Ссылки на материалы по программе Аполлон

1955

p.77
During March: Feasibility of F-1 rocket engine developing a million pounds of thrust in a single chamber established in Rocketdyne

1960

p.119
February 9: Test-stand construction progress announced for the development of large F-1 rocket engine, near Edward AFB, Calif.

p.123
May 21: First public showing of F-1 engine mockup.

1961

p.6
February 10:
First static test of prototype thrust chamber of F-1 engine
achieved a thrust of 1,550,000 pounds for a few seconds, at
Edwards, Calif

p.14
April 6:
Marshall Space Flight Center announced that 1,640,000 pounds
thrust was achieved in test of F-1 rocket engine thrust chamber
static firing at Edwards, Calif., a record thrust for a single
chamber.

p.32
July 11: NASA announced that a complete F-1 engine had begun a
series of static test firings at Edwards Rocket Test Center, Calif.

p.40
August 16: F-1 rocket engine tested in first of firing series of the complete
flight system.

1962

p.3
January 10: NASA announced that the Advanced Saturn launch vehicle,
to be used for manned flights around the moon and for
manned lunar landings with rendezvous technique, would have
five-engined first and second stages. The first stage (S-IB)
would be powered by five F-1 engines (total of 7.5 million pounds
thrust) and the second stage (S-11) would be powered with five
J-2 engines (total of 1 million pounds thrust). A third stage
(S-IVB) with a single J-2 engine would be used on escape
missions.

p.88
May 26: NASA’s F-1 rocket engine first fired at full power (more than
1.5 million pounds of thrust) for full duration at Edwards, Calif.

p.114
July 2: NASA signed three letter contracts with NAA’S Rocketdyne
Division for further development and production of the F-1 and
J-2 rocket engines. The contracts provided: (1) $1 million for
long lead-time items in F-1 engine R&D; (2) $3.4 million for early
production effort on 55 F-1 engines; and (3) $1.7 million for early
production work on 59 J-2 engines. Ultimate value of the final
contracts, extending through 1965, would be about $289 million.

p.136
August 1:
Rocketdyne Division of NAA announced plans to expand its Canoga
Park, Calif., facilities to manufacture F-1 and J-2 rocket engines
for NASAA’sd vanced Saturn launch vehicle.

p.181
September 11:
President Kennedv toured NASA Marshall Space Flight Center,
Huntsville, AIL, and Launch OperationsL Center, Cape Canaveral,
Fla. At MSFC, he inspected a mock-up of the F-1 engine
and a Saturn C-1 launch vehicle, and later witnessed 30-
sec. static-firing of 1.3-million-lb.-thrust S-1 stage for Saturn
SA4 launch vehicle. At LOC, he inspected launch complexes for
Mercury-Atlas vehicle, Titan rocket, and Saturn C-1.

p.222
October 25:
$16,280,069 contract for construction of F-1 rocket engine test
stands was awarded to Santa Fe Engineers, M. M. Sundt Construction
Co., and Stolte, Inc., by Army Corps of Engineers as
agent for NASA. Complex of three test stands and control center
would be built at Edwards AFB, Calif.

p.233
November 6:
Thomas Dixon, Deputy Associate Administrator of NASA, told
Liquid Propulsion Symposium in San Francisco that NASA was
studying large liquid-propellant rocket engines, beyond the 1.5
million-1b.-thrust F-1 engine, that would be necessary for manned
planetary flight. Pointing out the unacceptability of simply scaling
up the F-1 engine to produce the required 20 to 30 million-lb.
thrust, since it would then measure about 60 ft. high and 45 ft.
nozzle diameter, Dixon cited need for “new and imaginative
approaches for propulsion in the future . . . . NASA will emphasize
advanced research that could culminate in the development
of these giant engines for the future.” He added that current
NASA research projects in advanced propulsion were makin
progress. “These studies will assess current work on advance
propulsion concepts and point out areas where new concepts need
to be investigated.”

1963

p.6
January 8:
Task force from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center sent to Rocketdyne,
Canoga Park, Calif., where F-1 engine had developed “combustion
instability,” William Hines reported in Washington
Evening Stw. Five-engine cluster of 1.5-million-lb. thrust, F-1’s
would power first stage of Advanced Saturn (G-5). (Hines,
Wash. Eve. Star, 1/9/63)

p.15
Janwrg 17:
At NASA FY 1964 Budget Briefing, NASA Administrator James E.
Webb acknowledged reported combustion instability in F-1 engine:
“It isn’t just going to turn out to be a problem; it is a
problem, and it has been a problem with every egine as I understand
it that has ever been developed. We will solve the problem"
(NASA Budget Briefing FY 1964 Transcript; Wash. Eve.
Star, 1/23/63)

p.42
February 4:
Aviation Week and Space Technology reported that, within past
18 months, four F-1 rocket engines had been damaged or destroyed
in static firings and that another 12 firings had ended with premature
shutdowns. F-1 was under development by Rocketdyne
for use in Saturn V launch vehicle. (Av. Wk., 2/4/63, 26)

p.68
February 25: NASA announced signing of formal contract with Boeing
Co. for development and roduction of Saturn V first stage,
$418,820,967, largest ever signed by NASA, called for design, devel-
opment, and manufacture of 10 flight boosters and one ground
test booster, as well as assistance to NASA Marshall Space Flight
Center in portions of ground test program. Preliminary devel-
opment of the vehicle stage, powered by five F-1 roket engines,
had been in progress under interim contract since December 1961.
(NASA Release 63-37)

p.84
March 6-7: D. Brainerd Holmes, NASA Deputy Associate Administrator
and Director of Manned Space Flight, testified before
House Committee on Science and Astronautics’ Subcommittee on
Manned Space Flight:
“The major problem remaining in the F-1 engine program is
the existence of the phenomenon known as combustion instability,
which is characterized by pressure oscillations in the combustion
gas inside the engine. Although combustion instability has developed
in only seven of the 250 F-l firings in the last two years,
even this small incidence cannot be tolerated. Consequently, we
are placing major emphasis on solving this problem. The source
of instability in liquid propellant engines has been the subject of
considerable research, since most engines exhibit instability in the
early stages of their development. . . .
“We are confident that we will solve the instability problem on
the F-1 engine, just as it has been solved for all other liquid propellant
engines m use, and we are confident that we can achieve
the flight rating and delivery schedules. We are, however, giving
this matter our closest attention and bringing to bear the knowledge
and judgment of the most qualified experts in the United
States. . . .
In response to questions by Congressmen Emilio Q. Daddario
(D.-Conn.) and James G. Fulton (R.-Pa.), Mr. Holmes said that
both Projects Gemini and Apollo slipped about five months because
of the Administration’s refusal to request FY 1963 supplemental
appropriations last fall.
(Space Bus. DaiJy, 3/6/63, 280)

p.97
Murch 18: Dr. Wernher von Braun, Director of NASA Marshall Space
Flight Center testified before House Committee on Science and
Astronautics’ bubcommittee on Manned Space Flight : “The F-1
engine development program has an impressive list of accomplishments.
A year after the contract was signed full-scale components
were undergoing tests, and in 27 months complete engine
systems testing had begun. Full thrust and full duration tests
have become routine. The engine has been gimbaled during hot
firing. We expect successful completion of the Preliminary
Flight Rating Tests this year . . . .
When design of the F-1 was begun in 1959, combustion instability
was known to be a potential problem. Accordingly,
early in the program tests of various injectors for the thrust chamber
were conducted, and a design was selected which had not
experienced unstable combustion. For about a year, from mid-
1961 to mid-1962, engine tests were conducted without this
phenomenon occurring. Then, on June 28 last year we were testing
development engine #008 on the test stands in California. A
test run which was scheduled for the full 2 1/2 minutes running
time was interrupted after 106 seconds of satisfactory performance
by a rupture of a valve casting. The rupture was
traced to combustion instability. Since this occurrence, several
cases of combustion instability have taken place.
“This phenomenon is not unique to the F-1, but has occurred in
the development of most liquid rocket engines . . . .
“We are presently concentrating on combustion instability and
are making progress. With the contractor at Rocketdyne, we
have made an exhaustive survey of all test data having a bearing
ontheproblem . . . .
“To summarize, the F-1 engine development over the last
four years has made satisfactory progress . . . .” (Testimony)

p.221
During May: NASA awarded $115-million contract to Rocketdyne Div.
of North American Aviation, Inc., for continued development of
F-1 engine. New contract was follow-on to letter contract which
had initiated F-1 development. (MdR,5/ 6/63,13)

p.262
July 1:
A. 0. Tischler, NASA Launph Vehicles and Propulsion Assistant Director
(for Propulsion), quoted as saying combustion instability
problem of F-1 rocket engine was now “under control,” in Mis-
siles and Rockets. Istallation of mechanical isolator separated
oscillations in engine pump from oscillations in fuel system.
“Since that time the engine has been tested under the most severe
conditions and there has been no evidence of combustion instability.”
(M&R, 7/1/63)

p.438
November 19: A NASA Hq press conference confirmed that the combustion
instability that had plagued the 1.5 million-lb.-thrust
F-1 rocket engine had been corrected. NASA had assembled a
team of the best propulsion experts in the country to work on
the problem. The nature of the corrective action was redesign
of a part of the engine behind the injector, so that fuel and
oxydizer were no longer subject to surging as they entered the
thrust chamber. Further redesign was underway to simplify
the rather complicated series of baffles in the new part. (Wash.
Eve. Star, 11/19/63)

p.464
December 5: F-1 rocket engine static-fired in 10-sec, first in series
conducted by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. (Marshall
Star, 12/11/63,2)

1964
p.114
March 24: Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson visited NASA Marshall Space Flight Center,
where she toured the facilities, witnessed a Saturn I and an F-1
static firing, presented awards to MSFC employees, and was honored at
luncheon and tea with her Alabama relatives.
In letter to MSFC Director Dr. Wernher von Braun, the First Lady
described her visit as “stimulating, exhilarating, informative. . . . The
significance of the Saturn has come home to me.” (Marshal2 Star,
3/25/64, 1, 4; Robertson, NYT, 3/25/64; Marshall Star, 4/1/64, 1)

p.120
March 30:
NASA awarded $158,466,800 contract to North American Aviation’s Rocketdyne
Div. for production of 76 F-1 rocket engines for the Saturn V
launch vehicle. The action defined and detailed the procurement action
initiated with letter contract in June 1962. Delivery of static-test engines
to NASA Marshall Space Flight Center had already begun, and the
first flight F-1 would arrive at MSFC in November. (NASA Release 64-
48; Marshall Star, 4/1/64,1)

p.122
During March:
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center accepted the first of three new F-1
rocket engine test stands at NASAe’ns gine test site at Edwards AFB, Calif.
(M&R, 3/30/64,17)

p.197
During May:
Flight-rating test for F-1 rocket engine was delayed from mid-year to end
of the year, and tests leading up to the qualification would begin in
September. (M&R, 5/25/64,9)

p.242
July 8:
Rocketdyne Div. of North American Aviation received four NASA contract
modifications worth $22,378,626 on existing research and development
production contracts for the F-1 engines, which provide thrust in first
stage of Saturn V launch vehicle. NASA also awarded contract modifications
to Douglas Aircraft Co. totaling $31,471,836 for additional
work on the S-IV and S-IVB rocket stages. (Marshall Star, 7/15/64,
1,9; Nashville Tennessean, 7/9/64)

p.346
October 9:
Four consecutive full-duration F-1 engine test firings at new Rocket
Engine Test Site at Edwards, Calif ., demonstrated the operational readiness
of the site, which was officially accepted by NASA Marshall Space
Flight Center Director Dr. Wernher von Braun from the Army Corps
of Engineers. In the ceremonies, Dr. von Braun assigned site operation
responsibilities to Rocketdyne Div. of North American Aviation, Inc.,
which would use the site for qualification firings of F-1 rocket engines.
(Marshall Star, 10/14/64, 10; NASA Release 64-259)

p.377
Nouember 4-6: The AIAA/NASA Third Manned Space Flight Meetingwas held
in Houston, Tex.
Paper on launch vehicle engines by A. 0. Tischler, Director of NASA
OART Chemical Propulsion Div., and Leland F. Belew, Manager of MSFC
Engine Program Office, covered current status of solid- and liquidpropellant
rocket engines for Saturn and Titan launch vehicles. The
authors reported that the F-1 engine represented “the largest thrust
engine fired to date. Started in early 1959 the F-1 engine has been
under development for six years. Five F-1’s will be used in the first
stage of the Saturn V vehicle to produce a take-off thrust of 7,500,000
pounds. . . .
“Nominal firing duration is 150 seconds and we expect better than
15 times that life to be in the engine at qualification. . . .
[Design refinements to correct combustion-driven oscillations] have
produced an engine which in the last five months has accumulated
almost as much test time as in the previous five years. . . .” (Text)

1965

p.100
March 1:
First Saturn V booster (s-IC-T) had been moved to static test stand at
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center to prove out its propulsion
system. The 280,000-lb. stage, developed jointly by MSFC and Boeing
CO., had two tanks with total capacity of 4,400,000 lbs. of liquid oxygen
and kerosene, and five F-1 engines, each weighing ten tons, which
provided total thrust of 7.5 million Ibs. (MSFC Release 65-47; Marshall
Star, 3/3/65, l, 6)

p.112
March 8: NASA Associate Administrator Dr. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., discussing
the management of NAS4’s aeronautics and space effort before
the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, said:
“The Saturn IB and Saturn V ‘battleship’ upper
stages have been successfully fired. The F-1 engine has passed its
flight rating test. This record was established by the hard work and
careful attention to detail of the government-industry-university team
charged with aeronautic and space exploration. This total team, numbering
380,000 people. is managed by the relatively small hard core
NASA organization of less than 34.000.” (Testimony; NASA Auth.
Hearings, 76-114)


p.178
April 10: One of the five F-1 engines on the Saturn V booster was successfully
static fired at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center for 16 3/4 sec.
(Marshall Star, 4/14/65, 1)

p.188
April 16: Saturn V launch vehicle IS-IC stage) was static-fired for the first
time. at VASA Marshall Space Flicht Center. The five F-1 engines were
icnited in a test uhich lasted 611.) sec. during which they generated a
thrust of 7.5 million lbs. ~160.000.000 hp.). This was the first full
cluster test and was made on a recently completed 400-ft.-tall test stand.
The S-IC was the first stage of 364-ft:tall Saturn V-Apollo combination
that would ultimately take astronauts and equipment to the moon.
Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight Dr. George E.
Mueller congratulated MSFC personnel on the successful test: “. . . As
this \+as one of the key milestones in the whole lunar landing program,
its successful performance. 12 weeks ahead of schedule, has a great
bearing on our program.” (MFSC Release 65-92 : Marshall Star,
5/5/65, 5)

p.219
May 6: Saturn V booster (s-IC stage) was static-fired for the second time
at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The five F-1 engines were
ignited in a 15-sec. test during which they generated 7.5 million lbs.
thrust. Tests of this stage would gradually increase in duration until
full-length firing of 2 1/2 min. was reached in late spring or early
summer. (MSFC Release 65-117)

p.275
June 11: Saturn V booster (S-IC-T stage) was successfully static-fired for
90 sec. at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. During the test, longest
to date, the five F-1 engines developed 7.5 million lbs. thrust and all
four outer engines were gimbaled to simulate the motion required to
control the vehicle in flight. (MSFC Release 65-148; Marshall Star,
5/16/65, 1)

p.291
June 21: F-1 rocket engine completed its 1,000th test firing at NASA MSFC’S
Rocket Engine Test Site where it operated at its full thrust of 1,500,000
lbs. for 165.6 sec. Test was conducted by North American Aviation’s
Rocketdyne Div. In a cluster of five, F-1 would provide 7,500,000
lbs. thrust in the SIC first stage of the Saturn V booster that would
launch Apollo lunar missions. ( MSFC Release 65-154; MarshuU Star,
6/23/65, 1)

p.319
July 8:
A new F-1 engine test stand was used for the first time at NASA
Marshall Space Flight Center's West Test Area. The 10-sec. initial
firing of the 1.5 million-lb.-thrust engine was primarily for checking
out the new facility.
On another test stand at MSFC, Chrysler Corp. fired the second Saturn
IB booster, manufactured by Chrysler at MSFC's Michoud Assembly
Facility. The test, scheduled to run for 30 sec., was terminated
automatically after three seconds because of a faulty signal from an
engine pressure switch. ( MSFC Release 65-178; Marshall Star,
7/14/65,1)

p.368
August 5: S-IC-T, 138-ft.-tall test version of Saturn V’s first stage, was
static-fired for 2 1/2 min. at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in first
full-duration test-firing. The five F-1 engines, each consuming liquid
oxygen and kerosene at the rate of three tons a second, generated
7.5 million lbs. thrust. Ability of the engines to steer the rocket was
also successfully demonstrated. The five-engine cluster was mounted
so that only the one in the middle of the cross-shaped array was stationary.
(MSFC Release 65-197; Marshall Star, 8/11/65, 1)

1966

p.115
March 24: NASA would negotiate two incentive-fee contracts totaling $315
million with Boeing Co. and North American Aviation, Inc., for procurement
of additional Saturn V 1st (S-IC) stages and F-1 rocket engines:
Boeing Co. would supply five S-IC stages, costing $165 million; North
American Aviation, Inc., would handle production, support, and sustaining
engineering of 33 F-1 engines for $150 million. (NASA Release 66-69;
WSJ, 3/25/66, 10)

p.210
June 7:
MSFC successfully static-tested S-IC stage of the second flight Saturn V
launch vehicle for 125 sec. and recorded 1,200 measurements of stage’s
performance. The 33-ft.-dia., 135-ft.-long stage developed 7.5 million
lbs. thrust from five F-1 engines-four of which were gimbaled during
test. This was only captive test planned for this flight stage. (MSFC
Release 66-129)

p.352
November 21:
MSFC awarded North American Aviation, Inc., a $l4l-million, cost-plusincentive-
fee contract to provide 30 F-1 rocket engines, beginning in
November 1967, and varied support services. (NASA Release 66-297)

1967

p.61
March 3:
Successful 15-sec captive firing of ground test version of Saturn V 1st stage
(S-IC) was conducted at MTF by Boeing Co., prime contractor, to prove
operational readiness of nzw S-IC test stand and support facilities and
of the Boeing test team. Stage was powered by five Rocketdyne F-1
kerosene- and liquid-oxygen-fueled engines capable of developing 7.5
million lbs thrust. (Marshall Star, 3/8/67,1)

p.194
During week of June 25: Ceremonies at NASA Rocket Engine Test Site at
Edwards AFB marked delivery of the millionth ton of cryogenic rocket
propellants and pressurants. Fluids were used by North American Aviation,
Inc.’s Rocketdyne Div. to test fire F-1 engines prior to shipping
them to MSFC for use in Saturn v 1st stages. (MSFC Release 67-139)

1968

p.30
February 2:
S-II 2nd stage for fifth Apollo Saturn V mission left Seal Beach, Calif.,
onboard USNS Point Barrow en route to Mississippi Test Facility ( MTF) ,
where stage would undergo static testing before shipment to KSC. Also
onboard ship, to save $6,000 in transportation charges, was F-1 rocket
engine. Engine would be unloaded for inspection at Michoud Assembly
Facility in New Orleans, then transferred to barge for remainder
of trip to MTF. (MSFC Release 68-23)

p.257
October 16:
MSFC issued to NAR’S Rocketdyne Div. two contract modifications to extend
engine production and delivery. An $8.4-million supplement was
awarded for extension of J-2 engine production through April 30,
1970, because of overall stretch-out of launch vehicle production.
Under extension, J-2 engine production would be cut from three engines
per month to one. Contract for F-1 engine deliveries was extended
through June 1970 under $4-million modification which decreased
F-l production rate from two engines per month to one.
( MSFC Releases 68-246,68-247)

p.275
November 8:
MSFC announced Boeing Co. had been issued $239,000 contract for 10-
mo study defining two-stage derivative of Saturn V launch vehicle.
With 1st (S-IC) and 3rd (S-IVB) stages and instrument unit of Saturn
V, vehicle could place up to 158,000 lb in low earth orbit. Varying
the number of F-1 engines in S-IC could tailor vehicle to specific missions.
Five-engine configuration could put into orbit Saturn I Workshop
with airlock and multiple docking adapter, plus Apollo Telescope
Mount and Apollo CSM and three-man crew. Three Saturn IB vehicles
would be required to do same job. Vehicle could resupply space stations
and could be used for synchronous orbits and unmanned lunar
and planetary flights at major savings over three-stage Saturn V. Twostage
version was called “Intermediate 20.” With Centaur 3rd stage, vehicle
could send about 15,000 lb to Jupiter or Saturn.
MSFC also had signed $22,826,736 contract modification with North
American Rockwell Corp.’s Rocketdyne Div. for continued production
support of J-2 engines used on Saturn IB and Saturn V boosters.
Modifications would improve engines’ versatility. ( MSFC Releases
68-264,68-266)

1969

p.79
March 13:
MSFC announced it had completed negotiations with North American
Rockwell Corp. Rocketdyne Div. on $4,075,490 contract modification
extending F-1 engine deliveries through June 1970 to align engine
effort to stretchout in production rate of Saturn V boosters. F-1 engines
for initial order of 15 Saturn V boosters had been slated for April 1969
delivery.

p.105
April 9:
MSFC shipped 20,000-lb, 20-ft-tall F-1 and 225,000-lb-thrust J-2
Saturn V rocket engines from New Orleans to France as part of NASA
exhibit at Paris Air Show, May 29-June 8. Other items in display
would include Apollo 8 spacecraft and an Apollo lunar module. (MSFC
Release 69-106; MSFC PIO)

p.161
May 29-June 8: 28th Salon Internationale de l’A6ronautique et de 1‘Espace
-Paris Air Show-featured nearly 550 exhibitors representing 14
nations. US., with largest pavilion, emphasized space achievements,
taking “Countdown Apollo” as theme. On opening day biggest display
attraction, said United Press International, was Apollo 8 spacecraft,
which Apollo 9 Astronauts James A. McDivitt, David R. Scott, and
Russell L. Schweickart unveiled in ceremony attended by US. Ambas-
sador to France, R. Sargent Shriver. US. exhibit also included F-1
and J-2 engines of 1st and 2nd stages of Saturn V rocket and full-scale
model of Apollo 11 LM.

p.185
June 20:
MSFC announced appointment of Saverio F. Morea, former manager of
F-1 and J-2 engine projects, as manager of new lunar roving vehicle
project. Small manned vehicle would weigh 400 lbs and would be
carried on board LM in 1971 to provide lunar surface transportation
for two astronauts, hand tools, lunar samples, and other equipment.
( MSFC Release 69-150)

p.417
December 29:
NASA exhibit at Expo 70 in Osaka, Japan, March 15 through September
would. feature F-1 rocket engine, models of Explorer VII, VIII, and
XI, tools being developed for Saturn V Workshop, and Saturn V
launch vehicle digital computer, MSFC announced. Exhibit also would
display weather and communications satellites, Apollo spacecraft, spacesuits,
flight cameras, and moon rocks. (MSFC Release 69-273)

1970

1971

p.1
January 2: GAO sent report to Congress that North American Rockwell
Corp. stood to receive extra $1.5 million for beating target costs on
NASA contract to develop F-1 rocket while, actually, target cost had
been overstated originally by $5 million. NR had not used most current
cost data available. GAO recommended that NASA seek adjustment
in lees to NR and ensure that cost estimates in existing and future
contracts were based on accurate, complete data. Report included NR
statement of disagreement with findings and recommendations. (Beckler,
W Post, 1/3/71, A8)

p.158
June 8:
NR Rocketdyne Div. had been granted $26 228 158 contract modification
for continued support on Saturn launch vehicle rocket engines, MsFC
announced. Contract-effective July 1, 1971, through Dec. 31, 1972-
allowed analysis of F-1, J-2, and H-1 engine performance, field engineering,
logistics, and retention of Rocketdyne problem-sdving group
for remainder of Saturn program. (MSFC Release 71-97)

1972

p.58
February 17: House Committee on Science and Astronautics’ Subcommittee on Manned
Space Flight began hearings on H.R. 12824, N 1973 NASA authorization
bill. Dale D. Myers, Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight:
Upon completion of Apollo program with Apollo 17 in December,
“we will have accumulated a vast treasure of lunar data. Many exciting
scientific results have already been published; however, an adequate
assessment of the total body of data will require scientific effort for
years to come.
“As Apollo draws to a close, we are concentrating our activities in
earth orbit-the primary field of manned space flight during this
decade.” Skylab was “first step in this direction” and “one of the
most significant benefit-oriented programs of the space age.” Skylab
was four times larger than Soviet Salyut spacecraft and weighed
77 180 kg (170 000 lbs) with total 344 cu m (12 150 cu ft) pressurlzed
volume. Skylab typified variety of activities that could be accomplished
in space. “Several years ago we began to look at this total space
arena in a different way. . . . While we were driving toward our goal
of a manned lunar landing . . . a distinction was made . . . between
manned and unmanned flight programs.” Distinction “really does not
exist” in NASA’S program for 1970s. “The transition is already underway
in Skylab.”
Survey of total space activity had also led to shuttle concept. “We
started with a fully reusable system . . . using winged flyback booster
and orbiter stages with all fuel carried in internal tanks.” Studies
confirmed feasibility. Estimated development costs were close to $10
billion, but cost per flight, at $4-1 million, “made it extremely
attractive.” Problem was lack of funds. NASA LLlearnedth at there were
cost advantages in using an expendable liquid hydrogen tank for the
orbiter.” This became baseline with booster configuration unchanged
except for modification. While process reduced development costs,
expendability of tanks increased flight costs. NASA found “additional
savings could be made if we placed both the hydrogen and the oxygen
tanks outside the orbiter.” In efforts to economize on booster development,
NASA first considered “flyback booster incorporating F-1 engines
and phasing orbiter systems” and later “unmanned ballistic boosters.”
Leading candidates were recoverable and reusable pressure-fed liquidpropellant
booster and booster with solid-fueled rocket motors.
Contractors were completing studies, and decision would be made
shortly.

 

Abstract—From the lunar surface survey performed with a narrow-angle camera of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft, the distributions of the phase ratios of the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites and the Ranger 9 impact site were mapped. In the acquired images, the traces of the structural disturbances of the lunar regolith layer caused by the jet flows are seen.

 

Of interest here are regions around the Apollo landers that were disturbed during descent, which we refer to as blast zones. High-resolution images of the Apollo landing sites obtained by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) [6] show bright regions around the Lunar Modules (LMs), which have been interpreted as disturbance of the soil due to the jets of rocket exhaust during descent of the spacecraft [7].

 

Abstract
We use a photometric method called phase-ratio imaging to study the landing sites of the Soviet Luna-16, Luna-20, Luna-23 and Luna-24 probes using the survey data of the lunar surface, which was carried out with the Narrow-Angle Cameras (NACs) of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft. The phase-ratio images clearly show diffuse features associated with structure perturbations of the lunar regolith. We suggest that these features are caused by the impact of the gas jets from the rocket engines. The photometric anomalies around the landing sites suggest that the impacts smooth out the surface, destroying the primordial “fairy castle” structure that effectively produces the shadow-hiding effect. The same characteristic features have been found previously for the Apollo spacecraft landings, but over larger spatial scales. The only exception is the landing site of the Luna-24 probe, for which the feature of the possible impact of the gas jets is shifted to the northwest by approximately 150 m. As the Luna-24 descent module worked in the regular mode and could not allow such a shift as the probe was descending vertically, a possible explanation is that the sites of Luna-23 (an unsuccessful sample return mission) and Luna-24 are misidentified. The distance between the sites is about 2 km, which is within the inaccuracy of their coordinate determination. We suggest that because of faulty processing of the radar system for distance/speed control, the incorrectly operated engine and/or thrusters of Luna-23 produced the 150 m lateral drift before final deactivation and hard descent. To better understand the geologic situation, we produce brightness and phase-ratio anaglyphs for the vicinity of the landings.

 

Авторы явно рассчитывают обогатиться за счет пытливых умов, любящих порассуждать о гигантских кратерах, которые на самом деле должны быть под посадочными ступенями.