Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
CIS 551
IT Project Management
Dr. Joseph Schuessler
MISSION MANAGEMENT
Presented by:
Alvin Blancett, Donna Fowler, Tricia Moore,
Monica Palacios, Resa Lubbock
DATE October 28, 2012
Project Deliverable Part II
[1]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Mission Management – Who We Are
Mission Management, a consulting firm that specializes in the analysis of historical events, has prepared
a report on the Apollo 13 Mission to assist in the future development of space exploration missions. Our
findings are documented from research of NASA’s Apollo 13 Mission. Our reports will describe an
overview of the mission, financial analysis of the project and report problems with the Apollo 13
module, a systems analysis along with recommendations for NASA and engineers to create a crew
exploration vehicle that will successfully complete its outer space mission.
ABOUT OUR MEMBERS
System Analyst
Alvin Blancett has an Associate of Applied Science Degree in Computer Networking and Administration
from Texas State Technical College with additional courses in Web Design and Web Mastering as well as
in Introduction to Cisco Networking. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business
Administration from Tarleton State University in 2010 and he is currently attending Tarleton State
University for a Master of Science degree in Information Systems. He has over 35 years in business and
customer experience from owning a small business as well as employment in the retail sector.
Project Manager
Donna Fowler is a 1990 graduate of Texas A&M University with a Bachelor of Science in Curriculum and
Instruction. Donna is currently pursuing her Master’s degree from Tarleton State University in
Instructional Design. She has 23 years of experience as an elementary teacher. She has managerial
experience as coordinator of programs and services for the gifted and talented, as well as campus
curriculum director where she oversees the training and professional development of teachers on her
campus. Donna also travels as an independent literacy consultant throughout the Texas region providing
speaking engagements and professional development to educators. She has created, organized and
implemented curriculum for professional staff development and manages University Scholastic League
Academic Competitions on the campus and district level.
[2]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Business Analyst
Monica Palacios obtained her Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting from Texas A&M
International University in 2005. Since graduation she has spent several years working in the accounting
industry. She is currently pursuing her Master of Science in Information Technology online from
Tarleton State University and will receive her degree December 2012.
Document Analyst
Tricia Moore is a 2012 graduate of Tarleton State University with a Bachelor of Science in Education –EC
thru 6th; with a certificate in English as a Second Language. Tricia is currently pursuing her Master’s
degree from Tarleton State University in Instructional Design. She has 15 years in the corporate arena,
with an expertise in Customer Service and Accounting. She has created, and implemented training
curriculum for professional staff development at the corporate level for 2 years.
Team Leader
Resa Lubbock is a graduate of Bee County College with an Associate of Applied Science. She received a
Bachelor of Science, Magna Cum Laude, from Tarleton State University in December of 2010. She is a
member of Delta Mu Delta, and the Texas Dental Hygiene Association. Resa is currently working on a
Master of Information Systems from Tarleton State University. She has 33 years’ experience in dentistry
and dental related software. She has managed dental teams during this time. Also she has produced
rodeos and is currently working on a program for rodeo secretaries.
[3]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Table of Contents
Mission Management – Who We Are........................................................................................................... 2
ABOUT OUR MEMBERS ............................................................................................................................. 2
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Apollo 13 – The Mission a historical analysis prepared by Mission Management Consulting Firm ............. 6
Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 7
System Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Scope of Project ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Problems the Apollo 13 Mission faced .................................................................................................. 9
Constraints of the Project ..................................................................................................................... 10
Computer Selection - The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) ............................................................ 10
Spacecraft Design.................................................................................................................................... 13
Follow up investigation ........................................................................................................................... 14
Positive Outputs from Apollo 13 ............................................................................................................. 14
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Apollo 13 Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................... 15
References .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Appendix 1 Apollo 13 .................................................................................................................................. 20
Service Module ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 2 Apollo 13 .................................................................................................................................. 21
Oxygen Tanks .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix 3 Mission Management .............................................................................................................. 22
Team Contract......................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix 4 Mission Management .............................................................................................................. 24
Team Log ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendix 5 Mission Management .............................................................................................................. 25
Timeline - Gantt Chart............................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix 6 Mission Management .............................................................................................................. 26
[4]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Project Charter ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Appendix 7 .................................................................................................................................................. 27
Work Breakdown Structure for Mission Management........................................................................... 27
[5]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Apollo 13 – The Mission a historical analysis prepared by Mission
Management Consulting Firm
“Houston we’ve had a problem here,” notable words from astronaut Jack Swigert aboard the Apollo 13
Mission. The Apollo 13 Space Mission is known in history as a “successful failure.” The mission failed
with its primary objectives to land on the Frau Mauro site of the moon and conduct scientific research.
However, the mission ended positively by bringing the astronauts; James A. Lovell, Jr. John Swigert, Jr.,
and Fred W. Haise, Jr., safely back to Earth.
Apollo 13 the “Unlucky 13,” was the thirteenth mission using Apollo specified flight protocol developed
by NASA. The spacecraft was similar to Apollo 12. The chart below taken from the Lunar and Planetary
Institute illustrates the Apollo 13 timeline. Apollo 13 was America’s fifth lunar expedition and third lunar
landing attempt.
Mission Event List and Timeline
EVENT
Launch
Earth orbit insertion
Translunar injection
LO2 tank anomaly
Trans-Earth injection
Splashdown
DATE AND TIME (EST)
April 11
02:13:00 pm
02:25:40 pm
04:54:47 pm
April 13 10:07:53 pm
April 14 09:40:39
April 17 01:07:41 pm
MISSION TIME
00:00:00
00:12:40
02:41:47
55:54:53
79:27:39
142:54:41
Overview
Apollo 13 spacecraft launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on April 11, 1970. The flight
was plagued with strange twists from the beginning. First one of the original crew members had to be
replaced at the last minute. Lift off was not uneventful. The center engine shut down two minutes early
causing other engines to burn longer than anticipated in order to put the spacecraft into orbit. The
spacecraft was designed with three modules: the service module (SM), the command module (CM), and
the lunar module (LM). The crew consisted of James A. Lovell, Jr., Mission Commander, John L. Swigert,
Jr., Command Module Pilot and Fred W. Haise, Jr., Lunar Module Pilot. On April 13, 1970, at
approximately 55:54:53 (mission time) and nearly 200,000 miles from home an explosion rocked the
[6]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
crew, ground controllers, NASA, and the world. It no longer was a space mission it became a rescue
mission. What followed was a formidable task. Ground controllers in Houston faced the challenge of
developing new protocols that had to be written and tested in the simulator before being forwarded to
the crew aboard Apollo 13. Oxygen, power and water consumables became a concern, as did carbon
dioxide removal. Navigation was a key issue. But on April 17, 1979 at approximately 01:07:41 pm (EST)
as the nation and the world watched splash down occurred in the Pacific Ocean near Samoa.
Fred W. Haise, Jr.
James A. Lovell, Jr.
John W. Swigert, Jr.
Cost Analysis
In order to get a better picture of the cost associated with the Apollo 13 mission it is import to note how
the overall Apollo Space System Project came about. On April 12, 1961 the Soviet Union launched the
first man into space. This mission demonstrated that the creation of a space program was a United
States necessity. The President at the time, John F. Kennedy, had been reluctant to develop the
program because of the enormous costs associated with developing and maintaining it. However, our
goals changed after the 1961 Soviet Union Mission and the Apollo Space Program was launched.
With the creation of the Apollo Program came an increase to NASA’s budget of an estimated 500%, with
the lunar landing program increasing overhead costs by eventually employing an estimated 34,000 NASA
employees and 375,000 industrial and university contractors. Other costs include, but not limited to:
[7]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Apollo Space Craft (220M- Cost per spacecraft), Launchers (4B), Lunar Probes (1B), and Manned Earth
Orbit (5.4B).
Total Cost for the Apollo 13 mission was an estimated $375M. Below you will find a breakdown of cost
per Apollo Mission along with NASA’s annual budget to include Apollo Missions:
Total Cost per Apollo Mission
Space craft
Apollo 7
Apollo 8
Apollo 9
Apollo 10
Apollo 11
Apollo 12
Apollo 13
Apollo 14
Apollo 15
Apollo 16
Apollo 17
Year
1968
1968
1969
1969
1969
1970
1970
1971
1971
1972
1972
$M
$145
$310
$340
$350
$355
$375
$375
$400
$445
$445
$450
NASA'S ANNUAL BUDGET and APOLLO
Apollo
Total
Fiscal Yr.
(94$B)
(94$B)
%
1962 $
0.78 $
5.89
13.31%
1963 $
2.91 $ 10.52
27.66%
1964 $
10.33 $ 20.62
50.08%
1965 $
11.47 $ 28.20
40.67%
1966 $
12.57 $ 28.20
44.58%
1967 $
11.95 $ 27.15
44.04%
1978 $
10.14 $ 24.41
41.55%
1969 $
7.76 $ 21.04
36.87%
1970 $
6.64 $ 17.26
36.19%
1971 $
3.23 $ 15.36
21.14%
1972 $
2.05 $ 11.99
17.10%
1973 $
0.25 $ 11.99
2.05%
Total
$
80.08 $ 222.63 375.24%
94$M
$575
$1,230
$1,303
$1,341
$1,360
$1,389
$1,389
$1,421
$1,581
$1,519
$1,536
System Analysis
Scope of Project
Apollo Space Vehicle Hardware Requirements
The Saturn V, A three-stage rocket, needed enough power to put a payload of about 140 tons for orbit
around the earth and an instrumentation panel with computers to control and guide the rocket. The
command modules needed guidance and navigational equipment for control in flight as well as electrical
power supplies, oxygen equipment, and a self-contained propulsion system for lunar orbit for
accelerating and decelerating for the return to earth as well as the capability to make corrections as
needed between the moon and earth. The lunar module would have two rocket stages for ascent and
descent from the moon as well as guidance and navigational equipment to control flight. The lunar
module would have an escape system that would allow for astronauts to return if the launch vehicle
failed.
[8]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Mission Requirements
The mission requirements for Apollo 13 were the exploration of the Fra Mauro crater that is thought to
be the result of an impact and to study its geological formation for determination of its age of the moon.
Another requirement was for the crew to perform inspections of the impact area, survey the surface,
and retrieve samples from the interior of the crater. Another requirement for the crew would be the
activation of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) program. It included a set of
scientific instruments that would be placed about the landing site with a central station which supplied
power to run the instruments and communications for the collection of data for relay back to
Earth. Additionally there would be requirements for the mission to further the capability to work in a
lunar environment and obtain photographs for sites for future exploration.
Problems the Apollo 13 Mission faced
There were several problems with the Apollo 13 space mission. The first minor obstacle was one of the
original crew members; Ken Mattingly was inadvertently exposed to the German measles by Charlie
Duke, backup LM pilot just two days prior to the launch date. Mattingly was replaced by backup CM
pilot Jack Swigert, Jr. while Swigert had been trained to fulfill this position he had not trained in the
space module with Lovell and Haise in the weeks and months prior to liftoff.
Shortly after liftoff on launch day the center engine, of the S-11 stage shut down two
minutes early, causing the other four engines to burn thirty-four seconds longer than planned which
caused the S-IVB third stage burn to last nine seconds longer before Apollo 13 was thrust into orbit.
However, the most significant problem aboard the space craft was an explosion in one of the two main
oxygen tanks. This occurred suddenly and without warning during a routine procedure called “stirring”
of the oxygen tanks. This is a standard process and test to keep the oxygen stable at higher levels of
atmospheric pressure and cooler temperatures. The explosion led to the loss of consumables in the
service module rendering it no longer functional. The mission to land on the Fra Mauro site of the moon
was aborted after fifty-five hours and fifty-four minutes of flight due to the loss of capability to generate
electricity or to provide oxygen, and water and to remove harmful carbon dioxide from the air. The
command module was powered down to avoid depleting the systems. All non-critical systems were
powered off in the CM. The lunar module, Aquarius, became the “lifeboat” for the Apollo 13 crew. It
allowed the crew a place to preserve the command module supplies. Water consumption was reduced
to six ounces per day per man, fruit juices and wet-packed foods were consumed. The crew became
dehydrated and lost nearly fifty percent more weight than previous space crews. Carbon Dioxide
removal was an issue because the LM was meant to house 2 crew members for two days and now to
would be three men for four days. The lithium hydroxide canisters, which remove the carbon dioxide
[9]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
from the spacecraft, were not interchangeable so ground crews worked feverishly to use what was
aboard the space craft to make the CM canisters work in the LM. Basically it was the square peg that
would not fit into the round hole equation. The lunar module was designed to hold two crew members
but it suddenly became headquarters for the three astronauts. The lunar module engine was used to
provide propulsion and maneuvers necessary for the return back to Earth. NASA’s Mission Control put
the mission on a free-return trajectory; meaning they will whip around the moon and get a push from its
gravity. It became a race against time and resources. Milestones to coming home according to the
astronauts were first-powering up the lunar module. Second, was passing the moon within 130 to 140
miles of the lunar surface, getting some pictures for scientific development and exploration and then
the second burn. Ground crew headed by Ken Mattingly fought frustration and time constraints to
overcome many obstacles presented to them. Flight controllers wrote documents for this innovation in
three days, normal this would take three months. They worked through the problems faced by the crew
of Apollo 13 on Earth before informing the crew aboard space craft of what procedures would sustain
life and with some uncertainty return the space craft safely to Earth.
Constraints of the Project
A major constraint of the project was getting the personnel to work together mainly the engineers and
scientists. The engineers worked in teams to build the hardware to carry out the mission for a successful
landing on the moon. The main goal of the engineers involved building a vehicle that functioned reliably
from the resources allocated to the Apollo mission. The scientists were more concerned with the
research to design the experiments to expand knowledge of the moon. They were also not used to the
regiment of the project and were against conceding the direction of the project to outside entities.
There were several issues between each group like the resentment from engineers to additions made to
the project after the project definition. The scientist disliked having to refigure payloads to meet time,
money and launch constraints.
Another constraint was the magnitude of Project Apollo and its time schedule which resulted in most of
the construction of the project outside NASA. The engineers and scientists did not build hardware and
were not a part of the space mission. Their main objectives were the planning of the program,
preparing guidelines for execution, and overseeing work done elsewhere. And, if they didn’t have the
necessary expertise to oversee the outside work, they could not meet the rigors the mission demanded.
Yet another constraint of Apollo 13 was the resentment by the American public, most Americans
preferred doing something about air and water pollution, job training for unskilled workers, national
beautification, and poverty before spending federal funds on human spaceflight. The Vietnam War and
the desperate conditions of the nation’s poor and its cities which made space flight seem
overindulgence.
Computer Selection - The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC)
In the initial design phase, NASA planners were concerned that the Soviet Union had the ability to jam
any navigational information sent from the ground which necessitated that computers had to be
capable of having autonomous command of the spacecraft. The AGC was the principle onboard
computer for NASA’s Apollo missions that were placed in both the Command Module (CM) and the
[10]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Lunar Module (LM). It performed both automatic and manual control if needed for lunar landings. Each
AGC was dipped in a waterproof epoxy compound to protect it in space. The ABD was designed by MIT
and built by Raytheon who used approximately four thousand integrated circuits, a remarkable feat for
the time. There were two different versions of the AGC, Block I, used on unmanned missions and Block II
used in manned missions.
The fixed core rope memory units in the computer consist of tiny nickel-iron cores woven together by
copper wires and encapsulated in plastic. The program for each mission determined the core rope
wiring sequence for each mission which were written in code and verified error-free before fabrication
of flight units.
Rope Memory
An integral part of the AGC is the Guidance and Navigation (G&N) system which measured the
spacecraft’s altitude and velocity. It also determined the trajectory and controlled the thrust vector of
the propulsion engine as well as information about a launch abort and the display of data. The G&N
system consists of three subsystems that were configured on each computer which operated
independently in the event of malfunction of any subsystem. The inertial measurement unit (IMU)
subsystem provides force measurements within the guidance system as signaling the control system and
the pilot’s altitude display. The second subsystem is optics which determines the spacecraft position in
the relation to stars or landmarks. The third subsystem is the AGC computer with two displays and
keyboard panels (DSKY’s) which processes and controls from the IMU and optics as well storing
programs and reference data.
Each computer had two types of memory, erasable and fixed. The fixed memory contained the
programs, constants and landmark coordinates using 36,864 terms or words, each of 15 bits length
[11]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
which equaled 74KB’s of memory. The erasable memory, which was used to store variable data used in
calculations or as registers for logic operations, had only 2,048 15-bit terms. The interface for the
astronauts to communicate with the computer is the Display and Keyboard unit (DSKY), which has a 21digit display and a 19-button keyboard. Two-digit numbers were used to represent program, verbs and
nouns with five-digit numbers represent data such as position, velocity, etc. In order to input a
command or action, the user had to press a button marked "Verb", followed by a number that
corresponded to the action. To input data, the user pressed the "Noun" button along with a number.
Over 10,000 keystrokes on the DSKY were required to successfully complete an Apollo mission.
DSKY Panel
The Command Module (CM) had one computer and two DSKY's and the Lunar Module has one main
DSKY panel, the Primary G&N Panel, with a secondary Abort Guidance Panel. The Apollo Command
Module G&N system and the Apollo Lunar Module G&N system Both G&N systems are almost identical
except that in the Lunar Module system the optical telescope is different and there is no sextant.
The AGC had two control programs that managed scheduling, the Executive and the Waitlist. The
Waitlist, an interrupt-driven component, could handle up to nine short tasks with execution times of
four milliseconds or less. An interrupt-driven system allows the operating system to schedule the
execution of tasks and the time to complete by hardware interrupt or software interrupts. Any jobs that
took longer were passed to the Executive queue which supervises the execution of all programs not in
interrupt mode. Each job/task is assigned a priority and allows the highest priority task to operate at any
given time. The Executive could manage up to 7 tasks, every 20 milliseconds.
The operating system (OS) also implemented a sophisticated virtual machine which offered more
complex instructions, and could be used to perform more advanced mathematics using only 2k of
memory and 32k of storage. The speed of the computer was a snail-like in the 1.024 MHz range with
external signaling at half that but what the AGC lacked in computer speed and power it made up for it
with a well-designed operating system.
The OS managed transitions between native instructions and the instruction set of the virtual machine,
which let developers mix and match the hardware level instructions with the virtual instructions within
the same assembler code.
Operating System
[12]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
The LM version was called Luminary, and the CM version, Colossus. They were coded in a language
called Mac, (MIT Algebraic Compiler), which was then converted by hand into assembler language that
the computer could understand. The assembler code was then fed into the AGC using punch cards. The
IMU, computer, and DSKY in the LM are physically identical to those in the CM except for the
accelerometer scaling in the IMU and the flight program in the computer. The LUMINARY program was
the OS for the Lunar Module that consisted of several subprograms which were priority driven by taking
turns executing by their priority. Each program would move data in and out of the very small erasable
area of memory (2K in size). The biggest debugging challenge was to keep programs from erasing, or
"overlaying", another program's data at inappropriate times. If too many tasks were demanding the
computer's time, it would simply delay or throw away what it had been working on, issue an alarm, and
start working on the new item.
The computer programs for Apollo 13 were small enough to fit into one listing (six inches thick on 11x15
inch fan-fold paper) which included symbol tables that allowed threads to be traced.
Spacecraft Design
Apollo 13 spacecraft was nearly identical to the Apollo 12 spacecraft in design. The spacecraft was
designed with three modules: the service module, the command module, and the lunar module. The
service module contained the water, oxygen and the power for the mission. It was also designed to
serve as the primary propulsion and maneuvering system of the spacecraft. The command module was
reinforced to hold higher parachute loads due to the increased weight. This module served as the crew
compartment and control center. The lunar module was designed to be used for landing on the moon,
and an operating base for the astronauts, it was designed to hold two people but all three astronauts
called it home during the crisis. None of the systems had been tested for what happened to them during
this mission. No one knew what the condensation would do to the instruments in CM and on the
descent to Earth it “rained” inside the CM. Temperature dropped below 38 degrees inside the CM. The
spacecraft, the astronauts and the ground crews were pushed to exceed all limits of expectation a
“supreme test.”
[13]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Follow up investigation
Numerous intensive investigations and hearings were conducted by NASA, United States government,
University personnel, and the Aeronautical and Space Sciences of the United States Senate, and The
Apollo 13 Review Board. While the mission was considered a failure because it did not accomplish the
project objective of a lunar landing and scientific exploration of the moon it was “a human success- a
triumph of the human spirit, an exoneration of the human mind, a tribute to human perseverance, a
victory for all mankind.” It was determined that the permissible voltage to the heaters in the oxygen
tanks to sixty-five volts had changed but the thermostatic switches on the heaters were not modified to
with stand the change. Prolonged testing in final stages on the launch pad, which subjected the wiring in
the vicinity of the heaters to very high temperatures, other warning signs had not heeded, resulting in
the explosion of the # 2 oxygen tank. Telemetered data was received from the Apollo 13 spacecraft at
the time of the accident enabled NASA and other officials to determine the causes of failure.
Positive Outputs from Apollo 13
The incidents aboard the Apollo 13 spacecraft lead to significant development of safety critical systems
and software engineering to program this system, better knowledge on how to plan, manage, and
implement the development and application of large scale technological systems. Apollo 13 spurred
interest in education, science, technology as well as innovations in education approaches and curricula
development. Application satellites, advanced scientific and technology progressed rapidly. It brought
about increased awareness in national security and enhanced the US image abroad. The Apollo
Guidance Computer (AGC) put integrated circuitry on the map. An integrated circuit, or chip, is a circuit
of transistors, resistors, and capacitors formed on single semiconductor chip. The pieces are all
interconnected to perform a function. The integrated circuit has been vital and essential to the
computer boom. We would not be as advanced a society as we are today had it not been for the
invention of the integrated circuit. The operating system found in the AGC would lay the ground work
for the UNIX and the LINUX systems. All leading to the invention of the microprocessor, a key building
block in the personal computer and mobile computing devices, and Intel Corporation was born. Space
travel has given us a prevention method that keeps aircraft from catching on fire and also an aircraft
proximity warning device that tell pilots when another aircraft is approaching to closely. Governments
from all over the world came to the aid of America offering their assistance and commended the
American’s for putting it all out there for the World to see.
Conclusion
According to Dr. Thomas Paine, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
“Apollo hardware, the contingency planning, the training of flight crews, and the backup systems for
[14]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
emergency use appeared to have demonstrated their flexibility and soundness.” The Apollo 10 lunar
module had initiated the provision of the lunar module being the lifeboat facilities for the astronauts
should a serious problem arise. As in the case of Apollo 13 the lunar module became the means of
survival. Lovell stated the primary reason for Apollo 13 safe return home was the exceptional
communication system, the ground controllers took control of the unusual circumstances and utilized
their resources to the fullest extent possible, providing the Apollo crew with every detail to complete
the mission. The astronauts freely admit that risk is adherent in any space endeavor but feel confident
that space travel and lunar exploration should continue on. While the scientist may consider the mission
a failure because the lunar landing and further lunar research was not able to be conducted, America as
a whole felt the mission was a success. Space travel has continued beyond what could be imagined at
the time. Today the Space Shuttle is considered the “Rolls-Royce” of space design.
Apollo 13 Stakeholders
The 3 astronauts - The flight was commanded by James A. Lovell with John L. "Jack" Swigert
as Command Module pilot and Fred W. Haise as Lunar Module pilot. Swigert was a late
replacement for the original CM pilot Ken Mattingly, who was grounded by the flight surgeon
after exposure to German measles.
The Apollo Program - was the largest single research and
development program ever undertaken by the United States Government; (in 1966) it inv
olved about 300,000 persons. The Governmentindustry team responsible for the Program has included 25 prime contractors and more th
an 4,000 subcontractors and vendors.
The Apollo Program has two major objectives:
(1) to develop a vehicle capable of landing men on the surface of the
Moon and returning them safely to the surface of the Earth, and
(2) to operate that vehicle in an initial series of manned lunar landing missions.
These two objectives have, in a gross sense, dictated the major division
of responsibilities among NASA organizations in the management of the Apollo Program.
NASA Headquarters organization - responsibility for producing the vehicle was assigned
to two NASA field installations:
1. Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas
For the spacecraft
2. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama
[15]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Launch vehicle
The responsibility for operating the vehicle in the series of
flight missions which constituted the second objective was also assigned
to two field installations:
1. Kennedy Space Center, Cape Kennedy, Florida
Launching the space vehicle
2. Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas
all post launch operations
NASA - APOLLO MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
NASA Headquarters Organization
Office of Manned Space Flight Organization
The organizational structure within the Headquarters Office of Manned Space Flight.
Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC)
The permanent functional organizations are represented by the five technical directorates:
Engineering and Development
Science and Applications
Medical Research and Operations
Flight Crew Operations
Flight Operations
Institutional Directorates and Staff Offices (e.g., Administration, Program Control
and Contracts, Public Affairs, Legal, etc.).
The program management organizations presently
include the Apollo Spacecraft, Skylab, and Space Shuttle Program Offices,
and the Advanced Missions Program Office, which is responsible for studies
and planning potentially leading to new flight programs.
Responsibility for managing all aspects of the Apollo Program assigned to the Center is
vested in the Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (ASPO).
[16]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)
This Center is responsible for the development, manufacture, and testing of the launch
vehicles used in the Apollo Program.
Kennedy Space Center (KSC)
The KSC responsibility in the Apollo Program includes the assembly,
checkout, and launch of the space vehicle.
CONTRACTOR ORGANIZATIONS
North American Rockwell (NR)
North American Launch Operations Space Division (KSC)
Beech Aircraft Corporation
[17]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
References
http://www.aticourses.com/sampler/Space_Mission_Analysis_Design.pdf
Apollo 13 Mission Overview.webarchive(266.1kb)
http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-apollo-space-program.htm ***
http://www.history.com/topics/space-race
http://www.asi.org/adb/m/02/07/apollo-cost.html
http://history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/Apollo.html
www.-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/histroy/apollo
John K. Space Center
Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum
AirandSpace.si.edu/collections/imagery/Apollo/AS13/a13facts.htm
www.nasa.gov
Schuessler, J. Dr. (2012). IT Project Management Syllabus. 12.
Lubbock, R., Jina, S., Gulati, S., & Morgan, T. (2012, April). Cedar Bluff Lodge's Network Design.
http://history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/Apollo.html
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073284_1974073284.pdf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4214/ch6-2.html
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-mit-apollo-guidance.html#Photo
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/07/20/how-powerful-was-the-apollo-11-computer/
http://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/jekelly/
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/science-technology-and-society/sts-471j-engineering-apollo-themoon-project-as-a-complex-system-spring-2007/readings/1_4_9_mit_role.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740073284_1974073284.pdf
[18]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
http://www.draper.com/Documents/draperat25.pdf
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_three_problems_that_occurred_on_Apollo_13#ixzz26pskB
587
www.history.com
www.asi.org
[19]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Appendix 1 Apollo 13
Service Module
[20]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Appendix 2 Apollo 13
Oxygen Tanks
[21]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Appendix 3 Mission Management
Team Contract
Code of Conduct: Good communication is rule one here at Mission Management. Each
employee agrees to communicate freely, efficiently, and often with the other members of their
designated project team. Employees must also be very punctual, when it comes to meeting
deadlines and attending meetings. Lastly employees will be held accountable for their designated
portion of the project.
Work Duties: Each person is expected to complete their designated commitments thoroughly
and in a timely fashion. All portions of the project should be added to the Group Journal at least
two days before the due date to allow all other members an opportunity to proofread and edit the
final document before the team leader submits it. If a team member cannot add their assigned
portion two days prior to the deadline, they have to notify all other members of the team and
provide them with an expected completion date.
Work duties are assigned as follows:
Alvin Blancett- Systems Analyst
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Scope
Equipment selection (Hardware & Software)
Write up on why they used these items.
Identify Problems of Apollo 13
Opportunities it created (then and now)
Constraints of the Project
Liaise with all group members
Assist with group's presentation
Monica Palacios- Business Analyst
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Cost of the project
Over/Under budget and why
Financial Constraints of the project
Financial Documentation write-up
Liaise with all group members
Assist with group's presentation
Resa Lubbock -Team Leader
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Timeline - Gantt Chart
Team Log
Team Contract
Provide Documentation for Deliverables I,II,III
Address Concerns from Professor and Group Peers
[22]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
6.
7.
8.
9.
October 28, 2012
Assist with Documentation and Editing
Submit Assignments
Liaise with all group members
Assist with group's presentation
Donna Fowler- Project Manager
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Provide Direction of Project
Assist System Analyst and Business Analyst in Determining Input
Assist Document Analyst in Documentation and Editing
Keeps Project on Time
Liaise with all group members
Assist with group's presentation
Tricia Moore – Document Analyst
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Assist System Analyst and Business Analyst in Determining Input
Provide Team Leader Documents for Submission Deliverables I,II,III
Identify Stakeholders in Apollo 13
Identify Risks of Apollo 13
Liaise with all group members
Assist with group's presentation
Performance Review: If at any point during the duration of the project two or more team
members feel one member is not upholding the terms of the contract that person will be
approached and consulted about their performance. If the problem continues, further disciplinary
measures will be taken, in the form of a written report to the Instructor, Dr. Joseph
Schuessler. At Dr. Schuessler’s sole discretion, should a team member prove dysfunctional, He
shall remove the offending members(s) from that team. The remaining members of the team
shall complete all remaining components of the project. The removed member will receive a zero
on the project. Upon completion of the project each member of the team will be required to
undergo a performance review, which will be submitted in confidentiality to the project
manager. Each group member will evaluate all other group members along with themselves.
By signing below you agree to all the above terms and conditions.
Monica Palacios
Monica Palacios
Alvin Blancett
Alvin Blancett
9/20/2012
Date
09/16/2012
Date
Tricia Moore 09/16/2012
Tricia Moore
Date
Donna Fowler 09/16/2012
Donna Fowler
Resa Lubbock
Resa Lubbock
Date
09/16/12
Date
[23]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Appendix 4 Mission Management
Team Log
9/24/2012
9/25/2012
9/26/2012
9/27/2012
9/28/2012
9/29/2012
9/30/2012
10/1/2012
10/2/2012
10/3/2012
9
1
3
4
AB
DF
RL
DF, AB, RL. TM
H
H
H
H
[24]
System Analysis deliverable II
Begin outline of Power Point Presentation
Continue to research Apollo 13 the Mission
Collaborative session on Blackboard
2
3
2
2
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Appendix 5 Mission Management
Timeline - Gantt Chart
[25]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Appendix 6 Mission Management
Project Charter
Project Title: Mission Management Apollo 13
Project Start Date:
08/27/2012
Projected Finish Date: 12/02/2012
Project Manager: Donna Fowler, 214-214-2142, fowdo2gmail.com
Project Objectives: Determine how the project progressed. How did the project
struggle? What was the final fate of the project? What are the key measures of
success? Major milestones of the project. What could have been done better? What
serves as a good example for the future?
Approach: Mission Management, a consulting firm that specializes in the analysis of
historical events has prepared a report on the Apollo 13 Mission to assist in the future
development of space exploration missions. Their findings are documented in their
research of NASA’s Apollo 13 Mission. Their reports will describe an overview of the
mission, financial analysis of the project and report problems with the Apollo 13
module, a systems analysis along with recommendations for NASA and engineers to
create a crew exploration vehicle that will successfully complete its outer space
mission.
Signature
Donna Fowler
Alvin Blancett
Monica Palacios
Patricia Moore
Teresa Lubbock
Milestones:
Part 1 Deliverable by 9/23/2012
Part 1I Deliverable by 10/28/2012
Part 1II Deliverable by 12/2/2012
Roles and Responsibilities
Role
Position
Contact Information
Project
[email protected]
Manager
Team
System Analyst [email protected]
Member
Team
Cost Analyst
[email protected]
Member
Team
Documentation [email protected]
Member
Team
Team Leader
[email protected]
Member
[26]
Blancett, Fowler, Moore, Palacios, Lubbock
October 28, 2012
Appendix 7
Work Breakdown Structure for Mission Management
Prepared by: Resa Lubbock
Date: 10/27/2012
1.0 Alvin Blancett
1.1 System Analysis
1.1.1 Personal Dossier
1.1.2 Scope
1.1.3 Mission Requirements
1.1.4 Constraints of Project
1.1.5 Computer Selection
1.1.6 Operating System
1.1.7 Project Charter
2.0 Donna Fowler
2.1 Project Manager
2.1.1 Personal Dossier
2.1.2 Executive Summary
2.1.3 Overview
2.1.4 Stakeholders
2.1.5 Power Point Presentation
3.0 Resa Lubbock
3.1 Team Leader
3.1.1 Personal Dossier
3.1.2 Team Contract
3.1.3 Team Log
3.1.4 Gantt Chart
3.1.5 Work Breakdown Structure
3.1.6 Conclusion
3.1.7 Compose and Submit Deliverable I, II, III
4.0 Tricia Moore
4.1 Document Analysis
4.1.1 Personal Dossier
5.0 Monica Palacios
5.1 Business Analysis
5.1.1 Personal Dossier
5.1.2 Cost Analysis
[27]