/ 4"i 1.1h 4,1, ;/ • 11 ;4, ri"1, 

11L4,,21Z.Iit2)3 nO' 

tl 

l'Alf8111 

PT)PTTY flF UNCLASSIFIED . 

"RiV10 

."! LIBRARY 

NRO APPROVED. 

RELEASE 1 JUL' 5 • 

AEROSPACE 

LIBRARY 

Document No 466-a to 

Copy No 

UNCLASSIFIED 

LE;} E E `11- [I icD1 

AEROSPACE CORPORATION 
NRO APPROVIPO 

RELEASE 1 JU 2015 

uNctAssinED 

VAULT NUMBER 

D2o14.65 

TITLE EVALUATION OF APOLLO X FOR MOL MISSION 

AEROSPACE CORPORATION 

PR ESENTATION 

AUTHOR C.L. OLSON, et al DATE FJJ3. 

10, 1965 

AUDIENCE COL. W. BRADY, COL. T. MORGAN, W. WILLIAMS (2/13/65) 

E. BARLOW (1/20/65) MOL SPO (1/27/65) GEN. J. BLEYMAIER 

(2/1/65) 'GEN. H. EVANS (2/4/65) 

LOCATION • 

DISTRIBUTION CONTROLLED BY C. L. OLSON 

F9pR -all) 1 

DOVVNGriA0 AT 3 YEAR INT,::RVALSi 

DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS., 

d . DOD. D1R 5200.1Q 

SENSIME 1'0'4,11E111i 

This document contains information affecting the national defense of the United States within the 

meaning of the Espionage Laws. Title 18, U.S.C.. Sections 793 and 794, the transmission or revelation of which in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law. 

V 

UNCLASSIFIED WO: 5107-30 

CCC: 2130 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 131 C 2 I IS I 3 

REVIEW OF APOLLO X FOR 

APPLICATION TO THE MOL MISSION 

North American Aviation S&ID recently completed a study for NASA, 

Contract No. NAS9-3140, "Extended Apollo Systems Utilization Study, 

Final Report, " Report No. SID 64-1860-1 through -23, dated November, 

1964, concerning the applicability of various Apollo components to a 

spectrum of follow-on missions, one of which included 45-day earth 

orbital operations. Aerospace Corporation personnel have. reviewed 

the study summary, with the objective of determining the applicability 

of the configurations defined by NAA to the MOL mission. 

lt* ..ia4914 400,1r,,* 11,04t. trait, 

, F; 4.411g.,44 

rt 

• • 
• 

5.1? Z 

4 

0 act 

• 

co

0 

co 

0 a. 

C) 

CD 

aamodrepTalData 

p 

rj 

sIsAteuv u2Tsaa 

uopoawacipIoaoa4aw 

T o.I;uoD aPTI41-14V 

uolsindoad 

for contributions to this r eview. Appreciation is expr essed to the following Aerospace personnel 

uosutior `a-rea 

aaT41,a)1 •f '211911S •Ak 

4 soiff .A `)10401i 'f 

'0 'OH 'A `uoPuaaH 

'S `uaTiticl •D 

saa2ou 

a4a0d-eZ 'a 
NRO APPROV R 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

", E.` 

• c-; 

03 • F2. 

;: 

3•b , 

4 

r n 

O 

a 

EVALUATION OF 

APOLLO X 

FOR 

MOL MISSION 

'r3 

o

iea

O 

r. s 

r. 

Lp 

rE 

f '1 

#1 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

fr C 

The review, which was conducted by the Laboratory Vehicle Office, 

Manned Systems Division, with the support of the Electronics and 

Aeromechanics Divisions, considered the major factors indicated on 

Chart #2. The initial phase of the review consisted of determining 

the applicability of the general configuration suggested by North 

American. 

• 
m 

NRO APPRO.OR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

EVALUATION APPROACH 

V ON-ORBIT OPERATIONS 

4 PAYLOAD 

V CREW UTILIZATION 

4 PROGRAM COST 

4 GROWTH POTENTIAL 

EXTENDED DURATION 

o LARGE PAYLOADS 

o POLAR ORBITS 

031AI

S

SYI

O

Nfl 

DETERMINE APOLLO X CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS FOR 

MOL MISSION IN TERMS OF: 

#2 
NRO APPROV 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 • • 

APOLLO X - CONFIGURATION DEFINITION 

#3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Basic Apollo X configuration concepts proposed in the NAA study are 

illustrated on Chart #4. North American sought to determine a configuration family with the capability to perform a lunar-polar mapping 

mission. This member of the family is shown on the right hand side of 

Chart #4. NAA defined derivative configurations as shown in the other 

two pictures on the chart. The center concept, which is most nearly 

applicable to the MOL mission, would consist of a 3-man, 45-day, earthorbiting system, provided with a 1300 cu. ft. pressurized laboratory 

module initially housed inside the LEM adapter. The concept shown on 

the left hand side of the chart is proposed by North American as a early 

earth-orbiting system of limited capability, being limited to 2 men for 

14 days. The center configuration shown on Chart #4 is the only one of 

direct interest to the MOL program in terms of both duration and payload 

capability, inasmuch as the one shown on the left is capable of only very 

short orbital durations, and the one shown on the right is configured for 

Lunar operations and is much too heavy for the earth-orbiting MOL job. 
NRO APPROVDR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X CONCEPTS 

AO 

3 

.12 

iY g 

3 2 

sx.v„ 

5. 

3 a 

La 

E 

T 

7N 

1; 

; 3 

II. 

Ei 

LAB MODULE 

(1320 Fr3) 

CM 

SM 

EXISTING LEM 

SUPPORT POINTS 

LEM 

ADAPTER 

CP 

.0) 

Sri rn 

SPACE PROVISION 

• FOR SECOND 

LAB MODULE 

dew LEM 

DESCENT STAGE 

BASIC CONFIGURATION 

(EARTH ORBIT) 

LAB CONFIGURATION 

(EARTH & LUNAR ORBIT) 

ALTERNATE 

MANEUVERING UNIT 

(LUNAR ORBIT) 

#4 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Chart #5 illustrates the all-up launch configuration, .which consists of 

the Saturn IC, Saturn II Second Stage, Saturn NB Upper Stage, the LEM 

Adapter, the Apollo Service Module, and the Apollo Command Module, 

with an escape tower system shown on top. 

• 
#S • 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The general external geometry of the service module is shown in Chart #6, 

and some of the major characteristics of the Apollo command module are 

illustrated in Chart #7. A very important characteristic of the basic Apollo 

system is that the Command Module contains nearly all of the Vehicle 

operating equipment, whereas the Service Module contains nearly all of 

the expendables such as cryogens-and propellants. The Command Module 

thus operates in a parasitic manner from the LEM adapter. 

c 

• 
MAIN ENGINE NOZZLE 

15. 7' 9. 7' 

CI9ktISSVI3Nil 

13' DIA 

8. 3' 

Y 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NIRO APPROVOR • 

REACTION CONTROL STRUCTURE 

SYSTEM ENGINES 

SM EXTERNAL GEOMETRY 

#6 
NRO APPROV 

• r -74 r r n Gc) r\ • • „! „ t . , 

- Lim —3 NJ 61 - L.: 

EARTH LAN:C.; 

PROPELLANT 

STORAGE TANKS 

USS VOL 20.4 F7 . 3 

ENVInONMENTAL 

CONTROL EQUIPMENT 

Enna SYSTEMS 

O GUIDANCE el NAVIGATIal 

O STABILIZATION el CONTROL 

o EV120r.)ENTIM COMITP.OL 

o REACTIO:\I CUNT:101e., 

o TE1ECO:.1'...1UNICRI:0:!S 

O EARTH LANDING SVO1Z,1 

REnCITION - 00:1TROL 

./ . 

i .....V4.1. .. ' : „\ 7. \ \ \ rt ,.. r• C '',7 ,-, rk r i 7 ire,-11. ' r'A,r7.:C 

, ._„,.. , .,,„ „......,„.i. \ .ii 1..i....... .\...„.„............0"--“,...., d '.. a 4,4. Iv • 16,6,...",...• .., 

-.; t r • --...-N-..... ) 1 • \.,..,--, f • ‘ 

- •-- r....\\ -.1--IR,...• • I — — ' ..k, 

.• ..4 II i..i':::, ,i.f , y .1 - -.:,--- 

, 

A.,--.. 

...,...ez.„ A. 

'fr 4.... - • 

-.." ..' 

REACTION 

CONTROL ENGINE 

suavivAL EQUtT 

ATIO:UAT=1 

STRUTS 

ABLATIVE KAT SHIELD 

V.11 L. 

NC-2TH 041,'.CA1 AVIATIO?3, INC. 9.63 AP 19239C 

WOO Ihk73 ENVV341:.:KA4fl5TS 

#7 
NIRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

, 

, 

m 

The specific Apollo X Earth-Orbiting Laboratory configuration recommended 

by North American is illustrated in Chart #8. In the launch configuration, 

an extendable air lock is stowed inside the laboratory module for later 

deployment on-orbit. The orbital configuration is shown on the right hand 

side of the chart, and this configuration is attained in a manner which will 

be illustrated in the following charts. 

•• • 
LAUNCH 

LAUNCH ESCAPE TOWER 

COMMAND MODULE 

SERVICE MODULE 

LEM ADAPTER 

STRUCTURE 

LABORATORY 

MODULE 

SATURN S IV B 

NRO APPROV.R 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO "X" CONFIGURATION 

MAIN 21,)4 K 

SM ENGINE 

1/ SERVICE 

MODULE (SM) 

COMMAND MODULE 

117 (CM) 

11,....„_____.......AIRLOCK/TRANSFER TUNNEL. 

LABORATORY MODULE 

ORBITAL 

#8 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Chart #9 shows the functional arrangement of the suggested orbiting vehicle, 

and shows that the laboratory module pressurized compartment contains a 

very minimum of functional equipment. The Laboratory is entirely dependent 

for its function upon equipment which is housed in the Command Module and 

upon storables which are housed in the Service Module. All expendables utilizing the laboratory are transferred through the sliding air lock. 
SYSTEMS OPERATION 

NRO APPROV R 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Laboratory 

LABORATORY 

. EXPERIMENT EQUIPMENT 

• FOOD AND WATER STORAGE 

PORTABLE L. S. BOTTLES 

CENTRIFUGE PROVISIONS 

FUNCTIONAL AREAS 

AIR- LOCK 

CREW TRANSFER 

ATMOSPHERE TRANSFER 

E. V. ACCESS 

CM/SM 

COMMUNICATIONS 

L. S. ATMOSPHERE CONTROL 

THERMAL CONTROL 

. ATTITUDE CONTROL 

FOOD PREPARATION 

WASTE MANAGEMENT 

ELECTRICAL POWER 

031

41S

STI

O

Nn 

#9 
RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROV3R • 

APOLLO X LAUNCH-TO-ORBIT PROFILE 

#10 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The operations required to place the orbiting vehicle on orbit are illustrated 

in Chart #11. The chart shows that eight separate events must successfully 

occur before the orbiting vehicle can be activated. 

• • • 
1. S IV B BURNOUTELLIPTICAL ORBIT 

2. SEPARATE arm I 

S IV B LAB 

LEM 

ADAPTER 

3. EJECT LEM 

FAIRING 

4. TRANSPOSE CSM 

5. STABILIZE LAB 

WITH S IV B 

LEM 

ADAPTER 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVJR • 

LAUNCH-TO-ORBIT PROFILE 

6. DOCK OSH WITH LAB 

7. EJECT S IV B 

8. INJECT INTO CIRCULAR 

EARTH ORBIT 

#11 
NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1 J 

NO 

A 

3 

44 1 

0 0 

o o 

ta 

o n co -; 

!'er 

2015 

OR 

APOLLO X - OPERATIONS REVIEW 

,/ CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS 

SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 

• ;IC 

#12 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

cn 

m 

The charts which follow summarize the Aerospace analysis of the applicability 

of the North American Apollo X system to the MOL basic mission. The 

primary factors examined during the configuration analysis are shown on 

Chart #13. 

• 
APOLLO X 

CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS 

J LABORATORY ACTIVATION 

I COMPARTMENTATION 

I. EXTRA-VEHICULAR OPERATIONS 

EQUIPMENT ARRANGEMENT 

41 DOCKING PROVISIONS 

✓ SYSTEMS OPERATION 

I CREW SAFETY 

*. 03!3ISSVI3Nil 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVER • 

3 

3 

a: 

a C 03 

o 0 .0 .s 

.3

ti

O 

#13 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Chart #14 shows the rather complex procedure required for placing the 

orbiting vehicle in operation after it has achieved orbit. Following a 

necessary docking maneuver, it is noteworthy that a large number of 

manual operations must be performed in the laboratory activation 

procedure. It is concluded that the Apollo X activation procedure is 

extremely complex, involving extensive dismantling of components and 

critical assembly of fluid and electrical. lines. 

• 

C 

-71 

• 
NRO APPR011/OR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

LABORATORY ACTIVATIM -ON ORBIT 

z 

0 

SEQUENCE 

PRESSURIZE AIRLOCK TO CM PRESSURE 

REMOVE R . H. COUCH 

_,RE240VE CM PRESSURE HATCH 

REMOVE CM HEM' SHIELD HATCH 

REMOVE DOCKING HARDWARE 

MANUALLY LOCK CM TO LAB 

ATTACH CM UMBILICALS 

. EMEND AIRLOCK FROM LAB 

. ATTACH LAB UMBILICALS 

. PRESSURIZE LAB TO CM PRESSURE 

. ENVER LAB AND CHECKOUT SYSTEMS 

#14 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 JU 2015 

LABORATORY ACTIVATION 

CI31AISSVION11 

CONCLUSIONS 

/ APOLLO X ON-ORBIT ACTIVATION EXTREMELY COMPLEX 

. EXTENSIVE DISMANTLING OF COMPONENTS REQUIRED 

. CRITICAL ASSEMBLY OF FLUID LINES AND ELECTRICAL UMBILICALS 

• 

/ APOLLO X DEPENDS ON SUCCESSFUL MANNED ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS 

REQUIRES USE OF UNPROVEN CAPABILITY OF CREW 

t 

Po i

ve 

ao 

vt 

":1 

/ APOLLO X ACTIVATION DEPENDENT ON SUCCESSFUL DEPLOYMENT OF 

STRUCTURAL AIRLOCK 

. CREW TRANSFER 

. LIFE SUPPORT AND ELECTRICAL POWER TO LAB. 

/ APOLLO X DEPENDS ON SUCCESSFUL DOCKING MANEUVER 

. DOCKING ACCIDENT HAZARDOUS TO MISSION OR CREW SAFETY 

#15 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Extravehicular operation of the Apollo X configuration is illustrated in 

Chart #16. Since the atmosphere supply for the laboratory is obtained 

through the air lock tunnel, it is evident that either the laboratory must 

be blown down when the hatch is open or that no circulation in the 

laboratory is possible during the period of extravehicular operation. 
4 

NRO APPROOR 

RELEASE 1 102015 

EXTRA-VEHICULAR OPERATIONS 

HATCH 

SM 

SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS 

CREW MCNITOR RETURNS TO CM 

E.V. EQUIPMENT DONNED AND CHECKED OUT IN LAB 

• E.V. EXPERE•tEEIVR ENTERS AIRLOCK AND CLOSES HATCHES (LAB & CM) 

• AIRLOCK DEPRESSURIZED - ASTRCEAUT SUIT PRIMSURIZED 

• E.V. HATCH OPENED FOR EGRESS TO VEHICLE EXTERIOR 

• 

RETURN TO LAB BY REVERSE PROCEDURE 

CCINCLUSICES 

LAB IS ESSENTIALLY DEACTIVATED FOR E.V. OPERATIONS 

RESCUE NOP POSSIBLE THRU AIRLOCK DUE TO LIMITED VOLUME 

. CHECKOUT OF E.V. EWIPMENT IN LABORATORY IS UNDESIRABLE 

41 A 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Centrifuge provisions in the Apollo X laboratory suggested by North 

American are shown in Chart #17. The arrangement consists of a 

14 ft. circular track which carries an astronaut and a counterweight. 

Evidently the usable volume. of the laboratory is seriously compromised 

by such an arrangement. This comment is generally applicable to all 

"pill box" shaped laboratory compartments, since such configurations 

afford very limited side area. 
taw. 

IN I 

IVO 

CENTRIFUGE 

PROVISIONS EQUIPMENT CONSCL 

AIR PLENUM CHAMBER 

EQUIPMENT CONSOLES 

CREWMAN 

IN CENTRIFUGE 

031AISSTION11 

NIRO APPROVIIPOR • • 

. --RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

EQUIPMENT ARRANGEMENT 

EARTH 

CONCLUSIONS: 

J ARRANGEMENT CONSTRAINED BY CENTRIFUGE PROVISIONS 

• LIMITED AREA FOR EARTH VIEWING EXPERIMENTS 

• AIR FfIENUM APPRFAqR PiEgENTS pETIMUM PpAOEMEDq OF EQUIPMENT pN 

CENTRIFUGE PROVISIONS DEPICTED ARE NOT CONSIDERED SATISFACTORY 

• IMPROPER BODY-POSITION 

• INTERFERS WITH OPERATION OF OTHER EXPERIMENTS 

1117 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

:"RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Chart #18 contains some comments concerning the feasibility of docking 

with the Apollo X configuration in a resupply mode. The chart illustrates 

possible severe dynamic problems connected with the utilization of a 

dumbell-like configurition such as the one shown. These problems would 

be expected to manifest themselves both during limit cycle operation of 

the orbiting vehicle and during the docking phase of vehicle operations. 
NAA APOLLO X 

DOCKING DYNAMIC CONSIDERATIONS 

ORBITAL CONFIGURATION 

o MINIMAL JOINT STIFFNESS (LONGITUDINAL & BENDING) ACROSS 

COMMAND MODULE/AIRLOCK/LABORATORY INTERFACE CONDUCIVE 

TO 

/ LARGE LOCAL SPRING RATES 

/ LOW OVERALL VEHICLE FREQUENCIES (LONGITUDINAL & 

BENDING) 

/ LARGE MODAL AMPLITUDES 8z SLOPES 

• / LARGE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED ON ACS 

o CONCLUSION 

/ WEIGHT PENALTY AND/OR REDESIGN REQUIRED TO ASSURE 

STRUCTURE /ACS COMPATIBILITY 

/M LAB 

C/M 

,^>) 

I I -- 

Yr I 

36" oA L _ _ J 

, 

ACS NOZZLES RLOCK \--RESUPPLY VEHICLE 

KJ 

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION 

Kik= SPRING CONSTANT OF AIRLOCK 

K = SPRING CONSTANT OF SLIDING JOINT 

Y O 

r 

C 

I aRELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVODR • 

#18 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

t 

Vd 

cn 

en 

fi Ca 

A summary of conclusions concerning the Apollo X system operation is 

presented in Chart #19. 

o Cooperative conduct of experiments in the laboratory compartment 

would be hampered by the fact that subsystem control can be effected 

only from the Command Module. 

o The large number of crew transfers required between the laboratory 

compartment and the Command Module would substantially reduce 

the amount of time available for crew operational duties and would 

probably contribute to crew hazard. 

o The Apollo X concept requires continual on-orbit use of all subsystems 

in the Command Module, which cannot fail to degrade the probability 

of successful re-entry. Alternatively, Command Module subsystem 

degration through continual use on orbit may lead to early mission 

abort. 

o A fundamental shortcoming to the pill-box shaped laboratory is 

the inherent limitation on side surface which may be utilized for 

earth viewing instruments. Other surfaces which might be 

utilized for exterior instrumentation are precluded either by 

docking considerations or by the attendant necessity to orient 

the vehicle in a very high drag configuration. 
NRO APPRO\ AOR 

RELEASE 1 Jvair2015 • • 

NAA APOLLO - X 

SYSTEMS OPERATION 

CONCLUSIONS 

o ALL SUBSYSTEMS CONTROL FROM CM ONLY 

o CREW OPERATIONS IN LABORATORY LIMITED TO 1/3 OR 2/3 OF CREW 

o CREW REQUIRED TO PERFORM LARGE NUMBER OF TRANSFERS 

BETWEEN LAB AND CM FOR: 

FOOD PREPARATION 

WASTE MANAGEMENT 

EARTH COMMUNICATIONS 

SLEEP AND RECREATION 

EXPERIMENT MONITOR AND PERFORMANCE 

SUBSYSTEM OPERATION AND CONTROL 

o EXCESSIVE TRANSFER ACTIVITY WILL CONTRIBUTE TO INJURIOUS 

CREW OR EQUIPMENT ACCIDENTS 

o CONTINUAL USE OF COMMAND MODULE SYSTEMS DEGRADES 

PROBABILITY OF SUCCESSFUL RE-ENTRY 

o LIMITED "EARTH VIEWING" SURFACE ON LAB CONSTRAINTS 

EQUIPMENT OPERATION AND UTILIZATION 

C 

cn 

#19 
0

313ISST

I3N

11 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

An over-all summary of the Apollo X configuration review is presented 

in Chart #20. 

It is generally concluded that the Apollo X configuration proposed does 

not meet the MOL requirements which are summarized on Chart #21. 

• 
NRO APPROVDR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS 

SUMMARY 

LABORATORY ACTIVATION 

o REQUIRES COMPLEX PROCEDURES AND UNPROVEN MANNED CAPABILITY 

o REQUIRES SUCCESSFUL DOCKING MANEUVER 

COMPARTMENTATION 

o LABORATORY GEOMETRY DOES NOT PERMIT EFFICIENT VOLUME 

UTILIZATION 

INADEQUATE AIRLOCK FOR E. V. OR RETREAT FROM HAZARDOUS 

-CONDITIOfiS 

EXTRA-VEHICULAR OPERATIONS 

o IMPOSES SEVERE RESTRICTION ON ALL OTHER LABORATORY ACTIVITY 

EQUIPMENT ARRANGEMENT 

o LIMITED EARTH VIEWING AREA AVAILABLE ON LABORATORY 

o UNDESIRABLE CENTRIFUGE ARRANGEMENT 

RESUPPLY DOCKING PROVISIONS 

o NONE PROVIDED 

SYSTEMS OPERATION 

o LABORATORY ACTIVITY IS LIMITED TO ONE CREWMAN 

o EXTENSIVE CREW TRANSFER REQUIRED BETWEEN LAB AND CM TO 

PERFORM ALL TASKS 

/ CREW SAFETY 

o VEHICLE SYSTEM EXPOSES CREW TO OPERATIONAL HAZARDS NOT 

FOUND IN OTHER APPROACHES 

CONCLUSIONS 

/ APOLLO X CONFIGURATION PROPOSED DOES NOT MEET MOL REQUIREMENTS 

#20 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

z Although the proposed configuration will not lend itself well to MOL 

requirements, the present, study was extended to include those changes 

in the Apollo X subsystems which would be required in order to approach 

the capability of a baseline MOL. The Apollo X alterations which have 

been found necessary to meet the MOL. general requirements shown on 

Chart #21 are summarized in the following charts. 
NRO APPROVOOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 CIMAIS ti3Nri 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

MOL REQUIREMERS 

P-13) 

z 

TWO MAN CREW 

30 DAYS ON ORMT (mama) 

CAPABILITY TO CONDUCT PRIMARY EXPERIMENDS (P-1 

CREW SAFETY/OPERATING CONVENIENCE 

RENESEVOUS CAPABILITY 

CENTRIFUGE CAPABILITY 

MAINTAINABILITY 

DUAL COMMENTS WITH HATCHES 

U) 

421 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 JU 2015 

• 

no is 

3 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

o ALTERATIONS TO APOLLO X SPACECRAFT' NECESSARY 

TO MEET BASIC MOL REQUIREMENTS 

a3lidISSV13Nfl 

4g. 

03 

; g 

t 

° 

,-;. 

;* 

3' 

r3

O 

ttg 

2- 

r. 

rs 

'; 

c. 

022 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Those changes and alterations to the Apollo subsystems required to give 

the Apollo X the inherent subsystem capability required by a MOL baseline 

are listed in Charts #23 through #27. The increments of weight associated 

with the list of changes are measured above the weight statement values 

cited in Report SID 64-1860-4. 
• 03141SSYIONfl 

NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

CHANGES TO APOLLO FOR APOLLO X EARTH ORB1T 

(NAA PROPOSED) 

C3IAISSVI9Nri 

1. ADD 1200 FT3 LAB MODULE INCLUDING TEL AND AIRLOCK 

2. ADD 2 GAS ATMOSPHERE 

3. ADD Li02 marmirms TO CM 

4.. ADD CREW SUPPLIES 

5 . ADD 3 FM CELLS TO SM (TOTAL. OF 5 ) 

6. ADD REACTARZ STORAGE (115 DAY TOTAL) IN SM 

7. ADD ECS CRYOGENIC STORAGE (45 DAY TOTAL) IN SM 

8. REPLACE SM PROPELLANT TAMES WITH SMALL TANIS 

9. REMOVE G & N SYSTEM - EXCEPT OPTICS 

10. ADD SPARES & REDUNDANCY TO MEET 45 DAY EARTH MMSSION 

RELIABILITY GOALS 

421 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1J 2015 

APOLLO X RE-ENTRY VAIICLE CHANGES FOR MOL REQUIREMENTS 

ITEM CHANGE TO NAA EARTH ORBIT CONFIGURATION QWEIGBT 

GUIDANCE & NAVIGATION Not included in NAA earth orbit configuration. +229 

.Comparable equipment iS in Gemini B. 

CREW SYSTEMS One couch is removed but attenuation weight for. 0 

2 couches is increased per NAA, Vol. IV, Table 21. 

USEFUL LOAD 

CREW SYSTEMS One crew member removed; (Crew systems weight -192 

includes 120 pounds of food for 2 men, 33 days.) 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 6 Day,,3 man lithium hydroxide supply reduced to -34 

2 day, 2 man supply. Supply for 33 days is 

(7) provided in Laboratory. 

CONTINGENCY Per MOL criteria. +1140 

TOTAL WEIGHT CHANGE (LBS) +1443 

:Ft 

amdissnoNn 

#24 
APOLLO X SERVICE MODULE CHANGES FOR MOL REQUIREMENTS 

ITEM CHANGE TO NAA EARTH ORBIT CONFIGURATION arum 

Add one fuel cell to make system comparable to MOL. +240 

Hydrogen storage and supply system for 33 days, 1800 watt -45 

average. 

Oxygen storage and supply system for 33 days, 1800 watt -29 

average. (Includes oxygen storage for 33 daysECS). 

Block II RCS used in lieu of Apollo X. See NAA proposal -539 

Vol. IV, Tables 36 and 39. (Usable propellant capacity 

reduced from 2,465 lbs. to $38 lbs.) 

Reduce Nitrogen Supply System requirement from 45 days -110 

to 33 days, (NAA Vol. 4, Table 37). 

The Propulsion System weight quoted. by NAA in Vol. IV, +1,177 

Table 38 is 2,886 pounds (not 1,689 as giVen in 

Table 11). The 2,886 pound system is required to 

provide for the 2,718 pounds propellant used in Table 11 

plus capacity for propellants to provide a AV capability 

of 500 fps for experiments. 

Reactant weight based on 1,550 watts average for 

33 days. Does not include an estimated 200 pounds 

of reactants for experiments which are included as 

part of the experiment weight on MOL: 

Reaction control propellants reduced to correspond to 

MOL requirements (Experiment requirements not included). 

Based on 00 and N, requirements for MOL except Apollo 

leakage rate is assumed to be 0.5 lbs. per day greater 

than Gemini. 

ELECTRICAL POWER 

REACTION CONTROL 

CZ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

ft PROPULSION 

USEFUL LOAD 

ELECTRICAL POWER 

REACTION CONTROL. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

-719 

-786 

-392 

aMdISSVI3Nfl 

CONTINGENCY - 

TOTAL WEIGHT CHANGE LBS) 

Per MOL criteria. +1190 

-13 

42c 

NtRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 
NRO APPROV 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X LABORATORY VEHICLE CHANGE FOR MOL REQUIREMENTS 

ITI24 CHANGE TO NAA EARTH ORBIT CONFIGURATION AV/EIGHT 

STRUCTURE Increase structural, shell per analysis ' +464 

Add hatches, windows, and provisions for equipment. +162 

Increase. Laboratory to LEM adapter mounting weight 

per analysis. 

+548 

ORIENTATION CONTROLS Add: Redmndant electronics equipment to provide equivalent MOL reliability. +100 

Add: UMbilicals to re-entry vehicle. +50 

ELEOPRICAL POWER Increase electrical distribution system to equivalent 

of MOL. 

+249 

4, COIMUNICATIONS Add: Command System Decoder (15 lb) and relay easy. (6 lb) 

Add: MOL security system _ 

+21 

+10- 

(:: Add.: Teleptinter +12 

Z 

0 

c--, 

Add: 2 S-Band amplifiers (34 lb) and an S-Band 

transmitter (15 lb). 

Add: Umbilicals to re-entry vehicle 

Add: Circuitry 

+4.9 

+11.0 

+25 

C Add: Counts +15 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM Add: Pressure suit circuit 0 +57 :i Increase: CO2 removal system +55 

m Increase: Thermal control system +292 

0 PERSONNEL PROVISIONS Add: Compartmentprovisions (lights, partitions, seats, 

trim, etc.) (Assumes bunk is in command module) 

+260 

Add: Waste management system +45 

Add: Crew accessories 0 +50 

Add: Crew personal gear (spare pressure suits, etc.) +137 

Add: Recreation equipment +25 

Add: Exercise equipment +10 

DISPLAYS & CONTROLS Add: Attitude control and stabilization controls equivalent to MOL 

+50 

Add: Leak detection system +20 

Add: Gas analyzers, pressure indicators and controls +42 

Increase: Consoles, panels, and circuitry +129 

CI

MAISSY13N11 

#26 
APOLLO X LABORATORY VEHICLE CHANGES FOR MOL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) 

ITEM CHANGE TO NAA EARTH ORBIT CONFIGURATION AWEIGHT 

SPARE PARTS Spare parts are in addition to redundant equipment. +AO 

EXPENDABLES 

ROOD Food and food preparation area is located in re-entry .158 

vehicle. 

LITHIUM HYDROXIDE Lithium hydroxide requirements based on 2 men for -136 

33 days. 

CONTINGENCY Per MOL criteria +1090 

TOTAL WEIGHT CHANGE LBS) 

031difYIONfl 

+3853 

C 

rn 

NRO APPROVWOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 
RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVIDDR • 

MANNED RE-ENTRY VEHICLE WEIGHT GROWTH HISTORY 

(ALL DEVELOPMENT PHASES) 

+11.0 

+30 

+20 

+10 

0 

-10 - 

-20 

DYNA-SOAR 

1-20 

Mercury 

Apol10 

Gemini - 2 Day 

(Parachute System) 

1 1 1 1 Percent 

50% 100% 20% 40% 60% 100% 50% .100% = Complet 

Definition 

Concept & I

4 Design and Fabrication .1 Preflight A-- = Phase 

OF ' CONTRACT OR 

PROGRAM INITIATION 

FACTORY /LAUNCH' 

ACTUAL WEIGHT WEIGHT 

0 = PUBLISHED DATA 

C 

3 

o

o. 

Ai 

6 

O 

; 

o. 

6 

:3 

o 

C 

0 

: 0 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 )ULY2015 

Since a major weight increment has been added to the laboratory structure, 

Chart #29 is included to indicate the origin of this large increase. The right 

hand column of the chart displays the structural weight estimates derived 

from Report SID 64-1860-4. This weight, which includes the laboratory 

O support structure, was based upon . a 3700 lb. laboratory vehicle weight as 

), 14 indicated. The necessary changes, shown in previous charts, result in a 

11, 

171 "1

Command Module weight of approximately 6000 lb. for a 30-day MOL mission. 

rn Structural weights derived on this basis are shown in the center column, 

along with the resulting 1200 lb. increase. The chart shows that the 

majority of the weight increment is attributable to exceedingly optimistic 

NAA weight estimates of the structural bulkheads and laboratory support 

structure. 
NRO APPROlpOR 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

• 

/ APOLLO X - LAB 

STRUCTURAL WEIGHTS COMPARISON 

1 

*0 WEIGHTS (LB) NAA WEIGHTS (LB) 

3695# NAA WT. 6000# 0 WT. 3694# NAA WT. 

COMPONENP .30 Days 30 Days 45 Days 

STRUCTURAL SHELL 

**Bulkheads 430 430 62 

Cylinder 86 89 49 

Ring Frame 92 92 106 

Dome Frame 21 21 21 

Fitting Factor (15%) 95 95 24 

__ SuB-TCTAL rra 727 • 262 

• ? • 

METEOROID PROTECTION 

Increase to Inner Wall 82 • 77 

.Face Sheet (Bumper) 81 81 100 

Energy Absorber 170 170 340 

Bond 74 74 

2-.Fitting Factor (10%) 38 . 37 

SUB-TOTAL -4-4-- -47 .475 

•oi 

SECONDARY STRUCTURE 510 510 348 . 

Hatches, Windows, Equip. 

Mounts, etc. 

LAB SUPPORT STRUCTURE 

Shell 446 540 

Rings 53 67 

Fitting Factor 75 . 91 

SUB-TOTAL 37L+ '67 150 

TOTAL 2,251 2,374 1,200 

1 -v.- TW — A en T _ en "Inn 4141. ..../1 — ch 114...4.......... .../1, 0.... 1.1,.. ...1. 0_ 0..........41,1., ...4.1.1.. MAA 11......4.......... / 

cr tu — V. cr - • Wlo • WJ- loil 

1170 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

133

A1 SI

SV

IO

Nn 

Weight and. payload summaries of the Apollo X concept altered to meet MOL 

requirements and of the MOL baseline system are presented in the following 

charts. 

GMAIS

SY13N11 -40 

• 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1J 2015 

WEIGHTS AND PAYLOAD ANALYSIS 

.aamma.m.1•.•NiMb 

#30 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Ground rules and rationale for weight analysis are exhibited in Chart #31. 

A comparison of orbiting vehicle weights for an Apollo X/MOL and a 

Gemini B/MOL is shown in Chart #32. This chart shows that the Apollo X 

for MOL has an inherent weight which is approximately 18,000 pounds 

greater than that of an equivalent Gemini B/MOL system. A large 

percentage of this weight difference derives from the fact that the 

service module and LEM adapter structures are designed for a lunar 

rather than an earth-oriented mission, and the Command Module has 

been sized for three crew members and earth return from lunar orbit. 

It is interesting to note that the December 19, 1964, issue of the Apollo 

Spacecraft General Specification cites a specification control weight of 

11,000 pounds for the Command Module and 3,800 pounds for the LEM 

adapter. 

It 031

dIS

SYI

O

NCI 

• 
NRO APPRO1kOR 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

APOLLO X 

WEIGHT ANALYSIS 

EVALUATION RATIONALE 

a

3fA

SI SY

O

1

NII 

CGIAISSTIONfl 

o COMPARE PROPOSED SYSTEM WITH MOL REQUIREMENTS 

CREW SIZE 

MISSION DURATION 

CONTINGENCY 

METEOROID PROTECTION 

RELIABILITY 

o "NORMALIZE" TO EQUIVALENT BASIS FOR COMPARISON 

• 

4127 
NRO APPROVOOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

ORBITING VEHICLE WEIGHT COMPARISON 

(2 MEN - 30 DAYS ) 

APOLLO X GEMINI BiTTEAN IIIC MOL 

0313 

ITEM WEIGHT (LBS) 

COMMAND MODULE 11,040 

SERVICE MODULE 15,370 

LEM ADAPTER 3,500 

LABORATORY 6,500 

TOTAL 36,410 

ITEM WEIGHT (LBS) 

GEMINI B 4, 930 

GEMINI ADAPTER 1, 670 

LABORATORY 11, 750 

TOTAL 18,350 

WEIGHT DIFFERENCE = 18,060 LBS. 

U) 

-71 

m 

417. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

A payload performance comparison, utilizing the orbiting vehicle weights 

summarized in the previous chart, is shown in Chart #33. The chart shows 

a clear payload superiority for the MOL/T-IIIC combination over the 

Apollo X/Saturn system, and indicates that uprating of the Saturn IB payload 

capability will result in only marginal payloads. 

It should be emphasized that the. Apollo X/Saturn IB payloads indicated are 

consistent with the NAA/NASA Apollo X study ground rules, and do not 

necessarily reflect the capabilities of other systems which might be derived 

from Apollo system hardware. 
NRO APPROVSR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

PAYLOAD PERFORMANCE COMPARISON 

LAUNCH VEHICLE PAYLOAD ORB VEHICLE WEIGHT PAYLOAD AVAILABLE 

SYSTEM L.UR (106° AZ) LESS EXPERIMENTS FOR EXPERIMENTS 

(LBs) (us) (us) 

MOL - TITAN IIIC 23,500(1) 18,350 5,150 

APOLLO X - SATURN IB 32,800(2) 36,410(3) -3,610 

APOLLO X - SATURN IB (UPRATED) 37,800(2) 36,410(3) 1,390 

2 

0 

In (1) 160 N. MI. CIRCULAR ORB)! 

(2) 80/160 N. MI. ELLIPTICAL ORM 

(3) INCLUDES PROPELLANT REQUIRED TO CIRCULARIZE ORBIT AT 160 N. MI. 

#33 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 H!AISSTIONII 

The foregoing payload data are presented in terms of duration and payload 

tradeoffs in Chart #34. 
NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

MOL AND APOLLO X SYSTEMS COMPARISON 

PAYLOAD VS ON-ORBIT DURATION 

• ETR OPERATIONS 

• INTEGRAL LAUNCH 

MOL/ TITAN HIC 

• 

NOT CAPABLE OF 

- 

APOLLO X/ SATURN IB 

ORBITING ANY USEFUL PAYLOAD AT ETR 

• 

• • 

8000 

0 C 

6000 

rn 

PAYLOAD 4000 

(LBS) 

2000 

0 

20 30 

ON-ORBIT DURATION (DAYS) 

#34 
NRO APPROVE0 FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

'4. 

The over-all results of the weights analysis are summarized in Chart #35. 

It is concluded that the Apollo X configuration cannot be made to satisfactorily 

meet MOL payload requirements. 
NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

OR • 

APOLLO. X REVIEW 

WEIGHTS ANALYSIS 

RESULTS 

V 

o LABORATORY WEIGHTS FOUND TO BE DEFICIENT FOR ALL 

SUBSYSTEMS 

o INADEQUATE REDUNDANCY PROVIDED IN SUBSYSTEMS 

o NO ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR APOLLO 

DE-ORBIT ENGINE 

a

3IA

SI SV

IO

NII 

o "NEGATIVE" PAYLOAD INDICATED FOR APOLLO X/SATURN IB 

ON A 30 DAY MISSION 

mussvioNn 

CONCLUSION 

o APOLLO X DOES NOT MEET THE MOL PAYLOAD REQUIREMENTS 
NRO APPR FOR • • 

RELEASE 1 2015 

flgi4fRStrifINn 

APOLLO X 

RELIABILITY & LIFE EXTENSION 

4 

OMAIS

SY1

O

Nfl 

#36 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

A most important aspect of orbiting vehicle design for MOL operations is that 

of reliability and subsystem life extension. Life extension concepts considered 

by NAA for the Apollo X vehicle are summarized on Chart #37. Approaches 

1 and 2 are well outside the Apollo X ground rules, in that each of these 

approaches requires extensive redesign or addition of subsystems. Therefore, NAA indicated preference for approach No. 3, which involves extensive 

in-flight maintenance and repair and the addition of redundant elements with 

manual switching. It is not at all evident how this approach can be successfully 

employed on the Block 2 Apollo system, since the General Specification states 

that the Command Module, which houses all of the subsystems of primary 

interest to maintainability, shall not be subject to on-orbit maintenance. It 

is understood that maintainability of the Command Module for the Hock 2 Apollo 

has been precluded due to serious difficulty with humidity control in the vehicle. 

The problem has resulted in extensive potting and hard-wiring of many subsystem components, making in-flight maintenance of this system essentially 

impossible. 
NRO. APPROVOOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

3. 

APOLLO X 

LIFE EXTENSION APPROACHES CONSIDERED 

(NAM 

CONTINUATION OF THE PRESENT APOLLO PHILOSOPHY 

ADD REDUNDANT SYSTEM ELEMENTS WITH AUTOMATIC SWITCHING 

NO IN-FLIGHT MAINTENANCE EXCEPT THE INSTALLATION OF 

APPROVED SPARES 

REDESIGN CRITICAL SYSTEMS FOR INCREASED RELIABILITY 

REDUCE THE COMPLEXITY OF PRESENT SYSTEMS 

NEW CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES 

IN-FLIGHT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 

o REDUNDANT ELEMENTS WITH MANUAL SWITCHING 

o SPARES INSTALLED BY THE CREW 

o CREW REPAIR AND SERVICING OF FAILED OR MALFUNCTIONING ITEMS 

1. 

2. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The NAA Apollo X reliability allocation listing is shown on Chart #38. As 

noted on Chart #39, these apportioned values appear to exceed the state-ofthe-art by a large. order. Chart #39 summarizes the problems generated 

by the NAA approach to Apollo X life extension, and show that the apportioned 

reliability is probably unattainable. 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

APOLLO X RELIABILITY ALLOCATIONS 

(NAA) 

SYSTEM ALLOCATION 

GOSS . 99630 

GSE 99984 

BOOST . 95 

CSM . 955 

LABORATORY . 99585 

. 90 

0 

#38 

0 
NRO APPRO4OR 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

LIFE EXTENSION - APOLLO X 

GROUND RULE: NO "MAJOR" REDESIGN OF BLOCK II SYSTEMS. 

NAA APPROACH 

ASSUMED: "RELIABILITIES CLOSE TO OR 

ABOVE APPORTIONED VALUES". 

REDESIGN FOR INCREASED RELIABILITY. 

REDUNDANT ELEMENTS MANUALLY 

SWITCHED. 

SPARES INSTALLED BY CREW. 

CREW REPAIR OF FAILED ITEMS. 

OPERATE UNTIL SINGLE. FAILURE WILL 

CAUSE LOSS OF MISSION . 

REDUCE SYSTEM OPERATING TIME 

e. g. , ATTITUDE CONTROL . 

PROBLEM 

APPORTIONED. VALUES EXCEED STATE -OFTHE-ART BY UP TO ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. 

VIOLATES NASA GROUND RULE. 

INADEQUATE AVAILABLE VOLUME. 

INADEQUATE SPARES STORAGE VOLUME. 

BLOCK II NOT DESIGNED FOR MAINTENANCE. 

REQUIRES DESIGN FOR MAINTEN ANCE AT 

DETAIL LEVEL, LARGE STOCK OF SPARES 

AND TOOLS, EXCESSIVE CREW TIME. 

REQUIRES THAT EMERGENCY CONDITION BE 

NORMAL OPERATING MODE, COMPROMISES 

CREW SAFETY. 

REDUCED ORBITAL LIFE. UNACCEPTABLE 

FOR MILITARY EXPERIMENTS. 

0 

41 4 

t1F 

NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND TO INDICATE 

THAT THESE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED 

IN THE APOLLO X STUDY. 

C 

2 

4E1Q 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The present review included a comparison of the growth potential of the MOL 

baseline and Apollo X systems. 
NRO APPROI OR • 

RELEASE 1 JU 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

GROWTH POTENTIAL COMPARISON 

MOL AND APOLLO X 

0 

? 

Q 

031,AISSTIONII 

#40 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

The comparison covered both integral launch and rendezvous operations at 

both the Eastern and Western Test Ranges. Both the Apollo X and the 

Baseline MOL Systems were uprated in terms of launch vehicle capability 

and long duration maintenance capability. 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1J 2015 

GROWTH COMPARISON 

APOLLO X 

• 

o MODIFIED TO MEET MOL REQUIREMENTS 

o UPRATED CO2REMOVAL 

o SATURN M AND UPRATED SATURN IB LAUNCH VEHICLE 

0 MOL 

o UPRATED CO2 REMOVAL 

t;) TITAN IIIC WITH 7 SEGMENT AND 156 IN. DIA SRM'S o 

INTEGRAL LAUNCH AT "ETR" AND "WTR" 

031312SVIONn 

. RENDEZVOUS OPERATIONS AT "ETR" AND "WTR" 

041 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE .1 JULY 2015 

CIMAISSY13Nil -4 

The launch vehicle capabilities assumed in the growth potential study are 

summarized in Chart #42. The comparative growth performance for 

integral launch operations is shown for the two systems on Chart #43. 

This chart indicates that the Apollo X/Saturn IB system is incapable of 

polar operation from the Western Test Range. 

C13

A1 SI STI

3

Nil 

• 
NRO APPROV.R 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

I I 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

LAUNCH VEHICLE CAPABILITIES 

VEHICLE 

ETR (106°AZ) 

23,500 

PAYLOAD (lbs) 

T-IIIC(1) 

WTR (180°AZ) 

18,800 

T-IIIC/ 7 SEG. SRM(1) 28,600 23,800 

T-IIIC/156 IN. SRM(1) 

39 7 880 

31,000 

SATURN I-B(2) 32, 26,400 

SATURN I-B UPRATED(2) 37,800 30,400 

m (1) 160 N. MI. CIRCULAR ORBIT 0 (2) 80/160 N, MI. ELLIPTICAL ORBIT 

500-600 LBS PROPELLANT REQUIRED IN PAYLOAD TO CIRCULARIZE AT 160 N. MI. 

031

11SSVI3

Nfl 

#42 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

C

OMSST1ONI 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

WEIGHT AVAILABLE FOR EXPERIMENTS 

• INTEGRAL LAUNCH 

SYSTEM WEIGHT (LBS) 

ETR (106° AZ) WTR (180° AZ) 

MOL - TITAN IIIC(1) 5, 150 450 

MOL - TITAN IIIC/7 SEG SRM(1) 10, 250 5, 450 

MOL - TITAN IIIC/156-IN SRM(1) (3) 19,000 12, 000 

APOLLO X - SATURN IB(2) -3, 600 -10, 000 

APOLLO X - SATURN IB/UPRATED(2) 1, 400 -6, 000 

(1) 160 N. MI. CIRCULAR ORBIT 

(2) 80/160 N. MI. ELLIPTICAL ORBIT 

INCLUDES PROPELLANT REQUIRED TO CIRCULARIZE AT 160 N. ML 

(3) INCLUDES ADDITIONAL VOLUME FOR INCREASED PAYLOAD 

#43 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Integral launch payload vs. duration trade-off summaries are shown on 

Charts #44 and #45. Chart #46 defines the expendables rates derivation 

associated with these data. 
22000 

20000 

16000 

12000. 

PAYLOAD 

(LBS) 

8000 

4000 

z 

0 

cr, 

NRO APPROV.R i • 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

UPRATED MOL AND APOLLO X SYSTEMS COMPARISON 

PAYLOAD VS ON-ORBIT DURATION 

• ETR OPERAT 

MOL/ TITAN MC - 156 IN SRM-11 

MOL/ TITAN MC - 7 SEG. SRM 

APOLLO X/ SATURN J.B UPRATED 

• 

10 0 

ON-ORBIT DURATION (DAYS) 

A4.4. 
z 

0 

0 

M (LBS) 

12000 

8000 

4000 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

NRO APPRO • 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

UPRATED MOL AND APOLLO X SYSTEMS COMPARISON 

PAYLOAD VS ON-ORBIT DURATION 

• WTR OPERATIONS 

• INTEGRAL LAUNCH 

16000 

MOL/ TITAN IIIC - 156 IN SRM 

MOL/ TITAN LUC - 7 SEG. SRM 

NOTE: APOLLO X/ SATURN IB (UPRATED) NOT CAPABLE OF 

ORBITING ANY USEFUL PAYLOAD AT WTR 

10 0 30 

ON-ORBIT DURATION (DAYS) 

03!AISSYa

O

NI1 
APOLLO X REVIEW 

EXPENDABLES SUMMARY 

o TWO-MAN CREW 

o 30-DAY MISSION 

MOL APOLLO X 

(LBS/ DAY) (LBS/DAY) 

2. 5 13. 6 

(17. 3) (17. 7) 

8. 5 8. 7 

0. 3 0. 3 

3. 3 3. 5 

1. 2 1. 2 

0 1 

f1 FUEL CELL REACTANTS (1. 8 KW AVERAGE) 44.5 39. 8 

...- 

nl 0 SPARES AND REDUNDANCY 7. 0 7. 0 

RECREATION, EXERCISE & MEDICAL EQUIPMENT • 1. 5 1. 5 

TOTALS 72. 8 79. 6 

*INCLUDES 10% RESERVE 

ITEM 

REACTION CONTROL PROPELLANTS 

t LIFE SUPPORT EXPENDABLES* 

OXYGEN - SUPERCRITICAL 

C OXYGEN - HIGH PRESSURE 

0 NITROGEN - SUPERCRITICAL • • 

DISPOSABLE CLOTHING, TISSUES, CHEMICALS 

C.f, FOOD 4.0 4.0 

C131dISSVI9Nfl 

#46 

NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 JU 2015 
NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

• • 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

RENDEZVOUS OPERATIONS 

o ETR AND WTR 

o 2 MAN CREW 

V APOLLO X CONFIGURATION 

o MODIFIED TO MEET MOL MISSION REQUIREMENTS 

o MODIFIED TO ADD RENDEZVOUS AND DOCKING CAPABILITY 

o INCLUDES UPRATED CO2 REMOVAL SUBSYSTEM 

o CRYOGENIC STORAGE BASED ON 120 DAY DESIGN POINT 

MOL CONFIGURATION 

o INCLUDES RENDEZVOUS AND DOCKING CAPABILITY 

o INCLUDES UPRATED CO2REMOVAL SUBSYSTEM 

o CRYOGENIC STORAGE BASED ON 120 DAY DESIGN POINT 

0,3141SSVI3N11 

4147 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Chart #48 summarizes the Eastern Test Range rendezvous operation 

comparison. This chart displays resupply requirements in terms of the 

primary MOL experiments payload. It is evident that desirably large 

resupply cycles are available with both versions of the up-rated T-ILIC/ 

MOL. Rendezvous configuration data are included in Charts #50 through 

#52 for ETR operations. 
30,000 

(.41 

Cf) 20,000 

a= PAYLOAD 

(LBS) 

10,000 

0 

MOL/T-IIIC-7 SEG. MOL/TIIIC-156 IN. SEG. (159 DAY RES PPLY) 

(93 DAY RESUPPLY) 

APOLLO X/SIB 

UPRATED (64 DAY 

RESUPPLY) 

\i 

■ 

760) 

60 120 180 .240 300 360 

ON-ORBIT DURATION (DAYS) 

A INTEGRAL LAUNCH 

• RESUPPLY LAUNCH 

NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1 J 

OR 

2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

MOL - APOLLO X PAYLOAD VS. ON-ORBIT DURATION COMPARISON 

ETR OPERATIONS 

MOL LABORATORY PRESSURIZED VOL - 2400 FT3 

J APOLLO X LABORATORY PRESSURIZED VOL - 1260 FT3 

CI7H

r

torIn

mri) 

it4R 
NRO APPROV 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

EXTENDED DURATION MISSION COMPARISON 

EXPENDABLES SUMMARY 

o TWO-MAN CREW 

o CRYOGENIC BOIL

120 DAY DESIGN 

ITEM 

-OFF BASED ON 

RATE (LBS/DAY) 

MOL APOLLO X 

REACTION CONTROL PROPELLANTS 3. 8 20. 4 

LIFE SUPPORT EXPENDABLES 24. 2 24. 8 

FUEL CELL REACTANTS (1. 8 KW AVERAGE) 72. 0 64. 5 

U) • 

Ci) , FUEL CELLS 15. 0 35. 2 

m 

SPARES AND REDUNDANCY 10. 0 10. 0 

CI ORBIT SUSTENANCE PROPELLANT (160 N. Mi. ) 4.5 6.0 

RECREATION, EXERCISE tx.MEDICAL 1. 7 1. 7 

EQUIPMENT 

TOTAL EXPENDABLE RATE 131. 2 162. 6 

GMAISSYION11 

4144 
NRO APPRO' 

RELEASE 1J 

OR 

2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

APOLLO. X RENDEZVOUS VEHICLE WEIGHT ESTIMATE 

o ETR OPERATIONS 

o LABORATORY PRESSURIZED 

VOLUME - 1260 FT' 

TARGET CHASE/RESUPPLY 

ITEM VEHICLE VEHICLE 

(LBS) (LBS) 

C N/ APOLLO X VEHICLE 36, 090 36, 090 

Z (WITHOUT EXPERIMENT PAYLOAD) 

o CONVERT TO "0" DAY -3, 650 -3, 650 

EXPENDABLES AND TANKAGE 

UT o FUEL CELL REDUNDANCY (2) - 960 - 960 

Cn 

o RENDEZVOUS & DOCKING 610 +2, 080 

rfilo LABORATORY MODULE -6, Z20 

,/ VEHICLE WEIGHT 32, 090 27, 340 

(LESS DISCRETIONARY PAYLOAD) 

1/ DISCRETIONARY PAYLOAD 

o SATURN IB (32, 800) 710 5, 460 

o SATURN IB UPRATED (37, 800) 5, 710 10, 460 

4:tan 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

to) 

APOLLO X RESUPPLY CAPABILITY 

•./ VOLUME AVAILABILITY IN 2 MAN CONCEPT 

o CM 

03I31f r'irgONfl 

• TOTAL PRESSURIZED VOLUME - 366 FT3 

▪ NET FREE VOLUME - 130' FT3 

- ASSUMED MAX. FREE VOLUME AVAILABLE 

FOR STORAGE - 100 FT3 

PAYLOAD STORAGE CAPABILITY, 2000 LBS 

(FOOD, CLOTHING, ETC..) 

SM 

▪ TOTAL UNPRESSURIZED VOLUME 1560 FT 

C131AISSTI3Nn 

3 

▪ AVAILABLE FOR STORAGE - 1125 FT 

▪ PAYLOAD STORAGE CAPABILITY 14,000 LBS 

3 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

MOL RENDEZVOUS VEHICLE WEIGHT ESTIMATE 

o ETR OPERATIONS 

o LABORATORY PRESSURIZED 

VOLUME - 2400 F 

ITEM 

TARGET 

VEHICLE 

CHASE/RESUPPLY 

VEHICLE 

(LBS) (LBS) 

c V BASELINE VEHICLE 17, 940 17, 940 

(WITHOUT EXPERIMENT PAYLOAD) 

0 o BASELINE CONVERSION TO "0" DAY -3, 280 -3, 280 

EXPENDABLES & TANKAGE 

C1) o RENDEZVOUS & DOCKING SYSTEM + 610 +2,080 

o FUEL CELL REDUNDANCY (3) - 410 - 410 

In VEHICLE WEIGHT 14, 860 16, 330 

(LESS DISCRETIONARY PAYLOAD) 

V DISCRETIONARY PAYLOAD 

o TIIIC/7 SEGMENT SRM (28, 600) 13, 740 12, 270 

o TIIIC/156 IN DLA. SRM (37,980) 22, 500* 21, 000* 

*INCLUDES ADDITIONAL VOLUME FOR INCREASED PAYLOAD 
3 • ?. 

• 

0 

0 

.5 

a 

• MOL GROWTH POTENTIAL 

POSSIBLE RENDEZVOUS MISSION CAPABILITY 

AT WTR OPERATIONS 

o UNMANNED MISSION EQUIPMENT MOL 

MANNED RESUPPLY 

- 

z 

0 

) 

rn 

-11 

a 

:3 

a 

0 

O 

O 

: 

.0 

NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 J Y 2015 

0 

#53 
• 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Although the: Apollo X Saturn IB system has been shown to lack 

for Pblar missions, Chart #54 shows an interesting T-III/MOL 

for operationally oriented growth missions in Polar operations 

data for this mission build-up are presented in Charts #55 and 

a capability 

capability 

. Supporting 

#56. 
031AISSIMM 

NRO APPROVSOR 

' RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

MOL GROWTH POTENTIAL 

0 

MAYLOAD 

(LBS) 

40000 

PAYLOAD VS. ON-ORBIT 

o WTR OPERATIONS 

o TIII C/156 IN SRM 

DURATION 

MOL 4c--H UNMANNED MOL 

32000 - 

MANNED 

MANNED 

LAUNCH 

RESUPPLY LAUNCH------45- 

24000 - 

16000 

90 

UNMANNED 

DAY RESUPPLY 

LAUNCH 

CYCLE 

8000 

0 6 4b 6b 8b 1 0 110 

ON-ORBIT DURATION (DAYS) 

AS4 
NRO APRRO 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

OR 

MOL 

RESUPPLY VEHICLE WEIGHT SUMMARY 

USEFUL VEHICLE PAYLOAD AT WTR (TIIIC/ 156 IN) 12,000 LBS 

CONVERT BASIC VEHICLE TO ZERO DAY +3,434 

EXPENDABLES - 

ADD FUEL CELL REDUNDANCY (3) - 244 

ADD RENDEZVOUS AND DOCKING -2,580 

TOTAL RESUPPLY PAYLOAD 12,610 LBS 
NRO APPROSOR • • 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

MOL UNMANNED VEHICLE WEIGHT SUMMARY 

PAYLOAD CAPABILITY AT WTR (TIIIC/ 156 IN) 31, 000 LBS 

• VEHICLE WEIGHT -8, 400 

STRUCTURE (10 FT EQUIP. COMP.) 3, 370 LBS 

ORIENTATION CONTROLS 690 

ELECTRICAL POWER 290 

COMMUNICATIONS 200 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 730 

INSTRUMENTATION 130 

PERSONNEL PROVISIONS 630 

DISPLAYS AND CONTROLS 320 

DOCKING HARDWARE 610 

°"ri CONTINGENCY (29%) 1, 390 

FT! NOSE FAIRING - EFFECTIVE WGT. 40 

• TOTAL PAYLOAD AVAILABLE FOR MISSION 

EQUIPMENT AND EXPERIMENTS 

22, 600 LBS 

C131,diSSVIONf1 

#56 
NRO APPROlOOR • 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

APOLLO X AND MOL MISSION CAPABILITY 

i 

031.11SSTI3NII 

#57 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

.C1311ISSYION

II 
RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVOOR • 

#58 
NRO APPROVOOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

SUMMARY APOLLO X AND MOL 

CI, 

z 

C) 

U) 

03 
U3!dISSVIONfl 

APOLLO X AND .MOL 

# 6 0 

NRO APPROVOOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

• 
RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPRO OR • • 

#61 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

General conclusions of the growth comparison are contained in Chart #62. 

The T-IIIC/MOL system is concluded to offer superior growth characteristics for both Eastern and Western Test. Range Operations. The T-IIIC 

-system appears to afford a very orderly sequence of growth from early 

30-day integral launch missions to a wide variety of operationally 

interesting missions 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

• 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

GROWTH COMPARISON 

CONCLUSIONS: 

V APOLLO X MODIFIED TO MOL REQUIREMENTS HAS NO GROWTH CAPABILITY 

AT "ETR" OR "WTR" 

C 

z 

0 

V APOLLO .X USED IN A RENDEZVOUS/RESUPPLY MODE CAN MEET MOL 

PAYLOAD REQUIREMENTS WITH A 49 DAY RESUPPLY CYCLE(CURRENT SIB UPRATING) 

V SATURN IB REQUIRES UPRATING TO 61 200 LBS. ON-ORBIT PAYLOAD AT 

ETR TO MEET MOL - 

o RESUPPLY CYCLE OF 142 DAYS 

o PRESSURIZED LABORATORY VOLUME OF 2400 FT3 

o OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND CREW CONVENIENCE 

#62 
APOLLO X - MOL 

COST COMPARISON 

C 

z 

0 

■••••• 

RELEASE I JU 2015 

NRO APPRO OR • 

#63 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

•,“ 

Comparable system costs are presented in Chart #64. The estimates 

were based upon a six flight program, and include the previously 

described changes in the NAA/NASA Apollo X system to meet MOL 

requirements. It is emphasized that cost estimates indicated in 

(f) 

611 Chart #64 do not represent total program cost, but provide a basis for 

Tri , cost differences. Supporting cost data are presented in Chart #65. 

• 
RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVOOR • 

COMPARABLE SYSTEM COSTS 

(Dollars in Millions) 

APOLLO X MOL 

400.0 403.8 

480.6 250.8 

880.6 654.6 

NONRECURRING 

RECURRING (6 FLIGHTS) 

TOTAL 

AISSTIONn 

(7) 

C. 

#64 
NRO APPRO.OR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

COMPARABLE SYSTEM COSTS 

(Dollars in Minions) 

• 

RECURRING COSTS NONRECURRING COSTS 

APOLLO X MOL APOLLO X MOL 

LAUNCH VEHICLE 

PERSONNEL MODULE 

LAB VEHICLE 

12.8 

16.8 

12.2 

28.9 

40.2 

11.0 

25.1 

225.5 

253.2 

80.1 41.8 400.0 403.8 

031.41cRifinhIn 

#65 
agui

s

sviown 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

A summary of the over-all conclusions developed by the present review 

of the Apollo X application to the MOL mission is presented in Chart #66. 

For the reasons shown, it is concluded that the Gemini B/T-IIIC MOL 

Vehicle system represents a more effective approach to MOL requirements 

than does the Apollo X concept. 
RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVAIL • 

SUMMARY 

EVALUATION OF APOLLO X FOR MOL MISSION 

O DISADVANTAGES OF APOLLO X AS COMPARED TO GEMINI B/ 

TITAN IIIC MOL 

J BASIC NAA LABORATORY DOES NOT MEET MOL REQUIREMENTS 

C ./ HEAVIER ORBITING VEHICLE: LESS EXPERIMENTS PAYLOAD 

2 ,/ LOWER CREW SAFETY & MISSION SUCCESS PROBABILITY 

• COMPLEX OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 

Cfl • LIMITED MAINTENANCE CAPABILITY 

Ci.i', i • CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF "LIFE BOAT" 

Fii I INCREASED COST 

C) J LESS EFFECTIVE FOR GROWTH MISSIONS 

0 CONCLUSION: GEMINI B/TITAN IIIC MOL IS THE BETTER SOLUTION 

#66 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1 JU 2015 

• • 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

BACK UP DATA 

J CONFIGURATION & OPERATIONS 

I WEIGHTS 

✓ STRUCTURES 

./ ELECTRICAL POWER 

./ ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL & LIFE SUPPORT 

Ni STABILIZATION, CONTROL, & GUIDANCE 

/ COMMUNICATIONS & DATA HANDLING 

I A. G. E. 

✓ COSTS 

#67 
• 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPRO.OR • 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

CONFIGURATION & OPERATIONS DATA 

#68 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1J 2015 

COMPARTMENTATION 

Laboratory 1E14 

Air Lock CM _ SM 

J LABORATORY 

o SINGLE COMPARTMENT INFLEXIBLE FOR OPERATIONAL USE 

o DOES NOT PROVIDE SHELTERED UNPRESSURIZED VOLUME 

o ACCESS THROUGH AIR-LOCK EXTENDS TRAVERSIBLE DISTANCE 

BETWEEN LAB AND CM 

o FORM FACTOR INEFFICIENT FOR CENTRIFUGE PROVISIONS 

4 AIR-LOCK 

o USED AS VENTILATION SYSTEM SUPPLY FROM CM TO LAB 

o INADEQUATE FOR CREW TRANSFER IN PRESSURIZED SUIT 

o VOLUME INADEQUATE FOR EXTRA-VEHICULAR OPERATIONS 

OF CREW WITH AMU 

o DOES NOT PERMIT STORAGE AND CHECK OUT OF E. V. 

EQUIPMENTS 

4 CM 

o REQUIRES DISMANTLING AND STOWAGE OF COUCH AND DOCKING 

HARDWARE FOR OPERATION 

SM 

o AVAILABLE UNPRESSURIZED VOLUME ACCESSIBLE BY E. V. 

OPERATIONS ONLY 

#69 
• 

a3fAISSTION

I1 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVOOR • 

COMPARTMENTATION 

s/ CONCLUSIONS 

o MISSION OPERATIONS RESTRICTED BY CONFIGURATION 

- LABORATORY CAN NOT BE OCCUPIED DURING 

E. V. EXPERIMENTS 

o RETREAT TO CM IN EMERGENCY DIFFICULT 

AIR-LOCK CAN NOT BE OCCUPIED BY MORE THAN 

ONE CREWMAN 

- GEOMETRY OF AIR-LOCK DOES NOT PERMIT TRANSFER 

OF INCAPACITATED CREW MAN IN PRESSURIZED SUIT 

o VOLUME AVAILABLE IN SM NOT SUITABLE FOR EQUIPMENTS 

REQUIRING CREW ACCESS 

o FORM FACTOR OF LAB INEFFICIENT FOR CENTRIFUGE 

PROVISIONS 

o CM VOLUME UTILIZATION REQUIRES UNDESIRABLE 

DISASSEMBLY TASKS 

z 

0 

m 

C:3 

#70 
NRO APPROAbR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• . 

DOCKING PROVISIONS 

(RESUPPLY) 

o MOL REQUIREMENT FOR LONG DURATION RESUPPLY 

o APOLLO X HAS NO PROVISIONS FOR RENDEZVOUS MISSIONS 

N/ DIFFICULT TO INCLUDE CAPABILITY IN PROPOSED 

CONFIGURATION 

N/ WEIGHT PENALTY WILL BE INCURRED 

,/ DYNAMICS PROBLEMS TO BE. OVERCOME 

J DOCKING ACCIDENT COULD RENDER LABORATORY 

INOPERATIVE OR CAUSE CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE TO CM 

o CONCLUSION 

/ APOLLO X CONFIGURATION UNDESIRABLE FOR 

RENDEZVOUS OPERATIONS 

471 
NRO APPROIIPOR 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

• 

CREW SAFETY 

/ON-ORBIT HAZARD 

FIRE OR ATMOSPHERE CONTAMINATION IN LABORATORY 

- RETREAT TO CM IS REQUIRED 

o FIRE OR ATMOSPHERE CONTAMINATION IN CM 

- RETREAT TO LABORATORY 

- LIFE SUPPORT AND REPAIR OPERATIONS USING 

PORTABLE UNITS 

o DOCKING ACCIDENT 

- DAMAGE TO CM 

o CM DEGRADATION 

- CONTINUOUS USE DURING MISSION OPERATIONS 

/MISSION TERMINATION OR ABORT 

o MANUAL DISCONNECT OF FLUID LINES AND ELECT. 

UMBILICALS 

o REINSTALL CREW COUCH FOR LANDING 

o RESTART LIQUID SM ENGINE FOR DE-ORBIT 

LONG TERM STORAGE CONSIDERATION 

REDUNDANT SYSTEM (SOLID ROCKETS) 

/CONCLUSION 

o CREW HAZARD HIGHER THAN MOL IN PROPOSED 

CONFIGURATION 

74! mw ‘in 

#72 
NRO APPROVEaR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • 

MOL RENDEZVOUS OPERATIONS 

Ni DUAL LAUNCH AND DOCK TWO MOL'S 

- INCREASE COMBINED EQUIPMENT PAYLOAD 

- EXTENDED DURATION 

- FLEXIBLE CREW .SIZE (2 OR 4) 

C13131

9c,f)mn 

4171 

• 

2 

0 

• 7"

rn 
MOL RENDEZVOUS MISSION POTENTIAL' 

PAYLOAD VS. ON-ORBIT DURATION 

o 2 MAN CREW 

o ETR OPERATIONS 

o 160 N. MI. ORBIT 

PA YLOAD TIIIC/156 IN 

(LBS) 

We. 

10000 0- _ 

TIIIC (SLV) 

15 30 45 60 

40000 

30000 

20000 

TIIIC/7 SEG 

••■■ '04 

ON-ORBIT DURATION (DAYS) 

0

313ISSVI3N11 

NRO APPROVSR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • 

a3u1

s kno

hin 

A TARGET VEHICLE 

LAUNCH 

CHASE VEHICLE 

LAUNCH 

074 
Fr 

0 

RELEASE 1 JU 2015 

NRO APPRO R S • 

MOL 

RENDEZVOUS CONFIGURATION WEIGHT SUMMARY 

o 160 N. MI.ORBIT 

o ETR OPERATIONS 

ITEM 

TARGET VEHICLE CHASE VEHICLE 

(LBS) 

6, 600 

(LBS) 

6, 600 /GEMINI B SEGMENT 

(LABORATORY VEHICLE SEGMENT 

o BASELINE (30 DAY PROVISIONS 

LESS ELECTRICAL POWER REACTANTS) 

o ELECTRICAL POWER REACTANTS 

o DOCKING PROVISIONS 

10, 

*1, 

540. 

040 

610 

10, 

**1, 

2, 

540 

260 

080 

VEHICLE NET WEIGHT 

(LESS DISCRETIONARY PAYLOAD) 

18, 790 20, 480 

(DISCRETIONARY PAYLOAD 

o TIIIC STANDARD (23, 500) 

o TIIIC/7 SEGMENT SRM (28, 600) 

o TIIIC/ 156 IN. SRM (37, 980) *** 

4, 

9, 

18, 

710 

810 

590 

3, 

8, 

*** 16, 

040 

120 

900 

03931Sqn3Nn 

30 DAYS AT 1.40 KW AVG. (PRE-RENDEZVOUS ) 

** 30 DAYS AT 1.58 KW AVG. (DOCKED CONFIGURATION) 

*** INCLUDES 600 LB. PENALTY FOR 10 FT. EQUIPMENT COMPARTMENT. 

# 7 5 
RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

NRO APPRO OR • 

MOL RENDEZVOUS OPERATIONS 

EXPENDABLES SUMMARY 

o TWO-MAN CREW 

o 60 DAY MISSION 

o RENDEZVOUS 30 DAYS AFTER FIRST LAUNCH 

z 

0 

cn 

m 

ITEM 

TARGET VEHICLE DOCKED CONFIGURATI 

(LBS/DAY) (LBS7DAY) 

REACTION CONTROL PROPELLANTS 2. 5 2. 5 

LIFE SUPPORT EXPENDABLES (24. 5) (24. 5) 

OXYGEN - SUPERCRITICAL 8. 5 8. 5 

OXYGEN - HIGH PRESSURE 0. 3 0. 3 

NITROGEN - SUPERCRITICAL 3. 3 3. 3 

LITHIUM HYDROXIDE & ACTIVATED CHARCOAL 7. .2 7. 2 

DISPOSABLE CLOTHING, TISSUES, CHEMICALS 1. 2 1. 2 

FOOD 4. 0 4. 0 

FUEL CELL REACTANTS *34. 7 **42. 0 

SPARES AND REDUNDANCY 7. 0 7. 0 

RECREATION, EXERCISE & MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 1. 5 1. 5 

TOTALS 70.2 78. 5 

* 30 DAYS AT 1. 4 KW AVERAGE POWER (PRE-RENDEZVOUS) 

** 30 DAYS AT 1. 58 KW AVERAGE POWER (DOCKED VEHICLES) 

C

31 !31 0tsill 

#76 
NRO APPROR 

RELEASE 111°015 

• 

170 38 

130 

325 87 

150 

120 

SUB TOTAL 745 275 

380 

6o 

6o 6o 

TOTALS 1245 335 

MOL RENDEZVOUS OPERATIONS 

POWER DOWN ELECTRICAL LOADS 

TARGET VEHICLE 

WATTS AVE. 

CHASE VEHICLE 

WATTS AVE. 

COMMUNICATIONS 

ATTITUDE CONTROL 

EC ABS 

GEMINI B 

LIGHTING 

1.0 

i 

*71 EXPERIMENTS & COMPUTER 

m DISPLAYS 

MISCELLANEOUS 

TOTAL POWER 1580 

0E331S

4

-LnNO 

# 7 7 
NRO APPROVOOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

MOL GROWTH POTENTIAL 

MOL BASELINE POWER DOWN ELECTRICAL LOAD CAPABILITY 

SUBSYSTEM 

BASELINE 

30 DAY MISSION 

EXTENDED 

DURATION MISSION 

AVE. PWR. 

(WATTS) 

AVE. PWR. 

(WATTS) 

.; COMMUNICATIONS, INSTR. & DATA MANAGEMENT 

oat 

170 110 

(7)ATTITUDE CONTROL (50% DUTY CYCLE) 235 130 w EC/LS (SHIRT SLEEVE) 390 325 

(1) LIGHTING 120. 6o 

'71 

GEMINI B (ORBITAL STORAGE) 150 150 

DISPLAYS 60 60 

TRANSTAGE 100 0 

MISCELLANEOUS 0 

SUB TOTAL 1275 895 

EXPERIMENTS 250 250 

COMPUTER 130 130 

CONTINGENCIES 145 0 

180.0 1275 

amAis

swei

nmn 

#78 
NRO APPRO.OR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

4, 

WEIGHTS DATA z 

r 

#79 
NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

WEIGHT SUMMARY 

NAA PROPOSAL VS. AEROSPACE APOLLO X ESTIMATE 

NAA PROPOSAL 

APOLLO X/ 

SATURN IB 

3 MEN-45 DAYS 

A 

ESTIMATE OF 

APOLLO X/ 

SATURN IB 

2 MEN- 30 DAYS 

RE-ENTRY VEHICLE 

I 

RE-ENTRY VEHICLE 

C CONTINGENCY 

52 SERVICE MODULE (INCLUDING PROPELLANT) 

)44 SERVICE MODULE 

Cn % CONTINGENCY 

441 LABORATORY (LESS EXPERIMENTS) 

M 0 LABORATORY VEHICLE SEGMENT 

CONTINGENCY 

. BOOSTER ADAPTER 

111

1

.11

1

1111 13

313I

S

S

Vilhin 

AVAILABLE WEIGHT FOR EXPERIMENTS 

TOTAL ON-ORBIT WEIGHT 

9 , 600 9, 600 

0 1, 440 

15, 420 14, 180 

0 1, 190 

2, 630 5, 410 

0 1, 090 

3, 500 3, 500 

1, 500 -3, 610 

32, 650 32, 800 (a) 

(a) EAST LAUNCH, 80-160 N. M. ELLIPTICAL ORBIT. 
031AISSVI3Nfl 

NRO APPROVDR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• . 

RE-ENTRY VEHICLE WEIGHT COMPARISON 

STRUCTURE 

NAA 

APOLLO X 

PROPOSAL 

3 MEN-45 DAYS 

AEROSPACE 

ESTIMATE OF 

APOLLO X 

2 MEN-30 DAYS 

4,683 4,683 

STABILITY AND CONTROL 256 256 

GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION 0 229 

CREW SYSTEMS 395 395 

EARTH LANDING SYSTEMS 743 743 

INSTRUMENTATION 198 198 

ELECTRICAL POWER 614 614 

COMMUNICATIONS 367 367 

CONTROL AND DISPLAYS 373 373 

REACTION CONTROL 339 339 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 341 341 

USEFUL LOAD (1, 290) ( 1,064) 

CREW SYSTEMS (INCLUDING FOOD) 952 760 

REACTION CONTROL 270 270 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 68 34 

TOTAL 9, 599 9, 602 
NRO APPROVER 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • 

SERVICE MODULE WEIGHT COMPARISON* 

NAA 

APOLLO X 

PROPOSAL 

3 MEN-45 DAYS 

ESTI ATE OF 

APOLLO X 

2 MEN- 30 DAYS 

STRUCTURE 2, 451 2, 451 

INSTRUMENTATION 115 115 

ELECTRICAL POWER (DRY WEIGHT) 2, 499 2, 605 

COMMUNICATIONS 99 99 

REACTION CONTROL (DRY WEIGHT) 1, 135 596 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL (DRY WEIGHT) 489 379 

PROPULSION 1, 689 2,.886 

USEFUL LOAD (6, 947) (5, 050) 

ELECTRICAL POWER 1, 869 1, 150 

REACTION CONTROL 1, 236 450 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 874 482 

RESIDUAL PROPELLANT 250 250 

USABLE PROPELLANT 2, 718 2, 718 

TOTAL 15, 424 14, 181 

*LESS EXPERIMENTS, INCLUDES PROPELLANT 

0313ISSTI3M) 

• 

0311dISSY1314f1 

#82 
#83 

2015 

OR • • 

LABORATORY VEHICLE WEIGHT COMPARISON* 

STRUCTURE 

ORIENTATION CONTROLS (LESS PROP.) 

ELECTRICAL POWER (LESS REACTANTS) 

t INSTRUMENTATION 

NAA 

APOLLO X 

PROPOSAL 

3 MEN-45 DAYS 

AEROSPACE 

ESTIMATE OF 

APOLLO X 

2 MEN-30 DAYS 

1,665 

0 

121 

47 

2,839 

150 

370 

130 

COMMUNICATIONS 2 174 

Z ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM 

a 

(LESS EXPENDABLES) 101 505 

, PERSONNEL PROVISIONS 81 610 

w DISPLAYS AND CONTROLS 75 216 

CP 1 SPARE PARTS 0 140 

rr EXPENDABLES (534) (275) 

C FOOD 158 0 

OXYGEN-SUPERCRITICAL 0 ' 0 

OXYGEN-HIGH PRESSURE 25 10 

NITROGEN-SUPERCRITICAL 0 0 

WATER-RESERVE 0 15 

LITHIUM HYDROXIDE 351 215 

DISPOSABLE CLOTHING, TISSUES, CHEMICALS 0 35 

REACTANTS - 1,550 WATTS AVE. 0 0 

PROPELLANT-USABLE 0 0 

TOTAL 2,626 5, 409 

%.., * 

CONTINGENCY 

MISSTIONII 

NRO APPRO' 

RELEASE 1 J 
RE-ENTRY VEHICLE 

* RE-ENTRY VEHICLE 4, 730 9, 600 

C CONTINGENCY Z 200 1, 440 

0 SERVICE MODULE (INCLUDING PROPELLANT) 

cn SERVICE MODULE • 1,570 14, 180 

CP 

...... CONTINGENCY 100 1, 190 

M 

0 LABORATORY (LESS EXPERIMENTS) 

LABORATORY VEHICLE SEGMENT 9, 750 5, 410 

CONTINGENCY 2, 000 1, 090 

BOOSTER ADAPTER 0 3, 500 

AVAILABLE WEIGHT FOR EXPERIMENTS 5, 150 -3,610 

TOTAL ON-ORBIT WEIGHT 23, 500 32, 800 (a) 

(a) EAST LAUNCH, 80-160 N. M. ELLIPTICAL ORBIT. 

031AISSVIONII 

RELEASE 1 JU 2015 

NRO APPRO OR • 

WEIGHT COMPARISON SUMMARY 

MOL VS. AEROSPACE ESTIMATE OF APOLLO-X 

MOL EXTIMATE 

GEMINI B/ 

TITAN LIIC 

2 MEN- 30 DAYS 

ESTI ATE OF 

APOLLO X/ 

SATURN IB 

2 MEN- 30 DAYS 

#84 
NIRO APPROV 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

LABORATORY VEHICLE WEIGHT COMPARISON* 

MOL VS. AEROSPACE ESTIMATE OF APOLLO-X 

AEROSPACE 

GEMINI B 

MOL 

2 MEN-30 DAYS 

AEROSPACE 

ESTIMATE OF 

APOLLO X 

2 MEN-30 DAYS 

STRUCTURE 2,770 2,839 

ORIENTATION CONTROLS (LESS PROP.) 690 150 

ELECTRICAL POWER (LESS REACTANTS) 1,960 370 

INSTRUMENTATION 130 130 

COMMUNICATIONS 285 174 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM 

(LESS EXPENDABLES) 890 505 

PERSONNEL PROVISIONS 630 610 

DISPLAYS AND CONTROLS 315 216 

SPARE PARTS 140 140 

EXPENDABLES (1,945) (275) 

FOOD 120 0 

OXYGEN -SUPERCRITICAL 255 0 

OXYGEN-HIGH PRESSURE 10 10 

NITROGEN-SUPERCRITICAL 110 0 

WATER-RESERVE 15 15 

LITHIUM HYDROXIDE 215 215 

DISPOSABLE CLOTHING, TISSUES, CHEMICALS 35 35 

REACTANTS - 1,550 WATTS AVE. 1,150 0 

PROPELLANT-USABLE 35 0 

TOTAL 9,755 5,41:19 

031AI

SSYIONA 

#85 
NRO APPROVIIR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

STRUCTURES/ MECHANICAL 

0313I3SVI3NA 

Q. 

#86 
METEOROID DESIGN 

• PHILOSOPHY 

/ NAA ACCEPTANCE OF ONE HST DURING 45 DAY MISSION DURATION CONSIDERED UNCONSERVATIVE 

AND DETRECNIAL TO CREW SAFETY 

1. INSUFFICIENT FLUX AND PENETRATION DATA WARRANT HIGH PROBABILITY OF 

NO PENETRATION (P0=0.995) DESIGN ESPECIALLY FOR RELATIVELY SHORT 

MISSION DURATIONS (r t. 180 DAYS) 

• FLUX AND PENETRATION CRITERION 

/ NO CONSIDERATION OF STREAM FLUX NOR YEARLY VARIATION OF SPORADIC FLUX NOTED 

1. FOR MISSIONS Lass THAN ONE YEAR, SPORADIC FLUX CRITERION. SHOULD 

BE INCREASED OVER YEARLY AVERAGE. 

/ trFICIENCY FACTORS FOR TWO WALL CONFIGURATIONS ARE MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN AEROSPACE 

CRITERION ^- 

1. AEROSPACE FACTORS ARE ACCEPTED BY NASA/MSC 

2. NASA/AEROSPACE FACTORS ARE USED IN CURRENT GEMINI CRITERION 

/ NO CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO RELATIVE THICKNESSES OF BUMPER & BACK-UP PLATE IN 

APPLICATION OF TWO SHEET CRITERION (t81 0.25 tTotal) 

/ NO SAFE'T'Y FACTOR APPLIED TO SAFE LIFE OR TRICKNASS 

1. LARGE UNCERTAINTIES INHERENT IN ANALYSES WARRANT A SAFETY FACTOR 

APPROACH 

COMMAND MODULE ANALYSIS APPLICATION OF ALUMINUM PENETRATION CRITERION TO ORGANIC 

ABLATOR MATERIAL CONSIDERED INVALID 

1. BEHAVIOR OF SHOCK PROPAGATION, ENERGY ABSORPTION, ETC., NOT CONSIDERED 

ACROSS-THE-BOARD TYPICAL BETWEEN METALLICS & ORGANICS 

03HI

Sqtr-OW1 

lif47 

C3313

SI SVI

ONn "4 

NIRO APPROVIDOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 
NRO APPROVAIR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

S 

METEOROID CRiTtNIA COMPARISON 

NAA - AEROSPACE CRITERION 

NAA BASELINE t = .033" (Px = 1 0.995, T = 45 days) 

600 

500 

400 

031AI

S

S

N

M

NI1 

300 

C 3IAISSY13N11 

200 

140 

T, DAYS 

44 a 
NRO APPROVIL 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 CG

U

SI SVI

3

N11 

STRUCTURAL DESIGN 

AN AEROSPACE EVALUATION OF THE NAA. DESIGN, SUBJECTED TO MOL REQUIREMENTS 

AND DESIGN CRITERIA, YIELDED THE FOLLOWING 

• LABORATORY (PRESSURIZED STRUCTURE) 

/ NO CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY NAA TO HYPERVELOCITY IMPACT (METEOROIDS)/ 

CRITICAL CRACK LENGTH CONDITIONS 

o AEROSPACE RATIONALE: 

1. EXPOSURE TO METEOROIDS AND ACCEPTANCE OF "ONE HIT" 

PHILOSOPHY BY NAA MAKES CONSIDERATION MANDATORY 

2. LOWER OPERATING STRESS (INCREASED GAGE) ELIMINATES 

CATASTROPHIC FAILURE MODE 

/ NAA END BULKHEAD STRUCTURAL WEIGHTS CONSIDERED GROSSLY 

UNCONSERVATIVE 

o AEROSPACE RATIONALE 

1. NAA SHALLOW HEAD GEOMETRY 27) YIELDS MUCH LARGER 

WEIGHT VALUE THAN NAA QUOTED VALUE (SEE TABLE) 

2. FOR 192" DIA. , HEAD GEOMETRY SHOULD RANGE FROM 

. 5 < a/b < 1. 0 TO PROVIDE NEAR OPTIMUM WEIGHT (SEE TABLE) 

/ NAA CYLINDER WEIGHT CONSIDERED LOW 

o AEROSPACE RATIONALE 

1. SHELL BUCKLING DESIGN FOR LAUNCH LOADS DICTATE GREATER 

WEIGHT THAN GIVEN (SEE TABLE) 

/ NAA METEOROID PROTECTION STRUCTURE CONSIDERED INADEQUATE WHEN 

COMPARED WITH AEROSPACE CRITERION 

o AEROSPACE RATIONALE 

1. OVERALL WEIGHT (440#) COMPARABLE (4#/FT3ENERGY ABSORBER) 

BUT 1-B=. 033 CONSIDERED INADEQUATE (P0=0. 995) 
NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1 J 

OR 

2015 

• • 

STRUCTURAL DESIGN (CONT. ) 

• SUPPORT SYSTEM 

/ NAA WEIGHT FOR SUPPORT STRUCTURE BETWEEN LAB AND LEM ADAPTOR 

CONSIDERED LOW 

o AEROSPACE RATIONALE 

1. SHELL BUCKLING DESIGN FOR LAUNCH LOADS DICTATE 

GREATER' WEIGHT THAN GIVEN (SEE TABLE) 

CONCLUSION 

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF LABORATORY AND SUPPORT SYSTEM TO MEET MOL 

REQUIREMENTS RESULTS IN APPROXIMATELY 1200 LB INCREASE OVER NAA 

QUOTES 

031AISSVI3N11 

#90 
NRO APPROV 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

CRYOGENIC TANKAGE 

COMPARISON WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY METHODOLOGY STUDIES PERFORMED BY 

AEROSPACE RESULTS IN THE FOLLOWING: 

• APOLLO X MAXIMUM UTILIZATION OF EXISTING APOLLO HARDWARE CONSIDERED 

INVALID BECAUSE 

PROPOSED SYSTEM NOT COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING APOLLO 

1. LARGER TANKS - 40" x 58" vs 28" 

2. LONGER MISSION REQUIREMENTS - 45 DAYS vs 14 DAYS 

/ ONLY 60% OF COMPONENT LEVEL ITEMS CAN BE UTILIZED 

(.1) 1. 40% COMPONENTS REQUIRE DESIGN PROOFING DUE TO LARGE 

C]) TANK REQUIREMENTS 

win 

• ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSE LONGER SCHEDULES 

rn 

/ TANKAGE QUALIFICATION AND AVAILABILITY REQUIRE AS MUCH 

OR LONGER TIME THAN PROPOSED MOL TANKAGE 

1. MINIMUM OF 20 - 22 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 16 MONTHS 

2. CURRENT APOLLO AND GEMINI PROGRAMS REQUIRED MORE 

THAN 24 MONTHS 

031AISS,MNO 

401 
NRO APPROVODR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

ELECTRICAL POWER 

03 A1 SI SVI3N11 

C131A1F w-1:1han 
NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1J 

OR 

2015 

to • 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

ELECTRICAL POWER LOAD ANALYSIS 

TOTAL D.C. AVERAGE POWER (WATTS) 

SUBSYSTEM APOLLO X MOL AEROSPACE 

BASELINE APOLLO X MOL 

COMMUNICATIONS 180 170 180 

ECS 453 390 453 

ATTITUDE CONTROL 2 235 235 

LIGHTING 181 120 181 

DISPLAY 7 6o 7 

CREW SYSTEMS 7 7 

SERVICE PROPULSION 16 16 

S/m RCS 5 5 

GEMINI B {ORBITAL STORAGE) 150 

LAB THERMAL CONTROL 15o 

TRANSTAGE 100 

MISCELLANEOUS 60 60 

SUB-TOTAL 851 1,275 1,294 

COMPUTER 119 130 130 

EXPERIMENTS 200 250 250 

TOTAL 1,170 1,655 1,674 

CONCLUSIONS: APOLLO X MOL POWER REQUIREMENTS ARE EQUIVALENT TO THE MOL BASELINE 

#93 
fi

g141

c

CV"InNn 

NRO APPROVER 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

FUEL CELL RELIABILITY LOGIC DIAGRAM 

*NAM RECOMMENDED SYSTEM CONFIGURATION FOR MOL. 

. 

- ;411.-- 

a 

.83814 

CSM FUEL CELL 

MODULE 

0.971 

CSM FUEL CELL 

MODULE 

CSM FUEL CELL 

MODULE 

0.971 

FOR FIRST 

HALF OF 

MISSION 

---T — -- 

CSM FUEL 

0.971 

. 

_ _ _JI 

EPS 

t 

r ----- — — — — — — —.1 

e CSM FUEL CELL I 

e MODULE 1r 

e I 0.971 . 1 

I o. 1 

CONCLUSION: SIX 

r "1 e 

1 CSM FUEL CELL 1 

MODULE 1 1 

I .. 

1 0.971 , 

L J 

CELL MODULES REQUIRED 

RELIABILITY 

r 

I CSM FUEL CELL 

1 MODULE 

i 0.971 

L 

= 

REL. REQMT. = 

—1 

1 

i 

I 

e 

1 

.984 

r 

1 FOR SECOND 

a 

1 HALF OF 

1 

i MISSION 

(30 DAYS) 

-' 

. o 

o 

t 

*REFERENCE: SSD—TDR 64-221 "MOL ELECTRICAL POWER SUBSYSTEM STUDY," NORTH AMERICAN 

AVIATION, INC., OCT., 1964 

C1311IS

SY

1O

Nn 

#94 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1J 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND 

LIFE SUPPORT 

0

313

S1 SV

I3

N

fl 

n

li-n

cgtrinhin 

444; 
APOLLO X - MOL MISSION 

EC/LS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 

• ATMOSPHERE SUPPLY 

0

2 ACCUMULATOR (FOR EVA AND EMERGENCY REPRESSURIZATION) 

SINGLE GAS/DUAL GAS MODE SELECTION PROVISIONS 

0

2 AND N2 SUPPLY TO AIRLOCK 

0

2 UMBILICAL CONNECTIONS IN AIRLOCK (FOR EVA) 

0

2 AND N2 SUPPLY TO LABORATORY 

• ATMOSPHERE CONTROL 

SUIT LOOP CIRCULATION FAN 

CABIN LOOP WATER SEPARATION PROVISIONS 

SUIT LOOP DUCTING TO AND FROM LABORATORY 

CABIN LOOP DUCTING TO AND FROM LABORATORY 

VENTILATION FANS IN LABORATORY 

• THERMAL CONTROL 

LABORATORY RADIATOR (SIZED FOR 3. 6 KW PEAK EXPERIMENT LOAD) 

ADEQUATE DEW POINT CONTROL PROVISIONS 

• LIFE SUPPORT 

PROVISIONS FOR THE RETURN TO EARTH OF FECAL SAMPLES 

ti 1AISSY13Nfl 

NRO APPROV.R 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • O 

#96 
. IDENTIrIZO PROVISIONS 

02 SUPERCRITICAL STORAGE IN SM 

N

2 SUPERCRITICAL STORAGE IN SM 

0

2 3.5 PSIA 02 DEMAND PRESSURE TO CM 

. 

02 3.5 MAO2 PARTIAL PRESSURE TO CM 

N2 7.0 PSIA 02 TOTAL PRESSURE TO CM 

02

'GASEOUS STORAGE (25 LB) IN IM 

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 

0 ACCUMULATOR STORAGE (26 LB) IN SM 2 

02 5.0 PSIA 02 TOTAL PRESSURE TO CM 

0

2 GASEOUS STORAGE (7 LB) IN CM 

02 SUPPLY (3.5 PSIA PARTIAL/5.0 PSIA 

TOTAL) TO AIRLOCK 

N

2 SUPPLY (7.0 PSIA TOTAL) TO AIRLOCK 

0

2 EVA UMBILICAL SUPPLY (3.5 PSIA TOTAL) 

TO AIRLOCK 

- 0

2 ''L (3.5 PSIA PARTIAL/5.0 PSIA TOTAL) , 

TO LM 

- N

2 SUPPLY (7.0 PSIA TOTAL) TO LM 

#97 

SUIT 

LOOP 

NRO APPROVODR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • 
■ •• 

,o0 

0 CD 

MOW. 1.1111•0 

NRO APPROVOOR . S. RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X—MOL MISSION 

ATMOSPHERE SUPPLY CHANGES 

ADDITIONS (LB) 

02ACCUMULATOR 52 

GAS MODE SELECTION 4 

02 SUPPLY TO AIRLOCK 12 

C) NZSUPPLY TO AIRLOCK 

D 02UMBILICAL CONNECTIONS (EVA) 

02SUPPLY TO LABORATORY 1 4- 

NaSUPPLY TO LABORATORY 8 

0 02EMER PPLY( 7 LB) 28 

DELETIONS 

OZ EMER. SUPPLY (25 LB) — 85 

43 

111

.1 1

IM 

3C

31AI5SVIO

N

11 

WEIGHT INCREASE 
OTAISSY19 

SUIT 

LOOP 

CABIN 

LOOP 

-0 0- -0 0- 

-0 

NRO APPROVER 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• • 

APOLLO X - MOL MISSION 

ATMOSPHERE CONTROL SUBSYSTEM 

• IDENTIFIAD PROVISIONS 

CM sum LOOP 

CM SUIT CONNECTIONS 

- CM CABIN LOOP 

- LM DUCTING TO CM SUIT LOOP 

LM. VENTILATION 

• ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 

CM SUIT LOOP VENTILATION FAN 

CM CABIN LOOP WATER SEPARATION 

REVISED LM DUCTING TO CM SUIT LOOP 

LM DUCTING TO CM CABIN LOOP 

LM SUIT CONNECTIONS 

REVISED LM VENTILATION 

II r% is 
\ ri" 1 sure*. ir';' icAsm I )

C \ ..'} f LOOP ; \-!...1' ILOOP I / / 

= 0.1a

L_ 

En \ / • In 

fT i I 

I I 

L 

NRO APPROVSR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • • 

APOLLO X -MOL MISSION 

ATMOSPHERE CONTROL CHANGES 

ADDITIONS I (LB) 

0 CIRCULATION FAN(2) 8 

10 WATER SEPARATION 12 

SUIT LOOP DUCTING 22 

CI CABIN. LOOP DUCTING 40 

0 VENTILATION FAN (4) 12 

DELETIONS 

0 DUCTING FAN 

WEIGHT INCREASE 
SUIT 

LOOP 

PS 

VET! 

EQUIP 

11111•■■• 

CABIN 

LOOP 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROV R • • 

APOLLO X - MOL MISSION 

THERMAL CONTROL SUBSYSTEM 

IDENTIFIED PROVISIONS 

RADIATOR IN SM 

CREW TEMP CONTROL IN CM 

EQUIP. TEMP CONTROL IN CM 

LM CONNECTION TO SM/CM 

THERMAL CONTROL 

o ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 

PROPER DEW POINT CONTROL, CM 

PROPER DEW POINT CONTROL, LM 

SEPARATE LM THERMAL CONTROL 

DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE 3. 6k 

EXP. RADIATOR INTEGRAL WITH L 

SURFACE 

ti 

C131,A

F1 v-IO

N

11 

#101 
APOLLO X—MOL. MISSION 

THERMAL CONTROL CHANGES 

ADDITIONS 

COLDPLATES 

0 PUMPS, LINES, EC T. 

®RADIATOR 

®DEW POINT CONTROL 

DELETIONS 

0 DUCTING 4 FAN 

•(LB) 

30 

6O 

40 

30 

—17 

WEIGHT • INCREASE 143 

--JI 

EltPuri (7\ • 

OEQU I 

I 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVIIR • 

■••• 

Mini I 

eeei l RAD I 

.••■ 

' I - 

I 

? 

t■ 1 - _ , I 

c ‘ \ I I SUM S"( - -Icp,fitts ----" 

Z \ I LOOP ' L 1 1 

0 \ LE__ ..t. -.11.00PJ / / 

\

• 

\ 

I VEP4 1 / /1 

-1..-1.1 

U) I, 

U) ‘ t!c-"- In / 

'71 • \ 0 )--- - - 4 

• 

Ill I I 

la 

I 

#10 2 
NIRO APPROV 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

R • 

APOLLO X - MOL MISSION 

EC/LS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 

SUMMATION OF WEIGHT CHANGES 

ADDITION DELETION NET 

ATMOSPHERE SUPPLY 128 ' -85 43 

ATMOSPHERE CONTROL 94 -10 84 

THERMAL CONTROL 160 -17 143 

TOTAL 382 -112 270 

z 

C) 

Lj 

m 

• 

(131AISSTI3NO -0 

#103 
NRO APPROVaR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

G

31AISSVION11 

STABILIZATION AND CONTROL 

& GUIDANCE 

amdissnown 

#104 
NRO APPRO 

RELEASE 1J 

R 

2015 

APOLLO )(REVIEW 

STABILIZATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM 

STABILIZING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (SCS) • 

OPERATING TIME LIMITATION 

Reliability liMits life to 150 hours in order to 

achieve reliability goal. Increased operating time 

would require either hardwired redundancy or inflight 

maintenance of the SCS Either of these solutions 

would require extensive modifications to Block II 

Apollo System. 

RCS propellant requirements are prohibitive for long 

periods of operation. (6.4 lb/day) Reduction of 

impulse consumption would require elimination of 

couples and reduction of minimum impulse bit. 

CeldiSSnONI1 

J11 AG 

• 
NRO APPROVE.R 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM 

COMMAND MODULE RCS ENGINE 

Extended exposure to space environment represents only significant potential 

problem area. This will require additional testing of Block II Apollo engines. 

Modifications which could be required to solve problems disclosed during 

environmental tests will be similar for Gemini or Apollo Re-entry vehicles. 

SERVICE MODULE RCS ENGINE 

Changes from Block II Apollo requirements: 

Increased duty cycle 

Extended exposure to space environment 

More severe thermal environment 

Increased reliability allocation 

/ Major problems are not anticipated. Requires testing and possible minor fixes 

RCS PROPELLANT TANKS 

Increased storage life for command and service module systems and increased 

capacity for service module require changes, testing, and requalification of 

Block II Apollo equipment 

031AISS7ri3W 11111.1 

(13U1S

STIO

NCI 

#11 (1A 
NRO APPROVP00 

RELEASE 1 JUL 2015 

• 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

TYPICAL SPECIFIC COMMENTS 

In the evaluation of the contractors' studies it was recognized that the study was of a 

preliminary nature. The specific comments made below, indicate. that the study may 

have been'too superficial in many areas, and when analyzed in more detail will indicate 

areas where additional time and money for development and testing are required to 

modify the Lunar Apollo components for the Apollo X mission. 

The contractor evaluates the reliability of the Service Module RCS engine utilizing 

(.1) i the operating life requirement of the Lunar Apollo which considers parts replace- 

" 71

went, if necessary. The evaluation does not permit part replacement nor is an 

t: adjusted reliability figure utilized in the evaluation. The increased reliability 

requirement will therefore require definite development over Block II hardware. 

No complete solution is given to solve the suggested thermal problem on.the RCS engine. 

No specific modifications to the Service Module engine were presented to achieve the 

higher reliability. A program of demonstration was suggested, but this additional 

testing, without modification, will not increase reliability. 

mutstioNn 
C

SIAIS

S

V

IO 

NRO APPROV.R 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 crg

U

SI SY

IO

N

fl 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

TYPICAL SPECIFIC COMMENTS (CONTINUED) 

NAA selected a Service Module propellant tank system that the subcontractor, Bell, 

did not analyze or evaluate for the study A dual tank arrangement for each propellant is suggested with interconnecting lines and valuing. The actual diagram of the 

selected concept is omitted from the report. All this secondary summarization 

indicates that a thorough analysis was"not made in this area and potential problems 

may have been overlooked. 

The stabilization and control system approach of utilizing drifting flight reduces 

the operating time in order to achieve the reliability goal, but probably will not. 

be compatible with the control requirements dictated by the experiments as envisioned 

for MOL. This drifting mode is certainly not feasible for. low altitude missions due 

to aerodynamic effects. 

The contractor suggests that the minimum impulse bit can be reduced, but gives no 

specific system modifications that permit this reduction. 

#108 
RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

NRO APPROVOR • • 

#109 
NRO APPROVA, s RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

GUIDANCE SYSTEM 

Block II Apollo Guidance System is presently emerging from 

evolution and will not complete qual. testing until May, 1968 

Computer (developed by Raytheon) is a wired program machine with 

approximately a year lead time fOr a program change. 

Limited usage of the Guidance SyStemAs required to insure' the 

reliability goals. 

Apollo Guidance Optics do not have the capability or the growth 

potential of the M(L pointing and tracking scope. 

#110 
NRO APPROVI, 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

COMMUNICATIONS AND DATA HANDLING 
NRO APPROVI, 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • 

COMMUNICATIONS AND DATA.HANDLING. 

APOLLO X 

• USES APOLLO BLOCK II EQUIPMENT 

• WILL MEET APOLLOC 'Zt.D REQUIREMENTS 

• WILL NOT MEET EXPERIMENT REQUIREMENTS 

#112 

APOLLO X REVIEW 
NRO APPROVER 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • • 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

s 

NAA APOLLO X C & D WEIGHTS 

• RE-ENTRY VEHICLE 367 LBS 

(COMMAND MODULE). 

• SERVICE MODULE , 99 LBS 

• LABORATORY 2 LBS 

• TOTAL 468 

•••■••••■•• 

n3lAISSVIONn 

411 
NRO APPROVEOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

ADDITIONAL C & D EQUIPMENTS REQUIRED 

WEIGHT 

S- BAND TRANSMITTER (2) 

S-BAND AMPLIFIER (2) 

PCM TM MULTIPLEXER (2) 

SIGNAL CONDITIONER 

RECORDER (2) 

29. 0 

33. 5 

4. 5 

50. 0 

54.0 

PREMODULATION PROCESSOR 12. 0 

COMMAND DECODER AND RELAYS 13. 5 

TELEPRINTER V 12. 0 

SECURE EQUIPMENT 10. 0 

WIDEBAND TRANSMITTER 21. 0 

WIDEBAND RECORDER 73.0 

TV CAMERA (2) AND CONTROL 30. 0 

TV MONITOR 15. 0 

LABORATORY C & D CONTROL PANEL, ETC. 25. 0 

MOUNT, ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT 15. 0 

UMBILICALS TO RE-ENTRY VEHICLE 40.0 

TOTAL 437.5 LBS 

O 

0

3

05

S

1

nOtilf1 

#114 
NRO APPROVOOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 I 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

CONCLUSION 

G

H AI

SSVI9Nn 

• APOLLO BLOCK U EQUIPMENT MUST BE 

AUGMENTED FOR APOLLO X MISSION 

• ESTIMATED WEIGHT INCREASE 1.:1". 450 LBS 

• TOTAL APOLLO X C & D - 905 LBS 

0314IS

SVI

3

Nfl 

#115 
NRO APPRO OR 

RELEASE 1J 2015 

• 

A. G. E. 

rr,71-110WIONII 

# 1 1 6 
NRO APPROV.R 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

I 

AEROSPACE GROUND EQUIPMENT 

APOLLO X 

N. A. A. CLAIM COMMENT 

o UNMODIFIED EQUIPMENT AT EACH 

SITE TO SUPPORT BOTH PROGRAMS 

ON AN INTEGRATED BASIS 

NASA COMMITTMENTS DO NOT PERMIT 

INTEGRATED BASIS FOR APOLLO X 

GROUND OPERATIONS IN SAME TIME 

PERIOD ALLOTTED FOR APOLLO GROUND 

z OPERATIONS 

GI 0 REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN 

ESTABLISHED FOR ANY OF THESE 385 

ITEMS REGARDS PERFORMANCE, 

QUANTITY, LOCATION ETC. 

385 APOLLO AGE ITEMS, INCLUDING 

AUTOMATIC ACCEPTANCE CHECKOUT 

EQUIPMENT, OUT OF 421 AGE ITEMS 

REQUIRED FOR APOLLO X, ARE 

AVAILABLE WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS 

0 20 APOLLO AGE ITEMS REQUIRE 

MODIFICATION FOR APOLLO X USE. 

16 AGE ITEMS ARE NEW FOR APOLLO 

USE 

ABOUT 50% OF THESE ITEMS ARE 

ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WHICH IS EITHER INCOMPATIBLE 

FOR APOLLO GRD. OPERATIONS OR 

NON RELIABLE DUE TO HUMAN SWITCHOVER ACTIVITIES REQUIRED. 

#117 
NRO APPROVODR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

APOLLO X REVIEW 

C MI A SI SVIONfl 

CRI4ISSY 31 14

COST DATA 

11 

#118 
M

UIC

S'MNfl 

NRO APPROAllb OR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

0 

Cf 

S 

APOLLO X - MODS TO APOLLO CSM + LAB 

NAA ESTIMATE 

1. ADD 1200 FT3 LAB MODULE INCLUDING TUNNEL AND AIRLOCK 

2. ADD 2 GAS ATMOSPHERE 

3. ADD Lin CANNISTERS TO CM 

4. ADD CREW SUPPLIES 

5. ADD 3 FUEL CELLS TO SM (TOTAL OF 5) 

6. ADD REACTANT STORAGE (45 DAY TOTAL) IN SM 

7. ADD ECS CRYOGENIC STORAGE (45 DAY TOTAL) IN SM 

8. REPLACE SM PROPELLANT TANKS WITH SMALL TANKS 

9. REMOVE G & N SYSTEM - EXCEPT OPTICS 

10. ADD SPARES & REDUNDANCY TO MEET 45 DAY EARTH MISSION 

RELIABILITY GOALS 

NAA COSTS FOR THE ABOVE: 

STANDARDIZED OPTIMAL 

CSM MODS $20, 246M $17, 146M 

1200 FT3 LAB $50, 000M $50, 000M 

#119 
NRO APPROVOOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

APOLLO X - MODS TO APOLLO CSM + LAB 

0 Additions to NAA List of Mods 

1. LABORATORY STRUCTURE: 

2. POWER SYSTEM: 

Weight increased from 1200 lbs (NAA) to 2360 Ibs 

giving a total Lab weight of 6000 lbs. 

Add 1 more Fuel Cell (Total of 6) and 303 lbs of 

distribution hardware in Lab. 

3. EC/LS: ATMOSPHERE SUPPLY 

02Accumulator (for EVA and Emergency Repressurization) 

Single Gas/Dual Gas Mode Selector Provisions 

0 + H7Supply to Airlock 

0

2 Umbilical Connection in Airlock (For EVA) 

0

2 + N2 Supply to Lab 2 

ATMOSPHERE CONTROL 

Suit Loop Circulating Fan 

Cabin Loop Water Separation Provisions 

Suit Loop Ducting to and from Lab 

Cabin Loop Ducting to and from Lab 

Ventilation Fans in Lab 

THERMAL CONTROL 

Lab Radiator (Sized for 3. 6 KW Peak Experiment Load) 

Adequate dew point control provisions 

LIFE SUPPORT 

Provisions for Return to Earth of Fecal Samples 

4. REACTION CONTROL (CM RCS ENGINE): 

Additional Test (Qualification) of Block 2 Engines 

Propellant Tanks Complete Redesign and Qualifications 

• 

0313ISSVIONn 

#120 
NRO APPROVIDDR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

5. STABILIZATION AND CONTROL (HONEYWELL SYSTEM) IN CM: 

Reliability now has 150 hour Life requirements: 

Either revise Thermal Control System (moisture) to reduce humidity 

or add Redundancy in the form of additional electronic components to 

We Stabilization and Cbntrol system 

6. ADD COMMUNICATIONS AND DATA HANDLING EQUIPMENT: 

ni 

S-Band Transmitter (2) 29 lbs 

S-Band Amplifier (2) 33.5 lbs 

PCM TM Multiplexer (2) 4.5 lbs 

Signal Conditioners 50.0 lbs 

Recorder (2) 54.0 lbs 

Pre-modulator Processor 12.0 lbs 

Command Decoder & Relays 13.5 lbs 

Teleprinter 12.0 lbs 

Security Equip. 10.0 lbs 

Wide Band Transmitter 21.0 lbs 

Wide Band Recorder 73.0 lbs 

TV Camera (2) and Control 30.0 lbs 

TV Monitor 15.0 lbs 

Laboratory Commun. & Data Control Panel 25.0 lbs 

Mount, Additional Equip. 15.0 lbs 

Umbilicals to RV 40.0 lbs 0

113ISSY1ONn 

Total Additional Wt. 437.5 lbs 

7. G & N : ADD 200 LBS BACK (REMOVED AT NAA ITEM 9) 

8. AGE: ADD 1 SET ACE FOR CM, SM, LAB, LAUNCH VEHICLE 

#121 
NRO APPROVOOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• • 

COMPARABLE SYSTEM COSTS 

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS) 

RECURRING COSTS NONRECURRING COSTS 

c LAUNCH VEHICLE 

0 PERSONNEL MODULE 

LAB VEHICLE 

oo 

to 

ni 

OTHER COSTS 

TOTAL 

APOLLO X MOL 

28.9 12.6 

40.2 16.9 

14.5 16.0 

111•1•11111•1•11■11111■1.■1111•■• .1■•■•■•■■••••■••••... 

83.6 45.5 

6.7 6.7 

90.3 52.2 

APOLLO X MOL 

OM, MOM OM 27.5 

176.0 134.0 

237.5 256.8 

1■111..■■•••••■•• 

413.5 418.3 

15.1 15.1 

428.6 433.4 

SUBTOTAL 

#122 
NRO APPRO.OR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 • • 

COMPARABLE SYSTEM COSTS 

(NO EXPERIMENTS) 

(Dollars in Millions) 

APOLLO X MOL 

NONRECURRING 428.6 433. 4 

RECURRING (6 FLIGHTS) 541.8 313. 2 

TOTAL 970.4 746. 6 

031d

S1 SY

OI

N

II 

#123 
NRO APPROIPOR 

RELEASE 1 J 2015 

SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS 

(EXCLUSIVE OF RECOVERY FORCES) 

MISSION: PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, LIFE SUPPORT, 

PERFORMANCE AND GROUND SUPPORT AS REQUIRED 

TO SUSTAIN THE SYSTEM AND TO PERFORM THE 

EXPERIMENTS; AND 

COMPLETE THE TOTAL ORBITAL MAN-HOURS ACTIVITY 

REQUIRED FOR A SINGLE PERFORMANCE OF ALL 

PRIMARY EXPERIMENTS; AND 

RETRIEVAL AT DESIGNATED GROUND STATIONS OF THE 

SPECIFIED TYPES, QUANTITIES, AND QUALITIES OF 

DATA INCLUDING THAT DELIVERED BY THE ASTRONAUT 

IN PERSON. 

APOLLO X 

NAA 121) EST MOL 

CREW SAFETY .999* < • 95 . 97 

MISSION COMPLETION . 78 

RELIABILITY . 90 • 70 

DESIGN ADEQUACY . 85 . 88 

AVAILABILITY 98 .98 

SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS - 899 <, 55 . 65 

* ASSUMED EQUAL TO LUNAR REQUIREMENT 

031AISSVI3Nfl 
NRO APPROVE 

RELEASE 1 JUL 15 • • 

arraNiiff 

t St. 

•411'.'431-4L.,riA.0%.14; C.tij 

"-r 

2. ,)-) 9\-7 atteirsana