Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Apollo Crew Module”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1971

Apollo 11 Mission Report, Supplement 5: Performance of Lunar Module Reaction Control Systems

Spacecraft velocity data and crew reports indicated that RCS engine performance was nominal. It is estimated that the RCS engines accumulated a total of 1060 seconds on-time and 12,000 firings during the mission. The quad temperatures ranged from 132 to 232 F during the period when the heaters were active, within predicated ranges. The total propellant consumption from the RCS tanks was about 319 pounds, compared to a predicted value of 253 pounds. An additional 69 pounds of propellant were used from the ascent propulsion system tanks during interconnect feed operations associated with APS lift-off, following periods of rapid propellant usage. The only problems noted were two thrust chamber pressure switch failures on the quad one down-firing engine and on the quad 2 aft-firing engine. Engine performance was nominal on both engines, and the switch failures had no effect on the mission.

Blevins, D. R.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Extended duration lunar lander

Selenium Technologies has been conducting preliminary design work on a manned lunar lander for use in NASA's First Lunar Outpost (FLO) program. The resulting lander is designed to carry a crew of four astronauts to a prepositioned habitat on the lunar surface, remain on the lunar surface for up to 45 days while the crew is living in the habitat, then return the crew to earth via direct reentry and land recovery. Should the need arise, the crew can manually guide the lander to a safe lunar landing site, and live in the lander for up to ten days on the surface. Also, an abort to earth is available during any segment of the mission. The main propulsion system consists of a cluster of four modified Pratt and Whitney RL10 rocket engines that use liquid methane (LCH4) and liquid oxygen (LOX). Four engines are used to provide redundancy and a satisfactory engine out capability. Differences between the new propulsion system and the original system include slightly smaller engine size and lower thrust per engine, although specific impulse remains the same despite the smaller size. Concerns over nozzle ground clearance and engine reliability, as well as more information from Pratt and Whitney, brought about this change. The power system consists of a combination of regenerative fuel cells and solar arrays. While the lander is in flight to or from the moon, or during the lunar night, fuel cells provide all electrical power. During the lunar day, solar arrays are deployed to provide electrical power for the lander as well as electrolyzers, which separate some water back into hydrogen and oxygen for later use by the fuel cells. Total storage requirements for oxygen, hydrogen, and water are 61 kg, 551 kg, and 360 kg, respectively. The lander is a stage-and-a-half design with descent propellant, cargo, and landing gear contained in the descent stage, and the main propulsion system, ascent propellant, and crew module contained in the ascent stage. The primary structure for both stages is a truss, to which all tanks and components are attached. The crew module is a conical shape similar to that of the Apollo Command Module, but significantly larger with a height and maximum diameter of six meters.

Babic, Nikola↗
NASA NTRS1970

Apollo 13 - Press Kit

Apollo 13, the third U.S. manned lunar landing mission, will be launched April 11 from Kennedy Space Center, Fla., to explore a hilly upland region of the Moon and bring back rocks perhaps five billion years old. The Apollo 13 lunar module will stay on the Moon more than 33 hours and the landing crew will leave the spacecraft twice to emplace scientific experiments on the lunar surface and to continue geological investigations. The Apollo 13 landing site is in the Fra Mauro uplands; the two National Aeronautics and Space Administration previous landings were in mare or 'sea' areas, Apollo 11 in the Sea of Tranquility and Apollo 12 in the Ocean of Storms.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1969

Apollo 8 Mission Report

Postflight analysis of Apollo 8 mission. Apollo 8 was the second manned flight in the program and the first manned lunar orbit mission. The crew were Frank Borman, Commander; James A. Lovell, Command Module Pilot; and William A. Anders, Lunar Module Pilot. The Apollo 8 space vehicle was launched on time from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, at 7:51:00 AM, EST, on December 21, 1968. Following a nominal boost phase, the spacecraft and S-IVB combination was inserted - into a parking orbit of 98 by 103 nautical miles. After a post-insertion checkout of spacecraft systems, the 319-second translunar injection maneuver was initiated at 2:50:37 by reignition of the S-IVB engine.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1972

Roles of the ground and flight crew in Apollo operations.

The functions performed by ground personnel and flight crews of Apollo missions are reviewed, covering vehicle systems operation and management, Saturn launch vehicle, command-service and lunar modules, lunar rover, communication relay unit and ground-commanded TV assembly. Details of the flight path, scientific experiments, photographic equipment and crew health monitoring are also discussed in terms of these functions. The coordinated combination of large numbers of experts and data processing equipment on the ground with the crew's capabilities to operate the spacecraft and exercise on-the-spot judgements is viewed as the backbone of the successful fulfillment of Apollo missions.

Wolfer, B. M.↗
NASA NTRS2008

NASA Propulsion Investments for Exploration and Science

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) invests in chemical and electric propulsion systems to achieve future mission objectives for both human exploration and robotic science. Propulsion system requirements for human missions are derived from the exploration architecture being implemented in the Constellation Program. The Constellation Program first develops a system consisting of the Ares I launch vehicle and Orion spacecraft to access the Space Station, then builds on this initial system with the heavy-lift Ares V launch vehicle, Earth departure stage, and lunar module to enable missions to the lunar surface. A variety of chemical engines for all mission phases including primary propulsion, reaction control, abort, lunar ascent, and lunar descent are under development or are in early risk reduction to meet the specific requirements of the Ares I and V launch vehicles, Orion crew and service modules, and Altair lunar module. Exploration propulsion systems draw from Apollo, space shuttle, and commercial heritage and are applied across the Constellation architecture vehicles. Selection of these launch systems and engines is driven by numerous factors including development cost, existing infrastructure, operations cost, and reliability. Incorporation of green systems for sustained operations and extensibility into future systems is an additional consideration for system design. Science missions will directly benefit from the development of Constellation launch systems, and are making advancements in electric and chemical propulsion systems for challenging deep space, rendezvous, and sample return missions. Both Hall effect and ion electric propulsion systems are in development or qualification to address the range of NASA s Heliophysics, Planetary Science, and Astrophysics mission requirements. These address the spectrum of potential requirements from cost-capped missions to enabling challenging high delta-v, long-life missions. Additionally, a high specific impulse chemical engine is in development that will add additional capability to performance-demanding space science missions. In summary, the paper provides a survey of current NASA development and risk reduction propulsion investments for exploration and science.

Smith, Bryan K.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Apollo experience report: The docking system

The decision to accomplish the lunar landing mission by use of the lunar orbit rendezvous technique required that a docking system be developed to allow: (1) spacecraft modules to be structurally joined, (2) intravehicular transfer of the crew and equipment, and (3) separation of the modules. The basic design criteria of the docking system, the evolution process, and the various docking concepts considered for the Apollo program are presented. Docking systems that were considered for the Apollo program included both impact and nonimpact systems; a probe and drogue impact system was selected. Physical and functional descriptions of the probe and drogue, the crew transfer tunnel, and docking ring latches are presented for both the early configuration and the present configuration as influenced by the development and qualification test programs. In addition, preflight checkout activity and mission performance of the system are discussed.

Langley, R. D.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Recommendations for Exploration Space Medicine from the Apollo Medical Operations Project

Introduction: A study was requested in December, 2005 by the Space Medicine Division at the NASA-Johnson Space Center (JSC) to identify Apollo mission issues relevant to medical operations that had impact to crew health and/or performance. The objective was to use this new information to develop medical requirements for the future Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), Lunar Habitat, and Advanced Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits that are currently being developed within the exploration architecture. Methods: Available resources pertaining to medical operations on the Apollo 7 through 17 missions were reviewed. Ten categories of hardware, systems, or crew factors were identified in the background research, generating 655 data records in a database. A review of the records resulted in 280 questions that were then posed to surviving Apollo crewmembers by mail, face-to-face meetings, or online interaction. Response analysis to these questions formed the basis of recommendations to items in each of the categories. Results: Thirteen of 22 surviving Apollo astronauts (59%) participated in the project. Approximately 236 pages of responses to the questions were captured, resulting in 107 recommendations offered for medical consideration in the design of future vehicles and EVA suits based on the Apollo experience. Discussion: The goals of this project included: 1) Develop or modify medical requirements for new vehicles; 2) create a centralized database for future access; and 3) take this new knowledge and educate the various directorates at NASA-JSC who are participating in the exploration effort. To date, the Apollo Medical Operations recommendations are being incorporated into the exploration mission architecture at various levels and a centralized database has been developed. The Apollo crewmembers input has proved to be an invaluable resource, prompting ongoing collaboration as the requirements for the future exploration missions continue to evolve and be refined.

Scheuring, R. a.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Pulmonary Toxicity Studies of Lunar Dust in Rodents

NASA has been contemplating returning astronauts to the moon for long-duration habitation and research and using it as a stepping-stone to Mars. Other spacefaring nations are planning to send humans to the moon for the first time. The surface of the moon is covered by a layer of fine dust. Fine terrestrial dusts, if inhaled, are known to pose a health risk to humans. Some Apollo crews briefly exposed to moon dust that adhered to spacesuits and became airborne in the Lunar Module reported eye and throat irritation. The habitable area of any lunar landing vehicle or outpost would inevitably become contaminated with lunar dust. To assess the health risks of exposure of humans to airborne lunar dust, we evaluated the toxicity of Apollo 14 moon dust in animal lungs. Studies of the pulmonary toxicity of a dust are generally first done by intratracheal instillation (ITI) of aqueous suspensions of the test dust into the lungs of rodents. If a test dust is irritating or cytotoxic to the lungs, the alveolar macrophages, after phagocytizing the dust particles, will release cellular messengers to recruit white blood cells (WBCs) and to induce dilation of blood capillary walls to make them porous, allowing the WBCs to gain access to the alveolar space. The dilation of capillary walls also allows serum proteins and water entering the lung. Besides altering capillary integrity, a toxic dust can also directly kill the cells that come into contact with it or ingest it, after which the dead cells would release their contents, including lactate dehydrogenase (a common enzyme marker of cell death or tissue damage). In the treated animals, we lavaged the lungs 1 and 4 weeks after the dust instillation and measured the concentrations of these biomarkers of toxicity in the bronchioalveolar lavage fluids to determine the toxicity of the dust. To assess whether the inflammation and cellular injury observed in the biomarker study would lead to persistent or progressive histopathological changes, a similar study was conducted to microscopically examine rat lung tissue and the associated lymph nodes for lesions, including fibrosis, 1 or 3 months after the instillation. The results from this ITI study led us to select two concentrations (20 and 60 mg/cu m) for an inhalation study, in which rats were exposed to lunar dust 6 h daily for 4 weeks (5d/wk). Similar biochemical and histopathological assessments were carried out in these rats 1 day or 1, 4, or 13 weeks after the dust exposure. Rats exposed to lunar dust by ITI or inhalation showed effects indicating that the dust is moderately toxic. The data will be useful to establish safe exposure limits for astronauts working in a lunar habitat and also help engineers designing dust mitigation systems for lunar vehicles and habitats.

Lam, Chiu-Wing↗
NASA NTRS1970

Land impact of the Apollo command module

Apollo command module land impact capability, discussing impact dynamics, possible landing area, spacecraft structure, crew couch and strut attenuation system, etc

Benson, H. E.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Skylab food system

The Skylab food program was a major effort involving a complex spectrum of activities necessary for the preparation of a crew feeding system. Approximately 17,000 individual food packages and support items, weighing more than 1225 kg, were launched into space as a single unit on board the orbital workshop. This unit provided the three (three-man) Skylab crews with nourishing foods and beverages for a total of 156 days, as well as with eating utensils and accessory items. Additionally, provisions for 5 days (15 man-days) were provided in each of the three command and service modules in a manner similar to that of the Apollo flights. The Skylab food system not only provided the crew with a palatable balanced diet in a familiar and acceptable manner but also supported the formidable mineral balance medical experiment series (M070).

Bush, W. H.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) 101: Constellation EVA Systems

A viewgraph presentation on Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Systems is shown. The topics include: 1) Why do we need space suits? 2) Protection From the Environment; 3) Primary Life Support System (PLSS); 4) Thermal Control; 5) Communications; 6) Helmet and Extravehicular Visor Assy; 7) Hard Upper Torso (HUT) and Arm Assy; 8) Display and Controls Module (DCM); 9) Gloves; 10) Lower Torso Assembly (LTA); 11) What Size Do You Need?; 12) Boot and Sizing Insert; 13) Boot Heel Clip and Foot Restraint; 14) Advanced and Crew Escape Suit; 15) Nominal & Off-Nominal Landing; 16) Gemini Program (mid-1960s); 17) Apollo EVA on Service Module; 18) A Bold Vision for Space Exploration, Authorized by Congress; 19) EVA System Missions; 20) Configurations; 21) Reduced Gravity Program; and 22) Other Opportunities.

Jordan, Nicole C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗
NASA NTRS2007

2006 NASA Seal/Secondary Air System Workshop; Volume 1

The 2006 NASA Seal/Secondary Air System workshop covered the following topics: (i) Overview of NASA s new Exploration Initiative program aimed at exploring the Moon, Mars, and beyond; (ii) Overview of NASA s new fundamental aeronautics technology project; (iii) Overview of NASA Glenn Research Center s seal project aimed at developing advanced seals for NASA s turbomachinery, space, and reentry vehicle needs; (iv) Reviews of NASA prime contractor, vendor, and university advanced sealing concepts including tip clearance control, test results, experimental facilities, and numerical predictions; and (v) Reviews of material development programs relevant to advanced seals development. Turbine engine studies have shown that reducing seal leakages as well as high-pressure turbine (HPT) blade tip clearances will reduce fuel burn, lower emissions, retain exhaust gas temperature margin, and increase range. Several organizations presented development efforts aimed at developing faster clearance control systems and associated technology to meet future engine needs. The workshop also covered several programs NASA is funding to develop technologies for the Exploration Initiative and advanced reusable space vehicle technologies. NASA plans on developing an advanced docking and berthing system that would permit any vehicle to dock to any on-orbit station or vehicle. Seal technical challenges (including space environments, temperature variation, and seal-on-seal operation) as well as plans to develop the necessary "androgynous" seal technologies were reviewed. Researchers also reviewed seal technologies employed by the Apollo command module that serve as an excellent basis for seals for NASA s new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).

Steinetz, Bruce, M.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Effect of potassium depletion in normal males - An Apollo 15 simulation

In the course of Apollo 15, physiologic abnormalities, manifested by ectopic activity on the ECG and unusual alterations in exercise tolerance, occurred in the crew of the Lunar Excursion Module. These were associated with decreases in total body potassium, measured by K-42, of 10% and 15%. The possibility of inadequate potassium (K+) intake existed. A simulation study was performed prior to Apollo 16, corresponding in duration to Apollo 15. Subjects endured the same sleep aberrations and caloric expenditure as the Apollo 15 astronauts. Subjects consumed a diet containing only 15 mEq/d of K+ during the entire 12 days of absolute bedrest. Study implications and reasons for discrepancies between K+ loss measured by balance techniques and K-42 are reviewed.

Hyatt, K. H.↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Apollo Medical Operations Project: Recommendations to Improve Crew Health and Performance for Future Exploration Missions and Lunar Surface Operations

Medical requirements for the future Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), advanced Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and Lunar habitat are currently being developed. Crews returning to the lunar surface will construct the lunar habitat and conduct scientific research. Inherent in aggressive surface activities is the potential risk of injury to crewmembers. Physiological responses and the operational environment for short forays during the Apollo lunar missions were studied and documented. Little is known about the operational environment in which crews will live and work and the hardware will be used for long-duration lunar surface operations. Additional information is needed regarding productivity and the events that affect crew function such as a compressed timeline. The Space Medicine Division at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) requested a study in December 2005 to identify Apollo mission issues relevant to medical operations that had impact to crew health and/or performance. The operationally oriented goals of this project were to develop or modify medical requirements for new exploration vehicles and habitats, create a centralized database for future access, and share relevant Apollo information with the multiple entities at NASA and abroad participating in the exploration effort.

Scheuring, Richard A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

The Apollo Medical Operations Project: Recommendations to Improve Crew Health and Performance for Future Exploration Missions and Lunar Surface Operations

Medical requirements for the future Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), advanced Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and Lunar habitat are currently being developed. Crews returning to the lunar surface will construct the lunar habitat and conduct scientific research. Inherent in aggressive surface activities is the potential risk of injury to crewmembers. Physiological responses to and the operational environment of short forays during the Apollo lunar missions were studied and documented. Little is known about the operational environment in which crews will live and work and the hardware that will be used for long-duration lunar surface operations.Additional information is needed regarding productivity and the events that affect crew function such as a compressed timeline. The Space Medicine Division at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) requested a study in December 2005 to identify Apollo mission issues relevant to medical operations that had impact to crew health and/or performance. The operationally oriented goals of this project were to develop or modify medical requirements for new exploration vehicles and habitats, create a centralized database for future access, and share relevant Apollo information with the multiple entities at NASA and abroad participating in the exploration effort.

Scheuring, Richard A.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Orion Abort Flight Test

The purpose of NASA's Constellation project is to create the new generation of spacecraft for human flight to the International Space Station in low-earth orbit, the lunar surface, as well as for use in future deep-space exploration. One portion of the Constellation program was the development of the Orion crew exploration vehicle (CEV) to be used in spaceflight. The Orion spacecraft consists of a crew module, service module, space adapter and launch abort system. The crew module was designed to hold as many as six crew members. The Orion crew exploration vehicle is similar in design to the Apollo space capsules, although larger and more massive. The Flight Test Office is the responsible flight test organization for the launch abort system on the Orion crew exploration vehicle. The Flight Test Office originally proposed six tests that would demonstrate the use of the launch abort system. These flight tests were to be performed at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and were similar in nature to the Apollo Little Joe II tests performed in the 1960s. The first flight test of the launch abort system was a pad abort (PA-1), that took place on 6 May 2010 at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Primary flight test objectives were to demonstrate the capability of the launch abort system to propel the crew module a safe distance away from a launch vehicle during a pad abort, to demonstrate the stability and control characteristics of the vehicle, and to determine the performance of the motors contained within the launch abort system. The focus of the PA-1 flight test was engineering development and data acquisition, not certification. In this presentation, a high level overview of the PA-1 vehicle is given, along with an overview of the Mobile Operations Facility and information on the White Sands tracking sites for radar & optics. Several lessons learned are presented, including detailed information on the lessons learned in the development of wind placards for flight. PA-1 flight data is shown, as well as a comparison of PA-1 flight data to nonlinear simulation Monte Carlo data.

Hayes, Peggy Sue↗