SPECIAL HANDLING 

et:Nrte, 174 '9* 

u:1 NRO,APPRO-VED FOR 

RELEASE 1-JULY 2015 

SUBJ: Test Objectives Review Board 

TO: SAFSL-1 (Maj Gen J. S. Bleymaier) 

1. The Test Objectives Review Board was convened under my chairmanship 

on 3 January 1968. Other than this letter, the documentation generated 

by the Board consists of: 

a. Copies of all Contractor briefings. 

b. Daily minutes of the Board meetings. 

c. Copies of the briefing presented to you on 2 February 1968. 

2. The Board consisted of myself, Mr. B. A. Hohmann, Aerospace Corporation, Co-chairman, and three Contractor members: Mr. R. K. Arnold, DAC, 

Mr. R. B. Chamberlain, G.E., and Mr. R. A. Grammer, EK. Maj L. G. 

Thompson was the recorder. All discussion, observations and recommendations 

presented in the briefing were agreed to by this Board. Five consultants 

from the SPO Air Force/Aerospace were in attendance at all Board meetings, 

participated in the discussions and made recommendations; however, they 

were not present during the Executive Sessions of the Board when the results 

were finalized. 

3. Throughout the presentation on 2 February 1968 observations were presented. Eleven major recommendations were summarized of the. 24 observations 

made. Attached hereto is a triple matrix that categorizes these observations 

by priority of importance (1, 2 or 3); as to whether they apply to general, 

development, qualification or acceptance testing; and whether they impact 

contractual, technical or schedule considerations. The order of listing 

under each priority indicates the relative importance of that recommendation. 

4. In the course of achieving its basic objectives, the Test Objectives 

Review Board (TORE), individually and collectively, examined the Lab 

Vehicle Test Program in considerable depth, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Much of the quantitative examination (details of testing) was used 

in constructing the TORB briefing. However, a nuMber of quantitative 

considerations, although not pertinent to the results briefed nor of 

sufficient magnitude to be presented in the briefing, are pertinent in 

themselves. Likewise, certain qualitative considerations (test techniques, 

etc.), of interest to the test program, were not appropriate to or directly 

associated with the Board's recommendations, and were not included in the 

presentation. The Board believes it is appropriate to bring some of these 

SPECIN It-V-MDL'NG 
SPECIAL HANDLING 

NRQ APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

considerations to your attention. These are contained in the attachment. 

Many of these could and should be given further attention by the Offices 

of Primary Responsibility, and further action/resolution accomplished as 

appropriate. 

5. The final documentation package consists of: a. Copy of this letter 

with attachments; b. Copy of all Contractor briefings; c. Daily 

minutes of Board meetings; d. Copy of briefing. The Contractor briefings 

(item b.) consist of several categories of information (e.g.: test plans 

not on contract, test plans on contract, preliminary test plans) and 

should be considered accordingly. The distribution of this documentation 

package will be: 

1 copy SAFSL-4, -6, -12, -14, -16, 6595 ATW, 

DACO, GE, and EK 

6 copies Aerospace Corp. 

'6. The distribution of the above listed documentation, together with the 

presented briefing, are the final products of the Board. I consider the 

Te,st_Objectives Review Board terminated as of this date. 

. 4 

/./PPBERT R. HULL, Colonel, USAF 2 Atch 

/Chairman, Test Objectives Review Board 1. Observation Matrix 

2. General Observations 

2 

nPFC'ft,L EVAPDLin 
NRO.APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

FEB 1 2 1968 

L-3 68 4: 

ATCH 

OB

SERVATION 
SPECIAL HANDLING 

0 0 

U_ CV 

›- 

LLI 

0 

CC '- a_ LL1 Cl) 

< L11 0 J 

2 X 

FORTROUBLESHOOTING PURPOSES. 

ON 114 AT GE. 

HARDWARE ACCEPTANCE POLICY ON EXISTING CONTRACTS IS INCONSISTENT. 

CTIVES FOR INTEGRATED TESTING, AND SPO PROVIDE CONTRACTUAL 

NG 

H 

H A " 8 

rilf0INHOHI 

Ian ~ IITJ Oa 

.X.HODHIVO 

ISII. • A's 

<4 

• 

H PRIORITY 

OBSERVATION 

8 0 

CO <4 0 

$ 

<4 0 

C.) 

H 

0 

0 

F-1 N 

E-S 

1=1 

O ci 

▪ 

f i 0 

ASSOCIATES I 
H 

P 

t 

Ac' 

NO GE CONSOLE ENVIRONMENTAL WEST 

SURE IN QUALIFICATION TESTS OF MMSUBSYSTEM TO30 DAYS. 

TEST PROGRAM. 

ENE VALIDITY OF GE CONSOLE RECEIVINGFUNCTIONAL TEST AT DAC. 

ra 

LIMIT TOTAL THERMAL/V 

e PRIORITY II 

O H 

rIVOINTIOHJ, X X 

akillIOV

M

IT

OD X X 

Agooa,wo co 

• 

' 

OBSERVATION 

INTEGRATEDDAC/GE BIRDCAGE STRUCTURE TEST AT DAC. 

N H 

ra, 

O 

0 

0 

cr) 

0 

0 

E-4 

Pc1 

0 0 0 H 

0 0 

0 cf) 

H n N 

gl W 

a 0 Pti A a A 0 

cn 

1 .. .

a 

PI F-1 H 

c? m r., 

ffl .

0 Fq 

Z 

M H 0 

2 

G-4 

<4 0 0 0 

0 Hi 

• cr, to H r4 

m ri., 

E-1 0 

H 

A M 

0 

r-, H 

W P W P-1 E-1 

-, rn 

M 0 W tfl 

E-r u) .. 

cn r--1 W PI P 

XI N A r=7; E-1 u)›-1 

0 

• 

co <4 u) aa H o 

W <4 0 

0 P. 

CO M E-I 0 ›-1 .'1 n 0 cn W 

o A H N Z P 

r':1 0 HI HP H 

Pi M 

N

----.... co H ,q 0 r4 x 0 E-1 U3-3 N P4A cn a 

cn cn 

cn 

H 

<4 Pr) 0 0 M *) 

ri 

N P-4 

<4 ';'--- ch P. O. mEA 

C) E-4 H o 14-r:4 
BE ESTABLISHED. 

SIBILITY OF USING AN EXISTING ACOUSTIC FACILITY SHOULD BE MODIFICAT 

SINCE THE LM-DTS ACOUSTIC TEST IS AONE-TIME-ONLY TEST AND REQUIRES ACOUSTIC CHAMBER 

A COORDINATED (SPO/CONTRACTORS) ZERO "G" TEST PROGRAM (0 

O 0 

<4 

H 

0 

FI 

H 0 

z 0 

cn 

NO CONSIST "REQUAL FACTOR" INSYSTEM LEVEL QUAL CYCLES. 

H

U 

<4 0 

sONIIONVI-1 

ar-maaos 

.KKoOatLVO 

ass', A <4 A 0' 

PRIORITY III 

OBSERVATION 
NRQ APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 PEC1AL HANDLING 

ATTACHMENT 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 

1. There are at least three considerations that should be evaluated when 

a particular test (development, qualification or acceptance) is planned: 

a) Considering both success and failure, where is the best place 

(plant location) to accomplish the test vs. supporting hardware/ 

personnel required? 

b) What tests can and should be accomplished on an integrated 

basis vs. the use of substitutes in lieu thereof? 

c) What are the contractual elements that are enforced during the 

tests to insure the buyer a sound product before the contractor 

can consider he has provided a product of integrity and has fulfilled his contractual responsibility? 

There is a natural tendency by all three contractors to plan their 

testing along the lines of their contractual hardware. There is thus a very 

strong desire to complete hardware development, qualification and/or 

acceptance testing at a given associate's plant before that hardware moves 

offsite, and to construct "testing" accordingly. This leads to a lack of 

possible benefits that could accrue during integrated testing. Thus, if the 

total LV were being "bought" from one contractor, and that contractor 

happened to build certain pieces of the LV in Philadelphia, Huntington 

Beach, etc., the development, qualification and acceptance testing would 

probably be done much more on an integrated basis than it is presently. 

The contractual aspects of the LV hardware acquisition, and the vested 

responsibilities of the OPR's associated therewith, have configured the 

test flow/program, to the probable detriment of the total LV testing. This 

condition cannot be eliminated without restructuring the contracts. 

2. SAFSL 10003 is a critical document to the environmental test program 

for each associate contractor of the Lab Vehicle. Since the degree of 

environmental exposure for development, qualification, and acceptance 

testing of hardware is largely determined by this document, an e;ror could 

A‘',V 

4 

L". 

Attachment 2 

At11 I/ 4. 

0,1:7)1:7(stilo 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 S EMI_ HANDLING 

become extremely costly. Special emphasis should be given to insure 

frequent technical updating of requirements within this document and a 

careful review of the contractor's interpretation of its contents. 

3. It appears that considerable technical insight regarding component/ 

system weaknesses, failure modes, operating life, etc., could be achieved 

by a degradation analysis of the hardware subjected to the various system 

qualification activities, such as LMQTV and GE 115. This could be done on 

a very selective basis to minimize cost. Since this program has very little 

"effectiveness" or "extended life" testing planned, this approach could yield 

data applicable to both the 30 day and extended mission activities. Since 

the segment level qualification articles will be generally refurbished for 6 

and 7, the tear-down and analysis of these selected components could be 

conducted in parallel with the refurbishment effort with little impact. 

4. During the brief meeting the Board held with NASA, it was evident 

\ that certain Apollo hardware was required to be re-qualified to higher levels 

of vibration. NASA concluded during a re-examination of their acceptance/ 

qualification test program that a minimum of 6 g's rms should be imposed 

on electrical equipment with the equipment functioning to detect discrepancies 

in manufacturing. (Some LM components require less than 4 g's rms.) 

Also, NASA (and GE to some extent) are actively exploring thermal cycling 

of electrical equipment as a quality assurance screen for defects during 

component acceptance. A review of the component/subsystem qualification _ 

and acceptance test program for technical validity and consistency by the 

OPR's would be desirable in such areas as: 

a) Number of components to be qualified 

b) Vibration levels and times 

c) Feasibility of thermal cycling 

d) Power on or off 

Examples of concern are as follows: 

2 

„A, ri SPE7C11-1i. 1-LANDLINc; 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

a) The testing of the camera is limited to those tests (qualification 

and acceptance) received at the vendor's facility and to those 

received in the LMQTV at DAC just prior to the launch of LV-3. 

Additional testing may be required to provide the same testing 

philosophy to the camera as to the other AVE components. 

b) Three major sub-sections of the OA are subjected to acceptance 

vibration test before assembly. The validity of these tests is 

questioned for two reasons: 

1) Induced vibration may result in excessive stresses on 

sensitive mechanical components which does not represent 

a realistic acceptance environment. 

2) These tests are conducted on assemblies which are predominately mechanical, not electrical. Vibration acceptance 

tests are not conducted on mechanical assemblies in other 

parts of the LV. 

5. As was stated in the briefing, there was no evidence that special 

emphasis was given in any of the contractors' test plans with regard to 

areas of single point failures. The qualification and acceptance test programs 

must include tests which will thoroughly evaluate equipment performance in 

areas in which unavoidable single point failure modes may remain. For 

example, there appears to be a single point failure source in the servo 

control system for the primary and diagonal mirrors. Although it is understood that only about 50% of adjustment range is lost by failure of one 

servo; all servos, however, are controlled by the same black box. A black 

box failure, therefore, could mean single point failure. If the foregoing 

is correct, re-design may be required to provide redundancy and eliminate 

this single point failure potential. In any case, special attention should be 

paid to the servo control system during qualification and acceptance tests 

in order to determine the health status of the system prior to flight, since 

it appears that this system may be extremely difficult to check out in the 

launch configuration. 

3 

"R•.• • ri V II a n r, Is • c,