Saturn I Block I Credit - © Thom Media Gallery

'Cluster's last stand' - 8 Redstone tanks around Jupiter tank core, eight Jupiter engines. Intended as launch vehicle for Apollo CM circumlunar flights. Developed so early, no payloads were available for it.

The political maneuvering that resulted in the Saturn I configuration is described by ABMA commander Medaris in his autobiography:

We had gone through the whole process of selecting upper stages and had made our recommendations to ARPA. We had indicated very clearly that we were willing to accept either the Atlas or Titan as the basis for building the second stage. The real difference was that in one case we would be using the Atlas engines and associated equipment, built by North American, while in the other case, we would be using the Titan power plant built by Aerojet. Largely because of the multitude of different projects that had been saddled on the Atlas, we favor the Titan. Convair builds the Atlas, and we had great confidence in Convair's engineering, but this was over shadowed in our mind by the practical difficulties of getting enough Atlas hardware. However, we assured ARPA that we would take either one.

The time scale was important. In order to get an operational vehicle in the air as soon as possible, and be able to match and possibly exceed Russia's capabilities, we recommended that the first flying vehicle to be made up of Saturn as the first stage and a second stage built with a Titan power plant. We also recommended using the tooling available at Martin for the airframe. We felt that by the time we got through the second-stage tests, the powerful new Centaur oxygen-hydrogen engine would be in good enough shape to become the third stage. We then calculated that a, year afterwards, or perhaps a little later, could begin to come up with a second-generation satellite vehicle that would cluster the Centaur engine for second stage.

Our people made extensive presentations to ARPA and NASA during the late spring of 1959, always taking the position that we could work with either combination that was agreed to by both. We were anxious to have them agree, because it seemed obvious to us that the nation could not afford more than one very large booster project. We believed that the resulting vehicle would be enormously useful both to the Defense Department for advanced defense requirements, and NASA for its scientific and civilian exploration of space.

We finally got a decision. - - We were told that we could begin designing the complete vehicle along the lines that we had recommended, namely, with the Titan as the basis for the second stage. So far there was no sign of trouble. Remembering the difficulties that we had had in connection with our requirements for North American engines for Jupiter, with the North American people largely under control of the Air Force, we knew that if we were to get on with the job properly we had to make our contract direct with Martin for the second stage work, and with the Convair/Pratt & Whitney group for the adaptation of Centaur to the third stage. We asked the Air Force for clearance to negotiate these matters with the companies concerned The Air Force (BMD) refused, and insisted that we let them handle all areas with the contractor. They used the old argument that they as a group could handle the responsibility much better, and that if they didn't handle it, there were bound to be priority problems connected with the military programs for Titan and others. We knew that the Air Force had no technical capacity of their own to put into this project, and that if we gave them the whole job, they would be forced to use the Ramo-Wooldridge organization, now known as the Space Technology Laboratories, as their contract agent to exercise technical supervision and co-ordination. While we knew and respected a few good men in STL, we felt we had ample cause to lack confidence in the organisation as such. As a matter of fact, when the House Committee on Government Operations looked askance at STL with respect to their position as a profit-making organization, some of the best men had left the organization. We threw this one out on the table and said that we would not, under any circumstances, tolerate the interference of STL in this project. We knew that we had all the technical capability that was needed to supervise the overall system, and could not stand the delays and arguments that would most assuredly result were that organization to be thrown in also. Both sides presented their arguments to ARPA...Mr. Roy Johnson ruled that we could go ahead and contract directly Martin and others as required. It is understandable that the Air Force took this decision with poor grace. It represented a major setback to the system of absolute control over their own contractors, no matter for whom those contractors happened to be doing work. It also left them pretty much on the side- lines with respect to major participation in or control over any portion of the Saturn as a space vehicle.

With the amount of money still available to us from fiscal year 1960 and with our authorization from ARPA, we proceeded immediately to negotiate engineering contracts with Martin. We thought that since Mr. Johnson had complete control over this program, we had gotten over the last important hurdle and could get on about our business. Little did we realize the hornet’s nest that had been stirred up, and less did we realize that winning that battle was finally to mean that we would lose the war, and would lose von Braun’s entire organization.

We had only a few weeks of peace and quiet. From events that occurred later, I think I can make a fair estimate of what happened during this short period. Having been overruled by Johnson, the Air Force took a new approach. They decided that in view of the importance and power that was given the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering by the 1958 changes in the defense organization, Dr. York represented their best avenue of approach through which to get back in the war.

For reasons of economy we had recommended, and it had been approved, that in building the second stage, we would use the same diameter as the Titan first stage -- 120 inches. The major costs of tooling for the fabrication of missile tanks and main structure is related to the diameter. Changes in length cost little or nothing in tooling. How the tanks are divided internally, or the structure reinforced inside, or the kind of structural detail that is used at the end in order to attach the structure to a big booster below, or to a different size stage above, have very little effect on tooling problems. However, a change in diameter sets up a major question of tools, costs, and time.

Suddenly, out of the blue came a directive to suspend work on the second stage, and a request for a whole new series of cost and time estimates, including consideration of increasing the second stage diameter to 160 inches. It appeared that Dr. York had entered the scene, and had pointed up the future requirements of Dynasoar as being incompatible with the 120-inch diameter. He had posed the question of whether it was possible for the Saturn to be so designed as to permit it to be the booster for that Air Force project.

We were shocked and stunned. This was no new problem, and we could find no reason why it should not have been considered, if necessary, during the time that the Department of Defense and NASA were debating the whole question of what kind of upper stages we should use. Nevertheless, we very speedily went about the job of estimating the project on the basis of accepting the 160-inch diameter. At the same time it was requested that we submit quotations for a complete operational program to boost the Dynasoar for a given number of flights. As usual, we were given two or three numbers, rather than one fixed quantity, and asked to estimate on each of them.

By this time, my nose was beginning to sniff a strange odor of "fish." I put my bird dogs to work to try to find out what was going on and with whom we had to compete. We discovered that the Air Force had proposed a wholly different and entirely new vehicle as the booster for Dynasoar, using a cluster of Titan engines and upgrading their performance to get the necessary first-stage thrust for take-off. This creature was variously christened the Super Titan, or the Titan C. No work had been done on this vehicle other than a hasty engineering outline. Yet the claim was made that the vehicle in a two-stage or three-stage configuration could be flown more quickly than the Saturn, on which we had already been working hard for many months. Dates and estimates were attached to that proposal which at best ignored many factors of costs, and at worst were strictly propaganda.

Manufacturer: Von Braun. Launches: 10. Success Rate: 100.00%. First Launch Date: 1961-10-27. Last Launch Date: 1965-07-30. Launch data is: complete. LEO Payload: 9,000 kg (19,800 lb). to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.00 degrees. Payload: 2,200 kg (4,800 lb). to a: Translunar trajectory. Associated Spacecraft: Apollo CSM, Highwater, Jupiter nose cone, Pegasus, Apollo A, Horizon Station, Ideal Home Station, Horizon LERV. Liftoff Thrust: 6,690.000 kN (1,503,970 lbf). Total Mass: 509,660 kg (1,123,600 lb). Core Diameter: 6.52 m (21.39 ft). Total Length: 55.00 m (180.00 ft). Development Cost $: 838.100 million. in: 1963 average dollars. Launch Price $: 76.000 million. in: 1967 price dollars.

Original flight version with dummy upper stages, including dummy Saturn S-V/Centaur (never flown).

LEO Payload: 9,000 kg (19,800 lb). Apogee: 200 km (120 mi). Liftoff Thrust: 5,768.000 kN (1,296,697 lbf). Total Mass: 420,000 kg (920,000 lb). Core Diameter: 6.60 m (21.60 ft). Total Length: 49.60 m (162.70 ft).

Two-stage initial test version.

LEO Payload: 9,000 kg (19,800 lb). to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.00 degrees. Payload: 2,200 kg (4,800 lb). to a: Translunar trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 6,690.000 kN (1,503,970 lbf). Total Mass: 509,660 kg (1,123,600 lb). Core Diameter: 6.52 m (21.39 ft). Total Length: 55.00 m (180.00 ft).

Second Block of Saturn I, with substantially redesigned first stage and large fins to accomodate Dynasoar payload.

Apogee: 200 km (120 mi). Liftoff Thrust: 5,768.000 kN (1,296,697 lbf). Total Mass: 508,000 kg (1,119,000 lb). Core Diameter: 6.53 m (21.42 ft). Total Length: 58.00 m (190.00 ft).

• Stage Number: 1. 1 x Stage: Saturn I. Gross Mass: 432,681 kg (953,898 lb). Empty Mass: 45,267 kg (99,796 lb). Thrust (vac): 7,582.100 kN (1,704,524 lbf). Isp: 289 sec. Burn time: 150 sec. Isp(sl): 255 sec. Diameter: 6.52 m (21.39 ft). Span: 6.52 m (21.39 ft). Length: 24.48 m (80.31 ft). Propellants: Lox/Kerosene. No Engines: 8. Engine: H-1.

• Stage Number: 2. 1 x Stage: Saturn IV. Gross Mass: 50,576 kg (111,500 lb). Empty Mass: 5,217 kg (11,501 lb). Thrust (vac): 400.346 kN (90,001 lbf). Isp: 410 sec. Burn time: 482 sec. Diameter: 5.49 m (18.01 ft). Span: 5.49 m (18.01 ft). Length: 12.19 m (39.99 ft). Propellants: Lox/LH2. No Engines: 6. Engine: RL-10.

• Stage Number: 3. 1 x Stage: Centaur C. Gross Mass: 15,600 kg (34,300 lb). Empty Mass: 1,996 kg (4,400 lb). Thrust (vac): 133.448 kN (30,000 lbf). Isp: 425 sec. Burn time: 430 sec. Isp(sl): 0 sec. Diameter: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Span: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Length: 9.14 m (29.98 ft). Propellants: Lox/LH2. No Engines: 2. Engine: RL-10A-1.

1957 April - Launch Vehicle: Saturn I.

• Studies of a large clustered-engine booster Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., began studies of a large clustered-engine booster to generate 1.5 million pounds of thrust, as one of a related group of space vehicles. During 1957-1958, approximately 50,000 man-hours were expended in this effort.References: 16.

• National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program Nation: USA. Program: Horizon. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency completed and forwarded to higher authority the first edition of A National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program, which had been in preparation since April 1957. Included was a "short-cut development program" for large payload capabilities, covering the clustered-engine booster of 1.5 million pounds of thrust to be operational in 1963. The total development cost of $850 million during the years 1958-1963 covered 30 research and development flights, some carrying manned and unmanned space payloads. One of six conclusions given in the document was that "Development of the large (1520 K-pounds thrust) booster is considered the key to space exploration and warfare." Later vehicles with greater thrust were also described.References: 16.

• Saturn I first proposed. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Von Braun produces 'Proposal for a National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Plan'. First mention of 1,500,000 lbf booster (Saturn I) References: 86, 27.

• Saturn I initial contract. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. ARPA gives Von Braun team contract to develop Saturn I (called 'cluster's last stand' due to design concept). References: 86, 27.

• Saturn I project initiated by ARPA. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The Advanced Research Projects Agency ARPA provided the Army Ordnance Missile Command (AOMC) with authority and initial funding to develop the Juno V (later named Saturn launch vehicle. ARPA Order 14 described the project: "Initiate a development program to provide a large space vehicle booster of approximately 1.5 million pounds of thrust based on a cluster of available rocket engines. The immediate goal of this program is to demonstrate a full-scale captive dynamic firing by the end of calendar year 1959." Within AOMC, the Juno V project was assigned to the Army Ballistic Missile Agency at Redstone Arsenal Huntsville, Ala.References: 17, 27.

• Redstone Arsenal begins Saturn I design studies. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Saturn design studies authorized to proceed at Redstone Arsenal for development of 1.5-million-pound-thrust cluster first stage. References: 17, 27.

• Letter contract for the development of the Saturn H-1 rocket engine Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. A letter contract was signed by NASA with NAA's Rocketdyne Division for the development of the H-1 rocket engine, designed for use in a clustered-engine booster. References: 16.

• Juno V project objective changed to multistage carrier vehicle Nation: USA. Program: Horizon. Following a Memorandum of Agreement between Maj. Gen. John B. Medaris of Army Ordnance Missile Command (AOMC) and Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) Director Roy W. Johnson on this date and a meeting on November 4, ARPA and AOMC representatives agreed to extend the Juno V project. The objective of ARPA Order 14 was changed from booster feasibility demonstration to "the development of a reliable high performance booster to serve as the first stage of a multistage carrier vehicle capable of performing advanced missions."References: 16.

• Contract for development of the H-1 engine Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Pioneer I, intended as a lunar probe, was launched by a Thor-Able rocket from the Atlantic Missile Range, with the Air Force acting as executive agent to NASA. The 39-pound instrumented payload did not reach escape velocity. References: 16.

• ABMA Briefing to NASA Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Class: Manned. Von Braun briefs NASA on plans for booster development at Huntsville with objective of manned lunar landing. Initally proposed using 15 Juno V (Saturn I) boosters to assemble 200,000 kg payload in earth orbit for direct landing on moon. References: 26, 27.

• Military and NASA consider future launch vehicles Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Representatives of Advanced Research Projects Agency, the military services, and NASA met to consider the development of future launch vehicle systems. Agreement was reached on the principle of developing a small number of versatile launch vehicle systems of different thrust capabilities, the reliability of which could be expected to be improved through use by both the military services and NASA.References: 16.

• Saturn H-1 engine first full-power firing Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The H-1 engine successfully completed its first full-power firing at NAA's Rocketdyne facility in Canoga Park, Calif. References: 16.

• NASA Large Booster Review Committee Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The Army Ordnance Missile Command (AOMC), the Air Force, and missile contractors presented to the ARPA-NASA Large Booster Review Committee their views on the quickest and surest way for the United States to attain large booster capability. The Committee decided that the Juno V approach advocated by AOMC was best and NASA started plans to utilize the Juno V booster.References: 16.

• NASA National Space Vehicle Program Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. After consultation and discussion with DOD, NASA formulated a national space vehicle program. The central idea of the program was that a single launch vehicle should be developed for use in each series of future space missions. The launch vehicle would thus achieve a high degree of reliability, while the guidance and payload could be varied according to purpose of the mission. Four general-purpose launch vehicles were described: Vega, Centaur, Saturn, and Nova. The Nova booster stage would be powered by a cluster of four F-1 engines, the second stage by a single F-1, and the third stage would be the size of an intercontinental ballistic missile but would use liquid hydrogen as a fuel. This launch vehicle would be the first in a series that could transport a man to the lunar surface and return him safely to earth in a direct ascent mission. Four additional stages would be required in such a mission.References: 16.

• Booster name changed from Juno V to Saturn Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The Army proposed that the name of the large clustered-engine booster be changed from Juno V to Saturn, since Saturn was the next planet after Jupiter. Roy W. Johnson, Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency, approved the name on February 3. References: 16.

• Early agreement required on Saturn upper stages Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Maj. Gen. John B. Medaris of the Army Ordnance Missile Command (AOMC) and Roy W. Johnson of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) discussed the urgency of early agreement between ARPA and NASA on the configuration of the Saturn upper stages. Several discussions between ARPA and NASA had been held on this subject. Johnson expected to reach agreement with NASA the following week. He agreed that AOMC would participate in the overall upper stage planning to ensure compatibility of the booster and upper stages.References: 16.

• NASA Booster Development Plan for 60's Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Class: Manned. NASA issues plan for development in next decade of Vega (later cancelled as too similar to Agena), Centaur, Saturn, and Nova launch vehicles. Juno V renamed Saturn I. References: 26, 27.

• Unmanned Lunar Soft Landing Vehicle Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Surveyor. The Army Ordnance Missile Command submitted to NASA a report entitled "Preliminary Study of an Unmanned Lunar Soft Landing Vehicle," recommending the use of the Saturn booster. References: 16.

• First H-1 engine for the Saturn delivered Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The first Rocketdyne H-1 engine for the Saturn arrived at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA ). The H-1 engine was installed in the ABMA test stand on May 7, first test-fired on May 21, and fired for 80 seconds on May 29. The first long-duration firing - 151.03 seconds - was on June 2.References: 16.

• First H-1 engine for Saturn I fired. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. ABMA static fired a single H-1 Saturn engine at Redstone Arsenal, Ala. References: 17, 27.

• Construction begins of the first Saturn launch complex Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Construction of the first Saturn launch area, Complex 34, began at Cape Canaveral, FIa. References: 16.

• Saturn I launch complex construction starts. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. References: 17, 27.

• NASA funded study of a lunar exploration program based on Saturn Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA authorized $150,000 for Army Ordnance Missile Command studies of a lunar exploration program based on Saturn-boosted systems. To be included were circumlunar vehicles, unmanned and manned; close lunar orbiters; hard lunar impacts; and soft lunar landings with stationary or roving payloads.References: 16.

• Transfer to NASA of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency's Development Operations Division Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. After a meeting with officials concerned with the missile and space program, President Dwight D. Eisenhower announced that he intended to transfer to NASA control the Army Ballistic Missile Agency's Development Operations Division personnel and facilities. The transfer, subject to congressional approval, would include the Saturn development program.References: 16.

• Transfer of Saturn I project to NASA announced. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. President Eisenhower announced his intention of transferring the Saturn project to NASA, which became effective on March 15, 1960. References: 17, 27.

• Plan for transferring the Army Ballistic Missile Agency and Saturn to NASA Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The initial plan for transferring the Army Ballistic Missile Agency and Saturn to NASA was drafted. It was submitted to President Dwight D. Eisenhower on December 1 1 and was signed by Secretary of the Army Wilber M. Brucker and Secretary of the Air Force James H. Douglas on December 16 and by NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan on December 17.References: 16.

• Engineering and cost study for a new Saturn configuration Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The Advanced Research Projects Agency ARPA and NASA requested the Army Ordnance Missile Command AOMC to prepare an engineering and cost study for a new Saturn configuration with a second stage of four 20,000-pound-thrust liquid-hydrogen and liquid-oxygen engines (later called the S-IV stage) and a modified Centaur third stage using two of these engines later designated the S-V stage).Additional Details: Engineering and cost study for a new Saturn configuration(15640). References: 16.

• Saturn upper stage study. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA team completed study design of upper stages of Saturn launch vehicle. References: 17, 27.

• Eleven companies submitted contract proposals for the Saturn second stage Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Eleven companies submitted contract proposals for the Saturn second stage (S-IV): Bell Aircraft Corporation; The Boeing Airplane Company; Chrysler Corporation; General Dynamics Corporation, Convair Astronautics Division; Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc.; Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation; Lockheed Aircraft Corporation; The Martin Company; McDonnell Aircraft Corporation; North American Aviation, Inc.; and United Aircraft Corporation.References: 16.

• Saturn I transferred to NASA. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency's Development Operations Division and the Saturn program were transferred to NASA after the expiration of the 60-day limit for congressional action on the President's proposal of January 14. (The President's decision had been made on October 21, 1959.) By Executive Order, the President named the facilities the "George C. Marshall Space Flight Center." Formal transfer took place on July 1.References: 17, 27.

• Two H-1's fired together. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Two of Saturn's first-stage engines passed initial static firing test of 7.83 seconds duration at Huntsville, Ala. References: 17, 27.

• Guidelines for the advanced manned spacecraft program Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. STG's Robert O. Piland, during briefings at NASA Centers, presented a detailed description of the guidelines for missions, propulsion, and flight time in the advanced manned spacecraft program:
  1. The spacecraft should be capable ultimately of manned circumlunar reconnaissance. As a logical intermediate step toward future goals of lunar and planetary landing many of the problems associated with manned circumlunar flight would need to be solved.
  2. The lunar spacecraft should be capable of earth orbit missions for initial evaluation and training. The reentry component of this spacecraft should be capable of missions in conjunction with space laboratories or space stations. To accomplish lunar reconnaissance before a manned landing, it would be desirable to approach the moon closer than several thousand miles. Fifty miles appeared to be a reasonable first target for study purposes.
  3. The spacecraft should be designed to be compatible with the Saturn C-1 or C-2 boosters for the lunar mission. The multiman advanced spacecraft should not weigh more than 15,000 pounds including auxiliary propulsion and attaching structure.
  4. A flight-time capability of the spacecraft for 14 days without resupply should be possible. Considerable study of storage batteries, fuel cells, auxiliary power units, and solar batteries would be necessary. Items considered included the percentage of the power units to be placed in the "caboose" (space laboratory), preference for the use of storage batteries for both power and radiation shielding, and redundancy for reliability by using two different types of systems versus two of the same system.
  References: 16.

• Guidelines for an advanced manned spacecraft program presented by STG Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. Members of STG presented guidelines for an advanced manned spacecraft program to NASA Centers to enlist research assistance in formulating spacecraft and mission design.

  To open these discussions, Director Robert R. Gilruth summarized the guidelines: manned lunar reconnaissance with a lunar mission module, corollary earth orbital missions with a lunar mission module and with a space laboratory, compatibility with the Saturn C-1 or C-2 boosters (weight not to exceed 15,000 pounds for a complete lunar spacecraft and 25,000 pounds for an earth orbiting spacecraft), 14-day flight time, safe recovery from aborts, ground and water landing and avoidance of local hazards, point (ten square-mile) landing, 72-hour postlanding survival period, auxiliary propulsion for maneuvering in space, a "shirtsleeve" environment, a three-man crew, radiation protection, primary command of mission on board, and expanded communications and tracking facilities. In addition, a tentative time schedule was included, projecting multiman earth orbit qualification flights beginning near the end of the first quarter of calendar year 1966.References: 16.

• Four H-1's fired together. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Four of the eight H-1 engines of the Saturn C-1 first-stage booster were successfully static-fired at Redstone Arsenal for seven seconds. References: 17, 27.

• Douglas to build the second stage (S-IV) of the Saturn C-1 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA announced the selection of the Douglas Aircraft Company to build the second stage (S-IV) of the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle. References: 16.

• All eight H-1 engines of the Saturn C-1 first stage ground-tested simultaneously Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. At Redstone Arsenal, all eight H-1 engines of the first stage of the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle were static-fired simultaneously for the first time and achieved 1.3 million pounds of thrust. References: 16.

• First public demonstration of the H-1 engine Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Eight H-1 engines of the first stage of the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle were static-fired for 35.16 seconds, producing 1.3 million pounds of thrust. This first public demonstration of the H-1 took place at Marshall Space Flight Center. References: 16.

• Assembly of the first Saturn flight booster began Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Assembly of the first Saturn flight booster, SA-1, began at Marshall Space Flight Center. References: 16.

• Full Saturn I engine cluster full duration test. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Complete eight-engine static firing of Saturn successfully conducted for 110 seconds at MSFC, the longest firing to date. References: 17, 27.

• Saturn C-1 first stage completed test series Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The Saturn C-1 first stage successfully completed its first series of static tests at the Marshall Space Flight Center with a 122-second firing of all eight H-1 engines. References: 17, 27.

• Space Exploration Program Council Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The fourth meeting of the Space Exploration Program Council was held at NASA Headquarters. The results of a study on Saturn development and utilization was presented by the Ad Hoc Saturn Study Committee. Objectives of the study were to determine (1) if and when the Saturn C-2 launch vehicle should be developed and (2) if mission and spacecraft planning was consistent with the Saturn vehicle development schedule. No change in the NASA Fiscal Year 1962 budget was contemplated. The Committee recommended that the Saturn C-2 development should proceed on schedule (S-II stage contract in Fiscal Year 1962, first flight in 1965). The C-2 would be essential, the study reported, for Apollo manned circumlunar missions, lunar unmanned exploration, Mars and Venus orbiters and capsule landers, probes to other planets and out-of- ecliptic, and for orbital starting of nuclear upper stages.Additional Details: Space Exploration Program Council(15710). References: 16.

• Saturn I static firing. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. First of new series of static firings of Saturn considered only 50 percent successful in 2-second test at MSFC. References: 17, 27.

• Saturn transport barge commissioned. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Palaemon, a 180-foot barge built to transport the Saturn launch vehicle from MSFC to Cape Canaveral by water, was formally accepted by MSFC Director from Maj. Gen. Frank S. Besson, Chief of Army Transportation. References: 17, 27.

• Saturn C-1 changed to a two-stage configuration Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Wernher von Braun, Director of Marshall Space Flight Center, proposed that the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle be changed from a three-stage to a two-stage configuration to meet Apollo program schedules. The planned third stage (S-V) would be dropped. References: 16.

• Saturn first stage recovery system study Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Marshall Space Flight Center awarded contracts to NAA and Ryan Aeronautical Corporation to investigate the feasibility of recovering the first stage (S-I) of the Saturn launch vehicle by using a Rogallo wing paraglider. References: 16.

• Current Saturn launch vehicle configurations announced Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The current Saturn launch vehicle configurations were announced:

  C-1:

  S-I stage eight H-1 engines, 1.5 million pounds of thrust; S-IV stage four (LR-119 engines, 70,000 pounds of thrust); and S-V stage (two LR-119 engines, 35,000 pounds of thrust).

  C-2 (four-stage version):

  S-1 stage (same as first stage of the C-1); S-II (not determined); S-IV (same as second stage of the C-1); S-V (same as third Stage of C- 1).

  C-2 (three-stage version):

  S-I (same as first stage of C-1); S-II (not determined); and S-IV (same as third stage of C-1).

  References: 16.

• First flight Saturn I on test stand. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. First flight model of Saturn booster (SA-1) installed on static test stand for preflight checkout, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville. References: 18, 27.

• Configuration changes for the Saturn C-1 launch vehicles Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Representatives of Marshall Space Flight Center recommended configuration changes for the Saturn C-1 launch vehicles to NASA Headquarters. These included:
  • Elimination of third-stage development, since two stages could put more than ten tons into earth orbit.
  • Use of six LR-115 (15,000-pound) Centaur engines (second-stage thrust thus increased from 70,000 to 90,000 pounds).
  • Redesign of the first stage (S-1) to offer more safety for manned missions.
  Plans were also presented to accelerate the development of the Saturn C- 2, and a recommendation was made that a prime contractor be selected to work on the second stage (S-II) of the C-2. NASA Headquarters approved the C-2 plans on March 31.References: 16.

• Dynasoar launch by Saturn I studied. Nation: USA. Class: Manned. Type: Spaceplane. Spacecraft: Dynasoar. Final NASA report on the study proposed for Saturn for use as Dyna-Soar booster was presented to the Air Force. References: 18.

• Saturn I fight qualification. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The first successful flight qualification test of the Saturn SA-1 booster took place in an eight-engine test lasting 30 seconds. References: 16, 18, 27.

• Air transport of the Saturn C-1 second stage feasible Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The Douglas Aircraft Company reported that air transport of the Saturn C-1 second stage (S-IV) was feasible. References: 16.

• S-IV satisfactory for Apollo missions Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. After study and discussion by STG and Marshal! Space Flight Center officials, STG concluded that the current 154-inch diameter of the second stage (S-IV) adapter for the Apollo spacecraft would be satisfactory for the Apollo missions on Saturn flights SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, and SA-10.References: 16.

• Change in the Saturn C-1 configuration Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA announced a change in the Saturn C-1 vehicle configuration. The first ten research and development flights would have two stages, instead of three, because of the changed second stage (S-IV) and, starting with the seventh flight vehicle, increased propellant capacity in the first stage (S-1) booster.References: 16.

• Saturn I transport route interdicted. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Collapse of a lock in the Wheeler Dam below Huntsville on the Tennessee River interdicted the planned water route of the first Saturn space booster from Marshall Space Flight Center to Cape Canaveral on the barge Palaemon. References: 18, 27.

• Saturn I launch complex completed. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Huge Saturn launch complex at Cape Canaveral dedicated in brief ceremony by NASA, construction of which was supervised by the Army Corps of Engineers. Giant gantry, weighing 2,800 tons and being 310 feet high, is largest movable land structure in North America.References: 18, 27.

• NASA / DOD agree to define support requirements Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA Associate Administrator Robert C. Seamans, Jr., requested Kurt H. Debus, Director of the NASA Launch Operations Directorate, and Maj. Gen. Leighton I. Davis, Commander of the Air Force Missile Test Center, to make a joint analysis of all major factors regarding the launch requirements, methods, and procedures needed in support of an early manned lunar landing. The schedules and early requirements were to be considered in two phases:
  1. in line with the Fleming Report, a direct flight to the moon would be assumed, using the Saturn C-1 and C-3 launch vehicles in early support phases and liquid- or solid-fueled Nova launch vehicles for the lunar landing;
  2. as a possible alternative or parallel program, orbital rendezvous operations using Saturn C-3 and liquid-fueled Nova.
  The analysis should include recommendations on mutual NASA-DOD range responsibilities, authority, management structures, and other allied subjects. On June 30, Seamans notified Debus and Davis that the evaluation of tracking and command stations should not be included in the study. He stressed that the factors of immediate concern with regard to launch operations were those of launch site locations, land acquisition requirements, spacecraft and launch vehicle preparation facilities, vehicle launch facilities, and other facilities and requirements at the launch site. (Phase I of the Report was submitted on July 31.)References: 16.

• Saturn C-1 to be operational in 1964 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA announced that the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle, which could place ten-ton payloads in earth orbit, would be operational in 1964. References: 16.

• Saturn I barge replacement. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. A Navy YFNB barge was obtained by NASA to serve as a replacement for the Palaemon in transporting of the Saturn booster to Cape Canaveral. References: 18, 27.

• Changes in Saturn launch vehicle configurations Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Changes in Saturn launch vehicle configurations were announced :

  C-1:

  Stages S-I (1.5 million pounds of thrust) and S-IV

  C-2:

  Stages S-I, S-II, and S-IV

  C-3:

  Stages S-IB (3 million pounds of thrust), S-II, and S-IV.

  References: 16.

• NASA invitation to bids for Apollo prime contract Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. NASA invited 12 companies to submit prime contractor proposals for the Apollo spacecraft by October 9: The Boeing Airplane Company, Chance Vought Corporation, Douglas Aircraft Company, General Dynamics/Convair, the General Electric Company, Goodyear Aircraft Corporation, Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, The Martin Company, North American Aviation, Inc., and Republic Aviation Corporation.Additional Details: NASA invitation to bids for Apollo prime contract(15848). References: 16.

• First Saturn I leaves factory. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. First Saturn (SA-1) booster began water trip to Cape Canaveral on Navy barge Compromise after overland detour around Wheeler Dam. References: 18, 27.

• First Saturn I arrives at Cape Canaveral. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Navy barge Compromise, carrying first Saturn booster, stuck in the mud in the Indian River just south of Cape Canaveral. Released several hours later, the Saturn was delayed only 24 hours in its 2,200-mile journey from Huntsville. References: 18, 27.

• STG discussed development of automatic checkout system for the entire NASA launch vehicle program Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The MSFC-STG Advanced Program Coordination Board met at STG and discussed the question of the development of an automatic checkout system which would include the entire launch vehicle program from the Saturn C-1 through the Nova. It agreed that the Apollo contractor should be instructed to make the spacecraft electrical subsystems compatible with the Saturn complex.

  In further discussion, Paul J. DeFries of Marshall Space Flight Center MSFC presented a list of proposed guidelines for use in studying early manned lunar landing missions:

  • The crew should draw on its own resources only when absolutely necessary. Equipment and service personnel external to the spacecraft should be used as much as possible.
  • Early lunar expeditions would receive active external support only up to the time of the launch from earth orbit.
  • The crew would board the spacecraft only after it was checked out and ready for final countdown and launch.
  • The first Apollo crews should have an emergency shelter available on the moon which could afford several months of lift: support and protection.
  • The capability for clocking an orbital launch vehicle with a propulsion stage - the "connecting mode" - should be possible.
  • The capability of fueling an orbital launch vehicle should be made available - "fueling mode."
  • The capability of making repairs, replacements, or adjustments in orbit should be developed.
  • For repairs, replacements, and adjustments on the orbital launch vehicle in earth orbit, two support vehicles would be necessary. These would be a Saturn C-1 launch vehicle manned by Apollo technicians and an unmanned Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle carrying repair kits.
  • Development of docking, testing of components, and techniques for docking and training of man in orbital operations could be carried out by a space ferry loaded with a Mercury capsule.
  Some of the points discussed in connection with these suggestions were:
  • Orbital launch operations were just as complex, if not more complex, than earth-launched operations.
  • A question existed as to how complex the orbital launch facility could be and what its function should be.
  • There was a possibility that the crew could do most of the checkout and launch operations. Studies should be made to define the role of the crew versus the role of a proposed MSFC auxiliary checkout and maintenance crew.
  After the discussion on orbital launch operations, the Board agreed that contemporary technology was inadequate to support such operations. Both STG and MSFC would need to study and develop both refueling and connector techniques.References: 16.

• Test mission Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Agency: NASA. Apogee: 136 km (84 mi). Largest known rocket launch to date, the Saturn I 1st stage booster, successful on first test flight from Atlantic Missile Range. With its eight clustered engines developing almost 1.3 million pounds of thrust at launch, the Saturn (SA-1) hurled waterfilled dummy upper stages to an altitude of 84.8 miles and 214.7 miles down range. In a postlaunch statement, Administrator Webb said: "The flight today was a splendid demonstration of the strength of our national space program and an important milestone in the buildup of our national capacity to launch heavy payloads necessary to carry out the program projected by President Kennedy on May 25.".References: 5, 26, 27, 1711.

• Contract issued for build of 20 Saturn I's. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA announced that the Chrysler Corporation had been chosen to build 20 Saturn first-stage (S-1) boosters similar to the one tested successfully on October 27 . They would be constructed at the Michoud facility near New Orleans, La. The contract, worth about $200 million, would run through 1966, with delivery of the first booster scheduled for early 1964.References: 18, 27.

• Support service contractor selected for Michoud. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA selected Mason-Rust as the contractor to provide support services at NASA's Michoud plant near New Orleans, providing housekeeping services through June 30, 1962 for the three contractors who would produce the Saturn S-I and S-IB boosters and the Rift nuclear upper-stage vehicle.References: 18, 27.

• Technical aspects of earth orbit rendezvous meeting Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Gemini. A meeting on the technical aspects of earth orbit rendezvous was held at NASA Headquarters. Representatives from various NASA offices attended: Arthur L. Rudolph, Paul J. DeFries, Fred L. Digesu, Ludie G. Richard, John W. Hardin, Jr., Ernst D. Geissler, and Wilson B. Schramm of Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC); James T. Rose of MSC; Friedrich O. Vonbun, Joseph W. Siry, and James J. Donegan of Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC); Douglas R. Lord, James E. O'Neill, Richard J. Hayes, Warren J. North, and Daniel D. McKee of the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF). Joseph F. Shea, Deputy Director for Systems, OMSF, who had called the meeting, defined in general terms the goal of the meeting: to achieve agreement on the approach to be used in developing the earth orbit rendezvous technique. After two days of discussions and presentations, the Group approved conclusions and recommendations:
  • Gemini rendezvous operations could and must provide substantial experience with rendezvous techniques pertinent to Apollo.
  • Incorporation of the Saturn guidance equipment in a scaled-down docking module for the Agenas in the Gemini program was not required.
  • Complete development of the technique and equipment for Apollo rendezvous and docking should be required before the availability of the Saturn C-5 launch vehicle.
  • Full-scale docking equipment could profitably be developed by three- dimensional ground simulations. MSFC would prepare an outline of such a program.
  • The Apollo rendezvous technique and actual hardware could be flight- tested with the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle. MSFC would prepare a proposed flight test program.
  • The choice of connecting or tanking modes must be made in the near future. The MSFC Orbital Operations Study program should be used to provide data to make this decision.
  • The rendezvous technique which evolved from this meeting would place heavy requirements on the ground tracking network. GSFC should provide data relating the impact of detailed trajectory considerations to ground tracking station requirements.
  (This meeting was part of a continuing effort to select the lunar mission mode.)References: 16.

• Manned Space Flight Management Council meeting Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The preparation of schedules based on the NASA Fiscal Year 1962 budget (including the proposed supplemental appropriation), the Fiscal Year 1963 budget as submitted to Congress, and Fiscal Year 1964 and subsequent funding was discussed at the Manned Space Flight Management Council meeting. Program assumptions as presented by Wernher von Braun, Director, Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), were approved for use in preparation of the schedules :
  • The Saturn C-5 launch vehicle and earth orbital rendezvous were considered the primary mode for the lunar landing.
  • Full-scale orbit operations development, including ground testing, would be accomplished, using S-I boosters and orbital upper stages. This development would be planned so that upper stages and rendezvous techniques would be developed by the time the C-5 was operational. Planning would consider both connecting and fueling modes.
  • The development of a two-stage Nova with liquid-propellant engines in both stages would be activated as early as realistically feasible. This would provide an alternative, direct flight mode carrying the same orbital launch vehicle as developed for the C-5.
  • There would be no solid-propellant vehicle development.
  Charles W. Frick of MSC and Hans H. Maus of MSFC would coordinate schedule assumptions between the Centers.References: 16.

• Preliminary Apollo program schedules Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM. A small group within the MSC Apollo Spacecraft Project Office developed a preliminary program schedule for three approaches to the lunar landing mission: earth orbit rendezvous, direct ascent, and lunar orbit rendezvous. The exercise established a number of ground rules :
  • Establish realistic schedules that would "second guess" failures but provide for exploitation of early success.
  • Schedule circumlunar, lunar orbit, and lunar landing missions at the earliest realistic dates.
  • Complete the flight development of spacecraft modules and operational techniques, using the Saturn C-1 and C-1B launch vehicles, prior to the time at which a "man-rated" C-5 launch vehicle would become available.
  • Develop the spacecraft operational techniques in "buildup" missions that would progress generally from the simple to the complex.
  • Use the spacecraft crew at the earliest time and to the maximum extent, commensurate with safety considerations, in the development of the spacecraft and its subsystems.
  The exercise also provided a basis for proceeding with the development of definitive schedules and a program plan.References: 16.

• Test mission Nation: USA. Class: Earth. Type: Atmosphere. Spacecraft: Highwater. Agency: NASA. Apogee: 145 km (90 mi). Second suborbital test of Saturn I. The Saturn SA-2 first stage booster was launched successfully from Cape Canaveral. The rocket was blown up intentionally and on schedule about 2.5 minutes after liftoff at an altitude of 65 miles, dumping the water ballast from the dummy second and third stages into the upper atmosphere. The experiment, Project Highwater, produced a massive ice cloud and lightning-like effects. The eight clustered H-1 engines in the first stage produced 1.3 million pounds of thrust and the maximum speed attained by the booster was 3,750 miles per hour. Modifications to decrease the slight fuel sloshing encountered near the end of the previous flight test were successful.References: 5, 16, 1556.

• Selection of ablative material for Apollo heatshield Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth reported to the Manned Space Flight Management Council that the selection of the ablative material for the Apollo spacecraft heatshield would be made by September 1. The leading contender for the forebody ablative material was an epoxy resin with silica fibers for improving char strength and phenolic microballoons for reducing density.

  In addition, Gilruth noted that a reevaluation of the Saturn C-1 and C-1B launch capabilities appeared to indicate that neither vehicle would be able to test the complete Apollo spacecraft configuration, including the lunar excursion module. Complete spacecraft qualification would require the use of the Saturn C-5.References: 16.

• S-IV successfully static-fired for the first time Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The second stage (S-IV) of the Saturn C-1 launch vehicle was successfully static-fired for the first time in a ten-second test at the Sacramento, Calif., facility by the Douglas Aircraft Company. References: 16.

• Tentative Apollo flight plan Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. MSC outlined a tentative Apollo flight plan:

  Pad abort:

  Two tests to simulate an abort on the pad.

  Saturn C-1:

  Determine launch exit environment: SA-6 with SA-8 as backup. Flight- test the emergency detection system: SA-7, SA-9, and SA-10

  Saturn C-1B:

  Four launch vehicle development flights prior to the manned flight.

  Saturn C-5:

  Six unmanned Saturn C-5 launch vehicle development flights.

  Additional Details: Tentative Apollo flight plan(16113). References: 16.

• New numbering system for flight missions of the Apollo spacecraft Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Flight missions of the Apollo spacecraft were to be numerically identified in the future according to the following scheme :

  Pad aborts: PA-1, PA-2, etc.

  Missions using Little Joe II launch vehicles: A-001, A-002, etc. Missions using Saturn C-1 launch vehicles: A-101, A-102, etc. Missions using Saturn C-1B launch vehicles: A-201, A-202, etc. Missions using Saturn C-5 launch vehicles: A-501, A-502, etc.

  The 'A' denoted Apollo, the first digit stood for launch vehicle type or series, and the last two digits designated the order of Apollo spacecraft flights within a vehicle series.References: 16.

• Test mission Nation: USA. Class: Earth. Type: Atmosphere. Spacecraft: Highwater. Agency: NASA. Apogee: 167 km (103 mi). Third suborbital test of Saturn I. Saturn-Apollo 3 (Saturn C-1, later called Saturn I) was launched from the Atlantic Missile Range. Upper stages of the launch vehicle were filled with 23000 gallons of water to simulate the weight of live stages. At its peak altitude of 167 kilometers (104 miles), four minutes 53 seconds after launch, the rocket was detonated by explosives upon command from earth. The water was released into the ionosphere, forming a massive cloud of ice particles several miles in diameter. By this experiment, known as "Project Highwater," scientists had hoped to obtain data on atmospheric physics, but poor telemetry made the results questionable. The flight was the third straight success for the Saturn C-1 and the first with maximum fuel on board.References: 5, 16, 1556.

• Unmanned Apollo spacecraft to be flown on Saturn C-1 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. MSC and OMSF agreed that an unmanned Apollo spacecraft must be flown on the Saturn C-1 before a manned flight. SA-10 was scheduled to be the unmanned flight and SA-111, the first manned mission. References: 16.

• Simplified terminology for the Saturn booster series Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA announced a simplified terminology for the Saturn booster series: Saturn C-1 became "Saturn I," Saturn C-1B became "Saturn IB," and Saturn C-5 became "Saturn V." References: 16.

• Saturn engine-out capability investigated Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. At a meeting of the MSC-MSFC Flight Mechanics Panel, it was agreed that Marshall would investigate "engine-out" capability (i.e., the vehicle's performance should one of its engines fail) for use in abort studies or alternative missions. Not all Saturn I, IB, and V missions included this engine-out capability. Also, the panel decided that the launch escape system would be jettisoned ten seconds after S-IV ignition on Saturn I launch vehicles.References: 16.

• North American completed Apollo boilerplate (BP) 9 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. North American completed construction of Apollo boilerplate (BP) 9, consisting of launch escape tower and CSM. It was delivered to MSC on March 18, where dynamic testing on the vehicle began two days later. On April 8, BP-9 was sent to MSFC for compatibility tests with the Saturn I launch vehicle.References: 16.

• First long-duration static test of Saturn SA-5 first stage Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The first stage of the Saturn SA-5 launch vehicle was static fired at MSFC for 144.44 seconds in the first long-duration test for a Block II S-1. The cluster of eight H-1 engines produced 680 thousand kilograms (1.5 million pounds) of thrust. An analysis disclosed anomalies in the propulsion system. In a final qualification test two weeks later, when the engines were fired for 143.47 seconds, the propulsion problems had been corrected.References: 16.

• Test mission Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Agency: NASA. Apogee: 129 km (80 mi). Fourth suborbital test of Saturn I. The S-I Saturn stage reached an altitude of 129 kilometers (80 statute miles) and a peak velocity of 5,906 kilometers (3,660 miles) per hour. This was the last of four successful tests for the first stage of the Saturn I vehicle. After 100 seconds of flight, No. 5 of the booster's eight engines was cut off by a preset timer. That engine's propellants were rerouted to the remaining seven, which continued to burn. This experiment confirmed the "engine-out" capability that MSFC engineers had designed into the Saturn I.References: 5, 16, 1556.

• First static firing test of Saturn S-IV stage for SA-5 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. In what was to have been an acceptance test, the Douglas Aircraft Company static fired the first Saturn S-IV flight stage at Sacramento, Calif. An indication of fire in the engine area forced technicians to shut down the stage after little more than one minute's firing. A week later the acceptance test was repeated, this time without incident, when the vehicle was fired for over seven minutes. (The stage became part of the SA-5 launch vehicle, the first complete Saturn I to fly.)References: 16.

• Apollo launch escape system modified Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. The launch escape system was modified so that, under normal flight conditions, the crew could jettison the tower. On unmanned Saturn I flights, tower jettison was initiated by a signal from the instrument unit of the S-IV (second) stage. References: 16.

• An engine hard-over maximum q manual abort was impractical for the Apollo CSM on Saturn I and IB Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA and contractor studies showed that, in the event of an engine hard-over failure during maximum q, a manual abort was impractical for the Saturn I and IB, and must be carried out by automatic devices. Studies were continuing to determine whether, in a similar situation, a manual abort was possible from a Saturn V.References: 16.

• Saturn 5 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Payload: Saturn-SA 5. Mass: 17,100 kg (37,600 lb). Class: Technology. Type: RV. Spacecraft: Jupiter nose cone. Agency: NASA MSF. Perigee: 274 km (170 mi). Apogee: 740 km (450 mi). Inclination: 31.40 deg. Period: 94.80 min. COSPAR: 1964-005A. USAF Sat Cat: 744. Decay Date: 1966-04-30. First first mission of Block II Saturn with two live stages. SA-5, a vehicle development flight, was launched from Cape Kennedy Complex 37B at 11:25:01.41, e.s.t. This was the first flight of the Saturn I Block II configuration (i.e., lengthened fuel tanks in the S-1 and stabilizing tail fins), as well as the first flight of a live (powered) S-IV upper stage. The S-1, powered by eight H-1 engines, reached a full thrust of over 680,400 kilograms (1.5 million pounds) the first time in flight. The S-IV's 41,000 kilogram (90,000-pound-thrust cluster of six liquid-hydrogen RL-10 engines performed as expected. The Block II SA-5 was also the first flight test of the Saturn I guidance system.References: 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 26, 27.

• American challenge Nation: USSR. Program: Lunar L1. Popovich has left on a tour of Australia, and Tereshkova is in England. The propaganda front of the Soviet space program is going well. But Kamanin is disquieted by the American testing of the Saturn I rocket. Its 17 tonne payload is more than double that of any Soviet booster. Greater efforts are needed, instead he is wasting his time editing Tereshkova's new book...References: 376.

• Saturn 6 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Payload: Apollo CSM Boilerplate 13. Mass: 16,900 kg (37,200 lb). Class: Manned. Type: Lunar spacecraft. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. Agency: NASA MSC. Perigee: 179 km (111 mi). Apogee: 204 km (126 mi). Inclination: 31.70 deg. Period: 88.20 min. COSPAR: 1964-025A. USAF Sat Cat: 800. Decay Date: 1964-06-01. Apollo Saturn Mission A-101, using CM BP-13 atop SA-6 Saturn I launch vehicle, launched at Cape Kennedy, Fla., to prove spacecraft/launch vehicle compatibility. Boilerplate CSM, LM adapter, LES. LES jettison demonstrated. References: 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 26, 27.

• Saturn 7 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Payload: Apollo CSM Boilerplate 15. Mass: 16,700 kg (36,800 lb). Class: Manned. Type: Lunar spacecraft. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. Agency: NASA MSC. Perigee: 181 km (112 mi). Apogee: 215 km (133 mi). Inclination: 31.70 deg. Period: 88.50 min. COSPAR: 1964-057A. USAF Sat Cat: 883. Decay Date: 1964-09-22. Apollo systems test. Third orbital test. First closed-loop guidance test. References: 1, 2, 5, 6, 26, 27.

• Pegasus 1 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Payload: Pegasus 1. Mass: 10,400 kg (22,900 lb). Class: Earth. Type: Micrometeoroid. Spacecraft: Pegasus. Agency: NASA MSF. Perigee: 510 km (310 mi). Apogee: 726 km (451 mi). Inclination: 31.70 deg. Period: 97.00 min. COSPAR: 1965-009A. USAF Sat Cat: 1085. Decay Date: 1978-09-17. A Saturn I vehicle SA-9 launched a multiple payload into a high 744 by 496 km (462 by 308 mi) earth orbit. The rocket carried a boilerplate (BP) CSM (BP-16) and, fitted inside the SM, the Pegasus I meteoroid detection satellite. This was the eighth successful Saturn flight in a row, and the first to carry an active payload. BP-16's launch escape tower was jettisoned following second-stage S-IV ignition. After attaining orbit, the spacecraft were separated from the S-IV. Thereupon the Pegasus I's panels were deployed and were ready to perform their task, i.e., registering meteoroid impact and relaying the information to the ground.References: 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 26, 27.

• Apollo-Model 3 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Payload: Apollo CSM Boilerplate 16. Class: Manned. Type: Lunar spacecraft. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. Agency: NASA MSC. Perigee: 500 km (310 mi). Apogee: 736 km (457 mi). Inclination: 31.70 deg. Period: 97.06 min. COSPAR: 1965-009B. USAF Sat Cat: 1088. Decay Date: 1985-07-10. References: 279.

• Chrysler contract for support services for the Saturn I and IB launch programs modified Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. KSC supplemented Chrysler Corporation's contract for support services for the Saturn I and IB launch programs. Effective through June 30, 1968, the agreement would cost NASA $41 million plus an award fee. References: 16.

• Apollo LEMs 1, 2, and 3 to have remote command of the transponder feature Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM. MSC requested that Grumman incorporate in the command list for LEMs 1, 2, and 3 the capability for turning the LEM transponder off and on by real-time radio command from the Manned Space Flight Network. Necessity for capability of radio command for turning the LEM transponder on after LEM separation resulted from ASPO's decision that the LEM and Saturn instrument unit S-band transponders would use the same transmission and reception frequencies.References: 16.

• Pegasus 2 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Payload: Pegasus 2. Mass: 10,464 kg (23,069 lb). Class: Earth. Type: Micrometeoroid. Spacecraft: Pegasus. Agency: NASA MSF. Perigee: 502 km (311 mi). Apogee: 740 km (450 mi). Inclination: 31.70 deg. Period: 97.00 min. COSPAR: 1965-039A. USAF Sat Cat: 1381. Decay Date: 1979-11-03. Pegasus 2 was a meteoroid detection satellite. The Saturn I launch vehicle (SA-8) placed the spacecraft, protected by a boilerplate CSM (BP-26), into a 740-by-509-km (460-by-316-mi) orbit. Once in orbit, the dummy CSM was jettisoned. Pegasus 2, still attached to the second stage of the launch vehicle, then deployed its 29-m (96-ft) winglike panels. Within several hours, the device began registering meteoroid hits.References: 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 26, 27.

• Apollo-Model 4 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Payload: Apollo CSM Boilerplate 26. Class: Manned. Type: Lunar spacecraft. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. Agency: NASA MSC. Perigee: 511 km (317 mi). Apogee: 739 km (459 mi). Inclination: 31.70 deg. Period: 97.21 min. COSPAR: 1965-039B. USAF Sat Cat: 1385. Decay Date: 1989-07-08. References: 279.

• Pegasus 3 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Payload: Pegasus 3. Mass: 10,500 kg (23,100 lb). Class: Earth. Type: Micrometeoroid. Spacecraft: Pegasus. Agency: NASA MSF. Perigee: 441 km (274 mi). Apogee: 449 km (278 mi). Inclination: 28.90 deg. Period: 93.40 min. COSPAR: 1965-060A. USAF Sat Cat: 1467. Decay Date: 1969-08-04. NASA launched Pegasus 3, third of the meteoroid detection satellites, as scheduled at 8:00 a.m. EST, from Cape Kennedy. As earlier, an Apollo spacecraft (boilerplate 9) served as the payload's shroud. This flight (SA-10) marked the end of the Saturn I program, which during its seven-year lifetime had achieved 10 straight successful launches and had contributed immeasurably to American rocket technology.References: 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 26, 27.

• Apollo-Model 5 Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Payload: Apollo CSM Boilerplate 9A. Class: Manned. Type: Lunar spacecraft. Spacecraft: Apollo CSM. Agency: NASA MSC. Perigee: 521 km (323 mi). Apogee: 536 km (333 mi). Inclination: 28.80 deg. Period: 95.21 min. COSPAR: 1965-060B. USAF Sat Cat: 1468. Decay Date: 1975-11-22. References: 279.

• Chrysler uprated Saturn I first-stage production contract changed Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. NASA signed a supplemental agreement with Chrysler Corp.'s Space Division at New Orleans, La., converting the uprated Saturn I first-stage production contract from cost-plus-fixed-fee to cost-plus-incentive-fee. Under the agreement, valued at $339 million, the amount of the contractor's fee would be based on ability to perform assigned tasks satisfactorily and meet prescribed costs and schedules. The contract called for Chrysler to manufacture, assemble and test 12 uprated Saturn I first stages and provide system engineering, integration support, ground support equipment, and launch services.References: 16.

• First Apollo manned flight announced Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Flight: Apollo 204. Apollo-Saturn 204 was to be the first manned Apollo mission, NASA announced through the manned space flight Centers. Additional Details: First Apollo manned flight announced(17583). References: 16.

• McDowell, Jonathan, Jonathan's Space Home Page, Harvard University, 1997-present. Jonathan McDowell's complete on-line listing of all objects orbited and over 20,000 rocket launches Accessed at: http://www.planet4589.org/jsr.html.

• Koelle, Heinz Hermann,, Handbook of Astronautical Engineering, McGraw-Hill,New York, 1961. The only such comprehensive handbook ever produced, and at the dawn of the space age.

• Ley, Willy, Rockets Missiles and Men in Space, Viking Press, New York, 1968. ISBN: 0670602264. Willy Ley was one of the great science writers and promoters of spaceflight in the 1950's. This book covers basic concepts and the history of rocketry up to the early 1960's. More at amazon.com...

• Hobbs, Marvin, Fundamentals of Rockets, Missiles, and Spacecraft, John F Rider, 1961..

• Bilstein, Roger E, Stages to Saturn, US Government Printing Office, 1980. ISBN: 0160489091. Excellent account of the evolution, design, and development of the Saturn launch vehicles. More at amazon.com...

• Stuhlinger, Ernst, et. al., Astronautical Engineering and Science: From Peenemuende to Planetary Space, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.

• NASA Report, Saturn, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660083255_1966083255.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, The Apollo 'A'/Saturn C-1 Launch Vehicle System - July 1961, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730064291_1973064291.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Vibration and Acoustic Analysis Saturn SA-10 Flight, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660005493_1966005493.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Saturn I Summary, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660014308_1966014308.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Automation in Saturn 1 First Stage Checkout, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680006101_1968006101.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Investigation of S-IV All Systems Vehicle Explosion, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640020175_1964020175.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/saturn_sa1_flight_evaluation_121461.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Propellant sloshing problems of Saturn test flight SA-1, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073684_1974073684.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Test result part 1 of the firing test report Saturn vehicle SA-1, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730064130_1973064130.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA-02 Flight Evaluation, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730065312_1973065312.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Aerodynamic evaluation of SA-2 flight, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073670_1974073670.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Instrumentation operations analysis. Part 2B: Saturn vehicle SA-2, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750064585_1975064585.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Results of Saturn I SA-3 Launch, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/results_of_saturn_I_sa3_launch.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA 03 Flight Evaluation Report Vol 1, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/sa03_flight_evaluation_vol_1.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA 03 Flight Evaluation Report Vol 2, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/sa03_flight_evaluation_vol_2.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/results_of_saturn_I_sa3_launch.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Results of the Third Saturn 1 Launch Vehicle Test Flight, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073356_1974073356.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Saturn SA-4 postflight trajectory, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073672_1974073672.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Boilerplate No. 13, Spacecraft Saturn Research and Development Test SA-5 Specification, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790076859_1979076859.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Saturn Antenna Systems Sa-5, Volume 1, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660006937_1966006937.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Saturn Antenna Systems, Sa-5, Volume 3, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660006781_1966006781.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Thermal Design and Thermal Data Analysis of SA-5 Payload, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650005992_1965005992.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Rigid body control study for SA-5, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073664_1974073664.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA 06 Launch Results, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/sa06_launch_results.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Postlaunch Report for Apollo Mission A-101 - June 1964, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790077210_1979077210.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Saturn SA-6 postflight trajectory, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920075454_1992075454.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Space vehicle SA-6 telemetry system, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650021022_1965021022.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/results_of_saturn_I_sa7_launch.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Saturn SA-7/BP-15 postflight trajectory, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920075299_1992075299.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA 08 Launch Results, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/sa08_launch_results.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Saturn SA-8/Pegasus B postflight trajectory, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920075312_1992075312.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Manned space flight network performance analysis for the SA-8 mission, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650020205_1965020205.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA 09 Launch Results, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/sa09_launch_results.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA-9/Apollo Firing Test Report, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660020046_1966020046.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA-9 Vehicle and Launch Complex, Functional Description.Launch Pad Accessories, Volume VII, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650013588_1965013588.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA 10 Launch Results, . Accessed at: http://klabs.org/history/history_docs/jsc_t/sa10_launch_results.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Saturn SA-10/Pegasus C postflight trajectory, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920075303_1992075303.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA-10 flight mechanical summary technical memorandum, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650018730_1965018730.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Range safety data for Saturn SA-10, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660023504_1966023504.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, SA 01 Flight Evaluation, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740074734_1974074734.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Results of Saturn I SA-7 Launch, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740074283_1974074283.pdf. -Right click to download!

• NASA Report, Results of the Third Saturn I SA 3 Launch, . Accessed at: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740074318_1974074318.pdf. -Right click to download!