Mr. NICKS. A preshipment system test was performed and the spacecraft was prepared for shipment to AMR on October 21, 1963. On that date, the schedule was delayed and spacecraft operations were suspended because of the discovery of contamination in diodes used in several spacecraft subsystems. While no failures had occurred in

Ranger VI subsystems because of contaminated diodes, a potential failure possibility had been reported by other agencies and confirmed by JPL analysts. Consequently the launch date for Ranger VI was rescheduled from early December 1963, to late January 1964 to permit the replacement of the suspect diodes.

Following delivery of the reworked equipment, a system test was performed and the spacecraft was subject to a real-time mission test in the space simulator. The latter test was used as the preshipment verification test, after which the spacecraft and associated system test complex equipment were shipped to AMR on December 19, 1963. Shipment was accomplished in instrumented and escorted air-ride motorvans to insure the safe transport of the equipment.

After arrival of the spacecraft and system test complex equipment at AMR, the television subsystem was installed on the spacecraft and an initial system test and backup functions system test were performed to insure proper spacecraft performance. The spacecraft was then transported to the explosive safe area (ESA), where the vehicle adapter and flight shroud were installed. Following an electrical check of the spacecraft, it was moved to launch complex 12, where the spacecraft was installed on the Atlas-Agena launch vehicle. A precountdown dummy run and a countdown dummy run were then conducted to establish compatibility between the spacecraft in a launch configuration and the launch checkout equipment in the blockhouse. A joint flight acceptance composite test (J-FACT) was then performed. This test involved the launch vehicle, the spacecraft, and the associated AMR installations in a simulated post liftoff sequence following removal of umbilical plugs from the launch vehicle. Prior to the dummy run and the J-FACT, a joint radiofrequency interference (RFI) test was performed; because of nonstandard results, this test was satisfactorily repeated after the J-FACT was completed. The spacecraft was then removed from the launch pad and transported to the spacecraft checkout facility for final flight preparations. The final system test was performed on January 18 and the spacecraft was taken to the ESA on January 20 where, following installation of the fueled midcourse motor, the television subsystem was mounted on the spacecraft for flight. The final electrical connections were then made and verified. The flight adapter and shroud were installed and an electrical checkout of the spacecraft was performed, including operation of lights in the shroud so as to verify proper functioning of the television cameras. This operation was performed in a reduced power mode because of the live pyrotechnics installed in the spacecraft. The spacecraft was then transported to the launch pad and reinstalled on the launch vehicle. Figure 26, page 92, shows the spacecraft completely enclosed and protected by the shroud and adapter combination being hoisted up the gantry. During the precountdown test, the television subsystem was again checked in the reduced power mode, utilizing the shroud lights to verify proper camera performance. Two days before launch, a simulated launch countdown was conducted, a test similar to the launch countdown and involving the spacecraft, the launch vehicle, and range installations. All operations were performed as in the actual countdown, except for installation of launch vehicle pyrotechnics and fueling of the second stage.

I think you should look at the chart on the next page before we go on. This shows the configuration in which the spacecraft is delivered to the launch vehicle. You will note that it is completely enclosed. This is a one-piece shroud that comes off over the top, and the power checks are made inside that shroud.

Figure 27, page 93, summarizes how the hours of spacecraft operations were distributed between the various types of tests. It also shows how the problem/failures were distributed between the various phases of the operations.

This is the foldout chart which shows the date at the top. The flight equipment is named, and the spacecraft operations are indicated, and the hours along with the spacecraft problems and failures at the bottom. It is a fairly detailed chart, but we submitted it so that you might study it, if you wish.

If there are no questions, I could go on.

Mr. KARTH. Mr. Nicks, I wonder if you could, for the benefit of the subcommittee, unless there are objections, summarize your flight results summary of Ranger I through VI, and we will put in the record the total statement that you have before us.

Mr. NICKS. All right, sir.

Mr. KARTH. And then proceed on at this time to the Kelley Board recommendations and resultant actions, so that if any one of the subcommittee members do want to refer to the Ranger flight results summary, they may do so. I think this would expedite the proceedings at this point, if there is no objection. If not, could you do that? (The complete flight results summary is as follows:)

FLIGHT RESULTS SUMMARY

A lunar mission depends on the perfect functioning of many components in a very extensive chain of equipment, if it is to be successful. In each of the first five Ranger flights, some element failed, which affected mission success. It is instructive to examine some of these malfunctions because they are vivid examples of the difference between analyzing a mission on paper and actually executing it. (Fig. 28.)