Little Joe II

Used to launch Apollo Command Module and Launch Escape System in LES tests.

Manufacturer: Convair. Launches: 5. Failures: 1. Success Rate: 80.00%. First Launch Date: 1963-08-28. Last Launch Date: 1966-01-20. Launch data is: complete. Apogee: 23 km (14 mi).

Single stage vehicle consisting of 6 x Algol 1D.

Apogee: 35 km (21 mi). Liftoff Thrust: 3,276.000 kN (736,474 lbf). Total Mass: 80,300 kg (177,000 lb). Core Diameter: 3.96 m (12.99 ft). Total Length: 26.20 m (85.90 ft).

2 stage vehicle consisting of 4 x Recruit + 2 x Algol 1D

Apogee: 10 km (6 mi). Liftoff Thrust: 1,716.000 kN (385,772 lbf). Total Mass: 42,700 kg (94,100 lb). Core Diameter: 3.96 m (12.99 ft). Total Length: 26.20 m (85.90 ft).

2 stage vehicle consisting of 5 x Recruit + 4 x Algol 1D

Apogee: 25 km (15 mi). Liftoff Thrust: 2,964.000 kN (666,333 lbf). Total Mass: 63,300 kg (139,500 lb). Core Diameter: 3.96 m (12.99 ft). Total Length: 26.20 m (85.90 ft).

2 stage vehicle consisting of 6 x Recruit + 1 x Algol 1D

Apogee: 10 km (6 mi). Liftoff Thrust: 1,482.000 kN (333,166 lbf). Total Mass: 26,200 kg (57,700 lb). Core Diameter: 3.96 m (12.99 ft). Total Length: 26.20 m (85.90 ft).

1961 June 7 - Launch Vehicle: Little Joe II.

• Preliminary study of Little Joe Senior Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. A preliminary study of a fin-stabilized solid-fuel rocket booster, the Little Joe Senior, was completed by members of STG. The booster would be capable of propelling a full-size Apollo reentry spacecraft to velocities sufficient to match critical portions of the Saturn trajectory.Additional Details: Preliminary study of Little Joe Senior(15829). References: 16.

• NASA negotiations with NAA on the Apollo spacecraft contract were held at Williamsburg, Va Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. NASA negotiations with NAA on the Apollo spacecraft contract were held at Williamsburg, Va. Nine Technical Panels met on December 11 and 12 to review Part 3, Technical Approach, of the Statement of Work. These Panels reported their recommended changes and unresolved questions to the Technical Subcommittee for action. Later in the negotiations, NASA and NAA representatives agreed on changes intended to clarify the original Statement of Work. Among these was the addition of the boilerplate program. Two distinct types of boilerplates were to be fabricated: those of a simple cold-rolled steel construction for drop impact tests and the more complex models to be used with the Little Joe II and Saturn launch vehicles. The Little Joe II, originally conceived in June 1961, was a solid-fuel rocket booster which would be used to man-rate the launch escape system for the command module.

  In addition, the Apollo Project Office, which had been part of the MSC Flight Systems Division, would now report directly to the MSC Director and would be responsible for planning and directing all activities associated with the completion of the Apollo spacecraft project. Primary functions to be performed by the Office would include:

  • Monitor the work of the Apollo Principal Contractor NAA and Associate Contractors.
  • Resolve technical problems arising between the Principal Contractor and Associate Contractors which were not directly resolved between the parties involved.
  • Maintain close liaison with all Apollo contractors to keep fully and currently informed on the status of contract work, potential schedule delays, or technical problems which might impede progress.
  (On January 15, 1962, the Apollo Spacecraft Project Office was established at MSC.)

  Letter contract No. NAS 9-150, authorizing work on the Apollo development program to begin on January 1, 1962, was signed by NASA and NAA on December 21. Under this contract, NAA was assigned the design and development of the command and service modules, the spacecraft adapter, associated ground support equipment, and spacecraft integration. Formal signing of the contract followed on December 31.References: 16.

• Little Joe II test launch vehicle development approved Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA Headquarters approved plans for the development of the Little Joe II test launch vehicle. Prospective bidders were notified of a briefing to be held at MSC on April 6, at which time Requests for Proposals would be distributed. References: 16.

• Request for proposal for the Little Joe II launch vehicle Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. The request for a proposal on the Little Joe II test launch vehicle was submitted to bidders by a letter from MSC, together with a Work Statement. Five launches, which were to test boilerplate models of the Apollo spacecraft command module in abort situations, were called for: three in 1963 and two in 1964.Additional Details: Request for proposal for the Little Joe II launch vehicle(15963). References: 16.

• Convair contract for the Little Joe II launch vehicle Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA awarded a letter contract to General Dynamics/Convair to design and manufacture the Little Joe II test launch vehicle which would be used to boost the Apollo spacecraft on unmanned suborbital test flights. The Little Joe II would be powered by clustered solid-fuel engines. At the same time, a separate 30-day contract was awarded to Convair to study the control system requirements. White Sands Missile Range, N. Mex., had been selected for the Little Joe II max q abort and high-altitude abort missions.References: 16.

• Apollo advance design on construction facilities Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. MSC requested the reprogramming of $100,000 of Fiscal Year 1963 funds for advance design on construction facilities. The funds would be transferred from Launch Operations Center to MSC for use on the Little Joe II program at White Sands Missile Range, N. Mex., and would cover Army Corps of Engineers design work on the launch facility.References: 16.

• Algol motor for Little Joe II booster Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. NASA selected the Aerojet-General Algol solid-propellant motor to power the Little Joe II booster, which would be used to flight-test the command and service modules of the Apollo spacecraft. References: 16.

• First Apollo Little Joe II launch to be for qualification Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. General Dynamics/Convair recommended and obtained NASA's concurrence that the first Little Joe II launch vehicle be used for qualification, employing a dummy payload. References: 16.

• New numbering system for flight missions of the Apollo spacecraft Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Flight missions of the Apollo spacecraft were to be numerically identified in the future according to the following scheme :

  Pad aborts: PA-1, PA-2, etc.

  Missions using Little Joe II launch vehicles: A-001, A-002, etc. Missions using Saturn C-1 launch vehicles: A-101, A-102, etc. Missions using Saturn C-1B launch vehicles: A-201, A-202, etc. Missions using Saturn C-5 launch vehicles: A-501, A-502, etc.

  The 'A' denoted Apollo, the first digit stood for launch vehicle type or series, and the last two digits designated the order of Apollo spacecraft flights within a vehicle series.References: 16.

• Convair contract negotiations for the Apollo Little Joe II launch vehicle Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. NASA and General Dynamics/Convair (GD/C) began contract negotiations on the Little Joe II launch vehicle, which was used to flight-test the Apollo launch escape system. The negotiated cost was nearly $6 million. GD/C had already completed the basic structural design of the vehicle.References: 16.

• Definitive contract let to General Dynamics/Convair for the Little Joe II test vehicle Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA issued a definitive contract for $6,322,643 to General Dynamics Convair for the Little Joe II test vehicle. A number of changes defined by contract change proposals were incorporated into the final document:
  • Four instead of five vehicles to be manufactured and delivered
  • Launching from White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), N.M., instead of Cape Canaveral
  • Additional support equipment, better definition of vehicle design, and responsibility for launch support.
  References: 16.

• First Little Joe II completed Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. General Dynamics Convair completed structural assembly of the first launcher for the Little Joe II test program. During the next few weeks, electrical equipment installation, vehicle mating, and checkout were completed. The launcher was then disassembled and delivered to WSMR on April 25, 1963.References: 16.

• Phase I of the range's launch complex completed Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Wesley E. Messing, MSC WSMR Operations Manager, notified NASA, North American, and General Dynamics/Convair (GD/C) that Phase I of the range's launch complex was completed. GD/C and North American could now install equipment for the launch of boilerplate 6 and the Little Joe II vehicle.References: 16.

• NASA and General Dynamics/Convair (GD/C) negotiated a second Little Joe II launch vehicle contract Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA and General Dynamics/Convair (GD/C) negotiated a second Little Joe II launch vehicle contract. For an additional $337,456, GD/C expanded its program to include the launch of a qualification test vehicle before the scheduled Apollo tests. This called for an accelerated production schedule for the four launch vehicles and their pair of launchers. An additional telemetry system and an instrumentation transmitter system were incorporated in the qualification test vehicle, which was equipped with a simulated payload. At the same time, NASA established earlier launch dates for the first two Apollo Little Joe II missions.References: 16.

• Major change to the Little Joe II launch vehicle Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. NASA and General Dynamics Convair negotiated a major change on the Little Joe II launch vehicle contract. It provided for two additional launch vehicles which would incorporate the attitude control subsystem (as opposed to the early fixed-fin version). On November 1, MSC announced that the contract amendment was being issued. NASA Headquarters' approval followed a week later.References: 16.

• Contract to Aerojet-General for Algol solid-propellant motors for Apollo Little Joe II vehicles Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA issued a $1,946,450 definitive contract to Aerojet-General Corporation for Algol solid-propellant motors for GD/C's Little Joe II vehicles. References: 16.

• Final inspection of the Little Joe II launch complex Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. MSC conducted the final inspection of the Little Joe II launch complex at WSMR. References: 16.

• Little Joe II qualification test vehicle shipped Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. The Little Joe II qualification test vehicle was shipped from the General Dynamics Convair plant to WSMR, where the test launch was scheduled for August. References: 16.

• QTV Spacecraft Test mission Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Agency: NASA. Apogee: 8.00 km (4.90 mi). The Little Joe II qualification test vehicle was launched from White Sands Missile Range, N Mexico. Its objectives were to prove the Little Joe's capability as an Apollo spacecraft test vehicle and to determine base pressures and heating on the missile. These aims were achieved. The lone failure was a malfunction in the destruct system.References: 16, 1680.

• Amendments to Little Joe II contract Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA and GD/C negotiated amendments totaling $354,737 to Little Joe II contract. This sum covered study activity and several relatively small changes that came out of a Design Engineering Inspection on May 3. More ground support equipment was authorized, as was fabrication of an additional breadboard autopilot system for use at MSC. The dummy payload was deleted and the instrumentation was limited to a control system on the vehicle to be used for Mission A-002 (BP-23).References: 16.

• Apollo LEM Little Joe II configuration aerodynamically unstable Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM. As a result of wind tunnel tests, Langley Research Center researchers found the LEM Little Joe II configuration to be aerodynamically unstable. To achieve stability, larger booster fins were needed. However, bigger fins caused more drag, shortening the length of the flight. MSC was investigating the possibility of using more powerful rocket engines to overcome this performance degradation.References: 16.

• Grumman to stop all work on the Apollo LEM Little Joe II program Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM. MSC directed Grumman to stop all work on the LEM Little Joe II program. This action followed the ASPO Manager's decision against a testing program for the LEM comparable to that for the CSM. References: 16.

• Second Little Joe II launch vehicle delivered Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. General Dynamics Convair delivered to White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) the second Little Joe II launch vehicle, the first Little Joe II scheduled to fly with a production Apollo spacecraft. References: 16.

• Contract for 12 Algol solid rocket motors for Apollo Little Joe II vehicles Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA completed formal negotiations with Aerojet-General Corporation for 12 Algol 1-D solid rocket motors, to be used in the Little Joe II vehicles. The contract was a fixed-price-plus-incentive-fee type with a target price of about $1.4 million. A maximum price of 20 percent more than the target cost was allowed.References: 16.

• Apollo mated to Little Joe II launch vehicle Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. CSM boilerplate 12 (with launch escape system) was mated to its Little Joe II launch vehicle. References: 16.

• A-001 / BP-12 Spacecraft Test mission Nation: USA. Agency: NASA. Apogee: 5.00 km (3.10 mi). First flight test of Little Joe II using a command module (CM) boilerplate (BP-12) at White Sands Missile Range, N. Mex. References: 1592.

• Apollo mission programming Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. ASPO's Operations Planning Division defined the current Apollo mission programming as envisioned by MSC. The overall Apollo flight program was described in terms of its major phases: Little Joe II flights (unmanned Little Joe II development and launch escape vehicle development); Saturn IB flights (unmanned Saturn IB and Block I CSM development, Block I CSM earth orbital operations, unmanned LEM development, and manned Block II CSM/LEM earth orbital operations); and Saturn V flights (unmanned Saturn V and Block II CSM development, manned Block II CSM/LEM earth orbital operations, and manned lunar missions).References: 16.

• A-002 / BP-23 Spacecraft Test mission Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. Agency: NASA. Apogee: 5.00 km (3.10 mi). Boilerplate 23, Mission A-002, was successfully launched from WSMR by a Little Joe II launch vehicle. The test was to demonstrate satisfactory launch escape vehicle performance utilizing the canard subsystem and boost protective cover, and to verify the abort capability in the maximum dynamic pressure region with conditions approximating emergency detection subsystem limits.References: 16, 1592.

• Apollo boilerplate (BP) 23 failure analysis Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. During the flight of boilerplate (BP) 23, the Little Joe II's control system had coupled with the first lateral bending mode of the vehicle. To ensure against any recurrence of this problem on the forthcoming flight of BP-22, MSC asked North American to submit their latest figures on the stiffness of the spacecraft and its escape tower. These data would be used to compute the first bending mode of BP-22 and its launch vehicle.References: 16.

• Apollo personnel appointments Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM. R. Wayne Young was appointed Chief of the LEM Contract Engineering Branch, ASPO, to perform the functions of Project Officer for the LEM, effective May 3. At the same time M. E. Dell was appointed Chief of the G&N/ACE Contract Engineering Branch, ASPO, and would be responsible for all functions of Project Officer for the guidance and navigation, automatic checkout equipment-spacecraft, and Little Joe II systems for the Apollo spacecraft, and for technical management of the General Electric Support Contract.References: 16.

• A-003 Spacecraft Test mission Nation: USA. Agency: NASA. Apogee: 6.00 km (3.70 mi). References: 1592.

• Little Joe II failure investigation Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. A Little Joe II failure investigation presentation was made at MSC July 13 in which General Dynamics/ Convair (GD/C) and MSC's Engineering and Development (E&D) Directorate presented results of independent failure investigations of the mishap which occurred during Apollo Mission A-003 (Boilerplate 22) on June 22, 1965, at WSMR. Additional Details: Little Joe II failure investigation(17222). References: 16.

• No further requirement for Little Joe II Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Little Joe II Program Manager Milton A. Silveira suggested to ASPO Manager Joseph F. Shea that if the next Little Joe II flight test was successful there would be no further requirement for the Little Joe II to support the Apollo program. Silveira said planning had been made with General Dynamics Convair to store the remaining three vehicles, parts, and tooling for one year in case a new requirement from ASPO or NASA should develop. The additional cost of one-year storage compared to normal program closeout was estimated to be small. ASPO concurred with the suggestion on December 1.References: 16.

• A-004 Spacecraft Test mission Nation: USA. Agency: NASA. Apogee: 23 km (14 mi). References: 1592.

• General Electric support of Apollo automatic checkout equipment consolidated Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. KSC proposed to MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth that the two General Electric Co. efforts at KSC supporting automatic checkout equipment (ACE) for spacecraft operations be consolidated. KSC pointed out there was a supplemental agreement with MSC for General Electric to provide system engineering support to ACE/spacecraft operations. Both the KSC Apollo Program Manager and the Director of Launch Operations considered that merging the two GE efforts into a single task order under KSC administrative control would have advantages. The proposal listed two:
  1. A single interface would exist between KSC and all local GE AEC/spacecraft operations.
  2. Through more efficient use of personnel, the contractor should be able to reduce the manpower level and still be responsive to the demands of the Apollo program.
  Gilruth replied Nov. 1 to KSC Director Kurt H. Debus that MSC had evaluated advantages of transferring certain ACE/spacecraft responsibilities to KSC and had also considered advantages of continuing the existing system. These advantages were:
  1. "To maximize manpower utilization, the current ACE management philosophy provides only optimum manpower for each operational site. A central support group, located at Houston, supplies the required support to any site experiencing special peak activity. This philosophy has created maximum management flexibility."
  2. "The original intent in establishing ACE-S/C checkout philosophy was to assure standardization in checkout procedures and/or program unity from factory checkout through launch activities. By continuing to have all GE ACE-S/C site personnel responsible to the central design/engineering group located in Houston, this continuity is assured."
  3. "Logistics support to KSC ground stations is unified under the present management control. Personnel responsible for providing logistics support to KSC ground stations are administratively linked to the personnel at KSC requiring the support."
  4. "MSC currently provides reliability support, configuration management support, engineering support, management support and logistics support to all ACE-S/C ground stations. By continuing the present contractual arrangement we avoid the possibility of costly duplication in these areas."
  Gilruth said that it was the MSC intent to support system engineering requirements in ACE/spacecraft areas and that further support in these areas was normally supplied by the spacecraft contractor. "Actually it has been our impression that GE/MSC ACE/spacecraft support at KSC and all other locations was sufficient to meet all requirements. . . . It is our opinion that the existing ACE/spacecraft management organization is required to assure optimum fulfilment of the Apollo program."References: 16.

• McDowell, Jonathan, Jonathan's Space Home Page, Harvard University, 1997-present. Jonathan McDowell's complete on-line listing of all objects orbited and over 20,000 rocket launches Accessed at: http://www.planet4589.org/jsr.html.

• Emme, Eugene M, Aeronautics and Astronautics: An American Chronology of Science and Technology in the Exploration of Space 1915-1960, NASA, 1961. Accessed at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/timeline.html.

• Gatland, Kenneth, Spacecraft and Boosters, Iliffe Books. London, 1964. Survey of world launch vehicles.

• NASA Report, Launch vehicle flight report - Nasa project Apollo Little Joe 2 qualification test vehicle 12-50-1 - September 1963, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790076764_1979076764.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Program Apollo Flight Mission Directive Apollo Little Joe II Mission A-003, BP-22, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790078425_1979078425.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Little Joe II-Algol Propulsion System Technical Interface Control Document, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660017474_1966017474.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Little Joe II Motor Development Program Final Report, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660017472_1966017472.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Solid Rocket Plant Little Joe II Program, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660017471_1966017471.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Postlaunch Report for Apollo Mission A-001, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790076675_1979076675.pdf. -Right click to download!