Upthread: Results of the June 25 Apollo Spacecraft Configuration Control Board (ASCCB) meeting (Jul 01, 1968)
Downthread: Results of the February 18 Apollo Spacecraft Software Configuration Control Board (ASSCCB) meeting (Feb 20, 1969)
See list attachedJUL 17 196868-FM-T-157FM/Deputy ChiefResults of the July 9 Apollo Spacecraft Configuration Control Board (ASCCB) meeting
This is my belated report on the July 9 ASCCB meeting. It was reported that Sundance Assembly 302 was delivered to Raytheon for rope manufacture on July 3.
1. There was another long discussion about the APS engine and how it works. Harry Byington reported that it takes about 700 milliseconds to reach 90% thrust. He also reported that following a three second burn, a 30 minute coast period is required before restart; following a 30 second burn, a one second coast is required. For longer burns, – duration of which he was unable to define, the coast period required can get as short as 30 seconds. This means that it will be unacceptable to “abort stage” during the first 50 seconds of powered descent. If we must use the APS, we will have to use the V37 entry into P71.
2. Bob Savely will be pleased to know that MIT submitted PCN 480, which indicates that the rendezvous radar variances are in Sundance erasable, even though our March PCR requesting that was disapproved.
3. PCN 483 was submitted by MIT regarding DPS docked burns, but my notes and memory fail me and I would suggest that those interested (Carl Huss, G&PB, etc.) look it up. It has to do with pitch-roll RCS jet selection for attitude control. It was noted that it will be necessary for the CSM to damp whatever residual rates exist at the end of a burn since the crew must turn off the PGNCS DAP to avoid excessive jet impinge- ment.
4. PCR 488 (also PCR 468.2), changing the Target ΔV processor from a routine (R32) to a program (P76) in Luminary, was approved to provide restart protection, the same as Colossus. Two days impact was quoted.
5. PCR 439.2 for Luminary was approved with no impact. It down- grades the “preferred attitude flag,” the same as in Colossus.
6 . Guidance and Control Division submitted a package of four PCR's dealing with the landing radar in the Luminary program. Only one of these (no. 216) was approved with a one day impact. It changes the the time at which the landing radar antenna position is changed to coordinate it with the vehicle attitude change at hi-gate, in order to avoid loss of lock. Without this change it was almost certain the crew would have to reacquire with the velocity beams by manual switching to “Radar Test.”
7. The other three PCR's were added to the Luminary Hopper.
a. PCR 217 was to change the way the antenna position discrete would have used. Specifically, it was requested that it be ignored (except to set an alarm) before hi-gate and if “wrong” after hi-gate to use landing radar data to update altitude only but not velocity. Three days impact vas quoted.
b. PCR 218 was to compensate for the 6° landing radar antenna misalignment which screws up the crew's displays. The two day impact was unacceptable, although the crew considers this an important program change.
c. PCR 219, which cost two days impact, would have put the lateral velocity on the downlink at the same time the altitude data is – that is, at 35,000 feet rather than 22,000 feet. FCD wanted this one.
8. Guidance and Control Division informed the Board they intended to submit a PCR to add the Sundance Landing Radar Superious Return Test (R77) to Luminary for use on missions “g” and “F” (high speed lunar surface overpass).
9. PCR 222 was a change to the CSI targeting program in Luminary requested by MPAD to eliminate the lack of convergence on CDH time for near circular orbits. Two days impact was unacceptable and so it has been added to the Luminary Hopper. In the meantime, the LMAB was requested to look into selecting a better (higher) value for the altitude rate test which could be used in Luminary.
10. PCR 220, submitted by MPAD regarding a number of Colossus Entry modifications, was discussed amid great confusion at the end of the meeting. As I understand it, several modifications were approved but two (non. 15 and 18) were left as open items pending coordination between MPAD and MIT. All together it was a two day impact.
That is all I can remember!