Professional Documents
Culture Documents
J_l
Unclas 26174
_A
HUNTSVILLE,
ALABAMA
_LSSIFICATIOH
CHAZ_TG_]
RESULTS
THIRD SATURN
TEST
FLIGHT
e-,_
,_ ,
; .... J- ....
ltA_ ',....
ii
MSFC
"
Form
774
(Rev
February
1961)
GEORGE
C. MARSHALL
SPACE
FLIGHT
CENTER
MPR-SAT-63-3
RESULTS
OF THE
THIRD
SATURN Flight
I LAUNCH
VEHICLE Group
TEST
FLIGHT
By Saturn
Evaluation
Working
(U)
ABSTRACT
/bu_q
The sented results in this of the report SaturnI which SA-3 represents test flightare the early preengi-
neering evaluation. The performance of each major vehicle system is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations. The SA-3 flight test was a complete success with
deficiency
Space
Flight
Center
Evaluation (Phone
Working 876-2701)
NASA o . , ..,,e<'>',.,
T_
x- No, aqG
GEORGE
C.
MARSHALL
SPACE
FLIGHT
CENTER
MPR-SAT-63-3
RESULTS
OF THE
THIRD TEST
SATURN FLIGHT
I LAUNCH (U)
VEHICLE
SATURN
FLIGHT
EVALUATION GROUP
WORKING
(U)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Acknowledgement is made to the various divisions and elements of MSFC and Launch Operations Center for their contributions to this report. Without the assistancc and cooperation of these elements this inteSatinhave grated report would urn Flight Evaluation debted made to the major following contributions: not have Working branches been possible. Tile Group is especially (of MSFC)which
Control
Gyro and Stabilizer Branch Instrumentation Development Computation Data Launch Division Branch Operations Engineering, Structural and Vehicle
Reduction Vehicle
Propulsion
Engineering Branch
Division
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page SECTION I. FLIGHT A. B. C. SECTION II. Flight Test Times TEST Test Objectives of Flight SUMMARY Results ............................. ............... ................................. Events ............................ ................ 1 I 2 3 5
INTRODUCTION
...................................
SECTION
III.
LAUNCH A. B. C. D. E. F. Summary
OPERATIONS
..............................
6 6 6 6 6 8 ............ 8 i0 i0 10 i0 i0 i0 ii li 18 i8
..................................... ......................................
Complex
and
Ground
Support
Equipment
SECTION
IV.
Powered Flight ............................... Cutoff ..................................... Rockets Release .................................. (Destruct) ..........................
Retro Water
SECTION
V.
..................................... ...................................... Engine Propulsion Performance System Systems Tank Tank Pressurization Pressurization System ....................... Performance ............................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .................
18 19 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 27
Pressure Supply
Utilization
................................
Performance
SECTION
VI. A.
MASS
............................
30 30
Vehicle Vehicle
B.
30
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(Cont'd) Page
...................................... ...................................... Analysis ................................. ................................. .................................. .................................. After Cutoff ...................
35 35 35 35 39 39 43 46 46 50 50 50 55 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 63 63 63 ....... 63 65
Roll Plane
Functional Analysis ............................... i. Control Sensors .............................. 2. 3. 4. Control Actuators ST-124P Computer Stabilized Sloshing... ............................. Platform Attitudes ...............
...................................
D.
Propellant GUIDANCE
............................
SECTION
VIII. A. B.
Summary
System System
......................... ........................
Guidance Analysis
Co
Operational i. 2. 3. Guidance
(ST-90) (ST-124P)
D.
Functional i. 2. 3.
Sensors Encoders
Stabilized
Platform
........................
SECTION
IX. A.
ELECTRICAL
SYSTEM
.......................
68 68 68
B.
SECTION
X.
AND
VIBRATIONS
........................
70 70
70 70 70 70
Instrumentation Moment
Longitudinal
iv
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
Vibrations i. 2. 3. Summary
of Vibration
F. SECTION XI. A. B.
Vehicle
Measurements
......................
TEMPERATURES ....................................
AND
PRESSURES
........
84 84 84 84 92
...................................... Environment Compartment Heat and ............................. ........................... Flame Shield ....................
92 92
SE CTION
XII. A. B.
..................................
( Stability
C.
............................. ........................
Surface i. 2. 3. 4.
Pressure
Measurements Pressures
1019 ............................
Simulation
SECTION
XIII. A. B. C. D.
NTATION
...............................
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
(Cont'd) Page
SECTION SECTION
XIV. XV. A. B. C.
SUMMARY SPECIAL
OF MALFUNCTIONS MISSIONS
AND
DEVIATIONS
..........
................................
Project Highwater ................................ Horizon Scanner ................................. Other Special Missions ............................
vi
LIST Figure
lo
OF
FIGURES
Page Saturn Booster Polarity Chart ............................ Countdown Time in Minutes .............................. Trajectory ......................................... EarthFixed Velocity .................................. Dynamic Longitudinal Chamber Outboard Vehicle Vehicle Typical Vehicle Pressure Pressure Engine Thrust Mixture and Mach Number ........................ Acceleration ............................... 4 7 t2 13 14 15 22 23 24 25 28 Mass Moments ...... ..... 34 36 37 38 40 Actuator Position Angle-of-Attack .................. SA-2 and SA-3 ....... ....... ....... 41 42 44 45 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 56 57 (Telemetered Velocity, System Processor 60 Altitude ST-90 61 ............... Range ............ ........ 62 66 67 ST-124P Signal Cross 7 Engine ....................
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
/._.
Build-up .............................. Thrust Decay ............................ and Specific and Impulse Total Flow ........................ Rate Ratio
Retro Rocket Chamber Thrust ....................... Weight, Longitudinal Center of Gravity and Time ............................. Velocity and Average Velocity and Vector Angle Free-Stream Operating Actuator
of Inertia Versus Range Pitch Attitude, Angular Tilt Pitch Program Plane and Wind Pitch
Position
Components
Pitch Angle Design Criteria (8 Engines Tilt Program) ....................................... Yaw Yaw Roll
Attitude, Angular Velocity and Average Plane Wind Component and Free-Stream Attitude and Average Actuator Positions of Roll Angle Retro Rocket Yaw Yaw Control Local
Accelerations Angles-of-Attack
.......................
Actuator Loads ............................ Actuator Loads, SA-3 .... ..................... Source Pressure Between Telemetered and Level ....................... ST-124P ................ Ampii_ude_ ST-90 and Sloshing
.........................................
Telemetered Cross Range and Slant Guidance System ..................................... Guidance Incremental Simplified Comparisons, Velocity Schematic ST-124P Pulse Patterns, Range of Cross
Guidance
vii
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) Figure 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. (it. 62. 63. 64. 65. Distributor Connectionsand Unit 9 Measuring Supply ............. BendingMoment and Normal Load Factor ..................... BendingMoment at Station 979, Angle-of-Attack, and Gimbal Angle vs RangeTime .................................. Longitudinal Load at Station 979 ........................... Maximum Dynamic Response............................. SA-3 System Frequency Trend ............................ SA-3 Bending Mode- First Mode, Yaw at Liftoff ................ SA-3 Bending Mode - First Mode, Pitch and Yaw (53 to 57 sec) ...... BendingMod6"- First Mode, Pitch (151 to 152.5 sec) ............ Vibration Envelope of Structure, Canister and Engine Compartment Measurements ............................. SA-3 Vehicle Acoustics ................................. Base Pressure Minus Ambient Pressure Versus Altitude .......... Flame Shield Pressure Comparison Versus Altitude .............. Ratios of Base Pressure to Ambient Pressure Versus Mach Number... Comparison of Gas Teml)eratures on tleat and Flame Shield, SA-2 and SA-3 ........................................ Total ttcat Rate to SA-3 Base............................. Total Heat Ilate to M-3t Panel Compared to SA-I and SA-2 Rates..... Total tIeating Rate on Flame Shield, SA-1, SA-2 and SA-3 ......... Radiant tleating Rates for SA-3 Flight Comparing Preflight and hfflight Data Correction Techniques......................... Engine Compartment Structural Temperatures ................. Environment, Folwcard Side of Flame Shield .................. Base Environment, Forward Side of Heat Shield ................ Propellant Tactic Skin Temperature at Station 745................ Propellant TmflSkin Temperature ......................... Temperature Measurement on Dummy S-IV Stageand Interstage ..... Temperature Measurement on Dummy S-IV Stageand Interstage ..... Ratio of Gradients of Angular Accelerations Versus Range Time ..... Center of Pressure Location and Gradient of Normal Force Coefficient Versus Math Number .......................... Ratios of Surface Pressure to Ambient Pressure Versus Math Number ....................................... Ratios o[ Surface Pressure to Ambient Pressure Versus Maeh Numl)er . ...................................... Ratios of Surface Pressure to Ambient Pressure Versus Math Number on Interstage .............................. Page 69 7i 72 73 74 76 77 78 79 80 83 85 85 85 87 88 88 90 91 93 93 93 94 94 95 95 98 99 100 10i 103
viii
LIST OF FIGURES(Cont'd) Figure 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. Pressure Coefficient Versus Mach Number on Centaur Simulation Panel ..................................... Pressure Coefficient Versus Vehicle Station at Various Mach Numbers on Centaur - Simulation Panel .................. Telemetry Signal Strength (Cape Telemetry 2) ................. Telemetry Signal Strength (Green Mountain and Mandy) ........... UDOPSignal Strength .................................. Azusa and Radar Signal Strength........................... Picture Sequenceof Project Highwater Experiment .............. Page i04 i05 I08 li0 I ii l i2 117
ix
LIST Table I. II. Ill. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Cutoff Conditions Events
OF TABLES Page
16 i7 20 21 31 32 33 64
and Impulse
Parameters Weights
Characteristics Comparisons
Guidance
................................
C ONVE RSION
FAC TORS FOR PRE FE RRE D MSFC MEASURING UNITS To Obtain 3.04800x10 6.4516x10-4 5.25539x101 m4 5.25539x101 k -s 2 -1 m/s m2 2
Multiply
ft/s 2
in 2 lb-s 2 ft 4 slug/ft 3
4. 5. 6. 7.
BTU lb in lb-s ft 2
-1 -1 -2
8.
Mass
Flow
Rate
lb-s ft
1.48816 m 2 7.03067xi0 5.55556xi0 3.04800xi0 3.78543xt0 2.83168xi0 2.83168x10 3.78543xt0 -2 -I -I -3 -2 -2 -3 kg/cm oC m/s m 3 m3 m3/s m3/s 2
lb/in
13.
Volume
Flow
ft3/s
gal/s
xi
MPR-SAT-63-3
RESULTSOF THE THIRD SATURNI LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT By Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group
SECTION A. FLIGHT Saturn hours tests. EST The a complete or deviations tem failure TEST space success, flight test RESULTS SA-3 16, did not was 1962. the first reveal launched The flight two at t 245:02 test was flight The control essentially the system same forthe as that Saturnvehicle used in SA-t SA-3 and was SA-2. sysSaturn I. (C) FLIGHT TEST SUMMARY
sys,tems
functioned
properly,
with
good
vehicle
on November
as were
SA-3was launched arrival of the S-I stage uled 16, ten-hour 1962. countdown The holdat count t0:45
approximately eight at Cape Canaveral. began was hours at 0200 EST EST continuous
However, the control gains (a o and bo) were different. These were changed because of the increased propellant loading to maintain the same correlation with the vehicle mass as on SA-1 and SA-2.
except
due to a ground
attack
Engine deflections, attitude angles, and angles-ofwere less than those observed on SA- 1 and SA-2 primarily due to the the trajectory same shape. in the pitch The plane wind as was almost on SA-2. of the
All automatic propellant loading were within expected tolerances. execution of the countdown, demonstrated support equipment and and successfully the ground
flights
preparations,
the compatibility
between
actuators
and the
con-
and the space vehicle. The launch complex and support equipment suffered less damage thanwas expected from The Slightly actual lower flight path of SA-3 was close the to nominal. altitude and
was SA-3
was
flown guidance
without systems
path ST-90
guidance.
However,
passenger
hardware
acceleration
flight after
Saturn
flight
environment.
well as a trajectory comparperformance of the ST-90 powered flight. The opguidance satisfactory. system, as an engi-
system total
was very perErroneous outputs from the cross range accelerometer system mounted on the ST-124P platform were noted before ignition. No correction was made and the cross range measurement contained extraneous signals _%
cluster
formance averaged within approximetely of predicted. Individual engine performance isfactory ues being with no major noted. The deviations propellant from tank
predicted pressurization
throughout liminated
flight. from
These range
extraneous was
signals deducted
were
e-
Third i.
- Vehicle
in Flight.
accelerometer
output from
values
of aerodynamic
character-
data
indicated
that
the
SA-3 recorded
vibration during
istics, correlating predicted stability andperformance with that encountered in flight - achieved. 2. Propulsion Prove providing hicle velocity. the through the Determine that the thrust the controlling engines, other booster trajectory inflight stage the at is capable Block the required of all of I ve-
on
response
of first
and second vehicle bending. These frequencies were present in both pitch and yaw direction with a maximum amplitude single amplitude a forced curred sponse The was flights. response at a coupled is lower than base region to Radiation that at liftoff on the nose cone of 0. 016 gTs for first mode of 2.0 cps. At OECO of 0. 095 frequency on SA-2 environment encountered heating rates g's single amplitude The ocreof 2.7 eps. before OECO. duringthe on the on SA-3
desired
performance
eight engines, the outboard gimballed lant utilization, achieved. 3. Structural Verify airframe, specification during
and
and
SA-3 are
similar
two previous
agreement with values obtained on the previous Saturn flights and are considered representative for the Sat-_ urn I, Block I vehicle. A total of 607 flight measurements was flown on SA-3. Of these measurements, fourteen were completely except values. unusable, C-band sixwerepartiallyusable The radar, signal was strength very of all close and one RF to the was questionable. systems, expected
theoretical calculations and with conditions encountered to determine the inflight construcand viand associated frequency throughout the vehicle increments to the be calculated and component
flight.
stress, vibration levels, tent at various locations ture, so that the dynamic may bendingmoments brationenvironment overall structural occurrences. strain, which bending
shear
may be determined. Measure the response to define critical dynamic Evaluate the presence of any excessive data of the and accumulate the mode shape
body bending effects, may be used to determine curve 4. during flight and
- achieved.
Guidance
B.
TEST
as
system
(a
modified
perform the required tional sequence for - Booster. Prove the propulsion of the cally, to prove that design, and control - achieved. system
system
curate space-fixed coordinate reference for determining vehicle attitude and providing an accurate coordinate velocity signal - achieved. Fourth Objectivecloud experiment on the SA-2) will 87,329 stages' upper Project (similar kg "Highwater". to the experiment by injecting lb) the of water stages of approxiwith A waconthe ballast
Prove
Second the
- Ground Support Equipment. concept of the associated supfor Saturn class vehicles; checkout pedestal and automatic launch
porting
launch
ducted
be accomplished ( 192,528
which include propellant systems, cquit)mcnt, special instrumentation, with holddown arms, and other - achieved. launching equipment
atmosphere, rupturing
at an altitude upper
necessary
handling
C.
TIMES
OF
FLIGHT
EVENTS
Event
Actual Time
Range (sec)
Act
- Pred
-3.79 -0.49 -0.08 0. i0 0.33 Device) 10.33 68.10 Pressure 78.60 141.66 144. 149.09 152.78 153.66 292. Signal 292. O0 O0 25
-0.22
Liftoff Signal (Start Program Begin Mach Tilt 1 Reached Dynamic Engine
-68.03 78.28 140.34 -147.95 150.48 152.34 292. 292. O0 O0 1.14 2.30 1.32 0 0 O. 07 O. 32 1.32
Cutoff Decay
Cutoff Decay
of Second Rockets
Thrust Ignite
"Highwater" of Telemetry
* Reference
point
for
comparison
4J Q; P_ O_-
O;
_
c_
I
P_
+
! O; O \ ,_ ._ ; O '_ . _ '_ O 0D,-_ (n O q_ c2
+
E_
0 0
\
P_ q c_
I--4
Jr
SECTION
II.
(U)
INTRODUCTION
November was
1962,
all vehicle
systems
the third
to be flight
in the Saturn I R&D program. of this test was to evaluate the sion system, kg (1.3 control million system,' lb) 590,000
The major objective designs of the propuland structure of the uation atives booster.
This
report
by the Saturn members Flight the will unless prove are Center not
Flight
Eval-
thrust
all Marshall
Therefore position
official
by a similarly integrated ysis and/or new evidence This gineering report evaluation presents of the the results SA-3 test of the early flight. The enper-
presented here partly or wholly wrong. uation reports will, however, be published Divisions special covering subjects. come of the major
formance of each major vehicle system is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations.
systems
SECTION A. SUMMARY Saturn 1200 hours at 1245:02 launched from N and Vehicle EST SA-3, scheduled 16, for 1962,
III.
(U)
LAUNCH
at
November November
14, 16,
on November
on that date. The vehicle was of 100 degrees East of North Latitude degrees 28. 52153 W. began at 0200 degrees
complex Longitude
C.
PRELAUNCH TION
ATMOSPIIERIC
SURFACE
CONDI-
scheduled
countdown
General a at the was flight better. (1018.5 perature (SW) time path. mbs),
Cape
exceptionally 16 km
good. (10
ground generator power failureat this time. continued for 45 minutes and the count was at 1130 sequencing Launch launch were hours EST. All automatic propellant expected of the processes preparations, as expected we re within execution
relative
humidity winds
countdown,
were
and successfully
D. B. PRELAUNCII Date September 19, 1962 S-I stage naveral ,' Promise" S-I booster erected at pad 34. S-V, to the on launch MILESTONES
COUNTDOWN Holds. Launch EST power countdown began 16, hold 1962 minutes at T-600 and was (Fig_ure caused mincon2).
utes tinuous
at 0200 except
by ground apl)arently causing the of the found overthat had voltage The sen-
generator
Network generator number 2 dropped out, due to the over-voltage sensing circuit, hold. The nominal value for activation however, device moment the for this of dropout). voltage shifted device is 37 volts; sensing at the was all it was
September
21,
1962
generator
terminal
Dummy stages S-IV, and payload assembled S-I booster. Service for RF Structure check.
The over-voltage bypass (normally energized at were then jumpered for the to avoid further difficulties was launch. The by the automatic command countdown 363.45 is 10.55 due prishorter with resumed at 1130 hours
October
19,
1962
removed
"LOX bubblingcomplete") remainder of the countdown in this EST and area. The count until continued
October
31,
1962
Countdown. initiated
firing
2, 6, 9,
test
colnpleted
to ignition command (T-O). This than the firing command on SA-2, to the time to the difference smaller in LOX tank time ullage gas LOX tank pressurization was
pressuriza-
associated
the full propellant loading for this vehicle as compared to the partial loading on SA-1 and SA-2o The times shown output function. were read from sequence records. No digital for events was available due to a computer mal-
November
13,
1962
Simulated formed
flight
test
per-
0 ! E'_
I [-_
_v 0 I [._
I I I
0'_ _,,-G _0 c;3
I L
0 xl
_g
u'_ r..T.1 _ 4.J 0 00 T--I
I-I
I.--I r.=]
0 0
E_
.>
0 0 0 ,0
I
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
J 8
E.
HOLDDOWN Engine start and transition ignition were were ig_aition smooth from with all
regulator used for of these ward sition. likely l)revent from the times sequence Retract about records Pressure all 500 ms after show irO1,:" enation The damuge
or
that
one
of the two-way
"button"
remote eoul)ling , could have leaked. possibilities would result in a net rather of the and what
engines
receiving
a positive
in the gas generator blockhouse measurements redline Two regular switch values. events sigllals. eyeled
the fomvard position The circumstances are cause its being of fttilure rectn'renee.
than the retract poI,OX fill mast failure t() determine steps can the most to be taken
to retract
investigated
less took
acceler-
gines were running. This could one or more of the four switches. four switches the pressure able were would to move wired cause (one source)
of SA-3.
al)proximately
on each SUl)port arm assembly at is to show that pressure is availretract arm. The switches on any one switch possible problem and these The other valve
than either of the two previous altitude, the exhaust flame out". tact with either pected Therefore, the SA-I from since SA-3 more pad approximately or SA-2, SA-3. of the the launch after
the support
in close
was noted early in the Saturn program switches were taken out of the cutoff circuit. irregular stayed ends. other signal showed that tim
I_OX bubbling
Examination equipment vealed The low torus that the damage after the
and
ground
open for 137 see instead of the exl)ected 60 seeThis is considered a measuring error since parameters (such l)Umll as inlet) l,OX did tenq)erature not reflect this in the long
vehicle SA-1
damage
of a level
eoml)arul)le
observed
the launcher
only obselwed dttmuge readily attributable liftoff acceleration was increase(I (lumuge ring retaining of flame was tower the SA-2, I)antls deflector the tubing base room. wall it and did would not be and a noti(:eal)le warl)ing. on the exposed This tubing distorted. on the occur difficult larger A damaged
F.
AND
GROUND
SUPPORT
support
equipnmnt
functioned
from tubing or
severely
nornmlly with the exception of the LOX fill mast, which failed to retract on command. This failure to retract did not interfere with the subsequent liftoff of the space vehicle, tlowever, the failure to retract on command resulted cause in the ultimate of the vehicle failure blast of the LOX fill the mast mast bebreaMng cylinder
damage
to assoeinte
damage with any launch 3. It is believed that mounting launches. umbilical sembly. destroyed umbilical system Saturn swingarm being vehicle
t/eeuliur t(/ SAresulted from the during the first long cable l)revious to use an mast as-
mountwith the subsequent forward motion mast assembly. Post launch i_vestigations of the mast failure to retract have been Sequence the mast and event to retract records was show received that and the
of the upper of the cause inconclusive. command for to by valve have to the re-
instead
SA-2 use(I
responded
the solenoid valvein box. The actuation resulted retract traction valve test to and tim
sustaine(Ivery minor be reused with minor Following individual GSE She1% Cable This equil/ment
in the application of pneumatic pressures cylinder, which would result in the ultimate of the day. nrtst. The cylinder during The correct were the post response meclmnieal verified launch prior of the during to command was (lemonstrated
of damage
to
solenoi(I
"Fail Cable
Mast
Assemblies. with
components commotions to launch strongly cylinder of presof the reThe second "cushion', investigation.
be subject
to refurbishment
a majority (if the mechanical vageallle. The uml)ilieul swing to refurbishment with minimum disconnect The bungee arm theumbilieal umbilical age. input tion l)late e(ir(I sustaine(l redundant platform
eoml)onents being salarm shou[(I be sul)jeet effort. The umbilical to one ejection system, burned minor
used
The l)ost launch analysis s_) far points most to a theory which indicates that the retract failed sure. to stroke This subsequent failure could to tim al)l)lieation be due "freezing" cylinder. of the
l)in.
oll
disconneetplate, selwiee
away.
The dam-
to two l/ossibilities.
sustained
The first would be a mechanical tract cylinder piston within its possibility would be that
of a failure
to
Mast. This mast should be subject with a majority of the mechanical and Flexible hose the retractable assemcou-
Valve damage
Panel.
This
components being reuseable. blies, electrical harnesses, pling are subject to replacement.
Deflector. increment
This of
can
be reused. as
It suffered this
warpage;
however, to compromise
with
LOX very
Fill few
sustained major damage, other than the steel base subject to salvage.
warpage is not considered its usefulness. The vehicle it also launch again
so severe
and the
valve
proved
the
comparability
of the
and the ground support equipment. In addition, proved that a vehicle with low liftoff accelera(11.4 m/s 2 compared damage to the 13.6 launch m/s 2 for complex normal to an would not amount.
Retractable
Support
Arms.
These
support
arms
tion
flights) excessive
l0
SECTION
IV.
(C)
TRAJECTORY
A.
SUMMARY The actual Slightly flight lower path of SA-3 was caused close to no_aduring caused burnat
placement (Ze) was 0.41 km left of nominal at IECO. About 0. 255 km of this deviation was due to the difference VIII) in alignment of the platform and vehicle was caused ( Chapter by latis is acceleration the altitude , and approximately The remaining small effects. in Reference I. was up to about l. 2 the power flight, howacceleration The velocity was only at first actual veloc0. 110 km
inal.
and range to be less powered flight, but both to be greater out. Water release 292 sec at an altitude
than nominal at any time a longer powered flight expected at times after (Project of 167.2 Highwater) kilometers.
than
occurred
m/s At IECO the actual altitude the range was 1.8 km longer, 18.4 m/s greitter than nominal. was 1.4 km higher, and the velocity was
ever the maximum longitudinal 0.5 m/s 2 lower than nominal. cutoff cutoff was 18.4 occurred
m/s more than expected since 1.3 sec later. The earth-fixed 4. Mach number
B.
ANALYSIS tracking trajectory on the first data were obtained somewhat for estabpoorer The acusable Accelprior during interAc-
and dynamic
lishing than
two vehicles.
pressure are shown ters were calcfllated data to an altitude Between 33.4 and
in Figure 5. These two parameusing measured meteorological of approximately 47.0 km altitude 33.4 kilometers. the measured data
celeration prior to
components from UDOP were not 35 sec nor after about 120 seconds. not usable available data all from was stations.
eration components from Azusa were to 75 or 80 sec and were intermittently the remaining during flight. the entire FPS-I6 flight Radar from mittent
were gradually adjusted to the 1959 ARDC atmosphere, above which the 1959 ARDC was used. The actual peak dynamic pressure was slightly less than nominal due to a lower velocity. 2. Cutoff. A comparison at both I. At range inboard OECO was 1.8 (0.006 kg/cm 2)
any of the
of actual
and
nomi-
nal parameters shown in Table combination Theodolite, telemetered comsecposition and the 20 meat 292 the with of l. 1 km ity was interval higher,
and outboard cutoff is the actual altitude was km longer, and velocThe time 7.43 sec for The accelwas about 2t IECO and comvelocity
"regular"
Camera,
11.9 m/s greater than predicted. between the two cutoff times was nominal. nominal the
trajectory release
the actual, and 7.61 see for the eration level of both actual and m/s 2. parison between expected loeityat m/s Since the actual 0.2 would IECO OECO observed. level during see less burning than OECOwas
The
difference
between
time
between
components from this systhesized tracking data during powered flight telo$.
nominal,
to change by about 4 m/s This would mean that the actual m/s, engine and instead that operation velocity nominal of the the is ve11.9 less def-
difference
C.
ACTUAL 1.
TRAJECTORY initial longitudinal was very acceleration flights accelerto approxinitial acclose on due
6 indicates in an increasing
acceler-
ation
on SA-3 was 11.36 m/s 2which (11.27 fins2). The initial lower propellant g's on the and nominal than to 1.16 those loading. g's as previous altitude, This flights.
on previous compared
is equivalent 1.38
Comparisons of actual and nominal parameters at sigaiificant event times are given in Table II. Thrust Decay. outboard engine thrust inal velocity gain was two has no significance The actual decay was velocity 7.9 m/s gain during and the nom-
and
cross
are shown in Figure 3. The were essentially the same ( Figure 3). The actual
cutoff
cross
11
the time as to
of actual
OECO
was This
6. about
The
velocity
lost
due to retro
rocket
telemetry
trace,
which
may
be in error
9 m/s
or approximately
the veloc-
_ 83 milliseconds. a :L i. 7 m/s
equivalent
uncertainty
D.
RETRO SA-3
E.
WATER Water
longitudinal operation is
The
vehicle than
km higher
in range
.lZ
._
.iJ
13
,%
0 0
I
0
0 I-4
.
_o
0 0 0 0 u% 0 0 0 u'_ 0
_, (
1800
IECO
--7
_--
OECO
1600
",,X,,
_ _ _Vj--Actual
1400
1200
800
600
400
200
/
40 80 120 Ran,re i(0 Time s:.c) 200 240 280 320 FIGURE 4. EARTH-FIXED VELOCITY
14
MachNo.
DynamicPressure (kg/cm 2) I
Dynamic
I
Pressure
#f
(Nominal)
- .28
fl
_--
-- Mach
(Actual)
Release
inal)_
40
80
120 Range
200
240
280
320
FIGURE
5.
DYNAMIC
PRESSURE
AND
MACH
NUMBER
15
IECO
OECO
4O
Nomiral
30
20
i0
20
40
60 Range
I00
120
_':
160
Lon'_itudinal 50
Acceleration
(_il/s) 2
ECO 40
30
L
Actual
! Nom' na i 10 I
i I
L
125
il 0 Range
! J Ti_ ,.e(sec)
16
0 |
,_
r'_
_ i
_0
u_
cO
c_ 0 0 0
O_
c_
c_
Ox
r_
Lr_
u_
_
I_ 0
_-__1
o_
e_
o"
r_
o"
_"
cn _
_
cq
_-d-
c;
0
_-_
o_ 0
,h _-_
_ _-_
0 ,-_
o0
o_ o_
_9 co
0o ,-_
_0
Z 0 F_
en
I 0
r_
* I I"-I
00
0"_
0"_
0 0
8
0 F_ 0
0
xl cO _0
_ -<l"
0"_ _
0 0
[._
'.0
_'
.<l
,,0
on
od _0
,_
4_ ,_
_ ,-4
_ ,--4
._4 b,1
L'q
,<_
v
_n 0 c_ c_ _-_
l>
"0
,-_
_
o
0
I .z:l _ _
_ ._ O0 _
._I o 0 ,-_
.r_ o 0
17
o
I
o_
brl xl
!
oo
uh
_o
c;
c;
I
c;
!
c_
_4
c;
i
o o o_ i _ _ _.o o
0d
c;
,J
_o oo o_
o .i..i
oo o.i
o o
_
o oo
0_1
o u_
oo
c;
,J
_d
co"
r_
._-
F_
F_ Z 0
oq
xl
o .,-4 o
o .,-I
v
t_
.iJ
v
_-_ o
o 0 o o o _-q
F_
n_
v
_ v
o o ;-I o 'o 00 .1_1 ,-i o0 o ! 00 _ .r_ _-q 00 _ l> ,-q n_ ,-I .r-i ",-4 0 0
_ 0
I-,
O2
qq !
.IJ
0 0
[/2 .r-I
.,-i
-I
18
SECTION
V.
(C)
PROPULSION
A.
SUMMARY to Vehicle propulsion test limits. systems, system performance was tank well of individual throughwithin satengines,
2. LOX
The
thrust
OK cutoff achieved
of outboard a significant
due in shut-
depletion
out
the
flight
of Saturn Performance
SA-3
propellant utilization with down and vehicle control. 3. factorily The retro rockets
no problems
isfactory hydraulic
and propellant
pressurization
ignited stage
satis-
system s did not deviate significantly from the predicted values. The vehicle longitudinal thrust was 0.15 percent lower and specific impulse 1.10 percent higher than corresponding All special missions, missions, predicted including were of particular system are propellant values. primary, secondary, Results and of the ve-
at the
end of S-I
B.
INDIVIDUAL The
ENGINE
PERFORMANCE individual The that was calculated approximately engines from 1.8 on the deviation flight per-
performance thrust,
accomplished.
SA-3 in data
satisfactory.
maximum
special missions hicle propulsion 1. ullage loading operation. The volumes system, full
engine
II
presented
no problem
compared
the pressurization
% Deviation
from
Predicted
Thrust
Predicted
-1
-2
0j
Individual Engine Deviation From Predicted Thrust Throughout this report, psi indicates an absolute pressure.
Thrust
NOTE:
19
The maximum between predicted curring other compared that on engines values, engine varied to the
deviation was
Outboard engine cutoff signal OK" switchon engine position Engine sitions position 1, 3 feeds the from cutoff 2, and 3 had already
came from the "thrust 3, due to LOX depletion. LOX tank entered was 04. the given Engine thrust pode-
approximately
percent,
deviations below).
cay period when position 3. The values pressure by position a programed imum deviation proximately engine build-up number
signal
by engine
deviation from the was from +1.8 to -1.0 main propellant valve
of predicted.
opening
and closing
times are shown in Table III, and the cutoff impulse is shown in Table IV. All values shown in Table IV are nals as based for much on chamber the as outboard and 83 ms, channels pressure engines could, which decay. were therefore, The cutoff sigby measured a possible on cornerror When the into conchamber impulse
100 ms 40 ms
delay
in chamber occurred
mutated
be in error
represents
This deviation is within peatability limits. Inboard engines. was ure modified 8). engine The slightly
expected
engine-to-engine
in impulse of 6760 kg-sec ( 14,900 lb-sec). possible 83 ms error in cutoff time is taken sideration, pressure from trajectory All engine uatedand ation sition the decay cutoff are impulse values (Section from with the IV C. ). in good agreement
was
normal
on all cutoff
four ( Fig-
outboard
cutoff depletion
characteristic
were
eval-
the data
of oper-
Actual total flow are shown There vehicle method ments vehicle propellant
and predicted vehicle longitudinal rate, mixture ratio, and specific in Figures 9 and 10. were two approaches system used
thrust, impulse
psi gauge). The currence appears line tailed (Section analysis XIII
mostplausible explanation of this octo be an obstructed pressure sensing B. for a detailed position in the explanation). 5 subsystems measuring Decould power of engine
the first
system propulsion
performance. inflight
not be made supply feeding C. VEHICLE Overall flected Inboard time ter was engine
information. The from measured The propellant lube are vehicle fuel total flows, expended
and vented system occurred cutoff performance, was at very 141.66 in vehicle and outboard at 149.09 initiated performance, engine satisfactory. range see la-
reconstructed
from flight parameters and discrete and are considered more accurate termined are hicle The vehicle thrust from flow meters. impulse However, was important for the recognition specific and totalpropellant
liquid level data than the flows dethe latter from flows vetransients. above.
occurred
described
70 Deviation
3 m
from
Predicted
Specific
Ir:_pulse
E ng 7
F-].r-n
Irnpulse
2O
,.-I
O 4-_
o rj _,.zl
_0 o1-1 ,-I
,-I I I I
o
r-I v
o
r-i
rj
,-I
O Z
O
o u'_
o P._ _o
o o_ _.o
o o _o
o oq _D
o o _o
o o0 _o
o o i'_
o
z
Z O
.,-I
,-I O0
O r_
,-I V
O oq
O 04
O 04
O c'q
O _
O C_l .i--I
Oxl
.._
*,--I
OO
.,-I
o
O O O O O O O O
m ,-I
Z Z
c_
dddd
u E_ o OOOO O
O_
O
Cq
O
O'_
O
Cxl
O
I--I
O
,-I oo
21
IV IMPULSE
Engine Position
Engine
Cutoff
with
Nominal (ib-sec)
(kg- see) 32,997 28,817 24,725 see see see Note Note Note
72,746
5 5 5
3 63,530 3 54,510
NOTES I. 2. 3.
The nominal cutoff impulse is 32,400 _ 2400 kg-sec (71,400 5200 Ib-sec) for a one sigma confidence level. All values are based on chamber pressure decay data. The cutoff signal for engines i, 2, and 3 was commutated and could be in error by 83 ms, which represents an error in cutoff impulse of The cutoff impulse measurement have been 6760 for kg-sec engine (14,900 4 could cutoff the Ib-sec) or 21 percent. not be calculated due of engine engines 4 appears prevents to a to
failure; normal.
however, on
outboard
22
l l | I
I I
I I
I t
23
0 O0
i-I
o
0 0 v m
z
0 0 m
_.j
u ,-t v m I.-I
,-4
I--4
Q
0
M
0 o 0 v ,IJ Q o o o 0
0,.-I
Z4
Thrust 700
(I000
kg)
Thrust
(I000
Ib)
"1300
900 4OO
Specific 300
Impulse
(sec)
Reconstructed_
280
--Predicted 260
240 2O 4O 60 Range
C_
I00
120
140
160
FIGURE
9.
"VEHICLE
THRUST
SPECIMC
IMPULSE
25
Vehicle 2.4
Mixture
Ratio
If)X/Fuel
\
2.3 2.2
----
Recon_[tructed
! 2ol
Vehicle 4000
Total
Flowrate
(kg/s)
ib/_)
8000 Predicted
3000 6000
2000 _Reconstructed
i000 2000
0 0 20 40 60 Range FIGURE I0. VEHICLE 80 Time (sec) RATIO AND TOTAL FLOW RATE i00 120 140 160
_FIXTURE
26
The
second
approach
is through
the
flight with
curves. Block
The II vehicles,
prediction based
will
be refined flight.
for
method,
whichis
program
from
LOX tanks. The differential pressure to cause depletion of the center tank tanks tank. to prevent The required
limitations is shown
parameter
depletion of the outboard usable LOX inthecenter tial pressure is maintained interconnect orifices was than pressurizing across these ( t. 3 psi) 3. pressure SA-3 flight. Blockhouse supply-sphere gauge) at over flight onds. at psi) liftoff at i50 records pressure
located
lower
predicted
+1. t0 0.25
are and
by subby predic-
showed to be
the 195
kg/cm
within
liftoff. This pressure to 144 kg/cm 2 (2050 psi pressure gradually This type a gauge Bearing was bearings predetermined was decayed absolute regulator. and with
gradually decayed gauge) at 150 sec2 (775 kg/cm decay psi) 2 (762 is
Regulated seconds.
expected pressurization system operated satisfactorily during flight. Gaseous nitrogen, supplied by 48 high pressure spheres, showed a pressure of 205 kg/cm_ (2920 psi gauge) proximately During slight 60 and again pressure at liftoff and decayed 77.3 kg/cm 2 (1100 intervals The first increase These heat as expected to appsi gauge) at OECO. pressure occurred small showed between pressure increases through in the when The 2 (1000 4. air trogen pressure stabilized bearing at
Air a
The
of
the niand
clean ST-90
temperature,
ST- 124P
the sphere
Blockhouse
records
show
that
the
air
bearing
pressure supplywas maintained prior to launch proximately 210 kg/cm 2 ( 2990 psi gauge) for the and psi 209 gauge) kg/cm 2 (2970 and psi gauge) limits 183 kg/cm air from for the whichwas withinthe maximum The low decayed range redline pressure slightly time of 220 kg/cm 2 (2600 psi
ST-t24P,
sphere walls to the nitrogen little or no gas is being used spheres psi gauge) showed a rest pressure at 160 seconds.
to 2.37
ization was
2. LOX Tank Pressurization. of the LOX tanks, which was sequence by helium was begun prior from a ground
t50 seconds. The remained constant Specifications perature tainedat temperature Blockhouse inlet air
low pressure supply to the ST-124P at 2.24 kg/cm 2 ( 3t. 8 psi). for the air bearing inlet air tem-
to ignition
at approximately
was stopped by the LOX tank pressure switch at T-39 sec at a pressure of 4.25 kg/cm 2 (60.4psi). The pressurizing time of 76 sec was tl sec shorter than the pressurizing time for Saturn SA-2, due primarily to smaller initial volumes on SA-3 caused by the increased propellant loading. throughout flight volumes associated in accurately the LOX tank was as with
stated that the temperature 25 1C. Blockhouse records was records temperature maintained showed effect inlet within a cycling
must be mainshow that this specified in the 8.9 air limits. bearing per thercycles of the
LOX tank pressurization expected. The small ullage this ting flight the caused some problem of characteristics
predicpressure flight
27
ofthetest. Anevaluation ofthePU,utilizingvarious types offlightdata,ndicates i that99.4percent ofpredicted usableropellant total p wasconsumed during the flight. Thehighpercentage ofpropellant utilization resulted fromthe outboard engines being allowed to
deplete pressure the LOX tanks switch. before Center cutoff LOX by the "thrust tank depletion have occurred 0.7 see after lower-than-predicted and outboard LOX OK" (gas near IECO, break-through), IECO, occurred due to a 0.09 differential tanks. pressure which should approximately kg/cm _ (t. 3 psi) between
The
fuel
container
Ap transducer differential
outpres-
put indicated
The AP ratio calcucontainer AP data was in the correlates AP data period with may
generally below predicted, particularly of 90 to t40 seconds. However, this the individual propellant be attributed from Fuel system that the level data. the PU liquid probe However, system 100 seconds. level and therefore, Data lant ance. PU tank to performance level data probes PU correlate LOX results This level
and
center
may be used
to compare
system
perform-
inend of well
dicate
do not
correlate
kg (8, 58t
to approximately
difference
in sys-
tem results might be attributed mining a valid LOX density, onthe PU system results would first portion highest, and powered flight,
to difficulty in detersince the density error be greatest during the column is the end of
with the predicted residuals which lb) of LOX and 2248 kg (4957 lb) kg kg (8,58f (2000 lb) lb) of fuel was left onbeard, as extra loaded
were 1454 kg ( 3f97 of fuel. Of the 3892 approximately fuel, part 900 of which extra LOX on
of flight, where the liquid would tend to diminish near where the liquid column system
is considered bias to insure the burning of any LOX in the event it is usable and thereby assuring depletion. If the same cutoff timer had been SA-3 aswas usedon SA-i and SA-2, occurred 6 see after IECO and the
propellant
utilization
used
satisfactory
although
was prevalent from the LOX discrete Some PU system performance data data; however, dispersion. SYSTEM data from SA-3.flight this may
siduals would have been 4,765 kg ( t0,504 lb) and kg (7,591 lb) respectively, showing a substantial crease in performance for a depletion type cutoff.
to check overall vehicle propellant liquid level probes were located discrete propellant useful information was the weight levels obtained
telemetered
indicated satismeaslimits.
tank to indicate flight. The most flight at the basedon gated from however,
that operation factory. All urements G. RETRO Four Saturn active flight 90 deg stage. through
of propellant
onboard
end of flight. Flow information during flight, the liquid level probes, has not been entirely Various obtain liquid reliable level probe techniques continuous signals. (PU) (as system was carried to deand was Results conare being investito the flow information
satisfactory.
utilization test
SA-3 vehicle; these retro rockets were part of the S-I/S-IV stage separation testedon SA-3. The retro rockets were apart Retro the S-I on the spider beam at the top rocket thrust vectors were stage center of pressure.
on SA-1
and SA-2)
termine system performance and reliability not a control feature of the Saturnfirst stage. from the PU system indicate that the propellant sumption rate cutoff (IECO) in LOX tank later uted than was close to predicted. was initiated by the 04 at 141.66 The sec late range cutoff
The
rocket
Inboard engine level cutoff probe time, might or l. 32 see be attribsuch pressures, as
motors were directed downward and canted 12 deg from the vehicle centerline. Retro rocket locations are sec shown sec after in Figure range inboard 11. time} engine retro Telemetered indicated Retro was cutoff rocket given on SA-3 curve rocket firing as command 12 (t53.66 scheduled, vehicle. is shown presperformlevels for of the retro predicted, in
predicted.
to dispersion
in performance
parameters container
variables propellant
rocket satisfactory
chamber
ance and approximately the four retro rockets. rockets was within
except
g8
c_
9.3 0 .._.j
E-_
;.-,:
i'q
L) E_
M
r_
< u
F_
t/%
,,.-I
C)
L_
0 C.) 0
4_
c_
l.,'h
_c,,_
29
with total impulse as calculated from ber pressures being about i. 7 percent dicted. pressures surements retro Table The performance is substantiated (Section IV D. ). rocket V along During (clockwise 4. 3 deg/s retro rocket performance with some retro viewed occurred rocket from and is as calculated by flight Measured
rocket, caused by twisting misalig_ment of the rockets The ST-90 platform roll at 158.4 sec range time. did not require alignment onthe SA-3vehicle. on SA-3 The is not rockets
spider vehicle
beam een-
of 15 deg was
Retro rocket specito prevent roll moeffective considered misalignment significant Proper vehicles be signifiinteraction
vehicle
roll
because S-I/S-IV separationwas alignment of retro rockets scheduling cant during S-I/S-IV separation. stage possible in preventing
misalignment
of approximately
3O
SECTION
VI.
(C)
MASS
CHARACTERISTICS
A.
VEHICLE The
B,
VEHICLE OF
CENTER
OF GRAVITY
AND MOMENTS
INERTIA and radial center of inertia are are also plotted of gravity and pitch given in Table VII. versus range time
500,137 kg ( I, 102,614 Ib) at ignitioncommand. proximately were consumed 12). (Figure (767,692 during the S-I powered
and These
in Figure
flight events.
31
O0 I-.I
O0
o i'_ o
Oo OO <1-
o'_
Oo o"1 i_ _,,.D
co c_l _o
_0 O_
O0 O0
O_ O_
0 00
O0 O0
O0 ,.--_ O_
CO o4
O.<J" ,-"gO
_ O_
O0 O0
_ _0 _D
r_o O0 O0 _ O0 _ _ _ _ _ O_ _0 O_ _0 O_ O0 O0 _ _0
,--I
.< ;>
i._ 0 O0 o"_ I._ O0 i._ oO I'_ O_ _0 O0 _ O0 O0 _0 _0 ',..0
o,I
u,..i 0
.<
,--I
0 0
m-I 1_ ,-I O0 O0 00 I.rl O0 _1 I_. u"_ ,,4D
_g
_ ! 4.1 0 0 ,--I .,-I _._ _1 vv q.I I-I 0 m
o._
_.t I_ IlJ 4..I O,O W 0
_ .H
_>
32
4J ,Z::
CO r_
_0 ,_
oo u'3
_-I cxl
u'3 P_
N
r._ o_ r._ ._,-_
,_
m r3
_0_
_0_0
u_
--4 0_0_0 _0_ ,-CO _ 0
,4
e2 _
0 ,--_ .4" m 0 _0_ _0_0 _ _ 0
o_
I1)
"0
r.zl
g_0_
_0 0 u'_ 0
0 _00_ _0_ 0 0
e_
,.-4
_13
0_0
_d
_ 0
__0
0",
:_
_0_
0_0_0 _0_
_0 _ 0 4J u_ 0 m _l
_.__
0 _._ C
1.1 C e_
C 0 _ v
o
0 _-/ 0 _
_ 0
._
_d
0 [-.I
P_
33
_r_
_4
I
! I
O0
O0
dd
b_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0
dd
_ 0
d_
0 0 o.l _D ! o_ I
_2
_
O_
_
O_
_
_
_
_0
_
_
4-1
.._
0
0 0 _,1 ",D _,D
0 _" el?
O0 H
O0 0
m <
_ "0
O0 o
o oel r_ 0 0 0 0 I I 4..I ,1= t_O _-I .e.-t I:_ _-_ .IJ nD O0 -1 ,._ _J 0 _D 0 o_ o_ oo oo
o_
c_
_4
uh o
,._ .,-I
nn r_ 4_ U _
n_ 0 if-, 0 .,-I ,-I I-.t0 0 H[._O _F4_ "0 _ 0 "_ 0 4._ O0 .1J ou_ "o _ o o ,el nD .l m
?.
34
Vehicle 6 x I05
Weight
(kg)
Longitudinal Center of Gravity (calibers from gimbal station) I I IECO OEC(_ " 5.0
I
4 I _ 4.0
i
I i i I I 3.0
!I I
0 20 40 60 Range 80 Time (sec) i00 120 140 160
Pitch
Inertia
(kg-m-sec
2)
Roll
Inertia
(kg-m-sec 24 x
2) 104
I
Thrust Decay
20
16
12
0 20
i "
40
60 Range
80 Time
120
140
160
FIGURE
12.
OF GRAVITY TIME
AND
MASS
35
SECTION
VII.
(U)
CONTROL
A.
SUMMARY The control system essentially the same for the Saturn vehicle SA-3 as that used in SA- 1 and SA-2.
Parameter
Magnitude
Range
Time
(sec)
was Attitude Angle-of-Attack (Free-stream) Angular Normal Actuator The tilt program for the ST-90 platform was generated by a synchronous motor driven Transients which _lppeared in the pitch tions by the on SA-2, cam due to a periodic the tilt generating program, cam as on SA-2. actuator deflecencountered did not occur priorto Pitch attitude 50 sec and deviations after t15 sec were (Figure essentially i3). zero Vehicle (similar to The tilting engine operation engine the operfor confailure. cam Velocity Acceleration Position t. 8 deg -6.8 deg 88.5 115.0 101.4 83.3 83. 3
However, the control gains (a o and bo) were changed because of the increased propellant loading in order to maintainthe same correlation with the vehicle mass as on SA-t and SA-2.
resistance
on SA-3. Engine deflections, of-attack were less than SA-2 The direction SA-2. The flown closed for on SA-3, be in closed flights greatest primarily wind
I
tilting was initiated by the ST-90 tilt cam the one used on SA-2) at 10.33 seconds. attitude those due the angles, observed in the as and angleson SA-I and shape. pitch plane on program ation the trol prior remainder requirements (Figure to 20 14) was see and of the flight, in the to measurements based seven in order event of made on eight engine an of
to the same
trajectory experienced
to minimize ST-90
speeds nearly
occurred
andwere
According
which first
by LVOD, the actual tilt program cut on the cam started differing from the requested tilt beginning around 90 seconds. Final tilt arrest occurred at t32. 03 sec with vertical. The time cam device of initiation provided at 10.33 continuous sec, until tilting from tilt arrest at zero and Periodic position on SA-3. 8 degrees of a wind incre/ment of the vehicle tilted 44. 28 degrees from the launch
operation. operation
gyro package also performedproperly. bration effects were present, although with proper as an active filtering control if the rate sensor gyro in its
The usual vinot detrimental package was location. all performed noticed at subsensor. Q-ball sec could of flight. and the the used
the
withthe tilt rate varying between of 0.6 deg/s at 85 seconds. which to the occurred cam device, in the did actuator not occur of-2. an altitude
present
Angle-of-attack measuring systems satisfactorily. An"upwash effect"was sonic With have speeds this been The control The ST-124P differences used on for the Q-ball into properly taken control of the were account
13) as a result
of 390 meters. This 9.0 m/s as determined compared The wind plane was and to the both attack due changed to 8.7 m/s component very engine different gains. and
gust had a velocity increment of from the angle-of-attack winds Irom variation rawmsonde to previous (tail were measurements. for the pitch flights Angles-ofhowever, by SA-3 and in Saturn wind). lower, flown with altitude
actuators
satisfactory. from by the the except fact passenger for some the that
similar
magnitude
ST- 124P was not aligned resolver chain was not SA-4. B. S-I CONTROL 1. trol Pitch
control
Shown component ANALYSIS Plane. for the The SA-3 maximum powered pitchplane flight were: consources;
15
of the from
pitch three
a function
angle-of-
parameters
attack winds. The angle-of-attack winds (solid line) were determined from attitude and angle-of-attack measurements made onboard the vehicle which were
36
0 :.el
! ----I
" L ....
---
",-,1" [,--4
,-4
_.--
-_
;m 0 t_
0 E_
,
L 0 <2,-,--4
r..)
<
.<
i--I r_
0 00-I ,---i r_
_"-"-
,Z_-'-.',.D
IE i L_ v r.. b v e0 .,,-I i d] 0 U
E4 _ 0-...-.-
_4
,-...4
L U 4J
0 .I.J t'1
;2
J 4J .,-4 0 I 0 r! 4J *,-4 _'0 ,-...-I U < _4
>
4_1 C_ I-I )
V--< 0 "4 o4 _ 0 _4 I _1 I
o ,.-.i
"D
v
37
.,-I
ilj
o
.IJ
\
v
4..J ,-.I rJ
o o 4J 0
"o
4.1 .rt
o 00
E-t
I
.iJ
v
u o
o
r_.4
4..i
0
I
38
0 .I-I
0 4-1 4-1
q-I 0 0 0 ,--4 O0
OJ .I.J
0 !
,4"
eq
eq I
._ I
'_0 l
GO I
0 I
39
combined nents Science applying factor. titude ure i5. of Rocketsonde from
with meters)
trajectory were
2.
Yaw
The SA-3
yaw flight
plane were:
con-
tracking.
parameters Parameter
the appropriate Rawinsonde winds 33.3 The km (ti4.3 are winds after maximum
Range (sec)
Time
shown
points
considered
wind
component
as
by rawinsonde duringthe maximum dynamic region was 30.9 m/s at 83. 1 sec (13.9 km). stream angle-of-attack at this time was -4. i Approximately be attributed 51 percent to the winds. of this angle-ofThe remaining
Small
yaw
deviations
were
the powered flight (Figure 17). these deviations were the results atively large actuator movements seconds. The largestactuator at 103. 7 sec as a result over an altitude increment gust had a velocity mined from angle-of-attack from rawinsonde winds. Yaw plane light wind titude plane, attack (dashed throughout component wind components
to the fact that the tilt program engine operation during this flight
around
deflection was -1.7 deg of a wind gradient of 0.02/s of 670 meters. This wind of 13.5 winds m/s as deterto 12. 4 compared
Figure design criteria engine tilt The gains were state count eters inal from propellant
16
shows with
an eight
estimate engine
of the operation
pitch
angle
increment
on a seven
time of 70 seconds. the design criteria Principle due to the for 2a the full steadyto acparamthe nom-
( Figure
18) were
very
winds has for gusts. have response The solid as of the values been
the flight. The maximum yaw plane was 13.2 m/s (from the left) at an al-
of 12.4 km (79,6 seconds). As in the pitch good agreement existed between the angle-ofwinds lines). (solid lines) and the rawinsonde (solid points) winds were and point Rocketsonde winds
11 percent. lines a function from angle-of-attack of the budgeting considered were: engine of tilt in Figure of time, the SA-3 are for 16 represent and the flight. two the bar the points Shown various design are the to the
also in good agreement with both angle-of-attack rawinsonde winds. The dynamic pressure at the where the angle-of-attack was Roll 0.026 Plane. winds kg/cm 2. of the vehicle the appear ( 122 sec) 3.
to be unreliable
graphswhich factors.
are estimates The factors i. 2. 3. 4. 5. The cent maximum ity at 70 sec below the
Roll attitude
was
Seven Effect
outboard
control
maximum powered
parameters
for
(C1/B ) variations are approximately which The wind were 36 peris near the well
Parameter
Magnitude
Range (sec)
Time
of the
at 70 sec, region.
veloc-
All parameters
40
Free-stream, (deg) 16
Pitch
Angle
of
Attack
12
Design At 70 sec
Design
Criteria
f
Act,_al /0 At see 2 o Winds Gains Observed On SA-_ Engine Tilt
20
I 40
! 60
! 80 Range Time
I 100 (sec)
Pitch (deg)
8,
Actuator
4,
, 20
40
, 60
I 8U
I 120 (sec)
Dynamic Produ
Pressure
Angle
of
Attack
- " ,
0 20
I'
40
I
60
,
80 Range
I
i00 Time (sec)
,
120
FIGURE (8 ENGINE'S
16.
PITCH
ANGLE WITH 7
DESIGN ENGINE
OPERATING
,41
0 Pt E-I I--I
0 [--I
I,,4
P_
_J v
42
43
tions
The roll attitude and average are shown in Figure 19. what is now obviously
the
bending
in yaw
was
approximately
2 percent
of
hibited
a characteristic
critical damping. until 151 see, after most 153.66 normal As mode root mode constant seconds. in both the until
Bending in pitch initially damped which the amplitude remained alignition this, of the retro was rockets essentially at After damping
turbance" moment and the control to the average engine deflections shown in the in the in Figure period below: 19. are The cutoff table compared
torque corresponding in the roll direction moments for all three in roll flights
planes. thrust approaches indicated be slightly decays, the that the at first zero bending region. thrust which A the is in
disturbing
unstable
unstable,
ROLL Prior
MOMENT Prior to OECO kg-m 928 713 672 the roll same angle trajectory time histories. and
There is a difference beconstraints of the instruplatform, was 0.5 would this give by such that the to 0.6 that in an increasing would must not be There
to IECO kg-m
ment canister containing the control feedback gain in yaw pitch. damping explain other ence lag possible At the zero thrust this effect. damping However, observed
itself
in yaw.
effects. Some possibilities might be a differin structural damping in yaw, increased phase of the servo system at small in the amplitudes, complete and system. other non-linearities
characteristic
SA-3 flew a different of the roll angle for from roll that attitudes of the for the
trajectory, and the time history SA-3 was also somewhat different two vehicles. three flights are However, plotted if the together
first
as a function of Mach number, is almost identical and indicates The increase in roll (in the 1.5 can be correlated tion. The variations {prior Mach fect. to Mach number, 1.5) are indicating
{ Figure 20) the trend a close correlation. after Mach acceleraand 90 sec with ef-
CW direction)
Since the effect of the thrust vector angularity of the engines duringthrust decay is of interest in future design, values have been obtained for all three Saturn vehicle during flights. any portion The largest of the thrust decay vector that angularity has been period
correlated aerodynamic
consideredoccurred the 10 percent values obtained are for allowed All deg values
on SA-I and was 0.33 deg during to 0 percent thrust decay period. The for well in the the within S-IV SA-3 the flight design are listed below. of one design. angularity
The
roll
after
Mach
1.5
appears
to be more
an inertial effect. This level changes in the roll possible roll ness the are with an inthe explanation CW direction system The in the proper and the of
is also very apparent bias after each cutoff. this is that structure of gravity such load, the basic with associated of the that, it could vectors. be associated
stage Thrust
separation
trend
Vector Angularity During Cutoff Decay Yaw (deg) 0.08 0.14 0.08
Pitch i00 to I0 Percent Thrust i0 to 0 Percent i00 Thrust to 0 Percent Thrust A large degree of deg) exists in the small deviations Retro rockets their
(deg) 0.21
direction inertial of
0.08 0. t2
misalignment
the thrust
differenwith this
deviation from
does
not
affect
the
funcwill be
vehicle,
being were
viewpoint. time on Cutoff. sec The The excited and yaw damping cutthe at a of SA-3 to test functional performance prior to their
off
of
the
vehicle coupled
first
pitch
separating the SI-SIV stages Close alignment tolerances for this flight and measured
frequency
of 2.6
to 2.7
waived
44
0 0
.............................
..4
"F
o4
r-=]
o-.,
0 .r..l
i-4
O0 "0
m 0 0 0 -_
P4
_ _
,--.4
0 I
45
I,
ii
I
_4
_2
I
I
r_ u'3
\\ I
_4 _,_ \'_.\
o Z o
t'M
g(
v
0
_'_
u'3
I.-I
I/
I
.IJ
rT'_
/ !
i
,-_ 0 ,-4 I 0
46
there path
is a possibility at retro
that
the and
range
(_ 100 deg/s)
rate
gyro
package
was
also
on-
ignition,
studs are 3.8 inches off of the spider an effective misalignment would rethe spider beam outside The results would be observed from of the in the
board for vehicle failure analysis if required. All of the instruments operated properly. Some vibration effects were evident in the two sets of low range rate gyros, butwere proper ployed which were on continuous telemetry channels, not detrimental to the basic information. With filtering as an active c. control local the "control" control sensor package in the could control Four (U be emloop. active device, meas-
sult from twisting of cross beam network. same data. At a sharp rocket direction as
that
telemetered
the time of retro rocket roll deviation began. burning (t55.73 sec),
(153. 66 sec) end of retro angular veloc21). To obof all four to the were pitch cant any misor yaw
Angle-of-attack angle-of-attack
meters. meters
S. Science) for
ity had increased tain this roll rate retro angle rockets planes, of was the
to 4. 3 deg/s (Figure an average misalignment deg perpendicular If there in the rockets and could measured its This forced required. retro small angle reached
were used on SA-3. A Q-ball angle-of-attack similar to the one used on SA-2, was used uring purposes. The U.S. Science meters were mounted surface inthe
of 0.285
alignments
planes, they were The roll attitude bilized deg at platform 158.5
90 deg apart in the payload body t841. Two of these meters measure and two in the yaw plane. measurements and the shown on the in Figure they 23. are body
mechanical
The average of the two pitch two yaw measurements are Since these meters by the are body located upwash. influenced
seconds.
reference in yaw and no usable vehicle attitude information was obtainedafterthis event. Figure 21 shows the simulation (dashed retro of roll rocket each plane line) of this event pressures, same using the with ditelemetered a misalignment rection in the C. chamber
from corpresented in
15 and
the comparison
of the
calculated
angles-d-
FUNCTIONAL 1. Control a.
from rawinsonde (square wind data (solidpoints) and the local meters, it can
be concluded
meters functioned sure was greater yaw) were flown the first time on (Figure 22) during flight. closed loop opthe Q-ball the to from time. these The meters pitch
properly when the dynamic presthan 0.026 kg/cm 2. Information is probably meter reached unreliable after this its measuring limit
Control
control accelerometers for operational study SA-3. show These eration made The proper would in the between from telemetered operation have been
at 117 seconds. in Figures measurements Good angle-of-attack after approximately At speeds 15 and 18, as dashed of angle-of-attack agreement is obtained 65 sec below (Mach Mach and the angle-of-attack 1 there lines, from are the from t) and up is
system. A comparison acceleration and that flight measurements gives than 0.2 m/s 2, which is reduced data used in the frequency appear on were exflown in type loop
indicator.
between
agreement, errorlimits
seconds.
A considerable 10 to 15 the
but they are less than Edcliff accelerometers SA-1 and will be of the SA-2. flown local
the same location on control accelerometers control on SA-4, transducers. b. located Minneapolis of the age S-I for pitch in Rate both stage
The angle-of-attack telemetered individual namic Q-ball. pressure These correction are shown
calculated pressures
from and
the dy-
in place
factor as measured by the circled points in Figures measurein the pitch of for plane essenagrees
15 and 18. The agreement ment of angle-of-attack gyros. the control Rate gyro packages (a and in the large measuring were 3-axis tail packplane about tially very attack is quite 0.25 deg good starts instrument Kearfott A 3-axis canister package) "measuring" and
with the direct from the Q-ball where continues The yaw which
a deviation
the remainder
well with the direct measurement of angle-offrom the Q-ball prior to 105 seconds. At this
12 ated
/
1! 7
.Y
## P
#st
/
153 i i4 155 -4 A:_ular Velocity Roll (F14-15) 4
i;_6
15 3 Range
[_ 9 TJ ne (sec)
16 0
(deg/s)
_,<" '
] _ ted
/
4 ] 55 i__0 1_=.7 15; Range -i i! Til 16 0
(sec)
FIGURE'21.
RCLL
DURING
RETRO
ROCKET
FIRING
48
, "1 _'_
....
-- ....
_'_
v _--0 _ ...............
r.
c_
o_
I-I
!-
E
i 0 ,---4 I ,..-4
4..; I-I
,--.4
4-1 0 0 0 L.) 0
,j
3_
0
_J
I-
JF-
_J
IIJ
113 ,--4 -_
j.,1
&9
ii
..... _ ....... v_ ................. ............... v .................. ......... 0 [.-4 ....................
@%
7:
" !
.,-/
I
7_
!
!
L
,.@
4.
v
S"
i I
_
i
,
C4
__
.o_
i
I
r-I 4-I
,r-I
J CM I
.IJ
-]<
_--I I
50
an increasingdeviationbetweenthe from from the the Q-ball differential the and the pressure calculated
direct starts.
on
engines
tending
to swing
them
angle-of-
ter follows essentially locals and the winds. The attributed comparisons, system onds. appears deviations to telemetry the use prior
angle-of-attack
veetordiagram
loading occurred just prior to IECO Gravitational loading effects prior clearly indicated Ap since curtain loads inmeasurements
may
possible
be
to
liftoff
are
not
Based
angle-ofoattack
to be feasible
up to at least
The 2. control Control Computer. on this flight The was operation entirely outputs values as was of the satisfacof the based exfirst stability 3. actuators ator Actuators. The was satisfactory. during the differential misalignments for gimbal all actuators. friction operation of the An investigation was made hydraulic of actuduring ators than computer
maximum the
demands time
on the
period, level
deflection nominal
tory. Comparisons of the telemetered computer and calculations of the output onthe static deg control or equation for gives all three in 0.6 pected. better axes,
to 5. 5 deg/s.
of demand
an agreementwithwere several were periods excited. by the where The oscillations is influenced
movement
of the controlengines. in response to control bending inertia bending B. 4). tuators. one indicates occurred frequency effect mode This of the
When the engines are swiveled commands at the first mode thrust tends discussed to condition, decrease in Section the the VII acfor This engines {as
loading
flight
by analyzing
and at a zero
pressure measurements. and inertial loads were An investigation torques was not made when for periods of cursince these
stability
swiveling requires power to move the Figure 26 shows representative curves engine hydraulic supply after OECO.
typical
that complete depletion of hydraulic pressure at 158.5 seconds. Between OECO and this for the control into system used on SA-3, decreasing energy the be fed a bending oscillation,
Thrust
as
the differential pressure measurements, in the upper portion of Figure 25. These mined pressure values were yaw. (Figure explain by subtracting values just after just ignition. the prior telemetered to engine Thrust
differential ignition from 4. The was ST-124P flown as ST-124P stabilized a passenger Stabilized platform on SA-3. Platform {prototype The Attitudes. model) is and will beginning ST-t24P forces
misalignment
less than 250 kg on all actuators except engine 2 The force on this actuator was about 435 kg 25). the The indicated is roll direction in a consistent deviation of the (Section net thrust to in roll systematic direction
misalignment
planned for use on the operational vehicles be flown in closed loop on Block II vehicles with SA-7. A comparison the two difference tematic titude platforms in all deviation, measurements the The of the attitude measurements
VII B.3). from (ST-90 and ST-t24P) three axes (Figure shown between the the two from shows some 27). The sysyaw and roll atis due
However, this explanation appears unsatisfactorywith regard to the fact that the roll deviations were so similar in all three Saturn flights if the (Figure magnitude 20). As yet, misit has not been determined alignment is sufficient. The maximum differential actuator of the
platforms,
measurements 1,433 kg
of the ST-124P vebicle tilting, additional backlash telemetry systematic resolver small
platform azimuth as mentioned in differences are in the servo gear and data reduction difference chain. This bepitch mis-
5,230 kg) occurred just (Figure 24). Variable during center displaced imately sembly. coupled the high of 20 radially dynamic of from gravity
to inboard engine cutoff up to 689 kg appeared region the outboard center of flight. engines line approxThe is
felt to be due to excess trains in the ST-124P and errors. tween mismatch angular The the pitch in the error (_e) much attitude ST-124P larger
angles
engine
is a function
with
match and the sine of twice -M sin 2).. is the tilt angle
51
-I0 (o 0
t_ 0 H
1
<-
t.D
]o" t_
_L
T
o
tD
&
v
t_ H o
o 4J c_ u-_
i
|
o o o
o o u-_
52
Actuator
Load
(kg)
600
Thrust
Vector
0 20]
40O
400 Inertial Due To Changes 0.2g 600 I -I 0.gg 1.7g Change Change Change Load Changes
Acceleration
0 Load On
Actuators
I000
800
600
400
200
0 I
20(
400
600
800
i000
(kg)
]
Note: Total Vector View Looking is From Rear Forward
600
800
NON-COntROL
ACTUATOR
LOADS,
SA-3
53
_o
/
tj D 0
00
\/
1.1 H ilJ 0 0 ,IJ 0
/
Xl cq I-I o m
00 o0
v 0 I_ 0 0 0 u'_ 0 0 0 u_ 0 0 0 0 co
o v
o xl
o o
o 00
o _o
0 ,q
54
Attitude
Pitch
ST-90
Minus
Attitude
Pitch r
ST-124 I
(deg)* ' I
.' _sec)
_./,,,,r_._
-2 *Measured AtLitude Yaw ST-90 Minus Attitude Yaw from ST-124 Launch Zdeg) Space-fixed Vertical
$0 Range Ti
i(
_e (see)
Attitude
Roll
ST-90
Minus
Attitude
Roll
ST-124
(deg)
L|A^
/ -_,/vv
21 0 6_ 8 )0 -i
"'VV
12 0 Range
F"
I _0 Ti le (sec) i(
FIGURE
"27.
--ATTITUDE
DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN
ST-90
AND
ST-12_P
55
resolver. maining
The difference
dashed
line
the
re-
by measurement continuous
D6-OC
which The
was
on the sen-
a correcimpe-
channel.
results
tion for a 1.3 dance mismatch To platform ilar The error error
sitive to many parameters, the propellant surface in the quency. The results results shown the best to be obtained
the mismatch asstunption, testedand found to have as be the tilt program to less was than angle of 44 deg portion amounted of the
ground tests uring system sion procedures methods. The round the
of this slosh differential pressure are being analyzed to verify the being used or to develop
more
degrees.
reduced
0.25
by balancing out the major before the platform is flown. D PROPELLANT The outer same SLOSHING baffle tanks
mismatch largest time amplitudes of maximum of sloshing dynamic occurred pressure a(80
were
used
in the baffles
propdllant
These
again proved effective in keeping at low levels. However, some sloshing A peak actuator OE CO. frequency amplitude positions were of at noted 145 sec, 0.2 deg
sloshing amplitudes oscillations at the engine positions. in the damped pitch out by occurred being
No.
Amplitudes SA-3 15 8 24 20 10 10
(cm) SA-2
in the
13 10 11 11 10
LOX 4 in three of the nine propellant tanks was LOX 4 Center LOX Center LOX
by means of differentialpressure Slosh measurements were made LOX tank 04 and fuel tank (in center telemetered LOX tank) and on continuous
tank,
ered center
The most noticeable flight was detected tank. went A pronounced which the 120 sec, below
the
around All properly first few apparently indicated SA-2 are Start of the during seconds, valid measurements apparently functioned during the The first the times times for face tude fluid
baffles
most of the flight except which is characteristic. information below. was obtainedat Comparable
amounted to only about 1 cm up to the time the surface went below the slosh probe and the measended. The dashed slosh This was in Also, frequency lines amplitude has been baffles, different The magnitude that the sloshing vehicle as in Figure observed referenced since sloshing on started was the time due to the in the SA-2 and driven 28 show in the to the hiscenter SA-3. more propelof the on SA-2. the two flights differences. similar it appeared on SA-3.
urement
the envelope center tank location of tory lant tank earlier of the loading was
end of the
of Valid
Slosh SA-3
However, D4-F2 D5-F2 D6-04 D6-04 D6-OC DT-OC The telemetered must be multiplied sloshing tion the tank, height of many 0 sec 0 8 29 0 18 sloshing differential by a conversion factor This including acceleration, factor the liquid propellant The center
somewhat previously,
at the sloshing than SA-2. Figure quencies pared IECO are to the
mentioned
frecomafter
in the
in some
accelbeing
erometers,
in centimeters.
parameters,
forced by the sloshing. The pitch actuator also indicated this. In this case, in contrast the vehicle of the appears propellant, this to be driven rather is at the than consistent quency at some or
longitudinal
natural
ing, and frequency of oscillations. pellant slosh heights for the shown in Figure 28. The best
information
56
_J
t_ _S _Q
?
-i-I c_ _0 t_ t_ J_ _-1 _OI O
O t_ O Q v_
J_
O ,'j
pm
mmmmmmm
i-1
2
v--4
! r_ V
[d_
J,J -r-I
c_
I-g
5?
o t_
o
P
o o 0
_Q
o ,4,-I
_o
_ v "1
o f
Io I o I%o
o I
0 M
4_
o o
P.
tll
I I
1
r_
I v v
I
P_ i11
o
v
I I
I I
1
o
r_
t/I
I I
!
I
I
I
0 CM
I I
I
m
7 I I
o o
X o _-_
_J 0 m_,,i Q; o o
Q o
58
SECTION
VIII. (C)
GUIDANCE
A.
SUMMARY is a four The Saturn SA-3 vehicle was flown ST-124P establish telemetered satisfactory equipment without active
2. grating ement.
path
guidance
or velocity
cutoff.
However,
accelerometers mounted on the stabilized elPlatform orientation is maintained by three The vehicle accelerometers were velocities in the verthe lay The altitude accellocal vertical at in the fixed of its launch horiThis azimuth.
for both ST-90 and systems was onboardto capabilities flight of the flight. of the environment. comparison ST-90 guidance The confirm
AB-5 stabilizing gyros. oriented to measure the tical and cross erometer was launch; zontal orientation the stable the plane
guidance
equipment
a trajectory
cross
to the firing
Erroneous ometer system noted the signals could ometer deduced before cross range
from the cross range acceleron the ST- 124P platform were No correction contained These extraneous the telemetered range was made extraneous signals accelerwas and
erence.
limits indicated
when listed
platforms
information
Mechanical Stop
Limit
ST-90 The output of the altitude acceleromcter mounted ST-124P on the ST-124P platform was satisfactory. Comparisons with both calculated and ST-90 guidance data indicateda vclocitydifference of approximately 0.2 m/s at end of thrust, after the altitude velocity was corrected for a 0.09 percent scale factor error. The Saturn SA-3 vehicle after ignition of the retro Both the ST-90 experienced a high roll rockets at about 153.6 and ST-124P at platforms mately approximately Guidance data
*Indication of loss ofplatform reference from the yaw gyro pickup measurement (H19-12) occurred during a calibration period. The vehicle 45 deg was measured flying at an the angle of approxiX-axis.
rate
seconds.
from
platform
reached their mechanical limits 158.4 see and 159.2 sec respectively. past these points were invalid.
the component of motion about the platdue to roll about the vehicle longitudinal given by: t
is approximately
B.
DESCRIPTION
OF
GUIDANCE
SYSTEM
0y _
sin
45 t
f
O
@rolldt
ance
I. ST-90 Guidance System. The ST-90 system was similar to that flown on SA-2
guid(RefA rotation 158.54 sec was tered values forming the ignition. tt19-12) urement 158.9 of 11 deg about by in the from the inserting 124P X-axis the telemeat computed
erence 3). Three integrating accclerometers (AMAB3) were mounted on the stable element to measure velocities in the slant range, slant altitude,and cross range directions. The slant range accelerometer was oriented in the firing direction and 4i up from the launch horizontal; the slant altitudeaccelerom eter was 4l from the launch vertical; the cross range measuring direction was in the launch horizontal plane and completed orientation form was at 158.4 a right handed coordinate system. This remained fixed during flight until the platforced out of its frame of reference in roll seconds.
The yaw g_cro servo signal (measurement indicated that a bias shift to full scale measoccurred and 159.4 indication The is during a calibration period between seconds. The time at which this from its normal level should be that the platform is no longer difference in the computed and obdue to truncation of the equation for
del)arts
times
59
0y, errors in data used in the computations, response ofthevarious telemetry channels, and prototype hardware components for the ST-I24P system. It should form limits ST-124 C. was only be an emphasized engineering that test the ST-124P platSlant Range Velocity range accelerometer values assuming computed ideal These data (ST-90). were from alignment differences The outputs of the compared with corearth-fixed of the are plotted trajecand verplatform
slant tory
responding accelerometers.
model
and gimbal
existing in this system will not apply to the equipment to be flown in the Block II vehicles. ANALYSIS The guiddeviations in from be found platform by comwith the
sus time in the upper errors oscillate around flight. errors within The in small the data one errors
portion of Figure zero for the entire observed and values. (ST-90). The sigma are the hardware
compared
OPERATIONAL
ance the
1. Guidance Intelligence Errors. intelligence errors are defined as guidance the measurements errors system guidance resulting and may measurements
Velocity
cross
range
and aecelerometer paring vehicle The clude gence noise guidance level The trajectory. errors hardware errors, and shown
Extraneous
noted
telemeter trace of the cross sec to about 3.9 seconds. manually reduced with of the ST-90 platform position deg E of produced of the vehicle cross N respectively. the range and profile wind
in
and as
little difficulty. and the Fin Iwere i00.0ii This velocity the external also reflects alignment
The azimuth Fin III launch deg and i00. 381 difference by both
errors
data
in Figure
observed
hardware
the accelerometer overall velocity equiprange veCross m/s trol range the cross range
errors
by the the
vertical in Section
guidance
ertial
Outputs (ST-90). The inof the integrating accelerommotion as sensed by the from both the ST-90 and were velocities Ideal alignments for the indicated reduced and of the comfrom guidcomputed
range
from
at 40 sec
eters represent guidance system. ST-i24P pared external with guidance tracking
-3.0 m/s at 50 sec to about 85 seconds. range gine loop velocity cutoff. at it5
and remained relatively constant From this time the ST-90 cross to -7.5 m/s at outboard out of the entaken control
increased
The term b o was sec of flight time. between cross range the
telemetered are
and plotted
calcuversus
velocities
in the lower portion of Figure 30. oscillate around the zero reference From this time the differences -0.5 m/s at 90 to 130 seconds. sec and remain The differences
telemetered
accelerometer
were monitored averaged over accelerometer ST-90 Slant Slant Cross where error. established than was
sentially zero by 140 seconds. The error sents no definite trend and the differences ably due to bias shifts in tracking data ST-90 guidance velocity errors equipment. are within
rather
than
+0.003
deg
the
guidance
hardware. (ST-90). the actual The telemetered velocity as sensed The telemetered plotted after tilt lower lower and versus than arrest,
-0. 002 deg -0. 009 deg slant represents remained essentially a positive in its no errors until output reference greater reference
Slant Altitude Velocity altitude velocity was ST-90 guidance of Figure 3i slant values, Telemetered
a positive The
ST-90platform at liftoffwith
precalculated precalculated
altitude velocity
generally
particularly
60
Slant
Range
Velocity
(m/s)
IF, CO
I OECO
Range -2
Time
(sec)
Slant
Altitude
Velocity
(m/s)
0 _ 20
I -2
Time
Cross
Range
Velocity'
(m/s)
!
I I I I 20
-2
_0
FIGURF
30.
GUIDANCE
VELOCITY
COMPARISON D)
(ST-90)
(TELF#IETERE D- CALCUlaTE
61
Cross 4 Range Velocity (m/s) IECO
-4
-8
Slant 1400
Altitude
Velocity
(m/s) '! I
I Measured Precalculated
I I I
I I I
1200
I l I
i000 I
I I t
I
I I
I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I ,I
60 Range FIGURE-3 i. 80 Time I00 (sec) AND SLANT SYSTEM ALTITUDE VELOCITY, 120 140
800
600
400
,_
200
f
0 20 40 TELEMETERED CROSS RANGE ST-90 GUIDANCE
I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I
160
6Z
Altitude ST-12z:P
Velocity - Calc
(m/s)
0 20 40
60
_20 _
140 Range Ti
160
(see)
-2
0
20 40 -2 O + O ___ 120 140
[
160 Range Ti;me (sec)
T_. .
I I
160
-2
I Range
I
t
Time
(sec)
-4
....
-6
I I
FIGURE 32. GUIDANCE COMPARISONS, ST-124P GUIDANCE SYSTEM
63
1.2 percent lower flow tilt. At end of thrust, 1241.4 m/s, or 12 m/s
However, were
valid
values the
obtained. measurementas
These
comparedwith
the slant altitude velocity lower than precalculated. The lated slant differences altitude
by the ST-90 guidance presented on the lower ferences are this engine essentially the cutoff From board difference alignment form. to enced The to the The the azimuth time,
This comparison of Figure 32. The until about 5.0 increase is about until m/s.
80 seconds. at outThis
between velocities
and versus
calcutime
in the middle portion of Figure 30. The oscillate around the zero reference within indicating Table velocities etered very good agreement of the data
may be attributed to a difference of azimuth of the ST- 124P platform and the ST- 90 platST-t24Pplatform as was the Fin of the not for ST-90. I - Fin ST-124P be optically the ST-124Pto vehicle was not optically it was III position. is acceptable aligned. be flown since Precise on SA-4 aligned referInstead,
of the events.
significant
ST-90
azimuth could
platform
since the mounting arrangement same as SA-3. However, this will the Block II vehicles. shows platforms. ST-90. about the Esthe X a
Accelerometer Outputs (ST-124p). were made by the ST- 124P guidance and cross data range were directions. reduced easily
for
vertical telemetered
range velocity comparison difference between the was optically rotations oriented aligned occurred of the
difficultywas experienced outputs. This difficulty D. 2. Altitude Velocity of Figure 32 presents etered and calculated ences From of thrust are this essentially time, the the value
in reducing is discussed
ST-124P
platform platform
approximately
sentially (ST-124P). The upper portion differences between the telemaltitude velocities. The differ-
platform
D.
FUNCTIONAL 1. Guidance
ANALYSIS Sensors. flown with as The operation (three single of items exception stabiservo of the the on of
is about
five A similar puts of the comparison vertical made between (ST-124P) from the carried is Both the the outand 90, SA-3, the lized accelerometer
on ST-
corresponding values determined and slant altitude accelerometers 90 platform. portion an error velocity A scale This of of comparison Figure 32. from of approximately middle dicate titude
range
accelerometer Telemetry
voltage for oscillation before flight. that the liftoff gain set
this accelerometer indicate a conof the system at about 60 to 65 cps (approximately tests adjustment T-140 following of the area, to a fairly at a setting where servo sec) the to the inflight amplifier the system
Laboratory
about
f percent
probably
in a critical
.u_u _. _,,_ v_ _,_ ,_,_,_ ............ abeut 90 ,._in prior to launch. An error of this magnitude would produce the scale two observed factor guidance velocity error, systems error. the are in After correcting velocities agreement, of the for the from indicating ST-124P the altitude orientation
large electrical in this critical the sysThe critmaximum servo were loop nor-
once the required disturbance occurs, goes into a self-sustained oscillation. area of gain setting is just below the The amplifier. accelerometers
maintenance of proper platform about its Z-axis. The circled points velocity difference error of 0.09
the factor
2. locityencoders
was
64
_0 O0 0
(I] Cq p_ I
cq
c'_
Oq I
c-_
_o c_l
I
0 I
c;
I
c_
I
Cq I I
p_
r-4 !
E_ _J m .q0
Cq Cq Oq
_)
oq
op._
O4
c;
(.,q
..lCq p_ C_I Oq
oq
oq
cq
o4
Lr3 cq _._ 0 0 o
I I I I Oq Cq p_ I
_o cq
c_
I I
_o cq
I
c_
I
o_
Z <
o c_ 0 o
L_
C_
_o
_o
c;
Cq
o_
c_ c_
O4
cn
Lr_
O4
E-_
,--4_
< E_
Z .< C_
_ m 0 4-1 ,--4 _ o o _o
(_1
r_
c_ o _o
o4
oo r_ Lr_
Cxl
_)
Cq
o_ _o
..-i-
r_
_) F_ o4
I_-
o4
O4
m_
r"q
(_
r..)
_J _J
u r--4 C_ L)
c_ u
0J
(..)
iJ
u_ o .2
o .iJ
C .,--4
"o ,-_ o o n_ 0 o
65
Two flown
Guidance
Signal
Repeaters platform.
were The
time bias
on SA-3,
one for
processor for rily throughout 124P causing sensing ments. down. curred period system, loss of
cross
amplifier signals
voltage transients line are believed switching transients originated er, or The not cause 3. of the could eitheron in the signal
of fairly large amplitude to be the source of this bias not flip-flop. be determined, the D21 buss, processor switching in the Stabilized flown as that AMAB-4 the at air 2.4 on systems in th_ power of the The but supply. bias
of the
source static
the polarity of the cross range velocity increThis malfunction occurred early in the countA second intermittently from li3 due disturbance in both to voltage to 125 seconds. in this channels The transients processor during the disturbance on the prococtime is
improper any error ST-90 platform and the the properly, constant
flip-flop
did
incremental Platform. SA-3 the platform AMAB-3 units. bearing kg/cm from
Ground recording showed a disturbed range that has velocity been shown the accelerometerwas
and inflight telemetry condition of the ST-i24P which appeared after to wandering randomly. a detailed
system,
to be incorrect
of the ground and i,dlight records, the logic network of the signal processor, and the 65 cps oscillation obselwed in the accelerometer of the servo accelerometer positive which change. used the shown cancel loop. system and negative each However, with other would increexa loss
compartment pressure varying kg/cm 2 (15.6 to 14.0 psi). The arrest 44 deg final tilt angle of
the ST-90
at tilt intended
as compared 1).
of one DC logic signal the velocity increment, uous As patterns pulse the pattern occur as as changes shown system
in sensing the polarity of output would be a continin pattern i of Figure patterns 33. pulse intermediate
of and
a prototype
position, in the
even numbered
of Figure 33. When the pulse pattern on the telemetry record changes from one pattern to a second distinct pattern, The pulse c onditious: 1. 2. 3. a velocity patterns change result of 0. i m/s from has occurred. of three a combination
or engineering test model. Many of the components were not optimized for high accuracy and are not the same as those to be flown on Block II vehicles. SA-3 was flown the on first SA-4). flight The test of this system test (also to be primary objectives of the
system were the observation tion and familiarization with the 5 kc/s The was servo operation systems of the ment.
true one
in an operational
Accelerometer
test
quite
The resolvers of Figure should 33 shows occur the if the incremental system was
The
lower
portion
not trimmed and therefore some error in their output must be expected. The error in the output of the pitch resolver is a function of, and increases with, the programmed pitch angle. The pitch attitude data obtained incremental from the attributed differences in ST-124P and STto this effect. A to be used on pitch resolver as that experi-
velocity operating
this to the
study rotation
that
the sensor
loss
of
90
systems
is
primarily
logic of the
65 cps
modulation
etry and ground recordings oratory tests confirmed pulse tual 124P pattern telemetered system. occurred sequences cross The second
were range
During flight, the air bearing air a constant 2.2 kg/cm 2 (32 psi) was 24. 6 C. The compartment
velocity from
perature
disturbance
signal
processor
intermittently
to 125 sec
_66.
u u o
,,,1" I C_
m"
_J [-t "4
..c:
L
o_ 0
8
o _ _ o t_
I-I
Ov ,H o
I...4 .H
u_..l u .r.t u
_;.M
67
I.-I 4.1
_L
CJ 0,-_ r_ _ _U _ 0
T
r-I 4J ,_ I._ cJ bO U _ O'J 0
T
o I_ -r.1 _-- o i-.i _.-4
0 rJ2 r_ r._
rJ2 r_
t_
i,.4
_I_
I-i -i..,I u,-i r,_ .,q 4-1 r,.._ -,,4 _ ,-.4 I:1 _J 0
i,-4
..1:
1'-4
Io 1
68
SECTION
IX.
(U)
VEHICLE
ELECTRICAL
SYSTEM
A.
SUMMARY -2.17 All vehicle the networks failure of performed measuring satisfactorily supply number 5. ex-
supply
number Since
failed
on
SA-3 period
at is
to liftoff.
with the
to ignition made
of the
cept
for
been
failure
period.
Simulated failure
tests indicate B. FLIGHT RESULTS this period. current (D21) of were 898 for battery at D20 28.5 was of and its volume pounds, vehicle, 9 consists and one transistors. load (Dll) 27.6 at as for caused volts, end of 165 flight. with and battery the DI0 voltage and its and liftoffto voltages volt increases correcurrent 28.0 and
a possibility
of transistor
voltage
and buss
The of
assembly in., frame 35). The power contains were through weighs area
A total
approximately 35 shows
firewall individually
(Figure isolated
capacity. inflight
the
connections
for
the
Each power supply of the seven transistors transistors from two type indicate 13531) in measuring are being Pacific remaining and that transistor voltage conducted Itowever, on SA-4. one the obtained
high-reliability gineering Incorporated. sistedof type. ductors cause 5. more of Additional detailed will one Shaker type failure
Semi
the
angle-of-attack
supply to this
tests
information. be replaced
of
the 225
on
SA-3
transistor
period. ignition All open, the Main open, exception fuel and and of LOX closed) valve operated position signmls (start with These of the failure of
disturbance
within
frequency.
satisfactorily
frequencies
tolerances.
measurements Measuring busses D8I voltages through operated for D85. buss D85, D88, of the eight located the "slave" in the 5 volts supply units off measuring :_5 percent number 5, nals by Cutoff were LOX siglmls as depletion. measuring supply
number
within
(inboard)
and Outboard
flight cutoff
sequence was
siginitiated
Measuring
expected.
failed before
liftoff.
28
VDC
28
VDC
69
Battery
DI0
Battery
D20
To
Control
3-Phase
J-DII
Buss
IDistributor Power
Busses
D21
in
Distributor
_J_ DII
Outpu
-,---See Meas.
Below Power
for
Supply
Assembly
D83,
84,
87
and
88 Busses
Measuring No. 5
Supply
_ICURE
35.
DISTRIBUTOR
CONNECTIONS
AND
UNIT
MEASURING
SUPPLY
7O
SECTION
X.
(U)
STRUCTURES
AND
VIBRATIONS
A.
SUMMARY The instrumentation on the truss for SA-3 included and on the strain LOX
this
time.
constructed relatively dynamic figure at the existed dicted for detecting vehicle body bendfive rethe measurements pins dinal flight dicted members
from which pitch and yaw moments forces were computed at various times. values. Instrumentation The results compared
strain
is shown
by a cross
well
gauge location, station 979. Good agreement between this strain gauge moment and the prebending moment the normal reading of the distribution. load from stud factor flight. gauges Also shown in with compared
at showed and
five
eight
of the 1.8
at frequencies
second
vehicle bending. These frequencies both pitch and yaw directions, with plitude amplitude forced curred sponse The at liftoff for on first the nose of cone 2.0 mode
(70 inch) LOX tanks (station 869) were lost, no bending moments about the pitch and yaw axes could be calculated at that station. However, the three gauges which functioned properly gave some check on the bending moment at station 979. These three were found to be in agreement with predicted The station gauges values. axis time are
single of 2.7
before that
vehicle bending moment about the pitch 979 is shown in the 75 to 85 sec range in Figure 37. Also shown on this graph
interval
the angle-of-attack (a) and gimbal angle pitch axis. Close agreement in frequency tion between the three values is evident. C. LONGITUDINAL Multiplication calibration LOADS
BENDING TORS 1.
NORMAL
LOAD
FAC-
for compres-
dethe
factors
strain shown
by in
members
38 (circled points). obtained by using the 101,290 the gauges determined and theoretical
of the interstage eight LOX tank However, were lost five prior of to
truss at station studs at station the eight LOX and hence ignition
kg ( 223,300
of load
very little information. obtained as decommutated so in digitized form. determining ments about slices. 2. Moment Loads.
The telemetered data were oscillograph traces and alFlight evaluation consisted of motime mand, of load and bending axes for numerous
firing
before can be
launch amplified
commasses and to
dynamic
deflecting
cause time
vibrations ms between
Maximum
bending moment
keep the vibratory force lower or cent of the nmximum static thrust. the results of an investigation of the above support engines value. arms. staggering times force below the system 2) located were on the
equal to twenty perFigure 39presents to see if the actual keep the vibratory frequencies of the (YL-1, these YLfrequency
proximately Mach i. At Mach I, a vehicle bending moment diagram could not be constructed since there were no aerodynamic loads data available, moments were llowever, at the highest strain gauge observed
measured
by potentiometers
/\
1600
i
Accelerometer
Readings
t = M = q = = =
1200 _--PredbiCterdve_aS _`
xand
C_.
800
r
400
O. 24
FIGURE
36.
BENDING
MOMENT
FACTOR
72
if5
O_
I-4
r_ f3
0 0
r_
[2 0
,.D r_
,w
0 0 _4
73
[I\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
0 0 o-,
0 E-_ < u]
CD
.-. o ,..,
<
[---t
N.
C .,-I
b-t Z
_-.
_J
S
_e3 0
C 0
I-.-4
o
4-J C_ 0 0
I
t
0 0 CD 0 0 0 v
,1%
I I
+ +
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.J ,.4 0 0 0
0 I
'i
I,"4
ii
\
___
U _ v
0 II WU
v m0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4" 0 0 0 u_
75
measurements the maximum maximum 39. was by the Figure sponse thrust. D.
and
from
engine was
thrust as
c. urements, been
were
observed An intensive
in
several analysis
obtained the
a satisfactory
explanation
percent
data is presently in progress in order the causes of these transients. 2. Instrumentation. instrumented with
to deter-
BENDING All
was
The SA-3 space vehicle 40 vibration measurements. and data bandwidth in Volume II. The by two telemetry were frequency cps, The of 50 cps a data 0 to 1050 channel. range systransrange
The location, axis of each measurement vibration tems. data Five from the were canister
measurements
frequencies in accuracy,
to be with-
0.15cps. a predominant fre12 to 20 cps throughin amplitude This could at liftoff possibly be
35 measurements The oscillographs showed quency content of approximately out and the the flight, two with engine increases cutoffs. approximate cycles. urements with four channels. 3. Structural first The trend of the vehicle first mode trends from SA-D tests (Figure shapes mode 40), shown and trend mode in Figures is mode for follows similar substantiated 41 and 42. The but cannot the fill ments were measurements
transmitted
by SS-FM
frequency of the accelerometers In addition to the high frequendata showed frequencies in the sloshing range.
of
Vibration Five
during spider
beam
is further present,
much to the
sensitive of flight
frequency
be shown by second of response. After of for 2.7 cps due is present to engine discussion). sponse
mode shapes due to low amplitude OECO, a predominant frequency (Figure gimbaling 43) and (see is a forced Section reVII B. 4
(i.e., ignition, Mach i, q max, cutoffs, and retro firing). This same characteristic was experienced during both previous flights. The engine girnbal point support measurements displayed high level transients at decayed to the mainstage remained relatively conof flightuntil cutoff, due to
further
were present in the analysis, be identified with known natural Some structural and vehicle data of these response, bending frequencies coupled modes for
ignition, then immediately level. These measurements stant throughout responding much their near-engine The maximum
frequencies
system. to local
torsion,
which E.
is available.
(E47-i)
showed
grad-
uallyto a very low level at approximately Data. levels during the The were flight gentime. This measurement in vibration level at Mach 2 flight.
95 sec flight
data erally
1. Summary of Vibration indicated that the SA-3vibration similar to those recorded flights observed (Reference in the flight
previous The upper part of Figure 44 displays maximum and minimum accelerationtime histories of the structural measurements. The upper portion of the envethe gimbal point and heat shield measurement, lope was established bythe data from
Three contained
combustion erratic
dome
measure-
support measurements
which were previously noted to have remained constant throughout flight. The lower portion of the ensuction line which highvelope, characterized by the spider beam measurements, shows gion of Mach an increase in vibration level in the rei and q max.
76,
Frequency
(cps)
12
i0
4"
0 0
I
20
I
40
I
60
I
80 Time
I
I00 (see)
I
120
I
140
I
160
FIGURE
40.
SA-3
SYSTEM
FREQUENCY
TREND
77
Vehicle Station
2000 E67-30 1800 2.0 Fred (cps)
1600 SA-3 1400 E65-20 1200 E63-20 I000 E67-30 E65-20 E63-20 E61-10 E252-9 G's .0164 0 .007 .0164 .0074 In .04014 0 .01713 .04014 .018114 mm 1.02 0 0.44 1.02 0.46 Single Amp
800
600
400
200
E252-9
FIGURE
41.
SA-3
BENDING
MODE
- FIRST
MODE,
YAW
AT
LIFTOFF
78
oooo
ooeo
U _0 0000
oooo r_
u_ o o
Lr_ I 4J ,-4
_o
-,-4 4J 0 0 ! Lr% cO
|
,-4 I
E_ : : ; t
.,4
8
o
i:1 r-. (,,i o 0
0 I
c_c_c;
_'_ ,.o 0 00,-4 o00
I ,-4 _J
r,,_O
"_oog
ME) QO0
CO 0
I I:,.1
I bd
I Dd
I I_d
o ,TI .-@ ._ (M
79
Vehicle 2000
Station
E66-30 1800
1600
1400 E64-20 1200 E62-20 I000 E66-30 E64-20 E62-20 E60-10 E251-9 SA-3 G's .095060 005393 .044994 .066503 .024575 Single amp In 13136 .007452 062175 .091898 033959 mm 3.33 0.18 1.57 2.33 0.86
800
E60-10
600
400
.200
E251-9
0
i . : : 1 : I I I I I
-1.0 Relative
0 Amplitude
1.0
FIGURE-43.
_ BENDING
MODE
- FIRST
MODE_
PITCH
(151
to
152.5
sec)
80
Structure 24
Meas
Gr
,s
Canister
Meas.
Gmis
60
Engine Comp. Meas.
f --Fuel
Suction
Line
(E45-8)
40
20
0 -20 20 40 FIGURE 44. CANISTER AND 60 80 i00 OF STRUCTURE, MEASUREMENTS 120 160
8i
System
Twelve during
engine the
viSA-
propulsion of 22 vibration
unit
distributor measurements.
were
monitored
by
a total
measurements immediately state the engine of powered noted zero. the thrust therefore successful. at Data cutoff, were chamber they after level. vibration
considerable followed was no signifthe by eight were engine similar The hydraulic actuators measurements. from Vibration the data the yaw were The actuator instrumented only erratic with data on very
build-up a decay
levels Increased
during
measurement appeared to be
flight.
vibra-
levels decay
previous
flights.
longitudinal to be
of the ratic
an envelope obtained from not of the reflect the ermeascanister the Mach
considered
This
urements. All pared urement about engine well vibration to SA-I (fuel data and from SA-2 SA-3 flight commeaswas area 1 and very data except
during
E45-8 twice
suction
as highonSA-3 no evidence An
transients on the These ST-t24 intermittently ST-f24 not roll observed of was panel 14 required this gimbal ST-90
were
throughthe ST-
gimbal
not
appear
of these
high levels.
Transients three If0 measureand mounting A relasec in the spider the on the 126
indicated,
accelerapart of Figis
histories However,
in the lower
on is
recorded
Vibrations. retro
The
hydraulic
actuators, 14
14,
rocket
number
l, canister
Additional these
instrument
panel
in canister
14, and
Vibration
Record
On ST-124
Gimbal
Vibration
Record
On
ST-124
Mounting
Retro three indicated and though plitude periods ments. under q max. an vibration
rocket
number measurements. increase were sudden at data the time were of these
was
a gradual No effects
to noted
the
cutoff
expected
vibration
transients
vibration unit
was
located
on
the was
smooth
indicating 60 sec
slight
ap-
proximately
engine
retro
82
F.
VEHICLE
ACOUSTIC
MEASUREMENTS at
inflight sec
recorded component
The SA-3 vehicle had one inflightacoustic measurement ments (LI0-11) (XL24-9, and four trailing wire XL25-9, XL26-11, measureThe XL27-13).
X E. 3) andcaused the measurement throughout the rest of the flight. disturbance is unexplained at this
inflightmeasurement
line IV and followed the general expected trend (Figure 45). The primary purpose of this measurement was to obtain "inflight"acoustic data. To obtain this type of data, the calibration range of the recording system was 120 to 140 db; consequently, the higher level "on-pad" inflightdata. acoustic data were sacrificed for the The trailing wire recorded data between period was tic data. measurements acoustic measurements -3 and+6 sec range on SA-3 time. This
sufficient to obtain useful "on-pad" acousThe maximum levels recorded on these were as follows:
Meas. XL
No.
Max
OA-SPL
(db)
24-9
149.0 1 XL 25-9 Outside Sta toward XL 26-11 Sta. Shroud II 157.5 f IV Liftoff Fin I
889 on Fin to 13
149.5
Liftoff and
132.0
6 sec
The sound
time
histories part
are
shown overall
ing the last 3 sec of data due to a change in the spectral characteristics of the external sound field. The difference in the maximum overall sound
on measthat the 8.5 db at fairly pressure levels 27-13 indicated canister throughout of measurements a noise reduction db. This noise which during XL 26-11 and XL across the wall of reduction data were existed obtained.
Measurement
remained
Sound
Pressure
Level
(db)
RE:
0.0002
Dynes/cm 2
9 on F_n IV)
--Clipped 140
Data
1
it U II I I
130
120
\
80 I00 (sec) RE: 00002 Dynes/cm 2
!
_--- Trans ient II0 0 20 40 60 Range Over-all 160 Sound Pressure Level (db 120 14( 160 Thne
Outside
m _ _
Shroud
I 150 I I _ Outside
I
Canister r lnside Shroud
//
140
/f
130
//
F
Sta. Sta.
/-Inside
Canister
120
/
Trailin_ Wires
IV ll--_Fin I
Ii0 -6 -4 -2
i
0 Range FIGURE45. 2 Time 4 (sec) ACOUSTICS 6 8 i0
SA-3 7EHICLE
84
SECTION
XI.
(U)
ENVIRONMENTAL
TEMPERATURES
AND
PRESSURES
A.
SUMMARY during the SA-3 on the two prerates Saturn heating total on I, SA-3 are I Block environ-
on ence
the
SA-3 and
the
between
The base region environment flight was similar to that encountered vious vehicle. flights. Absolute Radiative representative values heating for the of the considered
heat
differential measurement failed just and prior to liftoff, due to a malfunction unit supply difference (see Section IX). base pressure and
ment after 90 sec of flight are considered at this time. The heat shield and flame insulation scheme was the same for SA-3, except was insulated (M-31). shield M-31 dicated The cated heat ever, lemetry Skin generally to the (except insulated the
The bient shield on the other imum served area of (90 0.03 sec
between
am-
SA-1,
pressure for is presented heat shield throughout pressure at between kg/cm of flight) shroud.
and the flame measurements with each A min2 was obin the value of 17 km and the of
for one panel on the heat shield which with the Block II insulation material made forward of the heat the temperature measurement on the panel which failed prior to liftoff) into be entirely measurements adequate. on SA-3 indi-
consistent
Measurements
the powered differential of 6 km observed the appears the outboard 2 was There between
an altitude
of flight)
A maximum engine
insulation pressure
at an altitude
base
to be an indication
higher pressure gradient across the indicated on previous flights. Howall three flights are within the te-
pressdre gradient across the heat shield than on previous flights. Although this occurmay are be a direct by the consequence SA-3, error error. resttlts margin of the from which different all three can be atfollowed within to telemetry
from band.
on level
the than
tributed
higher
peratures on the dummy S-IV fairing indicated no sig]lifieant cept where were on the conical skin Skin portion of maximum indicated. stage temperatures temperatures
The largest ambient pressure where extreme an altitude ure 46). behavior on the titude of 2.5 The
magnitude of base pressure minus occurred in the flame shield region values ranged from -0.15 kg/cm 2 at km to 0.37 shield kg/em data region 2 at 17.2 indicate than was km( Figtelemetered a different obselwed
protuberance
in the flame first two Saturn of approximately shield between to'the star expected. flame shield data area 3 and base
flights ( Figure 3 kin, the with level. time, 17 kilometers. pressure occurred
47). At an alpressure in the a Then slight decrease at IECO (6f.5 conclusions phenomenon of not region has dein it rapidly
h_strument within the required out flight. tained within both the atures 2C) B. prelaunch ST-124P
was kg/cm
maintained 2) through-
only A sharp
temperatures were mainrange ( 10 to 40 C)" during flight. Both the ST-90 range and ( 25 + compartment teml)erature temper-
center as the
platform
to this center
pressure. to suspect
investigation or meas-
revealed urement.
any reason
the telemetry
Average Absolute identical instrument base pressure to that on SA-I was installed
values
of
the
ratio
of
base
to ambient
pressure, pb/Pa , for both the shield (center star) are plotted in Test Figure 48. Wind AEDC, tunnel are test also Facility,
heat shield and flame versus Mach number data shown from for the Rocket comparison.
85
Base 0.4
Minus
Ambieat
Pressure
(kg/cm
2)
-SA-2
Flame
Shield
o.2
/
I / s
SA-3
Flame
Shield
---%
%
%
s S _'J/JfJ//_ .......
_---He at
Shield
(SA- i, SAi2,
SA-3) 80
-0.2
)V
io
FIGURE 46.
20 BASI (kg/cm
30 PRESSURE 2)
40 Altitude MINUS
60 VERSUS
70 ALTITUDE
Flame 1.2
Shield
Pressure
0.8
/--SA-3 0.4 % %
SA- 2_
'-%
i0 FIGURE'47.
20 FLAME
30
40
50
60 VERSUS
70 ALTITUDE I
80
Ratio 12
of
Base
to
Ambient
Pressure
/
/!
/i0
I I i I I I .I..
! 8 / / s/ --SA-3 Flame / /
Shield
_
__
.
dh,
\
Mach 1.6 Number TO AMBIENT 2.0
I --SA-3 Heat
i
I
Shield 3.2
0.4
0.8
1.2
2.4
2.8
FIGURE
48.
RATIOS
OF
BASE
PRESSURE
PRESSURE
VERSUS
MACH
NUMBER
86
The
absolute
measurement
in the
lower
the
lowest
band temperature
in
Figure is
49.
the
shroud
compartment, measurements, for measuring compartment these failures power supply. The ambient expected. forward pressure The
stringer
a structural
measurement, measuresubjected
difference
between
the temperature-time ments shows similar to the same instruments tape. similar
pressures, failed prior to liftoff All of are attributed to loss of the inboard
On the SA-3 vehicle, these by reflective aluminum however, show on SA-2, with the whichwas maximum. gas temperature on the flame the 49 SA-2 is the probe a trend stringer approx-
Both measurements, to that measured reaching lower in C67-7, gas 100C also than Figure which
the as for-
measurement imately
a maximum
at altitudes
ward compartment and ambient pressure was approximately -0 023 kg/cm 2 at an altitude of 21 kilometers. b in the SA-3 of unshielded distributed The areas shown in Base base over bands base Figure temperatures. region the of 49. area gas was measured valid Gas temperature with a series were
was
located
temperature
extendedapprox-
surface of the flame shield. measured by this probe an estimated during this value period. as the Be-
thermocouples.
The thermocouples to insure temperature-and for SA-2 Gas and SA-3 temperatures
i650C)
off scale
yond approximately 15 to 20 km, temperature remained constant mately indicating 50 percent a choked of engine flow condition.
of the
region
chamber
temperature),
during the SA-3 measured during Measured not included correction gas
favorably with those at the same altitude. the SA-1 of the flight necessary for the SA-1 SA-3 are orimeters of these approximately calorimeter, Block
rates. Four total on the SA-3vehicle C76-3and aft of the mounted (M-31) C63-t heat flush
calTwo
because to
factor
compensate
shielding of the gauges; gas temperatures also measurements. The heat km same (or as maximum 1150C, sec range the maximum i03 gas
however, compare
II heat
panel
which
on theSA-3 flight. The remaining mounted on the flame shield. heat is by flux C76-3 shown these that
shield,
on SA-2.
(radiation plus convection) to and C63-1 measured during in Figure two 50. during The the total show SA-1 heat good and calorimeters
temperature near the outboard peratures the shroud, during the The pears flame latter ability te rs.
between the inboard and between the shroud a maximum below that of SA-2.
engines
reached 50C
of 700 C on SAHigh
agreement
with
measured
between the outboard engine and SA-2 in the figure, did not appear
flights up to approximately 16 kilometers. Be16 and 25 kin, these measurements indicated rates SA-lor approximately SA-2 flights. were rates two times From also higher that than measured untilOECO, those of 25 km
heating on the the SA-3 SA- 1 and The orimeter M-31, high this heat heat plying technique following eter loss
gas temperature
the result of reversed and circulating in the indicate the that base the region scoops above
heat
flux flush
the
calwith of a
20 kilome-
in Figure after
SA-3
flux
in
The bove 25
slight kin
decrease
in the
gas
a-
agrees, as expected, up to 32 kilometers. band from 32km to cutoff calibration independent considers cutoff for coefficient
can possibly
be attributed
is the
of the thermocouplc ature at these high than a real trend. Surface shroud's
techniques.
only the temperature-time the determination of the to be applied throughout utilizes a laboratory the inflight corrections.
of
the
outboard are
engine shown as
stringer
respectively,
87
2000
Tenmeratur_
1600
_=.,_r .,._ ,,_7._ _"_,_-;__ __
1200
10
20
30 Altitude
40 (km)
50
60
70
FlGIIB_'49.
C(]MPARISONOFGAS AND_
SHIELD s SA-2AND
C76-3
and !
C63-I
SA-2
20
0 i0 FIGURE i00 Total Heat Rate 50. 20 TOTAL 30 I_a%T RATE TO 40 SA-3 BASE 50 Altitude (keal/m2-see) (km)
40
20
.i.."
PANEL
COMPARED
89
even as calibration,
it
Differences
existed
between
the height,
mounting,
calorimeters
after cutoff (bused of almost twice the or on previous (see ments illustration
and insulation in the immediate SA-2, and SA-3 calorimeters. should be considered before
vicinity of the SA-I, These differences firm conclusions are of heating appeared the heat rates. to be shield of to
flights'
measure-
reached as to the relative comparison Even though the total heating rates higher on SA-3, this did not influence forward side the same as these obtain temperature SA-1 and which was SA-2. Further
A second degree through the temperature The heating OECO; i.e., perature source or the decay there This
polynomial was used to smooth data shown in the illustration. does not appear is no inflection indicates that the to be affected by point in the temthe major heating engines inboard
decay.
at high altitudes is either turbine exhaust ducts. time indicates in whereby is possibly the the not no explanation decay the heating valid following and
In general, the total calorimeter on the heat shield should only be used ues since preliminary error sources evaluation stated above. has possible
as to the but
cause
sources end
significantnear the
temperature
preliminary
to whether convective heating or cooling was dominant to the calorimeter surfaces. The calorimeter total heat C78-8 flux measured by the flame 52. The shield SA-3
correction
is shown
in Figure
inflight heat flux to the flame shield is in good agreement with that measured during the SA-1 and SA-2 flights and absolute values are considered valid. The
IECO
OECO
m..
Typical Decay
q)
7
Time COMPARISON OF CUTOFF DECAY FOR C77-5 WITH
C77-5
A TYPICAL
DECAY
90
Total 300
Heat
Flux
(kcal/m2-se)
250
_ooI _ _
d
i00 -SA-I, SA-2 ,&SA-3 50 0 0 I0 20 30 Altitude FIGURE-52. TOTAL HEATING RATE ON (kin) FLAME SHIELD_ SA-I, SA-2 & SA-3 40 50 6O
91,
_) c6_-_ (_
Radiant I00
Heat
Flux
(kcal/m2-sec)
80
60
rrect_on
ba_ ed
on
prefll ght
callbrat
iQn
40
20
t-Correctior 0 10 20 30 Altitude
based
on
tI
flight
loss
determinatll 50
_//////////////_i n
60
40 (km)
FIGURE
*53.
RADIANT PREFLIGHT
HEATING AND
RATES INFLIGHT
FOR
_A-3
FLIGHT
COMPARING TECHNIQUES
DATA
CORRECTION
MPR-SAT-63-
92
maximum
heat
flux measured
near
liftoff
on SA-3
was
Forward
Heatand
Flame
Shield.
Two
other
or SA-2. The heat 8 km (the altitude strongly inwas Beyond slightly approxrel-
are also shown in Figure 55; measureattached to the flame support strut, and to the level flame area shield is as on the seal support. The in this expected. forward side of 56. well to C70-7 report) and of
to be most
attached
fluenced by exhaust lower on SA-3 than imately atively 25 km constant. Two 26era two in calorimeters inboard desigll. positions. thermal until
temperature
remained
Temperatures the heat The heat shield shield The the results,
as a band in Figure on SA-3 agree ranging measured in the upon based it is not from by SA-2
those
-25
+25 C.
(described that
symmetrical considerably
be explained;
however,
the SA-I
it follows
characteristic
the heat shield ture of 25 C, cates that the radiation flight made are levels shown which in Figure data the in the data consider The were 53. measured Correcadequate. Due
temperature. The maximum temperameasured during the SA-3 flight, indiheat shield insulation was more than to the failure of the measurement in
Thermal on tions ent slug was put the SA-3 were techniques, temperature
back of the M-31 insulated panel, the relative adequacy of the two insulation materials cannot be assessed.
C.
SKIN The skintemperatures tanks for thermocouples. measured during indicated at various the SA-3 vehicle Generally, the SA-3 the SA-I positions were on the
measured
cutoff using the temperature-time a heat balance assuming no heat method assumes that the correction throughout the same flight; i.e., for both the
the skin temperflight were lower and SA-2 flights in the were Also
those
during
constant will be
57) , due to the higher however, the measured the anticipated range
This point has not been proven at this and based on the laboratory calibration loss coefficient varies throughout
of skintemperatures.
this
shown (Figure 58) are the skin temperature measurements of the fuel tank, C50-F3, and the LOX shroud at station 835. The latter measurements were in good agreement with those of the SA-1 and SA-2 flights.
that within
of interest concerning the two methods is obtained at both liftoff and cutoff agree accuracy since compared of the the data. At liftoff losses heat this would be At The skin dummy measured mocouples dummy mination S-IV by temperatures at various positions fairing of the located on the were theron the stage and the f8 thermocouples. by interstage Twelve were calorimeter to the sensible should input.
bc expected negligible
cutoff it appears that the two techniques also yield approximately the same results. Intermediate values between liftoff and cutoff differ due to the methods utilizccl.
(requested
DAC)
and separated regions. on the interstage fairing skin 2. partment ronment within peratt, re Engine exl)cricnced during the each engine 0C above Compartment. The engine comNo aerodynamic ical portion skin temperatures to 159 C were C133-11 shown significant heating of the rise was temperature rise
rocket
no extreme temperature enviflight. Aml)icnt air teml)eraturc area or was I)eh)w measured -50C and was no temindieate(I.
in
skin
due maximum
to
indicated, fairing
on the con-
interstage
The upper limit of the engine COmlmrtment gas temperature of SA-3was slightly below that of SA-2 flight ( Figure 54).
93
50
Temperature
-50 0 i0 20 FIGURE 30 54. 40 50 60 70 80 90 i00 ii0 i Range ENGINE COMPARTMENT STRUCTURAL TEMPERATURES 140 Time ,50 (_ec)
75
/
50 /
f
/
25
./
/
f
C20-5 0 10 20 FIGURE 30 55. ENVIRONMENT, } FORWARD 80 SIDE 90 OF FLAME I00 SHIELD C72-[ _ ii0 12( Range _
Time
(sec)
%"nC_e% _ _ o
C73-2
50
}er_ture
C69-5
-- o/'-'hk._J_o/_"
C 6 3
,
/-
,
SA-2
,
and SA-3
, _
[_)C_i-4())
25
!:'t::'_
-25
-50 i0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 i00 it0 120 Range 130 Time [40 (_;ec) 150
FIGURE
56.
BASE
ENVIRONMENT,FORWARD
SIDE
OF HEAT
SHIELD
94 TemperatureC) ( i00
\
-I00
SA-I
& SA-2
_n_u_ulu4_fll ::::::::::::::::::::::
- SA-3
-200
-300
20 40 60 Range FIGURE 57. PROPELLANT 80 Time (sec) TEMPERATURE AT STATION 745 i00 120 140 160
TANK
SKIN
Temperature i00
(C) I 741 C50_3, Sta ._= ___ _--LOX Shroud, Sta 835 B-_
--_-_______ ____..__
i! iii
-i00 --LOX -200 Tank Measurements
-300 20 40 60 Range FIGURE.58. 80 Time (sec) TANK SKIN TEMPERATURE i00 120 140 160
PROPELLANT
95
Temperature 200
(C)
Compression Measurements
Side
C133-II
-i00 0 40 80 59. 120 Range FIGURE Tem _erature 400 (oc) Time 160 (sec) DUMMY S-IV STAGE AND INTERSTAGE 200 240 28(
TEMPERATLrREMEASUREMENTON
300
C127-II 2-00
Time
FIGURE60.
DUMMY
96
i53 from
The retro rockets were ignited sec range time and the response the retro rockets' 60. the rocket plume 59 and Measurement
at approximately due to the heating is shown (Figure increase at 154 sec to made attachthat may skin temto Cf27-II
canister i. 2 kg/cm
pressure 2 during
to
be
between canister
0.7 pres-
impingement
in Figures
range. kg/cm
decayed approximately range time. Temperature by an external arm. there After was the
161 see).
any secondary
(thermocouple
nearby prevented
2. Canister Temperature. canisters was controlled mounted arm on the was swing retracted
in coolcr umbili-
peratures. Teml)cratures protuberance heating theory were in the vicinity expected twice of the that S-IV predicted stage a by
swing
range canisters
within
levels,
although
Further
performed
the factors which may tures indicated by these D. INSTRUMENT 1. guidance Canister components
Specifications call for ambient air temperatures in the ST-90 and ST- 124P guidance platform compartments to be controlled at 25 + 2 C. Both ST-90 and ST- 124 P guidance were in the compartment the temperature platform compartment at liftoff. temperatures The ST-t24P
range
measurement indicated that within the acccptablc range temperature was not
throughout monitored
flight. during
ST-90ambient
97
SECTION
XII.
(U)
AERODYNAMICS
A.
SUMMARY
Calculated greement with when data has is static coefficient, determined stability and from were ratio, gradient of pressure telemetered with preforce for the of
of
C z' values
and
CP/D and
are previous
in
fair flights'
a-
results SA-3
versus broader to
number margin
62). or
values
The
dynamic The
values. and
data to
at the
Mach
error
to lower
this
region, results
of angle-of-attack
pressure.
flight results.
the
margin
SA-3
for
the
SA-3 to well
flight
are
preD. from 1. face pressure on extreme to the Station 205 Measurements. at of the Station flared-out of the 63 versus is fuel a plot Mach Also at this 205 All on region and of four SA-3 surwere SURFACE PRESSURE
pressure agreed
ambientpreswith data
on
the
simulated with
region shoulder
their
approximate Sketches surface report, pressures Section XII. showing are the detailed in locations Volume II of of the this rose Mach B. RATIO E RATION OF GRADIENTS (STABILITY OF RATIO) ANGULAR ACCELimum greement tunnel The (stability erage and ratio of the gradients ratio CI/B ) was pitch of angular determined engine acceleration from the av(tip) had on The been the test Except steadily number pressure is included
for
Excellent and
also
shown
data.
validity previously
of the
data
from
measurement after widely trend As shown was the from SA-2 wind
telemetered
plane
deflection
the free-stream
angle-of-attack
(C_p).
that
results The cle sus and time values predicted ( Figure at the of C1/B obtained agreed A minimum of maximum ,-nr_di_ted error is also margin shown in well for when value dynamic value inthe Figure the SA-3 plotted of -0.58 pressure of -0.55. flight61. sure four C. GRADIENT AND CENTER OF NORMAL OF PRESSURE FORCE COEFFICIENT Stations in tion The and tained normal the gradientof center using of the pressure normal force coefficient (CP/D) of were (C z ) obsure station tion of Figxlre of LOCATION vehiverwas other SA-3 to from values 61). time
exhibited in Figure
very to the
similar results
SA-2, SA-
obtained
2. ratios
Station (surface
860
and to (same
Measurements. obtained on SA-2), Mach the radial Surface D82-F3, extreme direction. located situated upper from located
Presthe at
determined
are
versus
a sketch
indicating
individual
location values
telemetered and
angle-of-attack,
acceleration,
engine
deflection.
urements
98
v ,IJ -,-4
,--_ .IJ
0 0 ,IJ ,I.J II _
rJ 0
II
CO v r.
0 00 0 (J 0
g_
,.o ,0
q_ 0
4.-I
_.0 I
) -I J
o,,I
-.1"
'..0
oO
6
I
o
I
c_
I
o
I
99
..1:
u'l ,,o
> Z
t'M
P I
00
C-.I
i-I r_ I-I
0 r..p _._ r_ 0 r_
co
-o'-
0 Z r._ o
o o i.-.i
L
v
4-1
_
t.l
.;-I
,,.o ,..o
r_
v 4-1
n_
i
.;-I
E
H o
I I
,i
oo
o .;-i
I"
I
!
r_ 0
t'M
,J o
l P,
d
c;
E
0 Z o -4" ! 0 xl r_
rj o o
r_ / 0
SA-3 SA-2
Predicted
Measurement 1.0
D76-I0
0 0 2.0 Surface 0.4 0.8 1.2 P1essure 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 Mach Pressure/Ambient
3.2 Number
Measurement 1.0
D77-I0
_-_--
0 0 2.0 Surface 0.4 0.8 1.2 Pressure 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 Mach 3.2 Number Pressure/Ambient
I
Measurement D78- I0
I
1.0
0 0 3.0 Surface 0.4 0.8 1.2 Pressure 1.6 2.0 2.4 .8 Mach 3.2 Number Pressure/Ambient
Measurement 2.0
D79-I0
1.0
0.4
08
.2
1.6 III
2.0 D78- i0
2.4
2.8 Mach
3.2 Number
D79-I0
asurement (Sta. 205) Location D77-I0 D76-I0 FIGURE 63. , RATIOS OF SURFACE
II
IV
--_-
_ _
0
0 0.4 Surface 0.8 iient 1.2 Pressure 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 Mach 3.2 Number
2.0
Pressure/A:
Measurement 1.0
D8L-FI
- 7_-o-Crc
0 0 Surface 2,0 0.4 0.8 Pressure/Ambient 1.2 Pressure 1.6 2_0 2.4 2.8 Mach 3.2 Number
I
Measurement 1.0 D82-F
I 2.8 Mach
3.2 Number
I
Measurement D83-F3 l.O
L
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 D83-F3 1.6 III 2.0 D82-F3 .4 2.8 Mach 3.2 Number i_ta. 860_ Measurement (?ta. LocatLons Sta" 863
86-' q 863) "_ D80-FI Sta, 863 1 _'-F! D._ Sta. 860
FIGURE
64.
RATIOS
OF
SU.;LFACE PRESSUFE
TO AMBIENT
PRESSUF, E
VE_
I'S MACH
hR24BER
102
center fuel
860, readings
slightly indicate
above that
Simulation on SA-3
to
Pressures. simulate
pressure dropped bient at Mach 1.2 around results ley for error Mach from 2. wind
of 80 percent of amincreased to ambient agreement in the with Langshown lower the conducted
configuration behind the nose fairing. of the first Centaur flight was attributed pressure with distribution respect in the information two panels vicinity to a venting arrangement.
SA-3 tunnel
data
is in good
tests
and 4-foot UPWT. SA-2 data, in the figxlre, indicates slightly SA-3, but both results data. are telemetered
pressure
within
of the
3. (surface ments
Station to ambient)
989
and are
1019. from
ratios measurenum-
payload surface of the vehicle, one between fin locations III and IV (designated panel IH- IV) and the other between fin locations I and II (designated panel I- II). The panels were approximately 60 degrees wide in circumference and extended from Station 1698 to 1731. The shoulder of the nose cone was moved back 10 cm to Station A total located 1727 on the area encompassed meascenter-
obtained
on the
interstage
plottedversus
ber in Figure 65. These surface m ents were obtained for the first urement_ imately tively; D84-20are 7 degrees D85-20and from D87-20 located fin are
by the panels. surements was line area stalled each surface similar on
of 11 surface longitudinally
pressure on the
also at approximately 7 degrees from fin locations III and I. Values of the ratio of surface to ambient pressure at Station 989.3 increased from 1.0 at Mach 0.3 to approximately nel tests data. at Langley 2.1 at Mach (_ = 0) 2. agree Data well from with wind the tunflight
one of the
during
flight.
sure tained
Figure 66 is a representative coefficients versus Mach from is also coefficient shoulder, 0.7. Values of are pressure plotted show (Reference excellent 4) the six measurements and sketch
presobA
III-IV. measure-
and the
D87-20 orifices
at than are
the location
pressures on the
to the expansion
frustrum
measurement D85-20 to a value slightly amat this time that this downstream measurements caused 67. nel
Mach tun-
It is conjectured Wind
shock
in pressure.
at loca-
tions in close proximity to the flight measurement do not indicate this drop. However, the value obtained from the wind tunnel tests was a faired value and the possibility exists that the faired value is not correct.
low pressure
behind
3.0
fJ I
2.0 D86-20
____/I
1.0
Station
989
I
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 Mach 1.6 Number
Tunnel) 2.8
Surface 4.0
Pressure/Ambient
Pressure
3.0 II
85- ]0
T_nn
1.0
Station
1019
0.4
0.8
1.2 Mach
1.6 Number
2.0
2.4
2.8
FIGURE-
65.
RATIOS VERSUS
PRESSURE
104
-1.4
-1.2 1720
-i.0
-0.8
/
-0.6 1707--_ I
-0.4
qJ
_//
l I
I
c .,
1.2 Number 1714 I
,,
-0.2
1.6
2.0
1707 i
17011 g/------1698
(Panel
Base)
FIGURE
66.
NUMBER
ON
I05
SA-3 -1.2
Data
_r-
-_
Wind Test
Tunnel Data
--
-0.8
\
M -0.4 = .78
1728
1724
1720
1716
1712
1708
1704 Vehicle
if00 Station
Pressure -1.2
Coefficient,
P-Pa q
-0.8
-0.4
SA-3
Data
\
Test Data M = .86 1716 ]712 1708 1704 Vehicle 1700 Station
Wind
Tunnel
0 1728 Pressure -1.2 1724 1720 Coefficient, P-Pa q I SAL3 ____ -0.8 I Wind Testt Data Tunnel Data
_95
I
1704 1700 Vehicle Station
FIGURE'67.
PRESSURE MACH
COEFFICIENT ON
VERSUS
_HICLE
STATION PANEL
AT
VARIOUS
NUMBERS
CENTAUR-SII_JLATiO_
t06
SECTION
XIll.
(U)
INSTRUMENTATION
A.
SUMMARY Overall reliability All no deviation inflight RF to of the from SA-3 measuring performed normal were from good all data operation. normal. telemetry during the links flight system satisAll
was
97.0
D19-5, Pressure Gear Case Lub, Hi; D20-5, sure Gear Case Lub, Lo; and D27-5, Pressure Tail. These failures occurred command. All of these measurements
factorily preflight
3.2 sec after ignition had responded failure. Inverter, did func-
to their various systems Transmitted was time that sufficient Measurement showed tion. no output M27-12, even
produce
though
failure. The pressure measurement Gas in LOX Tank No. i, became The signal C-Band Radar, Even normal the cient though signal, for This dundant XUI D., one ing data good flight UDOP strength was very tracking and trajectory has again of all closeto Radar the information Azusa information. proven As flight periods the usefulness of rein Section data from trackusing The pressure D145-9, ignition. received also camera to that coverage of SA-2. for ignition. Pressure tion Chamber, measurement A normal Three output of measurement failed became was the DI-4, Presstlre range noisy CombusThis time. Ap Across These a very measurements Shroud, measurements high "g" load of D143-2, were lost Dt44-9, 0.5 sec and after RF systems, the expected received from system this except values. system, suffiafter ignition. The signalwas later. The strain measurement E21-02, Strain, MountD3-01, Pressure of intermittent t.6 sec lost 3.9 see
completely
a lower-thanwas
ing Stud, had no output. This failure is believed to be in the strain gauges. There were four other gauge failures on similar measurements before launch day.
tracking systems. some periods of may be but redundant engineering flight was these
good be filled
a large
amount
displacement
the B.
SA-3
MEASURING Measurement
ANALYSIS Malfunctions. There were 607 flight made on the SA-3 vehicle. Of these fourteen were found to be completely
time. at this
measurements measurements,
108
discrete
level
unusable, six were partiallyusable, and one was questionable. Two types of malfunctions occurred on tl_e flight. First, there were seven pressure transducers and one temperature tion in the ments in area measurements apparent The failures. measurement power supply lost serving because the of a malfuncdirect measureother had were six components
function. They were probes number measurements A19-OC, AI9-01, and tively. Partial failures were
also observed
on A6-5
and
AII-5, Main Fuel and LOX Valve respectively. These measurements recorded the valves' opening, but failed to record the valves' closing because uring voltage failure mentioned The measurement D18-2, of the measpreviously. Pressure Gear Case
eight
measurements
that
were
lost
because
Top,
showed
an unusually
high pressure.
This is a
TemperaFuel Pump
gauge type pressure transducer. A systems analysis does not support this high pressure. It is believed
107
that was
the
orifice
to the thus
pressure trapping
port the
Block tanks
H antenna
panel
(located
between
the
obstructed,
nitrogen
at the forwardportion
As the vehicle rose into the on the vent side of the showing port. an increase The pressure in
good results, and somewhat The attenuation as that for noted the
with the signal strength being more constant than other recordat retro Block less rocket I antenna; (probably Block I type. firing as was much about the as 10 however,
trapped
same than
attenuation
was
on the
Measurement SA-3 measuring eighteen failures the optical three are The
Overall reliability was 97. 0 percent; this for 108 598 discrete measurements, level probes
of is
D.
RF
SYSTEMS
ANALYSIS
assuming
i.
remaining type
Cape Telemetry 2 Station (1.7 imately 240 from Pad 34). Telemetry (Figure ceiver received 68) at this threshold during station appears The firing. this time at all times. retro dbm rocket at
level
to be above signal
first The
signal
whereas on SA-2
reliability approximately
to approximately
The pressure transducers sidual pressure in the combustion off performed transducers performed as on satisfactorily. the surface
that recorded the rechamber after cutAlso, and the pressure retro rockets
in signal
strength
were
present,
areas
but they were less intense. These may to multipath, cross polarization, antenna aspect angle, and flame attenuation. Flame attenuation not noisy attenuation was present at
expected. this However, station the measurements they did on the on the measuring gave SA-2 a 100 perflight, exwhich did failure. from approximately 98 to 138 seconds. until approximately occurred between drop
cent cept
as
not operate C.
caused
a signal
of approximately
SYSTEMS
25 db below normal, which was expected. it wasn't expected that the attenuation would to engine cutoff. aspect angle. Signal resulting ords that the relatively attenuation from retro it is not This was caused by the
SA-3 links
was
effected
radio
telemetry assembly.
and a TM auxiliary
equipment
to can gain
the
roll
dition, two experimental systems, (link 6) and a UHF RF assembly (link tested for factorily. the first time. All Systems
be seen at this
although
pronounced.
Cape The excellent, tem will strength were The retro enough PCM overall and performance indications are of link that accurate was very most 6 was the data. good. likely found to be sysPCM/FM mately shows sufficient difference lemetry from onds 5 to Link of the the for UHF UHF link band 9 was will links. station board expulsion Possibly, in the future
Telemetry
3 Station
(6.9
km
at
approxi-
200 from Pad that the signal to prevent existed 2 station. multipath of flight. 10 sec later l0 experienced Even recorded engine of though cutoff. exhaust
34). Preliminary strength from dropout this was more during station
The signal A few nulls antenna drop at a level nulls. during high
noted
were still
fluctuation few secand began 2 station. than other less, after the this outsignal
a 30 to 35 dbm remained
propagation Flame
attenuation
than at Cape Telemetry less flame attenuation flame This attenuation decrease was gases. probably Some was due of a short in signal
performance
transmitting
to the final
108
Signal
Strength
(dbm)
CAPE
TELEMETRY Link 2
Retros
F ir.__,..
_--Meas
ured
f
LT__ I
"g_ "_._
Predictec
J
0 40 80 120 Flight 160 Time (sec) 200 240 280 320
Signal
Strength
(dbm)
CAPE
TELEMETRY Link 6
-10L_,f''_"
_--PrediJted--.---RetrosFire
__Measur
ed
-50
-70 0 40 80 120 Flight FIGURE 68. 50 Time (sec) SIGNAL 2) STRENGTH 200 240 280 320
TELEMETRY (CAPE
TELEMETRY
109
more
intense
than especially
the
deafter
2 station,
dbm below normal) onds. Retro rocket tion of approximately Signal variation
occurred firing
to retro
rocket
firing 2 station.
was
between
Cape
Telemetry
pattern as the vehicle rolled. Green Mountain Telemetry Station (near MSFC). at this Average been time. Signalwas it was noisy received and attenuated (Titusville Pad 34). preliminary was after until 465 sec after after liftoff, but
The telemetry signal station approximately signal than The on strength SA-2. but was The is could
( Figure 69) was received 128 sec after liftoff. approximately reason under possibly for this investigation be caused has
destruct.
15 to 18 db higher not yet at this km was Some Tango Station at 270 from higher signal than especially - Cocoa Airport, 22.9 Average signal strength predictions experienced the vehicle ( Figure began to roll. 70). due to anten-
by an error
attenuation
na nulls,
Signal
Station at this
(Grand station
Bahama between
Retro rocket firing produced to 15 db below the average signal. tion ceived was was very experienced approximately and attenuated noisy at this until 464 sec after
station.
seconds. rockets
dropped low enough to cause noise inthe Also, some decreases due to roll were to cause signal noise. sent at this station. No flame
were the
from and
attenuation
Mountain
Hangar D Station (4. 3 km at approximately Pad 34). The signal at this station was low and be and at attributed to hand experienced intervals tracking partially dropouts during used at retro roll. the vehicle to a low gain by this
Mandy records. The signal tion (Merritt Island Airport, 214 from 3.
system
(12.4 km at approximately that the system operated to 170 seconds. ting between5 Azusa flight. flights hicle. which sec _*^ of the passive sec, was signal These because However, meets to destruct, _a ,_hm _ vehicle, records from the propagation and
Pad 34) indicate for the first 160 71) was fluctua80 seconds. The due first than to multipath part of the
on a Saturn
flight.
during powered flight was excelin Figure 69, it followed the preperfectly. the engine system There less was than no evidence the the VHF retro sysexhaustand
on previous of the ve-95 dbm, From as much 160 as roll was 270 signal
of the slower the signal range the tirno_ since data signal This the indicate
liftoffvelocity remained above commitments. was attenuated has the onlyone is probably that
The signal was low after but this could be expected using the value 2. Man@ only station was only
due to the
system
antenna.
one antenna and it was turned much of the time. The data -102 two dbm times and for the short sigaal dropped periods.
However,
160 until
220 see,
and from
threshold
C-Band 1.16
199 from
Pad 34). The AGC voltage until 125 see, with one seconds. began board Signal attenuation, at approximately engine cutoff.
Pad 34). Prior to liftoff, Band Beacon was frequency pulse so the pulse. output. receiver This This detuning was was detuned caused
noticed that the Cand giving a double range a single signal lock-on, narrow level than
probably
causing
llO
MOUNTAIN
TELEMETRY Link 5
STATION
I
Retros Fire--,-
-7O
IA
-90
-ii0 0 40 80 120 Flight 160 Time 200 (sec) 240 280 320
TELEMETRY-MANDY Link 9
STATION
{
Data N__o:,se Threshold {
-llO 0 40 80
/ .
120 F_ight
160 Time
240
280
320
FIGURE
69. (GREEN
TELEMETRY MOUNTAIN
SIGNAL AND
MANDY)
ill
Signal -50
Strength
(dbm)
TANGO
STATION
" Measured
-- Predicted
Fire
1
200 240 28O 320
Signal -50
Strength
(dbm) t Predicted
METRO
STATION
__
f'-_
p_/'-'_
I-
l- Retros
Fire
-ii0 0
I
40 80 120 Flight 160 Time (sec) FIGURE-70. UDOP SIGNAL
I
200 240 280 320 STRENGTH
112
Signal
Strength
(dbm) AZUSAMK II
I
-60
-- Predicted
I
-80
I I I
Retros Fire -_
asured
-i00
-120 0 40 80 120 Flight 160 Time (sec) 200 240 280 320
RADAR 1.16
-._--- Retros
Fire
-40
Predicted
-60
I,r
I
I
f
___Measured
-80
_----Signal Drop-out
-i00
0 40 80 120 Flight
I
160 Time (sec)
200
240
280
320
FIGURE-71.
AZUSA
AND
RADAR
SIGNAL
STRENGTH
113
would normally felt that it was be used if the strength signal 71.
be received at this station, but adequate because skin tracking beacon from proved this to be inadequate. is shown station
34).
AFB, 32.9 km south of Pad the MK 51 optical tracking at which time it switched station this, After to AGC at the ground 53 seconds.
in Fig_dre
normal
the first
Automatic and used pattern than decreasing hunting skin ing this which noise cern. ances was time, tracking used the during predictions. at at about
was signal
acquired followed
it has a 2 to 3 db jitter for the remainder of the flight. Records show that this station also had trouble with narrow from this the by pulse detuning width, its double It apparently beacon as more track was at pulsing, hadn't station difficulty. three 140 times sec and response were after been caused during may the have and 1.16 countdown for done had beacon. prepared
91 sec 103
to automatic
92 to 103 seconds.
signal-to-noise
for high accuracy tracking. Some between 115 and 132 sec which may but retro it wasn'tenough rocket firing the drove to cause caused sig_ml-to-noise probably level had condisturb-
be caused
The system switched back and forth between beacon tracking and automatic skin tracking to 187 sec and from destruct. struct. ended up using automatic It tracked the water
15 db which
ratio down to 12 to 15 db. This disturbance would have been insignificant if the signal been normal. After retro rocket firing, the noise level at about switched happened to skin again tracking around
the signal dropped be194 sec and the system from 235 197 to 202 seconds. sec and the system 241 sec tracked
GBI Statiori (Grand Bahama Island). The signal was received at GBI 65 sec after liftoff. It experienced the same trouble as the other stations. No flame imately attenuation firing 5 db. response to track between was below normal, beacon all the way, 192 and 228 seconds. this exwas caused present a signal at this station, but retro rocket attenuation of approx-
the vehicle
the cloud
by Project
station cept
the
ii4
SECTION
XIV.
(C)
SUMMARY
OF
MALFUNCTIONS
AND
DEVIATIONS
The flight test of Saturn SA-3 did not reveal any malfunctions or deviations which could be considered a serious system failure ever, a number of minor summarized here for or design deviations deficiency. did occur purposes. recommended by the listed. These are item is listed in the Howand are
10.
The
retro
were
misaliglmd,
causing
across lower
outboard
2 ( 1.3 psi)
Corrective measures divisions for some of the marked with an asterisk. area Launch where the malfunction
V D 2. ).
occurred. in tilt of 44.28 cam resulted angle in a maximum arrest as com( Secdeg at tilt
pared to the desired tion VII B. i.) .* A clockwise observed i4. Increased 04 compared maximum observed cm
of 44degrees
minutes
roll moment
of 1553 kg-m
was
The digital output computer for the sequence records malfunctioned (Section III D. ). The "Support Retract Pressure OK" switches cycled several times about 500 ms after all engines were running (Section IIIE. ). error indicated that the LOX Guidance: i5.
at IECO sloshing to
(Section VII B. 3.). was that on observed the SA-2 in LOX flight. tank A
3.
of 24 cm was compare_ to 10
on SA-2
4.
measuring
bubbling valve of the expected 5. The mand Trajectory: 6. The than burning expected range due LOX fill
outputs system
from
the VIII
cross C. 3. ).
range
ac-
on the
ST-124P
platlorm
(Section
III F. ) .* 16. time for SA-3 was 1.3 sec (Section IV C. 1. ). displacement to a difference IV C. 1. ). i8. longer
observed
C. 3 and VIII
7.
i7.
A failure due to an open circuit in one buffer amplifier stage of the ST-124P guidance signal processor repeater was encountered (Section VIII D. 2.). A disturbance cessor between D. 2.). VIII was observed 113 and in the 125 seconds signal pro-
and vehicle,
Propulsion: 8. The higher 9. The gine vn.). vehicle than gear specific predicted pressure 2 exceeded impulse (Section was VC. 1.1 ). percent
(Section
w'
1t5
Structures: 20. A high fuel E45-8 21. vibration line, (Section level was observed on the
suction
longitudinal;
measurement
Systematic measurements
transients (Section
(C77-5) previously
in-
S-IV
was
twice
as
be predicted
bytheory
(Section
pressure
was
unusual
(Section
XI B. i.a.). 25. Base pressure gradient than 1.a.). Instrumentation: 26. Fourteen were able 27. The than measurements were unusable, was questionsix on the previous heat shield hada flights (Section higher XI B.
lower
116
SECTION
XV.
(U)
SPECIAL
MISSIONS
A.
PROJECT A water
HIGHWATER cloud on experiment SA-2) was range (similar accomplished time with of water to the experisuccessstages' injecupper at-
B.
HORIZON
SCANNER
Useable tained during ues. and between this Data mmsable. the retro
scanner time. of
were The
obdata val-
ment
conducted
At 292sec were
ruptured gal) of of
flight
erratic sec;
Project 167.22 of
however, until
should 153.6
useable
l ire
seconds.
predicted) predicted).
a range
C. The Saturn water flight with that the of the to range release in order on of experiment to the compare SA-2 the gal) to an noise of was the concloud duetedontheSA-3 formation to by to investigate the release
OTHER
SPECIAL
MISSIONS
In scanner flown as
to a on
and
the
missions of these
l)erturbing
have of a
been this
chapters section
monitor and
equilibrium through
The mission
following restllts
state, frequency
in which
discussed:
megacycles. at Vero Beach inLact alter deThe tumbling extended to be on Itighwater, see and continued were d. e. is f. g. of 72 of i. j. h. motime. translinks 3, but b. e. a. M-31 ( Block LOX Full Loading Block Passenger PCM Centaur S-IV "llld l_loek Retro I1 Antenna ST-124P Panel lteat II Shield Tyl)e) Panel XI B. 1. e. Reference Section
the
booster
obselwed
an
booster on 8
Depletion Propellant
V B.
signals
contiuued It repreout
apl)roximately if any
booster
breakul)
camera Ilighwater.
coverage
II Swing Rockets
117
Burst H.06 S e c o n d s
~~
118
(U)
REFERENCES
i.
"Saturn (U) ; by
C-I
SA-3
Test
Trajectory 2, 1962.
Corridor
'ro
2.
"Saturn Group;
; by
Saturn
Flight
3.
"Saturn Group;
SA-2 dated
Flight June 5,
Evaluation" 1962.
(C)
; by
Saturn
Flight
4.
NASA Space
TM
X-503;
"Steady Payload
and Shapes"
Fluctuating (C) ; by
Pressures Coe,
at
Transonic March
Speeds 1961.
On
Two
Vehicle
C. F. ; dated
119
(U) DISTRIBUTION Dr. Dr. Mr. yon Braun, M-DIR Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. M-AERO-DIR M-AERO-PS M-AERO-A M-AERO-G (4) (2) (3) M- LVOD Dr. Mr. Mr. (25) Mr. M-RE Mr. Gruene, Zeiler, Sendler, Collins, L Schulze, M-REL (3) M-LVO-DIR M-LVO-M M-LVO-E M-LVO-EP (3) (4) Mr. Blackstone, Mandel, Hoberg, M-ASTR-FF M-ASTR-G M-ASTR-I
M-AERO Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Mr. Geissler, Jean, Dahm, Vaughan,
Ryan, M-AERO-D Holderer, M-AERO-E Speer, M-AERO-F Hoelker, M-AERO-P R. D. Cummings, Douglas,
M-AERO-TS M-AERO-TS
M-QUAL Mr. Mr. Mr. M-COMP-DIR t M-COMP-A M-COMP-R M-COMP-S Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. M-RP Grau, M-QUAL-DIR Klauss, M-QUAL-TS Wittmann, M-QUAL-E Urbanski, Brooks, Peck, Smith, M-QUAL-M M-QUAL-P M-QUAL-PS M-QUAL-Q
M-COMP Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. M-ME Mr. Mr. Kuers, Groth, M-ME-DIR M-ME-TS (4) Hoelzer, Fortenberry Cochran, Shaver,
M-RP-DIR M-RP-R
Mr.
M-ASTR Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Haeussermann, Noel, Wagnon, Digesu, Taylor, Fichtner, BaggsBoehm, Hosenthien, M-ASTR-TSJ M-ASTR-TSR M-ASTR-A M-ASTR-R M-ASTR-E Mr. Stroud, M-ASTR-F M-ASTR-E M-ASTR-M M-ASTR-DIR
M-SAT Dr. Dr. Mr. Mr. M-H Dr. Rudolf, M-HME-DIR Lange, Kuettner, Vreuls, D. R. M-SAT-DIR M-SAT-AP M-SAT Bowden, (5) M-SAT-SII (Downey)
120
DISTRIBUTION
(Cont'd)
M-PaVE Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Col. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. M-TPC Mr. Smith, M-TPC Mrazek, Weidner, Burrows, Palaoro, Glover, M-P&VE-DIR M-P&VE-DIR M-PaVE-REL M-P&VE-V M-PaVE-VA (I)
Stein, M-PaVE-VE Rothe, Barraza, Seymour, Sehulze, Harber, Kistler, Hoffman, Goerner, Lueas, Fellows, Paul, Reed, Furman, Wood, Connell, Heusinger, Kroll, Hunt, Verble, Farrow, Sterett, Showers, Thompson, M-PaVE-VG M-PaVE-VK M-PaVE-OH M-PaVE-E M-P&VE-EA M-P&VE-EF M-P&VE-ES M-P&VE-F M-P&VE-M M-P&VE-NP M-P&VE-P M-P&VE-PL M-PaVE-PM M-P&VE-PT M-P&VE-PH M-P&VE-PP M-P&VE-S M-P&VE-S M-PaVE-SB M-PaVE-ST M-PaVE-SS M-P&VE-SL (4) (3) (2) M-P&VE-PA (4) (2) (2)
M-MICH Mr. Dr. LO Dr. Dr. Col. Lt. Mr. Mr. Mr. Debus, Knothe, LO-DIR LO-TS (3) Robert Constan, L. Riemer, M-MICH M-MICH-QA
Bidgood, LO-F Col. Petrone, LO-H Poppel, Darby, Body, LO-D LO-DHE LO-DS
M-TEST Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Heimburg, Auter, Sieber, Thornton, Driscoll, Tessmann, Reilmann, M-TEST-DIR M-TEST-E M-TEST-M M-TEST-MC M-TEST-T M-TEST-C M-TEST-T
t21
(cont'd)
Administration W. Phillips
Washington 25, D.C. Assistant to the Administration: Office Office Associate Office Director
of Plans & Program Evaluation : Abraham Hyatt of Scientific & Technical Information: Melvin S. Day Administrator: of Programs of Reliability & Quality Flight Holmes : Joseph F. Shea & Propulsion: Robert Freitag Assurance: James T. Koppenhaver Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
Office of Space Sciences Director: Homer E. Newell Launch Director: Vehicles Donald & Propulsion H. Heaton Research F. Dixon and Programs (10) & Technology Power Generation: John L. Sloop
Office of Applications Director: Morton J. Morris Goddard Space 4555 Overlook Flight Avenue
Stoller
Tepper Center
Washington 25, D.C. At/m: Herman LaGow Director, National Moffett Ames Field, Research California Center: Smith J. DeFrance
Aeronautics
& Space
Administration
Manned Spacecraft Center Houston 1, Texas - P.O. Box 1537 Attn: Director: Robert R. Gilruth Robert Smith (5) Alfred Mardel (3)
122
DISTRIBUTION L.
(cont'd)
Thompson
Virginia
21000 Brookpark Road Cleveland 35, Ohio Director, National 150 Pico Director, Western Operations Aeronautics & Space Blvd., Santa Monica, Flight Research Office: Robert Administration California Paul F. W. Kamm
Center:
Bikle
National Aeronautics P.O. Box 273 Edwards, Director, National Wallops California Wallops Aeronautics Island,
& Space
Administration
Virginia
Jet Propulsion Lab 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena Attn: Jet Attn: Office Room The Attn: Director Office Room The Irl 2, California Reports Group CCMTA Newlan,
Propulsion H. Levy
of Defense
for
Research
& Engineering
Washington
Missiles of Defense
Washington
123 EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION (cont'd) Commander, Armed Services Tech Info Agency (5) Arlington Hall Station Arlington 12, Va. Attn: TIPCR (Transmittal per Cognizant Act. Security Instruction_ U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, SandiaCorp. University of California Radiation Lab Tech Info Div P.O. Box 808 Livermore, California Attn: Clovis Craig U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, SandiaCorp. Livermore Br, P.O. Box 969 Livermore, California Attn: James McMinn, Document Control Sec. Central Intelligence Agency (2) 2430 E Street, N. W. Washington 25, D.C. Attn: Liaison Div, OCD Director, National Security Agency Washington 25, D.C. Attn: CREF-22 Commanding General (3) White SandsProving Ground New Mexico Attn: ORDBS-OMTIO-TL Commander, AF Missile Test Center(o,o Patrick AFB, Florida Attn: Tech Info Intelligence Office, MTGRY Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force (2) The Pentagon Washington 25, D.C. 1 Cpy marked for DCS/D AFDRD 1 Cpy marked for DCS/D AFDRD-EX
124
EXTERNAL Commander Wright Air (5) Development Air Center Force Base,
DISTRIBUTION
(cont'd)
Ohio
Air Force Flight Test Center Edwards AFB, California Attn: FTOTL Commander Air Force Ballistic Missile Div Unit Post Office Hdqrs, ARDC, Air Force Los Angles 45, Califronia Attn: WDSOT Commander-in-Chief Strategic Air Command Offutt AFB, Nebraska Attn: Dir of Opns, (2) Development Station, Center Force Library Tennessee Missile Division
Engineering
Commander Air Force Missile Force Development Base (SRLT) Center Holloman Air New Mexico Attn: Tech r Air Missile Test Center California of Weapons D.C. 1Cpyto SP, 1 Cpy to AD3 (4)
Library
Bureau
1 Cpy to REW3
125
DISTRIBUTION
(cont'd)
of Navy
Director (2) U.S. Naval Research Washington Attn: Code 25, D.C. 2027
Lab
Douglas Aircraft Company, Missile and Space Systems Santa Monica, California Attn: H.M. Thomas (i) A.J. D.A. ORDAB-HT ORDAB-C Aerospace 2400 East E1 Segundo, Attn: D.C. Arinc Research 1700 K Street, Washington Attn: W.J. German Petty (2) (5)
Inc. Engineering
Technical Library, ABMA Control Office, ABMA Corporation E1 Segundo California Bakeman Corporation N.W.
(5)
6, D.C. Willoughby
The Boeing Company Saturn Booster Branch P.O. Box 26088 New Attn: North Space 12214 Orleans R.H. 26, Nelson Louisiana (3)
American
Aviation Systems
126 EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION (cont'd) Rocketdyne 6633CanogaAvenue CanogaPark, California Attn: O.I. Thorsen (3) Chrysler SpaceDivision Michoud Operations Attn: V.J. Vehko (1) B. Heinrich (5) W.C. Beomer (2) Huntsville Operations Attn: H. Bader , Jr. (2) Headquarters 6570thAerospace Medical Division (AFSC) UoS. Air Force Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio Attn: H.E. Vongierke Radio Corporation of America Defense Electronic Products Data Systems Division 8500 Balboa Blvd Van Nuys, California Attn: L.R. Hund, Librarian Martin Company SpaceSystems Division Baltimore 3, Maryland Attn: W. P Sommers Scientific and Technical Information Facility (2) At/m: NASA Representative (S-AK/RKT) P.O. Box 5700 Bethesda, Maryland