Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Apollo Experiments and Training on the Scientific Aspects of the Apollo Program

Template:AfjWork Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Apollo Experiments and Training on the Scientific Aspects of the Apollo Program, NASA, December 15, 1963.

The Apollo program was driven by the need to decisively demonstrate American technological prowess in the face of early Soviet space victories. Scientific lunar exploration was a secondary concern. In fact, many engineers saw lunar science as a distraction from the already daunting task of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. The community of lunar scientists was small when Kennedy put the U.S. on the road to the moon in May 1961. Nevertheless, lunar science had its energetic proponents. In early 1962, they saw to it that NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF) asked NASA's Office of Space Science (OSS) to outline an Apollo science program. OSS appointed NASA physicist Charles Sonett to head up an ad hoc working group, and OMSF provided it with a set of guidelines. The group's 12 members and nine consultants included geologist (and aspiring Apollo astronaut) Eugene Shoemaker, geophysicist Paul Lowman, astronomers Gerard Kuiper and Thomas Gold, and chemist Harold Urey. They circulated their July 1962 draft report at the National Academy of Science's Iowa City meeting (June 17-August 31, 1962) and within NASA, receiving "general endorsement" for their recommendations. This final version of the Sonett Report, labeled "for internal NASA use only. . .not for release to the general public," can be seen as the first in a series of influential Apollo planning documents calling for ambitious lunar scientific exploration. The working group's recommendations cover a wide range of areas, including

• Pre-Apollo mapping: All proposed Apollo landing sites should be photographed by automated Lunar Orbiter spacecraft and the photographs used to make geology maps. This will save time during the Apollo expedition, since the astronauts will not have to map their landing site before beginning geological field work.
• Scientist-astronauts: Each two-person Apollo landing crew should include a scientist-astronaut with a Ph.D. in geology and 5-10 years of experience. Eager geologists on Earth would explore the moon vicariously through his descriptions and through real-time television from a camera mounted on his space suit. Kennedy's end-of-decade deadline means that Apollo scientist-astronauts will likely be drawn from professional scientists already at work in 1962-63, the report notes. It assumes, however, that Apollo will be only the first step in lunar exploration; therefore, "graduate students and young post graduate scientists should. . .be brought into the field of lunar science as potential astronauts as soon as possible."
• Flexible space suits: In its guidelines, OMSF advised the working group that the lunar space suit "will necessarily limit the crew's ability to act, particularly in performing precise manipulations." In its report, the working group urges development of suits that "permit a close approximation to unsuited limb, arm, and digital [finger] movements."
• Surface vehicles: OMSF advised the working group that a space-suited astronaut will probably be unable to travel more than a half-mile from the lander, but raised the possibility of a rover or other mobility aids. The working group states that "reconnaissance beyond a one-half mile radius of the spacecraft will be a necessity. . . For example, a lunar ray, a feature of great interest, is probably a poor place to land, yet the capability of traveling to a ray area is clearly indicated. . . For scientific purposes, therefore, there should be the capability of reaching areas some 50 miles from a landing site."
• Unmanned cargo lander: OMSF's guidelines state that a "supply vehicle" capable of landing up to 15 tons of cargo is "under active consideration." The lander might carry landing beacons for guiding the piloted lander to a safe touchdown, surface vehicles, and "additional power supplies and life support equipment." The working group urges OMSF to proceed with supply lander development, stating that "the manned spacecraft cannot carry the equipment and supplies needed for even the modest scientific program recommended."
• Lunar science activities for surface stays of different lengths: OMSF proposed lunar surface stays ranging from four to 24 hours. The working group calls for missions with progressively longer surface stays and more complex science programs.
  • First Apollo mission: "[W]e feel that for the first mission 8 hours is the minimum time that should be considered," the group states. The astronauts would spend four hours checking out their lander to prepare for departure, and the remaining time taking turns exploring near the lander. They would collect up to 100 pounds of rocks, test soil strength, and study whether solar heating causes moon dust to flow like a highly viscous liquid.
  • The second Apollo mission should spend 24 hours on the moon. "The nature of the surface will no longer be a puzzle," the report states, so the second mission "should begin the series of scientific experiments." These should include study of the extremely tenuous lunar atmosphere prior to its alteration by Apollo rocket exhaust. The astronauts would take turns going outside to explore the area near the lander.
  • Later Apollo missions: A five-day (120-hour) mission should include four days of exploration, during which a surface vehicle should carry the astronauts up to 10 miles from the landing site. "The extended reconnaissance, for safety, should be made by two men together," the report advises. Other work should include drilling a hole five to 20 feet deep and inserting a heat probe, "collecting samples for biological purposes," and emplacing a seismograph, micrometeorite detector, and other instrument packages. The report envisions instruments linked by cables to a "central station" containing a radio transmitter. This would rely on a nuclear source for electricity, enabling it to relay data from the instruments to Earth for months or years.
  • The five-hour mission would include a four-hour checkout of the lunar lander, followed by a one-hour moonwalk by one astronaut. "We do not believe that a one-hour mission is an adequate payoff for the time and effort needed to put a mission on the moon," the working group states. It acknowledges, however, that "an accident" might limit exploration to one hour. The moonwalker would hurriedly collect about 50 pounds of geological samples.
• Lunar astronomy: "The consensus of astronomers is that the initial Apollo missions should not be burdened by astronomical activities," the working group reports. Nonetheless, it proposes that Apollo missions evaluate the moon as a site for post-Apollo optical observatories and set up an experimental 300-meter-long wire antenna for radio astronomy.

OMSF asked the working group to assume "more than one but less than ten" Apollo landings. In keeping with its conviction that lunar exploration should continue after Apollo, the working group offers two sets of 15 sites each. Eugene Shoemaker and R. E. Eggleton, U.S. Geological Survey, selected the first set; Duane Dugan, NASA Ames Research Center, selected the second. Interestingly, the two lists have in common only Alphonsus crater and Mare Imbrium near Mt. Huyghens. Some sites (such as Amundsen, near the south pole) lie outside the equatorial zone attainable by Apollo spacecraft. The working group states that "there is no question that sites of the greatest scientific interest lie outside the equatorial belt. There is, then, a requirement for capability of landing in the equatorial belt, at the poles, and elsewhere" on the moon. The Sonett Report recommends that the first Apollo lander set down near Copernicus crater, and that no other sites be selected until after Lunar Orbiter spacecraft photograph the moon's surface.

Return to Apollos Planned, Apollos Lost subject page.

Return to Romance to Reality home.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050320234536/www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/ap11.html Copyright © 2002-2005 Mars Institute. Romance to Reality copyright © 2005 David S. F. Portree. All rights reserved.