MSC-07631 17. Training

Evans

CMS - The crew station was always in good shape. Some of the interior storage was boxes, but the items of storage equipment that needed to be used were always there. Jerry Stoner and his crew kept it in excellent orbital storage most of the time. If we wanted it restowed for a SIM, for lift-off, or anything, all we had to do was let him know and they were in there all hours of the day and night to get everything squared away.

Fidelity of the CMS - I've mentioned the differences in the actual vehicle and the CMS in the various other sections of the report. They are minor.

Availability - The CMS was always available any time I wanted it - more than I could use it in some cases. The people involved in the CMS training - knowing full well that Apollo 17 was their last shot - were outstanding in their desire to continue training and to put out their best efforts in insuring that I was trained and ready to go.

Visual systems - I didn't seem to have any problems with that. The biggest problem was in the star ball. Every once in a while it would get fouled up. That and the sextant drive were a little bit jerky but it worked great.

Software - F computer was going all the time. If it ever conked out, they fixed it fast.

Schmitt

I echo all of Ron's good words about the quality of the training and the dedication of the troops down there. From the systems point of view, I think the fidelity of the systems was all that was required and was generally very high. Only those differences that were spacecraft peculiar were the ones that were not simulated. Where there were other comments to be made, they have been made in conjunction with systems work.

Availability was fine as far as I'm concerned.

The visual systems were good. The only ones that really concerned me were the entry visuals and they were certainly adequate, although they do not give full representation in drogue and main deployment.

LMS - we never really stowed the LMS. The gear necessary for general training was perfectly adequate. All of our crew-station-type training was done in the mockup of the LMS. We've also mentioned the fidelity of the training and wherever there was differences, the L&A and the AOT were excellent representations, based on a little bit of comparison that I did.

The AGS software in flight was just like the AGS software in the simulator with one well-known exception. You get your displays faster in the simulator than you do in the flight but this was never a problem. My work with the PNGS is limited and confirms what the CDR has already said, that the PGNS in the simulator and PGNS in flight are essentially the same.

The LRV navigation simulator - The main usefulness I received from this simulator was working over the traverses and understanding and knowing what we were supposed to do. The comparison of driving on the lunar surface with that of the simulator was very poor. I think the problem is that the simulator has to give you a much higher point of view. The simulator is 20, 30, maybe 40 feet higher above the surface. When you're down at 4 or 5 feet, as you are in the LRV, it's a different world. It makes a big difference in what you recognize. The other side of that coin is that once we started moving on EVA-2 and EVA-3, there was never any difficulty on the lunar surface of recognizing the larger features that we had seen on the LRV simulator. So it worked out very well.

CMS/LMS simulations - In general, the integrated work we did always went very well.

Evans

I think it did. We lost 1/2 day on an integrated sim.

Schmitt

I think the few places where we ran a little bit behind in flight were those portions we never really simulated, such as suiting operations and the tunnel operations. They went smoothly, too., I think not simulating them in detail was a good decision, and I don't think it affected our operations.

Evans

I don't think so, either.

SNS - I don't know how you can ever overcome this, because in the SNS you are training the crew and you're also trying to train the MOCR. There isn't that much for the CMP to do to keep busy all the time from a training standpoint. I don't know if that's necessarily bad or not.

Schmitt

We had a few excellent SNS, from the standpoint of fairly continuous activity. In general, Ron's comments are valid for Apollo 17. If my memory serves me correctly, Apollo 15 SNS were much more active. And I don't know why there might have been that difference.

Evans

On Apollo 14 backup crew, I was more in a learning stage at that point than I was on Apollo 17. In Apollo 17, it was more of a review stage for training than anything else.

Schmitt

I think that's a natural point.

Evans

DCPS - We tried to get it once every 2 weeks, which we did in the first part of the training cycle. The last 3 months we were lucky to get into the DCPS once a month. I feel it's a necessary part of the training and should definitely be continued. The CMPS was shut down after Apollo 16, so all of my rendezvous rescue procedures and training was accomplished prior to Apollo 16, with a final review of the rescue book about a month prior to the Apollo 17 launch.

Schmitt

I'd like to make a general remark about CMPS and LMPS type simulators for future programs. If you ever have a program where you're bringing in a new group of people to fly your spacecraft , this type of facility is extremely valuable. It gives a new man a chance to train without the constraints of simulator ties. He doesn't have the pressure of other crewmen looking over his shoulder and evaluating his performance. He can figure out how to do things, what a simulator really is, and what many of the more standard procedures are. I think it's a very valuable type of simulation. When you're dealing with a large pool of experienced crewmen, then that type of simulator is not necessary. This type of simulator develops habit patterns which are necessary in order to move on to the total mission simulators.

Let me go back to SNSs. I had a feeling - and again I'm comparing with 15 - the total readiness of the combined MOCR and crew team came up more slowly than it did on 15, sometimes more slowly than I expected it to. But , at the end, I had the feeling that we were every bit as ready as a team as we were on 15. There was a lot of Skylab work for a lot of people there and I think that may have affected the rate in which we came up.

Evans

Command module egress training - The mockups over in building 5 were utilized from an EVA standpoint for the CMP. The probe and drogue mockup was utilized several times. The last was a review and a final check. This is an absolute necessity for the drogue operations and also for the command module EVA operations. You need to utilize the mission simulator once or twice to tie in the systems procedures with the mockup procedures.

Schmitt

The lunar module pilot's egress training was largely accomplished on Apollo 15. We did procedures reviews or mockup reviews and I did not get into the water tank for Apollo 17. The launch pad final walkdown came at a good time. The normal training we did in the hypergolic building was standard and excellent. I think it was good familiarization.

Evans

It was good familiarization and also a must.

Schmitt

It's a confidence builder and I think you ought to do it. The altitude chamber work tends to give you a little bit of egress training just because you have to deal with a real vacuum. I think that also is something you just pick up but that adds to your total readiness as far as egress is concerned.

Evans

The water tank is where I received most of my EVA training. The water tank is a pretty good representation of zero-g. It was a lot better for me than the zero-g airplane. I became sick in the zero-g airplane every time except one. I never became sick in flight and never felt like I was going to be sick in flight. Every time I got on the zero-g airplane I always wanted to get as much done as possible before I started throwing up. I don't have too much confidence in the zero-g airplane even though I flew in it four or five times.

Cernan

I'll make some general comments about the CMS training. The CMS, from a hardware point of view, supported our mission in an excellent fashion. I think the crew at the Cape made themselves particularly available and were a vital part of the training. They did an outstanding job. The CMS is always limited in a visual and a dynamic system because it is a fixed- base simulator. I think within the capabilities that it has to reproduce the visual, we received a good preview of what this flight was going to be about.

It was mentioned earlier that for launch and reentries there are certain periods of time that you can not do in the real world that you can in a simulator because of the dynamic g-forces. It was also mentioned that this method of training in solving systems problems during those phases is still an excellent way in which to train as long as you realize that there are certain phases in the dynamic portions of the mission in which you will not be able to exercise the freedom that you can in the simulator.

The LMS from a hardware as well as an individual instructor support point of view supported our mission, in outstanding fashion. The entire system was excellent. The L&A, from a gross recognition point of view, was a duplicate of Taurus-Littrow. When we pitched over, it was almost like being in the L&A, except you very obviously got the realistic three-dimensional feeling. All of the software practices we used in the simulator were used in the spacecraft. The duplication of the spacecraft's software on the ground in the simulators was outstanding because I never had any problems or overloads. Everything performed just as advertised.

I want to mention something about the LRV navigation simulator. It's a very good area familiarization simulator. I anticipated it would be a real great navigation driving simulator, but it's really just an area familiarization simulator in terms of driving from station to station and completing your EVA traverses. I think its major shortcoming is you never get the feeling of size or distance on this simulator, because on the Moon you have to at least double or quadruple your estimate of size and distance. You do not get that on the lunar Rover navigation simulator. You do not get involved in what it takes to drive the lunar Rover on the simulator and I don't just mean the 1/2-g [sic] effect. I mean the effect that in the real world when you drive the Rover you are continually avoiding rocks, holes, and craters. Some you can see and some you can't quite see. It's a continuous requirement to watch where you're going. The duty cycle of the controller is almost 100 percent. You do not have this requirement on the lunar Rover navigation simulator, and it's a little unrealistic from that point of view. We didn't spend that much time on the LRNS and I'm thankful we didn't. I thought it would be more valuable. The simulations we had with Houston and the integrated sims at the Cape went very well. We had very few hardware problems. The LMS in the last couple weeks had hardware problems now and then, but the people were able to recover and we only lost 1/2 day, and I think we made that up.

Ward

The backup crew essentially lost a day.

Cernan

The DCPS in Houston was used extensively until 3 or 4 months before the flight. I'm very glad I did that because it was not just abort training, but it was abort and booster familiarization work. I felt very comfortable in flying the aborts as well as the manual takeovers on the booster. The rest of that training was done at the Cape in the CMS and I never felt anything but at home and quite knowledgeable about that part of the training.

CM/LM egress - The altitude chambers speak for themselves. We did the launch pad work. We did water tank and not Gulf egress work and I heartily recommend that.

Systems briefings went hand in hand with our simulator briefings from the simulator people. We did a lot of those very early and then just kept up the speed as we felt we needed them throughout the last 4 or 5 months with the other training.

Schmitt

I spent a lot of time, the first 6 or 8 months, with the flight control division people going over the various systems that I was concerned with. I found this very valuable, not only in learning the systems but in learning how they were thinking about these systems. Once we were at the Cape, most of that kind of training was done directly with the simulator people, who did an excellent job. I was in fairly continuous phone contact with the Flight Control Division people to whom I talked earlier. This combination kept my systems knowledge pretty well up to date. I think it was an excellent way to approach the problem.

Cernan

Simulator training plans - Eight to ten months ago, I sat down with the training coordinator and the senior simulator people at the Cape and asked the people there to go into the back simulator training history of the entire crew, because each crewman had a little different background. We found out where we all stood in terms of our simulator background looking forward to our future total simulator requirements. We tried to emphasize scheduling to fill in our weak spots. We reviewed this periodically - about every month - just to see how our training was going.

This type of review with the simulator people did two things. I made them work out a particular schedule which we did our best to live up to, and it gave them a schedule that they could work on, plan on, and get ready to brief on. It made sure that we covered all areas which we could have skipped if we just randomly went out and told them what we wanted to do. In addition, I asked them to make sure the backup crew did not go off in one direction while we went off in another. The backup crew ran within the same time frame, the same type of training that we ran. In addition, they verified all our flight procedures and check-lists. They could uncover possible errors or shortcomings in the procedures, due to their experience, that we might not.

I think that all paid off. In the end we had all the important squares filled. The initial simulator requirement time was now an academic number because we knew exactly what we had done and where our strong points were. We reevaluated our entire simulator background and found out we were in pretty good shape.

We probably spent more time in science training, both in the mechanics of ALSEP development and SIM bay operation as well as from orbital geology to geogeology work, than any other crew in the past. And at the time it seemed like we were expending almost too much time in this area. But, in retrospect, I've got to say, it was time very well spent although it was time that had to come at the expense of something else. But I think those things were reasonable in terms of our previous training and background and not compromise the entire training and readiness for the flight.

Schmitt

Let me add a comment to science training. We made a very special effort , and many people in the Science and Applications Directorate went out of their way, particularly people associated with contractor support, to see that we had extensive exposure to the lunar sample. I think that in itself also paid off handsomely in recognition of rock types on the lunar surface. Those people are to be complimented doing what - in a time of tight budgets - is a difficult thing to do and let us see the lunar rocks. They also supported very frequently with 2- or 3-hour discussions on various lunar problems, which also was above and beyond the call of duty.

Evans

Orbital geology - From my standpoint, three people were indispensable in this respect. Dick Laidley, Jeff Warner, and Farouk El Baz, each in their own little areas. Dick Laidley was indispensable in that he had been the pilot and the CMP's geologist so to speak for Apollo 16 and for the field trips involved - getting ready, knowing where to go, how to follow flight plans, what to expect, what photos to take, and this type of thing - he's indispensable from that standpoint. Jeff Warner took over and organized the rest of the scientific briefings for the CMP, got these squared away, and participated in the field trips from the low-altitude standpoint and also with the site specialists. Farouk came into his own along towards the end of the training cycle when we were involved primarily in the crew familiarization and training of the lunar geology itself. I think in each case we had the right amount of field trips. We just about exhausted all of the field trips that were available, since we got an early start on them. Even though you like to get a refresher field trip along toward the end of the training cycle, there just doesn't seem to be time to get it in. The lunar geology should also begin close to the end of the training cycle and continue on up to launch, which it did. You really don't need to make a recommendation any more, but El Baz should have been on the primary contact list.

Schmitt

Well, I think that would go for any activity, in Earth orbit or anywhere.

Evans

It's hard to work through a window. It can be accomplished, but it's a lot easier to be side by side.

One more for identification training. We had good landmark maps. We only had four or five of them and so not a whole lot of time was involved in that because they were pictured quite well.

SIM bay training - In the early part of the training cycle, I was essentially following the manufacturing and the design really of the the lunar sounder, so I was somewhat involved in the initial part of that. And. then you get down to the final stages of it and work through the ASPO people and the FOD people as well as the people on the CMS who keep you up to date on the nitty gritty and the systems diagrams and that part of the training. And it was sufficient and adequate.

Schmitt

The 1/6g aircraft - I always felt that there's an important but limited area for the 1/6g procedures. I think if nothing else it paid off in evaluating the LRV sampler and convinced us that it was a feasible way to sample. I think for general familiarity with part tasks that could be accomplished in 20 seconds or so that the 1/6g aircraft was extremely valuable and those people did an outstanding job of supporting us. I mean Jack Slight and the Air Force and NASA in general. I also think the K-bird is a good vestibular trainer in spite of the fact it's very uncomfortable. I think it's probably worth doing a couple of times - for myself, anyway, to keep my vestibular system in some kind of condition.

One-g walkthroughs - Well, mainly that's familiarity, and that's exactly what it did and it was extremely useful. Field trips - If we checked the number of trips, we probably had a little less than 15 or 16 did, but nevertheless they were well organized. They were mostly to brand new areas, so the people should be complimented on coming up with trips that had never been done before. That was mainly in order to keep the LMP from seeing a lot of familiar terrain. The support we received, the cooperation of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Science Mapping Directorate, was outstanding. I think all problems that existed several years ago and continued to exist to a limited extent were just about gone if not completely gone. The groups are working together extremely well and I understand continued to work together through the mission in various capacities in supporting our operations on the surface. We appreciated it very much.

The LRV trainer - The LMP did not have too much to do with that. He went through the normal familiarization to drive it and knew the systems remarkably well. I think the one unit we got the most out of was the Grover, which was a U.S.G.S-built machine that we used on field trips. It had a lot to do with getting us used to the problems and advantages of using a four-wheel drive vehicle for geological explorations. In particular, I know the CDR would comment and he may yet that the Grover was good for emphasizing the amount of time you have to spend in driving versus what you would normally expect to see on the LRV simulator.

The CSD chamber work was extremely valuable. The two runs on the PLSS and going through the EVA prep and post operations in the chamber and using our flight PLSSs, and backup PLSSs was some of the most valuable EVA training we received in my opinion.

Evans

I think I can just pretty much second that although my training was strictly on the umbilical, the O2 umbilical and OPS. In both cases, the first one was strictly a familiarization and confidence-type builder, knowing that you can survive and move in a vacuum with all of this equipment. The second run was more a refamiliarization with the equipment and also, as far as I'm concerned, a necessity.

Schmitt

The two CSD runs were probably all you needed. We did one early and one late, and I think that was excellent scheduling. The people in the chamber should be complimented for the quality of the training. The schedule is to be complimented for having it in there because it really topped off the EVA prep and post training that we received.

Cernan

And the late one really meant something in terms of us remembering how much pressure there was to put water connectors on. Also, it gave us a closed loop matrix on handling all our EVE gear. As it turned out, we changed out the commander's PLSS.

The Grover, I think, was very useful for extending our geology training and putting us in the right environment in terms of distance to cover and getting on and off and what have you. The dynamics of the vehicle were nowhere what the real vehicle is, but it was certainly an advantageous device to have for field training and geology without question.

Schmitt

I mentioned on the Grover, and see if you agree so it's clear on the record, that you commented several times that the driving tasks as termed to workload was comparable in certain kinds of trips.

Cernan

That's a good point, Well worth mentioning again is the fact that even on Earth terrain the guy in the left seat is not going to do much geology. He's going to navigate and he's going to pay attention to the driving task. The Grover brought that home very clearly. I convinced myself that that was going to be the job in a real world.

The one-g trainer that we had down at the Cape I think certainly did more than an adequate job. I felt very much at home in a hardsuit in the Rover in 1/6g because of the work we had done with the one-g Rover trainer down at the Cape. The reach capability, the control capability with the hand controller, studying the low-gain antennas, the surprising reach on LRV sampling, and taking the sample out of the container bag and reaching over and putting it in the LMP's bag was almost exactly like the one-g trainer.

I personally felt that simulating zero-g contingency EVA training was not worth the time doing. You'll never know, but I still feel that way.

Evans

I concur with you, Gene.

Cernan

Now, you've had some EVA training. Tell us.

Evans

Walking the handrails was a piece of cake. I felt confident in everything that I was doing out there.

Cernan

And it's a case of exercising the procedures in 1g. There was no question in my mind but that we could have transferred if we had had to with the training background that we had.

Evans

The next item there is the EVA prep and post training. Jim Ellis had the procedures essentially all squared away from Apollo 16. He made a few modifications to account for the differences in the stowage so all I had to do was to come in, follow through the procedures, and get trained and do it. think we had the right amount of EVA preps.

Cernan

All of this EVA, both command module and LM prep and post-EVA training - we really walked in the footsteps of the guys who had prepared and exercised the procedures in training and in the real world. And we really altered them very little. We just based our training efforts upon their experience and it paid off. They were good procedures. They worked well in flight, and we did not make many small personal changes to these at all.

Schmitt

I did a couple extra mockup and stowage training exercises and I'm glad I did them. It made me more generally familiar with where things were in the command module and I can't say that I really needed it but I felt a lot better once we were up there that I know where A-1 and A-2 were. I didn't have to keep asking Ron quite as often where things were. So if you have the time, it's still useful to the whole crew if you have that familiarity.

Evans

I'm also a firm believer in having the CMS fully stowed in whatever orbital operation you're doing, because this spacecraft is a lot different when it's fully stowed than when it isn't.

Photography and camera training - This flight was essentially review for me. I was familiar with the cameras, the photography, and this type of thing.

Cernan

I think that's the case for all three. But we did have a session or two anyway in that area.

Let me say something about the lunar surface experiment training. This goes for the SIM bay, too. When we first got introduced to the new experiment packages, we started out by having briefings by the PIs. It gave us a chance to meet personally and know each other's basic objectives. I think it gave the PIs a feeling that we were interested personally and professionally in carrying out to the greatest extent possible every objective of their experiment. I think, when we launched, every PI was satisfied that everything humanly possible had been written into the Flight Plan to meet the objectives of their experiment. It was a very, very good relationship and I'm very glad we did it.

The LLTV besides being a very enjoyable machine to fly from the pilot's point of view is just one of those things I feel just makes a landing on the Moon that much easier. Puts you in a familiar situation. The dynamics of actually being out there on the front of that LLTV are slightly different possibly than the real lunar module, but the roll and pitch and rates of descent in our actual lunar LM landing were not new and different because of the LLTV experience. I consider it a very valuable piece of time spent in preparation for our lunar landing.

Schmitt

The LMP doesn't have too much activity with respect to lunar landing. We might use manual throttle from the LMP side, and the simulator, with Gene more less in a GCA mode, showed that that was a perfectly adequate way to land the vehicle. I'd also like to compliment the use of the helicopters. The LMP continued to fly those because, in general, that kind of two- handed control has a direct feedback into handling two hands, ACA and PTCA in the LM Whether you're landing or not, it gives you a two-handed coordination proficiency required to perform those tasks to a fine degree. Particularly, I found that in MI aborts, where we were doing manual attitude control, that the more I flew the helicopter the more finely I could control it for those particular maneuvers.

Evans

In the planning of the training program I thought it was outstanding. I didn't at any time in the training program have to worry about, "What do I have to do next week." It was all taken care of. All I had to do was look at the schedule and say, "Hey, this is it." And press on. I don't believe I ever felt I was doing something unnecessarily. Nor did I feel like I completely missed anything that I should have been doing. You can never get enough training. However, I felt I was confident and ready to go at the right time.

That same logic can be tied into the fact that the trainer requirements were organized many months ago and we took a good look at them. Once they were established and down on paper, you didn't really have to worry about whether you were getting extraneous training or not enough training at that point in time. You knew you were eventually going to get what you needed and it did work out that way. The last week or two you begin to vary from that a little bit, based upon what you want to emphasize, maybe eliminate something you think that you're very familiar with. I flew a lot of manual descents and manual launches and manual TLIs the last week or so just to make sure that that would not be the thing that would keep us from going or doing the job. But beyond that, we followed the original planned training program.

Schmitt

The LMP concurs with all of that.

---

Edits and errors by Eric Hartwell are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license. The original NASA material is copyright-free.