1282 J. SPACECRAFT VOL. 3, NO.
Water Impact of the Apollo Spacecraft
HAROLD E. BENSON*
NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas
A study of the water landing problems of the Apollo spacecraft is presented, including
dynamics at impact, analytical efforts, model tests, and full-scale tests. A model program
was used to provide design information for the spherical command module bottom; this in-
formation was verified by full-scale tests. Results of this work have shown that model re-
sults are satisfactory for determining design loads during water impact and that better
analytical methods are needed.
I" AND ING of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo manned space-
-•-^ craft has focused attention on water impact. The Mer-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28640
cury spacecraft used an active impact attenuation system in
which an airbag was extended below the spacecraft after the
main parachute was deployed. Upon impact, air was forced
out through a series of orifices located in the airbag walls, thus
cushioning the impact loads. The Gemini system is a passive
system in which the spacecraft is positioned at such an angle
that the vehicle acts as a wedge during water impact. The
landing of the Apollo Compound Module (CM) on water
also is passive, but, during landing, the spacecraft can be
positioned to act as a wedge, as in Gemini or a large flat body
impacting the water surface. These landing conditions have
caused considerable study into the water impact loads that
occur on the Apollo CM.
The most commonly used theory to determine water impact
loads is that using modified Von Karman equations developed
by Langley Research Center (LRC).1 This work is limited
to vertical velocities, nonelastic bodies, and easily described
geometric shapes. Because these analyses are limited, it
has been necessary to determine experimentally most of the
water impact load information on the Apollo CM.
This paper deals specifically with the data obtained up to
the present time, including theoretical and experimental
results of model and full-scale vehicle tests. Problem areas
will be pointed out, as well as areas that would prove bene-
ficial for future water impact research.
A review of the Apollo CM landing conditions is shown in
Fig. 1. The philosophy of redundant descent systems, used
in the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft, has been carried
through into Apollo. Where Mercury used one parachute and
a reserve, Apollo uses a cluster of three 85-ft D0 (nominal
full-open diameter) ring-sail parachutes, any two of which
will provide a low rate of descent. The design rates of de-
scent are shown as 30 fps for three parachutes and 35 fps for
RATE OF DESCENT.
3 PARACHUTES, FT/SEC .————————— 30
2 PARACHUTES, FT/SEC-—————————35
HORIZONTAL VELOCITY, FT/SEC-——————0 TO 51
SUSPENSION ANGLE, DEC -_________ 27'/2
PITCH (PARACHUTE SWING), DEC—___- ±4 TO ±8
YAW (PARACHUTE SWING), DEC -_____ ±4 TO ±8
ROLL ______________—————————— RANDOM
WAVE CONDITION
Fig. 1 Apollo CM water banding conditions.
Presented at the AIAA Symposium on Structural Dynamics
and Aeroelasticity, Cambridge, Mass., August 30-September
1, 1965 (no preprint number; published in bound volume of
preprints of the meeting); submitted September 30, 1965;
revision received March 23, 1966.
* Head, Landing Dynamics Section, Landing Technology
Branch, Structures and Mechanics Division.
two. The swing of this cluster system is low, with ±4°
maximum for three parachutes and ±8° for two parachutes.
The horizontal velocity will vary with the surface winds, and
the design conditions range from 0 to 51 fps (30 knots). The
CM is suspended at a pitch angle of 27.5°, which normally
provides a good entry angle into the water. In addition,
in an emergency land landing, this angle induces tumbling,
thus lowering the total accelerations on the CM. The yaw
angle can vary with parachute oscillation and can be as high
as 8°. The roll is random because the vehicle has no means
of maintaining any directional control; therefore, it will
travel in the wind direction at any orientation. The wave
slope and height in the planned landing areas are established
by reviewing wave data obtained during the past years and,
essentially, averaging the results. These data were estab-
lished for design purposes only and are for a ±8.5° slope and
for an 8.5-ft wave height.
To give insight into the water impact dynamics that can
occur during these landing conditions, the gross body dynamic
motions and stability profile are shown in Fig. 2. Three
significant landings occur, all of which produce a different
water pressure distribution on the CM. In the first case, the
lower spherical bottom receives the worst loading as the CM
impacts, rotates counterclockwise, then clockwise, and usually
overturns. In the second case, the CM dives to a depth that
can be as deep as 18 ft, producing hydrostatic loads on the
CM. In the third case, the CM trips on edge and rotates
clockwise, which causes significant impact pressures on the
conical sidewall and top deck. In a major portion of the
landings, the CM will be balanced statically in an inverted
attitude produced by the aforementioned gross body motions
and a two-point static stability flotation characteristic.
After impact, the inverted CM is uprighted by a system of gas
bags located in the parachute compartment. These bags
inflate, upright the spacecraft, and maintain a one-point
flotation attitude for the CM.
The tools used for obtaining design pressure loads on the
Apollo CM have been the modified Von Karman analysis
(which was proven adequate for the Mercury program),
model tests at LRC and North American Aviation Company
(NAA), and full-scale tests at NAA. As mentioned earlier,
the analysis is limited to uniaxial motion (no horizontal ve-
locity), symmetric shapes (no attitude variations), and non-
elastic bodies (no structural deflections). Both models
CASE I
VERTICAL VELOCITY,
35 FT/SEC
0 20 40 60 80 =
PITCH ANGLE, DEGREES
Fig. 2 Dynamic characteristics of the Apollo CM during
water impact.
 AUGUST 1966 WATER IMPACT OF APOLLO SPACECRAFT 1283

C
200
A C C E .ERAT ION

O
/
ERSU 5 ATT TUDE
/

O
/
/

ACCELERATION, g

O
ELASTIC , Fig. 5 Maximum average panel

c
MODEL —/ pressures.

O
_ ro co *»- K
/
/

K
/
/

^
ELASTIC 1^
25 20 15 10
MODEL - -7?

O
I M P A C T A T T I T U D E . DEC
O
P

n roll, coupled with various horizontal velocities and pitch

O

S attitudes. Since the CM is suspended at 27.5°, with a pos-

O

50° 40° 30° 20° 10°

sible swing angle of ±8° maximum and a ±8.5° wave slope,
Fig. 3 Comparison ATTITUDE, DEC the parameters of pitch angle varied from 10° to 44°. The
of model tests with horizontal velocity was varied from 0 to 51 fps and the ver-
theoretical analysis. tical velocity was held constant at 30 fps.
Figure 4 shows the pressure transducer layout used on the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28640

model and some typical pressure time-history traces. This

0 .004
utilized Froude scaling, where gravitational and inertial
forces are scaled. Full-scale tests have been conducted with
a boilerplate-type structure as well as a simulated space-
craft structure.
Figure 3 presents a comparison of theoretical analysis with
measured accelerations, obtained from accelerometers, as a
function of time and vehicle pitch attitude. The g-time
history obtained from an analysis of a sphere impacting at
30 fps compared favorably with that for the nonelastic,
J-scale model. The elastic model curve, however, obtained
by making the spherical bottom flexible, displays a peak
.acceleration that nearly is doubled. This flexibility was not
large, about 3.0 in. full-scale at the center.
Attitude studies (top, Fig. 3) showed that as pitch attitude
was increased, the loads were reduced by the vehicle's knifing
into the water (as a wedge). This, in turn, caused the elastic
model to record loads closer to the nonelastic model because
the lower loads reduced the deflections.
This limited investigation immediately pointed out that
more experimental design load information would be required
and that available theoretical analysis could not be applied.
The J-scale model with an elastically scaled bottom was
scaled to the spacecraft stiffness. This model was chosen as
the tool to obtain information such as accelerations and pres-
sures on the spherical bottom and the effect of 0° and 180°
work, conducted at LRC, used high-frequency instrumenta-
tion with a natural frequency of at least 3,000 cps. The
pressure transducers were located to establish average pres-
sure over a small panel 20 in. in diameter and the average
pressure at peak g. If impact occurred at a point on the
bottom near transducer 1, the pressure transducers would
read in the following manner as the wetted area grew: first,
the spike of transducer 1 and then the successive spikes of
transducers 2 and 3. Since this peak was extremely high over
a short time and a small area, the average panel pressure,
not the individual peak pressure, was considered to have
.008 .012 .016 .02 .024 primary design significance. This average panel pressure
TIME, SEC
was obtained by averaging the pressure readings of the re-
spective transducers of each panel at the time the last panel
transducer peak occurred. The average pressure at peak g
was determined by establishing the wetted area from the
perimeter transducers that were recording at peak g and di-
viding the load obtained from the accelerometers by the area
described by the transducers. This average pressure also was
checked by recording all the transducer readings at peak g,
determining the pressure pattern, and obtaining the average
pressure of this pressure pattern. Correlation with the two
methods was within 80%.
The maximum average panel pressures occurred at panel A
\vhen this panel was at the point of impact. The data in
Fig. 5 show average pressure at panels A, B, and C. The
center of panel A was at 20° pitch, the center of panel B at
16° pitch, and that of panel C at 11° pitch. The diameter
of all panels was 20 in., full scale. Maximum panel pressure
occurred at A, where the bottom well was supported by the
ring. This pressure was 182 psi. Panel B is lowered to 172
psi, where some deflections occurred; and at panel C, where
deflection was the largest for the three panels, the pressure was
!\-
a) Average press ur-
at peak "G" vs ime
pact attitude
<* «
£ * 40
oc ^ 20
o_
^
rrn RETIO
\
^-EXPERIMENTAL

0
54

b) Projected \vetted
<» 48
~
Y
|*-EXP E R I M E M T A L
TRANSDUCER 1-' area vs. impact atti- jj 32
tude ^ }
RANSDUCER 2-
16 ^^ •^HEORETI CAL =
TRANSDUCER 3"
n
40 30 20 10 0 -10
IMPACT ATTITUDE, DEC

Fig. 4 Spherical bottom pressure transducer layout and Fig. 6 Average pressure and projected wetted area at
typical pressure time-history. peak "G."'
 1284
200
.002 .004 .006 .008 .010 .012
TIME, SEC
Fig. 7 Model and full-scale pressure time-histories.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 4, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28640
-.008 -.004 0 .004 .008
TIME SEC
Fig. 8 Typical pressure distribution.
116 psi. All panel pressures occurred over a period of ap-
proximately 0.002 sec.
Figure 6 presents the average pressure at peak g (obtained
from acceleration data) and projected wetted area (area of a
plane passing through the wetted circumference of the spher-
ical segment) as a function of impact attitude. The curves
actually are bands that include all data points obtained from
a vertical velocity of 30 fps and horizontal velocities of 0 to
50 fps for 0° and 180° roll conditions combined.
At extreme attitudes, the maximum pressures at peak g
were low because the body was knifing into the water (note
the low wetted areas), but at 27° the pressures were high,
approximately 55 psi. This 55-psi pressure increased slightly
until 19°, where the pressure dropped to 45 psi, and then
increased slightly as the impact attitude increased. This
sudden dropoff could be explained by pressures being at-
tenuated by the unsupported spherical bottom and correlates
with the exhibited sudden rise in wetted area, which is to be
expected as deflection of the body becomes significant.
The points at 0° are for a nonelastic theoretical pressure and
wetted area at peak g. Their locations, with respect to the
low attitude ends of the experimental curves, are, therefore,
not surprising, but serve to emphasize the major effect of body
deflection.
A summary now can be made by reviewing a pressure-time
history shown in Fig. 7. The dotted curve is for a full-scale
spacecraft structure landing at a vertical velocity of 32 fps
and a horizontal velocity of 35 fps (NAA drop 92); and the
dashed curve represents a full-scale test at a vertical velocity
READINGS AT
TRANSDUCER LOCATIONS
DURING IMPACT
TRANSDUDER
LOCATIONS
ON SPACECRAFT
30 20 10 0
PRESSURE, LB/IN2
Fig. 9 Sidewall pressure transducer pattern and peak
pressures obtained.
H. E. BENSON J. SPACECRAFT
r
Fig. 10 Fypical sidewall pressure time-history.
of 35 fps and a horizontal velocity of 40 fps (NAA drop 93).
Both conditions are for a pitch of 19° and a roll of 180°.
The solid curve was a -J-scale model landing at 18° pitch
and 180° roll with a vertical velocity of 30 fps and a hori-
zontal velocity of 50 fps. The correlation was good, and the
panel pressure was approximately 200 psi. Peak g occurred
at 0.01 sec, and the associated pressure was approximately 60
to 90 psi. This pressure at a specific time was not a uniform
pressure over a wetted area but an average pressure.
A typical pressure pattern is shown in Fig. 8. When the
spherical bottom initially strikes the water, the pressure is
extremely high, but accelerations are low because of the small
area involved. As time passes, the peak is dissipated into
two lower peaks separated by a trough. The pressures
shown previously are the average of this distribution. This
pressure distribution continued to change in the manner-
shown. When the vehicle had horizontal velocity, this
pressure pattern would change to be high on the leading-
edge and low on the trailing edge. The area under this
type curve was similar to the area under a horizontal velocity
type, and the peak was lower than the initial average panel
peaks; therefore, for design purposes, the average panel
pressures of 200 psi, which occurred at 0.0015 to 0.002 sec,
and peak pressures of approximately 60 to 90 psi, appeared
to be adequate.
The sidewall pressures were not as severe nor as complex
as those found on the spherical bottom. The pressure trans-
ducer pattern used on the model tests is shown in Fig. 9,
along with the maximum pressure plotted against transducer
locations. Figure 10 shows a typical pressure-time history.
The pressures here were not spikes but slight peaks, followed
by a nearly uniform pressure loading that occurred for a long-
period of time. This type datum lends itself to an easy load-
ing analysis. The highest values were obtained when the
CM tripped and rotated onto the side and top. The landing-
conditions were shown to be as follows: pitch 55°, roll 0°,
vertical velocity 34 fps, and horizontal velocity 48 fps. These
landing conditions produced the maximum recorded pres-
sures, which were about 26 psi at the transducer nearest the
heat shield on the leading edge, and which decayed as the
conical section continued its penetration. Pressures varied
with conditions, with a nominal pressure of 20 psi at this
station. Some spike pressures have occurred on the flat
top deck under extreme tumbling conditions.
From the Apollo water impact development program, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1) A scale model has been used to obtain design impact
pressures. The results were good, and the cost, compared to
full-scale testing, is low. The speed at which model data can
be obtained is also an advantage. The Apollo spherical-
bottom design loads were obtained in three months. It
always will be necessary to verify model tests with full-scale
testing; however, these full-scale tests can be held to a mini-
mum.
2) An analytical method is needed to account for structural
flexibility and oblique landings.
Reference
1
McGehee, J. R., Hathaway, M. E., and Vaughan, U. L.,
"Water landing characteristics of a reentry capsule," NASA
Lewis Research Center Memo 5-23-59L (1959).