The Launch Complex Becomes “Operational"

The achievements of Apollo 8 obscured some of the limitations of that flight. Most important from KSC’s point of view, Apollo 8 was not a complete moon-landing vehicle. A test article had done duty for the real lunar module. In the launch vehicle, the S-II stage had carried extra insulation, and research and development instrumentation had been flown on all stages. Final confirmation of the LC-39 launch procedure would have to wait on a fully operational Apollo-Saturn. Apollo 9 (AS-504) would bring the space vehicle much closer to operational status. It would be the first test of the mated command-service and lunar modules. The 10-day mission in earth orbit would check out combined spacecraft operations and run the lunar module through a series of solo flights.¹ Some viewed the mission as a relatively mundane exercise in earth orbit except for the checkout of the lunar module’s docking capabilities; but in General Phillips’s words, Apollo 9 was “certainly one of the most vital missions that we’ve had in our mission sequence [and the risks] a little greater than the risks which we knowingly accepted in committing the Apollo 8 mission."² Moreover, Apollo 9 was to become the standard for processing subsequent Apollos through KSC.

Early schedules had listed Apollo 9 as the first manned Saturn V mission after three unmanned development flights. In the letter of 19 August 1968, which removed the lunar module from the Apollo 8 configuration, the Apollo 9 mission was redefined as a test of the lunar module in earth orbit. The crew slated for a later flight - James McDivitt, David Scott, and Russell Schweickart - was moved up to Apollo 9, and launch date was set for late February 1969.³

Launch operations began in May 1968 with the arrival of the S-II stage - first on hand this time after holding up three previous Saturn V missions. In August the North American team began modifying the S-II stage, not without complaint that Huntsville and the home office were not providing adequate direction. This dereliction, the daily status report for 28 August warned, might once again delay the high-bay testing of the S-II. X-ray reports in mid-September gave the forward skirt splices a clean bill. At the same time the team made extensive changes in the propellant utilization and instrumentation systems to accommodate the S-II’s new engines, which had been uprated to nearly one million newtons (230,000 pounds of thrust). Thanks to its early arrival and the team effort, the S-II stayed close to schedule. The third stage S-IVB arrived 12 September, followed in late September by the instrument unit, flight control computer, and S-IC first stage with its pogo modification. After inspection in the transfer aisle, the first stage was erected on 1 October; stacking of the entire vehicle was completed on 7 October. Erecting launch vehicles was becoming routine. Testing of the Saturn systems progressed according to plan during October, and faulty accumulators on two swing arms were replaced without delaying the schedule.⁴

Early in November a problem developed that involved both the vehicle and the ground support equipment. During the S-IC fuel prepressurization leak and functional test, a significant amount of RP-1 was spilled in the mobile launcher. Pressure in the Saturn fuel tank had forced fluid from the engine supply and return lines into a hydraulic pumping unit reservoir. The back pressure caused an overflow. An additional failure of a check valve on the gaseous nitrogen purge line allowed RP-1 fuel to back up into the electrical system of the hydraulic pumping unit. Accumulators from launcher 3 were borrowed for use on launcher 2. This type of problem illustrates the close interrelation of the rocket and ground support equipment. In effect, they formed a single unit, and malfunctions in one frequently caused damage to the other.⁵

The boilerplate spacecraft was removed from the stack on 2 December and the flight spacecraft replaced it the following day. At this point, the countdown demonstration test and launch countdown for Apollo 8 halted the testing of Apollo 9. The preliminary flight program tapes for the launch vehicle arrived at KSC on 20 December and the electrical mate of the space vehicle was finished six days later. After a plugs-in test in the assembly building on the 27th, ordnance installation was completed on New Year’s Eve. The processing of Apollo 9 was on the schedule set in September and the space vehicle was ready for the trip to the pad. Despite problems, both vehicle and launch complex schedules had been maintained in a way hitherto unknown for Saturn V. Experience was beginning to show results.⁶

The Slowest Part of the Trip

Apollo 9, like every Apollo-Saturn V, started its epochal journey with the trip from the assembly building to launch pad 39. Eventually astronauts would travel at speeds in excess of 40,000 kilometers per hour, but 1.1 was about as fast as the crawler crew dared move the transporter with the Apollo-Saturn on its mobile launcher - an unwieldy 5,715 metric tons rising 137.5 meters above the ground. “You can’t imagine the difference between 0.7 and 0.9 miles per hour with this weight,” one of the hydraulic engineers said. “At 0.3 the ride is very smooth, at 0.8 the vibrations may be noticeable but tolerable, and at 0.9 it might be difficult.”⁷

Fred Renaud, a crewman on the crawler, had called it a “Texas tractor” in conversation with Representative Robert Price of Texas.⁸ But a local newspaper was to refer to it as “one of the strongest, slowest, biggest, strangest, and noisiest land vehicles ever devised by man.” With pardonable exaggeration, the newspaper spoke of the 5.6-kilometer trip as “nearly as important as the 500,000 miles [870,000 kilometers] to and from the moon.”⁹

Each transporter had two cabs containing the usual controls found in an automobile: an accelerator, foot and parking brakes, speedometer, air conditioner, adjustable seat, and windshield wiper, plus radio for two-way communications. While the accelerator on the family car controls a single engine rated at around 250 horsepower, the crawler’s accelerator controlled 16 motors with a capacity of more than 6,000 horsepower. But starting a car, even on a winter morning, was easy compared to getting the crawler-transporter ready to move. It took an hour and a half for the crew of 14 to warm up the six diesel engines, energize several dozen electrical circuits, start up three hydraulic systems, one pneumatic system, a fuel system, and two lubricating systems, and make a series of checks called for by the 39-page “Start-Up Procedure Manual.”

Handling such a monster required a cool head, extreme patience, and much teamwork, especially while loading and unloading at either end of the trip. Inside the assembly building, the crew had to steer the transporter with the aid of gauges, guidelines, and the judgement of technicians stationed at strategic points with walkie-talkie radios; and to bring it to within 5 centimeters of a set of pedestals ranging across the 45.7-meter width of the mobile launcher, so that the load could be firmly bolted down.

“When a man stands next to the crawler, the crawler looks big,” Bruce Dunmeyer, supervisor of the transporter team, said, “but when you see the crawler under the mobile launcher, the crawler looks incapable of lifting such a big load.” Spectators, and sometimes the crewmen themselves, were to feel that at any moment spacecraft and launcher could tip over and crash to the ground. Renaud described a typical run down the level part of the crawlerway:

This part of the move is not particularly hard. . . . the main concern is just staying on the road, and if you have to stop quickly, don’t lean on the brake. The small jolts and jerks down here are sledge hammers at the top. One of the hazards is you tend to over-control the machine because it takes things so long to happen. You come up to a curve, put in a steering signal, and about 25 minutes later you come out of the curve. The tendency is to put all the steering on at once.¹⁰

The transporter had a crew of as many as 30, most of them with walkie-talkie radios, to monitor the last stage of the trip, the 365-meter incline with a grade of about 5%. The control room engineers and the head engineer supervised the critical task of keeping the Apollo-Saturn on an even keel while ascending the grade. This meant an endless chain of orders to systems of the transporter, including the cab engineers. William Clemens, one of the control engineers, felt that negotiating the grade was easier on the way up because there was so much excess power. But coming down, the driver could not allow the crawler to move too fast. “She wants to free wheel and coast,” he stated, “and if you overspeed too far the diesel engines will shut off - which spells trouble! You must keep the speed under control.”¹¹

In Supervisor Bruce Dunmeyer’s view, connecting the mobile service structure to the Saturn V at the pad was the trickiest and most delicate maneuver of all. The service structure towered 122.5 meters above the ground and provided access platforms for final checking of the Apollo spacecraft and the booster stages. “You have only a few inches of clearance when you are mating the structure to the pad,” said one of the hydraulic engineer chiefs. “There are clamshelled doors that hinge and close around the bird, and if you run into it, there will be no shot. It is as simple as that.”¹² Just before launching, the crawler-transporter would take the mobile service structure back to its parking area. The crawler crew’s work represented hours of extreme tension between days of routine. In spite of this, the original crew was to see little turnover, with only two men leaving over the years.

The Launch of Apollo 9

Apollo 9 took seven hours to travel to pad A on 3 January 1969. The next three days were devoted to moving the mobile service structure to the pad. This included mating the mobile launcher to the pad, hookup and checkout of the data link and RCA 110A computer, final validation of swing arm 9, an integration test for the environmental control system, and moving the mobile service structure. On 6 January vehicle power was applied, two days later the Q-ball^* was installed.¹³

The Manned Space Flight Management Council, which consisted of the major figures in the NASA manned spaceflight program from all the centers, met at KSC early in February. The meeting was followed by the flight readiness review for Apollo 9. At the time, the space vehicle was going through hypergolic loading, RP-1 loading (for the S-IC stage), and the main fuel valve leak test. During the electromechanical test of the service arms, oxidizer fumes were detected externally at the S-IVB aft interstage area. Examination revealed a vapor leak in the LOX system. The problem was solved by a decision to plug the leak detection port and to launch in that configuration.¹⁴

The countdown demonstration test began early on the morning of 12 February at T-130 hours. As a practical matter, this test was the start of the countdown for the lunar module. System and subsystem checks as well as full servicing and close-out of much of that spacecraft left little to be done beyond loading the crew equipment. Crew participation during the “dry” demonstration test required only activation of systems needed to support the spacecraft-crew interface. Swing arm 9 retracted to its park position at the proper time, but instead of remaining retracted, the arm moved back to the command module. Activation of the fuel cells was simulated, since they were not required for crew support. The test was completed successfully on the morning of 19 February. Tests of the RF telemetry systems of the space vehicle and the return of the mobile service structure to the pad marked the beginning of the precount preparations for the launch itself.¹⁵

The countdown for Apollo 9 began the following week, aiming toward a launch on 28 February. While matters went smoothly for the launch team, the flight crew developed colds. The day before launch, at T-16 hours, NASA officials postponed the mission until 3 March. KSC recycled the countdown to T-45 hours so that the spacecraft team could replace the supercritical helium in the lunar module. The liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks required only a topping-off. For the launch vehicle team the delay meant charging a new set of flight batteries to install on 1 March. The principal effect of the flight crew’s “malfunction” was to give the KSC team its first lengthy respite in a Saturn V countdown. The machine had proven more reliable than the men.¹⁶

At 11:00 a.m. on 3 March 1969, Apollo 9 lifted off on its flight into earth orbit. With an almost flawless performance, the Saturn V emerged as a proven piece of space hardware. Launch damage to the ground support equipment was slight compared to prior launches. During the countdown there had been no significant failures or anomalies in the ground system. As the first Apollo-Saturn V space vehicle in full lunar mission configuration, Apollo 9 demonstrated not only its own capabilities, but those of the ground facilities as well. The first comprehensive test of the vehicle, the complex, and the philosophy was a very satisfying success.¹⁷

The Contractors Receive Their Due

During a visit by the Teague Subcommittee on 28 February 1969, the congressmen inquired into KSC relations with the contractors who were now playing so large a role in launch operations. With its lunar module atop Apollo 9, Grumman Aircraft and Engineering Corporation had joined the list of major contributors at KSC. The Boeing Company was supervising ground support equipment for all stages of the Saturn launch vehicle, a task involving design and logistics engineering for 17 launch support systems. In addition, Boeing had the S-IC stage and technical integration and evaluation of the total program. North American, besides the tricky job of developing the S-II, was building rocket engines for all three stages at its Rocketdyne Division, as well as constructing the spacecraft.^* McDonnell-Douglas was building the third stage at its Huntington Beach plant. IBM, with over 900 employees at KSC, had a dual role in launch operations: the installation and flight readiness checkout of the IBM-built Saturn instrument unit and maintenance of the Saturn ground computer complex, the hub of the semiautomated system that had been designed and built by RCA. This was not the only instance of a computer company operating products built by a rival firm. General Electric was sharing in the operation of Honeywell-produced computers.

Congressman Teague and his committee members directed most of their questions to basic principles of the KSC-contractor relationship. Deputy Director of Management Albert Siepert answered for KSC. The congressmen wanted to know why KSC had not developed an in-house work force instead of contracting the work out. The answer was that since Apollo employment had rapidly risen to 300,000, then dropped back to 153,000 in 18 months, any attempt to handle such a short-term buildup with government employees would have disrupted the civil service. Committee members also asked why contractors were using KSC space and facilities instead of maintaining their own. Siepert explained this avoided duplication. KSC could wrap up the services needed by all the major contractors and handle them in a single service contract. Examples (not cited by Siepert): the Wackenhut Detective Agency’s security contract and LTV Aerospace Corporation’s contracts for audio-visuals, graphics, library, data management, and publications.

Siepert made the contractor representatives happy with his forthright answer to one question: Were contractors better informed than KSC personnel? He said that a contractor, who had designed and manufactured a piece of equipment, was the best authority on how it should perform. This warmed the hearts of some contractor employees who felt their NASA counterparts had been wanting in such appreciation.¹⁸

Even KSC’s paperwork was testifying to the steady elimination of rough spots, technical and organizational. The first three Saturn V vehicles had been accompanied by a veritable mountain of printed documents that dealt with almost every conceivable topic and contingency within the purview of KSC. As each mission unfolded, numerous revisions in these materials took place before the launch itself: the final document not infrequently varied considerably from its predecessors on the same mission and topic. A change in this pattern began with the Apollo 9 mission. From September 1968 onward, the documents relating to any given mission (or to Apollo missions in general) became increasingly uniform. In this respect, the paper system was an outward manifestation of the increasingly “operational” character of both the vehicle and the facilities. The mobile concept had demonstrated its feasibility with the first Apollo-Saturn V mission, and the results showed up in the paperwork after AS-504.¹⁹

The test and checkout requirements document provides a good index of the operational complexities involved in the launch operations. Issued for each mission, this manual delineated the path of the vehicle through KSC facilities. As the program developed, the test and checkout requirements were modified. Examples of such changes were the elimination of the plugs-out overall tests and the rescheduling of the flight readiness test to precede the countdown demonstration.²⁰

By the time of Apollo 9 an increase in the number of automated programs devoted to test and checkout was also apparent. The first two Saturn V missions had used 21 Atoll programs [see chapter 16-4]. A sharp increase had occurred on the AS-503 checkout, and this was countered by a drop in the use of programs written in the more difficult machine language. With Apollo 9, the total number of automated programs increased to 78, of which 36 were written in Atoll. Although this growth did not end with Apollo 9, it was clear that Atoll had proved its utility as a checkout tool. It made possible the launching of progressively more complicated missions from LC-39.

Changes in the Telemetry System

The success of the Saturn V flights depended in large part on the performance of the telemetry system. A characteristic of all spacecraft programs, telemetry transmitted prelaunch and flight performance data from the vehicle to ground stations. From the start of the planning for Apollo, NASA realized that many more varied and sophisticated demands would likely be placed on the system. The development of launch operations at KSC was, in part, conditioned by those demands [see chapter 16-5].

For prelaunch operations, the ability of the launch vehicle to check itself out was limited by requirements for ground support. A digital computer in the Saturn V instrument unit was primarily intended for guidance and navigation. It had triple redundancy throughout, except in memory and power sources, and its self-check capability was limited primarily to flight. Support for prelaunch operations came from the digital data acquisition system located in each stage. Tailored to the specific needs of its stage, this system transmitted data either through the data link or by means of pulse-code-modulated radio transmissions. The radio link could be used either on the ground or in flight.²²

The Saturn V launch vehicle had 22 telemetry links carrying more than 3,500 instrumentation measurements during flight. In prelaunch checkout each link and instrumentation channel was tested to assure operation within specified tolerances. Since the vehicle instrumentation system was used to acquire data during tests on other vehicle systems (such as pneumatics and control), frequent prelaunch checks of the instrumentation were required.²³

The S-IC contained six very-high-frequency links, including the single-sideband-frequency-modulated telemetry system, one of the Saturn V components that had evolved throughout the launch vehicle development program. Because data during staging might be concealed or lost due to the effects of the engine exhaust, a tape recorder was included in the stage to collect that information, which was subsequently recovered by playback over radio. Range-rate data for the tracking of the vehicle was provided by the offset doppler transponder in the stage. Two other telemetry links used ultra-high-frequency receivers for range safety purposes. If the safety officer on the Cape issued a destruct command to these receivers, they would trigger the explosive network.²⁴

The second stage had systems similar to those on the S-IC, but had one less single-sideband link. The S-IVB (third stage) carried no tracking transponders; otherwise, its telemetry equipment was identical to that of the first stage. The instrument unit carried an offset doppler, an Azusa (or Mistram) transponder, two C-band beacons, and a command and communication system. It had no range safety receivers.²⁵

Long before the first Saturn V flew, the configuration of the vehicle allowed the use of either the Mistram or Azusa tracking systems, but not both at once. To reduce the complexity of the system, Phillips in 1965 directed that Azusa be used on future Saturn flights. Real-time support at the Cape would be required at least through the AS-503 mission. Experience in tracking early Saturn vehicles indicated a need for only one beacon, and some viewed even that as possibly unnecessary. It was later confirmed that the Saturn V was large enough to reflect enough radar energy to be visible on ground indicators to the limits of safety responsibility. Though a beacon might not be required for tracking purposes, range safety personnel considered it desirable.²⁶

To receive telemetry from its vehicles, NASA maintained three ground networks. One of these, the Manned Space Flight Network, was under the operational control of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, during Apollo missions. In order to operate effectively for the lunar landing program, the system had to be able to control the spacecraft (both the command and lunar modules) at lunar distances. While the equipment had been adequate for earth-orbit missions, the greater distances, as well as the complexity of Apollo, led to the introduction of the unified S-band system.²⁷

The term S-band derived from the period of the Second World War when letters were used to designate bands of frequencies. The band selected for Apollo lay between 1,550 and 5,200 megahertz. For use with its unmanned space probes, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) had developed equipment that operated on these frequencies. A useful feature of the JPL equipment was the combination of several radio functions into a single transmission from only one transmitter to a given receiver. For Apollo, these functions included tracking and ranging; command, voice and television communications; and measurement telemetry. The versatility of the system was inherent in its structure.²⁸

For the lunar mission the unified S-band offered the twin advantages of simplicity and versatility. The line-of-sight signal lost little of its strength when it passed through the atmosphere, and transceiver and power supply equipment could be relatively small. In providing direct communications between the spacecraft and ground stations, the unified S-band worked equally well in near-earth operations or circling the moon.

Apollo’s tracking system required close, continuous communication among the major centers and the Manned Space Flight Network. This was accomplished by means of digital data, teletype, and voice links which were the responsibility of the NASA communications system centered at Goddard. A combination of land lines, undersea cables, high frequency radio, and satellites linked more than 100 locations throughout the world. For Apollo, the system had to be augmented. Major switching centers ensured maximum sharing of circuits, while giving Houston priority for real-time data during Apollo missions.²⁹

During Apollo operations, the three manned spaceflight centers were connected outside the Goddard system by two links - the launch information exchange facility and the Apollo launch data system. Operated by Marshall during launch operations, the former was primarily an information transfer link between Huntsville and KSC with connections to Houston. It carried real-time telemetered data, closed-circuit television, facsimile, classified typewriter, voice, and countdown information. The Apollo launch data system was the primary information link from KSC to Houston. It had four independent subsystems that handled telemetry, television, countdown and status data, and launch trajectory data during prelaunch and launch operations. By using the Apollo launch data system, personnel in Houston could conduct closed-loop tests of the spacecraft while it was at KSC. During powered flight, the system transmitted trajectory data from the impact predictor for the information of the flight director at Houston.³⁰

The Apollo program significantly increased the tracking and data acquisition requirements for KSC and the Air Force Eastern Test Range. To ensure uniformity, the Office of Tracking and Data Acquisition, NASA Headquarters, was designated in August 1964 the “single point of contact” with the Department of Defense for such coordination. Although heavily involved in the development of the unified S-band system for Apollo operations, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Goddard were directed to support the planning and operations.³¹ The agreement that resulted between NASA and the Defense Department emphasized colocation of KSC and Air Force Range facilities whenever possible “to achieve a maximum of mutual assistance, to avoid unwarranted duplication, and to realize economies where practical and consistent with mission requirements. . . ."³² To support Apollo, range facilities needed considerable modernization. During 1965 about 85% of the existing Air Force tracking equipment was modified. Over three years, the cost exceeded $50,000,000, including the updating of telemetry stations downrange as well as at the Cape.³³

The entire Apollo tracking and data acquisition network, including ships, planes, and unified S-band ground stations, was integrated with the Manned Space Flight Network between November 1966 and June 1968. The AS-202 mission in August 1966 provided the first test under actual operating conditions. By the launch of Apollo 9 the new system was operational at stations in Texas, Mexico, Ascension Island, the Canary Islands, Bermuda, Spain, Hawaii, Australia, Wales, and California.³⁴

There was no major change in tracking and data acquisition comparable to the introduction of the mobile concept. The primary alteration in tracking was the increasing sophistication of the hardware.³⁵ From early Saturn I missions through Apollo 9, development of hardware had tended to proceed steadily, dependent largely upon launch vehicle requirements. At the same time, less and less direct control over telemetry was allowed to KSC. In this respect, the attempt of NASA to spread the R&D among several centers had led to an unexpected constraint upon launch operations at LC-39. In the end, the Saturn V was measured and tracked by a telemetry system largely outside the control of KSC.

At Long Last

The liftoff of Apollo 10 on 18 May 1969 would mark KSC’s fourth manned Apollo launch in the short space of seven months. The mobile concept was proving its efficiency. Before Apollo 8 moved out of the vehicle assembly building on 9 October 1968, the crews had already stacked AS-504 for Apollo 9. Before Apollo 9 was subsequently moved out, crews had stacked AS-505 for the Apollo 10 flight. Apollo 10 rolled out on 11 March to pad B, the more distant of the two pads on LC-39. This would prove the only use of pad B for an Apollo mission and the only use of firing room 3.

On the flight of Apollo 9, McDivitt, Scott, and Schweickart had checked out the lunar module in flight and docking maneuvers with the command-service module. On Apollo 10, the crew of Thomas Stafford, John Young, and Eugene Cernan took the spacecraft to the vicinity of the moon where the lunar module closed to within 16 kilometers of the surface before redocking with the orbiting command module. At long last, KSC was set for the Apollo 11 mission that would put men - Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, Jr. - on the moon while Michael Collins waited for them in the command module.

Apollo 11 stages had been arriving at KSC since the beginning of the year, the second stage undergoing rigorous inspection on account of a stormy barge voyage from California via the Panama Canal. During March the prime and backup crews participated in the spacecraft tests, with mid-April bringing the docking tests in the altitude chambers. During a checkout of the lunar module descent stage, technicians discovered faulty actuators in the machinery that would push out the legs of the lunar module for the moon landing. The repair area was inaccessible to men of average build, and Grumman scoured its rosters for two qualified technicians who were “very slim.” The two men - William Dispenette and Charles Tanner - squirmed into the narrow space and replaced the actuators.³⁶

The lunar module on Apollo 11 differed in several respects from that on Apollo 10. A very-high-frequency antenna would facilitate communications with the astronauts during their extravehicular activity on the moon’s surface. The lunar module would also have a lighter-weight ascent engine, increased thermal protection on the landing gear, and a packet of scientific experiments. The only change in the command-service module was the removal of a blanket of insulation from the forward hatch. On the launch vehicle, the first stage was stripped of its research and development instrumentation. Insulation was improved on the second stage, and slight changes were made in the connections between the third stage and the instrument unit.³⁷

The crawler-transporter picked up the 5,443-metric-ton assembly and started for pad A at 12:30 p.m. on 20 May while Apollo 10 was still on its way to the moon. The countdown demonstration test got underway 27 June with vehicle and spacecraft fueled, powered up, and counted down for simulated launch on 2 July. On the following day, with the fuel tanks drained, Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin participated in a dry test.³⁸

Meanwhile, KSC was preparing for the hundreds of thousands of people who wanted to see the men off to the moon. Special guests, members of the press, and dependents of Apollo team members would number close to 20,000. Some 700,000 people were expected to watch the liftoff, possibly the largest crowd to witness a single event in the history of the world. The anticipated traffic jam prompted KSC to arrange for helicopters to fly in key personnel, should they be otherwise unable to reach their work. Guests included Vice President and Mrs. Spiro Agnew, former President and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson, Army Chief of Staff General William Westmoreland, four cabinet members, 33 senators, 200 congressmen, 14 governors, and 56 ambassadors. Close to 3,500 accredited members of the news media were occupying the press site. Over two-thirds were American; 55 other countries, including three Iron Curtain nations, sent representatives, with Japan’s 118 leading the way. All western European countries except Portugal were represented, and all western hemisphere nations except Paraguay.³⁹

Brilliant lights illuminated the launch area and Apollo 11 during the night of 15 July. The crawler-transporter carried the mobile service structure to its parking area a mile away. In the early hours of 16 July, the tanks of the second and third stages were filled with liquid hydrogen. More than 450 people occupied the 14 rows of display and control consoles in firing room 1. Sixty-eight NASA and contractor supervisors occupied four rows; seated at the top, nearest the sloping windows that looked out toward the launch pads, were the KSC chiefs, the Saturn V program manager for Marshall, and the Apollo program manager for the Manned Spacecraft Center. One hundred and forty Boeing engineers occupied consoles linked to the Saturn IC stage and mechanical ground support equipment. North American Rockwell had 60 engineers at consoles connected with the S-II stage, while 45 McDonnell-Douglas engineers monitored the S-IVB stage. Ninety IBM engineers manned three rows of consoles hooked up to the instrument unit, IBM stabilization and guidance systems, and flight control. About 8 kilometers to the south two automatic checkout stations in the operations and checkout building monitored the spacecraft.⁴⁰

The fueling of the launch vehicle was completed more than three hours before liftoff. Then the closeout crew of six men under the direction of Gunter Wendt and Spacecraft Test Conductor Clarence Chauvin returned to the pad.⁴¹ They opened the hatch and made final cabin preparations. The backup command pilot, Fred Haise, Jr., entered the spacecraft at 3 hours and 10 minutes before liftoff. With the assistance of Haise and a suit technician, Neil Armstrong entered Apollo at 6:54 a.m. Michael Collins joined him five minutes later in the right couch, and Edwin Aldrin climbed into the center seat. The closeout crew shut the side hatch, pressurized the cabin to check for leaks, and purged it. At two hours before liftoff Houston participated in a final checkout of the spacecraft systems. At one hour before liftoff, the closeout crew left the pad. Almost a kilometer to the west, protected by a sand bunker, 14 rescue personnel stood watch. Equipped with armored personnel carriers and wearing flame protective gear, they could move to the pad quickly if the astronauts needed help.⁴²

To make the occasion more memorable, the day was ushered in by a beautiful dawn. A few fleecy clouds scarcely cut the warm sun. The slight wind cheered the assemblage. As the moments ticked off, loud speakers reported that everything was moving according to schedule. The countdown became automatic at 3 minutes, 20 seconds, when the sequencer took over. Ignition commenced at 8.9 seconds with a wisp of white smoke indicating that the first engine would soon come to life. All five engines built up full thrust with an awesome roar. For a moment Apollo 11 seemed to stand still; then at 9:32 a.m. on 16 July 1969, the moon rocket rose slowly and majestically. A voice broke the tension: “The vehicle has cleared the pad.” Apollo 11 had gone beyond KSC’s control and the men in firing room 1 turned for a moment from their consoles to view the rocket rising over the Atlantic.

Many people moved away from the viewing sites as soon as the vehicle disappeared from view. Others stood silently, or chatted quietly, or sat on the grass if they were not among the privileged visitors in the stands. Exhaustion held some - others simply did not want to fight the traffic. A cameraman asked how the launch looked. He had not seen it, because he had been busy photographing the reactions of the VIPs.

“Eagle Has Landed”

Cleared to proceed to the moon, the astronauts fired the S-IVB engine again, increasing their velocity to 38,400 kilometers per hour. On 20 July, Sunday in the United States, Armstrong and Aldrin occupied and powered up the lunar module, Eagle, and deployed its landing legs. The two craft separated at 1:46 p.m. (KSC time). Collins fired the command module rockets to move about three kilometers away. Flying feet first, face down, Armstrong and Aldrin fired Eagle’s descent engine at 3:08 p.m. Forty minutes later, as the command module emerged from behind the moon, Collins reported: “Everything is going just swimmingly.” The two astronauts guided the Eagle into elliptical orbit. Armstrong throttled the engine at 4:05 p.m. to slow its descent.

As the moonscape came into clearer view, Armstrong saw they were approaching a crater almost as large as a football field. He took over manual control and steered toward a less formidable site. At Mission Control physicians noted his heart beat had increased from a normal 77 to 156. While Armstrong manipulated the control, Aldrin called out altitude readings: “750 feet, coming down at 23 degrees . . . 700 feet, 21 down . . . 400 feet, down at nine. . . . Got the shadow out there . . . 75 feet, things looking good . . . lights on . . . picking up some dust . . . 30 feet, 2 1/2 down . . . faint shadow . . . four forward . . . drifting to the right a little . . . contact light . . . O.K. Engine stop.” As the probes beneath three of Eagle’s four footpads touched the surface, a light flashed on the instrument panel. The world heard Armstrong’s quiet message: “Houston. Tranquility Base here. Eagle has landed.”⁴²

Later the crew explained that at some distance from the surface, fine dust had blown up around the spacecraft and obscured their vision. They felt no sensation at the moment of landing, and set to work telling people on earth what they could see from Eagle’s windows. At 6 p.m. Armstrong recommended that the walk on the moon should begin about 9 p.m., earlier than originally planned. Later than he proposed, but still five hours ahead of schedule, Armstrong opened the hatch and squeezed through it at 10:39 p.m. He wore 38 kilograms of equipment on his back, containing the portable life support and communications systems. On the moon, the weight amounted to only 6.3 kilograms. Wriggling through the hatch, Armstrong cautiously proceeded down the nine-step ladder. He paused at the second step to pull a ring to deploy a television camera, mounted to follow his movements as he climbed down. At 10:56 p.m. he planted his left foot on the moon. Then the words that were to take their place among the great phrases of history: “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”⁴³

At 1:54 p.m. 21 July, after 22 hours on the lunar surface, Aldrin fired the ascent stage engine. It functioned perfectly. They docked with the command module at 5:35 p.m. Collins touched off the main engine at 12:55 a.m. 22 July, while on the back side of the moon, and the astronauts headed for home. Because of stormy seas, they adjusted their course to a new landing area 434 kilometers from the original site. They splashed down in the Pacific at 12:50 p.m. 24 July. President Nixon greeted them on the aircraft carrier Hornet.⁴⁴

The Apollo program had achieved its objective five months and ten days before the end of the decade.

One of the most perceptive writers of our time, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, probed the deeper meanings of these amazing engineering accomplishments. In Earthshine, she spoke of the “new sense of awe and mystery in the face of the vast marvels of the solar system,” and the feeling of modesty before the laws of the universe that counterbalanced man’s pride in his tremendous achievements. Many had remarked that mankind would never again look on the moon in the same way. She thought it more significant that people would never again look at earth in the same way. We would have a new sense of its richness and beauty. She concluded: “Man had to free himself from earth to perceive both its diminutive place in the solar system and its inestimable value as a life-fostering planet.”⁴⁵