..

, sj
t . ' £ 4.3'-•""

GEMINI DESIGN TEST PHILOSOPHY

By .
tDohald D. Arabian
•V. '•
NASA Manned Spacecraft Center
Houston, Texas

N77-831U3
GEMINI DESIGN TEST
(NASft) 16 p
Unclas
00/18 46212_

To be presented at
The Institute of
Environmental Sciences

April I5
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 GEMINI DESKN (TEST PHILOSOPHY
Donald D. Arabian, HASA- Manned Spacecraft Center
Donald D. Arabian
Donald D. Arabian graduated from the University
of Rhode Island with a BS degree in Aeronautical
Engineering-in 19W}. He has been employed by the
NASA since 19^8. -.He worked'in the .field of Hydro-
dynamics and Aerodynamics at the Lahgley Research
Center and authored several KASA'papers. He trans-
ferred to.the Space Task Group of the Mercury Pro-
gram ini Its- early stages afld became a spacecraft-:';-i ^ ' ;ithe undocked and docked conf igui atinnf.. , '.,'.'?. j * '•., ••:. -'.'.."
Project Engineer. His duties extended into the area'
of spacecraft systems flight monitor for the Merci.ry
Control Center at AMR during several of the Mercu'i y
ssions; and he also was a: trouble shooter for;J;}.e; . : not restricted by. this standpoint. Here again.these. '.
program managers. Presently, he is a systems int'-
gratibn engineer for ail the design engineering >"•>,-
,ses of the Gemini Program with particular emphasi.
ion the systems Integration between the spacecraft
and the Agena. . . - -- '
In a development program that is far reachi"~>.
in its goals and objectives, sound test philosop'n• 6s
are required to insure success of the program mi.1
sion. The present NASA philosophy of testing foi
.manned space vehicles grew out of the ground and air-
borne test program employed by the Mercury Project.
Effort has been made to use the knowledge and exper-
ience gained during the Mercury Program in estab-
lishing the test philosophy for the Gemini Progrtji..
In the interest of lowered cost and schedule
maintenance, the Manned Spacecraft Center philosophy
is directed toward a test program on the Gemini Pro-
gram wherein all data from tests such as development
tests, acceptance tests, combined vehicle compatibil-
ity tests, and unmanned flight tests form the basis
for declaring the Gemini vehicles ready for manned
missions. Of this group of tests, design tests in
the case of the Gemini Program constitute contribu-
tions from each group of tests in part or in whole.
This paper primarily touches on the test philos-
ophy associated with the design concept rather than
from the reliability, acceptance, or confidence point
of view.
First, let us view briefly the major pieces of
hardware involved in the Gemini mission that require
design proof tests (fig. l). The spacecraft, which
carries two astronauts, looks similar to the Mercury
spacecraft in shape. The craft is built up of three
major modules: the adapter, retrograde, and reentry
sections. Note that the escape rocket concept as !
used on Mercury Is missing; instead, the Gemini em- ;
ploys ejection seats which can be used up,to about ;
70,000 feet. Abort above this altitude is accom-
plished with the spacecraft reentry module.
1
The Gemini launch vehicle is a Titan II missile
modified to meet the requirements for placing manned
spacecraft into orbit (fig. 2). . Some of the major
changes are the redundant flight control 'system, mal-
function detection system, and a skirt to allow
mating with spacecraft. These design modifications
to the launch vehicle must demonstrate their capabil-
ity to meet the design requirements.
:
An Agena target vehicle which is to be boosted •
into orbit by an Atlas launch vehicle is another mem-
ber of the Gemini team (fig. 3). A standard Agena
will be modified so that the spacecraft can rendez-
vous, dock, and maneuver to change orbit in the ;, " " ' '_
docked configuration. The majo; modification of "con-- ";;
cern here is the addition of a ,ockir.£ adapter'ffb ^V;.'./• j,^
'" the forward end of the Agena t& -'hich the spacecraft^'
can send commands for controlli:.;; the Agena fjOr'b'oth.','•..
The Agena engine will have a multi-start, capa-
bility so that corrections and changes iri-orbits, are, ._ ^ ,
design modifications..to the basic vehicle must' liave."'.'"."
design prpof-te's't demonstrations. .. .' ";;"". ^.'j .".'
Design'tests of these vehi^j :s have a broad.'.." ;.' \
~ r.dpe in that they are performe.- x. nil components.^..' ,',.,..
£,_! systems,, and subsystems, ana «x".end in tiine"'fj'6m:''~"
tne engineering model development t£j,:i oC "dmpon-
ents to unmanned missions of the complete'vehicles.'.
. .' The first ;step of these tests ir. the group of
development tests. These are necessary to es'tabli'sh ' '
the design concept to the point of defining the con- '
figuration for qualification. The qualification ..
tests, which contribute largely to the so called de-
sign tests, consider all the environments that the
component will encounter from the time of its manu-
facture through the time of its performance during a
mission. Limitations on parameters such as tempera-
ture, vibration spectrum, shock, loads, life cycle,
humidity, EMI susceptibility, electrical limitations,
and so forth are established.
The particular qualification tests of a compon-
ent depend on the function it has to perform. In
general, however, vibration, shock, temperature,
pressure, et cetera, are generally common to all
qualification tests.
Each subassembly, assembly,. and system component
of the vehicle gets a complete structural design
[qualification test, which includes design vibration
spectrum, design loads, and design thermal condi-
tions . • Small components and nonload carrying arti-
;des are exposed to vibration and shock tests and do
not go through structural loads as with the struc-
tures. The static loads go to ultimate to establish
[the structural margin. The entire spacecraft vith.
all systems will be exposed .to vibration tests to
demonstrate its capability to withstand the launch.
and reentry vibration'environment. The history of"
many Titan II flights has demonstrated the structural
 integrity of the launch vehicle. Likewise, the
Agena has demonstrated and passed design proof tests
The Gemini peculiar items on both the launch vehicle
and the Agena target vehicle must show by tests that
these designs are capable of performing as required
by the mission. It becomes increasingly difficult
to perform the structural design, qualification tests
as the spacecraft or vehicle components are brought
together, due to limitations of ground test facili-
ties, or the inability to create the exact environ-
ment . Consequently, the design proof tests of the
.launch vehicle-spacecraft structure combination will
rest on the first mission for demonstration of struc-
tural integrity under actual launch conditions.
1 An advantage of the ground qualification tests
with simulated environment is that these permit
'i •testing to conditions beyond what is estimated under
normal flight conditions. On the other hand, flight
X
*- tests can reveal shortcomings of the ground tests if
*
the estimated normal condition and interaction ef-
fects were not adequate.
. . Design test'philosophy of electrical systems
•falls into a somewhat different category than that
.of, structure';" Although the' electrical system must
withstand ^environments-'to" which1 the structures .are."-'
tested, of particular concern here are the elec-
trical characteristics and electro-magnetic environ-
ment the electrical circuits shall be required to
cope with.. The design'tests start1 with "the qualifi-
cation of the smallest components, such as relay , ~"
diodes, transistors, and the like. These quali.-'^yi j
components become ;a part- of a subsystem which.•ai-'o ''•
will be qualified to the same or less stringent
electrical qualification tests. As each of xhfcac
components start operating together as a team, t;-;
• main concern of design testing lies in the inter'")
action of,'one with the other'; These systems • tei.•• 3
also evaluate whether the initial qualification .-as
adequate for the component intended role.~'; • '•'-•]-
The- adequacy of the design qualification test
conditions imposed on a component is- generally
demonstrated by the function it should perform. The
function should occur at the proper time and of the j
proper magnitude without being unduly affected by i
the surrounding environment. Therefore, proof of a :
design is not necessarily a quantitative demonstra- j
tion. The qualitative demonstration approach does \
not indicate how close the design is operating to ;
its limit; consequently, quantitative measurements I
are quite desirable to obtain margins of the design.1
The real proof of design of a system consisting
primarily of electrical components is in systems i .spacecraft within the limits specified by the orbit
integration tests where the particular system must
operate with "~n other systems. These system tests I
show proof of design of the interfacing cabling and!
the characteristics thereof within and between sys-i
terns. . Articular attention is drawn to the paths '
of ground Teturns, since many of the problems aris- I
ing with the circuitry design at this point arises i
from noise on the circuits. The physical location j
of interfacing wires within a wire bundle can be ; adequate, provided the temperatures are within the
critical, depending on the type of signal that is j
being transmitted and susceptibility of the partlc- :
ular wire to transients induced by adjacent wires j
of another system. It Is here that signal charac- '
teristics can be disturbed or distorted. This con-j
cept is of course extended to the effects of system^
in one vehicle with another. In many instances,
quantitative measurements are not practical to make,
and-consequently functional demonstration must suf-
fice. - . •:
The operation of two vehicles together, such as
the spacecraft electrical systems with the launch
vehicle electrical systems and the spacecraft elec-
trical systems with the Agena target vehicle elec-
trical systems, take a somewhat different approach.
Here, design requirements are controlled primarily
by the susceptibility limits of the interfacing cir-
cuits within each vehicle. Final tests are performed
before launch after acceptance of both vehicles, and
during an unmanned flight. However, to insure that
the electrically mated vehicles will function satis-
factorily, each system is tested by simulating the
.electrical characteristics of the other vehicle- at
the interfacing point prior to acceptance of either
vehicle. The design tests of theI spacecraft operat-
ing functionally with the Agena will occur prior to
flight since it is not practical to perform an in- '
flight proof design test of these two vehicles work- |
• ing together with-an unmanned configuration.! Fur-
ther, the safety of the astronauts is-not in jeopardy
'as during the boost phase of tre mission with the
V launch" vehicle. -Sometime prio. .to the actual '•flighty
the final design test is performed with the space- " •;
craft and the Agena in close proximity and in a-
'-docked configuration on the ground; ; Again, ;ground-••-
'tests with simulated interfac: .g functions'willsriave"
'been made to1 insure/ a high ceriainty.'that .tne-'des'lgri •
will be acceptable in the final design t/'•. Trie
': final design test is primarily a functions^, end-to-^ •
end type test to demonstrate compatibility of "all' '• '
systems within -boT;h vehicles . . v.fitii-caTiive {measure-
ments to show the systems -operat-r^ yithin the'desigi"
limitations will be held .to a oa.v. ainim>x~Ni princi-
pally due to the. possible effect o.ie instrumentation1
could have on the sensitive circuits in question^ -
Note that the last contrlbutio.-j."co the so-called-,
design test which is the test performed in a mated :"
condition do not cover environmental conditions unde:
which these functions will be performed; the test
only points out functional verifications. However/,
all components of both vehicles will have been quali-
fied to environmental conditions in excess of what '
is anticipated under actual conditions.
Another major area of design previously men-
tioned is the thermal aspect of the planned mission.
;Components and systems and structure are imposed to
:temperature Urn-Its, both hot and cold extremes. A
major aspect of qualification of design is to estab-
lish the normal operating temperatures of the entire
and range of.angles that the orbital plane can make
with the sun's rays and the range of maximum and
.minimum internal heat loads for critical modes of
the temperature control system of the spacecraft.
'; A demonstration, under these conditions, of the
1
quasi-steady state temperatures of the components
and systems will indicate the thermal design to be
design Urn-Its. Thermal design tests will be per-
|formed with the complete spacecraft operating in a •
I simulated orbital condition in a special environ-,
'mental chamber. This chamber can simulate the
'vacuum, solar heating and space cooling within the
I present state of the art.
 Spacecraft systems will function to develop the
internal heat load. The radiator system, made up of
the adapter section, will have to dissipate heat '•
: during these tests. The effect of the thermal inter-
;action between hardware will be evaluated function- .
ially and quantitatively. The cooling loops of the ;
I radiator system will be thermally loaded to demon- !
:strate the capability of each cooling system. These
tests will demonstrate the thermal capability of the
systems in orbit. j
The spacecraft heat protection devices such as '•
the heat shield, shingles, and thermal blankets, and
so forth are designed primarily for the exit and |
reentry heating phases of a mission. Tests of the ,
thermal design of these devices are done at the com-
ponent level. These particular tests, however, are '.
not considered adequate proof of design for a manned
mission and, therefore, an unmanned flight is war-
ranted to accomplish qualification of the thermal
protection, which gives rise to the second unmanned
Gemini mission. Here, the maximum design heating
rate conditions on the heat protection system will
be •demonstrated by proper shaping of the planned bal-
listic trajectory. Also during this mission, design
qualification will be 'obtained from the normal opera-
tion :of the onboard 'systems -'during; exit' and a' short"
• period of 0 0 condition and reentry and landing
phases.
»<•"•_ -(There/are other-areas of - design'• testing'wi.ich ' '•
require"1 different approaches than those already'men-
tioned;; such as considerations of dynamics of f~-~'s • '"•'• '
design.' A^few of th'ese tests' -include 'parachut. drop '
tests, ejection seat tests, docking :dynamic tes-<3, "
pyrotechnic:tests,-water drop tests-, and'."tSse"--!:1-? I.1:''- •"•
The-same design test philosophy holds in that -. a-2se
tests are a part of the overall proof-of desi^N
• demonstration.'• •• ->'- • '.' ' •".••'-'.• " '••'-" •
• .In summary, the design'test'phllosbphy^eMployed"-
in the Gemini Erogram does not single out a particu-
lar phase of testing or a particular time in the
testing life of a vehicle, but Instead is made up of
contributions from nil tests, call them development ;
tests, system tests, compatibility tests, reliabil- !
ity tests, or what have you. The capability of a
design to perform a given mission is arrived at by :
testing the smallest component and retesting again
and again as it teams up with other components and :
systems, until it graduates to working with the en- ;
tire vehicle system. The design tests include j
environmental conditions on parameter limitations j
beyond those expected during a normal mission. i
Where the ground tests of the design are limited, ;
flight tests are employed. i
• !
i Men will be allowed to embark on planned Gemini
missions after the proof of design has been satis- J
fled by the accumulation of test data from the inl- |
tial development tests to the last unmanned flight, j

%
;s
'V • u
I "si!
o
<
o
z
o
u
LLJ

jT (;•'>•"?
'.t I ' '"
ff::-:^v:^^p9Mf^:?W|?K^>
:
*•," r..™-*
tM>t ' • • • - . !••'• 4 «rs/t'.-"';*'S<S.t ••' '"!"• '• »'.- -. - . -
<;&>., :--;if :»^,v-'|: B^V--'^''' '• ' l '
tit •.>--'.f:i:rlv r!i;--;.^i ! i-'- ti-/'-..-^-" .-• ''•