Ambitious Plans and Limited Space

The original commitment of the Saturn program to a Cape Canaveral launching site was for the research and development launches only.^* A launch site for operational missions remained an open question long after construction started on LC-34. Four major questions were involved: Would blast and acoustic hazards require an isolated - perhaps offshore - launch pad for larger Saturn rockets? If not, could the pads be safely located on the coast of Florida or elsewhere - Cumberland Island, Georgia, perhaps? Would the Saturn become America’s prototype space rocket? If so, how many Saturn launches per year would be required? In the midst of these questions was one stern reality: Cape Canaveral was running out of launching room.

By early 1960 the Cape resembled a Gulf Coast oil field. Launch towers crowded the 16 kilometers of sandy coastline with less than a kilometer of palmetto scrub separating most of the pads. The busy landscape testified to the recent advances in America’s space program, but the density of the launch pads posed a problem for NASA and Air Force officials. Launch programs were under way for Titan, Polaris, Pershing, and Mercury; plans for Minuteman and Saturn were well along. A Department of Defense management study, prepared in April 1960, reported that the Atlantic Missile Range was “substantially saturated with missile launching facilities and flight test instrumentation.”¹ This seconded a 1959 congressional study that criticized the range’s severe shortage of support facilities.² With the siting of the second Saturn launch complex (complex 37) near the northern boundary of the range, launch officials were running out of real estate.

The lack of room at the Cape did not deter Marshall Space Flight Center personnel from preparing plans for 20, 50, even 100 Saturn flights a year. The Army’s failure to carry out Project Horizon and put a squad of men on the moon had not dulled Hermann Koelle’s enthusiasm (Chapter 1-5). Now under NASA, his Future Projects Office was investigating earth-orbital space stations, a permanent scientific facility on the moon, a “switchboard in the sky” to serve communications satellites, and manned exploration of Mars. The last project would extend into the 1980s and involve sending several spaceships to that planet.³

NASA’s ability to implement Koelle’s plans depended upon the development of the launch vehicle in Huntsville. With the Saturn C-1 off the drawing boards, Huntsville planners were working on Saturn C-2. This threestage rocket was to use the two stages of the C-1 configuration and insert a new second stage incorporating Rocketdyne’s J-2 engine. A cluster of four J-2s, fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, could produce 3,520,000 newtons (800,000 pounds of thrust), giving the C-2 a total of 10,428,000 newtons (2,370,000 pounds of thrust). The C-2 could carry a payload 2.5 times that of the C-1; large enough to send a 3,630-kilogram manned spacecraft to the vicinity of the moon, that payload would still be far short of what was needed for a direct ascent lunar landing (flying one spacecraft to the moon, landing, and returning to earth). An alternative to direct ascent was the use of earth-orbital rendezvous. This scheme involved launching a number of rockets into earth orbit, assembling a moon rocket there, and then firing it to the moon. NASA officials estimated that an earth-orbital rendezvous would take six or seven C-2 launches to place a 3,630-kilogram spacecraft on the moon, nine or ten launches for a 5,445-kilogram spacecraft. With this in mind, Koelle warned Debus at a 15 June 1960 meeting that such programs might require as many as 100 C-2 launches annually.⁴

Debus considered Koelle’s projections plausible. Future Projects Office charts indicated that the cost per launch vehicle might drop as low as $10 million at the higher launch rate. If the space program received 3% of the annual gross national product for the next two decades, the American launch program could reach 100 vehicles per year.⁵ A launch rate of such magnitude seemed unrealistic to other Launch Operations Directorate (LOD) members in light of their experience with the Redstone and Jupiter missiles - programs that had not exceeded 15 launches per year. Some doubted the Atlantic Missile Range’s capability to sustain so large an operation, as well as the nation’s willingness to fund it. Aware of the impact his program would have on LOD, Koelle asked Debus to determine the highest possible firing capability for Saturn from the Atlantic Missile Range.⁶

There was general agreement within LOD that launch procedures at complex 34 could not satisfy the Future Projects Office plans. Debus and his associates estimated that LC-34 could launch four or five vehicles per year, depending upon the degree to which checkout was automated. This allowed two months for vehicle assembly and checkout on the pad and a month for rehabilitation after the launch. With its two pads, LC-37 could handle six to eight launches annually.⁷ The two complexes together barely satisfied Koelle’s lowest projection for the C-2 study (12 launches annually); 48 Saturn launches per year would require at least 10 launch pads. Since the protection of rockets on adjacent pads might entail a safety zone of nearly 5 kilometers, a Saturn launch row could extend 48 kilometers up the Atlantic Coast. Purchase of this much land would be a considerable expense, and the price of maintaining operational crews for 10 pads would eventually prove even more costly. Limited space, larger launch vehicles with new blast and acoustic hazards, a steeply stepped-up launch schedule - all combined to set up a study of new launch sites for the Saturn. How and where to launch the big rocket?

Offshore Launch Facilities

As early as 1958, Livingston Wever, a member of the Army Test Office’s Facilities Branch, had proposed the use of a modified Texas Tower^* as an offshore launching platform for big rockets. Concerned about the Saturn’s noise-making potential, Wever renewed his proposals in March 1960. Preliminary calculations, extrapolated from the noise levels measured during Atlas booster tests, indicated the Saturn C-1 would generate acoustical levels as high as 205 decibels at a distance of 305 meters from the launch pad. Peaks of 140 decibels, the threshold of pain, could be expected more than 3,000 meters from the pad. Wever was particularly concerned that the Saturn vehicle might emit a shock wave in the early stages of its trajectory (at heights from 600 to 900 meters) that would cause serious damage in nearby towns. He proposed to solve the acoustical problem by moving the launch platform to a structure 169 kilometers southeast of Cape Canaveral and 56 kilometers north of Grand Bahama Island. Wever noted that “because of the shallow waters and slight tide actions in the proposed area, it would not be unfeasible to construct a rugged, but unadorned, steel platform as large as 500 feet [150 meters] square, not only for immediate static tests of the Saturn, but also for actual launchings of the Saturn and large boosters of the future.” Venting the rocket’s exhaust into ocean water would save the cost of an expensive flame deflector. Wever also anticipated savings on the construction cost of the firing room (blockhouse).⁸

Wever’s proposal met with mixed reactions at the Army Test Office’s Facilities Branch. Although Nelson M. Parry, assistant branch chief, approved Wever’s effort to circumvent blast and acoustical problems, Parry disagreed with the solution. Parry himself had been working on plans to develop artificial islands for several years. In a study completed December 1958, entitled “Land Development for Missile Range Installations,” Parry proposed an artificial island large enough to contain a blockhouse, instrumentation, camera mounts, fuel storage, and launch pad and tower. His process involved pumping sand from the shallow waters just off the Cape. Parry estimated that an artificial island 1.6 kilometers square, with a mean elevation of 1.8 meters above high water, could be constructed for $9 million, This compared favorably with the $11 million cost of one Texas Tower in the early warning defense system. More important, the island would be a fixed platform; the Texas Towers swayed in moderate winds. Parry also objected to Wever’s proposal to remove the launching site from the Cape to the Bahamas. This would introduce problems of telemetry, coordination, tracking, and camera coverage.⁹ Although supporting Parry’s landfill procedures, Facilities Branch Chief Arthur Porcher considered the Banana River a better site for an island than the ocean floor off the Cape. He thought that any attempt to build up islands in the Atlantic would run into construction difficulties.¹⁰

In the Launch Operations Directorate, the job of evaluating offshore launch facilities fell to Georg von Tiesenhausen’s Future Launch Systems Study Office. Tall, thin, and scholarly in appearance, von Tiesenhausen’s looks befitted his “think-tank” role. His interest in offshore launch facilities dated back to World War II. Following the Allied bombing of Peenemunde in August 1944, von Tiesenhausen had recommended construction of floating pads to permit the dispersion of V-2 static firings. His plan had employed two barges, with the missile emplaced on cross bars.¹¹ At the Cape, von Tiesenhausen assigned direct responsibility for studying offshore facilities to Owen Sparks, a former U.S. Army colonel and the team’s unofficial technical writer. Sparks’s first task was to prepare a preliminary survey for Debus.

Sparks’s May 1960 report listed a number of launch problems for the Saturn program. These included the shortage of space at the Cape, safety hazards, and the problem of constructing an adequate flame deflector. The noise factor merited attention but was secondary. He suggested locating an offshore launch complex downrange in the nearest ocean area with a depth of 15 meters of water. He believed such a site would satisfy the requirements of blast absorption without unduly complicating range support. Since marine construction involved a great many problems, the design should be as simple as possible. Sparks recommended the use of a stiff-leg derrick combined with the umbilical tower to reduce gantry requirements, and the employment of a knock-down mobile service structure. Beyond provision for both static firings and launches any offshore facility should, he said, be expansible into a multipad complex.¹²

Sparks followed his first estimate with a preliminary feasibility study in late July 1960. His rationale for an offshore launching site had not changed. An evaluation of a half-dozen facilities favored the Texas Tower. This kind of facility, Sparks noted, could be placed in deep water where blast and sound posed no problems. Among other advantages, the offshore location would provide unlimited room for expansion, and fuel supplies could be kept on barges at a savings, compared to storage facilities on land. Sparks was no longer certain that the exhaust should be vented into the ocean - the resulting waves might damage the pad. Major disadvantages of a Texas Tower included the high cost of marine construction, the logistical problems of waterborne support for the facility, and the difficulty of providing a stable platform for handling vehicle stages and propellants. Sparks suggested further investigation of oceanographic conditions and their effects on launch structures, platform stability, and space vehicle requirements.¹³

Texas Tower vs. Landfill

Under increasing pressure to develop a greater launching capacity, LOD spent early 1961 examining the merits of offshore facilities and landfill proposals. In February the Office of Launch Vehicle Programs at NASA Headquarters asked LOD to step up its planning. Samuel Snyder, assistant director for Launch Operations, feared a pad explosion might shut down both LC-37A and LC-37B, and this in the face of a possible demand for nearly simultaneous C-2 firings on rendezvous missions. With space at the Cape already in short supply, he predicted it might be further limited if the Air Force stepped up its Dyna-Soar (glider-bomber) program. He asked LOD to plan a third fixed complex for FY 1963. Although Debus objected that the Saturn schedule did not at that time warrant an additional launch complex, LOD continued studies to find additional space.¹⁴

Debus then asked Col. Asa Gibbs in the NASA Test Support Office to obtain information on the cost of land reclamation, in either the Atlantic Ocean or the Banana River. Debus said he needed space for three additional dual-pad complexes and wanted to compare the expense of this operation with offshore Texas Tower facilities.¹⁵ Gibbs’s office responded on 9 March with two proposals for land development in the Banana River using hydraulic fill. A “maximum” concept involved filling approximately 2.5 square kilometers of Banana River tideland. The pad and support areas would rest on compacted earth about five meters above mean low water. Two of the proposed launch complexes could be built in this area, with the third pad on existing land north of LC-37. The total cost was $25,200,000. A “minimum” concept provided for two islands in the Banana River, each 610 meters in diameter, with 15-meter-wide causeways to link each island with the Cape, and a cost of $5,830,000.¹⁶ Debus asked Gibbs in early April to secure Atlantic Missile Range approval for the tentative siting of the larger plan.¹⁷

At the same time, the survey of offshore facilities was accelerated. Concerned by a recent report on the blast hazards of the liquid hydrogen engine, Debus established an ad hoc committee under von Tiesenhausen’s direction to select contractors who would conduct the offshore study. Early in February, Debus set the scope of the study. It should include expansion of the Cape northward by reclaiming and pumping up land; semi-offshore sites using Texas Towers or manmade islands; an offshore launch complex at some distance from the Cape; and a floating pad capable of location anywhere on the oceans.¹⁸ Plans to solicit proposals moved ahead in February and March, but the offshore launching sites encountered heavy going. Spark’s study, submitted to Debus on 4 April, failed to satisfy the Director. He thought that transferring present launch methods to a Texas Tower would not suffice.¹⁹

Offshore facilities received a further setback in May with the presentation of Nelson Parry’s land development scheme. Parry’s list of drawbacks, two pages long, reflected the results of his interviews with Launch Operations personnel, Disadvantages included higher construction and maintenance costs, increased problems of communications and logistics, and a morale problem. While Parry’s report did not give specific costs for remote offshore facilities, he was certain that land development would be cheaper than Texas Towers, His cost estimate sheets, prepared by James Deese of the Facilities Design Group, further indicated that building islands on the Atlantic shelf would be much more expensive than reclaiming land in the Banana River. A 2.3-square-kilometer island, 16 kilometers off the Cape, would cost $12.7 million; an island of 15 square kilometers, $59.9 million. He contrasted these figures with price tags of $18.7 million for dredging 7 square kilometers in the Banana River and $16 million for buying 750 square kilometers on Merritt Island.²⁰ Working independently, Rocco Petrone’s Heavy Launch Vehicle Systems Office reached similar conclusions. The construction costs for causeways in the Florida Keys convinced them that the expense of building facilities in the ocean east of the Cape would be prohibitive.²¹

The ad hoc committee finally selected two study contractors on 15 May, but events rendered the C-2 offshore launch study moot. Marshall planners dropped the proposed rocket and started planning for a larger C-3 model. An even more decisive vote was cast by the Air Force-NASA Hazards Analysis Board (Chapter 5-1), which found that “operational hazards for liquid and solid boosters did not dictate going to offshore launch sites."²² Large vehicles could be launched from the coastline if Merritt Island was purchased as a safety zone. On 24 May, Debus told von Braun the contracts would not be let as the studies were no longer required.²³ Perhaps the biggest reason for the verdict against offshore facilities was seldom mentioned. In January 1961, a Texas Tower, part of the U.S. Air Force early warning system, had disappeared in a heavy storm with a loss of 28 lives.²⁴ Despite assurances from engineers that a similar catastrophe could be avoided, LOD leaders did not want the task of convincing Congress and the American public that an offshore facility would be safe against storm hazards.

The Mobile Launch Concept

During the early months of 1961, LOD took under consideration a third launch alternative, one that would eventually place men on the moon - the mobile launch concept.^* The great advantage of a mobile launch concept lay in its promise of faster launch operations. With the fixed launch operation, e.g., SA-1 at LC-34, all rocket systems were mated and went through a thorough checkout at the pad. In the new scheme, LOD proposed to mate the vehicle and conduct these checks in an assembly building some distance from the pad. Only a brief prelaunch checkout at the pad would be needed to verify the rocket systems. Two digital computers, one in the launch control center and one on the transporter, would accelerate the checkout program and detect any change in rocket systems that might occur during the transfer to the pad. The computers were part of an automatic checkout system under development at Huntsville. By combining a mobile concept and automation, LOD leaders expected to reduce time on the pad from two months to no more than ten days.

There were other advantages to a mobile concept. Cape weather had corroded earlier rockets and might affect an exposed Saturn. An assembly building would provide cover for both the launch vehicle and the launch team. Having worked on rockets in the open, LOD leaders knew how difficult it could be for technicians laboring in wind, rain, and lightning at the upper levels of the space vehicle. Finally the mobile concept offered considerable savings in labor costs. Concentrating the work force in one assembly building, rather than on the ten pads projected for 48 launches per year, would reduce personnel requirements substantially.

The idea of assembling a rocket in a location remote from the pad and then moving it to the launch area dated back to World War II. At Peenemunde the German rocket team had transported V-2s in a horizontal attitude to a hangar where they were erected in checkout stalls. Following transfer to a rail-mounted static-firing tower, each V-2 was rolled out in a vertical attitude - sitting on its tail - for an engine calibration test and static firing. The missile received a final checkout in the hangar before being placed horizontally on a Meillerwagen for the ride to the launch site.²⁵ Both the Redstone and Jupiter programs had employed a mobile launch concept with the rockets traveling from assembly building to pad in a horizontal attitude. LOD officials had hoped to use the same principle at LC-34, but time and money dictated otherwise. The Saturn C-1 test series permitted at least four months between launches, which was enough time to assemble and check out each vehicle on the pad.

Space planners outside NASA appreciated the merits of the mobile concept. The Air Force in 1960 had commissioned the Space Technology Laboratory to determine an optimum vehicle system for military use from 1965 to 1975. Entitled “The Phoenix Study Program,” the work was subsequently completed by Aerospace Corporation and the Rand Corporation in June 1961. One of the recommendations of the study was an integration building where assembly and checkout could be completed before the vehicle was moved - sitting on its tail - to the firing area. It was estimated that pad time for the Atlas-Agena could be reduced from 28 days under the current operation to 5 days with a mobile system.²⁶ In similar fashion, two Saturn C-2 launch studies, conducted by the Martin Company and Douglas Aircraft; concluded that Marshall’s high launch rates would require a mobile complex.

The Mobile Concept - Initial Studies

Although LOD officials had appreciated the advantages of a mobile launch system for years, a Russian space achievement provided the impetus for the study that culminated in launch complex 39. Reports in early 1961 indicated a Russian capability of launching rockets from the same complex within a few days’ time. LOD leaders saw a need to reassess American launch methods. Appropriately, considering the thousands of hours of overtime put into the future moonport, the initial plans were laid after duty hours. On the first weekend in February 1961, Debus discussed a new Saturn launch concept with Theodor Poppet and Georg von Tiesenhausen. At the end of the meeting, von Tiesenhausen was given the task of preparing several mobile launch alternatives.²⁷

After von Tiesenhausen’s Future Launch Systems Study Office began work in mid-February 1961, time clocks were ignored. One team member wryly recalls the two weeks compensatory time he enjoyed later in the year as scant repayment for the many hours of overtime devoted to the study. The survey considered moving the rocket from assembly area to pad in either a horizontal or vertical attitude and by barge or rail.²⁸

While the Study Office examined the new proposal’s impact on launch facilities, other LOD officials considered operational aspects. At a 21 March staff meeting, Debus challenged his subordinates to point up the concept’s weakness. There was opposition, mostly on the grounds of cost. After a second day of debate, Debus appointed a formal committee under Albert Zeiler to consider the operational aspects. Any major problem area was to be brought to his attention before 31 March at which time Debus intended to introduce the concept to the Marshall Space Flight Center Board. On 30 March, Rocco Petrone described the new plan to Abraham Hyatt, director of NASA’s Office of Program Planning and Evaluation. The following day Debus made his presentation before the Marshall Board. Von Braun and other MSFC officials reacted favorably and asked for a comparison of vertical versus horizontal transfer costs. Debus promised to provide the results of an in-house survey in four weeks, The Board also considered hiring Connell and Associates to conduct a more detailed investigation. On 10 April, LOD officials briefed Gen. Don R. Ostrander, director of the Office of Launch Vehicle Programs in NASA Headquarters, who exercised general management over Marshall and LOD. Although receptive to the new launch concept, Ostrander strongly opposed any idea of trying to incorporate it into LC-37. Budgetary planning was too far along to permit extensive changes. He cautioned Debus that any launch concept had to be compatible with the launch vehicle. Reliability, rather than high launch rates, should serve as the guiding principle.²⁹

The Future Launch Systems Office was ready by mid-April to submit its findings to Debus. Included among numerous charts and drawings prepared for the briefing was an analysis of the new proposals (table 4), from which von Tiesenhausen’s group concluded that a mobile concept based on a horizontal barge transfer was most economical.³⁰ The projected cost advantages of the mobile proposals were good news, especially at a rate of 48 launches a year. Other questions remained unanswered. The offshore studies might still affect the choice of a launch concept. There was some question about the delivery dates for automated checkout equipment. The latest word from Haeussermann’s Guidance and Control Division placed complete automation three to four years away.

Despite these uncertainties, Debus was anxious to secure approval from NASA’s top management for further studies. A meeting with Robert Seamans, NASA Associate Administrator, was set on 25 April 1961 for this purpose. Debus met with von Braun one week earlier to review Marshall’s position on launch facilities. The two men agreed that work on LC-37 should continue as planned, January 1964 was set as a tentative date for establishing the LC-39 criteria, allowing LOD nearly three years to investigate the mobile concept. The Seamans briefing went well, and feasibility studies for the new concept were authorized. The Associate Administrator told Debus to base the planning for LC-39 on technical considerations; cost was not to be the overriding factor.³¹

Martin and Douglas Aircraft Companies, at work on the C-2 operational modes study since November 1960, were logical choices to conduct a feasibility study of the mobile launch concept. Both Martin and Douglas engineers believed the present facilities would be satisfactory for a rate of 12 Saturns per year. For higher launch rates, a mobile concept was recommended “because of more efficient utilization of personnel and equipment, and reduced land requirements by virtue of its centralized assembly and checkout procedures."³² Douglas recommended transporting the mated booster stages from an assembly building in an upright position and adding the payload at the pad. Martin employed a rail-mounted vertical transporter or A-frame and called for mating the spacecraft in the assembly area with only propellant loading and countdown left for the pad. Both companies agreed that a mobile concept would provide more flexibility “because a greater latitude of launch rates is realized for any given expenditure.” However, a Martin group working on Titan at the Cape recommended that LOD continue to assemble the rocket on the pad.³³

Table 4. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED LAUNCH COMPLEXES

Source: O. K. Duren, Interim Report on Future Saturn Launch Facility Study, Future Launch Systems Study Office, MSFC, MIN-LOD-DL-1-61, 10 May 1961.

NASA Plans for a Lunar Landing

The task of extending the Martin and Douglas study contracts to include the mobile concept was complicated by an unanswered question: what rocket would be launched from LC-39? Since the fall of 1960, NASA officials had given much thought to ways of accomplishing a lunar landing. A meeting in early January 1961 revealed the divisions within NASA as to the best means to accomplish this goal. The Space Task Group, responsible for Project Mercury, and the Headquarters Office of Launch Vehicle Programs favored using the Nova rocket for a direct flight from earth to the moon.^* Marshall Space Flight Center advocated the use of several smaller Saturn launch vehicles to rendezvous in earth orbit, refueling one vehicle for the flight to the moon. A group at Langley Research Center supported a third mode - a lunar-orbital rendezvous. This involved placing a spacecraft into lunar orbit where it would detach a portion of the ship for the short trip to and from the moon. During the month of January 1961, a committee headed by George Low, Program Chief for Manned Space Flight, examined the manned lunar landing program. The committee concluded in its 7 February report that both direct ascent and earth-orbital-rendezvous methods were feasible. Using the Saturn C-2, the latter could be achieved at an earlier date (1968-69), but posed a high launch rate in a short period of time (six or seven C-2s for a 3,630-kilogram spacecraft) and a mastery of rendezvous techniques. The direct ascent mode would take two years longer, depending on the development of the Nova rocket.³⁴

Doubts about the adaptability of the Saturn C-2 to lunar landing missions appeared in March. Testifying before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, Abraham Hyatt said that the Saturn C-1 would be used for an earth-orbiting laboratory and the C-2 for orbiting the moon. For missions beyond this such as a lunar landing, “payload capabilities greater than that of the Saturn C-2 appear to be necessary."³⁵ NASA officials had in mind a Saturn C-3 employing the new F-1 engine. Under development by Rocketdyne Corporation since January 1959, the F-1 burned the same fuel as the H-1 engine in the Saturn C-1’s first stage. The F-1, however, dwarfed the H-1 in size and thrust: two F-1s in the proposed Saturn C-3 would produce 13,344,000 newtons (3,000,000 pounds of thrust), nearly double the lift of the Saturn C-2’s proposed first stage.³⁶

NASA’s revised budget request of 25 March sought and obtained additional funds for the Saturn C-2 launch vehicle and the F-1 engine. Plans to accelerate C-2 development were announced 31 March, but the program was shortlived. Marshall engineers concluded in May that a Saturn vehicle more powerful than the C-2 was needed for circumlunar missions. Von Braun announced the demise of the C-2 the following month, at the same time stating that NASA’s effort would be directed toward a clarification of Saturn C-3 and Nova concepts.³⁷

May 1961 found LOD personnel grappling with a changing launch vehicle, the dangers of blast and sound from the large vehicles, and the demand for new launch facilities. The Director’s daily journal reflected the frequent changes in the organization’s planning:

The Fleming Committee

In Washington, President Kennedy’s announcement on 25 May spurred NASA’s examination of the requirements for a lunar landing. An ad hoc committee chaired by William Fleming (Office of Space Flight Programs, NASA Headquarters) was conducting a six weeks’ study of the requirements for a lunar landing. The Fleming Committee, judging the direct ascent approach most feasible, concentrated their attention accordingly. They devised a launch schedule employing Saturn C-1s for manned orbital flights in late 1964, a Saturn C-3 for circumlunar flights in late 1965, and a Nova, powered by 8 F-1 engines, for lunar landing flights in 1967, Seamans was unwilling to adopt the Fleming recommendations without a quick look at the rendezvous thesis. In early June, Bruce Lundin, deputy director of the Lewis Research Center, led a week-long study of six different rendezvous possibilities. The alternatives included earth-orbital rendezvous, lunar-orbital rendezvous, earth and lunar rendezvous, and rendezvous on the lunar surface, employing Saturn C-1s, C-3s, and Novas. His committee concluded that rendezvous enjoyed distinct advantages over direct ascent and recommended an earth-orbital rendezvous using two or three Saturn C-3s. NASA officials were sufficiently impressed to postpone a decision pending further studies.³⁹

The Fleming Report’s flight schedule caused some anxiety at the Cape. During his 5 June visit, General Ostrander suggested that the committee’s recommendations might force a reevaluation of the new mobile launch proposals. In fact, the report indicated that the Saturn C-3 launch rate would not exceed 13 per year. This was a far cry from the Future Projects Office’s revised projection of 30 to 40 annual Saturn C-3 launches. Debus called von Braun to point out the significance of the Fleming schedule. LOD’s estimates of the economic crossover point between fixed and mobile launch facilities placed the figure around 15 launches per year. If NASA Headquarters adopted the Fleming recommendations, conventional launch facilities would probably be more appropriate. After checking into the matter, Marshall officials informed Debus that the 13 annual launches represented only a part of the future Saturn C-3 launch rate. Earth-orbital flights and interplanetary missions would keep the rate well above the economic break-even point for a mobile launch facility.⁴⁰

Another troublesome matter stemming from the report had to do with NASA’s possible use of solid-fueled rockets. The Fleming Committee’s proposed launch vehicles included solid-liquid versions. In the C-3 configuration three solid-propellant motors would take the place of the two F-1 engines in the first stage. NASA Headquarters officials wanted the C-3 and Nova launch study contractors to design a facility that could service solid as well as liquid rockets. Debus objected, insisting that a “dual use" facility would penalize the liquid program. Solid motors, because of their greater weight and blast, would require expensive modifications to either conventional facilities or the new mobile concept. Furthermore, Debus was anxious to get the C-3 launch facilities study started and detailed criteria for solid rockets were not yet available. The difference of opinion took several weeks to resolve, but LOD’s position prevailed. When LOD received data for the solid motors, additional studies might be done. In late June, Martin started work on the C-3 (liquid version) launch facilities study.⁴¹

Debus-Davis Study

The Fleming Committee’s final report, 16 June 1961, listed construction of the launch complex as a “crucial item" and recommended that a “contractor immediately be brought aboard to begin design."⁴² One week later Robert Seamans initiated a joint NASA-Air Force study of “launch requirements, methods, and procedures" for the Fleming Committee’s flight program. LOD would concentrate on establishing mission facility criteria; Maj. Gen. Leighton I. Davis’s Air Force Missile Test Center would determine support facility criteria.⁴³ In a second letter Seamans stated the study’s objectives more precisely. The LOD-AFMTC team was to examine launch site locations, land acquisition requirements, spacecraft and launch vehicle preparation facilities, launch facilities, and launch support facilities.⁴⁴ The ensuing four-week study produced the Joint Report on Facilities and Resources Required at Launch Site to Support NASA Manned Lunar Landing Program (the Debus-Davis Report). Because of its major recommendation that Merritt Island be the launch site for the Apollo program, the report will be discussed at some length in the next chapter. But the study advanced LOD thinking in regard to the mobile launch concept and must therefore be taken up at this point.

Two of the ground rules governing the Fleming Committee complicated LOD’s work on the subsequent Debus-Davis study. One was that intermediate major space missions, such as manned circumlunar flights, were desirable at the earliest possible date to aid in the development of the manned lunar landing program. This envisioned a flight program using two radically different launch vehicles, the C-3 and the Nova, and consequently two distinct launch procedures. The second involved NASA’s intention to develop liquid- and solid-propellant rockets on parallel lines. LOD planners would have to calculate costs and requirements for a liquid Saturn C-3, a solid-liquid C-3, a liquid Nova, and a solid-liquid Nova (table 5). The study was further complicated by NASA’s decision to examine eight possible launch sites [see Chapter 5-4]. The launch team faced the plight of a dressmaker, called on to outfit a beauty queen a month before she is selected from 50 contestants.⁴⁵

The men who developed the Apollo launch facilities recall this study as one of the more hectic periods in the program’s history. Some planning sessions extended into the early hours of the morning. One participant recalls arriving at his Cocoa Beach motel on a Saturday evening with the Miss Universe contest on TV. To his wife’s amazement, his interest in feminine pulchritude gave way to fatigue and he was asleep before the final selection. Work on the study continued right up to the 31 July deadline, and the report was collated on the flight to Washington. Despite some embarrassing errors on the charts prepared for the NASA-Defense Department briefing, the 460-page survey was a real achievement.⁴⁶

A spirit of competition with the Air Force Missile Test Center spurred on the LOD effort. Air Force personnel caused some friction by offering unsolicited assistance in LOD areas. One such incident involved an Air Force recommendation to build a liquid-hydrogen plant at Cape Canaveral. There was uncertainty at this time as to how long liquid hydrogen could be stored at 20 kelvins (-253 degrees C) and therefore a question as to how much production capacity was needed. LOD officials considered the Air Force proposal technically infeasible; the proposed plant’s electrical power needs would far exceed what the central Florida area could reasonably provide. Instead LOD wanted to purchase liquid hydrogen commercially, and the final report clearly stated that view. Working relations during the study were generally good, but some LOD officials believed that their Air Force counterparts wanted to assume a larger role in the manned lunar landing program.⁴⁷

Debus appointed Rocco Petrone, Heavy Vehicle Systems Office, to represent LOD on the study’s Executive Planning Committee. As a young ordnance officer, Petrone had helped the Director launch the first Redstone in 1953. Impressed by his work, Debus welcomed Petrone’s reassignment to the launch team in July 1960. The joint study began Petrone’s rise to prominence in the Apollo program. In various positions during the next nine years he would direct the Saturn program, first the facilities planning and construction, later the launch operations. He would acquire influence at the launch center second only to Debus. Tenacity, intellectual honesty, aggressiveness, and ambition were the basic ingredients in Petrone’s advancement. A native of Amsterdam, New York, Petrone had been a tackle on the Blanchard-Davis teams at West Point. A determined pursuit of knowledge characterized his tour with the Missile Firing Laboratory in the 1950s. Associates recall that he devoured every piece of Redstone literature. His knowledge of launch operations made him a logical choice for Saturn program management. Petrone could get along well with people and even be charming. He demanded honesty, however, and did not hesitate to brand poor work for what it was. Consequently, some controversy accompanied his success. Described by intimates as basically shy and sensitive, Petrone displayed an aggressive exterior. His drive made workdays of 12-14 hours typical. Perhaps most important, Petrone’s high ambition matched the Apollo program’s lofty goals.⁴⁸

TABLE 5. DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS OF PROPOSED LAUNCH VEHICLES

(Vehicle characteristics varied during rocket development; figures represent an approximate average,)

Debus-Davis Report - Launch Concept

Although the mobile launch concept would not reach fruition for another year, by July 1961 its four major features were clear:

• Vertical assembly and basic checkout of the space vehicle on a mobile launcher-umbilical tower, located within an industrial and environmentally controlled building;
• Transfer of the assembled space vehicle and mobile launcher to the pad for final checkout, fueling, and launching;
• Control of operations from a remote launch control center; and
• Automation of vehicle checkout and launch.

The Debus-Davis Report represented considerable progress since the Study Office’s May report. All aspects of the Saturn concept were described in greater detail, particularly the automated checkout. The flexibility that would characterize LC-39 was evident. The basic concept assumed a launch rate of 26 Saturns per year, but LOD plans allowed for additional pads and assembly bays to accommodate higher launch rates and special missions involving the launch of several vehicles in a brief period. Expediency dictated that rail be the only form of transfer considered. There was not enough time to prepare good cost estimates for canal and road. Further, LOD officials were confident from their LC-34 experience that a rail system would work.⁴⁹

One of the initial mobile concepts, the horizontal transfer, had been eliminated by mid-1961 and was not mentioned in the Debus-Davis study. In its May report the Study Office had noted “certain operational limits of the horizontal transfer which might prohibit good reliability.”⁵⁰ The statement reflected Albert Zeiler’s concern that inspectors would damage wires and tubing during checkout of a horizontal vehicle. (During a vertical checkout workers would stand on platforms extending around the rocket. With the vehicle in a horizontal position, it would be difficult to keep workers from damaging the rocket’s thin skin.) Maintenance of umbilical connections during a horizontal transfer was another problem. Fear of the stresses generated in lifting a large launch vehicle from a horizontal to a vertical position was the third and decisive consideration leading to the concept’s demise. Huntsville engineers were aware of the strain placed on the 21-meter Redstone’s joints and outer skin during this operation. The stress on the 70-meter Saturn might well be excessive.⁵¹

The Saturn C-3 (liquid) launch complex plan comprised a vertical assembly building (VAB), a launcher-transporter, an arming area, and launch pad. The VAB would consist of assembly bay areas for each of the stages, with a high bay unit approximately 110 meters in height for final assembly and checkout of the vehicle. Buildings adjacent to the VAB would house the Apollo spacecraft and the launch control center. The launcher-transporter would incorporate three major facilities: a pedestal for the space vehicle, an umbilical tower to service the upper reaches of the space vehicle, and a rail transporter. An arming tower would stand about midway between the assembly building and the pads. The Apollo Saturn would carry a number of hazardous explosives: the launch escape system (the tower on top of the vehicle that lifted the spacecraft away from the launch vehicle in case of an emergency), retrorockets to separate the stages, ullage rockets to force fuel to the bottom of tanks, and the launch vehicle’s destruct system. Launch officials wanted to install these solid-propellant items in an area apart from the rest of the operation.⁵²

By July 1961 LOD engineers had fixed the requirements for the mobile launch concept’s electrical checkout. These were fourfold: first, the electrical ground support equipment was to be designed so that checkouts could be conducted simultaneously on vehicles in the VAB and on the pad; second, the electrical systems of the vehicle and launcher-transporter would remain intact after checkout in the VAB; third, the launch control center would be able to launch rockets at a distant pad and check vehicles in the nearby VAB; and fourth, there would be a minimum of connecting cables between the launch pads and the control center because of the distances involved. The plan required the use of two digital computers, one located on the launcher-transporter and the other in the launch control center. The former would be used for checkout of the launch vehicle both at the VAB and on the pad. The performance of the computer on the launcher-transporter would be remotely controlled by the computer in the launch control center. Two firing rooms were necessary - one for control of checkout procedures in the VAB and the other for launch pad operations.⁵³

The significance of the initial mobile launch studies lay more in the timing than in the content. LOD officials would not agree on a final concept for another year. By mid-1961, however, they were confident that some form of vertical transfer would work. Debus’s initiative in February 1961 provided LOD time to examine the concept and make some reasonable judgments. When the Kennedy administration announced the lunar landing program in May 1961, LOD officials had a suitable launch concept in mind. Without the three months gained by the February decision, it is doubtful that LOD would have ventured on a new launch concept. The Apollo facilities might well have resembled a larger LC-37.⁵⁴