Answer. The abort mode used on Apollo 13 included a descent engine burn to return to the free return trajectory with an Indian Ocean landing. This burn was accomplished soon after the anomaly. A second abort burn was performed with the descent engine 2 hours after perilune to speed the return and land in the prime recovery area of the Pacific Ocean. Both of these maneuvers were standard abort procedures which had been developed prior to the mission and documented in the Operational Abort Plan. Detailed subsystems portions of numerous contingency procedures used involving the LM and CSM had been exercised premission. But the actual Apollo 13 mission situation required additional studies to consider the required system configurations encountered for powering the CSM from the LM, use of the CM CO2 removal system for the LM and other various configurations used during the return flight. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES OUTLINED Question 3. Dr. Petrone, it is reported that all of the more difficult tasks the astronauts were called upon to carry out in or with the spacecraft were first tested in simulators on the ground before giving them to the Apollo 13 crew. Is that correct and could you describe this process for the committee? Answer. The more difficult tasks performed by the astronauts were those which required changes to previously planned and tested contingency procedures. While extensive contingency planning had preceded the mission, modifications were necessary to accommodate the precise flight conditions encountered in the emergency. From this standpoint, availability of the preplanned contingency actions to be used as a baseline for further refinement was of incalculable value. During the emergency, procedures and timelines were checked by over a dozen astronauts in simulators in Houston and at the Kennedy Space Center and by contractor personnel in simulators at Grumman and North American Rockwell to prove their adequacy and effectiveness. Procedures were modified where necessary and rerun. Maneuver checks included trying various configurations of control, including automatic and manual, to evaluate the adequacy of these handling techniques considering the anomalous configurations. Extensive use was made of numerous computer facilities in connection with the simulators and elsewhere. These computers proved invaluable in permitting detailed analyses of the various systems configurations and effects thereof. Then the refined, agreed-upon checklists and instructions were voiced up to the crew and verified by the control center spacecraft communicator (CAPCOM), who is an astronaut himself. Also, the astronauts who had performed the simulations stood by in the control center while the instructions were passed up to the crew and while maneuvers were being performed to lend any additional assistance and answer any questions the crew might have. Additionally, each cognizant flight controller monitored all instructions and the ensuing actions to insure they were being performed within the constraints of this system. Any required real time alterations were recommended by the flight control team when appropriate. Question 4. Dr. Petrone, how many people were directly involved in working on the emergencies employed on the Apollo 13 flight? Answer. Early estimates of people involved ranged quite high because we received many offers of assistance and we could not be sure how great our personnel requirements might be. However, as the situation became stabilized and as we reduced the alternatives available, such as recovery areas, estimates of the number of people required were significantly reduced. Currently we believe that some 5,000 people were directly participating from NASA, DOD and our contractors. Question 5. Dr. Petrone, after the problem occurred during the Apollo 13 mission 200,000 miles from earth, did the Apollo system-that is, the people, the spacecraft, the ground support equipment and the procedures-operate as expected? Answer. Yes, the response of the Apollo 13 crew, the NASA organization, the contractors and the flight and ground equipment was truly outstanding and was one of the rewarding features of this mission. The dedicated efforts of a highly trained Government-industry team, the flexibility which had been incorporated in Apollo equipment and procedures, and the outstanding performance of the remaining spacecraft systems contributed greatly to the safe return of the Apollo 13 flight crew. ANSWERS "LAST MOON MISSION" REMARK The CHAIRMAN. Senator Stennis? Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I want especially to thank you and the Senator from Maine, Senator Smith, for arranging to have this hearing. It gives the American people these facts in an atmosphere that makes it more understandable to them than a more formal presentation would. Most of the questions I have in my mind have already been covered, but Captain Lovell, you were quoted in the press as making this remark I think you have already refuted it, but since you were quoted that way, I would like your direct response to the quote that: I am afraid this is going to be the last moon mission for a long time. Astronaut LOVELL. Senator, that is a very good question. I made that remark as we swung around the moon, as I looked at it, and was looking rather wistfully, and I said for very good reason at the time, we on board the spacecraft did not know exactly what went wrong. I knew one of the basic concepts of our administration is not to fly anything unless we are almost 100 percent sure that it is going to be a success. If nothing else, we bent over backwards on reliability and on redundancy. And at the time, I knew that we were not going to attempt another moon mission or another space flight unless we had hardware that we were assured was going to operate. After returning home, and after knowing the cause of our particular incident and the hard work in which the people had analyzed the telemetry from the spacecraft, I am sure now that we have a good knowledge of what went wrong and based on Dr. Petrone's remarks, I think the correction can be implemented quite quickly. I do not see any real slowdown in our lunar missions. INCREASE IN PRESSURE Senator STENNIS. That is very fine, sir. Dr. Petrone, how far have you gone in analyzing just what caused the excess pressure which resulted in the explosion of the oxygen tank? Dr. PETRONE. Senator Stennis, in going after the cause for the increase in pressure, we are searching for the materials that could give us this increase in energy. As I stated, the electrical energy itself going into that tank under the conditions we had would not have been sufficient. But the electrical energy, possibly as an initiator, as an energy source within a tank-even metals have to be looked at. Aluminum metals have to be looked at very carefully in these conditions. Those are some of the tests that we have very intensively underway now and they are going on daily around the clock. We have not yet identified the energy source which may have given this increase in pressure. NO UNNECESSARY RISK Senator STENNIS. I thank you. This question is one which I think I know the answer to, but is also one which I think the American people would be interested in having Astronauts Lovell and Swigert answer: Do any of your fellow astronauts, as far as you know, feel that the astronauts are being put to unnecessary risks in these ventures? Stated the other way, do you think that everything is being done that could or should be done to carry out these missions at the lowest possible risk to the men involved? Astronaut SWIGERT. I think I can answer that, Senator. I probably had the shortest tour on record as a prime crewmember, in those 2 days. I never felt any reluctance or that I was being put to any unnecessary risk at all. I have always felt complete confidence in NASA, in the organization. I have worked with the ground controllers as a flight crewmember. I know intimately their methods of operation, and I felt complete confidence in them. Right now, if you were to ask me if I would go back and fly the service module, I would answer I certainly would. I have complete confidence that in whatever fix it has come up with, that vehicle will be able fully to do whatever mission it is called on to do. Senator STENNIS. Do you wish to say something on that, Captain. Lovell? Astronaut LOVELL. Senator Stennis, I agree with Jack completely. I think that we all must realize that in exploration, like exploration at any time, whether it was with the airplanes or ships or spacecraft, you are always faced with a certain amount of unknown risk. We are prepared to take that. Senator STENNIS. Well, that is very fine. I want you to convey to Astronaut Haise our great regret that he could not be here. I do not say that solely because he is a Mississippian. I say it partly because I am a Mississippian. We are proud of him, along with the rest of you, and if Astronaut Mattingly is here, I would like to give him a chance, Mr. Chairman, to stand up. He is not here. Well, we owe all of you a great deal. You were all prepared for an extreme emergency. That is the supreme test. As Senator Symington said, we are proud to be Americans along with and you all the others who have contributed to your safe return. Thank you. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BENEFITS The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatfield? Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate Captain Lovell and his crew on the brilliant manner in which they handled this fantastic emergency with the superb help of Goddard and Houston. I would like also to indicate to you that I, for one member of this committee, have frequently questioned the cost of this project, along with all other space expenditures. I have reflected in those questions that I have posed from time to time much of the mail and the tenor of the public with whom I have had contact, who are always exhilarated, excited and proud of space achievements, but also raise, in terms of finance and the matter of taxation, the commitment of this country to our space program. On April 6 of this year, Dr. Paine presented a very outstanding statement to this committee dealing primarily with technology transfer. Because it has been my opinion that too often our space program has been justified purely for the sake of prestige and of competition with the Russians rather than for the benefits that do accrue on all mankind in helping solve some of the problems on this earth. Dr. Paine indicated that we have many transfers of benefits that have come from fields of meteorology, communications, medical research, and education, and many other fields. My question to you, Captain Lovell, is, would you at this time be able to indicate to this committee any unique technology transfer that might have come as a result of this particular flight and under these particular circumstances? Astronaut LOVELL. One area that I think was utilized to the greatest extent possible was the effect of the ability to communicate back and forth between the spacecraft and home base. My only regret is, I wish that my home communication system was as good as the one that we have in our spacecraft. There are many systems which we have utilized in Apollo 13 that were, of course, not used before. And as Dr. Paine had mentioned previously, we have encouraged the use of these materials and technology outside of the space program. I think the one area, if I might digress just one minute, the one area which has not been mentioned which I have found in my travels throughout the United States, is education. Ten years ago, or just before the Russians put up their first Sputnik, people going into science were hard to find. There was just not that stimulus. Now, it is completely reversed. If nothing else, I think that the space program has been a tremendous stimulus to the young people on pursuing an education course. The CHAIRMAN. That is a very good answer. Astronaut SWIGERT. I do not think there is anything that I could add that has not been added by other members of your committee. Senator HATFIELD. Thank you very much. I would like to emphasize again one or two brief thoughts here as to Dr. Paine's presentation. All of us are greatly concerned in the field of medical science, especially about some of the diseases we have not yet conquered. In this testimony, Dr. Paine indicated that there had been some laboratory studies on the radiation effects on the cells of the astronauts themselves that have opened up promising new avenues for possible chemical control of cancer. Now, here in just one action of the program, I think we could certainly justify much of the expenditure and feel very pleased with the opportunity to make such expenditures. We also have in other fields which Dr. Paine mentioned, and I think on this kind of focus of this day, we ought to certainly stress these positive points of the technology transfer-that there has been a microscope developed that can create vision for the viewer and a knife that goes with this microscope which Dr. Paine says can take one strand of hair and cut it into 10,000 lengthwise strips. So this has certainly great implication for all of science, especially medical science. We could go on and on, but I think in all of these occasions where we have an opportunity to direct public attention to the space program, we ought to utilize such occasion to emphasize the benefits that are accruing to all of us as a result of space exploration, and especially you, who move out of space to help bring this new science and this new technology to all of us. The CHAIRMAN. Senator HOLLAND? REACTION TO ADVERSITY PROMPTS CONFIDENCE Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, we are tremendously proud, not only of you three gentlemen, two of whom are here, but of the entire group space scientists. We are happy to find that you have a team that was able to react to adversity just as you have to success, and to bring a certain degree, a very large degree, of success out of what might have been much greater adversity. I think that all of us in this country are far from considering this project as a failure in the sense that nothing was accomplished. The original objective, of course, was not accomplished, but the showing of tremendous resourcefulness and the ability to meet an unknown situation or unknown problems is something that I think will create even greater confidence in your team, Dr. Paine, and in the whole effort. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND I have certain questions here, but before I ask them, may I suggest that the several comments that have been made about the necessity for young people to continue and to complete their education-and I especially like what you said about that, Captain Lovell-might be embelished a little for this record, because I think it is going to be a best seller, by the way. It would be well to have the record show at this point the complete educational background of each of the three astronauts that participated, Dr. Paine, as well as the backgrounds of Dr. Petrone and Mr. Lunney, as well as, of course, the background of Dr. Paine, the administrator of the whole program. The CHAIRMAN. That is a very good idea. (The educational backgrounds referred to above are as follows:) THOMAS O. PAINE, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMIN ISTRATION (Appointed Mar. 5, 1969. Sworn in Apr. 3, 1969) Dr. Thomas O. Paine was born in Berkeley, Calif., November 9, 1921, son of Commodore and Mrs. George T. Paine, USN (Ret.). He attended public schools in various cities and was graduated from Brown University in 1942 with an A.B. degree in engineering. In World War II he served as a sumbarine officer in the Pacific and the Japanese occupation. He qualified in submarines and as a Navy deep-sea diver and was awarded the commendation medal and submarine combat insignia with stars. In 1946-49 Dr. Paine attended Stanford University, receiving an M.S. degree in 1947 and Ph. D. in 1949 in Physical Metallurgy. In 1946 he married Barbara Helen Taunton Pearse of Perth, Western Australia. They have four children: Marguerite Ada, George Thomas, Judith Janet and Frank Taunton. Dr. Paine worked as a research associate at Stanford University from 1947 to 1949, where he made basic studies of high-termperature alloys and liquid metals in support of naval nuclear reactor programs. He joined the General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, New York, in 1949 as research associate, where he initiated research programs on magnetic and composite materials. This work led to the first demonstration of the shape anisotrophy effect in singledomain magnetic particles, and to the basic patents on "Lodex" permanent magnets. In 1951 he transferred to the Meter and Instrument Department, Lynn, Mass., as manager of materials development, and later as laboratory manager. Major projects ranged from development of photocells and non-arctracking organic insulation to solid-state nuclear reactor control systems and |