Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module (50 page)

Space technology has made possible instant worldwide communications and has spawned huge new industries using space-based or -derived technologies. Global communications and TV reception routinely take place via satellite, linking all peoples with an intimacy unimaginable to past generations. Cellular telephones have revolutionized the way the world does business and enabled undeveloped nations to leap-frog the installation of expensive ground-based infrastructure. A satellite-based Global Positioning System provides accurate knowledge of geographical position anywhere on Earth, greatly enhancing the safety of all modes of travel and the accessibility of every spot on the globe. These advances in space technology have resulted in the concept of the “global village,” an enhanced recognition of mankind’s interdependence and need for peace and brotherhood.

Observations from orbit have greatly expanded our knowledge of Earth and its environment. Our understanding of weather, climate, the oceans, the atmosphere, geology, nature, and endangered species has been multiplied and quantified by manned and unmanned measurements and observations from space. Many practical benefits have flowed from this information. Improved weather forecasting, for example, has saved lives and reduced property losses in natural disasters. Global climate modeling has helped us understand long-term natural trends and the extent to which human activities can affect them, thus making possible strategies to reduce problems such as atmospheric ozone depletion and global warming—problems not even recognizable prior to the availability of data from space. High-resolution imaging of the Earth at different wavelengths provides accurate information on land-use patterns, crop health and yields, erosion and fire damage. This valuable information is now being obtained and marketed commercially by private companies.

The geologic exploration of the Moon during Apollo was extensive, considering its pioneering aspect. Apollo excursions, samples, and surface and orbital measurements provided in-depth knowledge about the origins and composition of the Moon and its relation to Earth. The Moon was formed at the same time as Earth, about 4.5 billion years ago, soon after the formation of the Sun. Apollo provided a time line of major events in the Moon’s geological history and showed both similarities and differences with Earth.

The Apollo missions highlighted human adaptability, demonstrating that people could work effectively in space under unique and hostile environmental conditions. The Skylab and Mir Earth orbital space stations further determined human capabilities and limits in space, as will the planned International Space Station (ISS). The ability to live and work in space for long periods of time is essential for manned missions to far places, such as Mars
and beyond, and for colonization of the Moon or planets. A permanent human presence in Earth orbital space is also needed to fully exploit the space environment, using its high vacuum, low gravity, unobstructed sunlight, and unique perspective of Earth for whatever useful applications humans can devise. The ISS could be a precursor to manned planetary exploration—the first steps toward making the vision of
Star Trek
a reality.

NASA’s extensive program of unmanned exploration of the solar system has yielded detailed knowledge about the Sun, the planets and their moons, and the solar and interplanetary environments. Pioneer, Explorer, Viking, Mars Pathfinder, and other programs have greatly increased the data on the solar system in only two decades. We can now compare and contrast Earth with every other planet and understand the major factors making the differences. The closeup views of far away worlds such as Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, and their infinitely varied moons, has further stimulated our imaginations and desire that someday mankind shall visit these forbidding, exotic places.

Astronomical observatories and instruments in space have widened our window to the universe and caused ferment in cosmology and the theories of creation. The orbiting astronomical observatory, Grumman’s pioneering large telescope in space, was succeeded by the Hubble Space Telescope, which is providing penetrating views to the farthest reaches of the universe. Other advanced observatories in orbit are probing other regions of the electromagnetic spectrum to astronomical distances: including the Shuttle Infrared Telescope Facility, the Compton Cosmic Ray Observatory, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. At the long-wavelength end of the spectrum, very large ground-based radio telescopes, such as the facility in Areceibo, Puerto Rico, augment the data gained from space observations and keep watch for intelligent signals from remote galaxies and stars. The unprecedented flood of data has challenged cosmologists as never before, resulting in fascinating visions of the origins, extent and future course of stars, galaxies and the entire universe. It has stimulated the quest for a unified theory to explain the origin of the universe that can be verified by the observations.

The cumulative effect of these advances in human knowledge and technology resulting from the space program has been revolutionary and pervades humanity’s contemporary view of ourselves and our world. We are far more accurately informed about our Earth and its place in the solar system and the universe than any previous generation. The once-exalted view of humankind as central to the universe has shrunk to a more humble but treasured one. Evidence has mounted that other planets are orbiting other Suns and that life on Earth is not unique in the universe. Statistics suggest that many millions of living worlds exist throughout creation, inhabited by a dazzling variety of life-forms and intelligent creatures, whose characteristics are a fertile field for speculation and imagination. What a grand universe the exploration of space has already opened up for us, in such a short span of time!

To have contributed a measure to this increase in cosmic knowledge and understanding is immensely satisfying and rewarding. It was my privilege to play a role in the greatest engineering adventure of the twentieth century. For that opportunity, and for the many friends and colleagues who helped our great enterprise succeed, I remain profoundly grateful. I wish my children and grandchildren and their generations the joy of continuing this exciting quest. As they lookup at the Moon’s glowing, seductive face, I hope they’ll be inspired to still greater efforts by what we have done. Perhaps technology will let them look down on the Moon through their own computers, zooming in on each of the six lunar modules that sit in timeless isolation astride the foot-printed dust of a once-active lunar base. Why, I can see them up there with my naked eyes—can’t you?

Notes

Chapter 1. A Difficult Delivery

1.
The categories were Not Valid Chit (mistaken), Explanation Satisfactory, Documentation Correction Required, Retest or Replacement Required, and Unresolved.

2.
Thomas J. Kelly, LM Meeting Notebook, bk. 6, 21 June 1967, 150. LM Meeting Notebooks are in the possession of the author.

3.
Ibid., 152.

Chapter 2. We Could Go to the Moon

1.
Richard Thruelsen,
The Grumman Story
(New York: Praeger, 1976), 286; Loyd S. Swenson Jr., James M. Grimwood, and Charles C. Alexander,
This New Ocean
, NASA History Series, NASA SP-4201 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1966), 137.

2.
Courtney G. Brooks, James M. Grimwood, Loyd S. Swenson Jr.,
Chariots for Apollo
, NASA History Series (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1979), 26–29.

3.
Charles Murray and Catherine B. Cox,
Apollo: The Race to the Moon
(New York: Touchstone Books, Simon & Schuster, 1989), 75–83.

4.
The name “lunar excursion module” (LEM) was used by NASA until 1967. Because their Public Affairs Office thought that “Excursion” had a frivolous connotation, they shortened the name to “lunar module” (LM), which was still pronounced “lem.” For simplicity and consistency, I refer to the manned lunar landing spacecraft as the lunar module (LM) throughout this book.

5.
The original and most persistent (and effective) proponent of LOR was John Houboult, whom I met for the first time at this meeting. The usually visionary Faget at first opposed it, but he later became convinced of its merits. By the time of our meeting, he and Gilruth were fully converted LOR proponents.

Chapter 3. The LM Proposal

1.
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation,
Project Apollo—Lunar Excursion Module Proposal
(Bethpage, N.Y.: Grumman Aircraft Engineering, 4 Sept. 1962), 1–51. Available at Grumman History Center, Bethpage, N.Y.

2.
Ibid., 1–52.

Chapter 4. The Fat Lady Sings

1.
In 1961 Grumman invested $10 million in Plant 25, the new Engineering building, to provide office space if either the F111 subcontract or the LM was won. (Both were.)

2.
A fine restaurant just outside Grumman’s southern boundary fence.

3.
Joseph G. Gavin Jr. to author, May 1997.

4.
Brooks et al.,
Chariots for Apollo
, 111–14.

5.
In September 1967, North American Aviation was acquired by the Rockwell Manufacturing Company, and its name was changed to North American Rockwell Corporation. Later this was changed to its present corporate name, Rockwell International. In late 1996 Rockwell International sold its aerospace business to the Boeing Company, which now operates the facilities in Downey and Seal Beach, California, where the Apollo program activities took place.

6.
Brooks et al.,
Chariots for Apollo
, 41–42.

Chapter 5. Engineering a Miracle

1.
The four roommates later bought the house, and as each got married, Rathke bought his share until he was sole owner. His bride Winifred, whom he met at Grumman, moved in when they were married.

2.
The TFX cancellation also made Bill Rathke, who was Grumman’s project engineer for the Missileer airplane, available for the LM program.

3.
The command module needed prone position contoured couches to enable the crew to withstand four Gs during liftoff and eight Gs during atmospheric reentry.

4.
Brooks et al.,
Chariots for Apollo
, 137.

5.
Michael Collins,
Carrying the Fire
, 2d ed. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1989), 339.

6.
Gavin said that more than fourteen thousand LM test failures were recorded over the life of the program, of which only twenty-two were still unexplained at program’s end. Joseph G. Gavin Jr., interview by author, Washington, D.C., May 1998.

7.
Kelly, LM Meeting Notebook, bk. 1, 17 January 1964, 27.

8.
Brooks et al.,
Chariots for Apollo
, 159.

9.
North American Aviation had been working under a loosely defined letter contract since late 1961. In August 1963 seven months of intensive negotiation concluded with the approval of a definitive contract for $934.4 million. Brooks et al.,
Chariots for Apollo
, 132.

10.
Ibid., 56.

11.
Ibid., 136.

12.
Kelly, LM Meeting Notebook, bk. 1, 16 January 1964, 21–26.

13.
For example, the level 2 diagram for the ascent propulsion system showed the tanks, rocket engine, valves, regulators, plumbing, and electrical control inputs and outputs.

Chapter 6. Mockups

1.
Charles R. Pellegrino and Joshua Stoff,
Chariots for Apollo: The Making of the Lunar Module
, 1st ed. (New York: Atheneum, 1985), 57.

2.
Brooks et al.,
Chariots for Apollo
, 162.

Chapter 7. Pushing Out the Drawings

1.
Murray and Cox,
Apollo
, 61–65.

2.
Kelly, LM Meeting Notebook, bk. 1, 13 May 1964, 122–23.

3.
Ibid., bk. 2, 22 September 1964, 43–44.

4.
Thruelsen,
Grumman Story
, 241.

5.
Kelly, LM Meeting Notebook, bk. 4, 18 April 1966, 127.

Chapter 8. Trimming Pounds and Ounces

1.
Johnson’s list included some pretty “far-out” items, such as cutting the LM crew down to one man and eliminating system redundancy—for example, making LM passive during lunar-orbit rendezvous by deleting the rendezvous radar. These were probably not meant as serious contenders but served to impress Grumman with how seriously NASA took LM’s weight problem and to stimulate us to question all the “givens” of the design and the mission plan.

2.
Kelly, LM Meeting Notebook, bk. 2, 9 October 1964, 56–57; 9 November 1964, 77–80.

3.
Ibid., 16 March 1965, 152.

4.
Ibid., bk. 3, 8 April 1965, 18–19.

5.
The engineer “cognizant of” (i.e., in charge of) technical performance of a subcontracted or purchased item.

6.
Kelly, LM Meeting Notebook, bk. 2, 26 February 1965, 139.

7.
Brooks et al.,
Chariots for Apollo
, 173–74.

8.
Range rate could be calculated from successive range measurements.

Chapter 9. Problems, Problems!

1.
Equivalent to one sugar cube-sized volume of helium per day at sea-level temperature and pressure.

2.
The “Grumman ironworks” referred to the frequent ability of Grumman airplanes to survive combat and return safely to base even though shot full of holes in battle. Grumman’s rugged planes were considered worthy of an ironworks. “Sterling on silver” refers to a cherished quotation from a navy admiral that “the name Grumman on an airplane is like sterling on silver.”

3.
Brooks et al.,
Chariots for Apollo
, 256–60.

4.
Murray and Cox,
Apollo
, 146–51, 179–80.

5.
Specific impulse equals thrust per propellant flow rate; a measure of rocket engine efficiency, roughly equivalent to miles per gallon for automobile engines.