The uses of rendezvous techniques in space were discussed in a paper read to the Second International Congress on Astronautics in London, England. The problems involved in refueling in space might be simplified considerably if astronauts could maneuver freely, perhaps using a gas-jet pistol and a lifeline. The construction of a space station might then be possible. Mechanical linkage of objects in space was described as the most difficult task of all. While computing the position of an object in orbit might be comparatively easy, linking up with the object without damage by impact would require human intelligence to anticipate error in the attitude of approach.

NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan requested $3 million for research into rendezvous techniques as part of the NASA budget for Fiscal Year 1960. In subsequent hearings, DeMarquis D. Wyatt, Assistant to the NASA Director of Space Flight Development, explained that these funds would be used to resolve certain key problems in making space rendezvous practical. Among these were the establishment of referencing methods for fixing the relative positions of two vehicles in space; the development of accurate, lightweight target-acquisition equipment to enable the supply craft to locate the space station; the development of very accurate guidance and control systems to permit precisely determined flight paths; and the development of sources of controlled power.

A House Committee Staff Report stated that lunar flights would originate from space platforms in earth orbit according to current planning. The final decision on the method to be used, "which must be made soon," would take into consideration the difficulty of space rendezvous between a space platform and space vehicles as compared with the difficulty of developing single vehicles large enough to proceed directly from the earth to the moon.

In a memorandum to the members of the Research Steering Committee on Manned Space Flight, Chairman Harry J. Goett discussed the increased importance of the weight of the "end vehicle" in the lunar landing mission. This was to be an item on the agenda of the third meeting of the Committee, to be held in early December. Abe Silverstein, Director of the NASA Office of Space Flight Development, had recently mentioned to Goett that a decision would be made within the next few weeks on the configuration of successive generations of Saturn, primarily the upper stages, Silverstein and Goett had discussed the Committee's views on a lunar spacecraft. Goett expressed the hope in the memorandum that members of the Committee would have some specific ideas at their forthcoming meeting about the probable weight of the spacecraft.

In addition, Goett informed the Committee that the Vega had been eliminated as a possible booster for use in one of the intermediate steps leading to the lunar mission. The primary possibility for the earth satellite mission was now the first-generation Saturn and for the lunar flight the second-generation Saturn.

Several possible configurations for a manned lunar landing by direct ascent being studied at the Lewis Research Center were described to the Research Steering Committee by Seymour C. Himmel. A six-stage launch vehicle would be required, the first three stages to boost the spacecraft to orbital speed, the fourth to attain escape speed, the fifth for lunar landing, and the sixth for lunar escape with a 10,000-pound return vehicle. One representative configuration had an overall height of 320 feet. H. H. Koelle of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency argued that orbital assembly or refueling in orbit (earth orbit rendezvous) was more flexible, more straightforward, and easier than the direct ascent approach. Bruce T. Lundin of the Lewis Research Center felt that refueling in orbit presented formidable problems since handling liquid hydrogen on the ground was still not satisfactory. Lewis was working on handling cryogenic fuels in space.

The Chance Vought Corporation completed a company-funded, independent, classified study on manned lunar landing and return (MALLAR), under the supervision of Thomas E. Dolan. Booster limitations indicated that earth orbit rendezvous would be necessary. A variety of lunar missions were described, including a two-man, 14-day lunar landing and return. This mission called for an entry vehicle of 6,600 pounds, a mission module of 9,000 pounds, and a lunar landing module of 27,000 pounds. It incorporated the idea of lunar orbit rendezvous though not specifically by name.

Thomas E. Dolan of the Chance Vought Corporation prepared a company-funded design study of the lunar orbit rendezvous method for accomplishing the lunar landing mission.

John C. Houbolt of the Langley Research Center presented a paper at the National Aeronautical Meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers in New York City in which the problems of rendezvous in space with the minimum expenditure of fuel were considered.

To resupply a space station, for example, the best solution appeared to be to launch the ferry rocket into an adjacent orbit. A minimum amount of fuel would then be needed to inject the ferry rocket into the same orbital plane as the space station. Attention was also focused on the wait time before a rendezvous launch.

If launch were made into the correct orbital plane, with subsequent lead or lag correction, wait periods of many days would be necessary, but if launch were made into an incorrect orbital plane with a later plane correction, wait periods of only a day or two would be feasible.

A study report was issued by the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory on guidance and control design for a variety of space missions. This report, approved by C. Stark Draper, Director of the Laboratory, showed that a vehicle, manned or unmanned, could have significant onboard navigation and guidance capability.

Robcrt R. Gilruth, Paul E. Purser, James A. Chamberlin, Maxime A. Faget, and H. Kurt Strass of STG met with a group from the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation to discuss advanced spacecraft programs. Grumman had been working on guidance requirements for circumlunar flights under the sponsorship of the Navy and presented Strass with a report of this work.

In a memorandum to Abe Silverstein, Director of NASA's Office of Space Flight Programs, George M. Low, Chief of Manned Space Flight, described the formation of a working group on the manned lunar landing program: "It has become increasingly apparent that a preliminary program for manned lunar landings should be formulated. This is necessary in order to provide a proper justification for Apollo, and to place Apollo schedules and technical plans on a firmer foundation.

"In order to prepare such a program, I have formed a small working group, consisting of Eldon Hall, Oran Nicks, John Disher, and myself. This group will endeavor to establish ground rules for manned lunar landing missions; to determine reasonable spacecraft weights; to specify launch vehicle requirements; and to prepare an integrated development plan, including the spacecraft, lunar landing and takeoff system, and launch vehicles. This plan should include a time-phasing and funding picture, and should identify areas requiring early studies by field organizations."

A joint briefing on the Apollo and Saturn programs was held at Marshall Space Flight Center MSFC, attended by representatives of STG and MSFC. Maxime A. Faget of STG and MSFC Director Wernher von Braun agreed that a joint STG-MSFC program would be developed to accomplish a manned lunar landing. Areas of responsibility were: MSFC launch vehicle and landing on the moon; STG - lunar orbit, landing, and return to earth.

Representatives of the Langley Research Center briefed members of STG on the lunar orbit method of accomplishing the lunar landing mission.

Associate Administrator of NASA Robert C. Seamans, Jr., and his staff were briefed by Langley Research Center personnel on the rendezvous method as it related to the national space program. Clinton E. Brown presented an analysis made by himself and Ralph W. Stone, Jr., describing the general operational concept of lunar orbit rendezvous for the manned lunar landing. The advantages of this plan in contrast with the earth orbit rendezvous method, especially in reducing launch vehicle requirements, were illustrated. Others discussing the rendezvous were John C. Houbolt, John D. Bird, and Max C. Kurbjun.

The Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation began work on a company- funded lunar orbit rendezvous feasibility study.

During a meeting of the Space Exploration Program Council at NASA Headquarters, the subject of a manned lunar landing was discussed. Following presentations on earth orbit rendezvous (Wernher von Braun, Director of Marshall Space Flight Center), lunar orbit rendezvous (John C. Houbolt of Langley Research Center), and direct ascent (Melvyn Savage of NASA Headquarters), the Council decided that NASA should not follow any one of these specific approaches, but should proceed on a broad base to afford flexibility. Another outcome of the discussion was an agreement that NASA should have an orbital rendezvous program which could stand alone as well as being a part of the manned lunar program. A task group was named to define the elements of the program insofar as possible. Members of the group were George M. Low, Chairman, Eldon W. Hall, A. M. Mayo, Ernest O. Pearson, Jr., and Oran W. Nicks, all of NASA Headquarters; Maxime A. Faget of STG; and H. H. Koelle of Marshall Space Flight Center. This group became known as the Low Committee.

The Manned Lunar Landing Task Group (Low Committee) set up by the Space Exploration Program Council was instructed to prepare a position paper for the NASA Fiscal Year 1962 budget presentation to Congress. The paper was to be a concise statement of NASA's lunar program for Fiscal Year 1962 and was to present the lunar mission in term of both direct ascent and rendezvous. The rendezvous program would be designed to develop a manned spacecraft capability in near space, regardless of whether such a technique would be needed for manned lunar landing. In addition to answering such questions as the reason for not eliminating one of the two mission approaches, the Group was to estimate the cost of the lunar mission and the date of its accomplishment, though not in specific terms. Although the decision to land a man on the moon had not been approved, it was to be stressed that the development of the scientific and technical capability for a manned lunar landing was a prime NASA goal, though not the only one. The first meeting of the Group was to be held on January 9.

At the first meeting of the Manned Lunar Landing Task Group, Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Director of the Office of Space Flight Programs Abe Silverstein, and Director of the Office of Advanced Research Programs Ira H. Abbott outlined the purpose of the Group to the members. After a discussion of the instructions, the Group considered first the objectives of the total NASA program:

1. the exploration of the solar system for knowledge to benefit mankind; and
2. the development of technology to permit exploitation of space flight for scientific, military, and commercial uses.

1. a manned landing on the moon with return to earth,
2. limited manned lunar exploration, and
3. a scientific lunar base.

A conference was held at the Langley Research Center between representatives of STG and Langley to discuss the feasibility of incorporating a lunar orbit rendezvous phase into the Apollo program. Attending the meeting for STG were Robert L. O'Neal, Owen E. Maynard, and H. Kurt Strass, and for the Langley Research Center, John C. Houbolt, Clinton E. Brown, Manuel J. Queijo, and Ralph W. Stone, Jr. The presentation by Houbolt centered on a performance analysis which showed the weight saving to be gained by the lunar rendezvous technique as opposed to the direct ascent mode. According to the analysis, a saving in weight of from 20 to 40 percent could be realized with the lunar orbit rendezvous technique.

J. Thomas Markley of the Apollo Spacecraft Project Office reported to Associate Director of STG Charles J. Donlan that an informal briefing had been given to the Saturn Guidance Committee on the Apollo program. The Committee had been formed by Don R. Ostrander, NASA Director of the Office of Launch Vehicle Programs, to survey the broad guidance and control requirements for Saturn. The Committee was to review Marshall Space Flight Center guidance plans, review plans of mission groups who intended to use Saturn, recommend an adequate guidance system for Saturn, and prepare a report of the evaluation and results during January. Members of STG, including Robert O. Piland, Markley, and Robert G. Chilton, presented summaries of the overall Apollo program and guidance requirements for Apollo.

At the second meeting of the Manned Lunar Landing Task Group (Low Committee), a draft position paper was presented by George M. Low, Chairman. A series of reports on launch vehicle capabilities, spacecraft, and lunar program support were presented and considered for possible inclusion in the position paper.

The Manned Lunar Landing Task Group (Low Committee) submitted its first draft report to NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr. A section on detailed costs and schedules still was in preparation and a detailed itemized backup report was expected to be available in mid- February.

NASA announced that the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation had been awarded a contract by the Marshall Space Flight Center to study the feasibility of refueling a spacecraft in orbit.

A NASA inter-Center meeting on space rendezvous was held in Washington, D.C. Air Force and NASA programs were discussed and the status of current studies was presented by NASA Centers. Members of the Langley Research Center outlined the basic concepts of the lunar orbit rendezvous method of accomplishing the lunar landing mission.

The midterm review of the Apollo feasibility studies was held at STG. Oral status reports were made by officials of Convair Astronautics Division of the General Dynamics Corporation on March 1, The Martin Company on March 2, and the General Electric Company on March 3. The reports described the work accomplished, problems unsolved, and future plans. Representatives of all NASA Centers attended the meetings, including a majority of the members of the Apollo Technical Liaison Groups. Members of these Groups formed the nucleus of the mid-term review groups which met during the three-day period and compiled lists of comments on the presentations for later discussions with the contractors.

A circular, "Manned Lunar Landing via Rendezvous," was prepared by John C. Houbolt from material supplied by himself, John D. Bird, Max C. Kurbjun, and Arthur W. Vogeley, who were members of the Langley Research Center space station subcommittee on rendezvous. Other members of the subcommittee at various times included W. Hewitt Phillips, John M. Eggleston, John A. Dodgen, and William D. Mace.

Robert C. Seamans, Jr., NASA's Associate Administrator, requested the Directors of the Office of Launch Vehicle Programs and the Office of Advanced Research Programs to bring together members of their staffs with other persons from NASA Headquarters to assess a wide variety of possible ways of accomplishing the lunar landing mission. This study was to supplement the one being done by the Ad Hoc Task Group for Manned Lunar Landing Study (Fleming Committee) but was to be separate from it.

Bruce T. Lundin was appointed Chairman of the study group (Lundin Committee). The following guidelines were suggested :

- All possible approaches for accomplishing the manned lunar landing mission in the 1967-1970 period should be considered.
- Primary emphasis should be placed on the launch vehicle portion of the system: vehicle size and type, the use of rendezvous, etc.
- Nuclear-powered launch vehicles should not be considered for use in the early manned lunar landing missions.
- Advantages, disadvantages, and problems associated with each technique should be indicated and, based on these, a relative rating of the various methods. should be established.
- The time phasing and a rough order of magnitude cost should be indicated for each method considered.
- The study should be completed at about the same time as the one under way by the Ad Hoc Task Group on Manned Lunar Landing Study.

The Lundin Committee report was submitted June 10.

Basic concepts of the lunar orbit rendezvous plan were presented to the Lundin Committee by John C. Houbolt of Langley Research Center.

The Fleming Committee, which had been appointed on May 2, submitted its report to NASA associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., on the feasibility of a manned lunar landing program. The Committee concluded that the lunar mission could be accomplished within the decade. Chief pacing items were the first stage of the launch vehicle and the facilities for testing and launching the booster. It also concluded that information on solar flare radiation and lunar surface characteristics should be obtained as soon as possible, since these factors would influence spacecraft design. Special mention was made of the need for a strong management organization.

Maxime A. Faget, Paul E. Purser, and Charles J. Donlan of STG met with Arthur W. Vogeley, Clinton E. Brown, and Laurence K. Loftin, Jr., of Langley Research Center on a "lunar landing" paper. Faget's outline was to be used, with part of the information to be worked up by Vogeley.

Members of Langley Research Center briefed the Heaton Committee on the lunar orbit rendezvous method of accomplishing the manned lunar landing mission.

Langley Research Center simulated spacecraft flights at speeds of 8,200 to 8,700 feet per second in approaching the moon's surface. With instruments preset to miss the moon's surface by 40 to 80 miles, pilots with control of thrust and torques about all three axes of the craft learned to establish orbits 10 to 90 miles above the surface, using a graph of vehicle rate of descent and circumferential velocity, an altimeter, and vehicle attitude and rate meters, as reported by Manuel J. Queijo and Donald R. Riley of Langley.

The Large Launch Vehicle Planning Group (Golovin Committee) notified the Marshal! Space Flight Center (MSFC), Langley Research Center, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) that the Group was planning to undertake a comparative evaluation of three types of rendezvous operations and direct flight for manned lunar landing. Rendezvous methods were earth orbit, lunar orbit, and lunar surface. MSFC was requested to study earth orbit rendezvous, Langley to study lunar orbit rendezvous, and JPL to study lunar surface rendezvous. The NASA Office of Launch Vehicle Programs would provide similar information on direct ascent.

Emphasis was to be placed on developmental problems, exclusive of vehicle design which would be handled separately.

In each case, environmental conditions peculiar to the particular mode of rendezvous, and their effects on equipment design, were to be considered so that the problems characteristic of the different rendezvous modes could be separated and compared as quantitatively as possible. Examples of problem areas were automatic versus manual operation, mission profile, and lunar surface conditions. All rendezvous modes would assume that the reentry capsule(s) should be capable of supporting three men and weigh within the range specified by STG (about 8,500 pounds).

The preliminary results of the study were to be ready in 30 days.

In a memorandum to the Large Launch Vehicle Planning Group (LLVPG) staff, Harvey Hall of NASA described the studies being done by the Centers on rendezvous modes for accomplishing a manned lunar landing. These studies had been requested from Langley Research Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on August 23. STG was preparing separate documentation on the lunar orbit rendezvous mode. An LLVPG team to undertake a comparative evaluation of rendezvous and direct ascent techniques had been set up. Members of the team included Hall and Norman Rafel of NASA and H. Braham and L. M. Weeks of Aerospace Corporation.

The evaluation would consider:

• Effect of total flight time on specifications and reliability of equipment and on personnel.
• Effect of vehicle system reliability in each case, including the number of engine starts and restarts.
• Dependence on data, data-rate, and distance from ground station for control of assembly and refueling operations
• Launch and injection windows
• Effect of differences in the total weight propelled to earth escape velocity
• Relative merits of lunar gravity and of a lunar base in general versus an orbital station for rendezvous and assembly purposes.

Under the direction of John C. Houbolt of Langley Research Center, a two-volume work entitled "Manned Lunar-Landing through use of Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous" was presented to the Golovin Committee (organized on July 20). The study had been prepared by Houbolt, John D. Bird, Arthur W. Vogeley, Ralph W. Stone, Jr., Manuel J. Queijo, William H. Michael, Jr., Max C. Kurbjun, Roy F. Brissenden, John A. Dodgen, William D. Mace, and others of Langley. The Golovin Committee had requested a mission plan using the lunar orbit rendezvous concept. Bird, Michael, and Robert H. Tolson appeared before the Committee in Washington to explain certain matters of trajectory and lunar stay time not covered in the document.

In a letter to NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., John C. Houbolt of Langley Research Center presented the lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) plan and outlined certain deficiencies in the national booster and manned rendezvous programs. This letter protested exclusion of the LOR plan from serious consideration by committees responsible for the definition of the national program for lunar exploration.

The Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation developed a detailed, company-funded study on the lunar orbit rendezvous technique: characteristics of the system (relative cost of direct ascent, earth orbit rendezvous, and lunar orbit rendezvous); developmental problems (communications, propulsion); and elements of the system (tracking facilities, etc.). Joseph M. Gavin was appointed in the spring to head the effort, and Robert E. Mullaney was designated program manager.

John C. Houbolt of Langley Research Center and Charles W. Mathews of MSC made a presentation of lunar orbit rendezvous versus earth orbit rendezvous to the Manned Space Flight Management Council.

Robert R. Gilruth, MSC Director, in a letter to NASA Headquarters, described the Ad Hoc Lunar Landing Module Working Group which was to be under the direction of the Apollo Spacecraft Project Office. The Group would determine what constraints on the design of the lunar landing module were applicable to the effort of the Lewis Research Center. Gilruth asked that Eldon W. Hall represent NASA Headquarters in this Working Group. (At this time, the lunar landing module was conceived as being that part of the spacecraft which would actually land on the moon and which would contain the propulsion system necessary for launch from the lunar surface and injection into transearth trajectory. Pending a decision on the lunar mission mode, the actual configuration of the module was not yet clearly defined.)

NASA Headquarters selected the Chance Vought Corporation of Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., as a contractor to study spacecraft rendezvous. A primary part of the contract would be a flight simulation study exploring the capability of an astronaut to control an Apollo-type spacecraft.

Members of Langley Research Center briefed representatives of the Chance Vought Corporation of Ling- Temco-Vought, Inc., on the lunar orbit rendezvous method of accomplishing the lunar landing mission. The briefing was made in connection with the study contract on spacecraft rendezvous awarded by NASA Headquarters to Chance Vought on March 1.

Representatives of MSC made a formal presentation at Marshall Space Flight Center on the lunar orbit rendezvous technique for accomplishing the lunar mission.

MSC Associate Director Walter C. William reported to the Manned Space Flight Management Council that the lack of a decision on the lunar mission mode was causing delays in various areas of the Apollo spacecraft program, especially the requirements for the portions of the spacecraft being furnished by NAA.

Milton W. Rosen, NASA Office of Manned Space Flight Director of Launch Vehicles and Propulsion, recommended that the S-IVB stage be designed specifically as the third stage of the Saturn C-5 and that the C-5 be designed specifically for the manned lunar landing using the lunar orbit rendezvous technique. The S-IVB stage would inject the spacecraft into a parking orbit and would be restarted in space to place the lunar mission payload into a translunar trajectory. Rosen also recommended that the S- IVB stage be used as a flight test vehicle to exercise the command module (CM), service module (SM), and lunar excursion module (LEM) (previously referred to as the lunar excursion vehicle (LEV)) in earth orbit missions. The Saturn C-1 vehicle, in combination with the CM, SM, LEM, and S-IVB stage, would be used on the most realistic mission simulation possible. This combination would also permit the most nearly complete operational mating of the CM, SM, LEM, and S-IVB prior to actual mission flight.

John C. Houbolt of Langley Research Center, writing in the April issue of Astronautics, outlined the advantages of lunar orbit rendezvous for a manned lunar landing as opposed to direct flight from earth or earth orbit rendezvous. Under this concept, an Apollo-type spacecraft would fly directly to the moon, go into lunar orbit, detach a small landing craft which would land on the moon and then return to the mother craft, which would then return to earth. The advantages would be the much smaller craft performing the difficult lunar landing and takeoff, the possibility of optimizing the smaller craft for this one function, the safe return of the mother craft in event of a landing accident, and even the possibility of using two of the small craft to provide a rescue capability.

A presentation on the lunar orbit rendezvous technique was made to D. Brainerd Holmes, Director, NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, by representatives of the Apollo Spacecraft Project Office. A similar presentation to NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., followed on May 31.

A preliminary Statement of Work for a proposed lunar excursion module was completed, although the mission mode had not yet been selected.

A schedule for the letting of a contract for the development of a lunar excursion module was presented to the Manned Space Flight Management Council by MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth in anticipation of a possible decision to employ the lunar rendezvous technique in the lunar landing mission.

Joseph F. Shea, NASA Deputy Director of Manned Space Flight (Systems), presented to the Manned Space Flight Management Council the results of the study on lunar mission mode selection. The study included work by personnel in Shea's office, MSC, and Marshall Space Flight Center. The criteria used in evaluating the direct ascent technique, earth orbit rendezvous connecting and fueling modes, and lunar orbit rendezvous were: the mission itself, weight margins, guidance accuracy, communications and tracking requirements, reliability (abort problems), development complexity, schedules, costs, flexibility, growth potential, and military implications.

The delta V (rate of incremental change in velocity) requirements for the lunar landing mission were established and coordinated with NAA by the Apollo Spacecraft Project Office.

Charles W. Frick, MSC Apollo Project Office Manager, assigned MIT Instrumentation Laboratory to report on a simulated lunar landing trainer using guidance and navigation equipment and other displays as necessary or proposed.

MSC invited 11 firms to submit research and development proposals for the lunar excursion module (LEM) for the manned lunar landing mission. The firms were Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, The Boeing Airplane Company, Northrop Corporation, Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, Douglas Aircraft Company, General Dynamics Corporation, Republic Aviation Corporation, Martin- Marietta Company, North American Aviation, Inc., and McDonnell Aircraft Corporation.

The Statement of Work distributed to the prospective bidders described the contractor's responsibilities:

- Detail design and manufacture of the LEM and related test articles, mockups, and other hardware with the exception of certain government- furnished equipment [navigation and guidance system (excepting the rendezvous radar and radar altimeter), flight research and development instrumentation system, scientific instrumentation system, and certain components of the crew equipment system (space suits, portable life support systems, and personal radiation dosimeters.)]
- Integration of government-furnished equipment into the LEM; development of specifications for equipment performance, interfaces, and design environment; and maintenance of interface control documentation in a state of validity and concurrence.
- Detailed trajectory analysis from lunar orbit separation until lunar orbit rendezvous directly related to the contractor's area of responsibility.
- Specification of the mission environment on the lunar surface and assessment of the effects of the spacecraft adapter environment on the LEM.
- Detail design of the LEM-mounted equipment for repositioning and mating the LEM to the command module CM.
- Design of the LEM-mounted equipment within the overall specification of the Principal Contractor NAA.
- Determination of the desirability of checkout or operation of the LEM during the translunar period of the flight.
- Identification of crew tasks related to the LEM before and during separation, whether actually performed in the LEM or CM.
- Design and manufacture of the ground support equipment directly associated with the hardware for which the contractor was responsible and ensurance of compatibility of all ground support equipment involved with the LEM.
- Design and manufacture of certain LEM training equipment for flight or ground personnel as required by NASA.
- Prelaunch preparation and checkout of the LEM, working with the other contractors in the same manner as during systems testing.
- Coordination of all LEM activities with the overall spacecraft prelaunch requirements.
- Planning and implementation of a reliability and quality assurance program.
- Provision of adequate logistic support for the equipment furnished by the contractor.

The mockups to be delivered by the contractor would include but not be limited to:

- Complete LEM
- Cabin interior arrangement
- Cabin exterior equipment
- Docking system
- Environmental control system
- Crew support system
- Antenna radiation pattern
- Handling and transportation
- Module interface

Before the first translunar midcourse correction, the LEM would be transferred from its stowed position in the spacecraft adapter to a docked configuration with the command and service modules (CSM). At a later point in the mission, the two-man LEM crew would enter the LEM from the CSM by means of a hatch without being exposed to the environment of space. Another hatch would allow access to the LEM during countdown and egress into space while docked with the CSM.

The LEM systems were to operate at their normal design performance level for a mission of two days without resupply. Equipment normally operated in the pressurized LEM cabin environment would be designed to function for a minimum of two days in vacuum without failure. The LEM pressurization system would be capable of six complete cabin repressurizations and a continuous leak rate as high as 0.2 pound per hour. Provision would be made for a total of six recharges of the portable life support system which had a normal operating time without resupply of four hours. Under usual conditions in the LEM cabin, the crew would wear unpressurized space suits. Either crewman would be able, alone, to return the LEM to the CSM and successfully perform the rendezvous and docking maneuver. Of the overall crew safety goal of 0.999, the goal apportioned to the LEM was 0.995.

The LEM would be capable of independently performing the separation from the CSM, lunar descent, landing, ascent, rendezvous, and docking with the CSM. It would allow for crew exploration in the vicinity of lunar touchdown but would not be required to have lunar surface mobility.

Lunar landing would be attempted from a lunar orbit of 100 nautical miles. After separation, the LEM would transfer from the circular orbit to an equal-period elliptical orbit which would not intersect the lunar surface. The hovering, final touchdown maneuvers, and landing would be performed by the LEM from the elliptical orbit.

Normally there would not be a requirement to reposition the LEM attitude before lunar launch. To rendezvous and dock with the CSM, the LEM would transfer from an elliptical to a circular orbit after lunar launch.

The LEM would not be recoverable.

Included in the Statement of Work was a description of the major LEM systems:

Guidance and control system

The navigation and guidance system would provide steering and thrust control signals for the stabilization and control system, reaction control system, and the lunar excursion propulsion system. Its basic components were:

- Inertial measurement unit

- Optical measurement unit

- Range-drift measurement unit (reticle)

- Computer Power and servo assembly

- Control and display unit

- Displays and controls

- Cabling and junction box

- Chart book and star catalog

- Rendezvous radar and radar altimeter

The stabilization and control system would meet the attitude stabilization and maneuver control requirements and would include:

- Attitude reference

- Rate sensors

- Control electronics assembly

- Manual controls

- Displays

- Power supplies

Lunar excursion propulsion system

The system would use storable hypergolic bipropellants and a pressurized propellant feed system. Variable thrust would be required from a propulsion system to be designed.

Propellants

The fuel would be monomethylhydrazine or a mixture of 50 percent hydrazine and 50 percent unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. Nitrogen tetroxide with nitrous oxide, added to depress the freezing point if necessary, would be used as oxidizer.

Reaction control system

The system comprised two independent, interconnectable, pulse- modulated subsystems, each capable of meeting the total torque and impulse requirements and providing two-directional control about all axes. The same propellant combination would be used as for the LEM propulsion system.

Lunar touchdown system

Attached to the LEM by hard points which would accommodate variations of landing gear geometrics, the system would have load distribution capabilities compatible with anticipated landing gear loads and would include meteoroid protection and radiation protection inherent in its structure, Normally, the system would be deployed from within the spacecraft but could be operated manually by the crew in spacesuits outside the spacecraft.

Crew systems

The flight Crew would consist of the Commander and Systems Engineer. The crew equipment system would include an adjustable seat for each crewman, restraint system for each seat, food and water, first aid equipment, space suits, portable life support systems for each crewman, and personal radiation dosimeters.

Environmental control system

The following conditions would be provided:

- Total cabin pressure: Oxygen, 5 +/_ 0.2 psia

- Relative humidity : 40 to 70 percent

- Carbon dioxide partial pressure (maximum): 7.6 mm Hg

- Temperature: 75 degrees ±5 degrees F

Electrical power system

Selection of the source was still to be made and would depend largely on the time contingency allowed for various mission events, especially during rendezvous maneuvers.

Instrumentation system

The operational instrumentation system would consist of a clock, tape recorder system, display and control system, sensors, calibration system, cameras, and telescope.

The flight research and development instrumentation system would be made up of telemetry systems (including transmitters), clock and tape recorder system, sensors and signal conditioning, calibration system, power supply, radar transponder, and antennas.

The scientific instrumentation system would comprise a lunar atmosphere analyzer, gravitometer, magnetometer, radiation spectrometer, specimen return container, rock and soil analysis equipment, seismographic equipment, and soil temperature instrument.

The Office of Systems under NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight summarized its conclusions on the selection of a lunar mission mode based on NASA and industry studies conducted in 1961 and 1962:

• There were no significant technical problems which would preclude the acceptance of any of the modes, if sufficient time and money were available. (The modes considered were the C-5 direct ascent, C-5 earth orbit rendezvous (EOR), C-5 lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR), Nova direct ascent, and solid-fuel Nova direct ascent.)
• The C-5 direct ascent technique was characterized by high development risk and the least flexibility for further development.
• The C-5 EOR mode had the lowest probability of mission success and the greatest development complexity.
• The Nova direct ascent method would require the development of larger launch vehicles than the C-5. However, it would be the least complex from an operational and subsystem standpoint and had greater crew safety and initial mission capabilities than did LOR.
• The solid-fuel Nova direct flight mode would necessitate a launch vehicle development parallel to the C-5. Such a development could not be financed under current budget allotments.
• Only the LOR and EOR modes would make full use of the development of the C-5 launch vehicle and the command and service modules. Based on technical considerations, the LOR mode was distinctly preferable.
• The Directors of MSC and Marshall Space Flight Center had both expressed strong preference for the LOR mode.

NAA selected the lunar landing radar and completed the block diagram for the spacecraft rendezvous radar. Preliminary design was in progress on both types of radar.

Of the 11 companies invited to bid on the lunar excursion module on July 25, eight planned to respond. NAA had notified MSC that it would not bid on the contract. No information had been received from the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation and it was questionable whether the Northrop Corporation would respond.

The NAA spacecraft Statement of Work was revised to include the requirements for the lunar excursion module (LEM) as well as other modifications. The LEM requirements were identical with those given in the LEM Development Statement of Work of July 24.

The command module (CM) would now be required to provide the crew with a one-day habitable environment and a survival environment for one week after touching down on land or water. In case of a landing at sea, the CM should be able to recover from any attitude and float upright with egress hatches free of water.

The service propulsion system would now provide all major velocity increments required for translunar midcourse velocity corrections, for placing the spacecraft into a lunar orbit, for rendezvous of the command and service modules CSM with the LEM on a backup mode, for transfer of the CSM from lunar orbit into the transearth trajectory, and for transearth midcourse velocity corrections for lunar missions.

Three FIST-type drogue parachutes would replace the original two called for in the earth landing system.

The CM camera system was revised to require one for monitoring the crew, displays, and spacecraft interior; the other for lunar photography and stellar studies. The latter camera could be used in conjunction with the telescope or independently at the crew's discretion.

A new communication concept was described in which all voice, telemetry, television, and ranging information for near-earth and lunar distances would be transmitted over a unified frequency system.

All references to the lunar landing module and space laboratory module were dropped. Among other deletions from the previous Statement of Work were:

- Parawing and other earth landing systems instead of parachutes
- The "skip" reentry technique
- HF beacon as recovery aid
- Radar altimeter from CSM communication system
- Crew recreational equipment
- Engineering and Development Test Plan

Nine industry proposals for the lunar excursion module were received from The Boeing Company, Douglas Aircraft Company, General Dynamics Corporation, Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Martin-Marietta Corporation, Northrop Corporation, and Republic Aviation Corporation. NASA evaluation began the next day.

Industry presentations would be held on September 13 and 14 at Ellington Air Force Base, Tex. One-day visits to company sites by evaluation teams would be made September 17-19. After evaluation of the proposals, NASA planned to award the contract within six to eight weeks.

Apollo Spacecraft Project Office requested NAA to perform a study of command module-lunar excursion module (CM-LEM) docking and crew transfer operations and recommend a preferred mode, establish docking design criteria, and define the CM-LEM interface. Both translunar and lunar orbital docking maneuvers were to be considered. The docking concept finally selected would satisfy the requirements of minimum weight, design and functional simplicity, maximum docking reliability, minimum docking time, and maximum visibility.

The mission constraints to be used for this study were :

• The first docking maneuver would take place as soon after S-IVB burnout as possible and hard docking would be within 30 minutes after burnout.
• The docking methods to be investigated would include but not be limited to free fly-around, tethered fly-around, and mechanical repositioning.
• The S-IVB would be stabilized for four hours after injection.
• There would be no CM airlock. Extravehicular access techniques through the LEM would be evaluated to determine the usefulness of a LEM airlock.
• A crewman would not be stationed in the tunnel during docking unless it could be shown that his field of vision, maneuverability, and communication capability would substantially contribute to the ease and reliability of the docking maneuver.
• An open-hatch, unpressurized CM docking approach would not be considered.
• The relative merit of using the CM environmental control system to provide initial pressurization of the LEM instead of the LEM environmental control system would be investigated.

NASA contracted with the Armour Research Foundation for an investigation of conditions likely to be found on the lunar surface. Research would concentrate first on evaluating the effects of landing velocity, size of the landing area, and shape of the landing object with regard to properties of the lunar soils. Earlier studies by Armour had indicated that the lunar surface might be composed of very strong material. Amour reported its findings during the first week of November.

Faced by opposition of mode selection by Jerome Wiesner, Kennedy's science adviser, NASA let contracts to McDonnell and STL for direct two-man flight modes. Both concluded that it was feasible but would require LH2/LOX stages for descent and ascent from lunar surface, which NASA/STG adamantly opposed. This was also the last stab - for the time being - at 'lunar Gemini'.

The Office of Systems under NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight completed a manned lunar landing mode comparison embodying the most recent studies by contractors and NASA Centers. The report was the outgrowth of the decision announced by NASA on July 11 to continue studies on lunar landing modes while basing planning and procurement primarily on the lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) technique.

The results of the comparison between the LOR technique, a two-man C-5 direct flight, and a two-man earth orbit rendezvous EOR mode were:

- The C-5 direct flight mode required cryogenic fuels and was marginal, even with a two-man spacecraft.
- Both the LOR and EOR modes were feasible.
- The reliability differences between LOR and EOR could not be demonstrated conclusively by analysis at this time. LOR appeared to have a higher probability of mission success at less risk to the astronauts.
- Designing the lunar excursion module specifically for the lunar landing anti performing the mission with a single C-5 launch vehicle were important advantages of the LOR mode, offsetting the problems connected with LOR rendezvous.
- Human factors considerations were not significant in the mode selections; the addition of rendezvous to the requirement for lunar landing and reentry did not add appreciably to crew stress or fatigue or to the overall hazards of the mission.
- Both LOR and EOR provided the basis for projected national space requirements before the development of Nova-class launch vehicles. The C-5 launch vehicle capability met estimated payload requirements. LOR provided experience in personnel transfer between spacecraft as contrasted with fuel transfer in EOR.
- The lunar landing mission could be accomplished at least one year and probably 18 months sooner by using LOR rather than EOR.
- The LOR mode was 10 to 15 percent less expensive than EOR.
- The LOR mode provided the cleanest management structure within the NASA organization.

In conclusion, the LOR mode offered the best opportunity of meeting the goal of an American manned lunar landing within the decade of the sixties.

The Amour Research Foundation reported to NASA that the surface of the moon might not be covered with layers of dust. The first Armour studies showed that dust particles become harder and denser in a higher vacuum environment such as that of the moon, but the studies had not proved that particles eventually become bonded together in a rocket substance as the vacuum increases.

NASA announced that the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation had been selected to build the lunar excursion module of the three-man Apollo spacecraft under the direction of MSC. The contract, still to be negotiated, was expected to be worth about $350 million, with estimates as high as $1 billion by the time the project would be completed.

NASA Administrator James E. Webb, in announcing the selection, remarked: "We are affirming our tentative decision of last July" (in favor of the lunar orbit rendezvous approach). D. Brainerd Holmes, NASA Director of the Office of Manned Space Flight, noted that more than one million man-hours of some 700 outstanding scientists, engineers, and researchers had gone into studies of the Apollo mission during the past year. "The results of these studies," he said, "added up to the conclusion that lunar orbit rendezvous is the preferable mode to take." With this award, the last major part of the Apollo program had been placed under contract.

About 100 Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation and MSC representatives began seven weeks of negotiations on the lunar excursion module (LEM) contract. After agreeing on the scope of work and on operating and coordination procedures, the two sides reached fiscal accord. Negotiations were completed on January 3, 1963. Eleven days later, NASA authorized Grumman to proceed with LEM development.