m

REPORT OF
APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD

C:QLOR ILLUSTRATIONS REPRODUCE_g,

IN BLACK AND WHITE

NT0-_g:
(_C_S'SI_ NUMBERL. - (THRU)

200 - "
(CODE)
..o - (PA?ES)/'_"'_A
-7-TqX-_2 z-/u
(CATEGORY)
._ (NASACRORTMXORADNUMBER)

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

REPRODUCED
BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U. S. DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE
\\ • SPRINGFIELD,VA. 22161

ILl ]t L
 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD

June 15, 1970

The Honorable Thomas O. Paine

Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D.C. 20546

Dear Dr. Paine:

Pursuant to your directives of April 17 and April 21, 1970, I am

transmitting the final Report of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Concurrent with this transmittal, I have recessed the Board, subject

to call.

We plan to reconvene later this year when most of the remaining

special tests have been completed, in order to review the results
of these tests to determine whether any modifications to our
findings, determinations, or recommendations are necessary. In
addition, we will stand ready to reconvene at your request.

Sincerely yours,

Edgar M. Cortright
Chairman
°

This page left blank intentionally.

ii
 PREFACE

The Apollo 13 accident, which aborted man's third mission to explore

the surface of the Moon, is a harsh reminder of the immensedifficulty
of this undertaking.

The total Apollo system of ground complexes, launch vehicle, and

spacecraft constitutes the most ambitious and demandingengineering
development ever undertaken by man. For these missions to succeed, both
men and equipment must perform to near perfection. That this system has
already resulted in two successful lunar surface explorations is a tribute
to those menand womenwho conceived, designed, built, and flew it.

Perfection is not only difficult to achieve, but difficult to main-

tain. The imperfection in Apollo 13 constituted a near disaster, averted
only by outstanding performance on the part of the crew and the ground
control team which supported them.

The Apollo 13 Review Board was charged with the responsibilities

of reviewing the circumstances surrounding the accident, of establishing
the probable causes of the accident, of assessing the effectiveness of
flight recovery actions, of reporting these findings, and of developing
recommendations for corrective or other actions. The Board has made
every effort to carry out its assignment in a thorough, objective, and
impartial manner. In doing so, the Board madeeffective use of the
failure analyses and corrective action studies carried out by the Manned
Spacecraft Center and was very impressed with the dedication and objec-
tivity of this effort.

The Board feels that the nature of the Apollo 13 equipment failure
holds important lessons which, when applied to future missions, will
contribute to the safety and effectiveness of mannedspace flight.

ii
This page left blank intentionally.

iv
 g gear I hatch steerableantenna

ladder 3USradar antenna ental

control control system
system Command Module radiator
quad crew compartment
platforrr
steerable
power high gain antenna
inflight systemradiators
antenna reactioncontrol
(2) systemquad

extension
r

LM descent
engine

r_ II1!

Docking Aft heatshield

VHF windows

Docking combinedtunnel hatch

LM overhead hatch

bLunar moduledescentstage@Lunar moduleascent stage@Comrrand module-_.

Service module
.I
Apollo 13 space vehicle configuration.
r=.
CSM in ground test with bay 4 panel removed.

_V
Inflight photograph of service module showing damageto bay 4.

V
This page left blank intentionally.

viii
 TABLEOF CONTENTS

Page
LETTEROF TRANSMITTAL

PREFACE............................ iii

TABLEOF CONTENTS....................... ix

CHAPTER
i - AUTHORITIES

Memorandum,April 17, 1970, from Administrator and

Deputy Administrator to Mr. Edgar M. Cortright ...... i-i

Memorandum,April 21, 1970, from Administrator and

Deputy Administrator to Mr. Edgar M. Cortright ...... I-4

Memorandum,April 20, 1970, from Administrator and

Deputy Administrator to Dr. Charles D. Harrington,
Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel ......... 1-6

Memorandum,April 20, 1970, from Administrator to

Mr. Dale D. Myers, Associate Administrator for
MannedSpaceFlight .................... 1-7

NASAManagementInstruction 8621.1, Subject:

Mission Failure Investigation Policy and Procedures,
April 14, 1966 ...................... i-8

NASAManagementInstruction 1156.14, Subject:

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, December7, 1967 ..... i-i0

CHAPTER
2 - BOARD
HISTORY
ANDPROCEDURES

Part i. Summaryof Board History and Procedures • • • . . , 2-1

Part 2. Biography of Board Members, Observers, and

Panel Chairmen • . • . . • , • . , • • • , • . • , • 2-3
Part 3. Board Organization and General Assignments
for Board Panels
• • • • , . • • • . , • • • , • • •

Part 4. Summary of Board Activities

 Page

CHAPTER 3 - DESCRIPTION OF APOLLO 13 SPACE VEHICLE AND MISSION

Part i. Apollo/Saturn V Space Vehicle .......... 3-2

Part 2. Apollo 13 Mission Description .......... 3-26

CHAPTER 4 - REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF APOLLO 13 ACCIDENT

Part i. Introduction .................. 4-1

Part 2. Oxygen Tank No. History ............. 4-2

Part 3. Apollo 13 Flight ................ 4-25

Part 4. Surm_ary Analysis of the Accident ........ 4-36

Part 5. Apollo 13 Recovery ............... 4-44

CHAPTER 5 - FINDINGS, DETERMINATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Part i. Introduction ................. 5-1

Part 2. Assessment of Accident ............. 5-5

Part 3. Supporting Considerations ............ 5-12

Part 4. Recommendations ................. 5-40

APPENDIX A - BASELINE DATA: APOLLO 13 FLIGHT SYSTEMS AND OPEBATIONS

APPENDIX B - REPORT OF MISSION EVENTS PANEL

APPENDIX C - REPORT OF MANUFAC_JRING AND TEST PANEL

APPENDIX D - REPORT OF DESIGN PANEL

APPENDIX E - REPORT OF PROJECT _G_NT PANEL

APPENDIX F - SPECIAL TESTS AND ANALYSES

APPENDIX G - BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE PRODECURES

APPENDIX H - BOkRD RELEASES AND PRESS STATEMEntS

II
 CHAPTER i

AUTHORITIES

l-O

N N- N _ L E. E L l_ li
°
 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
_iBI l_- _
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

April 17, 1970

TO : Mr. Edgar M. Cortright

SUBJECT : Establishment of Apollo 13 Review Board

REFERENCES: (a) NMI 8621.1 - Mission Failure Investigation Policy

and Procedures

(b) NMI 1156.14 - Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

i. It is NASA policy as stated in Reference (a) "to investigate and

document the causes of all major mission failures which occur in the
conduct of its space and aeronautical activities and to take appropriate
corrective actions as a result of the findings and recommendations."

2. Because of the serious nature of the accident of the Apollo 13 space-

craft which jeopardized human life and caused failure of the Apollo 13
lunar mission, we hereby establish the Apollo 13 Review Board (hereinafter
referred to as the Board) and appoint you Chairman. The members of the
Board will be qualified senior individuals from NASA and other Govern-
ment agencies. After consultation with you, we will:

(a) Appoint the members of the Board and make any subsequent changes
necessary for the effective operation of the Board; and

(b) Arrange for timely release of information on the operations,

findings, and recommendations of the Board to the Congress, and, through
the NASA Office of Public Affairs, to the public. The Board will report
its findings and recommendations directly to us.

3. The Board will:

(a) Review the circumstances surrounding the accident to the space-

craft which occurred during the flight of Apollo 13 and the subsequent
flight and ground actions taken to recover, in order to establish the
probable cause or causes of the accident and assess the effectiveness
of the recovery actions.

(b) Review all factors relating to the accident and recovery actions
the Board determines to be significant and relevant, including studies,
findings, recommendations, and other actions that have been or may be
undertaken by the program offices, field centers, and contractors
involved.

i-i
 (c) Direct such further specific investigations as may be necessary.

(d) Report as soon as possible its findings relating to the cause or

causes of the accident and the effectiveness of the flight and ground
recovery actions.

(e) Develop recommendations for corrective or other actions, based

upon its findings and determinations or conclusions derived therefrom.

(f) Document its findings, determinations, and recommendations and

submit a final report.

4. As Chairman of the Board you are delegated the following powers:

(a) To establish such procedures for the organization and operation

of the Board as you find most effective; such procedures shall be part
of the Board's records. The procedures shall be furnished the Aerospace
Safety Advisory Panel for its review and comment.

(b) To establish procedures to assure the execution of your

responsibilities in your absence.

(e) To designate such representatives, consultants, experts, liaison

officers, observers, or other individuals as required to support the
activities of the Board. You shall define their duties and responsi-
bilities as part of the Board's records.

(d) To keep us advised periodically concerning the organization,

procedures, operations of the Board and its associated activities.

5. By separate action we are requesting the Aerospace Safety Advisory

Panel established by Reference (b) to review both the procedures and
findings of the Board and submit its independent report to us.

6. By separate action we are directing the Associate Administrator for

Manned Space Flight to:

(a) Assure that all elements of the Office of Manned Space Flight
cooperate fully with the Board and provide records, data, and technical
support as requested.

(b) Undertake through the regular OMSF organization such reviews,

studies, and supporting actions as are required to develop recommenda-
tions to us on corrective measures to be taken prior to the Apollo 14
mission with respect to hardware, operational procedures, and other
aspects of the Apollo program.

i-2
7. All elements of NASA will cooperate with the Board and provide full
support within their areas of responsibility.

George M. Low
Deputy Administrator T.O. Paine
Administrator

z-3
 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
i:<¸
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR April 21, 1970

TO : Mr. Edgar M. Cortright

SUBJECT : Membership of Apollo 13 Review Board

Reference: Memorandum to you of April 17, subject: Establishment of

Apollo 13 Review Board

In accordance with paragraph 2(a) of Reference (a), the membership of

the Apollo 13 Review Board is established as follows:

Members:

Mr. Edgar M. Cortright, Chairman (Director, Langley Research Center)

Mr. Robert F. Allnutt (Assistant to the Administrator, NASA Hqs.)
Mr. Neil Armstrong (Astronaut, Manned Spacecraft Center)
Dr. John F. Clark (Director, Goddard Space Flight Center)
Brig. General Walter R. Hedrick, Jr. (Director of Space, DCS/R&D,
Hqs., USAF)
Mr. Vincent L. Johnson (Deputy Associate Administrator-Engineering,
Office of Space Science and Applications)
Mr. Milton Klein (Manager, AEC-NASA Space Nuclear Propulsion Office)
Dr. Hans M. Mark (Director, Ames Research Center)

Counsel:

Mr. George Malley (Chief Counsel, Langley Research Center)

0MSF Technical Support:

Mr. Charles W. Mathews (Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of

Manned Space Flight)

Observers:

Mr. William A. Anders (Executive Secretary, National Aeronautics

and Space Council)
 Dr. CharlesD. Harrington (Chairman,NASAAerospaceSafety
Advisory Panel)
Mr. I. I. Pinkel (Director, AerospaceSafety Researchand
Data Institute, Lewis ResearchCenter)
Congressional Liaison:

Mr. Gerald J. Mossinghoff (Office of Legislative Affairs, NASA Hqs.

Public Affairs Liaison:

Mr. Brian Duff (Public Affairs Officer, Manned Spacecraft Center)

In accordance with applicable NASA instruction, you are authorized to

appoint such experts and additional consultants as are required for
the effective operations of the Board.

George M. Low T. O. Paine

Deputy Administrator Administrator

1-5

Ll 11 L: L_ L L
 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546

April 20, 1970

OFFIC r OF" THE ADMINISTRATOR

TO Dr. Charles D. Harrington

Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

SUBJECT : Review of Procedures and Findings of Apollo 13 Review Board

Attachment: (a) Memorandum dated April 17, 1970, to Mr. Edgar M.

Cortright, subject: Establishment of Apollo 13
Review Board

References: (a) Section 6, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Authorization Act, 1968

(b) NMI 1156.14 - Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

i. In accordance with References (a) and (b), the Aerospace Safety

Advisory Panel (hereafter referred to as the Panel) is requested to
review the procedures and findings of the Apollo 13 Review Board (here-
after referred to as the Board) established by Attachment (a).

2. The procedures established by the Board will be made available to the

Panel for review and comment as provided in paragraph 4(a) of Attachment (a).

3. As Chairman of the Panel, you are designated an Observer on the Board.

In this capacity, you, or another member of the Panel designated by you,
are authorized to be present at those regular meetings of the Board you
desire to attend. You are also authorized to receive oral progress re-
ports from the Chairman of the Board or his designee from time to time to
enable you to keep the Panel fully informed on the work of the Board.

4. The final report and any interim reports of the Board will be made
available promptly to the Panel for its review.

5. The Panel is requested to report to us on the procedures and findings

of the Board at such times and in such form as you consider appropriate,
but no later than i0 days after the submission to us of the final report
of the Board.

George M. Low T. O. Paine

Deputy Administrator Administrator

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Edgar M. Cortright, Chairman, Apollo 13 Review Board

M/Mr. Dale Myers

i-6
 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20546

April 20, 1970

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

TO Mr. Dale D. Myers

Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight

SUBJECT : Apollo 13 Review

References: (a) Memorandum dated April 17, 1970, to Mr. Edgar M.

Cortright, subject: Establishment of Apollo 13
Review Board

(b) Memorandum dated April 20, 1970, to Dr. Charles

D. Harrington, subject: Review of Procedures
and Findings of Apollo 13 Review Board

i. As indicated in paragraph 6 of Reference (a), you are directed to:

(a) Assure that all elements of the Office of Manned Space

Flight cooperate fully with the Board in providing records,
data, and technical support as requested.

(b) Undertake through the regular OMSF organization such reviews,

studies, and supporting actions as are required to develop
timely recommendations to us on corrective measures to be
taken prior to the Apollo 14 mission with respect to hard-
ware, operational procedures, flight crews, and other aspects
of the Apollo program.

2. The recommendations referred to in paragraph l(b) above should be

submitted to us in such form and at such time as you deem appropriate,
but a report should be submitted no later than ten days after the
Apollo 13 Review Board submits its final report.

3. The assignments to the Apollo 13 Review Board and to the Aero-

space Safety Advisory Panel by References (a) and (b), respectively,
in no way relieve you of your continuing full responsibility for the
conduct of the Apollo and other OMSF programs.

Deputy Administrator Administrator

cc: Mr. Edgar M. Cortright, Chairman, Apollo 13 Review Board

Mr. Charles D. Harrington, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

I-7

L L E 12 L I: L L,: L.; n n Li n L ,
 NMI 862 i. i

April 14, 1966

_ec_h,e dc#e

Management
Instruction
SUBJECT: MISSION FAILURE INVESTIGATION POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Io P_P_E

This Instruction establishes the policy and procedures for investigating

and documenting the causes of all major mission failures which occur in the
conduct of NASA space and aeronautical activities.

2. APPLICABILITY

This Instruction is applicable to NASA Headquarters and field installations.

3. DEFINITION

For the purpose of this Instruction, the following term shall apply:

In general, a failure is defined as not achieving a major mission

objective.

POLICY

a°
It is NASA policy to investigate and document the causes of all major
mission failures which occur in the conduct of its space and aeronau-
tical activities and to take appropriate corrective actions as a
result of the findings and recommendations.

b,
The Deputy Administrator may conduct independent investigations
of major failures in addition to those investigations required of
the Officlals-ln-Charge of Headquarters Program Offices as set
forth in paragraph 5a.

5. PROCEDURES

a. Officials-in-Charge of Headquarters Program Offices are responsible,

within their assigned areas, for:

(l) Informing promptly the Deputy Administrator of each major

failure and apprising him of the nature of the failure, status
of investigations, and corrective or other actions which are
or will be taken.

1-8
NMI 8621.1 April 14, 1966

(2) Determining the causes or probable causes of all failures,

taking corrective or other actions, and submitting written
reports of such determinations and actions to the Deputy
Administrator.

Do
When the Deputy Administrator decides to conduct an independent
investigation, he will:

(i) Establish a (name of project) Review Board, comprised of appro-

priate NASA officials;

(2) Define the specific responsibilities of each Board, encompassing

such tasks as:

(a) Reviewing the findings, determinations and corrective or

other actions which have been developed by contractors,
field installations and the Official-in-Charge of cognizant
Headquarters Program Office and presenting the Board's
conclusions as to their adequacy to the Deputy Administrator.

(b) Reviewing the findings during the course of investigations

with cognizant field installation and Headquarters officials.

(c) Recommending such additional steps (for example additional

tests) as are considered desirable, to determine the techni-
cal and operational causes or probable causes of failure,
and to obtain evidence of nontechnical contributing factors.

(d) Developing recommendations for corrective and other actions,

based on all information available to the Board.

(e) Doc_nenting findings, determinations and recommendations

for corrective or other actions and submitting such documen-
tation to the Deputy Administrator.

c. Procedures for implementing the Board's reco_mnendations shall be

determined by the Deputy Administrator.

6. CANCELLATION

NASA Management Manual Instruction 4-1-7 (T.S. 760), March 24, 1964.

Deputy Administrator

DISTRIBUTION:
SDL I

1-9

L I/ E L L '
 N_ n>6._4

December 7, 1967
C'ffectiv¢dole

Management
Instruction
SUBJECT: AEROSPACE SAFETY ADVISORY PANEL

i. PURPOSE

This Instruction sets forth the authority for, and the

duties, procedures, organization, and support of the
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.

2. AUTHORITY

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (hereafter called the

"Panel") was established under Section 6 of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act,
1968 (PL 90-67, 90th Congress, 81 Stat. 168, 170). Since
the Panel was established by statute, its formation and
use are not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
ll007 or of NMI 1150.2, except to the extent that such
provisions are made applicable to the Panel under tflis
Instruction•

3. DUTIES

aB The duties of the Panel are set forth in Section 6

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act, 1968, as follows:

"The Panel shall review safety studies and

operations plans referred to it and s_all
make reports thereon, shall advise the
Administrator with respect to the hazards
of proposed or existing facilities and pro-
posed operations and with respect to the
adequacy of proposed or existing safety
standards, and shall perform such other
duties as the Administrator may request."

b • Pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties, the

Panel will review, evaluate, and advise on all
elements of NASA's safety system, including
especially the industrial safety, systems safety,

1-10
 NMI1156.14 December
7, 1967

and public safety activities, and the managementof

these activities. These key elements of NASA's
safety system are identified and delineated as follows:
(1) Industrial Safety. This element includes those
activities which, on a continuing basis, provide
protection for the well being of personnel and
prevention of damage to property involved in NASA's
business and exposed to potential hazards
associated with carrying out this business.
Industrial safety relates especially to the
operation of facilities in the many programs of
research, development, manufacture, test, opera-
tion, and maintenance. Industrial safety
activities include, but are not limited to, such
functions as:

(a) Determination of industrial safety criteria.

(b) Establishment and implementation of safety

standards and procedures for operation and
maintenance of facilities, especially test
and hazardous environment facilities.

(c) Development of safety requirements for the

design of new facilities.

(d) Establishment and implementation of safety

standards and procedures for operation of
program support and administrative aircraft.

(2) Systems Safety. This element includes those

activities specifically organized to deal with the
potential hazards of complex R&D systems that
involve many highly specialized areas of tech-
nology. It places particular emphasis on
achieving safe operation of these systems over
their life cycles, and it covers major systems
for aeronautical and space flight activities,
manned or unmanned, including associated ground-
based research, development, manufacturing, and
test activities. Systems safety activities
include, but are not limited to, such functions
as:

(a) Determination of systems safety criteria,

including criteria for crew safety.

(b) Determination of safety data requirements.

(C) Performance of systems safety analyses.

1-11

ILl II ]J E L E L L l_ I_ L: A: _ n n m n L ' ,__

_cember 7, 1967 NMI i156.14

(d) Establishment and implementation of systems

safety plans.

(3) Public Safety. This element includes those

activities which, on a continuing basis, provide
protection for the well being of people and
prevention of damage to property not involved in
_ASA's business, but which may nevertheless be
exposed to potential hazards associated with carry-
in_ out this business. Public safety activities
include, but are not limited to, such functions as:

(a) Determination of public safety criteria.

(b) Establishment and control of public safety

hazards associated with facility and systems
tests and operations.

(c) Establishment and implementation, as required,

of emergency or catastrophe control plans.

(4) Safety Management. This element includes both the

program and functional organizations of NASA and
its contractors involved in the identification of
potential hazards and their elimination or control
as set forth in the foregoing description of
safety activities. It also includes the management
systems for planning, implementing, coordinating,
and controlling these activities. These management
systems include, but are not limited to, the
following:

(a) The authorities, responsibilities, and working

relationships of the organizations involved
in safety activities, and the assessment of
their effectiveness.

(b) The procedures for insuring the currency and

continuity of safety activities, especially
systems safety activities which may extend
over long periods of time and where manage-
ment responsibilities are transferred during
the life cycles of the systems.

(c) The plans and procedures for accident/Incident

investigations, including those for the follow-
up on corrective actions and the feedback of
accident/Incident information to other
involved or interested organizations.

(d) The analysis and dissemination of safety data.

1-12
NMI 1156.14 December 7, 1967

• PROCEDURES

a• The Panel will function in an advisory capacity to the

Administrator, and, through him, to those organizational
elements responsible for management of the NASA safety
activities.

b, The Panel will be provided with all information required

to Uischarge its advisory responsibilities as they
pertain to both NASA and its contractors' safety
activities. This information will be made available
through the mechanism of appropriate reports, and by
means of in situ reviews of safety activities at the
various NASA and contractor sites, as deemed necessary
by the Panel and arranged through the Administrator.
The Panel will thus be enabled to examine and evaluate
not only the general status of the NASA safety system,
but also the key elements of the _lanned and on-going
activities in this system.

• ORGANIZATION

a. [!embership

(l) The Panel will consist of a maximum of nine members,

who will be appointed by the Administrator.
Appointments will be for a term of six years,
except that, in order to provide continuity of
membership, one-third of the members appointed
originally to the Panel will be appointed for a
term of two years, one-third for a term of four
years, and one-third for a term of six years•

(2) Not more than four members of the Panel shall be

employees of NASA, nor shall such NASA members
constitute a majority of the composition of the
Panel at any given time.

(3) Compensation and travel allowances for Panel

members shall be as specified in Section 6 of the
NASA Authorizatfon Act, 1968.

b. Officers

(I) The Officers of the Panel shall be a Chairman and

a Vice Chairman, who shall be selected by the Panel
from their membership to serve for one-year terms.

(2) The Chairman, or Vice Chairman in his absence,

shall preside at all meetings of the Panel and shall
have the usual powers of a presiding officer.

1-13
December 7, 1967 NMI I156.14

Co Committees

(z) The Panel is authorized to establish special

committees, as necessary and as approved by the
Administrator, to carry out specified tasks within
the scope of duties cf the Panel.

(2) All such cc_:_mittee activities will be considered

an inseparable extension of Panel activities, and
will be in accordance with all applicable pro-
cedures and regulations set forth in this
Instruction.

(3) The Chairman of each special committee shall be a

member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. The
other committee members may or may not be members
of the Panel, as recommended by the Panel and
approved by the Administrator.

(4) Appointment of Panel members to committees as

officers or members will be either for one year,
for the duration of their term as Panel members, or
for the lifetime of the committee, whichever is the
shortest. Appointments of non-Panel members to
committees will be for a period of one year or for
the lifetime of the committee, whichever is shorter.

(5) Compensation and travel allowances for committee

members who are not members of the Panel'shall be
the same as for members of the Panel itself, except
that compensation for such committee members
appointed from outside the Federal Government shall
be at the rate prescribed by the Administrator for
comparable services.

dQ
Meetings

(l) Regular meetings of the Panel will be held as often

as necessary and at least twice a_ar. One meeting
each year shall be an Annual Meeting. Business
conducted at this meeting will include selecting
the Chairman and the Fice Chairman of the Panel,
recommending new committees and committee members
as required or desired, approving the Panel's
annual report to the Administrator, and such other
business as may be required.

(2) Special meetings of the Panel may be called by the

Chairman, by notice served personally upon or by
mall or telegraph to the usual address of each
member at least five days prior to the meeting.

1-14
-" NMI 1156.14 December 7, 1967

(3) Special meetings shall be called in the same

manner by the Chairman, upon the written request
of three members of the Panel.

(4) If practicable, the object of a special meeting

should be sent in writing to all members, and if
possible a special meeting should be avoided by
obtaining the views of members by mail or otherwise,
both on the question requiring the meeting and on
the question of calling a special meeting.

(5) All meetings of special committees will be called

by their respective qhairmen pursuant to and in
accordance with performing their specified tasks.

(6) Minutes of all meetings of the Panel, and of special

committees established by the Panel, will be kept.
Such minutes shall, at a minimum, contain a record
of persons present, a description of matters dis-
cussed and conclusions reached, and copies of all
reports received, issued, or approved by the Panel
or committee. The accuracy of all minutes will be
certified to by the Chairman of the Panel (or by
the Vice Chairman in his absence) or of the
committee.

e. Reports and Records

(1) The Panel shall submit an annual report to the

Administrator.

(2) The Panel will submit to the Administrator reports

on all safety reviews and evaluations with comments
and recommendations as deemed appropriate by the
Panel.

(3) All records and files of the Panel, including

agendas, minutes of Panel and committee meetings,
studies, analyses, reports, or other data compila-
tions or work papers, made available to or
prepared by or for the Panel, will be retained by
the Panel.

f. Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest

(l) Nongovernmental members of the Panel, and of

special committees establishea by the Panel, are
"Special Government Employees" within the meaning
of NHB 1900.2A, which sets forth guidance to NASA
Special Government Employees resarding the
avoidance of conflicts of interest and the
observance of ethical standards of conduct. A

1"19
_ceaber 7, i_? _ 1156.14

copy of NHB 1900.2A and related NASA instructions

on conflicts of interest will be furnished to each
Panel or committee member at the time of his
appointment as a NASA consultant or expert.

(2) Nongovernmental members of the Panel or a soecial

committee will submit a "NASA Special Government
Employees Confidential Statement of Employment
and Financial Interests" (NASA Form 1271) prior to
participating in the activities of the Panel or a
special committee.

. SUPPORT

a.
A staff, to be comprised of full-time NASA employees,
shall be established to support the Panel. The members
of this staff will be fully responsive to direction from
the Chairman or t_e Fanel.

be
The director of this staff will serve as Executive
Secretary to the Panel. The Executive Secretary of the
Panel, in accordance with the specific instructions from
the Chairman of the Panel, shall:

(1) Administer the affairs of the Panel and have general

supervision of all arrangements for safety reviews
and evaluations, and other matters undertaken by
the Panel.

(2) Insure that a written record is kept of all

transactions, and submit the same to the Panel for
approval at each subsequent meeting.

(3) Insure that the same service is provided for all

special committees of the Panel.

trator

CFR Title i_, Chapter 5, Subpart 1209.5.

1-16
 CHAPTER
2

BOARD
HISTORY
ANDPROCEDURES

Z-O
 PART i. SUMMARY OF BOARD HISTORY AND PROCEDURES

The Apollo 13 Review Board was established on April 17, 1970, by

the NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator under the authority of
NASA Management Instruction 8621.1, dated April 14, 1966. In the letter
establishing the Board, Mr. Edgar M. Cortright, Director of Langley
Research Center, was appointed as Chairman and the general responsibili-
ties of the Board were set forth. The seven additional members of the
Board were named in a letter from the Administrator and the Deputy
Administrator to the Chairman, dated April 21, 1970. This letter also
designated a Manned Space Flight Technical Support official, a Counsel
to the Board, several other supporting officials, and several observers
from various organizations. In addition, in a letter dated April 20,
1970, to Dr. Charles D. Harrington, Chairman of the NASA Aerospace
Safety Advisory Panel, that Panel was requested to review the Board's
procedures and findings.

The Review Board convened at the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston,

Texas, on Tuesday, April 21, 1970. Four Panels of the Board were formed,
each under the overview of a member of the Board. Each of the Panels
was chaired by a senior official experienced in the area of review
assigned to the Panel. In addition, each Panel was manned by a number
of specialists, thereby providing a nucleus of expertise for the review
activity. During the period of the Board's review activities, the
Chairmen of the four Panels were responsible for the conduct of evalua-
tions, analyses, and other studies bearing on their Panel assignments,
for preparing preliminary findings and recommendations, and for developing
other information for the Board's consideration. To overview these
Panel efforts, each member of the Board assumed specific responsibilities
related to the overall review.

In addition to the direct participants in the Board activity, a

number of observers and consultants also attended various meetings of
the Board or its constituent Panels. These individuals assisted the
Review Board participants with advice and counsel in their areas of
expertise and responsibilities.

While the Board's intensive review activities were underway, the

Manned Spacecraft Center Apollo 13 Investigation Team, under James A.
McDivitt, Colonel, USAF, was also conducting its own analysis of the
accident on Apollo 13. Coordination between the Investigation Team
work and the Apollo 13 Review Board activities was effected through the
MSF Technical Support official and by maintaining a close and continu-
ing working relationship between the Panel Chairmen and officials of
the MSC Investigation Team.

2-1
 The Board Chairman established a series of administrative procedures
to guide the Board's activities. In addition, specific assignments of
responsibility were madeto all individuals involved in the Board's
activities so as to insure an efficient review activity. Overall logis-
tic and administrative support was provided by MSC.
The Board conducted both Executive and General Sessions. During
the Executive Sessions, plans were agreed upon for guiding the Board's
activities and for establishing priorities for tests, analyses, studies,
and other Board efforts. At the General Sessions, status of Panel
activities was reviewed by the Board with a view towards coordination
and integration of all review activities. In addition, Board members
regularly attended daily status meetings of the MannedSpacecraft Center
Investigation Team.
In general, the Board relied on MannedSpacecraft Center postmission
evaluation activities to provide the factual data upon which evaluation,
assessment, and analysis efforts could be based. However, the Board,
through a regular procedure, also levied specific data collection, re-
duction, and analysis requirements on MSC. Test support for the Board
was conducted primarily at MSCbut also included tests run at other
NASACenters. Membersof the Board and its Panels also visited a number
of contractor facilities to review manufacturing, assembly, and test
procedures applicable to the Apollo 13 mission.

The Chairman of the Board provided the NASADeputy Administrator

with oral progress reports. These reports summarizedthe status of
Review Board activities at the time and outlined the tasks still ahead.
All material used in these interim briefings was incorporated into the
Board's official files.

As a means of formally transmitting its findings, determinations,

and recommendations, the Board chose the format of this Final Report
which includes both the Board's Judgments as well as the reports of the
individual Panels.

A general file of all the data and information collected and examined
by the Board has been established at the Langley Research Center, Hampton,
Virginia. In addition, the MSCInvestigation Teamestablished a file of
data at MSC.

2-2
 PART2. BIOGRAPNT_S OF BOARDMEMBERS_ OBSERVERS_ AND PANEL CHAIRMEN

CHAIRMAN OF THE APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD

EDGAR M. CORTRIGHT
NASA Langley Research Center

Edgar M. Cortright, 46, Director of the NASA Langley Research Center,

Hampton, Virginia, is Chairman of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Mr. Cortright has been an aerospace scientist and administrator for

22 years. He began his career at NASA's Lewis Research Center, Cleveland,
Ohio, in 1948 and for the next i0 years specialized in research on high-
speed aerodynamics there.

In October 1958, Mr. Cortright was named Chief of Advanced Technology

Programs at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D. C., where he directed ini-
tial formulation of NASA's Meteorological Satellite Program. In 1960, he
became Assistant Director for Lunar and Planetary Programs and directed
the planning and implementation of such projects as Mariner, Ranger, and
Surveyor.

Mr. Cortright became Deputy Director of the Office of Space Sciences

in 1961, and Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Science and Appli-
cations in 1963, in which capacities he served as General Manager of
NASA's space flight program using automated spacecraft. He joined the
Office of Manned Space Flight as Deputy Associate Administrator in 1967
and served in a similar capacity until he was appointed Director of the
Langley Research Center in 1968.

He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-

nautics and of the American Astronautical Society. He has received the
•Arthur S. Fleming Award, the NASA Medal for Outstanding Leadership, and
the NASA Medal for Distinguished Service.

Mr. Cortright is the author of numerous technical reports and

articles, and compiled and edited the book, "Exploring Space With a
Camera."

He is a native of Hastings, Pennsylvania, and served as a U.S. Navy

officer in World War II. He received Bachelor and Master of Science
degrees in aeronautical engineering from the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute.

Mr. and Mrs. Cortright are the parents of two children.

2-3
 MEMBERS
OF THEAPOLLO
13 REVIEW
BOARD

ROBERT
F. ALLNUTT
NASAHeadquarters

Robert F. Allnutt_ 34, Assistant to the NASAAdministrator,

Washington, D. C., is a memberof the Apollo 15 Review Board.

Mr. Allnutt was namedto his present position this year. Prior to
that, he had been Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs since
1967.

He joined NASAin 1960 as a patent attorney at the Langley Research

Center, Hampton, Virginia. In 1961, he was transferred to NASAHead-
quarters, Washington, D. C.
Mr. Allnutt served as Patent Counsel for CommunicationsSatellite
Corporation from January to September1965, when he returned to NASA
Headquarters as Assistant General Counsel for Patent Matters.

He is admitted to the practice of law in the District of Columbia

and the state of Virginia and is a memberof the American Bar Association
and the Federal Bar Association.

Mr. Allnutt was graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute with

a B.S. degree in industrial engineering. He received Juris Doctor and
Master of Laws degrees from George Washington University Law School.

Mr. and Mrs. Allnutt are the parents of two sons. The family lives
in Washington, D. C.

NEIL A. ARMSTRONG
NASA Astronaut

Nell A. Armstrong, 39, NASA astronaut, is a member of the Apollo 13

Review Board.

Commander of the Apollo ll mission and the first man on the Moon,
Mr. Armstrong has distinguished himself as an astronaut and as an
engineering test pilot.

Prior to joining the astronaut team at the Manned Spacecraft Center,

Houston, Texas, in 1962, Mr. Armstrong was an X-15 rocket aircraft
project pilot at the NASA Flight Research Center, Edwards, California.

\
 Mr. Armstrong joined NASA at the Lewis Research Center, Cleveland,
Ohio, in 1955, and later transferred to the Flight Research Center as an
aeronautical research pilot.

His initial space flight was as command pilot of Gemini VIII,

launched March 16, 1966. He performed the first successful docking of
two vehicles in space. The flight was terminated early due to a mal-
functioning thruster_ and the crew was cited for exceptional piloting
skill in overcoming the problem and accomplishing a safe landing. He
has served on backup crews for both Gemini and Apollo.

Mr. Armstrong is a Fellow of the Society of Experimental Test

Pilots, Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, and member of the Soaring Society of America. He has re-
ceived the Institute of Aerospace Sciences Octave Chanute Award, the
AIAAAstronautics Award, the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, the John F.
Montgomery Award, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

He is a native of Wapakoneta, Ohio, and received a B.S. degree in

aeronautical engineering from Purdue University and a M.S. degree from
the University of Southern California. He was a naval aviator from
1949 to 1952 and flew 78 combat missions during the Korean action.

Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong have two sons.

JOHN F. CLARK
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Dr. John F. Clark, 49, Director of the NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, is a member of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

He is an internationally known authority on atmospheric and space

sciences, holds four patents in electronic circuits and systems, and has
written many scientific papers on atmospheric physics, electronics, and
mathematics.

Dr. Clark joined NASA in 1958 and served in the Office of Space
Flight Programs at NASA Headquarters until 1961 when he was named
Director of Geophysics and Astronomy Programs, Office of Space Sciences.
From 1962 until 1965, he was Director of Sciences and Chairman of the
Space Science Steering Committee, Office of Space Science and Applica-
tions.

In 1965, Dr. Clark was appointed Deputy Associate Administrator for

Space Science and Applications (Sciences), and later that year, Acting
Director of Goddard. He was named director of the center in 1966.

2-5
 Dr. Clark began his career in 19h2 as an electronics engineer at
the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. From 19h7 to 19h8 he
was Assistant Professor of Electronic Engineering at Lehigh University,
Bethelem, Pennsylvania. He returned to NRL in 1948; and prior to Join-
ing NASA, served as head of the Atmospheric Electricity Branch there.

He is a member of the American Association of Physics Teachers,

American Geophysical Union, Scientific Research Society of America,
Philosophical Society of Washington, the International Scientific Radio
Union, and the Visiting Committee on Physics, Lehigh University. He
received the NASA Medals for Exceptional Service, Outstanding Leadership,
and Distinguished Service.

Dr. Clark was born in Reading, Pennsylvania. He received a B.S.

degree in electrical engineering from Lehigh University, M.S. degree in
mathematics from George Washington University, and Ph.D. in physics
from the University of Maryland.

Dr. and Mrs. Clark have two children and live in Silver Springs,
Maryland.

WALTER R. HEDRICK, JR.

Headquarters, USAF

Brig. Gen. Walter R. Hedrick, Jr., h8, Director of Space, Office

of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development, Headquarters,
USAF, Washington, D.C., is a member of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

He has participated in most of the Air Force's major nuclear test

projects and has extensive experience as a technical project officer
and administrator.

General Hedrick Joined the Army Air Corps as an aviation cadet in

1941 and flew in combat with the 86th Fighter Bomber Group during
World War II. After the War, he was assigned to the 19th Air Force, the
lhth Air Force, and as a project officer under Air Force Secretary
Stuart Symington. From 1952 to 1955, he was assigned to the Air Force
Office of Atomic Energy.

In 1955, he was assigned to the Technical Operations Division, Air

Force Special Weapons Command, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. In
1957, he was named Commander of the h951st Support Squadron, Eniwetok;
and the following year, he was reassigned to Kirtland AFB as Assistant
to the Group Commander and later as Air Commander of the h925th Test Group.

General Hedrick Joined the Special Systems Office, Air Force

Ballistics Division, Los Angeles, in 1960. He was named Commander of

2-6
-the Satellite Control Facility in 1965, and in 1966, he was appointed
Deputy Commander, Air Force Systems Command. He received his present
assignment in 1967.

General Hedrick is a Command Pilot and has received numerous Air

Force awards.

His home town is Fort Worth, Texas, and he attended Texas Techno-
logical College, Lubbock, prior to joining the service. He received
B.S. and M.S. degrees in physics from the University of Maryland.

General and Mrs. Hedrick are the parents of two sons.

VINCENT L. JOHNSON
NASA Headquarters

Vincent L Johnson, 51, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space

Science and Applications (Engineering), NASA Headquarters, is a member
of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Mr. Johnson was appointed to his present position in 1967. Prior

to that time, he had been Director of the Launch Vehicle and Propulsion
Programs Division, Office of Space Science and Applications, since 1964.
He was responsible for the management and development of the light and
medium launch vehicles used for NASA's unmanned earth orbital and deep
space programs. His division also directed studies of future unmanned
launch vehicle and propulsion system requirements.

Mr. Johnson joined NASA in 1960, coming from the Navy Department
where he had been an engineer with the Bureau of Weapons. His first
assignments with NASA were as Program Manager for the Scout, Delta, and
Centaur launch vehicles.

He was a naval officer during World War II, serving with the Bureau
of Ordnance. Prior to that, he was a physicist with the Naval Ordnance
Laboratory.

Mr. Johnson was born in Red Wing, Minnesota, and attended the
University of Minnesota.

He and Mrs. Johnson live in Bethesda, Maryland. They are the

parents of two children.

2-7

L E L L I: L L "
 MILTON KLEIN
NASA Headquarters

Milton Klein, 46, Manager, Space Nuclear Propulsion Office, NASA

Headquarters, is a member of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Mr. Klein has been in his present position since 1967. Prior to
that he had been Deputy Manager since 1960. The Space Nuclear Propulsion
Office is a joint activity of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The office conducts the
national nuclear rocket program. He is also Director of the Division of
Space Nuclear Systems of the AEC_ responsible for space nuclear electric
power activities.

Mr. Klein became associated with atomic energy work in 19467 when
he was employed by the Argonne National Laboratory. In 1950, he joined
the AEC's Chicago Operations Office as staff chemical engineer. Later,
he was promoted to Assistant Manager for Technical Operations. Generally
engaged in reactor development work for stationary power plants, he had
a primary role in the power reactor demonstration program.

Mr. Klein was born in St. Louis, Missouri. He served in the U.S.
Navy during World War II.

He has a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from Washington

University and a Master of Business Administration degree from Harvard
University.

Mr. and Mrs. Klein and their three children live in Bethesda,
Maryland.

HANS M. MARK
NASA Ames Research Center

Dr. Hans M. Mark, 40, Director of the NASA Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, California, is a member of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Prior to being appointed Director of the Ames Research Center he

was, from 1964 to 1969, Chairman of the Department of Nuclear Engineering
at the University of California, Berkeley, California.

An expert in nuclear and atomic physics, he served as Reactor

Administrator of the University of California's Berkeley Research
Reactor, professor of nuclear engineering and _ research physicist at
the University's Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, California,

2-8
and consultant to the U.S. Army and the National Science Foundation.
He has written many scientific papers.

Except for 2 years as an Assistant Professor of Physics at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1958 to 1960, Dr. Mark's
administrative, academic, and research career has been centered at the
University of California (Berkeley).

Dr. Mark received his A.B. degree in physics from the University
of California, Berkeley, in 1951, and returned there as a research
physicist in 1955, one year after receiving his Ph.D. in physics
from M.I.T.

He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and a member of the

American Geophysical Union, the American Society for Engineering Educa-
tion and the American Nuclear Society.

Dr. Mark was born in Mannheim, Germany, and came to the United
States when he was ll years old. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen
in 1945.

Dr. and Mrs. Mark are the parents of two children.

COUNSEL TO THE APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD

GEORGE T. MALLEY
NASA Langley Research Center

George T. Malley, 57, Chief Counsel, Langley Research Center,

Hampton, Virginia, is the Legal Counsel to the Apollo 13 Review Board.
He also served as Counsel to the Apollo 204 Review Board.

Mr. Malley is the Senior Field Counsel of NASA and has been assigned
to Langley since 1959. He was with the Office of the General Counsel,
Department of the Navy, from 1950 to 1959, where he specialized in
admiralty and international law.

He is a retired Navy officer and served on active duty from 1939 to

1946, mainly in the South Pacific. His last assignment was commanding
officer of the U.S.S. Fentress.

Mr. Malley has an A.B. degree from the University of Rochester and
an LL.B. degree from Cornell University Law School. He is a native of
Rochester, New York, and is a member of the New York Bar and the Federal
Bar Association.

Mr. and Mrs. Malley and their two children live in Newport News,
Virginia.

2-9
 MANNED SPACE FLIGHT TECHNICAL SUPPORT
CHARLES W. MATHEWS
NASA Headquarters

Charles W. Mathews, 49, Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned

Space Flight, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D. C., directs the Office
of Manned Space Flight technical support to the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Mr. Mathews has been a research engineer and project manager for
NASA and its predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
(NACA), since 1943. In his present assignment, he serves as general
manager of manned space flight.

Prior to his appointment to this position in 1968, he had been

Director, Apollo Applications Program, NASA Headquarters, since
January 1967.

Mr. Mathews was Gemini Program Manager at the Manned Spacecraft

Center, Houston, Texas, from 1963 until 1967. Prior to that time, he
was Deputy Assistant Director for Engineering and Development and Chief
of the Spacecraft Technology Division at MSC@

Mr. Mathews transferred to MSC (then the Space Task Group) when
Project Mercury became an official national program in 1958. He served
as Chief of the Operation Division. He had been at the Langley Research
Center, Hampton, Virginia, since 1943 engaged in aircraft flight research
and automatic control of airplanes. He became involved in manned space-
craft studies prior to the first Sputnik flights, and he conducted early
studies on reentry. Mr. Mathews was chairman of the group which developed
detailed specifications for the Mercury spacecraft.

Mr. Mathews has been awarded the NASA Distinguished Service Medal
and the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal. He has received the NASA
Group Achievement Award - Gemini Program Team.

He is a Fellow of the American Astronautical Society and an Associate

Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He is
the author of numerous technical articles published by NASA.

Mr. Mathews, a native of Duluth, Minnesota, has a B.S. degree in

aeronautical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy,
New York.

Mr. and Mrs. Mathews live in Vienna, Virginia. They have two
children.

2-10

iu I/ Ju E L L L h ' L E E ;
 APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD OBSERVERS

WILLIAM A. ANDERS
National Aeronautics and Space Council

William A. Amders, 36, Executive Secretary, National Aeronautics

and Space Council, Washington, D.C., is an official observer of the
Apollo 13 Review Board.

Prior to being appointed to his present position in 1969, Mr. Anders

was a NASA astronaut and an Air Force lieutenant colonel. He was lunar
module pilot on the Apollo 8 lunar orbital mission, man's first visit
to the vicinity of another celestial body.

Mr. Anders joined the NASA astronaut team at the Manned Spacecraft
Center, Houston, Texas, in 1963. In addition to his Apollo 8 flight, he
served as backup pilot for Gemini ll and backup command module pilot for
Apollo ll, the first lunar landing mission.

Mr. Anders was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force

upon graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy. After flight training, he
served as a pilot in all-weather interceptor squadrons of the Air Defense
Command. Prior to becoming an astronaut, he was a nuclear engineer and
instructor pilot at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force
Base, New Mexico.

He is a member of the American Nuclear Society and has been awarded

the Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force Astronaut Wings, the NASA
Distinguished Service Medal, and the New York State Medal for Valor.

Mr. Anders was born in Hong Kong. He received a B.S. degree from
the U.S. Naval Academy and an M.S. degree in nuclear engineering from
the Air Force Institute of Technology.

Mr. and Mrs. Anders are the parents of five children.

CHARLES D. HARRINGTON
Douglas United Nuclear, Inc.

Dr Charles D Harrington, 59, President and General Manager,

Douglas United Nuclear, Inc., Richland, Washington, is an official
observer of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Dr. Harrington, who has been associated with all phases of the
chemical and nuclear industrial fields since 1941, is Chairman of the
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, a statutory body created by Congress.

2-11
 From 1941 to 1961, he was employed by the Mallinckrodt Chemical
Works, St. Louis, Missouri. Dr. Harrington started with.the company
as a research chemist and in 1960, after a procession of research and
managementpositions, was appointed Vice President, Mallinckrodt Nuclear
Corporation and Vice President, Mallinckrodt Chemical Works.

In 1961, when the fuel material processing plant of Mallinckrodt

becamethe Chemicals Division of United Nuclear Corporation, Dr. Harrington
was namedVice President of that division.

He becameSenior Vice President, United Nuclear Corporation,

Centreville, Maryland, in 1963.

In 1965, Dr. Harrington was appointed President and General Manager,

Douglas United Nuclear, Inc. The companymanagesproduction reactors
and fuels fabrication facilities at Hanford, Washington, for the Atomic
Energy Commission.
He is the co-author of a book, "Uranium Production Technology," and
has written numerous technical papers. He has received the Mid-West
Award of the American Chemical Society for contributions to technology
in the nuclear energy field.

He is director of several corporations, including United Nuclear,

as well as professional councils and societies.

Dr. Harrington has M.S., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in chemistry from
Harvard University.

I. IRVINGPINKEL
NASALewis Research Center

I. Irving Pinkel, 57, Director, Aerospace Safety Research and Data

Institute at the NASALewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, is an
official observer of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Until recently, he directed research at Lewis Research Center on

rocket propellant and electric power generation systems for space
vehicles, compressors and turbines for advanced aircraft engines, and
lubrication systems for rotating machines for these systems.

Mr. Pinkel entered Governmentscientific service in 1935 as a

physicist with the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In
1940, he joined the staff of the Langley Research Center, Hampton,
Virginia, as a physicist. Whenthe Lewis Research Center was built in
1942, he transferred there.

2-12
 He has been elected to Phi Beta Kappa, SigmaXi, honorary scientific
society, and Pi Mu Epsilon, honorary mathematics fraternity. He is an
Ohio Professional Engineer, served on the former NACAsubcommittees on
Meteorological Problems, Icing Problems, Aircraft Fire Prevention and
Flight Safety, and is a memberof the NASAResearch and Technology Advi-
sory Subcommitteeon Aircraft Operating Problems. He has been a Special
Lecturer, Case Institute of Technology Graduate School.

Mr. Pinkel has received the Flight Safety Foundation Award for con-
tributions to the safe utilization of aircraft, the Laura Taber Barbour
Award for development of a system for suppressing aircraft crash fires,
the NACADistinguished Service Medal, and the NASASustained Superior
Performance Award.

He was born in Gloversville, NewYork, and was graduated from the

University of Pennsylvania.

Mr. and Mrs. Pinkel live in Fairview Park, Ohio. They are the
parents of two sons.

JAMESE. WILSON,JR.
Committeeon Science and Astronautics
United States House of Representatives

JamesE. Wilson, Jr., 39, Technical Consultant, United States House

of Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics, is an official
observer of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Mr. Wilson has been technical consultant to the Committee since

1963. From 1961 to 1963, he was Director of Research and Development,
U.S. Naval Propellant Plant, Indian Head, Maryland. Mr. Wilson managed
the Polaris Program at Indian Head from 1956 to 1961.

From 1954 to 1956, Mr. Wilson served as an officer in the U.S. Army
Signal Corps. He was a development engineer with E. I. DuPont, Wilmington,
Delaware, from 1953 to 1954.

Mr. Wilson is a memberof Phi SigmaAlpha, a National Honor Society;

American Institute of Chemical Engineers; American Chemical Society; and
American OrdnanceAssociation.

Mr. Wilson is co-author of several publications of the House Commit-

tee on Science and Astronautics.

He received a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from the Univer-

sity of Maine and a Master of Engineering Administration degree from
George Washington University.

2-13
 Mr. and Mrs. Wilson live in LaPlata, Maryland. They have two
children.
APOLLO13 REVIEW
BOARDPANEL
CHAIRMEN
SEYMOUR C. HIMMEL
NASALewis Research Center

Dr. SeymourC. Himmel, Assistant Director for Rockets and Vehicles,

Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, heads the Design Panel of the
Apollo 13 Review Board.

Dr. Himmel joined Lewis in 1948 as an aeronautical research scien-

tist. He has occupied supervisory positions since 1953.

He has been awarded the NASAExceptional Service Medal and the NASA
Group Achievement Award as manager of the Agena Project Group. Dr. Himmel
has served on a number of advisory committees. He is an Associate Fellow
of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and a member
of Tau Beta Pi and Pi Tau Sigma. He is the author of more than 25 tech-
nical papers.

Dr. Himmel has a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering degree from the

College of the City of NewYork and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Case
Institute of Technology.

Dr. and Mrs. Himmel live in Lakewood, Ohio.

EDWINC. KILGORE
NASALangley Research Center

Edwin C. Kilgore, 47, Deputy Chief, Engineering and Technical Serv-

ices, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, heads the Project
ManagementPanel of the Apollo 15 Review Board.

Mr. Kilgore joined the Langley science staff in 1944 and served in
a variety of technical and managementpositions until promotion to his
present position in 1968.

He has received the Honorary Group Achievement Award for his role
in achieving a record of 97 consecutive successes for solid propellant
rocket motors and the NASA-LunarOrbiter Project Group Achievement Award
for outstanding performance. He is a memberof Pi Tau Sigma, honorary
mechanical engineering society.

2-1h
 Mr. Kilgore was born in Coeburn, Virginia. He was graduated from
Virginia Polytechnic Institute with a B.S. degree in mechanical engi-
neering.

Mr. and Mrs. Kilgore and their two daughters live in Hampton.

HARRIS M. SCHURMEIER
California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Harris M. Schurmeier, 45, Deputy Assistant Laboratory Director for

Flight Projects, California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Lab-
oratory, Pasadena, California, heads the Manufacturing and Test Panel
of the Apollo 13 Review Board.

Mr. Schurmeier was appointed to his current position in 1969. Prior

to that he was Mariner Mars 1969 Project Manager, Voyager Capsule System
Manager and Deputy Manager of the Voyager Project, and Ranger Project
Manager at JPL.

He has received the NASA Medals for Exceptional Scientific Achieve-

ment and Exceptional Service. In addition, he has received the Astro-
nautics Engineer Award, and the NASA Public Service Award.

He was born in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has received a B.S. degree

in mechanical engineering, M.S. degree in aeronautical engineering, and
a professional degree in aeronautical engineering from the California
Institute of Technology.

Mr. Schurmeier was a naval officer in World War II. He and his
wife and four children live in Altadena, California.

FRANCIS B. SMITH
NASA Headquarters

Francis B. Smith, 47, Assistant Administrator for University Affairs,

NASA Headquarters, is leader of the Mission Events Panel of the Apollo 13
Review Board.

Mr. Smith has been in his present position since 1967. Prior to
that he had been Assistant Director, Langley Research Center, Hampton,
Virginia, since 1964. He joined the Langley science staff in 1947. He
is an expert in several fields, including radio telemetry, radar, elec-
tronic tracking systems, and missile and range instrumentation.

2-15

L L: E L L ' U. L: ig If 1_: L: L L_ L_
 Mr. Smith was born in Piedmont, South Carolina, and received a B.S.
degree in electrical engineering from the University of South Carolina,
where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He remained at the University
as an instructor from 1943 to 1944 and then served in the U.S. Navy until
1946.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their three children live in Reston, Virginia.

2-16

i,i I.l 12 L L L U L L_ L '_ "" _'

 PART 3. BOARD ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL ASSIGNMENTS FOR BOARD PANELS

BOARD ORGANIZATION

After reviewing the scope of the Board's charter, the Chairman and
Board Members agreed upon the Panel and Support Office structure depicted
on the following organization chart. Each Panel was assigned specific
responsibilities for reviewing major elements of the overall Board task,
with particular emphasis upon establishing a sound and independent
technical data base upon which findings, determinations, and recommenda-
tions by the Board could be based. The Panels were staffed with in-
dividual NASA specialists and established working arrangements with the
Manned Space Flight line organization personnel working in analogous
areas.

The Board's support offices were structured to provide necessary

staff, logistics, and administrative support without duplication of
available MSC assistance.

In addition to this structure, the Board and Panels also utilized

the special assistance of expert consultants.

Panel assignments, complete Panel membership, and the official Board

organization approved by the Chairman are included in this part of the
Board report.

2-17
 APOLLO 13
REVIEW BOARD

E. M. CORTRIGHTo CHAIRMAN

OBSERVERS R. F. ALLNUTT V.L. JOHNSON CONSULTANTS

W. A. ANDERS N. A. ARMSTRONG M. KLEIN

C. D. HARRINGTON W. D. ERICKSON
J. F. CLARK H.M. MARK
I. I. PINKEL
t ................. R. VAN OOLAH
J. E. WILSON, JR. W. R. HEDRICK

I I I I I I

I-in
TECHNICAL

C, W. MATHEWS
SUPPORT

G.
COUNSEL

T. MALLEY
SECRETARIAT

E. P. SWIEDA R. G.
EDITORIAL

GROUP

ROMATOWSKI
I

B.
PUBLIC
AFFAIRS

M. DUFF
I G.
J.
LEG,SLAT,VE
MOSS
I
AFFAIRS

NGHOFF

r I I I I
MANUFACTURING PROJECT
DESIGN
& TEST MANAGEMENT

MISSION EVENTS I
F. B. SMITH H. M. SCHURMEIER S. C. HIMMEL E. C. KILGORE

ro
i I
R. D. GINTER I
(Do PRE-INCIDENT EVENTS

]
EVALUATION
ACCEPTANCE TESTING M. H. MEAD
R. N. LINDLEY
FABRICATION & ] DESIGN I
W. F. BROWN, JR. J. B. WHITTEN
J. J. WILLIAMS E. F. BAEHR

INCIDENT EVENTS & MECHANISMS

SYSTEM TESTING
SUBSYSTEM & I FAILURE MODES I
T. B. BALLARD K. L. HEIMBURG W. R. LUCAS

POST INCIDENT ELECTRICAL

EVENTS QUALITY ASSURANCE

t RELIABILITY &
M. P. FRANK B. T. MORRIS R. C. WELLS

APPROVED
E. M. CORTIIGHT

RELATED SYSTEMS

J. F. SAUNDERS, JR.

APOLLO 15 REVIEW BOARD ORGANIZATION

 GENERAL ASSIGNMENTS FOR BOARD PANELS
(AS DOCUMENTED IN THE BOARD'S ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES)

Panel i - Mission Events Panel

It shall be the task of the Mission Events Panel to provide a de-

tailed and accurate chronology of all pertinent events and actions
leading to, during, and subsequent to the Apollo 13 incident. This
information, in narrative and graphical time history form, will provide
the Apollo 13 Review Board an official events record on which their
analysis and conclusions may be based. This record will be published
in a form suitable for inclusion in the Review Board's official report.

The Panel will report all significant events derived from telemetry
records, air-to-ground communications transcripts, crew and control
center observations, and appropriate documents such as the flight plan,
mission technique description, Apollo Operation Handbook, and crew check-
lists. Correlation between various events and other observations related
to the failure will be noted. Where telemetry data are referenced, the
Panel will comment as appropriate on its significance, reliability,
accuracy, and on spacecraft conditions which might have generated the
data.

The chronology will consist of three major sections: Preincident

Events, Incident Events, and Postincident Events. The decision-making
process leading to the safe recovery, referencing the relevant contin-
gency plans and available alternates, will be included.

Preincident Events. - This section will chronicle the progress of

the flight from the countdown to the time of the incident. All action
and data relevant to the subsequent incident will be included.

Incident Events. - This section will cover that period of time be-
ginning at 55 hours and 52 minutes after lift-off and continuing so long
as abnormal system behavior is relevant to the failure.

Postincident Events. - This section will document the events and

activities subsequent to the incident and continuing to mission termina-
tion (Splash). Emphasis will be placed on the rationale used on mission
completion strategy.

Panel i Membership

Mr. F. B. Smith, Panel Chairman

Assistant Administrator for University Affairs
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D. C.

2-19

N N-IJ I: E L L '"
Dr: Tom B. Ballard
Aerospace Technologist
Flight Instrument Division
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia

Mr. M. P. Frank
Flight Director
Flight Control Division
Manned Spacecraft Center
Houston, Texas

Mr. John J. Williams

Director, Spacecraft Operations
Kennedy Space Center
Florida

Mr. Nell Armstrong, Board Member and Panel Monitor

As t r on aut
Manned Spacecraft Center
Houston, Texas

Panel 2 - Manufacturing and Test Panel

The Manufacturing and Test Panel shall review the manufacturing and
testing, including the associated reliability and quality assurance
activities, of the flight hardware components involved in the flight
failure as determined from the review of the flight data and the analysis
of the design. The purpose of this review is to ascertain the adequacy
of the manufacturing procedures, including any modifications, and the pre-
flight test and checkout program, and any possible correlation of these
activities with the inflight events.

The Panel shall consist of three activities:

Fabrication and Acceptance Testin6.- This will consist of reviewing

the fabrication, assembly, and acceptance testing steps actually used
during the manufacturing of the specific flight hardware elements in-
volved. Fabrication, assembly, and acceptance testing procedures and
records will be reviewed, as well as observation of actual operations
when appropriate.

Subsystem and System Testing.- This will consist of reviewing all

the flight qualification testing from the completion of the component-
level acceptance testing up through the countdown to lift-off for the
specific hardware involved. Test procedures and results will be reviewed

2-20
.- as well as observing specific tests where appropriate. Results of tests
on other serial number units will also be reviewed when appropriate.

Reliability and quality Assurance.- This will be an overview of both

the manufacturing and testing, covering such things as parts and material
qualification and control, assembly and testing procedures, and inspection
and problem/failure reporting and closeout.

Panel 2 Membership

Mr. Harris M. Schurmeier, Panel Chairman

Deputy Assistant Laboratory Director for Flight Projects
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, California

Mr. Edward F. Baehr

Assistant Chief, Launch Vehicles Division
Deputy Manager, Titan Project
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio

Mr. Karl L. Heimburg

Director, Astronautics Laboratory
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Alabama

Mr. Brooks T. Morris

Manager, Quality Assurance and Reliability Office
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, California

Dr. John F. Clark, Board Member and Panel Monitor

Director
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland

Panel 3 - Design Panel

The Design Panel shall examine the design of the oxygen and asso-
ciated systems to the extent necessary to support the theory of failure.
After such review the Panel shall indicate a course of corrective action
which shall include requirements for further investigations and/or re-
design. In addition, the Panel shall establish requirements for review
of other Apollo spacecraft systems of similar design.

2-21
 .-
The Panel shall consist of four subdivisions:

Design Evaluation.- This activity shall review the requirements and

specifications governing the design of the systems, subsystems and com-
ponents, their derivation, changes thereto and the reasons therefor; and
the design of the system in response to the requirements, including such
elements as design approach, material selection, stress analysis, de-
velopment and qualification test programs, and results. This activity
shall also review and evaluate proposed design modifications, including
changes in operating procedures required by such modifications.

Failure Modes and Mechanisms.- This activity shall review the design
of the systems to ascertain the possible sources of failure and the m_mer
in which failures may occur. In this process, they shall attempt to
correlate such modes with the evidence from flight and ground test data.
This shall include considerations such as: energy sources, materials
compatibility, nature of pressure vessel failure, effects of environment
and service, the service history of any suspect systems and components,
and any degradation that may have occurred.

Electrical.- This activity shall review the design of all electrical

components associated with the theory of failure to ascertain their
adequacy. This activity shall also review and evaluate proposed design
modifications, including changes in operating procedures required by such
modi fi c ati ons.

Related Systems .- This activity shall review the design of all

systems similar to that involved in the Apollo 13 incident with the view
to establishing any commonality of design that may indicate a need for
redesign. They shall also consider the possibility of design modifica-
tions to permit damage containment in the event of a failure.

Panel 3 Membership

Dr. Seymour C. Himmel, Panel Chairman

Assistant Director for Rockets and Vehicles
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio

Mr. William F. Brown, Jr.

Chief, Strength of Materials Branch
Materials and Structures Division
Administration Directorate
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio

2-22

iu la lJ /_- /d L If L '
Mr. R. N. Lindley
Special Assistant to the Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D. C.

Dr. William R. Lucas

Director, Program Development
Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Alabama

Mr. J. F. Saunders, Jr.

Project Officer for Command and Service Module
Office of Manned Space Flight
NASA He adquarters
Washington, D. C.

Mr. Robert C. Wells

Head, Electric Flight Systems Section
Vehicles Branch
Flight Vehicles and Systems Division
Office of Engineering and Technical Services
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia

Mr. Vincent L. Johnson, Board Member and Panel Monitor

Deputy Associate Administrator for Engineering
Office of Space Science and Applications
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D. C.

Panel 4 - Project Management Panel

The Project Management Panel will undertake the following tasks:

I. Review and assess the effectiveness of the management struc-

ture employed in Apollo 13 in all areas pertinent to the Apollo 13
incident. This review will encompass the organization, the responsi-
bilities of organizational elements, and the adequacy of the staffing.

2. Review and assess the effectiveness of the management systems

employed on Apollo 13 in all areas pertinent to the Apollo 13 incident.
This task will include the management systems employed to control the
appropriate design, manufacturing, and test operations; the processes
used to assure adequate communications between organizational elements;
the processes used to control hardware and functional interfaces; the
safety processes involved; and protective security.

2-23
 3. Review the project managementlessons learned from the Apollo
13 mission from the standpoint of their applicability to subsequent
Apollo missions.
Tasks i and 2, above, should encompassboth the general review of
the processes used in Apollo 13 and specific applicability to the pos-
sible cause or causes of the mission incident as identified by the Board.

Panel 4 Membership

E. C. Kilgore, Panel Chairman

Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technical Services
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia
R. D. Ginter
Director of Special Programs Office
Office of AdvancedResearch and Technology
NASAHeadquarters
Washington, D.C.
Merrill H. Mead
Chief of Programs and Resources Office
AmesResearch Center
Moffett Field, California
JamesB. Whitten
Assistant Chief, Aeronautical and Space Mechanics Division
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia
Milton Klein, Board Memberand Panel Monitor
Manager, AEC-NASA Space Nuclear Propulsion Office
Washington, D.C.

Board Observers

William A. Anders
Executive Secretary
National Aeronautics and Space Council
Washington, D.C.

Dr. Charles D. Harrington

Chairman
NASAAerospace Safety Advisory Panel
Washington, D.C.

2-24
I. Irving Pinkel
Director
Aerospace Safety Research and Data Institute
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio
Mr. JamesE. Wilson
Technical Consultant to the Committeeon Science and Astronautics
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Apollo 13 Review Board Support Staff

Brian M. Duff
Public Affairs Officer
MannedSpacecraft Center
Houston, Texas

Gerald J. Mossinghoff
Director of Congressional Liaison
NASAHeadquarters
Washington, D.C.

Edward F. Parry
Counsel to Office of MannedSpaceFlight
NASAHeadquarters
Washington, D.C.

RaymondG. Romatowski
Deputy Assistant Director for Administration
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia
Ernest P. Swieda
Deputy Chief, Skylab Program Control Office
Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Consultants to the Board

Dr. WayneD. Erickson, Head Dr. Robert Van Dolah

Aerothermochemistry Branch Acting Research Director
Langley Research Center Safety Research Center
Hampton, Virginia Bureau of Mines
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

2-25
 MSCSupport to the Board

These persons were detailed by MSCto support the Apollo 13 Review

Board during its review activity at MSC. They are identified by MSC
position title.
Roy C. Aldridge
Assistant to the Director of Administration

Mary Chandler Jamie Moon

Secretary Technical Editor

Rex Cline Dorothy Newberry

Technical Writer/Editor Administrative Assistant

Evon Collins Lettie Reed

Program Analyst Editorial Assistant

Leroy Cotton Charlene Rogozinski

Equipment Specialist Secretary
MaureenCruz Joanne Sanchez
Travel Clerk Secretary
Janet Harris Billie Schmidt
Clerk Stenographer Employee Development Specialist
Marjorie Harrison Frances Smith
Secretary Secretary
Phyllis Hayes George Sowers
Secretary ManagementPresentations Officer
William N. Henderson Elaine Stemerick
ManagementAnalyst Secretary
Sharon Laws Mary Thompson
Secretary Administrative Assistant

Carolyn Lisenbee Alvin C. Zuehlke

Secretary Electrical Engineer

Judy Miller
Secretary

2-26
 PART 4. SUMMARY OF BOARD ACTIVITIES

APRIL 19, 1970

Chairman E. M. Cortright met with Langley officials to begin planning

the Apollo 13 Review Board approach. Tentative list of Panel Members and
other specialists were developed for consideration.

APRIL 20, 1970

Chairman Cortright met with the NASA Administrator, Deputy Adminis-

trator, and key NASA officials in Washington, D.C., to discuss Board
membership.

The Chairman met with NASA Office of Manned Space Flight top offi-
cials while enroute to MSC on NASA aircraft and discussed program organi-
zation plans for review of the accident, and coordination with Apollo 13
Review Board activity.

APRIL 21, 1970

Chairman Cortright met with MSC officials to discuss Apollo 13

Review Board support.

A formal MSC debriefing of the Apollo 13 crew was conducted for MSC
officials and Apollo 13 Review Board personnel already at MSC.

Detailed discussions between early arrivals on the Review Board and

the MSC Investigation Team were held to provide quick-look data on the
Apollo 13 accident and to develop detailed procedures for MSC support of
the Apollo 13 Board.

Chairman Cortright met with members of the Press to report on early

activity of the Board and to inform them of plans for keeping the Press
current on Board activities.

The first meeting of the Board was held at 8 p.m. to discuss Board
composition, structure, assignments, and scope of review. Preliminary
plans were developed for appointing various specialists to assist the
Board in its analysis and evaluation.

2-27
 APRIL 22, 1970

The Board met with Colonel McDivitt's MSCInvestigation Teamto re-

view the progress madeby MSCin identifying causes of the accident and
in developing an understanding of sequences and relationships between
known inflight events. In addition, MSCofficials briefed the Board on
MSCInvestigation Teamstructure and assignments.

The Board met with Panel i of the MSCInvestigation Teamfor de-

tailed discussion of inflight events and consideration of early con-
clusions on implications of preliminary data analysis.

The Board held its second meeting to discuss MSCinvestigative

efforts and additional appointments of Panel specialists.

Board membersattended Panel i evening roundup of day's evaluation

activities, _nich included detailed discussions of specific studies,
data reductions, and support test activities already underway.

APRIL 23, 1970

The Apollo 13 Review Board established itself in proximity to the

MSCInvestigation Teamin Building 45, and arranged for all administra-
tive and logistics support to the Board.

A daily schedule of meetings, reviews, briefings, and discussions

was established, including preliminary plans for contractor meetings,
special support tests, and accumulation of accident-related information.

Initial task assignments and responsibilities were madeto Board

Panels as guidance for detailed review work. Individual Board members
were assigned Panel overview responsibilities or other special tasks.

Administrative procedures were developed for Board activity, par-

ticularly to provide efficient interface with MSCpersonnel.
Board and Panel Membersagain met with MSCofficials to further re-
view the sequence of events in the Apollo 13 mission and to examine early
hypotheses concerning causes of these events.

The Board convened for an evening meeting to discuss the progress to

date and to coordinate Panel activities for the next few days. Discussion
centered upon immediate requirements for data collection and analysis.
Chairman Cortright appointed additional NASAspecialists in order to
bring Panels up to strength.

2-28
 APRIL 24, 1970

Board Members, Panel Chairmen, and MSC officials reviewed additional

data analysis made by MSC and contractor personnel with particular empha-
sis upon the service module (SM) cryogenic system.

The Board convened and reviewed the progress to date. Tentative

approvals were given for Board trips to North American Rockwell (NR),
Downey, California, Beech Aircraft, Boulder, Colorado, and other loca-
tions.

Chairman Cortright briefed the Press on progress to date.

Panel Chairmen and Members continued their detailed analysis of

failure modes, test histories, mission events, and other data bearing
upon the accident.

Board Members and Panel Chairmen met with Mr. Norman Ryker of NR on
NR's activities involving design, qualification, and tests of SM cryo-
genic oxygen tanks.

APRIL 25, 1970

The Board met to discuss details of onsite inspections of command

service module (CSM) flight hardware at principal contractor installa-
tions.

Panels examined in detail probable failure modes based on data

analyzed at that time.

Specific plans were discussed by the Board relating to evaluation

of oxygen tank assembly and checkout operations, including review of
component histories.

The MSC Investigation Team members briefed Board personnel on

Kennedy Space Center checkout operations of the service module cryogenic
and electric power systems, including a detailed briefing covering oxygen
tank detanking operations.

APRIL 26, 1970

Board and Panel Members traveled to North American Rockwell, Downey,

for detailed briefings by NR engineers and management. NR reviewed its

2-29

L
 progress in an intensive analysis of the Apollo 13 malfunction, including
a review of approved special tests. Oxygen tank, fuel cell components,
assemblies, and other hardware were also inspected.

APRIL 27, 1970

An Executive Session of the Board met to discuss progress of specific

analyses required to verify tentative conclusions on oxygen tank failure
and service module EPS failure.

Additional Board specialists arrived at MSC and received detailed

briefings by MSC and Board personnel on selected aspects of the Apollo 13
data.

Panel Members received and assessed a preliminary MSC evaluation of

the Apollo 13 accident, including tentative conclusions on the most
probable failure modes.

Procedures were established to provide information flow on the status

of review to Board observers.

The Board reviewed work plans for the coming week with each Panel and
established review priorities and special task assignments.

APRIL 28, !970

Chairman Cortright outlined a plan for the Board's preliminary report

scheduled for presentation to the Deputy Administrator during his visit to
MSC on May i. Each Panel Chairman was to summarize the status of his
Panel's activities for Dr. George Low on Friday, April 29, 1970.

Board Member Neil Armstrong completed arrangements to provide each

Board Member and Panel Chairman an opportunity for detailed simulation of
the Apollo 13 inflight accident using MSC's CSM simulation equipment.

Board and Panel Members reviewed enhanced photographs of the

Apollo 13 service module at the MSC Photographic Laboratory.

Dr. yon Elbe of Atlantic Research Company briefed Board and Panel
Members on cryogenics and combustion phenomena.

A representative of the Manufacturing and Test Panel performed an

onsite inspection at Beech Aircraft, Boulder.

2-30
 Manufacture and Test Panel personnel reviewed detanking procedures
followed at KSCduring the Apollo 13 countdowndemonstration test (CDDT).

Board and Panel personnel reviewed progress to date at a general

Board meeting involving all Review Board personnel.

APRIL 29, 1970

Dr. Charles Harrington, Board Observer and Chairman of the Aerospace

Safety Advisory Panel, arrived for a 2-day detailed review of Board pro-
cedures and progress in the accident review.

The Board reviewed North American Rockwell preliminary recommenda-

tions involving oxygen tank redesign.

The Board continued to review and examine oxygen tank ignition

sources and combustion propagation processes with specialists from MSC,
other NASACenters, and contractor personnel.
The Mission Events Panel continued to examine and record details of
all significant mission events as a basis for other Panel evaluations and
study.

Chairman Cortright convened two Board meetings to review Panel pro-

gress to date and to discuss work plans for the next several days.
The Project ManagementPanel visited North American Rockwell at
Downeyto review detailed procedures for acceptance tests, subcontractor
inspections, project documentation, and other managementinterface areas.

APRIL 30, 1970

The Safety Advisory Panel continued discussions with Board Chairman

and MSCofficials on progress of total Apollo 13 review efforts.

Panel Membersreviewed instrumentation used in Apollo 13 spacecraft

in order to establish the validity of telemetry data being used in Board
analysis.

Chairman Cortright convened two Board meetings to review progress of

the work and to discuss preliminary findings of the Board.

Project Managementpersonnel visited BeechAircraft Corporation to

review procedures used for assembly of cryogenic oxygen tanks and to dis-
cuss communication and information systems within the Apollo Program.
 Panels continued to review detailed data in their respective areas.

MAYi_ 1970

Board and Panel personnel participated in a joint MSC/Apo!!o 13

Review Board status presentation to the NASADeputy Administrator. The
meeting covered all significant Apollo 13 findings and early conclusions
on the cause of the accident and appropriate remedial actions.

The MSCstaff briefed Board Memberson initial evaluations of pro-

posed design changes in oxygen tank system.

Panel Memberscontinued to assess data accumulated from the Apollo 13

mission with particular emphasis upon the design and performance of elec-
tric power systems used in the service module.

Board Membersand Panel Chairmenreviewed specific test matrix being

proposed by Apo!lo 13 Review Board specialists covering most significant
unknownsinvolved in understanding failure mechanisms.

MAY2, 1970

Board Membersmet in General Session to discuss preparation of a com-

plete "failure tree" as an additional guide in conducting a complete re-
view and investigation. Specific aspects of this approach were reviewed.

The Project ManagementPanel reviewed oxygen tank reliability history

and quality assurance criteria used in assembly, test, and checkout of
these systems.

Panel specialists continued reviewing data from the mission with

emphasis upon integrating various data points into logical failure mode
patterns established by MSCand Board personnel.

MAY3, 1970

Chairman Cortright and Board Membersconducted a detailed review of

individual Panel status and progress and established milestones for
additional analytical work and preparation of preliminary findings.

The Board and Panel agreed to tentative report structure, including

required exhibits, tables, drawings, and other reference data.

2-32
 The Board established a system for tabulating all significant mission
events and explanatory data, including the support tests required to
clarify questions raised by events.

Panel Membersworked on individual analyses with particular attention

to developing requirements for additional test activity in support of ten-
tative conclusions.

The Board agreed to strengthen its technical reviews of combustion

propagation and electrical design by adding specialists in these areas.

MAY4, 1970

The Design Panel continued its intensive review of the "shelf drop"
incident at NRinvolving the cryogenic oxygen flight tank used in
Apollo 13 in order to understand possible results of this event.

The Mission Events Panel continued to analyze telemetry data received

by MSC,with particular attention on data received in proximity to the
data dropout period during the Apollo 13 mission and on fan turnons during
the flight.

The Board transmitted a formal listing of 62 requests for data,

analyses, and support tests required for Board re_iew activity.

The Board continued to meet with individual Panels and support

offices to review the status of preliminary findings and work completed.

MAY5, 1970

The Board met in General Session to discuss the scope and conduct of
support test activity, including careful documentation of test methods and
application of test results.

MSCpersonnel briefed Panel Memberson availability of additional

telemetry data in the MSCdata bank in order to insure Board considera-
tion of all possible useful data.

Panels commencedinitial drafting of preliminary findings in specific

areas, including summarydescriptions of system performance during the
Apollo 13 flight.

The Board met with the MSCInvestigation Teamfor complete review of

the proposed test program.

2-33
 . MAY6, 1970

Board Members,MSCpersonnel_ and Membersof NASA'sAerospace Safety

Advisory Panel met for detailed discussions and evaluation of accident
review status and progress. The review covered oxygen tank questions,
recovery operations, and a mission simulation by MSCastronauts.

Panel Memberscontinued to work on the preparation of preliminary

Panel drafts.

Chairman Cortright transmitted additional requests for tests to MSC

and modified procedures for control of overall test activity relating to
the Apollo 13 accident.

MAY7, 1970

The General Board Session reviewed complete analysis and test support
activities being conducted for the Board and MSCat various governmental
and contractor installations.

Board and Panel Membersmet to discuss Ameslaboratory tests con-

cerning liquid oxygen combustion initiation energies required in the
cryogenic oxygen tank used in the Apollo 13 SM.

Panel i Membersreviewed mission control equipment and operating

procedures used during the Apollo 13 mission and reviewed actual mission
events in detail.

The Panels continued to develop preliminary drafts of their reviews

and analyses for consideration by the Board.

MAY8, 1970

Dr. Robert Van Dolah, Bureau of Mines, joined the Board as a con-
sultant on combustion propagation and reviewed Apollo 13 Review Board
data developed to date.

The General Board Session convened to review proposed report format

and scope. An agreement was reached on appendices, on the structure of
the report, and on the degree of detail to be included in individual Panel
reports.

Chairman Cortright assigned additional specific test overview re-

sponsibilities to membersof the Apollo 13 Review activity.

2-34
 Panel 1 conducted a formal interview with the MSCFlight Director
covering all significant mission events from the standpoint of ground
controllers.

Panels 2 through 4 continued developing preliminary reports. Panel 4

announceda formal schedule of interviews of MSC,contractors, and NASA
Headquarters personnel.

Board Membersexplored in detail possible failure modesequences

developed by MSCpersonnel involving ignition and combustion within the
SMcryogenic oxygen tank.

The Board recessed for 3 days, leaving a cadre of personnel at MSC

to edit preliminary drafts developed by the Panels and to schedule further
activity for the week of May ll.

MAY9, 1970

Board in recess.

MAYi0, 1970

Board in recess.

MAYii, 1970

Board in recess. MSCsupport personnel continued work obtaining

additional technical data for Board review.

MAY12, 1970

Board Membersreturned to MSC.

Board Membersattended a General Session to review progress and

status of the report.

Panel Chairmenreported on individual progress of work and estab-

lished schedules for completion of analyses and evaluations.

Chairman Cortright reported on the Langley Research Center support

test program aimed at simulation of SMpanel ejection energy pulses.

2-35
 MAY13, 1970

Board Membersreviewed preliminary drafts of report chapter on Re-

view and Analysis and Panel i report on Mission Events.

Mission Events Panel Membersinterviewed Electrical, Electronic, and

CommunicationsEngineer (EECOM)and one of the Apollo 13 Flight Directors
on activities which took place in the Mission Control Center (MCC)during
and after the flight accident period.

Panel 4, Project ManagementPanel, conducted interviews with princi-

pal Apollo 13 program personnel from MSCand contract organizations.

Panel Memberscontinued drafting preliminary versions of Panel re-

ports for review by the Board.

Manufacturing and Test Panel representatives discussed program for

oxygen tank testing to be conducted at Beech Aircraft.

Board Membersmet in General Session to review report milestones and

required test data for the week ahead.

MAY14, 1970

Board met in General Session to review Panel report progress and to

agree to firm schedules for completion of all Review Board assignments.

Project ManagementPanel continued to interview key Apollo project

personnel from NASACenters and contractors.

Panel Memberscirculated first drafts of all Panel reports to Board

Membersfor review and correction.

MAY15, 1970

Mission Events Panel personnel interviewed Apollo 13 Command

Module
Pilot John Swigert to verify event chronology compiled by the Panel and
to review crew responses during Apollo 13 mission.

Project ManagementPanel continued interviewing key project personnel

with NASACenters and contractors.

2-36
.°
MSC personnel provide Board Members and Panel Chairmen with a de-
tailed briefing on all support tests and analyses being performed in
connection with the MSC and Board reviews.

Board Members met in Executive Session to review preliminary drafts

of Panel reports and findings and determinations and to provide additional
instructions and guidance to Panel Chairmen.

Panel Members continued to review and edit early Panel drafts and to
compile reference data in support of findings.

MAY 16, 1970

Board met in General Session to review further revisions of prelimi-

nary findings and determinations and to establish working schedules for
completion of the Board report.

Panel Members continued to edit and refine Panel reports on basis of

discussions with MSC personnel and further analysis of Apollo 13 documen-
tation.

MAY 17, 1970

Draft material for all parts of Board report was reviewed by Panel
Members and staff. Changes were incorporated in all draft material and
recirculated for additional review and comment.

Board Members met in General Session to review report progress and

to examine results from recent support tests and analyses being conducted
at various Government and contractor installations.

The Apollo 13 Review Board discussed a continuing series of support

tests for recommendation to MSC following presentation of report and re-
cess of the Board.

MAY 18, 1970

Board Members reviewed Special Tests and Analyses Appendix of the

report and examined results of completed tests.

Board met in General Session to discuss control procedures for re-

production and distribution of Board report.

2-37
 Mission Events Panel distributed a final draft of their report for
review by Board Members.

Board reviewed a preliminary draft of findings and determinations

prepared by Panel Chairmen, Board Members, and Board Chairman.

A Manufacture and Test Panel representative reviewed special oxygen

tank test programs at Beech Aircraft.

MAY19, 1970

Board Membersmet in Executive Session to continue evaluation and

assessment of preliminary findings, determinations, and recommendations
prepared by individual Board Membersand Panel Chairmen.

Board met in General Session to review final draft of Mission Events

Panel report.

Manufacture and Test Panel preliminary report was distributed to

Board Members for review and comment.

Design Panel preliminary report was distributed to Board Members for

review and comment.

Design Panel Members met with MSC Team officials to discuss further
test and analyses support for the Board.

MAY 20, 1970

Board Members met in Executive Session to review and evaluate reports

from the Design Panel and from the Manufacturing and Test Panel.

Project Management Panel distributed final draft of its report to

Board Members for review and comment.

Chairman Cortright met withMr. Bruce Lundin of the Aerospace Safety

Advisory Panel to discuss progress of Board review and analysis.

MAY 21, 1970

Board Members met in Executive Session for final review of Project

Management Panel report.

2-38
 Board Membersand others met with MSCofficials to review in detail
the activities and actions taken after the Apollo 204 accident concerning
ignition flammability for materials and control in the CSM.

A third draft of preliminary findings, determinations_ and recommen-

dations was developed and circulated by the Chairmanfor review and
comment.

Arrangements were madewith NASAHeadquarters officials for pack-

aging, delivery, and distribution of the Board's final report.
Mission Events Panel conducted an interview with Lunar Module Pilot
Haise to review selected mission events bearing on the accident.

MAY22, 1970

Mission Events Panel representatives met with MSCofficials to review

in detail several events which occurred during later flight stages.

Board met in Executive Session to assess latest drafts of findings,

determinations, and recommendations circulated by the Chairman.

Board met in General Session to review total progress in all report

areas and to establish final schedule for preparation of Board report.
Langley Research Center representative M. Ellis briefed the Board on
ignition and combustion of materials in oxygen atmosphere tests being con-
ducted in support of the Apollo 13 Review.

Board Observer I. I. Pinkel briefed the Board on Lewis Research

Center fire propagation tests involving Teflon.

MAY23, !970

Board Membersreviewed Chapter 4 of Board report entitled "Review

and Analysis."

Panel Chairmen reviewed draft findings and determinations prepared

by the Board.

2-39

N N L L K L.',"
. L . h 1_: L . _ I: _'" li /d< I:: L _ L
 MAY 24, 1970

Board Members reviewed NASA Aerospace Safety Panel report covering

Apollo activities during the period of 1968-69.

Board met in Executive Session for detailed review of support test

status and progress and of documentation describing the results of test
activity.

Board met in Executive Sessicn for further review of findings,

determinations, and recommendations.

MAY 25, 1970

Board met in Executive Session to review test progress and decided

to postpone submittal of final report until June 8 in order to consider
results of Langley Research Center panel ejection tests.

Board Members continued to review MSC Investigation Team preliminary

drafts and refine Apollo 13 data in the various Board appendices.

Board met in Executive Session for further consideration of findings,

determinations, and recommendations.

MAY 26, 1970

Board met in General Session and interviewed Astronaut James Lovell

regarding crew understanding of inflight accident.

Board Members reviewed proposed MSC tank combustion test and agreed
to test methodology and objectives.

Panel Members continued preparation of individual Panel reports.

MAY 27, 1970

Board and Panel Members received a detailed briefing on thermostatic

switch failure during MSC heater tube temperature tests.

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel met with Chairman Cortright, Board

Members, and Panel Chairmen to review Board progress and status of
findings and conclusions.

2-40
 Board met in General Session to review status of Panel reports,
documentation of test data and results, and plans for report typing and
review.

Board agreed to recess for several days to accumulate additional

test information on panel separation and full scale tank ignition data.

MAY28, 1970

Board in recess.

_Y 29, 1970

Board in recess.

MAY30, 1970

Board in recess.

MAY31, 1970

Board in recess.

JUNEi, 1970

Board Membersreturned to MSC.

Board and Panel Membersmet in General Session to discuss revisions

of Panel reports in light of latest information regarding thermostatic
switch failure during CDDTat KSC.

Board approved new schedule for Board report calling for final
versions of Panel reports by Monday, June 8.

2-41
 JUNE2, 1970

Chairman Cortright briefed the Press on the status of the Board's

work and future plans.

Board and Panel Membersparticipated in a detailed interview and

discussion with MSCand contractor personnel regarding specific coordina-
tion steps taken during oxygen tank no. 2 detanking operations at KSC.
Board Membersmet in Executive Session to review latest test results
and to assess status of Board findings and determinations.

JUNE3, 1970

Board and Panel Membersmet with MSCProgram Office personnel for a

detailed update of recent MSCinformation and analyses stemming from on-
going test programs.

Board Membersand Panel Chairmen completed final reviews of Panel

reports and also reviewed final draft of findings, determinations, and
recommendations.

Board and Panel Membersreceived a detailed briefing on thermostatic

switch questions with emphasis upon actions of various organizations
during and after detanking operations at KSC.

JUNE4, 1970

Board Membersmet in Executive Session and completed final revisions

of Chapter 4 of the Board summary.

Board and Panel Memberswitnessed a special full-scale tank ignition

test performed at MSC.

Panel Chairmen completed final revisions of individual Panel reports

and submitted copy to the Reports Editorial Office.

Board met in Executive Session and agreed to final schedule for re-
port printing and delivery to the Administrator on June 15, 1970.

2-42
- JUNE5, 1970

Board Members met in Executive Session and completed work on Chap-

ter 5 of the Board Summary Report (Findings, Determinations, and Recom-
mendations).

Board Members reviewed final version of Project Management Panel

report and authorized printing as Appendix E.

Board Members Hedrick and Mark completed final tabulation of test

support activities performed for the Board.

Board Members reviewed films of special test activities performed

at various NASA Centers.

JUNE 6, 1970

Board met in Executive Session throughout the day and completed

its review of Chapter 5 of its report (Findings, Determinations, and
Recommendations).

Board Members completed review of analyses to be incorporated in

Appendix F, Special Tests and Analyses.

JUNE 7, 1970

The Board met in Executive Session and approved plans and schedules
for final editorial review and publication of the Board report.

The Chairman recessed the Board until June 15 at which time the
Board is scheduled to reconvene in Washington, D.C., to present its
report to the NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator.

2-43
This page left blank intentionally.

2-44
 CHAPTER 3

DESCRIPTION OF APOLLO 13 SPACE VEHICLE

AND MISSION SUMMARY

3-0
 This chapter is extracted from Mission Operation Report
No. M-932-70, Revision 3, published by the Program and Special Reports
Division (XP), Executive Secretariat, NASA Headquarters, Washington,
D.C.

Discussion in this chapter is broken into two parts. Part 1 is

designed to acquaint the reader with the flight hardware and with
the mission monitoring, support, and control functions and capabilities.
Part 2 describes the Apollo 13 mission and gives a mission sequence
of events summary.

3-1
 PART i APOLL0/SATURN V SPACE VEHICLE

The primary flight hardware of the Apollo Program consists of the

Saturn V launch vehicle and Apollo spacecraft (fig. 3-1). Collectively,
they are designated the Apollo/Saturn V space vehicle (SV). Selected
major systems and subsystems of the space vehicle may be summarized as
follows.

SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

The Saturn V launch vehicle (LV) is designed to boost up to

300,000 pounds into a 105-nautical mile earth orbit and to provide for
lunar payloads of over 100,000 pounds. The Saturn V LV consists of
three propulsive stages (S-IC, S-II, S-IVB), two interstages, and an
instrument unit (IU).

S-IC Stage

The S-IC stage (fig. 3-2) is a large cylindrical booster, 138 feet
long and 33 feet in diameter, powered by five liquid propellant F-I
rocket engines. These engines develop a nominal sea level thrust total
of approximately 7,650,000 pounds. The stage dry weight is approximately
288,000 pounds and the total loaded stage weight is approximately
5,031,500 pounds. The S-IC stage interfaces structurally and electri-
cally with the S-II stage. It also interfaces structurally, elec-
trically, and pneumatically with ground support equipment (GSE) through
two umbilical service arms, three tail service masts, and certain
electronic systems by antennas. The S-IC stage is instrumented for
operational measurements or signals which are transmitted by its inde-
pendent telemetry system.

S-II Stage

The S-II stage (fig. 3-3) is a large cylindrical booster, 81.5 feet
long and 33 feet in diameter, powered by five liquid propellant J-2
rocket engines which develop a nominal vacuum thrust of 230,000 pounds
each for a total of 1,150,000 pounds. Dry weight of the S-II stage is
approximately 78,050 pounds. The stage approximate loaded gross weight
is 1,075,000 pounds. The S-IC/S-II interstage weighs 10,460 pounds.
The S-II stage is instrumented for operational and research and develop-
ment measurements which are transmitted by its independent telemetry
system. The S-II stage has structural and electrical interfaces with
the S-IC and S-IVB stages, and electric, pneumatic, and fluid interfaces
with GSE through its umbilicals and antennas.

3-2
 Instrument unit

aunch escape system S-IVB

32 ft

1 Inter-stage

/_._Boost protective cover

r-
S-II

363 ft
L_ Commandmodule Inter-stage
I
L_J

r::. iiiiiiiill adapter

S-IC
Lunar module

r:. LAUNCH
VEHICLE

Spacecraft Space vehicle Launch vehicle

r- Figure 5-i.- Apollo/Saturn V space vehicle.

..,.

..
FLIGHT TERMINATION
RECEIVERS (2) FT

INSTRUMENTATI ON
FORWARD
.7 IN
SKIRT
GOX
DISTRIBUTOR

HELIUM
CYLINDERS (4)

LINE

IN OXIDIZER
TANK

BAFFLE
ANNULAR
BAFFLES 262.4 IN
INTERTANK
LINE SECTION

TUNNELS (5)

CENTER SUCTION
ENGINE LINES (5)
SUPP(
FUEL
IN TANK
TUNNEL
FUEL
SUCTION THRUST
RI NG

HEAT

LOWER
THRUST RIN

F-l ENGINES
(5)
HEA
INSTRUMENTATIC FLIGHT CONTROL
SERVOACTUATOR
RETROROCKETS

Figure 3-2.- S-IC stage.

3-4
 T FORWARDSKI RT
11-I/2 FEET
;YSTEMS TUNNEL

VEHI CLE
STATION
2519

LIQUID HYDROGEN
TANK
(37,737 CU FT)

;EET

LH2/LOX COMMON
BULKHEAD
81-I/2
LIQUID OXYGEN
FEET
(12,745.5 CU FT)
22 FEET

AFT SKIRT

,____1 THRUST
STRUCTURE
14-I/2 FEET

_[ INTERSTAGE
18-I/4 FEET
VEHICLE
STATION
1541 33 FEET _I

Figure 3-3.- S-II stage.

3-5
 S-IVB Stage

The S-IVB stage (fig. 3-4) is a large cylindrical booster 59 feet

long and 21.6 feet in diameter, powered by one J-2 engine. The S-IVB
stage is capable of multiple engine starts. Engine thrust is
203,000 pounds. This stage is also unique in that it has an attitude
control capability independent of its main engine. Dry weight of the
stage is 25,050 pounds. The launch weight of the stage is 261,700 pounds.
The interstage weight of 8100 pounds is not included in the stated
weights. The stage is instrumented for functional measurements or sig-
nals which are transmitted by its independent telemetry system.

The high performance J-2 engine as installed in the S-IVB stage

has a multiple start capability. The S-IVB J-2 engine is scheduled
to produce a thrust of 203,000 pounds during its first burn to earth
orbit and a thrust of 178,000 pounds (mixture mass ratio of 4.5:1)
during the first i00 seconds of translunar injection. The remaining
translunar injection acceleration is provided at a thrust level of
203,000 pounds (mixture mass ratio of 5.0:1). The engine valves are
controlled by a pneumatic system powered by gaseous helium which is
stored in a sphere inside a start bottle. An electrical control system
that uses solid stage logic elements is used to sequence the start and
shutdown operations of the engine.

Instrument Unit

The Saturn V launch vehicle is guided from its launch pad into
earth orbit primarily by navigation, guidance, and control equipment
located in the instrument unit (IU). The instrument unit is a cylindri-
cal structure 21.6 feet in diameter and 3 feet high installed on top of
the S-IVB stage. The unit weighs 4310 pounds and contains measurements
and telemetry_ command communications, tracking, and emergency detection
system components along with supporting electrical power and the environ-
mental control system.

APOLLO SPACECRAFT

The Apollo spacecraft (S/C) is designed to support three men in space

for periods up to 2 weeks, docking in space, landing on and returning
from the lunar surface, and safely entering the earth's atmosphere. The
Apollo S/C consists of the spacecraft-to-LM adapter (SLA), the service
module (SM), the command module (CM), the launch escape system (LES), and
the lunar module (LM). The CM and SM as a unit are referred to as the
command and service module (CSM).

3-6
 ml-
I0.2 FEET

FORWARD SKIRT
L

i.-..--
21.6 FEET-I_

LH2 TANK

I0,418
CU FT-- 44.0 FEET

LOX TANK
2830 k/ \_J_
59.0
FEET

AFT SKIRT _"/!. _ " ]

THRUST STRUCTURE
(WITH ENGINE
ATTACHED) ) _'
5.2tFEET

, 33.0 FEET =I

19 FEET
AFT INTERSTAGE

Figure 3-4.- S-IVB stage.

3-7

ILl N _ E l/ E E L L 11. L.' L: U II g l: n L _.

 Spacecraft-to-LM Adapter

The SLA (fig. 3-5) is a conical structure which provides a structural

load path between the LV and SM and also supports the LM. Aerodynami-
cally, the SLA smoothly encloses the irregularly shaped LM and transitions
the space vehicle diameter from that of the upper stage of the LV to that
of the SM. The SLA also encloses the nozzle of the SM engine and the high
gain antenna.

Spring thrusters are used to separate the LM from the SLA. After
the CSM has docked with the LM, mild charges are fired to release the
four adapters which secure the LM in the SLA. Simultaneously, four
spring thrusters mounted on the lower (fixed) SLA panels push against
the LM landing gear truss assembly to separate the spacecraft from the
launch vehicle.

Service Module

The service module (SM)(fig. 3-6) provides the main spacecraft pro-
pulsion and maneuvering capability during a mission. The SM provides
most of the spacecraft consumables (oxygen, water, propellant, and
hydrogen) and supplements environmental, electrical power, and propul-
sion requirements of the CM. The SM remains attached to the CM until
it is jettisoned just before CM atmospheric entry.

Structure.- The basic structural components are forward and aft

(upper and lower) bulkheads, six radial beams, four sector honeycomb
panels, four reaction control system honeycomb panels, aft heat shield,
and a fairing. The forward and aft bulkheads cover the top and bottom
of the SM. Radial beam trusses extending above the forward bulkhead
support and secure the CM. The radial beams are made of solid aluminum
alloy which has been machined and chem-milled to thicknesses varying
between 2 inches and 0.018 inch. Three of these beams have compression
pads and the other three have shear-compression pads and tension ties.
Explosive charges in the center sections of these tension ties are used
to separate the CM from the SM.

An aft heat shield surrounds the service propulsion engine to

protect the SM from the engine's heat during thrusting. The gap between
the CM and the forward bulkhead of the SM is closed off with a fairing
which is composed of eight electrical power system radiators alternated
with eight aluminum honeycomb panels. The sector and reaction control
system panels are 1 inch thick and are made of aluminum honeycomb core
between two aluminum face sheets. The sector panels are bolted to the
radial beams. Radiators used to dissipate heat from the environmental
control subsystem are bonded to the sector panels on opposite sides of
the SM. These radiators are each about 30 square feet in area.

3-8

ILl ILl 13 L L 1J ]2 L " _ L_ L _ _-_

 CIRCUMFERENTIAL

I
UPPER (FORWARD)
LINEAR-SHAPED CHARGE

LONGITUDINAL
LINEAR-SHAPED CHARGE
21 ' JETTISONABLE
(4 PLACES)
PANELS
(4 PLACES)
PYROTECHN IC THRUSTERS
(4 PLACES)

CIRCUMFERENTIAL
LINEAR-SHAPED CHARGE
LOWER (AFT)
7' FIXED PANELS
THRUSTER/HINGE
(2) (4 PLACES)

IU

Figure 3-5.- Spacecraft-to-LM adapter.

3-9
 RED ELECTRICAL
DOCKING POWER
LIGHT SUBSYSTEM
RADIATORS
SM REACTION
CONTROL FLYAWAY
SUBSYSTEM UMBILICAL
QUAD

FLOODLIGHT

GREEN
SCIMITAR DOCKING
ANT LIGHT

ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTR
EXTENSION
RADIATOR

UM TANKS

__RE'A OXIDIZER

TANKS
FUEL TANKS
CTION
\ _1 ICONTROL
FORWARD BULKHEAD INSTALL, J-_ ISUBSYSTEM

FUEL CELLS

PRESSURIZATION (_ [_
I _QUAOS 141

OXYGEN TANKS

HYDROGEN TANKS _

S-BAND HIGH GAIN ANTENNA AFT

BULKHEAD

12 FT 10 IN. . i SERVICE PROPULSION ENGINE

SECTOR 2 _ SERVICE PROPULSION SUBSYSTEM

SECTOR 3 _ OXIDIZER TANKS

SECTOR 4 OXYGEN TANKS, HYDROGEN TANKS, FUEL CELLS

SECTOR 5 _ SERVICE PROPULSION SUBSYSTEM

SECTOR6 J FUEL TANKS

CENTER SECTION- SERVICE PROPULSION ENGINE AND

HELIUM TANKS

Figure 3-6.- Service module.

3-10

ILl ILl [ L L L: LL L L I_ la L
' u
_' E E -
 The SM interior is divided into six sectors, or bays, and a center
. -
section. Sector one is currently void. It is available for installation
of scientific or additional equipment should the need arise. Sector
two has part of a space radiator and a reaction control system (RCS)
engine quad (module) on its exterior panel and contains the service pro-
pulsion system (SPS) oxidizer sump tank. This tank is the larger of
the two tanks that hold the oxidizer for the SPS engine. Sector three
has the rest of the space radiator and another RCS engine quad on its
exterior panel and contains the oxidizer storage tank. This tank is
the second of two SPS oxidizer tanks and feeds the oxidizer sump tank
in sector two. Sector four contains most of the electrical power gener-
ating equipment. It contains three fuel cells, two cryogenic oxygen
and two cryogenic hydrogen tanks, and a power control relay box. The
cryogenic tanks supply oxygen to the environmental control subsystem
and oxygen and hydrogen to the fuel cells. Sector five has part of an
environmental control radiator and an RCS engine quad on the exterior
panel and contains the SPS engine fuel sump tank. This tank feeds the
engine and is also connected by feed lines to the storage tank in
sector six. Sector six has the rest of the environmental control radi-
tor and an RCS engine quad on its exterior and contains the SPS engine
fuel storage tank which feeds the fuel sump tank in sector five. The
center section contains two helium tanks and the SPS engine. The tanks
are used to provide helium pressurant for the SPS propellant tanks.

Propulsion.- Main spacecraft propulsion is provided by the

20500-pound thrust SPS. The SPS engine is a restartable, non-throttleable
engine which uses nitrogen tetroxide (N204) as an oxidizer and a 50-50
mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetrical-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) as fuel.
(These propellants are hypergolic, i.e., they burn spontaneously when
combined without need for an igniter.) This engine is used for major
velocity changes during the mission, such as midcourse corrections,
lunar orbit insertion, transearth injection, and CSM aborts. The SPS
engine responds to automatic firing commands from the guidance and
navigation system or to commands from manual controls. The engine as-
sembly is gimbal-mounted to allow engine thrust-vector alignment with the
spacecraft center of mass to preclude tumbling. Thrust-vector alignment
control is maintained by the crew. The SM RCS provides for maneuvering
about and along three axes.

Additional SM systems.- In addition to the systems already described,

the SM has communication antennas, umbilical connections, and several
exterior mounted lights. The four antennas on the outside of the _ are
the steerable S-band high-gain antenna, mounted on the aft bulkhead; two
VHF omnidirectional antennas, mounted on opposite sides of the module
near the top; and the rendezvous radar transponder antenna, mounted in
the SM fairing.

3-11
 Seven lights are mounted in the aluminumpanels of the fairing.
Four lights (one red, one green, and two amber) are used to aid the
astronauts in docking: one is a floodlight which can be turned on to
give astronauts visibility during extravehicular activities, one is a
flashing beacon used to aid in rendezvous, and one is a spotlight used
in rendezvous from 500 feet to docking with the LM.

SM/CM separation.- Separation of the SM from the CM occurs shortly

before entry. The sequence of events during separation is controlled
automatically by two redundant service module jettison controllers (SMJC)
located on the forward bulkhead of the SM.

Command Module

The command module (CM) (fig. 3-7) serves as the command, control,
and communications center for most of the mission. Supplemented by the
SM, it provides all life support elements for three crewmen in the mis-
sion environments and for their safe return to the earth's surface. It
is capable of attitude control about three axes and some lateral lift
translation at high velocities in earth atmosphere. It also permits LM
attachment, CM/LM ingress and egress, and serves as a buoyant vessel in
open ocean.

Structure.- The CM consists of two basic structures joined together:

the inner structure (pressure shell) and the outer structure (heat
shield). The inner structure, the pressurized crew compartment, is made
of aluminum sandwich construction consisting of a welded aluminum inner
skin, bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet. The outer
structure is basically a heat shield and is made of stainless steel-
brazed honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. Parts of the
area between the inner and outer sheets are filled with a layer of
fibrous insulation as additional heat protection.

Display and controls.- The main display console (MDC) (fig. 3-8)
has been arranged to provide for the expected duties of crew members.
These duties fall into the categories of Commander, CM Pilot, and LM
Pilot, occupying the left, center, and right couches, respectively. The
CM Pilot also acts as the principal navigator. All controls have been
designed so they can be operated by astronauts wearing gloves. The con-
trols are predominantly of four basic types: toggle switches, rotary
switches with click-stops, thumb-wheels, and push buttons. Critical
switches are guarded so that they cannot be thrown inadvertently. In
addition, some critical controls have locks that must be released before
they can be operated.

3-12
 +X ÷y

_y ,_ __< --Z

/ COMBINED TUNNEL HATCH

ATTACHMENT (TYPICAL)
_ AUNCH ESCAPE TOWER

_ _"._'_'E7
P,TC.

(, ATTACH
POINT

(TYPICAL)

+X +y

-Y -X -Z

LEFT HAND
FORWARD COMPARTMENT FORWARD EQUIPMENT BAY COMBINED TUNNEL HATCH

CREW "
.OWER
, FORWARD " _ _ _ _OMPARTMENT

{TYPICAL)

HAND EQUIPMENT BAY RIGHT HAND EQUIPMENT /

AFT COMPARTMENT AFT COMPARTMENT

Figure 3-7.- Command module.

3-13
 Cry°genics- 7 /--Service
/ / propulsion

Audio J r a C autai:nln-g-r_-__.> _ /.--Audio

control--_//_
F,'I coo''o'
RCS
mgmt ECS I I........._ i \
I c0_t,r__L_l I=';owre_'
"k________
\ I '
contro/-_/
7 Flightl

/ _E n vC_i;::ie nla i cJontr o i__

_f_'_--SCS
pane" ' power I

• Launch vehicle emergency detection • Propellant gauging

• Flight attitude • Environment control
• Mission sequence • Communications control
• Velocity change monitor • Power distribution
• Entry monitor • Caution and warning

I _ LIJJ
--':--: "--J'_-]-I

I Flight controls p. Systems controls

I --_l=-_,LII ,_--_ll . "'_JJaJJl_l ul'Irl
I_

/-J71 ', ," ', ," I\ ..X

• J • •

% • % •
% • • ••
•S
_o sx
• % S %
I •

Commander CM pilot LM pilot

Figure 3-8.- CM main display console,

3-14
 Flight controls are located on the left center and left side of the
MDC, opposite the Commander. These include controls for such subsystems
as stabilization and control, propulsion, crew safety, earth landing,
and emergency detection. One of two guidance and navigation computer
panels also is located here, as are velocity, attitude, and altitude
indicators.

The CM Pilot faces the center of the console, and thus can reach
many of the flight controls, as well as the system controls on the right
side of the console. Displays and controls directly opposite him include
reaction control, propellant management, caution and warning, environ-
mental control, and cryogenic storage systems. The rotation and trans-
lation controllers used for attitude, thrust vector, and translation
maneuvers are located on the arms of two crew couches. In addition, a
rotation controller can be mounted at the navigation position in the
lower equipment bay.

Critical conditions of most spacecraft systems are monitored by a

caution and warning system. A malfunction or out-of-tolerance condition
results in illumination of a status light that identifies the abnormal-
ity. It also activates the master alarm circuit, which illuminates two
master alarm lights on the MDC and one in the lower equipment bay and
sends an alarm tone to the astronauts' headsets. The master alarm
lights and tone continue until a crewman resets the master alarm circuit.
This can be done before the crewmen deal with the problem indicated. The
caution and warning system also contains equipment to sense its own
malfunctions.

Lunar Module

The lunar module (LM) (fig. 3-9) is designed to transport two men
safely from the CSM, in lunar orbit, to the lunar surface, and return
them to the orbiting CSM. The LM provides operational capabilities such
as communications, telemetry, environmental support, transportation of
scientific equipment to the lunar surface, and returning surface samples
with the crew to the CSM.

The lunar module consists of two stages: the ascent stage and the
descent stage. The stages are attached at four fittings by explosive
bolts. Separable umbilicals and hardline connections provide subsystem
continuity to operate both stages as a single unit until separate ascent
stage operation is desired. The LM is designed to operate for 48 hours
after separation from the CSM, with a maximum lunar stay time of 44 hours.
Table 3-I is a weight summary of the Apollo/Saturn 5 space vehicle for
the Apollo 13 mission.

3-15
 Overhead
S-band hatch
steerable Docking Ascent VHF EVA Docking
an window stage antenna antenna target

Rendezvous
equipment
radar antenna_ bay
S-band in-flight
antenna (2)
RCS thrust chamber
Docking assembly cluster
light (

Docking

Tracking I ight (3)

Forward hatch Landing gear

Forward,

Ladder Egress Descent Descent Landing

platform engine stage radar_
skirt antenna

Figure 3-9.- Lunar module.

3-]_6
 TABLE 3-I.- APOLLO 13 WEIGHT SUMMARY (WEIGHT IN POUNDS)

Final
Total
Stage/module Inert weight Total weight separation
expendables
weight

S-IC 288OOO 4746870 5034870 363403

s-lc/s-ii 11464 11464

interstage

S-If stage 78050 996960 1075010 92523

S-II/S-IVB 8100 8100

interstage

S-IVB stage 25050 236671 261721 35526

Instrument unit 4482 4482

Launch vehicle at ignition 6,395,647

Spacecraft-LM 4o44 4044

adapter

Lunar module 9915 23568 33483 "33941

Service module 10532 40567 51099 **14076

Command module 12572 12572 **11269

(Landing)

Launch escape 9012 9012

system

* CSM/LM separation
** CM/SM separation

3-17
" TABLE 3-1.- APOLLO 13 WEIGHT SUMMARY (WEIGHT IN POUNDS) - Concluded

Final
Total
Stage/module Inert weight Total weight separation
expendables
weight

Spacecraft at ignition 110,210

Space vehicle at ignition 6505857

S-IC thrust buildup (-)84598

Space vehicle at lift-off 6421259

Space vehicle at orbit insertion 299998

Main propulsion.- Main propulsion is provided by the descent pro-

pulsion system (DPS) and the ascent propulsion system (APS). Each
system is wholly independent of the other. The DPS provides the thrust
to control descent to the lunar surface. The APS can provide the thrust
for ascent from the lunar surface. In case of mission abort, the APS
and/or DPS can place the LM into a rendezvous trajectory with the CSM
from any point in the descent trajectory. The choice of engine to be
used depends on the cause for abort, on how long the descent engine
has been operating, and on the quantity of propellant remaining in the
descent stage. Both propulsion systems use identical hypergolic pro-
pellants. The fuel is a 50-50 mixture of hydrazine and unsymmetrical-
dimethylhydrazine and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide° Gaseous
helium pressurizes the propellant feed systems. Helium storage in the
DPS is at cryogenic temperatures in the super-critical state and in the
APS it is gaseous at ambient temperatures.

Ullage for propellant settling is required prior to descent engine

start and is provided by the +X axis reaction engines. The descent
engine is gimbaled, throttleable, and restartable. The engine can be
throttled from 1050 pounds of thrust to 6300 pounds. Throttle positions
above this value automatically'produce full thrust to reduce combustion
chamber erosion. Nominal full thrust is 9870 pounds. Gimbal trim of
the engine compensates for a changing center of gravity of the vehicle
and is automatically accomplished by either the primary guidance and
navigation system (PGNS) or the abort guidance system (AGS). Automatic
throttle and on/off control is available in the PGNS mode of operation.

3-18
The AGScommandson/off operation but has no automatic throttle control
capability. Manual control capability of engine firing functions has
been provided. Manual thrust control override may, at any time, com-
mandmore thrust than the level commanded by the LM guidance computer
(LGC).

The ascent engine is a fixed, non-throttleable engine. The engine

develops 3500 pounds of thrust, sufficient to abort the lunar descent
or to launch the ascent stage from the lunar surface and place it in
the desired lunar orbit. Control modes are similar to those described
for the descent engine. The APS propellant is contained in two spheri-
cal titanium tanks, one for oxidizer and the other for fuel. Each tank
has a volume of 36 cubic feet. Total fuel weight is 2008 pounds, of
which 71 pounds are unusable. Oxidizer weight is 3170 pounds, of which
92 pounds are unusable. The APS has a limit of 35 starts, must have a
propellant bulk temperature between 50 ° F and 90 ° F prior to start,
must not exceed 460 seconds of burn time, and has a system life of
24 hours after pressurization.

Electrical power system.- The electrical power system (EPS) con-

tains six batteries which supply the electrical power requirements of
the LM during undocked mission phases. Four batteries are located in
the descent stage and two in the ascent stage. Batteries for the
explosive devices system are not included in this system description.
Postlaunch LM power is supplied by the descent stage batteries until
the LM and CSM are docked. While docked, the CSM supplies electrical
power to the LM up to 296 watts (peak). During the lunar descent phase,
the two ascent stage batteries are paralleled with the descent stage
batteries for additional power assurance. The descent stage batteries
are utilized for LM lunar surface operations and checkout. The ascent
stage batteries are brought on the line just before ascent phase
staging. All batteries and busses may be individually monitored for
load, voltage, and failure. Several isolation and combination modes
are provided.

Two inverters, each capable of supplying full load, convert the

dc to ac for ll5-volt, 400-hertz supply. Electrical power is distributed
by the following busses: LM Pilot's dc bus, Commander's dc bus, and ac
busses A and B.

The four descent stage silver-zinc batteries are identical and have
a 400 ampere-hour capacity at 28 volts. Because the batteries do not
have a constant voltage at various states of charge/load levels, "high"
and "low" voltage taps are provided for selection. The "low voltage"
tap is selected to initiate use of a fully charged battery. Cross-tie
circuits in the busses facilitate an even discharge of the batteries
regardless of distribution combinations. The two silver-zinc ascent
stage batteries are identical to each other and have a 296 ampere-hour

3-19
_apacity at 28 volts. The ascent stage batteries are normally connected
in parallel for even discharge. Because of design load characteristics,
the ascent stage batteries do not have and do not require high and low
voltage taps.

Nominal voltage for ascent stage and descent stage batteries is

30.0 volts. Reverse current relays for battery failure are one of many
componentsdesigned into the EPSto enhance EPSreliability. Cooling
of the batteries is provided by the environmental control system cold
rail heat sinks. Available ascent electrical energy is 17.8 kilowatt
hours at a maximumdrain of 50 ampsper battery and descent energy is
46.9 kilowatt hours at a maximumdrain of 25 ampsper battery.

MISSIONMONITORING,
SUPPORT,
ANDCONTROL

Mission execution involves the following functions: prelaunch

checkout and launch operations; tracking the space vehicle to determine
its present and future positions; securing information on the status of
the flight crew and space vehicle systems (via telemetry); evaluation
of telemetry information; commandingthe space vehicle by transmitting
real-time and updata commandsto the onboard computer; and voice com-
munication between flight and ground crews.

These functions require the use of a facility to assemble and

launch the space vehicle (see Launch Complex), a central flight control
facility, a network of remote stations located strategically around the
world, a method of rapidly transmitting and receiving information
between the space vehicle and the central flight control facility, and
a real-time data display system in which the data are made available
and presented in usable form at essentially the sametime that the data
event occurred.

The flight crew and the following organizations and facilities

participate in mission control operations:

a. Mission Control Center (MCC), MannedSpacecraft Center (MSC),

Houston, Texas. The MCCcontains the communication, computer display,
and commandsystems to enable the flight controllers to effectively
monitor and control the space vehicle.

b. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), CapeKennedy, Florida. The space

vehicle is launched from KSCand controlled from the Launch Control
Center (LCC). Prelaunch, launch, and powered flight data are collected
at the Central Instrumentation Facility (CIF) at KSCfrom the launch
pads, CIF receivers, Merritt Island Launch Area (MILA), and the down-
range Air Force Eastern Test Range (AFETR)stations. These data are

3-20
transmitted to MCCvia the Apollo Launch Data"System (ALDS). Also
located at KSC(AFETR)is the Impact Predictor (IP), for range safety
purposes.

c. Goddard SpaceFlight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Maryland. GSFC

managesand operates the MannedSpace Flight Network (MSFN)and the
NASAcommunications (NASCOM) network. During flight, the MSFNis
under the operational control of the MCC.

d. George C. Marshall SpaceFlight Center (MSFC), Huntsville,

Alabama. MSFC,by meansof the Launch Information ExchangeFacility
(LIEF) and the Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC)provides
launch vehicle systems real-time support to KSCand MCCfor preflight,
launch, and flight operations.

A block diagram of the basic flight control interfaces is shown

in figure 3-10.

Vehicle Flight Control Capability

Flight operations are controlled from the MCC. The MCChas two
flight control rooms, but only one control room is used per mission.
Each control room, called a Mission Operations Control Room(MOCR),is
capable of controlling individual Staff Support Rooms(SSR's) located
adjacent to the MOCR. The SSR's are mannedby flight control special-
ists who provide detailed support to the MOCR. Figure 3-11 outlines
the organization of the MCCfor flight control and briefly describes
key responsibilities. Information flow within the MOCRis shownin
figure 3-12.

The consoles within the MOCRand SSR's permit the necessary inter-
face between the flight controllers and the spacecraft. The displays
and controls on these consoles and other group displays provide the
capability to monitor and evaluate data concerning the mission and,
based on these evaluations, to recommendor take appropriate action on
matters concerning the flight crew and spacecraft.
Problems concerning crew safety and mission success are identified
to flight control personnel in the following ways:
a. Flight crew observations

b. Flight controller real-time observations

c. Review of telemetry data received from tape recorder playback

d. Trend analysis of actual and predicted values

3-21
e. Review of collected data by systems specialists

f, Correlation and comparison with previous mission data

g. Analysis of recorded data from launch complex testing

3-22,
 LIEF
Goddard Houston Marshall

ALDS

Kennedy AFETR
r-

r=

r_
O0
I
h)
tO

r:

ALDS - Apollo Launch Data System

LIEF - Launch Information Exchange Facility

.m,
Figure 3-i0.- Basic telemetry, command, and communication
interfaces for flight control.
 MISSION DIRECTOR )MD) ]

OVERALL
MISSION
CONDUCT OF

I
PUBLIC

MISSION
TO PUBLIC
AFFAIRS

STATUS
I I
RECOVERY AND
MISSIONOD MANAGER
SUPPORT
OTHER
I

DECISIONS/ACTIONS ON SPACE
VEHICLE SYSTE MS/DYNAMICS
I AND FLIGHT
MCC/MSFNDIRECTOR (FD)
OPERATIONS

I
FLIGHT DYNAMICS
MISSION COMMAND SYSTEMS OPERATIONS
GROUP GROUP
AND CONTROL GROUP

FLIGHT DYNAMICS OFFICER (FDO)

OPERATIONS & PROCEDURES (o&P)I ._BOOSTER SYSTEMS ENGINEERS (BSE_

MONITOR STATUS OF L._ iMONITORS PRE LAUNCH CHECKOUT

MCCIMSFN MISSION CON- I
S.IC, S-II, S-IVB FLIGHT I-_ POWERED FLIGHT EVENTS AND
TROL PROCEDURES; FLIGHT L_
CONTROL SCHE DU LING; MANNING; SYSTEMS / TRAJECTORIES; REENTRY EVENTS

CONTROL FORMAT; DISPLAYS; | I AND TRAJECTORIES

TELETYPE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS | I HUNTSVILLE OPERATIONS I

RETROFIRE OFFICER (RETRO)
NETWORK £ONTROL SUPPORT CENTER (HOSC) I
MAINTAINS UPDATED ABORT
MSFN CONTROL, RADAR AND AND REENTRY PLAN; UPDATES
COMMAND HAN DOVERS IMPACT POINT ESTIMATES
COMPUTE R UPDATE OF

CONSUMABLES DATA;
._ EMU ENGINEERS
SPACECRAFT COMMUNICATOR EVA DECISIONS

MONITORS GUIDANCE
COMMUNICATIONS FUNCTIONS DURING POWERED
WITH SPACECRAFT SPACECRAFT SYSTEMS ENGINEERS FLIGHT AND PREMANEUVER
t GUIDANCE OFFICER (GUIDO)
MONITOR STATUS OF PREPARATION

E LECTRICAL. COMMUNICATION,
INSTRUMENTATION. SEQUENTIAL,
FLIGHT ACTIVITIES (FAD)
LIFE SUPPORT. STABILIZATION
FLIGHT PLAN DETAILED AND CONTROL. PROPULSION. AND
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION
SYS'I_ MS

LIFE SYSTEMS (SURGEON)

SPACE RADIATION MONITORS PHYSIOLOGICAL AND
I SPACE ENVIRONMENT
ENVIRONMENT DATA (SEO) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS OF
FLIGHT CREW

INF LIGHT EXPERIMENT

I XPERIMENT
IMPLEMENTATIONACTIVITIES MEAD)

I
I I I I
DIRECTOR
SSR
SSR SYSTEMS
SSR
LIFE 1
AND

I SSR
ANALYSIS

SC PLANNING I I VEHICLE
SYSTEMS
SSR II FLIGHT
DYNAMICS
SSR J
I I
PROGRAM
OFFICE
i.=,o,
i
EVALUATION
ROOM
KSCLAUNCH
OPERATIONS

Figure B-ll.- Mission Control Center organization.

3-2)4
 MISSION
DI RECTOR

LAUNCH _L EQUIPMENT STATUS M AND 0

STAGE STATUS
VEHICLE SUPERVISOR
STAGES
f,Z)

FLIGHT FLIGHT

I
LU 0
I:C _-w
DYNAMICS
VEHI CLE u")

r'_ V') GROUP

SYSTEMS INFORMATION
I SYSTEMSSTATUS
FLIGHT DIRECTOR NETWORK
II: NETWORK
STATUS CONTROLLER
ASSISTANT
FLIGHT MCC/MSFN
STATUS I SlC DATA
DIRECTOR

MISSION MISSION PROCEDURESTATUS

PROCEDURE
STATUS i SPACECRAFT
COMMUN ICATOR
L FLIGHT
CREW Ji_ rl,

I OFFICER
0 AND P I

Figure 3-12.- Information flc_within the

Mission Operations Control Room.

3-25
 PART 2. APOLLO 13 MISSION DESCRIPTION

PRIMARY MISSION OBJECTIVES

The primary mission objectives were as follows:

Perform selenological inspection, survey, and sampling of materials

in a preselected region of the Fra Mauro Formation.

Deploy and activate an Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package

(m_SEP).

Develop man's capability to work in the lunar environment.

Obtain photographs of candidate exploration sites.

Table 3-II lists the Apollo 13 mission sequence of major events and
the time of occurrence in ground elapsed time.

TABLE 3-II. - APOLLO 13 MISSION SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Ground elapsed time

Event
(hr:min:sec)

Range zero (02:13:00.0 p.m.e.s.t., April ll) 00:00:00

Earth parking orbit insertion 00:12:40
Second S-IVB ignition 02:35:46
Translunar injection 02:41:47
CSM/S-IVB separation 03:06:39
Spacecraft ejection from S-IVB 04:01:03
S-IVB APS evasive maneuver 04:18:01
S-IVB APS maneuver for lunar impact 05:59:59
Midcourse correction - 2 (hybrid transfer) 30:40:50
Cryogenic oxygen tank anomaly 55:54:53
Midcourse correction - 4 61:29:43
S-IVB lunar impact 77:56:40
Pericynthion plus 2-hour maneuver 79:27:39
Midcourse correction - 5 105:18:32
Midcourse correction - 7 137:39:49
Service module jettison 138:02:06
Lunar module jettison 141:30:02
Entry interface 142:40:47
Landing 142:54:41

3-26
 Launch and Earth Parking Orbit

Apollo 1B was successfully launched on schedule from Launch Complex

39A, KennedySpace Center, Florida, at 2:13 p.m.e.s.t., April ll, 1970.
The launch vehicle stages inserted the S-IVB/instrument unit (IU)/
spacecraft combination into an earth parking orbit with an apogeeof
100.2 nautical miles (n. mi. ) and a perigee of 98.0 n. mi. (100-n. mi.
circular planned). During second stage boost, the center engine of the
S-II stage cut off about 132 seconds early, causing the remaining four
engines to burn approximately 3_ seconds longer than predicted. Space
vehicle velocity after S-II boost was 223 feet per second (fps) lower
than planned. As a result, the S-IVB orbital insertion burn was approx-
imately 9 seconds longer than predicted with cutoff velocity within
about 1.2 fps of planned. Total launch vehicle burn time was about
44 seconds longer than predicted. A greater than B-sigma probability of
meeting translunar injection (TLI) cutoff conditions existed with re-
maining S-IVB propellants.

After orbital insertion, all launch vehicle and spacecraft systems

were verified and preparation was madefor translunar injection (TLI).
Onboardtelevision was initiated at 01:35 ground elapsed time (g.e.t.)
for about 5.5 minutes. The second S-IVBburn was initiated on schedule
for TLI. All major systems operated satisfactorily and all end con-
ditions were nominal for a free-return circumlunar trajectory.

Translunar Coast

The CSMseparated from the LM/IU/S-IVB at about 03:07 g.e.t. On-

board television was then initiated for about 72 minutes and clearly
showedCSM"hard docking," ejection of the CSM/LMfrom the S-IVB at
about 0_:01 g.e.t., and the S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system (APS)
evasive maneuver as well as spacecraft interior and exterior scenes.
The SMRCSpropellant usage for the separation, transposition, docking,
and ejection was nominal. All launch vehicle safing activities were
performed as scheduled.

The S-IVBAPS evasive maneuverby an 8-secondAPS Ullage burn was

initiated at 04:18 g.e.t, and was successfully completed. The liquid
oxygen dumpwas initiated at 04:39 g.e.t, and was also successfully
accomplished. The first S-IVB APSburn for lunar target point impact
was initiated at 06:00 g.e.t. The burn duration was 217 seconds, pro-
ducing a differential velocity of approximately 28 fps. Tracking infor-
mation available at 08:00 g.e.t, indicated that the S-IVB/IU would impact
at 6°53' S., B0°5B' W. versus the targeted B° S., B0° W. Therefore, the
second S-IVB APS (trim) burn was not required. The gaseous nitrogen pres-
sure dropped in the IU ST-124-MBinertial platform at 18:25 g.e.t, and
the S-IVB/IU no longer had attitude control but began tumbling slowly.

3-27
At approximately 19:17 g.e.t., a step input in tracking data indicated a
velocity increase of approximately 4 to 5 fps. No conclusions have been
reached on the reason for this increase. The velocity change altered
the lunar impact point closer to the target. The S-IVB/IU impacted the
lunar surface at 77:56:40 g.e.t. (08:09:40 p.m.e.s.t. April 14) at
2.4 ° S., 27.9 ° W., and the seismometer deployed during the Apollo 12
mission successfully detected the impact. The targeted impact point was
125 n. mi. from the seismometer. The actual impact point was 74 n. mi.
from the seismometer, well within the desired 189-n. mi. (350-km) radius.

The accuracy of the TLI maneuver was such that spacecraft midcourse
correction No. 1 (MCC-1), scheduled for ll:41 g.e.t., was not required.
MCC-2 was performed as planned at 30:41 g.e.t, and resulted in placing
the spacecraft on the desired, non-free-return circumlunar trajectory
with a predicted closest approach to the moon on 62 n. mi. All SPS burn
parameters were normal. The accuracy of MCC-3 was such that MCC-3,
scheduled for 55:26 g.e.t., was not performed. Good quality television
coverage of the preparations and performance of MCC-2 was received for
49 minutes beginning at 30:13 g.e.t.

At approximately 55:55 g.e.t. (10:08 p.m.e.s.t.), the crew re-

ported an undervoltage alarm on the CSM main bus B. Pressure was rapid-
ly lost in SM oxygen tank no. 2 and fuel cells 1 and 3 current dropped
to zero due to loss of their oxygen supply. A decision was made to
abort the mission. The increased load on fuel cell 2 and decaying pres-
sure in the remaining oxygen tank led to the decision to activate the
LM, power down the CSM, and use the LM systems for life support.

At 61:30 g.e.t., a 38-fps midcourse maneuver (MCC-4) was performed

by the LM DPS to place the spacecraft in a free-return trajectory on
which the CM would nominally land in the Indian Ocean south of Mauritius
at approximately 152:00 g.e.t.

Transearth Coast

At pericynthion plus 2 hours (79:28 g.e.t.), a LM DPS maneuver was

performed to shorten the return trip time and move the earth landing
point. The 263.4-second burn produced a differential velocity of 860.5
fps and resulted in an initial predicted earth landing point in the mid-
Pacific Ocean at 1_2:53 g.e.t. Both LM guidance systems were powered
up and the primary system was used for this maneuver. Following the
maneuver, passive thermal control was established and the LMwas powered
down to conserve consumables; only the LM environmental control system
(ECS) and communications and telemetry systems were kept powered up.

The LMDPS was used to perform MCC-5 at 105:19 g.e.t. The 15-second
burn (at 10-percent throttle) produced a velocity change of about 7.8 fps

3-28
 and successfully raised the entry flight path angle to -6.52 ° •

The CSM was partially powered up for a check of the thermal condi-
tions of the CM with first reported receipt of S-band signal at 101:53
g.e.t. Thermal conditions on all CSM systems observed appeared to be in
order for entry.

Due to the unusual spacecraft configuration, new procedures leading

to entry were developed and verified in ground-based simulations. The
resulting timeline called for a final midcourse correction (MCC-7) at
entry interface (EI) -5 hours, Jettison of the SM at EI -4.5 hours, then
jettison of the LM at EI -1 hour prior to a normal atmospheric entry by
the CM.

MCC-7 was successfully accomplished at 137:40 g.e.t. The 22.4-second

LM RCS maneuver resulted in a predicted entry flight path angle of -6.49 °.
The SM was jettisoned at 138:02 g.e.t. The crew viewed and photographed
the SM and reported that an entire panel was missing near the S-band high-
gain antenna and a great deal of debris was hanging out. The CM was pow-
ered up and then the LM was Jettisoned at 141:30 g.e.t. The EI at 40,000
feet was reached at 142:41 g.e.t.

Entry and Recovery

Weather in the prime recovery area was as follows: broken stratus

clouds at 2000 feet; visibility l0 miles; 6-knot ENE winds; and wave
height 1 to 2 feet. Drogue and main parachutes deployed normally.
Visual contact with the spacecraft was reported at 142:50 g.e.t. Landing
occurred at 142:54:41 g.e.t. (01:07:41 p.m.e.s.t., April 17). The land-
ing point was in the mid-Pacific Ocean, approximately 21°40 ' S., 165°22 ' W.
The CM landed in the stable 1 position about 3.5 n. mi. from the prime
recovery ship, USS IWO JIMA. The crew, picked up by a recovery heli-
copter, was safe aboard the ship at 1:53 p.m.e.s.t., less than an hour
after landing.

3-29

U 1/- IL L: E. L L E L. ta U n n u L
 I

This page left blank intentionally.

3-30
 CHAPTER 4

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF APOLLO 15 ACCIDENT

4-0
ILl li It"., /_ IL 1: 12 L ' _: I_ L
'_ ,_
_' 13 E IL _ _
L..
 PART i. INTRODUCTION

It became clear in the course of the Board's review that the acci-
dent during the Apollo 13 mission was initiated in the service module
cryogenic oxygen tank no. 2. Therefore, the following analysis centers
on that tank and its history. In addition, the recovery steps taken in
the period beginning with the accident and continuing to reentry are
discussed.

Two oxygen tanks essentially identical to oxygen tank no. 2 on

Apollo 13, and two hydrogen tanks of similar design, operated satisfac-
torily on several unmanned Apollo flights and on the Apollo 7, 8, 9, 10,
ll, and 12 manned missions. With this in mind, the Board placed particu-
lar emphasis on each difference in the history of oxygen tank no. 2 from
the history of the earlier tanks, in addition to reviewing the design,
assembly, and test history.

4-1
 PART 2. OXYGEN TANK NO. 2 HISTORY

DESIGN

On February 26, 1966, the North American Aviation Corporation, now

North American Rockwell (NR), prime contractor for the Apollo command
and service modules (CSM), awarded a subcontract to the Beech Aircraft
Corporation (Beech) to design, develop, fabricate, assemble, test, and
deliver the Block II Apollo cryogenic gas storage subsystem. This was
a follow-on to an earlier subcontract under which the somewhat different
Block I subsystem was procured.

As the simplified drawing in figure 4-1 indicates, each oxygen tank

has an outer shell and an inner shell, arranged to provide a vacuum
space to reduce heat leak, and a dome enclosing paths into the tank for
transmission of fluids and electrical power and signals. The space be-
tween the shells and the space in the dome are filled with insulating
materials. Mounted in the tank are two tubular assemblies. One, called
the heater tube, contains two thermostatically protected heater coils
and two small fans driven by 1800 rpm motors to stir the tank contents.
The other, called the quantity probe, consists of an upper section which
supports a cylindrical capacitance gage used to measure electrically the
quantity of fluid in the tank. The inner cylinder of this probe serves
both as a fill and drain tube and as one plate of the capacitance gage.
In addition, a temperature sensor is mounted on the outside of the quan-
tity probe near the head. Wiring for the gage, the temperature sensor,
the fan motors, and the heaters passes through the head of the quantity
probe to a conduit in the dome. From there the wiring runs to a con-
necter which ties it electrically to the appropriate external circuits
in the CSM. The routing of wiring and lines from the tank through the
dome is shown in figure 4-2.

As shown in figure 4-2, the fill line from the exterior of the SM
enters the oxygen tank and connects to the inner cylinder of the capaci-
tance gage through a coupling of two Teflon adapters or sleeves and a
short length of Inconel tubing. The dimensions and tolerances selected
are such that if "worst case" variations in an actual system were to
occur, the coupling might not reach from the fill line to the gage cylin-
der (fig. 4-3). Thus, the variations might be such that a very loose
fit would result.

The supply line from the tank leads from the head of the quantity
probe to the dome and thence, after passing around the tank between the
inner and outer shells, exits through the dome to supply oxygen to the
fuel cells in the service module (SM) and the environmental control
system (ECS) in the command module (CM). The supply line also connects

4-2
 • °

Closeout cap
Blowout disc

Fan

Supply motor
Temperature
line
sensor

"hermostat

Heater

To fuel
Insulation

ceil/ECS'_
Capacitance
gage

Fan
motor

Pressure
Pressure switch
transducer
Closeout cap
Relief
valve
Overboard

Figure &-l.- Oxygen tank no. 2 internal components.

tl !1 L .... ._ __ __
 Fill tube conduit

Electrical
wiring

Oxygen
vent tube
Supply

Filter

O0
O0
fan 1

Temperature sensor _ /i

Quantity probe

Figure 4-2.- Oxygen tank wiring and lines.

4-4
 Fill
Fill
\
tube
tube

r \
Adverse
tolerance case \ I I
Nominal
tolerance case
\

• Dimension a
\r I

I
depends on
e value of e

Part Max Nom Min

dim dim dim

a :_ 0.28 0.24 0.16

b 1.095!1.0801.065
Probe
c 0.26 0.20 0.14

d 1.45 1.43 1.41

e 18 ° 21 ° 24 °

Figure 4-3.- Nominal and adverse tolerance cases.

r-:

I"
to a relief valve. Under normal conditions, pressure in the tank is
measured by a pressure gage in the supply line and a pressure switch
near this gage is provided to turn on the heaters in the oxygen tank if
the pressure drops below a preselected value. This periodic addition of
heat to the tank maintains the pressure at a sufficient level to satisfy
the demand for oxygen as tank quantity decreases during a flight mission.

The oxygen tank is designed for a capacity of 320 pounds of super-

critical oxygen at pressures ranging between 865 to 935 pounds per
square inch absolute (psia). The tank is initially filled with liquid
oxygen at -297 ° F and operates over the range from -340 ° F to +80 ° F.
The term "supercritical" means that the oxygen is maintained at a temper-
ature and pressure which assures that it is a homogeneous, single-phase
fluid.

The burst pressure of the oxygen tank is about 2200 psi at -150 ° F,
over twice the normal operating pressure at that temperature. The relief
valve is designed to relieve pressure in the oxygen tank overboard at a
pressure of approximately i000 psi. The oxygen tank dome is open to the
vacuum between the inner and outer tank shell and contains a rupture
disc designed to blow out at about 75 psi.

The approximate amounts of principal materials within the oxygen

tank are set forth in table 4-1.

TABLE 4-1.- MATERIALS WITHIN OXYGEN TANK

Approximate Available
Mat eri al quantity, lb energy, Btu

Teflon-wire insulation 1.1 2,400

sleeving and solid

Aluminum (all forms ) 0.8 20,500

Stainless steel 2.4 15,000

Inconel alloys 1.7 2,900

Two oxygen tanks are mounted on a shelf in bay 4 of the SM, as

shown in figure 4-4. Figures 4-5 through 4-8 are photographs of portions

4-6

• _
 :uel
cell
2

Fuel Fuel
cell cell
3 1

_Fuel cell

-Oxygen
Oxygen Il tank 1

tank 2"-_ - Oxygen valve

Oxygen subsystem module
shelf module
Oxygen servicing
panel

.Hydrogen
1

/drogen subs
_.she If module

tank 2

Fisure_-4. - Arrangement of fuel cells and cryogenic systems in bay h.

4-7

I1 N E :" E :I2 L L K I:: _". I: g. 1i _ t: iz L ± ,__

 This page left blank intentionally.

_-8

ILl ILl 13 L L ld 12 k L _ '_ '_ "

 /_.S _..... ., _._<.c

/ F t J -_

Figure 4=5.= Fuel cells shelf.

4-9
 .,¢- _* _<-C - L -_C,2 / L, '

Figure 4-6.- Oxygen tank shelf.

Preceding
pageblank
4-11

L k E '_ k 'L. '

_ L" L" L_ /Li _ K L
 FigureX_=_XX Hydrogen tank shelf.

Preceding
pageblank
4-13

ILl li E " L: E L L
. i_ E l.: : '
 F

4_8° --

Figure _X_ Inside view of panel covering bay 4.

Preceding
pageblank
4-15
of the Apollo 13 service module (SM109) at the North American Rockwell
plant prior to shipment to KSC. Figure 4-5 showsthe fuel cell shelf,
with fuel cell 1 on the right, fuel cell 3 on the left, and fuel cell 2
behind cells 1 and 3. The top of oxygen tank no. 2 can be seen at the
lower left. Figure 4-6 showsthe oxygen tank shelf, with oxygen tank
no. 2 at left center. Figure h-7 shows the hydrogen tank shelf with
hydrogen tank no. 1 on top and hydrogen tank no. 2 below. The bottom
of the oxygen shelf shows someof the oxygen system instrumentation and
wiring, largely covered by insulation. Figure h-8 is a photograph of
the bay 4 panel, which was missing from the service module after the
accident.

A more detailed description of the oxygen tank design is contained

in Appendix D to this report.

MANUFACTURE

The manufacture of oxygen tank no. 2 began in 1966. Under subcon-

tracts with Beech, the inner shell of the tank was manufactured by the
Airite Products Division of Electrada Corporation; the quantity probe
was madeby SimmondsPrecision Products, Inc. ; and the fans and fan
motors were produced by Globe Industries, Inc.

The Beech serial number assigned to the oxygen tank no. 2 flown
in the Apollo 13 was 10024XTA0008. It was the eighth Block II oxygen
tank built. Twenty-eight Block I oxygen tanks had previously been built
by Beech.

The design of the oxygen tank is such that once the upper and lower
halves of the inner and outer shells are assembledand welded, the
heater assembly must be inserted in the tank, movedto one side, and
bolted in place. Then the quantity probe is inserted into the tank and
the heater assembly wires (to the heaters, the thermostats, and the fan
motors) must be pulled through the head of the quantity probe and the
32-inch coiled conduit in the dome. Thus, the design requires during
assembly a substantial amount of wire movementinside the tank, where
movementcannot be readily observed, and where possible damageto wire
insulation by scraping or flexing cannot be easily detected before the
tank is capped off and welded closed.

Several minor manufacturing flaws were discovered in oxygen tank

no. 2 in the course of testing. A porosity in a weld on the lower half
of the outer shell necessitated grinding and rewelding. Rewelding was
also required when it was determined that incorrect welding wire had
been inadvertently used for a small weld on a vacuumpumpmounted on

Preceding
pageblank
4-17
the outside of the tank dome. The upper fan motor originally installed
_as noisy and drew excessive current. The tank was disassembled and the
heater assembly, fans, and heaters were replaced with a new assembly
and new fans. The tank was then assembled and sealed for the second
time, and the space between the inner and outer shells was pumpeddown
over a 28-day period to create the necessary vacuum.

TANK TESTS AT BEECH

Acceptance testing of oxygen tank no. 2 at Beech included extensive

dielectric, insulation, and functional tests of heaters, fans, and vac-
ion pumps. The tank was then leak tested at 500 psi and proof tested
at 1335 psi with helium.

After the helium proof test, the tank was filled with liquid oxygen
and pressurized to a proof pressure of 1335 psi by use of the tank
heaters powered by 65 V ac. Extensive heat-leak tests were run at
R00 psi for 25 to 30 hours over a range of ambient conditions and out-
flow rates. At the conclusion of the heat-leak tests, about 100 pounds
of oxygen remained in the tank. About three-fourths of this was released
by venting the tank at a controlled rate through the supply line to
about 20 psi. The tank was then emptied by applying warm gas at about
30 psi to the vent line to force the liquid oxygen (LOX) in the tank out
the fill line (see fig. h-2). No difficulties were recorded in this
det anking operation.

The acceptance test indicated that the rate of heat leak into the
taukwas higher than permitted by the specifications. After some re-
working, the rate improved, but was still somewhat higher than specified.
The tank was accepted with a formal waiver of this condition. Several
other minor discrepancies were also accepted. These included oversized
holes in the support for the electrical plug in the tank dome, and an
oversized rivet hole in the heater assembly Just above the lower fan.
None of these items were serious, and the tank was accepted, filled with
helium at 5 psi, and shipped to NR on May 3, 1967.

ASSEMBLY AND TEST AT NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL

The assembly of oxygen shelf serial number 0632AAG3277, with Beech

oxygen tank serial number 10024XTA0009 as oxygen tank no. 1 and serial
number 1002_XTA0008 as oxygen tank no. 2, was completed on March ll, 1968.
The shelf was to be installed in SM 106 for flight in the Apollo l0
mission.

4-18
 Beginning on April 27, the assembled oxygen shelf underwent stand-
ard proof-pressure, leak, and functional checks. One valve on the shelf
leaked and was repaired, but no anomalies were noted with regard to
oxygen tank no. 2, and therefore no rework of oxygen tauk no. 2 was
required. None of the oxygen tank testing at NR requires use of L0X
in the tanks.

On June _, 1968, the shelf was installed in SM 106.

Between August 3 and August 8, 1968, testing of the shelf in the

SM was conducted. No anomalies were noted.

Due to electromagnetic interference problems with the vac-ion

pumps on cryogenic tank domes in earlier Apollo spacecraft, a modifica-
tion was introduced and a decision was made to replace the complete
oxygen shelf in SM 106. An oxygen shelf with approved modifications was
prepared for installation in SM 106. On October 21, 1968, the oxygen
shelf was removed from SM 106 for the required modification and instal-
lation in a later spacecraft.

The oxygen shelf was removed in the manner shown in figure 4-9.
After various lines and wires were disconnected and bolts which hold
the shelf in the SM were removed, a fixture suspended from a crane was
placed under the shelf and used to lift the shelf and extract it from
bay h. One shelf bolt was mistakenly left in place during the initial
attempt to remove the shelf; and as a consequence, after the front of
the shelf was raised about 2 inches, the fixture broke, allowing the
shelf to drop back into place. Photographs of the underside of the
fuel cell shelf in SM 106 indicate that the closeout cap on the dome
of oxygen tank no. 2 may have struck the underside of that shelf during
this incident. At the time, however, it was believed that the oxygen
shelf had simply dropped back into place and an analysis was performed
to calculate the forces resulting from a drop of 2 inches. It now
seems likely that the shelf was first accelerated upward and then
dropped.

The remaining bolt was then removed, the incident recorded, and
the oxygen shelf was removed_ithout further difficulty. Following
removal, the oxygen shelf was retested to check shelf integrity, in-
cluding proof-pressure tests, leak tests, and functional tests of
pressure transducers and switches, thermal switches, and vac-ion pumps.
No cryogenic testing was conducted. Visual inspection revealed no
problem. These tests would have disclosed external leakage or serious
internal malfunctions of most types, but would not disclose fill line
leakage within oxygen tank no. 2. Further calculations and tests con-
ducted during this investigation, however, have indicated that the
forces experienced by the shelf were probably close to those originally

4-19
 hoist

--- Fuel cell shelf

Sling
r-

|
ro
o

r_

Sling adapter _"

stment of ballance weights

Figure 4-9.- Hoist and sling arrangement - oxygen shelf.

calculated assuming a 2-inch drop only. The probability of tank damage
from this incident, therefore, is now considered to be rather low,
although it is possible that a loosely fitting fill tube could have
been displaced by the event.

The shelf passed these tests and was installed in SM 109 on

November 22, 1968. The shelf tests accomplished earlier in SM 106
were repeated in SM 109 in late December and early January, with no
significant problems, and SM 109 was shipped to Kennedy Space Center
(KSC) in June of 1969 for further testing, assembly on the launch
vehicle, and launch.

TESTING AT KSC

At the Kennedy Space Center the CM and the SM were mated, checked,
assembled on the Saturn V launch vehicle, and the total vehicle was
moved to the launch pad.

The countdown demonstration test (CDDT) began on March 16, 1970.

Up to this point, nothing unusual about oxygen tank no. 2 had been
noted during the extensive testing at KSC. The oxygen tanks were
evacuated to 5mmHg followed by an oxygen pressure of about 80 psi.
After the cooling of the fuel cells, cryogenic oxygen loading and tank
pressurization to 331 psi were completed without abnormalities. At the
time during CDDT when the oxygen tanks are normally partially emptied
to about 50 percent of capacity, oxygen tank no. 1 behaved normally,
but oxygen tank no. 2 only went down to 92 percent of its capacity.
The normal procedure during CDDT to reduce the quantity in the tank is
to apply gaseous oxygen at 80 psi through the vent line and to open
the fill line. When this procedure failed, it was decided to proceed
with the CDDT until completion and then look at the oxygen detanking
problem in detail. An Interim Discrepancy Report was written and
transferred to a Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Discrepancy Report,
since a GSE filter was suspected.

On Friday, March 27, 1970, detanking operations were resumed, after

discussions of the problem had been held with KSC, MSC, NR, and Beech
personnel participating, either personally or by telephone. As a first
step, oxygen tank no. 2, which had self-pressurized to 178 psi and was
about 83 percent full, was vented through its fill line. The quantity
decreased to 65 percent. Further discussions between KSC, MSC, NR,
and Beech personnel considered thatthe problem might be due to a leak
in the path between the fill line and the quantity probe due to loose
fit in the sleeves and tube. Referring to figure _-2, it will be noted
that such a leak would allow the gaseous oxygen (G0X) being supplied
to the vent line to leak directly to the fill line without forcing any

4-21
significant amount of LOXout of the tank. At this point, a discrep-
ancy report against the spacecraft system was written.

A "normal" detanking procedure was then conducted on both oxygen

tanks, pressurizing through the vent line and opening the fill lines.
Tank no. 1 emptied in a few minutes. Tank no. 2 did not. Additional
attempts were madewith higher pressures without effect, and a decision
was madeto try to "boil off" the remaining oxygen in tank no. 2 by
use of the tank heaters. The heaters were energized with the 65 V tic.
GSEpower supply, and, about l-l/2 hours later, the fans were turned
on to add more heat and mixing. After 6 hours of heater operation,
the quantity had only decreased to 35 percent, and it was decided to
attempt a pressure cycling technique. With the heaters and fans still
energized, the tank was pressurized to about 300 psi, held for a few
minutes, and then vented through the fill line. The first cycle
produced a 7-percent quantity decrease, and the process was continued,
with the tank emptied after five pressure/vent cycles. The fans and
heaters were turned off after about 8 hours of heater operation.

Suspecting the loosely fitting fill line connection to the quantity

probe inner cylinder, KSCpersonnel consulted with cognizant personnel
at MSCand at NRand decided to test whether the oxygen tank no. 2
could be filled without problems. It was decided that if the tank could
be filled, the leak in the fill line would not be a problem in flight,
since it was felt that even a loose tube resulting in an electrical
short between the capacitance plates of the quantity gage would result
in an energy level too low to cause any other damage.

Replacement of the oxygen shelf in the CMwould have been difficult

and would have taken at least 45 hours. In addition, shelf replacement
would have had the potential of damaging or degrading other elements of
the SMin the course of replacement activity. Therefore, the decision
was madeto test the ability to fill oxygen tank no. 2 on March 30,
1970, twelve days prior to the scheduled Saturday, April ll, launch,
so as to be in a position to decide on shelf replacement well before
the launch date.

Accordingly, flow tests with G0Xwere run on oxygen tank no. 2

and on oxygen tank no. 1 for comparison. No problems were encountered,
and the flow rates in the two tanks were similar. In addition, Beech
was asked to test the electrical energy level reached in the event of
a short circuit between plates of the quantity probe capacitance gage.
This test showedthat very low energy levels would result. On the
filling test, oxygen tanks no. 1 and no. 2 were filled with LOXto
about 20 percent of capacity on March 30 with no difficulty. Tank no. 1
emptied in the normal manner, but emptying oxygen tank no. 2 again
required pressure cycling with the heaters turned on.

4-22
 As the launch date approached, the oxygen tank no. 2 detanking
problem was considered by the Apollo organization. At this point,
the "shelf drop" incident on October 21, 1968, at NRwas not considered
and it was felt that the apparently normal detanking which had occurred
in 1967 at Beechwas not pertinent because it was believed that a
different procedure was used by Beech. In fact, however, the last
portion of the procedure was quite similar, although a slightly lower
G0Xpressure was utilized.

Throughout these considerations, which involved technical and

managementpersonnel of KSC,MSC,NR, Beech, and NASAHeadquarters,
emphasiswas directed toward the possibility and consequencesof a loose
fill tube; very little attention was paid to the extended operation of
heaters and fans except to note that they apparently operated during
and after the detanking sequences.

Many of the principals in the discussions were not aware of the

extended heater operations. Those that did know the details of the
procedure did not consider the possibility of damagedue to excessive
heat within the tank, and therefore did not advise managementofficials
of any possible consequencesof the unusually long heater operations.

As noted earlier in this chapter, and shownin figure 4-2, each

heater is protected with a thermostatic switch, mounted on the heater
tube, which is intended to open the heater circuit when it senses a
temperature of 80° F. In tests conducted at MSCsince the accident,
however, it was found that the switches failed to open when the
heaters were powered from a 65 V dc supply similar to the power used
at KSCduring the detanking sequence. Subsequentinvestigations have
shown that the thermostatic switches used, while rated as satisfactory
for the 28 V dc spacecraft power supply, could not open properly at
65 V tic. Qualification and test procedures for the heater assemblies
and switches do not at any time test the capability of the switches
to open while under full current conditions. A review of the voltage
recordings made during the detanking at KSCindicates that, in fact,
the switches did not open when the temperature indication from within
the tank rose past 80° F. Further tests have shown that the tempera-
tures on the heater tube may have reached as much as 1000° F during
the detanking. This temperature will cause serious damageto adjacent
Teflon insulation, and such damagealmost certainly occurred.

None of the above, however, Wasknown at the time and, after

extensive consideration was given to all possibilities of damagefrom
a loose fill tube, it was decided to leave the oxygen shelf and oxygen
tank no. 2 in the SMand to proceed with preparations for the launch
of Apollo 13.

4-23
 .. The manufacture and test history of oxygen tank no. 2 is discussed
in more detail in Appendix C to this report.

4-24
 PART 3. THE APOLLO 13 FLIGHT

The Apollo 13 mission was designed to perform the third manned

lunar landing. The selected site was in the hilly uplands of the Fra
Mauro formation. A package of five scientific experiments was planned
for emplacement on the lunar surface near the lunar module (LM) landing
point: (1) a lunar passive seismometer to measure and relay meteoroid
impact and moonquakes and to serve as the second point in a seismic net
begun with the Apollo 12 seismometer; (2) a heat flow device for measur-
ing the heat flux from the lunar interior to the surface and surface
material conductivity to a depth of 3 meters; (3) a charged-particle
lunar environment experiment for measuring solar wind proton and electron
effects on the lunar environment; (4) a cold cathode gage for measuring
density and temperature variations in the lunar atmosphere; and (5) a
dust detector experiment.

Additionally, the Apollo 13 landing crew was to gather the third

set of selenological samples of the lunar surface for return to earth
for extensive scientific analysis. Candidate future landing sites were
scheduled to be photographed from lunar orbit with a high-resolution
topographic camera carried aboard the command module.

During the week prior to launch, backup Lunar Module Pilot Charles
M. Duke, Jr., contracted rubella. Blood tests were performed to deter-
mine prime crew immunity, since Duke had been in close contact with the
prime crew. These tests determined that prime Commander James A. Lovell
and prime Lunar Module Pilot Fred Haise were immune to rubella, but that
prime Command Module Pilot Thomas K. Mattingly III did not have immunity.
Consequently, following 2 days of intensive simulator training at the
Kennedy Space Center, backup Command Module Pilot John L. Swigert, Jr.,
was substituted in the prime crew to replace Mattingly. Swigert had
trained for several months with the backup crew, and this additional
work in the simulators was aimed toward integrating him into the prime
crew so that the new combination of crewmen could function as a team
during the mission.

Launch was on time at 2:13 p.m., e.s.t., on April ll, 1970, from the
KSC Launch Complex 39A. The spacecraft was inserted into a lO0-nautical-
mile circular earth orbit. The only significant launch phase anomaly was
premature shutdown of the center engine of the S-II second stage. As a
result, the remaining four S-II engines burned 34 seconds longer than
planned and the S-IVB third stage burned a few seconds longer than plan-
ned. At orbital insertion, the velocity was within 1.2 feet per second
of the planned velocity. Moreover, an adequate propellant margin was
maintained in the S-IVB for the translunar injection burn.

4-25
 Orbital insertion was at 00:12:39 ground elapsed time (g.e.t.).
The initial one and one-half earth orbits before translunar injection
(TLI) were spent in spacecraft systems checkout and included television
transmissions as Apollo 13 passed over the Merritt Island Launch Area,
Florida, tracking station.

The S-IVB restarted at 02:35:46 g.e.t, for the translunar injection

burn, with shutdown coming some5 minutes 51 seconds later. Accuracy of
the Saturn V instrument unit guidance for the TLI burn was such that a
planned midcourse correction maneuverat 11:41:23 g.e.t, was not neces-
sary. After TLI, Apollo 13 was calculated to be on a free-return trajec-
tory with a predicted closest approach to the lunar surface of 210
nautical miles.

The CSMwas separated from the S-IVB about 3 hours after launch,
and after a brief period of stationkeeping, the crew maneuveredthe CSM
to dock with the LMvehicle in the LM adapter atop the S-IVB stage. The
S-IVB stage was separated from the docked CSMand LM shortly after 4
hours into the mission.

In mannedlunar missions prior to Apollo 13, the spent S-IVB third

stages were accelerated into solar orbit by a "slingshot" maneuver in
which residual liquid oxygen was dumpedthrough the J-2 engine to pro-
vide propulsive energy. On Apollo 13, the plan was to impact the S-IVB
stage on the lunar surface in proximity to the seismometer emplaced in
the Oceanof Storms by the crew of Apollo 12.

Two hours after TLI, the S-IVB attitude thrusters were ground com-
mandedon to adjust the stage's trajectory toward the designated impact
at latitude 3° S. by longitude 30° W. Actual impact was at latitude
2.4 ° S. by longitude 27.9° W.--74 nautical miles from the Apollo 12
seismometer and well within the desired range. Impact was at 77:56:40
g.e.t. Seismic signals relayed by the Apollo 12 seismometer as the
30,700-pound stage hit the Moonlasted almost 4 hours and provided lunar
scientists with additional data on the structure of the Moon.

As in previous lunar missions, the Apollo 13 spacecraft was set up

in the passive thermal control (PTC) modewhich calls for a continuous
roll rate of three longitudinal axis revolutions each hour. During crew
rest periods and at other times in translunar and transearth coast when
a stable attitude is not required, the spacecraft is placed in PTCto
stabilize the thermal response by spacecraft structures and systems.

At 30:40:49 g.e.t., a midcourse correction maneuverwas madeusing

the service module propulsion system. The crew preparations for the
burn and the burn itself were monitored by the Mission Control Center
(MMC)at MSCby telemetered data and by television from the spacecraft.
This midcourse correction maneuverwas a 23.2 feet per second hybrid

4-26
 transfer burn which took Apollo 13 off a free-return trajectory and
placed it on a non-free-return trajectory. A similar trajectory had been
flown on Apollo 12. The objective of leaving a free-return trajectory
is to control the arrival time at the Moonto insure the proper lighting
conditions at the landing site. Apollo 8, 10, and ll flew a pure free-
return trajectory until lunar orbit insertion. The Apollo 13 hybrid
transfer maneuverlowered the predicted closest approach, or pericyn-
thion, altitude at the Moonfrom 210 to 64 nautical miles.

From launch through the first 46 hours of the mission, the perform-
ance of oxygen tank no. 2 was normal, so far as telemetered data and
crew observations indicate. At 46:40:02, the crew turned on the fans in
oxygen tank no. 2 as a routine operation. Within 3 seconds, the oxygen
tank no. 2 quantity indication changed from a normal reading of about
82 percent full to an obviously incorrect reading "off-scale high," of
over 100 percent. Analysis of the electrical wiring of the quantity gage
shows that this erroneous reading could be caused by either a short cir-
cuit or an open circuit in the gage wiring or a short circuit between
the gage plates. Subsequentevents indicated that a short was the more
likely failure mode.

At 47:54:50 and at 51:07:44, the oxygen tank no. 2 fans were turned
on again, with no apparent adverse effects. The quantity gage continued
to read off-scale high.

Following a rest period, the Apollo 13 crew began preparations for

activating and powering up the LM for checkout. At 53:27 g.e.t., the
Commander (CMR)and Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) were cleared to enter the
LM to commenceinflight inspection of the LM. Groundtests before launch
had indicated the possibility of a high heat-leak rate in the LM descent
stage supercritical helium tank. Crew verification of actual pressures
found the helium pressure to be within normal limits. Supercritical
helium is stored in the LM for pressurizing propellant tanks.

The LMwas powered down and preparations were underway to close the
LMhatch and run through the presleep checklist when the accident in
oxygen tank no. 2 occurred.

At 55:52:30 g.e.t., a master alarm on the CMcaution and warning

system alerted the crew to a low pressure indication in the cryogenic
hydrogen tank no. 1. This tank had reached the low end of its normal
operating pressure range several times previously during the flight.
At 55:52:58, flight controllers in the MCCrequested the crew to turn
on the cryogenic system fans and heaters.

The Command Module Pilot (CMP)acknowledgedthe fan cycle request

at 55:53:06 g.e.t., and data indicate that current was applied to the
oxygen tank no. 2 fan motors at 55:53:20.

4-27

ILl ]LJ:- L E L: L L: L. L: u n n z L L L
 About l-l/2 minutes later, at 55:54:53.555, telemetry from the
spacecraft was lost almost totally for 1.8 seconds. During the period
of data loss, the caution and warning system alerted the crew to a low
voltage condition on dc main bus B. At about the same time, the crew
heard a loud "bang" and realized that a problem existed in the
spacecraft.

The events between fan turnon at 55:53:20 and the time when the
problem was evident to the crew and Mission Control are covered in some
detail in Part 4 of this chapter, "Summary Analysis of the Accident."
It is now clear that oxygen tank no. 2 or its associated tubing lost
pressure integrity because of combustion within the tank, and that ef-
fects of oxygen escaping from the tank caused the removal of the panel
covering bay 4 and a relatively slow leak in oxygen tank no. i or its
lines or valves. Photos of the SM taken by the crew later in the mis-
sion show the panel missing, the fuel cells on the shelf above the
oxygen shelf tilted, and the high-gain antenna damaged.

The resultant loss of oxygen made the fuel cells inoperative, leav-
ing the CM with batteries normally used only during reentry as the sole
power source and with only that oxygen contained in a surge tank and
repressurization packages (used to repressurize the CM after cabin vent-
ing). The LM, therefore, became the only source of sufficient electri-
cal power and oxygen to permit safe return of the crew to Earth.

The various telemetered parameters of primary interest are shown

in figure 4-10 and listed in table 4-11.

4-28
 e',:_',', !_'_ _l::t_4 _.

--_- t+-

d
o
¥ 0

0.)
+m_. i

b
I1)

O)

O)

:.i:ili:_2
I
c;
::=: :4: ,-4
!
.-=t

_0
oH

_,_
,_td:,!

N N
............... ,_ _E;_ _,_
o o_

I I I 1 I

_. =. _. =

Im,l Ji1_ I_ I III,I roll I" "_J I_I_ _rl:l

4-29
 0_-_

Htiium la_ lJmi*r_url

AC_s I and 2v_ta_
Bay3 mWItzlr tank surfacm Ox_m rank I and 2 qulntlty, ten_afllt ure and pressure
Dc i_s A ancl II v_t_
t_ure
 TABLE 4-II.- DETAILED CHRONOLOGY FROM
2.5 MINUTES BEFORE THE ACCIDENT TO 5 MINUTES AFTER THE ACCIDENT

Time_ 6.e.t. Event

Events During 52 Seconds Prior to First Observed Abnormality

55:52:31 Master caution and warning triggered by low hydrogen

pressure in tank no. 1. Alarm is turned off after
4 seconds.

55:52:58 Ground requests tank stir.

55:53:06 Crew acknowledges tank stir.

55:53:18 Oxygen tank no. 1 fans on.

55:53:19 Oxygen tank no. 1 pressure decreases 8 psi.

55:53:20 Oxygen tank no. 2 fans turned on.

55:53:20 Stabilization control system electrical disturbance

indicates a power transient.

55:53:21 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure decreases 4 psi.

Abnormal Events During 90 Seconds Preceding the Accident

55:53:22.718 Stabilization control system electrical disturbance

indicates a power transient.

55:53:22.757 1.2-volt decrease in ac bus 2 voltage.

55:53:22.772 ll.l-amp rise in fuel cell 3 current for one

sample.

55 :53:36 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure begins rise lasting

for 24 seconds.

55:53:38.057 ll-volt decrease in ac bus 2 voltage for one

sample.

55:53:38.085 Stabilization control system electrical disturbance

indicates a power transient.

4-31
 TABLE4-11.- DETAILEDCHRONOLOGY
FROM
2.5 MINUTESBEFORETHEACCIDENTTO 5 MINUTESAFTERTHEACCIDENT
- Continued

Time, g.e.t. Event

55:53:41.172 22.9-amp rise in fuel cell 3 current for one sample.

55:53:41.192 Stabilization control system electrical disturbance

indicates a power transient.

55:54:00 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure rise ends at a pressure

of 953.8 psia.

55:54:15 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure begins to rise.

55:54:30 Oxygen tank no. 2 quantity drops from full scale

for 2 seconds and then reads 75.3 percent.

55:54:31 Oxygen tank no. 2 temperature begins to rise

rapidly.

55:54:43 Flow rate of oxygen to all three fuel cells begins

to decrease.

55:54:45 0xygen. tank no. 2 pressure reaches maximum value

of 1008.3 psia.

55:54:48 Oxygen tank no. 2 temperature rises 40 ° F for one

sample (invalid reading).

55:54:51 Oxygen tank no. 2 quantity Jumps to off-scale high

and then begins to drop until the time of telemetry
loss, indicating failed sensor.

55:54:52 Oxygen tank no. 2 temperature reads -151.3 ° F.

55:54:52.7O3 Oxygen tank no. 2 temperature suddenly goes off-

scale low, indicating failed sensor.

55:54:52.763 Last telemetered pressure from oxygen tank no. 2

before telemetry loss is 995.7 psia.

55:54:53.182 Sudden accelerometer activity on X, Y, and Z axes.

55:5_:53.220 Stabilization control system body rate changes

begin.

4-52
 TABLE 4-II.- DETAILED CHRONOLOGY FROM
2.5 MINUTES BEFORE THE ACCIDENT TO 5 MINUTES AFTER THE ACCIDENT - Continued

Time, _. e. t. Event

55:54:53.323 Oxygen tank no. i pressure drops h.2 psi.

55:54:53.5 2.8-amp rise in total fuel cell current.

55:54:53.542 X, Y, and Z accelerations in CM indicate 1.17g,

0.65g and 0.65g, respectively.

1.8-Second Data Loss

55:54:53.555 Loss of telemetry begins.

55:54:53.555+ Master caution and warning triggered by dc main

bus B undervoltage. Alarm is turned off in 6
seconds. All indications are that the cryogenic
oxygen tank no. 2 lost pressure in this time period
and the panel separated.

55:54:54.741 Nitrogen pressure in fuel cell 1 is off-scale low

indicating failed sensor.

55:54:55.35 Recovery of telemetry data.

Events During 5 Minutes Following the Accident

55:54:56 Service propulsion system engine valve body tempera-

ture begins a rise of 1.65 ° F in 7 seconds.

55:54:56 Dc main bus A decreases 0.9 volt to 28.5 volts and

dc main bus B decreases 0.9 volt to 29.0 volts.

55:5h:56 Total fuel cell current is 15 amps higher than the

final value before telemetry loss. High current
continues for 19 seconds.

55:54:56 Oxygen tank no. 2 temperature reads off-scale high

after telemetry recovery, probably indicating failed
s ens ors.

55:54:56 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure reads off-scale low fol-

lowing telemetry recovery, indicating a broken supply
line, a tank pressure below 19 psi, or a failed sensor.

4-33
 . TABLE4-II.- DETAILEDCHRONOLOGY
FROM
2.5 MINUTESBEFORETHEACCIDENTTO 5 MINUTESAFTERTHEACCIDENT
- Continued

Time s g.e.t. Event

55:54:56 Oxygen tank no. I pressure reads 781.9 psia and

begins to drop steadily.

55:54:57 Oxygen tank no. 2 quantity reads off-scale high

following telemetry recovery indicating failed sensor.

55:54:59 The reaction control system helium tank C temperature

begins a 1.66 ° F increase in 36 seconds.

55:55:01 Oxygen flow rates to fuel cells i and 3 approached

zero after decreasing for 7 seconds.

55:55:02 The surface temperature of the service module oxi-

dizer tank in bay 3 begins a 3.8 ° F increase in a
15-second period.

55:55:02 The service propulsion system helium tank temperature

begins a 3.8 ° F increase in a 32-second period.

55:55:09 Dc main bus A voltage recovers to 29.0 volts; dc

main bus B recovers to 28.8 volts.

55:55:20 Crew reports, "I believe we've had a problem here."

55:55:35 Crew reports, "We've had a main B bus undervolt."

55:55:29 Oxygen tank no. 2 temperature begins steady drop

lasting 59 seconds, probably indicating failed sensor.

55:56:10 Crew reports, "Okay right now, Houston. The voltage

is looking good, and we had a pretty large bang
associated with the caution and warning there. And
as I recall, main B was the one that had had an amp
spike on it once before."

55:56:38 Oxygen tank no. 2 quantity becomes erratic for 69

seconds before assuming an off-scale-low state,
indicating failed sensor.

4-34
 TABLE 4-II.- DETAILED CHRONOLOGY FROM
2.5 MINUTES BEFORE THE ACCIDENT TO 5 MINUTES AFTER THE ACCIDENT - Concluded

Time, g. e. t. Event

55:57:04 Crew reports, "That jolt must have rocked the

sensor on--see now--oxygen quantity 2. It was
oscillating down around 20 to 60 percent. Now
it's full-scale high again."

55:57:39 Master caution and warning triggered by dc main

bus B undervoltage. Alarm is turned off in
6 seconds.

55:57:40 Dc main bus B drops below 26.25 volts and continues

to fall rapidly.

55:57:44 Ac bus 2 fails within 2 seconds

55:57:45 Fuel cell 3 fails.

55:57:59 Fuel cell 1 current begins to decrease.

/

55:58:02 Master caution and warning caused by ac bus 2

being reset. Alarm is turned off after 2 seconds.

55:58:06 Master caution and warning triggered by dc main

bus A undervoltage. Alarm is turned off in 13
seconds.

55:58:07 Dc main bus A drops below 26.25 volts and in the

next few seconds levels off at 25.5 volts.

55:58:07 Crew reports, "ac 2 is showing zip."

55:58:25 Crew reports, "Yes, we got a main bus A undervolt

now, too, showing. It's reading about 25-1/2.
Main B is reading zip right now."

56:00:06
Master caution and warning triggered by high hydrogen
flow rate to fuel cell 2. Alarm is turned off in
2 seconds.

4-35

1/ N E '" L L L '
 PART 4. SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF THE ACCIDENT

Combustion in oxygen tank no. 2 led to failure of that tank, damage

to oxygen tank no. i or its lines or valves adjacent to tank no. 2,
removal of the bay 4 panel and, through the resultant loss of all three
fuel cells, to the decision to abort the Apollo 13 mission. In the
attempt to determine the cause of ignition in oxygen tank no. 2, the
course of propagation of the combustion, the mode of tank failure, and
the way in which subsequent damage occurred, the Board has carefully
sifted through all available evidence and examined the results of spe-
cial tests and analyses conducted by the Apollo organization and by or
for the Board after the accident. (For more information on details of
mission events, design, manufacture and test of the system, and special
tests and analyses conducted in this investigation, refer to Appendices
B, C, D, E, and F of this report.)

Although tests and analyses are continuing, sufficient information

is now available to provide a reasonably clear picture of the nature of
the accident and the events which led up to it. It is now apparent that
the extended heater operation at KSC damaged the insulation on wiring
in the tank and thus made the wiring susceptible to the electrical short
circuit which probably initiated combustion within the tank. While the
exact point of initiation of combustion may never be known with cer-
tainty, the nature of the occurrence is sufficiently understood to per-
mit taking corrective steps to prevent its recurrence.

The Board has identified the most probable failure mode.

The following discussion treats the accident in its key phases:

initiation, propagation of combustion, loss of oxygen tank no. 2 system
integrity, and loss of oxygen tank no. i system integrity.

INITIATION

Key Data

55:53:20* Oxygen tank no. 2 fans turned on.

55:53:22.757 1.2-volt decrease in ac bus 2 voltage.

*In evaluating telemetry data, consideration must be given to the

fact that the Apollo pulse code modulation (PCM) system samples data in
time and quantitizes in amplitude. For further information, reference
may be made to Part B7 of Appendix B.

4-56
 55:53:22.772 ll.l-ampere "spike" recorded in fuel cell 3 current
followed by drop in current and rise in voltage typ-
ical of removal of power from one fan motor--indicat-
ing opening of motor circuit.

55:53:36 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure begins to rise.

The evidence points strongly to an electrical short circuit with

arcing as the initiating event. About 2.7 seconds after the fans were
turned on in the SM oxygen tanks, an ll.l-ampere current spike and
simultaneously a voltage-drop spike were recorded in the spacecraft
electrical system. Immediately thereafter, current drawn from the fuel
cells decreased by an amount consistent with the loss of power to one
fan. No other changes in spacecraft power were being made at the time.
No power was on the heaters in the tanks at the time and the quantity
gage and temperature sensor are very low power devices. The next anom-
alous event recorded was the beginning of a pressure rise in oxygen
tank no. 2, 13 seconds later. Such a time lag is possible with low-
level combustion at the time. These facts point to the likelihood that
an electrical short circuit with arcing occurred in the fan motor or its
leads to initiate the accident sequence. The energy available from the
short circuit was probably iO to 20 joules. Tests conducted during
this investigation have shown that this energy is more than ade-
quate to ignite Teflon of the type contained within the tank. (The
quantity gage in oxygen tank no. 2 had failed at 46:40 g.e.t. There
is no evidence tying the quantity gage failure directly to accident
initiation, particularly in view of the very low energy available
from the gage.)

This likelihood of electrical initiation is enhanced by the high

probability that the electrical wires within the tank were damaged dur-
ing the abnormal detanking operation at KSC prior to launch.

Furthermore, there is no evidence pointing to any other mechanism

of initiation.

PROPAGATION OF COMBUSTION

Key Data

55:53:36 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure begins rise (same event

noted previously).

55:53:38.057 ll-volt decrease recorded in ac bus 2 voltage.

4-37

N N E '
L L L: L h L N_ 1: L,: L: Lt n J..: L .
55:53:41.172 22.9-ampere "spike" recorded in fuel cell 3 current,
followed by drop in current and rise in voltage typ-
ical of one fan motor -- indicating opening of another
motor circuit.

55:54:00 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure levels off at 954 psia.

55:54:15 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure begins to rise again.

55:54:30 Oxygen tank no. 2 quantity gage reading drops from

full scale (to which it had failed at 46:40 g.e.t.)
to zero and then read 75-percent full. This behav-
ior indicates the gage short circuit may have cor-
rected itself.

55:54:31 Oxygen tank no. 2 temperature begins to rise rapidly.

55:54:45 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure reading reaches maximum

recorded value of 1008 psia.

55:54:52.763 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure reading had dropped to

996 psia.

The available evidence points to a combustion process as the cause

of the pressure and temperature increases recorded in oxygen tank no. 2.
The pressure reading for oxygen tank no. 2 began to increase about 13
seconds after the first electrical spike, and about 55 seconds later the
temperature began to increase. The temperature sensor reads local tem-
perature, which need not represent bulk fluid temperature. Since the
rate of pressure rise in the tank indicates a relatively slow propaga-
tion of burning, it is likely that the region immediately around the
temperature sensor did not become heated until this time.

There are materials within the tank that can, if ignited in the
presence of supercritical oxygen, react chemically with the oxygen in
exothermic chemical reactions. The most readily reactive is Teflon
used for electrical insulation in the tank. Also potentially reactive
are metals, particularly aluminum. There is more than sufficient Tef-
lon in the tank, if reacted with oxygen, to account for the pressure and
temperature increases recorded. Furthermore, the pressure rise took
place over a period of more than 69 seconds, a relatively long period,
and one which would be more likely characteristic of Teflon combustion
than metal-oxygen reactions.

While the data available on the combustion of Teflon in supercrit-

ical oxygen in zero-g are extremely limited, those which are available
indicate that the rate of combustion is generally consistent with these

4-38
observations. The cause of the 15-second period of relatively constant
pressure first indicated at 55:53:59.763 has not been precisely deter-
mined; it is believed to be associated with a change in reaction rate as
combustion proceeded through various Teflon elements.

While there is enough electrical power in the tank to cause ignition

in the event of a short circuit or abnormal heating in defective wire_
there is not sufficient electric power to account for all of the energy
required to produce the observed pressure rise.

LOSSOF OXYGEN
TANKNO. 2 SYSTEM
INTEGRITY

Key Data

55:54:52 Last valid temperature indication (-151 ° F) from

oxygen tank no. 2.

55:54:52.763 Last pressure reading from oxygen tank no. 2 before

loss of data--996 psia.

55:54:53.182 Sudden accelerometer activity on X_ Y, and Z axes.

55:54:53.220 Stabilization control system body rate changes begin.

55:54:53.555* Loss of telemetry data begins.

55:54:55.35 Recovery of telemetry data.

55:54:56 Various temperature indications in SM begin slight

rises.

55:54:56 Oxygen tank no. 2 temperature reads off-scale high.

55:54:56 Oxygen tank no. 2 pressure reads off-scale low.

After the relatively slow propagation process described above took

place, there was a relatively abrupt loss of oxygen tank no. 2 integ-
rity. About 69 seconds after the pressure began to rise, it reached the
peak recorded, 1008 psia, the pressure at which the cryogenic oxygen
tank relief valve is designed to be fully open. Pressure began a decrease
for 8 seconds, dropping to 996 psia before readings were lost. Virtually

*Several bits of data have been obtained from this "loss of teleme-
try data" period.

4-39
 all signals from the spacecraft were lost about 1.85 seconds after the
last presumably valid reading from within the tank, a temperature read-
ing, and 0.8 second after the last presumably valid pressure reading
(which may or may not reflect the pressure within the tank itself since
the pressure transducer is about 20 feet of tubing length distant).
Abnormal spacecraft accelerations were recorded approximately 0.22 sec-
ond after the last pressure reading and approximately 0.38 second before
the loss of signal. These facts all point to,a relatively sudden loss
of integrity. At about this time, several solenoid valves_ including
the oxygen valves feeding two of the three fuel cells, were shocked to
the closed position. The "bang" reported by the crew also probably
occurred in this time period. Telemetry signals from Apollo 13 were
lost for a period of 1.8 seconds. When signal was reacquired, all instru-
ment indicators from oxygen tank no. 2 were off-scale, high or low. Tem-
peratures recorded by sensors in several different locations in the SM
showed slight increases in the several seconds following reacquisition
of signal. Photographs taken later by the Apollo 13 crew as the SM was
jettisoned show that the bay 4 panel was ejected, undoubtedly during
this event.

Data are not adequate to determine precisely the way in which the
oxygen tank no. 2 system lost its integrity. However, available infor-
mation, analyses, and tests performed during this investigation indicate
that most probably the combustion within the pressure vessel ultimately
led to localized heating and failure at the pressure vessel closure. It
is at this point, the upper end of the quantity probe, that the 1/2-inch
Inconel conduit is located, through which the Teflon-insulated wires
enter the pressure vessel. It is likely that the combustion progressed
along the wire insulation and reached this location where all of the
wires come together. This, possibly augmented by ignition of the metal
in the upper end of the probe, led to weakening and failure of the
closure or the conduit, or both.

Failure at this point would lead immediately to pressurization of

the tank dome, which is equipped with a rupture disc rated at about 75
psi. Rupture of this disc or of the entire dome would then release
oxygen, accompanied by combustion products, into bay 4. The accelera-
tions recorded were probably caused by this release.

Release of the oxygen then began to pressurize the oxygen shelf

space of bay 4. If the hole formed in the pressure vessel were large
enough and formed rapidly enough, the escaping oxygen alone would be
adequate to blow off the bay 4 panel. However, it is also quite possi-
ble that the escape of oxygen was accompanied by combustion of Mylar and
Kapton (used extensively as thermal insulation in the oxygen shelf com-
partment, figure 4-11, and in the tank dome) which would augment the

4-40
 4-11.-
Figure X_-_X_ Closeup view of oxygen tank shelf.

4-41

N N L. ,. ,.....
M_
pressure caused by the oxygen itself. The slight temperature increases
recorded at various SM locations indicate that combustion external to
the tank probably took place. Further testing may shed additional light
on the exact mechanism of panel ejection. The ejected panel then struck
the high-gain antenna, disrupting communications from the spacecraft for
the 1.8 seconds.

LOSS OF OXYGEN TANK NO. i INTEGRITY

Key Data

55:54:53.323 Oxygen tank no. 1 pressure drops 4 psia (from 883 psia
to 879 psia).

55:54:53.555 to Loss of telemetry data.

55:54:55.35

55:54:56 Oxygen tank no. 1 pressure reads 782 psia and drops
steadily. Pressure drops over a period of 130 min-
utes to the point at which it was insufficient to
sustain operation of fuel cell no. 2.

There is no clear evidence of abnormal behavior associated with

oxygen tank no. 1 prior to loss of signal, although the one data bit
(4 psi) drop in pressure in the last tank no. 1 pressure reading prior
to loss of signal may indicate that a problem was beginning. Immediately
after signal strength was regained, data show that tank no. 1 system had
lost its integrity. Pressure decreases were recorded over a period of
approximately 130 minutes, indicating that a relatively slow leak had
developed in the tank no. 1 system. Analysis has indicated that the
leak rate is less than that which would result from a completely rup-
tured line, but could be consistent with a partial line rupture or a
leaking check or relief valve.

Since there is no evidence that there was any anomalous condition

arising within oxygen tank no. l, it is presumed that "the loss of oxygen
tank no. 1 integrity resulted from the oxygen tank no. 2 system failure.
The relatively sudden, and possibly violent, event associated with loss
of integrity of the oxygen tank no. 2 system could have ruptured a line
to oxygen tank no. l, or have caused a valve to leak because of mechani-
cal shock.

Preceding
pageblank
4-43
 PART 5. APOLLO 13 RECOVERY

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

In the period immediately following the caution and warning alarm

for main bus B undervoltage, and the associated "bang" reported by the
crew, the cause of the difficulty and the degree of its seriousness
were not apparent.

The i. 8-second loss of telemetered data was accompanied by the

switching of the CSM high-gain antenna mounted on the SM adjacent to
bay 4 from narrow beam width to wide beam width. The high-gain antenna
does this automatically 200 milliseconds after its directional lock on
the ground signal has been lost.

A confusing factor was the repeated firings of various SM attitude

control thrusters during the period after data loss. In all probability,
these thrusters were being fired to overcome the effects that oxygen
venting and panel blowoff were having on spacecraft attitude, but it
was believed for a time that perhaps the thrusters were malfunctioning.

The failure of oxygen tank no. 2 and consequent removal of the bay 4
panel produced a shock which closed valves in the oxygen supply lines to
fuel cells 1 and 3. These fuel cells ceased to provide power in about 3
minutes, when the supply of oxygen between the closed valves and the
cells was depleted. Fuel cell 2 continued to power ac bus 1 through dc
main bus A, but the failure of fuel cell 3 left dc main bus B and ac
bus 2 unpowered (see fig. 4-12). The oxygen tank no. 2 temperature and
quantity gages were connected to ac bus 2 at the time of the accident.
Thus, these parameters could not be read once fuel cell 3 failed at
55:57:44 until power was applied to ac bus 2 from main bus A.

The crew was not alerted to closure of the oxygen feed valves to
fuel cells 1 and 3 because the valve position indicators in the CM were
arranged to give warning only if both the oxygen and hydrogen valves
closed. The hydrogen valves remained open. The crew had not been
alerted to the oxygen tank no. 2 pressure rise or to its subsequent drop
because a hydrogen tank low pressure warning had blocked the cryogenic
subsystem portion of the caution and warning system several minutes be-
fore the accident.

When the crew heard the bang and got the master alarm for low dc
main bus B voltage, the Commander was in the lower equipment bay of the
command module, stowing a television camera which had Just been in use.

4-4
 Fuel cell
1

DC main A AC bus i l
Fuel cell
2
r

-L-
I

%I1

Fuel cell
J DC main B : 2 AC bus 2
3 II l Inverter

I I
m
Cryo 0 2
tank 2
pressure
gage
Cryo 0 2
tank 2
fan
Cryo 0 2
tank 2
quantity,
temperature
gages
[ SCS
telemetry
channels

Figure 4-12.- Electrical configuration at 55:54:53 g.e.t.

it.
 The Lunar Module Pilot was in the tunnel between the CSMand the LM,
returning to the CSM. The Command Module Pilot was in the left-hand
couch, monitoring spacecraft performance. Because of the master alarm
indicating low voltage, the CMPmovedacross to the right-hand couch
where CSMvoltages can be observed. He reported that voltages were
"looking good" at 55:56:10. At this time, main bus B had recovered and
fuel cell 3 did not fail for another l-l/2 minutes. He also reported
fluctuations in the oxygen tank no. 2 quantity, followed by a return
to the off-scale high position. (See fig. 4-13 for CMpanel arrange-
ment).

Whenfuel cells 1 and 3 electrical output readings went to zero,

the ground controllers could not be certain that the cells had not some-
howbeen disconnected from their respective busses and were not otherwise
all right. Attention continued to be focused on electrical problems.
Five minutes after the accident, controllers asked the crew to
connect fuel cell 3 to dc main bus B in order to be sure that the config-
uration was known. Whenit was realized that fuel cells 1 and 3 were
not functioning, the crew was directed to perform an emergencypowerdown
to lower the load on the remaining fuel cell. Observing the rapid decay
in oxygen tank no. 1 pressure, controllers asked the crew to switch power
to the oxygen tank no. 2 instrumentation. Whenthis was done, and it
was realized that oxygen tank no. 2 had failed, the extreme seriousness
of the situation became clear.

During the succeeding period, efforts were madeto save the remain-
ing oxygen in the oxygen tank no. 1. Several attempts were made, but
had no effect. The pressure continued to decrease.

It was obvious by about l-l/2 hours after the accident that the
oxygen tank no. 1 leak could not be stopped and that shortly it would be
necessary to use the LM as a "lifeboat" for the remainder of the mission.

By 58:40 g.e.t., the LMhad been activated, the inertial guidance

reference transferred from the CSMguidance system to the LM guidance
system, and the CSMsystems were turned off.

RETURN
TOEARTH

The remainder of the mission was characteriz_ d by two main activ-

ities--planning and conducting the necessary propulsion maneuvers to
return the spacecraft to Earth, and managing the use of consumables in
such a way that the LM, which is designed for a basic mission with two
crewmenfor a relatively short duration, could support three men and serve
as the actual control vehicle for the time required.

4-46

ILl L L
 One significant anomaly was noted during the remainder of the
mission. At about 97 hours 14 minutes into the mission, the IAfP
reported hearing a "thump" and observing venting from the LM. Subsequent
data review shows that the LM electrical power system experienced a
brief but major abnormal current flow at that time. There is no evidence
E that this anomaly was related to the accident. Analysis by the Apollo
organization is continuing.

A number of propulsion options were developed and considered. It

was necessary to return the spacecraft to a free-return trajectory and
to make any required midcourse corrections. Normally, the service pro-
pulsion system (SPS) in the SM would be used for such maneuvers. How-
ever, because of the high electrical power requirements for using that
engine, and in view of its uncertain condition and the uncertain nature
of the structure of the SM after the accident, it was decided to use
the LM descent engine if possible.

The minimum practical return time was 133 hours g.e.t, to the
Atlantic Ocean, and the maximum was 152 hours g.e.t, to the Indian
Ocean. Recovery forces were deployed in the Pacific. The return path
selected was for splashdown in the Pacific Ocean at 142:40 g.e.t. This
required a minimum of two burns of the LM descent engine. A third burn
was subsequently made to correct the normal maneuver execution variations
in the first two burns. One small velocity adjustment was also made with
reaction control system thrusters. All burns were satisfactory. Figures
4-14 and 4-15 depict the flight plan followed from the time of the acci-
dent to splashdown.

The most critical consumables were water, used to cool the CSM and
LM systems during use; CSM and LM battery power, the CSM batteries being
for use during reentry and the LM batteries being needed for the rest

[ of the mission;
filter cannisters
LM oxygen for breathing;
used to remove carbon
and lithium
dioxide
hydroxide
from the spacecraft
(Li0H)

cabin atmosphere. These consumables, and in particular the water and

LiOH cannisters, appeared to be extremely marginal in quantity shortly
after the accident, but once the LM was powered down to conserve electric
power and to generate less heat and thus use less water, the situation
improved greatly. Engineers at MSC developed a method which allowed the
crew to use materials on board to fashion a device allowing use of the
CM Li0H eannisters in the LM cabin atmosphere cleaning system (see
fig. 4-16). At splashdown, many hours of each consumable remained
U
available (see figs. 4-17 through 4-19 and table 4-111).

4-48
m ii

1:

I
_A_J

,i*];

ILl IJ E .2L
_Ad

iJ

Figure 4-13.- _in display panel.

4-47 fi
 ;tart of
problem
(55:55)
to
free-return
r_
(61:30)

F_
I

kO

MCC-5 ]
r_ MCC-2 PC + 2 hr
for entry for entry for Pacific
corridor corridor landing
(137:40) (105:18) (79:28)

Figure 4-14.- Translunar trajectory phase.

 CM power up
G.E.T. 140:10

r_
MCC-7
G.E.T. 137:40
r
Entry altitude

P_
I
kJ3
0
_ G. E.T. 142:30

LM jettison
G.E.T. 141:30
L SM jettison
G.E.T. 138:01
LM power up
(3.E.T. 133:35

/--- Landing
G.E.T. 142:54

Figure 4-15.- Final trajectory phase.

r_

,
Figure 4-16.- Lithium hydroxide canister modification.

4-51
 300

250

200

-k-
I
k.n
Po
r
Anomaly55:54
I LM jettison (141:30)
100 I I
I

r
!few
II
enters LM (57:43) I
I
I
Behind moon(77:09) I
50 II I
II I
I I
II I
II I
II I 28.2 Ibs remaining-
0 I I I I I I I I
50 60 70 80 90 I00 Ii0 120 130 140 150
Time, hours

Figure 4-17.- Usable remaining water.

r ..
 ....
j

•snqe_s saIq_mnsuoo ma_sXs _a_od leOI_Oal_ -'@I-_ a_L_I_

s_noq 'atoll

0_I ONI 0£I Ogl 011 001 06 08 OL 09 O_

II _ I I I I I I I I I II 0
I _ 5UlUlgLUa_S_udraw n'_OT I II
I; ......... I II

,I_
_ (60:L/) uoom pu,qa_ IllI -
', \ II
00t7

tTcj_;c_;,_l_zmouv _
>

i
(0£:It71)
_ 008
Lf_
uosq I
(I)
9_
E2-
m

3
00_I
--.

0091

O00g
 70

60

50
r

40

e-
_J

>,
X
! o 30

Anomaly 55:54
I
r 2O I
ICrew enters LM (57:43) 28.53 Ibs
II remaining
I
10

0
-

50
I
II
II
II
II j
60
I
70
Behind moon (77:09)
j
I
I
I
I

i
80
_
90
I
i00
I
II0
i
120
LM jettison (141:30)

i
130
I
I
I
I
II
140
J 150

Time, hours

Figure _-19.- Usable remaining oxygen.

 TABLE4-III.- CABINATMOSPHERE
CARBON
DIOXIDE
REMOVALBY LITHIUMHYDROXIDE

Requi re d 85 hours

Available in LM 53 hours

Available in CM 182 hours

A more detailed recounting of the events during the Apollo 13

launch countdown and mission will be found in Appendix B to this report.

4-55
 This page left blank intentionally.

4-56

NASA-- MSC-- Coral., Houston, Texas

 CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS, DETERMINATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5-0
 PART I. INTRODUCTION

The following findings, determinations, and recommendations are the

product of about 7 weeks of concentrated review of the Apollo 13 accident
by the Apollo 13 Review Board. They are based on that review, on the
accident investigation by the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) and its con-
tractors, and on an extensive series of special tests and analyses per-
formed by or for the Board and its Panels.

Sufficient work has been done to identify and understand the nature
of the malfunction and the direction which the corrective actions must
take. All indications are that an electrically initiated fire in oxygen
tank no. 2 in the service module (SM) was the cause of the accident. Ac-
cordingly, the Board has concentrated on this tank; on its design, manu-
facture, test, handling, checkout, use, failure mode, and eventual effects
on the rest of the spacecraft. The accident is generally understood, and
the most probable cause has been identified. However, at the time of this
report, some details of the accident are not completely clear.

Further tests and analyses, which will be carried out under the over-
all direction of MSC, will continue to generate new information relative
to this accident. It is possible that this evidence may lead to conclu-
sions differing in detail from those which can be drawn now. However, it
is most unlikely that fundamentally different results will be obtained.

Recommendations are provided as to the general direction which the

corrective actions should take. Significant modifications should be made
to the SM oxygen storage tanks and related equipments. The modified
hardware should go through a rigorous requalification test program. This
is the responsibility of the Apollo organization in the months ahead.

In reaching its findings, determinations, and recommendations, it was

necessary for the Board to review critically the equipment and the organi-
zational elements responsible for it. It was found that the accident was
not the result of a chance malfunction in a statistical sense, but rather
resulted from an unusual combination of mistakes, coupled with a somewhat
deficient and unforgiving design. In brief, this is what happened:

a. After assembly and acceptance testing, the oxygen tank no. 2

which flew on Apollo 13 was shipped from Beech Aircraft Corporation to
North American Rockwell (NR) in apparently satisfactory condition.

b. It is now known, however, that the tank contained two protective

thermostatic switches on the heater assembly, which were inadequate and
would subsequently fail during ground test operations at Kennedy Space
Center (KSC).

5-1
 c. In addition, it is probable that the tank contained a loosely
fitting fill tube assembly. This assembly was probably displaced during
subsequent handling, which included an incident at the prime contractor's
plant in which the tank was jarred.

d. In itself, the displaced fill tube assembly was not particularly

serious, but it led to the use of improvised detanking procedures at KSC
which almost certainly set the stage for the accident.

e. Although Beech did not encounter any problem in detanking during

acceptance tests, it was not possible to detank oxygen tank no. 2 using
normal procedures at KSC. Tests and analyses indicate that this was due
to gas leakage through the displaced fill tube assembly.

f. The special detanking procedures at KSCsubjected the tank to an

extended period of heater operation and pressure cycling. These proce-
dures had not been used before, and the tank had not been qualified by
test for the conditions experienced. However, the procedures did not
violate the specifications which governed the operation of the heaters at
KSC.

g. In reviewing these procedures before the flight, officials of

NASA,NR, and Beech did not recognize the possibility of damagedue to
overheating. Many of these officials were not aware of the extended
heater operation. In any event, adequate thermostatic switches might
have been expected to protect the tank.

h. A number of factors contributed to the presence of inadequate

thermostatic switches in the heater assembly. The original 1962 specifi-
cations from NR to Beech Aircraft Corporation for the tank and heater
assembly specified the use of 28 V dc power, which is used in the space-
craft. In 1965, NRissued a revised specification which stated that the
heaters should use a 65 V dc power supply for tank pressurization; this
was the power supply used at KSCto reduce pressurization time. Beech
ordered switches for the Block II tanks but did not change the switch
specifications to be compatible with 65 V dc.

i. The thermostatic switch discrepancy was not detected by NASA,NR,

or Beech in their review of documentation, nor did tests identify the in-
compatibility of the switches with the ground support equipment (GSE)at
KSC, since neither qualification nor acceptance testing required switch
cycling under load as should have been done. It was a serious oversight
in which all parties shared.

j. The thermostatic switches could accommodatethe 65 V dc during

tank pressurization because they normally remained cool and closed. How-
ever, they could not open without damagewith 65 V dc power applied. They
were never required to do so until the special detanking. During this

5-2
procedure, as the switches started to open when they reached their upper
temperature limit, they were welded permanently closed by the resulting
arc and were rendered inoperative as protective thermostats.

k. Failure of the thermostatic switches to open could have been

detected at KSCif switch operation had been checked by observing heater
current readings on the oxygen tank heater control panel. Although it
was not recognized at that time_ the tank temperature readings indicated
that the heaters had reached their temperature limit and switch opening
should have beenexpected.
i. As shownby subsequent tests, failure of the thermostatic switches
probably permitted the temperature of the heater tube assembly to reach
about i000 ° F in spots during the continuous 8-hour period of heater
operation. Such heating has been shownby tests to severely damagethe
Teflon insulation on the fan motor wires in the vicinity of the heater
assembly. From that time on, including pad occupancy, the oxygen tank
no. 2 was in a hazardous condition when filled with oxygen and electri-
cally powered.
m. It was not until nearly 56 hours into the mission, however, that
the fan motor wiring, possibly movedby the fan stirring, short circuited
and ignited its insulation by meansof an electric arc. The resulting
combustion in the oxygen tank probably overheated and failed the wiring
conduit where it enters the tank_ and possibly a portion of the tank it-
self.

n. The rapid expulsion of high-pressure oxygen which followed,

possibly augmentedby combustion of insulation in the space surrounding
the tank, blew off the outer panel to bay 4 of the SM, caused a leak in
the high-pressure system of oxygen tank no. i, damagedthe high-gain an-
tenna, caused other miscellaneous damage, and aborted the mission.
The accident is judged to have been nearly catastrophic. Only out-
standing performance on the part of the crew, Mission Control, and other
membersof the team which supported the operations successfully returned
the crew to Earth.

In investigating the accident to Apollo 13, the Board has also

attempted to identify those additional technical and managementlessons
which can be applied to help assure the success of future space flight
missions; several recommendationsof this nature are included.

The Board recognizes that the contents of its report are largely of
a critical nature. The report highlights in detail faults or deficiencies
in equipment and procedures that the Board has identified. This is the
nature of a review board report.

5-3
 It is important, however, to view the criticisms in this report in
a broader context. The Apollo spacecraft system is not without short-
comings, but it is the only system of its type ever built and success-
fully demonstrated. It has flown to the Moon five times and landed
twice. The tank which failed_ the design of which is criticized in this
report, is one of a series which had thousands of hours of successful
operation in space prior to Apollo 13.

While the team of designers, engineers_ and technicians that build

and operate the Apollo spacecraft also has shortcomings, the accomplish-
ments speak for themselves. By hardheaded self-criticism and continued
dedication_ this team can maintain this nation's preeminence in space.

5-4
 PART 2. ASSESSMENT OF ACCIDENT

FAILURE OF OXYGEN TANK NO. 2

l. Findings

a. The Apollo 13 mission was aborted as the direct result of

the rapid loss of oxygen from oxygen tank no. 2 in the SM,
followed by a gradual loss of oxygen from tank no. i, and
a resulting loss of power from the oxygen-fed fuel cells.

b. There is no evidence of any forces external to oxygen tank

no. 2 during the flight which might have caused its failure.

Co Oxygen tank no. 2 contained materials, including Teflon and

aluminum, which if ignited will burn in supercritical
oxygen.

d.
Oxygen tank no. 2 contained potential ignition sources:
electrical wiring, unsealed electric motors, and rotating
aluminum fans.

e. During the special detanking of oxygen tank no. 2 following

the countdown demonstration test (CDDT) at KSC, the thermo-
static switches on the heaters were required to open while
powered by 65 V dc in order to protect the heaters from over-
heating. The switches were only rated at 30 V dc and have
been shown to weld closed at the higher voltage.

f.
Data indicate that in flight the tank heaters located in
oxygen tanks no. i and no. 2 operated normally prior to the
accident, and they were not on at the time of the accident.

g° The electrical circuit for the quantity probe would generate

only about 7 millijoules in the event of a short circuit and
the temperature sensor wires less than 3 millijoules per
second.

h.
Telemetry data izmnediately prior to the accident indicate
electrical disturbances of a character which would be caused
by short circuits accompanied by electrical arcs in the fan
motor or its leads in oxygen tank no. 2.

i.
The pressure and temperature within oxygen tank no. 2 rose
abnormally during the 1-1/2 minutes immediately prior to the
accident.

5-5
 Determinations

(i) The cause of the failure of oxygen tank no. 2 was combustion
within the tank.

(2) Analysis showed that the electrical energy flowing into the
tank could not account for the observed increases in pressure
and temperature.

(3) The heater, temperature sensor, and quantity probe did not
initiate the accident sequence.

(4) The cause of the combustion was most probably the ignition
of Teflon wire insulation on the fan motor wires, caused by
electric arcs in this wiring.

The protective thermostatic switches on the heaters in

oxygen tank no. 2 failed closed during the initial portion
of the first special detanking operation. This subjected
the wiring in the vicinity of the heaters to very high tem-
peratures which have been subsequently shown to severely
degrade Teflon insulation.

(6) The telemetered data indicated electrical arcs of sufficient

energy to ignite the Teflon insulation, as verified by sub-
sequent tests. These tests also verified that the 1-ampere
fuses on the fan motors would pass sufficient energy to ig-
nite the insulation by the mechanism of an electric arc.

(7) The combustion of Teflon wire insulation alone could release

sufficient heat to account for the observed increases in
tank pressure and local temperature, and could locally over-
heat and fail the tank or its associated tubing. The possi-
bility of such failure at the top of the tank was demon-
strated by subsequent tests.

(8) The rate of flame propagation along Teflon-insulated wires

as measured in subsequent tests is consistent with the in-
dicated rates of pressure rise within the tank.

SECONDARY EFFECTS OF TANK FAILURE

o Findings

a. Failure of the tank was accompanied by several events in-

cluding:

5-6
 A %ang" as heard by the crew.

Spacecraft motion as felt by the crew and as measured by

the attitude control system and the accelerometers in the
command module (CM).

Momentary loss of telemetry.

Closing of several valves by shock loading.

Loss of integrity of the oxygen tank no. i system.

Slight temperature increases in bay 4 and adjacent sectors

of the SM.

Loss of the panel covering bay 4 of the SM, as observed and

photographed by the crew.

Displacement of the fuel cells as photographed by the crew.

Damage to the high-gain antenna as photographed by the crew.

b ° The panel covering of bay 4 could be blown off by pressuri-

zation of the bay. About 25 psi of uniform pressure in bay 4
is required to blow off the panel.

Co The various bays and sectors of the SM are interconnected

with open passages so that all would be pressurized if any
one were supplied with a pressurant at a relatively slow
rate.

d. The CM attachments would be failed by an average pressure of

about i0 psi on the CM heat shield and this would separate
the CM from the SM.

Determinations

(1) Failure of the oxygen tank no. 2 caused a rapid local

pressurization of bay 4 of the SM by the high-pressure
oxygen that escaped from the tank. This pressure pulse may
have blown off the panel covering bay 4. This possibility
was substantiated by a series of special tests.

(2) The pressure pulse from a tank failure might have been
augmented by combustion of Mylar or Kapton insulation or
both when subjected to a stream of oxygen and hot particles
emerging from the top of the tank, as demonstrated in sub-
sequenttests.

5-7
 (3) Combustion or vaporization of the Mylar or Kapton might
account for the discoloration of the SM engine nozzle as
observed and photographed by the crew.

(4) Photographs of the SM by the crew did not establish the

condition of the oxygen tank no. 2.

(5) The high-gain antenna damage probably resulted from striking

by the panel_ or a portion thereof, as it left the SM.

(6) The loss of pressure on oxygen tank no. i and the subsequent
loss of power resulted from the tank no. 2 failure.

(7) Telemetry, although good, is insufficient to pin down the

exact nature, sequence, and location of each event of the
accident in detail.

(s) The telemetry data, crew testimony, photographs, and special

tests and analyses already completed are sufficient to under-
stand the problem and to proceed with corrective actions.

OXYGEN TANK NO. 2 DESIGN

3. Findings

a,
The cryogenic oxygen storage tanks contained a combination
of oxidizer, combustible material, and potential ignition
sources.

b ,
Supercritical oxygen was used to minimize the weight,
volume, and fluid-handling problems of the oxygen supply
system.

c. The heaters, fans, and tank instrumentation are used in the

measurement and management of the oxygen supply.

Determinations

(i) The storage of supercritical oxygen was appropriate for the

Apollo system.

(2) Heaters are required to maintain tank pressure as the oxygen

supply is used.

(3) Fans were used to prevent excessive pressure drops due to

stratification, to mix the oxygen to improve accuracy of

5-8
 quantity measurements, and to insure adequate heater input
at low densities and high oxygen utilization rates. The
need for oxygen stirring on future flights requires further
investigation.

(4) The amount of material in the tank which could be ignited

and burned in the given environment could have been reduced
significantly.

(5) The potential ignition sources constituted an undue hazard

when considered in the light of the particular tank design
with its assembly difficulties.

(6) NASA, the prime contractor, and the supplier of the tank
were not fully aware of the extent of this hazard.

(7) Examination of the high-pressure oxygen system in the service

module following the Apollo 204 fire, which directed atten-
tion to the danger of fire in a pure oxygen environment,
failed to recognize the deficiencies of the tank.

PREFLIGHT DAMAGE TO TANK WIRING

0
Findings

a. The oxygen tank no. 2 heater assembly contained two thermo-

static switches designed to protect the heaters from over-
heating.

b. The thermostatic switches were designed to open and interrupt

the heater current at 80 ° ± i0 ° F.

c. The heaters are operated on 28 V dc in flight and at NR.

d. The heaters are operated on 65 V ac at Beech Aircraft Cor-

poration and 65 V dc at the Kennedy Space Center. These
higher voltages are used to accelerate tank pressurization.

e. The thermostatic switches were rated at 7 amps at 30 V dc.

While they would carry this current at 65 V dc in a closed
position, they would fail if they started to open to inter-
rupt this load.

fo Neither qualification nor acceptance testing of the heater

assemblies or the tanks required thermostatic switch opening
to be checked at 65 V dc. The only test of switch opening

5-9
 was a continuity check at Beech in which the switch was
cycled open and closed in an oven.

g. The thermostatic switches had never operated in flight be-

cause this would only happen if the oxygen supply in a tank
were depleted to nearly zero.

hi
The thermostatic switches had never operated on the ground
under load because the heaters had only been used with a
relatively full tank which kept the switches cool and closed.

i.
During the CDDT, the oxygen tank no. 2 would not detank in
a normal manner. On March 27 and 28, a special detanking
procedure was followed which subjected the heater to about
8 hours of continuous operation until the tanks were nearly
depleted of oxygen.

j. A second special detanking of shorter duration followed on

March 30, 1970.

k. The oxygen tanks had not been qualification tested for the
conditions encountered in this procedure. However, speci-
fied allowable heater voltages and currents were not exceeded.

i.
The recorded internal tank temperature went off-scale high
early in the special detanking. The thermostatic switches
would normally open at this point but the electrical records
show no thermostatic switch operation. These indications
were not detected at the time.

m. The oxygen tank heater controls at KSC contained ammeters

which would have indicated thermostatic switch operation.

Determinations

(i) During the special detanking of March 27 and 28 at KSC, when

the heaters in oxygen tank no. 2 were left on for an extended
period, the thermostatic switches started to open while
powered by 65 V dc and were probably welded shut.

(2) Failure of the thermostatic switches to open could have been

detected at KSC if switch operation had been checked by
observing heater current readings on the oxygen tank heater
control panel. Although it was not recognized at the time,
the tank temperature readings indicated that the heaters had
reached their temperature limit and switch opening should
have been expected.

5-10
(3) The fact that the switches were not rated to open at 65 V dc
was not detected by NASA, NR, or Beech in their reviews of
documentation or in qualification and acceptance testing.

(4) The failed switches resulted in severe overheating. Subse-

quent tests showed that heater assembly temperatures could
have reached about i000 ° F.

(5) The high temperatures severely damaged the Teflon insulation

on the wiring in the vicinity of the heater assembly and set
the stage for subsequent short circuiting. As shown in
subsequent tests_ this damage could range from cracking to
total oxidation and disappearance of the insulation.

(6) During and following the special detanking, the oxygen tank
no. 2 was in a hazardous condition whenever it contained
oxygen and was electrically energized.

5-ii
 PART 3. SUPPORTING CONSIDERATIONS

DESIGN, MANUFACTURING, AND TEST

5. Finding

The pressure vessel of the supercritical oxygen tank is con-

structed of Inconel 718, and is moderately stressed at normal
operating pressure.

Determination

From a structural viewpoint, the supercritical oxygen pressure

vessel is quite adequately designed, employing a tough material
well chosen for this application. The stress analysis and the
results of the qualification burst test program confirm the
ability of the tank to exhibit adequate performance in its in-
tended application.

6. Findings

a. The oxygen tank design includes two unsealed electric fan

motors immersed in supercritical oxygen.

b.
Fan motors of this design have a test history of failure
during acceptance test which includes phase-to-phase and
phase-to-ground faults.

Co
The fan motor stator windings are constructed with Teflon-
coated, ceramic-insulated, number 36 AWG wire. Full phase-
to-phase and phase-to-ground insulation is not used in the
motor design.

d. The motor case is largely aluminum.

Determinations

(i) The stator winding insulation is brittle and easily fractured

during manufacture of the stator coils.

(2) The use of these motors in supercritical oxygen was a ques-

tionable practice.

7. Findings

a. The cryogenic oxygen storage tanks contained materials that

could be ignited and which will burn under the conditions

5-12
 prevailing within the tank, including Teflon, aluminum,
solder, and Drilube 822.

b. The tank contained electrical wiring exposed to the super-

critical oxygen. The wiring was insulated with Teflon.

c. Somewiring was in close proximity to heater elements and

to the rotating fan.
do
The design was such that the assembly of the equipment was
essentially "blind" and not amenable to inspection after
completion.

e. Teflon insulation of the electrical wiring inside the cryo-

genic oxygen storage tanks of the SM was exposed to rela-
tively sharp metal edges of tank inner parts during manu-
facturing assembly operations.

f. Portions of this wiring remained unsupported in the tank on

completion of assembly.

Determinations

(i) The tank contained a hazardous combination of materials and

potential ignition sources.

(2) Scraping of the electrical wiring insulation against metal

inner parts of the tank constituted a substantial cumulative
hazard during assembly, handling, test, checkout, and opera-
tional use.

(5) "Cold flow" of the Teflon insulation, when pressed against

metal corners within the tank for an extended period of
time, could result in an eventual degradation of insulation
protection.

(4) The externally applied electrical tests (500-volt Hi-pot)

could not reveal the extent of such possible insulation
damage but could only indicate that the relative positions
of the wires at the time of the tests were such that the
separation or insulation would withstand the 500-volt po-
tential without electrical breakdown.

(5) The design was such that it was difficult to insure against
these hazards.

(6) There is no evidence that the wiring was damaged during man-
ufacturing.

5-13
 9. Findings

a. Dimensioning of the short Teflon and Inconel tube segments

of the cryogenic oxygen storage tank fill line was such that
looseness to the point of incomplete connection was possible
in the event of worst-case tolerance buildup.

b, The insertion of these segments into the top of the tank

quantity probe assembly at the point of its final closure
and welding was difficult to achieve.

c. Probing with a hand tool was used in manufacturing to com-

pensate for limited visibility of the tube segment positions.

Determination

It was possible for a tank to have been assembled with a set of

relatively loose fill tube parts that could go undetected in
final inspection and be subsequently displaced.

i0. Findings

a. The Apollo spacecraft system contains numerous pressure

vessels, many of which carry oxidants, plus related valves
and other plumbing.

b. Investigation of potential hazards associated with these

other systems was not complete at the time of the report,
but is being pursued by the Manned Spacecraft Center.

C. One piece of equipment, the fuel cell oxygen supply valve

module, has been identified as containing a similar combina-
tion of high-pressure oxygen, Teflon, and electrical wiring
as in the oxygen tank no. 2. The wiring is unfused and is
routed through a lO-amp circuit breaker.

Determination

The fuel cell oxygen supply valve module has been identified as
potentially hazardous.

ll. Findings

a. In the normal sequence of cryogenic oxygen storage tank in-

tegration and checkout, each tank undergoes shipping,
assembly into an oxygen shelf for a service module, factory
transportation to facilitate shelf assembly test, and then
integration of shelf assembly to the SM.

5-14
 b. The SMundergoes factory transportation, air shipment to KSC,
and subsequent ground transportation and handling.

Determination

There were environments during the normal sequence of operations

subsequent to the final acceptance tests at Beech that could
cause a loose-fitting set of fill tube parts to become displaced.

12. Findings

a. At North American Rockwell, Downey, California, in the

attempt to remove the oxygen shelf assembly from SM 106,
a bolt restraining the inner edge of the shelf was not re-
moved.

b. Attempts to lift the shelf with the bolt in place broke the
lifting fixture, thereby jarring the oxygen tanks and valves.

C. The oxygen shelf assembly incorporating S/N XTAO008 in the

tank no. 2 position, which had been shaken during removal
from SM 106, was installed in SM 109 one month later.

d. An analysis, shelf inspection, and a partial retest empha-

sizing electrical continuity of internal wiring were accom-
plished before reinstallation.

Determinations

(i) Displacement of fill tube parts could have occurred, during

the "shelf drop" incident at the prime contractor's plant,
without detection.

(2) Other damage to the tank may have occurred from the jolt,
but special tests and analyses indicate that this is un-
likely.

(3) The "shelf drop" incident was not brought to the attention
of project officials during subsequent detanking difficulties
at KSC.

13. Finding

Detanking, expulsion of liquid oxygen out the fill line of the

oxygen tank by warm gas pressure applied through the vent line,
was a regular activity at Beech Aircraft, Boulder, Colorado, in
emptying a portion of the oxygen used in end-item acceptance
tests.

5-15
 Determination

The latter stages of the detanking operation on oxygen tank

no. 2 conducted at Beech on February 3, 1967, were similar to
the standard procedure followed at KSC during the CDDT.

14. Findings

a.
The attempt to detank the cryogenic oxygen tanks at KSC
after the CDDT by the standard procedures on March 23, 1970,
was unsuccessful with regard to tank no. 2.

b,
A special detanking procedure was used to empty oxygen tank
no. 2 after CDDT. This procedure involved continuous pro-
tracted heating with repeated cycles of pressurization to
about 300 psi with warm gas followed by venting.

c. It was employed both after CDDT and after a special test to

verify that the tank could be filled.

d°
There is no indication from the heater voltage recording
that the thermostatic switches functioned and cycled the
heaters off and on during these special detanking procedures.

e.
At the completion of detanking following CDDT, the switches
are only checked to see that they remain closed at -75 ° F as
the tank is warmed up. They are not checked to verify that
they will open at +80 ° F.

fo
Tests subsequent to the flight showed that the current
associated with the KSC 65 V dc ground powering of the
heaters would cause the thermostatic switch contacts to
weld closed if they attempted to interrupt this current.

g.
A second test showed that without functioning thermostatic
switches, temperatures in the 800 ° to i000 ° F range would
exist at locations on the heater tube assembly that were in
close proximity with the motor wires. These temperatures
are high enough to damage Teflon and melt solder.

Determinations

(i) Oxygen tank no. 2 (XTA 0008) did not detank after CDDT in a
manner comparable to its performance the last time it had
contained liquid oxygen, i.e., in acceptance test at Beech.

(2) Such evidence indicates that the tank had undergone some
change of internal configuration during the intervening
events of the previous 3 years.

5-16
 (3) The tank conditions during the special detanking procedures
were outside all prior testing of Apollo CSM cryogenic oxygen
storage tanks. Heater assembly temperatures measured in sub-
sequent tests exceeded i000 ° F.

(4) Severe damage to the insulation of electrical wiring internal

to the tank, as determined from subsequent tests, resulted
from the special procedure.

(5) Damage to the insulation, particularly on the long un-

supported lengths of wiring, may also have occurred due to
boiling associated with this procedure.

(6) MSC, KSC, and NR personnel did not know that the thermostatic
switches were not rated to open with 65 V dc GSE power
applied.

15. Findings

a, The change in detanking procedures on the cryogenic oxygen

tank was made in accordance with the existing change control
system during final launch preparations for Apollo 13.

b. Launch operations personnel who made the change did not have
a detailed understanding of the tank internal components, or
the tank history. They made appropriate contacts before
making the change.

C, Communications, primarily by telephone, among MSC, KSC, NR,

and Beech personnel during final launch preparations re-
garding the cryogenic oxygen system included incomplete and
inaccurate information.

d, The MSC Test Specification Criteria Document (TSCD) which

was used by KSC in preparing detailed tank test procedures
states the tank allowable heater voltage and current as 65
to 85 V dc and 9 to 17 amperes with no restrictions on time.

Determinations

(l) NR and MSC personnel who prepared the TSCD did not know that
the tank heater thermostatic switches would not protect
the tank.

(2) Launch operations personnel assumed the tank was protected

from overheating by the switches.

5-17
 b) Launch operations personnel at KSC stayed within the
specified tank heater voltage and current limits during the
detanking at KSC.

16. Findings

ao After receipt of the Block II oxygen tank specifications

from NR, which required the tank heater assembly to operate
with 65 V dc GSE power only during tank pressurization_ Beech
Aircraft did not require their Block I thermostatic switch
supplier to make a change in the switch to operate at the
higher voltage.

b. NR did not review the tank or heater to assure compatibility

between the switch and the GSE.

c. MSC did not review the tank or heater to assure compati-

bility between the switch and the GSE.

d. No tests were specified by MSC, NR, or Beech to check this

switch under load.

Determinations

(i) NR and Beech specifications governing the powering and the

thermostatic switch protection of the heater assemblies were
inadequate.

(2) The specifications governing the testing of the heater

assemblies were inadequate.

17. Finding

The hazard associated with the long heater cycle during detanking
was not given consideration in the decision to fly oxygen tank
no. 2.

Determinations

(i) MSC, KSC, and NR personnel did not know that the tank heater
thermostatic switches did not protect the tank from over-
heating.

(2) If the long period of continuous heater operation with failed

thermostatic switches had been known, the tank would have
been replaced.

5-18

L . z,.-,,_ A-_
18. Findings

a° Management controls requiring detailed reviews and approvals

of design, manufacturing processes, assembly procedures,
test procedures, hardware acceptance, safety, reliability,
and flight readiness are in effect for all Apollo hardware
and operations.

b° When the Apollo 13 cryogenic oxygen system was originally

designed, the management controls were not defined in as
great detail as they are now.

Determination

From review of documents and interviews, it appears that the

management controls existing at that time were adhered to in
the case of the cryogenic oxygen system incorporated in
Apollo 13.

19. Finding

The only oxygen tank no. 2 anomaly during the final countdown
was a small leak through the vent quick disconnect, which was
corrected.

Determination

No indications of a potential inflight malfunction of the oxygen

tank no. 2 were present during the launch countdown.

MISSION EVENTS THI_OUGH ACCIDENT

20. Findings

a. The center engine of the S-If stage of the Saturn V launch

vehicle prematurely shut down at 132 seconds due to large
16 hertz oscillations in thrust chamber pressure.

b. Data indicated less than O.ig vibration in the CM.

Determinations

(i) Investigation of this S-If anomaly was not within the purview
of the Board except insofar as it relates to the Apollo 13
accident.

5-19
 (2) The resulting oscillations or vibration of the space vehicle
probably did not affect the oxygen tank.
21. Findings

a. Fuel cell current increased between 46:40:05 and 46:40:08

indicating that oxygen tank no. i and tank no. 2 fans were
turned on during this interval.

b. The oxygen tank no. 2 quantity indicated off-scale high at

46:40:08.

Determinations

(i) The oxygen tank no. 2 quantity probe short circuited at

46:40:08.

(2) The short circuit could have been caused by either a com-
pletely loose fill tube part or a solder splash being carried
by the moving fluid into contact with both elements of the
probe capacitor.

22. Findings

a. The crew acknowledged Mission Control's request to turn on

the tank fans at 55:53:06.

b. Spacecraft current increased by i ampere at 55:53:19.

c. The oxygen tank no. i pressure decreased 8 psi at 55:53:19

due to normal destratification.

Determination

The fans in oxygen tank no. i were turned on and began rotating
at 55:53:19.

23. Findings

a. Spacecraft current increased by 1-1/2 amperes and ac bus 2

voltage decreased 0.6 volt at 55:53:20.

b°
Stabilization and Control System (SCS) gimbal command telem-
etry channels, which are sensitive indicators of electrical
transients associated with switching on or off of certain
spacecraft electrical loads, showed a negative initial tran-
sient during oxygen tank no. 2 fan turnon cycles and a posi-
tive initial transient during oxygen tank no. 2 fan turnoff

5-20
 cycles during the Apollo 13 mission. A negative initial
transient was measuredin the SCSat 55:53:20.

c. The oxygen tank no. 2 pressure decreased about 4 psi when

the'fans were turned on at 55:53:21.

Determinations

(i) The fans in oxygen tank no. 2 were turned On at 55:53:20.

(2) It cannot be determined whether or not they were rotating

because the pressure decrease was too small to conclusively
show destratification. It is likely that they were.

24. Finding

An ll.l-amp spike in fuel cell 3 current and a momentary

1.2-volt decrease were measured in ac bus 2 at 55:53:23.

Determinations

(i) A short circuit occurred in the circuits of the fans in

oxygen tank no. 2 which resulted in either blown fuses or
opened wiring, and one fan ceased to function.

(2) The short circuit probably dissipated an energy in excess

of i0 joules which, as shown in subsequent tests, is more
than sufficient to ignite Teflon wire insulation by means
of an electric arc.

25. Findings

a. A momentary ll-volt decrease in ac bus 2 voltage was

measured at 55:53:38.

b. A 22.9-amp spike in fuel cell 3 current was measured at

55:53:41.

C. After the electrical transients, CM current and ac bus 2

voltage returned to the values indicated prior to the turn-
on of the fans in oxygen tank no. 2.

Determination

Two short circuits occurred in the oxygen tank no. 2 fan cir-
cuits between 55:53:38 and 55:53:41 which resulted in either
blown fuses or opened wiring, and the second fan ceased to
function.

5-21
26. Finding

Oxygen tank no. 2 telemetry showed a pressure rise from 887 to

954 psia between 55:53:36 and 55:54:00. It then remained nearly
constant for about 15 seconds and then rose again from 954 to
1008 psia, beginning at 55:54:15 and ending at 55:54:45.

Determinations

(i) An abnormal pressure rise occurred in oxygen tank no. 2.

(2) Since no other known energy source in the tank could produce
this pressure buildup, it is concluded to have resulted from
combustion initiated by the first short circuit which started
a wire insulation fire in the tank.

27. Findings

a. The pressure relief valve was designed to be fully open at

about i000 psi.

b. Oxygen tank no. 2 telemetry showed a pressure drop from

1008 psia at 55:54:45 to 996 psia at 55:54:53, at which time
telemetry data were lost.

Determination

This drop resulted from the normal operation of the pressure

relief valve as verified in subsequent tests.

28. Findings

ao At 55:54:29, when the pressure in oxygen tank no. 2 exceeded

the master caution and warning trip level of 975 psia, the CM
master alarm was inhibited by the fact that a warning of low
hydrogen pressure was already in effect, and neither the crew
nor Mission Control was alerted to the pressure rise.

b •
The master caution and warning system logic for the cryogenic
system is such that an out-of-tolerance condition of one
measurement which triggers a master alarm prevents another
master alarm from being generated when any other parameter in
the same system becomes out-of-tolerance.

Co The low-pressure trip level of the master caution and warning

system for the cryogenic storage system is only i psi below
the specified lower limit of the pressure switch which con-
trols the tank heaters. A small imbalance in hydrogen tank

5-22
 pressures or a shift in transducer or switch calibration can
cause the master caution and warning to be triggered pre-
ceding each heater cycle. This occurred several times on
Apollo 13.
d. A limit sense light indicating abnormal oxygen tank no. 2
pressure should have come on in Mission Control about
30 seconds before oxygen tank no. 2 failed. There is no way
to ascertain that the light did, in fact, come on. If it
did come on, Mission Control did not observe it.

Determinations

(i) If the pressure switch setting and master caution and warning
trip levels were separated by a greater pressure differential,
there would be less likelihood of unnecessary master alarms.

(2) With the present master caution and warning system, a space-
craft problem can go unnoticed because of the presence of a
previous out-of-tolerance condition in the same subsystem.

Although a master alarm at 55:54:29 or observance of a limit

sense light in Mission Control could have alerted the crew
or Mission Control in sufficient time to detect the pressure
rise in oxygen tank no. 2_ no action could have been taken
at that time to prevent the tank failure. However_ the in-
formation could have been helpful to Mission Control and the
crew in diagnosis of spacecraft malfunctions.

(4) The limit sense system in Mission Control can be modified to

constitute a more positive backup warning system.

29. Finding

Oxygen tank no. 2 telemetry showed a temperature rise of 38 ° F

beginning at 55:54:31 sensed by a single sensor which measured
local temperature. This sensor indicated off-scale low at
55:54:53.

Determinations

(i) An abnormal and sudden temperature rise occurred in oxygen

tank no. 2 at approximately 55:54:31.

(2) The temperature was a local value which rose when combustion
had progressed to the vicinity of the sensor.

(3) The temperature sensor failed at 55:54:53.

5-23
 30. Finding

Oxygen tank no. 2 telemetry indicated the following changes:

(i) quantity decreased from off-scale high to off-scale low in
2 seconds at 55:54:30, (2) quantity increased to 75.3 percent at
55:54:32, and (3) quantity was off-scale high at 55:54:51 and
later became erratic.

Determinations

(i) Oxygen tank no. 2 quantity data between 55:54:32 and

55:54:50 may represent valid measurements.

(2) Immediately preceding and following this time period, the

indications were caused by electrical faults.

31. Findings

a°
At about 55:54:53, or about half a second before telemetry
loss, the body-mounted linear accelerometers in the command
module, which are sampled at i00 times per second, began
indicating spacecraft motions. These disturbances were
erratic, but reached peak values of 1.17g, 0.65g, and 0.65g
in the X, Y, and Z directions, respectively, about 13 milli-
seconds before data loss.

b. The body-mounted roll, pitch, and yaw rate gyros showed low-
level activity for 1/4 second beginning at 55:54:53.220.

C°
The integrating accelerometers indicated that a velocity
increment of approximately 0.5 fps was imparted to the space-
craft between 55:54:53 and 55:54:55.

d°
Doppler tracking data measured an incremental velocity com-
ponent of 0.26 fps along a line from the Earth to the space-
craft at approximately 55:54:55.

e. The crew heard a loud "bang" at about this time.

f°
Telemetry data were lost between approximately 55:54:53 and
55:54:55 and the spacecraft switched from the narrow-beam
antenna to the wide-beam antenna.

g. Crew observations and photographs showed the bay 4 panel to

be missing and the high-gain antenna to be damaged.

5-24

ILl II E E E E k L '" " ' "

 Determinations

(i) The spacecraft was subjected to abnormal forces at approxi-

mately 55:54:53. These disturbances were reactions resulting
from failure and venting of the oxygen tank no. 2 system and
subsequent separation and ejection of the bay 4 panel.

(2) The high-gain antenna was damaged either by the panel or a

section thereof from bay 4 at the time of panel separation.

32. Finding

Temperature sensors in bay 3, bay 4, and the central column of

the SM indicated abnormal increases following reacquisition of
data at 55:54:55.

Determination

Heating took plac e in the SM at approximately the time of panel

separation.

33. Findings

a. The telemetered nitrogen pressure in fuel cell i was off-

scale low at reacquisition of data at 55:54:55.

b. Fuel cell I continued to operate for about 3 minutes past

this time.

Co The wiring to the nitrogen sensor passes along the top of

the shelf which supports the fuel cells immediately above
the oxygen tanks.

Determinations

(i) The nitrogen pressure sensor in fuel cell i or its wiring

failed at the time of the accident.

(2) The failure was probably caused by physical damage to the

sensor wiring or shock.

(3) This is the only known instrumentation failure outside the

oxygen system at that time.

34. Finding

Oxygen tank no. i pressure decreased rapidly from 879 psia to

782 psia at approximately 55:54:54 and then began to decrease
more slowly at 55:54:56.

5-25
 Determination

A leak caused loss of oxygen from tank no. i beginning at approxi-

mately 55:54:54.

35. Findings

a. Oxygen flow rates to fuel cells I and 3 decreased in a

5-second period beginning at 55:54:55, but sufficient volume
existed in lines feeding the fuel cells to allow them to
operate about 3 minutes after the oxygen supply valves were
cut off.

b° The crew reported at 55:57:44 that five valves in the reaction

control system (RCS) were closed. The shock required to close
the oxygen supply valves is of the same order of magnitudeas
the shock required to close the RCS valves.

c. Fuel cells i and 3 failed at about 55:58.

Determination

The oxygen supply valves to fuel cells i and 3, and the five RCS
valves, were probably closed by the shock of tank failure or panel
ejection or both.

MISSION EVENTS AFTER ACCIDENT

36. Findings

a°
Since data presented to flight controllers in Mission Control
are updated only once per second, the 1.8-second loss of data
which occurred in Mission Control was not directly noticed.
However, the Guidance Officer did note and report a "hardware
restart" of the spacecraft computer. This was quickly
followed by the crew's report of a problem.

b.
Immediately after the crew's report of a "bang" and a main
bus B undervolt, all fuel cell output currents and all bus
voltages were normal, and the cryogenic oxygen tank indica-
tions were as follows:

5-26
 Oxygentank no. i: Pressure: Several hundred psi below
normal

Quantity: Normal

Temperature: Normal

Oxygentank no. 2: Pressure: Off-scale low

Quantity: Off-scale high

Temperature: Off-scale high

C. The nitrogen pressure in fuel cell i indicated zero, which was

incompatible with the hydrogen and oxygen pressures in this
fuel cell_ which were normal. The nitrogen pressure is used
to regulate the oxygen and hydrogen pressure, and hydrogen
and oxygen pressures in the fuel cell would follow the nitro-
gen pressure.

d. Neither the crew nor Mission Control was aware at the time
that oxygen tank no. 2 pressure had risen abnormally just
before the data loss.

e° The flight controllers believed that a probable cause of

these indications could have been a cryogenic storage system
instrumentation failure, and began pursuing this line of in-
vestigation.

Determination

Under these conditions it was reasonable to suspect a cryogenic

storage system instrumentation problem, and to attempt to verify
the readings before taking any action. The fact that the oxygen
tank no. 2 quantity measurement was known to have failed several
hours earlier also contributed to the doubt about the credita-
bility of the telemetered data.

37. Findings

a. During the 3 minutes following data loss, neither the flight

controllers nor the crew noticed the oxygen flows to fuel
cells i and 3 were less than 0.i ib/hr. These were unusually
low readings for the current being drawn.

b. Fuel cells i and 3 failed at about 3 minutes after the data

loss.

5-27
 C° After the fuel cell failures, which resulted in dc main
bus B failure and the undervoltage condition on dc main bus A,
Mission Control diverted its prime concern from what was
initially believed to be a cryogenic system instrumentation
problem to the electrical power system.

d.
Near-zero oxygen flow to fuel cells i and 3 was noted after
the main bus B failure, but this was consistent with no power
output from the fuel cells.

e .
The flight controllers believed that the fuel cells could
have been disconnected from the busses and directed the crew
to connect fuel cell i to dc main bus A and fuel cell 3 to
dc main bus B.

f. The crew reported the fuel cells were configured as directed

and that the talkback indicators confirmed this.

Determinations

(1) Under these conditions it was logical for the flight con-
trollers to attempt to regain power to the busses since the
fuel cells might have been disconnected as a result of a short
circuit in the electrical system. Telemetry does not indicate
whether or not fuel cells are connected to busses, and the
available data would not distinguish between a disconnected
fuel cell and a failed one.

(2) If the crew had been aware of the reactant valve closure,
they could have opened them before the fuel cells were starved
of oxygen. This would have simplified subsequent actions.

38. Finding

The fuel cell reactant'valve talkback indicators in the space-

craft do not indicate closed unless both the hydrogen and oxygen
valves are closed.

Determinations

(l) If these talkbacks were designed so that either a hydrogen

or oxygen valve closure would indicate "barberpole," the
Apollo 13 crew could possibly have acted in time to delay
the failure of fuel cells i and 3, although they would never-
theless have failed when oxygen tank no. i ceased to supply
oxygen.

5-28
 (2) The ultimate outcome would not have been changed, but had the
fuel cells not failed, Mission Control and the crew would not
have mad to contend with the failure of dc main bus B and ac
bus 2 or attitude control problems while trying to evaluate
the situation.

Reaction Control System

39. Findings

a. The crew reported the talkback indicators for the helium

isolation valves in the SM RCS quads B and D indicated closed
shortly after the dc main bus B failure. The secondary fuel
pressurization valves for quads A and C also were reported
closed.

b° The SM RCS quad D propellant tank pressures decreased until

shortly after the crew was requested to confirm that the
helium isolation valves were opened by the crew.

C° During the l-i/2-hour period following the accident, Mission

Control noted that SM RCS quad C propellant was not being
used, although numerous firing signals were being sent to it.

d. Both the valve solenoids and the onboard indications of valve

position of the propellant isolation valves for quad C are
powered by dc main bus B.

e ° During the l-i/2-hour period immediately following the

accident, Mission Control advised the crew which SM RCS
thrusters to power and which ones to unpower.

Determinations

(i) The following valves were closed by shock at the time of

the accident:

Helium isolation valves in quads B and D

Secondary fuel pressurization valves in quads A and C

(2) The propellant isolation valves in quad C probably were

closed by the same shock.

(3) Mission Control correctly determined the status of the RCS

system and properly advised the crew on how to regain auto-
matic attitude control.

5-29
 Managementof Electrical System

40. Findings

a.
After fuel cell I failed, the total dc main bus A load was
placed on fuel cell 2 and the voltage dropped to approxi-
mately 25 volts, causing a caution and warning indication
and a master alarm.

b.
After determining the fuel cell 2 could not supply enough
power to dc main bus A to maintain adequate voltage, the crew
connected entry battery A to this bus as an emergency measure
to increase the bus voltage to its normal operating value.

C. Mission Control directed the crew to reduce the electrical

load on dc main bus A by following the emergency powerdown
checklist contained in the onboard Flight Data File.

d°
When the power requirements were sufficiently reduced so that
the one remaining fuel cell could maintain adequate bus
voltage, Mission Control directed the crew to take the entry
battery off line.

e o
Mission Control then directed the crew to charge this battery
in order to get as much energy back into it as possible,
before the inevitable loss of the one functioning fuel cell.

Determinations

(i) Emergency use of the entry battery helped prevent potential

loss of dc main bus A, which could have led to loss of com-
munications between spacecraft and ground and other vital CM
functions.

(2) Available emergency powerdown lists facilitated rapid re-

duction of loads on the fuel cell and batteries.

Attempts to Restore Oxygen Pressure

41. Findings

a° After determining that the CM problems were not due to in-

strumentation malfunctions, and after temporarily securing
a stable electrical system configuration, Mission Control
sought to improve oxygen pressures by energizing the fan
and heater circuits in both oxygen tanks.

5-30
 b. When these procedures failed to arrest the oxygen loss,
Mission Control directed the crew to shut down fuel cells i
and 3 by closing the hydrogen and oxygen flow valves.

Determinations

(i) Under more normal conditions oxygen pressure might have been
increased by turning on heaters and fans in the oxygen tanks;
no other known actions had such a possibility.

(2) There was a possibility that oxygen was leaking downstream

of the valves; had this been true, closing of the valves
might have preserved the remaining oxygen in oxygen tank
no. i.

Lunar Module Activation

42. Findings

a° With imminent loss of oxygen from oxygen tanks no. i and

no. 2, and failing electrical power in the CM, it was
necessary to use the lunar module (LM) as a "lifeboat" for
the return to Earth.

b. Mission Control and the crew delayed LM activation until

about 15 minutes before the SM oxygen supply was depleted.

C° There were three different LM activation checklists contained

in the Flight Data File for normal and contingency situations;
however, none of these was appropriate for the existing situa-
tion. It was necessary to activate the LM as rapidly as
possible to conserve LM consumables and CM reentry batteries
to the maximum extent possible.

d. Mission Control modified the normal LM activation checklist

and referred the crew to specific pages and instructions.
This bypassed unnecessary steps and reduced the activation
time to less than an hour.

e ° The LM inertial platform was aligned during an onboard check-

list procedure which manually transferred the CM alignment to
the LM.

5-31
 Determinations

(i) Initiation of LM activation was not undertaken sooner because

the crew was properly more concerned with attempts to conserve
remaining SM oxygen.

(2) Mission Control was able to make workable on-the-spot modifi-

cations to the checklists which sufficiently shortened the
time normally required for powering up the LM.

45. Findings

a°
During the LM powerup and the CSM powerdown, there was a brief
time interval during which Mission Control gave the crew di-
rections which resulted in neither module having an active
attitude control system.

bo
This caused some concern in Mission Control because of the
possibility of the spacecraft drifting into inertial platform
gimbal lock condition.

C.
The Command Module Pilot (CMP) stated that he was not con-
cerned because he could have quickly reestablished direct
manual attitude control if it became necessary.

Determination

This situation was not hazardous to the crew because had gimbal
lock actually occurred, sufficient time was available to re-
establish an attitude reference.

44. Findings

a.
LM flight controllers were on duty in Mission Control at the
time of the accident in support of the scheduled crew entry
into the LM.

b°
If the accident had occurred at some other time during the
translunar coast phase, LM system specialists would not have
been on duty, and it would have taken at least 30 minutes to
get a fully manned team in Mission Control.

Determination

Although LM flight controllers were not required until more than

an hour after the accident, it was beneficial for them to be
present as the problem developed.

5-52
 LM Consumables Management

45. Findings

a,
The LM was designed to support two men on a 2-day expedition
to the lunar surface. Mission Control made major revisions
in the use rate of water, oxygen, and electrical power to
sustain three men for the 4-day return trip to the Earth.

b. An emergency powerdown checklist was available in the Flight

Data File on board the LM. Minor revisions were made to the
list to reduce electrical energy requirements to about
20 percent of normal operational values with a corresponding
reduction in usage of coolant loop water.

C°
Mission Control determined that this maximum powerdown could
be delayed until after 80 hours ground elapsed time, allowing
the LM primary guidance and navigation system to be kept
powered up for the second abort maneuver.

d. Mission Control developed contingency plans for further re-

duction of LM power for use in case an LMbattery problem
developed. Procedures for use of CM water in the LM also
were developed for use if needed.

e. Toward the end of the mission, sufficient consumable margins

existed to allow usage rates to be increased above earlier
planned levels. This was done.

f. _hen the LM was jettisoned at 141:30 the approximate remaining

margins were:

Electrical power 4-1/2 hours

Water 5-1/2 hours

Oxygen 124 hours

Determinations

(i) Earlier contingency plans and available checklists were

adequate to extend life support capability of the LM well
beyond its normal intended capability.

(2) Mission Control maintained the flexibility of being able to

further increase the LM consumables margins.

5-33
 Modification of LM Carbon Dioxide Removal System

46. Findings

a.
The lithium hydroxide (LiOH) cartridges, which remove water
and carbon dioxide from the LM cabin atmosphere, would have
become ineffective due to saturation at about i00 hours.

b,
Mission rules set maximum allowable carbon dioxide partial
pressure at 7.5mm Hg. LiOH cartridges are normally changed
before cabin atmosphere carbon dioxide partial pressure
reaches this value.

C.
Manned Spacecraft Center engineers devised and checked out a
procedure for using the CM LiOH cannisters to achieve carbon
dioxide removal. Instructions were given on how to build a
modified cartridge container using materials in the space-
craft.

do
The crew made the modification at 93 hours, and carbon
dioxide partial pressure in the LM dropped rapidly from
7.5mm Hg to O.imm Hg.

e.
Mission Control gave the crew further instructions for
attaching additional cartridges in series with the first
modification. After this addition, the carbon dioxide partial
pressure remained below 2mm Hg for the remainder of the Earth-
return trip.

Determination

The Manned Spacecraft Center succeeded in improvising and checking

Out a modification to the filter system which maintained carbon
dioxide concentration well within safe tolerances.

LM Anomaly

47. Findings

a.
During the time interval between 97:13:53 and 97:13:55, LM
descent battery current measurements on telemetry showed a
rapid increase from values of no more than 3 amperes per
battery to values in excess of 30 amperes per battery. The
exact value in one battery cannot be determined because the
measurement for battery 2 was off-scale high at 60 amperes.

5-34
 b. At about that time the Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) heard a
"thump" from the vicinity of the LM descent stage.

c. When the LMP looked out the LM right-hand window, he observed

a venting of small particles from the general area where the
LM descent batteries i and 2 are located. This venting con-
tinued for a few minutes.

d. Prior to 97:13 the battery load-sharing among the four

batteries had been equal, but immediately after the battery
currents returned to nominal, batteries i and 2 supplied 9
of the ii amperes total. By 97:23 the load-sharing had re-
turned to equal.

e. There was no electrical interface between the LM and the CSM

at this time.

f. An MSC investigation of the anomaly is in progress.

Determinations

(I) An anomalous incident occurred in the LM electrical system

at about 97:13:53 which appeared to be a short circuit.

(2) The thump and the venting were related to this anomaly.

(9) The apparent short circuit cleared itself.

(4) This anomaly was not directly related to the CSM or to the
accident.

(5) This anomaly represents a potentially serious electrical

problem.

CM Battery Recharging

48. Findings

a.
About one half of the electrical capacity of reentry
battery A (20 of 40 amp-hours) was used during emergency
conditions following the accident. A small part of the
capacity of reentry battery B was used in checking out dc
main bus B at 95 hours. The reduced charge remaining in the
batteries limited the amount of time the CM could operate
after separation from the LM.

5-35
 b.
Extrapolation of LM electrical power use rates indicated a
capacity in excess of that required for LM operation for the
remainder of the flight.

C.
Mission Control worked out a procedure for using LM battery
power to recharge CM batteries A and B. This procedure used
the electrical umbilical between the 154 and the CM which
normally carried electrical energy from the CM to the LM.
The procedure was nonstandard and was not included in check-
lists.

d. The procedure was initiated at 112 hours and CM batteries A

and B were fully recharged by 128 hours.

Determination

Although there is always some risk involved in using new, untested

procedures, analysis in advance of use indicated no hazards were
involved. The procedure worked very well to provide an extra
margin of safety for the reentry operation.

Trajectory Changes For Safe Return to Earth

49. Findings

a°
After the accident, it became apparent that the lunar landing
could not be accomplished and that the spacecraft trajectory
must be altered for a return to Earth.

b.
At the time of th@ accident, the spacecraft trajectory was
one which would have returned it to the vicinity of the Earth,
but it would have been left in orbit about the Earth rather
than reentering for a safe splashdown.

c. To return the spacecraft to Earth, the following midcourse

corrections were made:

A 38-fps correction at 61:30, using the LM descent propulsion

system (DPS), required to return the spacecraft to the Earth.

An 81-fps burn at 79:28, after swinging past the Moon, using

the DPS engine, to shift the landing point from the Indian
Ocean to the Pacific and to shorten the return trip by
9 hours.

A 7.8-fps burn at 105:18 using the DPS engine to lower Earth

perigee from 87 miles to 21 miles.

5-36
 A 3.2-fps correction at 137:40 using LM RCSthrusters, to
assure that the CMwould reenter the Earth's atmosphere at
the center of its corridor.

d. All course corrections were executed with expected accuracy

and the CM reentered the Earth's atmosphere at 142:40 to
return the crew safely at 142:54, near the prime recovery
ship.

e. Without the CM guidance and navigation system, the crew could

not navigate or compute return-to-Earth maneuver target param-
eters.

Determinations

(1) This series of course corrections was logical and had the
best chance of success because_ as compared to other options_
it avoided use of the damaged SM; it put the spacecraft on a
trajectory, within a few hours after the accident, which had
the best chance for a safe return to Earth; it placed splash-
down where the best recovery forces were located; it shortened
the flight time to increase safety margins in the use of elec-
trical power and water; it conserved fuel for other course
corrections which might have become necessary; and it kept
open an option to further reduce the flight time.

(2) Mission Control trajectory planning and maneuver targeting

were essential for the safe return of the crew.

Entry Procedures and Checklists

50. Findings

a. Preparation for reentry required nonstandard procedures be-

cause of the lack of SM oxygen and electrical power supplies.

b. The SM RCS engines normally provide separation between the

SM and the CM by continuing to fire after separation.

c. Apollo 13 SM RCS engines could not continue to fire after

separation because of the earlier failure of the fuel cells.

d. The CM guidance and navigation system was powered down due to

the accident. The LM guidance and navigation system had also
been powered down to conserve electrical energy and water. A
spacecraft inertial attitude reference had to be established
prior to reentry.

5-37
 et
The reentry preparation time had to be extended in order to
accomplish the additional steps required by the unusual situa-
tion.

fe

In order to conserve the CM batteries, LM jettison was de-

layed as long as practical. The LM batteries were used to
supply part of the power necessary for CM activation.

g.
The procedures for accomplishing the final course correction
and the reentry preparation were developed by operations
support personnel under the direction of Mission Control.

h°
An initial set of procedures was defined within 12 hours
after the accident• These were refined and modified during
the following 2 days, and evaluated in simulators at MSC and
KSC by members of the backup crew.

i. The procedures were read to the crew about 24 hours prior to

reentry, allowing the crew time to study and rehearse them.

j •
Trajectory evaluations of contingency conditions for LM and
SM separation were conducted and documented prior to the
mission by mission-planning personnel at MSC.

k. Most of the steps taken were extracted from other procedures

which had been developed, tested, and simulated earlier•

Determinations

(i) The procedures developed worked well and generated no new

hazards beyond those unavoidably inherent in using procedures
which have not been carefully developed, simulated, and
practiced over a long training period.

(2) It is not practical to develop, simulate, and practice pro-

cedures for use in every possible contingency.

51. Findings

ao

During the reentry preparations, after SM jettison, there was

a half-hour period of very poor communications with the CM
due to the spacecraft being in a poor attitude with the LM
present•

b. This condition was not recognized by the crew or by Mission

Control.

5-38
 Determination

Some of the reentry preparations were unnecessarily prolonged by

the poor communications, but since the reentry preparation time-
line was not crowded, the delay was more of a nuisance than an
additional hazard to the crew.

52. Findings

a° The crew maneuvered the spacecraft to the wrong LM roll

attitude in preparation for LM jettison. This attitude put
the CM very close to gimbal lock which, had it occurred, would
have lost the inertial attitude reference essential for an
automatic guidance system control of reentry.

b° If gimbal lock had occurred, a less accurate but adequate

attitude reference could have been reestablished prior to
reentry.

Determination

The most significant consequence of losing the attitude reference

in this situation would have been the subsequent impact on the
remaining reentry preparation timeline. In taking the time to
reestablish this reference, less time would have been available
to accomplish the rest of the necessary procedures. The occur-
rence of gimbal lock in itself would not have significantly in-
creased the crew hazard.

5-39
 PART 4. RECOMMENDATIONS

i. The cryogenic oxygen storage system in the service module should be

modified to:

a. Remove from contact with the oxygen all wiring, and the unsealed
motors, which can potentially short circuit and ignite adjacent materials;
or otherwise insure against a catastrophic electrically induced fire in
the tank.

b. Minimize the use of Teflon, aluminum, and other relatively com-

bustible materials in the presence of the oxygen and potential ignition
sources.

2. The modified cryogenic oxygen storage system should be subjected to

a rigorous requalification program, including careful attention to po-
tential operational problems.

3. The warning systems on board the Apollo spacecraft and in the Mission
Control Center should be carefully reviewed and modified where appropriate,
with specific attention to the following:

a. Increasing the differential between master alarm trip levels and

expected normal operating ranges to avoid unnecessary alarms.

b. Changing the caution and warning system logic to prevent an out-

of-limits alarm from blocking another alarm when a second quantity in the
same subsystem goes out of limits.

c. Establishing a second level of limit sensing in Mission Control

on critical quantities with a visual or audible alarm which cannot be
easily overlooked.

d. Providing independent talkback indicators for each of the six

fuel cell reactant valves plus a master alarm when any valve closes.

4. Consumables and emergency equipment in the LM and the CM should be re-

viewed to determine whether steps should be taken to enhance their po-
tential for use in a "lifeboat" mode.

5. The Manned Spacecraft Center should complete the special tests and
analyses now underway in order to understand more compl@tely the details
of the Apollo 13 accident. In addition, the lunar module power system
anomalies should receive careful attention. Other NASA Centers should
continue their support to MSC in the areas of analysis and test.

5-40
6. Wheneversignificant anomalies occur in critical subsystems during
final preparation for launch, standard procedures should require a presen-
tation of all prior anomalies on that particular piece of equipment, in-
cluding those which have previously been corrected or explained. Further-
more, critical decisions involving the flightworthiness of subsystems
should require the presence and full participation of an expert who is
intimately familiar with the details of that subsystem.

7. NASAshould conduct a thorough reexamination of all of its spacecraft,

launch vehicle, and ground systems which contain high-density oxygen, or
other strong oxidizers, to identify and evaluate potential combustion
hazards in the light of information developed in this investigation.
8. NASAshould conduct additional research on materials compatibility,
ignition, and combustion in strong oxidizers at various g levels; and on
the characteristics of supercritical fluids. Whereappropriate, new NASA
design standards should be developed.

9. The MannedSpacecraft Center should reassess all Apollo spacecraft

subsystems, and the engineering organizations responsible for them at
MSCand at its prime contractors, to insure adequate understanding and
control of the engineering and manufacturing details of these subsystems
at the subcontractor and vendor level. Wherenecessary, organizational
elements should be strengthened and in-depth reviews conducted on selected
subsystems with emphasis on soundness of design, quality of manufacturing,
adequacy of test, and operational experience.

5-41
This page left blank intentionally.

2
5-42

NASA -- MSC
.

REPORT OF
- APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD

APPENDIX A
BASELINE DATA: APOLLO 13
l

. FLIGHT SYSTEMS AND OPERATIONS

- VATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

c
 CONTENTS

Part Page

APPENDIX A - BASELINE DATA: APOLLO 13 FLIGHT

SYSTEMS AND OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-l

Al APOLLO SPACECRAFT CONFIGURATION .......... A-3

LAUNCH ESCAPE ASSEMBLY .............. A-3

COMMANDMODULE.................. A-3

SERVICE MODULE ................... A-8

SPACECRAFT LM ADAPTER .............. A-9

A2 SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION DATA .............. A-11

INTRODUCTION ................... A-11

A2.1 GUIDANCE AND CONTROL ............... A-12

Guidance and Control Systems Interface . . . . . A-12

Attitude Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12

Attitude Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14

Thrust and Thrust Vector Control . . ...... A-16

A2.2 GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION SYSTEM (G&N) . ...... A-18

A2.3 STABILIZATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM (SCS) ...... A-20

A2.4 SERVICE PROPULSION SYSTEM (SPS) . . . ...... A-22

A2.5 REACTION CONTROL SYSTEM (RCS). . . . . ...... A-24

SM RCS Functional Description . . . ...... A-24

CM RCS Functional Description . . . ...... ~-26

~2.6 ELECTRICAL POWERSYSTEM . . . . . . . ...... A-28

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-28

iii

. ..I . . I ., *“I -._-- _-. - ._I_x__~__.

-- ---. -..*---_l----... --.-.--~ --.. -~
___-___o__ll_. -__Y._--
 --

Part Page

Functional Description .............. A-30

Major Component/Subsystem Description ...... A-32

Performance and Design Data ........... A-66

Operational Limitations and Restrictions ..... ~-67

Systems Test Meter ................ A-70

Command Module Interior Lighting ......... A-72

A2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM ............ A-81

Introduction ................... A-81

Functional Description .............. A-83

Oxygen Subsystem ................. A-86

A2.8 TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM ............. A-88 -

Introduction ................... A-88

Functional Description .............. A-89

~2.9 SEQUENTIAL SYSTEMS ................. A-90

Introduction ................... A-90

Sequential Events Control Subsystem ....... A-90

Origin of Signals ................ ~-92

A2.10 CAUTION AND WARNING SYSTEM ............. A-93

Introduction ................... A-93

Functional Description .............. A-93

Major Component Subsystem Description ...... A-93

Operational Limitations and Restrictions ..... A-97

iv

..-l ,....-- _-__---_____- -,.. -..- -_ -

Part Page

A2.11 MISCELLANEOUS SYSTEMS DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-?9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-99

Timers ...................... A-99

Accelerometer (G-meter) ............. A-99

Command Module Uprighting System . . . . . . . . . A-99

A2.12 CREWPERSONAL EQUIPMENT .............. A-103

A2.13 DOCKING AND TRANSFER ................ A-106

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-106

Functional Description .............. A-109

A3 LUNAR MODULE SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION ........... A-111

INTRODUCTION .................... A-111

LM CONFIGURATION .................. A-111

Ascent Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-114

Descent Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-119

IN - SLA - S-IVB Connections ........... A-119

LM-CSM Interfaces ................ A-119

Stowage Provisions ................ A-122

A4 MISSION CONTROL CENTER ACTIVITIES .......... A-123

INTRODUCTION .................... A-123

MISSION OPERATIONS CONTROLROOM .......... A-128

MCC SUPPORT ROOMS ................. A-131

MISSION SUPPORT AREAS ............... A-133

Communications, Command, and Telemetry

System (CCATS) ................. A-133

__~-_-_.-, .._ . ..----- .I.,. .__ ,.-__- -~--_ .-.. --l----l--l-..--- _-“--l_-.
 Part Page

Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC). . . . . . . . . A-134

A5 EXCERPTS FROM APOLLO FUEL CELL AND CRYOGENIC GAS

STORAGE SYSTEM FLIGHT SUPPORT HANDBOOK . . . . . . . A-139

__.^.

vi

.,___--.-....__I..^
,111- .._^x_-..-l _..l..-^..l-I_ -__ -.-.--~- -__~,-- *-_. ---.-
 BASELINE DATA: APOLLO 13 FLIGHT

SYSTEMS AND OPERATIONS

Appendix A is divided into five parts. Part Al briefly describes

the Apollo spacecraft configuration; Part A2 provides a systems descrip-
tion of the Apollo spacecraft configuration with special emphasis on the
electrical power system (EPS); Part A3 describes the lunar module systems;
Part A4 briefly describes the Mission Control Center at Houston, Texas,
and its interface with the spacecraft during the mission; and Part A5
gives a detailed description of the fuel cells and cryogenic gas storage
systems aboard the Apollo spacecraft. This baseline material may not
always represent the precise Apollo 13 configuration in every case, since
there is a continuous updating which is documented periodically. For ex-
ample, Fuel Cell 2 on Apollo 13 was normally connected to bus A in the
distribution system, rather that as described in Part ~2.6.

The data were extracted from the following sources:

APPENDIX A

PART Al Technical Manual SM2A-03-Block II-(l)

and A2 Apollo Operations Handbook Block II Spacecraft,
Volume 1, dated January 15, 1970.

PART A3 Technical Manual LMA790-3-L&l, Apollo Operations

Handbook, Lunar Module, Volume 1, dated February 1,
1970.

PART A4 Manned Spacecraft Center Flight Operations Plan -

H Missions, dated August 31, 1969.

PART A5 Apollo Fuel Cell and Cryogenic Gas Storage System

Flight Support Handbook, dated February 18, 1970,
prepared by Propulsion and Power Division, Manned
Spacecraft Center.

A-l

I~.. I .,. .__ ".----. -.. . _.---.-l-__-l.~ ---- 1--- _l.-l--l__

This page left blank intentionally.

.-

A-2
 PART Al

APOLLO SPACECRAFT CONFIGURATION

The Apollo spacecraft consists of a launch escape assembly (LEA),

command module (CM), service module (SM), the spacecraft lunar module
adapter (SLA), and the lunar module (LM). The reference system and
stations are shown in figure Al-l.

LAUNCH ESCAPE ASSEMBLY

The LEA (fig. Al-2) provides the means for separating the CM from
the launch vehicle during pad or first-stage booster operation, This
assembly consists of a Q-ball instrumentation assembly (nose cone),
ballast compartment, canard surfaces, pitch control motor, tower jetti-
son motor, launch escape motor, a structural skirt, an open-frame tower,
and a boost protective cover (BPC). The structural skirt at the base
of the housing, which encloses the launch escape rocket motors, is
secured to the forward portion of the tower. The BPC (fig. Al-31 is
attached to the aft end of the tower to protect the CM from heat during
boost, and from exhaust damage by the launch escape and tower jettison
motors. Explosive nuts, one in each tower leg well, secure the tower
to the CM structure.

COMIWNDMODULE

The CM (fig. Al-b), the spacecraft control center, contains neces-

sary automatic and manual equipment to control and monitor the space-
craft systems; it also contains the required equipment for safety and
comfort of the flight crew. The module is an irregular-shaped, primary
structure encompassed by three heat shields (coated with ablative mater-
ial and joined or fastened to the primary structure) forming a trun-
cated, conic structure. The CM consists of a forward compartment, a
crew compartment, and an aft compartment for equipment. (See fig. Al-b.)

The command module is conical shaped, 11 feet 1.5 inches long, and
12 feet 6.5 inches in diameter without the ablative material. The
ablative material is nonsymmetrical and adds approximately 4 inches to
the height and 5 inches to the diameter.

A-3
 .

_...

Figure Al-l.- Block II spacecraft reference stations.

jr\ - 1-I

.-__. I. -.. .I --.lr _.. -- ._ ...--“-_l_*._“. .-~~. -.

 Q-MLL (NOSE CONE)
PITCH CONTROL MOTOR

CANARDS JETTISON MOTOR

LAUNCH ESCAPE ASSEMBLY

LAUNCH ESCAPE MOTOR --“. jj/

STRUCTURAL SKIRT
A..

LAUNCH ESCAPE TOWER

TOWER ATTACHMENT (4) COMMAND MODULE

BOOST PROTECTIVE

CM-SM FAIRING

REACTION CONTR
SYSTEM ENGINES

SERVICE MODULE

EC5 RADIATOR MI

SPS ENGINE EXPANSION NOZZLE

SPACECRAFT LM
ADAPTER (SLA) \

NOTE: LM IS NOT UTILIZED

SOME MISSIONS
ON \
c S-IV8 INSTRUMENT UNIT
(SHOWN AS REFERENCE)

Figure Al-2.- Block II spacecraft configuration.

A-5

. .. __.~. - .,._...- .^_IL- -.-- ..-...-___--_.- ...-...----._l-.-_l”...-l .._----.~--.“-,_.---_

 !- 5iUOd 3Nl3N3 H31ld $38
A. ---~A /
: 51106 3Nl3N3
1108 538
IN3A 111 311115
SlMOd :-
F4l3N3 MVA
t4oaNl.v
via .8
UOd 3NIW3 HXld 538
 COMMAND MODULE

Figure Al-b.- Block II command module.

 SERVICE MODULE

The service module (fig. Al-51 is a cylindrical structure formed

by l-inch-thick aluminum honeycomb panels. Radial beams, from milled
aluminum alloy plates, separate the structure interior into six unequal
sectors around a circular center section. Equipment contained within

’ccgq
Sector 4

-Y
1 and 4 are 50-degree sectors
Fuel cell power plant (three)
Helium servicing panel
Super-critical
Super-critical
oxygen tank (two)
hydrogen tank (two)
Reaction control system control unit
2 and 5 are 70-degree sectors Electrical power system power control relay box
3 and 6 are 60-degree sectors Service module jettison controller sequencer (two)

Service module items Sector 5

Environmental control system space radiator
Sector 1
Service propulsion system fuel sump tank
Empty NASA equipment Reaction control system package C-Y axis)
Sector 2
Environmental system space radiator Sector 6
Service propulsion system Environmental control system space radiator
Reaction control system package (+Y -axis) Reaction control system package (-Z axis)
Service propulsion system oxidizer sump tank Service propulsion system fuel storage tank
Sector 3 Center Section
Service propulsion system Service propulsion system helium tank (two)
Reaction control system package (+Z -axis) Service propulsion system engine
Environmental system space radiator Fairing
Service propulsion system oxidizer storage tank Electrical power system space radiator’s (eight)

Figure Al-5.- Service module.

id-8
the service module is accessible through maintenance doors located around
the exterior surface of the module. Specific items, such as propulsion
systems (SPS and RCS), fuel cells, and most of the SC onboard consumables
(and storage tanks) contained in the SM compartments, are listed in
figure Al-5. The service module is 12 feet 11 inches long (high) and
12 feet 10 inches in diameter.

Radial beam trusses on the forward portion of the SM structure

provide a means for securing the CM to the SM. Alternate beams one,
three, and five have compression pads for supporting the CM. Beams two,
four, and six have shear-compression pads and tension ties. A flat
center section in each tension tie incorporates redundant explosive
charges for SM-CM separation. These beams and separation devices are
enclosed within a fairing (26 inches high and 13 feet in diameter) be-
tween the CM and SM.

SPACECRAFT LM ADAPTER

The spacecraft LM adapter (SLA) (fig. Al-6) is a large truncated

cone which connects the CSM and S-IVB on the launch vehicle. It houses
the lunar module (LM), the nozzle of the service propulsion system, and
the high-gain antenna in the stowed position. The adapter, constructed
of eight 2-inch-thick aluminum panels, is 154 inches in diameter at the
forward end (CM interface) and 260 inches at the aft end. Separation
of the CSM from the SLA is accomplished by means of explosive charges
which disengage the four SLA forward panels from the aft portion. The
individual panels are restrained to the aft SLA by hinges and acceler-
ated in rotation by pyrotechnic-actuated thrusters. When reaching an
angle of 45 degrees measured from the vehicle's X-axis, spring thrusters
(two per panel) jettison the panels. The panel jettison velocity and
direction of travel is such as to minimize the possibility of recontact
with the spacecraft or launch vehicle.

A-9
Panel separation by
explosive charges

FAM-1503F

Figure Al-6.- Spacecraft LM adapter.

 PART A2

SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION DATA

INTRODUCTION

Systems description data include description of operations, compo-

nent description and design data, and operational limitations and restric-
tions. Part 2.1 describes the overall spacecraft navigation, guidance,
and control requirements and the resultant systems interface. Parts A2.2
through A2.10 present data grouped by spacecraft systems, arranged in the
following order: guidance and navigation, stabilization and control, serv-
ice propulsion, reaction control, electrical power, environmental control,
telecommunications, sequential, and caution and warnings. Part A2.11 deals
with miscellaneous systems data. Part A2.12 deals with crew personal
equipment. Part A2.13 deals with docking and crew transfer.

These data were extracted from the technical manual SM2A-03BLOCK II-
(l), Apollo Operations Handbook, Block II Spacecraft, Volume 1, dated
January 15, 1970.

A-11
 PART A2.1

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL

Guidance and Control Systems Interface

The Apollo guidance and control functions are performed by the

primary guidance, navigation, and control system (PGNCS), and stabili-
zation and control system (SCS). The PGNCS and SCS systems contain
rotational and translational attitude and rate sensors which provide
discrete input information to control electronics which, in turn, inte-
grate and condition the information into control commands to the space-
craft propulsion systems. Spacecraft attitude control is provided by
commands to the reaction control system (RCS). Major velocity changes
are provided by commands to the service propulsion system (SPS).
Guidance and control provides the following basic functions:

a. Attitude reference

b. Attitude control

C. Thrust and thrust vector control.

-
The basic guidance and control functions may be performed automat-
ically, with primary control furnished by the command module computer
(CMC) or manually, with primary control furnished by the flight crew.
The subsequent paragraphs provide a general description of the basic
functions.

Attitude Reference

The attitude reference function (fig. A2.1-1) provides display of

the spacecraft attitude with reference to an established inertial ref-
erence. The display is provided by two flight director attitude indi-
cators (FDAI) located on the main display console, panels 1 and 2. The
displayed information consists of total attitude, attitude errors, and
angular rates. The total attitude is displayed by the FDAI ball. Atti-
tude errors are displayed by three needles across scales on the top,
right, and bottom of the apparent periphery of the ball. Angular rates
are displayed by needles across the top right, and bottom of the FDAI
face.

Total attitude information is derived from the IMU stable platform

or the gyro displ~ coupler (GDC). The IMU provides total attitude by
maintaining a gimbaled, gyro-stabilized platform to an inertial reference
orientation. The GDC provides total attitude by updating attitude infor-
mation with angular rate inputs from Qyro assembly 1 or 2.

A-12

.___^.-.__-.
-__ -.- _.-..
-_-- ._I
ye-------------- -_---L---- -,--v--q
1
I ' GIMBAL - ' GIMBAL
I
ANGLES
I INERTIAL TOTAL ATTITUDE
INERTIAL
COUPLING
ANGLES COMMAND
MODULE
+ DISPLAY
KEYBOARD
I

I MEASUREMENT
UNITIIMU)
*
DATA UNIT
(ICDUl
COMPUTER
(CMC)
4 (DSKY)
I

I _
ATTITUDE
ERRORS
CREW INPUTS
I
I--_---L---------- _----m----- o-e---
PGNCS
J
l
I 1 ATTITUDE ERROR
I

I , GDC TOTAL
ATTITUDE
RATE -1,

I GYRO
DISPLAY
. ELECTRONIC
DISPLAY
ATTITUDE ERROR-1
ATTITUDE ERROR-2
w DIRECTOR
ATTITUDE
ASCP ATTITUDE
I COUPLER
(GDCI
ERROR
e
ASSEMBLY
IEDA)
ATTITUDE-1
ATTITUDE-2
+ INDICATOR
(FDAI) ND. 1
I A
-l
I ASCP ATTITUDE
ERROR
I ATTITUDE
I
I SET
CONTROL t
I
I PANEL
(ASCP)
IMUlGDC
TOTAL
I
I ATTITUDE I
r--‘--e-----
I
I
l
I
I
I I I
I I I
DISPLAY ANGULAR RATES MAIN
I L _____ I ----
' SWITCHING DISPLAY

I I CONSOLE
(MDC)

I I c
scs - 1

Figure A2.1-1.- Guidance and control.

 Attitude error information is derived from three sources, The
first source is from zhe II.L? through the coupling Jata unit (CDU) which
c-spares I;?J gimbai angiea with CLIC commanded angles set into the CDU.
Any angular difference between the IMU gimbals and the CDU angles is
sent to the FDAI for display on the attitude error- needles. The second
source is from gyro assembly 1 which contains three (one for each of the
;i, Y, and Z axes) single-degree-of-freedom attitude gyros. Any space-
craft rotation about an axis will offset the case of a gyro from the
float. This rotation is sensed as a displacement off null, and a signal
is picked off which is representative of the magnitude and direction of
rotation. This signal is sent to the FDA1 for display on the attitude
error needles. The third source is from the GDC which develops attitude
errors by comparing angular rate inputs from gyro assembly 1 or 2 with
an internally stored orientation. These data are sent to the FDA1 for
display on the attitude error needles.
Angular rates are derived from either gyro assembly 1 or 2. Nor-
mally, the no. 2 assembly is used; however, gyro assembly 1 may be
switched to a backup rate mode if desired. For developing rate informa-
tion, the gyros are torqued to null when displaced; thus, they will
produce an output only when the spacecraft is being rotated. The output
signals are sent to the FDA1 for display on the rate needles and to the -.
GDC to enable updating of the spacecraft attitude.

Attitude Control

The attitude control function is illustrated in figure A2.1-2. The

control may be to maintain a specific orientation, or to command small
rotations or translations. To maintain a specific orientation, the
attitude error signals, described in the preceding paragraph, are also
r\,uted to the control reaction jet on-off assembly. These signals are
conditioned and applied to the proper reaction jet which fires in the
direction necessary to return the spacecraft to the desired attitude.
The attitude is maintained within specified deadband limits. The dead-
band is limited within both a rate and attitude limit to hold the
spacecraft excursions from exceeding either an attitude limit or angular
rate limit. To maneuver the spacecraft, the reaction jets are fired
automatically under ccmmand of the CMC or manually by flight crew use of
the rotation control, In either case, the attitude control function is
inhibited until the maneuver is completed, Translations of small magni-
tude are performed along the +X axis for fuel settling of SPS propellants
prior to burns, or for a backup deorbit by manual commands of the trans-
lation control. An additional control is afforded by enabling the mini-
mum impulse control at the lower equipment bay. The minimum impulse
control produces one directional pulse of small magnitude each time it is
moved from detent. These small pulses are used to position the spacecraft
for navigational sightings.

A-14
 ENERGY STORAGE POWER GENERATION

ENTRY AND ’
POST LANDING
BATTERY A

FUEL CELL

a’I FUEL CELL 1

1 I . 1A 1 Oh - R/C
CRYOGLNtC
SUBSYSTEM i- 1,mz-l No-2 I \ 1 SENSE CKT

ENTRY AND
POST LANDING -
BATTERY B
I
ENTRY AND
POST LANDING I
BATTERY C
4
I I
f
PYRO
BATTERY A

PYRO
BATTERY B
 I
INERATION 7 I POWERCONVERSION I POWER DISTRIBUTION

I I
I I

I
I
I
I
I AC INVERTER
. ...
-’
SENSE
II
CKT
.
j NO. 1

I I
I I I +
I 4 I
AC INVERTER
t INVERTER
DC&AC
+, CONTROL
NO. 3
CIRCUITS
I
I
I
I AC INVERTER
INVERTER
3M4lNB
PWR

I -A-
(RHE5275j

I 70A

I
‘II I I
POWER DISTRlBUTION

MAIN BUS
I SWITCH
F-l (BATA/c)
(MDC-5) I

Motor switches 51 and 52

CIOIC when main bus tic
witches 54 and 55 ore set to
Bat A/C and Bet B/C.

2 FCI coon be connected to

0
SMbusB6 FC3foSMbusA

DC bus cantlot circuit

0
breoksn ore illurtmted in
I MAIN BUS I battety charger ond CM DC
TIE SWITCH bus contml circuits schematic
(BAT B / C)
I 55 (MDC-5)

Figure A2.6l.- Electrical power subsystem block diagram.

A-29

_ -- .
..~ --

( I-

- .-
 Functional Description

Energy storage.- The primary source of energy is the cryogenic gas

storage system that provides fuel (H2) and oxidizer (02) to the power
generating system. Two hydrogen and two oxygen tanks, with the asso-
ciated controls and plum.bing, are located in the service module. Storage
of reactants is accomplished under controlled cryogenic temperatures and
pressures; automatic and manual pressure control is provided. Automatic
heating of the reactants for repressurization is dependent on energy de-
mand by the power generating and/or envircnmental control subsystems.
Manual control can be used when required.

A secondary source of energy storage is provided by five silver

oxide-zinc batteries located in the CM. Three rechargeable entry and
postlanding batteries supply sequencer logic power at all times, supple-
mental dc power for peak loads, all operating power required for entry
and postlanding, and can be connected to power either or both pyro cir-
cuits. Two pyro batteries provide energy for activation of pyro devices
throughout all phases of a mission.

Power generation.- Three Bacon-type fuel cell power plants, gener-

ting power through electrochemical reaction of H2 and 02, supply primary
dc power to spacecraft systems until CSM separation. Each power plant is
capable of normally supplying from 400 to 1420 watts at 31 to 27 V dc (at
fuel cell terminals) to the power distribution system. During normal
operation all three power plants generate power, but two are adequate to
complete the mission. Should two of the three malfunction, one power
plant will insure successful mission termination; however, spacecraft
loads must be reduced to operate within the limits of a single power-
plant.

Normal fuel cell connection to the distribution system is: fuel

cell 1 to main dc bus A; fuel cell 2 to main dc busses A and B; ax-&fuel
cell 3 to main dc bus B. Manual switch control is provided for power
plant connection to the distribution system, and manual and/or automatic
control for power plant isolation in case of a malfunction.

During the CSM separation maneuver, the power plants supply power
through the SM buses to two SM jettison control sequencers. The sequen-
cers sustain SM RCS retrofire during CSM separation and fire the SM
positive roll RCS engines 2 seconds after separation to stabilize the SM
during entry. Roll engine firing is terminated 7.5 seconds after separa-
tion. The power plants and SM buses are isolated from the umbilical
through a SM deadface. The sequencers are connected to the SM buses when
the CM/SM SEP switch (MDC-2) is activated; separation occurs 100 milli-
seconds after switch activation.

A-30
 Power conversion.- Primary dc power is converted into ac by solid
state static inverters that provide 115/200-volt 400-cps 3-phase ac power
up to 1250 volt-amperes each. The ac power is connected by motor switch
controls +Uo twc ac buses for distribution to the ac loads. One inverter
has the capability of supplying all spacecraft primary ac power. One
inverter can power both buses while the two remaining inverters act as
redundant sources. However, throughout the flight, each bus is powered
by a separate inverter. Provisions are made for inverter isolation in
the event of malfunctions. Inverter outputs cannot be phase synchro-
nized; therefore, interlocked motorized switching circuits are incor-
porated to prevent the connection of two inverters to the same bus.

A second conversion unit, the battery charger, assures keeping the

three entry and postlanding batteries in a fully charged state. It is a
solid state device utilizing dc from the fuel cells and ac from the in-
verter to develop charging voltage,

Power distribution.- Distribution of dc power is accomplished via

two redundant dc buses in the service module which are connected to two
redundant buses in the command module through a SM deadface, the CSM
umbilical, and a CM deadface. Additional buses provided are: two dc
buses for servicing nonessential loads: a flight bus for servicing in-
flight telecommunications equipment; two battery buses for distributing
power to sequencers, gimbal motor controls, and servicing the battery
relay bus for power distribution switching; and a flight and postlanding
bus for servicing some communications equipment and the postlanding loads.

Three-phase ac is distributed via two redundant ac buses, providing

bus selection through switches in the ac-operated component circuits.

Fower to the lunar module is provided through two umbilicals which

are manually connected after completion of transposition and docking,
An average of 81 watts dc is provided to continuous heaters in the abort
sensor assembly (ASA), and cycling heaters in the landing radar, rendez-
vous radar, S-band antenna, and inertial measurement unit (IMU). Power
consumption with all heaters operating simultaneously is approximately
309 watts. LM floodlighting is also powered through the umbilical for
use during manned lunar module operation while docked with the CSM.

A dc sensing circuit monitors voltage on each main dc bus, and an

ac sensing circuit monitors voltage on each ac bus. The dc sensors pro-
vide an indication of an undervoltage by illuminating a warning light.
The ac sensors illuminate a warning light when high- or low-voltage limits
are exceeded. In addition, the ac sensors activate an automatic discon-
nect of the inverter from the ac bus during an overvoltage condition.
The ac overload conditions are displayed by illumination of an overload
warning light and are accompanied by a low voltage light. Additional

A-31

.- .-r __
_-.._
i.._ _ __--___-.- __I--.- 1-w_ _-_-..-_.. --.._,~_-....-F-L-..-s.--_II
.. ___.ll-""" ----.i. ---1-_.- 1_11_-
sensors monitor fuel cell overload and reverse current conditions, pro-
viding an automatic disconnect, together with visual indications of the
disconnect whenever either condition is exceeded.

Switches, meters, lights, and talk-back indicators are provided for

controlling and monitoring all functions of the EPS.

Major Component/Subsystem Description

The subsequent paragraphs describe the cryogenic storage subsystem

and each of the various EPS components.

Cryogenic storage.- The cryogenic storage subsystem (figs. ~2.6-2

and ~2.6-3) supplies hydrogen to the EPS, and oxygen to the EPS, ECS, and
for initial LM pressurization. The two tanks in the hydrogen and oxygen
systems are of sufficient size to provide a safe return from the furthest
point of the mission on the fluid remaining in any one tank. The physical
data of the cryogenic storage subsystem are as follows:

Approximate
Minimum Approximate --
Weight Design quantities at
allowable flow rate
of usable storage minimum heater
operating at min dq/dm
cryogenics pressure
pressure (+li;5',F e;viro;m;nt: an~pef~nt~~$ing
(lb/tank) bia>
(psi4 lb hr- an s
(min dq/dm)

O2 320 (min) 900235 150 1.71 45 to 25%

H2 28 (min) 245 (+15, 100 0.140 53 to 33%
-20)

Initial pressurization from fill to operating pressures is accom-

plished by GSE. After attaining operating pressures, the cryogenic fluids
are in a single-phase condition, therefore, completely homogeneous. This
avoids sloshing which could cause sudden pressure fluctuations, possible
damage to internal components, and prevents positive mass quantity gaug-
ing. The single-phase expulsion process continues at nearly constant
pressure and increasing temperature above the 2-phase region.

A-32
 .
+28 VDC CAUTIC
c‘""'"'" FILL VENTtGSEI (OV-1) WARN11
SYSTEh
- 02 CRYOPRESS(MDC-2) .

;OXYCEN FILL VALVE (GSE) (OF-l)

1 I 07 4 09 -
L 02 PRESS
IND WC-2 1
S"R0E FROM:SURGE TANK

K
DENSITY TANK PRESSURE
SIGNAL DENSITY
CONDITIONER SENSOR
PROBE rWK1
Q -I I

FAN MOTORS

,
I HEATERS t I

-J
L -C
-
I -
, OXYGEN RELIEF VENT (ORI
,-, n
"2 - "2
/ I -;(
HEATERS,

'I 1 9 2
4.
CRYOGENIC TAMS

DENSITYSIGNAL
CONDITIONER

,-OXYGEN FILL VALVE IGSEI (OF-Z)

II I
I - 07L II II L I, L
I
I- -
02 02 - 0
~z OXYGEN FILLVENT IGSE) (OV-2)

I, - 1
02
I
I
L
OXYGEN PUPGE VALVE IGSE) (OP) I
- 02 02 o2 - 0.
I I ,

Figure ~2.6-2.- Cryogenic stcrage subsystem (oxygen).

A-34
 & TANK 1 & TANK 2
PRESS XDUCERS
ZRYO PRESS[MDC- 2)

I I I I I I
D-
02 TANK NO. 1 MOTOR SWITCH CONTACTS 0
02 TANK NO. 2
MOTOR SWITCH
CONTACTS

I I CONTACTS

AL
SM MAIN DC BUS Bl p ~ ’
F ” OF

II C

1
m MAIN D-C t
I I I I

I I I I
I
TO. FUEL CELL SHUTOFF VALVES

02 VAC ION PUMPS

A MN A (RHEB 229)
5A”

A MN 8 IRHEB 229)
05A0
:ENIC TAMS 02 HEATERS -2 j
CRYOGENIC 02 HTR-2 (MDC- 2)
MNB tRHEB-226) AUTO ( rl’
I L

OFF

ON
0 PRESSURE AND MOTOR
SWITCHES ARE SHOWN
02 IN LOW PRESSURE POSITION ON
TO
ECS

I
H? TAN-K 2
DiNSlTY 8 TEhtP
5 IGNAL COND

1 i

. . .
I . .-._
 1\ H2TANK 1

-L
0, TANK NO. 2
~TOR sw lTcH
DENSITY & TEh4P
SIGNAL COND

QTY AMPL 1
AC I (RHER-2261
‘\TACTS @ CONTACTS

CRYOGENIC
FAN MOTORS
02 FANS -1 TANK 1
1MDC-2 I A-C BUS
AC2 (RHEB-2261
NO. 1

II OFF c.+o-
- 2A -

:RYOGENIC FAN MOTORS

TANK 2 A-C BUS
AC2 (RHEB-226)

ON
I

I
I
-l H2 TANK 2
DENSITY C TEMP H2FANS - 2 SWITCH
IMDC - 21 -
SIGNAL COND I
4
H2FANS - 1 SWITCH d
IMDC - 21
 r, HYDROGEN FILL VENT IGSE) IHV-1)
1

HYDROGEN FILL VALVE (GSE) (HF-1)

C H2
I
I

CONDITIONER

I iMPL 1

\ HYDROGEN RELIEF! VENT (FLYAWAY UMBILICAL) (HR)

H2 - H2
/

CRYOGENIC TANKS

c HYDROGEN FILL VALVE (CSE) (HF-21 ION

PUMP
H2 - H2
r\ HYDROGEN FILL VENT IGSE) IHV-2) H2

I, - I
Li
HYDROGEN PURGE VALVE IGSE) (HP)
H2 - H2 9

FROM CB
CRYOGENIC FAN MOTORS TANK 2 AC2 (RHEE-226)
CRYOGENIC FAN MOTORS TANK 1 AC1 (RHEB-2261
 H2

TEMP
TEMP SIGNAL
‘OGEN SENSOR CONOITIONFR ITT” I

SM MAIN DC
I I
-I I- CM r)-CMAlN

l-

VAC PS/,.q I;;y= II

ION
KiNAD” VALVE
PUMP

A
- H2

Hz -

CRYOGENIC H2 HTR 2 -
q$F//glm ._ ._. TANKsm ,
D-&IN MN B (RHEB-226)
BUS B
[
I-
IRE TANK NO. 2 0
PRESSURE
SWITCH

1 FILTER

I
Hz - H2 H2 - H2 H2
 Ii2 TANK NO. 2
MOTOR SWITCH
Ii2 TANK NO. 1 MOTOR tiITCH CONTACTS (j) , CONTACTS
_ 1

H FANS -1
L DC-2)
AUTO
- 6C
OFF v
/
-C MAIN
BUS A \
H2 HEATERS - 1
CRYOGENIC H2 HTR l- (MDC-2)
MN A IRHEB-226)
AUTO
\
w OFF - H2 HEATERS -
\ - H2 FANS --,
0

H2 FANS -2
(MDC-2)
AUTO
- *A
OFF wT+
CRYOGENIC H2 HlR 2-
MN B (RHEB-22%) 71
---A
- OFF
0 -1
ON
---

01 PRESSUREAND MOTOR SWITCHES ARE

SHOWN IN LOW PRESSUREPOSITION

02 VAC ION PUMP FUSES OPENED

DURING PRELAUNCH COUNTDOWN

Figure ~2.6-3.- Cryogenic storage subsystem (hydrogen)

A-35
 Two parallel dc heaters in each tank supply the heat necessary to
maintain design pressures. Two parallel 3-phase ac circulating fans
circulate the fluid over the heating elements to maintain a uniform den-
sity and decrease the probability of stratification. A typical heater
and fan installation is shown in figure A2.6-4. Relief valves provide
overpressure relief, check_valves provide tank isolation, and individual
fuel cell shutoff valves provide isolation of malfunctioning power plants.
Filters extract particles from the flowing fluid to protect the ECS and
EPS components. The pressure transducers and temperature probes indicate
the thermodynamic state of the fluid. A capacitive quantity probe in-
dicates quantity of fluid remaining in the tanks.

FAN &MOTOR

CAPYl1lvE
PRORE- ‘I
v

ENCASED
INTERNALLY

Figure A2.6-4.- Cryogenic pressurization and quantity

measurement devices.
c

A-36
 Repressurization of the systems can be automatically or manually
controlled by switch selection. The automatic mode is designed to give
a single-phase reactant flow into the feed lines at design pressures.
The heaters and fans are automatically controlled through a pressure
switch-motor switch arrangement. As pressure in the tanks decreases,
the pressure switch in each tank closes to energize the motor switch,
closing contacts in the heater and fan circuits. Both tanks have to de-
crease in pressure before heater and fan circuits are energized. When
either tank reaches the upper operating pressure limit, that respective
pressure switch opens to again energize the motor switch, thus opening
the heater and fan circuits to both tanks. The 02 circuits are energized
at 865 psia minimum and de-energized at 935 psia maximum. The H2 circuits
energize at 225 psia minimum and de-energize at 260 psia maximum. The
most accurate quantity readout will be acquired shortly after the fans
have stopped. During all other periods partial stratification may de-
grade quantity readout accuracy.

When the systems reach the point where heater and fan cycling is at
a minimum (due to a reduced heat requirement), heat leak of the tank is
sufficient to maintain design pressures, provided flow is within the min
dq/dm values shown in the preceding tabulation. This realm of operation
is referred to as the min dq/dm region. The minimum heat requirement
region for oxygen starts at approximately 45-percent quantity and ter-
minates at approximately 25-percent quantity. Between these tank quan-
tities, minimum heater and fan cycling will occur under normal usage.
The amount of heat required for repressurization at quantities below
25-percent starts to increase until below the j-percent level practically
continuous heater and fan operation is required. In the hydrogen system,
the quantity levels for minimum heater and fan cycling are between ap-
proximately 53 and 33 percent, with continuous operation occurring at
approximately the 5 percent-level.

Assuming a constant level flow from each tank (02 - 1 lb/hr,

0.09 lb/hr) each successive repressurization period is of longer
H2 -
duration. The periods between repressurizations lengthen as quantity
decreases from full to the minimum dq/dm level, and become shorter as
quantity decreases from the minimum dq/dm level to the residual level.
Approximate repressurization periods are shown in table A2.6-I, which
also shows the maximum flow rate in pounds per hour from a single tank
with the repressurization circuits maintaining minimum design pressure.

The maximum continuous flow that each cryogenic tank can provide at
minimum design pressure is dependent on the quantity level and the heat
required to maintain that pressure. The heat required to maintain a con-
stant pressure decreases as quantity decreases from full to the minimum

A-37
 dq/dm point. As quantity decreases beyond the minimum dq/dm region, the
heat required to maintain a constant pressure increases. As fluid is
withdrawn, a specific amount of heat is withdrawn. When the withdrawal
rate exceeds the heat that can be supplied by the heaters, fan motors,
and heat leak, there is a resultant pressure decrease below the minimum
design operating level.

The ability to sustain pressure and flow is a factor of the amount

of heat required versus the heat provided by heaters, fan motors, and
heat leak. Since heat leak characteristics of each tank vary slightly,
the flow each tank can provide will also vary to a small degree. Heat
input from heaters, fan motors, and heat leak into an 02 tank is
595.87 Btu/hour (113.88-watt heaters supply 389.67 Btu, 52.8-watt fan
motors supply 180.2 Btu, and heat leak supplies 26 Btu). Heat input from
similar sources into a H2 tank is 94.6 Btu/hr (18.6-watt heaters supply
63.48 Btu, 7-watt fan motors supply 23.89 Btu, and heat leak supplies
7.24 Btu). These figures take into consideration the line loss between
the power source and the operating component.

TABLE ~2.6-I.- OXYGENAND HYDROGENREPRESSURIZATION AND FLOW.

Wren
Quantity Repressurization
Flow at
(percent) time, minutes
(865 to 935 psia) 865 psia
100 4.0 3.56 20.0 0.38
4.3 21.0 0.42
:z 4.6 '4.;:
. 22.0 0.46
85
80
75
5:: I 5.27
6.02
7.01
23.0
24.5
26.5