This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 17, 2020. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
ch2-3.html
233 lines (203 loc) · 11.3 KB
/
ch2-3.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<title>Chariots For Apollo, ch2-3</title>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
<p>
<h2>Spacecraft Development Decision</h2>
<p>
This sudden preoccupation in NASA's highest echelons with the mode of
flying to the moon put the spacecraft development planners in a
quandary. Space Task Group engineers had the contractors' feasibility
study reports in hand and had used them and their own studies in
drafting specifications for a spacecraft hardware contract. The major
question was whether they would have to wait until all the pieces in the
Apollo stack were defined before awarding the contract. Robert Gilruth
went to Washington on 2 June to find out.<p>
During a meeting with Abe Silverstein and his Space Flight Programs
staff, a consensus developed on the six areas in which major contracts
would be needed: (1) launch vehicles; (2) the spacecraft command center,
which would double as the return vehicle; (3) the propulsion module,
with extra duty as the lunar takeoff section; (4) the lunar landing
stage, which would be both a braking rocket and a lunar launch pad; (5)
the communications and tracking network; and (6) the earth launch
facilities.<a href = "#source4">4</a> To get these projects under way,
Silverstein said, Seamans had approved letting the spacecraft
development contract.<a href = "#source5">5</a><p>
Gilruth took this good news back to Virginia, but he and his men still
had a question. What would industry be bidding on? The Space Task Group
favored a modified Mercury capsule (a bell shape extended into a conical
pyramid) and had worked on that design. Its chief competitor was a
lifting-body design, with trims and flaps, championed by Alfred Eggers
and his colleagues at the Ames Research Center.<p>
<p align=center>
<img src = "images/c036a.jpg" width=486 height=413 ALT="Crew position sketches"><p>
<cite>Space Task Group engineers sketched crew positions in the command
module for an October 1960 configuration study of the
"Apollo-Control Capsule." The command module with airlock
retracted is at the center, the bathing compartment sketched below it.
At left center, a crewman in the extended airlock removes the hatch. At
upper and lower right, legs of the third takeoff and reentry seat,
rigged in the companionway, are folded away for flight and moved back
into place for landing. At upper left, parachutes begin to deploy after
rocket jettison for reentry.</cite>
<p>
<hr>
<p align=center>
<img src = "images/c036b.jpg" width=451 height=318 ALT="Spacecraft modules, mid-1961"><p>
<cite>Spacecraft modules in this drawing were identified in the Space
Task Group's request for proposals from contractors for developing and
producing the command module.</cite>
<p>
<hr>
<p>
Max Faget, leading spacecraft designer at the Space Task Group, later
said that one of his major objectives was to make the Apollo command
module big enough; they were just finding out all the problems caused by
a too-small Mercury capsule. He set the diameter at the base of the
Apollo craft at 4.3 meters, as opposed to Mercury's 1.8 meters. When
Faget asked Wernher von Braun, at Marshall, to fly some models of the
craft, there was a problem. Since early Saturn vehicles did not have a
payload, Marshall had used spare Jupiter missile nose cones on the first
test flights. Douglas Aircraft Company had resized the Saturn's S-IV
stage to fit the Jupiter body, which was smaller than the Apollo command
module. Marshall contended that enlarging the S-IV would cost millions
of dollars, and Space Task Group did not argue the point. Until this
time, the design concept for the Apollo heatshield had called for a
sharp rim, as in Mercury, which increased the total drag and gave more
lifting capability. Rather than decrease the interior volume, Faget's
design team simply rounded the edge to match the S-IV.<p>
The command module's rounded edges simplified another design decision.
Faget wanted to use beryllium shingles on the afterbody, as he had in
Mercury, to take care of reentry heating, but Langley engineers believed
the spaceship would be traveling too fast for shingles to handle the
heat. The design group decided to wrap an ablative heatshield around the
whole command module. This wraparound shield had another advantage. One
of the big questions about outer space was radiation exposure. James Van
Allen, discoverer of the radiation belts surrounding the earth and named
for him, had predicted exposure would be severe. Encapsulating the space
vehicle with ablative material as an additional guard against radiation,
even though it entailed a large weight penalty, was a big selling point
for the heatshield.<a href = "#source6">6</a><p>
Space Task Group engineers were satisfied with their design, although
none too sure that anyone else in NASA liked it. George Low, however,
found merit in both the blunt- and lifting-body configurations and
suggested to Silverstein that two prime spacecraft contractors be hired,
each to work from a different set of specifications.<a href =
"#source7">7</a><p>
Space Task Group engineers wanted no part of this dual approach. In
early July, Caldwell Johnson summarized for Gilruth their reasons for
insisting on the blunt-body shape. Johnson emphasized mainly the
operational advantages and the experience gained from Mercury that would
accrue to Apollo. He confined his discussion to the trip to the moon and
back, making no mention of landing the craft on its surface.<a href =
"#source8">8</a> Those most concerned with the command module's basic
configuration were still looking at the problems connected with
circumlunar flight: a vehicle that could fly around the moon and back to
earth, sustain three men for two weeks, and reenter the atmosphere at
much higher speeds than from earth orbit.<p>
Gilruth's Apollo planners pressed on, drawing up a hardware development
contract for their chosen craft. This vehicle could be adapted for a
lunar landing later, but that problem was shunted to the background for
the time being. Jack Heberlig, a member of Faget's design team for the
Mercury capsule, drafted the hardware guidelines for the Apollo command
center spacecraft. While Heberlig's procurement plan was in final review
at NASA Headquarters the first week in July, Robert Piland and John
Disher were setting up a technical conference to apprise potential
contractors of NASA's requirements. Invitations were sent to 1,200
representatives from industry and 160 from government agencies.<a href =
"#source9">9</a><p>
From 18 to 20 July 1961, more than 1,000 persons (representing 300
companies, the White House staff, Congress, and other governmental
departments) attended a NASA-Industry Apollo Technical Conference in
Washington. The first day, NASA engineers talked about space vehicle
design, mission profiles, and navigation, guidance, and control. On the
second day, the attendees heard papers on space environment, entry
heating and thermal protection, and onboard systems. During these
sessions, the Space Task Group speakers pushed their blunt-body shape.<a
href = "#source10">10</a><p>
Gilruth's men never doubted that the keystone to Apollo was the
spacecraft itself. As they waited for higher authority to act, they
continued to plan with Marshall a series of tests using a blunt-body
capsule.<a href = "#source11">11</a> By the end of July, Administrator
Webb had approved the procurement plan, and Glenn Bailey, Gilruth's
contracting officer, had mailed out the requests for proposals.<a href =
"#source12">12</a><p>
While waiting for the companies to respond, NASA awarded its first
hardware contract for Apollo. After spending six months on a feasibility
study, the Instrumentation Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) received a contract on 9 August to develop the guidance
and navigation system.<a href = "#source13">13</a>
<p>
<hr>
<p>
<a name = "source4"><b>4</b>.</a> Low to Dir., Space Flight Prog., "Report
of Meeting with Space Task Group on June 2, 1961," 6 June 1961.<p>
<a name = "source5"><b>5</b>.</a> Seamans memo for file, "Apollo
procurement," 2 June 1961; Low memo, 6 June 1961.<p>
<a name = "source6"><b>6</b>.</a> Willard M. Taub, interview, Houston, 10 April
1967; Maxime A. Faget, interview, Houston, 15 Dec. 1969.<p>
<a name = "source7"><b>7</b>.</a> Low to Dir., Space Flight Prog., "Apollo
Configuration," 12 June 1961. See Ivan D. Ertel and Mary Louise
Morse, <cite>The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology,</cite> vol. 1,
<cite>Through November 7, 1962,</cite> NASA SP-4009 (Washington, 1969),
for illustrations of shapes proposed for the Apollo reentry vehicle.<p>
<a name = "source8"><b>8</b>.</a> Caldwell C. Johnson to Dir., STG, "A
case for the selection of the semi-integrated, blunt body configuration
for Apollo spacecraft," 5 July 1961, with encs. (final version of
draft dated 20 June 1961 - see n. 11).<p>
<a name = "source9"><b>9</b>.</a> Robert O. Piland to Jack C. Heberlig,
"Space Task Group Review of 'General Requirements for a Proposal,
Project Apollo, Phase A' dated May 5, 1961 (First Draft)," 8 May
1961, with encs.; Robert R. Gilruth to NASA Hq., Attn.: Ernest Brackett,
"Transmittal of Project Apollo Procurement Plan for Approval,"
26 June 1961, with encs.; Abe Silverstein to Herbert L. Brewer,
"Comments on Project Apollo Procurement Plan," 3 July 1961;
Piland to Charles J. Donlan, "Apollo Technical Conference," 8
June 1961; John H. Disher to STG, Attn.: Paul E. Purser,
"NASA-Industry Apollo Technical Conference," 13 June 1961;
Disher, "Progress Status Sheet," in Administrator's Progress
Report, NASA, July 1961, p. 25.4.<p>
<a name = "source10"><b>10</b>.</a> "Space Unit Details Plans for
Apollo," Newport News (Va.) <cite>Times-Herald,</cite> 19 July
1961; Disher, "Progress Status Sheet"; NASA,
"NASA-Industry Apollo Technical Conference, July 18, 19, 20, 1961:
A Compilation of the Papers Presented," 2 parts, n.d.<p>
<a name = "source11"><b>11</b>.</a> Gilruth to NASA Hq., Attn.: Low,
"Preliminary project development plan for 'boilerplate' spacecrafts
for the Saturn C-1 test flights SA-7, -8, -9, and -10," 16 June
1961, with enc., Leo T. Chauvin to Dir., STG, subj. as above, and
"Preliminary Project Development Plan for SA-7 Through -10
Payloads," 9 June 1961; Johnson to Dir., STG, "A case for the
selection of the semi-integrated, blunt body configuration for Apollo
spacecraft," 20 June 1961, draft memo with encs.<p>
<a name = "source12"><b>12</b>.</a> Brackett to STG, Attn.: Gilruth,
"Transmittal of Approved Project Apollo Spacecraft Procurement Plan
and Class Determination and Findings," 28 July 1961, with encs.;
Glenn F. Bailey, "Request for Proposal No. 9-150, Project Apollo
Spacecraft," 28 July 1961.<p>
<a name = "source13"><b>13</b>.</a> House Committee on Science and
Astronautics, <cite>Aeronautical and Astronautical Events of 1961:
Report,</cite> 87th Cong., 2nd sess., 7 June 1962, p. 38.
<P>
<HR>
<P>
<CENTER><A HREF="ch2-2.html">
<IMG SRC="previous.gif" ALIGN="left"
ALT="Previous Page">
</A>
<A HREF="ch2-4.html">
<IMG SRC="next.gif" ALIGN="right"
ALT="Next Page">
</A>
<A HREF="contents.html">
<IMG SRC="index.gif" ALIGN="middle"
ALT="Table of Contents"></A>
</CENTER><BR>
<HR>
<P>
</BODY>
<!--ADA TEAM 2001-->
</HTML>