Apollo Experience Report Mission Evaluation Team Post Flight Documentation

8/8/2019 Apollo Experience Report Mission Evaluation Team Post Flight Documentation

1/31

N A S A T E C H N I C A L N O T E NASA TN 0-8023

me40Wd

4w4z

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT -MISSION EVALUATION TEAMPOSTFLIGHT DOCUMENTATION

Joe W. Dodson und David H . CordinerLyndon B. Johnson S'uce CenterHouston, Texas 77058N A T I O N A L A E RO N A UT I CS A N D S PA CE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N W A S H I N G T O N , D. C. NOVEMBER 1975


2/31

2. Government Accession No.. Report No .NASA TN D-8023 I I4. Title and Subtitle I 5. Report Date

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

MISSION EVALUATION TEAM POSTFLIGHT DOCUMENTATIONAPOLLOEXPERIENCEREPORT JSC-075787. Author(s)

Joe W . Dodson and David H. Cor dine r8. Performing Organization Report No.S- 441

10. Work Unit No.914-13-00-00-72. Performing Organization Name and Address

Lyndon B. Johnson Space CenterHouston, Texas 77058 11 . Contract or Grant No.13 . Type of Report and Period Covered

Technical Note2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address14 . Sponsoring Agency Codeational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, D. C. 20546

15. Supplementary Notes

16. AbstractThe various postflight re po rts prepa red by the mission evaluation tea m, including the final mis-sion evaluation repo rt, repo rt supplements, anomaly re por ts, and the 5-day mission repo rt, a r edescri bed. The proced ures for prepar ing each report fr om the inputs of the various disciplinesa r e explained, and the genera l method of repo rting postflight r es ul ts is discussed. Recommenda-tions fo r postflight documentation in future spac e program s are included. The official require -ments f or postflight documentation and a typical example of an anomaly re por t a r e provided asappendixes.

17. !Cey Words (Suggested by Author(s1Records'Repor ts'Data Management'Hardware (Anomalies)Information Management

18 . Distribution StatementSTAR Subject Category:12 (Astronautics, General)

20 . Security Classif. (o f this page) 21 . No. of Pages 22. Price'19. Security Classif. (o f this report )Unclassified Unclassified I 30 I $3.75

~~~~~~ ~~

For sale by th e National Technical InformationService,Springfield, Virginia 21161


3/31

APOLLOEXPERIENCE REPORTEDITORIAL COMMITTEE

The material submitted for the Apollo Experience Reports(a series of NASA Technical Notes) was reviewed and ap-proved by a NASA Editorial Review Board at the Lyndon B.Johnson Space Cen ter cons isting of the following me mb er s:Scott H. Simpkinson (Chairman), Richard I?. Baldwin,James R. Bates, William M. Bland, J r . , Aleck C. Bond,Robert P. Burt, Ch ri s C. Crit zos, John M. Eggleston,E. M. Fields, Donald T. Gregory, Edward B. Hamblett, J r . ,Kenneth F. Hecht, David N. Holman (Editor/Secretary),and Carl R. Huss. The pr im e revi ewer for this reportwas C. C. Critzos.


4/31

CONTENTS

Section PageSUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1MISSIONREPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2MISSIONEVALUATIONPLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3BIHOURLY. DAILY. AND 5-DAY REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3PROBLEM AND DISCREPANCY REPORTS. AND 30-DAY FAILUREAND ANOMALY LISTING REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6FINAL MISSION EVALUATION REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7ANOMALYREPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11MISSION EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12APPENDIX A.POLLO PROGRAM DIRECTIVE NO. 19C . . . . . . . . . . . 13APPENDIX B- EXCERPT FROM A 30-DAY ANOMALY REPORT . . . . . . . . 23

iii


5/31

FIGURES

Figure Page1 Typical outline fo r final evaluation r epo rt excerpted fro m Apollo 15miss ion evaluation plan. Schedule based on requirement to 4ublish 90 days after cre w re cover y on August 7, 1 9 7 1 . . . . . . .

523 Suggested flow fo r pre paration of 5-day r epo rt . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Mission evaluation r epo rt prepar ation flow chart . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Example of a problem tracking list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Example from the problem and discrepancy list

(a) Example of th e ini tia l is su e of a problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(b) Example of the final iss ue of the sa me problem.Changes sin ce the previous issue a r e shownin italics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

iv


6/31

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORTMI S S l O N E V A L U A T I O N TE A M P O S TF LIG H T D O C U M E N T A T I O N .I

B y Joe W. D o d s o n a n d D a v id H. C o r d i n e rL y n d o n B . J o h n s o n Space C e n t e r

S U M M A R YApollo mission repo rting emphasized anomalies i n hardware performance sothat all pro gra m personnel would maintain full awareness of the consequences of off-nominal performanc e and take co rrect ive action to prevent rec urr enc e on subsequentmiss ions . The Apollo P ro gram postflight documentation was developed fr om theexperience gained fro m ear lie r manned spacecraft prog rams . However, the str ictform at of ea rl ie r mission evaluation repo rts was discarded in favor of presentinginformati on of special in ter est at the beginning of the repo rt .Initially, mission evaluation rep ort s st res sed spacec raft operations and hard-ware performance. A s the scope of the program broadened, incr easi ng emphasis wasplaced on scientific experiment hardware performance and on exploration of tpe lunarsurface.Detailed data on systems performance and scientific investigations were notincluded in the final evaluation repo rts but were published in s epa rat e supplements toreduce the si ze of the basic report and to adhere to the reporti ng schedule. The docu-mentation of spa cec raf t performance gradually changed fr om that of a detailed analysisto a discus sion of off-nominal conditions only. Th is approach reduced the repetition ofdat a and consequently the s iz e of succeeding reports.Automatic word processing equipment introduced for postflight documentationear ly i n the manned flight phase proved to be both fa st and economical in re por tproduction.

INTRODUCTIONThe Apollo P rogr am postflight reporting techniques we re based on the experi-ence gained i n report ing the Mercury and Gemini missi ons. A s in ear l ier programs,evaluation of Apollo boilerpla te vehicles and unmanned spacecraf t w a s reported ininitial postflight res ult s reports . Reports were also prep ared for many special te st ssuch as parachute development tests and spacecraft thermal-vacuum and acoustic-vibration tes ts. In general, the early development te st s we re documented by thecontractor or subcontr actor personnel who performed the tests . The boilerplate and


7/31

spacecraft special test pro gra ms were documented by th e organizations at the NASALyndon B. Johnson Space Cente r (JSC) ( for mer ly the Manned Spacec raft Cent er (MSC))that were responsible for those tes ts.A s t h e Apollo space craft configuration developed toward fu ll lunar operationalcapability and with the advent of the manned missi ons , a n increasing number of sys -

tem s and experiments personnel w as r equir ed to per form the evaluating and reporting.A mission evaluation team w as formed to evaluate spacecraft and crew p erforma nceand to prepa re materia l for the various mission rep ort s.The scope of this technical note is limited to a discussion of the various repo rt sprepared by the mis sion evaluat ion team and does not include all the activi tie s of prob-lem reporting, the cor rectiv e action system, or the rep ort s issued by the missiondirector.

MISSION REPORTSThe overall reporting requ iremen ts for the Apollo mission s were established byNASA Headquart ers. Assignments fo r the va rious NASA cen te rs we re delineated inApollo Program Directive No. 19 (appendix A ) . The basic directive w a s periodicallyrev ise d to reflect new or altered requirements as the Apollo P ro gr am prog ressed fr omEarth-orbital and lunar-orbital missio ns to lunar-landing missio ns. The followingrep or ts were req uired of the Apollo Spacecraft Prog ram Office at MSC for eachmission.1.2.3 .4.5 .6.7.8.

Mission evaluation planDaily scienc e reportFive-day reportThirty-day fai lur e and anomaly listing re po rtFinal mi ssion evaluation rep ortObjective a ssessm ent rep ortMission scie nce repo rtFollow-on missio n science rep or ts

The missio n evaluation team w a s responsible for the repo rts l isted as i tems 1, 3, 4 ,and 5. The mission directors daily operations r epo rt was used to some extent inpre par ing the 5-day rep ort bec ause it contained informa tion not normally availab le tothe evaluation team. The science and objective assess men t rep or ts were prepar ed byother organizations within MSC and are not d iscu sse d in this document.

2


8/31

In addition to the re por ts required by the NASA Headquarters directive, themiss ion evaluation team produced five other types of rep ort s.1. Bihourly re po rts of sys tem s stat us (fo r internal distribution only)2. Daily rep or ts of mission sta tus3. Anomaly re po rt s4. Mission evaluation report supplements5. Prob lem and discrepancy li st s

M I S S I O N EV A LU A TI ON P L A N

Although not a postflight document, the mission evaluation plan is mentionedbecause it established the postflight reporting requirements for each mission. TheApollo postflight reporting syst em requ ired the support of pe rsonnel directly assignedto the missio n evaluation team fr om variou s NASA and contractor organizations. Themis sion evaluation plan included a preliminary outline for the final mission evaluationreport . (A typical miss ion evaluation plan is contained i n refe renc e 1.) The typicaloutline shown in figu re 1 contains the personnel assignments and ref lect s the tightschedule imposed on first dra fts to meet the publication requ irement of 90 days aftercrew recov ery. An illus trati on of the rep ort preparation flow is provided in figure 2.The assignment of repo rt s before flight allowed time fo r evaluation team personne l tocoordinate and to assess the relat ive importance of the various sub jects to bedocumented.

B I H O U R L Y , D A I L Y , A N D 5 - D AY R EP OR TSBihourly and daily repor ts w ere issued during the Apollo 9 and subsequent mis-sions and were used as background information for the 5-day r epo rt. The informationw a s prepared by various mission evaluation team groups and w a s submitted for reviewthrough the cognizant anal ysis managers. Five-day report sect ions were initiated be-fo re the terminat ion of the mission . Report personnel were retained even afte r themission w a s completed until the evaluation team manager o r his counterpa rt consid-ered the report completed. By writing about mission events as they occurred, reportpersonnel assis ted i n having almost all of the report edited and typed befo re the mis -sion w a s terminated . Some sections, such as those for flight control, network, andrecovery, and the final paragrap h of the summary were included aft er the landing ofthe spacecraft.The 5-day repo rt evolved from an earl ier req uirement for a 3-day rep ort . The3-day reports had been issue d as various telegraphic o r more formal reports. Thetelegraphic r epo rt was a n expensive management tool because it s s iz e required ex-tended trans miss ion time . Also, the report was limited to typewritten copy since

3


9/31

Sect ion1o2 .o3.04.05.06. 07.07.17.27.37 .47 .57.67 .77.87 .97.108.08.18.28.38.48.58.68 .78.88.98.109.0

10 o11.011.111.2n . 312.013.014.01 5.O

ABCDEF

T i t l eSummaryIntroduct ionTra jec to ryL u n a r Surface ScienceInflight Science and PhotographyTransear th Extravehicular Act iv i tyComnand and Service Module PerformanceStructura l , Mechanica l , and ThermalElec tr ica l PowerCryogenic StorageComunica t ions , TvIns t rumenta t ionGuidance, Navigation, and ControlPropulsionmvironmental Control System and Crew StationExtravehicular Mobili ty UnitConsumablesLunar Module PerformanceS tr uc tu ra l, Mechanical, and ThermalElec tr ica l PcwerComunications and TVRadarI n st r m e n t a t ionGuidance, Navigation, and ControlEnvironmental Control System and Crew StationExtravehicular Mobili ty UnitConsumablesPi lo t ' s Repor tBiomedical Eva luati onMission Support PerformanceFlight ControlNetworkRecoveryAssessment of Mission ObjectivesLaunch Phase SummaryAnomaly SunnnaryConclusionsVehicle DescriptionVehicle HistoryPos t f l igh t Tes t ingData Avai lab i l i tyMission Report SupplementsCloss ryReferences

Propulsion

Res pons i b epersonFri ck eFle tche rMurrah/FinchS tu l l /Ba t t eyS t u l lHurt --GlynnMunford/Whi t eWhiteI r v i nMunford/Fos t e rFinchWhiteH u r tH u r tMechelayGlynnMunford/WhiteI r v i nI r v i nMunfordFinchWhiteHurtHurtMechelayS c o t tZieg ls chmidHarlanMagerKilpa t r i ck/PetersonPeacockMechelay /ki keMalleyF l e t c h e r / k i ckeCora ner /F le t che rCord inerHamiltonF o s t e rFri ckeCordiner /Fle tcherCordiner

--

--

h e da teSeptember 3August 2 3August 30September 7September 4August 27August 23August 23August 25August 24August 27August 30August 23August 30.August 27August 24August 23August 25August 25August 25August 30August 30August 27August 30August 27August 24August 27September 3August 29August 29A u g u s t 29September 8September 8September 1 4September 1 4August 1 3P r e f l i g h tSeptember 1 4September 9September 9September 1 5September 15

--

--

--

Figure 1. - Typical outline for final evaluation report excerpted from Apollo 1 5 missionevaluation plan. Schedule based on requirement to publish 90 days after crew re-covery on August 7, 1971.4


10/31

illustrations could not be transmitted. For the Apollo 9 mission, the 5-day reportreplaced the 3-day report. The additional 2 days allowed time fo r inc reased data re-trieval and for a management review of the document before publication. Anotherbenefit was a substantia l reduction in the overtime re quir ed to produce the document.Because of the incre ased scope of the 5-day report, a 15-day report requirement wascanceled.

-

The numerica l values list ed in the 5-day report were based on prelimina ry dataand were pres ented as approxim ate values to avoid conflict with subsequent reports.A sequence-of-events table presented event times to the near est second, except fo rlift-off, which was identified to a gr ea te r degree of accuracy. The number of draw-ings and graphs w a s usually limited to three, and tabu lar pres enta tions of da ta wereheld to a minimum.

Documentationsection incorporatecorrections andprepare review copy(3rd draft)

As the scope of the luna r exploration and the number of experiments i ncreased ,the 5-day schedule became extremely difficult to meet.had 41 pages.) Overtime w a s again required to adhere to the schedule. For futureprog rams , eit he r the level of deta il in the late r Apollo 5-day reports should be de-crea sed to reduce overtime, o r the publication schedule should be lengthened to 7 days.Another method of retaining the 5-day schedule would be to reduce the number ofeditorial steps, which were sim ila r to those used for the mission repo rt (fig. 2), butwhich had an accel era ted timetable. A suggested flow fo r pre par ati on of the 5-dayreport is shown in figure 3.

(The Apollo 17 mission repo rt

Editorial meeting

Analysis managerssection writeups

I

Record copy( 2 hr or less)Branch officelog and reproduce Documentationsection editingand typing(2nd draft)

Senior technical

Senior technicaleditor resolvedifferences

I- - - - - - J

I Analysis managersreview and commentBranch ch ief tInd draft

lDocumentationsection preparefinal copy andintegrate text,tables. and figuresIrublish report

Figure 2. - Mission evaluation report p repa ratio n flow chart.5


11/31

PROBLEM A ND D I S C R E P A N C YREPO RTS, AN D 30-DAY FA1 LURE AND

ANOMALY LI ST ING REPORTSDuring the mission, a li st of dis-crepancies w a s maintained on a bulletin-board-type display in the mi ssion eval-uation room so that team membe rscould be constantly awa re of problemareas. The list was updated daily, anda typewritten copy was attached to thedaily report as the "problem trackinglist" shown in figure 4. Distributionof the daily re po rt s kept managementpersonnel aware of problem st atus andhelped them to establish priorities for

the most efficient us e of personnel inquickly resolving p robl ems .After the mission, a continuedawareness of prob lems was maintainedby the publication of a problem and

Prepare finalAnalysisection writeupsanagers j - i review copyII

Lo g and reproduce

Editing and tvoina'1 Program managerreviewPrepare final copy andintegrate text , tables,and figures- I

Evaluation team managereditorial review withanalysis managersPublish report

Figure 3. - Suggested flow fo r prepa rat ionof 5-day report.

discrepancy list (fig. 5) . This l ist was a compilation of re po rt s on prob lems thatrequ ired postflight analysis and was revis ed at int erva ls of 1 to 4 weeks, depending onthe natu re and quantity of unresol ved problem s. Each problem was ca rr ie d in oneadditional iss ue af ter c loseout, and the lis t was maintained until all i tems were resolved.A 30-day failu re and anomaly listing re por t consis ted of selected it em s from the

problem and discrepancy list. The 30-day rep ort reflected the cu rre nt sta tus ofanomali es at the tim e of publication. Fi gu re s and tables were used extensively toclarify the problems, and the problem description s and the discussions of the analyse swere presented in layman's te rms . A typical example of the documentation of a flightanomaly (taken from a 30-day report) is pre sen ted in appendix B.Most of the information on anomal ies was obtained through channels norm all yavailable to the evaluation team (ref. 2) . The dire@ associati on between the flightcrewand the syst em s specia lists was an additional informati on channel that should be re tain-ed in all future manned space-flight progr ams. The postflight cre w technical debrief-ing document and the face-to-face meetings with the cre w during the s ys tems debrief-

ings provided rep ort personnel with a means of obtaining informati on on unreportedanom alies and al so provided a bett er unders tanding of anom alie s that had beenreported.

6


12/31

APOLLO 14 PROBLEM TRACKING L lST

~ ~~

After ingress, Commander's EKGw a s no t work ing p r i o r t o lift-of f . Af te r f i r s t r e v o l u t i o n ,EKG w a s working properly.F i r s t s e v e r a l a tt e m p ts a t dockingwere unsuccessful.

React ion control sys tem quad Boxid izer manlfold pressure l o s sa t s pacec ra f t / l aunch veh ic l es e p a r a t i o n .High gain antenna pitch measure-ment on PCM telem etry from03:22:00 t o 06 :31 :00 h r s Apolloe lapsed t ime. Appeared to be i n .c o r r ec t r e l a t i v e t o SIC a t t i t u d e .Unexpla ined vent ing on le f t s i deof S / C with higher than normaloxygen flow.

TEN0 .-1

2

3

4

5

Problem has clear ed and no furth eact i on planned. Spares ar e avai labl e onboard should problem recur

Poss ible causes of problem are :1. Foreign materia l jamming latchme c han i m2 . Slow response of c a p t u r e l a t c tt o l a tc h3 . Bent shaftProcedures to re turn probe hasbeen ver ifi ed and completed.Probe w i l l be i n quarant ine 21 &Analysis of transducer and associa t ed w i r ing i n p rog re ss .

Analys is in progress . No off-se thas been noted since 06:31:00.

E i t h e r a leaking vent o r va lveswere not configured for wastemanagement syst em. However noleakage has been noted since

-HISM-X

X

X

X

~~

D E S C R I P T I O N I ACTI ON I N PROGRESS

15:OO:OO A.e . t .

ACTlONS S I G N E OTOieglschm

Gl ynnNR

Munford

Irvin/DVNR

Hurt

S T A T U S

CLOSED

E S T I M A T E D:OMP L E T 101T I M EP o s t f l i g h t

3 / 1 5 / 7 1

2/2a171

3/1/71

Figure 4. - Example of a problem tracking list.F I N A L M I S S I O N E V A L UA T IO N R EP OR TS

The Apollo mi ssion evaluation repo rts were written to be easily understood byreaders from a var iety of technical and nontechnical backgrounds . The philosophy ofrep ort ing the perfo rmance of spacec raf t systems in detai l gradually changed to one ofreport ing off-nominal conditions only. This change avoided repet ition of da ta in suc -ces siv e rep ort s. The technique w a s implemented beginning with the manned lunar mod-ule flights, fo r which the re port s deemphasized the command and se rv ice module sys-te ms and placed grea te r emphasis on the lunar module sys tem s. Also, afte r the firstlunar landing, the per for mance of all spacecraft systems was reported in les s detail toprovide m or e information on the exploration of the lunar s ur face and on the perfo rm-ance of the scientific experiments. The vehicle description in each report was re-st ri cte d to the differenc es fro m the preceding space craft hardware. The format of therep ort s al so changed as the edi tor s highlighted ar eas of spe cia l inte rest by placing themat the beginning.

7


13/31

P R O B L E M A N D D I S C R E P A N C Y L I S T No. CSM-3Stateineiit of Prohlcni:e r v i ce p r o p ul s i o n s y s te m t h r u s t l i g h t on e n t r y m n i t o r s y st e m came o n.

Discussion:' r o u b l e s h o o t i ng p r o c e d u r e s u se d d u r i n g a t e s t f i r i n g i n d i c a t e a s h o r t i n g c o n d i t i o n l o c a t e din t h e g ro un d s i d e of t h e s e r v i c e p r o p u l s i o n s y s te m p i l o t v a l v e s o l e n o i d s . The s ys t em Al e l t a V t h r u s t s w i t ch w a s f ou nd t o be i n t e r m i t t e n t l y s h o r t e d t o g r ou nd .lo i n d i c a t i o n of t h e TM f i r e s i g n a l d u r i n g b oo s t o r a t d o c k i n g .' o s t f l i g h t t e s t i n g w i l l be c o n d u c t e d t o d e t er m i n e t h e l o c a t i o n of the s h o r t .

ASHUR 112015Auc~23cheduIe:

I Data Rev iew 1111111~~ ~

An a l y s i s

3-

Notes:

Personnel Assigned:R . MunfordNR/H. Horii

Co l ic lusioi is:

(a) Example of the initial issue of a problem.Figure 5. Example from the problem and discrepancy list.

8


14/31

.No CSM-3R O B L E M A N D D I S C R E P A N C Y L I S T

~~

Statement of Prohlcm:e r v i c e p r o p u l s i o n s y s t em t h r u s t l i g h t o n e n t r y m o ni to r s y s t em cam e o n .

D Iscussion'' r o u b l e s h o o t i n g p r o ce d u r e s u s e d d u r i n g a t e s t f i r i n g i n d i c a t e a s h o r t i n g c o n d i t io n l o c a t e dIn t h e g r ou nd s i d e o f t h e s e r v i c e p r o p u l s i o n s y s t e m p i l o t v a l v e s o l e n o i d s .le l ta V t h r u s t s w i tc h w a s f o u n d t o be i n t e r m i t t e n t l y s h o r t e d t o g r o un d .' m e r off con tin uit y checks star ti ng a t most remote accessil le i nt erf ace and dorkiny t m ar d;26 on panel 1 , did v er if y tha t short circu?:t uas located on panel 1 .2emoved the short s t i l l exi ste d on panel 1 but af te r subsequent troubleshooting the short&wppePred.,raided cable. T h e switch has been cut open and a microscopic analysis of the switch w i l l)e completed by t he evenin g of 8 - 27 - 7 1 .;23 uas X-rayed and disect ed and found t o be sat isf act ord . dis ect iny of 526 disclosed!oose piece of &re on the f lange of the c ente r contact a ssociated wit h the anomaly inrddi t ion t o the strand protruding from the braid noted above.

The s ys tem A

Wilen panel 1 wasX-rays of m i t c h r e v ea le d t ha t a strand of t i r e m s protruding from the

CLOSEDSchedule: Aug Aug Sept Sepl2 3 30 6 1 3

Notes:4SHUR 112015

Perso nileI A s s icjnetl :R. MunfordNR/H. H o r i i , C . B . P e r k i n sConc lits ions:

?he loose piece o f wire i n the wi t c h caused the f l ig ht problem.be added f o r crew sa fe ty and mission success mi tc he s f o r Apollo 16 and 1 7 .

Screened switches will

(b) Example of the final issue of the same problem. Changes since theprevious issue are shown in italics.Figure 5. Concluded.

9


15/31

Although one of the editing philosophies was t o di scus s a subject only once, th ispracti ce was not always possible because a re as of technical inter est frequently over-lapped. In these cases, the subject was covered in detail only in the section in whichit was of primary interest and w a s mentioned briefly in other sections; by this means,much redundant information was eliminated. For example, information presen ted inthe pilots' section of the repor t w a s not discussed in detail elsewhere, and anomalieswere discussed briefly in the appropriate system performance section but were coveredthoroughly in a sep ara te anomaly section.

Information fo r the repor t was obtained fro m varied sour ces . Systems special-ists, experiment principal investigators, medical personnel, contr actors , and person-nel fro m other NASA cent ers presente d th eir rep ort m ate ria l through an analysis man-ager . All changes or additions to the mate rial were negotiated between the editori alstaff and the analysis manager. After the Apollo 7 mission, all reports were typed onautomatic word pro cessin g machines and, thereby, the number of required typists w a sreduced from seven to three. The machines were par ticu larl y useful for making indi-vidual word or sentence changes. Also, the final copy produced w a s more attractivethan that from a standard office typewriter.Illustration and graphic art prepa ration followed a flow si mi la r to that of the text.The illustration requests were assigned control numbers and presented to appropriateillustration spec ialists. After a figure, graph, o r table w as completed, the productwas reviewed by the cognizant analysis manager f or a ccura cy and for possibleimprovement.Beginning with the Apollo 1 2 missio n evaluation repor t, tables, figures, andgraphs were int egrated with the text. The NASA standard sequence of text, tab les ,and figure s w a s thought to detra ct fro m re ad er comprehension when many pages had tobe turned t o follow the figure-text relationship. Figur es and table s were theref oresized to fit within the text in the mos t convenient place following the r efe rence. Al-

though th is method added approximately l week to the pre paration of the report , it isrecommended for future repor ts because of the improved text- figure relationship.The anomaly section of the re port desc ribed the significant pro blems encounteredduring the mission, the methods and rationale used to understand the cause s of prob-lems, and the subsequent cor rec tive actions taken. This sectio n updated informationcontained in the 30-day anomaly report , and mos t of the anomalies we re res olved be-fo re publication of the mission evaluation report.A cumulative listin g of Apollo missions, print ed inside th e front and back coversof the mission evaluation report s, included the mission designation, the mission eval-uation rep ort number, the spacecr aft designation, the launch date, the launch site, and

a brief descr iption of each mission. These lists proved to be valuable as readily ac-cessible references.Because of the signif icance of the Apollo 11 mission, a spe cia l ver sion of themissio n evaluation rep ort (ref. 3) was made available to the general public. This re-port may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,Virginia 22151.

10


16/31

ANOMALY REPORTS

The anomaly repor ts written for the ear ly Apollo mission s were intern al notestha t included discus sions of individual anomalies contained in the mi ssion re por ts.mis sion repo rt s contained brief desc rip tions of the anomal ies but did not include thedetails that were available in the anomaly reports. The anomaly re po rts were issuedfor problems encountered during the countdown as well as during the flight. La te rin the program, anomaly rep ort s were restri cted to flight problems that were notresolved in time for inclusion in the final mission rep ort . Also, anomaly rep or tswere issued individually when the content w a s considered too extensive fo r the mis-sion report. This w a s the case with the Apollo 13 cryogenic oxygen tank 2 anomaly,which caused the m ission to be aborted.

The

Because the command module w a s returned to Earth, disposition of commandmodule anomalies was sim ple r than fo r those of the ser vic e module, the lunar module,and the scien tific experiments. Although the command module hardwa re w a s availablefo r anomaly investigations, evaluation w as sometimes delayed because of the quaran-.tine restrictLon imposed on the e ar ly lunar-landing missions.

M I S S I O N E VA LU AT IO N REPORT SUPPLEMENTSSupplements were issue d to re por t mission- relate d technical information ingreater detail than that known when the mission evaluation report was published. The

first supplements were issue d for the Apollo 7 mission. Beginning with the Apollo 1 2missio n evaluation repo rt, a li st of the supplements w as pre sen ted (in appendix E ofeach final report), so that interested pa rtie s could be aware of additional technicalinformation that was available. The li st included the pre limi nar y science rep or ts andthe an alyses of photographs and visual observat ions, which were not produced by themissio n evaluation team.

Report supplements added to the number of documents ass ociated with a spe-cific mission ; however, the quantity of pages in the final mis sion evaluation repor tw a s great ly reduced by limiting detailed discussion in the mis sion evaluation rep orts,and the distributio n of th e supplements was much sma ll er than that of the missio n evaluationreport s. The concept of rep or t supplements should be retained in future progra ms.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe following conclusions and recommendations can be made.1. The mis sion evaluation plan provided an effective management tool fo r theorgan izatio n and opera tion of the missi on evaluation team. The plan als o provided a nexcellent means of combining the information necessary for personne l of many disci-pline s into one document. A simi la r document should be used in futur e pro gra ms be-cau se of its effectiveness in aiding team development and management.

11


17/31


18/31

A P P E N D I X AA P O L LO P R O G R A M D I R E C T I V E N O . 1 9C


19/31

DATEOFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT 1M-D 1400.109

(Proicct) I 3/4/70ROGRAM DIRE CTIVETu

AF'OLLO PROGRAM DIRECTIVE N O . 19 C

: DISTRIBUTION FROM :Rocco A. Pe t roneApollo Program Director

SUBJECT : Apollo Mission Evaluation Reporting RequirementsOFFICE OF PRIME RESPONSIBILITY: Apollo Tes t (MAT)REFERENCES: ( a ) Ap ol lo Te st Requ irem ents, N H B 8080.1

( b )( e ) Apollo Program Dir ect ive No. 4 4 A( d ) Apollo Program Directive No. 8 A( e )( f ) Apollo Program Directive No. 52( g )

Apollo Re l i a b i l i ty and Qua l i ty AssuranceProgram Plan, NHB 5300.1A

Apollo Program Directive No. 7Apollo Mission Failure Contingency Plan

I . PURPOSET h is d i r e c t i v e e s t a b l i s h e s m i s si o n e v a l u at i o n r e p o r t i n g r e q ui r em e n tsf o r Apollo miss ions t o ensure the m a x i m u m amount of sys tems , ope ra t iona la n d s c i e n t i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n i s ' ava i l ab le t o Apol lo Program/Pro ject Of f i cesi n a t ime ly manner fo r use i n fol low-on miss ion pre para t ion as w e l l a sf o r app ropr ia te d issemin at ion t o elements of th e government , th e sc ien-t i f i c community and t h e publ ic . This re vi s i on supersedes Apol lo ProgramD i r e c t i v e No. 1 9 B da ted Ju ly 22 , 1969, and t h e Addendum d at edSeptember 23, 1 9 6 9 .

11. SCOPEThe Apollo Mission Evaluation Reporting Requirements d e s c r i b e d h e r e i ncover :A . Miss ion eva lua t ion p lans , r epor t s , mee t ings and rev iews .B. Sc ie n t i f i c da ta f rom exper imen ts and luna r s u r f ace s amples .C . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a l l s pa c e v e h i c l e , l a un c h a c t i v e gro un d su p p o r t

equipment and experiment fa i l ur es and anomal ies .cD. Determina t ion o f th e cause o f fa i lu re s and anomalie s, th e i r c loseou t ,

co rr ec t iv e ac t io ns f or subsequent miss ions , and impact on th e Apol loProgram.

4

NASA FORM 644 ( R E V .J U L . a01 PREVIOUS EDITIONS A R E OBSOLETE P A C f 1 O F 7 P M E S

15

~ ~~


20/31

MA 1400.109(Project)M -D -F f CE OF MANNED SPACE f LIGHTP R O G R A M DIRECTIVE

111. PLANNING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

DATE3 / 4 / 7 0

&

Mission evaluation planning and reporting shall be accomplished by theApollo Program Office ( A P O ) and the centers (MSFC, MSC, KSC) in accordancewith the general requirements in references (a) and ( b ) .paragraphs summarize these requirements and identify the minimum planand report contents as well as responsibilities for the contents:

The following

A. Mission Evaluation Plans (KSC, MSFC, MSC)Evaluation plans for each mission or block of missions will beprepared and submitted to the Apollo Program Director prior to themission. These plans will include as a minimum:1. Mission evaluation organization, reporting, and review require-ments outlined in this directive.2. Mission evaluation meeting schedules (including flight crewdebriefing meetings) agenda, and coordination responsibilities.3. Procedures for failure and anomaly closeout.4. Intercenter coordination plan and responsibilities.

B. Reporting Requirements1. Daily Reports During the Mission ( A P O )

The Mission Director will issue Daily Reports throughout themission. At the request of the Mission Director, or hisdesignated representative, KSC, MSFC, and MSC will providethe necessary information to support the preparation of thesereports. Each daily report will cover the previous twenty-fourhour period and will be in two parts, as follows:a. Operations

A summarization of mission progress accomplishments,events and systems performance including failures andanomalies.b. Science

Data on EASEP and ALSEP system and experiment status, per-formance and any events of scientific importance that havebeen detected. Failures and anomalies are to be included.Significant results of other scientific and engineeringexperiments performed on o r in conJunction with the missionas they become available.

-P A C E 2 O F 7 P M E SNASA f O R Y 64 4 ( R E V . J U L . a u l P R E V I O U S E D I T I O N a A R K O D S O L E T E

16


21/31

OFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHTPROGRAM DIRECTIVEDATEI 3/4/70IM- D 1400.109Project) -

2 . Mission Director's Summary Report (AF'O)The Miss ion Direc tor w i l l issue a Summary Report within twenty-f o u r ho u r s a f t e r a s t r o n a u t r e c o v er y .r e p o r t i s t o pr ovi de management wi th a "q uick loo k" summary ofo v e r a l l m is si on r e s u l t s and t h e s p e c i f i c c o n te n t w i l l bedetermined by th e Miss ion Direc tor . A t the requesk o f t h eM i ss io n D i r e c t o r , or h i s desig nated re pr es en ta ti ve , KSC, MSFC,and MSC w i l l prov ide th e necessa ry in fo rma t ion t o s u p p o r t t h ep r e p a ra t i o n o f t h e r e p o r t .summarize th e miss ion i n te rms of pr imary and de ta i l ed objec-t iv e s accomplished, miss ion events , sc ience achievements andsystems performance inc lud ing fa i lu re s and anomal ie s .

The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s

In ge ne ral , t h e Summary Report w i l l

3 . Daily Science Reports After the Miss ion (MSC)The Center w i l l submit D ai ly Science Reports t o t h e APO fo r t h eper iod of r e a l t im e ALSEP s uppo rt .previo us twenty-four hour per iod.Science Reports w i l l be a s l i s t e d i n I11 B l b a bo ve p l u s t h efo l lowing :

Each report w i l l cove r theThe scope of th e Dai ly

9 .

S c i e n t i f i c d a t a o f g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t r e s u l t i n g f rom t h e exami-nat i on of t he lu nar samples in th e Lunar Receiving Labora tory .Subsequent t o th e Da i ly Science Report pe r iod , th e Cen ter w i l lr e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t s c i e n t i f i c and e n gi n ee r in g e v en t s as they occur .

4. F iv e Day Repor t (KSC, MSFC, MSC)The Centers w i l l supply a re por t t o th e Apol lo Program Di rec to rw i t h i n f i v e c a l e n da r d ay s a f t e r a s t r o n a u t r e z o v er y . The r e p o r t sw i l l con ta in the fo l lowing in fo rma t ion :a . KSC Report ? -

Summay of major KSC flow events lea di ng t o t he lau nch ,a tmospheric condi t ions during f ina l countdown and launch,ac t i v e GSE performance and condi t ion f o r next f l i g h t ,a c t i v e GSE f a i l u r e s and a no ma li es t o t h e d e t a i l r e q u ir e dby paragraph 111. B. 5. a . th ru d . below. Updates of t h er e p o r t w i l l be t ransm i t t ed t o th e Apollo Program Di rec to ru n t i l a l l s i g n i f i c a n t f a i l u r e s a nd a n om a li es a r e c l o s e d .

b . MSFC ReportRepor t o f th e degree to which l aunch veh i c le ob jec t iv es haveb ee n s a t i s f i e d , m ajor l a un c h v e h i c l e t r a j e c t o r y - . r e s u l t sinc lud ing compari sons wi th p red ic ted cond i t i ons , l aunchv e h i c l e f a i l u r e s and a no m al ie s, f a i l u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n re su l t sand c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n s / c l o s u r e s .

NASA FORM 644 ( R E V . J U L . eo ) P R E V I O U I E D I T I O NS A R C O m I O L E T E P I O C 3 O P T P M E S

17


22/31

OFFI CE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHTP R O G R A M DIRECTIVEDATEI 3/4/70~ - 1400.109Project) -

c. MSC ReportReport of the degree to which spacecraft objectives have beensatisfied, major spacecraft trajectory results including com-parison with predicted conditions, spacecraft failures andanomalies, failure investigation results, corrective actions/closures.

5 . Failure and Anomalies Listing Report (MSFC, MSC)Within 30 calendar days after launch, MSFC will provide to theApollo Program Director a concise but complete report applicableto Center design responsibilities, of all significant countdown,flight, and experiment failures and anomalies. In the case ofMSC, a similar listing including experiment equipment on thelunar surface or in earth or lunar orbit is due 30 calendar daysafter astronaut recovery. As a minimum requirement the listingwill include the following:a. Description of the failure or anomaly, the time in the missionwhen it occurred, the possible mode or cause, the results offailure analysis, if available, and identification of anysimilar prior ground or flight test failures.b. Criticality of the failure or anomaly, the degree to which it

Criticality categories of non-compromised a primary or secondary mission objective and theimpact on subsequent mission.conformance are described in reference (c)c. Identification of any testing required in support of correctiveaction, the schedule for the testing, and whether it is a

constraint on following missions.d. Corrective action to be undertaken: this will include identi-fication of required redesign and/or modification, revisionsto the qualification or certification testing or checkoutactivities; mission effectivity of any changes and a statementas to whether the failure or anoma1.y is considered resolvedor open. Anticipated closeout dates for failure and anomalycorrective actions should be identified when practicable.The above report will be used as a baseline for failure and anomalytracking and closeout.failure and anomaly section of the Final Missinn Evaluation Reportidentified in 111. B. 6. below. Additional updates will be trans-mitted to the Apollo Program Director until all significant failuresand anomalies are closed.

It should be updated and included as the

6. Final Mission Evaluation Report (MSFC, MSC)Final Mission Evaluation Reports will be submitted to the ApolloProgram Director within 90 calendar days after astronaut recovery.

NASA FORM 64 4 ( R e v . J U L . Pncvlous LOITION# A R C O ~ ~ O L E T L 4 O F 7 D M E S


23/31


24/31

OFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHTPROGRAM DIRECTIVE 1400. ogIM -D MA (Project) I 3/4/70

I V .

V .

V I .

9 .

10.

d . A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e t u r n e d l u n a r s a mp le s b a se d upont h e p r e l i m i n a r y e x am i n at i on o f t h e s am pl es i n t h e L un arReceiving Laboratory.

e. Photographs, as a p p r o p r i a t e , a r e t o b e i n c l u de d w i t h e a chof t h e above.A t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e Ap ol lo P r o g r a m .D i r e c to r , i n c o o r d i n a t i o nwi th th e Admi nis t ra tor , t h e Miss ion Science Report may bepublisherl as a NASA Sp ec ia l Pub li ca ti on .Follow-on Missi on Sci en ce Re po rt s (MSC)Subsequen t t o th e d i s con t inuance o f t he Da i ly Repor t s a f t e rt h e m is s i on , t h e C e n te r w i l l p r ov i de a n in f or m a l l e t t e r r e p o r tevery month on th e s t a t u s and performance o f each system andexperiment emplaced on t h e moon. Thi s requir emen t w i l l bed i s c o n t i n u e d upon n o t i f i c a t i o n b y 0 .FRR and DCR DocumentationFo r t h e subsequent F li gh t Readiness Review (FRR) and wherea p p l i c a b l e f o r D es ig n C e r t i f i c a t i o n R ev iew s ( D C R ) , t h e u p d a t edf a i l u r e an d a no m al ie s i d e n t i f i e d i n 111. B. 5 . a r e t o b e s ub-m i t t e d as p a r t o f t h e FRR and DCR documentation and presentedas p a r t o f t h e o r a l p r e se n t at i o ns a t the Apollo ProgramD i r e c t o r s FRR. FRR and DCR documentat ion and pre sen ta t ionrequ i rements a r e e s tab l i she d by re fe rence s ( a ) a n d ( e ) .

FLIGHT EVALUATION MEETINGS (MSC, MSFC)The Centers w i l l c on du ct f l i g h t e v a l u a t i o n m ee t in g s a f t e r e a ch m i s s io nfo r Cen ter and in te r -Cen te r coord ina t i on purposes and t o suppor t th er e p o r t i n g , r e vi e w , and p r e s e n t a t i o n r e q u i r e m en t s o u t l i n e d i n t h i sd i r e c t i v e . F l i g h t cr ew d e b r i e f i n g m e e ti n gs w i l l be s chedu led by th eMSC Di rec tor of Fl ig ht Crew Opera t i ons . The APO and the o the r Cen te rsw i l l b e n o t i f i e d o f t h e s e m e et in g s t o a l l ow a p p ro p r i at e p a r t i c i p a t i o n .FLIGHT ENALUATION PRESENTATION TO THE MANAGEMENT C O U N C ILPre l imina ry re su l t s o f each mis s ion a r e t o be summarized by Cen te rProgram Off ice rep res ent a t i ves a t t h e Management C ounc il Meetingf o l l ow i n g t h e m i s s i o n .BACK CONTAMINATION ( M S C )Reports assoc ia ted w i th back contam inat ion w i l l b e t h o s e e s t a b l i s h e di n r e f e r e n c e ( f ) .

20

~

Om 6 OF 7 P*.E


25/31

- I IOFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHTP R O G R A M DIRECTIVE

DATE1M-D 1400.109Project) 1 3/4/70V I I .

V I I I .

I X .

CONTINGENCY PLAN

1n . t he even t o f p remature or unsucces s fu l t e rmina t ion o f an Apol loMiss ion the requirements f o r s e c u r i t y , i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r o c ed u r e s, d a t ahandl in g, and repoxt i ng w i l l b e t h o se e s ta b l is h e d i n r e f e r e n c e ( g ) .

Th i s Di rec t ive sh a l l be implemented immedia te ly f o r rep or t ing t he re su l t sof A p ol lo f l i g h t s and t o e n su r e t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f m i ss io n f a i l u r e sand anomal ie s and su i t ab le co r re c t i ve ac t ions have been t aken .DEFINITIONSThe f o ll o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s s h a l l a pp l y t o t h i s D i r e c t i v e :A. F a i l u r e

The i n a b i l i t y o f a system, subsystem, and/or hardware t o performi t s r e q u i r e d f u n c t i o n .B. Anomaly

Any de vi at io n of system, subsystem, and/or hardware performancebeyond p rev ious ly e s tab l i shed l i m i t s .

C. S i g n i f i c a n t F a i l u r e o r AnomalyAny fa i lure o r anomaly which creates o r c o u l d c r e z t e a hazardouss i t u a t i o n o r co n di ti o n; r e s u l t s o r c o ul d r e s u l t i n a l au n ch d e l a yo r endanger th e accomplishment of a primary o r secondary mis siono b j e c t i v e ; would i n d i c a t e a se r ious des ign de f ic iency ; o r couldhave s er io us impact on fut ur e miss ions .

Attachment - Report Schedule

2

PIOC 7 O F 7 P Y E SNASA FORM 64 4 (R E V . JUL. an1 PRFVIOUS EDITIONS A R C OBSOLETE

2 1


26/31

-MI ss ON -PASTRONAUlMIS SIO N DIRECTOR

Daily report u u u u vSummary reportMANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER IMSCl

Daily science reportsFive day reportFailure and anomaly l ist i ngFinal mission evaluation reportObjective assessment reportMiss ion science reportFollow-on mission science reports

MARSHALL SPACE F L I G H T CENTER lMSFClFive day reportFailure and anomaly listingFinal mission evaluation reportObjective assessment report

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER IK SC )Five day report Iincludes fail ureand anomaly listing and groundsystems evaluation reporl l40%

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10J I " ":COVERY

I I I I I 1 1 I IIII1 III

Id l

Requi,red lor period O freal time ALSEP supportThereafter, report o fsignif icant scient if icand engineering eventsas they occurDu e th i r ty daysl i l t o l l

after

D n f o r m a letter reportscon t inue un t i l no t il iedby APO

22


27/31

A P P E N D I X BEXCERPT FROM A 30-DAY ANOMALY REPORT


28/31

1 . 0 INTRODUCTION

T h i s r e p o r t c o n t a i n s a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t a n o ma li es t h a tThe d i scuss ion of t hese i t e m s i sccur red dur ing t he Apol lo 14 miss ion .d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r m aj or a r e a s : command and se rv ic e modules; lu na r module;government furnished equipment; and Apol lo lun ar sur fac e exper iments pack-

age. In many of t he anomali es , ha rdware i s be ing he ld i n qua ran t ine wi tht h e s p a c e c r a f t , a nd c o ns e q u e n tl y , no p o s t f l i g h t t e s t s can be conductedu n t i l t h e s p a c e c r a f t a n d e qu ip me nt a r e r e l e a s e d o n A p r i l 4, 1971.

2.0 COMMAND AND SERVICE MODULE ANOMALIES

2 .1 FAILURE TO ACHIEVE DOCKING PROBE CAPTURE LATCH ENGAGEMENTSi x docking a t tem pts w e r e r e q u i r e d t o s u c c e s s f u l ly a c h ie v e c a p t u r e

l a t c h engagement dur ing th e t r ans po s i t i on and dock ing even t . Subsequenti n f l i g h t examin ation o f t h e probe showed normal ope rat io n of th e mechan-i s m .a n a l y s i s o f f i l m , a c c e le r o m e t er s , a nd r e a c t i o n c o n t r o l s y s te m t h r u s t e ra c t i v i t y i nd i ca t es t h a t p robe- to -drogue con tac t condi t i on s were normalf o r . a l l d oc ki ng a t t e m p t s , a nd c a p t u re should have been achieved fo r th ef i v e unsuccess fu l a t t empt s ( t a b l e 2 -1). The cap ture l a t c h assembly mustn o t h a ve bee n i n t h e l o ck e d c o n fi g u r at i o n d u ri n g t h e f i r s t f i v e a t t e m p tsbased on the fo l l owing:

The lunar orbi t undocking and docking were completely normal. Data

a . The probe s t a tu s t a lkback d i s p l ays fun c t ioned proper ly be foreand a f t e r t h e u n s u c c es s f u l a t t e m p t s , t h u s i n d i c a t i n g p r o p e r s w i t c h o pe r-a t i o n and power t o t h e t a lkback c i r cu i t s . The t a lkback d i sp l ay s alwaysi n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c a p t u re l a t c h e s were i n t h e c oc ke d p o s i t i o n d u r in gt h e u n s u c c e ss f u l a t t e m p t s ( f i g . 2- 1 ). ( No te t h a t no e l e c t r i c a l poweri s r equ i r ed t o cap ture because t h e syst em i s c oc ke d p r i o r t o f l i g h t andt h e c a p t ur e o p e r a t i o n i s s t r i c t l y m ec ha ni ca l a nd t r i g g e r e d b y t h e d r o g u e .)

b . Each of t he s ix marks / sc ra tches on the d rogue r e su l t ed f roms e p a r a t e c o n t a c t s b y t h e p r ob e he ad ( f i g . 2 - 2 ).marks ar e approximately 120 degre es apar t , a docking impact with lockedc a p t u r e l a t c h e s s h o u ld r e s u l t i n t h r e e d ou b le ma rk s ( t o m atc h t h e l a t c hhooks ) 120 degrees apa r t , and wi th in one i nch of t h e d rogue apex ors o c k e t . A lt ho ug h t h e d ro gu e s c r a t c h e s co u ld i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u -a l c a p t ur e l a t c h hoo ks w ere d i f f i c u l t t o d e p re s s, s uc h s c r a t c h e s a r e n o tabnormal fo r impac t ve lo c i t i e s g r ea t e r t han 0 .25 f e e t pe r second .

Although th re e o f t he

25


29/31

Since the latches were not locked, the anomaly was apparently causedby failure of the capture latch plunger (fig. 2-1) to reach the forwardor locked position. Motion of thc plunger could have been restricted bycontamination and dimensional changes due to temperature. Internal dam-age to the capture latch mechanism can be ruled out because the systemfunctioned properly in all subsequent operations following the sixthdocking attempt.

An analysis is underway to determine any potential thermal effectson the mechanism and the critical areas of the assembly relative to con-tamination.Test activity in support of the investigation consists of two parts.

The initial part, using a test probe, will consist of capture latch re-sponse measurements to determine any aging degradation of the system andtension tie tests to determine the effect of shear pin fracture whichoccurs when the escape tower is jettisoned. The second test part con-sists of a thorough inspection of the Apollo 14 probe following releasefrom quarantine on April 4, 1971.

Effort is currently in progress to im-prove cleanliness requirementsand provide additional protection against possible contamination for sub-sequent docking probes. Other requirement:; will depend upon the resultsof the investigation.This anomaly is open.

26


30/31

X

0f)

2 % 2r l w k(I)-9GiV

0-9 0f)a,m0

0-9 0 0 0 0c , t - ' f ) t - 'a,00riu

a,(00r lu

U a J a J a ,m m m m0 0 0 0d 4 r l r - iu u u urlu

rn2nwffi . .LdP . . .LdP 0n

tJ

' 4 iLd5HR

G %HQ2wffi ae aq o t a ,U . d & f ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0L d f ) O G 0 o m o m o o o of) .rl 0 a, .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .d m r i * d rl m 3 a c o ~ - m w-O O U k r lU Q 0E?

EN3 (u2a

ln00f)

In00f)

In(u

0?0

N0

30

0! J

0? In

0c'! a

030

mmIn..7!M

J0.. o\0.. mJ-3:m

m3v3rlm

ri-3(uM

..mJJv3L nJ

. .r i a?m -3rlrn.. 3

27


31/31

Yshow cocked positionJ

Figure 2- 1. - Cr os s section of probehead and capture latch assembl y.

2-314 in.'--1-118 in .

3-114 in./ BE0 Al l marks are single0 E and F shiny marks in dry lubricant0 A , B . C and D are wide single marks having

.

slight depression with scratch throughdry lubricant i n center

Figure 2-2. - Location of ma rk s ondrogue assembly.

Apollo Experience Report Mission Evaluation Team Post Flight Documentation

Documents

Transcript of Apollo Experience Report Mission Evaluation Team Post Flight Documentation