= • 

NR PPROVED FOR 

R EASE 1 JULY 2015 

MINUTES OF THE 

TEST OBJECTIVES REViEW BOARD 

3 JANUARY 1968 - 2 FEBRUARY 1968 

7 7/7- 

B. A. Hohmann 

Aerospace 

Co-Chairman 

„ Robert R. Hull 

Col, USAF 

Chairma n 

37? 
"seW*'34* g 

4. 

a 6.112; 

' >telt 

[11 0117111 1P,P0 

Tag 

3 January 1968 

NROAPPROVED FOR 

RELEASETUVEYDiViCUSSIOnS 

1. Col. Hull, Chairman, formally opened the Test Objectives Review Board 

(TORB) proceedings with a discussion of the charter given him by 

General Bleymaier, Deputy Director NOL, to form the Board. The 

charter directed Col. Hull to convene a small group of Air Force, 

Aerospace, and MOL contractor personnel to review the Laboratory 

Vehicle In-Plant Test Programs. Follow-on review of total MOL System 

and launch site testing may be directed subsequent to this initial 

review. The following groundrules were set for the Board: (See Atch 1) 

a. Review complete Laboratory Vehicle In-Plant testing program. 

b. Test objectives must be consistent and adequate. 

c. Co:rsnon standards and philosophy across total system. 

d. Eliminate redundant or excessive testing. 

e. Fill in gaps in testing program. 

f. Review facilities and manpower resource requirements. 

g. Past contractual agreements and management approaches may be 

modified. 

2. Members of the TORB were introduced: 

Board Members: Col. Robert W. Hull 

Bernhard A. Hohmann 

Ronald K. Arnold 

Robert B. Chamberlain 

Reynold A. Grammer, Jr. 

(Consultant) Lt. Col. George N. Hrebec 

Duncan Collins 

John E. Kent 

Joseph F. Wambolt 

Melvin C. Shrader 

Maj. Leslie Thompson (Recorder) 

Betty Wilkes (Secretary) 

3. The schedule was discussed and minor modification made. 

t11 Ul 

OTOF CLIP! rtil Pi \ u

3877 

Ft 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

(cont'd) -2- 3 January 1968 

A discussion regarding content of the Integrated Test Briefings 

resulted in some adjustment to the briefing flows. It was decided to include in the GE segment briefing the test objectives 

for integrated testing at EK and DAC. Similarly, integrated 

test objectives at GE and DAC should be included in EK's segment 

briefing. The overall Integrated Test Briefing would primarily 

concern DAC effort at Huntington Beach with appropriate support 

and inputs from GE and EK. 

5. A question regarding the level of detail that the TOO will 

pursue reliability, quality assurance, extended life testing, etc. 

was discussed. It was decided that the Board is definitely required to review these areas. If the segment briefings did not 

provide sufficient detail, these areas would become a required 

part of the In-Plant detailed briefings. 

6. The TORE reviewed and discussed the December 1957 baseline test 

flow. 

—11Ettt— SPECIAL HANDLING 

1.3077 

P. 3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

MINUTES-TORB Discussions 4 January 1968 (AM) 

1. Mr. R. Arnold briefed the Board on the changes to the basic 

pre-DeceMber 1967 program that occurred during the December 1967 

schedule review. Attachment 2 extractepertinent data from a 

briefing which summarized the December review. 

2. Mx. J. Wambolt briefed the draft version of the Ground Test Plan 

Volume I, Section 4. This document is being prepared by the SPO 

to provide general guidance and groundrules to be used by contractors when developing their detailed ground test plans. A 

series of Volume II's to this plan will provide more and unique 

detail to individual segment contractors. A Volume III (Launch 

Ops Plan) is also being prepared to cover launch operations 

groundrules for all contractors. 

3. Col. Hull stated that the Board should study methods to assure that 

the approved test program developed from this review is not violated. 

This may logically be a responsibility of the System Test Planning 

Group (currently being chartered). 

c.r(tir TA\ i r rifill 1 J1 
simEniu vinotna) r-; L 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

GENERAL ELECTRIC SEGMENT BRIEFING 4 January 1963 (PM) 

1. ATTENDEES: 

a. Board Members 

b. GE E. Rhoads 

G. M. Roth 

E. Urbanek 

R. D. Girolamo 

R. Harelson 

c. AF Lt. Col. J. Wertz 

Maj. G. Racht 

d. AS - L. T. Stricker 

W. A. Read 

2. General Electric presented their Ground Test Program. The following 

briefers presented noted portions. 

a. Test Philosophy and Ground Rules - Ed Rhoads 

b. Development/Qualification/Acceptance Test Objectives Ron Harelson 

c. Development Test Plan - G. M. Roth 

d. Qualification Test Plan R. D. Girolamo 

L., 3C:1F (

7,t:T7An7:NT1U.0 

, • v;= %le 
,"- 

NRO APPROVED FOR . r.k 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 ";i s 

rtr le\ Fir,rvi 1..,

~rLL 

GENERAL ELECTRIC SEGMENT BRIEFING (cont'ql 5 January 1968 (All) 

1. ATTENDEES: 

Sames as 4 January (PM) plus K. Francis (DAC Observer) 

2. GE Acceptance Test Plan - Ed Urbanek 

3. PROBLEM AREAS - Ed Rhoads 

a. Boreswab Vehicle - Vehicle to precede 1st flight vehicle 

to Launch. Site to check out facility 

b. Lack of early NPSS tests 

c. Fourth GE AVE shipped prior to first manned flight 

d. Potential problem at EK because of limited test equipment in 

current program. 

4. Several Action Items were levied on GE, EK, and DAC to provide more 

detail during subsequent briefings. Attachment 3, 4 and 5 list these 

Action Items 

• 

(411"111:7A11 1111 RP rr'?Ti 11+11(713 

E LL rjiird Li.11 \iu p.4 
&pkg,R,L, D rji-1 11 

NRO APPROVED FOR 1.41 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

11.19. RAE [I [I 14111r:I 

NASA APOLLO TEST PROGRAM BRIEFING 

1. ATTENDEES: 

9 January 1968 

(a) TORB Members 

(b) A. D. Nardel 

Joe W. Dodson 

S. H. Simpkinson 

J. A. Chamberlin 

Will Hoyler 

Col. J. Green 

Capt. I. R. Steinberg 

D. L. Van Ert 

Test Division, ASPO 

Test Division, PT-2 

NASA, MSC ASPO 

NASA, MSC E & D 

Reliability & Cert. Office 

Det 2, AFSCFO, NASA 

SAMSO, Det 2 (MSC/ZR1) 

Aerospace Corporation 

2. D. Collins and Col. Hull reviewed objectives of the TORB and NASA 

meeting. 

3. 14r. Al Mardel presented a brief history of the Apollo Test Program. 

4. Mx. Al Mardel presented the Apollo Acceptance Test Program emphasizing the "Re-Acceptance" program that was initiated on manned 

vehicle equipment subsequent to the Apollo fire accident. His 

briefing and accompanying discussions covered lessons learned and 

points that NASA would recommend being considered for the MOL 

Program. 

5. Mr. Mardel presented a brief summary of NASA MSC analysis of the 

GE study of space vehicle test programs. Their general opinion 

was that the GE study reached conclusions that are not valid. 

6. Mr. Will Hoyler presented the Apollo Qualification Test Program. 

Particular emphasis was placed on component testing. 

7. Copies of this briefing and backup data are available at SAFSL-6B. 

L- 389? 

P.7 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

ITC-VAR p-r 

Jiubjk).,6 bTrahria 

MINUTES - TORB Discussions (0330) 10 January 1968 

1. Col. Hull confirmed week of 14 January travel schedule. The 

Board will meet at GE on 15 January 1968 (Bldg A, Room 10A17) 

2. Col. Hull requested each Board member list questions and areas 

that should be considered during this review. 

3. J. Kent suggested that additional data regarding Apollo Test 

flows, vehicles, test objectives of specific test vehicles, and 

AGE be requested. D. Collins agreed to request such additional 

data from NASA. 

civ-,:zry7A1;=9,-,1 qii -L-Urro 

rt 

3e7? 

sdui P. 6 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

MINUTES OF EK SEGMENT BRIEFING 10 January 1968 

1. ATTENDEES: 

(a) TOEB Members 

(b) GE R. S. Harrelson 

DAC J. E. Genevay 

AF L. G. Stange 

E. Benschine 

J. C. Wertz 

G. D. Ankenbrandt 

EK A. W. Rich 

Lee Peterson 

R. G. Whalen 

2. Mr. Lee Peterson and Mr. Bob Whalen alternated briefing the following 

topics: 

a) Test Objectives and General Description of Payload System 

(Peterson) 

b) Description of Various Models (Whalen) 

c) Thermal Model Test Program (Peterson) 

d) Engineering Model Test Program (Whalen) 

e) Optical Acceptance Test Program (Peterson) 

f) AVE/AVE and AVE/AGE Tests (Whalen) 

g) Acceptance Test Sequence (Peterson) 

h) Qualification Test Program (Whalen) 

i) Lab Module Payload Components Test Flow (Whalen) 

3. Mr. Wayne Rich briefed EK Objectives at remote sites. 

4. Several action items were given EK to include in their in-plant 

briefings. (See EK Action Item #3 through 9) 

1.- 3877 
NRO APPROVED FOR • 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

MINUTES - TORB Discussions il8q1' 

1. The Board reviewed EK action items 3 - 9. 

10 January 1963 

2. Col. Hull reiterated his request for a list of items for 

Board consideration. 

----U4WA46--SPECIAL HANDLING 

1.- 3817 

P. 0 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

MINUTES - TORB Discussions (08301 11 January 1968 

1. A general discussion regarding the concurrent Roles and Responsibilities activity and the impact TORB recommendations may have 

on the test program portion of the pan activity. Col. Hull stated 

that the Board will decide if some study of R & R will be done 

during the current TORB sessions. 

q71:14117rrn" 

44 IM S tP• Ca[011,111r2 

t. 377 

e.// 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DOUGLAS SEGMENT BRIEFING 11 January 1968 

1. ATTENDEES: 

(a) TORB Members 

(b) D. A. Stewart 

N. C. O'Brien 

M. T. Petrozzi 

G. D. Day 

W. R. Moreland 

D. C. Wensley 

J. T. Martin 

W. H. Havloa 

R. Lawrence 

L. A. Cardenas 

Mel Root 

A. W. Rich 

R. S. Harrelson 

Barry Moss 

L/C J. C. Wertz 

L/C L. G. Stange 

Capt. A. S. Lupfer 

Capt. F. W. MacNab 

Maj. R. J. Krejci 

2. Mr. C. Day presented a short overview of the Douglas Ground Test Program. 

3. Mr. W. R. Moreland briefed general concepts of subsystem level testing. 

The definition of subsystem testing includes all testing of components 

and subsystem up to the point where a subsystem is married to another 

subsystem. Mr. Moreland also described DAC interpretation of their 

four categories of testing (development, qualification, acceptance and 

effectiveness). 

4. Mr. N. C. O'Brien presented the Static Structural Test Program. 

5. Mr. D. A. Stewart presented the Dynamic Structural Test Program. 

6. Mr. M. T. Petrozzi described propulsion and cryogenic testing. Included 

was a description of the subscale (one pound thruster) plume impingement 

tests at AEDC and a problem regarding performance verification of cryo 

tanks before vehicle sell-off at Huntington Beach. 

r?„, rypiTpri.7 

)1: & 1 c id Ern NAKIDElin 3877 

12. 0- 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

'DAC BRIEFING (cont'd) 

Fily\rtn.r."-Y'd . • 

-2- 11 January 1968 

7. Mr. D. C. Wensley described the DAC Flight Control Testing Program. 

8. Mr. J. T. Martin briefed subsystem and lower, electrical/electronic 

testing. 

9. Mr. R. Lawrence briefed a general overview of the Crew Systems Test 

Program and presented a film showing underwater and zero-g testing 

accomplished to date. 

10. Mr. W. H. Havlon briefed in more detail the DAC sponsored underwater 

simulation testing of crew systems. He stressed that underwater testing 

is a valuable aid and does help develop procedures that enables better 

utilization of Zero-g test time. He recommended that the Board consider 

recommending this technique be included in the MOL Test Program. 

11. Mr. L. A. Cardenas briefed the testing program of the Life Support 

System. 

12. Mr. M. Root presented a short briefing on weight and center of gravity 

management and control. This briefing was in response to DAC action 

item number 1. 

13. Mr. W. R. Moreland briefly summarized the days briefings. 

14. Several action items were directed to DAC for inclusion in subsequent 

briefings. (DAC Action Item # 4, 5, 6) 

SPEEN NB-Ri9DN2 

'716:4 

a J 

L- 3877 

p.13 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

.r) norpr.,-1,1 nprro i

,q 

INTEGRATED TEST BRIEFING (osoo) 12 January 1963 

1. ATTENDEES: 

(a) TORB Members 

(b) N. L. Andrade DAC 

R. J. Fugate DAC 

J. E. Genevay DAC 

R. Duitman DAC 

L. G. Costello DAC 

R. C. Twomey DAC 

J. P. Arroyo DAC 

R. S. Harrelson GE 

W. Rich EKC 

R. J. DeLorenzo AS 

L. T. Stricker AS 

F. P. Fest AS 

Maj. R.J. Krejci AF 

L/Col L. Stange AF 

Capt. A.S. Lupfer AF 

Capt. F.W. MacNab AF 

2. Mr. R. Duitman (DAC) presented an overview of the DAC system level 

testing program. 

3. Mr. R. J. Fugate and Mr. R. Duitman gave a short presentation on 

System Engineering Documentation and Joint Operating Agreements 

between DAC and the associate contractor. 

4. Mr. L. G. Costello briefed System Level Development Testing. This 

test program is centered around the Electronic Development and 

Compatibility Test Unit (EDCTU). There are still problems associated 

with the capability of GE/EK equipment (DSS-1) to support both DAC 

and GE/EK requirements. Additional problems regarding facility requirements and scheduling of AGE (CITE) are currently under study. 

5. Mr. J. E. Genevay briefed System Level Acceptance Test Program. 

The feasibility of checking out the GE/EK MPE prior to hooking up 

with DAC LM equipment was discussed. 

SP.1[ TarTilAH r;` 

3177 

0. 
5trieL,Pi ' IL; 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Integrated Test Briefing (cont'd) 12 January 1960 

6. Pr. N. L. Andrade briefed AU]; and Ground Checkout Software 

development program. His brie Zing ia,Auded ASST G development/test 

. program as well as software development and the system level tests 

of ASTEG/DAC AVE through ASTEGiCITE/LV AVE. 

7. 14r. J. P. Arroyo briefed LMQTV testing program. The December 

review has changed associate contractor qualification requirements 

that will require changes to the LMQTV program. Naj. Krejci (MOL SPO) 

stated that this test is the only ground test that is incentivized 

and suggested the T02.8 consider this feature. 

8. Er. R. C. Twomey briefed EMC testing. This test program assumes 

components are internally EN compatible and checks only mutual 

compatibility. 

9. Several Action Items were directed to DAC 

for inclusion in their In-Plant briefing. See DAC Action Items 

# 7,8,9. 

1/1 [AF R.),_,L LU.5.1 IMP Eir 

38?7 

P. 15 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 nr2. 

TORB Discussions 12 January 1968. 

1. Col. Hull requested that two copies of each segment briefing be 

available during ia-plant visits. 

ft rill'll`Vt3Fil 4-3a77 

P./6 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 1 -141‘.iLit 1PiL ItLa 

BOARD DISCUSSION (AT GE) 15 January 1968 

1. Col. Hull reiterated the primary functions of the TORB and 

stated that the review so far has revealed that component level 

development testing is quite far downstream for TORB to have 

much influence. 

2. A brief discussion on the Ground Test Plan, Volume II , was 

held. Lt. Col. Hrebec pointed out that the concept of completing 

a production type acceptance test of qual articles prior to 

initiating the qual test sequence js not in the Q.. T. P. Other 

similar discrepancies, noted by the board, should be identified 

so proper corrections to the Ground Test Plan can be made. 

3. The board reviewed the Acceptance, Qualification, and Development, and Component test programs and prepared a matrix 

identifying the various vehicles and testing accomplished at 

each LV facility. Attachment #6 is the result of this review. 

t.ci.7.1L.17 

rfi FJIF\ [71 

L. 3g77 

p. )7 
4111%[ 11\ 9T1 (11' \Po.:) \.Q4) 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

rr 19 iriA }PI 

4l7,1 1.11'.:1811\11.41L 

GENERAL ELECTRIC IN-PLANT VISIT 16 January 1968 

1. GE briefed the several Action Items that were requested during 

the Los Angeles Segment Briefing. 

a. Action Item #4 - Roland Mayer and E. J. Urbanick 

b. Action Item #3 - Jerry Roth and J. E. Thompson 

c. Action Item #6 Herb Horn and R. Girolamo 

d. Action Item #2 E. J. Urbanick 

e. Action Item #9 Copeland and Ed Rhodes 

2. Kirt Wesley presented an overview of the facility tour. The 

tour included the following facilities: 

a. Building B 

(1) Bldg A Mockup 

(2) MM Mockup 

(3) Consoles 2 and 8 mockup 

(4) 113T MMFS shell 

b. Building 4 

(1) Sliding Mask friction test set-up 

c. Thermal Vac Facility 

d. Vibration Facility 

e. Engineering Development Simulator 
.7 1. 

-."1 

\ 11 NRO APPROVED FOR 1„,flifpri 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

GE IN PLANT VISIT 17 January 1968 

1. GE completed briefing the Action Items. 

a. Action Item #10 - Ed Rhodes 

b. Action Item lr i1 - R. Schmidt and Ron Harrelson 

c. Action Items # 7 & 8 - R. Harrelson and Walt Overstreet 

d. Action Item #5 - Ed. Rhodes 

2. Ed Rhodes presented a general discussion of the following points 

in the current test program. that are of concern to GE. 

a. Thermal Vac Test of Consoles (under study) 

b. Need for EG 46 

c. EMC tests at EK does not include operating cameras and related 

equipment. 

d. Identification of test requirements to EK and the associated 

AGE design. 

e. Implementation of EDCTU support. 

f. EMC not completed until FV #3. 

g. No acoustic or vibration tests of LMQTV 

h. Lack of early CTA verification test 

i. Lack of LM electrical system test prior to assembly into 

pressure shell 

j. Boreswab Vehicle 

k. Capability to run LM vibration with power on. 

3. A discussion regarding the feasibility of having DACO supply 

Console #1 to GE for mating with Consoles 2 and 8 for subsequent 

installation, as a unit, into the birdcage. A DAGO action item to 

brief the advantages or disadvantages of this concept. 

r77. 

: I , 9 {',Inrir71)p Fy.1(7‘1 

L- 317 

p, 40, 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

EASTMAN KODAK IN-PLANT VISIT 18 January 1968 

1. Mr. John Sewell, EK Program Director, welcomed the Board. 

2. Mr. Lee Peterson discussed the proposed agenda for the EK 

in-plant visit. 

3. Action Item #2 - Lee Peterson 

a. The EK organization is a functional organization. The 

chart shown during the briefing did not show the manufacturing organization which is on a level with J. Sewell 

and E. Ksiazek. 

b. Mr. Lee Peterson is Test Manager 

c. Mr. Robert Whalen is Test Planning Manager and is 

responsible for preparing the "MPS Test Definition Study 

Report" which is the basic test plan for the EK test program. 

d. Mr. Rey Grammer is System Test Group Manager. 

e. Mr. Wayne Rich is Field Manager. 

4. Mr. Don Spooner (Test Direction Group under System Test Group) 

briefed MPS Roles & Responsibilities of MPS contractors. An 

initial meeting on 15-16 January at GE to form groundrules for 

combined GE/EK test work in Rochester. Additional meetings 

at EK starting 22 January will detail this test program. 

5. Action Item #1 - Lee Peterson 

6. The Board toured Bldg. 601 and viewed the MM mockup, GOA 

(horsecollar) mockup and scale model of Bldg 101 (Gage Facility). 

7. Action Item #3 - Dennis Gliden 

8. Action Item #6 Dennis Gliden 

9. Action Item #4 Lee Peterson 

) 

" {1U1' ftrnrk'6 irrLri'lILL l11RI16 

Z - 3672 

Pao 
SPLi• rNi M 

Ac.4 NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Eastman Kodak Visit (cont'd) 

10. Action Item #5 - Bob Whalen • 

11. Action Item #7 - Bob Whalen 

12. Action Item #8 - Tom Covalis 

18 January 1968 

13. Mr. B. Hohmann asked for some detail on the servos which 

adjust the alignment of the Ross diagonal and Primary mirrors. 

EK was requested to provide some detail of failure mode operation, 

testing and final verification of servo operation. 

14. Action Item #9 Don Spooner 

The run time accumulation vs design life is difficult for EK to 

determine because detail test plans are not complete. They are 

studying similar programs to see if their experience relates to 

MOL equipment. 

15. Lee Peterson presented a detailed briefing on EK facilities prior 

to the facility tour. The facilities in Bldg. 101 were toured by 

the TORB. 

16. The following additional EK Action Items were requested by the 

TORB: 

a. Mirror alignment servos failure mode analysis and associate 

test program. 

b. What are EK objectives during EDCTU and LMQTV at DACO? 

c. EK areas of concern with current test program and recommendations to improve it. 

L- 3e77 

r. I 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

---77.71171.7111`7-41) '11 117ny 

gg 

LiCu 

re f

IL L , 

EK IN PLANT VISIT 19 January 1968 

1. Mr. Peterson stated that the Reliability people did not return 

from DAC;; therefore, no additional data is available on EK's 

EDCTU/LMQTV test objectives. Mr. Grammer will obtain 

data and provide it to the Board next week. 

2. Mr. Peterson responded to the Alignment Servo action item by 

stating that the Reliability Group has studied failure modes and 

found that approximately 50% of alignment adjustment range would 

be lost in the worst case single point failure of one servo. (However, 

a single point failure mode can drastically affect the mission because 

all servos are controlled by the same black box. ) 

3. Mr. Don Spooner presented the following EK Test Program Areas 

of concern: 

a. Reduced MMTS capability - The concern is that GE/EK 

may be directed to be too simple to adequately perform 

MM level testing at EK. 

b. The Line of Site Alignment of the Optical System to the TM 

huh is a potential problem. The lack of definition is this 

area may impact EK facilities and overall responsibilities 

of mating the MMAS and MMFS at EK. 

4. 3. Wambolt requested additional discussion of EK Thermal Vacuum 

tests. There apparently exists triple redundant and excessive. TV 

tests during the Qual test cycle. 

A GE Action Item was directed to R. Chamberlin to provide some 

additional detail on GE Qua] TV tests to see if their planning 

sufficiently represents the Acceptance TV time plus 30 days. 

5. The mirror contamination problem and methods of checking surfaces was discussed. J. Kent discussed the Sapphire method of 

checking contamination. EK did not know about this method but 

are working on several schemes to provide surface contamination 

information. 

3'7 

02g. 
rgerr 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

,1 A T I in'vq01 IT , r! Pt ilf:1:11[V[ 9P 

LA-ZA kt ;1.1 

TORB DISCUSSIONS (AT EK) 19 January 1968 

1. General discussion of EK facilities and Test Program. The 

Board decided to request additional information on two areas: 

a. Thermal Vac testing during EK Qual program 

b. Discussion and Re-cap of Test Facilities 

2. John Kent briefly discussed the schedule possibilities of shipping 

MM from EK to GE for mating with a set of consoles and CITE 

to accomplish a MPS electrical system test prior to subsequent 

shipment to DAC and LV buildup. This concept will be discussed 

during the Board deliberations after the DAC in-plant visit. 

3. Col. Hull outlined a Plan of Action that would guide Board action 

through the remainder of the activity. Part A represents the 

Segment Briefings, Part B, the In-Plant visits and Fart C the wrapup Board discussions. 

a. Review of Test Objectives 

b. How are Test Objectives accomplished? 

1. Type of testing 

2. Facilities 

c. Board discussions and recommendations. 

1. Existing test flows/programs 

a. Consisting between contractors 

b. Holes in test program 

c. Excess testing 

2. Optimum test flow/program 

3. Recommended test flow/program (compromise) 

4. Recommendations for further study. 

r, 7, pi n , -r-rtio,.7N 

I 1 1-1114WRAM 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

TORB Discussions (at EK) cont'd 19 January 1968 

4. The Board discussed the "Acceptance Test Philosophy" paper. 

This paper, prepared by Col. Hull, is for Board guidance only 

and will not be a part of the final report. 

5. The Board discussed the Development, Qualification, Acceptance 

and Components natrices to see if additional inputs from EK were 

required. No further requests were made. 

L- 3(777 

P. 24 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DAC IN-PLANT MEETING 22 January 1968 

1. Mr. C. Day briefed the proposed agenda for this series of meetings. 

The facility tour plan was rescheduled to be the first presentation. 

2. Facility Tour Plan - C. D. Day 

a. Bldg 45 - Mockup and Developm3nt Fixtures 

b. Bldg 22 - S IV B Automatic Checkout Facilities 

c. Bldg 30 - Structural Test Facility 

d. Bldg 31 - Space Simulation Facilities 

e. Santa Monica - Test labs for lower level hardware testing 

3. Action Item No. 3 - Component to Subsystem Test Organization 

Mr. C. Day briefed the general sub-system test organization. Mr. 

W. Moreland detailed the organizations responsible for Subsystem 

level development and qual tests. Mr. R. Brown briefed the 

sub-system level testing at the various MSSD labs. 

Action Item No. 8 - N. C. O'Brien 

DAC stated that no provisions are planned (or under contract) for 

integrated testing of DTS (modal and shock) with associate contractors. 

DAC will perform their testing requirements but, so far, have had no 

cross talk with or requirements from associates. DAC has requested, 

via STWG, for associate requirements but have not yet. received any 

specific replies. Any replies must be transmitted formally via the 

SPO. A problem evidently exists in that the IFS/ICO system is not 

transmitting requirements between contractors. 

5. Action Item No. 11 - N. C. O'Brien 

N. O'Brien discussed the structure static load tests. The meteroid 

shield is not installed, however, the 59 points that transmit loads 

from the shield to the pressure shell are loaded during the shell 

tests. 

6. Action Item No. 15 

The question regarding DAC unpressurized compartment ascent venting 

test plan was discussed by N. C. O'Brien. Although this test: is 

in current plans, DAC is studying the problem to see if sufficient 

vent capacity is in the design to remove the requirement for this 

test. 

i.`,6'27 

e?5 

• 11 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DAC In-Plant Briefings -2- 22 January 1968 

7. Action Item No. 12 - N. O'Brien 

Mr. O'Brien stated that current plans for testing LM end hatch 

operations will be in ambient conditions.only. Detail test plans 

are not yet. completed. 

8. Action Item No. 9 - 'N. O'Brien 

Nr. O'Brien kicked off a series of presentations that described 

the various levels of development and qual testing. 

a. Structure - N. C. O'Brien 

Action Item #14 was requested by J. Kent 

b. ACTS M. T. Petrozzi 

c. ACTS Flight Controls - Dave Hensley 

d. Electrical/Electronics - Jim Martin 

e. Crew System - Bob Lawrence 

f. Life Support Testing - Lee Cardenas 

9. Action Item No. 5 - Mike Petrozzi. 

Mike Petrozzi briefed Huntington Beach tests for the Cryo tank 

performance verification. No actual loading of cryos will be done 

at Huntington Beach. 

10. Col. Hull observed that the EDCTU is an extremely valuable part of 

the total test program and stated that Board members should take 

special note to recommend appropriate associate contractor support. 

3817 

P. P6 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOARD DISCUSS:TAI 0_ 23 January 1968 

1. The Board decided to schedule a short tour of the DAC Santa 

Honica test facilities on 24 January 1968. 

2. The Board decided to schedule the Aerospace proposed alignment briefing at 11:00 24 January 1968 at the McCulloch 

Building. 

3. The Board decided to schedule the Aerospace briefing regarding 

colliponent testing levels. J. Kent will arrange this briefing. 

• 

n

olT P 

rik1-7L 1.11i1),.;ifugLitAia: 

A Al 
4?)t e 

01. di- 11;U-4: I,s6utiv s-21 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DAC IN-PLANT BRIEFINGS 23.January 1963 

1. Mr. R. Duitman presented an overview and agenda of the System 

level testing Action Item that would be briefed. 

2. Action Item No. 3 (System Level Test Organization) J. Genovay 

3. Action Item No. 4 - Mr. W. W. McCalla 

Mr. McCalla presented a detailed explanation of the proposed 

Manufacturing Assembly Sequence (Alternate Plan) 

with special emphasis on testing accomplished. 

at various positions. Each position is 9 days for FV 3 and 

shorten, on a learning curve, to about 6 days for FV 5. 

4. Action Item No. 2 - G. B. Moore 

J. Action Item No. 6 - John Genovay 

A memorandum detailing DAC extended life operating policy and a 

chart of MOL Wearout Items are included in the TORB briefing material. 

6. Action Item No. 7 - G. B. Moore 

7. Action Item No. 14 - Duke O'Brien 

The Birdcage static tests will require GE bays to be installed 

but DAC does not plan to instrument them. Therefore, the DAC 

bays will be qualified for static loads during this test but not 

GE bays. 

8. Action Item No. 16 - R. Duitman. 

The following comments were presented in response to the Action Item: 

a. DAC sees no large gaps or concern in segment level tests program 

b. DAC is studying need for LM Vibration testing. 

c. Test spans for all testing is included in the current schedule 

but detailed plans are not complete. 

d. There are many gaps in integrated test area. 

e. An LITV meeting of associate contractor is scheduled 19 March. 

.- 3e.?? 

p. ae 

Fr, Rif 

, t 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DAC In-Plant Briefings -2- 23 January 1968 

f. JOA's and IFS's are not answer to solve integrated test: 

problems. Need small groups (subgroups of STWG) to get 

to heart of specific problems. 

B. DAC is looking forward to Test Board recommendations. 

9. DAC will pickup the Board members for the Santa Monica facility 

tour at the McCulloch Building (0830) 24 January 1963, 

(61FAR [i-vFRUI 

!Lull 

3??? 

P. Al 
("QPirre,.15 1 , 1

u - - 

pqrf;11 [IP 131 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DAC IN-PLANT VISIT 24 January 1963 a.m. 

1. Mr. Chuck Day and R. L. De La Puente (Tour Guide) escorted 

the TORB through the DAC Santa Monica facility. The 

following labs were visited: 

a. Microwave Lab T. A. Kiklas 

b. Vibration Lab N. V. Velazquez 

c. Mechanical Lab D. R. Walker 

d. Acoustic Lab N. V. Velazquez 

e. Electrical Lab J. Sparks 

f. ESAR Facility (Earth Simulation and Rendezvous) J. Sparks 

, LL•L URIC 
7111.1\ iNir,!- IIKE ti;or,a1N NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOARD DISCUSSION 24 January 1963 p. m. 

1. Mr. Bert Ferger, Aerospace, briefed the TORT', on a proposed 

alignment concept that utilizes mechanical fixtures to 

measure alignment of LM or 111 equipment to the LM/NM 

interface rather than the current concept of using an optical 

tooling dock. 

2. Board members individually reviewed notes and briefings. 

/-3E77 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

lita,P,\Fi%,11,..driki r\10 

- BOARD DISCUSSION - 1530 24 January 1966 

1. The Board discussed the objectives, schedule and proposed final 

briefing content. 

A. Original Objectives of the Board 

1) Examine Complete Test Program for LV 

2) Validate Objectives for Testing 

3) Develop a Logical Testing Sequence for LV (System 

Engineering Basis) 

4) Validate Facilities (and Manpower*) to support Development 

Test Sequence. *Deleted from Board Consideration. 

B. Definitions of the Following are Needed: 

1) Development Testing 

2) Qualification Testing 

3) Acceptance Testing 

C. Board Needs to Develop: 

1) By Contractor 

a) Existing Test Objectives 

b) Existing Test Flow 

2) For Lab Vehicle 

a) Consolidated Test Objectives 

b) Consolidated Test Flow 

3) Optimize Minimum Test Program 

4) Comparison of Consolidated Test Program 

a) Consistency Between Contractors 

b) Holes in Program 

c) Excesses in Program 

5) Develop Compromise Test Program 

6) Develop New Test Flow 

7) Evaluate Facilities to Support New Test Objectives & Flow. 

1. 3477 

P. 32, 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

.TORB Discussions (cont'd) 24 January 1933 

8) Identify Shortcomings Associated With New Test Program 

9) Recommendations for Furthel Study 

10) Comparison of Test Objectives Between Contractors and GTP 

D. Other Action by TORB 

1) Overall NOL Test Philosophy (Vol. I, Sect IV, GTP) 

2) Level of Detail Evaluation by Board 

E. Briefing Scope 

O Board Approach 

o Objectives 

o Level of Detail 

O Discussions 

o Test Objectives Comparison 

Between Contractors 

With GTP 

o Test Flow/Program 

- Development TherMal/Vac 

- Qualification Structural. 

- Acceptance AVE System 

EMC 

o Facilities vs Utilization 

o Contractual (?) 

O Board Findings 

o Objectives 

o Test Flow/Program 

o Facilities 

o Contractual 

O Board Recommendations 

o Test Program 

- Objectives 

n r; n y 

- LiuL Ala 

L - 3,77 

e. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

TOPJ3 Discussions (cont'd) -3- 24 January 1968 

- Test Flow/Prcgra7.1 

- Facilities 

o Other 

- Contractual 

- Further Studies/etc. 

F. Schedule 

Wednesday 24 January 

1530 

1600 

Discuss Report 

Review Data 

Thursday 25 January 

Friday 

Monday 

Tuesday 

Wednesday 

0830 Review data 

1330 Submit Major Observations 

Consideration 

Board Discusses Items 

1600 Executive Session 

26 January 

0830 Consolidate Matrices 

1330 Discuss Consolidations 

1600 Executive Session 

to Board for 

0830 Teamwork on Matrices 

1330 Components Briefing 

1400 Teamwork on Detail Areas (2 men) 

29 January 

30 January 

0830 Board Findings and Recommendations 

31 January 

Start Final Report 

3877 

p. 

„ n3,\ rip 1-31 riN ri npnn 

r91! 1re,11P0 
VJ) ,DJ:A4t,Lexl, !,.AaL/1,1.1vy 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOARD DISCUSSION 

1 During the morning session Boar& member individually reviewed their 

notes and briefings and prepared their observations and comments for 

subsequent full Board deliberation. 

2 The Board discussed proposed definition of Development, Qualification, 

Effectiveness and Acceptance Testing. M. Shrader will prepare another 

version of Qual Testing and present it to the Board on 26 January 1963. 

3) The Board briefly discussed Volume I, Section IV of the Ground Test 

Plan. Additional discussion was scheduled 26 January 1968. 

4) The Board reviewed the Development Test matrix, prepared by J. Kent, 

and agreed that the format would be satisfactory for other testing 

matrices. 

L . 38.77 

e. 3 (3. 

(D) ETXDZT gPrt:CIAL HANDLING 
(D) CEORET SPECIAL HANDLING 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOARD DfSCUSSION 2uJANUARY 1968 

1) Colonel Hull met with General Bleymaier to discuss Board progress and to 

schedule final briefing. The briefing was tentatively scheduled for 

1 or 2 February 1963. 

2) The Board reviewed the Qual and Acceptance Test matrices. Comments will 

be incorporated into following iterations of the matrices. 

3) J. Kent presented a proposed format for General Problems: 

A) Discussion 

B) Statement of Problem 

C) Recommendation(s) 

4) Mr. Zinn and R. Van Ert presented a briefing on "OV Component Environmental 

Testing". The briefing included data on Gemini B and Lab Vehicle vibration 

levels and duration and Thermal Vacuum testing. A copy of this briefing 

is included in the briefing package. 

5) Board members individually prepared general problems and comments for 

subsequent full Board discussion. 

6) J. Wambolt chaired a side session to review the GTP and, in particular, to 

solicit comments from the contractor Board representatives. 

l- 3877 

P.31 

(D) -SPECIAL HANDLING 
(D) SPECIAL HANDLING 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOARD DISCUSSION 9 JANUARY 1968 

1) The Board reviewed the Development, Qual and Acceptance matrices and 

decided on a second draft version of "Meatball" and general questions. 

2) Teams were established to categorize questions and statements into a form 

workable by the Board. 

a) General: Colonel Hull, B. A. Hohmann, Major Thompson 

h) Development: R. Grammer, Lt. Colonel Hrebec 

c) Qualification: R. Arnold, M. Shrader 

d) Acceptance: D. Chamberlin, J. Wambolt 

e) Flow Charts: J. Kent, D. Collins 

3) The above teams worked their assigned tasks during the major part of the 

afternoon session. 

4) R. Grammer and G. Hrebec presented the Development Test matrix and associated 

questions to the Board. Some changes were recommended for inclusion in 

subsequent drafts. 

R. Arnold and M. Shrader presented the Qual Test matrix to the Board. 

Some changes were recommended. 

- 3877 

P•37 

(D) BLCRCr SPECIAL HANDLING 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOARD DISCUSSION - 30 JANUARY 1968 

1) R. Chamberlin and J. Wambolt presented the Acceptance Test matrix and 

associated questions to the Board. Changes were recommended for inclusion 

in subsequent drafts. 

2) Colonel. Hull presented General. Questions. The Board discussed the questions 

and assigned them to specific areas - Development, Qualification, Acceptance 

or General. 

3) The Teams re-worked matrices and questions to incorporate recommendations 

made during above reviews. 

4) The Executive Board reviewed the following matrices: 

a) Facilities 

b) Development Testing 

c) Qualification Testing 

- This problem is part of the MMTS overall problem and 

will be included in the General portion of the briefing. 

- A discussion regarding the necessity of acoustic vibration qualification of the LM involved the requirement for 

either or acoustic facility at DAC or major AGE (ASTEG, 

CITE, Etc.) movement to EK or other acoustic facility. 

A backup position to test only the unpressurized "critical" 

portion of the LM (similar to the position taken in 

Development Testing) was decided. 

- The narrative and problem part of this chart was agreed 

upon but discussion on the recommendation was continued 

to the morning of 31 January 1968. 

3E17 

lk se 

(D) LIDCI WT SPECIAL HANDLING 

(1) 01 

(2) 02 

(3) 03 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOARD DISCUSSION 31 January 1968 

1. The Board reviewed the format for the final briefing. 

2. Board members were assigned responsibility for preparing 

the following flow charts and detail viewgraphs: 

a. LMQTV/FV #3 - J. Kent 

b. Vib/Acoustic Development Flow - J. Wambolt 

c. T/V Qual Flow (MMAS preceding MM) J. Kent 

d. Vib Acceptance Flow - J. Wambolt 

e. Functional Acceptance Flow - J. Kent 

f. Functional Development•Flow leading to EDCTU - M. Shrader 

3. The Consultants were requested to review "Test Objectives" and 

to group them into Development, Qualification, Acceptance and 

General Categories. 

4. The Executive Board continued their review of the Qualification 

and Acceptance Matrices and observations. 

5. The Board reworked matrices and special test flow charts. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOARD DISCUSSION 1 February 1968 

1. The final draft of the briefing was collated and reviewed 

by the Board. 

2. The Executive Board reviewed and approved the "Test Objectives." 

I- 3877 

q t I 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

BOARD DISCUSSION 2 February 1968 

1. The Board completed final review of the briefing and prepared 

viewgraphs and copies. 

2. The final briefing was presented to General Bleymaier and 

staff at 1500, 2 February 1968. 

a. Attendees: 

Board Members 

General J. S. Bleymaier 

Col. 0, C. Ledford 

Col. L. S. Norman 

Col. W. H. Brassfield 

Col. B. F. Knolle 

Col. C. L. Gandy 

Col. R. V. Wheeler 

Lt. Col. L. D. Paige 

Maj. C. Fox 

Dr. W. C. Williams 

Mr. B. Moss 

Mr. L. C. Lidstrom 

Mr. G. D. McGhee 

b. General Bleymaier commended the Board for their efforts and 

requested that a letter detailing and separating the Board 

recommendations into contractual, technical and schedule 

problem areas. 

c. Col. Norman asked if SPO segments should implement Board 

recommendations and. Gen. Bleymaier replied that formal 

SPO review and approval should precede this step. 

d. Gen. Bleymaier asked thatthe Board also list the recommendations 

by priority so the SPO could work them properly. 

3. The Test Objectives Review Board formally disbanded at 1700, 

2 February 1968. 

1. -3877 

/0. 4// 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 T "I 11, 11!,\R;116 

SUBJ: Test Objectives Revi:-2-Board 

TO: 

1 IE;57 

1. I intend. to convene the Test Objectives Review Board at 0830, 

3 Jan 68 in Room 820, EcCullock Buildins, Los Anseles, Calif. 

2. The attached outline is for sour plannin nurooSes. 

ROBERT B. HULL, Colonel, USAF Cy to: 

Chairman 

L- 377 

44' 

Pnblui ;Arm 

--t71777-0 0 ot:lui\JLALititAi,51 Atch 

• :•1 , pg. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

11_"11Ar417,iiIrl " 111?..\7P 

u.)11 

, . 

. , 

• 

TEST OBJECTIVZ3 R=VIE BOARD 

Board MeNbers: 

AP Col R. R. Hull - Oh2'rrann 

Aeros - Mr. B. A. liolLd nn Co-Chairnan 

Contr - Mr. R. G. Arnold 

Contr - Mr. H. L. ClanMberlain 

Contr - 11141J. Mr. R. Grammer 

Consultants: 

AF - Lt Col G. M. Hrebec 

- Mr. D. R. Collins 

Aeros - Mr. J. E. Kent 

- Mr. J. F. Wambolt 

- Mr. M. C. Shrader 

Recorder: 

AF Maj L. G. Thompson 

L 3817 

P. 43 

Atch 1 

r 

Pg. 2 1111Fri firqr14 Jr, 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

PUBIOS2: 

1. Look at complete test program for the Laboratory Vehicle. 

a. Fat vs lean areas of testing. 

b. Are there any holes. 

2. Validate objectives for tests - dev., qual., accept. 

a. Define and justify the objectives for each segment system. 

b. Define and justify the objectives for integrated segment 

systems, e.g., PIlE 

3. Determine, on a laboratory vehicle s,,stem engineering basis, 

a logical testing sequence that satisfies the validated objectives. 

a. that tests/facilities are required to support this sequence. 

b. What is the manpower required to support this sequence inplant and at remote sites. 

c. Existing contractual requirements will not be justification 

alone - contracts will be changed to meet objectives. 

4. End result will be a report to Gen Bleymaier contining the 

top level test flow with major hardware exchange milestones identified. 

The report will indicate the facilities and manpower required to support 

the test flow. 

APPROACH: 

1. The 13-111 Dec 67 baseline will be used for technical content 

of program. Ihis baseline will 1)-3 discussed by the :Board at the first 

meeting. 

2. Each contractor will define and justify t'ne objectives for 

their segment peculiar basis for hardware testing; . An overview of 

facilities required to support these objectives will be discussed. 

(..'15)17,-fr-,11pl• fly Nirin, rpno. 

L. 3877 

P. -441 

Atch 1 

Pg. 3 
NRO APPROVED FOR %T:zz :i7;^ 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

J11/41.31,A,AE!..41 ,• 

3. The coatructors wii defin.-2. and justify the objectiVs for 

integrcted tostiny up to LV An. overview of faciliUes required 

to support integ,rated tesbicy Jii be discussed. 

4. The Beard will, from a laborcitory vehicle system. engineering, 

standpoint, determlne a ioyiea testing sequence. 

5. This testing socuence will be examined to remove any redundant 

testing or add testing, in areas of insufficient testing. Eardware -

exchunge milestones may be changed if required. 

6. Each contractor's plant will be visited. 

a. In plant and remote site test facilities and nnnpower will 

be discussed and justified. 

b. Integrated seEmnt/system testing and how/where it should 

be accomplished will be discussed. 

7. Examine testing sequence to determine if any conflicts can be 

eliminated by adjusting launch dates slightly. 

8. Validate facility and nanuower requirements to support the 

adjusted. LV test flow. 

9. Determine what, if an:J, contract changes are recuired to support 

the recommended test flow. 

3872 

P. Alf; 

Atch 1 

Pg. 4 
,..)4. 

.-- cn ,i,.., 0 

.-4 

0 

GD 

tx1 

0 0 

! 

1 " 

el 

0 .... ..... ...........u. ......... ........... 

O ! , 

•ri .... \ 

co 43 1 •rt 

,c1 r.c 0 (-0‘ 

.... 

• 

: 

.-- 

1-4 

r-i 

$4 

H 

z 

z 

H 

14 •-4 r-4 \ ••■•• (NI .r.1 

• \ 0 

tOr 0 

. , , 

`... 

• . 0 • 0..7 .1-1 

• . 8-1 •i C./ . U 

0 13.4 0 tf) 

Cd V •< 0 Cb •ri 

04 

14 

al •r-I ,... ! A 

i 

Z , 

H e-.4 14 . CO it . 

..- 

tr '0 

■■•••1 4.4 CN1 $ _.... 1 4 

•rit I-. o 

CCI CO : r-i Pc1 CC$ 

0 

0 -rt . 

' b

0 44 

tx3 0 th A 

I 

t CU ' 

P RI U i-t Ne ' 0 $4 

... 

$4 .--1 4-1 N:,: Cs1 

t■I Fel 0 

• 

en pl 4-4 0 < -rt r, 

.-4 

1-4...I. 

Ne C=1 0 

en E-4 

Revised 3 January 1968 

H 

tx-t 

I In 

rz3 

1-1 

4-1Cf) 4-1 

0 0 cll 0 , I-t 

H H a- H ■.0 0 

'-4 

3877 

P. 46 

C14 

Atch 

Po c) 
■ 441104morkget a M.. III i et,.«, 6." I it ‘...4 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

FIRST ROUND PROGRAM DECISIONS 

O Replace 114E Upgrade 113T 

O SM Efforts minimum Jan through June, 1963 

O No performance testing in 1007002 

O One CITE Plus TV Support at Huntington Beach 

O Modal Surveys on DTS and No. 6 Only 

O No LMQTV Acoustic Qualification 

O Combine ER 30-Day Qualification with LNQTV 

O Two-Position Sliding Mask 

O Use ULE; Suspend Louver Design; Polish One Cervit 

O Refurbish Test Articles for No. 7 Main Optics 

O Eliminate Thrust Termination Tests on 120-Inch Motors 

O Incorporate Low Level Vibration Test on Each LM 

O Reduce Combined GE/EK Testing at ER 

O Eliminate One ATS From 114 

O No Arbitrary Reduction of Telemetry Points 

O Do NrA Incorporate Roll-Rate Bias 

O Simplify Heart Rate Recorder 

O Make ER Dynamic Test a Type Test Only 

O Eliminate ER LM Dynamic Disturbance Simulator 

O Delete Redundant MITE; Operations & Inspection 

O Delete ER Dynamic Test Camera 

O Enuinate GE Development & Qualification Base Shake Tests 

O Eliminate System Engineering Data From GBQ 

O Use Present Configuration Management Plan for Gemini B Procedure Simulator 

3k77 

A. 4i 

SPECIAL HANDI ING 

Atch 2, PR, 1 
.Atch 2 

Pg. 2 

Orj, jrit I 1 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

FIRST-ROUND PROGRAM DECISIONS (CONT'DI 

O Assemble LV at Huntington Beach 

O Put VAFB Operations on 5-Day Meek 

O Install Most ACE at VAFB Before Flight No. 1 

O Utilize EDCTU for LV Software Validation 

O Redefine Flow Time 

o MM at EK 

o LV at Huntington Beach 

0 Delete Redundant Mission Nodule Ground-Con,:itioning Tests 

SECOIr.07.11OUTTO PROGRATI. 

0 Change Flight No. 2 Requirement 

0 Reduce 10010 by 1/2 

0 Shift LMQTV 

O AF Gemini Training 

O Reduce ATS Resolution 107. 

O Adjust Schedule 

O Manageable Adjustment 

ITEMS YIELDING POSSIBLE FUTURE SAVINGS 

O On-Pad Buildup of Laboratory Vehicle 

O CDRL Reductions 

O Delete Blast Shield 

O AGE to Non-CEI Items 

O Mission Simulator Simplifications 

- CD: LC1AL HANDL INC 
— • %.)1_1—%.../11-IL L., I iril \i Li Lit \ILI 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

InMS YIELDING POSSIBLE FUTURE SAVINGS 

O System Effectiveness Scrub 

O EMI Testing Requirements Reduction (AGE Only) 

O VAFB Air Conditioning Requirements Reduction 

O Use Dynamic Test Structure for LM/'S1 Static Tests 

L - 3877 

p. 49 

1\ D L I 'NP, A tch 2 

Pa. 3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

GSNERAL ELECTaIC ACAON ITEMS 

4-5 January 1968 

ACTION ITEM 

1. What does CE expect to accomplish during integrated 

testing at EM and DAC under the new December Ground 

Rules? (R. Hull) 

2. What is the estimated number of hours/cycles accumulated 

on GE AVE during production testing and the relationship 

of these times to design life? Component (Vendor and 

in-house) subsystem, system and at all field locations 

where possible. (J. Kent) 

3. Detailed look at Development Qualification Acceptance 

program for GE Lab Module AVE equipment. (J. Kent) 

See attached format. 

4. In some detail, will GE describe test setup for 

vibration acceptance of IflWS. Include vibration 

levels expected on the various components within the 

structure. (D. Collins) 

5. More detail and visibility into what cannot be checked 

on MNFS (FV-3) in assoc. TV chamber if test was not done 

at GE. (D. Collins) 

6. The following items should be combined into a 20 minute 

briefing: (D. Collins) 

a. Based on experience in other programs, what is GE's 

position on component qual and acceptance vibration 

levels? 

b. Available information, if any, on comparison of 

component qualification vibration levels and what 

was measured in flight on pact: GE programs. 

c. In justifying flight segment acceptance test (vibration, Thermal Vacuum and EMC) what flight failures 

on past programs can be blamed on not conducting these 

tests? 

7. What functional performance is demonstrated in the Bay 2 & 8 

only tests at Huntington Beach? (J. Kent) 

8. What functional performance is demonstrated in the LM into- 

/- n77 

grated test at Huntington Beach? (J. Kent) A 

4171N V 

tiLi 

T I 3 1 

:/i."" 

4 

‘"." ‘'A tc h 3, P, I 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

General Electric Action Ite:as T (cosy'.:' 01 Page 2 

ACTION ITEM 

9. Prepare exploded, color coded, pictorial view of 

contractor's AVE hardware flow for each type of test program (development, qualification, and acceptance) through 

your plant. 

Color Code - DAC - Green 

GE - Blue 

Assoc - Red 

10. Provide General EleCtric, MOD Dept. organizational chart. 

(Stress Test Organization) 

11. Summary of weaknesses in current test program that 

GE has identified and suggested improvements. 

(R. Hull) 

12. Additional information regarding GE Qual T/V tests to 

see if their planning sufficiently represents the Acceptance 

TV time plus 30 days. (J. Wambolt) 

1.3877 

p. 

Atch 3 

Pg. 2 

• 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

-GE LM AVE TEST REVIEW (Ref GE Action Item ip) 

I. CONFIGURATION 

A. Physical. Layout 

B. Functional Description 

C. Mechanical and Electrical Interfaces 

II. SYSTEM LEVEL TEST PROGRAM 

A. Development 

1. Dynamics 

a. Modes 

b. Loads 

c. Acceleration 

d. Vibration (above 60 cycles) 

2. Thermal/Vacuum and Atmosphere 

3. Mechanical 

4. Electrical 

B. Qualification 

Same as Development 

C. Acceptance 

III. SUB/SYSTEM AND COMPONENT TEST PROGRAM 

IV. SUMMARY OF DEFICIENCIES AND CORRECTIONS 

• 3611 

p. 6'42 

- --rt 

-n- :•Y E. „.. 

Atch 3 

Pg. 3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 . 

EY. ACTIO'q 

• 5 January 1958 

ACTION ITEM 

1. Prepare exploded, color coded, pictorial view of contractor's AVE 

hardware flow for each type of test program (development, 

qualification, and acceptance) through your plant. 

Color Code - DAC - Green 

GE - Blue 

Assoc - Red 

2, Provide Eh, MOL Dept. organizational chart. (Stress 

Test Organization) 

„ Atch 4 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

/.4in • ", . - -A C-PrrYll'-r1 El n•jli 

Q.W 1[71,0 011 ILZA [ 

EASTMAN KOJAK ACTIqITEMS 

10 January 1963 

ACTION ITEM 

3. Detailed description of qualification and acceptance 

vibration levels for MH and LM EKC components/sub-assys. 

Include rational for selection of levels. (D. Collins) 

4. Describe the difference between the OA and MM level 

venting tests and reasons why all objectives cannot be 

Met by a single MM level test. (D. Collins) 

5. Where in the Ground Test Program does EK insure that EK 

black boxes can be checked out and problems isolated. by 

CITE? (J. Kent) 

6. Request brief description of qualification and acceptance 

vibration test conducted on primary mirror or on its 

installation in the OA structure. (D. Collins) 

7. EK present preliminary reaction to DACO plan to test DACO 

LM hardware as an entity before mating the GE/DACO electrical 

interface. The implication here is that it further delays 

in time the demonstration of EK/GE production LM hardware 

compatibility. 

8. Show the .schedule relationship of the acceptance activity 

for flight vehicle number 3 processing qual model and 

engineering model, and comments by EK on the feasibility 

of these relationships. 

9. What is the estimated number of hours/cycles accumulated 

on EK AVE during production testing and the relationship 

of these times to design life? Component (Vendor and 

in-house) subsystem, system and at all field locations 

where possible. (J. Kent) 

1-3477 

p. 541 

Atch 4 

Pg. 2 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

EASTMAN KODAK ACTION ITEMS 

10 January 1968 

ACTION ITEM 

10. Mirror alignment servos failure modes and test program. 

(B. Hohmann) 

11. EK objectives during EDCTU/LMQTV testing at DACO. 

(R. Hull) 

12. EK areas of concern. (R. Hull) 

13. Thermal Vac. testing during EK qual program. (J. Wambolt) 

14. Discussion and recapitulation of test facilities. 

1 3E17 

Atch 4 

Pg. 3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

pji P.,,117T71 '

DAC ACTIOE ITEMS_ 

5 January 1966 

ACTION ITEM 

1. DAC shall include in their segment briefing a discussion 

of weight and center of gravity management. The briefing 

should include methods of (1) bookkeeping/inputs from 

associate; (2) method of allocation/control; (3) methods 

of reporting; (4) methods of measurements. (J. Wambolt) 

2. Prepare exploded, color coded, pictorial view of contractor's 

AVE hardware flow for each type of test program (development, 

qualification, and acceptance) through your plant. 

Color Code - DAC - Green 

GE - Blue 

Assoc - Red 

3. Provide DAC, MOL Dept. organizational chart. (Stress Test 

Organization) 

L-3677 

P. 56 

Pr,\,flrfl) Atch 5 

Pg. I 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DOUGLAS ACTION ITEMS 

11 January 1963 

ACTION ITEM 

4). Detailed build-up of the Laboratory Module and tests 

that are associated with this during build-up. (J. Kent) 

5. How will DAC verify cryo tank performance before sell 

off of vehicle at Huntington Beach? (D. Collins) 

6.. that is the estimated number of hours/cycles accumulated 

on DAC AVE during production testing and the relationship 

of these times to design life? Component (Vendor and 

in-house) subsystem, system and at all field locations 

where possible. (J. Kent) 

rn-; F.1 l\npri rfirr 0'1,0 Al 

L.; LIU ULILL: 

I. 387? 

p. 67 

Atch 5 

P ci 2 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

n 

T!IlY10 ijkt, [1.11[12 

DOUOLASACTION I "S 

12 January 1968 

Ag'Eiol)JTEm 

7. Describe configuration of LM accepOnce vibration test. 

What levels are expected on components and interfaces 

which have not previously been subjected to acceptance 

level testing. (D. Collins) 

8. Present level of integrated test presently planned by 

by DAC on the DTS (Modal and Shock) with the associates:. 

a. Objectives 

b. Requirements 

c. Equipment 

d. Data 

9. Present a general matrix of DAC subsystems versus level 

of harduare tested for Development and Qualification. 

Examples: 

Data Subsystem 

Components - All 507. Subsystem - Vendor All - EDCTU 

10. What changes and impact on test flow would occur if 

DAC would ship Consol #1 to GE to mate mechanically/ 

electrically with 2 and 8 for subsequent installation into 

birdcage as a unit? (D. Collins/B. Hohmann) 

Atch 5 

Pg. 3 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DOUGLAS ACTION ITEMS 

12 January 1968 

ACTION ITEM 

. 11. Meteoroid shield testin.EY, during static load testing. 

(D. Collins) 

12. Tunnel hatch closing tests during Acceptance Test 

Program. (B. Hohmann) 

13. Tunnel to Dome Acceptance Test - where, how and 

when. (G. Hrebec) 

14. Detail of birdcage tests with expected inputs from 

Associates. (J. Kent) 

15. What are test plans for forward unpressurized 

compartment ascent venting. (B. Hohmann) 

16. Summary of weaknesses in current test program that 

DAC has identified and suggested improvements. 

(R. Hull) 

1-3D77 

p. 51 

Atch 

Pg. 4 
EK - ROCHESTER GE - RADNOR 

U 

r—I 

Cl) 

H 

r4 

r-I 

Sys Compatibility 

0 .0 

H 

H 

4-) 

0 X: 

7.) 

(ZS 

çL4

0 

4-1 

air-1 

ci 

H 

< E 

Ott) 

oc Cl) 

ca 

H 

H 

cr) cr) 

r r—I 

r-I 

ri 

: 

- 

$ 

114 and DSS-1 

cri E

H r_ta 

r63,:7? 

z 

z 

.4) 

0 

0 

'.< 

U) 

C) 

cii 

Atell A P. t 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

DEVELOPMENT 

QUESTIONS: 

1. Consider feasibility, advantages, disadvantages 

of conducting ECLS development (and some qual) 

testing in boilerplate vehicle outside of altitude 

chamger instead of current plan. Radiator performance would be conducted in chamber and results applied 

to boilerplate test. (D. Collins) 

(Consideration #10) 

2. How will DAC verify cryo tank performance before 

sell-off of vehicle at Huntington Beach? (D. Collins) 

(EK Action Item #5) 

3. When is EDCTU suppose to be torn down? Do we want 

to make a recommendation to keep the EDCTU by maintaining components failure analysis and procedure 

proving? (R. Crammer) 

SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING 

4. 1 - 3877 

p. 61 

Atch 6, P. 2. 

SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING 
Qual forLM/MPE 

rit 0 

o •H 

4J U) 

H 

o E 

H4 • -r4 1-■ V) 

W r-4 

C r-1 

Hcfl 

• 

I 

z 

z 

1 

Transportability115 

MPS (115) 

4 (0 4-1 0 

O 0) )-1 4i4.4 C1,-H • •H 

a) a a) to 

• 4-) 

;4 •r4 :0 03 

• r4d a) E 

• •H •H a) 

RAI 

(0 0 0) 4-a 

u f:).•,-1 

,EDC)-. U) 0 

o X (I) 

U.) 

-1 (IS .P •H 

• ›N (t; 

;-1 bO $-4 

01 4 

• ro 4-) 

H 0) 

o > "(1 

r 

t7.

r1 

EK-ROCHESTER 

r %el 

GE-RADNOR 

0 

H- Z 

o 

<0 0 1--I 

121 I-1 

1-1 fx-, 

t--4 

0 

> o'CLi 

r1 

r-4 

1

j 

0 

r•-■ 

U) 

a) 

r--4 0 

U) 

do P 't a ..-1 0 (1) 

> 0 Cl) s..,, c.).-. 

r-4 0 CC1 Cf) ! 

(1) ,-1 ..••■ $-1 01 ( > 0 WI 

O En 

I-4 r-I 

0 s._., d el 

• U 4-) 4.) PI CC) a. .• > ......, 

a) Er) <4 I ILI 

in ;74 

o rx1 r-A 1 0 

r-1 ! Z 

1 

DAC-HUNTINGTONBEACH 

Ground Cond. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

QUALIFICATION 

QUESTIONS: 

1. Review the philosophy of the Thermal Vacuum Flow 

Tests performed and discuss the relationship of the 

of the total vacuum exposure of the qual hardware 

to design life requirements and to the acceptance 

exposure. 

2. The additional tests on MMFS 115 at EK after it has 

been qualified at GE was questioned. (D. Collins) 

3. Consider feasibility of eliminating acoustical 

qual tests on mission module from a risk stand point. 

This would result in tests being compatible between 

the Lab Module and Mission Module. (D. Collins) 

4. Evaluate the risk of not having acoustical qual 

tests on both. (D. Collins) 

5. Considering Program Managers decision to minimize 

electrical checkout capability at Rochester, evaluate 

the acoustical qual on MMAS hardware only. (J. Kent) 

6. Request brief description of qualification and 

acceptance vibration test conducted on primary mirror 

or on its installation in the OA structure. (D. Collins) 

(Action Item #6 - EK) 

7. Air Conditioning door should be evaluated for malfunction mode of door staying open. (B. Hohmann) 

8. How is the ascent venting qualified for the Lab 

Module? (J. Kent) 

9. Investigate the qualification of the tunnel hatch 

on LMQTV. (B. Hqhmann) 

10. What is the mode of transportation from Huntington 

Beach to VAFB? 

11. What is the qualification on the transporter? 

12. What is the structural qualification for the lab 

module structure assembly? (J. Kent) 

—1Te*E4.- SPECIAL HANDLING 

L- 31;-77 

P. G3 

Atch 6, P. 4,f- 

• 
0 

/Th /Th /Th HINIcv 

/". 

CO 

C-. 

/Th 

0 

r-4 

C-. 

eTh 

0 Repeated Data 

(r) 

Vibration 

In 

4-) 

0 

P. d (Critical 

0 z. 

H': 

z 

U 

C.) 1..1 <C 

4.1 

P 

a 

C, D? (AGE Config?) 

CO 

0 

cd 

U 

•ri 0 

+-)z 

;-4 U 

U 

CJ fS 

>. Cr) 

4-1 c $ a) 

b0 al 

(1) 4 

A •-+-4 

(1) 0 5-4 4--) .t:54 

W 

r-1 rl 

cz) $-1 

"0 

4 ) 4-4 c.) 

&) O 4-1 0.5 0 W 

4D C!) H

4--)

a) 

Cl) 

Efl 

$-1 

a) 4-1 

• cd 

al Al Ct. 

4-3 ca 

-P . 

4:1, 0 5-1 w En 13) 0.4-0 a) 

O p co •,--1 5-4 

0 a) 0 cct 

04'0 Cl) ca 

• E-• 

O 0 El) 

"O •H 

cc u 

Its P4 

;-4 ;-4 (1) 

DC 

tZ$ 

0.5 1.5 '0 I 1--! 

60 OD W $-4 

.H • H CIS 3 

U) co 4 0 

co PA 

a) 

4.-4

cd 4- 

u 41) 

i C.) 

• cd r. 

..-4 

• 

i.4 A. 4.

1 4-a 

4-) 0 47.. 040 

4..) 4-4 60 41) 4 

rTs, P-I < 

'11 en 

2 2 / 

. (f) d 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 ACCEPTANCE 

TORB MEETING 15 January 1968 

QUESTIONS: 

1. The validity of Thermal Acceptance was questioned 

at GE, Assoc., and DAC. (D. Collins) 

2. How is Thermal testing applied at GE, Associate, 

and Huntington Beach? (J. Kent) 

3. What is the validity of Vibration testing? (D. Collins) 

4. Disagreement on the vibration shaker approach on 

MOL size vehicle. (J. Kent) 

5. EMC Acceptance Testing should be part of the normal 

acceptance checkout at all times. (B. Hohmann) 

6. GE/EK LM equipments constitute the most significant 

electrical interface. (J. Kent) 

7. Establishes functional compatibility of the LM 

before the Bird Cage is installed in the shell. 

(D. Collins) 

8. How is acceptance alignment done at EK, GE, and 

Huntington Beach? (R. Hull) 

9. EK should have subaperature tests when FS simulated 

structure is attached (during full aperature tests) 

to form baseline for subsequent subaperature tests 

after FS is attached. (B. Hohmann) 

10. Is there repeatable data that can be used as a 

baseline for tests at VAFB, and can it be looked 

at again? (R. Hull) 

SECRET SPECIAL HANDLING p. 

1- 3617 

6G. 

Atch 6, P. 6