428

i-MSC-G-R-66-1 Supplemental Report 2 January 1966

(NASA-CF-83088) L A U N C H VEHICLE NO. 7 FLIGHT E V A L U A T I O N ( M a r t i n Co.) 289 p

sued as: Supplemental Report 2 To: Gemini Program Mission Report Gemini VIE MSC-G-R-66-1 By: Gemini Vn Mission Evaluation Team National Aeronautics and Space Administration Manned Spacecraft Center Houston, Texas

FOR NAS. PERSONNEL ONLY
LAUNCH rVEHICLE NO. 7 t FLIGHT EVALUATION (U)

U. S. Government Agencies January 1966 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE . . . Los Angeles, California
&

ER 13227-7

January 1966 NASA-MSC-G-R-66-1 Supplemental Report 2 January 1966

GEMINI LAUNCH VEHICLE
LAUNCH V E H I C L E NO. 7 FLIGHT EVALUATION (U)
DOCUMENT. _™,.J INFORMATION W ' -EN'SE OF THE UNITED AFFECTL . ЧЙ OF THE ESPIONAGE STATES WITH... _ ,743 ANC /94. ITS LAWS, HUE 18, U. TRANSMISSION OR IN AMY MANNE" PROHIBITED

A p p r o v e d by

it C
L. J. Rose A s s i s t a n t T e c h n i c a l Director Test Evaluation I. C. C u r l a n d e r T e c h n i c a l Director

Issued as: Supplemental Report 2 To: Gemini Program Mission Report Gemini VII MSC-G-R-66-1

By: Gemini УП Mission Evaluation Team National Aeronautics and Space Adm inistration Manned Spacecraft Center Houston, Texas
Down inte afti SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISIO AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND For UNITED STATES AIR FORCE Los Angeles, California year

Prepared by MARTIN COMPANY, BALTIMORE DIVISION Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Under CONTRACT AF 04(695)-394 PRIORITY DX-A2

ii

FOREWORD This report has been prepared by the Gemini Launch Vehicle Program Test Evaluation Section of the Martin Company, Baltimore Division. It is submitted to the Space Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, in compliance with Contract AF04(695)-394.

ER 13227-7

CONTENTS Page

Foreword Summary I. II. Introduction System Performance A. B. C. D. III. Trajectory Analysis Pay load Capability Staging Weight Statement

u vii I-1 II-1 II-1 11-39 11-39 11-39 III-l III-l 111-22 111-67 111-78 IV-1 IV-1 IV-8 IV-13 V-l V-l V-5 VI-1 VI-1

Propulsion System A. B. C. D. Engine Subsystem Propellant Subsystem Pressurization Subsystem Environmental Control

IV.

Flight Control System A. B. C. Stage I Flight Stage II Flight Post-SECO Flight

V.

Hydraulic System A. B. Stage I Stage II

VI.

Guidance Systems A. Radio Guidance System Performance

ER 13227-7

L\

CONTENTS (continued) Page B. VII. Spacecraft Inertial Guidance System Ascent Performance VI-5 VII-1 VII-1 VII-1 VIII-1 VIII-1 VIII-2 IX-1 IX-1 IX-2 IX-2 X-l X-l X-2 XI-1 XI-1 XI-6 XII-1 XII-1 XII-19 XII-27 XIII-1 XIII-1

Electrical System Analysis A. B. Configuration Countdown and Flight Performance

VIII.

Instrumentation System A, B. Airborne Instrumentation Landline Instrumentation

IX.

Range Safety and Ordnance A. B. C. Command Control Receivers MISTRAM Ordnance

X.

Malfunction Detection System A. B. Configuration System Performance

XI.

Crew Safety A. B. Prelaunch Winds Flight Simulations Slow Malfunctioning Monitoring

XII.

Airframe System A. B. C. Structural Loads POGO Recovered Stage I Oxidizer Tank

XIII.

AGE and Facilities A. Mechanical AGE .

ER 13227-7

CONTENTS (continued) Page B. C. XIV. Master Operations Control Set Facilities XIII-1 ХШ-2 XIV-1 XIV-1 XIV-2 XV-1 XV-1 XV-5 XVI-1 XVI-1 XVI-2 XVII-1 XVII-1 XVII-3 XVIII-1
A-l

Reliability A. B. Environmental Criteria Countdown Probability

XV.

Range Data A. B. Data Distribution Film Coverage

XVI.

Prelaunch and Countdown Operations A. B. Prelaunch Countdown Summary

XVII.

Configuration Summary A. B. Launch Vehicle Systems Description Major Components

XVIII.

References . Appendix A: Summary of Gemini Launches.

ER 13227-7

Page intentionally left blank

vii

SUMMARY On 4 December 1965, Gemini-Titan No. 7 (GT-7) was launched successfully and on schedule from Complex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida. Launch vehicle/spacecraft separation was completed 368.7 seconds after liftoff. Spacecraft re-entry was accomplished after completion of 13.8 days in orbit. The 240-minute countdown was picked up at 1030 EST on 4 December and continued without incident through liftoff at 1430 hours EST. The spacecraft was inserted into an elliptical orbit with a perigee of 87 nautical miles and an apogee of 177. 1 nautical miles; all test objectives for the launch were achieved. Stages I and II engines operated satisfactorily throughout powered flight. Stage I burning time was 159. 121 seconds, with shutdown initiated by oxidizer exhaustion. Stage II engine operation was terminated by a guidance command after 181.403 seconds of operation. The flight control system (FCS) maintained satisfactory vehicle stability during Stages I and II flight. The primary FCS was in command throughout the flight. Vehicle rates during Stage I flight never exceeded 1. 7 deg/sec, and the maximum attitude error was 1. 1 degrees. The maximum rate and attitude error that occurred during staging did not exceed 2.9 deg/sec and 2. 1 degrees, respectively. The radio guidance system (RGS) performance was satisfactory. Pitch and yaw steering signals and SECO discrete commands were properly executed. IGS pitch, yaw and roll performance for the entire flight appeared normal. The dispersions between IGS and primary system attitude errors remained within acceptable limits during powered flight. The hydraulic system operated satisfactorily during launch operations and both stages of flight. There were no significant pressure perturbations at liftoff or during flight. The electrical system functioned as designed throughout the launch countdown and flight. Power transfer to vehicle batteries was smooth. All channels of the PCM instrumentation system functioned satisfactorily throughout the flight, resulting in 100% data acquisition. The landline instrumentation system also functioned satisfactorily prior to and up to liftoff. All airborne instrumentation hold functions monitored in the blockhouse remained within specification throughout the countdown.

ER 13227-7

Vlll

The ordnance system umbilical dropweight release, propulsion system prevalves, explosive launch nuts and stage separation nuts operated as designed. The performances of the command control receivers and the MISTRAM transponder were satisfactory. Malfunction detection system (MDS) performance during preflight checkout and flight was satisfactory. There were no switchover commands during the flight. The flight environment encountered by GT-7 was within design requirements. Flight loads were well within the launch vehicle1 s structural capabilities. The most critical loading (which occurred at preBECO, aft of Station 320) reached 98. 5% of design limit load. The longitudinal oscillation (POGO) on GT-7 reached a maximum value at Station 280 of 0.125 g zero-to-peak at a frequency of 11.8 cps at LO + 133. 3 seconds. This was the lowest POGO experienced on any Gemini flight to date. Crew safety monitoring, which was conducted at NASA-MSC, was active during prelaunch and the launch. All guidance monitor parameters were nominal and no corrective action was required during the flight. The precount operation progressed without problems for the launch. All AGE and facilities operated without incident during the countdown. Propellant loading was completed within the scheduled time span and to the specified load and temperature limits. Two electrical umbilicals, 2B1E and 2B2E, disconnected out of sequence by 0. 015 second; however, this is not detrimental to any system. Engine blast and heat damage to the launch stand was minor.

ER 13227-7

IX

GLV-7 Test Objectives and Results

Objective Primary P-l Demonstrate satisfactory P-l boost by the launch vehicle system of a manned Gemini spacecraft into the prescribed orbital insertion conditions. Evaluate launch vehicle subsystem performance during powered flight for mission success and crew safety. P~2

Results

Orbit insertion was within the predicted tolerance for V, h and V.

P-2

All systems performed satisfactorily throughout flight. The POGO oscillation (0. 125 g zero-to-peak) was the lowest encountered. Vehicle flight was within the 3~ sigma predicted trajectory.

Secondary S-l Evaluate trajectory performance of the launch vehicle system for refining capability and predictions for future missions. S-2 Demonstrate ability to load propellants to the weight and temperature limits imposed by payload and vehicle requirements.

S-l

S~2

Tanks were loaded within the required tolerances of weight and temperature.

ER 13227-7

1-1

I. INTRODUCTION This report presents an engineering evaluation of Gemini Launch Vehicle No. 7 (GLV-7) systems performance during the countdown, launch and powered flight phase of the Gemini 7 mission. The Gemini-Titan No. 7 (GT-7) vehicle was launched on schedule from Complex 19, Cape Kennedy, Florida at 1430 hours EST on 4 December 1965. Gemini 7 was the sixth mission and the fourth manned flight of the program, with astronauts Frank Borman and James Lovell aboard the spacecraft. The 14-day mission, which included a rendezvous with Gemini 6, was completed successfully on 17 December 1965. The GT-7 vehicle was comprised of the two stage GLV-7 (similar to GLV-5) and the Gemini 7 spacecraft. The spacecraft was injected into an elliptical orbit having a perigee of 87 nautical miles and an apogee of 177.1 nautical miles. Significant events and tests for GLV-7 at ETR are summarized in Fig. 1-1.

ER 13227-7

1-2

IT) CD

OJ

Events

1

2

л g Ф > о

a

о и О
со ^

и

h V

0)

GLV-7 on dock, ETR Erection of GLV-7
Р

N

О)

I

0

Subsystem reverification ( Pre -spacecraft mate verif Spacecraft electrical mate

W

:

P

' -

I

-

ER 13227-7

f. -^ • 4

---

— И

Electrical integrated valid

Joint guidance and control Joint combined systems te

GLV propellant tanking tes
Spacecraft mechanical ma1

Simulated flight test (SFT) Launch

с -

•4

Г--. P -

.-..

•-*

'• .

л ^

0

ч и
С J

t-

X

'

.

Г)

•-

II-1

П. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE A. 1. Orbit Insertion Gemini Launch Vehicle No. 7 (GLV-7) performed as predicted and inserted the Gemini 7 spacecraft into earth orbit well within the allowable tolerance limits. A comparison of the predicted and observed insertion conditions is given in Table II-l. In this table and in all succeeding references to a predicted (nominal) trajectory, the data have been obtained from the GLV-7 45-day prelaunch report (Ref. 16), updated to reflect a spacecraft weight of 8069 pounds (liftoff spacecraft weight--8085 pounds), T-l hour wind and atmosphere data, and the -1. 64% pitch and -1. 69% roll programmer biases. The observed trajectory parameters are those derived by the Martin Company from the final GE Mod III-G 10 pps radar data. These data have been smoothed and corrected for both refraction errors and systematic biases by the General Electric Corporation before submittal to the Martin Company. TABLE П-l Comparison of Insertion Conditions at SECO + 20 Seconds Planned Nominal Altitude (naut mi) Inertia! velocity (fps) Inertial flight path angle (deg) 2. 87.106 25,806 -0.0004
GE Mod Ш-G

TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS

Observed Minus Planned +0.077
-17

Preliminary Tolerance +0.346 +30.38 +0.1251

87.183 25,789 0.0765

-0.0769

Derivation of Trajectory

Uncertainties

The expected maximum vehicle dispersions and RGS dispersions at BECO and at SECO + 20 seconds were obtained from Refs. 11 and 12, respectively. A root sum square (RSS) of these dispersions is termed the preliminary tolerance. After determination of the preliminary tolerance, the total tolerance may be computed by the arithmetic

ER 13227-7

II-2

addition of the preliminary tolerance to the 3-sigma data error of the instrumentation source being considered. Thus, Preliminary tolerance = V(vehicle dispersions) + (RGS dispersions) Total tolerance = preliminary tolerance + 3-sigma data error. The resulting preliminary tolerance is shown in Table II-2. Because the actual insertion conditions were within the preliminary tolerance, the data error estimates are not needed and, therefore, have been excluded from this report. 3. Geodetic and Weather Parameters Significant geodetic and weather parameters are shown in Table II-3. The winds were relatively strong, and atmospheric pressure and temperature were nearly standard. Winds were essentially sidewinds at very low altitudes, shifting to westerly (almost pure tail wind) direction above 3000 feet. 4. Flight Plan The primary objective for GLV-7 was to place the Gemini 7 spacecraft into an elliptical earth orbit with an 87-nautical mile perigee* and 183-nautical mile apogee. * Having achieved orbital insertion at 25, 806 fps, ** the spacecraft then separates from Stage II (with no net change in velocity) and coasts to the desired apogee. The following flight plan was employed to attain these desired conditions. A vertical rise is planned for the first 23.04 seconds following liftoff, during which time a programmed roll rate of 1.25 deg/sec is initiated to roll the vehicle from a pad orientation of 84. 908 degrees to the flight azimuth of 83.608 degrees. At this time, an open-loop pitch program is begun (via a three-step rate command) which terminates at 162. 56 seconds. The nominal commanded pitch rates and their times of application are as shown in Table II-4. Guidance commands from the radio guidance system (RGS) are initiated at liftoff + 168.35 seconds and continue until two seconds prior to *Relative to Complex 19. **Does not include the separation velocity imparted by the spacecraft.
I 2 9

L
ER 13227-7

ц-з

CO i-l С ГЧ CO 2 •tf . . ° ° *r* *m tw Ш f-

TJ<

со •^ tО
«-I
O3 • • CO CO CM

о ^ CO

Ю СО СЛ СО СО Ю
t-l »-«
^ч СО Ю 'l* СМ

.2
со
^

со с
я) м

° b- S СЛ " £• • CO O3 lO T}< .H rH ,-H

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

. о о со «п ю t- см со с- ем t-i о

.

DO ~ CJ

:
•i-i

(ч 0) О,

га
**<
^J

i
ТЗ

Q 3 ** .
СО О

i-i
О О О т}< ,-н .-и . СО ОЭ .-и .-1

en

i-i ем

СО

Ю

~
-4

tf .25 о,^ т1

о*

Q

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

1-н. ем. т*

сп о*

о*

2 0
J-,

СО

со .2^

° £ *"
Tj<
l> 00 iH

<* со
о
О
CO CO CM

^
• •
^t 1О • • • О . Ю С- СО СО Ю С- i-H ,-t ^ CM t-< О

ю

ем о оз со со •* ^< со ю гн со ю

T3
(1)

X3

'Jl

• со ел ю о)
.-) r-t «-I

.

Ed
Q""

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
CM CO 00

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

3
q и) Д

w J
О
д »™< Ю
CD

со
О
С- ^ СО СО ОЗ СМ -Ф ОЭ О5

со оз ю
СО СО t>

я
Ю
,-н
.-ч Ю
СО ^н
CO

^}*

S
^
Ю .-И
,-н СМ

л t> СО

.
rH O5

со
Ю

.

со о

т(* СО

со

DO (ч 0)

1
Ш ТЗ *•"

1

со ем ем со со ю
i i

,-н Ю С- t~

...

Ю

см о
rj«

1—I

^

t- о о

о
i

.

p и
h 0) ^ Ю

'So

'So
со
ТЗ
OJ

^*
и

о .. . "• I
Я)
0]

IJ

1

1
ри
со о
b

'о ^
га Ъ
*•".„«"

+J Т^

*^ ^5 "Йо
и
^>
°

f-l га-

Я

С

х-х ^^

"Г" 'д

^

се
3 X!

СО

vti

И

."и

*U

со vii
-я ^> ^
сб

О !Й _S* -м СО ^ О. ТЗ о -jj ТЗ +5 ем > С •Я ™ 0 0) •£ О !tj |—1 w О Ш ^ СЮ ^

X о) *-; Ч ^ •^ ш3 а
i *~* ш -i-"

rH

•a и
» 8» с S а ё С J3 та сН И

I)

«2
Pu
FH 0)

Сч С и ' ТЗ "ей СМ 0 .2 СО СО И -3 J j O - ' - ' C Q C n S - ' - ' +

g is

S "

•- 5 "•

°

2 2 ^

о

О с о ° & & | cd §
Сч О «д

.
^ и
от

riHOtSouOiS
PQ

.!н cu £ ь t, ^ и EH б £ О U О £

£ g

-*-" ^ '^ ГЗ д Ш •"

о 0

+-• со ю ^. 0 0

L " Св ^ ?ч ^ i тз ^3 со со С .3

H

з 0

t" ft

I

ER 13227-7

II-4

TABLE П-3 Geographic and Weather Conditions at Launch Location Site Site coordinates: Latitude (deg) Longitude (deg) Pad orientation (deg) Weather Ambient pressure (psi) Ambient temperature (°F) Dew point (°P) Relative humidity (%) Surface wind: Speed (fps) Direction (deg) Winds aloft (max): Altitude (ft) Speed (fps) Direction (deg) Cloud cover Reference Coordinate System Type Origin Positive X-axis Positive Y-axis Positive Z-axis Reference ellipsoid Launch Initial flight azimuth (deg) Roll program (deg) 83.608 true azimuth
1.3 cw 16.9 340 72

Complex 19 28.507 N 80.554 W 84.908 true azimuth

14.736
68

43,500
176

258 true azimuth 0. 5 cumulus, base at 16, 000 ft

Martin reference coordinate system Center of launch ring, Complex 19 Downrange along flight azimuth tangent to ellipsoid To left of flight azimuth tangent to ellipsoid and _l_ X-axis Forms a right-handed orthogonal system Fischer

ER 13227-7

II-5

SECO; however, velocity cutoff computations continue to SECO. Between SECO and SECO + 20 seconds, the engine shutdown impulse continues to add velocity to the vehicle (approximately 84 fps), and the spacecraft is considered to be separated from the sustainer at SECO + 20 seconds, nominally. TABLE II-4 Planned GLV Pitch Program Program Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Rate (deg/sec) -0.709 -0.516 -0.235 Time from Liftoff (sec)

23. 04 to 88. 32 88.32 to 119.04 119.04 to 162. 56

A comparison of the planned and actual sequences of events is contained in Table II-5, and a profile of the GT-7 flight superimposed on the range planning map appears in Fig. II-1. 5. Trajectory Results

Analysis of the range data and Mod III radar data indicates that GLV-7 liftoff was normal and the vehicle flew close to the prescribed ascent trajectory throughout Stages I and II. The only significant deviations in the trajectory occurred in the first stage, where at BECO the vehicle was 741 feet high. Table H-6 contains a simplified reconstruction of the BECO conditions. This table lists the primary factors contributing to the pitch plane trajectory dispersions at BECO and summarizes the effect of each. Although the reconstructed BECO does not match the flight data quite as well as for previous Gemini flights, the differences are well within allowable tolerance limits. In the yaw plane the flight did not deviate significantly from the predicted trajectory; hence, a reconstruction was considered unnecessary. A comparison of the predicted nominal (with wind) trajectory with flight results is shown in Table II-7. Inspection of the various radar data indicates that the Mod III, MISTRAM and С-band radars were consistent at BECO. At insertion, however, MISTRAM produced the most accurate results. This is verified by the Bermuda' data which produced very similar values of velocity, altitude and flight path angle.

ER 13227-7

и-6
л

TABLE II-5 GT-7 Flight Events Summary

Measurement 0800/0801 FC B-10 2104 0356 0357 2101 0169 4421 4422 4423 0734 0734 0732 0732 0732 0728 0732 0732 0735 0741 0356 0357 0032 0502 0169 0855 0732 0740 0755/0756 0739 0777 0519 0522 0521 0799 0855 AB-03

Event Power transfer
MOCS T-0 87FS (T-0) Stage I S/A-1 MDTCPS make Stage I S / A - 2 MDTCPS make TCPS S/A-1 and S/A-2 Launch nuts First motion Shutdown lockout (backup) Liftoff Start roll program End roll program Start pitch program No. 1 Stop pitch program No. 1 Start pitch program No. 2 FCS gain change No. 1 Stop pitch program No. 2 Start pitch program No. 3 Staging enable (TARS discrete) IPS staging arm timer Stage I S/A-1 MDTCPS break Stage I S / A - 2 MDTCPS break 87FS /91FS (BECO) Start PC. rise Stage separation Stage II MDFJPS make Stop pitch program No. 3 RGS enable First guidance command Stage II shutdown enable Guidance SECO 91FS2 Shutdown valve relay Shutdown squib ASCO Stage II MDFJPS break Spacecraft separation

Time from Liftoff (sec) GMT (hr-min-sec) Actual Planned 1928:34.6 1930:00.09 :00. 190 :01. 137 :01.277 :01.403 :03. 51 :03. 584 :03.601 :03.702 :23.05 :24.09 :26. 64 1931:31.74 :31.74 :53. 30 1932:02.36 :02.36 :27.85 :28. 86
:39. 268 :39.276 :39. 311 :39.956 :40. 01 :40. 001 :45. 72 :45. 69 :52. 04 1935:20.03 :40. 704 :40. 714 :40. 711 :40. 742 :40. 767 :40. 869 1936:12.4 -89. 1 -3.61 -3.512 -2. 565 -2.425 -2.299 -0. 19 -0. 118 -0. 101
0

-89. -3.43 -3. 37 -2.27 -2. 27 -2. 20 -0.20 -0. 10 : 0. 10
0

19.35 20.39 22.94 88.04 88.04 109. 60 118.66 118.66 144. 15 145. 16 155. 566 155. 574 155. 609 156.254

19.44

20.48 23.04 88.32 88.32 110.00 119.04 119.04 144. 64 145.00 155.51 155.51 155.57 156.22 156.30 156.47 162. 56 162.56 168.35 317.44 338.43 338.45 338.47 338.47 338.48 338.75 358.45

156.31 156.299 162.02 161.99 168.34 316.33 337.002 337.012 337.009 337.040 337.065 337. 167 368.7

ER 13227-7

IAL
TABLE II-6 Reconstruction of GT-7 BECO Conditions
At (sec)

Ы-7

Д Altitude (ft)

AVelocity (fps)

ДУ (des)

Measured Parameters Thrust (+0. 264% = +868 Ib) Wind (T-l hr) Outage (45 lb)# (compared to nominal) PropeUant loading (+ 102 Ib) Inert weight (+ 146 Ib) Trend Indications Pitch programmer error (-1.46%)** Pitch engine misalignment (+0.07 deg) Specific impulse (+0. 253% « +0.70 sec) Pitch gyro drift (+5. 0 deg/hr) Apparent A's (A + B) Measured Д'з
---

-0. 25
--

+ 530

+ 0. 10 + 59 + 41 +2 - 11 -0.25 -0.02 -0.02
--

-2300 +765
--

+ 0.28 + 0.06
--

-340

-470 - 1030 + 370 + 700 - 1775 + 733

+4 + 10 + 19
-7

-0. 10 -0.25 + 0.05 + 0. 16 -0.33 -0.19

+ 0.26
--

+ 0.35

+ 117 + 145

+ 0.044

*Mean outage = 570 Ib, nominal outage = 452 Ib **Nominal = -1.64% (bias)

ER 13227-7

И-8

1 в
СП

«1
£
°>

с

s

И
+
CM

V

ci ° ~"
en en to -i< О to rf to -ч to со см со i-i ем ,o -to о ~* .

•о .

-*f CM

a

1 о
ю

-

"1
t1 00 ^H ^H CM ^н 1П CM CO

i
СО СМ Л 1 Ш СМ СО

CM ^ 1П —с.Ш Г—1 О» Ч" Ш 00 CO . О *-H 00 О С- CO С» Г-

. со -о

о CO
in in ем о со -н . i

.00

«СП

.т <*

.СО

-'
1 1 1 1

j с а

t _ " . - а 1ПО О CO CM — 1 i-H rf i4 CM ч 1П CM CO

Н «а Щ >-*
о
•-N СО СМ Ш О Ю СМ СО N N

to CO en .00 о с- со en to to со со о to •-! CM in -t- • • -en
1C CM

<° en
• CO 1 -" 0 1 CO

-н см to in со со . о en in со со со о . in ю см .со -н .
-[ .

CO

00 rl .i-l

t- to

• 1 1

: -

X

О

: -

to
CO ^ О to -H CM ,O .to О >-i .

SH О)

.
en со о en со
, СМ 00 i CO

а м
to .in to en

rH

о
о со с- to со со о

ш ю со ою .-н •
CO 1

О

TABL

TD

И О
in о о со CM -^ ^н
гн tH CM -H in CM CO 1 CO :

en О
со см ш о in см со

. f- . t~ . ^ 1П Г- « СП О СП .СО 1П Л СМ . СО ч .

"° "м О to в) в о с 2 ** ч

тз
0)

с
in to in .en
Ю -^ тг . . .in 1П СП О СО »-l r~t i-H-н СП СМ -н in СМ СО • CM Tf 1 Л 0 CO

о «со to со •* о о ч со .to •* ч . t- in .
1 .
СО СМ Ю

CM CO CO

. СП Гin to to en ^j* .со •Ф to to о ч со . •^< о см о см со см
1 Ю СМ СО

О ч

ё
«

0

to
0)
01 Ц) IV

tb

г §
ECO Time from liftoff (sec) Inertial velocity (fps) Altitude (ft) Inertial flight path angl Ground range (naut mi) Geocentric radius (ft) Down -range position, X Cross-range position. Vertical position, Zp (

"* л to
Cross-range velocity, ^ Vertical velocity, Z (

&
Down-range velocity.X

"ел
Time from liftoff (sec) Inertial velocity (fps) Altitude (ft) Inertial flight path angl Ground range (naut mi) Geocentric radius (ft) Down-range position, X Cross -range position. Vertical position, Z_ (

"ш о. -

>

w

ER 13227-7

Down-range velocity, X Cross-range velocity. Vertical velocity, ZF ( Yaw steering velocity. Biased yaw steering ve Yaw steering velocity.

3 £ ш ь.

*-* -2"

Performance Pai

!* "о > 5

П-9

Fig. ГГ-1. GT-7 Boost Fligit Path Profile

ER 13227-7

II-10

The actual, as well as the predicted, nominal trajectory is presented in graphical form in Figs. II-2 through 11-24. On these graphs, the nominal trajectory is that documented in Ref. 16 , updated to reflect a spacecraft weight of 8069 pounds (liftoff spacecraft weight = 8085 pounds), T-l hour winds and atmospheric data, and the - 1. 64% pitch and - 1. 69% roll programmer biases. The observed flight data were obtained from the Mod III-G 10 pps data, smoothed and corrected for refraction errors and systematic biases. Figures 11-25 and 11-26 describe the atmospheric and wind conditions existing at Cape Kennedy at the time of launch. A list of the primary tracking sources with the trajectory time interval covered by each is contained in Table II-8. 6. Look Angles

Upon initiation of closed-loop guidance at LO + 168. 34 seconds, the RGS commanded an initial pitch-down command of about 0. 16 deg/sec, lasting approximately 0. 5 second. Following this, a 2 deg/sec pitchdown command was issued for 1. 9 seconds to compensate for the slightly higher-than-nominal BECO condition. As shown in Fig. 11-20 the maneuver resulted in moderate negative angles of attack during this period. The maximum look angle in pitch (LAP) occurred at LO + 324 seconds when it attained a value of 21 degrees. This maximum value was well within the 40-degree boundary at that time as shown in Fig. 11-27. The corresponding look angle in yaw (LAY) was also within the established limitations (+ 7 degrees) as shown in Fig. II28. The maximum value of LAY was 4. 2 degrees, which occurred at BECO. 7. Maximum Dynamic Pressure

Due to the basically westerly winds which prevailed at altitude, the dynamic pressure environment through which the vehicle flew was reduced. The nominal (no wind) trajectory showed a maximum dynamic pressure of 749 psf, while the nominal (with wind) trajectory indicated 699 psf. The actual maximum value of 704. 5 psf occurred at a slightly lower altitude and Mach number than expected. Other trajectory parameters pertinent to the maximum dynamic pressure region are shown in Table II-9. 8. Angles of Attack and Sideslip Predicted and observed histories of angles of attack and sideslip during the ascent are shown in Figs. 11-12, 11-13, 11-20 and 11-21. The predicted values were obtained from a digital run utilizing wind and atmospheric information obtained from the 1330 EST Rawinsonde sounding. Observed angles of attack and sideslip were derived using the Mod III-G position and velocity information, IGS attitude data and the aforementioned weather data.

ER 13227-7

^шшиНЙУУ^
i !

1

II-11

<^R
В ECO (155. 609 sec)^
"' • I Predicted nominal wind run 81 -GT-7 (final)*' GE Mod III-G final flight data* / ~"~~"tt,--

to

f

\l Predicted BECO 1!) (155. 565 sec)

i

| *Includes Rawinsonde balloon data С ape Kennedy t30 EST, 4 December 1965

-

i -ТПл-гЗа

• •• '

с

*

."",*•" i'!-' • «'.

1

Ш
• X

т
' n

ff

\

!'.X;

^ '


_^Jie<e^i
* »• • •* » •

;trf*№
л^*Ч
Lu ' a k!V" I

.»»«-.

i

0

:
•'. ;|
:

-"... 1

:'.' .

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. II-2. Inertial Velocity Versus Time: Stage I Flight

.
ER 13227-7

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)* GE Mod III-G final flight data*

Rawinsonde balloon Cape Kennedy

80 90 100 Time from Liftoff (sec)

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Fig. II-3.

Inertial Flight Path Angle Versus Time:

Stage I Flight

щщцщтщ yum WW*"
ER 13227-7

411 ui
240

kHMH THl

11-13

-2220

— Рг«
ЛЯлЯ

nomina win
TTT-/"
1

final

fli rrb\

• ... ,,...

1.

ц_„

•• •

-

:

180

I
..-.:-•

160

•; \.

140-

тз

0)

2
100'
^Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST 4 December 1965

so-:

40-

0

I
Time from Liftoff (sec)

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Fig. Il-k.

Altitude (h) Versus Time:

Stage I Flight

ER 13227-7

И-14

400

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)*
360

GE Mod Ш-G final flight data*

320

. •

* Includes Rawinsonde balloon pe Kennedy Predicted BECO (155. 565 sec)

280

240
'

200
P .

160

120

110

120

130

140

150

160

Time from Liftoff (sec) Pig. II-5. Downrange Position Coordinate (XF) Versus Time: Stage I flight

ER 13227-7

AL

•Predicted nominal wind run81-GT-7 (final)* •GE Mod III-G final flight data*

01 0)

с

о
i i

: ^Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965 |

:
tn о

^vviTr.'Tirr.T,? ' :*4~ •

t^TTTtrrs'.Trvr: '.Cinf •*>•'>*•*•

'

:

ад
из

ш


.
Ее И
3 0

3j (155. 56E

,•

-5

Т +. r

- : '••}. — 1

::

!/:

7

10

20

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

ISO

170

180

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. II-6. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (T ) Versus Time: Stage I Flight

ER 13227-7

II-16

I
Ш мшнн
320

ШИШ,
Predicted nominal wind run81-GT-7 (final)*

280

GE Mod III-G final flight data* 155.609 sec) *Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

240

200

Predicted BECO (155.565 sec)

d
•'-• •-

J о •

160

£i
•:

120

I I • I -

70 80 90 Time from Liftoff (sec)

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Fig. II-7-

Vertical Position Coordinate (ZF) Versus Time: Stage I Flight

ER 13227-7

L

"-17

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)*] GE Mod III-G final night data*

''Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy

».»*••:

.

120

130

140

150

170

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. II-8. Mach Number (M) Versus Time: Stage I Flight

I

ER 13227-7

.

II-18

-

I

i I il II IMf I III

I

-I
1000

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)
900

GE Mod III-G final night data'*

*Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

ТТГГ1

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. II-9. Dynamic Pressure (q.) Versus Time: Stage I Flight

-

ER 13227-7

TIAL

И-19

30

•Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)* GE Mod Ш-G final flight data*

\
х X)
2(

«Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

к

•;aBECO 1(155.609 sec)

Predicted BECO (155.565 sec)

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. 11-10. Axial Force Versus Time: Stage I Flight

_ not *НЛЯ *,

iUXMhv ТНГ

11-20

^

Ш

U_

И!^^
Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final) GE Mod III-G final flight data* . (155.609 sec)

| Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

Predicted BECO (155.565 sec)

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

Time from Liftoff (sec)

Fig. 11-11. Aerodynamic Heating Indicator Versus Time: • * * * * *

Stage I Flight

ER 13227-7

Г ПИ СИ ии!

•••••••• •

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)* GE Mod III-G final flight data

*Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965 BECO (155. 609 sec)

Predicted BECO (155.565 sec)

-40

70

80 90 100 Time from Liftoff (sec)

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Pig. 11-12.

Stage I Angle of Attack History

L
ER 13227-7

11-22

"ч LI il ШММ'ТП I

•""•'• -.•

;ГРЫ£<ГТ

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-8 (final)* GE Mod Ш-G final flight data

] *Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

-50P

-60й

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Time from Liftoff (sec)

Fig. 11-13.

Stage I Angle of Sideslip History

Л1

B^Ml?


L
ER 13227-7

g ^ ^ ^ ^
^ B l

/

П-23

SECO + 20 (357. 012 £

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)* GE Mod in-G final flight data*

i *Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

Ur—l

140

Ш

220
Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. II-lA. Resultant Inertial Velocity (V ) Versus Time: Stage II Flight

**fl|

m

ffli
ER 13227-7

Ll

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)* GE Mod Ш-G final flight data*

*Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)

Predicted SECO + 20 (358. 446 sec

220

240

260

280 300 320 Time from Liftoff (sec)

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

Fig. 11-15. Inertial Flight Path Angle (y,.) Versus Time: Stage II Flight
I

ER 13227-

п 25


Predicted SECO + 20 (358. 446 sec)

-

560

-•-••\\::\t-.\&r&-i

520

480

SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)
440

400 i
Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)* GE Mod III-G final flight data*

320

280

\/ \

240

200

160 IBS 120

bU

<iaU

,300

320

340

360

380

Time from Liftoff (sec)

Fig. 11-16.

Altitude Versus Time: Stage II Flight

^

•ml
ER 13227-7

II-26

^-

SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)

I
*Includes Rawinsonde balloon Cape Kennedy

-

:

-

'

Time from Liftoff (sec)

Fig. II-IT-

Downrange Position Coordinate (X_) Versus Time: Stage И Flight


ER 13227-7

11-27

+ 8r-

;

1
-41

-

L2

-

:

{'••

\ " ~ t " ~

-16
• Predicted nominal wind run • GE Mod III-G final
-20, to о U
;

ЁЖ
IHH^ - - -

flight

•Л

-24

-28 -

.j *Includes Hawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

SECO + 20 (357.012 sec)

Predicted SECO + 20 (358. 446 sec)

-40'

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280 300 320 Time from Liftoff (sec)

340

360

42J

180

Fig. 11-18. Cross-Range Position Coordinate (Y ) Versus Time:

Stage И Flight

ER 13227-7

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)* GE Mod III-G final flight data*

*Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

Predicted SECO + 20 (358. 446 sec)

SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300 320 340 Time from Liftoff (sec)
Fig. 11-19.

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

Vertical Position Coordinate (Zp) Versus Time:

Stage И

Flight

дпгвтот

ЩЩЬ|

ER 13227-7

РПМППСМТШ
''В^Ч'Ь

П-29

-2.

,п:
:'"\: \ \ •

щп.

.:

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)* GE Mod III-G final flight data and IGS gimbal data * [

.

-8
. '• ' ° : ' i. '. ; Л

if

:-

'' 'Л' ' - • '!;

'

Predicted SECO + 20 (358.446 sec)
'

:

'.

1

'' !

Г"!-- •' ':

д
и

• .:.!.

•"' Т'

• j"

"

-12

^ф-Т:';

'..

\

-.: :.' i 4-j:— i :— '-'.

~!' т
-16

т

:l.- К

i^jef?

3 *Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965
• :. |
..

"•••• ч. •: \
"• 1 j_- .;. .'

.::,,:
; •; . •

:о -

.

.

:

140

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

360

380

400

420

440

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. 11-20. Stage II Angle of Attack History

II-30

SECO + 20 (357. 012 вес)

Predicted SECO + 20 (358. 446 sec)

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)* GE Mod III-G final flight data

*Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

160

180

200

220

240 260 280 Time from Liftoff (sec)

300

320

340

360

Fig. II-21. Angle of Sideslip Versus Time: Stage II Flight

ER 13227-7

^тй
1UU

лл

^^
214.7
1.0

-г/

11-31

esu

-200

600

-250

214.6

0.5

25.80

"So
0

*-t
X

0) T3 01

со
0

~

1o

irf^ 0

S я • ^
CO

§
О

о-

6 550 - £• -300
П! С

и 214.5
CM

t o.o
<

X

- м 25.75 - »


01

ocentric Radiu

(X

Ground Range

& § Й
1 10 CO О

no 3 i ш
ID О

t—1

1
fe
'rt h 0) ^

" -50

500

и

-350

o> ° 214.4

" -0.5

Inertial Veloc 25.70 25.65

о

s:

CO

ь

01

6 >>

-inn

-

4. Fin—

-/inn —

914

Ч

-

-in

344

346

348

350

352

354

356

560

Time from Liftoff (sec)

Fig. П-22.

GE Mod III-G Flight Data from SBCO to SECO + 20 Seconds

| || I I I I H I III
ER 13227-7

'

П-32

•2-

L

400

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)*
300

GE Mod ni-G final flight data*

200

Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965
100

-•:•
:

.

-

I-100
I : _ J

1 I

SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec)

-200

-300

-400

-500

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. 11-23. Cross-Bange Velocity (Yp) Versus Time

ER 13227-7

^^П

mi

"^ff

33

Predicted nominal wind run 81-GT-7 (final)' GE Mod III-G final flight data*

50СГ

i 4 *Includes Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy iber 1965
г ' Т'

1

• Т-

;

,_'-•: ..[::•

IT"! .'

' 1—

: • ~ Predicted SECO + 20 (358. 446 sec) ^

SECO + 20 (357. 012 sec) Ш
-10

ю

60

во

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. 11-24. Yaw Steering Velocity (Vy) Versus Time

L
ER 13227-7

II-34

1 ':

ide balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

20 40 Wind Speed (kn)

80 250 290 330 Wind Azimuth (deg from north)

Fig. 11-25. Wind Speed and Azimuth Versus Altitude

ER 13227-7

II-35

110

...:,
100

ii

(Pressure Rawinsonde balloon data Cape Kennedy 1330 EST, 4 December 1965

••Temperature &

ЗОЕ

0

2

4

8 10 Pressure (psi)

12

;;

LG

-80
Fig. 11-26.

-60

-40 -20 Temperature (°C)

О

20

Ambient Temperature and Pressure Versus Altitude

ER 13227-7

H-36

Tl,

и

"

3 ,
a О

и
и;

ER 13227-7

II-37

(ЛУЧ)

ER 13227-7

П-38

TABLE Ы-8 Data Available for Trajectory Analysis Source AFETR Type MISTRAM position, velocity and acceleration FPQ-6 radar position, velocity and acceleration Station Valkaria I Eleuthera II MILA 19. 18 GBI 3. 18 Flight Coverage (sec from Range-0) + 55 to +375 + 170. 6 to +375 + 146.25 to 377. 65 + 170 to 380

GE

Mod III-G radar position, velocity Spacecraft IGS aspect parameters

Cape Kennedy

LO to 392

NASA-MSC

LO to 365

TABLE II-9 Trajectory Parameters at Maximum Dynamic Pressure Planned* (nominal) Dynamic pressure (psf) Time from liftoff (sec) Mach number Altitude (ft) Relative flight path angle (deg) Relative wind velocity (fps) Wind velocity (fps) Wind azimuth (deg from north) Angle of attack (deg) Angle of sideslip (deg) *Ref. 16, updated (see Table II-7) **Mod III-G 10 pps radar data Observed**

699
76.62
1. 53

704. 5 76.6 1. 56
40,250 50.45

39,514 50.39
1471 132 250
- 1.8

1495
141 250 -2. 5 0.8

1.7

ER 13227-7

И-39

В.

PAYLOAD CAPABILITY

Propellants remaining onboard after Stage II low level sensor uncover indicated that a burning time margin (BTM) of 2. 066 seconds existed to a command shutdown. The total propellant weight margin was 686 pounds, and the corresponding GLV payload capability was 8835 pounds. These values and the predicted nominal and minimum values appear in Fig. 11-29. The predicted capability curves were taken from the GLV-7 preflight report (Ref. 16), updated to reflect a spacecraft weight of 8069 pounds (liftoff spacecraft weight =8085 pounds), T-l hr wind and atmospheric data, and the - 1. 64% pitch and - 1. 69% roll programmer biases. The predicted propellant weight and burning time margins are based on the difference between these curves and the 8085-pound spacecraft weight. Real time payload predictions differed from the predictions shown in Fig. 11-29 because extrapolated actual propellant temperatures were used instead of preflight predicted propellant temperatures. The last payload prediction indicated that the minimum payload capability was 73 pounds more than the spacecraft weight, and the nominal payload capability was 658 pounds greater than the spacecraft weight at the predicted launch time. The actual (postflight reconstructed) GLV capability was 750 pounds greater than the spacecraft weight. C. STAGING

The staging sequence was normal, and physical stage separation occurred as planned. The time interval from staging signal (87FS-/91FS ) to start of Stage II engine chamber pressure (Pr ) rise was 0. 645 sec3
C

ond. This compares favorably with the nominal expected time of 0. 70 + 0. 08 second. Stage separation occurred 0. 06 second following start of Р„ rise. D. WEIGHT STATEMENT

Table 11-10 shows the GT-7 weight history from launch to orbital insertion. The postflight weight report (Ref. 10) provides the background data for this summary. The report includes a list of dry weight empty changes at ETR and shows a derivation of weight empty from the actual vehicle weighing. Other items covered include the derivation of burnout, BECO, SECO and shutdown weights; weight comparisons with the BLH data; and the center of gravity travel envelope as a function of burn time for the horizontal, vertical and lateral planes.

ER 13227-7

II-40

IAL
GT-7 Flight Test Values

(X

I?

8200

-iMinimum'H 'I .]. I I I ."'

8000

;:• :i

700

acecraft weight = 8085 It

Minimum* iJTTTl Г ;щтт?ггтттт*-

год -,

с Spacecraft weight = 8085 Ib

0.5 1.0 1.5 Time in Launch Window (hr)
Fig. 11-29. Payload Capability

2.0

ER 13227-7

П-41

TABLE II-10 GT-7 Weight Summary Weight (Ib) Step I Loaded weight Start and grain losses Trajectory liftoff weight Propellant consumed to BECO Coolant water Fuel bleed Weight at BECO Shutdown propellant Stage I burnout Stage II engine start Stage II liftoff Propellant consumed to SECO Ablative, covers and coolant water Stage II at SECO Shutdown propellant Weight at SECO + 20 seconds *Includes 686 Ib usable propellant 10,886
113 11

Step П 65,716 65,716

Step HI 8,085 8,085

Stage Total 346,237 342,578

272,436 -3,659 268,777 257,891

3

65,705 65,705
188

8,082 8,082 8,082

84,673 84,560 73,596

10,773 10,773

65,514 59,191
20

4

6,303
140 6,163

8,078 8,078

14,381* 14,241*

ER 13227-7

Ш-1

III. PROPULSION SYSTEM A. ENGINE SUBSYSTEM The Stages I and II engines operated satisfactorily throughout the flight, and all launch objectives were met. Stage I burning time was 159.121 seconds and shutdown was initiated by oxidizer exhaustion. Stage II engine operation was terminated by guidance command after 181.403 seconds of burning time. Several abnormalities occurred during the flight, none of which adversely affected engine performance. These were as follows: (1) The oxidizer pressurant pressure switch (OPPS) was actuated at 87FS, + 2.022 seconds (MOCS TQ + 2.122 sec), which was only 78 milliseconds short of an automatic shutdown command. (2) At 91FS., + 1.25 seconds, the Stage II engine chamber pressure (P ) data depicted a pressure spike of approximately 190 psi. C 3 1. Stage I Engine (YLR87-AJ-7, S/N 1002) a. Configuration and special procedures The GLV-7 Stage I engine configuration differed from the GLV-5 engine configuration in the following areas: (1) To satisfy interface requirements the oxidizer feed line installation was extended 0.14 inch. (2) The oxidizer pump discharge pressure fitting and the Natorq seal were replaced with a one-piece adapter to minimize the possibility of an oxidizer leak.

(3) The complete engine instrumentation system was thermally protected by providing an additional insulation wrap. This was the first vehicle to utilize the double wrap technique in an attempt to minimize flight temperature effects on engine instrumentation. Additional procedures instituted were: (1) The thrust chamber valve through-bolts were replaced at MartinBaltimore to minimize the possibility of an intergranular stress corrosion failure similar to that experienced on the Titan III program.

ER 13227-7

Ш-2

(2)

The GLV-7 preflight checkout procedures were identical to those of GLV-5. The necessary AGE was available for performing certain automatic electrical checks.

b. Start transient The S/A 1 and S/A 2 thrust chamber start transients were normal, as shown in Figs. III-l and III-2. S/A 2 start was slower than S/A 1, and after 70% thrust it was slower than previous Gemini flight experience. However, S/A 2 start was well within the range of Titan II experience. The make time for the oxidizer pressurant pressure switch (OPPS) during the start transient occurred at 87FS, + 2.022 seconds, within 0.078 second of initiating an automatic engine shutdown (see section II-A-l-f). Significant engine start parameters are presented in Table III-l. TABLE III-l Stage I Engine Start Parameters Parameter FS, to initial P rise (sec) P P P ignition spike (psia) step (psia) overshoot (psia)
S/A 1
S/A 2

0.775
700 460

0.798
665 415

None

None

с. Steady-state performance Stage I engine flight performance agreed closely with the preflight predictions. Flight integrated average performance parameters were within 0.4% of the preflight predicted. Engine performance was calculated from measured flight data with the Martin-Baltimore PRESTO program and used the Stage I thrust coefficient relationship as modified by Martin. The modification increased thrust and specific impulse approximately 3400 pounds and 2.0 seconds, respectively, above the values calculated with the Aerojet thrust coefficient relationship. The Martin-modified thrust coefficient was also used in the preflight predictions.

ER 13227-7

ш-з
1000

P
!

c

(Meas 0003)

l

800

+2.5
Time from 87FS. (sec) Fig. Ш-l.

+3.0

S/A 1 Start transient

^

MA^^I^

|^У^^^

с
ER 13227-7

^^^m

BE || || ii || ц щ^

+2.5

+3.0

Time from 87FS (sec) Fig. Ш-2. S/A 2 Start Transient

ER 13227-7

Ill-5

The Stage I engine average flight performance, integrated from liftoff to 87FS?, is compared with the preflight prediction in Table III-2. TABLE III-2 Steady-State Stage I Engine Performance Parameter Thrust, engine (Ib) Specific impulse, engine (sec) Mixture ratio, engine Oxidizer flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec) Fuel flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec) Preflight* Average 457,693 276.54 1.9284 1089.59 565.48 Flight* DifferAverage ence (%) 458,902 277.24 1.9209 1088.26 567.02 +0.26 +0.25
-0.39 -0.12

+0.27

^Martin-Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used. Engine performance calculated throughout Stage I flight is presented in Fig. III-3. The preflight prediction is also shown for comparison. Stage I engine flight performance calculated at the 87FS1 + 55 seconds time slice and corrected to standard inlet conditions is shown in Table III-3. This is compared to the acceptance tests and the predicted flight performance at standard inlet conditions and the nominal time as used in the preflight prediction. The predicted flight performance at standard conditions was obtained by modifying the nominal acceptance test data for a 4850-pound acceptance-to-flight thrust growth obtained from analysis of previous Titan II and GLV flights. TABLE III-3 Performance Corrected to Standard Inlet Conditions at 87FS, + 55 Seconds: Stage I Predicted Flight Acceptance (including 4850-lb Flight Test* thrust growth)* Performance* 429,200 259.95 434,050 259.95 431,278 260.18

Parameter Thrust, engine (Ib) Specific impulse, engine (sec)

ER 13227-7

III-6

Average Engine Performance Integrated from Liftoff to 87FS_

Symbol Ft(lb) I8pe<sec)
MR

Pre flight Prediction 457.693 276. 54
1. 9284

Flight Average 458. 902

277. 24
1.9209

e

Woo(lb/sec) W fo (lb/sec)

1089. 59

1088. 26

565. 48

567. 02

Preflight prediction О Flight performance
~ 600

•o -7-

fc S

580

fi 560

»

«

540

M Lift|off 87FS,

100

120

140

160

Time from 87FS. (вес)

Fig. Ш-3.

Stage I Engine Flight Performance

ER 13227-7

Ш-7

.

TABLE III-3 (continued) Predicted Flight Acceptance (including 4850-lb Flight Test* thrust growth)* Performance* 1.9465
1090. 42

Parameter Mixture ratio, engine Oxidizer flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec) Fuel flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec)

1. 9465
1102. 74 566. 99

1. 9342 1092.38

560.66

565. 24

* Martin- Baltimore modified thrust coefficient relationship used, d. Shutdown transient

Stage I engine shutdown was initiated by oxidizer exhaustion. Figures III-4 and III-5 show the S/A 1 and S/A 2 chamber pressure decays. All other engine parameters were normal for an oxidizer exhaustion shutdown. The engine thrust at staging was approximately 18, 000 pounds. Significant events during shutdown are presented in Table III-4. TABLE III-4 Stage I Engine Shutdown Parameters Parameter Time from P decay to 87FS0 (sec)
С &

S/A 1 1. 31 250

S/A 2 1. 03
225

P

с

at 87FS0 (psia) £

Time from FS9 to data dropout (sec) P at data dropout (psia) e. Engine malfunction detection system

0. 71
32

0. 71
30

The Stage I engine MDS operated satisfactorily and within the specified limits throughout the flight. Figures III-l and III-2 illustrate the response times and actuation levels of the malfunction detection thrust chamber pressure switches (MDTCPS) for S/A 1 and S/A 2,

ER 13227-7

Ill-8

A
1000

MDTCPS (M*ks 0356

+ 1.0

Time from 87FS- (sec)
Pig. III-4. S/A-1 Shutdown Transient

ER 13227-7

I

ш 9

-

.
.

.
'

.

P

C

(Meas 0004)

2

800

*v-

р*|гЛ«-»« Srt Чг/wVw-

.V"

vvw

>V*J

W vwv«.V,

*/

"
Staging blackout

"И ft

600

h

I)
.

-•.•„-•„..
400

1
-

--U

MDTCPS (Meas 0357)

1

200

'
Tt :

•Wv^ i • I

0 -2.0

-1.0

+1.0
Time from 87FS? (sec)
Pig. III-5. S/A 2 Shutdown Transient

xuu
^^^^ИИ "L

L
ER 13227-7

m -ю

respectively. Figures Ш-4 and Ш-5 illustrate the deactuation times and levels for S/A 1 and Si A 2, respectively. A summary of the operating characteristics of the switches is presented in Table III-5. TABLE Ш-5 Stage I MDTCPS Operation Actuation Pressure Time (psia) (sec) Deactuation Time Pressure (sec) (psia)

Switch

S/A 1
SI A 2

FS. + 0. 945 FS. + 1. 085

590 550

FS2 - 0. 045 FS0 - 0. 035
A

575 540

Specification requirements: Actuation Deactuation 540 to 600 psia 585 to 515 psia

f. Engine prelaunch malfunction detection system (PMDS) All PMDS switches actuated within the specified actuation times and pressures as shown in Table III-6. However, the OPPS actuated later than on previous Gemini flight. The OPPS is used to monitor the Stage I oxidizer autogenous system operation prior to release of the launch vehicle and to furnish a no-go signal to AGE if (1) the switch does not actuate by Tn + 2. 2 seconds or (2) the switch deactuates in the period from TQ + 2. 2 seconds to TCPS + 1. 8 seconds. On GLV-7, the OPPS actuated at 87FS. + 2. 022 seconds (TQ + 2. 122 seconds) as shown in Fig. Ш-6. The OPPS actuation times for GLV flights are tabulated in Table III-7.

ER 13227-7

500

>-'/-*• япяг
'

• * .

UL-ч-г,
.
.

^ймИС^

L

Ill-11

.

;

:


400

.

OPPS "make" pressure range

*.

:

а ~

3 ш
о"

•'

.

• ••

:

.

.

; • *
'

... • > • .
.
• ' .. . :. •

.

я• •

•'••

» • ••

.* *

.*.

"•. ••

ё

: .

2 S £ л
о

о" i-

i
300
'

.' ' .

" ' ' " • Oxi d i z e i • pressurant press»ire s witch (OPPS)
' (Meas 2102)"
1

"
• i

i .j . ..
i

/""•••. .. « •

**

.'

...

«

.

* .

-

S с

. .

-_•




-_

,
i
, ;

a §
-4-»


200



'

rt

3 со

-

£
ь ш

О)

Р(DPOI
-



»

,

L . --..
_•

:—
-т :


-

г
.

0

(Meas 0026)


.

. * -i

1 о
100

.
'•
«

• .

• • OPPS interro gallon

:--:•!.;:

'


ж

1

• .

• j .
.

• •.


'

• . •,


1

1

»

.*

°0

о

...

..*•••
• «. •

• • '"

'

.
.

• •

.

....

• • • •

....

+ 0.5

' + 1 .0

.
+ 2.5

+ 1.5

+ 2.0
Time from T-0 (sec)

з.о

-

-3.5

87FS,

nni VflWfl

Pig. HI-6.

S/A 2 Start Transient

ER 13227-7

Ш-12
TABLE Ш-6 Stage I PMDS Switch Operation Parameter Actuation time Measured (sec) 87FSj + 1. 213

ТС PS

OPPS

FPDPS

MOCS TO +
1.313

87FSj + 2. 022 MOCS TQ + 2. 122

STFSj + 0. 988 MOCS TQ + 1.988

Required (sec)* Actuation pressure Measured (psia) Required (psia)

Т +2.2

Т + 2. 2

Т + 2.2

**

405

**

600 to 640

360 to 445

46 to 79 (psia)

*The shutdown timers start from MOCS TQ;87FS1 is 70 to 100 milliseconds after T n . **Not instrumented. TABLE III-7 Summary of all GLV OPPS Actuation Times Vehicle
1
2

OPPS Actuation Time From T-0 (sec) From 87FS. (sec)

3
4 5 7

1. 817 1.675 1.625 1. 722 1. 768 2. 022

1. 942 1. 775 1. 717 1.816 1. 868 2. 122
Average = 1. 873 seconds from T-0 Average + За = 2. 305 seconds

Average = 1. 772 seconds from 87FSJ Average + За = 2. 192 seconds

ER 13227-7

Ill-13

A detailed discussion of the engine start transient will be necessary to fully explain the cause for the late actuation of the OPPS; however, in summary, the start cartridge performance has the greatest influence on engine start transients. For a given engine, on a run-to-run basis, the start cartridge burning rate and duration (which are different for every cartridge) determine the time and rate at which the engine bootstraps to steady-state conditions. The GLV-7 S/A 2 start transient (for example, chamber pressure buildup in the bootstrap corridor) was well within the Titan II/GLV experience, but on the lower side of the GLV experience. Factors, other than start cartridge performance, that affect the OPPS actuation time are: (1) Pressure setting of the OPPS switch (2) Pressure level within the autogenous system as governed by the back pressure orifice diameter (3) Rupture characteristics of the engine burst diaphragm (4) Overall steady-state pressure level within the engine. In addition to the late actuation of the OPPS, the oxidizer pressurant orifice inlet pressure (POPOI) remained within the specification limits for OPPS actuation (360 to 445 psia) until approximately Tn + 4 seconds, well beyond the time of OPPS interrogation. Had the switch actuating pressure been on the high side of the band instead of at 405 psia, an automatic shutdown signal would have been initiated. Following the GLV-7 flight, a change in the oxidizer pressurant back pressure orifice diameter from 0. 50 inch to 0. 46 inch was made on GLV-6. This change provided increased confidence that the OPPS would make within the critical time period and also increased the steady-state level of POPOI by approximately 80 psia. Investigation will continue in the area of start transients to better define the corrective actions for GLV-8 succeeding vehicles. 2. Stage II Engine (YLR 91-AJ-7, S/N 2008) a. Configuration and special procedures The GLV- 7 Stage II engine configuration was identical to that of GLV-5.

ER 13227-7

Ш-14

b.

Start transient

Evaluation of Stage II engine data (Fig. Ill-7) indicated a normal start transient except for a disturbance in chamber pressure (P ) at 91FSj + 1. 26 seconds. The remainder of the start transient was

normal. The initiation of the disturbance was followed by the characteristic ringing of the P measurement when incorporating a CEC C 3 transducer. These oscillations are similar to those normally experienced following the rapid chamber pressure rise of the ignition spike. was not observed in any other engine para3 meter. If the disturbance had been an actual indication of the pressure conditions in the combustion chamber, the pressure disturbance would have been transmitted hydraulically through the engine and would have been observed in the pump discharge pressures. There were no perturbations in any flight control or hydraulic actuator parameters at the time of the indicated P disturbance.
C

The disturbance in P

It is concluded that the pressure disturbance was not in the combustion chamber but was caused by ignition of propellants or vapors in the P instrumentation line. Similar start transient pressure disturbances occurred on Titan II flights N-22, N-24, N-28 and N-29 with no detrimental effect on the engine. Pressure disturbances have also been observed by Aerojet on ground tests during both the start transient and steady state. Significant engine start events are presented in Table III-8. TABLE III-8 Stage II Engine Start Parameters Parameter Flight Performance
0.64 635 490

PS, to initial PC rise (sec) 3
ignition spike (psia)
Ч

P
C

step (psia)
3

ER 13227-7

1000

a
и
-. :. -•

i

-;

U

^

MDFJPS (Meas 0855)

+2.0
Time from 91FS. (sec) Fig. HI-7_ - ^ ^ | _ ^ | м

+3.0

S/A 3 Start Transient

ER 13227-7

Ш-16

NTlAb—
TABLE III-8 (continued) Flight Performance *Not available

Parameter P overshoot (psia) FS. to P
C

disturbance (sec)

1. 26 187

3

P
C

disturbance (psid)

3

*Staging blackout period. c. Steady-state performance

Stage II engine steady-state flight performance was satisfactory throughout flight and agreed closely with preflight predictions. The average Stage П engine performance integrated over steady-state operation (from FS. + 1 . 2 seconds to 91FS9) is compared to the preflight prediction in Table III-9. TABLE Ш-9 Predicted and Average Stage II Engine Performance Preflight Predicted Average 101,979 313.63 Flight Average Difference (%)

Parameter Thrust, chamber (Ib) Specific impulse, engine (sec) Mixture ratio, engine OxLdizer flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec) Fuel flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec)

102, 888 313. 24
1. 7785

+0. 89 -0. 12 +0. 93 +1.35
+0.43

1. 7621
207.61

210. 41 118. 05

117. 55

The engine flight performance calculated with the Martin PRESTO program is shown in Fig. Ш-8 as a function of time from 91FSr The preflight prediction is also presented for comparison.

_

illlllllUPI
ER 13227-7

^ ^ » ^ ^

^CONFIDENTIAL

IIb17

-17-I

w^*
:

104
o

о о о о о о о о о о о оооо
——
F

102

c

,

98
.

Average Engine Performance Integrated from First Steady-State to 91FS9

96 sp
Symbol Fc(lb

Preflight Prediction 101979

315 1-5 о g
и ел -

Flight Average 102888

I rt

94

5 О О О О О 0~ё!Го О G О (Ь €
S2

310 305
300

О

о?"

4(sec)
MRe
W oo (lb/sec) W f o (lb/sec)

313. 63 1. 7621
207.61

313. 24
1. 7785

м

210. 41 118. 05

Ф

о 1.85 "-• 1.80
1.75
: С

1 --

117. 55

I

.

1.70

215,- с1 W
' :

210 205

<S*>GGOGOQ<DOO
— Preflight prediction О Flight performance

и

125 ,- тз

•:

E
200 195

120 115
--


Ll
_
О) N

190

110

D

105 h О
:,

X

100 I—

о
91FS,

20

во

100

120

140

160

180

200

1 -

Time from 91FS1 (sec)

Fig. III-8.

Stage II Engine Flight Performance

ER 13227-7

Ill-18

Engine flight performance corrected to standard inlet conditions at the 91FS- + 55 second time slice is shown in Table HI-10. This is compared with acceptance test and the predicted flight performance at standard inlet conditions and the nominal time as used in the preflight prediction. The predicted flight performance at standard inlet conditions was obtained by adjusting the nominal acceptance test data for a 900-pound acceptance-to-flight thrust growth obtained from analyses of previous Titan II and GLV flights. TABLE III-10 Stage II Engine Performance Corrected to Standard Inlet Conditions at 91FS1 + 55 Seconds Acceptance Test . Predicted Flight (including 900- Ib thrust growth) 101,283 Flight Performance 103,085

Parameter Thrust, chamber (Ib) Specific impulse, engine (sec) Mixture ratio, engine Oxidizer flow rate, overboard (Ib/sec) Fuel flow rate overboard (Ib/sec)

100, 383 312. 72
1. 8039

312. 72
1.8039

312. 75
1. 8040

206. 59
114.31

208. 54
115.34

212. 23
117.38

d. Shutdown transient Stage II engine shutdown was initiated by a guidance command after 181. 4 seconds of burn time. The calculated shutdown impulse from 91FS£i to 91FS& + 20 seconds was 37, 177 Ib-sec; predicted impulse was 0 0 37, 000 + 7000 Ib-sec. The impulse obtained from the + 10 g accelerdata, and illustrated by the P C decay in Fig. III-9, was 25,658 Ib-sec, 3 using an average spacecraft/Stage II weight of 14, 325 pounds. This was for the time interval from 91FS2 to 91FS? + 0. 631 second. Impulse from 91FS2 + 0. 631 second to 91FS2 + 20 seconds was 11, 519 Ibsec, utilizing the + 0. 5 g accelerometer data and an average weight of 14, 257 pounds. Tbis thrust tailoff is illustrated in Fig. Ill-10.

ER 13227-7

1000

MDFJPS (Meas 0855)

-1.0
Time from 91FS? (sec)

+1.0
Fig. III-9.
ш

+2.0
S/A 3 Shutdown Transient

^^И1

^

L
ER 13227-7

'
5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Time from 91FS2 (sec) Fig. IH-10. Stage П Engine Thrust Tail-Off

ER 13227-7

Ш-21

The time of zero thrust occurred at approximately 91FS9 + 26. 0 seconds. Thrust at SECO + 20 seconds was estimated at 40 pounds, within the specified maximum of 60 pounds. e. Engine malfunction detection systems

The Stage II engine MDS operated satisfactorily throughout flight. Figures III-7 and III-9 illustrate the response times and chamber pressure correlation during the start and shutdown transients, respectively, of the malfunction detection fuel injector pressure switches (MDFJPS). The fuel injector pressure is not instrumented and, therefore, is not available. A summary of the significant switch parameters is presented in Table III-11. TABLE III-11 Stage II MDFJPS Operation Parameter Actuation time (sec) P at actuation (psia) 91FS..+ 0.690 Invalid 91FS2 + 0. 155
460

Deactuation time (sec) P
с

at deactuation (psia)

Ш-22

В. 1. Propellant Loading a.

PROPELLANT SUBSYSTEM

Loading procedure

A special loading in addition to the launch loading was made for GT-7. The special loading was performed to correlate propellant tank volumes at the various sensor locations with previous tank calibration data. A flow verification test was performed prior to each loading to evaluate the readiness of the FTPS for the subsequent loading. The operational sequence is given in Table III-12. TABLE III-12 GT-7 Loading Summary
Operation Flow verification Description Fuel and oxidizer flow up to distribution area; forward through four flowmeters a. Stage II oxidizer through four flowmeters b. Dual (Stages I & II) oxidizer loading c. Stage II fuel through four flowmeters d. Stage I fuel through four flowmeters Flow up to distribution area; forward through four flowmeters Dual loading Date 11 November 1965

Special loading

16 November 1965

Prelaunch flow verification Launch loading

27 November 1965 3 & 4 December 1965

±ropeiiant loading for GT-7 was accomplished through the tandem flowmeter system installed after the launch of GT-5. No serious hardware problems occurred during any of the events leading up to the launch; however, two flowmeters were changed because out-of-tolerance results were obtained during the special loading test and the prelaunch flow verification. Stage I fuel meter S/N 202146 was removed from the system following the special loading and sent to Martin-Denver for check calibration and acceptance testing. The check calibration results verified that the meter was in calibration and verified results obtained during the special loading. Flowmeter S/N 199169, used on the Stage I fuel auxiliary position during the second flow verification test, was removed because its accuracy was questionable. Check calibration results showed a flowmeter error of 0. 1%. Flowmeter S/N 202146 replaced meter S/N 199169 in the Stage I fuel auxiliary position for the launch.

ER 13227-7

Ш-23

The tab runs used for launch loading were established by using the data contained in Table III-13, and the bias derived from the differences between Martin-Denver and Wyle calibration facilities. Checks of the two calibration facilities have established that, if a flowmeter (fuel or oxidizer) calibrated at Mar tin-Denver is assumed to be correct, then a corresponding Wyle-calibrated flowmeter will indicate about 0. 3% higher. Presently, it is not known which facility is more accurate; however, the launch loading was based on the assumption that the Martin-Denver calibrated flowmeters were correct. This, in effect, decreased the Wyle-calibrated flowmeter/tab run errors recorded during the special loadings by 0. 3% and established the least probability of payload loss. Many combinations of possible meter errors were considered before the decision was made to bias the loading tab runs as shown in Table III-14. The most significant cases evaluated were as follows: Case 1: Bias all Wyle meters by 0. 3% Wyle Oxidizer Wrong Right Right Fuel Wrong Right Wrong Martin- Denver Fuel Right Wrong Right Payload Change

0
+44 -15

Case 2: Bias no data (average raw results) Wyle Oxidizer Right Wrong Right Fuel Right Wrong Right Martin- Denver Fuel Right Right Wrong Payload Change

0 -52 -4

In general, Case 1 is more desirable than Case 2. A graphic display of the flowmeter-to-tab run comparison is shown in Figs. Ill-11 and III-12. In each figure, the data are referenced to the tank calibration made at Denver (which is synonymous to the special loading tab run). The data for Wyle meters are not corrected for the difference between Denver and Wyle facilities.

CONFIDENT!
ER 13227-7

Ш-24

•|AL
йеД-г Ь 1з * s S
^"
22
да да

2

*"

о

< Jb

Ц
5о~ +l
?1

ш а

™"5|
о
•* Ч" CM
? ?

5 -о Ь b"-' 01 С Ш
О ео г- r-

o^ см о 2
сч
ОО 0

с 5'

Я *

О

o о оо

slii ?+
ем 05 t- ю

тГ СО О Л

г- о ^ о

8 5 ? ? + +

+ ? ?? ?¥ ° ?

:•?£

.: — — -:
3

alii
CM 00
ПЭТ Ю Ш

ai.
эт со
N
S S

2^
СО
Ю

со о ю см ем

о о
S см

33
ем

5
33
СО со

:
H

rt

с
2^ •л (2 и
>-Q^Q

•§ь
N —

с

£Q £Q ££

И

^^

^

££

& а S Q & %

£ S

рр <
__
t>0 d

;- V

" "яа
~~ ЯЯ

V

tn

-"-• ая аа « » я а « « а а

" —:
• •

Ё о

v
»,
^ Ф ^ TJ.rr ^

a. o
^
^ TT •*

тР -ф -ч*

в =
ssss
0 ^

5= 52 * *

to О

5 "
206362 202146
00 C-

Л СП ^. ^н

см

ем

*
204278 206361

£ °
Ч"

•ч*

л
оо ем еч

о ооо

CO -H CO CM

CO -H

^

^

OS 05 СТ> Oi

и


Stage II oxidizer (through 4 mete
-

rt

а

0)
3 т»<

Stage I oxidizer

Stage I oxidizer (dual loaded)

0)

Stage II oxidizer

199168 199167 206360 202164

z

о
^f
*0)
3

л
3 ел 3 и
M'd
0) м

... и

а§
ЬО t.
Ш

а 2

I

с За
Л V

If

о
А

Q

ER 13227-7

III-25

TABLE III-14 GT-7 Launch Loading Tab Run Correction Special Loading Average Error Between Flowmeter and Special Loading Tab Run (%) Bias to Account for Wyle Meters in System for Special Loading (%)
-0. 15 -0. 15 -0. 30 -0. 30

Tank Stage I fuel Stage II fuel Stage I oxidizer Stage II oxidizer

Correction to Original Tank Calibration Tab Run for Launch (%)
-0. 26 -0. 61 -0. 06 -0. 32

-0. 11 -0. 46
+0. 24 +0. 62

The sequence of launch propellant loading events appears in Table III-15. TABLE III-15 GT-7 Propellant Loading Schedule Stage I Oxidizer (3 Dec 1965)
2145 2210

Event Start prechill (EST) Start load (EST) Hi-lite (EST) Load complete (EST)

Stage II Oxidizer (3 Dec 1965)
2145 2210

Stage I Fuel (4 Dec 1965) 0006 0030
0124 0134

Stage II Fuel (4 Dec 1965) 0006 0030
0102 0107

2340 2355

2248 2307

Mission loads for the oxidizer tanks of both stages were obtained by using the K-factor ratio technique. This was in accord with a Martin Company/SSD agreement that an oxidizer flowmeter tab run error of more than +0. 1% at hi-lite would constitute an out-of-tolerance condition. b. Total propellant loads Total mission loads for the launch, as determined from flowmeters, are shown in Table III-16. The flowmeter totalizer readings were

ER 13227-7

III-2 6

Data are corrected for actual flow rates and represent the percent error of the flow meter result at hi-lite from the original tank calibration data.

Stage I Launch Special loading Launch

Stage П Special loading

" °'

8

199, 168

-г 0.8

-0.7 -0.6 199, 167 -0.5
- 0.4
- 0. 3 i • • , -0.2 • Launch tab shift '

-"О. 7 -0.6 ••
- 0.5

-199,168 -206,360

•199, 167 -202, 164

ь 0.4
r^ \'- - 0.3

°0°

161

°06 360 202, 164

- 0.2 - 0.1 -0

206, 360

- 0. 1 - 0
Launch | tab shift
r

^, '""I --0. 1

--о. i
--0.2

--0.2
Note: All meters are Wylie calibrated

Fig. III-ll.

GLV-7 Loading Summary--Oxidizer

« И Р Н Ш Н Я Р
ER 13227-7

Ш-27

Data are corrected for actual flow rates and represent the percent error of the flowmeter result at hi-lite from the original tank calibration data.

Stage I Launch Special loading Launch

Stage II Special loading

-0.3
°06 36°W •

г 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.1 - 0 оо6 3 6 1 W

-0.2 -0.1
- 0 j

--0. 1 _^ -204 278D 9Qg
202.146D Launch .
+ oK oViift 1

--0. 1 351 VV •• --0.2 --0.3
9nd i ,n 7 toГ» 6V 6 fl и — •

1 - --0.2 |-r^v -— -202.146D --0.3

_-Q 4

=л0.4_

206.361W 206, 362 W

--0.5 ~0.6 --0. 7
Legend: W D Wylie calibration flowmeter Denver calibration flowmeter Fig. 111-12. GLV-7 Loading Summary--Fuel

-Ч. 5 -j --0.6 --0. 7

204, 278 D 202, 146 D.

tab shift

—u

x

ER 13227-7

Ш-28

corrected by subtracting propellant vaporized and propellant remaining in the fill lines. Oxidizer flowmeter loads reflect the use of the K-factor ratio method to obtain mission loads. Total propellant loads as determined by flight verification are also shown in Table III-16. The flight verification loads were calculated from a propellant inventory using actual level sensor uncover times and tank calibration data to determine flow rates. Total, integrated, in-flight, and overboard propellant consumptions were found using the engine analytical model. Engine start transient consumptions were derived from Aerojet summary reports. Other transient propellant consumptions and pressurization gas weights were calculated from flight data (Tables Щ-37 and Щ-38). The differences shown in Table III-16 indicate the comparison between preflight data and postflight verifications. TABLE Ш-16 Verification of Propellant Loads
Flow mete r Indicated Load (lb) 172.747* 38,479* 90,201 21,988 Flight Requested Load Verification Load (lb) (lb) 172,747 38,479
90, 181 21, 972

Tank Stage I oxidizer Stage II oxidizer Stage I fuel Stage II fuel

Difference Between Flight Verification and Flow meter Load (%) -0.125 +0.338 -0.041
-0. 141

172,531
38, 609 90, 164

21,957

*Mission load obtained by K-factor ratio technique.

c.

Propellant assay

Prelaunch data from the propellant assay laboratory report (sampled on F-4 day) for the oxidizer (nitrogen tetroxide) and fuel (50% hydrazine and 50% UDMH) are presented in Table III-17. Specification values are also listed. Good agreement is shown between the laboratory data and specification requirements. The density was determined by a pycnometer.

ER 13227-7

I
TABLE Ш-17 Propellant Assay Summary Fuel MIL-P-27402 (USAF) Hydrazine UDMH Test
51.4% 47. 8% 0.8% 99. 2%

III-29

Requirement
51 + 0.9% 46. 9% min 2. 0% max 98% min

н2о
Total N H + UDMH 2 4 Solids Particles on 50 mesh screen Density (gm/cc) at 77° F Oxidizer MIL-P-26539 (USAF) Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) Chloride as NOC1 H 9 O equivalent Solids Nonvolatile ash Particles on 50 mesh screen *Not reported. 2. Propellant Temperatures a. Weather

0. 12 mg/liter
0

25 mg/liter
0 --

0.9009 Test
99. 5% # 0. 06%

Requirement
99. 4% min -0.2%

0. 40 mg/liter
* *

10 mg/liter
-0

A comparison of the F-45 day prediction, the F~l day prediction and the actual weather for the 4 December launch of GT-7 appears in Table Ш-18. The F-45 day prediction is based on weather for a hot December through March day. The F~l day prediction was in good agreement with the actual weather except for the predicted wind speed, which was high.

ER 13227-7

ш-зо
-/^\KJ -.^^*"Ч Л^Я ^&*

Actual

юю
0 0

(-,

i о и —
тз fa 5

-, ~
Tl«minminmintOCO«OCOtpCDt-r-<O

~

^

-

-

G
oooooooooooooooo
т о •* •* ce^ooco^c-rfcocMtoeow—i-H—i*-*

in
Tt<

l fa

и

с § *О 0)

1
от •а

8.
со
^ч ~н ~н ^н

i fa
со

Actual

о
см

о

ю

о
jj Tf
Ю

fa
X
0

Actual
•^•^••tCOr-l—I C M I N O ' ^ C M I M I N O O C O

fa
V (-. 1
tl

1
и
Ы J PQ

и

н
*->

a т
СО -и

8.
О
СО Ч* 1<

fa

'о Ю Tf Р^ ? fa
tt>'^<INOa5t-U3O3^HCMIMCOlN'1<'fCM

^^Т^^СОСОСОТ^СОС-СОСОСЛСПСЛСЛ

Q
£
srature

0)

и <!

1
О

OJt-Tj<CDincOC>aC>JCO'HO5COCOO3O5rO О505О5[-ОЗ-^<СП(ОСО«5т><СОООСОЮ«Э

~ 0)

a 6 a> H fa .a
1

t-

со

СО

со

С-

t-

О

t-

—"

^-

л

И >> LI С.

Tt<

СОЮСООСОГ-ЮЧ'СПООО'^СМОО^

1 fa

«)«OCOtOCD«DtDCOr-t-t~C-t~t~t~t^

оэоэоэсяоосососооодшсог-сосос-

a P oooooooooooooooo o ОТ |o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O'HCMCOTj'ineDC-ОООЗО'-нСЧСОЧ'Ю f. W О 0 0 0 О

ER 13227-7

Ш-31

b.

Propellant loading temperatures

Table III-19 compares the requested propellant temperatures at the RSV (at start of loading) and the tank bottom probe (at hi-lite) with the actual propellant temperatures. TABLE Ш-19 Propellant Temperature Comparison--RSV and Tank Bottom Probe
RSV

Tank Bottom Probe

System Stage I fuel Stage II fuel Stage I oxidizer Stage II oxidizer

Requested
26.0
26.0 20.0 20.0

Actual
26.0 26.0
20.0 20.0

д
0 0 0 0

Requested
29.6
28,5 23.0 25.0

Actual
28.6 29.7
23.9 25.5

Д

-i.o
+ 1.2

+0.9 +0.5

The requested RSV temperatures were matched exactly, and tank bottom probe readings were within an acceptable range of accuracy. RSV and flowmeter temperatures recorded during loading are shown in Figs. Ш-13 and III-14. c. Liftoff temperatures

A comparison of predicted, actual and reconstructed propellant bulk temperatures is shown in Table Ш-20. TABLE Ш-20 Propellant Bulk Temperature Comparison System Stage I fuel Stage II fuel Stage I oxidizer Stage П oxidizer
F-45 Day Prediction 44.0 39.5 42.8 44.8 F-l Day Prediction 48.9 43.2 46.4 47.1

Actual
42.6 40.6 41. 1 44.4

Reconstructed
43.8 41.0 41.6 43.9

Actual bulk temperatures at liftoff were obtained from a computer program analysis of flight data. The position of the reconstructed temperatures in the mixture ratio band is shown in Figs. Ill-15 and III-16.

ER 13227-7

Ш-32

L

!
О
°

4>
£

"'

i .

со

со

(Л о) aanveaaduiaj.

1 чгчгк ITI А I
ER 13227-7

ш-зз

45-

m of event Time
.j Stage I load complete,. r> Resume 1„„,1 load Stage I fuel Hi-Lite • Stage II load complete r» Resume load — Stage II fuel Hi-Lite Resume load Start leak check Start loading—•Meas 4432 (Stage II flowmeter)

40

.

,._ ш

-

I I 8
: .

:. Meas 4431 _ (Stage I) flowmeter)

30

25

0100

Eastern Standard Time (hr) Fig. 331-14. Fuel Temperature During Loading

ER 13227-7

III-34

65PH

60

i

..

:F-45 days predicted : launch window
Z^ 50

.,
-

: л
D

-: •.

: I

з,

V- MR (maximum):-;.

10

25

j

25

30

35

40

45

50

Bulk Fuel Temperature (° F)

Pig. HI-15.

Propellent Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage I

ER 13227-7

Ш-35

F-45 days predicted launch window
0)
.-

h •

50

а
Н 45
N

1)

и

MR (maximum MR (pptim MR (minimum

- "25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Bulk Fuel Temperature (°F) Fig. III-16. Propellent Bulk Temperatures at Liftoff, Stage II

ER 13227-7

Ill-36

Figures П1-17 through П1-20 show a comparison of the F~l day temperature prediction, the reconstructed temperature and actual propellant probe temperatures during the countdown for each propellant tank. Correlation of actual, F~l day predicted, and reconstructed temperatures is good, which indicates that the analytical methods used in the propellant temperature monitoring operation are satisfactory. The difference between F-l day prediction and reconstruction is due to the lower-than-predicted wind speeds. The average wind speed was 3.9 knots lower than the average of the wind speeds used in the F-l day prediction. A polyethylene curtain was wrapped around the Stage II fuel tank at 0700 EST and was removed at 1300 EST. This information was included in the reconstruction, the computer program now having been modified to accept and operate on changes of this sort. d. Suction temperatures

The actual pump inlet temperatures were in good agreement with the predicted temperature profiles. These data are shown in Figs. Ш-21 through 111-24. The trends of the actual temperature curves are in good agreement with those predicted. The deviation may be ascribed to differences in predicted and actual weather and differences between optimum and T~0 temperatures. In Table Ш-21 a comparison is made between the suction and tank bottom probes at various times after FS,. TABLE 111-21 Propellant Temperature Comparison-Tank Bottom Probe and Pump Inlet Time (sec)

Delta Suction Probe Tank Bottom Probe Temperature Temperature Temperature
42.2 38.2
36.9 42.8

System Stage I fuel Stage П fuel Stage I oxidizer

FS+ 5 FS+ 25 FS+ 6

42.3 39.4
36.6 43. 1

-0. 1 -1.2 +0. 3
-0.3

Stage II oxidizer FS+ 22

^ГГЦ 1Г1ПП IT! ГI
ER 13227-7

Ш-37

\
о .о

§

-

.

id
Т!

TJ
О) ТЗ

..и

-

I
2 °ш о

о
[-.

л t
о

О 0)

i-i I I [

^I

:

I

(Ло)

ER 13227-7

Ill-38

'
; .

о

и

I
t3

Й

•,

ц id

'--a

I
f

с
Ь il l

p

I 1 1)

м

ER 13227-7

m-39

о о в

о
:

I
fi
*. : '

-

, • .

: -7

:

0 a
•• -•
h
.: 1
'

:

•"• О

и a -

•-: -•

1 !

.

о : -г
":

о с :

ER 13227-7

III-40

'

(Л о)

ER 13227-7

Ш-41

П П QActua L

(Me as 0 323) (Me as 0 324)

60

:.j

:

! О О OActua L

F-45 <Jay p redii :tion

3 • 3 '3 50

ill

"Т .-: ..'

• —в •

if!
Г /0

1

1
I
I

i ...._;.-.;-—...

~. "t.:.

,

1 t
40
'

^^ и а шш и : э • .•- ^ "в ш га с
f
ф ф ф О ф О

ifg -й-ит^
0 О 0 О

т§
с3
сз о
©0

jf & J

TtTra

) Q

Ф о сJ

(Э Q
;

'

э
Tank bottom probe
20 40 60
ТЧггю fVr>rn

3 ' FS,

80
Я7 T?Q

100
( согЛ

12U

140

160

Fig. 111-21.

Stage I Oxidizer Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0023 and 002k)

ER 13227-7

Ш-42

F-45 day prediction

-.,; :. ;;- :...!„:. ;;

~ OJ ' i
:

50
. г-Н)

>:;:.: ! ; '

1
:

1

:

!
X

HJIpi!
'. ::!!:•

;

" ••т; ;

§ 45' |Ч\—
э
{'

a

~,—*—л~~*

ш ф^-шШ-В
/ :
Ф

U':;'i__®
[ 9 :: Ф

°%& о о °
\
N

0 0 0 0 0 0 (Э О О О О О ^ '
:,.

У Q 0 0 0 * ° ^

Т Т1

: Tank bottom probe
. :!Гм'.. ::. г .::-.: • ::~

;

20
87FS,

Ю

(10

во

100

120

140

160

Time from 87FS1 (sec) Fig. HI-22. Stage I Fuel Pump Inlet Temperature (Meas 0013)

ER 13227-7

Ш-43

Г

г

....!..:.. ..:
:

Г!

О
::

i

~

и
•0

i
1

в
е
-^ .

а
Св "|

i
-

Ч—
1

2 ю 2 п< Ь \ -в , ?
i -г -

»

0

о ]
О
01
Р"Г--' •

i
е
1
1 : ! ~~1— т~- тг "~— т — '- —р —:—г|-—1 в -|
---J :—т4т—г"—f Г-1

о
О

!
:
J

г— ~

V
1

'

\
\ , \
в

о
X е;

Ьц

\


-t

1

:

о

В
н

\ у; о
\ ® \ О и

-

:

s

-

. ii ; ••
t>
: : С

е-0
G

"§ а
S

о
О
г>

3
л ^ л;
С!

е о

-:

.1

*

J?

:

1 1

*k^ ^}
Q
0 0
1

Е

tJ
Ш

10

!

'

•- • .

о
Ю

---'О --гГ'" « °
ю
^<

j

о
Tf

с/
с

ER 13227-7

111-44

Hit
.. 515 L ebi^-.-r'.'. j -„--.;„ .^. . t ' .:. i' :: ?. .:.' .|. .: • ! . . -~f-..: •

:

X Q
.::'.:; -1 _;.,- -_> { .; -^_ _i „^ : X\_

ш V
"V '

.

е В
о
;

i
. ..| •:. ; ; • ' ' ' - ! -"
:

:

" [ЩЩЩШЩРЩ :; .
^ V\ •
•; • г.\

2
1ГЧ

"*

S" 0
0 <D s

,: ; --. ]•• >: piiiiil •••.;-• ч - : ;.. Ф .'

. . . . Wm
. йИ

'•}'•• i

",

-j

'•'

{ '••'

0ш•" '

\'
-I - t '

.2 ЩШд_ШМ -5 ГЩвЩЩ;

с

'.':l:'--.l}

1
I
0 К
° JH .-н "(J & EH -p СЛ 03 ^ й

}•. -r~.i**7*::'-::i лгтггг

ЩИ

з


1 ;.:
-1 - I : : - ' ! . , ...,..,j

^ -S
:

1 a
^>
,;W;
;Г ^0...

\.Q

t
i ..••)., • , • • . : ; . .

& ъ
о
0 1
H

1 Т < fe
V0

S

Ю

--T.j^t-:;f;- ; p • : •

•-

S
о 1ч
""

0
s

. i
:

-:-" — • i
; v:

' \ о «в-

fi

|
И

ft

^_
0

0

g 1
л "•
^i-

s

; ! i о ! н'®И
S Ш
!

0)

'

^

H
ьо

i

i\

о :&

M

. i— ,— ;„

;
^ :

11 E

о Op;. ;L; [^ •!> i Q •5 1

__^ OJ
«

о •Ф

H H H • H

L_
i.
,

0
* л *v Й Ф
О •

О CD

is
A

:
Ю

w
со

ER 13227-7

Ш-45

3.

Propellant Feed System a. Feedline transients

The maximum transient pressures recorded at the pump inlet instrumentation bosses are listed in Table 111-22. TABLE III-22 Maximum Transient Pressures at Pump Inlet
At Pre valve Opening (psia)
No data

Measurement Stage I oxidizer (0017) Stage I fuel (0014) Stage II oxidizer (0510) Stage П f u e l (0507)

At Initial Pressure Wave (psia)
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

At Ignition (psia) 130
Negligible *

At TCV Closing (psia)
Negligible Negligible

Design Operating Pressure (psia)

215
55

44.0 75.0
Negligible

65
Negligible

260
80

*

*Not available due to telemetry staging blackout.

No data were available on the Stage I oxidizer prevalve opening pressure transient. To facilitate setting the ullage volume in the oxidizer standpipe, these valves were opened before telemetry recording was started. Ignition transient pressures were, in general, similar to those on GLV-4 and GLV-5 flights. Telemetry blackout normally experienced during Stage II ignition prevents obtaining data on sustainer engine ignition transients. b. Pump inlet suction pressures

Stages I and II static pressures at the suction measurement boss locations are shown in Figs. 111-25 through 111-28, which present the preflight predicted, postflight reconstructed, and best estimate of actual flight pressures. The postflight reconstructed curves are based on flight-measured values of ullage gas pressure, axial load factors, propellant temperatures, and propellant loadings. The Stage I oxidizer best estimate curve of the static suction pressures at the measurement boss (Meas 0017) consists of an average of the measured pressure and the two oxidizer standpipe pressures (Meas 0033 and 0034) adjusted to the Meas 0017 boss location. The Stage I fuel suction pressure best estimate at Meas 0014 boss location is an average of measured pressure and the two fuel accumulator pressures (Meas 0037 and 0038) adjusted to the Meas 0014 boss location. The Stage II oxidizer and fuel best estimate suction pressures are the pressures measured by Meas 0510 and 0507, respectively.

ER 13227-7

111-46

100

• Preflight prediction • Postflight reconstruction АЛА Best estimate of flight suction pressure

90

a о, ~ 80

-ш 1 £

01

70

60

50

о
87FS,

10

Ю

60

80

100 (sec)

120

140

160

Time from Fig. HI-25.

Stage I Oxidizer Suction Pressure (Meas 001?)

ER 13227-7

Ш-47

40.

36

Postflight reconstruction •АДД Best estimate of flight suction pressure

24

20
0
87FS
1

20

60

80

100 (sec)

120

140

160

Time from Fig. 111-26.

Stage I Fuel Suction Pressure (Meas OOlU)

ER 13227-7

Ш-48

:
1


г

в 0
-.
г

-

: -

В

от

ER 13227-7

Ш-49

:

: -1 i -

: :

: :

[

э

s
С tt

L

-•-

-

:

о

_

(Bisd)

ER 13227-7

Ш-50

_JJuil IIIULI '111ЯГ
1 )

X

и
|

•о с в
Ф О

«— | 2 £ -b 3i

-т CN CN

г г Г

'д г. И О* О.

stf
£^
CTJ

со • *
W N

*
со

S-

а V и
4

1
0)
N
•* г

OD

1)
с
ф О

•и с
с и л

8

1Й11
<—1

В% -о з со Д .2 U
-.
г-'

00

со ю
ф бе

со*

~* со
га ю со г-1
И
2 гЧ ?4-1

о ф
0 0

0) Л
0

QJ

Я a a
TJ 0 Ф £ Д TI Ф

TD 0)

/—\

0
С-1
г-Ч

С
\2у
•—1 (ч О «м

^J ^^

га о см
СО О О Ю

о ф
cd
•гЧ

С G С
СЛ

Ь «
С

CL

S-,
Чч

Я
*£ ^ fc '3
cd
-г л

л
'га а <м

i
« 0

со
ГЛ

СХ

ST

pq
см

гЧ

а, g
.-ч
00

О
г£
00

а

[-"

cd а а см о"
cd га

Рч »

IS
и с 5ф

II
5 -о

1 v
(ц 0) (ч

а
oi
со

и .S СО ЬО DJ

6*
п

О

• H

а
(т—Л

^ га ф
Ф 3

i
оо
со
OS*
СО СО

С

DJ01—'

?н рн .5 'z '^ га ^9 о* ^ Ф^
гН

[ -'
со

cd 5 о. •*

а2 g-g
ю

и

О

о
СЯ Ф

И
СО

Д
-^

ю
U ел
(со) (со)

с-

ь га

.

! со
<D

g-тз ™ с ЯД 'га ^ ем | etc с 'гасо*
(JJ

fe

«1 *ф

ф •—I

хз Д cd со


О
О)

•5 $ Ь > '

см

сCVJ

-5
0)

•1 тз о*
ф ф

3
43
с

Q

| 1
Н-1 ф

Я

N ф .,-. ЬОТЗ
СО О

Д Ф
ф

ф -гЧ

N

н
45 'И
cd ф 1 •- ч I СО «м
СЛТЗ

ш а
ф

Ни
со о

S3
З'Й
cd ф
СО «2

cd

00 :•-

ER 13227-7

Ill-51

Good agreement was obtained between predicted, measured, and reconstructed pressures at Stage I fuel and oxidizer and Stage II oxidizer measurement bosses. Stage II fuel measured and reconstructed pressures agree well but, due to lower tank gas pressure, they both differ from the prediction. c. NPSH supplied

The NPSH supplied at the engine turbopump inlets during the start and steady-state operation is shown in Table 111-23. 4. Propellant Utilization a. Level sensor uncover

Figures 111-29 and 111-30 show the predicted, actual and reconstructed level sensor uncover times for Stages I and II. Measured sensor uncovering times are also tabulated in Table 111-24. The relationship of the predicted to the actual times of sensor uncover reflects the higher-than predicted flow rates experienced on Stages I and II. Reconstructed level sensor uncover times show closer agreement to the actuals in most cases. The reconstructed times have been derived utilizing the propellant loadings reconstructed from flight conditions, ullage gas pressures, and propellant temperatures input to the propulsion system performance program. Slosh, as indicated by on and off signals at the time of level sensor uncovering, was not evident on this flight. All sensor uncoverings were clean. b. Best estimate level sensor uncover times

Table 111-25 contains the best estimate average level sensor uncover times for the GLV-7 flight. Also shown are the integrated average temperatures between level sensor uncoverings with the corresponding densities. The measured average uncover times shown in Table III-14 were decreased by 0. 058 second to allow for the built-in level sensor delay of 0. 033 second and modified for the PCM digital sampling rate of 0. 05 second by adding 0. 025 second. Table III-26 contains the level sensor volumes and delta volumes used in the level sensor flow rate analysis. The Stages I and II oxidizer and fuel high level sensor volumes were reconstructed to reflect the volume which was determined by calibration at Cape Kennedy using the propellant transfer and pressurization system. The Stages I and II oxidizer outage and shutdown level sensor volumes were calculated using the actual counts of flowmeter pulses recorded during the special loading.

ER 13227-7

Ш-52

.
,

см С.

-I

г

-

^ He u • l t
ч_Ч_7Г ER 13227-7

PWML

Ш-53

. со
t

~

со ч

.
.. : .

-4 -•
со
см со
^

—'
— t-Ч

е
2
сч

°

••
[
1 -

.
! ;• •: '

-

от

2 "™~Й
rt 0)

0)

in

С
.
со

в В -

a

-4

<
£i
—| ^
[2

•еА

С!

+J


С
0)

1 3 и
'

Н [

н t~
_ .. ^ _с-

о

1

S
£к
i

~~~

h ^га ё1
СЛ fe ц>

тз '43 <и и fe

со

з

>

^io

е s
b
С
-ч E-I
<0

>J

> ^
._.
0) ш

01 4) *• TS
£ ь
у

0 О

"

о =3 О (D

ч
ф
Covered'
j;

0

С

t,

8) Covered

Covered 1

Covered '•'.]

: Covered

Covered

. . * •

ТЗ

т
о
о ю
ш
0

QJ b


... _О5 1П

н
н

"^

-

OJ

>

и
т
п) 1
Т*


0

ю
1 Л 0 СП

Э)

и

i о

со
СП

а

.
: , 3

.

си

rt

- • со

—.

:• r

ю
-'• Ю

. t-

§
" !ч
О) N

S

~^о м (в <и

in о

§

• N

s

S
0

<и 7^

N

•3

.-"

X о

3

. и о м ьв
::-Т- 3

• •

о •а

5 з •- u>
АО
И

ed V

! in о ш
;

• 85
1 ?
.3

• .

": си

:Ю гё

S
Ю

. ш 5
С!

ас

.с '/:

3

ЗС cd


3 3

3

и
^

ь

ER 13227-7

Ill-54

t,
Л!
СИ

ф и
с с с
rt

Л s 3 Ф

': -

ф

ф

8 С rt Ф С rt Ф

Э с с rt rt Ф Ф J
г. d
rt Ф rt Ф

С
-t->

ф о о с

h

и и и и и и и и и и и и и и и

(Л ~-"

л .
D •а Q Q

С rt Ф

С rt Ф

с с
С Л Ф С rt Ф

a §

Н
И

0 -м Ф in Ф ^ "п ^ Ф 0) Л

нз
•Г.:

n i

s

•a
;.-' -•?i

Ф оН CJ *£ с *5 > -'

м
И

ш
1C

ц i
til " OJ И W

г
00

и
и -•-.
:" .—
Г


00

т.
prj X :: -г М
х

-•-•-

-:' -•-.

и

': Ф Н
г
- -

г и э .—
И

-:

I

и

W а PQ •/

н
t-н
>*

а
г^ [н
ГИ

- ^

I 1

<и 2
• н О

ю ю «t ю in ю ю со со -•• со со со ^ т^Н оо о о •- о о оо оо •ф

оо
СО ^н

со со
со со со
Ю
О5

О ч~'


со оз
05 05

со со ем со
со со

со со см со

• -

а . -

&
С С

£3

.-"
О5 ОЗ О5 О5

со со см со

со со см со

оо со см со

оо со см со

к я к
£

in оо оо in о ю M
•* со со ю со со оо ю со

со

Ю 1> 0

-ч ОЭ

со
0

-•со
ОЗ

3

-•

ю ю 05 05

со оз

со оз

oxidizer shutdo\ oxidizer outage jxidizer outage oxidizer outage

jxidizer outage

oxidizer shutdov лде! shutdown 'uel shutdown oxidizer high fuel outage
OJD

': ' . -

jxidizer high

ф

Sensor

51 и

л
3
г-1

л
ф 3

OJO

ф

: : •

о о

3
1—1

ф 3

ьн

1—1

>—1

ф
OJO

Ф

rt 0) Oj ОТ ОТ ОТ а} Ф f

OJO

Ф

OJO

Я rt rt rt rt ОТ ОТ ОТ ОТ ОТ
со ю
CO O5

J

ф

OJO

ф

OJO

OJO

ф

ф

OJO

ал OJD OJO i Ed rt rt nj
:/;

.

ф

ф

н a• i —i i

a

1—1

t—1

t— 1

1—1

Q

ф ф ф ф OJO OJO UO OJO rt rt л rt

. 0

со от

от ОТ ОТ от от 1, от

со

•*
о
О
О

о о

О

0

л ю ю ю со ю -т •* ю о о 0 О in in ю 1П in in in in in in о о О 0 ~ 0 0 г 0 0 0 0 э о
Q

ем

со

О

О

CM

со en

с

CO

t-

Ю

О

ER 13227-7

fuel shutdown fuel shutdown fuel outage

_ OJO rt

Ill-55

ТЭ ТЗ С

си с о> а,

со
h

cd

a
<3 С 0) ^ г-н Cdг^н1/5 ш О X
C

? |l t ll
Ti о) ^ ьо 5
со *J J3 nj ti ю
J3 0) rn Cd

tf
с™1 чн -iH <н cd О
Л
CM t> -н t>

0)

T3 С CO 0)

2 -и
см со со о о о оэ tсо см оэ см оэ ю ел ю
>> *"

0)

I 2 CO

a *•"
°^ 4) Q


0>
i-H

Н и
. 0)
Tj<

••H CM •
^H CO •
О
<-Н

00 Ю •

CM О


CM
•—1

00 О) •

L О U

:

Q
rH

Tjt
CO
t-H
i—1

гн
«—*

CO

: и 13
h V г,

со

г;

ЕЙ
hn ^
•^«ю t—» со оосм f-нсо оо со coco coco coco юсо о" ^ со

г
cd Й 0) i-i

оН о *j DO ^^
cotCO

cot~
СО ОЭ


СЗ СО СО СМ СО

сою
t*co смсо t—

t-ю

о

h 3 cj

0>

СГ)

t^Oi

соо>

оо

I I s -^
0) M
T .
0)

^ ^T\

И —i

осм G)O
со со со со со со
coco

осм

w
_
1) -.J .-.
С С!
0) 0)
J 3 c d <
(4

I
**•

оэо)

coco

см
со coco coco

сою

емю

ю

0) 0 tuo U
Q) r-i г С > 0) < 0)

•-I Ю О Ю

•* см ю о*

(4 I

^ ^^^

0) СО DJO ЬВ
2 5 o j o *

О О ТЗ ТЗ

_,
? ?

JH

cd 4cd J J

0) ^ ТЗ m *• A

• й 5 Э Л 00

0 CO

И
м П

И
0> CO

с

рр
0) OJO cd
CO COCO COO5 ЮЮ ^ Ю CMCO ЮЮ CO COCO COCO

и
0 ) 0 ) 0) bBOJO OJO cdcd cd
CO

ТЗ ТЗ ТЗ i—i i—i r—I i—i I-H -F-I -гн -и ni 'Г!'Й'Г! 1 ) <U<U «I» X XX 3 33 О ООчнЧнЧнЧнЧн

i sst mi 111 til ц ii
-и -i-i

ofititi

Ш Ш О О Л О О DJODJOMCO-o-o DJDOJOT3T3 г , ь Л Й Й ^ 1 , - 2 - 3

?>.,нЗЗ

CUOI-^^HOO

tn ^^ OJO 0) •M

cd£

I-H

m'

x xx

з 33

33 о o o « 2 < 3 « S XX 83
0 ) 0 ) 1) OJOOJD OJO cdcd cd
COCO CO

33 ««

0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0) OJOQJO OJOOJ3 OJO cdcd cdcd cd

0 ) 0 ) 0)0) 0)0) OJOOJO OJOOJO OJObJO cdcd cdcd cdcd
COCO COCO COCO

а
0) CO

0) N

м .3

1—1 1-Н 1—1 1—1

2 1! 'd ^ о «21—1*"1 ° 1—
^
OO CM OOO3 ЮСО т}< ^t1'* О COt» TJ< Tt<Tj< ЮО rf if) ^I-H if Ю

со

So

CO Ю

«
T3

о оо о оо о оо о оо

оо ю юю ю юю юю юю оо о оо о оо оо оо

cd cd cd cd со со со со

0) 0) Ш 0) QJO OJO OJD OJO

cd h
Cj *""* I- *""*

cd

§

i—i

•— ZH нн I-H Ц > t—it— I I-H Mi— I t—I I-H M

— ьн О I-H > I-H I-H I-H ьнМ t—I M

I-H > i—it— I

;ONFIDENTIAL »
ER 13227-7

Ill-56

TABLE Ш-26 Averaged Tank Volumes at Level Sensor Locations Averaged Volumes, Stretch Included (ft 3 )
1708. 61
1670.31 38.30 1401.86 1335.80 66.06 284.27 261.95 22.32

Tank Stage I oxidizer

Sensor Hi -level Outage Hi -level

Delta Volumes (ft3)

Stage I fuel Outage Hi -level Stage П oxidizer Shutdown Hi -level Stage II fuel Outage с. Flow rates
18. 10 350. 15

332.05

Table 111-27 presents the predicted and the actual volumetric flow rates between level sensors. TABLE III-2 7 Propellant Volumetric Flow Rate Tank Stage Stage Stage Stage I oxidizer I fuel II oxidizer II fuel Predicted (ft3 /sec) 11.8630 9.9136 2.259 2.057 Actual (ft3 /sec) 11.820 9.923 2.286 2.075

d. Mixture ratio Table 111-28 shows the Stages I and П predicted and actual engine mixture ratios between level sensors for GLV-7.

I

ER 13227-7

Ill-57

TABLE Ш-28 Engine Mixture Ratio System Stage I Stage II Predicted Mixture Ratio (Ref. 16) 1.9284
1. 7621

Actual Mixture Ratio 1.9223 1. 7702

Sensitivity coefficients applied to the delta between the predicted and actual variations in average suction pressure and temperature between sensor uncoverings yield the infprmation shown in Table 111-29. TABLE Ш-29 Mixture Ratio Pressure and Temperature Delta Mixture Pressure Ratio Temperature (OF) (psi) (pressure)
+2.5 + 1.5

System Stage I oxidizer Stage I fuel

Delta Mixture Ratio (temp) +0.004307 -0.002748

Delta Mixture Ratio (total) +0.006450 -0.005541

+0.002143 -0.002793 -0.000650

-3.5 -3.2 --1.7 +0.3 —

Total Stage I Stage П oxidizer Stage II fuel
-0.5 -2.0

+0.001559 +0.000909 +0.002420 +0.001250

-0.001170 +0.003936 +0.002766

-0.000256 +0.003680 +0.002164 +0.004930

Total Stage II

By applying the total delta mixture ratio shown in Table 111-29 to the predicted (F-45 day) mixture ratios, the run-to-run variation can be calculated. The mixture ratio deviations along with the allowable runto-run dispersions are shown in Table Ш-30.

ER 13227-7

Ill-58

TABLE Ш-30 Mixture Ratio Deviation Predicted Mixture Ratio (corrected for pressure and temActual Mixperature variature Ratio tions) 1.9293 1.7670 1.9223 1.7702

Deviation
-0.70

Allowable Run-to-Run Dispersion
+ 1.38

System Stage I Stage II

+0.32

+2.28

e.

Outage and trapped propellant

Table 111-31 shows the statistical mean and maximum (99%) outages predicted for GLV-7. Also shown are the actual outages as calculated using the information contained in the reconstructed propellant inventories of Tables III-37 and Ш-38. TABLE III-31 Outage Prediction Predicted (F-45 days) System Stage I Mean 0.221%
570 Ib Max (99%) 0. 645% 1667 Ib

Predicted (F~0 day) Mean 0.257%
663 Ib

Max (99%)
0.671%

Actual 0.0714% fuel

1733 Ib
1.041%

45 Ib
0.413% fuel

Stage II

0.343%
206 Ib

1.026%
616 Ib

0. 365% 219 Ib

625 Ib

248 Ib

All outages are presented as percent of total steady-state propellants (taken from Ref. 16) and in pounds. Total steady-state propellant weights were 258, 360 pounds for Stage I and 60, 012 pounds for Stage II. The predicted and actual trapped propellants for Stages I and II are given in Table III-32.

^MMMi

PMMb

ER 13227-7

Ill-59

TABLE III-32 Trapped Propellants Oxidizer (Ib) Actual Predicted Fuel (Ib) Predicted Actual

System Stage I Above interface Below interface Stage II Above interface Below interface

0 235

0 235

20 309

20 309

0 20

0 20

0 14

0 14

f. Start and holddown propellant consumptions The predicted and actual propellant consumptions during the Stage I start and holddown periods are shown in Table 1П-33. TABLE Ш-33 Stage I Ignition and Holddown Propellant Consumptions Oxidizer (Ib) Actual Predicted Start consumption (87FS, to TCPS) Holddown consumption (TCPS to liftoff)
209 208

Fuel (Ib) Actual Predicted
44 44

2144

2205

1131

1182

The predicted and actual start consumptions listed in Table Ш-33 were selected from Ref. 18 after modification to allow for the difference between propellant flow out of the tanks (as listed in the report) and propellant overboard. The predicted holddown consumption was derived from the engine analytical model and previous flight test data, whereas the actual value was derived from the Post-test Rocket Engine System Total Operation (PRESTO) engine performance reconstruction program.

ER 13227-7

Ш-бО

The Stage II predicted and actual propellant consumptions from 91FS. to QIFS1 + 1.2 seconds are listed in Table 111-34. TABLE Ш-34 Stage II Start Propellant Consumption Oxidizer (Ib) Predicted Actual Start consumption (91FS, to QlFSj + 1 . 2 sec)
135 135

Fuel (Ib) Predicted Actual
53 53

The predicted and actual consumptions were .obtained from Ref. 18 and modified as on the Stage I start consumption. g. Vapor retained The predicted and actual values of vapor retained in the tanks as a result of pressurization gases and propellant vaporization during flight are shown in Table III-35. TABLE Ш-35 Pressurization Gas Inventory Oxidizer (Ib) Actual* Predicted Fuel (Ib) Predicted Actual*

System Stage I Vapor retained Oxidizer tank Fuel tank Vaporized Stage II Pressurization Fuel tank Vaporization Oxidizer tank

324 9 5

322 7 5

0 99 0

0 98 0

5 9

7 9

52 --

52 --

*Actual values were obtained from the reconstructed flight pressure profile of the pressurization computer program runs.

ER 13227-7

111-61

h.

Shutdown

Stage I shutdown was due to oxidizer exhaustion. The predicted and actual values for the propellants consumed during shutdown are shown in Table III-36. The actual values were obtained by integrating a curve (derived from PRESTO) of flight flow rate versus time after 87FS 2< Stage II shutdown was initiated by a guidance command; consequently, the propellants were not exhausted as in Stage I. The predicted and actual values for the propellants consumed during shutdown are also shown in Table III-36. The actual values were computed from the actual altitude shutdown impulse. TABLE III-36 Propellant Shutdown Consumption Oxidizer (Ib) Predicted Stage I Stage II i. Actual Fuel (Ib) Predicted Actual

0 78

0 78

145 62

113 62

Propellant inventory

The reconstructed propellant inventories for GT~7 are shown in Tables Ш-37 and Ш-38 for Stages I and II, respectively. The inventory consists of both the nonusable and usable propellants, with the utilization of each itemized. The burning time margin for Stage П was 2. 066 seconds. TABLE III-37 GLV-7 Stage I Constructed Propellant Loading I. II. III. Predicted inflight engine mixture ratio Average inflight mixture ratio (engine) Outage (percent of total usable propellants) Oxidizer (Ib) IV. Nonusable propellants A. Fuel bleed B. Start consumption 87 FS. to TCPS) 1. 9284 +1. 54% 1. 9223 +1. 71% 0. 0174% Fuel (Ib) Total (Ib)

0 208

11 44

11 252

v
ER 13227-7

Ш-62

AL
TABLE Ш-37 (continued) Oxidizer С. D. E. F. Holddown (TCPS to liftoff (2 sec)) Trapped above interface at shutdown Trapped below interface at shutdown Vapor retained at shutdown 1. For pressurization a. Oxidizer tank b. Fuel tank 2. Vaporized Total nonusable 2,205 Fuel (lb) 1, 182 Total (lb) 3,387

0 235

20 309

20
544

G. V.

322 7 5 2,982
169,549

98 1,664
88,342

322 105 5 4,646

Usable propellants A. Steady-state overboard (liftoff to 87FSJ B. C. D. Shutdown transient (FS~ to 0% thrust) Outage Total usable

257,891
113
45 258,049

0 0 169,549
172,531

113 45 88,500 90, 164
88,938

VI. VII. VIII.

Total propellant loaded Propellant load at liftoff Weight of initial pressurizing gas A. Fuel tank (N9) B. Oxidizer tank (N2 + NOJ

262,695 259,056

170, 118

8 16

TABLE Ш-38 GLV-7 Stage II Constructed Propellant Loading

I. II. ш.
IV.

Predicted inflight engine mixture ratio Average inflight mixture ratio (engine) Outage (percent of total usable propellants) Burning time margin

1.7621 +2. 52% 1.7702 +1. 55% +0.410%

2. 066 sec

~l| Illl II III il
ER 13227-7

Ш-63

TABLE Ш-38 (continued) Oxidizer (lb) V. Nonusable propellants A. Fuel bleed B. Trapped above interface at FS_ + 20 sec (0% thrust) C. D. Trapped below interface at FS2 + 20 sec (0% thrust) Vapor retained after FS~ 1. Pressurization (fuel tank) 2. Vaporization (oxidizer tank) Total nonusable Fuel (lb) Total (lb)

0 0 20

11
0 14

11
0 34

7 9 36 135
37,916

52
77 53

59 9 113
188 59, 191 140

E. VI.

Usable propellants A. Start consumption (FS1 to B. C. D. 90% thrust) Steady-state overboard (90% thrust to FSJ Shutdown consumption (FS_ to 0% thrust) Steady-state residuals (after FS2) 1. Burning time margin 2. Outage Total usable

21,275
62

78

444
38,573 38,609

E. VII. VIII.

242 248 21,880

686 248 60,453

Total propellants loaded Weight of initial pressurizing gas A. Fuel tank (N ) B. Oxidizer tank (N + NOJ

21,957

60,566

5

30

5. Components a. Pre valves

During the launch countdown, all prevalve functions were performed without incident. Pre valves installed for the flight are identified in Table 111-39.

NTIAL
ER 13227-7

Ш-64

TABLE Ш-39 Prevalve Identification Description Stage I oxidizer S/A 1 (fill and drain) Stage I oxidizer S/A 2 (drain) Stage II oxidizer S/A 3 (fill and drain) Stage I fuel S/A 1 (fill and drain) Stage I fuel S/A 2 (drain) Stage II fuel S/A 3 (fill and drain) b. Level sensors GLV-7 incorporated 18 Bendix optical-type propellant level sensors; these are listed in Table 111-40. All sensors performed satisfactorily during propellant loadings and flight. c. Oxidizer standpipes The oxidizer standpipes on GT-7 were charged with the remote charge system at T-39 minutes. No problems were encountered prior to or during the actual charging process. Flight data obtained from pressure Meas 0033 and 0034 located in the standpipes show performance to be normal and consistent with the low longitudinal oscillatory levels experienced on this flight. d. Fuel accumulators The fuel spring-piston accumulators used on GLV-7 were identical in configuration to those on GLV-4 and -5. Response of the piston displacement (Meas 0035 and 0036) was satisfactory throughout flight as is evident from Fig. 111-31. The amplitude of S/A 1 was generally higher than that of S/A 2 because of a superimposed low frequency motion characteristic of S/A 1. Low frequency, high amplitude motion has been characteristic of the S/A 1 accumulator motion on all GLV flights. The primary frequency at which the accumulators respond is 22 cps; the low frequency evident on S/A 1 was approximately 6 cps. Part No. PS47510007-139
PS47510007-159

Serial No. 0700027
0700030 0600021 0600026 0600039 0400016

PS47510005-199
PS47510005-159 PS47510005-169 PS47510006-059

ER 13227-7

Ш-65


Ю 0

'SI
оо оо оо
00 00

^ CO о о
CO CO CN О 0 0 Ч< О 0 0

t- 41
со со 0 0 оо оо см см оо
СО 4 41 со
03
1

1
4 СО

: :

со гсм со
г- ~* 1

с о
сЗ ОЗ

со

ОЗ ОЗ

а с
и
#

0 0 0

со со

ОЗ ОЗ

со со оо

-

ОЗ ОЗ 41 41 0 0

ОЗ ОЗ 41 Ю 00

о


Нсо~
СИ ОТ

ьо
>

о *•"

tсм ч< со (М
со со t- со
ч 03 О —i
Г- -н

аз ю аз оз

ю со

^ см см см

4* Ч»'
^н ~н

со со

. :
. •а л • СУ

с5

>3 « я я tz
«а я&
со t41 —1

1—1

и ~
ю
см со аз

ю о оо оо ою
см со СМ 41 0 0

§ « .
от
0 0 0 0 0 0

о оо
со со со о 1
со Ч
0

• с
-:
1

т-

ч» ю

оо

Ю 1Л

-tо оо

о м с
со
Л I 0)

оо оо

СО СО 41 41 00

со со

оо оо

И -4
ГО
3

J
rt

о
ьо с о
03 СО ОЗ ОЗ

с .2
о
со со 00

if, -

ОЗ ОЗ 4< 41

оо

ОЗ ОЗ 41 41

оо

р—i i а
и
<и со со о
г-

рц
ii
ф

:, з и о

03 —i

со см со со со со

с -

о см
СМ 03

СО О ОЗ СМ

со ю
СО СО

t-^ со

ао
0]

a •-. \ ~-1 -., i
а)

1

С

ОТ

с
•а
а
Of со со л о о
СО ОЗ
г* 3

a 9
:

а« _я

'
:
см со оо оо

s
и

юю оо оо

оо
ю со
00 00

к
: 1ч

Oxidizer tan

Location

Shutdown Shutdown

Fuel tank

33 0)

ьл ы>

I I

..

OJD OJD :;:

0) ф

66

23

ER 13227-7

Shutdown Shutdown

, i

«Volume to i
.

High level

Ш-66

-I

• • - - . . f

**w

Meas 0035 S/A 1
! '

Pf lOg

ППЩ

|жI

-

-i
с и

•a.
BD

t и о)

3
2 0 2

_иа***ШйЖ;

Л1р№^

V
i
120

! 0
1-7
}! » /^V

Я> 7 '' • ' •
^WiV^'^ . •'! I
1

,•£.' V •'• •
' 1
; . » '.

,
i

". 1'тРЧ? T*Tff
1

4ййЛ^
i

«ьиЬ *^^^

1

M

I

1

i

1

i

1

t

1

i

1

1

i

1

i

.

i
130

.

i
140

i
150

i

i
87F£

pc

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Meas 0036 S/A 2
u

и и

•а и
4—

rt

7
20
50

87FS,

10

30

40

60

70

во

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

87FS,

Time from 87FS1 (sec) Fig. 111-31. GT-4 Fuel Accumulator Piston Travel

ER 13227-7

Ш-67

Dynamic friction levels for dry accumulators were measured prior to installation of the accumulator assemblies at Mar tin-Baltimore and again prior to flight at Complex 19, ETR. A summary of these friction measurements appears in Table Ш-41 as peak-to-peak values (twice the equivalent friction force in one direction). TABLE 1П-41 Dynamic Friction Levels for Dry Accumulators Peak-to-Peak Friction (psi)*

S/A 1
2

Serial No.
ВОЮ B011

Bench
0.9 0.6

Preflight
0.8 0.8

*Maximum acceptable value = 2.0 psi Flight data do not indicate significant differences in friction levels between accumulators. 6. POGO

The Stage I longitudinal oscillation levels for this flight were the lowest experienced. Flight data do not indicate significant responses in propulsion measurements until immediately prior to BECO. Oxidizer suction pressure (Meas 0017) and oxidizer standpipe pressures (Meas 0033 and 0034) show a buildup at the structural frequency beginning 3.5 seconds before BECO. This buildup has been observed on previous flights and is predictable analytically; i.e., the system gain at zero phase angle crosses unity at 95% of Stage I flight time from liftoff. Additional details on POGO appear in Chapter XII of this report. C. !. PRESSURIZATION SUBSYSTEM

Prelaunch Pressurization

At approximately T-192 minutes, all propellant tanks were pressurized, through AGE, from blanket pressure level to flight pressure levels. The resultant time-pressure profiles (Fig. 111-32) indicate that the process was normal. The tank ullage lockup pressures obtained from landline measurements made at T~0 and the related normal operating pressure ranges are presented in Table Ш-42.

L
ER 13227-7

Ш-68

Meas 4602 Г' Stage II fuel

:

::

Ф
a l -3

40

Meas 4605 Stage II oxidizer !

a л С . j
id

Meas 4129 Stage I oxidizer

.

2

3

Time After Initiation of Flight Pressure Signal (min)

Fig. 111-32.

Tank Pressurization Cycle (blanket to flight pressure)

TIAL
ER 13227-7

Ill-6 9

TABLE III-42 Tank Ullage Lockup Pressures Normal Range (psia)
27.5 to 31.5 30.5 to 34.5 49. 5 to 54.5 53.5 to 57.5

Meas
4125 4129

Parameter Stage I fuel tank Stage I oxidizer tank Stage II fuel tank Stage II oxidizer tank

Measured (psia)
29.4 * 51.4 55.6

4602 4605

*Not available To prevent inadvertent actuation of the pressure switch (low launch light) when the prevalves are opened, the lockup pressures for Stage II fuel and oxidizer tanks were increased by +0. 5 psi. This practice will be followed for all future Gemini Launch Vehicles. 2. Flight Pressurization

Stages I and II ullage gas pressure time variations appear in Figs. 111-33 through Ш-36. These plots show flight-measured pressures, preflight predicted pressures, and postflight reconstructed pressures. The flight-measured pressures shown were obtained by averaging the telemetered output from each pair of pressure transducers in the individual tanks. The preflight predicted curves are taken from Ref. 16. The postflight reconstruction was based on flight-measured values of engine performance, propellant temperatures and propellant loadings. A comparison of significant pressurization system parameters taken at FS, + 100 seconds is given in Table III-43. Figures Ш-37, 111-38 and 111-39 present the preflight-predicted and the in-flight-estimated pressurization parameters at the orifice or nozzle inlet. Removal of certain instrumentation from GLV-5 and up necessitated estimation of in-flight pressurization parameters. 3. Component Performance

All MDS tank pressure sensors functioned normally. The maximum and mean pressure differences between pairs (A and В sensors) of sensors in each of the individual propellant tanks are shown in Table Ш-44.

ER 13227-7

Ill-70

,
-

!

(Bisd) aanssa-id етзд

ER 13227-7

Ill-71

~_i
<u
Д

~ ел
c00

s ,

(Btsd) эдпззэла SBQ эЭвпп

ER 13227-7

Ill-7 2

p.

v

J
О
i-l

£

и

I
i

-.; H
•11
• :

о

9

:i \
:• I

I-l > I I
1

С171Г|1ПРГМТ||'1Г
ER 13227-7

Ш-73

о

•а со
4->

rt с-

О

1S
о ьо

•о?

I
С . [

-

£

ел со rt rt ш

i

О

I-

: С

(Bisd)

SBQ эЗвпЛ

- ^ M П Q C ER 13227-7

III-74

•a ш
X! О CUD 3

л = : с
£
! Г
.

её
IT
:

CO С
CO (M i-i CM

со oo • *Ф
.
CO CO

£
0) Z
-

• -.
: —

со
oo •^
г
^ CM
г~

:i

. Ю

0 0

d

со см

с: <t —
CD CM

-

«

fcJD ^irt

:-

F"
(M О
i-H

1

о
.
—'

1

ее о i
Э
CM

:-

: со '-[ -

О

оо со
i

X

CD a чф со tCM и

a • .
cd
a
FH

« g
-1-" CO .. ;
CM CM

+-> -a ад-g и '•"* «j ^
::
1-Н
!

с
DO I>

о oo • I-H ^ CO
^H CO

to о о

. Ю -| СО ID СМ
г -

У.
O5


•— X SO

. rj< t— CO

о
Э

со

CM

M

С 0 н

cd i ^. • -

fe
о

0
=

M

to к

0 И
.3

о
;--

е
5 --'
г

о
CO

0
fc

ratio, WOP /QOS (Ib/

ratio, WFP/QFS (Ib/

ce inlet specific entha Ib)

pressure, POT (Psia' pressure, P FT (psia) pressure, PQT (psia) ratio, WFP/QFS (Ib/ le inlet temperature, le inlet temperature, [ oxidizer tank oxidizer tank
M

pressure, P™ (psia)

H
0

-' 5-

«
3 р_|
'-^

о

о o^
'5

от оГ
4->

со о

Ы • и

cd

fuel tank

-: О

и и п

^ с
+->

О

a
h- 1

11

cd i— i

с

О J

ш §
от

§

°

1 cd Ь

0)

н oS

с .H 5

-.
СЙ SH m

n

0

DJ

1
cd
ОТ

-*J С

H

cd

N Ы

i— -.
2
0 О i—i

M

cd

cu Q. с о cd -

r—t

£
от

ER 13227-7

Ш-75

290

270

С

250

230
.

210

190 i
: I

\ 170

150

Д Preflight prediction О Flight performance T f p n r estimated
-

130

NOTE: AU times from 87FS,

110 0.050

0.055

i 0.060

0.065

0.070

0.075

I 0.080

Flow Ratio, W-p/Q f

(Ib/sec pressurant gas/— - propellant)

Pig. Ill-37.

Stage I Fuel Tank Pressurant Performance

ER 13227-7

Ill-76

430
:

u

и id О

1
270

iI Д Preflight prediction } '
О Flight performance, TQpoI estimated Note: All times from 87FS1

250 0.12

0.13

0.14

0 15

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.19

Flow Ratio, W O p/Q os (Ib/sec pressurant

propellant)

Fig. 111-38. Stage I Oxidizer Tank Pressurant Performance

ER 13227-7

Ill-7 7

290
r

О Flight performance,

150 0.10

Note: All times from 91FS

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15
ft

0.16

0.17

Flow Ratio, W-p/Q-o (Ib/sec pressurant Fig. 111-39.

propellant)

Stage II Fuel Tank Pressurant Performance

ER 13227-7

Ill-78

TABLE 111-44 Pressure Difference Between Tank Pressure Transducer Pairs Maximum Allowable Difference (psi)
1.50 1.50 2.25 2.25

Tank Stage I oxidize r Stage I fuel Stage II oxidizer Stage II fuel

Difference Maximum (psi)
0. 15 0.35
0.40
1. 62

Mean Difference (psi)
0.09 0.20 0.16 1.32

D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 1. Launch Vehicle Air-Conditioning System This system, which serves launch vehicle Compartment 2 and all engine start cartridges, was operative continuously during the prelaunch activities until vehicle liftoff. The system operated satisfactorily. Table Ш-45 presents a summary of the system parameters.

ER 13227-7

Ill 79

TABLE 111-45 Air-Conditioning System Performance Summary VIeas 4403 Description GLV supply air temperature Observed Range
48° to 50. 5° F

Specified Range
48° to 56° F (Compartment 2) 48° to 58° F (engine start cartridges)

Remarks Temperature of air supplied to GLV Compartment 2 and the engine start cartridges

4405

Compartment 2 supply air mass flow rate Compartment 2 exhaust air temperature Start cartridge temperature S/A 1 Start cartridge temperature S/A 2 Start cartridge temperature S/A 3

Approximately 88 Ib / min
54° to 58° F

82 Ib/min (minimum)
. 40° to 75° F

4418

Manual hold parameter

4045

54° F (at liftoff)

36° to 84° F

S/N 0636763 Manual hold parameter S/N 0859574 Manual hold parameter S/N 0859190 Manual hold parameter

4046

53. 5° F (at liftoff) 52. 5° F (at liftoff)

35° to 84° F

4612

35° to 70° F

ER 13227-7

IV-1

IV.

FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM

Analysis of the GT-7 Flight Control System (FCS) measured parameters indicated satisfactory system operation during both Stages I and П flights. The primary FCS was in command throughout and no switchover to the secondary system was required. A. STAGE I FLIGHT

1. Ignition and Liftoff Transients Peak actuator travels and rate gyro disturbances recorded during the ignition and holddown period are presented in Table IV-1. TABLE IV-1 Transients During Stage I Holddown Period Actuator Designation Pitch, lj Yaw /roll, 2j Yaw /roll, 3j Pitch, 4 X Maximum During Ignition Travel Time from LO (in.) (sec) -0.094 -0.090 +0.200 -0.071
-2.75 -2.75 -2.80 -2.80

Maximum During Holddown Null Check (in.) +0.02
-0.04 -0.02 -0.01

Axis Pitch
Yaw

Maximum Rafe, Stage I Gyro (deg/sec) Secondary Primary
-0.20 -0.30 +0.19

Maximum Rate, Stage П Gyro (deg/sec) Primary Secondary +0.39
-0.19 --

+0.47
+0.19 --

+0.39 +0.38

Roll

+0.40

The combination of thrust misalignment and engine misalignment at full thrust initiated a roll transient at liftoff. The response of the FCS to correct the offset kept the roll rate to a maximum of 0. 9 dee/ sec counter-clockwise (CCW) at 0. 22 second after liftoff (Fig. IV-1). The rate oscillation had a basic frequency of 5. 4 rad/sec, damping out in 1.7 seconds. As shown on the roll error curve in Fig. IV-1, a roll bias of 0. 16 degree CCW was introduced at liftoff by the equivalent engine misalignment of 0. 04 degree.

ER 13227-7

IV-2

Extende

о'м

1

y-v

KMeaa 0151, 0152)i

Is
Д ев °£

/
Retract

v\^_/ v

J

'

' :

0. 2

•a
^

u

[ГД X.

>"'

N

'V

^^

ШШШШ
(Meas 0768) j

-0.2
0-0.4
О

V

/~

у

1

[:::: -. j : '

!

I 0
'о о 4> т ьо ш
П U-

°

Ъ

_-/•—•"ч
/ N. i

;;| (Me as 0232) I • '" — '

л

^ '°- \
U U -1.0 \ i

5

/

/
0.5 1.0 I.: 2.0 2.5 3.0 3

Time from Liftoff (sec)
Fig. IV-1. Liftoff Boll Transients

ER 13227-7

iv-з

2.

Roll and Pitch Programs

The TARS roll and pitch programs performed nominally as shown in Table IV-2. The 1. 04-second roll program was of insufficient duration for the vehicle to reach steady state; however, the torquer monitor indicated that the proper program was achieved. The maximum roll and pitch overshoots which occurred at the initiation of their respective programs were 1. 6 deg/sec CW for roll and 0. 9 deg/sec down for pitch. TABLE IV-2 TARS Roll and Pitch Programs Program Roll Start Stop Pitch Step 1 Start Pitch Step 2 Start Pitch Step 3 Start Stop 3.
19.35 20.39 19.44 20.48 —— + 1.26 +1.25

Time from Nominal Time Liftoff (sec) (sec)

Rate Gyro Average (deg/sec)

Torquer Monitor Nominal Rate Indication (deg/sec) (deg/sec)

22.94 88.04 118.66 162.02

23.04 88.32 119.04 162. 56

-0.71
-0. 50
-0.23

-0.69 -0.50 -0.25

-0.709 -0.516 -0.235

TARS-IGS Comparison (Stage I)

The TARS and IGS attitude error signals during Stage I flight for the pitch, yaw and roll axes are presented in Figs. IV-2, IV-3 and IV-4. The dispersion between the TARS and IGS attitude was caused by a combination of TARS gyro and IGS-IMU drifts, errors in open loop guidance programs and reference axis cross-coupling. The dispersion (TARS attitude minus IGS attitude) at BECO was -0. 78 degree in the pitch axis, +0. 31 degree in the yaw axis and +0. 10 degree in the roll axis. 4. Stage I Flight Disturbances

Vehicle disturbances during Stage I flight were caused by the prevailing winds aloft. The flight control system response to these disturbances was normal and well controlled. The yaw component of wind

ER 13227-7

IV-4

+2.0

+ 1.0

S?
и
+2.0

ьI

.•и I

« о

+ 1.0-

60 80 100 Time from Liftoff (sec)
Fig. IV-2. Pitch Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight

BECO

ER 13227-7

IV-5

+ 2.0

: :•

•B

I

+2.0

9

20

60 80 100 Time from Liftoff (sec)

120

140

J160 BECO

Fig. IV-3. Yaw Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight

IV-6

a -.-.'
: t

.

и •

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160
BECO

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. IV-U. Roll Attitude Error History During Stage I Flight

ER 13227-7

IV-7

Ь-1

1—1
1>

ю см
со
0 00
t> СО

со

fr
d) (4 • и СЛ

О СО

со

И
ой
4-1 •Ч г

*rj Т!
со
чГ
«м
О 0)
Н-1

0)

С О

2
со

<и ьо ел
iЧ -

ю
см со оэ со
тН

о ю ю
оо
0

о t-

^ч ем ю о ою см ю

о « с^
см оэ
°^ cd
О) 03 CM

i /
J
1— 1
И-1

1

о со

.


>>

а
f-ч
СО 0) ЬО

о
О
СО СО t>

ш .д

г со ^

-

•аi iн
О СО
43

01

со
оо со

0

(4 0]

a =
1—1

i
1 О)

ьо cd

ю ю
г- со
О О Ю Ю
гН
• гЧ

о ю
со
00 СО

о с-°
см

ю

•о

0)

С/3

з
о со
i-ч
СО
тН

:

-:
1 I

со О
00

И
0)

ьо
• • •
§И~ Р
+

см

О

о

оз со

о г-

§| |
О

^ оэ оэ со

Ь-

t^

ь-1 .tU)

•*-> О ел 'о t>i о> со cd •о 1—1

? V
оо со
О ^-1 1> 00

+ ?
о оэ
со
•Н

о о т
'

'

О

+

О

'

ф
О
0) СУЗ
Q О

с о
о го
1
+ 1

N_^

д
СУЗ

D UO

X а

+

о о

+

I—1

1

СО
^

imum

I

a э

i
о
ф ьо at
ОЭ

си

a
о
ел
1—1

Сн

см

т-Ч

о

03 Ю

СО t~

? f
00 ч

-' 0

§
о!
'(ч Рн
OJO
СЛ

ей

к
!>ъ

£
i-н О
00

ц
со
ОЗ

ш

с-

00

ю о

r-t

? V
л
о

??
•«И

•11
•Ч -

со

д + 1
iH -

£
к
cd
^

CJ

>s ^
я
И

d

._.

"

'. -

. J

ER 13227-7

IV-8

derived from the Rawinsonde Run AN/GMD-T-1 Hour Cape Kennedy wind profile compares very favorably with the yaw attitude error curves in Fig. IV-3. During these wind disturbances, oscillations between 1. 0 and 1. 6 rad/sec with a peak-to-peak overshoot amplitude of less than 0. 3 degree of attitude error occurred in pitch and yaw at the predicted GT-7 rigid body oscillatory mode frequencies, which varied with flight condition. The maximum rates and attitude errors recorded during Stage I flight are shown in Table IV-3. Since the level of pitch and yaw excitation was of high magnitude, causing up to 2 degrees peak-to-peak pitch and yaw attitude errors during the max q region, there was inertial coupling which produced excitation on the roll channel. The time for FCS gain change on GT-7 was changed to LO + 110 seconds on the basis that inadequate stability margins would exist for the previous gain change time (LO + 105 seconds). At the actual time of gain change (LO + 109. 6 seconds), there was a pitch attitude error of 0. 45 degree nose up. The small but highly damped pitch transient reached a maximum of 0. 75 degree nose up. Preflight stability calculations indicate that, with an error of 0. 45 degree, the pitch transient for gain change at LO +110 seconds would overshoot to a maximum of 0. 79 degree pitch error. The reduction in gains reduced the amount of engine deflection, thus causing the transient to occur. Since the error in yaw at the time of gain change was almost zero, there was no noticeable resultant transient. Analyses indicate that the control system reacted properly to the flight conditions in existence both before and after gain change. 5. Stage I Static Gains The primary FCS static gains as determined from telemetry data were within the instrumentation inaccuracy of preflight evaluations and indicate that no static gain deterioration was experienced during Stage I boost flight. В. 1. Staging Transients During staging, moderate sustainer vehicle rates and attitude errors were observed. The maximum attitude errors, measured from the preBECO level, and the maximum vehicle rates are given in Table IV~4. STAGE II FLIGHT

ER 13227-7

IV-9

TABLE IV-4 Maximum Staging Rates and Attitude Errors Axis Pitch Rates (deg/sec) Primary Secondary +2.39 +2.82 Flight Time (sec) Primary Secondary 155.77 156.32 156.88 159.26 155.77 156.32 156.96 156.01 157.01 156.38

-2.43
Yaw
+1.77

-2.32
+1.70

-0.69
Roll

-0.90
+1.22 -2.24

+1. 18 -2.00
Axis Pitch

157. 14 155.98
Flight Time (sec)

Attitude Error (deg)

-1.37 +1.78
-1. 10

157.9 158.0 156.7

Yaw
Roll

2. Stage II Attitude Errors and Biases Pitch and yaw attitude errors are shown in Figs. IV-5 and IV-6; after the staging transient, the roll attitude error remained constant at -0. 14 degree. The predicted pitch and yaw attitudes are for the center-of-gravity displacement from the vehicle longitudinal axis and the position of the roll thrust off the longitudinal axis. The additional biases from the predicted attitudes, -0. 85 degree in pitch and +1. 25 degrees in yaw, are caused by engine thrust vector misalignment due to structural deformation at the engine gimbal assembly. These biases are of the same magnitude noted on previous flights and are within predicted limits. The deviation from the biased predicted attitudes is due to system hysteresis and gain sensitivity. 3. Response to Radio Guidance Commands

The TARS tinier generated the guidance enable command at LO + 161. 99 seconds. Response to the first pitch command was at LO + 168. 37 seconds and consisted of a small down command followed by a full 2.0 deg/sec pitch-down command for 2.0 seconds. The remainder of the pitch commands was less than 0. 25 deg/sec. Response to

ER 13227-7

IV-10

.

(Зэр) aojjg эрщтну

ER 13227-7

IV-11

<I

\ u^

\s •Js"

I

о

,.;„
^

\
0
71 ~<

• i

•и я
(Зэр)
эрщтпу

э

ER 13227-7

IV-12

\

Meaa 0766 1 He F -0, 40 deg/эес

Meaa 0744


91FS0

345

355


91FS, + 20 sec 91FS.

365

|

370

Spacecraft Separation

Time from Liftoff (вес)

Fig.

IV-7.

Pitch, Roll and Yaw Attitude Errors During Post-SECO Flight

ER 13227-7

IV-13

yaw commands was of low magnitude, not exceeding 0. 06 deg/sec for the entire flight. The rate gyro signals substantiated the correct response to the guidance commands. 4. Slosh Induced Oscillations Flight data indicate that from LO + 250 to LO + 320 seconds the propellant slosh mode coupled with the rigid body mode cause vehicle limit cycle oscillations in pitch rate, varying between 1. 5 and 1. 7 cps. The maximum peak-to-peak pitching rate experienced was 1.2 deg/sec as indicated by the primary and secondary Stage II rate gyros. There was an indication of low magnitude oscillations of the same frequency in the yaw channel with a peak-to-peak rate of 0. 25 deg/sec. Roll rate oscillations of 0. 3 deg/sec were induced by the pitch rate oscillations through inertial coupling. There were no appreciable vehicle attitude errors due to the rate oscillations. Engine deflection was at the same frequency as rate oscillations, with a maximum pitch amplitude of 0. 2 degree at the engine to correct for this disturbance. 5. Stage II Static Gains The primary FCS static gains as determined from telemetry data were within the instrumentation inaccuracy of preflight calculations. C. 1. Vehicle Motions Pitch, yaw and roll attitude errors and rates while operating on primary control system during the period from SECO through spacecraft separation were less than those observed on previous flights; the time histories are shown in Fig. IV-7. Maximum rates measured during the period following SECO appear in Table IV-5. Successful spacecraft separation was accomplished at 31.7 seconds after 91FS . Vehicle rates did not exceed 0. 3 deg/sec at SECO + 20 seconds. 2. Post-SECO Transients POST-SECO FLIGHT

None of the GT-7 flight control system parameters indicated any occurrence of the conventional "green man ' phenomenon.

ER 13227-7

IV-14

TABLE IV-5 Pitch Axis Maximum positive rate at 91FS_ + 2. 5 sec Maximum negative rate at 91FS0 + 16. 1 sec ft Rate at 91FS2 + 20 sec Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS9 + 31.7 sec) Yaw Axis Maximum positive rate at 91FS2 + 12. 7 sec Maximum negative rate at 91FS2 + 0. 6 sec Rate at 91FS- + 20 sec Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS_ + 31.7 sec) Roll Axis Maximum positive rate at 91FS- + 0. 3 sec Maximum negative rate at 91FS- + 6. 5 sec Rate at 91FS- + 20 sec Rate at spacecraft separation (91FS_ + 31.7 sec) +0.38 -0.31 +0.27 +0.20 -0.38 +0. 19
+0. 19

Rate (deg/sec) +0.99 -0.40 -0.30

-0.20

-0.21

ER 13227-7

V-l

V.

HYDRAULIC SYSTEM

Analysis of the telemetered data revealed that GT-7 hydraulic systems performed satisfactorily during Stage I and Stage II flights. Prior to SFT, the engine driven hydraulic pumps were replaced with newly cleaned units, thereby minimizing the probability of contamination during vehicle systems tests requiring hydraulic power. The newly installed pumps were checked with a Gaussmeter to verify free motion of the compensator. A. 1. Primary Subsystem The final Stage I hydraulic system pressure and level check in the countdown was performed automatically by the sequencer. At T-180 seconds, function control A-7 initiated the motor-driven pump run, which pressurized the secondary system. Approximately 70 seconds later, AGE, using the motor pump, automatically selected and pressurized the primary system. Electric motor pump pressure was a normal 3240 psia at T-0. Engine start transients, starting at 87FS, + 0. 81 second, produced flow demands which dropped primary pressure to 2631 psia at 87FS1 + 0. 92 second. Pressure recovery occurred immediately, indicating proper pump compensator response. The pressure overshoot on recovery peaked at 3355 psia at 87FS, + 1. 18 seconds. A steady-state pressure of 3139 psia was reached at 87FS. + 1.3 seconds. There were no significant pressure perturbations either at liftoff or during flight. Pressure decayed normally during flight to 2956 psia at staging. Prior to T-110 seconds, the static reservoir level was 59. 9% full, and it decreased to a normal 38. 4% full at T-0. The level increased during flight to 52. 6% full at staging. This 14. 2% increase is a result of normal fluid expansion with increasing fluid temperature. The steady-state reservoir levels and the level changes during system pressurization were normal. Primary and secondary system pressures and pressure switch actuation points are shown in Fig. V-l. A comparison of primary system pressures for GT-5 and GT-7 launches during engine start and holddown is presented in Fig. V-2. STAGE I

ER 13227-7

V-2

н ? <D -d

'

(Bisd)

ER 13227-7

V-3

-' i£ !
1

j

: : Г

••' ;

;

б

Т-::: }::: :ц:
Ш

S
. *

:

' 1

s

|

-•'•-т

р ^ ^ i!
га S со

« 5 •н e
H о

ок

1
о

til о'ТГГ:
(Bisd)

:
0

-

о

ER 13227-7

V-4

I
I

3
I 3

--

О W

о о

(Bisd) aanssaaj э

ER 13227-7

V-5

2.

Secondary System

The final Stage I secondary hydraulic system pressure and reservoir level check was performed during a sequencer-initiated, motor-driven pump run from T-180 seconds to T-110 seconds. The indicated accumulator precharge was 1710 psia. Motor pump pressure was normal at 3150 psia at T-110 seconds. The static reservoir level, which was a normal 60% full prior to pressurization at T-3 minutes, decreased to 34% full at T-110 seconds. These levels and the level changes during pressurization and depressurization of the system were normal. At T-0 the system was unpressurized (soft). Pressure began to develop immediately as start cartridge energy rotated the engine turbine. Pressure overshoot reached a maximum of 3375 psia, indicating very good pump compensator response. A steady-state pressure of 3015 psia was reached at 87FS., + 2. 81 seconds. At the pressure shutdown interrogation point the pressure remained steady at 3015 psia. There were no pressure perturbations during flight since the system remained in a standby condition. Pressure decayed normally during flight to 2880 psia at staging. The reservoir level stabilized at 34% full after engine start, increasing during flight to 46% full at staging. This 12% increase is a result of normal fluid expansion with increasing fluid temperature. A comparison of secondary system pressures during engine start and holddown for GT-5 and GT-7 launches is presented in Fig. V-3. B. STAGE П

The final Stage II hydraulic system pressure and level check was performed during a sequencer-initiated, motor-driven pump run from Т-240 seconds to T-180 seconds; the indicated accumulator precharge was 1800 psia. Electric motor pump pressure stabilized at a normal 3190 psia. The static reservoir level was 63. 8% full, decreased to 34% full after pressure application and again increased to 61. 8% full upon removal of pressure at T-3 minutes. During engine startup at staging, the indicated accumulator precharge was 1800 psia, and pressure overshoot was to 3852 psia. Steady-state pressure after engine start was 2900 psia, decreasing to 2760 psia at SECO. No significant pressure perturbations occurred during flight. After SECO the pressure fluctuated with engine rpm, a normal reaction to the low and variable turbine speeds occurring during this period. The reservoir level was a normal 61. 9% full prior to staging. After staging the level stabilized at 39% full, gradually increasing to 41. 8% full at SECO. This 2. 8% increase is normal. The reservoir levels and changes during pressurization and depressurization were normal.

ER 13227-7

VI-1

VI. GUIDANCE SYSTEMS A. 1. RADIO GUIDANCE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Rate Beacon

Rate beacon performance was satisfactory. Good lock was main tained up to engine ignition and from approximately LO + 46 seconds to SECO + 68 seconds, except for the normal momentary loss of lock at Stage II engine ignition. The loss of lock at Stage I engine ignition is also considered normal; relock occurs as the primary antenna is brought into favorable ground station view. An anomaly occurred in the telemetry function of rate beacon power out at approximately SECO + 38 seconds. The voltage level of this function rose from 3. 84 vdc to a constant value of 4. 04 vdc over a period of 5. 6 seconds. No other rate beacon functions indicated any change during this time period. General Electric Company has been notified of this phenomenen. 2. Pulse Beacon

Pulse beacon performance also was satisfactory. Good lock* was maintained through Stage I engine ignition and up to approximately SECO + 69 seconds. Normal oscillations during the antenna crossover period were observed in AGC from approximately LO + 42 seconds to LO + 79 seconds. During this time the minimum signal level received by the beacon was -58 dbm; there was no evidence of missed messages during the period of peak AGC oscillations. The normal ground station signal level increase occurred at LO + 89. 2 seconds and was observed on telemetry to be approximately 17. 3 dbm. Values of the pulse beacon telemetered functions during flight are listed in Table VI-1. 3. Decoder Decoder performance was satisfactory. Comparisons of the decoder telemetry data with the Burroughs computer-generated output indicate that pitch and yaw steering signals and the SECO discrete commands were properly executed. * Good lock is defined as the condition in which no messages are missed by the pulse beacon. The ground station does not lose lock, however, unless a number of consecutive messages are missed.

ER 13227-7
\

VI-2

Values of the decoder telemetered functions are listed in Table VI-1. TABLE VI-1 RGS Telemetered Functions Function Rate Beacon Received signal No. 1 Phase detector Power out 30- volt supply Pulse Beacon Magnetron current AGC 15- volt supply Decoder 10- volt supply 0748
4. 48 vdc 4. 41 vdc

Meas

Maximum Value

Minimum Value

0750 0751 0752 0746

4. 3. 3. 2.

10 34 90 85

vdc vdc vdc vdc

4. 2. 3. 2.

04 95 85 81

vdc vdc vdc vdc

0753 0754 0747

3. 64 vdc -10.6 dbm* 4. 03 vdc

3. 57 vdc -41.6 dbm* 4. 01 vdc

* Does not include antenna crossover period. 4. Guidance Commands a. Pitch steering

A profile of early closed-loop pitch steering in terms of computer commands, decoder pitch telemetry, TARS gyro torquer monitor, and primary Stage II rate gyro is given in Fig. VI-1. The decoder pitch steering output is also shown in Fig. VI-2 for the entire Stage II flight period. TARS discrete No. 3 (RGS enable) was issued at approximately LO + 1 6 2 seconds, thereby energizing the airborne guidance initiate relay. At the same time, pitch program No. 3 was terminated. This effect can be observed on curves (c) and (d) of Fig. VI-1. An initial pitch-down command of about 0. 16 deg/sec, lasting approximately 0. 5 second, was issued at LO + 168. 2 seconds. Following this, a 2. 0 deg/sec pitch-down command was issued for 1. 9 seconds. Throughout the remainder of flight the pitch commands were relatively

ER 13227-7

-з-Х

VI-3

0) —

(a) Computer Pitch Commands

•s?
й-0

*j о
05 га

(b) Decoder Output Pitch (Meas 0755)

a-

(pitch-down)

(pitch-down)
: M :::| :.:!:;::!:•:.I.:

-1.0

(c) Pitch Torquer Monitor (Meas 0732)!

«•а

05 га -1.0
м i

ge Л Primary Pitch Rate Gyro (Meas 0723)

-2.0 165 170 175 180 185 190 195

160

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. Vl-1. Stage II Pitch Guidance Flight History

ER 13227-7

VI-4

+6. of (pitch"UP rror)

+5.Q

+4.0

IGS pitch error (Meas 0743)
+3.0

+2.0

+ 1.0

-1.0
Primary system pitch error (Meas 0766)

ШЕ т щ т щ? щ т g т шт ц

-1.0
RGS pitch command (Meas 0755)

-2.0 (pitch-down

155

165

175

185

195

1шШшш{:;215 205

i:ii:{;i:U;:.:|:::;|

225

235

245

255

265

275

285

295

305

315

325

335

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. VI-2. Stage II IGS Pitch Flight History

ER 13227-7

VI-5

small. In the latter portion of flight small magnitude oscillations built up and became noticeable at about SECO-60 seconds and lasted until SECO. These oscillations, which are attributed to atmospheric noise effects, were much lower in amplitude than seen on GT-5. b. Yaw steering

Yaw commands began at LO + 168. 7 seconds. Throughout the flight the commands were of very low magnitude, i. e., <0. 05 deg/sec, and were predominantly yaw right. The decoder yaw steering output is shown in Fig. VI-3 for the entire Stage II flight period. c. Discrete commands

The times for the computer-generated SECO/ASCO command and the vehicle reactions were as follows: Signal Ground station SECO/ASCO Decoder discrete output 91FS2 ASCO Meas
--

Time from Liftoff
336. 961 + 3 ms 337. 002 + 5 ms 337. 012 + 5 ms
337. 065 + 25 ms

0777
0519

0799

The data shown in this tabulation indicate that the SEC О time delay from ground station issuance to 91FS9 was 51 _+ 8 milliseconds. The time delay between 91FS2 and ASCO reception was 5 3 + 3 0 milliseconds. B. 1. SPACECRAFT INERTIAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM ASCENT PERFORMANCE

Prelaunch Nulls The prelaunch IGS attitude error null signals were as follows: Pitch Yaw Roll -0. 087 degree +0. 039 degree -0. 008 degree

These null signals were well within the specification values of + 0. 37 degree in pitch and yaw, and + 0. 25 degree in roll.

ER 13227-7

VI-6

(,-2(у aw-right error) Primary system yaw error (Meas 0767)

+2.0

+ 1.0

f
IGS yaw error (Meas 0744)
-1.0

ь'ад W ш

(yaw left • r. i error) -2. О иишшнпдщ) (yaw-ri^it command)
m >—.

RGS yaw command (Meas 0756]

«8

'command)

Primary system roll error (Meas 0768)

>н "So W ш

I

3
-з.о
Maximum and minimum output envelope -4.0 [(roll-CCW error)
155 165 175 185 195
205

215

225

235

245

255

265

275

285

295

305

315

325

335

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. VI-3. Stage II IGS Yaw/Roll Guidance Flight History

ER 13227-7

VI-7

2.

Stage I Performance

IGS performance during Stage I flight correlated well with the primary system, as shown by a comparison of IGS and corresponding primary system attitude errors in Figs. IV-2 through IV-4. The BECO dispersions between IGS and primary system attitude errors are discussed in Chapter IV. The IGS Stage I gain change discrete was issued at LO + 1 0 9 . 803 seconds + 0. 025 second, which was well within the specification time of 110. 000 seconds + 1%. 3. Stage II Performance

IGS pitch, yaw and roll performance during Stage II flight was normal. The attitude error dispersions which had built up between the IGS and primary system during Stage I flight in pitch, yaw and roll were apparent in the early portion of Stage II flight as shown in Figs. VI-2 and VI-3. The spurious post-SECO (SECO + 4. 6 seconds) yaw attitude error step experienced on GT-5 was not present on this
flight.

a.

Stage II pitch

IGS Stage II pitch attitude error appears in Fig. VI-2. Primary system pitch attitude error and RGS pitch steering commands are shown for comparison. IGS closed-loop pitch guidance began at LO + 167. 967 seconds. IGS pitch attitude error saturated at + 5. 9 degrees shortly thereafter and remained on saturation,for approximately 0. 25 second. Figure VI-2 shows that the TARS pitch attitude error builds up during this same time period to about + U. 65 degree due to the RGS -2. 0 deg/sec pitch rate command. The reason for the large difference in IGS and TARS attitude errors during this period is that, in the primary system, the steering command is limited to a rate of +2. 0 deg/ sec, whereas the IGS limits attitude error only to a nominal~6-degree value. Therefore, IGS pitch behavior during this period is normal and compares well with primary system behavior in correcting the vehicle trajectory errors. IGS pitch attitude error decreased to null within 40 seconds as the RGS pitched the vehicle down. For the remainder of Stage II flight, IGS pitch remained within limits of +0. 8 to -0. 4 degree. The peak in IGS pitch at SECO-2. 5 seconds (shown in Fig. VI-2) corresponds with the RGS pitch command at this time and also would have commanded the vehicle to pitch down.

ER 13227-7

VI-8

b. Stage II yaw IGS Stage II yaw attitude error is shown in Fig. VI-3. Primary system yaw attitude error and RGS yaw steering commands are shown for comparison. IGS yaw performance throughout Stage II powered flight appeared normal and correlated well with the primary system. Steering began approximately at the same time as pitch. Thereafter, the IGS yaw attitude error decreased to null in approximately 30 seconds as the very small RGS command yawed the vehicle left. Subsequently the IGS yaw attitude error remained within approximately +0. 12 degree of null until about LO + 320 seconds. At this time, the IGS yaw attitude error began to slope in the negative direction and by SECO had built up to about -1.3 degrees, which would be a GLV yaw-right command. The amplitude of the attitude error is not excessive and the direction of the attitude error buildup is as expected due to center-of-gravity drift. A similar effect is apparent in Fig. VI-3 in primary attitude error, which is building up negatively, and also in the small RGS yaw steering command, which is commanding the GLV to yaw right.* c. Stage II roll IGS roll attitude error for Stage II is shown in Fig. VI-3, with TARS roll attitude error shown for comparison. There was a small apparent drift rate between TARS and IGS roll as shown by the small increase in IGS roll output between approximately LO +160 seconds and SECO. The drift rate was CW, IGS with respect to TARS, and the buildup in IGS error,between the referenced times,was about +0. 60 degree. The dispersion is predominantly due to TARS roll gyro g-sensitive drift, and this type of dispersion has been noted on all flights to date. Figure VI-3 denotes areas and upper and lower limits of apparent oscillations seen on the IGS roll output. These oscillations are simply the effect of indecision due to quantization (0. 12 deg/quanta) in the IGS computer and, therefore, do not reflect any actual GLV oscillations. Similar motions are not apparent on the TARS roll output shown on Fig. VI-3. d. IGS SECO The IGS SECO discrete was issued at LO + 336. 984 + 0, -0.1 seconds. This compares to the RGS SECO time of 337. 002 + 0. 005 seconds. Therefore, if shutdown had occurred by IGS command, the GLV velocity would have been slightly lower (approximately 4. 3 fps) at SECO.
*Note: Behavior of the IGS yaw attitude error during the referenced time period results from the difference in out-of-plane velocity components of the two systems. The IGS indicated a null in the out-of-plane velocity component at about LO + 320 seconds and a value of 12 fps at SECO; whereas the primary system indicated zero out-of-plane velocity at SECO. Since the IGS yaw steering commands generated during this portion of flight are computed by dividing the out-of-plane velocity by an

ER 13227-7

VI-9

"effective" time-to-go to SECO, the IGS steering signal diverges, rather than converges, to zero as the RGS signal does. This behavior is normal as evidenced by previous flights.

VII-1

VII.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS A. CONFIGURATION

The launch vehicle airborne electrical system components installed for the GT-7 flight were similar to those used on GLV-5 except for the flashing beacon light assembly, which was not incorporated on GLV-5. Four beacon lights were installed on Stage II of GLV-7; two similar beacon lights were installed on GLV-4. В. COUNTDOWN AND FLIGHT PERFORMANCE

The airborne electrical system functioned as designed through the entire flight, and all parameters were within specifications. Power transfer to airborne batteries was comparatively smooth, and liftoff occurred without incident. During staging, examination of the APS and IPS current traces indicated that no stage separation nuts or Stage II engine start squibs shorted to structure. This compares favorably with GT-3 and GT-4, on which no staging shorts were noted. Currents to the Stage II redundant shutdown squibs at SECO were not detectable on either the APS or IPS traces, although squib operation was confirmed by Meas 0521. At spacecraft separation, the launch vehicle/spacecraft electrical interface was cut by a guillotine in the adapter causing a l.'5-ampere spike on IPS and a 9-ampere spike on APS for approximately 100 milliseconds. These guillotine shorts are expected and have occurred on all spacecraft separations in varying degrees; however, on the GT-7 flight the cleanest spacecraft separation to date was experienced. As required, the flashing beacon light assembly began operating after SECO at a rate of approximately 71 pulses per minute. Orbital operation was confirmed by astronaut observation. A summary of electrical system parameters measured at power transfer and during flight is presented in Table VII-1.

ER 13227-7

VII-2
0 « '*-> 0) cd LI if
со
го cd Q
гз

С

о» см -г
г;

еоз
ш
го
0 0

оз
го —1 1—1 03 го

со^ г:

ем ю ем см ю ем см ю см

CO

«Й
0) 0

Г5

cd (ч о о
О2 СМ

_p

со
ОС

•*
го
г;

\г.
?:

тз го «н с.
го го
^

•~,

о

0

CO

s _c
СО

го -г N г:
Г-Н

t-

ю
со
О
0

<
"Sb с
bC -i: cd «и со ц со1"" 02
• i H

7^

оэ' ем

-.'

— r^

со
О
С. ГО

г-.


сч
г—
Т-Н

г-'
Г!

СМ

см
0
£

ОЭ

г."
со'

с"

см ю см i—i

т—1

С-

^
PJ го
СО г-1
т—1


0 0

•г.

и
ю см
ем ю см

DO

v
0)

T-l O3
CM CO

ОЭ

s
cco

1 и
м о
со с.
со
. —1
1-4

ем

0 го
00

Еч

о
03

nj Рн
гН

pq
см ю см ем ю см ем ю см
<J-I
со
00
т— 1

0)

02 СМ

со"
0

-I оэ
го

1

1)
Ш о
-i
С-'!

6
<3 fi
оз ем со см -г
со
ч-» О

IОЭ
ГО

оз
го" I—i -и

еа см

о

о

pq
0 • и

cd
м V

со
СО
С.

ссо
т-Н

JH

0 Ш
« H

cu см см
Г-Н

CQ

оэ см

со
аз"
со

О О

U
01
rH

cd
С

EH
v
, j -

ю
го

со
.
ГО С.

ю
го

J О
гН

Ш

Q
0-'

с-' ем
-t<

г;
0

см см

с..
0

о
Рч
;Э <t] -

с О)

pq
гН

со оз см
•ГО'

ш
С: оо
г-Н

го

со
а
с:

с."

см

ю"

0

о

см ю см

3 и

я
о >
V 00

с

"S

01

a
'о >
со
Рн
г—1

"со

"5

"и 'о

сь

К

з
0 i—i О

0) DO L,

0)
V ^н

cd Ll cd

и

1 а
от от LT1 сх PL,
г—(

Ш -С

я
со

(ч 0)

§! и^.
CQ

О

л

ЕН

•ф^
cd
Ш 0 0

см со

Ю 3

ы
t
со

^ ^
0

2

о

СО

iH 0 СО

ю
0

0

со
0

01 0

со
0

со 0

со
0

с0

со см

О

о

ER 13227-7

vni-i

VIII. A. 1.

INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM

AIRBORNE INSTRUMENTATION

Prelaunch and Countdown Status

The airborne instrumentation system operated within specified limits during prelaunch testing and countdown. No components in the system were replaced after the simulated flight test. 2. Data Acquisition

The measurements program for this launch consisted of 150 PCM analog signals and 42 PCM bilevel signals. All channels functioned properly throughout flight, resulting in 100% data acquisition. During first stage flight, at LO + 79. 5 seconds, there was a loss of data for a period of 39 milliseconds. Subsequent analyses indicated that word sync, frame sync and digital data words were present during the dropout and that only the digitized analog data words were lost. This condition (loss of analog data words only) was similar to that which occurred when special low voltage tests were run on GLV-3 in the Vertical Test Facility in Baltimore. Since only three minor frames of data were lost during the GT-7 flight, not all analog channels were affected, and the data loss was considered to be of little significance insofar as data recovery is concerned. 3. Instrumentation System Parameters Instrumentation system parameters, as measured in flight, are compared with specified limits in Table VIII-1. All data were within the required limits. 4. Telemetry Signal Strength (244.3 me)

Telemetry signal strength records indicated satisfactory signal levels from the launch vehicle from liftoff to approximately SECO + 89seconds. The anticipated staging blackout lasted approximately 250 milliseconds. The Cape Kennedy Tel II and Tel Ш ground stations monitored the entire flight of the launch vehicle. The Grand Bahama Island (GBI) station acquired data from approximately LO + 40 seconds to the end of flight. The Grand Turk station acquired data during Stage П flight, beginning at approximately LO + 181 seconds.

ER 13227-7

VIII-2

В. 1. Countdown Status

LANDLINE INSTRUMENTATION

The landline instrumentation system operated satisfactorily from the start of propellant conditioning through the launch countdown up to liftoff. All instrumentation holdfire functions monitored in the blockhouse remained within specification throughout the countdown. 2. Data Acquisition

Data acquisition was 100% on both the 51 recorded channels and the 37 observed or recorded backup channels. The new temperature measurement associated with the auxiliary propellant conditioning system functioned satisfactorily.

ER 13227-7

VIII-3

и <1) от
0

см

<+ 0

и
-

от
ел

w
^
соз
оэ' см

. оэ :
см

оэ tin со со со CM tгЮ

in оэ со см со о* со «-4 г-

m со

со оэ оз со оэ" оэ

t~

1р о м
зь
о
CM CM ГCD CO CM


от
см о см со со с- гЧ ссм оэ оэ см

оэ соз оэ
in со

in in

ш со со

оз

03

со

и

с

и
-•' -u -

Ф см с ОТ тН 'йо Ь w

w
-м ^
CM

ССО CO

fc ^н

о
in
CM СО

I
тЧ

оэ со см о* см с- f-H см

ю со

со со t—

in in

in со со

оэ
03

со оэ оэ'

оэ
см

г-

см

ч

d
Чн О
03 in CD f4 •<* in in 03 со о ю in оз со о оэ CO со оэ оз* оэ см со CO см о* см f4 СО tсм г- r4 tin см

с-

J

I
CM

<S

CO

о

pq -'
>н '

н : а .J о

^ р
со


о
^ >. >

' ч
с •о Н ш •И тз

2 с о «* 0 -5 S <"

t>

:,

^ о

Сч 'Зо

U

С

3 в) СГ м Ф 'И


И

оI

in in со сtо ю CO со со о о* со о" ,-н со со о -н о *-н 0 -H -н -н in -H ю оз см -н со о о оэ о со in со со CO CO со со оэ о см CM см о с- со с- CO t> со оз ю о 11 см *"H -

о со
со -н
-

о
in оэ оэ оз см i

РСМ mercury

Ф
0

PCM mercury

PCM mercury

Description

и

в а

в

a 'o о.
а

а
-

а
'

а
in
i §
0 CO

: -•• - -

-.

0

И

-.

.

-

"а а
с
о
X
! -

> Э,

а

-

-

3

-

-

ER 13227-7

IX-1

IK. A.

RANGE SAFETY AND ORDNANCE COMMAND CONTROL RECEIVERS

1. Countdown Performance The command receiver shutdown and destruct and ASCO tests were successfully completed. Telemetry indicated a stable signal strength of approximately 100 microvolts from T-5 minutes through liftoff. 2. Flight Performance

Command receivers S/N 3(APS) and S/N 8(IPS) were flown on GLV-7. The RF carrier signal increased to approximately 1500 microvolts at LO + 13.5 seconds, which was maximum for the flight. At LO + 66. 2 seconds the RF carrier signal was transferred from the Station 1 (Cape Kennedy) low-power transmitter to the high-power transmitter with an attendant rise in signal strength. Transfer of the RF carrier signal from Station 1 to Station 3 (Grand Bahama Island) occurred at LO + 118.4 seconds, at which time the RF carrier stabilized at about 150 microvolts and continued at this level through staging until the carrier was transferred to Station 7 (Grand Turk) at LO + 258.3 seconds,. At the time of the switch to Grand Turk, the RF carrier level was approximately 120 microvolts, and within 15 seconds the signal dropped to approximately 20 microvolts. The signal oscillated between 20 and 10 microvolts until LO + 320 seconds, then dropped to an oscillatory level which centered around 5 microvolts which lasted through SECO to LO + 400 seconds. The signal level at the time of ASCO was approximately 2. 5 microvolts. The time between SECO and ASCO was 63 milliseconds, which is as expected; hence, there was no delay as a result of the low signal level. The signal level was below the threshold of both receivers for four discrete periods of time; the durations were 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, and 0.25 second. Similar signal dropoffs and fluctuations in signal levels were noted on the spacecraft DCS receiver T/M signal. Antenna elevation angle was below 5° at the Grand Turk Station at this time, and slant range was approximately three times that from GBI. The transmitting antenna utilized at Grand Turk was an AGA high gain (25 db) parabolic antenna with an 8° conic radiation pattern. The possibility of slight error in tracking data obtained from this antenna must be considered as a factor in the degradation of signal strength. Operator logs showing antenna pointing data for this flight will be reviewed when available.

ER 13227-7

IX-2

В. 1. Countdown Performance

MISTRAM

The MISTRAM open-loop checks with the MACK station were completed successfully. Telemetry data from T-5 minutes until liftoff indicated that a multipath condition existed which manifested itself in the erratic operation of the calibration channel AGC voltage proportional. This situation has been observed during other open-loop tests using the MACK station and has been identified as a signal unbalance caused by the multipath. As expected, the condition was corrected when the MACK station was turned off and Valkaria acquired. 2. Flight Performance

Airborne transponder. Transponder S/N 118 was flown on GLV-7. Telemetry data indicated that the MISTRAM system performance was very good. MISTRAM I acquired the transponder at LO +10 seconds, started active track at LO + 21. 5 seconds and continued in this mode until handover at LO + 396 seconds. There were three unlocks in the calibration channel but none in the range channel; hence, there was no loss in continuity of data. The transponder did not unlock due to the staging power transient. 3. MISTRAM I Station (Valkaria)

The Valkaria station obtained reconstructable data from LO + 17 seconds until LO + 396 seconds. The primary use of the MISTRAM system for impact prediction (IP) was from Т + 60 seconds until spacecraft separation which occurred at LO + 368. 7 seconds. Thus, MISTRAM was utilized as the source of IP data for 98. 9% of the time. Utilization of the primary and secondary IP plots is shown in Table K-l. MISTRAM II Station (Eleuthera) The Eleuthera station operated intermittently in passive track mode from LO + 1 1 9 seconds until LO + 151 seconds. There was solid passive track from LO + 1 5 1 seconds until LO + 396 seconds. Active track was intermittent from LO + 394 seconds through LO + 440 seconds, but the Eleuthera data were not used as an IP source during the flight. C. ORDNANCE 4.

Stages I and II prevalves, Stage I engine start cartridges and dropweights ordnance operated satisfactorily. Launch release ordnance nuts operated properly, with all nuts detonating, as evidenced by recovery of all four holddown bolts and all lower launch nuts.

ER 13227-7

IX-3

Stage separation explosive nuts and Stage II engine ordnance operated as required. The TARS timer arm at LO + 144.15 seconds and the IPS staging arm timer at LO + 144.16 seconds. Both times were compatible trend data on these timers.

start cartridge signal occurred was actuated with GLV-7

TABLE IX-1 Range Safety Plotboards Impact Prediction Primary Plotboard System MIST RAM I Patrick AFB TPQ-18 Merritt Island TPQ-18 Grand Bahama TPQ-18 Grand Turk TPQ-18

Secondary Plotboard System Mod Ш Patrick AFB TPQ-18 Merritt Island TPQ-18 Bermuda FPS-16 Usage Time (sec) 371.2

Usage Time (sec)
335.6

45.8 18.8 0.3 0.8 7.0
408.3

11.4
21.2 4.5
408.3

Bermuda PPS-16

ER 13227-7

x-i

X.

MALFUNCTION DETECTION SYSTEM A. CONFIGURATION

The malfunction detection system (MDS) hardware flown on GLV-7 on 4 December 1965 is listed in Table X-l. TABLE X-l GLV-7 MDS Components Nomenclature Part Number Manufacturer Giannini Martin Serial Number
4018 B028

PS8306 00015-027 Rate switch Malfunction 424-7569205-189 detection package Tank pressure PS746000002-023 transducers, Stage I Tank pressure PS746000002-025 transducers, Stage II Stage separation connectors MDS engine switches, Stage I CCI8119A1-5 CCI8119A1-6 284321

Servonics

Servonics

Cannon

Fuel A, 1118 Fuel B, 1102 Oxidizer A, 1111 Oxidizer B, 1108 Fuel A, 2113 Fuel B, 2110 Oxidizer A, 2111 Oxidizer B, 2109 00064 00028 S/A 1 primary, 0000562 S/A 1 redundant, 0000558 S/A 2 primary, 0000567 S/A 2 redundant, 0000859 S/A 3 primary, 0000503 S/A 3 redundant, 0000531

Aerojet

MDS engine switches, Stage II

711049-1

Aerojet

ER 13227-7

X-2

В.

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Performance of the MDS during preflight checkout and during the flight of GLV-7 was satisfactory. 1. Engine Pressure Switches Operation of the Stage I engine malfunction detection thrust chamber pressure switches (MDTCPS) and the Stage II engine malfunction detection fuel injector pressure switches (MDFJPS) is summarized in Table X-2. These switches are required to "make" in a pressure range of 540 to 600 psia and "break" in a pressure range of 585 to 515 psia. The Stage I engine start spike was of sufficient amplitude and time duration to cause the S/A 1 MDTCPS switches to momentarily respond to the thrust chamber pressure. All MDS engine pressure switches operated properly and within the specification pressure requirements. TABLE X-2 Operation of MDS Engine Pressure Switches
S/A 1 (Meas 0356) S/A 2 (Meas 0357) S/A 3 (Meas 0855)

Make (540 to 600 psia) Break (585 to 515 psia)

1930:01. 137 at 595 psia 1932:39. 268 at 570 psia

1930:01. 277 at 550 psia 1932:39. 276 at 540 psia

1932:40. 001* 1935: 40.869*

*S/A 3 fuel injector pressure is not instrumented on the Gemini Launch Vehicle; hence, make and break pressures are not available. 2. Switchover The MDS switchover circuitry functioned properly throughout the flight. There were no switchover commands and likewise no switchover executed--indicating proper performance of the switchover circuitry. 3. Vehicle Rate Detection

The spin motor rotation detectors (SMRDs) contained in the malfunction detection package (MDP) functioned properly. The SMRDs monitor rate switch package (RSP) gyro rotational speed and thereby its rate-sensing capability. The RSP operated properly throughout the countdown and flight. There were no vehicle overrates detected by the MDS rate switches and correspondingly none occurred during flight from liftoff through spacecraft separation. Table X-3 compares the maximum launch vehicle rates, measured during the period from liftoff through SECO, with the RSP switch settings.

ER 13227-7

х-з

TABLE X-3 Maximum Vehicle Rates Compared with Rate Switch Settings Axes Rate switch settings (deg/sec) Maximum vehicle rates (deg/sec) Pitch
Yaw

Stage I Flight

Flight Event N/A N/A N/A Wind Shear Wind Shear RoU Program

Stage II Flight ±.10
±-10

Flight Event

+ 2. 5; -3. 0
±2. 5 ±20.0 -1.01 -0. 81 +1.60

N/A
N/A

Roll Pitch

±20

N/A
Staging Staging Staging

-2. 02 + 1. 59 -1. 40

Yaw RoU

N/A = not applicable. Following spacecraft separation and before loss of telemetry, there were no operations of the rate switches; the vehicle rates during this period were below the rate switch settings. 4. Tank Pressure Sensors All MDS tank pressure transducers operated properly throughout the countdown and flight. The maximum differences between the transducer pairs on each tank are presented in Table X-4. TABLE X-4 Maximum Voltage and Pressure Differences Between Tank Pressure Transducer Pairs Maximum Difference Percent of Transducer Full Range Д psi

Д Volts (telemetry) Stage Stage Stage Stage I fuel I oxidizer II fuel II oxidizer 0.040 0.050 0. 090 0.050

Percent of Transducer Full Range

0. 80 1. 00 1. 80 1. 00

0. 72 0.35 1.65 0.63

1. 44 0. 70 2. 20 0. 84

Figure X-l presents the calibration curves for the Stage I fuel tank pressure transducer pairs (A and B) to clarify the percentage variations between voltage and psi (shown in Table X-4). The maximum difference of 1. 80% of transducer full-range output voltage is well within the transducer and telemetry system errors.

ER 13227-7

X-4

Fig. X-l.

Calibration Curves for Stage I Fuel Tank Pressure Transducers

ER 13227-7

XI-1

XI. CREW SAFETY A. PRELAUNCH WINDS FLIGHT SIMULATIONS

Prelaunch wind measurements from Cape Kennedy were transmitted by data card to Martin-Baltimore and were used as inputs to three computer programs. One digital program evaluated wind conditions by comparing actual wind measurements with specification wind speeds and wind shears; a second digital program was used to compute the windaffected trajectory; and a third analog program determined the vehicle bending loads and the control system transients for the wind-affected trajectory. Subroutines were then used to establish the first-stage propellant tank underpressure constraints and the slow malfunction action thresholds for flight control system (FCS) switchover. The results were sent periodically by phototelegraphy and data card transmission to Martin-Canaveral and to NASA-MSC prior to the launch. All portions of the program worked smoothly except on the T-7 hour run. A late release by the Air Weather Service and a 1620 computer failure caused the T-7 hour documents to be released 5 to 10 minutes late. All other runs were released on schedule. A brief summary of all computer runs is presented in Table XI-1. Run No. 3 was moved from T-12 hours on previous launches to T-7 hours for the GT-7 and subsequent missions. TABLE XI-1 Summary of Prelaunch Operations Time of Data Release to Ma rtin - Baltim ore
F-2 day 1100 EST 12-2-65 F-l day 1100 EST 12-3-65 T-7 hr 0730 EST 12-4-65

Run No.

Operation Wind comparison to specification. Sent to Cape and MCCHouston. Wind comparison to specification. Sent to Cape and MCCHouston. Digital trajectory simulation sent to MCC. Computation of wind comparison, load, analog and trajectory simulations and constraints. Data sent to Cape and to MCC-Houston; winds were "go. "

ER 13227-7

XI-2

TABLE XI-1 (continued) Time of Data Release to Martin- Baltimore
T-5 hr 0930 EST 12-4-65

Run No.

Operation Computation of wind comparison, load, analog and trajectory simulations and constraints. Data sent to Cape and to MCC-Houston; winds were "go. " Computation of wind comparison, load, analog and trajectory simulations and constraints. Data sent to Cape and MCС-Houston. Winds were "go. " Computation of wind comparison; minor wind change; simulations canceled; unchanged data verified by telephone to Cape and MCC-Houston; winds were "go. "

T-3 hr 1130 EST 12-4-65

T-l hr 1330 EST 12-4-65

1. Trajectory Simulation Of the seven wind profiles (Figs. XI-1, XI-2 and XI-3), the soundings released by the Air Force at F-l day and at Т-7, Т-5 and T-3 hours were programmed into the IBM 7094 Gemini Trajectory Program. Results of the trajectory simulations were delivered to MCC-Houston in time for use in plotboard revisions of the nominal trajectory as affected by winds. 2. Loads Simulation

The winds-aloft launch recommendations for the GT-7 flight were based upon the results obtained from analog computer load simulation runs performed at Martin-Baltimore. Three simulations were run using winds data released at T-7, T-5 and T-3 hours. These loads were 79% of limit strength; thus, all recommendations were "go. " 3. Analog Transient Simulations

The engine gimbal angles, attitude errors, and pitch and yaw angles of attack as obtained from the wind load analog simulations were sent to the Monitors in MCC-Houston for use as a preview of vehicle and control system responses to the winds aloft. 4. First-Stage Propellant Tank Underpressure Constraints

The Stage I tank underpressure constraints for GT-7 were selected to maintain structural integrity for the simulated loads. The constraints

ER 13227-7

XI-3

a •о

30

Run 1 2

Observation F-2day

Time EST

Date 12-2-65 12-3-65

,,
vr

1100 1100

F- 1 day

О

10

20

30

40

50 60 70 80 Wind Speed (fpe)

90

100 110 120

80

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Wind Azimuth (deg)

Fig. XI-1.

Launch Winds Forecast for T-0

ER 13227-7

XI -4

120

160

200 240 Wind Azimuth (deg)

280

320

Fig. JH.-2.

Launch Winds Soundings

ER 13227-7

XI-5

••С 32 2
X

£ зо

Run

Observation

Time EST

Date 12-4-65 12-4-65 12-4-65

T-3 hr T-l hr T-0 hr

1130 1330 1430

10 "M

30

40

50 60

70

80

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

240 260 280 300 320 340

Wind Speed (fps) Fig. XI-3. Launch Winds Sounds

Wind Azimuth (deg)

ER 13227-7

XI-6

used were lower than the constraints required to withstand the design wind. The selected constraints were transmitted expeditiously to MCC~ Houston. B. SLOW MALFUNCTION MONITORING

1. Prelaunch Activities From 1 December to 3 December, the Guidance Monitor activities included Flight Dynamic Officer crew training runs, slide review, slide scribing, data checks and plotboard preparation. 2. Launch Day Activities

All data card transmissions from Martin-Baltimore to NASA-Houston v/ere received on schedule along with data fax material; four payload margin transmissions were received from Cape Kennedy. Transmission No. 2 yielded the payload margin corresponding to the 500-pound payload constraint line used on the plotboard. 3. Stage I Flight

Good agreement existed between IGS and TARS in the pitch axis. Since no thrust misalignment or drift was apparent in pitch, this was the best Stage I flight in pitch to date. Small thrust misalignment existed in roll. The IGS parameters agreed perfectly with the Radio Guidance System in yaw. No drift was apparent in yaw or roll. As in previous flights, rigid body oscillations of approximately ±0. 5 degree in yaw were observed. Yaw-roll operation was very satisfactory. A slight loft occurred at max q. 4. Stage II Flight

A two-second saturated nose-down command yielded nominal pitch steering. A eg drift buildup of approximately 1. 0 degree in pitch and yaw existed at SECO. Pitch and roll engine oscillations began at LO+250 seconds, maximized to 0. 1 degree and decayed to zero degree at LO+300 seconds. IGS was in perfect agreement with RGS to SECO, and little cross-coupling was apparent. At LO+310 seconds, Burroughs parameters were lost. Subsequent switching by Goddard to biomedical lines created this situation. The tailoff in pitch was approximately 0. 8 deg/sec, and in yaw it was very mild. 5. Stages I and II Plotboards

Plotboard predictions were excellent. During Stage I, the flight was nominal except for a slight loft at max q. The flight followed the predicted Stage II trajectory perfectly. The II-A and III-A plotboards are shown in Figs. XT-4 and XI-5, respectively. Telemetry III yaw-roll and pitch axis recordings are shown in Figs. XI-6 and XI-7.

ER 13227-7

XT-7

Xl-7

PLOTBOARD

LAUNCH

TIME i

riCAL INERT1AL VELOCITY

ft/tec

NOTE: Actual V--T is not presented

Fig. XE-4. Houston-MCC Plotboard VA, Pitch Plane

ER 13227-7

XI-8
Tgo TIME TO GO TO SECO

Fig. XI-5. Houston-ШЗ Plotboard ША, Lateral Velocity

ER 13227-7

9-/
Stage II Stage I 1-Sec Marks from Liftoff
. . 4 ,- . . , . .

CONFIDENTIAL
Г
,j_i3->-i-v r

XI-9
(revised 2-66)

10 Sec

Spacecraft separation

-. -,

' '

i- '

-* i '.

Nose Down

0

743 ± 6°

8 • 743 ± 6°

trrt
SWO 872 - 874
Diff 6

-

-

••
НгИН -- Ft-fH-H • • . • t -• • —-><- -• • t '. f 4 • • •
t

_i p
.

:

^- •

...
. i •.

^^

I.
— ---—'• -£*• 1 /

I •

] ГГ - - —'— —^ . . . . _ . .—_.— . _. . i . —r^i~^ i"t > ^ -т—* i— i i • -4 +-< т *- ~ \ -\ •т ;J - ' I '*

"!~i~T . 1 " Г " - ' *

. . . . . . . .

es

- 6

ep

Diff e

-e

H- н •

Щ.Н

i i :

; 1.

tn

1

4

.

• -<•-; "" 4-^4-4 . 1

i

.: j_. : :
—r

. -. , .
'

1

нТГТТ . , ; • • • ч • . .u;

, 4 . 1

I I I I ' '

1 : .1 . .
4

. . . .
-

.

. .-t-<I
:


-

:

'-'
.
:

743 - 766
GCP 728

743 - 766

Stage II, Nose I A Down IT Stage I —I

p GE/B ± 5'

6B

i• j-t . * t I—f--*
с
-M - -

732 MSB GCS 773

Ш±i±rr:

±*tt±i ! -r+r: ^ i MTai:i-i i.Tji, i j ; ; i ' i ir; tn j;. J_4_i_ : . ! • ; ' 1^44 ! Ч ' ' 4. i Ц —1г=Й:
; l

4-r —i - - . . ' -

: -

ттт

i . -. . . . . . .

-: . • :..
•[ -Н

*. Ч t ; ;
1

...

' »Ч
' '
:

; ,

ri±h i: : i lЧ г Г
. : i t
' '! .' «I •

Г-^<'' i > i 'т :

i §"
. TT :

t-H

T

^- I :

- НТО н-

j^ire-^fV1 —i \ t-4 4 Ч *- *- ч • •
] ' l i i

:.
4-t-j

Uf-

Quid Init TARS 740

Я
f i I ПТТТП 4-1 I T T ! и M U-Ч M-t-f+и M 4-1 • • i •
I -l-^CU^ ; i i ,
г г~ . -t &ШЗ

м
. --4--U I, I
"

ii±±±L±ib_ ' •

\1 -M-

i ' - t-t

1

•»

bcrh

; -И 441 i-1^!.J Tli

ffm^mffffi
№+ЗД*Ф Ш| I - • : ' - • • Н-++4- г

т
t$&

иг : ' : nKl itnm Ж Шптп!! i > шгииишшй
frawttHfbrH-*^
I I I I -t~{- *— -M
M— -4-

ft-.''. ih^^.; . i . i L 1_. -j .I

i

i ; i i•

:
t

Ii

i •т :

ЕЕ

.

^

• t:t

±Г гт! ulJ.I-!4-: i я : Т 1L it r t i
Lift off

. | . . . , . , i . . .

,

Л

ffit!

^.i L . i .

. гг^ц:

'.—..u.^ji ;i [ ;;Tt4-P- 4 : ; : : : : ; : i l l " i u-d-l:--; ii I iTTTPti { r£ t| ' 1 ; !1 Ц-:....-|П--ГГ i 1 u i t, i 'J-j т i iнi i ч —\ .4
HTTTj

-+-

— '

, CT

~' •*-

4.
-

4

' <. .

ЕПЕ
...

' !" И"

' '.

.

i

t

_L

- : i r ,-гч .
SECO
SCR No. 1

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

Fig. XI-6. Telemetry III Pitch Axis Recording

ER 13227-7

-It-*
Stage П Stage I 1-Sec Marks from 1 tftoff

>

-10'£

ЧЧМ^иЕУВ ^"WfWBF"*
10 sec

XI-10 _ -7 (revised 2-66)^
Spacecraft separation

*

mrftffl

ffiftffl
M I I'M
'4 ' 1 ' 1 ' I ' ' ' "-' i ' l

Guid Init TARS 740

шж^ааш^ ±т1 - ' ' L u L L i ' )Ш 1
'-' i -It t rf tTT

•• I

I II

(-*- *•)

..

ГГ±^

' *
' •—I Т 1
) ! . ( . , ! . . , .

.

--h'-H- -t-<— - Н~Н H- '-rJ-4~H -j—v^t-i-fi^i"T
., i . . . ! . , . . I (- l

Г"*" I • г ) ' • i • ! : i- ! | -•
J ,.

:±4_trh-r-

т

• : .

rrtrrHi
SCR No. 2

SECO Fig. XI-T- Telemetry III Yaw-Roll Axis Recording

ER 13227-7

XII-1

XII. A.

AIRFRAME SYSTEM STRUCTURAL LOADS

Analysis of GT-7 flight data indicates that the loads experienced were well within the structural capabilities of the launch vehicle. The most critical loading occurred, characteristically, at рге-BECO where the load aft of Station 320 reached 98. 5% of design limit load in compression. Instrumentation for dynamic response data consisted of rate gyros for lateral dynamic loads and axially mounted accelerometers for longitudinal dynamic loads. No major anomalies affecting the airframe occurred during flight; unusually high amplitude propellant slosh oscillations occurred during Stage II midflight but were not considered to be detrimental. 1. Preignition

The 1 g deadweight distribution is the only contribution to steady axial loading in the preignition period. Ground winds were approximately 14 mph from a direction of 320 degrees (critical wind azimuth for ground winds), which produced steady bending of 220, 000 in. -Ib and wind induced oscillatory (WIO) loads of ±765, 000 in. -Ib (Fig. XII-1) at Station 1224. The WIO response represents approximately 40% of the WIO design limit bending moment; Table XII-1 shows the comparison of all GLV WIO experience to date. TABLE XII-1 Comparison of GLV WIO Loads Flight
GT-1

WIO Load at Station 1224 (% of WIO design limit bending moment)

52
5 29 3 2 40

GT-2 GT-3 GT-4 GT-5 GT-7
2. Launch Prerelease

Ignition transients were normal, and the attendant dynamic axial loads as measured by the BLH system are shown in Fig. XII-2 together with the steady axial load. The prerelease lateral dynamic loading was due to the combined effects of ground winds and, most significantly, engine start transients; this loading is shown in Fig. XII-3.

ER 13227-7

XII-2

— Steady-state loads

200

400

600 800 1000 Vehicle Station (in.)

1200

1400

Fig. XII-1. Bending Moments Due to Ground Winds:

Preignition

ER 13227-7

XII-3

с о

-600

..:.-.

i-500 I В

-400
и :
И

г
1

.
.::•[.:.

!

:

GLV

• I• /

: : : . i r : t:

Launch 1; stand
г

p
4 т.

. :

.


-300 ~

г -

т
1

liii •
t ' • '

-J
. :••• '.

iH
:!

::, .:. .:

-200

.)::: '

В
/

::'::::

••• ; '

.

. .

.

— Interface?:;;

а и
-

-100

i/
L
• -- • • - - ;

i
^

100

t-i

1 Н

200

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Vehicle Station (in.) pig. ХП-2. Dynamic Axial Load Envelope: Prelaunch

ER 13227-7

XII-4

••• :,

pq

I и

0.4wn

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Vehicle Station (in.) Fig. ХП-3- Lateral Dynamic Bending Moment Envelope: Prerelease

ER 13227-7

XII-5

3.

Launch Postrelease

A comparison (Table XII-2) of the GT-7 liftoff load factor with those of previous launches indicates that this flight experienced the lowest initial steady acceleration to date. This can be attributed to the low thrust class Stage I engine coupled with increased propellant and spacecraft weights. TABLE XII-2 Comparison of GLV Liftoff Load Factors Flight
GT-1 GT-2

Liftoff Load Factor (g)

1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.28 1.26

GT-3 GT-4 GT-5 GT-7

Dynamic deformation modes in evidence at postrelease consisted of the first and fifth structural bending and Stage I engine modes in the lateral plane and the first axial mode in the longitudinal direction. Frequency correlation between calculated and observed modes during the the flight is given in Fig. XII-4; the resulting dynamic bending moment in the postrelease condition is shown in Fig. XII-5. 4. Stage I Flight

The most significant periods of Stage I flight for airframe loading occurred at Max CN q a and at pre-BECO. On this flight, Max CN qa
a a

occurred at LO + 80 seconds, slightly later in flight than on previous vehicles. A 25-fps wind shear spike at an altitude of 44, 000 feet accounted for this late occurrence. In comparing loads at LO + 80 seconds with loads at the traditional LO+ 69 second Max С лт qa flight time, several interesting observations

.•

can be made: (1) All of the lateral dynamic responses noted at LO + 69 seconds were also observed at LO -I- 80 seconds, and, in addition, the

ER 13227-7

XII-6

alculated Mode 6

f:Calculated Mode 1 [^Calculated Stage П fuel slosh

bU

80

100

120

140

160

Time from Liftoff (sec) Fig. ХП-U. Stage I Flight Vibration Frequency Correlation

ER 13227-7

XII-7

ее

-

Г

3 I

а:

а v РР

и

n structural mode

с

э

I

cJ
0 i

1 £
200 400 600 800 1000 Vehicle Station (in.)

ч

1200

1400

Fig. ХП-5' Total Lateral Dynamic'Load Envelope:

Postrelease

ER 13227-7

XII-8

Stage II fuel slosh mode was evident at the latter time. The amplitudes of the modes at LO + 80 seconds, however, were reduced from their values for corresponding modes at LO + 69 seconds. Thus, the GT-7 lateral dynamic load increment at LO + 80 seconds was less than that observed on previous flights at LO + 69 seconds. (2) While the steady axial acceleration at LO + 80 seconds was greater than at LO + 69 seconds, because of the low thrust of the GT-7 Stage I engine and the additional depletion of propellants in that 11-second period, the resultant quasi-steady axial load at LO + 80 seconds was somewhat less than on previous flights at LO + 69 seconds. (3) Winds aloft, although of greater magnitude than on some previous flights, were from a less critical azimuth (tail wind) at LO + 80 seconds than at LO + 69 seconds (right quartering). In addition, the bending load peak moves forward on the launch vehicle as the vehicle eg moves forward with depletion of propellants. Thus, quasi-steady bending loads at critical Station 935 will be minutely affected by the canceling effects of loadincreasing wind shear and the aforementioned load reducing characteristics.

The net result of the foregoing considerations is the attainment of one of the lowest airframe loadings to date. This comparison is shown in Table XII-3. TABLE XII-3 Structural Loads Comparison of Gemini Flights At Max CN qa, Station 935 a (% design limit load) At Pre-BECQ Station 320 + (% design limit load)

Flight

GT-1 GT-2 GT-3 GT-4 GT-5 GT-7

82.3
80. 1

95. 5 100 97 101 98. 5 98. 5

78.5 85.4 71.6 72.8

ER 13227-7

XII-9

Dynamic bending moments obtained from the rate gyro responses in the Max C,^ qa and pre-BECO regions of flight are shown in Figs. ХП-6

N

and XII-7, respectively. in Table XII-4.

Steady axial acceleration at pre-BECO is given TABLE XII-4

Steady Axial Accelerations at Pre-BECO Pre-BECO Axial Acceleration Flight
GT-1 GT-2 GT-3 GT-4 GT-5 GT-7 (g)
5.61 5.69 5.63 5.63 5.55 5.56

5. Stage П Flight Significant amplitude oscillations occurred during Stage II flight in the time interval between LO + 250 seconds and LO + 320 seconds. These oscillations, at a frequency of 1. 6 cps and an amplitude of 1.2 deg/sec peak-to-peak as indicated by rate gyros, were predominantly in the pitch plane (yaw plane amplitude was approximately 1/5 of the pitch plane response). The GT-7 oscillations were two to three times larger than on any previous flight. Analyses indicate the following: (1) The 1.2 deg/sec peak-to-peak rate amplitude at 1.6 cps is equivalent to +1/3 inch and +0. 05 g at the crew station (Launch Vehicle Station 185). The slosh oscillations were barely perceptible to the astronauts. (2) Structural loads resulting from these oscillations were not appreciable (approximately 0. 1% of design limit load at critical Station 276.8+) and are, therefore, of no concern. As indicated by high and low range axial accelerometers, sustainer engine shutdown was normal, and there was no evidence of post-SECO disturbances on any structural dynamic instrumentation.

Based on comments made at debriefing session at Cape Kennedy on 23 December 1965.

ER 13227-7

XII-10

First structural mode

Stage П fuel slosh mode

Second struc tural mode

200

400

600 800 1000 Vehicle Station (in.)

1200

1400

Fig. XU-6. Total Lateral Dynamic Load Envelope: Max С„ q.or a

ER 13227-7

XII-11

is Third structural : mode

Stage I engine

19.4

О

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Vehicle Station (in.)

Fig. XH-7.

Total Lateral Dynamic Load Envelope:

Pre-BBCO

ER 13227-7

XII-12

The steady axial acceleration at SECO is shown in Table XII-5 and was the lowest of any flight to date, primarily because of Stage II and spacecraft weight increase and trajectory differences. TABLE XII-5 Steady Axial Accelerations at SECO Flight
GT-1 GT-2 GT-3 GT-4 GT-5 GT-7

SECO Axial Acceleration (g)
7.35 7.70 7.50 7.42 7.56 7.23

6. Total Ai][•frame Loads A summary of the total airframe loads (quasi-steady axial, dynamic axial and equivalent axial loads from quasi-steady and dynamic bending moments) for significant structural loading conditions at critical stations is presented in Table XII-6. Complete vehicle loading at significant flight times is shown in Figs. XII-8 through XII-12. The maximum load at any station and the loading condition for which it occurred are shown in Fig. XII-13. TABLE XII-6 Summary of GT-7 Total Airframe Loads Flight Condition Prerelease Postrelease Max CN qa (LO + 80 sec) a Pre-BECO (LO +155 sec) Pre-SECO (LO + 337 sec) *Just aft of Station Total Airframe Load (% of DLL at critical station)
73.3 64. 5
72.8, 87. 9
98. 5 73. 1

Critical Station
1188* 1188* 935, 1188*

320* 276. 8*

ER 13227-7

XII-13

Desig n envelope
№ &— o-o— Desig n envelope code В Д

a PO strelease

Pr erelease

-700

0 Tr ansonic buffet О MEix CN qa a Т ВБ:co

-600
0

j: :).; ; ,•:
:r!:; !
:

.

• t. г-; '

1

i
i— ,_ii- :

:
- •

f: Design limit

w^~. 1
iiliiii
i I——1

ЧГ

:

-~j— '

С •о
rt О

XI

-500

=

>-* —

1

d—

i i': I; : I

|l

•jj -*-» ш 'rt

-400

ip
:
T: f '?

1

sntss

.5 -зоо
0"

Т "> •

r^
'" ( ' : • ; •"•

S-Й '
:

1

ill
tt:: Rt: "ilifvfl

J

-200
; : : j : -jjb i - : i . •::-•:

i :

:i ;

;
;

i

•; ; ; "
:

-100 Interface-ri^i

щ

• iiiiiMi

|
1000
Prerelease

Prei el easefJ1

Tens n (80, 10 3 Ib maX )

0

\
200 400 600
Fig. XII-8.

'

:

:

800

1200

14C

Vehicle Station (in.) Equivalent Axial Load:

ER 13227-7

XII-14

Etesign envelope Design envelope code Д Prerelease D Postrelease О Transonic buffet О Max CN qa о

:

я

I Э
-r

-

Postrelease
-10

Tension (45,000 Ib max)
600 800 Vehicle Station (in.)
К

1400

Fig. ХП-9- Equivalent Axial Load: Postrelease

ER 13227-7

XII-15

Design envelope Design envelope code Prerelease Postrelease Transonic buffet Max C-.J qa a Т ВЕСО Д D О О

-700

-600
о
0 fH X
:

•<
j Design limit Ц—' —

S -500
T3
И!

I

1
' i •:.•.:

2 -400 x <^ •*-» 1

:
-''


- - • ; - - • 4— r~

ГЛ;Г t-- T"T~ рШЩГ^
*' .."Ч Г"

• ;..

[:••.':

£ -300
И

Г*Йй

ifciS 1 •

o-200

^H ^^~^
f

[
\ 'HfH ~ '— — — —-_ i \\
щМах С,т

^
] i ei

-100

~i

V

дорШШ

1

200

Hi J

400

800

1000

400

V e h i c l e Station (in.)

Fig. XII-10.

Equivalent Axial Load:

Max С

ER 13227-7

XII-16

Design envelope Design envelope code Д П О О V Prerelease Postrelease Transonic buffet Max CN qa a BECO

Design limit

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Vehicle Station (in.)

Fig. XII-11.

Equivalent Axial Load:

Pre-BECO

ER 13227-7

XII-17

-700

г*'] —

Design envelope V—Q—A—o— Л— Desig i envelope cod •

-600

lib

'.'•!'": :- ::•;

o~~ 2 -500
X
1

1 1: !
-:'..
:

Д О О О
ШШ5

Pr erelease Postrelease Tr ansonic buffet Мах С-j q«
j

S
о -400

V BECO : НЩНг: :;п;. ::
1

Д »—

•:• 1

•a

.

:

* —

Цщ Design limit
;

• H

•£ - 300
7^-

::';!::''
pj •::;• •:::

. ..::. • --

И -200

;

.'

;
SEC О iii

Interface^-J

-100

4
200

w

/

• 1
•;::(:•;

.:.. '.

'

•.':

[ijililii

;•;; зщз-;
800

400

600

1000

1200

1400

Vehicle Station (in. )• Fig. XH-12. Equivalent Axial Load: SBCO

ER 13227-7

XII-18

liJDesign envelope Design envelope code Д Prerelease П Postrelease О Transonic buffet О Max CN qo

-700

00

о

-600

та -500
-• : -

3 -400

и

I

-300

-200 fe

jgfgMax CN

qa

-100

Postrelease

Pre-BECC
200

400

600 800 1000 Vehicle Station (in.)

1200

1400

Fig. ХП-13- Maximum Structural Load Envelope

ER 13227-7

XII-19

В.

POGO

GT-5 experienced an unusually high level of sustained longitudinal oscillation (POGO) near the end of Stage I flight. As a result, an exhaustive investigation was conducted (Ref. 17) leading to the conclusion that an unsatisfactory "charge" (gas pressurization) of the oxidizer standpipes caused the instability. This problem did not occur on the GT-7 flight. Analysis of GT-7 telemetry data showed that the POGO suppression devices (fuel accumulators and oxidizer standpipes) operated satisfactorily. No pressure oscillations which could be associated with structural resonances were detected in either the oxidizer or fuel feedlines. Bandpass filtering of the analog reconstruction of PCM/FM telemetry (Meas 0670) indicates that the maximum intermittent longitudinal oscillation in Compartment 1 (Station 280) occurred at LO + 133. 3 seconds. The amplitude of this oscillation was 0. 125 g zero-to-peak at a frequency of 11.8 cps and lasted approximately three seconds. The time history of POGO response amplitude for Compartments 1 and 5 is shown in Fig. ХП-14. Figure XII-15 is a comparison of longitudinal oscillations for the last four Gemini flights. The GT-7 level represents the lowest POGO occurrence to date.

ER 13227-7

XII-20
: ;

i ~
^---!
-,
"*'•-»

i—1

; *~''

.

_

-

-

<
uj

\
.

1

!

.-

'— г~п —
i 1

-

:: •

t

i

;;

I

i

1

-

- •

/

'
i | :

i

: ТГ • 1
2 g .

>

^

1

-+-----

: Г
cs «

'' -—ft-

с

t '

1

•s ? oi t
Q
•a
s

я)

a г
с

-

IL ±- -

^ «

,

It

и

Я ^ ^

t

ГГ
СCD

XI " ± ixcn:

ю

;

о"

о"

(}]тзэс1-о:)-сиэг)

ER 13227-7

XII-21

3 '

ER 13227-7

ХШ-1

XIII. A.

AGE AND FACILITIES MECHANICAL AGE

1. Precount Operations The mechanical AGE utilized prior to countdown is primarily for transport and erection of Stages I and II. Both stages of GLV-7 were airlifted successfully to Cape Kennedy by B-377PG aircraft. During erection, all equipment functioned as designed. 2. Countdown and Launch Operations Analysis of magnetic tape recordings of functions carried through the umbilicals and inspection of films confirm that all launch vehicle electrical umbilicals separated cleanly in 0. 823 second. As indicated in Table XIII-1, the umbilicals disconnected in the planned sequence except for 2B2E, which separated out of sequence, 0. 020 second ahead of 2B1E. This deviation from the normal sequence does not present a problem and has been included as part of the usual pull tests of electrical umbilicals. TABLE XIII-1 Electrical Umbilical Disconnect Sequence Umbilical Designation 3D1M-3D2M 3D1E 3D2E 3B1E 2B1E 2B2E Time of Disconnect (GMT) 19:30:03.692 19:30:03. 871 19:30:04. 083 19:30:04.374 19:30:04. 515 19:30:04.495

The oxidizer standpipe remote charging system disconnects were disconnected manually and stowed prior to liftoff. B. MASTER OPERATIONS CONTROL SET (MOCS)

Analysis of the MOCS automatic sequence records shows that all functions were performed properly. The automatic sequence was picked up at T-35:00 minutes and proceeded through a successful liftoff. MOCS T-0 occurred at 1930:00. 09 GMT followed by TCPS at Т + 1. 3 seconds. The following MOCS generated time functions occurred as specified:

ER 13227-7

XIII-2

TCPS + 1. 6 seconds TCPS + 1.8 seconds TCPS + 2. 0 seconds (fire launch nuts)--1930:03. 39 GMT The launch operation was completed in 3. 3 seconds. The recorders were switched to high speed at T-2 minutes. During the automatic portion of the count, the operation of the sequencer was compared to the real-time trace and patch list. All traces were checked for time of occurrence and were found to be correct and consistent with the planned operation of the sequencer. C. FACILITIES All facility items functioned properly throughout the countdown and launch. 1. Pad Damage

Damage to AGE and facility items caused by engine blast and heat was minor. The damage was less than that which occurred on previous Gemini launches. Items damaged previously have (where possible) been reinforced or relocated away from the intense blast and heat area. All damaged items will be refurbished to their original configuration. The most significant damaged items follow. Deck Area (1) (2) Hydraulic fluid leaked around "B" nut on the west leg lock. Deck grating in front of the west elevator hoistway gate was loose.

(3) Two floodlight standards on west side were bent over. (4) Emergency shower on the east side was damaged.

Complete Vehicle Erector (1) (2) Nitrogen system gage glass on south side of erector 5 feet above deck level was broken and tubing was bent. Corrugated aluminum siding on east side of CVE was blown loose at 9 foot 8 inch, 26 foot 7 inch, 35 foot 4 inch and 53 foot 2 inch elevations.

ER 13227-7

хш-з

(3) (4)

Elevator entrance door on the 9 foot 8 inch level was blown off, and the door track was torn loose on south end. Spacecraft service elevator (east side) (a) Traveling cable duct was blown in and broken loose at lower end. (b) Elevator gate post on west side of elevator ramp was bent.

(5) Ground strap on the west pivot point was torn apart. (6) Weather curtains were damaged as follows: (a) (b) Curtains at lower levels sustained damage similar to that encountered on previous launches. Curtain track at the 9 foot 8 inch level (southwest side) was torn loose from erector.

(7) Spacecraft cable duct cover, near the southwest pivot was damaged at lower end. (8) Spacecraft cryogenic lines were damaged at the southwest pivot.

Electrical Damage (1) (2) (3) (4) Spacecraft elevator control conduit cable was torn loose from junction box at deck level. Communication J-box conduit on spacecraft elevator ramp was torn loose. Several lights and globes were broken on lower levels. A light fixture was torn loose at northeast corner beneath the 35 foot 4 inch level.

Complete Vehicle Umbilical Tower (CVUT) (1) White room air-conditioning duct insulation was damaged near deck handrail. (2) Two boom cover stiffener angles were blown off Boom No. 1.

ER 13227-7

ХШ-4

(3) Elevator cable guard screens attached to handrails on platform levels I, 2 and 3 were bent. (4) Spray nozzle mounted above Boom No. 1 was missing. (5) Mitoc box mounted on Platform No. 3 was missing. (6) Outboard end of oxidizer line attached to boom just above Platform No. 4 was bent. (7) Air-conditioning duct underneath Platform No. 7 was damaged.

ER 13227-7

XIV-1

XIV. RELIABILITY A. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA

Measurements relative to launch vehicle environmental criteria were not made on GT-7. A comparison of qualification test limits, analytical data, GT-1 thru GT-5 flight data, and Titan II R&D flight data appears in Table XIV-1 of Ref. 1. В. COUNTDOWN PROBABILITY

Based on GLV countdown experience (through GT-5), the average number of holds per countdown (h) was calculated to be 0. 143, i. e. , one hold per seven countdowns, h is based on the countdown period from T-240 minutes to T-0, except for the GT-5 attempt, which was scrubbed at T-10 minutes due to weather but which has been counted as one countdown without a .hold; spacecraft holds and the SCF test were not counted. Countdown experience including the GT-7 launch is shown in Table XIV-1. TABLE XIV-1 Countdown Experience Including GT-7 Launch Vehicle No.

No. of No. of Countdowns Holds 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Remarks

GLV-1
GLV- 2 (attempt)

3 SIC holds Tandem actuator failed after T-0 1 SlC hold 1 hold- -not Martin responsibility (oxidizer leak in Stage I engine transducer) Erector stuck during lowering 1 SlC hold Incomplete С /D-- scrubbed at T-10 min due to weather

GLV- 2
GLV-3

GLV- 4
GLV- 5 (attempt)

1 1

1 0

GLV- 5

1

0

ER 13227-7

XIV-2

TABLE XIV- 1 (continued) Vehicle No. GLV-6 (attempt) GLV-7 TOTAL
No. of No. of Countdowns Holds 0 1 8 0 0 1

Remarks Incomplete С /D-- scrubbed at Т -42 min due to Agena failure.

The GLV-6 attempt which preceded GT-7 and which was scrubbed at T-42 minutes due to the Agena failure was not considered in countdown experience. From Ref. 14, the probability of GLV-6 completing the countdown without a hold was predicted to be Р Г / П (h = 0. 143) = 0.87. Since GLV-7 was launched out of the planned sequence, the GLV-6 prediction of 0. 87 is applicable to GLV-7. Including the GLV-7 countdown, the average number of holds per countdown (h) is calculated to be 0. 125, i. e. , one hold in eight countdowns. The probability of GLV-6A completing its countdown without a hold is predicted to be P C / D (h = 0. 125) = 0. 88.

ER 13227-7

xv-i

XV. A.

RANGE DATA

DATA DISTRIBUTION

1. Quick-Look Range Data All available quick-look data were supplied by ETR to MartinBaltimore as shown in Table XV-1. The PCM serial tape was of good quality and exhibited minor dropouts. The quick-look formatted tape was completely redundant and unreadable. The final formatted magnetic tape was of excellent quality and contained no redundancies. Except for approximately 250 milliseconds of transmission blackout during booster staging, the Tel II formatted tape showed that there were only 11 bad data words from LO - 10 seconds to LO + 420 seconds. TABLE X V - 1 Range Supplied Quick-Look Data Description Telemetry magnetic tapes: Tel II, Post-detection PCM/FM (1 roll) Station 1 formatted (3 rolls) 2. Martin Data Time Received Time Time (Baltimore) Requested Received (ETR)

Т + 1 hr Т + 4 hr

Т + 1 hr Т + 6 hr

Т + 10 hr Т + 10 hr

Test data and records acquired and generated by Martin at Cape Kennedy were received in Baltimore within two days after launch. These data consisted of the following items: (1) One set of quick-look records from RCA Tape (2) High speed records of engine parameters (3) Landline records (events, Bristol, Multipoint and Sanborn) with associated calibrations (4) BLH tabulation

ER 13227-7

XV-2

(5) CP 2600 records (2650, 2660 and events) (6) Sequencer records with code sheets (7) Summary of flight events (8) Dub of Complex 19 landline magnetic tape (9) Fuel and oxidizer loading records (10) Fuel and oxidizer loading and detanking records for the launch attempt. 3. Range Data All data supplied by the ETR are summarized in Table XV-2. The time requested for delivery to Martin-Canaveral (Ref. 6555th ATW Form 1-116, dated 4 December 1965) and the time received at Baltimore are shown in this table. TABLE XV-2 Range-Supplied Data
OD Item No.
53

Description Position, velocity and acceleration, radar, magnetic tape, maximum overlap BECO and SECO Position, velocity and acceleration, radar Position, velocity and acceleration, MISTRAM I Position, velocity and acceleration, MISTRAM I and MISTRAM II Attitude, camera Special parameters, radar

Time Time Requested Received (Canaveral) (Baltimore)
10 CD

8 19 20 5 8

4 CD 5 CD 11 WD 3 CD 4 CD 3 WD

10 CD 5 CD 18 WD 5 CD 10 CD 8 WD

4 . 9 / 2 9 . 9 MISTRAM function recordings

ER 13227-7

xv-з

TABLE X V - 2 (continued)

OD
Item No.
26

Description Best estimate of trajectory and special parameters Serial PCM, post-detection magnetic tape, FR 600: Quick look Final PCM formatted, quick look PCM formatted final PCM formatted Serial PCM, post-detection magnetic tape Signal strength (center frequency) recordings Signal strength (center frequency) recordings Signal strength (center frequency) recordings Signal strength (center frequency) recordings Tracking system comparisons, Mod IH/MISTRAM I Comparisons involving adjusted trajectory Oscillograph records, near real time Instrumentation data logs Range safety plot charts Real-time computer facility metric data

Time Time Received Requested Canaveral) (Baltimore)

15 WD

24 WD

1.5.2

1 hr 24 hr 4 hr 9 hr 1 CD 3 CD 24 hr 24 hr 3 CD 3 CD 7 CD 20 CD 1 CD 3 CD 4 hr 24 hr

1 hr 24 hr
(See Item с final)

b.

c. e. 3.5-2
1.5-7

6 hr 2 CD 2 CD 2 CD 2 CD 6 CD 5 CD 10 CD * 1 CD 2 CD 4 hr 2 CD

1.5-53
3.5-6 7.5-3

55 56 1.5-9 1. 11-4 1.18
4.7.3. 1

ER 13227-7

XV-4

TABLE XV-2 (continued) Time Time Requested Received (Canaveral) (Baltimore)

Item No.

Description Command control function records Command control function records Command control function records Command control function records Command control function records Command control function records Command control function records Preliminary test report Propellant analysis report Weather surface observations Weather upper theodolite, triple Weather upper Rawinsonde Weather tower 700/702 Trendplots, QLAP, Part I Transient plots, Part I Bilevel oscillographs, Stations 1 and 3 Command control antenna position (GBI) Error analysis report

1. 11-1 1. 11-5 1. 11-6 3. 11-1 3. 11-3 7. 11-1
7. 11-3

3 WD 3 WD 3 WD 5 WD
5 WD 5 WD 5 WD 2 hr 2 WD 1 WD 1 WD 1 WD 1 WD 32 hr

4 WD 4 WD 4 WD 5 WD
5 WD 5 WD 5 WD

2.4. 1 5.4. 1
60(e) 60(g)

2 hr
*
24 hr

4 hr 4 hr 4 hr
2 CD 2 CD 4 CD 2 CD
*

60(k) 60(a)
34 36

32 hr 1 CD 3 CD 60 CD

1.5-11
3. 11-25

*Data not received by 10 January 1966 CD = Calendar days WD = Working days

ER 13227-7

XV-5

4. Agency/Contractor Supplied Data Table X V - 3 presents data received from associated contractors and NASA-MSC. TABLE X V - 3 Agency/Contractor Supplied Data Description Mod Ш-G, AMRO guided missile control facility Mod III-G, radio guidance system IGS ascent parameters B. Supplier Received (Baltimore)

GE, ETR
GE, Syracuse NASA

2 CD 4 CD 5 CD

FILM COVERAGE

Photographic conditions at Cape Kennedy preceding and during the GT-7 launch were marginal, and because of clouds, motion picture coverage was lost prior to staging. Table XV~4 contains a listing of the films obtained from the fixed cameras and the tracking cameras.

ER 13227-7

xv-e

T5

«•5
г>

§ С Ш с

P
р

р с p с
P > 1П

р
> ш

8*3 6я
'-••-

!> > t? ю 1П in
>
? >

t> m

in in ю

P с p р p p p t> > > t$ > t» > t5 m in in in •-" m in in

p
ES
с

p p

ьс
сб ^-ч.

0)

о£ о ^^ fa
11 -

ю см с о оо ее с о с ^ —' гН —1 .— i
С .— •

с
01
rH 01
11 -

0
-— <

in
г;
01
rH

О
0-1

с о с с
0 CO
Q

-г1 .—
1-1

0

о — 01
-}1

0
CD CD

со

-4

^r

о 0 • *

д
о с
п) i— i -*->
г— 1

CJ

3
2
rH —н

гi 33

с 3

CJ

п)

ЭЭ

''Я M

1
13 M

*jj
craft upper umbilical pi and 3D2E umbilical plu 2DFV Т umbilical plug Т umbilical plug umbilical plug
•го" 0 и n
Ю

Missi le centered, 50-ft towei

craft centered, evaluate

craft centered, 50-ft to-

launch ring, engine

pq
тз
0!

s
FH

De scription

DQ

a
•л

и a
.5 О)
•Г-Н Ш •rJ

m Я о
m

§
5
0
г— 1

launch ring, engine

Launch ring, engine

•н ш •н

launch ring, engine

X

>

I

а a

0

о

a

•гЧ

со со CO

с u
а X СП И
X

•tH

a
W

7

cd cd И X -a ш
T3
CD
• H

3 U 0 1—1

и
-M

а а,
M

s
rC

.£ 3 0
СЛ

ш
0

н 3 со
ТЭ U "0 ТX

6 rH P cq

И И
DO

3 >!>
0-1

от ел
T3тз
0)

о i: О и cd cd a а

craft lower umbilical pi
X •и
9) 0) X
X

le centered, movement

+J 0

and associated umbilics

•н

тз тз -a тз

о
• $
CO
гН гН гН

.
•гН
•гН -rH •гН -гН

0) X

V X

0) X

"0

0) X

X •н

тз ш

X

•r-l

X

• H

• H

£ тз и X
X
•r-1

тз ш
чЧ

X

5
X
• H |

0) X • н

тз

s
со со
гН

S S
ш

а а a a a a а a a а a a a а а а а a a a a а a a а a a a а а
*~ч yg ^н CN ,н СО -— ) 1 CN

ни

Q о
f-H

о
(М CN
гН

со -1 -г ?—( i
CN
rH гН гН

со

rH

'CO -H

со

CD
rH

CO

•— >
Ю

со

•CD
i-4
гН
11 -

CO
H

CD —1

со со

e a S а a s
•< гН

со 1 •—1 CO

-CD —i
rH 1

1

I-J
т

o^H

33
С-1 гН

CN t—I

01

01

rH 1 01
г-1

01

О i
01

.— I C-.1
01

CM CM

CO
N • --<
rH


i

rH

Ю
01

1
i— I

01

OJ

i
OJ
01

0-1

CD' 01 1 01

t01 01

-•

I—1

гН

t—I

»-4

rH

ER 13227-7

LOV pad emergency, s ~ed
°l

-t

0)

=:

0

о

с

с о

ш

a li

g

У 3

fcfl 3

о 0) о 0) а

J U

CO »н

ад

CO "Й

IN Д)

i "3
rH

£

XV-7

If
Q
О О Q Q л
•л

с
P
ю
en en

P
P
о i—i о —i

Q

Q

Q

s5
ю
ее
ГН -

ю
со со

г

н
0) Ш)
-I-" +->

• гЧ >—•

с CQ

со ,-.
0

Еч

о о j*i
СО СМ ^н

со со

-н СО

Ю «-I

О СП

1-


г:

и .—• ^>

о

~
о ю
со со

~ л
о ш о о ю

с
Ш
0) 0 TJ
0

с
1 и и и
V

!

С С

!

i

1

(1)
J
Ш
СО
4-1

и
V -^ 00 00 ф
Q>
ЧН

1

с

и и a.
Q) О 0) О

с
ф 0
О) О (U 0

i

с
<1)
4-1

i

i

с

с

i

i

с

0)
•гН

с

*со

ф

Ю
ю

• *
i С

о о ^
0)
и

и Ш о СО а

ь "с
OQ

>^ GO

•л

• и т.

со
га

.гН

^ В
5
£

Ш

в
3 0
О ^
ОСТ O^
оО
_OUO

со со оз

ш со fQ

со т лл

ю

£
О
г-н

<и О
О 0

с>

ft Ь Ь Н K^I-I СК СК СК

Ь ^К

3;
^ о ^ 0

С ^
oft
оо

Og- ОС- ОС?
OQ оО
0

acquisition

и
со
VJ

_


0

м ф
О -1 со
>

о
ов

со

.2

о
•н

acquisition

acquisition

о
б
> 3

с
2

acquisition to staging К

ti
м

о д
« '^ (а

О
ОЬС

с^ Q U O О С Ш О Ь С с'"' с^ с^
о-'™ о ™ У чн " о О СОч-> СО
1

с^

« Э .r-i 'S° -г-1'51 -н СО 'и СО 'и СО 'и 'из СО
ст" "о СОчм ст™ "о Си НН

J J2 а
О О
+-> т-1 w

3 3 f
Я Я
Ьй

ст™ УОО С чн

•^ *"

g* «и£S
bD

« <и иm ю ш

'S
Е^
м
Е

M 0)

sS
м с И
cd

w"S m > S £ш[^а)

ra> S ГоЗ

ra "S м Г си " oj '£ со

В ^ м с

с
с
со
t*
Н-> -4^

ЬВ

с
со
Ян

с
cd -

ьо

Ь ^
DC с
ЬС

cd h
cd
Si
•*->

0 О О 0

Й и

с
и и
cd
0

ЬО

с
со
О

ЬЛ

с
со
CJ

bJQ

с
со
О

UC

с
ей
О

сб
fj

О

jy

«2, ^Г

я

•J5
Ш я
А

S
со i—t см
со со со 1 см
1-4

е в в в е в в в
со •* со 1 см
т—(

со со со 1 см
1—1

л

E £
CO

в
ЕО

5

£
со
cc
1
.— 1

£
-J
CO
r-^

в в
ю
СО

в в

е в
со еV
71
DO

в в
С-

в в
о
'•1
Г!

со
r
СЛ i—I

Г1—1
СМ

о
СМ

>~ ™

п |~|

с| з|
~1
. —'
iH

О

со 1

см
'—1
1-Н

1

см
1-Й

1

см
i—*

1

см
i—1

1

см
1-Н

1

"} г*. ~| W
t>

"

"

О

^

ER 13227-7

XVI-1

XVI. PRELAUNCH AND COUNTDOWN OPERATIONS A. PRELAUNCH 1. Simulated Flight Test The GT-7 simulated flight test (SFT) was performed successfully on 29 November 1965 in accordance with Martin Test Procedure 876/ ETR (Ref. 7). The flight crew was in the spacecraft during the primary run, and the backup crew was aboard during the secondary run for spacecraft monitoring and training. The countdown for the secondary run was started at Т-45 minutes (1025 EST). A manual hold was initiated at T-3 minutes (1107 EST) after an inadvertent switchover was observed during the programmed sequence test. Investigation showed that the contacts on relay K14 located in the CP2625 chassis had failed. A new chassis was installed and the programmed sequence test was rerun successfully. During the hold time, the compressor for the GLV air conditioner became inoperative. Power was removed from the launch vehicle until conditioned air could be restored. This was accomplished by switching to the secondary compressor. Power was then reapplied to the launch vehicle, and the MOCS sequencer was recycled to T-45 minutes for a rerun. The countdown resumed at 1220 EST and proceeded into plus time without a hold, but due to a communication problem the thrust chamber pressure switch (TCPS) was not vented. Consequently, staging did not occur. After communications were restored, the MOCS sequencer was recycled to T-3 minutes. The countdown resumed at 1444 EST and was completed successfully at T+6 minutes (1453 EST). The countdown for the primary run was started at T-3 minutes (1547 EST) and was completed successfully at T+6 minutes (1547 EST). 2. Precountdown Activities

The precountdown tests were started at 1200 EST on 3 December 1965 with the range sequencer at T-770 minutes. All tests were performed successfully, and the range sequencer was secured at T-530 minutes at 1600 EST. Oxidizer loading was started on schedule at 2200 EST and was completed at 2355 EST; fuel loading was started at 0006 EST on 4 December and was completed at 0134 EST. The range sequencer was restarted on schedule at T-530 minutes at 0540 EST on 4 December.

ER 13227-7

XVI-2

В.

COUNTDOWN SUMMARY

The launch countdown was picked up on schedule at 1030 EST on 4 December. The 240 minute countdown was performed in accordance with Martin Test Procedure (Ref. 8). The countdown progressed smoothly and astronaut ingress occurred at approximately T-95 min. Recharging of the oxidizer standpipes were performed at approximately T-39 minutes. Liftoff occurred on schedule at 1430 hours without any holds and a successful launch resulted. The countdown schedule is shown in Fig. XVI-1.

ER 13227-7

•3 -I
Propulsion Propellant loading Propellant tank pressure Airborne operations Engine shutdown test Propellant Loading Blanket Pressure

XVI-3

П SC shutdown

ASCO and range shutdown

.
|

шштшшшшшшш^///%ш™#* г****™^////////////шшшшшшшь ff _ f
Open Stage I oxidizer prevalves—' Manual bleed - in —1 ASCO | |

Flight Controls Abbreviated ascent test Drift test Gain test Programmed sequence test Switchover test Programmer test Mod Ш-G interface test П Programmed sequence test
РШ No. 2 7 1 ( 1 [Switchover test

D

Drift test | Gain test [ ~\

|

Drift test Q

Programmed sequence teat |

|

ШШрт Nos. 1 and 2

Programmer test I | Mod Ш-G Interface test
аСТ

"JpFR Nos. 1 and 2

rL^-pm NO. i
/-Beacon check /-GDT GCT ' ™L 1 | I_PST "T Л
/ Y

| Mod Ш-G interface te«t GCT-i \ 1 /- PST 1 1 1 j PST-'

Beacon checks
\ RF silence^] •-• — '

, — Airborne guidance on ^RF silence ^RF silence Liftoff | Airborne guidance on |

Guidance Airborne guidance on Abets RF on
Mod Ш-G

'

Abets R F o n |

\Ш GOT

Abets RF on | InterfaceQ

Abets RF on ( 1 1 GCT |

П П[]ССТ \ ^-GDT <- Interface ГП Switchover \ 'Л- Tank sensor \ \— Overrate *— Abort and shutdown

RF silence^

^RF silence

MDS

Tank sensor | [j SMRD Simulated malfunction Q

|

Radio guidance configuration Л Tank sensor | |

Interface test System test (noninterface)

Airborne power -v Ground power Sequencer/MOC on |§^ШШ I Automatic HF monitors

Electrical
LV power on Se uencer/MOCon LVSS Command carrier on MISTRAM on Command receivers on Shutdown and destruct test
In st r ume nt ati on

Command carrier on Open loop test | gg/j RF si ence

1

^RF

silence

upen loop test ^ MISTRAM onl |

(command carrier or —|

^RF silence ^RF IASCO shutdown and destruct test silence

Command receivers on Destruct battery check П RF silence -• Ambient I ^iange readout ^ 1 [• Ambients Range readout -^ ^^~^_ .—^_| I . I | j "mDlem
R

Command receivers onf~ ASCo|

Airborne/ground station PCM FM transmitters on

^_,

J

1

1

Ambients-

—\

|

Range readout |

|

WL
Calibrations 1

1 КШ1Ш
RF silence^

i
FM off —

1

i— i
Automatic calibration -"

Mechanical Ordnance Erector <— Tank sensor / jf~ / /fl ^Switchover Spacecraft Interface test Countdown
Liftoff

Start cartridge connector ^j

Destruct connection

^

Transit]

]

Lowered

] ППШОПО^
\ »- Abort <• Power up a 1 UI RF silence KTJ Ш///////Л RF silence^ Status check Status check [ 1 К icted v *-P«d clear (blockhouse roadblocks) Propellant load crew only Restricted Ordnance crew only^. | |

Tank sensor checks [~

Liftoff 1

1 PST 1

Countdown Operations Status check Pad access Range countdown

Pad clear /~ (blockhouse sealed) / [ Status check ^ Restricted

Pad clear (blockhouse sealed)^ Status checkQ \

SUtus

Range countdown

Range Sequencer Time T-770 (min)

710

650

590

530

-530

480

420

360

300

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

ПО

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

О

Time from Launch <hr)

8:50

8

7

6

5

4

Fig. XVI-1.

Planned Precount and Countdown

ER 13227-7

XVII-1

XVII.

CONFIGURATION SUMMARY

A.

LAUNCH VEHICLE SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION

The Gemini Launch Vehicle (GLV) is a modified two-stage Titan II intercontinental ballistics missile (ICBM) which has been "man rated" for Gemini usage. The propulsion system in each stage uses hypergolic (self-igniting upon mixture) propellants. Modifications to the basic Titan П vehicle to achieve the man rated" GLV follow: (1) Addition of a completely redundant malfunction detection system (MDS). (2) Replacement of the Titan II inertial guidance system (IGS) with the Mod Ш-G radio guidance system (RGS). (3) Addition of a three-axis reference system (TARS) to provide attitude reference and open-loop programming to the autopilot. (4) Addition of a secondary flight control system (FCS). (5) Addition of a secondary Stage I hydraulic system. (6) Addition of the capability of switchover to the secondary guidance, flight control, and hydraulic systems. (7) Provision of redundancy in electrical sequencing by APS and IPS power. (8) Provision of an engine shutdown capability from the spacecraft. (9) Provision of a 120-inch diameter cylindrical skirt forward of the Stage П oxidizer tank for mating the spacecraft to the launch vehicle. (10) Removal of the retrorockets, vernier rockets and associated equipment. (11) Addition of fuel line spring-piston accumulators and oxidizer line tuned standpipes for suppression of POGO vibrations. (12) Capability for redundant Stage II engine shutdown (GLV-3 and up). Significant GLV-7 changes from the GLV-5 configuration are listed in Table XVII-1.

ER 13227-7

XVII-2

pq < н

Significant Configurati .on Changes from GLV-5 Added conduit vacuum t est and helium leak test after hydro changed from nig h pressure to low pressure о Stages I and II
гН

J

ti

О

01

0)

s
СМ

5 |

со Ф h

Changed location of dra in holes at skirt-to- dome we] from between dome cho rd splices to dome chord splices in all compartm ents Reduced cutout for teleinetry antennas from four to two (cover plates were installed on two cutouts on GLV-2 through -6).
С О
0)

с ^

ER 13227-7
5
Ь-1

СО

1-Н

•гН

£

со
0

С О

0.

3

S
I—I

со "о

S|

-о о в{ ф

О'щ

тз *"

ьо •н
•гН

•43 ^

ю '3

X! со •*->

о ^

1
СО

•8 со

-

Ф т*

?&

§5 о IS

Ф° ЬОо

и ф ф

1) «Д

о о

§2

ь 05

0 О

СП Т5 С

О

Т)

ф о

§

ф

ст)

с

32 ° < а

•St

о ф о тз

ф 1-1

1—1

я
ф
0)

ectric motor pump discharge

гН

8

ф о

а) h
*3 «с 1—1 <л

о

и 'С о ф W

73
73

-

Added four flashing bea
ф §

U я

73

(-4 1-4

1

Ь Ф

0

со

о

01

0

ф UO а)

S

• и S С

ф ^ "ф

с о

о

1

• гН

со

о

С!

с

ф с о

§

73

1

•о h

ф о

0

§
W О

сЗ

а с

Ф

со ф

Provided tandem flowmi eters for each tank Provided redundancy in propellant transfer system

rH CM

XVII-3

A detailed description of all GLV systems is presented in Martin Engineering Report, "Launch Vehicle No. 4 Flight Evaluation" (Ref. 2). В. MAJOR COMPONENTS

The two major GT-7 components were as follows: (1) Spacecraft (a) Manufacturer: McDonnell Aircraft Corporation (b) Serial Number: Spacecraft Number 7 (2) Gemini Launch Vehicle (a) Manufacturer: Martin Company (b) Serial Number: GLV-7 (c) Air Force Serial Number: 62-12562. Figure XVII-1 shows the general arrangement of the GLV.

ER 13227-7

XVII-4

LAUNCH VEHICLE UMM.ICAL SYSTEMS INTERFACE

гвА

CODE

FUNCTION AIRCONO

SYSTEM GUIDANCE AIR COND STG П 0X10 STGtt ELECTRICAL STGH ELECTRICAL STun. FUEL STAGE ii FUEL STGI HYDRAULIC STG D ENGINE AREA STGTJ. FUEL STGD FUEL STG П OXID 5ТйП ELECTRICAL STGJ1 FUEL STGI OXID STGI OXID STGI FUEL STG.I MALFUNCTION STG.I MALFUNCTION STG I ELECTRICAL FUEL ST6.I STG, I

S2BOV 2B2E 2BIE 2BFVT S2BFV S3BH

oxia VENT
ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL FUEL VENT TOPPING FUEL VENT HYDRAULIC AIR CONDITIONING FUEL FILL AND DRAIN FUEL PRESS. SEQ. VALVE DRAIN OXID. FILL AND DRAIN

LOCATION STA 371522 QUAD! «2SOFFBL.O STA 37i522 QUAD. П85* OFF BLO

STA 402 472
OUADne2*zC.FF»LO QUADIfesVOFFBLO

ajAp^^irtwM
OUAt>n37?10FFBLO

ЗВА
S3BF 3BFD S380 3BIE ICIFO ICOD SIDOV S2DFV 3DIM 3D2M 3DIE S3DF S3DFD

STA470 125 QUADn I5* OFFBLO STA 474 875 1 STA 492250 OUADTJ IS OFFBLO

auAon so OFF. no

COMPARTMENT ?BOVT TMNSITION COMPARTMENT N01

ОЦАОГГЗр' OFF1.LO QUAD^rFoFFBLO
ШАПП45' OfFBL

ELECTRICAL
TuBO-PUMP FUEL DRAIN TUBO PUMP OXID. DRAIN 0X10 VENT FUEL VENT MALFUNCTION DETECTION SYS. MALFUNCTION DETECTION SYS. ELECTRICAL FUEL FILL AND DRAIN

STA К А ПО.

5ТА-554.7ЭО QUAD irHlOFF BL 0 OUApUn W.L600

2BFVT

8ET«EEN TANKS COMPARTMENT NO 2

QUAD П 40* OFFBLO STAJ24873 л QUAQI M i*ftwi? STAJ2I4 873. QuAomaeliOFF BL о
STAI2I6.69I QUADH20 OFFB.LB

FUEL DRAIN -PRE -VALVE FUEL STGI

S300D 0X10. DRAIN - PRE-VALVE OXID.STGI S3DIH S3DO 2«OVT IDOVT 2DFVT 3D2E HYDRAULIC SUPPLY AND RETURN OXID FILL AND DRAIN CettD.VENT TOPPING 0X10 VENT TOPPING FUEL VENT TOPPING ELECTRCAL HYDRAULIC STG I PRIMARY 0X10. STGI OXID.STGJI

STAJ243560 QUAD I STAI244.I23 QUAD HI STAI2SOJ60 STAI255.835 QUAQI STA.I249.560 OUAQS OUAOlVorF»U.60

OXIO.STG.I FUEL STAGE I ELECTRICAL STG.I

STA 630. 727
QUAD П60* OFF BLO STA963.326 OUAOB 50!OFF»L.O

STA. 12 16 691
QUAD. П

QUAD ПЮ* OFF tLO

HYOHAULC STG.I SECONDARY S3D2H HYD^LC SUPPLY AND 3DIOC
ОУЮ. MMOTt СИАЯ61М6 IYCTIM O»IO. «1MOTI CHAJI4I44 SYS TCM

STA 1255. 835
QUADffi 22'A/orr txe.
STA^22^>>H

0X10. ST«. I

STA. 1124. Jll

3020C

OXID. bit,, i

4.A

4LV 4 < UP

S Al OLV I THRU 4 ONLY 2 THIS DRAWING RELEASES NO PARTS REF ONLY I NEW GEMINI LAUNCH VEHICLE DRAWING NOTE: UMXLiCAL TQWf» (ЙСГ) STAGE I ENGINE COMPARTMENT NO5'

TARGET

th»M'

^STA6I I

Fig.

XVII-1.

Gemini Launch Vehicle Generai Aгraлgement

ER 13227-7

XVIII-1

XVIII. REFERENCES 1. "Launch Vehicle No. 5 Flight Evaluation." Engineering Report 13227-5, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, October 1965. Confidential 2. "Launch Vehicle No. 4 Flight Evaluation." Engineering Report 13227-4, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, July 1965. Confidential 3. "Launch Vehicle No. 3 Flight Evaluation." Engineering Report 13227-3, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, May 1965. Confidential 4. "Launch Vehicle No. 2 Flight Evaluation." Engineering Report 13227-2, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, March 1965. Confidential 5. "Launch Vehicle No. 2 Launch Attempt Evaluation." Engineering Report 13227-2X, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, January 1965. Confidential 6. "Launch Vehicle No. 1 Flight Evaluation." Engineering Report 13227-1, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, May 1964. Confidential 7. "Martin-Canaveral Test Procedure." 424-876-ETR, Revision F. 8. "Martin-Canaveral Test Procedure." 424-875-ETR, Revision N. 9. "Revised GLV Trajectory Dispersion Analysis GT-4." LV-274-4, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 24 June 1965. Confidential 10. "Flight Weight Coordination Report, Post-Flight Weight, GT-7." LV-165-7B, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 22 December 1965. 11. "Gemini Launch Vehicle Performance Specification." MB-1046, SCN-10, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 20 December 1965. Confidential 12. Letter from SSD to MMB, dated 19 October 1965, subject: "Transmittal of RGS Dispersions for GT-6." 13. "GLV-7 Incentive Catalog." IM-107, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 5 November 1965.

ER 13227-7

XVIII-2

14. "Mathematical Model for Countdown Availability Study." Engineering Report 13225, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, April 1964. 15. "Master Measurements List." LV-220, Revision L, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 13 July 1965. 16. "GT-7 Pre-flight Report." LV-326-7, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, November 1965. Confidential 17. "Investigation of Oxidizer Standpipe Charging of GLV~5. " LV-396, Martin Company, Baltimore, Maryland, October 1965. 18. "Subsystem Engineering Analysis YLR 87-AJ-5 and YLR 91-AJ-5 Rocket Engines." AGC 521-3.15 Q-15, Aerojet-General Corporation, Sacramento, California, 22 July 1964. Confidential

ER 13227-7

A-l

APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF GEMINI LAUNCHES

Summary of Gemini Launches Launch Burning Time Vehicle Launch Inertial Velocity (fps) Payload Stage I Stage II Date and (sec) BECO SECO SECO + 20 Sec (sec) (lb) Mission Time (hr EST)
GT-1 GT-2 GT-3 GT-4 GT-5 GT-7

BECO 208,262 229,743 224,777 214,775 215,607 207,088

Altitude (ft) SECO SECO + 20 Sec 531,500
546, 960 528, 184

Inertial Flight Path Angle (deg) BECO SECO SECO + 20 Sec 20.00
0.0

Time in Orbit " (hr) Orbit (naut mi) Stage II Spacecraft Apogee Perigee 95.2® 95.2® (64 orbits) (64 orbits)
N/A® N/A^
173

Launch Evaluation Report Number ER 13227-1

4-8-64 1100 1-19-65 0904 3-23-65 0924 6-3-65 1016 8-21-65 0900 12-4-65 1430

7029® 157.5 6890^
7112
155.1 155.8 155.7 156.8 159.1

185.3 180.4 181.3 181.3 179.7 181.4

9,752 25,679
9,916 25,611 9/981 25,587

25,786 25,738 25,688 25,745 25,806 25,789

-0.03

86.6

526,380 532,338 532,886
531, 118

26.219 -2.4523
21.79
0.0

-2.3431 0. 0323
0. 059

N/A^>
121

N / A ® ER 13227-2X® ER 13227-2
87 87 87 87

531,477 531,522 531,276
529, 583

18 4.6 (13 orbits) (3 orbits) 47. 7 97. 7 (34 orbits) (66 orbits)

ER 13227-3 ER 13227-4 ER 13227-5 ER 13227-7

7868 7947 8085

9,844 25,670 9,848 25, 713 10,049 25,735

18.66 -0.0235 19.90 18.66

152. 3

-0.0279 0.0500

-0.0129 0.0285

72 190.9 189 (51 orbits) (12 7. 9 orbits 66 177. 1 330.6 (46. 6 orbits) (2 19. 8 orbits I

529,738

Spacecraft and Stage II inserted into orbit as a unit. Suborbital mission (spacecraft impact 2125 miles downrange). Inertial orbit. Launch attempt report.

ER 13227-7

и ~
to
N)

MARIETTA

L

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful