The Apollo program made another major advance toward its goal in 1966 with three successful launches of the Saturn IB. The IB had been added to the program in 1962 as a means of conducting early manned Apollo missions in earth orbit. The IB launch vehicle was a hybrid, combining the Saturn 1’s booster with the S-IVB stage that would fly as the third stage on the moon rocket. Three research and development flights were scheduled for 1966; two would check out the Apollo-Saturn IB configuration while a third tested the liquid-hydrogen propellant system in the S-IVB stage. A fourth Saturn IB launch, scheduled toward the end of 1966, would put the first Apollo crew into space. The launches posed a challenge for KSC. In the midst of a major site activation - LC-39 - the launch team faced a new operation. There was a new launch vehicle stage and, with the RCA 110A computers, a new checkout system. Before completing the missions, the launch team would experience some of the most frustrating moments in the entire Apollo program.

Remodeling LC-34 for Bigger Things

First sign of the Saturn IB series at the Cape was NASA’s rebuilding of the LC-34 facilities. The complex had last been used to launch SA-4 in March 1963. During the rest of the year, LC-34 was earmarked for back-up service during the Saturn I, block II series. Contractors had completed a gas storage building and begun work on liquid-hydrogen facilities. Mueller’s revised launch schedule of 1 November 1963 had prompted Debus to recommend cancellation of further Saturn I work at the complex. NASA then began the task of readying LC-34 for the launching of AS-201, first of the Saturn IBs.¹

The old LC-34 service structure was almost completely rebuilt. Previously open to the winds, it was now equipped with hurricane gates and four weather-tight silo enclosures. Anchor piers were strengthened to hold the service structure in place over the pad. The modifications also included eight vertically adjustable service platforms and new traveling hoist machinery. On the umbilical tower, the swing arms were rebuilt to meet the new rocket’s dimensions; testing was completed in June 1965. Astronauts would board the command module through a new arm at the 67-meter level. The addition included a white room to control the temperature and cleanliness inside the module. While AS-201 would be an unmanned flight, the launch complex would be man-rated in almost every particular.²

The change from the Saturn I to the IB meant larger fuel requirements, for the upper stage a 130% increase. Major alterations were made in LC-34’s propellant facilities. The RP-1 main storage tanks were reinsulated and the liquid-hydrogen system was enlarged. A new tanking control system loaded propellants to prescribed levels and maintained those levels until liftoff. Pneumatic requirements involved modification of the high-pressure gaseous nitrogen and helium installations and construction of a gaseous hydrogen system.³

Colonel Bagnulo reported on 5 August 1965 that, “after a full measure of blood, sweat, and tears,” the basic modifications to the service structure were essentially complete. The initial contract cost had risen from $3.5 million to $5.3 million, partly because of changes to the design, but more from the additional overtime required to keep the work near the original schedule. Minor work continued almost up to launch time; the last change requirements were released on 4 January 1966.⁴

LC-34 Wet Tests

The erection of the S-IB stage and the dummy stages for the S-IVB and instrument unit marked the start of LC-34 facility tests on 18 August 1965. Although the mating went well, the launch team soon fell behind schedule. Hans Gruene reported a four-day lag the following week, attributing most of the delay to faulty electrical support equipment from Huntsville. He listed among the shortcomings missing connectors, cables improperly marked, and schematics that did not reflect engineering changes already accomplished.⁵ Similar problems threatened in early September to postpone the start of tests on the ground equipment test sets. More than 250 power cables had not arrived. About 100 GE cables were of the wrong length. Gruene also singled out computer problems, an area that would plague Launch Vehicle Operations throughout the 201 mission. The shortage of spares was also critical. A power supply failure on the 26th had necessitated the air delivery of a new component from California. Computer breakdowns during the test of the ground equipment test sets could cause a day-for-day slip in the schedule. Delays in Marshall’s breadboard^* testing of the RCA 110A operating program could also impact the checkout.⁶

The wet test in September disclosed some problems in LC-34’s new propellants system. Hydrogen did not flow from its storage tank during the first H2 “cold shock” test. When no mechanical block could be found in the valves, lines, or filter, the obstruction was blamed on frozen nitrogen. The gas had leaked into the hydrogen system through a hand valve during the nitrogen pressurization test. The launch team also had trouble loading the S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system.^** The surprisingly slow flow rate of the hypergolic oxidizer, coupled with a thunderstorm, left no time for the flow test of the fuel. As Launch Vehicle Operations planned to remove the dummy stage the following day, the second half of the hypergolic loading was postponed until after the erection of the live stage.⁷

Another highlight of the facilities test was the replacement of an S-IB fuel tank. The tank had been damaged during a load test, and repressurization left numerous wrinkles in its skin. Although a Chrysler crew subjected the tank to above-normal pressures without mishap, Marshall representatives wanted a replacement. The new fuel tank arrived from Michoud, Louisiana, on 24 September and was installed in eight hours on the 29th. This delayed erection of the S-IVB stage by two days, but numerous breakdowns in the RCA 110A computer had already thrown the tests 12 days behind schedule.⁸

The Apollo-Saturn IB Space Vehicle

The LC-34 modifications were designed to accommodate a 68.2-meter Apollo-Saturn (AS-201), which could count as many “firsts” as any of the Saturns. Its upper stage (S-IVB) would be the first to use a hydrogen-burning J-2 engine (900,000 newtons or 200,000 pounds of thrust); it had a new instrument unit, nerve center for guidance and control; it was the first to carry a live (though unmanned) Apollo command module, powered by a service module, the engine of which was intended to start and restart in space. Perhaps most important, and certainly most troublesome, was the first installation of an on-line, automated checkout system. These innovations were the cause of many delays in the launch program - and justification for the delays, as well: what was worked out successfully for AS-201 would be available for Saturn V.⁹

The first piece of AS-201 to arrive at the Cape was Chrysler Corporation’s S-IB stage. It arrived from the Michoud Assembly Facility aboard the barge Promise 14 August 1965. It was the first Saturn to enter the Banana River and KSC through the Canaveral locks. The new S-IB was basically the S-I stage, redesigned to reduce weight and increase thrust. The empty weight was 42,048 kilograms, some 11% lighter than the S-I. North American Aviation had improved the operation of the eight H-1 engines so that the stage produced 7,200,000 newtons (1,600,000 pounds of thrust), some 6% greater than the S-I. The stage would reach an altitude of 60 kilometers in 2.5 minutes of flight.¹⁰

The S-IVB second stage went through its acceptance test at the Douglas Aircraft Company’s Sacramento Test Center on 8 August and made its first appearance at the Cape on 1 October. While the Cape had welcomed an old friend back in the S-IB, the S-IVB was a newcomer. And an important newcomer: not only would it serve as second stage in AS-201, but it would also be the third stage in the all-important Saturn V. Its single J-2 engine (by North American Rocketdyne Division), burning 7.5 minutes, could put it into earth orbit (though not on AS-201); as the Saturn V third stage, it would put Apollo into translunar trajectory.

Spacecraft components arrived at the Cape in late October, the command module on 25 October and the service module two days later. The base of the service module housed the spacecraft’s main propulsion unit, a single engine that used a half-and-half mixture of unsymmetrical-dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide to achieve 97,400 newtons (21,900 pounds of thrust). It would be ignited twice on the AS-201 flight, once for three minutes and again for ten seconds. Beneath it was the vehicle’s only big piece of boilerplate, the lunar module adapter joining the service module and the S-IVB instrument unit. On AS-201 it consisted of aluminum alloy bracing; in future flights it would house the lunar excursion module.¹¹

The Troubled Checkout of AS-201

By late September Merritt Preston’s Launch Operations staff and Rocco Petrone’s Programs Division had set the 201 launch for late January. That schedule assumed the spacecraft would arrive at the Cape on 9 October. Mueller refused, at first, to approve KSC’s recommended date. He hoped for an earlier launch, perhaps in late December. Although Petrone promised to continue looking for possible shortcuts, delays in the spacecraft delivery precluded a 1965 launch.¹²

The Douglas crew erected the S-IVB stage on 1 October and completed the initial checkout of the ground equipment test sets shortly thereafter. KSC received some bad news on the 7th: the RCA 110A computer in the breadboard at Huntsville would not be operational for another ten days. Since it would take two weeks beyond that to check out the computer’s program, the 110A executive routine would not reach the Cape before 1 November. Without the executive routine to test the computer’s internal systems, the 110A could not apply power to the launch vehicle. On the 15th John Twigg, chief test conductor for the Saturn IB, reported that pad operations were virtually at a standstill. Representatives from Huntsville helped devise a temporary computer program, and the launch team finally applied power to the S-IB stage on 22 October. By the end of the month, KSC had begun limited testing with an uncertified program tape. Meanwhile the instrument unit arrived and underwent inspection at hangar AF. IBM engineers corrected several deficiencies, but an environmental control system coolant pump continued to give the launch team trouble after the instrument unit was stacked above the S-IVB stage on 25 October.¹³

After arrival of the major modules of spacecraft 009 in late October, the command module went to the hypergolic building for environmental control system servicing and electrical power checks. North American technicians moved the service module out to pad 16 for an electrical systems check. At the operations and checkout building, other workmen installed measuring instruments in the boilerplate lunar module adapter. Although the service module passed leak and functional tests, the 9 November static firing was postponed ten days. A dirty filter in a ground oxidizer system caused much of the delay. On the 18th Preston notified Debus that the late static firing and an accumulation of spacecraft modifications might cause a two-week slip in the launch schedule.¹⁴

The Saturn ground computer system continued to cause grief. On 10 November John Twigg reported:

The RCA 110A computer developed problems increasing in number with time of operations. It was detected that some capacitors which normally breathe in open air developed problems when under protective coating. Most of these cards [electrical printed-circuit boards] in the blockhouse computer which developed these problems first were exchanged. At the same time, it was decided to exchange identical cards in the pad computer as soon as they become available.¹⁵

Two weeks later Twigg announced the failure of the first computer-run tests, a switch selector functional test and the emergency detection system test.^* Isom Rigell’s report of 3 December said of the computer:

We have experienced a number of high-speed memory parity errors in the last few days. No solution has been found to date. December 2nd, we have experienced some problems with random discretes to the S-IV-B stage and also apparently random outputs of the computer operating the switch selector. Investigation of this problem is under way at this time. I would like to discuss with you the feasibility to obtain the services of an outside expert (preferably some University instructor) to assess the criticality and problems of our computer system. (Army had good success with this approach, I understand.)¹⁶

Despite the RCA 110A computer problems, the launch vehicle checkout was nearly on schedule in early December while spacecraft and spacecraft facility tests lagged two weeks behind. On the 13th technicians in protective suits started a week of hypergol tests on the spacecraft feed lines at LC-34. The “hot tests” (using toxic propellants) indicated a need for additional facility modifications. For one thing, the tanks of the command module’s reaction control system were not filling properly. On the 15th engineers reported a 48-hour delay in a combined command module-service module systems test. A circuit interrupter malfunction had allowed an electrical signal to interfere with the stabilization and control system’s attitude and rate control. Spacecraft Operations completed the test on the 17th after waiting another day for a spare part.¹⁷

With the spacecraft hot tests tying up pad 34 during daylight hours, the Saturn team continued its checkout from 7:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. The Saturn ground computer complex did not work any better in the dark. In five successive switch selector functional tests, the checkout team registered only a partial success. On the 15th Gruene’s team traced a bad interface between the digital data acquisition system and the 110A computer to a defective printed-circuit board. After further investigations disclosed five more faulty circuit boards, Launch Vehicle Operations began a survey of all boards.^** By Christmas the Saturn IB checkout had fallen 16 days behind schedule. Matters were even worse with Apollo; the spacecraft showed a 20-day slip. A January launch for AS-201 appeared highly unlikely.¹⁸

North American technicians enjoyed a one-day Christmas holiday. Sunday, the 26th, found a spacecraft team at pad 34 erecting the Apollo on top of the launch vehicle. After mounting the launch escape system, workmen linked the spacecraft with the pad facilities, checked the service module’s umbilical arm fit and the white room’s interface with the command module. On 5 January the spacecraft began a series of electrical tests with a launch vehicle simulator. Launch vehicle operations, during the same period, included tests of the electrical bridge wire and emergency detection system, a sequence malfunction test, and a LOX simulate and malfunction test (checking the electrical portion of the LOX system).¹⁹

A new 201 schedule, published 12 January, moved the launch date back to the week of 6 February.²⁰ The delay was not sufficient, however, as problems continued to plague the operation. Weekly reports on computer failures ran five to six pages long. Launch officials began to wonder if they would ever get through the mission. Norman Carlson, Saturn IB Test Conductor, recalled:

It [the computer] and we had many hours of grief. You know I really predicted that we would never launch AS-201 by using the computer. It was that bad. We would power up in the morning, and sometimes we were lucky if we got two hours of testing in the whole day. It was up and down all the time.²¹

Some of the 110A idiosyncrasies are amusing in retrospect. On one occasion, an engineer noticed that the computer was repeating a program it had run several hours before. A memory drum had reversed itself and was feeding information back into the computer, which accepted the memory data as new commands. Early in the launch operations, the computers kept going out of action at midnight (Greenwich time). The computers, unable to make the transition from 2400 to 0001, “turned into a pumpkin.”²²

Computer problems with ACE and the 110A caused 13 hours of hold time during the plugs-in (umbilicals connected) test on 24 January. After similar difficulties on the plugs-out overall test, Launch Operations Manager Paul Donnelly scheduled another run for 1 February. The repeat was a success and NASA announced a launch date of 22 February. The countdown demonstration test lasted four days (3-6 February). The launch vehicle team followed a script prepared back in October:

Workmen hurriedly corrected a number of deficiencies found during the propellant loading and rescheduled the last 22 hours for 8-9 February. Following the flight readiness test on the 12th, North American technicians began loading hypergols aboard the Apollo for a 23 February launch.²³

In mid-February General Phillips, Apollo Program Director, asked KSC to review the shortcomings of the automated checkout. Phillips hoped to use Marshall’s breadboard more effectively in the next Saturn IB checkout.²⁴ KSC’s response listed 15 general recommendations (and more than 50 specific corrections). One problem area involved configuration differences between the breadboard and LC- 34, e.g., the Cape’s telemetry interrupter for the S-IVB stage was apparently quite different from its counterpart at Huntsville. This illustrated a bigger problem: engineering orders accomplished at one site were overlooked at the other. Since the breadboard had not duplicated all of 34’s automation, Marshall was unable to assist with certain problems. KSC recommended that Huntsville have more duplication in the breadboard and a capability to respond faster for emergency tests. The launch team accepted much of the blame for the long delays in initializing and reinitializing the computer - which meant the practice of loading the executive routine (in the form of magnetic tapes) into the computer at the start of a work day. Frequently, a failure in the computer hardware would scramble the operating program and force a technician to reinitialize the 110As. The launch team believed the problem would diminish as operators gained confidence in the computers. The report scored the lack of reliable up-to-date documentation (e.g., unit schematics) and concluded:

Possibly the most significant single problem area during AS-201, from complex activation through launch, was the never-ending struggle to obtain Engineering Orders to work changes in Electrical Support Equipment. Very few of the changes in Complex 34 ESE were subject to any level of technical arbitration. Delays and difficulties were primarily simple matters of overcoming the system inertia. ²⁵

Launch veterans, in retrospect, have singled out another factor as the biggest challenge on AS-201: the psychological problems of persuading engineers to accept automation. Paul Donnelly recalled that electrical systems personnel were generally receptive since “to check out a computer, the easiest thing to do is use another computer.”²⁶ Convincing the mechanical engineers was another matter. Saturn engineers had little faith that a computer program tape would actuate a hydraulic valve at the proper moment; balky computers compounded the problem. In Hans Gruene’s words:

It was the hardest thing to do to convince engineers who are used to manual operations that the black box out there, which he cannot fully understand, does a job for him and he will not see the little green lights any longer but the box will do the checking for him. I think this convincing of the engineers was the most complicated task in automation.²⁷

The 201 Launch

AS-201 finally went down in Cape annals as the “scrub and de-scrub” launch. After their many weeks of problem after problem, delay after delay, the launch team began the countdown at midnight, 20 February. Bad weather imposed three holds, two for 24 hours each; and terminal countdown did not get underway until 5:15 p.m., 25 February. It was held at T-266 minutes in the early morning hours of 26 February on account of an Apollo access arm problem. A faulty helium regulator took up the remaining 30 minutes of scheduled hold time. At 35 seconds before liftoff, a nitrogen regulator commenced a high flow purge of the S-IB stage’s LOX dome and thrust chamber fuel injector. [See chapter 3-5 for a discussion of this operation.] The reading on the stage’s high-pressure nitrogen spheres, normally at 211 kilograms/square centimeter, fell rapidly. At T-4 seconds the pressure dropped below 199 and the automatic sensor stopped the count.²⁸

After some discussion, the launch team decided that the purge of the booster’s LOX dome and thrust chamber fuel injector was using most of the nitrogen flow from the ground supply, in effect starving the high-pressure spheres. A technician increased the flow by resetting the pressure on the equipment supplying the nitrogen. At T - 5 minutes, although the nitrogen sphere on the S-IB stage read a satisfactory 203.2 kg/sq cm, Marshall and Chrysler stage engineers requested another hold. Their calculations indicated that, if the low readings on the nitrogen spheres were caused by excessive purge flow or leakage, the existing pressure might not prove sufficient to maintain the minimum needed to pressurize engine gear boxes, actuate LOX and fuel lines, and purge the LOX seal area of the engine turbopumps through stage burnout The stage engineers recommended eliminating the calorimeter purges. These instruments on the base heat shield measured heat radiation from the stage engines. No serious problems in this area were anticipated and the measurement had no influence on the flight, so the purge was expendable. The operation, however, would take longer than the launch window allowed, and the mission was scrubbed.²⁹ But a few members of the launch team refused to quit. Gruene reported later:

A few of my people, including [A. J.] Pickett and [L. E.] Fannin, had an idea that if they could just run one test and convince the [Marshall] people this test was valid, . . . we could still launch the vehicle. We ran the test, de-scrubbed and launched - all in the same day. ³⁰

The test involved a simulated liftoff and 150-second flight. The simulation demonstrated that 203.2 kg/sq cm of nitrogen in the high-pressure spheres at liftoff would provide adequate pressure in the spheres at burnout.^* Hurried calculations by stage engineers supported KSC’s findings, and Marshall engineers then agreed to resume the count at 10:57 a.m.³¹

The trouble-plagued AS-201 lifted its 585 metric tons off the pad 15 minutes later. During the 39-minute trip down the Eastern Test Range, the S-IVB stage and the main propulsion engine in the service module increased the Apollo’s velocity to nearly 29,000 kilometers per hour, a speed greater than manned Apollos would face at reentry. The command module splashed down east of Ascension Island where Navy forces recovered it.³² With the flight a success, KSC released a general sigh of relief. Carlson said later: “We had struggled so long and so hard.... We were all glad to see it go."³³

The pad suffered substantial damage from flame and vibration at launch. Three seconds after liftoff, high voltage fuses in the pad area substation vibrated loose from their holders and blew a 300-ampere fuse in the industrial power feeder. LC-34 and other Cape facilities were powerless for an hour. One casualty was the launcher water deluge system. Its failure accounted for much of the fire damage on the pad and nearby structures. The power failure also short-circuited the Eastern Test Range’s impact computer B, used by Houston to make an abort decision. Computer B tried to transfer to the alternate power system and failed; the back-up computer came on for six seconds and then quit. As a result, Range Safety could not determine vehicle abort impact points during the first five minutes of flight and Mission Control (Houston) operated without trajectory data.³⁴

A Reorganization

During the latter launches of the Saturn I program, contractors began to assume responsibility for mission operations - responsibility that civil servants had previously exercised. The transition, completed during the Saturn IB launches, proved a difficult one for many government employees. Many did not want to manage other men, preferring instead to apply their engineering skills directly to the hardware. Veterans of the Debus team recall the change in their status as one of the significant events in the Apollo launch program. Aside from the personal impact, the molding together of the various contractor teams under government management ranks as one of the great accomplishments at KSC.

The problems brought on by the changing role of contractor and civil servant gave impetus to a center reorganization in early 1966. On 17 January Debus told his senior staff that the Office of Manned Space Flight, while voicing the highest praise for KSC’s launch operations to date, was concerned about its readiness to handle the upcoming Apollo-Saturn launch preparations. The ensuing study of the management structure was conducted by a KSC task force headed by Deputy Director Albert Siepert, assisted by John Young from NASA Headquarters. General Medaris, former commander of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, contributed an independent study for the launch center. The study groups concentrated on two problem areas that affected Apollo: the need to clarify and separate the duties of Apollo program management from other center-wide activities, and the liaison of the center with its contractors.³⁵

Following the review and evaluation, Debus sent to Headquarters formal proposals to realign KSC’s administrative organization. A major change involved the creation of two-deputy director posts. The Deputy Director, Operations, would be responsible for engineering matters and technical operations. The Deputy Director, Management, would handle relations with contractors, other government agencies, and the community, and direct the development of management concepts and policies. Two new departments were added. Most of KSC’s design functions were centralized under a Director of Design Engineering. He would be responsible for monitoring and issuing technical directions to design support contractors, and the Corps of Engineers. The other new department, Installation Support, would take over housekeeping services: plant maintenance, supply transportation, documentation security, safety, and quality surveillance. In both cases, the new departments concentrated functions that had previously been scattered among several elements of the launch center.³⁶

Debus proposed an important change in the launch operations organization to provide strong and clear direction during the performance of preflight and launch operations. Test management, as a discrete function, was set up at the top Launch Operations level, with counterparts at the Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft Operations directorates. These offices would plan and direct launch operations, with a specific individual in charge of each mission. The test manager would be just that - a manager, not merely a coordinator as had generally been the case in the past. In this capacity, he would be responsible for the mission hardware from the time of its arrival at the center to the launch. Engineers in various operational areas would be assigned to assist the test manager when required. These specialists, however, would not have authority to give formal instructions to the contractors performing the work; they were to provide only informal technical guidance. Formal instructions could come only from the test manager.

The reorganization altered the civil servant-contractor relationship in several important ways. The Director of Design Engineering assumed responsibility for all KSC hardware development contracts, construction and modification contracts, as well as the design engineering support contracts. Lines for reporting were streamlined so that other major contractors reported to a single KSC element. The changes established a specific chain of command for each launch and helped the government provide the contractors with formal direction, informal instruction, and a better evaluation of performance. Administrator Webb signed the new KSC organizational chart on 27 April and the changes were phased in through the remainder of the year.³⁷

More Launches of the Saturn IB

When spacecraft problems in the spring of 1966 delayed the preparation of Apollo module 011, AS-203 became the second Saturn IB flight. The AS-203 carried no spacecraft; its primary purpose was to test the dynamics of liquid hydrogen in the weightlessness of space. On a lunar mission, the S-IVB stage would orbit the earth one and one-half times and then restart its J-2 engine to propel Apollo toward the moon. Marshall engineers wondered whether the ten tons of liquid hydrogen would settle to one part of the fuel tanks or slosh violently about. The S-IVB stage of the AS-203 was equipped with 83 special measuring devices and two television cameras to study the chilldown of the J-2 engine (the preliminary cooling of the propellant systems with small amounts of cryogenic hydrogen). The mission also tested IBM’s new instrument unit. AS-203 was launched from pad 37B, which had been modified extensively since the SA-10 launch the previous summer.³⁸

Chrysler technicians erected the S-IB booster on 19 April. On subsequent days the S-IVB stage, the instrument unit, and the nose cone joined the stack. The checkout soon bogged down in another epidemic of computer ills. Most of the blame was laid to cracked solder joints in the printed-circuit boards, the same defect that had troubled AS-201. By 24 May technicians had exchanged 2,000 printed boards and planned to remove 6,000 more. Other portions of the Saturn checkout proceeded on schedule. On 27 May Albert Joralan reported that S-IB measuring calibration was 70% complete; the calibration of the S-IVB and instrument unit stood at 60 and 87%.³⁹

The month of June saw an unusual spectacle at the Cape - three Saturns looking skyward, and menaced briefly by a hurricane. Saturn 500-F stood on LC-39, AS-202 on LC-34, and AS-203 on LC-37. The simultaneous operations taxed KSC’s propellant reserves, but essential needs were met.⁴⁰

The AS-203 launch, originally scheduled for 30 June, was delayed by an Explorer launch and minor problems. It was almost scrubbed when one of the television cameras failed, but on 5 July the rocket achieved a virtually perfect orbital insertion. The remaining television camera operated perfectly, and apparently answered any questions about S-IVB’s readiness to serve as the Saturn V third stage. In September Douglas Aircraft announced that the S-IVB stage had no serious unsolved technical problems.⁴¹

Computer problems also characterized the AS-202 operations at LC-34. Printed-circuit boards continued to frustrate Gruene’s Launch Vehicle Operations Division and, after the AS-203 launch, KSC transferred all of LC-37’s printed-circuit boards to LC-34. The change reduced the downtime of the RCA 110As considerably. Despite the launch vehicle team’s misfortunes, NASA spokesmen cited spacecraft delays in postponing the AS-202 launch until after the 203 mission. Late deliveries of equipment and engineering orders plagued spacecraft operations. The patching of the ACE system (rerouting the electrical lines to various pieces of test equipment) was particularly troublesome. The spacecraft team found, to their sorrow, that Apollo 011 did not duplicate the 009 modules. The spacecraft team corrected most of the problems in three months and erected Apollo 011 on 2 July 1966. The countdown demonstration test began on the 29th and ran for one week. During that period, KSC also conducted two spacecraft emergency egress tests. The launch team completed the flight readiness test on 16 August.⁴² Alfred O’Hara, chief of the Saturn I-IB Operations Office, reported that all Saturn tests had been completed satisfactorily. Richard Proffitt, spacecraft test conductor, described the Apollo checkout as “a good clean test and we feel that we are 100 per cent ready.”⁴³

AS-202 lifted off on 25 August. A communications problem between Mission Control in Houston and a tracking ship in the Atlantic had caused the only significant delay in the countdown. In the final minutes, however, the launch team barely outraced hurricane Faith; the tropical storm shut down the Antigua tracking station 45 minutes after launch. AS-202’s 93-minute suborbital flight covered 33,000 kilometers. Although the spacecraft splashed down 370 kilometers short of its target in the Pacific Ocean, the mission was judged a success. A design certification review board, meeting in September, declared that Apollo-Saturn IB could now be used for manned flight.⁴⁴

The Apollo-Saturn IB launches of 1966 represented important gains for NASA’s launch team. LC-34 and LC-37, testbeds for automated checkout, were found wanting. In the 20 months between AS-201 and AS-501, KSC corrected the major automation problems. Without these trial and error advances, AS-501, the toughest launch in Apollo’s history, would have been far more difficult.