apollo experience report crew station integration volume i crew station design and development

8/8/2019 Apollo Experience Report Crew Station Integration Volume I Crew Station Design and Development

1/72


2/72

1. Report No.N A S A TN 0-8178

1 Louis D. Allen and Dale A. Nus sman

2. Government Accession No . 3. Recipient's Catalog No .

JSC S-451

4. Title and SubtitleAPOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORTCREW STATION INTEGRATIONVOLUME I- CREW STATION DESIGN A m DEVELO??ilENT

7. Author(s)

10. Work Unit No.953- 36- 00- 00- 72. Performing Organization Name and Address

5. Report DateM a r c h 1976

6. Performing Organization Codei o n n n i o ~tJUL,-UJIUI

8. Performing Organization Report No.

Lyndon B. Johnson Space CenterHouston, Texas 7705812 . Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, D. C. 20546

11 . Contract or Grant No

13 Type of Report and Period CoveredTechnical Note

14 Sponsoring Agency Code

17 . Key Words (Suggested by Author(s))* Flight Systems ' Stowage 18. Distribution Statement' Crew Station' Display System s ' Mockup' Hand Controller' Control

.Crew Equipment* Vehicle Lighting

19 . Security Classif. (of this report)Unclassified Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (o f this page)

STAR Subject Category:12 (Astronautics, General )

2 1 . No. of Pages 22. Price"71 $4.25


3/72

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORTEDITORIAL COMMITTEE

The mate rial submitted for the Apollo Experience R epor ts(a series of NASA Technical Notes) w a s reviewed and ap-proved by a NASA Editorial Review Board at the Lyndon B.Johnson Space Cen ter consis ting of the following me mbe rs :Scott H . Simpkinson (Chairman), Richard R . Baldwin,James R . Bates, William M. Bland, Jr . , Aleck C . Bond,Robert P. Burt, Chr is C. Critzo s, John M. Eggleston,E. M. Fields, Donald T. Gregory, Edward B. Hamblett, Jr. ,Kenneth F. Hecht, David N. Holman (Editor/Secretary),and Carl R . Huss. The pri me reviewer for this reportwas Richard R . Baldwin.


4/72

CONTENTS

Section PageSUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2SPACECRAFTEVOLUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2CREW STATION REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8CM AND LM CREW STATION CONFIGURATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Vehicle Exteriors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Crew Compartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Stowage Locat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5Couches and Restrai nts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Displays and Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16HandControllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16L i g h t i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Optical Equipment and Aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

METHODOLOGY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Relevancy of Pre-Apollo Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i aEngin eerin g Tools and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Documentation and Operational Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Spa cec raft jcr ew Integration Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Meetings, Reviews, and Ex er ci se s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A Unique Organizational Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

22

ii i


5/72

SectionDESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 9 6 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MISSIONEXPERIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Apollo 7 Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Apollo8Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Apollo 9 Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Apollo 10M iss ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Apollo 11 Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page26262730353840454855555657585960

iv


6/72

TABLES

PageableI

I1

CREW PARTICIPATION IN TEST AND CHECKOUTPR.OCFDTJRES AT KSC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

ADDITIONAL CHYCKOUT EXERCISES FOR BLOCK I1APOLLO CSM AND LM MISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

FIGURES

Figure Page1 Two views of CM mockup, c i r ca 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Concepts of lunar- landing flight techniques and spa cecraf tconfigurations f o r the Apollo Program, ci rc a 1962 . . . . . . . . . . 53 A model of the LM, ci rc a 19 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 The Apollo CSM, c i r ca 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 The Apollo 9 LLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 The Apollo 9 CM and LM in the docked configuration . . . . . . . . . . 87 The CM interior - ooking for ward toward tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 The CM inter ior - looking lef t and outboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 The CM int er io r- looking right and outboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

10 The CM in te ri or - left-hand equipment bay (ECS equipment area) . . 1111 The CM inter ior - ower equipment bay (guidance, navigation,

and control equipment location) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 2 The CM inter ior - tunnel area with hatch installed . . . . . . . . . . . 1213 The CM in te ri or - hatch removed and probe instal led . . . . . . . . . . 1214 The CM int erio r - si de hatch in full-open position . . . . . . . . . . . 1 215 The LM inte rio r- forward sec tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1316 The LM interio r - ooking left and outboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

V


7/72


8/72

FOREWORDThis technical note documents experience gained in the area of spacecraft crewstation design and operations during the Apollo Program. Emph asis is given to th e

time period ranging fr om e ar ly 1964 up to, and including, the Apollo 11 lunar-landingmission of July 1969- an era that c ove rs thr ee important pha se s of th e Apollo Pro-gra m: the design phase, hardw are construction, and miss ion operations.This technical note consists of fiv e volumes. Volume I, "Crew Station Designand Development, 'I give s an overview of the total cre w station integrat ion task. Vol-umes 11, 111, IV, and V a r e specia lize d volumes, each of which is devoted to a basic

functional area within th e Apollo cr ew station. The subject of eac h volume is indi-cated by its title, as follows.Volume 11, "Crew Station Displays and Controls, " NASA TN D-7919Volume 111, "Spacecraft Hand Contr oll er Development, '' NASA T N D- 7884Volume IV, "Stowage and the Support Team Concept, "NASA TN D-7434Volume V, "Lighting Considerations, '' NASA TN D- 7290

Lo ui s D. Allen and Dale A . NussmanLyndon B. Jonnson Space Center

vi i


9/72

ACRONYMS

ACA attitude contr ol ass emb lyAGS abort guidance systemAOH Apollo Operations HandbookAOT alinement optical tel esc opeAS P0 Apollo Spacecraft Pr og ra m Office

CARRCCFFCDRCFECMCMCCMPCOASCSMC&W

customer acceptance readine ss reviewcrew compartment fit and functioncommandercontra ctor- furnished equipmentcommand modulecommand module computercommand module pilotcre w optical alinement sightcommand and s er vi ce modulecaution and warning

DEDADSKY display and keyboard

data entr y and display assembly

EASEP

ECS environmental contro l sy st emE&D engineering and developmentE L electroluminescentEMS entry monitor system

ear ly Apollo scientific experi ments package

viii


10/72

EMUEOREV A

FCSTFDA1FEAT

GDAGDCGFEG&NGN&C

IF TS

JSC

KSCKSC- E

L EBLGCLiOHLMLMPLORLPDLTA

extr aveh icul ar mobility unitEart h orbit rendezvous&raTJehicu!ar 2cti.Jit.r

flightcrew support teamflight director attitude indicatorfull engineering and analysis test

gimbal drive actu atorgyro display couplerGovernment- fur nished equipmentguidance and navigationguidance, navigation, and control

in-flight test system

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Cent er

John F. Kennedy Space CenterKSC egr es s train er

lower equipment baylunar module guidance computerlithium hydroxidelun ar modulelun ar module pilotluna r o rbit rendezvouslanding-point designatorlunar module test article

ix


11/72

MESAMDCMSC

PGAPGNSPLSSPTTPUGS

RCSR&DRFCRHCRIDRR

scscsSISM

V h f

W IF

modular equipment stowage assemblymain display consoleManned Spacecraft Center

pres sure garment assemblypr im ar y guidance and navigation sy ste mportable life- support sys tempush- to- talkpropellant utilization and gaging system

reaction control syst emre se ar ch and developmentrequest fo r changerotational hand controllerreview ite m dispositionrendezvous radar

spacecraftstabilization and control s yst emSys Gme Inte rn at onal d Unit6sserv ice module

ver y high frequen cy

water imme rsio n facility

X


12/72

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORTCREW ST AT l ON INTEGRATIONV O L U ME I - CREW ST AT l ON DES GN AND DEVELOPMENT

By Louis 0. A l l e n a n d D ale A . N u s s m a nL y n d o n B . J o h n s o n S pace C e n t e r

SUMMARYBecause of pre vious spac ecr aft design experience, the Apollo command moduleand lunar module were designed for operation with ful l use of human capabilities. Asa result, automatic sys tems were used primarily to enhance crew safety or missionperf orman ce. The flight stations were equipped and ar ran ged t o re fle ct the onboardcommand and contr ol responsib ilities of each crewman. Secondary cr ew stations wereprovided in both vehi cles fo r donning and doffing ext ravehicula r support equipment, fo rguidance and navigation optical alinement operations, and fo r cr ew resting.The development cyc le fo r the Apollo c re w stations (and ass oci ated equipment)wa s simi lar to that of other aerospace programs : basic requirements were generated,a full-scale mockup o r working model was developed, pro ced ure s fo r using the equip-

ment wer e developed, equipment and pro ced ure s were evaluated through simulation,and design and proc edu res were modified as required. Critic al and complex cr ewstation equipment and operations were evaluated under representative environmentalconditions - within lighting mockups, vacuum tes t cha mbe rs, dr op test vehicles,centrifuge modules, water immers ion facilities, and variable- g a ircra ft.

Lite ral ly thousands of multilevel design and opera tion exe rc is es and reviewsheld before the Apollo mis sions resul ted in many improvements and refinements t ocre w station des ign and operations. Consequently, relatively f e w cr ew station anom-alies were experienced during actual flight operations, and those that oc curre d duringthe first five manned Apollo miss ions (Apollo 7 to 11) were unique and nongeneric.

The s uc ce ss of the Apollo cre w station effort was attributable to four b asicfactors: (1) the us e of knowledge gained fro m prior aer osp ace ex perience and prac-tices; (2) the study, review, and simulation of new sta te-of- the -ar t de signs and ope ra-tions; (3) the abi lity to cont rol the many physical and operational int erf ace s that ex-isted; and (4) he effective communications and information dis semination betweenpro gra m or ganizational elements. Crew station specification documents delineatinggeneric methodologies and requirements that evolved during the Apollo Program havebeen prepa red f or use in subsequent programs.


13/72

I NTRODUCTI ONThis volume of t he cr ew sta tion integra tion series pre sen ts an overview of th e

Apollo crew station design and development efforts as well as the engineer ing ap-proaches used to integrate the many physical and operational inter face s that existed inthe Apollo spacecraft. The c re w statio n design and development ef fort will be dis-cussed in a quasi- chronological, quasi- subjective ma nne r.areas of the Apollo cr ew st at ions are not disc uss ed in detail in thi s document. Indi-viduals who req uire fu rth er detail or additional information about the Apollo c re w sta-tion configuyations o r experience ar e r efe rr ed to the succeeding volumes of this seriesand to other crewstation- rela ted Apollo exper ience repo rts.

The mor e specialized

The first section of t his r epo rt a dd re ss es the period of spac ecr aft evolution be-tween late 1959 and late 1962, durin g which a bas eli ne definition of th e functional andoperational req uire men ts fo r the command module (CM) and lunar module (LM) cre wstations was determined.The second and third se ction s concern, respec tively, the refined cr ew station

requirements, which were applied to the sp acec raft design, and the spa cec raft con-figurations that resulted.The fourth section pres ents the a spec ts of methodology, including the re lev ancy

of p re - Apollo experience, and de sc ri be s engineering tool s and techniques; documenta-tion and operational plans; spac ecra ft and cre w integration plans; meetings, reviews,and exerc ises ; and the organizational approach.

The fifth section is a chronological synopsis of sele ctive events that occu rr edduring the des ign and development of the Apollo CM and LM cre w com part men ts. Theintent is to give a repr ese ntati ve s ampling of significant events that ill ust ra te the ap-plication of the engineering req uir eme nts and methodology disc ussed in earlier sections.

The last section of the re por t is a disc ussi on of the in-flight experien ce duringthe Apollo 7 to 11 missions that concerned crew station equipment.As an aid to the rea der , where nec essa ry the original units of meas ure havebeen converted to the equivalent value in the SystGme International d'Unit6s (SI). The

SI unit s are written first, and the original units are written parenthetically thereafter .

SPACECRAFT EVOLUTIONIn the latter par t of 1959, NASA began planning the development of advancedmanned spacecraft systems. Pr im ar y effor ts included (1) the prel imina ry design of a

multiman spacecraft for a circ umlu nar mission, with par tic ula r attention given tousing the capsule as a tempo rary spa ce laboratory, lunar-landing cabin, and deep-spa ce probe; (2) mission analysis studies to establish exit and reentry corridors ,weights, and propulsion re qui remen ts; and (3) test prog ram planning to det ermi ne thenumber and purpose of the missions to be flown.

2


14/72

Thes e ear ly efforts, coupled with a later (1961) national comm itment to accom-plish a lun ar landing within the decade, ultimately led to an in itia l definition of theApollo P ro gr am and the estab lishment of baseline r equi reme nts f or the Apollo vehicle.As descri bed i n the Apollo Spacec raft Statement of Work of Ju ly 28, 1951, the pro gra mwould consis t of thr ee phase s: pha se A would be composed of manned lnw-altitiideEarth-orbital flights lasting as long as 2 weeks and unmanned r een try flights fro msuperorb ital velocities; phase B would consist of circumlunar, lunar- orbital, andpara boli c- re en tr y te st flights; and phase C would include manned lunar- landing- and-ret ur n mi ssi ons (using eith er the NOVA-class o r Saturn C- 3 launch vehicles). The1961 st ate men t of work included the following requir eme nt s fo r the Apollo spacecraf t.

1. Onboard contr ol and monitoring of tran slun ar spac ecra ft injection fo r dire ctascent and f o r spac ecraft injection from a n Earth parking orbit2. Rendezvous and docking with a spac e laboratory module o r other spacevehicle3. Attitude control fo r lun ar landings and lift-offs and fo r en teri ng and leavinglunar orbit4. A single-engine se rv ic e module (SM) propulsion sys te m that would supplyabort propulsion after jett ison of the launch esca pe syst em, all major velocity incre-ments and midcours e velocity correcti ons for miss ions before the lunar-landing at-tempt, and lun ar launch propulsion and tra ns ear th midc our se velocity corre ctio ns5. A st atio n fo r the commande r (CDR) in the left o r ce nt er couch (Duties of theCDR would include cont rol of the space cra ft in manual or automatic modes during all

mi ss io n phase s; selection, implementation, and monitoring of the guidance and navi-gation (G&N) modes; and monitoring and control of key a r eas of all syst ems duringtime- critic al periods. )

5. A stat ion for the copilot (later designated as the command module pilot (CMP))in the left o r ce nt er couch (Duties of the CMP would include supporting the CDR asalternative pilot o r navigator and monitoring certain key pa ra me te rs of the s pace craf tand propulsion syst ems during c ritical mission phases. )

7. A statio n fo r the sys tem s engineer (later designated as the lun ar modulepilo t (LMP)) in the right-hand couch (Duties would include respon sib ilit y fo r al lsyst ems operations, serving as pr im ar y monitor of propulsion s ys te ms during crit-ical missio n phases, and responsibility for systems placed onboard p rimar ily for eval-uation of later spacecraft. )

8. Arra ngem ents of disp lays and controls to reflect the dut ies of each crewma n(This ar rang emen t would be such that a single crewman could re tur n the spac ecraftsafely to Earth; all crewm en would be cro ss trained so that each could ass ume theduti es of the oth ers. )

3


15/72

9. The provision, fo r each crewman, of a couch and res train t system thatwould give full body and head support during all normal and emergency accelerationconditions

10. The provision of s hir t- slee ve garm ents , lightweight caps, and ex er ci se andrecreation equipment fo r the crewm en

The statement of work also delineated require ment s for a lunar-landing module,which at that time was envisioned as a thi rd propulsion module equipped with landinggea r and other apparatus f o r lowering the command and se rv ic e module (CSM) to theluna r surface. The propulsion sys tem for the lunar-landin g module would be a com-posite propulsion system consisting of multiple lunar- ret rog rad e engines fo r the gr os svelocity increments requ ired fo r lunar orbiting and lunar landing and a lunar-landingengine for velocity vect or control, midcourse velocity control, and the lunar hoverand touchdown maneuver.

In December 1961, a cont ract was awarded fo r the design and development of theCM and SM, the spacecra ft adapter, associated ground support equipment, and space-cr af t integration. The following month, pre lim ina ry layout drawings were initiate d todefine the elem ents of the CM configuration. Additional req uir eme nts and limi tati onsimposed on the CM design at this time included a reduction in diame ter, a paraglidercompatibility fo r landing (eventually deleted), 113 kilo gram s (250 pounds) of radia tion-protection water (la ter deleted), redundant propellant tankage fo r the attitude controlsyst em, and an in cr ea se in sys tem weight and volume. After draw ings depicting thelocation and orientati on of the CM crew and equipment were p rep are d, engineeringord ers were released for t h e cons truc tion of Apollo CM and SM ful l-s cal e mockups(fig. 1).

At this time, the CM and SM were being designed to supp ort thr ee a pproaches t othe lunar-landing mission: Ear th orbit rendezvous (EOR), dir ect asc ent (by use of aNOVA- cla ss launch vehicle), and luna r orb it rende zvous (LOR). The lunar-lan dingtechniques and possible CSM scheme s for supporting thes e approache s a r e il lustr atedin figure 2. The advantages of the "dark hors e" LOR approach beca me mo re app aren tas design studies matured. The EOR approach involved the us e of an unmanned moduleto decele rate the CM and SM fo r desce nt to the lunar su rface. Service-module enginepower would be used fo r lunar ascent and tr an se ar th maneuvers. The LOR approach,on the other hand, involved the us e of a second manned module fo r independent descen-sion to and ascension from the lunar s urf ace fr om lunar orbit. The CSM would re mai nin lu nar orbit fo r eventual rendezvous and docking with the re turn ing LM.

In the sp ri ng of 1962, during a meeting held at NASA Hea dqu art ers and atten dedby representatives from various NASA offices, the LOR technique was selected as th emiss ion mode fo r the Apollo Prog ram. Additional deci sion s reached at this meetingincluded the following.

1. The current concepts of the Apollo CM and SM would not be altered.2. A luna r ex curs ion vehicle (subseque ntly call ed the LM) would be af t of the SM

and in fron t of t he Satu rn N B stage. (Pr oce dur es and mechanization fo r the linkup ofthe CM and LM would req ui re fu rt he r study. )

4


16/72

Figure 1.- Two views of CM mockup,circa 1962.

Direct Earth orbit Lunar orbitrendezvousendezvous

Earth orbit

CircumlunarLunar landing

Figure 2. - Concepts of lunar-landingflight techniques and spacecraft con-figurations fo r the Apollo Program,circa 1962.

3. For crew safety, an escape tower would be used during launch.4. Two crewmen would occupy the LM, which would descend to the lunar sur face,and both men would be able to leave the LM at the same time.5. The LM would have a pressuri zed cabin capable of being maintained for 1

In July 1962, the newly established Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) (now theweek, even though a normal LOR mission would last only 24 hours.

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC)) distributed a statement of work for theLM to prospective bidders. Key contractor responsibilities included the detail designand manufacture of he LM and related test articles, mockups, and other hardwarewith the exception of certain Government-furnished equipment (GFE) such as the G&Nsystem (except the rendezvous radar and radar altimeter), the flight rese arch andinstrumentat ion system, the scientific instrumentation system, and cer tain componentsof the cr ew equipment system (space suit, portable life-support sys tem (PLSS), and

5


17/72

personal radiation dosimeter). The contr actor responsib ilities also included the inte-grati on of G F E into the LM; development of specifi cat ions fo r equipment perf ormance ,inte rfaces, and des ign environment; and maintenance of i nte rfa ce contro l documenta-tion with re spe ct to validity and currency. Additionally, the stat eme nt of work delin-eated the following operational requ irem ents fo r the LM.

1. Before the first translunar midcourse correction, the LM would be trans-fe rr ed from the stowed position in the s pacecraf t adapte r to a docked configurationwith the CSM. A t a la te r time in the mission, the two-man LM cre w would ente r theLM from the CSM through a hatch without being exposed to the spa ce environment.Another hatch would allow access to the LM during countdown and egress into spacewhen the LM w a s docked with the CSM.

2. The LM systems were to operate at their normal design performance levelfor 2 days without resupply. Equipment normally ope rate d in the pr es su ri ze d LMcabin environment would be designed to function fo r a minimum of 2 day s in vacuumwithout failure. The LM pre ssuri zat ion sys tem would be designed to accompl ish si xcomplete cabin rep res sur iza tio ns and to accommodate a continuous leak rate as highas 0.09 kg/hr (0 .2 lb/hr). Provisi on would be made fo r si x re ch ar ge s of the PLSS,which had a nor mal opera ting tim e of 4 hou rs without resupply. Under usual condi-tions in the LM cabin, the crew would wear unpressu rized space suits. Either crew-man would be ab le to r et ur n the LM to the CSM and successf ully perf orm the rendez-vous and the docking maneuver.

3. The LM would be capable of independent sep arat ion fr om the CSM; lunardescent, landing, and asc ent; and rendezvous and docking with the CSM. The LMwould a l low fo r c re w exploration in the vicinity of luna r touchdown but would not bereq uir ed to have lun ar surf ace mobility. Lunar landing would be att empted fr om alunar orbit height of 185 kilo mete rs (100 nautical mile s). After separation, the LMwould tra nsfe r fro m the ci rc ul ar orbi t to an equal-period ellipti cal orbi t that would notintersect the lunar sur face. The hovering, fina l touchdown maneuvers, and landingwould be perf ormed af te r the LM achieved the elli ptic al orbit. Normally, th er e wouldnot be a require ment to reposition the LM attitude before lun ar launch. After lunarlaunch, the LM would be tran sfer red from an elliptical to a circ ular orbit before ren-dezvous and docking with the CSM, The LM would not be re cov erabl e.

Baseline re quirement s fo r the LM crew station were also delineated in the state-ment of work. The flig htc rew would con si st of the CDR and the LMP, and the cr ewsta tio n equipment would include adjustable se at s, food and water, first- aid equipment,space suits, a PLSS for each crewman; and pers onal radiation dosi mete rs.

As with the CM, specific ations of cre w size, cre w equipment, sp ace cra ft sys-tems, and mission technique for the LM resul ted in improved spac ecraft volumetricdefinition. Because the LM would be ope rate d only in spac e, aero dynamic st re am -lining was not required.radi call y different shape of the LM, com pared to tha t of the CM. Relief fr om the aer o-dynamic cons traint als o added flexibility to the packaging of the LM and the ref ore t othe layout of the c re w stat ion area. One of the prime constraints affecting the exteriorand int er ior design of both the LM and the CM was weight. The Apollo spac ec ra ftweights had been apportioned within an as su me d 41 000- kilogram (90 000 pound) limit -

The absence of this requirement w a s responsible f or the

6


18/72

a 4300-kilogram (9500 pound) CM and an 11 600-kilogram (25 500 pound) LM. In theye ar s that followed, weight growth was a continuous problem, especially fo r the LM.The problem became so severe that cer tain flight instruments were deleted from theLM, and at one point the lunar surface television camera wa s seriously considered fordeletion.In November 1962, a contract was awarded fo r the design and development of theLM. The following year, a full-scale LM mockup was constructed that contained a crewstation built and outfitted to comply with the program requirements. A model of the LM(circa 1962) is illustrated in figure 3. By the end of 1962, basic mission and crew sta-tion operations had been defined, bas ic spacecraft and cre w equipment had been identi-fied, and the external and internal geometries of the CM and the LM had evolved toconfigurations not radically different from those of the "as flown" spacecraft (figs. 4

to 6).

Figure 3 . - A model of the LM,circa 1962.

Figure 4.- The Apollo CSM, circa 1969.

7


19/72

Figure 6.- The Apollo 9 CM and LM inthe docked configuration.Figure 5.- The Apollo 9 LM.

CREW STAT1 ON REQU REMENTSThe CM and LM were designed fo r operation with ful l use of human capabilities .The spacecraft were designed to normally use inputs from Earth-based tracking andcomputing facilities in conjunction with the onboard systems; however, the CM and theLM were both provided with the capability of performing crit ica l mission operationsindependent of ground facilities. Fundamental crew station requirements were asfollows.1. Maintenance: In-flight maintenance shal l not be performed on the vehiclesubsys erns.2. C r ew control: The flightcrew shall have the capability of control ling thevehicles throughout all flight modes. The crew shall initiate all abort modes whenautomatic sys tems are not requ ired to en sur e crew safety.3. Automation: Automatic syst ems sha ll be used only to enhance the performanceof the mission. Manual overrides of automatic systems shall be provided where pos-sible.4. Safety: The design of the spacecraft and equipment shall minimize the pos-sibility of crew injury. Fire, explosion, toxicity, fa ilu re mode effects, and fa ilurepropagation shall be primary considerations.

8


20/72

5. Single crewman operation: The CM and LM shall be designed to allow foroperation by a single crewman in a contingency situation.6. Anthropometry: The vehicle design shall accommodate crewme n between the

10th and 90th percen tile fo r the following dimensions: weight, stmding height, sittingheight (erect), buttock- to- knee length, knee height (sitting), hip breadth (sitting),shoulder breadth (bideltoid), and a r m reach from wall. Other body dimensions sha llfall within the 5th and 95th percentiles as defined by WDAC- TR- 52- 321.7. Docking: The s pacecr aft subsystems s hall be designed to accommodate thetwo docking operation s and the sep aration operation req uire d fo r the lunar- landing mis-

sion. With the spacec raf t in the docked configuration, an unaided crewman, in a pres-surized o r unpress urized suit, shall be capable of performing all the functions neces-sa ry t o accomplish intervehicular cr ew and equipment trans fer in either direction.

8. Extravehicular crew tran sfer : Handrails, rest rain ts, and exte rior lightingsha ll be provided to perm it the extra vehicula r tra ns fe r of crewme n and scientific pay-loads between the vehicles, in a contingency mode.

9. Cre w station environment: The vehicles sh all be designed with an environ-mental con trol sy stem (ECS) that provides a normal shi rt- sleeve environment: an oxy-gen p r e s su re of 35 kN/m (5 psia), a tem pera tur e of 297 K (75" F), and a relativehumidity of 40 to 70 percent. Provisions shall be included fo r planned or contingencypr es su re - suit operations, the rma l control of equipment, PLSS charging, and pre ssu ri-zat ion of the CM-LM tunnel and the LM.

2

10. Cabin arrang ement: The cabin arran gement sh all provide fo r the effectiveper for manc e of cr ew tas ks and the efficient stowage of associa ted equipment and ex-pendables. The flight stations shal l reflect the onboard command and control respon-sibi litie s of t he cr ew and provide for active onboard management of the vehicle s u bsystems. Secondary cre w stations shall be provided fo r the donning and doffing ofextrave hicular supp ort equipment, fo r G&N operations such as optical alinement, andfor crew rest ing.

11. Support and res tra int : Crew support and rest ra int sha ll be provided to pro-tec t the cre w and to enable the performan ce of all ta sk s ass ociated with e ithe r a nomi-nal o r an a borted mission. The crew shall be rest rain ed during the powered portionsof the flight and during zer o-g conditions, principally to coun teract the for ce s gene ratedby crew mobility. Supports and re str ain ts shall contribute minimum interfere nce withthe operation of and acc es s to the contr ols and displays and shall not limit window usef o r external visibility.

12. Exte rnal visibility: Windows shall be provided pr ima ril y fo r aiding in lunarlanding, docking, and gener al navigation.13. Crew statio n lighting: Internal and external lighting shall be provided toperm it the performan ce of all cre w tasks. Control and display panel illumination sha ll

be adjustable t o compensate f o r varying ambient light conditions and to ensu re reten-tion of cr ew visual adaptation. Lighting shall be provided fo r cre w use in illuminatingremote o r shadowed areas of the cre w cabin.

9


21/72

14. Exter nal lighting: Externa l lights shall be provided as visual aids in supportof the rendezvous and docking maneuver (visual acquisition, attitude deter mina tion, anddocking alinem ent).

15. Displays and cont rols : The vehi cles sha ll be provided with display s andcont rols that enable the flightcrew to c ontrol and monitor relev ant a spe cts of mission-related phenomena,

C M AN D LM CREW STATION CONFIGURATIONSThe Apollo 11 cre w station configurations are disc usse d briefly in the following

paragraphs. Mor e detailed information is given in the succeeding voluines of thi srepo rt, other crewstation- rela ted Apollo experience r epor ts, and the Apollo Opera-tions Handbook (AOH). The CM and LM configurations are discussed concurrently inthe following para grap hs to emphasize the sim ila rit y in the ba sic ty pes of equipmentused i n both crew stations. The exter ior spac ecra ft configurations are briefly de-scribed s o that the relati onship between int erna l and exte rnal geom etri es and equip-ment may be established.

V e h i c l e E x t e r i o r sThe ex te ri or configurations of the CM and LM are illustrat ed in figure s 4 to 6.

The conical-shaped CM was approximately 3 .4 m et e rs (11feet) in height and 3.7 me te rs(12 feet) in diameter . By comparison, the box-shaped asce nt sta ge of the LM was ap-proximately 2.7 meters (9 feet) in height and 4.3 me te rs (14 feet ) in breadth. Thesubstant ial breadth of t he LM was pri ma ri ly attrib utable to the added volume req uire dfo r consumables tankage; the bulk of CSM consu mab les was contained in the SM. TheLM was equipped with an external platform approximately 0.9 met er (3 feet) square,below the for war d hatch, which provided th e cr ewm en with workspace fo r handlingequipment during lunar surf ace extraveh icular activity (EVA) and aided LM ing res sand egress .

C r e w C o m p a r t m e n t sMajor equipment contained within the cr ew comp art men ts of the CM (figs. 7 o

14) and the LM (figs. 15 to 22) included con tro ls and dis pla ys fo r the ope rati on of t hespacecraf t and spacecraft syst ems, res tra int ha rne ss assemblies, window shades,cr ew equipment, food and wate r, and was te mana gement prov isio ns. Survival equip-ment and couches al so wer e provided in the CM. The CM had an in te ri or volume of10.4 cubic meters (366 cubic feet). Int eri or bays, lock ers, couches, and crew men ac-counted for 4.4 cubic meters (156 cubic feet); herefore, a total free volume of 6 cubicmeters (210 cubic feet), o r 2 cubic met er s (70 cubic feet) p e r crewman, remained.The total int eri or volume of t he LM cr ew com part ment was 7 cubic m et er s (235 cubicfeet). Approximately two-thirds of th is volume was in the 2.3 -meter (92 inch) dia mete rforw ard cabin section, with the rema inin g volume in the 1. 4-me ter (54 inch) midsection.The LM volumetric values cl osely app roxi mate two-thirds of th e values spec ifie d f o r the

10


22/72

CM (two-man s opposed to three-man occupancy). Total free volume was thereforeapproximately 4 cubic meters (140 cubic feet).

Figure 7.- The CM interior - ookingforward toward tunnel.

Figure 8.- The CM interior- lookingleft and outboard.

Figure 9. - The CM interior - ookingright and outboard.

Figure 10. - The CM interior - eft-hand equipment bay (ECS quipmentarea).11


23/72

Figure 11. - The CM nterior - owerequipm ent bay (guidance, n avigation ,and control equipment location).

Figure 12. - The CM nterior- unnelarea with hatch installed.

Figure 13.- The CM interior- hatchremoved and probe installed.

Figure 14 . - The C M inter ior- s idehatch in full- open position.

12


24/72

Figure 15. - The LM interior- orwardsection. Figure 17.- The LM interior- lookingright and outboard.

Figure 16.- The LM interi or - ookingleft and outboard. Figure 18. - The LM interi or - ookingaft and left (ECS quipment location).

13


25/72

Figure 19. - The L M interior - ookingaft and right (stowed equipment area).

Figure 20. - The LM interior - orwardhatch.

Figure 21. - The LM interior -overhead hatch.

.-

Figure 22. - The LM interior - overheadhatch open and drogue installed.

14


26/72

Both veh icles wer e equipped with docking tunnels fo r the tr an sf er of cre wmen andequipment between the CM and the LM. The tunnels were s iz ed to allow pa ssage of acrewman in a pr es su ri ze d sui t with an attached extra vehic ular mobility unit (EMU). Ineach vehicle, ac ce ss to the tunnel area was provided by a hatch that could be operatedfro m either side. The geometry of the LM inter ior enabled the LM hatch to be hingedm d i.oiaied into t'ne LivI cabin, wh er ea s the CM hatch had to be r emoved and stowed inthe CM cabin to pe rm it tunnel operations. The LM tunnel contained the docking dro gueand an elec tr ic al umbilical fo r routing power between the two vehicles. The dockingpro be was insta lled in the CM tunnel. To provide fo r more flexible operat ions and tosafeguard against cer tai n failu res, the mechanisms in the probe and drogue were de-signed to pe rm it r emo val fr om e ith er end of the docking tunnel. A second hatch wasprovided on both vehicles. Side ac ce ss to o r from the CM crew compartment was pro-vided by an outward-opening single integrated hatch assembly. For war d ac ces s to orfr om the LM cre w compart ment was provided by an inward-opening hatch assembly.To augment ground opera tions and to provide for contingency flight op erati ons, thecabin relief and dump valves installed in all hatches wer e designed to be operated fro moutside as well as inside the cre w compartments.

The CM was equipped with two tr iang ular forward-viewing windows, two sq ua reside- obser vatio n windows, and a round hatch window. Two tr iang ular forw ar d windowsin the LM provided visibilit y durin g the descent, ascen t, and rendezvous an d dockingph as es of t he mission. A recta ngu lar window direc tly above the LM flight station fo rthe CDR provided visibil ity fo r the overhead docking maneuvers. The windows in bothveh icl es were provided with ther ma l and antireflective coatings and window shades.

Stowage LocationsThe numero us loose i te ms of pe rso nal and sy st em s equipment in the CM and theLM we re stowed in compa rtmen ts, locke rs, and bags (figs. 7 to 22). Stowage com-

partme nts we re built into the inter ior wa l l s of both th e CM an d the LM. Equipmentwas place d in "cushions" and in se rt ed into these compartm ents. Removable aluminumlo ck er s with prein stall ed cushions a ls o were used in both vehicles, The stowage com-partme nt and locke r door s had retention mechanisms that could be actua ted with onehand (an aid in zer o-g operations). A var iety of stowage bags als o was used in bothvehicles. The stowage con tainer s wer e labeled for identification and as a location aid.In the CM, conta iners were numbered consecutively fr om for e to aft; the num bers wereprefixed with a letter des ign ator of the bay, For example, right-hand equipment baycompartments were labeled R1 t o R13. In the LM, stowage a r ea s and contents wereidentified by descriptive labels. Let ter designators wer e not nece ssa ry in the LM be-cau se the numbe r of stowage ite ms and configurations was c onsid erably less than thatin th e CM.

Couches and RestraintsThe CM was equipped with couches qualified to suppo rt the c re w during nor maland contingency accelerations as high as 30g forward or aft (*X),18g up o r down (kZ),and 15g latera lly (*Y). Eac h couch cons isted of a headrest -equipped body supp ort withback pan, seat pan, l eg pan, and foo t pan. Body sup por t was accomplished by a web of

Armalon (multiple layers of fiberglass Beta cloth impregnated and covered with Teflon)

15


27/72

over the support frame. In the CM, the individual flight restr ain t har ne ss es fo r thecrew men were attached to the crew couches. Each har ne ss consisted of a lapbelt andtwo shoulder s tr ap s that interfaced the lapbelt at the buckle. The lapbelt buckle was alever- operated, thre e-poi nt-re leas e mechanism. In the LM, cr ew support was ac-complished by using re st ra in t c ables (figs. 16 and 17) attached to waist-high D-ringson the sid es of the pr es su re garm ent assem bly (PGA). A constant-force ree l controlprovided a downward force of approximately 135 newtons (30 pounds). Equipment re -st ra in t on the Apollo vehicle s was accomplished with a var iet y of de vjces ; Velcro,utility straps, and bungees were the pr ef er re d items. Connections were made by usingVelcro, hooks, c lip s, and snaps.

D i s p la y s a n d C o n t r o l sThe displays and cont rols fo r operation of the CM spacec raft and sy ste ms we re

Pr im ar y displays and con-ocated throughout the crew compartment (figs. 7 to 14).tr ol s were located on the main disp lay console (MDC), which cons isted of 14 subpanels.The flight control displays and con trols wer e concentrated within panel s 1 and 2 for ac-c e s s by the CDR or the CMP. The majority of othe r subsys tem control s was distrib-uted in other panel areas that were acce ssible to the CMP o r th e LMP. A G&N station,which included an optical sight and a display and keyboard (DSKY) fo r add res sin g theApollo G&N computer, was provided in the lowe r equipment bay (LEB). The disp layand control pan els in the LM, with the exception of ce rt ai n ECS it em s, were located inthe forward section of the cr ew compartment (figs. 15 to 17). Pr im ar y displays andcont rols were situated in the two main display panels, numb ers 1 and 2, located direct-ly in fron t of the CDR and the LMP. Other sub sys tem dis pla ys and con tro ls we re dis-trib uted among two lowe r cen te r panels, two bottom si de pane ls, two lowe r side panels,one center side panel, and two upper side panels. All cir cui t br ea ke rs were installedin the upper s ide panels located outboard fr om the CDR and the LMP. An ECS statio ncontaining sui t plumbing outlets, valve controls, and other ECS it em s wa s located inthe LM midsection a r e a immediately aft of the LMP (fig. 18), A G&N station, whichcontained an alinemen t optical telescope (AOT) with int egra ted cont rols , was providedbetween the flight sta tio ns of the CDR and the LMP. A DSKY, visually ide nti cal to thetwo located in the CM, was loca ted i n the panel area dir ect ly beneath the AOT.

H a n d C o n t r o l lersTwo thre e-axi s pistol-grip hand con tro lle rs were provided in eac h vehicle fo r

commanding attitude changes (figs. 11 and 15).motions about a palm- centere d axis, yaw commands were implemented by motions aboutthe gri p longitudinal axis, and rol l command s were effected by a left- righ t motion. TheLM attitude control ass emb lie s were als o used in an incr emen tal landing-point desig-nato r (LPD) mode durin g the final approa ch pha se of t he lun ar landing. In thi s mode,the angular e r r o r between t he designated landing site and the des ire d landing sit e wasnulled by repetitive manipula tion of an attitude cont rol ass em bl y (ACA). The LPD sig-nal s fr om the ACA wer e di rec ted to the LM guidance comp uter (LGC), which is sue dcommands t o move f ro m the designated landing site incre ment ally along the lateral andlongitudinal axes. An gu ka ad or ma ti on was obtained by using the,,vrt ical and horizon-tal sc al es of the LPD on th e' le ft fo rw ar d wi;Jow.

Pitch commands were implemented by

,-.

16


28/72

By using reaction control sys tem (RCS) thrusters, the transla tion hand controll ersin the CM and LM provided the means to accelerate the spacecraft manually along oneo r mo re of its axes (figs. 11 and 15). These controllers were mounted with their axesapproximately par allel to those of the space craft , and the direc tio n of movement waspilot oriented, 771e single internally redilnrlafit corrtm!!er ir, the CM also provided t w ~spe cia l functions: clockwise movement of the T-shaped handle tr an sf er re d spa cec raf tcontrol fro m the command module computer (CMC) to the stabi lization and control sys-tem (SCS), and counterclockwise movement provided manual ab ort initiation duri ng thelaunch phase, if necessary. The LM contr oller s were dual-purpose devices in thatthey als o enabled a manual throttling control of the descent engine. Moving a throttle-jets lev er to the throttle position perm itted an LM crewman to inc rea se or decreasethe magnitude of the d escen t engine th ru st by an up or down movement, respectiv ely, ofthe controller.

LightingExterior and interior lighting equipment on the Apollo vehicles aided in the per-

formance of cr ew visual tasks. The inter ior lighting sys tem s provided gener al cabinillumination, as well as displ ays and cont rols illumination. Fluor escen t lam ps pro-vided floodlighting of CM int er io r work area s, and incandescent lamp s were used in theLM. Integ ral panel and num eri cs lighting was provided in both vehicl es by electrolu-mines cent (EL) mater ial s. High- intensity signal ligh ts and tunnel ligh ts were incan-descent. Pen flashlights were used fo r supplementary lighting of difficult ac ce ss ar eas .Utility lights a ls o were provided in the LM as backup to the pr im e cabin floodlightingsystem. In the CM, a dual-powered/dual-filament design was u sed in the floodlightingsyste ms to provide a redundancy capability. The ext eri or lighting sy st em s enabled theApollo cr ew s to visually guide and orie nt the LM and CSM to achieve s ucces sful tra ck-ing and docking. Ext eri or lighting on the CM cons isted of a docking spotlight, eightrunning light s for orientation, a docking ta rg et (mounted inside th e right-hand rendez-vous window), an EVA floodlight , and a rendezvous beacon. Ex te ri or lighting on theLM consisted of a radiolumine scent docking target, five docking lights for ori entation,and a high- intensity tracking light.

O p t i c a l E q u i p m e n t and A i d sSev era l optical devices and aids w ere provided on the Apollo vehicl es in addition

to the G&N optical sights. Items us ed included a cre w optical alinement si ght (COAS),window mark ings, CM int ern al viewing mi rr or s, and a monocular for lunar sur veyfr om the CM, The COAS w a s si mi la r to an air craft gunsight and consisted of a col-limat ed ret icl e with vertical, horizontal, and radial scales. The pr im ar y function ofthe COAS was t o provide the LM and CM crewmen with pr ec is e information regar dingre la tive angl es between the CM and LM dur ing the docking maneuver . The CM COAScould be used in ei th er the le ft o r right rendezvous windows. The LM COAS could beused in eith er the overhead or left windows.

The left and ri gh t rendezvo us and hatch windows of the CM were equipped withmarkings to aid f$$ crew in monitoring the entry maneuver. An LPD scale w a s scribedonto the left f0rwZl.d window in the LM to aid in monitoring and updating the G&N-computed lunar-landing point. A scrib ed sc ale was al so provided in the LM overhead

.c

17


29/72

docking window fo r monitoring vehicle attitude during lunar lift- off, rendezvous, anddocking.Internal viewing mir ro rs were used in the CM to aid a reclined crewman in buck-ling and adjusting the r es tr aint harnes s and in locating couch controls and space-suitconnectors. When a crewman was in a pressurized suit and in a reclined position 011 a

CM couch, the lower edge of the MDC blocked normal visibi lity of these areas.METHODOLOGY

Re evancy of Pre-Apol lo ExperienceMany of the design and operational approaches used in the Apollo Program werederived directly from the Gemini Program. A comparison of the Gemini and Apollocrew stat ion configurations (figs. 23 and 24 compared with figs. 7 to 22, respectively)illustr ates that state-of- the-a rt display and control devices such as fly-by- wire hand

controllers and computer keyboards were introduced in the Gemini Program and car-ri ed over into the Apollo Program. Gemini Program experience also fos tered knowl-edge of c re w station concepts in terms of modular stowage, frequency of c re w equip-ment use , zero-g handling procedures, and inte rface control of equipment. Many ofthe requirements that were established fo r Gemini displays and contro ls and othercrew stat ion equipment were applied to Apollo equipment.An important aspect of the information gained from the Gemini Program origi-nated in the CM and LM design reviews in which the Gemini crews participated. Theearl y Gemini pilots, fo r example, ascertained that digital rather than analog tim ers

Figure 23. - Gemini spacec raft interior. Figure 24. - The command pilot'sinstrument panels in the Geminispacecraft.18


30/72

were essential f o r performing time- crit ical spacecraft operations.a need for a capability to dim the floodlighting of individual cr ew sta tion s; th is dimmingwould enable out-the- window night viewing fo r one crew man while anot her cr ew manre ad onboard data. As a re su lt of th e Gemini pilot inputs, all subsequent flight statio nswer e equipped with digital t ime rs and individual lighting controls.

They also identified

Ce rt ai n elem ents of Apollo c re w stat ion design and operati ons could not be basedon prev ious aer os pac e experience. The Gemini Pro gra m had demo nst rate d the feasi-bility of rendezvous and docking, but th e tr an sfer of me n and equipment between dockedvehicle s that was nec ess ary durin g the Apollo Prog ram had not been attempted. TheGemini Progra m, as well as Pro jec t Mercury, had demonstrat ed the feasibil ity ofzero-g operations and the need fo r zero-g r estraints , but 1/6-g operations (as on alunar-landing mission) had not been experienced. Experien ce fr om the Gemini Pro-gram and Proj ect M ercury had furnished answers to many questions relative to i nteriorand ex te ri or lighting and visibility req uiremen ts, but many questions r emai ned unan-swered in r egar d to the near-lun ar and lunar- surface lighting environments.

The Apollo cr ew stati on integration task wa s enormous ly complicated, comparedto that of th e Gemini Pro gr am . The Apollo concept requ ire d the design of two dis-tinctly different types of vehicles (the CM and the LM), a design that provided f or t hetr an sf er of m en and equipment between the vehicles, and a design that permitted lun arorbit and lunar surface operations. These factors caused a substantial increas e in thenumber of ph ysical and operational in terf aces between the flightcrew and the spa cecr afthardware, The Apollo 11 spa cecr aft (CM and LM) flew with approx imately 350 cre wstation displays, 1100 contro ls, and 600 types of stowable equipment. Approximately400 stowage line ite ms we re stowed in the CM , and 200 were stowed in th e LM. Ap-proxima tely 50 of t hese line it ems wer e tran sfe rre d fr om the CM to the LM before theluna r landing, The Apollo spacecr aft contained four ti me s as much equipment as thatflown on the Gemini space craf t, which typically contained approximately 90 displays,350 con trols , and 150 typ es of stowage equipment,

Engineering Tools and TechniquesMany of the enginee ring tools and techniques use d t o develop Apollo cr ew com-

partment design and operations were standardized devices and proc edur es that havebeen used for most aircraft pro gra ms. In fact, some of the se tools and techniqueshave been standa rdized to the extent that they ar e delineated within mi lit ary specifica-tions as mandatory requirements fo r all military syst ems, equipment, and facilities,as in Mil ita ry Specification MIL-H-46855. The sta nda rd tools and techniques used fo rthe Apollo e ffor t included the application of human enginee ring prin cipl es and c ri te ri ain syste m engineering analysis; experiments, laboratory tests, and studies re quired toresolve human engineering and life-support problems specific to the system; construc-tion of th ree - dimensional full- scale mockups of equipment involving critical humanperformance; dynamic simulation; application of human engi neering prin cipl es t o equip-ment det ail desi gn drawings, work environment, and facilities design and performan ceand design spec ificatio ns; development of proced ures fo r operating, maintaining, o rotherwise using the s yste m equipment, based on human perfor manc e functions and ta sk sidentified in s yst em engineering and tas ks analysis; and integrated ma n and machinedemonstra tion and certification tests.

19


31/72

Many of t he special ized enginee ring tool s and techniques used in Apollo crew sta-tion efforts were actuall y conceived during the Gemini Pro gra m and wer e subsequentlyimproved during the Apollo Pro gram . Included in this category were the variable- gairc raft , used to evaluate crew equipment and operations under zer o-g o r lunar-g con-ditions; neutral- buoyancy simu lato rs (water immer sion facil ities) for zero- g and 1/6-gevaluations; full- si ze docking si mula to rs and si mula tion s; the us e of in-flight photog-raphy to evaluate the functioning of cr ew stat ion equipment in unmanned re sea rc h anddevelopment (R&D) spacecr aft; the scheduling of peri odic crew/crew- equipment integ ra-tion and implementation meetings; t he prepa rat ion and use of a spacecraft/crew integra-tion plan t o define the s pecific participat ion by flightcr ews and flightcrew support te am sin spacecraft reviews, testing, and prelaun ch operations; the prep arat ion and mainte-nance of spacecr aft stowage drawings; and the per iodi c scheduling of bench review s andcre w compartment fi t and function ( CCFF) reviews f or cr ew equipment.

Tools and techniques developed espec iall y for , or which supported, Apollo crewsta tion efforts included an MSC plan fo r close mo nito ring and evaluation of the opera -tional aspects of co ntra ctor engineering simulatio n pr og ra ms by astrona uts, flightc rewtrainin g personnel, and flightc rew integra tion personn el; periodic guidance and controlimplementation meetings; p rep ara tio n and maintenance of in terf ace cont rol draw ingsand documents to define and contro l functional and ha rdwar e int erf ace s between equip-ment supplied by different par ties ; use of standard ization documents fo r nomenclaturecontrol of crew station displays and contr ols; ge neratio n of a nonmetallic materialsdocument t o delinea te selection and acceptance guidelines rela tive to nonmetallic m ate-rials and tes t requi rem ents fo r the co ntro l of fla mmabilit y and toxicity of nonmetallicmat eri als used in the Apollo spacecra ft; and a photographic documentation plan thatspecified required photography of each individual sp ace cra ft through al l st age s of manu-factu rin g and test ing , including vehicle closeout.

D o c u m e n t a t i o n a n d O p e r a ti o n a l P l a n sIt has been sta ted that "the enormity of the Apollo-Saturn launch vehicle is only

exceeded by the volume of paperwo rk which was re qu ired to build and launch the vehi-cle. " Therefore, enum erat ion of all the typ es of dat a used to develop Apollo cr ew sta-tion design and operations would not be possible (nor desirabl e) in this rep ort; however,key da ta will be mentioned briefly.

The documentation and operational plans, in approx imate chronological o rd er ofdevelopment, included top-level mis sio n and veh icle end- ite m spec ific atio n documents,which delineated con tractua l mission and vehicle requ irem ents ; a lunar-landing missiondesign plan, which delineated cr ew functions, assignme nts, and ta sk s fo r both nor maland alternate miss ion s equence s; conceptual c rew- station- arr ang eme nt drawings; anApollo subsystem management plan, which defined the re sponsib ili tie s for the engineer-ing of the Apollo su bsyst ems ; a plan of actio n for clos e monitori ng and evaluation ofoperational asp ects of contracto r engineering simulation pro gra ms by astr onau ts andby flightcrew trai ning and in tegratio n personn el; equipment s pecifica tion document s andcont rol drawings; a design referen ce missi on document, which describ ed a single mis-sion and served as a basi s fo r project reporting and continuing s pace craf t design andoperational studies ; an LM spacecraft /crew- interfa ce reduced- gravity test plan; inter-face control documents, which con trol led mult ipa rty physical, functional, and opera-tional interfaces; miss ion ru le s documents, which esta bli shed both gener al and specific20


32/72

rul es and require ments in reg ard to total mission operations; a spacecraft/crew inte-gration plan for manned Apollo missions; repor ts on failure modes and effects analysis;AOHs, which contained det ail ed information on the individual vehicles, events, andpro ced ure s applicable to the scheduled mission; spac ecraf t stowage lis ts; dedicatedform ing spec ific manned Apollo miss ions; a nonmetallic materials requirements docu-ment, released as a postfire corre ctive item for incre ased control on nonmetallic mate-rials used in the cr ew compartments; a crew pro ced ure s control plan, which specifie dmethods t o be used t o co ntrol flightcrew proc edure s delineated in the Apollo flight plansand pro ced ure s documents; and a rigorous crew station ghotography plan.

Interface co ntrol documents and/or drawings were used t o define and control

Annlln flicrhf n la ns , ~;d~ ichChe&led sp ac pcr dt nper&iGns ar?dc.,rey: activities fe r nnv-a- r*---- r u A--y-** ***

functional and ha rd ware int er fa ces between equipment supplied by CM, LM, and EMUcon tra cto rs and the Government. More than 200 inte rface co ntrol documents and draw-ings wer e requ ired t o adequately define the inter faces that existed within and betweenthe spacec raft . This number ill ust rat es the complexity of the crew station integrationtask.

Mission rul es documents established both gen eral and specific ru le s and require -ments in regar d to total mission operations. The rules were formulated from the in-puts of t he principal par ti es res pons ible fo r mission operations.Spac ecra ft stowage drawings were developed as a tool to manage the la rg e quan-tity of equipment car ri ed in the CM and LM crew statio ns. Spac ecra ft stowage draw-

ings c onsi sted of a top ass emb ly drawing that was divided into four main ca tego ries:(1)a lis tin g of all the l oos e cr ew equipment (equipment tha t a crewman could remove,without tools, f r o m one location and place in anothe r location), (2) a three-dimensionalview of t he c re w equipment ar ran gem ent in a modu lar container, (3 ) a three-dimensionalview of cr ew equipment arra nge men t in a spacecraft cr ew station volume, and (4)modular con tainer location in the space craft,

S p a c e c r a f t l C r e w 1 n t e g r a t i o n P l a nDuring the Apollo Pro gra m, a plan was developed that specifically defined thepart icip ation of the pr im ar y and backup flightcrews, as well as the flightcrew support

team (FCST) assig ned to a par tic ula r mission, in the Apollo spacecra ft reviews, inspa cec raf t checkout testing, and in prelaunch operations. Flightcrew participation wasnec ess ary pri mar ily to verify the spacecraft/crew in terface and to ensure the opera-tional a ccept abil ity of inst alle d equipment. A secon dary purpose was t o allow the flight-cr ew to gain valuable operational experience with flight har dwar e and to b ecome famil-iar with spe cific and unique ch ara cte ris tic s of the assi gned spacecraft.

As deta iled in the space craft /cre w integration plan fo r manned Block I1 ApolloCSM and LM missi ons, an FCST was assigned t o each mission.of a team leader, a CSM and an LM crew station engineer, a CSM and an LM space-craft engineer, and a train ing coordinator, The FCST provided the assigne d flight-cre ws with both gene ral and specific support in task s ranging fro m ce rtification of theofficial stowage list to evaluation of emergency ingr ess and eg re ss proce dures in therescu e training facil i t ies at the NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Equipmentliaison groups and support specialists were also assigned to each flightcrew.

Each FCST consisted

21


33/72

The liaison group as sis ted the FCST i n the inte gration of flightcrew equipmentwith the spacecra ft to suppor t the Apollo Spacecraft Pr og ra m Office (ASPO) prog ra mschedules. The support specialists provided important supplementary support fo r eachflightcrew and team in areas such as EVA pro ced ure s and training, checklist develop-ment, and expe rime nt integration.

The integration plan speci fied that the assigned flightcre w and the ass ocia tedFCST would participate in spacecraft cre w station reviews and spacecraft cre w com-part ment design reviews (pre limi nary design review s and configuration design reviews)held fo r their parti cular spacecraft. The purpose of cr ew station reviews was (1) todemonstrate the cre w interfa ces with the spac ecra ft equipment and the crew- associatedequipment, as well as the equipment-to-spacecraft interfaces, as defined in the i nter-face control documents o r drawings and ot her c ontractor documents and (2) to allowflightcrew evaluation of the stowage, install ation, and us e of th is equipment with re -spect t o mission objectives, requireme nts, and tim e line. Thes e reviews were con-ducted, as required, at the contractor's facilities, with CM and LM spa ce cr af t mockupsand suitable crew equipment mockups o r flight- configured equipment. The pu rp os e ofthe spacecraft crew compartment design reviews was t o verify that the specific space-cra ft design req uire ment s would provide a spa cec raf t configuration capable of sa tisf y-ing the missio n objectives fo r the part icu lar flight.

The integration plan also contained a lis tin g of t he det aile d checkout specifications,the operational checkout procedures, and the test and checkout procedures requiringflightcrew participation. The flightcrew and/or the FCST was to review the preli min aryspecifications or proc edur es for each of the tests in which cr ew participation w as man-datory, and th ei r conc urre nce was requ ired before signoff. Table I exemplifies thetype of crew participa tion in detailed tests. The CCFF test held at KSC fo r ea ch vehiclew a s the key test fo r certifying the o pera tion al configuration of f ligh tcre w equipment.The test was performed to demonstrate (1) hat each cr ew equipment flight item wasfunctionally and physically compatible with the sp ac ec ra ft in which it was t o be used,(2) that all equipment was compatible as a package, and (3) that the stowage provision swere compatible with the mission sequence. For the CCFF test, each space craft waspowered up to functionally check all elect rical interfaces fo r loose equipment. A func-tional demonstration of all spac ecra ft lighting was als o performed at that time.

Meetings, Reviews, and Exerc i sesLiterally thousands of meetings, reviews, and ex er ci se s wer e requ ire d to developand integrate Apollo cre w station design and operations. The pr im e cr ew station meet-

ings, in approximate chronological ord er, included conceptual design meetings on cre wstation subsystems (e. g o , lighting and display s and controls); LM/CM commonalitymeetings to explore areas in which commonality might be achieved; Apollo docking in-ter fac e panel meetings, in which the design trade-offs of v ari ous docking sche me s wereevaluated; Block I1 CM design definition meetings; MSC mockup re quire ment s meetings;Apollo guidance and con trol implementation meetings, cons isti ng of th e var iou s ele-me nt s involved in guidance, navigation, and cont rol (GN&C) development (e. g., hard-ware, software, proced ures , simulation, and trai ning personne l; pilots; management;and integration personnel); cre w integration sys tem s meetings; spac ecra ft design in-tegration system meetings; inte rfac e cont rol document/drawing meetings ; post fire

22


34/72

TABLE I. - CREW PARTICIPATION IN TEST AND CHECKOUTPROCEDURES AT KSCa

MandatoryICP number OptionalK-3128K-0070

bK- 0048

bK-0034K-8241

Manned s pacec raf t operations buildingCM-LM mechanical dockingCombined systems testEmergency eg re ss and simulated

altitude runCSM altitude chamber runHigh-gain antenna checkout and PLSScommunications test

Vert ical assembly building

I

X

X

X

I

X

K-0005K-0004K-0006

1ntegrated systems t estElec tric al mate and interface testPlugs-in integrated test

l xXX

K- 0028K- 1222

bK- 5117bK- 0007

PadFlight readiness tes tCSM-LM s yst ems interface testFlightc rew countdownCountdown demonstra tion test/

launch countdown

XX

X

abReq uire s suite d cr ew and must be preceded by TCP K-3233 (Cre w suiting).

Spacecraf t 106 and subsequent.

23


35/72

red esi gn meetings; mockup configuration req uir eme nts meetings, held at the contractorfac ili ty t o discu ss the propos ed deli ver ed configuration of CM and LM mockups; CSMand LM configuration contro l panel meetings, conducted by the ASPO to co nsider pro-posed engineering changes; Apollo configuration c ont rol boa rd meetings, conducted byASPO to act on changes of known or potential maj or imp act on Apollo miss ion s orchanges affecting mor e than one fac et of p ro gra m des ign o r operations; flight opera-tions plan meetings; crew proc edu res control board meetings; Apollo EVA tas k for cemeetings; and FCST meetings.

The main reviews and ex er cis es , again in appro ximate chronological ord er, in-cluded conceptual design mockup inspections ; a n evaluation of th e concept of a standingoperat or for the LM; informal cre w station prelimi nary subsystem design reviews; anin-house study of the Block I CM cre w station design by the crewme n and support per-sonnel; a study of LM onboard checkout equipment req ui rement s, which concluded tha tded ica ted equipment of thi s type was not required; a study of the inte ract ions of mis -sio n and subsystem con str ain ts on the design of lunar- surfa ce- sta y activitie s, whichestablished a 3 5- hour lunar- st ay model; Block I1 CM and LM displa ys and contr olsworking group reviews; a Block I CM cre w com partme nt lighting review; an MSC studyof potential common-use hardware, which excluded most c re w station har dwa re fromcommon use on both the CM and LM veh icl es beca use of conflicts in env ironmental re-quire ments and schedules; zero-g and lunar-g flight tests in the KC-135 air cra ft forevaluation of cr ew mobility in the LM cabin; fina l design revi ews of cr ew st atio n hard-ware (e. g., floodlights and attitude ind ica tor s) at vendor facilities; an LM cre w mo-bility review held before the LM critical design review; CM and LM crit ical desig n re-views to certify the acceptability of t he vehicle design fo r re le as e fo r fabrication; post-flight ana lys is of in-flight photography and da ta fr om unmanned R&D flights; postfireBlock 11 CM and LM desig n redefinition revie ws; CSM pre limi nar y d esign concept re-views (preliminary design reviews) held to review proposed rede signs in the areas ofbasic configuration of int ernal stowage pro vis ions, ECS modifications, crew- operat edmechan isms rela ted to the unitized couch, the unified hatch, and var iou s seco nda ryitem s affecting crew operations; customer acceptance readine ss reviews to formallyreview the manufacturing accomplishments fo r each vehicle, t o evaluate s ys tem s per-formance as obtained during checkout operations, and to ver ify that al l mission con-st ra in ts were valid and that the module was capable of sta ted per for man ce and rea dyfo r delivery; an LM lighting/reflection review conducted in the LM mission simula torat MSC to examine potential window reflec tion pro bl em s re sultin g fr om approved fire-proofing changes; CM foldable- crew- couch rev iews; evaluations of CM EVA ha rd wareand proce dures in the KC-135 ai rc raf t and in the water imme rsi on facility (WIF);vehicle weight reduction reviews; evalu ations of LM cr ew stat ion pr oc ed ur es and lunar-sur fac e task s in the KC-135; and CSM and LM thermal-va cuum tests in the Space En-vironmental Simulation Labora tory at MSC.

Crewmen assigned to specific mis sions als o participated in a multitude of opera-tional, mission-peculiar reviews and ex er cis es not previously listed. These reviewsincluded bench che cks of CM and LM cr ew equipment, altitude cham ber tests fo r the i rspeci fic vehicles, and speci alized equipment ex er cis es . The Apollo 11 pr ime crewpartic ipate d in approximately 40 of thes e miss ion -pe cul iar reviews.

24


36/72

A U niq ue Organizat ional ApproachThe magnitude and complexity of the Apollo c rew stat ion design and development

task required new approaches in organizat ional methodology. In response t o this chal-lenge, sev era l organizational str uct ure s and entities were establ ished at MSC tha-t wererat her unique to aero space cre w compartment development prog rams . These organiza-tional tool s contrib uted significantly to the s ucc ess of the Apollo cr ew st atio n develop-ment effort.

Thre e engineering organizations at MSC share d the re spo nsi bil iti es of c re w sta-tion development. An engin eering and development (E&D) Organization had the pr im ar yresp onsibili ty fo r hardw are development and integration, including implementation ofrequirements, manufacturing, test, and checkout. A separ ate flightcrew integrationorganizati on had the pr im ar y responsibility fo r flightcrew/vehic:e inte rface and inte-gration. A thir d organization ser ved as a focal point in th e AS P0 fo r the analysis andresolution of cr ew integrati on req uir eme nts and prob lems , Thes e MSC organizationsworked closely with the ir contractor counterparts, often on a day-to-day basis, in thereso luti on of cr ew s tati on development problems.

The flig htcr ew integratio n organization coordinated the design, development, andoper atio nal asp ect s of the Apollo crew stati on and of the cr ew- rel ate d i nte rfa ces andserved as the foc al point fo r the coordination of all crew requirements and inputs intoflight hardware development and checkout. Crew station subsystem m anag ers in thisorganization were assigned the pr im ar y responsibility of coordinating the develop-mental and operationa l capabil itie s of the spac ecra ft as related to c rew interfaces.The function of the cr ew station subsyste m managers complemented the hardware-resp onsibili ty function of t he hardwa re subsystem m ana ger s of the E&D organization.The FCST was als o str uct ure d within the flightcrew integration group at MSC. The keyres pon sib ili tie s of the flightc rew integration organization included the following.

1. Establishm ent of crew-related functional design cr it er ia fo r space craf t cre wstat ions , including lighting, disp lays and controls, stowage, and cr ew ac ce ss and ac-c om m odations

2. Support and management of cre w station and cre w-r ela ted int erf ace s duringdesign, development, and implementation

3. Development of re quir emen ts f o r and procurement , fabrication , and mainte-nance of mockups, tr ai ne rs , and other supportive equipment fo r flightcrew trainingand evaluation of crew station equipment

4. Design, development, pro cure ment , fabrication, and managemen t of cre woper atio nal equipment (e. g., ca me ra s) in support of ope rational and expe rime ntalobjectives fo r manned Apollo mi ssio ns5. Pr ov is ion of equipment and support f o r developmental and operati onal pro-cedures and tests in zero -g air cra ft; also, operation of WIF ' s to develop equipment

and proc edure s and to provide training fo r crews when simulated variable-g levels w erenecessary f or extended t ime periods

25


37/72

6. Provis ion of suppor t te am s to coordinate the ava ilabili ty of all stowed equip-ment to support flight hardware t es ts and launch schedules, to parti cipa te in the stowageof spacecraft for tes ts and for launch, to assist during te st and checkout flows at majorspacecraft reviews, and to se rve as the focal point fo r contact with the cre w beforelift- off

7. Development, management, and schedu ling of sys te ms tra ini ng fo r f lightcrews,flight control lers, and other Government and cont ract or personn elThe involvement of MSC as tr on au ts in all fa ce ts of Apollo crew stat ion design andoperations contributed greatly to the su cce ss of the Apollo Prog ram. Astronau ts were

involved in ea rl y Apollo Pr ogr am decisions, such as the change from the EOR to theLOR mode fo r lunar mis sions, and they partici pated in most of the simulations, meet-ings, reviews, exer cise s, and te st s previously disc usse d in thi s report. In addition,astronauts served o r were represented on all high-level change and review boards andon mos t lower level boards.

Before assignment to a specific mission, astronau ts were assigned individualresponsi bilities in technical disciplines, ranging fro m familiarizat ion with Apollo mis-sion operations and sof tware to membersh ip in the KSC altitude chamber board. Thisarrangement w a s beneficial in se ver al as pec ts including improved disseminati on ofinformation, presenta tion of th e "pilot's point of view, '' and of cour se the preflight edu-cational value to the astron auts themselves. Astronaut participation in crew stationdesign and development did not end with a flightcrew assignment fo r a particular mis-sion; instead, part icip atio n wa s redirecte d to aspe cts pertaining to end- item hardwar eand the operations to be used in accomplishing the ir specifi c mission.

DE SIG N AND DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCEThe information that follows is a chronological synops is of selected ev ents that

occ urr ed during the design and development of the Apollo CM and LM crew compart-ments. The intent is to give a repr esen tati ve sampling of significant events tha t il-lus tr ate the application of the engineering re quir emen ts and methodology disc usse d inthe previous sections of th is report. Where sim il ar events occurr ed fo r both Apollovehicles (CM and LM), refe renc e to the experience on both vehicles is generall y omittedfo r the sake of bre vity (e. g., the conceptual LM mockup revie ws were ar bi tr ar il y se-lected for discussion although conceptual reviews were conducted fo r both sp acec raft ).

1962July IO, 1962. - The first Apollo CM spacecraft mockup inspection wa s held atthe contractor's facility.September 1962. - A completed wooden mockup of the interior arrangement of theApollo CM was received at MSC f ro m the CSM cont ract or. An identical mockup was re-

tained by the cont ract or fo r des ign control. Seven additional CM and SM mockups wereplanned: a par tia l adapter interface, a CM f o r exte rio r cabin equipment, a complete

26


38/72

SM, two spacecraft for handling and transportation, a crew support system, and a com-pl et e CSM. A mockup of the G&N equipment had been completed.

De ce mb er 21, 1962. - A lunar-landing mission design plan that descri bed c rewactiv ities f o r the Apollo lunar - landing m issio n was pr epared.functions, assignment s, and ta sk s fo r both normal and alt ern ate miss ion sequences.Cre w acti vit ies wer e bas ed on the following basic guidelines.

The plan delineated crew

1. The spacecraft will be designed fo r manual opera tion with no re quire ment fo runmanned missions.2. Pr im ar y command will be onboard the spacecraft. The capability will existto pe rf or m the mis sio n independent of ground- based information to i nc re as e reliability,

accuracy, and performance .3. The cr ew will cont rol or di re ct the control of th e spa cec raf t throughout allmissi on phases. Status of sys tem s will be displayed fo r cr ew as se ss me nt and modeselection. The spa cec raf t will be designed so that a single crewman can re turn the

CM to a preselected Ear th landing site.4, Automatic sy st em s will be used to obtain pre cis ion o r spee d of re spo nse o r torel iev e the c re w of tedio us tas ks. All automatic cont rol mo des will have manual back-up modes.5. The initiation and subsequent co ntrol of abo rts will be prim arily the respon-sibi lity of the crew . Mission Control Cent er crew saf ety resp onsi bili ty will cons ist of

advising the cr ew of obse rved malfunctions and recommending a co ur se of action.6. An in-flight t es t sy st em (IFTS) will be used by the cre w to implement faultdete ctio n and isolation. Spar e IFTS components and modules will be provided so thatthe crew can accomplish onboard maintenance and rep air . (Thi s schem e was la te r

abandoned i n fa vo r of inc rea sed sy ste m reliability and redundancy. See di scu ssi on of"First Qu ar te r of 1964" later in thi s section. )

1963March 5 and 6, 1963.- A sp ac ec ra ft lighting mee tin g was conducted at the CSM

cont racto r's facility with the CSM and LM contractors and MSC pers onnel participating.Requirements fo r a fla shi ng rendezvous light, external position lights, and ex te ri orvehicle floodlights were discus sed. Internal lighting techniques were als o discussed.Only a few CM instruments would be inte gral ly lighted, whe rea s all LM instrumentswould have ( re d) inte gr al lighting. The CM would have 10 floodlights equipped with redfilters capable of being swiveled; the. LM would have s ep ar at e r e d and white floodlightsys tem s. The CM pane ls would be illuminated by floodlighting; the LM would haveedgelighting (probably EL).

March 12, 1963. - The LM contractor completed a NASA-requested study on th efeas ibil ity of u sing CM and Gemini hardw are for the LM design. F o r the pur pos e ofth is study, common- usag e har dwa re was subdivided into fou r clas sifi cati ons: completecom mon usage, modified common usage, potential common usage, and noncommon

27


39/72

usage. The study concluded that the G&N displays were the only equipment that couldbe classified as completely common usage (i .e., the hard ware could be accepted andinstalled as is, without modifications). Fou r Gemini me te rs were class ified as modifiedcommon usage and the re maining displ ay and cont rol hardw are as potentially commono r noncommon. The LM contractor noted its findings to be prel imin ary because muchof th e possib le common-usage equipment had not been completely defined, othe r equip-ment had no t been specified, and most had not been mechanized.

August 7, 1963.- A 2-month evaluation of the concept of a standing operator f orthe LM was completed by MSC. The evaluation consisted of enginee ring studies andthe pre lim inary desi gn of se ve ra l configurations, including mockup hardware. It wasconcluded that a standin g-operat or concept was indeed feasible fo r the LM and offeredse ve ra l advantages over th e mo re conventional seated- op er at or concept, including im-proved external area of view with sm al le r windows, in cr ea se d mobility fo r seat areaing res s and egr ess , and subst antial weight saving in seat and window st ru cture. Pho-tographs, sketches, and oth er data were subsequently forwarded to the LM contr actorfo r use in the design of the LM re st ra in t system.

September 16 to 18, 1963.- The first official LM mockup review was conductedat the contractor' s facility. The princip al ar ti cl e fo r inspection and review was theM- 1 mockup, which was a full-sc ale repr esen tati on of the LM asc ent sta ge cr ew com-part ment constructed pr im ar il y of wood and cardboa rd. The compartment was equippedwith models of basic equipment, including two cre w support and res tra int concepts des-ignated as the "cage" (re str ain t st ra ps built into a metal framework that closely fi t theastrona ut's shape) and the "barstool" (a metal stool and overhead restra int str aps).Two crew-mobility'demonstration ri gs (plywood repr esen tati ons of the ingr ess /eg res stunnels, hatches, and in te ri or confines of the cr ew compart ment ) wer e used in conjunc-tion with an overhead support arrangement to simulate 1/6-g lunar operations. In ad-dition t o the M- 1 mockup, five full -sca le r epre sent atio ns of alte rnat e forward- cabingeo metr ic configurations wer e displayed.

The objectives of t he M-1 mockup revi ew wer e to est abl ish a procedure for thisand subsequent mockup reviews; to review and establish a design freez e on the frontalgeometr y of'the ascent stage; and to inspect, review, and crit ique cr ew visibility, gen-eral location and placement of display panels, sea tin g and re st ra in t, location and basictype of hand controller, hatch arra ngem ent and spac e allocation fo r ingr ess /eg res s,ingress/ egress procedu res, and crew station and cabin equipment arrangement.

A total of 33 requests for action were sub mitted duri ng the review. The signifi-cant res ults were as follows.

1. Review procedu res: The proc edur es established during the review generallywere acceptable.

2. Ascent stage geometry: The frontal geo metry of the asce nt stage was deter-mined t o be acceptable, with min or exceptions (noted later).3. Crew visibility: The window shap e and vis ibil ity provided fo r the des ign eyeposition were acceptable. The contractor was reque sted to study the possibility of

improving visibility fr om the f orwa rd e ye position, (It was a lso noted that a study of

28


40/72

the adequacy of the M-1 windows fo r the MSC proposed as cent guidance technique wouldbe required. )

4. Panel location and placement: Furth er improvements might be realized incoiijaiiction wi th the sspport res t rz int sti-idy. The detailed location uf specific dispiayinstruments required further improvement.

5. Support and re str ain t: The concept of a standup po si ti m fo r both LM crew-men was approved. It was believed, however, that the M-1 r es tr ai nt provi sions undulyres tri cte d cre w mobility.

6. Location and type of hand control ler: Co nt ro ll er s we re positioned too lowand lacked suitable ar m su pport fo r f ine control. The basi c type of hand co nt ro llercould not be evaluated in t hi s mockup.7. Hatch arran gemen t and space allocation fo r ing res s/e gre ss: The provisionswere satis facto ry except that the use of a special tool f or hatch operation was ques-

tioned.8. Ingres s/egr ess procedures: The procedures were considered acceptable,It was shown tha t reduction of th e hatch di ameter at the exit end would be undesirable.9. Crew station arran gemen t: The arrangem ent was generally acceptable.Specific details of flight c ontro l provi sion s would req ui re furt he r MSC/contractor

study.10. Cabin equipment arrangement: The arran gemen t was adequate to the deg reerepresented.October 28, 1963. - An LM- CM di sp la ys and contr ols commonality meeting washeld at MSC to explore areas in which commonality might be achieved and to provide aplan of action. Ar ea s dis cus sed included prin ciple s of layout, switc h and nomen clatu re

conventions, and common speci fica tions- both functional and env ironmental. Discus-sion of ce rt ain subs yst ems res ult ed in an identification of areas of commonali ty uniqueto a subsystem as well as in general guidelines applicable to all display and controlitem s. It em s dis cus sed included the following.

apollo experience report crew station integration volume i crew station design and development

Documents