59696740-little-joe-ii-test-launch-vehicle-nasa-project-apollo-volume-1-management.pdf

GDC-66-042

LITTLE JOE II TEST LAUNCH VEHICLE NASA PROJECT APOLLO FINAL REPORT

VOLUME I MANAGEMENT MAY1966

NASACONTRACT NAS-9-492 t

Prepared CONVAIR DMSION

By

OF GENERAL

DYNAMICS

For National

Aeronautics Manned

and Space Administration Spacecraft

Houston,

Center

Texas

J

FOREWORD

The Little Joe II Program, a part of theApollo Spacecraft Program and identified by National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Manned Spacecraft Center as Contract NAS 9-492, was awarded to the Convair Division of General Dynamics Corporation on 17 May 1962. The program was, in essence, completed with the launch of the last scheduled vehicle on 20 January 1966. The purpose of this report is to describe the vehicles evolved, the results of the tests and the principles employed to accomplish the program requirements. The report is issued in two volumes to simplify the presentation of the material. Volume I contains the managerial and other nontechnical aspects of the program; Volume II contains the design, technical and launch operations portions.

Milton A. Silveira, Program Manager NASA - MSC

L. J. II,

ram Manager L. J. II, Convair Division of General

Dynamics

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Little Joe II Program was to man-rate the launch escape system designed by the Space and Information Systems Division of North American Aviation, Inc., for the Apollo Command Module. This objective was to be accomplished on a tight schedule and at a minimum cost. The program was initiated as a result of an intensive survey by NASA of the inventory of launch vehicles; it was discovered that no vehicle existed which had the payload capability and thrust versatility to meet mission profiles at a reasonable cost. The Little Joe II vehicle was designed for an 80,000 pound payload capability. Thrust was provided by off-the-shelf Algol solidp r op e 11 an t motors, manufactured by the Aerojet-General Corp. Versatility of performance was achieved by using only the number of primary motors (up to seven) required to perform the mission. Additional vehicle versatility was achieved by use of two versions of vehicle fins. Fixed fins were used for ballistic trajectories. Thiokol Corporation's Recruit rocket motors were used as booster motors, to supplement lift-off thrust. This report documents, for historic'a/benefit, the philosophies employed, changes found necessary, results obtained and lessons learned during the Little Joe II Program. Hopefully this information will prove useful to future programs. A bibliography lists publications pertinent to the contents of Volume I. In addition, specific supporting material is referenced in the text.

iii

VOLUME I

CONTENTS

Page i.

PROGRAM A. B. C. D.

Summary of Program Philosophy Initial Program Activity ........... Launch Site Activity ............ Flight Summary ..............

2. PROJECT A. B. C. D.

PHILOSOPHY ........

1-1 1-4 1-6 1-11

PHILOSOPHY

Management ......... NASA Management/Interface Engineering ............... Launch Operations .............

......

2-1 2-7 2-11 2-17

.........

E. Tooling ................ F. Manufacturing .............. G. Procurement ..............

2-18 2-19 2-23

H. I. J. K. L.

2-26 2-28 2-34 2-35 2-39

Spares and Ground Support .......... Program Control ............. Documentation .............. Interface Coordination ........... Reliability and Quality Assurance ........

3. SCHEDULE A. Milestones B. Contractual 4. FINANCIAL A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

SUMMARY ............... Schedule

3-1 Changes

.........

3-1

SUMMARY

Original Task and Cost ........... Change History .............. Cost Accumulation Summary ......... Manpower Usage Summary .......... Manpower Usage in 1964 ........... Cost Evaluation Summary .......... Management Report Form 533 Summary

.....

4-1 4-2 4-6 4-6 4-6 4-10 4-10 v

CONTENTS

(CONTINUED) Page

5. DOCUMENTATION

SUMMARY

A. Major Documentation ............ B. New Documentation ............ C. Submittal Schedule .............

5-1 5-2 5-3

D. Appendix

5-3

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

6. ASSOCIATED A. General B. C. D. E.

TASKS AND PROPOSALS ................

6-1

Control System Test Facility (CSTF) ....... Telemetry Station Assist .......... Spacecraft Umbilical Tasks .......... Proposals ...............

6-1 6-1 6-3 6-3

7. ACHIEVEMENTS A. Reporting of New Technology B. "Firsts" ................ C. Innovations ............... 8. PROGRAM

CLOSE-OUT

A. General

.........

7-1 7-7 7-7

STATUS

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

8-1

9. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations

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

9-1

10. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions

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

10-1

11. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography

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

11-1

APPENDICES

vi

A. Index of LittleJoe Documentation ........

A-I

B. Contract Change History...........

B-I

VOLUME

I

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

Title

1-1

Little

Joe II-

As Originally

1-2

Launch

1-3

General Area of Convair at WSMR .....................

Complex

Planned

Pad Area

Schedule

Page Vs.

Final

Activities

for LJ-II/Apollo

1-5

Historical

1-6

Pre-Launch Through Thrust Termination/Spacecraft BP-12 Mission A-001 ................. Vehicle

1-8

LJ-II/Apollo

1-9

WSMR Apollo

1-10

Launch

Vehicle

1-11

Launch

Data Digest

2-1

Original

2-2

Final

2-3

Key Departmental

2-4

President

2-5

Little

2-6

Project

2-7

Open House

2-8

NASA Organizational

2-9

NASA/Convair

2-10

Design

2-11

Equipment

2-12

Bulkhead

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

of LJ-II/Apollo

12-51-3

Abort

Regions

Program

- Little

Identification

Area Badge

Completion History

Design

Engineering Installation

Review

Scope

1-12

Objectives

........

...........

Assembly

1-13 1-15

Joe H Program

Joe II Program

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

2-2 2-3 2-4 2-6

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

2-6

............... of First

2-7 Vehicle

.........

2-8

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

2-10

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

2-10

(Typical)

Layout

-

1-10

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

Joe H Engineering

34.75

.........

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

Staff Meeting

Sequence

. 1-8

1-16

- Little

Contacts

LC-36

1-9

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

Summary

Chart Chart

After

Abort

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

Organization

Organization

Flown at WSMR,

at Liftoff

Mission

Configuration

1-7

Missions

With SC-002

Test

Flight

Program 1- 5

Summary

Launch

1-3 1-4

Vehicle

1-7

....

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

1-4

Summary

Configuration

- Little

(Vehicle

Fixture

Joe H ........

Station

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

34.75)

.......

2-12 2-15 2-19 vii

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure

(CONTINUED)

Title

2-13

Fin Assembly

2-14

Assembling

2-15

Overhead Fixture

Fixture

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

Afterbody

Fixture

Crane Placing ...................... Production

2-17

Typical

Photo

Documenting

2-18

Interior

of "Little

2-19

Geographical

Station

Area

With Parts

0 Interface

......

2-21

on Forebody

2- 20

Master

2-21

Composite

2-22

First

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

Final

WSMR"

of Harness

Facility

of Vendors

Review

2-24

Configuration

Checkout

Distribution

Information

Within

Control

. 2-24 2-25

the United

States

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

....

2-27

Directly

2-31 from

Convair

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

2-33

2-23

List

2-24

Centralization

3-i

Milestone

3-2

Contractual

4-1

Contract

4-2

Manpower

Usage

Summary

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

4-8

4-3

Manpower

Usage

- 1964

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

4-9

4-4

Cost Accumulation

4-5

533 summary

5-i

Little

6-I

Control

System

7-i

Launch

Sequence

Timer

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

7-2

Launch

Sequence

Timer

- Internal

7-3

Diagram

7-4

Fin Insulation

7-5

Afterbody

8-1

LJ-II

oo° VII1

Documentation

.

2- 29

Transmitted

to NASA by Telephone

Routing

..........

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

of WSMR Schedule

of Apollo

Loading

2-22

Experimental

PERT

2-19

After

Frame

2-16

Schedule

Page

of Test

Chart

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

Activities

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

2-41

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

Vehicle Value

3-2

Delivery

Changes

and Funding

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

Expenditure

Summary

- Little

3-4

...........

Joe II

4-7

..........

4-11

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

4-12

Joe II Documentation Test

- Launch

Schedule

Facility

Sequence

- Installing

Insulation

Storage

2-36

Area

After

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

5-5

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

7-2 View

Timer Vacuum Baking

- Air Force

6-2

...........

7-2

............. Blanket

7-3 ..........

7-5

............. Plant

19, San Diego

7-6 .......

8-2

1

PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY

SUMMARY

1

A.

SUMMARY

[ PROGRAM

OF

PROGRAM

PHILOSOPHY

SUMMARY

PHILOSOPHY

As a prerequisite to manned flightof an Apollo spacecraft, itwas necessary to demonstrate the abilityof the spacecraft's escape system during the launch-boost phase of flight;hence the LittleJoe II program all Apollo Project.

The Little Joe IT program

was an important milestone in the overwas scheduled to accomplish

economical testing that would qualify the Apollo Launch manned

orbital or lunar missions.

be accomplished

Escape

System for use on

The original schedule required that the first launch

one year from date of go-ahead.

A modified project organization was used to manage

this program.

concept, selected senior key supervisors and staff members the program

early and

managers

and administratively to their home

Under

this

reported functionally to group or department.

This

type of organization afforded close control and coordination within the project as well as with NASA. Simplicity was the keynote of the LittleJoe II design philosophy; this concept was carried through the tooling and manufacturing of corrugated aluminum

skin is an example

phases of the program

as well.

The use

of the result of this approach; this type of

construction provided integral stiffeners and eliminated the need for stringers. though this design represented a minor costly aluminum time.

weight penalty when compared

Al-

to the more

sheet-stringer construction, it greatly reduced design and construction

In addition, it reduced the overall number

of parts in the vehicle.

Weight was not a limiting factor in the design of the vehicles, as most versions required several thousand pounds of ballast to satisfythe mission trajectory requirements. The fact that weight was not the limiting factor permitted conservatism of design; e.g., over-designing primary tural proof tests were not required. servative and simple accomplished under

fashion; sea-level

level

more

severe

as to high

dynamic

test

atures were

was

as well designed

proven minimum.

much for

by use The

use

of readily

on other

programs.

foregoing

structural members. Many

e.g., tests conditions as the

other tests were

of the in lieu material

pressure. available

philosophy

As a result many accomplished

in a con-

thermal protection material of a vacuum environment.

were The sea-

was

subjected

Wherever off-the-shelf

As a result, significantly

struc-

possible,

testing program

rocket

vehicle

components

qualification reduced

to the

which was

temper-

systems had been kept

to a

costs.

1-1

The structural design was based on a gross weight of 220,000 pounds, 80, 000 pounds of which was the payload. Length of the payload adapter was established at 300 inches. The structure was also designed for sequential firing with a possible 10-second overlap of four first-stage and three second-stage Algol motors. Potential growth of the vehicle is considerable due to the conservatism of design. The payload can be increased by a considerable margin with little or no change to the present structural design. Accomodations for more powerful motors, even with 10 percent larger diameter, would necessitate only modest structural design changes. Simplified design permitted the use of simplified tooling and manufacturing techniques. Tooling was based upon the minimum required for a 14-vehicle program. Planning took advantage of the high level of worker skills rather than the detailed planning required in large production programs utilizing less skilled workers. Simplicity was also the keynote of GSE design, minimum spares consistent with effective program

and spares support.

support was based

The Launch Operations crew was used for vehicle factory checkout, thereby eliminating dual crews and dual learning curves. This procedure permitted the earliest possible crew familiarization with the vehicle and benefited the program allowing quick response to field type changes.

upon

by

The description of the vehicle, its test schedule, and program requirements as originally planned were covered by NASA/MSC Request for Proposal MSC-62-39P, dated 6 April 1962. This RFP was distributed to contractors by a NASA/MSC letter of the same date. Convair's response was documented by Technical Proposal GD/C-62-114 and, together with supporting cost data, was submitted to NASA/MSC by Letter 11-1-1486, dated 20 April 1962. A letter contract based on this proposal was awarded to Convair on 11 May 1962. Figure 1-1 shows a comparison of the launch vehicle as originally conceived, and the final configuration. Subsequently a Work Statement, GD/C-62-361, dated 20 November 1962, was issued to describe the task as agreed upon in initial negotiations to reflect later program-required

in December changes.

1962,

and was incrementally

modified

Little Joe H was originally scheduled to be launched from Cape Kennedy Eastern Test Range. However, to avoid schedule and support problems which might occur at that facility because of the heavy schedule of high-priority launches, other possible launch sites were evaluated by NASA/MSC and Convair. A launch pad identified as Launch Complex 36 (LC36) at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) previously used for Redstone missile tests, was ultimately selected as most capable of meeting schedule and support requirements. Also, the White Sands Range allowed land recovery which was less costly and complicated than the water recovery procedure that would have been required at the NASA Wallops Island Range. Convair made significant contributions to the modification of existing facilities and the design of required additional facilities. The existing blockhouse and service tower at LC-36 were used. The modifications and additions are discussed in detail in other sections of this report. Figure porting WSMR facilities 1-2

1-2 shows an overall used for operations

view of the pad area at LC-36. are illustrated in Figure 1-3.

The sup-

C-6062-2

Figure

1-2.

Launch

Complex

Pad Area

In 1964, NASA/MSC performed an interim evaluation of Convair's performance on the project. The results of this evaluation were favorable and are documented by a DD 1446 Form entitled Contractor Performance and Evaluation, General Dynamics/ Convair, Contract NAS 9-492, dated 12 June 1964, and may be referred to for detail performance accomplishment for the period of time reported. B.

INITIAL

PROGRAM

ACTIVITY

Detail design for the fixed fin version vehicle and the launchers started at contract award. Basic structure design for both the vehicle and launcher was essentially completed in December 1962. Fabrication of detail parts for the first vehicle started in August 1962 and in October 1962 for the first launcher. Subassembly of frames for the first vehicle forebody started in January 1963. The afterbody and forebody were mated for proper fit on 22 February 1963. Major assembly of the first launcher was completed 25 March 1963 and installation of the vehicle on the launcher was initiated at that time. One 24 September 1962 Convair recommended and obtained NASA's concurrence that the first vehicle be used as a qualificiation test vehicle employing a dummy payload. The fixed fins and dummy motors were installed and alignment checks for the complete vehicle were eompleted 3 April 1963. The dummy payload was mated to the vehicle on 4 April 1963 and instrumentation and ballast installations were completed 25 April 1963. Final electrical installations and checkout of the launcher were completed April 1963 and the launcher was disassembled and delivered

1-4

NORTH NOMINAL LAUNCH DIRECTION

LITTLE JOE II/PAYLOAD ONLAUNCHER

CABLESUPPORTMAST (FORCABLES TO TRENCH, POWER ROOM & BH)

TO LAS CRUCES TO ALMOGORDO _ -_._

I WSMR POST AREA I NASA BLDGS T-118 & T-108

WSMR SECURITY BLDG T-S26,,.v_. _

CONVAIRMAIN OFFICE

ENCLOSED

& SHOP1540) AREA (BLDG

TECHNICAL AREA

O.

CONVAIRLAUNCH OPERATIONS TRAILER NO. O

INSPECTIONTRAILERNO. ii _,

GUARD POST

POWER ROOM IN BARRICADED STRUCTURE BLDG. S'23356

10'x 12' FLAMMABLE STORAGE SHED

ILC.36

BLDG 1520WSMR tr_STR. &

CONTROL LAB (FORCALIBR.)

LAUNCH PAD

i2 CONVAIR RN TEST OPERATIONS GUARD POST 5' FLAMMABLESTORAGESHED

/

BLDG. 23.501 9.5 MILES

1,200 FT. FROM

TEST FACILIW (CSTF)

'x 12 _STORAGE SHED

/

ALGOL SHAPECHARGE STORAGE NAB 27 ALGOL MOTOR

CONTROL SYSTEMS

BUILDINGNO. NASA TELEMETRY TRAILERS NO. 1 & LITTLE JOE II RECEIVING INSPECTION,ACS FIN ASSY-

(FOR PITCH-UPCOM'D] MAB 26 H202 STORAGE

BLOCKHOUSE BLDG. NO. S-23350

FIN TEST PAD

ILAUNCH COMPLEX 31 VEHICLE ASSEMBLY

ROCKET MOTOR BUILDUPBLDGS 21560 & 21564

J BU]LDING1676 WSMRGUIDANCE&

PYRO READY STORAGE MAGAZINES

CONVAIR ( J

WSMR HEADQUARTERS BLDG 100 •

FOR

SUPPORTOFFICEIN PORTABLE SHED CONVAIR OPERATIONS

_

R. T AILE 12 MILES

SERVtCETOWER(GANTRY)BLDG.NO. S - 2_355

ALGOLMOTORPREPARATION & MISC. STORAGE,ETC,

3ROWAVE DATA FROM BLDG. 1512 COMPUTERS

NO. 11

MILES

WSMR SECURITY GUARD POST

TO EL PASO

CINDER BLOCK HUTS IS) (SQUIBS,IGNITERS,ETC.

_

C' STATION FOR FPS-16 RADAR TRACKING AND FRW_2 TRANSMISSION FOR COMMAND CONTROL/DESTRUCT SIGNALS. ALSO MFSO STATIONFOR FLIGHTRANGE SAFETY CONTROL VIA COMMAND TO TERMINATE LJ-II ALGOL MOTOR THRUST (IFREQUIRED).

WSMRAIRPORT CONDRON FIELD

C-6062-3

I

¢_

Figure

1-3.

General

Area of Convair

Activities

for Little

Joe II/Apollo

Program

at WSMR

to WSMR on 25 April 1963. Preliminary systems checkout of the vehicle was completed in San Diego on 3 May 1963. A Development Engineering Inspection (DEI) was conducted 9 May 1963 and a number of requested changes were incorporated. Phase 1I of the DEI was held 10 June 1963. A final systems checkout was initiated immediately after this and completed 13 July 1963. The vehicle was then disassembled and delivered to WSMR on 16 July 1963. Engineering design for the attitude control vehicles was initiated on 23 July 1962. The additional structural design required was completed in December 1962 and all systems design was completed in August 1964. Fabrication of detail parts for the first vehicle was started on 30 April 1963o Sub-assembly for the fins and elevons was initiated on 25 July 1963. Major assembly of the forebody was completed on 11 October and the afterbody on 18 October 1963, and these major assemblies were placed in temporary storage. The forebody was removed from storage and final assembly started on 2 December 1963. The afterbody was removed from storage on 12 November and placed on Launcher 12-60-2 for fin flutter tests which were completed on 19 December 1963. Final assembly of the forebody was initiated on 2 December 1963 and the unit was mated to the afterbody on 4 May 1964. Preliminary OCI checkout was initiated on 5 May 1964 and was completed on 20 June 1964. Required changes such as instrumentation, pitch programmer, etc., were incorporated. The final OCI checkout was initiated on 11 August and the Development Engineering Inspection (DEI) was held on 20 August° DEI cleanup and OCI checkout were completed on 12 September 1964. The vehicle was disassembled and shipped to WSMR on 15 September 1964. A summary of the typical life-span for this and the subsequent vehicles is illustrated in Figure 1-4. This summary identifies the following phases: 1) basic design and manufacturing, 2) configuration changes and modifications, 3) checkout (on and off site), 4) buildup off site, and 5) launch and/or storage. C.

LAUNCH

SITE ACTIVITY

Five unmanned flight missions were accomplished during the program. The first was a fixed-fin Qualification Test Vehicle (QTV) launched on 28 August 1963. This was followed by a series of four launchings employing boilerplate or prototype Apollo spacecraft which were capable of in-flight abort tests. Of these, one had fixed fins and three were controllable vehicles. Two pad-abort tests were also accomplished by NAA S&ID and NASA/MSC during the span-time of these tests, as noted in Figure 1-5. The sequence of launch events in Figure 1-6 shows part of the first LJ-II/BP-12 abort mission. The IM-H/SC-002 mission, accomplished on 20 January 1966, completed the flight qualification of the Apollo spacecraft launch escape vehicle (LEV). Figure 1-7 shows the vehicle shortly after liftoff.

1-6

1962

-DEI DISPOSITION, OPEN ITEM 3 MAY REVIEW 1963 __ --____

12-50-1

J ] I -THRUST TERMINATION GO AHEAD 12-16-63 -FRR518-64 DEI 11-14-63 ....

12-50-2

Ill III)111

12-50-3

IIIIIIIIII

12-50-4

Unlll

CODE IIIIIIII ,,,,,,,,, _ /

!

BASIC DESIGN AND MFG. CONFIGURATION CHGS. AND MOD CHECKOUT BUILDUP ATWSMR

I

DEI FRR -LAUNCH 5-13-6 _- MAE _ PAT

t _ DEI 11-14-63"

III III

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING INSPECTION FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW MANUFACTURING ACCEPTANCE EVALUATION STORAGE

I

_

PREDELIVERY ACCEPTANCE TESTING

_--

III IIII III

- ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN APPROVAL 5-27-63 12-51-1

_

'''-'allll I _NCH 8-28-63

,lllllllllllll

,_FRR 12-4-64 I I I 12-8-64 l ,, _-LAUNCH

DEI 8-20-64-Ill

I DE!

I I iTART

MAE

I 12-51-2

]

-LAUNCH 5-19-65

-FReS-14-65 II II

I I I I

III1 III IIII IF

.PAT #2 START I

DEI I

i

L

r-- FRR #i 12-3-65 I I-'FRI_#_1'-14-66 i ; I,I,I -I'AUN(_H

' I

MAE 12-51-5

i

I

,'1, _H_

] IIIIIiIIU'"'

III

_5,1,,

1-20-66

VEHICLE COMPLETED--

PREPARATION FOR STORAGE--

1962

1963

1964

1965

p_ I

"_

_

i

1966 C-606Z-4

Figure

1-4.

Vehicle

Schedule

Summary

I O0

MISSION DESIGNATION A.

LAUNCH VEHICLE (VERSION)

DATE MISSIONDESCRIPTIONPURPOSE LAUNCHED

POSTLAUNCHOR OTHERASSOCIATED REPORTNUMBERS

FOR LJ-II LAUNCHVEHICLE QUALIFICATION:

QTV

B.

PAYLOAD/ APOLLO SPACECRAFT

DUMMY + INERT LES

LJ-II 12-50-1 (FIXED FIN)

LJ-II QUALIFICATIONTEST VEHICLE (AT MISSIONA-O01 ABORT PARAMETERS)

8-28-6.3

GD/C-63-193A

FORAPOLLO SPACECRAFTABORTTESTS:

PA-1

BP-6

-

FIRST PADABORT

11-7--6.3

POSTLAUNCHMEMO DATED 11-23-63

A-O01

BP-12

LJ-II 12-50-2 (FIXED FIN)

HIGHDYNAMICPRESSURE (TRANSONIC)ABORT

5-13-64

MSC-R-A-64-1

A-O02

BP-23

LJ-II 12-51-1 MAXIMUM DYNAMICPRESSURE (ATTITUDE CONTROL) ABORT

12-8-64

MSC-R-A-65-1

A-O03

BP-22

LJ-II 12-51-2 HIGHALTITUDE ABORT (ATTITUDE CONTROL)

5-19-65

MSC-R-A-65-2; GD/C-65-143

PA-2

BP-23A

-

6-29-65

MSC-R-A-65-3

A-O04

SC-002

LJ-II 12-51-3 POWER-ONTUMBLING (ATTITUDE CONTROL) ABORT

1-20-66

MSC-R-A-66-3 GD/C--65-190A

SECONDPADABORT

C"6062-5

Figure

1-5.

Historical

Summary

of LJ-II/Apollo

Missions

Flown

at WSMR,

LC-36

(:;..6002-6 I

Figure

1-6.

Pre-Launch

Through

Thrust

Termination/Spacecraft

Abort

Sequence

- BP-12

Mission

A-00I

C-6062 -7

Figure 1-10

1-7.

Launch

Vehicle

12-51-3

with

SC-002

at Liftoff

Each

of the LEV abort

missions

resulted

in safe command

module

landings,

in-

cluding one unscheduled in-flight emergency abort caused by a launch vehicle control system malfunction. These are further described in Volume ]I, Section 2. E of this report. It was concluded from the test results of all missions that the Apollo spacecraft launch escape system was man-rated and the production designs were confirmed. PRIMARY

OBJECTIVES

AND PARTICIPANTS

The missions had three primary objectives. First was to demonstrate that the launch escape system (LES) could safely rescue the command module (CM} from jeopardy under critical abort conditions. The second objective was to verify the integrity and reliability of the command module's earth landing system (ELS) after abort. The third objective was to confirm the structural integrity of the combined LES and command module when they were exposed to critical abort conditions. The overall program was conducted under the direction of NASA/MSC with the joint participation of NAA S&ID and Convair for their respective spacecraft and Little Joe II vehicle operations. The WSMR adminstrative, range, and technical organizations provided timely and satisfactory facilities, resources, and services as required for each flight mission. These included range safety, radar and camera tracking, command transmission, real-time data display system (RTDS} data, meteorological data, photography, telemetry data acquisition, data reduction, recovery operations, and other data as requested in operational requirements documents. The operational requirements documents were prepared by NASA/MSC for each mission and included the inputs from NAA S&ID and Convair. D.

FLIGHT

SUMMARY

The first Little Joe II was used as a qualification test vehicle (QTV). It was the function of the QTV to demonstrate its performance in preparation for Apollo Mission A-001. Also, it was of considerable importance, before committing an Apollo payload, to confirm the main design considerations of the launch vehicle: stability, structural integrity and absence of flutter, to give a few examples. The purpose of the subsequent launch vehicles was to propel Apollo spacecraft (or boilerplate simulations of spacecraft) to scheduled test regions from which the emergency escape capability of the launch escape vehicle (LEV) could be demonstrated. The selected test regions represented critical escape regions of the Saturn trajectory envelope, as illustrated by Figure 1-8. In the succeeding paragraphs of this section_ a brief description is given of the purpose of each Little Joe H/Apollo launch (Figure 1-9), the configuration of the vehicle (Figure 1-10) and a summary of the flight events and results (Figure 1-11). More detailed descriptions of the vehicles and flight performance are given in Volume II of this report.

i-II

_'= I-= bO

120K

ALTITUDE,

4

FT

l k_J-JJ

100K

DESIRED TEST REGION

®

NOMINAL TEST POINT

A

ACTUAL TEST POINT '_" ACTUAL TEST PATH

80K 3 70K _OK

Co: LU

0

'_

.40K

- 12 -51-1

--

12-50-2, 1

12-50'1

_, co-_

1OK O0

lOO

200

300

400

500

DYNAMIC PRESSURE,

Figure

1-8.

LJ-]I/Apollo

600

700

q - LBS/FT 2

Abort

Test

800

i 900

lOOO C-,(,O6Z-S

Regions

QUALIFICATION TEST VEHICLE (QTV) 12-50-1

LITTLE JOE II DEVELOPMENT ISSUES •

DEMONSTRATE CAPABILITY TO PERFORM THE LAUNCH TRAJECTORY FOR MISSION A-O01

•

DEMONSTRATE ABILITY OF LAUNCH VEHICLE TO CLEAR THE LAUNCHER DEMONSTRATE ALGOL THRUST TERMI-

PERFORMANCE • •

• INTEGRITY

•

•

ENVIRONMENT

•

MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE ABORT A-O02 BOILERPLATE 23 LJ-II12-51-i LAUNCH VEHICLE

DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABILITY OF THE ESCAPE SYSTEM TO PROPEL THE CM SAFELY AWAY FROM THE LAUNCH VEHICLE

DEMONSTRATE THAT FINS ARE FLUTTER FREE DEMONSTRATE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY FOR MISSION A-D01 DEMONSTRATE ADEQUACY OF PROCEDURE FOR WIND COMPENSATION BY AIMING LAUNCHER IN AZIMUTH AND ELEVATION EVALUATE TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO EFFICIENT LAUNCH OPERATIONS

•

EVALUATE PROCEDURES FOR GROUND COMMAND ABORT FOR APPLICATION TO MISSION A-O01

•

DETERMINE

• •

DETERMINE BASE HEATING DETERMINE FLEXIBLE BODY RESPONSE OF TOTAL LAUNCH VEHICLE PLUS PAYLOAD •

•

DETERMINE AERODYNAMIC STABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ESCAPE CONFIGURATION FOR THIS ABORT CONDITION

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY LEV PERFORMANCE UTILIZING THE CANARD SUBSYSTEM AND BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER, AND TO VERIFY THE ABORT CAPABILITY IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC-PRESSURE REGION WITH CONDITIONS APPROXIMATING EDS LIMITS

•

DETERMINE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE LEV IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION

•

DEMONSTRATE SAT SFACTORY LEV POWERON STABILITY FOR ABORT IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION WITH CONDITIONS APPROXIMATING EMERGENCY DETECTION SUBSYSTEM LIMITS

STABILITY LEV •

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY CANARD DEPLOYMENT, LEV TURN-AROUND DYNAMICS,, AND MAIN HEAT SHIELD FORWARD FLIGHT STABILITY PRIOR TO LES JETTISON

•

DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL

•

FORMANCE OF SUBSYSTEM DEMONSTRATE FORMANCE OF COVER DURING

! •

DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE ESCAPE TOWER

INTEGRITY (STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE)

BASE PRESSURES

*_

•

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY TIMING SEQUENCE IN THE ELS

RECOVERY

SEPARATION

•

•

POWER-ON TUMBLING BOUNDARY ABORT A-D04 S/C 002

HIGH ALT TUDE ABORT A-D03 ! BOILERPLATE 22 LJ-II12-51-2 LAUNCH VEHICLE , I

•

CAPABILITY (TO ABORT) LES

NATION SYSTEM DEMONSTRATE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY OF GSE

• PROCEDURES

HIGH D_NAMIC PRESSURE TRANSONIC ABORT A-O01 BOILERPLATE 12 LJ-If12-50-2 LAUNCH VEHICLE

APOLLO DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

PER-

LJ-II12-51-3 LAUNCH

•

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY LEV pERFORMANCE AT AN ALTITODE APPROXlMATING THE UPPER LIMIT FOR THE CANARD SUBSYSTEM

•

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY LEV PERFORMANCE FOR AN ABORT IN THE POWERON TUMBLING BOUNDARY REGION

•

DEMONSTRATE ORIENTATION OF THE LEV TO A MAIN HEAT SHIELD FORWARD ATTITUDE I

•

•

DETERMINE THE DAMPING OF THE LEV OSCILLATIONS WITH THE CANARD SUBSYSTEM DEPLOYED ,

DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABILITY OF THE CANARD SUBSYSTEM TO SATISFACTORILY REORIENT AND STABILIZE THE LEV HEAT SHIELD FORWARD AFTER A POWER-ON TUMBLING ABORT

•

DETERMINE THE PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR OF

•

DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL INTEG-

THE LES WITH THE CANARD

THE BOOST PROTECTIVE, COVER DURING LAUNCH AND ENTRY FRIOM HIGH ALTITUDE

THE STRUCTURAL PERTHE BOOST PROTECTIVE AN ABORT IN THE MAXIMUM

•

DEMONSTRATE JETTISON OF THE LES PLUS BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER AFTER HIGH ALTITUDE ENTRY

•

DEMONSTRATE PROPER OPERATION OF THE CM-SM SEPARATION SUBSYSTEM

SEQUENCE (OF EVENTS)

•

DEMONSTRATE PROPER OPERATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPONENTS OF THE ELS

•

DETERMINE AERODYNAMIC LOADS DUE TO LOCAL SURFACE PRESSURES ON THE CM AND SM DURING A LITTLE JOE II LAUNCH

•

•

•

LEGEND

•

FIRST-ORDER TEST OBJECTIVE

•

SECOND-ORDER TEST OBJECTIVE

•

THIRD-ORDER TEST OBJECTIVE

• ENVIRONMENT (EFFECTS INDUCED)

LITTLE JOE II/ APOLLO COMPATIBILITY

•

DEMONSTRATE LITTLE JOE iI-S/C

•

COMPATIBILITY DELIVER THE APOLLO BOILERPLATE SPACECRAFT TO THE DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR DEMONSTRATION OF THE LEV

•

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY SEPARATION OF THE LEV FROM THE SM AT AN ANGLE OF ATTACK

RECOVERY ELS

RITY OF THE LEV AIRFRAME STRUCTURE BOUNDARyFOR AN ABORTREGIoNIN THE POWER-ON TUMBLING •

DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY SEPARATION OF THE LES PLUS BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER FROM THE CM

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY OPERATION .................... ,,,_ _i_u rr-RruR,v,_,_,_ur ,nEELS, ,, vS,,,_ REEFED DUAL DROGUES

•

DETERMINE THE CM PRESSURE LOADS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE PLUME IMPINGEMENT IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION

•

DEMONSTRATE PERFORMANCE OF THE ELS Hci_,_TU_ TWO-POINT HARNESS ATTAP_-L ................... VENT FOR THE MAIN PARACHUTES

•

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE ELS WITH A

OBTAIN DURING OF THE ON THE TOWER

•

DATA ON THERMAL EFFECTS BOOST AND DURING IMPINGEMENT LAUNCH ESCAPE MOTOR PLUMES CM AND THE LAUNCH ESCAPE

OBTAIN THERMAL EFFECTS DATA ON THE CM DURING AN ABORT IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION

DETERMINE PRESSURES ON THE CM BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER DURING LAUNCH AND HIGH ALTITUDE ABORT

•

DETERMINE VIBRATION AND ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT AND RESPONSE OF THE SM WITH SIMULATED RCS QUADS

DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY

PERFORM-

•

•

WITHSTAND THE LAUNCH ENVIRONMENT DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABILITY OF THE CM FORWARD HEATSHIELD THRUSTERS TO SATISFACTORILY SEPARATE THE FORWARD HEATSHIELD AFTER THE TOWER HAS BEEN JETTISONED BY THE TOWER JETTISON " MOTOR DEMONSTRATE SAT]SFACTORY TION OF THE LEV FROM SM

•

ANCE OF THE LAUNCH VEHICLE ATTITUDE CONTROL SUBSYSTEM DELIVER THE APOLLO BOILERPLATE SPACECRAFT TO THE DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR DEMONSTRATION OF THE LEV

DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL CAPABILITY OF THE PRODUCTION BPC TO

•

DETERMINE THE AERODYNAMIC PRESSURE LOADS ON SM DURING THE LAUNCH PHASE

•

VEHICLE

DELIVER THE APOLLO BblLERPLATE SPACECRAFT TO THE DI_SIRED CONDITIONS FOR DEMONSTRA_FION OF THE LEV

SPACECRAFT

•

SEPARA-

VEHICLE

DETERMINE THE STATIC LOADS ON THE CM DURING LAUNCH AND THE ABORT SEQUENCE DETERMINE THE DYNAMIC LOADING ON THE CM INNER STRUCTURE

•

DETERMINE THE DYNAMIC LOADS AND THE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF THE SM DURING LAUNCH

•

DETERMINE THE STATIC PRESSURES IVPOSED ON THE CM BY FREE STREAM CONDITIONS AND LES MOTOR PLUMES DURING A POWER-ON TUMBLING ABORT

•

OBTAIN DATA ON THE STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF THE CM DURING ELS SEQUENCE

•

OBTAIN THERMAL

•

ING A POWER-ON TUMBLING ABORT OBTAIN ACOUSTICAL NOISE DATA INSIDE THE CM AT AN ASTRONAUT STATION

•

DELIVER

DATA ON THE BPC DUR-

THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT

TO

THE DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR DEMONSTRATION OF THE LEV

C-60b2Al'

Figure

1-9.

WSMR Apollo

Flight

Program

Mission

Objectives

1-13

APOLLO MISSION

- NUMBER - LAUNCHWEIGHT (LBS)

PAYLOAD

- NUMBER

QTV 57, 165

A-D01 57,930

A-O02 94,331

A-O03 177,189

A-OO4 13% 731

DUMMY CSM MOCKUP LES

BP-12

BP-23

BP-22

SC-002

24,225

25,335

27, b92

27,836

23_ 185 9,361

12-50-1

12-50-2

12-51-1

12-51-2

12-51-3

32,595

58,030 8,609

144,309 5,044

101,328 5.,867

-WEIGHT (LBS) - BALLAST (LBS) LAUNCHVEHICLE

- NUMBER

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION AIRFRAME

PROPULSION

-WEIGHT INC. MOTORS (LBS) - BALLAST (LBS) - FIXED FIN - CONTROLLABLEFIN - 1ST STAGE RECRUIT - IST STAGE ALGOL - 2ND STAGE ALGOL

ATTITUDE CONTROL -

RF COMMAND

ELECTRICAL

-

.

X X

6 ).

6 i

4 2

PITCH PROGRAMMER PITCH-UP CAPABILITY SIGNAL FILTER-2ND ORDER SIGNAL FILTER-NOTCH REACTIONCONTROL AERODYNAMICCONTROL ELEVON ACTUATORHYD. SUPPLY RANGESAFETY DESTRUCT THRUST TERM & ABORT PITCH-UP & ABORT ABORT

- PRIMARY - INSTRUMENTATION

INSTRUMENTATION -RFTRANSMITTERS - TM MEASUREMENTS - LL MEASUREMENTS RADARBEACON

32,941 X'

- LAUNCH VEHICLE - PAYLOAD

X X X

X

X

X

3 3

5 2 2

X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

SINGLE

DUAL

DUAL

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X X

X 3 66 24

LOCATED IN PAYLOAD 3 24

2 5B .37

X LOCATED IN PAYLOAD 13 45

X X 1 39 36

X X

X

X

X

C-6062-I0

Figure

1-10.

Launch Vehicle

Configuration

Summary

1-15

I F-L o'_

MISSION DESIGNATION & TITLE

QTV QUAL. TEST VEHICLE

A-O01 TRANSONIC ABORT

A-O02 MAX. Q ABORT

A-O03 HIGH ALT. ABORT

A-OO4 POWER-ON TUMBLING BOUNDARY ABORT

APOLLO PAYLOAD

DUMMY

BP-12

BP-22,

BP-22

SC-002

LITTLE

12-50-1

12-50-2

12-51-1

12-51-2

12-51-3

JOE II NO.

DATE & TIME (MST)

8/28/65,

9:00 AM

LAUNCH AZIMUTH LAUNCH ELEVATION

4 ° 56.'5 82 = 48'

COUNTDOWN TIME MAJOR DELAYS

6:10 HRS NONE

5/13/64,

6:00 AM

2,46 ° 20' 81 ° 19' 6:40 HRS POSTPONED FROM 5/12/64 BECAUSE OF IWEATHER

12/8/64,

8:00 AM

5/19/65,

6:01 AM

D° 25" 84 ° 2'

356" O' 84" O'

8:00 HRS NONE

8:25 HRS NONE

1/20/66,

8:17 AM

348 = 29' 84 ° O' 6:27 HRS POSTPONED FROM 1/18/66 BECAUSE OF RANGE T/M DELAY OF 17 MIN.

FLIGHT EVENT TIME PITCH PROGRAM START RCS "ON" SCHEDULE

-

0.0 SEC -1 TO+ 8 SEC; +11 SEC & ON

SECOND-STAGE IGNITION

0.0 SEC -4 TO + 16 SEC (NOTE 2)

SEC

36.4

SEC

RF COMMAND

DESTRUCT COMMAND AT 32.4 SEC (NOTE 1)

THRUST TERMINATION & LEV ABORT AT 28.4 SEC

PITCH-UP AT 33.6 SEC (FOLLOWED BY TIME-DELAYED ABORT)

BOOST PHASE RESULTS

PASSED THROUGH TEST WINDOW

ABORT IN TEST WINDOW

ABORT OUTSIDE TEST WINDOW, BUT ACCEPTABLE

TEST REGION NOT REACHED BECAUSE OF FLIGHT CONTROL FAILURE

ABORT IN TEST WINDOW

ACCEPTABLE ABORT (RE-CONTACT WITH BOOSTER) AND EARTH LANDING

SATISFACTORY ABORT & EARTH LANDING

SATISFACTORY LOW-ALTITUDE ABORT & EARTH LANDING

SATISFACTORY ABORT & EARTH LANDING

BROKE UP UNDER HIGH CENTRIFUGAL FORCES INDUCED BY RAPID ROLLING MOTION

INTACT TO IMPACT WITH GROUND

APOLLO LEV RESULTS

POST-ABORT CONDITION OF BOOSTER

INTACT TO IMPACT WITH GROUND

BOOSTER DATA ACQUISITION (% OF MEASUREMENTS)

100% THROUGHOUT FLIGHT

NOTES:

1. 2.

DESTROYED BY THRUST BROKE UP "UND"ER TERMINATION BLAST HIGH AERODYNAMIC FORCES

100% TO ABORT

96.5% TO ABORT

DESTRUCT DID NOT OCCUR. VEHICLE DISINTEGRATED BEFORE SCHEDULED EVENT.

Figure

1-11.

(NOTE 2)

21.0 -

100% TO ABORT

PITCH-UP AT 70.8 SEC (FOLLOWED BY TIMEDELAYED ABORT)

100% TO ABORT c-6062-11

Launch Data Digest

The first two launch vehicles were alike with respect to configuration and mission profile. Both were fixed-fin vehicles, dependent upon the inherent stability of the total vehicle to achieve a successful ballistic trajectory to the test region. One Aerojet-General Algol and six Thiokol Chemical Co. Recruit solid-propellant rockets made up the propulsion package. The Algol 1D, Mod 2 sustainer motor provided an average sea-level thrust of 96,530 lbs for 42.1 seconds, with a peak thrust of 116,600 lbf. Each Recruit TE-29-II, Mod. 1B booster rocket was rated at 37, 1O0 lbf at sea level and was expended approximately 1.5 seconds after ignition. The principal

difference

between

the QTV and A-001

vehicles

was that the QTV had

/

a dummy payload which did not separate from the launch vehicle in flight as did the BP-12 payload on the A-001. The QTV (Vehicle 12-50-1} made a successful flight, passing through the test "window, as shown in Figure 1-8. All objectives were satisfied (Figure 1-9), except for the WSMR Command Destruct subsystem. The destruct signal was received and detonated the safe-and-arm unit; however, the primacord did not propagate the detonation to the shaped charges on the Algol case. Mission A-001 -- Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 successfully boosted the Apollo boiler _ plate (BP-12} to the planned test region. Upon command from the ground the LEV separated from the booster. At a preset altitude, the escape tower was jettisoned from the command module. Following this was the parachute deployment and landing of the command module. The vehicle was equipped with a dual RF command thrust termination subsystem as an aid to LEV separation at high subsonic speed. Because the abort test point was reached while the Algol motor was developing high thrust, clean separation of the LEV under such conditions would not be possible. For this reason the thrust was terminated (via ground radio command} by splitting the motor case. The ground-initiated command to terminate thrust and initiate the LEV abort was based on elapsed flight desired test conditions.

time,

which

proved

to be accurate

enough to achieve

the

The remaining three launch vehicles, Nos. 12-51-1, -2, and-3, incorporated flight controls. While the attitude control systems (ACS} for all three were of the same basic type, they differed in some details, as summarized in Figure 1-10. Common to _ all was: 1) an autopilot to provide sensing (attitudes and rates for three axes}, logic, and control commands, and 2} hydraulically actuated aerodynamic controls. Vehicles 12-51-1 and -2 included reaction controls, operating on a preset schedule, in parallel with the aerodynamic controls. These reaction motors, fueled by 90% hydrogen peroxide, were mounted in back-to-back pairs at the root of each fin. Thrust termination was not used on any of these vehicles, not being needed to assure clean separation of the LEV. Mission A-002 -- With simultaneous ignition of two Algols and four Recruits, Vehicle 12-51-1 boosted the Apollo BP-23 to a high dynamic pressure abort. A pitch programmer caused the vehicle to pitch down at a constant rate, starting at liftoff, such that the vehicle would, at the test point, approximate the Saturn flight path angle as well as Mach number and dynamic pressure. At the predetermined flight conditions, as given by a real-time display system (RTDS}, a signal was transmitted by radio link to the launch vehicle, commanding a pitch-up maneuver. 1-17

i

At LEV abort time, the pitch-up maneuver approximated the limits of the proposed Saturn Emergency Detection Subsystem (EDS). As a result of an error in the RTDS meteorological data, the pitch-up command was transmitted 2.4 seconds early. This produced an abort of the LEV at a dynamic pressure 25 percent greater than planned, but at the correct Mach number. Because the launch escape system stiffness and mass distribution differed from the mathematical model used for design, the autopilot filters were not able to prevent coupling of the fundamental structural bending mode with the attitude control subsystem. The resulting elevon oscillation, although it had no noticeable effect on the vehicle stability or flight path, excessively depleted the hydraulic fluid supply and pressure. The lowered pressure reduced the elevon hinge-moment capability such that the planned angle of attack at LEV abort time was not fully attained. Despite the noted departures from the mission plan, the LEV exceeded the desired conditions from which a successful recovery and landing were made. Indeed the extra high dynamic vided a demonstration of structural integrity of the LEV at near-limit

pressure load.

abort

pro-

Mission A-003 -- This mission was scheduled to demonstrate with Apollo BP-22 the LEV performance at the upper limit of altitude for the canard subsystem and the ability of the subsystem to orient the LEV With its main heat shield forward. Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 had a propulsion system of six Algol motors, fixed in two stages of three each. The autopilot was augmented with a set of new filters, designed to block the feedback of the first bending mode to the elevon control which occurred on the previous flight. Also, the pitch-up function was deleted, not being required for this mission. Very shortly after lift-off the vehicle began an uncontrolled roll which accelerated with increasing velocity of flight; prior to second-stage ignition and while still at low altitude, the launch vehicle disintegrated. The break-up severed the abort "hot lines," resulting in initiation of the LEV escape sequence. Despite this severe "test," the LEV performance was excellent. The command module was recovered, together with useful data. Mission A-004 -- Demonstration of satisfactory LEV performance and of structural integrity of an Apollo spacecraft for abort in the power-on tumbling boundary region were the primary objectives of Mission A-004o Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 boosted Apollo SC-002 on this mission with excellent results. The motor configuration was two Algols and five Recruits for first stage and two Algols for second stage. (The second-stage firing phase constituted the first time the Algol motor had been ignited at altitude, and was successful.) The attitude control system of Vehicle 12-51-3 differed from that of Vehicle 12-51-2 in two major respects: the reaction control subsystem was deleted, not being required for this mission, and the pitch-up function was installed. Also, the pitch program was preset to commence 20 seconds after lift-off.

1-18

At preseleeted flight conditions, as displayed on the RTDS plotboard, the launch vehicle was commanded to pitch up through an angle which would ensure tumbling of the LEV while the escape rocket was burning. This was accomplished, followed by successful stabilization, orientation, and recovery of the command module. Indeed, all launch vehicle phases of the mission went as planned in this final, and most successful, flight of the Little Joe II launch vehicle. In conclusion, the series of tests described was successful in qualifying the Little Joe II as a launch vehicle and the Apollo launch-escape and earth-landing systems for manned missions. All indications from Missions A-001 through A-004 confirmed that, had they been manned missions, the astronauts would have landed safely.

1-19

2

PROJECT

PHILOSOPHY

2

A.

PROJECT PHILOSOPHY

MANAGEMENT

The Request for Proposal directed the Contractor to establish a strong I_JII organization, headed by a Program Manager and removed from other Contractor programs to the extent necessary to prevent interference with a timely completion of the Apollo program. To achieve this, a modified project organization was proposed and initiated as shown in Figure 2-1. The philosophy of this type of organization was that project key supervisors and staff members reported functionally to the Program Manager but administratively to their home group or department. They responded to the project line organization, to each other and to direction from the Program Manager to integrate and accomplish the tasks of the project. In addition, there remained a link of responsibility with the home group or supervisor to ensure that high quality design or manufacturing operations were achieved, proper procedures were followed and schedule requirements were met. The assignment of talented senior personnel to the project was one of the principal reasons for its ultimate success. Personnel were transferred into the project as tasks required and were returned to their home department upon the completion of their tasks. This

promptly ensured

a supply of top-grade people, continuity of experience and a minimum number of people on the project as required by the tasks. This variation of personnel with work load is reflected in Section 4 and is shown in more detail in the sample of manpower application in 1964, also in Section 4. Except for minor personnel changes, the organization shown until June 1965. At that time, the primary design task had been Engineering and Launch Operations activity were grouped under the re-emphasis on test and the necessity for even more closely during this period. The revised organization is shown in Figure

in Figure 2-1 applied accomplished and one head to recognize integrated operations 2-2.

The organization was designed to include elements that were required on a fulltime basis. Part time support from other Convair departments and groups, as required, was assured on an as-required basis by identifying the individual in that department who would represent the department or group and had the responsibility of providing the support when requested. This method of identification of "contact people" is shown in Figure 2-3.

2-1

t'O I

I--I_-A-|

VICE FT_ES_DENT & GEm£RAL MANAGER R, A, Nelle

I PROGRAM M_AG_R

I

I

i

RELIABILITY CONTROL & QUALITY

SVS. INTEGRATION CHANGE CONTROL

ASSURANCE w. L, ohnst_

PLANS CONTROL D.G. Mol_y

I

NASA SAN OIEGO OFFICE LIAISON

I

DOCUMENTATION CONTROL

H G. S_¢¢

W.F.

B.E.

Bm*_

I

I STRUCTURAL OESIGN -

J.E. Bu_son VEHICLE

[

SUBCONTRACT COST C0_TROL

Ca_,.

N, Gran_

I

DEPUTY PROGRAM MANAGER

,

I

PflG¢;RAM C(_IlTROL

l

0EPUTY I>ROGRAM MANAGER

DEPUTY pROGRAM MANAGER

Tu_ le

I

I

[

& INSTRUMEN TATION

& DESIGN

SUPPORT

_, ASSEMBLY

R, E, Mal= VEHICLE CONTROL

J K. Lessl_ GSE PLANNING

N. L We_r TECH_'/_CAL

C. S Stran_ FABRICATION

'

'

I 0 L. Hunle_ TOOLING

[

I I

t

I

OPERATIONS A. R _ MATERIAL

]1

I

LAUNCH OPERATIONS

& EVALUATION

COORDINATION

SUPPORT

M, L Edelste,n LAUNCH OLANNINC

A.W. Kellogg LAUNCH TEST

A.C. i 0chief

[[

I[

1

PERSONNEL SHOWN UNDER THE PROGRAM MANAGER ARE FULL-TIME REPRESENTATIVES ASSIGNED TO THE LrtTL£ JOE II PROORAM. THESE REPRESENTATIVES WILL REPORT FUNCTIONALLY TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER ¢dNOADMINISTRA'FIVELY TO THEIR HOME DEPARTMENT OTHER DEPARTMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE LITTLE JOE II ,_ROGR_M THROUGH THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR NORMALLY-ASSIGNED SUPPORT RESPONSISIUTIES, WILL BE REPRESENTED BY COOROINATORS WHO SPEi_O AS '_UCH TI_E AS REQUIREO ON TH_S PROGRAM.

C-bOb2-12

Figure

2-1.

Original

Organization

Chart-

Little

Joe IT Program

,,_o..o.<.<,FoG,. PROGRAM: I SUBJECT! FORM32ONE

.,._,,

LITTLE JOEII PR(X;RAMMANUAL PROGRAM ORGANIZATION GENERALOYIIAMIC/CONVAIR

I I

J.R. 9emp_y [

I

.L H. Fm vICE PRESIDENT

f*'¢/..'_ 12,-A-S

PREPARED PROGRAM 8Y MNIAGER OATIE C, H. Helm 6-7-bS APP_ROVED:

1 OF b*

1

PMNO.

A/C PROGRAMS

I

PROGR_I M_T. AIRCRAFT I

DIRECTOR

I

I PROGR_ U#,NAGEE1

I

I

CTL & QUAL. ASSURANCE

I

CHANGECONTROL pLANSCONTROL

I

OFFICE LIAISON

CONTROL

I

W. L..lahnlcem

R. Pit, ms

V.J. Pad(

CON'i_ROL

R.C. _lel

:

8. E. C4,dn

;

I REL'A°UT* I

I

I

SUBCONTRACT CONTROL

C.W. Pamw

N. Grind

;

;

;

CONTRAC'S' I

COIiTROL

I ADMh_ISTRATOR

W.D. Bame

;

PROG'P_--° CONT"CT" I --ER'A" ]l "V'_ I

COML. SALES

& CONTROL

COML. SALES

PROD.SERVICEE

I

I

VEHICLECONTROL & IqSTRUMENTATION

M. I. EdelsLein

:

MANGER

OG,°T,_OGRAM '--4-

I

PARTS

I

MANAGE R ENGR, &01_.

LAUNCHPLNG. &EVALUATION

SPAREE

I

__

DEPUTYPROGRAM

i

I

I

I

GSEpLANNING & DESIGN

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

MANAGER OFF-SITE OPERATIONS

FABRICATION

N.L. _

A.W. Kella._

A.C.

R. X, ,k_m'ml

J.K. Lesslq

;

;

:

& ASSEMBLY

[

ENG,,EERI,_

I

ASSIGNEDTO THE LITTLE JOE II PROGRAM.THESEREPRESENTATIVESWILL REPORT PERSONNELSHOWN UNDERTHE PROGRAM MANAGER AREFULL TIME REPRESENTATIVES FUNCTIONALLYTO THE PROGRAM MANAGER ANDADMINISTRATIVELYTO THEIRHOME DEPARTMENT, OTHERDEPARTMENTSCONTRIBUTING TO THE LITTLE JOE II PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATION

QUAL. CTL. &INSPECTION

W. W* Fe_lton

W.E. _/,/ifl_ltO n

I [

:

MANUFACTURING SUPPORT

ENGINEERING

CONTRO L

] ENGINEERING

MANUFACTURING I

; I

TOOLING

O.L. TO(I( I ;

HROOG. TEOERFGRMANOE DFTHEIR NORM LL* SS'°NEDSU_OOR RESPONSIBILITIES I ] RELIA"ILIT* ]I I

WILL EE REPRESENTEDBYCOORDINATORS WHOSRENDAS MUCHTIME ASREQUIREDON THIS PROGRAM.

Oe_kx

;

I rI

1 TOOLING O.L. HuRley

MANUFACTURING

A. W, Kellc_lg : ENGINEERING C-6062-13

L'_ I

Figure 2-2.

FinalOrganizationChart - LittleJoe ]IProgram

| I

I I

IDYNIM_Iq_I

miNiMAl.

Coewmk'OAHs/on PROGRAM MANUAL

MInT

KEY

- LITTLE

JOE

DEPARTMENTAL

m. 12-A-2 _.lmt_ le _ C.H.Hahn _w.,.

II

,pus 10" _ | e_ Z ere¢©TM12117165

CONTACTS

'

MO_AM _N_V

PURPOSE

To degignate departmental repre0entatives assigned as key contacte for support and assistance on the Little Joe II program. KEY

DEPARTMENTAL

CONTACTS Department

Name

or Function

Mail Zone

Extension KM 3728

B. V. Allen

DataSystemt

170-1g

R,

R.

Bullock

Estimating

195-40

1561

B.

E.

Cavin

Program

Control

210-40

12_2

Grand

Material

Operations

847-40

583

C.

H.

H_.hn

CortIigure.tlon Management

t70-31

14O7

J.

A.

Holland

Technical

227-00

4g)

P.

S.

Kenny

Budgets

J.

L.

Hoover

Industrial

*N.

M. H. Miller

Still

LF

Plant LF Plant

k Program Procedure0

Reports

& Manuall

KM 2481

lq4-00 Graphics&

Propolals

Photography

R.

M.

Montgomery

Production

Control

V.

A.

Petricola

Factory Methods Measurement

C.

W,

Powers

C.

B.

Robinson

Government Aircraft

l, Work

Contracts

Service

226-00

428

225-00

715

B21-20

453

423-00

60_

I10-10

Parts

KM

ll3-00

891 588

*oo41L.t. •*,l

l PROGRAM

MANUAL

Name

"

Department Cost

or

_

12"A")

Function

Accounting

Mail

Zone.

19]-10

z 'lag' o_ 10=_ z l

Extension

J.

A.

Sanderson

J.

F.

Snyder

Engineering

52b-20

14i_

L.

C.

Stuckey

Reliability Control. Progran_s

Aircraft

149-01

646

C,

Waliman

Reliability Programs

Aircraft

149-01

1254

3.

W. Woodhouse

Manufacturing

Administration

Control.

Development

491-20

All above-Ueted telephone extemtions prefixed by Kearny Mesa Plant extensions; those not identified prefix are Lindbergh Field Plant extensions.

KM

KM

lZgl

806

KM are by a

C,_06Z-|4

Figure 2-4

2-3.

Key Departmental

Contacts

Having

the Program

Manager

report

directly

to Convair's

President

proved

very

valuable in ensuring proper support and cooperation from all Convair elements. Participation in staff meetings (Figure 2-4) ensured that the President and his staff were fully cognizant of the program status and any problems. PROJECT

INTEGRATION

At the inception of the program, it was recognized that the type of project organization which had been established gave an excellent opportunity and means to employ the techniques that establish and maintain a team spirit, invaluable in accomplishing an efficient and tightly scheduled task. Some of the techniques used were: Physically locating the engineering and directly supporting personnel area to assure that they "knew each other" and could "talk to each other" see Figure 2-5.

in a common efficiently;

Establishing a Program Manual (Figure 2-3 is a sample page) that collected all pertinent organizational and procedural data directly applicable to the project. The preparation and distribution of this manual ensured that each organizational element understood their job definition, their responsibilities, their relation to the other organizational elements, and the procedures that affected their activity. Establishing a Project Memorandum procedure to document all important personal and telephone discussions with NASA personnel and major vendors, meetings, trips, test results and other type of information of general interest. These memorandums or "PM's" were distributed to all project personnel concerned, immediately after preparation, to ensure that they were kept up to date on project changes or status. Copies were also sent to key NASA/MSC personnel and to the BuWeps' personnel representing NASA/MSC, to confirm the telephone discussions and meetings results and to give personnel a comprehensive and "instant" visibility of the program. Scheduling Staff meetings twice a week in the early phase of the program to ensure rapid recognition and solution of problems and dissemination of pertinent information to the key personnel. After completion of the development phase of the project, these meetings were reduced to one a week. Providing all project personnel an opportunity to view films of vehicle and to hear the results of their efforts as demonstrated in the flights.

launches

Issuing Design Information Bulletins (DIB's) to establish and ensure comprehensive knowledge of all important design parameters. These DIB's were a short form of system and subsystem specifications which, because of their brevity and method of preparation, ensured that project personnel concerned were aware of important limitations and parameters that might otherwise be "buried" and unrecognized in a more detailed specification. Taking special steps which would allow project personnel to identify themselves with the project and as part of the team. The most successful one was the use of a special identification badge. An example of this is a publicity photograph as shown in Figure 2-6. 2-5

C-6002-15

Figure

2-4.

President

Staff Meeting

C-6062-16

Figure 2-6

2-5.

Little

Joe IT Engineering

Area

C-_062-17

Figure

2-6.

Project

Identification

Badge

Holding an open house upon completing the first vehicle to give project personnel a chance to show the results of their efforts to families and friends. See Figure 2-7. Recognizing individual Convair newspaper. PROJECT

efforts

of project

personnel

by providing

publicity

in the

DESIGN

The project design and operating philosophy was established early in the program. In summary and in the order of importance, it was- necessary that all aspects of the vehicle, launcher, etc., be sufficiently reliable that the accomplishment of a test mission be practically guaranteed; required that the vehicle and launcher be reliable and yet be available in time to accomplish the missions in accordance with NASA program schedules; recognized that costs were obviously always important but, for this project, that it was more important that the vehicle be inherently reliable, on schedule, and of a reasonable weight. B.

NASA MANAGEMENT/INTERFACE GENERAL

The NASA management of the Little Joe II Program consisted of the usual government-contractor interface of contracting officer and technical monitors. The personnel assigned to these responsibilities during the span of the program, and their 2-7

L_ I OD

direct support, are shown in Figure 2-8. The contracting officer, resentative of the Government, directed all changes in the contract defined and developed.

as the official repas the program was

The initial phase of the Little Joe H program was monitored by a NASA/MSC Project Officer, who was the focal point of contact with the contractor and was responsible for both technical and program control functions. In April 1964 these functions were divided, with the program control function remaining under the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (Project Officer) and technical direction assigned (outside the ASPO) to the Technical Manager. INTERFACE

TECHNIQUES

Immediately upon the task award, mutual steps were taken by NASA/MSC and Convair to establish and ensure a clear interface and efficient channel of communication between the NASA Program Manager, Project Office, Test Office, and the Convair counterparts. This was necessary to keep costs at a minimum and efficiently coordinate changes in task or philosophy as they occurred. These interface techniques included: 1) frequent, almost daily, telephone contact and periodic meetings which were documented by the previously described PM's to ensure proper understanding of directions. Based on these documented discussions and directions, Convair was able to immediately respond to and plan NASA-directed changes in advance of formal project office or contractual notification. Changes in philosophy or design approach found necessary during design development were communicated to the NASA in the same manner so that work could proceed, with mutual agreement, in the new direction; 2) frequent formal and informal design reviews at Convair and at NASA/MSC (Figure 2-9), beginning in July 1962 and continuing through the remainder of the program. Development Engineeering Inspections (DEI's} were conducted for each launch vehicle. The DEI's were held at the completion of manufacture to determine that the product, including GSE, met the design requirement necessary to accomplish the mission objectives; 3) special effort in identifying changes which were individually authorized by NASA Contract Change Authorization (CCA). These changes were defined in detail, cost-estimated, and rapidly submitted to NASA as Contract Change Proposals (CCP). All substantiation data requested by NASA to assist in fact-finding were readily supplied, and the changes were negotiated and incorporated into the Contract and Work Statement in convenient packages. Treating the changes in this manner allowed easier understanding by NASA of the change definition and the breakdown of the costs, and provided good control of the costs; and 4) emphasis on the importance of the interface between the Convair and NASA launch operations crews, sInce successful launch activity depended on good coordination and cooperation. These teams were encouraged to work together and solve mutual problems in a relatively independent manner but, at the same time, ensure that the "home office" was kept fully informed of status and action and of any necessity for top level direction or agreement. NASA and Convair engineering and reliability personnel were encouraged to work together to the limit of their defined authority to solve common problems. Their discussions and agreements were documented by PM's to ensure that all key Project Personnel, including Project Management, were kept informed of such discussion. 2-9

DATE

CONTRACTING OFFICER

PROJECT OFFICER

TECHNICAL MANAGER

MAY 1962

G.J.

STROOP

W.W.

PETYNIA

AUGUST 1962

G.J.

MEHAILESCU

W.W.

PETYNIA

APRIL 1964

G.J.

MEHAILESCU

R.G.

JUNE 1964

G.J. MEHAILESCU

FEBRUARY 1965

N.J.

AUGUST 1965

N.J.

BROCK

M.A.

SILVEIRA

M. E. DELL

M.A.

SILVEIRA

BEAUREGARD

M. E. DELL

M.A.

SILVEIRA

BEAUREGARD

M.E.

DELL

PROGRAM MANAGER

M.A.

SlLVEIRA C-6062-19

Figure

2-8.

NASA

Organizational

History

C-b062-20

Figure 2-10

2-9.

NASA/Convair

Design

Review

Although it was originally planned by MSC to locatea NASA resident representative at the Contractor's facility, it was decided that the resident BuWeps representatives at Convair could adequately represent NASA's interests in engineering, quality control, contracts and procurement. Due to a well-established, working relationship between BuWeps and Convair, this method of supporting NASA's interests was very successful. A form

of interface

document

called

the Open Action

Log was established

early

in

the program to identify topics which required action and solution between NASA and Convair. The Open Action Log was periodically revised to document intermediate action taken during the problem solution or to define how and when the solution was achieved; ensured that both parties remained cognizant of the item and the action requirement incumbent upon them, and historically documented the steps taken in solution of the problem. C.

ENGINEERING GENERAL

The basic designphilosophyfor the LittleJoe IIemphasized simplicityand reliability.The objectiveswere readilyachieved, sincespace and weight requirements were not critical.The LittleJoe IIengineeringactivityencompassed allengineering phases from design concept and systems integrationthrough detailedcomponent checkout and installation liaison;see Figure 2-10. The various disciplineswere assembled intoone projectarea to facilitate coordinationand communication. DRAWINGS

AND

SPECIFICATIONS

Drawings and specifications produced in accord with Convair's commercial practice were entirely adequate for procurement-of-fabrication purposes and less costly than specifications prepared to formal military requirements. Manufacturing required only composite mechanical detail and installation drawings, along with wire data tables. In-line schematics facilitated testing and operations; harness diagrams and isometric layouts were not used. Installation and routing of wiring harnesses were accomplished in the factory by experienced technicians guided by engineering liaison and a general installation specification. Documentation of completed installations is covered by photographs (see Figure 2-17 for sample). Initially, wires had end identification only but stamped identification repeated along the wire length was subsequently added at the at the request of NASA. SYSTEM

DESIGN

Mission Parameters -- Required flight parameters by NASA/MSC, and modified by hardware limitations system design. Flight Environments environmental parameters launch or actual mission

for each mission were created to produce the specifications for

-- The vehicle systems were designed to the most severe that could be logically identified regardless of the time of parameters. The initial environmental parameters were 2-11

b,3 I I--, t_

OFFICE

_

PROJECTINTEGRATION

SYSTEMS INTEGRATION _

;

TECHNICAL

CUSTOMERLIAISON INTERFACE COORD.

PROJECT> STAFF

--

--

LAYOUT DRAFT CHECK

SYSTEM

'

/ i

VENDORLIAISON ABM FTI TEST SUPPORT

ATT. CONT. ELECTRICAL IGNITION DESIGN LANDINGSLAuNCHER RANGESAFETY RF COMMAND INSTRU. T/M STRUCT. MECH. GSE

i

m .=

COMPONENTS INSTLDRAFTENGR. CHECK FACILITY LIAISON PROCEDURES(OCP) TEST AID ENGR. FTI INTERFACESPECS

!

:l =

!

.I _ .=

In I

? =' ==

m ,i i

CHECKOUT- FACTORY FIELD DOCUMENTSUPPORT VEHICLEDESC. TEST PLAN HDWELIST _7 = OFF-BOARD

I I

i

•, , i I I I I

I

I

a, =,, , =

RECOVERYIDENTo TESTING SUBSYSTEM

I i III

QUAL.

=.

I

"

•

i

i

C-6062-21

Figure

2-10.

Design

Engineering

Scope

(Typical)

- Little

Joe

II

established at the start lists the design criteria

of the program, for environment.

using

MIL-STD-810

as a guide.

D.I.B.-12-015

System Requirements -- Requirements were carefully reviewed for each mission to ensure maximum performance with minimum hardware. For example, instrumentation was limited to those functions which would enable performance evaluation for a particular mission; that is, there was no "standard package" to be used for all missions. Similarly, all other systems were designed to exact mission requirements. Each launch vehicle, therefore, had a different configuration. Standard approved parts were used wherever possible, thus holding special development to a minimum. The launch vehicle afterbody, for example, accepted either fixed fins or controllable fins. Likewise, ground control and monitoring were interfaced to the vehicle via from two to seven standard umbilical connectors. System Concepts -- The initial system concepts were provided by Convair and were based on simplicity of design and off-the-shelf components to ensure the required reliability. As mission planning progressed, it became evident that launch vehicle reliability must approach spacecraft reliability to ensure recovery of the payload. All system concepts were therefore reevaluated by NASA and the basic nature of the systems was redefined. The type of control required and the kind of systems used is shown in the following list: System

System Single

Ignition

-

Attitude

Control

Type Dual

Timing

Control Preflight Activation

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

-

X

-

X*

Command

Electrical

X**

Radar

X

-

X

-

Range Safety

X**

-

-

X

RF Command

-

X

-

-

X

Instrumentation

X* **

-

-

-

X

Beacon

* Contains ** Contains

Single

some some

systems

-

Method Sensing

X

-

redundant circuitry dual circuitry

were those

containing

the minimum

number

of components

re-

quired to perform the function. Single systems were used: 1) where ground control enabled a countdown hold in the event of malfunction; for example, the launcher control systems or, 2) provide secondary functions during flight; for example, the 2-13

instrumentation system or, 3) where complexity of design and cost for implementation of other concepts was not advisable; for example, the attitude control system. Dual Systems, comprised of two identical single systems which performed the same function, were used to ensure flight functioning. These systems (for example, the RF command system) were so designed that no single failure would prevent functioning or cause nonscheduled functioning. Redundant systems are combinations of a prime system and secondary system; the secondary system provides control if the prime system does not function. No redundant systems were installed in the launch vehicle, although specific circuits, such as thrust termination and delayed pitch programmer start employed redundancy to ensure success. The structural concept of the vehicle was unique in that the vehicle skin was formed from the dies used for commercial roofing. The vehicle skin material was 24ST aluminum alloy and the fact that it was corrugated allowed the outer shell to serve as a closing skin as well as a stringer combination when used with the ring frames. Conservatively heavy gauge skins were used in the design of the vehicle structure, as weight was not of prime importance. Primary structural connections not permit the use of forging dies.

were

"hog-outs"

from billet

stock

as quantity

did

COMPONENTS Selection in a system.

-- Each required component was carefully Selection steps were as follows:

selected

and screened

for use

- Design function. - Environment characteristics. - Life expectancy. - Failure rate. Test -- Individual components were functionally tested to design parameters prior to installation in the vehicle system. Component testing was expanded in midprogram to include limited environmental tests (see Reliability Philosophy in this section, and Section 5A in Volume I1) in an effort to eliminate manufacturing defects. These limited environmental tests included temperature, vibration and altitude. Late in the program component burn-in after installation was initiated on selected parts to further reduce the failure rate. INSTALLATIONS Configuration -- Installations were carefully planned to allow a broad spectrum of vehicle systems to be installed as required by each mission. The initial layout provided for maximum component density in the equipment section. For individual missions, installations were deleted or added as required; see Figure 2-11. Vibration testing was performed on typical installations. Each installation was approved by 2-14

34

FIN III 9 55

9 I0

29 18 17

12

40 30

38

5 37

28

41 _6

41

.59 23

32 51 -

2

3c 2

7 FIN IV

0

0

FIN II

11 15

41

27--

28 3

O 10 1 22 6

_., "5/" /--

34

_ X

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13

SUPPORT HOOKS (REF) BATTERY INSTALLATICN - RF COMMAND SYSTEM ANTENNA I_ISTALLATICN- RF COMMAND SYSTEM RECEIVER INSTALLATION - RF COMMANDSYSTEM COUPLER INSTALLATION - ANTENNA RF COMMANDSYSTEM SAFEAND ARMINSTALLATION - RF COMMANDSYSTEM BOXINSTALLATION- RELAY ABORT AND DESTRUCT POWERCHANGEOVERSWITCH INSTALLATION - VEHICLE BATTERY INSTALLATICN- VEHICLE ELECTRICAL DIODE INSTALLATION - VEHICLE, ATTITUDE CONTROL TERMINAL ,BOARD INSTALLATION - VEHICLE, ELECTRICAL COVER INSTALLATION - VEHICLE UMBILICAL TERMINAL BOARD INSTALLATION - RF COMMAND SYSTEM

14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 25

RATE GYROINSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL INVERTER INSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL GYROINSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL TIMER INSTALLATION - IGNITICN, ATTITUDE CONTROL BOX INSTALLATION - IGNITION CONTROL CONTROL UNIT INSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL BOX INSTALLATION - RELAY, GYROCONTROL BOX INSTALLATION - PITCH-UP ATTITUDE CONTROL FILTER INSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEM BOX INSTALLATICN - RELAY PITCH PROGRAMMERCCNTROL

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 54 35 56 37 38 39 40 41 42

SIGNAL CONDITIONINGBOX INSTALLATION - INSTRUMENT SYSTEM SENSORAND RELAY BOX INSTALLATION - ELECTRICAL CONTROLBOX INSTALLATION - TIMER, IGNITION RELAY INSTALLATION - INVERTER CONTROL SHUNT INSTALLATION - BATTERY, ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE INSTALLATION - SHORTING, IGNITION PITCH PROGRAMMERINSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEM BOX INSTALLATICN - AMPLIFIER INSTRUMENT SYSTEM BOX INSTALLATION - RELAY, BATTERY, RF COMMAND SYSTEM TELEMETRY INSTALLATION - VEHICLE, RF-1 ANTENNA INSTALLATICN - WSMR DESTRUCT SYSTEM COUPLER INSTALLATION - ANTENNA, WSMR DESTRUCT SYSTEM MODULE INSTALLATICN -WSMR DESTRUCT SYSTEM LANYARD INSTALLATION - S AND A, WSMR DESTRUCT SYSTEM COUPLER INSTALLATICN - ANTENNA T/M, ATTITUDE CONTROL ANTENNA INS_ALLATICN - T/M, ATTllUDE CONTROL TRANSDUCEPINSTALLATION - PITCH pHI:CRAMMER ACCELERCMETER INSTALLATION - INSTRUMENT UPPER AND LOWERBODY RELAY INSTALLATION - INSTRUMENT SYSTEM

8 14/."

4

13

FIN I

18 17

29

9

-(

c-_eoz-22

v

Fi&,ure

2-11.

Equipment

Installation

Layout

(Vehicle

Station

34.75)

2-15

Dynamics margin.

as well as stress

Control

Assemblies

personnel

-- Standard

to ensure

welded

boxes

an adequate

were

environmental

fabricated

blies. The boxes matched structural corrugations when mounted zontally. Redundant relays in any given assembly were oriented to minimize failures due to common vibration modes.

for control

design

assem-

vertically or horinormal to one another

Support Equipment -- Ground support equipment and facility were designed to accommodate system changes and additions. Facility junction boxes were provided initially with 25% spare capability. Provisions were made in consoles and equipment racks for added circuit distribution. Nearly all GSE was portable to enable use at several sites. Support Equipment costs were significantly reduced by the use of blanket specifications for given classes of equipment; refer to Volume H, Major GSE, for details. D.

LAUNCH

OPERAT_NS

In Convair's experience, Launch Operations has proven to demand crew adaptability, versatility and quick response to the pressures occasioned by prelaunch and countdown procedures. With this background Convair organized their off-site operations in a pattern capable of responding rapidly and efficiently to last minute changes. Flexibility and versatility were the governing factors in establishing the operational procedures and in selecting personnel. Original planning was based on the schedule in the RFP. It was anticipated that the field assembly and checkout of a vehicle would require approximately one month and that launching would be at the close intervals indicated; therefore the launch operations crew would be used for vehicle factory checkout, thereby eliminating dual crews and dual learning curves. This procedure permitted the earliest possible crew familiarization with the vehicle and benefited the program by allowing quick response to field type changes. The launcher

installation

was the first

scheduled

task

at WSMR.

Since this one-

time task overlapped the factory checkout of the first vehicle, a special team comprised of personnel involved in the trial launcher assembly at the factory was used so as not to interrupt the launch vehicle team. The resident off-site staff was initially organized as primarily an administrative and material group to support the temporary crews. As the program developed, the amount of test site work between lannchings increased, primarily due to configuration changes and added tasks. As this was recognized, the support and quality control supervisors, along with a small crew, were established as resident employees at WSMR. Later, two engineers were added to this crew. During the last year, a resident crew of 25 was used for administration, material and quality control, facility refurbishment, modification and telemetry station operation and maintenance.

2-17

Early in the program considerable differences existed between factory and field checkout procedures, due primarily to the significant differences in the configuration of the factory and field test facilities. This meant that field operations were undertaken with essentially "unproofed" procedures. An excessive amount of procedure revision had to be accomplished in the field - a significant unplanned task and a threat to work schedules. Starting with the third launch vehicle, relief from this situation was effected wiring, facilities. cedure Testing factory, RCS}. field.

by modification of the factory test facility with respect to configuration of test consoles_ power supplies, recorders, etc., to closely simulate the WSMR Additionally, the Apollo Procedure standard format was adopted for propreparation. Concurrently, NASA introduced the Predelivery Acceptance (PAT) plan, which called for realistic trial conduction and proofing, at the of the field procedures (less those involving the payload, ordnance, and the This resulted in a significant improvement in future checkout operations in the

Generally, the Launch Operations philosophy established at the start of the program remained valid. It was sufficiently flexible to cope with schedule changes and the extended test operations period. The unforeseen task of considerable facility maintenance and modification between launchings and the requirement for more comprehensive component testing was accommodated. The methods of operation readily accepted new tasks such as the Control System Test Facility (CSTF) operation and the manning of the NASA telemetry station. In all aspects Operations test range E.

of this work,

personnel, organization.

close

and through

coordination

them

was maintained

with the other

program

with NASA Field contractors

and the

TOOLING

The tooling philosophy covering the general tool design and tooling manufacturing policy was based on limited production requirements (maximum of 14 vehicles} and rapid incorporation of engineering changes. The planning and tooling approach was guided by achievement of production schedules through minimum planning and tooling; it made use of worker skills rather than depending on a completely tooled production program. The basic objectives of producibility and value control were implemented by tooling functions to assure practical and economical product manufacture. Detail fabrication of sheet metal and machine parts was accomplished with standard equipment and standard tools in most instances. Mandatory tools were furnished as necessary for forming operations. Machine parts in the fin attachment areas were adequately tooled to make fin attach points interchangeable. Subassembly tools were provided where dictated by complexity and tolerance requirements (spars, frames and bulkheads), and were fabricated in the most economical method; see Figure 2-12. .Assembly tools provided means for positioning and clamping. The fin assembly fixture, built in the vertical position, was used for positioning pre-assembled spars,

2-18

C,-bOb2-23

Figure

2-12.

skin panels and barrel attach located from clips previously

Bulkhead

fittings. riveted

Station

34.75

Assembly

Fixture

Ribs to which the skin was attached were to the spar assemblies; see Figure 2-13.

The barrel assembly fixtures were built in the vertical position with provisions for positioning pre-assembled frames, rings, bulkheads, skin sections, fittings, etc. ; see Figures 2-14 and 2-15. A control tool established vehicle-to-launcher orientation points to ensure interchangeability. Optical measuring instruments were used extensively throughout both the tooling and production programs to establish and maintain maximum efficiency of dimensional control. The design and limited required quantity of the launcher and other ground support equipment was planned and accomplished without the need for fabrication or assembly tooling. F.

MANUFACTURING The manufacturing

philosophy

was,

in many

aspects,

paced

by the engineering

philosophy and the resultant tooling philosophy; that is, simplified design required minimum tooling, which in turn permitted the use of simplified manufacturing techniques. Conversely, minimum tooling and planning necessitated the use of highly skilled workmen with multiple abilities. Thus, a high degree of work force versatility was achieved, resulting in a maximum manhour usage rate. 2-19

I

0

Cjo062-25

Figure

2-14.

Assembling

Afterbody

Fixture

After

Loading

With

Parts 2-21

Manufacturing activity and parts stores were located in the Convair Experimental Production area to provide central control. This area also gave more ready access highly skilled workmen and previously developed, simplified procedures and techniques. Figure 2-16 illustrates the production area.

to

The philosophy of mock-up in the production units was employed in the manufacture of hydraulic and electric systems. Satisfactory hydraulic clean room techniques were achieved by using low-cost portable clean rooms and by remodeling permanent facilities. Production hydraulic systems were manufactured from the first-article mock-up. Electrical and installation systems were fabricated and assembled in modular installations and bench checked, using breadboards wherever possible, prior to installation in the vehicle. The area-to-area wire routing in the vehicle was determined and reviewed by Shop, Engineering, and Reliability and Quality Control (Inspection} to determine the best routing and clipping. Documentation of the final configuration was covered in photos similar to that shown in Figure 2-17. The factory checkout arrangement was set up to represent field conditions as nearly as possible. Launcher 12-60-2 and a simulated blockhouse (referred to as "Little WSMR") similar to the installation at Complex 36 at WSMR, was located immediately adjacent to the Experimental Department. The installation was used not only to accomplish checkout of the vehicle but also to proof the checkout procedure; see Figure 2-18. G.

PROCUREMENT

Material Department support of the Little Joe II program was accomplished with existing department personnel and basic functional units. The program was managed on a project basis; specific individuals within each section were assigned to control and monitor the program and worked under the coordination of the staff specialist assigned to the Program Manager. Emphasis was on the use of streamlined systems and procedures in a projectized approach without duplication of existing operations. Material release was accomplished at the on-board level, using an Advance Bill of Material (ABM). Vendor data and spares, wherever possible within contract authority, were released concurrently with production requirements and all releases were expedited to the Purchasing Department for immediate procurement action. Complete forecast and purchase parts cost control records were maintained at the on-board level. Weekly and monthly contract status reports were produced for monitoring on-hand and on-order balances in terms of quantity and dollars and the monthly contract status reports were maintained as a permanent historical data file. All requirements were parts listed and submitted to the 705 computer facility, and the material release analyst maintained manual records of requirements and inventory transactions of all highcost items. Monthly sampling audits of all inventory group areas, including stockroom

2-23

C-6062-27

Figure

2-16.

Experimental

Production

Area

C-6062-28

Figure 2-24

2-17.

Typical

Photo

Documenting

Final

Configuration

of Harness

Routing

C-6062-29

Figure

2-18.

Interior

of "Little

control, were conducted. Stores requisitions parts were prepared manually. Aecountability with contract requirements.

WSMR"

Checkout

Facility

for outside purchases and subcontract records were maintained in accordance

Procurement was accomplished within the existing Purchasing Commodity Groups. However, specific coordinators were appointed in the Raw Material, Systems, and Subcontract groups to monitor the procurement activity and assure action compatible with program requirements. SUBCONTRACTOR

RELATIONS

Vendor Selection -- Only vendors qualified and approved in accordance with NASA requirements were invited to participate in the NASA Little Joe II Program, (reference NASA Quality Publications NPC 200-2, NPC 200-3). Contract awards were made in accordance with good purchasing procedures and Convair standard practices, approved by NASA. Procurement Committee meetings consisting of Purchasing, Engineering, Reliability, and NASA (as required) were held prior to selection of suppliers on major procurement/subcontract items. Type of Contract -- All Purchase Orders were placed on a firm fixed-price basis except the Walter Kidde reaction control system, a development item, which was a CPIF contract.

2-25

Vendor performance:

Control

-- The following

- PERT Charts, Walter Kidde, GANTT Charts - Field Service Surveillance. - Reliability Requirements were involved. - Engineering - Buyer's

assist

Check,

were used

both telephone

to ensure

on-schedule

Monthly

and Checks.

in technical

as tools

Source

Inspection

where

special

processes

areas. and on the spot.

Overall vendor performance on the Little Joe II Program was good, and supported program schedules. There were some serious problem items but these were solved by a team effort of NASA, Convair and the vendor. By close vendor coordination and symposiums at Convair and at the supplier's facility, the vendors were made to feel that they were part of a team and that they shared in the successful launches. One of the most important steps in achieving a team effort was accomplished meeting held in the Convair Engineering Auditorium with NASA and all suppliers to attend. This included a showing of the successful launch of Vehicle 12-51-1.

by a able Most

of the suppliers expressed high appreciation of this effort. Geographical distribution of vendor within the United States that participated in the Little Joe II program is shown in Figure 2-19. Vendor Cost Control -- A Material Purchased Parts Cost Control Record was initiated to maintain cost control. This record carried a breakdown of the material estimate from the Engineering floor to the Purchasing bogie, not only for procurement, but for Engineering in the estimate, corrective action was taken. H.

SPARES

Department and provided a as well. If costs exceeded those

AND GROUND SUPPORT

The Spares and Ground Support Equipment (GSE) philosophy was based upon simplicity of design and minimum spares consistent with effective program support. Initially, thirty-one spare parts and six ground support items were identified for the fixed-fin vehicle. During the program, however, the complexity of the vehicle systems increased and, as a result, the number of items increased until, at the end of the program, 577 items of vehicle and launcher spares and 530 items of GSE and spares were identified, excluding OCP or government-furnished test tools. Documentation Plan, GD/C 62-02.

of the Logistics Support approach was presented in the Support By approval of the plan, NASA/MSC allowed the contractor to

identify and procure needed low-dollar sultant delay) of a provisioning board.

spares and GSE without the formality (and reThe items were listed in the Hardware List

GD/C-62-170. tract Change

costs were collected and submitted by ConHigh-dollar or very special items were

2-26

Periodically, associated Proposal for negotiation.

LEGEND NASA/MSC HOUSTON NASA/WSTF [] •

GD/CONVAIR VENDORS

C-6062-30

Figure

2-19.

Geographical

Distribution

of Vendors

Within

the United

States 2-27

discussed with NASA and agreement for use obtained before procurement or design action was initiated. Status of needed support material was reported in the Hardware Utilization

List,

which was developed

prior

to each scheduled

launch.

Because of the increase in the number of required parts, several areas required special effort to assure adequate, timely support. For both price and schedule considerations, all requirements (test, production, spares} were ordered concurrently. Deliveries for significant or costly components were timed to ensure support of the factory assembly/checkout operations as well as test site usage. In addition to the normal spare parts and GSE was the sizable number of required small parts - bulk items and consumable materials. Because individually each was inexpensive, and normal methods of ordering and documenting would have been disproportionate to item costs, the initial site quantities were determined and procured. Adjustments and additions were made as necessary during the program. NASA required preparation of a Performance and Interface Specification and an acceptance document such as an Operational Checkout Procedure for each item of GSE. It was soon realized that the cost of the associated nonrecurring documentation frequently exceeded the actual cost of the single article needed. As a result, different identification and procurement procedures were used for off-the-shelf items, low cost articles and tools supporting system checkouts. Commercially available units were ordered only after efforts had been made to obtain them from NASA. Many of the lowdollar checkout tools were developed from simple sketches using materials already available. Other, somewhat more complicated nonstandard GSE portable test equipment was covered under a blanket interface and performance specification. In addition to the range of items furnished for the field, a few unique items were also manufactured for factory use in vehicle handling and checkout. I.

PROGRAM

C ONTROL

Strong program control was recognized as essential to meet the program schedule and cost requirements. This involved long range planning as well as detail follow-up of drawings, changes, procurement and subcontract, interface requirements and task accomplishment; see Figure 2-20. Milestone charts (Figure 3-1 in Section 3) were established and maintained in accordance with contractual and interface requirements and were the basis for overall long range planning. PERT networks were developed at a level suitable for monitoring the major program milestones and integration of tasks within Convair and NAA in accordance with the NASA PERT Handbook. The PERT system was supplemented by a Convairdeveloped task control technique known as PRESTO (Program Review and Statusing Operation), which provided timely schedule control at a detail design level for all departments involved. This system generated computer tab listings for monitoring the "footstones" and was directly oriented with the PERT milestones. During the 2-28

C.-b002=31

Figure

2-20.

Master

Schedule

Review

development and operation of the PERT system, some refinements were made by NASA and Convair to the Lockheed 7090 computer program then in use. Improvements to network and computer format concepts were proofed at Convair, recommended to NASA and ultimately used by the NASA Program Analysis and Evaluation Office in developing the new NASA/PERT and Companion Cost System. Convair changed to this system in October 1963. Early in the program, detailed Gantt (Bar) type schedules for first articles (vehicle and launcher) were established and maintained in conjunction with the PERT/ PRESTO system. Standard Gantt-type schedules were used throughout the program for coordination between departments, and to document progress. These internal program schedules included such tasks as testing, changes and proposals and were also used for cost control and estimating purposes. Cost accumulation and manpower usage charts (Figures 4-1 and 4-2 in Section maintained monthly for the major phases of the program, depicted material dollars expended and man-hours expenditure versus planned manhours. Task control and Gantt schedules were used as aids for relating cost to schedule and were used in conjunction with the monthly Financial Management Report (Form 533).

4),

At the request of NASA, additional program control functions were established at WSMR and proved highly effective for management. A Program Control Analyst was assigned to the operations team to implement these controls and coordinate all 2-29

activity with San Diego. accomplished as follows

These controls were mission-oriented (see Figure 2-21 for examples):

PERT -- The first three controlled by PERT networks PERT networks, was discontinued Operations

missions, developed

Vehicles in great

by vehicle

12-50-1, 12-50-2, and 12-51-1, detail. PRESTO was not used.

used as a basis for preparation of Gantt type operations by contract for the final two missions, Vehicle 12-51-2 Schedules

-- These

schedules

and were

depicted

on standard

were The

schedules, and 12-51-3.

calendar

format

all

tasks to be accomplished for the period between launches. The tasks included facility refurbishment, modification and checkout, and vehicle buildup, checkout and launch. A summary plan was issued to show overall mission milestones, and each phase of operation was broken down into separate detail schedules. When PERT was discontinued, some of the PERT concepts, specifically constraints, interdependencies and slack, were used in development of the Gantt schedules. Weekly Schedules and Daily Work Plans -- During each vehicle operation at WSMR, detailed schedules showing constraints and slack were issued weekly and encompassed the next two weeks of operations. These schedules, showing daily tasks, required NASA approval and took precedence over all other current schedules. A status meeting was held each day with NASA and Convair operations engineers to determine the operations for the following day. A daily work plan broken into two-hour increments was issued as a result of these meetings. The weekly schedules were discontinued at the start of integrated operations with the spacecraft and resumed again prior to next vehicle delivery. Management Briefings -- Briefing meetings were held periodically to discuss schedule status and open action and shortage items with NASA and Convair management. For this purpose, 30-inch x 40-inch display charts were maintained and minutes documented by Program Control. Weekly

review

meetings

were

conducted

with the program

management

staff

in

San Diego and periodic meetings were held with NASA at a frequency of approximately three weeks, to review overall cost and schedule performance. Although formal minutes for these meetings were not maintained, pertinent action items and management direction were documented by Project Memos. WSMR reports, transmitted daily to San Diego by teletype, served as a PERT update report as well as a general progress report to management. Weekly reports were also transmitted from WSMR and were forwarded to NASA/MSC. Beginning in September 1962, PERT update and analysis reports were submitted to NASA/MSC by teletype every two weeks. The update reports proved unsatisfactory due to lengthy preparation, processing and transmittal time; a data transceiver system installed in October. 1962 provided direct card-to-card transmittal by use of a dataphone. The data transceiver system substantially reduced overall transmittal and processing time and eliminated update errors experienced by the manual method. Convair was the first NASA/Apollo Program contractor to implement this system; see Figure 2-22. 2-30

i_ '

_4

Cjo062-33

Figure

2-22.

First PERT Information to NASA by Telephone

Transmitted

Directly

from

Convair

Copies of the PERT networks were maintained and updated at MSC and the resultant computer reports were distributed within the NASA management organization. Identical computer reports were processed at Convair, evaluated by Program Control, and recommendations were presented to the program management staff. Change Control -- Change control was employed by Convair to ensure orderly and expeditious handling of all changes to Engineering design, specifications, and program plans. Changes were evaluated by the System Integration Staff Member or his delegated alternate to confirm their desirability, necessity, and effect on the program, and to approve them for further action. A Convair Change Board which met once a week and was headed by the System Integration Staff Member processed the approved changes and was responsible for the origin and maintenance of change history records, coordination of all department activities toward the implementation of changes, and the establishment of change schedule and cost estimates. It was the responsibility of the Convair Change Board to report any problems in schedule, cost, etc., to the System Integration Staff Member for resolution. The Convair Change Board was comprised of representatives from Engineering, Material, Tooling, Program Control, Manufacturing Control, Factory, Spares, Contract Department, and ProgramManager's Staff, as required. Every attempt was made to keep Convair-originated changes to a minimum. Major program changes were approved by NASA, using a Contract Change Authorization (CCA).

2-33

The Systems Integration Staff Member maintained a Change Review Item (CRI) file. An individual folder was prepared for each change action being considered, was identified by a CRI number (e.g., CRI 121). The numbers were assigned in consecutive order. The CRI file folders contained all pertinent information and documentation of the change process, such as cost proposal outline or work statements, estimates, estimate back-up data, correspondence and project memos, work authorization forms, etc. Finally if a Contract Change Proposal (CCP) was submitted, copy of the CCP, with its letter of submittal and price breakdown, was placed in the file. A log of the CRI's was maintained by the Systems Integration Staff Member. Pertinent information was entered in the log form as evolution of the changes occurred in a typical manner as illustrated in the following: Status CRI NO. 377

CRI Orgn. Date 12-2065

CCP NO. 209

Title Manuf& test of lcgical & control

AUTHORIZATION

Open Closed

Orgu. and

Go

Contract Ltr. to

Cncld.

Ref.

Ahead

Agency

Closed

NASA

Yes

CCA 94

Cust. 110-7-66 -208 on 2-11-66

Sales

WAP

Effec-

Order

NO.

tlvity

Remarks

12-51-3 & -4

CCP Reqd. Submit with 366, 376, & 378.

566-1196

D354030

units

]

From a historicalviewpoint,some 380 CRPs were originated. Not allofthese were processed to a conclusionnor were allofthem requested by NASA. J.

DOCUMENTATION

The documentation philosophy was to provide complete and accurate documentation to NASA in accordance with the requirements and schedule set forth in the NASA Work Statement, GD/C-62-361. Initial documenation requirements were quite extensive and consisted of approximately 60 different types of data in the following eight major categories: -

Specifications. Program Plans and Reports. Progress and Status Reports. Nonscheduled Reports and Data. Data types

ranged

In June 1963,

from

NASA/MSC

one-time directed

-

Qualification Reports and Data Quality Control Reports. Drawings. Support Manuals.

requirements that

Convair

tion to other NASA agencies and Apollo contractors. mentation was forwarded to up to fifteen addressees 2-23 for sample list of addresses.

2-34

to weekly

submittals.

distribute

Little

Joe II documenta-

Under this arrangement, docuin addition to MSC. See Figure

In March 1965, direction was received from NASA significantly distribution of documents and deleting various previously-required Overall,

Convair

documentation format.

documentation

was considered

submittals

by NASA to be accurate

Appendix "A" is a list of documentation contractors during the Little Joe II Program. K.

INTERFACE

were

produced

99% within

reducing documents. schedule,

and complete

by Convair

extended

and the

in content

and its major

and

sub-

COORDINATION

Continuing coordination was required to establish compatible system interfaces during the development and flight operation phases of the project. A procedure was established to define the framework within which NASA/MSC, North American Aviation, Inc., - S&ID and Convair could coordinate and document all the interfaces. A similar procedure was also established for coordinating the interfaces with the contractors for rocket motors - Aerojet-General Corporation and the Thiokol Corporation. At the beginning of the program it was the MSC's goal to achieve interface coordiuaLioa through the use of an Interface Control Document (ICD), which was the instrument by which the physical, functional, operational, and environmental interfaces were defined. It recorded, by means of formal engineering data, the mutual agreements between two or more contractors so that compatibility between designs could be established. INTERFACE COORDINATION WITH NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, SPACE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION (NAA S&ID)

INC. , -

Initially, NAA, S&ID was assigned contractual responsibility for interface coordination. The first interface meetings were concerned with the interchange of technical data, coordination activities, procedural considerations, and finally, the format of the document(s) which would delineate interface control procedures. NASA/MSC chaired the initial meetings, the first of which was held 18 July 1962. During the period of time between the first meeting and the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding, coordination was conducted on an informal basis and recorded by Project Memos, meeting minutes, or suitable letters. After the initial coordination by NASA, interface control was handled almost exclusively by the contractors. A Memorandum of Understanding signed on 24 June 1963 established the framework for technical and management coordination between NAA (S&ID) and Convair. This memo was prepared in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Documentation Requirements of Contract NAS 9-150. The current issue of the Memo of Understanding, revised 21 February 1964, covers communications, coordination meetings, interface control, the Preparation Manual (Appendix A) and Detailed Interface Implementing Instructions (Appendix B). Appendix B prescribes the communication chain, formal correspondence, informal exchange of technical information, visits, agenda, minutes of meetings, action items, 2-35

2-36

2-37

ICD drawings, changes and authorized signatures. Most importantly, the document delineates the person-to-person contact for the various engineering disciplines and points of interface. Interface coordination with NAA (S&ID} resulted in the completion of four Interface Control Documents concerning the following missions: 1) Mission A-001, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-50-2 and Payload Boilerplate 12 (BP-12) Document Number MH01-04010-414 dated 17 March 1964, 2) Mission A-002, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-1 and BP-23 Document Number MH01-04012 dated 6 October 1964, 3) Mission A-003, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-2 and BP-22 Document Number MH01-04Q11-414 dated 30 March 1965, and 4) Mission A-004, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-3 Document Number MH01-04013-414 dated 6 August Interface coordination required thirty-eight the Memorandum of Understanding. Of special requiring resolution were defined and identified INTERFACE

COORDINATION

and Spacecraft 1965.

002 (SC-002)

formal meetings in accordance importance, items not resolved for further action.

WITH AEROJET-GENERAL

with or

CORPORATION

In the interface coordination meeting with Aerojet on 24 May 1962, it was agreed that an interface document should be prepared as soon as possible as a coordinated effort, with Aerojet having contractual responsibility for the ICD. A series of biweekly conferences between NASA/MSC, Aerojet and Convair was planned. The meetings were chaired by MSC and the minutes were the responsibility of the host contractor. During the course of these meetings, various problems were resolved relative to the technical material, requirement changes, design changes, data presentation and funding. Any exchange of technical data outside of the biweekly meetings was to be made with a simultaneous submittal to NASA/MSC. Interface Control Document and technical interchange meetings were held more often than biweekly at the start of the program; however, after the technical aspect of the program and the vehicle missions became established, the meetings became less frequent. In July 1963, a copy of Aerojet's Interface Control Document, Report No. 0667TICD-1 dated 1 July 1963, was received. Technical meetings and telephone conversations relative to particular technical problems continued successfully. Later in the program NASA/MSC asked if Convair could continue without updating the ICD, and proceed on the basis of Aerojet engineering drawings. Convair agreed that drawings could be used. INTERFACE

COORDINATION

WITH THIOKOL

The initial technical meeting with Thiokol was held at their plant on 9 July 1962. The basic technical problems relative to the use of Recruit rocket motors in the launch vehicle, and all aspects of motor performance and installation, were reviewed. In effect, this meeting started the interface coordination task.

2-38

From the inception of the Little Joe II program, there was no plan by NASA/MSC to formally establish a Thiokol interface control document similar to that for the Algol motor and for NAA, S&ID end items. Interface problems were resolved and technical coordination was accomplished by several visits to Thiokol and by telephone calls and correspondence. Use of the Recruit motors did not pose the performance and technical problems to the degree that was experienced with the Algol motors. Therefore, it was possible to accomplish the overall coordination task in a simple manner. Under similar circumstances, this type of approach is feasible and workable. L.

RELIABILITY

AND QUALITY

ASSURANCE

MANAGEMENT The original Reliability program was formulated using MIL-R-27542 (USAF) "Reliability Program for Systems, Subsystems, and Equipment" as a guide. The program was organized and implemented to ensure emphasis on reliability in all program phases. Highlights of the program included: 1) comprehensive design and change review, 2) participation in component selection and subcontractor sul_veillance, 3) participation in factory and field checkout, 4) extensive failure analyses and corrective action activities, 5) coordination of integrated test program, and 6) documentation and reporting of reliability activities. NASA/MSC reliability in the noted activities.

and quality

assurance

engineers

participated

with Convair

in January of 1964, Convair was directed to comply with NASA document NPC 250-1, "Reliability Program Provisions for Space System Contractors." The major additional activities resulting from implementing NPC 250-1 were: environmental acceptance testing of components, increased reliability surveillance of suppliers, and increased reporting requirements. The Quality Control Program was based on the NASA Quality Publication NPC 200 series specifications and the concepts which had proven successful on previous programs. This program encompassed, with few exceptions, all NASA requirements. Application of the Quality Control Program throughout the design, development, fabrication and operational stages ensured delivery to NASA of high quality, reliable launch vehicles and related support equipment. Control of the assembly and changes in an Operation denced by Inspection Stamps OIL.

of the vehicle was achieved by the listing of original tasks Inspection Log (OIL). Completion of each step was evion the Operations Controlled Parts List (OCPL) and the

Stringent cleanness controls were established for hydraulic systems. Incoming components were subjected to a contamination particle count prior to receiving inspection functional test. After component installation the system was again analyzed for

2-39

contamination. Original cleanness requirements were revised to more stringent levels following the Vehicle 12-51-2 incident. One of the changes in the procedure instituted at this time was the use of the Millipore bomb sampling technique for the hydraulic system. The soldering specification was also updated from MSFC-PROC a NASA requirement for improved quality and reliability.

158A to 158B,

as

DESIGN REVIEW More than 1000 drawings and drawing changes were reviewed by reliability and quality assurance engineers during the Little Joe II program. Each system design was analyzed and major design changes were reviewed. Formal design reviews were held and the meeting minutes were submitted to NASA. Test procedures and test reports were approved by reliability engineering. COMPONENT

SELECTION

Extensive use of the Interservice Data Exchange Program (IDEP) data files enabled the engineering group to select components which were previously qualified to the Little Joe II environments. All requests for procurement (more than 6,000) were initiated by design engineering and reviewed by reliability and quality control engineers. Reliability data required from suppliers included: 1) a history of component usage, 2) a reliability analysis and estimate, and 3) a failure mode and effect analysis. In the case of a major subcontractor such as the Walter Kidde Co., NPC 200-3 was applicable and a Reliability Program Plan, Quality Control Plan, etc., were required. A Convair inspector was stationed at Walter Kidde Co. for approximately four months during the production and test of this subsystem. TEST

PROGRAM

A reliability engineer was Test responsible for all test activities. provided program management with time assured that all reliability test tion on the test program is given in RELIABILITY

PARTICIPATION

Coordinator for the Little Joe II program and was The centralization of test activities (Figure 2-24) one primary source of information and at the same objectives were achieved. More detailed informaVolume II of this report. IN VEHICLE

CHECKOUT AND LAUNCH

Reliability and design engineers participated in vehicle and facility San Diego, WSMR, and in recovery team operations after each launch. discovered during system Report. Flight anomalies

and vehicle checkout were presented in a Reliability Summary were presented in a Post-Launch Reliability Summary.

All failures were reported to NASA within five days. Each failure investigated and analyzed to determine cause and appropriate corrective bility engineers contacted or visited suppliers as required in connection failures. 2-40

checkout at All anomalies

was thoroughly action. Reliawith component

PREDICTED

ENVIRONMENTAL

DATA

TEST ANALYSIS PROGRAM MANAGER

I DESIGN

TEST

GROUPS

REQUIREMENTS

TEST

QUALIFICATION

SUPPLIERS

REQUIREMENTS

QUALIFICATION

I

I

t

GROUPS

STATUS TEST LAN

TEST RESULTS

DATA

? O_ICY

UALIFICATION AND SUPPLIERS PURCHASE APPROVAL

t

TEST PLANS

IP II"

_i

FICATION

QUALITESTS

LABORATORIES

STATUS

I

COORDINATOR

i

STATUS AND PLANNING

SUPPLIERS

TESTS,

RESULTS

TEST --

QUALIFICATION RELIABILITY DATA

AND STATUS

I

I1_1 RELIABILITY

DEVELOPMENT

GROUP

_

PURCHASING

_

PREO,CTEO ENVIRONMENTAL OATA _ I

RELIABILITY

I

I

POLICY

TEST RESULTS

TECHNICAL

RESULTS

DATA

QUALIFICATION AND RELIABILITY REQ'TS.

TEST REQUIREMENTS

TEST PLANS TEST RESULTS

,NSPECT,ON ACCEPTANCE

TESTS

t PERT NETWORK

PROGRAM CONTROL

OPERATIONS ACCEPTANCE TESTS

TEST RESULTS TEST PLANS

i C-6062-35

I b-a

Figure

2-24.

Centralization

of Test

Activities

The amount of testing required for individual components was increased during the span of the Little Joe II program. Prior to the launch of Vehicle 12-51-1 Convair initiated an environmental acceptance (Limited Stress) test program on all functional components. The purpose of this program was to reject marginal parts and thereby increase confidence in vehicle system reliability. The environments selected included vibration (one-third qualification level), high temperature and low pressure, depending upon the type of component being tested. (Refer to Volume II for program results. ) Spare component burn-in was initiated prior to the launch of Vehicle 12-51-3. A review of failure records indicated that 75% of the components that failed had less than five hours of operation and 95% had less than 50 hours. The program's purpose was to ensure that critical components installed in the vehicle had accumulated at least 50 hours of operation. The implementation of this program would fail after only a few hours of operation. QUALITY

eliminated

components

which

CONTROL

Quality Control traceability activities consisted of a system of serial numbering and identification, plus controlled stocking which permitted tracing of all significant material and functional items from receipt through storage, fabrication, assembly and delivery. Raw material was traceable to the foundry. The final configuration of each launch vehicle and its conformance to released engineering drawings was assured through an audit of planning paper against blueprints prior to acceptance. Verification of launch vehicle configuration status was a prerequisite to Predelivery Acceptance Tests. All articles received were subjected to a thorough receiving tor source inspection was provided at the vendor's or supplier's inspection was not feasible.

inspection. Contracfacility when receiving

A narrative end-item report, prepared in accordance with NASA Quality Publication NPC 200-2 and NASA Statement of Work, GDC-62-361, was submitted for each end-item delivered under the contract. The first report for each launch vehicle was furnished to NASA concurrent with vehicle shipment from San Diego; the second report was furnished at the time of final NASA acceptance, and vehicle launch, at WSMR. The reports were compiled in narrative form with attachments as necessary, covering the periods from subassembly installation through final acceptance of each end-item. Classes

were

conducted

at Convair

and at Vendor's

employees were properly prepared to accomplish Convair was allocated in the following manner:

2-42

facilities,

the assigned

task.

to assure

that

This training

at

Nondestructive (includes Magnetic

Testing Radiographic, & Particle).

Penetrant,

Welding

hours

509 hours

Soldering X-Ray

1,174

and crimping

reading

Explosive

and interpretation

handling

Oil sampling

technique

5,710

hours

114 hours 45 hours 88 hours 7,460

hours

(total)

In the fields of nondestructive testing and soldering, the employee was tested to ensure that he could perform to specification requirements. Certificates were issued and maintained either through demonstration of quality or by refresher courses.

2-43

3

I SCHEDULE

SUMMARY

3

A.

SCHEDULE

SUMMARY

MILESTONES

The time-sequenced milestones shown An Figure 3-1 reflect major events of the total program, Sheets 1 and 2 portray completion events for contracts, engineering, tooling, production, material procurement, GSE, testing and documentation. These milestones correlate with the events of the PERT Networks and Gantt charts used for internal B.

schedule

control

CONTRACTUAL

and for

SCHEDULE

biweekly

reporting

to NASA.

CHANGES

Figure 3-2 shows the evolution of each vehicle's final delivery date. Changes to the contract through Contract Change Authority (CCA} and/or Contract Change Proposal (CCP) provided the accession of delivery dates. When a contract change specified only a launch date, the delivery date was automatically established as sixty days prior to the launch date. The chart illustrates NASA/MSC's original plan for a short, low-cost program versus the program span that eventually developed. The majority of the schedule dates incrementally directed or authorized by NASA/MSC were due to replanning of the NAA S&ID payload to be flown, or because of changes in MSC test requirements. In essence, Convair met all of the schedules for which At could be held solely responsible. The chart also emphasizes that a test program such as Little Joe II wherein the payload is contracted separately from the booster requires flexible and responsive planning. This was successfully achieved on this program by: 1) building basic vehicles early and holding them until payload and test requirements were defined, 2) emphasis on commonality between vehicles, 3} close coordination between contracto_ and customer, and 4) fast response to changes as they were identified.

3-1

! I'

D VEHICLES 2 LAUNCHERS

_

1962

--

1963

_:_t_'. olu'_".,,'/8'.g:: oS G0-AHEAO] CONTHACTNAS9-492

•

•(

LAUNCHER GROUNDSIIPPORTEQUIPMENT

++°+

FABRICATION ASSEMBLY MAJOR ITEM ASSEMBLY

_

I

OEL,VER'ES ON S'TE SUBSYSTEMS FF VEHICLE ENGINEERNG MATERIAL TOOLNG FACTORY

•

I

/

I

I

START / /I I(0 Start I / I qPCPll

FACTORY

IO •

SURT1 _ / | /

FABRCAT ON & ASSEMBLY FUNCTORALTEST

GROUNDSUPPORTEQUIPMENT ENGNEERINO MATERIAL FACTORY

I

l

/ l

FABRCATiON&ASSEMBLY I • FUNCTIONAL/ PROOFINGTEST

/

•lSt.

MATL.

I S#ARTI I I Am I 1

I

/

_I

I

I I I I

I

•LALLAVAIL M_. COUP. 2NOVEH,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

n9. ; I •N0. I I I I I I

l

I

I

eNG. z COMP

• COUPI

I I

/

I I

I NO2COMPJ 0-41 I I O-41

[l

1 I • LAST REL. I/ (_,--4NALL AVAIL. / ] I I t I ] I/ I IO_COMP. ] Fm I

I

I

•

/ 1

FACTORY FABRCATi6N MAJORITEM ASSEMBLY

I I

START • I

I •COMF.

I / /

!

1°1--I

STARTr'AB NO, 3-4•

START! J|l

/

•

IREACT. CONT.SYS. I •d -•C MP' MOCKUPAVAtL %•! )N ,10 o,2 STJPIT AUTOPILOTSYS,

n In

DOCUMENTATION - GENERAL

PROPULSIONSYSTEM(GFP] ALGOL

qJ

•

)•

LAUNCHOPERATIONS(BY MISSION TEST FACILITY OCCUPANCY

I

I I I l I _ ALL AVAIL, AUTOPILOTSYS. I I•COmF.I t I I ONDOCKS.D. I / I / t I I o---_ I I I 1 I _ I i I / I I I I •COUP. 1 I / COUP.I START•I I • COUP, IMAR. '64 I

I

LONGLEAD 2VEHICLES AATL, • iN _I_}GSE STAiT _

FABRICATION ASSEMBLY

START O--_

I

I

• O' •

NO. 1

I N0. 1

+u+

'

ALL SYSTEMSTEST /EVALUATION FLIGHTREPORT

0

SCHEDULE

•

ACTUAL

0'--"0

I

_

RE-SCHEDULE ACF

LATE TO SCHEDULE AHEADOF SCHEDULE

,ONO. 2

NO, 1

+

LEGEND

•

QTV

I +CNERCHECNOUT ,

FF RCS

ATTITUDECONTROLFIN RXED RN REACTIONCONTROLSYS C-6062-36-1

Figure

3-2

I I I

Ill

I I I I I

ACFVEHICLE TESTING GO-AHEAD ENGINEERING MATERIAL TAA.,m_ .vv_.._ SUBCONTRACT FACTORY

I I I

I /

( eEL. ZSTMATL, •OiLASTREL.

qwr-ot

I

11 eND. 21 I I / I I /

LASY_YO.I I' I I l1 l I

1ST eEL _ START [

TOOUNG SUBCONTRACT

I

I

I NO 2 SCHEMt ACTUALFEB 64

/

I _!

I

I

i

NO 1•

I •LAST ELECT. REL. I •ALL AVAIL.

///lll/lllll li:s+ eEL. I I

STAI •

I START •

I

I

-°+-""

t I I O-IICOMP. I I I I I I •couP, [NO.2 NO.31NO4 I _ Io"l--OI I el • I

I //I I //I LAST STRUCT. I

REL.I

•

++.'+_O.,._;CT •

luL'/

• l [

\•

NO.'.

I LAST TR START 1ST REL l REL NO Z I • • ,_ST l •I MFG COUP I eRA w )ISTOSP / 1STVEH. • I / •'-t--Ol•-"t-O I START I / / I

OPERATIONALCHECKOUT/FACTORYCOMPLETE [ / NTO STORAGE- SANDIEGO / / I / / LAUNCHER START I I ENGNEERING • •1ST RELol MATERIAL • 1ST MATL.

ATTITUDECONTROL BREADBOARD ENGINEERING MATERIAL

i+ot:°,,+_,'cT

DEFINITIVECONTRACT

3-1.

Milestone

Chart

(Sheet

1 of 2)

I

STATUS CUT-OFF DATE: DECEMBER31,

-

CCA NO. 18 TO CONTRACT • I

GO-AHEAD/CONT RACT NAS 9.-492

1965

CCA N _. 49 I [ q 0. i TO CONTRACT , | • CCA NO. 76 TO CONTRACT OCCA NO. 92 TO CONTRACT _ CCA NO, 57 TO CONTRACT • CCANO. 89 TO CONTRACT I I I I

CONTRACT I CLOSE-OUT

DELIVERIES ON SITE LAUNCHER

I AC G_E

GROUNDFF VEHIcLESUPPORT EQUIPMENT

N •)" 2! i

INTO STORAGE- SAN DIEGO

I• I NO. 1

NO. 3 t NO, 4 (m_

I'1

ACF VEHICLE GO-AHEAD

/

NO, 1 SCHEM.

MATERIAL

RCSNO. 1

FABRICATION

•

ASSEMBLY

,NIO,2

MAJOR ITEM ASSEMBLY OPERATIONAL CHECKOUT/

,0,.•

,N .

R( LNO.2_RC! NO. 3

NO

i

_0 3

.3

N, .4

SUBCONTRACT ,,)=.rill I " "'l FACTO N'''i'' |!roD. (NP*N)'2_11o) " NO.1 *NO.2 *N( . 4

FACTORY COMPLETE GROUNDSUPPORT EQUIPMENT

I •ENGR. COMP.

eCCA NO. 96

.,

NO, 2 SCHEM.

A LAVAI

TOOLING

0.3

_|I

I10o 2

;

NO. 3

NO. 3

•

C I •GSE

NI ;

,3.4

N

LAUNCHER CHECKOUT PROPULSION SYSTEM (GFP) ALGOL

NO

3

NO

ALL SYSTEMS T EST/EVALUATION FLIGHT REPORT

RECNUT

LAUNCH CONTRACT OPERATIONS CLOSE-OUT (BY MISSION)

LEGEND

%!

N 14

q _ i

_ _un _

_ i

....

_O"

0

SCHEDULE

•

ACTUAL LATE TO SCHEDULE

NOTE: ATTITUDE CONTROLVEHICLES 2, 3, 4, DESIGNATED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) ARE THE SCHEDULED OPERATIONAL CHECKOUT/FACTORY COMPLETE DATES PRIOR TO THE STORAGEPERIOD.

AHEAD OF SCHEDULE

SUBSEQUENTSCHEDULED DATE FOR THESE VEHICLES

RE-SCHEDULE

DESIGNATES OPERATIONAL CHECKOUT/FACTORY COMPLETE AFTER THE STORAGEPERIOD.

0_0 ACF FF RCS

_

--

D_

ATTITUDE CONTROL FIN FIXED FIN REACTION CONTROLSYS C-6062 -36-2

Figure

3-1.

Milestone

Chart (Sheet 2 of 2) 3-3

I

Figure 3-2.

Contractual

Vehicle Delivery Changes

4

FINANCIAL

SUMMARY

4

A.

ORIGINAL

]FINANCIAL

SUMMARY

TASK AND COST

The request for a proposal on the Little Joe II vehicle was submitted to Convair and other Contractors by a letter from NASA/MSC dated 6 April 1962. The Work Statement transmitted with this letter was identified as "Little _/_oe-6_iYIT_uest for Proposal MSC-62-39P, Apollo Procurement Office, Manned Spacecraft Center', dated 6 April 1962. The Work Statement identified five launches, three in 1963 and two in 1964. The first two launches in 1963 were to be Max q Abort tests and the third was to be a High Altitude Atmospheric Abort. The first launch in 1964 was to be a VeryHigh Altitude Abort and the final launch a confirming Max q Abort. The exact schedule for these launches is shown in Section 3, Figure 3-1. A Max q Abort configuration was f identified at that time as a vehicle employing two Algols and seven Recruits, which _ I were scheduled to aehieve a peak altitude of approximately 52,000 feet and a dynamic pressure of 1,060 pounds per square foot. A High Altitude Abort configuration defined a vehicle requiring six Algols fired in a 3-3 sequence and achieving a peak altitude of 340,000 feet. The Very-High Altitude Abort was to employ seven motors fired in a 4-2-1 sequence, and achieve apogee at approximately 1, 650, 000 feet. The Contractor

was requested

to submit

a proposal

on the construction

and

launching of. seven vehi_ic,_{_o were to be_ or spare vehicles) and to separately identify the costs associated with the design and development of an attitude control system. Also required was one launcher and one lot of documentation, services, ground support equipment and spare parts. It was p assumed at that time that the vehicle would be delivered Kennedy, Florida.

to,

and fired

from,

Complex

56,

Pad 5, at AMTC,

Cap_____%e

A bidders' conference was held in Houston on6 April 1962 and attended by repres_s-_ Lockheed California Co., C_t Corporation, Boeing Company, General Dynamics/Convair, Martin-Marietta Corporation, Charlotte Division, Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., American Aviation, Inc., North American Aviation, Aerojet, and Thiokol. Minutes of this conference were subsequently forwarded to the Contractors by NASA/MSC letter dated 1_. Convair submitted its proposal GD/C-62-114 dated April 1962 to NASA/MSC by letter 11-1-1486 dated 20 April 1962. In this letter Convair estimated a cost $4 391 074 for five fixed-fin vehicles, one launcher, one set of documentation, and support for five launches. A similar package cost for seven instead of five vehicles 4-1

was estimated at_ In addition, support equipment and $134,482 for spare

budget estimates of $58,393 parts were submitted.

for ground

Convair was awarded a Letter Contract dated 11 May 1962 which, based on changes in MSC plans and discussions with Convair, authorized five Little Joe II fixed-fin vehicles, one launcher, a design study of an attitude control system which could be added to the vehicles, and the required documentation, services, GSE and spares. The Letter Contract also retained the plan to launch from Cape Kennedy, but it was anticipated that the launch site might be changed to White Sands, and Convair was requested to evaluate that site and make recommendations to MSC on its use. In subsequent discussions and meetings with NASA/MSC, all of which were documented by Project Memoranda (PMs), various changes to the plans were identified and documented in Contract Change Proposals, CCP-1 through -43, which were negotiated into a definitive contract dated 18 February 19_3. The primary changes in plans as represented by these CCPs were: manufacture and delivery of four fixed-fin vehicles, with the exception that parts for the fins for one of the vehicles would be made but not assembled; decision to launch the vehicles from the White Sands Missile Range; delivery of two launchers, one to be used at White Sands and one to be retained at Convair as a back-up and to be used in vehicle checkout as desirable; and better definition of vehicle design, documentation requirements and launch support responsibility. Convair supplemental results

was authorized by a separate task to study and propose an autopilot control system which could be included in attitude control vehicles.

of this

study were

presented

to NASA on 16 July 1962 and, among

other

and The items,

i recommended the use of a continuous-f|ring, solid-propellant supplementary control system which would employ a diverter valve to allow guidance thrust in the various quadrants during flight. NASA/MSC directed Convair to base the supplemental control system on an H20_ system developed for the second stage of the Scout, and thin was the principle employed on the vehicles. This study was completed in mid-February 1965 for a cost of approximately $47,000. B.

CHANGE

HISTORY

Throughout the entire program a total of fifteen separate Contract negotiations were held between Convair and NASA. This negotiation history sets forth, in chronological order, each negotiation with a brief description of the major cost items involved. Refer to Appendix B for the CCP's involved in each negotiation. The first negotiation was held in December, 1962. The negotiated cost was $5, 936,754. This package, usually referred to as the Basic Contract, included the following major items: design, manufacture and delivery of four fixed-fin launch vehicles with developmental testing of vehicle systems; design, manufacture and delivery of two launchers; documentation services consisting of Type I, II, and HI documentation for the duration of.the Contract; studie_ to establish attitude control system requirements and design and development of an attitude control system,

4-2

including qualification testing; and off-site base facilities and perform tasks necessary

services to cover the activation to launch four launch vehicles.

of the test

The second negotiation was held in April, 1963. The negotiated cost was $337,456, and covered changes to the existing program to launch a qualification test vehicle prior to the scheduled Apollo tests. This required acceleration of factory completion of the four launch vehicles and the two launchers. Launch dates were moved up for the first two vehicles. An additional telemetry system and an instrumentation transmitter system was incorporated in the Qualification Test Vehicle (12-50-1), which was equipped with a simulated payload consisting of the payload adapter, command module and a government-furnished _]0ort tower. The launch pad configuration was redesigned, making necesary the relocation of all rooms and associated wiring and equipment previously located beneath the launch pad. The third negotiation was held_3_ The n egotiatefl cost was $2,113,203. The major change provided for two additional launch vehicles which incorporated the attitude control subsystem as developed under the basic contract. The additional vehicles were identified as 12-51-1 and 12-51-2. The fourth negotiation was held in September, 1963. The negotiated cost was $354,737. This cost covered study activity and several relatively small changes requested as a result of the Design Engineering Inspection held on 3 May 1963. In addition tothe minor changes, provision was made for additional ground support equipment as a result of the two additional attitude control vehicles. Fabrication of an additional breadboard autopilot system for use at NASA/MSC was also covered. Deletion of the dummy payload and limitation of the instrumentation system to the control system of Vehicle 12-51-1 was covered. This amounted to a substantial credit to NASA. load.

NAA BP-22

payload

was used

in lieu of the previously

planned

dummy

pay-

The fifth negotiation was held in December, 1963. The negotiated cost was $468,297. Significant changes included: study and revision of the attitude control subsystem to comply with a NASA directive to provide closer tolerance on the attitude of high altitude abort; revision of the instrumentation signal conditioning and calibration system to change from signal conditioning boards and signal modules to terminal boards and a signal conditioning box with deletion of certain R and Z calibration functions; revision of Operational Checkout Instructions (OCI's) to conform with the results of a NASA review of Convair Operational Checkout Procedures; and incorporation of a prototype Reaction Control System into the Convair Attitude Control System breadboard test program. The sixth negotiation was held in April, 1964. The negotiated cost was $774, 161. The major changes negotiated were: modification of an existing government-furnished Project Mercury H202 system service trailer and a stripped H202 trailer to fulfill H202 servicing requirements of the Little Joe II reaction control system on two vehicles. Included were fin test stands, and testing and checkout of the reaction control system and hydraulically-controlled aerodynamic system on each fin;

4-3

_ /_ \

additional

and revised

items

of ground support

equipment

for support

of checkout

operations of Vehicle 12-50-2 and on were provided as a result of new H202 requirements; vibration testing of the reaction control system, instrumentation, and autopilot systems, and the coverage for Acceptance Data Packages for Vehicles 12-50-1, -2 and -4, Vehicle 12-51-1, and Launcher 12-60-1; and redesign of the umbilical disconnect to provide for approximately 100 more wires, added because of system growth. The seventh negotiation was held in May 1964. Negotiated cost was $1,269, 977. • 4 The one change involved provided for two additional attitude control launch vehicles j which were the same as Vehicle 12-51-2 except for deletion of the Walter Kidde \_ reaction control subsystem. Provisions for installation of the reaction control system were retained. Task and cost included landline instrumentation, applicable documentation, GSE, spares and on-site engineering support of Operations Services. Off-site launch activities were not covered. The eighth negotiation was held in July, 1964. The negotiation cost was $651, 051. This cost covered the effect of several schedule changes associated with Vehicle 12-50-1, as well as additional quality assurance and program control services at WSMR, incorporation of a dual-thrust termination system and addition and revision of ground support equipment for attitude control vehicles. The ninth negotiation was held in September, 1964. Negotiated cost was $816,043 and included the following: modification of Vehicle 12-51-1 to meet the requirements of Mission A-002. This involved study and some modification of the attitude control subsystem due to vehicle mission parameter changes from the original design; vibration testing of the reaction control system to a 30g level - vibration tests on the aerodynamic control hydraulic system installed in an attitude control fin and test fixture were also covered; installation of long-run cables from the launcher to the blockhouse (at WSMR) to accommodate attitude control vehicles; provision of an attitude control test fin, delivered to Houston together with fin test stand design drawings, and Convair Engineering assist to NASA/MSC during attitude control fin system tests conducted there; and addition and revision of ground support equipment to support the modified vehicle and Mission A-002. The tenth negotiation was held during October, 1964. Negotiated cost was $413,081. Two major changes were covered. A minimum crew of Launch Operations personnel performed test, operations support and other tasks as directed by NASA/ WSMR during and between Little Joe II missions. Convair was also authorized to provide maintenance and operation of a NASA telemetry trailer at WSMR. The task in general consisted of setting up, calibrating and operating a government-furnished ground station to support vehicle pre-launeh test and checkout, and collecting and recording flight data. Additional coverage included maintenance and repair activities to maintain, troubleshoot and repair ground station equipment such as recorders, discriminators, de-commutators, receivers and monitors.

4-4

The eleventh negotiation was held in January, 1965. Negotiated cost was $207,492. The major changes covered: miscellaneous change incorporation as a result of the Design Engineering Inspection of Vehicle 12-51-1; provision for a WSMR range safety system kit and an additional range safety system antenna set for Vehicle 12-51-1; and design and manufacture of an alternate range safety system kit, together with qualification testing of Beckman Whitley destructor, installation of the original range safety system kit to provide dual capability, and deletion of the existing thrust termination capability from the RF command system. The twelfth negotiation was held in March, 1965. The negotiated cost of $600,234 covered the effect of NASA-directed schedule changes on Vehicles 12-50-2, 12-50-3, 12-50-4, 12-51-1, 12-51-2 and 12-51-3, together with modification to the launcher and the Test Base Facilities to meet the requirements of BP-22 and S/C-002 umbilical installations. In addition, added and revised items of ground support equipment were covered and the maintenance and operation of the NASA telemetry trailer was extended to 20 June t965. The thirteenth negotiation was held in June, 1965. Negotiated cost was $2,104,676. The change cost values negotiated at this session were substantially above the normal change averages because a large number of tasks were covered in some of the individual CCP's. The tasks covered: modification of two vehicles (12-51-2 and 12-51-3) to incorporate design changes which would meet the requirements of respective Missions A-002 and A-004; modification of the range safety system to cl_ange from a Yardney battery and a high-energy safe-and-arm unit to a Goulton Battery and a lowenergy safe-and-arm unit. Also, the primacord wrap-around system was deleted and a series of three firing tests were included, to demonstrate the capability of the system to provide range destruction of the six-Algol motor configuration; addition and revision of ground support equipment to support new mission requirements; and incorporation of miscellaneous NASA-requested changes to provide additional checkout procedures on vehicle subsystems. A DEI was conducted on Vehicle 12-51-2 and several miscellaneous changes resulting therefrom were incorporated. Launch Operations Services not previously negotiated for support of the five vehicle program were also covered; for example, the effect on Launch Operations of vehicle configuration changes, rescheduled delivery and launch dates, launcher and facility configuration changes and the requirements for additional program control and quality assurance at the test base. Previously negotiated launch operations tasks were subsequently deleted and credited to NASA. The fourteenth negotiation was held in September, 1965. Negotiated cost was $1, 330, 155 and covered the updating of Vehicle 12-51-4 to the Vehicle 12-51-3 configuration. In general this consisted of incorporating changes associated with the attitude control subsystem such as autopilot gains and adjustments, filters, pitch programmer, exponential pitch-up system, gyro spin monitor and the additional hydraulic system capacity installation. The vehicle task included incorporation of changes associated with the ignition system, dual thrust termination provisions, RF command with abort and pitch-up capability, range safety system and improved dual

4-5

on-board timers. A hydraulic/GN_ system was added which doubled the previous capacity and ensured system capability under conditions which might be encountered on future flights. Design and parts were provided to update the NASA/MSC test fin and elevon assembly to the same hydraulic support equipment for support of Vehicles nance and operation of the NASA telemetry

system 12-51-2 trailer

capability. Additional ground and on was provided, and maintewas extended to 31 December 1965.

The fifteenth negotiation to date was held in March 1966. Negotiated cost was $426,968. Major changes covered were: post-flight investigation and failure analysis to determine the cause of the in-flight failure of Vehicle 12-51-2, along with investigation and analysis of the attitude control system performance observed during Predelivery Acceptance Testing of Vehicle 12-51-3. Tasks previously negotiated for Vehicles 12-50-3 and 12-50-4 but not then required were defined, estimated, and credited to NASA. Convair maintenance and operation of the NASA telemetry trailer was extended through 31 January 1966. The effect of schedule revisions on Vehicle 12-51-3 was covered, together with failure analysis of the vehicle instrumentation system and attitude control system components as a result of difficulties experienced. Deletion of previously negotiated tasks on Vehicle 12-51-4 was considered and resulted in a substantial credit to NASA. Provisions for storage of Vehicle 12-51-4 were also made. The sixteenth (final) negotiation was held in May 1966. The negotiated cost of $103,260 was to provide for additional direct effort peculiar to the contract close-out, which could not be directly identified to the contractual task as it was originally constituted. This completed the Little Joe H negotiations. C.

COST ACCUMULATION

SUMMARY

The contract value, funding, and expenditure chart shown in (Figure 4-1) displays requirements and expenditures for the total program. This chart was used by Convair and NASA/MSC as a control tool to evaluate incremental funding requirements and dollar expenditure. The chart was updated monthly and issued concurrently with the Form 533 financial report, which is summarized in Figure 4-5. D.

MANPOWER

USAGE SUMMARY

The manpower usage summary chart in Figure 4-2 shows the variation lent direct personnel employed on the program during its life span. E.

MANPOWER

in equiva-

USAGE IN 1964

This manpower chart in Figure 4-3 shows a breakdown of equivalent personnel usage on a weekly increment for Operations Services-WSTF, Reliability, Engineering including Operations Services-San Diego, Manufacturing, and the total program. This chart covers a period of one year (1964) and is considered typical for the launching of two vehicles (12-50-2, fixed-fin, 13 May 1964; and 12-51-1, attitude control, 8 December 1964). 4-6

I oo

C-6062-39

Figure 4-2.

Manpower Usage Summary

EQUIVALENTMANPOWER ONEYEAR- 1964 400 35O 3OO 28O 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 8O 6O 4O 2O 0

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

:*_ I

Figure

4-3.

Manpower

Usage

- 1964

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC C_06240

F.

COST

EVALUATION

SUMMARY

A breakout of manhours and material dollarsexpended on the program invarious categoriesofvehiclestructure,systems and operations(identified in Figure 4-4) provides a means of comparing and evaluatingprogram costs as they might apply to other projects. The Convair work order accounting system does not directly provide cost information in the form desired for this report. The figures given in the summary are derived from the accounting system actuals and are considered to be approximate. Identification of recurring and nonrecurring costs have been generalized. neering and Tooling costs are normally nonrecurring; the Engineering costs shown as recurring are to be considered as the effect of changes. Manufacturing, Quality Control and Materials Changes are not distinguished from original tasks may be practical to estimate the effect of changes nonrecurring versus recurring costs.

Engithat are

costs are normally recurring. for these departments; however, it by applying the ratio of Engineering

The "Other" category includes all other departments not covered by the previous identifications, such as Shipping, Plant Engineering and Program Management and arc considered as recurring costs. The "Other" category with reference to Launch Operations is identified as the Administrative function. Research and development costs are not included. G.

MANAGEMENT

REPORT

FORM 533 SUMMARY

NASA Form 533, the Contractor's the Budgets Department and submitted of the total expenditures on the Little

4-10

Financial Management to NASA every month. Joe II Program.

Report, Figure

was prepared by 4-5 is a s_mmary

TOOL ENGR & MFG. (HRS)

ENGR (HRS) 0

FIXED - FIN VEHICLE STRUCTURE NR FIXED - FIN VEHICLE STRUCTURE R CONTROLLABLEVEHICLE STRUCTURENR CONTROLLABLEVEHICLE STRUCTURE R QTV PAYLOAD NR VEHICLE SYSTEM (PROP & ELEC) NR VEHICLE SYSTEM (PROP & ELEC) R VEHICLE INSTRUMENTATION(5 VEH) NR VEHICLE INSTRUMENTATION (5 VEH) R VEHICLE CHECKOUTSUPPORT NR COMPONENTS&SYSTEM TESTS NR TOTAL

36,500

208,200

41,400

300

14,200

LAUNCHER LAUNCHER #2 WSMR FACILITIES

R NR NR

5,400 3,300 1,300

] 20,800

24,200

20,800

NR R R R

TOTAL GSE GSE SPARES VEHICLE SPARES

NR

TOTAL ATTITUDE CONTROLSYSTEMS: HYDRAULICS HYDRAULICS REACTION CONTROL REACTIONCONTROL AUTOPILOT AUTOPILOT VEHICLE CHECKOUTSUPPORT COMPONENT& SYSTEM TEST TOTAL

NR R NR R NR R NR NR

OTHER (HRS)

MATERIAL ($)

141,300

7,400

375,000

50,900 1,200

700 700

70,000 17,000

78,300

8,200

90,000

45,100

5,100 1,300(R) 1,300

10,300

NR

L.O. WSMR SITE PREP. & LAUNCHERINST. L.O. FIX FIN VEHICLE (2) L.O. CONTROLLABLEFIN (3) L.O. MISCELLANEOUS TASKS

QC WSMR (HRS)

4,600

LAUNCHER#1

TOTAL

0

44,200 13,200 16,000 2,000 4,900 26,200 35,500 18,500 19,800 14,000 13,900

MFG. INCL. QC (HRS)

327,100

24,700

295,000 78,000 925,000

[ 26,800 700

1,900 700

125,000

27,500

2,600

125,000

400

4,300

700

2,700

53,B00 90,000 8,800

17,300 52,600 16,600

6,400 22,200 200

10,000 26,000 200

154,000

90,800

29,500

38,900

36,200

4,600

37,400 1,000 6,300

1,800

366,000 26,000 111,000

36,200

4,600

44,700

1,800

503,000

7,900

400

65,000

10,400

400

328,000

600

500

123,000

7,200

200

140,000

26,100

1,500

656r000

21,000 2,500 22,000 2,500 20,300 9,600 9,500 8,400 95,800

ALSO INCLUDES THAT STRUCTUREWHICH IS COMMON FOR CONTROLLABLEVEHICLE STRUCTURE. PRIMARILY COSTS ASSOCIATEDWITH CONTROLLABLE FIN DESIGN.

NR

NON-RECURRING

R

RECURRING Cjo062-41

Figure

4-4.

Cost Accumulation

Summary

- Little

Joe II 4-11

i Ma b.3 SUBDIVISIONOF WORK OR ELEMENTS OF COST ENGINEERINGHOURS ENGINEERING TOOLING MANUFACTURING QUALITY CONTROL MFG. PROC. SPECS SHIPPING MATL & SUBCONTRACT OTHERDIRECTCOSTS DIV. ADMIN. & GEN. OFF.

(1) LAUNCH VEHICLE

OPERATIONS

SPARES & GSE

(2) ATTITUDE CONTROL

62,000

179,000

36,000

121,000

1,000

638,000

$245,000

$676,000

$1,998,000

$ 400,000

$1,612,000

$ 5,000

$ 7,411,000

341,000

186,000

-

-

47,000

51,000

2,094,000

202,000

-

674,000

292,000

681,000

4,000

3,947,000

495,000

47,000

150,000

98,000

153,000

1,000

1,035,000

3,000

....

74,000

4,000

LAUNCHER

DOCUMENTATION

215,000

24,000

$2,475,000

1,562,000

91,000

(3) AUTO PILOT

-

TOTAL

625,000

3,000 -

-

24,000

....

1,004,000

-

102,000 33,000

44,000

10,000

1,000

4,000

3,000

261,000

42,000

84,000

417,000

249,000

382,000

4,000

$7,349,000

$888,000

$852,000

$3,243,000

$1,429,000

$3,886,000

$47,000

3,070,000 62,000 1,439,000 /

TOTAL COST NOTES:

(4)TOTAL RELIABILITYHOURS

1. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH STRUCTURE FOR 8 VEHICLES, FIXED FINSFOR 4 VEHICLES AND INSTRUMENTATION FOR 5 VEHICLES. 2. COSTS FOR CONTROLLABLE FINS AND CONTROL AND GUIDANCE SYSTEMS FOR 4 VEHICLES.

TOTAL RELIABILITYCOST TOTAL CONTRACT HOURS

_17,694,000 _'" 49,000 $ 565,000 1,342,000

3. COSTS FOR INITIALSTUDY TO DETERMINE THE METHOD OF ATTITUDE CONTROL TO BE EMPLOYED ON CONTROLLABLE VEHICLES. 4. SEGREGATION OF HOURS ASSOCIATED WITH RELIABILITYTASKS SUCH AS: A. RELIABILITYENGINEERINGACTIVITIES. B. SUPPLIER RELIABILITYCOSTS. C. QUALITY ASSURANCEAND INSPECTIONACTIVITIES AT WSMR.

Figure 4-5.

533 Summary

c--a062-42

5

DOCUMENTATION

SUMMARY

5

A.

MAJOR

I DOCUMENTATION

SUMMARY

DOCUMENTATION

Following is a list of the major Program Documentation and recurring reports submitted on the Little Joe II program. These documents may be consulted for detailed information on the appropriate functional disciplines and program status: Program

Documentation

Report

Program

Plan

GDC 62-177

Launch

Vehicle

Familiarization

Reliability

Program

Facilities

Plan

Manual

Plan

CS 63-003 GDC 62-168 GDC 64-119

1st Launch 2nd Launch 3rd Launch

Plan Plan

Support

Plan

Quality

Control

End Item Test

Supplement Supplement

I 11

GDC 62-174

Manufacturing

Maintenance

(original) (NPC250-1)

GDC 62-166A GDC 62-166B GDC 62-166C

4th Launch 5th Launch Test

Number

GDC 62-205 GDC 62-202

Plan

GDC 62-222

Plan Plan

GDC 62-281 12-50-1 12-50-2 12-51-1 12-51-2 12-51-3

GDC GDC GDC GDC GDC

62-330 64-037 64-233 64-356 65-083

5-1

Launch Vehicle Manual

Hardware

List

Recurring

Documentation

Monthly

B.

Description

12-50 Vehicles 12-51-1 12-51-2 12-51-3

GDC GDC GDC GDC

63-034 64-236 64-365 65-145

GDC 62-170

Progress

Reports

Quarterly

Progress

Reports

Quarterly

Reliability

Status

Monthly

Financial

Monthly

Weight

and Balance

Monthly

Failure

Summaries

Monthly

Quality

Reports

Report

Management

Report

(Form

533)

Reports

NEW DOCUMENTATION

Following the program:

is a list of documentation

requirements

introduced

Extended Distribution of Documentation - Documentation imum of 14 additional NASA agencies and Apollo contractors. Acceptance Data Package - Documentation updated as required for final NASA acceptance Recovery Identification components requiring post

Manuals - Identified, launch recovery.

Launch Operation Limitations Documents for launch vehicles, launcher, and GSE. Weekly Reliability

delivered of vehicle

Summaries

- Summary

by word

- Contained

during

the course

to be submitted

to a max-

with each vehicle. prior to launch. description

launch

of all reliability

Material

and photographs,

operations

activity

limitations

during

each

week. Reliability Assessment Reports each vehicle including the following -

- Contained sections:

complete

Vehicle/Mission Descriptions. Reliability Assessment. Single Point Failures. Anticipated Environmental Conditions. Qualification Status.

- Failure

5-2

Reporting

and Corrective

Action

Summary.

reliability

of

assessment

for

-

Design Review/Open Action Items. Development Engineering Inspection/Open Operational Time Records. Deviations.

- Additional - Structural

Test Programs. Qualifications.

Post Launch unusual incidents. progress.

Reliability Included

Summary - Summary with particular attention paid to any proposed corrective action and associated studies in

Flight Readiness Reports - Contained report for each subsystem launch complex included vehicle certification of readiness Operations Program C.

D.

Requirements Requirements

SUBMITTAL Figure

Items.

Document Document

vehicle description and GSE. Prepared for flight. - Facilities

- Facilities

and complete status just prior to launch

requirements requirements

and

for each launch. for the program.

SCHEDULE

5-1 shows

a typical

Little

Joe II Documentation

Schedule.

APPENDIX Appendix A is a listof alldocumentation prepared for the LittleJoe ]Iprogram.

5-3

oinpaqos

uoi_uoumoo(I

1I oo£ OI_T_I I_oTd_/L

"I-g oan_T_I

LO LO

"_MPL

]lflQIH3SNOIIVINlWI130Q II 301"t11111

,,:,_,,,,,,,.,.,., ..,,,,.,,,,,..

6

[ ASSOCIATED

TASKS AND PROPOSALS

6

A.

I ASSOCIATED

TASKS

AND PROPOSALS

GENERAL

During the course of the program several tasks that became necessary lated to but not directly covered by the contract. These tasks, discussed ing, were added as a result of separately negotiated CCP's. B.

CONTROL

SYSTEM

TEST

FACILITY

were rein the follow-

(CSTF)

The schedule associated with the introduction of the reaction control system (RCS) for Mission A-002 dictated an accelerated effort to provide checkout facilities at WSMR. The CSTF was established to verify operational readiness of the hydrogen peroxide reaction control system and the aerodynamic control system on an individual fin basis, prior to installation on the launch vehicle. Convair designed and supervised the activation of this facility at NASA. The installation, located at Launch Complex 36, is shown in Section rl. Specifications and drawings were prepared to the Corps of Engineers format in approximately 90 days from approval of Convair's preliminary proposal. The formal Corps of Engineers invitation for bids was issued on 8 June 1964. Bids were opened on 26 June and construction started on 15 July 1964. The facility was completed on 15 September 1964 and its checkout operations were initiated on 18 September 1964. The CSTF, shown in Figure 6-1, consisted of a concrete test pad and a prefabricated steel building. The test pad had lighting, fire protection, and anchors for the fin test stands. The building was insulated and equipped with air conditioning, required for temperature stabilization. Complete specifications for the CSTF were covered by Invitation for Bids INV. NO. ENG (NASA)-29-005-64-9, issued by the Corps of Engineers at Albuquerque. C.

TELEMETRY

STATION

ASSIST

NASA provided telemetry and flight. Back-up support, from WSMR only during flight. supplemented by a second van 12-51-1. The two vans were

ground station support to the program during checkout for recording of the composite RF signals, was obtained The single NASA telemetry van used initially was between the operations on Launch Vehicles 12-50-2 and integrated into a single unit, with some equipment located

6-1

_i!iii

C-b062-44

Figure

6-1.

Control

System

Test

Facility

in an interconnecting

anteroom.

Extensive

van rewiring

and modification

was required

plus the addition of some new equipment. Convair engineers and technicians assisted in the modification and documentation of the configuration of the completed facility. Sufficient modules of the new combined station were operational the week ending 24 October 1964 to support checkout the station was fully operational.

operations,

By the week ending

14 November

1964

Initially Convair and NASA personnel jointly manned the station for Vehicle i2-51-1. Beginning 1 January 196S Convair assumed, with NASA systems engineers' participation, the complete operation and maintenance of the station and furnished all subsequent support for both the launch vehicle and the spacecraft. This support applied to checkout and launch operations and serviced BP23A in addition to the High Altitude Abort and Power-On Tumbling Abort missions. Further information is given in Volume II, Section 5A. D.

SPACECRAFT

UMBILICAL

North American Aviation, M5W7XA-830008 for assistance provisions

TASKS Inc., contracted with Convair under purchase order in installing and testing special payload umbilical

on the launcher.

One of these

tasks

was for the BP-12

configuration.

Convair

conducted

tests

at

San Diego to demonstrate the satisfactory operation and timing of the spacecraft umbilical retracting cycle, which was documented in Report SL-63-033, dated 26 June 1963. A second part of this assignment required that Convair install and rig the spacecraft umbilical harness on the launcher, at WSMR. As a second

basic

task,

NAA called

for a similar

type of retracting

test

(reported

in Report SL-64-140-1, dated 25 January 1965) and umbilical installation and rigging, for the BP-22 configuration. In addition, Convair was commissioned to install the umbilical ejection gas storage bottle, plumbing, control valve, and control wiring on the launcher. Minor modifications to the service tower to accommodate this configuration

was performed

A description of Volume II. E.

by NASA/WSMR.

of these

installations

is given in Section

4A, Spacecraft

Umbilical,

PROPOSALS

During the Little Joe 11program Convair, independently and with NASA/MSC, worked with other NASA and governmental agencies to make them aware of the vehicles' potential for other test programs and to assist them in their evaluation of this potential. In some cases, official proposals were submitted. This activity included: Responding proposal GD/C

to a request from Grumman Aircraft 64-002-1, -2 and -3 dated 29 January

Engineering Corporation 1964 for the construction

by of

6-3

shrouds and adapters to be used with Little Joe II in testing the LEM propulsion systems. NASA subsequently decided not to flight test these systems prior to use on the Saturn. Proposing to the Air Force Space Systems Division, in 1963, the use of Little Joe ]1 to test the Dyna Soar control and characteristics in its re-entry corridor prior to orbital flights. This'was dropped when the Dyna Soar program was cancelled. Providing, in August 1963, flight performance and costs in response to a request from the Gemini Project Office of NASA/MSC who was considering the feasibility of suborbitally testing the Gemini abort escape system and heat shield prior to Titan flights. The Gemini office decided to rely on sled testing for this purpose. Working with NASA/MSFC in late 1962 on the feasibility of using a modified or growth version of Little Joe II for suborbitally testing the Multi-Mission Module. This effort ended when the MSFC program was cancelled. Assisting ited proposal

the Ryan Aeronautical Company in preparing arLd submitting an unsolicNo. 63B017, dated 20 March 1963, to NASA/MSFC. This proposed the

use of Little Joe II as a test vehicle to prove the feasibility of using the flexible wing principle in recovering Saturn boosters. No action was taken by NASA/MSFC to allot funds and pursue the concept. Working with NASA/WSMR and NASA/MSFC in 1965 on the possible Joe II as a basic part of a 1/3-scale simulation of the Saturn V to obtain mation on airflow instability and resultant acoustic effect. NASA/MSFC decided to attempt to obtain this type of data by wind tunnel testing.

use of Little in-flight inforeventually

Proposing to NASA/LRC in 1965 the use of the booster axLd surplus Minuteman vehicles to create a relatively low-cost, medium payload orbiLtal booster to replace the Scout and some of the Thor versions. NASA/Headquarters did not agree with the desirability of such a program, although it is understood that NASA/LRC did some study work, with favorable results, on the subject. Cooperating with JPL, NASA/LRC, the Mars Mariner program in evaluating the "lander" at high altitudes simulating is still under consideration.

AVCO and other contractors associated with the use of the vehicle to test the "probe" and Mars atmospheric density. This application

Supporting an investigation by NASA/FRC on the use of the vehicle for in-flight testing of the M-2. A NASA report TM-X-56006 dated 1964 summarized the results of the investigation and concluded, it is understood, that the plm_ was feasible and desirable. The present status or future of this plan is unknown. Working with various contractors and the Air Force Space Systems Division to investigate the practicality of using Little Joe II to test the Gemini abort system when used on conjunction with the MOL. It is understood that this possibility is still under consideration by some elements in the MOL program.

6-4

Providing, in proposing the hypersonic ram this proposal is

in 1963, information to the General Electric Company to assist them use of the booster to the Air Force for pre-orbital flight testing of a jet airplane. This program was stretched out and it is assumed that still being considered.

Supporting NASA/MSFC since early 1965 in their consideration II to demonstrate and evaluate the principle of recovery and reuse utilizing

parachutes.

This program

is still under

of using Little Joe of Saturn I-C stages

consideration.

Many other contacts have been made by visit and correspondence to all NASA agencies, SSD, BSD, ARPA, NRL, SANDIA and various contractors working with these agencies. Discussions were also held with Australian and Mexican officials. To support this activity, Convair has prepared and distributed two sales brochures; Little Joe Performance Capabilities (GD/C-65-197 dated September 1965) and Little Joe II Future Potential dated June 1965. Convair is continuing, with the assistance of NASA, to respond to inquiries on specific application possibilities.

6-5

7 [ ACHIEVEMENTS

7

A.

REPORTING

I ACHIEVEMENTS

OF NEW TECHNOLOGY

The new General

Provisions

that were

incorporated

in the initial

Little

Joe II con-

tract includes a "Reporting of New Technology" clause and a revised "Property Rights in Invention" clause. The procedure devised to monitor this contractual requirement is covered by Project Memorandum 12-E-6, in the Little Joe II Project Manual. In accordance with this procedure, a program monitor was made responsible for the review of design drawings, Engineering design notebooks, Industrial Engineering history folders and related manufacturing processes, on a regular basis for reportable items. Reports were submitted on a semiannual basis, with a final report upon completion of contract work. All reportable items were reviewed with Convalr's Patent Counsel prior to submittal to NASA. The procedure further defined the requirement be imposed on subcontractors having purchase orders in excess of $50,000. The program monitor for this activity was always a member of the Little Joe II Project Office, and, as such, constantly reviewed all changes and new designs. This assignment, with the previously described review responsibilities, ensured that all reportable items were identified. The Little Joe II program was based on engineering a product around conventional structural and off-the-shelf components. Therefore, only two new technology items were developed and reported during the span of the contract. These were: TIMER-LAUNCHER

SEQUENCE,

CONVAIR

P/N

12-61325-3

The launching sequence timer was designed to fill the need for a combined countdown time display light control and propulsion ignition control that were positively synchronized. This timer synchronizes the countdown lights and ignition, and subsequent timing of the second stage propulsion motors during flight. See Figures 7-1 and 7-2 for timer illustrations. A basic timer diagram and its operation is shown in Figure 7-3. Control switches on the countdown console permitted holding the countdown at any desired time but retained the countdown time display lights at the time of stoppage. Continuance of countdown could be resumed from the point of interruption, or reset to the starting

point could be accomplished

by energizing

the reset

circuit.

7-1

C,-6062..45

Figure

7-1.

Launch Sequence

Timer

C-0062-46

Figure 7-2

7-2.

Launch

Sequence

Timer

- Internal

View

THE LAUNCHSEQUENCETIMER PROVIDES DISCRETE ONESECONDCOMMANDSTO THREE ELECTRICALLY ISOLATEDCIRCUITS:

(_

AUXILIARY LAUNCHFUNCTIONS(NOT SHOWN).

A ONE-PULSE-PER-SECONDSOLIDSTATE GENERATORPULSES MASTER STEPPING SWITCH "A" THROUGHAN

_

CONTROLLEDPOWERIS APPLIED AT TIMER START, REMOVEDAT TIMER STOP ORRESET.

!

#

APPLIED DURINGGROUNDOPERATIONS.

MOTO, CRSW. ,.,o,,, ,ONOO ' O C.OU, NT O EARLY TIME OUT DUE TO COMPONENT FAILURE ORTRANSIENTS IS PREVENTED

/

T

I

1-PULSE/SEC. GENERATOR I I

......

SCR SWITCH

i..................

i STEPPER I MOTOR I

RESET TO START POSITION SWITCH I I

r--7;r--_ ' ' ,

•

GSELAVEPULR S

p-

.,., 9 ., 'L_ ; ' 9..1 o •

_[

o2

, ,, ___, ,_,L;-----..-:-.,'-r-_ >J.._L_ I I u I / _15" I '

IO-SEG, , PULSE ON '_)"TOSLAVE

'I

'_ _

SWITCH "A" TRIGGERSTWO SLAVE STEPPING SWITCHES THROUGHSCR SWITCHCIRCUITS.

SCR SWTCH

I

1-STEP/SEC. SWITCH

L/

iI

1-STEP/SEC. SWITCH

110 00 10

, ,--'_--L'_" .t. F--'_/I_-4

.....

1

_

I'S_'E_P-ER-TRESET TO START IMOTOR I POSITIONSW_TCH

L__

_

o4

';. s .3.

IO-SEC. PULSE ON "7"TO SLAVE

r I

.. _9.o." .;3

o2

; _o.q%2o 1"---";"-" ,30

_..4o

",,,"

70 60 50

TIME SWITCH "A" REACHES "0", STEPPING

1-STEP/IO-SEC. r

STEPPING SWITCH 'B" STEPS ONCE EACH _--I-

I

SWITCH "C"STEPS ONCE EACH TIME SWITCH

I

"A"

REACHES

"7"

SCR _ SWITCH I

! _

L.....

'

! .I

ON

"B"APPLY 28 VDC POWER AND GROUND TO EXTERNAL CONNECTIONS. LOADS ARE CONNECTEDTO RECEIVE POWERAT CHOSEN ONE SECONDINTERVALS BETWEENOAND

iSIEPPER

I RESET TO START

'

I

IIMOTOR _ f"--r

- ....

-J

rl-STEP/IO.SEC. SWITCH

SWITCH "B"MAY BE USED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE EXCITATION ONLY TO A GROUNDED LOAD.

....

2

3

so,

I

S 6

T

I;R_D _;_ _=; _;

3RD RELAYsMOTOR IGNITION

,09o

6O'_o 8o

l

4

O0

4%-_0°_'_I_I::_ i:::O'l

_" "

COUNTDOWN LIGHTS ARE POWERED BY ISOLATED SWITCH WAFERS THE AUXILIARY LAUNCH FUNCI IONS (NOT SHOWN) OPERATE SIMILARLY,

_ 7

8

9\

/O

I

44 -

(-IS

2010

",0,-

, •I"

MOTOR IGNITION 20 30 40 s0 60 70 8090100110\/0 1

_/0010

l f •

I -----°-'°-'° POSITION SWITCH

lJ I

I--_q

SWITCH

COUNT-DOWN

-

-

2

-

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 _'''-

_I_ ....

LIGHTS PROM 16_

15 _

_

TO O0-SECONDS

C_247

Figure

7-3.

Diagram

- Launch

Sequence

Timer 7-3

The timer has many applications in industry where one-second timing intervals are adequate. Modification to increase the frequency of the pulse generator to ten per second would reduce the intervals to one-tenth of a second if a more precise timing was required. BASE THERMAL

PROTECTION

This is a method of applying a heat insulating material to aluminum alloy surfaces having severe irregularities, and using a curing heat cycle which is compatible with aluminum alloy limitations. Pre-molding the insulating material is not necessary. See Figures 7-4 and 7-5 for views of fin and vehicle base insulation. The combination of insulating material and adhesive agent, and the application procedure, was developed specifically to provide thermal protection for the base surfaces of the Little Joe II Test Booster from the heat of the engine jets during flight. The insulating

material

was Dow Coming

Uncured

Silicone

Rubber

DC6510

and the

adhesive agent was Union Carbide Silicone Primer Y-3395 or Y-3459. Rubber and/or primer produced by other companies were tried and found effective, but the selected combination proved most satisfactory in the test conducted under Little Joe H conditions.

C.-6062--48

Figure

7-4.

Fin Insulation

- installing

Vacuum

Blanket 7-5

C-6062--49

Figure

7-5.

Afterbody

Insulation

After

Baking

The installation process consisted of the following: thoroughly cleaning the surface, roughing it with a wire brush or similar abrasive, recleaning, applying a primer with a brush, allowing to dry, and applying the uncured ru.bber by adding layers as required to achieve the desired thickness over the metal _urfaees. Uniform pressure was applied to the entire covered area by vacuum or other means; the area was heated to 250°F and held for 30 minutes and then allowed to cool, with pressure maintained. The finished product was a soft, tough rubber (appro_:imately 30 shore hardness) tenaciously bonded to the aluminum alloy base. When exposed to high temperature the exposed surface would char, but the back surface would remain cool. The thickness required was determined by the rate at which the rubber _vould char in the environment to which it was exposed. Apparent future applications are for thermal protection, insulation, or protection of surfaces against corrosive elements to which the semicuring silicone rubber is resistant. LISTING

OF SUBCONTRACTORS

AFFECTED

Reporting of New Technology and Property Rights in :Inventions cluded in the purchase order to Walter Kidde Company, Belleville, Whittaker Corporation, Controls & Guidance Division, Chatsworth, formanee of work on these purchase orders did not produce any new

7-6

clauses were inNew Jersey, and California. Pertechnology.

_B_'_ ''FIRSTS'' A number

of achievements

accomplishment,

C.

on this

in the United

States

program space

represented

program.

a "first

time,"

Some of these

were:

Little Joe II represented the largest States at the time of its first flight.

2)

Little Joe II's thrust with all-solid-propellant

3)

Little lifted

4)

The thrust of the reaction control motors time of the first attitude control vehicle.

5)

Little floe II's first launching was the first plished on the Apollo Program.

6)

The corrugated structure of the vehicle was independently was the first time it had been proven in flight.

7)

On the 12-51-3 Little Joe II flight, and in flight for the first time.

8)

This vehicle was the first all-aluminum rubber for base heat protection.

9)

The Little Joe II program was the first to execute a planned catastrophe in flight (thrust termination) to prove an abort system under an actual flight condition which required a safe abort.

and weight were booster.

Joe II's gross payload on a launch vehicle.

10)

The last

was the highest

11)

The Little Joe II vehicle a cluster configuration.

of 38,200

vehicle

of

1)

flight

diameter

at time

the highest

pounds

was the first

ever

by the United

associated

(including

ballast)

was the largest

was the highest

ever

flown at the

self-propelled

flight

test

accom-

conceived

and it

Algol motors

altitude

launched

launch

an abort vehicle

were

vehicle

system to employ

ignited

utilizing

at an altitude

an ablative

has ever been tested. three

Algol motors

in

INNOVATIONS

The followingmethods of operationwere developed during the LittleJoe IIprogram and subsequentlyadoptedby other NASA Apollo program contractors. PERT

DATA

TRANSCEIVER

SYSTEM

PERT update and analysisreports were originallysubmittedto NASA/MSC by teletypeevery two weeks, startinginSeptember 1962. The update reportsproved unsatisfactorydue to lengthypreparation,processing and transmittaltime. A data transeeiversystem installedin October 1962 provided direetcard-to-cardtransmittal by use of a data-phone. This system substantially reduced overall transmittal and

7-7

processing time and eliminated update errors experienced by the manual method. Other NASA Apollo Program contractors subsequently implemented this system. OPERATIONAL

CHECKOUT PROCEDURES

Procedures for vehicle systems checkout were initially written to a Convair format which assumed a high degree of technical expertise by the operators. Although this concept proved satisfactory for factory checkout on the first vehicle, it deviated too widely from the procedures which had previously been used by NASA at other launch sites. NASA, with the cooperation of Convair, NAA and Cape Kennedy personnel, outlined a set of ground rules for procedure writing. The ensuing rough draft was designated Apollo Procedure No. 1 (AP-1) and was reviewed by management, engineers and operators. Comments were returned to NASA/MSC. AP-1 was completely revised to accommodate the operational methods required for the Apollo program; the revised document was entitled, Apollo Documentation Procedure No. 2, Standard for the Preparation of Operational Checkout Procedures (AP-2). The AP-2 format specified exact location, nomenclature, time sequence and operator for any given operational step. This format theoretically enabled operational performance by relatively inexperienced personnel. With the introduction of the AP-2 specification, all Convair procedures were created by electronic data processing (EDP). The EDP permitted tape storage of finished documentation and also simplified changes and reproduction. In common with other detailed specifications of this type, certain waivers were required, to fit the AP-2 format to the particular electronic data processes used by Convair. This detailed AP-2 procedure continues in use by other NASA contractors.

8

PROGRAM

CLOSE-OUT

STATUS

8

A.

PROGRAM CLOSE.OUT STATUS

GENERAL

Convair and NASA, late in 1965, recognized the need for a plan to effect an orderly close out of the Little Joe II program. The plan provided a single source document which brought together all pertinent information, defining departmental action and identifying the procedures governing the action. The document further provided a schedule for the efficient close out of Contract NAS 9-492. (Reference GD/C 66-020, Contract Close'Out Plan, NASA Project Apollo - Little Joe II Project). By NASA direction, terminal close out of the program was modified to the extent that existing vehicles and significant GFP components and materials would be stored through the year 1966. Storage of these materials was based on the premise of possible reactivation of Convair San Diego and WSMR facilities for additional launches of the Little Joe II. NASA's Contract Change Authorization (CCA) #96 and Revision #1 thereto provided contractual direction. Arrangements were made by NASA to store the Little Joe 1"[vehicles in Air Force Plant 19 in San Diego. See Figure 8-1 for views of storage area. Vehicles 12-50-3, 12-50-4 and 12-51-4 are preserved and stored in Mylar bags. Suitable desiccant bags are used to control moisture content. All tooling, GSE and GFP equipment has been preserved, packaged, and stored with the vehicles. Launcher 12-60-2 is preserved and stored in place in Convair's Experimental Department' s Yard. Materials that were not retained for future use were forwarded to Disposition Stores. These materials were surveyed by DCASPRO for final disposition action. There are 1500 outside purchased (OSP) line items and 200 material items with an extended value of under $100 which have been processed. There are 250 outside purchased (OSP) and 30 miscellaneous items with an extended value of over $100 which have been assigned to a disposition schedule and circulated to other government agencies for possible use. All drawings, specifications and reports microfilmed and forwarded to NASA/MSC.

of contractural

requirement

have been

Convair activity at WSMR was closed out on 23 March 1966. Launcher 12-60-1 has been stored in place at WSMR, Launch Complex 36. All launcher storable and other disposable materials were turned over to ZIA, a WSMR on-site NASA contractor. NASA is responsible for maintenance of Launcher 12-60-1. Those GFP materials required for reactivation of Little Joe II were returned to Convair, San Diego, for preservation and storage. 8-1

C-6O62-50-1

C-6062-50-2

Figure 8-2

8-1.

LJ-II

Storage

Area

- Air Force

Plant

19, San Diego

(Sheet 1 of 3)

CJo062-50-_

C=6062-50-4

Figure

8-1.

LJ-II Storage Area - Air Force

Plant 19, San Diego (Sheet 2 of 3) 8-3

C,-6062-50-5

Figure

8-1.

LJ-II

Storage

Area - Air Force

Plant

19, San Diego

(Sheet 3 of 3)

Maintenance of those items stored in Air Force Plant 19 in San Diego has been negotiated as a separate contract with Convair and extends through 1966.

8-4

9

RECOMMENDATIONS

9

The success set forth in this

of the Little Joe II program suggests that the various philosophies management volume should be considered for integration into future

programs of similar fined in the following Customer's

RECOMMENDATIONS

complexity paragraphs.

Technical

and scope.

Direction

More

- Single source

specific

recommendations

direction

are de-

in this field provides

the key for a clear communications link. Clear communication insures rapid response to change action, minimizes the fog factor and promotes efficient and economical operations. Customer Approved Sources - It is incumbent on the contractor that these sources be frequently re-evaluated to assure that procedures, practices and skill levels are in accordance with the Customer's requirements. Furthermore, the Customer should maintain intensive surveillance of the approved sources to assure that their credentials remain current. Customer Specification and Documentation Requirements - The contractor should frequently review Customer imposed specifications and contractual requirements in terms of program application. He should determine whether imposed requirements are warranted in relation to the program cost and schedule effect. For example, the NASA GSE specification MSC-GSE-1A requires a separate specification and formal drawing for each individual piece of equipment. In many cases the time involved in preparing specifications and drawings and obtaining approval of them far outweighs the cost of the individual piece of GSE. Waivers to specifications and the use of blanket specifications can materially reduce end item cost and realization time. The Little Joe II resolution of this problem is discussed in detail in Volume II, Section 4. D, GSE Documentation, of this report. The docume_ation ated for real necessity. economy realized. 4_

Centralized

Control

distribution generally imposed on a contractor In many eases distribution may be minimized

of Testing

Activities

- Control

of qualification

should

be

evalu-

and thus

and system

test-

ing was vested in the Reliability Group. By combining all testing activity under the cognizance of one group, efficiency and economy were realized. The inherent character and philosophy of reliability engineers assures an ideal guardianship for the testing activities.

9-1

Vendor Integration - The philosophy of ensuring that the vendor is a part of the team is considered by Convair to be an important part of vendor relations. The normal procedure of vendor evaluation, i.e., drawing review, specification review, test report review, facility and manufacturing capability review does not complete the loop. Closing the loop requires one more step - that of integrating the vendor into the program. The vendor must have a thorough understanding of the program philosophies and guide lines and must be kept current with changes thereto. By making him a part of the program, he shares the burden of success or failure. Integration means the vendor's understanding of the importance of his product to the the total system and the impact that his performance could have on the program. Configuration Status - A configuration audit was required upon completion of each vehicle manufactured and checked out at San Diego, and again at the time of acceptance by NASA at WSMR. This configuration audit was maintained by a manual method of individual recording and filing of each shop task as reflected on the completed and approved planning card. For future programs of this nature, it is recommended that the configuration status be maintained through a system in which the complete task from original design and including subsequent change activity be computer processed to establish a master tape file record. As factory tasks are completed and accepted by Quality Control, data from these historical records should also be computer tape recorded so that at specified times during production and at vehicle completion these tapes could be compared to provide configuration status. This would provide an accurate, timely and less laborious final report as well as a continuous schedule status. Use of WSMR - Convair recommends that NASA accomplish more of its test programs at WSMR. The facilities are excellent, the management is efficient and, in particular, the resident NASA crew is of a high level, versatile, dedicated and cooperative in accomplishing a task efficiently and to schedule.

9-2

10

CONCLUSIONS

10 [ CONCLUSIONS

The Little Joe II program provided a low-cost launch vehicle which was adaptable to a wide range of mission requirements. The recent test series which successfully proved the capability of the Apollo launch escape system used only a part of the launch vehicle capability; thus, the creation of Little Joe II not only enabled accomplishment of a major milestone for the Apollo program but established a capability for future sub-orbital programs.

10-1

11 [ BIBLIOGRAPHY

11 I BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Aerojets) Contract

Interface Close-Out

Control Plan,

Document,

Report

NASA Project

Apollo

Number

0667-TICD-1

- Little

Joe II Project,

DD 1446 Form (entitled:) Contractor Performance Convair, Contract NAS9-492, dated 12 June 1964.

dated

and Evaluation,

1 July 1963.

GD/C

General

66-020.

Dynamics/

D. I.B.-12-015. Documentation Hardware

Requirements

List,

Little

of Contract

Joe 11 Project,

NAS 9-150.

GDC-62-170.

Interface Control Document, Mission A-0Ol, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-50-2 and Payload Boilerplate 12 (BP-12) Document Number MH01-04010-414 dated 17 March 1964. Interface Document

Control Document, Mission Number MH01-04012 dated

A-002, Little Joe II Vehicle 6 October 1964.

12-51-1

and BP-23,

Interface Document

Control Document, Mission A-003, Little Joe II Vehicle Number MH01-04011-414 dated 30 March 1965.

12-51-2

and BP-22,

Interface Control Document, Mission A-004, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-3 and Spacecraft 002 (SC-002), Document Number MH01-04013-414 dated 6 August 196S. Letter

11-1-1486,

Little

Joe II Future

Little

Joe Performance

Memorandum NASA Contract NASA Project GDC-62-114,

dated

20 April

Potential

dated

June

Capabilities,

of Understanding, Change

1962.

June

Authorization

1965.

GD/C-65-197

dated

1963,

February

revised

(CCA) No.

Apollo Test Launch Vehicle, dated April 1962.

Little

NASA Quality Publication - Inspection System Materials, Parts, Components, and Services, NASA Quality Publication - Quality N1_-200-2 dated April 20, 1962. NASA Quality

Publication

Program

September

1965.

1964.

96, and Revision Joe H - Technical

No.

1. Proposal,

Provisions for Suppliers of Space NPC-200-3, April 1965 Edition. Provisions

for Space System

Contractors,

NPC 200. 11-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NASA/MSC

Request

for Proposal

MSC-62-39P,

NASA Statement of Work for Suborbital dated 20 November 1962. Project

Memorandum

12-E-6,

Program

for Systems,

Reliability

Program

Plan

Soldering

Specification

11-2

dated 6 April 1962.

Test Launch Vehicle

in Little Joe II Project

Reliability

Support Plan - Test

(CONTINUED)

Subsystems,

(NPC 250-1),

MSFC-PROC Launch Vehicle

System,

GDC-62-361,

Manual.

and Equipment,

MIL-R-27542

(USAF).

GD/C 64-119.

158B. - Little

Joe H, GDC-62-202,

dated

21 Sept.

1962.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX INDEX OF LITTLE

JOE DOCUMENTATION

Accelerometer, A69TC-20-30, Qualification Testing of Accumulator, Hydraulic, Little Joe II, Qualification Test Procedure for Accumulator, Hydraulic, Little Joe II Aerodynamic Attitude Control System, 90-03500-003, Qualification Test Accumulator, Accumulator

A

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

DL-M-63-144 GDC 64-224 GDC 64-319

GDC P/N Report

Hydraulic, Test Plan Piston Seal Test Results

PM-12-2217 PM- 12- 2291

Actuator Dynamic Spring Rate Determination (Test Procedure) Adaptation Kit, Air Conditioning Ducts, Little Joe II P/N 12-93006, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Adapter, Forward Fin Pin Tool, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for

DF-12-115

Aerodynamic "A" Tests

ZZC 63-060

Attitude

Control

System,

Category

Aerodynamic AttitudeControlSystem, LittleJoe Production Fin, Hydraulic and Pneumatic, Test Procedure for

II

-

-

12-09290

-

12-09285

ZZC-63-011

Aerodynamic Coefficients for Little Joe II Apollo, Based on Wind Tunnel Tests Aerodynamic Data for Little Joe H with 316 Inch Service Module 502 Fins

GDC 63-137

Aerodynamic Heating - Little Joe II Booster Aerodynamic and Inertia Cross-Coupling on Little Joe II Stability, Effects of Aerolastic Coefficients of the 50 sq. ft. Fin with

T-12-25 DC-12-018

a 15 sq. ft. Movable Control Surface Airframe Maintenance and Repair Manual (12-50-1)

Addendum CS-63-010

AD-LJ-004

GDC 63-137 C -

A-1

Document Number Airframe Maintenance Vehicle 12-50-2

and Repair

Manual,

Launch

CS-63-035

Airframe Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-1

and Repair

Manual,

Launch

CS-64-009

Airframe Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-2

and Repair

Manual,

Launch

CS-65-001

Airframe Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-3

and Repair

Manual,

Launch

CS-65-001A

Drawing Number

Air Loads for Structural Design of Little Joe H Algol Motor Pressure Decay with Thrust Termination, Little Joe H Algol Motor Staging, RFC 5P-I Algol Rocket Propellant Grain Temperature Variation with Air Conditioning Removed, Little Joe II

GDC 63-102 T-12-31

-

PM-12-2252 T-12-26

-

Algol Thrust Termination, Little Joe II - Mission J Algol Thrust Termination, Effect of Primacord Explosion on Fiberglass Bulkhead, Little Joe H Alignment Kit, Vehicle, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for

T-12-30 T-12-28

Amplifier, Attitude Control and Logic, Electromagnetic Interference Test Report (CES Electronic Products} Amplifier Package, Rawco, Test Report, Quality Assurance Tests on

GDC 64-071

Analog Study of Little Joe H/Apollo Launch Without Reaction Control Numbers of Recruit Motors

Boilerplate 22 and with Various

Apollo High q Abort (A-001) Mission, Little Joe II Launch Vehicle 12-50-2, Launch Operations Program and Schedule Apollo Mission A-003 (Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-2/ Apollo BP-22) Stability Analysis of Attitude Control Fin Static Proof Test Planning Report, Little Joe II Attitude Control and Logic Amplifier, Part of the Attitude Control Subsystem, Specification for Attitude Control and Logic Amplifier for Use in the Little Joe H Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 and on, Qualification Test Report for Attitude Control System Anomalies

A-2

-

12-09121

GDC 64-311 DC-12-019

GDC 63-228

D-65-9 SL-63-024 12-03101 GDC 64-327

PM-12-2391

-

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

_b]ect Attitude Control System Maintenance Manual (12-51-1) Attitude Control System Maintenance Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2

and Repair

CS-64-014

and Repair

CS-65-006

• Attitude Control System, Integrated, Tests Attitude Control System, Integrated, Tests, Vehicles 51-2 and 51-3, Test Objectives Procedures for

GDC 64-332 D-65-5

-

and

Attitude Control Subsystem, Specification for Attitude Control Subsystem Study Attitude Control System and Subsystems with Simulated Little Joe H Vehicle, Test Procedures for

GDC 62-335 GDC 62-190 DC-12-012

Attitude Control System Tests, Integrated, Little Joe II 51-2, NASA Apollo Project Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude Control Subsystem, Specification for Attitude Reference Subsystem Study for the Little Joe II Vehicle

D-65-18

Attitude Reference System, Model GR10A-1, Part Number 22650, General Dynamics/Convair Part Number 12-03100-3, A Component of the Little Joe II Test Vehicle, American Gyro Test Report Aut0pilot and Instrumentation Systems, Little Joe II 12-51-1 Vehicle, Vibration Test Procedure for Autopilot Noise, Little Joe II Autopilot Signal Filter, Little Joe H, Design Feasibility Study Autopilot System, Little Joe II 12-51-1, Vibration Test Procedure for

26336

-

12-06104

12-03100

DC-12-006

GDC 64-189 DC-12-020 GDC 65-098

-

GDC 64-230

Autopilot System Little Joe II 12-51 Vehicle, Vibration Qualification Test Report for Autopilot System, Test Procedure, Vibration Qualification Testing on, prepared in Accordance with Specification GDC 64-230 for General Dynamics/ Convair (Wyle Laboratories} Azimuth Trucks, Specification for

GDC 64-340

GDC 62-284

12-09260

Base Heat Barrier Installation, Procedure for Base Heating - LittleJoe IIMission "F" Base Thermal ProtectionMaterials Insulation

T-12-17 -

12-07100 12-07000

3503

Methods Investigation A-3

Battery, Gulton Ind., Test of

Little

Joe II Vibration

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

564-1-64-193

-

Battery Power-Pack Used with Radio Receiver Set AN/DRW-11, Gulton, Specification for Qualification Tests of

GDC 64-324

Battery, RCS, Vibration Qualification Test of Battery System Protective Diode Assembly, Airborne, Temperature Test Report Battery, Yardney 5500 for Model 12 - Little Joe H, Servicing and Storage of Batteries, Yarduey 65100 Vehicle Power for Model 12 - Little Joe II, Servicing and Storage of Blast Criteria - Little Joe H Launch Pad Design Bolts, High Strength, in Structural Steel Installation

DL-M-64-44 GDC 64-297

T-12-13 MPS 24.03

-

Burst Disc Evaluation Kidde Co.)

WK-D-AAW-0109

-

Catalyst Test Catalyst space Checkout Checkout Checkout

Bed Life, Procedure Bed Life Division Manual, Manual, Manual,

Test,

P/N

242568 (Walter

Motor Assembly, P/N 892602, for (Walter Kidde Co.) Test, Little Joe II, Kidde AeroReport Vehicle 12-50-1 Vehicle 12-50-2 Vehicle 12-51-1

Clamp, GN 2 Regulator Vent, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Clearances of Little Joe H During Launch Command Amplitude and Time Constant on the Mission "J" Pitch-up Maneuver, Effect of Command Destruct Antenna Coupler, Specification for Command Command Command Arming Command Arming Command Manual Command Manual, A-4

Destruct Antenna, Specification for Destruct Subsystem, Specification for Destruct Subsystem, Power, Signal and Control Unit (Breadboard) Test Procedure Destruct Subsystem - Power, Signal and Unit (Breadboard) - Test Report Destruct System Maintenance and Repair (12-50-1) Destruct System Maintenance and Repair Launch Vehicle 12-50-2

-

-

12-06106

-

12-06107

TP-333 R-1648 GDC 63-073 GDC 63-187 GDC 64-114

12-09274

DC-12-004 DC-12-024

12-03262

GDC 62-259 GDC 62-258 VC&I-66 VC&I-73 CS-63-011 CS-63-036

12-03261 12-03260

Subject

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

Command Destruct System Tester, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Command Receiver, Little Joe II Qualification Vibration and Acceleration Tests

GDC 62-219

Compression Panels

SL-62-036

Tests,

Corrugated

2024-T3

Aluminum

Compression Test, 12-07900-3 Multi-Bay Panel, Corrugated 2024T3 Aluminum Alloy Conic TM Transmitter Temperature/Frequency and Antenna Conducted EMI Tests, Test Report for Console, Attitude Control, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Console, Attitude Control Fin Test, Little Joe II P/N 12-61338-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Console, GSE Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-1 Console, GSE Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 Console, GSE Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 Console, Thrust Termination, Little Joe II P/N 12-61344-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Contract Close-Out Plan, Little Joe H Project Control Surface Calibration Gage, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Control System of the Little Joe II, Integrated System Tests Control Unit Development Tests - Little Joe II Attitude Control System Controller, Pitch Over, Model BB10A-1, Part No. 25880, GDC P/N 12-03102, A Component of the Little Joe II Test Vehicle, Qualification Test Report Converter, AC/DC, Specification for Qualification of Converter - DC to DC, Specification for Converter - DC to DC, Report of Contractor's Tests on Model ARI 175 (Astronetic Research, Inc.} Converter - Solid-State DC to DC, Model 175, Electromagnetic Interference Test Report, (Astronetic Research, Inc.) Converter Transducer, AC/DC, Qualification Test Report for

12-09111

564-1-64-177

SL-62-048 GDC 64-263 12-09125 -

12-09129

CS-63-017 CS-63-041 CS-64-017 -

12-09128

GDC 66-020 -

12-09122

DC-12-010 VC&I-69 A34-26877A

GDC 64-315 ARI 189-A GDC 63-179

12-01100

-

GDC 64-346

A-5

Document Number

Subject Corrective and Preventive Action, Little Joe H Summary Report for Vehicle 12-51-3 Cylinder, Hydraulic ServoAerodynamic Attitude Control, Qualification Test Procedure for

GDC 65-190

Data Reduction

DF-12-107

and Analysis

Comments

for Flutter

Instrumentation on Little Joe II QTV #1 (fixed fin) Data Station Procedures (Recommended) for Vehicle Response Data Reduction for Little Joe II QTV Magnetic Tape Records Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50 Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 Design Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe H Test Launch Vehicle 12-50-1

Drawing Number -

GDC 63-106

DF-12-108

GDC GDC GDC GDC GDC

63-034 64-236 64-365 65-145 63-139

Design Engineering Vehicles 12-50-2

Inspection (NASA) Little and 12-50-3

Joe IT

GDC 63-229

Design Engineering Vehicle 12-51-1

Inspection

(NASA) Little

Joe II

GDC 64-264

Design Engineering Vehicle 12-51-1

Inspection

(NASA) Little

Joe H

GDC 64-264 Addendum A

-

Design Engineering Inspection (NASA) of Thrust Termination System, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-50-2 Design Information Bulletins Design Review Presentation, Little Joe IT Attitude Control Vehicle

GDC 64-033 GDC 62-163 GDC 63-204

-

Design Thrust Misalignment (NASA Mission A-002) Design Thrust Misalignment

-

for Mission

"J"

DC-12-023

for Mission

"N, " NASA

D-65.-15

Mission A-003, Little Joe H Design Thrust Misalignment for Mission "Q," NASA Mission A-004, Little Joe II Destructors, Explosive, Models 173-1-A-1 and 173-1-A-7, Report of Environmental and Firing Tests (Beckman and Whitley) Detonating cord Compatibility Tests, Little Joe H (GDC P/N 12-03271-1 and -3) Aerojet-General Test Report) Detonating Cord Firing Tests, Little Joe II, Aerojet General Test Report

A-6

D-65-40 SD-147

-

-

-

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

Subject Development Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-2, Summary Report Development Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-3, Summary Report Differential Pressure for Little Joe II Skin, Missions "E" and "F"

GDC 65-092

Displacements of Little Joe IT During Document Revision Methods

DC-12-003 GDC 62-156

T-12-24

Launch

Documentation Summary, Little Joe II Drawing List, Little Joe II Dynamic Thrust Load on the Structural Integrity the Little Joe II Thrust Bulkhead, Preliminary Analysis of the Effect of Dynamic Thrust Oscillations Measured General Algol Engines, Verification Pertinent to

GDC 65-172

of

on Aerojetof Data

-

GDC 62-157 D3026A01 DF-12-111

-

DF-12-113

Eagle SignalPart No. ATS79, Corresponding to Convair P/N 97-37225-012, Qualification to LittleJoe IIEnvironments (EagleSignal)

-

-

Eagle SignalP/N ATS75, Corresponding to Convair P/N 97-37225-013, Qualification Tests to Little Joe H Environments (EagleSignal) Eagle SignalDivision,ATS75 and ATS79 Qualification37-11-26-1 Test Report Eagle SignalTime Delay Relay, Part No. ATS75, GDC 64-360 Electromagnetic Interference Test Report Effect of Explosion and Rapid Decomposition of the T-12-29 Hydrogen Peroxide used for Reaction Control, Little Joe II Electrical Distribution System Maintenance Repair Manual (12-51-1) Electrical Subsystem, Specification for Electrical System Maintenance and Repair Vehicle 12-50-1

and

Manual,

Electromagnetic Susceptibility Test Report on C. E.S. Electronics Products, Inc., Convair Part Number 12-03101-3 Emergency formance

CS-64-013 GDC 62-261 CS-63-012 GDC 66-010

Shower, Pallet Mounted, GSE Perand Interface Specification for

End Item Test Plan (12-50-i)

GDC

12-06260

-

12-09277

62-330

A-7

_bject

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

End Item Test Plan, Little Joe II Launch Vehicle 12-50-2, Apollo Mission A-001 End Item Test Plan - Vehicle 12-51-1 End Item Test Plan, Little Joe H Test Launch Vehicle 12-51-2

GDC 64-037 GDC 64-233 GDC 64-356

-

End Item Test Plan, Vehicle 12-51-3

GDC 65-083

-

Little

Joe H Test Launch

Environmental Control, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Environmental Tests on Astronetics Research P/N 175 DC to DC Converter, Action Laboratories, Inc., Report of Exhaust Jet Plume Effects

Facilities

Plan

Facilities Apollo Facilities

Plan, Convair Operations Requirements Mission A-003 (BP-22/LJ H 12-51-2) Plan, Apollo Mission A-004

(SC-002/LJ H 12-51-3) Facilities Requirements (White Sands) Factory Trial of Launch Vehicle Operations Procedure, Little Joe H High q Failure Analysis, Little Joe II Failure Analysis, Little Joe H BP-23, Mission J Failure Analysis, Little Joe H Vehicle 51-2, Apollo Mission .%-003 Failure Analysis, Little Joe H Vehicle, 51-3, Apollo Mission A-004 Failure Summary (Monthly) Familiarization Manual, Launch Vehicle Familiarization Manual, Launch Vehicle Filter, Audio, Genistron Inc. P/N GF6536, GDC P/N 93-78304-003, Qualification Test Report, Low Temperature, High Temperature and Vibration Test of Filter, Hydrogen Peroxide, Specification for Cleaning and Conditioning Filtering Unit, Hydraulic, Little Joe II P/N 12-91042-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Filtering Unit, Hydraulic, Test Procedure A-8

GDC 62-308

12-09100

4680

-

GDC 63-137 Addendum A

-

GDC 62-166

-

GDC 62-166C Supplement I GDC 62-166C

-

Supplement II GDC 62-160 GDC 63-081

-

DC-12-009 DC-12-029 D-65-17

-

D-56-39

-

CS-62-011 CS-63-003 4282

-

-

-

12-00261

-

12-09303

-

12-91303

Sub]'ect

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

Financial Management Report (Monthly) Fin and Elevon Assembly, Little Joe H, Special Vibration Test Procedure for

NASA Form 12-4714

Fin,

Attitude Control, Little Joe II, Results of Ground Vibration and Associated Stiffness Test Fin Bolt Installation/Removal Tools, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for

GDC 64-023

Fin Flutter Analysis, Little Joe H Attitude Control, Using Ground Vibration Test Modes Fin Structural Response Test, Little Joe H, Evaluation Test Report Fin Slings, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for

DF-12-120

Fin Warpage, Effects of, on the Trajectory of Little Joe II QTV Shot Finish Specification, Little Joe II Fixed Fin Flutter Analysis Fixed Fin (Cantilevered) Little Joe H/Apollo, Ground Vibration Test Results

DC-12-007

Flight Flutter Instrumentation for Little Joe II Qualification Test Vehicle, Status Report Flight Flutter Test Instrumentation (Required) for Little Joe II Qualification Test Vehicle Flight Report, Launch Vehicle, NASA Project Apollo, Little Joe II QTV - Model Version Vehicle 12-50-1

DF-12-110

-

DF-12-105

-

Flight Simulation, Little Joe II Vehicle 51-2 Forebody Mating Stand, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Free-Floating Control Surface Analysis, Little Joe II

D-65-27 GDC 62-212

Fuel Tank Assembly, P/N 892586, Vibration Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Fuel Tank Assembly, P/N 892586, Vibration Report (Kidde Aerospace Division)

Test

TP-325

Test

R-1636

General Performance Capabilities Ground Air Conditioning, Little Joe H Ground Service Supply Hoses, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Guidance Accuracy Study of Little Joe II Vehicle

-

533

-

12-09109

12A4714 GDC 62-311

DF-12-102 GDC 63-055

12-09103

12-00004 -

GDC 63-193

12-09104

D-65- 28

GDC 62-349 T-12-10 -

12-09119

DC-12-005

A-9

Document Number Gulton Battery Qualification

Power Pack 24V0.180P, Test Report for

Little

Joe H,

Drawing Number

GDC 64-350

Hardware List, Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle Hardware Utilization List - 12-50-1 Hardware Utilization List12-50-2 Hardware Utilization List - Vehicle 12-51-1 Hardware Utilization List - Vehicle 12-51-2 Hardware Utilization List - Vehicle 12-51-3 Hose Adapter, Kit, Little Joe H P/N 12-91026 Hose Kit, Bladder Leak Test, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hose Kit - High Pressure Nitrogen, Little Joe H P/N 12-91040, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hose Set, Extension, Hydraulic Cart, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hose Set, Extension, Hydrogen Peroxide, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hose Set, Extension, Pneumatic, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Hydraulic Actuator Assembly and Components, A History of the Vibration Testing Performed on Hydraulic Servocylinder, Aerodynamic Attitude Control, GDC P/N 12-40100-850, Qualification Test Procedure for

GDC GDC GDC GDC GDC GDC

GDC 64-309

-

Hydraulie Servocylinder, Aerodynamic Attitude Control System, Little Joe H, Qualification Test Report on Hydraulic Servoeylinder, Aerodynamic Attitude Control, GDC Part No. 12-40100-805, Special Qualification Test Procedure for

GDC 64-347

-

GDC 65-171

-

Hydraulic Servocylinder, Little Joe H Aerodynamic Attitude Control System, GDC Part No. 1240100-805, Qualification Test Report for Hydraulic Subsystem in the Little Joe H, Vibration Qualification of Hydraulic System, Attitude Control, Little Joe H, Vibration Qualification Program for Hydraulic System Filtration Study, Little Joe II Attitude Control, Report of

GDC 65-200

A-10

62-170 63-149 64-040 64-237 65-007 65-164

12-09280 12-09288

-

12-09265

-

12-09281

-

12-09282

-

12-09283

PM-12-2251

DF-12-118 GDC 64-193 GDC 65-162

-

Subject Hydraulic and Pneumatic System, Aerodynamic Attitude Control tion Qualification Test Report

Little Joe II System, Vibra-

Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) Fuel Tank, P/N 892586, Acceptance Test Procedure (Walter Kidde Co.) Hydrogen Peroxide Reaction Control System, Little Joe II, Category "B" Test Igniter Installation Tool, Recruit Engine, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Inclination Screw Jacks, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Instrumentation Breadboard, Little Joe H, Test Report for Instrumentation System, Little Joe H 12-51-1 Vehicle, Vibration Test Procedure for Instrumentation Multiplexed Circuit Verification Test, Test Report Instrumentation System Turn-On Voltage Transient, Determination of, Test Report Instrumentation System, Vehicle, 12-51-1, Vibration Qualification Interchangeability and Status

and Replaceability,

for Little Joe H Test Report Definition

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

GDC 64-322

WK-D-AAW-0095 ZZC-64-032

GDC 62-385

GDC 64-231

12-09261

-

GDC 64-285 GDC 64-293 GDC 64-280 -

Preliminary,

GDC 65-139

Investigation Report, Post Mission A-003 Flight

Final,

GDC 65-143

Apollo

12-09116

GDC 64-349

Investigation Report, Post Flight, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-2 Flight,

-

Launch Operations Program and Schedule for Facility Preparation and Launcher Assembly Launch Operations Program and Schedule, Little Joe H High q, Qualification Test Vehicle Launch Operations Program and Schedule, Little Joe H Launch Vehicle 12-50-2, Apollo High q Abort (A-001} Mission Launch Site Activities Report (Weekly) Launch Site - Preliminary Specification for Little Joe II

GDC 63-083

LauncherBlockhouse Requirements Launcher Maintenance (12-50-1)

12-00014-1 -

GDC 63-046 GDC 63-288

-

-

Electrical

Facility

GDC 63-289

-

and Repair

Manual

CS-63-015

A-11

Document Number

_bject Launcher Maintenance Vehicle 12-50-2

and Repair

Manual,

Launch

CS-63-039

Launcher Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-1

and Repair

Manual,

Launch

CS-64-015

•Launcher Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-2

and Repair

Manual,

Launch

CS-65-007

Launcher Maintenance Vehicle 12-51-3

and Repair

Manual,

Launch

CS-65-007A

Launcher Test

Mast,

12-95203,

Proof

and Operational

SL-62-065

Launcher Position Control, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Load Bar, Three Recruit Installation, P/N 1291036-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for

GDC 62-220

Limitations, Launch Operations, Little Joe H Logic and Control Amplifier, Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude Control System Qualification Test for

GDC 64-307 GDC 65-210

Logic and Control Amplifier, Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude Control System, Qualification Test Report for Logic and Control Amplifier, 12-03101-1, Serial No. S-N3, Failure Analysis of Logic and Control Amplifier 12-03101-3 Modified,

GDC 65-219

Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude Control System, Qualification Test Report for Logic and Control Unit Test, Little Joe II, Preliminary Analysis Maintenance

Plan

Manifold and Burst Disc Assembly, P/N 842396, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Manifold and Burst Disc Assembly, P/N 842396, Vibration Test Report (Walter Kidde Co. ) Manifold, Hydraulic Test, Little Joe II P/N 12-91041-1, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Manufacturing Plan Materials Evaluation for Base Thermal Protection Materials Evaluation for Launcher Thermal Protection A-12

Drawing Number

-

12-09112 12-09294

-

GDC 66-501 GDC 66-046

DC-12-017

-

GDC 62-281 TP-326

R-1616 12-09302

GDC 62-205 RT-62-040 RT-62-039

-

Drawing

Number

Number

Subject

Document

Materials Report (Semi-Annual) Measurement Subsystem, Specification Measurement Subsystem, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-1, Specification for Measurement System Maintenance and Manual (Vehicle 12-50-1) Measurement System Maintenance and Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 Measurement System Maintenance and Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1

for Launch

GDC 62-257 -

Repair

CS-63-013

Repair

CS-63-037

Repair

CS-64-011

-

Measurement System Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch Vehicle 12'51-3

CS-65-022

-

Megging of GD/Convair Installed and/or Cable and Wire, Little Joe II Launch

Terminated Site,

Specification for Missile Base Heating - LittleJoe IIMission "E," Seven Algol Rocket Configuration Missile Destructor (Safeand Arm Device) ofthe Destruct Subsystem of the LittleJoe IILaunch Test Vehicle, Specification for Reliability and Qualification Testing Mission "F" Performance Evaluation,LittleJoe II Mission "J" to Five Magnitudes of an Exponential Pitch Command (1.1 Second Time Constant) and Comparison with the Step Response, Little Joe II

12-01101 12-01103 -

-

12-06108

T-12-20 GDC

64-295

DC-12-008 DC-12-026

Motor, Prototype Evaluation Tests, Little Joe II (Walter Kidde Co.) Motor Support Cradle, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Motor and Valve Assembly, P/N 873945, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Motor and Valve Assembly, Development and Qualification, P/N 873945, Vibration Test Report (Kidde Aerospace Division)

R-1592

Narrative

GDC 62-216

12-09108

TP-330 R-1643 & Supplement

End Item Report,

Ground

Support

Equip-

GDC 63-155

ment (12-50-1) Narrative End Item Report,

Ground

Support

Equip-

GDC 64-241

merit (12-71-1) Narrative End Item Report,

Launch

Console

A

GDC 63-154

(12-50-1) A-13

Document Number

Subject

Drawing Number

Narrative End Item Report, Launch Facilities (Model 12-80} Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-50-1 Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 Narrative End Item Report, Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 Narrative End Item Report, Launcher 12-60-1 Narrative End Item Report, Launcher 12-60-2 Nonlinear Stability Analysis of Apollo Mission A-003 (Little Joe H Vehicle 12- 51- 2/ApoUo BP-22) Nonstandard Low Cost GSE, LittleJoe If,Performance and Interface Specification for Nonstandard GSE Portable Test Equipment, Little Joe II, Performance and Interface Specification for

GDC 63-181

-

GDC 63-153 GDC 64-008 GDC 64-242 GDC 65-043 GDC 65-155 GDC 63-152 GDC 64-065 D-65-16

-

Operations Manual, Little Model Version 12-50-1

Joe II Launch

Vehicle,

GDC 63-072

Operations Manual, Little Model Version 12-50-2

Joe rI Launch

Vehicle,

GDC 63-085

Operations Manual, Little Model Version 12-51-1

Joe II Launch

Vehicle,

-

12-08901

Operations Manual, Little Model Version 12-51-2

Joe H Launch Vehicle,

-

12-08902

Oscillators, Qualification Test Report for T-D 1291A1B2B, Mount T-D 1470A-1-A (TeleDynamics) Oscillatory Thrust Investigation, Little Joe II, Proposed Packaging Requirements for Reaction Control Systern Components - Little Joe II, Specification for Panel Vibration Analysis Parts, Identification of PETN Signal Wiring Firing Tests, Little Joe II Aerojet-General Test Report PERT Events Document Pitch Programmer for Attitude system, Specification for

A-14

Reference

Sub-

-

12-09301

-

12-09278

3538

DF-12-122

-

-

12-00260

DF-12-106 MPS 28.06 -

-

GDC 62-226

-

-

12-03102

Subject Pitch Programmer, of the Attitude Procedure

Attitude Reference Subsystem Control System, Qualification Test

Pitch Programmer, Attitude Reference Subsystem for the Attitude Control System, Qualification Test Report for Platform, Destruct Charge Installation, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Platform, Range Safety System, Little Joe II P/N 12-91016-801, GSE Performance and Interface

Drawing

Number

Number

GDC 65-208

GDC 65-218

-

-

12-09297

-

12-09289

GDC 62-227

Test Equipment, Little Joe H Standard Performance and Interface Specification

Potentiometer, Feedback, Testing Study, Power-On Base Drag for Mission "E"

Report

"J"

12-09270 12-09296

Specification for Platform, Range Safety System, Little Joe II P/N 12-91037, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Platforms, RCS Servicing, P/N 12-91033, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for PMP Schedule Dates Portable GSE, for

Document

-

-

of

12-09298

GDC 65-163 GDC 63-137 Addendum B

Power-On

Total

Drag for Mission

GDC 63-137 Addendum D

Power-On uration

Total

Drag

for the 3 - 2 Algol

Config-

GDC 63-137 Addendum E

Power-On uration

Total

Drag

for the 3 - 3 Algol Config-

GDC 63-137 Addendum F

Power-On uration

Total

Drag

for the 2 - 2 Algol Config-

GDC 63-137 Addendum G

Power Room Equipment Rack, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Pressure Control Valve - P/N 892591, Vibration Test Report for (Kidde Aerospace Division} Primacord Vibration Testing for Little Joe II Aerojet-General Test Report Procurement Specification Format Program Plan Program Requirements Document, Little Joe 11 Progress Report (Monthly) Progress Report (Quarterly}

R-1620

-

12-09126 &

Addendum -

I

GDC 62-145 GDC 62-177 GDC 65-032 -

A-15

Document Number

Subject Proposal (Little Joe II- Technical Proposal) Proposal (Little Joe II - Cost and Contractual) Proposal - Launch Test Vehicle Propulsion Subsystem, Specification for Propulsion System Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-1

GDC 62-114 GDC 62-115 GDC 62-291 GDC 62-260 CS-63-014

Propulsion Launch

System Vehicle

Maintenance 12-50-2

and Repair

Manual,

CS-63-038

Propulsion Launch

System Vehicle

Maintenance 12-51-1

and Repair

Manual,

CS-64-012

Drawing Number 12-02260

Qualification Status List (12-50-1) Qualification Status List, Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle 12-50-2

GDC 62-368 GDC 63-169

-

Qualification Status Vehicle 12-51-1

Summary,

Little

Joe II,

GDC 64-234

-

Qualification Status Summary, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2

Little

Joe H,

GDC 65-008

-

Qualification Status Summary, Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 Qualification Test Procedure

Little

Joe H,

GDC 65-156

-

for Sterer

Part

24280-3

GD/Convair Specification No. 12-04103 (Sterer Engr.) Quality Control Performance Audits, Summary of (Quarterly) Quality Control plan Quality Report (Monthly) Quick Disconnect Assembly, Couple and Uncouple Characteristics (Walter Kidde Co. ) Range Safety System (12-98-14) Range Safety System Little Joe H

CVR 48-02-70 GDC 62-222 CVR 48-02-67 R-1614

Test

Program,

Little

Joe II

GDC 65-068

Test

(12-98-14)

Final

Report,

GDC 65-077

Rate Gyro System, Model SE20D-2, American Gyro Design Specification Rate Gyro Assembly, American Gyro P/N 21690, GDC P/N 94-43002-001, A Component of Little Joe II Test Vehicle, Qualification Test Report (American Gyro} Reaction Control Basic Requirements

A-16

24280-3

SE20D-2 26012_ and Supp. 1 & 2

PM-12-261

-

Subject Reaction Reaction

Control Control

- Hydrogen Jet-Induced

Peroxide System Study Aerodynamic Forces on

Little Joe II Stability and Control Characteristics, Effect of Reaction Control Module System Assembly Procedure, Tank Installation, P/N 892631, 892613 (Walter Kidde Co. ) Reaction Control Motor, Effects of On/Off Delay Time on Stability and Control of Little Joe II Reaction Control - Solid Propellant System Study Reaction Control Subsystem, Little Joe II Reliability Testing, Static Firing Tests (Kidde Aerospace Div. ) Reaction Control System, Little Joe II P/N 892630, Acceptance Test Procedure (Walter Kidde Co.) Reaction Control System (892630) Little Joe II, Acceptance Test Procedure (Walter Kidde Co.) Reaction Control System, Little Joe II, Component Qualification Support Data (Walter Kidde Co.) Reaction Control System for Launch Stabilization of Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-2 on Apollo Mission A-003, Effectiveness of Reaction Control System Malfunctions on Little Joe II Mission J, (NASA A-002) Effect of Reaction Control Systems (Module), P/N 892631 and 892613, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co. ) Reaction Control System Monopropellant Module, Specification for Reaction Control System Qualification Test Results, Bibliography and Summary of (Kidde Aerospace Div. ) Reaction Control System Study Reaction Control System, P/N 892630, Little Joe H, Vibration Test Report (Kidde Aerospace Division) Receiver, AN/DRW-ll UHF-FM, Qualification Test Plan for Receiver, AN/DRW-ll, Qualification Test Report for Receiver, Little

AN/DRW-11 Joe H Launch

Qualification

Test

(P/N 12-32044-1) for use in Vehicle 12-51-1 and on, Report

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

AD-LJ-005

12-02601

151238

DC-12-016 12-02600 R-1645 Rev. A WK-D-AAW-0107 151736 R-1591 D-65-21

DC-12-025 TP-336

12-02603 R-1694

GDC 62-247 R-1680 Rev. A PM-12-1339

-

GDC 64-120 GDC 64-339

for A-17

Document Number

_bject Recovery Recovery Recovery

Identification Identification Identification

of Vehicle 12-50-2 of Vehicle 12-51-1 of Little Joe II Vehicle

12-51-2 (Component Descriptions) Recovery Identification Manual, Vehicle 12-51-3 RF Command Subsystem, Little Joe II Launch Vehicle, Specification for RF Command System Maintenance and Repair Manual, Vehicle 12-51-1 RF Noise Filter, Part No. GF6099 (Genistron} Vibration Testing on (Rototest Laboratories) Reliability Assessment Report, Mission A-002, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-1

GDC 64-077 GDC 64-243 GDC 65-035 GDC 65-123 CS-64-010

23711537, Qualification Test Report for (Taveo} Rigging Fixture, BP-22 and AFR-02 Umbilical (P/N 12-91035-1) GSE Performance and Interface Specification for A-18

-

12-03270 -

5632

Reliability Assessment Report, Post Launch Reliability Summary, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-1, Addendum I Reliability Assessment Report, Little Joe II, Apollo Mission A-003 (12-51-2) Reliability Assessment Report, Post Launch Reliability Summary, Apollo Mission A-003 (12-51-2} Reliability Assessment Report, Little Joe II Apollo Mission A-004 (12-51-3} Reliability Assessment Report, Post Launch Reliability Summary, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-3 Reliability Plan (Part 1) Reliability Plan Part II, Reliability Test Plan Reliability Program Plan (NPC 250-1) Reliability Report, Little Joe H (Walter Kidde Co.) Reliability Status Report (Quarterly) Reliability Summary (Weekly) Reliability Testing - Static Firing Procedure for Reaction Control System Module - P/N 892630 (Walter Kidde Co. ) Relief Valve Assembly, P/N 873948, Vibration Test Report (Walter Kidde Co. } Requirements for Work and Resources (RFWAR} at White Sands Missile Range Reservoir, Cylinder, 400 cu. in., 500 PDI, P/N

Drawing Number

-

-

-

-

GDC 65-109 GDC 65-109 Addendum I GDC 65-222 GDC 65-222 Addendum I GDC 62-168 GDC 62-204 GDC 64-119 R-1586

-

TP-332

R-1617

&

GDC 62-160 63-106 -

12-09295

Subject Rocket-Motor

Induced

Airflow

over the Fins

Little Joe H, Study of Rolling Moments on Vehicle 12-51-3 Produced by Thrust Misalignment metrical Flow, Control of

of

Drawing

Number

Number

TS-12-47

Such as Those and Unsym-

Safe and Arm Unit Lanyard Installation, Design Verification Test Safe and Arm Unit Lanyard Installation, Additional Design Verification Tests

Document

TS-12-43

Little

Joe II,

PM-12-817

Little

Joe II,

PM-12-892

Safety Kit, High Pressure Hose, GSE Performance and Interface Specification Sampling Requirements, Hydrogen Peroxide, Little Joe II

-

12-09292

GDC 64-086

Service Cart, Hydraulic - Attitude Control System, Requirements for Service Unit, Pneumatic - Attitude Control System, Requirements for Servicing Trailer, Hydrogen Peroxide, GSE Performance and Interface Specification Servicing Trailer, Pneumatic and Vacuum, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for

GDC 63-134

Servocontrol Valve (Moog) P/N 12-04101-1, S/N 14, Reliability Test of Servovalve, Little Joe II, Failure Analysis Report Shipping Crate, Little Joe II Reaction Control, Vibration and Shock Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co. ) Shipping Crate, Little Joe II Reaction Control System, Shock Test Report for (Walter Kidde Co.) Sling - Aft Vehicle, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Sling, Auxiliary Hydraulic Package, Little Joe H P/N 91004-3, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Sling - Forebody, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Sling - Recruit Engine, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Solid Rocket Booster Capabilities Stability Analysis - Little Joe II

PM-12-2264

GDC 63-133 12-09272 12-09271

LJ-WS-04-5029-F TP-338

-

R-1628 GDC 62-214 -

12-09106 12-09264

GDC 62-213

12-09105

GDC 62-215

12-09107

GDC 62-294 DC-12-011

-

A-19

Stand, Reaction Control System Test, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Statement of Similarity Between Models 89G122 and 89G26, (GDC P/N 12-02605-1) (Custom Components) Statement of Work (NASA) Statement of Work (Convair) CPO 26-201-44 Static Inverter, 3 Phase, 500 VA, for use in the Attitude Control Subsystem, Specificatio n for Static Inverter, Type 39B64-3-A 175 VA, Final Engineering Report of Tests Conducted on (Bendix - Red Bank Division) Storage Cradle and Pad, GSE Performance and interface Specification for Storage Unit, High Pressure Nitrogen, Little Joe H P/N 12-91039, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Stress Analysis, Little Joe H Attitude Control Mounting Rack (Walter Kidde Co. ) Stress Analysis of Little Joe H QTV Dummy Payload Structure Stress Analysis Fins

of Little

Joe H Attitude

Control

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

GDC 62-361 GDC 62-369 -

GDC 62-209 -

12-09101 12-09299

R-1588 GDC 63-040 GDC 63-037 GDC 63-037 Addendum I GDC 63-039 Addendum HI

Stress Analysis, Ground Handling Joe II Launch Vehicle

GDC 63-041

Little

12-06103

645 & Supp. 1 & 2

Stress Analysis for Little Joe II Attitude Control Fins, Ballast Installation for Vehicle 12-51-3 Stress Analysis, Ballast Installation for Vehicle 12-51-3 Equipment,

12-09273

-

Stress Analysis of Little Joe H Launcher Stress Analysis of Retract Mechanism and Mast Extension for BP-22 and AFR-2

GDC 63-038 GDC 63-038 Addendum I

-

Stress Analysis, Stress Analysis, Control

GDC 63-039 GDC 63-039

-

GDC 63-039 Addendum H

-

GDC 63-036 GDC 62-278 TS-12-50

-

Stress

Analysis

Little Joe II Launch Vehicle Hydraulic System No. 2, Attitude - Vehicle

Ballast

Installations

Stress Analysis of Little Joe H Stabilizing Fins Structural Design and Loads Criteria Structural Suitability of Little Joe II for Apollo Mission A-004 Test Point (Mission Q) Support Arm Protection Kit, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for A-20

-

12-09117

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

Subject Support Plan Switch, Power Changeover, Kinetics, GDC P/N 98-62775-005, Qualification Test Report Switch, Pressure, Tavco P/N 2144324, Qualification Test Report to Test Report No. 56-104, Tavco P/N 214432, Pressure Switch (Tavco) Tank, Conditioning - Components, ance and Interface Specification

GDC 62-202 GDC 65-101 63-104

GSE Performfor

-

Technology, New, Semi Annual Report of Teflon, High Pressure, Aircraft Hose Assemblies, Aeroquip 676000 Series and AR1211 and AR1212 Type, Report of Test on Temperature Measurement Subsystem, Specification for Test Console, GSE Performance ification for Test Panel Interface Test Plan

and Interface

Pressure Leak, GSE Performance Specification for

Spec-

12-09276

-

-

60355

-

12-01102

GDC 62-218

12-09110

and

12-09118 GDC 62-175

Test Set, Launch Sequence Timer, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Test Stand, Hydraulic, Maintenance and Repair Manual

-

-

12-05100

CS-64-019

Tester, Ignition Harness, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Thermal Effects vs H20 2 Pressure Rise on Little Joe II Reaction Control System for Vehicle 12-51-1, Test Report Thermal Protection, Launcher, Little Joe II Thrust Bulkhead Vibration Test, Little Joe II Thrust Structure Model Photo Stress Tests Thrust Termination Subsystem, Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle, Specification for Thurst Termination System Tests, Little Joe II (12-98-11), Final Report Tie-Down Criteria for Little Joe II Launch Vehicle Tie-Down Kit, Vehicle, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Timer, Ignition/Sodeco Counter Compatibility, Report

-

GDC 64-326

T-12-2 DF-12-114 SL-62-038

-

-

12-03268

GDC 64-101 GDC 62-278A Addendum I -

Test

12-09127

& 12-09120

GDC 64-312

A-21

Document Number

Subject Timer, Launch Sequence, ference Test Plan

Electromagnetic

Inter-

-

Drawing Number 12-06263

Timer, Launch Sequence, 12-61325-3, Test Report, Modification for High Energy Transients Timer, Launch Sequence, Failure Mode and Transient Analysis Timers, 12-61325-1 and -3, Functional Test, Results of

GDC 64-329

VC&I-124

-

Timers, 12-61325-1 Results of

Test,

VC&I-109

-

and -5,

VC&I-80

-

and -5,

Timer, Launch Sequence Functional Test of Timer - Ignition for

Delay

Functional

- 12-61325-3 Programming,

Specification

Timer - Launch Sequence, for use in the Ignition Subsystem of the Little Joe n Launch Test Vehicle, Qualification Tests of Timer, Launch Sequence (12-61325), Test Report Input Voltage Transient Effects Timer, Launch Sequence, Qualification Test Report for

GDC 64-169

-

12-06100

-

12-06261

GDC 64-244 GDC 64-073

Timer, Launch Sequence, 12-61325-801, S/N 003, Qualification Test Report Tool, Quick Disconnect Drain, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Trailer, Hydrogen Peroxide Servicing, Maintenance and Repair Manual Trailer, Pneumatic and Vacuum Servicing, Maintenance and Repair Manual

GDC 65-102

Trailers, H20 2 - Pneumatic Number Cross Reference

GDC 64-117

GSE, List

Little

Joe II Part

Transducer Performance, Wiancko 54581, Bourns 723, Comparison of Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe (12-50-1) Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe (12-50-2) Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe (12-51-1) Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe (12-51-2)

A-22

-

12-09275

CS-64-021 CS-64-020

GDC 65-079 CS-6"3-018 CS-63-042 CS-64-018 CS-65-010

-

Document

Drawing

Number

Number

Subject Transfer Room Equipment Rack, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Two Hundred Inch Service Module

Umbilical

Connector,

Deutsch,

Test

Plan

for

-

12-09123

GDC 63-137 Addendum H

-

VC&I-291

-

Umbilical Connector (Deutsch) Test, Little Joe H Umbilical Disconnect Set (A-14-024) Retraction Test Planning Report, Little Joe II Umbilical Disconnect Set (A-14-024), Little Joe II, Retraction Test Results Umbilical Retraction Test, Little Joe II Launcher

GDC 65-124 SL-64-140

Valve Assembly, Pneumatic Pressure Reducer, Sterer Part No. 24170, Convair Specification 12-04102, Similarity Qualification Test Report (Sterer Engr. and Mfg. Co.) Valve Assembly, Pneumatic Selector, Lock Open, Sterer Part No. 24280-3, Convair Specification Control Drawing 12-04103-3, Supplemental Qualification Test Report for (Sterer Engr. & Mfg.) Valve, Pressure, Control, P/N 892591, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Valve Assembly, Relief, P/N 873948, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.) Vent Seal, Vehicle Conditioned Air, P/N 12-93000-1 and -3, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for

24170

Vent Unit, Hydrogen Peroxide System, GSE Performance and Interface Specification for Vibration Tests, Ground, Outline of Vibration and Acoustic Qualification Tests for Equipment Installed in Little Joe II Vehicle Vibration Telemetry Components, Qualification Tests Voltage Monitor Transducer Subsystem, tion for Qualification Testing of Voltage Monitor Transducer Subsystem, II Test Launch Vehicle, Qualification for

SpecificaLittle Joe Test Report

SL-64-140-1 SL-63-033

24280-3 Appendix

V

TP-329 TP-328 -

12-09114

-

12-09279

GDC 63-150 DF-12-101

-

DL-M-63-111

-

-

12-06262

GDC 64-185

A-23

Subject Weather and Conditioned Air Cover, GSE Performante and Interface Specification for Weight and Balance Report (Monthly) Wind Limitations on Launching of Little Joe H 12-51-3 (Apollo Mission A-004) Wind Tunnel Test Data of AN. 03 Scale Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-1 Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-3

A-24

Document Number GDC 62-210

Drawing Number 12-09102

TS-12-49

-

GDC 63-025 CS-63-016 CS-63-040 CS-64-016 CS-65-008 CS-65-023

-

APPENDIX CONTRACT Little

CCP No. 1

CHANGE

B HISTORY

Joe II Contract NAS 9-492

Initiated By

Title

Neg. No.

Authority

Structural Provisions for Simultaneous Operation of Seven 2A Algols Revised Launcher Design

NASA

3

Manufacture and Deliver tional Launcher

NASA

TWX R24195Z 7-24-62

4

Contractor Responsibility for InFlight Stage Firing Addition of Forebody to Payload Adapter Structural Attachments Delete Contractor Motion Picture

NASA

Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9- 28- 62 Letter on

2

5 6 7 8 9

Coverage at Cape Thrust Structure Test Increase Launch Factor From 1.3 Use of Silver-Zinc

One Addi-

Canaveral Model Photo

Stress

Vehicle Load to 1.5 Batteries in

10

Lieu of Rapid Activation and Other Electrical Circuit Changes Conduct Launchings at White Sands

11

(Planning) Two Additional

12

13

Launch

Vehicles

Attitude Control System Design, Development, Installation and Operation Algol Rocket Nozzle, Establishment of Nozzle Angle Setting by Contractor at Test Site

CCN 1 7-5-62 Letter on 9-28-62

Convair

NASA NASA

1

Customer Order Basic Contract

9-28-62 Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on

Convair NASA NASA

9-28-62 NASA

Letter

NASA Letter 7-6-62

7-16- 62 TWX R241915Z 7-24-62

on

on

NASA

Letter on 7-17-62

NASA

Letter on 9-28-62

Basic Contract

B-1

CCP No.

Initiated By

Title

14

Contractor Responsibility Launcher Requirements Pad

15

Incorporation of Third Destruct Antenna

16

Increased surement Structural

for All on Launch Command

1

Basic Contract

NASA

Letter on 9- 28-62

1

Basic Contract

Convair

Letter on 9- 28-62

Use of April NPC 200 Series Quality Documents in Lieu of Earlier Issues Differences Between Submitted Test Plan and Convair Work Statement Launch Vehicle Umbilical Relocation

NASA Letter on 6-26-62 Convair

Letter on 9-28-62

21

Increased Launch Requirements

Operations

NASA/ Convair

Letter on 9-28-62

22

Increased surement Relocation

Instrumentation (MeaSystem} Requirements of Algol Destruct Charge

NASA

APO Ltr. 8-6-62 Letter on 9-28-62

24

Crawlway 34.75

Provisions

25

Increased Quantities Documentation

of Type I

26

Addition Vehicle

Provisions

19 20

23

27

Destruct

28

Launch

29

B-2

Revised

of Guy Wire

System

Sequence

Firing

Revision

Timer

Sequence

- (4-3)

Convair

NASA/ WSMR Coord. Meetings Convair

on Bulkhead

on

Customer Order

Letter on 9- 28-62

and Superseded

18

Neg. No.

NASA

Canceled

17

Instrumentation (MeaSystem) Requirements Design Refinements

Authority

by CCP 22----1

Basic Contract

Letter on 9-28-62 Letter on 9- 28-62

Letter on 9-28-62

NASA Letter on 7-31-62

Letter on 9-28-62

NASA/ WSMR

Letter on 9-28-62

Meetings 8-1, 2-62 NASA/ WSMR

Letter on 9-28-62

7-31, 8-1 NASA DR

Letter

Mtg. 8-14

9-28-62

NASA

Letter on 9- 28-62

on

Basic Contract

CC P

Initiated

No. 30

Title

By

Authority

Neg.

Customer

No.

Order

Revised Program Quantity and Schcdule (Revise schedule, reduce quantity of vehicles from 7 to 4 and related changes to procurement of attitude control system and manufacture of fixed fins). Test Shot of LittleJoe IILaunch Vehicle

NASA Letter on 1 Basic APO Ltr. 9-28-62 Contract 9-14-62 NASA TWX on 9-25-62 Disapproved .........................

32

Revised Payload Length

NASA TWX R031400 Z 10-62

33

Disapproved..........................

34

AutopilotTest Installation in First Vehicle Determination ofAcoustic and

35

Vibration- Algol Motors Fin Loading Revision

31

36

NASA

1

PM-12-

1

Basic

1

Contract Basic Contract

258 Convair

Basic Contract

Blockhouse toTransfer/Power Room Wiring - Installation of Cancellation of NASA Attitude Control Breadboard

Disapproved..........................

38

Fixed Fin Ground VibrationTests

NASA

39

Revision of Launcher Vehicle Support Arm Launcher StructuralRevision Rocket Blast Protection

NASA

41

Additional

Convair

PM-12385

42

Ground

Convair

NASA Ltr. Ref. CA 11-29-62

43

Omission of Instrumentation, hicles 2, 3 and 4

Ve-

NASA

Verbal 11-19 & 11- 21

1

Basic Contract

44

Vehicle Air Conditioning (Additional Inlet Door)

Revisions

NASA

NASA TWX 12-123 Rll154OZ

2

Amend

37

40

Fin Flutter

Support

Analysis

Equipment

Revisions

NASA

Convair

TWX 11-15 R011800 Z 11-1-62 PM-12385

Basic Contract

PM-12368 PM-12385

B-3

1

CCP No.

Initiated By

Title

45A

Qualification

Test

Vehicle

46

Deletion Vehicles

47A

Flutter Instrumentation - Additional Requirements (Modified)

Convair/ Modified by NASA

48

S&A Unit Mechanical

NASA

of Crawlway

NASA

Provisions

on

Release

NASA TWX APCA-12215 R182000Z

Neg. No.

Customer Order

2

Amend

1

2

Am ad 1

Convair

(Destruct)

NASA TWX 1-359 R231400 Z NASA TWX 1-359 R231400 Z

49

Installation

50

Revision Bolts

51 52 53

Destruct System Revisions Revisions to GSE (Cumulative) Power Building - Above Ground Revis ions

NASA Convair NASA

54

Base Thermal

NASA

55 56

Documentary Film Revision to Algol Thrust tion Charge Installation

57

Two Additional Vehicles

58

59

B-4

Authority

of Lift-off

to Algol

Relays

Motor

Protection

Attitude

Attachment

- QTV

Termina-

NAA/ NASA

NASA TWX APCA 2-63 R042020 Z

Aerojet & Convair

NASA TWX $12-204 R181700Z

Canceled NASA

Control

NASA

Addition of "Strakes" Module on QTV

for Dummy

NASA

Optical QTV

- Fixed

NASA

Paint Pattern

Fin

NASA TWX APCA 1- 359 R231400 Z NASA TWX APCA2-141 R081945 Z

by NASA 4-5-63 ............. NASA TWX 2 Amend 1 APCA2-101 R062140Z NASA TWX 3 Amend 2 APCA3-457 R222020Z NASA TWX APCA3-019 R282040Z NASA TWX APCA3-054 R041925Z

2

Amend

1

2

Amend 1

CCP No.

Initiated By

Title

60

High Altitude Vehicle

61

Incorporation of Test B in Work Statement

62

Ground

Support

63 64

Report Elevon

on New Technology Hinge Bearing Friction

65 66

Structural Design Refinements Command Destruct Thrust Termination - Circuit Revision

Withdrawn NASA/ WSMR

........................... NASA TWX APCA5-310 R141700Z

67

Launch Sequence Timers, Design Manufacture and Qualification Accelerated Firing Schedule QTV #I

Withdrawn

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

68 69 70

Mission

- Third

Canceled

Plan

Revision

Convair

Revisions

Convair

Authority

Equipment

Test

Neg. No.

Customer Order

5-16-63 .....................

NASA TWX APCA6-080

Canceled ............................. Convair NASA TWX APCA5-370 R142215Z

2

Amend

1

4

Amend

3

5

Amend

5

4

Amend

3

Canceled 5-23-63.....................

AttitudeControl System - Additional Withdrawn ........................... Qualification Testing Revisions to GSE Cumulative No. 4 NASA/ NASA TWX 4 Amend 3 Convair 7-26-63

71

Revision to AttitudeControl System

NASA/ Convair

NASA APO Memo 4-4-63

5

Amend

5

72

Redundant

NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-173, 195 & 310

4

Amend

3

73

Redesign

NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-310

5

Amend

5

74

Miscellaneous

NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-310

4

Amend

3

75

Preparation Schematic

NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-173

Cover

NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-310

Wire Identification

NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-310

4

Amend

3

NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-173, 310

5

Amend

5

Ignition

System

of Instrumentation Requested

System Studies

and Delivery of Master and Interconnection

76

Diagram Addition

77

Additional

78

Miscellaneous inspection)

of Umbilical

Changes

(Other

than

B-5

CCP No.

Initiated By

Title

79

Reduction

80

Installation of NAA Pressure Bulkhead in 12-50-1 QTV Installation of Dual Destruct

81 82

of QTV Data

NASA

System Termination of NASA-Furnished Cables in Blockhouse and at Launch Pad

83

Revisions to Operational Instructions

84

Installation of Radar Transponder Beacon System Installation of Telemetering Package for Accelerometers and Pressure Pickups in QTV Additional Changes Resulting from NASA DEI of 10 June 1963 Modification of Recru{t Ignition System Revisions to Ground Support Equipment - Cumulative No. 5 Breadboard Autopilot for NASA

85

86 87 88 89 90

Modification tion

91

Installation of Dual Destruct System for Attitude Control Vehicles

92

of 12-51-1

Checkout

(Mod. 12-51) Direct Distribution Documentation

93

Additional and Effect Schedules

94

Reschedule

Configura-

of Little

Launch Operations of Revised Launch of Launcher

Joe H Tasks

#12-60-2

B-6

Addition of Mercury Cell for Instrumented Reference Voltage

Customer Order

4

Amend

3

NASA

APCAT 7-011. 225 APCA5-420

NASA

APCA6-082

NASA

APCA6-061

4

Amend

3

NASA

APCA5-310

5

Amend

5

NASA

APCA6-083

4

Amend

3

NASA

APCA6-298

4

Amend

3

NASA

APCAT 7-009.223 APCA6-060

5

Amend

5

4

Amend

3

4

Amend

3

4

Amend

3

NASA NASA NASA NASA

4 APCAT 7-204 APCAT 7-008. 222

Withdrawn ..............................

Canceled

- replaced

by CCP 116 .........

Withdrawn

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

NASA

NASA TWX

by NASA 95

Authority

Neg. No.

5

Amend

5

5

Amend

5

APCAT 6-199 NASA

NASA TWX APCAT 7-012o 226

CCP No. 96 97

98

Initiated By

Title RFI Testing - White Sands Missile Range Requirements Incorporation of Reaction Control System into Breadboard Program Revised North American Electrical Interface

NASA NASA

Test

NASA and PM-12-991 NASA TWX

Amend

5

Amend

5

6 5

Amend Amend

8 5

5

Amend

5

7-27-63 NASA CCA No. 1

5

Compliance with Section 15 of MSFC Drafting Manual dated 5 February 1963 Acceptance Data Package Implementation of MSFC-PROC158B, "Uniform Requirements for Soldering" Rewrite Field Operational Checkout Instructions to Apollo Format

NASA

NASA CCA No. 4

5

103

Ignition System Flight Staging

NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-173 5-195 & 5-310

104

Storage of Vehicle 12-50-2 at GD/Convair Production Logic and Control Unit and Pitch Programmer for NASA Autopilot Contractor Furnished Batteries and Commutators in Lieu of GFP for Vehicle 12-51-1 Measurement Power

NASA

NASA CCA No. NASA CCA No. CCA No. NASA CCA No. CCA No.

Thirty "G" Vibration Testing of Reaction Control System Thirty "G" Vibration Testing of Reaction Control System Implementation of Specification NSC-ASPO-C-3 Vibration Testing of Instrumentation and Autopilot Systems Provisioning for and Development of Pitch Programmer

Canceled

1O0 i01

102

105

106

107 107A 108 109 110

Revision

- In

Customer Order

5

NASA

99

Aviation

Neg. No.

Authority

NASA NASA

NASA/ WSMR

NASA

Convair/ NASA

NASA NASA NASA NASA

NASA TWX APCA5-420 APCA 6- 260 NASA CCA No. 9

- replaced

4 6 7 5 6 by CCP107A ........

NASA CCA No. 2 NASA CCA No. 6 NASA CCA No. 11 NASA CCA No. 4 CCA No. 5

6

Amend

8

6

Amend

8

B-7

CCP No.

Initiated By

Title

Neg. No.

Authority

111 112

Schedule Change - Vehicle 12-50-1 Pitch Programmer Checkout and Monitor - Provisionsfor

NASA NASA

113

Additionof NAA

NASA

NASA CCA No. I0

114

Umbilical

Convair

NASA CCA No. 13

115

Changes Resulting from NASA Design Engineering Inspection of 14 November 1963 Direct Distribution of Little Joe H Documentation

: NASA

NASA CCA No. 12

NASA

NASA CCA No. 10

Revision to Ground Support Equipment Cumulative No. 6 Static Inverter for NASA Bread-

NASA

NASA CCA No. 11 NASA

116 117 118 119

120

TrailingGround

Redesign

board Autopilot Reaction Control System - Added Ground Service Equipment, Fin Test Program and Field Checkout Additional Quality Assurance and Program Control Tasks at WSMR

NASA

122

Convair

123

Revision to Ground Support Equipmerit- Cumulative No. 7 Additional Attitude Control Vehicles

124

(12-51-3and-4) Effect of Revised Schedule

64-951P Withdrawn and canceled-

Ignition Hold Switch for NASA Test Conductor's Console

NASA

126

Thrust

NASA

NASA CCA No. 14

127

Algol Chamber Pressure Measurement Pitch Programmer Installation

NASA

129

Revision to Direct Distribution Little Joe II Documentation

NASA

NASA CCA No. 20 NASA CCA No. 16 NASA CCA No. 19

130

Revision to Ground Support merit - Cumulative No. 8

126

B-8

System

NASA

NASA/WSMR Letter 6-21-63 NASA CCA No. 14

Launch Control

Termination

- Dual

NASA

CCA No. 12 NASA CCA No. 12

121

125

Console

NASA

NASA CCA No. 11

- Dual

of

Equip-

NASA

NASA

GD/ Convair

RFP

MSC-

NASA CCA No.

Customer Order

6

Amend

8

6

Amend

8

8

Amend

10

6

Amend

8

6

Amend

8

7

Amend

9

Amend

10

Amend

10

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

14

8

CCP

Initiated

No.

Title

131

Separate Sinusoidal and Random Vibration of Autopilot and Instrumentation Systems Installation of Visicorder in Power

132 133 134 135

136

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144

145 146 147

___By

Building at WSMR Storage of Launcher No. 2 (12-60-2) Modification of Shaped Charge Installation

Authority

GD/ Convair NASA NASA NASA

NASA CCA No. 27

NASA

NASA CCA No.

Redundant De-Arming Circuitry in Little Joe II Vehicle No. 12-50-2

NASA

Reassignment of Reaction Vibration Testing

GD/ Convair 29

GD/ Convair

NASA CCA No.

2

Qualification Testing of AN/DRW11 Receiver Modification of Abort Initiation Circuit for Mission A-001

NASA

NASA CCA No. 25 NASA CCA No. 35

Storage

NASA

12-50-3

Revision to Ground Support Equipment - Cumulative No. 9 Battery Jumper Harnesses and Thrust Termination Monitor

NASA CCA No.

25

Convair NASA

NASA CCA No. 34

-

NASA

NASA CCA No. 33

Analysis of Vehicle 12-50-2 Post Launch Data Implementation of NASA Specification MSC-ASPO-S-2 as Modified

NASA

NASA CCA No. 36 NASA CCA No. 31

Line Adapter Thrust Termination Vibration Test of

Primaeord

NASA

Order

8

Amend

8

Amend l0

9

Amend

13

9

Amend

13

8

Amend

10

8

Amend

10

9

Amend

13

8

Amend

10

8

Am nd 10

10

22

NASA CCA No.

of Vehicle

No.

CCA No. 24 NASA CCA No. 17 NASA CCA No. 21

NASA

NASA

Customer

NASA

Relocation of Remote Monitoring of Thrust Termination System S & A Squibs Installation Requirement for Fin Control System Test Stand at WSMR Facilities Plan - Revision of

Control

Neg.

by CCA No. 31 (Solderless, Crimped Splices of Electrical Conductors)

B-9

CCP No. 148 149

Initiated By

Title Two Long Run Facility Cables for 12-51 Vehicles Implementation of MSC-GSE-1A

Convair NASA

Neg. No.

Authority NASA CCA No. 32 NASA CCA No. 15 as modified

Customer Order

9

Amend 13

8

Amend 10

9

Amend 13

8

Amend 10

9

Amend 13

9

Amend 13

by CCA No. 30 150 151 152

153

Implementation of NASA Reliability Specification Repair of Yaw Caging Amplifier

NASA

Modification of Launchers to Accommodate GSE Platform for

Convair

Attitude Attitude

Control Vehicle Servicing Control Test Fin and

NASA

NASA

Support for NASA Fin System Tests Launch Facility

155

Vibration Qualification of the Attitude Control Hydraulic System Revised Qualification Test Requirements for Hydraulic Servo Cyldinder Separate Testing of Instrumentation and Autopilot Systems Vehicle 12-51-1 Configuration Changes

157 158

Cab1e Study

ConvairNASA NASA NASA

Convair NASA

159

Implementation MSC-ASPO-C3B

of Specification

NASA

160

Minimum Crew tions Personnel

of Launch

NASA

161

Opera-

NASA CCA No. 44 NASA CCA No. 40 NASA CCA No. 45 NASA CCA No. 11 NASA CCA No. 18, 43, 52, 53 NASA CCA No. 47

Amend

17

9

Amend

13

9

Amend

14

Convair 9 Withdrawn .............................. NASA CCA No. 9 12

Amend

17

Amend

22

NASA

162

Revision to Ground Support mentCumulative No. 10

Convair

163 164B 165

Facilities Plan, Up-Date Launch Operations Costs Effect of Revised Schedules

Equip-

38

10

Services of General Dynamics/ Convair Analog Computer Engineer at NASA-Houston

B-10

NASA CCA No.

154

156

NASA CCA No. 37 NASA CCA No. 41 NASA CCA No. 39

NASA CCA No.

50

NASA CCA No.

51

CCP No.

Title

Neg. No.

Customer Order

Withdrawn

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

NASA

CCA No.

59

11

Amend

15 17

Transporter tion of

167

Implementation DEI Studies

168

Maintenance and Operation of a NASA Telemetry Tracker at WSMR Range Safety System in Kit Form Storage of Vehicles 12-50-3 & 12-50-4

NASA

CCA No. 48

10

Amend

NASA NASA

CCA No. 56 CCA No. 26 & 57 & Amend 1

11

Amend 15

Implementation of Vehicle 12-51-1 DEI Changes Extended Distribution of Documentation Launcher Modification for BP-22 Umbilical Installation Vehicle and Instrumentation OCP Revisions

NASA

CCA No.

59

NASA

CCA No.

55

11

Amend

15

NASA

CCA No.

63

12

Amend

22

NASA

CCA No. 68

11

Amend

15

175B

Design Changes for Vehicles 12-51-2 and 12-51-3

NASA

CCA No. 53

13

Amend

23

176A

Range

NASA

CCA No. 56 R1, 56R2 &66

11

Amend

15

177

NASA Pitch Programmer - Repair of Revisions to Documentation Task

NASA

CCA No. 67 Item 1 CCA No. 64, 67 (Item 2 & 3) & TWX PR2-64-567

11

Amend

15

12

Amend

22

179

Rate Gyro Spin Motor Rotation Detection of - Addition of

NASA

CCA No. 70

180

Revision to Ground Support mentCumulative No. 11

Convair & NASA

CCA No. 46, 61 & 62

181

Limited Environmental Testing of Instrumentation Spares for Vehicle 12-51-1 - Waiver of

NASA

CCA No.

65

12

Ar_ _nd 22

182A

Range Safety tion of

NASA

CCA No. 71 PM-121825-8

13

Amend

23

183

Maintenance and Operation a NASA Telemetry Trailer WSMR - Extension of

NASA

CCA No.

12

Amend

22

171 172A 173 174

178

Safety

- Modifica-

Authority

166

169 170A

Erector

Initiated By

of Vehicle

System

System

12-51-1

Requirements

Equip-

- Modifica-

of at

NASA

72

B-II

CCP No. 184 185A 186 187B 188A

189

Initiated By

Title Revision to Ground Support EquipmentCumulative No. 12 Implementation of NASA Requested Changes Spacecraft Relay Box Kit Completion of Vehicle 12-51-4Configuration for Development Engineering Inspection for Vehicle 12-51-2 and

190B

Launch Operations Services Five-Vehicle Program

191

Facilities

192A

RF Command and Range Safety System Receiver - Replacement

Plan - Revision

13

Amend

13

Amend 23

NASA NASA

CCA No. 81 CCA No. 75, PM-12-2157 CCA No. 77

12 14

Amend Amend

13

Amend 23

CCA No. 73, 14 76, 83 & NASA Ltr PP8-65J13 dtd 2/18/65 CCA No. 9 13 13, 43, 49, 53, 58, Amend 9 to Contract, NASA/WSMR Ltr Statz/ Harris dtd 6/21/63 14

Amend 24

NASA

of

Convair NASA

CCA No. 83 PP7-65540

NASA

77, 1

85

of

Support Equipment and Cumulative No. 13

Customer Order

CCA No. 53, 69, 70, 76 CCA No. 80

NASA

for

Neg. No.

Convair/ NASA NASA

NASA

Changes Resulting Therefrom Increased Hydraulic System Capacity. Attitude Control Instrumentation, Structural Dynamic Analyses and Instrumentation Stress Testing

Authority

23

22 24

Amend

23

Amend

24

193

Ground Spares-

194 195

Miscellaneous Engineering Services Maintenance of Launcher No. 2 Extension of

NASA Convair

CCA No. 78, Rev. to 78, 80 CCA No. CCA No.

196

Maintenance and Operation of a NASA Telemetry Trailer at WSTF Extension of

NASA

CCA No.

NASA

CCA No. 74 CCA No. 79

14

Amend

24

NASA

CCA No. 87 & Rev. 1

15

Amend

26

197

Revision merits

198

Additional

B-12

to Documentation Instrumentation

Require-

84 17

-

CCP

Initiated

No.

Title

199

Development Engineering tion - 12-51-3

200 201A

202 203 204 205 206

By NASA

CCA No. 88 & Rev. 1

Ground Support Equipment and Spares - Cumulative No. 14 Vehicle 12-51-2 Post Flight Investigation - Phases I and II; Attitude Control System Investigation - Redesign and Test Facilities Plan - Revision of

NASA

CCA No. 83, 75 & 88 CCA No. 86

Pitch Programmer - In Flight Starting RF Command System Revision Task Reduction - Vehicles 12-50-3 and 12-50-4 Maintenance and Operation of a

NASA

CCA No.

NASA Convair NASA

CCA CCA Rev. CCA

NASA

CCA No.

93

NASA

CCA No.

90

NASA

CCA No.

94

NASA

CCA No.

NASA

CCA No. Rev. 1

NASA Telemetry Extension of

Trailer

Inspec-

at WSTF

207A

Hydraulic Vibration

208

Ground Support Equipment and Spares - Cumulative No. 15 Effect of Schedule Revision, Instru-

209

mentation Activities 12-51-3 210 211A

Authority

Actuator Assembly Dwell Test

Customer

No.

Order

15

Amend 26

92

15

Anmnd

26

96

16

Amend

28

Convair 90

No. 91 No. 96 1 No. 95

-

and Control Systems - Launch Vehicles

Task Reduction and Storage Vehicle 12-51-4 Contract NAS 9-492 Close-out

C-6062-I

-

NASA

Neg.

-

(200) B-13