Jan 22 1968

From The Space Library

NASA'S Apollo 5 (AS-204) unmanned earth orbital mission, delayed for nearly four hours because of ground equipment malfunc­tions, was successfully launched from KSC Complex 37 at 5:48 pm EST in fourth flight of Saturn IB and first flight of 31,700-lb lunar module (LM-1), designed to land two astronauts on the moon. Primary mis­sion objectives were to verify operation of LM ascent propulsion system (APS), descent propulsion system DPS)-including restart-and space­craft structures; evaluate LM staging; and evaluate 2nd-stage (S-IVB) and instrument-unit (IU) orbital performance.

Launch phase occurred as planned; S-IVB ignited to insert spacecraft into orbit with 138-mi (222-km) apogee, 101-mi (163-km) perigee, 88.3-min period, and 31.63° inclination; nose cone jettisoned; space­craft coasted for 43 min 52 sec; and LM separated from spacecraft LM adapter. LM entered orbit with 138-mi (222-km) apogee, 104-mi (167-km) perigee, 88.4-min period, and 31.63° inclination. Initial 39-sec DES burn, designed to simulate deceleration for descent to lunar surface, was automatically shut down after only 4 sec because of overly con­servative computer programming. Ground controllers switched to mini­mum requirement sequence, an alternate flight plan with shorter total DPS firing time and no provision for lunar landing simulation. Second DPS engine firing occurred successfully, with 26-sec burn at 10% thrust level and 7 sec at maximum thrust. Third DPS engine firing 32 sec later consisted of 26-sec burn at 10% thrust, 2 sec at maximum thrust, and ascent stage fire-in-the-hole (Fax) burn during which the two stages separated and APS engine was ignited simultaneously while DPS was being shut down, simulating abort during landing phase. Duration of initial APS burn during abort staging was 60 sec. APS engine fired sec­ond time for 6 min 23 sec until fuel was depleted. At end of 11-hr 10-min test period, both stages of the LM were left in orbit eventually to reenter and disintegrate. Apollo 5 mission, adjudged successful by NASA in spite of premature DPS engine shutdown, proved out structural integrity of LM; verified in-space operation of DPS and APS; and proved value of contingency planning. LM was last major piece of Apollo hardware to have its first test in space. Command module (CM) had been tested during AS-203 mission (July 5, 1966) and with service module (SM) on AS-202 (Aug. 25, 1966) and Apollo 4 (AS-501) (Nov. 9, 1967). Final deci­sion on whether Apollo 5 results justified omitting second unmanned test and scheduling next mission to be manned would be deferred until March, pending final mission review. (NASA Proj Off; NASA Releases 68-6K, 68-19; MSC Release 68-4; AP, Strothman, W Post, 1/23/68, 1; Fahnestock, W Star, 1/23/68, 1; Wilford, NYT, 1/24/68, 20)

NASA Nike-Tomahawk sounding rocket launched from NASA Wallops Sta­tion carried GSFC payload to 184-mi (296-km) altitude to measure in­tensity and polarization distribution of hydrogen Lyman alpha at night. Although rocket performance was satisfactory, instruments failed to function. (NASA Rpt SRL)

Flammability characteristics of mixed gas atmosphere (60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen at 16 psi) in Apollo command module had been evaluated by MSC in 24 "enriched air" tests, with "all but two ignition points" showing self-extinguishing characteristics. Two ignition points on cir­cuit breaker panels exhibited what MSC termed "moderate fire propaga­tion" because fire spread "beyond the point of self extinguishment?' Dr. Robert R. Gilruth, MSC Director, retained three major options for "mixed gas" for Apollo launch phase: regular air, enriched air using oxygen and nitrogen, or pure oxygen. (Aero Tech, 1/29/68, 10)

MSC had awarded $2-million contract extension to MIT'S Div. of Spon­sored Research for design and developmental support of Apollo guid­ance and navigation systems, including flight test and operational sup­port for Apollo command and service modules. Contract extension brought total estimated value of MIT contract since April 1965 to $48.7 million. (NASA Release 68-15)

In statement to press, Secretary of the Navy Paul R. Ignatius and Chief of Naval Operations Thomas H. Moorer refuted rumors USN wanted to drop controversial F-111B aircraft in favor of another type: "In early October 1967, representatives of the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Company submitted to the Navy a design layout of a new fighter type aircraft. The design proposal sought to meet future fleet air defense and fighter interceptor requirements [and] would build on the F-111B technology and incorporate most of its basic components, including the engines, and the PHOENIX missile [and] variable sweep wing." They stated that three other proposals had been received from aircraft indus­try but added that "evaluation . . . of proposals from industry . .. is a continuing process. - . The Navy continues to support the on-going aircraft programs and the funds in the FY 69 budget request for production of both F-4 and F-111B aircraft, as well as the WAX concept." (DOD Release 70-68)

• 1968
• January

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

• February