After years of effort, NASA has finally chosen a pair of contractors to build replacements for the now-retired Space Shuttle to send Americans into Earth orbit and possibly beyond. Ironically, the craft being built by Space X and Boeing are capsule-based concepts not too dissimilar to the Apollo spacecraft retired by NASA four decades ago to make way for the Shuttle. The development of the newer crewed capsule designs in many ways mirrors the development of Apollo and they owe much to the test flights of the Apollo spacecraft first flown a half a century ago.
The first Apollo orbital test flight, called A-101, was successfully launched as part of the SA-6 Saturn I development flight on May 28, 1964 (see “The First Apollo Orbital Test Flight“). The objectives of the second test flight, A-102, were similar to those of its predecessor: demonstrate the compatibility between the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn I launch vehicle as well as verify the design of the Apollo during launch and ascent into orbit. This flight would also demonstrate a new mode of jettisoning the Apollo Launch Escape System (LES) during ascent after it was no longer needed.
Like the A-101 test flight, the Apollo Command/Service Module (CSM) payload for this flight consisted of a boilerplate spacecraft designated BP-15. Boilerplate models mimic the mass, shape and dynamic properties of flight models but otherwise only carry systems and instruments needed for the tests being conducted. Their low costs and adaptability make them ideal for early testing of a new spacecraft design. BP-15 was a 6.6 meter tall aluminum structure with a maximum diameter of 3.9 meters and total mass of 7,800 kilograms including 1,270 kilograms of strategically placed lead ballast. The exterior of the Command Module (CM) was covered with cork insulation to prevent overheating during ascent. The spacecraft was instrumented to acquire 133 measurements including heat rates, temperatures, aerodynamics, and static loads that were sent to the ground using three telemetry systems. Unlike BP-13 flown on the A-101 mission, one of the simulated attitude control engine “quads” on the CSM of BP-15 was also instrumented on this flight to gather information on heating and vibration loads to verify Apollo engineers’ estimates.
On top of BP-15 was the 7.7 meter tall LES that would be jettisoned during ascent employing not only the normal jettison motor but also a pitch motor for the first time to turn the LES safely out of the flight path of the ascending rocket. The ultimate goal of this flight was to place BP-15 into a 185 by 217-kilometer orbit that would approximate the parking orbit to be used by future Apollo lunar flights. Once in orbit, BP-15 and the S-IV second stage of the Saturn I launch vehicle would remain attached to each other just as they had in the previous flight. This satellite would have a total length of 24.4 meters and a dry mass of about 16,650 kilograms. Data were required to be collected for only a single orbit before the batteries were expected to be depleted and no recovery would be attempted. The low orbit was expected to decay in about three days with the spent stage and payload burning up during reentry.
The launch vehicle for the A-102 test flight was a Block II Saturn I designated SA-7. This was the seventh test flight of the Saturn I program and the third orbital flight. The Saturn I was developed for NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama by a team headed by famed German-American rocket pioneer, Wernher von Braun. SA-7 was the third flight of the improved Block II model of the Saturn I with a first stage, designated S-I, sporting eight uprated Rocketdyne H-1 engines generating 6,700 kN at liftoff. The second or S-IV stage of the Block II Saturn I employed six hydrogen-fueled Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engines to generate 400 kN of thrust. The SA-7 with its Apollo payload was 58 meters tall with a launch mass of 517 metric tons.
Several changes were made to the SA-7 based on experience with earlier flights to improve the performance and reliability of the rocket. This was the first Saturn I flight to rely on the new ST-124 guidance platform carried in the Instrument Unit between the top of the launch vehicle and the payload. This replaced the ST-90 system used on the previous two orbital flights. This was also the first Saturn I flight to employ upgraded Mark III H turbopumps in the first stage’s eight H-1 engines. The Mark III H included design changes to prevent the type of engine turbopump failure that occurred during the previous flight of SA-6. The venting system of the S-IV stage was also altered to minimize propulsive effects from the outgassing of leftover cryogenic propellants once in orbit in order to avoid increasing the spin rate of the stage and its attached payload. The SA-7 had 13 telemetry systems that gathered a total of 1,245 measurements of vehicle performance during flight. Combined with the data from BP-15, the A-102/SA-7 mission returned the largest number of telemetry measurements of any American launch up until that time.
After weeks of delays because of hardware issues and a pair of hurricanes, SA-7 carrying BP-15 successfully lifted off from Launch Pad 37B at the Cape Kennedy (which had been renamed in December 1963 in honor of the late President Kennedy) at 12:22:43 PM EDT on September 18, 1964. The first stage operated normally and shutdown less than a second later than planned 147 seconds after launch. Just 2.5 seconds later, the S-IV second stage ignited followed by the successful jettisoning of the LES 160 seconds into the flight. The six RL-10 engines of the S-IV stage shutdown just 1.3 second later than planned 621 seconds after launch. The S-IV stage and the attached BP-15, which had an orbital mass of 17,816 kilograms including the unused propellant, were now in a slightly higher than planned 212.7 by 226.5-kilometer orbit. Telemetry was received from the tracking transmitter on the Apollo until the batteries were exhausted during the fifth orbit. The silent satellite was then tracked by radar as its orbit decayed and finally fell to Earth over the Indian Ocean during the 59th orbit on September 22.
Despite some minor anomalies, all of the major test objectives of the SA-7 flight were met. One of the anomalies was bad data from the thermocouples used to gather heating data from the CSM attitude control quad but usable data could be gathered on subsequent test flights. There were also problems with the recovery of the eight film pods from cameras on the first stage that were suppose to document various operations especially those associated with stage separation. The film pods were supposed to be ejected 172 seconds after launch but they ended up parachuting farther downrange than the planned 850 kilometers and into the path of Hurricane Gladys preventing their recovery. Two months afterwards, a pair of barnacle-encrusted pods washed ashore with their precious cargo of film undamaged. With this successful flight and with only three more Saturn I test flights planned through mid-1965, the Saturn and Apollo programs were one step closer towards the eventual goal of sending Americans to the Moon.
Related Reading
“The First Apollo Orbital Test Flight”, Drew Ex Machina, May 28, 2014 [Post]
“The First Apollo-Little Joe II Launch”, Drew Ex Machina, May 13, 2014 [Post]
“The Coolest Rocket Ever”, Drew Ex Machina, March 30, 2014 [Post]
“A History of American Rocket Engine Development”, Drew Ex Machina, June 9, 2014 [Post]
General References
Roger E. Bilstein, Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn Launch Vehicles, University Press of Florida, 2003
Alan Lawrie, Saturn I/IB – The Complete Manufacturing and Test Records, Apogee Books, 2008
Mary Louise Morse and Jean Kernahan Bays, The Apollo Spacecraft – A Chronology Volume II, SP-4009, NASA, 1973
“NASA to Launch Seventh Saturn I in Apollo Test”, Press Release 64-228, NASA, September 13, 1964
Mr. LePage, thank you for your wonderful Website http://www.drewmachina.com, especially its historical aspects. I was in grammar school for the launch of Explorer I (and Sputnik); in high school for manned Mercury; in college for Gemini and in the USAF for Apollo. Thus, my historical interest. Watching Shuttle launches on real-time TV and in videos on my desktop for over 30 years was and is a real thrill. Watching them now incurs a bit of sadness. Every time an ISS crew is launched, I cringe to think that we rely on a launch vehicle and spacecraft, both named Soyuz, conceived 55 years ago by a former enemy (or is it current one?) and pay $70 M per seat per launch. Which gets me to how I found your site…by Internet researching Mercury-Atlas, Gemini-Titan and Apollo Saturn, specifically photos of Apollo 7 – Saturn 1B. In my opinion this exceedingly reliable spacecraft and launch vehicle (with Rocketdyne H-1 engines), modified to state of the art in later generations, could be launching our astronauts to the ISS now. That is if the US had followed the Soviet/Russian path of using existing platforms while new ones were developed. The Saturn V could have boosted huge payloads for something like the ISS, perhaps the space station in 2001, A Space Odyssey over 30 years. Throwing all that away in the ’70’s for a super costly, super complex and very dangerous shuttle was a bad decision (or madness).
Plans should have been made immediately following the Challenger accident for a safer, cheaper spacecraft. As I have read, NASA began considering a shuttle replacement in the mid-90’s but didn’t get the job done…until the Columbia tragedy. Had development and plans for a spacecraft and use of existing cargo vehicles (Atlas, Titan, Delta) began in the mid-90’s, they may have replaced the shuttle immediately after Columbia. The Constellation Project was born but the Bush administration did not really fund it. As far as I know, only things to come out of it were the flight of Ares IX and maybe some work on the engines and a capsule. We would be flying Ares to the ISS now if it had been allowed to continue SIMULTANEOUSLY with commercial crew and cargo development. Costly but sensible. All of our man-in-space “gaps” in the 1970’s and 2010’s were do to faulty planning and the focus on and costs of unnecessary wars.
Ironically, we are not only flying on Russian vehicles, but at least two of our aerospace companies are relying on Russian engines for their launch vehicles. I understand these rockets were originally designed to be more efficient in burning all the fuel available for maximum thrust to weight, than US ones. The ULA Atlas V uses the highly reliable but Russian made RD-180. Fortunately, ULA is developing the Vulcan launch vehicle and has contracted with Blue Origin to use its BE-4 engine, which is only 3 years into a 7 year development cycle. The Orbital ATK Anteres (which blew up last year-perhaps due to a turbopump failure) used an ancient Russian NK-33, refurbished/ by Rocketdyne and renamed the JA26. So Orbital seems to be replacing the JA26 with another Russian engine, the RD-181, still relying on a Russian design and subject to Russia’s demand that launches using its rocket be of a non-military nature. Too bad that a contract between ULA and the Russia rocket producer prevented Orbital from obtaining the RD-180 last year. I am glad that SpaceX developed its own engines. It’s recent ISS resupply failure seems to have been caused by a structural (strut) failure and not an engine one.
By the way, speaking of turbopumps, I am rather fascinated by this video of Gemini 7’s aborted launch because the screech as the engines ignite. Internet comments say it is the starter cartridge gases starting up the turbopumps, as in the first 60 seconds of this You Tube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4C_D7Mo5u8 This little gal, about 35-40 years my junior, appears to have the answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTJDI4bwtOM
I appreciate two stories you have: “The Coolest Rocket Ever” and “50 Years Ago Today: The Second Apollo Orbital Test Flight.” I will check in with your site from time to time.
Ed J in Memphis, TN