The Command Module was the control center for the Apollo spacecraft and living quarters for the crew. It contained the pressurized main crew cabin, crew couches, control and instrument panel, optical and electronic guidance systems, communications systems, environmental control system, batteries, heat shield, reaction control system, forward docking hatch, side hatch, five windows and the parachute recovery system.
# Nose Cone and Q-Ball—The nosecone of the LES contained sensors to sense aerodynamic pressure (”Q”), and thereby determine the angle of attack, airspeed, and attitude of the spacecraft and launch vehicle. This structure, known as the Q-ballrelayed this information to the command module and the launch vehicle guidance system.
# Q-Ball cover—The Q-ball’s pitot tubes, which could easily be clogged by debris, were protected by a styrofoam cover that was removed a few seconds before launch The Q-ball cover was split in half vertically and held together by a 2-inch (51 mm) rubber band. A razor blade was positioned behind the rubber band, pinched between the halves of the cover. A wire rope was connected to the top and bottom of the razor blade and to both halves of the cover. The wire rope was routed through a pulley on the hammerhead crane at the top of the launch umbilical tower (LUT) down to a tube on the right side of the 360-foot (110 m) level of the LUT. The wire rope was connected to a cylindrical weight inside a tube. The weight rested on a lever controlled by a pneumatic solenoid valve. When the valve was actuated from the Launch Control Center (LCC), the pneumatic pressure of 600 PSI GN2 (nitrogen gas) rotated the lever down allowing the weight to drop down the tube. The dropping weight pulled the wire rope, which pulled the blade cutting the rubber band, and the wire rope pulled the halves of the Q-Ball away from the launch vehicle. The apparent overengineering of this simple system was due to the fact that the launch escape system, which depended on the Q-ball data, was armed 5 minutes before launch, so retraction of the Q-ball cover was a life-critical part of a possible pad abort.
# Canard Assembly and Pitch Motor—These worked in combination to direct the Command Module off a straight path and to the side during an emergency. This would direct the Command Module off the flight path of an exploding launch vehicle. It would also direct the Command Module to land off to the side of any launch pad fire and not in the middle of it.
# Tower Jettison Motor—A smaller solid fuel motor that jettisons the Launch Escape System after it is no longer needed. This usually happens after second stage ignition.
# Launch Escape Motor—The main solid fuel rocket motor that, firing through four rocket nozzles, pulls the Command Module rapidly away from a launch emergency.
# Launch Escape Tower—Assembly that attaches the Launch Escape System rocket motors to the Command Module.
# Boost Protective Cover—Hollow conical structure that fits over the Command Module during launch. It protects the Command Module heat shield and windows during ascent through the atmosphere. It also protects the Command Module from rocket exhaust should the Launch Escape System have to be used
The purpose of the Apollo launch escape system was to pull the Command Module (which contained the crew cabin) away from the launch vehicle in an abort situation.
The emergency could be a pad fire, exploding launch vehicle or a launch vehicle going off course.
The Launch Escape System would work automatically (or through manual activation) to fire a solid fuel escape rocket and open a canard system to direct the Command Module away from, and off the path of, a launch vehicle in trouble. The Launch Escape System would then jettison and the Command Module would land with its parachute recovery system.
If the emergency happened on the launch pad, the Launch Escape System would lift the Command Module to a sufficient height to allow the recovery parachutes to deploy safely before coming in contact with the ground.
The Apollo spacecraft was designed as part of the Apollo Program, by the United States in the early 1960s to land men on the moon before 1970 and return them safely to earth. This goal was set forth by President Kennedy after the first flight of the Mercury Space Program. The spacecraft was made up of multiple units or stages that worked together to perform the mission of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth. The main components of the Apollo spacecraft were (going from top to bottom) the launch escape system, the Command Module, the Service Module, the Lunar Module and the lunar module adapter. These stages together would sit atop the launch vehicle.
The principle was Lunar Orbit Rendezvous: A rocket would launch the spacecraft to the moon. The spacecraft would fly to the moon and orbit it. A smaller portion of the spacecraft would land on the moon and return to lunar orbit. Then a portion of the spacecraft would return to earth.
Launch vehicles: Little Joe II, Saturn I, Saturn IB, and Saturn V.
Once Kennedy had defined a goal, the Apollo mission planners were faced with the challenge of designing a set of flights that could meet this stated goal while minimizing risk to human life, cost, and demands on technology and astronaut skill. Four possible mission modes were considered:
* Direct Ascent: A spacecraft would travel directly to the Moon, landing and returning as a unit. This plan would have required a very powerful booster, the planned Nova rocket.
* Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR): Two Saturn V rockets would be launched, one carrying the spacecraft and one carrying a propulsion unit that would have enabled the spacecraft to escape earth orbit. After a docking in earth orbit, the spacecraft would have landed on the Moon as a unit.
* Lunar Surface Rendezvous: Two spacecraft would be launched in succession. The first, an automated vehicle carrying propellants, would land on the Moon and would be followed some time later by the manned vehicle. Propellant would be transferred from the automated vehicle to the manned vehicle before the manned vehicle could return to Earth.
* Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR): One Saturn V would launch a spacecraft that was composed of modular parts. A command module would remain in orbit around the moon, while a lunar module would descend to the moon and then return to dock with the command module while still in lunar orbit. In contrast with the other plans, LOR required only a small part of the spacecraft to land on the Moon, thereby minimizing the mass to be launched from the Moon’s surface for the return trip.
In early 1961, direct ascent was generally the mission mode in favor at NASA. Many engineers feared that a rendezvous, which had never been attempted in space, would be impossible in lunar orbit. However, dissenters including John Houbolt at Langley Research Center emphasized the important weight reductions that were offered by the LOR approach. Throughout 1960 and 1961, Houbolt campaigned for the recognition of LOR as a valid and practical option. Bypassing the NASA hierarchy, he sent a series of memos and reports on the issue to Associate Administrator Robert Seamans; while acknowledging that he spoke “somewhat as a voice in the wilderness,” Houbolt pleaded that LOR should not be discounted in studies of the question.
Seamans’ establishment of the Golovin committee in July 1961 represented a turning point in NASA’s mission mode decision While the ad-hoc committee was intended to provide a recommendation on the boosters to be used in the Apollo program, it recognized that the mode decision was an important part of this question. The committee recommended in favor of a hybrid EOR-LOR mode, but its consideration of LOR — as well as Houbolt’s ceaseless work — played an important role in publicizing the workability of the approach. In late 1961 and early 1962, members of NASA’s Space Task Group at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston began to come around to support for LOR. The engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center took longer to become convinced of its merits, but their conversion was announced by Wernher von Braun at a briefing in June 1962. NASA’s formal decision in favor of LOR was announced on July 11, 1962. Space historian James Hansen concludes that:
The Apollo program was originally conceived early in 1960, during the Eisenhower administration, as a follow-up to America’s Mercury program. While the Mercury capsule could only support one astronaut on a limited earth orbital mission, the Apollo spacecraft was intended to be able to carry three astronauts on a circumlunar flight and perhaps even on a lunar landing. The program was named after the Greek god of light and archery by NASA manager Abe Silverstein, who later said that “I was naming the spacecraft like I’d name my baby. While NASA went ahead with planning for Apollo, funding for the program was far from certain, particularly given Eisenhower’s equivocal attitude to manned spaceflight. In November 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected President after a campaign that promised American superiority over the Soviet Union in the fields of space exploration and missile defense. Using space exploration as a symbol of national prestige, he warned of a “missile gap” between the two nations, pledging to make the U.S. not “first but, first and, first if, but first period Despite Kennedy’s rhetoric, he did not immediately come to a decision on the status of the Apollo program once he was elected President. He knew little about the technical details of the space program, and was put off by the massive financial commitment required by a manned moon landing. When NASA Administrator James Webb requested a thirty percent budget increase for his agency, Kennedy supported an acceleration of NASA’s large booster program but deferred a decision on the broader issue.
On April 12, 1961, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man to fly in space, reinforcing American fears about being left behind in a technological competition with the Soviet Union. At a meeting of the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics held only one day after Gagarin’s flight, many congressmen pledged their support for a crash program aimed at ensuring that America would catch up Kennedy, however, was circumspect in his response to the news, refusing to make a commitment on America’s response to the Soviets. On April 20 Kennedy sent a memo to Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, asking Johnson to look into the status of America’s space program, and into programs that could offer NASA the opportunity to catch up. Johnson responded on the following day, concluding that “we are neither making maximum effort nor achieving results necessary if this country is to reach a position of leadership. His memo concluded that a manned moon landing was far enough in the future to make it possible that the United States could achieve it first.John F. Kennedy’s May 25, 1961 speech before a Joint Session of Congress
Answering President Kennedy’s challenge and landing men on the moon by the end of 1969 required the most sudden burst of technological creativity, and the largest commitment of resources ($25 billion), ever made by any nation in peacetime. At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities.
“ We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
The Apollo program was a human spaceflight program undertaken by NASA during the years 1961 – 1975 with the goal of conducting manned moon landing missions. President John F. Kennedy announced this goal in 1961, and it was accomplished on July 20, 1969 by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during the Apollo 11 mission. Five other Apollo missions also landed astronauts on the Moon, the last one in 1972. These six Apollo spaceflights are the only times humans have landed on another celestial body. The Apollo program, specifically the lunar landings, is often cited as the greatest achievement in human history.
Apollo was the third human spaceflight program undertaken by NASA, the space agency of the United States. It used Apollo spacecraft and Saturn launch vehicles, which were later used for the Skylab program and the joint American-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. These later programs are thus often considered to be part of the overall Apollo program.
The goal of the program, as articulated by President Kennedy, was accomplished with only two major failures. The first failure resulted in the deaths of three astronauts, Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee, in the Apollo 1 launchpad fire. The second was an in-space explosion on Apollo 13, which badly damaged the spacecraft on the moonward leg of its journey. The three astronauts aboard narrowly escaped with their lives, thanks to the efforts of flight controllers, project engineers, backup crew members and the skills of the astronauts themselves.
The program set major milestones in the history of human spaceflight. This program remains alone in sending manned missions beyond low Earth orbit. Apollo 8 was the first manned spacecraft to orbit another celestial body, while Apollo 17 marks the time of the last moonwalk and also the last manned mission beyond low Earth orbit.
The program spurred advances in many areas of technology peripheral to rocketry and manned spaceflight. These include major contributions in the fields of avionics, telecommunications, and computers. The program sparked interest in many fields of engineering, including pioneering work using statistical methods to study the reliability of complex systems made from component parts. The physical facilities and machines which were necessary components of the manned spaceflight program remain as landmarks of civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering.
Many objects and artifacts from the program are on display at various locations throughout the world, notably at the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museums.
Alan Stern, NASA’s “hard-charging”and “reform-minded”Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, resigned on 25 March 2008to be effective 11 April, after he ordered funding cuts to the Mars rovers and Mars Odyssey that were overturned by NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin. The cuts were intended to offset cost overruns for the Mars Science Laboratory. Stern, who served for nearly a year and has been credited with making “significant changes that have helped restore the importance of science in NASA’s mission.”, says he left to avoid cutting healthy programs and basic research in favor of politically sensitive projects. Griffin favors cutting “less popular parts” of the budget, including basic research, and Stern’s refusal to do so led to his resignation.
Committee, to examine how well NASA attended to the mental health of its astronauts. The initial report released by the panel raised questions in regards to possible alcohol use prior to flight.However, the report offered no specifics, no facts to substantiate the claims, and stated that no attempt to confirm or investigate the allegations had been performed
Shuttle commander Scott J. Kelly was vocal in his criticism of the report during interviews prior to STS-118, stating that it was beyond his comprehension that astronauts would ever consider what was suggested.Following the release of the independent panel report, NASA ordered an internal review, The Space Flight Safety Review.
On August 29, 2007, Chief Safety and Mission Assurance Officer Bryan O’Connor reported that after the month-long review, NASA found that there was no evidence to verify the independent panel’s report that astronauts have been allowed to fly drunk. Additionally, investigation into all incident reports dating from 1984 to 2007, found no incident involving alcohol or drug use. The report’s findings specifically stated:
“ The culture of professionalism in today’s astronaut corps, along with the highly visible, structured and supervised schedule during the last several days prior to launch, provide reasonable controls to avoid flying an alcohol-impaired crewmember. In light of all the other controls in place on launch day, the L-0 flight surgeon check provides a reasonable likelihood of identifying signs of illness or impairment of the level that would threaten flight safety. ”
In response to the internal review, policies at NASA would be changed in a variety of ways: Flight surgeons would be present during the pre-mission suit-up activities, flight surgeons would receive additional training in psychiatric evaluation, and although there was an unofficial code of conduct in place, an official “Code of Conduct” would be written up for employees.
Currently, the ISS relies on the Shuttle fleet for all major construction shipments. The Shuttle fleet lost two spacecraft and fourteen astronauts in two disasters: Challenger in 1986, and Columbia in 2003. While the 1986 loss was mitigated by building the Space Shuttle Endeavour from replacement parts, NASA has no plans to build another shuttle to replace the second loss, and instead will be transitioning to a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).
The ISS was envisioned to eventually have a crew of seven, but following the Columbia Shuttle accident, the permanent space station crew of three was reduced to two, comprising one Russian and one American for six months at a time. The result was that European and Japanese astronauts could not stay for longer missions. As of 2006, the station has been restored to a crew of three, and plans call for an increase to six in 2009, during Expedition 19.
Other nations that have invested in the space station’s construction, such as the members of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), have expressed concern over the completion of the ISS.The schedule NASA planned does have flexibility in it, and Associate Administrator for Space Operations William H. Gerstenmaier explained that the shuttle had completed three missions within six months in 2007, showing that NASA can still meet the deadlines necessary for the critical flights remaining.