Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Review and NASA's response  





2 Public disclosure and criticism  





3 Senate conclusions  





4 References  





5 External links  














Phillips Report







Add links
 









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
Wikidata item
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


The Phillips report was a document summarizing a review conducted in November–December 1965 by a NASA team headed by Lieutenant General Samuel C. Phillips, director of the Apollo crewed Moon landing program, to investigate schedule slippage and cost overruns incurred by North American Aviation (NAA), manufacturer of the Command/Service Module spacecraft and the second stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle. Phillips sent a summary of his findings with a strongly worded letter to NAA president Lee Atwood demanding corrective action be taken. North American revised its management of its Apollo contract items, and NASA management considered the matter a normal part of confidential agency–contractor relations.

After a fire killed the entire crew of the first crewed Apollo mission Apollo 1 on January 27, 1967, a United States Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences hearing overseeing NASA's investigation of the accident led to the public disclosure of the Phillips Report by then junior Senator Walter Mondale, who was told of its existence by ABC News reporter Jules Bergman, who had seen a copy at NASA's Washington, DC Office of Manned Space Flight headquarters.

Review and NASA's response[edit]

From November 22 to December 6, 1965, Phillips headed a tiger team investigating the causes of inadequate quality, schedule delays, and cost overruns in both the Apollo CSM and the Saturn V second stage, for which North American was prime contractor. He gave an oral presentation (with transparencies) of his team's findings to his boss, NASA Office of Manned Space Flight Administrator George E. Mueller, and Mueller's boss, NASA Deputy Director Robert Seamans, and also presented them in a letter to North American president Lee Atwood, to which Mueller appended his own strongly worded letter to Atwood.[1]

Public disclosure and criticism[edit]

Deputy Administrator Seamans, Administrator Webb, Manned Space Flight Administrator Mueller, and Apollo Program Director Phillips testify before a Senate hearing on the Apollo accident.

Immediately after the fire in 1967, NASA followed its established procedure of investigating and identifying corrections for the cause, with presidential and congressional oversight. No one in NASA's upper management expected that the Phillips findings would be printed as a document, but this had been done and on February 13, Bergman was shown a copy at the Office of Manned Space Flight headquarters.[2] He then told a junior senator on the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, Walter Mondale, about the document, and later reported its existence on ABC. Mondale proceeded to grill the top managers, including Administrator James E. Webb, who was completely blind-sided (the formal review had not gone above Seamans), about the report's existence. Other senators, such as Margaret Chase, then questioned Webb about NASA's choice of North American as the Apollo contractor.

Mondale said he had been told of the existence what he called "the Phillips report", and Seamans was afraid that Mondale might be in possession of a hard copy of the presentation, so he said tentatively that contractors have occasionally been given negative reviews, but that he knew of no such extraordinary report. Mondale raised controversy over the report, despite Phillips' refusal to characterize it as such before Congress, and was angered by what he perceived as Webb's deception and concealment of important program problems from Congress, and questioned NASA's selection of North American as prime contractor.[3] Webb eventually provided a controlled copy of Phillips' memo to Congress. Seamans later wrote that Webb roundly chastised him in the cab ride leaving the hearing for volunteering information which led to the disclosure of Phillips' memo.

Senate conclusions[edit]

The committee concluded in its final report that "the findings of the [Phillips] task force had no effect on the accident, did not lead to the accident, and were not related to the accident", but in its recommendations, stated "the committee believes it should have been informed of the situation."[4] Freshman Senators Edward Brooke and Charles H. Percy jointly wrote an "Additional Views" section appended to the committee report, expressing more strongly that the Phillips review should have been disclosed to Congress. Mondale wrote his own Additional View, voicing his complaints in the most strongly worded terms.

In its final report, the committee agreed with NASA that the Phillips review had absolutely no bearing on the fire, though the chairman expressed his disappointment that Webb had not kept them informed of Apollo program problems at the time. But Mondale issued a minority opinion accusing NASA of "evasiveness, ... lack of candor, ... patronizing attitude exhibited toward Congress, ... refusal to respond fully and forthrightly to legitimate congressional inquiries, and ... solicitous concern for corporate sensitivities at a time of national tragedy".[4]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Garber, Steve (February 3, 2003). "NASA Apollo Mission Apollo-1 -- Phillips Report". NASA History Office. Retrieved April 14, 2010.
  • ^ Swanson, Glen (January 2012). Before This Decade is Out: Personal Reflections on the Apollo Program. NASA. ISBN 978-0486483832. SP-4223.
  • ^ On May 11, Webb issued a statement defending the selection. On June 9, Seamans filed a seven-page memorandum documenting the process that led to North American's selection in November 1961. "CSM Source Selection". Encyclopedia Astronautica. Archived from the original on 2011-09-24.
  • ^ a b Anderson, Clinton P.; Edward M. Brooke; Charles H. Percy; Walter F. Mondale (January 30, 1968). "Apollo 204 Accident". Senate Report. No. 956. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate. Archived from the original on December 20, 2014. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  • External links[edit]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillips_Report&oldid=1228660364"

    Categories: 
    Apollo program
    NASA
    NASA oversight
    1965 in the United States
    1965 documents
    Hidden categories: 
    CS1 errors: extra text: volume
    CS1: long volume value
    Articles with short description
    Short description is different from Wikidata
     



    This page was last edited on 12 June 2024, at 13:18 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki