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

8/6/2019 Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle NASA Project Apollo. Volume 1 Management

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/little-joe-ii-test-launch-vehicle-nasa-project-apollo-volume-1-management 1/157



GDC-66-042

LITTLEOEI TESTLAUNCHEHICLENASAROJECTPOLLO

FINALEPORT

VOLUMEMANAGEMENT

MAY1966

NASACONTRACTAS-9-492

t

Prepared By

CONVAIR DMSION OF GENERAL DYNAMICS

For

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Manned Spacecraft Center

Houston, Texas



FOREWORD

The Little Joe II Program, a part of theApollo Spacecraft Program

and identified by National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Manned Spacecraft Center as Contract NAS 9-492, was awarded to

the Convair Division of General Dynamics Corporation on 17 May

1962. The program was, in essence, completed with the launch of

the last scheduled vehicle on 20 January 1966.

The purpose of this report is to describe the vehicles evolved, the

results of the tests and the principles employed to accomplish the

program requirements. The report is issued in two volumes to

simplify the presentation of the material. Volume I contains the

managerial and other nontechnical aspects of the program; Volume

II contains the design, technical and launch operations portions.

Milton A. Silveira,

Program Manager L. J. II, ram Manager L. J. II,

NASA - MSC Convair Division of

General Dynamics



INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Little Joe II Program was to man-rate the

launch escape system designed by the Space and Information Sys-

tems Division of North American Aviation, Inc., for the Apollo

Command Module. This objective was to be accomplished on a tight

schedule and at a minimum cost. The program was initiated as a

result of an intensive survey by NASA of the inventory of launch ve-hicles; it was discovered that no vehicle existed which had the pay-

load capability and thrust versatility to meet mission profiles at a

reasonable cost.

The Little Joe II vehicle was designed for an 80,000 pound pay-

load capability. Thrust was provided by off-the-shelf Algol solid-

p r op e 11 an t motors, manufactured by the Aerojet-General Corp.

Versatility of performance was achieved by using only the number

of primary motors (up to seven) required to perform the mission.

Additional vehicle versatility was achieved by use of two ver-

sions of vehicle fins. Fixed fins were used for ballistic trajecto-

ries. Thiokol Corporation's Recruit rocket motors were used as

booster motors, to supplement lift-off thrust.

This report documents, for historic'a/benefit, the philosophies

employed, changes found necessary, results obtained and lessons

learned during the Little Joe II Program. Hopefully this informa-

tion will prove useful to future programs.

A bibliography lists publications pertinent to the contents of

Volume I. In addition, specific supporting material is referenced

in the text.

iii



VOLUME I CONTENTS

Page

i. PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY

A. Summary of Program Philosophy ........ 1-1

B. Initial Program Activity ........... 1-4

C. Launch Site Activity ............ 1-6

D. Flight Summary .............. 1-11

2. PROJECT PHILOSOPHY

A. Management ......... ...... 2-1

B. NASA Management/Interface ......... 2-7

C. Engineering ............... 2-11

D. Launch Operations ............. 2-17

E. Tooling ................ 2-18

F. Manufacturing .............. 2-19

G. Procurement .............. 2-23

H. Spares and Ground Support .......... 2-26

I. Program Control ............. 2-28

J. Documentation .............. 2-34

K. Interface Coordination ........... 2-35

L. Reliability and Quality Assurance ........ 2-39

3. SCHEDULE SUMMARY

A. Milestones ............... 3-1

B. Contractual Schedule Changes ......... 3-1

4. FINANCIAL SUMMARY

A. Original Task and Cost ........... 4-1

B. Change History .............. 4-2

C. Cost Accumulation Summary ......... 4-6

D. Manpower Usage Summary .......... 4-6

E. Manpower Usage in 1964 ........... 4-6

F. Cost Evaluation Summary .......... 4-10

G. Management Report Form 533 Summary ..... 4-10

v



CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page

5. DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY

A. Major Documentation ............ 5-1

B. New Documentation ............ 5-2

C. Submittal Schedule ............. 5-3

D. Appendix ................ 5-3

6. ASSOCIATED TASKS AND PROPOSALS

A. General ................ 6-1

B. Control System Test Facility (CSTF) ....... 6-1

C. Telemetry Station Assist .......... 6-1

D. Spacecraft Umbilical Tasks .......... 6-3

E. Proposals ............... 6-3

7. ACHIEVEMENTS

A. Reporting of New Technology ......... 7-1

B. "Firsts" ................ 7-7

C. Innovations ............... 7-7

8. PROGRAM CLOSE-OUT STATUS

A. General ................ 8-1

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations .............. 9-1

10. CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions ................ 10-1

11. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography ................ 11-1

APPENDICES

A. Index of LittleJoe Documentation ........ A-I

B. Contract Change History........... B-I

vi



VOLUME I ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Title Page

1-1 Little Joe II- As Originally Planned Vs. Final Configuration .... 1-3

1-2 Launch Complex Pad Area .................. 1-4

1-3 General Area of Convair Activities for LJ-II/Apollo Program

at WSMR ..................... 1- 5

1-4 Vehicle Schedule Summary ............... 1-7

1-5 Historical Summary of LJ-II/Apollo Missions Flown at WSMR, LC-36 . 1-8

1-6 Pre-Launch Through Thrust Termination/Spacecraft Abort Sequence -

BP-12 Mission A-001 ................. 1-9

1-7 Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 With SC-002 at Liftoff ......... 1-10

1-8 LJ-II/Apollo Abort Test Regions ............. 1-12

1-9 WSMR Apollo Flight Program Mission Objectives ........ 1-13

1-10 Launch Vehicle Configuration Summary ........... 1-15

1-11 Launch Data Digest .................. 1-16

2-1 Original Organization Chart - Little Joe H Program ....... 2-2

2-2 Final Organization Chart - Little Joe II Program ........ 2-3

2-3 Key Departmental Contacts ............... 2-4

2-4 President Staff Meeting ................ 2-6

2-5 Little Joe H Engineering Area .............. 2-6

2-6 Project Identification Badge ............... 2-7

2-7 Open House After Completion of First Vehicle ......... 2-8

2-8 NASA Organizational History ............... 2-10

2-9 NASA/Convair Design Review ............... 2-10

2-10 Design Engineering Scope (Typical) - Little Joe H ........ 2-12

2-11 Equipment Installation Layout (Vehicle Station 34.75) ....... 2-15

2-12 Bulkhead 34.75 Assembly Fixture ............. 2-19

vii



ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)

Figure Title Page

2-13 Fin Assembly Fixture ................. 2-19

2-14 Assembling Afterbody Fixture After Loading With Parts ...... 2-21

2-15 Overhead Crane Placing Frame Station 0 Interface on Forebody

Fixture ...................... 2-22

2-16 Experimental Production Area .............. 2-24

2-17 Typical Photo Documenting Final Configuration of Harness Routing . . 2-24

2-18 Interior of "Little WSMR" Checkout Facility .......... 2-25

2-19 Geographical Distribution of Vendors Within the United States .... 2-27

2- 20 Master Schedule Review ................ 2- 29

2-21 Composite of WSMR Schedule Control ............ 2-31

2-22 First PERT Information Transmitted Directly from Convair

to NASA by Telephone ................. 2-33

2-23 List of Apollo Documentation ............... 2-36

2-24 Centralization of Test Activities .............. 2-41

3-i Milestone Chart ................... 3-2

3-2 Contractual Vehicle Delivery Changes ............ 3-4

4-1 Contract Value and Funding Expenditure ........... 4-7

4-2 Manpower Usage Summary ................ 4-8

4-3 Manpower Usage - 1964 ................. 4-9

4-4 Cost Accumulation Summary - Little Joe II .......... 4-11

4-5 533 summary ................... 4-12

5-i Little Joe II Documentation Schedule ............ 5-5

6-I Control System Test Facility ............... 6-2

7-i Launch Sequence Timer ................. 7-2

7-2 Launch Sequence Timer - Internal View ........... 7-2

7-3 Diagram - Launch Sequence Timer ............. 7-3

7-4 Fin Insulation - Installing Vacuum Blanket .......... 7-5

7-5 Afterbody Insulation After Baking ............. 7-6

8-1 LJ-II Storage Area - Air Force Plant 19, San Diego ....... 8-2

oo°VII1



1 PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY SUMMARY



1 [ PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY SUMMARY

A. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY

As a prerequisite to manned flightof an Apollo spacecraft, itwas necessary to

demonstrate the abilityofthe spacecraft's escape system during the launch-boost

phase of flight;hence the LittleJoe IIprogram was an important milestone in the over-

allApollo Project. The LittleJoe ITprogram was scheduled to accomplish early and

economical testing that would qualifythe Apollo Launch Escape System for use on

manned orbital or lunar missions. The original schedule required that the firstlaunch

be accomplished one year from date of go-ahead.

A modified project organization was used to manage this program. Under this

concept, selected senior key supervisors and staffmembers reported functionallyto

the program managers and administratively to their home group or department. This

type of organization afforded close control and coordination within the project as well

as with NASA.

Simplicity was the keynote of the LittleJoe IIdesign philosophy; this concept was

carried through the tooling and manufacturing phases of the program as well. The use

of corrugated aluminum skin is an example of the result of this approach; this type of

construction provided integral stiffenersand eliminated the need for stringers. Al-

though this design represented a minor weight penalty when compared to the more

costly aluminum sheet-stringer construction, itgreatly reduced design and construction

time. In addition, itreduced the overall number of parts in the vehicle.

Weight was not a limiting factor in the design of the vehicles, as most versions

required several thousand pounds of ballast to satisfythe mission trajectory require-

ments. The fact thatweight was not the limiting factor permitted conservatism of

design; e.g., over-designing primary structural members. As a result many struc-

tural proof tests were not required. Many other tests were accomplished in a con-

servative and simple fashion; e.g., tests of the thermal protection material were

accomplished under sea-level conditions in lieu of a vacuum environment. The sea-

level test was much more severe as the material was subjected to the rocket temper-

atures as well as to high dynamic pressure. Wherever possible, vehicle systems

were designed for use of readily available off-the-shelf components which had been

proven by use on other programs. As a result, qualification testing was kept to a

minimum. The foregoing philosophy significantly reduced program costs.

1-1



The structural design was based on a gross weight of 220,000 pounds, 80, 000

pounds of which was the payload. Length of the payload adapter was established at

300 inches. The structure was also designed for sequential firing with a possible

10-second overlap of four first-stage and three second-stage Algol motors. Potential

growth of the vehicle is considerable due to the conservatism of design. The payload

can be increased by a considerable margin with little or no change to the presentstructural design. Accomodations for more powerful motors, even with 10 percent

larger diameter, would necessitate only modest structural design changes.

Simplified design permitted the use of simplified tooling and manufacturing

techniques. Tooling was based upon the minimum required for a 14-vehicle program.

Planning took advantage of the high level of worker skills rather than the detailed

planning required in large production programs utilizing less skilled workers.

Simplicity was also the keynote of GSE design, and spares support was based upon

minimum spares consistent with effective program support.

The Launch Operations crew was used for vehicle factory checkout, therebyeliminating dual crews and dual learning curves. This procedure permitted the

earliest possible crew familiarization with the vehicle and benefited the program by

allowing quick response to field type changes.

The description of the vehicle, its test schedule, and program requirements as

originally planned were covered by NASA/MSC Request for Proposal MSC-62-39P,

dated 6 April 1962. This RFP was distributed to contractors by a NASA/MSC letter

of the same date. Convair's response was documented by Technical Proposal

GD/C-62-114 and, together with supporting cost data, was submitted to NASA/MSC

by Letter 11-1-1486, dated 20 April 1962. A letter contract based on this proposal

was awarded to Convair on 11 May 1962. Figure 1-1 shows a comparison of the launchvehicle as originally conceived, and the final configuration. Subsequently a Work

Statement, GD/C-62-361, dated 20 November 1962, was issued to describe the task as

agreed upon in initial negotiations in December 1962, and was incrementally modified

to reflect later program-required changes.

Little Joe H was originally scheduled to be launched from Cape Kennedy Eastern

Test Range. However, to avoid schedule and support problems which might occur at

that facility because of the heavy schedule of high-priority launches, other possible

launch sites were evaluated by NASA/MSC and Convair. A launch pad identified as

Launch Complex 36 (LC36) at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) previously used

for Redstone missile tests, was ultimately selected as most capable of meetingschedule and support requirements. Also, the White Sands Range allowed land

recovery which was less costly and complicated than the water recovery procedure

that would have been required at the NASA Wallops Island Range. Convair made

significant contributions to the modification of existing facilities and the design of

required additional facilities. The existing blockhouse and service tower at LC-36

were used. The modifications and additions are discussed in detail in other sections

of this report. Figure 1-2 shows an overall view of the pad area at LC-36. The sup-

porting WSMR facilities used for operations are illustrated in Figure 1-3.

1-2



NORTHNOMINALLAUNCHDIRECTION

LITTLE JOEII /PAYLOAD SERVtCETOWER(GANTRY)BLDG.NO. S- 2_355ONLAUNCHER

CABLESUPPORTMAST(FORCABLES TOTRENCH,

PYROREADY STORAGE MAGAZINESTO LAS CRUCES POWER ROOM & BH) FORTO ALMOGORDO _

_._ _ CONVAIR OPERATIONS

-- SUPPORTOFFICEINPORTABLESHED

R. T A ILE O. CONVAIRLAUNCH

12MILES CONVAIR( OPERATIONS TRAILER NO. O

IWSMR POSTAREA I J INSPECTIONTRAILERNO. ii _, POWER ROOM IN

BARRICADEDNASA BLDGS T-118& T-108 WSMR STRUCTURE

SECURITY BLDG. S'23356

WSMR HEADQUARTERS BLDG 100 • BLDGT-S26,,.v_. GUARDPOST 10'x12' BLOCKHOUSE BLDG.

FLAMMABLE FINTESTPAD NO. S-23350

CONVAIRMAIN OFFICE ENCLOSED STORAGE SHED ILC.36 CONTROL SYSTEMS 1,200 FT.FROM

& SHOPAREA TECHNICAL I TEST FACILIW LAUNCH PAD(BLDG1540) AREA ROCKET MOTOR LAUNCH COMPLEX 31 (CSTF)BUILDUPBLDGS VEHICLEASSEMBLY

21560 & 21564 BUILDINGNO. 'x 12_STORAGE SHEDNASA TELEMETRY

TRAILERSNO.1&

LITTLE JOEI I RECEIVING i2INSPECTION,ACS FIN ASSY- CONVAIRRN TEST OPERATIONS

BLDG 1520WSMR GUARD POSTtr_STR.& / 5' FLAMMABLESTORAGESHED

J ALGOLMOTORPREPARATION

/

BU]LDING1676 (FORPITCH-UPCOM'D] 3ROWAVE &MISC. STORAGE,ETC, NO. 11WSMRGUIDANCE& MAB26 H202 STORAGE DATA FROM

BLDG.1512CONTROL LAB ALGOL SHAPE- BLDG. 23.501 9.5 MILES COMPUTERS(FORCALIBR.) CHARGE STORAGE MILES

NAB 27

ALGOL MOTOR

WSMR

SECURITYGUARD POST

TO EL PASO CINDERBLOCKHUTSIS) _ C' STATION FORFPS-16 RADARTRACKINGAND FRW_2 TRANSMISSION(SQUIBS,IGNITERS,ETC. FOR COMMAND CONTROL/DESTRUCT SIGNALS.

ALSO MFSO STATIONFOR FLIGHTRANGESAFETY CONTROLVIACOMMAND

TO TERMINATELJ-IILGOL MOTOR THRUST (IFREQUIRED).

WSMRAIRPORTCONDRON FIELD

C-6062-3

I

¢_ Figure 1-3. General Area of Convair Activities for Little Joe II/Apollo Program at WSMR



to WSMR on 25 April 1963. Preliminary systems checkout of the vehicle was com-

pleted in San Diego on 3 May 1963. A Development Engineering Inspection (DEI) was

conducted 9 May 1963 and a number of requested changes were incorporated. Phase 1I

of the DEI was held 10 June 1963. A final systems checkout was initiated immediately

after this and completed 13 July 1963. The vehicle was then disassembled and delivered

to WSMR on 16 July 1963.

Engineering design for the attitude control vehicles was initiated on 23 July 1962.

The additional structural design required was completed in December 1962 and all

systems design was completed in August 1964. Fabrication of detail parts for the first

vehicle was started on 30 April 1963o Sub-assembly for the fins and elevons was

initiated on 25 July 1963. Major assembly of the forebody was completed on 11 October

and the afterbody on 18 October 1963, and these major assemblies were placed in

temporary storage. The forebody was removed from storage and final assembly

started on 2 December 1963. The afterbody was removed from storage on 12 November

and placed on Launcher 12-60-2 for fin flutter tests which were completed on 19 Decem-

ber 1963. Final assembly of the forebody was initiated on 2 December 1963 and the

unit was mated to the afterbody on 4 May 1964.

Preliminary OCI checkout was initiated on 5 May 1964 and was completed on 20

June 1964. Required changes such as instrumentation, pitch programmer, etc., were

incorporated. The final OCI checkout was initiated on 11 August and the Development

Engineering Inspection (DEI) was held on 20 August° DEI cleanup and OCI checkout

were completed on 12 September 1964. The vehicle was disassembled and shipped to

WSMR on 15 September 1964.

A summary of the typical life-span for this and the subsequent vehicles is illus-

trated in Figure 1-4. This summary identifies the following phases: 1) basic design

and manufacturing, 2) configuration changes and modifications, 3) checkout (on and offsite), 4) buildup off site, and 5) launch and/or storage.

C. LAUNCH SITE ACTIVITY

Five unmanned flight missions were accomplished during the program. The first

was a fixed-fin Qualification Test Vehicle (QTV) launched on 28 August 1963. This

was followed by a series of four launchings employing boilerplate or prototype Apollo

spacecraft which were capable of in-flight abort tests. Of these, one had fixed fins

and three were controllable vehicles. Two pad-abort tests were also accomplished by

NAA S&ID and NASA/MSC during the span-time of these tests, as noted in Figure 1-5.

The sequence of launch events in Figure 1-6 shows part of the first LJ-II/BP-12 abortmission. The IM-H/SC-002 mission, accomplished on 20 January 1966, completed

the flight qualification of the Apollo spacecraft launch escape vehicle (LEV). Figure

1-7 shows the vehicle shortly after liftoff.

1-6



1962 1963 __ --____ _DEI DISPOSITION, OPENITEM 3 MAY REVIEW

'''-'allll CODEI _NCH 8-28-63

12-50-1 J ] I IIIIIIII BASIC DESIGN AND MFG.-THRUST TERMINATION ,,,,,,,,, CONFIGURATION CHGS. ANDMOD

GO AHEAD 12-16-63 _ CHECKOUT

-FRR518-64 / BUILDUP ATWSMRDEI 11-14-63 ....

t _ -LAUNCH 5-13-6_-_ STORAGE

! I DEI DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERINGINSPECTION12-50-2 Ill III)111 I FRR FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW

MAE MANUFACTURING ACCEPTANCE EVALUATIONDEI 11-14-63" PAT PREDELIVERY ACCEPTANCE TESTING

12-50-3 IIIIIIIIII I II III _ _--

12-50-4 Unlll III IIII III

- ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEM ,_FRR 12-4-64

DESIGN APPROVAL 5-27-63 DEI 8-20-64-- I I I l,,_-LAUNCH 12-8-64

,lllllllllllll Ill I ] I I12-51-1

DE! iTART

I I I I I -FReS-14-65 IMAE -LAUNCH 5-19-65

I I12-51-2 III1 III IIII IF .PAT #2 START

I i i LDEI

I r-- FRR #i 12-3-65

I ' I I I-'FRI_#_1'-14-66

MAE i ; I,I,II'AUN(_H

12-51-5 ] IIIIIiIIU'"' ,'1, _H_ _5,1,, 1-20-66

IIIVEHICLE COMPLETED--

PREPARATION FOR STORAGE-- i

1962 1963 1964 1965 _ 1966

p_I C-606Z-4

"_ Figure 1-4. Vehicle Schedule Summary



IO0

MISSION PAYLOAD/ LAUNCH POSTLAUNCHORDESIG- APOLLO VEHICLE DATE OTHERASSOCIATEDNATION SPACECRAFT (VERSION) MISSIONDESCRIPTIONPURPOSE LAUNCHED REPORTNUMBERS

A. FORLJ-II LAUNCHVEHICLEQUALIFICATION:

QTV DUMMY+ LJ-II 12-50-1 LJ-II QUALIFICATIONTEST 8-28-6.3 GD/C-63-193AINERT LES (FIXED FIN) VEHICLE (AT MISSIONA-O01

ABORTPARAMETERS)

B. FORAPOLLOSPACECRAFTABORTTESTS:

PA-1 BP-6 - FIRST PADABORT 11-7--6.3 POSTLAUNCHMEMODATED11-23-63

A-O01 BP-12 LJ-II 12-50-2 HIGHDYNAMICPRESSURE 5-13-64 MSC-R-A-64-1(FIXED FIN) (TRANSONIC)ABORT

A-O02 BP-23 LJ-II 12-51-1 MAXIMUMDYNAMICPRESSURE 12-8-64 MSC-R-A-65-1(ATTITUDECONTROL) ABORT

A-O03 BP-22 LJ-II 12-51-2 HIGHALTITUDE ABORT 5-19-65 MSC-R-A-65-2;(ATTITUDECONTROL) GD/C-65-143

PA-2 BP-23A - SECONDPADABORT 6-29-65 MSC-R-A-65-3

A-O04 SC-002 LJ-II 12-51-3 POWER-ONTUMBLING 1-20-66 MSC-R-A-66-3(ATTITUDE CONTROL) ABORT GD/C--65-190A

C"6062-5

Figure 1-5. Historical Summary of LJ-II/Apollo Missions Flown at WSMR, LC-36



(:;..6002-6I

Figure 1-6. Pre-Launch Through Thrust Termination/Spacecraft Abort Sequence - BP-12 Mission A-00I



C-6062 -7

Figure 1-7. Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 with SC-002 at Liftoff

1-10



Each of the LEV abort missions resulted in safe command module landings, in-

cluding one unscheduled in-flight emergency abort caused by a launch vehicle control

system malfunction. These are further described in Volume ]I, Section 2. E of this

report. It was concluded from the test results of all missions that the Apollo space-

craft launch escape system was man-rated and the production designs were confirmed.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES AND PARTICIPANTS

The missions had three primary objectives. First was to demonstrate that the

launch escape system (LES) could safely rescue the command module (CM} from

jeopardy under critical abort conditions. The second objective was to verify the

integrity and reliability of the command module's earth landing system (ELS) after

abort. The third objective was to confirm the structural integrity of the combined

LES and command module when they were exposed to critical abort conditions.

The overall program was conducted under the direction of NASA/MSC with the

joint participation of NAA S&ID and Convair for their respective spacecraft and Little

Joe II vehicle operations. The WSMR adminstrative, range, and technical organiza-

tions provided timely and satisfactory facilities, resources, and services as required

for each flight mission. These included range safety, radar and camera tracking,

command transmission, real-time data display system (RTDS} data, meteorological

data, photography, telemetry data acquisition, data reduction, recovery operations,

and other data as requested in operational requirements documents. The operational

requirements documents were prepared by NASA/MSC for each mission and included

the inputs from NAA S&ID and Convair.

D. FLIGHT SUMMARY

The first Little Joe II was used as a qualification test vehicle (QTV). It was the

function of the QTV to demonstrate its performance in preparation for Apollo Mission

A-001. Also, it was of considerable importance, before committing an Apollo payload,

to confirm the main design considerations of the launch vehicle: stability, structural

integrity and absence of flutter, to give a few examples. The purpose of the subsequent

launch vehicles was to propel Apollo spacecraft (or boilerplate simulations of space-

craft) to scheduled test regions from which the emergency escape capability of the

launch escape vehicle (LEV) could be demonstrated. The selected test regions repre-

sented critical escape regions of the Saturn trajectory envelope, as illustrated by

Figure 1-8.

In the succeeding paragraphs of this section_ a brief description is given of the

purpose of each Little Joe H/Apollo launch (Figure 1-9), the configuration of the

vehicle (Figure 1-10) and a summary of the flight events and results (Figure 1-11).

More detailed descriptions of the vehicles and flight performance are given in Volume

II of this report.

i-II



ALTITUDE, FT l

_'= 120KI-=bO

DESIRED TEST REGIONk_J-JJ

100K ® NOMINAL TEST POINT

A ACTUAL TEST POINT

'_" ACTUAL TEST PATH

80K

3

70K

_OK

Co:LU

0'_ .40K

- 12 -51-1 --

12-50-2,

1

12-50'1 _, co-_

1OK i

O0 lOO 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 lOOO

DYNAMIC PRESSURE, q - LBS/FT 2 C-,(,O6Z-S

Figure 1-8. LJ-]I/Apollo Abort Test Regions



POWER-ON TUMBLING

HIGH D_NAMIC PRESSURE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC HIGH ALT TUDE ABORT BOUNDARY ABORTQUALIFICATION APOLLO TRANSONIC ABORT PRESSURE ABORT A-D03 ! A-D04

LITTLE JOE II TEST VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT A-O01 A-O02 BOILERPLATE 22 S/C 0 02DEVELOPMENT (QTV) ISSUES BOILERPLATE 12 BOILERPLATE 23 LJ-II12-51-2 LAUNCH VEHICLE

ISSUES 12-50-1 LJ-If12-50-2 LAUNCH VEHICLE LJ-II12-51-i LAUNCH VEHICLE , LJ-II12-51-3 LAUNCH VEHICLEI

• DEMONSTRATE CAPABILITY TO PERFORM • DEMONSTRATE THE C APABILITY OF THE • DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY LEV P ER- • DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY LEV p ER- • DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY LEV P ER-

THE LAUNCH TRAJECTORY FOR MISSION ESCAPE SYSTEM TO PROPEL THE CM FORMANCE UTILIZING THE CANARD SUB- FORMANCE AT AN ALTITODE APPROXlMA- FORMANCE FOR AN ABORT INTHE POWER-

A-O01 SAFELY AWAY FROM THE LAUNCH VEHICLE SYSTEM AND BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER, TING THE UPPER LIMIT FOR THE CANARD ON TUMBLI NG BOUNDARY REGIONAND TOVERIF Y TH E ABORT CAPABILITY IN SUBSYSTEM

• DEMONSTRATE A BI LI TY OF LAUNCH CAPABILITY THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC-PRESSURE REGION

PERFORMANCE VEHICLE TO CLEAR THELAUNCHER (TO ABORT) WITH CONDITIONS APPROXIMATING EDS

• DEMONSTRATE ALGOL THRUST TERMI- LES LIMITS

NATION SYSTEM • DETERM INE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE

• DEMONSTRATE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUC- LEV IN THE MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE

TURALADEQUACY OFGSE REGION

• DEMONSTRATE THAT FINSARE FLUTTER • DETERMI NE AERODYNAMIC STABILITY • DEMONSTRATE SAT SFACTORY LEV POWER- • DEMONSTRATE ORIENTATION OF THE LEV • DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABIL ITY OFTHE

FREE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ESCAPE CON- ON STABILITY FOR ABORT IN THE MAXIMUM TO AM AIN HEAT SHIELD FORWARD ATTI- CANARD SUBSYSTEM TO SATISFACTORILY

INTEGRITY • DEMONSTRATE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY FIGURATIO N FOR THIS ABORT CONDITION DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION WITH CONDI- TUDE I REORIENT AND STABILIZE THE LEVHEATTIONS APPROXIMATING EMERGENCY DETEC- SHIELD FORWARD AFTER A POWER-ON

FOR MISSION A-D01 STABILITY TION SUBSYSTEM LIMITS • DETERMINE THE DAMPING OFT HE LEV TUMBLING ABORT

• DEMONSTRATE ADEQUACY OF PROCEDURE LEV OSCILLATIONS WITH THE CANARD SUB-FOR WIN D C OMPENSATION BY AIMING • DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY CANARD DE- SYSTEM DEPLOYED ,

LAUNCHER IN AZIMU TH A ND E LE VATION PLOYMENT, LEV TURN-AROUND DYNAMICS,,AND MAIN HEAT SHI EL D FORWARDFLIGHT

• EVALUATE TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES ! STABIL ITY PRIORTO LES JETTISONPROCEDURES WHICH CONTRIBUTE TOEFFICIENT LAUNCH

OPERATIONS • DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL INTEG- • DEMONSTRATE THE S TRUCTURAL PER- • DETERMINE THE PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR OF • DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL INTEG-

• EVALUAT E P ROCEDURESFORGROUND RITY OF THE ESCAPE TOWER FORMANCE OFTHE LES W ITH THE CANARD THE BOOST PROTECTIVE, C OVER DURING RITY OF T HE LEV AIRFRAME STRUCTURE

COMMAND ABORT FOR APPLICATION TO INTEGRITY SUBSYSTEM LAUNCH AND ENTRY FRIOMHIGH ALTITUDE BOUNDARyFORN ABORTREGIoNINHE POWER-ON TUMBLINGMISSION A -O01 (STRUCTURAL • DEMONSTRATE THE STRUCTURAL PER-

PERFORMANCE) FORMA NC E O F T H E B OO ST P RO TE CTIVE • DEMONST RA TE T HE S TR UC TU RA L C AP A-

• DETERMINE BASE PRESSURES COVER DURING AN ABORT INTHE MAXIMUM BILIT Y O F T H E P RO DU CT IO N B PC T O

ENVIRONMENT • DETERMINE BASE HEATING DYNAMIC P RE SS UR E R EG IO N WITHSTAND THE LAUNCH ENVIRONMENT

• DETERMINE FLEXIBLE BODY RESPONSE OF • DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY RECOVERY • DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY SEPARA- • DEMONSTRATE JETTISON OF THE LES • DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABILITY OF THE

TOTAL LAUNC H VEHICLE PLUS PAYLOAD TIMING SEQUENCE IN THE ELS TIO N O F T HE L ES P LU S B OO ST P RO TE CTIVE PLUS BOOST PROTECTIVE COVER AFTER CM FORWARD HEATSHIELD THRUSTERS TO• COVER FROM THE CM HIGH ALTITUDE ENTRY SATISFACTORILY SEPARATE THE FORWARD

HEATSHIELD AFTER THE TOWER HAS BEEN

*_ SEPARATION • DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY SEPARA- JETTISONED BYTHE TOWER JETTISONTION OFTHE LEV FROMTHE SM AT AN "MOTOR

ANGLE OF ATTACK • DEMONSTRATE SAT]SFACTORY SEPARA-

TION OFTHE LEV FROMSM

• DEMONSTRATE PROPER OPERATION OFTHE • D EMONSTRATE SAT ISFACTORY OPERATION • D EMONSTRATE PER FORMANCE OF THE ELS • DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY OPERATION. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . , ,, ,,,_ Hci_,_TU_ TWO-POINT HARNESS ATTAP_-L AND PERFO RM ANC E O F THE EL S W ITH ARECOVERY CM-SM SEPARATION SUBSYSTEM _i_u rr-RruR,v,_,_,_-r ,nEELS vS,,,_ ...................

ELS REEFED DUAL DROGUES VENT FOR THE MAIN PARACHUTES SPACECRAFT VEHICLE

SEQUENCE • DEMONSTRATE PROPER OPERATION OF T HE(OF EVENTS) APPLICABLE COMPONENTS OF THE ELS

• DETERMINE AERODYNAMIC LOADS DUE TO • DETERMINE THE CM PRESSURE LOADS, • OBTAIN DATA ON THERMAL EFFECTS • DETERMINE THE S TATIC LOADS ON THE CM

LOCAL SURFACE PRESSURES ONTHE CM INCLUDING POSSIBLE PLUME IMPINGEMENT DURING BOOST ANDDURINGIMPINGEMENT DURING LAUNCH ANDTHE ABORT SEQUENCE

ANDSM DUR INGA L ITTLE JOE II LAUNCH IN THEMAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE OF THE LAUNCH ESCAPE MOTOR PLUMES • DETERMINE THE DYNAM IC LOADING ON THE

REGION ON THE CM AND THE LAUNCH ESCAPE CM INNER STRUCTURETOWER

• DETERM IN E THE AERODYNAMIC PRESSURE • DETERMINE THE DYNAMIC LOADS AND THELOADS ONSM DURING THE LAUNCH PHASE • DETERMINE PRESSURES ON THE C M BOOST STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OFTHE SM DURING

PROTECTIVE COVER DURING LAUNCH AND LAUNCHLEGEND • OBTAIN THERMAL EFFECTS DATA ON THE HIGH ALTITUDE ABORT

CM DURING AN ABORT INTHE MAXIMUM • DETERMINE THE STATIC PRESSURES IV-ENVIRONMENT DYNAMIC PRESSURE REGION • DETERMINE VIBRATION AND ACOUSTIC POSED ON THE CM BYFREE STREAM CON-

(EFFECTS ENVIRONMENT AND R ESPONSE OF THE S M DITIONS AND LES MOTOR PLUMES DURING

• FI RST-ORDER TEST OBJECTIVE INDUCED) WITH SIMULATED RCS QUADS A POWER-ON TUMBLING ABORT

• OBTAIN DATA ON THE STRUCTURAL RE-

• SECOND-ORDER TEST OBJECTIVE SPONSE OF THE CM DURING ELS SEQUENCE

• OBTAIN THERMAL DATA ON THE BPC DUR-

• THIRD -ORDER TEST OBJECTIVE ING A POWER-ON TUMBLING ABORT

• OBTAIN ACOUSTICAL NOISE DATA INSIDETHE CMAT AN ASTRONAUT STATION

• D EMONSTRATE L IT TL E JOE i I- S/C • DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY PERFORM- • DELIVER THEAPOLLO BblLERPLATE • DELIVER THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT TO

L ITTLE JOE II/ COMPATIBILITY ANCE OFTHELAUNCHVEHICLE ATTITUDE SPACECRAFT TO THE DI_SIRED CONDI- THE DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR DEMON-

APOLLO • DELIVER THE A POLLO BOILERPLATE CONTROL SUBSYSTEM TIONS FOR DEMONSTRA_FION OFTHE LEV STRATION OFTHE LEV

COMPATIBILITY SPACECRAFT TO THE DESIRED CONDI- • DELIVER THE APOLLO BOILERPLATET IO NS F OR DEMONS TRA TI ON OF T HE LE V S PACECRA FT T O THE DE SI RE D CONDI-

TIONS FOR DEMONSTRATI ON OFTHE LEV

C-60b2Al'

Figure 1-9. WSMR Apollo Flight Program Mission Objectives

1-13



APOLLOMISSION - NUMBER QTV A-D01 A-O02 A-O03 A-OO4

- LAUNCHWEIGHT (LBS) 57, 165 57,930 94,331 177,189 13% 731

PAYLOAD - NUMBER DUMMY CSM BP-12 BP-23 BP-22 SC-002MOCKUPLES

-WEIGHT (LBS) 24,225 25,335 27, b92 27,836 23_ 185

- BALLAST (LBS) 9,361

LAUNCHVEHICLE - NUMBER 12-50-1 12-50-2 12-51-1 12-51-2 12-51-3

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION

AIRFRAME -WEIGHT INC. MOTORS(LBS) 32,941 . 32,595 58,030 144,309 101,328

- BALLAST (LBS) - 8,609 5,044 5.,867- FIXED FIN X' X

- CONTROLLABLEFIN X X X

PROPULSION - 1ST STAGERECRUIT 6 6 4 5

- IST STAGE ALGOL ). i 2 3 2

- 2NDSTAGEALGOL 3 2

ATTITUDE CONTROL - PITCH PROGRAMMER X X X

- PITCH-UP CAPABILITY X X

- SIGNALFILTER-2ND ORDER X X X

- SIGNAL FILTER-NOTCH X X

- REACTIONCONTROL X X

- AERODYNAMICCONTROL X X X

- ELEVONACTUATORHYD.

SUPPLY SINGLE DUAL DUAL

RF COMMAND - RANGESAFETY DESTRUCT X X X X

- THRUST TERM & ABORT X

- PITCH-UP & ABORT X X

- ABORT X X

ELECTRICAL - PRIMARY X X X

- INSTRUMENTATION X X X

LOCATED LOCATED

INSTRUMENTATION -RFTRANSMITTERS 3 IN 2 IN 1PAYLOAD PAYLOAD

- TM MEASUREMENTS 66 3 5B 13 39

- LL MEASUREMENTS 24 24 .37 45 36

RADARBEACON - LAUNCHVEHICLE X

- PAYLOAD X X X X

C-6062-I0

Figure 1-10. Launch Vehicle Configuration Summary

1-15



IFL A-OO4

o'_ MISSION DESIGNATION QTV A-O01 A-O02 A-O03 POWER-ON TUMBLING

& TITLE QUAL. TEST VEHICLE TRANSONIC ABORT MAX. Q ABORT HIGH ALT. ABORT BOUNDARY ABORT

APOLLO PAYLOAD DUMMY BP-12 BP-22, BP-22 SC-002

LITTLE JOE II NO. 12-50-1 12-50-2 12-51-1 12-51-2 12-51-3

DATE & TIME (MST) 8/28/65, 9:00 AM 5/13/64, 6:00 AM 12/8/64, 8:00 AM 5/19/65, 6:01 AM 1/20/66, 8:17 AM

LAUNCH AZIMUTH 4° 56.'5 2,46 ° 20' D° 25" 356" O' 348 = 29'

LAUNCH ELEVATION 82 = 48' 81 ° 19' 84 ° 2' 84" O' 84 ° O'

COUNTDOWNTIME 6:10 HRS 6:40 HRS 8:00 HRS 8:25 HRS 6:27 HRS

MAJOR DELAYS NONE POSTPONED FROM NONE NONE POSTPONED FROM

5/12/64 BECAUSE OF 1/18/66 BECAUSE OF

IWEATHER RANGE T/M DELAY OF

17 MIN.

FLIGHT EVENT TIME

PITCH PROGRAMSTART - 0.0 SEC 0.0 SEC 21.0 SEC

RCS "ON" SCHEDULE - -1 TO+ 8 SEC; -4 TO + 16 SEC -

+11 SEC & ON

SECOND-STAGE IGNITION (NOTE 2) 36.4 SEC

RF COMMAND DESTRUCT COMMAND THRUST TERMINATION PITCH-UP AT 33.6 (NOTE 2) PITCH-UP AT 70.8 SECAT 32.4 SEC (NOTE 1) & LEV ABORT AT 28.4 SEC (FOLLOWED BY (FOLLOWED BY TIME-

SEC TIME-DELAYED DELAYED ABORT)

ABORT)

BOOST PHASE RESULTS PASSED THROUGH ABORT IN TEST ABORT OUTSIDE TEST REGION NOT ABORT IN TEST

TEST WINDOW WINDOW TEST WINDOW, BUT REACHED BECAUSE WINDOWACCEPTABLE OF FLIGHT CON-

TROL FAILURE

APOLLO LEV RESULTS ACCEPTABLE ABORT SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY ABORT

(RE-CONTACT WITH ABORT & EARTH LOW-ALTITUDE & EARTH LANDING

BOOSTER) AND EARTH LANDING ABORT & EARTH

LANDING LANDING

POST-ABORT CONDITION INTACT TO IMPACT DESTROYED BY THRUST BROKE UP "UND"ER BROKE UP UNDER INTACT TO IMPACT

OF BOOSTER WITH GROUND TERMINATION BLAST HIGH AERODYNAMIC HIGH CENTRIFUGAL WITH GROUND

FORCES FORCES INDUCED

BY RAPID ROLLING

MOTION

BOOSTER DATA ACQUISITION 100% 100% 96.5% 100% 100%

(%OF MEASUREMENTS) THROUGHOUT FLIGHT TO ABORT TO ABORT TO ABORT TO ABORT

NOTES: 1. DESTRUCT DID NOT OCCUR. c-6062-11

2. VEHICLE DISINTEGRATED BEFORE SCHEDULED EVENT.

Figure 1-11. Launch Data Digest



The first two launch vehicles were alike with respect to configuration and mission

profile. Both were fixed-fin vehicles, dependent upon the inherent stability of the

total vehicle to achieve a successful ballistic trajectory to the test region. One Aero-

jet-General Algol and six Thiokol Chemical Co. Recruit solid-propellant rockets made

up the propulsion package. The Algol 1D, Mod 2 sustainer motor provided an average

sea-level thrust of 96,530 lbs for 42.1 seconds, with a peak thrust of 116,600 lbf.

Each Recruit TE-29-II, Mod. 1B booster rocket was rated at 37, 1O0 lbf at sea leveland was expended approximately 1.5 seconds after ignition.

The principal difference between the QTV and A-001 vehicles was that the QTV had/

a dummy payload which did not separate from the launch vehicle in flight as did the

BP-12 payload on the A-001. The QTV (Vehicle 12-50-1} made a successful flight,

passing through the test "window, as shown in Figure 1-8. All objectives weresatisfied (Figure 1-9), except for the WSMR Command Destruct subsystem. The i

destruct signal was received and detonated the safe-and-arm unit; however, the prima-

cord did not propagate the detonation to the shaped charges on the Algol case.

Mission A-001 -- Launch Vehicle 12-50-2 successfully boosted the Apollo boiler _plate (BP-12} to the planned test region. Upon command from the ground the LEV

separated from the booster. At a preset altitude, the escape tower was jettisoned

from the command module. Following this was the parachute deployment and landing

of the command module. The vehicle was equipped with a dual RF command thrust

termination subsystem as an aid to LEV separation at high subsonic speed. Because

the abort test point was reached while the Algol motor was developing high thrust,

clean separation of the LEV under such conditions would not be possible. For this

reason the thrust was terminated (via ground radio command} by splitting the motor

case. The ground-initiated command to terminate thrust and initiate the LEV abort

was based on elapsed flight time, which proved to be accurate enough to achieve the

desired test conditions.

The remaining three launch vehicles, Nos. 12-51-1, -2, and-3, incorporated

flight controls. While the attitude control systems (ACS} for all three were of the same

basic type, they differed in some details, as summarized in Figure 1-10. Common to _

all was: 1) an autopilot to provide sensing (attitudes and rates for three axes}, logic,

and control commands, and 2} hydraulically actuated aerodynamic controls. Vehicles

12-51-1 and -2 included reaction controls, operating on a preset schedule, in parallel

with the aerodynamic controls. These reaction motors, fueled by 90% hydrogen

peroxide, were mounted in back-to-back pairs at the root of each fin. Thrust termi-

nation was not used on any of these vehicles, not being needed to assure clean separa-

tion of the LEV.

Mission A-002 -- With simultaneous ignition of two Algols and four Recruits,

Vehicle 12-51-1 boosted the Apollo BP-23 to a high dynamic pressure abort. A

pitch programmer caused the vehicle to pitch down at a constant rate, starting at lift-

off, such that the vehicle would, at the test point, approximate the Saturn flight path

angle as well as Mach number and dynamic pressure. At the predetermined flight

conditions, as given by a real-time display system (RTDS}, a signal was transmitted

by radio link to the launch vehicle, commanding a pitch-up maneuver.

1-17



At LEV abort time, the pitch-up maneuver approximated the limits of the proposed

Saturn Emergency Detection Subsystem (EDS). As a result of an error in the RTDS

meteorological data, the pitch-up command was transmitted 2.4 seconds early. This

produced an abort of the LEV at a dynamic pressure 25 percent greater than planned,

but at the correct Mach number.

Because the launch escape system stiffness and mass distribution differed fromthe mathematical model used for design, the autopilot filters were not able to prevent

coupling of the fundamental structural bending mode with the attitude control subsystem.

The resulting elevon oscillation, although it had no noticeable effect on the vehicle

stability or flight path, excessively depleted the hydraulic fluid supply and pressure.

The lowered pressure reduced the elevon hinge-moment capability such that the planned

angle of attack at LEV abort time was not fully attained. Despite the noted departures

from the mission plan, the LEV exceeded the desired conditions from which a success-

ful recovery and landing were made. Indeed the extra high dynamic pressure abort pro-

vided a demonstration of structural integrity of the LEV at near-limit load.

Mission A-003 -- This mission was scheduled to demonstrate with Apollo BP-22the LEV performance at the upper limit of altitude for the canard subsystem and the

ability of the subsystem to orient the LEV With its main heat shield forward. Launch

Vehicle 12-51-2 had a propulsion system of six Algol motors, fixed in two stages

of three each. The autopilot was augmented with a set of new filters, designed to block

the feedback of the first bending mode to the elevon control which occurred on the

previous flight. Also, the pitch-up function was deleted, not being required for this

mission.

Very shortly after lift-off the vehicle began an uncontrolled roll which accelerated

with increasing velocity of flight; prior to second-stage ignition and while still at low

altitude, the launch vehicle disintegrated. The break-up severed the abort "hot lines,"resulting in initiation of the LEV escape sequence. Despite this severe "test," the LEV

performance was excellent. The command module was recovered, together with useful

data.

Mission A-004 -- Demonstration of satisfactory LEV performance and of structural

integrity of an Apollo spacecraft for abort in the power-on tumbling boundary region

were the primary objectives of Mission A-004o Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 boosted Apollo

SC-002 on this mission with excellent results. The motor configuration was two Algols

and five Recruits for first stage and two Algols for second stage. (The second-stage

firing phase constituted the first time the Algol motor had been ignited at altitude, and

was successful.) The attitude control system of Vehicle 12-51-3 differed from that ofVehicle 12-51-2 in two major respects: the reaction control subsystem was deleted,

not being required for this mission, and the pitch-up function was installed. Also, the

pitch program was preset to commence 20 seconds after lift-off.

1-18



2 PROJECT PHILOSOPHY



2 PROJECT PHILOSOPHY

A. MANAGEMENT

The Request for Proposal directed the Contractor to establish a strong I_JII

organization, headed by a Program Manager and removed from other Contractor pro-

grams to the extent necessary to prevent interference with a timely completion of the

Apollo program. To achieve this, a modified project organization was proposed and

initiated as shown in Figure 2-1. The philosophy of this type of organization was thatproject key supervisors and staff members reported functionally to the Program Man-

ager but administratively to their home group or department. They responded to the

project line organization, to each other and to direction from the Program Manager to

integrate and accomplish the tasks of the project. In addition, there remained a link

of responsibility with the home group or supervisor to ensure that high quality design

or manufacturing operations were achieved, proper procedures were followed and

schedule requirements were met. The assignment of talented senior personnel to the

project was one of the principal reasons for its ultimate success.

Personnel were transferred into the project as tasks required and were promptly

returned to their home department upon the completion of their tasks. This ensureda supply of top-grade people, continuity of experience and a minimum number of people

on the project as required by the tasks. This variation of personnel with work load is

reflected in Section 4 and is shown in more detail in the sample of manpower applica-

tion in 1964, also in Section 4.

Except for minor personnel changes, the organization shown in Figure 2-1 applied

until June 1965. At that time, the primary design task had been accomplished and

Engineering and Launch Operations activity were grouped under one head to recognize

the re-emphasis on test and the necessity for even more closely integrated operations

during this period. The revised organization is shown in Figure 2-2.

The organization was designed to include elements that were required on a full-

time basis. Part time support from other Convair departments and groups, as re-

quired, was assured on an as-required basis by identifying the individual in that

department who would represent the department or group and had the responsibility of

providing the support when requested. This method of identification of "contact

people" is shown in Figure 2-3.

2-1



t'OI

I--I_-A-|

VICE FT_ES_DENT&

GEm£RAL MANAGER

R, A,Nelle

IPROGRAMM _AG_R

I I i I I IRELIABILITY SVS. INTEGRATION NASA SAN OIEGO DOCUMENTATION PflG¢;RAM SUBCONTRACT

CONTROL & QUALITY CHANGE CONTROL OFFICE LIAISON CONTROL C(_I TROL COST C0_TROL

ASSURANCE PLANS CONTROL B.E. Ca_,. N, G ra n_w. L , ohnst_ D.G . M o_y H G. S_¢¢ W.F. Bm*_

I I lDEPUTY PROGRAM 0EPUTY I>ROGRAM DEPUTY pROGRAM

MANAGER MANAGER MANAGER

, Tu_ le

I [ I I [ t I II LAUNCH OPERATIONS

R, E, M al= IVEHICLE VEHICLE CONTROL GSE PLANNING TECH_'/_CAL FABRICATION TOOLING I MATERIAL LAUNCH OLANNINC LAUNCH TEST A.C. 0chief

ST RU CTURA LOESIG N & I NSTRUMEN TATION & DESIGN SUPPORT _,ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS & EVALUATION COORDINATION SUPPORT

- J.E. Bu_son J K. Lessl_ N. L We_r C. S Stran_ 0 L. Hunle_ A. R _ M, L Edelste,n A. W. K el ogg

i

' ' [ ]1 [[ I[ 1PERSONNEL SHOWN UNDERTHE PROGRAM MANAGER ARE FULL-TIME REPRESENTATIVES ASSIGNED TO THE LrtT L£ J OE IIPROORAM. THESE REPRESENTATIVES WILL REPORT FUNCTIONALLY TO THE PROGRAMMANAGER ¢dNOADMINISTRA'FIVELYTO THEIR HOMEDEPARTMENT OTHER DEPARTMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE LITTLE JOE II ,_ROGR_M THROUGH THEPERFORMANCE OF THEIR NORMALLY-ASSIGNED SUPPORT RESPONSISIUTIES, WILL BE REPRESENTED BY COOROINATORS

WHO SPEi_O AS '_UCHTI_E AS REQUIREO ON TH_S PROGRAM.

C-bOb2-12

Figure 2-1. Original Organization Chart- Little Joe IT Program



I FORM32ONE GENERALOYIIAMIC/CONVAIR I APP_ROVED: PMNO.

,,_o..o.<.<,FoG,. .,._,, f*'¢/..'_2,-A-S

PR(X;RAMMANUAL I J.R. 9emp_y PROGRAMMNIAGER b*ROGRAM: LITTLE JOEII PREPARED8Y OATIE 1 OF 1

SUBJECT! PROGRAMORGANIZAT ION [ C,H . Helm 6-7-bS

I vICE PRESIDENT

A/C PROGRAMS

.LH . Fm

I

I DIRECTOR

PROGR_I M_T.AIRCRAFT

I

I PROGR_ U#,NAGEE1

I I I I I I I I

CTL & QUAL. CHANGECONTROL OFFICELIAISON CONTROL CON'i_ROL ADMh_ISTRATOR SUBCONTRACT SPAREEASSURANCE pLANSCONTROL CONTROL

W. L..lahnlcem R. Pit, ms V.J. Pad( R.C. _lel 8. E. C4,dn C.W. Pamw N. Grind W.D. Bame

: ; ; ; ; ;

I REL'A°UT* CONTRAC'S' PROG'P_--°ONT"CT"--ER'A"l "V'_ IOIiTROL COML. SALES & CONTROL COML.SALES PROD.SERVICEE PARTS

I I

I DEPUTYPROGRAMG,°T,_OGRAM _ANAGE MANGER

ENGR, &01_.

'--4- _I I i I I I 1 |

MANAGER FABRICATION ILAUNCHPLNG. VEHICLECONTROL GSEpLANNING TECHNICAL OFF-SITE TOOLING

&EVALUATION & IqSTRUMENTATION & DESIGN SUPPORT OPERATIONS & ASSEMBLY O.L. H uRley

I. I . E delsLein R. X, ,k_m'ml J.K. L esslq N.L. _ A.W. Kella._ A .C. Oe_kx

: ; ; : [ ; ;

ENG,,EERI,_ I I ] MANUFACTURING I I TOOLING IQUAL.CTL. [ MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING

ADMINISTRATION &INSPECTION SUPPORT

PERSONNELSHOWNUNDERTHEPROGRAMMANAGERAREFULLTIMEREPRESENTATIVES I A. W, Kellc_lgASSIGNEDTOTHELITTLEJOEI I PROGRAM.THESEREPRESENTAT IVESWILLREPORT W. W* Fe_lton W.E. _/,/ifl_ltO O.L. TO(I(FUNCTIONALLYTO THEPROGRAMMANAGERANDADMINISTRATIVELYTOTHEIRHOME

DEPARTMENT, OTHERDEPARTMENTSCONTRIBUTINGOTHELITTLE JOEII PROGRAM r : ; :

HROOG.EOERFGRMANOEFTHEIRORML*S'°NEDSU_OORESPONSIBILITIES] RELIA"ILIT*I IILL EE REPRESENTEDBYCOORDINATORSHOSRENDASMUCHTIMEASREQUIREDON ENGINEERING CONTRO MANUFACTURING ENGINEERINGTHISPROGRAM.

C-6062-13

L'_I

Figure 2-2. FinalOrganizationChart - LittleJoe ]IProgram



miNiMAl. IDYNIM_Iq_I m. 12-A-2 ,pus 10"_.lmt_ le _ | e_ Z

Coewmk'OAHs/on _ C.H.Hahn ere¢©TM12117165

PROGRAM MANUAL - LITTLE JOE II _w.,.

MInT KEY DEPARTMENTAL CONTACTS ' MO_AM_N_V

PURPOSE

To degignate departmental repre0entatives assigned as key contacte for support and

assistance on the Little Joe IIprogram.

KEY DEPARTMENTAL CONTACTS

Name Department or Function Mail Zone Extension

B. V. Allen DataSystemt 170-1g KM 3728

R, R. Bullock Estimating 195-40 1561

B. E. Cavin Program Control LF Plant 210-40 12_2

*N. Grand Material Operations LF Plant 847-40 583

C. H. H_.hn CortIigure.tlon k Program t70-31 14O7

Management Procedure0

J. A. Holland Technical Reports & Manuall 227-00 4g)

P. S. Kenny Budgets lq4-00 KM 2481

J. L. Hoover Industrial Graphics& Propolals 226-00 428

M. H. Miller Still Photography 225-00 715

R. M. Montgomery Production Control B21-20 453

V. A. Petricola Factory Methods l, Work 423-00 60_Measurement

C. W, Powers Government Contracts I10-10 KM 891

C. B. Robinson Aircraft Service Parts ll3-00 588

*oo41L.t. •*,l

l " 12"A") 'lag' 10=_ lROGRAM MANUAL _ z o_ z

Name Department or Function Mail Zone. Extension

J. A. Sanderson Cost Accounting 19]-10 KM lZgl

J. F. Snyder Engineering Administration 52b-20 14i_

L. C. Stuckey Reliability Control. Aircraft 149-01 646

Progran_s

C, Waliman Reliability Control. Aircraft 149-01 1254

Programs

3. W. Woodhouse Manufacturing Development 491-20 KM 806

All above-Ueted telephone extemtions prefixed by KM are

Kearny Mesa Plant extensions; those not identified by a

prefix are Lindbergh Field Plant extensions.

C,_06Z-|4

Figure 2-3. Key Departmental Contacts

2-4



Having the Program Manager report directly to Convair's President proved very

valuable in ensuring proper support and cooperation from all Convair elements. Par-

ticipation in staff meetings (Figure 2-4) ensured that the President and his staff were

fully cognizant of the program status and any problems.

PROJECT INTEGRATION

At the inception of the program, it was recognized that the type of project organi-

zation which had been established gave an excellent opportunity and means to employ

the techniques that establish and maintain a team spirit, invaluable in accomplishing an

efficient and tightly scheduled task. Some of the techniques used were:

Physically locating the engineering and directly supporting personnel in a common

area to assure that they "knew each other" and could "talk to each other" efficiently;

see Figure 2-5.

Establishing a Program Manual (Figure 2-3 is a sample page) that collected all

pertinent organizational and procedural data directly applicable to the project. Thepreparation and distribution of this manual ensured that each organizational element

understood their job definition, their responsibilities, their relation to the other or-

ganizational elements, and the procedures that affected their activity.

Establishing a Project Memorandum procedure to document all important personal

and telephone discussions with NASA personnel and major vendors, meetings, trips,

test results and other type of information of general interest. These memorandums

or "PM's" were distributed to all project personnel concerned, immediately after

preparation, to ensure that they were kept up to date on project changes or status.

Copies were also sent to key NASA/MSC personnel and to the BuWeps' personnel rep-

resenting NASA/MSC, to confirm the telephone discussions and meetings results andto give personnel a comprehensive and "instant" visibility of the program.

Scheduling Staff meetings twice a week in the early phase of the program to ensure

rapid recognition and solution of problems and dissemination of pertinent information

to the key personnel. After completion of the development phase of the project, these

meetings were reduced to one a week.

Providing all project personnel an opportunity to view films of vehicle launches

and to hear the results of their efforts as demonstrated in the flights.

Issuing Design Information Bulletins (DIB's) to establish and ensure comprehensive

knowledge of all important design parameters. These DIB's were a short form of sys-tem and subsystem specifications which, because of their brevity and method of prep-

aration, ensured that project personnel concerned were aware of important limitations

and parameters that might otherwise be "buried" and unrecognized in a more detailed

specification.

Taking special steps which would allow project personnel to identify themselves

with the project and as part of the team. The most successful one was the use of a spe-

cial identification badge. An example of this is a publicity photograph as shown in

Figure 2-6.

2-5



C-6002-15

Figure 2-4. President Staff Meeting

C-6062-16

Figure 2-5. Little Joe IT Engineering Area

2-6



C-_062-17

Figure 2-6. Project Identification Badge

Holding an open house upon completing the first vehicle to give project personnel

a chance to show the results of their efforts to families and friends. See Figure 2-7.

Recognizing individual efforts of project personnel by providing publicity in the

Convair newspaper.

PROJECT DESIGN

The project design and operating philosophy was established early in the program.

In summary and in the order of importance, it was- necessary that all aspects of the

vehicle, launcher, etc., be sufficiently reliable that the accomplishment of a test mis-

sion be practically guaranteed; required that the vehicle and launcher be reliable and

yet be available in time to accomplish the missions in accordance with NASA program

schedules; recognized that costs were obviously always important but, for this project,

that it was more important that the vehicle be inherently reliable, on schedule, and of

a reasonable weight.

B. NASA MANAGEMENT/INTERFACE

GENERAL

The NASA management of the Little Joe II Program consisted of the usual

government-contractor interface of contracting officer and technical monitors. The

personnel assigned to these responsibilities during the span of the program, and their

2-7



LI OD



direct support, are shown in Figure 2-8. The contracting officer, as the official rep-

resentative of the Government, directed all changes in the contract as the program was

defined and developed.

The initial phase of the Little Joe H program was monitored by a NASA/MSC

Project Officer, who was the focal point of contact with the contractor and was respon-

sible for both technical and program control functions. In April 1964 these functions

were divided, with the program control function remaining under the Apollo Space-craft Program Office (Project Officer) and technical direction assigned (outside the

ASPO) to the Technical Manager.

INTERFACE TECHNIQUES

Immediately upon the task award, mutual steps were taken by NASA/MSC andConvair to establish and ensure a clear interface and efficient channel of communica-

tion between the NASA Program Manager, Project Office, Test Office, and the Convair

counterparts. This was necessary to keep costs at a minimum and efficiently coor-

dinate changes in task or philosophy as they occurred. These interface techniques

included: 1) frequent, almost daily, telephone contact and periodic meetings whichwere documented by the previously described PM's to ensure proper understanding of

directions. Based on these documented discussions and directions, Convair was able

to immediately respond to and plan NASA-directed changes in advance of formal

project office or contractual notification. Changes in philosophy or design approach

found necessary during design development were communicated to the NASA in the

same manner so that work could proceed, with mutual agreement, in the new direction;

2) frequent formal and informal design reviews at Convair and at NASA/MSC (Figure

2-9), beginning in July 1962 and continuing through the remainder of the program.

Development Engineeering Inspections (DEI's} were conducted for each launch vehicle.

The DEI's were held at the completion of manufacture to determine that the product,

including GSE, met the design requirement necessary to accomplish the mission

objectives; 3) special effort in identifying changes which were individually authorized

by NASA Contract Change Authorization (CCA). These changes were defined in detail,

cost-estimated, and rapidly submitted to NASA as Contract Change Proposals (CCP).

All substantiation data requested by NASA to assist in fact-finding were readily sup-

plied, and the changes were negotiated and incorporated into the Contract and Work

Statement in convenient packages. Treating the changes in this manner allowed easier

understanding by NASA of the change definition and the breakdown of the costs, and

provided good control of the costs; and 4) emphasis on the importance of the interface

between the Convair and NASA launch operations crews, sInce successful launch

activity depended on good coordination and cooperation. These teams were encouraged

to work together and solve mutual problems in a relatively independent manner but, at

the same time, ensure that the "home office" was kept fully informed of status and

action and of any necessity for top level direction or agreement.

NASA and Convair engineering and reliability personnel were encouraged to work

together to the limit of their defined authority to solve common problems. Their dis-

cussions and agreements were documented by PM's to ensure that all key Project

Personnel, including Project Management, were kept informed of such discussion.

2-9



CONTRACTING PROJECT TECHNICAL PROGRAMDATE OFFICER OFFICER MANAGER MANAGER

MAY 1962 G.J. STROOP W.W. PETYNIA

AUGUST 1962 G.J. MEHAILESCU W.W. PETYNIA

APRIL 1964 G.J. MEHAILESCU R.G. BROCK M.A. SILVEIRA

JUNE 1964 G.J. MEHAILESCU M. E. DELL M.A. SILVEIRA

FEBRUARY 1965 N.J. BEAUREGARD M. E. DELL M.A. SILVEIRA

AUGUST 1965 N.J. BEAUREGARD M.E. DELL M.A. SlLVEIRA

C-6062-19

Figure 2-8. NASA Organizational History

C-b062-20

Figure 2-9. NASA/Convair Design Review

2-10



Although it was originally planned by MSC to locatea NASA resident representative

at the Contractor's facility, it was decided that the resident BuWeps representatives at

Convair could adequately represent NASA's interests in engineering, quality control,

contracts and procurement. Due to a well-established, working relationship between

BuWeps and Convair, this method of supporting NASA's interests was very successful.

A form of interface document called the Open Action Log was established early in

the program to identify topics which required action and solution between NASA and

Convair. The Open Action Log was periodically revised to document intermediate

action taken during the problem solution or to define how and when the solution was

achieved; ensured that both parties remained cognizant of the item and the action re-

quirement incumbent upon them, and historically documented the steps taken in solu-

tion of the problem.

C. ENGINEERING

GENERAL

The basic designphilosophyfor theLittleJoe IIemphasized simplicityand relia-

bility.The objectiveswere readilyachieved, sincespace and weightrequirements

were notcritical.The LittleJoe IIengineeringactivityencompassed allengineering

phases from designconcept and systems integrationthrough detailedcomponent check-

out and installationiaison;see Figure 2-10. The various disciplineswere assembled

intoone projectarea tofacilitateoordinationand communication.

DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Drawings and specifications produced in accord with Convair's commercial prac-

tice were entirely adequate for procurement-of-fabrication purposes and less costly

than specifications prepared to formal military requirements. Manufacturing required

only composite mechanical detail and installation drawings, along with wire data tables.

In-line schematics facilitated testing and operations; harness diagrams and isometric

layouts were not used. Installation and routing of wiring harnesses were accomplished

in the factory by experienced technicians guided by engineering liaison and a general

installation specification. Documentation of completed installations is covered by

photographs (see Figure 2-17 for sample). Initially, wires had end identification only

but stamped identification repeated along the wire length was subsequently added at the

at the request of NASA.

SYSTEM DESIGN

Mission Parameters -- Required flight parameters for each mission were created

by NASA/MSC, and modified by hardware limitations to produce the specifications for

system design.

Flight Environments -- The vehicle systems were designed to the most severe

environmental parameters that could be logically identified regardless of the time of

launch or actual mission parameters. The initial environmental parameters were

2-11



b,3II--,t_

PROJECT>

OFFICE _ PROJECTINTEGRATION

SYSTEMS _ ; CUSTOMERLIAISONINTEGRATION

TECHNICAL INTERFACECOORD.

STAFF-- -- LAYOUT ' /

DRAFT

!

SYSTEM CHECK i i

DESIGN COMPONENTS ! :l =

VENDORLIAISONABM

ATT. CONT. FTI m .=ELECTRICAL TEST SUPPORTIGNITION

LANDINGSLAuNCHER INSTLDRAFTENGR. .I _ ?RANGESAFETY CHECK

.=

RF COMMAND FACILITY LIAISON =' ==

INSTRU. PROCEDURESOCP)T/M TEST AID ENGR. In I mSTRUCT. FTI ,iMECH. INTERFACESPECS iGSE

CHECKOUT- FACTORY IFIELD I I I

DOCUMENTSUPPORTVEHICLEDESC. i •, , a, =,, , =TEST PLAN i I I

HDWELIST I I

_7 = OFF-BOARD RECOVERYIDENTo I i

TESTINGSUBSYSTEM III • i

QUAL. =. I " i

C-6062-21

Figure 2-10. Design Engineering Scope (Typical) - Little Joe II



instrumentation system or, 3) where complexity of design and cost for implementation

of other concepts was not advisable; for example, the attitude control system.

Dual Systems, comprised of two identical single systems which performed the

same function, were used to ensure flight functioning. These systems (for example,

the RF command system) were so designed that no single failure would prevent func-

tioning or cause nonscheduled functioning.

Redundant systems are combinations of a prime system and secondary system;

the secondary system provides control if the prime system does not function. No

redundant systems were installed in the launch vehicle, although specific circuits,

such as thrust termination and delayed pitch programmer start employed redundancy

to ensure success.

The structural concept of the vehicle was unique in that the vehicle skin was

formed from the dies used for commercial roofing. The vehicle skin material was

24ST aluminum alloy and the fact that it was corrugated allowed the outer shell to

serve as a closing skin as well as a stringer combination when used with the ringframes. Conservatively heavy gauge skins were used in the design of the vehicle

structure, as weight was not of prime importance.

Primary structural connections were "hog-outs" from billet stock as quantity did

not permit the use of forging dies.

COMPONENTS

Selection -- Each required component was carefully selected and screened for use

in a system. Selection steps were as follows:

- Design function.- Environment characteristics.

- Life expectancy.

- Failure rate.

Test -- Individual components were functionally tested to design parameters prior

to installation in the vehicle system. Component testing was expanded in midprogram

to include limited environmental tests (see Reliability Philosophy in this section, and

Section 5A in Volume I1) in an effort to eliminate manufacturing defects. These

limited environmental tests included temperature, vibration and altitude. Late in the

program component burn-in after installation was initiated on selected parts to

further reduce the failure rate.

INSTALLATIONS

Configuration -- Installations were carefully planned to allow a broad spectrum of

vehicle systems to be installed as required by each mission. The initial layout pro-

vided for maximum component density in the equipment section. For individual mis-

sions, installations were deleted or added as required; see Figure 2-11. Vibration

testing was performed on typical installations. Each installation was approved by

2-14



34 FINIII9 55

9

I0 291817

12 4030

38 537

28 41

_6

1 SUPPORT HOOKS (REF)

41 .59 2 BATTERY INSTALLATICN-RF COMMAND SYSTEM

23 3 ANTENNA I_ISTALLATICN- RF COMMAND SYSTEM

4 RECEIVERINSTALLATION - RFCOMMANDSYSTEM5 COUPLERINSTALLATION- ANTENNARF COMMANDSYSTEM6 SAFEANDARM INSTALLATION - RF COMMANDSYSTEM7 BOX INSTALLATION- RELAYABORTAND DESTRUCT

8 POWERCHANGEOVERSWITCH INSTALLATION - VEHICLE9 BATTERY INSTALLATICN- VEHICLE ELECTRICAL10 DIODE INSTALLATION- VEHICLE, ATTITUDE CONTROL

32 II TERMINAL ,BOARDINSTALLATION- VEHICLE, ELECTRICAL

51 - 12 COVER INSTALLATION - VEHICLE UMBILICAL2 13 TERMINAL BOARD INSTALLATION -RF COMMAND SYSTEM

3c 14 RATEGYROINSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL15 INVERTERINSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL

2 16 GYROINSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL

17 TIMER INSTALLATION - IGNITICN, ATTITUDE CONTROL1B BOXINSTALLATION - IGNITION CONTROL

7 19 CONTROLUNITINSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL

20 BOX I NSTALLATION- RELAY, GYROCONTROL

FIN IV 0 0 FIN II 21 BOXINSTALLATION - PITCH-UPATTITUDE CONTROL22 FILTER INSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROL SYSTEM

11 25 BOXINSTALLATICN - RELAYPITCH PROGRAMMERCCNTROL

15 41 24 SIGNAL CONDITIONINGBOX INSTALLATION - INSTRUMENT SYSTEM25 SENSORANDRELAYBOXINSTALLATION - ELECTRICAL

27-- 26 CONTROLBOXINSTALLATION - TIMER, IGNITION27 RELAY INSTALLATION- INVERTERCONTROL

28 SHUNTINSTALLATION- BATTERY, ELECTRICAL

28 29 RECEPTACLEINSTALLATION - SHORTING, IGNITION30 PITCHPROGRAMMERNSTALLATION - ATTITUDE CONTROLSYSTEM

3 31 BOXINSTALLATICN- AMPLIFIER INSTRUMENT SYSTEM

32 BOX INSTALLATION- RELAY, BATTERY, RF COMMAND SYSTEM

33 TELEMETRYINSTALLATION- VEHICLE, RF-1O 54 ANTENNA INSTALLATICN -WSMRDESTRUCT SYSTEM

10 35 COUPLER INSTALLATION - ANTENNA, WSMR DESTRUCT SYSTEM1 56 MODULE INSTALLATICN-WSMR DESTRUCTSYSTEM

37 LANYARDINSTALLATION- SANDA , WSMRDESTRUCT SYSTEM22 38 COUPLER INSTALLATICN - ANTENNA T/M, ATTITUDE CONTROL

39 ANTENNAINS_ALLATICN - T/M, ATTllUDE CONTROL

6 _., 40 TRANSDUCEPINSTALLATION - PITCHpHI:CRAMMER

"5/" _ 41 ACCELERCMETER INSTALLATION- INSTRUMENT UPPERANDLOWERBODY

34 /-- X 42 RELAY INSTALLATION - INSTRUMENT SYSTEM

8

14/."

4 13 FIN I 18 17 29 9 -( c-_eoz-22v

Fi&,ure 2-11. Equipment Installation Layout (Vehicle Station 34.75)

2-15



Dynamics as well as stress personnel to ensure an adequate environmental design

margin.

Control Assemblies -- Standard welded boxes were fabricated for control assem-

blies. The boxes matched structural corrugations when mounted vertically or hori-

zontally. Redundant relays in any given assembly were oriented normal to one another

to minimize failures due to common vibration modes.

Support Equipment -- Ground support equipment and facility were designed to

accommodate system changes and additions. Facility junction boxes were provided

initially with 25% spare capability. Provisions were made in consoles and equipment

racks for added circuit distribution. Nearly all GSE was portable to enable use at

several sites. Support Equipment costs were significantly reduced by the use of

blanket specifications for given classes of equipment; refer to Volume H, Major GSE,

for details.

D. LAUNCH OPERAT_NS

In Convair's experience, Launch Operations has proven to demand crew adaptabil-

ity, versatility and quick response to the pressures occasioned by prelaunch and count-

down procedures. With this background Convair organized their off-site operations in

a pattern capable of responding rapidly and efficiently to last minute changes. Flexi-

bility and versatility were the governing factors in establishing the operational pro-

cedures and in selecting personnel.

Original planning was based on the schedule in the RFP. It was anticipated that

the field assembly and checkout of a vehicle would require approximately one month

and that launching would be at the close intervals indicated; therefore the launch oper-

ations crew would be used for vehicle factory checkout, thereby eliminating dual crews

and dual learning curves. This procedure permitted the earliest possible crew famil-

iarization with the vehicle and benefited the program by allowing quick response to field

type changes.

The launcher installation was the first scheduled task at WSMR. Since this one-

time task overlapped the factory checkout of the first vehicle, a special team com-

prised of personnel involved in the trial launcher assembly at the factory was used so

as not to interrupt the launch vehicle team.

The resident off-site staff was initially organized as primarily an administrative

and material group to support the temporary crews. As the program developed, theamount of test site work between lannchings increased, primarily due to configuration

changes and added tasks. As this was recognized, the support and quality control

supervisors, along with a small crew, were established as resident employees at

WSMR. Later, two engineers were added to this crew. During the last year, a

resident crew of 25 was used for administration, material and quality control, facility

refurbishment, modification and telemetry station operation and maintenance.

2-17



Early in the program considerable differences existed between factory and field

checkout procedures, due primarily to the significant differences in the configuration

of the factory and field test facilities. This meant that field operations were under-

taken with essentially "unproofed" procedures. An excessive amount of procedure re-

vision had to be accomplished in the field - a significant unplanned task and a threat to

work schedules. Starting with the third launch vehicle, relief from this situation waseffected by modification of the factory test facility with respect to configuration of

wiring, test consoles_ power supplies, recorders, etc., to closely simulate the WSMR

facilities. Additionally, the Apollo Procedure standard format was adopted for pro-

cedure preparation. Concurrently, NASA introduced the Predelivery Acceptance

Testing (PAT) plan, which called for realistic trial conduction and proofing, at the

factory, of the field procedures (less those involving the payload, ordnance, and the

RCS}. This resulted in a significant improvement in future checkout operations in the

field.

Generally, the Launch Operations philosophy established at the start of the program

remained valid. It was sufficiently flexible to cope with schedule changes and the ex-

tended test operations period. The unforeseen task of considerable facility maintenance

and modification between launchings and the requirement for more comprehensive

component testing was accommodated. The methods of operation readily accepted new

tasks such as the Control System Test Facility (CSTF) operation and the manning of

the NASA telemetry station.

In all aspects of this work, close coordination was maintained with NASA Field

Operations personnel, and through them with the other program contractors and the

test range organization.

E. TOOLING

The tooling philosophy covering the general tool design and tooling manufacturing

policy was based on limited production requirements (maximum of 14 vehicles} and

rapid incorporation of engineering changes. The planning and tooling approach was

guided by achievement of production schedules through minimum planning and tooling;

it made use of worker skills rather than depending on a completely tooled production

program. The basic objectives of producibility and value control were implemented

by tooling functions to assure practical and economical product manufacture.

Detail fabrication of sheet metal and machine parts was accomplished with stan-

dard equipment and standard tools in most instances. Mandatory tools were furnished

as necessary for forming operations. Machine parts in the fin attachment areas were

adequately tooled to make fin attach points interchangeable. Subassembly tools were

provided where dictated by complexity and tolerance requirements (spars, frames

and bulkheads), and were fabricated in the most economical method; see Figure 2-12.

.Assembly tools provided means for positioning and clamping. The fin assembly fix-

ture, built in the vertical position, was used for positioning pre-assembled spars,

2-18



C,-bOb2-23

Figure 2-12. Bulkhead Station 34.75 Assembly Fixture

skin panels and barrel attach fittings. Ribs to which the skin was attached were

located from clips previously riveted to the spar assemblies; see Figure 2-13.

The barrel assembly fixtures were built in the vertical position with provisionsfor positioning pre-assembled frames, rings, bulkheads, skin sections, fittings, etc. ;

see Figures 2-14 and 2-15. A control tool established vehicle-to-launcher orientation

points to ensure interchangeability.

Optical measuring instruments were used extensively throughout both the tooling

and production programs to establish and maintain maximum efficiency of dimensional

control.

The design and limited required quantity of the launcher and other ground support

equipment was planned and accomplished without the need for fabrication or assembly

tooling.

F. MANUFACTURING

The manufacturing philosophy was, in many aspects, paced by the engineering

philosophy and the resultant tooling philosophy; that is, simplified design required

minimum tooling, which in turn permitted the use of simplified manufacturing tech-

niques. Conversely, minimum tooling and planning necessitated the use of highly

skilled workmen with multiple abilities. Thus, a high degree of work force versatility

was achieved, resulting in a maximum manhour usage rate.

2-19



I 0



Cjo062-25

Figure 2-14. Assembling Afterbody Fixture After Loading With Parts

2-21



Manufacturing activity and parts stores were located in the Convair Experimental

Production area to provide central control. This area also gave more ready access to

highly skilled workmen and previously developed, simplified procedures and tech-

niques. Figure 2-16 illustrates the production area.

The philosophy of mock-up in the production units was employed in the manufacture

of hydraulic and electric systems. Satisfactory hydraulic clean room techniques wereachieved by using low-cost portable clean rooms and by remodeling permanent

facilities.

Production hydraulic systems were manufactured from the first-article mock-up.

Electrical and installation systems were fabricated and assembled in modular installa-

tions and bench checked, using breadboards wherever possible, prior to installation

in the vehicle. The area-to-area wire routing in the vehicle was determined and re-

viewed by Shop, Engineering, and Reliability and Quality Control (Inspection} to deter-

mine the best routing and clipping. Documentation of the final configuration was

covered in photos similar to that shown in Figure 2-17.

The factory checkout arrangement was set up to represent field conditions as

nearly as possible. Launcher 12-60-2 and a simulated blockhouse (referred to as

"Little WSMR") similar to the installation at Complex 36 at WSMR, was located im-

mediately adjacent to the Experimental Department. The installation was used not

only to accomplish checkout of the vehicle but also to proof the checkout procedure;

see Figure 2-18.

G. PROCUREMENT

Material Department support of the Little Joe II program was accomplished with

existing department personnel and basic functional units. The program was managed

on a project basis; specific individuals within each section were assigned to control

and monitor the program and worked under the coordination of the staff specialist

assigned to the Program Manager. Emphasis was on the use of streamlined systems

and procedures in a projectized approach without duplication of existing operations.

Material release was accomplished at the on-board level, using an Advance Bill

of Material (ABM). Vendor data and spares, wherever possible within contract

authority, were released concurrently with production requirements and all releases

were expedited to the Purchasing Department for immediate procurement action.

Complete forecast and purchase parts cost control records were maintained at the

on-board level.

Weekly and monthly contract status reports were produced for monitoring on-hand

and on-order balances in terms of quantity and dollars and the monthly contract status

reports were maintained as a permanent historical data file. All requirements were

parts listed and submitted to the 705 computer facility, and the material release ana-

lyst maintained manual records of requirements and inventory transactions of all high-

cost items. Monthly sampling audits of all inventory group areas, including stockroom

2-23



C-6062-27

Figure 2-16. Experimental Production Area

C-6062-28

Figure 2-17. Typical Photo Documenting Final Configuration of Harness Routing

2-24



C-6062-29

Figure 2-18. Interior of "Little WSMR" Checkout Facility

control, were conducted. Stores requisitions for outside purchases and subcontract

parts were prepared manually. Aecountability records were maintained in accordance

with contract requirements.

Procurement was accomplished within the existing Purchasing Commodity Groups.

However, specific coordinators were appointed in the Raw Material, Systems, and

Subcontract groups to monitor the procurement activity and assure action compatible

with program requirements.

SUBCONTRACTOR RELATIONS

Vendor Selection -- Only vendors qualified and approved in accordance with NASA

requirements were invited to participate in the NASA Little Joe II Program, (reference

NASA Quality Publications NPC 200-2, NPC 200-3). Contract awards were made in

accordance with good purchasing procedures and Convair standard practices, approvedby NASA. Procurement Committee meetings consisting of Purchasing, Engineering,

Reliability, and NASA (as required) were held prior to selection of suppliers on major

procurement/subcontract items.

Type of Contract -- All Purchase Orders were placed on a firm fixed-price basis

except the Walter Kidde reaction control system, a development item, which was a

CPIF contract.

2-25



Vendor Control -- The following were used as tools to ensure on-schedule

performance:

- PERT Charts, Walter Kidde, Monthly

GANTT Charts

- Field Service Surveillance.

- Reliability Requirements and Checks. Source Inspection where special processeswere involved.

- Engineering assist in technical areas.

- Buyer's Check, both telephone and on the spot.

Overall vendor performance on the Little Joe II Program was good, and supported

program schedules. There were some serious problem items but these were solved

by a team effort of NASA, Convair and the vendor. By close vendor coordination and

symposiums at Convair and at the supplier's facility, the vendors were made to feel

that they were part of a team and that they shared in the successful launches.

One of the most important steps in achieving a team effort was accomplished by ameeting held in the Convair Engineering Auditorium with NASA and all suppliers able

to attend. This included a showing of the successful launch of Vehicle 12-51-1. Most

of the suppliers expressed high appreciation of this effort. Geographical distribution

of vendor within the United States that participated in the Little Joe II program is

shown in Figure 2-19.

Vendor Cost Control -- A Material Purchased Parts Cost Control Record was

initiated to maintain cost control. This record carried a breakdown of the material

estimate from the Engineering floor to the Purchasing Department and provided a

bogie, not only for procurement, but for Engineering as well. If costs exceeded those

in the estimate, corrective action was taken.

H. SPARES AND GROUND SUPPORT

The Spares and Ground Support Equipment (GSE) philosophy was based upon

simplicity of design and minimum spares consistent with effective program support.

Initially, thirty-one spare parts and six ground support items were identified for the

fixed-fin vehicle. During the program, however, the complexity of the vehicle

systems increased and, as a result, the number of items increased until, at the end

of the program, 577 items of vehicle and launcher spares and 530 items of GSE and

spares were identified, excluding OCP or government-furnished test tools.

Documentation of the Logistics Support approach was presented in the Support

Plan, GD/C 62-02. By approval of the plan, NASA/MSC allowed the contractor to

identify and procure needed low-dollar spares and GSE without the formality (and re-

sultant delay) of a provisioning board. The items were listed in the Hardware List

GD/C-62-170. Periodically, associated costs were collected and submitted by Con-

tract Change Proposal for negotiation. High-dollar or very special items were

2-26



LEGEND

NASA/MSC HOUSTON

NASA/WSTF

[] GD/CONVAIR

• VENDORS

C-6062-30

Figure 2-19. Geographical Distribution of Vendors Within the United States

2-27



discussed with NASA and agreement for use obtained before procurement or design

action was initiated. Status of needed support material was reported in the Hardware

Utilization List, which was developed prior to each scheduled launch.

Because of the increase in the number of required parts, several areas required

special effort to assure adequate, timely support. For both price and schedule con-siderations, all requirements (test, production, spares} were ordered concurrently.

Deliveries for significant or costly components were timed to ensure support of the

factory assembly/checkout operations as well as test site usage.

In addition to the normal spare parts and GSE was the sizable number of required

small parts - bulk items and consumable materials. Because individually each was

inexpensive, and normal methods of ordering and documenting would have been dis-

proportionate to item costs, the initial site quantities were determined and procured.

Adjustments and additions were made as necessary during the program.

NASA required preparation of aPerformance and Interface Specification and an

acceptance document such as an Operational Checkout Procedure for each item of GSE.

It was soon realized that the cost of the associated nonrecurring documentation fre-

quently exceeded the actual cost of the single article needed. As a result, different

identification and procurement procedures were used for off-the-shelf items, low cost

articles and tools supporting system checkouts. Commercially available units were

ordered only after efforts had been made to obtain them from NASA. Many of the low-

dollar checkout tools were developed from simple sketches using materials already

available. Other, somewhat more complicated nonstandard GSE portable test equip-

ment was covered under a blanket interface and performance specification. In addition

to the range of items furnished for the field, a few unique items were also manufactured

for factory use in vehicle handling and checkout.

I. PROGRAM CONTROL

Strong program control was recognized as essential to meet the program schedule

and cost requirements. This involved long range planning as well as detail follow-up

of drawings, changes, procurement and subcontract, interface requirements and task

accomplishment; see Figure 2-20.

Milestone charts (Figure 3-1 in Section 3) were established and maintained in

accordance with contractual and interface requirements and were the basis for overall

long range planning.

PERT networks were developed at a level suitable for monitoring the major pro-

gram milestones and integration of tasks within Convair and NAA in accordance with

the NASA PERT Handbook. The PERT system was supplemented by a Convair-

developed task control technique known as PRESTO (Program Review and Statusing

Operation), which provided timely schedule control at a detail design level for all de-

partments involved. This system generated computer tab listings for monitoring the

"footstones" and was directly oriented with the PERT milestones. During the

2-28



C.-b002=31

Figure 2-20. Master Schedule Review

development and operation of the PERT system, some refinements were made by NASA

and Convair to the Lockheed 7090 computer program then in use. Improvements to

network and computer format concepts were proofed at Convair, recommended to

NASA and ultimately used by the NASA Program Analysis and Evaluation Office in

developing the new NASA/PERT and Companion Cost System. Convair changed to this

system in October 1963.

Early in the program, detailed Gantt (Bar) type schedules for first articles

(vehicle and launcher) were established and maintained in conjunction with the PERT/

PRESTO system. Standard Gantt-type schedules were used throughout the program for

coordination between departments, and to document progress. These internal program

schedules included such tasks as testing, changes and proposals and were also used for

cost control and estimating purposes.

Cost accumulation and manpower usage charts (Figures 4-1 and 4-2 in Section 4),maintained monthly for the major phases of the program, depicted material dollars

expended and man-hours expenditure versus planned manhours. Task control and

Gantt schedules were used as aids for relating cost to schedule and were used in

conjunction with the monthly Financial Management Report (Form 533).

At the request of NASA, additional program control functions were established

at WSMR and proved highly effective for management. A Program Control Analyst

was assigned to the operations team to implement these controls and coordinate all

2-29



activity with San Diego. These controls were mission-oriented by vehicle and were

accomplished as follows (see Figure 2-21 for examples):

PERT -- The first three missions, Vehicles 12-50-1, 12-50-2, and 12-51-1, were

controlled by PERT networks developed in great detail. PRESTO was not used. The

PERT networks, used as a basis for preparation of Gantt type operations schedules,was discontinued by contract for the final two missions, Vehicle 12-51-2 and 12-51-3.

Operations Schedules -- These schedules depicted on standard calendar format all

tasks to be accomplished for the period between launches. The tasks included facility

refurbishment, modification and checkout, and vehicle buildup, checkout and launch.

A summary plan was issued to show overall mission milestones, and each phase of

operation was broken down into separate detail schedules. When PERT was discontin-

ued, some of the PERT concepts, specifically constraints, interdependencies and

slack, were used in development of the Gantt schedules.

Weekly Schedules and Daily Work Plans -- During each vehicle operation at WSMR,

detailed schedules showing constraints and slack were issued weekly and encompassed

the next two weeks of operations. These schedules, showing daily tasks, required

NASA approval and took precedence over all other current schedules. A status meet-

ing was held each day with NASA and Convair operations engineers to determine the

operations for the following day. A daily work plan broken into two-hour increments

was issued as a result of these meetings. The weekly schedules were discontinued at

the start of integrated operations with the spacecraft and resumed again prior to next

vehicle delivery.

Management Briefings -- Briefing meetings were held periodically to discuss

schedule status and open action and shortage items with NASA and Convair manage-

ment. For this purpose, 30-inch x 40-inch display charts were maintained and

minutes documented by Program Control.

Weekly review meetings were conducted with the program management staff in

San Diego and periodic meetings were held with NASA at a frequency of approximately

three weeks, to review overall cost and schedule performance. Although formal

minutes for these meetings were not maintained, pertinent action items and manage-

ment direction were documented by Project Memos. WSMR reports, transmitted daily

to San Diego by teletype, served as a PERT update report as well as a general prog-

ress report to management. Weekly reports were also transmitted from WSMR and

were forwarded to NASA/MSC.

Beginning in September 1962, PERT update and analysis reports were submitted

to NASA/MSC by teletype every two weeks. The update reports proved unsatisfactory

due to lengthy preparation, processing and transmittal time; a data transceiver system

installed in October. 1962 provided direct card-to-card transmittal by use of a data-

phone. The data transceiver system substantially reduced overall transmittal and

processing time and eliminated update errors experienced by the manual method.

Convair was the first NASA/Apollo Program contractor to implement this system; see

Figure 2-22.

2-30



Cjo062-33

Figure 2-22. First PERT Information Transmitted Directly from Convair

to NASA by Telephone

Copies of the PERT networks were maintained and updated at MSC and the result-

ant computer reports were distributed within the NASA management organization.

Identical computer reports were processed at Convair, evaluated by Program Control,

and recommendations were presented to the program management staff.

Change Control -- Change control was employed by Convair to ensure orderly and

expeditious handling of all changes to Engineering design, specifications, and program

plans. Changes were evaluated by the System Integration Staff Member or his dele-

gated alternate to confirm their desirability, necessity, and effect on the program, and

to approve them for further action. A Convair Change Board which met once a week

and was headed by the System Integration Staff Member processed the approved changes

and was responsible for the origin and maintenance of change history records, coordi-

nation of all department activities toward the implementation of changes, and the es-

tablishment of change schedule and cost estimates. It was the responsibility of the

Convair Change Board to report any problems in schedule, cost, etc., to the System

Integration Staff Member for resolution. The Convair Change Board was comprised of

representatives from Engineering, Material, Tooling, Program Control, Manufactur-

ing Control, Factory, Spares, Contract Department, and ProgramManager's Staff, as

required. Every attempt was made to keep Convair-originated changes to a minimum.

Major program changes were approved by NASA, using a Contract Change Authoriza-

tion (CCA).

2-33



In March 1965, direction was received from NASA significantly reducing extended

distribution of documents and deleting various previously-required documents.

Overall, Convair documentation submittals were 99% within schedule, and the

documentation was considered by NASA to be accurate and complete in content and

format.

Appendix "A" is a list of documentation produced by Convair and its major sub-

contractors during the Little Joe II Program.

K. INTERFACE COORDINATION

Continuing coordination was required to establish compatible system interfaces

during the development and flight operation phases of the project. A procedure was

established to define the framework within which NASA/MSC, North American Aviation,

Inc., - S&ID and Convair could coordinate and document all the interfaces. A similar

procedure was also established for coordinating the interfaces with the contractors forrocket motors - Aerojet-General Corporation and the Thiokol Corporation.

At the beginning of the program it was the MSC's goal to achieve interface coordi-

uaLioa through the use of an Interface Control Document (ICD), which was the instru-

ment by which the physical, functional, operational, and environmental interfaces were

defined. It recorded, by means of formal engineering data, the mutual agreements

between two or more contractors so that compatibility between designs could beestablished.

INTERFACE COORDINATION WITH NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. , -

SPACE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION (NAA S&ID)

Initially, NAA, S&ID was assigned contractual responsibility for interface coordi-

nation. The first interface meetings were concerned with the interchange of technical

data, coordination activities, procedural considerations, and finally, the format of the

document(s) which would delineate interface control procedures. NASA/MSC chaired

the initial meetings, the first of which was held 18 July 1962. During the period of

time between the first meeting and the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding,

coordination was conducted on an informal basis and recorded by Project Memos,

meeting minutes, or suitable letters. After the initial coordination by NASA, inter-

face control was handled almost exclusively by the contractors.

A Memorandum of Understanding signed on 24 June 1963 established the framework

for technical and management coordination between NAA (S&ID) and Convair. This

memo was prepared in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Documentation Require-

ments of Contract NAS 9-150. The current issue of the Memo of Understanding, re-

vised 21 February 1964, covers communications, coordination meetings, interface

control, the Preparation Manual (Appendix A) and Detailed Interface Implementing

Instructions (Appendix B).

Appendix B prescribes the communication chain, formal correspondence, informal

exchange of technical information, visits, agenda, minutes of meetings, action items,

2-35



2-36



2-37



ICD drawings, changes and authorized signatures. Most importantly, the document

delineates the person-to-person contact for the various engineering disciplines and

points of interface.

Interface coordination with NAA (S&ID} resulted in the completion of four Interface

Control Documents concerning the following missions: 1) Mission A-001, Little Joe IIVehicle 12-50-2 and Payload Boilerplate 12 (BP-12) Document Number MH01-04010-414

dated 17 March 1964, 2) Mission A-002, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-1 and BP-23 Docu-

ment Number MH01-04012 dated 6 October 1964, 3) Mission A-003, Little Joe H

Vehicle 12-51-2 and BP-22 Document Number MH01-04Q11-414 dated 30 March 1965,

and 4) Mission A-004, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-3 and Spacecraft 002 (SC-002)

Document Number MH01-04013-414 dated 6 August 1965.

Interface coordination required thirty-eight formal meetings in accordance with

the Memorandum of Understanding. Of special importance, items not resolved or

requiring resolution were defined and identified for further action.

INTERFACE COORDINATION WITH AEROJET-GENERAL CORPORATION

In the interface coordination meeting with Aerojet on 24 May 1962, it was agreed

that an interface document should be prepared as soon as possible as a coordinated

effort, with Aerojet having contractual responsibility for the ICD.

A series of biweekly conferences between NASA/MSC, Aerojet and Convair was

planned. The meetings were chaired by MSC and the minutes were the responsibility

of the host contractor. During the course of these meetings, various problems were

resolved relative to the technical material, requirement changes, design changes,

data presentation and funding. Any exchange of technical data outside of the biweekly

meetings was to be made with a simultaneous submittal to NASA/MSC. Interface Con-

trol Document and technical interchange meetings were held more often than biweekly

at the start of the program; however, after the technical aspect of the program and the

vehicle missions became established, the meetings became less frequent.

In July 1963, a copy of Aerojet's Interface Control Document, Report No. 0667-

TICD-1 dated 1 July 1963, was received. Technical meetings and telephone conversa-

tions relative to particular technical problems continued successfully. Later in the

program NASA/MSC asked if Convair could continue without updating the ICD, and

proceed on the basis of Aerojet engineering drawings. Convair agreed that drawingscould be used.

INTERFACE COORDINATION WITH THIOKOL

The initial technical meeting with Thiokol was held at their plant on 9 July 1962.

The basic technical problems relative to the use of Recruit rocket motors in the launch

vehicle, and all aspects of motor performance and installation, were reviewed. In

effect, this meeting started the interface coordination task.

2-38



PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

I PREO,CTEONVIRONMENTALATA I

TEST ANALYSIS

PROGRAM TEST REQUIREMENTS TECHNICAL

MANAGER TEST RESULTS _ GROUPS

DESIGN TEST REQUIREMENTS I POLICY STATUSTEST LAN

GROUPS TEST RESULTS

I _ I1_1 ? t TEST PLANS _i LABORATORIES

QUALIFICATION SUPPLIERS RELIABILITY DEVELOPMENT

REQUIREMENTS QUALIFICATION GROUP TEST RESULTS AND STATUS TESTS, QUALI-

DATA FICATION TESTSI

UALIFICATION AND SUPPLIERS IP STATUS

PURCHASING RELIABILITY DATA O_ICY RESULTS

PURCHASE APPROVAL II"I t TESTLANS

TEST -- I ,NSPECT,ONUALIFICATION AND QUALIFICATION

RELIABILITY REQ'TS. RELIABILITY COORDINATOR TEST RESULTSDATA ACCEPTANCE TESTS

i tTATUS AND

SUPPLIERS PLANNING PERT NETWORK

TEST PLANS i

PROGRAM OPERATIONSACCEPTANCE

CONTROL TEST RESULTS TESTS

C-6062-35

I

Figure 2-24. Centralization of Test Activities-a



The amount of testing required for individual components was increased during the

span of the Little Joe II program. Prior to the launch of Vehicle 12-51-1 Convair

initiated an environmental acceptance (Limited Stress) test program on all functional

components. The purpose of this program was to reject marginal parts and thereby

increase confidence in vehicle system reliability. The environments selected included

vibration (one-third qualification level), high temperature and low pressure, depending

upon the type of component being tested. (Refer to Volume II for program results. )

Spare component burn-in was initiated prior to the launch of Vehicle 12-51-3. A

review of failure records indicated that 75% of the components that failed had less than

five hours of operation and 95% had less than 50 hours. The program's purpose was to

ensure that critical components installed in the vehicle had accumulated at least 50

hours of operation. The implementation of this program eliminated components which

would fail after only a few hours of operation.

QUALITY CONTROL

Quality Control traceability activities consisted of a system of serial numbering

and identification, plus controlled stocking which permitted tracing of all significant

material and functional items from receipt through storage, fabrication, assembly and

delivery. Raw material was traceable to the foundry.

The final configuration of each launch vehicle and its conformance to released

engineering drawings was assured through an audit of planning paper against blue-

prints prior to acceptance. Verification of launch vehicle configuration status was a

prerequisite to Predelivery Acceptance Tests.

All articles received were subjected to a thorough receiving inspection. Contrac-

tor source inspection was provided at the vendor's or supplier's facility when receiving

inspection was not feasible.

A narrative end-item report, prepared in accordance with NASA Quality Publica-

tion NPC 200-2 and NASA Statement of Work, GDC-62-361, was submitted for each

end-item delivered under the contract. The first report for each launch vehicle was

furnished to NASA concurrent with vehicle shipment from San Diego; the second report

was furnished at the time of final NASA acceptance, and vehicle launch, at WSMR.

The reports were compiled in narrative form with attachments as necessary, covering

the periods from subassembly installation through final acceptance of each end-item.

Classes were conducted at Convair and at Vendor's facilities, to assure thatemployees were properly prepared to accomplish the assigned task. This training at

Convair was allocated in the following manner:

2-42



3 I SCHEDULE SUMMARY



3 SCHEDULE SUMMARY

A. MILESTONES

The time-sequenced milestones shown An Figure 3-1 reflect major events of the

total program, Sheets 1 and 2 portray completion events for contracts, engineering,

tooling, production, material procurement, GSE, testing and documentation. These

milestones correlate with the events of the PERT Networks and Gantt charts used for

internal schedule control and for biweekly reporting to NASA.

B. CONTRACTUAL SCHEDULE CHANGES

Figure 3-2 shows the evolution of each vehicle's final delivery date. Changes to

the contract through Contract Change Authority (CCA} and/or Contract Change Proposal

(CCP) provided the accession of delivery dates. When a contract change specified only

a launch date, the delivery date was automatically established as sixty days prior to

the launch date.

The chart illustrates NASA/MSC's original plan for a short, low-cost program

versus the program span that eventually developed. The majority of the scheduledates incrementally directed or authorized by NASA/MSC were due to replanning of

the NAA S&ID payload to be flown, or because of changes in MSC test requirements.

In essence, Convair met all of the schedules for which At could be held solely respon-

sible.

The chart also emphasizes that a test program such as Little Joe II wherein the

payload is contracted separately from the booster requires flexible and responsive

planning. This was successfully achieved on this program by: 1) building basic

vehicles early and holding them until payload and test requirements were defined, !

2) emphasis on commonality between vehicles, 3} close coordination between contracto_

andcustomer, and 4) fast response to changes as they were identified. I'

3-1



DVEHICLES 2 LAUNCHERS _ --1962 1963

_:_t_'.olu'_".,,'/8'.g::S i+ot:°,,+_,'cTG0-AHEAO] CONTHACTNAS9-492 • •( • _ DEFINITIVECONTRACT \• •

I I -°+-""EL,VER'ESN'TE NO.'. ++.'+_O.,._;CTAUNCHERGROUNDSIIPPORTEQUIPMENT • I I

I NO 1•++°+ / luL'/ iUBSYSTEMS LAST TR I

FF VEHICLE START 1STREL l REL NO Z I / NO 2 SCHEMtENGINEERNG • • ,_ST l •I MFG COUP I _I ACTUALFEB 64MATERIAL eRA w )ISTOSP / 1STVEH. I •LALLAVAIL I ITOOLNG • I / •'-t--Ol•-"t-O M_. COUP. 2NOVEH,FACTORY START I / / I t IFABRICATION • START / /I I O-IICOMP. I I I IASSEMBLY l I(0 Start I I I I •couP, [NO.2 NO.31NO4MAJORTEMSSEMBLY I I [ / I qPCPll I _ Io"l--OI I el • IOPERATIONALCHECKOUT/FACTORYCOMPLETE [ / I //I I I n9. ; I •N0. 11 eND. 21 INTOSTORAGE SANDIEGO / / I //I I I I I I I I / I

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

LAUNCHER START I I REL.I I I _! I l IENGNEERING • •1ST RELol IO I •LAST ELECT. REL. I I /MATERIAL • 1ST MATL. • •ALL AVAIL. I /FACTORY SURT1 I I I NO2COMPJ

FABRCATON&ASSEMBLY _ / eNG. z COMP 0-41FUNCTORALTEST | / I I I • COUP I I I I O-41

GROUNDSUPPORTEQUIPMENT STAI ///lll/lllll [lENGNEERINO • li:s+ eEL. I I I 1 I • LASTEL./ IMATERIAL l •lSt. MATL. (_,--4NALL AVAIL. /FACTORY / I S#ARTI I I ] I I t I ] I/ IFABRCATiON&ASSEMBLY• l I Am I I I IO_COMP. ] Fm IFUNCTIONAL PROOFINGTEST / 1 I I I I I I I •COMF. I / I

ATTITUDECONTROL I / LASY_YO.Il I' IllBREADBOARD START 1ST eEL ( eEL. I I 1 /

ENGINEERING • _ ZSTMATL, •OiLASTREL. I I I lMATERIAL START [ qwr-ot I ! I _ ALLAVAIL, AUTOPILOTSYS.TOOUNG • / I I I•COmF.I t I I ONDOCKS.D.SUBCONTRACT 1 I I / I / t I I o---_ I IFACTORY START I 1 I _ I i I / I I

FABRCATi6N • I I I •COUP. 1 I / COUP.MAJORITEMASSEMBLY START•I I • COUP, IMAR. '64 I

TESTING STAiT _I I I I I 1°1--IACFVEHICLE LONGLEAD 2VEHICLES STARTr'ABGO-AHEAD AATL, • iN _I_}GSE NO, 3-4•ENGINEERINGMATERIAL START! J|l /TAA.,m_ • IREACT.CONT.SYS. d -•C MP.vv_.._ I • 'SUBCONTRACT MOCKUPAVAtL%•! )N ,10 o,2FACTORY n STJPIT AUTOPILOTSYS,

FABRICATION I qJ START IASSEMBLY n O--_

• IOCUMENTATIONGENERAL ) • •

LAUNCHOPERATIONSBYMISSIONTESTFACILITYOCCUPANCY O' • NO. 1

+CNERCHECNOUT I I

PROPULSIONSYSTEM(GFP] IALGOL N0. 1 • ,ONO. 2

+u+ '

LL SYSTEMSTEST /EVALUATION QTV

FLIGHTREPORT + NO, 1

I

LEGEND

0 SCHEDULE _ RE-SCHEDULE

• ACTUAL ACF ATTITUDECONTROLFIN

0'--"0 LATETOSCHEDULE FF RXED RN

AHEADOF SCHEDULE RCS REACTIONCONTROLSYS

C-6062-36-1

Figure 3-1. Milestone Chart (Sheet 1 of 2)

3-2



STATUS CUT-OFF DATE: DECEMBER31, 1965

- CCA NO. 18 CCAN _.49 I [ q 0. iTO CONTRACT TO CONTRACT , | • CCANO. 76 TOCONTRACT OCCA NO. 92 TO CONTRACT

GO-AHEAD/CONTRACTNAS 9.-492 • I _ CCA NO, 57 TO CONTRACT • CCANO. 89 TO CONTRACT I I I

_|I eCCAO.6

I CONTRACT IDELIVERIES ONSITE CLOSE-OUT

LAUNCHER IACG_E

GROUNDFFEHIcLESUPPORTQUIPMENT N •)"2! I • NO. 3 t

i I NO, 4INTO STORAGE- SANDIEGO (m_NO. 1 0.3

ACF VEHICLE I'1 / .,O-AHEADNO, 1 SCHEM. NO, 2 SCHEM.

MATERIAL A LAVAI , N .

TOOLING RCSNO. 1 R( LNO.2_RC! NO. 3

SUBCONTRACT I " "'lFACTO N'''''

FABRICATION • NO i

ASSEMBLY ,NIO,2 _0 3 .3 N, .4

MAJOR ITEM ASSEMBLY ,0,.• ,,)=.rill|!PERATIONAL CHECKOUT/ NO.1 *NO.2 *N( . 4 I10o 2 NO. 3 NI

roD.NP*N)'2_11o) " •ACTORYCOMPLETE I C ;GROUNDSUPPORTEQUIPMENT •ENGR. COMP. I •GSE

LAUNCHOPERATIONS (BY MISSION) _ un _ i

; NO.3 ,3.4 N

LAUNCHERCHECKOUT

PROPULSION SYSTEM (GFP) NO 3 NO %!LGOL

RECNUT i _ _O"

ALL SYSTEMS TEST/EVALUATION N 14LIGHT REPORT q

CONTRACTCLOSE-OUT _ _ .... _ -- D_

LEGEND 0 SCHEDULE NOTE: ATTITUDE CONTROLVEHICLES 2, 3, 4, DESIGNATEDWITH ANASTERISK (*) ARE THE SCHEDULEDOPERATIONAL

• ACTUAL CHECKOUT/FACTORY COMPLETE DATES PRIORTO THE

LATE TO SCHEDULE STORAGEPERIOD.

AHEADO FSCHEDULE SUBSEQUENTSCHEDULEDDATE FORTHESE VEHICLES

0_0 RE-SCHEDULE DESIGNATESOPERATIONALCHECKOUT/FACTORY COMPLETEAFTER THE STORAGEPERIOD.

ACF ATTITUDE CONTROL FIN

FF FIXED FIN

RCS REACTION CONTROLSYS

C-6062 -36-2

Figure 3-1. Milestone Chart (Sheet 2 of 2)

3-3



I

Figure 3-2. Contractual Vehicle Delivery Changes



4 FINANCIAL SUMMARY



was estimated at_ In addition, budget estimates of $58,393 for groundsupport equipment and $134,482 for spare parts were submitted.

Convair was awarded a Letter Contract dated 11 May 1962 which, based on changes

in MSC plans and discussions with Convair, authorized five Little Joe II fixed-fin

vehicles, one launcher, a design study of an attitude control system which could be

added to the vehicles, and the required documentation, services, GSE and spares.

The Letter Contract also retained the plan to launch from Cape Kennedy, but it was

anticipated that the launch site might be changed to White Sands, and Convair was

requested to evaluate that site and make recommendations to MSC on its use.

In subsequent discussions and meetings with NASA/MSC, all of which were

documented by Project Memoranda (PMs), various changes to the plans were identified

and documented in Contract Change Proposals, CCP-1 through -43, which were

negotiated into a definitive contract dated 18 February 19_3. The primary changes in

plans as represented by these CCPs were: manufacture and delivery of four fixed-fin

vehicles, with the exception that parts for the fins for one of the vehicles would be

made but not assembled; decision to launch the vehicles from the White Sands Missile

Range; delivery of two launchers, one to be used at White Sands and one to be retained

at Convair as a back-up and to be used in vehicle checkout as desirable; and better

definition of vehicle design, documentation requirements and launch support respon-

sibility.

Convair was authorized by a separate task to study and propose an autopilot and

supplemental control system which could be included in attitude control vehicles. The

results of this study were presented to NASA on 16 July 1962 and, among other items,

i recommended the use of a continuous-f|ring, solid-propellant supplementary control

system which would employ a diverter valve to allow guidance thrust in the variousquadrants during flight. NASA/MSC directed Convair to base the supplemental control

system on an H20_ system developed for the second stage of the Scout, and thin was

the principle employed on the vehicles. This study was completed in mid-February

1965 for a cost of approximately $47,000.

B. CHANGE HISTORY

Throughout the entire program a total of fifteen separate Contract negotiations

were held between Convair and NASA. This negotiation history sets forth, in chrono-

logical order, each negotiation with a brief description of the major cost items involved.

Refer to Appendix B for the CCP's involved in each negotiation.

The first negotiation was held in December, 1962. The negotiated cost was

$5, 936,754. This package, usually referred to as the Basic Contract, included the

following major items: design, manufacture and delivery of four fixed-fin launch

vehicles with developmental testing of vehicle systems; design, manufacture and

delivery of two launchers; documentation services consisting of Type I, II, and HI

documentation for the duration of.the Contract; studie_ to establish attitude control

system requirements and design and development of an attitude control system,

4-2



including qualification testing; and off-site services to cover the activation of the test

base facilities and perform tasks necessary to launch four launch vehicles.

The second negotiation was held in April, 1963. The negotiated cost was

$337,456, and covered changes to the existing program to launch a qualification test

vehicle prior to the scheduled Apollo tests. This required acceleration of factory

completion of the four launch vehicles and the two launchers. Launch dates were

moved up for the first two vehicles. An additional telemetry system and an instru-

mentation transmitter system was incorporated in the Qualification Test Vehicle

(12-50-1), which was equipped with a simulated payload consisting of the payload

adapter, command module and a government-furnished _]0ort tower. The launch pad

configuration was redesigned, making necesary the relocation of all rooms and

associated wiring and equipment previously located beneath the launch pad.

The third negotiation was held_3_ The n egotiatefl cost was $2,113,203. _

The major change provided for two additional launch vehicles which incorporated the /_

attitude control subsystem as developed under the basic contract. The additional \vehicles were identified as 12-51-1 and 12-51-2.

The fourth negotiation was held in September, 1963. The negotiated cost was

$354,737. This cost covered study activity and several relatively small changes

requested as a result of the Design Engineering Inspection held on 3 May 1963. In

addition tothe minor changes, provision was made for additional ground support

equipment as a result of the two additional attitude control vehicles. Fabrication of an

additional breadboard autopilot system for use at NASA/MSC was also covered.

Deletion of the dummy payload and limitation of the instrumentation system to the

control system of Vehicle 12-51-1 was covered. This amounted to a substantial credit

to NASA. NAA BP-22 payload was used in lieu of the previously planned dummy pay-load.

The fifth negotiation was held in December, 1963. The negotiated cost was

$468,297. Significant changes included: study and revision of the attitude control sub-

system to comply with a NASA directive to provide closer tolerance on the attitude of

high altitude abort; revision of the instrumentation signal conditioning and calibration

system to change from signal conditioning boards and signal modules to terminal boards

and a signal conditioning box with deletion of certain R and Z calibration functions;

revision of Operational Checkout Instructions (OCI's) to conform with the results of a

NASA review of Convair Operational Checkout Procedures; and incorporation of a

prototype Reaction Control System into the Convair Attitude Control System breadboardtest program.

The sixth negotiation was held in April, 1964. The negotiated cost was $774, 161.

The major changes negotiated were: modification of an existing government-furnished

Project Mercury H202 system service trailer and a stripped H202 trailer to fulfill

H202 servicing requirements of the Little Joe II reaction control system on two

vehicles. Included were fin test stands, and testing and checkout of the reaction

control system and hydraulically-controlled aerodynamic system on each fin;

4-3



additional and revised items of ground support equipment for support of checkout

operations of Vehicle 12-50-2 and on were provided as a result of new H202 require-ments; vibration testing of the reaction control system, instrumentation, and autopilot

systems, and the coverage for Acceptance Data Packages for Vehicles 12-50-1, -2

and -4, Vehicle 12-51-1, and Launcher 12-60-1; and redesign of the umbilical dis-

connect to provide for approximately 100 more wires, added because of system growth.

The seventh negotiation was held in May 1964. Negotiated cost was $1,269, 977.

• 4 The one change involved provided for two additional attitude control launch vehicles

j which were the same as Vehicle 12-51-2 except for deletion of the Walter Kidde

\_ reaction control subsystem. Provisions for installation of the reaction control system

were retained. Task and cost included landline instrumentation, applicable documenta-

tion, GSE, spares and on-site engineering support of Operations Services. Off-site

launch activities were not covered.

The eighth negotiation was held in July, 1964. The negotiation cost was $651, 051.

This costcovered the e

ffect of several s

chedule

chan

ges associated with Vehi

cle

12-50-1, as well as additional quality assurance and program control services at

WSMR, incorporation of a dual-thrust termination system and addition and revision of

ground support equipment for attitude control vehicles.

The ninth negotiation was held in September, 1964. Negotiated cost was $816,043

and included the following: modification of Vehicle 12-51-1 to meet the requirements

of Mission A-002. This involved study and some modification of the attitude control

subsystem due to vehicle mission parameter changes from the original design;

vibration testing of the reaction control system to a 30g level - vibration tests on the

aerodynamic control hydraulic system installed in an attitude control fin and test

fixture were also covered; installation of long-run cables from the launcher to theblockhouse (at WSMR) to accommodate attitude control vehicles; provision of an

attitude control test fin, delivered to Houston together with fin test stand design

drawings, and Convair Engineering assist to NASA/MSC during attitude control fin

system tests conducted there; and addition and revision of ground support equipment

to support the modified vehicle and Mission A-002.

The tenth negotiation was held during October, 1964. Negotiated cost was

$413,081. Two major changes were covered. A minimum crew of Launch Operations

personnel performed test, operations support and other tasks as directed by NASA/

WSMR during and between Little Joe II missions. Convair was also authorized to

provide maintenance and operation of a NASA telemetry trailer at WSMR. The task in

general consisted of setting up, calibrating and operating a government-furnished

ground station to support vehicle pre-launeh test and checkout, and collecting and

recording flight data. Additional coverage included maintenance and repair activities

to maintain, troubleshoot and repair ground station equipment such as recorders,

discriminators, de-commutators, receivers and monitors.

4-4



The eleventh negotiation was held in January, 1965. Negotiated cost was $207,492.

The major changes covered: miscellaneous change incorporation as a result of the

Design Engineering Inspection of Vehicle 12-51-1; provision for a WSMR range safety

system kit and an additional range safety system antenna set for Vehicle 12-51-1; and

design and manufacture of an alternate range safety system kit, together with qualifi-

cation testing of Beckman Whitley destructor, installation of the original range safety

system kit to provide dual capability, and deletion of the existing thrust termination

capability from the RF command system.

The twelfth negotiation was held in March, 1965. The negotiated cost of $600,234

covered the effect of NASA-directed schedule changes on Vehicles 12-50-2, 12-50-3,

12-50-4, 12-51-1, 12-51-2 and 12-51-3, together with modification to the launcher

and the Test Base Facilities to meet the requirements of BP-22 and S/C-002

umbilical installations. In addition, added and revised items of ground support equip-

ment were covered and the maintenance and operation of the NASA telemetry trailer

was extended to 20 June t965.

The thirteenth negotiation was held in June, 1965. Negotiated cost was $2,104,676.

The change cost values negotiated at this session were substantially above the normal

change averages because a large number of tasks were covered in some of the

individual CCP's. The tasks covered: modification of two vehicles (12-51-2 and 12-51-3)

to incorporate design changes which would meet the requirements of respective

Missions A-002 and A-004; modification of the range safety system to cl_ange from a

Yardney battery and a high-energy safe-and-arm unit to a Goulton Battery and a low-

energy safe-and-arm unit. Also, the primacord wrap-around system was deleted

and a series of three firing tests were included, to demonstrate the capability of the

system to provide range destruction of the six-Algol motor configuration; addition and

revision of ground support equipment to support new mission requirements; and in-

corporation of miscellaneous NASA-requested changes to provide additional checkout

procedures on vehicle subsystems. A DEI was conducted on Vehicle 12-51-2 and

several miscellaneous changes resulting therefrom were incorporated. Launch

Operations Services not previously negotiated for support of the five vehicle program

were also covered; for example, the effect on Launch Operations of vehicle configura-

tion changes, rescheduled delivery and launch dates, launcher and facility configuration

changes and the requirements for additional program control and quality assurance at

the test base. Previously negotiated launch operations tasks were subsequently deleted

and credited to NASA.

The fourteenth negotiation was held in September, 1965. Negotiated cost was

$1, 330, 155 and covered the updating of Vehicle 12-51-4 to the Vehicle 12-51-3 con-

figuration. In general this consisted of incorporating changes associated with the

attitude control subsystem such as autopilot gains and adjustments, filters, pitch

programmer, exponential pitch-up system, gyro spin monitor and the additional

hydraulic system capacity installation. The vehicle task included incorporation of

changes associated with the ignition system, dual thrust termination provisions, RF

command with abort and pitch-up capability, range safety system and improved dual

4-5



on-board timers. A hydraulic/GN_ system was added which doubled the previouscapacity and ensured system capability under conditions which might be encountered

on future flights. Design and parts were provided to update the NASA/MSC test fin

and elevon assembly to the same hydraulic system capability. Additional ground

support equipment for support of Vehicles 12-51-2 and on was provided, and mainte-

nance and operation of the NASA telemetry trailer was extended to 31 December 1965.

The fifteenth negotiation to date was held in March 1966. Negotiated cost was

$426,968. Major changes covered were: post-flight investigation and failure analysis

to determine the cause of the in-flight failure of Vehicle 12-51-2, along with investi-

gation and analysis of the attitude control system performance observed during Pre-

delivery Acceptance Testing of Vehicle 12-51-3. Tasks previously negotiated for

Vehicles 12-50-3 and 12-50-4 but not then required were defined, estimated, and

credited to NASA. Convair maintenance and operation of the NASA telemetry trailer

was extended through 31 January 1966. The effect of schedule revisions on Vehicle

12-51-3 was covered, together with failure analysis of the vehicle instrumentation

system and attitude control system components as a result of difficulties experienced.Deletion of previously negotiated tasks on Vehicle 12-51-4 was considered and resulted

in a substantial credit to NASA. Provisions for storage of Vehicle 12-51-4 were also

made.

The sixteenth (final) negotiation was held in May 1966. The negotiated cost of

$103,260 was to provide for additional direct effort peculiar to the contract close-out,

which could not be directly identified to the contractual task as it was originally

constituted. This completed the Little Joe H negotiations.

C. COST ACCUMULATION SUMMARY

The contract value, funding, and expenditure chart shown in (Figure 4-1) displays

requirements and expenditures for the total program. This chart was used by Convair

and NASA/MSC as a control tool to evaluate incremental funding requirements and

dollar expenditure. The chart was updated monthly and issued concurrently with the

Form 533 financial report, which is summarized in Figure 4-5.

D. MANPOWER USAGE SUMMARY

The manpower usage summary chart in Figure 4-2 shows the variation in equiva-

lent direct personnel employed on the program during its life span.

E. MANPOWER USAGE IN 1964

This manpower chart in Figure 4-3 shows a breakdown of equivalent personnel

usage on a weekly increment for Operations Services-WSTF, Reliability, Engineering

including Operations Services-San Diego, Manufacturing, and the total program. This

chart covers a period of one year (1964) and is considered typical for the launching of

two vehicles (12-50-2, fixed-fin, 13 May 1964; and 12-51-1, attitude control, 8 Decem-

ber 1964).

4-6



Ioo

C-6062-39

Figure 4-2. Manpower Usage Summary



EQUIVALENTMANPOWERONEYEAR- 1964

400

35O

3OO

28O

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

8O

6O

4O

2O

0

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

:*_ C_06240I

Figure 4-3. Manpower Usage - 1964



TOOL MFG.

ENGR INCL. QC

ENGR & MFG. QC WSMR OTHER MATERIAL(HRS) (HRS) (HRS) (HRS) (HRS) ($)

0 FIXED - FINVEHICLE STRUCTURE NR 44,200 36,500

FIXED - FIN VEHICLE STRUCTURE R 13,200 141,300 7,400 375,000CONTROLLABLEVEHICLE STRUCTURENR 16,000 4,600

CONTROLLABLEVEHICLE STRUCTURE R 2,000 50,900 700 70,000QTVPAYLOAD NR 4,900 300 1,200 700 17,000VEHICLE SYSTEM (PROP & ELEC) NR 26,200

VEHICLE SYSTEM (PROP& ELEC) R 35,500 78,300 8,200 90,000

VEHICLE INSTRUMENTATION(5 VEH) NR 18,500VEHICLE INSTRUMENTATION (5 VEH) R 19,800 45,100 5,100 295,000

VEHICLE CHECKOUTSUPPORT NR 14,000 1,300(R)

COMPONENTS&SYSTEM TESTS NR 13,900 10,300 1,300 78,000

TOTAL 208,200 41,400 327,100 24,700 925,000

LAUNCHER#1 NR 14,200 [

LAUNCHER#2 NR 3,300 ] 20,800AUNCHER R 5,400 26,800 1,900 125,000

WSMR FACILITIES NR 1,300 700 700

TOTAL 24,200 20,800 27,500 2,600 125,000

L.O. WSMRSITE PREP. & NR 400 4,300 700 2,700LAUNCHERINST.

L.O. FIX FIN VEHICLE (2) R 53,B00 17,300 6,400 10,000

L.O. CONTROLLABLEFIN (3) R 90,000 52,600 22,200 26,000

L.O. MISCELLANEOUSTASKS R 8,800 16,600 200 200

TOTAL 154,000 90,800 29,500 38,900

GSE NR 36,200 4,600 37,400 1,800 366,000GSE SPARES 1,000 26,000

VEHICLE SPARES 6,300 111,000

TOTAL 36,200 4,600 44,700 1,800 503,000

ATTITUDE CONTROLSYSTEMS:

HYDRAULICS NR 21,000HYDRAULICS R 2,500 7,900 400 65,000

REACTIONCONTROL NR 22,000REACTIONCONTROL R 2,500 10,400 400 328,000

AUTOPILOT NR 20,300

AUTOPILOT R 9,600 600 500 123,000

VEHICLE CHECKOUTSUPPORT NR 9,500COMPONENT& SYSTEM TEST NR 8,400 7,200 200 140,000

TOTAL 95,800 26,100 1,500 656r000

0 ALSO INCLUDES THAT STRUCTUREWHICHIS COMMONFORCONTROLLABLEVEHICLE STRUCTURE.

PRIMARILYCOSTS ASSOCIATEDWITH CONTROLLABLEFIN DESIGN.

NR NON-RECURRING

R RECURRING

Cjo062-41

Figure 4-4. Cost Accumulation Summary - Little Joe II

4-11



iMab.3

(1) (2) (3)

SUBDIVISIONOF WORK LAUNCH DOCUMEN- SPARES & ATTITUDE AUTO

OR ELEMENTS OF COST VEHICLE LAUNCHER TATION OPERATIONS GSE CONTROL PILOT TOTAL

ENGINEERINGHOURS 215,000 24,000 62,000 179,000 36,000 121,000 1,000 638,000

ENGINEERING $2,475,000 $245,000 $676,000 $1,998,000 $ 400,000 $1,612,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,411,000

TOOLING 341,000 186,000 - - 47,000 51,000 - 625,000

MANUFACTURING 2,094,000 202,000 - 674,000 292,000 681,000 4,000 3,947,000

QUALITY CONTROL 495,000 47,000 91,000 150,000 98,000 153,000 1,000 1,035,000

MFG. PROC. SPECS 3,000 .... 3,000

SHIPPING 74,000 4,000 - - 24,000 - 102,000

MATL &SUBCONTRACT 1,562,000 .... 1,004,000 33,000 3,070,000

OTHERDIRECTCOSTS 44,000 10,000 1,000 4,000 - 3,000 62,000

DIV. ADMIN. &GEN.OFF. 261,000 42,000 84,000 417,000 249,000 382,000 4,000 1,439,000

/TOTALCOST $7,349,000 $888,000 $852,000 $3,243,000 $1,429,000 $3,886,000 $47,000 _17,694,000 _'"

NOTES: (4)TOTAL RELIABILITYHOURS 49,000

1. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH STRUCTURE FOR8 VEHICLES,FIXED FINSFOR 4 VEHICLES TOTAL RELIABILITYCOST $ 565,000

AND INSTRUMENTATION FOR 5 VEHICLES. TOTAL CONTRACT HOURS 1,342,0002. COSTS FOR CONTROLLABLE FINSAND CONTROL AND GUIDANCE SYSTEMS FOR

4 VEHICLES.

3. COSTS FOR INITIALSTUDY TO DETERMINE THE METHOD OF ATTITUDE CONTROL

TO BE EMPLOYED ON CONTROLLABLE VEHICLES.

4. SEGREGATION OF HOURS ASSOCIATED WITH RELIABILITYTASKS SUCH AS:

A. RELIABILITYENGINEERINGACTIVITIES.

B. SUPPLIERRELIABILITYCOSTS.

C. QUALITYASSURANCEANDINSPECTIONACTIVITIES ATWSMR. c--a062-42

Figure 4-5. 533 Summary



5 DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY



5 I DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY

A. MAJOR DOCUMENTATION

Following is a list of the major Program Documentation and recurring reports

submitted on the Little Joe II program. These documents may be consulted for de-

tailed information on the appropriate functional disciplines and program status:

Program Documentation Report Number

Program Plan GDC 62-177

Launch Vehicle Familiarization Manual CS 63-003

Reliability Program Plan GDC 62-168 (original)

GDC 64-119 (NPC250-1)

Facilities Plan 1st Launch GDC 62-166A

2nd Launch GDC 62-166B

3rd Launch GDC 62-166C

4th Launch Supplement I5th Launch Supplement 11

Test Plan GDC 62-174

Manufacturing Plan GDC 62-205

Support Plan GDC 62-202

Quality Control Plan GDC 62-222

Maintenance Plan GDC 62-281

End Item Test Plan 12-50-1 GDC 62-330

12-50-2 GDC 64-037

12-51-1 GDC 64-233

12-51-2 GDC 64-356

12-51-3 GDC 65-083

5-1



Launch Vehicle Description 12-50 Vehicles GDC 63-034

Manual 12-51-1 GDC 64-236

12-51-2 GDC 64-365

12-51-3 GDC 65-145

Hardware List GDC 62-170

Recurring Documentation

Monthly Progress Reports

Quarterly Progress Reports

Quarterly Reliability Status Report

Monthly Financial Management Report (Form 533)

Monthly Weight and Balance Reports

Monthly Failure Summaries

Monthly Quality Reports

B. NEW DOCUMENTATION

Following is a list of documentation requirements introduced during the course of

the program:

Extended Distribution of Documentation - Documentation to be submitted to a max-

imum of 14 additional NASA agencies and Apollo contractors.

Acceptance Data Package - Documentation delivered with each vehicle. Material

updated as required for final NASA acceptance of vehicle prior to launch.

Recovery Identification Manuals - Identified, by word description and photographs,

components requiring post launch recovery.

Launch Operation Limitations Documents - Contained launch operations limitations

for launch vehicles, launcher, and GSE.

Weekly Reliability Summaries - Summary of all reliability activity during eachweek.

Reliability Assessment Reports - Contained complete reliability assessment for

each vehicle including the following sections:

- Vehicle/Mission Descriptions.

- Reliability Assessment.

- Single Point Failures.

- Anticipated Environmental Conditions.

- Qualification Status.

- Failure Reporting and Corrective Action Summary.

5-2



- Design Review/Open Action Items.

- Development Engineering Inspection/Open Items.

- Operational Time Records.

- Deviations.

- Additional Test Programs.

- Structural Qualifications.

Post Launch Reliability Summary - Summary with particular attention paid to any

unusual incidents. Included proposed corrective action and associated studies in

progress.

Flight Readiness Reports - Contained vehicle description and complete status

report for each subsystem launch complex and GSE. Prepared just prior to launch and

included vehicle certification of readiness for flight.

Operations Requirements Document - Facilities requirements for each launch.

Program Requirements Document - Facilities requirements for the program.

C. SUBMITTAL SCHEDULE

Figure 5-1 shows a typical Little Joe II Documentation Schedule.

D. APPENDIX

Appendix A isa listofalldocumentationprepared for the LittleJoe ]Iprogram.

5-3



6 [ ASSOCIATED TASKS AND PROPOSALS



_i!iii

C-b062-44

Figure 6-1. Control System Test Facility



shrouds and adapters to be used with Little Joe II in testing the LEM propulsion sys-

tems. NASA subsequently decided not to flight test these systems prior to use on theSaturn.

Proposing to the Air Force Space Systems Division, in 1963, the use of Little Joe

]1 to test the Dyna Soar control and characteristics in its re-entry corridor prior to

orbital flights. This'was dropped when the Dyna Soar program was cancelled.

Providing, in August 1963, flight performance and costs in response to a request

from the Gemini Project Office of NASA/MSC who was considering the feasibility of

suborbitally testing the Gemini abort escape system and heat shield prior to Titan

flights. The Gemini office decided to rely on sled testing for this purpose.

Working with NASA/MSFC in late 1962 on the feasibility of using a modified or

growth version of Little Joe II for suborbitally testing the Multi-Mission Module. This

effort ended when the MSFC program was cancelled.

Assisting the Ryan Aeronautical Company in preparing arLd submitting an unsolic-

ited proposal No. 63B017, dated 20 March 1963, to NASA/MSFC. This proposed theuse of Little Joe II as a test vehicle to prove the feasibility of using the flexible wing

principle in recovering Saturn boosters. No action was taken by NASA/MSFC to allot

funds and pursue the concept.

Working with NASA/WSMR and NASA/MSFC in 1965 on the possible use of Little

Joe II as a basic part of a 1/3-scale simulation of the Saturn V to obtain in-flight infor-

mation on airflow instability and resultant acoustic effect. NASA/MSFC eventually

decided to attempt to obtain this type of data by wind tunnel testing.

Proposing to NASA/LRC in 1965 the use of the booster axLd surplus Minuteman

vehicles to create a relatively low-cost, medium payload orbiLtal booster to replace

the Scout and some of the Thor versions. NASA/Headquarters did not agree with the

desirability of such a program, although it is understood that NASA/LRC did some

study work, with favorable results, on the subject.

Cooperating with JPL, NASA/LRC, AVCO and other contractors associated with

the Mars Mariner program in evaluating the use of the vehicle to test the "probe" and

the "lander" at high altitudes simulating Mars atmospheric density. This application

is still under consideration.

Supporting an investigation by NASA/FRC on the use of the vehicle for in-flight

testing of the M-2. A NASA report TM-X-56006 dated 1964 summarized the results of

the investigation and concluded, it is understood, that the plm_ was feasible and desir-able. The present status or future of this plan is unknown.

Working with various contractors and the Air Force Space Systems Division to

investigate the practicality of using Little Joe II to test the Gemini abort system when

used on conjunction with the MOL. It is understood that this possibility is still under

consideration by some elements in the MOL program.

6-4



Providing, in 1963, information to the General Electric Company to assist them

in proposing the use of the booster to the Air Force for pre-orbital flight testing of a

hypersonic ram jet airplane. This program was stretched out and it is assumed that

this proposal is still being considered.

Supporting NASA/MSFC since early 1965 in their consideration of using Little Joe

II to demonstrate and evaluate the principle of recovery and reuse of Saturn I-C stages

utilizing parachutes. This program is still under consideration.

Many other contacts have been made by visit and correspondence to all NASA

agencies, SSD, BSD, ARPA, NRL, SANDIA and various contractors working with

these agencies. Discussions were also held with Australian and Mexican officials.

To support this activity, Convair has prepared and distributed two sales brochures;

Little Joe Performance Capabilities (GD/C-65-197 dated September 1965) and Little

Joe II Future Potential dated June 1965. Convair is continuing, with the assistance of

NASA, to respond to inquiries on specific application possibilities.

6-5



7 [ ACHIEVEMENTS



7 I ACHIEVEMENTS

A. REPORTING OF NEW TECHNOLOGY

The new General Provisions that were incorporated in the initial Little Joe II con-

tract includes a "Reporting of New Technology" clause and a revised "Property Rights

in Invention" clause. The procedure devised to monitor this contractual requirement

is covered by Project Memorandum 12-E-6, in the Little Joe II Project Manual. In

accordance with this procedure, a program monitor was made responsible for the re-

view of design drawings, Engineering design notebooks, Industrial Engineering history

folders and related manufacturing processes, on a regular basis for reportable items.

Reports were submitted on a semiannual basis, with a final report upon completion of

contract work. All reportable items were reviewed with Convalr's Patent Counsel

prior to submittal to NASA. The procedure further defined the requirement be im-

posed on subcontractors having purchase orders in excess of $50,000.

The program monitor for this activity was always a member of the Little Joe II

Project Office, and, as such, constantly reviewed all changes and new designs. This

assignment, with the previously described review responsibilities, ensured that all

reportable items were identified.

The Little Joe II program was based on engineering a product around conventional

structural and off-the-shelf components. Therefore, only two new technology items

were developed and reported during the span of the contract. These were:

TIMER-LAUNCHER SEQUENCE, CONVAIR P/N 12-61325-3

The launching sequence timer was designed to fill the need for a combined count-

down time display light control and propulsion ignition control that were positively

synchronized. This timer synchronizes the countdown lights and ignition, and subse-

quent timing of the second stage propulsion motors during flight. See Figures 7-1 and7-2 for timer illustrations. A basic timer diagram and its operation is shown in

Figure 7-3.

Control switches on the countdown console permitted holding the countdown at any

desired time but retained the countdown time display lights at the time of stoppage.

Continuance of countdown could be resumed from the point of interruption, or reset to

the starting point could be accomplished by energizing the reset circuit.

7-1



C,-6062..45

Figure 7-1. Launch Sequence Timer

C-0062-46

Figure 7-2. Launch Sequence Timer - Internal View

7-2



The timer has many applications in industry where one-second timing intervals

are adequate. Modification to increase the frequency of the pulse generator to ten per

second would reduce the intervals to one-tenth of a second if a more precise timing

was required.

BASE THERMAL PROTECTION

This is a method of applying a heat insulating material to aluminum alloy surfaces

having severe irregularities, and using a curing heat cycle which is compatible with

aluminum alloy limitations. Pre-molding the insulating material is not necessary.

See Figures 7-4 and 7-5 for views of fin and vehicle base insulation.

The combination of insulating material and adhesive agent, and the application

procedure, was developed specifically to provide thermal protection for the base sur-

faces of the Little Joe II Test Booster from the heat of the engine jets during flight.

The insulating material was Dow Coming Uncured Silicone Rubber DC6510 and the

adhesive agent was Union Carbide Silicone Primer Y-3395 or Y-3459. Rubber and/or

primer produced by other companies were tried and found effective, but the selected

combination proved most satisfactory in the test conducted under Little Joe H condi-

tions.

C.-6062--48

Figure 7-4. Fin Insulation - installing Vacuum Blanket

7-5



C-6062--49

Figure 7-5. Afterbody Insulation After Baking

The installation process consisted of the following: thoroughly cleaning the sur-

face, roughing it with a wire brush or similar abrasive, recleaning, applying a primer

with a brush, allowing to dry, and applying the uncured ru.bber by adding layers as

required to achieve the desired thickness over the metal _urfaees. Uniform pressurewas applied to the entire covered area by vacuum or other means; the area was heated

to 250°F and held for 30 minutes and then allowed to cool, with pressure maintained.

The finished product was a soft, tough rubber (appro_:imately 30 shore hardness)

tenaciously bonded to the aluminum alloy base. When exposed to high temperature the

exposed surface would char, but the back surface would remain cool. The thickness

required was determined by the rate at which the rubber _vould char in the environment

to which it was exposed. Apparent future applications are for thermal protection,

insulation, or protection of surfaces against corrosive elements to which the semi-

curing silicone rubber is resistant.

LISTING OF SUBCONTRACTORS AFFECTED

Reporting of New Technology and Property Rights in :Inventions clauses were in-

cluded in the purchase order to Walter Kidde Company, Belleville, New Jersey, and

Whittaker Corporation, Controls & Guidance Division, Chatsworth, California. Per-

formanee of work on these purchase orders did not produce any new technology.

7-6



_B_'_ ''FIRSTS''A number of achievements on this program represented a "first time," at time of

accomplishment, in the United States space program. Some of these were:

1) Little Joe II represented the largest diameter vehicle launched by the United

States at the time of its first flight.

2) Little Joe II's thrust and weight were the highest ever associated

with all-solid-propellant booster.

3) Little Joe II's gross payload of 38,200 pounds (including ballast) was the largest

lifted on a launch vehicle.

4) The thrust of the reaction control motors was the highest ever flown at the

time of the first attitude control vehicle.

5) Little floe II's first launching was the first self-propelled flight test accom-

plished on the Apollo Program.

6) The corrugated structure of the vehicle was independently conceived and it

was the first time it had been proven in flight.

7) On the 12-51-3 Little Joe II flight, Algol motors were ignited at an altitude

and in flight for the first time.

8) This vehicle was the first all-aluminum launch vehicle utilizing an ablative

rubber for base heat protection.

9) The Little Joe II program was the first to execute a planned catastrophe in

flight (thrust termination) to prove an abort system under an actual flight con-

dition which required a safe abort.

10) The last flight was the highest altitude an abort system has ever been tested.

11) The Little Joe II vehicle was the first vehicle to employ three Algol motors in

a cluster configuration.

C. INNOVATIONS

The followingmethods ofoperationwere developed duringthe LittleJoe IIpro-

gram and subsequentlyadoptedby otherNASA Apollo program contractors.

PERT DATA TRANSCEIVER SYSTEM

PERT updateand analysisreportswere originallysubmittedtoNASA/MSC by

teletypeevery two weeks, startinginSeptember 1962. The update reportsproved un-

satisfactorydue tolengthypreparation,processing and transmittaltime. A data

transeeiversystem installedin October 1962 provideddireetcard-to-cardtransmittal

by use of a data-phone. This system substantially reduced overall transmittal and

7-7



processing time and eliminated update errors experienced by the manual method.

Other NASA Apollo Program contractors subsequently implemented this system.

OPERATIONAL CHECKOUT PROCEDURES

Procedures for vehicle systems checkout were initially written to a Convair format

which assumed a high degree of technical expertise by the operators. Although thisconcept proved satisfactory for factory checkout on the first vehicle, it deviated too

widely from the procedures which had previously been used by NASA at other launchsites.

NASA, with the cooperation of Convair, NAA and Cape Kennedy personnel, out-

lined a set of ground rules for procedure writing. The ensuing rough draft was desig-

nated Apollo Procedure No. 1 (AP-1) and was reviewed by management, engineers and

operators. Comments were returned to NASA/MSC. AP-1 was completely revised to

accommodate the operational methods required for the Apollo program; the revised

document was entitled, Apollo Documentation Procedure No. 2, Standard for the

Preparation of Operational Checkout Procedures (AP-2). The AP-2 format specifiedexact location, nomenclature, time sequence and operator for any given operational

step. This format theoretically enabled operational performance by relatively inex-

perienced personnel. With the introduction of the AP-2 specification, all Convair

procedures were created by electronic data processing (EDP). The EDP permitted

tape storage of finished documentation and also simplified changes and reproduction.

In common with other detailed specifications of this type, certain waivers were

required, to fit the AP-2 format to the particular electronic data processes used by

Convair. This detailed AP-2 procedure continues in use by other NASA contractors.



8 PROGRAM CLOSE-OUT STATUS



8 PROGRAM CLOSE.OUT STATUS

A. GENERAL

Convair and NASA, late in 1965, recognized the need for a plan to effect an

orderly close out of the Little Joe II program. The plan provided a single source

document which brought together all pertinent information, defining departmental

action and identifying the procedures governing the action. The document further

provided a schedule for the efficient close out of Contract NAS 9-492. (Reference

GD/C 66-020, Contract Close'Out Plan, NASA Project Apollo - Little Joe II Project).

By NASA direction, terminal close out of the program was modified to the extent

that existing vehicles and significant GFP components and materials would be stored

through the year 1966. Storage of these materials was based on the premise of

possible reactivation of Convair San Diego and WSMR facilities for additional launches

of the Little Joe II. NASA's Contract Change Authorization (CCA) #96 and Revision #1

thereto provided contractual direction. Arrangements were made by NASA to store

the Little Joe 1"[vehicles in Air Force Plant 19 in San Diego. See Figure 8-1 for views

of storage area. Vehicles 12-50-3, 12-50-4 and 12-51-4 are preserved and stored in

Mylar bags. Suitable desiccant bags are used to control moisture content. All tooling,

GSE and GFP equipment has been preserved, packaged, and stored with the vehicles.

Launcher 12-60-2 is preserved and stored in place in Convair's Experimental Depart-ment' s Yard.

Materials that were not retained for future use were forwarded to Disposition

Stores. These materials were surveyed by DCASPRO for final disposition action.

There are 1500 outside purchased (OSP) line items and 200 material items with an

extended value of under $100 which have been processed. There are 250 outside

purchased (OSP) and 30 miscellaneous items with an extended value of over $100 which

have been assigned to a disposition schedule and circulated to other government

agencies for possible use.

All drawings, specifications and reports of contractural requirement have been

microfilmed and forwarded to NASA/MSC.

Convair activity at WSMR was closed out on 23 March 1966. Launcher 12-60-1

has been stored in place at WSMR, Launch Complex 36. All launcher storable and

other disposable materials were turned over to ZIA, a WSMR on-site NASA contractor.

NASA is responsible for maintenance of Launcher 12-60-1. Those GFP materials

required for reactivation of Little Joe II were returned to Convair, San Diego, for

preservation and storage.

8-1



CJo062-50-_

C=6062-50-4

Figure 8-1. LJ-II Storage Area - Air Force Plant 19, San Diego (Sheet 2 of 3)

8-3



C,-6062-50-5

Figure 8-1. LJ-II Storage Area - Air Force Plant 19, San Diego (Sheet 3 of 3)

Maintenance of those items stored in Air Force Plant 19 in San Diego has been

negotiated as a separate contract with Convair and extends through 1966.

8-4



9 RECOMMENDATIONS



9 RECOMMENDATIONS

The success of the Little Joe II program suggests that the various philosophies

set forth in this management volume should be considered for integration into future

programs of similar complexity and scope. More specific recommendations are de-

fined in the following paragraphs.

Customer's Technical Direction - Single source direction in this field provides

the key for a clear communications link. Clear communication insures rapid responseto change action, minimizes the fog factor and promotes efficient and economical

operations.

Customer Approved Sources - It is incumbent on the contractor that these sources

be frequently re-evaluated to assure that procedures, practices and skill levels are in

accordance with the Customer's requirements. Furthermore, the Customer should

maintain intensive surveillance of the approved sources to assure that their credentials

remain current.

Customer Specification and Documentation Requirements - The contractor should

frequently review Customer imposed specifications and contractual requirements in

terms of program application. He should determine whether imposed requirements

are warranted in relation to the program cost and schedule effect. For example, the

NASA GSE specification MSC-GSE-1A requires a separate specification and formal

drawing for each individual piece of equipment. In many cases the time involved in

preparing specifications and drawings and obtaining approval of them far outweighs the

cost of the individual piece of GSE. Waivers to specifications and the use of blanket

specifications can materially reduce end item cost and realization time. The Little

Joe II resolution of this problem is discussed in detail in Volume II, Section 4. D, GSE

Documentation, of this report.

The docume_ation distribution generally imposed on a contractor should be evalu-

ated for real necessity. In many eases distribution may be minimized and thus4_

economy realized.

Centralized Control of Testing Activities - Control of qualification and system test-

ing was vested in the Reliability Group. By combining all testing activity under the

cognizance of one group, efficiency and economy were realized. The inherent char-

acter and philosophy of reliability engineers assures an ideal guardianship for the

testing activities.

9-1



10 CONCLUSIONS



10 [ CONCLUSIONS

The Little Joe II program provided a low-cost launch vehicle which was adaptable

to a wide range of mission requirements. The recent test series which successfully

proved the capability of the Apollo launch escape system used only a part of the launch

vehicle capability; thus, the creation of Little Joe II not only enabled accomplishment

of a major milestone for the Apollo program but established a capability for future

sub-orbital programs.

10-1



11 [ BIBLIOGRAPHY



11 I BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Aerojets) Interface Control Document, Report Number 0667-TICD-1 dated 1 July 1963.

Contract Close-Out Plan, NASA Project Apollo - Little Joe II Project, GD/C 66-020.

DD 1446 Form (entitled:) Contractor Performance and Evaluation, General Dynamics/

Convair, Contract NAS9-492, dated 12 June 1964.

D. I.B.-12-015.

Documentation Requirements of Contract NAS 9-150.

Hardware List, Little Joe 11 Project, GDC-62-170.

Interface Control Document, Mission A-0Ol, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-50-2 and Payload

Boilerplate 12 (BP-12) Document Number MH01-04010-414 dated 17 March 1964.

Interface Control Document, Mission A-002, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-1 and BP-23,

Document Number MH01-04012 dated 6 October 1964.

Interface Control Document, Mission A-003, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-2 and BP-22,

Document Number MH01-04011-414 dated 30 March 1965.

Interface Control Document, Mission A-004, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-3 and Space-

craft 002 (SC-002), Document Number MH01-04013-414 dated 6 August 196S.

Letter 11-1-1486, dated 20 April 1962.

Little Joe II Future Potential dated June 1965.

Little Joe Performance Capabilities, GD/C-65-197 dated September 1965.

Memorandum of Understanding, June 1963, revised February 1964.

NASA Contract Change Authorization (CCA) No. 96, and Revision No. 1.

NASA Project Apollo Test Launch Vehicle, Little Joe H - Technical Proposal,

GDC-62-114, dated April 1962.

NASA Quality Publication - Inspection System Provisions for Suppliers of Space

Materials, Parts, Components, and Services, NPC-200-3, April 1965 Edition.

NASA Quality Publication - Quality Program Provisions for Space System Contractors,

N1_-200-2 dated April 20, 1962.

NASA Quality Publication NPC 200.

11-1



BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONTINUED)

NASA/MSC Request for Proposal MSC-62-39P, dated 6 April 1962.

NASA Statement of Work for Suborbital Test Launch Vehicle System, GDC-62-361,dated 20 November 1962.

Project Memorandum 12-E-6, in Little Joe II Project Manual.

Reliability Program for Systems, Subsystems, and Equipment, MIL-R-27542 (USAF).

Reliability Program Plan (NPC 250-1), GD/C 64-119.

Soldering Specification MSFC-PROC 158B.

Support Plan - Test Launch Vehicle - Little Joe H, GDC-62-202, dated 21 Sept. 1962.

11-2



APPENDIX A

INDEX OF LITTLE JOE DOCUMENTATION

Document Drawing

Number Number

Accelerometer, A69TC-20-30, Qualification DL-M-63-144

Testing of

Accumulator, Hydraulic, Little Joe II, Qualifi- GDC 64-224

cation Test Procedure for

Accumulator, Hydraulic, Little Joe II Aero- GDC 64-319

dynamic Attitude Control System, GDC P/N

90-03500-003, Qualification Test Report

Accumulator, Hydraulic, Test Plan PM-12-2217 -

Accumulator Piston Seal Test Results PM- 12- 2291 -

Actuator Dynamic Spring Rate Determination DF-12-115

(Test Procedure)

Adaptation Kit, Air Conditioning Ducts, Little - 12-09290

Joe II P/N 12-93006, GSE Performance and

Interface Specification forAdapter, Forward Fin Pin Tool, GSE Per- - 12-09285

formance and Interface Specification for

Aerodynamic Attitude Control System, Category ZZC 63-060

"A" Tests

Aerodynamic AttitudeControlSystem, LittleJoe II ZZC-63-011

Production Fin, Hydraulic and Pneumatic,

Test Procedure for

Aerodynamic Coefficients for Little Joe II - GDC 63-137

Apollo, Based on Wind Tunnel Tests

Aerodynamic Data for Little Joe H with 316 Inch AD-LJ-004

Service Module 502 Fins

Aerodynamic Heating - Little Joe II Booster T-12-25

Aerodynamic and Inertia Cross-Coupling on Little DC-12-018

Joe II Stability, Effects of

Aerolastic Coefficients of the 50 sq. ft. Fin with GDC 63-137

a 15 sq. ft. Movable Control Surface Addendum C

Airframe Maintenance and Repair Manual CS-63-010 -

(12-50-1)

A-1



Document Drawing

Number Number

Airframe Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch CS-63-035

Vehicle 12-50-2


Vehicle 12-51-1


Vehicle 12-51-2

Airframe Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch CS-65-001AVehicle 12-51-3

Air Loads for Structural Design of Little Joe H GDC 63-102 -

Algol Motor Pressure Decay with Thrust Termina- T-12-31

tion, Little Joe H

Algol Motor Staging, RFC 5P-I PM-12-2252 -

Algol Rocket Propellant Grain Temperature T-12-26 -

Variation with Air Conditioning Removed, LittleJoe II

Algol Thrust Termination, Little Joe II - Mission J T-12-30

Algol Thrust Termination, Effect of Primacord T-12-28

Explosion on Fiberglass Bulkhead, Little Joe H

Alignment Kit, Vehicle, GSE Performance and - 12-09121

Interface Specification for

Amplifier, Attitude Control and Logic, Electro- GDC 64-071

magnetic Interference Test Report (CES Elec-

tronic Products}

Amplifier Package, Rawco, Test Report, Quality GDC 64-311Assurance Tests on

Analog Study of Little Joe H/Apollo Boilerplate 22 DC-12-019

Launch Without Reaction Control and with Various

Numbers of Recruit Motors

Apollo High q Abort (A-001) Mission, Little Joe II GDC 63-228

Launch Vehicle 12-50-2, Launch Operations

Program and Schedule

Apollo Mission A-003 (Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-2/ D-65-9

Apollo BP-22) Stability Analysis of

Attitude Control Fin Static Proof Test Planning SL-63-024

Report, Little Joe IIAttitude Control and Logic Amplifier, Part of the 12-03101

Attitude Control Subsystem, Specification for

Attitude Control and Logic Amplifier for Use in the GDC 64-327

Little Joe H Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 and on,

Qualification Test Report for

Attitude Control System Anomalies PM-12-2391 -

A-2



Document Drawing

_b]ect Number Number

Attitude Control System Maintenance and Repair CS-64-014

Manual (12-51-1)

Attitude Control System Maintenance and Repair CS-65-006

Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2

•Attitude Control System, Integrated, Tests GDC 64-332 -

Attitude Control System, Integrated, Tests, D-65-5

Vehicles 51-2 and 51-3, Test Objectives and

Procedures for

Attitude Control Subsystem, Specification for GDC 62-335 12-06104

Attitude Control Subsystem Study GDC 62-190

Attitude Control System and Subsystems with DC-12-012

Simulated Little Joe H Vehicle, Test Procedures

for

Attitude Control System Tests, Integrated, Little D-65-18Joe II 51-2, NASA Apollo Project

Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude - 12-03100

Control Subsystem, Specification for

Attitude Reference Subsystem Study for the Little DC-12-006

Joe II Vehicle

Attitude Reference System, Model GR10A-1, Part 26336

Number 22650, General Dynamics/Convair Part

Number 12-03100-3, A Component of the Little

Joe II Test Vehicle, American Gyro Test Report

Aut0pilot and Instrumentation Systems, Little Joe II GDC 64-189

12-51-1 Vehicle, Vibration Test Procedure for

Autopilot Noise, Little Joe II DC-12-020 -

Autopilot Signal Filter, Little Joe H, Design GDC 65-098 -

Feasibility Study

Autopilot System, Little Joe II 12-51-1, Vibration GDC 64-230

Test Procedure for

Autopilot System Little Joe II 12-51 Vehicle, Vibra- GDC 64-340

tion Qualification Test Report for

Autopilot System, Test Procedure, Vibration Qual- 3503

ification Testing on, prepared in Accordance

with Specification GDC 64-230 for General

Dynamics/ Convair (Wyle Laboratories}

Azimuth Trucks, Specification for GDC 62-284 12-09260

Base Heat Barrier Installation, Procedure for - 12-07100

Base Heating - LittleJoe IIMission "F" T-12-17 -

Base Thermal ProtectionMaterials Insulation - 12-07000

Methods Investigation

A-3



Document Drawing

Subject Number Number

Corrective and Preventive Action, Little Joe H GDC 65-190 -

Summary Report for Vehicle 12-51-3

Cylinder, Hydraulic Servo- Aerodynamic Attitude GDC 63-106

Control, Qualification Test Procedure for

Data Reduction and Analysis Comments for Flutter DF-12-107

Instrumentation on Little Joe II QTV #1 (fixed fin)

Data Station Procedures (Recommended) for Vehicle DF-12-108

Response Data Reduction for Little Joe II QTV

Magnetic Tape Records

Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50 GDC 63-034 -

Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 GDC 64-236 -

Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-2 GDC 64-365 -

Description Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-51-3 GDC 65-145 -Design Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe H GDC 63-139

Test Launch Vehicle 12-50-1

Design Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe IT GDC 63-229

Vehicles 12-50-2 and 12-50-3

Design Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe II GDC 64-264Vehicle 12-51-1

Design Engineering Inspection (NASA) Little Joe H GDC 64-264

Vehicle 12-51-1 Addendum A

Design Engineering Inspection (NASA) of Thrust GDC 64-033

Termination System, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-50-2

Design Information Bulletins GDC 62-163 -

Design Review Presentation, Little Joe ITAttitude GDC 63-204

Control Vehicle

Design Thrust Misalignment for Mission "J" DC-12-023 -

(NASA Mission A-002)

Design Thrust Misalignment for Mission "N, " NASA D-65.-15

Mission A-003, Little Joe H

Design Thrust Misalignment for Mission "Q," NASA D-65-40

Mission A-004, Little Joe II

Destructors, Explosive, Models 173-1-A-1 and SD-147

173-1-A-7, Report of Environmental and Firing

Tests (Beckman and Whitley)

Detonating cord Compatibility Tests, Little Joe H - -

(GDC P/N 12-03271-1 and -3) Aerojet-General

Test Report)

Detonating Cord Firing Tests, Little Joe II, Aerojet -

General Test Report

A-6



Document Drawing

_bject Number Number

End Item Test Plan, Little Joe II Launch Vehicle GDC 64-037

12-50-2, Apollo Mission A-001

End Item Test Plan - Vehicle 12-51-1 GDC 64-233 -

End Item Test Plan, Little Joe H Test Launch GDC 64-356 -

Vehicle 12-51-2

End Item Test Plan, Little Joe H Test Launch GDC 65-083 -

Vehicle 12-51-3

Environmental Control, GSE Performance and GDC 62-308 12-09100


Environmental Tests on Astronetics Research P/N 4680

175 DC to DC Converter, Action Laboratories,

Inc., Report of

Exhaust Jet Plume Effects GDC 63-137 -

Addendum A

Facilities Plan GDC 62-166 -

Facilities Plan, Convair Operations Requirements - GDC 62-166C

Apollo Mission A-003 (BP-22/LJ H 12-51-2) Supplement I

Facilities Plan, Apollo Mission A-004 GDC 62-166C -

(SC-002/LJ H 12-51-3) Supplement II

Facilities Requirements (White Sands) GDC 62-160 -

Factory Trial of Launch Vehicle Operations GDC 63-081 -

Procedure, Little Joe H High q

Failure Analysis, Little Joe II DC-12-009 -

Failure Analysis, Little Joe H BP-23, Mission J DC-12-029

Failure Analysis, Little Joe H Vehicle 51-2, D-65-17 -

Apollo Mission .%-003

Failure Analysis, Little Joe H Vehicle, 51-3, D-56-39 -

Apollo Mission A-004

Failure Summary (Monthly) - -

Familiarization Manual, Launch Vehicle CS-62-011 -

Familiarization Manual, Launch Vehicle CS-63-003 -

Filter, Audio, Genistron Inc. P/N GF6536, GDC 4282

P/N 93-78304-003, Qualification Test Report,

Low Temperature, High Temperature andVibration Test of

Filter, Hydrogen Peroxide, Specification for Clean- - 12-00261

ing and Conditioning

Filtering Unit, Hydraulic, Little Joe II P/N - 12-09303

12-91042-1, GSE Performance and Interface

Specification for

Filtering Unit, Hydraulic, Test Procedure - 12-91303

A-8



Document Drawing

Sub]'ect Number Number

Financial Management Report (Monthly) NASA Form 533 -

Fin and Elevon Assembly, Little Joe H, Special 12-4714

Vibration Test Procedure for

Fin, Attitude Control, Little Joe II, Results of GDC 64-023 -

Ground Vibration and Associated Stiffness Test

Fin Bolt Installation/Removal Tools, GSE Per- - 12-09109


Fin Flutter Analysis, Little Joe H Attitude Control, DF-12-120

Using Ground Vibration Test Modes

Fin Structural Response Test, Little Joe H, Evalu- 12A4714

ation Test Report

Fin Slings, GSE Performance and Interface Speci- GDC 62-311 12-09103

fication for

Fin Warpage, Effects of, on the Trajectory of Little DC-12-007

Joe II QTV Shot

Finish Specification, Little Joe II - 12-00004

Fixed Fin Flutter Analysis DF-12-102 -

Fixed Fin (Cantilevered) Little Joe H/Apollo, Ground GDC 63-055

Vibration Test Results

Flight Flutter Instrumentation for Little Joe II DF-12-110 -

Qualification Test Vehicle, Status Report

Flight Flutter Test Instrumentation (Required) DF-12-105 -

for Little Joe II Qualification Test Vehicle

Flight Report, Launch Vehicle, NASA Project GDC 63-193Apollo, Little Joe II QTV - Model Version

Vehicle 12-50-1

Flight Simulation, Little Joe II Vehicle 51-2 D-65-27 -

Forebody Mating Stand, GSE Performance and GDC 62-212 12-09104


Free-Floating Control Surface Analysis, Little D-65- 28

Joe II

Fuel Tank Assembly, P/N 892586, Vibration Test TP-325

Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.)

Fuel Tank Assembly, P/N 892586, Vibration Test R-1636

Report (Kidde Aerospace Division)

General Performance Capabilities GDC 62-349 -

Ground Air Conditioning, Little Joe H T-12-10 -

Ground Service Supply Hoses, GSE Performance - 12-09119

and Interface Specification for

Guidance Accuracy Study of Little Joe II Vehicle DC-12-005

A-9



Document Drawing

Number Number

Gulton Battery Power Pack 24V0.180P, Little Joe H, GDC 64-350


Hardware List, Little Joe II Test Launch Vehicle GDC 62-170

Hardware Utilization List - 12-50-1 GDC 63-149

Hardware Utilization List- 12-50-2 GDC 64-040

Hardware Utilization List - Vehicle 12-51-1 GDC 64-237

Hardware Utilization List - Vehicle 12-51-2 GDC 65-007

Hardware Utilization List - Vehicle 12-51-3 GDC 65-164 -

Hose Adapter, Kit, Little Joe H P/N 12-91026 12-09280

Hose Kit, Bladder Leak Test, GSE Performance 12-09288


Hose Kit - High Pressure Nitrogen, Little Joe H - 12-09265

P/N 12-91040, GSE Performance and InterfaceSpecification for

Hose Set, Extension, Hydraulic Cart, GSE Per- - 12-09281


Hose Set, Extension, Hydrogen Peroxide, GSE - 12-09282

Performance and Interface Specification for

Hose Set, Extension, Pneumatic, GSE Performance - 12-09283


Hydraulic Actuator Assembly and Components, A PM-12-2251

History of the Vibration Testing Performed on

Hydraulic Servocylinder, Aerodynamic Attitude GDC 64-309 -

Control, GDC P/N 12-40100-850, Qualifica-

tion Test Procedure for

Hydraulie Servocylinder, Aerodynamic Attitude GDC 64-347 -

Control System, Little Joe H, Qualification

Test Report on

Hydraulic Servoeylinder, Aerodynamic Attitude GDC 65-171 -

Control, GDC Part No. 12-40100-805, Special

Qualification Test Procedure for

Hydraulic Servocylinder, Little Joe H Aerodynamic GDC 65-200

Attitude Control System, GDC Part No. 12-

40100-805, Qualification Test Report forHydraulic Subsystem in the Little Joe H, Vibration DF-12-118

Qualification of

Hydraulic System, Attitude Control, Little Joe H, GDC 64-193

Vibration Qualification Program for

Hydraulic System Filtration Study, Little Joe II GDC 65-162 -

Attitude Control, Report of

A-10



Document Drawing


Hydraulic and Pneumatic System, Little Joe II GDC 64-322 -

Aerodynamic Attitude Control System, Vibra-

tion Qualification Test Report

Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) Fuel Tank, P/N 892586, WK-D-AAW-0095

Acceptance Test Procedure (Walter Kidde Co.)

Hydrogen Peroxide Reaction Control System, Little ZZC-64-032

Joe II, Category "B" Test

Igniter Installation Tool, Recruit Engine, GSE - 12-09116


Inclination Screw Jacks, GSE Performance and GDC 62-385 12-09261


Instrumentation Breadboard, Little Joe H, Test GDC 64-349

Report forInstrumentation System, Little Joe H 12-51-1 GDC 64-231 -

Vehicle, Vibration Test Procedure for

Instrumentation Multiplexed Circuit Verification GDC 64-285

Test, Test Report

Instrumentation System Turn-On Voltage Transient, GDC 64-293

Determination of, Test Report

Instrumentation System, Vehicle, for Little Joe H GDC 64-280

12-51-1, Vibration Qualification Test Report

Interchangeability and Replaceability, Definition - 12-00014-1and Status

Investigation Report, Post Flight, Preliminary, GDC 65-139 -Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-2

Investigation Report, Post Flight, Final, Apollo GDC 65-143

Mission A-003 Flight

Launch Operations Program and Schedule for Facility GDC 63-083

Preparation and Launcher Assembly

Launch Operations Program and Schedule, Little Joe GDC 63-046

H High q, Qualification Test Vehicle

Launch Operations Program and Schedule, Little Joe GDC 63-288

H Launch Vehicle 12-50-2, Apollo High q Abort

(A-001} Mission

Launch Site Activities Report (Weekly) - -

Launch Site - Preliminary Specification for Little - -

Joe II

Launcher- Blockhouse Electrical Facility GDC 63-289 -

Requirements

Launcher Maintenance and Repair Manual CS-63-015 -

(12-50-1)

A-11



Document Drawing


Launcher Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch CS-63-039

Vehicle 12-50-2

Launcher Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch CS-64-015

Vehicle 12-51-1

•Launcher Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch CS-65-007

Vehicle 12-51-2

Launcher Maintenance and Repair Manual, Launch CS-65-007A

Vehicle 12-51-3

Launcher Mast, 12-95203, Proof and Operational SL-62-065

Test

Launcher Position Control, GSE Performance and GDC 62-220 12-09112


Load Bar, Three Recruit Installation, P/N 12- - 12-09294

91036-1, GSE Performance and Interface Speci-fication for

Limitations, Launch Operations, Little Joe H GDC 64-307 -

Logic and Control Amplifier, Attitude Reference GDC 65-210

Subsystem of the Attitude Control System

Qualification Test for

Logic and Control Amplifier, Attitude Reference GDC 65-219

Subsystem of the Attitude Control System,


Logic and Control Amplifier, 12-03101-1, Serial GDC 66-501

No. S-N3, Failure Analysis of

Logic and Control Amplifier 12-03101-3 Modified, GDC 66-046

Attitude Reference Subsystem of the Attitude

Control System, Qualification Test Report for

Logic and Control Unit Test, Little Joe II, DC-12-017 -

Preliminary Analysis

Maintenance Plan GDC 62-281

Manifold and Burst Disc Assembly, P/N 842396, TP-326

Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde

Co.)

Manifold and Burst Disc Assembly, P/N 842396, R-1616

Vibration Test Report (Walter Kidde Co. )

Manifold, Hydraulic Test, Little Joe II P/N 12-09302


Specification for

Manufacturing Plan GDC 62-205 -

Materials Evaluation for Base Thermal Protection RT-62-040

Materials Evaluation for Launcher Thermal RT-62-039 -

Protection

A-12



Document Drawing


Materials Report (Semi-Annual) - -

Measurement Subsystem, Specification for GDC 62-257 12-01101

Measurement Subsystem, Little Joe II Launch - 12-01103Vehicle 12-51-1, Specification for

Measurement System Maintenance and Repair CS-63-013 -

Manual (Vehicle 12-50-1)

Measurement System Maintenance and Repair CS-63-037





Manual, Launch Vehicle 12'51-3

Megging of GD/Convair Installed and/or Terminated - 12-06108

Cable and Wire, Little Joe II Launch Site,

Specification for

Missile Base Heating - LittleJoe IIMission "E," T-12-20

Seven Algol Rocket Configuration

Missile Destructor (Safeand Arm Device) ofthe GDC 64-295

DestructSubsystem oftheLittleJoe IILaunch

Test Vehicle,SpecificationorReliabilitynd

Qualificationesting

Mission "F" Performance Evaluation,LittleJoe II DC-12-008

Mission "J" to Five Magnitudes of an Exponential DC-12-026

Pitch Command (1.1 Second Time Constant) andComparison with the Step Response, Little Joe

II

Motor, Prototype Evaluation Tests, Little Joe II R-1592

(Walter Kidde Co.)

Motor Support Cradle, GSE Performance and Inter- GDC 62-216 12-09108

face Specification for

Motor and Valve Assembly, P/N 873945, Vibration TP-330

Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.)

Motor and Valve Assembly, Development and R-1643 & -

Qualification, P/N 873945, Vibration Test Supplement A

Report (Kidde Aerospace Division)

Narrative End Item Report, Ground Support Equip- GDC 63-155

ment (12-50-1)

Narrative End Item Report, Ground Support Equip- GDC 64-241

merit (12-71-1)

Narrative End Item Report, Launch Console GDC 63-154

(12-50-1)

A-13



Document Drawing


Pitch Programmer, Attitude Reference Subsystem GDC 65-208

of the Attitude Control System, Qualification Test

Procedure

Pitch Programmer, Attitude Reference Subsystem GDC 65-218

for the Attitude Control System, Qualification

Test Report for

Platform, Destruct Charge Installation, GSE Per- - 12-09270


Platform, Range Safety System, Little Joe II P/N 12-09296


Specification for

Platform, Range Safety System, Little Joe II P/N - 12-09297

12-91037, GSE Performance and Interface Speci-

fication for

Platforms, RCS Servicing, P/N 12-91033, GSE Per- - 12-09289


PMP Schedule Dates GDC 62-227 -

Portable Test Equipment, Little Joe H Standard - 12-09298

GSE, Performance and Interface Specification

for

Potentiometer, Feedback, Testing Study, Report of GDC 65-163

Power-On Base Drag for Mission "E" GDC 63-137Addendum B

Power-On Total Drag for Mission "J" GDC 63-137 -Addendum D

Power-On Total Drag for the 3 - 2 Algol Config- GDC 63-137

uration Addendum E


uration Addendum F


uration Addendum G

Power Room Equipment Rack, GSE Performance - 12-09126


Pressure Control Valve - P/N 892591, Vibration R-1620 &

Test Report for (Kidde Aerospace Division} Addendum I

Primacord Vibration Testing for Little Joe II - -

Aerojet-General Test Report

Procurement Specification Format GDC 62-145 -

Program Plan GDC 62-177 -

Program Requirements Document, Little Joe 11 GDC 65-032 -

Progress Report (Monthly) - -

Progress Report (Quarterly} - -

A-15



Document Drawing


Proposal (Little Joe II- Technical Proposal) GDC 62-114 -

Proposal (Little Joe II - Cost and Contractual) GDC 62-115 -

Proposal - Launch Test Vehicle GDC 62-291 -

Propulsion Subsystem, Specification for GDC 62-260 12-02260

Propulsion System Maintenance and Repair Manual, CS-63-014

Launch Vehicle 12-50-1





Qualification Status List (12-50-1) GDC 62-368 -

Qualification Status List, Little Joe II Test GDC 63-169 -


Qualification Status Summary, Little Joe II, GDC 64-234 -

Vehicle 12-51-1

Qualification Status Summary, Little Joe H, GDC 65-008 -


Qualification Status Summary, Little Joe H, GDC 65-156 -


Qualification Test Procedure for Sterer Part 24280-3 24280-3

GD/Convair Specification No. 12-04103 (Sterer

Engr.)

Quality Control Performance Audits, Summary of CVR 48-02-70(Quarterly)

Quality Control plan GDC 62-222

Quality Report (Monthly) CVR 48-02-67

Quick Disconnect Assembly, Couple and Uncouple R-1614

Characteristics (Walter Kidde Co. )

Range Safety System Test Program, Little Joe II GDC 65-068

(12-98-14)

Range Safety System Test (12-98-14) Final Report, GDC 65-077

Little Joe H

Rate Gyro System, Model SE20D-2, American SE20D-2

Gyro Design Specification

Rate Gyro Assembly, American Gyro P/N 21690, 26012_ and

GDC P/N 94-43002-001, A Component of Little Supp. 1 & 2

Joe II Test Vehicle, Qualification Test Report

(American Gyro}

Reaction Control Basic Requirements PM-12-261 -

A-16



Document Drawing


Reaction Control - Hydrogen Peroxide System Study - 12-02601

Reaction Control Jet-Induced Aerodynamic Forces on AD-LJ-005

Little Joe II Stability and Control Character-

istics, Effect of

Reaction Control Module System Assembly Pro- 151238

cedure, Tank Installation, P/N 892631, 892613

(Walter Kidde Co. )

Reaction Control Motor, Effects of On/Off Delay DC-12-016

Time on Stability and Control of Little Joe II

Reaction Control - Solid Propellant System Study 12-02600

Reaction Control Subsystem, Little Joe II Relia- R-1645

bility Testing, Static Firing Tests (Kidde Rev. A

Aerospace Div. )

Reaction Control System, Little Joe II P/N 892630, WK-D-AAW-0107


Reaction Control System (892630) Little Joe II, 151736


Reaction Control System, Little Joe II, Component R-1591

Qualification Support Data (Walter Kidde Co.)

Reaction Control System for Launch Stabilization of D-65-21

Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-2 on Apollo Mission

A-003, Effectiveness of

Reaction Control System Malfunctions on Little Joe DC-12-025

II Mission J, (NASA A-002) Effect ofReaction Control Systems (Module), P/N 892631 and TP-336

892613, Vibration Test Procedure for (Walter

Kidde Co. )

Reaction Control System Monopropellant Module, 12-02603

Specification for

Reaction Control System Qualification Test Results, R-1694

Bibliography and Summary of (Kidde Aerospace

Div. )

Reaction Control System Study GDC 62-247 -

Reaction Control System, P/N 892630, Little Joe H, R-1680

Vibration Test Report (Kidde Aerospace Division) Rev. A

Receiver, AN/DRW-ll UHF-FM, Qualification Test PM-12-1339

Plan for

Receiver, AN/DRW-ll, Qualification Test Report GDC 64-120

for

Receiver, AN/DRW-11 (P/N 12-32044-1) for use in GDC 64-339

Little Joe H Launch Vehicle 12-51-1 and on,


A-17



Document Drawing


Recovery Identification of Vehicle 12-50-2 GDC 64-077 -

Recovery Identification of Vehicle 12-51-1 GDC 64-243 -

Recovery Identification of Little Joe II Vehicle GDC 65-035 -

12-51-2 (Component Descriptions)

Recovery Identification Manual, Vehicle 12-51-3 GDC 65-123

RF Command Subsystem, Little Joe II Launch - 12-03270

Vehicle, Specification for

RF Command System Maintenance and Repair CS-64-010 -

Manual, Vehicle 12-51-1

RF Noise Filter, Part No. GF6099 (Genistron} 5632

Vibration Testing on (Rototest Laboratories)

Reliability Assessment Report, Mission A-002, - -

Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-1

Reliability Assessment Report, Post Launch Relia- - -bility Summary, Little Joe II Vehicle 12-51-1,

Addendum I

Reliability Assessment Report, Little Joe II, Apollo GDC 65-109

Mission A-003 (12-51-2)

Reliability Assessment Report, Post Launch Relia- GDC 65-109

bility Summary, Apollo Mission A-003 (12-51-2} Addendum I

Reliability Assessment Report, Little Joe II Apollo GDC 65-222

Mission A-004 (12-51-3}

Reliability Assessment Report, Post Launch Relia- GDC 65-222

bility Summary, Little Joe H Vehicle 12-51-3 Addendum I

Reliability Plan (Part 1) GDC 62-168 -

Reliability Plan Part II, Reliability Test Plan GDC 62-204

Reliability Program Plan (NPC 250-1) GDC 64-119 -

Reliability Report, Little Joe H (Walter Kidde Co.) R-1586

Reliability Status Report (Quarterly)

Reliability Summary (Weekly)

Reliability Testing - Static Firing Procedure for TP-332

Reaction Control System Module - P/N 892630

(Walter Kidde Co. )

Relief Valve Assembly, P/N 873948, Vibration Test R-1617 &

Report (Walter Kidde Co. }Requirements for Work and Resources (RFWAR} at GDC 62-160

White Sands Missile Range

Reservoir, Cylinder, 400 cu. in., 500 PDI, P/N 63-106

23711537, Qualification Test Report for (Taveo}

Rigging Fixture, BP-22 and AFR-02 Umbilical (P/N - 12-09295

12-91035-1) GSE Performance and Interface

Specification for

A-18



Document Drawing


Rocket-Motor Induced Airflow over the Fins of TS-12-47

Little Joe H, Study of

Rolling Moments on Vehicle 12-51-3 Such as Those TS-12-43

Produced by Thrust Misalignment and Unsym-

metrical Flow, Control of

Safe and Arm Unit Lanyard Installation, Little Joe II, PM-12-817

Design Verification Test

Safe and Arm Unit Lanyard Installation, Little Joe II, PM-12-892

Additional Design Verification Tests

Safety Kit, High Pressure Hose, GSE Performance - 12-09292

and Interface Specification

Sampling Requirements, Hydrogen Peroxide, Little GDC 64-086

Joe II

Service Cart, Hydraulic - Attitude Control System, GDC 63-134

Requirements for

Service Unit, Pneumatic - Attitude Control System, GDC 63-133

Requirements for

Servicing Trailer, Hydrogen Peroxide, GSE Per- 12-09272

formance and Interface Specification

Servicing Trailer, Pneumatic and Vacuum, GSE 12-09271


Servocontrol Valve (Moog) P/N 12-04101-1, S/N 14, PM-12-2264

Reliability Test ofServovalve, Little Joe II, Failure Analysis Report LJ-WS-04-5029-F -

Shipping Crate, Little Joe II Reaction Control, TP-338

Vibration and Shock Test Procedure for (Walter

Kidde Co. )

Shipping Crate, Little Joe II Reaction Control R-1628

System, Shock Test Report for (Walter Kidde Co.)

Sling - Aft Vehicle, GSE Performance and Interface GDC 62-214 12-09106

Specification for

Sling, Auxiliary Hydraulic Package, Little Joe H - 12-09264

P/N 91004-3, GSE Performance and Interface

Specification for

Sling - Forebody, GSE Performance and Interface GDC 62-213 12-09105

Specification for

Sling - Recruit Engine, GSE Performance and Inter- GDC 62-215 12-09107


Solid Rocket Booster Capabilities GDC 62-294 -

Stability Analysis - Little Joe II DC-12-011 -

A-19



Document Drawing

Number Number

Stand, Reaction Control System Test, GSE Perform- - 12-09273

ance and Interface Specification for

Statement of Similarity Between Models 89G122 and -

89G26, (GDC P/N 12-02605-1) (Custom Components)

Statement of Work (NASA) GDC 62-361 -

Statement of Work (Convair) CPO 26-201-44 GDC 62-369 -

Static Inverter, 3 Phase, 500 VA, for use in the - 12-06103

Attitude Control Subsystem, Specificatio n for

Static Inverter, Type 39B64-3-A 175 VA, Final 645 &

Engineering Report of Tests Conducted on Supp. 1 & 2

(Bendix - Red Bank Division)

Storage Cradle and Pad, GSE Performance and GDC 62-209 12-09101

interface Specification for

Storage Unit, High Pressure Nitrogen, Little Joe - 12-09299H P/N 12-91039, GSE Performance and Inter-


Stress Analysis, Little Joe H Attitude Control R-1588

Mounting Rack (Walter Kidde Co. )

Stress Analysis of Little Joe H QTV Dummy Pay- GDC 63-040load Structure

Stress Analysis of Little Joe H Attitude Control GDC 63-037 -

Fins

Stress Analysis for Little Joe II Attitude Control GDC 63-037

Fins, Ballast Installation for Vehicle 12-51-3 Addendum I

Stress Analysis, Ballast Installation for Vehicle GDC 63-039

12-51-3 Addendum HI

Stress Analysis, Ground Handling Equipment, Little GDC 63-041

Joe II Launch Vehicle

Stress Analysis of Little Joe H Launcher GDC 63-038 -

Stress Analysis of Retract Mechanism and Mast GDC 63-038Extension for BP-22 and AFR-2 Addendum I

Stress Analysis, Little Joe II Launch Vehicle GDC 63-039 -

Stress Analysis, Hydraulic System No. 2, Attitude GDC 63-039Control

Stress Analysis - Vehicle Ballast Installations GDC 63-039 -Addendum H

Stress Analysis of Little Joe H Stabilizing Fins GDC 63-036 -

Structural Design and Loads Criteria GDC 62-278 -

Structural Suitability of Little Joe II for Apollo TS-12-50

Mission A-004 Test Point (Mission Q)

Support Arm Protection Kit, GSE Performance - 12-09117


A-20



Document Drawing


Support Plan GDC 62-202 -

Switch, Power Changeover, Kinetics, GDC P/N GDC 65-101 -

98-62775-005, Qualification Test Report

Switch, Pressure, Tavco P/N 2144324, Qualifi- 63-104

cation Test Report to Test Report No. 56-104,

Tavco P/N 214432, Pressure Switch (Tavco)

Tank, Conditioning - Components, GSE Perform- - 12-09276


Technology, New, Semi Annual Report of - -

Teflon, High Pressure, Aircraft Hose Assemblies, 60355

Aeroquip 676000 Series and AR1211 and AR1212

Type, Report of Test on

Temperature Measurement Subsystem, Specification - 12-01102

for

Test Console, GSE Performance and Interface Spec- GDC 62-218 12-09110

ification for

Test Panel Pressure Leak, GSE Performance and 12-09118


Test Plan GDC 62-175 -

Test Set, Launch Sequence Timer, GSE Perform- - 12-05100


Test Stand, Hydraulic, Maintenance and Repair CS-64-019

ManualTester, Ignition Harness, GSE Performance and - 12-09127


Thermal Effects vs H20 2 Pressure Rise on Little GDC 64-326

Joe II Reaction Control System for Vehicle

12-51-1, Test Report

Thermal Protection, Launcher, Little Joe II T-12-2 -

Thrust Bulkhead Vibration Test, Little Joe II DF-12-114 -

Thrust Structure Model Photo Stress Tests SL-62-038 -

Thrust Termination Subsystem, Little Joe II Test - 12-03268

Launch Vehicle, Specification for

Thurst Termination System Tests, Little Joe II GDC 64-101 -

(12-98-11), Final Report

Tie-Down Criteria for Little Joe II Launch Vehicle GDC 62-278A &

Addendum I

Tie-Down Kit, Vehicle, GSE Performance and - 12-09120


Timer, Ignition/Sodeco Counter Compatibility, Test GDC 64-312

Report

A-21



Document Drawing


Timer, Launch Sequence, Electromagnetic Inter- - 12-06263

ference Test Plan

Timer, Launch Sequence, 12-61325-3, Test Report, GDC 64-329

Modification for High Energy Transients

Timer, Launch Sequence, Failure Mode and Tran- GDC 64-169

sient Analysis

Timers, 12-61325-1 and -3, Functional Test, VC&I-124 -

Results of

Timers, 12-61325-1 and -5, Functional Test, VC&I-109 -

Results of

Timer, Launch Sequence - 12-61325-3 and -5, VC&I-80 -

Functional Test of

Timer - Ignition Delay Programming, Specification - 12-06100

forTimer - Launch Sequence, for use in the Ignition - 12-06261

Subsystem of the Little Joe n Launch Test Vehicle,

Qualification Tests of

Timer, Launch Sequence (12-61325), Test Report - GDC 64-244

Input Voltage Transient Effects

Timer, Launch Sequence, Qualification Test Report GDC 64-073for

Timer, Launch Sequence, 12-61325-801, S/N 003, GDC 65-102

Qualification Test Report

Tool, Quick Disconnect Drain, GSE Performance - 12-09275


Trailer, Hydrogen Peroxide Servicing, Maintenance CS-64-021

and Repair Manual

Trailer, Pneumatic and Vacuum Servicing, Mainte- CS-64-020

nance and Repair Manual

Trailers, H20 2 - Pneumatic GSE, Little Joe II Part GDC 64-117Number Cross Reference List

Transducer Performance, Wiancko 54581, Bourns GDC 65-079

723, Comparison of

Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe CS-6"3-018 -

(12-50-1)Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe CS-63-042

(12-50-2)

Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe CS-64-018

(12-51-1)

Transportation and Handling Manual, Airframe CS-65-010

(12-51-2)

A-22



Document Drawing


Transfer Room Equipment Rack, GSE Performance - 12-09123


Two Hundred Inch Service Module GDC 63-137 -

Addendum H

Umbilical Connector, Deutsch, Test Plan for VC&I-291 -

Umbilical Connector (Deutsch) Test, Little Joe H GDC 65-124

Umbilical Disconnect Set (A-14-024) Retraction SL-64-140

Test Planning Report, Little Joe II

Umbilical Disconnect Set (A-14-024), Little Joe II, SL-64-140-1

Retraction Test Results

Umbilical Retraction Test, Little Joe II Launcher SL-63-033

Valve Assembly, Pneumatic Pressure Reducer, 24170

Sterer Part No. 24170, Convair Specification

12-04102, Similarity Qualification Test Report

(Sterer Engr. and Mfg. Co.)

Valve Assembly, Pneumatic Selector, Lock Open, 24280-3

Sterer Part No. 24280-3, Convair Specification Appendix V

Control Drawing 12-04103-3, Supplemental

Qualification Test Report for (Sterer Engr. &

Mfg.)

Valve, Pressure, Control, P/N 892591, Vibration TP-329

Test Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.)Valve Assembly, Relief, P/N 873948, Vibration Test TP-328

Procedure for (Walter Kidde Co.)

Vent Seal, Vehicle Conditioned Air, P/N 12-93000-1 - 12-09114

and -3, GSE Performance and Interface Specifi-

cation for

Vent Unit, Hydrogen Peroxide System, GSE Perform- - 12-09279


Vibration Tests, Ground, Outline of GDC 63-150 -

Vibration and Acoustic Qualification Tests for DF-12-101 -

Equipment Installed in Little Joe II Vehicle

Vibration Telemetry Components, Qualification DL-M-63-111 -

Tests

Voltage Monitor Transducer Subsystem, Specifica- - 12-06262

tion for Qualification Testing of

Voltage Monitor Transducer Subsystem, Little Joe GDC 64-185

II Test Launch Vehicle, Qualification Test Report

for

A-23



Document Drawing


Weather and Conditioned Air Cover, GSE Perform- GDC 62-210 12-09102

ante and Interface Specification for

Weight and Balance Report (Monthly) - -

Wind Limitations on Launching of Little Joe H TS-12-49 -

12-51-3 (Apollo Mission A-004)

Wind Tunnel Test Data of AN. 03 Scale GDC 63-025 -

Wire Data Manual, Launch Vehicle 12-50-1 CS-63-016 -





A-24



CCP Initiated Neg. Customer

No. Title By Authority No. Order

14 Contractor Responsibility for All NASA Letter on 1 Basic

Launcher Requirements on Launch 9- 28-62 Contract

Pad

15 Incorporation of Third Command NASA Letter on 1 Basic

Destruct Antenna 9- 28-62 Contract

16 Increased Instrumentation (Mea- Canceled and Superseded by CCP 22-----

surement System) Requirements

17 Structural Design Refinements Convair Letter on 1 Basic

9- 28-62 Contract

18 Use of April NPC 200 Series Qual- NASA Letter on

ity Documents in Lieu of Earlier Letter on 9-28-62

Issues 6-26-62

19 Differences Between Submitted Test Convair Letter on

Plan and Convair Work Statement 9-28-6220 Launch Vehicle Umbilical Reloca- Convair Letter on

tion 9- 28-62

21 Increased Launch Operations NASA/ Letter on

Requirements Convair 9-28-62

22 Increased Instrumentation (Mea- NASA APO Ltr.

surement System} Requirements 8-6-62

23 Relocation of Algol Destruct Charge NASA/ Letter on

WSMR 9-28-62

Coord.

Meetings24 Crawlway Provisions on Bulkhead Convair Letter on

34.75 9-28-62

25 Increased Quantities of Type I NASA Letter on

Documentation Letter on 9-28-62

7-31-62

26 Addition of Guy Wire Provisions on NASA/ Letter on

Vehicle WSMR 9-28-62

Meetings

8-1, 2-62

27 Destruct System Revision NASA/ Letter on

WSMR 9-28-62

7-31, 8-1

28 Launch Sequence Timer NASA DR Letter on

Mtg. 8-14 9-28-62

29 Revised Firing Sequence - (4-3) NASA Letter on Basic

9- 28-62 Contract

B-2



CC P Initiated Neg. Customer


30 Revised Program Quantity and Schcd- NASA Letter on 1 Basic

ule (Revise schedule, reduce quan- APO Ltr. 9-28-62 Contract

tity of vehicles from 7 to 4 and re- 9-14-62

lated changes to procurement of NASA

attitude control system and manu- TWX on

facture of fixed fins). 9-25-62

31 Test Shot of LittleJoe IILaunch Disapproved .........................

Vehicle

32 Revised Payload Length NASA 1 Basic

TWX Contract

R031400 Z

10-62

33 AutopilotTest Installationn First Disapproved..........................

Vehicle

34 DeterminationofAcoustic and NASA PM-12- 1 Basic

Vibration- Algol Motors 258 Contract

35 Fin Loading Revision Convair 1 Basic

Contract

36 Blockhouse toTransfer/Power Room Disapproved..........................

Wiring - Installation of

37 Cancellation of NASA Attitude Con- NASA TWX 11-15 Basic

trol Breadboard R011800 Z Contract

11-1-62

38 Fixed Fin Ground VibrationTests NASA PM-12-

385

39 RevisionofLauncher Vehicle Sup- NASA PM-12-

port Arm 368

40 Launcher StructuralRevision - Convair PM-12-

Rocket Blast Protection 385

41 Additional Fin Flutter Analysis Convair PM-12-385

42 Ground Support Equipment Revisions Convair NASA Ltr.

Ref. CA

11-29-62

43 Omission of Instrumentation, Ve- NASA Verbal 1 Basic

hicles 2, 3 and 4 11-19 & Contract

11- 21

44 Vehicle Air Conditioning Revisions NASA NASA TWX 2 Amend 1

(Additional Inlet Door) 12-123

Rll154OZ

B-3





45A Qualification Test Vehicle NASA NASA 2 Amend 1

TWX

APCA-12-

215

R182000Z

46 Deletion of Crawlway Provisions on ConvairVehicles

47A Flutter Instrumentation - Additional Convair/ NASA

Requirements (Modified) Modified TWX

by NASA 1-359

R231400 Z

48 S&A Unit Mechanical Release NASA NASA

(Destruct) TWX

1-359R231400 Z

49 Installation of Lift-off Relays NAA/ NASA TWX

NASA APCA 2-63

R042020 Z

50 Revision to Algol Motor Attachment Aerojet NASA TWX

Bolts & Convair $12-204

R181700Z

51 Destruct System Revisions NASA

52 Revisions to GSE (Cumulative) Convair

53 Power Building - Above Ground NASA NASA TWXRevis ions APCA 1- 359

R231400 Z

54 Base Thermal Protection - QTV NASA NASA TWX 2 Am ad 1

APCA2-141

R081945 Z

55 Documentary Film Canceled by NASA 4-5-63 .............

56 Revision to Algol Thrust Termina- NASA NASA TWX 2 Amend 1

tion Charge Installation APCA2-101

R062140Z

57 Two Additional Attitude Control NASA NASA TWX 3 Amend 2

Vehicles APCA3-457R222020Z

58 Addition of "Strakes" for Dummy NASA NASA TWX 2 Amend 1

Module on QTV APCA3-019

R282040Z

59 Optical Paint Pattern - Fixed Fin NASA NASA TWX 2 Amend 1

QTV APCA3-054

R041925Z

B-4





60 High Altitude Mission - Third Canceled 5-16-63 .....................

Vehicle

61 Incorporation of Test Plan Revision Convair 2 Amend 1

B in Work Statement

62 Ground Support Equipment Revisions Convair NASA TWX 4 Amend 3

APCA6-080

63 Report on New Technology Canceled .............................

64 Elevon Hinge Bearing Friction Test Convair NASA TWX 5 Amend 5APCA5-370

R142215Z

65 Structural Design Refinements Withdrawn ...........................

66 Command Destruct Thrust Termi- NASA/ NASA TWX 4 Amend 3

nation - Circuit Revision WSMR APCA5-310

R141700Z

67 Launch Sequence Timers, Design Withdrawn ...........................

Manufacture and Qualification

68 AcceleratedFiring ScheduleQTV Canceled 5-23-63.....................

#I

69 AttitudeControl System - Additional Withdrawn...........................

Qualificationesting

70 Revisionsto GSE Cumulative No. 4 NASA/ NASA TWX 4 Amend 3

Convair 7-26-63

71 Revision toAttitudeControlSystem NASA/ NASA APO 5 Amend 5

Convair Memo

4-4-63

72 Redundant Ignition System NASA NASA TWX 4 Amend 3

APCA5-173,

195 & 310

73 Redesign of Instrumentation System NASA NASA TWX 5 Amend 5APCA5-310

74 Miscellaneous Requested Studies NASA NASA TWX 4 Amend 3

APCA5-310

75 Preparation and Delivery of Master NASA NASA TWX

Schematic and Interconnection APCA5-173

Diagram

76 Addition of Umbilical Cover NASA NASA TWX

APCA5-310

77 Additional Wire Identification NASA NASA TWX 4 Amend 3

APCA5-310

78 Miscellaneous Changes (Other than NASA NASA TWX 5 Amend 5

inspection) APCA5-173,310

B-5





79 Reduction of QTV Data NASA APCAT 4 Amend 3

7-011. 225

80 Installation of NAA Pressure NASA APCA5-420

Bulkhead in 12-50-1 QTV

81 Installation of Dual Destruct NASA APCA6-082

System

82 Termination of NASA-Furnished NASA APCA6-061 4 Amend 3

Cables in Blockhouse and at Launch

Pad

83 Revisions to Operational Checkout NASA APCA5-310 5 Amend 5

Instructions

84 Installation of Radar Transponder NASA APCA6-083 4 Amend 3

Beacon System

85 Installation of Telemetering Pack- NASA APCA6-298 4 Amend 3age for Accelerometers and

Pressure Pickups in QTV

86 Additional Changes Resulting from NASA APCAT 5 Amend 5

NASA DEI of 10 June 1963 7-009.223

87 Modification of Recru{t Ignition NASA APCA6-060 4 Amend 3

System

88 Revisions to Ground Support NASA 4

Equipment - Cumulative No. 5

89 Breadboard Autopilot for NASA NASA APCAT 4 Amend 3

7-204

90 Modification of 12-51-1 Configura- NASA APCAT 4 Amend 3

tion 7-008. 222

91 Installation of Dual Destruct Sys- Withdrawn ..............................

tem for Attitude Control Vehicles

(Mod. 12-51)

92 Direct Distribution of Little Joe H Canceled - replaced by CCP 116 .........

Documentation

93 Additional Launch Operations Tasks Withdrawn ..............................

and Effect of Revised Launch

Schedules

94 Reschedule of Launcher #12-60-2 NASA NASA TWX 5 Amend 5

by NASA APCAT

6-199

95 Addition of Mercury Cell for NASA NASA TWX 5 Amend 5

Instrumented Reference Voltage APCAT

7-012o 226

B-6





96 RFI Testing - White Sands Missile NASA NASA and 5 Amend 5

Range Requirements PM-12-991

97 Incorporation of Reaction Control NASA NASA TWX

System into Breadboard Test 7-27-63

Program

98 Revised North American Aviation NASA NASA 5 Amend 5

Electrical Interface CCA No. 1

99 Compliance with Section 15 of NASA NASA 5

MSFC Drafting Manual dated CCA No. 4

5 February 1963

1O0 Acceptance Data Package NASA 6 Amend 8

i01 Implementation of MSFC-PROC- NASA NASA TWX 5 Amend 5

158B, "Uniform Requirements for APCA5-420

Soldering" APCA 6- 260102 Rewrite Field Operational Check- NASA/ NASA

out Instructions to Apollo Format WSMR CCA No. 9

103 Ignition System Revision - In NASA NASA TWX

Flight Staging APCA5-1735-195 &

5-310

104 Storage of Vehicle 12-50-2 at NASA NASA

GD/Convair CCA No. 4

105 Production Logic and Control Unit NASA NASA

and Pitch Programmer for NASA CCA No. 6Autopilot CCA No. 7

106 Contractor Furnished Batteries and Convair/ NASA 5 Amend 5

Commutators in Lieu of GFP for NASA CCA No. 5

Vehicle 12-51-1 Measurement CCA No. 6

Power

107 Thirty "G" Vibration Testing of Canceled - replaced by CCP107A ........

Reaction Control System

107A Thirty "G" Vibration Testing of NASA NASA 6 Amend 8

Reaction Control System CCA No. 2

108 Implementation of Specification NASA NASA

NSC-ASPO-C-3 CCA No. 6

109 Vibration Testing of Instrumenta- NASA NASA

tion and Autopilot Systems CCA No. 11

110 Provisioning for and Development NASA NASA 6 Amend 8

of Pitch Programmer CCA No. 4

CCA No. 5

B-7




No. Title ___By Authority No. Order

131 Separate Sinusoidal and Random GD/ 8 Amend 10

Vibration of Autopilot and Instru- Convair

mentation Systems

132 Installation of Visicorder in Power NASA NASA

Building at WSMR CCA No. 24

133 Storage of Launcher No. 2 NASA NASA

(12-60-2) CCA No. 17

134 Modification of Shaped Charge NASA NASA

Installation CCA No. 21

135 Relocation of Remote Monitoring NASA NASA

of Thrust Termination System S CCA No. 27

& A Squibs

136 Installation Requirement for Fin NASA NASA

Control System Test Stand at CCA No. 22WSMR

137 Facilities Plan - Revision of GD/ 8 Amend l0

Convair

138 Redundant De-Arming Circuitry NASA NASA 9 Amend 13

in Little Joe II Vehicle No. 12-50-2 CCA No. 29

139 Reassignment of Reaction Control GD/ NASA

Vibration Testing Convair CCA No. 2 9 Amend 13

140 Qualification Testing of AN/DRW- NASA NASA 8 Amend 10

11 Receiver CCA No. 25

141 Modification of Abort Initiation NASA NASA

Circuit for Mission A-001 CCA No. 35

142 Storage of Vehicle 12-50-3 NASA NASACCA No. 25 8 Amend 10

143 Revision to Ground Support Convair 9 Amend 13

Equipment - Cumulative No. 9

144 Battery Jumper Harnesses and NASA NASA 8 Amend 10

Thrust Termination Monitor CCA No. 34

Line Adapter

145 Thrust Termination Primaeord - NASA NASA

Vibration Test of CCA No. 33

146 Analysis of Vehicle 12-50-2 Post NASA NASA

Launch Data CCA No. 36

147 Implementation of NASA Specifi- NASA NASA 8 Am nd 10

cation MSC-ASPO-S-2 as Modified CCA No. 31

by CCA No. 31 (Solderless,

Crimped Splices of Electrical

Conductors)

B-9





148 Two Long Run Facility Cables for Convair NASA 9 Amend 13

12-51 Vehicles CCA No. 32

149 Implementation of MSC-GSE-1A NASA NASA 8 Amend 10

CCA No. 15

as modified

by CCA

No. 30

150 Implementation of NASA Reliability NASA NASA 9 Amend 13

Specification CCA No. 37

151 Repair of Yaw Caging Amplifier NASA NASA 8 Amend 10

CCA No. 41

152 Modification of Launchers to Convair NASA 9 Amend 13

Accommodate GSE Platform for CCA No. 39

Attitude Control Vehicle Servicing153 Attitude Control Test Fin and NASA NASA

Support for NASA Fin System CCA No. 38

Tests

154 Launch Facility Cab1e Study Convair- NASA

NASA CCA No. 44

155 Vibration Qualification of the Atti- NASA NASA

tude Control Hydraulic System CCA No. 40

156 Revised Qualification Test Re- NASA NASA

quirements for Hydraulic Servo CCA No. 45

Cyldinder157 Separate Testing of Instrumenta- Convair NASA

tion and Autopilot Systems CCA No. 11

158 Vehicle 12-51-1 Configuration NASA NASA

Changes CCA No. 18,

43, 52, 53

159 Implementation of Specification NASA NASA 9 Amend 13

MSC-ASPO-C3B CCA No. 47

160 Minimum Crew of Launch Opera- NASA NASA 10 Amend 17

tions Personnel CCA No. 50

161 Services of General Dynamics/ NASA NASA 9 Amend 13

Convair Analog Computer Engineer CCA No. 51at NASA-Houston

162 Revision to Ground Support Equip- Convair 9 Amend 14

ment- Cumulative No. 10

163 Facilities Plan, Up-Date Convair 9 Amend 17

164B Launch Operations Costs Withdrawn ..............................

165 Effect of Revised Schedules NASA CCA No. 9 12 Amend 22

B-10





166 Transporter Erector - Modifica- Withdrawn .............................

tion of

167 Implementation of Vehicle 12-51-1 NASA CCA No. 59 11 Amend 15

DEI Studies

168 Maintenance and Operation of a NASA CCA No. 48 10 Amend 17

NASA Telemetry Tracker at WSMR

169 Range Safety System in Kit Form NASA CCA No. 56 11 Amend 15

170A Storage of Vehicles 12-50-3 & NASA CCA No. 26

12-50-4 & 57 &

Amend 1

171 Implementation of Vehicle 12-51-1 NASA CCA No. 59

DEI Changes

172A Extended Distribution of Documen- NASA CCA No. 55 11 Amend 15

tation173 Launcher Modification for BP-22 NASA CCA No. 63 12 Amend 22

Umbilical Installation

174 Vehicle and Instrumentation OCP NASA CCA No. 68 11 Amend 15

Revisions

175B Design Changes for Vehicles NASA CCA No. 53 13 Amend 23

12-51-2 and 12-51-3

176A Range Safety System Requirements NASA CCA No. 56 11 Amend 15

R1, 56R2

&66

177 NASA Pitch Programmer - Repair NASA CCA No. 67 11 Amend 15

of Item 1

178 Revisions to Documentation Task NASA CCA No. 64, 12 Amend 22

67 (Item 2

& 3) & TWX

PR2-64-567

179 Rate Gyro Spin Motor Rotation NASA CCA No. 70

Detection of - Addition of

180 Revision to Ground Support Equip- Convair CCA No. 46,

ment- Cumulative No. 11 & NASA 61 & 62

181 Limited Environmental Testing NASA CCA No. 65 12 Ar_ _nd 22

of Instrumentation Spares for

Vehicle 12-51-1 - Waiver of

182A Range Safety System - Modifica- NASA CCA No. 71 13 Amend 23

tion of PM-12-

1825-8

183 Maintenance and Operation of NASA CCA No. 72 12 Amend 22

a NASA Telemetry Trailer at

WSMR - Extension of

B-II





184 Revision to Ground Support Convair/ CCA No. 53, 13 Amend 23

Equipment- Cumulative No. 12 NASA 69, 70, 76

185A Implementation of NASA Requested NASA CCA No. 80 13 Amend 23

Changes

186 Spacecraft Relay Box Kit NASA CCA No. 81 12 Amend 22

187B Completion of Vehicle 12-51-4- NASA CCA No. 75, 14 Amend 24

Configuration for PM-12-2157

188A Development Engineering Inspec- NASA CCA No. 77 13 Amend 23

tion for Vehicle 12-51-2 and

Changes Resulting Therefrom

189 Increased Hydraulic System NASA CCA No. 73, 14 Amend 24

Capacity. Attitude Control Instru- 76, 83 &

mentation, Structural Dynamic NASA Ltr

Analyses and Instrumentation PP8-65-Stress Testing J13 dtd

2/18/65

190B Launch Operations Services for NASA CCA No. 9 13 Amend 23

Five-Vehicle Program 13, 43, 49,

53, 58, Amend

9 to Contract,

NASA/WSMR

Ltr Statz/

Harris dtd

6/21/63

191 Facilities Plan - Revision of Convair 14 Amend 24

192A RF Command and Range Safety NASA CCA No. 83

System Receiver - Replacement of PP7-65-

540

193 Ground Support Equipment and NASA CCA No. 77,

Spares- Cumulative No. 13 78, Rev. 1

to 78, 80

194 Miscellaneous Engineering Services NASA CCA No. 84

195 Maintenance of Launcher No. 2 - Convair CCA No. 17

Extension of

196 Maintenance and Operation of a NASA CCA No. 85NASA Telemetry Trailer at WSTF -

Extension of

197 Revision to Documentation Require- NASA CCA No. 74 14 Amend 24

merits CCA No. 79

198 Additional Instrumentation NASA CCA No. 87 15 Amend 26

& Rev. 1

B-12





199 Development Engineering Inspec- NASA CCA No. 88 15 Amend 26

tion - 12-51-3 & Rev. 1

200 Ground Support Equipment and NASA CCA No. 83,

Spares - Cumulative No. 14 75 & 88

201A Vehicle 12-51-2 Post Flight NASA CCA No. 86

Investigation - Phases I and II;

Attitude Control System Investi-

gation - Redesign and Test

202 Facilities Plan - Revision of Convair

203 Pitch Programmer - In Flight NASA CCA No. 90

Starting

204 RF Command System Revision NASA CCA No. 91

205 Task Reduction - Vehicles 12-50-3 Convair CCA No. 96

and 12-50-4 Rev. 1206 Maintenance and Operation of a NASA CCA No. 95

NASA Telemetry Trailer at WSTF -

Extension of

207A Hydraulic Actuator Assembly - NASA CCA No. 93

Vibration Dwell Test

208 Ground Support Equipment and NASA CCA No. 90

Spares - Cumulative No. 15