Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo Saturn Launch Vehicles (NASA SP)

Stagesto Saturn ¢ NASA SP-4206 Stagesto Saturn A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles Roger...

Author: Roger E. Bilstein

77 downloads 953 Views 27MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Stagesto Saturn

¢

NASA SP-4206

Stagesto Saturn A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles

Roger E. Bilstein

The NASA History Series

National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA History Office Washington, DC 20546 1996

Original

publication

Library

of Congress

Bilstein,

Roger Stages

date:

1980

Cataloguing-in-Publication

Data

E. to Saturn.

(The NASA history series) (NASA SP: 4206) Bibliography: p. Includes index. Supt. of Docs. no.: NAS 1.21:4206 1. Project Saturn. 1. Tide. II. Series: United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA history series. III. Series: United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA SP: 4206. TL781.5.$3B54 629.47' 522 79-607154

Superintendent

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328 ISBN 0-16-048909-1

To Wernher yon Braun 1912-1977 and the mett at_d women who built the Saturn

Contents Page FOREWORD

..................................................

PREFACE

....................................................

ACKNOWLED(;MENTS

I.

PROLOGUE

and

IV.

FIRE,

5.

Unconventional

From

10. STEP

From

The

S-IV

Stages:

Logistics

S-II

The

MACHINES

....................

57

....................

87

the

F-1

and J-2

Quintessential .........................

...................................

12.

The

Leap

89

..............

129

Cluster

Concept

.........................

....................................... vii

155 157 191 Computer

...

235 259 261 293 321

...............................................

the

...........

........................

......................................

Tangle

Qualifying

25

............................

S-IC and

AND

11.

Giant

and

RL-10

S-IVB

to Launch:

Saturn

H-I

..............

....................................

to the

MEN

STEP

The

23

MSFC

ENGINES

Cryogenics:

Checkout

Managing

BY

Tile

Cryogenics:

Lower

COORDINATION:

9.

VI.

the

ARPA,

Manufacturing

THE SATURN V

7. The 8.

and

3

..............................

ABMA,

THUNDER:

Conventional

6.

V.

AND

4.

BUILDIN(;

BLOCKS

Modes,

1

..................................

Alphabet:

Missions, SMOKE,

Origins

BUILDING

2. Aerospace

Ill.

xix

..................................................

THE SATURN

3.

xv

.........................................

1. Concepts II.

xi

323 347

STAGES

TO

SATURN

VII.

EPILOGUE

Page

13.

...................................................

Legacies

379

..............................................

381

APPENDIX

A--SCHEMATIC

OF SATURN

APPENDIX

B--SATURN

g

APPENDIX

(;--SATURN

FLIGHT

APPENDIX

D--SATURN

R&D

APPENDIX

E--SATURN

V CONTRACTORS

APPENDIX

F--LOCATION

APPENDIX

(;--NASA

ORGANIZATION

APPENDIX

H--MSFC

PERSONNEL

HISTORY FUNDING

.....................................................

SOURCES

AND

SEQUENCE

HISTORY

......

407

DURING

413

.................

421

....................... SATURN

DURING

MATERIAL

405

. ......................

OF REMAINING

RESEARCH

.......................

PRELAUNCH--LAUNCH

NOTES

INDEX

g

423

HARDWARE

....

APOLLO-SATURN

APOLLO-SATURN

... ......

439 441 449 457

...........................

493

......................................................

501

Illustrations Frontispiece--the Saturn V at LC-39 ......................................... Seven photos of Apollo 11 mission ............................................ Photo of Robert Goddard ................................................... Photo of German rocket pioneers ............................................ Four photos of early rockets in the U.S ....................................... Wernher yon Braun with the first seven astronauts ............................ Launch of Alan Shepard on Mercury-Redstone ............................... Scale comparison of U.S. manned space flight vehicles ......................... Development of Saturn concepts ............................................. Saturn 1 with Mercury-Redstone and Juno II ................................. President Eisenhower with first NASA Administrator T. Keith G]ennan Deputy Administrator Wernher yon Braun with

32 38 Center

President Kennedy at MSFC ................................................. Four aerial views of MSFC ..................................................

viii

and

Hugh Dryden ..................................... his ABMA senior staff ..............................

President Eisenhower dedicates the George C. Marshall Space Flight Abe Silverstein tours rocket facility ........................................... Two summary charts from the Silverstein Report .............................. Early versions of the Saturn C-1 and C-5 ..................................... The stable of NASA launch vehicles .......................................... John Houboh and Lunar Orbit Rendezvous ..................................

Photos Saturn Saturn

Page ii 6 10 10 16 20 20 20 28 30

of Michoud Operations and Mississippi Test Facility I design and manufacture ............................................ IB design and manufacture ..........................................

.....

43 46 49 60 61 64 68 71

....................

75 82 84

LIST

OF

ILLUSTRATIONS Page 9O 94

Saturn engine applications .................................................. Turbopump for the H-1 engine ............................................. Specifics and systems of the H-I engine ...................................... Firing and manufacture of the H-1 engine .................................... Specifics and schematic of the F-I engine ..................................... Engine start sequence for the S-IC stage ...................................... F-I engine injector plate and turbopump ......... ............................. F-L thrust chamber and brazing furnace ...................................... F-I test stand ..............................................................

1C)0 105 1 I0 111 117 122 125

F- 1 engine production line .................................................. Centaur stage with two RL-IO engines ........................................ RL-10 engine specifics and systems; engine chtster mounted in the S-IV stage of Saturn I ...................... - ................................

126 136

J-2 engine specifics, systems, assembly, and tesung ............................. Saturn S-IV stages .......................................................... Seven photos of manufacturing the S-IVB stage ...............................

151 161 169

Comparison of S-IVB stages of Saturn IB and V .............................. S-IVB stage rollout and testing .............................................. S-IC stage Saturn V launch vehicle ........................................... Five photos of skin fabrication fi_r the S-IC stage .............................. Six photos of assembly and testing of the S-IC stage ........................... Seven photos of fabrication and assembly of the S-II stage ..................... The mission control center at KSC ...........................................

179 187 197 204 208 220 236

ST-124 inertial guidance platform ........................................... Instrument unit specifics, systems, and assembly ............................... Wernher yon Braun is briefed by Mathias Siebel .............................. Saturn program major sites ................................................. Saturn contractors ..........................................................

244 246 262 268 268

Two organization charts Photo of Arthur Rudolph NASA Office of Manned

272 273 277

of Saturn V program ................................ ................................................... Space Flight Management Council ....................

Manned Space Flight Awareness Program Photo of MSFC's Saturn V program control

.................................... center ............................

139

279 286

S-1C flight stage at MSFC on its transporter .................................. S-II stage on its transporter ................................................. Five photos of the NASA barge fleet ......................................... Four photos of Saturn air transport .......................................... USNS Point Barrow .........................................................

300 303 306 316 319

Saturn Three

319 326

transportation views of Saturn

equipment I test flights

............................................ ...........................................

Two views of Pegasus payloads for Saturn I .................................. Cutaway drawing and two views of the Saturn IB launch vehicle AS-501_ first flight-ready Saturn V ........................................... Launch Complex 39 ........................................................ Mobile Service Structures at LC 39 ...........................................

................

333 342 343 356 365

Apollo 8 .................................................................... Apollo 11 in flight; control room after launch; Astronaut Edwin Aldrin prepares to step onto lunar surface; lunar sample chest .................... Apollo 17 lunar roving vehicle ................................................ Commonality of Saturn hardware ............................................

367

Two Two

photos'of Saturn and Skvlab ............................................ views of Saturn and the Apollo-Sovuz Test Mission

385 389

Four

photos

of Huntsville,

Alabama

..........................................

.......................

373 377 380

395 iX

Foreword ew of man's technological endeavors compare in scope of significance to the development of the Saturn family of launch vehicles. At the time of this writing in 1979, we may still be too close to the project to see it objectively from the perspective of history, but I expect that future historians will compare the development of Saturn to such great and imaginative projects as the building of the Panama Canal and to such latter day technological achievements as the Manhattan Project. In terms of both vision and achievement, Saturn may surpass them all. It was as if the Wright Brothers had gone from building their original Wright Flyer in 1903 to developing a supersonic Concorde in 1913. Unimaginable; yet in I0 short years the builders of Saturn progressed from the small, single-engine rockets like Redstone to the giant vehicle with clustered engines that put man on the moon. Our Earth-to-orbit weight-lifting capability grew in that decade by 10 thousand times. Saturn was an engineering masterpiece. The uhimate Saturn, taller than the Statue of Liberty, had a takeoff weight that exceeded tha! of 25 fully loaded jet airliners, and produced as much power as 85 Hoover Dams. The Saturn program was also a masterpiece of management. There are those who hold that one of the principal benefits this country derived from the Apollo-Saturn lunar landing program was the development of a new and extraordinary management approach through which the National Aeronautics and Space Administration directed vast human and material resources toward a common purpose. The system that was developed to meet the incredible complexities of the program, taking account of its pioneering nature and the time constraint imposed, provides a pattern for managing a broad spectrum of future technological, scientific, and social endeavors. One of the most remarkahle things abotfl the Saturn program was its success tale. An early press release openly slated that because of the xi

STAGES

TO

SAIURN

complexity of the system and the tremendous advancement in technology required, program officials fully expected half of the 10 Saturn I's launched to fail. None did. Neither did all,, Saturn IB, nor pnmnl. These major Saturn program succeeded as well as it did testifies to the value of such efli)rts, but this is

62

MISSIONS,

M()I)ES,

AN1)

M:kNUFA(71URIN(;

not to say that differences of opinion were always easily and quickly adjusted. The issue of E()R vesus L()R, for example, brotlght Marshall a1{d the Manned Spacecraft Center into head-on contlict. Earl,,' in 1961, NASA's studies for a manned lunar landing were keyed to'the E()R mode using a Saturn vehicle or to direct ascent with the N(')va. I_ In view of MSC's later acceptance of LOR, (;ilruth's initial support of the direct desirable to develop reliability to carry

ascent concept is intriguing. "I feel that it ix highly a hmnch vehicle with sufficient performance and ()tit the lunar landing mission using the direct

approacil," he wrote to NASA Headquarters reliability expert Golovin in the autumn of 1961. As [or the rendezvous schemes

Nicholas (and here

he apparently referred only u) EOR), (;ilruth said that they compromised mission reliability and flight safety and that they were a "crutch to achieve early planned dates for launch vehicle ava_lablitv, and to avoid the difficuh_,' of developing a reliable Nova (;lass launch vehicle." At the same time, fie understood the need fin- an Earth parking orbit during any mission to allow adequate time for final checkout ot spacecraft, equipment, and crew readiness before going tar irom Earth. • The concept of hmar orbital rendezw)us (L()R) had been studied at Langley Research Center as early as 1960. The idea was passionately advocated by John Houbolt, a Lai{glev engineer who first encountered it while investigating rendezwms techifiques for orl)iting space stations. The Langlev-Houbolt concept of LOR was soon absorbed by the ST(;-MSC crew, and MSC eventually became the leading champion of l.()R9 Houbolt played a key role in converting Headquarters planners to the LOR concept. Convinced that the idea had not received a fair hearing, Houbolt bypassed everyone and wrote directly to Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., in November. Fuhifinating at what he viewed as grandiose plans ti)r using landers that were too complex,

boosters Houl)olt

that were too large and lunar urged consideration of LOR as a

simple, cost-effective scheme with high likelihood of success. "Give us the go-ahead, and a C-3," Houboh pleaded, "and we will put man on the moon in very short order. '''-'_ Houbolt's letter apparently swayed several managers at Headquarters, especially George Low, Director of Space in the Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF).

Craft and Flight But D. Brainerd

Missions, Holmes,

who presided over OMSF, still had a prickly managerial problem. Fhere remained people at Headquarters with doubts about L()R, principally Milton Rosen, newly named Director of Launch Vehicles and Prot)ulsioil in OMSF. Early in November, Hohnes and Seamans directed Rosen to prepare a summary report on the large launch vehicle program, which of necessity dealt with the issue of EOR-LOR-direct ascent. The Rosen study came on top of several other c()mmitlee reports on vehMes an(t

63

Le]t, John C. Houbolt goes throughhis chalktalk on the advantages o] lunar orbitrendezvous overcompeting modes. Below,thetypicalmissionprofile _ing lunar orbit re_utezvm_.

MISSIONS,

MODES,

AND

MANUFACTURING

landing modes. Rosen's group of 11 people, including 3 from MSFC (Willy Mrazek, Hans Maus, and James Brainier), submitted its report on 20 Novemb er.2'2 The issue of how to achieve a lunar landing at the earliest date became a principal theme in the Rosen group's deliberations. Although rendezvous offered an early possibility of a manned lunar landing, Rosen's working group noted that actual rendezvous and docking experience would riskiest and most

not be available until 1964. LOR tricky of the rendezvous modes,

also seemed tile and the group

expressed a decided preference for EOR. Either way, a C-5 Saturn with five F-1 engines in the tirst stage was the recommended vehicle. In spite of all the discussion of rendezvous, the Rosen committee in the end favored direct ascent as opposed to either EOR or LOR. "The United States should place primary emphasis on the direct flight mode for achieving the first manned lunar landing," the report flatly stated. "Tiffs mode gives greater assurance of accomplishment during this decade." Therefore, the Nova vehicle "should be developed on a top priority basis. ''_:_ The trend toward LOR strengthened, however. Even though EOR became the "working mode" for budgetary planning for 1962, the debate went on. Holmes hired Joseph Shea, an energetic young engineer, as Chief the Office of Systems Engineering in OMSF, with responsibilities conduct and coordinate mission mode studies. Hohnes also instituted

of to a

top-level series of meetings under the rubric of "The Management Council," to discuss issues involving Headquarters and more than just one center alone. _4 At just about every meeting of the Management Council, Rosen and Gilruth got into a debate over the mode choice. Finally, as Rosen recalled, Gilruth came up to him after one of the meetings had adjourned and made one more pitch for the LOR mode. The most dangerous phase of the mission, Gilruth argued, was the actual landing on the moon. If Rosen's direct ascent idea was followed, then at the moment for lunar descent, that meant landing an unwieldy vehicle that was both quite long and quite heavy. A very touchy operation, Gilruth emphasized. LOR, on the other hand, boasted an important advantage: the lunar landing and lunar takeoff would be accomplished by a very light and maneuverable vehicle specifically designed [or the task. Rosen confessed he had been preoccupied with simplicity from one end of the mission--the launch from Earth_and he had no convincing counterarguments when Gilruth made him look at simplicity from the other end, the lunar landing. 25 While the consensus at Headquarters now shifted towards LOR, the split between MSC and MSFC showed few signs of easing. On a swing ( "c through both MSC at Langley and MSFC at Huntsville in .January 1._62, Shea was discouraged by "the entrenched position of the two centers: Marshall people displayed an "instinctive reaction" of negativism on the 65

STAGESTO SATURN issue of unrealistic,

LOR, while MSC about rendezvous

personnel problems

seemed too enthusiastic, and the weight situation.

even Each

center, Shea observed, intent on its own in-house studies, "completely ignores the capability of the other's hardware.'"m During the spring, however, MSC's resea'rch seemed to become more convincing. MSFC also began to regard L()R with increased interest. In mid-April, an MSC presentation at Huntsville elicited several favorable comments from yon Braun mlseH./1"

It"

')7

The evidence suggests that yon Braun increasingly felt the necessity of settling the issue so that they could get on with definitive contracts tbr launch vehicles and other hardware with long lead times, e_ Resolution of the E()R-LOR controversy finally came on 7 June 1962, when Shea and his aides were in Hunts+;ille tor still another session on the mode of rendezvous. In his concluding remarks, yon Braun noted that the conference had given six hours of intensive analysis to various proposals, including Nova-direct as well as EOR and LOR.They all appeared to be feasible, yon Braun commented; the problem was narrowing the choices to one and then acting on it. "It is absolmelv mandatory that we arrive at a definite mode decision within the next few weeks, preferably by the first of July 1962," he declared. "We , are already losing time in our overall program as a result of lacking a mode decision." Then yon Braun announced that LOR was Marshall's first choice. There

were

complex

technological,

reasons for Marshall's ultimate decision yon Bratm elaborated on 11 principal basic consideration involved confidence

economic,

and

administrative

to go along with LOR. Although reasons for choosing LOR, the that it provided the best chance

for a successful manned lunar landing within the decade. The concept promised good performance margins. Separation of the lunar lander from the reentry vehicle seemed desirable from many considerations of design and operation, and the overall concept suggested good growth potential tot both the lander and the booster. Von Braun also implied that both sides could work together without the potential friction of an "I told you so" attitude. The fact that he feh compelled to proffer such a verbal olive branch suggests that the heat generated by the EOR-LOR debate must have been considerable. The MSFC I)irector observed that "the issue of 'invented here' versus 'invented there' does not apply," because both MSC and MSFC, in effect, adopted an approach originally put torth I)v Langley "I consider it fortunate indeed for the Manne(t Lunar Landing Program that both Centers, after much soul searching, have come to identical conclusions," yon Braun emphasized. "This should give the ()fticc ot' Manned Space Flight some additional assurance that our recommcnd:ttions should not I)e too far from the truth." Quickly ticking off the reasons for deciding against E()R, +'on Braun pointed out that it was still feasible. A looming negative factor was the double loss incurred if, t_r example, the tanker launch went just fine, but +56

MISSIONS,MODES,AND MANUFACTURING the mannedlaunch waspostponedtoo long on the pad or had to abort during ascent,wiping out the missionto the costof two completelaunch vehiclesand associatedlaunch expenses•In addition, von Braun noted complexmanagementand interfaceproblemswith dual launches.Using the (;-5 in a direct launch posed somethorny technicalproblemsand permitted only the thinnest marginsin weight allowancesfor the spacecraft, st)the C-5direct route wasrejected.The huge Novaboostercould have solved some of these problems, but it was rejected principally becauseof its size,which would havecreatedrequirementsbeyond the existing scopeof fabrication and testfacilities availableto NASA; there werealsoseriousproblemsseenin time, funding, and technicaldemands for a boosterof Nova'sdimensions9 Evenwith von Braun'simprimatur in June, the irrevocabledecision liar LOR did not come until the end of 1962.The Huntsville conclave producedagreementat the center level only; NASA Headquartersstill had to formalize the choice and implement the decision.Early in July, Seamans, Dryden,Webb,and Holmesconcurredwith a recommendation for LOR by the Manned SpaceFlight ManagementCouncil, but the President'sScientific Advisory Committee still activelyquestioned the LOR mode. The committee evidently preferred the EOR approach becauseit felt the technologicaldevelopment inherent in the EOR concept had more promise in the long run for civil and military operations;its argument alsosuggestedthat the LOR choice stemmed from internal NASA expediency--asthe cheapestand earliest mission possibility--even though technical analysisof LOR was incomplete. Nicholas'(;olovinandJeromeWiesner,in particular,remainedadamantly against LOR, and the controversyactually boiled over into a public exchangehetween Wiesner and NASA officials at Huntsville while PresidentKennedywastouring MarshallSpaceFlight Centerin Septemher. Host yon Braun and the Presidentwerestandingin front of a chart showing the LOR maneuver sequence.As yon Braun proceededto explain the details, Kenned)' interrupted, "I understand Dr. Wiesner doesn'tagreewith this," and turned around to searchthe entourageof newsmenandVI Psaround them."Where isJerry. Kennedydemanded. Wiesnercameup tojoin Kennedyandyon Braun, with Webb,Seamans, and Hohnes also in the group. Wiesner proceeded to outline his objectionsto LOR, and some lively dialogue ensued,just out of the earshotof strainingnewsmenand dozensof onlookerson the other side of a roped-off aisle."They obviouslyknewwewerediscussingsomething other than golf scores," Seamansrecalled. In fairness to Wiesner, 5eamanslater noted, the President'sscientificadvisor had to play the devil's advocateon many issueswhen a robust agency was vig_rously pressing receive(l

its position. Wiesner's ahernative views, and

job was to make I_le once confided

sure that the President to Seamans that he was

67

President Kennedy's visit to MSFC in September 1962 provided a forum ,for di,scussion of LOR: from the left, the President, MSFC Director Wernher yon Braun, NASA Administrator James E. Webb, Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson, Secreta O, of Defense Robert S. McNamara, and the President's Science Advisor Je_vme B. Welsher. not always comfortable in having to take negative points of view as Kennedy's advisor. Certainly, the LOR issue was one such example. As Seamans phrased it, "Here the President had his advisors recommending one approach, and the line operators recomnaending another." It was also one notable instance when Kennedy took a tack opposed to the PSAC position and supported NASA's decision fi_r the LOR mode. :_° After a tinal round of studies. James Webb reaffirmed full commitment to LOR on 7 November and named a prime contractor, (;rumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, to build the lunar ,nodule. :sl Thus, by the end of 1962, the outlines of the Apollo-Saturn program were firml;; delineated, with agreement on a family of three ew)lutionary Saturn vehicles, a functionally designed spacecraft, a technique to land men on the lunar surface, and a technique to return them safely to Earth.

AN AEROSI'A(:E

EMPIRE

The Saturn program created a vast new aerospace enterprise, partly private and partly public, with MSFC directing a group of facilities whose extent far exceeded am'thing in the days of the old NACA. The federally owned facilities under Marshall's inmaediatejurisdiction eventually included the sprawling installation at Huntsville; the cavernous Michoud "Assembly Facility (MAF) at New Orleans; the huge Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) at Bay St. Louis, Mississippi; and the Slidell Computer Facility at Siidell, Louisiana. Other government-owned facilities directly related to the Saturn program included the NASA Rocket Engine Test Site at Edwards 68

MISSIONS,

MODES,

AND

MANUFACTURING

Air Force Base in California and the government-owned production facilities for the S-II second stage at Seal Beach, California. The growth of Marshall Space Flight Center at Huntsville began almost as soon as the transfer of the wm Braun team from the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in 1960. This shift involved some 4.8 square kilometers of land (within the 162 square kilometers of the Redstone Arsenal) and facilities valued at $96 000 000, along with 4670 employees from ABMA's Development Operations Division. (For subsequent figures on manpower, plant value, etc., see the appendixes.) Settling in its new role, MSFC evolved as a facility of three distinct sectors, divided into an administrative and planning area, an industrial area, and test area. Although the transfer gave NASA the bulk of the land and facilities previously used bv ABMA's Development Operations Division, von Braun's administrative staff was allowed to remain in their old ABMA offices on a temporary basis only, and a Saturn-sized test area was needed. Construction began on a new administrative complex and tile first MSFC personnel took occupancy during the spring of 1963. Of the several approaches to the center, perhaps the most impressive was from the north. Driving several miles through the green pastures and wooded, rolling hills of the Alabama countryside, a viewer watched the administrative complex looming ever larger. Three nmltistory buildings were arranged in a "V" shape, with Building 4200, the tallest of the three, proudly riding the crest of a low hill. With the U.S. flag snapping smartly from its pole, this impressive office complex rising out of the rural landscape rarely failed to impress visitors. As director of the Marshall Space Flight Center, von Braun, with his staff, occupied office suites on the top two floors of Building 4200, irreverently known as the "von Braun Hilton." Once over the crest of the hill, the visitor saw the rest of the Marshall complex stretching for several miles to the Tennessee River. In the foreground, the former ABMA laboratories and manufacturing areas occupied the equivalent of many city blocks. The labs incorporated facilities for a host of esoteric research projects, computation, astrionics, test, and other specialized research activities. Buildings for manufacturing, engineering, quality and reliability assurance, and others had cavernous, high bay areas attached to accommodate the outsized Saturn components. In the background, the skyline was punctuated by the silhouettes of the assorted test stands and other installations of the expanded test area. Here were the engine test stands, an F-1 engine turbopump test position, and two especially large installations visible for miles. One was the big, burly test stand for the S-IC first stage, 123 meters high, completed in 1964. The second was the Dynamic Test Stand, 129 meters high, designed to accommodate the complete Saturn "stack" of all three booster stages, the instrument unit, and the Apollo spacecraft.

Inside

the Dynamic

Test

Stand,

heavy

duty equipment

shook 69

STAGES

TO

SATURN

and pounded the vehicle to determine its bending and vibration characteristics during flight. Still further to the south, specially built roads for transporting the bulky Saturn flight stages led t() docking facilities on the Tennessee River, where barges picked up or dropped off stages en :oute to other test sites or launch facilities at Cape Kennedy. :+z Except for the lawns and plantings around ihe administrative complex, Huntsville aiwavs had a factory look about it. Crisscrossed by streets and railroad tracks, Marshall still bore the stamp of its heritage as an Army arsenal, with lean, utilitarian structures, linked together by a web of electric and phone lines supported t)y ubi(luitou s poles. Buildings in the industrial area were frequently f]anked bv ranks of high-pressure gas bottles, cranes, hoists, and assorted large ro_'ket components. A visit to the Manned Spacecraft (:enter at Houston, with its sleek, uhramodern office complexes and well-tailored inner courtyards (complete with ponds and rocky little streams) was a study in contrasts. When Marshall was organized in 19601 the Army launch team under the direction of Kurt I)ebus became the Launch ()perations Directorate, Marshall Space Flight Center. At the Army's Missile Firing Laboratory, the Debus team had been launching a series of Army vehicles, including Redstone and Jupiter, and had launched the first American Earth satellite, Explorer I. In the months following the transfer to NASA, they launched the manned Mercury-Redstone suborbital tlights. As plans for the Saturn series were finalized, the Launch Operation Directorate, through Debus, participated in the search for a new launch site, large enough and removed far enough from population centers to satisfy the physical requirements of the big new space boosters. Cape Canaveral was chosen, and development of the new facilities began, with Launch Complex 34 becoming operational during the fall of 1961 to launch the first Saturn I vehicles. the

The immense task of constructing huge installations required for

new launch pads and developing Saturn operations called for

a

separate administrative entity. In March 1962, NASA announced plans to establish a new Launch Ol_erations Center (L()C) at the Cape, and the change became effective on I July 1962. While close liaison continued, launch operations ceased to be a prime responsihilitv of MSFC, and Kurt Debus proceeded as Director, LOC, to develop the launch facilities for the Apollo-Saturn program. :_:_ Large as it was, the aerospace complex at MSFC could not begin to accommodate the escalating dimensions of the Saturn program. Consistent with its heritage as an Army arsenal with an extensive in-house capability, Marshall manufactured the first eight models of Saturn I's first stage and did the testing in its backvard. The physical size of other Saturn stages, the frequency of testing as l_roduction mi)dels came on line, and the sheer magnitude of the endeavor dictated the need for additional 7O

facilities

located

elsewhere.

Each

major

contractor

developed

the

Left, an aerialview of MarshaUSpaceFlight Center.Below, leJt to _Nht, closeups (_ the Administrative Center, Propulsion and Vehicle En_neo_ng Laboratm)', and the test area (the three large stands are, flora left, the F-1 engine test stand, Saturn V dynamic test sta_ut, and tlw Saturn V booster stand).

special industrial capabilities required for the unique sizes inherent in the Saturn program, including fabrication, manufacturing, and testing. There was a certain kaleidoscopic aura about all these arrangements, since some were accomplished entirely by the contractor on privately owned premises and others were undertaken in government-owned facilities, with the contractor supplying most of the work force. For exa.mple, the Saturn IB and Saturn V first stages were manufactured at the Michoud Assembly Facility (known familiarly as "Michoud") 24 kilometers east of downtown New Orleans. The prime contractors, Chrysler and Boeing, respectively, jointly occupied Michoud's 186 000 square meters of manufacturing floor space and 68 000 square meters of office space. The basic manufacturing building, one of the largest added

in the country, boasted a separate engineering

43 acres under one roof. By 1964, NASA and office building, vertical assembly 71

STAGES

TO

SATURN

building, (for the S-IC) and test stage building (also for the S-IC). By 1966, other changes to the site included enlarged barge facilities and other miscellaneous support buildings. Two things remained unchanged: a pair of chimneys in front of the Administration Building, remnants of an old sugar pla_itation. These ungainly artifacts served as reminders of Michoud's checkered past, from a plantation grant by the King of France in 1763, to ownership by the wealthy but eccentric New Orleans recluse and junk dealer, Antoine Michoud. Never a successful plantation, its sometime production of lumber and other local resources from the swampy environs helped generate the local slogan, "from muskrats to moonships." The plant itself dated back to World War II, when it was built to produce Liberty ships. A hiatus in contract agreements shifted the emphasis to cargo planes, but only two C-46 transports rolled out before the war ended. The governmen't facility remained essentially inactive until the Korean War, when the Chrysler Corporation employed over 2000 workers to build engines for Army tanks. Dormant since 1954, the building had been costing the government $140 000 per year to keep up. With so many jobs in the offing and the obvious level of economic activity to be generated by the manufacture of large rocket boosters, selection of the site occurred in a highly charged political atmosphere, with active lobbying by a number of congressmen and chambers of commerce from around the country. Eventual selection of the Michoud facility in 1961 followed a series of thorough NASA investigations, and Michoud easily fulfilled several high-priority considerations: production space and availability; location near a major metropolitan area; convenient year-round water transport facilities (to haul the oversized Saturn stages); and reasonable proximity to MSFC, the Cape, and a contemplated test-firing site for the finished stages. 34 The extent of computer services required for the activities at the Mississippi Test Facility and Michoud prompted MSFC managers to consider a major computer installation to serve both operations. Happily, a location was found that included a structure originally designed to support sophisticated electronic operations. At Slidell, Louisiana, 32 kilometers northeast of Michoud and 24 kilometers southwest of MTF, Marshall acquired a modern facility originally built by the Federal Aviatio'n Administration. For modifications and installation of new equipment, MSFC spent over $2 000 000 after acquiring the site in the summer of 1962. The array of digital and analog computers fbr test, checkout, simulation, and engineering studies made it one of the largest computer installations in the country. :_" In contrast to Michoud, where the plant facility sat waiting, the development of the Mississippi Test Facility became a contest with Mississippi mud--to say nothing of the poisonous snakes and clouds of mosquitoes 72

that

plagued

construction

workers.

Although

NASA

began

MISSIONS,

MOI)ES,

AND

MANUFACTURIN(;

with a list of 34 potential locations, tile site for test-firing Saturn V rocket stages logically had to I)e close to the production facilities at Michoud and also be accessible by water for shipment of S-II stages. Other criteria quickly ruled out m(')st of the other contending sites. The test area had to be bigl Size was a safety factor; test sites had to be widely separated from critical support and supply facilities in case of accidental destruction of a stage during a test run. More important, at the time the test facility location was being debated, NASA designers were looking ahead lo big, deep-space booster stages of up to 111 million newtons (25 million pounds) of thrust, and lots of noise. Therefore, a test area of expansive proportions was required but in a location where a minimum number of people would have to be relocated. After juggling all of these requiremerits, in October 1961 NASA settled on a sparsely populated corner of Hancock County, Mississippi. A new, $300-million-plus space-age facility was hacked out of soggy cypress groves, Devil's Swamp, Dead Tiger Creek, and the Pearl River. By the intracoastal waterway and the Pearl River, MTF was only a 72-kilometer barge trip from the production facilities at Michoud, and was accessible by water to MSFC and the (;ape. The central test area, around the test stands, comprised 55 square kilometers, with a buffer zone of 518 square kilometers surrounding it. Approximately 850 families from five small hamlets were resettled outside MTF t)oundaries. The central test area was exclusively reserved for NASA use, and although the buffer zone was uninhabited, the area continued to be lumbered and teemed with wiktlife, including wild hogs descended from abandoned farm stock. An employee picnic in 1967 frugally consigned some of these natural resources to a t)arbecue t)it. :_ At the heart of MTF were the monolithic test stands: a dual-position structure for running the S-IC stage at full throttle, and two separate stands for the S-II stage. Laboratories, monitoring equipment, control center, and storage areas, including docks, were all deployed thousands of meters away. The MFF complex was tied together by 12 kilometers of canals (with navigation locks and a bascule bridge); 45 kilometers of railroads; and 56 kilometers of roads and paved highways. Under it all snaked 966 kilometers of cables, connecting test stands, lahoratories, and data banks. Each month, MTF consumed enough electricity to keep 6000 households functioning. An arm of MSFC at Huntsville, MTF had an administrative pattern that was a bit unusual. A comparatively small cadre of NASA personnel (about 100) carried out overall managerial and supervisory duties. This select group also made the final evaluation of test results and issued the flight-worthiness certificates to the stage contractors. Approximately 3000 contractor personnel made up the vast majority of the work force. North American and Boeing each had several hundred people running their respective test stands. The General Electric Company, with over 1500 people, had the contract ti)r housekeeping services at MTF and 73

STAGES

I'()

SA'II::RN

provided maintenance t0r tile facility and operational support at tile test stands and elsewhere for tile other tenants, iluhlding the c<mstruction firms. (;l'Ts r,mge o1 support ran the gamut from 19 special items of cable equipment (for $1 1_3 187), to the always popular snake bite kits ($1.25 each). ()n occasion, (;E hired cowboys to round up stray cattle in the outreaches of MIT and it was (;E th_,t ,-ranged for the transfer of the cemeteries during resettlement of the ,uea's small t_m'ns. Development of MTF had a hcctic air about it. (:onstruction delays mounted by early 1964, after Mississippi went through a highly unusual cold snapan

The ST-124 inertial guidance platform is given a technical check (left); above is a schematic of its systems. accumulated from the V-2, the developed by the yon Braun team.

Redstone,

and

subsequent

vehicles

Beginning in 1958, work on the IU was concurrent with the Saturn I. On 15 June 1961, the mockup of the IU was completed at Huntsville and scheduled to fly in the Block II series of the Saturn launch vehicles. 21 For the Block I veh'icles with dummy upper stages, guidance and control equipment was packaged in canisters located at various points in the adapter area atop the S-I first stage of the Saturn I. This equipment included telemetry, tracking, and other components, such as the ST-90 guidance platfi)rm and a guidance signal processor. Plans called for an additional canister to carry the ST-124 platform as a "passenger," thus beginning its sequential tests and qualification as the active guidance component for later Saturn I, Saturn IB, and Saturn V flights. MSFC intended to make the ST-124 an increasingly, active system for SA-5 and subsequent vehicles and to link it with an IBM computer. SA-5 was the first of the Block II vehicles of the Saturn I series. It featured a live S-IV upper stage and a separate vehicle segment, located above the S-IV, for guidance and control (to be known as the IU). Standing about 1.5 meters high, the cylindrical IU section contained four package bays that crucifi)rmlv joined 244

had been shaped in the fi)rm of large tubes in the center. This new structural element

and was

FROM

CHECKOU'F

TO

I,AUNCH

designed for greater flexibility and permitted modifications between launches, if so dictated by results of the previous launch and changing test requirements• 3"he fl)ur tubular segments contained the ST-90, the ST-124, the telemetry equipment, and the power and control package. _:' With the flight of SA-9, tile Saturn I vehicles began carrying a new type of instrument unit, which resembled the equil)ment later applied in the Saturn IB and Saturn V flights. In the earlier design, the tubular package bays were pressurized and surrounded by an inert gas as a means of environmental control to cope with the prot)len]s of heat. In later instrument unit design, however, equipment was nlounled on tim walls of the cylindrical segment. With this design the cylindrical unit was not pressurized, and the external style of environmental control bv inerl gas gave way to a revised system. Elimination of the l)ressurizcd t{tbular sections and other simplifications not only reduced the weight of the instrument unit, but also reduced the he{ght of the segment by half, thereby improving the structural and flight characteristics of the late Block il launch vehicles. Introduction of tile improved instrumenl unit marked growing participation of contractors, including tl]e Bendix (;orporation, for the ST-124, and IBM, who assumed increasing responsil_ility for the instrument unit segment and various gnidance conlpon ents.':_ The major role of IBM as the principal manut'acturer for the instrument unit began in February 1964. The company was named prime contractor for both the Saturn IB and Saturn V versions of the IU and was responsible for building, testing and shipping the insn'ument unit to Cape Kennedy. With IVlSFC retaining primary responsibility for the buildup of the first four units and the first four flights of the Saturn IB, IBM was able to ease into its work. For the first instrument ttnil, 80 percent of the hardware was classed as government-furnished equipment; this was reduced to 10 percent when IBM took over for the t]fth unit. The instrument unit for the Saturn was essentially the same as the model for the Saturn IB, because the evolutionary process of development and manufacturing was intende(l to give the Sattlrll _r _t proven •

')'I

piece

of equipment with as few changes as possible." Unlike most major launch vehicle components, which were manufactured elsewhere around the country, the inslrmnenl unit was produced in Huntsville. IBM made a major commitment complete research and development facifities, engineering production facilities in the city's Research Park. Ahhough started with only a sales office building in Huntsville

in setting up offices, and the company ix] 1962 and

origin'ally assumed most of its work would be done ix] New York, the scope of work implied a need for new facilities, and IBM decided on a complex in Huntsville. Bv 1(.)64, IBM cmnpleted a manufacturing building ix] Huntsville's Research Park, and the company site included four major tmildings, representing a $14 million inveslmenl with a work force o(2000. Clinton H. (;race, the facility nlanager HI ttuntsvilh', was a 2-t 5

SATURNIB/V INSTRUMENT UNIT • GUIDANCE& CONTROL • ELI[CT|ICAL • T£_atL_lt ¥ & aI£ASORUIG • imiO

FitEQIHCV

• |'flHi¢1111t&L • TliEBliL

CNT'ROL

The instrument unit used in Saturn IB and Saturn V is shown in component detail in the drawing at left; below, left, in IBM's Huntsville facility, IUs are joined together and instrumented. Two of the key components in the IU are the launch vehicle digital computer (below, right) and the launch vehicle data adapter (bottom, left). At bottom right, this completed IU is undergoing rigorous checkout and test before shipment to KSC. Both IBM and MSFC engineers are monitoring checkout.

COtfl[R

,SF,_LIN_MEll K PUIEL

$TRtJCTURE \ \

BACK LOGICS[C]ICK\

_HO_T_CO d ECTfOIt n

tmC_

P.6rKGVALV_-._----/ /

--

/

/ /

__

_r c._

i.

the

FROM

CHECKOUT

TO

LAUNCH

dynamic force in both the organization and buildup of the IBM complex and won high praise from Wernher von Braun. Speaking at the dedication of the IBM facility in 1965, yon Braun commented, "In this project, a saying has developed at Marshall Center, 'When you're in trouble, say 'Grace'--and Grace will take care of your problems.' -',5 The ground rules for the design, research, and development of the IU came out of MSFC, and these concepts carried over into lhe production models delivered by IBM. With cost constraints and tight schedules limiting the number of test flights, the number of measurements for each flight was expected to be quite high and to vary considerably from one flight to another. For this reason, flexibility tot the instrument unit had a high priority and designers emphasized a modular approach as means to provide both flexibility and ease of servicing. Another strongly emphasized feature was reliability; a key factor, particularly because the Saturn program was geared to manned launches. In addition, liability was enforced by the high cost of each vehicle and limited test flights, which naturally produces a reluctance to fly exotic, untried, hardware. As James T. Powell, of Marshall's Astrionics Laboratory stressed, "We simply cannot afford the time or money'to launch additional vehicles to obtain data lost by instrumentation equipment failures. This has led to a rather conservative approach to system design." Some innovations, such as new modulation techniques or Illicromimaturization, might turn out to be "equivalent in importance to the invention of the wheel," Powell remarked, but would not be used in the Saturn program until they had undeniably demonstrated their operational reliability3 6 Nevertlaeless, the scope of the missions for Saturn \' required additional changes and improvements. These aherations were introduced and checked out during the Saturn IB series, which not only carried the same basic instrument unit as the Saturn V but also involved manned

launches

and

carried

the similar

S-IVB

upper

stage.

THE BRAIN AND ITS PARTS Categorized as the "brain" and "nerve center" by the MSFC Astrionics Laboratory, the IU, with its modular construction, facilitated the changmg of components and computer programs, without major modifications, for different missions. The basic functions of the IU included guidance and control during all phases of flight; command and sequence of vehicle functions, including engine cutoff and separation of the stages; insertion into orbit; and relay of data on vehicle position, vehicle functions, and other information to ground stations. In the case of the Saturn V, the I U also functioned in (1) the transfer of the S-IVB, the IU, and the command and service modules into the lunar transfer trajectory; (2) the stabilization during transposition and docking; and (3) the 247

STAGES

TO

SATURN

maneuvers to clear tile S-IVB and IU frmn the flight path of the CSM on its route to the lnoon. 27 The IU itself was viewed as five major systems: structural, guidance and control, electrical, instrumentation, and enviroli

lllenta]

c()ntrol.

The cylindrical IU structure did more than carry meters of cables, black boxes, and other miscellaneous paraphernalia; it was a load-bearing structure as well, with three major rocket stages stacked beneath it and thousands of kilograms of spacecraft, lunar landing module (and three astronauts) to support above it. The process of assembly of the I U began with three curved (120 °) structural segments made of thin aluminum sheets bonded over an aluminum honeycomb core (approximately equal to the thickness of a bar of soap). In joining the three segments together, workers used highly accurate theodolites, mr,oh like a surveyor's transit, to align the three segments in a precise circle. Technicians joined the segments with precision-machined splice plates and affixed alunfinum alloy channel rings tot surface mating of both the S-IVB below and the payload above. _s The key items for guidance and control included the ST-124 stabilized platform, the launch vehicle digital computer, and the launch vehicle data adapter. Produced by the Navigation and Control Division of the Bendix Corporation, the ST-124 consisted of a three-degrees-offreedom inertial platfi)rm. With a diameter of 53 centimeters and a weight of 52 kilograms, the platform's structural members and most of its components were fabricated of beryllium, an extremely lightweight space-age metal. Although difficult to work with, beryllium offered significant weight savings and provided good stability over a wide temperature range. To reduce errors in sensing attitude and velocity, designers cut friction to a minimum in the platform gyros and accelerometers bv floating the bearings on a thin film of dry nitrogen; pressure, temperature, and rate of flow were controlled from a reservoir in the IU. The carefully controlled alignment of the ST-124 platform did not take place until the final events of the launch countdown. The procedure called for a precisely sited theodolite not far from the launch pad to aim a beam of light through a small opening in the It" high above the ground. The beam passed through a small window in the guidance platform where a pair of platform prisms reflected the beam back to the theodolite. Coated to work with two different wavelengths, the prisms aided in aligning the platti)rm to its launch azimuth; when proper alignment was achieved, the acquisition light signal notified the mission control center. 2_ All the carefully engineered complexities of the Saturn guidance and control system were not fully en]ph)yed during the first-stage burn. Although the ST-124 was released from its l':arth-fixed reference to a space-fixed reference five seconds before liftoff and was SUl_plying velocity and attitude data to the guidance c

_

_

2 NN

-

_._

_'_

,_ _

427

APPENDIX

E

co

L3

I P. £ e. o

"N

6

o_

_

._

r._

__

428

_._

SATURN

V SUBCONTRACTORS

E e',

._

_

_.-_

_

"_

__.

"._ _,

J

_

429

APPENDIX

E

o r. e-

0_

e..

r.

t.-,

__ r,

-_r. _

_

O

,_ e-_

E- _

_

E

.--

__

..... t_

_

_

.__

._

.-_

,--3

6. e-,

t

e_

n

,5=

6

Z 6

r-,

6

O

O

437

APPENDIX

E

0

;4

u: ," b.O

_ =

_

2

;,.-. " = 0

,_

= _

__._ 438

,-

_

= _

-

9

,_°=

_.

= e.

Appendix

F--Location of Remaining Saturn Hardware

Location

of Remaining

Saturn

(As of 5 June Saturn

Hardware

1975) V

Vehicle Number

S-IC

Stage

S-II

Stage

S-IVB

Stage

IU

SA 513 (Skylab

I)

KSC

SA 514

MAF

KS(;

KSC

MSFC

SA 515

MAF

KSC

MSFC (used for

MSFC

Skylab backup workshop) Saturn Vehicle Number

S-IB

IB

Stage

S-IVB

Stage

IU

SA 2O9 KSC

KSC

KSC

SA 211

MAF

KSC

MSFC

SA 212

KS("

(used on SA 513)

MSFC for disposal

(ASTP

backup)

SA 213 surplus, SA 214

MAF MAF t

stripped declared and placed lot

on

439

Appendix

G---NASA Organization Apollo-Saturn

During

APPENDIX

G

z

a_z8 z_

_

mz

-

Z 0

_o_

I--

,_0 z _

l.-

0

m Z _E

uJ (.3 z

or.

o_ Z

_ I-. Z¢_

0

I---

Z 0 n.L4J

=.I

Z 0 I-"

Z

442

z

z

o_

m

t t

lg ¢,_

ORGANIZATION

IL-:Lq

5

[_----J

>==

,.____.._._ I

Z O

___J

rr'

Z

O

i UJ ¢.3 e,_

"2 o

g o

.l _m =

,( Z 0 n" ILl

|

.

..4

Z

'. 2_y.

0 l=-

Z

i __

i

443

APPENDIX

3

G

z w

>

J

J
:E _ 0-,-_

•

._ u.

,
w

>.

> I-Z W Z

> _

,< O.

2 r_

:r_ E

:= •

_

"T

E

E

_

__

_

o

_

_

_

_

,_.__

455

Notes CHAPTER

1. The name of the locale, ('ape Canaveral, late President John F. Kennedy, and the Space 2.

(;enter

The official Charles D.

1

was officially NASA facility

changed on 28 Nov. 1963 was henceforth called John

to honor the F. Kennedy

(KS(;). NASA Benson

history of Kennedy Space and William B. Faherty,

Center and the launch facilities and Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch

concepts is by Facilities and

Operations, NASA SP-4204 (Washington, 1978). Material for this section was compiled from the following sources: KS(;, The Kennedy Space Center Story (Kennedy Space (;enter, Fla., 1969); NASA, Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1969: Chronology. on Science, Technology', and Policy, NASA SP-4014 (Washington, 1970); MSFC, "Chronology of MSFC--1969" (draft copy), Saturn V News Reference (1968); MSFC, Saturn V Flight Manual, SA-506 (1969). 3.

MSFC, NASA,

Saturn Saturn

V Flight Manual, V News Reference,

4. There are many books covering well-illustrated historical survey

SA-506, passim. this period. by Wernher

passim:

MSFC,

For a readable yon Braun

Chronology

( 1972);

o; MSFC--1969,

NASA, passim;

and authoritative summary, see the and Frederick I. Ordway, History of

Rocketry. and Space Travel (New York, 1969), pp. 22-40, which bibliography. See also Eugene M. Emme, A History of Space Flight which includes a bibliography. For the lifesaving rocket, see Mitchell

also includes an excellent (New York, 1965), passim., R. Sharpe, Development of the

Lifesaving Rocket, Marshall Space Flight Center, Historical Note no. 4, 10 June 1969. The bibliographical study by Katherine Murphy Dickson, History. of Aeronautics and Astronautics: A Preliminary Bibliography, NASA HHR-29 (Washington, '1968), features annotated entries, and lists many government documents, as well as articles from scholarly journals and periodicals of both 5.

European

and

American

origin.

For an overview of this era and its leading personalities, see the histories by Loyd S. Swenson, J r., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander, This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury', NASA SP-4201 (Washington, 1966); yon Braun and Ordway, History; and Emme, History. Tsiolkovsky's F-243,326,

collected papers 327 and 328 (1965).

are available in translation For an authorized biography

as

NASA Technical Translations of Goddard see Milton Lehman,

This High Man: The Life of Robert H. Goddard (New York, 1963); but see also Esther Goddard and G. Edward Pendray, eds., The Papers ofRobertH. Goddard (New York, 1970), 3 vols. Willy Ley, Rockets, Missiles, and Men in Space (New York, 1968) includes considerable historical information. Ley not only knew Oberth and other pioneering figures of the twenties and thirties, he also participated in many experimental projects. Frederick C. Durant, 11I, and George S.James, eds., First Steps Toward Space, Smithsonian Annals of Flight, no. 10 (Washington, 1974), includes a memoir by Oberth, as well as contributions concerning Goddard and the Smithsonian, and essays on rocket research in Europe and the U.S. in the twenties and thirties. Eugene M. Emme,

457

NOTES

TO

ed., The includes

PAGES

History' o summary

11-19

Rocket essays

Technology: Essays on Research Development on U.S. rocket technology in the pre-World

and Utility (Detroit, War II years.

1964),

6. See, for example. ,,'on Braun and Ordway, History; Emme, H_to_ of Space Travel; and Swenson, Grimwood, and Alexander, This New Ocean. Wartime Russian rocketry is analyzed in Coleman Goldberg, An Introduction to Russian Rocketry: History, Development, and Prospects, Off. of the Asst. Chief of Staff, Intelligence. U.S. Army Field Detachment R, 1 June 1959. Copy in JSC files. 7. Ernst Space 8.

Stuhlinger, (New York,

eta[., eds., Astronautical 1963), pp. 366-367;

Engineering and Science: From Peenemuende von Braun and Ordway, History, pp. 63-74.

to Planetary

Dornberger summarizes the V-2 work in Emme, Rocket Technology, pp. 29-45, and has published his own memoir, entitled V-2 (New York, 1954). This book is one of the most authoritative works on the V-2 and Peenemuende generally available, in addition to Dieter K Huzel, Peenemuende to Canaveral (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962); and Krafft A. Ehricke, "The Peenemuende Rocket Center, Part 2," Rocketscience, 4 (June 1950):35. See also, Mitchell Sharpe, "Evolution of Rocket Technology: Historical Note, Saturn History Project," Jan. 1974, pp. 15-20 (copy in SHP files); yon Braun and Ordwav, History, 104-117. Practically every aspect of the V-2, from basic research to its early design and testing to its deployment, can be found in a large collection of technical reports from Peenemuende, located in the Redstone Scientific Information Center, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

9.

Von Braun and Ordway, History, pp. ! 14-117; Dornberger, V-2, passim. Plans for rounding up German scientific and technical personnel were in progress by early 1945. During the spring, the idea was known as Operation Overcast. In 1946, the program was renamed Operation Paperclip, the designation which became the most familiar. See Clarence Lasby, Operation Paperclip (New York, 1971).

10.

Von Braun and Ordway, History, p. 18; Sharpe, "Evolution." pp. 42-48. Between May 1945 and Dec. 1952, the U.S. recruited 642 foreign technicians and specialists under Paperclip. Lasby, Operation Paperclip, gives the absorbing details of their utilization by the Air Force, Army, and Navy. Generally, most of the specialists served individually or in very small, close-knit groups. The yon Braun team of 132 was by far the largest single group.

1 i.

For an overview of the early postwar era, see von Braun and Ordway, History, pp. 120-139; Swenson, Grimwood, and Alexander, This New Ocean, pp. 18-3 I. More specific studies include J. L. Chapman, Atla6: The Story. ofa Mzssile (New York, 1960); James Baar and William Howard, Polaris (New York, 1960); and Julian Hartt, Mzghty Thor (New York, 1961). See also Ernest G. Schwiebert, ed., A Histo_ of the U.S. Air Force Ballistic Missiles (New York, 1965), and Michael Armacost, Politics of Weapons Innovation: The Thor-Jupiter Controversy (New York, 1969).

12.

Von

Braun

13. On the Marshall

and

Ordway,

History,

120

ff.

origins of the Redstone Arsenal, see David S. Akens, Space Flight Center, MSFC Historical Monograph no.

H_storical Origins of the George C. 1 (December, 1960). For accounts

of the struggle between the Army and Air Force about the IRBM, see Armacost, Politics of Weapons Innovation, and John B. Medaris's memoir, Countdown for Decision (New York, 1960). On the role of ABMA, Jupiter, and Polaris, see yon Braun and Ordway, History, pp. 130-132; Baar and Howard, Polaris; Wyndham D. Miles, "The Polaris," in Emme, ed., Rocket Technology. 14.

Von Braun and Mighty Thor. See Technology.

Ordway, History, 132also, Robert G. Perry,

136; "The

Schwiebert, At!as, Thor,

History,, passim; and Minuteman,"

Chapman, Atlas; in Emme, ed.,

Hartt, Rocket

15.

The most detailed and objective description of the events leading to the selection of Vanguard over other competitors is found in Constance M. Green and Milton Lomask, Vanguard_---A History (Washington, 1971). See also yon Braun and Ordway, History, pp. 150 et seq.; Emme, History of Spaceflight; R. Cargill Hall, "Early U.S. Satellite Proposals," Wernher yon Braun, "The Redstone, Jupiter, and Juno," and John P. Hagen, "The Viking and the Vanguard," in Emme, ed., Rocket Technology.

16. Walter Haeussermann to Robert G. Sheppard, "Comment Edition of History of Saturn Launch Vehicles," 22 June 1976. For the story of the Jupiter launch vehicle and the Explorer satellite, see, Medaris, Countdown, passim.; yon Braun, "Redstone, Jupiter, and Juno," in Emme, ed., Rocket Technology; Stuhlinger et al., Astronautical Engzneering, pp. 203-239. 17.

See,

for

example,

the

essay

by John

P. Hagen,

"Viking

and

Vanguard,"

cited

above;

Milton

W.

Rosen, Viking Rocket Story (New York, 1955); Green and Lomask, Vanguard. On IGY, Sputnik, and the NASA story, see Emme, History of Spaceflight, pp. 120-130; Swenson, Grimwood, and

458

NOTES

Alexander, This New Ocean, pp. 18 et seq.; and NASA, 1958-1963, NASA SP-4101 (Washington, 18.

For

summaries

of the era,

see, von

Braun

and

TO

Robert L. Rosholt, 1966).

Ordway,

History,

pp.

An

PAGES

21-32

Administrative

163 passim;

Emme,

History

of

History

of

Space Flight, 153 passim. The official history of the Mercury program is Swenson, Grimwood, and Alexander, This New Ocean. For the NASA history of Gemini, see James M. Grimwood and Barton C. Hacker, On the Shoulders of Titans, NASA SP-4203 (Washington, 1977). On the Apollo spacecraft Swenson, ton,

and lunar lander, Jr., Chariots for Apollo:

see Courtney G. Brooks, A History of Manned Lunar

James M. Grimwood, and Loyd S. Spacecraft, NASA SP-4205 (Washing-

1979).

CHAPTER 2 1. Eugene M. Emme, ed., Aeronautics and Astronautics: An American Chronology of Science and Technology in the Exploration of Space, 1915-1960 (Washington, 1961), pp. 81-92; Eugene M. Emme, "Historical Perspectives on Apollo," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (Apr. 1968), p. 371; Armacost, Thor-Jupiter. 2.

H. H. Koelle Demonstration, hereafter Vehicle,"

3.

et al., ABMA,

Juno V Space Vehicle Development Program, Redstone Arsenal, Rept. DSP-TM-10-58,

as Juno V Feasibility. Oswald H. Lange, "Development in Stuhlinger et al., Astronautical Engzneering, pp. 2-23.

Koelle, Juno V Feasibility, David S. Akens, Historical Monograph

no.

1 (Dec.

Phase I: Booster Feasibility 13 Oct. 1958, p. I. Cited of

the

Saturn

Space

p. 1; Lange, "Development," p. 3. The ABMA proposal Origins of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, MSFC 1960),

Carrier is cited in Historical

p. 58.

4.

Robert D. Sampson, "Informal Working Papers: Technical History of Saturn," Saturn Systems Office (1961), pp. 3-4; Swenson, Grimwood, and Alexander, This New Ocean, p. 79; Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Subcommittee on Governmental Organization for Space Activities, Investigation of Governmental Organization for Space Activities, 86th Cong., I st sess., pp. 108-111, 121, 125-128, 628-629.

5.

Koelle, 1960):

Juno V Feasibility, pp. 1-2; 26-27; von Braun, "The

A. Mrazek, "The Saturn Project," Jupiter, and Juno," in Emme,

Astronautics, 5 (July ed., Histo_ of Rocket

6.

Von Braun, "Redstone, Jupiter, and Juno," p. 120. Copy of ARPA Order files, and recopied in NASA, Documents in the History of NASA: An Anthology, HHR-43, Aug. 1975, pp. 238-239.

no. 14-59 in SHP NASA History Off.,

7.

Koelle,

8.

A. A. McCool

Technology,

pp.

Juno

William Redstone,

107-119.

v Feasibility, and

p. 4.

G. H. McKay,

Jr.,

"Propulsion

Development

Problems

Associated

with

Large

Liquid Rockets," MSFC, TMX-53075, 12 Aug. 1963, p. 5. 9. David S. Akens, Saturn Illustrated Chronology: Saturn's First Eleven Years, April 1957 Through April 1968, MSFC, M HR-5, 5th ed. (1971 ), pp. 2- 3. William A. Mrazek, "The Saturn Launch Vehicle Family,"

lecture

at Univ.

of Hawaii,

June

"Saturn Family." Juno V Feasibility,

1966,

p. 2.

10.

Quotations from Mrazek, and 30 July 1975; Koelle,

William p. 10.

A. Mrazek

interviews,

MSFC,

3 Sept.

1971,

11.

John B. Medaris and Roy Johnson, "Memorandum of Agreement: ARPA and AOMC. Subject: High Thrust Booster Program Using Clustered Engines," 23 Sept. 1958; Akens, Saturn Chronology, p. 3; Mrazek interview, 3 Sept. 1971; Mrazek, "Saturn Family," pp. 2-3. Quotation from the latter. Interviews with Konrad Dannenberg, MSFC, 30July 1975, and with William A. Mrazek, 30 July 1975, were extremely useful in clarifying many details of Saturn l's origins and development. See also, interviews with D. D. Wyatt, NASA, 2 Dec. 1971, and Homer E. Newell, NASA, 2 Dec. 1971.

12.

For brief summaries of this period, see Frank W. Anderson, Jr., Orders of Magnitude: History of NACA and NASA, 1915-1976, NASA SP-4403 (Washington, 1976), pp. 14-17; Swenson, Grirnwood, and Alexander, This New Ocean, pp. 53, 82-83. A more detailed review is in Rosholt, Administrative History, especially with the Russians are obvious Kimball to Nelson A. Rockefeller,

Chaps. 1 and 3. Overtones of national in contemporary memoranda. See, Chmn., President's Advisory Comm.

zation,

Space

"Organization

for

Civil

Programs,"

25 Feb.

1958,

JSC

security and a space race for example, Arthur A. on Government Organifiles.

459

NOTES

TO

PAGES

13.

Anderson,

14.

Ocean, pp. 75-106; NACA, Aerodynamics

33-42

Order._ of Magnitude,

Spacecraft Program and JPL

pp.

14-18;

Swenson,

(;rimwood,

and

Rosholt, Administrative Histoo, , pp. 40-47; Emme. Committee, "Minutes of Meeting: Committee

Alexander,

This

"Perspectives," on Aircraft,

New

p. 371. Missile and

Aerodynamics," 21 Mar. 1958, JSC files; NACA. memo, "'Suggestions for Space (For Internal Use Only)," 28 Mar. 1958,JSC fifes. Ea: Iv NASA moves towards ABMA are discussed in Rosholt, Administrative Histo_, pp. 45L47.

15.

Emme,

16.

Working Group on Vehicular Program, "Report to the NACA, Special Technology: A National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development 1958, pp. 1-7, 11-23, copy in JSC files.

17.

lbid.,

18.

H. Guyford

19.

Koe[[e,

20.

Wernher yon Braun, "Saturn the Giant," in Edgar M. Cortright, ed., Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, NASA SP-350 (Washington, 1975), p. 41; Wernher yon Braun, "Saturn: Our Best Hope," Space World, 1 (June 1961):13; Swenson, Grimwood, and Alexander, This New Ocean, p. 71; William A. Mrazek, "The Saturn Project," Astronautics, 5 (July 1960): 27, 74: Koelle, et al.,Juno v Space Vehicle Development Program (Statua Report--15 November 1958), ABMA, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., Rept. no. DSP-TM-I 1-58 (15 Nov. 1958), pp. 20 ff. (cited hereafter as Koelle, Juno V Status).

21.

Wesley Booster

22.

23.

"Perspectives,"

pp.

26-30,

interview,

v Feastbffit'_',

on

Space 18 July

L. Hjornevik Program,"

NASA,

7 Feb.

1974.

copy

in JSC

files.

p. 4.

to the NASA Administrator, 2 Jan. 1959, JSC files.

"Next

Steps

in the

Development

of a National

NASA, Propulsion Staff, "A National Space Vehicle Program: A Report to the President," Jan. 1959, JSC files. Rosen was always a staunch advocate of big booster, a feeling that stands m this document. In a note attached 29 Sept. 1967, when the report was declassified, Rosen acknowledged as the author.

27 out was

U.S. Army Ordnance Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., news release, "Project Saturn," 12 Feb. 1959; Advanced Research Projects Agency, "Saturn Chronology," ARPA retired files, 1959, copy in SHP files; von Braun, "Saturn the Giant," p. 41.

24.

Akens, Johnson,

Saturn Chronolog3,, p. 4; Emme, 20 Mar. 1959, JSC files.

25.

Senate Johnson

Committee testimony,

26.

ARPA,

"Saturn

27.

Akens,

Saturn

28.

Milton

W. Rosen

29.

ARPA,

"Saturn

30.

Herbert

31.

Herbert

32.

Wesley

33.

Senate Comm. testimony, pp.

34.

NASA Hq., "Notes 1959, JSC fifes.

35.

York

36.

Emme,

37.

T. Keith Activities,"

Glennan 2 Nov.

38.

McKinsey Division,"

and Co., Inc., "Providing 14Jan. 1960; Akens, Saturn

39.

Akens, Historical Origins, Appendix "F" in Historical

460

Committee Program,"

34-35

Stever

Juno

p. 372.

on Aeronautical pp. 111 - 113,

Chronology,"

pp.

Chronology',

"Perspectives,"

and 140. 12-

interview,

NASA,

14 Nov.

F. York

to Eugene

Emme,

10June

F. York

to Eugene

Emme,

2 May

to Emme,

to the

2 May

of

to

Space

Roy W.

Activities,"

and

Meeting

on

1969.

14-15.

Administrator,

on Aeronautical 164165.

"Perspectives,"

"Investigation

Glennan

14.

pp.

on

Sciences,

T. Keith

p. 5.

Chronology,"

L. Hjornevik

Space

p. 372;

1974. 1973;

ARPA,

"Utilization

Space Vehicle

Sciences,

"Saturn

Chronology,"

of ABMA," "Investigation

Program

Status,

20.Jan. of Space

Friday,

April

pp. 1959,

5-6.

JSC

Activities," 17,

files. Johnson

1959,"

17 Apr.

1973. p. 373.

to 1959

the President, "Responsibility (copies of 21 Oct. and 30 Oct.

pp. 81, Origtns.

89-91.

Supporting Chronology, The

and Organization memos attached),

for Certain JSC files.

Space

Services for the Development Operation p. 6; Emme, "Perspectives," p. 373. full

text

of

Eisenhower's

remarks

appears

as

NOTES

40.

Akens,

41.

Mrazek,

Saturn

42.

Mrazek,

43.

John

44.

Sloop, Senate

"Saturn

Pr_iect,"

pp.

48.

Von

49.

Eldon

Braun,

50.

Saturn

51.

Quoted

to Thomas the Giant,"

"Saturn:

W.

Aerospace

Hall

Space

Chronology',

Rosen

Sciences,

Our

Engineering,

May

1960,

p. 21.

Team,

"Report,"

on Science pp.

53.

President 8.

Dwight

54.

Robert O. Piland to Chief, Headquarters, June 8-9,

55.

HomerJ. 1960.

pp.

interview,

5-6.

1969;

"Investigation

Walter

of Space

T. Olson

to John

Activities,"

Johnson

NASA,

on

Saturn

Development

Plan,"

15

56.

NASA,

Off.

Ibid.,

pp.

Ibid.,

pp. 22-25.

13; Mrazek,

to Eugene

"Saturn

"Current

Trends

Emme,

Family," in Large

21 Mar.

pp.

1973;

yon

3, 4.

Booster

Developments,"

1-8.

and

Astronautics,

Review

to T. Keith

Glennan,

Flight Systems Div., 1960 (Information),"

to the Administrator, Planning

in JSC

58.

Hyatt

_[ the Space Program,

86th

Cong.,

2d sess.,

14Jan.

Saturn

Chronology,

p.

Requirements files.

Meeting

at

167-196.

of Program

57.

1969;

p. 373.

D. Eisenhower

Stewart

4, 12, copy

pp.

"Perspectives,"

1960,

"Advanced 17 June

"Vehicle

and

1960;

Propulsion 1960, JSC

Requirements

Evaluation,

Akens,

for

"A Proposed

the Space

Long

Range

Program," Plan,"

18Jul_

4 Nov.

1960,

14 Nov.

1960,

files.

18-21.

38-39. Science

Advisory

Comm.,

"Report

of Ad Hoc

Panel

on Man-in-Space,"

1,6.

61.

Ibid.,

62.

Emme,

"Perspectives,"

63.

Jerome

B. Wiesner,

pp.

2-3. pp.

375-376;

"Report

to the

1961, passim. Roshoh, Admmt_trative Robert C. Seamans,

Jr.

Fitzgerald

Library,

Kennedy

65.

Public

66.

John M. Logsdon, (Cambridge, Mass., 26-27.

Papers

HistoD', pp. interview,

of the Presidents,

Mar.-Apr.

Rosholt,

183-192; NASA,

copies John

Administrative

President-Elect

27

in JSC

of the Ad

Hugh Mar.

Histor),, Hoc

pp.

1961,

pp.

and 1-5,

117,

Committee

187-

188.

on Space,"

IOJan.

L. Dryden interviews, NASA, 26 Mar. 1964; 1964. Interviews taped for archives of John

files.

F. Kennedy,

1961

(Washington,

1962),

The Decision to Go To The Moon: Project Apollo 1970), p. 106; Hugh Sidey; "Soviet Spacemen,"

Cited in Emme, "Perspectives," House Committee on Science sess.,

p.

Schwenk,

Committee

pp.

Hope,"

C.

in Emme,

59. Ibid., pp. 61t. President's

Best

25 Nov.

Francis

Vehicle

House

O. Paine, p. 41.

and

Jan.-Feb.

69.

and

Saturn

1969;

1959.

Abraham Hyatt Braun, "Saturn

67. 68.

Akens,

14 Nov.

123.

47.

64.

17, 74.

NASA,

Abraham Hyatt to Abe Silverstein, 24 Aug., 1959. Saturn Vehicle Team, "Report to tile Administrator,

pp.

43-55

4-6.

1972. on Aeronautical

p.

PAGES

p. 3.

interview,

21 Jan. Comm.

Dec.

52.

pp.

Family,"

L. Sloop

testimony, 45. 46.

Chronology,

"Saturn

"FO

p. 378. Astronautics,

1962

NASA

Authorization

p. 95.

and the National Interest Life, 21 Apr. 1961, pp.

Hearn_g_,

87 Cong.,

1st

31, 374-378.

Public Papers... Kennedy, 1962 (Washington, 1963), pp. 688-674. For additional background, see Courtnev Brooks,.lames Grimwood, and Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft, NASA SP-4205 (Washington, 19791, Chapter 1. For a thorough review and assessment of this era and Kennedy's historic decision, see the fine study by Logsdon, The Decision

to Go to the Moon.

461

NOTES

TO

PAGES

57-65

CHAPTER

3

1. Akens, Saturn Chronology, p. 12; Donald H. Heaton, on October 28, 1960," memo for record, 2 Nov.

"Mintttes of the Executive 1960, JSC files+

2.

MSF(', Saturn Systems Off., Saturn Quarterly Progress Report January-March hereafter as MSFC, SSO, Saturn QPR+ These documents are housed in the Off., Marshall Space Flight Center, cited hereafter as MSFC files.

3.

NASA,

4.

See, for Systems

5. The

"Minutes:

Space

Exploration

example, various Off., MSFC files.

Dyna-Soar

persisted

Quarterly within

Program

Council,"

pp.

Progress

Reports

issued

the Air Force

for

two more

Hugh

7.

"Discussion attendees, top deputy

Dryden

to Hugh

8.

Akens, Saturn "Development ing, p. 18.

Odishaw,

6 Mar.

until

Chronology, p. 31; MSFC, SSO, Saturn of the Saturn Space Carrier Vehicle," Vehicular Research

menlo, Gilruth,

QPR, Jan.-Mar. in Stuhlinger,

Plans," text Center, Apr.

1, 11-

pp.

2, 10-12.

12.

Akens, 1963.

13.

NASA, "News Release: Space Task Group Becomes Separate NASA JSC files. See also Rosholt, Administrative History, pp. 83 ff.; Swenson, This New Ocean, pp. 114- 116. Robert

16.

NASA, Manual:

R. Gilruth

p. 50;

to Staff,

"Trip

News

Apollo,"

STG," 3 Jan. Authority--Space

Lunar

the program

Saturn

was canceled

Among the dozen Rees, yon Braun's

to a NASA

11 July

Team," 30

25

Oct.

1962;

May

1960,

JSC

Group,"

1960,

8 Feb.

JSC

files.

files.

as Manned

"Instructions, 1961; Paul Spaceflight

Management Purser, "An-

Center,"

1 Nov.

Emme,

19.

Robert R. Gilruth to Nicholas E. Golovin, 12 Sept. 1961. The Earth parking orbit did, in fact, become established Apollo-Saturn mission procedure. Gilruth's additional recommendation for a "single-burn" stage for translunar injection (TLI) was not followed, however, since the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V placed the Apollo spacecraft into parking orbit, then retired for the TLI phase.

21.

John

22.

Milton W. Rosen to D. Brainerd Holmes, "Large files. For details and membership of these various Grimwood, and Swenson, Chariots for Apollo.

23.

Combined attached

24.

Logsdon,

25.

Milton

462

to Robert

C. Seamans,

Working Group on Vehicles to Rosen-Holmes memo, cited "Selecting," interview,

1961.

p. 376.

Logsdon, "Selecting the Way to the Mode," Aerospace Historian, 18 (June and Swenson, Chariots for Apollo.

Rosen,

31 July

E.

"Discussion

C. Houboh

memo,

Release,

18.

20. John M. Rendezvous Grimwood,

Steering

of STG

Press

Field Element," 3Jan. 1961, Grimwood, and Alexander,

1961; T. Keith Glennan, Task Group," I Jan.

Designation

MSFC

17.

"Perspectives,"

Landing

Release,

Vehicle

Project

to NASA Employees: in JSC files. Notes,

NASA

"Advanced

Report:

"News Release: Functions and

nouncement 1961, copies

files. MSFC,

13.

Chronology',

Markley,

by

of Geissler's presentation 1962, pp. 1-2.

pp.

J. T.

JSC

1961

1962, p. 23; Oswald Lange, et al., Astronautical Engineer-

Ibid.,

14.

1961,

31 July 1961. and Eberhard

11.

15.

1961, p. 42, cited tiles of the Historical

it was overtaken by newer technology example, Swenson, Grimwood, and

10+ Ibid.,

Saturn

at AFBMD

1961.

Notes, Lunar Landing Steering Group," including Rosen, were Seamans, Silverstein, from MSFC.

9+ Ernst D. Geissler, "Project Apollo management meeting at Langley

Jan. during

years

in 1963 for lack of funds, and, more conclusively, because in the form of Gemini two-man missions. See, for Alexander, Th_s New Ocean, pp. 532-533, fn. 61. 6.

5-6

Meeting

15 Nov.

14 Nov.

1969.

The Choice 66-68. For

1961,JSC Launch groups,

for Manned above.

p. 68. NASA,

Moon: 1971):

of full

the Lunar details, see

Orbital Brooks,

files. Vehicle Program," 6 Nov. 1961, JSC see Logsdon, "Selecting," and Brooks,

Space

Flight,

"Report,"

20

Nov.

1961,

NOTES

66-74

Quoted

27.

A. T. Mattson to Charles J. Donlen, "Report Manned Spacecraft Projects," 20 Apr. 1962,

28.

D. Brainerd

29.

Von Braun, "Concluding Lunar Landing Program Space Flight," memo for

30.

Logsdon, "Selecting," pp. 69-70; interview, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA, 27 Mar. 1964. According to yon Braun, Wiesner said later that he felt all three modes (direct, EOR, LOR) were feasible, but that more study and more effort might have been given to a Saturn V direct mode mission. Von Braun, "Saturn the Giant" in Cortright, ed., Apollo Expeditions (1974), p. 5. (draft

Holmes

copy). Ivan D. Ertel (Washington, Chariot_ for

32.

For dates Technical installations,

"Selecting,"

PAGES

26.

31.

in Logsdon,

TO

to yon

p. 68.

Braun,

4 June

on Activities JSC files. 1962,

JSC

16 Apr.

The Apollo 201-202.

1962,

Regarding

files.

Remarks by Dr. Wernher von Braun Given to Dr. Joseph F. Shea, Deputy the record, June 1962, pp. 1-5.

and Mary Louise Morse, 1969), pp. 165-166,

to 19 Apr.

Spacecraft: See also

About Mode Dir. (Systems)

Selection Off. of

A Chronology', vol. 1, NASA Brooks, Grimwood, and

[or tile Manned

SP-4009, Swenson,

Apollo. of initiation and Facilities History including brief

completion of new installations, and Description," 30 June 1968. technical descriptions, see MSFC,

and costs, see MSFC, "MSFC For photos and illustrations of Technical Facilities and Equipment

Digest, January 1967. For details of the transfer, including figures, see David S. Akens, Hzstorical Origins of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, MSFC Historical Monograph no. I (Huntsville, Ala., 1960), especially Appendix C. Additional data are noted in David S. Akens, An Illustrated Chronology. of the NASA Marshall Center arm MSFC Program, 1960-1973 (Huntsville, Ala., 1974), MHR-10, pp. 404,406-407. 33.

Kurt H. Debus, "The Evolution of Launch Concepts and Space Flight Operations," in Stuhlinger et al., AstronauticalEngineering, pp. 25-41 ; MSFC, Historical Off., History. of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Janua_ 1-June 30, 1962, Vol. 1, MHM-5 (1962), pp. xii, 2; KSC, The Kennedy Space

34.

Center

Story.,

pp.

3, 49-52.

For

full

details,

see

Bensnn

and

Faherty,

Moonport.

For a summary of the historical origins of Michoud, see William Ziglar, "History of NASA, MTF and Michoud," NASA HHN-127, Sept. 1972 (a preliminary draft copy in JSC files). See also, Boeing, Thrust, 4 Oct. 1958; and Milton Alberstadt, "'Muskrats, Moonships, and Michoud," 1968. The Boeing Thrust was a company paper published at Michoud. Alberstadt's article is a reprint from an uncited source. (Copies in SHP files.) General information is contained in publicity pamphlets, issued by MSFC/Michoud, "Michoud Operations," 1964, and "From Michoud to the Moon," 1966. For detailed analysis of production and facility operations, see, MAF, Historical Report, Michoud Operations (1 Jan. 1967-31 Dec. 1967); ibid. (1 July 1963-31 Dec. 1963). Detailed pictorial coverage is the basis of the format for MSFC, Michond and Mississippi Test Operations: Management Information, vol. 2, 3rd ed., May 1965; ibid., vol. 2, 4th ed., Dec. 1965. Scheduling details are charted in NASA, Off. of Manned Space Flight, Construction of Facilities, MSFC-Bk. 3-Michoud, Oct., 1965.

35.

MSFC, pp.

36.

Michoud

60-66;

and Mississippi

Akens,

Saturn

Test Operations:

Chronology,

pp.

Management

Information,

vol. 2, 3rd

ed.,

May

1965,

41-42.

"Mississippi Test Facility," news release, in MTF folder, 1969; "Way Station to the Moon," Business Week, 2 Apr. 1966, p. 62; "A Roar for Pearl River," Boeing Magazine, December 1965, p. 9; General Electric, "General Electric/Mississippi Test Support Department's First Five Years as Prime NASA Support Contractor at Mississippi Test Facility," 1967, (unpaged draft, apparently a preliminary

copy,

in typescript).

37.

"Report from Mississippi," GE Challenge, Spring 1967, pp. 10- 12; "Way Station," Business Week, 2 Apr. 1966, p. 63; John F. Judge, "GE Details," Aerospace Technology, 9 Oct. 1967, pp. 48-51; "Mississippi Test Facility," news release, in MTF folder, 1969; background briefs, "Static Test...S-IC," and "Static Test...S-II," background briefs, in MTF folder, 1969; miscellaneous PAO brochures in MTF folder, 1969; NAR, "Mississippi Test Operations," 15 Jan. 1971 ; MSFC, Michoud and Mississippi Test Operations: Management Information, May and Dec. 1965, cited above; General Electric, "General Electric/MTSD," cited above. On 14 June 1974, MTF was renamed National Space Technology Laboratories (NSTL), a permanent NASA field installation reporting directly to NASA Hq. Activities included engine tests, as well as a variety of research and technical activities, especially those related to Earth resources and environment.

38.

Stuhlinger presentation in Army Ballistic Missile ABMA, Rept. no. D-TN-1-59, 15 Dec. 1958, pp.

Agency, 129-149.

"ABMA

Presentation

to the

NASA,"

463

NOTES

TO

PAGES

76-91

39.

H H. Koelle, F.L. Williams, W.G. Huber, and R.C. Callaway, Jr., Juno v Space Vehicle Development Program, Phase I: Booster Feasibility Demonstration, ABMA, Redstone Arsenal, Rept. no. DSP-TM+10-58, 13 Oct. 1958; H. H. Koelle, et al., "Juno v Space Vehicle Development Program (Status Report--15 November 1958)," ABMA, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., Rept+ no. DSP-TM-11-58, 15 Nov. 1958; yon Braun presentation in ABMA, "ABMA Presentation," pp. 63-125; Myron Uherka, "System Description for Saturn Vehicle (SA-I Through SA-4)," ABMA, Rept. no. DSL-TMo10-59, 2 Apr. 1959.

40.

The

basic

technical

document

for

the

Saturn

I is MSFC,

Saturn

Systems

Off.,

"Saturn

C-I,

Project Development Plan," 10 Aug. 1961, a comprehensive and hefty overview. A useful companion study is MSFC, Saturn... 1962, basically a photographic history, with excellent technical photo coverage of design details and fabrication. See also Lange, "Development," in Stuhlinger et al., Astronautical Engineering; Frederick E. Vreuls. "The S-I Stage," Astronautics, 7 (Feb. 1962): 33, 70, 71; Chrysler Corp., "This is Your Chrysler Saturn Story," 1964. 41.

Homer Saturn

B. Wilson, "Saturn Design Approach,"

Base Heating Review," Aviation Week, 9 May,

1967;J. S. Butz, "Safety, Simplicity 1960, pp. 52-55, et seq.

42.

Karl L. Heimburg, "Saturn Developmental Testing," Astronautics, 7, (Feb. 1962): 54, 56, 58; Konrad L. Dannenberg, "The Saturn System Develops," Astronautics, 7, (Feb. 1962): 106; Akens, Historical Origins, p. 63; Akens et al., History of MSFC, July 1-December 31, 1960, MHM-2, May 1961, pp. 44-45; MSFC, "MSFC Technical Facilities History and Descriptions," 30June 1968; MS FC, Technical Facilities and Equipment Dzgest (Jan. 1967); yon Braun interview, NASA, 17 Nov. 1971.

43+ Heimburg, "Saturn Testing," pp. 49, 54, 58; B.J. Funderburk, Automation Checkout, MSFC, NASA TN D-4328, Jan. 1968, passim; Akens, Historical Saturn Chronology, p. 8; MSFC, Technical D_gest, p. 8. 44.

MSFC, Saturn 28- 31 ; Lange,

45.

Chrysler Corp., Space Div., "Saturn IB Orientation: Feb. 1965, pp+ 2-3; Akens, Saturn Chronology, pp. 1968, pp. 1.2-1.3; MSFC. Historical Off., History May 1963, pp. 169-181.

46.

For an explanation of the Saturn Launch Vehicle System," speech For

overall

1 Summary, TMX "Development,"

system

description,

57401, 15 Feb. 1966, unpaged; Akens, Astronautical Engineering, pp. 15-16.

Stressed

in

in Saturn I First Stage Or/g_ns, p. 8; Akens, Saturn

Chronology,

pp.

Systems Training Manual," no. 851-0, 15 39, 42; MSFC, Saturn IB News Reference, Sept. of MSFC, July l-December 31, 1962, MHM-6,

IB weight saving program, see to Soc. of Automotive Engineers, manufacturing,

and

H. D. Lowrey, "The Saturn IB Detroit, Mich., 9 Nov. 1964.

operations,

see

Chrysler,

"Saturn

IB

Orientation"; MSFC, Saturn IB News Reference; MSFC, Saturn IB Launch Vehicle Project Development Plan, NASA°TM-X-60121, 1 Jan. 1967; MSFC, Technical Digest, pp. 76-77, 81-82. For detailed description, and cut-away drawings of major systems and components, see MSFC, Saturn IB Vehicle Handbook, vol. l, "Vehicle Description," voh 2, "S-IB Stage," CR-81077, 25July 1966.

CHAPTER 4 I. 2.

Michael T. Davis, Robert K. Allgeier, Jr., Thomas Development of Cryogenic Storage Systeras for Space Flight

and Gordon 1970), p. 1.

Rysavy,

The

Davis et ah, Cryogenic Storage, p. 12. For a highly technical review of cryogenic research, see the contribution of John A. Clark, "Cryogenic Heat Transfer," in Thomas F. Irvin,Jr., and James P. Harnett, eds., Advances in Heat Transfer (New York, 1968), 5: 325-517. For description of cryogenic production techniques and applications, see the articles "Cryogenics" and "Cryogenic Engineering" in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (New York, 1960), pp. 569- 75. •

3. There

were

significant

which

used

either

solid

upper-stage liquid rocket acid and unsymmetrical 4.

Leland AIAA

5.

Edward

464

G. Rogers, (Washington,

milestones

"The

the motors

development or

of

other

H-I

and J. W. Thomas, pp. 1-2.

Engine,"

A_tronautics,

other

kinds

engine, for example, originated dimethylhydrazine as propellants.

F. Belew, W. H. Patterson, Paper 65-303, July 1965, E. Straub.

in

propellant

Jr., 7 (Feb.

of

missiles

and

launch

liquid

propellants.

in the Vanguard

program,

"Apollo 1962):

Vehicle

using

Propulsion

39; A. A. McCool

vehicles The

first nitric

Systems," and

Keith

B.

NOTES Chandler, "Development Trends From Peenemuende to Outer Space 6. William

J. Brennan,

of Liquid (Huntsville,

"Milestones

TO

PAGES

Propellant Engines," in Ernst Ala., 1962), pp. 294-96.

in Cryogenic

Liquid

Propellant

Rocket

67-978, Oct. 1967, passim. 7. For an overview of these and related topics, see Brennan, technical discussion of early thrust chamber designs, consult Astronautical Engineering (New York, 1961), pp. 20.69-20.75.

92-102

Stuhlinger

et al., eds.,

Engines,"

A1AA

Paper

"Milestones," pp. 10-13. For a Heinz H. Koelle, ed., Handbook of Theories on thrust chambers

prevalent in the late sixties are discussed in Dieter K. Huzel and David H. Huang, Design of Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines, 2d ed. (Washington, 1971), pp. 81 - 120. See especially the illustration on p. 113, depicting variations in tube cross sections. Koelle, Handbook, pp. 20.90-20.99, includes analysis of turbopump design parameters. For a more extended treatment, see Huzel and Huang, 'Design, pp. 176-261. Gas generators 20.102-20.105, and in Huzel and Huang, Design, For clarification of many details of propulsion

are pp.

also described 131-36. system design

in Koelle, and

Handbook,

operation

pp.

covered

in

Chapters 4 and 5, the author wishes to acknowledge interviews with Leonard Bostwick and Milan Burns, MSFC, 31 July 1975, and with Joseph Attinello, Robert Fontaine, and Paul Fuller, Rocketdyne,

4 Mar.

and

10 Mar.,

1971.-

8. A.J. Burks, "Development of LOX-Hydrogen Engines ['or the Saturn Apollo Launch Vehicles," MSFC, Engine Program Off., 10June 1968, p. 1. At the time, Burks was the assistant manager of the office. Although this report applied specifically to LOX-LH2 systems, his comment on 9.

engines Leonard AIAA

as the pacing C. Bostwick, Paper

for

item applied "Development

Propulsion,

10.

Bostwick,

11.

Propulsion Systems." Akens, Saturn Chronolo_, 001-A50-2H), 1 July 1965,

"Development

and Jupiter programs, 12.

"Saturn DSDDE

14.

Joint of

Specialist

LOX/RP-I

systems 1 Engines

Conf.,

in general. for Saturn/Apollo

Engines";

June

1968,

Belew,

p. 3; MSFC, Launch Vehicle p. 2.5. The direct antecedents

engine system designs, known as the MA-3, the

p.

Launch

Data

Emme, Aeronautics H-I Engine," pp.

Sheet,

H-I

Patterson

and

Thomas,

Engine,"

from

three

other

15 July

engine

development 21

Sept. "News

1959, from

Sheet, H-I"; Straub, with the H-1 engine

"The from

1968.

and Astronautics, p. 109; Rocketdyne, "News/Data 39, 96. Straub was a Rocketdyne engineer involved

its inception. Engine specified ARPA and MSFC Saturn Off.,

"Apollo

Engines: Pr_!iect Development Plan (MA of the H-I included not only the Thor

but also designs X-1 and the S-4.

Rocket

Vehicles,"

1.

H-I Engine Design Features and Proposed Changes," ORDAB-DSDE, memo no. 2017; MSFC, Launch Vehicle Engines, pp. 2.1, 2.6; Rocketdyne,

Rocketdyne: 13.

to propulsion of LOX/RP-

production continued under NASA ABMA projects on 16 Mar. 1960. Saturn Monthl'_ Progress Report, 16

cognizance Nov.-12

after Dec.

the formal 1963,

pp.

transfer 5-6;

of

MSFC

Engine Project Off., H-I Engine Project Development Plan, 1 Dec. 1963, pp. 33-38; MSFC Engine Project Off., Engine Quarterly Report, Apr.-June, 1964, p. 21; MSFC, Michoud Assembly Faciltt'_ H_storical Report, 1 Jan.-30 June 1965, pp. 5, 23; MSFC Industrial Operations, Engine Program Off., Quarterly Progress Report: F-l, H-l, J-2 and RL-IO Engines, Janua_-March, 1965, 15 Mar. 1965, pp. 15-16; Paul Anderson, Contracts Off., MSFC, "Contract NAS8-18741," 30 June 1967. 15. 16.

MSFC, Fuller MSFC,

Launch Vehicle interviews. Launch

R-3620-1: Propulsion 17.

Engines,

pp.

Engine Data, 1968, pp. Systems," p. 2; MSFC,

Engines,"

Charles E. Cataldo, to Apollo Program Program Off., and Thomas,

19.

p. 9.5;

"H-I Engine," pp. 39, 36. Belew, Patterson, and Thomas, LOX/RP-I

18.

Vehicle

Engines,

2.6,

Engines,"

3.23;

and

Burns

Rocketdyne,

interview; H-I

1.1, 1.8, 1.28; Belew, Patterson, Saturn IB News Reference, Sept. "Apollo

Propulsion

Systems,"

Rocket

Engine

Fontaine, Technical

and Manual

and Thomas, "Apollo Vehicle 1968, pp. 4.1-4.2, 4.6: Strzub. p. 3; Bostwick,

H-1 Engine LOX Dome Failure, NASA TM X-53220,July Dir., Hq., teletype, "SA-7 Launch Schedule," 17 July

and

Attinello,

"Development

of

3-4.

Hq. to KSC, teletype, "Apollo Propulsion

Engines," p. 4. Belew, Patterson, LOX/RP-I

pp.

Bostwick

Thmnas,

"SA-7 Launch Schedule," Systems," p. 3: Bostwick,

"Apollo

Propulsion

Systems,"

1964, pp. 1-4; KS(" 1964; Apollo Spacecraft

22 July 1964; "Development p. 3; Bostwick,

Be[ew, of

Patterson, LOX/RP-I

"'Development

of

p. 5.

465

NOTES

TO

PAGES

103-115

20.

Arthur W. Thomson, "Meeting on S-IB-7 and S-IB-8." 1 Dec.

21.

Ibid;

22.

Belew, Patterson, and Thomas, LOX/RP1 Engines," pp. 6- 7.

23.

Akens, Saturn Chronology,, p. 4; David E. Aldrich, "The F-1 Engine," Astronautics, 7 (Feb. 1962): 40; David E. Aldrich and Dominick J. Sanchini, "'F-I Engine Development," Astronautics, 7 (Mar. 1961):24. Aldrich at the time was Rocketdyne's manager and chief engineer on the F-I engine project; Sanchini was the assistant engineer.

24.

Belew, p. 2.3;

25.

Belew, Patterson, interview; MSFC,

26.

Aldrich and "Milestones,"

27.

Franklin pp. 22, Systems,"

Bostwick,

"Development

of

Patterson, and Thomas, Emme, Aeronautzcs and

Sanchini,

Held 1966

December memo for

LOX/RP-I "Apollo

I, 1966 record.

to Review

Engines,"

Propulsion

pp.

Sanchini, p. 9.

"F-1

Development,"

" p. 3; Bostwick,

Systems,"

and Thomas, "Apollo Propulsion Launch Vehicle EngTnes, p. 2.3.

p. 5; MSFC,

Systems,"

p. 25; MSFC,

with

the H-l

Launch

p.

"Development

Launch

4;

Bostwick

Vehicle Engines,

"F-I

De`"elopment,"

p. 47;

MSFC,

Launch

interview, North American Vehicle Engines, p. 2.4.

Vehicle

EngTnes,

Rockwell,

5 Mar.

pp.

of

Vehicle Engines, and

Burns

p. 2.3; Brennan,

L. Thistle, "Rocketdyne: The First 25 Years," North American Rockwell 25, 28; Aldrich, "F-I," p. 96; Belew, Patterson, and Thomas, "Apollo p. 5; Rocketdyne, "Data Sheet: F-I Rocket Engine," 12 Dec. 1967;

28. Joseph P. McNamara p. 8; MSFC, Launch

Engine

5-6.

Systems

"Apollo Propulsion Astronautics, p. 77.

Problems

Corp., 1970, Propulsion Aldrich and

9.4-5.

1971;

Brennan,

"F-I/' p. 40; Belew, Patterson, and Thomas, "Apollo Propulsion "Milestones," p. 8; MSFC. Launch Vehicle Engine.s, p. 2.4. Saturn V_ _rew._ Re]erence, Dec. 1968, 3.1 and following.

"'Milestones,"

29.

Aldrich, Brennan,

30.

MSFC,

31.

Aldrich and Sanchini, News Reference, 3.1-2; Thrust Space Booster

32.

Bostwick,

33.

Hugh

pp.

4-5;

34.

Bostwick, "Development," p. 9; Akens, Saturn Chronology, pp. 49, 88; MSFC Historical Off., History of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center From July I Through December 31, 1962, M H M-6 (1963), p. 131; yon Braun to Seamans, draft of memo, 1962. Although the memo itself is

"F-I Development," pp. 46-47; Aldrich, "F-I," p. 69; MSFC, Saturn Aldrich and Sanchini, "Design and Development of a 1 500000-PoundEngine," Rocketdyne Report, July 1963, pp. 2-3.

"Development

Dryden

Systems,"

of

to Hugh

LOX/RP-1

Odishaw,

Engines,"

6 Mar.

V

p. 9.

1961.

undated, internal evidence indicates it was prepared late in No','. 1962, tollowing a meeting of the Off. of Manned Space Flight on 17 No`". Copy in the personal files of Jerry Thomson, MSFC, examined by the author on 27 July, 1972. Cited hereafter as MSFC, Thomson files. 35.

Jerry Thomson to muhiple 1962," 21 Sept. 1962; Jerry 2-3 October at Rocketdyne,"

36.

Von Braun to Seamans, "Minutes... Meeting on Thomson files.

37.

Jerry

Thomson

addressees, Thomson 17 Oct. dratt ot F-I Engine

to Rocketd_ne,

letter

"Activities CSAHC to multiple addressees, 1962. MSFC, Thomson memo, 1962; Combustion draft.

Dec.

from Inception "Minutes 2nd files.

Jerry Thomson tn Instability ..Decemher 1962;

S.F.

Morea,

to September 1, Meeting CSAHC

multiple addressees, 4, 1962." MSFC,

"Presentation

to Mr.

D.

Brainerd Holmes on F-1 (;ombustion Stability Effort--January 31, 1963," memo for record, 18 Feb. 1963; A. O. Tischler, "Meeting on F-l'Combustion Stabilit_ EffiJrt--January 31, 1963," memo for record, 18 Feh. 1963; A. O. Tischler, "Meeting on 13-1 Combustion Instability' at NASA HQ, 31 January 1963," memo for record (all in MSFC, Thomson files); Holmes to Seamans, 4 Feb. 1963, copy in SHP files. 38.

Holmes

to yon

39.

Bostwick,

40.

Crocco Dryden

41.

Jerry memo Aug.

466

Braun,

"Development," to yon Braun to `"on Braun,

25 Mar.

1963.

p. 9; Akens,

MSFC,

Thomson

Saturn

13 May 1963; Jerry 4 Feb. 1964. MSF(_,

files.

Chronology',

Thomson, Thomson

pp.

memo files.

49, 88. for

record,

Thomson, "Minutes of 6th Combustion Ad Hoc Committee.. for record; Crocco and Harrje to Tbomson, 29 July 1964: ( :rocco 1964. MSF(', Thomson files.

autumn

1963;

Hugh

4-5 December 1963," to P. D, Castenholz, 16

NOTES

42.

Brennan, Fontaine

43.

Brennan,

44.

NASA/MSFC

TO

"Milestones," p. 9; Bostwick, "Development," p. 9; interview, 4 Mar. 1971, and 10 Mar. 1971 ; Bostwick and "Milestones,"

p. 9; contractor

Resident

Off.,

Rocket

briefing Test

session,

Site,

Calif.

115-130

McNamara interview; Robert Burns interview, 31 July 1975.

Rocketdyne,

Edwards,

PAGES

4 Mar.

and

to S. F. Morea,

10 Mar. MSFC,

1971.

"Weekly

Report Ending 15 April 1965," teletype; NASA/MSFC F-I Project Of['., Rocketdyne/Canoga Park, Calif., to S.F. Morea, MSFC, "Weekly Report Ending 15 January 1965," teletype. 45.

NASA/MSFC

F-I

Project

Off.,

Rocketdyne/Canoga

Park,

Calif.

to S. F. Morea,

MSFC,

"Weekly

Report Ending 25 June 1965," teletype; Leland Belew to General S. C. Phillips, "Apollo Flash Report," telegram, 1 July 1965 and 9July 1965; NASA/MSFC F-I Project Off., Rocketdyne/Canoga Park, Calif., to S. F. Morea, MSFC, "Weekly Report Ending 20 August 1965," teletype; Bostwick, "Development," 46.

Aldrich,

47.

MSFC,

48.

Bostwick, Rocketdyne,

49.

Belew

p. 10.

"F-I,"

p. 69.

Saturn

V News Reference,

"Development," 4 Mar. and

et al., "Apollo

"Design and Rocketdyne

5 I.

Aldrich,

"Saturn

52.

pp.

De Carlo, Liquid

V Booster,"

pp.

8-10; David p. 18.

interview;

5-6;

Aldrich,

E. Aldrich,

contractor "F-I"

"Saturn

briefing

p. 40; Aldrich

sessions,

and

V Booster--The

Sanchini,

F-1 Er_ne,"

p. 4; Aldrich and Sanchini, "Design and Development," p. 2; Systems," p. 6; MSFC, Saturn V News Reference, pp. 3.1-2. p. i 3; Francis

X. de Carlo,

"Furnace

Brazing,"

Rocketdyne

Relx_rt,

1, 5, 7, 10.

"Furnace

Rocket

Brazing,"

Engines,"

Aldrich, "Saturn V Booster," 6; Bostwick, "Development";

54.

Aldrich

and

55.

Akens,

Saturn

Sanchini,

pp.

1 !, 14, 17, 32, 33;

Rocketdyne

53.

F-I,"

McNamara

Systems,"

pp. 1965,

Aldrich, "Saturn V Booster," Belew et al., "Apollo Propulsion

3.4-5.

9-10; 1971.

Propulsion

Development," Report, Mar.

50.

undated,

pp.

pp. 10 Mar.

Ernst

1963,

G. Huschke,

Development"; passim;

Thistle,

Jr.,

"Furnace

Brazing

of

passim.

pp. 4, 18; Aldrich and Sanchini, MSFC, Saturn V News Reference,

"F-I

Chronology,

Report,

MSFC,

"Launch

"25 Years,"

pp.

"Design and Development," pp. 3.2-3, 3.6-7, 3.10. Vehicle

35, 40, 44;

Engines," Rocketdyne,

pp.

pp.

5,

9.4-5. "Data

Sheet:

p. 1.

56.

Marshall Star, "Engine Storage Lifetime Extended "F-I Engine Is Static Fired After Storage," 12 July also fired about the same time.

57.

Straub,

"H-I

Engine,"

by Tests Here," 1972. Apparently,

2 June 1971; Marshall selected J-2 engines

Star, were

p. 39.

CHAPTER

5

1. Rocketdyne, "Propulsion: The Key to Moon Travel," 1964. For a richly detailed history of LH 2 development by an engineer who participated in many of the key research programs and knew virtually all the participants, see John L. Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen as a Propulsion Fuel, 1945-1959, SP-4404, (Washington, 1978). 2. There

are

numerous

example, Douglas Tsiolkovsky's 1903

books

on

dirigible

Works ofK. E. Tsiolkovsky, vol. 2, NASA research, see John D. Clark, Ignition: Brunswick, 3.

N.J.,

technology

H. Robinson, Giants in treatise, discussing liquid

1972),

pp.

and

the

the Sky (Seattle, hydrogen fuels,

use

of

hydrogen

gas.

See,

for

WA, 1973). A translation of is included in NASA, Collected

TTF-237, pp. 72-117. For a brief discussion of LH_ An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants (New

103-114.

George H. Osburn, Robert Gordon, and Herman L. Coplen, "Liquid Hydrogen Rocke_ Engine Development, 1944-1950" (a paper presented at the 21st International Astronautical Congress, Constance, West Germany, 1970), p. 1; R. Cargill Hall, "Early U.S. Satellite Proposals" in Emme, The History of Rocket Technology, p. 75 passim; Richard S. Lewis, Appointment on the Moon (New York, 1968), p. 28. The story of von K_irmlin's achievements is recounted in his autobiography, The Wind and Beyond (Boston, 1967).

467

NOTES

TO

PAGES

131-

149

4.

General Centaur ment,"

Dynamics/Astronautics, A Primer (San Diego, 1964), p. 3. Osburn, pp. 3-4, 9; Sloop, Liquid Hvdrogen,

o/the National Gordon, and pp. 64 ff.

5.

Osburn, C,ordon, and Coplen, "Liquid paper also includes detailed explanations the pioneer facility.

6.

The quotation is from Lewis, Appointment, p. 34. Sources for this portion of" the narrative include Lewis, Appointment, pp. 29-34; and Hall, "Early Proposals." See also Constance M. Green and Milton Lomask, Vanguard: A History (Washington, 1971), pp. 1-24.

Hydrogen of the

Aeronautic.g and Coplen, "Liquid

Development," production and

Space Administration's Hydrogen Develop-

pp. 3, 9-10, 12. The Osburn handling of liquid hydrogen in

7. John Sloop, "NACA High Energy Rocket Propellant Research in the Fifties" (a paper presented at the AIAA 8th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1971), unpaged. See also, Sloop, Liquid Hydrogen, pp. 71 ff., fbr early Lewis work and for Krafft Ehricke's work at GD/A. 8.

Sloop,

"NACA

Rocket

Research,"

John

9.

Sloop,

"NACA

Rocket

Research";

Sloop,

10.

General Dynamics/Astronautics, (San Diego, 1962), pp. x-

L. Sloop Liquid

Centaur

interview,

Primer:

Dynamics, Centaur Primer, p. 1. For an Atlcu: The Story of a Missile (New York,

12.

General Hydrogen,

Dynamics, pp. 113

13.

Lewis, Appointment, pp. 261-62; General Dynamics, NASA Centaur, p. 3; MSFC, "Launch Vehicle Engines: pp. 9, 11.

14.

Oswald H. Astronautical

15.

General Heaton

16.

David 1968,

17.

Emme,

18.

Douglas Aircraft Corp., "Saturn Data Summary Oct. 1965, pp. 10-11; Frank Ginsti, "Engineering's Bee-Hive, 37 (.Jan. 1962): 34-36.

19. Jerry

Centaur Primer, ff. For Pratt and

Centaur Primer, NASA Hq., "RL-IO

Thomson

and

Illustrated 1971, pp. Astronatics,

interview,

Alabama, Huntsville, MSFC. ('hristensen, Pall Corp.

account 1960).

pp. 12-13. For Whitney's effort,

Lange, "Development of the Engineering and Science (New

Aeronautics

Hq.,

2 Dec.

1971.

187 ff.

An Introduction

General Chapman,

S. Akens, Saturn MSFC, MHR-5,

pp.

to ttydrogen-Powered

Space Fhght

x 1.

11.

Dynamics, to Hyatt,

NASA

Hydrogen,

Saturn York,

the

Atlas

program,

early LI-t2 work in jets, see ibid., pp. 149 ff. Centaur Project

Primer, p. Development

pp. 1-2; Lewis, Appointment, pp. Engine Management Arrangements,"

pp.

93,

21

25 Mar. 1971. also an engineer,

103;

July

Sloop,

First 39.

Eleven

Liquid

David

see

Sloop,

J.

L.

Liquid

Dynamics, l July 1965,

in Stuhlinger

et al.,

261-62. Col. Donald 14 Jan. 1960.

Year_, April

1957

through

April

Hydrogen.

Handbook," Prized

1972;

consuh

1; General Plan,"

Space Carrier Vehicle," 1963), pp. 4- 5.

Chronology: Saturn's 10, 14, 16-17, 30,

MSFC,

of

Douglas New Ally,"

Rept. no. N66-28064, 1 United Aircraft Quarterly

L. (:hristensen

Thomson was a key engineer had worked at ABMA, then

interview,

Univ.

of

in the engine program at as a technical liaison for the

20.

General Dynamics, Centaur Primer, pp. 11-12; Leland F. Belew, Floyd Drummond, and Rodney D. Stewart, "Recent NASA Experience with Hydrogen Engines," AIAA Paper 64-270, 1964, pp. 2-3. Leland F. Belew, W. H. Patterson, and J. W. Thomas, Jr., "Apollo Vehicle Propulsion Systems," AIAA Paper 65-303, July 1965, p. 7.

21.

William J. Brennan, "Milestones in Cryogenic Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines"; Belew, Patterson, and Thomas, "Apollo Vehicle," p. 9; Pratt & Whimey, "News Release," 1965. For additional details, see, A. A. McCool and G. H. McKav, Jr., "Propulsion Development Problems Associated with Large Liquid Rockets," MSFC, TM X-,53075, 12 Aug. 1963, pp. 16- 19.

22.

Belew, "Recent

23.

Rocketdyne, "J-2 Rocket Engine: Team," Report to the Administrator,

24.

Floyd M. Drummond 2-3; W.R. Studhaher, Engineers, SAE Paper

25.

Rocketdyne,

"J-2

Rocket

26.

Contractor Mar. 1971.

facility

tour

468

Patterson, NASA

and Thomas, "Apollo Experience," pp. 1-2.

Vehicle,"

p. 7, passim;

Background NASA, on

Belew,

Information, press Saturn Development

Drummond, release; Plan,"

and Saturn 15 Dec.

Stewart, Vehicle 1959.

interview, MSFC, 1 Sept. 1971; Rocketdvue, "J-2 Rocket Engine," pp. "The J-2 Liquid Hydrogen Rocket Engine," Society of Automotive no. 687 B, 1963, p. 20. Engine," and

p. 3.

briefing,

4 Mar.

1971;

Jack

Monaghan

interview,

Rocketdyne,

4

NOTES

27.

TO

PAGES

143-

158

Rocketdvne, "J-2 Rocket Engine," pp. 3-5; Belew, Patterson, and Thomas, "Apollo Vehicle," p. 10; MsFc, Saturn Systems Off., Saturn Monthly, Progre._s Report, 12 Apr.-12 May 1962, pp. 12- 13; ibid., 14 May12 June 1962, p. 11; MSI_C, Saturn Off., Saturn MPR, 15 Sept.15 Oct.

28.

1962, pp. 5-6. Akens, Saturn

29.

Rocketdvne,

Chronology/, "J-2

Paul

pp.

Rocket

Ibid.;

31.

of the AIAA, July 1965), pp. 4-5. Thomson interview; Christensen

32.

3 Sept.

Rocketdyne,

1971;

pp.

Studhalter,

34.

Studhalter, Technology

"J-2

35.

Studhalter, "J-2 weight of heavier at low pressures. was 7.6 meters.

36.

Fuller, "Liquid 9 March 1971,

37.

Brennan,

DAC,

1962.

pp.

Hydrogen 5-8;

(a paper

"J-2

MSFC,

Saturn

Robert

24 Aug.

to a meeting Pease

interview,

1971.

Engine,"

Technology,"

p. 3; Brennan, System Design,"

presented

interview;

MSFC,

p. 4. MSFC,

Saturn

V News

p. 2.

V News Re]erence,

p. 6.1.

"Milestones," p. 6; Rocketdyne, 10 Mar. 1971, p. 5.

Hydrogen Technology," pp. 3-4; Rocketdyne, "J-2 p. 1; MSFC, Saturn V News Reference, pp. 6.6-6.7.

"Milestones," pp.

p.

1-2;

Drummond,

Saturn

11,

"Existing

Rocket Engine," pp. 3,5. Tank pressures in the vehicle were kept low to save the test tank construction. Each pump had a very efficient inducer stage to operate The NPSH for LH2 at 4 psia was 40 meters, and NPSH for LOX at 12.5 psia

Rocketdvne, "J-2 "Liquid Hydrogen

40.

.]-2 Engine"

p. 2; Rocketdyne,

Engine,"

July

Drummond

8;

Studhaher,

MSFC,

and

".]-2

Saturn

Stewart,

V News

"Recent

Rocket Engine," Technology,"

S-IVB

Monthly

Rocket

Engine,"

Re]erence,

NASA

Engine," pp. 9, 13; Brennan, "Milestones," Fuller, "Liquid Hydrogen Technology," p. 1976. 39.

Release,

interview,

"Liquid

"J-2 Rocket Engine," Utilized in J-2 Engine

Technology," Belew,

interview;

N. Rodgers

Fuller,

Rocket

News

4-5. Technology,

Technology,"

6.1-6.2;

33.

Hydrogen

Richard

"Existing

Reference,

38.

"Liquid

N_SA

pp.

30.

MSFC,

Fuller,

39, 50;

Engine,"

pp.

Engine... p.

9;

July

Points,"

Rocketdyne,

"Existing

6.2-6.4.

Experience,"

pp.

3-4;

Studhaher,

"1-2 Rocket

p. 8; Rocketdyne, "Existing Technology," 2; .John L. Sloop to Monte Wright, NASA,

pp. 5-6; Akens, Saturn Chronolog), p. 5: Belew, Patterson, and Thomas,

TRP,

Change

1965,

p. 48;

MSFC

pp. 71, 78-79, 98; "Apollo Vehicle,"

Engine

Program

Off.,

p. 4; 8 July Fuller, p. 12.

Semiannual

Progress Report, July-Dec., 1965, pp. 21-23; MSFC files. MSFC press releases, nos. 66-4 and 66-8, 7 Jan. 1966; Rocketdyne, "J-2 Engine," p. 6; Akens, Saturn Chronology', pp. 115-16, 130-31; MSFC Test Lab, Historical Report, Jan.-Dec. 1965, pp. 7-8. For details of flight 41.

missions, see Chapters 11 and 12. Akens, Saturn Chronology, pp. 110, 145, MSFC, Saturn V Program Off., Saturn 68-72; MSFC files; Saturn V Semiannual

175; MSFC Press Release no. 67-39, 28 Feb. 1967; V Semiannual Progress Report, Jan.-June 1967, pp. Progres.s Report, July-Dec. 1967, pp. 76-79; MSFC

files. 42.

Studhalter,

"J-2

Experience,"

Rocket

43.

Studhaher,

44.

Drummond

"J-2

45.

Belew,

46.

Rocketdyne,

Rocket

interview;

Patterson,

composition

Engine,"

pp.

5,

7; Belew,

and

"J-2

Engine," Pease Thomas,

Rocket

of Invar

p.

2.

William

included

Rodgers

"Apollo

Engine,"

A. Mrazek,

"Launch

for Manned Space STAC Conference;

Flight," Akens,

Stewart,

"Recent

NASA

p. 4;

Fe 63%;

interview.

Vehicle,"

p.

Vehicle

NASA,

8 Jan.

1960:

Ni 36%;

Systems,"

(MSC, Houston, Saturn Illustrated

Abraham

1; Pease

Studhalter,

Abraham Hvatt to the Associate Administrator, tions Division, ABMA, Huntsville," 11 Jan. (USAF),

and

17.

interview;

Hyatt

"J-2

other

CHAPTER I.

Drummond,

p. 3.

interview. Rocket

Engine,"

20,

26.

The

6

in NASA,

"Science

and

Tex., 29 June 1964), Chronolog)/, p. 50. 1960;

pp.

1%.

Technology

l:

1-2,

cited

Committee hereafter

as

"Meeting with Director, Development Operayon Braun to Maj. Gen. Don F. Ostrander

to yon

Braun,

18 Jan.

1960.

469

NOTES

3.

TO

Maj.

Gen.

PAGES

Don

158-165

Ostrander,

NASA,

Conference," 26-27 Jan. 4. Abraham Hyatt to O. H.

to yon

1960. The latter Lange, 22 June

5. T. Keith Glennan, "Administrator's S-IV Stage," memo, 28 Apr. 1960; 6.

Braun,

26 Jan.

is a verbatim 1960.

1960;

copy,

minutes,

taped

"Saturn

during

Orientation

the two-day

Statement on the Selection of a ('ontractor Akens, Saturn Chronology', pp. 8, 10, 13.

tot

Glennan menlo, "Administrator's Statement." By the fall of 1960, Convair won but the future of this third stage became marginal. In Jan. 1961, yon Braun change in the C-I, from three to two stages, and NASA management development of the S-V subsequently was canceled.

session.

the

Saturn

the S-V contract, recommended a concurred. The

7. Controller General of the US. to Overton Brooks, Chron., Comm. on Science and Astronautics, 22 June 1960; Committee on Science and Astronautics news release, 18 July 1960. Evidently, there were questions about the significance of Chrysler's proposal to build its own plant near Cape Canaveral. This would have entailed government funds and equipment, the GAO noted. In any case Chrysler's technical proposal received very low ratings. See, for example, Rosen, "Technical Evaluation of Saturn S-IV Proposal; Comments On," memo, 8June additional comment on NASA procurement policies, see Vernon van Dyke, Pride (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964), pp. 214-16.

Milton W. 1950. For and Power

8. John Mazur, "Chronological Summary of Negotiations of Saturn . .. Vehicle Stage S-IV memo, May 1960; yon Braun to Ostrander, 18 May 1960; yon Braun to Ostrander, "Agreements and Design Assumptions of First Saturn S-IV Coordination Conference," with attachments, June 1960. 9. Akens,

Saturn

Chronology,

pp.

8, 10,

15

13.

10.

Oswald H. Astronautical

11.

The S-I first-stage booster tot Saturn l made 10 launches, including 5 with a live S-IV stage. The S-IVB third stage made 5 launches with the Saturn IB, and 6 more on the Saturn V through the first lunar landing (AS-506). By the time of the final Apollo-Saturn mission (AS-512), the S-IVB notched 6 more launches for a total of 17 flights. The tirst two stages of the Saturn V, the S-IC and the S-II, had an even dozen launches on Apollo missions. The S-IC/S-II combination also launched the Skylab orbital workshop. The last 4 Saturn IB/S-IVB launches involved three Skylab

12.

13.

Lange, "Development Engineering, pp. 8,

"

crews

and

the

ASTP

a grand

total

of 21

Saturn

S-IVB Stage," Society of Automotive Engineers "Launch Vehicle Systems," vol. 1, pp. 1-2.

15.

Bauer,

16.

Ibid., ence,

"Operational

E. D. Geissler,

"Ascent

18.

Earl

interview,

L. Wilson

Sheet"; Flight," unpaged.

Charles a paper This

summary operations, 19.

Lange, For

39-40,

Experiences," Lange, 1-2.

17.

20.

pp.

43,

50;

H.

Roth and W. M. Shempp, "S-IVB High Aircraft Corp., Douglas Paper no. 4040,

pp. 2-3; pt. 5, pp.

Trajectory MDAC,

E. Bauer,

flights.

Source

"Operational

Reprint

Energy Upper 1967, pp. 1-2.

et al.,

Aircraft Company," Procurement with

Experiences

no.

680756,

Stage

and

Oct. Its

on 1968,

the p. 1;

Development,"

p. 11.

"Development,"

p. 17;

Roy E. Godfrey '

Considerations," 11 Mar.

STAC

1971;

MSFC,

"S-IVB

Stage,"

STAC

Confer-

'

Conference, Saturn

pt. 3, pp.

V News

1-13.

Reference;

"S-IVB

Fact

C. Wood and H. G. Paul, "A Review of Cryogenic Technology Aspects of Space for the International Cryogenic Engineering Conference, Kyoto, Japan, 1967, paper by Wood and Paul, both MSFC engineers, includes a very informative

of cryogenic problems and insulation. "Development,"

specific

S-IVB

Chronology: Contract NAS7"-101--Douglas to Robert C. Seamans, "S-IVB Sole " 15 Dec., 1961.

Saturn Mrazek, Ludwig Douglas

differences

NASA Administrator, 1965, and attachments.

470

for

Space Carrier Vehicle," in Stuhlinger, Chronolo_, pp. 14, 16-17, 20, 31, 35.

Akens,

14.

21.

crew,

MSFC, "S-IVB Summary 1963; D. Brainerd Holmes Douglas Aircraft Company. Chronology,

of the Saturn 18; Akens, Saturn

of rockets

in terms

of tankage,

orbital

maneuvers,

low-gravity

p. 8. in the S-IVB/IB "Conversion

Bauer, "Operational Experiences," E. Harpoothian, "The Production

of p. of

stage an

and

SIVB/IB

the S-IVB Stage

stages,

to SIVB/V

see, C;eorge

E. Mueller

Configuration,"

2; Harold E. Bauer interview, MDAC, 8 Large Tanks for Cryogenic Fuels," Douglas

to

14 Sept. Mar. 1971; Paper no.

NOTES 3155, 12 Nov. 1964, pp. 3, Structures Dept., Development 22.

Tour

of

contractor

10, 19-20, Engineering,

facilities,

Mar.

31.

TO

Harpoothian at the Douglas Aircraft Co.

1971 ; Bauer

interview;

PAGES

time

was

Harpoothian,

165- 178

Chief

Engineer,

"Production

of Large

Tanks," pp. 4, 6-7, 10, 26, 31; K. H. Boucher, "Saturn Third Stage S-IVB Manufacturing," p. 4; contractor briefing and tour of facilities, McDonnell Douglas and North American Rockwell, Mar. 1971. For examples of typical aerospace construction techniques of the mid-1960s, see Frank W. Wilson and Walter R. Prange, eds., Tooling.for Aircraft and Missile Manufacture (New York, 23.

24.

1964).

Akens, "Saturn

Saturn S-IVB

Douglas Boucher,

pp.

58; Bauer, "Operational p. 4; contractor briefing

6-7,

13-14,

35;

Mar. 1971. pp. 6, 9,

Theodore

Smith

Experiences," and tour of

11;

Harpoothian,

interview,

pp. 3-5; Boucher, facilities, McDonnell "Production

MDAC,

3

Mar.

of" Large 1971;

Bauer,

"Operational Experiences," pp. 3, 4. Bauer, "Operational Experiences," p. 4; Harpoothian, "Production of Large Tanks," p. 14; Roth and Shempp, "S-IVB Development," p. 17; A. C. Robertson and E. L. Brown, "The Development of a Bonded Common Bulkhead for Saturn," Douglas Paper no. 3817, p. 2; Theodore Smith

interview.

26.

Robertson

27.

Robertson

and

Brown,

and

Douglas, and Harpoothian, 28.

49,

and North American Rockwell, "Saturn S-IVB Manufacturing,"

Tanks," 25.

Chronology, pp. Manufacturing,"

Boucher, "Production

"Development

Brown,

Brown from "Production

"Saturn S-IVB Manufacturing," of Large Tanks," pp. 14, 44;

of MDAC

facility,

3 Mar.

and

Harpoothian,

30.

pp. 41-43, 63, 67, 69; Bauer, Robert W. Prentice interview, interviews.

31.

Ernst

32.

Harold

33.

Glen

"Production

D. Geissler, Bauer

Douglas

Apr. and

p. 2; Theodore

Bulkhead,"

p.

S-IVB

3.

Smith

interview.

Robertson

was

Manufacturing,"

pp.

from 13-19;

34-35, 37. 39, 57-58, 60-61. Harpoothian, L. Riggs interview, MDAC, 11 Mar. 1971 ; tour

1971. pp. 8, 30; Boucher, Experience," Mar. 1971;

Vehicular

Plans,"

pp. Harold

"Saturn

S-IVB

5-7. E. Bauer

a report

Manufacturing,"

and

at a NASA

Theodore

meeting

Smith

at Langley

p. 4. Smith

Internal

1422,

pp Gerald

Tanks,"

Apollo

1962,

"Why no.

Bulkhead,"

Common

"Operational MDAC, il

Theodore

Herstine, Paper

I I Mar.

of Large

"Project

Center,

A.

of

MSFC. See also Boucher, "Saturn of Large Tanks," pp. 39-44.

29.

Research

of Common

"Development

Aug.

interviews. Insulation

1964,

pp. 3-7; Theodore Smith "Operational Experiences,"

pp.

for

the

Saturn

S-IV

Liquid

Hydrogen

Tank?"

1-3.

34.

Ibid., Bauer,

35.

Theodore

36.

Bauer, "Operational Experiences," p. 8; Theodore Smith interview. Specially treated balsa was nevertheless used in some problem areas of the tankage, such as the section where the LH2 tank joined the common bulkhead. See, for example, D. L. Dearing and R.J. Steffy, "The Significance of Parameters Affecting the Heat Transfer .... " Douglas Paper no. 3374,June 1965, p. 6

Smith

interview;

interview; Harpoothian, pp. 8, 11.

Herstine,

"Internal

"Production

Insulation,"

pp.

of Large

Tanks,"

p.

16;

3-7.

ff. 37.

Bauer, 44-46.

38.

Theodore

39.

D. L. Dearing, "Development Insulation," Douglas Paper ing,"

"Operational Smith

pp. 46,

Experience,"

8-9;

Boucher,

"Saturn

S-IVB

Manufacturing,"

pp.

interview.

54-55;

40.

Dearing

"Development

41.

MSFC,

42.

Roth and Shempp, Tanks," p. 26; Earl 1971.

43.

MSFC, Saturn

Saturn

pp.

V News

tour

no.

of contractor

Internal Reference, "S-IVB Wilson

of the Saturn S-IV and S-IVB Liquid Hydrogen Tank Internal 3511, Aug. 1965, pp. 2-3; Boucher, "Saturn S-IVB Manufacturfacilities,

Insulation," pp.

pp.

Mar.

1971.

2-3.

5.4-5.6.

Development," interview; H.

Saturn V Flight Manual, SA-506, V News ReJerence, pp. 5.5-5.6.

pp. 18-19; R. Linderfelt

MSFC-MAN-506,

Harpoothian, "Production of Large interview, McDonnell Douglas, 9 Mar. 10 June

1969,

pp.

6.11-6.12;

MSFC,

471

NOTES

TO

PAGES

180-192

44.

lbid., 5.6-5.7. As a back-up concept, the S-IVB the thrust structure. Tw¢, provided redundancy redundancy for the LIq_ tank (ibid.). O. S. Tyson, during S-IV/IVB development, commented that in this country constituted a special advantage helium system permitted lower design weights other functions. Tyson interview, 3 Mar. 1971.

45.

J. D. Shields interview, MDAC, MSFC Saturn V Neu,._ Re]erence, 1976.

46.

D. J.

Allen

and

11 Mar. 1971; Roth and Shempp, "S-IVB Development," pp. 5.5-5.6, 5.8; anonymous MDAC memo to author,

L. (;.

Bekemeyer,

System," Douglas Paper 5.9; Lorenzo P. Morata

no. 1292, interview,

47.

Morata interview; PU System design Saturn

"Design

48.

MSFC,

49.

MSFC, Saturn V ,Vew_ Reference, pp. 6.19-6.20; Robert Prentice interview.

50.

Refer STAC

Reference,

51.

E. A. Hellebrand,

52.

Harpoothian, 14; Godfrey,

to News Reference and Conference, pt. 5.

the

Flight

"Structures

53.

John D. (:lark, Ignition: An Rutgers Univ. Press, 1972),

54.

J. B. Gayle,

55.

Edmund

Investigation

F. O'Connor

Saturn

S-IV

2, 15-16; 1971.

Stage

MSFC;

of PU System," Bekemeyer, pp.

Propellant

Saturn

p. 19; 11 June Utilization

V News Reference,

pp. 19, 21. For 3- 14, 16-22.

details

p.

of the

p. 5.9. 5.9-5.10;

Manual,

and

above,

Propulsion,"

Informal p. 108;

Saturn

passim.

Samuel

See also,

Manual,

Godfrey,

Shempp,

"S-IVB

of Liquid Rocket Propellants E. Felix interview, MDAC,

All Systems Explosion,

(;en.

V Flight

SA-506, "S-IVB

pp.

Stage,"

pt. 2, p. 6.

p. 30; Rotb and pt. 5, pp. 5-8.

Histoo, Harold

of S-lV

to Maj.

MSFC,

cited

"Production of Large Tanks," "S-IVB," STAC Conference,

ed.,

of

Mar. 1962, pp. MDAC, 8 Mar.

Allen and Bekemeyer, "Design and operation, see Allen and

V New_

carried seven extra ambient helium spheres on for LOX tank pressurization, and five provided one of MSFC's resident managers at Douglas the availabilit,¢ of significant amounts of helium in the U.S space program, since the efficient and plumbing for stage pressure systems and

C. Phillips,

Development,"

(New Brunswick, 9 Mar. 1971.

NASA

TND-563,

telegram,

9 Feb.

Sept, 1967;

1964, Felix

p. N.J.:

passim.

interview;

MSF(" Saturn V Program ()If'., Semiannual... Report, Januau-June 1967, pp. 33, 52-56, MSFC files; Douglas Aircraft Co., S-IVB Quarterly Report, Mar. 1967, pp. 51, 54-55, MSFC files; anonymous MDAC memo to author, 11 June 1976. Loss of S-IVB-503 led to substitution of stage serial numbers 504 for 503N, 505 fi)r 504N, and 506 for 505N. The availability 507 tankage led to its reincarnation as S-IVB-506, with S-IVB-507 and subsequent produced as originally planned (Akens, Saturn Chronology, pp. 161-162). 56.

McDonnell

Douglas

Corp.,

"McDonnell

Douglas

S-IVB

R_ket

for

NASA's

Vehicle," news release, July 1969; MSFC Test Lab., "Historical Report, 7-8, MSFC files. For description of the automatic checkout concept and to Chapter 13. 57.

O. S. Tyson

58.

Edmund F. O'Connor discontinued, however,

interview,

59.

Theodore

60.

Earl Wilson interview. both Atlas and Titan missions.

61.

Wilson

62.

Bauer, "Operational Theodore Smith,

Smith,

interview;

MSFC

Resident

Mgr.

at McDonnell

to Samuel Phillips (day later in the program.

Harold

Bauer,

and

Nevertheless, hoosters and

Theodore

Smith

Experiences," Harold Bauer,

O. S. Tyson

and

Douglas,

month

obscured),

of excess stages

Saturn

Launch

Jan.-Dec. 1965," pp. its development, refer

3 Mar.

1971.

1966.

Static

firing

was

interviews.

the Centaur became was used in a wide

a highly reliable upper stage mated variety of planetary and Earth-orbital

to

interview. pp. 2-3; Godfrey," Robert Prentice, and

S-IVB," STAC Conference, J. D. Shields interviews.

part

5, p. 8.

CHAPTER 7 1. Akens,

472

1967,

pp.

2.2, 3.10, cited hereafter as "Saturn V PDP"; von Braun, "Saturn the Giant" in Cortright, Apollo Expeditiorts to the Moon, pp. 42, 46. It would have been interesting to learn more of the contractor selection process, but a search

Saturvl

Chronology,

p. 33;

MSFC,

"Saturn

V, Project

Development

Plan,"

Nov.

ed., for

NOTES

these

records

at MSFC

in Oct.

1975

was

unsuccessful.

probably similar to those described fiJr the S-IV available documents. Milton W. Rosen interviews, NASA, 14 Nov.

2.

Holmes, 3.

"Large

1961, JSC Von Braun

Launch

Vehicle

files. interview,

MSFC,

Program," 17 Nov.

and

1971;

The

S-I1,

1969

6 Nov. von

TO

S-IC

which

and

with

Braun,

contract

the author

1 Dec.

1961,

PAGES

"Satnrn

negotiatinns pieced

1971;

attached

193-207

Rosen report

were

togethel to

D.

trom

Br:finerd

interview,

the Giant,"

p. 42;

20 Nov.

Ernst

interview, MSFC, 7 Sept. 1971; John M. Logsdon, "Selecting the Way to the Moon: of the Lunar Orbiter Rendezvous Mode," Aerospace ttz._torian, 18 (June 1971): 66.

(,eissler

The

Choice

4.

George Alexander, "Boeing Faces Unique Fabrication Challenge," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 77 (13 Aug. 1962): 52, 59, 63; MSFC, Saturn V News Re]erence, p. 11.4; Boeing Co., Launch Systems Branch, "'Controactor Program Procedures," 1966, 1967, 1968; Boeing C_)., Launch Systems Branch, "Saturn S-IC, Annual Progress Report," FYs 1964 through 1968.

5.

Von Braun interview, 17 No,,'. interview, NASA, 1 Dec. 1971.

6.

Alexander, "Boeing Faces," pp. 55, 59; Alexander, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 78 (25 Mar. Clarke, "Roll Out the Booster," Boeing Magazine,

"S-IC Heavy Tooling Installed at Marshall," 1963), unpaged reprint in SHP tiles; William 35 (Aug. 1965): 13; William Clarke, "Try This

On

9; William

for

Size,"

Boeing

Magazine, 34 (Apr. For clarification the author wishes

1971;

Magazine,

35

Matthew

(Feb.

1965):

interview,

MSFC,

Sheil,

29 .July

"Saturn

1975;

Stands

Rosen

Up,"

Boeing

1964): 6; MSFC Saturn V New_ Reference p. 2.5. of many details of design, development, and mantdacturing of the S-I{ '_stage, to acknowledge interviews with Matthew Urlaub and Hans F. Wuenscher,

MSFC, 3 Sept. 1971, and Mathias P. Siebel, both top managers in MSFC's Manufacturing pp.

Alexander, "Boeing Faces," p. 53; Darrell Bartee, "Hitching Posts for Saturn," Boeing Magazine, 35 (Jan. 1965): 6; Whitney G. Smith, "Fabricating the S-1C Booster," AIAA Paper 65-294, July 1965, p. 6; MSFC, "Saturn V PDP," pp. 3.10, 3.18; MSFC, Saturn V News R([erence, p. 2.4.

9.

MSFC,

V News Reference,

Faces,"

p. 53; J.

pp.

2.1-2.5;

1.7-

"Saturn

1.9; Smith,

E. Kingsbury,

MSF(',

V PDP,"

"Fabrication

to author,

p. 3.7.

in S-1C,"

21 .June

pp.

5-6;

Alexander,

1976.

MSFC, "Saturn V PDP," pp. 3.7-3.15; MSFC, Saturn V Neu,.s Reference, pp. 2.3-2.4, 2.9-2.16; Alexander, "Boeing Faces," p. 55; M. A. Kalange and R.J. Alcott, "Saturn V S-IC Stage Engine Gimbal Actuation System," 18 May 1965, passim; William B. Sheil. "Migration to Huntsville,"

Boeing Magazine, 35 (May 1965): 6. I 1. Whitney G. Smith, "Fabricating the Saturn 12.

MSFC,

were

MSFC,

Saturn

Reference,

Siebel

8.

10.

V News

MSFC, 9 Sept. 1971. Wuenscher and Engineering Lab during this period.

7.

"Boeing

Saturn

Urlaub

S-IC

Booster,"

AIAA

p. 1; Aiexander, "Boeing Faces," p. 52; Alexander Smith, "Fabricating S-IC," pp. 2-3; Eugene M.

"S-IC." Langworthy

Milling on Apollo and Saturn Technical Paper no. 477, May

Society

Gore 1965,

Segments," pp. 1, 5-7.

Paper and

of

no. 65-294,

Leland

July

Bruce,

Aeronautical

Weight

1965,

"Chemical Engineers,

13.

Alexander, "Boeing Faces," p. 55; Darrel Bartee, "Curves Cured to Order," Boeing Magazine, 34 (Nov. 1964): 12-13; Darrel Bartee, "Lun_,.r Look," Boeing Magazine, 33 (July 1963): 1(1-11; Mathias Siebel, "Building the ,',,loon Rocket" (paper presented to meeting of National Machine Tool Builders Association, 3 Nov. 1965), pp. 11-13.

14.

William

Clarke,

"The

Uncommon

Welder,"

"Boeing Faces," p. 59; Alexander, turing Plan: Saturn V Booster Stage, 1965), pp. 2.1-2.54. 15.

Smith, pp.

"Fabricating

53, 55;

Bartee,

pp.

William

17.

Smith,

18.

Alexander, "S-IC"; Alexander, William Clarke, "Tanks for

19.

"Fabricating

Testing

"Purity

Surety,"

S-IC,"

a Moon

2-4;

Look,"

16.

"Ground

Clarke,

S-IC," "Lunar

pp.

Siebel, pp.

10-

Boeing 4-5;

"Boeing Saturn,"

Bird,"

vol. 2, pp. 7.1-7.302. William B. Sheil, "Countdown

Boeing

"S-IC"; Smith, S-IC 15Januar3'

B_eing

Magazine, "Fabricating 1963, vol.

"Bnilding," 11; MSFC,

Magazine,

Alexander,

pp.

35 (March

18-20;

Alexander,

Manufacturing

34 (Dec.

Plan,

to Liftoff,"

12; Alexander,

1964):

"Boeing

vol.

I pp.

Faces,"

3. 1-3.40.

1 I.

"S-i('."

Faces," pp. 55, 59; Smith, Boeing Magazine, 35 (May Magazine,

1965):

S-IC," pp. 4-5; MSFC, Manufac1 (with change inserts thr_Jngh July

35 (July

(reprint)Boeing

1965):

"Fabricating 1965): 15; 3, 5; MSFC

Magazine,

1966,

S-IC," William

Manu[hcturmg pp.

12-13;

pp. 4-5; P,. Sheil, Plan, William

473

NOTES

TO

Clarke, "'Saturn 20.

PAGES

209-222

"The Immovable V Rocket Booster

Matthew

Urlaub,

Object." (reprint)Boeing Test Stand," 5 Aug.

interview.

The

author

Magazine, 1965; MSFC,

wishes

to

1966, Saturn

express

his

permission to review his personal files relating to the S-I'(" stage. and engineering problems, but no disastrous problems, such as setbacks. Representative copies of Ur[aub's weekly memos to Dr. Program Manager, are in the SHP files. See, tor example: "S-IC .Jan. 1964; 31 Jan. 1964; 14 Feb. 1964; 28 Feb. 1964; 6 Mar. 1964; weekly reports for 13 Oct. 1964, and 4 No,,'. 1964. 21.

Elmer

22.

T.

L. Field,

23.

MSFC,

24.

James Phase

25.

MSFC, "Minutes 21, 1961,"jsc

Keith

news

MSFC,

27.

D.

Saturn

Brainerd

S-II stages, like their production.

Stage,"

"First

Astronautic._, for

Phase

S-II

the

Feb.

1962,

Contractor

of the files.

Phase

11 Pre-Proposal

VPDP,

Nov.

1967,

Holmes

to

Associate

1963;

Akens,

thanks

to

Mr.

Urlaub

fi)r

There were the usual design tank explosions or other major A.rthur Rudolph, the Saturn V Stage Weekly Status Report," 9 9 Apr. 1964. See especiaU,¢ the

p. 35.

Administrator,"

19Jan.

Selection,"

"Memorandum for the Record: Selection S-If Stage Competition," 8 June 1961.

Program," 27 May 29 July 1975. 28.

S-II

"Memorandum

release,

E. Webb, of Saturn

26.

"The

Glennan,

p. 3; MSFC, news release, V ,Vewi Re]erence, p. 8.9.

1961.

12 May

1961.

of ContraCtors

Conference

tier

Stage

to Participate

in Second

S-I 1 Procurement

on June

p. 2.2. Administrator,

Saturn

"Management

Chronology,.

pp.

66-67;

"

other Saturn stages, This composite

incorporated description

numerous is derived

o[

Saturn

Ro,,, (,odfrev '

S-II

Facilities

interview,

MSFC,

'

design variations over the period of from the following sources: MSFC,

Saturn !; News Reference, pp. 4.1-4.13; MSFC, Saturn V Fhght 5.1-5.30; MSFC, Saturn V Flight Manual SA-510, 25 June

Manual, SA-506, 1971.5.1-5.30;

10June MSFC,

1969, pp. Saturn V

Project Development Plan, Nov. 1967, pp. 3.19-3.27; NAA, Saturn S-II Stage Program Plan, 1 Apr. 1966; NAA Manufacturing Plan for Saturn S-II, Stages 16-25, 14 June 1967, NAA, Saturn S-II, General Manual, 1965; NAA, Saturn S-II Stage." S-II-4 and Subsequent, Mar. 1963; NAA, The Saturn S-If, 14 May 1964; NAA, Saturn V-Stage H: Power for the Drive into Space, Aug. 1967; NAR, Manufacturing description

Plan for Saturn S-II Stage, 1 June 1969. Unless of the S-If stage structures and systems is based on

29.

NAA, The Saturn S-II, p. 22, NAA, "Saturn S-II: Annual Progress 138-40; A. C. ','an Leuven interview, NAR, 12 Mar. 1971.

30.

Van Leuven interview; H. Raiklen interview, NAR, NAR, 8 Mar. 1971; interview, William F. Parker, NAR, author,

31.

For

9 Mar. 1971; Richard E. Barton (Dir. 18 June 1976, with attached anonymous details

Bulkhead 15-25; 32.

of

the

bulkhead

for the Saturn interviews cited

assembly

of

Report,"

Aug.

the

see

Report,

Relations, Rockwell dated 10 Ma_,' 1976. Tony

1967;

C.

NAR,

Cerquettini, Manufacturing

physical

1963,

11 Mar. 1971; William F. Parker NAR, 8 Mar. 1971; P. Wickham

Public memo

sequence,

S-II Vehicle," NAA in note 30 above.

otherwise noted, these documents.

pp.

135,

interview, interview,

International) "The

to

Common

Plan,

1969,

pp.

For description, photos, and drawings of the foam process, see NAR, Manufacturing Plan, 1969, pp. 89-90; NAR, Manufacturing Development Information Report, 1968, pp. 45, 55, 83-85. The company also had to devise special phenolic cutter heads to trim the insulation to shape, and use integrated procedure.

electronic See also

sensors interviews cited

thickness

during

the

cutting

33.

Refer

to the

lbid;

Raiklen

35.

Quoted in "The Toughest Weld of All" Skyline, 1968, unpaged reprint in SHP files. Skyline was the company magazine of North American Rockwell• Other manufacturing details and description from NAA, Saturn S-H; Annual Progress Report, 1963, 1964, 1965; NAR, Manufacturing Development Information Report, 1968, NAR, Manufacturing Plan, 1969; contractor facilities tour and briefing given the author in Mar. 1971; interviews with van Leuven, Wickham, Raiklen, and Parker.

36.

Quoted

37.

Refer to interviews,

interview;

in "The

Toughest

in note

the desired insulation Leuven and Wickham.

34.

474

sources

to measure with van

G. A.

28 above.

Phelps

'Weld

interview,

NAR,

12 Mar.

1971.

of All."

the sources sited in note 35 above. See both of NAR, 2 Mar. 1971, An executive

also Charles Jordan at North American

and Norman Wilson who reviewed a draft of

NOTES

the manuscript maintained that over a period of appreciably superior to North American techniques. 1976. 38.

Ray

39.

H.G. Paul to Cline, "S-II Insulation 1958-1970 (no date, unpaged). NAR's S-II program, comprising

Godfrey

and

Apparently

Bill Sneed

prepared

for

interviews,

MSFC,

28 July

41.

Arthur

Rudolph

42.

Akens,

Saturn

43.

Akens, William

Saturn Chronology, pp. 120-121 ; NAR, Saturn S-II Chronology, F. Parker, 6 Oct. 1965; Yarchin to Parker, 11 Oct. 1965.

44.

O'Connor to von Braun, 1965. Housed in MSFC Stage."

Cited

Rees

46.

Edmund

47.

NASA, Hq., transcription

48.

Dale

Myers

49.

Rees

to O'Connor,

50.

George

Mueller

51.

"Phillips Report,

Report," 19 Dec. housed in the SHP

1965. files.

52.

Arthur

Rudolph

MSFC,

53.

Eberhard files.

54.

Eberhard

55.

NAA,

56.

Robert E. Greer interview, interview with one of Greer's and

57.

"Meeting

F. O'Connor

17 Mar. "Meeting

to J.

Rees

memo,

release,

P. Wickham

9 Dec.

NAA

....

16 Oct.

I8 Oct.

Samuel

Yarchin

to

Atwood Meeting," 14 Oct. Rees, "NAR Organization,

1965.

Rees

files.

1965.

Reports, O'Connor,

" 16 Oct.

27 Oct. The

1965,

letter

26

1965,

NAA,

(interview

Situation,"

Special Edmund

Program Review: pp. 81-83.

Apollo,

16

Nov.

1966,

release,

above)

Atwood

and

attached

NAR, 5 Mar. close associates cited

Rees

Files.

files. is included

in the

complete

memo,

8 Dec.

Phillips

1968.

Views

news

1965,

Rees to

Nov.

Impressions,

1961;

passim. passim;

1970 on

interview,

S-H Chronology,

fiLes. A. Storms,

L. Atwood,

"Personal

Saturn

NAA/S&ID

Off. of Programs and of remarks by General

Rees,

news

on

to Harrison

interview,

1965.

NAR,

Data for Dr. yon Braun--Mr. in file drawer marked Eberhard

as Rees

45.

of Events, record of paper.

1965. 10 May

109-120;

"Background History Off.

hereafter

to O'Connor,

1 Apr.

Weidner, pp.

S-II: Chronology and candid on notebook-size

reference.

C. Phillips

Chronology,

were not 18June

1973.

Samuel

S-II

Braun,

222-230

time, the NASA welding concepts Barton to author, with attachment,

40.

to Herman

PAGES

Status," 2June 1964; NAR, Saturn This is a remarkably comprehensive a two-inch thick document typed

management

to von

TO

Recommendations,"

to 8 Dec.

memo

25Jan.

1966.

cited

commented

Rees

above.

1971. The story of "Black Saturdays" at North American, W. E. Dean, 8 Mar.

both

1965,

on enhanced

is from an 1971. Dean

morale.

George E. Mueller to Lee Atwood, 23 Feb. 1966; Harold G. Russell to Gen. Phillips, "S-II-T Program at MTF," 15 Apr. 1966; George F. Esenwein to Dir., Apollo Test/copy to Phillips, "May 25, Attempted S-II-T Full Duration Static Firing," 26 May 1966; transcribed log of phone call, Atwood to yon Braun, von Braun daily journal, 27 May 1966 (housed in Alabama Space and Rocket Cr., Huntsville, Ala., cited hereafter as yon Braun daily journal); Akens, Saturn Chronology,

p.

58.

Log of phone in yon Braun also, E. Mims

59.

Gerald

141. calls, Storms to von Braun, 31 May 1966, and von Braun to Gilruth, 1 June 1966, daily journal; Akens, Saturn Chronology, pp. 142-143; NAR, S-II Chronology. See interview, NAR, 12 Mar. 1971.

E. Meloy

to

George E. Mueller, letter, Webb to Sen. to

Robert

C.

Seamans,

"Saturn

V S-II-T

"Congressional Inquiry (S-II-T)," Clinton Anderson, 21 Mar. 1967. Gen. 7 Oct.

Samuel Storms

Yarchin Telecom,"

61.

Samuel Phillips Shapley,

Yarchin to Rees, "Weekly Notes to Storms Telecom," and Rees, "S-II- 1 Delays at MTF," 27 Sept. 1966; Frank "Static Test of S-II-I," 27 Oct. 1966.

62.

NASA,

Program

63.

Samuel

Phillips

64.

Alibrando

15 Nov.

to Associate

to Phillips

(memo

"Weekly

1966,

transcription

Administrator, dealt

with

Notes

of

"S-II-T MSFC's

Dr.

and

60.

Review,

O'Connor, 1966.

Stage

memo

special

Rees,

remarks

Failure

Explosion," attached

S-II

for

Dr.

11 Sept. 1966; Magliato to Webb, by Samuel

Corrective

technical

Notes

31

fi_rce

May

1966;

preliminary

Phillips,

Action,"

Rees

draft to Mr.

O'Connor Seamans, pp. 9 Jan.

visit to Seal Beach),

to and

37-42. 1967. 5Jan.

475

NOTES

TO

1967; Saturn

PAGES

231-240

Phillips to Associate S-II Chronolog3_.

65.

Dale

Myers

66.

See, for example, Apollo: A History Benson NASA

interview,

Administrator,

NASA,

"Enclosures:

17 Mar.

Courmey of Manned

Tries

Brooks, James Lunar Spacecraft,

Status,"

27 Jan.

Grimwood, and NASA SP-4205 A History

Under

Arthur MSC),

70.

Akens,

71.

See,

72.

Parker

73.

While much of this involves the personal judgment of the author, the conclusions personal interviews with Matthew Urlaub, Roy Godfrey', Bill Sneed, cited above, Greer, 5 Mar. 1971. See also Rudolph interview, 26 Nov. 1968. For sympathetic

Rudolph to John (;. Shinkle, TWX, 25 May 1967. Saturn

Chronology,

example

yon

interview;

North 1971),

pp.

Braun

Sneed

181, daily

and

TWX, 192,

Feb.

1967

24 May

196,

journal,

C,odfrey

American personalities, pp. 100-117.

Sternberg, Scientist_, Alelyunas,

25

"Checkout:

1967;

Paul

3.

Sternberg,

"Automalic

Checkout,"

4.

Alelyunas,

"Checkout:

Man's

5.

Sternberg,

"Automatic

Checkout,"

equipment Checkout,"

and operations, MSFC, Oct.

the

year

Lay,Jr.,

Man's

1967,

pp.

154-56,

158.

(MSFC,

KSC,

obscured).

to Ctr.

Directors

1963.

Earthbound

Changing pp.

(Englewood

Cliffs,

N.J.,

Role,"

Apollo

Hippocrates,"

Space/Aeronautics,

Dec.

1965,

Bulletin

o[ the

p. 66.

84-87.

Changing

Role,"

p. 87.

see, Robert t963.

Astronauts

are based on and Robert accounts of

8

k

pp. 66-73.

For additional Smith,Jr.,

general

discussion

"Practicalities

6.

D. Morris Vehicle," published

7.

Ibid., 86; Sternberg, "Automatic Checkout," p. 85; D. Checkout Systems for Saturn V Stages," MSFC, 10July Benson and Faherty, Moonport.

of Saturn

in Automated

automatic

Manufacturing

Schmidt, "Automatic Checkout Systems 1or Stages of the Saturn V Manned Space a paper presented to IEEE International Conference, New York, Mar. 1965, and in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference, 13, pt. 4 (1965): 85-86.

8. Schmidt,

"Automatic

(_heckout,"

p. 86;

9.

"Automatic

Checkout,"

p. 87.

Schmidt,

Phillips

Checkout Equipment--The 1969): 84-87.

2.

3 June

partially

Operations,

interviews.

see Beirne

"Automatic (September

(date

for D.

199.

for

CHAPTER

1. Sidney Atomic

NAR,

Chariots Charles

and

69.

or

Week,

Facilities

George

Jan.

Business

Launch

"North

for

Fire,"

of Apollo's

68.

to J. L. Atwood,

1967;

Loyd S. Swenson, Jr., (Washington, 1979);

67.

E. Mueller

to Advance

Stage

1970.

and William B. Faherty, Moonport: SP-4204 (Washington, 1978). American

S-ll

Schmidt,

Morris 1968,

"Survey,"

Schmidt, p. 3. For

"Survey procedures

of

Automatic at KSC, see

p. 4.

10.

Ibid., p. 91 ; Schmidt, "Survey," pp. 6, 27. For discussion of the Saturn 1 experience, see, L. Smith, Jr., "Automatic Checkout for Saturn Stages," Astronautirs, February 1962, pp. 60; Jack W. Dahnke, "Computer-Directed Checkout for NASA's Biggest Booster," Engineering, August 1962, pp. 84-87. For the Saturn IB vehicle, see William G. Techniques of Implementing Launch Automation Prograrm (Saturn IB Space Vehicle System), NASA TMX-53274, 30July 1975.

11.

Schmidt, checkout

"Surve,,," operati'ons

pp. 7-8; and the

section on the S-I I (pp. 12-17; flow diagrams and descriptions

Smith, "Practicalities," equipment involved 33-39) of the

is the most test operations

for

Robert 46-47, Control Bodie, MSFC,

p. 3. For additional descriptions of the each stage, see Schmidt, "Survey." The

detailed, containing several representative for all three stages and the IU. See also

Frank R. Palm, "A Real Time Operating System for the Saturn V Launch Computer Complex," Huntsville, AIa./IBM, July 1966. MSFC, "Survey of Saturn Stage Test and Checkout Computer Plan Development," I June 1966, provides a technical overview of" the systems for both the Saturn V and Saturn lB.

476

NOTES

12.

13.

William

Sheil,

"Breadboards

and

D-Birds,"

Boeing

Magazine,

Moore, J. R. Mitchell, and H. H. Traut_th, MSFC, Apr. 1966; J. R. Mitchell, J. W Moore, Aerospace Vehicle," MSFC, 9 Mar. 1967.

"Aerospace and H. H.

George

Simulation

in the

Aug.

p. 19.

F.

system,"

Meister,

Douglas

"The Paper

Role no.

of

4010,

1966,

Development S-IVB

o1 an

Stage,"

10-

] 1; J. W.

and Checkout," Simulation of an

Atnomatic

I. Ordway III, James Patrick Gardner, Cliffs, N.J., 1962), pp. 366, passim.

Guidance, pp. 14-18. In the U.S., significant

Important advances

and

Douglas

(]heckout

Charles Stark Draper, Walter Wrigley, and John ttovorka, Inertial Guidance (New York, 1960), pp. 1, 2, 4. Other means of guidance include {1) command guidance: data sent to the vehicle from an operator or computer; (2) homing: may home in on natural radiation or from inlrared wavelengths emanating from the target; (3) heam riding: vehicle steers itself along the axis of radar or other system pointed at the target. Draper was a leading researcher in the field of guidance and control, and his 1×)ok is a basic treatise in the literature. For a survey of the state of the art during the period of the Saturn

Draper, Atlantic.

Saturn

1965):

Simulation "Digital

15.

16.

the

(October

Vehicle Trauboth,

240-247

H. E. Bauer, "Operational Oct. 1968, pp. 11- 12.

see Frederick (Englewood

on

35

PAGES

14.

program, Astronautics

Experiences

TO

Paper

Mitchell

no.

5268,

R. Sharpe,

work on gyroscopes was dune on were accomplished by Elmer Sperry.

BcLsic

both sides _)t the See, for example,

the exemplary biography by Thomas Parke Hughes, Elmer Spero': Inventor and Engineer (Baltintore, 1971). Aspects of European progress are summarized in Durant and .lames, First Steps Toward Space. For the evolution of long-range aerial navigation in the prewar era, see Monte Wright, Most Probable Position: A History' of AeriaI Navrgation to 1941 (Lawrence, Kan., 1972). 17.

F. K. Mueller, "A History of Inertial (;uidance," 6, 7. One of the Peenemuende veterans, Mueller V-2 guidance

and

control

18. James S. Farrior, "Inertial Astronautical Engineering, 19.

Ibid., pp. 153-54; mance, Guidance, First Steps Wernher

Ala., who

1959, pp. developed

1, 4, the

systems. Guidance, pp. 150-52.

Its

Ernst A. Steinhoff, and Instrumentation,"

Toward Space, Smithsonian yon Braun, "Redstone,

Technolog3_,

ABMA, Redstone Arsenal, was one of the principals

Evolution

and

Future

Potential,"

"Early Developments in in Frederick C. Durant

Annals .Jupiter,

in Stuhlinger,

et al.,

Rocket and Spacecraft I'erforlII, and George S..James, eds.,

of Flight, no. 10 (Washington, and Juno," in Emme, ed.,

1974L pp. 7"he tt_storv

227-85; o] Rocket

p. 110.

20.

Farrior, Program Vehicle:

"Inertial (;uidance," p. 154; yon Braun, "Redstone," p. 120; Review," IBM, Huntsville, Ala., 26 July 1966, p. 3; Oswald Pr_)ject Development Plan," MSFC, 1 June 1962, p. 4.61.

21.

Lange,"Saturn Expeditiorzs,

22.

Lange, "Saturn C-I," pp. 4.14-4.18, Walter Hauessermann, who directed more like those of the ST-12t), used

23.

MSFC,

24.

IBM,

C-1 p. 52.

Saturn "Saturn

Vehicle,"

I Summary, IB/V

p. 3.6;

MSFC,

Instrument

von

Braun,

"Saturn

the

(,iant,"in

IBM, "Instrument It. I,mge, "Saturn Cortright,

ed.,Apolh_

4.57-4.63. In a memo to the author dated 22.]une MSFC's Astriunics Lab., said that ST-124 components in the Pershing missile.

TMX

57401,

15 Feh.

Unit

Svstem

Description

1966

Unit C-I

1976, were

(unpaged). and

Componenl

Data

(Technical

Manual)," 1 June 1966, p. 2; IBM, "l'rogram Review," p. 1: Mi._stle/Space Daily', 8 Oct. George Alexander, "Saturn IB Proving Saturn V Control Unit," Aviation Week and Teehnolo_', 18 Apr. 1966, unpaged reprint in SHP files. Unit t_ Navigate 1965.

25.

IBM, "Program Review," pp. 5-8, lC_, 16: IBM, "Instrument Flight," news release, 17 Feb. 1966; Huntsville Times, 7 Oct.

26.

IBM, "Program Review," passim; Ernst D. Geissler and Walter Haeussermann, "Saturn Guidance and Control," Astronautics, February 1962, p. 44; Haeussermann, "Guidance and Control of Saturn Launch Vehicles," AIAA Paper 65-304, July 1965, passim; James T. Powell, "Saturn Instrumentation Systems," a paper presented at the Third International Symposium on

1B's First

Flight the

Test Instrumentation, Cranlield, England, June 1964, pp. 6-9. For clarification ot manv details _t the Instrument Unit, here and author is indebted t_ interviews wi|h Etnher I'_well, Sidney Sweal,

Saturn

1965; Space

others,

at MSFC,

29 July

in the fi)ltowing pages, Therman McKa_, and

1975.

477

NOTES

TO

PAGES

"Instrument (unpaged).

248-255

27.

IBM, 1965

Unit,"

28.

IBM, "Saturn 7.1-7.2.

29.

IBM, "Saturn IB/V... (Technical Manual)," pp. 5-9, 15- 16; Bendix Corp., "Saturn ST-124-M Inertial Guidance Platform," news release, 21 Feb. 1969, pp. 1-3; Herman E. Thomason, A General Descr*ption of the ST-124-M Inertial Platform System, MSFC, NASA TN D-2983, Sept. 1965, pp. 44-51.

30.

Bendix

Corp.,

Inertial 26 May

Stabilized Platform and 1964. These documents,

IB/V

news

release;

. . . ITechnical

"Saturn

MSFC,

Manual),"

ST-124-M,"

Astrionics

pp.

p. 2;

4-5,

B. J.

Its Application along with

include drawings, schematics, formulae, equations, and methodology of computation "An ST-124 Instrument Error Analysis for MT-8094 Issue A (no date).

Lab,

12;

"Saturn

MSFC,

O'Connor,

"A

IB/V

Saturn

Instrument

Unit,"

V News Reference,

Description

of

the

pp.

ST-124-M

to the Saturn V Launch Vehicle," Bendix Corp., Thomason, General Description of the ST-124-M,

and operations of the ST-124. For the theory, and handling of error signals, see B. J. O'Connor, Saturn S-I Vehicle," Bendix Corp., Engineering file

31.

Charles D. LaFond, "First Saturn V Guidance Computer, Marshall," Mi.*siles and Rockets, 2 Nov. 1964, unpaged copy

32.

Ibid.,

33.

MSFC, Saturn V Neu,s Reference, p. 7.5; IBM, "IBM Apollo/Saturn Press Information," 1968, unpaged; IBM, "IBM Computer," pp. 3-7; La Fond, "First Saturn V Guidance Computer." For further details of 1U theory, formulae, and schematics, see MSFC, Astrionics Lab, "Astrionics

"IBM

System Robert

Computer

Will

Direct

Saturn

Handbook," 1 Aug. 1965, Clifton Duncan, "Status

Orbital

and change of Guidance

Test

sheets, and

Data Adapter in SHP files.

Flight,"

15 Aug. Control

June

1966,

Prototypes pp.

Due

at

3-4.

1966; Walter Haeussermann Methods, Instrumentation,

and and

Techniques As Applied in the Apollo Project," a lecture to the Advisory Group for Aeronautical R&D, NATO, Dusseldorf, Germany, 21-22 Oct. 1964. For photos and description of all components, see IBM, "Saturn IB/V Instrument Unit System Description and Component Replacement Data," IBM no. 66-966-0006, Huntsville, Ala., 1 Mar. 1966. 34.

IBM, "IBM Apollo/Saturn La Fond, "First Saturn

Press Information," "¢ Computer"; MSFC,

35.

IBM,

(Technical

"Saturn

Instrument experience O. Frost

IB/V...

Manual),"

Unit"; Alexander, "Saturn from the Redstone,Jupiter, and Charles D. Smith, "Saturn

1968; Saturn pp.

IBM, "IBM Computer Will V News Reference, p. 7.4.

10-I

IB Control and Pershing Telemetry,"

l; MSFC,

Astrionics

Lab,

Direct,"

p. 7;

"Saturn

IB/V

Unit." MSFC telemetry rested heavily on rocket programs. See, for example, Walter MSFC, 1962. For a technical overview of

rocket telemetry from the V-2 era through Saturn I, see Otto A. Hoberg and James E. Rorex, "Telemetry Development .... " in Ernst Stuhlinger, Frederick I. Ordway IIl, Jerry C. McCall, and George C. Bucker, eds., From Peenemuende to Outer Space: Commemorating the Fiftieth Birthday of Wernher yon Braun. March 23, 1962 (MSFC, 1962), pp. 487 - 516. 36.

MSF(',

Saturn

Unit"; 5-6.

V New_

Alexander,

Reference,

"Saturn

IB

p. 7.2-7.7; Control

MSFC,

Unit";

IBM,

Astrionics "Saturn

Lab, IB/V...

"Saturn (Technical

IB/V

Instrument

Manual),"

pp.

37.

Harvey Heuring and E. Wayne Davis, "The IBM Clean Room Comes of Age," IBM/Huntsville, IBM no. 68-U60-0036, Dec. 1968, pp. 1-3, 5, 12; Heuring, "IBM Mobile Room Lends Flexibility to Apollo Saturn Unit Fabrication," IBM/Huntsville, IBM no. 67-U60-0026, 28 July 1967, pp. 2-5; tteuring, "Methods for Cleaning Electronic Components and Subassemblies," IBM/Huntsville, IBM no. 67-U60-0009, 1967.

38.

IBM, "Saturn IB/V... (Technical Manual)," Alexander, "Saturn IB Control Unit."

39.

Sidney

40.

IBM,

41.

See, fur example, IBM, "Saturn Instrument February," 15 Mat. 1966; IBM, "Monthly

Sweat "Program

interview,

MSFC,

Review,"

telephone

29 July

2, 12, 14-15;

IBM,

"Program

Review,"

p. 12;

1975.

57-64.

message

Unit Mission Contract: Monthly Progress Report Progress Report fk_r March," 3 May 1966. transcription,

27 July

for

42.

O'Connor

43.

Judson A. Loving_)d and Ernst D. Geissler, "Saturn Flight-Control Systems," Astronautics and Aeronautics, May 1966, p. 100; Helmut J. Horn, "The Iterative Guidance Law for Saturn" paper presented at conierence on Aerospace and Navigational Electronics, Baltimore, 27-29 Oct. 1965, p. 9; Walter ltaeussevmann, "Guidance attd Control of Saturn Launch Vehicles," AIAA

478

to Phillips,

pp.

pp.

1967.

NOTES

Paper 65-304, "Guidance and Engineering,

.July 1965, pp. 5-7; Control Systems for

p.

163 ft.;

Saturn

MSFC,

Saturn

MSFC,

45.

Ibid.; R. N. Eilerman, "Saturn Auxiliary Meeting, Boston, 29 Nov.-2 Dec. 1966, 10 Aug. Eilerman,

47.

MSFC,

1972. "Saturn Saturn

Manual,

Auxiliary

V News

SA-506,

10 June

pp.

PAGES

F. B. Moore, in Stuhlinger,

7.4-7.5.

1969,

pp.

1-2,

7.4-7.5.

pp.

4.19-4.24,

5.25-5.30,

6.31-6.32.

presented telephone

al AIAA interview,

5-6.

Operations

were quite similar. See, for example, IBM, Flight," news release, 17 Feb. 1966; Alexander,

255-265

and (;. (;. Gassaway, et al., A._tronaut_cal

Propulsion Applicati(ms," paper pp. 1-3, 12-13; R. N. Eilerman

Propulsion,"

Reference,

Haeussermann, Carrier Vehicles,"

V News Reference,

44.

46.

V Flight

Walter Space

TO

of

"Instrument "Saturn

the

IU in the

Unit to IB Control

Saturn

Navigate Unit."

Saturn

1B missions IB's

First

CHAPTER 9 1. Wernher Conference

,,'on Braun, "Management on the Management

Reprinted 2. See, yon

in Buainess

Horizons,

for example, "Director's Braun, MSFC/Records

conferences, Space

phone

and

Rocket

calls, Center,

of

Winter Weekly Holding

and

so on, with

Akens, Historical OrigiT_ of the George no. 1 (Dec. 1960), pp. 71-73; yon 1971.

4.

See, "Director's Cited hereafter

Weekly Notes, as MSFC/RHA

Gorman," 6.

Weekly 1-22-62,

Box

Research," a spee(h held at French Lick, unpaged from files;

memos

copy

in the

lab directors yon Braun

frequently

to the Sixteenth National Ind., 18 September 1972. SHP

files.

and program daily journal,

attached

(housed

office directors to a log of visits, in files of Al_bama

Ala.). C. Marshall Space Flight Braun, "Management";

11 -20-67, files.

Notes, 1961-68, Haeussermann,"

Brown,"

Box

Center, MSFC ltistorical Monograph D. Wyatt interview, NASA, 2 Dec.

I I I, MSFC/Records

MSFC/RttA files, boxes Box I; the broom remark

Holding

Area

I-IV. The one-page is from "Notes, 11-

files.

rule is 13-61,

I.

Quotation from interviews with Mat Urlaub, MSFC, 29 July 1975, and Konrad Dannenherg, MSFC, 30July 1975. Various individuals from NASA Hq. and MSFC, and the contractors noted the visits by yon Braun and their net positive effect. See, for example, interviews with Frank Williams, NASA, 3 Dec. 1971; Wyatt, NASA; Dannenberg, MSFC; Robert Pease, MSFC, 3 Sept. 1971;

A. C. van

Leuven,

7.

Williams

8. 9.

Dannenberg interview. Williams interview.

10.

1962, Notes," Area

Huntsville,

3.

5. See, "Director's from "Notes,

in Rocket Research,

NAR,

12 Mar.

1971.

interview.

Eberhard Rees, "Project and Systems Management," a speech to the XVI World Management Congress, held at Munich, Germany, 25 Oct. 1972, housed in the files of the Saturn V Program Off., cited hereafter as SPO files. For the early years of NASA's managerial development, see Robert L. Rosho[t, An Admini:trative Histor'i o/_\\4SA, 1958-1963, NASA SP-4101 (Washington 1966). Wernher von Braun left in 1970 to take a position at NASA Hq. Eberhard Rees had been one of the earl',, members of the yon Braun team in Germany and for many years, both at ABMA and MSFC, had served as deputy director fi)r technical operations in yon Braun's office. Rees headed MSFC from 1970 to 1973 and was succeeded by Rocco Petrone, who was fi)llowed hy William

Lucas.

11.

Von Braun Administrator, attachments.

12.

Wyatt, James

to

Maj. Gen. Don R. Ostrander, 8 Jan. 1960; NASA, 11 .Jan. 1960; Hyatt to the Associate

Williams, and Dannenberg interviews, w. Wiggins interview, MSFC, 31 July

Space Flight Center Program Management is an unpublished document, prepared Program Management Directnrale. The H. Lange, "Saturn Systems Management,"

Ahraham Hyatt to the Associate Administrator, 15 .]an. 1960, with

William H. Sneed interview, MSFC, 1973; Normal L. Cropp, "EvohHion

28July 1973; of Marshall

Organization," pp. 8-9, SPO files. The Cropp piece in 1972, as part of a management stud?, series lor the author was a xeteran MSFC executive. See also ()swald Astr_,tauttcs, 7 (Feb. 1962): 31, 1 lit.

479

NOTES

13.

TO

I'A(;ES

266-276

Cropp, "Ew_lt,lion," Peenemuende Rocket 1950): 81. Braun,

pp. 3-4; Center,"

14.

Von

15.

Von Braun to Div. Directors and Sneed interview, MSFC, 26July

16.

Von Braun, reorganization,

_on Braun, Rocket._ewnce,

"Management"; (Sept. 1950):

4

Krattt 60-61;

"Management"; itl¢tuding

Weidnet

Off. Chiefs, 1973.

Rosholt, organizational

interview,

MSFC,

"MSI"(]

Managemenl

P{_licy #1

Herman Dannenberg

19.

See, for 1963.

20.

Dannenberg

21.

William J. Norm_le, '_A. F. Officers to Bolster Apollo Management," I'echnology, 81 (24 Aug. 1964): 22; anon. memo to (,en. Phillips, Regarding Assignments ot NASA Personnel to Air For__e l'rograms," to Gen. Phillips, NASA, "Response to Senator Svmington+s lnquir_

24 Aug.

1971;

yon

Braun

example,

_<m Blauu

dail',

journal,

5 July 1963; " '

12 ]ul_ "

oi + letter, Element document

Arthur Apollo

Bill

of

the

analysis

MSFC,

17 Nov.

1971.

1963;

31

]nlv " '

1963;

13 Aug.

inter;Jew.

draft

24.

interview,

1962;

imervie_.

See Satt,rn V Program ()ff., "Saturn V Program Management." Oct. 1967. Annex "(7 + of this IO/R&DO relati{mships SPO files.

23.

" 16 Aug.

Admini.+trative Hl_tor_:+ o[fers a detailed charts t_or both H_ t. and center levels.

18.

At,iatton

"The (Dec.

4

"Management."

17.

22.

,at. Ehricke, Rocketscience,

B'eek,"

4 Sept.

Rudolph Program

1964,

interview, ()ft.

with

attached

MSFC,

NASA

Hq.,

26 Nov.

Wehb

Aria{ton Week and Space NASA, "Press Inquiries 1 Sept. 1964; anon. memo on Attached Article in

to Sen.

Plan for includes

Symington

Financial and Manpower the basic guidelines for

1968.

NASA-Apollo

PToF.;ram Management,

I (Dec.

1967):

3.6-3.12.

Up to 1967, no single doc uluellt, or series ot dri,'ed a spetial descriptive series, summali,,ing Ihe various elements of management that had dmeloped over the years and that were ran to 14 separate vohunes, covering each of dte tenters involved as well as each of 1he major contractors. Huntsville operations Pro_am Manat_ement M.SFC, SPO tiles. 25.

Cropp, (;odfre,,

"Evolution," interview,

26.

Rudolph

intervie_.

27.

MackShettlesintet-_iew,

28

Saturn V Program (;<mtlol Aug. 1966, SPO files

29.

Arthur Rudolph, "Saturn Apr. 1965, passim, SP()

30.

Saturn

V Program

pp. 36-37: MSF{:. 29 July

MSFC,

1973;

"Saturn

V

V Program files.

(:_mtrol

E.

27.1ul)

()tt..

seven inter-center panels: Mechanics: EleCtrical: Crew

(,eorge 1975.

()f[., Fligilt Safety;

Directive PEP,

Mueller

intervie_,

Rudolph

Pl['etalion.

32.

Oswald Lange, "Working (;roups within SHP files; Hughes, '+Saturn . . . Concept"; p. 12; Saturn V l'r_Jgram ()[f., "Saturn interview.

33.

Von Braun interview: Saturn V Program Control Off,, PEP, "Management+" pp. 13- 15; Cropp, "Saturn," p. 8; Hughes, "Saturn . + . Concept"; Rees, "Prosiest Management." p. 14. ]'he anecdote o1" Rudc, lph's hmg meetings was repeated to the author by sex oral slaff mrexatnlJle: Pr_am l{ev+ew: Apollo, 16 Nm. I!_t_ %t'() tiles. [he text consists

480

the Saturn Management Saturn V Program Contl Management Concept,"

Plan," memo, 8 Sept. 1960, ol ()if., PEP, "Management," p. 27, SPO files; Shettles

NOTES

of transcriptions and slides used JSC 35.

files;

Saturn Shettles and

of the in their

NASA

at North

1: 3.6,

SPO

reported

Management,"

directly

to Rudolph's

37.

Ibid.

38.

Interview, privileged source. Many contractor personnel remarked merit exercised by NASA, and Marshall in particular, in contrast

39.

Rees,

40.

Transcription

Management,"

41.

Transcription

42.

Ibid., tanks

by

Apollo,

23 Nov.

of remarks

pp. 55-57. were used,

testing

The hence

of all related

10, 16-17.

on the very close to the Air Force.

manage-

pp+ 16-17.

of remarks

Review:

+.. Concept"; Space (';enter

office.

Rees,

Program

pp.

p. 10; Hughes, "'Saturn RMO staffs at Kennedy

the

36.

"Project

277-284

files.

Control Off., PEP, ?Management," For technical managerial reasons,

American

"Project

PAGES

complete remarks made by the participants, accompanied by the charts presentations. For the Apollo Executive Group, see Mueller interview,

. . . Management,

V Program interview.

TO

Gen.

Phillips, 1964,

by Lee James, battleship the name.

systems:

in NASA

p.

Hq.,

Off+

of Programs

& Special

Program

Review,

23

Nov.

1964,

pp.

56-57.

test was an early phase in which thick, heavy-duty The All Systems Test, as the name implied, involved

electrical,

Reports,

159.

mechanical,

pneumatic,

propellant thorough

etc.

43.

Ibid.

44.

Rees,

45.

Hughes, "Saturn ... Concept"; Rees, "Project Management," p. 11; Sneed interview; Rudolph interview. Cost-plus-award-fee contracts are a type of incentive involving contractor peril)rmance monitored by project personnel and a board. The contractor is judged on various effectiveness factors whose criteria are subject to periodic revisions during the contract, whereas the criteria for the incentive-fee contract are totally spelled out as part of the basic contract.

46.

MSFC, "Project

"Project

Management,"

p.

17.

Saturn V Reliabilit'_ and Quality Management," pp. 8-9.

Program

Plan,

MM

5300.2A,

Aug.

1968,

SPO

files;

Rees,

47+ Ray Kline, "Memo for Record: Notes on Management Advisory Committee Meeting at Michoud on June 4, 1964," 26 June 1964, sPO files. For the Douglas operation, see L. C. Wilson et al., "Development of Separable Connectors for the Saturn S-IV Stage," Douglas Paper 3552, 1966, pp. 3-8; R. B. Wilson and H. L. Hug, "A Prime Contractor's Reliability Program for Components/Parts for the Douglas S-IVB Stage Project," Douglas Paper 3794, pp. 1-4+ copies in SHP flies. 48.

Transcription Management,"

49.

Hughes, interview.

50.

Mitchell

of remarks pp. 9-10;

"Saturn

by Lee James, Program Rudolph interview.

Concept";

R. Sharpe

interview,

was very pervasive facilities in the Los

Rees,

"Project

6 Aug.

1973.

Review,

23 Nov.

Management," It would

be easy

p.

1964, 11;

to dismiss

pp. 58, 60; Rees,

Sneed

interview;

such

"Project Rudolph

sloganeering,

but

it

and seems to have been taken very seriously. During a tour of contractor Angeles area in 1971, the author could not help but notice the prominently

displayed stickers and placards in engineers' drafting rooms, shop areas, and offices, and the huge banners, proclaiming PRIDE, VIP, etc., hung across the walls of the cavernous buildings where the Saturn V stages were assembled. In cafeterias, and even in executive conference rooms, the coasters for coffee cups and water glasses carried appropriate slogans for "Manned Flight Awareness." For further details of the Manned Flight Awareness program, see Mitchell R. Sharpe, "Manned Flight Awareness--Zero Defects for Man-Rated Space Vehicles," Industrial Quality Control, 12 (June 1966): 658-661. 51.

Hughes,

52.

James

"Saturn

53.

The Boeing Co., "Management SPO files. While this document

Baar

and

as a comprehensive involved, sample 54.

...

Concepts."

William

Howard,

Polaris. _ (New

Control does not

Center analyze

York,

1960),

pp. 41-42,

49-51.

System," D5-15710, 8 Nov. 1967, pp. 1.3-1.4, and describe the PCC at MSFC, it was intended

guideline fnr control centers in general. It includes charts, and even detail drawings of sample hardware.

Saturn V Program Control Ctr., "Saturn files; Arthur Rudolph, "The Program LogTstic3 Management Sympogium, September

the

philosophies

V PCC: Program Control Center," n. d., unpaged, SPO Manager's Problem," in NASA/MSFC, First Annual 13 & 14, 1966, NASA TMX-53566, 16Jan. 1967, p. 59.

481

NOTES

TO

PAGES

284-293

55.

Saturn

56.

Rees, #14:

V Program,

57.

Rudolph, interview;

58.

Johnston interview; ary 1966): 6-7.

59.

Norman companion

60.

Kline, memo interview.

61.

Interviews and demonstrations by Mack Shettles and Merrell Denuon, MSFC, 10 July 1973; Smith to Bethay, 1973: Shettles interview. Arthur Rudolph, Saturn V Management Instruction #19, "Saturn V Resource and Contract Management Reports," menlo, 24 Sept. 1965, pp. 2-4: Saturn V Program Control Off., "Saturn V Program Element Plan for Schedule Control System," 1 Oct. 1965, pp. 4-8, SPO files.

62.

Thomas E..Jenkins to R. F. Freitag, Space Vehicle," 25 Oct. 1968.

63.

Gordon Milliken and Edward J. Busines_ Review, Mar.-Apr. 1973, article summarizes 25 significant documents.

64.

Tom

Alexander,

65.

The

significance

"Project Saturn

"Saturn

V PCC";

Sidney

Management," pp. 15-16; V Program Control Ctr.,"

"Saturn Sbettles

V Management interview. William

Johnson

Arthur 15 Apr.

Instruction

Sheil,

interview,

Rudolph, 1966, pp. #14,'"

"Guidelines

for

pp.

record,

"The of

1964;

R. G. Smith

NASA

Polaris,

8-9,

"Parts

14, SPO Boeing

pp.

to J. A. Bethay,

Hq.,

26 July

Payoff

various

of

221

12 June

Count

Project

influences

on

-223. 1973,

Breakdown

Apollo,"

Saturn

1973. Instruction files;

Magazine, The

Rudolph 36 (Janu-

former

SPO

files;

is a

Shettles

of the Apollo-Saturn

Morrison, "Management Methods from pp. 6 ff. Based on a NASA study done methods and includes a significant

Unexpected these

3--5.

Administrators,"

Cropp, "Saturn," p. 8; Baar and Howard, manuscript with Cropp, "Evolution." fi)r

MSFC,

"Saturn V Management 1-2, SPO files.

Fortune,

management

V

Aerospace," Harvard by the authors, this bibliography of key

July

1969.

is largely

drawn

from

observations and conversation with personnel of the Saturn V Program Office during the summer of 1973, when the author was associated with the office as part of the NASA-American Society for Engineering Education, Faculty Fellowship Program. See also, Cropp, "Saturn," passim. 66.

Lee

67.

Von

James

68.

Kline

69.

Von Braun to O'Connor (IO) and Weidner (R&DO), "R&D Operations and Industrial Operations: Charters and Guidelines for Cooperation," 19 Feb. 1965, SPO files, See also Saturn V Program Control Off., "Saturn V Program Element Plan for Financial and Manpower Management," Oct. 1967, SPO files.

70.

Mack

Braun memo,

interview,

26June

"Exertion

71.

Interviews with Mack helpful to the author

72.

Saturn

73.

Sneed taken

74.

Shettles Saturn time.

75.

This

V Program

chapter

1971.

of

Authority

Management,

Control

Off., Star,

by Saturn Georgia

Shettles, Herman in understanding

interview; Ma_:_hall at the time. interview; V Program

May

1962.

1964:

Sch. of Industrial SPO files.

Weidner, the basic

PEP,

1965.

on

a revised

CR-129029, Society for

Konrad K. Dannenberg, Report by the University James, "Management of

version

1 June 1974, Engineering

482

Offices,"

Management

Technology,

Dec.

Research

1967,

pp. 24-25, particularly system.

p. 9.

Direct

of

Mueller, in TMX-53566,

Roger

prepared Education,

quote

supplied

by

Bill Sneed,

E. Bilslein, when the Faculty

from

notes

"The

NASA, 16Jan.

Saturn

Management

author participated in the 1973 Fellowship Program. See also

"Management Philosophies as Applied to Major o1 Tennessee Space Institute, NGR 43-0{)1 -116, NASA's Major Projects," July 1973. CHAPTER

1. George NASA,

of

Sid Johnston, and Bill Sneed were features of the Saturn management

"Management,"

3 Nov.

V Staff

Inst.

Sneed interview. Copies of various presentations are housed in the files of the Control Off. Direct quote supplied by Bill Sneed, from notes taken at the

is based

Concept," NASA NASA-American

21

16 Aug.

W. Shetttes,

Paper, 31-43,

MSFC,

memo,

NASA Programs," Oct. 1974; Lee B.

10

First Annual Logzstics Management Sympostum, 13-14 September 1967, p. 9; Arthur Rudolph, in NASA, Logistics Management,

1966, p. 60.

NOTES

2.

PAGES

294-307

Von Braun, in NASA, Log_t_cs Management, p. 3; O'Connor in Logistics Management, Goodrum and S. M. Smolensky, "The Saturn Vehicle Logistics Support System,"

65-268, 3. Goodrum 4.

TO

Apr. and

Rudolph,

5. John

1965, pp. Smolensky,

5-8 passim. "Saturn Logistics,"

in Logtst_cs Management,

C. Goodrum

interview,

MSFC,

Logistics

in NASA,

Logl.stics ManagemeT_t,

p. 8.

p. 59. 31

Aug.

Rudolph,

7.

O'Connor,

8.

Rudolph,

9.

Goodrum and Smolensky, "Saturn Logistics," p. 4; Goodrum interview; Carl D. DeNeen interview, MSFC, 23 Aug. 1971. Logistical considerations at KSC are further discussed in Kurt H. Debus, "Logistical Support for Launch Site Operations" in NASA, Logistics Management, pp. 12-17. See also the voluminous KSC logistics manual, ApolloSaturn Logistics Support Requirement._ Plan, NASA, Kennedy Space Center, K-AM-02, 31 May 1966. This document includes

in Log_tics in Logistics

Management,

1971.

6.

10.

in NASA,

p. 2; Mueller,

p. 7; Jt)hn C. AIAA Paper

Management,

pp.

Management,

pp.

interface

59-60.

for

Goodrum discussion

and Smolensky, "Saturn Logistics," pp. of some of the more technical considerations see also Engineering in NASA,

R.

and

58-59.

6-7.

guidelines

propellants, Cryogenic

logistical

pp.

changeovers

at the

Cape.

16-17, 19; Goodrum in transporting and

D. Walter and B. J. Herman, "Saturn Vehicle Cont\, Rice Univ., Houston, 23-25 Aug. 1965.

Rudolph, Konrad

13.

Akens, Saturn Chronology, p. 6; Goodrum and Smolensky, "Saturn Logistics," pp. 14- 15; MSFC, Saturn Systems Off., "Saturn C-I, Project Development Plan," 10 Aug. 1961, p. 4.91, cited hereafter as MSFC, "Saturn C-I, PDP"; Georg yon Tiesenhausen, "Ground Equipment to Support the Washington,

Saturn Vehicle" D.C., 5-8 Dec.

and Operations," 14. Tiesenhausen_ 15.

1960):

Akens,

interview,

58,

30July

60.

1975.

a paper presented at a meeting of the 1960, pp. 1-2; Georg yon Tiesenhausen,

Astronautic.s, 5 (Dec. 1960): 33, 78. `_Saturn _perati_ns_ p. 33 _Wi_iam A. Mrazek_``The

75;

Saturn

MSFC,

pp.

Programs,"

12.

Dannenberg

Management,

Cryogenic

a

11.

(July

Logistics

interview. For handling cryogenic

Akens,

Saturn

Chronology,

Chronology,

p. 9; MSFC,

p. 58; Goodrum

and

Saturn

"Saturn

Smolensky,

American "Saturn

C-I

Pr_ject_

PDP,"

"Saturn

Rocket Ground

Society, Support

Astr_nautic*_

5

p. 4.90.

Logistics,"

p. 13; William

B.

Shell, "Big Wheels Carry Big Bird," Boeing Magazine, 34 (Dec. 1964): 6-7. For details of the steering actuators for each modular pair of wheels, see also John Carlson, "Steering Mechanism for Saturn Transporter," Ground Support Equipment, Jan.-Feb. 1964, pp. 32-33. 16.

Goodrum Transport, tation of

17.

Prentice, "Transportation the Saturn S-1VB Stage,"

18. Goodrum facilities, 19.

and Smolensky, "Saturn Logistics," p. 15; "Saturn S-IV Handling," Missiles and Rockets, 10 ( 16 Oct. 1961): 32-33; Douglas Saturn S-IVB Stages," Douglas Paper no. 3688,

and North

Smolensky, American

of S-I V B," pp. Douglas Paper "Saturn Rockwell

Equipment

Fact Booklet,

NASA

MSFC, "Saturn C-l, PDP," interview; briefing and tour 1971.

21.

MSFC Historical 30, 1961," vol. MHM-4,

23.

Logistics," Mar. 1971.

H. E. Bauer, "Operational Oct. 1968, p. 10.

pp.

11-13;

briefing

and

Franklin L. Thistle, "Rocketdyne: The First 25 Years," Rocketdyne, Saturn Chronology, pp. 189, 212; Goodrum and Smolensky, "Saturn illustrations and descriptions of the vast array of handling and auxiliary and checkout of the Saturn V, see NASA-MSFC, Saturn V Launch

20.

22.

3, 5, 19-20; no. 5268,

Hints at Future R. W. Prentice, p. 6.

Mar.

Akens, Saturn News Reference, 15-16, William

Technical

Manual,

p. 4.93; Akens, of MSFC barges

MSFC-MAN-100, Saturn Chronology, and facilities with

24-25;

Carl

L. Pool,

"The

Saturn

Launch

on

contractor

1967.

14, 16; Carl D. L. Pool, MSFC,

DeNeen 26 Aug.

January I to June 31, 1961," vol. 2,

briefing.

Chronology, passim; Pool, briefing; Carl Sept. 1968, pp. 8.2 passim; Goodrum

fig. 12. A. Mrazek,

of

in

1970, unpaged; Akens, Logistics," p. 14. For equipment for servicing Vehicle Ground Support

Off., "History of the George C. Marshall Space Center From 1, MHM-3, Nov. 1961, pp. 51-52; "...July 1 to December 1962,

Experiences tour

25 Aug. pp. Carl

Problems "Transpor-

Vehicle

Family,"

D. DeNeen interview; MSFC, Saturn and Smolensky, "Saturn Logistics," lecture

at Univ.

of Hawaii,June

I8 pp.

1966,

p. 7.

483

NOTES

TO

PAGES

24.

Bauer, "Operational Goodrum interview.

25.

William briefing;

B. Sheil, De Neen Saturn

Experiences," "Up and

26.

MSFC,

27.

Robert W. Prentice Logistics," passim.

28.

Akens, C- 133 70-71; March

29.

H. E. Bauer, 1961), passim.

30.

Donald

p.

the River (;oodrum

IB New_

in

Re[erence,

Boeing

at Future

Magazine,

Problems,"

34

(Sept.

p. 32;

John

6-7;

Pool

1964):

p. 8.13. MDAC,

"Operational

11

Experiences,"

Mar.

nterview,

MSFC,

pp.

1 Aug.

1961 and became associated Conroy's final acquisition of

interview;

Prentice

All the World_

interview;

AJrcrafl

1971;

10-I1;

Goodrunl

1972.

Julian

Formerly

with logistics the Stratocruisers

33.

Bauer, S-IVB

34.

John M. interview.

and

Smolenskv

"Saturn

to

M. Conroy

D. Brainerd

yon

to yon

Holmes

Braun,

tor

Mzghty

an engineer

particularly came from

29

Oct.

Seamans,

(New

York,

Stewart

came

the Guppy Transocean

when i{ went bankrupt. Journal o] the American

and

"Boeing 80-81,

1971/72, 377 84.

See, for Aviation

respectively. Undergoes

p. 11; R. W. Prentice, "Transportation 3688, Nov. 1965, pp. 14-15. Enclosure

Thor

at Boeing,

management, evidently

1955/56

Harold D. Watkins, 78 (24 June 1963):

Braun,

to Robert

Hartt,

interview.

1909---),

"Operational Experiences," Stages," Douglas Paper no. Conrov

Stewart

(London,

the conversion job are given in Aviation Week and Space Technology,

37.

Hints

an active nonscheduled airline from 1946 to 1960, Bill Eaton, "Transocean's Stratocruisers Languish," Socie_, 9 (Fall 1964): 229-230.

Goodrum

32. Jane'_

35. John

S-IV

to the Moon," interviews.

interview,

L. Stewart

Airlines, example, Historical

36.

10; "Saturn

Saturn Chronology,, pp. 17-18; H. L. Lambert, "Can Saturn S-IV be Piggy-backed by from Santa Monica to Canaveral," Society of Automotive Engineers Journal, 69 (Dec. 1961 ): Frank G. McGuire; "Airship Studiedas Booster Carrier," Mz_siles and Rockets, 12 (4 1963): 16; "Saturn S-IV Hints at Future Problems," pp. 32-33.

to MSFC operations.

31.

307-317

A,

29

Oct.

1962

Details Flight

of Douglas

Stewar!

interview;

of

Test," Saturn

Goodrum

1962. 25

Apr.

1963.

MSFC Historical Off., H_sto_ o/the George C. Marshall Space Fhght Center--Januao, l-June 30, 1963, Nov. 1963, pp. 1, 4, 57-58;July 1-December 31, 1963, vol. 2,July 1964, 47. The contracts included a complicated pay schedule, formulated as to mileage anti time, ranging from $5.80 to $3.95 per kilometer (Conroy to ,,'on Braun, 29 Oct. 1962). By Nov. 1968, NASA had paid Aero Spacelines a total of $11 591 633 in contracts. (Akens, Saturn Chronology', p. 203); additional Guppy flights noted in Akens, Saturn Chronology, pp. 65, 71-73.

38.

Prentice

39.

Conroy

"Transportation

40.

D. L. Stewart personal files, notes and memoranda, 2 Feb. 1964; "B-36 May Tote Saturn Stage," Huntsville Times, 1 Dec. 1963; J. H. Overholser, Aero Spacelines, to Maj. (;en. Samuel C. Phillips, Deputy Dir. Apollo Program, NASA, Washington, D.C., 9 May 1964. See also, "Aero Spacelines Seeking Options to Buy Saunders-Roe Flying Boats," Aviation "Week and Space Technology (20Jan. 1964), 34.

to yon

Braun,

and

Smolensky,

to yon

Braun,

Logistics,"

p. 10.

1964.

Guppy Aimed at S-IVB Transport," Aviation Week and Space 43, 45; Harold D. Watkins, "Super (;uppy to Make First Flight Space Technology, 83 (23 Aug. 19651: 42-43; Stewart interview; Administrator, NASA Hq., to Robert H. Charles, Asst. Secretary For details on the c-97J, seeJone'_ fi)r 1955/56.

43.

John C. Goodrum pp. 135-136.

Samuel

44.

45.

Prentice, "Transportation Dynamic Environment Dec. 1963, pp. 28, 30, Stewart interview.

46.

De

C. Phillips,

of S-IVB," pp. of the S-IV Stage 34, 43.

Stewart

interview;

11 Aug.

"Saturn 3 Feb.

Harold D. Watkins, "Larger Technology, 82 (19 Apr. 1965): August 25," Avmtion Week and Earl D. Hilburn Deputy Assoc. of the Air Force, 20 May 1965. to Maj. (;en.

L. Stewart,

Freitag

Telephone

484

Donald

Robert

41.

interview;

with

p. 15; Goodrum

1962;

42.

Neen

interview

o1 S-IVB," 29 Oct.

TWX

1972.

4 Mar.

1966;

15- 19; Richard W. Trudell During Transportation,"

Stewart

personal

file,

notes

Akens,

Saturn

Chronology,

and Keith E. Elliott, "The Douglas Paper no. 1780, 4

and

photos.

See

also

"Super

NOTES

TO

PAGES

Guppy," Product Engineering, 8 Nov. 1965, p. 75; Harold E. Felix interview, Ruth Jarrell, comp., A Chronolog)' o] the Marshall Space Flight Center, January MSFC, Apr. 1970, p. 108; Akens, Saturn Chronology, pp. 162, 17{I, 226. 47.

Leo L..]ones, MSFC, Feb.

48.

New

49.

Spacelines," Aviation Week and Space in 1967 to engage in other aircraft C,uppies. For details, see Roger E. Transports," Aerospace Historian, 21 Goodrum interview.

York

comp., A Chronolog), of the Marshall 1971, pp. 21, 83, 102-104; MSFC Times,

31

July

1965;

Watkins,

2. MSFC, 3.

"Saturn

Saturn

I Flight

l Summary,

Test

MSFC,

MDAC, 9 Mar. 1971; l-December 3 l, 1967,

Space Flight Center January 1-December 31, 1968, photo archives and Marshall Star, 197{)-1972.

"Super

Guppy,"

p.

43;

"John'ston

to

Technology', 83 (20 Nov. 19671: 30. Conroy conversion operations. The original firm Bilstein, "Aircraft for the Space Age: The (Summer 19741: 85-86.

Evaluation,"

AIAA

TMX-57401,

Head

Aero

left the company built three more (,uppy Series of

11

CHAPTER 1. F. A. Speer,

317-329

Paper

15 Feb.

1966

64-322,

July

1964,

pp.

1, 8.

(unpaged).

For comments on Highwater, see interviews with von Braun, MSF(', 30 Nov. 1971; Stuhlinger, MSFC, 25 Aug. 1971; Bucher, MSFC, 30 Aug. 1971. Each Saturn I flight, SA-I through SA-10, was preceded by a technical summary inchtding miscellaneous diagrams, mission profile details, and operational highlights. See, for example, MSFC, Technical Information Summary', SA-I, and subsequent. In addition, each of the Saturn I missions received an exhaustive postmission analysis, best summarized by the "Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group," which operated out of the Flight Evaluation and Operational Studies Div., Aero-Astrodynamics Lab. See, for example, MSFC, Saturn Flight Evahtation Working Group, Saturn AS-I Flight Evaluation, a generic title, respectively, for the SA-I, SA-2, and SA-3 missions. For missions SA-4 through SA-10, see MSFC, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group, Results of the Fourth Saturn I Launch Vehicle Test Flight, SA-4, and subsequent. All of these documents may be consulted in the files of the MSFC Historical Off. All launches made from Cape Kennedy (or Cape Canaveral, as it was known prior to 19631 are conveniently tabulated and summarized in William A. Lockyer, Jr., ed., A Summary o] Maior NASA Launchings, Eastern Test Range and Western Test Range." October 1, 1958 to September 30, 1970, rev. ed., It istorical Report no. 1 (Kennedy Space Center, Fla., 197(/). Files of the Saturn History Project include general as well as specific information on the Saturn I series• Mission highlights of each Saturn I launch are recapitulated in MSFC, Saturn I Summary, 15 Feb. 1966. See also B. E. Duran, "Saturn • i/IB Launch Vehicle Operational Status and Exl_erience," Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper no. 680739, 1968. James P. Lindberg, "Saturn I Flight Test Evaluation," MSFC, 1966, includes mission summaries and technical diagrams. Propulsion aspects are treated more specifically in B. K. Heusinger, "Saturn Propulsion Improvements," Astronautics and Aeronautics, 2 (Aug. 19641: 20-25. For information more specifically related to the Block I vehicles, see O. Hoberg, "Saturn SA-I Flight and Its Instrumentation," MSFC, Apr. 1966; F.A. Speer, "Saturn 1 Flight Test Evaluation," AIAA Paper 64-322, July 1964; Fernando S. Garcia, An Aerodynamic Analysis of Saturn 1 Block 1 Flight Test Vehicles, MSFC: NASA TND-20002, Feb. 1964. Unless otherwise noted, information tor the composite summaries of the Saturn missions was abstracted from the documents noted above.

4.

For description and discussion of "Saturn Propulsion Improvements"; ...

5.

Block I1 series, see MSFC, Saturn Lindberg, "Saturn 1 ... Evaluation";

1 Summary; Heusinger, Duran, "Saturn I/IB

Experience."

Carl

T. Huggins,

25 Feb. 6.

the

1963,

"Saturn pp.

Television

System

for SA-6,"

MSFC,

Lindberg, "Saturn 1... Evaluation," pp. 4-6; A. J. Davis and "Photographic Instrumentation System," MSFC, Sept. 1966.

7.

Lindberg,

8.

Duran,

"Saturn

9.

MSFC,

Saturn

Internal

Note,

M-ASTR-IN-63-6,

1-13.

"'Saturn

1 ... I/IB

Evaluation,"

. . . Experience";

I Summar?,.

For

discussion

P. L. Hassler,

"Saturn

IB Inllight

p. 9. MSFC, of

Saturn the

IU,

1 Summa_),. see

Chap.

8.

485

NOTES

TO

10.

Arthur

('. Clarke,

11.

Ibid.; Fred yon Braun,

12.

Ernst Stuhlinger, "Meteoroid Measurements with Project Pegasus," paper presented at Northeast Electronics Research and Engineering Meeting, Bost_Jn, 4 Nov. 1965, pp. 1-2; NASA, The Meteoroid Satellite Pr_Jiect Pe_za,_u._, First Summary Report, NASA TND-3505, Nov. 1966, pp. 1-2; yon Braun, Space Frontier, p. 91. The problem of meteoroid penetration of booster tank walls, as well as spacecraft, was also noted in interviews with yon Braun, NASA, 30 Nov. 1971; Stuhlinger, MSFC, 25 Aug. 1971; Bucher, MSFC, 30 Aug. 1971. Stuhlinger had been chief of MSFC's Space Science Lab; Bucher was a top aide during the Pegasus pr(_ject. For discussion of meteoroid research, see also "Satellites: Manned and Unmanned, Report of Conference at Virginia Polytechnic Institute," Science, 22 Nov. 1963, p. 1091; J_seph H. Wujek, "Experiments in Space," Electronic._ WorM, July 1965, p. 48. Although many scientific books and journals refer to "micrometeoroids," NASA consistently used the term "meteoroid," with diminutive size inherently implied. The author has followed NASA's style in this case.

13.

PAGES

330-338

The Promise

o['Space

(New

York,

1968),

pp.

83-84.

L. Whipple, Earth, Moon, and PlaneLs (Cambridge, Mass., Space Frontier (New York, 1967), pp. 90-91, 184-185.

1963),

pp.

71, 74; Wernher

NASA, Meteoroid Satelhte, pp. ix, 2-3; M. Getler, "Hope Grows for Follow-on Pegasus," Missiles and Rockets, 22 Feb. 1965, p. 15; C. D. La Fond, "Meteoroid Detecti_m Satellite Mock-up Shown," M_ssiles and Rocket._, 24 June 1963, p. 32; William G. Johnson interview, MSFC, 23 Aug. 1971. .Johnson was the Project Manager for Pegasus.

14.

NASA, Meteoroid ing Meteoroids:

Satellite, Orbiting

15.

NASA, Meteoroid Satellite, "Meteoroid Measurement,"

16.

La Fond,

17.

Akens,

"Meteoroid

18.

Getler, "Hope Chronology, pp.

19.

Raymond Raymond

20.

Getler, "Hope Grows," pp. 60-62; Stuhlinger,

Saturn

pp. 4, 29-31; Stuhlinger, "Meteoroid Pegasus Launched," Time, 26 Feb. pp. pp.

10, 4-9;

Detection,"

Chronolog)',

pp.

89,

(;rows," pp. 100, 103-104;

27, 35-37; La Fond,

pp.

32-33;

97,

104.

14-15; "First

Getler, "Meteoroid Akens,

M. Watts, Jr., "Pegasus Satellite Flies," M. Watts, .Jr., "Pegasus 3," Sky & Telescope,

Puts Pegasus-2 in Precise Orbit," Readied for Pegasus 2 Launch,"

108,

110;

Chronology',

Satelhte, I," film,

15;

Stuhlinger,

p. 92.

pp. 59-60; MSF(;, Serial

Sky & Telescope, 29 30 (Oct. 1965): 215.

Akens, Saturn no. M-206.

(Apr.

1965):

Satellite," p. 210; NASA, Meteoroid pp. 9-10; "First Industry-Bulb

Week and Space Technology, Week and Space Technolog), "Meteoroid

Program

Satellite, Saturn 1

80 (31 May 1965): 80 (24 May 1965):

22.

"Measuring "Meteoroid

23.

"First

24.

Akens,

25.

NASA, Scientific 25, 27-31.

26.

Phillips to yon Braun, telegram, NASA, Meteoroid Satellite, p. 64; Launchings, p. 121.

27.

The quotation is from Frank W. Anderson,Jr., Orders ofMagnitnde: A History oJNACA andNASA, 1915-1976, NASA SP-4403 (Washington, 1976), p. 55. Skepticism about the Saturn l launches, and Highwater in particular, was expressed to me by NASA employees at Huntsville and elsewhere. The persistence of such allegations prompted me to question several Saturn I project managers; they tended to reaffirm the presumed value of Highwater and later Block II launches in particular. Von Braun's response seemed to be the most candid. See yon Braun interview, NASA, 30 Nov. 1971.

28.

This was the consensus expressed in interviews Stuhlinger, former Dir. of the Space Sciences

29.

Gerhard

30.

Information continuing

Industry-Built Saturn

Heller

Saturn

Chronology, Results

1," Aviation pp.

112-

of Project

interview,

MSFC,

concerning Saturn series of reports, such

114,

Pegasu6:

Week,

p. 21;

comments NASA,

Be

by Meteoroid

yon

Braun Satellite,

Missiles and

and

Mueller

in

p. 63.

126. Interim

Report,

NASA,

TMX-53629,

"Subject: Gemini Rendezvous with Watts, "Pegasus 3," p. 215; Lockyer,

3 Sept.

Expanded,"

2; "S-I 25.

Akens, Rockets,

Meteoroids," Time, 26 Feb. 1965, p. 58; Program," Missiles and RockeU, p. 17.

May

210;

21.

486

Saturn Chronolog)', pp. 31 May 1965, p. 17.

Aviation Aviation

p. 7; "Measur-

"Hope (;rows," p. Detection," p. 32.

Saturn

NASA, Meteoroid Ten Lives of Saturn

pp. 14- 15; Watts, "Pegasus "Meteoroid Measurements,"

Measurements," 1965, p. 58.

1971;

with William Johnson, Lab.; and Stuhlinger's yon

Braun

interview,

3July

Pegasus," Summary

1967, 28 May of Major

pp. vii, 1965; NASA

head of the project; Ernst deputy, George Bucher. MSFC,

IB missions AS-201 through AS-205 can as: MSF(', Saturn Flight Evaluation Working

30 Nov.

1971.

be found in the Group, Results of

NOTES

TO

PAGES

338-352

the First Saturn IB Launch Vehicle Te_t Flight, AS-201, and subsequent, housed in the files of the MSFC Historical Off. In addition, see Lockyer, A Summary. of Major NASA Launchings (cited tor the Saturn I mission narratives); NASA-MSFC, Saturn IB News Reference, Sept. 1968; and Duran, "Saturn IIIB... Experience." Unless otherwise noted, information for the composite summaries of the Saturn IB launches was compiled from the assorted documents noted above. 31.

Savage

32.

Davis and passim.

to Dir.,

Apollo

33.

Akens, Phillips,

34.

MSFC, Saturn IB News Reference, Summary," 14 June 1966.

35.

For extended discussion Chariots for Apollo.

36.

Akens,

37.

MSFC, Saturn IB News Reference, pp. 12.512.6; Lockyer, Summary of Major NASA Launchings, p. 123; KSC, "Apollo/Saturn Consolidated Instrumentation Plan for AS-204/LM-I," K-IB-029/4, 16 Oct. 1967; NASA, "Press Kit: Apollo 5," 11 Jan. 1968, pp. 20-21; NASA, "Apollo 5 Pre-Launch Press Conference," 21 Jan. 1968, pp. 8-9; NASA, "Apollo 5 Post-Launch Press Conference," 21 Jan. 1968, pp. 8-9; NASA, "Apollo 5 Post-Launch Press Conference," 22Jan. 1968.

38.

Apollo

39.

Lockyer, Summary`. o[ Major NASA Launchings, p. 126; Leo C. Jones, comp., A Chronology' of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center January' 1 -December 31, 1968, MSFC, M H R-8, Feb. 1971, pp. 109-13; NASA, "Press Kit: Apollo 7," 6 Oct. 1968, pp. 8, 29, 33-34.

Hassler,

Program, "Saturn

Saturn Chronology', 6 June 1966.

Saturn

News

Photo

p. 138;

of

Chronology,

Ctr.,

3 Mar.

IB

p.

"Apollo

the

1966;

Duran,

163;

and

IB

Summary`.

1. Quoted

in James

J.

Haggerty, 4,"

"Apollo

MSFC,

Technical

"AS-203

see

Brooks,

of Major

NASA

1968,

Rees

and

Launchings,

12.1-

to Gen.

Information

Grimwood,

pp.

1966.

New._ Reference,

p.

12.4,

Swenson,

117.

22. l,JSC

files.

12

4: Proof

Positive,"

1967):

Webb Sharpe, p. 2.

5.

NASA, Off. of Manned Space 5-7, cited in Sharpe, "Saturn."

6.

Mueller

7.

R. B. Young to Mitchell R. Sharpe, 11 Jan. 1974; Walter Haeussermann interview, 14 Dec. 1973; Frank Williams to M. R. Sharpe, 20 Feb. 1974; Eberhard Rees to Robert Sherrod, 4 Mar. 1970; Dieter Grau to M. R. Sharpe, 12 Dec. 1973. The conservative approach to launch vehicle testing is inherent in all of the sources noted above. The decision of yon Braun and Rees to back

20

All-up

to Directors,

Dec.

8 Nov.

1967,

pp.

1974.

Flight

MSC,

Conference,"

4.

4.

Hall,

Press

5 (Winter

3.

and

4 Pre-Launch

Aerospace,

Haggerty, "Apollo 3-4, 9-10.

"Saturn

"Apollo

IB

2.

to R. Cargill

p. 3; NASA,

8 June

Saturn

Eberhard

11 Oct.

CHAPTER

Phillips,

MSFC,

. . . Experience";

its aftermath,

Commentary,"

to Gen.

90-96;

12.3-12.4;

Lockyer,

7 Mission

Debus

pp.

"Saturn

pp. fire

Kurt

System,"

Testing:

Historical

Note,

Saturn

Flight, "Apollo Flight Mission Mueller interview, NASA, 21

LOC,

MSFC,

teletype,

1 Nov.

History

Project,"

Jan.

1974,

Assignments," 9 Apr. 1963, Apr. 1971, copy in JSC files.

pp.

1963.

Mueller, as the boss, was noted by Bob Young, who also remembered continuing reluctance by some MSFC chieftains. The decision by yon Braun to back up Mueller, forcefully overriding his staff, was also remembered by another individual from the senior management level (privileged source). 8.

Von

9.

Transcribed files.

Braun

to Mueller,

8 Nov.

telephone

1963.

conversation

interview,

appended

10.

Arthur

Rudolph

! 1.

Harvey

Hall

12.

NASA, "Roll-out Ceremony: Saturn V Facility Vehicle "Operational Experience with the Saturn V," AIAA

13.

Phillips

to Cir.

14.

Phillips

to

to Gen.

Phillips,

Directors

Mueller,

MSFC,

10 Apr.

(MSC,

"AS-501

14 Dec.

to yon

MSFC, as

Apollo

Braun

daily journal,

8 Nov.

1963,

ASRC

1973.

1964.

KSC, 4,"

GSFC), 4

May

(500-F)," Paper 68teletype, 1967;

25 May 1966; Arthur Rudolph, 1003, Oct. 1968, p. 3. 25 July

L. E. Day

1967. to

Gen.

Phillips,

"Brief

487

NOTES

TO

PAGES

352-363

Summary of Status for Items on Agenda for AS-501 Meeting anon., "Minutes of March 11), 1967 Meeting at KSC to discuss Phillips, "KSC-501 meeting," memo of call, 16 Mar. 1967.

at KSC Friday, AS-501"; Gen.

March lO, 1967"; O'Connor to Gen.

15. J. J. O'Connor, "SA-501 Program Managers Pre-Flight Review--Case 330,"2 June 1967; J. J. O'Connor to Gen. Phillips, "Working Note--S-IC-8 Weld (;racks," 15 June 1967; Gen. Phillips, to Directors, MSFC, MSC, KSC, "Changes Relating to Apollo 4," 16.June 1967. 16.

NASA,

17.

See, for example, of the S-II LOX

"Press

18.

Bill Schneider to Gen. Phillips, of call, l0 Oct. 1967; Rudolph,

19.

Bart

20.

Gen.

21.

Rudolph,

22.

Miscellaneous Affairs Off.,

Conference:

J. Slattery, Phillips

Roll-out

of Apollo

4 (Apollo/Saturn

Schneider and Wagner, "Memorandum Fill and Drain Line," 1 Sept. 1967.

Jr.,

to yon

to the

Deput_,

"Operational

"Helium Pressure Regulator "Operational Experience,"

Braun,

25

Oct.

KSC,

in the p. 4.

26 Aug.

S. C. Phillips

Pneumatic

1967. on

Console,"

Purging memo

1967.

Administrator,

Experience,"

5011,"

to Mai. Gen.

"'Apollo

4 Launch

Schedule,"

2 No,,'.

1967.

p. 4.

data and comparisons Release 67-217, 30

were culled from the Oct. 1967; NASA, Off.

following of Public

sources: MSFC, Public Information, "Current

News," 7 Nov. 1967_ NAR, "This is the First of the Big Shots," 1967; Houston Post, 17 Sept. 1967; .James J. Haggerty, "Apollo 4: Proof Positi`,'e," Aerospace, 5 I'Winter 19671: 3-7; Gene Bylinsky, "Dr. yon Braun's All-Purpose Space Machine," Fortune, 75 (May 1967): t42-149. 23.

Von Braun Schneider, 1967, York,

24.

daily NASA

journal, yon Braun itinerary, Cape Kennedy, Fla., 6-9 Nov. 1967; W. C. Hq. to muhiple addressees, 9 No','. 1967; NASA, Astronautics and Aeronautics,

p. 341. Cronkite's troubles 19701, pp. 2211-221.

Arthur marginal

Rudolph notes,

p.

interview, 13.

Aeronautical,

were

14

Dec.

noted 1973.

1967,

p. 341.

1967:

remark

in Hugo See

also

Young Sharpe,

et al.,Journe_, "Saturn,"

to Tranquility yon

Braun

cop,,,

(New with

25.

Astronautics

and

26.

Schneider,

teletype,

27.

MSFC, Saturn !,' News RelY, fence, 12.1-12.2. Each Saturn V flight v,,as preceded by a technical summary including miscellaneous diagrams, mission profile details, and operational highlights. See, for example, MSFC, Technical Information Summary,, Apollo 4 (AS-501), and subsequent. A more comprehensive prelaunch publication, including details of the spacecraft and the launch facilities at KSC as well as the Saturn V launch vehicles, was issued as MSFC, Saturn V Flight Manual, SA-501, and subsequent. For a postmission analysis, see the continuing (and more voluminous) series of reports, such as MSFC, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group, Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report AS-501, Apollo 4 Mi._sion, and subsequent. All of these documents may be consulted in the files of the MSFC Historical Off. In addition, see Lockyer, A Surnrna_ of Major NASA Launchings (cited for Saturn l and IB mission narratives), and MSFC, Saturn V News Re[erence, Dec. 1968. The annual issues of NASA, Astronautics and Aeronautics

9 Nov.

to reporters,

"Apollo

4."

p. 7.

include pertinent summary infi_rmaticm on the successive Apollo-Saturn launches and missions. An excellent surve_ of" Apollo-Saturn vehicles and operations, covering AS-501/508, is David Baker, "Saturn V," SpacefhKht, .]an., Feb., and Mar., 1971, pp. 16-22, 61-65, 100-107. Unless otherwise noted, information fk)r the composite summaries of the Saturn V launches was compiled from the assorted documents noted above. 28.

For a clear and concise summary of vehicle AS-501 mission operations, pp. 5-7; Baker, "Saturn V," Spaceflight, Mar. 1971, p. 100.

29.

Von

3it.

George

31.

Gen.

32.

For the

Braun

daily.journal,

Mueller Phillips most

transcript

to William to NASA

concise

of telephone

M. Allen,

centers,

assessment

teletype, of the

21 No`,,.

caLl 15 N,_v.

ASRC

"Apollo

4,"

files.

1967.

15 Nov. POGO

1967,

see Haggerty,

1967.

investigation

and

ASI

line analysis,

see `,,on Braun,

"The Detective StcJry Behind Our First Manned Saturn V Shot," Popular Science, 193 (Nov. 1968): 98-t00, 209. The quotations by yon Braun have been taken from this source. On the background of the POGO problem and detailed study of the phenomenon, see L. L. Bickford and S. G. Meisenholder, POGO Analysis of the Saturn Propulszon System (Fi_ml Report), NASA CR-86432, 3 Apr. 1967; (;eorge L. yon Pragenau, "Stability Analysis of Apollo-Saturn V Propulsion and Structure Feedback Loop," AIAA Paper 69-877, Aug. 1969. See also interviews with yon Braun, MSFC, 31_ Nov. 1971; Roy Godfrey, MSFC, 29 July 1975; and Robert Pease,

488

NOTES

MSFC, 3 Sept. 1971. Astronauts (Englewood

The ASI line failure Cliffs, New Jersey,

"Manned

Space

O. Aller

to Dir.,

35.

Gilruth

36.

Von

37.

NASA, Astronautics 29 Apr. 1968.

38.

Arthur Rudolph to (Jen. Phillips, "Replacement of F-I engine on AS-503," 14 May 191;8, and attachment, William D. Brown, Mgr., Engine Program Off. to Arthur Rudolph," "Leaking F-I Primary Fuel Pump Seal on Engine F-4023, AS-503," 13 May 1968.

39.

Phillips' recollections are recounted in his essay, "The Shakedown Cruises," in Edgar M. Cortright, ed., Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, NASA SP-350 (Washington, 1975), pp. 171 -175. All quotations are from this source. See also Brooks, Grimwood, and Swenson, Chariot._for ApoUo, chap. 12; Frank W. Anderson, Jr., Orders of Magnitude: A Huto_ of NACA and NASA, 1915-1976, NASA SP-4403 (Washington, 1976), p. 69.

40.

Mueller Vehicle,"

E. Mueller,

daily

journal,

Phillips

Braun

"Apollo

41.

Dieter

interview,

42.

NASA, Astronautics Launchings, p. 128.

43.

Lockyer, Summa_ 1969, pp. 62-65,

44.

Michael

45.

NASA,

46.

Michael

Collins

47.

Collins

interview;

48.

Collins,

Car_ing

49.

The most Aeronautics,

Collins,

Carrying

Astronautics

and

Launching.s,

17 Oct.

pp.

See, for AS-506,"

51.

NASA, 21 Nov.

example, 30 Sept.

1969,

pp.

1975;

Astronautics 1969,

Paine

ASRC

Phillips,

Apollo/Saturn 1968, with to Mueller,

files.

telegram,

V Launch attachments; 18 Nov.

1968.

127,

129;

Summa

NASA,

(New

O' o] Ma)o_

Astronautics

York,

1974),

and

pp.

NASA

Aeronautic._,

358-359.

209-210.

Collins,

Carrying

pp.

the Fire,

pp.

364-365.

371-373.

371-373.

summary of the 212 ff. it includes

Boeing 1969.

1968;

1968,

to (;en.

318-320; Lockyer, housed in JSC files.

pp.

AS-506 mission a wide range

flight of Apollo 11, its significance and results. Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin Aldrin, others, Journev to Tranquility; Collins, Carry'tug (Boston, Massachusetts, 1969). See also Brooks, 50.

11 Apr.

Rudolph

11 Nov.

An A._tronaut'._ JourntTs

Caro, ing the Fire,

the Fire,

convenient 1969, pp.

NASA the Fire:

Collins,

Arthur

1971.

1968, pp. 8 invitation

Aeronautics,

interview,

teleconference,

Selection,"

24 Aug.

and Aeronautics, Copy of Apollo of Major 142-145.

Mue[ler pp. 92-93;

"Request for Approval to Man the to Dr. Thomas O. Paine, 11 Nov.

8 Mission

MSFC,

1967.

1967.

1967. and

1968,

Administrator, 1968; Mueller

to Mueller, Grau

19 Sept.

yon

and Aeronautics,

to Acting 5 Nov.

9 .June

8 June

Earthbound

Robert

Program,

draft,

La?,, Jr.,

Anon.,

Apollo

Progress,"

in Beirne

364-377

34.

to George

Program

is analyzed 142-146.

PAGES

33.

Braun

Flight

in particular 1970), pp.

TO

Co.,

"Saturn

and Aeronautics,

pp.

in NASA, and public

Astronautics and commen! on Itle

For published accounts see, for example, Neil First on the Moon (New York, 197(I); Young, and the Fire; Norman Mailer, O] a Fire on the Moon Grimwood, and Swenson, Chariots ]or Apollo.

V Flight

1969,

is contained of editorial

Evaluation

372-374;

Trend

"Towards

Report: the

AS-501

Ocean

l'hrough

of Storms,"

Time,

p. 8.

52.

Von Braun interview, MSFC, 17 Nov. 1976; Haeussermann, MSFC, to author, "History

53.

NASA, Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1970, pp. 119 ff., 201 ff. See also, Edgar M. Cortright, "Report of the Apollo 13 Review Board," 15 .June 1970. The report includes a _me-volume narrative summary, and three volumes of appendices. Copies in JSC files. See also Brooks, Grimwood, and Swenson, Chariots for Apollo.

54.

NASA, Astronautics Feb. 1971.

55.

Commentary on the LRV can be found in David S. Akens, An lUu_trated Chronolog3' o] the NASA Marshall Center and MSFC Programs, 1960-1973, MSFC, MHR-10, May 1974. ()n manned exploration of the lunar surface, including use of the LRV, see Richard S. Lewis, The V_(_ages o] Apollo: The Exploration of the Moon (New York, 1974).

56.

Interviews with w)n Braun, MSFC, 30 Nov. 1971; Richard N. R odgers, Leonard Bostwick and Milan Burns, MSFC, 31 July 1975. See als(_ _)nathan Only a Beginning," Science News, 11 Nov. 1967, pp. 472-473.

and

Aeronautics,

1971,

Roy Godfre,v interview, MSFC, 29July of Saturn Launch Vehicles," 22 June

pp.

25

ff.; MSFC,

Public

Affairs

Off.,

1975: 1976.

news

Waher

release,

5

MSFC, 24 Aug. 1971; Eberhart, "Saturn V

489

NOTES

57.

TO

PAGES

378-390

For a review of the scientific gear, experiments, Apollo: The Exploration of The Moon (New York,

and results, 1974).

CHAPTER I.

David S. Akens, Skylab Illustrated Murphy to Robert G. Sheppard, enclosures, 15 June 1976.

2. Akens,

Skylab,

pp.

32-34.

3. Akens,

Skylab,

pp.

41-43;

and

MSFC

Programs,

Skylab,

Chronology, "Comment

David

pp.

55,

MSFC,

S. Lewis,

The Voyages

of

13

1962-1973, MSFC, 1 May 1973, pp. 1 - 7; James T. Edition of History of Saturn Launch Vehicles," with

S. Akens,

1960-1973,

see Richard

An Illustrated MHR-10,

Chronology.

May

1974,

of the NASA

pp.

328,

Marshall

Center

332.

4.

Akens,

5.

Akens, Chronology of MSFC, W. David Compton, Skylab:

70-71.

6.

For details of the ASTP launch (1975). Copy in JSC files.

7.

The most authoritative single volume on SOviet launch vehicles and other Soviet space technology is Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Soviet Space Programs, 1966-1970, staff report, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 9 Dec. 1971. This document includes a general discussion of the standard launch vehicle series, known as the A version, p. 135 ft. The discussion is preceded by a highly useful table of the characteristics of Soviet launch vehicles, on pp. 133-134. Illustrations are included on pp. 560-561, 563, 572-573. See also, Peter L.

pp. 333341. For the full story of Skylab, see Charles A History, the forthcoming official NASA history. and

background,

see

NASA,

Apollo-Soyuz

D. Benson

Test Project:

and

Press Kit

Smolders, Soviets in Space (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1974). This book is translated from the Dutch edition which appeared in 1971. The author used no footnotes, but apparently he had access to an unusually large amount of unpublished ilaformation, and had opportunities for interviews with a number of leading Russian cosmonauts and scientists. A good, brief discussion of Soviet rockets appears on pp. 59-69, a useful illustration on p. 64, and a numbered, cut-away diagram of the Salyut vehicle on pp. 70-71. A recent survey of rocket technology, including the Russian vehicles, is Kenneth Gatland, Missiles and Rockets (New York: Macmillan Co., 1975), pp. 184199 especially. This discussion includes comments on some of the later engines and on the range of Soviet rockets, as well as photographs of the engines themselves. Useful and detailed illustrations, done by a professional illustrator team, appear on pp. 76-82. These include a very useful illustration of the RD-107 engine (p. 77) as well as a launch profile of a Soyuz mission (p. 81). A noted expert and writer on space technology, Gatland is editor of the authoritative British magazine, Spaceflight. See also Nicholas Daniloff, The Kremlin and the Cosmos (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972); and Leonid Vladimirov, The Russian Space Bluff (New York: Dial Press, 1973). The latter was written by a former mechanical engineer and scientific editor from the Soviet Union, who decided to defect in 1966. His intriguing thesis is that the Russians remained one step ahead of the U.S. during the 1960s because they felt that American space programs were further ahead than they actually were, and the Russians undertook a series of very risk)' space shots to maintain their propaganda advantage. The publisher included a comment by yon Braun that the book was "fascinating, informative and worth), of a wide readership in the United States" (cited opposite the book's title page). 8.

See Vladimirov, tankage is from

9.

Gatland, Missiles and Rockets, pp. 192-199. development, see John D. Clark, Ignition. t An Brunswick, N.J., 1972), pp. 115-119.

10.

MSFC,

press

Partnership: 11.

See, for

Russian Space Bluff, pp. U.S. Senate, Soviet Space

release, A History

example,

490

1975.

of the Apollo

Loyd

Space Program," impact of NASA's considerable size. communities.

5 Aug.

S. Swenson,

For Soyuz Jr.,

79-80. The comment Programs, p. 136.

the

the

For a brief discussion Informal History of Liquid

full story

Test Project, "The

on

Fertile

of ASTP, NASA

see

SP-4209

Crescent:

The

heavy

near

Huntsville,

was

established

near

a

of

Soviet

of Russian propellant Rocket Propellants (New

Edward

and

(Washington, South's

Role

Southwestern Historical Quarterly, 71 (Jan. 1968): 377-392. presence varied. MSC was sited near an existing metropolis KSC, in Brevard County, Fla., was located in an area of

MSFC,

gauge

medium-sized,

Linda

Ezell,

The

1978). in the

National

Obviously, the (Houston) of several smaller though

well-

NOTES

TO

PAGES

391-400

established, city. MAF occupied existing facilities within the New Orleans metropolitan area, whereas MTF was targe[y a huge buffer zone for testing, different in concept from all of the above, employing a smaller number of permanent civil service and contractor personnel. Thus, the subtleties of NASA impact were different in each case, despite general patterns in terms of jobs, construction, and so on. See also Raymond A. Bauer, Second-Order Consequences: A Methodological Essay on the Impact of Technology (Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1969). Huntsville and Brevard County are specifically contrasted on pp. 92101. 12. John S. Beltz, "Huntsville and the Aerospace Age," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Historical Assn., Houston, 1971. Copy in SHP files. The Huntsville Times, "25 Years Since," 3 Nov. 1974. This was a special 16-page supplement to the Times, commemorating the 25th anniversary of the decision to locate the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville in 1949. The supplement included numerous signed articles on various phases of the impact on Huntsville in the ensuing two and one-half decades. Cited hereafter as Times, Supplenlent. 13.

Bob Ward,

"Famed

yon

Braun

Remembers

Huntsville

His Personal

Choice,"

Times,

Supplement,

p. 4. 14.

Bauer,

15.

Bettz,

Second

Boomed," 16.

Order

Consequences,

"Huntsville,"

21-22.

p. 15, in Times,

Consequences, Bob Ward,

18.

Times,

19.

Alan

p. 98. "Small Error

Supplement, Moore,

supplied

"Huntsville,"

"City

pp.

Schools,"

p.

18-21. 11, John

Park,

"Medical

Help

Supplement.

Bauer,

2 I.

For a popular

Second

Braun

Alabama

Order

Second Order R. Lucas,

Engineering 1967,

p.

to Be More

Civic Center Space

Ill,

Fact

Than

Fiction,"

Times,

Supplemem,

p. 2.

p. 174. Present,

1966,

Saturn

171other

Future,"

Times,

Supplement,

p. 14; infornaation

(:enter. 172,

174.

aspects

C. Adams,

Consequences, "The Past,

"The

Rocket

pp. and

Carsbie

Feb.

Heralds

and

of these

Quarterly,

R. V. Hoppes,

Out

Consequences,

account

Frederick I. Ordway York, 1971). Bauer, William

Turned

passim.

"Von

by the

20.

24.

Beltz,

Eddins,

Don Eddins, "University of Alabama Spreads Wings," Times, Supplement, p. 13. The prior existence of a primarily Black state college, Alabama A&M, founded in 1873, seemed to underscore lingering racial divergences. Nevertheless, Huntsville's civil rights issues remained less volatile than elsewhere in the South during the turbulent 1960s. See Bauer, Second-Order

17.

22. 23.

p. 93;

Don

of the

and

and

national

Mitchell

Future

space

R. Sharpe,

of

Metals

program

in general,

Dividend_from

for

Liquid

Space

Rockets,"

see, (New

Metala

p. 59.

V Space

Program

and

Aluminum

Welding

Technology',"

MSFC,

10.

25.

Hoppes,

26.

Ibid.,

"Saturn

27.

See, for example: "Listing of Special Publications Published by the NASA Technology Utilization Division," 1968; NASA, Transferable Technology: Publications Reporting Innovations Suitable for

pp.

Welding

Technology"

Many Purposes, and Astronautics,

NASA "For

Off. of Technology Utilization, Fall the Benefit of All Mankind; a Survey

28.

Investment," House report, 91st and Tomorrow," pamphlet, Nov. This became a standard interview

29.

Statements managers Release

p. 3, passim.

5, 24-25.

to this

effect

and engineers, 75-174, 1975.

1968; House Committee of the Practical Returns

Cong., 2nd sess., 7 Dec. 1970; JSC, "Space 1971. question, even though it invariably elicited

were

made

and

printed

to the

author

in various

by numerous press

releases.

contractors See,

for

on Science from Space

Benefits: the

same

as well

example,

Today answer. as

MSFC

MSFC,

Press

491

Sources

and

Research

DOCUMENTARY

Materials

SOURCES

his history rests primarily on documents acquired for the Saturn history project, under a contract awarded to the University of Alabama in Huntsville by MSFC in 1968. Documents in the Saturn history project (SHP) amount to approximately 24 file drawers and are currently housed in the library of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Although the SHP files contain letters, memoranda, and other documents copied from the History Office at NASA Headquarters, as well as some material from the Kennedy and Johnson Presidential Libraries, their principal strength is represented in other aspects. The SHP files are primarily a collection of MSFC documents and materials gathered from contractors involved in the Saturn program. These documents include many unpublished reports and summaries prepared for miscellaneous briefings and professional meetings. Where no official control number was included, the source has been identified as NASA Report, Douglas Report, etc. Many engineers who were involved in the Saturn program read papers at professional meetings of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and many were reprinted and cited herein as AIAA Paper No. 0000, etc. These AIAA papers were very valuable in coming to grips with many key areas in Saturn development, in discussing problems encountered, in trouble-shooting, and in assessing the solutions adopted. For the most part, these papers are notably candid and, because their authors were directly associated with Saturn hardware, can be regarded as useful primary sources. The SHP files also include selected correspondence, test reports, flight summaries, press kits, and other miscellaneous documents from NASA and contractor sources. Although the files themselves are arranged in chronological order, there is an extensive and detailed index arranged by subject. The index is fully cross-referenced and annotated. Additional documents, acquired 493

STAGES

TO

SATURN

during later phases of the Saturn history, are housed with the SHP files, although they still await indexing and location within the original files. Finally, the SHP files include tapes, transcripts, and notes of 128 interviews with NASA and contractor personnel who worked on the Saturn rockets. Unhappily, some of the interviews were recorded on tapes of inferior quality and the transcriptions are only marginal or fragmentary. A number of other transcriptions, although prepared from audible tapes, were so poorly transcribed as to be unusable. Notes were taken of several interviews when use of recording equipment was either impractical or impossible. Other interviews, housed in the files of Johnson Space Center or at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., are so identified in the backnotes. and

In identifying authorship contractors, the following NASA MSFC KSC JSC MDAC NAR

or affiliation abbreviations

with government have been used:

(National Aeronautics and Space (Marshall Space Flight Center) (Kennedy Space Center) (Johnson Space Center) (McDonnell Douglas Astronautics (North American Rockwell)

agencies

Administration)

Company)

In citing interviews, these abbreviations have also been used to indicate the affiliation of the person who gave the interview. "NASA" in the interviews identifies individuals primarily associated with NASA Headquarters in Washington. Although von Braun was interviewed while he was attached to NASA Headquarters (as Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning) following his departure from MSFC in March 1970, I have identified him as an affiliate of MSFC because of his close association with Marshall and the Saturn program. Several other documentary sources were used in writing the Saturn history. The files of the Historical Office, Marshall Space Flight Center, although including miscellaneous correspondence, were strongest in the series of monthly, quarterly, and annual progress reports of major laboratories and individual MSFC programs. These files were especially useful in establishing chronological sequences and specific dates. Other files consulted are now in MSFC's Records Holding Area. These include the Director's Reading Files (19601969); Office of the Director, "Weekly Notes" (1960-1968); Industrial Operations, Director's Reading Files (1960-1970); Industrial Operations, Record Files (1960-1970). I was unable, apparently because of internal bureaucratic inertia, to gain access to these files until a late phase of research. Fortunately, I do not seem to have missed much. The files were disappointingly thin in any matter of substance and dealt mostly with day-to-day managerial and budgetary

494

SOURCES

AND

RESEARCH

MATERIALS

issues. The "Weekly Notes" were an exception, including several fi)lders on special projects, as well as the weekly summaries from program managers and lab chiefs to von Braun, all with his rejoinders, queries, and directions scribbled in the margins. Aside from the SHP files, the most rewarding source of correspondence and memos came from the historical files at NASA Headquarters, and from the files at Johnson Space Center. The latter included a wide range of direct correspondence among Headquarters, MSFC, and JSC. Because much correspondence from NASA Headquarters to JSC included information relevant to the Apollo-Saturn program as it involved other centers, the JSC files contained a remarkable amount of material pertinent to the Saturn. The historian who delves into any of these files and expects to find signed, original documents is l_oing to be disappointed. They must exist somewlaere, but I did not see them. Apollo-Saturn not only flourished in the "age of the copier," it was one of its chief customers. For all practical purposes, there is nothing wrong with a copy, but the inability to find and actually handle the original takes some of the zest from historical research. The telephone is another obvious stumbling block in modern research. NASA and contractor personnel alike emphasized their reliance on the telephone to resolve problems and formulate policy on an ad hoc basis, making many decisions nearly impossible to trace. For this reason, interviews were often the only way to reconstruct some events. Wherever possible, data and controversial issues discussed in interviews were double checked against extant documentation, and/or in subsequent interviews with other people. Von Braun, however, kept a "Daily Journal," that listed hourly appointments, travel itineraries, and phone calls. Sometimes the Daily Journal included summaries of conversations, and sometimes it included verbatim transcriptions. In several instances, this made the "Daily Journal" an invaluable aid in understanding an event. The "Daily Journal" frequently included copies of memos and other instructions. The SHP files and other documentary files used during preparation of the manuscript are listed below. (Although the manuscript includes material available in the files of the History Office, NASA Headquarters, it is not listed here because copies were made and housed in the SHP and JSC

files.)

SHP files

Saturn ter

MSFC

Files of the Center

files

MSFC/RHA JSC

files

files

History

Project,

History

Marshall

Office,

Files in the MSFC Records Files of the History Office,

Space

Marshall Holding Johnson

Flight Space

Area Space

CenFlight

Center

495

STAGES

T()

SATURN

SPO files ASRC

Files of the Saturn V Program ()ffice, Marshall Space Flight Center Files of the Alabama Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville, Alabama. Wernher yon Braun's Daily Journal is housed in the ASRC files.

files

Unless otherwise noted, all correspondence, ments, contractor reports, miscellaneous are housed in the SHP files. OTHER

memos, government docupapers, and taped interviews

SOURCES

The manuscript's bibliography notes frequently include annotations a brief discussion of other relevant

is represented in its backnotes. These on the direct citation, in addition to sources. Because of the extent and

nature of modern governmental documentation, this short bibliographical essay describes classes of documents in place of an extensive and formal listing of sources. It is a summary of selected sources already discussed within the backnotes themselves. The titles that follow are those that the author most frequently consulted as a starting point, or for guidelines, enlightenment, and specifics, particularly as they pertained to NASA and the Saturn programs. REFERENCE

AND

BACK(;R()tN1)

A good bibliographic reference is Katherine Murphy Dickson, Histo U oJAeronautics a_+dAstronautics: A Preliminary Bibliography (Washington: NASA, 1968). I)ickson's work is particularly valuable because of the succinct annotations. Astronautics and Aeronautics: Chro_+olog3, on Science, Technology, and Policy (Washington, 1963) is issued annually and contains reference sources for each entry. For a well-illustrated historical survey of rocketry, see Wernher wm Braun and Frederick I. Ordwav I I I, Histo_ 3, of Rocket U (rod Space Travel (New York, 1969). With wm Braun as co-author, the book carries special authority in its discussion of many phases of the wm Braun team, ABMA, and the Saturn program. Eugene M. Emme, ed., The ttistor_ oJ Rocket Technolo_,: E,_savs on Research, Development, and Utilitr (Detroit, 1964), features essays bv historians, as well as participants, ilicluding wm Braun. Two other'ediied works, with contributions by key engineers and managers themselves, are of special value. Ernst Stuhlinger, Frederick I. Ordway III, ,]err}, C. McCall, and George C. Brown, eds.,A,_tronauticalEnginee_fngandScience:FromPeenemuende to Planetary Space (New York, 1963), includes a variety of semitechnicai discussions, prepared b_ engineers, that provide a goo{t feel for the state of astronautics in the early 1960s. The book was a fe.stschri[t honoring Wernher yon Braun on his 50th birthday, and its contributors had been his associates at Peenemuende, Fort Bliss, and Huntsville. Most of the essays 496

have

a historical

theme.

Edgar

M. CortrigtH,

ed., Apollo Expeditions

SOURCES

AND

RESEARCH

MATERIALS

to the Moon (Washington, 1975), is a superbly illustrated retrospective summary of the Apollo-Saturn program, written by NASA astronauts and executives. Von Braun authored the essay on the Saturn. Several of NASA's historical monographs were especially useful in dealing with early space programs anti with early NASA activities. I'hese include Constance Green and Milton Lomask, Vanguard: A ttisto_y, NASA SP-4202 (Washington, 1971); Robert L. Rosholt, An Administrative ttistoo' of NASA, 1958-1963, NASA SP-4101 (Washington, 1966); and Loyd S. Swenson, James M. Grimwood, anti Charles C. Alexander, This New Ocean: A Histm), of Project Mercu_),, NASA SP-4201 (Washington, 1966). For numerous charts, tables, and graphs, on manpower, funding, and organization, see Jane Van Nimmen, Leonard C. Bruno, and Robert L. Rosholt, NASA Historical Data Book, 1958-1968, w_l. I, NASA Resources, NASA SP-4012 (Washington, 1976). Bruce Mazlish, ed., The Railroad and the Space Program: An Exploration in Historical Analo_ (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), offered a helpful framework for historical perspectives. The titles noted above were useful for Part One and throughotlt the Saturn history. For specific sections of the book, the following titles were especially valuable. PART TWO Through its history off'ice, MSFC sponsored ils own series of historical reviews. Volume I was published as Historical Origins o/ the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (1960), designated as M HM-I. Subsequent titles, numbered sequentially, were called History, o[the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center and issued semiannually through M H M-11 (1965). Companion volumes (designated as "Volume II" fiw each title) reproduced key docun_ents cited in these histories. Beginning in 1966, the semiannual histories became annual Chronologies, designated MHR-6 and subsequent, ending in 1969. Based largely on these publications, MSFC issued a convenient chronology, David S. Akens, Saturn Illustrated Chronolo_': Saturn's First Eleven Years, April 1957 Th_vugh April 1968 (MSFC, 1971), which furnished appropriate dates and titles of relevant documents for further research. PART THREE

AND PART FOUR

These sections deal with the principal components of Saturn hardware. Heinz H. Koeile, ed., Handbook of Astronautical Engineering (New York, 196 I), provides an excellent survey of astronautical state of the art as of the early 1960s. This encyclopedic book treats structures, propulsion, guidance, ant! other significant topics. See also, Frederick I. Ordway III, .lames Patrick Gardner, and Mitchell R. Sharpe, Basic Astronautics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1962), an introductory text by authors especially oriented to NASA's launch vehicle program. 497

STAGES

TO

SATURN

Two invaluable references for understanding the Saturn launch vehicles themselves are NASA-MSFC, Saturn IB News Reference (1968), and NASA-MSFC, Saturn V News Reference (1968). Produced by MSFC in cooperation with the major Saturn contractors, each three-ring loose-leaf volume illustrates essential Saturn systems, subsystems, components, and miscellaneous hardware. The accompanying text describes, in semitechnical terms, the function and operation of a bewildering array of Saturn hardware. As a means of grasping the complexities of the Saturn launch vehicle and the essentials of the different stages, including tankage, engines, and guidance, they are indispensable. On engines, in particular, see Dieter K. Huzel and David H. Huang, Design of Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines, NASA SP-125 (Washington, 1971). Both men were Rocketdyne engineers; ahhough the book's numerous fine illustrations do not specifically identify engine components, the illustrations and descriptions obviously owe much to Rocketdyne's development and production of the H-l, F-I, and J-2, making this publication uniquely interesting for the Saturn history. William J. Brennan, a top Rocketdyne executive, presented to an AIAA meeting a succinct but comprehensive historical overview of rocket engines, "Milestones in Cryogenic Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines," published as AIAA Paper 67-978 (Oct. 1967). For the Saturn generally, see Leland F. Belew, W. H. Patterson, and J. W. Thomas, Jr., "Apollo Vehicle Propulsion Systems," AIAA Paper 65-30"_ (luly 1965). The procedures used in the fabrication of stages borrowed from prior aircraft experience and from extant techniques used in military rocket boosters. A useful semitechnical overview of contemporaneous practice is Frank W. Wilson and Walter R. Prange, eds., Tooling for Aircraft and Missile Manufacture (New York, 1964). Nevertheless, production of the various stages of Saturn presented new problems in metallurgy, tooling, and welding. The evolution of the S-IVB upper stage presented many typical problems. See, for example, K.H. Boucher, "Saturn Third Stage S-IVB Manufacturing," Douglas Paper 3707 (1965), and E. Harpoothian, "The Production of Large Tanks tbr Cryogenic Fuels," Douglas Paper 3155 (1964). For discussion of the S-IC, see George Alexander, "Boeing Faces Unique Fabrication Challenge." Aviation Week and Space Technology, 77 (13 Aug. 1962): 52-63; Whitney G. Smith, "Fabricating the Saturn S-IC Booster," AIAA Paper 65-294 (1965). The S-II stage was plagued by welding problems, as described in an anomyous article, "The Toughest Weld of All," Sk_,line (1968), an unpaged reprint in the SHP files. Despite an obvious bias, company magazines like North American's Skyline and Boeing's Boeing Magazine frequently carried valuable descriptive articles and illustrations. The authoritative articles in Aviation Week and Space 7"echnolog), are also valuable for their depth and accuracy. On computers and guidance, see D. Morris Schmidt, "Survey of 498

SOURCES

AND

RESEARCH

MATERIALS

Automatic Checkout Systems for Saturn V Stages," MSFC, 10July 1968. C. Stark Draper, Walter Wrigley, and John Hovorka, Inertial Guidance (New York, 1960), is a basic treatise. A study closely related to the Saturn program and its immediate predecessors is F. K. Mueller, "A History of Inertial Guidance," ABMA, Redstone Arsenal, Ala. (1959), written by one of the originators of the guidance systems for the V-2. PART FIVE For a comprehensive analysis of management theories and organization at the height of the Apollo-Saturn program, see Apollo Program Office, NASA Headquarters, NASA-Apollo Program Management (1967), a project that covered NASA centers as well as major contractors, and ran to 14 volumes. For all this elaborate managerial superstructure, the flavor of operational problems and frustrations stands out in annual reviews like NASA Headquarters, Office of Programs and Special Reports, Program Review: Apollo (1962- 1966). The complexities of logistics near the peak of Apollo-Saturn can be examined in First Annual Logistics Management Symposium, 13-14 September 1966, NASA TMX-53566 (16 Jan. 1967). See also John C. Goodrum and S.M. Smolensky, "The Saturn Vehicle Logistics Support System," AIAA Paper No. 65-268 (April 1965). PART SIX The best single summary reference for all Saturn I, Saturn 1B, and Saturn V launches is the tabulation by William A. Lockyer, Jr., ed., A Summar)' of Major NASA Launchings, Eastern Test Range and Western Test Range: October 1, 1958 to September 30, 1970, Kennedy Space Center, Fla., Historical Report No. 1 (Revised, 1970). A readable and instructive account of launch activities at Cape Kennedy and the launch of a Saturn V is Gene Bylinsky, "Dr. von Braun's All-Purpose Space Machine," Fortune, 75 (May 1967): 142-49. For dimensions, weights, duration, and other specifics of Saturn V launches, see MSFC, Saturn V Flight Manual, SA-501, through SA-509, which was the last flight manual issued. Astronaut Michael Collins has written a marvelous, colorful memoir, includes

Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys (New York, 1974), that his account of what it was like to ride a Saturn V into space. PART SEVEN

on

Raymond the Impact

A. Bauer, Second-Order Consequences: of Technology (Cambridge, 1969),

A Methodological is an insightful

Essay and 499

STAGES

TO

SATURN

provocative book generally concerned with the implications of space exploration. The local impact on Huntsville is graphically conveyed in the special supplement of the Huntsville Times, "25 Years Since" (3 Nov. 1974), in remembrance of the evolution of rocketry since the von Braun group's arrival at Redstone Arsenal in 1949.

5O0

Index The

Acceptance

Test or Launch

237,256,

appendixes

included

Languages(ATOLL),

398

Actuator Advanced

(flight control system), 182 Research Projects Agency

31,39,

56,

29-30,

133, 135; defense

35,

76,

299;

33, 34, 38; and Advanced Vehicle Advent

are not

funding,

and

Saturn Team

26-

NASA

27,

23,

37

135

137,

149;

Engineering

Corp.,

60,

civilian

17, 25,

space

35,

program,

37, 194-

program,

26,

hydrogen

research,

131,135-36;

Pregnant

Guppy program,

detention, 39-40,

Air transport, 293, 302, Airlock module (Skylab), Space

Aldrich, Aldrin,

David Edwin

373

and

135.

19, 327

Applications

Program

(AAP),

382

Apollo

Applications

Program

Office,

382

Apollo

Executive

Group

105,

317-18;

Office,

Rocket

339,

253,338-39,

340,

(Apollo

I), 340-41 5), 340-41, 7), 343

123,

AS-206

(Skylab

2), 383-84

AS-207 AS-208

(Skylab (Skylab

3), 383-84 4), 149, 383-84,

AS-209

(ASTP;

AS-210

(ASTP),

394,395

AS-502 AS-503

347-49,351,356

Allen,

William

M., 360

Alloy, 194; aluminum, 217, 396; beryllium magnesium-lithium, nickel, 102, 119

ill., 357,360,

101, 119, 165,201,203. 248,250-51,257,398; 250-51,

257,

397-98;

501

(Apollo

349

343-44

ill., 344,345

Skylab),

385

384,

ill.

389

385

Apollo Saturn V: AS-501 (Apollo 4), 347-49, 351-55,

ill.

flight). V.

341,349

AS-204

(Apollo

ill. concept,

340,

285,

34 I, 343

(Apollo

and

276 278,

(Apollo space vehicle and Saturn IB, Apollo Saturn

AS-205

E., 110 E., 3, 5, 6 ill., 363,369,371-72,

All-up 377

254,

AS-204

18

Center,

230,

19,

43, 57 308382

(contractors),

95,

aid to,

relations,

F-1 engine

Alabama

A., 367

Apollo

AS-202,

130-

127; liquid

Saturn

in space,

AS-203,339-40, 13-14,

35, 36, 98, I I 1; contractor 288-89;

William

Animals

Apollo Saturn IB: AS-201, 148, 187,

Aero Spacelines, Inc., 309-17 Aerobee (sounding rocket), 17 Aerojet General 31,210 Air Force, U.S.,

Anders,

Apollo Saturn See Apollo

61

satellite),

index.

Apollo Program 291,295

programs,

program, (LaRC),

(communications

(ARPA),

in the

223, 228-32, 254, 321, 356 ill., 357-60, 364

6), 321,364,

377

(Apollo 8), 321,349,363-68,377,-

AS-504 AS-505

(Apollo (Apollo

9), 149, 364, 10), 368-69

AS-506

(Apollo

11),

3,321,369-72,

AS-507

(Apollo

12),

374-75

AS-508

(Apollo

13),

375-76

AS-509

(Apollo

14),

376

AS-510

(Apollo

15),

376

78

368 378

STAGES

TO

Apollo

Saturn

SATURN

V, continued

Atlantic Atlas

AS-511

(Apollo

16),

AS-512 AS-513

(Apollo (Skylab

17), 376, 1), 384

Apollo-Saturn

program,

booster-payload existing 267,

61-62; 264,

318,

337,

377,

Budget control,

Apollo-Soyuz 379, 385,

397-99.

See also All-up

(NASA), Logistics program, Technology transfer.

Test Project 386, 388, 389

spacecraft

and

(ASTP), ill., 401

127,

Apollo

5 (AS-204),

Apollo

6 (AS-502),

344,

Apollo

7 (AS-205),

343

(AS-505),

360

Apollo

14 (AS-509),

376

Apollo Apollo

15 (AS-510), 16 (AS-511),

376 376

Apollo

17 (AS-512),

376,

Army,

mount

Nell A., 373 ill.

U.S.,

25,

13-15; Army 18,

and

Ballistic 25;

298; 33-40;

35,

Astronauts, individual

502

6

363,

ill.

14, 44, 91;

and 146

research,

19,

- 36,

satellite

program,

20

ill.,

21,

25,

ill. 135

ATOLL (Acceptance 237, 256, 398 Energy

Saturn

17 Test or Launch

Commission

Atwood, J. Leland, Automation, 241; and

welding,

Languages),

(AEC),

224, 226, automated 218,

Auxiliary propulsion system and control system), 182,

13,

17

229, 231 checkout, 221

186,

ill., 222

(Saturn 256

B-377

(cargo

B-377

PG. See Pregnant

Agency

B-377 BARC

SG. See Super Guppy. amphibious vessel, 298

guidance

ill.,

363, space

369,

Belew,

pro-

Bendix Bergen,

Alan

liquid propuldevelopment,

Bill Dyer

39-40

Boeing

175

306 ill.; Poseidon, 305, 307

81,

19-20, 157-58,

Booster.

69,

Borman,

41-44,

74,

(AOMC), Center,

Bramlet, Brand,

149,

Brennan, Budget

247,

328

See also names

of

Co.,

308 303,

116, 200,

MSFC

staff,

Frank,

352, work

304,307 360;

contracts,

105,

with,

192-96,

207,

facilities use, 71, 73, 166, innovations, 201-03, 206

See Launch

vehicle

and

Missile.

367

Leonard

('.,

95-96,

James B., 65, Vance D., 389 William

J.,

{NASA),

costs, 293,295; See also All-up Bumper

302

399

148

(tugboat),

239-40; NASA 194; production

Development

383.

(tugboat),

33-34, to,

306

Corp., 245,248 William B., 231

25-30, aid

78-79 189, 240,

305,

374 F., 99,

284;

Command

(MSFC),

L.,

Leland

Bob Fuqua

Bostwick,

19, 20 ill., astronauts.

Guppy.

Compromise, 305; Little Lake, 305; 302-03, 304, 305, 306 ill., 307;

15-16,

program,

Laboratory

309

Balch, Jackson L., 74 Balsa wood insulation,

(ABMA),

program,

Missile 299

aircraft),

Bauer, Raymond A., 394-96, Baykonur Cosmodrome, 388

382-83

civilian

program,

Engineering

Astrionics

Atmospheric

Bean,

5,

391;

NASA

125,

45

programs,

space

Army Ordnance 14, 30, 31, 42, Arnold 390

377

program

Missile

and

use,

Base heating phenomena, Bauer, H. E., 167, 171,

3,

Saturn

193; and Saturn 76, 136, 243

61

Pearl R_ver, 305, ill., 307; Promise,

19, 35-36,298; 14, 131; missile

booster

civilian

fuel

Atlas-Agena, Atlas-Centaur,

Barge, 298; Palaemon,

(ATM),

C., 34,

gram, aid to, sion rocketry,

378

3, 4, 6 ill., 7, 374-75 375-76

Armstrong, 371-72,

345

368

12 (AS-507), 13 (AS-508),

Norman

49, 351 - 60,

ill., 344,

Apollo Apollo

telescope

liquid

Atlas (launch vehicle), 17, 44, 61 ill., 161, 134-35

235-40;

321,363-68, 364, 368

Apollo 11 (AS-506), 369-72, 373 ill.

Appold,

16 ill. 14, 17, 19, 20, 21,34

341,343-44

Apollo 8 (AS-503), Apollo 9 (AS-504), I0

189;

Atomic

291,

missions:

Apollo l (AS-204), 340-41 Apollo 4 (AS-501 ), 3404 l, 347364

Apollo

381;

prevention efforts, 103, 184, 262, success factors, 262,264, 282,288-

concept, Quality

Apollo

274;

131 ; growth,

261-62,

Range,

payloads, 17, 134-35; 37, 43, 120, t27, 141,

370-71;

use, 21,87,

Missile

(I C B M missile),

164,

ill.

coordination, objectives,

problem 330, 374;

Apollo

377

184,285,360,

techonology 382;

89,

376

108,

54-55,

113, 188,

long-range concept.

(atmospheric

104,

112

193

research

115 297;

plans,

logistics 48, 50, 53.

probe),

14

INDEX

Camera capsules, 328,338,340 Canright, Richard B.,39,134 Cape Canaveral, 14,15,70,73,80,323.See also Cape

Kennedy.

Cape Kennedy, 318, 332,388-89

101,

123,

Cargo aircraft, 309-18 Cargo Lift Trailer (CLT), Castenholz, Paul, 113

315

Centaur 43; 92,

21,

(launch

125,

239,

317,

vehicle

upper

stage),

Chaffee,

Roger

A.,

61 ill., 164,

space

334,

337,

369

26, and

15, 71-72, 331,333,

program,

345,

tank,

3, 5, 363,

Command

module

161,236, duction Committee Space

344,

384;

Apollo

Compromise

359,

77,

398

(CSM),

5, 83,

230-31

for

Evaluating

the

(CEFSR),

363,

340-41;

226-27,

(barge),

76,

113-16,

361,

delays, Rocketry

("Pete"),

360. See also Apollo ment-contractor Space

ager's Office, tractors. Contract

Jr.,

of

PERT,

374,

137,

73-74;

stage,

and

space

ill.

ill. program,

25,

38-42,

Operations (Nova), 63,

William,

Doolittle,

264

booster

program,

program,

Development Direct ascent

27,

57,

32,

55;

297

Div. (ABMA), 65, 66, 83

42

357

James

H.,

34

Dornberger, Walter R., ! 1, 12 Douglas Aircraft Corp., 169 ill., 182,210, 240, 279 ill., 283,309,382; insulation innovations, S-IV

stage,

59, 188-89,331; 160,

165-67,

162,

"Dry

81,

168,

stage,

157, 143,

185-87,278,

158-

147-48, 280;

tank,

184-85

C. Stark,

workshop."

136-37,

S-IVB

170-72, Dr.

242 L.,

32

ill., 34,

See Orbital 57,

39,

40,

53,

Workshop.

Dyna-Soar,

35, 43, 47,

E- 1 engine, Earth orbit

26, 27, 111 rendezvous (EOR),

84, 162, 349, 400 Edwards Air Force

ill.,

141, 81,

Corp., 159, 173, Cook Technological

143,

Resident of

283,

Man-

individual

148;

309;

conengine,

maintenance,

157-59,

160,

240 Div.,

General

188,210 Center,

281,

Group, GovernManagement,

Center, names

384

107,

15, 42, 68, 284,

Data Corp., Astronautics

328

Executive relations,

Flight

(NASA),

104-05,

37;

Saturn

Dryden, Dr. Hugh 55, 58, 67, 113

131

250-51,398;

Conroy, John M., 30914 Contractor, 15, 96, 102, 268

Marshall

198,

58, 60

305

innovations,

Charles

395

184,

38 ill., 70, 231,277

Draper,

286-87 Conrad,

of

343

of, ! 5, 23,282;

pro-

Feasibility

130,

H.,

368,

Computer language, 236-37,256, 398 Computer, 155, 235, 236 ill., 246 ill., 29495; automated checkout, 236"41; guidance, 249;

36,

172-77;

I fire,

130,

Konrad, K., 263, S., 21 !

Dept.

157,

service

247-48,

372;

43,

369-72 101,

127,

Park,

R. Walter,

Kurt

Donn,

30,

99,

369,

102,

55

Combustion instability, Comet Kohoutek, 385 and

98,

35, 324; engine, 30, 36, 83, 97, 137, 160, 164,

400;

82 ill., 155 Collins, Michael,

81-83, 385

41,

Research

Defense,

82

Cluster concept, 34, 43, 51, 76, 79-80,

89, 90, 91, 94,

Dannenberg, Davis, Wilbur,

Corp.,

Chrysler Corp., 103, 196, 210, Civilian

368,

See also names

36-38,

B., 231,340-41

Chance-Vought

Co.,

Cryogenics, 297, 398

Debus, Eugene

388.

Luigi, 114 Walter, 357

Cunningham,

167 Cernan,

Control Convair

Crocco, Cronkite,

19, 21, 54, cosmonauts.

Cummings

liquid hydrogen fuel, 44, 46, 51, 131 - 35, 136 ill., 137; tank structure,

243,

Cosmonaut, individual

116,

Eisenhower,

123,

Base,

124,

Dwight

Calif.,

126, D.,

59, 63, 65-67, 68-69,

106,

136

19, 27, 32

ill., 33,

41,

42, 43 ill., 50 Eisele, Donn F., 343 Electronics Communications Inc., 254 Engine Program Office (MFSC), 108, 140, 270 Explorer

(satellite),

16 ill.

Explorer

I, 18, 26,

70, 354

Explorer

XVI,

330

210-11

Cook

Dynamics Electric

F-1 engine, 26, 48, 51, 52, 87, 105, 110 ill., 122 ill., 142,210,302, 370, 397-98; innovations, 107-08, 119, 120-21,127; 95, 108-09, 112-114,

116,

problem phases, 153; Saturn V,

503

STAGES

TO

F- 1 engine, C-5

SATURN

continued

Grumman

configuration,

58-59,

65,

192-93;

Saturn V, S-IC stage, 5, 106, 196, 198-99; 207 -08; 348,352,354,357; testing program, 106-07, 108, 111-12, 115, 117, 119, 12326. See also Combustion instability, jector, Pogo effect, Thrust chamber,

Fuel inTurbo-

pump. Fairchild Corp., 333 Felix, Harold E., 185 Flight Operations Ford Instrument Frietag,

Engineering

box),

274

Guidance and 242, 247,278,

241,

Gyroscope,

control 250.

system, 251

Yuri Thomas

Gayle,

J. B.,

Geissler, GEM

A.,

138,

142,

145,

151

ill.

problem 97, 324,

Ernst

Gemini 381

19, 54

S., .Jr.,

41

tion

instability,

Hamihon,

D., 38 itl+, 59, 270,

program,

ill., 273,

21,

161,294,

General General 138

Accounting ()ffice, Dynamics/Astronautics,

General

Electric

Fuel

injector

289,

290,

292

330+ 336,

355,

159 132,

134-

35,

John

Glennan, 50, 51,

R., 61,62,

Robert

(;oddard Godfrey,

63, 65,229,277

H.,

Gordon,

John

40,

41,

43,

((;SFC),

307,

310,

311,

314,

15,358,397-

400; MSFC contractor monitoring, 102-03, 107, 113, 116, 124, 141,

81, 98, 184-85,

193-95,

226-27,

200-02,

232,

257,

275,

296, 358, 361-62; ment, 104, 159, 288-89, 292

(;rau, Grissom,

504

Clinton. Dieter, Robert Virgil

213,

277-78,

280-82,

NASA contractor 222,224-32,245-56,

H+, 245 350,

222-23,

I., 231,

C-I,

Hermes

228, 340,

232 341

Co.,

div.

of

Union

Carbide,

(HATV),

130-31

I+,, 38

231 14

program. Altitude

14

Test

Vehicle

Pr0iect.

Hjornevik, Hoelzer,

Wesley Helmut.

325,

Samuel

211,

312,

K., 34

Hornig,

Donald John Commit

Hueter,

Hans,

Huntsville,

F.,

67,

114,

16(I,

47, 50

113

C., 63.64

ill.

tee on Sc icuce

and

Astronautics,

45,

158

38 ill.

Ala+, 379,

Abraham,

65,

!;;49, 359-60

R. B., 396 Richard 1+2+45,

House 159

345

L.. 35+ 36, 411, 41 38 ill.

Hoppes, Homer,

Hyatt,

336,

William M.+ 27 D. Brainerd, 63,

391)-94

34, 36,

41,

manage274, International 240, 245,

46

366

E., 227,

292,

S., 311

Karl

Houbolt,

relations,

38 ill., 350

114

Bastian,

192, _,7, 351

Thrust

Helicopter. 308, 316 ill+ ttelium, 177-78, 198, 199 Hellebrand. Emil A.. 183-84

Holaday, Holmes,

61

F., 374

Government-contractor

Greer,

Heimburg,

Hoffmau,

t), 10 ill.. 91

C., 296,

Richard

38,

Center 190

Goett, Harry J., 41 Golovin, Nicholas E., 63.

(;race,

Stellite 04

Highwater,

8

Space Flight Roy E., 162,

(;¢_o¢trum, 318

ill.,

20

T. Keith, 32 ill., 33, 53, 57, 141, 159, 209

(;oddard,

230,

Haynes 103-

High

H., jr.,

Julian David,

Hermes

14, 73-74

, Teflon,

W., .Jr., 375 W., 45.47

Harrje,

Hello, Co.,

Gilruth, Robert 364, 373 ill. Glenn,

163

272

phases, 95, 101-04; 325, 326, 328-29,

336; Saturn IB, 83, 97, 338, 344; testing program, 98, 113, 115, 126. See also Combus.

Haise, Fred Hall, Eldon

185

boxes,

7, 8, 52,

242

chamber, Turhopump. Haeussermann+ Waher,

Gates,

68 Cali-

tions, 99, 119; Saturn I. 77,

F., 313

Friendship 7, 20 Fuel injector, 109-16, Fuller, Paul N., 144

Gagarin,

Corp.,

H-I engine, 29, 39, 48, 87, 91, 94 ill., 100 ill., 105 ill., 120, 125, 127, 142, 153,398; innova-

Office ((;EM Co+, 243

Robert

Aircraft

Guggeuheim Aeronautical Laboratory, fornia Institute of Technology, 10

Industrial 269-7

Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo Saturn Launch Vehicles (NASA SP)

Saturn Launch Vehicles

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

A Work of Saturn

The Door To Saturn

Saturn Returns

Projekt Saturn

Saturn Returns

Saturn Unbound

Rings Of Saturn

Ring-makers of Saturn

Gardens Of Saturn

Saturn Game

Destination Saturn

Projekt Saturn

Saturn (Space!)

Projekt Saturn

The Saturn Game

The Saturn game

In the Rings of Saturn

Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo Saturn Launch Vehicles (NASA SP)

Saturn Launch Vehicles

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

Saturn

A Work of Saturn

The Door To Saturn

Saturn Returns

Projekt Saturn

Saturn Returns

Saturn Unbound

Rings Of Saturn

Ring-makers of Saturn

Gardens Of Saturn

Saturn Game

Destination Saturn

Projekt Saturn

Saturn (Space!)

Projekt Saturn

The Saturn Game

The Saturn game

In the Rings of Saturn

Recommend Documents