Apollo Experience Report Environmental Acceptance Testing
Apollo Experience Report Environmental Acceptance Testing
Apollo Experience Report Environmental Acceptance Testing
;z:
cv
00
d
z
c
4
rn
4
z
Charles H. M , La~lbach
Lyndon B, Johnson Space Center
Houston, Texas 77058
16. Abstract
Environmental acceptance testing was used extensively in the Apollo Program to screen selected
spacecraft hardware for workmanship defects and manufacturing flaws. The minimum acceptance
levels and durations and methods for their establishment are described in this report. Compo-
nent selection and test monitoring, as well a s test implementation requirements, a r e included.
The Apollo spacecraft environmental acceptance test results a r e summarized, and recommenda-
tions f o r future programs are presented.
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
Section Page
SUMMARY ...................................... 1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Gemini Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Industrial Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Hardware Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Qualification Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Retests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
iii
Section Page
APPENDIX A .
INDUSTRIAL SURVEY OF ACCEPTANCE
VIBRATION TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 22
APPENDIX C .
ACCEPTANCE TESTING COMPONENT LIST .......... 33
iv
TABLES
Table Page
i FAULTSEXPEZTEDTGBEEXPGSEDE3TY'AZZEPTANCE
THERMAL/THERMAL-VACUUMTESTING .............. 8
V
FIGURES
Figure Page
vi
Figure Page
vii
APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTANCE TESTING
By Charles H. M. Laubach
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
As an aid to the reader, where necessary the original units of measure have been
converted to the equivalent value in the Systgme International d'Unit6s (SI). The SI
units are written first, and the original units are written parenthetically thereafter. ~
The November 1965 acceptance test requirement was a random vibration excita-
tion of 60 percent of the qualification power spectral density test level, but not less
2
than 0.005 g /Hz for a minimum of 1 minute. The industry was surveyed regarding the
philosophy and implementation of vibration requirements f o r acceptance testing so that
inordinate requirements would not be imposed on the contractor. The results of the
survey are discussed in the following paragraphs.
2
U. S. Air Force Programs
The U . S. A i r Force required acceptance vibration testing on a majority of i t s
hardware. Both random and sinusoidal vibrations were required a t test levels repre-
senting the flight levels and f r o m 3 to 6 decibels below the qualification level. In addi-
tion to other U.S. Air Force requirements, the f i r s t stage of the Titan 111 launch
vehicle was static fired. This firing essentially subjected the hardware to a vibration
test a t the maximum environment.
Gemini Program
Gemini components as well as the complete spacecraft were subjected to accept-
ance vibration tests before flight. Components were tested throughout the program,
whereas vehicle testing was discontinued after the third spacecraft. The vibration
levels were 75 percent of the qualification level.
Industrial Practices
An industrial survey conducted by the Aerospace Industries Association of
1
America (AIAA) indicated that 80 percent of the companies surveyed used acceptance
vibration tests. The average level used during testing was 60 percent of the qualifica-
tion level. A total of 91 percent of the responding companies recommended acceptance
vibration tests.
3
In early 1967, after the Apollo fire, spacecraft acceptance test practices were
reviewed extensively. A questionnaire survey of Apollo subcontractor and vendor
acceptance testing was conducted. The questionnaires included 79 questions concern-
ing the subcontractor and vendor acceptance test plans and objectives. To secure a
representative sampling of the varied technologies, 21 CSM and 12 lunar module (LM)
components were selected f o r the survey. This survey revealed the inadequacy of
environmental acceptance tests and, in many cases, their nonexistence. The vibration
acceptance test levels were often based on the expected flight levels. Unfortunately,
many of the expected vibration levels were so low that the early environmental accept-
ance tests did not reveal e r r o r s i n workmanship and manufacturing processes. How-
ever, many of these faults were discovered later in the spacecraft checkout cycle; this
situation delayed the program and resulted i n the u s e of excessive manpower. Accept-
ance test environments must be severe enough to detect faults, yet not s o severe as to
weaken or fatigue the hardware to the point of reducing its useful life. In recognition of
the generally too low o r nonexistent spacecraft environmental acceptance test levels, an
effort was undertaken to establish new levels and requirements for the Apollo Program.
The study of early Apollo acceptance and qualification vibration failures revealed
that workmanship and manufacturing faults not detected by the 3.5g to 4g root mean
square (rms) levels during acceptance t e s t s were later revealed by the 7.8g r m s
qualification levels. Early in the Gemini Program, acceptance levels slightly higher
than 4g rms were imposed before the qualification testing of a component. This rela-
tively low acceptance level (early Gemini acceptance program) permitted one of every
two quality faults to enter the qualification program, whereas the levels used in the
early Apollo Program permitted two of every three such faults to enter the qualifica-
tion program. At the beginning of the Gemini flight program, the vibration acceptance
level was raised to 6.2g r m s , and 45 additional quality faults were screened from the
previously acceptance-tested flight hardware; some of these could have resulted in
critical failures during the mission. From the data, it was apparent that there w a s a
threshold level below which many quality faults would not be detected. Also, the data
indicated that the nominal threshold o r minimum acceptance level should be established
a t approximately 6. Og r m s .
Environmental exposure was used more extensively for acceptance testing in the
successful unmanned spacecraft programs. Also, the levels used were much higher
than those used i n the Apollo Program. F o r instance, thermal vacuum and vibration
were used for acceptance testing of the Mariner IV spacecraft. A 9g r m s vibration
level was used for acceptance testing, and a 16g r m s level w a s used for qualification
testing.
Based on the data obtained from the assessment of the Gemini experience and the
other spacecraft programs, a more rigorous acceptance vibration test program was
instituted on Apollo spacecraft components. A level of 6. l g rrns and the spectrum
shown in figure 1 were adopted as the Apollo spacecraft minimum acceptance vibration
level. This shape spectrum was selected because the qualification tests for many CSM
components were conducted to it and at 1.6 times this level, which was considered
satisfactory.
4
tion in t'ne acceptance vibration test re-
ij
-
."IT
-- 3 dBloctave- \
quirements among the NASA centers and 5 .006-
programs. The NASA Lyndon B. John-
son Space Center (JSC) (formerly the
-5s .@MI-
m
6 l g rms overall level
5
c
E 5
40- 0 Thermal =Vibration
0 Workmanship -I ? 30-
.-0)
Design deficiency
Piece part
Electrical-
equipment equipment mechanical
n equipment
Note Thermal testing includes thermal vacuum, temperature,
and temperature cycling Vibration testing includes
random and sine
Thermal-vacuum Temperature Temperature
testing extremes cycling
Figure 4.- Comparison of thermal and
(b) Failure causes. vibration failures during environ-
mental acceptance testing of LM
hardware (pre-1968).
Figure 2. - Concluded.
Qualification temperature limit
339 K (150" FI
Surrpunding
or component
temperature
Acceptance
testing
1 Qualification
testing
Note: The percentage reflected for qualification testing includes
only that equipment tested i n the thermal or thermal-
vacuum environment 261 K (30"jFI t u a l i fication temperature limit
Fimre 3. - Qualification and acceDtance A =Time to stabilize equipment temperature plus 1 hour minimum
B * The acceptance test control temperature range between the
;est failures during thermal a n i maximum and minimum test conditions should be a minimum
thermal-vacuum testing of LM of 56 K QOO" F).
hardware (pre- 1968). Note: Equipment was operated and continuity was monitored
continuously with functional tests performed as shown at
temperature extremes.
6
3. Physical contaminants
4. Cold solder joints and solder voids
8. Wiring defects (i. e., strands cut away with insulation removal)
10. Too soft potting permitting excessive movement of components and wiring
The acceptance tests were to be performed with strict adherence to the environ-
ments and test procedures. The hardware was calibrated and alined before acceptance
tests were conducted. Adjustment or tuning of the hardware was not permitted during
testing unless the adjustment w a s normal t o the inservice operation.
A r e t e s t time limit was established for each type of component. A total acceptance
test time, including the anticipated retest time, was established for each component
and included in the qualification test requirements.
7
TABLE I. - FAULTS EXPECTED TO BE EXPOSED BY ACCEPTANCE
Environment
a
Characteristic
Potting voids
Corona leakage
Outgassing contaminants
Insulation penetration
a
The environment most likely to expose a type of fault is indicated by parentheses.
Hardware Selection
Each component o r subsystem for which a certification t e s t requirement existed
was a candidate f o r environmental acceptance testing. The following c r i t e r i a were
used to select the particular items to be subjected to environmental acceptance testing.
1. Items that could not be effectively inspected during manufacture o r items the
assembly of which involved processes that made quality control difficult (all electrical/
electronic and electromechanical components)
8
2. Items that had delicate mechanisms requiring precise adjustments
4. Items that were known to have high failure rates early in life
After a component type was selected f o r environmental acceptance testing, 100 percent
of those flight and ground test items were tested.
Qualification Si rnulation
:.+ .01 -
(20° F) below the acceptance test tempera- e -
- 7.89 rrns overall level
-;.@%
t u r e range. (The acceptance qualification 2 1 1 I 1 l l l l 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I
9
Monitoring
Functional tests o r continuity tests, or both, were conducted on all components
before, during, and after the environmental acceptance tests. If complete functional
verification was impossible during the acceptance tests, because of limited test time, then
critical crew safety and mission success functions were given priority. All other circuits
were continually monitored during the test for continuity andunwanted short circuits.
Retests
After all failures were repaired, the unit was subjected to a retest. The contrac-
tor was not authorized to grant waivers for acceptance tests. Also, the hardware was
not to be accepted without the required acceptance retest unless a waiver had been
granted by MSC. In no case was the accumulative acceptance test time, plus the antic-
ipated mission time, permitted to exceed the qualification test time for that environment.
Several L M and Block I1 CSM spacecraft had completed assembly and were in
checkout when the decision was made to implement the more rigorous environmental
acceptance test program. Thus, only selected components were removed from these
spacecraft for acceptance vibration testing. The effectivity for component selection
was different on the early manned spacecraft because the spacecraft had already been
assembled when the test program was initiated.
F i r s t manned CSM and LM. - F o r the first manned CSM and LM, only crew safety
equipment was tested. A crew safety (Criticality I) component is one i n which a
failure by itself o r in combination with an undetected failure could create an associated
single failure point that could impair crew safety. Crew safety equipment was defined
as that which, if disabled, could result in loss of abort dapability, loss of caution and
warning, loss of voice communication, inadvertent engine firing, loss of attitude control,
or loss of an habitable environment. Provision of redundancy did not automatically
remove equipment from the crew safety category because redundant equipment of like
configuration could contain the same workmanship fault.
10
Second manned CSM and LM. - F o r the second manned CSM and LM, crew safety
and mission success (Criticality I and I1 (primary objective)) equipment was tested.
A mission success component is one in which a failure by itself could cause the l o s s
of a mission o r a primary objective.
Third manned CSM and LM and succeeding spacecraft. - For the third manned
CSM and LM and succeeding spacecraft, all selected components (Criticality I, 11,
and I11 (secondary objective)) were tested. The list of components selected f r o m all
categories for acceptance vibration testing is contained i n appendix C.
The acceptance vibration test criteria (fig. 1) in a number of cases exceeded the
original qualification levels. Therefore, a significant quantity of LM and CSM hardware
required requalification to the 7.8g r m s spectrum shown in figure 6. Requalification
was required on 19 of the 65 CSM components and 26 of the 83 LM components that were
subject to acceptance vibration requirements. These components a r e identified in
appendix C. In numerous cases, the acceptance test level w a s modified slightly
to avoid the necessity of requalifica-
tion and yet satisfy the intent of the
new acceptance tests. An example of a
component tested to modified levels is --
- - 7.19 rms
5.929 rms
shown i n figure 7. Totals of 39 of
83 LM components and 10 of 65 CSM
components were tested to modified .-
n
spectra.
11
the differential temperature between acceptance and qualification extremes was reduced
f r o m 11to 5.5 K (20" to 10" F) and, in one or two cases, to 2.8 K (5" F).
%he data from which this table was developed were received from North
American Rockwell Corporation and Grumman Corporation in monthly status
.
reports
12
O O I O r l O m o m L -
I W *o
0 0 d cu c3 Lc? Lc? +.
I rl cu
o o m I
I
( 0 1
I
o o * m
rl
c r )
cu s
II)
u
E:
0
E
Q,
Y
m
P
F
+ 7
rn
F
d
n
0
k
0 Y
L- d
Q,
m 0
rl V
d
n
L n
u 2cd
* d
a
Q,
0
0
.r(
M cd
+I N
0 4
.r(
4
U
3
cd
0
o I W I c u I c - o W m * rn
I I I c u c u r t
3
2
IJ
E:
0
EQ,
Y
rn
%
P
d 1
0 rn rn
k d
d
0
k
0
+J
d
d
0
0
cd
rn
d
0
0
k
0
E:
0
0
k 9
k
rn
.d 0
d V
+J
$ .d
rn
b-
-8
cd d
a Q,
a
1
0
.r(
E: Ed 0
k m 2 d
0
rn
d
1
0
+J
.d
0
k
a
3
3
d
.r(
k
0 'dc
E:
a
0
0
cd +d e,k 4
.r(
0
Q,
k
PI 2 w u b"
d
W
13
TABLE IV.- SAMPLES OF DEFECTS DISCLOSED BY ENVIRONMENTAL
ACCEPTANCE TESTING
14
TABLE IV. - Continued
___-. -
15
TABLE IV. - Concluded
(b) Concluded
The failure trends throughout the environmental acceptance test program a r e pre-
sented in figures 9 to 11. The figures show the accumulative failure trends for work-
manship flaws, design defects, test e r r o r s , and failures still i n evaluation. In fig-
u r e 9(a), during the period from July to September 1969, the marked increase i n design
failures w a s a result of the reevaluation and reclassification of a number of circuit
breaker failures f r o m workmanship to design. The increase i n workmanship failures
shown i n figure 9(b) during the period from September 1968 to June 1969 was attrib-
utable, in part, to the increasing number of component types being subjected to accept-
ance vibration testing. The increase i n thermal/thermal-vacuum failures shown in
figures 10 and 11 resulted f r o m additional types of components being integrated into
the program. Finally, the failures caused by test e r r o r s remained at a level much
higher than expected.
Before mid- 1967, very little emphasis was placed on environmental acceptance
testing as a method of detecting defects in Apollo spacecraft hardware. Although
rigorous environmental acceptance tests were implemented late, the tests were both
comprehensive and effective. To provide an effective screen for workmanship and
manufacturing defects, environmental acceptance tests must have minimum levels to
which the hardware will be subjected. These minimum levels must be established
independently of flight levels and conditions.
17
Parameters
I 0ct.-Dec. I Jan.-Mar./Aor.-June
No of units tested 246 493 641 1947 ~
1
- -
Design failures (a) 5 10 15
- ~-~-
Tesf errors la) 19 19 25 30 34 ~ 4 7 43 49 53 53
~ 1 ~ 1 ~ .- ~ ~
I n evaluation la) 12 11
~~
10 a 9 10 3
~.
2
~ ..
6
~~~~ -~~
2
~~ ~
2
Total failures 37 52 59 96 112 132 156 195 197 219 219 220
~
(a) CSM.
I * Ian.-Mar.
8 5 1
Apr.-June
8 5 1
July-Sept.
8 5 1
(b) LM.
18
1968 1969 1970
Parameters
Jan.-Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.-Mar. Apr.-June July-Sept. 0ct.-Oec. Jan.-Mar. Apr.-June July-Sept.
No 01 unit< tested 925 1112 1166 1170 1179
__
Workmanship failures 33 39 50 51 51 51
Design failures 21 M 39 42 42 44
Test errors 44 53 58 62 63 63
I n evaluation 3 4 2 20 19 24 3 0 2 0
Total failures 62 67 76 107 123 146 150 155 158 158
(a) CSM.
Design failures 19 31 51 65 83 91 94 95 95 95 95
Test errors 5 40 57 86 91 107 107 110 113 116 118
Total failures 35 136 E5 295 345 392 477 420 430 436 440
(b) LM.
Figure 10. - Acceptance thermal-vacuum test failure trends.
19
I
1%8
I
1%9
Parameters
Jan.-Mar. Apr.-June July -Sept. 0ct.-Dec.
Based on the Apollo experience, the following recommendations are made for
future space programs.
20
3. A study to determine optimum environmental test levels should be conducted.
The Apollo Program used a specified minimum level o r the flight environment level,
whichever was greater, as the criterion f o r acceptance testing of hardware. A study
should be conducted to determine whether a more effective level can be established
for future programs.
21
APPENDIX A
INDUSTRIAL SURVEY OF ACCEPTANCE VIBRATION TESTING
INTRODUCTION
This appendix contains a summary of the data obtained from the industrial survey
conducted as a result of the wide variation in the acceptance vibration test requirements
among the NASA centers and programs. The results of the survey, made in October
1967, were used to establish confidence in the new acceptance vibration requirements
for the Apollo Program. The spacecraft programs and vehicles considered and sur-
veyed were as follows.
1. Ranger
2. Mariner
3. Biosatellite
6. Pioneer
7. Surveyor
8. E a r l y Bird
10. Syncom
11. Burner I1
14. Relay
16. Tiros
17. Mercury
18. Gemini
22
19. Nimbus
23
COMPONENT TEST1 NG
Qualification and acceptance testing was conducted at the component level and at
the system level in most of the programs. In a number of programs, a selected num-
b e r of components were tested at the component level, followed by spacecraft level
testing. In the Early Bird and Syncom programs, vibration acceptance tests were con-
ducted a t the spacecraft level only. The qualification and acceptance testing at the
component level was conducted with the test article mounted to the vibration source in
a manner simulating its flight installation. In general, the acceptance vibration test
levels and spectra used were based on the expected mission environments for the par-
ticular piece of hardware. The components were not operated during vibration accept-
ance testing except when the hardware was required to operate in this type of environ-
ment during flight. The acceptance vibration g r m s levels and qualification factors
given in table A-I indicate the wide variations among programs.
.*s
. l o - Survey maximum
--
Survey awrale,-----+C‘-8,M
A 12.09 rms
rms
veyed programs is shown in figure A-2,
“l
E
- 0
’ ’ I ---Zp\
with the Apollo minimum level being
slightly below the average.
e
“l
‘010
-Ap$o‘ / ;I
minimum
k\, 4.59 rms
6.19 rms
24
TABLE A-II. - RANDOM VIBRATION ACCEPTANCE
TEST REQUIREMENTS
Program
20 to 400 Hz Total
spectrum
~
Gemini 3.42 6. 6
Mercury 4.93 7. 6
25
bo
[ IVibration
m T h e r m a l vacuum
27
20
The Lunar Orbiter environmental acceptance testing failures can be placed in the
following four categories.
Vibration Thermal- vacuum
Category acceptance acceptance
Workmanship 8 5
Manufacturing 5 5
P a r t failure 5 2
Design inadequacy 36 15
SURVEY RESULTS
1. The selected Apollo minimum level g r m s was slightly below average with
respect to the programs surveyed.
2. With the exception of two, all the programs reviewed used a higher acceptance
vibration level than the Apollo Program minimums.
3. The acceptance vibration test levels f o r the programs surveyed were normally
based on expected mission levels.
26
4. Most equipment was operated during acceptance vibration testing only when
the item was expected to operate in a vibrating environment during flight.
5. The qualification factors ranged from a low of 1.19 to a high of 3.16, com-
pared to the Apollo factor of 1.3.
27
APPENDIX B
INDUSTRIAL SURVEY OF ACCEPTANCE THERMALITHERMAL-VACUUM TESTING
1. Surveyor
2. Syncom
3. Applications Technology Satellite (ATS)
5. Pioneer
6. Intelsat I11
7. Nimbus
8. Biosatellite
9. Lunar Orbiter
13. Mariner
Generally, components were subjected to both qualification and acceptance tests, with
the exception of the Burner I1 and OV-1 programs. In these two programs, funding was
limited and maximum use of previously qualified components was made. Consequently,
qualification and acceptance t e s t s were conducted only on components of new design. In
the OV-1 program, only the f i r s t two flight vehicles were acceptance tested.
Detailed data for the GSFC payloads flown on the Atlas-Agena, Thor-Agena, and
Delta- Agena launch vehicles were not obtained. However, most of these components
were acceptance tested a t anticipated mission temperature levels, and the qualification
test levels were 8 K (15" F) higher and lower than the acceptance test range.
28
COMPONENT TEST1 NG
The component acceptance and qualification test temperatures for various pro-
grams are summarized in figure E!-1. The unshaded portion of the bars represents
the acceptance test temperature limits, and the shaded portion of the bars represents
the qualification temperature margins. Considerable variation existed in both the
acceptance and qualification temperatures among programs. However, the average
acceptance test temperature range for all the programs was from 273 to 314 K (32" to
105" F). The average qualification test temperature range was from 260 to 326 K
(8" to 127" F), 12 K (22" F) above and 13 K (24" F) below the acceptance temperature
levels. Figure B-2 shows the acceptance temperature range of the programs reviewed.
The average temperature sweep was approximately 41 K (73" F), whereas the adopted
Apollo acceptance test temperature sweep was 56 K (100" F).
Qualification
I Syncom 1 Qualification
and acceptance
. I1
Surveyor
ATS I \ I
--!-L A
Qudification
I I I I I I I I 1 I 1
244 255 266 210 289 300 311 u2 333 344 355
( -20) (0) (201 1401 (601 (801 1100) (120) 11401 1160) iimi
Temperature. K ("FI
Acceptance range Qualification temperature margin
29
The length of time that a compo- 311
nent was maintained a t the acceptance 11M)I
test temperature extreme varied from
30 minutes to 60 hours o r to "sufficient
3M)
time to reach steady state. " Results (801
f r o m the Mariner program indicated
that electronic equipment is much more -
susceptible to failure a t high tempera- E 209
Y 160)
tures. Therefore, a steady-state con- c
-
3
dition was maintained 8 to 12 times e
m
L
SYSTEM TEST I NG
30
TABLE B-I. - INDUSTRIAL SURVEY VACUUM LEVELS
Surveyor 0 . 1 3 3 3 (1 x X
Syncom , 1 3 3 3 (1 x
ATS (4 X
OGO 1 . 3 3 3 (1 x X
Pioneer X
Inteisat Ill X
Nimbus (a)
Biosatellite
Lunar Orbiter X
b
MSFC Agena payload X
ov- 1 (a)
Mariner X
aUnknown.
bNASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center.
Nominal design environment and self-generated heat were used as the stimuli for
acceptance testing. The test article performance and temperature were monitored
while it was operated in all its modes.
ThF duration of the spacecraft level testing varied from program to program.
However, the two dominant approaches f o r determining test duration were calculated
time to reach steady state (used when simulating the average space sink temperature
levels) and the time equivalent to three orbits (used when simulating the solar spec-
trum) to obtain the dynamic effects'of entering and exiting from the shadow of the
planet.
31
SURVEY RESULTS
2. The average acceptance test temperatures were from 273 to 314 K (32" to
105" F), with the exceptions of the Mariner and Lunar Orbiter.
2
3. Vacuum chamber pressure was 1 . 3 3 3 mN/m (1 x t o r r ) o r less.
4. The equipment was operating during the test. The time at steady-state levels
and the number of temperature cycles to which components were exposed varied widely
among the programs.
32
APPENDIX C
ACCEPTANCE TEST1NG COMPONENT LI ST
-
Master events ME901-0567-0019 X X X X
sequence controller
Service module (SM) ME901-0569-0012 X X X X
jettison controller
Lunar docking ME476-0035-0001 X X X
events controller
Lunar module (LM) ME450-0007-0001 X X
separation sequence
controller
Pyro continuity V16- 540130- 201 X X X X
verification box
- -
-
iVater/glycol (w/G) flow- ME476-0041-0001 x x X
proportioning valve
controller
Heater controller ME476- 0042- 0002 x x X
W/G flow-proportioning ME284-0331-0001 x x X
valve
Cabin temperature ME284-0335-0001 X X x x X
control
Environmental control ME901-0737 X x x X
unit
Cabin temperature 830010-4 x x X
controller
Transducer X X x x X
Power supply valve X X x x X
-
33
TABLE C-I. - Continued
(a) Continued
-
Flight director attitude ME 432- 0168- 0 20 2 X X
indicator (FDAI)
Gyro assembly ME493- 0010-0102 X X
Translation controller ME901- 0702- 0002 X X
Attitude-set control ME901-0703-0102 X X
panel
Rotation controller ME901- 0704- 0002 X X
E le c tronic control ME901- 0705- 0202 X X
assembly
Reaction jet and engine ME901-0706-0102 X X
on- off controls
Gyro display coupler ME901-0707-0002 X X
Gimbal-position and fuel- ME432-0167-0102 X X
pressure indicator
Thrust vector position ME901-0708-0102 X X
servoamplif ier
Electronic display ME901- 0710- 0202 X X
assembly
-
Automated control
34
TABLE C-I. - Continued
(a) Continued
-~
1 1
101 103 104 106 and
lsubsequent
Spacecraft junction box V36- 759560
Displacement 3V36- 759031
Communications
-
Very- high-f requency ME478- 0065- 0003 X X
(VHF) transceiver
vhf/amplitude modulation ME478-0067-0005 X X X
(AM) transmitter-
receiver
vhf recovery beacon ME478-0069-0003 X X
Audio center equipment ME473-0086-0003 X X X
Premodulation processor ME478- 0068- 0003 X X X
vhf triplexer ME 456- 0040- 0001 X X X
Central timing equipment ME456- 0041- 0030 X X X
MC456-0041
Up-data link equipment ME470-0101-0001 X X X X
MC490-0101
Pulse code modulation ME901-0719-0004 X X X X
(PCM) telemetry
equipment
Signal conditioner ME 901- 07 13- 0013 X X X
MC901-0713
S-band power amplifier ME478- 0066- 0003 X X X X
Unified S-band equipment ME478- 0070-0003 X X X X
High- gain- antenna ME450-0010-0003 X X X X
control unit MC 48 1- 0008
2-kMC antenna switch ME452- 0052-0111 X X X
MC 452- 005
High- gain- antenna ME476-0039-0003 X X X
electronics assembly
High- gain antenna ME481-0008-0003 XX X
assembly
--
35
TABLE C-I. - Continued
(a) Continued
37
TABLE C-I. - Continued
subsequent
Propulsion subsystem
-~ ~
-
Descent-engine ''D" 270- 00600 X X
junction box
Ascent- engine bipropel- 270-00500 X X
lant valve assembly
Descent- stage propellant 270-00009 X X
quantity gaging system
(PQGS) unit
Descent-stage PQGS 270- 00009 X X
sensors
Solenoid- latching valve, 270-713 X X
descent and ascent
stages
Rough combustion cutoff 270- 723 X X X
assembly
Propellant-level detector 270- 801 X X
Solenoid- operated valve, 270-00822 X X X
descent and ascent
stages
-
Stabilization and control subsystem
38
TABLE C-I. - Continued
(b) Continued
4 5 1 6 and
subsequent
Data entry and display 300-390 X X X
assembly
Thrust/translation 300-28800 X X X
controller assembly
Rendezvous radar 370-100 X X X
electronics assem bly
Rendezvous radar 370-200 X X X
antenna assembly
Landing radar 370-300 X X X
electronics assembly
Landing radar antenna 370-400 X X
asse m bl y
Reaction control subsystem
~ ~~~
Mechanical design
I'
Fan motor 330-118 X
Transducer.
Fan motor
Coolant recirculation
assembly (with 218
switch)
Cabin switch I
330-130
330-102
330-290
330-323
i, X
X
X
39
TABLE C-I. - Continued
(b) Continued
~~
-
Push- to-talk switch 350-90 X X X X
Helium temperature and 350- 201 X X X
pressure indicator
Time-delay helium 3 50- 202 X X X
pressure equipment
Attitude indicator 350- 301 X X X
Gimbal angle sequencing 350-302 X X X
transformation
assembly (GASTA)
Cross- pointer meter 350-305 X X
Range/rate indicator 350-307 X X
CA1, CA2, and CA3 350-308 X X X
stabilization control
panels
Digital event timer 3 50- 3 10 X X X
Apollo mission clock 350-312 X X X X
RCS quantity indicator 350- 401 X X X
Dual vertical meter 350-801 X X
Toggle switches 350-8~ X X
Rotary switches 3 50- 803 X X
Flag indicator 3 50- 804 X X
Component caution 350-806 X X
' indicator
Pushbutton switches 3 50- 808 X X X X
--
40
TABLE C-I. - Continued
(b) Continued
General- purpose
inverter
Lighting control
subassembly
390-6
390-9
X x x
X
F-
Lightweight relay 390-23 X
junction box I
41
TABLE C-I. - Continued
(b) Continued
effectivity
Component Part no. Increased
palif ication - -LM- -
2 3 4 5 6 and
iubsequent
- -
Deadface relay 390-24 X X X
Ascent- stage electrical 390-25 X X X X X
control assembly
(ECN
Descent-stage ECA 390-26 X X X
Power sensor fuse 390-21055 X X X X
assembly
Panel I11 module 390-28125 X X
assembly
Panel VI11 module 390-28115 X X
assembly
Panel XI1 module 390-51025 X X
assembly
ECS relay box 390-281 51 X X X X
Ascent-engine arming 390-28155 X
assembly
Panel I1 module 390-51026 X X
assembly
Utility light switch 390-52058 X X X X X X
assembly
Rough combustion cutoff 390-5219 5 X X X
relay assembly
Fuse assembly no. 1 390-53057 X X X
Descent-engine prevalve 390-53082 X X X X
diode assembly
Panel I module assembly 390-53122 X X
Explosive device relay 390-53152 X X X X
box
Auxiliary switch relay 390-53154 X X X
assembly
-
42
TABLE C-I. - Concluded
(b) Concluded
Component
qualification
3 4 5 6 and
subsequenl
390-53165
I x X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
output load resistor
Ascent-stage batteries 390-21000 x x x X
Descent- stage batteries 390-22000 x x x X
43
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x
m
d
d
x x x x x x x x x x x
N
d
d
x x x x x x X x x x
0
d x x X x x x
-
d
0,
0 x x x x x
d
~
03
0 X E x x x
-
4
c-
Q,
c,
0
d
cn
h
x x x
W
0
B3 x x x
d
rn
d
0
k
Y
C
0
0
6
E:
d
cd
c,
E:
Q,
E
k
.r(
3
F:
w
c
.r(
c
k k 0
Q, Q,
.r(
-C.l
k
d d k 0
0
k
0 X k 0 rn
Q, 0 0) E:
k
Y
c
d
0
k
Y
E:
P &
d
0
8
k
Q,
rn
0 k 0 c k
0 c,
c 0 0 c,
e ? Q,
a,
0
0
0
Q,
2
4-i
.r(
cd
0
0
0 g 2
c k
rn .rl
E
4
c
u 2
Q, a, c, Q,
2 Q,
E E: a
d Q,
0 Q, Q, c,
cn k 3 Q,
rn 3 rn E
cn
Y
c
0
Q,
M E: h k Q,
c,
2
Y
c
a,
3
0
E: +c 2
0
4-l
.r(
3
E:
bl
E:
h
d
n
a
k
Q,
k
Q,
z
.r(
0 Y 0 0
Q, rn 0 E: =r
.r(
a cd 0 cd 3
2E: E 4E: 4
k Y
c, 0
d
Q, k
Y
.-
Q, rn 0 6 Q,
3 2 cd
E:
ii E
M
E
d E
k
w2 E b I2
44
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
*
rl
rl
m
rl
rl
cu
rl
rl
0
4
:
;
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x
I
rl
aa
0
rl
co
0
rl E
a,
Y
x x x x x x x x x x x I
f- m
z 0 h x x x x x x x x x x x x x
rl
W
B3
.r(
0 m x x x x x x x x x x x l z l x x
g z
Y
rl d
0
k cu cu cu eo ml cu cu'cu cu cu cu
u z Y
c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 rl r c r c r c r l c u d r c 0 r l c u
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I I I I I I I
a f- co 0 da m m W f-
sc W
rl
0
W rl 0 0
4 0 ?I
0 0 0
f-
0
0 0
f-
0
0
e-
0
I I I I I I
0 cu C U M rl d
.PI
m m a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s
Y
* * a a a a m a a a a a a a a a a
.r( w w w w w w w w w w
z E E E E E E Z E E E
4 I
P
cd
fi m
d
h
0 Q) d
P
a, E
k
a,
2m
._ m
a, 8 3
Y
c
k
?
d l-l
a,
h
5i
E
0
::
0
e
a,
h
5i
E
H
0
k
0
m c
a,
c
a,
3
w
2a a,
v1
a,
c c
a,
m 0
0
0
3 .r( 0
3
l? bn .r(
d
0 k c ;t:
0
u
k
c,
c
a,
d
d
0
k
Y a
a, rn
0
a a
2
d
h 0
d
P
0
0 k c
0 2 k m
E Y
a,
Y
c
0
V Y
a,
0
c,
0
G
a, m V 0 *- 0
m .r( a, .r(
rn a,
I
c e c 3 d
0 0 0
cd a 0
Y k .r(
Y
c,
rn k
3 .r(
0 +d
0
k % cd
Y
0
a, % E 0
a,
$ 32 w 2
d
is lz
45
x x x x x x x x x x x x
~~
x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x X
0
d
d
x x x x x x x x x x X
Q,
0
d
x x x x
03
0
d
f-
0 x x E
Q,
d c,
rn
h
c
0
X x B
c,
.r(
cd $
c, k
c a,
a,
E 3
d d Q , a P a m m a o a m 0
2 o * m a c D ~ d d a P o a a
c, d 0 0 0 0 0 P ~ 0 0 0 0
d
rn
c
H
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
.r(
k
c,
V
Q,
d
w
rn c,
V c
.r(
a,
c
x c,
El k
E cc,
a a, c,
-3
0 d h
P Q,
E
u
V
0
rn
rn s
.r(
c
E Q, s
Q,
a
Q,
d
Q, Q, a E
Q, k V E
.r(
Q,
ss E
.r(
a, 0 hl) a rn
cd
E
3 k
a c
d .r(
8
E i
3
.r(
a, .r(
Q,
M Q, V c 0 Q, M
#-I
c
3
c, .r(
0 d c rn 0 c,
k .Fl
c
k
'E" Q,
-2
cd c,
.r(
-id
c
0
V
.r(
c, A
.r(
2
c,
cd
M
5 0
V
E cc,
Q,
d Q,
Q,
$
k
cd
k M
3 B d
I Q,
Y
V
0
d
cd
E
3 xM
I
Q, \ cd
c c 6 uE
c,
E
pc
ha
6 iz 23
Q,
6 .r(
cn PI 4 8
-
46
-
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
I .r(
c)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
x x X x x x
X
I I-=-
z7
c
.r( M
z7
0
c E
.r(
0
u
I
c
0
.#-I
c
rl
0
A
0
7
0
4 4
0
9
d
l-i
m m m + cd
U 0 0
6 u d
c o d d d d .r(
k o o o m o o o m o
c o o c u m m 0 c o o c u c u c o m c u A c o
w 5- c, 0
o
0
w
o o c u
c u * r l
0
a c v m m o m o o
c u c u c u m r - o *
c u m
cur-
* * * w * * * * * * * * *
W k
c;l
p1 t e
* * m m m m d
s
-t d
a,
5a
d 2J
3
h
E
Q,
rn
h
d
P
E
Q,
m
h
3
E
Q,
m
m
2 Em
s s
d
P ij
X 2 3 2J v1
cd
E E
Bc c,
X h Q,
rn
0
c
Q,
c 0
E
0
0
0
'6rn xc 3
E
#-I
Q,
sa
m
cd
0
.r(
0
0
k
Q, k 0 Q,
rn 8
l?
0
Q,
k 3
0 0
0 U
.r(
7
rn
cd
k
a
P
d
u
k
0
V
k
a 0
U
c
E
0
7
72
k
0
m
X
0
P
5
.#-I
d
0
k
0
E:
0
2 z
Q,
0 k E 0 V
+I k 0 c
2 5 .%-Ik .r(
0 Q,
k
d
cd
w
k
Q,
3
V
I
0
0
Q,
0
k
Q,
k
a,
E
a e
m
27
n
k
zt
0
V
0
.+
k
8
k
b" G U
E
m
-
x 1
m
Q,
Ei
47
1
x
-
x
.r(
'Y
E
Q,
Y E
m Q,
Y
P m
rn 3
P m
a s e
Q, rn 5
a
s c 4 m
d 0 rl d
0 .+ 0
d
0 d
rn 0
I
El
Y
u d 5 03 c
cd
c
Y
P
0
k
0
0
0
s
v k e I c
0
E Q, 0
u3
.3
Y
0
.+
L
w
:
Q,
rn -2
d
0
k
Y
c
0
0
E
Q,
Y
m
h
rn
Q,
bD
G
-
48
-
s$
Y
c
chrn
Q
7
rn
x x x x x 7- x
-
x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x
E
a,
Y
rn E
h
rn x x a,
E Q
s
c,
rn
Q)
Y [I]
h c
M
rn
h x d
0 x x 37 .r(
rn
rn k rn a,
P Y a
7
rn c d
0 d
0
0 k
c U
c
0 .r(
6
c
.r(
rn
0)
0
o m
2cd ooco
0
0
0 0 00 V - l m
c
cd
Y
k
4
3 o c u
or? c rcf-co
V-lrc-tcu
mch
m r c c m
w *
o 4
E 8
k
I
0 0
I 0
.I,
c 4
I
0 0 0
l l I
0
I
0
0
c,
.r(
d d 5
PI F r ?
C U N : 0 0 0
m m m
0
m m
0
2 4
m
4
m
4
.r(
acd 2
4
fi 0
k
c,
c
0
0
4
2
a
k
E
a,
0 c,
R u rn
d cd h
Q c2, rn
E
Q)
0
cd
4
0
rn k
rn a, c,
cd P E:
.r( 0 Y
0
k
h
k
a
4
0
E5 s
d
4
M cd
P x a,
c,
-5$ a
Q)
c, E 0
2 5 0
PI k
49
mrn
x x x x
t- x x x x x
0
x x
a,
w
a,
x x x
-
X x
E
Q,
c,
rn x x
z h
B
X
rn
3
---
l-4
e
+J
.r(
z
l-4 x x X
rn
c
0
0
k
4
C
0 .r( 0
u k rn 0
c,
e +0
.r(
w
I
+I
I
0
0
l-4
k
P
7a
rn
u d
c
cd
4 0 0 0 m CD 0 3 h
cd.
w c
a,
u3 Q, 03
cv
cv co Q,
m m m 2 l-4
4
4
2 E
d d
I u 3
a
I I I
a c
I
a
m m
0 0
m
0
m
d
m
0
m
pc
2 0
k
+
.r(
m m m m m m
wc
E
a
.r(
3
Q,
h c 5 l-4
k
k
Q,
0
1
l-4
P
E
0
.r(
c,
cd
c,
-Ern 5E a,
c,
Q,
E
zc a,
rn
l-4
5k Q,
k
l-4
0 k
2 2 .r(
4
k Q,
+.,
c
c, %i 0
Q, rn c .r(
0 0
a,
k 5k k Q,
k 0
?
zrn .r(
u
c,
5
a
c
c
a,
M
rn
rn
Bd
l-4 0
Q,
k
pc
c,
.r(
3
rn u u
0
0
8 i x
k
u
IL 1
50
-
Y
d
gs
c
e
- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
1
m
W x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
~
c- x x x x x x x x x x x x x
W x x x x x x x x x x x x x
v)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
-
a
Q,
* x x x x x x x x x x x x x
z
.r(
Y c
c
0 m x x 0
Y
u .r(
cd
Y
I c
c; Q,
W
6
E
6 c
5
k
r r w w v
w c4
e
W
Y
k
Y
II)
c
o o r ( c u
w w w w
a $
U
d d d d
E ( D w w ( D
m m m m
Y
c L
Q,
c k k
0 Q, Q,
F
0
0
1
zc z
V
5
u d
E E
+-, Y
.d
Q, Q,
k k
5 1
m m
m m
Q, Q,
k
pc &
51
x x x . x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
h
4r4
. (
P
x x x x x x x x x x
.r(
c,
0 x x x x x
a,
w
a,
E x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
t
J
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
scxxx E
a,
x x x x x x x
c,
rn
h
m
X x x P
7
x x x x x x
rn
I S c
k
* d Q,
E o
rr; u d 3
rc
0
c-
rc
ga mm
mcv
00
d cv
In cv
rc rc
m
cv
rc
c
wI J -s c, 8 0
0 2 W Q,
m Yr
cv cv
m
cu cv
(0 rco
c v d
03
cv
m
m
03
e
a
a 2
PI
d d d d d
V
.r(
k 0
I I
0 0
I
0
I I
0
I
0
I
00
Q,w
I I
0 0
I
0
I
c o c o c o c o 0 3 Q, Q, Q, Q, Q, Q, Q,
2 m m m m m
c,
0
a,
Q,
c3
Q,
m m m m m mm m m m
E;
h h
k A
d
Q, P P
X E h
a,
d
a k a,
m ii
B
a
a,
.r(
2 4
aa, E
a,
s
k
a,
z
cd
k 2
4
u
W
u
w
a,
w
k
m
5
8
rn
0
cd
a,
d
P
.r(
a,
0
a,
d
a,
k
a,
a,
2 2
c,m
rn
c,
I
0
rn
E:
a,
P
3
3E
2 Q c, m A
ia" 2 a"
I W
k a c, d k
a,
E: a, k d
u E: a, 0 a, a,
cd m
2
*
P
I
m
V 0
E
PI
u 5i
w PI
-
52
c,
c
2s
cdz x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
c
7
rn
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
~ ~~~
(0
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
m x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
-r x x x x x x x x x ~ x ~ x x x x x x
Ba m x x x x
7
x
4
0
u d
c
s
W
c,
k
E
x
0
Y
Q, P
d ?
d h
Q, cd cd
c cv ? l-l
4
E
a, U
0
a
E d
c
Q,
k
a
k
a,
0
U
h
U
h
iz
h h
s
h
!4
h
0
u h
a
Q, .r(
3
al
s d
P a ij ij ij
E a E Q,E E
E Q, E
E Q,
Q, Q, Q,
a,
rn a, 0 rn rn rn rn rn
? rn rn rn rn rn
3 cd 3 cd cd cd cd
:
.r(
d d 4 d d d
Q, Q, Q, Q, Q, a, Q,
9
E4 w
c c
E E s
PI 8
c
E E
e