Documents / Document

Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing, Volume 1 (scan)

NASA via ibiblio · 1969-07-31 · 251 pages · text by OCR

This is Volume 1 of NASA's Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing, dated July 31, 1969. The Mission Operations Branch of the Flight Crew Support Division at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston prepared it, and it was originally classified Confidential. In it Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins go phase by phase through suiting, launch, powered flight, Earth orbit and lunar surface activities. They comment on suit fit, vibration, checklists, lunar dust, footing and poor sleeping conditions in the lunar module. A section titled Visual Sightings appears in the table of contents.

  • p. 30 …It was impossible to read an effect on any indicator in the cockpit. COLLINS This is…
  • p. 38 …the expected altitude was 174 and we read 176. The EMS was 3.3 plus. ARMSTRONG…
  • p. 39 …There's no way that the EMS could read 99.1 at docking. As I recall…
  • p. 40 ## CONFIDENTIAL Then I thrusted minus X until the DELTA-V counter read minus 100.5. I…
  • p. 46 …Neil and I both read a memo put out by MPAD, saying that for some failure…
  • p. 50 …We gave daily dosimeter readings, which as far as I'm concerned fall in a sort…
  • p. 51 …COLLINS And the dosimeter we just gave them a once-a-day reading on that dosimeter…
  • p. 68 …When you read me the numbers, you didn't note that I read star number 2…
  • p. 79 …The cabin temperature (translunar) was slightly warmer than we would like it, although the gage readings…
  • p. 130 …We had good helium pressure and read that out to MSFN. We went through the RCS…
  • p. 132 …the AGS, and give you an erroneous reading so you wouldn't pass. In any case…
  • p. 134 …There is a bad amount of data that the ground reads up to you in that…
  • p. 151 …They did approach the maximum numbers with a reading of approximately 94. Anyway, they weren't…
  • p. 169 …with time as evidenced by successive LPD readings. FCOD REP. Do you recall when you proceeded…
  • p. 170 …again, although at the time we were reading relatively low tank pressures. I think the OX…
  • p. 172 …We read the sine and cosine out of AGS (and I'm sure they copied that…
  • p. 175 …we were going to launch, so we read through the remainder of the simulated countdown and…
  • p. 235 …same exercises such as pressure-integrity check, reading the cabin down, and configuring the ECS. I…
  • p. 236 …We used a sequence of marking that involved an onboard averaging of five successive cursive readings…
# CONFIDENTIAL

the ground for the zenith passage. So I was fully expecting it to acquire again. I don't think we had our AGS configured and the ground was not as helpful as they might have been had we run this sort of thing previously in simulations and had a bit more training on it.

We started to do the P57 and realized that this would be too soon before lift-off. It seems to me we had a time period in which we were essentially standing by. We did an abbreviated RCS check. Because one of them was a coldfire check, we got all the red flags coming on. We did an AGS calibration, got the ascent pad; then, at about 45 or 50 minutes before lift-off, we called up the P57 again.

We did a landing site option at the TIG of lift-off. The torquing angles between this alignment and the previous one were on the order of 0.09 degree maximum. The gravity alignment had an initial error of 0.00001 and on recycle had the same thing. I don't have logged down what the star-angle difference was, but it was - probably on the order of 7 to 9, somewhere in there. It wasn't anything that made me jump up and down. But again it was measuring the difference between gravity and a star and, of course, doesn't really indicate how well you know the star position

## CONFIDENTIAL

About this file

Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. The text was read from the page images by an OCR model; expect the odd misread word. 251 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.