apollo experience report crew-support activities for experiments performed during manned space...

8/8/2019 Apollo Experience Report Crew-Support Activities for Experiments Performed During Manned Space Flight

1/19

N A S A T E C H N I C A L N O T E NASA TN D-7782

cv00h

CREW-SUPPORT ACTIVITIESFOR EXPERIMENTS PERFORMEDD U R I N G M A N N E D SPACE FLIGHT

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT -

by John WeMcKeeHouston, Texas 77058Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

N A T I O N A L A E R O N A U T I C S A N D S P AC E A D M I N I S T R A T I O N W A S H I N G T O N , D . C. S E PT EM BE R 1 9 7 4


2/19

1. Report No.NASA TND-7782

7. Author(s )John W . McKee

2. Government Accession No.

9. Performing Organizat ion Name and Address

19. Security Classif . (of this r epo r t ) 20. Security Classif. (of this page)Unclassified Unclassified

Lyndon B. Johnson Space CenterHouston, Texas 77058

21 . NO. of Pages 22 . Price17 $ 3.00

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and AddressNational Aeronautics and Space Adminis trationWashington, D. C . 20546

3. Recipient's Catalog N o -. Repor t DateSeptember 1974

6. Performing Organizat ion Code

8. Performing Organization Repor t No.JSC S-403

10. W ork U n i t N o .956-23-00-00-72

11. Cont rac t or Grant No

13. T y pe of Report and Period CoveredTechnical Note

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. AbstractExperiments a r e perfo rmed during manned space flights in an attempt to acquire knowledge thatcan advance science and technology or that can be applied to operational techniques f or futu respace flights. In this repo rt, a description is given of the procedure s that the personn el whoare direct ly assigned to the function of cr ew support a t the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson SpaceCenter u se to p repare fo r and to conduct experiments during space flight.

17. Key Words (Suggested by A uth or k ) )'Apollo Flights'Astronaut Training' Experimentation18. Dis t r ibut ion Statement

STAR Subject Category: 31.


3/19

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORTEDITORIAL COMMITTEE

The mate rial submitted for the Apollo Experience Reports(a series of NASA Technica l Notes) was reviewed and ap-proved by a NASA Editorial Review Board at the Lyndon B.Johnson Space Center cons isting of the following members :Scott H . Simpkinson (Chairman), Richard R. Baldwin,Ja me s R. Bates, William M . Bland, J r . , Aleck C. Bond,Robert P. Burt, Ch ris C. Critz os, John M. Eggleston,E . M. Fields, Donald T . G regory, Edward B. Hamblet t, J r . ,Kenneth F. Hecht, David N . Holman (Editor/Secretary),and Ca rl R. Huss. The prim e reviewer fo r this reportw a s Richard R. Baldwin.


4/19

CONTENTS

SectionSUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .EXPERIMENT PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND ORGANIZATIONREQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

Documents and Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Training Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pro gra m Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Development of Hardware and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flightcrew Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Real-Time Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Postmiss ion Evaluation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUDING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESCRIPTION AND SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES

Page112345679

111 2121313

iii


5/19

FIGURE

Figure1 mp ic al schedule of major input and output events fo r missionexperiment support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

8

iv


6/19

APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORTCREW-SUPPORT AC TI V I T I ES FOR EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED

DUR I N G M A N N E D S P A C E FLI GHTB y J o h n W. McKeeL y n d o n B . J o h n s o n Space Center

S U M M A R Y

Experiments performed by a crew on a space flight involve many activitie s thata r e d irec ted toward attaining knowledge that can contribute to the advancement ofscience and technology or that can be used to plan operational techniques for futurespace flights. The integration of experiments into manned space missions is acomplex endeavor that req ui re s a well-organized management structure, a programplan, and an exper iment management office that is organized so that interface require-ments for s ervi ce s, mate rial, and information can be identified specifically. Theexperiment development activities for a mission and, in par ticula r, the training of thecrewmen are rigorously time constrained.In this rep ort, crew-support requiremen ts and the methods used to ensure thatthose requirements are met a r e discussed. The requirements involve feasibility

evaluations of exper iments , development of hardware and procedures to achieve theobjectives of experiments, definition and acquisition of training hardware , flightcrewtraining, integration of experiment activiti es into the mission time line , and real -timecrew support from the ground. The tasks of meeting these requiremen ts a r e performedb y personnel assigned to experiments on a full-time basis and by other personnel withresponsibili ties fo r part icular aspec ts of the development of the spacecraft and themission. The crew-support activities a r e only one par t of the experiment managementstructure; the total structure must be organized to cope effectively with many parts.

1 NTRODUCTI ONIn this report, the crew-related factors that ar e involved in the preparation forand the conduct of experiments during manned space flights a r e presented. The re la -tionship between crew-support activities and the objectives of and the interfaceproblems generated by experiments, the requiremen ts generated by this relationship,and the methods used to genera te effective crew support ar e discussed. Carrying outcrew-support activiti es fo r experiments begins with making feasibility evaluations ofexpe riment proposa ls, continues through extensive experiment development, and endsin expe riment performance and the documentation of experiment res ul ts . N o attempt


7/19

is made in this report to describe al l the aspects of experiment management; however,the relationship of many of these aspects to crew-support activi ty is discussed.An experiment is a technical investigation performed to obtain rese ar ch informa-tion that can contribute to the advancement of science and technology or to obtainengineering, technological, medical, or other data that can be applied to futur e

space missions. By thi s definition, an experiment is distinguished from other basicmission activities such as launching, navigating, or recovering a spacecraft. TheManned Space Flight Experiments Board (MSFEB) coordinates experiment programsand recommends approval o r disapproval of proposed experiments fo r flight to theNASA Associate Administra tor for Manned Space Flight.Other flight activities are si mi la r to experiments; indeed, at different times,some investigations have o r have not been identified as such. Typical cas es includesome crew medical t es ts (such as bone demineralization) conducted immediately be-fo re and afte r missions and the redesignation of seven approved experiments as com-mand and se rv ic e module orbital photographic tasks. Whether a flight activity isidentified as an experiment depends partly on the s tatus of the space vehicle and the

space program. Although the implementation of these activ ities usually is less for-mal than the implementation of exper iment s, the sam e elements of crew-support activ-ity ar e required.The crew-suppor t activities were performed by the Flight Crew OperationsDirectorate (FCOD), one of the major organizational elements at the NASA Lyndon B.Johnson Space Center (JSC) (formerly the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC)). TheFCOD was responsible for the development of the crew-to-vehicle interface and inte-gration, for the development of a flight plan, for training a crew to execute that flightplan, and for the generation of onboard data and aids that the crewmen needed toretu rn scientific data from the flight. To meet these responsibilities, the crewabilities, the experiment hardware, and the flight procedures had to be compatible;

this compatibility was mandatory i f the proper scientific information fr om allexperiments was to be obtained.

E X P E R IM E N T P R O G R A M O B J E C TI V ES A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O NAlthough many technological spinoffs r es ul t fr om manned space flights, theconduct of in-flight experiments is the direct method for the achievement of scientificknowledge. Experiments were conducted during Pr oj ec t Mercury and the GeminiProg ram. Even more complex experiments became the major scientific objectives inthe late phases of the Apollo Prog ra m, and scientific investigation through in-flight

experimentation w a s the basis for the Skylab Prog ram.The management of experiments is a highly complex task that requir es awell-organized development team, clea rly defined responsibilit ies, competent person-nel, and well-established channels of communication. The as pect s of experimentmanagement include the sea rch f or and selection of significant investigations, thedefinition of complex interfaces, the construction of a documentation str uc tu re with fewgaps or redundancies, the establishment of schedules fo r all significant events, and the

2


8/19

commitment of resources. The progressive development of management techniqueswithin the NASA, from Project Mercury to the present , is described in referen ces 1and 2. The NASA experiment program organization and the methods now used toimplement experiments are essentially the same a s those adopted ear ly in 1964 whenthe MSFEB w a s established.After a proposed experiment is approved, the NASA management is committedto the achievement of specific objectives, which have been defined by the PrincipalInvestigator fo r that experiment. Typically, the Principal Investigator and hi s organi-zation have not been involved intimately i n manned space prog rams, and the experimentproposal rep resent s only one aspect of the ir varied endeavors; thus, the Principa lInvestigator may be entering a different environment that involves complex develop-mental and operational problems. It is unlikely that a Principal Investigator coulddefine his experiment objectives and receive h is data without becoming involvedextensively in the program.The FCOD personnel worked closely with each Princ ipal Investigator s o that

crew-related a spec ts of the experiment could be implemented. The goal of this coop-eration w a s to make the crewmen an integral part of the suc ces s of the experiment.The crewmen not only had to follow programed experiment ac tivit ies but also had tomake in-flight decisions concerning the experiment . Because each experiment mighthave had unique crew-support requirements, a group of FCOD personnel were assignedas experiment specialists. These special ists supported experiments on a full-timebasis by evaluating the experiment proposals , assi sting the Principal Investigators indeveloping hardware and flight procedures, training the crewmen, and supporting themission. The experiment spec ialists a lso coordinated or assisted in all the otherexperiment activ ities of the crew and worked with other MSC personnel whose activitiesrelat ed to experiments. The intent of the total FCOD experiment effort w a s to applyspacecraft experience and crew operational experience to integration of the hardware,the procedures , and the crew training to an extent sufficient to accomplish theexperiment objectives.

REQU IREMENTSEach element of experiment management must satisfy many requirements . Inaddition, each element of experiment management places requirements on otherelements of experiment management. To define and implement these requirements,experiment managers use directives, documents, experiment hardware, tes ts,facilities, budgets, ser vic es, schedules, and forma l and informal reviews. Experience

gained during manned sp ace fligh ts has helped in defining and implementing theserequirements. This management pr oce ss has evolved from loose, informal activitiesinto a structured, controlled process. Fo r example, this controlled process ensu resthat after c rew procedures a re written, al l responsible perso ns in the program reviewthose procedures. A detailed crew-procedures management plan that evolved duringthe Apollo Pro gr am w a s formalized fo r Skylab. The major categories of the requir e-ments that interact with, contribute to, and are important facto rs in crew-supportexperiment activities are described briefly i n this section.

3


9/19

D o c u m e n t s a n d D i r e c ti v e sDocuments and directives pyramid in both authority and time. Usually, each oneis written to define and establish controls for a part icular aspec t of experiment manage-ment, but they can int err ela te. Fo r example, the Apollo Stowage List , which wasrevi sed and distributed every 2 weeks, was used to identify al l loose equipment thecrew would handle during flight. Interface control documents were used to identify howeach piece of equipment w a s attached o r stowed in the vehicle; however, the scientif icand operational res ul ts desired for each mission were defined through the issuance ofprogram directives and the Mission Requirements Document.After an experiment proposal had been submitted, evaluated, and approved, theExperiment Implementation Plan (EIP) w a s written to present the experiment objectivesand the technical, engineering, operational, development, integration, and program-matic information in as complete detail as w a s available. Section I of the EIP containsa summary of the experiment, and sections 11, 111, and IV contain as complete adescription as possible of the experiment hardware and the purpose of that hardware.While the experiment w a s being developed, many deta ils could change fro m thosepresented i n the EIP; but any change to the basic objectives of the experiment had to beapproved by the MSFEB.Two categories of documentation were used during the development and implemen-tation of an experiment. One category was written to define the hardware needed fo rand the requirements of the experiment; the other category was written to develop andintegrate all mission requirements, including those affecting the experiment.The MSC document , he Apollo Applications Pr og ra m Experiment HardwareGeneral Requirements, describes the documentation used as a guide to develop experi-ment hardware (from an End-Item Specification, a document that precedes anydevelopment effort, to documents used to define prelaunch o r postrecovery te st s) anddefines the requirements that a Principal Investigator for the Skylab Prog ram had tomeet.The Experiment Requirements Document, which was prepared for each experi-ment, contains the program requirements imposed by the Principal Investigator. Inthe Skylab Program, the development of experiments w a s divided between two NASACenters, the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and MSC. This divisionof effort created some integration problems, in pa rt , because MSC and MSFC did notuse the same hardware requirements document.The FCOD was responsible for the preparation of seve ra l documents that orga-nized mission activities so that they could be performed in a logical, efficient, andsaf e manner by the flightcrew. The flight plan fo r each miss ion was writ ten to plan andpresent summary and detailed time-line information and complied with all spacecraftconstraints, mission objectives, mission ru le s, traj ecto ry documentation, and crewwork/rest cycles. A detailed description of flight planning for manned space operations

is presented i n reference 3 .f or lunar-surface extravehicular-activity (EVA) operations; these plans described theinterface between the crewmen and the equipment and documented how the lunar-surfacemission requirements would be met. The complete, onboard Flight Data File (FDF),

The Lunar Surface Pr oc ed ur es Document contained plans

4


10/19

which contained all experiment checklists and many other items, w a s the source offlight procedures information used by the crew. The FDF was supplemented by decalson the spacecraft work stations.Information concerning spacecraft configuration and mission requirements was

required , i n varying degrees, throughout the experiment-support cycle. This informa-tion included data and documentation such as result s of studies, data on the allocationof consumables, inter face control documents, systems handbooks, operationshandbooks, trajectory data, mission requirements and ru le s documents, and data onwindow optical proper ties. In addition to formal documents, such as those previouslymentioned, other significant information was contained in minutes of meet ings -meetings ranging from those of the MSFEB to those of ad hoc committees that wereestablished to review or confirm a spec ific detail of the mission.On6 documentation method that had limited use employed computers and multipleterminals to st or e, display, edit, schedule, and print out procedures. This methodha s great potential for controlling information that must be extremely accurate and

easily updated or changed.Training Equipment

Two types of train ing equipment are required f or developing experiment proce-du res and fo r training crewmen at MSC. One type includes all experiment-traininghardware. The other type includes spacecraft-vehicle mockups, t ra in er s, and simula-to rs normally developed fo r vehicle mission training and into which experiment -traininghardware is placed to cr eat e a reali stic training environment.Experiment-training hardware is representative of the flight hardware that is

built f o r each experiment. Several types of experiment-training hardware must beavailable to tr ain crews. Prototype equipment is used during most procedures training.Sometimes this equipment is called flight-type training hardware ; it must have theappearance of flight it em s and must work in all aspects that a r e apparent to thecrewmen in using thi s hardware. The equipment may be refurbished qualification-testhardware or production hardware that has been rejected because of minor imper fec-tions. Material may be substituted in thi s hardware o r inte rnal components may bedeleted fro m it i f such changes do not affect how the crew w i l l use or operate it; forinstance , the internal elec tronics of telemetry equipment, but not the controls anddisplays, may be deleted i f the training hardware will not be used to obtain crewbaseline data. Most of the training hardware weighs the sa me as the flight hardware;but, in some ca se s, the ma ss might be modified to simulate reduced gravity o r to makehandling of it practical i n one-g conditions. Personnel in the FCOD developed therequ ireme nts and wrote the specifications for experiment-training hardware. Thishardware normally is procured when the flight and backup hardware a r e purchased.

Other necessary experiment-training hardware includes envelope mockups,stowage mockups, engineering model/training mockups, wate r-immersion hardware,and spec ial-purpose equipment. An envelope mockup has the maximum package sizeof the flight hardware; however, this type of mockup is of such low fidelity that i t haslimited value for training. A stowage mockup is a dimensionally accurate model offlight stowage equipment. It is used t o evaluate flight stowage requirements and to5


11/19

ascert ain whether the crew can handle flight stowage it em s easily. Such a mockupshould be available at the Prel iminary Design Review of the experiment. Flight-configured controls and connectors and an accurate represen tation of displays shouldbe incorporated into the stowage mockups when their design is defined. Stowagemockups normally cannot be used during experiment procedures training; however,such mockups a r e required i n sufficient quantities to support stowage training in thevehicle and to maintain proper configuration of the vehicle when flight-type traininghardware is unavailable. Water-immersion hardware is used i n the water-immersionfacility (WIF) when zero-g conditions are being simulated. Water-immersion mockupsof experiment hardware a r e used with crew-sta tion mockups during W I F training. Theexperiment mockups used in a W I F must have proper connectors and mass and must beneutrally buoyant. Special-purpose equipment that is used fo r crew training includessuch item s as braces o r support fixtures; these it em s a r e not required during themission, but they a r e requi red for eithe r one-g training or during zero-g aircrafttraining flights.

The experiment-support personnel and the crewmen usually examine and opera tethe flight equipment at least once to confirm that the equipment being used i n trainingcorrectly represen ts the flight equipment. Flight equipment may be operated duringscheduled spacecraft checkouts, preinstallation acceptance tests, o r separate trainingsessions.

The training equipment developed for vehicle mission training (spacecraft-vehiclemockups, trainers , and simulators) will not be described in this report . Personnel a tMSC who were responsible for this training hardware 'ensured that it conformed to anyexperiment-required configuration changes. The se t of Skylab Pr og ra m so la r experi-ments, designated a s Apollo telescope mount experiments, had a simulator as complexas the simulators used fo r vehicle mission training. Le ss complex simulat ors usedfo r experiment training a r e common.

P r o g r a m Support S e r v i c e sThe effectiveness of crew-support act ivi ties depends on how well the experimentprogram is managed. Management requirements a t MSC include assigning clearlydefined responsibili ties, devising well-established operational procedures , establishingand maintaining critical activity schedules, and keeping communication channels open.The management structure has been revised several times, and various offices havebeen made responsible for cer tain management details . In the Skylab Pr ogr am, thePro gra m Office w a s the focal point for development, implementation, integration, anddelegation of subtasks relating to the experiments . This management organizationworks well fo r missions that a r e experiment oriented.In addition to experiment management support, personnel at MSC provide otherprogram services, such as the Mission Control Center (MCC) fac ili tie s and the supportof computer programs implemented by another directorate. Thi s aspect of experimentsupport, which is part of the real -time flight planning, is described in reference 3 .

6


12/19

DE SC RIP TIO N AND SEQUENCE OF A C T I V I T I E SCrew experiment-support activities fo r a manned space-flight program such asApollo and fo r each mission of the program a r e described in this section in thei r

approximate sequence.When the Apollo Pr og ra m was being conceived and during its early development,experiment requirements were analyzed and experiment capabilities were incorporated.These requirements and capabilit ies changed continuously. Major changes during theApollo Pr og ra m greatly affected the planning and support of experiments. Early in theprogram, a se r ie s of Earth and Moon orbital missions was planned in conjunction withmany experiments that would be conducted during those miss ions. Changes to thatser ie s of missions, with emphasis on achieving the ear li es t possible lunar landing,resulted i n the deletion or revision of experiments on the first missions. Thesechanges affected the development of the Apollo lunar surface experiments pack-

age (ALSEP). In March 1967, an FCOD office was created to establish andcoordinate al l operational requiremen ts and constraints of lunar-surface activities,including the luna r-surface experiments. Personnel assigned to this office developedcrew procedu res and crew training and conducted monthly meetings. During thesemeetings, all aspects of the lunar-surface activities were examined, discussed, anddeveloped, The results of these efforts were contained in minutes. This activityprobably should have started earlier to establish a balance between the capabilities ofthe mission and the complexity of the experiments. Fo r example, a complex ALSEPset was planned to be flown on the Apollo 11 mission, the f ir s t lunar-landing mission.This set was not changed officially until 7 months before the mission. At that time,the ALSEP set was replaced with a le ss complex set of experiments . Those experi-ments were less demanding in te rms of crew training and EVA operations. Thebiggest job facing the Apollo 11 crewmen was to land on the Moon and to re tu rn safelyto Earth, and luna r-su rface activities were relegated to a secondary role. Followingthe Apollo 11 mission, increasingly complex lunar-surf ace experiment activities wereconducted. In addition to the luna r-surface experiments, lunar-orbit experiments andphotographic activities have been conducted; those conducted on the Apollo 15 missionwere simi la r to those planned early in the program as the ma jor objectives of a missionthat did not include lunar landing.

The crew-support activities for each mission were conducted in four phases:development of hardware and procedures, flightcrew training, real-time support, andpostmission evaluation of re su lt s. Figure 1 represents a typical schedule as i t re la testo the major experiment-support data inputs and outputs for a mission. The number ofpersonnel and man-hours required to support these activities varied with each experi-ment and mission, but the trend was toward increasing support requirements. Forexample, luna r-su rface scientific experimentation increased on each successive Apollolunar-landing mission. Th is incr ease required mor e and more hours of training fo rlunar -surface activities .

7


13/19


14/19

D e v e l o p m e n t of H a r d w a r e a n d P r o c e d u r e sBefore crewmen were assigned to a flight, experiment-support personnelevaluated the feasib ility of each experiment, evaluated the design of the experimenthardware , developed experiment procedures , analyzed training requirements, and

integrated experiment requirement s into overall mission capabilities. During thi seffort, the mission definition, the list of assigned experiments, and many experimentdeta ils wer e usually not completely defined or may have been revised. Revisions ofexperiment procedures were routine as basic mission plans and experiment operationalrequirements became more definite.The operational aspects of each experiment were studied as soon as the experi-ment proposal became known. Then, th is study expanded in scope and often continueduntil shortly before lift-off. Personne l assigned to support the experiment attended theExperiment Requirements Review, experiment design reviews, and other ses sionsrel ated to the operation of the experiment and its integration into the vehicle, themission plan, and the time line. Proposed changes to the baseline hardware and to the

procedures relating to the experiment were prepared at MSC, and proposed changesfr om other so ur ce s were evaluated. The feasibility of the mission plan, including theexperiment requirements (as defined by the best available information), w a sreevaluated continually.Working sessions with Principal Investigators began after the mission w a stentatively defined and experiments were assigned to it . Prel iminary briefings, givenby the Pr inc ipa l Investigators, were designed to allow FCOD personnel to reviewexperiment material for validity and completeness, to help them understand theinteraction between experiment requirements and operational capabilities, and todetermine problem area s.Descrip tions of experiment equipment and information about operational proce-dures were obtained f rom sou rce documents, fu rther developed, then distributed. Inthe Apollo Pro gr am , the scientific objectives of the ALSEP, as well as i ts equipmentmakeup, sy st em s deployment, and operations , were contained in a familiarizationmanual writ ten by the ALSEP syst ems contractor. Similar information concerning

experiment equipment installed or integrated into the command and s erv ice module wascontained in the Apollo Operations Handbook prepared by the vehicle contracto r. Otherexperiment information w a s presented in documents supplied by experiment hardwarecontracto rs.

In the Skylab Pro gr am , the FCOD developed a more unified system of present ingexperiment information and controlling its format and content. This unified sys temhad three advantages. Fi rs t, the computer-stored preliminary operating procedurescould be updated readily and could be printed out at any time. Because these proce-du res became the source of the onboard checklists, only one data source had to beverified and controlled a t any time. Second, all scheduling constraints for each proce-dure we re placed into a data base in a standard forma t, and these constrain ts were usedto verify that ther e were no conflicts in the proposed time lines fo r that flight plan.Third, the preparation of experiment handbooks containing both equipment descriptionsand operating procedures by the group of people who were responsible for support ofcrew experiment activities helped to avoid discrepancies among training hardware,training operations, flight hardware, and flight procedures.

9


15/19

Vehicle mockup and trainer requirements that were experiment peculiar weredefined and incorporated so that these fac ilities could support experiment training ands o that experiment hardware could satisfy crew-station interface requirements.Preliminary experiment checklists a r e written by using information fr omexperiment-task analyses, available operational procedure materi al, sy st em s descrip-

tions, and appropriate inte rface data. These checklists first a r e verified duringexperiment hardware evaluations; then, during the crew- training period, they aredeveloped into an appropriate fo rm for the FDF.Crew-support personnel and/or crewmen evaluated experiments through the us eof mockups or flight-configured training equipment. Operational procedures, control-and-display configurations, physical operations, work area clearances, and crew fitand function were subjected first to bench-check evaluations. Later, evaluation ses-sions were conducted in t ra iner work sta tions and, i f necessary, includedreduced-gravity simulations.A detailed crew-tra ining plan was published. The plan contained al l requirements

of each experiment with re ga rd to time, type of training, faciliti es, equipment, andpersonnel. The plan also contained a schedule of those activit ies that made themcompatible with all other demands on crew time.The experiment operations were integrated into the mission plan so that flightplanners could establish compatibility between the requirements of the experiment andthe capabilit ies of the mission. Some mission/exper iment integration w a s performedwith the help of specially char tered groups. These groups were responsible fo r thedevelopment of a unified approach toward the use of several pieces of equipment s othat the equipment could be used fo r the achievement of multiple object ives . Integrationalso required considerable cooperation between the FCOD and other MSC groups,including the Science and Applications Directorate , the Flight Operations Directorate,

and the Progr am Office.Experiment-support personnel participated in reviews conducted by personnelfr om the offices responsible for the management of experimen ts and for the developmentof experiment hardware . Crew-support personnel studied the documentation generatedby these reviews and then submitted requests for changes that they thought werenecessar y to make the experiment hardware and its us e practic al i n relationship to theoperation of the mission. These reviews usually followed a schedule. First, aRequirements Review was held to establish the functional requirements of the experi -ment equipment and to define the support requirements that program personnel had toprovide to the Princ ipal Investigator. Secondly, a Prel iminary Design Review washeld to evaluate whether the proposed design w a s practical. Thirdly, a Criti cal Design

Review w a s held to evaluate the final design configuration. Fourth, an AcceptanceReview of the delivered equipment was conducted. Lastly, "delta" rev iews were heldto solve problems not resolved by the time the equipment was delivered.These premission activities were performed so that when the cr ew w a s selected,major operational experiment requi rements we re identified and all personnel wereprepared to train the crewmen. At this point, experiment requirements and crewtraining should have been subjected only to minor refinements or revisions as missiondetails became available; however, this ideal w a s never fully realized.

10


16/19

Apollo lunar-surface science w a s enhanced by several innovations that were madeduring the development of cre w procedures and training of the cr ews fo r extravehicularactivities. Four of the innovations were as follows. First, an abbreviated time linew a s printed on a unique cuff checklis t. This checklist w a s designed to be used by asuited crewman on the lunar surf ace. Secondly, tools, equipment ca rr ie rs , and tethe rswere developed to make tasks performed by the crewmen eas ie r and to increase theefficiency of the crewmen in gathering lunar samples. Thirdly, numerous proceduredeca ls were developed to supplement the cuff checklist. These decal s were attached atEVA work stat ions. Four thly, ground-based expert s monitored every step of thecrewmen during their lunar-surface extravehicular activities and helped them byreminding them of normal and contingency rea l-t ime procedures. Improvements indesign de tails of much of the lunar-sur face equipment were al so made as a re su lt ofdeficiencies disclosed during training sessions.

Flightcrew TrainingWhen crewmen were assigned to a mission, they received applicable documenta-tion, such as Experiment Operations Handbooks, checklist s, and training plans.Pert inent sections and revisions of these documents also were distributed to othergroups (such as the Pr incipal Investigators) to inform these groups of the st atus ofcrew training, the status of mission planning, and the sta tus of procedures rela ted tothe experiments.Briefings by the Principal Investigators, hardware contractors , and experimentsystems instructors were conducted early in the training of the crewmen. The firsttime the Principal Investigator briefed the crewmen, he explained the scientific basi sof the experiment and normally included a description of the experiment objectives, adescript ion of the experiment hardware, and an explanation of what task s the crewmen

would per form for that experiment. After the crewmen had operated the traininghardware i n training sess ions, additional briefings were scheduled as required toclarify experiment objectives o r operational peculiarities.During the crew-training period, a training coordinator prepared a day-by-daytraining schedule for all crewmembers. This schedule w a s updated weekly. The crewexperiment training was conducted o r monitored by experiment-support personnel, alogbook of training status w a s kept, and the original crew-training plan w a s revised asexperience showed the need for change. In addition to training on each experiment,the crewmen also received experiment training by participating in spacecraft crew-station revie ws, stowage reviews, spacecraft systems/vehicle te st s, planetariumtraining, and geology field trips . In the las t weeks before lift-off, the crewmen trainedprimarily on the most demanding tasks , such as the extravehicular activities. At thistime, their checklists and training hardware had to accurately represent the flightversions.Training with the flight-configured hardware in conditions closely simulatingflight often revealed problems that were not evident when the hardware w a s beingdeveloped. These problems were solved either by changes to procedures or by changesto the flight hardware. During crew training, p articu lar attention was given tospace craft housekeeping. Probl ems during space flight, such as losing a loose item

11


17/19

through an open hatch or merely having too many unstowed ite ms in the spacecraftcabin in zero-g conditions, proved that final training exercis es must be painstaking.Experiment procedures were refined as training experience was gained and asrevisions of mission deta ils, experiment requirements, or experiment hardware weremade. Contingency procedures were developed as pa rt of the iteration process involvedin the development of experiment operations.After crew-support personnel established the forma t and prepared the contentof the onboard experiment checklists and logbooks, flight it em s were fabricated. Thesepersonnel also helped prepare mission ru le s and mission requirements and suppliedinformation concerning the scheduling constraints the crewmen had imposed.Real-time support of experiments w a s planned in parallel with crew-t rainingses sions. Requirements for the configuration of consoles, the us e of computerpro grams, and the assignment of experiment-support personnel were implemented.Several months before lift-off, crew training in mission simulators was integratedinto mission simulations conducted in the MCC. During these simulations, theexperiment-support personnel participated in the scheduling and conduct of c rewsequences that verified adequacy of the total mission support.

Rea l - T i m e SupportReal-time experiment support for the flightcrews vari ed with the complexity ofan experiment. Crew procedures may have been simple, o r experiment operation mayhave been so minimal that crew reports were not required; conversely, an experimentmay have required precisely programed, real-t ime computer support. Usually, theground-support team continuously evaluated the mission, spacecraf t, experiments, andcrew sta tus and constraints so that detailed 24-hour projections of the flight plan andupdate messages fo r the crewmen could be prepared. In addition to these routineduties, experiment procedures s pecia lists and all other member s of the ground-support

team had to be prepared to supply answers as quickly as possible when hardware orprocedural problems were experienced. During special mission phases such as EVA,highly specialized exper ts supported the ground-based team in the MCC.

P o s t m i s s i o n Evaluation of ResultsThe postflight act ivi ties of the crewmen were defined in a postflight crewdebriefing plan. This plan included requirements for experiment debriefing.During the fi rs t days after recovery , the crewmen performed a self-debriefing,which was quickly transcribed and distributed to Principal Investigators and other

per sons immediately concerned with the comments of the crewmen about missionevents. These transcript s helped these persons pre pa re fo r la te r debriefings of thecrewmen.

12


18/19

An experiment debriefing was held approximately 9 days after recovery. Theprimary objective of this debriefing was to permit each experimenter who had arequirement for additional data or clarification to question the crewmen.The crewmen and crew-support personnel were not involved directly i n theevaluation of the experiment data; however, they did prepare that par t of the postflight

documentation concerned with crew procedures and observations. The experiment-support personnel a lso assi sted in the postmission evaluation of how the experimentswere conducted.

CONCLUD I G R E M A R K SIn manned space flights, the capability to support experiment operations and toaccomplish experiment objectives successfully has become nearly e r ro r free. Theintegration of experiments into manned space missions is a complex endeavor thatrequires a well-organized management structure, a program plan, and an experiment

management office that is well organized so that inte rface requirements of otherfunctional element s for s ery ices, material, and information can be identified specifi-cally. The experiment development activities for a mission and, in part icula r, thetraining of the crewmen are rigorously time constrained. One essential element inmanned space-flight experiments is a cadre of personnel specifically and continuouslyinvolved in all aspect s of crew support of experiment operations, including the designof the experiment hardware, the proper consideration of the spacecraf t and missionconstraints, the content of the experiment procedures, the crew training, and thereal-t ime ground support of the conduct of exper iments.

Lyndon B. Johnson Space CenterNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationHouston, Texas, June 17, 1974956-23-00-00-72

REFERENCES1. Anon. : Special Inflight Experiments. Sec. 12 of Mercury Projec t Summary,Including Results of the Fourth Manned Orbital Flight, May 15-16, 1963.

NASA SP-45, 1963.2. Anon. : G e m i n i Experiments Pr og ra m Summary. Sec. 17 of Gemini SummaryConference. NASA SP-138, 1967.3. O'Neill, John W. Cotter, J . B. ; and Holloway, T. W . : Apollo ExperienceReport: Flight Planning fo r Manned Space Operations. NASA TN D-6973, 1972.

NASA-Langley, 1974 S-403 13


19/19

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMlN ISTRATIONWASHINGTON. D.C. PO 54 6

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE US E ssoo SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

BOOK

POSTAGE AND FEES P A I DNATIO NAL AERONAUTICS AN D

SPACL ADMINISTRAT ION481

maTYdaTIDB: If Undeliverable (section 168Pontal Mandnl) Not Beturn

'The aeronautical and sQace activities of the United States shdi beconducted so as t o contribute . . . o the exQansion of human know!-edge of Qhsnomsna in the atmosphere and space. The Adminisstationshall provide for the widest practicable and aQQroQriatedissminatiorrof information concernitag its activities md the results thereof."-NATIONAL ABRONAUTICSND SPACE ACT OF 1958NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and ,technical information considered important,complete, and a lasting contribution to existingknowledge.TECHNICAL NOTES: nformation less broadin scope but nevertheless of importance as acontribution to existing knowledge.TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS:Information receiving limited distributionbecause of preliminary data, security classifica-tion, or other reasons. Also includes conferenceproceedings with either limited or unlimiteddistribution.CONT RACTO R REPORTS: Scientific andtechnical information generated under a NASAcontract or grant and considered an importantmaaibution to existing knowledge.

TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Informationpublished in a foreign language consideredto merit NASA distribution in English.SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Informationderived from or of value to NASA activities.Publications indud e fin d reports of majorprojects, monographs, data com pilations,handbooks, sourcebooks, and specialbibliographies.TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATIONPUBLICATIONS: Information on technologyused by NASA that may be of particularinterest in commercial and other- non-aerospaceapplications. Publications indude Ted, Briefs,Techndogy Utilization Reports andTechnology Surveys.

Dotails on th o availabil i ty of rhos. publications may bo obtained from:SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION OFFICE

N A T I O N A L A E R O N A U T I C S A N D S P A CE A D M I N I S T R A T I O NWashington, D.C. 20546