See list attachedJune 11, 196969-PA-T-92APA/Chief, Apollo Data Priority CoordinationCSM Rescue Mission Techniques are complete and clean
On June 9 we had our final Mission Techniques meeting on CSM Rescue. I am pleased to report that this stuff appears to be in very good shape. After much hard work by many people, the CSM rescue rendezvous plans shake down to only two basic profiles. Each of these has minor modifica- tions to account for the number of revs required for rendezvous and the effect of various separation ranges on the rendezvous tracking schedule. The point to be made is that even though it is possible to list a great variety of versions for CSM rescue depending on the initial conditions and status of the LM, the fact that the differences between them are so minor gives us assurance that the limited training and simulations we are able to afford should serve to check them out adequately and to provide adequate assurance that they will work if we need them. The G and H CMP's chose to deal with them somewhat differently, but I think their differences are clearly within the realm of crew preference. Specifically, Mike Collins (G) has requested and is being provided with what he calls a “Cookbook” of procedures. It consists of about 18 different two-page checklists, each designed for a specific abort situation. In the event of one of these aborts, it will only be necessary for him to select and use the appropriate pages defining the operation of the guidance and propulsion system in the usual checklist detail and giving specific input targeting parameters and tracking schedules. They also contain typical relative motion plots and maneuver magnitude all referenced to GET. These two-page contingency checklists will each be thoroughly reviewed by FCD, FCSD, and MPAD people this week to make sure they are accurate. Dick Gordon (H) apparently prefers now to rely somewhat more on his memory and knowledge of how the programs work and so forth and does not intend to carry these contingency procedures with him. It is his feeling that the differences are really minor enough that he should have no trouble in carrying out the appropriate procedures.
My personal opinion is that either of these approaches are perfectly acceptable and should work just fine.
There was very little new to discuss at this meeting. Probably the most significant result was our detailed specification of control center to CSM targeting assistance required for the abort situations. Specifically:
a. If the CSM must make the “tweak” maneuver (that is, if the LM inserts into orbit unstaged), the ground will supply the GET of the burn initiation (i.e., LM insertion +12 minutes), the ΔVx, and the pitch gimbal angle.
b. For the CSM to backup the phasing burn, we concluded that no special voice transmission to the CSM is required. Immediately after LM insertion the ground will voice to the LM (and the CSM will copy) the ΔVx and CSI time as soon as possible. If time permits, this will be followed by a complete P30 Pad to the LM but nothing more will be sent to the CSM.
c. Before DOI the CSM will be sent a “CSM rescue Pad” consisting of a Phasing TIG, TPI time for abort before PDI + 10, and TPI time for abort after PDI + 10. These quantities are included in some more extensive LM Pad messages but some effort should be taken to assist the CMP in stripping out these specific parameters of interest to him or to send them up as a separate Pad. Upcoming simulations will show which course of action is preferable.
d. If it is decided to delay PDI one rev, MCC will relay to the CMP Phasing TIG, TPI time for all descent aborts and TPI time for the “T2” abort time shortly after LM touchdown.