to ASPO

Manager George M. Low, spoke of a June 2 agreement to include a CSM
active rendezvous with the Saturn S-IVB stage of the launch vehicle in the
mission profile of the first manned Apollo mission. Phillips said that it
should be recognized that such a rendezvous would not be a primary
objective for the first manned mission and that the decision should be
reviewed if any related problem that would complicate mission prepara-
tions were identified.
TWX, Phillips to Low, "First Manned Apollo Rendezvous," June 8, 1967.
Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Deputy Administrator of NASA, prepared a

memorandum to the file concerning the selection of North American
Aviation as the CSM prime contractor. The memorandum, a seven-page
document, chronologically reviewed the steps that led to the selection of
North American and followed by about a month the statement of NASA
Administrator James E. Webb in response to queries from members of the
Congress.
Memo to the File from Deputy Administrator, NASA, "The Selection of North American
Aviation, Inc., as the prime contractor for the command and service module," June 9, 1967.
Robert O. Aller, NASA OMSF, told Apollo Program Director Samuel C.

Phillips that considerable analysis, planning, and discussion had taken
place at MSC on the most effective sequence of Apollo missions following
the first manned flight [Apollo 7]. The current official assignments included
three CSM/LM missions for CSM/LM operations, lunar simulation, and
lunar capability. MSC's Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) had offered an
alternate approach of that sequence by proposing that the third mission be a
lunar-orbit mission rather than a high earth-orbit mission. Aller preferred
the FOD proposal, since it would offer considerable operational advantages
by conducting a lunar-orbital flight before the lunar landing. He
recommended Phillips consider that sequence of missions and that
consideration be given to including it as a prime or alternate mission in the
Mission Assignments Document. "Identifying it in that document," Aller
said, "would initiate the necessary detailed planning."
Memo, Aller to Phillips, "Apollo Flight Program," June 9, 1967.
13 The purpose of spacecraft 105 testing was to establish transition relations

between the primary and secondary structure that supported systems'
interconnecting hardware (wiring, tubing and associated valves, filters,
regulators, etc.) and demonstrate structural integrity of the Block II CSM
when subjected to qualification vibration environment, with special
140
emphasis on interconnecting hardware. The test vehicle was being 1967

configured with complete basic Block II wiring harness and fluid systems. June
The vehicle would be checked out before and after each phase of testing to
verify wiring harness impedance and continuity and fluid systems pressure
integrity. The fluid systems would be at operating pressure during the
testing.
Memo, ASPO Manager to Chief, Flight Safety Office, MSC, "Vibration testing," June 13, 1967.
14
Designations and abbreviations for flight crewmen on all manned Apollo
missions were selected:
• Commander--CDR
• Command module pilot--CMP
• Lunar module pilot--LMP
This terminology was to be used throughout the Apollo spacecraft program

and compliance was required to minimize confusion.
Memo, Manager, ASPO, to distr., "Apollo crewmen designations," June 14, 1967.
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth told George E. Mueller, NASA OMSF, that 15
MSC desired that the vernier engine be fired after the touchdown of Surveyor
IV on the lunar surface. He reminded Mueller that this experiment was
supposed to have been performed on Surveyor III and was of prime
importance to Apollo. The fact that Surveyor 1II landed with the vernier
engine firing and did not experience any significant erosion had also been of
importance to the Apollo program. He requested that Surveyor IV be
targeted for the Apollo landing site in the Sinus Medii area. As a lower
priority experiment, Gilruth said MSC would like to get a limited amount
of photography on the first lunar day, which would allow a limited
assessment of viewing conditions in earthshine.
Ltr., Gilruth to Mueller, "Surveyor IV support of Apollo," June 15, 1967.
X-ray inspection seeks to

ensure that weldments,
wires, and spacecra[t com-
ponents are free of cracks
and other damage that
could jeopardize crew safety
and mission success.
1967 Plans were to armor-plate 102 out of 167 solder joints inside the CM of
June spacecraft 101, ASPO Manager George M. Low informed Maxime A. Eager,
17
MSC's Director of Engineering and Development. Of the remaining 65
joints, 53 would be accessible for armor-plating and x-raying, while the
other 12 would not. Low said: "As joints become less accessible, the excess
solder removal process, the joint-cleaning process, and the application of
the armor-plating become more difficult. Also, in many places, the standard
armor-plating sleeve does not fit, and a shorter or cutaway sleeve is required.
I have therefore reached the conclusion that, at some point, the armor-
plating process may become detrimental .... You should know that Mr.
[Joseph N.] Kotanchik disagrees with this position. Joe believes that any
joint in the spacecraft could be under stress and therefore is subject to creep.
The only solution . . . according to Joe, is to armor-plate all joints .... "
Low added that joints that are accessible from outside the CSM would also
be armor-plated and that future spacecraft would include additional armor-
plating. He said, "My expectation is that all solder joints will be armor-
plated in the lunar configuration .... "
Memo, Low to Faget, "Armor-plating of solder joints," June 17, 1967.
19 H. G. Paul, Chief of Marshal Space Flight Center's Propulsion Division,

said it had come to the attention of his office that spacecraft/S-IVB
rendezvous to within approximately 100 meters was being considered for the
AS-205 mission. The divison's position was that, unless the S-IVB stage
were made passive, the division could not guarantee the stage would be in a
safe condition. After the lifetime of a nonpassivated stage, it was possible
that indiscriminant propellant-tank or bottle venting could cause the stage
to tumble, thus permitting liquid to enter the propellant-tank vent lines.
Another area of concern was the high-pressure bottles on the stage. Should
a relief valve fail to function normally, a bottle rupture could result. The
Propulsion Division therefore recommended that no rendezvous mission be
planned with S-IVB stages of either Saturn IB or Saturn V launch vehicles
after the guaranteed lifetime of the stage, unless that stage had been
passivated.
Memo, Paul to Cochairman, Guidance and Performance Subpanel, "AS-205 Spacecraft/S-

IVB Rendezvous," June 19, 1967.
2O Apollo spacecraft 017 was mechanically mated to its Saturn V launch

vehicle at KSC in preparation for the Apollo 4 (AS-501) unmanned mission,
scheduled for the third quarter of 1967.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1967 (NASA SP-4008, 1968), p. 191.
2O Leonard Reiffel of the NASA Hq. Apollo Program Office suggested to

Program Director Samuel C. Phillips that "we do not schedule the ALSEP
[Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package] for the first lunar landing,"
because :
142
• The duration on the lunar surface for the first mission was likely to be 1967
short and the ALSEP deployment time was likely to take a seriously June
disproportionate share of available time. "It is my opinion we will learn

more of immediate consequence to science and to planning of subsequent
missions from careful observations and sample collection as contrasted to
emplacement of an all-up ALSEP."
• With the exception of the lunar atmosphere, manned operations
would not disturb the conditions ALSEP was intended to measure. These,
therefore, could be measured on later flights.
• The magnetometer was in trouble. The interpretability of plasma
experiments on an ALSEP that did not include a magnetometer would be
markedly depreciated.
2O
• The problem of LM weight control would be eased substantially if
only the lunar geological tools and sample boxes, rather than the full
ALSEP, were carried.
• Waiting for the second lunar mission would decrease the risk of
wasting a full ALSEP payload, since the Apollo system already would have
successfully reached the moon once.
He added, "An uncrowded time line on the lunar surface for the first mission
would seem to me more contributory to the advance of science than trying to
do so much on the first mission that we do nothing well .... "
Memo, Reiffel to Phillips, "Flight Schedule for ALSEP and Related Matters," June 20, 1967.
Officials at the Manned Space Flight Management Review decided that

Apollo 4 and Apollo 5 missions would be flown with no less than a 21-day
interval between flights. This period was determined necessary to provide an
adequate turnaround of the ground support systems to ensure proper
reconfiguration, validation, and updating. The Apollo 4 mission would be
given priority over Apollo 5 in the checkout and readiness phase if conflicts
in use of facilities and equipment should arise.
Memo, Director, Mission Operations, NASA OblSF, to distr., "Mission Priority and
Turnaround between Apollo 4 and Apollo 5," July 10, 1967.
22
A committee was established to conduct an operational readiness inspection
(ORI) of the MSC Space Environment Simulation Laboratory. The
inspection would supplement the original ORI of the facility. Emphasis
would be placed on reviewing modifications since the previous inspection
and upon readiness to perform the test series on LTA-8 and 2TV-1. The
committee was made up of Martin L. Raines, Chairman; Rexford H.
Talbert, Executive Secretary; Edward L. Hays, Alan Hatter, James E.
Powell, John W. Conlon, Armistead Dennett, and Joseph P. Kerwin, all of
MSC; Dugald O. Black, KSC; and E. Barton Geer, LaRC.
Memo, Director, MSC, to distr., "Operational Readiness Inspection of tile MSC Space
Environmental Simulation I.aboratory," June 22, 1967.
143
lg67 Although the LM-I wiring harness had been accepted by the Customer
June Acceptance Readiness Review Board it was not clear that the harness would
also have been accepted for manned flight, ASPO Manager George M. Low
told Apollo Systems Engineering Assistant Chief R. W. Williams. Low
asked Williams to assign someone to prepare a plan of actions needed to
ensure that the harnesses in LM-2 and subsequent vehicles would be
acceptable.
Memo, Low to Williams, "LM spacecraft wiring and splices," June 23, 1967.
26
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips told ASPO Manager George
Low he believed progress had been made toward Apollo objectives. At the
same time, Phillips believed certain problems, if not solved expeditiously,
could seriously delay the program. He was concerned particularly with the
couch design, weight problem, docking changes, and delivery schedules.
Phillips requested an early response on the problem areas.
Ltr., Phillips to Low, June 26, 1967.
26
Possible hazards to the crew in the lunar module thermal vacuum test
program (using LTA-8) were pointed up in a memorandum to Manager,
ASPO, and Director of Engineering and Development from the Director of
Flight Crew Operations. Manning procedures required crewmen to make
numerous hard vacuum transfers between the Space Environment
Simulation Laboratory's environmental control system (ECS) umbilicals
and the LM environmental control system hoses. Also, during the manning
operations the crewmen would be on the LM-ECS with the cabin
depressurized. In the configuration in use, if one of the crewmen lost his suit
integrity, there would be no protection for the other man. Because of these
hazardous conditions the following actions were requested: (a) provide
equipment to make vacuum transfers of oxygen hoses acceptably safe; and
(b) change the LTA-8 vehicle ECS so that one crewman was protected if the
other lost suit integrity in a vacuum ambient.
Memo, Director of Flight Crew Operations to Manager, ASPO, and Director of Engineering
and Development, "Possible hazards to the crew during the Lunar Module Thermal Vacuum
Tests in Chamber B," June 26, 1967.
28
The Apollo Program Director requested MSC to assign the following
experiments to AS-205, spacecraft 101: M006--Bone Demineralization,
M011--Cytogenic Blood Studies, M023--Lower Body Negative Pressure,
S005--Synoptic Terrain Photography, and S006--Synoptic Weather
Photography. Experiment D008, Radiation in Spacecraft, would be
included in the above list at the option of ASPO. On July 21 ASPO Manager
George M. Low informed CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht that he
was approving reinstatement of Experiments S005 and S006 on AS-205. On
the same date Low informed the Apollo Program Director that S005 and
S006 would be carried on AS-205. He proposed that experiments M006,
M011, and M023, which required pre- and postflight operations with the
144
crew, be classified not as experiments but as part of the normal pre- and 1967
postflight medical evaluation. Experiment D008 was deleted from AS-205 June
and all other inflight experiments previously assigned had been deleted
from the spacecraft. MSC's Director of Medical Research and Operations
Charles A. Berry and Director of Space Science and Applications Wilmot N.
Hess concurred with Low's decision.
Ltrs., Apollo Program Director to MSC, Atm: George M. Low, "Earth Orbital Experiment
Assignments," June 28, 1967; Low to NASA Hq., Atm: Samuel C. Phillips, "Earth Orbital
Experiment Assignments," July 21, 1967; memo, Manager, ASPO, to K. S. Kleinknecht,
"Experiments S005 and S006," July 21, 1967.
28
Dale D. Myers, Apollo CSM Manager for North American Aviation, Inc.,
requested a meeting with ASPO Manager George M. Low and ASPO CSM
Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht to resolve issues concerning materials
replacement and objectives for boilerplate tests. In reply, on July 6, Low said
that Kleinknecht had conducted a complete review of flammable materials
since receipt of Myers' June 28 letter and that a number of telephone
conversations had been held on the subject. MSC recommended that the
insulation on the environmental control unit be covered with nickel foil and
that silicone-rubber wire-harness clamps could possibly be covered with a
combination of "Laddicote" and nitroso rubber. Plans were for the boiler-
plate mockup tests to use an overloaded wire in a wire bundle as an ignition
source. At Myers' suggestion, MSC was also looking into the use of electric
arcs, or sparks, as a possible ignition source. Low said: "As you know, our
goal in the mockup tests will be to demonstrate that any fire in a 6 psi [4.1
newtons per square centimeter] oxygen atmosphere extinguishes itself ....
If we can demonstrate that in the 6 psi oxygen atmosphere a fire would
spread very slowly so that the crew could easily get out of the spacecraft
while on the pad .... then I believe that we should also be satisfied."
Ltrs., Myers to Low, June 28, 1967; Low to Myers, July 6, 1967.
To prevent flight crew incapacitation from possible carbon dioxide buildup July
in their Block II spacesuits after emergency exit from a spacecraft, 3

development of a small air bottle was proposed. Bottles, to be attached to the
suit to provide proper atmosphere in an emergency, would be stowed on the
spacecraft access arm until needed.
Ltr., Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to ASPO Manager, "Emergency air supply for a suited flight
crew during a spacecraft emergency egress," July 3, 1967.
A board was appointed by MSC White Sands Test Facility Manager Martin
L. Raines to determine the cause of a fire that had occurred at Test Stand 403
on July 3. The board was to submit its findings by July 17.
Ltr., Raines to distr., "Appointment to Investigation Board," July 5, 1967.
12
A CSM shipment schedule, to be used for planning throughout the Apollo
program and as a basis for contract negotiations with North American
Aviation, was issued by NASA Hq. The schedule covered CSM 101 through
145
1H7
CSM 115, CSM 105R, and CSM 020 and the period September 29, 1967,
July through November 17, 1969.
Ltr., Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, to Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq.,July 12, 1967; TWX, Phillips
to Gilruth and George M. Low, MSC, July 2_t, 1967.
18
Kurt H. Debus, KSC Director, appointed John Bailey of MSC Chairman of
an ad hoc Safety Group, following discussions with George E. Mueller of
NASA OMSF, MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth, and MSFC Director
Wernher von Braun. The Safety Group was to examine the overall
operating plans, organizational responsibilities, flight hardware, and
ground support ecluipment and to identify existing and potential personnel
hazards associated with the preparation, checkout, and launch of Apollo 4
(AS-501). The group would submit an initial report by August 15.
Ltr., Debus to Bailey, "Establishment ot Apollo 4 (AS-501) Ad Hoc Safety Group," July 18,
1967.
18
Visual display systems of complex optical devices were being used with the
lunar module mission simulators. To help solve problems that some of
these systems were creating, assistance was requested from J. E. Kupperian,
E. S. Chin, and H. D. Vitagliano, all from Goddard Space Flight Center.
Ltr., Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, to John F. Clark, GSFC. July 18, 1967.
18
CSM flammability mockup testing was discussed at a program review. It was
pointed out that boilerplate testing was being conducted at Downey and
that an all-up test should not be performed until all individual tests were
completed and the final configuration was completely established.
Memo, George M. Low, MSC, to Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, "Flammability mockup

testing," July 21, 1967.
19
In a letter to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, MSC Director
Robert R. Gilruth requested that the Boeing Company personnel ceiling be
increased to 373. This action was taken as a result of a reevaluation of the
requirement of basic task statements and a better understanding of the tasks
to be performed. During the planning sessions on the new contract with
Boeing, a manpower ceiling of 250 had been established.
Ltr., Gilruth to Phillips, July 19, 1967.
21
The RTG Review Team--established to investigate the relation of the
radioisotope thermoelectric generator's fuel-cask subsystem to Apollo
mission safety and success--submitted a preliminary report. Apollo
Program Director Samuel C. Phillips had established the team after concern
was expressed over the design and safety of the subsystem at a June 1 review
at NASA Hq. of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP).
The team's preliminary report was based on data received and observations
of the LM at Grumman that indicated the interface of the RTG, LM, and
spacecraft-LM adapter (SLA) presented a potential problem to the Apollo
146
mission. The most serious hazard was the presence of the 530-640 K 1967
(500-700°F) RTG fuel cask in the space between the LM and the SLA, where July
leaks were possible during fuel unloading or in the mechanical joints of the
LM fuel system.
Plans were to fuel the LM four days before launch and to pressurize the LM
fuel system at T (time of launch) minus 16 hours. The RTG fuel element
was to be loaded into the graphite cask, which was mounted on the LM at T
minus 12 hours and the system secured. All work would be completed on the
ALSEP by T minus 10 hours. If a condition occurred that required
unloading fuel from the LM after installation of the fuel element in the cask,
the hot cask would be a partial barrier to reaching one of the fuel unloading
points and also would be a potential fire hazard. No mechanism was
available to remove the entire cask system rapidly. Other potential problems
were: (1) a review showed all propellants that could come into contact with
the cask had spontaneous ignition temperatures below the temperature of
the RTG cask, and thus fuel vapors could be a problem; (2) after launch no
indicators would be available to show the crew the status of the RTG or the
SLA area, and no jettisoning mechanism was available for the RTG fuel
cask; and (3) during deployment of the ALSEP on the lunar surface the
astronauts would be required to remove the RTG fuel element and load it
into the RTG assembly. While handling tools were available for this
operation, no means had been demonstrated to protect the spacesuit if
accidentally brushed against the cask.
"Radioisotopic Thermoelectric Generator Review Team Preliminary Report," July 21, 1967.
22
A series of oxygen purge system (OPS) transfer runs were conducted in the
Water Immersion Facility at MSC. Preliminary reports indicated the results
of the tests were highly satisfactory, but an assessment of pad abort
procedures following several runs in the Apollo Mission Simulator were not
so promising. Further work and study in this area was in progress.
Memos, Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to George M. Low, MSC, "Preliminary evaluation of Pad
Abort and Oxygen Purge System (OPS) Transfer Procedures," July 26, 1967; Low to Slayton,
"Pad abort procedures and Oxygen Purge System transfers," July 29, 1967.
24
The ASPO Manager summarized the lunar module oxygen capacity and
design requirements for the lunar mission and made an analysis of his
decision to leave both portable life support systems (PLSS) on the lunar
surface. He recommended that NASA OMSF accept the PLSS discard
philosophy as well as the design capacity for lunar module oxygen.
Ltrs., George M. Low, MSC, to Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., July 24, 1967; Phillips to Low,
Aug. 10, 1967.
24
ASPO Manager George M. Low issued instructions that the changes and
actions to be carried out by MSC as a result of the AS-204 accident
investigation were the responsibility of CSM Manager Kenneth S.
147
1N7
Kleinknecht. The changes and actions were summarized in Apollo Program
July Directive No. 29, dated July 6, 1967.
Memo, George M. Low to distr., July 24, 1967.
2S
Following a series of discussions on the requirements for the lunar mapping
and survey system (LMSS), the effort was terminated. An immediate stop
work order was issued to the Air Force, the Centers, and the contractors in
the LMSS effort. The original justification for the LMSS, a backup Apollo
site certification capability in the event of Surveyor or Lunar Orbiter
inadequacies, was no longer valid, since at least four Apollo sites had been
certified and the last Lunar Orbiter would, if successful, increase that to
eight.
Memos, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA Hq., to George E. Mueller, NASA Hq., "Lunar
Mapping and Survey System (LMSS)," July 13, 1967; Mueller to Seamans, same subject, July
18, 1967; Seamans to Mueiler, "Termination of the Lunar Mapping and Survey System," July
25, 1967.
2S
MSC Director of Flight Operations Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., raised
questions about lunar module number 2 : Would it be possible for LM-2 to
be a combined manned and unmanned vehicle; that is, have the capability to
make an unmanned burn first and then be manned for additional activities?
Would additional batteries in the LM provide greater flexibility for earth-
orbital missions? Mission flexibility would be worthwhile only if it allowed
deletion of a subsequent mission, at least on paper.
Memo, G. M. Low, MSC, to O. E. Maynard, MSC, "LM mission flexibility and other points,"
July 25, 1967.
26
The Air Force Chief of Staff announced the reassignment of Carroll H.
Bolender from Washington to Houston as Program Manager for the lunar
module at MSC. He had been Apollo Mission Director at NASA Hq.
TWX, Air Force Chief o[ Staff to NASA Hq. and MSC, July 26, 1967.
26 MSC asked continued engineering and inspection support from KSC,

although increased activity at KSC was making support and factory
operations more difficult. KSC had provided support for LM-1 at Bethpage,
Long Island, and had also provided support for previous CSM and some
Gemini vehicles. The aid of the KSC inspection personnel was particularly
beneficial in ensuring a smooth transition of the vehicle from the factory to
the field.
Ltr, Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, to Kurt H. Debus, KSC, July 26, 1967.
27 MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth wrote MSFC Director Wernher von Braun
that MSC had two lunar landing research vehicles (LLRVs) for crew
training and three lunar landing training vehicles (LLTVs) were being
procured from Bell Aerosystems Co. Gilruth explained that x-ray inspection
of welds on the LLTVs at both Bell and MSC had disclosed apparent
148
subsurface defects, such as cracks and lack of fusion. There was, however, 1967
question as to the interpretation of the x-rays and the amount of feasible July
repair. Gilruth mentioned that James Kingsbury of MSFC had previously

assisted MSC in interpreting weldment x-rays, stated that further x-rays
were being taken, and asked MSFC assistance in interpreting them and in
determining the amount and methods of repair needed.
Ltr., Gilruth to yon Braun, July 27, 1967.
28
ASPO announced that a detailed review of the Block II CSM would be held
to gain a better understanding of the hardware. ASPO Manager George M.
Low pointed out that it had been customary in the Gemini and Apollo
Programs to conduct Design Certification Reviews (DCRs) before manned
flight of the "first of a kind" vehicle. He added that the detailed review
should address itself to design and analysis, test history and evaluation of
test results, and the understanding of operational procedures for each
element in the CSM. To ensure the most thorough review, MSC divisions
would conduct preliminary reviews. The division chiefs would then present
their findings to the directorates, the ASPO management, and the MSC
Director.
Memo, George M. Low to distr., July 28, 1967.
August
Rocketdyne Division of North American Aviation was selected for
negotiation of a contract for the design, development, qualification, and 1
delivery of four production models of an injector for the lunar module

ascent engine. The project would serve as a backup to the injector program
already being conducted by Bell Aerospace Corp. under subcontract to
Grumman. The ascent engine was considered to be the most critical engine
in the Apollo-Saturn vehicle. No backup mode of operation remained if the
ascent engine failed.
Ltrs., Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., to George M. Low, MSC, Aug. 16, 1967; George E.
Mueller, NASA Hq., to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, Aug. 17, 1967; NASA News Release 67-207,
Aug. 2, 1967.
Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, CSM Manager at MSC, requested that North

American organize a team of engineers with broad design backgrounds to
make an independent assessment of component design etficiency. The team
would identify actions to reduce spacecraft weight and to establish control
methods to prevent future weight increases. The team would be placed
under the leadership of a North American employee with broad knowledge
of Apollo hardware.
To deal with Apollo weight problems, North American replied in October,

accurate and timely weight visibility was of paramount importance. To
provide this visibility, North American used system design personnel
directly in weight prediction and reporting. As part of this plan, all
engineering-design-change documentation would contain a delta weight
effect that would be reviewed and approved by engineering management;
149
1967
weight trends and status would be reported monthly to North American and
August NASA management. A list of weight reduction candidates was suggested to
NASA.
Ltr., Kleinknecht to Dale D. Myers, North American Aviation, Aug. 1, 1967; hr., Myers to
George M. Low, MSC, Oct. 5, 1967.
1-11
Lunar Orbiter V was launched from the Eastern Test Range at 6:33 p.m.
EDT August 1. The Deep Space Net Tracking Station at Woomera,
Australia, acquired the spacecraft about 50 minutes after liftoff. Signals
indicated that all systems were performing normally and that temperatures
were within acceptable limits. At 12:48 p.m. EDT August 5, Lunar Orbiter
V executed a deboost maneuver that placed it in orbit around the moon. The
spacecraft took its first photograph of the moon at 7:22 a.m. EDT August 6.
Before it landed on the lunar surface on January 31, 1968, Lunar Orbiter V
had photographed 23 previously unphotographed areas of the moon's far
side, the first photo of the full earth, 36 sites of scientific interest, and 5
Apollo sites for a total of 425 photos.
Lunar Orbiter V Post Launch Reports 1 through 7, Aug. 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 1969; Astronautics and
Aeronautics, 1967 (NASA SP-4008, 1968), pp. 229, 235, 4t7.
11
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips was appointed Chairman of a
NASA task group, reporting to Administrator James E. Webb, Deputy
Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., and Associate Administrator for
Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller. The group was chartered to review
the content of the Apollo program in order to determine alternatives
necessary for programming and budget planning decisions. It would
inquire into and report on all aspects of the Apollo program necessary to
provide a base of accurate data and information to support decisions on FY
1968 expenditure control and FY 1969 budget planning. Specifically, the
group was requested to identify planned activities that could be eliminated
if the Apollo program were to be terminated with the manned lunar
landing. The group was also requested to determine the effect of placing a
hold order on production of Saturn V vehicles 512 through 515 and to
develop the cost estimates resulting from these actions as well as other
tangible alternatives.
Memo, Webb to Phillips, "Review of Apollo Program," Aug. 11, 1967.
15
ASPO wrote Lewis Research Center about studies of ignition sources inside
the pressure suits worn by the astronauts. In recent tests, the communica-
tions and biomedical circuits inside the suit and connected to the spacecraft
panel through the crewman electrical umbilical were evaluated to
determine the ignition characteristics. Studies on the flammability of
various materials used jn the suit loop had been completed and the data
compiled.
Memo, G. M. Low, MSC, to I. I. Pinkel, Lewis Research (]enter, "Ignition source inside the
suit," Aug. 15, 1967.
150
1967
The NASA task team for CSM Block II redefinition, established on April 27,
was phased out. During its duration the task team provided timely response August
and direction in the areas of detail design, overall quality and reliability, test 18
and checkout, baseline specifications, and schedules. With the phaseout of
the team, Apollo Spacecraft Program Office policies and procedures would
be carried out by the ASPO resident manager. A single informal point of
contact was also established between MSC and North American for
engineering and design items.
Memo, Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, to distr., "Phaseout of the NASATask Team for Block I1
Redefinition, Command and Service Modules," Aug. 18, 1967.
19
ASPO Manager George M. Low, in a letter to Dale D. Myers of North
American Aviation, expressed disappointment that both spacecraft 2TV-1
and 101 had slipped approximately six weeks. He also expressed
astonishment that managers, who were supposedly using a planning
system, did not understand the meaning of the charts they were using. Low
suggested more attention to detail by managers, a better tracking system for
shortages, assignment of responsible individuals to areas where special
efforts were needed; and a mechanized system for tracking such things as
work needing to be done and shortages.
Ltr., Low to Myers, Aug. 19, 1967.
22
A senior design review group was established to review the command
module stowed equipment and the stowage provisions, to ensure the timely
resolution and implementation of changes necessary because of new
materials criteria and guidelines. Robert R. Gilruth, MSC Director, would
head the group.
Memo, George M. Low, MSC, to distr., "Design Review of Command Module storage
provisions," Aug. 22, 1967.
24
An interagency agreement on protecting the earth's biosphere from lunar
sources of contamination was signed by James E. Webb, NASA; John W.
Gardiner, HEW; Orville L. Freeman, Department of Agriculture; Stewart
L. Udall, Department of Interior; and Frederick Seitz, National Academy of
Sciences. The agreement established a committee to advise the NASA
Administrator on back contamination and the protection of the biological
and chemical integrity of lunar samples, on when and how astronauts and
lunar samples might be released from quarantine, and on policy matters.
Interagency Agreement between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Department of Interior, and the National Academy of Sciences on the Protection of the Earth's
Biosphere from Lunar Sources of Contamination, Aug. 24, 1967.
Week Ending
Grumman proposed a procurement for a study of the mission effects
projector, to assist Grumman with an item that had been designed and built August 25
by Farrand but did not meet the established specifications. Grumman

solicited assistance of qualified firms in the optomechanical field. Of 15
151
1967
firms approached 7 were interested: Itek Corp., Kollmorgen Corp.,
August Bausch g: Lomb, Inc., Kollsman Instrument Corp., Biorad, General
Precision Link Group, and Conductron. Technical proposals were received
from Itek, Biorad, Link, and Conductron. Grumman considered the Itek
proposal most technically acceptable and proposed a letter contract in
which NASA concurred.
MSC, BMR Bethpage, "Weekly Activities Report, Week Ending August 25, 1967," Aug. 30,
1967.
"Reuse of failed equipment" was the subject of a memorandum to W. M.

Bland in the MSC Reliability and Quality Assurance Office from ASPO
Manager George M. Low. He said: "I have recently heard of several
instances of reuse of apparently failed equipment without any fixes applied
to that equipment. I understand that, if a component or subsystem is
removed from the spacecraft because it has apparently failed but a
subsequent failure analysis does not show anything to be wrong with the
equipment, the equipment is then put back into stock for reinstallation. It
appears to me that, if a component is once suspected or known to have
caused a failure or to have failed, it should not be allowed back in the
program unless a fix has been made or unless it has been proved conclusively
that the failure was not caused by that component. If we do not now have a
program directive that states such a policy, I think we should impose one as
quickly as possible and set up adequate procedures to control it."
Memo, Low to Bland, Aug. 26, 1967.
3O
A review team's findings on the lunar surface magnetometer program were
reported to the NASA Administrator. The magnetometer program still
suffered from the schedule delays and high costs that had prompted the
review, but recent management changes and technical progress were halting
the trends. With the team recommendation and the endorsement of the
Office of Space Science and Applications, Philco Corp. was directed to
continue its effort to develop a lunar surface magnetometer.
Memos, Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., to NASA Administrator, "Lunar Surface
Magnetometer," Aug. 30, 1967; W. H. Close, NASA Hq., to Deputy Administrator, "ALSEP
Lunar Surface Magnetometer," Oct. 13, 1967.
An Apollo test flow study group was formed to make a detailed evaluation of
spacecraft, launch vehicle, and space vehicle testing at KSC. The group was
composed of aerospace industry and NASA personnel.
Memo, R. O. Middleton, KSC, to G. M. Low, MSC, "Apollo Test Flow Study Group," Sept. 1,
1967.
Apollo Program Directive No. 31 established and implemented the Apollo

System Safety program and defined program requirements in consonance
with NASA Management Instruction 1138.12, August 29, 1967. The
directive was applicable to all Apollo Headquarters and Center System
Safety activities and it spelled out Headquarters and Center Apollo
152
responsibilities. Among Center requirements were: ( 1 ) "An office responsi-

ble for ApolI6 System Safety shall be established in accordance with the September
requirements set forth in NASA Management Instruction #1138.12." (2)

"Each Center office for Apollo System Safety shall prepare a plan that
describes the safety tasks to be performed and the method to be used for the
accomplishment of these tasks .... "
On September 20, ASPO Manager George Low asked Aleck Bond of the
MSC Engineering and Development Office if he was taking action. Bond
replied that the Flight Safety Office was preparing an overall safety plan for
the Center that would meet the requirements of the directive. In an October
16 letter to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, Low pointed out
that "The ... directive stipulates that an office responsible for Apollo
System Safety shall be established .... In reviewing this Management
Instruction we can find no mention of such a Center office .... "Low added
that ASPO had appointed an Assistant Program Manager for Flight Safety
who would work with the MSC Flight Safety Office and ensure that the
Center's flight safety policies and procedures were carried out throughout
the Apollo spacecraft program.
Apollo Program Directive No. 31, "Apollo System Safety Program Requirements," Sept. 6,
1967; informal note, Low to Bond, Sept. 20, 1967; memo, Bond to Low, "Apollo Program
Directive No. 3l--Apollo System Safety Program Requirements," Sept. 25, 1967; hr., Low to.
Phillips, "APD No. 31--Apollo System Safety Program Requirements," Oct. 16, 1967.
LM-1 (Apollo 5) continued to have serious schedule difficulties. However,

all known problems were resolved with the exception of the propulsion
system leaks. Leak checks of the ascent stage indicated excessive leaking in
LM-1, fitted inside spacecraft-

lunar module adapter 7, is raised
to position at Kennedy Space
Center in preparation for the
Apollo 5 mission.
The new unified hatch of the Apollo CM is checked at North American after its
development, testing, and manufacture. The Block I hatch on the ill-fated CM
012 had consisted of an outer and an inner hatch.
1967 the incline oxidizer orifice flange. The spacecraft was approximately 39 days
September behind the July 18, LM-1 KSC Operations Flow Plan.
MSC, "ASPO Weekly Project Stalus Report," Sept. 7, 1967.
A revised spacecraft delivery schedule with a maximum delivery rate of six

spacecraft per year as opposed to a delivery rate of one spacecraft every six
weeks for the Apollo program was proposed by MSC and approved by
NASA Hq.
Ltr., Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, to Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., Sept. 8, 1967; TWX, Phillips
to Gilruth, "CSM Delivery Schedules," Sept. 22, 1967.
ASPO Manager George Low in a letter to Dale Myers of North American

Aviation, emphasized that the spacecraft weight situation was the single
most serious problem in the entire Apollo program. An example of the
weight estimating problem was the spacecraft hatch. When the decision was
made in March 1967 to incorporate a new hatch, the net weight increase was
estimated at 185 kilograms, but calculations indicated that this increase was
actually 558 kilograms. Neither of these numbers included the additional
ballast, which doubled the required weight. Clearly weight estimates were
inadequate, making a workable weight control program impossible. North
154
1967
American was requested to take immediate action to bring the weight
September
problem under control. A letter in a similar vein was sent by C. H.
Bolender, ASPO LM Manager, to J. G. Gavin, Jr., Grumman Aircraft
Engineering Corp.
Ltr., Low to Myers, Sept. 9, 1967; Bolender to Gavin, Sept. 22, 1967.
15
A short circuit occurred during checkout of CSM 020 at North American,
Downey, Calif. External power batteries in parallel with the reentry
batteries had indicated low power and were replaced. During preparations
to continue the test, arcing was reported and emergency shutdown
procedures were applied. Investigation was under way to determine the
cause of the arcing. Initial indications were that at least 100 amps were
imposed on a small portion of the spacecraft wiring, causing some damage
to the spacecraft batteries.
TWX, ASPO Manager to Director, Apollo SpacecraIt Program, Sept. 18, 1967.
16
During operational checkout procedures on CSM 017, which included
running the erasable memory program before running the low-altitude
aborts, the guidance and navigation computer accidentally received a liftoff
signal and locked up. Investigation was initiated to determine the reason for
the liftoff signal and the computer lockup (switch to internal control). No
damage was suspected.
TWX, ASPO Manager to Director, Apollo Program Office, Sept. 18, 1967.
18
The Systems Engineering Division of ASPO presented a briefing to the
ASPO Manager and other MSC officials on the logic of the lunar surface
activity for the first lunar landing mission. Several potential missions were
presented in terms of interactions between timelines, consumables, weight,
and performance characteristics. Purpose of the demonstration was to elicit
policy decisions on the number of extravehicular excursions to be planned
for the first mission as well as the activities for each excursion. The
following ground rules were established: (1) Priority of scientific objectives
would be, in order, minimum lunar sample, ALSEP, and lunar geologic
survey including sample collection. (2) The first EVA on the lunar surface
during the first lunar mission would consist of a set of simplified, mutually
independent activities and the timeline would permit rest periods between
each activity. The minimum lunar sample would be collected during the
first EVA but the ALSEP would not be deployed. (3) A second EVA would be
included for planning purposes and would include ALSEP deployment.
The second EVA would not be considered a primary mission objective. (4)
For mission planning purposes the 225-hour lunar surface staytime would
be pursued as the prime candidate for the first lunar landing mission.
Memo, George M. Low, MSC, to distr., "Surface activity during first lunar landing mission,"
Sept. 18, 1967.
155
1967
Garrett Corp. Vice President Mark E. Bradley sent recommendations of the
14ptember Garrett-AiResearch Safety Audit Review Board to Dale D. Myers, Vice
18 President and Project Manager, Apollo Program, North American
Aviation. Bradley said the Board had been appointed in May 1967 to make
"an independent review of ECS [environmental control system] systems and
components from a crew salety standpoint" and that the recommendations
were "based on the considered professional judgment of the Board
members without bias or prejudice with regard to cost or schedule."
In a reply to Bradley on October 21, Myers said: "Your letter has been
reviewed in detail and it has been determined in some cases the
recommendations are of a design improvement nature .... Because of the
seriousness of your conclusions and recommendations, I believe it necessary
and pertinent the following comments be made .... The magnitude and
complexity of the Apollo program precludes any single system subcontrac-
tor the capability of full and knowledgeable assessment of the effects his
system has on the whole .... This is not a criticism of your Safety Board
function, rather a criticism of the charter and ground rules on which the
Board's recommendations are based .... It is disturbing to me to find your
letter is being used as a vehicle to attempt reconsideration of Engineering
Design Change Proposals (EDCP's) already given careful consideration and
a subsequent disposition made .... I must insist that future Board
comments be channeled through your Apollo project group for processing
by the established EDCP procedures. If the EDCP affects Crew Safety or
Mission success, it should be so indicated in the EDCP and will be given
proper consideration by the management of NAR and NASA .... Because
of the seriousness of your conclusions and recommendations, I am asking
the NASA ASPO to form a Board with me to review your recommendations
with you for disposition .... "
Myers also wrote ASPO Manager George Low on October 21, enclosing the
AiResearch recommendations. He said: "I found that AiResearch had used
different criteria for evaluation than we use, but I felt we have a situation
that requires immediate and joint top-level review by us .... The Board
made significant recommendations that could constrain a manned flight
with the current configuration of the ECS. I hope that this is not the case and
that the recommendations were meant to be in the area of design
improvement rather than constraints of Crew Safety or Mission Success
nature .... If you agree with the need for this NASA/NAR joint ECS Safety
Review Board, I will arrange such a meeting with the AiResearch Review
Board."
Low replied to Myers on October 30, saying, "I agree with you that we
should give serious consideration to each of the AiResearch recommenda-
tions and that a joint NASA/NAR Safety Review Board would be the best
means of accomplishing this. I would be pleased to serve on such a board
with you .... " Low asked Myers to set up the meeting following the Apollo
4 mission.
156
In a November 7 meeting at MSC the AiResearch Safety Board recommenda- 1967

tions were discussed and initial dispositions made, with AiResearch being September
asked to provide a written acceptance or rejection of each.

Ltrs., Bradley to Myers, "Recommendation of Garrett-AiResearch Safety Audit Review Board,"
Sept. 18, 1967; Myers to Bradley, Oct. 21, 1967; Myers to Low, Oct. 21, 1967; Low to Myers, Oct.
30, 1967; Myers to Low, Dec. 13, 1967; Low to Myers, Mar. 19, 1968.
2O
MSC proposed to the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight a sequence of
missions leading to a lunar landing mission. The sequence included the
following basic missions:
* A--Saturn V/unmanned CSM development

• B--Saturn IB/unmanned LM development
• C--Saturn IB/manned CSM evaluation
• D--Saturn V/manned CSM and LM development (A dual Saturn IB
mission would be an alternative to the Saturn V for mission D)
• E--CSM/LM operations in high earth orbit
• F--Lunar orbit mission
• G--Lunar landing mission (like Apollo 11)
• H--Lunar landing mission (Apollo 12, 13, and 14)
• I--Reserved for lunar survey missions (not used)
• J--Lunar landing missions, upgraded hardware (Apollo 15, 16, and
17)
Memos, George M. Low, ASPO Manager, to distr., "Mission development and planning,"
Sept. 25, 1967; Low to Director, MSC, "Meetings with General Phillips and Dr. Mueller," Sept.
9, 1967 ; [tr., Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, to George E. Mueller, NASA Hq., Sept. 19, 1967 ; telecon,
Ivan D. Ertel to John Sevier, Feb. 26, 1975.
21
At the request of Congress NASA was preparing a formal document on all
the action items resulting from the January 27 AS-204 accident. The
document would be used as a report to the entire Congress by the responsible
Senate and House subcommittees and was expected to include two volumes.
The first would cover Apollo 204 Review Board findings; the second would
cover panel findings, results of Congressional testimony, and Apollo
program direction. The report was forwarded to Congress in December 1967
(House) and January 1968 (Senate).
Ltr., Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., to George M. Low, MSC, "AS-204 Accident Closeout
Report," Sept. 21, 1967. House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Subcommittee on
NASA Oversight, Status of Actions Taken on Recommendations o] the Apollo 204 Accident
Review Board, 90th Cong, 2d sess., Committee Print, Serial L, 1968; Senate Committee on
Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Apollo Accident: Hearings, 90th (king., 2d sess., pt. 8,
January 1968.
22
C. H. Bolender, ASPO Manager for the lunar module, wrote Joseph G.
Gavin, Jr., Grumman LM Program Director, that recent LM weights and
weight growth trends during the past several months established the need to
identify actions that would reduce weight and preclude future weight
growth. He pointed out that the Configuration Control Board (CCB) at
157
1N7
MSC had emphasized such actions, while recognizing the specific weight
September increases associated with design change actions resulting from the AS-204
accident. Several other design corrections or improvements had been
implemented, such as increased plume protection, ascent engine reflection
protection, descent stage upper-deck structural repair, and landing gear
shielding. Bolender told Gavin, "We cannot afford to exercise ultra-
conservatism as an expedient to problem solving. The modification of the
descent stage skin panels may be a case in point .... We have already asked
that in consideration of minimum weight design, you reassess your
recommendation to change to a uniform panel thickness." He requested
that the objectives of the recent Super Weight Improvement program (a
weight saving "tool" employed by Grumman) be reiterated in design
activity and that weight reduction suggestions be solicited and evaluated for
implementation. Bolender requested a biweekly review of weight reduction
candidate changes and told Gavin he was asking Systems Engineering
Division to maintain close coordination with Grumman and to report
progress of the weight reduction and control activity at the regular CCB
meetings.
Ltr., Bolender to Gavin, Sept. 22, 1967.
22
The merger of North American Aviation, Inc., and Rockwell-Standard
Corp. became effective and was announced. The company was organized
into two major groups, the Commercial Products Group and the Aerospace
and Systems Group. The new company would be known as North American
Rockwell and use the acronym NR.
North American Rockwell Corp., "A First Look," Sept. 22, 1967,
25
Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology Mac C.
Adams requested concurrence of MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth to
naming the following as members of Research Advisory Committees for
Fiscal Year 1968: Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Committee on Space Vehicles;
Joseph G. Thibodaux, Jr., Committee on Chemical Rocket Propulsion;
Charles A. Berry and Richard S. Johnston, Committee on Biotechnology;
and Robert E. Johnson, Subcommittee on Materials. Gilruth concurred on
September 28.
Ltrs., Adams to Gilruth, Sept. 25, 1967; Gilruth to Adams, Sept. 28, 1967.
26
The Flammability Test Review Board met at MSC to determine if the M-6
vehicle (a full-scale mockup of the LM cabin interior) was ready for test and
that the ignition points, configuration, instrumentation, and test facility
were acceptable for verifying the fire safety of LTA-8 and LM-2 vehicles.
The Board agreed that the M-6 did accurately and adequately simulate the
LTA-8 and the LM-2 and established that the M-6 mockup was ready for
testing. The Board was composed of Robert R. Gilruth, Chairman; Carroll
H. Bolender; Aleck C. Bond; Maxime A. Faget; Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.;
158
1967
Donald K. Slayton; A. Duane Catterson, all of MSC; E. Z. Gray of Grum-
man; and G. H. Stoner of Boeing, a nonvoting observer. September
Ltr., Gilruth to distr., "Minutes of the Flammability Test Review Board Meeting No. 1 ," Oct.
23, 1967; memo, Joseph N. Kotanchik, Chief, Structures and Mechanics Div. to distr., "Progress
Report on Lunar Module M-6 flammability mockup," Sept. 28, 1967.
28
In spite of efforts to eliminate all flammable materials from the interior of
the spacecraft cabin during flight, it was apparent that this could not be
completely accomplished. For example, silicone rubber hoses, flight logs,
food, tissues, and other materials would be exposed within the cabin during
portions of the mission. However, flammable materials would be outside
their containers only when actually needed. Special fire extinguishers would
be carried during flight.
Memos, George M. Low, MSC, to Donald K. Slayton, MSC, "Procedures for use of flammable
material in spacecraft," Sept. 28, 1967; Low to Slayton, "Training in use of fire extinguishers,"
Sept. 28, 1967.
28
ASPO Manager George M. Low informed the MSC Director of Flight Crew
Operations that effective November 1 configuration management of the
Apollo mission simulators and LM mission simulators would be transferred
from ASPO to the Flight Crew Operations Directorate, with the
understanding that Director Donald K. Slayton would personally chair the
Configuration Control Panel.
Memo, Low to D. K. Slayton, "Configuration Control Panel for simulators," Sept. 10, 1967.
28
MSC's Engineering and Development (E&D) Directorate recommended that
the Apollo CM be provided with a foam fire extinguisher. Eg:D also
recommended that the LM be provided with a water nozzle for extinguish-
ing open fires and that cabin decompression be used to combat fires behind
panels. An aqueous gel (foam) composition fire extinguisher was considered
most appropriate for use in the CM because hydrogen in the available water
supply could intensify the fire, water spray could not reach fires behind
panels, and a shirt-sleeve environment was preferred. E_kD further
recommended that development of a condensation nuclei indicator be
pursued as a flight fire detection system, but that it not be made a constraint
on the Apollo program. ASPO Manager George M. Low concurred with the
recommendations September 28 and MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth
concurred October 7.
On October 26, the Director of Flight Crew Operations stated that his
Directorate was formulating and implementing a training program for
flight crews to give them experience in coping with fire in and around the
spacecraft. "In total, the crew training for cockpit fires will consist of:
Review of BP 1224 and M-6 'burn test' film; demonstration briefings on the
fire extinguishers and their most effective use; procedural practice
simulating cockpit fire situations in conjunction with one 'g' space-
craft/mockup/Apollo Mission Simulator walkthroughs and in the egress
159
1N7
trainer placed in the altitude chamber; and as a part of the overall launch
September pad emergency and evacuation procedures training at the fire service
training area at KSC."
Memos, Low to Donald K. Slayton, "Training in use of fire extinguishers," Sept. 28, 1967;
Slayton to Low, "Crew training in use of fire extinguishers," Oct. 26, 1967; Maxime A. Faget to
Gilruth, "Information Staff Paper No. 41--Spacecraft fire extinguishing systems and onboard
spacecraft fire detection instrumentation [or the Apollo program," Sept. 28, 1967.
29
ASPO Manager George M. Low, in a letter to Richard E. Homer, Senior
Vice President of Northrop Corp., following a phone call to Homer on Sept.
28, reiterated NASA's "continuing and serious concern with the quality
control at Northrop Ventura on the Apollo spacecraft parachute system. In
recent weeks, I have had many reports of poor workmanship and poor
quality, both in the plant at Northrop Ventura and in the field at E1Centro."
On October 20 Horner told Low he had taken time to assure himself of the
best possible information available before replying and offered background
on the situation : "The design effort goes back to 1961 and testing began at
the E1 Centro facility in 1962. There was continuous operation of the test
group at E1 Centro until 1966 when the completion of the Block II testing
program dictated the closeout of our operation there. In our total activity,
we have had a peak of 350 personnel assigned to the Apollo, with 20 of that
number located at E1 Centro during the most active portion of the test
program. When it was finally determined that the increased weight
capability redesign was necessary for mission success, the program nucleus
had been reduced to 30 personnel and the established schedule for the system
re-design, test and fabrication requires a build-up to 250 .... The schedule
has also dictated the adoption of such procedures as concurrent inspection
by the inspectors of Northrop, North American and NASA, a procedure
which, I am sure, is efficient from a program point of view but is inherently
risky in terms of the wide dissemination of knowledge concerning every
human mistake. This is significant only from the point of view of the
natural human failing to be more willing to share the responsibility for
error than for success .... We do not intend in any way to share
responsibility for these errors and expect to eliminate the potential for their
recurrence. We have established standards of quality for this program that
are stringent and uncompromising .... Even though the technical and
schedule challenge is substantial, we are confident that by the time
qualification testing is scheduled to start during the first week of December
1967 we will have a flawless operation .... "
Ltrs., Low to Homer, Sept. 29, 1967; Homer to Low, Oct. 20, 1967; memos, Low to Kenneth S.
Kleinknecht, "Parachute packing," Sept. 1, 1967; Low to Donald K. Siayton, "Apollo
parachutes," Sept. 23, 1967.
29
An Apollo Entry Performance Review Board was established by the MSC
Director to review and validate the analytical tools as well as the Apollo
operational corridor. The Board was set up because the performance of the
ablation heatshield in the Apollo spacecraft, as then analyzed, imposed a
160
limitation on the entry corridor at lunar return velocity. The following were
named to the Board: Maxime A. Faget, MSC, chairman; Kenneth S.
Kleinknecht, MSC; Eugene C. Draley and Don D. Davis, Jr., Langley
Research Center; Alvin Seiff and Glen Goodwin, Ames Research Center;
and Leo T. Chauvin, MSC, secretary.
Ltrs., MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth to Directors of Ames Research Center and Langley
Research Center, Sept. 29, 1967.
2O
Key dates in the spacecraft 101 schedule were agreed to during a meeting of
Samuel C. Phillips, Robert R. Gilruth, George M. Low, and Kenneth S.
Kleinknecht with North American management: inspection of wiring,
October 7, 1967; completion of manufacturing, December 15, 1967; delivery,
March 15, 1968. In addition, several decisions were reached concerning
certain systems of spacecraft 101. Among these, it was agreed that the entry
monitor system would not be checked out on spacecraft 101 (see October 12).
Memo for the Record, George M. Low, Manager, ASPO, "North American activities," Oct. 2,
1967.
2O
Because of many questions asked about spacecraft weight changes in the
spacecraft redefinition, ASPO Manager George M. Low prepared a memo
for the record, indicating weights as follows:
Lunar Module Significant Weight Changes

March-September 1967
• Lunar module injected weight status March 1, 1967

(ascent and descent less propellant) 4039.6 kg
Material substitution + 23.1 ; decrease clamps and potting,

-4.5; government furnished equipment changes (pres-
sure garment assembly, portable life support system,
oxygen purge system), + 68; plume heating and "fire-in-
the-hole" protection, +59.8; redesign umbilical hoses,
+2.2; revised oxygen and water requirements, + 19.5;
provision for ALSEP removal, + 11.3; increasing crack
resistance of webs, + 13.6; additional wiring to provide
redundant circuits, + 4.9; fuel cask and support increase,
+14.9; guidance and navigation equipment, +3.1;
instrumentation, + 9.9; communications, + 1.8; miscel-
laneous changes, + 2.2.
Net change from March to September was + 230.4 kg.
• Lunar module injected weight status September 22, 1967 4270.0 kg
Command Module Significant Weight Changes

March-September 1967
• Command module injected weight status March 1, 1967 5246.7 kg
161
1N7 New hatch, + 114.7; environmental control system and

September weight management system changes, + 103.4; instrumen-
tation and electrical power, +48; wiring and tubing
protection, + 44.4; crew compartment materials and crew
equipment, +101.6; forward heatshield separation,
+ 13.6; earth landing system (larger drogues), +21.7;
miscellaneous structural changes, + 26.7; ballast for lift-
over-drag ratio of 0.35, + 175; other, + 19.5. Reductions--
transfer of portable life support system to LM, -31.2;
reduced ballast for lift-over-drag ratio of 0.28, -142.8;
other MSC weight reductions, - 61.6.
Net change from March to September was + 433.1 kg.
• Command module injected weight status September 22,

1967 5679.8 kg
Memo for the Record, George M. Low, Manager, ASPO, "Apollo weight changes," Sept. 29,
1967.
October
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., reaffirmed that
2 the following was the best course of action to follow with LM-2 and LM-3 :
"Decide now to configure LM-2 for its unmanned contingency mission and
reassign LM-3 to join with CSM 103 for a manned CSM-LM mission. In the
event the LM-2 unmanned contingency mission is not required, LM-2
could be reworked to manned configuration and cycled back into the GAEC
[Grumman] line for later delivery. On this basis, LM-2 could be delivered in
unmanned configuration in late January 1968, or immediately after the
Apollo 5 flight, and could be flown on AS-206 about 3½ months after
delivery; i.e., in May 1968. The outlook for LM-3 indicates an April 1968
delivery which appears to be compatible with the expected deliverydate of
CSM 103."
Memos, Phillips to R. C. Seamans, Oct. 2, 1967; G. E. Mueller to Seamans, "LM-2

Configuration," Oct. 2, 1967.
An exchange of correspondence between MSC and North American

Rockwell emphasized the seriousness of the spacecraft weight problem.
Accurate and timely weight visibility was of paramount importance for
weight control and resulted from proper implementation and control of
weight prediction, weight control from design initiation, and weight status
reporting. To ensure visibility, North American Rockwell was instituting a
program that would use system design personnel in weight prediction and
reporting. Preliminary design personnel in the Design Requirements
Group were designated to integrate the effort.
Ltrs., George M. Low, MSC, to Dale D. Myers, North American Rockwell Corp., Aug. 1, 1967;
Low to Myers, Aug. 17, 1967; Myers to Low, Oct. 5, 1967.
162
PART II; RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
1967
MSC established an Apollo Spacecraft Incident Investigation and Report-
ing Panel, with Scott H. Simpkinson as chairman. Panel members would be October
selected from ASPO, the Flight Safety Office, and the Engineering and 5-15
Development Directorate. In addition, members would be assigned from the

RASPO offices at Downey, Bethpage, and KSC when incidents occurred at
their locations. All incidents suspected of directly affecting the safety of the
spacecraft or its ground support equipment and all incidents that
represented a hazard to personnel working in the area were to be investigated
and reported. Incidents having a cost impact of over $5000 or a schedule
impact of 24 hours would also be reported to the panel chairman and
considered for investigation. Panel membership was announced October 16.
The following day, a letter from Simpkinson to panel members established
procedures for investigating and reporting incidents.
MSC Announcement No. 67-136, "Apollo Spacecraft Incident Investigation and Reporting
Panel," Oct. 5, 1967; list of members and alternates of Apollo Spacecraft Incident Investigating
and Reporting Panel, Oct. 16, 1967; hr., Scott H. Simpkinson to Apollo Spacecraft Incident
Investigation and Reporting Panel, "Implementation of an Apollo Spacecraft Incident
Investigation and Reporting Panel," Oct. 16, 1967.
Because of wind conditions, an abort of the Apollo spacecraft from a Saturn

V in the near-pad region would result in land impact. To ensure the
maximum potential safe recovery of the crew during a near-pad abort,
certain forms of preparation within the abort area were being considered.
Tests were being prepared at MSC and KSC to determine the most favorable
soil condition for spacecraft landing. The capability of the spacecraft to
sustain a land impact was also being investigated by MSC.
Memo, G. M. Low, MSC, to R. O. Middleton, KSC, "Improvement of landing areas for Apollo
near pad aborts," Oct. 8, 1967.
10
A series of meetings discussed the oxygen purge system (OPS) program
status and design configuration. The following conclusions were reached:
• The OPS theoretical reliability for completion of a 30-minute

operation time was extremely high and would not be appreciably improved
by the addition of redundant systems or components.
• Capability for preoperational checkout in the LM was desirable and
was incorporated into the OPS design.
• Manual actuation was preferable to automatic actuation and was
reflected in the design.
Memo, Maxime A. Faget, MSC, to ASPO Manager, "Oxygen purge system (OPS) review," Oct.
10, 1967.
12
Key MSC and NASA Headquarters management changes were announced
at a press conference at MSC. George S. Trimble, Jr., was transferred from
NASA OMSF to serve as .Deputy Director of MSC. Eberhard F. M. Rees of
MSFC would be temporarily assigned as a Special Assistant on Manufactur-
ing Problems to George M. Low, ASPO Manager. Edgar M. Cortright was
named as Deputy to George E. Mueller at OMSF. Participating in the press
163
conference were NASA Administrator James E. Webb, Mueller, MSC

Director Robert R. Gilruth, Trimble, and MSC Public Affairs Officer Paul
P. Haney.
Press Conference Transcript, Tape A, Oct. 12, 1967, pp. 1, 2.
12
ASPO Manager George Low submitted a memorandum for the record on
the September 29 decision not to check out the spacecraft 101 entry monitor
system (EMS). He said: "... it has come to my attention that this decision
had been based on incomplete information. Because the EMS incorporates
both the Delta V counter and the .05 g indication on Block II spacecraft, this
system is required for all missions, including 101 .... "I verbally directed
North American on October 10, 1967, that this system will be checked out on
Spacecraft 101."
Memo for Record, Low, "Checkout of entry monitor system," Oct. 12, 1967.
13
In an effort to keep a tight rein on changes made in spacecraft, the Apollo
Spacecraft Configuration Control Board (CCB) established the following
ground rules:
• All changes on CSMs 101 and 103 and LM-3, no matter how small,
would now be considered by the Senior Board only and not by any of the
panels.
° Only mandatory changes would be considered for CSMs 101 and 103
and LM-3.
* Final implementation of all changes must be concluded within 30
days after a contract change authorization was written, and no change in
implementation would be allowed without a new review by the MSC CCB.
• No changes would be made on LM-6 and subsequent LMs and CSM
107 and subsequent CSMs unless they were also on LM-5 and CSM 106 or
unless the Senior CCB made a special exception to this rule. The purpose
was to make certain that the configurations of the mission simulators and
the Mission Control Center could be stabilized.
• Board members would generally be chairmen of subsidiary
Configuration Control Panels and would not delegate this chairmanship.
Thus Donald K. Slayton would chair the Simulator Panel, Maxime A. Faget
would chair the panel that passed on government furnished equipment
items (see October 18), and probably Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., would chair
the Software Control Panel (the last position had not yet been decided).
An additional step to gain a better understanding of the configuration

baseline was taken by appointing Jesse F. Goree responsible for
configuration management.
Ltr., George M. Low, MSC, to Samuel C. Phillips. NASA Hq., Oct. 14, 1967.
13
A proposal to use a Ballute system rather than drogue parachutes to deploy
the main chutes on the Apollo spacecraft was rejected. It was conceded that
the Ballute system would slightly reduce dynamic pressure and command
164
module oscillations at main parachute deployment. However, these 1_?

advantages would be offset by the development risks of incorporating a new October
and untried system into the Apollo spacecraft at such a late date.
Ltr., George M. Low, MSC, to Robert T. Madden, Goodyear Aerospace Corp., Oct. 13, 1967.
17
NASA Hq. informed MSC that NASA Deputy Administrator Robert C.
Seamans, Jr., had approved the project approval document authorizing four
additional CSMs beyond No. 115A. MSC was requested to proceed with all
necessary procurement actions required to maintain production capability
in support of projected schedules for these items.
TWX, George E. Mueller, NASA Hq., to Director Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, Oct. 17, 1967.
18
A conference at NASA Hq. discussed Headquarters and MSC operational
problems in the lunar sample program, including the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory (LRL). Associate Administrator for Space Science and
Applications John E. Naugle chaired the meeting. Lunar Receiving
Operations Director John E. Pickering of NASA OMSF discussed
plans--approved by the Department of Agriculture; Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare; and Department of Interior--for quarantine of the
returned astronauts and lunar materials, and noted that the NASA
Administrator or his designee would approve release of astronauts and
lunar samples from quarantine on the advice and recommendations of the
Interagency Committee on Back Contamination. Picketing also noted that
"many of the problems concerning quarantine operations at the LRL were
due to (1) lack of clearly defined responsibilities for the Medical Research
and Operations and Science and Applications Directorates, (2) the lack of
proven competence and maturity of the LRL staff, and (3) an integrated
operational plan." MSC Director of Science and Applications Wilmot N.
Hess indicated that item (1) was resolved by a memorandum of under-
standing between MSC Director of Medical Research and Operations
Charles A. Berry and himself but that MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth had
not approved it. Hess also pointed out that an operational plan was being
developed, but that LRL was primarily a scientific laboratory, not just a
quarantine facility. This statement was disputed in view of the fact that the
LRL was justified to Congress on the basis of a need for a quarantine facility.
Memo, V. R. Wilmarth, NASA Hq., to distr., "Conference on Lunar Sample Program," Oct. 26,
1967.
18
MSC's Director of Engineering and Development Maxime A. Faget, at the
request of the ASPO Manager, established a Configuration Control Panel
(CCP) for government furnished equipment (GFE). The panel would
integrate control of changes in the GFE items supplied for the Apollo
spacecraft. "Authority to bring change recommendations to the GFE Panel
will be invested in Division Chiefs. Changes rejected by the Division Chiefs
need not be reviewed by the GFE CCP," the memorandum establishing the
panel said. Membership on the panel was as follows: Chairman, Maxime A.
165
Faget; Alternate Chairman, James A. Chamberlin; Members, Richard S.

Johnston, Robert A. Gardiner, R. W. Sawyer (sic), and William C. Bradford.
Secretary would be John B. See. (See also October 13.)
Memo, Faget to distr., "E&D/Apollo GFE Configuration Control Panel," Oct. 18, 1967.
2O In an effort to meet a mid-April 1968 delivery date for LM-3, Grumman

made a number of organizational changes. Top level direction was
strengthened by adding experienced managers in strategic positions and by
reinforcing the Grumman LM organization with more management talent
and additional test personnel. A spacecraft director for each vehicle was
brought into the program for LM-2, -3, -4, and -5, with responsibility for
overall Grumman support of individual vehicles from cradle to grave.
Ltr., L. J. Evans, Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., to G. M. Low, MSC, Oct. 20, 1967.
2O The SM reaction control system (RCS) for spacecraft 101 was criticized by
Cg:SM RCS Subsystem Manager Ralph J. Taeuber. The results of the 101
RCS checkout, he said, "illustrate what we believe to be a lack of adequate
workmanship and quality control during the manufacture and checkout of
the RCS system. A total of 352 squawks have been written against the S/C
101 SM RCS and quad A has only been partially tested. This high number of
discrepancies, most of which cannot be directly related to design
deficiencies, is mute testimony to our contention. Test units of the RCS have
been built at MSC from scratch with no significant problems either during
manufacturing, checkout, or test firing. Thus we have demonstrated that the
system can be built successfully even without the specialized equipment and
facilities at NAA. Furthermore, NAA has fabricated a number of units with a
minimum of discrepancies .... "
CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht enclosed Taeuber's memorandum

and a summary engine failure report written by McDonnell Douglas Corp.
after completion of the Gemini program in an October 26 letter to North
American Rockwell's Apollo CSM Program Manager Dale D. Myers.
Kleinknecht pointed out: "Their conclusion that system contamination
was the most likely source of failure in flight, coupled with the fact that the
Mercury Program was also plagued with a similar problem, and added to
the facts presented in the report by Mr. Ralph Taeuber leads me to believe
that positive action must be taken to tighten up the quality control, both at
North American Rockwell Corporation and at all subcontractors and
vendors that supply the parts for the Apollo RCS .... Something must be
done to consistently bring the contamination of this system down to an
acceptable level. The numerous problems with corrosion and foreign matter
are occurring so frequently that it is possible we have other quality or
procedural failure modes that are hidden by the constant and over-riding
failure modes associated with contamination."
Kleinknecht added that he expected to receive within two weeks a written

notice from North American that it was implementing a plan for corrective
166
PART II_ RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
action and that the plan must include corrective action at the subcontractor 1967
and vendor levels. October
Myers advised Kleinknecht December 4 that, to determine the cause of the

recent valve failures from internal contamination, North American Quality
g: Reliability Assurance had begun an accelerated investigation October 22.
All RCS valve suppliers were investigated, and one supplier was found
to have introduced an improper cleaning sequence on an assembled
helium-isolation valve, resulting in trapped deionized water in the valve.
Valves suspected of moisture contamination were removed from the RCS
and, after the supplier corrected the irregularities in his cleaning operation,
the valves were returned for rework under North American source
inspection surveillance. At the plant of the sub-tier supplier responsible for
cleaning the valves that failed on spacecraft 101, a North American source
inspector was now required to review the supplier's shop planning and
indicate product acceptance by witnessing and verifying newly inserted
inspection points on the supplier's in-process paper work.
Myers said that, as pointed out in Kleinknecht's letter, "systems and

component contamination were a serious quality and technical problem
faced by all major space programs. To rationalize these problems as
workmanship and inspection errors introduced the risk of creating
misdirected effort that attacks the result instead of the cause.
"The investigation and remedial action taken on the helium valves was a
logical and aggressive response to apparent quality problems and is directed
toward correcting both the unsatisfactory condition and eliminating the
factors that cause the condition to develop. Suspected hardware was
immediately removed from the production cycle, inspection surveillance
was increased at critical points in the process to insure against continuation
of the problem, and a longer range program was implemented to provide
extra assurance that similar problems do not exist or develop at other
suppliers.
"The process control investigation that revealed the cause of trouble with
the helium valve was being expanded to include a re-evaluation of all
suppliers involved with cleaning valves, regulators, etc., used in the Apollo
CSM. In addition to a fresh look at the suppliers fabrication and cleaning
activities, the process evaluation is a comprehensive review of North
American and supplier specifications for compatibility between the
requirements for one assembly and the next, and a re-survey of the suppliers
facilities to assure he has the technical capability and equipment to meet the
stringent Apollo CSM quality requirements. The plan of action for this
process study is being developed, and action to the plan will commence
within a week."
Memo, Taeuber to S. H. Simpkinson, MSC, "S/C 101 SM RCS Checkout," Oct. 20, 1967; hrs.,
Kleinknecht to Myers, Oct. 26, 1967; Myers to Kleinknecht, Dec. 4, 1967.
167
1967 The following ground rules were established for extravehicular activity
October planning. The EVA transfer would be demonstrated and thermal-
28
degradation samples, retrieved during the AS-503/103/LM-3 (Apollo 8)
mission. No other pre-lunar-landing mission would include planned EVA
exercises. The first lunar landing mission would be planned with two EVA
excursions.
Memo, George M. Low to distr., "Mainline Apollo EVA Policy," Oct. 28, 1967.
Plans were to use 100-percent oxygen in the CSM cabin during prelaunch
operations for manned flights but, since flammability tests of the CSM were
not finished, the possibility existed that air might be used instead of pure
oxygen. Therefore, contingency plans would be developed to use air in the
cabin during the prelaunch operations so that a change would not delay the
program.
Memo, (L M. Low, MSC, to R. O. Middleton, KSC, "Possible use of air in the CSM cabin
during prelaunch operations," Oct. 28, 1967.
3O
Confirming an October 27 telephone conversation, ASPO Manager George
M. Low recommended to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips that
the following LM delivery schedule be incorporated into official documen-
tation : LM-2, February 5, 1968; LM-3, April 6, 1968; LM-4, June 6, 1968.
Subsequent vehicles would be delivered on two-month centers. The dates
had been provided by Grumman during the last Program Management
Review.
Ltr., I_w to Phillips, Oct. 30, 1967.
3O
Actions on television cameras were reported by ASPO Manager George M.
Low to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips:
• During the Apollo spacecraft redefinition effort; a decision was made

to fly the Block I TV camera in the CSM and the Block II TV camera in the
LM. It was also decided that the CSM onboard TV camera could not be used
for monitoring hazardous tests.
• In recent weight-saving exercises, those decisions were reexamined
and a conclusion was reached that no TV camera would be carried in the
CSM. This would not only save four kilograms directly but would also
reduce the required stowage space and reduce the overall weight by
minimizing the number of required containers.
• A decision was made to stow the Block II TV camera in the descent
stage during the lunar mission. There would still be a requirement for
checking out the lunar TV camera in earth orbit to ensure that it would
work on the lunar surface. For that reason, it was planned to carry the
camera in the ascent stage on the LM-3 mission, and in the descent stage on
subsequent vehicles.
168
Low said, "Our present plans for TV in Apollo spacecraft call for the use of 1967
facility cameras to monitor hazardous testing on the ground. There will not October
be any television equipment in the Command Module on any flight."

Ltr., Low to Phillips, Oct. 30, 1967.
3O
A parachute test (Apollo Drop Test 84-1) failed at E1 Centro, Calif. The
parachute test vehicle (PTV) was dropped from a C-133A aircraft at an
altitude of 9144 meters to test a new 5-meter drogue chute and to investigate
late deployment of one of the three main chutes. Launch and drogue chute
deployment occurred as planned, but about 1.5 seconds later both drogue
chutes prematurely disconnected from the PTV. A backup emergency
drogue chute installed in the test vehicle and designed to be deployed by
ground command in the event of drogue chute failure also failed to operate.
The PTV fell for about 43 seconds before the main chutes were deployed.
Dynamic pressure at the time of chute deployment was estimated at about
1.2 newtons per square centimeter (1.7 pounds per square inch). All
parachutes failed at or shortly after main parachute line stretch. The PTV
struck the ground in the drop zone and was buried about 1.5 meters. An
accident investigation board was formed at E1 Centro to survey mechanical
components and structures, fabric components, and electrical and
sequential systems. R. B. West, Earth Landing System Subsystem Manager,
represented NASA in the investigation. It was determined that two primary
failures had occurred: (1) failure of both drogue parachute-reefing systems
immediately after deployment; and (2) failure of the ground-radio-
commanded emergency-programmer parachute system to function.
On November 3, a preliminary analysis of the drop test failure was made at

Downey Calif., with representatives of NASA, North American Rockwell,
and Northrop participating. The failure of the drogue, being tested for the
first time, was determined to be a result of the failure of the reefing ring
attachment to the canopy skirt. The reason the ring attachment failed
seemed to be lack of a good preflight load analysis and an error in the
assumption used to determine the load capacity of the attachment. The
failure Of the deployment of the emergency system was still being
investigated.
TWX, George M. I.ow to Director, Apollo Program Office, NASA Hq., Oct. 31, 1967; memos,
Milton A Silveira to Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, "Failure which occurred on Apollo Drop Test
84-1," Oct. 31, 1967; "Further information on Apollo Drop Test 84-1 failure," Nov. 1, 1967;
and "Results of Preliminary Analysis o[ Apollo Drop Test 84-1 Failure," Nov. 6, 1967.
November
Maxime A. Faget, MSC Director of Engineering and Development, told the
ASPO Manager that he had reviewed the LM insulation status and 2
concluded that" the present design is susceptible to degradation from cabin

leakage during pressurized conditions. The present insulation design is
unacceptable for the lunar landing mission." He agreed with the contractor
that design changes were required and specified that the insulation design
169
1967
change should be effective on LM-4 and the changes should be installed for
November the LTA-8 tests in support of LM-5.
Memo, Faget to Manager, ASPO, "LM Insulation," Nov. 2, 1967.
A cooling design to keep heating effects of the radioisotope thermoelectric

generator (RTG) below 450 kelvins (350°F) was being sought for the Apollo
Lunar Surface Experiments Package. Studies had shown that the RTG
could be a fire hazard wherl the ALSEP was carried in the lunar module,
heating temperatures up to 590 kelvins (600°F) unless cooling was provid-
ed. Temperatures from 460 to 465 kelvins (370°F to 380°F) were hazardous
with the fuels in the LM. (See also July 21, 1967, entry.)
Memo, George C. White, Jr., NASA Hq., to William M. Bland, Jr., MSC, "Failure Effects
Anatysis--LM/ALSEP Interface," Nov. 3, 1967.
A series of lunar surface operations planning meetings was scheduled to

establish and coordinate operational requirements and constraints, review
analysis and simulation data for lunar surface operations, review hardware
status and requirements, review test and simulation planning, identify and
resolve operational problems, obtain agreement on mission guidelines and
recommended flight activities, and collect comments on the surface
operations plans.
Memo, Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to distr., "Lunar Surface Operations Planning Meetings,"
Nov. 3, 1967.
November 3-
In an exchange of correspondence, KSC Director Kurt H. Debus and MSC
December 19 Director Robert R. Gilruth agreed that close coordination was required
between the two Centers regarding launch site recovery and rescue in the
event of malfunction leading to an unsuccessful abort before or just after
ignition during a launch phase. Coordinated recovery and rescue plans were
being formulated for such an emergency. Plans would also include the
Department of Defense Eastern Test Range and required coordination with
DOD. On December 19 Debus was informed by NASA Hq. that his proposal
for a slide wire emergency system had been reviewed and approved.
Ltrs., Debus to Gilruth, Nov. 3, 1967; Gilruth to Debus, Nov. 20, 1967; Gilruth to Samuel C.
Phillips, NASA Hq., Nov. 16, 1967; Phillips to Debus. Dec. 19, 1967.
NASA announced an Apollo mission schedule calling for six flights in 1968
and five in 1969. NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight
George E. Mueller said the schedule and alternative plans provided a
schedule under which a limited number of Apollo command and service
modules and lunar landing modules, configured for lunar landing might be
launched on test flights toward the moon by the end of the decade.
Apollo/uprated Saturn I flights were identified with a 200 series number;
Saturn V flights were identified with a 500 series number. The 1968 schedule
was :
170
PART I1: RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
1967
Apollo/Saturn 204--first unmanned test of the LM in earth orbit
Apollo/Saturn 502msecond unmanned flight test of the Saturn V and November
Apollo CSM
Apollo/Saturn 503--third unmanned test of the Saturn V and Apollo
CSM
Apollo/Saturn 206--second unmanned flight test of LM in earth orbit
Apollo/Saturn 205--first Apollo manned flight, a 10-day mission to
qualify the CSM for further manned missions
Apollo/Saturn 504--first manned Apollo flight on Saturn V. This
mission would provide first manned operation in
space with both the CSM and LM, including crew
transfer from CSM to LM and rendezvous and
docking.
These flights would be flown in the above order and as rapidly as all
necessary preparations could be completed.
The 1969 flight schedule called for five manned Apollo/Saturn V flights,
AS-505 through AS-509. Four of these--505, 506, 507, and 508--were
programmed as lunar mission development flights or lunar mission
simulations. It was considered possible that the lunar landing could be
made on Apollo/Saturn 509, but it was also possible this might be delayed
until one of the remaining six Saturn V flights.
TWX, Ralph E. Gibson, Deputy News Chief, NASA Hq., to all NASA Centers and Stations,
NASA News Release 67-282, "Apollo/Saturn Schedule," Nov. 4, 1967.
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth, wrote Warren B. Hayes, President of

Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., that planned schedules for the lunar landing
training vehicle (LLTV) could not be maintained because of the need for
refabrication of the hydrogen peroxide tanks. The tanks had been
manufactured by Airtek Division of Fansteel under contract to Bell
Aerosystems Co. Airtek's estimates were that the first of the new tanks would
not be available until January 1968, two months later than required to meet
the LLTV program schedule. Gilruth said: "The LLTV is a major and very
necessary part of the crew training program for the lunar landing maneuver.
It is my hope that Airtek will take every action to assure that the
manufacturing cycle time for these tanks is held to an absolute minimum."
In preparing background information for Gilruth, Flight Crew Operations
Director Donald K. Slayton had pointed out that the first set of tanks (total of
eight) had been scrapped because of below-minimum wall thickness.
Qualification testing of a tank from the second set revealed out-of-tolerance
mismatch of welded tank fittings, and this set was also scrapped.
Ltr., Gihuth to Hayes, Nov. 7, 1967; memo, Slayton to MSC Director, "Proposed letter to
President, Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation," Nov. 3, 1967.
The MSC Director of Engineering and Development pointed out that a full-
scale CSM would soon be tested to evaluate the hazard of fire propagation
171
both in orbit (cabin atmosphere of oxygen at pressure of 3.8 newtons per

square centimeter--5.5 pounds per square inch absolute) and on the pad
(oxygen at 11.4 newtons per sq cm--16.5 psia). There was a reasonable
probability that the CSM might qualify in the first but not the second case.
In such event, it was proposed that the prelaunch cabin atmosphere be
changed from 100-percent oxygen to a mixture of 60-percent oxygen and 40-
percent helium or to a mixture of 60-percent oxygen and 40-percent
nitrogen. This proposal was made on the assumption that those mixtures at
11.4 newtons per sq cm would not offer more of a fire hazard than 100-
percent oxygen at 3.8 newtons. It was also assumed that these mixtures
would be physiologically suitable after being bled down to orbital pressure
without subsequent purging or being enriched with additional oxygen.
Structures and Mechanics Division (SMD) was requested to make
flammability tests to determine the relative merit of the two mixtures and to
outline a minimum test program to provide confidence that the mixed gas
atmosphere might be considered equivalent to oxygen at 3.8 newtons.
Memo, Maxime A. Faget to Chief, Structures and Mechanics Div., MSC, "Prelaunch atmos-
phere for Command Module," Nov. 8, 1967,
Apollo 4 (AS-501) was launched in the first all-up test of the Saturn V
launch vehicle and also in a test of the CM heatshield. The Saturn V, used for
the first time, carried a lunar module test article (LTA-10R) and a Block I
command and service module (CSM 017) into orbit from KSC Launch
Complex 39, Pad A, lifting off at 7:00:01 a.m. EST--one second later than
planned. The launch was also the first use of Complex 39. The spacecraft
landed 8 hours 37 minutes later in the primary recovery area in the Pacific
Ocean, near Hawaii, about 14 kilometers from the planned point. CM, apex
heatshield, and one main parachute were recovered by the carrier U.S.S.
Bennington.J
Main objectives of the mission were to demonstrate the structural and

thermal integrity of the space vehicle and to verify adequacy of the Block II
heatshield design for entry at lunar return conditions. These objectives were
accomplished.
The S-IC stage cutoff occurred 2 minutes 30 seconds into the flight at an
altitude of about 63 kilometers. The S-II stage ignition occurred at 2
minutes 32 seconds and the burn lasted 6 minutes 7 seconds, followed by the
S-IVB stage ignition and burn of 2 minutes 25 seconds. This series of launch
vehicle operations placed the S-IVB and spacecraft combination in an earth
parking orbit with an apogee of about 187 kilometers and a perigee of 182
kilometers. After two orbits, which required about three hours, the S-IVB
stage was reignited to place the spacecraft in a simulated lunar trajectory.
This burn lasted five minutes. Some 10 minutes after completion of the S-
IVB burn, the spacecraft and S-IVB stage were separated, and less than 2
minutes later the service propulsion subsystem was fired to raise the apogee.
The spacecraft was placed in an attitude with the thickest side of the CM
172
A Navy helicopter hovers over spacecraft 017 awaiting the recovery ship after the
Apollo 4 (AS-501) mission--the first Saturn V flight--on November 9, 1967.
Frogmen attached the flotation collar to the command module after splashdown.
On arrival of the U.S.S. Bennington, CM 017 is hoisted aboard.
1967
heatshield away from the solar vector. During this four-and-one-half-hour
cold-soak period, the spacecraft coasted to its highest apogee--18256.3 November
kilometers. A 70 mm still camera photographed the earth's surface every 10.6
seconds, taking 715 good-quality, high-resolution pictures.
About 8 hours 11 minutes after liftoff the service propulsion system was
again ignited to increase the spacecraft inertial velocity and to simulate
entry from a translunar mission. This burn lasted four and one half
minutes. The planned entry velocity was 10.61 kilometers per second, while
the actual velocity achieved was 10.70.
Recovery time of 2 hours 28 minutes was longer than anticipated, with the
cause listed as sea conditions--2.4-meter swells.
MSC, "Apollo 4 Mission Report," Jan. 7, 1968; TWXs, W. C. Schneider, NASA Hq., to
addressees, "Apollo 4 24-Hour Report," Nov. 10, 1967; R. O. Middleton, KSC, to addressees,
"Apollo 4 Quick-Look Assessment Report," Nov. 13, 1967; Arthur Rudolph, MSFC, to
addressees, "AS-501 Flight Results ( I0 day report )," Nov. 21.1967; Saturn AS-50 ! Evaluation
Bulletins No. 1 and No. 2, Nov. 14 and Nov. 22, 1967; NASA, "Apollo Program Weekly Status
Report," Nov. 10, 1967.
11
Tests of sample constant-wear garments (underwear) fabricated from Beta
fabric were reported as showing the garments were a source of excessive lint
and irritated the skin. Efforts were being made to fabricate a knitted garment
that would overcome these problems. Other flame resistant materials and
flame retardant treatments were also being investigated. However, since
delivery schedules of training and initial flight items required an immediate
173
1967 decision concerning material selection, it was decided to use the original
November , cotton undergarment configuration.
Memo, George M. Low, MSC, to Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., "Constant wear garment,"
Nov. 11, 1967.
13 ASPO Manager George Low, in a memorandum to CSM Manager Kenneth

Kleinknecht, remarked that he had "just read Dale Myers' letter to you...
on the subject of Northrop Ventura performance. In addition I have.., read
a letter from Dick Homer to me in response to my letter.., of September 29,
1967. Both of these letters have the same general tone: they indicate that
problems did exist in the past, but that all problems have now been
resolved .... I am still.., uneasy about the Northrop Ventura situation. I
would, therefore, recommend that you might personally want to visit the
Northrop Ventura facilities so that you can, at first hand, inspect their plant,
review their program and talk to their people. You might want to ask
Eberhard Rees, Scott Simpkinson and Sam Beddingfield to join you on such
a visit. I would hope.., you would see fit to make this visit in the very near
future so that any corrective actions that you might identify can be taken
before the Spacecraft 101 parachutes are packed."
Memo, Low to Kleinknecht, "Parachutes," Nov. 13, 1967.
14
A full-time .unar landing training vehicle (LLTV) operating capability was
essential to lunar landing training. Optimum proficiency for the critical
lunar landing maneuver would be required at launch. Crew participation in
the three months or more of concentrated checkout and training at KSC
before each lunar mission, coupled with routine launch delays, would make
KSC the preferred location for LLTV operating capability.
I.trs., George E. Mueller, NASA Hq., to Robert R. Gihuth, MSC, Nov. 14, 1967 and Dec. 16,
1967; TWX, Maynard E. White, NASA Hq., to MSC and KSC, "Lunar Landing Training
Vehicle," Nov. 20, 1967.
14
In a letter to North American Rockwell and Grumman management, ASPO
Manager George Low pointed out that he had taken a number of steps to
strengthen the Configuration Control Board (CCB) activities and said he
felt it was "very desirable to have senior management from NAR and GAEC
present for our Board meetings." The meetings were held each Friday.
North American Apollo CSM Manager Dale D. Myers replied on November
17 that he, Charles Feltz, or George Jeffs would attend the meetings on an
alternate schedule. Myers informed Low that North American was
implementing new requirements designed to strengthen its own CCB.
MSC's Kenneth S. Kleinknecht had been invited to attend North American's
weekly Tuesday meetings when possible and RASPO Manager Wilbur Gray
was invited to attend routinely.
Ltrs., Low to Myers, Nov. 14, 1967; Myers to I.ow, Nov. 17, 1967.
174
PART If: RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
MSC informed MSFC that it would provide the following payload flight 1967
hardware for the AS-503/BP-30 flight test: boilerplate 30 (BP-30, already at November
MSFC); spacecraft-LM adapter 101 and launch escape system (SLA-

15
101/LES) jettisonable mass simulation; and lunar module test article B
(LTA-B, already at MSFC). MSC had no mission requirements but
recommended that any restart test requirements for the Saturn SIV-B stage
be carried out on this mission to simplify requirements for the first manned
Saturn V mission.
Ltr., George M. Low to Arthur Rudolph, MSFC, "AS-503/BP-30 flight test," Nov. 15, 1967.
15
Spacecraft 017 (recovered after flight on the Apollo 4 mission) arrived in
Downey, Calif., and was inspected by Robert R. Gilruth, George M. Low
and others from MSC. Its condition was much better than anticipated,
considering the severe heating it had been subjected to. Maximum erosion
was between 2.5 and 7.6 millimeters.
"MSC Weekly Activity Report for Mr. Webb," week ending Nov. 17, 1967.
16
MSC Flight Operations Directorate issued mission rules concerning beach
impact for the Apollo 7 mission. The Directorate referred to minutes of the
Near-Pad Abort Meeting, dated September 26, which said the possibility of
injury to the crew should it impact on land near Complex 34 necessitated
mission rules prohibiting spacecraft launch in wind conditions that would
cause a land impact after an abort. A satisfactory means of escape "must be
provided to the crew while in the spacecraft during pad tests when wind
conditions prohibit pad aborts due to possible beach impact." Mission rules
developed were: (1) An integrated launch abort trajectory would be
conducted at MSC before the launch, using the actual measured launch-day
wind profile for computing impact points. (2) Spacecraft launch would not
be attempted if beach impacts were predicted before 15 seconds ground
elapsed time (GET). (3) Launch would be permitted for predicted beach
impacts occurring after 15 seconds GET provided the total time that the
impact point was on land was no greater than 5 seconds. (4) If the wind
conditions became marginal during countdown before the flight crew
entered the spacecraft and if weather predictions indicated that the beach
impact constraints would be violated at planned liftoff time, crew entry
would be delayed until wind measurements indicated a trend that would
allow a safe launch. And (5) if at any time after flight crew entry the meas-
ured wind conditions indicated a beach impact for a pad abort, the access
arm would not be retracted until after the winds were determined to be safe
as confirmed by a balloon release.
Memo, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., to Manager, ASPO, "Mission Rules concerning predicted
beach impact for the Spacecraft 101 launch," Nov. 16, 1967; telecon with Charles Harlan, MSC
Flight Control Div., by Ivan Ertel, Aug. 31, 1970.
16
Robert R. Gilruth, George M. Low, and Maxime A. Faget, with other MSC
personnel and North American Rockwell management officials visited
AiResearch to review the status of the Apollo environmental control unit
175
1967 electronic components. There had been serious concern about AiResearch
Noveml_r capabilities in this area. The review indicated that AiResearch circuit
designs were satisfactory; that the electronic parts used were not satisfactory,
but that substitutions of high-reliability parts could be made; and that
AiResearch's capability in the manufacture of electronic components was
substandard insofar as the aerospace industry was concerned. AiResearch
was directed to obtain a subcontractor to build the most critical electronic
controller in accordance with AiResearch designs and parts lists. All other
electronic components were still under review and additional ones might be
added to the backup contractor at a later date.
"MSC Weekly Activity Report for Mr. Webb," week ending Nov. 17, 1967.
17
An MSC meeting discussed environmental acceptance testing of Apollo
spacecraft at the vehicle level. The meeting was attended by representatives
of OMSF, MSC, and General Electric. Lad Warzecha presented results of a
GE analysis of ground- and flight-test failures in a number of spacecraft
programs. GE had concluded that a significant number of failures could be
eliminated through complete vehicle environmental (vibration and thermal
vacuum) acceptance testing and recommended such testing be included in
the CSM and LM programs. James A. Chamberlin, MSC, presented a
critique of the GE recommendations and found fault with the statistical
approach to the GE analysis, indicating that each flight failure would have
to be considered individually to reach valid conclusions. After considerable
discussion ASPO Manager George M. Low said that he had reached the
following conclusions: (1) Adequate environmental screening at the piece
part and component level was essential. Significant steps in this direction
had been taken by requiring a wider use of high-reliability parts and by
imposing higher vibration levels in black box acceptance testing. (2)
Vehicle-level environmental acceptance testing was not applicable to the
CSM or LM spacecraft. This conclusion was reached because it was not
possible to vibrate, or otherwise excite, any of the Apollo spacecraft in a way
to give meaningful vibration levels at most internal spacecraft locations.
Memo for the Record, Low, Manager, ASPO, "Apollo complete vehicle environmental
acceptance testing," Nov. 18, 1967.
17
Eberhard F. M. Rees of MSFC sent MSC ASPO Manager George M. Low the
results of a brief survey he had made at North American Rockwell. This was
a preliminary step to plans agreed on by NASA Administrator James E.
Webb, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller,
MSFC Director Wernher von Braun, MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth, and
Low. Rees was to head a special task group, to be stationed at Downey and
concerned largely with planning control and feedback; engineering,
development, and design; manufacturing and assembly, manufacturing
methods, and process control; quality assurance and reliability; and
procedures, configuration control, etc.
176
PART II; RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
Rees recalled that his assignment, as spelled out by Webb, was mainly to 1967
support MSC on manufacturing problems. Accompanying Rees on the November
survey trip from October 24 to November 3 were Jerald R. Kubat of the
Apollo Program Office, NASA Hq., and two MSFC associates of Rees, Jack
Trott and E. D. Mohlere. Rees met with RASPO Manager Wilbur H. Gray
and ASPO CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht and with top North
American officials. Discussions were held with RASPO personnel on
configuration control, quality assurance, manufacturing problems, and the
environmental control system in preparation for a trip to AiResearch.
"Finally we reviewed the so-called Problem Assessment Room of NAR."
Before offering some recommendations for consideration, Rees pointed up

a need [or a considerably intensified program of subcontractor penetration
and quality review, to include in-process inspections in critical processes or
in assembly of critical components. He recommended that (1) he lead the
task team, reporting to Kleinknecht since he felt the team should support
and not only advise and consult; (2) all actions be executed with the
contractor by RASPO; (3) the size of the group be 20 to 25 persons and the
task length about six months; and (4) the team not involve itself in any
design activities or new "inventions," but see to it that all problems be made
visible and resolved according to the time schedule with follow-up actions
and feedback.
Rees also listed a number of areas of possible improvement, among which

were:
"Intensified exploration looking toward modularization in order to
reduce impact of restricted work conditions in the capsule, although,
according to my opinion, NAR has already taken steps in the proper
direction and made improvement."
"Development of highly responsive communications system that will
permit immediate revelation to management of manufacturing anomalies
discovered on the shop floor."
"NAR quality control was, in my opinion, somewhat erratic. In some

cases, jobs were over-covered, in others, coverage was missing."
"Returning to the matter of the communication link between shop and
responsive levels of management, two examples will serve to illustrate the
point. The S/C 101-RCS [reaction control system] quarter panel fastener
hole mismatch was initially reported on January 9 within a shop loop. It did
not get management attention until late October. Impact on other S/C
requires attention. Again, the S/C 020 heat shield required grinding to
remove interference with the umbilical. This, too apparently applied to
other spacecraft .... "
Speaking of the field of controls and prompt display of problems, Rees said:
"I feel that the so-called 'Problem Assessment Room' is a good beginning
but that it requires much refinement. For example, it currently does not
inform management of repetitive non-conformances or developing trends.
Also, I learned that the previously mentioned improperly fitting RCS panel
177
THE AI_OLLO SPACECRAFT: A CHRONOLOGY
1967 did not show on the board. The reason given was that it was not displayed
November because no solution to the problem had yet been developed. It would appear
to me that such a condition would eminently qualify a problem for
display."
Memo, Rees to Low, "Brief Survey of CSM at NAR, Downey," Nov. 17, 1967.
2O Bell Aerosystems Co. informed MSC and NASA Hq. that the company had
reached a point in the LM ascent engine program where it was confident
that it would meet all commitments and requirements for the Apollo
missions.
Ltrs., William G. Gisel, Bell Aerosystems Co., to Robert R. Gilruth and George M. Low, MSC,
and Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., Nov. 20, 1967.
2O MSC asked MSFC assistance in identifying and understanding any

propellant sloshing effects that might create problems in the flight test
program. The greatest uncertainty was associated with the techniques for
passive thermal control in nonpowered flight.
Ltr., Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, to Wernher yon Braun, MSFC, Nov. 20, 1967.
Week Endlng A meeting on LM testing was held at Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.,
December
1
with Robert R. Gilruth and George M. Low, MSC; George Hage, OMSF;
Hilliard Paige, General Electric Co.; and George Stoner, Boeing Co., in
addition to Grumman personnel. After NASA reviewed the LM vibration
environment and previous acceptance test decisions, Grumman recom-
mended that complete vehicle vibration testing with externally mounted
acoustic horns should be continued beyond LM-2; that wider use of
thermovacuum testing at the component level be considered; and that the
LM designated for the lunar landing mission be subjected to complete
thermovacuum tests either at MSC or KSC.
MSC concluded that (1) for schedule purposes it would plan to continue
complete vehicle acoustic testing after LM-2; however, implementation of
this decision would depend on the results of the LM-2 testing; (2) MSC
would reexamine the application of more widespread thermal testing at the
component level; and (3) the Grumman proposal to subject the LM
designated for the lunar mission to more testing than earlier manned flights
was unacceptable. Past experience had shown that earlier vehicles should
always have more testing than later ones.
MSC, "Weekly Activity Report for Mr. Webb," week ending Dec. 1, 1967.
December NASA Hq. requested MSC to forward by December 5 the Center's plan for
1
providing qualified LM ascent engines with dynamically stable injectors for
manned LM flights. The plan was expected to be based on ground rules
established in July when a NASA team went to Bell Aerosystems Co. that the
current BAC engine would be the prime effort with the Rocketdyne Division
(North American Rockwell) injector development as backup. Headquarters
178
asked that the plan contain the following elements: (1) effectivity of Bell- 1967
improved design in LM; (2) earliest phaseout of Rocketdyne program, December
assuming satisfactory completion of BAC program; and (3) effectivity of

backup Rocketdyne design in LM if the BAC effort was not successful.
TWX, Samuel C. Phillips, OMSF, to MSC, Dec. 1, 1967.
NASA Hq. announced that, as concurred in by the Center Apollo Program

Managers, the following decisions, based on the results of the Apollo 4
mission, were firmly established:
• CSM 020 would be flown on the Apollo 6 mission.

• Boilerplate 30 was assigned to the AS-503 unmanned mission.
• If Apollo 6 was successful, AS-503 would be flown as the first Saturn
V manned mission.
TWX, NASA Hq. to MSC, MSFC, and KSC, "Apollo 6 and AS-503 Unmanned CSM
Assignments," Dec. 1, 1967.
NASA Administrator James E. Webb approved the designation "Saturn IB"

as the standard way of referring to that launch vehicle in public statements,
congressional testimony, and similar materials, rather than "Uprated
Saturn I."
Memo, Associate Deputy Administrator Willis H. Shapley to distr., "Saturn IB Nomencla-

ture," Dec. 2, 1967.
Walter J. Kapryan of the MSC Resident ASPO at KSC told the KSC Apollo
Program Manager that one of the primary test objectives of the SM-102
static-fire test was to determine system deterioration caused by the static-fire
sequence and exposure to residual hypergolics trapped in the system during
subsequent prelaunch operations. He said it was imperative that the
objective be met before the planned static-firing test of the SM-101. MSC
requested that every effort be made to make the SM-102 test as soon as
possible to ensure a representative time for subsequent storage and that a
contractor tear-down inspection could be made to assess the advisability of
static-firing the flight spacecraft. A firing date of January 15, 1968, would
accomplish those objectives.
Memo, Kapryan to Apollo Program Manager, KSC, "SM-102 Static Fire Schedule," Dec. 5,
1967.
Astronaut Charles (Pete) Conrad's concern about an anticipated attitude

control problem in the LM was reported. Conrad had said, "The LM is too
sporty when in a light weight configuration." Minimum impulse was
expected to produce about 0.3 degree per second rate, which was estimated to
be about four times too fast. A memo on the problem possibility was written
by Howard W. Tindall, Jr., Deputy Chief of MSC's Mission Planning and
179
Analysis Division, to stimulate thinking. On December 9, ASPO Manager

George M. Low asked Donald K. Slayton and Warren J. North if there was
any chance of setting up a simulation to see whether this was a real concern.
Memo, Tindall to distr., "Light weight LM attitude control is too sporty," Dec. 7, 1967.
8
An Apollo drop test failed at E1 Centro, Calif. The two-drogue verification
test had been planned to provide confidence in the drogue chute design
(using a weighted bomb) before repeating the parachute test vehicle (PTV)
test. Preliminary information indicated that in the test one drogue
entangled with the other during deployment and that only one drogue
inflated. The failure appeared to be related to a test deployment method
rather than to drogue design. The test vehicle was successfully recovered by a
USAF recovery parachute--intact and reusable.
TWX, George M. Low, MSC, to Director, Apollo Program Office, NASA Hq., Dec. 8, 1967.
MSC ASPO Manager George M. Low reminded NASA Apollo Program

Director Samuel C. Phillips that at a meeting three weeks previous MSC had
presented a Bell Aerospace Corp. qualification completion date for the LM
ascent engine of March 28, and a Rocketdyne Division, North American
Rockwell, completion by May 1, 1968. MSC at that time had expressed
confidence that the Rocketdyne program could be accelerated to be
completed in mid-March and be competitive to the BAC date, permitting a
selection to install the best engine on LM-3.
During the interim, program reviews had been conducted at both Bell and
Rocketdyne. The Bell program had been accelerated to complete qualifica-
tion by February 9, 1968, by conducting qualification and design
verification testing in parallel. While a greater risk would be incurred, both
Grumman and NASA agreed to the procedure to expedite the Bell program.
The Rocketdyne program could not be accelerated to complete qualifica-
tion by February because of an uncertainty as to the performance of its
engine, but qualification testing was expected to be completed by March.
Anticipating that the only change would be a pattern modification,
Rocketdyne was already manufacturing injectors to support an accelerated
program.
Ltr., Low to Phillips, "Ascent engine program plan," Dec. 9, 1967.
11
NASA Hq. asked further MSFC studies of one of the most critical phases
during an Apollo mission, the period between holddown arm release and
launch umbilical tower clearance. Failures or incompatibilities that could
cause a vehicle collision with ground equipment or a pad fallback were
major elements of potential danger. Problems during that phase would be
difficult to cope with from a crew safety or an abort point of view and also
posed the double jeopardy possibility of losing both the space vehicle and
mobile launcher.
180
A number of studies had been made at MSFC of certain aspects of the

problem, particularly postliftoff flight dynamics, the effects of winds, etc.
Those studies had brought out the catastrophic potential of near-pad
engine-out and actuator-hardover failures. NASA Hq. now asked MSFC to
investigate further, with assistance of other Centers as required, the
inadvertent system operation and component failures that could affect (1) a
first-stage cutoff between holddown arm release and time of separation of
the last physical connection between the vehicle and ground complex; (2)
inadvertent critical operation or inhibition of such space vehicle systems as
the emergency detection subsystem, guidance and control, electrical, and
range safety during the same critical period; and (3) a premature or out-of-
sequence liftoff.
The MSFC task leaders were asked to report findings to a panel made up of
the MSFC, MSC, and KSC Apollo Program Managers and NASA Apollo
Program Director Samuel C. Phillips before the flight readiness reviews for
Apollo 5 and 6, scheduled for January 3 and mid-January 1968.
Ltr., Phillips to MSFC, "Apollo Lift-off Hazards," Dec. 11, 1967.
12
The phase I customer acceptance readiness review (CARR) of CM 101 was
held at North American Rockwell in Downey, Calif. MSC's CSM Manager
Kenneth S. Kleinknecht chaired the meeting, and SC 101 Manager John
Healey represented North American. The review was the first of a three-
phase CARR system initiated by North American. A total of 44 customer
acceptance review item dispositions (CARIDs) were presented to the board
and 13 were closed. The spacecraft was accepted for turnover to Apollo Test
Operations pending submission of data to close the remainder. The
majority of open CARIDs were for completing documentation for
engineering orders, operation checkout procedures, and photography, with
both North American and MSC having action item for closing out CARIDs.
Five CARIDs made reference to flammability of material. The most
significant item was the installation of 27.4 meters of coaxial cable in the
spacecraft that did not meet flammability guidelines.
Memo, W. C. Brubaker, Bellcomm, Inc., to distr., "Trip Report--Phase I Customer Acceptance
Readiness Review of SCM 101--Case 320," Dec. 29, 1967.
12
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips wrote to the three manned
space flight Centers:
"I am sure that you are keenly aware of the importance of the forthcoming
series of Apollo manned flights and the requirement that all responsible
actions are taken to assure the success of each mission. To this end the
Design Certification Review, established for manned flights, serves an
important role. Shortly our program of progressive Design Certification
Reviews leading to certification for the manned lunar landing will
commence: A significant part of the effort requires a comprehensive
supporting analysis of critical hardware to assure that all single failure
181
THEAPOLLO SPACECRAFT: A CHRONOLOGY
points have been identified and accepted by all levels of Apollo Program
management.
"I believe it necessary, therefore, that the Design Certification Review

program formally record a listing of single failure points existing in flight
and launch critical ground equipment which would cause crew or mission
loss, together with a statement of rationale for accepting the risk of each of
these single failure points. Establishing such a listing requires particular
attention to commonality of ground rules and categorization such that the
overall mission single failure point listing is an effective Design
Certification Review input. While recognizing the present efforts existing at
contractors and Centers in identifying single failure points, some additional
work is required to obtain a consistent mission single failure point listing.
"It is requested that you initiate action to prepare for each Design
Certification Review a single failure point listing which includes all
considerations supporting the acceptance of each single failure point. This
listing shall be prepared in accordance with ground rules established and
coordinated by the Apollo Program Reliability and Quality Assurance
Office, be approved by the Center, and shall be required 60 days in advance
of the final Design Certification Review Board signoff."
Ltrs., Phillips to MSC, MSFC, and KSC, "Apollo Program Single Failure Points," Dec. 12,
1967.
14
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips wrote the manned space flight
Centers of Apollo schedule decisions. In a September 20 meeting at MSC to
review the Apollo test flight program, MSC had proposed a primary test
flight plan including (1) the addition of a second unmanned LM flight, (2)
addition of a third unmanned Saturn V flight, and (3) addition of a new
primary mission, a lunar orbital mission. Phillips now wrote that decisions
had been made to accommodate MSC's first two proposals into the mainline
Apollo flight mission assignment. In addition, the proposal for the lunar
orbital mission would be included in the Apollo flight mission assignments
as an alternate to a landing mission.
Ltr., Phillips to Directors, MSC, MSFC, and KSC, "Apollo Spacecraft Flighl Test Program
Review/Apollo Mission Assignments," Dec. 14, 1967.
16
The Apollo Site Selection Board met at MSC and discussed landing ellipse
topography, landing approach path topography, and operational consider-
ations, among other topics. The board heard recommendations on landing
sites for the first and second missions, and approved them subsequent to the
meeting, and Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips emphasized that
three launch opportunities should be provided for all months of the year.
Board members, in addition to Phillips, were James H. Turnock, John D.
Stevenson, Charles W. Mathews, and Oran W. Nicks, all of NASA Hq.;
182
Owen E. Maynard and Wilmot N. Hess of MSC; Ernst Stuhlinger, MSFC; 1967
and R. O. Middleton, KSC. December
Memo, Apollo Program Director to distr., "Minutes of the Apollo Site Selection Board Meeting
of December 15, 1967," Jan. 29, 1968.
15
Robert O. Piland, Technical Assistant to the MSC Director, reminded
ASPO Manager George M. Low that some time previously Wilmot Hess,
MSC, had requested incorporation of a camera on AS-502 to take photos of
the earth from orbital altitudes. The camera would be the same kind as used
on AS-501 but pictures would be taken from a height of 80 to 160 kilometers
rather than from 16 000. Piland said he understood the mission would allow
a strip of photography 160 kilometers wide across the southern part of the
United States and Africa and would make a significant contribution to the
initiation of an earth resources survey program. Low replied on December
20, "Our plans are to do this, assuming we can without schedule impact."
Memo, Piland to Low, "Photography on Mission 502," Dec. 15, 1967; note, Low to Piland, Dec.
20, 1967.
16
Top NASA and North American Rockwell management personnel
discussed flammability problems associated with coax cables installed in
CMs. It was determined that approximately 23 meters of flammable coax
cable was in CM 101 and, when ignited with a nichrome wire, the cable
would burn in oxygen at both 4.3 and 11.4 newtons per square centimeter
(6.2 and 16.5 pounds per square inch). Burning rates varied from 30 to 305
centimeters per minute, depending upon the oxygen pressure and the
direction of the flame front propagation. The cable was behind master
display panels, along the top of the right-hand side of the cabin, vertically in
the rear right-hand corner of the cabin, in the cabin feed-through area, and
in the lower equipment bay. The group reviewed the detailed location of the
cable, viewed movies of flammability tests, examined movies of the results of
testing with fire breaks, discussed possible alternatives, and inspected cable
installations in CMs 101 and 104.
The following alternatives were considered:
1. Replace all coax cable.

2. Wrap all coax cable with aluminum tape.
3. Partially wrap the cable to provide fire breaks. Tests at North Amer-
ican indicated that a 102-millimeter segment of wrapped cable with four
layers of aluminum foil would provide a fire break. MSC tests indicated such
a fire break was not adequate for multiple cables.
4. Leave the installation as it was.
The following factors were considered in reaching a decision for spacecraft

101"
1. The wiring in that spacecraft had been completed for several

months. All subsystems had been installed and protective covers had been
183
1967 installed. Complete replacement or complete wrapping of all coax cables

December would be time consuming; it might take as long as three months, when
taking retest into consideration. Additionally, in spite of extreme care,
complete replacement or wrapping might do considerable damage to the
installed wiring, and even partial wrapping might cause damage in many
areas.
2. The coax cable could not self-ignite under any conditions.
3. In most installations, the coax cable was a separate bundle and not
part of other wire bundles. An exception was the feed-through area in the
lower right-hand corner of the cabin, where the coax cable was intertwined
with other wires. Although power cables existed in this area, these were not
high-current-carrying cables.
4. A minimum number of possible ignition sources existed in the
vicinity of the coax cables, and a complex series of events would be required
to ignite the cable.
In view of these factors, decisions for spacecraft 101 were:
1. The cable would be flown essentially as installed. The only

exception was that the vertical cable bundle in the right-hand corner of the
spacecraft would be wrapped with layers of aluminum tape. Each cable in
this bundle would be individually wrapped.
2. An analysis by North American would document all other wiring
near the coax cable, including the wire size, functions, maximum currents
carried, and degree of circuit-breaker protection.
3. All possible ignition sources near the coax cable would be
documented.
4. Tests would be made in boilerplate (BP) 1250 to determine the effects
of fire breaks inherent in the installation.
In making these decisions, NASA and North American recognized that they
were contrary to existing criteria and guidelines. Those present agreed that
the decisions were an exception and in no way should be construed as a
change or relaxation of the criteria and guidelines. The basic reason for the
exception was summarized as follows : "As a result of the clean installation
of the coax cables, the lack of external ignition sources, and the complete job
done in cleaning up the spacecraft from the flammability viewpoint, the risk
of igniting the coax cables is exceedingly small. This risk is believed to be
less than would likely be incurred through possible damage to existing
installations had a decision been made to replace or wrap the cables."
The installation in spacecraft 2TV- 1 would not be changed. This decision

was made fully recognizing that more flammable material remained in
2TV-1 than in 101. However, the burning rate of coax cable had been
demonstrated as very slow, and it was reasoned that the crew would have
sufficient time to make an emergency exit in the vacuum chamber from
2TV-I long before any dangerous situations would be encountered.
184
Officials also agreed that coax cable in boilerplate 1224 would not be ignited 1967
until after the results of the BP 1250 tests had been reviewed. December
Memo for the Record, Manager, ASPO, "Command Module coax cable flammability
considerations," Dec. 19, 1967.
17
A LM test failed in the Grumman ascent stage manufacturing plant
December 17. A window in LM-5 shattered during its initial cabin
pressurization test, designed to pressurize the cabin to 3.9 newtons per
square centimeter (5.65 pounds per square inch). Both inner and outer
windows and the plexiglass cover of the right-hand window shattered when
the pressure reached 3.5 newtons per sq cm (5.1 psi). An MSC LM engineer
and Coming Glass Co. engineers were investigating the damage and cause
of failure.
TWX, ASPO Manager, MSC, to NASA Hq., Atm: Apollo Program Director, Dec. 19, 1967;
"Activity Report--Quality Assurance," Bethpage, N.Y., Dec. 13-19, 1967.
18
informed MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth that he intended to establish a
Guidance Software Task Force to determine whether any additional actions
could be taken to improve the software development and verification
process. He requested that MSC make a thorough presentation to the task
force at its first meeting, to include flight software problem areas and also
such matters as crew training, crew procedures development, mission
planning activities, and the abort guidance system software. Mueller
himself would chair the task force and other members would be: Richard H.
Battin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Instrumentation Laborato-
ry; Leon R. Bush, Aerospace Corp.; Donald R. Hagner, Bellcomm, Inc. :
Dick Hanrahan, IBM: James S. Martin, Jr., LaRC; John P. Mayer, MSC:
Clarence Pitman, TRW; and Ludie G. Richard, MSFC.
Ltr., Mueller to Gilruth, Dec. 18, 1967.
18
NASA Administrator James E. Webb approved a reorganization of NASA
Headquarters, making changes in OMSF. On January 26, 1968, Associate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller spelled out
OMSF changes: ( 1) The Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight would continue with "across the board" responsibility and act for
Mueller when he was absent or not available; (2) the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight (Management) would be responsi-
ble for the supervision of all administrative aspects of management within
the manned space flight organization; and (3) the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight (Technical) would be responsible
as the technical director and chief engineer of the manned space flight
programs.
Memo, Mueller to OMSF Employees, Jan. 26, 1968.
185
1967
NASA Hq. announced establishment of the Lunar Exploration Office
December within the Office of Manned Space Flight's Apollo Program Office. The
19 new office, headed by Lee R. Scherer, merged program units directing

Apollo lunar exploration and planning exploration beyond the first
manned lunar landing. OMSF would staff the Systems Development
element; the Lunar Science group would be staffed by the Office of Space
Science and Applications, which would approve operating plans and
scientific objectives, payloads, and principal investigators for specific
missions.
NASA Special Announcement, "Establishment o[ an Apollo Lunar Exploration Organization

within OMSF," Dec. 19, 1967; NASA News Release 68-5, Jan. 4, 1968.
2O
As a part of the managers' technical status review, Dale Myers of North
American Rockwell presented his analysis of fixes for the coax cable in
spacecraft 103 and subsequent spacecraft. The North American recommen-
dation was: (1) For spacecraft 103, 104, and 106--remove all coax and wrap
with aluminum tape using a 75- to 90-percent overlap. Re-install wrapped
coax with additional teflon overwrap in areas where chafing might occur.
This wrapping would increase spacecraft weight by 0.9 kilograms. Schedule
impact was estimated at five days for spacecraft 103 and 104 and one day for
spacecraft 106. (2) For spacecraft 107 and subsequent spacecraft--install new
coax cable that would meet nonmetallic-materials guidelines. There would
be no schedule impact.
According to MSC's CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, the North

American recommendation was justified for the following reasons:
1. All coax would be installed before the inspection process.

2. Spacecraft 106 was ready for electrical harness closeout; fabrication
of new cables, with guideline material, would delay closeout by about three
weeks.
3. The new cable to be used in spacecraft 107 was already used on the
spacecraft upper deck, but had not been subjected to corrosive contami-
nants, oxygen, and humidity qualification. This qualification would be
completed in line and before cable installation.
4. Although connectors used with coax on the upper deck were
compatible with black boxes in the spacecraft and were supposedly
available, there were not enough in stock to support the fabrication of new
cables for spacecraft 103, 104, and 106.
5. Testing at North American and MSC supported the conclusion that
wrapping with aluminum tape would preclude propagation of burning if
ignition of the coax should occur.
Kleinknecht decided, with concurrence of Maxime A. Faget and Jerry W.

Craig, to accept the proposal and Myers was authorized to proceed, subject
to concurrence by Program Director Samuel C. Phillips and Program
Manager George M. Low. Kleinknecht received oral concurrence from Low
and Phillips on December 20; then, in confirming the decision with Myers,
186
he requested that North American develop a schedule recovery plan to 1967

negate the impact of the coax fix on spacecraft 103, 104, and 106. December
Memo, Kleinknecht to Low, "Command module coax cable decisions relative to spacecraft 103
and subsequent," Jan. 9, 1968.
2O
ASPO Manager George M. Low pointed out to E. Z. Gray of Grumman that
in October 1964 NASA had sent a letter to Grumman voicing concern over
possible stress corrosion problems. The Grumman reply on October 30 of
that year was unsatisfactory when considered in the light of stress corrosion
cracks recently found in the LM aluminum structural members. Low asked
what Grumman planned to do to make sure that no other potential stress
corrosion problems existed in the LM and asked for a reply by January 1968
on how the problem would be attacked.
On December 21, Low wrote a similar letter to Dale D. Myers of North

American Rockwell, reminding him of a letter sent by MSC in September
1964. He said that recent stress corrosion problems had been encountered in
the LM and asked that North American make a detailed analysis to ensure
that not a single stress corrosion problem existed in the CSM or associated
equipment. Again, Low asked for a reply by January 15, 1968.
Ltrs., MSC to Grumman, "Contract NAS 9-1 lO0, Stress Corrosion," Ocl. 12, 1964; Grumman
to MSC, "Stress Corrosion," Oct. 30, 1964; Low to Gray, Dec. 20, 1967; MSC to North American
Aviation, "contract NAS 9-150, Stress Corrosion," Sept. 17, 1964; Low to Myers, Dec. 21, 1967;
TWX, North American Rockwell to MSC, "NAS 9-150, Stress Corrosion," Oct. 13, 1967.
21
A Lunar Mission Planning Board meeting was held at MSC with Julian M.
West as acting chairman. Also present were Wilmot N. Hess, Christopher C.
Kraft, Jr., Paul E. Purser, and Andre J. Meyer, Jr. (secretary); and invited
participants Gus R. Babb, John M. Eggleston, and James J. Taylor. The
meeting agenda involved two main subjects: (1) review of major meetings
recently held involving lunar exploration and planning; and (2) review of
the remote sensors for use in lunar orbit and payload available on the CSM
during a manned landing mission for carrying remote sensing instrumenta-
tion. Hess, MSC Director of Science and Applications, reviewed the Group
for Lunar Exploration Planning (GLEP) meeting in Washington
December 8 and 9, which had examined potential sites for lunar exploration
beyond Apollo based on scientific objectives and not operational
considerations. He pointed out that during the GLEP group study at Santa
Cruz, Calif., in the summer, scientists had strongly recommended a manned
orbital mission be flown before manned landings, to gain additional
photographic information for more effective mission planning and to make
remote-sensing measurements to detect anomalies on the lunar surface.
Hess said this position had changed to some extent.
Hess pointed out that lunar exploration was the responsibility of the new
Lunar Exploration Office at NASA Hq. (see December 19). The office had
further been subdivided into the Lunar Science Office, responsible for
science and experiment planning, and the Flight Systems Office,
187
responsible for modifications in the Apollo spacecraft to increase capability

for developing advanced support systems such as mobility units and for
developing the advanced ALSEP packages. Hess felt that dual launches, if
conducted at all, would be carried out in the far distant future and therefore
directed his group to select sites for nine single-launch missions, three of
which should be planned without the aid of mobility and be limited to one-
and-a-half kilometers; and the other six sites limited to five-kilometer
maximum mobility radius.
Ground rules used in reduction of the proposed 39 lunar exploration sites

were: (1) landing accuracy would be improved so the LM would land with-
in a one-kilometer radius circle around the target point; (2) Lunar Orbiter
high-resolution photography must cover any site considered; (3) science
payload including mobility devices would be limited to 340 kilograms and
(4) the lunar staytime would be limited to three days to include four
extravehicular (EVA) periods totaling 24 hours. Hess mentioned new
criteria which would affect mobility on the lunar surface. He said that
MSC's Director for Flight Crew Operations Donald K. Slayton stated he
would permit a single roving vehicle to go beyond walk-back distance if the
vehicle had two seats so that both astronauts could simultaneously and if the
unit carried two spare back-packs. Hess said, "This new criteria, however,
would result in a roving vehicle weight of well over 227 kg when the back-
packs were induced and thus could not be carried on a single launch
mission."
MSC, "Minutes of the Lunar Mission Planning Board," Dec. 21, 1967.
21
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips told ASPO Manager George
M. Low that a review had begun on the "Apollo Spacecraft Weight and
Mission Performance Definition" report dated December 12 and that his
letter indicated approval of certain changes either requested or implied by
the report. Phillips added that his letter identified a second group of
pending changes for which insufficient information was available. He
stressed his serious concern over the problem of spacecraft weight growth
and said weight must be limited to the basic 45 359-kilogram launch vehicle
capability. "According to the progression established in your report, CM's
116 through 119 could exceed the parachute hand-weight capability. I
would like to establish a single set of controlled basic weights for the
production vehicles. For product improvement changes a good rule is a
pound deleted for every pound added. For approved changes to the basic
configuration, it is the responsibility of NASA to understand the weight and
performance implication of the change and to establish appropriate new
control values .... "
Ltr., Phillips to Low, Dec. 21, 1967.
22
The first fire-in-the-hole test was successfully completed at the White Sands
Test Facility (WSTF). The vehicle test configuration was that of LM-2 and
the test cell pressure immediately before the test was equivalent to a 68 850-
188
meter altitude. All test objectives were satisfied and video tapes of TV 1967
monitors were acquired. Test firing duration was 650 milliseconds with zero December
stage separation.
TWX, WSTF to MSC, Dec. 22, 1967.
Week Ending
Bethpage RASPO Business Manager Frank X. Battersby met with
December
Grumman Treasurer Pat Cherry on missing items of government property. 22
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) had complained of inefficiency
in Grumman property accountability records and had submitted a list of
some 550 items of government property to Grumman. After nine weeks of
searching, the company had found about 200 items. The auditors contended
the missing items amounted to $8 million-S9 million. Cherry said he
believed that all the material could be located within one week. Battersby
agreed to the one-week period but emphasized that the real problem was not
in locating the material but rather in establishing accurate records, since
GAO felt that too often the contractor would be tempted to go out and buy
replacement parts rather than look for the missing ones.
"Weekly Activity Report, Business Manager, RASPO Bethpage," week ending Dec. 22, 1967, to
Chief, Apollo Procurement Br., Procurement and Contracts Div., MSC, Dec. 27, 1967.
27
CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht asked the Manager of the Resident
Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (RASPO) at Downey to inform North
American Rockwell that MSC had found the suggestion that aluminum
replace teflon for solder joint inserts and outer armor sleeves in Apollo
spacecraft plumbing unacceptable because ( 1) the teflon insert was designed
to give an interference fit to prevent the passage of solder balls into the
plumbing; (2) an aluminum insert could not be designed with an
interference fit for obvious reasons; (3) the aluminum insert was tested at the
beginning of the program and found to be inferior to the teflon insert; and
(4) the aluminum armor seal could not be used as a replacement for the outer
armor sleeves because it did not eliminate the creep problem of solder.
Memo, Kleinknecht to Manager, RASPO, Downey, Calif., "NR solder joint suggestion," Dec.
27, 1967.
2$
The LM ascent engine program plan submitted to NASA Hq. on December"
9 had been approved, Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips told
ASPO Manager George M. Low. Phillips was concerned, however, about
the impact of recent unstable injector tests at Bell Aerosystems Co. on this
plan. He said, "Resolution of these failures must be expedited in order to
maintain present schedules. Also of concern, is the possible underestima-
tion of the contractual and integration problems that will exist if the
Rocketdyne [Division] injector should be chosen." Phillips asked that those
areas receive special attention and that he be kept informed on the progress
of both injector programs.
TWX, Phillips to Low, Dec. 28, 1967.
189
1967
Confirming a discussion between George Low and Samuel Phillips on
December October 27, a decision was made to replace the glass windows in LM-1 with
28 aluminum windows, as a precaution against a failure in flight similar to the
one that occurred on LM-5 in testing.
TWX, J. Vincze, LM-1 Vehicle Management Office, MSC, to NASA Hq., Atm: S. C. Phillips,
"Replacement o[ windows on LM-I," Dec. 28, 1967.
1968 MSC called to the attention of North American Rockwell the number of
January discrepancies found at KSC that could have been found at Downey before
hardware shipment. In an effort to reduce the discrepancies North American
2
was requested to obtain and use the KSC receiving inspection criteria as a
guide for shipping inspections. It was also suggested that the possibility of
sending a few key inspectors to KSC for periods of three to six months to
gain additional experience might be investigated.
Ltr., Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, to Dale D. Myers, North American Rockwell, Jan. 2, 1968.
ASPO Manager George M. Low discussed with Rocco Petrone of KSC the
problem of high humidity levels within the spacecraft-lunar module
adapter. Petrone advised that several changes had been made to alleviate the
problem: air conditioning in the SLA and the instrument unit would
remain on during propellarit loading; and the rate of air flow into the SLA
was increased. Also, technicians at the Cape had designed a tygon tube to be
installed to bring dry air into the LM descent engine bell, should this added
precaution prove necessary. With these changes, Low felt confident that the
humidity problem had been resolved.
Memo for the Record, Low, "SLA humidity," Jan. 8, 1968.
Bellcomm engineers presented to NASA a proposed plan for lunar

exploration during the period from the first lunar landing through the mid-
1970s. The proposed program--based upon what the company termed
"reasonable" assumptions concerning hardware capabilities, scientific
objectives, launch rates, and relationships to other programs--was divided
into four distinct phases: (1) an Apollo phase using existing vehicles, (2) a
lunar exploration phase employing an extended LM with increased payload
and longer staytime, (3) a lunar orbital survey and exploration phase using
remote sensors and photographic equipment on a polar orbit flight, and (4)
a lunar surface rendezvous and exploration phase using an unmanned LM
to deposit the increased scientific equipment and expendables necessary to
extend Apollo's manned lunar capability to two-week duration.
N. W. Hinners et al., Bellcomm Technical Memo 68-1012-1, "A Lunar Exploration Program,"
Jan. 5, 1968.
Apollo Special Task Team (ASTT) Director Eberhard F. M. Rees, Martin L.

Raines, and Ralph Taeuber of MSC, and J. McNamara, North American
Rockwell, visited Rocketdyne Division to review the status of the LM ascent
engine backup program. The presentation was made by Steve Domokos.
190
The group was favorably impressed and felt that there was every indication
that the Rocketdyne injectors would meet the LM requirements. ASTT
recommended that MSC establish a board, chaired by the Chief of the
Propulsion and Power Division and including one MSFC propulsion
engineer, one MSFC manufacturing specialist, and other MSC personnel as
required to provide a recommendation to ASPO of the ascent engine for
LM-3.
Memo, Raines to Manager, ASPO, '"grip Report--Rocketdyne--January 5, 1968," Jan 8,

1968.

directed MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth to establish a task team to
iffvestigate why, in light of extreme precautions taken early in the program,
the problem of stress corrosion in the LM was being encountered at such a
lat e stage in Apollo. The problem, Mueller stressed, had been discovered at a
most critical point in the program--the launch of the first LM was
imminent and two subsequent vehicles were already well along in factory
checkout. Any resultant slips in the LM program would seriously impact
overall Apollo schedules. Gilruth replied he believed that such a team was
not required. He affirmed that the reviews undertaken with the contractors
in 1964 to guard against just these problems had proved inadequate when
judged against present program demands. "The answer simply is that the
job was not handled properly on the last go-round."
Ltrs., Mueller to Gilruth, Jan. 8, 1968; Gilruth to Mueller, Jan. 18, 1968.
George E. Mueller, NASA OMSF, in a letter to MSC Director Robert R.

Gilruth, summarized a number of key Apollo program decisions required in
order to emphasize the urgency of priority action in preparations necessary
to certify the Apollo system design for manned flight. Mueller listed five
items :
1. Assuming a successful flight of Apollo 5, the LM design must be

certified ready for manned flight on AS-503.
2. A successful test firing of SM 102 at Cape Kennedy in January, in
addition to the success of Apollo 4, would permit certification of the SM
propulsion system for manned flight on AS-205.
3. A successful launch vehicle test of AS-502 (Apollo 6) would require
that the Saturn V design be certified ready for manned flight by early April
1968.
4. A decision to certify the Block II CM design for manned flight
should be essentially complete by early May 1968.
5. Launch Complex 34 design should be certified for manned flight no
later than early June 1968.
Err., Mueller to Gilruth, Jan. 9, 1968.
11
Apollo Data Coordination Chief Howard W. Tindall, Jr., summarized
mission planning for the first two hours on the lunar surface. That period,
191
he said, would be devoted to checking out spacecraft systems and preparing

January for launch (in effect simulating the final two hours before liftoff). This
procedure embodied several important benefits. As a pre-ascent simulation,
it would afford an early indication of any problems in the checkout routine.
More importantly, the initial checkout procedure would prepare the LM for
takeoff at the end of the CSM's first revolution should some emergency
situation require such an immediate flight abort.
Memo, Tindall to distr., "First 2 hours on the moon is a countdown to launch--simulated or
real thing," Jan. 11, 1968.
11 A Parachute Test Vehicle (PTV) test failed at E1 Centro, Calif. The PTV was
released from a B-52 aircraft at 15240 meters and the drogue chute
programmer was actuated by a static line connected to the aircraft. One
drogue chute appeared to fail upon deployment, followed by failure of the
second drogue seven seconds later. Disreefing of these drogues normally
occurred at 8 seconds after deployment with disconnect at deployment at
plus 18 seconds. The main chute programmer deployed and was effective for
only 14 out of the expected 40 seconds' duration. This action was followed
by normal deployment of one main parachute, which failed, followed by the
second main parachute as programmed after four-tenths of a second, which
also failed. The main chute failure was observed from the ground and the
emergency parachute system deployment was commanded but also failed
because of high dynamic pressure, allowing the PTV to impact and be
destroyed. Investigation was under way and MSC personnel were en route to
E1 Centro and Northrop-Ventura to determine the cause and to effect a
solution.
TWX, George M. Low, MSC, to NASA Hq., Arm: Apollo Program Director, Jan. 11, 1968.
11
CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht wrote his counterpart at North
American Rockwell, Dale D. Myers, to express concern about NR's seeming
inability to implement configuration control of flight hardware and ground
support equipment. Some progress had been made recently, Kleinknecht
observed, but many steps still had to be taken to achieve effective
configuration management on the CSM. The MSC chief pointed especially
to North American's inability to ensure that final hardware matched that set
forth in engineering documents, a weakness inherent in the separate
functions of manufacturing: planning, fabrication, assembly and rework.
MSC recommended a check procedure of comparing part numbers of
installed equipment to the "as designed" parts list. "In short," Kleinknecht
concluded, "I think that we should tolerate no further delay in establishing
a simple 'as built' versus 'as designed' checking function, beginning with
and including the first manned spacecraft."
North American began a more nearly complete engineering order

accountability system, which provided an acceptable method of verifying
the "as designed" to the "as built" configuration of each spacecraft. This
192
PART II." RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
1968
system was planned to be applicable by the Flight Readiness Review on
spacecraft 104 and on subsequent spacecraft at earlier points. Jmnuary
Ltrs., Kleinknecht to Myers, Jan. I 1, 1968; Myers to Kleinknecht, Feb. 13, 1968.
13
The Senior Flammability Review Board met at MSC with Chairman Robert
R. Gilruth, George M. Low, Maxime A. Faget, Aleck C. Bond, Charles A.
Berry, Donald K. Slayton, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Kenneth S. Klein-
knecht, all of MSC, and George Jeffs of North American Rockwell
participating. The meeting summary reported that a 60-percent-oxygen and
40-percent-nitrogen atmosphere was acceptable from a crew physiological
standpoint. The requirement for crew prebreathing before launch was not
dependent upon launching with the atmosphere. Operationally, the crew
could remove their helmets and gloves following orbital insertion and
verification of the integrity of the cabin and its environmental control
system; oxygen leakage would be allowed to enrich the crew compartment
atmosphere.
On January 25, Berry, MSC Director of Medical Research and Operations,

wrote Gilruth : "We do not concur in the stated finding of the Board that a 60
per cent oxygen, 40 per cent nitrogen atmosphere is acceptable from a crew
physiological standpoint. While it is true that a 60% oxygen, 40% nitrogen
atmosphere at 5.6 psi [3.9 newtons per sq cm] should result in a cabin
atmosphere physiologically equivalent to sea level conditions, this will not
be the case in a spacecraft launched with a 60% oxygen, 40% nitrogen
atmosphere to which no oxygen is added except by normal operation of the
cabin regulator. Oxygen will be metabolized by the crew at a much greater
rate than nitrogen will be leaking from the spacecraft. Assuming a case in
which cabin relief valve seats at 6 psi [4.1 newtons per sq cm] and the cabin
regulator does not begin adding oxygen until 4.8 psi [3.3 newtons per sq
cm], the cabin atmosphere would then consist of approximately 49%
oxygen. This is physiologically equivalent to a 12,000-foot [3700-meter]
altitude in air. It would then take approximately 50 hours at the nominal
cabin leak rate for the cabin regulator to enrich the mixture to a sea level
equivalent."
"Senior Flammability Review Board Meeting," MSC, Jan. 13, 1968; memo, Berry to Gilruth,
"Senior Flammability Review Board Meeting, January 13, 1968," Jan. 25, 1968.
13
ASPO Manager George M. Low outlined for the NASA Apollo Program
Director MSC plans to static-fire the service propulsion system (SPS) as a
complete unit. Houston officials maintained that at least one firingof such a
complete system was necessary to prove the adequacy of all SPS
manufacturing, assembly, and testing. However, because of several
potential adverse effects that might accrue to testing the first such available
system (that for the 101 SM), MSC proposed to test-fire the 102 unit and
193
interpret those results--including any possible damage to the SM structure

itself--before making a final decision on whether to proceed with a ground
firing of the actual flight hardware before flight.
Memo, Low to NASA Hq., Atm : Samuel C. Phillips, "Requirements for static firing of Apollo
service propulsion subsystem," Jan. 13, 1968.
15 George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space

Flight, summarized for Administrator James E. Webb recent program
progress in Apollo. Preparations were under way toward the revised
January 22 launch date for Apollo 5. Delays had resulted primarily from
difficulties with hypergolic loading and contamination problems, but
propellant loading had been completed several days earlier. Target for the
countdown demonstration test was January 19. At Buffalo, N.Y., the NASA
stability team assisted Bell Aerospace Co. in tackling the LM ascent engine
instability problem. Post-test analysis of the qualification engine had
revealed gouging of the chamber wall near the injector face. Bell engineers
were assessing the amount of requalification testing that would be required
and continued their testing on reworked engines, seeking to find the cause of
previous engine instabilities. Meanwhile, the backup injector program at
Rocketdyne Division was proceeding extremely well. Tests employing fuel
film cooling had produced increased engine performance within acceptable
chamber erosion limits. Altitude tests were scheduled to follow within a f_w
weeks.
Memo, Mueller to Administrator and Deputy Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Report--
January 15, 1968."
17
Eberhard Rees, Director of the Apollo Special Task Team at North
American Rockwell's Downey plant, wrote ASPO Manager George Low
outlining what he termed "serious quality and reliability resources
deficiencies" and proposed several steps to bolster NASA's manpower in
these areas. Specifically, Rees cited the immediate need for additional
manpower (primarily through General Electric) to make vendor surveys,
test failure assessments, and specification review and analysis and establish
minimum inspection points. In addition, Rees said, many areas were almost
totally lacking in coverage by the government, such as monitoring
qualification tests, receiving inspections, pre-installation test, and many
manufacturing operations. He urged Low to reassess his requirements in
Houston to determine how many persons MSC might contribute (along
with those from MSFC and GE) to plug these vital areas.
Ltr., Rees to Low, Jan. 17, 1968.
17
Eberhard Rees, Apollo Special Task Team chief at North American
Rockwell, participated in a failure review at Northrop-Ventura of the recent
parachute test failure (see January 11) and in development of a revised test
plan. Others at the review included Dale Myers and Norman Ryker from
North American and W. Gasich and W. Steyer, General Manager and
Apollo Program Manager at Northrop-Ventura. Those at the review put
194
together a revised drop test program that resulted in only a two-week 1968
schedule delay because of the failure. Repair of the parachute test vehicle January
was under way. Meantime, tests would continue, employing bomb and
boilerplate devices. Also, Rees decided to establish a Flight Readiness
Review Board (headed by Joseph Kotanchik of MSC) to approve each drop
test, and Northrop officials had established an internal review board to
review test engineering and planning and were tightening their inspection
and quality control areas.
Memo, Rees to Manager, ASPO, "Trip Report to Northrop-Ventura on January 17, 1968," J an.
19, 1968; ltr., Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MS(;, to Myers, Jan. 19, 1968.
18
A meeting was held at MSC to determine necessary action concerning recent
contamination of CM 103's potable water, oxygen, and water-glycol lines.
North American Rockwell proposed that all 103 aluminum lines in the
potable water and oxygen systems (approximately 72 segments) be replaced;
and proposed to follow a chemical flushing procedure for the water-glycol
lines to remove the aluminum oxide and copper contamination. North
American estimated that these actions would cause a 15-17 day serial
impact. Removal and replacement of all lines would result in an estimated
impact of 45 days. A decision was made to concur with the North American
recommendation and on January 19 Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC,
informed Dale D. Myers, North American, of the concurrence and
authorized him to proceed immediately. In addition, Kleinknecht
appointed a Special Task Team for Spacecraft 103 Contamination Control
to ensure timely review of all contractor activities associated with removal of
the contamination from the spacecraft environmental control system
coolant system. Members of the team were: Wilbur H. Gray, Chairman; A.
M. Worden, W. R. Downs, Jack Cohen, A. W. Joslyn, R. E. Smylie, R. P.
Burt, and W. H. Taylor.
On February 20 Myers notified Kleinknecht of initiation of the potable water

line changes and setting up of a monitor water-glycol system that would
duplicate CSM 103 operations during the balance of checkout and would be
examined for corrosion damage just before Flight Readiness Review.
Memo, Manager, CSM, ASPO, to Manager, ASPO, "Meeting held to determine course of action
regarding contamination of CM 103 plumbing," Jan. 19, 1968; hr., Kleinknecht to Myers, Jan.
19, 1968; memo, Manager, CSM, ASPO, to distr., "Spacecraft Plumbing Contamination
Control Board," Jan. 19, 1968; ltr., Myers to Kleinknecht, Feb. 20, 1968.
18-19
Roll Lanzkron and Owen Morris, Chiefs of MSC's CSM and LM Project
Engineering Divisions, led a review of the 2TV-1 and LTA-8 (thermal
vacuum test article and lunar module test article) thermal vacuum test
programs at MSC. Chief concerns expressed during the review centered on
the heavy concentration of testing during the summer of 1968, the need for
simultaneous operation of test chambers A and B, and the lack of adequately
trained chamber operations support personnel for dual testing. The review
disclosed that maintenance of testing schedules for LTA-8 was most
195
unlikely, even with a seven-day-a-week work schedule. (The central

problem was the large number of open items that had to be cleared before
start of the tests.)
Note, C. C. Gay, Jr., to LeRoy Day, Jan. 19, 1968.
19
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips wrote ASPO Manager George
M. Low requesting that he establish and maintain a detailed comparison of
configuration differences between the CSM and LM. This comparison,
Phillips said, should include major interface differences, subsystems and
components, weight, performance, and crew safety. Phillips ordered this
comparison chiefly because the Apollo spacecraft was entering an extremely
important phase to certify the vehicles for manned flight.
Ltr., Phillips to Low, Jan. 19, 1968.
22
NASA launched Apollo 5--the first, unmanned LM flight--on a Saturn IB
from KSC Launch Complex 37B at 5:48:08 p.m. EST. Mission objectives
included verifying operation of the LM structure itself and its two primary
propulsion systems, to evaluate LM staging, and to evaluate orbital
performances of the S-IVB stage and instrument unit. Flight of the AS-204
launch vehicle went as planned, with nosecone (replacing the CSM)
jettisoned and LM separating. Flight of LM-1 also went as planned up to
the first descent propulsion engine firing. Because velocity increase did not
build up as quickly as predicted, the LM guidance system shut the engine
down after only four seconds of operation. Mission control personnel in
Houston and supporting groups quickly analyzed the problem. They
determined that the difficulty was one of guidance software only (and not a
fault in hardware design) and pursued an alternate mission plan that
ensured meeting the minimum requirements necessary to achieve the
primary objectives of the mission. After mission completion at 2:45 a.m.
EST January 23, LM stages were left in orbit to reenter the atmosphere later
and disintegrate. Apollo program directors attributed success of the mission
to careful preplanning of alternate ways to accomplish flight objectives in
the face of unforeseen events.
Memo, Samuel C. Phillips to NASA Administrator, "Apollo 5 Mission (SA-204/LM-I) Post

Launch Report #1," Feb. 12, 1968 (MOR M-932-68-05).
22
Joseph G. Gavin, Jr., LM Program Director at Grumman, advised ASPO
Manager George M. Low of steps under way to attack the problem of stress
corrosion in the LM. (Low had expressed MSC's concern over this potential
danger on December 20, 1967.) While stating that he shared Low's concern,
Gavin believed that stress corrosion would not prove to be of significance to
the LM mission. However, his organization was prepared to reevaluate the
LM's design and fabrication to determine to what extent the problem could
be ameliorated. (Gavin denied that such metal corrosion could be absolutely
eliminated using present materials as dictated by weight constraints on the
LM design.) Gavin stated that he had created a special team of experienced
196
designers and stress analysts to review engineering design of every LM part

sensitive to stress corrosion, to review processes employed in fabrication of
the LM structure, and to review the adequacy of the company's quality
control procedures to ensure corrosion-free parts and assemblies.
Ltr., Gavin to Low, Jan. 22, 1968.
24
Eberhard F. M. Rees, head of the Apollo Special Task Team at North
American Rockwell, met with Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, and Martin L.
Raines, Manager of the White Sands Test Facility, to review the team's
recent operations and the responses of North American and its numerous
subcontractors to the team's recommendations. Kleinknecht listed what he
thought were the chief problems facing the CSM program: the S-band high-
gain antenna (which he said should be turned over entirely to the task team
for resolution); the parachute program; the environmental control system;
and contamination inside the spacecraft. He urged that the team take the
lead in developing solutions to these problems.
Memo for Record, Raines, "Review of Apollo Special Task Team Operations," Jan. 26, 1968.
The Apollo Mission Simulator, an astronaut training facility, in Building 5 at

Manned Spacecraft Center. A similar facility was at Kennedy Space Center.
Apollo crews spent hundreds of hours in the simulators, practicing all phases o[
the missions from liftoff through lunar landing, lunar exploration, and return.
Simulators were updated for each mission. The men at the consoles at left, and
others, worked with the astronauts and inserted unexpected problems into the
training to assess astronaut response.
1968
In a letter to officials of the three manned space flight Centers, NASA Apollo
January Program Director Samuel C. Phillips called attention to the fact that as the
25 time for the first manned Apollo flight was approaching constant concern
for crew safety was becoming more pronounced. Phillips pointed out that
the Crew Safety Panel, Flight Mechanics Panel, Launch Operations Panel,
Hazardous Emergency Egress Working Group, and other Intercenter
Coordination Panels had each dealt with specific aspects of Apollo crew
safety. Individual Centers and contractors had exercised their crew safety
responsibilities through system design, quality control, and test channels.
Single-point failure analyses, dealing with specific hardware areas, had been
made.
He said that these efforts had resulted in current provisions for rapid crew
egress on the pad, for spacecraft abort during early phases of the launch, and
for contingency flight modes. Phillips added, "... to insure that all of the
many parts of the problem are properly integrated we should at this time
step back and take another look at the overall crew safety picture from
ingress to mission completion. The questions to be addressed are: (1) Have
we systematically analyzed all likely failure modes or anomalies which
could jeopardize the crew from ingress to mission completion? (2) In each of
these cases do we have proper and timely cues coupled with a safe egress,
abort, or contingency capability? (3) Do we have a plan for the timely
solution of the known crew safety related problems?... I would like to have
this essential area worked under leadership of MSC--focused at a high
management level--with assistance as required from MSFC and KSC .... "
In a reply to Phillips, on February 28, MSC's George Low indicated that
John Hodge had agreed to undertake the task and had already held
discussions on the subject with George Hage of Phillips' office.
Ltrs., Phillips to MSC, MSFC, and KSC, "Apollo Crew Safety Review," Jan. 25, 1968; Low to
Phillips, Feb. 28, 1968.
26
The Special Task Team for CSM 103, appointed January 18, submitted a
progress report of activities during daily sessions held January 22 through
25. North American Rockwell and NASA had reached agreements on:
1. Cleaning and flushing of water management and oxygen systems.

Since all aluminum lines except for three were replaced on CM 103 with new
lines the resolution for cleaning and flushing these systems was quickly
accomplished.
2. Cleaning and flushing of water glycol system.
a. Pressure integrity of the water glycol system would be confirmed by a
hydrostatic check to 248 newtons per square centimeter (360 pounds per
square inch). Leak integrity would be confirmed by subsequent checks with
helium at 41 newtons per sq cm (60 psi).
b. A resolution was obtained on the chemistry of the various cleaning
and flushing fluids to be used on CM 103.
c. Agreement was reached on verification of cleaning and flushing all
flow paths.
198
PART lI: RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
The events leading to the situation on CSM 103 were reviewed in sufficient
detail to make visible the errors in the discipline governing the flushing
carts. RASPO Manager Wilbur H. Gray stated that it was the RASPO
responsibility to ensure the upgrading and control of all such equipment
which interfaced with the spacecraft. The team would convene again
January 30 to review reports and continue with other activities required to
ensure adequacy of the CSM 103 plumbing system.
Memo, Gray to distr., "Summary of progress on the Special Task Team for CSM 103
Contamination Control," Jan. 26, 1968.
26
A LM-2 flight and requirement meeting was held at MSC, attended by key
MSC and NASA Hq. oflicials. The group reached three conclusions : ( 1) The
LM-1 performance on the January 22 Apollo 5 mission had been excellent
for all conditions of the flight, as executed, with the exception of minor
anomalies. (2) The LM-2 flight objectives that were partially accomplished
could be better accomplished by further ground testing or on subsequent
manned missions. Further unmanned flight testing was not required for
man-rating purposes. (3) A LM-2 flight was not required to man-rate the
ascent engine injector. It was also agreed that a decision should be made not
to fly the LM-2 mission, with this decision reversible if further evaluation of
data from the LM-1 flight indicated any problems. This decision would be
reviewed at the February 6 Manned Space Flight Management Council
Meeting and on March 6 at the LM-3 Design Certification Review. The final
decision would not be made until March 6.
Minutes of the LM-2 Flight Requirements Meeting, Jan. 26, 1968.
26
In response to a letter from ASPO Manager George M. Low in late December
1967, seeking assurances that no potential stress corrosion problems existed
in the CSM, Dale D. Myers, CSM Program Manager at North American
Rockwell, reviewed the three instances where problems had been
encountered during the CSM project and iterated the extensive efforts to
ensure against such potential problems. Echoing much the same words as
his counterpart at Grumman, Myers stated that "it is not possible to
guarantee that no single instance of stress corrosion will ever occur" and
that circumstances "could create a problem not anticipated." He concluded
that his company's efforts in this direction had been "entirely adequate and
beyond the requirements of the contract and good practice in this industry,"
and he stated his belief that additional efforts in this area would not produce
measurable results.
Ltr., Myers to Low, Jan. 26, 1968.
3O
MSC CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, in a letter to North American
Rockwell's Dale D. Myers, protested lack of North American reponse to
written MSC direction concerning parachute test vehicles. Kleinknecht
pointed out that MSC had "considerably modified our usual requirements
in supporting the boilerplate 19 task being performed for you by Western
199
Ways, Inc. These efforts seem to be completely negated by delayed go-ahead

to Northrop Ventura for their portion of the task. I understand that neither
Western Ways nor Northrop Ventura was given a go-ahead until January
19, 1968. The original written direction to NR [North American] was on
November 9, 1967, to provide another parachute test vehicle (PTV)and give
us an estimate of cost and schedule for another boilerplate PTV." If the
effort on the PTV had started at that time, "we would now be able to use that
vehicle rather than the bomb-type vehicles after losing PTV No. 2. The cost
and schedule for boilerplate 19 was not submitted to MSC until later, on
December 22, asking for a reply by January 2, 1968. Because of the holiday
period, this written reply was furnished on January 5, after an investigation
of the cost and schedule. The Engineering Change Proposal [ECP] stated a
completion date of May 5; however, after a request by my people to see what
could be done to improve this date, the improvement moved the Northrop
Ventura schedule from June 14 to May 24 [a Friday]. This date is three weeks
later than the date cited in the ECP and is completely unacceptable .... "
On February 29, Myers assured Kleinknecht that North Americanhad
proceeded with the BP-19A task in advance of NASA full coverage. Initial
partial coverage was issued to North American on January 5, 1968. On
March 14, in a letter of commendation, Kleinknecht thanked Myers for the
attention given the BP-19A effort that made a March 15 completion by
Western Ways possible. On May 27, W. H. Gray, RASPO Manager, wrote
another letter of commendation thanking North American for completing
BP-19A in time for a drop test in May 1968.
Ltrs., Kleinknecht to Myers, Jan. 30, 1968; Myers to Kleinknecht, Feb. 29, 1968; Kleinknecht to
Myels, Mal. 14, 1968; Gray to Drucker, May 27, 1968.
February Eberhard F. M. Rees, Apollo Special Task Team Director at North

2 American Rockwell, reported to ASPO Manager George M. Low on the
need for audits of equipment supplied from vendors to the spacecraft
contractor. Significant hardware failures and nonconformances had been
discovered after delivery of equipment from the vendors to Downey, Rees
stated, and NASA must take strong steps to upgrade the quality of work-
manship at the vendors' locations.
Ltr., Rees to Low, Feb. 2, 1968.
ASPO Manager George M. Low advised Apollo Program Director Samuel

C. Phillips that, in accordance with an action item resulting from the
spacecraft environmental testing review at MSFC on January 10, he was
reexamining the design, fabrication, and inspection of all interconnecting
systems of the spacecraft to determine what further steps might be taken to
ensure the integrity of those systems. Low had requested William Mrazek of
MSFC to direct this effort, using a small task team to review the design of all
spacecraft wiring and plumbing systems, their fabrication, and quality
assurance and inspection techniques.
Ltr., Low to Phillips, Feb. 3, 1968.
200
1968
A Senior Flammability Review Board meeting at MSC reached a number of
decisions on the CSM. Attending were Robert R. Gilruth, chairman; George February
M. Low, Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, Aleck C. Bond, Maxime A. Faget, Donald 5
K. Slayton, Charles A. Berry, and Rodney G. Rose, all of MSC; Samuel C.
Phillips, NASA Hq.; William B. Bergen and Dale D. Myers, North
American Rockwell; and George Stoner, Boeing (nonvoting observer).
Several previous action assignments were reviewed: (1) Component level

Flammability Test Program--North American reviewed the results of its
material identification and test program, the component test program, and
the boilerplate 1250 tests. These tests had provided the basis for design
decisions on selection and application of CM nonmetallic materials. (2)
Boilerplate 1224 configuration comparison to CSMs 2TV-1 and 101-
North American presented the comparison and the Board decided that the
boilerplate configuration was representative of the "worst case" configura-
tion, considering both 2TV-1 and 101. (3) Internal ignition rationale--
Ignition rationale for the boilerplate 1224 tests was presented to the Board.
Nichrome wire ignitors were used with the ignitor wire embedded in
potting. In some locations a Ladicote cover was applied over the potting and
ignitor. The Board pointed out that the ignition techniques were not really
representative of actual operating conditions and were indeed overly severe.
(4) Crew communications umbilical--North American was evaluating a
fluorel crew communications umbilical as well as fluorel oxygen
umbilicals. A Beta sleeve over the oxygen and crew communications
umbilicals would also be evaluated for its operational acceptability by the
crew.
The Board presented a review of test results. In the tests at pressure of 4.3
newtons per square centimeter (6.2 pounds per square inch) in a 95-percent-
oxygen atmosphere, there were 38 ignitions in boilerplate 1224. Of these, 5
produced fires large enough to require further consideration. In tests at 11.2
newtons per sq cm (16.2 psia) in a 60-percent-oxygen and 40-percent-
nitrogen atmosphere, there were 31 ignitions. Of these, 4 produced fires
large enough to require further consideration.
The Board concluded that the material changes made in the CM had
resulted in a safe configuration in both the tested atmospheres. The Board
agreed "that there will always be a degree of risk associated with manned
space flight," but the risk of fire "was now substantially less than the basic
risks inherent in manned space flight."
Among decisions reached were: (1) the CSM 2TV-I and 101 coaxial cable
configuration would be tested in the 60-percent-oxygen and 40-percent-
nitrogen atmosphere; (2) material improvements and testing would be
continued and changes would be phased in, pending the availability of
proved materials; and (3) action would be taken to be prepared to use a 60-
percent-oxygen and 40-percent-nitrogen prelaunch atmosphere in CSM
20I
1968
101. A final decision would be made at the Design Certification Review on
February March 7.
Minutes of the "Senior Flammability Review Board Meeting, Building 2--Room 966, February
5, 1968," sgd. Robert R. Gilruth, Feb. 23, 1968.
Homer E. Newell, NASA Associate Administrator, told MSC Director

Robert R. Gilruth that at the last meeting of the Lunar and Planetary
Missions Board the subject of astronaut activity on the lunar surface had
been taken into consideration. The following motion had been generally
endorsed by all members of the Board but tabled for formal action with the
request that comments of the Flight Crew Operations Directorate be made
on the motion and returned to the Board for further consideration: "It is
proposed that during lunar EVA it be regarded as general practice and a
requirement on the astronauts to utilize fully the voice channel from them to
each other and to earth. What is intended is almost incessant talking,
describing all actions and thoughts as they occur, but without devoting
much additional concentration or interrupting any actions for that
purpose. Such talk will have the advantage of increasing the information
available should any hazardous situation arise, and therefore increase crew
safety; secondly, it will be a major source of information of scientific
importance, and the record of such talk will be most helpful to the
astronauts themselves as well as others to re-enact the activities later and so
better understand the record and the observations obtained."
The MSC Director of Flight Operations prepared an information staff pa-

per for Gilruth that said the proposal had been evaluated by the Directorate,
and the "marginal utility to be gained by such a practice is questionable"
because "constant talking would involve a real time process of separating
significant data from trivia." The Flight Operations Directorate "does not
believe that crew safety will be enhanced by constant talking .... In
summary . . . our present astronaut talking requirements are sufficient to
satisfy the scientific world and provide sound operational support .... "
I.tr., Newell to Gilruth, Feb. 5, 1968; Information Staff Paper No. 99 to Director, MSC, from
Director of Flight Operations, "Lunar EVA Procedures," Apr. 16, 1968.
Grumman President L. J. Evans wrote ASPO Manager George M. Low

stating his agreement with NASA's decision to forego a second unmanned
LM flight using LM-2. (Grumman's new position--the company had
earlier strongly urged such a second flight--was reached after discussions
with Low and LM Manager C. H. Bolender at the end of January and after
flight data was presented at the February 6 meeting of the OMSF
Management Council.) Although the decision was not irreversible, being
subject to further investigations by both contractor and customer, both sides
now were geared for a manned flight on the next LM mission. However,
Evans cited several spacecraft functions not covered during the LM-1 flight
that would have to be demonstrated before attempting a lunar mission,
notably control by the primary navigation and guidance system of the
202
1968
descent propulsion system burn as well as control of stage separation and
firing of the ascent propulsion system. To demonstrate these functions fully, February
he said, some modifications in mission plans for the next two manned
flights might be necessary.
Ltr., Evans to Low, Feb. 8, 1968.
14
James P. Nolan, Jr., Chief of Plans, NASA OMSF, wrote Mission
Operations Director John D. Stevenson describing a potential post-reentry
fire hazard in the command module. A hazard might result from incomplete
mixing of pure oxygen in the cockpit with normal air after landing, which
could produce pockets of almost pure oxygen in closed cabinets, equipment
bays, wire bundles, and interstices of the spacecraft. (Two test chamber
explosions and fires had occurred at Douglas Aircraft Co. under similar
conditions during the early 1950s, he advised.) Nolan suggested that the
potential fire hazard be critically reviewed, including possible additional
chamber flammability testing. Several weeks later, Stevenson informed
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips that he had discussed Nolan's
ideas with MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth, ensuring attention by the
Flammability Review Board. He reported that MSC was planning an
additional series of chamber tests to determine whether such a fire hazard
actually existed.
Memos, Nolan to Director, Mission Operations, NASA, "Post Reentry Fire Hazard in the
Command Module," Feb. 14, 1968; Stevenson to Apollo Program Director, same subject, Feb.
26, 1968.
14
In discussing the results of a manned test with MSC Director Robert R.
Gilruth, George M. Low mentioned that a single 45-degree motion of the
abort handle was required to initiate a launch abort in Apollo. Gilruth
voiced concern that an abort could be caused by a single motion. Low asked
Donald K. Slayton for comments on the subject. Slayton replied March 1
that "this item had also been a concern of the flight crews during the early
design of the system." But he said: "The handle forces to actuate the abort
sequence have been subjectively evaluated and are considered high enough
to prevent inadvertent actuation. Additionally, the outboard rotation
(counter clockwise) was chosen over an inboard rotation (clockwise) as
being the more unnatural of the two motions .... Crew training for launch
aborts in the Dynamic Crew Procedures Simulator has not shown this
design to be a problem."
Memos, Low to Slayton, "Apollo Command Module abort handle," Feb. 14, 1968; Slayton to
Manager, ASPO, "Apollo Command Module abort handle," Mar. 1, 1968.
14
NASA Hq. asked MSC's support for the effort under way by the Software
Review Board (created at Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips'
request several weeks earlier) to reexamine software requirements for the
lunar mission. A specific concern of the Board (which included representa-
tives from the major support contractors, IBM, TRW, and Bellcomm) was
203
lm
the level of sophistication and complexity inherent in the present MIT
February computer programs. To understand better the possibilities of carrying out
the lunar mission using the present computer system but with much simpler
programming, Mueller asked the Board to examine the feasibility, cost, and
schedule implications of carrying out the mission using about half the fixed
and erasable memory of the computer and otherwise trading off program
simplicity for minor increases in propellant requirements.
Ltr., George E. Mueller, NASA OMSF, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, Feb. 14, 1968.
lS
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips wrote ASPO Manager George
M. Low setting forth a strategy for announcing selection of a prelaunch
atmosphere for the spacecraft. Because the decision undoubtedly would
draw much public attention, Phillips said, it was important that the
decision be based on comprehensive study and be fully documented to
explain the rationale for the decision both to NASA's management and to
the general public. Foremost, he said, that rationale must include a clear
statement of physiological requirements for the mission and for aborts.
Secondly, it must also cover flammability factors in cabin atmosphere
selection. Finally, the decision rationale must explain engineering factors
related to hardware capability and crew procedures, as well as operational
factors and how they affected the choice of atmosphere during prelaunch
and launch phases of the mission.
Ltr., Phillips to Low, "Pre-launch Atmosphere," Feb. 15, 1968.
19
Meetings of the Software Task Force had brought out the lack of a formal
requirement that the Change Control Board (CCB) consider how hardware
and software changes might affect each other, NASA Associate Administra-
tor for Manned Flight Mueller told Apollo Director Phillips. Mueller asked
Phillips if he would consider a program directive requiring such
assessments before changes could be approved. On March 2, ASPO Manager
George Low wrote a note to Flight Operations Director Chris Kraft
concerning the same problem. Low believed "our CCB Manual required
that any changes requiring or affecting more than one panel (e.g., your
software panel and Kleinknecht's CSM panel) should come to the Apollo
spacecraft CCB." Kraft replied April 12 that he concurred. Kraft said that
"various MSC organizations are represented on my Software Control Board
[SCB]. These representatives identify related impacts on other functional
elements of the program during the discussion of change actions in
the.., meeting. Also, we have taken action to assure integrated assessment
of software and spacecraft changes prior to presentation to the SCB .... T.
F. Gibson, Jr., Flight Operations Directorate, and J. F. Goree, Jr., ASPO,
have resolved working arrangements to assure.., the disciplines called for
by the Configuration Management Manual are carried out. I understand
that the Change Integration Group in ASPO will critique proposed change
actions to either software or spacecraft hardware and identify associated
impacts .... Changes involving interfaces between the software and
204
1968
spacecraft hardware, or other functional elements of the program, would
then be brought to your CCB for disposition of the.., change as prescribed February
by the Configuration Control Manual .... I feel . . . this formal change

integration function is appropriate as a check and balance .... "
Memo, George E. Mueller to Samuel C. Phillips, "Software Task Force Meetings," Feb. 19,
1968; informal note, Low to Kraft, Mar. 2, 1968; memo, Kraft to Low, "Software and spacecralt
change integration," Apr. 12, 1968.
19
MSC Deputy Director George S. Trimble, Jr., recommended to Apollo
Program Director Phillips that OMSF issue a definition for the end of the
Apollo program. Trimble pointed out that parts of MSC planning would be
clearer if there were a specified set of conditions which, when satisfied,
would mark the termination of the Apollo program and the start of the
lunar exploration program. He said: "It is recommended that the
accomplishment of the first lunar landing and safe return of the crew be
defined as the end of the Apollo Program. This will give a crisp ending that
everyone can understand and will be the minimum cost program. The
Lunar Exploration Program, or whatever name is selected, will have a
definable whole and can be planned and defended as a unit .... The
successful termination of the Apollo Program should not be dependent on
the successful deployment of ALSEP, EVA on the lunar surface, photos, soil
samples or other experiments. Such objectives should not be mandatory for
the first landing mission." Trimble added that he had discussed these points
with NASA's Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E.
Mueller and it was his understanding that Mueller not only agreed but also
planned to include similar material in his congressional testimony in
defense of the budget.
Ltr., Trimble to Phillips, Feb. 19, 1968.
19
ASPO Manager George Low appointed Douglas R. Broome to head a
special task team to resolve the problem of water requirements aboard the
Apollo spacecraft. For some six months, Low noted, numerous discussions
had surrounded the question of water purity requirements and loading
procedures. Several meetings and reviews, including one at MSC on January
16 and another at KSC on February 13, had failed to resolve the problem, and
Low thus instructed Broome's team to reach a "final and definite
agreement" on acceptable water specifications and loading procedures.
Much unnecessary time and effort had been expended on this problem, Low
said, and he expected the team "to put this problem to rest once and for all."
Memo, Low to distr., "Apollo water requirements," Feb. 19, 1968.
2O
Reflecting the climate of scientific thinking at his Center, MSC Director
Robert R. Gilruth responded to inquiries from Homer E. Newell, NASA
Associate Administrator, concerning vocal communications during
exploration of the lunar surface. While he termed continuous talking
undesirable, Gilruth stated an astronaut's running comment would in effect
205
form a set of field notes that a geologist might ordinarily keep during a field
February exercise. This normal vocal narrative, he told Newell, would keep ground
control informed of mission progress and would ensure a maximum
scientific return from the flight.
Ltr., Gilruth to Newell, Feb. 20, 1968; memo, Wilmot N. Hess, MSC Director of Science and
Applications, to Special Assistant to the Director, "Astronaut activity on lunar surface," Feb.
19, 1968.
20
MSC informed NASA Hq. that a reaction control system (RCS) engine
ruptured at Marquardt Corp. the previous night during a heater integration
test within a normal duty cycle run. This was a development test; the cause
of the rupture was unknown at the time of the report. A second RCS failure
occurred at Marquardt March 6 during a rerun of the LM heater integration
tests. The rerun series started March 2. No facility damage or personnel
injuries were reported from either incident. Investigation was under way at
Marquardt by both NASA and Marquardt engineers to determine the cause
of the failures and the effect on the program.
TWXs, George M. Low, MSC, to NASA Hq., Atm: Director, Apollo Program Office, Feb. 20,
1968, and Mar. 6, 1968.
26
The LM Descent Engine Program Review was held at TRW Systems,
Redondo Beach, Calif., reviewing the overall program status, technical and
manufacturing problems, and program costs. Program status reports
showed that 28 engines had been delivered in the LM descent engine
program to date, including all White Sands Test Facility engines and engine
rebuilds and all qualification test and flight engines; 9 WSTF engines and 12
flight engines remained to be delivered. Grumman indicated all engine
delivery dates coincided with the vehicle need dates.
Ltr., C. H. Bolender, MSC, to NASA Hq., Atm: Edgar M. Cortright, "LM Descent Engine
Program Review at TRW Systems on February 26, 1968," Mar. I l, 1968.
26
Stress corrosion and window problems in the LM had been resolved, NASA
advised the Administrator in his weekly progress report. By a thorough
analysis of the entire structure of the spacecraft, a team of engineers at
Grumman had determined that widespread stress corrosion on the vehicle
was highly unlikely. Also, inspection of more than 1400 individual parts on
exposed surfaces of lunar module test article LTA-3 and LMs 3 through 8
had failed to discover a single instance of stress corrosion cracking, and thus
no major changes would be made to the structure of the spacecraft.
Regarding the window problem (a window had blown out during a routine
pressure test of LM-5 on December 17, 1967), Mueller stated that the
windows on the LM were made from the strongest glass ever used on
manned spacecraft. The most important factor, he said, was to avoid
scratches on the window surface. Accordingly, Grumman and MSC had
instituted a new acceptance test procedure to be conducted at Bethpage
206
1968
immediately before installation, after which the windows would remain
fully protected. The LM-5 window failure had been caused by a defect in the February
body of the glass. Grumman subsequently planned to pressure-test all LM

windows at 17.2 newtons per square centimeter (25 pounds per square inch).
Normal operating pressure was 4.0 newtons per sq cm (5.8 psia).
Memo, Mueller to NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator, "Manned Space Flight
Report--February 26, 1968."
27
The Flight Readiness Review Board for CSM 020, lunar module test article
2R (LTA-2R), and spacecraft-LM adapter 9 (SLA-9) met at KSC. Concern
was expressed over the loss of parts and materials in the CSM. North
American Rockwell reported that a search had been made for 38 man-hours
and was terminated when it was felt that damage might result. A data-
storage equipment item had failed at the vendor and was later installed on
spacecraft 020. The "belt was off its associated pulley" and because of this
and other open failures the equipment was replaced. The chairman noted
that there was no reason why a device with belts could not be made without
belt failure.
"Minutes of Meeting, The Flight Readiness Review Board, CSM 020/LTA-2R/SI.A-9,

February 27, 1968," submitted by H. L. Brendle, Secretary, approved by Robert R. Gihuth,
MSC Director.
28
MSC Director of Flight Crew Operations Donald K. Slayton wrote Wilmot
N. Hess, Director of Science and Applications, regarding priorities between
scientific objectives and mission operations in Apollo mission planning,
specifically for activities on the lunar surface. Slayton acknowledged that
scientific priorities had to be included within an overall mission plan.
However, those priorities must inevitably be adjusted by operational factors
such as difficulty and duration of activities to maximize success of the
mission. Flight planning for surface operations on the first Apollo landing
mission, Slayton said, had followed guidelines laid down by ASPO
Manager George M. Low on September 18, 1967 (reflecting an MSC
Directors' consensus as voiced at a September 15 briefing on lunar surface
activities):
• The first extravehicular activity excursion was to consist of a number

of simple, mutually independent activities.
• A small lunar sample would be collected on the first excursion.
• The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) would not
be deployed on the first excursion.
• For planning purposes, a second excursion was also included, with
ALSEP deployment as the primary scientific objective.
Deployment of the ALSEP during the first EVA operation, he continued,

appeared precluded by safety considerations (no• objective
l • ranked higher!
than the astronauts' initial familiarization with /6 gravity). Should /6-
gravity operations turn out to be simpler and less time-consuming than
207
anticipated, ALSEP unloading might be possible; but Slayton stated that

EVA experience during the Gemini program dictated a much more
conservative plan.
Memo, Slayton to Hess, "Apollo lunar surface operations planning," Feb. 28, 1968.
n
In response to action required by the CSM 2TV-2 and CSM 101 Wire Board
in October 1967, Dale D. Myers, CSM Program Manager at North American
Rockwell, submitted to MSC results of a wire improvement study for the
umbilical feedthrough area for the lower equipment bay. Myers stated that
substantial improvements in wiring appearance in the lower equipment
bay had been made even before the Wire Board's ordered study and that
further improvements of any significant nature could not be madtwwit, hout
major structural changes (which would be intolerable from the standpoint
of mission schedules). Thus, Myers recommended against further changes
in wiring in the lower equipment bay. Further, as installation procedures
and wire protective measures had improved, the occurrence of wiring
damage had been progressively reduced. This same rationale, Myers
affirmed, applied to other harness areas inside the spacecraft. (This study by
North American completed action items generated at the Wire Board
meeting.)
Ltr., Myers to MSC CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, Feb. 29, 1968, with encl.,
"Summary Report on Block II Command Module Wiring Improvement Study."
Ma_h
MSC had decided not tostatic-fire the service modules of Block II spacecraft
1 before flight (specifically, spacecraft 101L ASPO advised NASA Hq. The
decision was based on successful completion of the spacecraft 102 static
firing, evaluation of the test history on the service propulsion system, and a
review by a joint MSC-MSFC team that came out flatly against any such
static firings at KSC and acceded to such tests at White Sands only under
Houston's strict authority. During subsequent discussions in Houston
(notably a February 19 meeting with the MSFC contingent), program
planners rejected such firings at White Sands because the additional
transportation and handling might degrade reliability of the hardware--
exactly the opposite of what was being sought.
Ltr., ASPO Manager George M. Low to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, March 1,
1968.
John D. Stevenson, Director of Mission Operations, NASA OMSF,

requested that MSC Flight Operations Director Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.,
prepare an analysis of the potential terrestrial threat posed by an
uncontrolled reentry of the Apollo 6 spacecraft. (Surviving debris presented
a possible danger should a service propulsion system failure or other
malfunction preclude a controlled reentry.) Stevenson asked Kraft to
include the debris hazard in MSC's Abort and Alternate Mission Study for
Apollo 6 then under preparation.
Ltr., Stevenson to MSC, Attn : Kraft, "Terrestrial Threat from Apollo 6 CSM Control Failure,"
March 1, 1968.
208
lm
The MSC Flammability Review Board met to assess results of the CSM
flammability tests conducted on boilerplate 1224. The Board unanimously March
recommended using a 60-percent-oxygen and 40-percent-nitrogen atmos- 4
phere in the spacecraft cabin during launch, but continued use of a pure
oxygen atmosphere at pressure of 4.1 newtons per square centimeter (6
pounds per square inch) during flight. Members concluded that this mixed-
gas environment offered the best protection for the crew on the pad and
during launch operations, while still meeting physiological and operation-
al requirements. During the final stages of the flammability test program,
tests had indicated that combustion characteristics for the 11-newtons-per-
sq-cm (16-psi), 60-40 atmosphere and for the 4.1-newton pure oxygen
atmosphere were remarkably similar. Also, full-scale trials had demonstrat-
ed that in an emergency the crew could get out of the spacecraft quickly and
safely.
Memo, George E. Mueller to Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--March 11,
1968."
$-7
Design Certification Reviews of CSM 101 and LM-3 were held at MSC.
Significant program-level agreements reached included validation of a 60-
percent-oxygen and 40-percent-nitrogen cabin atmosphere during launch
(see March 4); reaffirmation of the February 6 Management Council decision
that a second unmanned LM flight was not required; and the conclusion
that, in light of successful static firing of the 102 service propulsion system
and subsequent analysis, a static-firing of the 101 system was not required.
Ibid.
Apollo Special Task Team Director Eberhard F. M. Rees wrote Dale D.

Myers, Apollo CSM Program Manager at North American Rockwell, to
convey the concern of ASPO Manager George M. Low and others over the
status of the S-band high-gain-antenna system. (O[ all the subsystems in the
spacecraft, that antenna seemed to face perhaps the toughest technical and
schedule problems.) On December 14, 1967, Rees had visited the
subcontractor's plant (Dalmo Victor) at Belmont, Calif., and had heard
optimistic status reports on the entire system, including quality control and
delivery schedules. Shortly thereafter, when Dalmo Victor began quality
testing, the company encountered serious technical difficulties and the
delivery schedule, as Rees put it, "collapsed completely." He then recounted
several efforts by analytical teams to pinpoint the technical problems and to
put the program back into shape (including reviews in mid-February and
again on March 1, when very little progress could be seen). This record of
inability to remedy technical problems, said Rees, indicated a serious
weakness among Apollo contractors regarding visibility of their programs
as well as their analytical engineering capability.
Ltr., Rees to Myers, March 8, 1968.
209
1968
NASA technicians at KSC completed the flight readiness test for Apollo 6.
March The two-day event was delayed several days because of difficulties in
8 modifying the service propulsion system tank skirt. With that significant
launch-Preparation event completed, program officials were reassessing the
launch date in light of work remaining on the vehicle.
Memo, George E. Mueller to Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--March I 1,

1968."
11
North American Rockwell technicians at Downey completed integrated
system testing on 2TV-1, the CSM thermal vacuum test vehicle. Shipment
of the test article to MSC was scheduled for the end of March.
Memo, George E. Mueller to Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--March 15,
1968," March 18, 1968.
12
Edgar M. Cortright, NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned
Space Flight, reported on the results of a thorough review of Apollo
subcontractors made during January and February at the request of George
E. Mueller. Cortright's review, coordinated with Apollo Program Directors
in Washington and Houston, included detailed analysis of subsystem
programs and on-site assessment of technical problems, schedule patterns,
and testing programs. While favorably impressed with what he had found in
general, he cited a number of what he termed "disturbing" conditions: most
subsystems were facing hardware delivery schedule problems; many open
failures existed; most qualification tests obviously would run beyond flight
hardware delivery dates, requiring change-outs at KSC; several of the major
subcontractors' difficulties had been compounded by lack of visibility of the
overall spacecraft program (those "subs," he said, could have benefited from
more attention by the "primes" and from allowing them a role in decision-
making affecting their subsystems). Also, Cortright concluded that NASA
itself could make more efficient use of subsystem managers and get them
more deeply involved in the life of their respective programs. As a remedy to
improve the total subsystem picture, Cortright recommended additional
subsystem testing (and closer scrutiny by NASA of those tests); a
reexamination of the entire Apollo system to determine any procedural
errors in operating the subsystems that could result in failure of a subsystem;
more contractor involvement in decision-making by both NASA and the
primes; and greater emphasis on the manned space flight awareness
program.
Menlo for record, Cortright, "Apollo subcontractor review," March 12, 1968.
14
NASA announced to the public that program officials had decided to use a
60-percent-oxygen and 40-percent-nitrogen atmosphere in the Apollo
spacecraft cabin while on the launch pad (and to retain the pure-oxygen
environment in space). This technical decision--because of the earlier
tragedy with Apollo 204 over a year earlier--was subjected to closer public
scrutiny than perhaps any comparable decision in the history of the U.S.
space program. The change affected only ground operations and support
210
PART I1: RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
1968
equipment and did not necessitate any major changes in the spacecraft itself.
Exhaustive testing of the redesigned interior of the vehicle since October March
1967 had demonstrated that the risk of fire inside the spacecraft had been
drastically reduced. Hardware changes inside the cabin, spokesmen said,
had minimized possible sources of ignition and materials changes had
vastly reduced the danger of fire propagation.
NASA News Release 68-47, "Apollo Spa(ecra[t Cabin Atmosphere," MaJ(h 14, 1968.
18
The MSC Structures and Mechanics Division reported to ASPO Manager
George M. Low that additional verification of the spacecraft 020 reaction
control system (RCS) pressure vessels would not be required. Using pressure
vessel histories received March 14 and the previous propellant temperature
restriction of 297 kelvins (75°F) maximum, fracture mechanics analyses
showed: (1) all RCS helium tanks were satisfactory to maximum design
operating pressure (MDOP); (2) all CM RCS propellant tanks were
satisfactory to MDOP; (3) all SM RCS tanks were satisfactory to MDOP; and
(4) the differences between measured MDOPs on RCS SM oxidizer tanks and
the pressures assured safe by fracture mechanics were considered to be
insignificant differences.
Memo, Joseph N. Kotandlik to ASPO Manager, "Fra( lure Mechanics Review of Spacecraft 020
Rea(tion Control System (RCS) Pressure Vessels," March 18, 1968.
18
Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Apollo Program Director, expressed concern to
ASPO Manager George Low that relaxed review procedures on LM-4 and
LM-5 might tend to delay identification and resolution of problems.
Phillips had understood that the LM-4 Phase II Customer Acceptance
Readiness Review (CARR) had been rescheduled and that the LM-5 Phase I
and Phase II CARRs might be combined. He requested that every possible
effort be made to get a good Phase II review on LM-4 and separate Phase I
and Phase II reviews on LM-5.
Ltr., Phillips to l,ow, Malch 18, 1968.
19
ASPO Manager George Low emphatically rejected North American
Rockwell's suggestion of added spacecraft delivery delays. Responding to a
February letter from North American CSM Program Manager Dale D.
Myers--suggesting further slips in delivery of 2TV-1 and spacecraft 101,
103, and 104--Low reminded Myers that at the close of the Configuration
Control Board meeting on February 23 he had cited a mid-April target for
delivery o1 CSM 101. Since that time, Low said, KSC had been actively
preparing for an early summer launch based on that mid-April delivery, and
circumstances therefore made that date most important. Moreover, North
American must deliver CSM 103 by the end of June 1968 in order to ensure
meeting Apollo's end-of-the-decade goal. He reminded Myers that he had
pursued this point on several occasions with him and with William Bergen.
They both had told Low that they had found ways to deliver 103 within that
time frame, and Low now suggested that this target date be made a finn
211
1968
commitment in the official Apollo schedules. At the earliest possible date,
March Low concluded, MSC and North American must establish firm contractual
baselines for delivery schedules. Until then present delivery dates remained
valid. He admitted that some schedule slips had resulted from NASA-
dictated changes and that the schedules should be adjusted accordingly. The
remaining delays, however, Low attributed directly to the company's
inability to meet projected commitments. The contract was changed to (:all
for an April 1968 delivery for CSM 101 and a June 1968 delivery for CSM 103.
Ltr., Low to Myers, March 19, 1968; Part IV (2)ntra(l NAS9-150.
21
The lunar landing research vehicle was operating and training was being
conducted, MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth wrote Langley Research
Center's Acting Director Charles J. Donlan. MSC intended to conduct a
second class for LLRV pilots and one of tile first requirements for checkout
was a familiarization program on Langley's Lunar Landing Research
Facility. He requested that a program be conducted for not less than four nor
more than six MSC pilots between April 15 and May 15.
I+n., (;ilruth to Donlan, March 21, 1968.
21
MSC asked Grumman to make a thorough review of the amount of
nominal, off-nominal, and extended-life subsystem testing of LM
production hardware and recommend any additional testing that should be
done. The review of performance data was needed, Neal said, to ensure that
program officials had sufficient test data to support flight planners and flight
controllers during the manned missions.
Ltr., James I+. Neal, LM Contracting Off tet, MSC, to Joseph (;. (;avin, I ,M Ptoglam M_ ; ag 'r,
(;rumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., "Contra<t NAN 9-1100, Proposal 1ol additional
subs'_stem testing," March 21, 1968.
21
In an effort to resolve the continuing technical and schedule problems with
the high-gain antenna system at Dalmo Victor, Apollo CSM Program
Manager Dale D. Myers named a Resident Subsystem Project Manager at the
vendor's plant. This change provided a single management interface with
Dalmo Victor. The representative had been given authority to call on
whatever North American Rockwell resources he might need to accomplish
program objectives.
tar., Myers to Kenneth S. Kleinknetht, MSC, Mar_h 21, 1968.
22
Eberhard F. M. Rees, Director of the Apollo Special Task Team at North
American Rockwell, wrote to the company's CSM Program Manager Dale
D. Myers to express his concern over persistent problems with leaks in the
ball valves for the service propulsion system. Rees doubted that any real
progress was being made, stating that the problem persisted despite
relaxations in leakage criteria and that qualification failures continued to
occur. Rees described a review of the program on March 18 at Aerojet-
General Corp. as lacking in factual depth. Also, the company did not appear
212
1968
to be pursuing developmental testing of configurational changes with any
March
degree of vigor. Rees suggested to Myers that his people were on the right
track and with management attention the vendor's efforts could be
channeled to get some genuine results.
Ltr., Rccs t() M,,ers, Maich 22, 1968, with eml., "Minutes of AGC Ball Valve Presentation,"
March 18, 1968.
23
Apollo drogue chute test 99-5 failed at the E1 Centro, Calif., parachute
facility. The drop was conducted to demonstrate the slight change made in
the reefed area and the 10-second reefing cutter at ultimate load conditions.
The 5897-kilogram vehicle was launched from a B-52 aircraft at 10668
meters and programmer chute operation and timing appeared normal. At
drogue deployment following mortar activation, one drogue appeared to
separate from the vehicle. This chute was not recovered but ground
observers indicated the failure seemed to occur in the riser or vehicle
attachment. The second drogue remained on the vehicle but seemed to slip
in the reefed state. This chute was recovered and inspection confirmed the
canopy failure. The Air Force parachute system which was to recover the
vehicle also failed in the reefed state.
TWX, (;eoige M. I .ow MS(;, to NASA Hq., Atm: Director, AI)ollo Program ()lticc, Mat(h 23,
1968.
27
ASPO documented its reasons for using nitrogen rather than helium (as the
Air Force had done) as the diluent in the Apollo spacecraft's cahin
atmosphere, in response to a suggestion from Julian M. West of NASA Hq.
Aaron Cohen, Assistant Chief of the MS(; Systems Engineering Division,
recounted that the Atmosphere Selection Task Team had addressed the
question of nitrogen versus helium (regardless of percentage) and had
rejected helium because of uncertainty of the compatibility of spacecraft
equipment with helium. Further, helium presented the same physiological
problems as did nitrogen, and whatever flammabilities advantages helium
possessed were extremely small. For all these reasons, Cohen explained, the
team had early elected to concentrate on nitrogen-mixed atmospheres.
Memo, (;eolge M. Ix)w, MSC, to West. "Sele('tion of nitrogen as a diluent for the Apollo
laun( h almOsl)here," Mmxh 27, 1968, with eml., memo, Cohen to I,ow, "Nitrogen seh'c tion as
a diluent," March 25, 1968.
27-28
A LM prelaunch atmosphere selection and repressurization meeting was
held at MSC, attended by representatives of MSC, MSFC, KSC, North
American Rockwell, and Grumman. The rationale for MSC selection of 100
percent oxygen as the LM cabin launch atmosphere was based on three
factors: use of other than 100 percent oxygen in the LM cabin would entail
additional crew procedural workloads at transposition and docking;
excessive risk to crew due to depletion of the CM emergency oxygen
consumables would be added; and it would require use of 2.7 kilograms of
onboard CM oxygen. Two problems were identified with use of 100 percent
oxygen in the LM cabin at launch : LM cabin flammability on the pad and
213
1968
LM venting oxygen into the SLA during boost. If air were used in the I,M
March cabin at launch and the LM vent valve opened during boost, the full CM
stored-oxygen capacity would be required to pressurize the LM and LM
tunnel for umbilical mating. For a lunar mission, this situation would be
similar to that before lunar orbital insertion, but would subject the crew to a
condition of no stored oxygen for an emergency. For an earth-orbital
mission this situation would be objectionable because CM stored oxygen
would be lacking for an emergency entry into the atmosphere. (See also
April 22 entry.)
I.tr., I .ow I_, addressees, Ap, il 17, 1968, wi01 cn¢ I., mvmo..%s stant Chic[ Systems Engiz]evring,
Div. to addJvssees, "Minutt's of [,M Rqnessutizafion Mceting," Al)ril 8, 1968.
29
Scott H. Simpkinson, Acting Chief of ASPO Test Division, authorized
assignment of Boeing-TIE personnel to Downey, Calif., and Bethpage,
N.Y., to support test evaluation areas--because of fixed limitations on the
number of resident NASA personnel at the prime contractors' locations.
Memos, Simpkinson to (;hie[, Program Control, "B<)cing-'l'lE suptx)rt " Mar( h 29, 1968.
29
Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Apollo Program Director, wrote ASPO Manager
George M. Low to express concern about two particular technical problems
in the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package: (1) a system for on-the-
pad coding of the SNAP-97 radioactive tuel cask and (9) the overall weight
status of the ALSEP (especially the recent decision to charge the weight
penalty of the remote deployment mechanism to the ALSEP weight budget
itself). Because ALSEP was the key to success of the Apollo science program,
Phillips asked that Low take the lead in reviewing these and any other
pertinent technical problems to effect early resolution and ensure success of
the program.
I,tr., Phillips to Low, March 29, 1968.
29
NASA Hq. asked that MSC consider a variety of lunar photographic
operations from orbit during manned landing missions. Cancellation from
Apollo of the lunar mapping and survey system had eliminated any
specially designed lunar photographic capability; but photography was
still desired for scientific, operational, and contingency purposes. Presence
of the CSM in orbit during manned landing missions, Headquarters OMSF
said, would be a valuable opportunity, however limited, for photographic
operations. MSC was asked to evaluate these operations to define whatever
hardware and operational changes in Apollo might be required to capitalize
upon this opportunity.
ErE, Samuel C. Phillips, Apollo Proglam Dire{ to1, NASA tlq., to Director Rohvrl R. (;ilruth,
MS(I, "I,unat Ph(:,toglaphy from Iht' CS.M." Ma_(h 29. 1968.
April
NASA Hq. confirmed oral instructions to MS(; and KSC to use 60 percent
2 oxygen and 40 percent nitrogen to pressurize the Apollo CM cabin in
prelaunch checkout operations and during manned chamber testing, as rec-
214
1968
ommended by the Design Certification Review Board on March 7 and
confirmed by the NASA Administrator on March 12. This instruction was April
applicable to flight and test articles at all locations.

TWX, Samuel C. Phillips to MSC, Atm : G. M. Low and KSC, Atm : R. O. Middleton, April 2,
1968.
Eberhard F. M. Rees, Director of the Special Task Team at North American

Rockwell, spearheaded a design review of the CM water sterilization system
at Downey, Calif. (The review had resulted as an action item from the March
21 Configuration Control Board meeting in Downey.) Rees and a team of
North American engineers reviewed the design of the system and test results
and problems to date. Chief among performance concerns seemed to be
compatibility of the chlorine solution with several materials in the system,
maximum allowable concentration of chlorine in the water supply from the
medical aspect, and contamination of the system during storage, handling,
and filling. Assuming North American's successful completion of
qualification testing and attention to the foregoing action items, said Rees,
the system design was judged satisfactory.
Ltr., Dale D. Myers to George M. l.ow, April 8, 1968, with encl., "CSM Water Sterilization Sys-
tem CDR, April 2, 1968."
Apollo 6 (AS-502) was launched from Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Cen-
ter. The space vehicle consisted of a Saturn V launch vehicle with an
unmanned, modified Block I command and service module (CSM 020) and a
lunar module test article (LTA-2R).
Liftoff at 7:00 a.m. EST was normal but, during the first-stage (S-IC) boost
phase, oscillations and abrupt measurement changes were observed. During
the second-stage (S-II) boost phase, two of the J-2 engines shut down early
and the remaining three were extended approximately one minute to
compensate. The third-stage (S-IVB) firing was also longer than planned
and at termination of thrust the orbit was 177.7 x 362.9 kilometers rather
than the 160.9-kilometer near-circular orbit planned. The attempt to
reignite the S-IVB engine for the translunar injection was unsuccessful.
Reentry speed was l0 kilometers per second rather than the planned 11.1,
and the spacecraft landed 90.7 kilometers uprange of the targeted landing
point.
The most significant spacecraft anomaly occurred at about 2 minutes 13

seconds after liftoff, when abrupt changes were indicated by strain,
vibration, and acceleration measurements in the S-IVB, instrument unit,
adapter, lunar module test article, and CSM. Apparently oscillations
induced by the launch vehicle exceeded the spacecraft design criteria.
The second-stage (S-II) burn was normal until about 4 minutes 38 seconds
after liftoff; then difficulties were recorded. Engine 2 cutoff was recorded
215
SaturnV launches
Apollo 6 on
April 4, 1968, carrying a LM
test article and an unmanned
Apollo Block I CM, modified
to include the unified hatch
flown for the first time as a
complete unit.
about 6 minutes 53 seconds into the flight and engine 3 cutoff less than 3
seconds later. The remaining second-stage engines shut down at 9 minutes
36 seconds--58 seconds later than planned.
The S-IVB engine during its first burn, which was normal, operated 29
seconds longer than programmed. After two revolutions in a parking orbit,
during which the systems were checked, operational tests performed, and
several attitude maneuvers made, preparations were completed for the S-
IVB engine restart. The firing was scheduled to occur on the Cape Kennedy
pass at the end of the second revolution, but could not be accomplished. A
ground command was sent to the CSM to carry out a planned alternate mis-
sion, and the CSM separated from the S-IVB stage.
A service propulsion system (SPS) engine firing sequence resulted in a 442-

second burn and an accompanying free-return orbit of 22259.1x33.3
kilometers. Since the SPS was used to attain the desired high apogee, there
was insufficient propellant left to gain the high-velocity increase desired for
the entry. For this reason, a complete firing sequence was performed except
that the thrust was inhibited.
Parachute deployment was normal and the spacecraft landed about 9 hours
50 minutes after liftoff, in the mid-Pacific, 90.7 kilometers uprange from the
predicted landing area. A normal retrieval was made by the U.S.S. Okinawa,
with waves of 2.1 to 2.4 meters.
216
PART If" RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
1968
The spacecraft was in good condition, including the unified crew hatch,
flown for the first time. Charring of the thermal protection was about the April
same as that experienced on the Apollo 4 spacecraft (CM 017).
Of the five primary objectives, three--demonstrating separation of launch

vehicle stages, performance of the emergency detection system (EDS) in a
close-loop mode, and mission support facilities and operations--were
achieved. Only partially achieved were the objectives of confirming
structure and thermal integrity, compatibility of launch vehicle and
spacecraft, and launch loads and dynamic characteristics; and of verifying
operation of launch vehicle propulsion, guidance and control, and
electrical systems. Apollo 6, therefore, was officially judged in December as
"not a success in accordance with . . . NASA mission objectives."
Memos, Chief, Landing and Recovery Div. to Director of Flight Operations, MSC, "Apollo 6
preliminary recovery information," April 5, 1968; Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips
to Administrator, NASA, "Apollo 6 Mission (AS-502) Post Launch Report # 1 ," April 18, 1968,
with attachment, "Post Launch Mission Operation Report No. M-932-68-06"; Phillips to
Acting Administrator, "Apollo 6 Mission (AS-502) Post Launch Report _¢2," Dec 27, 1968;
"Apollo 6 Mission Report," prepared by Apollo 6 Mission Evaluation Team, approved by
George M. Low, June 1968.
Howard W. Tindall, Jr., Chief of Apollo Data Priority Coordination,

reported that several meetings devoted to the question of the LM's status
immediately after touching down on the lunar surface, had reached
agreement on several operational techniques for a "go/no go" decision.
Basically, the period immediately after landing constituted a system
evaluation phase (in which both crew and ground controllers assessed the
spacecraft's status)--a period of about two minutes, during which
immediate abort and ascent was possible. Given a decision at that point not
to abort, the crew would then remove the guidance system from the descent
mode and proceed with the normal ascent-powered flight program (and an
immediate abort was no longer possible). Assuming permission to stay
beyond this initial "make ready" phase, the crew would then carry out most
of the normal procedures required to launch when the CM next passed over
the landing site (some two hours later).
Memo, Tindall to distr., "Mission techniques for the LM lunar stay go/no go," April 4, 1968.
5-7
Astronauts James A. Lovell, Jr., Stuart A. Roosa, and Charles M. Duke, Jr.,
participated in a recovery test of spacecraft 007, conducted by the MSC
Landing and Recovery Division in the Gulf of Mexico. The test crew
reported that while they did not "recommend the Apollo spacecraft for any
extended sea voyages they encountered no serious habitability problems
during the 48-hour test. If a .comparison can be made, the interior
configurations and seaworthiness make the Apollo spacecraft a much better
vessel than the Gemini spacecraft." The following conclusions were
reached: (1) The Apollo spacecraft, as represented by spacecraft 007 and
under ambient conditions tested, was suitable for a 48-hour delayed
recovery. (2) The interference between the survival radio beacon and VHF
217
communications was unsatisfactory. Spacecraft to aircraft communication

ranges seemed unusually low. (3) There was no requirement for the sea-
water hand pump.
Memo, Donald K. Slayton to Director of l"light Operations, "Crew report on 48-hour recovery
test of spacecraft 007 on April 5-7, 1968," April 12, 1968
10
The Apollo spacecraft Configuration Control Board (CCB) had endorsed
changes in lunar orbit insertion and LM extraction on the lunar mission
flight profile, the MSC Director notified the Apollo Program Director.
ASPO had reviewed the changes with William Schneider of NASA OMSF
the same day and Schneider was to present the changes to George E. Mueller
and Samuel C. Phillips for approval.
The two-burn lunar orbit insertion (LOI) was an operational procedure to

desensitize the maneuver to system uncertainties and would allow for
optimization of a lunar orbit trim burn. The procedure would be used for
lunar orbit and lunar landing missions. The spacecraft lunar-adapter
spring-ejection system was required to ensure adequate clearance during
separation of the LM/CSM from the S-IVB/instrument unit and would be
used on the first manned CSM/LM mission.
Ltr., Robert R. Gilruth to Phillips, "Proposed (:flanges to Lunar Orbit In_rtion and LM
extraction on the Lunar Mission Flight Profile," April 10, 1968.
10
A TV camera would be carried in CM 101 on the first manned Apollo flight,
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, wrote the ASPO Manager
(confirming their discussions). Incorporation and use of the camera in CM
101 would conform to the following ground rules: (1) The TV camera and
associated hardware would be installed at KSC with no impact on launch
schedule; (2) the camera would be stowed during the launch phase; (3) a
mounting bracket for the camera would be provided in the CM to permit
simultaneous viewing of all three couch assemblies, for use in monitoring
prelaunch hazardous tests and in flight; (4) the camera could be hand-held
for viewing outside the CM during flight; and (5) use of the camera would
not be specified on the astronaut's flight planning timeline of essential
activities but would be incorporated in the mission as time and opportunity
would permit.
Ltr., Director, Apollo Program, NASA OMSF, to Manager ASPO, "Apollo On-Board TV,"
April 10,1968.
12
A number of decisions were made at the completion of a parachute review at
Northrop-Ventura : (1) The spacecraft 101 parachute system would be flown
without further changes. (2) A higher drogue-mortar-muzzle velocity would
be planned, with a possible effectivity for spacecraft 103. North American
Rockwell would determine what ground tests were required, when flight
hardware would be ready, and what additional qualification tests were
needed. (3) Proposed Northrop-Ventura changes in drogue riser size and
riser length would be considered only for design and ground testing
218
PART 1I" RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
activities. (4) North American would propose to NASA an augmented

confidence-level test program. (5) For follow-on work, NASA would Apdl
contract directly with Northrop-Ventura only for analytical work (all test
effort would be contracted through North American). (6) Northrop-Ventura
would examine the swagged fittings to determine whether a possible stress
corrosion problem might exist. (7) Northrop-Ventura would obtain
sufficient documentary photography during parachute packing for manned
flight vehicles to provide subsequent quality examination. (8) Northrop-
Ventura would prepare a package depicting the flight and design envelope
of the parachutes, together with tests already achieved and tests planned. (9)
Firm direction to Northrop-Ventura in all applicable areas would be
provided by North American.
Menlo, George M. Low to Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, "Action items from the Northrop Ventura
meeting," April 15, 1968.
12
Apollo Special Task Team Director Eberhard Rees wrote Dale D. Myers at
North American Rockwell: "As you are well aware, many manhours have
been spent investigating and discussing the radially cracked insulation on
wire supplied by Haveg Industries. On March 27, 1968, NR [North
American Rockwell] made a presentation on this problem and reported the
action taken to correct the problem and to prevent defective wire from being
used .... It was disturbing to me to learn that with all the additional
actions.., cracked insulation again was found, this time during the
manufacture of harnesses for C/M 110, 111, 112 and S/M 111. This raises the
question as to whether the total problem has really been identified and
whether or not sufficient corrective action has been taken .... " Rees then
requested a reply to 10 questions he submitted as to reasons for the problem
and possible actions that might be taken.
Ltr., Rees to Myers, April 12, 1968.
16
A meeting at MSC with Irving Pinkel of Lewis Research Center and Robert
Van Dolah of the Bureau of Mines reviewed results of boilerplate 1224 tests
at 11.4 newtons per square centimeter ( 16.5 pounds per square inch) in a 60-
percent-oxygen and 40-percent-nitrogen atmosphere. (Both Pinkel and Van
Dolah had been members of the Apollo 204 Review Board. Others attending
were Jerry Craig, Richard Johnston, and George Abbey, all of MSC; and
George Gill and Fred Yeamans, both of GE.) The total boilerplate 1224 test
program was reviewed as well as test results at 11 newtons per sq cm (16 psi)
in 60 percent oxygen and 40 percent nitrogen and also in 95 percent oxygen.
Both Pinkel and Van Dolah agreed with the MSC position that the tests
proved the spacecraft was qualified for testing and flight in the 60-40 envi-
ronment. They expressed the opinion that the 60-40 atmosphere seemed a
reasonable compromise between flammability, physiological, and opera-
tional considerations.
Memo, Chief, Thermodynamics and Materials Br., to Chief, Systems Engineering Div.,
"Review of BP 1224 test data with I. Pinkel and R. Van Dolah," April 19, 1968.
219
MSC Engineering and Development Director Maxime Faget reported to

April George Low that his directorate had investigated numerous radiation
17 detectors, ionization particle detectors, and chemical reactive detectors. The
directorate had also obtained information from outside sources such as the
National Bureau of Standards, Mine Safety Appliances, Parmalee Plastics,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and the Air Force Manned Orbiting
Laboratory organization. None of the methods investigated could meet the
stated requirements for a spacecraft fire detection system.
Memo, Faget to Low, "Status of development effort for fire detection system," April 17, t968.
17
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth recommended to NASA Associate Admin-
istrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller that MSC's Sigurd A.
Sjoberg be approved as the U.S. Representative to the International
Committee for Aeronautics of the F6d_ration A6ronautique Internationale.
Robert Dillaway of North American Rockwell, who had been serving as
U.S. Representative, had accepted a position with the Navy and recom-
mended Sjoberg to James F. Nields, President of the National Aeronautic
Association, and to Major General Brooke F. Allen, Executive Director of
the Association, and they had concurred in the recommendation. NASA Hq.
approved the request May 20.
Ltrs., Gihuth to Mueller, April 17, 1968; Mueller to Gilruth, May 20, 1968.
18
Two major requirements existed for further service propulsion system (SPS)
testing at the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC), ASPO
Manager George M. Low advised Apollo Program Director Samuel C.
Phillips. First, the LM docking structure was marginal at peak SPS start
transient. While evaluation of the redesigned docking mechanism was
under way, final hardware design and production could not be completed
until positive identification of the start transient was made through the
AEDC test series. Secondly, a modified engine valve had been incorporated
into the SPS for CSM 101, which thus necessitated further certification
testing before flight (comprising sea-level static firings, simulated altitude
firings, and component endurance tests). Low emphasized the need to
complete this testing as soon as possible, to isolate any potential problems.
Ltr., Low to Phillips, April 18, 1968.
22
ASPO Manager George M. Low advised top officials in Headquarters,
MSFC, and KSC that he was recommending the use of 100 percent oxygen in
the cabin of the LM at launch. MSC had reached this decision, Low said,
after thorough evaluation of system capabilities, requirements, safety, and
crew procedures. The selection of pure oxygen was based on several
important factors: reduced demand on the CSM's oxygen supply by some
2.7 kilograms; simplified crew procedures; the capability for immediate
return to earth during earth-orbital missions in which docking was per-
formed; and safe physiological characteristics. All of these factors, the ASPO
Chief stated, outweighed the flammability question. Because the LM was
220
PART II] RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
unmanned on the pad, there was little electrical power in the vehicle at
launch and therefore few ignition sources. Further, the adapter was filled April
with inert nitrogen and the danger of a hazardous condition was therefore
minimal. Also, temperature and pressure sensors inside the LM could be
used for fire detection, and fire could be fought while the mobile service
structure was in place. As a result, Low stated, use of oxygen in the LM on
the pad posed no more of a hazard than did hypergolics and liquid hydrogen
and oxygen.
Ltr., Low to Samuel C. Phillips, R. O. Middleton, KSC, and Arthur Rudolph, MSFC, April 22,
1968.
22
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth observed that the Engineering and Devel-
opment Directorate would be conducting two thermal-vacuum test
programs during the next several months, following the April 9 shipment of
the Block II thermal vacuum test article 2TV-1 to MSC from Downey. (The
second test article was the LM counterpart, LTA-8.) Both programs were of
major importance, Gilruth told his organization. However, because the
2TV-1 test program directly supported--and constrained--the first manned
Apollo mission, he said that, in the event of any conflict between the two test
programs, 2TV-1 had clear priority.
Memo, Gilruth to distr., "Program Priority," April 22, 1968.
CSM 2TV-1 (thermal vacuum

test vehicle No. 1) in integrated
checkout testing at Manned
Spacecraft Center in 1968. The
vehicle was manufactured and
ready for test later than
planned, placing a constraint
on the Apollo program.
1968
ASPO Manager George M. Low requested Joseph N. Kotanchik to estab-
Apdl lish a task team to pull together all participants in the dynamic analysis of
23 the Saturn V and boost environment. He suggested that Donald C. Wade
should lead the effort and that he should work with George Jeffs of North
American Rockwell, Tom Kelly of Grumman and Wayne Klopfenstein of
Boeing, and that Lee James of MSFC could be contacted for any desired
support or coordination. The team would define the allowable oscillations
at the interface of the spacecraft-LM adapter with the instrument unit for
the existing Block II configuration, possible changes in the hardware to
detune the CSM and the LM, and the combined effects of pogo and the S-IC
single-engine-out case. Low also said he was establishing a task team under
Richard Colonna to define a test program related to the same problem area
and felt that Wade and Colonna would want to work together.
Memo, Low to J. N. Kotanchik through M. A. Faget, "CSM/LM/SLA dynamic analysis,"

April 23, 1968.
27
NASA Administrator James E. Webb approved plans to proceed with
preparation of the third Saturn V space vehicle for a manned mission in the
fourth quarter of 1968. The planned mission was to follow the unmanned
November 9, 1967, Apollo 4 and April 4, 1968, Apollo 6 flights, launchedon
the first two Saturn V vehicles. NASA kept the option of flying another
unmanned mission if further analysis and testing indicated that was the best
course. Engineers had been working around the clock to determine causes of
and solutions to problems met on the Apollo 6 flight.
NASA News Release 68-81, "Manned Apollo Flight," April 29, 1968.
27
ASPO Manager George M. Low explained to the Apollo Program Director
the underlying causes of slips in CSM and LM delivery dates since estab-
lishment of contract dates during the fall of 1967. The general excuse, Low
said, was that slips were the result of NASA-directed hardware changes.
"This excuse is not valid." He recounted how NASA-imposed changes had
been under strict control and only essential changes had been approved by
the MSC Level II Configuration Control Board (CCB). For early spacecraft
(CSM 101 and 103 and LM-3), the CCB had agreed some six months earlier
that only flight safety changes would be approved. To achieve firm
understandings with the two prime spacecraft contractors regarding the
responsibilities for schedule slips, Low had asked MSC procurement expert
Dave W. Lang to negotiate new contract delivery dates based on changes
since the last round of negotiations. These negotiations with North Ameri-
can Rockwell were now completed. (Talks at Grumman had not yet
started.) Despite a leniency in the negotiations on early spacecraft, Low said,
results clearly indicated that most schedule delays were attributable to North
American and not to NASA. On 2TV-1, for example, delivered two months
late, analysis proved that less than three weeks of this delay derived from
customer-dictated changes. The situation for CSM 101, though not yet
delivered, was comparable. Moreover, a similar situation existed within the
222
LM program : LM-3 would be delivered some five weeks behind the contract
date, with only two of those weeks caused by NASA changes. Despite this
attempt to set the record straight regarding schedule slippages, Low stressed
that he did not wish to be over critical of the contractors' performance.
Because schedules over the past year had been based on three-shift, seven-
day-per-week operation, little or no time existed for troubleshooting and
"make work" changes that inevitably cropped up during checkout
activities.
Ltr., Low to Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., April 27, 1968.
3O
ASPO was implementing actions recommended by Edgar M. Cortright
following his review of Apollo subsystem programs and visits to Apollo
subcontractors (see March 12), ASPO Manager George Low advised Apollo
Program Director Sam Phillips. These additional steps included further
testing of hardware (including "augmented" testing to define nominal and
off-nominal operating conditions better); better NASA overseeing of
certification test requirements and results; a reexamination by the Crew
Safety Review Board of system operating procedures, with emphasis on crew
operations; closer subcontractor participation in program decisionmaking,
chiefly through the proposed augmented tests and product improvement
program; and greater emphasis at the subcontractor plants on the manned
flight awareness program.
Ltr., Low to Phillips, "Apollo Subcontractor Review," April 30, 1968.
May
ASPO Manager George M. Low ordered LM Manager C. H. Bolender to es-
tablish a firm baseline configuration for the LM ascent engine to use during 1
the entire series of qualification tests (including any penalty runs that might
be required). Low's memo followed a telephone conversation the previous
day with Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips. Low cited to
Bolender the need for a rigid design control on the engine. During a recent
technical review, he explained, NASA officials learned that most qualifica-
tion tests had been performed on one model (the E2CA injector), while all of
the bomb stability tests had used another (the E2C injector). Ostensibly, the
only difference between the two injectors was in the welding techniques.
However, the first E2CA injector that was bomb-tested showed a combustion
instability. Low emphasized that he was not charging that the different
welding technique had caused the instability. Nevertheless, "this supposed-
ly minor change [has] again served to emphasize the importance of making
no changes, no matter how small, in the configuration of this engine." Once
Bolender had set up the requested baseline configuration, Low stated, no
change either in design or process should be made without approval by the
Configuration Control Board.
Phillips followed up his conversation with Low a week later to express a

deep concern regarding the ascent engine program, particularly small
improvements in the engine, which could very likely delay the entire Apollo
program beyond the present goal. The sensitivity of the engine to even
223
minor design, fabrication, and testing changes dictated absolute control

over all such changes. The ascent engine, Phillips told Low, was one of a
very few Apollo hardware items in which even the most insignificant change
must be elevated to top-level management review before implementation.
Memo, Low to Bolender, "Design freeze of ascent engine," May 1, 1968; ltr., Phillips to Low,
May 6, 1968.
Lunar landing research vehicle (LLRV) No. 1 crashed at Ellington Air

Force Base, Tex. The pilot, astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, ejected after losing
control of the vehicle, landing by parachute with minor injury. Estimated
altitude of the LLRV at the time of ejection was 60 meters. LLRV No. 1,
which had been on a standard training mission, was a total loss--estimated
at $1.5 million. LLRV No. 2 would not begin flight status until the accident
investigation had been completed and the cause determined. (The LLTV's
had not completed their ground test phase and were not included in this
category.) MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth appointed a Board of
Investigation, composed of: Joseph S. Algranti, Chief, Aircraft Operations
Oflice, MSC; William A. Anders, Astronaut Office, qualified pilot; Charles
Conrad, qualified pilot (temporary member, to be replaced by Donald L.
Mallick); Donald L. Mallick, Chief, Research Pilots Branch, Flight Re-
search Center; George L. Bosworth, Aircraft Maintenance--Quality
Assurance Branch, Maintenance Officer; and C. H. Roberts, Aircraft
Operations Office, Acting Flying Safety Officer. (See also May 16 and
October 17.)
TWX, Richard H. Holzapfel, MSC, to NASA, Attn: B. P. Helgeson, May 7, 1968.
13
During an Apollo flight test program review at MSC, the question was left
unresolved whether or not to perform a "fire-in-the-hole" test of the LM
ascent engine (i.e., start the engine at the same instant the two stages of the
spacecraft were disjoined--as the engine would have to be fired upon takeoff
from the lunar surface) on either the D or E mission. At the review, several
participants had suggested that the test be performed on the D mission
because that would be the last Apollo flight containing development flight
instrumentation (DFI). Later that day, ASPO Manager George M. Low met
with several of the Center's Associate Directors (Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.,
Donald K. Slayton, and Maxime A. Faget) to pursue the issue further. At that
time, Faget stated that, although desirable, DFI was not essential for the test
objective. Most important, he said, was obtaining photographs of the base
of the ascent engine following the burn. In view of Faget's contention--and
because the fire-in-the-hole test added greatly to the complexity and risk of
the D mission at the time the engine was first fired in space, Low and the
others agreed not to include such an ascent engine burn in the flight. Low
asked Faget to analyze ascent engine test experience and results of the LM- 1
ascent engine burn before making any decision on such a test during the E
mission.
Memo, Low to Faget, "'Fire-in-the.Hole Test," May 13, 1968.
224
1968
Robert R. Gilruth, MSC Director, announced reassignment of three offi-
cials. John D. Hodge was assigned as Director of the newly established May
Lunar Exploration Working Group. Aleck C. Bond, Manager of the 14
Reliability and Quality Assurance Office and the Flight Safety Office, would
be reassigned effective June 1 as Manager, Systems Test and Evaluation,
Engineering and Development Directorate. Martin L. Raines, Manager,
White Sands Test Facility, would become acting manager of the Reliability
and Quality Assurance Office and the Flight Safety Office, in addition to his
White Sands assignment.
MSC News Release 68-35, May 14, 1968.
16
NASA Headquarters established the LLRV-1 Review Board to investigate
the May 6 accidental crash of Lunar Landing Research Vehicle No. 1 at
Ellington Air Force Base. The Board would consist of: Bruce T. Lundin,
Lewis Research Center, chairman; John Stevenson, OMSF; Miles Ross,
KSC; James Whitten, Langley Research Center; and Lt. Col. Jeptha D.
Oliver (USAF), Norton Air Force Base. J. Wallace Ould, MSC Chief Coun-
sel, would serve as counsel to the group. The board would (1) determine the
probable cause or causes of the accident, (2) identify and evaluate proposed
corrective actions, (3) evaluate the implications of the accident for LLRV
and LM design and operations, (4) report its findings to the NASA Admin-
istrator as expeditiously as possible but no later than July 15, and (5)
document its findings and submit a final report to the Administrator with a
copy to the NASA Safety Director. (See October 17.)
Memo, Thomas O. Paine to LLRV-I Review Board, "Investigation and Review of Crash o[
Lunar Landing Research Vehicle ¢1," May 16, 1968.
17
Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC Director of Flight Operations, expressed
concern to ASPO Manager George M. Low over the escalation of E-mission
objectives; the flight now loomed as an extremely complex and ambitious
mission. The probability of accomplishing all the objectives set forth for the
mission, said Kraft, was very low. He did not propose changing the mission
plan, however. "If we are fortunate," he said, "then certainly the quickest
way to the moon will be achieved." Kraft did suggest caution in setting mis-
sion priorities and in "apply[ing] adjectives to the objectives." Specifical-
ly, he advised a realistic allowance of delta V limits at various points in the
rendezvous portion of the mission, to ensure safe termination of the exercise
if required. Also, he saw little value in a fire-in-the-hole burn of the ascent
engine at stage separation of the LM. He believed that ground tests were
adequate to provide answers on pressure and temperature rises on the ascent
stage during launch from the lunar surface. The situation Kraft said was
indicative of the engineer's desire to test fully all systems in flight in both
normal and backup modes. However, reliance must be placed largely on the
wealth of ground testing and analysis carried on to date in the Apollo
program.
Memo, Kraft to Manager, Apollo Program, "Apollo Flight Test Program," May 17, 1968.
225
Following up on an earlier request to examine the potential for lunar pho-

May tography of the moon from the CSM during Apollo lunar missions (see
21 March 29), Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips asked MSC
Director Robert R. Gilruth to expand MSC's effort to include the potential
for a range of scientific investigations. Specifically, he asked that MSC study
the overall potential of the CSM for lunar science and the modification
needed to support increasingly complex experiment payloads. Among
experiments that might be carried out from the CSM Phillips cited infrared
spectrometer radiometer, ultraviolet absorption spectrometer, passive
microwave, radar-laser altimetry, and subsatellites.
Ltr., Phillips to Gilruth, "Lunar Scientific Experiments from the CSM," May 21, 1968.
22
Twist-and-solder wire splices were evaluated for ASPO Manager Low by
Systems Engineering Division. The evaluation stated that twist-and-solder
wire splices with shrink sleeve tubing had been used for many years and
when properly done were adequate. It then listed three advantages and six
disadvantages of this kind of splice. In summary, it stated that the splice
could be phased into the LM program but was not recommended by the di-
vision because: (1) there are too many variables; (2) the present solder splice
(either heat or ZAP gun) had none of the disadvantages or variables
mentioned; (3) a substantial amount of time would be required to establish
and implement qualification; and (4) qualification testing had proven the
present solder splices adequate. LM Program Manager C. H. Bolender had
the memo hand-carried to George Low's office, since he was temporarily
withholding approval of an engineering change proposal for Grumman to
implement use of the ZAP gun for solder splices. Low, in turn, sent an
"Urgent Action" note to his Assistant Manager for Flight Safety, Scott H.
Simpkinson, asking his views on the problem and saying, in part,
"Personally, I would only use the twist-and-solder splice--but I may be old
fashioned." Simpkinson replied to Low with an informal note on May 23,
agreeing with the recommendations of the Systems Engineering Division.
Simpkinson said, "... The worst wire splice in the production world is the
twist-and-solder, and cover with tubing .... I believe we should use the
present LM splice method which has been qualified." He recommended the
ZAP gun, "which controls the heat properly so that all the advantages of the
present LM wire splices can be realized," recalling the phrase, 'Let's not
improve ourselves into a new set of problems.'" On that same day Low
instructed Bolender to proceed with the ZAP gun Grumman splices.
Memo, Owen E. Maynard, Chief, Systems Engineering Div., ASPO, to Manager, ASPO,
"Evaluation of the twist-and-solder wire splice," May 22, t968; note, Lyle D. White, Systems
Engineering Div., to Low, May 22, 1968; Urgent Action note, Low to Simpkinson, undated;
note, Simpkinson to Low, May 23, 1968; note, Low to Bolender, May 23, 1968.
24
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips requested from MSC Director
Robert R. Gilruth a recommended program for spacesuit modifications to
achieve greater astronaut maneuverability. The modifications were required
for lunar landing missions, because extravehicular activities such as
226
1968
sampling and instrument deployment were difficult and time consuming
May
with the present suit configuration. Phillips asked for trade-off studies to
achieve optimized life support systems, an analysis of mobility require-
ments and techniques to enhance mobility, and studies of crew station
requirements and problem areas such as suit repair, storage, and checkout.
Ltr., Phillips to Gilruth "Improvement of Apollo Spacesuit for Lunar Surface EVA Tasks,"
May 24, 1968.
ASPO Manager George M. Low informed Apollo Program Director Samuel

C. Phillips of recent MSC work on the effects of launch vehicle-induced
oscillations--i.e., "pogo" vibrations--on the spacecraft and its subsystems.
MSC had made two key personnel assignments in this area: (1) Roll W.
Lanzkron managed all MSC activities in connection with the space vehicle
dynamic integrity problem; and (2) astronaut Charles M. Duke coordinated
all MSC's efforts with related work at MSFC. Low also cited a number of
decisions in the hardware and testing areas. He had decided to use CM 002B,
SM 105, and LM-2 for pogo dynamics testing. Other ground test hardware
included LTA-3 for manned drop tests and for additional structural
verification tests, CM 102 to verily parachute-imposed loads on the
spacecraft structure, and CMs 014 and 102 for additional structural tests at
North American Rockwell. In deciding upon uses for these and other
spacecraft hardware items, MSC had assigned first priority to the ground test
program, second to another potential unmanned Saturn V flight, and third
to the dual launch capability.
Ltr., Low to Phillips, May 25, 1968.
28
NASA and Grumman officials met to resolve the issue of the injector for the
LM ascent engine. Chief NASA Apollo spacecraft program officials present
included Director Samuel C. Phillips and MSC's ASPO Manager George M.
Low and LM Manager C. H. Bolender; Grumman LM directors and
engineers included LM Program Director Joseph G. Gavin. Several
alternatives seemed feasible: continue the program with the existing Bell
Aerosystems Co. engine and injector; furnish Bell Aerosystems Co. engines
to Rocketdyne to be mated to the Rocketdyne injector; or ship Rocketdyne
injectors to Bell for installation in the engine. After what Low termed "con-
siderable discussion," he dictated the course to be followed:
• The LM ascent engine would comprise Bell's engine with the

Rocketdyne injector. Rocketdyne would be responsible for delivery of the
complete engine, and would thus become a subcontractor to Grumman.
(Bell could either remain as subcontractor to Grumman or become a
subcontractor to Rocketdyne.)
• An engine with the Rocketdyne injector would be immediately
installed in LM-3, as well as in LM-4 and LM-5, with minimum schedule
impact.
• Grumman was to proceed forthwith on contract negotiations with
Bell and Rocketdyne to cover these procurements.
227
• Rocketdyne was to continue qualification on the present injector

design, and engine firings at White Sands Test Facility in support of LM-3
were to use the Rocketdyne injector.
Grumman participants at this meeting, as Low almost casually phrased it,

"indicated that they would interpose no objections to this set of decisions."
After long months of technical effort and almost agonizing hardware and
managerial debate, the issue of an ascent engine for the LM was settled.
Memo for Record, Low, "Ascent engine injector," May 31, 1968.
29
NASA's North American Management Performance Award Board sent a
summary of its findings for the first interim period, from September 1967
through March 1968, to North American Rockwell's Space Division. The
review board had been charged with assessing the company's performance
under spacecraft contract NAS 9-150 and determining an award fee under
the contract's incentive agreements. Board Chairman B. L. Dorman wrote
Space Division President William B. Bergen that the Board had been
impressed by the attention of North American's top management to the
CSM program. Moreover, a cooperative attitude from top to bottom had
afforded NASA an excellent view into problem areas, while the company's
assessment of problems had helped to produce high-quality hardware. On
the other hand, several activities needed improvement: cost control; tighter
management control over change traffic; stronger management of subcon-
tractors; and better planning and implementation of test and checkout
functions.
Ltr., Dorman to Bergen, May 29, 1968.
During
the NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller
Month recommended to the Administrator several alternative uses for the LM-2
vehicle, since that spacecraft was no longer destined for flight. (The
successful LM- 1 flight during the Apollo 5 mission in January had obviated
the need for a second such unmanned flight.) Mueller suggested that LM-2
be used for nondestructive tests and for documentary photography.
Additional drop tests with the craft, he said, would enhance confidence in
the strength of the LM to withstand the impact of landing on the moon,
with all subsystems functioning. (The LM drop test program using Lunar
Test Article 3, Mueller said, would verify the LM structure itself; however,
LTA-3 contained no operational subsystems, wiring, or plumbing and
therefore could not verify the total flight vehicle.) Among several other
possible uses for the vehicle examined but rejected, Mueller cited modifying
the craft into a manned configuration for Apollo or using it for an early
Apollo Applications flight. LM-2 was unsuitable for both these alterna-
tives, he stated, because of the extensive structural modifications needed to
make it a flightworthy Apollo spacecraft--and the attendant disruption of
vehicle flow within the Grumman production line--and because of the
many fire-proofing changes that would be required. The launch vehicle
228
1968
(SA-206), LM adapter, and protective shroud were to be placed in storage for
further Saturn tests if needed. May
Memo, Mueller to NASA Administrator, "Disposition and Usage of AS-206/LM-2 Hard-

ware," n.d.
June
ASPO Manager George Low advised Apollo program officials at KSC that,
to collect adequate data for evaluating any potential toxicological hazard 3
inside the spacecraft, collection of gas samples of the cabin atmosphere must
be made for 12 hours during the unmanned altitude chamber test with all
systems operating. Low asked that this requirement be included in the
spacecraft test procedures. (Purpose of a total CSM 101 and LM-3
toxicological evaluation was to verify that no toxic contaminants were
given off by the nonmetallic materials used in the crew compartments.)
Ltr., Low to R. O. Middleton, KSC, "Toxicological evaluation of CSM 101 and LM-3," June 3,
1968.
Apollo Program Director Sam Phillips asked ASPO Manager George Low
to investigate the value of using freon as a fire extinguishing agent inside the
spacecraft. Admittedly, Phillips said, MSC had considered using a freon
extinguisher system shortly after the AS-204 accident, but it had been
rejected, largely because of toxicity factors and because tests had shown the
agent ineffective in extinguishing combustion of polyurethane in a pure
oxygen atmosphere. A number of factors now dictated a reevaluation of such
an extinguisher system, however:
• Additional testing of late had indicated a lower toxicity problem than

earlier believed.
• The addition of oxygen masks to the spacecraft now afforded some
protection against a toxic atmosphere.
• Because of post-accident changes inside the cabin, the flammability
problem had been reduced to a few specific materials (quite different from
polyurethane foam) sited in compartmentalized locations inside the cabin.
• The oxygen-nitrogen mixed gas had been selected as the prelaunch
atmosphere inside the cabin.
In view of these changes, Phillips said, a freon extinguishing system might

be better than the present jelled water extinguisher (quicker activation and
reduced equipment damage). He asked that Low not overlook this potential
improvement in crew safety, which could be of particular value during the
high-risk period of launch, when the crew was essentially immobilized by
the forces of acceleration.
Ltr., Phillips to Low, "CBrF_ (Freon 1301) as a Fire Extinguishing Agent," June 3, 1968.
George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, wrote

MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth to express his personal interest in lunar
extravehicular activity (EVA) training for the Apollo crews of the F and G
missions (i.e., the initial lunar landing and subsequent flights). Because of
229
the complexity of the EVA tasks that the astronauts must perform, Mueller
said, crews for those missions should be selected as early as possible. Also,
realistic training--including a realistic run-through of many of the lunar
surface tasks, especially development of the S-band antenna and the Apollo
Lunar Surface Experiments Package and sampling operations--must be
conducted to ensure that the crews competently carried out the various sci-
entific experiments and other tasks during their brief stays on the moon.
Ltr., Mueller to Gilruth, June 5, 1968.
ASPO Manager George M. Low and others from MSC met with Grumman's
LM engineering staff, headed by Thomas J. Kelly, to discuss the descent
stage heatshield and thermal blanket problems associated with reduced
thrust decay of the descent engine at lunar touchdown. Several significant
decisions were reached:
• The touchdown probe was lengthened to 1.6 meters.

• Effective on LM-5 and later vehicles, Grumman would "beef up"
(both structurally and thermally) the base heatshield.
• Grumman was to conduct a series of tests on overpressure of the
descent engine.
• Grumman would begin design studies of a jettisonable descent
engine skirt.
• Landing stability would be reexamined with the existing thrust
tailoff profile (a study to be made either by Grumman or by Boeing; Low
asked Maxime A. Faget, Director of Engineering and Development at MSC,
to review this proposed test plan and to recommend where it should be
conducted, for best cost, schedule, and technical capabilities).
Memo, l.ow to C. H. Bolender, "LM descent stage base heatshield," June 8, 1968.
10
In his weekly progress report to the NASA Administrator, Deputy Adminis-
trator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller cited several important
Apollo events during the first week of June: (1) On June 1, technicians at
MSC completed thermal-vacuum testing on LTA-8 to support LM-3,
including 45fi hours of manned testing. All spacecraft systems functioned
normally, and preliminary results indicated that all significant test
objectives had been realized. (2) Engineers and technicians at KSC
completed receiving inspection of CSM 101 on June 3. That inspection
revealed fewer discrepancies than had been present on any other spacecraft
delivered to the Cape. Pre-mate inspection of CM 101 also was completed, as
were leakage and functional tests on the electrical power and reaction
control systems. SM 101 was in the altitude chamber being prepared for
combined systems testing.
Memo, Mueller to NASA Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report-June 7, 1968,"
June 10, 1968.
230
1968
ASPO Manager George M. Low met with Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., and
Donald K. Slayton, Directors of MSC Flight and Flight Crew Operations, June
and several members of their staffs (including astronaut Walter M. Schirra, 10
Jr.) to discuss using the flight combustion stability monitor (FCSM) on the
Apollo 7 flight. (The FCSM was a safety device to shut down the service
propulsion system [SPS] automatically in the event of rough combustion or
instability.) At the insistence of the Propulsion and Power Division, they
agreed to use the FCSM for all SPS burns on Apollo 7. On all "noncritical"
burns, two attempts to start the engine would be made with the FCSM
active. Should the stability monitor shut down the engine on both those
attempts, a detailed review of the situation would be made before again
attempting to start the engine. On "critical" burns (i.e., the abort-to-orbit
and reentry burns), should the FCSM halt the burn the SPS engine would be
restarted immediately with the FCSM inactive on the assumption that the
shutdown was caused either by an FCSM malfunction or by an engine
instability that would not reoccur on the next start.
Low, Kraft, and the others unanimously wanted to eliminate the FCSM
before a lunar mission, because on this mission lunar orbit and transearth
insertion burns were highly critical and inadvertent shutdowns would cause
major trajectory perturbations. Representatives from the Propulsion and
Power Division (PPD) contended that, because of the relatively small
number of bomb tests carried out on the Block II SPS engine, flight-testing
of the engine before the lunar mission would be inadequate to demonstrate
engine stability under all conditions. Low therefore asked Engineering and
Development Director Maxime A. Faget and PPD Chief Joseph G.
Thibodaux, Jr., to plan a ground test program that would give sufficient
confidence in the SPS engine to eliminate the FCSM before undertaking
lunar missions.
Ltr., Low to Thibodaux, "Use of FCSM on Apollo 7," June 11, 1968.
11
Dale D. Myers, Apollo CSM Program Manager at North American
Rockwell, advised MSC officials of his company's investigation of two pilot-
chute riser failures during recent drop tests of the Block II earth-landing sys-
tem. Should there be any imperfections in either hardware or assembly
techniques, Myers explained, the Block II pilot chute and riser system could
be a marginal-strength item. Investigations had determined that early man-
ufacturing processes had allowed a differential length between the two
plies of nylon webbing in the pilot-chute riser which caused unequal load
distribution between the two plies and low total riser strength. Because of
the earlier test failures, Myers said, the pilot chute riser had been redesigned.
The two-ply nylon webbing had been replaced by continuous suspension
lines (i.e., 12 nylon cords) and the 5.5-millimeter-diameter cable was
changed to 6.3-millimeter cable. He then cited a series of recent tests that
verified the redesigned pilot-chute riser's strength to meet deployment under
worst-case operational conditions.
Ltr., Myers to K. S. Kleinknecht, MSC, June 11, 1968.
231
1968
Apollo Program Director Phillips wrote MSC Director Gilruth concerning
June the April 10 proposal for a two-burn lunar orbit insertion (LOI) maneuver
17 and a spring ejection of the LM from the spacecraft-lunar module adapter.
Phillips agreed to the two-burn LOI in place of the originally planned one
burn if results of an analysis should prove the requirement. He specified that
an analysis be made of the tradeoffs and that the analysis include the risk of
crash, the assumed risks due to lengthening the lunar orbit time (about four
hours), and risks due to an additional spacecraft propulsion system burn, as
well as the effect of the lunar gravitational potential on the ability to target
the LOI maneuver to achieve the desired vector at the time of LM descent.
The proposal for spring ejection of the LM from the SLA was approved with
the provision that a failure analysis be made in order to understand the risks
in the change.
Ltr., Samuel C. Phillips, OMSF, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, June 17, 1968.
July
NASA and contractor technicians successfully conducted the-final
3 parachute drop test to qualify the Apollo CSM earth-landing system. The
Block II ELS thus was considered ready for manned flight after 12 Block I, 4
Block II, and 7 increased-capability Block II Qualification Tests--that had
followed 77 Block I, 6 Block II, and 25 increased-capability Block II Devel-
opment Drop Tests.
Memo, George E. Mueller, NASA OMSF, to NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator,
"Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--July 5, 1968," July 8, 1968; NASA Technical Note
(NASA TN D-7437), "Apollo Experience Report--Earth Landing System "
ASPO Manager George M. Low asked Aaron Cohen, one of his chief
technical assistants, to investigate the ability of the Apollo spacecraft to
withstand bending loads imposed by a failure of one or more engines on the
Saturn V launch vehicle (as well as actual loads that would be imposed on
the spacecraft). During the previous week, Low and the Configuration
Control Board had ruled out making any significant design changes to cope
with a Saturn V engine failure. Specifically, Low asked how bending loads
on the spacecraft were derived; what bending loads were imposed on the
spacecraft during the Apollo 6 mission, where two J-2 engines were cut off
during the flight; what was the probability--and criticality--of an S-IC
engine's failing and thereby imposing high bending loads; and whether
abort limits should be established for an engine failure.
Memo, Low to Cohen, "Saturn V single engine out p]oblems," July 5, 1968.
10-11
The Apollo Design Certification Review (DCR) Board met in Houston to
examine CSM 101 and the Block II CSM for proof of design and develop-
ment maturity and to certify the designs for flightworthiness and manned
flight safety. (Three earlier reviews directly supported this penultimate
scrutiny of the vehicle's development: the CSM 101 Design Certification
Review March 6-7, the Block II environmental control system and spacesuit
DCR May 8, and the DCR covering the CM land and water impact test
232
Command module 101
program June 6.) The board concluded that design certification on CSM 101 1968
was complete. Action and open items were subsequently forwarded to the
July
Centers for resolution, to be closed before the Apollo 7 Flight Readiness
Review.
Ltr., Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., to distr., "CSM 101 and Block II CSM Delta Design
Certification Review," Aug. 28, 1968.
ASPO Manager Low informed Apollo Program Director Phillips of several 11
changes in the LM vibration testing program. Before beginning the series of

tests, he told Phillips, red line values were established on critical
components that were not to be exceeded. However, because of the most
recent test effort on LM-2, which resulted from the pogo problem experi-
enced during the flight of Apollo 6, Low was forced to authorize vibration
testing beyond the red line values initially set for the spacecraft. This action,
in turn, forced an inspection and possible refurbishment of LM-2 to make it
available for an unmanned flight, should such a second unmanned LM test
mission be required. He then cited MSC's future plans for LM-2:
• For the planned drop tests with the vehicle, the upper decks would be
inspected and repaired or replaced where necessary.
• Should a LM-2 flight become necessary, all of the descent stage upper
decks would probably be replaced.
233
1968 Phillips approved Low's action immediately• He urged Low to "continue to

give priority to that work which is necessary for full and early resolution of
July
the POGO and spacecraft structural dynamics questions."
Ltr., George M. Low to Samuel C. Phillips, July II, 1968, with handwritten notation by
Phillips dated July 11, 1968.
13 ASPO Manager George M. Low wrote to Grumman President Llewellyn J.

Evans to call his attention to the problem of continued propellant leaks in
the LM. "In spite of all of our efforts, last summer" (i.e., with the extensive
plumbing rework done on LM-1 after its delivery to Florida), Low said,
technicians at KSC found a leak on one of the lines on LM-3, even though
no leaks had been observed during checkout at Bethpage. Investigating the
problem, Low had learned that Grumman had made some propellant-sys-
tem design changes that had led to installation of four-boh flanges with
single teflon O-ring seals--despite the fact that during the preceding
summer NASA and Grumman had jointly agreed not to use this joint on the
LM vehicle. This most recent problem, said Low, again points up the
importance of strictest control of all design changes in the spacecraft.
Because of the need for maintaining a lunar-configured LM as a design
baseline, all spacecraft design changes had to be carried through the Apollo
Configuration Control Board before implementation.
Ltr.. Low to Evans, July 13, 1968.
is NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips laid down Headquar-

ters and MSC interfaces with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
regarding the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermoelectric generator for the
Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP). The Lunar Surface
Program Office at MSC was the field project office responsible for develop-
ing the ALSEP system, and the radioisotope generator--as part of the
ALSEP--had been assigned to that office for system integration. Thus, the
Lunar Surface Program Office served as the AEC's primary contact on the
SNAP-27 both for ALSEP program matters and for data pertaining to flight
safety and documentation for flight approval. Phillips stressed that all data
be fully coordinated with Headquarters before being submitted to the AEC.
(Approval for the flight of any nuclear device rested ultimately with the
President, but formal documentation had to be concurred in by the NASA
Administrator, the AEC Commissioners, the Secretary of Defense, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Council•)
Memo, Phillips to George M. Low, ASPO, MS(;, "Atomic Energy Commission Interfaces,"
July 15, 1968.
17 NASA Associate Administrator George E. Mueller, Apollo Program

Director Samuel C. Phillips, and other high-ranking manned space flight
officials from Headquarters visited Bethpage for an overall review of the LM
program. Greatest emphasis during their review was on schedules, technical
problems, and qualification of the spacecraft's principal subsystems.
Mueller and Phillips cited several areas that most concerned NASA:
234
PART 11: RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
lm
• Delivery schedules from subcontractors and vendors had slipped
significantly during the past year, to the point where many components July
were only marginally supporting spacecraft deliveries.

• The large number of hardware changes made during the past year
was affecting costs and schedules.
• Costs forecast for Fiscal Year 1969 exceeded the current LM budget.
Mueller also suggested that Grumman consider eliminating the LM

rendezvous radar to save weight aboard the vehicle. He stated that VHF
ranging would be more accurate and would probably be the preferred mode
of operation.
Memo, C. H. Bolender, MS(; I,M Manager, to Manager, Apollo Spacecraft Program, MSC, "Dr.
Mueller's visit to GAEC on July 17, 1968," July 19, 1968.
In the continuing effort to reduce costs while still maintaining a balanced

and viable program, ASPO Manager George M. Low recommended to
NASA Hq. that CSM 102 be deleted from the manned flight program. He
estimated total savings at $25.5 million (excluding cost of refurbishment
after the current ground test program). In addition, he said, during the static
structural test program at North American Rockwell, CSM 102 would be
subjected to loads that would compromise structural integrity of the vehicle
for manned flight.
Ltr., Low to Samuel C. Phillips, "Deletion of CSM 102 from the manned flight program," July
22, 1968.
23
Prompted by a request from MSC to increase the Saturn V's performance to
46 070 kilograms for lunar missions, Samuel C. Phillips sought to strike a
balance between spacecraft and launch vehicle weight-performance
demands. He established as a new payload interface definition at translunar
injection a payload of 46040 kilograms. Should the vehicle per se be
incapable of achieving this figure, said Phillips, he would relax certain
flight constraints to achieve the best possible balance between the space
vehicle and the specific mission to be flown. But he implored both ASPO
Manager George M. Low and Lee B. James, Saturn V Program Manager at
MSFC, to work toward this balance between spacecraft and launch vehicle
and to avoid any hardware changes in the Saturn V solely to meet the new
payload interface weight.
Ltr., Phillips to James and Low, "Saturn V Payload Interface Definition," July 23, 1968.
3O
F. A. Speer, Mission Operations Manager at MSFC, advised NASA Hq. of
plans for S-IVB and spacecraft separation and employment of a "slingshot"
trajectory following insertion into the trajectory toward the moon.
Residuals in the S-IVB, said Speer, could be used to place the stage in a
235
1968
trajectory that would avoid recontact with the spacecraft and impact on
July either the earth or the moon--with preclusion of spacecraft-launch vehicle
collision as the most important priority.
Ltr., Speet to William C. Schneider, Apollo Mi_,sion l)ire_ tor, NASA, "l.unar Debris " July 30,
1968.
August
Howard W. Tindall, Jr., Deputy Division Chief, MSC Mission Planning
1 and Analysis, wrote ASPO Manager George M. Low : "A rather unbelieva-
ble proposal has been bouncing around lately. Because it is seriously
ascribed to a high ranking official, MSC and Grumman are both on the verge
of initiating activities--feasibility studies, procedures development, etc.--
in accord with it .... The matter to which I refer is the possibility of
deleting the rendezvous radar from the I.M. The first thing that comes to
mind, although not perhaps the most important, is that the uproar from the
astronaut office will be fantastic--and I'll join in with my small voice too.
Without rendezvous radar there is absolutely no observational data going
into the LM to support rendezvous maneuvers .... Please see if you can stop
this if it's real and save both MSC and GAEC a lot of trouble." On August 9
Low wrote NASA Apollo Program Manager Samuel Phillips that, shortly
after Associate Administrator for Manned Space George Mueller had visited
Grumman, Low had calls from both C. H. Bolender, MSC, and Joseph
Gavin, Grumman, indicating that Mueller had made a suggestion "that we
should eliminate the LM rendezvous radar as a weight saving device." He
forwarded Tindall's memorandum as the basis for "why we should not con-
sider deleting the radar and why we shouldn't spend any more effort on this
work." Low added that MSC was discontinuing "any work that we may
have started as a result of George's comments." In a reply on August 28,
Phillips told Low, "I am in complete agreement . . . that all work toward
deleting the LM rendezvous radar should be discouraged and I have written
to George Mueller to that effect."
Menlo, Tindall to Manager, ASPO, "LM rendezvous radar is essential," Aug. 1, 1968; Itrs., Low
to Phillips, Aug. 9, 1968, Phillips to Low, Aug. 28, 1968.
In an effort to stem the number of hardware changes at KSC, Apollo

Program Director Samuel C. Phillips instituted a weekly review of all
changes that produced additional work at KSC in excess of normal checkout
flow. Phillips stressed the extraordinary importance of change control and
the requirement that only mandatory changes be approved through the
control boards at MSC and MSFC. The volume of changes currently under
way at KSC constituted a major concern. Key program objectives, he said,
were in jeopardy.
TWXs, Phillips to distr., Aug. 2 and 19, 1968.
The Apollo Design Certification Review (DCR) Board convened at MSC to

examine LM-3 further for proof of design and development maturity and to
assess and certify the design of the LM-3 as flightworthy and safe for
236
PART 11: RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
1968
manned flight. This Delta review was identified as a requirement at the
March 6 LM-3 DCR. The Board concluded at the close of the Delta DCR August
that LM-3 was safe to fly manned with the completion of open work and
action items identified during the review.
I,tr., Apollo Program Director to distr., "LM-3 Delta Design Certification Review," Sept. 12,
1968.
ASPO Manager George M. Low and several members of his staff met at KSC
with Center Director Kurt H. Debus, Launch Operations Director Rocco A.
Petrone, and KSC Apollo Program Manager R. O. Middleton to discuss test
and checkout problems for AS-503 and AS-504. They collectively agreed
that only mandatory changes--i.e., changes for flight safety or to ensure mis-
sion success--could be made once the spacecraft reached KSC. (Changes that
would speed the KSC checkout flow also were permitted.) Furthermore, two
separate work packages would be prepared for each spacecraft customer
acceptance readiness review board. The first package comprised normal
work to be performed at KSC on all spacecraft. The second included special
work normally done at the factory, but which for that specific vehicle was
being transferred to the Cape (installation, retesting, etc.). The group also
reviewed recent Apollo checkout experiences--especially test failures and
open items--in an effort to improve these areas for subsequent missions.
Memo (or record, Low, "Report of meeting at KS(;," Aug. 10, 1968.
August 9-
ASPO Manager George M. Low initiated a series of actions that led to the
eventual decision that AS-503 (Apollo 8) should be a lunar orbital mission. November 12
Events and the situation during June and July had indicated to Low that the
only way for the "in this decade" goal to be attained was to launch the
Saturn 503/CSM 103/LM-3 mission in 1968. During June and July the pro-
jected launch slipped from November to December, with no assurance of a
December launch. Later, Low recalled "the possibility of a circumlunar or
lunar orbit mission during 1968, using AS-503 and CSM 103 first occurred
to me as a contingency mission."
During the period of July 20-August 5, pogo problems that had arisen on
Apollo 6 seemed headed toward resolution; work on the CSM slowed, but
progress was satisfactory; delivery was scheduled at KSC during the second
week in August and the spacecraft was exceptionally clean. The LM still
required a lot of work and chances were slim for a 1968 launch.
On August 7, Low asked MSC's Director of Flight Operations Christopher

C. Kraft, Jr., to look into the feasibility of a lunar orbit mission for Apollo 8
without carrying the LM. A mission with the LM looked as if it might slip
until February or March 1969. The following day Low traveled to KSC for
an AS-503 review, and from the work schedule it looked like a January 1969
launch.
August 9 was probably one of the busiest days in George Low's life; the
activities of that and the following days enabled the United States to meet
237
lm
the "in this decade" goal. At 8:45 a.m. he met with MSC Director Robert R.
August Gilruth and told him he had been considering a lunar orbit mission.
Gilruth was highly enthusiastic. At 9:00 a.m. Low met with Kraft and was
informed that the mission was technically feasible from ground control and
spacecraft computer standpoint. (A decision had been made several months
earlier to put a Colossus onboard computer program on the 103 spacecraft.)
At 9:30 a.m. Low met with Gilruth, Kraft, and Director of Flight Crew
Operations Donald K. Slayton, and they unanimously decided to seek
support from MSFC Director Wernher yon Braun and Apollo Program
Director Samuel C. Phillips. Gilruth called von Braun and, after briefly
outlining the plan, asked if they could meet in Huntsville that afternoon.
Low called Phillips, who was at KSC, and asked whether he and KSC
Director Kurt Debus could participate and a meeting was set up for 2:30.
Present at the 2:30 p.m. meeting at MSFC were yon Braun, Eberhard Rees,
Lee James, and Ludie Richard, all of MSFC: Phillips and George Hage,
both of OMSF; Debus and Rocco Petrone, MSFC; and Gilruth, Low, Kraft,
and Slayton of MSC. Low outlined the hardware situation and told the
group it was technically feasible to fly the lunar orbit mission in December
1968, with the qualification that Apollo 7 would have to be a very successful
mission. If not successful, Apollo 8 would be another earth-orbital mission.
Kraft made a strong point that to gain lunar landing benefits Apollo 8 would
have to be a lunar orbital rather than a circumlunar mission. All were
enthusiastic. Phillips began outlining necessary events: KSC said it would
be ready to support such a launch by December 1; MSFC felt it would have
no difficulties; MSC needed to look at the differences between spacecraft 103
and 106 (the first spacecraft scheduled to leave earth's atmosphere) and had
to find a substitute for the LM. The meeting was concluded at 5:00 p.m. with
an agreement to meet in Washington August 14. This would be decision day
and, if "GO," Phillips planned to go to Vienna and discuss the plan with
Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller and
NASA Administrator James E. Webb (who were attending a United Nations
Conference). Preliminary planning would be secret, but if and when
adopted by the agency the plan would be made public immediately.
Still on August 9, in another meeting at MSC at 8:30 p.m., Low met with
Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, George Abbey, and C. H. Bolender of MSC, and
Dale Myers, North American Rockwell. Bolender left immediately for
Bethpage, N.Y., to find a substitute for the LM; and Myers left for Downey,
Calif., to get the CM going.
On the following day there were still no obvious insurmountable problems

that might block the plan. Kleinknecht was studying the differences
between spacecraft 103 and 106, where the high-gain antenna might be a
problem. It seemed possible to use LM-2 to support the flight, but Joseph
Kotanchik, MSC, suggested flying a simple crossbeam instead of a LM in the
event the pogo oscillation problem remained and pointed out that even if
pogo was solved the LM would not be needed. Low called Richard and
238
PART II2 RECOVERY, REDEFINITION, AND FIRST FLIGHT
Hage, who agreed with Kotanchik but still wanted mass representation to
avoid possible dynamic problems. Low then called William Bergen, of August
North American, who was not too receptive to the plan.
On August 12 Kraft informed Low that December 20 was the day if they
wanted to launch in daylight. With everyone agreeing to a daylight launch,
the launch was planned for December 1 with a "built-in hold" until the
20th, which would have the effect of giving assurance of meeting the sched-
ule. LTA (LM test article)-B was considered as a substitute; it had been
through a dynamic test vehicle program, and all except Kotanchik agreed
this would be a good substitute. Grumman suggested LTA-4 but Low
decided on LTA-B.
Kleinknecht had concluded his CSM 103-106 configuration study by August

13 and determined the high-gain antenna was the most critical item. Kraft
was still "GO" and said December 20-26 (except December 25) offered best
launch times; he had also looked at January launch possibilities. Slayton
had decided to assign the 104 crew to the mission. He had talked to crew
commander Frank Borman and Borman was interested.
Participants in the August 14 meeting in Washington were Low, Gilruth,

Kraft, and Slayton from MSC; von Braun, James, and Richard from MSFC;
Debus and Petrone from KSC; and Deputy Administrator Thomas Paine,
William Schneider, Julian Bowman, Phillips, and Hage from NASA Hq.
Low reviewed the spacecraft aspects; Kraft, flight operations; and Slayton,
flight crew support. MSFC had agreed on the LTA-B as the substitute and
were still ready to go; and KSC said they would be ready by December 6.
While the meeting was in progress, Mueller called from Vienna to talk to
Phillips. He was cool to the proposed idea, especially since it preceded
Apollo 7, and urged Phillips not to come to Vienna, adding that he could
not meet with the group before August 22. The group agreed they could not
wait until August 22 for a decision and agreed to keep going, urging again
that Phillips go to Vienna and present their case.
At this point Paine reminded them that not too long before they were
making a decision whether to man 503, and now they were proposing a bold
mission. He then asked for comments by those around the table and received
the following responses: von Braun--Once you decided to man 503 it did
not matter how far you went. Hage--There were a number of places in the
mission where the decision could be made, minimizing the risk. Slayton--
Only chance to get to the moon before the end of 1969. Debus--I have no
technical reservations. Petrone--I have no reservations. Bowman--A shot
in the arm for manned space flight. James--Manned safety in this and
following flights enhanced. Richard--Our lunar capability will be
enhanced by flying this mission. Schneider--My wholehearted endorse-
ment. Gilruth--Although this may not be the only way to meet our goal, it
enhances our possibility. There is always risk, but this is in path of less risk.
In fact, the minimum risk of all Apollo plans. Kraft--Flight operations has
239
a difficult job here. We need all kind of priorities; it will not be easy to do, but
August I have confidence. It should be lunar orbit and not circumlunar. Low--
Assuming Apollo 7 is a success there is no other choice. After receiving this
response, Paine congratulated them on not being prisoners of previous
plans and said he personally felt it was the right thing to do. Phillips then
said the plan did not represent shortcuts and planned to meet with Mueller
on August 22. He reiterated Mueller's reservations, and then agreed to move
out on a limited basis, since time was critical.
On August 15 Phillips and Paine discussed the plan with Webb. Webb
wanted to think about it, and requested further information by diplomatic
carrier. That same day Phillips called Low and informed him that Mueller
had agreed to the plan with the provisions that no full announcement
would be made until after the Apollo 7 flight; that it could be announced
that 503 would be manned and possible missions were being studied; and
that an internal document could be prepared for a planned lunar orbit for
December.
Phillips and Hage visited MSC August 17, bringing the news that Webb had
given clear-cut authority to prepare for a December 6 launch, but that they
could not proceed with clearance for lunar orbit until after the Apollo 7
flight, which would be an earth-orbital mission with basic objectives of
proving the CSM and Saturn V systems. Phillips said that Webb had been
"shocked and fairly negative" when he talked to him about the plan on
August 15. Subsequently, Paine and Phillips sent Webb a lengthy discourse
on why the mission should be changed, and it was felt he would change his
mind with a successful Apollo 7 mission.
Apollo 7--flown October 11-22:---far exceeded Low's expectations in results

and left no doubts that they should go for lunar orbit on Apollo 8. At the
November 10 Apollo Executive meeting Phillips presented a summary of
the activities; James gave the launch vehicle status; Low reported on the
spacecraft status and said he was impressed with the way KSC had handled
its tight checkout schedule; Slayton reported on the flight plan; and Petrone
on checkout readiness. Petrone said KSC could launch as early as December
10 or 12. Phillips said he would recommend to the Management Council the
next day for Apollo 8 to go lunar orbit. Following are the reactions of the
Committee members: Walter Burke, McDonnell Douglas--the S-IVB was
ready but McDonnell Douglas favored circumlunar rather than lunar orbit;
Hilliard Paige, GE--favored lunar orbit; Paul Blasingame, AC--guidance
and navigation hardware was ready, lunar orbit; C. Stark Draper,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology--we should go ahead; Bob Evans,
IBM--go; George Bunker of Martin, T. A. Wilson of Boeing, Lee Atwood of
North American, Bob Hunter of Philco-Ford, and Tom Morrow of
Chrysler--lunar orbit.
At the Manned Space Flight Management Council Meeting on November 11

Mueller reported that the proposal had been discussed with the Apollo
Executive Committee, Department of Defense, the Scientific and Technical
24O
1968
Advisory Committee (STAC), and the President's Science Advisory
Committee (PSAC). STAC had made a penetrating review and reacted August
positively and PSAC was favorably disposed toward the plan but made no
firm recommendation.
After a series of meetings, on November 11 Paine said Apollo 8 was to go

lunar orbit. The decision was announced publicly the following day. Low's
initiative had paid off; the final decision to go to the moon in 1968 was made
with the blessings of all of NASA's decision-makers, the Apollo Executive
Committee, STAC, and PSAC.
ASPO Manager George M. Low, "Special Notes for August 9, 1968, and Subsequent."
10
Capping off a considerable exchange of views between MSC and NASA
Headquarters, ASPO Manager George Low advised Apollo Program
Director Sam Phillips that Houston was going ahead with mission plan-
ning that employed a two-burn orbit insertion maneuver. He forwarded to
Phillips a lengthy memorandum from one of his staff, Howard W. Tindall,
Jr., that explained in detail MSC's rationale for this two-stage orbital ma-
neuver, the most important of which derived from crew safety and
simplified orbital mission procedures. The overriding factor, Tindall
explained, was a "concern for the consequences of the many things we will
not have thought about but will encounter on the first lunar flight.
Anything that can be done to keep the dispersions small and the procedures
simple provides that much more tolerance for the unexpected .... The cost
of the two-stage LOI is a small price to pay for these intangible but
important benefits."
Ltr., George M. Low to Samuel C. Phillips, Aug. 10, 1968, wilh end., memo, Tindall to ASPO
Manager, "Recommendation to retain tile Two-Stage Lunar Orbit Insertion (I.OI) Maneu-
ver," Aug. 5, 1968.
12
Dieter Grau, Director of Quality and Reliability Assurance at MSFC, sent
his Houston counterpart Martin Raines a memorandum of understanding
covering exchanges of quality surveillance responsibility in support of
pogo structural testing under way both in Huntsville, Ala., and at MSC.
Testing was being conducted simultaneously at the Wyle Laboratories in
Huntsville (under contract to North American Rockwell, primarily static
loading and referred to as shell stability tests); and dynamic load testing at
MSC (called the "short stack" dynamic tests). In effect, each Center assumed
the task of overseeing the complete test article (spacecraft, instrument unit,
and S-IVB forward skirt) being tested at its own location.
Ltr., Grau to Raines, Aug. 12, 1968, with encl., memorandum of agreement, "Quality Coverage
of POGO Structural Testing," Aug. 12, 1968.
13
George M. Low, MSC, in a letter to Samuel C. Phillips, OMSF, said that the
Design Certification Review (DCR) for spacecraft 101 had been completed;
that assigned action items had been resolved; and most of the open items had
been closed. Several open issues would be closed at the 101 Flight Readiness
241
1968
Review. Low said: "The MSC subsystem managers have reviewed all the
August documentation supporting the DCR. I have reviewed the statements of
certification by the North American and MSC subsystem managers. I have
personally watched the design of Spacecraft 101 develop to a stage of
maturity. As a result, I am taking this opportunity to certify that Spacecraft
101 is ready to perform the Apollo 7 mission once the open items are closed."
Ltr., I_w to Phillips, "Design Certification of Apollo 7," Aug. 13, 1968.
16
reported to his superiors that launch preparations for the Apollo 7 mission
were running ahead of schedule. Spacecraft 101 had been erected and mated
with the launch vehicle on August 9. Integrated systems testing had begun
on August 15. Preparation for the next mission, Apollo 8, were not
proceeding as well. Checkout of the launch vehicle and CSM 103 were on
schedule, but work on LM-3 was some seven days behind schedule. Though
LM-3's problems were under intensive investigation, they were directly
holding up the simulated mission run and transfer to the altitude test
chamber.
Memo, Mueller to Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--August 16, 1968."
17
ASPO Manager George M. Low wrote Program Director Samuel C. Phillips
seeking to halt further development of a pogo sensor for the CSM. (MSC had
undertaken development of the device shortly after the Apollo 6 flight as
"insurance" should the sensor prove necessary.) No requirement for a pogo
sensor had been identified, said Low. In fact, it was by no means certain how
the sensor could be used in flight. Because MSFC was highly confident that
the pogo problem encountered on Apollo 6 had been solved, and because no
abort criteria could be based on pogo alone, Low argued against the sensor.
Even in the unlikely event that pogo occurred on the next Saturn V flight, he
argued against an abort unless there was a catastrophic effect on the launch
vehicle, in which case abort would be effected using normal abort criteria.
For these reasons, no pogo sensor was to be installed on the CSM. A week
later, Phillips approved Low's recommendation to halt the pogo sensor de-
velopment.
Ltrs.. Low to Phillips, Aug. 17, 1968; Phillips to Low, Aug. 24, 1968.
19
In a Mission Preparation Directive sent to the three manned space flight
Centers, NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips stated that the
following changes would be effected in planning and preparation for
Apollo flights"
Apollo-Saturn 503
• Assignment of Saturn V 503, CSM 103, and LM-3 to Mission D was

canceled.
242
1968
• Saturn V 503 would be prepared to carry CSM 103 and LTA (LM test
article)-B on a manned CSM-only mission to be designated the C prime mis- August
sion.
• The objectives and profile of the C prime mission would be devel-
oped to provide maximum gain consistent with standing flight safety
requirements. Studies would be carried out and plans prepared so as to
provide reasonable flexibility in establishing final mission objectives.
• All planning and preparations for the C prime mission would
proceed toward launch readiness on December 6, 1968.
Apollo-Saturn 504
Saturn V 504, CSM 104, and LM-3 were assigned to the D mission,
scheduled for launch readiness no earlier than February 20, 1969. The crew
assigned to the D mission would remain assigned to that mission. The crew
assigned to the E mission (Frank Borman, James A. Lovell, Jr., and William
Anders) would be reassigned to the C prime mission. Training and
equipping the C prime crews and operational preparations would proceed
as required to meet mission requirements and to meet the newly established
flight readiness date.
A memorandum from the ASPO Manager on September 3 summarized the

basic and alternate missions for which detailed planning and preparation
would be performed. In the basic earth-orbital C prime mission the vehicle
configuration would consist of the Saturn V 503 with a payload of 39 780
kilograms (CSM 103 and LTA-B with the service propulsion subsystem
fully loaded). Insertion would be into low circular orbit of the earth. The
earth-parking-orbit activities would include crew and ground support
exercises related to spacecraft system checkout and preparation for
translunar injection (TLI; i.e., transfer into a trajectory toward the moon).
CSM separation maneuver would occur before TLI.
Alternate earth-orbital missions would include a manned TLI burn to a

6440-km apogee or an SPS burn to achieve a 6440-km apogee. An alternate
lunar orbit mission would include mission planning, crew training,
spacecraft hardware, and software to support the mission. In providing
support, top priority would be assigned to the lunar orbit mission. The
memo indicated that following TLI, simulated transposition and docking
maneuvers would be conducted; midcourse corrections and star horizon/
star landmark sightings would be performed during the translunar coast;
lunar orbit insertion would be accomplished and a lunar parking orbit es-
tablished for 20 hours.
On September 13, MSC Director of Flight Operations Christopher C. Kraft

affirmed that the impact of supporting the described mission plan had been
assessed and no constraints were seen to prevent meeting the launch
readiness date. He added that the lunar parking orbit would be established
243
during the course of two elliptic orbits and would be of 16 hours duration,
August thus giving a total lunar vicinity time of 20 hours.
Ltr., Phillips to Directors, KSC, MSFC, and MSC, "Al×fllo Mission Preparation Directive,"
Aug. 19, 1968; memos, Manager, ASP(), to distr., "C Prime Mission," Sept. 3, 1968; MSC
Director of Flight Operations to Manager, ASP(), "C Prime Mission," Sept. 13, 1968.
ASPO Manager George M. Low asked Joseph N. Kotanchik, head of the

Structures and Mechanics Division, to verify that all spacecraft load analyses
and safety factors were compatible with the recently-agreed-on payload
weight of 39 780 kilograms for the AS-503 mission. Low passed along the
concern voiced by Lee B. James, Saturn V Program Manager at MSFC, that
the problem of an S-IC engine failure in the Saturn launch vehicle might be
more severe for the 503 mission than for a heavier payload. Had adequate
stress analysis been done on the high-gain antenna attachments and its
support inside the adapter? When would pogo dynamic analysis of the
actual 503 payload be completed? And finally, what was the situation
regarding loads on LTA-B, the LM test article to be substituted in place of
an actual lunar lander aboard the flight?
Memo, Low to Kotanchik, "AS-503 Loads," Aug. 26. 1968.
27
George M. Low, ASPO Manager, set forth the rationale for using LTA-B (as
opposed to some other LM test article or even a full-blown LM) as payload
ballast on the AS-503 mission. That decision had been a joint one by Head-
quarters, MSFC, and MSC. Perhaps the chief reason for the decision was
Marshall's position that the Saturn V's control system was extremely
sensitive to payload weight. Numerous tests had been made for payloads of
around 38 555 kilograms but none for those in the 29 435- to 31 750-kilogram
range. MSFC had therefore asked that the minimum payload for AS-503 be
set at 38 555 kilograms. Because LTA-B brought the total payload weight to
39 780 kilograms, that vehicle had been selected for the Apollo 8 mission.
All dynamic analyses in connection with the pogo problem had to be
verified, but MSFC engineers were not concerned that the established weight
would affect pogo performance. Because NASA had been prepared to fly AS-
503 with a heavier payload--i.e., originally including LM-3--Low saw "no
reason to be concerned about the decision made to fly the somewhat lighter
and more symmetrical LTA-B."
Memo, Low tn Joseph N. Kotanchik, MSC, "[rse of LTA-B for AS-503," Aug. 27, 1968.
28
NASA asked Grumman to make a detailed study of LM-4 to determine any
constraints that might prevent accomplishment of a lunar orbit mission. All
such constraints were to be defined in sufficient detail to facilitate a NASA
review, and NASA expected Grumman-recommended action in each case.
The information was requested before the LM-4 Customer Acceptance
Readiness Review. Grumman was further asked to study LM-5 to determine
244
constraints that might prevent accomplishment of the lunar landing mis-

sion. Again, all constraints were to include recommended action. August
Ltr., Frank X. Bauersby, RASPO, to Joseph Gavin, LM Program Directol, Grumman, Aug. 28,
1968.
3O
Eberhard Rees, Director of the Apollo Special Task Team at North
American Rockwell, notified the contractor that facilities the team had used
at Downey, Calif., were relinquished to the company. Thus ended the mis-
sion of the group formed some nine months earlier to oversee the
contractor's preparations during the period of adjustment following the
Apollo 1 accident.
Ltr., Rees to C. F. Wetter, Aug. 30, 1968.
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips notified the three manned September
space flight Centers that the Apollo 8 launch readiness working-schedule 3
date had been changed to December 13, 1968.
TWX, Phillips to MSC, KS(;, MSFC, "Apollo 8 (AS-503) Launch Readiness Working Sched-
ule," Sept. 3, 1968.
In response to a letter from Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips

concerning proposed revisions of the first lunar landing mission plan, MSC
Director Robert R. Gilruth presented MSC's position on the three major
topics: ( 1) deletion of the lunar geology investigation (LGI) and the Apollo
Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP), (2) television coverage, and
(3) extravehicular excursion.
Concerning the first item, Gilruth said, "Our lunar surface exploration and
scientific activities should be pro_essive as we extend our knowledge and
obtain, a better understanding of operational limitations and capabilities in
a '/6 g environment .... By embarking on too ambitious an effort on our
first mission, we may well jeopardize our capability to accomplish
manned.., activities on subsequent flights .... " It was "recommended
that the LGI (with the exception of the contingency sample and preliminary
sample portion) and the ALSEP be deleted from the first lunar landing mis-
sion."
With reference to television coverage, Gilruth cited Houston's position that

"it would be extremely desirable to provide adequate television coverage
during the extravehicular excursion. Coverage can be obtained through the
LM steerable antenna and the Goldstone 210-foot [64-meter] antenna while
in view of Goldstone." MSC proposed to provide "the capability to transmit
the television signal directly through the high gain antenna; but we would
also like to maintain the capability to carry the erectable antenna, in the
event that it will not be feasible to adjust the timeline to provide Goldstone
coverage for all planned extravehicular activities .... "
245
On the subject of extravehicular excursion, he said,".., we strongly believe

that, on the first lunar landing mission, only a single extravehicular activity
should be carried out. You have stated that the simplest and safest excursion
should be conducted by one man alone. However, it is clear that we have to
maintain the basic capability for a two-man excursion so that the second
man can assist the first in the event of trouble or difficulties. Also, further
studies and simulations in this area might identify new reasons why a
planned two-man excursion is more desirable than a one-man excur-
sion .... "
Gilruth said that MSC officials Charles A. Berry, Maxime A. Faget,

Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., George M. Low, and Donald K. Slayton were in
full accord with all of these recommendations. He added, however, that
Wilmot N. Hess felt that "these changes represent a serious compromise to
the scientific program." Hess felt that the EVA period should be open ended
and that it would be worthwhile to carry ALSEP and attempt its
deployment. Hess also recommended that if a decision were made not to
carry ALSEP, some easily deployed contingency experiments might be
added, such as: Solar Wind Composition experiment, High-Z Cosmic Ray
experiment, and a simplified Corner Reflector for Laser Ranging experi-
ment.
Gilruth said that he himself believed, "that it is essential that EVA on the
first lunar landing mission be limited to a single excursion and that ALSEP
and LGI be eliminated as experiments from that flight .... I believe that the
maximum scientific gains on this and future missions will be achieved if we
limit our objectives as proposed .... I am sure that all will agree that if we
successfully land on the moon and return to earth, bring back samples of
lunar soil, transmit television directly from the moon, and return with
detailed photographic coverage, our achievement will have been tremen-
dous by both scientific and technological standards."
Ltr., Gilruth to Phillips, "Proposed revisions to the first lunar landing mission plan," Sept. 6,
1968.
10 ASPO Manager George M. Low advised Headquarters of the status of MSC's

work on action items assigned as a result of the Apollo Crew Safety Review
Board presentation on June 17. Among those items were:
1. Switching procedures for the emergency detection system--the crew

would manually disable the automatic abort device at 1 minute 40 seconds
after liftoff.
2. High-altitude abort procedures--these procedures were being
reevaluated by the CSM 101 crew on the spacecraft simulator; following
completion (scheduled for September 23), a decision would be made
whether to retain the procedure for optional tower jettison.
3. Rescue of an incapacitated crew--emergency access procedures were
being demonstrated at Downey using CSM 008. Any procedural revisions
required would be made accordingly.
246
Completion of these actions, said Low, fulfilled the recommendations of the 1968
Crew Safety Review Board. September
Ltr., Low to Samuel C. Phillips, "Actions from Apollo Crew Safety Review Board and
Presentation," Sept. 10, 1968.
10-11
The Apollo Crew Safety Review Board, headed by William C. Schneider,
met for the third time at MSFC, a meeting devoted primarily to safety factors
for the Saturn V launch vehicle. Of particular concern was the capability to
shut down the vehicle during the period between ignition and liftoff should
some problem arise (it could be shut down by several methods, including
both manual and automatic engine shutdown). The Board also reviewed in
detail Saturn V modifications that had eliminated more than 50 engine and
electrical circuitry potential single-point failures (primarily through
increased redundancy and circuitry checkout). Similarly the Board
examined the reliability of guidance failure indicators and checkout of the
emergency detection system during the final portion of the countdown. No
additional action was needed, members concluded, because all functions in
the launch vehicle were checked during the terminal count and tank pres-
sure gauges were checked out by disconnecting the transducers and testing
them individually several days before launch.
At the end of the meeting, Board members attended the POGO Manage-
ment Review, where they were favorably impressed by the optimism among
Saturn V program officials that the pogo problem had been solved (although
contingency planning for a pogo occurrence should continue through
AS-503).
Ltr., Schneider to distr., "Minutes of Third Meeting on September 10-11, 1968, at Marshall
Space Flight Center," Sept. 16, 1968.
11
At a meeting of the MSF Management Council, Apollo Program Director
Samuel C. Phillips put forth a number of recommendations regarding plan-
ning for extravehicular and scientific activities during the first lunar landing
missions:
• During the first mission, extravehicular activities (EVA) should be

limited to three hours, with the spacecraft manned by one of the two
crewmen at all times.
• The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package should be deleted
from the earliest missions (although the present preliminary sample must
be improved scientifically).
• Television must be carried aboard the LM, for benefits both for
operational and public information.
• To realize the maximum scientific return on the second and
subsequent flights, MSC must, during the first landing mission, assess the
astronauts' capabilities to conduct lunar surface activities. Also, MSC
247
should study and recommend changes in LM hardware that would lengthen

EVA time available for scientific investigations during future Apollo mis-
sions.
The Management Council approved Phillips' recommendations and

carried them to Administrator James E. Webb for final approval. In
pACE RADIATOR PANiL
A cutaway view of the Block II CSM configuration and launch escape system shows
some of the components.
248
Houston, ASPO Manager George M. Low ordered his organization to begin

planning for the first landing mission in accordance with these recommen-
dations.
Memo, Low to O. E. Maynard, "G Mission Planning," Sept. 13, 1968.
12
Dale D. Myers, North American Rockwell's Apollo CSM Program Manag-
er, wrote George M. Low: "With the recent shipment of CSM 101 to KSC
and preparations for the first manned Apollo flight, attention is centered on
the various aspects of crew safety. In this regard, I recently instructed our sys-
tem safety people to review the action items that resulted from the S/C 012
fire [January 27, 1967], identify those with safety content or implications,
determine what corrective action had been accomplished, and assess the
adequacy of the closeout actions." Myers went on to say that out of a total of
137 North American action items, 70 were related to safety; and combining
similar and identical items resulted in identification of 41 specific safety-
oriented action items. An exhaustive study by safety personnel had indicated
that all items had been closed out and that corrective actions were adequate.
Ltr., Myers to Low, ASPO, MSC, Sept. 12, 1968.
16
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips formally notified ASPO Man-
ager George M. Low at MSC and Saturn V Program Manager Lee B. James
at MSFC of changes in the Apollo Program Specification. As agreed on
during the MSF Management Council meeting on August 6, the Apollo
payload interface was set at 46 040 kilograms (with a flight geometry reserve
of 137 kilometers per hour). Also, the present spacecraft loading philosophy
allowed a total spacecraft weight of 46266 kilograms for lunar missions
having less than maximum flight geometry requirements. Phillips repeated
his earlier statement that he was prepared to relax some flight constraints to
achieve the best possible balance on each space vehicle. (Although with
recent changes in Saturn V loading, residuals, and J-2 engine thrust,
apparently few if any of these constraints would have to be relaxed.)
Ltr., Phillips to James and Low, "Apollo Program Specification Changes," Sept. 16, 1968.
17
Ernest B. Nathan, MSFC Cochairman of the Saturn-Apollo Flight
Evaluation Panel, sent to MSC Marshall's requirements for the flight crew
debriefing for the AS-205 mission. Generally, these requirements called for
the crew's visual and sensory evaluation of the launch vehicle's perform-
ance and behavior.
Ltr., Nathan to Helmut A. Kuehnel, MSC, Sept. 17, 1968, with encl., "MSFC Flight Crew
Debriefing Requirements, AS-205/SC-101 Mission."
18
Dale D. Myers, Apollo CSM Program Manager at North American
Rockwell, wrote to CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht at MSC to
apprise him of the company's response to an earlier review of the CSM sub-
systems development program. During February a small task team from
MSFC, headed by William A. Mrazek, had surveyed the design, manu-
249
facture, and checkout of several of the spacecraft's subsystems. Findings of

the team had been reviewed with Eberhard F. M. Rees, then at Downey as
head of the Apollo Special Task Team. Myers sent Kleinknecht briefing
notes of a presentation to Rees and others of the special team describing
North American's responses to specific issues raised by Mrazek's group.
These issues, Myers reported, had been resolved to the satisfaction of both
contractor and customer.
Ltr., Myers to Kleinknecht, Sept. 18, 1968.
18
ASPO officials headed by Manager George M. Low met with spacecraft man-
agers from North American Rockwell and Grumman to discuss configura-
tion management for the remainder of the Apollo program and to set forth
clear ground rules regarding kinds of changes (described as Class I and Class
II) and the requisite level of authority for such changes. The outcome of this
meeting, as Low told Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, was that
MSC would pass judgment on all Class I changes and that "nearly every
change [would] fall in this category." Minor design changes might still be
approved at the contractor or subcontractor levels, said Low, but MSC
would judge whether those changes were indeed Class II changes. The
overall result of this policy, he told Phillips, would be a better awareness by
NASA of all changes made by spacecraft subcontractors and a firm
understanding that only NASA could approve Class I design modifications.
Ltr., Low to Phillips, Sept. 19, 1968.
23
The Apollo Guidance Software Task Force, which NASA Associate Ad-
ministrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller had convened in
December 1967, submitted its final report. Purpose of the task force, as
Mueller had stated at the time, was to determine whether "additional
actions.., could be taken to improve the software development and
verification process and control of it." Between December and July 1968, the
group met 14 times at NASA and contractor locations-to review the
historical evolution of software programs within the Apollo project.
Because of the great complexity of this entire field, the task force members
recommended that it continue to receive attention by top management
levels at both MSC and MSFC. And drawing upon experience learned in the
Apollo program, the task force recommended that software not be slighted
during any advanced manned programs and that adequate resources and ex-
perienced personnel be assigned early in the program to this vital and easily
underestimated area.
Ltr., Mueller to Harold T. Luskin, Apollo Applications Program Director, NASA, Sept. 23,
1968, with end., "Final Report: Apollo Guidance Software Task Force," Sept. 23, 1968.
24
Samuel C. Phillips announced membership of the OMSF Apollo Site
Selection Board, which was to meet September 26: Phillips, chairman; Lee
R. Scherer, OMSF, secretary; John D. Stevenson and Harold D. Luskin,
both of OMSF; Oran W. Nicks, NASA Hq., John D. Hodge, Owen E.
250
1968
Maynard, and Wilmot N. Hess, all of MSC; Ernst Stuhlinger, MSFC: and
Roderick O. Middleton, KSC. J. H. Turnock and Charles W. Mathews had September
been deleted from the previous membership list and Hodge, Luskin, and
Scherer added.
Memo, Apollo Program Director to distr., "Membership of the OMSF Apollo Site Selection
Board," Sept. 24, 1968.
24
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips wrote to his two principal
counterparts at MSFC and MSC, Lee B. James and George M. Low, to
express his concern that the launch-release wind constraint for the Saturn
IB, currently 45 kilometers, was perhaps the most restrictive of all such
constraints. Phillips emphasized his need for a complete understanding of
all tradeoffs associated with this figure, to allow a real-time estimate of the
requirement to hold. He asked James and Low to summarize for him several
such tradeoffs before the Apollo 7 flight readiness review : wind versus safety,
velocity versus direction, and conservative assumption versus technical
accuracy. Also, he asked for criticality and failure mode for each of the above
tradeoffs to allow a technical evaluation of increasing the 45-kilometer
constraint. At the same time, he asked that a similar effort be initiated for the
Saturn V.
TWX, Phillips to Low and James, "Apollo Saturn Release Wind Constraints," Sept. 24, 1968.
25
NASA Resident ASPO Manager Wilbur H. Gray at Downey told Dale D.
Myers, North American Rockwell CSM Manager, that NR quality coverage
of spacecraft testing no longer provided NASA with confidence in test results
and that NASA Quality Control would return to monitoring test activities
in and from the ACE (acceptance checkout equipment) control room. Gray
charged that North American had progressively backed away from
contractually agreed steps of the November 30, 1967, Quality Program Plan,
and that these actions had affected test readiness, testing, and trouble
shooting to the point that test acceptance could not be accepted with any
reasonable assurance. Gray said that--unless North American responded by
immediate reinstatement of the procedures which, as a minimum, were
those that worked satisfactorily on CSMs 103 and 104--NASA formal
acceptance of operational checkout procedures would be discontinued and
contractual action initiated. An annotation to George Low from Kenneth S.
Kleinknecht, MSC's CSM Manager, indicated the letter had been written
with the concurrence and at the suggestion of Kleinknecht.
Myers replied: "I regret that NASA feels any lack of confidence in current
test results .... For the past year, there has been a constant improvement
program carried out in Test Quality Assurance to (1) perform quality
evaluation and acceptance of test results in real time and (2) upgrade the test
discipline to be consistent with good quality practice. I believe that this
improvement program has been effective and is evidenced by the current
efficiency of test and expedient manner in which test paper work is being
closed out. While there is naturally some cost benefit experienced from the
251
successful improvements, cost never has been placed as a criteria above

quality ....
"Again, I want to emphasize that the CSM Program has not nor will not
intentionally place cost ahead of quality .... The procedures which worked
satisfactorily on CSM 103 and 104 are being improved to provide better test
discipline and more effective Quality Assurance coverage. Test progress on
CSM 106 to date indicates a greater test effectiveness and a greater confidence
in test results than any previous CSM's."
Ltr., Gray to Myers, Sept. 25, 1968; annotation, Kleinknecht to Low, Sept. 26, 1968; hr., Myers
to Gray, Oct. 17, 1968.
The LM ascent engine to be flown in LM-3 and subsequent missions would

incorporate the Rocketdyne injector, Apollo Program Director Phillips
informed ASPO Manager Low. The engine would be assembled and
delivered by Rocketdyne under subcontract to Grumman. MSC was
authorized to inform those concerned of these decisions but would not issue
contractual direction until an agreed course of contractual action had been
approved by NASA Hq. Two days later, on September 27, Phillips advised
Low that MSC was authorized to take all proper contract actions to
implement the decision to contract with Grumman for ascent-stage engines
assembled by Rocketdyne with the latter's injector.
TWXs, NASA Headquarters to MSC, Atm: George Low, "LM Ascent Engine Program
Decision," Sept. 25, 1968; and "LM Ascent Engine Program," Sept. 27, 1968.
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth sent Eberhard F. M. Rees, MSFC Deputy

Director, his "personal commendation" and appreciation for Rees's
leadership of the Apollo Special Task Team and its efforts to bring the CSM
program out of the difficult period early in 1967. The work of Rees and his
group, said Gilruth, had made an outstanding contribution to the Apollo
program and had given NASA management "a significantly higher level of
technical confidence" that the Block II spacecraft could safely perform its
mission. In addition, Gilruth noted, Rees's "diplomacy in interfacing with
North American management also created a much better NASA-contractor
relationship and mutual understanding of program technical require-
ments."
Ltr., Giiruth to Rees, Sept. 26, 1968.
Week
The Allison descent-stage propellant tank, being redesigned at Airite
Ending
September Division of Sargent Industries to a "lidless" configuration, blew up during
27 qualification test at Airite. The crew noticed loss of pressure and therefore
tightened fittings and repressurized. As the pressure went up, the tank blew
into several pieces. Grumman dispatched a team to Airite to determine the
cause and the necessary corrective action.
Memo, Frank X. Battersby, RASPO, Bethpage, to Chief, Apollo Procurement Br., Procurement
and Contracts Div., MSC, "Weekly Activities Report, BMR, Bethpage, Week Ending Septem-
ber 27," Oct. 3, 1968.
252
Results of a joint MSFC-MSC review of functional interfaces between the

launch vehicle and spacecraft for Apollo 7 were forwarded to NASA Hq. September
(The review had originally been requested by the Apollo 7 Crew Safety 28
Review Board, headed by John D. Hodge.) The two Centers had tackled the
task by identifying all electrical wiring between payload and booster, the
requirement for each wire, a verification that the circuits indeed satisfied
requirements, and an evaluation of the adequacy of test and checkout
procedures. Several months of investigation, reported Teir and Low, had
uncovered no areas of concern. Definition and function of the CSM
instrument unit were both accurate and valid and ensured flight readiness.
Ltr., Saturn IB Manager William Teir, MSFC, and ASPO Manager George M. Low, MSC, to
Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., "Apollo 7 Launch Vehicle to Spacecraft Functional Interface
Review," Sept. 28, 1968, with encl., "AS-205 Launch Vehicle/Spacecraft (LV/SC) Electrical
Interlace Review."
3O
summarized for his superiors launch preparation for the near-term missions
Apollo 7 and Apollo 8:
• Apollo 7--Space vehicle testing was on schedule (despite a delay in

start of the flight readiness test caused by a liquid hydrogen leak due to a
faulty pneumatic valve). The flight readiness test began on September 25
and went smoothly through T minus 0 two days later. Countdown for
launch would begin as scheduled on October 6, leading to launch readiness
on October 11.
• Apollo 8--Both launch vehicle (503) and spacecraft (103) were several
days behind schedule. CSM 103 was tested in the altitude chamber while
manned by the prime and backup crews on September 20 and 22. The
spacecraft was undergoing several modifications and equipment installa-
tions (including the high-gain antenna, which was delivered to KSC on
September 23); KSC and contractor technicians also were making leak and
functional checks on the S-II stage and subsystem checks on the S-IVB
stage of the launch vehicle. Rollout of the space vehicle from the assembly
building to the pad was planned for October 10.
Memo, Mueller to Administrator and Deputy Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly
Report--September 30, 1968/' Sept. 30, 1968.
30
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips asked ASPO Manager George
M. Low to investigate the feasibility of using data from the D and G
missions to increase NASA's knowledge of and confidence in the
operational capabilities of the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU). Phillips
included in his request specific recommendations for additional instrumen-
tation to obtain the necessary data. His action stemmed from a general
concern about the extent and complexity of surface operations on the first
lunar landing flight (which might substantially reduce chances for
successful completion). For this reason, he and other program officials had
stringently limited the number of objectives and the extent of those surface
activities. But to plan confidently for surface EVA during follow-on Apollo
253
lm
landing missions, Phillips said, as much information as possible had to be
September gathered about the operational capability of the crew and the EMU.
Ltr., Phillips to Low, "Data for an EVA Capability Assessment," Sept. 30, 1968.
October
The Apollo Crew Safety Review Board held its fourth meeting at MSC.
1-2 Discussions centered chiefly on Saturn V engine-out abort situations and the
ability of the CSM to withstand structural loads imposed by such vehicle
failures. In fact, however, it was unlikely that any problem would be
experienced, because of a controlled S-IC engine shutdown. Loads because
of catastrophic engine failure greatly exceeded spacecraft capability, but the
Board ruled such an occurrence as remote and accepted it as a flight risk.
Also, evaluation of testing results demonstrated that overall loads because of
pogo vibration were not a problem. Board Chairman William C. Schneider
reported that, in general, action items assigned to MSC as a result of the
Apollo 7 review had been satisfactorily closed.
Ltr., Schneider to distr., "Minutes of Fourth Meeting on October 1-2, 1968, at the Manned
Spacecraft Center," Oct. 11, 1968.
George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space

Flight, wrote MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth to reemphasize the
operational philosophy for the Apollo 7 mission. That flight, Mueller said,
was the first in the manned program--including Mercury and Gemini
programs--to employ fully the "open ended" mission concept. Rather than
the Gemini process, in which a series of missions verified the spacecraft
design for 3, 6, and ultimately 14 days, with Apollo 7 the first flight was to
verify the CSM, evaluating the vehicle via telemetry through each successive
mission step. Also, to ensure maximum return from the mission, primary
and secondary objectives would be completed as early in the flight as
possible (approximately two-thirds of those objectives to be completed by
the end of the first day and more than 90 percent by end of the second day).
Mueller emphasized the importance of the agency's emphasizing this open-
ended mission concept during public announcements of Apollo 7's flight
plan and objectives.
Ltr., Mueller to Gilruth, Oct. 2, 1968.
Senior management from NASA Hq. and the three manned Centers
conducted the Apollo 7 flight readiness review at KSC. Crew, space vehicle,
and all supporting elements were ready for flight. Countdown-to-launch
sequence had started on October 6, and flight preparations were on schedule
for launch readiness at 11:00 a.m. EDT on October 11.
OMSF, NASA Hq., to NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator, "Manned Space Flight
Weekly Report--October 7, 1968," Oct. 7, 1968.
MSC spacecraft and mission planning experts met to discuss mission

techniques for the D mission, specifically the rendezvous exercise. Because of
the slow progress in reviewing a draft of the D Rendezvous Mission
254
1968
Techniques document, Apollo Data Priority Coordinator Howard W.
Tindall reported that the Center's effort in this area needed to be October
strengthened. Participants did identify exactly what spacecraft equipment

had to be working at the start of each segment of the rendezvous exercise. A
general principle was that the CSM must at all times be prepared to rescue
the LM. Participants therefore insisted on having a redundant capability in
the CSM for all crucial operations. This rescue capability by the CSM
provided an adequate backup for each possible LM system failure except
braking. This general philosophy, stated Tindall, "seemed to provide the
best tradeoff between crew safety and assurance of meeting mission
objectives."
Memo, Tindall to distr., "D Rendezvous Mission Techniques," Oct. 10, 1968.
In preparation for the flight of Apollo 8, NASA and industry technicians at

KSC placed CSM 103 atop the Saturn V launch vehicle. The launch escape
system was installed the following day; and on October 9 the complete AS-
503 space vehicle was rolled out of the Vehicle Assembly Building and
moved to the launch pad, where launch preparations were resumed.
Memo, George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Flight, to Acting NASA
Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--October 14, 1968/' Oct. 14, 1968.
NASA officials watch the rollout of the

AS-503 space vehicle at Kennedy
Space Center October 9, 1968. In
December the vehicle would launch
Apollo 8 on the first manned mission
to orbit the moon. Left to right are
George E. Mueller, NASA Associate
Administrator for Manned Space
Flight; MSC Director for Flight
Operations Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.;
and Charles J. Donlan and Charles
W. Mathews, both deputies to
Mueller.
19M Ralph H. Tripp, LM Program Manager at Grumman, forwarded his

october company's plan for control of configuration changes on the LM. The need
7 for such a formal statement had been discussed at a meeting in Bethpage on
September 25 between ASPO Manager George M. Low; his deputy for the
LM, C. H. Bolender; other Apollo engineers from Houston; and Tripp, LM
Program Director Joseph G. Gavin, Jr., and others from Grumman.
Grumman's ground rules set forth explicit guidelines governing change
approval levels, specifically those changes which the contractor might make
without obtaining prior specific approval from NASA (defined as
"compatibility changes" that did not have significant cost, weight,
performance, schedule, or safety effects)--although Grumman must
continue to inform MSC of these changes as they occurred.
Ltr., Tripp to Low, "Configuration Change Control, LM Program," Oct. 7, 1968, with encl.,
"configuration Change Control--Ground Rules," Oct. 7, 1968.
In compliance with Apollo Program Directive 29 of July 6, 1967, ASPO

Manager George M. Low informed Apollo Program Director Samuel C.
Phillips that "the private umbilical connection between the astro-
communicator and the astronauts, the private administrative telephone
connection via the umbilical cable to the astronauts, and the private
aeromed communications in the MSOB [Manned Spacecraft Operations
Building] will be recorded during all hazardous spacecraft tests. The
recording will be placed in the hands of the Director of Flight Crew
Operations, who will keep this recording for a period of 30 days following
mission completion. After that time the recording may be destroyed."
Ltr., Low to Phillips, Oct. 7, 1968; TWX, Phillips to Low, "Recording of Voice
Communications at KSC," Sept. 30, 1968.
Members of the MSF Management Council considered scientific experi-

ments and surface extravehicular activites (EVA) for the first Apollo lunar
landing mission. They decided to go ahead with development of three
proposed experiments, the passive seismometer, laser reflector, and solar
wind collector. They made no commitment to fly any of the three, however,
pending development schedules and a clear understanding of timelines
required for their deployment during the EVA portion of the mission. Other
issues examined by the Council still were unresolved: one versus two-man
EVA, use of television, and timeline allocations for EVA trials and
development by the crew. During the discussions, ASPO Manager George
M. Low recommended attempting television transmission via the Gold-
stone antenna (although the operational procedures would further burden
an already heavily constrained mission). The erectable antenna would also
be carried and used if the landing site and EVA period precluded sight of the
Goldstone antenna. Charles W. Mathews and others from Washington
voiced concern that the EVA timeline did not allow sufficient time [or
learning about EVA per se in the one-sixth-gravity environment of the
moon. The astronaut must perform some special tasks, but must also have
some time for personal movements and evaluation of EVA capabilities in
256
order to build confidence toward a fairly complex EVA exercise during the
second landing mission. Low asked his chief system engineering assistant,
Owen E. Maynard, to incorporate these operational decisions into the
Apollo mission planning and to define mounting of the television camera
and its early use in the mission.
Memo, Low to Maynard, "First G mission science package," Oct. 9, 1968.
NASA Apollo Mission Director William C. Schneider reported completion

of all action items pertinent to Apollo 7 assigned by Apollo Program
Director Samuel C. Phillips as a result of recommendations by the Apollo
Crew Safety Review Board on May 27, 1968. These actions had included
qualification of critical subsystems; a review of the AS-205 launch vehicle
test history; a review of Saturn IB 205 and CSM 101 functional interfaces; a
manned test readiness review, which was completed at KSC on August 28;
and issuance of an Emergency Actions Summary Document containing
emergency and contingency situations and appropriate procedures for pad
operations, which had won approval on September 27.
Memo, Schneider to Flight Readiness Review Secretariat for Apollo, "Crew Safety Review
Board Action," Oct. 9, 1968.
10
Because of the continuing problem of hardware changes, Apollo Program
Director Samuel C. Phillips revised policies and procedures for control of
changes for AS-503 and subsequent missions. Level II Configuration
Control Boards, said Phillips, would have authority to implement several
categories of engineering changes: mandatory changes to ensure crew safety
or mission success, changes that would substantially reduce workload or
checkout time at KSC, and changes to improve the probability of launch and
to reduce the possibility of launch delays or scrubs, based on engineering
analysis and failure history. Phillips admitted that other essential changes
might be needed that did not fulfill these criteria, but such "down-the-line"
changes must be held to an absolute minimum, he told ASPO Manager
George M. Low. All changes that affected deliveries or launch schedules, on
the other hand, must still be submitted to the Level I CCB for approval
before implementation. These revised procedures, Phillips believed, would
produce the control of changes needed to ensure an operationally suitable
Apollo space vehicle, yet allow the secondary-level CCB to exercise "tough
and critical judgment" of the change decision process, to allow needed
flexibility within the overall program.
Ltr., Phillips to Low, "Change Policies and Procedures," Oct. 10, 1968.
11-22
Apollo 7 (AS-205), the first manned Apollo flight, lifted off from Launch
Complex 34 at Cape Kennedy Oct. 11, carrying Walter M. Schirra, Jr., Donn
F. Eisele, and R. Walter Cunningham. The countdown had proceeded
smoothly, with only a slight delay because of additional time required to
chill the hydrogen system in the S-IVB stage of the Saturn launch vehicle.
Liftoff came at 11:03 a.m. EDT. Shortly after insertion into orbit, the S-IVB
257
1N8 stage separated from the CSM, and Schirra and his crew performed a
October simulated docking with the S-IVB stage, maneuvering to within 1.2 meters
of the rocket. Although spacecraft separation was normal, the crew reported
that one adapter panel had not fully deployed. Two burns using the reaction
control system separated the spacecraft and launch stage and set the stage for
an orbital rendezvous maneuver, which the crew made on the second day of
the flight, using the service propulsion engine.
Crew and spacecraft performed well throughout the mission. During eight
burns of the service propulsion system during the flight, the engine
functioned normally. October 14, third day of the mission, witnessed the
first live television broadcast from a manned American spacecraft. The SPS
engine was used to deorbit after 259 hours 39 minutes of flight. CM-SM
separation and operation of the earth landing system were normal, and the
Apollo 7 commander Walter M.

Schirra, Jr., waves from the U.S.S.
Essex and crewmates Donn F. Eisele
(center) and R. Walter Cunningham
grin after splashdown and recovery
October 22, 1968. Later the astro-
nauts examine their spacecraft, also
aboard the Essex.
Hurricane Gladys, about 240 kilome-
ters southwest of Tampa, Florida,
was photographed by Apollo 7 [rom
an altitude o[ 180 kilometers, during
the spacecraft's 91st revolution
around the earth.
spacecraft splashed down about 13 kilometers from the recovery ship, the 1968
U.S.S. Essex, at 7:11 a.m. EDT October 22. Although the vehicle initially October
settled in an apex-down ("stable 2") attitude, upright bags functioned

normally and returned the CSM to an upright position in the water. Schirra,
Eisele, and Cunningham were quickly picked up by a recovery helicopter
and were safe aboard the recovery vessel less than an hour after splashdown.
All primary Apollo 7 mission objectives were met, as well as every detailed
test objective (and three test objectives not originally planned). Engineering
firsts from Apollo 7, aside from live television from space, included drinking
water for the crew produced as a by-product of the fuel cells. Piloting and
navigation accomplishments included an optical rendezvous, daylight
platform realignment, and orbital determination via sextant tracking of
another vehicle. All spacecraft systems performed satisfactorily. Minor
anomalies were countered by backup systems or changes in procedures.
With successful completion of the Apollo 7 mission, which proved out the
design of the Block II CSM (CSM 101), NASA and the nation had taken the
first step on the pathway to the moon.
TWX, William C. Schneider to distr., "Apollo 7 Mission, Mission Director's 24-Hour Report,"
Oct. 22, 1968; memos, George E. Mueller to Acting Administrator, "Manned Space Flight
Weekly Report--October 14, 1968," Oct. 14, 1968, and "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--
October 21, 1968," Oct. 21, 1968.
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips ordered that the Saturn IB 16

program be placed in a standby status pending any future requirements for
Apollo or the Apollo Applications program. Phillips' action signaled the
shift in Apollo to the Saturn V vehicle, effective with AS-503.
TWX, Phillips to distr., "Saturn IB Program Planning," Oct. 16, 1968.
259
Dale D. Myers, Apollo CSM Manager at North American Rockwell, wrote

October ASPO Manager George Low on the policy question of contractor and
17
subcontractor support of the current Apollo flight program and potential
follow-on activities. Support for such activities, Myers said, "can be
seriously jeopardized if we permit . . . experienced, specialized personnel
and unique facilities to become irretrievably lost to the program." He
emphasized in particular the case of Aeronca, Inc., of Middletown, Ohio,
manufacturer of stainless steel honeycomb panels that formed the structure
of the CSM heatshield. Without some sort of sustaining activity,
manufacturing skills and capabilities at Aeronca--and numerous other
subcontractors and vendors--would rapidly wither. Myers earnestly
solicited Low's views on the subject of subcontractor capability retention. In
Low's response, he indicated that immediate action was being initiated to
establish capability retention for the three most critical sources, Aeronca,
Beech, and Pratt and Whitney, and a plan of action was being prepared for
others.
Ltrs., Myers to Low, Oct. 17, 1968; Low to Myers, Nov. 15, 1968.
17 Two NASA investigation boards had reported that loss of attitude control
caused the May 6 accident that destroyed lunar landing research vehicle No.
1, NASA announced (see May 6 and May 16). Helium in propellant tanks
had been depleted earlier than normal, dropping pressure needed to force
hydrogen peroxide propellant to the attitude-control lift rockets and
thrusters. Warning to the pilot was too late for him to take necessary action
for landing. The boards called for improvements in LLRV and LLTV
design and operating practices and more stringent control over flying
programs. No bad effects on the Apollo lunar landing program had been
found and no changes were recommended for the LM.
NASA Release 68-182, "LLRV Accident Report," Oct. 17, 1968.
18
David B. Pendley, Technical Assistant for Flight Safety at MSC,
recommended to ASPO Manager George M. Low an official policy position
for landings on land. Pendley stated that despite all efforts by the Center's
Engineering and Development Directorate to develop a safe land-landing
capability with the CSM, the goal could not be attained. The best course, he
told Low, was to accept the risk inherent in the fact that a land landing could
not be avoided in an early launch abort--accept the risk openly and frankly
and to plan rescue operations on the premise of major structural damage to
the spacecraft. "If we do not officially recognize the land landing hazard,"
Pendley said, "this will place us in an untenable position should an accident
occur, and will further prej udice the safety of the crew by continuing a false
feeling of security on the subject."
Memo, Pendley to Low, "Land landings," Oct. 18, 1968.
19
NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips apprised Associate
Administrator for Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller of recent
260
program decisions and planning for extravehicular activities (EVA) on the

first Apollo lunar landing mission. Primary objective on that first flight,
Phillips said, had from the inception of the program been a safe manned
landing and return. However, in light of current schedules, mission
planning, and crew training activities, the agency must now commit itself to
a definite scope for EVA activities on the first flight. After thorough review of
the mission, a tentative EVA outline had been drawn up at the end of August
and distributed to the Centers and Headquarters offices for comment. On
September 11 the Manned Space Flight Management Council reviewed the
proposed EVA scheme and criticisms and approved a formal EVA mission
plan :
• The first mission would include a single EVA period of up to three

hours. Training experience and simulations would form the basis for a
decision on one- versus two-man EVAs during the period.
• The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package and the Lunar
Geology Investigation experiment would not be carried aboard the flight.
Lunar soil samples would be collected. Also, other candidate experiments
would be considered for inclusion on the flight.
• Television would be carried aboard the flight, both for operational
and public information benefits.
• A paramount objective on the first landing would be to assess
limitations and capabilities of the astronauts and their equipment in the
lunar surface environment, to enhance the scientific return from the second
and subsequent missions. (MSC was to structure detailed test objectives and
experiments to satisfy this goal.)
• And MSC would recommend to Headquarters (including cost and
schedule impacts) hardware changes that would lengthen the EVA time
available for scientific investigations during subsequent flights.
Memo, Phillips to Mueller, "Extravehicular Activities for the First Lunar Landing Mission,"
Oct. 19, 1968.
21
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth formally constituted an Operational
Readiness Inspection Committee to inspect the Lunar Receiving Laborato-
ry to demonstrate its suitability to accomplish its mission. John D. Hodge of
MSC was appointed Chairman of the ORI and Peter J. Armitage, MSC,
Executive Secretary. Other members were Aleck C. Bond, John W. Conlon,
D. O. Coons, Joseph P. Kerwin, Paul H. Vavra, and Earle B. Young, all of
MSC; E. Barton Geer, LaRC; A. G. Wedum, Ft. Detrick, Md.; and Donald
U. Wise, NASA Hq.
Memo, Gilruth to distr., "Operational Readiness Inspection of the I.unar Receiving
Laboratory," Oct. 21, 1968.
21
While the flight of Apollo 7 was still in progress, ASPO Manager George M.
Low ordered that CSM 101 be returned to Downey as quickly as possible at
261
1968 the end of the mission to begin postflight testing as quickly as possible.
October Therefore, no public affairs showing of the spacecraft could be permitted.
Memo, Low to Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, "Spacecraft 101 postflight activities," Oct. 21, 1968.
21
summarized launch preparations for the near-term missions Apollo 8 and
Apollo 9. Hurricane Gladys had interrupted work on the Apollo 8 spacecraft
and launch vehicle and work was now about two days behind schedule.
(Because winds from the storm did not exceed Apollo design values,
however, Apollo 8 remained at Pad A and was not returned to the assembly
building.) Checkout of LM-3 and CSM 104 for Apollo 9 were on schedule.
The CSM had been stacked and would undergo combined systems tests
shortly. Ascent and descent stages of the lander would be joined immediately
after docking tests had been completed.
Memo, Mueller to Acting Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--October 21,
1968," Oct. 21, 1968.
262
PART III
Man Circles the Moon, the Eagle Lands, and Manned

Lunar Exploration
October 23, 1968, through July 13, 1974

PART III
The Key Events
1968
December 8: Lunar landing training vehicle No. 1, with MSC test pilot Joe Algranti at the controls, crashed
and burned at Ellington AFB, Tex. Aigranti ejected safely.
December 2 l: Apollo 8 was launched from KSC on a Saturn V booster. The spacecraft made 20 orbits around
the moon on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day and returned to earth, landing in the Pacific Ocean
December 27.
1969
February 3: NASA announced a 12-month forecast of manned space flight missions, Apollo 9 through
Apollo 13.
March 3: Apollo 9 was launched from KSC and carried the LM for the first time on a manned flight. The LM
separated and docked with the CSM during the flight and the first Apollo EVA was accomplished. The
mission ended March 13 with an Atlantic Ocean splashdown.
March 24: NASA announced that Apollo 10 would be a lunar orbit mission.
May 18: Apollo I 0 was launched from KSC on a nine-day mission. The spacecraft orbited the moon and the
LM descended to an altitude of 15 kilometers over the planned site for the first lunar landing. Color'IV
was transmitted to earth. The CM landed safely in the Pacific May 26.
May 27: MSFC was authorized to proceed with development of a manned lunar roving vehicle.
June 17: A seven-day simulation of Lunar Receiving Laboratory activities was successfully completed.
July 16: Apollo 11 was launched from KSC and on July 20 astronauts Nell A. Armstrong and Edwin E.
Aldrin, Jr., became the first men to walk on the moon. The spacecraft returned to land in the Pacific July
24, and the space goal set by President Kennedy on May 25, 1961, was accomplished.
August 7: Conclusions were reached at MSC concerning modes for furore lunar surface exploration.
November 14: Apollo 12 was launched and landed on the moon 163 meters from the S*rveyor HI spacecraft.
The two astronauts performed two EVAs on the lunar surface, retrieved samples and parts of Surveyor
II1, left the lunar surface after a stay of 31 hours 31 minutes, redocked with the CSM, and landed in the
Pacific on November 24.
1970
January 5-8: Detailed reports on the Apollo 11 sample analyses were presented at a Lunar Science
Conference at MSC.
March 7: The President listed six specific objectives for the space program.
April 11: Apollo I3 was launched on a lunar landing mission but 7 hours 55 minutes into the flight an
explosion in an SM oxygen tank required an abort. The astronauts powered up the LM, powered down
the C SM, and used the LM propellant for a free-return trajectory around the moon. They returned safely
to earth, and landed in the mid-Pacific on April 17.
Aprd 17: NASA Hq. established an Apollo 13 Review Board to investigate the Apollo 13 accident.
264
PART III" MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
1971
January 31." Apollo 14 was launched from KSC and the LM landed on the Fra Mauro area of the moon on
February 5. Two EVAs were performed, the second using a mobile equipment transporter to permit a
longer traverse. The LM lifted off from the moon February 6 and the CM splashed down in the Pacific
on February 9.
April 26: Quarantine for crew members who would go to the moon on future Apollo flights was
discontinued.
July 26: Apollo 15 was launched, and on July 30 the LM landed in the Hadley-Apennine region of the moon.
Three EVAs were completed with a total EVA time of 18 hours 35 minutes. The LM ascent stage liftoff
on August 2 was the first televised, and the lunar roving vehicle was used for the first time. Apollo 15's
CM landed in the Pacific on August 7.
1972
April 16." Apollo 16 was launched from KSC and landed in the moon's Descartes region April 20. Three
EVAs were completed, using the lunar roving vehicle for a total distance of 26.7 kilometers. The LM
lifted off April 23 and docked with the CSM to transfer astronauts and samples. The CM returned to
land in the Pacific April 27.
December 7: Apollo 17, the final manned lunar landing mission, was launched from KSC. The astronauts in
the LM landed in the Taurus-Littrow region of the moon on December 11 and explored the area on the
lunar roving vehicle during three EVAs with a total of about 22 hours. They lifted off December 14 and
landed in the Pacific December 19.
1973
January 22." A tribute to the Apollo program from former President Johnson, who had died earlier in the
day, was read at the National Space Club's "Salute to Apollo," held in Washington, D.C.
November 2.' A stained glass Space Window with a two-centimeter Apollo I 1 lunar sample in its center was
commissioned for the National Cathedral, Washington, D.C.
1974
July 13." President Nixon proclaimed July 16-24 United States Space Week in recognition of the fifth
anniversary of Apollo II.
265
PART III
Man Circles the Moon, the Eagle Lands, and Manned

Lunar Exploration
October 23, 1968, through July 13, 1974
1N8
LeRoy E. Day, Apollo Test Director, NASA Hq., informed Apollo Program
Director Samuel C. Phillips of two failures of LM propellant tanks during October
testing, a problem that might have significant program impact on LMs 6 23

and 7 and subsequent vehicles. The particular tanks in question were those
manufactured by Allison Division of General Motors but reworked under
separate contract by Airite Division of Sargent Industries. The two tanks,
lightweight SWIP II models slated for LM-6 and subsequent vehicles, had
suffered small cracks in the welds. So far, said Day, the weld process used in
manufacture of the tanks was "highly suspect." Cryogenic proof-testing
probably would be required to validate the tanks and to give confidence in
the tank welds. Meantime, he said, the problem was receiving high-level
attention both at Grumman and in Houston.
Memo, Day to Apollo Program Director, "LM Descent Propellant Tank Failures," Oct. 23,
1968.
24
Howard D. Burns, Chie[ of the Saturn V Test Management Office at MSFC,
sent to Apollo launch operations officials at KSC a list of requirements for
retesting the Saturn V following a lightning strike on the vehicle while on
the pad. These requirements were to be included in the next revision of the
overall test and checkout requirements documents at KSC. (Burns' action
came largely as a result of discussions at the AS-503 Crew Safety Review
Board meeting at KSC on August 20-21, 1968.) Burns recommended that
KSC prepare a contingency plan specifying various stage and launch vehicle
test and checkout procedures that would satisfy MSFC's requirements. The
most immediate assessment must be the overall safety of the launch vehicle.
Electronic and electrical components headed the list of specific hardware
systems to be assessed.
Ltr., Burns to KSC, Atm: A. G. Smith, "AS-503-10 Launch Vehicle Test and Retest
Requirements Following a Lighming Strike on the Saturn V Launch Vehicle/LUT/MSS,"
Oct. 24, 1968, with encl., same subj.
267
lm In a memorandum for the record, MSC's Apollo LM Program Manager C.

H. Bolender reviewed results of the receiving inspection performed on LM-
26 4 at KSC on October 21. Only 59 valid "crabs" were reported, 44 of them by
Grumman's receiving personnel. None of the discrepancies noted involved
major hardware damage or serious procedural faults. Significant progress
had been made in reducing receiving discrepancies between LM-3 and LM-
4. This improvement Bolender attributed to the addition of surveillance
inspectors at Grumman and to the emphasis being placed on quality control
by the resident ASPO personnel at Bethpage.
Memo for Record, Bolender, "Review of LM-4 Receiving Inspection at KSC," Oct. 26, 1968.
28 MSC Apollo Spacecraft Program Office Manager George M. Low deleted the
requirement for a short static-firing of the Apollo 8 service module reaction
control system on the pad before launch (the so-called "burp" firing). He
took this move in line with a recommendation from NASA Apollo Program
Director Samuel C. Phillips and in light of the nominal performance of the
RCS during the Apollo 7 flight. By thus eliminating the burp firings--and
not allowing any contact of the system's hypergolic propellants--the
spacecraft could be maintained in a loaded condition through the December
and January launch windows and gain the maximum launch flexibility for
the Apollo 8 flight. (Decisions not to static-fire the RCS systems on
spacecraft following 103 had been made some time earlier.)
TWX, Phillips to Low, "Apollo 8 Pre-Launch Burp Firing," Oct. 25, 1968; ltr., Low to
Phillips, Oct. 28, 1968.
31
NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips officially designated the
AS-504 and AS-505 missions as Apollo 9 and Apollo 10.
TWX, Phillips, NASA Hq., to KSC, MSFC, and MSC, "Apollo Mission Designations," Oct. 31,
1968.
The Configuration Control Board had decided in favor of an informal crew

log for each Apollo spacecraft, ASPO Manager George M. Low informed
MSC Director of Flight Crew Operations Donald K. Slayton. The log would
be an unofficial document kept by consulting pilots at the spacecraft
contractor plants during checkout and test of the vehicles and by the flight
crew support team at KSC. Although not intended to replace other, more
formal procedures for recording hardware discrepancies, the log would
contain such items as switching anomalies, meter bias, and what Low
termed "bona fide 'ghosts'" which had no reasonable engineering
explanation, as well as audible and visual "idiosyncracies" in spacecraft
operation.
Memo, Low to Slayton, "Spacecraft crew log," Nov. 7, 1968.
ASPO Manager George M. Low asked Rocco A. Petrone, Launch

Operations Director at KSC, to set up a special task team to review all
paperwork and to inspect visually all hardware, to ensure proper spacecraft
268
lm
deployment during the Apollo 8 flight. Apollo 8 contained a novel set of
mechanical and electrical interfaces (CSM, LTA-B lunar module dummy, November
launch adapter, and Saturn V vehicle), Low observed. Furthermore, concern
about these complex interfaces had increased because one of the adapter
panels on Apollo 7 had not opened properly. What Low--as well as MSC
Director Robert R. Gilruth--desired foremost was to preclude repetition of
another situation such as had occurred during the Gemini IX mission, when
the shroud panels covering the Agena target vehicle had only partially
deployed and had produced the"angry alligator" that forced cancellation of
docking plans on that earlier flight.
Ltr., Low to Petrone, Nov. 8, 1968.
12
The Apollo Crew Safety Review Board met to assess land landing of the
CSM in the area of the launch site if a flight were aborted just before launch
or during the initial phase of a flight. In general the Board was satisfied with
overall planned recovery and medical operations. The only specific item to
be acted on was some means of purging the interior of the spacecraft to expel
any coolant or propellant fumes that might be trapped inside the cabin. The
Board was also concerned about the likelihood of residual propellants
trapped inside the vehicle even after abort sequence purging, a problem that
MSC secured assistance from both the Ames and Lewis Research Centers to
solve. At the Board's suggestion, MSC's Crew Systems Division also
investigated the use of a helmet liner for the astronauts to prevent head
injury upon impact. Finally, the Board recommended continued egress
training with fully suited crews, including some night training.
Memo, David B. Pendley, MSC Flight Control Div., to ASPO Manager, "Land landing in the
launch site area," Nov. 18, 1968.
13
ASPO Manager Low asked Aaron Cohen, one of his staff assistants, to lead
an investigation to determine detrimental effects of moisture on the strength
of the bonded covering of the launch adapter structure. His action stemmed
directly from a presentation the same day by James A. Chamberlin to the
Structures Advisory Board explaining the adapter failure on Apollo 6.
Moisture in the adapter not only raised the pressures generated by heating
during the boost phase of the flight through the atmosphere, but it also
weakened the structural bonding either directly or by hampering venting
through the holes in the honeycomb material. Low asked Cohen to take
precautions that no water be allowed to enter the adapter. All joints in the
material should be sealed with a waterproof tape even before the count-
down demonstration test and should remain on the vehicle throughout the
flight, so that the adapter would absorb no moisture even if it rained during
the final count before launch. On the other hand, the tape must then with-
stand boost phase heating and must not impair spacecraft separation and
panel jettisoning. (North American Rockwell, in compliance with CCBD,
August 10, 1968, Master Change Record 7727, modified the SLA panels by
drilling vent holes in the inner skin of the panels of all subsequent SLAs to
269
1N8
allow release of moisture during ascent. These holes were to be kept sealed
November until immediately before launch to avoid collection of moisture in the
honeycomb.)
Memo, Low to Cohen, "Verification ot spacecrafi/LM adapter," Nov. 13, 1968.
19
Martin L. Raines, MSC's Manager at the White Sands Test Facility,
recommended to ASPO Manager George M. Low that he issue official
direction to the two spacecraft contractors, North American Rockwell and
Grumman, governing the phasedown of operations at the engine test site.
Early action was needed, Raines said, for proper contractual action on the
phasedown and for proper disposition of equipment and supplies. This
action signaled the end of the long and difficult supportive development
effort to prove out the Apollo spacecraft rocket engines for flight.
Memo, Raines to ASPO Manager, "WSTF Phasedown Plan," Nov. 19, 1968.
22
Howard W. Tindall, Jr., Chief of Apollo Data Priority Coordination within
ASPO, reported an operational system problem aboard the LM. To give a
returning Apollo crew an indication of time remaining to perform a
landing maneuver or to abort, a light on the LM instrument panel would
come on when about two minutes worth of propellants remained in the
descent propellant system tanks with the descent engine running at 25-
percent thrust. The present LM weight and descent trajectory were such that
the light would always come on before touchdown. The only hitch, said
Tindall, was that the signal was connected to the spacecraft master alarm.
"Just at the most critical time in the most critical operation of a perfectly
nominal lunar landing mission, the master alarm with all its lights, bells,
and whistles will go off." Tindall related that some four or five years earlier,
astronaut Pete Conrad had called the arrangement "completely unaccepta-
ble.., but he was probably just an Ensign at the time and apparently no one
paid any attention." If this "is not fixed," Tindall said, "I predict the first
words uttered by the first astronaut to land on the moon will be 'Gee whiz,
that master alarm certainly startled me.'" Tindall recommended either
rerouting the signal wiring to bypass the alarm or cutting the signal wire
and relying solely on the propellant gauges to assess flight time remaining.
Memo to distr., Tindall, "LM DPS low level light fixing," Nov. 22, 1968.
22
In a memorandum for the record, ASPO Manager George M. Low
summarized results of November 19 and 22 meetings on procedures for
astronaut training runs with the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit
(EMU) under simulated space conditions. The runs would be in the two
vacuum test chambers of the Center's Space Environment Simulation
Laboratory. MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth had attended the meetings.
Training runs were always to be preceded by a run also under altitude
conditions and using a gas umbilical from the life support system of the
facility itself. Although connected to the crewman, the facility umbilical
would not be used as a gas supply under normal test conditions. For the final
27O
PART III: MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
1968
training run, the astronaut would wear a complete flight-configured EMU
without any other link with the facility. Although several participants November
objected that training runs using the EMU alone ran greater risk than
normal in chamber tests, the decision to conduct the exercises using the all-
up flight configuration was reaffirmed.
Memo for Record, Low, "EMU activities in the SESL," Nov. 22, 1968.
22
reviewed for NASA Acting Administrator Thomas O. Paine the develop-
ment of the Apollo service propulsion system (SPS) engine. (Earlier, Paine
had asked whether the SPS engine had ever failed to fire during all of this
developmental program.) Mueller reported that a review of the test history
showed that no complete flight-configuration engine had ever failed to fire.
In fact, during the entire development program (comprising some 3200
engine starts and more than 90 000 seconds of firing time) only four engines
had failed to start. In all of these cases, the cause of the ignition failures
could be traced to faulty ground support equipment or to inadequate or
improper operational procedures. No engine failure could be attributed
solely to the SPS engine itself. Mueller's response to Paine--with obvious
overtones for the upcoming Apollo 8 circumlunar mission--bespoke a
supreme confidence in the safety and reliability of the all-important main
engine of the spacecraft.
Memo, Mueller to Acting Administrator, "Response to Question on Apollo Service Propulsion
System Engine," Nov. 22, 1968.
27
The LM-I 1 midsection assembly collapsed in the assembly jig during the
bulkhead prefitting stage of construction at Grumman. The structure
buckled when the bulkheads, which had just been prefitted and drilled, were
removed to permit deburring the drilled holes. Jig gates that were supposed
to hold up the assembly were not in position, nor was the safety line
properly installed. The structure was supported by hand. Damage to the
skin of the structure was not severe, although a small radius bend was put in
one of the upper skins.
Memo, Samuel A. Gentile, Bethpage RASPO Contracting Officer, to distr.,"Report of Damage
of LM-11 Midsection Assembly during Manufacturing Phase, this date," Nov. 27, 1968.
27
The need to flight-test manual control of the light LM ascent configuration
had been discussed at the October 15 MSC Flight Program Review, MSC
Director Robert R. Gilruth informed NASA Apollo Program Director
Samuel C. Phillips. There was an implication that a control problem could
exist for this configuration. Gilruth said he had stated that MSC should be
able to establish manual control handling qualities of the LM through
proper simulation and be confident about the adequacy of the control
system.
Subsequently, Gilruth had reviewed the operating characteristics of the LM

control system and the status of the simulation program related to manual
271
control of the light ascent stage during docking. He said that the most
November demanding requirement for precision manual attitude control was the
docking maneuver. Docking control had been simulated extensively at
MSC, Grumman, and LaRC using functional representation of the control
system and these simulations established the capability of docking the LM
well within the specified docking criteria. In addition, other LM control
tasks had been simulated at MSC and Grumman, and the LM was found to
have satisfactory handling qualities for all manual control tasks.
Ltr., Gilruth to Phillips, "Manual Control o[ the IAght I.unar Module Ascent Configuration,"
Nov. 27, 1968.
December
Several scientific experiments had been deferred from the first to the second
e lunar landing mission, Apollo Program Director Phillips informed the
ASPO Manager at MSC: S-031, Lunar Passive Seismology; S-034, Lunar
Tri-axis Magnetometer; S-035, Medium Energy Solar Wind; S-036,
Suprathermal Ion Detection; S-058, Cold Cathode Ionization Gauge; and
S-059, Lunar Geology Investigation. Substituted was a more conservative
group that included Lunar Passive Seismology (S-031); a Laser Ranging
Retroreflector (S078); and Solar Wind Composition (S-080). Also assigned
to the first landing mission, included among operational tasks, were
sampling activities and observations of lunar soil mechanics.
TWX, Phillips to Low, "Experiment Assignments to Lunar Missions," Dec. 6, 1968.
During a routine flight of lunar landing training vehicle (LLTV) No. 1,

MSC test pilot Joseph S. Algranti was forced to eject from the craft when it
became unstable and he could no longer control the vehicle. The LLTV
crashed and burned. A flight readiness review at MSC on November 26 had
found the LLTV ready for use in astronaut training, and 10 flight tests had
been made before the accident. An investigating board headed by astronaut
Walter M. Schirra, Jr., was set up to find the cause of the accident. And on
January 8, 1969, NASA Acting Administrator Thomas O. Paine asked the
review board that was established in May 1968 to restudy its findings on the
May 6 crash of lunar landing research vehicle No. 1 (LLTV-I).
Memo, George E. Mueller, OMSF, NASA, to Acting Administrator, "Manned Space Flight
Weekly Report--December 9, 1968," Dec. 9, 1968; NASA Release 69-5, "Review Board
Reconvened," Jan. 8, 1969.
Launch preparations for Apollo 8, scheduled for flight December 21, were
on schedule, the NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight
reported. Recent significant steps included a leak and functional test of the
service propulsion system on November 26, fuel servicing of the CM
reaction control system and the SPS on the following day, hypergolic
loading on November 30, and loading of the S-IC stage with RP-1 fuel on
December 2. All testing of the Mission Control Center in Houston and the
Manned Space Flight Network had also been completed; both support
systems were ready [or full operational support. Recovery briefings had been
given to the flight crew and the final flight plan for Apollo 8 had been issued.
272
If all preparations continued to go smoothly, the final countdown for

launch would begin on December 16.
Memo, Mueller to Acting Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--December 9,

1968," Dec. 9, 1968.
14
The ASPO Manager asked Wilmot N. Hess, MSC Director of Science and
Applications, to devise a crew fit and functional check of lunar handtools
before the LM-5 crew training tests. Functional check of the handtools, as
well as the Early Apollo Science Experiments Package (EASEP), had been
agreed on at a November 26 review. Actual flight hardware would be used by
the crewmen to verify operation of tools and experiments. Flight hand-
tools--as well as the EASEP, if available--would also be subjected to
thermal vacuum tests in the Space Environment Simulation Laboratory,
preferably during LM-5 crew training in the facility.
Memo, George M. Low to Hess, "Lunar Handtools and EASEP (Early Apollo Science
Experiments Package," Dec. 14, 1968.
15
Final countdown for the launch of Apollo 8, the second manned Apollo
mission, began on schedule at KSC. Significant launch preparation events
included the "wet" countdown demonstration test on December 10, three
days of flight simulations, an operational review, and launch site recovery
exercises. Mission preparations were on schedule for launch on December
21. Launch preparations were also on schedule for the next two flights,
Apollo 9 and 10.
Memo, George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, to Acting
Administrator, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--December 16, 1968," Dec. 16, 1968.
16
NASA Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips asked ASPO Manager
George M. Low for comments on potential uses for television aboard all
Apollo spacecraft (both CMs and LMs). Although plans called for TV
cameras in both spacecraft for the F and G missions, on the combined CSM-
LM earth-orbital D mission only the LM was to contain a camera. Phillips
asked Low to assess the feasibility and schedule impact of including a TV
camera on the D-mission CSM as well (CM 104), thus employing television
on all the remaining Apollo spacecraft. In particular, the Apollo Director
sought Low's advice on the feasibility and usefulness of television
transmissions for engineering, operations, scientific, and public informa-
tion purposes. (See December 24.)
Ltr., Phillips to Low, "Apollo On-board TV," Dec. 16, 1968.
17
Apollo Program Director Phillips described to MSC Director Robert R.
Gilruth two reviews of testing and checkout procedures, conducted by the
Apollo Test Office and MSC's Crew Systems Division, at Hamilton Standard
September 23-26 and at International Latex September 30-October 4. (The
reviews were a follow-on to similar test and checkout reviews at North
American Rockwell and at Grumman earlier in the year.) The review at
273
1968
"Ham-Standard," manufacturer of the portable life support system,
December uncovered only two minor discrepancies, which the company immediately
corrected. At International Latex, manufacturer of the Apollo spacesuit,
however, the review teams found what Phillips termed a "disappointing
situation despite extensive management direction by the Crew Systems
Division." The NASA review group made several recommendations to
improve the situation:
• Improved management control of suit processing and checkout to

afford higher confidence in configuration, inspection, and performance
integrity.
• Stricter enforcement of the acceptance data package on each delivered
suit.
• Compulsory contractor updating and enforcement of specifications
to meet MSC spacesuit requirements.
• Improved and rigidly enforced discipline and cleanliness.
These problems, Phillips noted, had not impaired flight readiness of the
spacesuit, "but it does explain the delivery problems we have been
experiencing."
Ltr., Phillips to Gilruth, Dec. 17, 1968.
17
Apollo Program Director Phillips asked ASPO Manager Low to hasten
work on the study at North American to define reusability of systems aboard
the CM. He asked Low for a review of the area in mid-February 1969 if
sufficient data were available by then. Also, Phillips asked Low's
recommendations for an effectivity date on any recovery operations to
increase reusability of either spacecraft systems or of the complete vehicle.
(North American submitted Space Division Report No. 69-463, dated
August 29, 1969, recommending preflight preservation treatment and
postflight refurbishment that could be accomplished on CMs and its
components to enhance reusability. Removal of heatshield access ports and
flushing with fresh water on the recovery ship was the only recommendation
implemented, because the others were not judged cost effective.)
Ltr., Phillips to Low, Dec. 17, 1968.
19
Crew briefings on flammability tests and fire extinguishing methods should
be expanded, ASPO Manager Low recommended to MSC Director of Flight
Operations Donald K. Slayton. Short briefings had been given to the crews
of spacecraft 101 and 103, Low said, but these limited briefings should be
expanded to ensure further a fire-safe spacecraft. At a minimum, he urged
review of all flammability deviations inside the spacecraft, review of
flammable crew storage items, review of significant fire testing films on
propagation paths, and review of emergency procedures for extinguishing
fires. The chief objective of this expanded program, said Low, was to
274
1968
familiarize the crews with the flamm_able items in the cockpit that could not
be replaced, with potential propagation paths, and with methods of December
extinguishing fires.
Memo, Low to Director of Flight Crew Operations, "Crew training program on fire safety,"
Dec. 19, 1968.
2O
The lunar closeup stereo camera on Apollo missions was not a separate
scientific experiment, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight wrote MSC Deputy Director George S. Trimble. An adjunct to the
field geology experiment, the camera's stereoscopic photographs of fine
details on the lunar surface would document individual material samples.
Additional photography where no samples were taken would provide
information on the range of surface textures near the landing site.
Following deployment by the crew of emplaced experiments, the field
geology investigation--and thus the stereo camera--had priority. Mueller
stated that inclusion of the camera on all early Apollo landing missions was
desirable, including the first. However, it was doubtful that the contractor
could deliver the first flight article in time for that mission, although the
camera could be ready for the second landing if granted waivers in
documentation, reliability, and quality controls. Mueller affirmed his desire
to grant these relaxations in the normally rigid Apollo hardware
demands--to the extent that such waivers could be granted without
jeopardizing crew safety or overall mission success. As an added benefit, the
Associate Administrator said, "the experiment of giving a qualified
contractor a relatively free hand in managing a development project within
his particular field of competence should be instructive in the planning of
future procurements of this type."
Ltr., Mueller to Trimble, Dec. 20, 1968.
21-27
Apollo 8 (AS-503) was launched from KSC Launch Complex 39, Pad A, at
7:51 a.m. EST Dec. 21 on a Saturn V booster. The spacecraft crew was made
up of Frank Borman, James A. Lovell, Jr., and William A. Anders. Apollo 8
was the first spacecraft to be launched by a Saturn V with a crew on board,
and that crew became the first men to fly around the moon.
All launch and boost phases were normal and the spacecraft with the S-IVB
stage was inserted into an earth-parking orbit of 190.6 by 183.2 kilometers
above the earth. After post-insertion checkout of spacecraft systems, the S-
IVB stage was reignited and burned 5 minutes 9 seconds to place the
spacecraft and stage in a trajectory toward the moon--and theApollo 8 crew
became the first men to leave the earth's gravitational field.
The spacecraft separated from the S-IVB 3 hours 20 minutes after launch
and made two separation maneuvers using the SM's reaction control system.
Eleven hours after liftof[, the first midcourse correction increased velocity by
26.4 kilometers per hour. The coast phase was devoted to navigation
sightings, two television transmissions, and system checks. The second
275
midcourse correction, about 61 hours into the flight, changed velocity by 1.5
kilometers per hour.
The 4-minute 15-second lunar-orbit-insertion maneuver was made 69 hours

after launch, placing the spacecraft in an initial lunar orbit of 310.6 by 111.2
kilometers from the moon's surface--later circularized to 112.4 by 110.6
kilometers. During the lunar coast phase the crew made numerous landing-
site and landmark sightings, took lunar photos, and prepared for the later
maneuver to enter the trajectory back to the earth.
On the fourth day, Christmas Eve, communications were interrupted as

Apollo 8 passed behind the moon, and the astronauts became the first men to
see the moon's far side. Later that day, during the evening hours in the Unit-
ed States, the crew read the first 10 verses of Genesis on television to earth and
wished viewers "goodnight, good luck, a Merry Christmas and God bless all
of you--all of you on the good earth."
Subsequently, TV Guide for May 10-16, 1969, claimed that one out of every
four persons on earth--nearly 1 billion people in 64 countries--heard the
astronauts' reading and greeting, either on radio or on TV; and delayed
broadcasts that same day reached 30 additional countries.
On Christmas Day, while the spacecraft was completing its 10th revolution
of the moon, the service propulsion system engine was fired for three
Earth-rise greeted the Apollo 8 astronauts when

they came from behind the moon after the lunar
orbit insertion bum December 24, 1968. Lunar
surface features in the foreground are near the
eastern limb of the moon as seen from the earth.
In the Apollo 8 recovery scene December 27, the
flotation collar has been attached and two life
rafts inflated. Two of the three frogmen rest
against the spacecraft while waiting for the
recovery helicopter to arrive and pick up the
astronauts.
minutes 24 seconds, increasing the velocity by 3875 km per hr and lm

propelling Apollo 8 back toward the earth, after 20 hours 11 minutes in December
lunar orbit. More television was sent to earth on the way back and, on the
sixth day, the crew prepared for reentry and the SM separated from the CM
on schedule.
Parachute deployment and other reentry events were normal. The Apollo 8
CM splashed down in the Pacific, apex down, at 10:51 a.m. EST, December
27--147 hours and 42 seconds after liftoff. As planned, helicopters and
aircraft hovered over the spacecraft and pararescue personnel were not
deployed until local sunrise, 50 minutes after splashdown. The crew was
picked up and reached the recovery ship U.S.S. Yorktown at 12:20 p.m.
EST. All mission objectives and detailed test objectives were achieved, as
well as five that were not originally planned (see Appendix 5).
The crew was in excellent condition, and another major step toward the first
lunar landing had been accomplished.
MSC, "Apollo 8 Mission Report," Feb. 1969, pp. I-l, 1-2; NASA OMSF, "Apollo Program
Flight Summary Report, Apollo Missions AS-201 through Apollo 8," Jan. 1969, pp. 32-35;
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1968, (NASA SP-4010, 1969), pp. 318-23.
24
ASPO Manager George M. Low apprised Program Director Samuel C.
Phillips of MSC's plans for television cameras aboard remaining Apollo
missions. With the exception of spacecraft 104 (scheduled for flight as
Apollo 9), television cameras were to be flown in all CMs. Also, cameras
would be included in all manned LMs (LM-3 through LM-14).
Ltr., Low to Phillips, "Television," Dec. 24, 1968.
27
C. H. Bolender, ASPO LM Manager at MSC, wrote Ralph H. Tripp, LM
Program Manager at Grumman, regarding open spacecraft failure items.
Although he acknowledged Grumman's recent progress in reducing the
number of open failures, Bolender said that the approaching manned phase
of the LM program dictated a fundamental change in the method of
handling those open problems. Apollo required "zero open problems."
Moreover, all failures must receive NASA approval of closeout before
launch. Bolender called on Tripp to revamp his failure closeout procedures
with several objectives: all closeout packages must contain sutficient
documentation to permit NASA approval of the action; each .package
should be available as a reference for any future review of problem
definition, analysis, and correction; and the contractor should further
improve the discipline applied to technical resolution of open items and to
the preparation of closeout packages. Bolender anticipated that Grumman's
actions to meet these objectives would greatly reduce the number of open
failure closeout disapprovals by NASA. But when a disagreement did exist,
both parties must act quickly to resolve the issue. "Prompt attention to
NASA disapprovals has been a problem," noted the LM Program Manager.
Ltr., Bolender to Tripp, Dec. 27, 1968.
277
11)69 Mission preparation for Apollo 9 continued on schedule. Rollout of the

January space vehicle from the Vehicle Assembly Building, KSC, began. Mission
3
Control Center simulations checkout, which began at MSC on December 20,
1968, was proceeding on schedule. Also, a series of thermal vacuum tests was
completed, with the Apollo 9 crew using extravehicular mobility unit
(EMU) flight equipment. Windup of these tests completed the required
EMU testing for the Apollo 9 flighL
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--January 6, 1969."
14 MSFC announced that Arthur Rudolph, special assistant to the MSFC

Director, would retire January 31. Rudolph had served as the manager of the
Saturn V rocket program from August 1963 to May 1968. He was one of the
more than 100 rocket experts who came to the United States from Germany
in 1945. The MSC ASPO Manager, in a congratulatory letter said, "I will
always consider Saturn V to be one of the oustanding achievements that
occurred during my lifetime. Its sheer size is simply fantastic. But even more
astounding was its performance in its first flights." Rudolph's work in
bringing the nation's most powerful launch vehicle to flight status was
rewarded when the first Saturn V lifted off from KSC and performed
flawlessly on November 9, 1967, Rudolph's birthday.
MSFC Release 69-10, Jan. 14, 1969; ltr., George M. Low, MSC, to Arthur Rudolph, MSFC, Jan.
16, 1969;'NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--January 27, 1969."
lS The Apollo Program Director expressed concern to the Director of MSC

over the lack of guidelines of sufficient scope and depth for the lunar
missions that would be flown after the first lunar landing and before the
proposed lunar exploration program tentatively scheduled to begin in 1973.
He asked each of the manned space flight Centers to appoint a working
group to define guidelines and to outline program objectives and content for
the period of lunar exploration immediately following the first lunar
landing. Areas requiring study were: scientific exploration, mission
planning rationale, flight schedules and program impact, and vehicle
product improvement.
Ltr., Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, Jan. 15, 1969.
15-17 The final flight program for Apollo 9 was verified; the emergency egress test
with the prime and backup crew was conducted; and the software
integration test between the lunar module and Mission Control Center,
MSC, was completed on January 15. On January 16 the Saturn V/Mission
Control Center-Houston integration testing was conducted. Additionally,
a critical design review of the Launch Complex 39 slide wire system was
conducted on January 17. Launch preparations for Apollo 9 continued to
proceed on schedule.
278
PART Ill: MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
In response to a query, the ASPO Manager responded: "Insofar as the 1969

astronauts' 'call of nature' is handled, they urinate through a tube into a January
plastic bag. The bag is periodically emptied through an overboard dump 16
nozzle. Although we have considered using an aircraft type relief tube that
would dump overboard directly, we have not yet adopted this approach
since an uncontrolled dump would most likely freeze the liquid in the tube
or the dump nozzle. Defecation is handled through the use of a plastic bag,
part of which fits over the hand like a glove. Although this method is
primitive, it was found to work reasonably well, both in Gemini and in
Apollo. A disinfectant pill is then placed in the bag and it is stowed in a
special container in the spacecraft. The astronauts' diet, both before and
during the flight, is such that the need to use this bag may only arise once or
twice during the flight."
Ltr., George M. Low, MSC, to Larry Megow, Houston, Tex., Jan. 16. 1969.
16
The Apollo Program Director requested that MSC present a Lunar
Receiving Laboratory (LRL) review like that for design.certification. The
presentation would cover (1) landing and recovery procedures, (2) LRL
operations, (3) release scheme for astronauts and samples, (4) sample
processing and distribution plans, and (5) scientific investigations. The
purpose would be to assess overall readiness following the first lunar
landing in these five areas.
Ltr., Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, to Robert R. Gilruth, Director, MSC, "Lunar
Receiving Laboratory Readiness Review," Jan. 16, 1969.
17-20
Checkout was on schedule for an Apollo 10 launch readiness date of May 17.
On January 17 the backup crew participated in an altitude test run. The
spacecraft docking test, using a simulated adapter, was completed January
20. All three fuel cells were being replaced because of suspected
contamination in fuel cell No. 1 and the failure of fuel cell No. 2 to take any
voltage load during the power-up for the manned altitude run.
19-22
The Apollo 9 flight readiness test began on January 19 and was successfully
completed January 22, in preparation for a February launch (see March 3-
13). A one-day delay in the testing was caused by a loss of air conditioning
for the RCA-110A computer. The hatch and side windows of the spacecraft
were being modified to overcome the fogging effect experienced during the
Apollo 8 mission.
Ibid.
24
The CSM Flight Readiness Review Board convened at MSC. Martin L.
Raines presented the Reliability and Quality Assurance assessment and
pointed out the improvement in discrepancy reports between spacecraft 101,
279
103, and 104 and concluded that 104 was better than 103 and ready to fly.
George M. Low noted that the CSM Review had been outstanding.
Minutes of Meeting, CSM 104, Flight Readiness Review Board, approved by Robert R. Gilruth,
Director, MSC, Feb. 7, 1969.
24
In an exchange of letters, the feasibility and compatibility of experiments
covering contrast perception, color perception, and distance estimation on
the moon were discussed. Incorporation of the three experiments in the
lunar landing mission's detailed test objective "Lunar Environment
Visibility" for Apollo 11 was recommended.
Ltrs., Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, to George M. Low, MSC, "Lunar Surface Life Sciences
Observation Experiments T033, Contrast Perception on Moon; T034, Color Perception on
Moon; T035, Distance Estimation on Moon." Jan. 24, 1969; Low to Phillips, Feb. 25, 1969.
Astronaut Stuart A. Roosa of the Apollo 9 support crew prepares to descend a rope
following the first manned run down a slide wire in a cab from the 98-meter level
of the mobile launcher at Kennedy Space Center in January 1968. Charles R.
Billings of the KSC Safety Office walks away after his descent from the nine-man-
capacity cab, and Arthur G. Porcher of the Design Engineering Office awaits his
turn. The other six seats are occupied by weighted dummies.
PART IIl: MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
The following tests were completed in preparation for the planned February 1969
Apollo 9 launch: all Mission Control Center data system integration tests, JImuary
MSC preflight readiness test, KSC launch readiness test, and MSFC preflight 24-29
test. In addition, recovery training exercises were conducted aboard the
U.S.S. Guadalcanal, the prime recovery ship for Apollo 9.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--February 3, 1969."
27
MSC and North American Rockwell reached agreement on certification
reviews for parachute packers in the Apollo program. The certification was
effective for all parachute packers not previously certified, with upgrading
of packers and recertification of present Apollo packers when required.
Ltrs., Dale D. Myers, North American Rockwell, to Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, Jan. 27,
1969; Kleinknecht to Myers, Nov. 8, 1968.
About 30 small aluminum brackets and fittings were replaced or reinforced 31

in Apollo lunar modules to rule out the possibility of cracking from stress
corrosion. Stress corrosion monitoring began in December 1967 when small
cracks were discovered in LM landing gear struts. Nine fittings were
replaced in LM-3, scheduled for the Apollo 9 mission, and six fittings were
repaired in LM-4, scheduled for the Apollo 10 flight. About 25 fittings were
being replaced on LM-5 and LM-6 and 8 fittings on each of these vehicles
were being reinforced.
NASA News Release 69-24, "LM Fittings (]hanged," Jan. 31, 1969.
31
NASA Hq. asked Center directors for ideas for symbolic activities on the
moon during the first landing to dramatize international agreements
regarding exploration of the moon. Possible ideas were flying a U.N. flag
with the U.S. flag on the moon; placing decal flags of the U.N. member
nations on the LM descent stage; and leaving an appropriate information
capsule at the landing site.
TWX, Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC; Kurt H. Debus, KSC, and
Wernher von Braun, MSFC, Jan. 31, 1969; hr., Gilruth to Phillips, March 3, 1969.
31
During integrated testing of the Apollo spacecraft, a well-qualified test pilot
accidentally threw two guarded switches marked "CM/SM Separation"
instead of the intended adjacent switches marked "CSM/LM Final Sep" to
separate the lunar module from the command and service modules. Had the
error occurred in a lunar flight, the CM would have separated from the SM,
with a high probability of leaving the crew stranded in lunar orbit. Studies
of methods to preclude such an accident in actual flight led later to
provisions for visual differences in switch covers.
Memos, Robert R. Frazer, MSC, to Resident Manager Apollo Spacecraft Program, "CSM 108
Erroneous Switch Closure," .Jan. 31, 1969; David B. Pendley, MSC, to Manager, Apollo
Spacecrah Program, "CM/SM separation switches," Feb. 17, 1969.
281
In response to a query, a study indicated that, because of the temperature on

Febm8_7 the moon's surface, lunar samples would cool the LM cabin when placed in
the rock box inside the cabin.
3
Memo, Wilmot N. Hess, MSC, to ASPO Manager, "Temperature of lunar samples," Feb. 3,
1969; ltr., George M. Low, MSC, to Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, Feb. 7, 1969.
NASA Hq. released a 12-month forecast of manned space flight missions,

reflecting an assessment of launch schedules for planning purposes. Five
flights were scheduled for the remainder of 1969:
• Apollo 9--February 28, SA-504, CSM 104, LM-3; manned orbital;

up to 10 days' duration; Atlantic recovery.
• Apollo 10--May 17, SA-505, CSM 106, LM-4; manned lunar
mission, Pacific recovery.
• Apollo 11--SA-506, CSM 107, LM-5; manned lunar mission; up to
11 days' duration; Pacific recovery.
11 days; Pacific recovery.
11 days' duration; Pacific recovery.
TWX, John D. Stevenson, NASA Hq.. to addressees, "MSF Mission Operations Forecast for
February 1969," Feb. 3, 1969.
The MSF Management Council, meeting at KSC, agreed that MSC would
take the following actions for augmenting the capability of the Apollo
system to accomplish a successful lunar landing mission and for planning
further lunar exploration:
Capability Augmentation:
• Submit for Apollo Level I approval a plan for developing and

procuring the A9L spacesuit.
• Submit a plan to the Apollo Program Director describing how the
portable life support system's improvement program procurement would
be done.
• Proceed with the 1/6-g special test equipment. The plan--including
scope, schedule, and cost estimates for this simulator--would be submitted
to Apollo Program Director by 1 March.
• Proceed with the engineering definition of software and hardware
required to precision-land the LM at sites anywhere on the front surface of
the moon.
Lunar Exploration:
• Submit a plan for the buildup of the cannibalized ALSEP, listing

experiments to be included, the estimated cost, and delivery schedule.
• Submit a plan for the procurement of additional ALSEPs including
proposed quantities, estimated costs, and experiments.
282
PART Ill: MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
• Proceed to define further a CSM lunar orbital science package and a 1969
lunar polar orbit mission science package, including instruments, costs, February
delivery schedule, and approach to CSM integration. Costs would include

instruments and spacecraft integration.
• Proceed with the definition to increase the size of LM descent stage
tanks and to improve the propellant pressurization system.
• Submit a plan for the procurement of a constant volume suit,
including a description of any further development not under contract that
MSC planned to add to any present contract by change order.
• Proceed with engineering change analysis of performance (including
habitability) improvements to the CSM and LM.
Ltr., George E. Mueller, NASA OMSF, to Rotx'rt R. Gilruth, MSC, Feb. 1,t, 1969.
The permanently mounted spacecraft hoisting loop was inadequate for

expected spacecraft loads and had failed on Apollo 8, ASPO Manager
George M. Low informed Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips.
The auxiliary nylon loop installed by the recovery forces had adequate
strength but its installation was not as well controlled as work on the
spacecraft was generally. For these reasons, Low said, the astronauts would
be required to leave the spacecraft before it was hoisted aboard the carrier.
Low enclosed a memorandum from Don Arabian, "Hoisting spacecraft
from sea," and minutes of a February 4 discussion at MSC on the subject.
Ltr., Low to Phillips, Feb. 8, 1969; memo, Donald D. Arabian to distr., "Hoisting spacecraft
from sea," Feb. 6, 1969; Minutes of Discussion Concerning Hoisting SpacecraR from the Sea,
W. F. Hoyler, Feb. 4, 1969.
11
The possibility of an unmanned LM landing was discussed at NASA Hq.
The consensus was that such a landing would be a risky venture. Proposals
had been made which included an unmanned LM landing as a prerequisite
to a manned landing on the moon. However, the capability to land the LM
unmanned did not exist and development of the capability would seriously
delay the program.
NASA Routing Slip, R. I, Wagner, Bellcomm, to Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF. Feb. 11,
1969; draft memo, George E. Mueller, OMSF, to NASA Acting Administrator, "ITnmanned I.M
Landing," undated, unsigned.
12
Three members of the Interagency Committee on Back Contamination met
at MSC to review Apollo operational plans and procedures. Some concern
was expressed about the lack of a bacterial filter on the spacecraft postland-
ing system. However, the committee representatives indicated that the
approach was reasonable in terms of the tradeoff on operational recovery
problems. The full committee was scheduled to meet in March.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--February 17. 1969."
12
George M. Low, MSC, told Maxime A. Faget, MSC, that he had recently
learned the Apollo Operations Handbook (AOH) was prepared for the
Flight Crew Operations Directorate by prime contractors without any
283
1969
formalized review by engineering elements of MSC. On several occasions,
February when the Engineering and Development (EScD) subsystems managers
looked at a section of the handbook in connection with problem areas they
found the handbook in error. Low proposed that EgcD should (1) verify
technical accuracy of the baseline issue of the handbook before its final issue
for the F mission, (2) verify all changes in the AOH in a timely manner, and
(3) verify any crew checklist changes made during the last 45 days before
launch.
Memo, Low to Faget, "Review of Apollo Operations Handbook," Feb. 12, 1969.
14
Flammability tests of the Sony tape/voice recorder were made to determine
if the recorder met crew-cabin use requirements. Testing was by electrical
overloads of nichrome wire igniters in an atmosphere of 100 percent oxygen
at 4.3 newtons per square centimeter (6.2 psia). Post-test evaluations
indicated that flammability requirements had been met, since ignitions were
self-extinguishing and only localized internal damage occurred.
Memo, Joseph N. Kotanchik, MSC, to Chief, Systems Engineering Div., MSC, "Flammability
tests on Sony tape/voice recorder," Feb. 14, 1969.
17
MSC was urged to reconstitute the Crew Safety Review Board to determine if
the following questions could be affirmatively answered concerning the LM,
extravehicular activity, portable life support system, and emergency
procedures. Were all likely failure modes or anomalies that could jeopardize
the crew from entrance to mission systematically analyzed? Were proper and
timely cues coupled with a safe egress, abort, or contingency capability
prepared for use in each of these? Was there a plan for the timely solution of
the known crew safety-related problems?
Ltr., Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, to George M. Low, MSC, Feb. 17, 1969.
22
The Apollo 9 countdown to launch began, with launch scheduled for liftoff
February 28. The 10-day flight would mark the first manned earth orbital
flight of the lunar module, the first Apollo spacewalk, and the first manned
checkout, rendezvous, and docking operations of the complete Apollo
spacecraft. The Apollo 9 mission would be open-ended, allowing the
mission plan to progress from one step to the next on the basis of real-time
Success.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--February 25, 1969."
27
Maxime A. Faget, MSC Director of Engineering and Development, said he
believed the Preliminary Lunar Landing Phase Photographic Operations
Plan was seriously deficient in meeting its stated objectives. "From the
standpoint of public information and historical documentation, I'm
terribly disappointed to find that although 560 feet [170 meters] of movie
film has been set aside for lunar surface use none will be exposed with the
intent of providing first-class visual appreciation of the astronaut's activity
on the moon during this singularly historical event. Everyone's impression
284
Firing Room 2 at Kennedy Space Center during Countdown Demonstration Test-
a dress rehearsal for Apollo 9. James Harrington, left, KSC Apollo 9 Test
Supervisor, and Paul C. Donnelly, Apollo Launch Operations Manager, discuss
procedures.
1969
of this occasion will be marred and distorted by the fact that the greatest
frame rate is 12 frames per second. One can argue that 'suitable' (although February
jerky) motion rendition is produced by 'double-framing.' Nevertheless, it is

almost unbelievable that the culmination of a 20 billion dollar program is to
be recorded in such a stingy manner and the low-quality public information
and historical material is in keeping with an otherwise high-quality
program." Faget also noted he felt that, from a historical standpoint, both
the lunar module pilot and the commander should be photographed with
the Hasselblad camera while on the surface.
Memo, Faget, MSC, to Chief, Mission Operations Br., "Comments on 'Preliminary Lunar
Landing Phase Photographic Operations Plan,'" Feb. 27, 1969.
March
The Apollo Program Director expressed concern about the inability to
1
obtain adequate data on the expenditure of energy by astronauts during
lunar exploration. The problem was discussed with the medical and crew
systems personnel. The consensus was that the only meaningful indicator of
285
1969
human energy expenditure which could be developed into an operational
Ma_h procedure in time for lunar landings would be measurement of carbon
dioxide production. From a technical standpoint the most feasible means of
doing this would be incorporating a carbon dioxide measurement system in
the portable life support system. A study was initiated to determine how
quickly a measurement system could be developed and to estimate the cost.
Ltrs., Samuel C. Phillips to Manager, Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, "'Initiation of a

Program [or the Measurement of Carbon Dioxide Pr_xtuction during Lunar Exploration,"
March 1, 1969; George M. Low to Phillips, May 5, 1969.
3-13
Apollo 9 (AS-504), the first manned flight with the lunar module (LM-3),
was launched from Pad A, Launch Complex 39, KSC, on a Saturn V launch
vehicle at 11:00 a.m. EST March 3. Originally scheduled for a February 28
liftoff, the launch had been delayed to allow crew members James A.
McDivitt, David R. Scott, and Russell L. Schweickart to recover from a mild
virus respiratory illness. Following a normal launch phase, the S-IVB stage
inserted the spacecraft into an orbit of 192.3 by 189.3 kilometers. After post-
insertion checkout, CSM 104 separated from the S-IVB, was transposed, and
docked with the LM. At 3:08 p.m. EST, the docked spacecraft were separated
from the S-IVB, which was then placed on an earth-escape trajectory.
On March 4 the crew tracked landmarks, conducted pitch and roll yaw
maneuvers, and increased the apogee by service propulsion system burns.
On March 5 McDivitt and Schweickart entered the LM through the docking

tunnel, evaluated the LM systems, transmitted the first of two series of
telecasts, and fired the LM descent propulsion system. They then returned to
the CM.
McDivitt and Schweickart reentered the LM on March 6. After transmitting

a second telecast, Schweickart performed a 37-minute extravehicular
activity (EVA), walking between the LM and CSM hatches, maneuvering on
handrails, taking photographs, and describing rain squalls over KSC.
On March 7, with McDivitt and Schweickart once more in the LM, Scott
separated the CSM from the LM and fired the reaction control system
thrusters to obtain a distance of 5.5 kilometers between the two spacecraft.
McDivitt and Schweickart then performed a lunar-module active rendez-
vous. The LM successfully docked with the CSM after being up to 183.5
kilometers away from it during the six-and-one-half-hour separation. After
McDivitt and Schweickart returned to the CSM, the LM ascent stage was
jettisoned.
During the remainder of the mission, the crew tracked Pegasus III, NASA's
meteoroid detection satellite that had been launched July 30, 1965; took
multispectral photos of the earth; exercised the spacecraft systems; and
prepared for reentry.
286
|
At top, LM-3 is still attached to the S-IVB stage after launch on the Apollo 9
mission March 3, 1969. The CM has separated and turned around, moving in
toward docking with the LM and separation. On the fourth day of the earth-
orbital mission, CM pilot David R. Scott stood in the open hatch of the CM,
photographed by LM pilot Russell L. Schweickart from the "front porch" of the
LM, designated Spider during the flight. At the bottom right, Spider flies in
lunar landing configuration, upside down to earth, with lunar surface probes
extending from deployed foot pads. Apollo 9 commander James A. McDivitt flies
with Schweickart in the LM, photographed by Scott from the CM Gumdrop.
The Apollo 9 CM splashed down in the Atlantic 290 kilometers east of the 1969
Bahamas at 12:01 p.m. EST. The crew was picked up by helicopter and March
flown to the recovery ship U.S.S. Guadalcanal within one hour after
splashdown. Primary objectives of the flight were successfully accom-
plished. (Objectives of all Apollo flights are listed in Appendix 5.)
MSC, "Apollo 9 (AS-504) Flight Summary," undated; MSC, "Apollo 9 Mission Report"
(MSC-PA-R-69-2), May 1969; NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report," March
4, 17, 1969.
287
1969
President Nixon, at a White House ceremony, announced the nomination
March of Acting Administrator Thomas O. Paine to be the NASA Administrator.
5 Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, Weekl_ Compilation o]
Presidential Documents, March 10, 1969, pp. 369-71.

wrote MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth of his concern about Apollo
software. "Software as I mean it to be understood in this letter includes
computer programs, mission profiles and procedures (training). As I recall,
the Apollo project started with a legacy of warnings from other programs
about the rigors and pitfalls of software development .... I believe we are
giving far more management attention to hardware changes than to
software changes of similar impact." He questioned "whether some of these
changes make the system better or safer when the disruptive effects of change
are also considered .... We are making too many discretionary software
changes. These are costing money and effort which could better be used else-
where .... "
Gilruth replied March I 1 : "I cannot agree with your contention that we are
not controlling software with the same rigor and management attention
that we are devoting to hardware changes. Our Apollo Spacecraft Program
Office has organized a number of Configuration Control Boards at MSC.
These include George Low's Apollo Spacecraft Configuration Control
Board, Max Faget's Board for Government Furnished Equipment, Chris
Kraft's Software Configuration Control Board, and Deke Slayton's
Procedures Change Control Board .... Hardware changes.., are directly
under George Low's control. All computer program changes, both on board
and on the ground, are controlled by Chris Kraft's Board. Changes to the
Apollo Operations Handbook, flight crew procedures, crew checklists,
trainers and simulators are controlled by Slayton. Changes in software or
crew procedures that involve changes in schedule must additionally be
approved by George Low's Board. The system I described is working well
and, according to Sam Phillips, has resulted in a more disciplined change
control than anywhere else in the Apollo Program .... We are not making
discretionary software changes. We are only making those changes which
our managers deem to be necessary in their effort to carry out the Apollo
Program in the most effective manner."
Ltrs., Mueller to Gilruth, March 6, 1969; Gilruth to Mueller, March 11, 1969.
In a report to the Administrator, the Associate Administrator for Manned

Space Flight summed up the feeling of accomplishment as well as the
problem of the space program : "The phenomenal precision and practically
flawless performance of the Apollo 9 lunar module descent and ascent
engines on March 7 were major milestones in the progress toward our first
manned landing on the moon, and tributes to the intensive contractor and
government effort that brought these two complex systems to the point of
safe and reliable manned space flight. The inevitable developmental
288
problems that plagued the LM propulsion system were recurring items in 1969
our management reporting, and the fact that essentially all major test March
objectives were met during last Friday's flight operations is an outstanding

achievement. The earth orbital simulations of the lunar descent, ascent,
rendezvous, and docking maneuvers, taking Astronauts McDivitt and
Schweickart 114 miles [ 183.4 km] away from the CSM piloted by Dave Scott
and safely back, were a measure of the skill of the Apollo 9 crew and the
quality of the hardware they were flying."
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--March 10, 1969."
A radiation survey of CSM 107 was planned to determine if the radiation

produced by onboard sources would be of a sufficient level to impair the
effectiveness of proposed experiments to measure the natural radiation
emitted from the lunar surface. The survey would be conducted at KSC by
personnel from the Goddard Space Flight Center.
Ltr., Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, to Rocco A. Petrone, KSC, "Back_ound radiation survey
of Apollo CSM," March 3, 1969.
10 and 3"
A Flight Readiness Review Board convened at MSC to determine the
readiness of Lunar Landing Training Vehicle No. 2 and the Flight Crew
Operation Directorate for resuming flight test operations. During the
briefing and discussion the board agreed that the operation test team was
operationally ready. However, a release for resuming flight test operations
was withheld until certain open items were resolved. The board reconvened
on March 31 and after examination of the open items, agreed that flight
testing of LLTV No. 2 should be resumed as soon as possible.
Minutes, Lunar Landing Training Vehicle Number Two (LLTV No. 2) Flight Readiness
Review Board (FRRB), April 1, 1969.
11
Apollo 10 was transferred to Pad B, Launch Complex 39, at KSC--for first
operational use of Pad B. Meanwhile, a revised work schedule providing for
a Flight Readiness Test on April 9 and launch readiness on May 18 was
being prepared for Apollo 10.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--March 17, 1969."
11
The additional direct cost to the Apollo research and development program
from the January 27, 1967, Apollo 204 fire was estimated at $410 million,
principally for spacecraft modifications, NASA Associate Administrator for
Manned Space Flight George E. Mueller testified in congressional hearings.
The accident delayed the first manned flight of the spacecraft by about 18
months. "During this period, however, there occurred a successful
unmanned test of the Lunar Module and two unmanned tests of the Saturn
V vehicle."
House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight. 1970
NASA Authorization: Hearings, 91st Cong., 1st sess., pt. 2, Feb. 28, March 6, 7, 8, II, 12, 14,
and 25, 1969, pp. 183-85.
289
1969
George M. Low discussed the status of a fire detection system for Apollo in a
March memorandum to Martin L. Raines, reminding him that such a system had
12 been under consideration since the accident in January 1967. Low said:
"Yesterday, Dr. [Maxime A.] Faget, you, and I participated in a meeting to
review the current status of a flight fire detection system. It became quite
clear that our state of knowledge about the physics and chemistry of fire in
zero gravity is insufficient tO permit the design and development of a
flightworthy fire detection system at this time. For this reason, we agreed that
we would not be able to incorporate a fire detection system in any of the
Apollo spacecraft. We also agreed that it would be most worthwhile to
continue the development of a detection system for future spacecraft." (See
also entries of March 27 and September 28, 1967, and April 17, 1968.)
Memo, Low to Raines, "Fire detection system for Apollo," March 12, 1969.
13
MSC requested that Apollo Program Directive No. 41 delivery dates for the
LM be changed as follows: LM-6 from March 1 to March 26, LM-7 from
April 16 to May 15, LM-8 from May 31 to July 15, and LMs 9 through 14 two
months apart. The rescheduling was to permit incorporation of the
redesigned ascent-stage fuel-tank torus ring, installation and testing of the
liquid-cooled suit loop, replacement of the descent-stage tanks, and
incorporation of structural fitting changes to prevent stress corrosion.
TWX, George M. Low to NASA Hq., Atm: S. C. Phillips, March 13, 1969.
14
MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth forwarded plans for the MSC Lunar
Gravity Simulation device to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips.
He informed Phillips that "we have moved out on the design and
fabrication of the inclined plane 1/6 g simulator and our schedule shows
that it will be completed and ready for checkout by May 1, 1969 [see February
5]. The vertical system approach is somewhat more sophisticated and our
scheduled completion is February 1, 1970." Phillips replied March 28 that
he was pleased to read that the simulator program was progressing so
rapidly and "I feel very strongly that this device will greatly contribute to
our capability to create useful lunar exploration missions."
Ltrs., George E. Mueller to Gilruth, Feb. 14, 1969; Gilruth to Phillips, March 14, 1969; Phillips
to Gilruth, March 28, 1969.
2O
ASPO Manager George Low wrote NASA Hq.--referring to a briefing of
George Low at Downey on October 25, 1968--that "MSC has reviewed the
possibility of deleting the CSM boost protective cover. We have concluded
that deletion.., would require the following spacecraft modifications : a. A
new thermal coating would have to be developed to withstand the boost
environment, b. Protective covers would have to be developed for the
windows, EVA handholds, vent lines, etc .... We have further concluded
that a resulting overall weight reduction is questionable, and ... have
290
1969
therefore decided that the cost of this change could not be justified and that
March
the boost protective cover should be retained."
Ltr., Low to S. C. Phillips, "Deletion of the Ix)ost protective cover," March 20, 1969.
24
NASA announced that Apollo 10, scheduled for launch May 18, would be a
lunar orbit mission during which two astronauts would descend to within
15240 meters of the moon's surface. The decision followed reviews of
technical and operational data from the Apollo 9 earth-orbit mission. The
prime crew would be astronauts Thomas P. Stafford, spacecraft command-
er; John W. Young, command module pilot; and Eugene A. Cernan, lunar
module pilot. Backup crew members were L. Gordon Cooper, Jr., Donn F.
Eisele, and Edgar D. Mitchell. With the exception of the actual landing, the
mission plan was the same as for the lunar landing mission. Stafford and
Cernan were to enter the LM, separate from the CSM, descend twice to
within 16 kilometers of one of the preselected landing sites, and then
rendezvous and dock with the CSM. Because of propellant limitations in the
ascent stage, landing and subsequent liftoff from the moon would be
impossible.
NAsA News Release No: 69-46, "Apollo 10 Mission Scheduled," March 24, 1969.
25
The first flight-model ALSEP arrived at KSC, where it would undergo
software integration tests and be prepared for installation in the LM.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly' Report--April 1, 1969."
28
Following a report by the Apollo 9 astronauts that they were thrown
forward in their seats and had to grab their arm rests for support during the
S-IC/S-II stage separation, an evaluation working group were studying the
problem. Preliminary results indicated that the separation transients were a
dynamic characteristic of the Saturn V vehicle; that the measured
accelerations were within predicted range and below design limits;and that
the separation sequences were normal. Conclusions were that similar
separation dynamics could be anticipated on future Saturn V flights.
Memo, J. P. Lindberg, MSFC, to Addressees, "Special Bulletin on S-IC/'S-II Stage Separation,

AS-504," March 28, 1969.
April
ASPO requested a plan for flight crew tests of sleeping pills and other drugs.
3
The plan was to include number of tests to be performed by each crew
member; time of the test with respect to the last sleep period; amount and
kind of food and drink taken during a specified time before the test; general
physical activity by the crew before taking a drug; and, for comparison
purpose, any available statistical information on the effect of these pills after
being taken.
Memo, George M. Low, ASPO Manager, to Charles A. Berry,, Medical Research and Operations
Directorate, MS(;, "Use of sleeping pills," April 3, 1969.
291
1969
ASPO Manager George Low, commented on control of Apollo spacecraft
April weight. Following the January 1967 spacecraft fire at Cape Kennedy, there
5 had been substantial initial weight growth in the CSM. This was attributed
to such items as the new CSM hatch, the flammability changes, and the
additional flight safety changes. In mid-1967 the CSM weight stabilized and
from then on showed a downward trend. The LM weight stabilized in mid-
1968 and since that time had remained fairly constant. Conclusions were
that the program redefinition had caused a larger weight increase than
expected, but that once the weight control system became fully effective, it
was possible to maintain a weight that was essentially constant. Low told
Caldwell C. Johnson, Jr., of the MSC Spacecraft Design Division that the
weight control was in part due to Johnson's strong inputs in early 1968.
Johnson responded, "Your control of Apollo weight growth has destroyed
my reputation as a weight forecaster--but I'm rather glad."
Ltrs., Low to Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, April 5, 1969; Phillips to Low, May
5, 1969; memos, Low to Johnson, "Apollo weight growth," April 5, 1969; Johnson to l.ow,
"Apollo weight growth," April 8, 1969.
7-11
Work on Apollo 10 continued on schedule for a May 18 launch readiness
date. The flight readiness test began on April 7 and was completed on April
10. A lunar module mission-simulation run was completed on April 10, and
a crew compartment fit and function test on April 11. Mission control
simulations were proceeding on schedule without major problems. The
Apollo 10 preflight readiness review was held at MSC on April 11.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Re_)rt--April 14, 1969."
12
ASPO Manager George Low informed MSC Director of Science and
Applications Wilmot N. Hess that he had signed paperwork increasing the
weight allowance for the Apollo scientific payload from 136 to 156.4
kilograms. Low said he was able to do this for the LM-6 (Apollo 12)
mission because of the favorable LM weight picture. He stated, however, "I
believe that we should understand that this increase in weight allowance
does not alter our basic agreement to provide for a scientific payload of 300
pounds [136 kilograms]. In the event that future difficulties with the Lunar
Module require additional weight growth in the basic spacecraft system, we
will have to once again reduce the scientific payload to 300 pounds [136
kilograms] .... I wanted to be sure that we agreed in advance that the added
45 pounds [20.4 kilograms] of scientific payload allowance would be the first
weight to be deleted .... " Hess concurred with the memorandum.
Memo, Manager, ASPO, to Hess, "Increased weight allowance for Apollo scientific payload,"
April 12, 1969.
14-21
Twenty-two astronauts trained in the MSC Flight Acceleration Facility
during the week, for lunar reentry. Closed-loop simulation permitted the
crews to control the centrifuge during the lunar reentry deceleration
292
PART III; MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
profiles. Each astronaut flew four different reentry angles, which imposed
acceleration loads of from 4.57 to 9.3 g.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Activity Report--April 21, 1969."
18
ASPO announced changes in launch readiness dates for the Apollo 12 and
Apollo 13 missions. Apollo 12 was moved up from September 18 to
September 13, 1969; and Apollo 13 was moved up from December 1 to
November 10.
Memo, George M. Low to distr., "Apollo launch readiness dates for Apollo 12 and 13 changes,"
April 18, 1969.
21
The Director of Apollo Test in the NASA Hq. Apollo Program Office,
LeRoy E. Day, was detailed to head the MSF Space Shuttle Task Group. The
group would provide NASA with material for a report on the Space Shuttle
to the President's Space Task Group.
Memo, George E. Mueller, NASA OMSF, to distr., "Special Assignment of Mr. LeRoy E. Day,
Director of Apollo Test," April 21, 1969.
25
Discovery of six new mascons (mass concentrations of dense material)
beneath the moon's surface by William L. Sjogren, Paul M. Muller, and
Peter Gottlieb of Jet Propulsion Laboratory was announced. The first six
mascons had been discovered in 1968 by Sjogren and Muller. Each mascon
was found to be centered below a ringed sea, or an ancient, obliterated
circular sea on the side of the moon's surface facing the earth. Noticeable
acceleration variations were seen as moon-orbiting spacecraft flew over the
mascons. Information was not available concerning possible mascons on
the far side of the moon, since orbiting spacecraft could not be tracked while
the moon blocked them from the view of earth antennas.
NASA News Release 69-61, "New Lunar Mascons Discovered," April 25, 1969.
25-26
In an exchange of correspondence, Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, and
ASPO Manager George Low, MSC, discussed the possibility of carrying an
aseptic sampler and a closeup stereo camera on the Apollo 11 flight. They
decided the flight would carry the camera as an additional source of data;
Apollo 11 crewmen would use it on targets of opportunity during lunar
surface exploration. Because of the unrealistic schedule that would be
required to certify the flight worthiness of the aseptic sampler, however, they
decided not to fly it on Apollo 11.
TWX, Phillips to l.ow, "Assignment of Priority for Aseptic Sampler and Close-up Camera for
Apollo G-I Mission," April 25, 1969; ltr., Low to Phillips, April 26, 1969.
28
A power outage, required to permit maintenance work at the KSC Launch
Control Center, was relayed to the pneumatic controls of the S-IC stage of
the Apollo 10 launch vehicle, causing the prevalves to open and allowing
5280 liters of RP-1 fuel to drain from the vehicle. This, in turn, produced
negative pressure in the RP-I tank, which displaced the upper bulkhead.
293
1969
After repressurization, the bulkhead apparently returned to its normal
April shape. An effort was under way to determine the nature of the damage to the
bulkhead and the effect on the May 18 Apollo 10 launch readiness date.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--April 28, 1969"; "Manned Space Flight
Weekly Report--May 5, 1969."
29
The NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight concurred in a
recommendation to carry an erectable antenna on the Apollo 11 mission.
However, it would be deployed only if required to obtain satisfactory
television, voice, telemetry, and biomedical data simultaneously from the
lunar surface.
Ltr., George H. Hage, NASA OMSF, to George M. l.ow, MSC, "LM Steerable Antenna Versus
Erectable Antenna," April 29, 1969.
May
A temporary fix to provide for an S-II-stage early center engine cutoff was
2 made for Apollo 10 and 11. Purpose was to eliminate oscillations of the
center engine and sympathetic structures. (See March 28, 1969, entry.)
Meanwhile, plans were being made to incorporate a permanent fix into
Apollo 12 and subsequent vehicles to eliminate the oscillations.
TWX, Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, to Lee B. James, MSFC, Roderick O. Middleton,
KSC, and George M. Low, MSC, "Permanent Fix for S-If Stage Oscillations," May 2, 1969.
ASPO reported a recent manned-test abort of the portable life support

system had been caused by a nonfunctional lithium hydroxide canister.
Quality control procedures were in existence and if properly implemented
would have precluded the abort incident. To prevent similar incidents from
occurring, all manned-test and flight equipment would be accompanied by
complete documentation, would be visually inspected, and would be
certified by quality assurance personnel before use.
Memo, ASPO Manager to Acting Manager for Flight Safety, MSC, "Incident involving an
out-of-configuration LiOH canister in an MSC manned altitude test," May 5, 1969.
MSC asked North American Rockwell to propose a design modification in

the CM to add a cold storage compartment for fresh and frozen foods. If the
frozen food study appeared promising, then the addition of a small oven or
heater, similar in concept to that used by the Air Force on long flights, would
also be required.
Ltr., Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, to George W. Jeffs, North American Rockwell, May 5,
1969.
7-8
The fifth and final drop test of LM-2 was made on May 7. The first four drop
tests had been made to establish the proper functioning of all LM systems
after a lunar landing. The fifth test was made to qualify the functioning of
the pyrotechnics after landing. On May 8, the final test, physically
separating the ascent stage, was conducted.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--May 12, 1969."
29t
1969
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips suggested to MSC Director
Robert R. Gilruth that a meeting be held at MSC during the period of the May
Apollo 10 return flight to earth to review the status of experiment support

facilities and the overall plans for science support operations during lunar
missions and over an extended period of time. Phillips pointed out that the
results from the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Package, the Apollo
Lunar Surface Experiments Packages, the Lunar Geology Experiment, and
the analyses of the returned lunar samples would be of inestimable scientific
value. However, NASA in the dissemination of the scientific results would
require a science operations and data management plan which would spell
out the operational, support, management, data-handling, and science
relationships.
Ltr., Phillips to Gilruth, May 8, 1969.
The Apollo Back Contamination Documentation and Configuration

Control Office was established at MSC to provide a documentation program
for any possible contamination from the moon. The program was required
by June 15, to meet deadlines for the launch of Apollo 11.
Memo, Richard S. Johnston, MSC, to distr., "Apollo Back Contamination Documentation
Control Office," May 8, 1969.
NASA Hq. informed MSC that, for planning purposes and Change Control
Board action, the following science sequence was being recommended for
the Apollo 12 mission: ( 1) contingency sample; (2) ALSEP deployment; and
(3) field geology investigations. The message said, "It is important that
ALSEP be deployed in the first EVA (extravehicular activity). Then the
entire second EVA could be devoted to Field Geology Investigations."
TWX, Samuel C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, to George M. Low and Wilmot N. Hess, MSC,
"Mission H-I Recommended Science Sequence," May 9, 1969.
MSC forwarded a plan for the Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Science Project to
NASA Hq. The plan provided for replacement of the ALSEP Array A-2
central station and lunar geological equipment, along with rework of the
Passive Seismic Experiment. Total cost of the project was estimated at $6.7
million excluding the cost of surveying instrument and instrument staff.
With a May 15 go-ahead, delivery could be made by one year from that date.
Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips in a message to MSC Director
Robert R. Gilruth approved the plan, saying that a June 1, 1970, delivery of
the array would be acceptable and requesting procurement action leading to
a definitive Bendix contract be submitted by June 20, 1969.
Ltr., Gilruth to George E. Mueller, NASA Hq., "Apollo 15 Lunar Sur[ace Science," May 9,
1969; TWX, Phillips to Gilruth, June 12, 1969.
295
1N9
Because the first flight of the ALSEP was scheduled on Apollo 12, NASA Hq.
May
asked MSFC to provide for installation at KSC of the prelaunch cooling
12 system for the ALSEP radioisotopic thermoelectric generator (RTG) on
instrument units 507 through 510.
TWX, Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., to MSFC, May 12, 1969.
13
NASA policy on release of manned space flight communications was
outlined. The policy was to release all air-to-ground conversations in real
time. However, if circumstances arose in which crew or mission director
requested a private conversation, the public information officer responsible
for the mission commentary would be notified and would monitor the
conversation with the mission director. A summary would be released at the
discretion of the Office of Public Affairs. Tapes of the air-to-ground private
conversations would not be released.
Memo, T. O. Paine, NASA Administrator, to S. C. Phillips, NASA OMSF, May 13, 1969; It1., G,
E. Mueller, OMSF, to R, R. Gilruth, MSC, May 15. 1969,
18-26
Apollo 10 (AS-505)--with crew members Thomas P. Stafford, Eugene A.
Cernan, and John W. Young aboard--lifted off from Pad B, Launch
Complex 39, KSC, at 12:49 p.m. EDT on the first lunar orbital mission with
complete spacecraft. The Saturn V's S-IVB stage and the spacecraft were
inserted into an earth parking orbit of 189.9 by 184.4 kilometers while the
onboard systems were checked. The S-IVB engine was then ignited at 3:19
p.m. EDT to place the spacecraft m a trajectory toward the moon. One-half
hour later the CSM separated from the S-IVB, transposed, and docked with
the lunar module. At 4:29 p.m. the docked spacecraft were ejected, a
separation maneuver was performed, and the S-IVB was placed in a solar
orbit by venting residual propellants. TV coverage of docking procedures
was transmitted to the Goldstone, Calif., tracking station for worldwide,
commercial viewing.
On May 19 the crew elected not to make the first of a series of midcourse
maneuvers. A second preplanned midcourse correction that adjusted the
trajectory to coincide with a July lunar landing trajectory was executed at
3:19 p.m. The maneuver was so accurate that preplanned third and fourth
midcourse corrections were canceled. During the translunar coast, five color
TV transmissions totaling 72 minutes were made of the spacecraft and the
earth.
At 4:49 p.m. EDT on May 21 the spacecraft was inserted into a lunar orbit of
110.4 by 315.5 kilometers. After two revolutions of tracking and ground
updates, a maneuver circularized the orbit at 109.1 by 113.9 kilometers.
Astronaut Cernan then entered the LM, checked all systems, and returned to
the CM for the scheduled sleep period.
On May 22 activation of the lunar module systems began at 11:49 a.m.

EDT. At 2:04 p.m. the spacecraft were undocked and at 4:34 p.m. the LM
was inserted into a descent orbit. One hour later the LM made a low-level
296
Astronaut John W. Young in the Apollo 10 command module passes 97 kilometers
above unnamed craters on the far side of the moon while Thomas P. Stafford and
Eugene A. Cernan descend in the separated LM to within 25 000 meters of the
surface. The returning LM--its descent stage jettisoned--was photographed
from the CSM before the spacecraft redocked in orbit. On the near side of the
moon, Triesnecker Crater was photographed from the CSM; terrain features are
typical of the northeastern Central Bay area and highlands along the border of
Central Bay. The smooth floor of the Sea of Vapors extends from the highlands to
the horizon, 600 kilometers from the spacecraft. Triesnecker Crater is about 27
kilometers in diameter. The intersecting linear features to its right are the
Triesnecker Rilles.
297
pass at an altitude of 15.4 kilometers over the planned site for the first lunar
landing. The test included a test of the landing radar, visual observation of
lunar lighting, stereo photography of the moon, and execution of a phasing
maneuver using the descent engine. The lunar module returned to dock
successfully with the CSM following the eight-hour separation, and the LM
crew returned to the CSM.
The LM ascent stage was jettisoned, its batteries were burned to depletion,
and it was placed in a solar orbit on May 23. The crew then prepared for the
return trip to earth and after 61.5 hours in lunar orbit a service propulsion
system TEI burn injected the CSM into a trajectory toward the earth. Dur-
ing the return trip the astronauts made star-lunar landmark sightings, star-
earth horizon navigation sightings, and live television transmissions.
Apollo 10 splashed down in the Pacific at 12:52 p.m. EDT on May 26, 5.4
kilometers from the recovery ship. The crew was picked up and reached the
recovery ship U.S.S. Princeton at 1:31 p.m. All primary mission objectives
of evaluating performance and support and the detailed test objectives were
achieved. (Objectives of all the Apollo flights are shown in Appendix 5.)
(MSC-00126), August 1969; NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Reports," May 9, 26,
1969; memo, R. O. Middleton, KSC, to distr., "Apollo 10 (AS-505) Quick Look Assessment
Report," May 22, 1969.
111
Recent serious incidents were reported at MSC, involving mercury and
affecting ground support equipment or Apollo flight hardware. These
incidents reflected the relaxation of safety disciplinary procedures required
in handling mercury and mercury-filled instruments. To preclude further
such incidents, stringent regulations were imposed governing the
acquisition, use, and disposition of mercury at MSC.
Memo, Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, to distr., "Mercury Contamination Control," May 19, 1969.
19
Vision distortion was found when looking through the pressure garment
assembly helmet during Water Immersion Facility training activities at
MSC. Curvature of the helmet caused objects to appear distorted, hampering
crew training. Studies were being made in an effort to correct the problem.
Negotiations were also under way with the Department of the Navy to
provide a modified indoctrination course in open-circuit SCUBA for a
number of astronauts, to ensure their safety while training in the Water
Immersion Facility.
Memo, Director of Flight Crew Operations to Director of Medical Research and Operations,
"Vision distortion while training in the Water Immersion Facility (WIF)," May 19, 1969; ltr.,
D. K. Slayton, MSC, to B. J. Semmes, Jr., Department of the Navy, May 19, 1969.
19
In a telephone conference, MSC personnel and members of the Interagency
Committee on Back Contamination agreed to eliminate the requirement
for a postlanding ventilation filter for Apollo 12, approve a plan for
sterilization of the CM in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL), release
298
1969
the spacecraft at the same time as the crew release, and approve the LRL
Bioprotocol Summary. The ICBC planned to meet on June 5 to complete Msy
planning and documentation for Apollo 11.

Memo, Richard S. Johnston, MSC, to distr., "ICBC Telephone Conference Summary and
Action ltems," May 21, 1969; NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Report--May 26, 1969."
27
MSFC was authorized to proceed with development of a manned lunar
roving vehicle for use on the Apollo missions beginning in mid-1971. A
meeting was scheduled for June 6 in Washington to establish requirements
for development of the vehicle.
TWX, Lee R. Scherer, NASA Hq., to Wernher von Braun and William R. Lucas, MSFC; Robert
R. Gilruth and John D. Hodge, MSC; and Kurt H. Debus, KSC, May 27, 1969.
27
Apollo Program Director Sam C. Phillips wrote to MSC regarding a Flight
Readiness Review action item on translunar injection (TLI : insertion into a
trajectory toward the moon) dispersions after manual guidance for TLI on
Apollo missions. He enclosed a memorandum prepared by W. G. Heffron of
Bellcomm, Inc., on the subject. Phillips stated that fuel reserves on Apollo
10 were such that dispersions seemed acceptable and he would have
permitted use of manned guidance during TLI if it had been needed. He
pointed out that margins would be much less for the Apollo 11 mission, and
that it would be necessary either to reduce the dispersions or limit the use of
the capability. ASPO Manager George M. Low replied to the letter on June
13 and submitted the following comments for consideration : "... I see little
advantage to not attempting manual launch vehicle guidance for TLI ....
If the dispersions are within the 120 feet [37 meters] per second budgeted for
translunar midcourse corrections, the mission would be continued as
planned. If the dispersions are within 270 feet [82 meters] per second, the
mission would be completed utilizing a slower transearth trajectory. If the
dispersions are very large, the mission would be limited to a circumlunar
flight in which all of the service propulsion system and LM descent stage
propellants could be used for midcourse corrections .... "
Ltrs., Phillips to Low, "Manual Launch Vehicle Guidance--TL1 Dispersion," May 27, 1969;
Low to Phillips, "Manual launch vehicle guidance--TLI dispersions," June 13, 1969.
Apollo Program Office Change Control Board (CCB) Directive No. 140
assigned Experiment S080, Solar Wind Composition, to the first lunar
landing mission. CCB Directive No. 156 requested MSC to also include this
experiment on the second lunar landing mission.
TWX, S. C. Phillips, NASA Hq., to G. M. Low, MSC, .June 4, 1969.
The early engineering evaluation of the Apollo 10 launch vehicle, Saturn V

AS-505, indicated that the major flight objectives were accomplished.
Indications were that all detailed test objectives were also accomplished.
The basic performance of the Saturn V was satisfactory, but the following
problem areas were identified for more extensive investigation: (1) The
299
1969
S-IVB stage auxiliary hydraulic pump performance degraded during
June S-IVB second burn. The hydraulic system cycle after second burn also
indicated degraded pump performance. (2) Astronauts reported low-
frequency lateral and longitudinal oscillations throughout the S-IVB first
and second burn, with high-frequency vibration superimposed beginning
at 4 minutes 40 seconds into second burn and continuing until engine
cutoff. While the associated amplitudes of both high and low frequency
were well within structural and component vibration qualification levels, a
priority effort to identify the source of these vibrations was under way.
Ltr., Lee B+ James, MSFC, to Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., June 3, 1969, with encl., "Saturn
AS-505 M + 5 Day Report," June 3, 1969.
In a report to the ASPO Manager, the Chief of MSC's Systems Engineering

Division described Apollo Site Selection Board (ASSB) action on proposed
landing sites for the Apollo 12 mission. The MSC recommendation was to
land at either the Surveyor III or Surveyor I site if Apollo 11 landed in
either Apollo site 2 or site 3. Earlier, on January 10, Benjamin Milwitzky,
NASA Hq., had said, "There appears to be much merit in landing close to
one or more Surveyors." He pointed out that "reexamination of
disturbances in the lunar surface created by Surveyor landings, the study of
unique lunar features seen by Surveyors, and the return to Earth of objects
identified by Surveyors as scientifically important can greatly enhance the
scientific and technological value of subsequent Apollo landings .... "
MSC informed NASA Hq. on June 12 that it had analyzed landing terrain in
Hipparchus and Fra Mauro and concluded that these areas were too rough
to be given consideration for the Apollo 12 mission. At the same time, MSC
recommended that ASSB reconsider the Surveyor Ill site as a prospective site
for that mission. On June 16, Apollo Program Director Sam C. Phillips
wrote that Fra Mauro and Hipparchus would not be considered as
landing sites for the Apollo 12 mission and that he would entertain
consideration of the Surveyor III site following analysis of its scientific
desirability in a meeting of the Group for Lunar Exploration Planning at
MSC on June 17 and subsequent recommendations by MSC and NASA Hq.
OMSF staff members.
Memos, Benjamin Milwitzky, NASA Hq., to Apollo Lunar Exploration Office Director, NASA
Hq., "Biasing Apollo Missions to Land Near Surveyor Spacecraft on the Moon," Jan. 10, 1969;
Chief, Systems Engineering Div., MSC, to ASPO Manager, "Apollo Site Selection Board trip
report--June 3, 1969," dated June 10, 1969; TWXs, G. M. Low, MSC, to S. C. Phillips, NASA
Hq., "Lunar Landing Sites for H-I Mission," June 12, 1969; Phillips to Low, "Lunar Landing
Sites for H--I Mission," June 16, 1969.
ASPO Manager George Low suggested to MSC Director of Flight Crew

Operations Donald K. Slayton that beginning with Apollo 12 Velcro
applications should be "in a spacecraft configuration and not vice versa." In
the past, Velcro applications had presumably been made in the spacecraft to
conform to the configurations used in training.
Memo, Low to Slayton, "Velcro Changes," June 7, 1969.
3OO
The CSM 107 (Apollo 11) Flight Readiness Review Board met at MSC. The 1969
board heard reviews of government-furnished equipment problems, a June
special report on camera equipment, scientific experiments and equipment 9

to be used on Apollo 11, medical requirements, operations and procedures
to preclude back contamination from the moon, and a structural assessment
of the LM/SLA/CSM. CSM Manager Kenneth S. Kleinknecht summarized
the status of CSM 107 and emphasized that Apollo Operations Handbook
changes must be in by June 15. Board Chairman George S. Trimble, MSC,
noted that there seemed to be a tendency to bring more items to the board at
this review than before, since this mission was the goal toward which
everyone had been working.
Trimble, MSC, to distr., "Minutes of Meeting, CSM 107, Flight Readiness Review Board," June
9, 1969.
Preparation of Apollo 11 was on schedule for a July 16 launch date. Lunar

landmark and landing site mosaics were delivered for flight crew training. A
flight readiness test, begun on June 4, had been completed June 6 despite an
MSC Mission Control Center power outage that delayed the test for several
hours.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--June 9, 1969;" OMSF, "Apollo
Program Weekly Status Report," June 12, 1969.
9-13
Studies were being conducted to determine the feasibility of intentionally
impacting an S-IVB stage and an empty LM stage on the lunar surface after
jettison, to gather geological data and enhance the scientific return of the
seismology experiment. Data would be obtained with the ALSEP seismo-
graphic equipment placed on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 or
Apollo 12 flight. MSFC and Bellcomm were examining the possibility of the
S-IVB jettison; MSC, the LM ascent stage jettison. Intentional impacting of
the ascent stage for Apollo 11 was later determined not to be desirable.
TWXs, Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., to George M. Low, MSC, "LM-5 Ascent Stage
Disposition after Jettison," June 13, 1969; Phillips to Low, "lmpact of the Ascent Stage on
Apollo 11," June 25, 1969; Phillips to MSFC and MSC, "This Is APO CCB Directive No. 158,"
June 30, 1969; NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--June 9, 1969."
11
In establishing a task force for hardware development, Apollo Program
Director Samuel C. Phillips stated: "We have recently been given ...
approval on our plans for continuing the lunar missions through Apollo
20. We have given authority to the field centers to issue CCA's for the design
and the procurement of long lead time items for modifications to the LM
and CSM. We have also authorized the procurement of a wheeled vehicle for
lunar surface transportation. We are in the process of evaluating over 50
proposals for lunar orbital experiments, and have given MSC authority to
procure an already approved experiment group. In short, we are becoming
very rapidly involved in the definition and management of the lunar
exploration missions."
Ltr., Phillips to distr., "Task Force for Hardware Development," June 11, 1969; NASA OMSF,
"Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--June 16, 1969."
301
1N9
Apollo Program Director Phillips wrote MSC ASPO Manager George
June Low, that "based on the excellent results of the color TV coverage on the
13 Apollo 10 mission... I concur with your plan to carry and utilize a color
TV camera in the Command Module for Apollo 11 and subsequent
missions .... "
Ltr., Phillips to Low, "Apollo On-board Color TV," June 13, 1969.
13
NASA Hq. authorized MSC to modify its contract with Bendix to include a
60- to 90-day effort to define a modified ALSEP design. Additional cost was
not to exceed $300 000.
TWX, Samuel C. Phillips to Robert R. Gilruth, "Design Definition of Modified ALSEP," .June
13, 1969.
13
The NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, in a message
to MSC, said he understood that, subsequent to the MSC Flight Readiness
Review (FRR) and the NASA Headquarters Readiness Review of the LLTV,
additional modifications had been made to that training vehicle. He
requested a return wire indicating the date of the delta Flight Readiness
Review and evaluation of the readiness for astronaut LLTV flight. In a
reply, several hours later, MSC informed Mueller that a delta FRR had been
conducted that date; that the changes in avionics had been extensively
ground-checked and demonstrated on two separate test flights on June 9 and
June 12; that the MSC board concluded the overall system was ready for
astronaut training; and that the plan was to start the Apollo 11 Critical
Design Review on the following day.
TWXs, George E. Mueller to Robert R. Gilruth, .June 13, 1969; Gilruth to Mueller, June 13,
1969.
17
A seven-day simulation was successfully completed in the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory at MSC. The test simulated processing of lunar samples,
operation of the mobile quarantine facility and crew reception area, and
biolab activities. Action was under way to overcome procedural and
equipment difficulties encountered in the vacuum laboratory.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--June 23, 1969/'
2O
Sigurd A. Sjoberg, MSC Deputy Director of Flight Operations, informed
MSC management of a list of records that could be set m the Apollo 11 flight.
Plans were made to file claims with the F_d_ration A_ronautique
Internationale for:
Class records [or lunar missions
1. Duration of stay on the surface of the moon.

2. Duration of stay inside the spacecraft on the surface of the moon.
3. Duration of stay outside the spacecraft on the surface of the moon.
4. Greatest mass landed on the moon.
5. Greatest mass lifted to lunar orbit from the surface of the moon.
302
lg6g
6. Duration of stay in lunar orbit (The Apollo 10 record would be
broken if the optional sleep period after rendezvous and before transearth June
injection were included.)
Absolute world record
1. EVA record--duration of stay outside spacecraft.
Memo, Sigurd A. Sjoberg to distr., "World Space Flight Records for the Apollo 11 Mission,"
June 30, 1969.
2O
Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC Director of Flight Operations, recommended
that the following fundamental requirements be considered during the
lunar roving vehicle (LRV) design approach: "a. A means of continuous
voice communication with one crew member, on or off the LRV to the
mother station (LM) and from the mother station to earth, must be provided.
b. A simple dead reckoning system should be considered for determining the
LRV and crew location at all times in order to provide a safe return of the
astronauts to the LM. The accuracy should be sufficient to permit the
astronauts to rendezvous with the LM from any point on a sortie, c. The
vehicle should be designed so that a telemetry system is not required for
operation. However, for crew safety and systems operations, instrumenta-
tion may be required."
Memo, Kraft to Manager, Advanced Missions Program, "FOD criteria for manned Lunar
Roving Vehicle," June 20, 1969.
23
Preparations for the first manned lunar landing continued on schedule for a
July 16 launch of Apollo 11. Dress rehearsal of the countdown was
scheduled to begin on Friday, June 27, and to run for 113 hours, including a
6-hour built-in hold. Spacecraft hypergolic loading started on June 18 and
was completed on June 23, despite delays caused by weather conditions. A
lunar module landing-radar problem was resolved by repainting the base
heatshield to reduce the reflectivity. In flight operations, the crew, the
controllers, and the recovery operations team were moving ahead with
training sessions on schedule. Two days of discussions were held with senior
recovery officials on the U.S.S. Hornet and no major problems were
identified. A second mobile quarantine facility was being deployed aboard
the Hornet to provide backup support on the bioprotocol. A significant
milestone was reached June 18 when the scientific investigators and the
Apollo 11 astronauts went through a successful simulation of the EASEP
(Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package) activities, ranging from the
data plans and procedures to the use of the facilities.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--June 23, 1969."
27
The status of the Apollo 11 crew training program as of June 15 was
reported to NASA Headquarters by MSC. The summary indicated the crew
had completed more than 70 percent of the briefing and reviews, had spent a
total of 143 hours on procedures against a programmed 100 hours, had spent
303
1N9
a total of 71 hours on spacecraft test and checkout procedures against a
June programmed 68 hours, had spent 167 hours in command module simulators
against a requirement for 156, and had accomplished 96 percent of the
required 226 hours of training in the LM simulators and about 94 percent of
the 180 hours of required special-purpose training. Overall, 92 percent of
the training program had been accomplished. The special-purpose train-
ing included such items as lunar surface timeline walk-throughs, lunar sur-
face operations preparation and post-walk-throughs, and bench checks. As-
tronaut Nell Armstrong had successfully completed his LLTV training
program by flying a ground run and eight flights on June 14, 15, and 16.
Ltr., Robert R. Gilruth, MS(;, to George E. Mueller, NASA Hq., "Flight crew training
summaries," June 27, 1969, with end., "Apollo l I Crew Training Summary Status as of June
15, 1969."
27
How the decision was reached on who would be the first man to step out
onto the moon was reported in a letter by ASPO Manager George M. Low :
"Some time during the middle of the night, I had a call from Associated
Press informing me that they had a story that Neil Armstrong had pulled
rank on Buzz Aldrin to be the first man on the surface of the moon. They
wanted to know whether it was true and how the decision was reached
concerning who would get out of the LM first.
"To the best of my recollection, I gave the following information:
"a. There had been many informal plans developed during the past
several years concerning the lunar timeline. These probably included all
combinations of one man out versus two men out, who gets out first, etc.
"b. There was only one approved plan and that was established 2 to 4
weeks prior to our public announcement of this planning. I believe that this
was in April 1969.
"c. The basic decision was made by my Configuration Control Board.
It was based on a recommendation by the Flight Crew Operations
Directorate. I am sure that Armstrong had made an input to this recommen-
dation, but he, by no means, had the final say. The CCB decision was final."
Ltr., Low to B. M. Duff, MSC, "Press Inquiry," June 27, 1969.
July
Preparations continued on schedule for a July 16 launch of Apollo 11.
1 Edwin Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins were in good physical
condition and on schedule for their training and mission preparations.
Descent and landing simulations were successfully completed. The recovery
ship U.S.S. Hornet was prepared for the recovery operation. The Goldstone
64-meter dish antenna was ready to support both the Apollo 11 and the
Mariner requirements. [Mariner VI and VII, launched February 24 and
March 27, were on their way to July 31 and August 4 flybys of the planet
Mars]. Mission control and the worldwide network stations were
304
PART III." MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
1969
completing final simulation and tracking preparations, and the flight plan
was ready for distribution. July
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--July I, 1969."
The Interagency Committee on Back Contamination agreed to the

designation of the MSC Director of Medical Research and Operations as the
agent to impose a quarantine applicable to the crew, the spacecraft, and the
returned lunar materials during any phase of the Apollo 11 mission. He was
A cutaway of the lunar module shows critical components and areas of the ascent
stage, top, and the descent stage, below.
SBAND ANTENNA
ANTENNA
RENDEZVOUS
RADAR ANTENNA DOCKING HATCH
AFT EQUIPMENT BAY
RCS THRUSTER ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY

ASSEMBLY US OXYGEN
FUEL (RCS)
HELIUM
LIQUID OXYGEN
:LIUM
OXIDIZER OXIDIZER
;ENT ENGINE COVER

INGRESSE(;
FUEL (AEROZlNE 50)
CRf WATER
THER_ EQUIPItENT
FUEL (AEROZINE
FU EL
.(NITROGEN
TETROXIDE)
BATTERIES,
S BAND
ANTENNA
STORAGE
HELIUM OXYGEN
DESCENT ENGINE
1969
authorized to appoint persons at each location and phase of the mission who
July would have the responsibility of exercising the quarantine authority if
necessary.
I.tr., Apollo Mission Director George H. Hage to NASA General Counsel, "Back
Contamination and Quarantine--Apollo 11," July 2, 1969.
In an effort to stem the increasing number of human errors found in flight

hardware, the ASPO Manager appointed a spacecraft walk-down team to
take a first-hand look at spacecraft as late as possible before delivery to KSC.
Team members selected were highly experienced in their respective fields
and thoroughly familiar with the spacecraft. While ASPO recognized that
the team could not possibly discover all the possible discrepancies, it hoped
that the inspections might help avoid some of the problems experienced in
the past.
Ltr., G. M. Low, MSC, to R. A. Petrone, KS(;, July 8, 1969.
The ASPO Manager for the command and service modules expressed belief
that costs could be reduced and others avoided by the effective use of agency
resources in many areas. However, he pointed out that the very nature of the
program--that is, one operating in a research and development atmos-
phere-would result in higher costs than would a mass-production
program.
Memo, Kenneth S. Kleinknecht to Manager, Apollo Spacecraft Program, "Cost of manned

flight programs," July 9, 1969.
Microscopic examination of dust particles collected from the spacecraft after

the Apollo 10 mission and of samples collected from the inside of nine
garments worn by the Apollo 10 astronauts confirmed preliminary findings
that the itching experienced by the astronauts was due to the insulation in
the tunnel hatch of the command module. Investigation showed the
fiberglass insulation had flaked off during LM pressurization. Review of
thermal conditions indicated the insulation was not essential and it was
eliminated from future vehicles.
Ltr., Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, to George W. Jeffs, North American Rockwell Corp., ]ulv
9, 1969. ' ' "
16--24
Apollo 11 (AS-506)--with astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins,
and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., aboardIwas launched from Pad A, Launch
Complex 39, KSC, at 9:32 a.m. EDT July 16. The activities during earth-
orbit checkout, translunar injection, CSM transposition and docking,
spacecraft ejection, and translunar coast were similar to those of Apollo 10.
(See entry for May 18-26, 1969.)
At 4:40 p.m. EDT July 18, the crew began a 96-minute color television
transmission of the CSM and LM interiors, CSM exterior, the earth, probe
and drogue removal, spacecraft tunnel hatch opening, food preparation,
306
1969
and LM housekeeping. One scheduled and two unscheduled television
broadcasts had been made previously by the Apollo 11 crew. July
The spacecraft entered lunar orbit at 1:28 p.m. EDT on July 19. During the
second lunar orbit a live color telecast of the lunar surface was made. A
second service-propulsion-system burn placed the spacecraft in a circular-
ized orbit, after which astronaut Aldrin entered the LM for two hours of
housekeeping including a voice and telemetry test and an oxygen-purge-
system check.
At 8:50 a.m. July 20, Armstrong and Aldrin reentered the LM and checked
out all systems. They performed a maneuver at 1 : 11 p.m. to separate the LM
from the CSM and began the descent to the moon. The LM touched down on
the moon at 4:18 p.m. EDT July 20. Armstrong reported to mission control
at MSC, "Houston, Tranquility Base here--the Eagle has landed." (Eagle
was the name given to the Apollo 11 LM; the CSM was named Columbia.)
Man's first step on the moon was taken by Armstrong at 10:56 p.m. EDT. As
he stepped onto the surface of the moon, Armstrong described the feat as
"one small step for a man--one giant leap for mankind."
Aldrin joined Armstrong on the surface of the moon at 11:15 p.m. July 20.
The astronauts unveiled a plaque mounted on a strut of the LM and read to a
worldwide TV audience, "Here men from the planet earth first set foot on
the moon July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind." After raising
the American flag and talking to President Nixon by radiotelephone, the
two astronauts deployed the lunar surface experiments assigned to the
mission and gathered 22 kilograms of samples of lunar soil and rocks. They
then reentered the LM and closed the hatch at 1 :ll a.m. July 21. All lunar
extravehicular activities were televised in black-and-white. Meanwhile,
Collins continued orbiting moon alone in CSM Columbia.
The Eagle lifted off from the moon at 1:54 p.m. EDT July 21, having spent
21 hours 36 minutes on the lunar surface. It docked with the CSM at 5:35
p.m. and the crew, with the lunar samples and film, transferred to the CSM.
The LM ascent stage was jettisoned into lunar orbit. The crew then rested
and prepared for the return trip to the earth.
The CSM was injected into a trajectory toward the earth at 12:55 a.m. EDT
July 22. Following a midcourse correction at 4:01 p.m., an 18-minute color
television transmission was made, in which the astronauts demonstrated the
weightlessness of food and water and showed shots of the earth and the
moon.
At 12:15 p.m. EDT July 24 the Apollo ll's command module Columbia
splashed down in the mid-Pacific, about 24 kilometers from the recovery
ship U.S.S. Hornet. Following decontamination procedures at the point of
307
.
The Apollo 11 space vehicle thrusts upward from Kennedy Space Center July 16,
1969, on the flight that fulfilled President Kennedy's May 26, 1961, challenge to
land man on the moon and return him safely to the earth by the end of the decade.
On the lunar surface July 20-21, astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin's helmet visor
reflects the LM and Nell A. Armstrong standing in the Sea of Tranquility.

Armstrong also photographed Aldrin deploying the Solar Wind Composition
Experiment and as he paused by the deployed United States flag. Leaving
footprints behind in the lunar soil after EVA completion, the LM rises to meet the
CSM and pilot Michael Collins for the return to earth--the destination visible
over the lunar horizon.
3O8
splashdown, the astronauts were carried by helicopter to the Hornet, where 1969
they entered a mobile quarantine facility to begin a period of observation JuLy
under strict quarantine conditions. The CM was recovered and moved to the
quarantine facility. Sample containers and film were flown to Houston.
309
1969 All primary mission objectives and all detailed test objectives of Apollo 11
July were met, and all crew members remained in good health. (Objectives of all
the Apollo flights are shown in Appendix 5.)
(MSC-00171 ), November 1969; "Apollo 11 Sequence of Events," July 30, 1969; KSC, "Apollo 11
(AS-506) Quick Look Assessment Report," July 23, 1969; NASA Hq., "Mission Director's
Summary Report, Apollo 11," July 24, 1969; Apollo 11 Mission Report (NASA SP-238, 1971).
19 During the Apollo 11 mission, members of the Lunar International

Observer Network (LION) made continuous observations of a lunar area
where illuminations had been noted. At 1845 GMT (2:45 p.m. EDT), the
astronauts sighted an illumination in the Aristarchus region, the first time
that a lunar transient event was sighted by an observer in space. The
sighting was confirmed by a LION observer in West Germany.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--August I 1, 1969."
The scientific experiments planned for the Apollo 11 mission were reported
successfully accomplished. The passive seismometry had recorded a series of
minor events and withstood temperatures of up to 364 kelvins (195°F). The
average temperature in the central station reached 361 K (190°F)at solar
noon on July 27 and dropped to 243 K (157°F) on July 31. MSC appointed
a study group to investigate the causes of the higher than predicted
temperature levels. Lick Observatory in California successfully acquired
beams from the laser retroflector on August 1 and was continuing ranging
activities.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--August 11, 1969."
28 To guard against cannibalization, misuse, or destruction of any part of the

lunar mission support equipment, spacecraft, and recovered equipment
(however insignificant it might seem) from the Apollo 11 mission, NASA
Hq. specified the following steps: All recovered items would be identified,
recorded, and inventoried as soon as quarantine, decontamination, and
deactivation activities permitted. All items would be placed in secure
storage, under guard if necessary. No removal would be permitted that
would deface exterior portions of the spacecraft or portions of the cabin
visible through the hatch or windows. No destructive testing would be
permitted. Items returned to contractors for testing would be under bond.
Preparation for public display would be expedited.
Ltr., Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., to George M. Low, MSC, "Control and Disposition of
Apollo 11 Hardware," July 28, 1969.
310
1969
NASA issued a tentative planning schedule for the Apollo program:
July
Tentative Landing Area
Flight Launch Plans 29
Apollo 12 November 1969 Oceanus Procellarum lunar lowlands
Apollo 13 March 1970 Fra Mauro highlands
Crater Censorinus highlands
Apollo 14 July 1970
Littrow volcanic area
Apollo 15 November 1970
Apollo 16 April 1971 Crater Tycho (Surveyor VII impact area)
Apollo 17 September 1971 Marius Hills volcanic domes
Schroter's Valley, riverlike channel-
Apollo 18 February 1972
ways
Apollo 19 July 1972 Hyginus Rille region-Linear Rille,
crater area
Crater Copernicus, large crater impact
Apollo 20 December 1972
area
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--July 28, 1969."
31
The Secretary of Defense announced the assignment of Lt. Gen. Samuel C.
Phillips (USAF), who had been serving as Apollo Program Director in the
NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, to be Commander of the Air Force
Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO) in Los Angeles. He
would assume his new reponsibilities in the Air Force effective September 1.
NASA Announcement of Key Personnel Change, "DOD Announcement of General Phillips'

Air Force Assignment," July 31, 1969.
August
During the Apollo 11 management debriefing, the ASPO Manager noted a
1
number of items requiring investigation. During separation from the S-
IVB stage, the CSM autopilot apparently had difficulty determining
direction of rotation. After the CSM hatch removal, there was a strong odor
of burnt material in the tunnel. The leveling device on one of the
experiment packages did not work. The closeup stereo camera was hard to
operate and tended to fall over. The temperature in the lunar module was
too cold during sleep periods. The biological isolation garment was
uncomfortably hot and its visor fogged. The crew observed flashes at the rate
of about one per minute in the command module at night.
Memo, George M. Low, MSC, to Donald D. Arabian, MSC, "Apollo 11 management
debriefing," Aug. 1, 1969.
George Low, James McDivitt, Neil Armstrong, and Edwin Aldrin discussed
lunar exploration that could be carried out by astronauts walking in
spacesuits or riding roving vehicles. The following conclusions were
reached: "a. A possible mode of exploration would be to walk 1 hour (3 to 5
miles [5 to 8 kilometers]) to an exploration site; spend 1 to 2 hours at that
site; and then return to the LM. b. It would be easy to carry anything that
need be carried, provided that it did not require the hands for the purpose.
311
1N9
c. A roving vehicle might work if it had extremely large wheels. There
August appeared to be no significant advantage of using the presently conceived
roving vehicle instead of walking, d. All extravehicular excursions should
be carried out by two men at a time. e. Excursions should not be carried out
beyond the radius of ground communications."
ASPO Manager, Memo for the Record, "Lunar Exploration," Aug. 13, 1969.
MSFC-NASA Hq. correspondence emphasized the need to restrict the

lunar roving vehicle to a 181-kilogram weight limit. If necessary, range and
speed would be traded off to retain this weight limit.
Ltr., Saverio F. Morea, MSFC, to William E. Stoney, Jr., NASA Hq., Aug. 7, 1969.
lo
The Interagency Committee on Back Contamination met in Atlanta, Ga.
Basing its decision on medical and biological data obtained during a 21 -day
observation period, the committee lifted the quarantine on the Apollo 11
crew and the personnel in quarantine with the crew. The CSM was also
released from quarantine. However, all loose equipment removed from the
spacecraft and held in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory would remain in
quarantine until the lunar samples were released. The committee also
agreed that a postlanding ventilation filter would not be required on Apollo
12.
Memo, Richard S. Johnston, MSC, to ASPO Manager, "Apollo Back Contamination

Program," Aug. 11, 1969.
12
During lunar module checkout activities at KSC, the LM-6 (for Apollo 12)
guidance computer was removed and replaced because of an unexpected
restart during panel revalidation.
13
S. C. Phillips, NASA Hq., suggested that for communications on the lunar
surface a long, deployable antenna might work. He suggested that an
antenna about 30 meters long could be used. The antenna would be rolled
up like a tape measure and would curl into a cylinder when deployed,
somewhat like an antenna that had been used on the CSM.
Ltr., G. M. Low, MSC, to J. A. McDivitt, MSC, "Discussions with General Phillips," Aug. 13,
1969.
18
The Lunar Roving Vehicle Task Team, which had been established at
MSFC on April 7, was reconstituted as the Lunar Mobility Task Team. Its
function would be to direct and coordinate MSFC efforts to conceive, design,
and develop various modes of lunar transportation systems.
MSFC Organization Announcement, "Lunar Roving Vehicle Task Team Reconstituted as the
Lunar Mobility Task Team," Aug. 18, 1969.
19
The Apollo 11 seismic experiment package on the moon was reactivated.
Indications were that the unit was fully functional. The laser reflector was
312
also operating well. Scientists at the McDonald Observatory, Fort Davis, 1969
Tex., conducted ranging operations that established the distance between August
the earth and the moon, to within an accuracy of 4 meters as 373 794.3333
kilometers.
20
MSC rejected a Grumman proposal to use the LM as a lunar reconnaissance
module. MSC pointed out that an MSC special task team had recently
studied a number of proposals for lunar reconnaissance. These included use
of a command module test vehicle, the AAP multiple docking adapter, the
subsystem test bed, the ascent stage of the LM, and the entire LM vehicle.
Ltrs., Joseph G. Gavin, Jr., Grumman Aerospace Corp., to Robert R. Gilruth MSC, July 18,
1969; Gilruth to Gavin, Aug. 20, 1969.
22
NASA named Rocco A. Petrone, Director of Launch Operations at KSC, to
succeed Samuel C. Phillips as Director of the Apollo Program effective
September 1. (See also July 31, 1969, entry.)
NASA News Release 69-124, "Petrone Named Apollo Director," Aug. 22, 1969.
26
In response to a query from MSFC, MSC took the position that primary
batteries as opposed to secondary (rechargeable batteries) should be used to
power the lunar roving vehicle. Concern was expressed that a solar array
recharge assembly would introduce an extra complexity into the LM
payload packaging and the roving vehicle servicing requirements and
would contribute to a loss in effective EVA time because astronauts would
need time to deploy the solar array and connect it to the rover.
l.trs. Saverio F. Morea, MSFC, to John D. Hcx:lge, MSC, July 14, 1969; Hodge to Morea, "Power
requirements for the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)," August 26, 1969.
September
Analyses of the radioactive decay of Argon 40 and Neon 21 in two lunar
samples indicated that the minimum age of the part of the Sea of 2
Tranquility from which the samples were obtained was about 3.1 billion
years--plus or minus 200 million years.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--September 2, 1969."
After the preliminary examination of Apollo 11 lunar samples, the

Department of the Interior made a number of recommendations for
processing samples to be brought from the moon by the Apollo 12 mission.
Memo, E. C. T. Chao and R. L. Smith, Dept. of Interior, to W. Hess, A. J. Calio, and P. R. Bell,
MSC, "Recommendations and suggestions for preliminary examination oI Apollo 12 returned
lunar samples," Sept. 6, 1969; ltr., R. S. Johnston, MSC, to Chao and Smith, Sept. 23, 1969.
16
The first reported weights of Apollo 11 lunar samples were inaccurate
because of a number of variables that could not be eliminated until after
quarantine was lifted, MSC told NASA Hq. Because of the concern this
inaccuracy had generated, procedures were being developed for future
313
1969
missions to permit more accurate determination of sample weights early in
September the Lunar Receiving Laboratory processing cycle.
Memo, George M. Low, MSC, to Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., "Apollo 11 Lunar Samph.
Weight," Sept. 16, 1969.
17
The Interagency Committee on Back Contamination recommended
changes in Apollo mission recovery procedures, including:
• Elimination of the biological isolation garment and, instead, use of a

mask and clean room garment for astronauts returning from lunar
missions.
• Design changes to improve the spacecraft and mobile quarantine
facility tunnel operation.
Memo/or record, Richard S. Johnston, MS(;, "Apollo 12 Back Contamination Program," Sept.
17, 1969; memo, Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to Special Assistant to Director, "Crew comments on
the use of biological isolation garment (BIG)," Oct. 6, 1969.
19
MSC replied to a query that 136 flags of other nations, the U.N. flag, and
flags from each state and territory of the United States had been flown on
Apollo 11. The flags, measuring 10.16 cm x 15.24 cm and made of silk-
screened rayon, were procured through available commercial sources.
Vacuum packed and stowed in Beta cloth bags for flammability protection
the flags were not removed from the containers during the flight. The
American flag left on the surface of the moon would probably last for a con-
siderable period, since the only deterioration expected would be from the
solar wind.
Ltr.. Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to Mrs. Seddon Sadtler, ca. Sept. 19, 1969.
23
In response to a query from Guinness Superlatives, London, as to the
maximum distance from the earth reached by Apollo 8 and Apollo 11, MSC
said the maximum distance for Apollo 8 was 377 348.704 kilometers, during
the 10th lunar revolution. The maximum distance from the earth for Apollo
11 was 389921.3764 kilometers, during lunar orbit insertion. However,
because of the requirement to exceed previously established space records by
10 percent, the altitude achieved on Apollo 8 was still the recognized record.
l.ll., (;eolge M. Low, MS(', to Norris D. M(Whi_ter, (;utrmess Superlatives, ,_pt. 23, 1969.
25
James A. McDivitt was appointed ASPO Manager at MSC. George M. Low,
former ASPO Manager was temporarily on special assignment at MS(] to
plan future MSC programs and work on organizational matters.
MS(: News Release, 69-66, Sept. 25, t969.
2.5-26
A Manned Space Flight Awareness seminar was held at MSC. The seminar,
attended by some 500 industry and government representatives, emphasized
the need for maintaining the dedication and motivation that led to the
success of Apollo 11.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--September 29, 1969."
314
PART IIl: MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
1969
An exchange of correspondence that had begun in April formalized the
suggestion that a series of handbooks on the "lessons learned" from the October
Apollo program should be prepared as an aid to future programs. 3
Ltrs., Samuel C. Phillips, NASA Hq., to George M. Low, MS(;, April 30, 1969; I.ow to Phillips,
May 5, 1969; memos, l.ow to Director of Flight Operations, "Apolloexperience reports," Sept.
23, 1969; Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC, to distr., "Documentation of FOD Atxfllo exlwri-
ence," Oct. 3, 1969.
Program responsibility for the Saturn launch vehicles was divided, at the
Headquarters level, between the Apollo Program Office and the Apollo
Applications Program. Overall responsibility for the Saturn V remained
with the Apollo Program Office, while overall responsibility for the Saturn
IB vehicle was assigned to Apollo Applications.
Memorandum of l rnderstanding between the Apollo and Apollo Applications Program

Offices on Saturn Vehicle Management Interfaces, signed Rocco A. Petrone, APO, Oct. 6.1969,
and William C. Schneider, AAP, Oct. 13, 1969.
10
Major milestones were reached for extending astronauts' staytime on the
moon and increasing their mobility for the Apollo 16-20 missions.
Modifications in the A7L spacesuit incorporating improved waist mobility
were authorized, and letter contract authority for the portable life support
system/secondary life support system was approved.
Minutes of Manned Space Flight Management (;ouncil Meeting, Oct. 15, 1969.
12
A portion of the Apollo 12 mission would be devoted to an examination of
Surveyor III and recovery of its TV camera and thermal-switch glass mirror
fragments, MSC announced. Recovery of the glass fragments was important
to Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to provide data for designing thermal
switches for the Mercury-Venus Mariners to be flown in 1973. However,
recovery of the splinters could easily cause cuts and leaks in the astronauts'
gloves; extreme caution would be required. The following procedures were
recommended: use of a line during the initial solo descent into the Surveyor
III crater, to determine the footing and climbing situation before both
crewmen descended into the crater, and recovery of thermal-switch glass
fragments by a suitable tool such as tweezers, to prevent glove damage.
Memo, James A. McDivitt, MS(;, to distr., "Apollo 12 Surveyor Ill safety review and recom-
mendation," Oct. 18, 1969; Apollo 12 Surveyor III Safety Report, Oct. 10, 1969.
21
Apollo 12 film from the onboard cameras would be delivered in two batches
to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory for decontamination within 24 to 36
hours after recovery, MSC reported. Decontamination was expected to take
an additional 47 hours for each batch. Film would then be released for proc-
essing at the Photographic Technology Laboratory. Photography contain-
ing earth views would be prepared at once, but would not be released until
authorized by the MSC Director. The flight crew logs would be photo-
graphically copied from outside the crew reception area of the LRL using
procedures previously developed and agreed on. Original logs would be
315
1969
retained within the crew recovery area during the quarantine period, after
October which they would be picked up by the flight crew.
Memo, Donald D. Arabian, MSC, to ChieL t)hotographic Technology l.aboratory, "Photo-

graph ( processing and distribution re(luirvm(_nns for Apollo 12 (AS-507) mission and s(ien-
tific pholography," Oct. 21, 1969.
The Flight Crew Operations Directorate expressed opposition to a major

effort to develop a lunar flyer until after the Apollo 16 mission. Plans for
Apollo flights 12 through 16 required that the LM be maneuvered to
landings at various points of scientific interest on the lunar surface, and ex-
perience from Apollo 11 and partial gravity simulators indicated the crews
would be able to accomplish their surface EVA tasks for these missions
without the aid of a mobility device.
Memo, Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to l)irccmr oi Engineer ng and D('velopInent, "lama) [l_'('I
studies," Oct. 22, 1969.
27
MSC Flight Operations informed the Apollo 12 commander that records
could be set in a number of areas on the Apollo 12 mission. MSC planned to
file claims with the F_d_ration AOronautique Internationale for:
Class records/or a lunar mission
1. Duration of a lunar mission.

2. Duration of stay in lunar orbit.
3. Duration of stay on lunar surface.
4. Duration of stay in spacecraft on lunar surface.
5. Duration of stay outside spacecraft on lunar surface.
Absolute world record
1. Duration of stay outside spacecraft on lunar surface.
Memo, Sigurd A Sjoberg, MSC, to the Apollo 12 Commander, "World Spat(' Flighl Records
[or the Atmllo 12 Mission," Oct. 27, 1969.
28
A lunar roving vehicle (LRV) cost-plus-incentive-fee contract was awarded
to the Boeing Co. LRV-1 was scheduled for delivery on April 1, 1971,
leaving only 17 months for vehicle development, production, and tests. The
LRV project was managed at MSFC by Saverio F. Morea as a project within
the Saturn Program Office. The Boeing Company would manage the LRV
project in Huntsville, Ala., under Henry Kudish. General Motors Corp. AC
Electronics Defense Research Laboratories in Santa Barbara, Calif., would
furnish the mobility system (wheels, motors, and suspension). The Boeing
Co. in Seattle, Wash., would furnish the electronics and navigation system.
Vehicle testing would take place at the Boeing facility in Kent, Wash., and
the chassis manufacturing and overall assembly would take place at the
Boeing facility in Huntsville, Ala.
Memo, .]ames A. McDivitt, MSC, to distr., "l.unar Roving Vehicle," Nov. 1, 1969; NASA
OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--Nmember 3, 1969."
316
KSC Director Kurt H. Debus, left, confers with Launch Operations Director Walter
J. Kapryan in the Launch Control Center during the Apollo 12 countdown
demonstration test, October rehearsal for the second lunar landing mission, set
for November 14, 1969, launch.
1969
The Interagency Committee on Back Contamination made the following
decisions regarding Apollo 12. The biological isolation garment would not October
be used. A biological mask and flight suit would be used instead. (See entry
30
of September 17, 1969.) Sterilization of flight film was eliminated. Data tapes
would be sterilized if required before the release of samples. The command
module would not be decontaminated unless access for postflight testing
was required before the sample release date of January 7, 1970.
Memos, Richard C. Johnston, M SC, to distr., "Minutes of ICBC Meeting of October 30, 1969";
Johnston to Director of Medical Research and Operations and Director of Science and
Applications, "ICBC Meeting," Oct. 7, 1969.
November
The spacecraft walk-down team, established by ASPO in July in an effort to
stem the increased number of human errors found in flight hardware, made 3
a walkaround inspection of CSM-110 (Apollo 14 hardware). (See entry of

July 8, 1969.) Cooperation of North American Rockwell and the Resident
Apollo Spacecraft Program Office was excellent during the preparation and
implementation of the inspection. No significant discrepancies were found
by the inspection team during the several hours of inspection.
Memo, S_ott t1. Simpkinson, MSC, to ASPO (k_mmand and Service Modules Manager,
"Action items resuhing from CSM-110 engineering walkaround inspection," Nov. 10, 1969.
Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC Director of Flight Operations, suggested that

an in-house review reevaluate the Apollo secondary life support system,
because of its complexity and cost of development, and at the same time
317
1969 reexamine the possibilities of an expanded oxygen purge system using

November identical concepts_
Memo, Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC, to James A McDivitt, MSC, "SLSS," Nov. 3, 1969.
Provision of a thermometer that could be attached to the ALSEP for the

Apollo 13 mission, to take a reading of the lunar surface soil temperature,
was being considered at MSC.
Memo, James A, McDivitt, MSC, to Robert A. Gardiner, MS(', "Lunar surface temperatures,"
Nov. 4, 1969.
4-7
Preparations for a November 14 launch of Apollo 12 continued on sched-
ule. Final lunar surface simulations with the crew, network, and Mission
Control Center were completed on November 4. The instrument-unit com-
mand system, with a replacement transponder and decoder, was successfully
retested and in-place repair of four LM-6 circuit breakers was completed,
also on November 4. The recovery quarantine equipment and mobile
quarantine facility completed checkout for shipment to the recovery ship on
November 7. The final consumable analysis showed positive margins for all
phases of the mission. Also, on November 7, the countdown to launch began
at KSC (T minus 98 hours). A 31-hour hold was scheduled for November 8
with the count resuming at 9:00 a.m. November 9 (T minus 84 hours). The
hold was designed to avoid premium wage cost.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--November 10, 1969."
In an exchange of correspondence between MSFC and MSC concern was

expressed over the weight growth of the lunar roving vehicle (LRV) and its
payload. As a result, a recommendation was made that MSFC manage the
weight of the LRV and MSC the payload weight.
Ltrs., Saverio F. Morea, MSFC, to ,James A. McDivitt, MSC, "LRV Weight Growth," Nov. 6,
1969; McDivitt to Roy E. Godfrey, MSFC, Dec:. 12, 1969.
10
At the request of the Apollo 12 crew, the internal primary guidance and
navigational control system targeting for descent was being changed so that
the automatic guidance would land LM-6 at Surveyor IH rather than at a
point offset 305 meters east and 153 meters north as originally planned.
Memo, .lames A. McDivitt, MSC, to distr., "AI_)llo 12 PGNCS descent targeting is being
changed," Nov. 10, 1969; TWX, McDivitt to C. t.ee and R. Sheridan, NASA Hq., Nov. 4, 1969.
10 NASA announced the resignation of Associate Administrator for Manned

Space Flight George E. Mueller effective December 10. In December Charles
W. Mathews was named Acting Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight until a successor for Mueller was appointed.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1969 (NASA SP-4014, 1970), pp. 368, 405; NASA News Release
69-151; NASA Announcement, Dec. 11, 1969.
318
1969
President Nixon nominated George M. Low, former Apollo Spacecraft
November
Program Manager at MSC, as NASA Deputy Administrator. Low had been
with the space program since 1949, when he joined NACA. The Senate 13
confirmed the nomination on November 26. (See also entries of September
25 and December 3, 1969.)
Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, Weekly, Compilation of
Presidential Document._, Nov. 17, 1969, p. 1597; Congressional Record, Nov. 26, 1969, pp.
S15140, D1126.
14-24
Apollo 12 (AS-507)--with astronauts Charles Conrad, Jr., Richard F.
Gordon, Jr., and Alan L. Bean as the crewmen--was launched from Pad A,
Launch Complex 39, KSC, at 11:22 a.m. EST November 14. Lightning
struck the space vehicle twice, at 36.5 seconds and 52 seconds into the mis-
sion. The first strike was visible to spectators at the launch site. No damage
was done. Except for special attention given to verifying all spacecraft sys-
tems because of the lightning strikes, the activities during earth-orbit
checkout, translunar injection, and translunar coast were similar to those of
Apollo I0 and Apollo II (see entries of May 18-26 and July 16-24, 1969).
During the translunar coast astronauts Conrad and Bean transferred to the
LM one-half hour earlier than planned in order to obtain full TV coverage
through the Goldstone tracking station. The 56-minute TV transmission
showed excellent color pictures of the CSM, the intravehicular transfer, the
LM interior, the earth, and the moon.
At 10:47 p.m. EST, November 17, the spacecraft entered a lunar orbit of
312.6 x 115.9 kilometers. A second service propulsion system burn
circularized the orbit with a 122.5-kilometer apolune and a 100.6-kilometer
perilune. Conrad and Bean again transferred to the LM, where they per-
formed housekeeping chores, a voice and telemetry test, and an oxygen
purge system check. They then returned to the CM.
Conrad and Bean reentered the LM, checked out all systems, and at 10:17
p.m. EST on November 18 fired the reaction control system thrusters to sep-
arate the CSM 108 (the Yankee Clipper) from the LM-6 (the Intrepid). At
1:55 a.m. EST November 19, the Intrepid landed on the moon's Ocean of
Storms, about 163 meters from the Surveyor III spacecraft that had landed
April 19, 1967. Conrad, shorter than Neil Armstrong (first man on the moon,
July 20), had a little difficulty negotiating the last step from the LM ladder to
the lunar surface. When he touched the surface at 6:44 a.m. EST November
19, he exclaimed, "Whoopee! Man, that may have been a small step for Neil,
but that's a long one for me."
Bean joined Conrad on the surface at 7:14 a.m. They collected a 1.9-
kilogram contingency sample of lunar material and later a 14.8-kilogram
selected sample. They also deployed an S-band antenna, solar wind
composition experiment, and the American flag. An Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package with a SNAP-27 atomic generator was deployed
about 182 meters from the LM. After 3 hours 56 minutes on the lunar
319
Apollo 12 astronauts Alan L. Bean,
descending from the LM, and Charles
Conrad, Jr., explore the lunar surface
in the Ocean of Storms November 19-
20, 1969, using tools from a carrier
and deploying experiments. The
Cold Cathode Ion Gauge would
indicate atmospheric density and any
particle density variation, and the
Lunar Ionosphere Detector would
measure characteristics of positive
ions at the surface. In the second EVA
period, Conrad examines Surveyor
II1, which had landed on the moon
April 19, 1967; the LM Intrepid is on
the horizon.
1969
surface, the two astronauts entered the I_trepid to rest and check plans for
November the next EVA.
The astronauts again left the LM at 10:55 p.m. EST November 19. During
the second EVA, Conrad and Bean retrieved the lunar module TV camera for
return to earth for a failure analysis, obtained photographic panoramas,
core and trench samples, a lunar environment sample, and assorted rock,
320
PART llI: MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
1969
dirt, bedrock, and molten samples. The crew then examined and retrieved
parts of Surveyor III, including the TV camera and soil scoop. After 3 hours November
49 minutes on the lunar surface during the second EVA, the two crewmen
entered the LM at 2:44 a.m. EST November 20. Meanwhile astronaut
Gordon, orbiting the moon in the Yankee Clipper, had completed a lunar
muhispectral photography experiment and photographed proposed future
landing sites.
At 9:26 a.m. EST November 20, after 31 hours 31 minutes on the moon,
Intrepid successfully lifted off with 34.4 kilograms of lunar samples.
Rendezvous maneuvers went as planned. The LM docked with the CSM at
12:58 p.m. November 20. The last 24 minutes of the rendezvous sequence
was televised. After the crew transferred with the samples, equipment, and
film to the Yankee Clipper, the Intrepid was jettisoned and intentionally
crashed onto ttle lunar surface at 5:17 p.m. November 20, 72.2 kilometers
southeast of Surveyor III. The crash produced reverberations that lasted
about 30 minutes and were detected by the seismometer left on the moon.
Apollo 12 commander Conrad talks by phone from the Mobile Quarantine Facility
to members of his family. Conrad and astronauts Bean (right) and Gordon arrived
at Ellington Air Force Base from Hawaii on a USAF C-141 transport aircraft
November 29, 1969, after November 24 splashdown.
1969
At 3:49 p.m. EST November 21, the crew fired the service propulsion system
November
engine, injecting the CSM into a transearth trajectory after 89 hours 2
minutes in lunar orbit. During the transearth coast, views of the receding
moon and the interior of the spacecraft were televised, and a question and
answer session with scientists and the press was conducted.
Parachute deployment and other reentry events occurred as planned. The

CM splashed down in mid-Pacific at 3:58 p.m. EST November 24, 7.25
kilometers from the recovery ship, U.S.S. Hornet. The astronauts, wearing
flight suits and biological face masks, were airlifted by helicopter from the
CM to the recovery ship, where they entered the mobile quarantine facility.
They would remain in this facility until arrival at the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory, MSC. The Apollo 12 mission objectives were achieved and the
experiments successfully accomplished. JAil Apollo experiments are listed
in Appendix 5.]
MSC "Al_ollo 12 (AS-507) Flight Summary " undated MSC, "Atx_llo 12 Mission Report"
(MSC-01855), March 1970; MSC Apollo Program Summary Report," preliminary draft, p. 2-
38, undated; TWX, F. A. Speer, MSFC, to C. M. Lee. NASA Hq., "Apollo 12 (AS-507) HOSC
Retx)rt," Nov. 14, 1974; ltr., E. R. Mathews, KS(:, to distr., "Apollo 12 (AS-507) Quick Look
Assessment Report," Nov. 26, 1969; Apollo 12 Prehmumry Science Report (NASA SP-235,
1970).
15
A review of North American Rockwell Space Division's in subcontract man-
agement indicated that its subcontractor schedule and cost performance had
been excellent. The quality had been achieved, for the most part, by effective
North American Rockwell subcontract management planning and
execution of these plans.
Ltr., Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, to George W. lefts, North American Rockwell Corp., Nov.
15, 1969.
17
NASA selected an Apollo Orbital Science Photographic Team to provide
scientific guidance in design, operation, and data use of photographic sys-
tems for the Apollo lunar orbital science program. Chairman was Frederick
Doyle of the U.S. Geological Survey. The 14-man team comprised experts
from industry, universities, and government.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--November 17, 1969."
17
NASA discontinued the use of names such "LEO," "ALEM," and "Apollo
Lunar Exploration Program" that had been used sinceApollo 11 to identify
the lunar exploration phase of the Apollo program. Henceforth, the single-
word title "Apollo" would be used when referring to the program. However,
additional descriptive language, such as "lunar exploration phase of
Apollo" and "Apollo lunar exploration" would continue to be authorized
for defining the Apollo program activity. The action was taken to establish
uniformity and eliminate misunderstanding.
Ltr., George E. Mueller, NASA Hq., to Robel t R. Gilruth, MSC, No',,. 17, 1969; memo, James A.
McDivitt, MSC, to distr., "Identification of the turrent hmar exploration phase of the Apollo
Program," Nov. 26, 1969.
322
PART II12 MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
1969
Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., was appointed Deputy Director of MSC. Kraft,
Director of Flight Operations at MSC since November 1963, succeeded November
George S. Trimble, Jr., who had resigned September 30. 26
NASA Announcement, Jan. 18, 1972; NASA News Release 72-11; MSC News Release 69-70.
December
The MSC Flight Crew Operations Directorate submitted its requirement [or
a simple lightweight Rover (lunar rovingvehicle) guidance and navigation 1
system that would provide the following displayed information to the crew:
vehicle heading and heading to the LM, speed in kilometers per hour, total
distance traveled in kilometers, and distance to the LM. Requirements were
based on the assumptions that the landing area was as well known as for
Apollo 12, all traverses were preplanned, accurate photo maps were avail-
able, and there was MSFN support through voice communications. The
Directorate emphasized that it had no requirements for a display of pitch
and roll, X and Y coordinates, or time.
Memo, Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to ASPO Manager, "Rover guidance and navigation sys-
tem," Dec. l, 1969.
The Apollo 12 crew program/project debriefing was held. Some areas of

concern included the lunar dust which obscured visibility during the
landing, a dust problem in the suit connectors after completion of the first
extravehicular activity, and wear on the suits after completion of the second
EVA.
NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--Decemtver 8, 1969."
MSFC Director Wernher yon Braun forwarded to MSC Director Robert R.

Gilruth an analysis of increasing space scientists' dissatisfaction with the
space program. "Ultimate origin" of dissatisfaction was in "the very
complex and difficult interfaces between science, engineering, and
management" in NASA and governmental systems and "the need for a
quick and flexible challenge-and-response capability."
Young scientists from an academic environment found changing from a re-

search scientist to a science administrator difficult; they often preferred
active research to desk-and-meetings career.
Many scientists were reluctant to accept the long times between conceptual
design and data gathering in space experiments--often 6 to 10 years. The
question was not only of patience, graduate student support, and funding
continuity, but also of scientific obsolescence.
Scientists felt that science was not as well represented in upper NASA
management as were engineering and project management and that high-
level decisions were often made without consideration of scientific
viewpoints. While recognizing that the space program also had other prime
objectives--such as advancement of technology, national achievement,
applications, earth resources, and "bringing the world closer together"--
323
1969
they felt that "science is still a stepchild in this family of program
December objectives."
The analysis said that a good portion of the problems could be relieved by
actions taken by Centers and NASA Hq. over the next few months and years.
NASA space projects should be structured to give more scientists an
opportunity to launch experiments. With the few present scientific flights,
only a few scientists could hope to have their experiments flown in their
lifetimes. The situation would improve when the Space Shuttle and Space
Station were available, but that would not be before 1978 or 1979. With low
emphasis on OAO, HEAO, Pioneer, ATM, and planetary flights suggested
by the President's Space Task Group, "we will have almost no good flight
experiments prepared, and almost no scientists left in the program, by the
time the gates of the shuttle and the station open for science."
NASA should also find ways to reduce the time span between conception
and flight of an experiment. "For Bill Kraushaar, who proposed a
measurement of gamma rays with a simple (now almost obsolete) sensor on
a Saturn launch vehicle, this time is now 8 years, with no end in sight." For
the Apollo telescope mount principal investigators, "this time will be 8
years, provided that ATM-A is launched early in 1972."
The Shuttle promised great improvements, but "initiation or continuation

of unmanned, relatively unsophisticated spacecraft projects for science
payloads" was "highly desirable."
Procedures for proposal, screening, selection, acceptance, and final

approval of experiments were "exceedingly cumbersome and time
consuming." Streamlining requirements after approval--early definition,
documentation, reporting, reviews, and administrative actions--as well as
the maze of committees, boards, panels, and offices, was urgently recom-
mended.
"Many scientists inside and outside NASA have suggested that NASA
should establish, at a high level in the Administrator's Office, a 'Chief
Scientist' position with no other functions than to act as a spokesman for
. . . scientists who wish to participate in the space program."
Ltr., yon Braun, MSFC, to Gilruth, MSC. Dec. 3, 1969, with end., memo, Ernst Stuhlinger,
MSFC, to yon Braun, "Notes on 'Science in NASA,'" Nov. 7, 1969.
George M. Low was sworn in as NASA Deputy Administrator by Thomas

O. Paine, NASA Administrator. (See November 13.)
NASA News Release 69-159, Dec. 3, 1969.
15
NASA was considering incorporation of a mobile equipment transporter on
LM-8, LM-9, and LM-10, to help with problems such as the Apollo 12
astronauts had in carrying hand tools, sample boxes and bags, a stereo
camera, and other equipment on the lunar surface. The MET also could
324
1969
extend lunar surface activities to a greater distance from the lunar module. A
prototype MET and training hardware were being fabricated and were December
expected to be available in late December.

Memo, James A. McDivitt, MSC, to Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., "Mobile Equipment
Transporter (MET)," Dec. 15, 1969.
16-18
A lunar roving vehicle preliminary requirements review was held at MSFC.
MSC was asked to review the requirement for a roll bar which it had
requested in the interest of astronaut safety. Navigation system require-
ments as defined by MSC would require changes in the design presented by
Boeing (see entry of December 1, 1969). Full-length fenders and effects of
dust on radiators, sealed joints, and vision needed to be considered and
appropriate measures taken in the vehicle design, the review found.
Ltr., William E. Stoney, NASA Hq., to Roy E. Godfrey, MSFC, and James A. McDivitt, MSC.
"Lunar Roving Vehicle Preliminary Requirements Review, December 16-18, 1969," Dec. 24,
1969; memo, Donald K. Slayton, MSC, to David B. Pendley, MSC, "Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV)
crew safety provisions," Dec. 12, 1969.
18
A configuration control panel for Apollo GFE scientific equipment was
established at MSC, with Robert A. Gardiner as chairman. The panel would
control proposed changes in Apollo spacecraft GFE science equipment.
Memo, James A. McDivitt, MSC, to distr., "Configuration control panel for GFE scientific
equipment," Dec. 18, 1969.
22
Correlation of the Apollo 12 descent film with the crew's comments during
landing indicated that lunar dust first became apparent at about 30 meters
from the surface and that from about 12 meters above to the actual
touchdown the ground was almost completely obscured by the dust. Because
of both Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 landing experiences, studies were begun
and discussions held about various aspects of lunar dust. An MSC
management review in the latter part of January 1970 would include
discussions of the basic mechanism of erosion during landing, the
possibility of alleviating the effects of erosion on visibility, and an estimate
of what could be expected at future lunar landing sites.
Memo, James A. McDivitt, MSC, to distr., "Investigation of the effects of lunar dust during LM
landing," Dec. 22, 1969; NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly Report--December 22,
1969"; hr., Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, to Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., "Landing site for Apollo
13," Dec. 18, 1969.
28
MSC announced the appointment of Sigurd A. Sjoberg as Director of Flight
Operations, replacing Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., who had been appointed
MSC Deputy Director Nov. 26. Sjoberg had been Deputy Director of Flight
Operations since 1963.
MSC News Release 70-1, Jan. 1, 1969.
NASA had canceled the Apollo 20 mission and stretched out the remaining 1970
January
seven missions to six-month intervals, Deputy Administrator George M.
4
Low told the press in an interview after dedication of the Lunar Science
325
One of the samples collected by Nell
Armstrong and Ed Aldrinon the
n_on July 20, 1969, during the
Apollo 11 mission. This rock was
studied at the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory; other samples were
distributed to scientists in nine
countries.
1970
Institute (next to MSC in Houston). Budget restrictions had brought the
January decision to suspend Saturn V launch vehicle production after vehicle 515
and to use the Apollo 20 Saturn V to launch the first U.S. space station in
1972. (See also Jan. 7.)
UPI, "Apollo Missions Extended to '7't," New York Times, .Jan. 5, 1970, p. 10; NASA
Administrator Thomas O. Paine in NASA News Release, "NASA Future Plans," press
conference transcript, Jan. 13, 1970.
5-8
Detailed reports on the Apollo 11 sample analyses were presented at the
Lunar Science Conference at MSC. Principal investigators covered the fields
of geology, mineralogy, petrology, radiogenic isotopes, inorganic and
organic chemistry, solar wind and cosmic ray spallation products, magnetic
and electrical properties, physical properties, impact metamorphism, and
micropaleontology. The results added up to the greatest single advance in
the understanding of a planetary-size body attained to date.
Abstract, N. W. Hinners, Bellcomm, Case 340, "Significant Results Reported at the Apollo 11
Lunar Science Conference," Jan. 30, 1970.
An MSC Experiments Review Group was established to consider new or late

experiments for the Apollo flights. The group would recommend MSC
policy on changes in experiments and would serve as a management
clearing house.
Memo, James A. McDivitt, MSC, to distr., "Apollo Experiments Review Group " Jan. 6, 1970.
North American Rockwell announced a reorganization to strengthen its

operating divisions, streamline channels of communication, and place
more direct responsibility for performance with top division management.
Ltr.. J. Leland Atwood, North American Rockwell Corp., to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, .Jan. 6,
1970.
326
1970
North American Rockwell declined to become a member of the Coordinated
January
Aerospace Supplier Evaluation (CASE) organization. North American
Rockwell stated that its Certified Special Processors system provided greater 6
effectiveness, that there was no real assurance that a supplier listed in the
CASE Register was capable of performing to all the requirements of the
indicated specifications, and that participants in CASE were prohibited
from any exchange of information concerning supplier inadequacies.
Several processors discontinued by North American Rockwell because of
poor performance were still enjoying the full benefit of listing in the CASE
Register, with the implication of system acceptability and certified-
processor status that the listing provided.
Ltr., George W. Jeffs, North American Rockwell Corp., to Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, MSC, .]an.
6, 1970.
NASA issued instructions for deletion of the Apollo 20 mission from the
program (see January 4). MSC was directed to take immediate action to:
° Stop work on LM-14 and determine its disposition.

• Delete requirements for the Apollo 20 spacesuits and portable and
secondary life support systems.
• Determine disposition of CSM 115A pending a final decision as to its
possible use in a second workshop mission.
• Reevaluate orbital science experiments and assignments and prepare
proposed revisions.
TWX, Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., to MSC, "Apollo 20 Deletion," Jan. 7, 1970.
12
Dale D. Myers' appointment as NASA Associate Administrator for Manned
Space Flight was announced effective January 12, to succeed Dr. George E.
Mueller, who had joined General Dynamics Corp. in New York City as a
Vice President. Before this appointment, Myers was Vice President and
General Manager of the Space Shuttle Program, North American Rockwell
Corp.
NASA News Release 70-4, Jan. 8, 1970.
14
The scientific debriefing of the Apollo 12 astronauts indicated there were
areas of strong interest for which there was no data and that the data could
have been provided by an Apollo lunar surface closeup stereo camera. These
included three distinct kinds of soil noticed by the astronauts, strangely
patterned surface in certain areas, glazings in craters, and fillets around
certain rocks. To assist the Apollo 13 astronauts in making scientific
judgment of targets to be documented, the following photography list was
established: unexpected features, glassy features, rock-soil junction,
undisturbed surface, surface patterns, rock surface, and craters.
Memos, Anthony J. Calio, MSC, to .]ames A. McDivitt, MSC, "Experiment S 18,t on Apollo 13,
Apollo Lunar Surface Close-up Photography," Jan. 14, 1970; Richard S. Johnston, MS(;, to
Lee R. Scherer, NASA tiq., "Close-up stereo camera utilization on Atx)llo 13," Jan. 27, 1970.
327
1970
An MSC meeting to realign the Apollo 16-19 lunar orbital science
January experiments recommended that the Sounding Radar Experiment, S-167, be
16 deleted and the Lunar Electromagnetic Sounder, S-168, should be
developed and flown. Scientificvalue for the experiments was ranked in the
following descending priorities for the various scientific disciplines:
geochemistry, particles and fields, imagery and geodesy, surface and
subsurface profiles, and atmospheres.
Minutes, Lunar Orbital Experiments Review |an. 16, 1970; memo, James A. McDivitt, MSC,
to Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., "Lunar orbital science experiments," Jan. 21, 1970.
29
Ground rules for service module design and integration, established during
recent changes in the lunar orbital science program (see January 16), were
reported. The Apollo LM experiment hardware would be installed and
tested at KSC. A single scientific instrument module configuration was
being proposed for Apollo 16-19 with modification kits developed, as
required, to install Apollo 18 and Apollo 19 experiments. An expanded
Apollo LM data system would be available for Apollo 16 (spacecraft 112).
Memo, James A. McDivitt, MSC, to Rocco A Petrone, NASA Hq., "Apollo lunar orbital
science program," Jan. 29, 1970.
February
North American Rockwell completed an investigation, requested by NASA,
5 of the Apollo 12 flight anomalies associated with apparent vehicle
electrostatic discharges at 36.5 and 52 seconds into the flight. The
investigation indicated the most logical recommendation consistent with
cost and schedule considerations to minimize or eliminate similar
occurrences was for more restrictive launch rules. When atmospheric
conditions exhibited electrostatic gradients in excess of several thousand
volts with severe fluctuations or when heavy cloud conditions associated
with frontal passages existed even in the absence of precipitation or reported
spherics activities, delay of launch should be considered.
Ltr., George W. Jeffs, North American Rockwell Corp., to .lames A. McDivitt, MSC, Feb. 5.
1970.
A statement of agreements was reached between NASA Hq. and the Centers
covering the requirements for a lunar roving vehicle (LRV). Appropriate
portions of the agreements were being incorporated in a revised Apollo
Program Specification and in Apollo Program Directive No. 4.
Memo, Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., to MSFC, MSC, and KSC, "Lunar Roving Vehicle
Requirements," Feb. 6, 1970.
17
MSC appointed a panel to investigate a February 13 accident at the Aerojet-
General plant in Fullerton, Calif., that had damaged a lunar module descent
tank beyond repair. Panel findings were reported to a review board later in
the month, which recommended needed safety measures.
Ltr., O. G. Morris, MSC, to R. H. Tripp, Grumman, Feb. 17, 1970; memo for record, S. H.
Simpkinson, MSC, "LM descent tank incident at Aerojet-General Corporation, California, on
February 13, 1970," March 6, 1970.
328
PART III." MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
1_0
In a White House release, President Nixon listed six specific objectives for
Ma_h
the space program : continued exploration of the moon, exploration of the
planets and the universe, substantial reductions in the cost of space 7
operations, extension of man's capability to live and work in space, rapid

expansion of the practical applications of space technology, and greater
international cooperation in space.
Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, Weekly; Compilation of
Presidential Documents, March 9, 1970, pp. 328-31.
13
Wernher von Braun was sworn in as NASA Deputy Associate Administrator
for Planning. He left MSFC on March 1 and was succeeded as MSFC
Director by Eberhard F. M. Rees.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1970 (NASA SP-4015, 1972), pp. 88-89.
Astronaut John L. Swigert, Jr., Apollo 13 backup command module pilot,

began intensive training as a replacement for Thomas K. Mattingly II. The
Apollo 13 prime crew had undergone a comprehensive medical examina-
tion after German measles had been contracted by Charles M. Duke, Jr., a
member of the Apollo 13 backup crew. Mattingly had not shown immunity
to the rubella virus and it was feared that he might become ill during the
Apollo 13 flight.
MSC Apollo 13 Mission Report (MSC-02680), September 1970.
11-17
Apollo 13 (AS-508) was launched from Pad A, Launch Complex 39, KSC, at
2:13 p.m. EST April 11, with astronauts James A. Lovell, Jr., John L.
Swigert, Jr., and Fred W. Haise, Jr., aboard. The spacecraft and S-IVB stage
entered a parking orbit with a 185.5-kilometer apogee and a 181.5-kilometer
perigee. At 3:48 p.m., onboard TV was begun for five and one-half minutes.
At 4:54 p.m., an S-IVB burn placed the spacecraft on a translunar trajectory,
after which the CSM separated from the S-IVB and LM A q uarius. (The crew
had named lunar module 7 Aquarius and CSM 109 Odyssey.) The CSM then
hard-docked with the LM. The S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system made an
evasive maneuver after CSM/LM ejection from the S-IVB at 6:14 p.m. The
docking and ejection maneuvers were televised during a 72-minute period in
which interior and exterior views of the spacecraft were also shown.
At 8:13 p.m. EST a 217-second S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system burn

aimed the S-IVB for a lunar target point so accurately that another burn was
not required. The S-IVB/IU impacted the lunar surface at 8:10 p.m. EST on
April 14 at a speed of 259 meters per second. Impact was 137.1 kilometers
from the Apollo 12 seismometer. The seismic signal generated by the impact
lasted 3 hours 20 minutes and was so strong that a ground command was
necessary to reduce seismometer gain and keep the recording on the scale.
The suprathermal ion detector experiment, also deployed by the Apollo 12
crew, recorded a jump in the number of ions from zero at the time of impact
up to 2500 shortly thereafter and then back to a zero count. Scientists
theorized that ionization had been produced by 6300 K to 10 300 K (6000°C to
329
The severely damaged Apollo 13 service mod-
ule, whose oxygen tank explosion aborted
the lunar landing mission, was photo-
graphed from the LM/CM after SM jettison
for reentry. An entire panel had been blown
off, exposing fuel cells. The interior view of
the LM--after astronauts had transferred to
use the emergency "lifeboat" for return to
earth--shows temporary connections and
apparatus rigged to use LM supplies and
systems. An astronaut holds the PLSS feed
water bag connected to a hose from a lunar
camera. An astronaut-buih "mailbox" in the
background used CM lithium hydroxide
canisters to purge carbon dioxide from the
LM. John L. Swigert, Jr., holds a hose. Just
before reentry, astronauts returned to the CM
and jettisoned the LM, photographing it as
they bid their lifeboat Aquarius farewell.
10 000°C) temperature generated by the impact or that particles had reached 1970
an altitude of 60 kilometers from the lunar surface and had been ionized by April
sunlight.
Meanwhile back in the CSM/LM, the crew had been performing the routine
housekeeping duties associated with the period of the translunar coast. At
30:40 ground elapsed time a midcourse correction maneuver took the
spacecraft off a free-return trajectory in order to control the arrival time at
the moon. Ensuring proper lighting conditions at the landing site. The
maneuver placed the spacecraft on the desired trajectory, on which the
closest approach to the moon would be 114.9 kilometers.
At 10:08 p.m. EST April 13, the crew reported an undervoltage alarm on the
CSM main bus B, rapid loss of pressure in SM oxygen tank No. 2, and
dropping current in fuel cells 1 and 3 to a zero reading. The loss of oxygen
and primary power in the service module required an immediate abort of the
mission. The astronauts powered up the LM, powered down the CSM, and
used the LM systems for power and life support. The first maneuver
following the abort decision was made with the descent propulsion system
to place the spacecraft back in a free-return trajectory around the moon.
After the spacecraft swung around the moon, another maneuver reduced the
coast time back to earth and moved the landing point from the Indian Ocean
to the South Pacific.
Joy and cigar smoke. Mission Operations Control at MSC relaxes after the safe
splashdown of Apollo 13 astronauts. Lt. Gen. Samuel C. Phillips (USAF), former
Apollo Program Director, is at left; MSC Director of Medical Research and
Operations Charles A. Berry, third from left; NASA Administrator Thomas O.
Paine, center; and NASA Deputy Director George M. Low, right.
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT' A CHRONOLOGY
1970 About four hours before reentry on April 17, the service module was
April jettisoned and the crew took photographs and made visual observations of
the damaged area. About one hour before splashdown the command module
was powered up and the lunar module was jettisoned. Parachutes were
deployed as planned, and the Odyssey landed in the mid-Pacific 6.4
kilometers from the recovery ship U.S.S. Iwo Jima at 1:07 p.m. EST April
17. The astronauts were picked up by helicopter and transported to the
recovery ship less than an hour after splashdown.
MSC "Apollo 13 Mission Report" (MSC-02680), 5;Cl)t. 1970; MS(; "Atx)llo 13 (AS-508) Flight
Summary," undated; memos, ('. M. I.ee, NASA tlq., 1o distr., "Mission Dire( tot's Sununary
Report, Apollo 13," April 17, 1970; E. R. Mathews, KS(:, "Apollo 13 (AS-508) Post-Launt h
Report," April 24, 1970.
13
MSC informed NASA Hq. that the Apollo 12 ALSEP left on the moon in
November 1969 was continuing to transmit satisfactory data. Status of
experiments feeding data into the station was as follows:
The operation of the solar wind experiment was satisfactory.

During the lunar days, useful data were being received from the lunar
surface magnetometer. However, during the lunar-night cycle data were not
received.
Useful data were being received from the three long-period sensors of
the passive seismometer experiment. The short period sensor was inopera-
tive.
The cold cathode ion gauge power had failed.
Satisfactory data were being received from the suprathermal ion
detector.
l.tr., James A. McDivitt, MSC, to Rocco A, Petrom,, NASA H(I., "Operational Status olAl_fllo
12 AI.SEP," April 13, 1970.
April 13-
"Hey, we've got a problem here." The message from the Apollo 13
June 15 spacecraft to Houston ground controllers at 10:08 p.m. EDT on April 13,
initiated an investigation to determine the cause of an oxygen tank failure
that aborted the Apollo 13 mission. The investigation terminated on June
15, when the Review Board accident report was released by NASA at a Head-
quarters press conference.
The Apollo 13 Review Board was established April 17 by George M. Low,

NASA Deputy Administrator, and Thomas O. Paine, NASA Administrator,
who appointed the Director of Langley Research Center, Edgar M.
Cortright, as Review Board Chairman. On April 21 the members of the
Board were named. In addition, by separate memos of April 20, the
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel was requested to review the procedures and
findings of the Board and the Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight was directed to provide records, data, and technical support as
requested by the Board. The investigation indicated the accident was caused
by a combination of mistakes and a somewhat deficient design. The
following sequence of events led to the accident:
332
1970
a. After assembly and acceptance testing, the oxygen tank no. 2 that
flew on Apollo 13 was shipped from Beech Aircraft Corp. to North American April
Rockwell (NR) in apparently satisfactory condition.

b. However, the tank contained two inadequate protective thermostat-
ic switches on the heater assembly, and they subsequently failed during
ground test operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
c. In addition, the tank probably contained a loosely fitting fill tube
assembly. This assembly was probably displaced during subsequent
handling, which included an incident at the prime contractor's plant in
which the tank was jarred.
d. In itself, the displaced fill tube assembly was not particularly serious,
but it led to improvised detanking procedures at KSC, which "almost
certainly set the stage for the accident."
e. Although Beech had not met any problem in detanking during
acceptance tests, it was not possible to detank oxygen tank no. 2 using
normal procedures at KSC. Tests and analyses indicate that the problem was
gas leakage through the displaced fill tube assembly.
f. The special detanking procedures at KSC subjected the tank to an
extended period of heater operation and pressure cycling. "These
procedures had not been used before, and the tank had not been qualified by
test for the conditions experienced. However, the procedures did not violate
the specifications which governed the operation of the heaters at KSC."
g. In reviewing these procedures before the flight, officials of NASA,
NR, and Beech did not recognize the possibility of damage from
overheating. Many were not aware of the extended heater operation. In any
event, adequate thermostatic switches might have been expected to protect
the tank.
h. A number of factors contributed to the presence of inadequate
thermostatic switches in the heater assembly. The original 1962 specifica-
tions from NR to Beech Aircraft Corp. for the tank and heater assembly
specified the use of 28-voh, direct-current power, which was used in the
spacecraft. In 1965, NR issued a revised specification that stated the heaters
should use a 65-voh dc power supply for tank pressurization; this was the
power supply used at KSC to reduce pressurization time. Beech ordered
switches for the Block II tanks but did not change the switch specifications to
be compatible with 65-volt dc.
i. The thermostatic switch discrepancy was not detected by NASA, NR,
or Beech in their review of documentation, nor did tests identify the
incompatibility of the switches with the ground support equipment (GSE)
at KSC, "since neither qualification nor acceptance testing required switch
cycling under load as should have been done. It was a serious oversight in
which all parties shared."
j. The thermostatic switches could accommodate the 65-volt dc during
tank pressurization because they normally remained cool and closed.
However, they could not open without damage with 65 volt dc power
applied. They were not required to open until the special detanking. During
this procedure, as the switches started to open when they reached their upper
333
1970
temperature limit, they were welded permanently closed by the resulting arc
April and were rendered inoperative as protective thermostats.
k. Failure of the thermostatic switches to open could have been
detected at KSC if switch operation had been checked by observing heater
current readings on the oxygen tank heater control panel. Although not
recognized at the time, the tank temperature readings indicated that the
heaters had reached their temperature limit "and switch opening should
have been expected."
1. Subsequent tests showed that failure of the thermostatic switches
probably permitted the temperature of the heater tube assembly to reach
about 1000°F [810 K] in spots during the continuous eight-hour period of
heater operation. Such heating had been shown by tests to damage severely
the Teflon insulation on the fan motor wires near the heater assembly.
"From that time on, including pad occupancy, the oxygen tank no. 2 was in
a hazardous condition when filled with oxygen and electrically powered."
m. Nearly 56 hours into the mission, the fan motor wiring, possibly
moved by the fan stirring, short-circuited and ignited its insulation.
Combustion in the oxygen tank "probably overheated and failed the wiring
conduit where it entered the tank, and possibly a portion of the tank itself."
n. The rapid expulsion of high-pressure oxygen which followed,
"possibly augmented by combustion of insulation in the space surrounding
the tank, blew off the outer panel to bay 4 of the SM, caused a leak in the
high-pressure system of oxygen tank no. 1, damaged the high-gain antenna,
caused other miscellaneous damage, and aborted the mission."
Based on the findings of the Board, a number of recommendations were

made to preclude similar accidents in future space flights"
1. The cryogenic oxygen storage system in the service module should

be modified to:
a. Remove from contact with the oxygen all wiring and unsealed
motors that could potentially short-circuit and ignite adjacent materials; or
otherwise ensure against an electrically induced fire in the tank.
b. Minimize the use of Teflon, aluminum, and other relatively
combustible materials in the presence of the oxygen and potential ignition
sources.
2. The modified cryogenic oxygen storage system should be subjected

to a rigorous requalification program, including careful attention to
potential operational problems.
3. The warning systems on the Apollo spacecraft and in the Mission

Control Center should be carefully reviewed and modified where approp-
riate, with specific attention to:
a. Increasing the differential between master alarm trip levels and
expected normal operating ranges to avoid unnecessary alarms.
334
b. Changing the caution and warning system logic to prevent an out- 1970
of-limits alarm from blocking another alarm if a second quantity in the Aprll
same subsystem went out of limits.
c. Establishing a second level of limit sensing in Mission Control on
critical quantities, with a visual or audible alarm that could not be easily
overlooked.
d. Providing independent talk-back indicators for each of the six fuel
cell reactant valves plus a master alarm when any valve closed.
4. Consumables and emergency equipment in the LM and the CM

should be reviewed to determine whether steps should be taken to enhance
their potential for use in a 'lifeboat' mode.
5. MSC should complete the special tests and analyses under way to
understand more completely the details of the Apollo 13 accident. In
addition, the lunar module power system anomalies should receive careful
attention. Other NASA Centers should continue support to MSC in the
areas of analysis and test.
6. Whenever significant anomalies occurred in critical subsystems

during final preparation for launch, standard procedures should require a
presentation of all prior anomalies on that particular piece of equipment,
including those which have previously been corrected or explained. Critical
decisions on flightworthiness should require the full participation of an
expert "intimately familiar with the details of that subsystem."
7. NASA should thoroughly reexamine all its spacecraft, launch

vehicle, and ground systems containing high-density oxygen or other strong
oxidizers, to identify and evaluate potential combustion hazards in the light
of information developed in this investigation.
8. NASA should conduct additional research on materials compatibili-

ty, ignition, and combustion in strong oxidizers at various gravity levels and
on the characteristics of supercritical fluids. Where appropriate, new NASA
design standards should be developed.
9. MSC should reassess all Apollo spacecraft subsystems, and the

engineering organizations responsible for them at MSC and at its prime
contractors, to ensure adequate understanding and control of the
engineering and manufacturing details at the subcontractor and vendor
level. "Where necessary, organizational elements should be strengthened
and in-depth reviews conducted on selected subsystems with emphasis on
soundness of design, quality of manufacturing, adequacy of test, and
operational experience."
Memos, Low and Paine to Cortright, "Establishment of Apollo 13 Review Board," April 17,
1970; Low and Paine to Cortright, "Membership of Apollo 13 Review Board," April 21, 1970;
Low and Paine to Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Charles D. Harrington,
"Review of Procedures and Findings of Apollo 13 Review Board," April 20, 1970; Low and
Paine to Dale D. Myers, NASA Hq., "Apollo 13 Review," April 20, 1970; hr., Cortright to
Paine, June 15, 1970; House Committee on Science and Astronautics, The Apollo l _ Accident:
Hearings, 91st Cong., 2d sess., June 16, 1970, pp. 234-36, 273-74.
335
1970 To support the Apollo 13 Review Board, an MSC Apollo 13 Investigation

April Team, headed by Scott H. Simpkinson, was established with the following
19
panels: spacecraft incident investigation, flight crew observations, flight
operations and network; photograph handling, processing, and cataloging;
corrective action study and implementation for the CSM, LM, and
government-furnished equipment; related system evaluation; reaction
processes in high-pressure fluid systems; high-pressure oxygen system
survey; public affairs; and administration, communications, and procure-
ment.
Memos, James A. McDivitt, MS(', to Apollo 13 Investigation Team, "Al_fllo 13 Investigation

Team organi_ation," April 19, 1970; Owen G. Morris, MSC, u) S_ott ! !. Simpkinson, "Apollo
13 Investigation Team organization," April 20, 1970.
June NASA Hq. and Center actions were initiated on recommendations of the
26 Apollo 13 Review Board. The Associate Administrator for Space Science
and Applications would take specific action on recommendations 6, 7, and 9
of the report as they applied to spacecraft, launch vehicles, aircraft, ground
systems and laboratories under OSSA jurisdiction. Lewis Research Center
An interior view of the Space Environ-

ment Simulation Laboratory at MSC
shows Chamber A with the door open
in the background and an Apollo
spacecraft mockup inside a work
stand. In the high-angle photo inside
Chamber A, three suited astronauts
prepare to enter Apollo spacecraft
2TV-I for a run,through before an
eight-day manned thermal vacuum
test. The astronauts are Joe H. Engle,
left, Vance D. Brand, center, and
Joseph P. Kerwin.
PART III; MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
was directed to conduct a comprehensive review of oxygen-handling 1970

practices in NASA programs. The Aerospace Safety Research and Data June
Institute was already conducting studies on oxygen handling in aerospace

programs. Other Centers were taking action on Board recommendations as
applicable. (See July 16 entry.)
Memos, George M. l.ow, NASA Hq., to Associate Administrator for Space Science and
Applications. "Recommendations of the Apollo 13 Review Board," June 26, 1970; l.ow to
Director, 1.ewis Research (;enter, "Expansi(m uf ASRDi Oxygen Syslems Review," June 26,
1970; T. O. Paine, NASA Hq., to Director, Lewis Research Center, "Review of Oxygen
Handling in Aerospace Programs to be Conducted by the Aerospace Safety Research and Data
Institute (ASRDI)," May 19, 1970; Bruce T. Lundin, Lewis Research Cenwr to Deputy
Administrator, "Proposed oxygen handling program," July 14, 1970; Deputy Associate
Administrator [ol Sl)a{ e Science and Applications (Engineering) todistr., "Recommendations
of the Apollo 1"_ Review Board," Aug. 5, t970.
July
Efforts of MSC personnel that had been redirected to support the Apollo 13
investigation would again be concentrated on the Apollo-experience- 14
reporting project in an effort to attain a publication date of November 1,

1970.
Memo, Scou It. Simpkinson, MSC, to distr., "Apollo experience reporting," July 1,t, 1970.
16
MSC moved to reassess all Apollo spacecraft subsystems and the engineering
organizations responsible for them at MSC and its prime contractors, in
response to Apollo 13 Review Board recommendation 9 (see April 13-June
15).
Memo, James A. MtDivitt, MSC, to distr.. "Apollo 13 Review Board Report--

Re(ommendation #9," July 16, 1970; exuact from lecommendation 9of the Apollo 13 Review
Boaut Rel_)I t.
17
During the anniversary of Apollo 11, NASA Administrator Thomas
O. Paine said : "The success of Apollo 11 marked the beginning of a new and
important phase of mankind--not just the triumphant end of a mission.
The mission was a voyage of discovery, and an important part of the
discovery was the revelation of the infinite human potential for achievement
as an endless new frontier was opened for future generations.
"Our remarkable progress in the first dozen years of the space age
demonstrates that no dreams are impossible of realization, that the prospects
for progress and human betterment here on earth as well as in space are
limitless. And you may be sure that despite changing program directions,
NASA will continue to play an exciting and vigorous role in the avant-garde
of human progress."
PainT, Message to NASA coworkers, July 17, 1970.
August
North American Rockwell announced that William B. Bergen, who had
7
been serving as president of North American's Space Division, would
become a corporate vice president with the title Group Vice President-
Aerospace and Systems. This was one of a number of key organizational
337
Astronauts Edgar D. Mitchell, left,
and Alan B. Shepard, Jr., partic-
ipate in lunar surface simulation
at Kennedy Space Center. Both
wear extravehicular mobility
units as they check out the mobile
(or modular) equipment trans-
porter they will use on the moon
during the Apollo 14 mission.
1970 steps taken since January to improve and strengthen the North American
August management structure in response to significant changes that had occurred
in the aerospace environment.
Ltr., Robert Anderson, North American Rockwell Corp., to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, Ang. 11,
1970.
September NASA was canceling Apollo missions 15 and 19 because of congressional

2 cuts in FY 1971 NASA appropriations, Administrator Thomas O. Paine
announced in a Washington news conference. Remaining missions would
be designated Apollo 14 through 17. The Apollo budget would be reduced
by $42.1 million, to $914.4 million--within total NASA $3.27 billion.
"Statement by Dr. Thomas O. Paine," Sept. 2, 1970; Astronauts and Aeronautics, 1970 (NASA
SP-,t015, 1972), pp. 248,257, 284-85.
11 Modifications were made in MSFC's lunar roving vehicle simulator and the
static mockup to eliminate extreme arm and hand fatigue felt by a flight
crew member and other test subjects after driving 10 to t5 minutes in LRV
simulator evaluation tests. A T-shaped handle was added to the pistol grip;
a parking-brake release and a reduced brake-travel distance were incorporat-
ed; and a mechanical reverse lockout was added.
Memo, .lames A. McDivitt, MSC, to Richard G. Smith, MSFC, "I.tmar roving vehicle hand
controller," Sept. 11, 1970.
November MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth reported MSC actions on the Apollo 13
24 Review Board recommendations (see April 13-June 15), including:
• Fan motors had been removed from oxygen storage tanks in the serv-
ice modules; the electrical leads had been encased in stainless steel sheaths
with hermetically sealed headers and had been shielded from contact with
the remaining Teflon parts.
• The modified cryogenic oxygen storage system had been subjected to
a comprehensive recertification program developed in close coordination by
338
TEMPERATURE
SENSOR
TO FAN I
Apollo 13's service module

FAN oxygen tank, left. Rede-
TEMPERATURE MOTOR
SENSOR signed oxygen tank below.
' TO
HEATER
FAN 2
_--ELECTRICAL CONDUIT
--FLUID TEMPERATURE SENSOR

UPPER FILL_TUE.E _-.-_-_-A" _SHEATHED TEMPERATURE
(VENT FEED LINES
AND L_I_ SENSOR WIRES(2),
LOWER FILL TUBE fHf_j'_ _ I EATER WIRES(6)
EATER TEMPERATURE
REMOVED FORouRIE
_CLARIIY) it ,r_,_DENSITY PROBE SENSOR
WIRES(2), AND
DENSITY SENS
DENSITY -HEATER ASSEMBLY

INNER
SENSORTU_
PROBE
North American Rockwell, Beech Aircraft Corp., and NASA. Requirements 1970
were founded on environmental as well as operational factors necessary to November

prove design capability.
• No major changes had been made in the caution and warning system.
• The LM and CSM consumables and emergency equipment had been
reviewed to determine any design changes required to provide a safe return
from lunar orbit in the event of a service module cryogenic-oxygen-supply
loss. Three design changes were made in the CSM related to the oxygen
tanks, an LM descent battery, and a water storage system in the CM.
• MSC had made special tests and analyses to understand theApollo 13
accident better. The testing had reaffirmed the conclusions reached by the
Apollo 13 Review Board.
• Significant anomalies in critical subsystems during final preparation
for launch would be analyzed and resolved with authorized and documented
corrective action in much the same manner as employed during the
missions. An Apollo Program Directive for identification and resolution of
significant failures and anomalies had been issued.
• A thorough reexamination of all spacecraft, launch vehicle, and
ground systems containing high-density oxygen and other strong oxidizers
was being made to identify and evaluate potential combustion hazards.
• Additional research was being conducted on materials compatibility,
ignition, and combustion in strong oxidizers at various gravity levels and on
the characteristics of supercritical fluids. Arc-ignition tests of the Apollo 14
339
1970 oxygen-storage-system materials in both normal and overstressed modes

November indicated a positive margin of safety.
• MSC had organized a system-by-system task team effort and made
comprehensive reassessments of each subsystem. Design and qualification
of each subsystem was reaffirmed as adequate for current ground test and
mission requirements with the exception of a heatshield blowout plug for
dumping reaction-control-subsystem propellant for launch aborts.
Ltr., Gilruth to Edgar M. Cortright, LaR(;, Nov. 24, 1970.
2S George M. Low, Acting NASA Administrator, discussed the significance of

unmanned lunar probes Luna XVI and XVII launched by the U.S.S.R.
September 12 and November 10. Luna X VI had brought lunar samples back
to earth and Luna X VII had landed an unmanned Lunokhod roving vehicle
on the moon's surface. Low stated in a letter to Chairman Clinton P.
Anderson of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences that
while the two launches were impressive their contributions to science and
technology were relatively minor. Low suggested that the main lesson to be
learned from the two launches specifically and the U.S. and U.S.S.R. space
programs in general was that while the Soviet launch rate was increasing
that of the United States was decreasing. These trends in the two countries'
space programs should be a cause of concern if the United States was
interested in maintaining a position of leadership in space.
Ltr., Dale D. Myers, NASA Hq., to Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, Dec. 16, 1970; Congressional
Record-Senate, Nov. 30, 1970, pp. S19001-02
1971 NASA was considering several methods for providing real-time television
January coverage of lunar surface activities with scientific commentary to the news
media during future Apollo flights. A recommended approach would place
18
Astronaut Shepard stands near a

lunar landing training vehicle at
Ellington Field, Texas, before a
test flight December 14. 1970,
preparing for his January 1971
role on Apollo 14.
PART IlI: MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
1971
scientific personnel from within NASA, including Apollo Program
principal investigators, in the MSC news center briefing room with a panel Janumry
representing the news media. The scientific personnel would supplement

the normal air-to-ground communications, public affairs commentary, and
TV transmissions from the moon with spontaneous commentary on surface
activities in progress.
Memo, James A. McDivitt, MSC, to Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., "Media coverage of Apollo
12 and 14 experiments," .]an. 18, 1971.
29
The space vehicle for the Apollo 14 mission was determined ready for
launch on January 31. The Flight Readiness Review had been held at KSC
on December 17, 1970; all required action and open work had been com-
pleted; and the Pre-Liftoff Readiness Review had been favorably completed
January 29.
Memo, Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., to Apollo 14 Flight Readiness Review Record,
"Confirmation of Flight Readiness for the Apollo 14 Mission," Jan. 29, 1971.
January 31-
The Apollo 14 (AS-509) mission--mann.ed by astronauts Alan B. Shepard,
Jr., Stuart A. Roosa, and Edgar D. Mitchell--was launched from Pad A, February 9
Launch Complex 39, KSC, at 4:03 p.m. EST January 31 on a Saturn V

launch vehicle. A 40-minute hold had been ordered 8 minutes before sched-
uled launch time because of unsatisfactory weather conditions, the first such
delay in the Apollo program. Activities during earth orbit and translunar
injection were similar to those of the previous lunar landing missions.
However, during transposition and docking, CSM 110 Kitty Hawk had
difficulty docking with LM-8 Antares. A hard dock was achieved on the
sixth attempt at 9:00 p.m. EST, 1 hour 54 minutes later than planned. Other
aspects of the translunar journey were normal and proceeded according to
flight plan. A crew inspection of the probe and docking mechanism was tele-
vised during the coast toward the moon. The crew and ground personnel
were unable to determine why the CSM and LM had failed to dock properly,
but there was no indication that the systems would not work when used later
in the flight.
Apollo 14 entered lunar orbit at 1:55 a.m. EST on February 4. At 2:41 a.m.
the separated S-IVB stage and instrument unit struck the lunar surface 174
kilometers southeast of the planned impact point. The Apollo 12
seismometer, left on the moon in November 1969, registered the impact and
continued to record vibrations for two hours.
After rechecking the systems in the LM, astronauts Shepard and Mitchell
separated the LM from the CSM and descended to the lunar surface. The
Antares landed on Fra Mauro at 4:17 a.m. EST February 5, 9 to 18 meters
short of the planned landing point. The first EVA began at 9:53 a.m., after
intermittent communications problems in the portable life support sys-
tem had caused a 49-minute delay. The two astronauts collected a 19.5-
kilogram contingency sample; deployed the TV, S-band antenna, American
341
1971 flag, and Solar Wind Composition experiment; photographed the LM,
lunar surface, and experiments; deployed the Apollo lunar surface
January
experiments package 152 meters west of the LM and the laser-ranging
retroreflector 30 meters west of the ALSEP; and conducted an active seismic
experiment, firing 13 thumper shots into the lunar surface.
A second EVA period began at 3:11 a.m. EST Februrary 6. The two
astronauts loaded the mobile equipment transporter (MET)--used for the
first time--with photographic equipment, tools, and a lunar portable
magnetometer. They made a geology traverse toward the rim of Cone Crater,
collecting samples on the way. On their return, they adjusted the alignment
of the ALSEP central station antenna in an effort to strengthen the signal
received by the Manned Space Flight Network ground stations back on
earth.
Just before reentering the LM, astronaut Shepard dropped a golf ball onto
the lunar surface and on the third swing drove the ball 366 meters. The
second EVA had lasted 4 hours 35 minutes, making a total EVA time for the
mission of 9 hours 24 minutes. The Antares lifted off the moon with 43
kilograms of lunar samples at 1:48 p.m. EST February 6.
Meanwhile astronaut Roosa, orbiting the moon in the CSM, took

astronomy and lunar photos, including photos of the proposed Descartes
landing site for Apollo 16.
Ascent of the LM from the lunar surface, rendezvous, and docking with the
CSM in orbit were performed as planned, with docking at 3:36 p.m. EST
February 6. TV coverage of the rendezvous and docking maneuver was ex-
cellent. The two astronauts transferred from the LM to the CSM with
samples, equipment, and film. The LM ascent stage was then jettisoned and
intentionally crashed on the moon's surface at 7:46 p.m. The impact was
recorded by the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 ALSEPs.
The spacecraft was placed on its trajectory toward earth during the 34th
lunar revolution. During transearth coast, four inflight technical demon-
strations of equipment and processes in zero gravity were performed.
The CM and SM separated, the parachutes deployed, and other reentry

events went as planned, and the Kitty Hawk splashed down in mid-Pacific at
4:05 p.m. EST February 9 about 7 kilometers from the recovery ship U.S.S.
New Orleans. The Apollo 14 crew returned to Houston on February 12,
where they remained in quarantine until February 26.
All primary mission objectives had been met (see Appendix 5). The mission
had lasted 216 hours 40 minutes and was marked by the following
achievements:
• Third manned lunar landing mission and return.

• Use of mobile equipment transporter (MET).
• Payload of 32 500 kilograms placed in lunar orbit.
• Distance of 3.3 kilometers traversed on lunar surface.
342
Tracks of the modular equipment
transporter
leadbackacrossthelunar
surfaceto the distant LM Antares
during Apollo 14 EVA. Also during
EVA, Shepard assembles hand tools
from the transporter. The large
boulder was found by Shepard and
Mitchell during the excursion. In
recovery operations _fter splashdown,
CM pilot Roosa is hoisted up to one of
the recovery helicopters.
• Payload of 43.5 kilograms returned from the lunar surface. 1971

• Lunar surface stay time of 33 hours.
January
• Lunar surface EVA of 9 hours 47 minutes•
• Use of shortened rendezvous technique.
• Service propulsion system orbit insertion.
• Active seismic experiment.
• Inflight technical demonstrations.
• Extensive orbital science period during CSM solo operations.
(MSC-04112), April 1971 ; NASA OMSF, "Manned Space Flight Weekly ReportiFebruary 16,
1971"; TWX, F. A. Speer, MSFC, to C. M. Lee, NASA Hq., "Apollo 14 (AS-509) HOSC
Report," Jan. 31, 1971; hr., Chester M. Lee, NASA Hq., "Mission Director's Summary Report,
Apollo 14/' Feb. 9, 1971; NASA Hq., Apollo 14 Preliminary Seience Report (NASA SP-272,
1971).
MSC requested removal of sharp corners from the lunar roving vehicle February
(LRV) seat. During a recent series of LRV/EMU (extravehicular mobility 22
unit) tests, a nicking or tearing of the portable life support system thermal
cover had been discovered. Observation revealed that the thermal cover was
343
1971 Apollo 15 astronauts James B. Irwin, left, Alfred M. Worden, and David R. Scott
display the experiments and equipment to be loaded into their LM for its July
February
1971 mission to the moon.
contacting sharp corners on the LRV seats, when the test subject entered and
left the vehicle.
Ltr., .|ames A. McDivitt, MSC, to Richard (;. Smith, MSFC, "Sharp corners on current lunar
roving vehicle design," Feb. 22, 1971.
Because of difficulties during the past several months in developing and

qualifying an automatic deployment system for the lunar roving vehicle,
the automatic system was abandoned in favor of a manual system. Boeing
was directed to stop all further effort on the automatic system.
Ltr., Richard G. Smith, MSFC, to Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., "LRV Manual Deployment
System," March 1, 1971.
lO
Action was initiated to determine the feasibility of providing photographic
coverage of a lunar eclipse from the lunar surface or the CSM during the
Apollo 15 mission. The eclipse would occur on August 6, three or four days
after the scheduled Apollo 15 mission lunar surface liftoff.
TWX, Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., to James A. McDivitt, MSC, "Lunar eclipse during
Apollo 15 mission," March 10, 1971.
344
The improved design of the extra-
vehicular mobility unit (EMU) to
be used by astronauts on the
moon for Apollo 15 and subse-
quent missions permitted in-
creased lunar surface EVA peri-
ods, extended range of
operations, and greater mobility
than previous units. Shown are
the pressure garment assembly
with thermal overlayer, the porta-
ble life support system on the
back with oxygen purge system
on top, the remote control unit
fitting the chest, with Goertz
lunar surface camera attached,
and the lunar extravehicular
visor assembly. Lunar surface
boots are not shown.
1971
Acting NASA Administrator George M. Low discontinued the quarantine
for future Apollo flights to the moon beginning with the Apollo 15 mis- Aprll
sion. The decision was based on a recommendation of the Interagency

26
Committee on Back Contamination (ICBC). The ICBC would continue as
an active body, however, at least until the results of the last Apollo lunar
mission were reviewed. Biomedical characterization of returned lunar
samples would also be continued.
Low announcement, "Decision to Terminate Quarantine under NMI 1052.90 (Attachment A,
Change 1, 2)," April 26, 1971; ltr., Dale D. Myers, NASA Hq., to MSC Director, "Decision to
Terminate Quarantine," May 10, 1971 ; TWX, J. W. Humphreys, NASA Hq., "Discontinuance
o[ Lunar Quarantine," April 28, 1971.
27
James C. Fletcher was sworn in as NASA Administrator at a White House
ceremony. President Nixon had nominated him for the position on March 1,
and the Senate had confirmed the nomination on March 11. George M. Low,
NASA Deputy Administrator, had been Acting Administrator since the
resignation of Administrator Thomas O. Paine on September 15, 1970.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1971 (NASA SP-4018, 1972), pp. 56-57, 59, 68, 69, 72, 114.
3O
Lee B. James, Director of Program Management at MSFC, would leave for a
position in the academic community effective May 31, MSFC announced.
On June 1, J. T. Shepherd would assume the duties as Acting Director,
Program Management. James had been active in the space program since
1947.
MSFC Key Personnel Announcement, April 30, 1971; ltr., Eberhard F. M. Rees, MSFC, to
Robert R. Gilruth, MSC, May 3, 1971.
345
1971
The Apollo Site Selection Board selected Descartes as the Apollo 16 site.
May However, after the selection, a discussion began as to whether the Kant or
5 Descartes region would be the better choice. NASA finally decided to go with
the original selection of the Board: Descartes would be the prime Apollo 16
site.
Ltr., Lee R. Scherer, NASA Hq., to distr., "Apollo 16 and 17 Site Selection Discussions," May 5,
1971; TWX, Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., to James A. McDivitt, MSC, et al., "Apollo 16
I.anding Site," June I l, 1971.
13
NASA was considering a plan for obtaining contamination measurements
on the remaining Apollo flights for use in Skylab planning. The plan
required photography on Apollo 15 of liquid dumps, limited magnitude
starfield, and window deposition photography. Apollo 16 and 17 would
carry instrumentation to measure cloud intensity and effects, deposits and
their effects, critical surfaces, particle count, surface charge potential, and
pressure.
TWX, Leland F. Belew, MSFC, to William C. S(hneider and John Ft. Disher, NASA Hq.,
Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, James A. McDivin, and Ronald W. Kubicki, MSC, "Contamination
Measurements on Apollo," May 13, 1971; memo, l,eland F. Belew, MSFC, toASPOand Skvlab
Managers, MSC, "Background and Justification lot Apollo 16 Skylab Data Request " Sept'. 10,
1971.
Wernher von Braun, Deputy Associate Adminis-

trator of NASA, examines the camera to be
mounted on the lunar roving vehicle, shown
folded for storage in the LM for its trip to the
moon. The camera would be operated by
astronauts, or by ground command from
Mission Control in Houston during lunar
traverses. It would also be used to show the
astronauts when they left the Rover and to
show the LM ascent-stage liftoff from the
moon.
1971
Apollo 15 (AS-510) with astronauts David R. Scott, Alfred M. Worden, and
James B. Irwin aboard was launched from Pad A, Launch Complex 39, July 26-
KSC, at 9:34 a.m. EDT July 26. The spacecraft and S-IVB combination was
August 7
placed in an earth parking orbit 11 minutes 44 seconds after liftoff. Activities
during earth orbit and translunar injection (insertion into the trajectory for
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott sits on the Rover awaiting his partner James Irwin
for the return to the LM Falcon with samples of rocks and soil. The view of a
portion of the Hadley-Apennine landing site shows the 4500-meter-high Mount
Hadley on the left, on which crewmen noted a layering feature.
°
1971 the moon) were similar to those of previous lunar landing missions.
July Translunar injection was at about 12:30 p.m., with separation of the CSM
from the LM/S-IVB/IU at 12:56 p.m. At 1:08 p.m., onboard color TV
showed the docking of the CSM with the LM.
S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system burns sent the S-IVB/IU stages toward
the moon, where they impacted the lunar surface at 4:59 p.m. EDT July 29.
The point of impact was 188 kilometers northeast of the Apollo 14 landing
site and 355 kilometers northeast of the Apollo 12 site. The impact was
detected by both the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 seismometers, left on the moon
in November 1969 and February 1971.
After the translunar coast, during which TV pictures of the CSM and LM
interiors were shown and the LM communications and other systems were
checked, Apollo 15 entered lunar orbit at 4:06 p.m. EDT July 29.
The LM-10 Falcon, with astronauts Scott and Irwin aboard, undocked and
separated from the Endeavor (CSM 112) with astronaut Worden aboard. At
6:16 p.m. EDT July 30, theFalcon landed in the Hadley-Apennine region of
the moon 600 meters north-northwest of the proposed target. About two
hours later, following cabin depressurization, Scott performed a 33-minute
standup EVA in the upper hatch of the LM, during which he described and
photographed the landing site.
The first crew EVA on the lunar surface began at 9:04 a.m. July 31. The crew
collected and stowed a contingency sample, unpacked the ALSEP and other
experiments, and prepared the lunar roving vehicle (LRV) for operations.
Some problems were encountered in the deployment and checkout of the
LRV, used for the first time, but they were quickly resolved. The first EVA
traverse was to the Apennine mountain front, after which the ALSEP was
deployed and activated, and one probe of a Heat Flow experiment was
emplaced. A second probe was not emplaced until EVA-2 because of
drilling difficulties. The first EVA lasted 6 hours 33 minutes.
At 7:49 a.m. EDT August 1, the second EVA began. The astronauts made a
maintenance check on the LRV and then began the second planned traverse
of the mission. On completion of the traverse, Scott and Irwin completed the
placement of heat flow experiment probes, collected a core sample, and
deployed the American flag. They then stowed the sample container and the
film in the LM, completing a second EVA of 7 hours 12 minutes.
The third EVA began at 4:52 a.m. August 2, included another traverse, and
ended 4 hours 50 minutes later, for a total Apollo 15 lunar surface EVA time
of 18 hours 35 minutes.
While the lunar module was on the moon, astronaut Worden completed 34
lunar orbits in the CSM operating scientific instrument module experi-
ments and cameras to obtain data concerning the lunar surface and envi-
ronment. X-ray spectrometer data indicated richer abundance of aluminum
348
1971
in the highlands, especially on the far side, but greater concentrations of
magnesium in the maria. July
Liftoff of the ascent stage of the LM, the first one to be televised, occurred at
1:11 p.m. EDT August 2. About two hours later the LM and CSM
rendezvoused and docked, and film, equipment, and 77 kilograms of lunar
samples were transferred from the LM to the CSM. The ascent stage was
jettisoned and hit the lunar surface at 11:04 p.m. EDT August 2. Its impact
was recorded by the Apollo 12, Apollo 14, and Apollo 15 seismometers, left
on the moon during those missions. Before leaving the lunar orbit, the
spacecraft deployed a subsatellite, at 4:13 p.m. August 4, in an orbit of 141.3
by 102 kilometers. The satellite would measure interplanetary and earth
magnetic fields near the moon. It also carried charged-particle sensors and
equipment to detect variations in lunar gravity caused by mascons (mass
concentrations).
A transearth injection maneuver at 5:23 p.m. August 4 put the CSM on an

earth trajectory. During the transearth coast, astronaut Worden performed
an inflight EVA beginning at 11:32 a.m. August 5 and lasting for 38 minutes
12 seconds. He made three trips to the scientific instrument module (SIM)
bay of the SM, twice to retrieve cassettes and once to observe the condition of
the instruments in the SIM bay.
Orbiting the moon, the Apollo 15 CSM Endeavor exposes its scientific instrument
module bay with instruments gathering lunar data. The solar corona just beyond
the lunar horizon was photographed from the CSM about one minute before
sunrise July 31, 1971. Three series of photos--man's first view of this part of the
sun's light--were made by astronaut Alfred Worden during his solo flight, while
his fellow crewmen explored the surface below. The bright object on the opposite
side of the frame is the planet Mercury. The bright star near the center is Regulus,
and smaller stars form the head of the constellation Leo.
1971 CM and SM separation, parachute deployment, and other reentry events

went as planned, but one of the three main parachutes failed, causing a hard
July
but safe landing. Splashdown--at 4:47 p.m. EDT August 7, after 12 days 7
hours 12 minutes from launch--was 530 kilometers north of Hawaii and 10
kilometers from the recovery ship U.S.S. Okinawa. The astronauts were
carried to the ship by helicopter, and the CM was retrieved and placed on
board. All primary mission objectives had been achieved (see Appendix 5).
MS(;, "Apollo 15 Mission Report" (MSC-05161), December 1971; MS(;, "Apollo 15 (AS-510)
Flight Summary," undated; TWX, H. F. Kurtz, MSFC, to C. M. Lee, NASA Hq., "Apollo 15
(AS-510) ttOSC Rep_Jrt," July 26, 1971; MSFC, "Saturn Evaluation Bulletin," No. I, 2, and 3,
Aug. 3, 1.3.27, 1971 ; hr.. Lee, "Mission I)iret lot's Summary Report, Al_fllo 15," Aug. 7, 1971 ;
KSC, "Apollo 15 Post-Launch Report," Aug. t2, 1971.
October
Major items of discussion during the Manned Space Flight Management
6-7 Council meeting in Washington were the Apollo 15 anomalies. These
included parachute collapse during landing, lunar module descent battery,
lunar surface drill, and steering mechanism on the LRV. Also discussed
were the Apollo 16 preparations and the feasibility of TV coverage of the
lunar rover during traverse.
The most likely cause of the parachute collapse was damage from burning
raw RCS fuel (monomethyl hydrazine) being expelled during depletion
firing. Corrective action included landing with reaction control system
propellants on board for a normal landing and biasing the propellant load
to a slight excess of oxidizer and increasing the time delay inhibiting the
rapid propellant dump, to avoid fuel contacting the parachute riser and
suspension lines during low-altitude-abort land landings.
Highlights of Manned Space Management Council Meeting," Oct. 18, 1971.
21
Some members of the Lunar Sample Review Board expressed concern that,
unless provisions were made to retain vital parts of the Apollo science
program for a number of years after the lunar landings were completed,
tangible returns from the lunar landings would be greatly diminished.
Three main areas of concern were the lunar sample analysis program, the
curatorial staff and facilities for care of the sample collection, and the lunar
geophysical stations and Apollo orbital science.
Ltr., William W. Rubey and Robert A. Phinney, Cochairmen, Lunar Sample Review Board, to
John E. Naugle, NASA Hq., Oct. 21, 1971.
November
A detailed objective assessment of the lunar roving vehicle (LRV) used on
18 the Apollo 15 mission indicated:
• The LRV was successfully deployed, with minor problems.

Deployment took 26.5 minutes instead of the allotted time of 17 minutes.
• LRV systems were successfully prepared for traverse. Forward
steering was inoperative during EVA- l, but functioned normally on EVA-2
and EVA-3.
350
• Average speed during traverse was 9.3 kilometers per hour; 1971
maximum speed 13 kilometers per hour. Maximum slopes negotiated were November
up to 12 °. Braking distance was 4.6 meters from 10 kilometers per hour.
• The navigation system was extremely accurate.
• Forward visibility was generally excellent.
Ltr., Richard (;. Smith, MSFC, to ASP() Manager, "Al)ollo 15 ()bje_ rive Assessmenl Report,"
No','. 18, 1971, with end., "I.RV Detailed Objective Assessment.'"
December
A meeting was held at NASA Hq. to formulate a plan to provide the
National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) with the material required to 7
serve the scientific community. As a result of the meeting, MSC was

requested to:
• Prepare index map overlays and frame indexes for all lunar photos
from command module and scientific instrument module cameras.
• Evaluate the photos in terms of the correctness of the exposure
settings and the visible effects of any camera malfunctions.
• Manage the preparation of the photo support data and camera
calibration data to ensure their suitability for the photogrammetric
reduction and subsequent analysis of the photographs.
• Manage the preparation of microfiche imagery of all command
module photographs and every third mapping camera photograph,
supplying masters and/or copies of the fiches to NSSDC.
• Provide paper prints to NSSDC for the preparation of lnicrofihn
imagery of the panoramic camera photographs.
Ltr., Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., to .lames A. McDivitt, MSC, "Revised Apollo Photo Data
Package," Jan. 7, 1972.
Manned Spacecraft Center Robert R. Gilruth was appointed to the newly 1972
created position of NASA Director of Key Personnel Development. He
January
would integrate NASA planning to fill key positions, identify actual and
14
potential candidates, and guide them through appropriate work experience.
Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC Deputy Director, was named Director of

MSC. Both Kraft and Gilruth were original members of the NASA Space
Task Group established in 1958 to manage Project Mercury.
NASA News Release 72-11, Jan. 14, 1972; MSC News Release 72-15, Jan. 14, 1972.
18
Sigurd A. Sjoberg was named Deputy Director of Manned Spacecraft Center.
Sjoberg succeeded Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., who was named Director of
MSC January 14.
MSC News Release 72-16, "Sjoberg Named Detmty Director of MSC," Jan. 18, 1972.
351
1972
A directive establishing policy and procedure and assigning responsibilities
January governing articles to be included in astronaut preference kits flown on board
Apollo spacecraft was promulgated.
19
Memo, Dale D. Myers, NASA Hq., to Apollo Program Director, "Astronaut Preference Kits--
Apollo Missions," Jan. 19, 1972.
An Olympic Games flag 1.2 by 1.8 meters would be packed in a fireproof

container and carried in the command module during the Apollo 16
mission. Weight and storage limitations would preclude carrying the flag in
the lunar module. However, an additional Olympic Games flag, 1.2 by 1.8
centimeters, would be carried in the LM flag kit to the lunar surface. Small
flags of members of the United Nations, other international organizations,
and national states generally accepted as independent in the world
community would be carried on the mission in the LM flag kit.
Memo, Rocco A. Petrone, NASA Hq., to Associate Deputy Administrator, "Flags to Be Carried
on Apollo 16," March 8, 1972.
April The Apollo 16 (AS-511) space vehicle was launched from Pad A, Launch
16-27 Complex 39, KSC, at 12:54 p.m. EST April 16, with a crew of astronauts
John W. Young, Thomas K. Mattingly II, and Charles M. Duke, Jr. After
insertion into an earth parking orbit for spacecraft system checks, the
spacecraft and the S-IVB stage were placed on a trajectory to the moon at
3:28 p.m. CSM transposition and docking with the LM were achieved,
although a number of minor anomalies were noted.
One anomaly, an auxiliary propulsion system leak on the S-IVB stage,

produced an unpredictable thrust and prevented a final S-IVB targeting
maneuver after separation from the CSM. Tracking of the S-IVB ended at
4:04 p.m. EST April 17, when the instrument unit's signal was lost. The
stage hit the lunar surface at 4:02 p.m. April 19, 260 kilometers northeast of
the target point. The impact was detected by the seismometers left on the
moon by the Apollo 12, 14, and 15 missions.
Spacecraft operations were near normal during the coast to the moon.
Unexplained light-colored particles from the LM were investigated and
identified as shredded thermal paint. Other activities during the translunar
coast included a cislunar navigation exercise, ultraviolet photography of
the earth and moon, an electrophoresis demonstration, and an investigation
of the visual light-flash phenomenon noted on previous flights. Astronaut
Duke counted 70 white, instantaneous light flashes that left no after-glow.
Apollo 16 entered a lunar orbit of 314 by 107.7 kilometers at 3:22 p.m. April
19. After separation of LM-11 Orion from CSM 112 Casper, a CSM active
rendezvous kept the two vehicles close together while an anomaly discovered
on the service propulsion system was evaluated. Tests and analyses showed
the redundant system to be still safe and usable if required. The vehicles were
again separated and the mission continued on a revised timeline because of
the 5_-hour delay.
352
Apollo 16 astronaut Charles M. Duke, Jr., above left, collects lunar samples with
surface rake and tongs. John W. Young, standing on the edge of Plum Crater,
uses a geological hammer for more samples, having left the Rover on the other
side of the 40-meter crater. An oblique view of the moon's far side was
photographed from lunar orbit by a camera in the scientific instrument module
bay of the CSM. The most conspicuous feature is the smooth-floored
Kohlschutter Crater at upper center of the photo; about two-thirds of Mills Crater
is at bottom right. Back on earth in MSC's Mission Control Center, Apollo
Program Director Rocco A. Petrone (standing) and Dr. Gary Latham (kneeling),
from Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, examine a seismic reading of the
Saturn's third-stage impact on the lunar surface.
353
1972 The lunar module landed with Duke and Young in the moon's Descartes
Aprll region, about 230 meters northwest of the planned target area at 9:23 p.m.
EST April 20. A sleep period was scheduled before EVA.
The first extravehicular activity began at 11:59 a.m. April 21, after the eight-
hour rest period. Television coverage of surface activity was delayed until
the lunar roving vehicle systems were activated, because the steerable
antenna on the lunar module could not be used. The lunar surface
experiments packages were deployed, but accidental breaking of the
electronics cable rendered the heat flow experiment inoperable. After
completing activities at the experiments site, the crew drove the lunar roving
vehicle west to Flag Crater, where they performed the planned tasks. The
inbound traverse route was just slightly south of the outbound route, and
the next stop was Spook Crater. The crew then returned via the experiment,
station to the lunar module and deployed the solar wind composition
experiment. The duration of the extravehicular activity was 7 hours 11
minutes. The distance traveled by the lunar roving vehicle was 4.2
kilometers. The crew collected 20 kilograms of samples.
The second extravehicular traverse, which began at 11:33 a.m. April 92, was
south-southeast to a mare-sampling area near the Cinco Craters on Stone
Mountain. The crew then drove in a northwesterly direction, 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 7 hours 23 minutes. The distance traveled by the lunar roving
vehicle was 11.1 kilometers.
Four stations were deleted from the third extravehicular traverse, which
began 30 minutes early at 10:27 a.m. April 23 to allow extra time. The first
stop was North Ray Crater, where "House Rock" on the rim of the crater
was sampled. The crew then drove southeast to "Shadow Rock." The return
route to the LM retraced the outbound route. The third extravehicular
activity lasted 5 hours 40 minutes, and the lunar roving vehicle traveled 11.4
kilometers.
Lunar surface activities outside the LM totaled 20 hours 1B minues for the
mission. The total distance traveled in the lunar roving vehicle was 26.7
kilometers. The crew remained on the lunar surface 71 hours 14 minutes and
collected 96.6 kilograms of lunar samples.
While the lunar module crew was on the surface, Mattingly, orbiting the
moon in the CSM, was obtaining photographs, measuring physical
properties of the moon and deep space, and making visual observations.
Essentially the same complement of instruments was used to gather data as
was used on the Apollo 15 mission, but different areas of the lunar surface
were flown over and more comprehensive deep space measurements were
made, providing scientific data that could be used to validate findings from
Apollo 15 as well as add to the total store of knowledge of the moon and its
atmosphere, the solar system, and galactic space.
354
STELLAR CAMERA
LENS PROTECTIVE
COVER
LASER ALTIMETER
_PPING CAMERA FILM CASETTE
GOLDEN SLIPPER FOOT

o.
SUBSATELLITE
PROTECTIVE
COVER
SUBSATELLITE
PANORkMIC CAMERA FILM CASETTE
X-RAY/A LPHA PARTICLE

PROTECTIVE CDVER
GAMMA-RAY
The SIM bay of the Apollo 16 scientific instrument module housed sensors and
experiments to gather data on the moon's atmosphere and surface, as well as a
subsatellite to be launched in lunar orbit. Gamma ray and mass spectrometer
sensors extended on a boom when in use.
The LM lifted off from the moon at 8:26 p.m. EST April 23, rendezvoused 1972
with the CSM, and docked with it in orbit. Young and Duke transferred to Aprll
the CSM with samples, film, and equipment, and the LM was jettisoned the
next day. LM attitude control was lost at jettison; therefore a deorbit
maneuver was not possible and the LM remained in lunar orbit, with an
estimated orbital lifetime of about one year.
The particles and fields subsatellite was launched into lunar orbit and
normal system operation was noted. However, the spacecraft orbital
shaping maneuver was not performed before ejection and the subsatellite
was placed in a non-optimum orbit that resulted in a much shorter lifetime
than the planned year. Loss of all subsatellite tracking and telemetry data on
the 425th revolution (May 29) indicated that the subsatellite had hit the
lunar surface.
The mass spectrometer deployment boom stalled during a retract cycle and
was jettisoned before transearth injection. The second plane-change
maneuver and some orbital science photography were deleted so that
transearth injection could be performed about 24 hours earlier than
originally planned.
355
1972
Activities during the transearth coast phase of the mission included
April
photography for a contamination study for the Skylab program and
completion of the visual light-flash-phenomenon investigation that had
been partially accomplished during translunar coast. A 1-hour 24-minute
transearth extravehicular activity was conducted by command module pilot
Mattingly to retrieve the film cassettes from the scientific instrument module
cameras, inspect the equipment, and expose a microbial-response
experiment to the space environment. Two midcourse corrections were
made on the return flight to achieve the desired entry interface conditions.
Entry and landing were normal, completing a 265-hour 51-minute mission.

The command module was viewed on television while dropping on the
drogue parachutes, and continuous coverage was provided through crew
recovery. Splashdown was at 2:44 p.m. EST April 27 in mid-Pacific, 5
kilometers from the recovery ship U.S.S. Ticonderoga. All primary mission
objectives had been achieved (see Appendix 5).
MSC, "Apollo 16 Mission Report" (MSC-07230), August 1972; MSC "Apollo 15 (AS-511)
Flight Summary," undated; C. M. Lee, NASA Hq., "Mission Director's Summary Report,
Apollo 16/' April 28, 1972; R. C. Hock, KS(;. "Apollo 16 (AS-511 ) Post-Launch Report," May
2, 1972.
28
Owen G. Morris was appointed Manager, Apollo Spacecraft Program
Office, at MSC. Morris, who had been Manager for the Lunar Module,
succeeded James A. McDivitt, who was appointed Special Assistant to the
Center Director for Organizational Affairs. Both appointments were
effective immediately.
MSC Announcement 72-70, "Key Personnel Assignment," April 28, 1972; MSC Announce-
ment 72-71, "Key Personnel Assignment," April 28, 1972.
May A tank cart at the San Diego Naval Air Station, defueling the Apollo 16
7 command module after its April 27 return from its mission to the moon,
exploded because of overpressurization. Forty-six persons suspected of
inhaling of toxic fumes, were hospitalized, but examination revealed no
symptoms of inhalation. An Apollo 16 Deactivation Investigation Board
completed its report on the accident June 30. The ratio of neutralizer to
oxidizer being detanked had been too low because of the extra oxidizer
retained in the CM tanks as a result of the Apollo 15 parachute anomaly.
Changes were made in ground support equipment and detanking procedure
to prevent future overpressurization.
Ltr., Scott H. Simpkinson, MSC, to Thomas J. Walker III, Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S.
Pacific Fleet, June 30, 1972; "Apollo 16 Mission Anomaly Report No. 1, Oxidizer Deservicing
Tank Failure" (MSC-07032), June 1972.
June NASA Deputy Administrator George M. Low and Associate Administrator

26 for Manned Space Flight Dale D. Myers met and decided there was no
foreseeable mission for CSMs 115 and 115a; funds would not be authorized
356
PART hi" MAN CIRCLES THE MOON, LANDS, EXPLORES
for any work on these spacecraft; and skills would not be retained 1972
specifically to work on them. June
Memos, Harry H. Gorman, NASA Hq., to Directors, Apollo Program and Skylab Program,
July 6, 1972; Myers to Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC, "Storage and Utilization of Apollo
Command and Service Modules," Oct. 30, 1972; Itr., Kraft to Myers, NASA Hq., Sept. 27, 1972.
A meeting at NASA Hq. reviewed the proposed photographic and visual July
observation tasks of the command module pilot during the Apollo 17 13

mission scheduled for December. Feasibility of the tasks and potential flight
planning impact were discussed.
-Memo, George F. Esenwein, NASA Hq., to distr., "Apollo 17 CM Photographic and Visual
Observation Tasks," July 26, 1972.
15
The Lunar Science Institute's summer study on post-Apollo lunar science
arrived at a number of conclusions and recommendations. Some conclu-
sions were: Lunar science would evolve through three rather distinct
phases. For two years immediately following Apollo 17, high priority
would be given to collection, organization, and preliminary analysis of the
wealth of information acquired from the exploration of the moon. In the
next two years ( 1975 and 1976), emphasis would shift to a careful first look at
all the data. In the next years, investigations would be concentrated on key
problems.
Some recommendations were: The tasks being carried out by NASA to

preserve and describe the samples, data, and photographs, and to make them
available to the scientific community would need to continue for the next
few years. The lunar sample curatorial facility at MSC was absolutely
essential to lunar science objectives. The ALSEP network and the
subsatellite should be operated continuously as long as significant new
findings derived from their operation.
Ltr., Joseph W. Chamberlin, Lunar Science Institute, to John Naugle, NASA Hq., July 15,
1972.
September
During the Apollo 17 mission, MSC would be responsible for the medical
briefing at the mission reviews, would provide the medical staffing of the 26
mission operations control room, would assume the medical line

responsibilities in the operations team, and would provide mission
surgeons to take part in the change-of-shift press briefings.
Ltr., Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., MSC, to Dale D. Myers, NASA Hq., Sept. 26, 1972.
December
Apollo 17 (AS-512), the final Apollo manned lunar landing mission, was
launched from Pad A, Launch Complex 39, KSC, at 12:33 a.m. EST 7-19
December 7. Crew members were astronauts Eugene A. Cernan, Ronald E.
Evans, and Harrison H. Schmitt. The launch had been delayed 2 hours 40
minutes by a countdown sequencer failure, the only such delay in the
Apollo program caused by a hardware failure.
357
1972 All launch vehicle systems performed normally in achieving an earth

December
parking orbit of 170 by 168 kilometers. After checkout, insertion into a lunar
trajectory was begun at 3:46 a.m.; translunar coast time was shortened to
compensate for the launch delay. CSM 114 transposition, docking with
LM- 12, and LM ejection from the launch vehicle stage were normal. The S-
IVB stage was maneuvered for lunar impact, striking the surface about 13.5
kilometers from the preplanned point at 3:27 p.m. EST December 10. The
impact was recorded by the passive seismometers left on the moon byApollo
12, 14, 15, and 16.
The crew performed a heat flow and convection demonstration and an

Apollo light-flash experiment during the translunar coast. The scientific
instrument module door on the SM was jettisoned at 10:17 a.m. EST
December 10. The lunar orbit insertion maneuver was begun at 2:47 p.m.
and the Apollo 17 spacecraft entered a lunar orbit of 315 by 97 kilometers.
After separation of the LM Challenger from the CSM America and a
readjustment of orbits, the LM began its powered descent and landed on the
lunar surface in the Taurus-Littrow region at 2:55 p.m. EST on December
11, with Cernan and Schmitt.
The first EVA began about 4 hours later (6:55 p.m.). Offloading of the lunar
roving vehicle and equipment proceeded as scheduled. The Apollo Lunar
Surface Experiment Package was deployed approximately 185 meters west
northwest of the Challenger. Astronaut Cernan drove the lunar roving
vehicle to the experiments deployment site, drilled the heat flow and deep
core holes, and emplaced the neutron probe experiment. Two geological
units were sampled, two explosive packages deployed, and seven traverse
gravimeter measurements were taken. During the 7-hour 12-minute EVA, 14
kilograms of samples were collected.
The second extravehicular activity began at 6:28 p.m. EST December 12.
Because of geological interest, station stop times were modified. Orange soil
was discovered and became the subject of considerable geological
discussion. Five surface samples and a double core sample were taken in the
area of the orange soil. Three explosive packages were deployed, seven
traverse gravimeter measurements were taken, and observations were
photographed. Samples collected totaled 34 kilograms during the 7 hours
and 37 minutes of the second EVA.
The third and final EVA began at 5:26 p.m. EST December 13. Specific
sampling objectives were accomplished. Samples--including blue-gray
breccias, fine-grained vesicular basahs, crushed anorthositic rocks, and
soils--weighed 66 kilograms. Nine traverse gravimeter measurements were
made. The surface electrical properties experiment was terminated. Before
reentering the LM, the crew selected a breccia rock to dedicate to the nations
represented by students visiting the Mission Control Center. A plaque on
the landing gear of the lunar module, commemorating all of the Apollo
lunar landings, was then unveiled. After 7 hours 15 minutes, the last Apollo
EVA on the lunar surface ended. Total time of the three EVAs was
358
Last Apollo mission to the moon:
Saturn V thrusts Apollo 17 into
flight in the first nighttime Apol-
lo launch. In explorations on the
lunar surface six days later,
astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt
was photographed by Eugene A.
Cernan as he studied the huge
split boulder found at the base of
North Massif during their third
EVA. After their liftoff to rejoin
the CSM and Ronald E. Evans in
orbit, and just after they entered
the return path for home, the N,_| MAN COmPL|ltO NIS _$T
receding full moon was photo-

MAY IN| Sml, O_ FI'_C! IN WHeN W_ CArol
graphed with one-third of its far WL_T|': PNT_a uv_$ OF *_L MAN_mD
side visible. Behind them at Tau-

rus-Littrow, the astronauts left a
plaque attached to the LM Chal-
lenger's descent stage.
approximately 22 hours; the lunar roving vehicle was driven 35 kilometers,

and about 115 kilograms of lunar sample material was acquired.
While Ceman and Schmitt were exploring the lunar surface, Evans was
conducting numerous scientific activities in the CSM in lunar orbit. In
addition to the panoramic camera, the mapping camera, and the laser
altimeter, three new scientific instrument module experiments were
included in the Apollo 17 orbital science equipment. An ultraviolet
spectrometer measured lunar atmospheric density and composition; an
infrared radiometer mapped the thermal characteristics of the moon; and a
lunar sounder acquired data on the subsurface structure.
Challenger lifted off the moon at 5:55 p.m. EST December 14. Rendezvous
with the orbiting CSM and docking were normal. The two astronauts
transferred to the CM with samples and equipment and the LM ascent stage
was jettisoned at 1:31 a.m. December 15. Its impact on the lunar surface
about 1.6 kilometers from the planned target was recorded by fourApollo 17
geophones and the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 seismometers emplaced on the
surface. The seismic experiment explosive packages that had been deployed
on the moon were detonated as planned and recorded on the geophones.
During the coast back to earth, Evans left the CSM at 3:27 p.m. EST
December 17 for a 1-hour 7-minute inflight EVA and retrieved lunar sounder
film and panoramic and mapping camera cassettes from the scientific
instrument module bay. The crew conducted the Apollo light-flash experi-
ment and operated the infrared radiometer and ultraviolet spectrometer.
Reentry, landing, and recovery were normal. The command module

parachuted into the mid-Pacific at 2:25 p.m. EST December 19, 6.4
kilometers from the prime recovery ship, U.S.S. Ticonderoga. The crew was
picked up by helicopter and was on board the U.S.S. Ticonderoga 52
minutes after the CM landed. All primary mission objectives had been
achieved (see Appendix 5).
MSC "Apollo 17 Mission Report," March 1973; MS(" "Apollo 17 (AS-512) Flight Summary,"
undated; KSC. "Apollo 17 Post-Launch Report" (RCS-76-0000-0048), Dec. 19, 1972.
"Apollo, of course, was an absolutely unprecedented event in human

history, one whose ultimate importance is impossible to fully comprehend
at such close range," NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Flight Dale D. Myers wrote the Administrator. "In addition, its scientific
contributions have far exceeded the expectations not only of the skeptics,
but even of its proponents. It has virtually created a new branch of science as
well as added a brilliant new chapter in the annals of exploration."
Myers, NASA Hq., to the NASA Administrator, "Scope of the Skylab Experiment Program,"
Dec. 8, 1972.
360
Science stations set up on the lunar surface by Apollo astronaut crews,
11?73
Former President Lyndon B. Johnson--who as Senator had drafted the
National Aeronautical and Space Act of 1958 establishing NASA and as Vice Janua_
President had chaired the National Aeronautics and Space Council at the 22
time of the U.S. decision to land a man on the moon--died of a heart attack
in Austin, Tex., at the age of 64.
A letter Johnson had sent was read at the National Space Club's "Salute to
Apollo" in Washington, D.C., in the evening. Johnson commended the
"space pioneers who have made the Apollo miracle a living reality." He
said: "It has been more, so much more than an amazing adventure into the
unexplored and the unknown. The Apollo Program... will endure as a
monument to many things, to the personal courage of some of the finest
men our nation has ever produced, to the technological and managerial
capability which is the genius of our system and to a successful cooperation
among nations which has proved to us all what can be done when we work
together with our eyes on a glorious goal.
"I rate Apollo as one of the real wonders of the world and I am proud that my
country, through the exercise of great ability and daring leadership, has
given it as a legacy to mankind."
Washington Post, Jan. 23, 1973, p. A1 ; Congressional Record-Senate, Jan. 29, 1973, p. Si467;
transcript of proceedings, "Salute to Apollo," Jan. 22, 1973.
2e
Ames Research Center requested that six R4D rocket engines designed for
use in the Apollo program be transferred from MSC to Ames. Possibly the
361
1973 engines would be suitable for the retro-injection function in the Pioneer
January Venus series of atmospheric probe and orbiter missions. First launch was
planned for early 1977.
Ltr., R. R. Nunamaker, Ames Research Center, to M. A. Faget, MSC, "Apollo surplus R4D
rocket engines for Pioneer Venus," Jan. 26, 1973.
February
The Manned Spacecraft Center was renamed the Lyndon B. Johnson Space
17 Center by Public Law 93-8. The late President's interest and support of the
space program began while he was Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Aeronautical and Space Sciences and continued during his tenure as Vice
President and President (see January 22).
MS(: Announcement 73-34, "Renaming of the Manned Spacecraft Center," Feb. 27, 1973.
Ma_h
The Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, with Glynn S. Lunney as Manager,
6 was reorganized. Lunney was also Manager for ASTP (Apollo/Soyuz Test
Project), an assignment to which he had been appointed in June of 1972.
JSC Announcement 73-37, "Reorganization of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office," March
6, 1973; MSC Announcement 72-98, "Key Personnel Assignments," June 26, 1972; ltr.,
Christopher C. Kraft, Jr. IS(;, to Dale D. Myers, NASA Hq., March 2, 1973.
15
A Lunar Programs Office, under which the Lunar Data Analysis and
Synthesis Program would be conducted, was established in the Office of
Space Science, NASA Hq. The office was responsible for continued
operation and collection of data from the Apollo lunar surface experiment
packages and the Apollo 15 subsatellite; Apollo surface and orbital science
data analysis by principal investigators; development of selenodetic,
cartographic, and photographic products; continued lunar laser ranging
experiment; continued lunar sample analysis; lunar supporting research
and technology; and advanced program studies.
Ltr., John E. Naugle, NASA Hq., to Colleagues, March 15, 1973.
August
National Air and Space Museum Director Michael Collins advised JSC that
7 NASM had established a center for research and study with responsibility for
a complete library of lunar photos to document scientific results of the
Apollo missions. The library would be used for original research and for
planning and updating scientific parts of exhibits.
Ltr.. (a)llins to Christopher C. Kraft, .Jr., l)irecml, JSC, Aug. 7, 1973.
27
Apollo Soyuz Test Project Program Director Chester M. Lee, Office of
Manned Space Flight, NASA Hq., was assigned as the management official
to take actions necessary for the final phaseout of the Apollo program. All
Apollo program inquiries, activities, and actions not covered by specific
delegations of authority would be referred to Lee for appropriate decision
and disposition.
NASA Notice 8020, "Apollo Program Phaseout Activities," Aug. 27, 1973.
362
A stained glass window de-
signed to contain a 7.18-
gram rock from the Moon's
Sea of Tranquility was
dedicated at the Washing-
ton Cathedral in a July 21,
1974, service marking the
fifth anniversary of the
Apollo 11 lunar landing.
Former NASA Administra-
tor Thomas O. Paine donat-
ed the window, designed by
St. Louis artist Rodney
Winfield with whirling
stars and orbiting planets in
orange, red, and white on a
deep blue and green field--
an abstract interpretation of
man's spiritual reflections
in space. The rock would be
set in place later.
1973
With the support of the trustees of the Washington Cathedral, Francis B.
Sayre and Thomas O. Paine commissioned a large stained glass Space November
Window to be installed in the south wall of the nave, the main auditorium of
2
the Cathedral. The window would be 5.4 meters high by 2.7 meters wide.
The center of the window would contain an Apollo 11 lunar sample 2
centimeters in diameter.
Ltrs., Paine, former NASA Administrator, to President Nixon, Nov. 2, 1973; Paine to J. IS:.
Fletcher, NASA Hq., Nov. 2, 1973 ; Nixon to Paine, Jan. 14, 1974 ; G. P. Chandler, NASA t tq., to
E. A. Cernan, MSC, Jan. 23, 1974; Fletcher to C. C. Kraft, Jr., MS(;, Feb. 5, 1974.
1974
Universal Studios filmed a program for the ABC TV Network entitled,
"Houston, We've Got a Problem." Although fictitious, the show revolved Januaw
around mission control and the flight controllers during the Apollo 13
During
mission. The production was televised March 2, 1974. the
Month
Memo, John P. Donnelly, NASA Hq., to Deputy Administrator, Feb. 21, 197't.
Of the 134 Apollo 17 lunar plaques, 93 were presented by American

embassies to the countries in which the embassies were located.
Memo, John P. Donnelly, NASA Hq., to the Administrator and Deputy Administlator, "Status
Report on Presentation of Atx_llo 17 Lunar Plaques," March ,t, 197.t.
363
1974 In recognition of the fifth anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight, which landed
the first men on the moon, President Nixon proclaimed the period July 16
Ju_
through July 24 as United States Space Week, stating: "The knowledge to be
13
gained from space will lead to scientific, technological, medical and
industrial advances which cannot be fully perceived today. In time man may
take for granted in the heavens such wonders as we cannot imagine--just as
superhighways across America would amaze the Puritans of 1620 or
transatlantic flights would astound those who passed on the legend of
Icarus. But we know that a beginning has been made that will affect the
course of human life forever."
Presidential Proclamation 4303, "United States Space Week, 1974," July 13, 1974.
364
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX lmGLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
AND ACRONYMS
AAP Apollo Applications Program

ACBWG Apollo Reentry Communications Blackout Working Group
ACE acceptance checkout equipment; also automatic checkout equipment
ACE S/C acceptance checkout equipment spacecraft
ACED AC Electronics Division, General Motors Corporation
AEC Atomic Energy Commission
AEDC Arnold Engineering Development Center, Air Force
AES Apollo Extension System, forerunner of Apollo Applications Program
AFETR Air Force Eastern Test Range
AFRM airframe
AFSC Air Force Systems Command
ALEP Apollo lunar exploration program
ALSEP Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package
ALSD Apollo lunar surface drill
AMS Apollo mission simulator
AOH Apollo operations handbook
AP Associated Press
ARC Ames Research Center
AS Apollo-Saturn
ASPO Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, MSC
ASSB Apollo Site Selection Board
ASTT Apollo Special Task Team
ATM Apollo telescope mount
BAC Bell Aerospace Company or, before January 1970, Bell Aerosystems
Company
BeV billion electron volts
BIG biological isolation garment
BTU British thermal unit
°C degrees Celsius (centigrade)
CARIDS customer acceptance review item dispositions
CARR Customer Acceptance Readiness Review
CASE Coordinated Aerospace Supplier Evaluation
cc cubic centimeter(s)
CCB Configuration Control Board
CDR commander
cm centimeter(s)
CM command module
CMP command module pilot
cps cycles per second (see Hz)
CSM command and service modules
cu m cubic meter(s)
DCR Design Certification Review
DFI development flight instrumentation
367
DOD Department of Defense

DPS descent propulsion system
EASEP Early Apollo Science Experiments Package
ECP engineering change proposal
ECS environmental control system
EDCP engineering design change proposal
EDS emergency detection system
ELS earth landing system
EMS entry monitor system
EMU extravehicular mobility unit
EO engineering order
eV electron volts(s)
EVA extravehicular activity
oF degrees Fahrenheit
FCOD Flight Crew Operations Directorate
FCSM flight combustion stability monitor
FAI Fdd_ration A_ronautique International (International Aeronautical Federa-
tion)
FOD Flight Operations Directorate
FRR Flight Readiness Review
G specific gravity
g gram, gravity
GAEC Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation
GAO Government Accounting Office
GE General Electric Company
GET ground elapsed time
GFE government-furnished equipment
GLEP Group for Lunar Exploration Planning
GMT Greenwich mean time
GSE ground support equipment
GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center
HEAO High Energy Astronomy Observatory (satellite)
HF high frequency
Hz hertz (unit of frequency: 1 cycle per second)
IBM International Business Machines Corporation
ICBC Interagency Committee on Back Contamination
IMU inertial measurement unit
II-'T International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation
J joule
JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory
jsc Johnson Space Center (Manned Spacecraft Center before February 1973)
K kelvin(s)
kg kilogram(s)
km kilometer(s)
km/hrs kilometers per hour
KSC Kennedy Space Center
LaRC Langley Research Center
368
APPENDIX 1
LC Launch Complex
LEM lunar excursion module
LeRC Lewis Research Center
LES launch escape system
LGI lunar geology investigation
LION Lunar International Observer Network
LLRF Lunar Landing Research Facility
LLRV lunar landing research vehicle
LLTV lunar landing training vehicle
LM lunar module
LMP lunar module pilot
LMS lunar module simulator
LMSS lunar mapping and survey system
LOI lunar orbit insertion
LOLA lunar orbit and landing approach
LOX liquid oxygen
LRL Lunar Receiving Laboratory
LRV lunar roving vehicle
LSI Lunar Science Institute
LTA lunar module test article
m meter(s)
mascons mass concentrations of dense material on lunar surface
Mc megacycles
MCC (H) (K) Mission Control Center (Houston) (Kennedy)
MCP mission control programmer
MCR master change record
MDF mild detonating fuse
MDOP maximum design operating pressure
MET mobile equipment transporter
MeV million electron volts
MHz megahertz (million cycles per second)
min minute(s)
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NASM National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution
mm millimeter
MMH monomethylhydrazine
MOL Manned Orbiting Laboratory
MRB Material Review Board
MSC Manned Spacecraft Center (became Johnson Space Center February 1973)
MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center
MSFN Manned Space Flight Network
MSOB Manned Spacecraft Operations Building
M&SS Mapping and survey system
Mw megawatt(s)
NAA North American Aviation, Inc. (until Sept. 22, 1967)
NAR (NR) North American Rockwell Corporation (Sept. 22, 1967-Feb. 16, 1973; then
Rockwell International Corporation)
369
NAS National Academy of Sciences

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
nm nautical mile(s)
NR North American Rockwell Corporation (North American Aviation, Inc.,
before Sept. 22, 1967; Rockwell International Corporation Feb. 16, 1973)
NSSDC National Space Science Data Center
OAO Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (satellite)
OART Office of Advanced Research and Technology, NASA Headquarters
OAS optical alignment sights
OCP Operational Checkout Procedure
OMSF Office of Manned Space Flight, NASA Headquarters
OPS oxygen purge system
ORDEAL orbital rate drive electronics for Apollo and LM
ORI operational readiness inspection
OSO Orbiting Solar Observatory (satellite)
OSSA Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA Headquarters
OTDA Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition, NASA Headquarters
PAD project approval document
PDR Preliminary Design Review
PGA pressure garment assembly
PHS Public iiealth Service
PI principal investigator
PIB Pyrotechnic Installation Building
PLSS portable life support system
pogo launch vehicle induced oscillations (not an acronym; derived from "pogo
stick" analogy)
PSAC President's Scientific Advisory Committee
psi pounds per square inch
psia pounds per square inch absolute
PTV parachute test vehicle
RASPO Resident Apollo Spacecraft Program Office
RCA Radio Corporation of America
RCS reaction control system
RF radio fiequency
RTCC Real Time Computer Complex
RTG radioisotope thermoelectric generator
RTV room temperature vulcanizing
SAMSO Space and Missiles Organization, Air Force
S/C spacecraft
SEB Source Evaluation Board
sec second(s)
SEQ scientific equipment
SESL Space Environmental Simulation Laboratory
SEVA Stand-up extravehicular activity
S-IB Saturn IB launch vehicle first stage
S-IC Saturn V launch vehicle first stage
S-II Saturn second stage
370
APPENDIX 1
S-IVB Saturn IB second stage; Saturn V third stage

SID Space and Information Systems Division, NAA
SIM scientific instrument module
SLA spacecraft-lunar module adapter
SLSS supplementary life support system
SM service module
SPF single point failure
SPS service propulsion system
sq cm square cen timeter(s)
sq m square meter(s)
SSC spacesuit communications
STAC Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, university-NASA
STG Space Task Group, NASA (forerunner of Manned Spacecraft Center); Space
Task Group, President's (1969)
SWIP Super Weight Improvement Program
TCP test and checkout procedures
TEI transearth injection (insertion into trajectory to earth)
TLI translunar injection (insertion into trajectory to moon)
TM test model
TV thermal vacuum test article; also television
V voh(s)
VHF very high frequency
W watt(s)
WIF Water Immersion Facility
WSMR White Sands Missile Range, Army
WSTF White Sands Test Facility, MSC, NASA
371
APPENDIX 2--MAJOR SPACECRAFT
COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS
Lockheed !iiiii;i;:::ili ::Nortronics i] ::;:;::: ;: Thiokol

P_T_ O ball ] Tower jettison motor
NAA !:::::!!::!::ili
i ::i:iLockheed
eT-_pe
system Launch escape motor I
NAA iil iiii!ii!!ii:.!i:!:

North rop i |
Command module
_eco-;--_e_
_S_ ....._/
A iRese_rch AVCO
[ Environmental contro I Heal shield ]
Aeronca uardt ]
_;anels s_MRcs ....... I
NAA :;
: : Pratt Fuel
and Whitney
cell :iii:.i Service module
[_!ii ! !iNAAiii
[ IUtApollo adapters ....... s/MJe!:Generalengine
i: Ma rq ua rdt i!i!i;iiiiiiiii!iiiii
Orumrnan
LM RCS
LM I
HamiltonStandardiii!!
i!i!
i : Bell Aerospace
Environmentalcontrol and Rocketdyne
LM ascent stage
[ NAAIRocketdyne;!i
!ill
!:iii
I and Space Tech Lab!::.
iii :i:i:}: RC_AI :
1C_-_ _ ....... LM guidance
Communications, instrumentation, VHF Inertial measuring unit, power servo

transponder power amp, VHF transmitter, IF assy, ground support, system assembly,
AC Spark Plug
omnidirectional, erectable antenna, TV, i/'" "" test, inertial reference integrating gyro
personnel (extravehicular) I' "|
! I
I I
C-->-. _..J
' ;i;
iii.Beech
.Honeywe!! C£mpany.i_iiii ic9_U_i_i_ad!_9`_i_i_::_ii;_:i!i:ii!_ii_ii_i_i_:_i_i_.Li_n_k_
i_ii_:i_iiiii!
iii:_ .A.!r.c,:ari..ii;iii;ii
i_Be!!.Aero.vite.m}ii!;!i
Spacecraft mission Supercritical gas RCS positive
Stabilization, control Telecommunications simulators storage iexpulsion fuel tanks
:::Allison and Air:ite I Radiation Inc. Simmonds Precision (;A [. ! Westinghouse!: i

[; Products iiiiiii Telemetry data ...... , rv: came;asl .E!e(:.
tric! _
Fuel components processing for Apollo Propellant mixture communications
S-1-1 stage controls antenna Static inverter
ElginNationalWatchl " RCA :;: ; [_ ;::M T [ Raytheon Ko sman Instrumeni

Sequencer Radar, engineering Associate prime- Computer Optics
services guidance, navigation
• STL named sole contractor January 1965.
372
APPENDIX 3
t_
0 0
U9 U'_
0 _ 0 0 I I
7 "_ _I
0
0
._.,i
0
°_,_
0 _ 0
,-: ¢,i _ c,i
K_
0
=.4
o9
.< c,,I
-N
0
._,.4
•E 0
373
,"-_ ,.._ _,._ oo _ c,_ _.O .

.- ,_ _,_ _[-_
Z
,X:l ,,_ m._
I
0 5
o4
.,-t
_ 0
e_
I 0 o _ _ _._ _ =
£
© ._-.q
i _ = = =
"r
• ._
©
•_ .=- = =
_ _ _-_
.<
•= _ _ o o
"_ _ _ "_ ._
M 0
<
-'_ "0
©
I
× _ 0
_ 0
.<
&
I !
O_ ._ '_ _, _°_ O_
q_ _D
0
°_..q
&e
374
APPENDIX 3
oO
O,,I 0',l _
o,,I
_00, I
_ _ - .
_v o
O _
_.o _
•"- N
o o m
_.=_=
0 _
--_._
"- N
__o _ 0 _ 0 _ _ _
S _
_._
,_ z=
0 _ .,-, N o _, o
°_-,i
"_o
0 _ 0 0 _ o
•- _ .__-_
_J
nD
¢_ 0
°,,,_
,_ .,-, ,.._
o
I r--
!
I
oZ
375
._ ._._._ ..= ._
ee_
z _.
oo .,_
0
_._ 0
I o _
0
_o R _
0 0 _ 0
__o _
_.._
_'_ _ o
io
8 •__ _ _._ _ =
o=_ _._ ._
0
o_ o_
o_
• _E _
_. _
.o.o
0
___:_
._ e,i
0
I
__
X _" _
" r_
Z _.-_o
.,_ ¢_ _
.,e o_
rC I t-_
o¢
_<_ _ ."__
0
4_
376
APPENDIX 4
x_
_ o
0 _
<
O4
p_ x: G
_.._
Z
_
_
a< ..H
_._ _ _ _ _
_i o_0 _ _o_o
o _ __ _o'_ _ a._ °2
0 _ o _
-_
,- _ _ .__ =o _ _ _'
_._ __ _
377
THE APOI,LO SPACECRAFT: A CttRONOI,OGY
o_
• ,.._ 0.9
O
0
..:Z
0
o_
:/3 _ _ cat3
,in
%
<
k2
I
Z .< < < H
.<
k9
._o
e_
£_o_ _s s
o
___ 3._ _ _ .:_

© b ° ,...I
I O9
O
, = _-_ _ _-_
= o=
Z
<
0 <
I I
Z
v
,.3 0 0 ©
'<3
378
APPENDIX 4
c_ _q
°_-_
v v
A O_o_O _t_
_ .:_ °_
• ._ o_
_;_
_ _.
_
'=
0
.
._ 0 _ ¢_
__o • _=o_ _i
._ _
_ • o_o
_._
__ o_
.n_ .:_
_'-_
0 _,._
rm
o,i
0 I
_v _v
4_. v
© ,q
o
oo oo
.< .<
379
°_,,i
.F-I
_ o
i
>, _ v
< <
_._ _ _ _= _'_._
e_
©
<a_ __ ,_ .
I __ _ _ __ _
X e_
__ _-_
0
Z _ ! _._.
.<
_ _
v
"_
380
APPENDIX 4
o0
ct_
or)
oq
-
°_..q _H H
Z _ H Z <
.2. 6 -_ _ .-' _ _ • ..., _._
c- _ U--.
_._ ._
•
oP-i
_ge 0 • 0 l_l
,-O ae_ d ._ ,---, _ _o_

o_ • ' _ _
_._ _._ o E
_ E ,_ _._
._ __ _
O..I LO ,---,
0-4
u 0 0 0 _
0 Z Z X _
381
>
I
m
<
N
N
t::::_ t:::l0 "'_ 0

_ _ R_ _
I
0
×
.p,,_
o,,,_ •-_6z_ _z _
0
Z _.o _ _o_
< 0 _-_ • C/'_. _,_ _ •
'_ _
_ 0
_ v
i<
382
APPENDIX 4
_t_ _r3
- _ _,_ ,_ , v
!
0 " _ _ 0 _ _. _ _ _._
._.. _ _ _ _._- •_ _ "_ _ _
• ,_ _ _ _ _
• 0"_ 0 _a "_ _
_ .._
u-., © ,._ 0
_ .-
aa M
• _ 6, :;
383
THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT: A CHI_Z)NOLOGY
0,.
c¢)
O =._
I
>,
_ _._.
¢/3
____ _ _o
8_ °.E _ _ 8,0
.o
o _-_ _8
._
• _ o
I_
I
_ r._-, _
_,_1_ ,-'_
X 0
_ _@.:_ •_ •_ __ "___ _"_ ___
Z
_ __Zo
_ -_- _'_ 0 _ _ _ •
<
0
ex 0 •m_ oq
t¢_ o,,1. x,o ,_,.b
Z I 0 I 0 I
o< o< "_<
¢xl
d d
_z
384
APPENDIX 4
0
0
8 8
Z
t.,i
t_
b,.,i
_._
• o
21 v
.q
a.
385
O oo
0
0d
_Z
I
oO
<
_ _ _____ _ _ s_z _ _ _-=_

=_. _ .o
__ =_ =_
©
_d
eq
e_
I
_E_ z_ _._ _ =_ o 0
O
.__ o__ _ "O
Z ____
o __- _ _ '_'._
_ _ _ _ _o__ • _=
_-
Z
.,_;k.v
.E
o
I
xo
ox
386
APPENDIX 4
Or)
C_
°,._
Z Z
o_
"8"_- =
_._
_ __
_ _ .
Z
0 _ _0 _ r_
._ _--_
_ -_ "_ .=..
o6
"-2-.
o I
o<
o 4_ v
o
ee_
387
0,.
• _,..t {12
_o
>
I
tll
<
o_ = o-_ o
•n o
_
0 0 _ _
0._ _ . i:i_ :_ -_._ _ _ ._- _ 0
:n .o
O t_
k_ _._ ,_
I t_ 8 _'" "_
O
Z
• _l_ ._ _ ,_ t_
t_
Z 0 I
o
.t_ v
oo
0
I
o_
',o
388
APPENDIX 4
oO
0
0
0,--_
. ,,,,i
t_
Z
_=_
__
•
_o _o_
_o_o _ _;_'==
_ _4_ ="
•
.,...4
!___._o_ ______
_ .__
_=__" _ _.
--4 ,.-4
389
r/) ¢/_
k_
ot,,_
_q
O o_,_
i t_
Z Z
.<
-_._ .=_
or') __.__-_! _o
_- • ..=e27
i
o_= _ _o a_6
_o_.._-__ o
O
Z
t_ _ e_ ;_ .,...,.. _o0 _r_t_ 0
or)
Z
_v :F_v
0
© ©
39O
APPENDIX 4
¢,¢)
013 •
" _ °_ _ ___ _
• _._.,._ _ _
_.._ _o-_ _ _ _0 _ _ -
e'4
391
I v
Z: Z
.<
_.. _ _
:X
0 -
O
,2
I
X 0
""_ e_ ::::l 0
Z
._ t::
--. : 9o ._
<
I
z
.<
392
APPENDIX 4
...5
_v
o
Z
__ __ _,_
_ ._ _ 0'4 •
_ _Lo _.-
°
.,._ '_ _ .,_ ¢_ _ ,_ _u 0

•_ _ _ _._ _._ _ ._ _-_
_ _ ,-¢:[ ,--_ .,_

__ • _. _,_o
" _ _ 0 _ " "_
_ = _ "_
_'_o_"_ _ -._ o = ._
_v
393
o_
oD ¢/3
_ o ¢/3
O _
-,-I
¢/3 z/3 or)
x: _2
I
Z Z
.<
_o_
¢/3 _'_
.p..q
,-d
;.r.,
I _ __ .._ _
Old
z •__ _..__ ._
.<
Z I
_v
r_
t_
t',,,,
394
APPENDIX 4
c/)
_r_ xt_
.,-4
°_
,.--.,._
0 1
,....,_
395
oq
;>
eg
,.-¢
, ,...¢
I _._
>,
0_ X
__"
c/)
• _
0
°f,,_
, _ e_ ._ • _"- _ _'_=
_r/)
,.2
i
" 8._
<
c_
_v
396
APPENDIX 4
_._
-_6 -_-o
0
oo _D
c-4
,6
(/)
397
• ,"_ 0.)
0_
u
%)
I °,.._
o_
.<
c/)
.=. _ .= .= _:
=
O
=
_ :_" -=
_._ _._ _
k_ ¢,,....t
.__! _-
I t_
=
X
O
Z
.<
t_
Z
0
l
398
APPENDIX 4
ct)
' ._. X,_._

_.__
-__ .___
__.. __ _ _ _-_ __
._.,q
_ _z _._.__
_
- _ __._ o ._
_ o_ _
__ _ _ _._ _ °
_ _ _ I
399
e_
t_
O
tt_
>
,.....o
O
o_
I a_
_4
_'_ _ t"_ ,'_,-,_ .,-a
-,-_
I _. ,.,._ _ "__, _.._

0_
Z - _ _ _.o _. _<_
t_
Z <
z
O
I
400
APPENDIX 5--PRIMARY APOLLO FLIGHT
OBJECTIVES
[Apollo-Saturn 201 through Apollo 17]
Apollo-Saturn 201 (February 26, 1966)
Primary Objectives (all achieved)

1. Obtain flight information on the structural integrity and compatibility of the
launch vehicle and spacecraft and confirm launch loads.
2. Test the separation of:
a. S-IVB stage, instrument unit (IU) and spacecraft from S-IB stage.
b. Launch escape systems (LES) and boost protective cover from command and
service modules (CSM) and launch vehicle.
c. CSM from S-IVB stage, IU, and service module LEM adapter (SLA).
d. Command module (CM) from service module (SM).
3. Obtain flight operation information on the following subsystems:
a. Launch vehiclempropulsion, guidance and control, and electrical systems.
b. Spacecraft--CM heatshield (adequacy for entry from low earth orbit); service
propulsion system (SPS) (including restart); Environmental control system
(ECS) (pressure and temperature control); communications(partial); CM
reaction control system (RCS); SM RCS; stabilization control system (SCS);
earth landing system (ELS); electrical power system (EPS), partial.
4. Evaluate performance of the space vehicle emergency detection system (EDS) in an
open-loop configuration.
5. Evaluate the CM heatshield at a heating rate of approximately 200 BTU/ft2/sec
during entry at approximately 9 km/sec.
6. Demonstrate the mission support facilities and operations required for launch,
mission conduct, and CM recovery.
7. Recover the CM.
Apollo-Saturn 203 (July 5, 1966)

1. Evaluate performance of the S-IVB/IU stage under orbital conditions to obtain
flight information on:
a. Venting and chill-down systems.
b. Fluid dynamics and heat transfer to propellant tanks.
c. Attitude and thermal control systems.
d. Launch vehicle guidance.
e. Checkout in orbit.
401
Apollo-Saturn 202 (August 25, 1966)

1. Evaluate the CM heatshield at a high heating load.
2. Obtain further launch vehicle and spacecraft information on:
a. Structural integrity and compatibility.
b. Flight loads.
c. Stage separation.
d. Subsystem operations.
e. Emergency detection system operation.
Apollo 4 (AS-501) (November 9, 1967)
Primary objectives (all achieved)

Launch vehicle:
1. Demonstrate the S-IVB-stage restart capability.
2. Demonstrate the adequacy of the S-IVB continuous vent system while in earth
orbit.
3. Demonstrate the capability of the S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system during S-
IVB powered flight and orbital coast periods to maintain attitude control and
perform required maneuvers.
4. Demonstrate the S-IVB-stage propulsion system, including the propellant
management systems, and determine inflight system performance parameters.
5. Demonstrate the S-II-stage propulsion system, including programmed mixture
ratio shift and the propellant management system, and determine inflight
performance parameters.
6. Demonstrate the S-IC-stage propulsion system, and determine inflight system
performance parameters.
7. Demonstrate the S-IC/S-II dual-plane separation.
8. Demonstrate the S-II/S-IVB separation.
9. Demonstrate the mission support capability required for launch and mission
operations to high post-injection altitudes.
10. Demonstrate structural and thermal integrity of the launch vehicle throughout
powered and coasting flight and determine inflight structural loads and dynamic
characteristics.
11. Determine inflight launch vehicle internal environment.
12. Demonstrate the launch vehicle guidance and control system during S-IC, S-II,
and S-IVB powered flight, achieve guidance cutoff, and evaluate system accuracy.
13. Demonsuate launch vehicle sequencing system.
14. Evaluate the performance of the emergency detection system in an open-loop
configuration.
15. Demonstrate compatibility of the launch vehicle and spacecraft.
402
APPENDIX 5
16. Verify prelaunch and launch support equipment compatibility with launch
vehicle and spacecraft systems.
Spacecraft:
1. Demonstrate CSM/SLA/LTA/Saturn V structural compatibility and determine
spacecraft loads in a Saturn V launch environment.
2. Determine the dynamic and thermal responses of the SLA/CSM structure in the
Saturn V launch environment.
3. Determine the force inputs to the simulated LM from the SIJA at the spacecraft
attachment structure in a Saturn V launch environment.
4. Obtain data on the acoustic and thermal environment of the SLA/simulated LM
interface during a Saturn V launch.
5. Determine vibration response of LM descent-stage engine and propellant tanks in
a Saturn V launch environment.
6. Evaluate the thermal and structural performance of the Block II thermal
protection system, including effects of cold soak and maximum thermal gradient
when subjected to the combination of a high heat load and a high heating rate
representative of lunar return entry.
7. Demonstrate an SPS no-ullage start.
8. Determine performance of the SPS during a long-duration burn.
9. Verify the performance of the SM/RCS thermal control subsystem and engine
thermal response in the deep space environment.
10. Verify the thermal design adequacy of the CM/RCS thrusters and extensions
during simulated lunar return entry.
11. Evaluate the thermal performance of a gap and seal configuration simulating the
unified crew hatch design for heating conditions anticipated during lunar return
entry.
12. Verify operation of the heat rejection system throughout the mission.
13. Evaluate the performance of the spacecralt emergency detection subsystem (EDS)
in the open-loop configuration.
14. Demonstrate the performance of CSM/MSFN S-band communications.
15. Measure the integrated skin and depth radiation dose within the command module
up to an altitude of at least 3700 kin.
Apollo 5 (AS-204/LM-1) (January 22, 1968)

1. Verify operation of the following LM subsystems: ascent propulsion system and
descent propulsion .system (including restart), and structure.
2. Evaluate LM staging.
3. Evaluate the S-IVB/IU orbital performance.
4O3
Apollo 6 (AS-502) (April 4, 1968)
Primary Objectives
1. Demonstrate the structural and thermal integrity and compatibility of the launch
vehicle and spacecraft, confirm launch loads and dynamic characteristics (partially
accomplished).
2. Demonstrate separation of:
a. S-II from S-IC (dual plane).
b. S-IVB from S-II.
(accomplished)
3. Verify operation of the following launch vehicle subsystems: propulsion
(including S-IVB restart), guidance and control (optimum injection), and
electrical system (partially accomplished).
4. Evaluate performance of the space vehicle EDS in a closed-loop configuration
(accomplished).
5. Demonstrate mission support facilities and operations required for launch,
mission conduct, and CM recovery (accomplished).
Apollo 7 (AS-205) (October 11, 1968)

1. Demonstrate CSM/crew performance.
2. Demonstrate crew-space vehicle-mission support facilities performance during a
manned CSM mission.
3. Demonstrate CSM rendezvous capability.
Apollo 8 (AS-503) (December 21, 1968)

manned Saturn V mission with CSM.
2. Demonstrate performance of nominal and selected backup lunar orbit rendezvous
(LOR) mission activities, including:
a. Translunar injection.
b. CSM navigation, communications, and midcourse corrections.
c. CSM consumables assessment and passive thermal control.
Apollo 9 (AS-504) (March 3, 1969)

manned Saturn V mission with CSM and LM.
2. Demonstrate LM/crew performance.
3. Demonstrate performance of nominal and selected backup LOR mission activities,
including:
404
APPENDIX 5
a. Transposition, docking, LM withdrawal.

b. Intervehicular crew transfer.
c. Extravehicular capability.
d. SPS and DPS burns.
e. LM-active rendezvous and docking.
4. CSM/LM consumables assessment.
Apollo 10 (AS-505) May 18, 1969)

manned lunar mission with CSM and LM.
2. Evaluate LM performance in the cislunar and lunar environment.
Apollo 11 (AS-506)(July 16, 1969)
Primary Objective (accomplished)

Perform a manned lunar landing and return.
Detailed Objectives and Experiments
1. Collect a contingency, sample (accomplished).
2. Egress from the LM to the lunar surface, perform lunar surface EVA operations,
and ingress into the LM from the lunar surface (accomplished).
3. Perform lunar surface operations with the EMU (accomplished).
4. Obtain data on effects of DPS and RCS plume impingement on the LM andobtain
data on the performance of the LM landing gear and descent engine skirt after
touchdown (accomplished).
5. Obtain data on the lunar surface characteristics from the effects of the LM landing
(accomplished).
6. Collect lunar bulk samples (accomplished).
7. Determine the position of the LM on the lunar surface (accomplished).
8. Obtain data on the effects of illumination and contrast conditions on crew visual
perception (accomplished).
9. Demonstrate procedures and hardware used to prevent back contamination of the
earth's biosphere (accomplished).
10. Deploy the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Package (EASEP), which
included:
a. S031, Passive Seismic Experiment (accomplished).
b. S078, Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector (accomplished).
11. Deploy and retrieve the Solar Wind Composition Experiment, S080 (accom-
plished).
12. Perform Cosmic Ray Detector Experiment (helmet portion), S151 (accomplished).
13. Perform Lunar Field Geology, S059 (partially accomplished).
405
14. Obtain television coverage during the lunar stay period (accomplished).
15. Obtain photographic coverage during the lunar stay period (accomplished).
Apollo 12 (AS-507) (November 14, 1969)

1. Perform selenological inspection, survey, and sampling in a mare area.
2. Deploy and activate the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP).
3. Develop techniques for a point landing capability.
4. Develop man's capability to work in the lunar environment.
5. Obtain photographs of candidate exploration sites.
Detailed Principal Objectives and Experiments (all achieved)
1. Collect a contingency sample.
2. Perform lunar surface EVA operations.
3. Deploy ALSEP I, which included:
a. S031, Passive Seismic Experiment.
b. S034, Lunar Surface Magnetometer Experiment.
c. S035, Solar Wind Spectrometer Experiment.
d. S036, Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment.
e. S058, Cold Cathode Ionization Gauge Experiment.
f. M515, Lunar Dust Detector.
4. Collect selected samples.
5. Recharge the portable life support systems.
6. Perform Lunar Field Geology, S059.
7. Obtain photographic coverage of candidate exploration sites.
Apollo 13 (AS-508) (April 11, 1970)
Primary Objectives (none achieved)

1. Perform selenological inspection, survey, and sampling of materials in a
preselected region of the Fra Mauro formation.
2. Deploy and activate an Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP).
Apollo 14 (AS-509) (January 31, 1971)

1. Perform selenological inspection, survey, and sampling of materials in a
preselected region of the Fra Mauro formation.
2. Deploy and activate ALSEP.
406
APPENDIX 5
Apollo 15 (AS-510) (July 26, 1971)

1. Perform selenological inspection, survey, and sampling of materials and surface
features in a preselected area of the Hadley-Apennine region.
2. Emplace and activate surface experiments.
3. Evaluate the capability of the Apollo equipment to provide extended lunar surface
stay time, increased EVA operations, and surface mobility.
4. Conduct inflight experiments and photographic tasks from lunar orbit.
Apollo 16 (AS-511) (April 16, 1972)

1. Perform selenological inspection, survey, and sampling of material and surface
features in a preselected area of the Descartes region.
3. Conduct inflight experiments and photographic tasks.
Apollo 17 (AS-512) (December 7, 1972)

1. Perform selenological inspection, survey, and sampling of material and surface
features in a preselected area of the Taurus-Littrow region.
3. Conduct inflight experiments and photographic tasks.
407
APPENDIX 6ECREWS AND SUPPORT
FOR MANNED APOLLO FLIGHTS
[Compiled by Sally D, Gates, History Office, JSC,

with Cyril E. Baker, Astronaut Office, JSC.]
Apollo 7: Prime crew: Schirra Eisele Cunningham

Backup: Stafford Young Cernan
Support: Evans Swigert Pogue
CapComs : Stafford Evans Pogue
Swigert Young Cernan
Apollo 8: Prime crew : Borman Lovell Anders

Backup: Armstrong Aldrin Haise
Support: Brand Mattingly Carr
CapComs: Collins Mattingly Cart
Armstrong Aldrin Brand
Haise
Apollo 9: Prime crew: McDivitt Scott Schweickart

Backup: Bean Conrad Gordon
Support: Lousma Mitchell Worden
CapComs: Roosa Evans Worden
Conrad Gordon Bean
Apollo 10: Prime crew: Stafford Young Cernan

Backup: Cooper Eisele Mitchell
Support: Engle Irwin Duke
CapComs: Duke Engle Lousma
McCandless
Apollo 11 : Prime crew : Armstrong Collins Aldrin

Backup: Lovell Anders Haise
Support: Mattingly Evans Pogue Swigert
CapComs: Duke Evans McCandless
Lovell Anders Mattingly
Haise Lind Garriott
Schmitt
Apollo 12: Prime crew: Conrad Gordon Bean

Backup: Scott Irwin Worden
Support : Carr Wei tz Gibson
CapComs: Carr Gibson Weitz Lino
Scott Worden Irwin Wash*
Warren* Rippey* Lewis*
408
APPENDIX 6
Apollo 13: Prime crew: Lovell Swigert** Haise

Backup: Young Swigert Duke
Support: Lousma Brand Pogue
CapComs: Kerwin Brand Lousma
Young Mattingly
Apollo 14: Prime crew: Shepard Roosa Mitchell

Backup: Cernan Evans Engle
Support: McCandless Pogue Fullerton
Chapman
CapComs: Fullerton McCandless Haise
Evans
Apollo 15: Prime crew: Scott Worden Irwin

Backup: Gordon Brand Schmitt
Support: Henize Allen Parker
CapComs: Allen Fullerton Henize
Mitchell Parker Schmitt
Shepard Gordon Brand
Apollo 16: Prime crew: Young Mattingly Duke

Backup: Haise Roosa Mitchell
Support: Peterson England Hartsfield
Chapman
CapComs : Peterson Fullerton Irwin
Haise Roosa Mitchell
Hartsfield England Overmyer
Apollo 17: Prime crew : Cernan Evans Schmitt

Backup: Young Roosa Duke
Support : Overmyer Parker Fullerton
CapComs : Fullerton Overmyer Parker
Allen Shepard Mattingly
Duke Roosa Young
NOTE: CapCom (capsule communicator) assignments are listed as they appeared in the
manning documents (by shift), not as they might have been heard in chronological sequence
during flight.
*On this four-shift flight, Dickie K. Warren, James O. Rippey, James L. Lewis, and Michael R.
Wash were backup CapComs. This was the first time in the American manned space flight
program that this position was filled by non-astronaut personnel.
**Swigert moved from the backup to the prime crew at the last minute, when command
module pilot Mattingly was exposed to a contagious disease.
SOURCE: Mission reports, news releases, NASA Astronauts (NASA EP-34, Washington, 1967),
and manning documents issued before each mission by the JSC Flight Operations
Directorate and written, for the most part, by Cecil E. Dorsey.
409
APPENDIX 7reFUNDING
[Compiled by F. B. ttopson,
Administrative and Program Support Directorate, NASA]
Fiscal Year Funding Breakdown

(dollars in thousands)
1966
Original budget re- NASA: $4 575 900 Command and service
quest--no supple- Apollo: 2 997 385 modules: $ 615 000
mental for prior fiscal Lunar excursion module: 310 800
year Guidance and navigation: 115 000
Integration, reliability,
Fiscal budget appro- NASA: 4 511 644 and checkout: 34 400
priation-no supple- Apollo: 2 967 385 Spacecraft support: 95 400
mental for prior fiscal Saturn I: 800
year Saturn IB : 274 185
Saturn V: 1 177 32O
Engine development: 134 095
Apollo mission support: 210 385
1967
quest Apollo: 2 974 200 modules: $ 560 400
Lunar excursion module: 472 500
Fiscal budget appro- NASA: 4 175 100 Guidance and navigation: 76 654
priation Apollo: 2 916 200 Integration, reliability,
and checkout: 29 975
Spacecraft support: 110 771
Saturn IB : 236 600
Saturn V: 1 135 600
1968
quest including Fis- Apollo: 2 606 500 modules: $ 455 300
cal Year 1967 supple- Lunar excursion module: 3 9 600
mental Guidance and navigation: 113 000
410
APPENDIX 7
APPENDIX 7--FI !NDING--Continued

Fiscal budget appro- NASA: 3 970 600 Integration, reliability,

priation including Apollo: 2 556 000 and checkout: 66 600
Fiscal Year 1967 sup- Spacecraft support: 60 500
plemental Saturn IB : 146 600
Saturn V: 998 900
1969
Original budget re- NASA: $3 677 20O Command and service
quest Apollo: 2 O38 800 modules: 346 000
Lunar excursion module: 326 000
Fiscal budget appro- NASA: 3 193 559 Guidance and navigation: 43 900
priation Apollo: 2 025 000 Integration, reliability,
and checkout: 65 100
Spacecraft support: 121 800
Saturn IB : 41 347
Saturn V: 534 453
Manned Space Flight
Operations: 546 400
1970
quest including Fis- Apollo: 1 651 100 modules: $ 282 821
cal Year 1969 reserve Lunar excursion module: 231 433
Guidance and navigation: 33 866
Fiscal budget appro- NASA: 3 113 765 Science payloads : 60 094
priation including Apollo: 1 686 145 Spacecraft support: 170 764
Fiscal Year 1969 re- Saturn V : 484 439
serve Manned Space Flight
Operations: 422 728
1971
Original budget re- NASA: $2 606 100 Flight modules: 245 542
quest Apollo: 956 500 Science payloads: 106 194
Ground support: 46 411
Fiscal budget appro- NASA: 2 555 000 Saturn V: 189 059
priation Apollo: 913 669 Manned Space Flight
Operations: 314 963
Advance development: 11 500
411
THEAPOLLO
SPACECRAFT:
ACHRONOLOGY
APPENDIX 7--FUNDING--Concluded

1972
Original budget re- NASA: $2 517 700 Flight modules: $ 55 033
quest Apollo: 612 200 Science payloads: 52 100
Ground support: 31 659
Fiscal budget appro- NASA: 2 507 7O0 Saturn V: 142 458
priation Apol lo: 601 200 Manned Space Flight
Operations: 307 450
Advance development: 12 500
1973
Original budget re- NASA: $2 600 900 Spacecraft: $ 50 400
quest Apollo: 128 700 Saturn V: 26 300
Fiscal budget appro- NASA: 2 509 900

priation Apollo: 76 7OO
412
APPENDIX 8--BLOCK II VS. BLOCK I APOLLO
SPACECRAFT; HARDWARE, CHANGES, TESTS
[From "Manned Space Flight Report: Block I! Spacecraft" in House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Subcommittee on
NASA Oversight, Investigation into Apollo 204 Accident: Hearings, 90th Cong., 1st sess, 3, no. 4, May 10, 1967, 223-35.]
Subsystems and Units Unchanged Jot Block H CSM
Launch escape system Spacecraft LM adapter

Command module reaction control system Atmosphere supply system
Service module reaction control system Primary equipment cooling loop
engine cluster Waste management system
Fuel cell power plants and entry batteries Crew couches
Cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen storage C-band radar transponder
Ordnance devices
system
Sequential events control system Parachutes and recovery aids
Emergency detection system
New Subsystems and Units in Block II CSM
Docking system Docking tunnel and probe

Umbilical and pressurization
Rendezvous radar transponder
Sequence controllers LM docking and separation events

S-band antennas Flush omnidirectional
High gain
Subsystems and Units Changed in Block H CSM
Structure :
Command module Docking provisions, mechanism, and hatch
Extravehicular capability
CM/SM mechanical connection
Scientific airlock available
Service moaule Propellant tanks
Empty bay
Internal rearrangement
Structural redesign
Radiator areas
RCS mounting panels
413
Propulsion :
Service module
propulsion system Mixture ratio
Thrust chamber
Gimbal actuator
Service module
reaction control Propellant capacity
Monomethylhydrazine fuel
Crew support :
Environmental control
system Redundant cooling loop
Radiator design and area
Spacesuit Apollo suit
Extravehicular capability
Displays and controls Panel structure
Electroluminescent lighting
Entry monitor system
Power and communication:
Electrical power
system Radiator area
Distribution bus added
Cable harnessing
Pyrotechnic initiator
Wire deadfacing at separation
Unified S-band Primary mode for all communications
Repackaged
Simultaneous data and tape dump or TV
Electrical redundancy
Voice VHF Redundant and duplex
Guidance and control:
Guidance and navigation Digital autopilot
Computer repackaged
Electronics repackaged
Navigation base support
Stabilization and
control system Revised interface
Electronics repackaged
Redundant attitude display
Atmospheric entry and
touchdown :
Heatshield Redistributed ablative thickness
Truncated apex
Umbilical location
Flush antennas
414
APPENDIX 8
Earth-landing system Steel parachute risers

Parachute attach points
Repackaged
Crew Safety Systems
1. Launch escape system 6. Reaction control system

2. Emergency detection system 7. Electrical power system
8. Command module heatshield
3. Sequential events control system
4. Earth-landing system 9. Structure system
5. Environmental control system
Mission Success Systems
1. Spacecraft adapter 5. Communications system

2. Waste management system 6. Displays and controls
3. Guidance and control system 7. Service propulsion system
4. Stabilization and control system
Subsystems with Internal Redundancy
Subsystem Major Function
1. CM reaction control system Attitude control

Lift vector control
2. SM reaction control Attitude control
S-IVB/CSM separation
CM/SM separation
3. Communications system Navigation data
Voice, telemetry, and tracking
Recovery
4. Electrical power system Electrical power
5. Environmental control system Equipment cooling
Cabin environmental control
6. Sequential events control

system Separation signals
Earth-landing functions
7. Emergency detection system Launch vehicle malfunction
8. Earth-landing system Atmospheric descent,

Uprighting at impact
Backup System Capabilities for Earth-Orbital Flight
Subsystem Major Function Backup
Service propulsion system Deorbit SM-RCS; CM-RCS

Command module reaction Attitude control SM-RCS spinup before
control system separation for ballistic
reentry
415
Backup System Capabilities for Earth-Orbital Flight--Continued
Subsystem Major Function Backup

Guidance and control Attitude, translation, and lift Stabilization and control
system vector control system
Control of SPS burns
Stabilization and control Backup attitude, trans- Manual
system lation, and SPS control
Flight Safety System_ Changed in Block H
1. Earth-landing system 5. Command module heatshield

2. Service module reaction control system 6. Structural system
3. Electrical power system 7. Service propulsion system
4. Environmental control system
Environmental Control System Changes for Block H

before AS-204 Accident
1. New radiator design:

Increased size.
Selective stagnation control.
Secondary loop tubes.
2. Secondary coolant loop:
Additional pump.
Redundant cold plate passages.
3. Repackage environmental control unit (ECU):
Coolant pumps relocated external to ECU, repackaged, and capacity increased.
Coolant reservoir located external to ECU.
Redesigned suit heat exchanger.
4. LM pressurization capability.
5. Relocate postlanding ventilation valves.
6. Redesign steam duct.
7. Add rendezvous radar cold plates in SM.
Proposea ECS Changes for Block H after

AS-204 Accident
1. Add armor plating to exposed solder joints.

2. Change soldered-aluminum oxygen lines to stainless steel.
3. Rapid cabin repressurization.
4. Improve accessibility of selected ECS controls.
5. Shields for plumbing lines.
6. Optional use of air in cabin during launch.
7. Emergency breathing masks.
8. Add quick disconnects to environmental control unit.
9. Replace selected materials.
416
APPENDIX 8
Block I--Malor Ground Test Programs
Test
Article Test Purpose
CM BP-6A Parachute drop-testing of boiler- Flight-qualify earth recovery

plate CM system by series of aircraft drop
tests
SM-001 SPS propulsion ground test Demonstrate SPS performance
(oxidizer-to-fuel ratio = 2), 2d
SPS-structure compatibility
SLA Static structural test of spacecraft- Test SLA static structural load
LM adapter capability (ultimate)
CSM 004 Static and thermal structural CM static structural load test
ground test (ultimate)
CSM static structural load test
(ultimate)
CM thermal structural load test
(reentry design)
CSM 007 Varied spacecraft testing CM and SM acoustic vibration
environment test
CM water-landing impact drop test
Postlanding systems operational/
crew compatibility tests (up-
righting, postlanding ECS, post-
landing communications)
CSM 008 Thermal vacuum test of complete Demonstration of structural,
systems spacecraft integrated subsystems and crew
compatibility under thermal
vacuum environment
White Sands Missile Range Flight Tests
Test
BP-6 Boilerplate--LES pad abort flight Demonstrate launch escape

test system's pad abort performance
BP-12 Boilerplate--LES transonic abort Demonstrate launch escape
flight test system's transonic abort
performance
BP-23 Boilerplate--LES high-dynamic- Demonstrate launch escape
pressure abort flight test system's maximum-dynamic-
pressure-region abort
performance
417
White Sands Missile Range Flight Tests--Continued

Test
BP-23A Boilerplate--LES pad abort flight Demonstrate launch escape
test system's pad abort performance
with Canard, BPC, and major
sequencing changes
CSM 002 Spacecraft structure--SM boost Determine actual spacecraft SM's
environment and LES tumbling dynamic structural response to
abort flight boost dynamic loads
Demonstrate launch escape
system's tumbling abort
performance and plume-im-
pingement-load capability of
CSM
Block ll--Major Ground-Test Programs

Test
BP-6B Parachute drop-testing of boiler- Flight-qualify earth recovery
plate CM system by series of aircraft drop
tests
F-2A Fixture for SPS testing Evaluate performance effects on
SPS engine of fuel and oxidizer
mixture's ratio change from 2.0
to 1.6
180° SM Acoustic test article (SM) testing Qualify SM structure and systems
segment to launch and boost vibration
environment
CM 28-1 Static and dynamic structural test- Evaluate water impact on CM
ing structure
Docket CM/LM interface static
structural tests
CMS 2S-2 Static structural testing Static-test CM and SM structures
(ultimate)
CMS 2TV-1 Complete systems spacecraft ther- Demonstrate structural, integrated
mal vacuum testing subsystems, crew compatibility,
and life support in thermal
vacuum environment
418
APPENDIX 8
Block II--Revisions of and Additions to Major

Ground-Test Programs
Test
2TV- 1 Complete spacecraft thermal vacu- Qualify fire related changes

um
004A, 007A Unified hatch qualification Functionally qualify acoustic
testing, postlanding testing
CSM Acoustic vibration Demonstrate functional and
structural integrity of stacked
CSM-SLA
Material Materials evaluation Continue evaluation of non- or
low-flammable material
Boilerplate Command module fire test Evaluate fire propagation in flight-
configuration CM interior
EMU articles Extravehicular mobility unit qual- Qualify Block II unit with
ification materials change
ECU articles Environmental control unit quali- Qualify Block II unit with all
fication required modifications
419
APPENDIX 9mAPOLLO EXPERIMENTS
PART I: LUNAR SURFACE EXPERIMENTS
The lunar surface experiments were of two kinds: (1) The Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package (ALSEP) systems, which were left on the lunar surface by the astronauts
and which continued sending telemetry data until turned off Sept. 30, 1977, and (2)
experiments conducted on the lunar surface by the astronauts and returned to earth in the
command module. The dates and lunar coordinates are given in the following listing. The
ALSEP-related experiments are listed next, by experiment number, with Apollo mission
numbers.
Apollo 12: TheApollo 12 ALSEP was deployed on November 19, 1969, at latitude 3°11' S,
longitude 23023 ' W in Oceanus Procellarum.
Apollo 13: Because of service module problems, a lunar landing was not accomplished
during the Apollo 13 mission.
Apollo 14: The ALSEP was deployed on February 5, 1971, at latitude 3040 ' S, longitude
17027 ' W in the Fra Mauro formation.
Apollo 15: The ALSEP was deployed July 31,1971, at latitude 26006 ' N, longitude 3039 ' E
in the Hadley-Apennine region.
Apollo 16: The ALSEP was deployed April 21, 1972, at latitude 8°59'34" S, longitude
15030'47 " E in the Descartes Highlands.
Apollo 17: The ALSEP was deployed on December 12, 1972, at latitude 20009'55 " N,
longitude 30045'57" E in the Taurus-Littrow region.
Apollo ALSEP Experiments
Apollo Mission
Number Experiment
12 14 15 16 17
S 031 Passive Seismic X X X X

S 033 Active Seismic X X
S 034 Lunar Surface Magnetometer X X X
S 035 Solar-Wind Spectrometer X X
S 036 Suprathermal Ion Detector X X X
S 037 Heat Flow X (1) X
S 038 Charged Particle X
S 058 Cold Cathode Gage X X X
S 059 Lunar Geology X X X X X
S 078 Laser Ranging Retroreflector X X X
42O
APPENDIX
9
Apollo ALSEP Experzments--Continued
Apollo Mission
Number Experiment
12 14 15 16 17
S 152 Cosmic Ray Detector X
S 198 Portable Magnetometer X X
S 199 Traverse Gravimeter X
S 2OO Soil Mechanics X X X X X
S 201 Far UV Camera/Spectrograph X
S 202 Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites X
S 203 Lunar Seismic Profiling X
S 204 Surface Electrical Properties X
S 205 Lunar Atmospheric Composition X
S 2O7 Lunar Surface Gravimeter X
S 229 Neutron Probe X X X X X
M 515 Dust Detector X X X
(1) Cable broken during deployment.
PART II: LUNAR ORBITAL EXPERIMENTS
Most of the lunar orbital experiments were added to the Apollo program during missions
15, 16, and 17. The objectives of these experiments were to determine and understand regional
variations in the chemical composition of the lunar surface, to study the gravitational field of
the moon, to determine the induced and permanent magnetic fields of the moon, and to make a
detailed study of the morphology and albedo of the lunar surface. These experiments and the
missions during which they were performed are listed in the following table.
Apollo Orbital Experiments
Apollo Mission
Number Experiment
12 14 15 16 17
S 160 Gamma-Ray Spectrometer X X
S 161 X-Ray Fluorescence X X
S 162 Alpha-Particle Spectrometer X X
S 164 S-Band Transponder (subsatellite) X X
421
THEAPOLLO
SPACECRAFT:A CHRONOLOGY
Apollo Orbital Experiments--Continued
Apollo Mission
Number Experiment
12 14 15 16 17
S 164 S-Band Transponder (CSM/LM) X X X X X

S 165 Mass Spectrometer X X
S 169 Far UV Spectrometer X
S 170 Bistatic Radar X X X
S 171 Infrared Scanning Radiometer X
S 173 Particle Shadow/Boundary X X

Layer (subsatellite)
S 174 Magnetometer (subsatellite) X X
S 175 Laser Altimeter X X X
S 209 Lunar Sounder X
PART III: APOLLO EXPERIMENT PRINCIPAl. INVESTIGATORS
The principal investigators for the lunar surface and lunar orbital experiments are listed
by experiment numbers. The lunar surface group is listed first.
Lunar Surface Experiment Investigators
Number Experiment Principal Investigator

S 031 Passive Seismic G. V. Latham
Marine Biomedical Institute,
Galveston, Texas
S 033 Active Seismic Robert L. Kovach

S 203 Lunar Seismic Profiling Stanford University
S 034 Lunar Surface Magnetometer Palmer Dyal

Ames Research Center
Charles P. Sonett
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory,
University of Arizona
S O35 Solar-Wind Spectrometer Conway W. Snyder
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
S 036 Suprathermal Ion Detector John W. Freeman
Rice University
422
APPENDIX 9
S 037 Heat Flow Marcus E. Langseth

Columbia University
S O38 Charged-Particle Lunar D. L. Reasoner

Environment Experiment Rice University
S 058 Cold Cathode Gage Francis S. Johnson

University of Texas at Dallas
S 059 Lunar Geology Gordon A. Swann

Center o[ Astrogeology,
U.S. Geological Survey
William R. Muehlberger
University of Texas
S 078 Laser Ranging Retroreflector James E. Faller

Wesleyan University
S 152 Cosmic Ray Detector R. L. Fleischer

General Electric Research and
Development Laboratory,
Schenectady, N.Y.
Buford Price
University of California at Berkeley
Robert M. Walker
Washington University
St. Louis, Mo.
S 198 Lunar Portable Magnetometer Palmer Dyal

Ames Research Center
S 199 Traverse Gravimeter Manik Talwani

Columbia University
S 20O Soil Mechanics J. Mitchell

S 201 Far UV Camera/Spectrograph G. R. Carruthers

E. O. Hurlburt Center for Space
Research, Naval Research
Laboratory, Washington. D.C.
Thornton Page
S 202 Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites Otto E. Berg

Goddard Space Flight Center
423

S 204 Surface Electrical Properties M. Gene Simmons
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
David W. Strangway
University of Toronto
S 205 Lunar Atmospheric Composition J. R. Hoffman
S 2O7 Lunar Surface Gravimeter Joseph Weber
University of Maryland
S 229 Lunar Neutron Probe D. S. Burnett
California Institute of Technology
M 515 Dust Thermal Radiation James R. Bates
Engineering Measurement Johnson Space Center
Lunar Orbital Experiment Investigators

S 160 Gamma-Ray Spectrometer James R. Arnold
University of California at San Diego
S 161 X-Ray Fluorescence Isidore Adler
University of Maryland
S 162 Alpha-Particle Spectrometer Paul Gorenstein
Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory, Cambridge, Mass.
S 164 S-Band Transponder William L. Sjogren
S 165 Lunar Orbital Mass Spectrometer J. H. Hoffman
S 169 Ultraviolet Spectrometer William E. Fastie
Johns Hopkins University
S 170 Bistatic Radar H. Taylor Howard
Stanford University
S 171 Infrared Scanning Radiometer Frank J. Low
University of Arizona
W. W. Mendell
S 173 Subsatellite Particles and Shadows Kinsey A. Anderson
424
APPENDIX 9
S 174 Particles and Fields Subsatellite P. J. Coleman

Magnetometer University of California at Los Angeles
S 175 Laser Altimeter William M. Kaula

University of California at Los Angeles
William L. Sjogren
S 209 Lunar Sounder Roger J. Phillips

Stanley Ward
University of Utah
Walter E. Brown, Jr.
425
APPENDIX 10--ORGANIZATION CHARTS
.... "_ !i,

LLIZ__j
!_!! i! --
Z;
©
I,..,.I
.< !|"
--i
.<
a _
<
r_ g _
[,,,,.
Z
< t....-I i!
I...,.,I
Z
O
m o
<
<
Z
©
<
Z
._=;I,I
428
APPENDIX 10
I
I o_.11
----_-_1 _-_ I
L L__/
_=_ _1
jz _E I
Z
©
z
< _:I = _
[-., •' _ iu i
I
Z _ ._.
<
:,.r.
g<
<
Z
< z
[.-,
<
Z ...__.._.,__..___
< o
,.d
< L__z
Z ' __o, I
,t
©
[..,
<
Z
_-_ <a
429
"FHE APOLLO SPACECRAFT: A CHRONOLOGY
c:t
..30/
w<
zc_
ZQ_I
Lu>
I I ¢.__ i... i_ o--

co
Q.
_ I--- O
_A
I z t_ m
b.
I'--L_
Q
..3 I
Lu
co I i
L_
t.,_ tl- ZC-_
wZ
___g
O<
C:_ _- _W
<
<W I--
I
v-c-_
<
0
¢.o t.w
Z
Z Z
r_ t.t.J
< Cat. _
Lt.I Z o_
u- z z
_uJ <
0 .-.I
0::< o
< uJ zz
bu_ °0
_--z oo
t.D_j Z
zz_ o
k_ I--
o _" I
Lu
0 w-._
_-u_
i
i
<1--
< -l-z
oq
<
Z _.uu
_..z ..3
_z
z_
i ,-r_= I
I
<z
uJ_
430
APPENDIX 10
F_-7
i _ sl ,-_
,_ "7
(.-_ (_9 (D
L___]
z
Ot_
-
I.,- >,- I'-- I
z
._'-_ I
z_ m )-
C) OC
L....
( zl--
zz
U,JLU
;= z_
0 g_
Z I
0 I
_[ i
#J
-- _ I
_W
< z
--
I
i
I
O_ '-' I
,_[ i
_ - _ _
Z _4 Z__
Z
WZ _w_w _
_Z
o z__
_z _
C_
(.oo_
o o
©
I
< 41--
m _::%:
Z
12J b d Z z
o_ 0
._.1 ._ -- _
z_c
#,,,
!
k J
e,h
Z_
431
_,.2_ o
.gg._ zt=>
g_r_
--1-
._.a_
_z
-_z
<
omo
0_ z
z
ta_.
t.O <et
< ,,o m <
m _
I
_z
r._ ,......,
z
z
<
z_z
_a'o
- o=
z z
.5,-
,._ta z
z _
432
APPENDIX 10
<
<
<
Z
Z
<
I:/
I_'I I"
433
TIlE APOLLO SPACECRAFT: A CttRON()I.O(;,Y
Z_
,=,
[.-,
Z
g_
G'q
< ,--,
Z
Z
<
l._
434
APPI_NDIX 10
<
F_
< ,-
<
0
<
435
>ca
Z _
r.,v ,."5,
_a
[.r.,
© =
o
< E
,---,
0 o
o:: _
_ _i .-4o
° _ _ g
rj _
w
©
z
M
©
<
_ g
L _z
g_
436
APPENDIX 10
zz
_zn-
w _,2
0 m
> _
<
0
o o o __ 1,3_ z
-:= z
<
= _-
U
g
U
<
z -
O w
z
,..1 z
M w
< _ ...i
F--
I
I
I
I
I >._-
L_ zoa.
437
INDEX
CSM. See CSM 017.
A
designation, 100, 130
launch, 116, 172-73 il., 384
AAP missions (see also Apollo Applications program)
LTA-10R, 172
AAP-I, 100
objectives, 172, 402-03
AAP-2, 100
recovery, 172, 173 il.
Abbey, George W. S., 101, 219, 238 results, iii, 179, 384
Abort, mission
Apollo 5 (AS-204/LM-1), 153 il., 162, 191
Apollo 13, 264, 330 i!.-37, 338-40
alternate mission plans, 196
crew training, 203, 269
checkout and readiness, 143
high-altitude, 246
designation, 97, 100, 130
launch, 62, 170, 203, 254
flight readiness review, 181
LM landing, 270
launch, 116, 196, 384
near-pad, 163, 180-81, 269
launch date, 193
pad, 62, 147, 170, 198, 269
LM. See LM-I.
studies, 14-15, 21, 22, 62, 208, 269
objectives, 170-71, 196, 403
time-critical, 14-15
results, 384
AC Electronics Div. See General Motors Corp.
schedule difficulties, 153-54
Adair, Rear Adm. J., 44
Apollo 6 (see also AS-502), 179, 222
Adams, Mac C., 158
Abort and Alternate Mission Study, 208
Adams, T. Jefferson, 73, 87
Aerojet-General Corp., 212-13, 328, 372 adapter failure, 269
CSM. See CSM 020.
Aeronca, Inc., 260, 372
debris hazard, 208
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, 361
Aeronutronic Div. See Philco Corp. designation, 130
flight readiness review, 181, 207, 210
Aerospace Corp., 21, 185
J-2 engine failure, 215-16, 222, 232
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, 332-35
Aerospace Safety Research and Data Institute, 337 launch, 117, 215-16 il.-17, 384-85
launch date, 52, 68-69, 171, 210, 215, 222
Agriculture, Department of, 151, 165
Aircraft, 277 LTA-2R, 207, 215-17
B-52, 192, 213 objectives, 52, 171, 183, 217, 404
C-133A, 169 results, 217, 384-85
pogo problems, 215, 222, 233-34, 237, 242
helicopter, 277, 287, 309, 322, 332
Saturn V, 117, 191, 215-16 il.-17, 222
Pregnant Guppy, 42
Super Guppy, 35 Apollo 7 (see also AS-205), iv, vi, 140, 191, 222
AiResearch Div. See Garrett Corp. adapter panel, 268-69
Air Force. See U.S. Air Force. Block II CSM (see also CSM 101), 80, 117, 232-
Air Force Systems Command (AFSC), 21 33, 258 il.-59
Airite Div., Sargent Industries, 252, 267, 372 constraints, weather, 254
Aldrin, Edwin E., Jr., 264, 304-08 il.-10, 375, 381, 389, crew, 41-42, 116, 133, 257-58 il., 385, 408
4O8 Crew Safety Review Board, 253, 254
Algranti, Joseph S., 224, 264, 272 critical action items, 257
Allen, Maj. Gen. Brooke F., 220 Design Certification Review, 241-42
Allen, H. Julian, 34 earth-orbital mission, 238-40, 257-59
Allen, Joseph P., 409 first manned flight, iv, vi, 88, 110, 117, 126-27,
Aller, Robert O., 140 139, 140, 385
Alley, C. O., 130 flight readiness review, 233, 241-42, 251, 253, 254
Allison Div., General Motors Corp., 252, 267, 372 fuel cells, 259
America. See Apollo 17 and CSM 114. Hurricane Gladys, 259 il.
American Bosch Arma Corp., Arma Div., 37-38 integrated system testing, 242
American Broadcasting Co., 363 launch, 117, 257-59, 385
Ames Research Center, 9, 33-34, 161, 269, 361-62 objectives, 88, 240, 259, 404
Anders, William A., 56, 224, 243, 275, 374, 386, 408 CSM/S-IVB rendezvous, 88, 123, 139, 140,
Anderson, Sen. Clinton P., 340 142, 258, 404
Anderson, Frank W., Jr., xiv operational philosophy, 254
Anderson, Robert, 338 optical rendezvous, 259
Ann Arbor, Mich., 138 orbital rendezvous maneuvers, 258
Antares. See Apollo 14 and LM-8. reaction control system, 231, 258
Apollo 1. See AS-204 and Apollo 204 Review Board. records, 374
Apollo I-A (rejected number). See AS-201. recovery, 258 il., 259, 385
Apollo 2 (rejected number). See AS-202. results, iv, vi, 240, 259, 268, 385
Apollo 3 (rejected number). See AS-203. service propulsion system, 231, 258
Apollo 4 (see also AS-501), 156, 191, 217, 222 flight combustion stability monitor, 231
ad hoc Safety Group, 146 S-IVB stage (see also objectives), 257-58
checkout and readiness, 143 TV, llve, 117, 218, 258-59, 385
439
INDEX
Apollo 8 (see also AS-503), iv, vi, 191 Apollo 10 (see also AS-505), iv
AS-503/CSM 103/LM-3, 162, 168, 222-23, 237 CM tunnel insulation, 306
mission D canceled, 242-43 crew, 291, 296-98, 388--89, 408
crew, 56, 243, 275, 386, 408 crew compartment fit and function test, 292
crew recovery briefing, 272 CSM Charlie Brown. See CSM 106.
CSM. See CSM 103. designation, 268
distance from earth, 314 experiment support facilities, 295
earth orbital possibility, 238 flight readiness test, 289, 292
final countdown, 273 fuel cells, 279
final flight plan, 272 launch, 264, 296-98, 388-89
fogging effect, 279 Launch Complex 39, Pad B, 289, 296
helicopter, 277 launch preparations, 273, 279, 289
launch, 264, 275-77, 386 launch readiness date, 279, 289, 294
escape system, 255 LM Snoopy. See LM-4.
pad, 255, 262, 275 LM-CSM separation and docking, 296-97 il.-98,
preparations, 237, 242-44, 253, 255, 262, 268-- 388-89
69, 272-73 lunar orbit mission, iv, 171, 264, 282, 291, 296-97
schedule, 239, 243, 246, 253, 268 il.-98, 388-89
LM-3 problems (see also LM-3), 242 mission plan, iv, 298
LTA-B, 175, 239, 243-44, 268-69 objectives, iv, 264, 298, 299-300, 405
mission, lunar orbit, iv, 117, 168, 171, 179, 237--41, records, 374
264, 271, 275-76 il.-77, 386 recovery, Pacific, 264, 298
decision, 117, 241 results, 298, 388
Mission Control Center test, 272 S-IC stage, 293-94
MSFN test, 272 S-IVB stage, 296, 299-300
objectives, iv, 57-58, 168, 179, 242-43, 277, 404 SA-505, 282
records, 314, 374 schedule, 171, 282, 291
recovery, 264, 276 il., 277 spacecraft docking test, 279
results, 277, 386 translunar insertion dispersions, 299
rollout, 253, 255 il. TV, color, 264, 296-98, 302
S-IC stage refueling, 272
Apollo 11 (AS 506), iv-v, 295, 314, 337, 364
Saturn V launch vehicle, 222, 242, 244, 247, 255
anniversary, 265, 337, 363 il., 364
il., 264, 268-69, 301, 386
CM postflight security, 310
service module, 277
crew, 264, 304, 305, 389, 408
reaction control system, 268, 275
training, 272, 299-300, 301,303-05
service propulsion system, 271, 272, 276
CSM Columbia. See CSM 107.
spacecraft hoisting loop, 283
distance from earth, 314
special task team, 268-69
erectable antenna, 256, 294
TV, 275-77, 386
EVA, 59-60, 155, 168, 207, 245-46, 247, 256,
Apollo 9 (see also AS-504), iv 260-61, 307-08 il., 324, 375, 389, 405-06
Atlantic Ocean recovery, 264, 282, 287 experiments, 142-43, 155, 245-49, 256, 261, 280,
computer delay, 279 295, 301-03, 307-08 il., 310, 312-13, 361 il.
countdown, 284
first men on moon, iv, v, xiv, 264, 304, 307, 389
test, 285 il. flags, 307-08 il., 314
crew, 243, 278, 286-87, 289, 387, 408 flight readiness test, 301
CSM Gumdrop. See CSM 104. launch, 264, 306-08 il.-10, 389
designation, 268 launch preparations, 301-05
EVA, 264, 286, 287 i1., 374, 388, 405 LM Eagle. See LM-5.
flight readiness test, 279 lunar dust, 325
launch, 264, 286-87, 387-88 lunar samples, 155, 261, 265, 307, 313, 326 il.,
launch preparations, 237, 262, 273, 278, 279, 281, 363
285 il. analyses, 264, 313, 326
LM Spider. See LM-3. management debriefing, 311
LM--CSM separation, rendezvous, and docking, iv, mission activities, 155, 246, 247, 261, 306-08 il.-09
264, 286, 287 il., 289, 388 il.-10, 324, 389
mission, manned orbital, iv, 171, 243-44, 264, 282, mobile quarantine facility, 302, 303, 309
284, 286-87 il., 291, 387-88 Nixon, President, talk with, 307
modifications, 279 objectives, v, 261, 264, 282, 310, 405-06
objectives, iv, 243-44, 264, 287, 404-05 oscillations, 294
records, 374 quarantine, 305-06, 309, 310, 312
results, 264, 288-89, 291, 387-88 records, 302-03, 314, 375
rollout, 278 recovery, 264, 282, 304, 307, 309
schedule, 170-71, 282 results, 310, 389
software integration test, 278 stereo camera, 293, 311
thermal vacuum test, 278 Tranquility Base, 307-08 il., 313, 361 il., 389
training, 278, 281 translunar insertion dispersions, 299
TV, 273, 277, 286 TV, color, 264, 302, 306-07
44O
INDEX
Apollo 14 (AS-509), v
Apollo 12 (AS-507), v, 171
achievements (see also objectives), 342--43
ALSEP, v, 295, 319, 332, 361 il., 400, 420-25
ALSEP, v, 342, 361 il., 400, 420-25
biological isolation garment, 317, 322
anomalies, 341
crew, 319, 391, 408
Crater Censorinus, tentative landing area, 311
problems, 323, 324
crew, 338 il., 340 il., 341-343 il., 394, 409
program/project debriefing, 323
scientific debriefing, 327 CSM Kitty Hawk. See CSM I10.
docking difficulty, 341
CSM Yankee Clipper. See CSM 108.
EVA, v, 265, 341-43 il., 375-76, 394, 406
EVA, 264, 295, 316, 319-20 il.-21, 324, 375, 391,
flight readiness review, 341
406
Fra Mauro landing site, 265, 341-43 il., 361 il.,
experiments, 295, 301, 319-20 il., 332, 361 il., 400,
394
42O-25
hold for weather, 341
film, 315, 321, 326
launch, v, 265, 341-43, 394
guidance and navigation control system, 318
LM Antares. See LM-8.
helicopter, 322
lunar samples, 341-43, 394
launch, 264, 319-22, 391
mission activities, 341-43 il., 394
launch preparations, 293, 318
mobile equipment transporter, v, 265, 338 il., 342,
lightning, 319, 328, 391
343 il. 394
LM Intrepid. See LM-6.
objectives, v, 342, 406-07
lunar dust, 323, 324
oxygen storage system, 33940
lunar samples, 264, 295, 313, 320-21, 393
photography of Descartes region, 342
mission activities, 295, 315, 319-20 il., 322, 391
pre-liftoff readiness review, 341
mobile quarantine facility, 318, 321 il., 322
quarantine, 342
objectives, v, 282, 322, 406
records, 375
Ocean of Storms (Oceanus Procellarum), 311,
recovery, 265, 342, 343 il., 394
319-320 il., 361 il., 391
results, 342-43, 394
onboard camera, 315
S-IVB lunar impact, 341
oxygen purge system, 319
schedule, 311, 325, 338
proposed lunar landing site, 300
seismometer, 342, 348, 349, 352, 358, 360
quarantine, 322
TV, 340-42
records, 316, 375
recovery, 264, 282, 322, 391 Apollo 15 (AS-510), v
results, 322, 332, 391 ALSEP, 295, 344 il., 348, 361 il., 400, 420-25
schedule, 282, 311 anomalies, 350
scientific payload weight, 292 Apollo 16 redesignated 15, 338
seismometer, 329, 341, 342, 348, 349, 352, 358, color TV, 347
360 crew, 344 il., 347 ii.-50, 395, 409
Surveyor III, parts retrieval, 264, 300, 315, 318, crew quarantine discontinued, 345
321, 391 CSM Endeavor. See CSM 112.
TV, 319-22 EVA, v, 265, 345 il., 346, 347 ii.-49, 376, 396,
Velcro use, 300 407
Apollo 13 (AS-508), v, vi, vii, 363 extravehicular mobility unit (EMU), 345 il.
abort, v, 264, 330 il.-40, 392 Hadley-Apennine landing site, 265, 347 ii.-49, 361
ALSEP, 318 il., 396
crew, 329-32, 392, 409 launch, 265, 347-50, 395-96
CSM Odyssey. See CSM 109. LM Falcon. See LM-10.
Fra Mauro, tentative landing area, 311 lunar orbital science experiments, 348--49 il.
free return trajectory, 264, 331 lunar roving vehicle (Rover), 265, 346 il., 347
launch, 264, 329-32, 392 il.--48, 350-51, 396
launch readiness date, 293 lunar samples, 348-49, 396
LM Aquarius. See LM-7. Lunar Surface Science Project, 295
lunar sample photography list, 327 mission activities, v, 344, 346-47 il.-49 il.-50, 396
objectives, v, 406 objectives, v, 350, 407
oxygen tank failure, v, vi, vii, 264, 330 il.-339 photography, 344, 346, 348, 349 il., 396
il.-40, 392 quarantine, 265, 345
records, 375 records, 376
recovery, v, 264, 282, 331 il., 332, 392 recovery, 265, 350
results, 392 results, 350-51, 395-96
S-IVB lunar impact, 329 schedule, 311, 325, 338
schedule, 171, 282, 293, 311, 325 scientific instrument module, v, 349 il.-50, 396
soil thermometer, 318 seismometer, 349, 352, 358, 360
TV, 329, 363 subsatellite, 349, 362, 396
Apollo 13 Review Board televised lunar liftoff, 265, 349
established, 264, 332 Apollo 16 (AS-511), v
findings, 332-34 ALSEP, 354, 361 il., 398, 400, 420-25
recommendations, 334-35
anomalies, 352
actions initiated, 336-40
Apollo 15 experiment validation, 354
MSC actions, 338--40
441
INDEX
Crater Tycho, tentative landing area, 311

Schr6ter's Valley, tentative landing site, 311
crew, 352-53 i!.-56, 397-99, 409 scientific instrument module, 328
CM accident, 356
spacesuit improvement, 315, 345 il.
CSM Casper. See CSM 113.
Apollo 19
Deactivation Investigation Board, 356
Hyginus Rille, tentative landing area, 311
Descartes landing site, 265, 346, 354, 361 il., 398
lunar orbital science experiments, 328
EVA, 265, 316, 353 il.-54, 356, 376, 398-99, 407 mission deleted, 338
flags, 352
schedule, 311, 325
launch, 265, 352-56, 397-99
LM Orion. See LM-I 1. scientific instrument module, 328
spacesuit improvement, 315, 345 ii.
lunar flyer, 316
Apollo 20
lunar orbital science experiments, 328, 354, 355 il.
Crater Copernicus, tentative landing area, 311
lunar roving vehicle (Rover), 265, 350, 354, 398
CSM I15A, 327
lunar samples, 265, 353 il., 354, 398
LM-4, 327
mission activities, v, 352-53 il.-56, 397-98
objectives, v, 356, 408 launch vehicle, 311, 326
preparations, 350 lunar orbital science experiments, 327, 328
quarantine, 265, 345 mission deleted, 325-26, 327
schedule, 311, 325-26
records, 376
recovery, 265, 356, 399 spacesuit, 315, 327, 345 il.
Apollo 204 Review Board, ill, 3, 63-114, 219
redesignated Apollo 15 (Apollo 17 redesignated 16),
338 ad hoc committee to establish task panels, 65-66
Advisory Group, 70-71
rendezvous, 352, 355
results, 356, 397-99 anomaly suspect items, 72, 76, 101
astronaut observers, 71
S-IVB lunar impact, 352, 353
Board monitors, 73-74, 75
schedule, 311, 325, 338
briefing for Board on anomalies, 65, 76
scientific instrument module, v, 328, 353 il., 355
il., 356, 399 briefing for NASA officials, 65, 75, 76, 77-78
CM 012 material categories, 76, 81
seismometer, 358, 360
spacesuit improvement, 315, 345 il. congressional testimony. See U.S. Congress.
consultants, 65, 69, 70
special instrumentation, 346
dissolved, 136
subsatellite, v, 355, 398-99
established, iii, 3, 63-65
tanks, 356
executive sessions, 67
visual light flash, 355
Apollo 17 (AS-512), v findings, 68-69, 76, 77-79, 110-14, 124-25, 131,
133, 157
ALSEP, v, 358, 361 il., 420-25
crew, 357, 359 il.-60, 399-400, 409 formal report, 3, 110-14, 124-25, 131, 133, 157
CSM America. See CSM 114. instructions, 64-65, 68, 69
interim reports, 68-69, 76, 79
EVA, v, 265, 358-59 il.-60, 399-400, 407
last Apollo mission, v, 338, 357, 399-400 membership (see also Advisory Group and panels),
63-66, 69
launch, 265, 357-60, 399-400
LM Challenger. See LM-12. Panel Coordinating Committee, 67, 69, 80, 89, 98
lunar orbital science experiments, 328, 357, 360 panels
lunar plaques, 358, 359 il., 363 established, 3, 73-74
lunar roving vehicle, v, 265, 358, 360, 399--400 membership, 70, 73-74
lunar samples, 358, 360, 400 No. 1, Spacecraft and Ground Support Equip-
Marius Hills, tentative landing site, 311 ment Configuration, 73, 90-91
medical responsibility, 357 No. 2, Test Environments, 73, 99-100
mission activities, 357-59 il.-60, 399-400 No. 3, Sequence of Events, 73, 102-03
objectives, v, 360, 408 No. 4, Disassembly Activities, 66, 68, 71, 73,
quarantine, 265, 345 77, 81, 97-99
records, 376 No. 5, Origin and Propagation of Fire, 68, 70,
recovery, 265, 360, 400 72-73, 75, 76, 92-93
redesignated Apollo 16 (Apollo 18 redesignated 17), No. 6, Historical Data, 73, 104-05
338 No. 7, Test Procedures Review, 73, 103-04
results, 360, 400 No. 8, Materials Review, 73, 94-97
S--IVB lunar impact, 358 No. 9, Design Review, 71, 73, 105-06
schedule, 311, 325, 338 No. I0, Analysis of Fracture Areas, 73, 89-90
scientific instrument module, v, 328, 358, 360 No. 11, Medical Analysis, 71, 74, 107-09
spacesuit improvement, 315, 345 il. No. 12, Witness Statements, 71, 74, 83-85
special instrumentation, v, 346 No. 13, Ground Emergency Provisions, 71, 74,
Taurus-Littrow landing site, 265, 358-59 if., 361 il., 93-94
399 No. 14, Security Operations, 74, 91-92
Apollo 18 No. 15, Board Administrative Procedures, 74,
lunar orbital science experiments, 328 89
redesignated Apollo 17, 338 No. 16, Special Tests, 74, 86
schedule, 311, 325, 338 No. 17, Final Board Report, 74, 75
442
INDEX
No. 18, Integration Analysis, 74, 86, 103, 107, radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG ; SNAP-
133 27), 56-57, 138-39, 146-47, 170, 214, 234, 319
No. 19, Safety of Investigation Operations, 66, sample collections (see also Apollo 11-17 and Lunar
74 samples), 143, 155, 207, 230, 245-46, 272, 295
No. 20, Inflight Fire Emergency Provisions weight, 60, 102, 138, 142, 214
Review, 71, 74, 85-86 Apollo Mission Planning Task Force, 21
No. 21, Service Module Disposition, 73, 74, Apollo Mission Simulator (AMS). See Simulators.
86-87 Apollo Orbital Science Photographic Team, 322
recommendations, 78, 79, 110-14, 124-25 Apollo program, iv, vi
reviews of findings, 124-25 budget, 2, 11, 16, 127, 150, 205, 289, 325-26, 338,
410-12
SM 012 disposition, 75
task panels. See panels. change control, iii, 44, 128, 144, 157-58, 192-93,
witness statements, 71, 83-86 204-05, 223-24, 236-37, 250, 257, 288
communications. See Communications.
Apollo Applications program (AAP), 25, 27, 30-31,
concerns
33, 40, 47, 100, 228-29, 315
Apollo Crew Safety Review Board, 246-47, 254, 256, crew safety, 22-23, 79-81, 110, 126-28, 144,
269 146-47, 159, 180-81, 196-98, 203, 207-08,
229, 236-37, 241
Apollo Design Certification Review, 20, 42-43, 47, 149,
mission success, 110, 127-28, 146-47, 160,
181-82, 202, 232-33, 236-37, 241-42
236-37
Apollo Entry Performance Review Board, 160-61
Apollo Executive Committee, Apollo 8 decision, 240-41 costs, vi, 2, 16, 41, 127, 163, 289, 306, 410-11
Apollo Experiment Pallet program, 18, 37 CSM/LM configuration differences, 196
definition of program termination, 205
Apollo Failure Contingency Plan, 68
Apollo Guidance Software Task Force. See Software Design Certification Review Board. See Apollo
Task Force. Design Certification Review.
Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP; first manned flight, iii, iv, vi, 2, 42, 47, 51 il, 110,
see also Experiments and Appendix 9), 155, 205, 261, 117, 126-27, 139, 140, 218, 254, 257-59
282, 295, 357, 361 il., 362 flight requirements before lunar landing, 123
ALSEP I, v key program decisions, 191, 361
ALSEP II, v, 102 management assignments, 13-14, 30-31, 152-53
ALSEP III, 102 manned flight planning, iii, 2, 29-31, 41-42, 69,
ALSEP IV, 102 81-83, 126-27, 138-40, 170, 182, 191, 218,
Apollo 12 ALSEP status, 332 242-43, 254, 264, 382
Array A-2, 295 two-burn lunar orbit insertion, 26-27, 232, 241
mission schedule, 12, 68-69, 163, 170-71, 191, 222,
Array B, 102, 131-32
contract, 13, 57, 131-32, 138-39, 295, 302 242-43, 311, 325-36
deletion from early missions, 245-46, 247-49, 261 objectives (see also Apollo missions and Appendix
deployment, v, 29, 59-60, 207-08, 245-46, 295, 5), 20, 140, 205, 207, 225, 243
photographic operations in flight, vii, 214, 226
319, 342, 348, 354, 358, 361 il.
priorities, 29, 116, 191, 207, 227
experiments, v, 9, 261, 301
active seismic, 9, 102, 301, 321, 342, 360 problems (see also Apollo 204 Review Board and
central station, 56, 58, 295, 310, 345, 361 il. AS-204), 45, 116, 144, 153-54, 205, 223-24
charged particle lunar environment, 102 safety, 22, 29, 144, 196-98, 229
cold cathode gauge, 9, 102, 272, 320 il., 332 stress corrosion, 12, 48-49, 187, 191, 196-97,
heat flow (with lunar drill), 9, 56, 102, 348, 199, 219, 281, 290
358 weight, 2, 21, 138, 139-40, 144, 154-55,
laser ranging, 246, 256, 272, 310, 312-13, 342 161-62
lunar geology, 29, 155, 261, 272, 295 quality control and inspection audit, 87
lunar soil thermometer, 318 reliability, vi, 110
lunar surface magnetometer, 9, 58, 143, 152, spacecraft delivery schedules, 12, 126-27, 138, 144,
332 145-46, 151, 154, 161, 168, 211-12
mass spectrometer, 355 test flight program, iii, 82, 138, 170-71, 182
TV. See Television.
passive seismometer, 9, 58, 102, 256, 272, 295,
310, 312, 321, 329, 332, 341, 342, 348, 349, vacuum chamber tests, 38, 39-40, 72, 184
352, 358, 360 Apollo-Saturn. See AS-201, etc.
solar wind spectrometer, 9, 58, 256, 272, 299, Apollo Site Selection Board, 102, 182-83, 250-51, 300,
346
319, 332, 342
suprathermal ion detector, 9, 58, 102, 272, 332 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, vi, 362
first flight model, 291 Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (ASPO), MSC, 6,
funds, 9, 302 33, 139, 149, 315
geological tools, 56, 143 Apollo Spacecraft Configuration ( "Change" )
LM ascent stage, 56-57, 138 Control Board (CCB), 44, 139-40, 157-58, 164,
management assignments, 13-14, 30-31 174, 204-05, 211, 218, 222-24, 234, 268, 269,
mission assignments, 9, 59-60, 143, 207, 229-30, 288, 295, 304
245--46 CSM Panel, 164, 204-05
modified design, 302 Government Furnished Equipment Panel
prototype test program, 131-32 (Board), 164, 165-66, 288
443
INDEX
LM Panel, 10, 79, 164 Aquarius. See Apollo 13 and LM-7.

Procedures Panel (Board), 288 Arabian, Donald D., 73, 283, 316
Simulator Panel (Board), 164, 288 Arlington National Cemetery, 67
Software Panel (Board), 164, 204-05, 288 Arma Div., American Bosch Arma Corp., 37-38
Apollo Spacecraft Investigation and Reporting Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 68
Panel, 116, 163 Armitage, Peter J., 261
ASPO Manager Armstrong, Nell A., 2, 12-13, 117, 224, 264, 304-08
Lowe, George M. (April 1967-September il.-10, 375, 377, 389, 408
1969). See Lowe.
Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC), 21,
Lunney, Glynn S. (1972-1975), 362 220
McDivitt, James A. (September 1969-April ARO, Inc., 21
1972). See McDivitt. AS-201 (Apollo-Saturn 201; also SA-201), 2, 10 il.,
Morris, Owen G. (April 1972-March 1973), 12, 100, 377, 401
356
AS-202, 2, 20, 37, 43, I00, 380, 402
Shea, Joseph F. (October 1963-April 1967). AS-203, 2, 28, 100, 379, 401
See Shea.
AS-204 (Apollo 1; see also Apollo 204 Review Board,
Assistant Program Manager, 75, 78-79, 83 CM and CSM 012, and Apollo 5), 51 il.
Assistant Program Manager for Flight Safety, 153 accident (fire), iii, 2, 63, 64 il., 67, 72, 84-85, 88,
Atmosphere Selection Task Team, 213 111 il.-14, 134, 210-11,249
Change Integration Group, 204-05
cause, 68, 76, 79, 92, 93, 107, 111-13
Configuration Management Plan, 77, 204-05 autopsies, 63
CSM Contract Engineering Branch, 133 backup crew suits, 71
CSM Manager. See Kleinknecht, Kenneth S.
combustible CM materials, 72-73, 79, 90-91, 94-97,
CSM Project Engineering Div. (earlier, CSM 105, 111
Project Engineering and Checkout Div.), 133, communications, 70, 76, 103-07, 112
195-96
costs, 116, 126, 289
LM Project Engineering Div. (earlier, LM Project crew designations, 47, 52
Engineering and Checkout Div.), 195-96 deaths, cause of, 68, 80, 107-09, 112
LM Program Office,41 Design Certification Review, 42-43, 47
Manager, Carroll H. Bolender. See Bolender. designated Apollo 1, 100
Manager, William A. Lee, 78--79 EVA, 59
Mission Simulator Office,38 flight readiness review, 43
RASPO (Resident ASPO) information dissemination, 68
Bethpage, N.Y., 7-8, 37-38, 189, 214, 268 launch escape system removal, 67, 68
Downey, Calif.,130, 151, 163, 174, 176-78, launch vehicle (see also Apollo 5, AS-204), 47, 97,
189, 214, 251-52 116, 130, 171
KSC, 163 Manned Space Flight Review, 42
reorganized,362 objectives, 27, 47
Systems Engineering Div., 83, 213, 219, 226, 300 planned first manned flight, 2, 47, 51 il.
Test Div., 214 reaction control system, 59
Apollo spacecraft systems (see also Command module, rendezvous, 29, 59
Command and service module, Service module, and rescue, 59
Appendixes 2, 5, and 8), 248 il. service propulsion system, 59
abort sequence, 203
spacecraft hazards, 66, 67, 72, 79, 93-94, 110,
certification, 191 111-14
communications. See Communications.
spacecraft-lunar module adapter removal, 78
earth landing, 8, 117, 162, 169, 231, 260 system validation flight, 29
electrical power, 2, 12, 23 tracking ship Vanguard, 44
emergency detection, 101, 217, 246 training, 51 il.
fuel cells, iv, 19, 49, 119-20, 137, 279 AS--205 (see also Apollo 7), 43, 191
guidance and navigation (see also Computer), iv, CM lift-to-drag ratio, 43
31-32, 70, 120, 127, 155, 161,240 crew debriefing requirements, 249
launch escape (LES), 10 il., 66, 67-68, 71, 175 experiments, 52, 144-45
ORDEAL, 37 launch vehicle test history, 257
oxygen purge, 147, 161, 163, 318, 319 schedule, 170-71
parachute. See Parachute. spacecraft/S-IVB rendezvous, 29-30, 142, 258
portable life support (PLSS), 161-62, 274, 294 system validation flight, 29, 171
stabilization and control, 70 tracking ship support, 44
suit. See Spacesuit. AS-205/208, 52, 56
water sterilization, 130, 215
AS--206, 68-69, 76, 162, 170-71, 229
Apollo Special Task Team, 116, 117, 176-78, 190--91,
AS-206/207, 28
194-95, 197, 250
effectiveness, 252 AS-207, 6, 7, 12
mission ended, 117, 245 AS--207/208, 6, 7, 12, 28, 29-30, 52, 54
problems, 197, 199-200, 209, 212-13, 215, 219 AS-208, 6, 7
Apollo System Safety program, 116, 152-53 AS-258, 60
Apollo telescope mount (ATM), iv, 31, 324 AS-278A, 44
444
INDEX
AS-278B, 44 launch abort, 22, 203, 269

AS-500-F (Apollo-Saturn V F; also SA-500-F), 23 il. lunar handtools, 273
AS-501 (see also Apollo 4), 48 lunar landing research vehicle, 148
ad hoc safety group, 146 hmar landing training vehicle, 34, 148-49, 174,
attitude maneuver, 56 272, 302, 304
checkout, 66, 143 lunar samples, 118, 329-30
designated Apollo 4, 100, 130 preflight transition, 34
launch preparation, 66, 142 slide wire, 278, 280 il.
photography, 183 thermal vacuum, 38-39, 40
recovery area, 52-53, 172 water immersion, 298
schedule, 52, 68-69, 76 Astronauts. See individual names and Appendixes 3, 4,
AS--502 (see also Apollo 6), 52, 68-69, 76, 170-171, 183, and 6.
191 Atchison, W. B., 137
AS-503 (see also Apollo 8), 191, 237, 255 il. Atkins, John R., 74
crew assignments, 56 Atlantic Ocean, 44, 52, 131, 282, 287
Crew Safety Review Board, 267 Atlas-Agena launch vehicle, 12-13, 377-81
hardware, 175, 243-44, 257, 268-69 Atlas-Agena B, 381
Level II Configuration Control Board, 257 Atlas-Agena D, 34, 49, 379-83
lightning strike, 267 Atlas-Centaur, 24, 40, 378, 380-84
mission, 170-71, 179, 222, 237-41, 242-44, 275-77 ATM. See Apollo telescope mount.
objectives, 242-43 Atomic Energy Commission, 57, 234
payload weight, 243--44 Atomic generator. See Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments
pogo, 244, 247 Package, radioisotope thermoelectric generator.
recovery area, 52, 277 Atwood, J. Leland, 240, 326
rollout, 253, 255 il. Autonetics Div., North American Aviation, Inc., 81
Saturn V, 179, 253, 255 il.
S-IVB stage explosion, 2, 61-62, 75
AS-503D, 28 6
AS-503F, 28
AS-504 (see also Apollo 9) B-52 aircraft, 192, 213
crew assignments, 243 Babb, Gus R., 187
designated Apollo 9, 268 Babbit, D. O., 85
M&SS experiment, 30 Back contamination (see also Interagency Committee
mission, 170-71, 243-44, 282, 286-87 il. on), 295
rollout, 278 Bailey, John F., 73, 146
Saturn V/CSM 104/LM-3 assigned, 243 Bartley, William F., Jr., 66
test and checkout problems, 237 Battersby, Frank X., 27, 35, 38, 42, 189, 245, 252
TV, 50, 286 Battin, Richard H., 185
AS-505 (see also Apollo 10) Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 152
designated Apollo 10, 268 Baxter, Lt. Col. William D. (USAF), 66, 70, 71
launch vehicle flight objectives, 299-300 Baylor University College of Medicine, 22
mission, 171, 282, 291, 296-97 il.-98 Bean, Alan L., 319-21 il.-22 il., 375, 391, 408
problem areas, 299-300 Beech Aircraft Corp., 333, 339, 372
schedule, 171, 282 Beddingfield, Sam T., 174
AS-506 (see also Apollo 11), 171, 308 il. Bell, Persa R., 313
AS-507 (see also Apollo 12), 171 Bell Aerosystems Co., div. of Bell Aerospace Corp.
AS-508 (see also Apollo 13), 171 fire, 124
AS-509 (see also Apollo 14), 171 LM ascent engine, 35, 117, 149, 178-79, 180, 189,
AS--510. See Apollo 15. 194, 227-28, 372
AS-511. See Apollo 16. lunar landing training vehicle, 55, 148-49
AS-512. See Apollo 17. Test Center, Porter, N.Y., 124
AS-515, 326 Test Facility, Wheatfield, N.Y., 124
Aseptic sampler, 293 Bellcomm, Inc., 18, 26-27, 59, 181, 190, 283, 299, 301,
ASPO. See Apollo Spacecraft Program Office. 326
Associated Press, 304 guidance computer, 31-32, 185, 203-04
Astronaut training Belmont, Calif., 209
Apollo 11, 229-30, 273, 301, 303-05 Bendix Corp., Aerospace Systems Div. (formerly Bendix
biology, 116, 119 Systems Div.), 13, 37, 57, 131-32, 138-39, 295, 302
Block II Training Plan, 119 Benner, R. L., 70
C prime mission, 243 Beregovoy, Georgy T., 386
centrifuge, 292-93 Bergen, William B., 201, 211, 228, 239, 337
CM simulator, 304 Berkebile, M. John, 87
egress, 53 il., 94-95, 269, 278, 280 il. Berry, Charles A., 19, 60, 62, 72, 78, 80, 134-35, 145,
EVA, 304, 329-30 158, 165, 193, 201, 246, 291, 331 il.
experiments, 38, 116, 119, 273, 303-04 Bethpage, N.Y., 28, 35, 51 il., 148, 214, 234, 238
extravehicular mobility unit, 270-71, 278 Billings, Charles R., 280 il.
fire, 159-60, 274-75 Binghamton, N.Y., 53
445
INDEX
Biorad, 152 color, 302, 306-07, 347

Black, Dugald O., 143 LM, 134, 168, 277, 340--41
Bland, William M., Jr., 73, 121-22, 152, 170 test requirements, 134, 168--69, 218
Blasingame, B. Paul, 240 Cape Kennedy, Fla. (Cape Canaveral before Nov. 28,
Blount, Robert L., 87 1963, and after Oct. 9, 1973), 10, 11, 24, 34, 35, 37,
Boeing Co., The, 17, 141, 201, 214, 240 40, 49, 117, 257
lunar roving vehicle contract, 316, 325, 344 Carhart, Homer, 70-71
Bogart, Frank A., 77 Carr, Gerald P., 408
Boilerplate (BP), 146 CASE (Coordinated Aerospace Supplier Evaluation),
BP-19, 199-200 327
BP-30, 173, 179 Casper. See Apollo 16 and CSM 113.
BP-1224, 159, 184-85, 201-02, 209, 219 Catterson, A. Duane, 158
BP-1250, 184-85, 201-02 Cernan, Eugene A., 56, 133, 291, 296-97 il.-98,
flammability testing, 159, 184-85, 201-02, 209, 219 357-60, 363, 374, 378-79, 388, 399, 408-09
Bolender, Carroll H., Chaffee, Roger B., iii, 2, 47, 51 il., 63, 67, 68, 100,
LM Manager, ASPO, MSC, 148, 155, 157-58, 202, 112
206, 223-24, 226-28, 230, 235, 236, 238, 256, Challenger. See Apollo 17 and LM-12.
268, 277 Chamberlin, James A., 166, 176, 269, 357
OMSF, NASA Hq., 44, 70, 77 Chandler, George P., 363
Bond, Aleck C., 81, 101, 153, 193, 201, 225, 261 Chao, E. C. T., 313
Borman, Frank Chapman, Philip K., 409
Apollo 8, 239, 275-77, 373, 374, 386 Chauvin, Leo T., 161
Apollo 204 Review Board, 63, 65, 69-70, 71, 73-74, Cheatham, Donald C., 25
78, 81 Cherry Pat, 189
Block II Redefinition, CSM, Task Team, 126, Chin, E. S., 146
128-30, 133, 243 Christensen, Everett E., 22
crew assignments, 41-42, 243, 308 Chrysler Corp., 32, 52, 240
world records, 373, 374 Civil Aeronautics Board, 71
Bosworth, George L., 224 Clark, John F., 146
Clark, S., 9
Bottomley, T. A., Jr., 18
Clemmons, S. B., 85
Bowman, Julian B., 77, 239
Bradford, William C., 166 Close, William H., 152
Bradley, Mark E., 44-45, 156 CM (Command module; see also CSM, Apollo
Brady, A. L., 38 spacecraft, and Appendix 8), iv, 14
Brand, Vance D., 336 il., 408-09 AS-501 pressurization, 66
Brendle, Harmon L., 207 atmosphere
Bromberg, Jack, 62 back contamination, 22
Brooks Air Force Base, Tex., accident, 66, 68 oxygen and two-gas, iii, 67, 72, 73, 78-80, 81,
Broome, Douglas R., 126, 205 93, 99, 105-06, 109, 113, 116, 122-23, 145,
Brown, Ashmun, 77 168, 171-72, 193, 201-02, 204, 209, 210-11,
Brubaker, W. C., 181 213, 214-15, 219, 229
toxic, 80, 108-09, 112, 114, 229
Buckley, Charles L., Jr., 74
Buffalo, N.Y., 55 cold storage compartment, 294
Bullard, James L., 8 couches, 33, 37, 66, 70, 71, 79, 98-99, 138, 218
crew compartment, 99, 122, 162
Bunker, George M., 240
crew nomenclature, 52
Burch, J. A., Jr., 85
delivery, 19, 68, 154
Bureau of Mines, 65, 69, 75, 78, 97, 219
Burke, Walter F., 240 emergency medical kit, 6
Burnham, D. C., 36 flammable materials, iii, 72-73, 79-80, 90-91,
Burns, Howard D., 267 94-97, 101, 105-06, 111, 114, 116, 120-21, 125,
Burr, Robert P., 195 129-31, 136-37, 145, 159, 181, 183-84, 229
Bush, Leon R., 185 flammability testing, 79, 80, 95-96, 113, 136-37,
145-46, 168, 171-72, 203
Butler, P. A., 7
fire extinguishers, 101, 129, 159, 229
Byington, Harry W., 48
fire hazard (see also AS-204 and Apollo 204 Review
Board), iii, 23, 66, 72-73, 79--80, 110-14, 201,
203
¢
hatch, 72, 79-80, 85, 93-94, 106, 108, 110, 112,
154 il., 162, 217, 286, 292
C-133A aircraft, 169 heatshield, 8, 10, 37, 160-61, 162, 172-73, 217,
Calahan, Hubert D., 101 260, 340, 380
Calio, Anthony J., 313, 327 CM 012, 8, 77, 83, 89-90
Camera lift-to-drag ratio, 43
contract, 36 mockup, 32, 48, 79, 99, 113, 122, 128, 146
lunar closeup stereo, 275, 293, 311, 324, 327 reentry, iii, iv, 10, 72, 160-61, 172-73, 216-17,
television 258-59, 277, 332, 380, 384
CM, CSM, 134, 168-69, 218, 277, 341-42 sea-quallfication test, 45 il.
446
INDEX
guidance and navigation, 15, 31-32, 155, 185,

simulator, 40
203-04, 238, 240, 318
solder joints, 79, 97, 120, 127, 142, 189
LM, 31-32
stowage, 151
RCA-110A, 279
system reusability, 274
Real Time Computer Complex, 7, 33
tunnel insulation, 306
simulator, 33, 40, 53, 288
water sterilization system, 130, 215
Conductron Corp. (subsidiary of McDonnell Douglas
weight, 8, 15, 72, 83, 138, 161-62
Corp.), 152
CM 002B, 227
Conlon, John W., 143, 261
CM 007, 11, 12, 19, 45 il., 117, 217-18 Conrad, Charles ("Pete"), Jr., 56, 179, 224, 270,
CM 011, 2, 8, 19, 24, 37, 380 319-20 il.-21 il.-22, 373, 375, 380, 391, 408
CM 012 (see also Apollo 204 Review Board and CSM
Coons, D. Owen, 261
012), 64 il., 111 il.
Cooper, L. Gordon, Jr., 291, 373, 408
aft heatshield removal, 77, 83, 89 Coordinated Aerospace Supplier Evaluation (CASE),
Apollo 1 designation, 100 327
earth-landing system, 8 Cornell University, 64, 69, 71
fire. See AS-204.
Corning Glass Co., 185
inspection, 72-73, 125 Cortright, Edgar M., 40, 163-64, 206, 210, 223, 332,
lift-to-drag ratio, 43 335, 340
launch escape system removal, 67-68 Cozad, James C., 23
rupture, 83, 89-90, 110 Craig, Jerry W., 101, 126, 186, 219
SM separation, 77 Creer, Brent Y., 33
Space Vehicle Plugs-Out Integrated Test, 89 Creighton, Henry C., 102
weight, 8 Crew rescue, 53-54, 163, 170, 198
CM 014, 5, 8, 68, 71, 97, 111 il., 125, 128, 227 Crew Safety Panel, 62, 75, 198
CM 017 (see also CSM 017 and Apollo 4), 26, 173 il. Crew Safety Review Board, 223, 284
CM 020. See CSM 020 and Apollo 6. CSM (command and service module; see also CM,
CM 2S-1, 61 Apollo missions, Apollo spacecraft systems, and
CM 2TV-1 (see also CSM 2TV-1), 60, 126-27, 195, Appendix 8), 248 il.
211, 221 apex heatshield, 172-73
CM 101 (see also CSM 101 and Apollo 7), 80, 120, Block I, 2, 10, 12, 23-25, 32, 37, 52, 413-19
142, 181, 208, 230, 248 il. Block II, 6, 11, 21, 24, 25, 32, 191, 232-33 il.,
CM 102, 145-46, 208-09, 227, 235 248 il.
CM 103 (see also CSM 103 and Apollo 8), 195, launch support, 11, 191
198-99, 272-73 modifications, 23, 24, 79-80, 127-28, 134, 138,
162, 292, 294, 301, 413-19
CM 104 (Gumdrop). See CSM 104 and Apollo 9.
Block II Redefinition Task Team, iii, 116, 125-26,
CM 106 (Charlie Brown). See CSM 106 and Apollo 10.
CM 107 (Columbia). See CSM 107 and Apollo 11. 128-30, 133, 136, 151
Block II Wiring Investigation Team, 126
CM 108 (Yankee Clipper). See CSM 108 and Apollo 12.
boost protective cover, 248 il., 290-91
CM 109 (Odyssey). See CSM 109 and Apollo 13.
change control. See Apollo program, change control.
CM 110 (Kitty Hawk). See CSM 110 and Apollo 14.
contract negotiations, 5, 132, 134, 140, 145-46,
CM 111 [used for ASTP], 145-46
294
CM 112 (Endeavor). See CSM 112 and Apollo 15.
coolant, 134-35
CM 113 (Casper). See Apollo 16.
costs (see also Apollo program, costs), 306
CM 114 (America; Apollo 17), 145-46, 357-60
crew compartment fit and function test, 129
CM 115, 145--46, 356-57
crew nomenclature, 52
CM l I5A, 165, 327, 356-57
cryogenic gas storage system, 2, 8, 12
CM 116, 188
delivery schedule, 12, 19, 68, 126-27, 134, 136,
CM 117, 188
138, 140, 144, 145-46, 154, 211-12, 222-23
CM 118, 188
Design Certification Review. See Apollo Design
CM 119, 188
Certification Review Board.
Cohen, Aaron, 126, 138, 213, 232, 269-70
DITMCO (inspection process), 129
Cohen, Alfred, 7, 8
dynamic load testing, 241
Cohen, Jack H., 195
electrical power system, 2, 12, 14, 23, 70-71, 116,
Collins, Duncan, 71
120-21, 123, 162, 248 il.
Collins, Michael, 42, 56, 304-10, 362, 373, 375, 389,
circuit breakers, 65, 120-21, 123, 130-31
4O8
wiring, 37, 79-83, 92-93, 101, 102, 105-07,
Collins Radio Co., 372
111, 113-14, 120-21 il., 126, 128, 129-30,
Colonna, Richard A., 222
132-133, 135 il., 136-37, 141 il., 162, 183-
Columbia. See Apollo I1 and CSM 107.
87, 200-02, 208
Columbia University, 9
coax cable, 181, 183-87, 201-02
Command and service module. See CSM.
emergency detection system, 62, 217
Command module. See CM.
Communications, iv, 15, 49, 50, 209, 217, 256 emergency egress, 80, 145, 105-06, 246
CM 012, 61, 70, 76, 102-07, 112 entry monitor system, 160-61, 164
environmental control system, 2, 22-23, 44--45,
Computer, 117, 185, 203-05, 238, 250, 288, 372
145, 156, 161, 175-76, 197, 232-33
flight test support, 7, 138, 288
447
INDEX
CSM 011, 19 test restriction, 125

CSM 012, 70-71, 73, 79, 90-107, 111, 113-14 wiring, 155
CSM 101, 129, 232-33
CSM 2TV-1 (thermal vacuum test vehicle No. 1), 221
environmental test review, 200 il., 336 il.
fire hazards (see also AS-204 and Apollo 204 constraint on CSM I01, 126-27, 129, 221
Review Board), 22-23, 66, 128, 136-37, 159, delivery schedule, 126-27, 151, 210, 211, 221, 222
171-72, 203, 274-75 flammable material, 184, 201-02
fuel tanks, 24, 248 11.
testing, 60, 126-27, 143, 195-96, 201-02, 210,
hardware discrepancies, 190 221 il., 336 il.
land-landing capability, 260 CSM 101 (first Block II CSM), 80, 233 il., 248 il.
lunar orbital science package, 283, 328 Apollo 7, 123, 126, 139, 242, 253, 257-58 il.-59
pogo, 227, 242, 254 atmosphere, 80, 116, 201-02, 209
stress corrosion. See Apollo program, problems. changes (see also CSM, Block II), 80, 139, 164,
tests (see also CM, flammability testing), 119-20, 222, 413-19
122, 138, 140-41 crew safety, 80, 246, 249
boilerp]ate mockup, 79, 80, 122, 145, 146 Customer Acceptance Readiness Review, 181
vibration, 133-34, 140-41
delivery schedule, 126-27, 146, 151, 181, 211-12,
titanium tank, 12, 119-20 222, 249
TV (see also Apollo missions), 15-16, 17, 24, 25, Design Certification Review, 209, 232, 241
51, 168-69, 218, 273, 277, 302 entry monitor system, 161, 164
walk-down team, 306, 317 experiments, 139, 144-45
water requirements task team, 205 fire extinguishing briefing, 274-75
weight, 2, 8, 21, 138-40, 144, 149-50, 154-55, flight readiness review, 241-42, 279-80
161-62, 188, 290-91, 292 high-altitude abort procedures, 246
CSM 007, 11, 12, 19, 45, 117, 217-18 KSC receiving inspection, 230
CSM 008, 12, 38-39, 146 mating with launch vehicle, 230, 242
CSM 009 (AS-201 payload), 2, 10 il., 377 parachutes, 139, 174, 218
CSM 011 (see also AS--202), 2, 8, 12, 19, 24, 37, 380 plumbing, 136
CSM 012 (for Apollo 1; see also CM 012, Apollo 204 reaction control system, 166-67, 177-78, 230, 258
Review Board, and AS-204) rendezvous, 88, 123, 139, 140, 142, 258
communications assembly, 61 service propulsion system, 208-09, 220, 258
Customer Acceptance Readiness Review, 44 solder joints, 120, 142
earth-landing system, 8 special inspection, 125
entry procedures, 69-70 testing, 120, 129-30, 201-02, 257, 261-62, 274-75
solder joint leaks, 120 toxicological evaluation, 229
special inspection, 125 TV, 218, 258-59
testing, 5, 61
wiring, 80, 102, 120-21, 126, 129-30, 132-33,
weight, 8 135 il., 136-37, 161, 162, 208
wiring, 79-81, 83, 92-93, 101, 105-07, 111, 113-14 coax cable, 181, 183-85, 201-02
CSM 014 (see also CM 014), 5, 8, 125 CSM 102, 145-46, 208, 208-09, 227
CSM 017 deletion from manned program, 235
Apollo 4, 172-73 il., 175 CSM 103
fuel cell tanks, 119-20 altitude chamber test, 253
heatshield, 172-73, 217 Apollo 8, 162, 168, 237-44, 272-73, 275-76 i1.-77
inertial measurement unit, 120 C prime mission objectives, 242-44
mating with launch vehicle, 87, 120, 142 coax cable, 186-87
mission control programmer, 74, 81 Colossus computer program, 238
operational checkout, 155 CSM 103 vs. 106 configuration study, 238--39
oxidizer tank replacement, 110 delivery schedule, 126-27, 145-46, 162, 211-12, 222
parachutes, 26 discrepancy reports, 278-80
special inspection, 125 fire extinguishing briefing, 274-75
testing, 120, 125 high-gain antenna, 238, 244
wiring, 80_I, 87, 110 operational checkout, 251-52
CSM 020 (modified Block I), 216 il. parachutes, 218, 277
Apollo 6, 179, 215-16 il.-17 plumbing system, 199
data storage equipment, 207 service propulsion system, 268, 272-73, 276-77
delivery schedule, 136, 145-46 Special Task Team for Spacecraft 103 Contamina-
emergency detection system, 217 tion Control, 195, 198-99
Flight Readiness Review Board, 207 CSM 104 (Gumdrop)
fuel cell tank, 119-20 Apollo 9, 264, 282, 286-87 il., 388
hatch, 136, 217 checkout, 251-52, 262
heatshield, 177 coax cable, 183-84, 186-87
mission control programmer, 74-75 crew, 239, 243, 286-87
operational checkout, 155 delivery schedule, 186-87, 211-12
reaction control system, 211 docking with LM, 264, 286, 388
service propulsion system, 216 TV, 273, 277, 286
special inspection, 125 CSM 105, 140-41, 145-46
448
INDEX
CSM 105R, 145-4-6 Detroit, Mich., 52

CSM 106 (Charlie Brown) Dickenson, John D., 87
Apollo 10, 264, 279, 282, 296-97 il.-98, 388-89 Dillaway, Robert, 220
changes, 164 Disher, John H., 25, 27
coax cable, 186-87 Dobrovolsky, Georgy T., 395
CSM 103 vs. 106 configuration study, 239 Domokos, Steve, 190
delivery schedule, 145_,6, 186-87 Donlan, Charles J., 6, 212, 255 il.
electrical harness, 186 Donnelly, John P., 363
high-gain antenna, 238 Donnelly, Paul C., 71, 285 il.
CSM 107 (Columbia), 121 il. Dorman, B. L., 228
Apollo 11, 282, 306-10, 389 Douglas Aircraft Co. (merged with McDonnell Aircraft
back contamination, 301, 312 Corp. into McDonnell Douglas Corp. April 28, 1967),
changes, 164 2, 61-62, 203
coax cable, 186-87 Dover, Del., 42
delivery schedule, 145-46, 186-87 Downey, Calif. See North American Aviation Inc., Space
Flight Readiness Review Board, 301 Div., and North American Rockwell Corp., Space Div.
preservation, 310 Downs, W. R., 136-37, 195
radiation survey, 289 Doyle, Frederick J., 322
CSM 108 (Yankee Clipper; Apollo 12), 145--46, 282, Draley, Eugene C., 161
319-22, 391 Draper, C. Stark, 240
CSM 109 (Odyssey) Dryden, Hugh L., 132
Apollo 13, 264, 282, 329-40, 392 Dudek, J. S., 26
delivery schedule, 145-46 Duff, Brian M., 304
SM oxygen tank rupture, 330 il., 331-40, 392 Dugan, W., 71
CSM 110 (Kitty Hawk; Apollo 14), 145-46, 219, 265, Duke, Charles M., 217-18, 227, 329, 352-53 il.-56, 376,
317, 341-43 il., 394 397-98, 408-09
CSM 111 [used for Apollo-Soyuz Test Project], 145-46, Duncan, Robert C., 25-26, 31
219 Dunn, Capt. Latimer E. (USAF), 63
CSM 112 (Endeavor; Apollo 15), 145-46, 219, 265, 344,
347-49 il.-50, 396
CSM 113 (Casper)
accident, 356
Apollo 16, 265, 328, 352-56, 397-99 Eagle. See Apollo 11 and LM-5.
delivery schedule, 145-46 Early Apollo Science Experiments Package (EASEP),
lunar orbit science, 328, 354, 355 il. 273, 295, 4O5
CSM 114 (America; Apollo 17), 145--46, 357-60, Earth, distance from moon, 314
399-400 Earth Resources Survey Program, 183
CSM 115, 145-46, 356-57 Eastern Test Range, 28, 66, 70, 150, 170
CSM l15A, 165, 327, 356-57 Edwards, Calif., 35 il.
CSM Configuration Control Panel, 77 Edwards AFB, Calif., 20
CSM Flight Readiness Review Board, 207, 279-80, 301 Eggers, Alfred J., Jr., 40
Cunningham, R. Walter, 41-42, 53 il., 116, 133, 257-58 Eggleston, John M., 62, 102, 187
il.-59, 374, 385, 408 Eisele, Bonn F., 41-42, 53 il., 116, 126, 133, 257-58
il.-59, 291, 374, 385, 408
El Centro, Calif., 20, 160, 169, 180, 192, 213
O Ellington AFB, Tex., 19, 55
Elms, James C., 40
Daddario, Congressman Emilio Q., 81 Endeavor. See Apollo 15 and CSM 112.
Dalmo Victor, div. of Textron, Inc., 209, 212 Engine (see also Lunar module), 270
David Clark Manufacturing Co., 17 F-l, 35 il., 43 il.
Davidson, William L., 59 J-2, 215, 222, 232, 249
Davin, Edward M., 14 R4D, 361-62
Davis, Don D., Jr., 161 reaction control (see also Service module), 36,
Davis, Lt. Gen. Leighton O. (USAF), 44 177-78, 206
Day, LeRoy E., 27, 88, 196, 267, 293 vernier, 36
Debus, Kurt H., 46, 62, 71, 77, 124-25, 146, 148, 170, England, Anthony W., 409
237, 238-39, 281, 299, 317 il. Engle, Joe H., 336 il., 408-09
Deep Space Net Tracking Station, Woomera, Australia, Ernull, Robert E., 123
150 Esenwein, George F., 357
Defense, Department of (DOD), 17, 240 EVA. See Extravehicular activity.
Director of Defense Research and Engineering, 17 Evans, B. O., 240
Manager for Manned Space Flight Support Opera- Evans, Brian, 27
tions, 44 Evans, Llewellyn J., 27, 41, 166, 202-03, 234
mapping agencies, 17, 35 Evans, Ronald E., 357-60, 376, 399, 408-09
Secretary of Defense, 234, 311 Experiments (see also Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment
Bennett, Armistead, 143 Package and Appendixes 5 and 9), 2, 5, 24, 30-31,
Denver, Colo., 37 139, 226, 301, 310, 328
449
INDEX
D008---Radiation in Spacecraft, 144-45 world records (see also Appendix 3), 302-03, 316
D019---Simple Navigation, 139 Extravehicular mobility unit (EMU), 188, 253--54,
High-Z Cosmic Ray, 246 270-71, 278, 338 il., 343-44, 345 il.
light-flash, 352, 355, 358, 360
lunar environment visibility, 280, 348
lunar geological equipment, 29, 143, 295, 327
M005--Bioassays Body Fluid, 52, 139
M006--Bone Demineralization, 52, 144-45 F-1 rocket engine, 35 il., 43 il.
M011--Cytogenic Blood Studies, 52, 144-45 Faget, Maxime A., 6, 16, 19, 21, 33, 62, 63, 65-66, 71,
M023--Lower Body Negative Pressure, 52, 144-45 73-74, 80, 83, 101, 123, 130-31, 133, 142, 158, 160,
mapping and survey system, 30, 360 161, 163, 165-66, 169-70, 172, 175-76, 186, 193,
microbial response, 356 201, 220, 224, 230, 231, 246, 283-85, 288, 290, 362
neutron probe, 358 Falcon. See Apollo 15 and LM-10.
optical experiments evaluation, 52 Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., Airtek Die., 171
pallet, 18, 37
Farrand mission effects projector, 151-52
passive microwave, 226 Federal Aviation Agency, 65-66, 71
radar-laser altimetry, 47, 286, 360 F6d&ation A&onautique Internationale (FAI), 220,
S005--Synoptic Terrain Photography, 144-45 302-03, 316, 373-76
S006--Synoptic Weather Photography, 144-45 Feltz, Charles H., 174
S015--Zero-g Single Human Cells, 54 Filipchenko, Anatoly V., 390
S017--Trapped Particle Asymmetry, 54 Fire detection system, 101, 220, 290
S018--Micrometeorite Collection, 54 Fire extinguisher, 101, 129, 159, 299
S019--UV Stellar Photography, 139 Fire hazards. See CSM, fire hazards.
S020--UV-X-ray Solar Photography, 139 Flammability Review Board. See Senior Flammability
S027--X-ray Photography, 25 Review Board.
S031--Lunar Passive Seismology, 9, 58, 102, 256, Flammability Test Review Board (MSC), 158
272, 295, 301, 310, 312, 321 Fletcher, James C., 345, 363
S033--Active Lunar Seismology, 9, 102 Flight Mechanics Panel, 56
S034--Lunar Tri-axis Magnetometer, 9, 58, 272 Guidance and Performance Sub-Panel, 56
S035--Solar Wind (see also S080), 9, 272 Flight Research Center, 224
S036--Suprathermal Ion Detection, 9, 58, 102, Flory, Donald A., 26
348, 358 Fort Davis, Tex., 313
S037--Heat Flow, 9, 56, 123, 348, 358 Fort Detrick, Md., 261
S038--Charged Particle Lunar Environment, 102 Fort Hood, Tex., 20
S058--Cold Cathode Ionization Gauge, 102, 272, Foster, John S., Jr., 17
32O il. Framingham, Mass., 40
S059--Lunar Geological Investigation, 28, 245-46, Franklin, George C., 34
261, 272, 275, 295, 342 Frazer, Robert R., 281
S068--Lunar Meteoroid Detection, 53 Freeman, J. W., Jr., 9
S078--Corner Relector for Laser Ranging, 246, Freeman, Orville L., 151
256, 272, 310, 312-13, 342 Fullerton, Charles G., 409
S080--Solar Wind Composition, 9, 58, 246, 256, Fullerton, Calif., 328
272, 299, 319, 332, 342
S167--Sounding Radar, 328
S168--Lunar Electromagnetic Sounder, 328, 360 O
S169--Ultravi01et Spectrometer, 226, 360
S171--Infrared Scanning Radiometer, 47, 226, Gaithersburg, Md., 33
360 Gardiner, John S., 151
S199--Traverse Gravimeter, 358 Gardiner, Robert A., 166, 318, 325
subsatellite, v, 226, 349, 355, 362, 396, 398-99 Garrett Corp., 44-45, 156
T004--Frog Otolith Function, 54 AiResearch Die., 2, 22-23, 44-45, 71, 129, 156-57,
T033--Contrast Perception on Moon, 280, 348 175-76, 372
T034--Color Perception on Moon, 280, 342 Garrett-AiResearch Safety Audit Review Board,
T035--Distance Estimation on Moon, 280, 348 156-57
Explorer 35 (IMP-E), 383 Garriott, Owen K., 408
Extravehicular activity (EVA; see also Apollo 9, 11, 12, Gasich, W., 194-95
14-17), 205 Gates, Sally D., 408
AS-204, 59 Gavin, Joseph G., Jr., 27, 41, 137, 155, 157-58, 196-97,
AS-503, 57-58, 168 212, 227, 236, 256, 313
Block I CSM, 59 Gay, C. C., Jr., 196
Block II CSM, first flight, 139 Geer, E. Barton, 64, 65, 73-74, 133, 143, 261
Gemini, iii-iv, 208, 379, 381 Gemini V, 373
planning for lunar landing mission, 59-60, 155, Gemini VII, 12, 30, 373, 377
168, 187-88, 202, 207, 207-08, 256-57, 260-61, Gemini VIII, 2, 12-13, 15, 373, 377, 379
275, 284-85, 311-12, 316, 340-41 Gemini IX-A, 269, 278-79
pre-lunar landing, 168 Gemini X, 373, 379
Soyuz, 387 Gemini XI, 7, 373, 380
450
INDEX
Gemini XII, 7, 381 LM reconnaissance module, 313

Gemini-Agena Target Vehicle (GATV), 12-13, 269, LM thermal shield, 27
377-81 LM wiring harness, 137
Gemini program, iii, iv, 7, 36, 72, 79, 148, 149, 166, LM-4 and 5 study, 244-45
208, 254 mission effects projector, 151-52
General Electric Co. (GE), 17, 45-46, 176, 194, 219, North American Aviation office, 29
240 officials appointed, 27
General Motors Corp. ORDEAL, 37
AC Electronics Defense Research Laboratories, 316 Program Control Office, 27
AC Electronics Div. (AC Spark Plug Div.), 15, scientific equipment, 56-57, 138-39
31-32, 240, 372 simulator, 53
Allison Div., 252, 267, 372 SLA access, 134
General Precision, Inc. stress corrosion, 196
General Precision Link Group, 38, 152 Super Weight Improvement Prograsn (SWIP), 21,
Kearfott Products Div., General Precision Aerospace 158, 267
Group, 37 test, 51 il.
Gentile, Samuel A., 271 Guidance Software Task Force, 117, 185, 204, 250
Geonautics, Inc., 15 Guinness Superlatives, 314
Gerke, Paul D., 138 Gulf of Mexico, 19, 45 il., 217-18
Gibson, Edward G., 408 Gurney, Congressman Edward d., 81
Gibson, Ralph E., 171
Gibson, Thomas F., Jr., 204-05
Gill, George, 219 14
Gillespie, Warren, Jr., 19
Gilruth, Robert R., 5-27, 30, 32-36, 42, 45, 48, 51, 55, Hage, George H., 178, 198, 238-41, 294, 306
57-59, 62, 74, 97, 109, 121-25, 132, 139, 141, 146, Hagner, Donald R., 185
148-49, 151, 154, 157-61, 164, 165, 170-71, 174-78, Haise, Fred W., Jr., 329-32, 375, 392, 408-09
185, 191, 193, 201-07, 212, 214, 218, 220-230, 234, Hale, T/Sgt Larry N., (USAF), 63
238-39, 252, 254, 269-74, 278-81, 283, 288, 290, Hamilton Standard Div., United Aircraft Corp., 273-74,
294-99, 302, 304, 313, 322-26, 340, 345, 351 372
Gisel, William G., 178 Haney, Paul P., 164
Gleaves, J. D., 85 Hannigan, James E., 59-60
Glynn, Philip C., 73 Hanrahan, Dick, 185
Goddard Space Flight Center, 31, 44, 146, 289 Hardy, Gordon H., 33
Godfrey, Roy E., 318, 325 Harlan, Charles S., 175
Goldenburg, Allan R., 102 Harmon, Richard G., 66
Goldstone, Calif., tracking station, 24, 50, 256, 296, Harrington, Charles D., 335
304, 319 Harrington, James F., III, 285 il.
Goodwin, Glen, 161 Hatter, Allan, 143
Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 165 Hartsfield, Henry W., 409
Gorbatko, Viktor V., 390 Haveg Industries, 219
Gordon, Richard F., Jr., 56, 319-21 il.-22, 373, 375, Hawaii, 172, 350
380, 391,408-09 Hawkins, J. W., 85
Goree, Jesse F., Jr., 73, 164, 204 Hawthorne, Calif., 37
Gorman, Harry H., 357 Hayes, Warren B., 171
Gossick, Lee, 21 Hays, Edward L., 143
Gottlieb, Peter, 293 Healey, John P., 181
Government Accounting Office (GAO), 189 Health, Education, and Welfare, Dept. of, 151, 165
Government-furnished equipment configuration and con- HEAO (High Energy Astronomy Observatory), 324
trol panel, 10, 324 Heffron, W. G., 299
Grau, Dieter, 241 Helgeson, B. P., 224
Gray, Edward Z., 159, 187 Helicopter, 173 il., 277, 287, 309, 332
Gray, Wilbur H., 174, 177 Henize, Karl G., 409
Green, Richard J., 14 Hess, Wilmot N., 145, 183, 187-88, 207-08, 246, 250,
Griffin, A., 74 273, 282, 292, 295
Griffith, J. G., 32 High Energy Astronomy Observatory (HEAO), 324
Grimwood, Hilda J., xv Hinchman, K., 74
Grimwood, James M., xiv, xv Hinners, Noel W., 190, 326
Grissom, Virgil I., iii, 2, 47, 63, 67, 68, 100, 112 Hjornevik, Wesley L., 55, 62
Group for Lunar Exploration Planning (GLEP), 187, Hock, Robert C., 356
300 Hodge, John D., 7, 14-15, 71, 123, 198, 225, 250,
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. (GAEC) 253, 261, 299, 313
contract, LM, 9, 41, 372 Holcomb, John K., 20
cost control, 9, 17, 27, 41 Holzapfel, Richard H., 224
delivery schedule, 9, 10, 14, 132 Honeywell, Inc., Computer Control Div., 40, 372
government-furnished equipment, 10 Horeff, Thomas G., 65, 70
ground support equipment, 7-8, 14, 17 Horner, Richard E., 160, 174
451
INDEX
Houston, Tex., 46, 50, 67, 143, 278, 326, 342 Director of Launch Operations, 45-46, 70, 268-69,
Hoyler, Wilburne F., 73, 283 313
Hughes Aircraft Co., 25-26 Director of Spacecraft Operations, 64
Humphreys, J. W., 345 firing room, 285 il.
Hunter, Bob, 240 KSC Apollo Program Manager, 44, 45-48, 179, 181,
Huntsville, Ala., 238, 241, 316 229
Hurricane Gladys, 259 il. launch and launch preparations. See Apollo missions.
Launch Control Center, 293-94
Manned Spacecraft Operations Building, 51 il., 77,
78, 86
Material Analysis Laboratory, 83
Illinois Institute of Technology, 136 Mission Briefing Room, 65, 69-70
Indian Ocean, 331 Pyrotechnic Installation Building, 68, 75-77, 98--99,
101
Instrument unit, 2, 25, 28, 37, 190, 196, 241, 296
lnteragency Committee on Back Contamination, 22, Safety Office, 280
151, 165, 283, 298-99, 305-06, 312, 314, 317, 345 Simulator Building, 71
Intercenter Coordination Panels, 198 Vehicle Assembly Building, 23 il., 134, 255 il., 278
Interior, Dept. of the, 69, 78, 151, 165 Kent, Wash., 316
International Aeronautical Federation. See Frd_ration Kerwin, Joseph P., 143, 261,336 il., 410
A_ronautique Internationale. Khrunov, Yevegeny V., 387
International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), 7, 33, King, Elbert A., 26
185, 203-04, 240 King, John W., 71
International Latex Corp., 58, 274 Kingsbury, James E., 149
Intrepid. See Apollo 12 and LM-6. Kitty Hawk. See Apollo 14 and CSM 110.
Irwin, James B., 347-50, 376, 395-96, 408-09
Kleinknecht, Kenneth S., viii, 19, 77, 101, 102, 109-10,
Itek Corp., 151-52
116, 120, 126, 128, 133, 136, 144-151, 161, 166-67,
169, 174, 177, 1811 186, 189, 190, 192-93, 195, 197,
199-201, 204, 208, 212, 219, 231, 238-39, 249-52,
262, 281,289, 294, 301, 306, 322, 327
Klopfenstein, Wayne, 222
J-2 engine, 215, 222, 232 Kohhchutter Crater, moon, 353 il.
James, Lee B., 132, 222, 235, 238-41, 244, 249, 251, Kollmorgen Corp., 152
294, 300, 345 Kollsman Instrument Corp., 152, 372
Jeffs, George W., 64, 65 66, 69, 71, 74, 174, 193, 222, Komarov, Vladimir M., 382
294, 306, 322, 327, 328 Kotanchik, Joseph N., 19, 26, 101, 120, 123, 137, 142,
Jenkins, Morris V., 59-60, 123 195, 211,222, 238-39, 244, 284
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), 9, 24, 35-36, 293,
315 Kovach, Robert L., 9
Kovitz, Carl, 59
Johnson, Caldwell C., Jr., 292
Johnson, President Lyndon B., 82, 361, 362 Kraft, Christopher C., Jr.
MSC Director of Flight Operations, 19, 22, 28, 29-
Johnson, Robert E., 158
Johnson Space Center. See Manned Spacecraft Center 30, 52-53, 59, 77, 88, 123, 131, 138, 148, 158,
(renamed JSC Feb. 17, 1973]. 175, 187, 193, 202, 204-05, 208, 224, 225, 231,
Johnston, Col. Edward H., (USA), 63 237-40, 243--44, 246, 255 il., 288, 303, 315, 317-
Johnston, Richard S., I01, 158, 166, 219, 295, 299, 312, 18, 323
314, 317, 327 MSC Deputy Director, 323, 325
Jones, Jack A., 133, 136 MSC Director, 351,356, 357, 362, 363
Jones, Sydney C., Jr., 120-21 Kranz, Eugene F., 123
Joslyn, Allan W., 195 Kraushaar, William L., 324
Kubasov, Valet'y, 390
Kubat, Jerald R., 177
Kudish, Henry, 316
Kuehnel, Helmut A., 249
Kapryan, Walter J., 47-48, 179, 317 il. Kupperlan, James E., 146
Kaskey, B., 59 Kurtz, Herman F., Jr., 350
Kearfott Products Div., General Precision, Inc., 37
Kelly, G. Fred, 70-71, 74
Kelly, Thomas J., 27, 222, 230
Kennedy, President John F., xiv, 23, 82, 264.
Kennedy Space Center (KSC), xv, 2, 6, 23 il., 45--46,
148, 153 il., 255 il., 293, 338 il. Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, 353
Apollo Configuration Control Panel, 47--48 Langley Research Center (LaRC), xv, 6, 12, 19, 24, 64,
AS-204 accident (see also Apollo 204 Review Board 161, 185, 261,332
and AS-204), 63 Apollo Block II CM/LM docking study, 74
crawler-transporter, 23 il. custodian of Apollo 204 Review Board material, 80,
Design Engineering Office, 280 97
452
INDEX
LM/S-IVB withdrawal study, 32, 48, 54, 74 delivery schedule, 127, 138, 168, 222-23, 235
LOLA simulator, 15 descent stage, 27, 262, 283, 305 il.
Lunar Landing Research Facility, 10-11, 34, 55, 212 ALSEP, 56-57, 139, 146-47, 383
Lunar Orbiter Project Office, 42 engine, 36, 58, 190, 206
reaction control engine tests, 36 landing gear, 29, 57, 58, 230, 281
Rendezvous Docking Simulator, 74 lunar TV camera, 168-69

propulsion system, 15, 48, 109, 123, 196,
Langseth, Marcus E., 9
202-03, 286-89
Lanzkron, Rolf W., 227
radioisotope thermoelectric generator, 56-57,
Laths.m, Gary V., 353 il.
146-47
Launch Complex 13, 34, 49
design certification, 191
Launch Complex 14, 12
design requirements, 29, 41, 147, 223-24, 282-83
Launch Complex 19, 12
docking control, iv, 271-72
Launch Complex 34, 10, 11, 37, 175, 257 electrical power system, 130-31
AS-204 accident, 63, 65, 77, 89, 98, 112
emergency medical kit, 5
manned flight certification, 191
environmental control system, 14-15, 58, 144
Launch Complex 37, 28, 134, 196 extraction from S-IVB stage, 32, 48, 54, 74, 218
Launch Complex 39 fire-in-the-hole (FITH) test, 27, !16, 123, 188-89,
Pad A, iii, 172, 216, 275, 278, 286, 306, 319, 329, 224-25
341,347, 352, 357 first manned flight (see also LM-3), 138
Pad B, 289, 296 flags, 281
Launch escape system (LES). See Apollo spacecraft flammable material, 122, 130-31, 158
systems. fuel system, 146-47
Launch vehicle. See AS-201, etc.; AS-501, etc.; Atlas- guidance computer, 31-32
Agena; Atlas-Centaur; Saturn; Scout; Thor-Delta; heatshield, 27, 230
Titan II. lunar samples, 282
Leak, John S., 71 mockups, 32, 35, 158-59
Lee, Chester M., 318, 322, 342, 350, 356, 362 name change, 22
Lee, John B., 83, 166 orbital rate drive electronics, 37
Lee, William A., 27, 34, 78-79 overall program review, 234-35
LEM ('lunar excursion module). See Lunar module. penetrometer, 24
LEM Configuration Control Panel, 10 rendezvous aids, 6, 10, 25-26, 235, 236
rescue, 53-54
LES. See Apollo spacecraft systems, Launch escape.
simulators. See Simulators.
Lewis, James L., 408-09
stress corrosion, 187, 191, 196-97, 206, 281
Lewis Research Center, 65-66, 70-71, 150, 269, 336-37
temperature, 27
Liberty Bell 7, 72
tests (see also fire-in-the-hole), 5, 31, 138, 178, 212,
Liccardi, A. L., 139
223, 233, 273
Lick Observatory, Calif., 310
training aids, 34
Lilly, William E., 61
TV, 15, 17, 25-26, 235, 236
Lind, Don L., 138, 408
unmanned landing, 283
Lindberg, James P., Jr., 291
weight, 2, 21, 37, 138, 139-40, 143, 154-55, 157-58,
Lindeman, Richard E., 126
161-62, 179-80, 235, 236, 292
Link Group, General Precision, Inc., 38, 372 LM-I (lunar module 1), 153 il.
Lippitt, Maxwell W., 101 Apollo 5, 130, 191, 196, 199, 228
LM (lunar module; LEM, lunar excursion module, be- ascent engine, 194, 224
fore May 1966), iv, 32-33, 34, 82, 190, 305 il. ascent propulsion system, 196, 203
abort capability, 14-15, 21 Customer Acceptance Readiness Review Board, 144
access on launch pad, 134 descent propulsion system, 196, 202-03
adapter. See SLA. development flight instrumentation harness, 132
attitude control, 179-80, 271-72 guidance system, 196, 202-03
AS-204-related changes, 157-58 performance, 199
AS-208, 7 plumbing rework, 234
ascent stage, 51 il., 262, 286, 301,305 il. schedule, 132, 153 il.-54, 194
cabin, 169-70, 213-14, 220--21,282 special inspection, 125
engine, 35, 117, 149, 178-80, 189-91, 199, unmanned flight only, 44
223-25, 227-28, 252 windows, 190
manual control, 271-72 LM-2
propulsion system, 14, 15, 123, 196, 202-03, alternative uses, 227, 233, 288
206, 286, 288-89 Apollo 8, possible use, 238
TV camera, 168-69 delivery schedule, 44, 162, 168
windows, 185, 190, 206-07 drop test, 233, 294
budget, 41, 127, 205, 235 fire-in-the-hole test, 116, 188-89
capacity, 147 fire safety, 158-59
communications, 15, 49, 205-06, 312 flight requirements meeting, 199
contract, 7-8, 9-10, 14 mannability, 44, 123, 148, 199, 202-03
453
INDEX
mission and objectives, 162, 199 stress corrosion, 206, 290

pogo dynamics testing, 227, 233-34 TV camera, 169, 277
spacecraft director, 166 LM-8 (Antares)
test requirements, 178 Apollo 14, 341-43 il.
unmanned flight canceled, 199, 202 changes, 290
LM-3 (Spider), 41, 230 deliver,/ date, 290
Apollo 9, 202-03, 264, 282, 286-87 il., 288-89 mobile equipment transporter, 324-25
AS-503 mission assignment canceled, 242-43, 244 stress corrosion, 206, 290
ascent engine, 180, 190-91, 227-28, 252, 262, LM-9. 224-25, 290
288-89 LM-10 (Falcon), 290, 344 il.
checkout, 58, 262 Apollo 15, 347-49
configuration, 41, 162, 164 lunar liftoff, 346, 349
delivery schedule, 162, 166, 168, 222-23, 242 mobile equipment transporter, 324-25
descent engine, 262, 28849 TV camera, 169, 277, 348
Design Certification Review, 199, 209, 236-37 LM-11' (Orion), 290, 328
docking with CSM, 286 Apollo 16, 352-55
mission, 162, 168 flag kit, 352
propellant line leak, 234 mobile equipment transporter, 324-25
receiving inspection, 268 TV camera, 169, 277
spacecraft director, 166 LM-12 (Challenger), 169, 277, 290
stress corrosion, 206, 281 Apollo 17, 357-59 il.-60
toxicological evaluation, 229 midsection assembly collapse, 271
TV camera, 168-69, 277 LM-13, 169, 277, 290, 339
LM-4 (Snoopy), 41 LM-14, 169, 277, 290, 327, 339
Apollo 10, iv, 282, 296-97 il.-98 LM TM-2, 51 il.
ascent engine, 227-28, 252 LM TM-3, 35
ascent stage, 291, 298 LM TM-6, 42, 158
Customer Acceptance Readiness Review, 211, Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Lockheed Missiles and Space
244-45 Co., 18, 37, 372
delivery schedule, 168 London, 63, 314
insulation change, 169-70 Long, Franklin A., 64, 69-70
lunar orbit mission constraint study, 244 Los Angeles, 128, 311
minimum change, 41 Lousma, Jack R., 408-09
receiving inspection, 268 Lovell, James A., Jr., 74, 217, 243, 275, 329-32, 373-75,
spacecraft director, 166 381, 386, 392, 408
stress corrosion, 206, 281 Low, George M.
TV camera, 168-69, 277 Acting NASA Administrator, 340, 345
LM-5 (Eagle) ASPO Manager, 116, 119-24, 126-28, 130-42, 144,
Apollo 11, 282, 306-08 il.-09 il.-10 149, 150-57, 159-65, 168-69, 174-78, 180-81,
ascent engine, 227-28, 252 183, 187-90, 192-209, 211-15, 218--44, 246-54,
ascent stage, 116, 301 256-57, 260-61, 268-75, 277-86, 288, 290-95,
changes, 164 299-302, 304, 306, 311, 314-15
crew training, 273 MSC Deputy Director, 19, 21, 24, 36, 39--40, 55,
Customer Acceptance Readiness Review, 211, 56, 58-59, 62, 67, 77, 81, 100-01, 116
244-45 NASA Deputy Administrator, 319, 324, 325, 331 il.,
heatshield, 230 332, 337, 345, 356
insulation change, 169-70 LRV. See Lunar roving vehicle.
mission constraints, 244 LTA-B (lunar module test article B; on Apollo 8), 175,
spacecraft director, 166 239, 243-44, 269
stress corrosion, 206, 281 LTA-2R (on Apollo 6), 207, 215
TV camera, 169, 277 LTA-3, 206, 227, 228
window failure, 116, 185, 190, 206 LTA-4, 239
LM-6 (Intrepid) LTA-8, 143-44, 158-59, 170, 195-96, 221, 230
Apollo 12, 282, 316, 318-20 il.-21 LTA-10, 42
changes, 164, 290 LTA-10R (on Apollo 4), 172
delivery date, 290 Lucas, William R., 299
guidance, 312, 318 Luna 9, 377
propellant tank test failure, 267 Luna 10, 378
scientific payload weight, 292 Luna 11, 379
stress corrosion, 290 Luna 12, 380
TV camera, 169, 277, 319-20 Luna 13, 380
LM-7 (Aquarius) Luna 14, 385
Apollo I3, 282, 329-30 il.-32, 336, 339 Luna 15, 389
changes, 290 Luna 16, 340, 392-93, 397
delivery date, 290 Luna 17, 340, 393
propellant tank test failure, 267 Luna 18, 396
454
INDEX
Luna 19, 397 Apollo 16, v, 265, 350, 353 il., 354
Luna 20, 397 Apollo 17, v, 265, 358-60
Lunar and Planetary Missions Board, 202 approval, 264, 299, 301
Lunar excursion module (LEM). See LM (lunar contract, 316
module). MSFC management, 316
Lunar exploration (see also Apollo 11-17), vii, 282-83 power alternatives, 313
astronaut energy expenditure, 285-86 requirements, 188, 303, 312, 325
ground rules, vii, 155, 186, 188, 207-08, 247, weight, 312, 318
311-12 Lunar Roving Vehicle Task Team, 312
missions, vii, 301, 311-12 Lunar sample program (see also Lunar Receiving Lab-
plans, 40, 46, 155, 182, 186, 187-88, 190, 207-08 oratory and Appendix 5), 39, 151, 165, 264, 265,
program objectives, 278 307, 313-14, 317, 319-21, 326 il., 341-42, 348-49,
roving vehicle. See Lunar roving vehicle. 350, 353 il., 354-55, 357, 358-60, 362
Lunar exploration program (ALEM, ALEP, LEO, etc.), Lunar Sample Review Board, 350
205, 278, 322 Lunar samples, U.S.S.R., 392-93, 397
Lunar flyer development, 316 Lunar Science Conference, 264, 326
Lunar International Observer Network (LION), 310 Lunar Science Institute, 325-26, 357
Lunar landing mission (see also Apollo 11-17), 60-61 Lunar Worm Planetary Roving Vehicle, 19
basic missions, vii, 157, 182 Lundin, Bruce T., 225, 337
EVA, 245-49, 256-57, 260-61 Lunney, Glynn S., 362
first mission, 116, 155, 190, 192, 207-08, 245--49, Lunokhod roving lunar vehicle, 340, 392
256-57, 260-61, 272 Luskin, Harold T., 250
landing radar, 303
LM insulation, 169-70
LM testing, 178 M
parking orbit, 60--61
S-IVB restart requirement. See S-IVB.
McCandless, Bruce, II, 408-09
Saturn V performance, 60-61
site selection. See Lunar landing sites. McClanahan, Jack T., 51
TV, 15-17, 50, 245-47, 256-57, 261 McClintock, John G., 83
Lunar Landing Research Facility (LLRF), 10-11, 34, McCoy, Hugh E., 26, 71, 88
55, 212 McCullough, Hugh, 27
Lunar landing" research vehicle (LLRV), 2, 148--49 McDivitt, James A.
crew training, 55, 148--49, 212 ASPO Manager, 314, 315, 318, 322, 324-26, 328,
LLRV-1, 55,224, 225, 260 332, 336-38, 341,344, 346, 351,356
LLRV-2, 224 astronaut, 47, 56, 286-87, 289, 311,374, 387,408
Lunar landing sites. 6, 25, 34-35. 42, 50. 62. 102, 141, McDonald Observatory, Fort Davis, Tex., 313
McDonnell Aircraft Corp. (McDonnell Co., October
150, 265, 300, 307-08 il., 311,316, 319-20 il., 341-43
il., 346, 347 il.-49, 354, 358-59 il., 361 il. 1966-April 1967), 8, 18, 37, 65, 66
Lunar landing training vehicle (LLTV), 32, 340 il. Astronautics Co., 70
contract, 55, 148, 171 McDonnell Douglas Corp. (merged from Douglas Air-
crew training, 11, 34, 55, 148-49, 171, 174, 340 il. craft Co. and McDonnell Co., April 28, 1967), 166,
defects, 148-49, 171 240
Flight Readiness Review, 272,289, 302 McNair, Lewis L., 56
flight test program, 32, 272 McNamara, J. P., 190-91
ground tests, 224 McWhirter, Norris D., 314
LLTV-I, 260, 264, 272 Madden, Robert T., 165
LLTV-2, 289 Madrid, 50
Lunar mapping and survey system (LMSS), 148, 214 Magliato, Frank, 49
Lunar Mission Planning Board, 2, 62, 187-88 Malley, George T., 64, 74
Lunar Mobility Task Team, 312 Mallick, Donald L., 224
Lunar module. See LM. Mangan, William D., 101
Lunar module test article. See LTA. Manned Flight Management Council, 56, 139, 199, 202-
Lunar Orbiter I, 2, 34-35, 42, 62, 379 03, 249, 290
Lunar Orbiter 1I, 2, 49-50, 62, 102, 381 Apollo 8 decision, 240-41
Lunar Orbiter llI, 62, 381 Apollo 15 anomalies, 350
Lunar Orbiter IV, 382 Apollo capability augmentation requirements,
Lunar Orbiter V, 102, 116, 148, 150, 383 282-83
first lunar landing activities, 247-49, 256-57
Lunar Orbiter Project Otfiee, 34-35, 42, 50
"Hideaway" meeting, 46-47
Lunar polar orbit science package, 283
Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL), 17, 22, 26, 31, 32, Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), 128, 220
Manned space flight awareness program, 210, 223, 314
38, 41, 54-56, 165, 261, 264, 279, 298, 302, 312, 314,
Manned Space Flight Experiment Board (MSFEB), 54,
315
130
Lunar roving vehicle (Lunar Rover), 328
Manned Space Flight Network, iv, 15, 59, 272
Apollo 15, v_ 265, 346 il., 347 il., 348, 350-51
455
INDEX
Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC; Johnson Space Center Lunar Exploration Working Group, 225
after Feb. 17, 1973; see also Appendix 10) Lunar Receiving Laboratory. See Lunar Receiving
Advanced Spacecraft Technology Div., 16, 33 Laboratory.
Advanced Systems Office, 57 Lunar Surface Programs Office, 102, 234
Aircraft Maintenance-Quality Assurance Br., 224 Lunar Surface Project Office, 57
Aircraft Operation Office, 224 Lunar Surface Technology Br., 5
Apollo 13 Investigation Team, 336, 337
manned space flight mission responsibilities, 9, 31,
Apollo Back Contamination and Configuration 46-47
Control Office, 295 Medical Research and Operations Directorate, 165
Apollo Entry Performance Review Board, 160-61 Mission Control Center. See Mission Control Center.
Apollo Mission Simulator Office, 38 Mission Planning and Analysis Div., 7, 179-80
Apollo Procurement Br., 25, 27, 35, 38, 4.2 Mission Operations Div., 10, 49, 102, 123
Apollo-Soyuz Test Program Manager, 362 Operations Analysis Br., 60
Apollo Spacecraft Program Office. See Apollo organization changes, 16
Spacecraft Program Office. Photographic Technology Laboratory, 315
Apollo Test Office, 273-74
Procurement and Contracts Div., 27, 35, 38, 42
Applications Plans and Analysis Office, 57 Propulsion and Power Div., 191, 231
Applications Project Office, 57 Reliability and Quality Assurance Office, 225
Assistant Director for Flight Crew Operations, 6 Reliability, Quality and Test Div., 120
Assistant Director for Flight Operations, 7, 17 renamed Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC),
Astronaut Office, 224 viii, 362
Center Medical Office, 16-17, 70 Rendezvous Analysis Br., 7
Change Control Board. See Apollo Program Office. Science and Applications Directorate, 139, 165
Checkout and Test Div., 5 simulators. See Simulators.
Chief of Center Medical Programs, 16 Space Environment Simulation Laboratory, 13 il.,
Crew Systems Div., 16, 76, 135, 269, 273-74 39, 40, 143, 195, 270-71, 273, 326 il.
Crew Systems Laboratory, 101 Space Medicine Directorate, 16
Deputy Director. See Kraft, Christopher C., Jr.; Space Physics Div., 57
Low, George M.; Sjoberg, Sigurd A.; and Space Science Div., 16-17
Trimble, George S., Jr. Space Science Office, 16
Director. See Gilruth, Robert R., and (after Jan. Spacecraft Design Div., 292
14, 1972), Kraft, Christopher C., Jr. Special Assistant to the Director for Organizational
Director of Administration, 55 Affairs, 356
Director of Engineering and Development. See Structures and Mechanics Div., 121, 130-31,
Faget, Maxime A.
136-37, 172, 211, 244
Director of Flight Crew Operations. See Slayton, Systems Engineering Div., 8, 134, 139-40, 155,
Donald K. 158, 284
Director of Flight Operations (see also Kraft, Technical Assistant for Apollo, 7, 15, 38, 58
Christopher C., Jr.), viii, 323, 325 Test and Operations Office, 57
Director of Medical Research and Operations, 135, Thermochemical Test Area, 122-23
145, 165, 298, 305 Thermodynamics and Materials Br., 219
Director of Science and Applications, 139, 145, 273 Water Immersion Facility, 147, 298
dynamic load testing, 241 Mapping and survey system, 30
Engineering and Development Directorate, 16-17, Mardel, Alfred D., 65, 74
120, 159, 163, 220, 221, 225, 283-84 Mariner program, 304
Engineering and Development Manager, Experi- Mercury-Venus flights, 315
ments, 16 Markley, J. Thomas, 83, 87-88
Engineering Office, 32 Marquardt Corp., 206, 372
Environmental Medicine Office, 39 Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), 6, 22, 185
Experiments Program Office, 9, 24, 30 Apollo Program Manager, 181
Experiments Review Group, 326 Director. See von Braun, Wernher.
Flammability Test Review Board, 158 Director of Program Management, 345
Flight Acceleration Facility, 292-93 Director of Quality and Reliability Assurance, 24.1
Flight Control Div., 7, 14, 25, 60 LRV simulator, 338
Flight Crew Operations Directorate, 5, 25, 33, 88, manned space flight mission responsibilities, 25, 30,
119, 120, 158-60, 202, 283-84 31, 35 if., 46-47, 316, 318
Flight Crew Support Div., 34, 38 Mission Operations Manager, 235-36
Flight Experiment Selection Board, 19, 26 planetary vehicle experiments, 47
Flight Operations Directorate, 22, 123 Propulsion Div., 142
Flight Program Review, 271-72 Research Projects Laboratory, 47
Flight Safety Office, 120-21, 153, 163, 225 Saturn IB Program Manager, 253
Guidance and Control Div., 6, 33 Saturn Program Office, 35, 83, 316
Instrumentation and Electronic Systems Div., 121, Saturn V Program Manager, 235, 244, 278
130-31
Saturn V Test Management Office, 267
Landing and Recovery Div., 217 scientific survey module, 4-7
Lunar and Earth Sciences Div., 57 Martin Co., The, 18, 37, 240
456
INDEX
Sea of Tranquility, 307, 308 il., 313, 361 il., 383,

Martin, James S., Jr., 185
389
Mascons, 349
Sea of Vapors, 297 il.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 5, 9, 15,
Sinus Medii, 141, 383
31-32, 203-04, 240, 272
Instrumentation Laboratory, 185 Spook Crater, 354
Sterno Crater, 399
Lincoln Laboratory, 5
Stone Mountain, 398
Mathews, Charles W., 65-66, 70, 182, 251, 255 il.,
Survey Ridge, 398
256-57, 318
Taurus-Littrow region, 265, 3ll, 358, 359 il., 361
Mathews, Edward R., 322
Triesnecker Crater, 297 il.
Mattingly, Thomas K.. II, 329, 352-56, 376, 397,
Tycho, Crater, 311
408-09
Morea, Saverlo F., 312, 313, 316, 318
Mattson, Axel T., 10
Morgan, D., 8
Mayer, John P., 7, 185
Morris, Owen G., 134, 195, 328, 336, 356
Maynard, Owen E., 49, 62, 102, 138, 148, 183, 226,
Morrow, Thomas F., 240
249-51, 257
Moscow, 63
Medcalf, W. M., 85
Moser, Robert E., 71
Megow, Larry, 279 MR-3 (Mercury-Redstone 3), 373
Meisells, G. G., 26
Mrazek, William A., 200, 249-50
Menard, J. Z., 18 Mueller, George E., 9, 13, 15-22, 25-27, 29, 32, 39--44,
Mercury program, iv, 72, 79, 116, 254, 351
47, 50, 54-57, 60-61, 65, 68, 71, 72, 76-78, 80, 83,
Merritt Island, Fla. See Launch Complex 39.
100, 110, 124-25, 130-36, 141, 146-50, 157, 163,
Messina, Frank, 189
165, 174, 176, 185, 191, 194, 203-10, 218, 220,
Meyer, Andr_ J., Jr., 187
228-30, 232-41, 250, 253-54, 255 il., 260-63, 271-75,
Michel, F. Curtis, 9
283, 288, 290, 293-96, 302, 304, 318, 322, 332
Michoud Operations plant, 35 il.
Mullaney, Robert S., 27, 29
Middleton, Roderick O., 87, 163, 168, 173, 183, 215,
Muller, Paul M., 293
221, 229, 237, 251, 294, 298 Murphy, Walter P., 71
Middletown, Ohio, 260 Myers, Dale D.
Milwitzky, Benjamin, 300 NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space
Mine Safety Appliance Co., 990 Flight, 327, 335, 340, 345, 352, 356-57, 360,
Mission Control Center, MSC, 6, 7, 33, 50, 272, 278, 362
301, 304, 318, 331 il., 353 il. North American Apollo Program Manager, 49,
Mitchell, Edgar D., 291, 338 il., 341-43, 375, 394, 126-27, 134, 145, 151, 154, 162, 166-67, 174,
4O8-O9 186-87, 190-94, 199-201, 208-15, 219, 231,
Mobile equipment transporter (MET), 324-25, 338 il., 249-52, 260, 281
342-43 il.
Mobile quarantine facility, 302, 303, 309, 313, 318,
321 il., 322 N
Modisette, Jerry, 9
Mohlere, Edward D., 177 NASA High Thrust Test Area, Edwards, Calif., 35 il.
Moon (see also Lunar headings) NASA/NAR ECS Safety Review Board, 156
Aristarchus, 310 NASA/North American management meeting, 139
Censorinus, Crater, 311 NASA Task Team-Block II Redefinition, CSM. See
Central Bay area, 297 il. CSM.
Copernicus, Crater, 311 Nathan, Ernest B., 249
Descartes, 265, 346, 354, 361 il., 398 National Academy of Sciences, 151
distance from earth, 313 Committee on Toxicology, 135
National Aeronautic Association, 220
Flag Crater, 354
Fra Mauro, 300, 311, 361 il., 394 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA;
Hadley-Apennine region, 265, 347 il., 348, 361 il., see also Appendix 10), 151, 361
396 Acting Administrator, 271-73, 288, 340, 345
Administrator. See Webb, James E.; Paine, Thomas
Hipparehus, 300
Hyginus Rille, 311 O.; and Fletcher, James C.
Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and
Kant region, 346
Kohlschutter Crater, 353 il. Technology, 158
Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight.
Marius Hills, 311
See Mueller, George E.
Mills Crater, 353 il.
Ocean of Storms (Oceanus Procellarum), 25, 311, Deputy, 116, 185
Associate Administrator for Space Science and
319, 320 il., 391, 393
Plum Crater, 353 il. Applications (see also Newell, Homer E.; and
Naugle, John E.,), 336-37
Ray Crater, 398
Chief Scientist (proposed), 324
Schr6ter's Valley, 311
Deputy Administrator. See Seamans, Robert C.,
Sea of Crises, 397
Jr.; Paine, Thomas O.; and Low, George M.
Sea of Fertility, 393, 397
Deputy Administrator for Planning, 13, 329
Sea of Rains, 393
457
INI) gX
Director of Key Personnel Development, 351 Aerospace Systems Group, 158

Flight Systems Office, 187-88
Design Requirements Group, 162
Lunar and Planetary Programs Office, 5, 12 Commercial Projects Group, 158
Lunar Science Office, 187-88 Group Vice President--Aerospace and Systems,
NASA Project Designation Committee, 22, 100, 337-38
110
merged with Rockwell-Standard Corp., 158
NASA Safety Director, 225 reorganization, 326, 338
North American Management Performance Award gocketdyne Div., 35, 43, 117, 149, 178-80, 189-91,
Board, 228 194, 227-28, 252, 372
Office of Advanced Research and Technology Space Div. (Space Informations System Div. before
(PART), 12, 30-31 May 1, 1967), Downey, Calif.
Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF), 30-31, accident, 61, 163
38, 185, 311 Apollo 13 oxygen tank, 333-34, 338-39
Apollo Applications. See Apollo Applications Apollo Special Task Team, 176-78, 194, 215,
program 250
Apollo Mission Director, 30, 148 Bethpage, N.Y., office, 29
Apollo Program Director. See Phillips, Samuel Block II Redefinition Task Team. See CSM.
C.; and Petrone, Rocco A. CM, CSM arrival, 19, 68, 175, 221
Apollo Program Office, 24, 81, 125, 127, contract, 5, 80, 132, 133, 134, 137, 140,
187-88, 293, 315 145-46, 228, 249, 372
Lunar Exploration Office, 186, 187-88 SLA, 5, 134
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Director, 362 subcontracts, 44-45, 137, 228
budget, 41, 127, 205 deficiencies, problems, 2, 8, 24, 48-49, 130,
Director of Apollo Reliability and Quality, 137, 166-67, 176-78, 189, 190, 194, 215,
127-28 228, 249-50
Director of Mission Operations, 22, 143, 203 modifications, 24, 61, 80
Office of Program Reports, 20 optical alignment sight, LM, 10
Office of Space Science (OSS), 362 quality control, 129, 166-67, 176-78, 190,
Lunar Programs Office, 362 251-52
Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA), renamed, 127
13-14, 24, 30, 38, 152, 186 Seal Beach plant, 61
Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition (OTDA), spacecraft delivery schedule, 12, 19, 126-27,
31
134, 136, 138, 145-46, 221, 249
Planning Coordination Steering Group, 40 tests, 2, 126-27, 129-30, 146, 210, 214,
reorganization, 185, 186-187 251-52
Research Advisory Committees, 158 failures, 48-49, 61, 169, 176-77, 194-95
Western Support Office, 61 Tulsa, Okla., plant, 48
National Aeronautics and Space Council, 234, 361 North, Warren J., 34, 38, 180
National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Northrop Corp., 160, 372
362 Apollo Experiment Pallet program, 18, 37
National Cathedral Space Window, 265, 363 il. Northrop Space Laboratories, 18, 37
National Space Club Salute to Apollo, 265, 361 Northrop-Ventura Co., tests, 26, 160, 169, 174,
National Space Science Data Center, 351-52 192, 194-95, 198-200, 218-19
Naugle, John E., 165, 350, 357, 362 Norwalk, Conn., 52
Naval Research Laboratory, 70, 71 Nunamaker, Robert R., 362
Neai, James L., 14, 29, 212
Neugebauer, Marcia M., 9
New Orleans, La., 32, 35 O
Newell, Homer E.
NASA Associate Administrator, 202, 205-06 PAP (Orbiting Astronomical Observatory), 324
NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science O'Brien, B. J., 9
and Applications, 9, 16, 24, 26, 29, 35, 39, O'Bryant, William T., 14, 58-59
55-56, 58-59, 102
Ocean of Storms (Oceanus Procellarum), 24, 311, 319,
Nichols, Donald D., 73 320 il., 391, 393
Nicks, Oran W., 5, 182, 250 O'Connor, Edmund F., 20
Nields, James F., 220, 265, 288, 307, 319, 329, 345, Odyssey. See Apollo 13 and CSM 109.
363, 364
Oliver, Lt. Col. Jeptha D., 225
Nikolayev, Andrian G., 393
Orbital debris hazard, 208
Nixon, President Richard M., 265, 288, 307, 319, 329, Orbital rate drive electronics for Apollo and LM
345, 363, 364 (ORDEAL), 37
Nolan, James P., Jr., 203 Orbiter program, 6
North American Aviation, Inc. (NAA; until Sept. 22, Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (PAP), 324
1967). See North American Rockwell Corp. Orion. See Apollo 16 and LM-I 1.
North American Rockwell Corp. (NR; 1967-1973; Orlando, Fla., 81
Rockwell International Corp. after Feb. 16, 1973), Ould, J. Wallace, 225
69, 71, 121 i]., 240 Overmyer, Robert F., 409
458
INDEX
Powell, James E., 143

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Die., United Aircraft Corp.,
Pacific Ocean recovery area, 13, 37, 117, 173, 216, 137, 372
264-65, 277, 282, 298, 307, 322, 331-32, 342, 350, Pregnant Guppy (transport aircraft), 42
356, 360 President of the United States, 82, 234, 265, 288, 307,
Page, George F., 74 319, 345, 363, 364
Palge, Hilliard W., 178, 240 space program objectives, 329
Paine, Thomas O., 363 President's Scientific Advisory Committee (PSAC), 64,
Acting NASA Administrator, 271-73, 288 69, 241
Deputy NASA Administrator, 225, 239-41 President's Space Task Group (STG), 293, 324
NASA Administrator, 288, 296, 324, 326, 331 il., Press, Frank, 9
332, 337, 338, 345 Preston, G. Merritt, 71
Parachutes, 160 Project Mercury, iv, 72, 79, 116, 254, 351
Apollo 8, 277 Purser, Paul E., 15, 187
Ballute system, 164-65
CSM 101, 174
drogue, 130, 162, 169, 180, 192, 213, 218-19 Q
drop test failure, 169, 180, 192, 194-95, 213, 231
full-gale tests, 20, 180, 194-95
Queijo, Manuel J., 15
main, 139, 192
packing, 26, 174, 219
review, 174, 194-95, 197, 218-19
test vehicles, 169, 180, 192, 194-95, 199-200
It
Parker, Robert A. R., 409
Parmalee Plastics, 220 Raines, Martin L., 87, 143, 145, 190, 197, 225, 241,
Pasadena, Calif., 293 270, 290
Patsayev, Viktor I., 395 RAM C-II, 385
Patteson, Andrew W., 5 RAM C-III, 393
Paul, Hans G., 142 Ranger program, 40
Peacock, James M., 8 RASPO (Resident Apollo Spacecraft Program Office).
Pegaaus llI meteoroid detection satellite, 286 See Apollo Spacecraft Program Office.
Pendley, David B., 260, 269, 281, 325 Rathke, C. William, 27, 137
Pennington, Jack E., 54 Rawers, Lt. Col. James W. (USAF), 66
Peper, Craig K., 38 Raytheon Corp., 15, 372
Perkin-Elmer Corp., 52 RCA Corp., 25-26, 372
Perrine, Calvin H., Jr., 56, 123 R4D rocket engine, 361-62
Petermn, Donald H., 409 Reaction control system (RCS). See SM (service
Petrone, Rocco A. module).
KSC Director of Launch Operations, 20, 24, 70, Redondo Beach, Calif., 206
190, 237-39, 268-69, 289, 305 Reece, L. D., 85
NASA Apollo Program Director, 313-15, 325, Reentry F, 385
327-28, 332, 340-41, 344, 346, 351--52, 353 il. Rees, Eberhard F. M., 116, 117, 163, 174, 176-78,
Petynia, William W., 74, 75 190-91, 194-95, 197, 199-200, 209, 212-13, 215,
Philco Corp., 152 219, 238, 245, 250, 252, 329, 345
Aeronutronic Die., 19, 24 Reiffel, Leonard, 13, 54, 59, 142-43
Philco-Ford, 240 Rice University, 9
Phillips, Samuel C., 3, 6, 11-27, 31-32, 42, 45, 49, Richard, Ludie G., 185, 238-39
52-54, 59-62, 65, 71, 77, 81, 87-88, 109-10, 120, Richardson, Keith A., 26
123-54, 157, 161-64, 168-70, 174, 178-82, 186-90, Rippey, James O., 408-09
193, 196-205, 208, 211, 214-27, 232-41, 245--61, Roberts, Conway H., 224
267-68, 271-74, 277-302, 311-13, 315, 331 il. Rocchio, J. J., 31-32
Phinney, Robert A., 350 Rocketdyne. See North American Rockwell Corp.
Picketing, John E., 165 Rockwell-Standard Corp., 158
Pickering, William H., 36 Rodano Research Corp., 6
Piland, Joseph V., 26 Roosa, Stuart A., 217, 280 il., 341-43 il., 375, 394,
Piland, Robert O., 16, 19, 24, 47, 58, 62, 102, 183 408-09
Pinkel, I. Irving, 65, 70, 72, 150, 219 Rose, Rodney G., 59-60, 201
Pioneer (space probe), 324 Ross, I. Miles, 31-32, 225
Pitman, Clarence, 185 RTG. See Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package,
Platt, William E., 59
radioisotope thermoelectric generator.
Pogue, William R., 408-09
Rubey, William W., 350
Pohl, Henry O., 48
Rudolph, Arthur, 173, 175, 221, 278
Polifka, Robert W., 48
Porcher, Arthur G., 280 il. Rukavishnikov, Nikolay N., 394
Portable life support system (PLSS), 60, 274, 282, Russell, Harold G., 125
294, 315, 327, 343-44 Ryker, Norman J., Jr., 194-95
459
INDEX
pogo effect, 215, 222, 233-34, 237, 241, 242, 244,

247, 254
S-IB (Saturn IB first stage), 2, 28, 32, 35 il., 37 program shift to Saturn V, 259
S-IC (Saturn V first stage), 172, 215, 232, 244, 254, safety factors, 247
291, 293 SM tank failure impact, 48
S-II (Saturn V second stage), 61, 172, 215, 294 test flight program, iii, 182, 227
S-IVB (Saturn IB second stage; Saturn V third stage), wind constraint, 251
25, 404 Saturn V 503 (see also AS-503 and Apollo 8), 242-44
Apollo missions. See Apollo 4-17, launch; and Saturn V 504 (see also AS-504 and Apollo 9), 243
Apollo 7, objectives. Saturn V 515, 326
AS-202, 2, 37 Saturn-Apollo Flight Evaluation Panel, 249
AS-203, 2, 28, 379 Savage, Melvyn, 27
CSM separation and .rendezvous, 29, 88, 123, 139, Sawyer, R. W., 166
140, 142, 235, 258, 286-87 il., 296, 329, 341, Sayre, Francis B., 363
348, 404 Scheer, Julian, 16, 22, 100, 110
explosion, 2, 61, 62, 75, 109-10 Scherer, Lee R., 186, 187, 250-51, 327, 346
impact on moon, 301, 329, 331, 341, 348, 352-53, Schirra, Waiter M., Jr., 41, 53 il., 78, 116, 133, 231,
358 257-58 il.-59, 272, 374, 385, 408
liquid-oxygen venting, 56 Schmitt, Harrison H., 138, 357-59 il.--60, 376, 399-
restart capability, iii, 61, 131, 175, 216 400, 408-09
visibility study, 32-33, 48, 54 Schneider, William C., 173, 218, 236, 239, 247, 254,
SA-201 (Saturn-Apollo 201), etc. See AS-201, etc., 257, 259, 315
and AS-501, etc. Schweickart, Russell L., 47, 56, 286-87, 289, 374, 387-
Sacramento, Calif., 2, 61-62 88, 408
Saegesser, Lee D., xiv Scientific and Technical Advisor,/ Committee (STAC),
Saint Louis, Mo., 37 241
Salyut 1, 394-95 Scientific instrument, module (SIM). See SM (service
San Diego Naval Air Station, 356 module).
Santa Barbara, Calif., 316 Scientists' dissatisfaction, 323-24
Santa Cruz, Calif., 187 Scott, David R., 2, 12-13, 47, 56, 286-87 il., 289,
Santa Monica, Calif., 61 344 il., 347 il.-50, 374, 376, 377, 387, 395-96, 408-09
Sargent Industries, Airite Div., 252, 267 Scout launch vehicle, 385, 393
Sasseen, George T., 101 Seal Beach, Calif., 61
Saturn IB launch vehicle ("uprated Saturn r' May 12, Seamans, Robert C., Jr., 2, 3, 13, 15-17, 20, 22, 28,
1966-Dec. 2, 1967), 48, 82 30-31, 39, 46, 50-51, 55, 63, 65, 68---69, 75-79, 80,
AS--201, 2, 10, 377 83, 132, 136, 140, 148, 150, 162, 165
A3-202, 2, 37, 380 Seattle, Wash., 316
AS--203, 2, 28, 379 Sebring, Paul B., 5
AS-204 (Apollo 1 and Apollo 5), 97, 116, 130, Secondary life support system (SLSS), 315, 317-18,
171, 196 327
AS-205 (Apollo 7), 117, 171, 257, 377 Seiff, Alvin, 161
AS-206, 68-69, 76, 97, 162, 171, 229 Seitz, Frederick, 151
AS-207, 6, 7, 12 Semmes, B. J., Jr., 298
contract, 32 Senior Flammability Review Board, 116, 121, 193, 201-
mission designations, 100, 110, 127, 157, 200 02, 203, 209
name change, 22, 179 Service module. See SM.
OMSF responsibility, 315 Service propulsion system (SPS). See SM.
performance, 377, 379, 380, 384, 385 Sevastyanov, Vitaly I., 392
program on standby, 259 Sevier, John R., 157
rendezvous (see also Apollo 7), 142 Shapley, Willis B., 55, 179
wind constraint, 251 Shatalov, Vladimir A., 387, 390, 394
Saturn V launch vehicle (see also AS-500-F, AS--501, Shea, Joseph F.
etc. and S--IB and S-IVB stages), iv, 82, 216 il.,
ASPO Manager, 6, 11, 12, 19-21, 24-27, 29-31,
255 il., 308 il.
38-39, 41-44, 47-49, 53-54, 59-60, 63, 70,
A-J missions, 157
74-75, 77-78, 109, 119
abort, 163, 254
NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned
bending loads, 232, 254
Space Flight, 119
budget, 150
Shepard, Alan B., Jr., 338 il., 340 il., 341-43 il., 373,
design, 191, 232, 247
375, 394, 409
emergency detection system, 247
engine, 35 il., 43 il., 215, 222, 232, 247, 254 Shepherd, James T., 345
manning, 123, 179, 191 Sheridan, Robert B., 318
manual-control simulation, 33-34 Shinkle, John G., 44, 47-48, 71
OMSF responsibility, 315 Shonin, Georgy S., 390
performance, 61, 83, 217, 235, 249, 384, 386-89, Sieppert, Albert F., 71
392, 394, 395, 397, 399 Silveira, Milton A., 169
460
INDEX
Simpkinson, Scott H., 71, 73, 126, 163, 167, 174, 214, Software Review Board, 203-04
226, 317, 328, 336, 337, 356 Software Task Force, 117, 185, 204, 250
Simulators (see also Lunar Landing Research Facility, Sonett, Charles P., 9
Lunar landing research vehicle, and Lunar landing Source Evaluation Board, 13, 18, 132
training vehicle), 39, 51 il., 72, 288 Soyuz l through 11, 382-95
Ames Research Center flight simulator, 33-34 Space Environment Simulation Laboratory. See Manned
Apollo Mission (AMS), 38, 128, 147, 159-60, Spacecraft Center.
197 iL, 246 Space program
command module. See CM, mockups. objectives, vii, 40, 323-24, 329
computers, 33, 40, 53, 288 scientists and, 323-24
Configuration Control Panel, 159 trends, 340
Dynamic Crew Procedure Simulator, 203 Space rescue, 21, 53-54, 59
helicopter, 55 Space Sci.ence Steering Committee, 39, 130
large space environment, 13 il., 39-40, 143, 195, Planetary Biology Subcommittee, 39
270-71, 273, 326 il. Space Shuttle program, vi, 293, 324
launch vehicle, 33-34, 120 Space Shuttle Task Group, 293
LM, 9, 15, 32-33, 40, 53, 56, 146 Space station, 40, 324
Lunar Orbit and Landing Approach (LOLA), 15 Space Task Group (MSC forerunner), 351
lunar roving vehicle, 338 Space Task Group, President's, 293, 324
I/6-g, 11 il., 290 Space treaty, 63
'partial gravity, 316 Space Window, 265, 363 il.
Rendezvous Docking, 74 Spacecraft-lunar module adapter. See SLA.
zero-g, 54 Spacecraft reentry, uncontrolled, 208
Sjoberg, Sigurd A., 123, 220, 302-03, 316, 325, 351 Spacesuit, 345 il.
Sjogren, William L., 293 A7L suit modifications, 315
Skylab program, iii, v-vi, 346, 356 A9L suit procurement, 282
SLA (spacecraft-lunar module adapter), 5, 30, 37, 78, Apollo Block I, 18
134, 146-47, 153 il., 175, 190 Apollo Block II, 58, 106, 145, 150, 232, 345 il.
SLA-9, 207 constant-wear garment, 18, 173-74
SLA-101, 175 dust problem, 323
Slayton, Donald K. ("Deke'), 5, 6, 10, 19, 25, 29, 30, failure, 76, 98, 106, 109, 144, 145
38-39, 52-54, 56-58, 60, 78, 88, 144, 145, 147, 158- integrity, 144, 147, 323
60, 164, 170, 171, 180, 188, 193, 201, 207-08, 218, mobility, 226-27, 315, 345 il.
224, 231, 238-41, 246, 256, 268, 274-75, 298, 300, pressure suit, 11, 338, 345 il.
314, 316, 323, 325 review, 232-33, 274
SM (service module), iv, 82, 330 il., 339 il. test, 72, 81, 150
Block II, 25, 208, 248 il. Special Task Team for Spacecraft 103 Contamination
experiment hardware, 18, 25, 37 Control, 195, 198-99
explosion. See Apollo 13. Speer, Fridtjof A., 235-36, 322
modifications, 25, 328 Spider. See Apollo 9 and LM-9.
reaction control system (RCS) 36, 46, 58, 166-67, Stafford, Thomas P., 42, 56, 133, 291, 296-98, 374,
177-78, 206, 211,230 378, 388, 408
scientific instrument module (SIM), v, 25, 328, Stahl, Cdr. Charles J. (USN), 63
349 il.-50, 353 il., 355 il., 356, 358, 360, 396, Stanford Unix, ersity, 9
399 Stem, Eric, 122
service propulsion system (SPS), iv, 2, 12, 14, 19, Stevenson, John D., 182, 203, 208, 225, 250, 282
110, 193-94, 208, 209, 212-13, 216, 220, 231, Stewart, William, 28
258, 268, 271, 272, 276-77, 298, 307 Steyer, Wesley A., 194
SM 011, 19 Stoner, George H., 159, 178, 201
SM 012, 75, 77, 87-88 Stoney, William E., Jr., 6, 62, 312, 325
SM 017 propellant tank failure, 48-49, 109 Stoops, Gordon J., 74, 133
SM 020, 211 Strang, Col. Charles F. (USAF), 64, 65, 66, 68, 71,
SM 101, 48, 166-67, 179, 193-94, 208, 230 74
SM 102, 179, 191, 193-94, 208 Strickland, Arthur T., 5
SM 105, 227 Structures Advisory Board, 269
SM 111, 219 Stuhllnger, Ernst, 47, 182, 251, 324
Smith, Arlin G., 267 Sunnyvale, Calif., 37
Smith, Francis B., 55 Super Guppy (transport aircraft), 35
Smith, Hinchman & GryUs, 32 Surveyor I, 2, 24, 34, 36, 300, 378
Smith, R. L., 313 Surveyor 11, 40, 380
Smith, Richard G., 338, 344, 351 Surveyor III (Surveyor C), v, 102, 141, 264, 300, 315,
Smylie, Robert E., 195 318, 320 il., 321,382, 391
SNAP-27. See Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Surveyor IV, 141, 384
Package, radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Surveyor IT, 383
Snedeker, John C., 14 Surveyor VI, 383
Snyder, Conway W., 9 Surveyor Vll, 311, 384
461
INDEX
Surveyor program, 36, 40, 148 U.S. Congress, iii, 20, 140, 205
Sutton, George, 9 Apollo 204 fire, 72, 80, 110-11, 125, 131, 157
Swieda, Ernest, 71 Apollo program costs, 2, 16, 289, 338
Swigert, John L., Jr., 329, 330 il., 375, 392, 408-09 House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 16,
81-83, 131, 157, 289, 335
Subcommittee on NASA Oversight, 110-11,
131, 157
Senate, 16, 319
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sci-
Taeuber, Ralph J., 166, 190-91
ences, 72, 80, 110-11, 131, 157, 340, 362
Talbert, Rexford H., 143
U.S. Geological Survey, 9, 35, 322
Taylor, Clinton L., 23
U.S. Navy, 63, 78, 173 il., 298
Taylor, James J., 187
Navy Deputy Commander for Ship Acquisitions, 44
Taylor, William H., 195
, San Diego Naval Air Station, 356
Teir, William, 75, 253
U.S. Public Health Service, 28
Television, 50-51, 134, 356, 363
USNS Msrcury (tracking ship), 44
CM, 15-17, 25, 50-51, 117, 168-69, 218, 258-59, USNS Redstone, 44
264, 273, 275-77, 296-98, 302, 306, 319-22,
USNS Vanguard, 44
329, 341-42, 348, 385
U.S.S. Bsnnington (recovery ship), 172, 173 il.
color, 264, 296-98, 302, 306-07, 319, 348
U.S.S. Essex, 258 il., 259
LM, 25, 168-69, 273, 277, 286, 306, 319-30, 348
U.S.S. Guadalcanal, 281, 287
lunar surface, 15-17, 24, 50, 265, 309, 340--41, 349,
U.S.S. Hornet, 37, 303, 304, 308-09
354
U.S.S. lwo lima, 332
Thibodaux, Joseph G., Jr., 48, 158, 231
U.S.S. Mason, 13
Thompson, Floyd L., 6, 11, 19, 33, 42
U.S.S. New Orleans, 342
Chairman, Apollo 204 Review Board, 3, 63, 66,
U.S.S. Okinawa, 216, 350
67, 71, 73, 75, 77-80, 97, 101, 128, 133, 136
U.S.S. Princeton, 298
Thor-Delta launch vehicle, 383
U.S.S. Ticonderoga, 337, 360, 399, 400
Tindall, Howard W., Jr., 7, 179-80, 191-92, 217, 236,
U.S.S. Yorktown, 277
241, 255, 278
U.S.S.R. (see aim Luna, Salyut, and Soyuz), 63, 340
Titan II Launch vehicle, 377-81
Titterton, George F., 27, 41, 134
Tracking ships, 44
V
Trimble, George S., Jr., 163-64, 205, 275, 301, 323
Tripp, Ralph H., 256, 277, 328
Trott, Jack, 177 Van Dolah, Robert W., 65, 69, 73, 75, 76, 78, 97, 219
Truszynski, Gerald M., 40 Vaughn, N., 74
TRW Inc., 185, 203-04 Vavra, Paul H., 261
Systems Div., 206 Vecchietti, George J., 24
Turnock, James H., 182, 251 Vehicle Assembly Building. See Kennedy Space Center.
Vienna, Austria, 238--39
Vincze, John, 190
U Vitagliano, H. Douglas, 146
Volkov, Vladislav N., 390, 395
Volynov, Boris V., 387
Udall, Stewart L., 151
yon Braun, Werner, 30, 46-47, 125, 146, 148-49, 176,
United Kingdom, 63
United Nations General Assembly, 63 178, 238-39, 281, 299, 323-24, 346 ii.
United States Space Week, 265, 364
Universal Studios, 363
W
University of Houston, 26
University of Maryland, 130
U.S. Air Force, 71, 78, 148, 213 Wade, Donald C., 222
Bioastronautic Operational Support Unit, 63, 78 Wagner, R. L., 27, 283
Brooks AFB, Tex., 66, 68 Wake hland, 37
Eastern Test Range, 66, 70, 150, 170 Walker, Thomas J., III, 356
Ellington, AFB, Tex., 19 Walton, Bruce H., 59
Manned Orbiting Laboratory Systems Program Of- Wardell, Anthony W., 132-33, 136
rice, 128, 220 Warren, Dickie K., 408-09
Norton, AFB, Calif., 225 Warzecha, Ladislaus, 176
Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO), Wash, Michael R., 408-09
311 Washington Cathedral Space Window, 265, 363 il.
space rescue studies, 21 Washington, D.C., 15, 63, 78, 79, 148, 187, 239, 265,
Space Systems Div., 128 350, 361
Systems Command, AFSC, 21 Watkins, Allen H., 48
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 101, 220 Watklns, J. S., 9
U.S. Army, 63 Weaver, Charles H., 36
462
INDEX
Webb, James E., 3, 13, 16, 20, 56, 57, 68, 76, 78, 79, Williams, W., 71
110, 131, 132, 140, 150, 151, 164, 175-79, 185, 194, Williamson, David, Jr., 78
222, 238--41,248 Willoughby, Willis Jr., 87
Wedun, A. G., 261 Wilmarth, Verl L., 165
Weissman, Don, 138 Wilson, T. A., 240
Weltz, Paul J., 408 Wise, Donald U., 262
West, Julian M., 213 Witherington, Guy N., 102
West, Robert B., 169 Woomera, Australia, 150
West Point, N.Y., 67 Worden, Alfred N., 195, 344 il., 347-50, 376, 395, 408
Western Operations Office, 9 World records. See F_d_ration A_ronautique Interna-
Western Ways, Inc., 199-200 tionale.
Westinghouse Electric Corp., 36, 372 Wrlght-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 101, 220
Aerospace Div., 36 Wydler, Congressman John W., 81
Atomic Defense and Space Group, 36 Wyle Laboratories, 241
Wetter, C. F., 245
White, Edward H., II, iii, 2, 47, 63, 67, 68, 100, 112
White, George C., Jr., 64, 73, 126-28, 133, 170 X Y Z
White, Hugh D., 48
White, Lyle D., 226
White, Maynard E., 174 Yale University, 9
White House, 287, 329 Yankee Clipper. See Apollo 12 and CSM 108.
White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mex., 20, Yardley, John F., 65-66, 70
78 Yeamans, Fred, 219
White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), 2, 8, 12, 48, 87, Yeliseyev, Aleksey S., 387, 390, 394
109, 116, 145, 188-89, 197, 225, 270 Young, Earle B., 261
Whitten, James B., 225 Young, John W., 56, 133, 291, 352-53 il., 373, 374,
Williams, Clifton C., Jr., 56 376, 388, 397-98, 408-09
Williams, John J., 64--66, 73-74 Young, R. Wayne, 122
Williams, Robert W., 25, 73, 83, 134, 144 Yschek, Henry P., 26
463
THE AUTHORS
Ivan D. Ertel has been a contract historian to NASA's History Office since
November 1972. He retired from NASA's Johnson Space Center in June
1972 after serving as the Center's Assistant Historian since September 1964.
Born in Marion, New York (1914), he received his B.B.A. degree from
Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia (1958). He was news editor of
Atlanta' s Suburban Reporter, East Point, Georgia, and the Decatur-De Kalb
News, Decatur, Georgia (1954-1957). Before coming to NASA in 1961, he
was Press Officer at Headquarters, Third U.S. Army. Ertel established the
Manned Spacecraft Center's official news organ, Space News Roundup,
authored fact sheets and brochures about each Mercury and Gemini manned
flight, and is coauthor of The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, Volume I
(1969) and Volume III (1976), and Skylab: A Chronology (1977).
Roland W. Newkirk was born in Palenville, New York (1915). Following

retirement from the Army and before joining NASA at the Johnson Space
Center in 1965, Newkirk received his B.A. in history at the College of the
Ozarks (1963) and his M.A. at the University of Arkansas (1965). He has also
done graduate work in political science (public administration) at the Uni-
versity of Houston (1966-1970). Newkirk left the NASA Johnson Space
Center in June 1973. He then served as a NASA contract historian for a short
period. He authored Skylab: Preliminary Chronology, NASA HHN-130,
May 1973, and is coauthor of Skylab: A Chronology (1977).
Courtney G. Brooks was a Research Associate in the History Department of

the University of Houston from 1969 to 1974. In that capacity he coauthored
the NASA-sponsored history of the development of the Apollo spacecraft,
now in final revision, and Skylab: A Chronology (1977). Born in Savannah,
Georgia (1939), he received his B.A. degree from Huntingdon College,
Montgomery, Alabama (1964), and his M.A. (1966) and Ph.D. (1969) degrees
in history from Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana.
THE NASA HISTORY SERIES
HISTORIES
Anderson, Frank W., Jr., Orders o] Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA, 1915-1976, NASA SP-4403, 1976. GPO.*
Benson, Charles D.. and William Barnaby Faherty, Moonport: A History o[ Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations, NASA
SP-4204, 1978, GPO.
Byers, Bruce K., Destinat,on Moon: A History o] the Lunar Orbiter Program, NASA TM X-3487, 1977, NTIS.'t
Corliss, William R., NASA Sounding Rockets, 1958-1968: A Historical Summary, NASA SP-4,t01, 1971, NTIS.
Ezell, Edward C. and Linda N., The Partnership: A History of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, NASA SP-4209, 1978. (;PO.
Green, Constance McL., and Milton Lomask, Vanguard: A History, NASA SP-4202, 1970, GPO; also Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971.
Hacker, Barton C., and James M. Grimwood, On the Shoulders o] Titans: A History of Project Gemini, NASA SP-4203, 1977,
GPO.
Hall, R. Cargill, Lunar Impact: A History of Project Ranger, NASA SP-4210, 1977, GPO.
taartman, Edwin P., Aaventures in Research: A .History o] the Ames Research Center, 1940-1965, NASA SP-.t302, 1970.
NTIS.
Link, Mae Mills, Space Medicine in Project Mercury, NASA SP-4003, 1965, NTIS;
Rosholt, Robert L., An Administrative History of NASA, 1958-1963, NASA SP-4101, 1966, NI'IS.
Sloop, Jolm L., Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945-1959, NASA SP-4404, 1978, GPO.
Swenson, Loyd S., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander, This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury, NASA
SP-4201, 1966, GPO.
REFERENCE WORKS
Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, annual volumes for 1975-1977, GPO.
The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, NASA SP-4009: vol. 1, 1969, NTIS; vol. 2, 1973, GPO; vol. 3, 1976, GPO.
Astronautics and Aeronautics: A Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy, annual volumes 1961-1974, with an earlit_
summary volume, Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1915-1960. Early volumes available from NTIS, recent ones from (;PO.
Hall, R. Cargill, ed., Essays on the History o] Rocketry and Astronautics: Proceedings of the Third through the Sixth H istor),
Symposia o/the International Academy of Astronautics, NASA CP-2014, 2 vols., 1977, GPO.
Roland, Alex F., A Guide to Research in NASA History, HHR-50, 2d ed., Nov. 1977, looselea[, available from NASA Histol3'
Office.
Skylab: A Chronology, NASA SP-4011, 1977, GPO.
Van Nimmen, Jane, and Leonard C. Bruno, NASA Historical Data Book, 1958-1968, NASA SP-4012. vol. 1, NASA Resour(es.
1976, NTIS.
Wells, Helen T., Susan H. Whiteley, and Carrie E. Karegeannes, Origins o] NASA Names, NASA SP-4402, 1976, GPO.
"GPO: Order from Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
tNTIS: Order from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
* U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 0--266-841

Appollo Spacecraft PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appollo Spacecraft PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appollo Spacecraft PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NASA SP-4009

January 21, 1966-July 13, 1974

Scientific and Technical Information Offwe 1978

The Apollo spacecraft.

(The NASA historical series) (NASA SP-4009)

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

This fourth and final volume of the Apollo Spacecraft Chronology

postdocking maneuver capability, (4) controlled reentry and landing, (5)

Detailed studies of man's physiological responses to prolonged

To summarize Project Apollo--there were 11 manned flights;

turn some of our attention to such problems as mass transportation,

October 1975 Kenneth S. Kleinknecht

FOREWORD ................................................. iii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...................................... x

PREFACE .................................................. xiii

PART I: PREPARATION FOR FLIGHT, THE ACCIDENT, AND

PART II: RECOVERY, SPACECRAFT REDEFINITION, AND THE

FIRST MANNED FLIGHT ........................... 115

MANNED LUNAR EXPLORATION .................... 263

1. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms ............. 367

2. Major Spacecraft Component Manufacturers .......... 372

3. Official U.S. IAF World Records ..................... 373

4. Flight Summary ................................... 377

5. Primary Apollo Flight Objectives .................... 401

6. Crews and Support for Manned Apollo Flights ........ 408

7. Funding ........................................... 410

8. Block II vs. Block I Apollo Spacecraft ................ 413

9. Apollo Experiments ................................ 42O

10. Organization Charts ................................ 427

INDEX ..................................................... 439

All photographs and illustrations are furnished by the U.S. Government

Mating of launch escape system and spacecraft 009 ........ 10

CM wire harness manufacturing ......................... 121

Earth-rise over lunar horizon ........................ 276

Project Apollo was announced to representatives of American industry

Preparation for Flight, the Accident, and Investigation

January 21, 1966, through April 5, 1967

The Key Events

Preparation for Flight, the Accident, and Investigation

January 21, 1966, through April 5, 1967

NASA converted one of its major contracts from a cost-plus-fixed-fee to a 1966

Arthur T. Strickland of NASA's Lunar and Planetary Programs Office

informed by the Flight Crew Operations Director that in reference to a

MSC awarded $70000 contract to Rodana Research Corp. to develop

On February 4, John D. Hodge, Chief of the Flight Control Division, listed

Howard W. Tindall, Jr., Assistant Chief, Mission Planning and Analysis

• Passive Lunar Seismic Experiment, Massachusetts Institute of

By separate actions, Newell asked the Associate Administrator for Manned

February government-furnished-equipment (North American Aviation-manu-

26 Apollo-Saturn 201 was launched from Cape Kennedy, with liftoff of an

Spacecraft communications blackout lasted 1 minute 22 seconds. Reentry

ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea informed Apollo Program Director Samuel

The l/6-g simulator, developed at

1966 Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips, in a memo to the Director,

Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips notified the three manned

A cutaway view of the large space

Apollo Program Director Samuel C. Phillips informed MSC Director 16

Robert R. Gilruth of specific NASA Hq. management assignments that had

16 MSC analysis of Grumman ground support equipment (GSE) showed that