PART 2 (A)
Design - Decision - Contract
August 1960 through December 1960
In a memorandum to Abe Silverstein, Director of NASA's Office of Space
Flight Programs, Harry J. Goett, Director of Goddard Space Flight
Center, outlined the tentative program of the Goddard industry
conference to be held on August 30. At this conference, more details of
proposed study contracts for an advanced manned spacecraft would be
presented. The requirements would follow the guidelines set down by STG
and presented to NASA Headquarters during April and May. Three six-month
study contracts at $250,000 each would be awarded.
Draft Memorandum, Goett to Director, Office of Space Flight Programs,
August 8, 1960.
Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton and Secretary of the Army
Wilber M. Brucker announced that the U.S. Geological Survey had
completed the first known photogeological survey of the surface of the
moon. The study, part of a program to select lunar landing sites for
manned and unmanned spacecraft, consisted of three diagrams, all showing
the visible face of the moon at 36 inches diameter. These diagrams
depicted, respectively, the physiographic lunar regions, naming features
on the moon's surface ; a generalized photogeologic map giving the age
of craters and structural features; and the prominent lunar rays.
Palo Alto Times, August 18, 1960.
The Soviet Union launched its second spaceship satellite, the Korabl
Sputnik II, or Sputnik V. The spacecraft was similar
to the one launched on May 15 and carried two dogs, Strelka and Belka,
in addition to a gray rabbit, rats, mice, flies, plants, fungi,
microscopic water plants, and seeds. Electrodes attached to the dogs and
linked with the spacecraft communications system, which included a
television camera, enabled Soviet scientists to check the animals'
hearts, blood pressure, breathing, and actions during the trip. After
the spacecraft reentered and landed safely the next day, the animals and
biological specimens were reported to be in good condition.
Baltimore Sun, August 20, 1960; New York Herald
Tribune, August 22, 1960; Instruments and
Spacecraft, pp. 120-121.
The Goddard Space Flight Center GSFC conducted its industry conference
in Washington, D.C., presenting details of GSFC projects, current and
future. The objectives of the proposed six-month feasibility contracts
for an advanced manned spacecraft were announced:
Fixed-fee contracts were to be Jet to prime contractors only; several
contracts would be let concurrently. The timetable was announced:
- To define a manned spacecraft system fulfilling STG guidelines
- To formulate a program plan for implementation
- To identify areas requiring long lead-time research and development
- To analyze the cost of providing the system.
Presentations for the Industry Conference to be conducted by the Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., August 30, 1960.
- August 30, 1960, industry familiarization;
- August 31-September 6, expression of interest to NASA;
- September 7, invitation to bidders' conference;
- September 12, bidders' conference at STG;
- October 10, proposals received;
- November 14, contracts awarded;
- May 15, 1961, contracts completed.
In an organizational change within STG, Maxime A. Faget was appointed
Chief of the Flight Systems Division and Robert O. Piland was named
Assistant Chief for Advanced Projects. The Apollo Project Office was
formed with Piland as Head of the Office; members included John B. Lee,
J. Thomas Markley, William W. Petynia,and H. Kurt Strass.
Memorandum, Robert R. Gilruth to Staff, STG, "Change in
Organization of the Space Task Group," September 1, 1960.
NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan directed that an accelerated joint
planning effort be made by persons at NASA Headquarters who were most
familiar with the Saturn, Apollo, manned orbital laboratory, and
unmanned lunar and planetary programs. They were to determine whether
the Saturn and Saturn-use programs were effectively integrated and
whether sufficient design study and program development work had been
done to support decisions on projected Saturn configurations. The group
responsible for the study consisted of Lloyd Wood, Richard B. Canright,
Alfred M. Nelson, John L. Sloop, Oran W. Nicks, Fred D. Kochendorfer,
and George M. Low.
Memorandum, Donald H. Heaton to Director, Launch Vehicle Programs, and
Director, Space Flight Programs, "Integration of the Saturn and
Saturn Applications Programs," September 2, 1960.
A NASA contract for approximately $44 million was signed by Rocketdyne
Division of NAA for the development of the J-2 engine.
Rocketdyne Skywriter, September 16, 1960, p. 1.
An STG briefing was held at Langley Field, Va., for prospective bidders
on three six-month feasibility studies of an advanced manned spacecraft
as part of the Apollo program. A formal Request for Proposal was issued
at the conference.
Ralph B. Oakley, Historical Summary, S&ID Apollo
Program (NAA, Space and Information Systems Division, January 20,
1966), p. 3; "Agenda for Bidders' Briefing for a Feasibility Study.
Project Apollo" September 13. 1960.
A formal agreement was signed by the United States and South Africa
providing for the construction of a new deep-space tracking facility at
Krugersdorp, near Johannesburg. It would be one of three stations
equipped to maintain constant contact with lunar and planetary
Fourth NASA Semiannual Report, p. 111.
A staff meeting of the Flight Systems Division of STG was held to
discuss design constraints for an in- house design study of the Apollo
spacecraft. [See October 21, 1960.]
Memorandum, H. Kurt Strass to Apollo Design Team, "Design
Restraints for FSD Apollo Design Study (Information and Action),"
October 25, 1960.
An attempt to launch a Pioneer satellite into lunar orbit failed when
one of the upper stages of the Atlas- Able rocket malfunctioned.
Washington Post, September 26, 1960.
In a memorandum to NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr.,
Robert L. King, Executive Secretary, described the action taken on
certain items discussed at the July 14-15 meeting of the Space
Exploration Program Council. Among these actions was the awarding of a
contract to The RAND Corporation to evaluate missions for which nuclear
propulsion would be desirable. Included in the study would be the
determination of availability dates, cost of development, operational
costs, the safety aspects of the missions, and an evaluation of research
Memorandum, King to Seamans, "Actions Since SEPC Meeting of 14-15
July 1960," September 29, 1960.
The fourth meeting of the Space Exploration Program Council was held at
NASA Headquarters. The results of a study on Saturn development and
utilization was presented by the Ad Hoc Saturn Study Committee.
Objectives of the study were to determine (1) if and when the Saturn C-2
launch vehicle should be developed and (2) if mission and spacecraft
planning was consistent with the Saturn vehicle development schedule. No
change in the NASA Fiscal Year 1962 budget was contemplated. The
Committee recommended that the Saturn C-2 development should proceed on
schedule (S-II stage contract in Fiscal Year 1962, first flight in
1965). The C-2 would be essential, the study reported, for Apollo manned
circumlunar missions, lunar unmanned exploration, Mars and Venus
orbiters and capsule landers, probes to other planets and out-of-
ecliptic, and for orbital starting of nuclear upper stages.
During a discussion on the Saturn program, several major problems were
Minutes, Space Exploration Program Council Meeting, September 30, 1960,
pp. 1, 4-5; Low, "Saturn Requirements for Project Apollo,"
presentation to Space Exploration Program Council, September 30, 1960;
"Presentation of Results of Saturn Study by Ad Hoc Study Committee
to Space Exploration Program Council," September 30, 1960.
- The adequacy of the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle for orbital
qualification of the complete Apollo spacecraft was in question.
Although the C-1 could be used to launch a command module of 5,100
pounds, it was probable that the command module weight would increase to
as much as 8,000 pounds, George M. Low of NASA Headquarters, in a
critical review of the Apollo program, pointed out that a spacecraft for
a circumlunar mission could be constructed within the payload limitation
of the C-2 launch vehicle. Both the developmental and production
spacecraft could be available to meet the Saturn schedules.
- Much basic research would be needed before the first Apollo flight,
In particular, the problem of reentry heating was of great concern. Low
noted that a prediction criterion for proton beam events had been
developed, making possible safe manned circumlunar flights insofar as
the radiation problem was concerned.
- Concern was also expressed as to the possible need and availability
of additional personnel to support the Apollo program.
September 30 - October 3
Charles J. Donlan of STG, Chairman of the Evaluation Board which would
consider contractors' proposals on feasibility studies for an advanced
manned spacecraft, invited the Directors of Ames Research Center, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Flight Research Center, Lewis Research Center,
Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center to name
representatives to the Evaluation Board. The first meeting was to be
held on October 10 at Langley Field, Va.
Letters, Donlan to Smith J. DeFrance, Brian O. Sparks, Paul F. Bikle,
Eugene J. Manganiello, Floyd L. Thompson, Wernher von Braun, September
30-October 3, 1960.
Members were appointed to the Technical Assessment Panels and the
Evaluation Board to consider industry proposals for Apollo spacecraft
feasibility studies. Members of the Evaluation Board were: Charles J.
Donlan (STG), Chairman; Maxime A. Faget (STG) ; Robert O. Piland (STG),
Secretary; John H. Disher (NASA Headquarters Office of Space Flight
Programs); Alvin Seiff (Ames); John V. Becker (Langley); H. H. Koelle
(Marshall); Harry J. Goett (Goddard), ex officio; and Robert R. Gilruth
(STG), ex officio.
Memorandum, Donlan to Members, Technical Assessment Panels,
"Instruction for Members of Technical Assessment Panels for
Evaluation of Contractors' Proposals for a Feasibility Study of an
Advanced Manned Spacecraft, RFP-302 (Project Apollo)," October 4,
1960; NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, and STG, "Project Apollo:
Plan for the Evaluation of Contractors' Proposals for a Feasibility
Study of an Advanced Manned Spacecraft and System," October 6,
Members of STG visited the Marshall Space Flight Center to discuss
possible Saturn and Apollo guidance integration and potential
utilization of Apollo onboard propulsion to provide a reserve
capability. Agreement was reached on tentative Saturn vehicle
assignments on abort study and lunar entry simulation; on the use of the
Saturn guidance system; and on future preparations of tentative flight
plans for Saturns SA-6, 8, 9, and 10.
Memorandum, H. Kurt Strass to Chief, Flight Systems Division,
"Report on Visit to MSFC October 5 1960 by STG personnel"
October 5 1960.
Contractors' proposals on feasibility studies for an advanced manned
spacecraft were received by STG. Sixty-four companies expressed interest
in the Apollo program, and of these 14 actually submitted proposals: The
Boeing Airplane Company; Chance Vought Corporation; Convair/Astronautics
Division of General Dynamics Corporation; Cornell Aeronautical
Laboratory, Inc.; Douglas Aircraft Company; General Electric Company;
Goodyear Aircraft Corporation; Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation;
Guardite Division of American Marietta Company; Lockheed Aircraft
Corporation; The Martin Company; North American Aviation, Inc.; and
Republic Aviation Corporation. These 14 companies, later reduced to 12
when Cornell and Guardite withdrew, were subsequently invited to submit
prime contractor proposals for the Apollo spacecraft development in
1961. The Technical Assessment Panels began evaluation of contractors'
proposals on October 10.
"Participating Companies or Company Teams," partial set of
material for Evaluation Board use; "Apollo Spacecraft
Chronology," unpublished, annotated by Robert O. Piland, p. 4.
In a memorandum to Abe Silverstein, Director of NASA's Office of Space
Flight Programs, George M. Low, Chief of Manned Space Flight, described
the formation of a working group on the manned lunar landing program:
"It has become increasingly apparent that a preliminary program for
manned lunar landings should be formulated. This is necessary in order
to provide a proper justification for Apollo, and to place Apollo
schedules and technical plans on a firmer foundation.
"In order to prepare such a program, I have formed a small working
group, consisting of Eldon Hall, Oran Nicks, John Disher, and myself.
This group will endeavor to establish ground rules for manned lunar
landing missions; to determine reasonable spacecraft weights; to specify
launch vehicle requirements; and to prepare an integrated development
plan, including the spacecraft, lunar landing and takeoff system, and
launch vehicles. This plan should include a time-phasing and funding
picture, and should identify areas requiring early studies by field
Memorandum, Low to Director of Space Flight Programs, "Manned Lunar
Landing Programs," October 17, 1960.
A staff meeting of STG's Flight Systems Division was held to fix
additional design constraints for the in- house design study of the
Fundamental decisions were made as a result of this and a previous
meeting on September 20:
Memorandum, H. Kurt Strass to Apollo Design Team, "Design
Restraints for FSD Apollo Design Study (Information and Action),"
October 25, 1960.
- The entry vehicle should have a Mercury-type configuration, a lift
over drag ratio of 0.35, and an overall heatshield and should follow the
modular concept, in which a module containing redundant equipment could
be jettisoned before reentry.
- Solid propellant systems should be used throughout for onboard
- The nominal design load should be 8 g, with an emergency ultimate of
- For flight path control in atmospheric flight, with lift over drag
ratio of 0.35 constant, roll control only would be used; for space
flight, midcourse corrections should be made by fixed-impulse solid-
- Attitude control should be maintained during powered flight by
thrust vector, during space flight by control jets, and during
atmospheric flight by control jets for damping.
- The onboard guidance system should utilize special purpose computers
and inertial reference based on the use of fundamentally manual star-
sight systems with provision for automatic use.
- Both parachutes and rotors should be studied for the touchdown mode.
- Further research on the spacecraft atmosphere would be necessary.
The Technical Assessment Panels presented to the Evaluation Board their
findings on the contractors' proposals for feasibility studies of an
advanced manned spacecraft. On October 24, the Evaluation Board findings
and recommendations were presented to the STG Director.
"Apollo Spacecraft Chronology," pp. 4, 5.
Included in the current Saturn flight schedule were: mid-1961, begin
first-stage flights with dummy upper stages; early 1963, begin two-stage
flights; late 1963, begin three-stage flights; early 1964, conclude
ten-vehicle research and development flight test program.
Senate Staff Report, Manned Space Flight Program, p. 193.
NASA selected three contractors to prepare individual feasibility
studies of an advanced manned spacecraft as part of Project Apollo. The
contractors were Convair/Astronautics Division of General Dynamics
Corporation, General Electric Company, and The Martin Company.
TWXs, Goddard Space Flight Center to John A. Powers; NASA Headquarters
to STG, Langley; STG Public Affairs Office, Langley Field, Va,, Powers
to Convair/Astronautics of General Dynamics Corporation, General
Electric Company, and The Martin Company, October 25, 1960; Oakley,
Historical Summary, S&ID Apollo Program, p. 3.
October 27 - November 2
Representatives of the General Electric Company, The Martin Company, and
Convair/Astronautics Division of General Dynamics Corporation visited
STG to conduct negotiations on the Apollo systems study contracts
announced on October 25. The discussions clarified or identified areas
not completely covered in company proposals. Contracts were awarded on
Minutes of Technical Negotiation Meetings with the General Electric
Company, The Martin Company, and Convair/Astronautics Division of
General Dynamics Corporation for Apollo Systems Study (RFP-302), October
27, November 1, and November 2, 1960; "Apollo Spacecraft
Chronology," p. 5.
Key staff members of NASA Headquarters and the Commander, U.S. Air Force
Research and Development Command, met at the Air Force Ballistic Missile
Division, Los Angeles, Calif., to attend briefings and discuss matters
of mutual concern.
At an executive session, Air Force and NASA programs of orbital
rendezvous, refueling, and descent from orbit were discussed. Long-range
Air Force studies on a lunar base were in progress as well as research
on more immediate missions, such as rendezvous by an unmanned satellite
interceptor for inspection purposes, manned maintenance satellites, and
reentry methods. NASA plans for the manned lunar landing mission
included the possible use of the Saturn booster in an orbital staging
operation employing orbital refueling. Reentry studies beyond Mercury
were concentrated on reentry at escape speeds and on a spacecraft
configuration capable of aerodynamic maneuvering during reentry.
Memorandum, Donald H. Heaton, Assistant Administrator for Resources, for
the Record, "Minutes of the Executive Meeting at AFBMD on October 28,
1960," November 2, 1960.
The Department of the Interior announced that the U.S. Geological Survey
would undertake detailed studies of lunar geology as part of a new
$205,000 program in astrogeology financed by NASA. The program would
include geological analysis of photographs of selected areas on the
moon, terrestrial crater studies, and investigations into the origin of
tektites, meteorites, and related material of possible extraterrestrial
origin. Certain lunar features would be studied more closely and larger
scale diagrams would be made of specific areas in the vicinity of sites
selected by NASA for unmanned spacecraft landings.
New York Times, November 9, 1960.
At a meeting, Charles J. Donlan of STG and George M. Low, John H.
Disher, Milton W. Rosen, and Elliott Mitchell, all of NASA Headquarters,
discussed a plan to set up informal technical liaison groups to broaden
the base for inter-Center information exchange on the Apollo program
with particular reference to onboard propulsion.
Memorandum, Abe Silverstein to Director, Launch Vehicle Programs,
"Apollo Technical Liaison Groups," November 29, 1960.
Little Joe 5 with a Mercury production spacecraft was launched from
Wallops Island to test the spacecraft in an abort simulating the most
severe launch conditions. At 15.4 seconds after liftoff, the escape
rocket motor and tower jettison motor ignited prematurely. Booster,
capsule, and tower remained mated through ballistic trajectory until
destroyed on impact.
James M. Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology (NASA
SP-4001, 1963), p. 117; Swenson et al., This New
Ocean, p. 291.
Discoverer XVII was launched into polar orbit from
Vandenberg Air Force Base and the payload was recovered on November 14.
On December 2, the Air Force revealed that exceedingly valuable
information had been obtained from human tissues carried by
Discoverer XVII. The tissues had been exposed to an
unexpectedly heavy dose of radiation for more than 50 hours in
Baltimore Sun, November 14, 1960; Los Angeles
Times, December 3, 1960.
STG formulated a plan for the proposed Apollo Technical Liaison Groups.
These Groups were to effect systematic liaison in technical areas
related to the Apollo project. The objectives and scope of the plan were
To carry out these objectives, Technical Liaison Groups would be
- Provide an up-to-date summary of progress on the Apollo project in
specific technical areas at the Centers.
- Give a regular summary of Apollo research and study investigations
to ensure their use in the project.
- Report Apollo contractor activities to Group members.
- Bring expert consideration to the technical problems as they arose.
- Point out research activity needed in support of Apollo for its
assignment to the centers.
- Assist in monitoring contractor studies through participation of
individual panel members.
- Develop requirements for flight tests resulting from research and
- Provide assessments of progress in the technical areas.
Representatives in a given Group would be limited to a single member
from each Center. STG would be responsible for meeting arrangements.
- Trajectory Analysis;
- Studies related to the manned circumlunar mission including
atmospheric and non-atmospheric phases of normal and emergency
- Configurations and Aerodynamics.
- Theoretical and experimental studies of the aerodynamic
characteristics and performance of vehicles proposed for the manned
- Guidance and Control:
- Studies and developments in the guidance, navigation, and control
areas related to all phases of the manned circumlunar mission.
- Convective, conductive, and radiative heat-transfer studies during
launch, abort, and reentry for various configurations; investigations of
heat transfer through turbulent boundary layers; ablation rates for
materials at different heating conditions; and pressure distribution for
- Structures and Materials:
- Studies of design concepts for proposed circumlunar vehicle
structures including the optimum payload distribution, protection
against radiation and meteoroids, and possible shapes and types of
structures suitable for circumlunar missions.
- Instrumentation and Communications:
- Studies and developments of instruments required for the mission;
studies on voice, telemetry, and tracking communications.
- Human Factors:
- Studies on human tolerance levels, life-support requirements, and
the assessment of the biological effects of radiation.
- Mechanical Systems:
- Studies and developments of systems required for the manned
- Onboard Propulsion;
- Studies and developments in propulsion systems and components
required to meet the abort and midcourse performance requirements.
STG, "Apollo Technical Liaison Plan," November 16, 1960.
An attempt was made to launch Mercury-Redstone 1 (MR-1) from the
Atlantic Missile Range. After a four- or five-inch liftoff, MR-1
launched its escape tower but not the capsule. The undamaged spacecraft
was recovered for reuse.
Swenson et al., This New Ocean, pp.
STG held a meeting at Goddard Space Flight Center to discuss a proposed
contract with MIT Instrumentation Laboratory for navigation and guidance
support for Project Apollo. The proposed six-month contract for $100,000
might fund studies through the preliminary design stage but not actual
hardware. Milton B. Trageser of the Instrumentation Laboratory presented
a draft work statement which divided the effort into three parts:
midcourse guidance, reentry guidance, and a satellite experiment
feasibility study using the Orbiting Geophysical Observatory. STG
decided that the Instrumentation Laboratory should submit a more
detailed draft of a work statement to form the basis of a contract. In a
discussion the next day, Robert G. Chilton of STG and Trageser clarified
Chilton and Trageser agreed that the purpose of the Apollo program was
the development of manned space flight system capability, not simply
circumnavigation of the moon with an encapsulated man.
- The current philosophy was that an onboard computer program for a
normal mission sequence would be provided and would be periodically
updated by the crew. If the crew were disabled, the spacecraft would
continue on the programmed flight for a normal return. No capability
would exist for emergency procedures.
- Chilton emphasized that consideration of the reentry systems design
should include all the guideline requirements for insertion monitoring
by the crew, navigation for aborted missions, and, in brief, the whole
design philosophy for manned flight.
- The long-term objective of a lunar landing mission should be kept in
mind although design simplicity was of great importance.
Memorandum, Chilton to Associate Director, "Meeting with MIT
Instrumentation Laboratory to Discuss Navigation and Guidance Support
for Project Apollo," November 28, 1960.
Charles J. Donlan, Associate Director of STG, invited Langley, Ames,
Lewis, and Flight Research Centers, Marshall Space Flight Center, and
Jet Propulsion Laboratory to participate in Technical Liaison Groups in
accordance with the plan drawn up on November 16.
Letters, Donlan to Langley, Ames, Lewis, and Flight Research Centers,
Marshall Space Flight Center, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory, November
22, 1960; memorandum, Abe Silverstein to Director, Launch Vehicle
Programs, "Apollo Technical Liaison Groups," November 29,
A joint briefing on the Apollo and Saturn programs was held at Marshall
Space Flight Center MSFC, attended by representatives of STG and MSFC.
Maxime A. Faget of STG and MSFC Director Wernher von Braun agreed that a
joint STG-MSFC program would be developed to accomplish a manned lunar
landing. Areas of responsibility were: MSFC launch vehicle and landing
on the moon; STG - lunar orbit, landing, and return to earth.
Memorandum, J. Thomas Markley, Apollo Project Office, to Associate:
Director, STG, "Meeting between MSFC and STG on Mission for Saturn
C-1 R and D Program and Summary of MSFC Trips by J. T. Markley,"
December 8, 1960.
Smith J. DeFrance, Director of the Ames Research Center, designated Ames
working members on six of the nine Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. They
were Stanley F. Schmidt (Trajectory Analysis), Clarence A. Syvertson
(Configurations and Aerodynamics), G. Allen Smith (Guidance and
Control), Glen Goodwin (Heating), Charles A. Hermach (Structures and
Materials), and Harald S. Smedal (Human Factors).
Letter, DeFrance to STG, Attn: Mr. C. J. Donlan, "Apollo Technical
Liaison Groups," November 30, 1960.
The Soviet Union launched its third spaceship satellite, Korabl
Sputnik III, or Sputnik VI. The spacecraft, similar
to those launched on May 15 and August 19, carried two dogs in addition
to other animals, insects, and plants. The next day, during reentry, the
spacecraft disintegrated and burned.
Washington Post, December 2 and 3, 1960; Instruments
and Spacecraft, p. 143.
Eugene J. Manganiello, Associate Director of the Lewis Research Center,
appointed Lewis members to six of the Apollo Technical Liaison Groups.
They were Seymour C. Himmel (Trajectory Analysis), Jack B. Esgar
(Structures and Materials), Robert E. Tozier (Instrumentation and
Communications), Robert F. Seldon (Human Factors), Robert R. Goodman
(Mechanical Systems), and Edmund R. Jonash (Onboard Propulsion).
Letter, Manganiello to STG, Attn: Charles J. Donlan, "Apollo
Technical Liaison Groups," December 1, 1960.
A meeting was held by representatives of STG and the MIT Lincoln
Laboratory to discuss the scope of the studies to be performed by the
Lincoln Laboratory on the ground instrumentation system for the Apollo
program. The discussion centered about the draft work statement prepared
by STG. In general, those at the meeting agreed that Lincoln Laboratory
should conduct an overall analysis of the requirements for the ground
system, leading to the formulation of a general systems concept. The
study should be completed by the end of December 1961, with interim
results available in the middle of 1961 .
Memorandum, Jack Cohen, Operations Representative, Apollo Office, to
Associate Director, "Meeting with Lincoln Laboratory Personnel to
Discuss Apollo Study Contract," December 5, 1960.
Milton B. Trageser of MIT Instrumentation Laboratory transmitted to
Charles J. Donlan of STG the outline of a study program on the guidance
aspects of Project Apollo. He outlined what might be covered by a formal
proposal on the Apollo spacecraft guidance and navigation contract
discussed by STG and Instrumentation Laboratory representatives on
Letter, Trageser, Assistant Director, MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, to
Donlan, Associate Director of STG, December 2, 1960.
The Director of the Flight Research Center, Paul F. Bikle, nominated
Flight Research Center members to eight of the nine Apollo Technical
Liaison Groups. They were Donald R. Bellman (Trajectory Analysis),
Hubert M. Drake (Configurations and Aerodynamics), Euclid C. Holleman
(Guidance and Control), Thomas V. Cooney (Heating), Kenneth C. Sanderson
(Instrumentation and Communications), Milton O. Thompson (Human
Factors), Perry V. Row (Mechanical Systems) , and Norman E. DeMar
Letter, Bikle to STG, Attn: Mr. C. J. Donlan, "Apollo Technical
Liaison Groups," December 2, 1960.
Representatives of Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) were assigned to
eight of the nine Apollo Technical Liaison Groups by H. H. Koelle,
Director, Future Projects Office, MSFC. They were Rudolph F. Hoelker
(Trajectory Analysis), Edward L. Linsley (Configurations and
Aerodynamics), Werner K. Dahm and Harvey A. Connell (Heating), Erich E.
Goerner (Structures and Materials), David M. Hammock and Alexander A.
McCool (Onboard Propulsion), Heinz Kampmeier (Instrumentation and
Communications), Wilbur G. Thornton (Guidance and Control), and Herman
F. Beduerftig (Mechanical Systems). Dual representation on two of the
Groups would be necessary because of the division of technical
responsibilities within MSFC.
Memorandum, Koelle to STG, Attn: Charles J. Donlan, Assistant Director,
Project Mercury, "Apollo Technical Liaison Groups," December
The first technical review of the General Electric Company Apollo
feasibility study was held at the contractor's Missile and Space Vehicle
Department. Company representatives presented reports on the study so
that STG representatives might review progress, provide General Electric
with pertinent information from NASA or other sources, and discuss and
advise as to the course of the study.
Minutes of General Electric Missile and Space Vehicle Department Meeting
No. 1, December 6-8, 1960.
Floyd L. Thompson, Director of the Langley Research Center, assigned
Langley members to eight of the Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. They
were William H. Michael, Jr. (Trajectory Analysis), Eugene S. Love
(Configurations and Aerodynamics), John M. Eggleston (Guidance and
Control), Robert L. Trimpi
(Heating), Roger A. Anderson (Structures and Materials), Wilford E.
Sivertson, Jr. (Instrumentation and Communications), David Adamson
(Human Factors), and Joseph G. Thibodaux, Jr. (Onboard Propulsion).
Letter, Thompson to STG, "Langley Appointments to Apollo Technical
Liaison Groups," December 7, 1960.
The Martin Company presented the first technical review of its Apollo
feasibility study to STG officials in Baltimore, Md. At the suggestion
of STG, Martin agreed to reorient the study in several areas: putting
more emphasis on lunar orbits, putting man in the system, and
considering landing and recovery in the initial design of the
Minutes of The Martin Company Apollo Technical Review No. 1, December
Brian O. Sparks, Deputy Director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL),
designated JPL members to serve on six of the nine Apollo Technical
Liaison Groups. They were Victor C. Clarke, Jr. (Trajectory Analysis),
Edwin Pounder (Configurations and Aerodynamics), James D. Acord
(Guidance and Control), John W. Lucas (Heating), William J. Carley
(Structures and Materials), and Duane F. Dipprey (Onboard Propulsion),
Letter, Sparks to Charles J. Donlan, Associate Director of Project
Mercury, December 9,
Representatives of the Langley Research Center briefed members of STG on
the lunar orbit method of accomplishing the lunar landing mission.
Langley Research Center, Manned Lunar-Landing through use of
Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous (Langley Research Center, 1961), p. 5.
Convair/Astronautics Division of the General Dynamics Corporation held
its first technical review of the Apollo feasibility study in San Diego,
Calif. Brief presentations were made by contractor and subcontractor
technical specialists to STG representatives. Convair/Astronautics'
first approach was oriented toward the modular concept, but STG
suggested that the integral spacecraft concept should be investigated.
Minutes of Meeting of Convair Astronautics Technical Review No. 1,
December 14- 15, 1960.
Associate Administrator of NASA Robert C. Seamans, Jr., and his staff
were briefed by Langley Research Center personnel on the rendezvous
method as it related to the national space program. Clinton E. Brown
presented an analysis made by himself and Ralph W. Stone, Jr.,
describing the general operational concept of lunar orbit rendezvous for
the manned lunar landing. The advantages of this plan in contrast with
the earth orbit rendezvous method, especially in reducing launch vehicle
requirements, were illustrated. Others discussing the rendezvous were
John C. Houbolt, John D. Bird, and Max C. Kurbjun.
Bird, "Short History of the Development of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous
Plan at the Langley Research Center," p. 2.
The final launch in the Pioneer lunar probe program was unsuccessful;
the Atlas-Able booster rocket went out of control and exploded at an
altitude of 40,000 feet off Cape Canaveral.
New York Times, December 16, 1960.
Mercury-Redstone 1A (unmanned) was launched successfully
from the Atlantic Missile Range. The objective was to qualify the
spacecraft for a primate flight scheduled shortly thereafter. Apart from
the launch vehicle cutoff velocity being slightly higher than normal,
all flight sequences were satisfactory.
Grimwood, Project Mercury: A Chronology, pp. 119-120.
The MIT Instrumentation Laboratory submitted a formal proposal to NASA
for a study of a navigation and guidance system for the Apollo
Memorandum, Robert G. Chilton to Associate Director, "Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Guidance System Study for Apollo," January 16,
The Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation began work on a company-
funded lunar orbit rendezvous feasibility study.
Interview with Saul Ferdman, Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation,
Bethpage, N.Y., May 2, 1966.