HUNT$VILLEALABAMA

J

_
J.
MPR-SAT-FE-66-10 June 13, 1966 (Supersedes MPR-SAT-FE-65-11)

N
RESULTS OF THE NINTH SATURN 1 LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT SA-8

SA-8

X67-11566

'\ , ,',\,

LI, $. Go' ContractorsOnhl

"'_

_

NATIONAL

AERONAUTIC_

AN_

_PACE

A O MINI

_T_:_ATIO

N

,,,

_

"-\

_FC

- Farm

7't4

(Rev

M.y

1966)

SEC1

This document contains affecting the UnitedStates _ithin the mcanie Espionage Law, Title 18 t 793 and 794 as amended. The tr_ smission or revelation of its
c . .

defense of the Sections in any

manner to an unauthorized

p_r_on/¢s t

prohibited

by law.

.J

/

GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

MPR-SAT-FE-66-

I0

RESULTS OF THE NINTH SATURN I LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST By Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group

ABSTRACT

This report presents the results of the early engineering evaluation of the SA-8 test flight. Fifth of the Block lI series, SA-8 was the fourth Saturn vehicle to carry an Apollo boilerplate {BP-26) payload and the second in a series to carry a Pegasus payload. The performance of each major vehicle system is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations. This test flight of SA-8 proved the capability of all vehicle systems. This was the second flight test of the Pegasus meteoroid technology satellite, the second flight test to utilize the iterative gLtidance mode (IGM), the third flight test to utilize the ST-124 guidance system for both stages, and the fourth flight test to demonstrate the closed loop performance of path guidance during S-IV burn. The pertormance of the guidance system was snccesstul and the insertion velocity was very near the expected value. This was also the second flight test of the tmpressurized prototype production Instrument Unit and passive thermal control system which will be usc_ on Saturn IB and V vehicles. All missions of the flight were successfully accomplished. Any questions or comments pertaining to the information contained in this report are invited and should be directed to: D_rector, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Alabama Attention: Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group R-AERO-F {Phone 876-4575).

I

GEORGE

C° MARSHALL

SPACE

FLIGHT

CENTER

MPR-SAT-FE-66-10

June ( Supersedes

13,

1966

MPR-SAT-FE-65-11)

RESULTS

OF THE NINTH

SATURN

I LAUNCH

VEHICLE

TEST

G

4

i_classifled
after NO'his affect!f_e document ,,atiol_. contains information 12 ye_

P, eF_nse of the

Es_o L_:i._ 1.q, :.'SO, Eections 793 and 79_fl_=ansmis_ion or the revelationS., its conte_n any manner

to an und'uthorized person is prohibited by law.

SATURN

FLIGHT WORKING

EVALUATION GROUP

t'i_

kl e' I r_l_ kl'l"

I A I

_

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Contributions to this report were made by various elements of MSFC, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Douglas IBM Aircraft Company, Rocketdyne, Chrysler Corporation, Whitney. Corporation, and Pratt&

without the joint efforts and assistance of these elements, this integrated report would not have been possible. TheSaturn Flight Evaluation Working Group is especially indebted contributions: John F. Kennedy to the following for their major

Space

Center Division Corporation

Douglas Chrysler

Airc raft Company Corporation Space

Intcrnationa| Business Pratt & whitney Rocketdyne George C. Marshall

Machines

Space

Flight

Center

Research

and Development

OperaUons Laboratory

Aero-Astrodynamics

$
• _ • Acro-SImcc Aerodynamics Environment Division and Opera_ons Office Flight Evaluation Studies Division Astrionic s Laboratory Systems Integration

Electrical Division

Flight Dynamics Branch Guidance and Control Division Instrumentation Division Computation and Communications

_'

Laboratory Division Enginevring

R&D Applica_on Propulsion Laboratory Propulsion Structures Vehicle _

Vehicle

Division Division Systems Division

TABLE

OF CONTENTS Page

SECTION

I.

FLIGHT i. 1 1.2 1.3

TEST

SUMMARY

.....................................

i 1 2 2

Flight Test Results ...................................... Test Objectives ......................................... Times of Events ........................................

SECTION SECTION

If. HI.

INTRODUCTION

............................................

4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 of Inertia ................... 10 14 14 14 17 19 19 .................... 19 19 21 22 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 28 ................. 28 28 28 29 30

LAUNCH OPERATIONS ....................................... 3.1 Summary ............................................. 3.2 Prelzunch Milestones ..................................... 3.3 3.4 3.5 Atmospheric Countdown Conditions ................................... ............................................

Propellant bonding ...................................... 3.5.1 S-I Stage ........................................ 3.5.2 S-IV Stage ....................................... 3. 5. 2. 1 LOX .................................... 3.5.2.2 3.5.2.3 LH 2 .................................... Cold tlelium ............................... .................................. ..................................

3.6 3.7 3.8 SECTION IV.

Ilolddown

.............................................

Ground Support Equipment Blockhouse Redline Values

MASS CHARACTERISTICS ...................................... 4. I Vehicle Mass .......................................... 4.2 Vehicle Center of Gravity and Moment

SECTION

V.

TRAJECTORY 5.1 5.2 5.3 Summary Trajectory Insertion

............................................. .............................................. Comparison With Nominal .......................... Conditions fS-IV Cutoff + l0 Sec) . .- .................... .............................................. ............................................. .................................... Propulsion Performauce

SECTION

VL

PROPULSION 6.1 Summary 6.2

S-I Stage Performance 6.2.1 Overall Stage

6.3

6.2.2 Flight Simulation Of Cluster Performance .................. 6.2.3 Individual Engine Performance ......................... 8-I Pressurization Systems ................................. 6.3. I Fuel Pressurization System ........................... 6.3.2 LOX Tank Pressurization System ........................ 6.3.3 6.3.4 Control LOX/SOX Pressure Dispoaal System System .............................. .............................

6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

6.3.5 tlydrogen Vent Duet Purge ............................. S-I Stage Propellant Utilization .............................. S-I Stage IIydraulie Systems Retro Rocket Performance ................................ .................................

S-IV Stage Propulsion .................................... 6.7.1 Overall S-IV Stage Propulsion Performance 6.7 2 Cluster Performance ................................ 6.7.2.1 6.7.2.2 Engine Flight Analysis Simulation ............................. ............................

iii

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(Cont'd) Page

6.7.3

Individual Engine Per[ormanee .......................... 6.7.3.1 Engine Cooldown ............................ 6.7.3.2 Start Transients ............................. 6.7.3. 6.7.3.4 3 Steady Cutoff State Operation ........................ Transients ............................ ................................ ............................. Conditions ..................... ............................. Operation Conditions ...................... .....................

32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 34 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 37 38 38 39 39 39 41 41 41 41

6.8

S-IV 6.8.1 6.8.2

Pressurization

System

LH 2 Tank Pressurization 6.8.1.1 LH 2 Pump Inlet LOX Tank Pressurization 6.8.2.1 6.8.2.2 Helium Heater Inlet LOX Pump

6.8.3 6.8.4 6.9 S-IV 6.9. 6.9. 6.10 6. it 6.12 SECTION VII. 1 2

Cold Helium Supply ................................. Control Helium System ............................... Propell_mt Utilization .................................. System Response ................................... PU System Command ................................

Propellant Mass History ................................... S-IV Hydraulic System .................................... Ullage Rockets AND ......................................... ....................................

GUIDANCE 7.1 7.2 7.3

CONTROL

Summary ............................................. System Description ...................................... Control Analysis ........................................ 7.3. t S-I Stage 7.3.1.1 7.3. 1.2 7.3. 7.3. 7.3.2 S-IV 1.3 1.4 Stage Flight Control .............................. Pitch Plane ............................... Yaw Plane ................................ Control Design Parameters Roll Plane ................................ Flight Control .............................. .....................

43 43 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 ........ 46 47 47 47 47 47 51 53 53 55 55 Analysis

7.4

Functional Analysis ...................................... 7.4. I Control Sensors ................................... 7.4. 1.1 Control Aceeisrometers 7.4. 1.2 Angle-of-Attack Sensors 7.4.1.3 7.4.1.4 7.4.1.5 7.4. i. 6

....................... ....................... ..................... ................

Rate Gyros ................................ Control Acceleration Switch ResoIver Flight Chain Control Error Computer

Comparison and Actuator

7.5

Propellant Sloshing ...................................... 7.5. t S-I Powered Flight Sloshing ........................... 7.5.2 S-IV Powered Flight Sloshing .......................... Guidance System 7.6.1 Guidance 7.6.2 Guidance Guidance System 7.7. 1 Guidance 7.7.2 ST-124 Gas ST-J24 Performance Intelligence ............................... Errors ...........................

7.6

7.7

System Performance Comparisons ................ Hardware ................................. Signal Processor and Digital Computer Analysis Stabilized Platform System System Hardware Analysis .......... GN 2 Supply .........................

.......

7.8

Bearing

iv

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(Cont'd) Page

SECTION

VIII.

STAGE 8. t 8.2

SEPARATION

.........................................

58 58 5,_ 58 58 59 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 63 6:3 6:3 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 69 69 69 69 69 69 70 70 70 .................. 71 71 71 71 ...................... 7t 71 72 72 72

Summary ............................................. S-I/S-IV Separation Dynamics ............................... 8.2.1 Translational Motion ................................ 8.2.2 Angular Shroud Motion Separation .................................... ................................... Apollo

8.3 SECTION LX.

STRUCTURES 9.1 9.2 Summary Results 9.2.1

.............................................. ............................................. During S-I Powered Moments and Normal 9.2. 1.1 Calculated 9. 2. i. 2 Measured Longitudinal Loads Bending Oscillations Flight ........................... Load Factors ....................... Values ........................... Values ........................... .................................. .................................

9.2.2 9.2.3

9.2.4

9.2, 3.1 Body Rending .............................. 9.2.3.2 Fin Bending ............................... S-I Vibrations ..................................... 9.2. 4.1 Structural MeasuremcnLs ...................... 9.2.4.2 Engine Measurements ......................... 9.2.4.3 Component Measurements ...................... S-IV Vibrations .................................... 9.2.5. I Structural Measurements ...................... 9.2. 5.2 9.2, 5.3 instrument 9. 2.6.1 Engine Measurements ......................... Component Measurements ...................... Unit Vibrations ............................ Structural Measurements ......................

9.2.5

9, 2.6

9.2,7 9.2.8

9.2. 6.2 Component Measurements ...................... Apollo (Pegasus) Vibrations ........................... Structural Acoustics ................................. 9.2. S. 1 S-] Stage S-IV Stage Instrument ................................. ................................ Unit ............................. 9.2.8.2 9.2.8.3

9.3 9.4

S-I/S-IV Results 9.4. l 9.4.2

9.2.8.4 Apollo ................................... Interstage ...................................... During S-IV Powered Flight ........................... Bending ........................................ S-IV Vibrations During S-IV Powered 9.4.2.1 Structural Measurements 9.4.2.2 9. 4.2.3 Instrument Flight ................. ......................

9.4.3

Engine Measurements ......................... Component Measurements ...................... Unit Vibrations ............................ Vibrations Acoustics ........................... ...........................

9. 4. 4 Apollo 9.4.5 Apollo SECTION X. ENVIRONMENTAL i0. t I0.2

(Pegasus) {Pegasus)

TEMPERATURES

AND PRESSURES

Summary ............................................. S-I Stage Environment .................................... 10.2.1 Surface Pressures .................................. 10. 2. 2 Skin Temperature 1O. 2.3 Base Pressures 10.2.4 Base 10.2.4.1 10.2.4.2 Thermal Base Base and lleating Rates ................................... Environment Temperatures Heating Rates

............................ .......................... ..........................

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

(ConUd) Page 75 .............. Frame Compartment 75 75 75 and Pressures ..... 75 75 78 7_ 78 ...... 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 80 80 80 83 s:l s:, 8:_ 84 8.3 85 85 _5 86 86 86 _6 86 S6 86 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 _8 89 89

10.2.5

Tail 10.2.5.

Compartment 1 Engine

Environment Compartment

........................ Temperatures

I0.2.5.2 10.9.6 S-I S-IV I

Engine Compartment and Thrust Pressures ................................ Interstage S-I/S-IV Detonation Environment IJlterstage Pressures Temperatures ........................

.......................

10.2.6. 10.2.6.2 10.3 S-IV 10.3.

Stage Environment .................................. i Environmental Pressures ............................ t0.3. i. 1 Common Bulkhead Pressure 10.3. l. 2 Forward Interstage External 10.3.1.3 Surface 10.3.2. 10.3.2.2 Base Iteat Temperature 1 Hydrogen Aft Skirt Shield Pressure and Heat Ftttx

................... Surface Pressures

10.3.2

.................... .....................

Tank Temperatures .................. Temperatures ...................... Vent Line Temperature ................ Ileat Flux .......................... and Ileat Fluxes .....................

10. 3.3

10.3.2.3 Hydrogen 10.3.2.4 Aft S_irt Base Temperatures 10.3.3. 10.3.3.2 10.3.3.3 1 Base Base Base

Thrust Strueture Temperatures ............. Heat Shield Temperatures ................. Ileal Flux ............................ ............................... ..............................

10.4 SECTION XI.

Instrument

Urtit

Environment

VEitICLE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 11. I Summary ............................................ 11.2 11.3 1 l. 4 S-1 Stage Electrical S-IV Stage Electrical IU Stage Electrical

System ................................ System ............................... System .................................

SECTION

XII.

AEF{ODYNAMICS ........................................... 12. l Summary ............................................ 12.2 Fin Pressure Distribution ................................. 12.3 Drag ...............................................

SECTION

XIII.

INSTRUMENTATION ........................................ 13.1 Summary ............................................ 13.2 S-I Stage Measuring Analysis .............................. 13.2. 1 S-I Measurement Malfunctions ......................... 13.2.2 S-I Measuring Reliability ............................. S-IV Stage Measuring Analysis ............................. 13.3. 13.4 i S-IV Measurement Malfunctions ........................ 13.3.2 S-IV Measuring Reliability ........................... IU Stage Measuring Analysis ............................... 13.4. 1 IU Measurement 13.4.2 IU Measuring 13.5 Airborne Telemetry Malfunctions ......................... Reliability ............................ Systems ...............................

13.3

13.6

13.5. I Telemetry Links ................................. 13.5. 2 Data Acquisition ................................... 13.5.3 Calibration ...................................... Airborne Tape Recorders ................................. 13.6. t S-I Recorder 13.6.2 S-IV lIecorder 13.6.3 IU Recorder .................................... .................................... .....................................

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

(Concluded) l_age

13.7

RF Systems Analysis

....................................

89 89 90 91 91 91 91 92 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 93 96 97 98 99 100 I00 100 100 104 104 104 107 109

13.7. I Telemetry ...................................... 13.7.2 Tracking ....................................... 13.7.3 Television ...................................... 13.7.4 Command ....................................... 13.8 Optical Instrumentation .................................. 13.8. I Engineering Sequential Cameras ........................ 13.8.2 Tracking Cameras ................................. 13.9 Orbital Tracking and Telemetry Summary ...................... 13.9. I Tracking Summary ................................ 13.9.2 Telemetry SECTION XIV. PEGASUS 14.2 14.3 B Summary ................................

.............................................. ............................................

14. I Summary

Pegasus B Performance .................................. Orbital Attitude ....................................... 14.3. I Nonpropuleive Vent System Performance .................. 14.3. 2 Vehicle Attitude in Orbit .............................

14.4 14.5 SECTION APPENDIX XV. A.

PegasUS Operation ...................................... Pegasus Television Coverage ............................... OF MALFUNCTIONS AND DEVIATIONS ...................

SUMMARY VEHICLE A. I A.2 A. 3 A. 4 A. 5 A. 6

DESCRIPTION

.....................................

Summary

............................................

S-I Stage ............................................ S-IV Stage ........................................... Instrument Unit ....................................... Payload Pegasus ............................................. B Satellite .....................................

REFERENCES INDEX

.........................................................

..............................................................

vii

LIST

OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 6-I 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 6-16 6-17 6-18 Vehicle Vehicle S-I S-IV Earth Total Mach Booster Thrust Vehicle Vehicle Typical Flight Mass, Mass, Center Center of Gravity, of Gravity, and and

Title ,Mass Mass Moment Moment of Inertia of Inertia ................. .................

Page 10 10 14 14 14 15 17 17 19

Trajectory Trajectory Fixed Inertial Number

.................................................. ................................................. ............................................. ......................................... Pressure Track .................................. .....................................

Velocity

Acceleration and Dynamic Ground

Trajectory

Buildup .................................................. Longitudinal Mixture Ratio Thrust and Specific Flow Impulse ...........................

19 20 Engine Thrust Decay . . 20 21

and Total Chamber

Rate ............................... Decay and Outboard

LOX Starvation Simulation Results

Pressure

........................................... Engine Periormance Time From Parameters {S-lt .................

Deviations

in Individual

22 23 24 25 25 26

Thrust Chamber Gas Pressure Center Control LOX/SOX Hydraulic Typical Total

Pressure

Versus

IgnitionSignal (Engine 8)........... Spheres ......................

in Fuel Tank and High Pressure Pressure Supply Operation ......................................... Pressure

LOX Tank Equipment System

...................................

......................................... and Temperature Chamber (Engine Pressure .......................... ........................

Oil Pressure, Retro Rocket

Level, Combustion

28 28 30 31 32 33 33

S-IV

Stage Systems Engine

Performance Performance Start Transients

Analysis)

........................... ............................

Propulsion Individual S-IV S-IV Engine Stage

Comparison

..................................... .......................................

Cutoff Fuel

Transients Ullage

Tank

Pressure

..................................

viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

(Cont'd)

Figure 6-19 6-20 6-21 6-22 6-23 6-24 6-25 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-10 7-11 7-12 7-13 7-14 7-15 7-16 7-17 7-18 LH 2 Pump Inlet Parameters S-IV Stage S-IV Helium

Title ......................................... ..................................

Page 34 34 35 36 36 37 38 40 ,t2 Actuator Position .............. ........... 42 42 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 .................... 46 47 49 ............. - Tracking) .... 51 51 53 56

LOX Tank Ullage Pressure Heater Performance

..................................... .......................................

LOX Pump Inlet Temperatures

LOX Pump Inlet Conditions .......................................... Typical Propellant Utilization Valve Position .............................

Ullage Rocket Chamber Guidance and Control

Pressure

.....................................

System

........................................

S-I Stage Command Pitch Attitude Error,

Angles .......................................... Angular Rate, Component Rate, and Average

Pitch Plane Wind Velocity Yaw Attitude Error,

and Free Stream Angle Actuator

of Attack

Angular

and Average Angle

Position

..............

Yaw Plane Wind Velocity Comparison Roll Attitude of Vehicle Error,

and Free Stream Control Parameters Hate,

o¢ Attack .................... ................ ...............

with Design Criteria Actuator Position

Angular

and Average

S-IV Stage Attitude Vehicle Response

Errors .......................................... to Pitch Plane Guidance Initiation ......................... .................................. Chain Error

Pitch and Yaw Control Aecelerometers Calculated and Predicted

Pitch Axis Resolver Flight

Slosh During S-I Powered ST-124 Inertial Hesidual Stabilized Velocity Inertial platform

...................................... Error Sources .......................... - Tracking) Analysis

System

Component Velocity

Differences

(Accelerometer

Component Differences Parameters

(Trajectory ...........................

Yaw Plane Detta Minimum Gttidance ST-124 Gas Bearing Supply System

....................................

lAST

OF

IIA.USTBATIONS

(Cotxt'dl

Figure 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-5 9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 9-9 9-10 9-11 9-12 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9 Separation Separation Angular S-1V Sequence Distance Velocities Error .............................................. and Incremental During During Separation Separation

Title

Page 58 ............................ 58 59 59 60 ....................... 61 62 52 63 4}3 65 .............................. Powered Flight ................... 65 66 67

Velocities

................................... ..................................

Attitude

Pegasus SA-8 SA-8 Upper Vehicle Fin S-I

Separation Pitch Thrust Pegasus Bending Bending Buildup

Comparisons Moment and

..................................... Normal Load Factor

Characteristics Response

................................... to S-I lgnition ........................... Pitch ........................

Support

Frequencies

and Amplitudes, Modes

Bending Stage

and Torsion

.....................................

Vibrations During Unit Vibrations Interstage lnterstage During

.............................................. S-I Stage Powered During Flight S-I Stage

Vibrations Instrument Pegasus S-IV S-I: Aft S-IV

Vtbrations

.............................................. View Strain S-IV Looking Outboard with Interstage Folded Flat ............

68 _i8

.......................................... Powered Flight ............................. ..............................

Vibrations Spider S-I Beam

Stage

69 71 72 73 73 74 74 74 76 77

Fairing

Pressure

Environnmnt

Stage

Base

Pressures Gas

.......................................... ..................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ........................................ ......................................... .....................................

Flame Inner Outer Flame Engine

Shield Region Region Shield Shroud

Temperatm'es Bates Bates Rates Rates

tteating lteating Ileating Beating

Aft lnterstage S-IV Stage

Environment Pressure

Environment

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

(Concluded)

Figure 10-f0 10-11 10-12 11-1 11-2 11-3 12-1 14-1 14-2 14-3 14-4 A-I A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 S-IV S-IV Stage Stage Surface Base Unit Current Cm'rent Battery Temperature Temperature Ambient and

Title Environment Environment Component ........................... ............................. Temperatures and Pressures ..........

Page 79 81 52 83 83 and Inverter Volt,age .......... 84 85 94 95 96 97 101 102 103 105 106

Instrument S-I Stage S-IV Stage

and Voltage and Voltage Temperature

..................................... .................................... Voltage, Drag Current,

IU Stage Axial

Force

Coefficient Vent Vent

,and Base SA-8 SA-8

............................... ......................... ......................... ..........................

Nonproputsive Nonpropulsive S-IV-8 SA-8 SA-8 Orbital l{oil Rate

Systems Systems

Configuration Configuration Roll Moment

Motion

Equivalent

Observations Configuration

...................................... .......................................

Vehicle

S-I Stage S-IV Stage

................................................... ................................................... Unit ...............................................

Instrument Payload

....................................................

xi

LIST Tab le l-I 3-I 3-II 3-IH 4°I 4-1I 4-11I 5-I 5-If 5-III 5-1V 6-I 6-II 6-III 6-IV 7-I 7-II 7-III 7-IV 7-V 9-I 13-I 14-I Times of Events ...............................................

OF TABLES Title Page 3 6 7 7 II ................................. 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 29 3i 38 48 50 Cutoff ............... 52 52 54 64 87 95

Prelaunch /Loading S-I-8 Vehicle SA-8 Mass CutofI

Milestones System Pressure

........................................... Values Weights ................................... .....................................

Total

Propellant

Mass ................................................. Flight Sequence blass Summary

Characteristics Conditions Events Impact Elements S-I Stage Rocket

Comparison

..................................

.............................................. ............................................. ............................................... Comparison Propulsion .................................... Parameters .............................

Significant Booster Insertion Average Retro S-IV-8

Parameters System History

........................................ Performance ...............................

Propulsion Mass

Propellant Guidance Comparison Comparison Guidance Comparison Vibration

......................................... ...................................... Velocities ............................. Guidance

I0atelligence of Inertial of Space System

Errors

Guidance Fixed

Velocities Cutoff

at S-IV

Errors

at S-IV

Command

........................ Insertion ...................

of Guidance Summary

Parameters

at Orbital

............................................. ....................................... ...................................

Measurement Nonpropulaive

Malfunctions Vent

Performance

xii

ABBREVIATIONS

AND

SYMBOLS

Abbreviation AGC CDR CM CO CSM DDAS DOD E.F. EMF ESE EMR ETR GLOTRAC GSE IECO IETD IGM IP LCC LES LOS LOX MISTRAM MMC MOTS ms MSFN MSL NORAD NPSH NPSP NPV OECO OETD PAFB PAM PCM PDM PRA PU RCS RSS SAO SCM SM SOX STADAN U.T. VCO Automatic Command Command Cutoff

Definition Gain Control Destruct Receiver Module

Combustion Stability Mooi tot Digital Data Acquisition System Department of Defense Earth Fixed Electro Electrical Engine Eastern MoUve Force Equipment Support

Mixture Ratio Test Range

Global Tracking System Ground Support Equipment Inboard Engine Cutoff Inboard Engine Thrust Decay Iterative Guidance Mode Impact Position Launch Control Center Launch Escape System Loss of Signal Liquid Oxygen Missile Trajectory Micro-bleteoroid Minit_tck Optical MiUiseconds Manned Space Main Structure Measurement Capsule Tracking Station System

Flight Network Level Command

North American Air Defense Net Positive Section Head Net Positive Suction Pressure Nonpropulsive Vent Outboard Engine Cutoff Outboard Engine Thrust Decay Patrick Air Force Base Pulse Pulse Pulse Amplitude Modulated Code Modulated Duration Modulated 1963

Patrick Air Force Base, Propellant Utilization Reaction Control System Range Safety Signal Smithsonian Astrophysical Standard Cubic Meter Service Module Solid Oxygen Space Tracking Universal Time and Data

Reference

Atmosphere

Observatory

Acquisition

Network

Voltage Controlled Oscillator

xiii

CONVERSION FACTORS TO INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS OF 1960

Parameter acceleration area barometer density energy mass force heating impulse length rate flow rate pressure

Multiply ft/s in 2 nabs slugs/ft Btu lb s/ft lb Btu/ft2-s lb-s ft in 3 2

By 3. 048xtO -1 (exact) 6, 4516x10 1.00xl0 -4 {exact)

To Obtain m/s 2 m2 N/cm kg/m 2 3

-z (exact)

5. 153788185x102 1. 0543503x103 4. 5359237x10 4. 448221615 1. 1348931 4. 448221615 3. 048x10 2.54x10 -1 (exact) -z (exact) -! (exact) (thermal chemical) (thermal -1 (exact) chemical)

x_att-s kg/s N (Newton) watt/era N-s m m kg N-m 2

mass moment

lb s2/ft ib-ft lb-in

4. 5359237x10 l. 355817948 1, 12984829x10 2 1. 355817948 2, 9287508x10 6. 894757293x10 4. 788025898x10 1. 57087468x10 67 5. 555555556x10

-!

N-m kg-m 2

moment )ower )ressure

of inertia

lb-ft-s Btu/hr lb/in 2 lb/ft 2

-4 -! -3 -2 -1

kw N/cm 2 N/cm N/m 3 OK m/s m3 2

specific temperature velocity volume

weight

lb/ft 3 * F+459. ft/s ft 3

3. 048x10 -1 (exact} 2. s316846592x 10 -z (exact)

NOTE:

go = 9. 80665

m/s -9 (exact)

xiv

GEORGE

C. MARSHALL

SPACE

FLIGH_CENTER

MPR-SAT- FE-66-10

RESULTS

OF THE NINTH SATURN I LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT SA-8 by Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group

SECTION L 1.1 FLIGHT TEST RESULTS

FLIGHT TEST SUMMARY nominal, yielding a perigee altitude oi 506.5 km and an apogee altitude of 748.5 kin. Estimated lifetime was 1220 days, I0 days less thannominal. The performanceof boththeS-I and S-IV propalsion systems was satisfactory for the SA-8 flight. The vehicle sea level longitudinal thrust of the S-1 stage averaged 1.3 percent higher than predicted. Vehicle specific impulse averaged 0.1 percent higher than predicted. The vehicle longitudinal thrust of the S-IV stage averaged0.6percent higher than predicted. The specific impulse deviation averaged 0, 3 percent tower than predicted. The performance of all subsystems was as expected for the flight test. The overall performance of the SA-6 guidance and control system was satisfactory. The ST-124 system, along with control rate gyros, provided attitude and rate control for both stages. Partial load relief was accomplished by control accelerometers active in the control loop from 35 to 10O seconds. Vehicle response to all signals was properly executed including roll maneuver, pitch program, and path guidance {utilizing the iterative guidance scheme) during the S-IV stage flight.

Saturn latmch vehicle SA-8, fifth theBlock H of series vehicles and the second operational vehicle, was launched at 02:35 AM EST, May 25, 1966. The flight test was the second in a series to launch a Pegasus satellite {Pegasus BJ and was a complete success with all missions achieved, SA-8 was the fifth vehicle launched from complex 37B at Cape Kennedy, Florida, and represents the fourth launch of the Saturn/Apollo configuration. This was the first Saturn vehicle launch that required no technical holds. All operations were normal and the only hold was the 35 minute built-in hold which was not needed but was used to make launch time coineident with the beginning of the launch window, Two anomalies were detected during the countdown operation. The first occurred during countdown whenLOX vaporperiodicaUy broke the theodolite lineo_-sight to the ST-124 alignment window in file Instrument Unit (IU). This was the second launch in which LOX vapor temporarily and periodically hindered the countdown operation. The second anomaly occurred when the GH_ vent disconnect on swing arm 3 failed to separate pncttmatically at liftoff. However, separation was successfully achieved when the mechanical release was actuated by the swing arm rotation. The disconnect was accomplished by a hydraulic lanyard during launch. A similar malfunction occurred during the launch of SA-7. The actual trajectory of SA-8 deviated from neroinal primarily because of high S-I stage performance, The total velocity was 21.8 m/s higher than nominal at OECO and 0. 5 m/s lower than nominal at S-IV cutoff. At S-IV cutoff the aetna! altitude was 0. 02 km higher than nominal and the range was 6.69 km less than nominal. The cross range velocity deviated 2.6 m/s to the right of nominal at S-IV cutoff, The S-IV payload atorbital insertion (S-IV cutoff + 10 sec) had a space fixed velocity 0.7 In/s less than

Pathguidance was initiated at 17. 77 seconds after separation. Performance of the iterative guidance mode in the pitch plane and delta minimum in yaw was satisfactory in achieving insertion conditions very near those desired. The total measured ST-124 guidance system space fixed velocity at S-IV cutoff was 7672.06 rn/s ( 7672.06 m/s was programmed for velocity cutoff). The total velocity at cutoff from tracking was 7671.57 m/s, the difference between tracking and guidance havingbeen accounted forby small errors within the guidance system. Separation was executed smoothly withamati control deviations. First motion between stages was observed within 0. 05 second of separation command. The S-IV stage engines cleared the interstage within 0.86 second of separation command.

v

-----_

.

SeparationoftheApolloshroudoccurred seconds, functioning as planned.

at 805. 07

usable timingduetoedgefogon TV system provided excellent wind deployment.

the film. The onboard coverage of the Pegasus

The SA-8 vehicle experienced maximum bending in the pitch plane at approximately 64. I seconds. A maximum static moment of 720,000 N-m was expertenced at station 23.9 m (942 in}. The structural flight loads on SA-8 were generally as expected and no POGO effects were apparent. The vibrations observed on SA-8 were generally within the expected levels and compared well with those of SA-9. There was no evidenee of S-l/S-IV interstage structural degradation during separation. The aerothermodynamie environment measured on SA-8 was nearly the same as theSA-9 environment, and was approximately 30 percent less severe than that measured on previotzs Saturn I, Block II flights due to the difference in trajectory. Thermal environmerits in must areas of the S-I stage base region were generally similar to those indicated by previous flight data. The flame shield thermal environment was less severe than on previous flights. Pressure and temperature measurements were flown for the first time on the S-l/S-IV lnterstage as part of an experiment to determine if the interstage panel debonding phenomenon observed during separation on SA-5 and SA-7 reoccurred. Data from these measurements failed to reveal either the causeofthe panel failure or that this phenomenon occurred again on SA-8. The SA-8 electrical systems operated satisfaetortly during the boost and orbital phase of flight and all mission requirements were met. The long life battery in the IU provided power to the P1 and F6 telemetry links for 140 minutes, which well exceeds the one orbit requirement. Overall reliability of the SA-8 measuring system was 99.4 percent. Only 7 of the 1157 measurements on the vehicle at liftoff failed. Operation of the three airborne tape recorders, one eaehin the S-I, S-IV, and IU, was very satisfactory The playback records were freeofattenuationefleetscaasedby the retro and ullage rockets The photo/optical instrtunentationconsisted of 79 cameras that provided fair quality coverage. Of the 79 cameras, 3 failed, 4 had no timing, and 4 had an-

The Pegasus B spacecraft performance was satisfactory. At approximately 634. 15 seconds, the SIV stage, Instrument Unit, Apollo shroud and Pegasus were inserted into orbit with no appreciable pitch, yaw, or roll rate. The Pegasus wing deployment and all spacecraft systems worked properly and all measurements were initially within their predicted limits. After wing deployment, a roll rate started to build ap and reached a maximum of 6. 5 deK/s as compared to 9.8 deg/s on SA-9. The interchange of the nonpropuisire vent (NPV) lines on SA-8 was apparently snccessfui in reducing the high roll rate observed on SA-9. t. 2 TEST OBJECTIVES a. Primary objectives: data sampling in

1. Evaluate meteoroid near earth orbit ° Achieved 2. Demonstrate system accuracy Secondary

evaluate b.

iterative guidance -Achieved

mode and

objectives:

t. Demonstrate the functional operation of the pegasus meteoroid technology satellite mechanical, structural, and electronic subsystem - Achieved 2. EvalLmteS-IV/IU/ServiceMndaleadapter (SMA_ exterior thermal control coating - Achieved 3. Demonstrate ule (CM)/SM separation chieved bollerplate Command from S-IV/IU/SMA Mod- A-

venting 1.3

4. Demonstrate S-IV stage (NPV) system - Achieved.

nonprolmlsive

TIMES OF EVENTS of events for the SA-8 are contained

The times in Table I-L

TABLE

1-I.

TIMES

OF

EVENTS

Range T/me (sec) Event Aerial First Motion -0, 19 0.09 0.09 0.11 8. 34 8. 65 0. 66 23*00 138.36 (TB2J 140.19 142. 00 148. 09 Detects OECO ( TB 3_ 148. l0 148.82 Signal 148. 92 149.72 150. 62 169.92 166, 69 624. 15 620. 84 634. i5 NPV ports Re6traln Sep, 804.87 805.87 805.97 865. 87 8.34 8.65 0.66 23.66 138.36 141.81 143.81 149.6X 149. 61 150,3! 150.41 151.21 _52. |l 162,4l 168, 21 628. 40 629.09 638.4 809.09 810.09 8t0.19 870. 09 0 0 0 0 0 -I.82 -I. 61 - 1.56 -1.51 -l.49 -1.49 -1.49 -]. 49 -1.49 - lo 52 -4. _5 -4.25 -4.25 -4.22 -4.22 -4.22 -4.29 638.50 K28. 06 141.99 143. 79 149. 79 0 predicted Act-pred Time from tst Motion 0

Pre_cted Time from C_d. Zero (TD

Time Bases Time from OECO (TB 3] Time from S-IV Cuiolf (TB 4}

LO Signal (Umb DiSc) Guidance DeteciS Guidance Compares Brakes Released LO Zero Time {TIJ

0.23 8.54 8.5G 23.55 136.55 -7.6 -6.0 O 0 0. 7i O. 81 _.6J 2..51 12. 8l J 8. 14-19.04 - 0. 69 0

pitch Command Roll Com mand Rail Comp/eted Lock Mo_e$ LevelSer_e IECO OKCO Computer

Ullage Rockers SeparatJou/Retro

lgmte _flon

Open S-IV Accth_ula_or8 $-1_' Start Cow, maid Signal to Jettison I_trodtwe Guidance tHlage/LES

8,-IV Guidance Cut_£ S/gJml Compttter Insertion CloSe Att._liary Inlt/al Sense S-IV CO ( TB 4)

100.02 101.02 151. J2 241.02

Pegasu.q Forward

IniUate A polio Shroud Sep. lolt_ate pnga_u_t Wing Rentraiv_ & Energize Wing Deployment Motors FJul ',_ tng Deployment Note_ ( motors stcp}

906.25 ZULU time.

910.09

-3.04

281o02

Range zero ocearred Base2

at 0735:01

._ *Time

(Low Level

Semge)

SECTION II.

INTRODUCTION

Saturn launch vehicle SA-8 was launched 02:35 EST, May 25, 1965, [rom Saturn launch complex 37B, Eastern Test Range, Cape Keuaecly, Florida. SA-8 was the ninth vehicle to be flight tested in the Saturn I program and represents the second Saturn I operational vehicle. The major mission of this test was to evaluate the performance ol the complete launch vehicle system (two live stages) and to place into orbit the Pegasus B meteoroid technology satellite. SA-8 represented the [ourth flight test ot the Apollo boilerplate (BP-26J with the Saturn I launch vehicle, This report presents the results of the early engineeriag evaluationof the SA-8 test flight. Performance oi each major vehicle system is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations,

This report is published by the Saturn Flight, Evaltmtton Working Group comprised of representatires [romalloI MarshallSpace Flight Center(MSFCJ laboratories, John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSCJ, prime contractors for the S-I stage (Chrysler}, for the S-IV stage ( Douglas Aircraft Co. ) and for the IU stage (IBMJ and engine contractors (Rocketdyne and Pratt & Whitney). Therefore, the report represents the official MSFC position at this time. This report will not be followed by a similarly integrated report unlesscontinuedanalysisor new evidence should prove the conclusions presented here partially or entirely wrong. Final evaluation reports may, however, be published by the MSFC laboratories and the stage contractors covering some oi the major systems or special subjects as required.

SECTION

III. LAUNCH

OPERATIONS

3. I SUMNL_RY Saturn vehicle SA-8 was launched exactly on schedule. This was the first Saturn vehicle launch that required no technical holds. All operations were normal and the only hold was the 35 minute butft-in holdwhich wasnotaceded but wasused to make launch time coincident dow. Two anomalies operation. LOX vapor The first periodically the with the beginning of the launch win-

7. Visibility - 16 kin. 3.4 COUNTDOWN The T-605 normal count was picked up at 15:55 hours EST at

minutes on May 24, and the only hold

1965. All operations were was the 35 minute built-in

hold which launchtime window.

was not needed, but was used to make the coincident withthe beginning of the launch

were

detected broke

duringthe during the theodolite

countdown when line-ofPerformance during of all vehicle systems was normal TV systhe countdown, except thattheonboard

occurred

countdown

sighttotheST-124alignment Unit (IU). This was vapor temporarily down operation.

window in the Instrument second launch in which LOX

tsm had interference mately T+3 seconds. due to arcing liftoff. During

from T-15 minutes to approxiThe interference was possibly and cleared up after

andperiodically hinderedthecountThe second anomaly occurred when on swing arm 3 failed to seplfftoff. However, separation when the mechanical reswing arm rotation. The by a hydraulic lanyard maliunction occurred dur-

in the searchlights

the GH 2 vent disconnect arate pneumatically at

countdown,

LOX vapor

periodically

broke

was successfully achieved lease was actuated by the disconnect was accomplished during ing launch. A similar of SA-7. no the launch There

the theodolite line-of-sight to the ST-124 alignment window in the IU. However, optical alignment was maintained during thecountdown. Earlier in the Block If program, the stabilized platform optical alignment was in the automatic countdown cutoff occurred on SA-6 when loop. An automatic LOX vapor disrupted SA-6 manual override with opthe LOX continue However,

were

indications

of

engine

"pops"

or

the

optical

alignment.

After

rough combustion on any monitors. All blockhouse specified 3.2 limits during

ot the combustion stability redline values were within operations,

was provided so that the count could electrical aliganlent only, if required. tical alignment is highly desirable required alignment accuracy. vapor cially ently

countdown

for maintaining Therefore, the

PRELAUNCH

MILESTONES

is considered a potential problem area, espefor Saturn IB where optical alignment is prcsplanned for the automatic countdown loop.

tioas 3-I. 3.3

A chronological summary of events and preparaleading to the launch of SA-8 is shown in Table

3.5 ATMOSPHERIC General satisfactory. weather Launch CONDITIONS conditions time winds on launch were lower day were the 3.5.

PROPELLANT

LOADING

I

S-I

STAGE

than

median May winds, which Some specific observations 1. Ambient 2. Ambient 3. 4. Dewpnint Relative pressure temperature - 295"K humidity winds

are the lowest of the year. at launch were: - 10.18 N/cm 2 (t4.77 psD

The S-I stage propenantloading system is designed to load accurately the LOX and fuel required to achieve flight mission objectives. The propellants required are based taincd from simulated The propellant on propulsion performance flight predictions. loading computers were preset ob-

- 296°K to load nominal weights of LOX and fuel. A fuel density check was made at T-10 minutes to expedite LOX and - 93 percent m/s fuel weightadjustments. density, corrections of Toaccount 0.05 N/cm for the actual fuel _ (0.070 psi) for

5. Surface 6. Cloud known altitude 760 m

- 130 deg at 2.06

LOX and -0. 07 N/era 2 (-0. 100 psi) for fuel were input to the loading computers and the semi-automatic system pressure T-3 began to correct the propellant weights. The readings of the propellant loading system at are shown in Table 3-11.

coverage and 0.1

- 0.3 cirrus stratus at ancumulus at a base height of

minutes

%

TABLE

3-I.

PRELAUNCH

MILESTONES

Date February February March March March March March March March April April April April April 2, 8, 11, 16, 17, 22, 26, 5, 9, 10, 15, 28, 26. 28, 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 S-IV S-I arrived arrived at KSC at KSC and secured at KSC power applied

Event

S-I erected IU arrived S-I initial S-IV S-IV Power Power Electrical Launch CM, weight

in strnctare

at LC-37B

and balance

test

completed

and IU erected applied applied mate vehicle to IU

on S-I

to S-IV of launch sequence vehicle maHunction arrived at KSC stages test completed completed

1965 1965 1965 1965 1965

SM, and adapter B arrived B, SM,

Pegasus Pegasus emplaced Space Plug

at KSC and adapter erected on launch vehicle; CM and LES

April

29,

1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965

vehicle/launch drop, swing arm

vehicle overall

electrical test

mate

completed

May 3, May 11, May 14,

completed completed

Launch Flight Flight S-I fuel

vehicle readiness readiness tanking

cryogenic test test

tanking

completed review completed

May 17, May 18. May 20, May 23, May 25,

completed test completed

Countdown Precount LAUNCH

demonstration started

t.

_ _.

6

TABLE

3-II. LOADING SYSTEM VALUES

PRESSURE

Reconstructed weights are considered the most accurate determination of the actual propellant load. These weights were determined from LOX and fuel discrete probe data telemetered during flightin canjunction with the Mark IV computer program reconstruction of propellant consumpUon during holddown. The reconstructed LOX weight is 470. 4 kg (1037 Ibm) less than the weight required at igq_ition and 338 kg {747 Ibm} manometer less than pressure _he weight indicated by the LOX value. LOX temperatures at ig-

Sy_tt.m I_x i_._l aP _._ _:_:j (p_l)
Yael l_.vcl _p (N/cm _)

Computer _om._r t,;.:,_
IZo_.

C.,np_rL_v. IP_ M_mometer
O. |[2

[ ._J

_4. U;17 _

Z4, OlO I_'.ZZ_i

1_.5_4

(psi}
t'_¢l l_emty _I' (N,;t'n_)

17.727
11.460

_7.7_4
11.45"_

0017 0.,_o

_p_t_

1,_.6_

_.,a_

The total S-Ipropellant 3-IIL were Prior based tolatmch, on both

weightsare

listedin

Table

nition and during flight were slightly higher than the predicted temperatures used in generating the LOX loading data. The higher temperatures account for the difference between the reconstructed and the LOX loading is 551 systemweights. kg (1217 Ibm) The reconstructedfucl more than the weight weight required

thepredictedpropellant weights nominal fuel and LOX densities

and were used to predict the S-I stage performance, The propellant weight requirements at ignition correspond to the nominal LOX density and the actual fuel density determined prior to ignition. lis ted in Table and fuel level values indi-

at ignition, and 411 kg ( ff(_7 Ibm) indicated by the fuel manometer 3.5. 2 S-IV STAGE

more than the weight pressure value.

The KSC-LOC propellant masses 3-III were determined from the LOX manometer system pressurization. The manometer

3.5. 2. I

LOX LOX was successfully loaded by cooling fill and replen-

readings immediately prior to propellant down

and fillingin two phases:

main

cated the fuel weight to be 141 kg (310 Ibm) more, and the LOX weight 132 kg (290 Ibm) leas, than required for the actual fuel density at ignition, TABLE Weight Propellant Pred. Requirements Prior (1) Ignition (2) 1279,608 616,430 125,954 277,680 405,562 894,110 3-1lI. S-I-8 TOTAL Weight KSC-LOC (3) 279,476 616, 140 126,094 277,990 405j 570 894, 130

ish. The automatic LOx loading systemin conjunction with the LOX main fill pump was successfully utilized for loading the LOX tank. PROPELLANT WEIGHTS Weight KSC-LOC (%1 -131.5 -290 140.6 310 9. l 20 -0.047 -470.4 -1037 552.5 1218 82. I 181 Deviations (5)

Indications I Reconstructsd (4) 279,138 615,393 126,505 278,897 405,646 894,291

Reconstructed (To) -0. 168

to Launch LOX (kg) (Ibm) Fuel (kg) (Ibm) (kg) (Ibm) 279,518 616,231 126,026 277,840 405,544 894,071

0.111

0.438

Total

0.002

0.0Z0

(1)

Predicted nominal

propellant fuel density

weights of 806.45

were

based

on a nominal lbrn/ft _) .

LOX density

of 1130.

37 kg/m 3 (70.56

lbrtt/ft a) and a

kg/m 3 (50.34

(2)

Propellant fuel density

weights at ignition were of 805. 97 kg/m a (50.31 weights are

based on a nominal lbm/ft a) determined on loading system

LOX density immediately pressure

of 1130. 37 kg/m 3 (70. prior to ignition. values immediately

56 Ibm/Ira)

anda

(3)

KSC-LOC propellant system pressurization. Reconstructed strection. Weight deviations

based

prior

to propellant

(4)

propellant

weights

are

based

on discrete

probe

data

in conjunction

with

the

Mark

IV recon-

(5)

are

referenced

to weight

requirements

at iguition.

_Jl)ik

i jill

_ ......

blL

I_1 .,rlL

" _i

S-IV stage LOX system precool was initiated by starting the LOX system precool timer 4 hours and 7 minutes prior to liftofL The LOX vent valves remained open throughout the loading operation. The LOX transfer line was precooled for approximately 1 minute prior to the initiation of LOX main fill, which occurred when approximately 317.5 kg (7001bin) of LOX had been filled into the tank. The LOX main fill Line pressure reached a maximum of 150. 3 N/era 2 (218 psi) and stabilized at 139.9 N/cm 2 (203 psi). At approximately the 3percent level, a stabilized loading rate of . 0466 m3/s (738 gpm) was achieved. This loading rate was continued tmtil approximately the 99 percent mass level was reached approximately 20 minutes after initiation of the LOX transfer line precool. At this level, the loading system secured the main fill pump and closed the LOX main fill valve as scheduled, After cooldown of the S-I and S-IV LOX replenish system was completed, the cycle replenishing operation was initiated2 hours and 38 minutes prior to liftoff. During this operation, the LOX in the tank was allowed to boil off to the 99. 5 percent level. It was then replenished to the 99.75 percent level at a rate of approximately. 0126 m3/s ( 200 gpm). This replenishing cycle continued until the start of the 150-second automatic count. At this time the tank pressurized and final LOX replenishment was completed. The LOX load indicated by the propellant utilization (PU) system at this time was 38,293 kg (84,422 lbm). 3.5.z. _ La 2

was closed manually. LH2 replenish continued until tile 99.25 percent level was achieved, l{cducq(i _cplenish was then initiated nulJmaliy and the LH 2 loading system was placed in the automatic mode. Tim Lit 2 level then cycled I)etween the 99, 25 percent ( reduced replenish position} :rod tim 99.5 percent mass level (replenish closed posltionl. This replenishing cycle continued until tile start of Um 150-second automatic count. The inct load indicated by tile PU systern was 7782 kg (17, i56 Ibm). 3.5. 2.3 COLD HELIUM

Prior to the initiation of LH 2 loading, the cold helium spheres were prepressurized to 599. 8 N/era 2 ( 870 psi) to prevent the spheres from collapsing as they cooled down during the initial part of LH2 loading. Cold helium loading was initiated approximately 2 hours and 3 minutes before launch. After the spheres were submerged at approximately the 75 percent LHz mass level, the pressure was increased to, and maintained at 2137. 3 to 2206.3 N/cm 2 (3100 to 3200 psi). The design Load temperature of 33.3 °K at a pressure of 2068.4 N/cm 2 (3000psi) was reached approxamately 1 hour and 20 minutes after the start of LH2 loading. At liftof{, the spheres were charged to 2109. 7 N/cm 2 (3060 psi) at 22.7 ° K. 3.6 HOLDDOWN was no indication of engine on any of the combustion "pops" or rough stability moni-

There combustion
tots.

The LH2 system was satialaetorily loaded with LH2 by cooling down and fiUing in four stages: initial fill, main fill, replenish, and reduced replenish. The automatic LH2 loading system was successfully the S-IV for loading the Ll-_ tank.hours and 3 minLoading of LH2 into utilized stage was initiated 2 utes prior to iifteff. The Lll 2 transfer line had been preeooled for approximately 10 minutes prior to the initiation of Lll 2 initial fill. LH 2 transfer line cooldown was aceomplished through the helium precool heat exchanger and the S-IV stage LH z tank. lniUal fill was accomplished with an LH2 replenish line pressure of 17. 9 to 20.6 N/cm 2 (26 to 30 psi) and with the LH2 tank vents opera The initial fill rate was . 0302 m3/s (478 gpm). Menitering of the Lll_ tank ullage pressure during the fill operation revealed that the tank pressure did not decrease below the prefill ambient pressure. At the 16 percent mass level, mare fill was initiated and the rate increased to 0.122 m3/s (1935 gpm). When the 96percent level was reached 35 rainares after initiation of LR 2 precool, the main fill valve

The fire detection system operated with no temperature rise indicated. The LCC recorder with no discrepancies 3.7 system operated or failures. EQUIPMENT

satisfactorily

satisfactorily

GROUND SUPPORT

Review of SA-8 launch films revealed that the GH2 vent disconnect on swing arm 3 failed to separate pneumatically at liItoff. However, separation was successfully achieved when the mechanical release was actuated by the rotation of the swing arm. The disconnect was accomplished by a hydraulic lanyard during launch. A similar malfunction occurred during the SA-7 lannch. The disconnect configuration, which operated properly during the launches of SA-5 and SA-6, was changed prior to SA-7 latmch. The change consisted of adding aluminum tape and Proseal 501over theexisting fiberglass insalabon on the hose connected to the disconnect ground half. This change was made to

preclude formation of liquid air between the vent hose and the insulation. Evaporation of this air daring testshadcreated a pressure buildup sufficient to shatter the insulation. The improved insulation on SA-7 " and subs increased the hose weight by approximately 22.7 kg (50 Ibm) resulting in an increase of moment acting on the disconnect fitting from 203 to 339 N-m ( 1800 to 3000 ln-lbf). The increased weight augmented the friction between the ground and vehicle disconnect valves achieve separation, thus requiring a larger force to

the fixed pneumatic system. All swing arm cabling is reusable and no damage was sustained by launch corn° plex structures and facilities. 3.8 BLOCKHOUSE REDLINE VALUES

Blockhouse redIine values are limits assigned certain critical engine and vehicle parameters to indlcate safe ignition and launch conditions. They apply to parameters which are critical to the operation of the propulsion system. Monitoring of these specified meastlrements is done in the blockhouse during countdown. All valttes were within limits for the Saturn SA-8 flight test, and no holds occurred. Measurement XC54-3 appeared to fail near completion of LOX bubbling, preventing determination of the LOX pump inlet temperature in position 3 at ignition Command. Since the other seven LOX pump inlet temperatures were normal and measurement XC54-3 wasnermal prior to the failure, thelaunch was notdelayed.

To prevent recurrence of this malftmction during SA-10 launch, the pneumatic actuator pressure will be increased 172.4 N/cm 2 (250 psi), which will increase the Eorce available to achieve separation by approximately 3336 N (750 lbf). All other firing accessories and ttmbllical systerns performed satisfactorily and sustained very litfie damage. No significantamage was sustainedby d

9

SECTION

IV. MASS CHARACTERISTICS

4.i VEHICLE

MASS

:'c'.='r_'::,::.:':=".,
The total vehicle mass was 512,640 kg (1,130, 178 Ibm) at first motion, 62,182 kg 1137,088 Ibm) at SIVigrdtton, and approximately 10.300 kg (22,707 Ibm) "--"-*"[ r " "i _i ! ° i: .................. "' "P , _ -_ _-I ' _ [ i , _-_ i_ " ' i , l ' [ _. _ , ' '_ , I i ! ' _1' ' " -_ : : _,

4-I is a vehicle mass breakdown at sig_dficant flight events. A flight sequoncs summary is given in Table 4-11, The predicted mass data presented in this secLion are presented in Reference I, The propellant masses presented in the tables refer to total amount downto andinclt_dLng prope|l_nt masses in ellgJ/le s. the The S-IV stage masses are based on best estimate, which is a composite of engines, PU system, and flight simulation analysis. 4.2 VEHICLE CENTER OF INERTIA OF GRAVITY AND MOMENT

, '................... ' -- -

L

T

I

i

_

7"" :"

___:_----_ ..... _.

.:_ ............

-_ .

_

.

_:

Longimdinaland radial center of gravity and roll pitch, and yaw moment_ of inertia are given in Table _-IIL The parameters and mass are l_otted versus h.rning time in Figures 4-I and 4-2.

FIGURE 4-I. VEHICLE MASS, CENTER OF GRAVITY, AND MASS MOMENT OF INERTIA

Nas$ {k_) d x IC_

Gravily lm Calibe'rs Cemtet of {Ref Sta 2,54 m) (I c_l m 5._ o) -2.O

14_nt a _ IO6

oi

lm.rtla ....

Fitch

(kg-m 2)

_l_nr

at Inrr_ba

loll

¢kx-m I) 6 x lO_

i!
• too 200 S-IV g.en Ti_ I_ lice) 400 _OO

i!! i
° I
i

I
lO0

i

2,3,3 S-IV _urn T_

300 (_c)

z,OO

FIGURE

4-2.

VEHICLE MASS, CENTER OF GRAVITY,

AND MASS MOMENT OF INERTIA

10

d

TABLE 4-I.

VEHICLE MASSES

_Brr

ICIII_K_I rff_

W _t_l

MI_ p_d*

WOI"IO_ A_!

0tv1_oAl_ IUCIIE O_OW Pre_ I _t_

S_AIL_TI_4

S*IV _CE ICXITION ¢nll_l_D _L_m !

S-iv

S"rACE Cl_1_l'r

$-tv Sr_E m nF TWJ_S 7 _¢_y

_l_,d*

Acr_!

"+I

............. i...... I....

ul_

Ln I_,._L._r

7,768

7,)7_

_,)_B

_,_;_

?,6_

7,6+1

)._,

:_

LHI Belo_

_n_aln_r

?

_

7

?

I 7

:

_ I

*_

"

T_tal

ln_tr,_l

Unit

l,lt/

l,|I6

1.!1_

l,llb

1.112

l,Tlb

1.111

1.I16

I,;IZ

l,/l_

l,_l:

1,21_

l..l.

l..t_

+...................... : ................. ........................ = ! ............... I
¢

$-_

Stasv , Dry

l@_,2&_

105,_b3

|D5,1_7

tO_,261

lO'l,l_I

I<]S,I_$

I_5,1_1

_lO_m!_l

]

[

IJO_ Be[,_

¢ogtlt_*,_

_,6?3

1._)q

P%011

_,O11

I,_.qO

?.71|

2,%_

2 2,_q

i
,

It_.l $-|

UIIig_ _i l_tl,s lock_

(N_) _r_lL/n_

31 L.lS_

31 L.152

_7 L,3<,2

_ l, 1++2

173 |, 3"*+_

110 l,l_

271 |,)52

2_0 Ii]57

I

Ilydra,,l I e O|l _ro._ I[_vI z_nt

+_8 1,o¢_ 179

let t,O00 1_9

_tl 1,O0O 3_9

11_ I.o_o l_(t

2_1

28

1_

_H

a I NI

Tot. I S-[

St.X+ Dry

L._l,OIb .+,_l] z_ *+./+Ok _411_*6 l),|?b 1_? _,_*_ 1_ ;'4*3 I)0 _O

l._ll*_TO 1,|_f+ _73 ?._L9 1_.113 11,1_1 L51 g,7)@ 11 _z*3 118 1_o

qsq._+[ /,Ill _3 _9 _lfJ4 Ik,l_

(+Mq,6_l` 1,|41+ _71 2,_I_ 141,211

II_*, 5UI _**151

I-+0. h_';+ 1.l+*&

LLM,_'O _l ll)

Llq, M]I` J,l_,_

I I

$.1]$*1_ I llt_rlglf.r, _ l _e_._L cam _oIll I-_V U_ _ox LO_ I_ V|llle melt,_ Y_it S-]]S.[V $1ale

t
_.lll l_t,|q6 7.1++_, I_,_t_ _,l_t 14+,lq_ ?.L_ I 1_.211 l_,lqb I_.:1i 1_,1_ IZ*I.*|_ i I_+l_t 1., "1 t

]_terlta_m

Dry • I_!IC l_c.

I_ r_ntaile¢ _el_ Nn_ainer In ¢o_cai_r trllale G_m (qe Rocket Gr_l_

+ _)

152 8+,O_ I_ 241 1

15l I_,7_O _1 Zl) L3B l_

LS2 #I,q12 )5 m 2_3 12R

l_¢ N,Dg/ _l Iq l&] 13tt

l_: 15 I_ : _ _1_ 1._8 15 ++I lq _)& tl? ' 15 _i 118 |lq 117 y7_ .'_t :2+1 ?CI

I
_q _2

I
_,_ 57

Totll V_hpcle Vehl¢l*

S-l_ll_e lnll_, In._v+ U_ll, tmt¢ O_ me

136,331 Ill+l] 40

116,_8q _,NI +O

lib,

Ill

llb,_m9 2.f_| 40 :

I]5._N _,63) 4o

ll&,_77 2,5_1 _n

115._5_8 _,;+ll _o

II_,q_ 2,1_1 _0

ll_,._7_ ++*lI _

11+%

_

l',_b; _ _II _o

|+

I_

I,._o| 1.6ll

1':.720 :,t_l _c .c

2,613 _e

-_,_,l i _!

J,b_l _o

pttst

_ltpthl

Stl&* Stalt_

1,143u15_,

1,1&3,lit2

L,|_9,]11.8

I.l_0,Lll

2_t,_}1

_dtO,027

15),.r_7 13),696

15,_f4IR l)_,1_'k I_ q26 l_.0_g )l,_._b 1_,1;_ tl.;t_ a t)l

S_eond _li_ht

_r*dlct_

_lXh_s

are

thole

rell_ted

|_

I_.l_k_q_.VN-6*>obl

11

TABLE

4-H.

SA-8

FLIGHT

SEQUENCE

MASS

SUMMARY

ACTUAL MASS HISTORY kg Ibm kg

PREDICTED ibm

S-I Stage @ Ground Ignition S-l/S-IV Interstage @ Ground Ignition S-IV Stage @ Ground Ignition Vehicle Instrument Unit @ Ground Ignition Payload @ Ground Ignition

A55,076 1,097 52,884 1,216 8,551

1,003,270 2,419 116,589 2,681 18,853

454,961 1,096 52,768 1,212 8,540

1,003,016 2,404 116,333 2,673 1g,827

Ist S-I ist S-I S-I S-I S-I S-I S-I

Flight Thrust Flight

Stage Buildup Stage

@

Gro_lnd

Ignition

518,824 -6,184 512,640 -392,289 -454 -25& -ii -43 -172 -948 -5

1,143,812 -13,634 1,130,178 -86A,850 -I,000 -561 -24 -94 -379 -2,089 -I0 -5 -273 -158 -309 -I00 -302

518,571 -,,,[17 512,454 -392,768 -454 -258 -11 -41 -172 -927 -5 -2 -124 -44 -102 -41 -137

1,143,253 -13,485 1,129,768 -865,907 -1,000 -568 -24 -90 -379 -2,045 -i0 -5 -273 -97 -226 -90 -302

Propellants @ First Motion

Mainstage Propellants Frost Fuel Additive Lube Oil (Oronite) N 2 for S-IV Environmental Tail Purge Control

S-I IETD Propellants Seal Purge Helium for H2 Vent S-l/S-IV Interstage S-IV Chilldown LOX S-IV Chilldown LH 2 S-IV Frost Payload Environmental Environmental Control

Control

-2 -124 -72 -140 -45 -137

fat S-I

Flight g2 for

Stage S-IV

@ Cutoff Tail Purge

Signal

117,944 -5 -501 -8 -3 -2 O

260,022 -10 -1,106 -17 -6 -5 0

117,363 -5 -65 _ -5 -2 -3 0

258,752 -I0 -1,453 -lO -4 -8 0

S-I OETD Propellants (To Separation) S-IV Chilldown LOX S-1V Chilldown LH 2 S-IV Ullage Rocket Propellants S-IV Frost

Ist S-I

Flight Stage @

Stage

@

Separation

117,425 -54,207 -974 -16 -6 -40

258,878 -119,506 -2,146 -35 -14 -g9

116,694 -53,542 -966 -i0 -5 -63

257,267 -118,040 -2,131 -22 -I0 -138

Separation

S-I/S-IV Interstage @ Separation S-IV Chilldown LOX S-IV Chilldown LH 2 S-IV Ullage Rocket Propellants

2nd S-IV S-IV S-IV S-IV S-IV

Flight

Stage

@ Ignition

62,182 -45,187 -ll -68 -125 -i -1,287

137,088 -99,619 -24 -149 -277 -i -2,839

62,108 -45,297 -ll -A4 -125 0 1,288

136,926 -99,863 -24 -97 -277 0 -2,839

Mainstage Propellants Helium Heater Propellants Ullage Rocket Propellants Ullage Rocket Cases Helium, Escape Pneumatic System

Launch

2nd S-IV S-IV

Flight

Stage

@

Cutoff

Signal

15,503
-ll -19

34,179 -24 -42

15,343 -II -19

33,826 -24 -42

Thrust Decay Propellants Propellants Below Pump

Inlets

2nd

Flight

Stage

@

End

of Thrust

Decay

15,473

34,113

15,313

33,760

12

TABLE

4-III. MASS

CHARACTERISTICS

COMPARISON

13

SECTION

V.

TRAJECTORY

5.1

SUMMARY The actual trajectory of SA-8 deviated from nom_ .... _]

The total velocity was 21.8 m/s higher at OECO and 0. 5 m/s lower than nominal off. higher than m/s At S-IV than nominal. to the right A theoretical tedS-I inal primarily booster cutoff nominal the actual and the alUtude range was

than nominal at S-IV cutwas 6.69 0. 03 km km less 2.6 ,_ _,_,y _" //

7 _

,

t

The cross of nominal free t'tight

range

velocity cutOff.

deviated

at S-IV trajectory

of the separaperformance. ground range tttrnbIing occurred
o

,_, _- ._,_o_bol ___t!li i

because indicates of that the impact high S-I stage

at 720.9 seconds, if it is assumed booster remained intact, was 14.88 km longer than nominal.

thatthe Impact

___"_" _-_' _'' FY. tIRE 5-2. _,,_ r,_._ w_._ a_ ,.:,) ! _.,oo S-IV

,_"".....

,i
:_,0

The S-IV payload at orbital insertion {S-IV cutoff +10 sec) had a space fixed velocity 0.7 m/s less than than nominal, yielding a perigee altitude of 506.5 km and an apogee altitude of 7#.8.5 kin. Resulting estimated lifetime was 1220 days, 10 days less than norainal. 5.2 TRAJECTORY Actual range for and COMPARISON nominal compared of flight altitude, graphically and WITH NOMINAL range in and Figure 5-2 for cross 5-1 the

TRAJECTORY

f
slv=o

[
i

]

/
,_ __ , i _0o i Ji 1 _ __/_L . _ i _i _ .... (Z e) are the S-I

phase

in Figure

Iocii_es are shown graphically in Figure 5-3. ComS-IV phase.of the actual and nominal Actual parisens and nominal total earth fixedat veparameters the three cutOff events are shown in Table 5-1. The nora-

,_,oo

i 1

1 ._:

=....

..,o°

i

!

i

!

I

,
i _: ,,, _ ., _ _" . I I I I '" .... _ I _" ';_-'/

, .!1I
! // ]1 [I I I I I I ! I

FIGURE

5-1.

S-I

TRAJECTORY

FIGURE

5-3.

EARTH

FIXED

VELOCITY

14

TABLE

5-I. CUTOFF

CONDITIONS

IECO para2neter ..... Actual Nominal t43.6J 19 76. 35 67. 31 q, 42 13. 8 2542.3 ¢ Aet-Nom -1.6I 0.84 -0. J4 Actual 146.05 89. 21 79. 49 0.67 21.3 2722.4

OECG Nominal |49, 61_ Act-Nora -1,$6 1.13 -0.05 0. t6 5. 5 21._ AcWal 624. 509, 1849.70 St. 226, 7247.0 10 7

_-IV CO !Guidance S_gnaD Nominal 151 66 628.4(Y2" 509. 64 1856. 39 51. 06 226. 7247.5 I Act-Nora -4.251 0. 02 -6.69 O. 04 Z. 6 -0.5

RaiSe Altitude Range CrOSs Cross

Time (kmJ (km_ Rztnge. Range Fixed

(sec)

142,00 79.

88.0_ 79, 54 0.51 15, 8 2700.6

67. 17 Z e (kin) Vel_'ity, VelocSy Ze { my s) (m/s) 0, 55 18.9 2562.8

0. 13 5. 1 20.5

Earth

Earth Fixed Velocity Vector Elevation (deg)

39.206

36. 5fi9

0.646

36.397

37.774

0.623

0°003

-0. 005

0.00_

Earth Ftxed Velocity Vector Azimui_h (deg) Space Total Fi_ll l_ertlal Vetocay (m/s) (m/s z)

105. 732

I05. 589

0. 143

105. 818

105. 675

0. 143

114. 406

114.409

-O. 003

2885.3 59.86

2867..5 59.68

17,8 0.20

3047.9 3|.46

3026.7 31, _6

19.2 0.28

7671.6 25.76

7672. 25.64

t

-0.5 -0. O_

Acceleration

Based

on Firs|

Motion

Time

of -0.

18 sec

Earth

Fixed OECO S-IV CO

Velocity

Aucuracy

Altitude OECO S-IV CO

Accuracy _30 m klS0m

_O. 3 m/s tO. 5 m/8

ing was

Altitude and range S-I and S-IV burn. 21.8 m/s greater

were greater than nominal durThe actual earth fixed velocity than nominal at OECO. This ro,_,_...... _., _ ........ _.._) _ ,. [ l

......

excess velocity can be attributed to high thrust and eeleration was higher than nominal for and S-IV stage operations (Fig. 5-4). the entire S-I

high dariog longIted ul i ,low *.ore. ao rate !
:_ _ I I ! _; _ : °,_ :_o . _,_ i _._ stage. cutolf "I_e actual signal given space by fixed the velocity at the Scomputer The S-I _.,.,,, ............. _'[ [ " _/ I t _ _ 1 _ I -,.......... r._.:)

i/ i

M

.... . _ li'

1
,_ *.,_ -_

]

] i ,:

nominal; S-I stage cutoff was I.56 seconds early, resalting in a 2.69-second shorter burning time of the S-IV IV

i _0

._, -'! -_

i _, T

i _.,.

guidance

] i

--

(624. 151 sec) was 0.5 m/e less than nominal. high S-IV stage thrust and flow rate, and excess catoff velocity account for the early S-IV cutoff,

! _- 7f//

i

FigureMach number 5-5. These and dynamic parameters measured meteorological data U.

were using pressttrecalculated shown in are to an altitude S. Standard of 41 km. Reference _o

/

1 I I / I _....._': - I

; _ .

J" :1 _ _ : _ _ II

i i

Above this altitude the Atmosphere was used.

_i-=4

Apex, loss of telemetry, and impact apply only to the discarded S-I stage. The S-IV cutoff signal was given by the guidance computer at 624. t5I seconds; however, the solenoids

a* fieaot mes van sI. event are

5-..

,

1 i _....

i
,_._. ,.. _oo _._, _ INERTIAL

, ...........

FIGURE

5-4.

TOTAL

ACCELERATION

15

TABLE

5-II. SIGNIFICANT

EVENTS

Event First MoUon Range Time Total Inertial

Parameter (sec} Acceleration

Actual -0.18 12.83 54. 006 7.17 67.0O

Nominal -0. 18 12.74 55. 002 7.32 67.82 3. 236 It. 81 143.76 59.84 150. 41 2705.4 34a. l 250.00 479.87 2055.7 570. 0 47.32 928.97 -17.27 -1.16 714.0 965.97 21.40 25. 7748 71. 3160 628.45 25.89 630. 78 7250.6

Act-Nora

(m/s

2)

o. 09 -0. 996 -0.15 -0.82 0. 135 -0.06 -I.61 O. 19 -2.01 19.7 z. 9 8.27 7.50 -6.5

Mach

I

Range Time (sec) Altitude (km) Dynamic Pressure Range Time (sec) (N/cm 2)

Ma_mum

Dynamic Pressure Altitude (Pin) Maximum Total Inertial AcceleraUon (S-I Stage) Maximum Earth (S-I Stage) Apex (S-I Stage) Fixed Velocity Range Time Acceleration

3. 371 Ii.75 142.15 60. 03 148.40 2725.1 35t. 0 258.27 487.37

(sec) (m/s 2)

Range Time (sec) Velocity (m/s) Range Time (see) Altitude (kin) Range Earth (kin} Fixed Time (knl_ Velocity (sec) (m/s}

2049. 570.0

2

Loss (S-I

of Telemetry Stage)

Range Altitude

60.29 929. 18 -16. 16 -0.48 720. 9 980. 85 24.5G 25. 7040 71. 1870 624.20 25.78 624.50 7249.7

12.97 0.21 1. II 0.68 6.9 14.88 3.16 -0. 0708 -0. 1290 -4.25 -0.12 -8. Z8 -0.9

Range (kin) Total InerUal Acceleration (m/s 2} Elevation Angle from Impact (S-I Stage) Range Range Cross Time (sec} Pad (dog}

(kin) Range (km)

Geodetic Latitude (deg) Longitude (deg) Maximum Acceleration Total Inertial (S-IV Stage) Fixed Velocity Range Time Acceleration (sec) ( m/s _)

Ma_dmum Earth (S-IV Stage)

Range Time (sec) Velocity (m/s)

for

the propellant

valves

on the S-IV

stage

did not re-

VELOCITY Actual OECO S-IV CO _.0 2.9

GAIN

(m/s) Nominal 5.3 3.1

ceive the signal until increments imparted

0.022 second later. The velocity to the vehicle [rom the termigiven below for the S-I and and S-IV guidance cutoff,

natin_ thrust decays are and S-IV stages at OECO respectively.

16

""

:,"-

" .......

TABLE

5-II1.

BOOSTER

IMPACT

i /,,',," ,,_, r, ....... /_i

_EE,, I L I/i Surface

parameter

Actual

( C'ddc )

Nominal ---965. __ 97

Act-Nora

Range*

(kin}

980.

85

14.88

Cross

Range

(kin)

24.56

21.40

:I.16

i •

_._f//_

i

Longitude

(deg]

71. 1870

71.3160

-0,

1290

'__

_

_f_/_.____!

_

]langc SurfaceTime range is measured (soc)

from 720, 9 launch

site. 714.

0

6.

........ _'""'.......... _ FIGURE 5-5. MACH NUMBER PRESSURE AND

,_,.

_._. _,:..was no tracking coverage of thediscarded S-I stage on SA-8. A nominal tumbling drag eoeftieient was assumed for the reentry phase. The calculated impact location relative to the launch site is shown in Figure 5-6. from Table 5-11I presents and nominal the booster free flight impact location the actual trajectory.

DYNAMIC

The actual velocity gain from S-I outboard engine decay is less than nominal because was actually experienced on SA-8. A theoretical for the discarded from the reference free flight a depletion cutoff

5.3 INSERTION SEC) Insertion

CONDITIONS

(S-IV CUTOFF

+ 10

condition Turk,

solutions Merritt

were

made

using and

the

trajectory

was

comimted

Antigua, Bahama Island,

Grand

Island,

Grand

S-I stage trajectory

using initial conditions at separation. There BOo

data at insertion and the Antigua, Merritt and Grand Turk data over the next revolution. _o 72o

/_--

Complex

37B

:.°

28°._ _ _:_.#.,,_

24 °

FIGURE

.,._

80 °

42a
Lortgltude TP, AJECTORY

Ape

i_

76 °

7*2 °

'i
_4 °

5-6.

BOOSTER

GROUND

TRACK

17

The data were used in various combinations and so_utions included solving and not solving for effective drag. In addition, the orbital ephemeris which was used to generate the predicted tracking had a velocity impulse of approximately -0.22 m/s applied at the separation time of the Apollo shroud from the S-IV/ Pegasus B (806 sec). The magnitude and direction ot this impulse was determined from the telemetered output of the g_dance system From considering all solutions made, the maximum variations in position and velocity components

from the itmertion parameters quoted were 300 m in positions and 0. 5 m/s in velocities.

The tracking residtmls which represent the differences between the actual tracking observations and observationsealculated for the orbit as defined by the insertion elements given in Table 5-IV were within the ranges expected. The average residual errors of the range measurements were approximately 8 m and of the azimuth and elevation measurements approximately 0. 03 degree.

TABLE 5~IV.

INSERTION ELEMENTS

COMPARISON

Event Time of Orbital Insertion (Range Time sec) Space Fixed Velocity (m/s)

Actual 634. 151

Nominal 638.402

Actnal-Nominal -4. 251

7674. 5 0. 0082 509.6 1916. 8 53. 4

7675. 2 0. 0003 509.6 1923.5 53.5 229. 6 751.2 506.5 97.3 31.76 66. 1 1230 to a spherical earth of radius

-0. 7 0. 0079 0. 0 -6. 7 -0. 1 2. 6 -2.7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 02 -0. 7 -10 6378. 165 km

Flight Path Angle (deg) Altitude (kin)

Ground Range (kin) Cross Cross Range (km) Range Velocity (m/s)

232.2 748. 5 506. 5 97. 3 31.78

Apogee Altitude Perigee Period Altitude (rain) (deg)

(kin) _:_ (kin)*

Inclination Excess Lifetime

Circular (days)

Velocity

(m/s)

65. 4 1220

_ The apogee

and perigee

altitudes

are referenced

18

- ....
SECTION VI.

_-I.'.L
PROPULSION

The performance of both the S-I and S-IV propulzion systems was satisfactory for the SA-8 flight, SA-8 was the fifth Saturn vehicle to employ H-I engines at a thrugt level of 836,000 N (188,000 lbf) to power the S-I stage. SA-8 also represented the filth fLight of the RL1OA-3 engines to power the S-IV

_. i .-

!, _ " i i i . i. : _ I _' ' -_

.__-"_,_/,"

_

=;_' !'

:..

s ge.

The vehicle sea level longitudinal thrust of the S-1 stage averaged 1.3 percent higher than predicted. Vehicle specific impulse averaged 0.1 percent higher than predicted. Theperiormance of Mlpressurization systems, purge systeme, hydraulic systems, and otherassociatedsystems was satisfactory,

_:, _. ! _ i

__ ,

" -- _ .-- J-" ............ , I _J---_-" -

]f il

J

"
" ....

within phase.

longitudinalpecific s impulse deviation was 0.3 pertion was 0.6 percent higher than predictedand the cent lower thanpredicted. Satisfactoryerformance p was obtainedfrom the individual engines, the tank pressurization systems, the helium heater, the hydraulicsystems, the PU system, and the nonpropulsivevent system. 6.2 S-I STAGE PERFORMANCE

T

design limits throughout the stage powered The average vehicle longitudinal thrust devia-

_. ................ ............ FIGURE 6-i. THRUST BUILDUP

-" -_

'
_" ....

{

_

i

'

6.2. i

OVERALL STAGE PROPULSION PERFORMANCE

..... _

......

!i

The propulsionsystem of the S-I stage performed sat_sfactarily. Ignitionommand was initiated c at -3.29 seconds range tlme. The eightH-I engines ignitedsatisfactorily with theexceptionof position 8 which experieneedanunexpecteddecrease in chamber pressure following i

....

;: i .... :il .:

Q

R

total

propellant The higher rate

flow vehicle than and

rate

averaged mixture ratio ratio Vehicle are

0. 96 was

higher only in

than 0.18 Figure from sumgines. is

The A

engine typical

cutoff thrust

sequence decay 6-4.

was ol The

normal an cutoff

for

"all eneffgine was

predicted.

outboard sequence

percent
lant 6-3. the flow

predicted. mixture

total shown

propel-

presented

in Figure

Average S-I engine analysis in Table ,'alues

stage propulsion parameters method for SA-8 flight are 6-1 and obtained show [tom excellent the flight

171 ...... I . _

, .

marized with the

agreement simulation

method.

:

. ,..,

i T..... ; "'_ i i .............

°.

•..rr .....

FIGURE FIGURE 6-3. VEHICLE TOTAL MIXTURE FLOW RATE RATIO AND CHAMBER

6-4. ENGINE

TYPICAL THRUST

LOX DECAY

STARVATION AND OUTBOARD

PRESSURE

DECAY

TABLE

6-1,

AVERAGE

S-I

STAGE

PROPULSION

PARAMETERS

Parameter

Predicted

Engine Analysis

Pereentage Dev, Im

Pred.

Flight Simulation

Percentage Dev. lm

Pred

Lifto|f

Weight

(kg_ (Ibm)

512,453 1,129,765

512,506 1,129,882 0,91

512,50¢d:: 1,129,882 0.01

Sea

Level

Thrust

(N) (lbI)

6,762,360 1,5Z0,239 2679.91 5908.20

6,845,426 1.538,913 2705.61 5964.85 0.96 1.23

6,850,421 1,540,036 2311.9 5978.8 1.19 1.30

Flow

Rate

(kg/s) (Ibm/s)

Sea

Level

Specific

Impulse

(sec)

257.30

258.

U0

0.27

257.6

0.12

Vehicle (140 sec

Weight RT)

(kg) (Ibm)

135,781 299,346

132,271 291,607 -2.59

131,220 289,291 -3.36

:_"Flight

simulation

results

constrained

to lifto[f

weight

as

given

by engine

analysis.

initiated at 140.19 seconds probe located in LOX tank (IECO) ._ooner occurred at than predicted. 142.0 The such

by the LOX level 04. Inboard engine seconds, burning as

cutoff cutoff

flight which the inboard

is about engines

the time the exhaust flow from becomes choked. This coincithe vehicle thrust in a decrease in

1.61 seconds time was |_fluIbm) fuel density,

dence hasledto is affected by local thrust.

the speculation that this choking resulting

encedbyseveraifactors LOX short load, and 3) increased The given after less cer) outboard

It 470 kg (1037

2) lower than expected power level. engine cutoff (OECO)

from signal was other at 148.05 seconds range time, or 6.05 seconds IECO. Since the 6. 05-second time interval was than the 6. l-second backup setting, a LOX starvation timer cutoff (flight of the sequenoutboard

A local thrust correction term the flight of SA-7 has also been Saturn I, BlockII flights. portion

first detern_ined applicable for all which was also 6-5,

Thiseorrection, of Figure

is shown in the lower used on SA-8.

r_.,,_ L.,.,:.-,._.,'- r,, , .',,,,' :_)

engines engine initiatednotssthle thrust is .idicaft OECO sinceto rmtne is d. de definitely which the
OECO. Thrust decay appears to have begun first in -7,0, ,.,f,f_ position 1. ltowever, thrust OK pressure engine withthelowest initiated chamber OECO. pressure because of the tolerances in the switch deactuation pressure, the thrust may not have necessarily 6-4 shows characteristic a typical engine of LOX star-

I

[ _.
: _

I
_' ..-r:_'_-

!
-'--_-_

:

_

,
_ I :),, c} [ , \

: '

I /i
/

_ / _( . i ! .....

l

- _

- -

Figure decay

..... ::_, _,. _ . ,

ration. The pressure fluctuations, approximately 103 N/cm 2 ( 150 psi) peak to peak and bet_'een 120 and 130 Hz. result from the combined effects of low primp inlet pressure and warm LOX. These pressure fluctuations, commonly abnormal, have called chugging, no adverse effect are not considered on the engine, and

......,

:_

1 1 , _..... r ......

,.,, .. rhr.sc r,.._.._., _'-: ......
.....

! "

i

should be expected when LOX starvation occurs. Ifa sarily true that all four engines will experience LOX
S[_ rvatton.

,_
_c,. :

ii

+

6.2.2

FLIGHT

SIMULATION occurs

OF

CLUSTER itis not neces" _ .... __
k

PEI{FORMANCE LOX starvation cutoff

at OECO

!'
J

The vehielelongitudinal pulse, vehicle longitudinM sea weight loss rate were derived propulsion system measurements the tracked trajectory.

sea level specific imlevel thrust, and total from the telemetered in a simulation of of the tracked

___

_ .___ I f l .... _L _ _ _ _'

.. ....

The simulation

_'_" _'_' '-' :> FIGURE The 6-5. solid line FLIGHT in the SIMULATION top portion of RESULTS Figure 6-5

trajectory was accomplished through the use of a sixdegt_ee-of-freedom trajectory calculation incorporating a diffe rential correction procedure. This program determined corrections to the level of the vehicle longitudinal and vehicle sea level thrust, drag correction total weight loss rate, that would yield the best from given the observed by the MSFC

shows the total longitudinal force necessary the observed trajectory ( if the mass history flight simulation analysis is assumed cor2_ectJ. represents the sum of all forces acting on the along thrust, the longitudinal turbine exhaust The dashed line axis, thrust, in this which drag, figure SA-8. without 6-5. includes cluster is the

to match from the This vehicle engine effects, predicted

fit to the velocity trajectory. The weight group

and acceleration iittoff weight as

waseonsidered the SA-8 flight

known, have supported the the-

Result.sol

etc.

ory postulated from vehicle longitudinal ing of normal

previous Block II flights that the thrust is affected by the cluster-

total longitudinal force for is the engine analysis thrust shown in the bottom of Figure

The dash-dot line theclustcr effect

the engines, The total vehicle force based on engine analysis must be reduced during the of the flight The deviation to duplicate the observed trastarts around 65 seconds of

last half jectory.

Table 6-1 presents valuesanddeviationsofliftoff

a summary weight,

of the average sea level thrust.

2i

flow rate, sea level specific impulse, and vehicle weight near inboard engine cutoff signal from the flight simulation method compared with the postflight engine analysis and predicted values, The revised local thrust effect has been considered in the flight

.._,._,• .,,.v ........ _.._,,...._._ ...... -]

J
_ J . __. L.,J

thissolutionalong withthepredictedaxialforce coefficient or SA-8 is shown in Figure 12-I, Section f 12,3. analysis. The axial force coefficient resulting from The maximum deviations the simulatedtrajecof in re-

tory from the tracked trajectory were O.3 m/s locity and O. 1 m/s 2 in acceleration.

. ..........................

_-....... .. _.. _ .......

Individual performance of all eight engines was satisfactory. A|lengines operated withslightiy higher than predicted performance levels except for engine position INDIVIDUAL6-6 shows PERFORMANCE 6.2.3 7. Figure ENGINE the engine to engine deviaUons for thrustand specific impalue. The largest sea levelthrustdeviation from predictedwas position 3 which averaged I.78 percenthigherthanpredicted. The largestdeviation sealevelspecific in impulse was on position3 and was 0.34 percenthigher thanpredicted. Althoughengineposition thrust 7 was only slightly lower thanpredicted, -0.43 percent,theperformance was consideredananomaly sincesix oftheotherseven enginesproduced over 8900 N (2000 ib0 higher thrust than predicted. All enginesperformed withhigher thanpredicted specific impulse, The analysis offlight datarevealsthatthere were no engine malfunctions or irregularities except for engine position8 which experienced an abnormal chamber pressuretransieetduring thrastchamber ignition.This didnot affect the performance of the engine during flight, The causeof thehigherthanpredicted thrustlevels cannot be determined from the available data at this time. The flight results of SA-8 shewed an average increase in thrust levels of 0. 65 percent over the predicted levels. One possible explanation for the increase is that the power levels were increasing as ambient pressure decreased due to decreasing turbine exhaust pressures. This explanation was also usedon previous flights. The flight performance predictionsassumedthattheexhaust systemswere choked at liftoff and that a change in the ambient pressure would not alfect engine performance, 'l'he LOX and fuel pump inlet pressures averaged

_ _. V-3 _.-_. _ _

FIGURE

6-6. DEVIATIONS IN INDIVIDUAL ENGINE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS (S-D

lessthan0.69 N/cm 2(I pei)dif_ference from thepre° dietedvalues. The fueland LOX pump inlet densities were withinl. kg/m s (0.I Ibm/It 6 a)of theprediction. Thecombinedeffectofthesedifferenceseannotccount a foranysignificantportion ofthepower levelincreases,

During thrust chamber ignition abnormal chaman ber pressure transient was recorded on engineposition8. An initial chamber pressure buildup occurred at thrust chamber ignition when igniter fueland bypergol firstentered the chamber (Fig. 6-7j. The initialuildup reached a peak pressure of approxib mately 64 N/cm 2 (93 psD andappearednormal. Within approximately 90 millisecondsthe pressurehad decayed to 18.6 N/cm 2 (27 paD. Nominal chamber pressure during thisphase of ignition s between 59 i and 66 N/cm z (g5 and95 psi). The pressure increased to about 38 N/cm 2 (55 psi) where it remained steady until main propellant ignition after which the chamber pressure buildup became normal. Preliminary data indicated that there had been a possiblechamberpressure surge "Pc pop." However, the LOX dome lateral vibration measurement and the combustion stability monitor (CSM) longitudinal vibration measurement did not indicate any unusual vibration. There is no evidence that the chamber pressure ever exceeded 95 psi prior to main propellant ignition. The abnormal pressure transient apparently

22

had crease nitinn /lame

no

effect

on

the

engine pressure

start. during

The this

apparent phase

deof ig-

dicated. tial in the tridge purge pergol signal

This

type

of check could have

is qualitative existed.

and a parA restriction

in chamber

restriction(s)

is unusual and could indicate in one or more of the baffled

a loss injector

el ignition compartat this A loss of

igniter fuel line container would check since cartridge to hypergol

upstream not have

oI the hypergol carbeen indicated by the

ments. The main LOx valve is fully time and the main fuel valve is partially of ignition flame could result in an unburned and cause propellants in one or more a Pc pop or an explosion, validtelemetry records

opened open. accumulation

the purge container. diaphram

was introduced at the hyThe time from ignition burst was 517 mlllisec-

eomp_rtments

Apparently

fromtwo

sep-

ends and was 16 milliseconds longer than an)' other engine. Nomi_ml time from ignition signal to hypergel diaphram burst is 483 (J:15) milliseconds. While this slightly longer time would not be considered sign_ficant chamber by itself, pressure when associated with the abnormal transient it may indicate that the igniter fuel line was present. a

arate ground stations pressure. Assuming

showed the abnormal chamber that theincident was not a meas-

urement error, there are several possible explanalions. The hypergotic fluid could have contained a void or was contaminated with a noncombustible material. Investigation has shown that all of the hyporgol cartridges were within their expiration dates, showed no evidence of damage, and weighed within the specified 0.11 ounce (3 grams) of their stamped weight at installation, Another explanation is that a temporary partial

partialrestrictionin

Itts

recommended

thatin

addition

to insuring

that .

the igniter fuel passages leading from the hypergol container to theinjector face are cleat' of all obsiructions and contaminants, complete clearance of the igniter fuel line between the igniter fuel valve and the hypergol container should be insured prior to launch.

restriction existed somewhere in the igniter fuel line or mjectorports and reduced the igniter fuel flow during thrust chamber ignition. In accordance with the recommendation made during the SA-9 flight evaluation, prior an igniter t_ the SA-8 fuel injector purge was launch arKt no restrictions performed were in-

Ground-supplied GN 2 purges to the LOX dome and thrust chamber tuel injector on each engine were initiated 25 seconds prior to ignition command by the automatic ground control sequence. Event recorder times show thatthethrustchambcr indicated "on" approximately 700 fuel injector milliseconds purge before

Pressure 500

(N/era 2)

Pressure

(psi)

600 400 i....

200 200 tO0 Norma L V / 400

0 0.6 0.7 0.8 Time 0.9 from Ignt.Cton 1.0 Signal 1,1 (see) 1.2 1,3

0

FIGURE VERSUS

6-7.

THRUST FROM

CHAMBER

PRESSURE (ENGINE 8)

TIME

IGNITION

SIGNAL

23

the LOX purge dome injector _idual injector. that the chamber

purge. started

Since itthe thrust first could havechamber caused to be forced launch, into

fuel re-

_:"...... I. "i_[ I I

[

' "-_ :

' "

, i -, ..... ' -- :

""" /i_ _' i

fuel or contaminants Prior to SA-10

the LOX

it is recommended that the LOX dome

[

Y'_',_

purge procedures ensure fuel injector purge gases.

pm'ge S-Igases enter the thrust 6.3 PRESSURIZATION 6.3.1 FUEL

chamber SYSTEMS

kvefore

the thrust

_

! "
,...,

_
.....

"_

i

PRESSURIZAIION

SYSTEM increased engine fuel was iden'_ ................. [ _ i

Fuel tankstruetaral panap inlet

tank pressurization provides rigidity as well as adequate pressure. The system on 8-1-8

,

-

tieal

to that on S-I-9. The system is designed

to maintain

a constant

'" ! \ , i :" [ .... _

\ , " ] ""_ /-" " _ ! --3 iz A FUEL TANK , AND : . ""

ullage pressure of approximately ll N/era 2 gauge (16 psig) for the first 70 seconds of flight. During this time the fuel container pressurizing switch will open are active or close and 11.7 ends, minated the any maintain to of the three tank pressure the pressurizingvalveswhich between 10.3 N/era z gauge (15 and 17 psig). At 70 seeflow of presstu-ant to the to equalize fuet tanks is teris joined the GN 2 in and the GN z remaining and allowed spheres. was in the spheres with

"'"'_-_-/_ .................... .- ,.,. _.,. _, GAS HIGtl PRESSURE PRESSURE IN

FIGURE

6-6.

as one system the LOX/SOX The

SPHERES SYSTEM inLOX uses

6.3.2 fuel tank preptvessurized to 12.4 N/era 2 gauge (18 psig) with a 3.3 percent ullage in 6.8 secends compared to 11.5 N/cm 2 gauge (16.65 psig) with a 6 percent ullage in 10. 1 seconds on SA-9. The pressurein value the fuel and the tanks closely agreed with the predicted pressures on past flights (Fig. 6-8). pressure was The fluctuations are normal 6. 9 N/'cm 2 gauge ( 10 in pressure during and are expected presas container

LOX

TANK

PRESSUIUZATION

Pressurization of Ihe LOX tanks provides er _(msed tank structural rigidity anti adequate pump inlet pressure. Prelatmch pressurization helium from a ground source. command to liftoff, an increased

From vehicle ignition helium flow is used dm'ing engine to the S-l-9 of the COX flow

The fuel container psigl at OECO. system operation

to maintain adequate LOX tank pressure start. The S-I-8 system was identical system control cm 2 (8 except that the effective area valve (GFCV) in 2) for S-I-8

manifestations oftheaetion surizing switch, The operational number during

of the fuel

at its full open position was 52 and 45 em 2 (7 in 2) for S-I-9. since the GFCV is in that after engine ignition.

of fuel tank pressurization SA-8 flight were:

valves

This is of little significance position for only an instant

Time Interval _Ran[_e Time (see) 0 to 39. 5 39.5 54.5 70.5 to 54. 5 to 70.5 to OECO The nitrogen manifold gas

Number of Scheduled _Pressurization Valves 3 2 1 0 and 0. 57 m 3 (20 fta} operaF3 was

Prepressurizationof the 3. 9percent ullage to upproximately 41 N/cm 2 (60 psi) was accomplished in 78 seconds. Helitm_ bubbling started at -153 seconds range time. The 13.2 N/em 2 (19.2 center LOX tank pressure rose t_ psi} at -103 seconds when helium tank prepressurization for pressurization was and actual center LOX in Figure 6-9. of 2.1 N/era 2

bubbling was ended and LOX commenced. The time allowed 50 to 90 seconds. Predicted

tank pressure histories are compared Actual tank pressures were a maximum (3 psi) below those used ning of flight, approximately from 30 to 100 seconds psi} below at the end i0secondsofflight, for

Sl_here gas temperatures also reflect normal tion. The ullage gas temperature in fuel tank initi',dly 29I*K at tOO seconds. heating had

prediction at the begin1.4 N/era 2 (2 psi) above 1.4 N/cm 2 (2 for the first

and decreased to a minimum of 271°K By the end of the flight, aerodynamic the temperature to rise to 273"K.

flight time, and of flight. Except LOX tank

caused

SA-8

prcssureeompares

24

......... "
i J

The supply 'i

sphere

pressure

(Fig.

6-10)

was

2051

[
i

1
I

N/cm 2 (2975 psi) at lifteff compared to 2013 N/cm 2 (2920 psi) for the SA-9 flight. Sphere pressure at OECO was 1276 N/cm 2 (1850 psi) compared to 1324 N/cm 2 (1920 psi) for the SA-9 flight. was The sphere

L-

_=___._=:= _ _........

]

i

:

_
_--_5

_....

pressure at OrCO was 634N/cm2(920psi) _,ove the
minimum pressure required and within the ex-

l

_

t
PRESSURE LOX tank

pected
:'" T I

]

range.

!
_

'

i

i

FIGURE to SA-9

6-9. 0.7

CENTER N/cm

LOX 2 ( 1 psit.

TANK

.... l

_

within

Outboard

_'_-_ ,

-

pressures were below the center

0.28 to 0.59 N/cm 2 (0.40 to 0. 85 psi) tank pressure during flight. center LOX tank psi) at 40 seconds than the set point pressure of flight. was AI-

J
The maximum 37,6 N/cm 2 (54,5 though this is greater ( 34.5 _- I. 7 N/era system operation. c|osedposltion, ( 17.5 ibm/s). .... I:__ L __ _ , _ _" " .... SUPPLY of the GFCV, FIGURE 6-10. CONTROL EQUIPMENT PRESSURE pressure was 507 to 2) (50 _ 2.5 psi1, it is the designed When the GFCV is at its most the flow This of GOX will the be about flow 7.9 kg/s The gauge flight. 6.3. 4 (735 regulated 524 N/cm 2 to 760 psig) throughout S-I stage powered exceeds that is neces-

sary to maintain a nominal 34.5 N/cm 2 (50 psi) in the IA:)X tanks for a portion of the flight. This valve setting is commensurate with system stability and temperature requirements andis not detrimental to overall system A curve from the valve. performance. of the GFCV position Measurement effective indicates K72-9 flow proper (GFCV area obtained of position)

LOX-SOX

DISPOSAL

SYSTEM system pt_rges the LOX or sex which thrust chambers stage dursepa-

S-I/S-IV falls log the

The LOX°SOX disposal interstage area of any the S-IV stage cycle engine prior chilldown

the valve

response

from

to S-I/S-IV

shewed thatthevalve reached only a 98 percent closed position from 5 to 60 seconds; however, there is no doubt that the valve was fully closed during this time. This discrepancy is due to the calibration techniques that were used and was first noted during the static test this 6.3.3 of _-I-8 error, CONTROL PRESSURE control SYSTEM system supplies GN 2 at and S-I-t0. Thecurve was corrected for

ration. Gaseous nitrogen is supplied to the dispersal ring manifolds located under each of the S-IV stage engines to keep the area inert so that the engines ignite in a noncombustible atmosphere. All of the zation of the measurements indicated successful operation equalispheres the four

LOX-SOX disposal system. Presstlre between the 0. 57 m a (20 ft_) nitrogen fuel tank pressurization system and

The pneumatic

triplex spheres occurred at 70. 5 seconds. Equalizalion was indicated "by an increase in pressure in the fuel pressurization system 0. 57 m a (20 ft 3) spheres to ll3i N/era 2 (1640 psi) and by a decrease in ternperature in the 0.03 m 8 (1 ft'_l spheres of the LOXSOX system. The S-I/S-IV interstage vent ports at 140. 56 seconds range time by dropin the S-I/S-IV interstage were blown the EBW. A at

a regulated pressure of 517 ± 34.5 N/era 2gauge (750 ± 50 psig) for operation of the LOX system pressure relief valves 1 and 2, the LOX vent valve, the LOX replenishing trol valves, control valve, suction engine turbopumpgearbox and LOX system line prevalve conpressurization, purging. The satisfactorily

and calorimeter control pressure throughout

pump seal operated

open

the flight,

sudden

temperature

25

approximately 141 seconds indicated the initiation of S-IV LOX chilldown ( Fig. 6-11). The plenum chainbet pressure (Fig. 6-11_ increased rapidly at 141.5 seconds indicating the opening of LOX-SOX valves 2, 3, 5, and 6 and the start of LOX-SOX disposal. A pressure surge at 143.8 seconds showed that valve 4 opened, and again at 145. 1 seconds another rise in pressure showed that valves 1 and 7 opened, cornpleting the sequenced operation. The maximum pressure recorded in the plenum chamber was approximately 214 N/cm 2 gauge (310 psig) which compares favorably with that of SA-9. .......... • L /
/ /

The hydrogen vent duct purge system operated satisfactorily. The sphere conditions at liftoff were 295"K and 2120 N/era 2 (3075 psij for SA-8 compared to 291.2"K and 2013 N/cm 2 (2920 psi) for SA-9. The pressure at outboard engine cutoff was 379 N/cm 2 (550 psi) for SA-8 and 445 N/cm z (645 psi) for SA-9. Thehigher temperatureat tiftoff on SA-8 is attributed to higher ambient temperatures prior to hunch and a shorter hold time. 6.4 S-I STAGE PROPELLANT UTILIZATION

Propellant utilization, the ratio of propellant consumed to propellant loaded, is an indication of Ihe _ _'_"i_'.i._" -_ ........ _\........... \ ___ _-- ..,, ., i\
!

r __

] :

propulsion system performance the propellant loading system amount of propellant. S-I-8 stage Propellant

and the capability of to load the proper utilization slightly for the lower

-i ] I L______

was satisfactory,

although

_ _

structed) percent The loaded propellants actual (reeonof utilized durthan predicted. predicted and ing the flight arc shown below: Parameter Prelaunch Predicted Day (%) Fligilt (%)

,...........

_ :i_l

Fuel LOX ; " i i:,

98. 25 99. 58

97.63 99.64

The propellant loading criteria for S-I-8 were similar to those for S-I-9 and scheduled a simultaneous depletion of usable propellants for a fixed mainstage total propellant consumption. The ratio of LOX to fuel loaded was dependent on the fuel density at ignition command. The SA-8 flight was the third Block II flight on which a LOX starvation cutoff of the outboard engines was attempted. The LOX and fuel level cutoff probe heights and flight sequencer nettings weredetermined for a 1.8-second interval between any cutoff probe actuation and IECO with an expected 6.0-second interval between IECO and OECO. It was planned to initiate OECO by the deactuation of the thrust OK pressure switch on any outboard engine when LOX starvation occurred. Like the SA-9 flight, it wan assumed that approximately 321 kg (707 lbmj of LOX from the outboard suction lines would be usable, The backup timer (flight sequencer) was set to initiate OECO 6.1 seconds after IECO if LOX starvation cutoff had not occurred within that time. To insure against fuel starvation, fuel depletion cutoff probes were located in the F2 and F4 container sumps. Both the S-I-8 and S-I-9 had a center LOX lank stunp oririce diameter of 0. 47 m (18. 5 in). Based on S-I-9

.......... FIGURE 6-11. 6.3.5 LOX/SOX SYSTEM OPERATION

HYDROGEN VENT DUCT PURGE

The hydrogen vent duct purge system removes the chilidown hydrogen flowing through the S-IV stage plumbing approximately 35 seconds prior to S-I/S-IV stage separation. The hydrogen is removed from the S-IV stage through three 0. 3 m (12 in) diameter ducts that lead down the sides of the S-L/S-IV interstage and the S-I stage in line with stub fins H, HI, and IV. Prior to launch, low pressure helium from a ground source is used to purge the three ducts. A helium triplex sphere assembly onboard the S-I stage supplies helium for purging after liftoff. The purge continaes through the chilldown operation and S-I stage powered flight,

26

flight results, a liquid level differential of approxima_ely 7.6 cm (3 in) between the center LOX tank and the outboard LOX tanks at IECO was assumed for the prediction, The eutoffsequeneeon with the container signal from 04 at 140.19 the S-I-8 the LOX level seconds range stage commenced

not burned because of the LOX offload account for kg ( 1700 Ibm} of the 791 kg ( 1743 Ibm) in question, is concluded that if the proper propellant loads been onboard, the fuel proximately as predicted remained after cutoff. utilization was analyzed located from

771 it had

residual _oald have been apand the fuel bias would have

cutoff probe in time. IECO was

Propellant received propellant

signals nine

initiated by the flight 142. O seconds range differential was tween the center IECO. 148.05 between OECO

sequencer I. 81 seconds later at Ume. The average liquid level

from two types containers.

of probes

in the

approximately 5.3 em (2.1 in)beLOX tank and outboard LOX tanks at 6.05 seconds after IECO at in

A system each by each probe during liight data. Propellant LOX containers F4. The cutoff from container

of 15 discrete

level

probes signal

was was

located initiated levels probe

occurred

container.

An electrical

seconds range time. Since the time interval IECO andOECO wasless than the 6. i-second data indicate that a LOX Outboard engine chamber that performance decay to

as it was uncovered. Propellant were determined from discrete

backup timer setting, the starvation cutoff occurred. pressure measurements

show

level

cutoff

probes

were

located

in

had commenced on all four outboard engines prior OECO and substantiates a LOX starvation cutoff. IECO was 1.61 seconds earlier than predicted.

02 and 04 and fuel containers probe signal times and setting bottoms were:

F2 and heights

The S-I-8 stage burn time was shorter and can be attributed to the LOX load

than predicted being approxifor stage

_ontainer 02 04 F2 F4 Continuous

Height (cm) (in) 69.72 69.72 80.01 80.01 level 27.45 27.45 31.50 31.50 probes

Range

Time 140.32 140.21 142.11 142.12

(see)

mutely 454 kg (1000 Ibm) less than programmed the fuel density at ignition command and the performance being higher than predicted.

The propellant residual values indicate that the reconstructed LOX residual was 159 kg (350 Ibm) less than predicted. Since OECO was initiated by LOX starvation, the lower than predicted LOX residual indicates that the amount of usable LOX in the outboard suction lines was approximately 162 kg (358 Ibm) more than the estimated 321 kg (707 Ibm). residual on S-I-8 was within 8 kg (18 lhmt residual on S-I-9. A fuel S-[-8. residuals the actual bias The The LOX of the LOX

of the type

used

on pre-

vious flights tofurnish data were 8 because they were not available were 6.5 clustered. S-I STAGE The four HYDRAULIC ouiboard H-I

not installed on S-Iatthe time the tanks

SYSTEMS engines were glmbal

for lant in

of 839 kg (1850 Ibm) was specified fuel bias minimizes the total propelassociated with the possible ratio from variations the predicted mixture

mounted to the S-I stage thrust structure. Controlled positioning of these engines provide thrust vectoring for vehicle attitude allow control and steering. by gimbaling Hydraulic the four outactuators positioning

stage

stage mixture ratio. If the specified propellant weight had beenloaded and the performance had been as predieted, the fuel bias would have remained as residual fuel after cutoff. The reconstructed fuel residual was 791 kg (1743 Ibm) more than predicted. However, the reconstructed luel load was approximately 544 kg (1200 Ibm) greater than required I_y the propellant loading tables for the fueldensity atignition command, and the LOX load was approximately 499 kg (it00 Ibm) less. The LOX offlesd can account for approximutely 227 kg (500thin) of the fuel residual since uppro_imatety 227 kg (500 Ibm) more fuel would have been burned if an additional 499 kg ( It00 Ibm} of LOX had been loaded. Ibm) fuel overload Therefore, and the since the 544 kg (1200 227 kg (500 Ibm) of fuel

board engines in response to signals from the flight control computer. There are eight actuators, two for each outboard engine. Four independent, closed-loop hydraulic systems provide the forces required for actuator Each the actuator used during movement. hydraulic system has two pumps to supply

fluid flow. An auxiliary nonfiringoperations while

motor pump is a variable de-

livery main pump supplies fluid flow during engine operation. The auxiliary pump is driven by an electric motor which receives power from an external alternating current source. The main pump is directly coupled and flange driven by multiple mounted reduction to the tuxbopump gearing. and is

•D

27

I
The during adequate elation. hydraulic stage system operation. performance _oarce was pressures normul were of S-1-8 and showed no anomalies Data indicate that there during system opwere no unexpected

.nL
the retro rockets on the 84-8 the flight is shown gr_ins in Figure6-13. Thctemperatm'eof propellant was lower than anticipated burning times to be longer less ters and probably and the thrust retro caused the values to be paramc--

demands on She system. The levels of the hydraulic oil were anticipated and within limits. Oil temperatares decreased during the first 80 seconds of [light and then gradually leveled out during the remainder of the system operation. The acteristics were as expected. draulic source and hydraulic pressures, oil levels oil tempera[are charPlots of the S-I-8 hy-

than predicted. SigniIicant are shown in ]'able 6-II.

rocket

n........

, ._

hydraulic oil temperatures, are shown in Figure 6-12.

[

i

...........

, .................

i ji

I

_

.

i

[ ...... .: ..

; ' ....

__

i

___

FIGURE 6-13. COMBUSTION

TYPICAL RETRO ROCKET CHAMBER PRESSUItE

I •

:

,

i

.

6. 7 S-IV

STAGE

PROPULSION

...._. •. W _ I i

,!"i i

t j

_

6. 7. I tern

OVERALLpERFORMANcES-IV PROPULSION STAGE The performance of the S-IV propulsion syswas within design limits throughout the S-IV-8 engines, hydrauvent eye-

flight. The performance of the individual tank pressurization systems, helium heater, FIGURE 6-12. LEVEL HYDRAULIC OIL PRESSURE, AND TEMPEItATURE lic systems, close PU system, to predicted and nonpropuisive values. tern was

6.6

RETRO

ROCKET

PERFORMANCE

6.7.')

CLU_TER

PERFORMANCE methods the of analyses S-IV stage, were emsL\-engine

The combined thrust from four solid propellant retro rockets decelerates the S-I stage following its separation from the S-IV stage to prevent a possible collision between the two stages. The re[to rockets are mounted on the spider beam and arranged 90 degreesapart Retro satisfactory. Combustion transients cur in pressure lag lime. rockets and midway rocket betweenthemainfin on the SA-8 ignited buildup burning combustion positions. flight was

Two separate pioyed in reconstructing performance.

The

iirst

method,

an engine

analysis,

used

the

periormance

telemetered engine parameters to compute gitadinal thrust, stage longitudinal specific and stage mass flo_- rate. angle (6 dog} to the vehicle flow rates, helium vent heater chilldown thrust The effects centerline, thrust, 67

stage lonimpulse,

All four rockets chamber pressure were normal. having Shorter a higher pressures chamber

as planned, and decay times occhamber

of engine cant helium heater N (15 lbfJ, included and in on

667 N (150

lb_j are

whilelower A typical

result in longer barnpressure time history

the presenPation Due to the nature

of stage performance lxarameters. oI the analysis, clustering eIIect

28

TABLE

6-I1.

RETRO

ROCKET Retro

PARAMETERS Rockets 3 2.21 4 2.24 336,286 75,600 150,795 33,900 897 1301 148.96 Total ....... 1,357,597 305j200 603.179 135,600 ....... ....... ....... Predicted 2.15 331,393 74,500 154,131 34,650

Parameter Burning Total Time Impalse (see) (N-s) (lb-s) {N) (lb) (N/era (psi) z)

1 2.31 343,848 77,300 148,571 33_ 400 891 1292 148.96

2 2.23 336,730 75,700 150,795 33,900 904 1311 148.96

340.734 76,600 154,353 34,700 924 1340 148.96

Average

Thrust

Average

Pressure

Firing (sec

Command range time)

Definition

of Terms: time - Time thrust interval curve under between the intersection extended extended curve. time. curve divided by burning time. points on the zero the zero thrust thrust line line thrust described and line. by a line tan-

1. Burning tangentto gent to the 2.

the rise decaying

of thrust

at the point

of inflection

t_ intersect to intersect

by a line

at a point

of inflection

the zero

Total

impulse thrust pressure

- Area - Total

thrust-versus-time divided by burning

3. Average 4. Average

impulse under

- Area

pressure-versus-time

s "rage longitudinal thrust, eluded unless specifically with the flight simulation,

2798 N (629 lbf) , is not inadjusted to compare results

sure

Itis noted that a study of the PDM chamber data of the S-IV stage during steady state that the values for engines relative to the manufactarer

presoper-

ation showed 6 were high used the enthe ae-

1, 3, 4, and acceptance

The second method, a postilight simulation, the thrust and mass flow shapes obtained from gine anMysis, adjusting the levels to simulate tual trajectory was constrained capacitance measured effect dieted as as closely as possible. to the cutoff weight

test data for the six eng_ines of this stage (aveu,'age of 3.4 N/cm z or 5 psi higher). In addition, the acceptance test data indicated a maximum dispersion of 1.9 N/cm 2 (2. 7 psi) in the six engine steady state chamber pressures as compared to 7.9 K/cm 2 (1 l. 4 psi) during the S-IV-8 of flight. the data was made at liftofl N/era and presat

This simulation determined from

probe data, point level sensor data, and stage dry mass, and included the cluster an inherent was correction part based applied of the simulation. is called The the preelusbiased on a thrust and with the

A cheek 644.9 sure psi) seconds.

trajectory

Atthese

two points

the chamber

ter effect predicted, 6.7.2.1

should have been ambient 10.19 and 0 N/era 2 (0 psi), respectively.

2 (14.78 The total

ENGINE

ANALYSIS data analysis indicated 397,657 N (89,397 lbflp kg/s (210. 63 specific im-0.17 percent

deviations large as precedent

indicated are approximately three times as those recorded on past flights. There is no for shifting chamber pressure data as it

that

stage

S-IV-8 stage flight average thrust was total flow the resultant

has not been necessary on previous flights; however, without ally biasing there is a poor correlation between thrust the various analysis methods with respect and consumption. It was assumed that the to val-

stage average Ibm/s), and

rate was 95.54 stage average

pulse was424.43seeonds;deviationfromthepredieted was -0.07 percent, 0.10 percent, and respectively.

ues computed by the would be approximately C_ iteration analysis

regression equation analysis correct for consumption. The results were evaluated and the

29

.

biases

necessary

for these

results

to be compatible

.,,

_ _

These biases agreed well with the shifts indicated at liftoff. Therefore, the shifts indicated at liftoff were used as blase s in all analyses requiring chamber pressure as an input. The reasons for the shifts are not known at this time. Engine analysis performance characteristics were reconstructed from LH 2 cooldown throughengine cutoff... . _'_ G'_'"

:........ ] _

'_' ........ T_---]

' ' --- ! _

of theS-lV-8 stage,propellant depletiontime had been . ...................... predictedas 479.3 seconds burn time. The actualde........ _"............. pletion time, determined by extrapolating from the _', ............. propellant residuals remaining at command cutoff, [ ! 1 l I t [ i ! was 478.8 seconds, 0.5 second shorter than predicted. This amount is within the plus or minus 0. 5 percent ace uracy of the predicted depletion The SA-8 vehicle burn time time. was 4.25 seconds ............. _t . L-_-[_ : ........................ [ i i .i

asedonda'obined ceIL ,romccep a firiI

....
'| i_

shorter than O.25 percent Of this thrust than predicted predictod. 1.27 proximately more 4.25 seconds, would be required that the thrust in the S-IV stage to aceomit for the lower than predicted. to a combination

.._..,, ... . [//I ..

......,,., _',, I I

__ L I

[ _ I

_--] I

_ L_I

] I

was 0. 07 percent

The difference of:

may be attributed

l. The thrust was evaluated based upon chamber pressure measurements which experienced excessive inIlight shifts ( see Pars. 6.7.2.1). 2. The predicted command cutoff time was based upon a predicted thrust prolile which was adjusted -2798 N ( -629 lbf) to account for base clustering elfects, If the base clustering effect is not as large as corrected for in preflight prediction, a shorter burn time may have been predicted. It is noted, however, that both the time deviation (t. 27 see} and thrust devtation are within the 0.5 percent accuracy of the prediction. Section 6.7.2.2 contains details concerning the flight simulation explanation of short burn time. Thrust, specific impulse, total mass flow rate, and engine mixture ratio obtained from the engine analysis are shown in Figure 6-14. The values are compared to the unbiased predicted. 6.7.2.2 FLIGHT SIMULATION

FIGURE 6-14.

TOTAL S-IV STAGE PERFORMANCE (ENGINE ANALYSIS)

Using a differential correction method, this simulation program determined adjustments to engine analysis stage longitudinal thrust and stage massflow rate that yielded a simulation trajectory which closely matched the observed trajectory. The simulated trajectory, with adjusted propulsion system parameters incorporated into it, was compared to the observed trajectory, and the following average (root-sumsquare) and maximum differences were found: Variable Slant Range Average 22 m (74 ft) Maximum 64.9 m (213 ft) at 620 sec -0. 7 m/s (2.3 at 600 sec 181 m (594 ft) at 620 sec ft/s}

Earth Fixed Velocity Altitude

0. 2 m/s (O. 67 ft/s) 59.1 m ( 194 ftJ

A six-degree-of-freedom trajectory simalation program was used to adjust the S-IV propulsion system parameters obtained by the engine armlysis,

The maximum inaccuracies in the simulated propulsion system parameters are estimated at 0. 3 percent for specific impulse and 0. 2 percent for thrust and

30

mass

flow

rate.

These

inaccuracies

were

caused

by

sp_,-ifi_ 431. 430-t a29. azs. 42; , /*26 • 4_ 424 a23, 422

lmp,,ls_ "_

(_,-) _ _n

inac_:aracies in the simulation technique and in ohserved trajectory data. An the accuracy towhich vehicle additional uncertainty is mass at cutoff is known,

"Any inaccuracy in vehicle mass at cutoff causes additional inaccuracies in thrust and mass flow rate, but not in specific impulse. at cutoff was entimatedas Table 6-11I compares flight stage longitudinM and stage longitudinal compares analysis and trajectory S-IV stage flight tested TABLE 6-1IL The accuracy of S-IV-8 mass being within 38kg(84 ibm}. the predicted and simulated thrust, stage mass flow rate, specific impulse. Figure6-15 simulation so far. results for each

s-zv-5 Thrust 406 ' (1000 S)

S,lV-6

s-Iv-7

s-zv-_

s-Iv-8

the predicted values to the postflightengine

S-IV-8 PROPULSION PERFORMANC E

SYSTEIVl

404" 4(}2 400 , 398 ' 396 394 ]92 408 S-IV-5 S-IV-6 S-It/-7 S-IV-9 S-IV-fi

Parameter [/_r_itttdimi| (N) Vehicle Thrust(ib0 Vehicle Ma.ss(kg]s) Loss Hate (ibm/s) Longitudiztal Vehicle Sl)ccific Impulse {_ec_

, predicted 397,939 89,460 *J5.4 2J0.4

Engine * Analysis 397,657
89,397

Flight :_ Sittltlt_at_oa 400,28. 9
8_,987

95. 54 210. 1:,3

96. 2 212. 17

Hass Flowrate _6. Js 96.6 " 96.0' 95,6" 95.2 , 9h. B 94. , _.0 ' 9_.s. 93.2 97.2

(kg/s)

425.2

424.43

424.12

::'Avorago values hctweCtl 90 percent

thrtt_t and S-IV CUtoff,

Definition of Propulsion Longitudinal cant angle and thrust originating vehicle thrust

Parameters accounts for engine

S-IV-5 includes helium atthe cooldown heater thrust, and vents due to leakage

S-IV-b

S-IV-7

S-IV-9

S-IV-fl

( The

correction

factors

applied

to this

bar

chart

are

of LH 2 through the engine cooldown valves daring ongine operation. Ultage rocket thrust and predicted aerodynamic base drag (600.5 N (135 lbf} thrust elfeet) are not included. The engine analysis thrust levelis adjusted downwatxl ")798 N (629 lb0 to account for engine clustering effects averaged from previous vehicles. The flight simulation includes the engine clustering Vehicle rates, effect asaninherent part of the simulation.

the same as those used in Table 6-1II except for the predictions and engine analysis prior to S-IV-9 which do not include corrections due to clustering eftects.$ FIGURE 6-15. PROPULSION SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE COMPARISON Each ters flow 0.59 of the simulated propulsion system parame-

flow

mass loss rate includes all stage mass such as the sum ol individual engine pro-

were within 1 percent of predicted. rate and stage longitudinal thrust percent higher than predicted, impul se was

Stage mass were 0.84 and respectively. lower

pellant mass flow rates, leakage of Lit z through the eooldown valves, and helium heater propellant mass flow. Ullage Longitudinal longitudinal thrust rocket flow ra to is not included. specilie Impulse mass is vehicle loss rata.

Longitudinal specific than predicted.

0. 025perceni

vehicle divided

The trajectory simulation method of determining vehicle vehicle mass at any point in time

technique provides a mass history, if the on the trajectory is

by vehicle

3I

accurately kno%_n. From the combination tanee probe data, point level sensor data, determined ullage gas mass, and measured mass, the best estimate to be of 15,505 S-IV-8 _ 38 cutoff been determined Ibm;. Byusingl5,505kg

of eapaciamtlytically dry stage mass ± has 84

6.7.3.2

START Notanat

TRANSIENTS start engine by S-IV transients thrust buildup all engines engine start v, ere noted for all

engines.

The

to the _0 percent between 1.71 and command. Start-

kg (34,184

level was achieved 2.04 seconds alter

(34,1841bm)

as

the value

for

ing impulse to 95 percent 15,311 N-s (3442 lh-s) Engine thrust overshoot cent on all engines. The

rated thrust ranged between and 17, I5ZN-s (38561b-s;. values were less chamber pressure Engine sig_al than 5 pertransients 4 is being not in-

the mass oI the simulated vehicle at guidance cutoff, it was determined that the ignition mass have to have in order to been 62,373 provide an to

signal would

± 181 (137,510 _. 400 lhnU, acceleration history which of the from (424 mass

at start are shown in Figure 6-1tL shown because of an FM transducer vetted. PDM satisfactorily. data revealed that

would correspond observed trajectory. the Ibm; from trajectory higher all The shorter this trajectory determined predicted stage than engine predicted other SA 8 than than

the acceleration history This ignition mass derived techitiqae estinaate of is 19 .) kg ignition best

engine

4 perIormed

simulation the sources. vehicle in burn simulation S-IV stage burn time

_ time an S-IV was 4.25 seconds of :.., __ l]i][_] ' _, nomin'M

.,

predicted.

To determine was made which initial trajectory performance occurred 1.49 velocity

the sources pestflight

variation

used postllight conditions and S-IV earlier at _"f' _: i : _ ,.,, I , attitude seconds and

S-IV

stage ignition and

parameters.

'"

the

S-IV

this pointindicated higher thm_ predicted. conditions simulation were The results these high initial reduced The remaining 1.27 -second by theeombinationof higher ( 0. 59 percent;, weight flow short burn time thanpredicted (0.84 pel_:'ent;, was caused S-IV thrust and pro-

] , i l

E i :

_

_ ' ....

i __

i

_':

6.7.3

INDIVIDUAL The six Pratt

ENGINE and

PERFOIlMANCE Aircraft RLIOA-3

_ ,,

:

_..

, ,,

_._

:.c

:

: _

: _

Whimey

engines which powered the S-IV stage operated satisfactorily throughout the full duration of the flight. All engine eventsoccurredas scheduled, and performance levels levels engines Aircraft engines 6.7.3. el all engines established at Pratt Company. was 473.5 were consistent during acceptance and whitney Total firing seconds, COOLDOWN eooldo_n period was 39.8t seewith performance testing of these and Douglas the RL10A-3

FIGURE

6-16.

INDIVIDUAL TRANSIENTS STATE

ENGINE

START

6.7.3.3

STEADY The

OPERATION for each engine indilbl;. thrust six cathe

Aircraft time for

average

specificimpulse

was 429.1 seconds m_d the averag;e vidual engine thrust was 401,932 These values were determined to cutoff and represent the gines only. Propellant

of the total N (90)358

1 ENGINE The

from _0 percent summation of the ratios

engine

mixture

daring

ends for LH 2 and i0.11 seconds for LOX. The LOX consumption for eooldown was approximately 77 kg ( 170 Ibm;, or an average flow rate of 1.27 kg/s (2.80 Ibm; per engine. was approximately LH 2 flow rate of The above values and not the"best 6.10, Propellant The LI_ consumption 138 kg (305 Ibm) or for eooldown an average engine. results

flight were 5.34 maximum and 4. 86 minimum. The maximum mixture ratio occurred at a PU valve angle of minus 18 degrees _hile the minimum occurred at an angle 6.7.3.4 of plus CUTOFF 15 degrees. TILANSIENTS initiated (IU) by a guidance sigat624. 151 secomls.

0.58 kK/s (1._8 lbm/s; per reflect only engine analysis estimate" v.,dues Mass History. presented

in Section hal from

Engdne cutoff _as the ASC-15computer

32

At S-IV

the

time was

the 1984

eulofl km

signal Therefore to travel

was

generated Item the Tel

the II

6. 8 S-IV 6.8.1

PRESSURIZATION

SYSTEM

stage

(1232

miles)

receiving station at KSC. quired for the TM signals "the receiving as a coded

6. 6 ms were refrom the stage to

LR z TANK During the system the

PRESSURIZATION S-IV-8 flight, the /-'}/2 tank presperformed satisfactorily. Figure LH 2 tank S-I boost,
b., .......

station. The IU culofl time is received value of actual time of occurrence on the be adjusted by the transmisto other data from the S-IV

surization

stage. This value must sion time to be correlated stage, Each engine

6-18 presents prepressurization,

ullage pressures and S-IV flighL
,, ,

during

experienced

a smooth

thrust

decay

'°[_ I ,i i
I

_ Z

____ / ! , \_ __ / J t

-

; ! i I

] i _ i

' I ! , /

_ ] /_ i

"

with no indication of and reached 2 percent seconds
pr.._s.ri,

impending propellant thrust within 0.204 time, as shown

depletion to 0.274 6-17.
(psi}

fromlU
(N:,_ 2)

cutoff

inFigure
Pr4._llre

/ .._o.,, ............ ,, I..-.J.
.'_0 r._ --

'r
.... FIGURE

I i
6-18.

!.... '
:7 I

7 :
:

':
--

[

'

,.7: ...... S-IV STAGE PRESSURE FUEL TANK

ULLAGE

leo

imately 178°K. The average The ingnormal, average

pressurant pressurant and step

temperature flow were rates

was

approxdurand

obtained 0 081

control, (0. 117,

0 053.

/

O. 1216 kg/s a) lively. mately Gl_ v n._,. were

O. 180. and 0. 268 |bin/s).

respec-

. ......

_

The average ullage temperature was approxi147°K. During flight, 36. 9 kg (81.4 lbnu of used to pressurize the tank. vent (NPV) contains de-

-t,.l_

.i._.:,

_, o._l_ _..l_ o+l. I,_. ,_,,,_ s iv _,,_:;., c<,c<,_ _<<) S-IV ENGINE CUTOFF

. _._

The performance of the nonpropulsive system was as expected. Section 14.3.1 tails on system performance. 6.8. 1.1 LH z PUMP INLET CONDITIONS

FIGURE

6-17.

TRANSIENTS

The total cutoff impulse subsequent to the corrected computer time was 46.061 N-s ( 10. 355 lb-sL An additional 22"_4 N-s (500 ib-sl should be added for the chilldown ducts, making the total, cutoff impulse 48,285 N-s (10,855 lbf-s). By using the indicated time reference (IU c.u_off time corrected for transmission to engine impulse delay), the 8807 N-s (1980 lbf-s} attributed solenoid delay has been included. The total of 48,285 N-s (10,855 lb-s) compares well value of 48,672 N-s corrected for 6-degree ± 4003 N-s cant angle.

pump flight ditions ends. initiation

Based on engine performance data, the LH z inlet conditions were adequate throughout the (Fig. 6-19), although minimum required conwere not achieved [or appzx)ximateiy 42 secMinimum NPSP was 5.2 N/cm z (7,5 psi} at of step pressurization. conditions specification were maintained requirements of approximately suction pressure

The within

LH_ pump inlet range of engine

with the predicted ( 10,942 _ 9001b-sl

throughout 42 seconds

flight, except fora period when the net-positive

Analysis of velocity gains determined from guidance data indicates a cutoff impulse of 44, 4_2 N°s (i0, 000 lb-s),

(NPSP) dropped below the minimttm requirement of 5. 5 N/cm _ (8 psi). Possihl.e degradation of the performancemay occur witha minimum NPSP lower than

33

...........

' ........

"' ' ..............

-

Proper

LH 2 tankpressurization

was accomplished

" T_-r _j__ [ _I _

:

-_--7 _____' '

[

[

i _ :/ /

] ! I

I_" [ |

daring

flight

bY tapping

GH2 °fl the engine

supply

aft

i

i

]

i

the LH 2 tank pressurization system. Prior to initiation of step pressurization, and on signal from the propellant utilization (PU) system at S-IV engine start

_: i
i '_ -A_-__ _[---| _ _[ i I _

_ -i _/i -1 _
1 | _

I /
[ _ _-

i _--_ L

I [

eo._d 336.56 the _nk plus seconds, ,,'l_e L.,

press o 0.72l., ,30.0 e,e,ed te N/ore' betweon to
31.1 psi). pressure the step The initiation of step pressurization opened to approach the pressure soleneid vent setting. valve, allowing Thetheullage tank N/cm2 to 26.3 (30.5psD 2 (38. at N/era 2 pressure increased from initiation ot step pressurization,21.0 psi) at S-IV-8 stage cutoff.

"_'_T -- ___ .............

T_

k' i
....... 7--7 ('_ li .... i _ ........... , _ r:-: [ : .. '..... 3_ I [ The LOX =F - • | :

press 'i atioo w.s system satis,ac ,.
tank was pressurized with cold helittrn from At liftto the a ground source 148 seconds prior off, LOX tank pressure control was

S- s eeuldholi.sopply..owe er. nomakeup
: flight. Figure was required 6-20 shows pressurization sure during preprossurization, the LOX the boost phase of tank udlage presduring S-I boost, and S-IV

to llftoff. transferred

•i -

_ _.

i

"_ _-

-+.... _

_ 4

_ _ __

1 1 -

i FIGURE 5.5 N/em 6-19. 2 (g LH 2 PUMP psi). INLET no PARAMETERS performance deThe LH 2 helium Theulpsi) as FIGURE 6-20. S-IV : -i i ... ' _ ;i _'=: i - .... STAGE LOX TANK PRESSURE ULLAGE : ......... ] } . i ! : i ._ _ , ' " ! i

However,

gradation has been noted tank was prepressurized from lage 11.1 to 25.5 N/cm pressure increased

on previous flights. with ground-supplied 2 (16.1 to37.0 to 27.3 N/cm psi). 2 (39.6

a result of [inal LH 2 replenishing. The ullage pressure stabilized at 28.8 N/cm 2 (41.7 psi) during the initial phase of boost {approximately 50 seconds). However, it slowly increased to the vent setting of 29. 1 N/cm 2 {42.2 psi} as a result of Ll-l_ hoiloff during a period of increased surface sloshing which began valve at liltoif opened The was +52 twice, seconds. The number 108.9 2 LH 2 vent at 98. 3 and seconds,

Throughout the flight, the LOX pump inlet pressaves (totaD were maintained above 32.4 N/cm 2 {47 psi) and the NPSP was well above the minimal required limit of 10. 3 N/cm z { 15 psi). At initiation of the automatic count (approMmately 148 seconds prior to liftoff), the LOX tank was prepressurized to 32. 4 N/era 2 (47 psi) supplied helium. to approximately with I. 8 kg The pressure 33.4 N/cm (3.9 Ibm) of groundthen continued to rise 5 psi) due to cona result, the three times

and IV-8

ullage pressure approximately start

decreased 23.1 N/cm

during eooldown z (33. 6 psi) at Shelium makeup of the high

engine

command.

Ambient

2 (48.

of the LH 2 tank was not required because tank pressure at initiation of cooldown.

tinued final LOX replenishing and, as LOX tank number I vent valve cycled

34

between

192.5

azld

116

seconds

prior

to liftofl.

The
1 '[ Heat

s,_h,-_ ,,f ,,tl,.. _-"_ LJ [ '-"_
Flux

c.,_,

op,_.u_,,_ [ _, [ L__._j [
bleat FI,,,

LOX tank ullage pressure (46 psi), 5() seconds prior the I.£)X "tank ullage

decreased to liftoff.

to 3i. 7 N/em z During S-I boost slightly and

_ I [ .,.h,,_ t_ .,.t,.,. _-.._ rl.,_

pressure

decreased

(Looo ._tt_)

_lcoo s_..'h,_

mend. This slight LOX bulk surface caused the ered flight,

sloshing

at-IVe l s..COmp ,oo ) ssure
_0 _o _0 o _c f....)l I 4 During cycled S-IV pswin a band f'% I ,,J

decay was the result of and LOX cooldown, which

r' I
I

"

'1 k

i
ql -_.._,o } _o I

. _o_
- _50

ullage gas to collapse. the LOX tank pressure

_

_ :ac

_ I :-_c _ov _o _o0

between 30. 9 and32.2 N/cm 2 {44.9 and 46.7psi) after the initial start transient. One peculiarity occurred during the period between 400 and 525 seconds and is described in detaiL under the discussion of the helium heater operation. Since failure of the LOX ullage pressure to drop

too t_o

)so _o_

T_p<._t,,_,. (%) ,_ _,,_ H....... c_,,., t_ao I ,20o [ I [
lO(_O

,,.,, T,_p..,.,, ,,,. ] l I

soo 6oo _.,,u o
Flo_ralt,

I I i teo i_,_ Tim(- fr*_
£,,l,l

1 i , 2_:o S.*ar_ :_0
_-_ itt_

below the psi) level singleof cold coil modewascaused31 N/era 2 (45 uniquecombined duringeffect bythc helium regulator outlet pressure drifting to a higher level (although still remaining within the desired opcrating eration ticularly tanned limits) and a higher than normal helium flow,

5e
(kg/_)

S-_V

C,'lr_un,I

I _st, z,,_,f_,,:,.... }00 _c(St-_) ,co 4_c ,
Fi.)_r3tc i i

_0o
_ D'P:s}

o.to / o.o_ °'°_o __o _)() [_o 2a¢, ._(,

Fl,-wr,,tc . ,

thi ouliaris.or i conido oda*erse to lhoop
of the pressurization system. This is partrue since the LOX tank pressure was mainoperating HEATER flight baod. OPERATION demonstrated the operain the desired 6.8.2. i HELIUM The

"
u,o r,c _no ___: c¢,a'l

r ........ • (_/,_) r_ ........ Ch,._._................... e _ _._,_>

S-IV-8

tional capability the ol the LOX tank heater heltum as an component of stage pressurization integral systern. Figure 6-21 shows the S-IV helium heater performarrce characteristics. Helittm heater ignition was normal bustion within tinued at S-IV engine start command, with the com556°K conflight temperature 3 seconds. to rise for rising rapidly to above The combustion temperature 100 seconds of S-IV powered between 1139

_ ;-_'_'_ c S_

l00

"_'1_(: :t_'

:',O

}_

'_'" c,,,,-_< c_'"" . "_ i' / _U =t'_ _=_ '.{_r

FIGURE

6-2t. S-IV HELIUM PERFORMANCE

HEATER

and then cycled in a band which is the nominal band. Helium duration

and 1233_K

seconds, cold helium regulator outlet pressure drifted andhellumheatar inlet pressure rose from 170 N/cm" (247 psi) at 370 seconds to 176 N/cm _ (285 psi) at 420 seconds. ponding rise This rise in helium in pressure flow rate caused a corresand energy input to

full

imater heat flax was satisfactory for the of S-IV powered flight, averaging ap-

proximately 54,205 watts (185,000 Btu/hr) during single coil operation and 80,575 watts {275,00{)Bttb/ hr) during double coil operation. The helium heater secondary coil cycLed [our times during S-IV powered flight with single coll mode occurring during 67 percentol thistime, and two coil mode for the remainder of the time. A peculiarity in LOX pressurization occurred between 4{)0 and 525 seconds. During this period the LOX lank pressure stabilized at approximately 31.0 N/cm 2 (45 psi) eration, under this during time single during control tank helium heater single mode of operation. pressure bad been coil o1>Prior to 370

the LOX tank as exhibited by the helium heat [lax (Fig. 8-21). The helium flow rate maximized at 0. 075 kK/s (0. 165 Ibm/s) which is a higher flow rate during single coil operation than experienced on any previous S-IV stage llight;{). 068 kg/s ( 0. 15 lb/s} is nominal. 6.8, 2.2 LOx PUMP INLET CONDITIONS the necesinlets while

sary

The quantity

IX)X supply system delivered of LOX to the engine pump the required Cold helium pressure babbling and seconds prior

maintaining conditions. seconds until prior

and temperature was initiated 490 satisfactorily to liltoff. The

the LOX coil

decreasing

to liftoff 190

continued

operation,

Imt at approximately

termination

35

LOXpumpinlet the rangeof78 pared favorably tim temperatm'es 92.5°K, values

temp_raturesdccreased to 80°K. This temperature

normally range

and, corn-

.'..... -.A /_1

: ...................... _ -- i 1 i

with expected had increased that were within

values. By prestart, to between 91. f and the required limita _

of 90.3 to 97.20K. At engine start the temperatures at termination of and heliunl were within" were between 90. 3 cold 90. 8°K. bubbling, 6-22 provides Figure a time history covering I/.)X pump inlet temperature during cold helitml The LOXpmnpinlet bubbling and temperature LOX pump eooldown. stabilized at file balk

.... t--__'/l_J[

!

!...........

I

:

t -_!j 1

]

|

-]

_ i

I

r

" 1

i {

' { :

F I/

-] i

cutoff'. Throughout S-IV operation, the inlet ters, as shown in Figure 6-23, were within limits ol temperature and pressure.

paramespecified

....... , ................

/
1,

I

!
--

[

_K

Lv J

I j=
r • . , , , •.....

x.l

:

r_

i

"

}

_

i._,,,.,_-- LOJ.... ':" i I ] v,.a I .,_,

FIGUltE6-'_3" which LOX PUMP INLET thatCONDITIONS 1_1.9 This value, would hldieatc 37. 1 kg Ibm) of helium were consumed, is z. 7 kg (6 Ibm) higher thanealcnlatedhy the integl'ated flow rate. The comparison of consumption based upon integrated flow rate and sphere conditions is considered only fair. Farther explanation isprovided in S_.'tion 6. _. 2.

',- ',

:,_,,.,_.t_,.:_,q, -,,,,, -*,,,

R _,..

_._:I.E,:::_,,:.,_.,.,,,,,.I -:¢:* T... -., o h,,)

[IlK T*._p..; i[urv ('}_)

I',,,,p

till.;

l,r,,p

r,t

,,_

II,,_:_lc

I,OX yh_tar¢

The operation system flight. ...... • r_. FIGURE 6.8.3 6-22. COLD During ..... , ...... _............... LOX PUMP HELIUM S-IV INLET ., _"' ) : ,. was satisfactory Prior to liftoff

of the

S-IV-8

pneumatic

control and was

during preflightcheckoat the control helium sphere

pressurized to approxinmtely "20"20 N/em z (2930 psil and at tile time of S-IV engine cutofl" the ptx_ssure _as 1844 N/era l (2675 psi}. Tile sphere tempel-ature ranged from a maximum minimum of 208.8"K at of 7.90, 5*K approximately at liftoff to a 225 seconds

TEMPERATURES

SUPPLY flight, the cold helium sup-

alter S-IV engine start. By the cutoff, the sphere temperature 270. 5" K.

time of S-IV engine had increased to

stage

ply was adequate. At SA-8 liftefl respective pressures mid temperatures in the cold helium spheres were 2108 N/cm 2 (3060 tmij and ")')-.7*K indicating a helitml mass of 57.9 kg ( 127. 6 Ibm). Based upon intogrationofthepressurantllow ered flight, it was determined of helium were expended for The total amounto[ eoldhelium alter S-IV engine on the indicated rate daring S°lV pewthat 34.4 kg (75. 8 Ibm)

later psi) N/cm 6.9

The ouflct pressure of the control helimn rcguvaried between 333 and 319 N/cm 2 (483 and 463 during flight. Tile regulator operated within the band z (470 S-IV o[ psi, 324 plus N/cm 45, 2, plus 31. minus 17.2 minus 25 psi).

desired

LOX tank pressurization. residual in the spheres

PROPELLANT

UTILIZATION system load pcrtormed was38, 197

cutoff was 20, 8 kg (45.8 lbmJ based sphere pressure and temperature,

The propellant utilization (PU) satisfactorily. Thedesiredpropcllant

36

_ONFI
kg (84,209 According S-IV Ibm) LOX and ma_s 7782 fine kg (17,156 mass was strip 38°232 Ibm) charts to the PUsystem the

fll:klTIh
mass error nominal

I_-error on SA-8 sensed was in the system. caused usage engine by loading as seen This by the iniUal mass errors and nonPU system. dur-

LH 2.

propellant

at liftoff

kg (84,288

cooldow'n

lbml LOX anti 7780 kg (17,i52 Ibm} LH 2. The reMduals above the pump inlets at command cutoff _*ere 443. i kg (977 of LOX trapped ibm) of LOX in the tank) (including 5 kg or 11 lbm and 8"L 9 kg (185 lbmJ of

The average

mixture

ratio

excursions

ing flight varied between 5.28 well within engine operation 6.7.3.3, 6.9.2 Figs. 6-14 and 6-t8l. COMMAND

and 4.68, capabilities

which are (Section

LH2 (including4.5kgor tank). Based LOX flow 16. 0 kg/s upon average

t0lbmofL}_ttrappcdinthe

PU SYSTEM PU

engine

operation,

average LH 2 flow of residuals LH2, 5.25 The commands: system is designed to originate three

of 79. 6 kg/s (175.4 (35.2 Ibm/s) and

Ibm/s) and best estimate

of 443.2 kg(977 Ibm) LOX and 8.39 kg (1851bm) the S-IV depletion cutoff would have occurred seconds beyond the command in flight, or at 478.80 seconds to a predicted cutoff ol 479.3 stage engine operation had been

1. PU system 2. LH 2 tank

gain step

change

cutoff point established burn time as compared seconds. If the S-IV -8 permitted to continue

pressure cutoff occurred preceded at the proper times; by a signal from the

3. Arm All three however, IU.

all engine

to propellant depiction (LH 2 depletion cutoff), there would have been a residual of 17.6 kg (39 Ibm) of LOX or an equivalent PU efficiency of 99. 96 percent, As a comparison, il the flighthad been conducted

commands the third

was

without the control of EMR by the PU system, a LOX depletion cutoff would have occurred with a residual of 190.5 kg (420 Ibml oI LH 2. This is equivalent to an efficiency of 99.9 percent. This analysis is derived from comparing actual open loop EMR based upon propellant inlets to nominal 6.9. i SYSTEM supply conditions at the engine predictc_J open loop EMR. RESPONSE pump

The PU system gain change command was acheduled to occur when the PU system indicated that the LOXmass had decreased te32,882 ± 544kg (72,492 ± 1200 Ibm). The command _'aa observed to occur at 215.1 seconds. The LOX mass at this time was 32,887 kg (72,503 ance range. Ibm), which was within the toler-

duled The PU system responded IV-8flight andprovidedthenecessary ment to correct for mass errors system. Figure 6-24 shows a PU valve during S-IV flight, _L,r_,,, o. _/ -_ r,,_it t,,_ (d_ ------ _ _ _ _ _ properly during SPU valve moveinherent within the movement of

The LH 2 tank step pressure command was acheto occur when the PU system indicated that the

LOX mass had reached 11,262 plus or minus 544 kg (24, 829 _ 1200 lbm). This command was observed to occur at 487.2 seconds at which time the LOX mass was 11,222 kg within tolerance. The arm (24,740 lbmJ. This mass value was

the typical

all engine

cutoff

command

was

scheduled

_/
_() l_0 150 2_0 2_(+ 30[] 35_ :Or, ,_i) 500

(:

to occur when the PU system indicated that the LOX mass had reached 879 ± 227 kg (1937 _ 500 lbm, or upon command of the IU. The IU command, which preceded the PU system command, occurred at 589. 4 seconds, The PU system command was observed to occur at 618.3 seconds, at which time the LOX mass was 891 kg (1965 Ibm), This mass was within toterance. 6. 10 PROPELLANT The propellant MASS mass HISTORY history at various events,

Tl_,- ,_,_ _-]V E.p_,

SL_t c_,_.d

¢_-_

FIGURE 6-24. TYPICAL PROPELLANT UTILIZATION VALVE POSITION At the time sensed a positive in LOX of 251 of PU system activation, the system equivalent LOX mass error, excess kg (555 lbml, and positioned the PU

v',dve for a higher engine mixture ratio (EMR) to cotrectthe error. The lactors primarily responsible [or this PU valve excursion were nonlinearities in the system open loop flow variations and the initial LOX

as determined by thecomposite best estimate, is presented in Table 6-IV. The values are for total liquid propellant mass above the engine inlet. The actual propellants onbeard atS-I liftoff as determined by the

37

Z: ',, .,_,._
weighted average technique (composite best estimate) were within 0° 24 percent for LOX and 0.0 percent for LH2 of that desired, TABLE 6-IV. PROPELLANT MASS HISTORY time at which pressure was above 90 percent thrust or approximately 586 N/era 2 (850 psi) was 3.7 seconds as compared with the required minimum burn time o[

LOX

Ul 1

"

f'

t

i

r

c,,

5-! ILl{

LIn_f prcstart

3t_,290± 3_.290i

94 94

84,415 84=415_

_ _07 _07

778Z

_ 31

t7.156 _7,156

k 68 _ 6_

778_ i31

n_idual

443 _ 31

977 _ 69

84 _ 8

18.5 t 17 zu6 --¢

plicatton of a weighted-average technique to the flow rate integral, PU system, flight simulation masses, and mass accuracyvalues. 6.It S-IV HYDRAULIC SYSTEM

_ ,-,

,

FIGURE 6-25. ULLAGE ROCKET PRESSURE

CHAMBER

The hydraulicsystems of allsixengines|unctioned properly during the S-IV-8 powered flight. Telemetry data of pressure, temperature,and positionwere similarto thepreviousflights.No system malfunction or incipient performance degradation was evident in the data received. Prior to engine start, the engines were satisfaetorily positioned by the accumulator charge. At engtse start, the pressurized fluid of the hydraulic pumps recharged the accumulRtors to the bottomed position and malntathedoperating pressures above the accumulator GNz pressures. All of these events were consistent with normal system operation, 6.12 ULLAGE ROCKETS

3.0 seconds. A comparison of theflight datawith the mamdactarer's data shows thattheoverallpressure profiles during burningwere typical for a grain ternperature of 294_K. At burnout the chamber pressures of all four rockets decreased simultaneously. As observed on prior flights, chamber pressure surges were present at the beginning of the burnout transient. A surge of 62 N/cm _ (90 psi) was observed on rocket number 1. As a comparison, on SA-9 flight, surges of 20.7 N/em z (30 psD were observed on rockets number t and 4, and on SA-7 flight, surges of V7.5 N/cm z (40 psi) were present on rockets number 1 and 4 and a surge of 69 N/cm z (100 psi) on rocket number 2. As on other flights the indication of surges at the beginning of burnout is attributed te overheating the pressure transducers and, therefore, should not be considered representative of actual rocket behavior. Total stage ullage rocket longitudinal impulse {parallel to the axis of the stage) was 175. 251 N-s (39,400 lbf-s) and the total ullage rocket impulse (parallel to the axis of the rocket) was 213,948 N-s (48, 10O lbf-s) as determined from the ullage racket data presented in Figure 6-25.

Ullage rocket performance was sal_sfactory and ell rockets jettisoned properly at 160. 92 seconds. The ullage rocket ignition eomnmnd was given at 148.82 seconds, with thechamberpressure ofall four rockets increasing at approximately 19,016 N/cm z (27,600 per second, as shown in Figure 6-25. The chamber pressures averaged approximately 658 N/cm _ (955 psi}, or 4.5 percent lower than the nominal predicted 689 N/cm _ ( t000 psi). The burn

--

=_..

=

SECTION

VII.

GUIDANCE

AND CONTROl,

7. i SUMMARY The overallperformaneeof the guidance and con-

the atr cases. laboratory preset error error 7.2

value This

tor both situation

the measured indicates that data were used

and predicted if the ST-t24 to adjust the

ealibration

trol system was very satisfactory. The vehicle responded properly to the simul_meoasly executed roll and pitch programs which began shortly after If{tell. As expected, the tmbalaneed stage turbine hicle maximum 56 seconds, A vehicle daring misalignment and yawattitude roll of deviation mainly of I. I degrees due Lethe developed total a counterclockwise roll moment (due to aerodynamic forces caa_a_d by the S-I exhaust duct fairings) generated a veroll attitude error of -1.8 degrees at

space fixed cutoff would Imve added of ±0.51 m/s. SYSTEM Sh-8 was DESCRIPTION the third

velocity (Vs). about 1.2 m/s

the resul_ng to the actual

Satuta_

vehicle system.

to employ The principal

a

fully

active

8T-124

guidance

functions of this system were:
separation, 0. l:t-degree 1. To control generate attitude error signals flight. tm vehicle

the 8-IV ullage errors and ang_ar Lime. about

roekcks. The pitch rates were nearly

and steering issue Unit,

thl_oughout

zero during this hc_:ame effective the roll reetion, deg/s. The throughout

When the S-IV control system two seconds alter separation, this was cur-1. t

2. To /nstrument vehicle eluding 3.

timed discretes to the spacecr'di, S-IV and S-I stage_ for sequencing throughout the entire wing deployment, anti issue during steering stage flight perm(I in

angle was rapidly r_._luccd. During the maximum roll rate observed

events Pegasus To path

compute guidance

commands burn.

for

control system performed S-IV stage powered flight. to the initiation at f66. 69seconds. were generated engine

satisfactorily The system reof pitch and yaw No appreciable by path guidance

active

S-IV

spoxKled properly plancpath guidance control transients termination The or overall

4. To terminate path guidance engine slmtdown at the preset space The ST-124guidmlce {24stabilized platform the GSP-24 guidance 15 digital lationship their trol computer. Imt_'een

and initiate S-IV fixed vcloci_'.

by S-IV

shutdown. of the guidance system

performance

system consisted el the STassembly and electronics Ix)x, signal processor and tbc ASCshows tim intort_eof this system and

was very satisfactory. loeity from tracking

The vehicle's at S-IV cutoff

slrace fixed rewas 7671.57 m/s

Figure 7-1 the components

at an 'altitude of 509,656 angle of 90.00:: degrees. tween mint_

km and a space fixed path The differences in value becomputer) minas computer tracking all

integration syslem.

with the dements of the vehicle conThe operational periods of these major system components are also ill-

the preealeulatod minus tracking, and precalculated

guidance dicated.

and control

fell well within the 3(." band, imltcating all guidance system accuracy. The agreement ST-IX4 with velocit 3" components those indicated by

exccllentovererror are in complete the ASC-15 cornThe ST-t24 guidance system signals {:__,'s) by comparing sigqlals position (,,'s) with the sigrtals (0's). generated the three four Tile ST-124
angular

attitude comnlami
!':t*_-

resolver resolver

Kimb:,,! it;

,rater throughout flight, q'hc measured velocity dllferent.e_ are the telemetered ST-124 aceelet_ometer iI;¢ta mintls lracRD)g. Tbt. ))r'edJele_! dLlfcrences are based ttlXlU the S'I-iZ trat't.ing. i?or the t [aiu)rat()l-_' (-atil,ral.ion Lest re Stills ntinus wel e adjubtcd Thcs{: prc.h_:tcd 3iffcccaces b'I'- 1L-t _tabi_" ,:i,:ment le_'cling

formation required i'o- damping vehacic dl.*_t_:'!. '1, t, was obtained lrom the three axis (.(mt:'c_'. :-,>_ ,;3 .... package ]coaled i_ the InsL"t;-),:::i Uni'. V:';,. _.- !a' oral :il:celer_L_[tlit'ol_tro[ _,_,h_aCCor.)i)_':,_,;O:_ ;.: ':, ]! li)L' during S I llight Ly nic _i:_ .:i I_) .tc_'cleror, lctel. "_ iocatc<_ :n zi:e pil_htmd yaw planes t)o(13' fixed coat_)l Instrument In order Unit. lo _at'ply tilt. total vcl',icle sy:4cvn witi_

_la(| azilnut_l aiigalllt:ltt _:rl'ors dt2L_2tmin_tl at launch. With ).he ox('epti<m of U.- cross rmlge component, the measured velocity (Ef!'Cl'Oo-'es fall within the:] tr error hands. In addition, tbt-.re ;s rather good agrecmellt between th(." measured anti predicted velocity differcnccs ia the tango and ,:ross range directions, flowever, oniy the /-allge v(_locity component falls within

the I)asie timireg :_ig_als lrom a single soul'.',' (ASC 15 computerl, acw time I)ascs must he g*m('r:)ted duriog flight. The first time base started _hen the /nstr_nent Utlit tmtbilical separated from 01c v,..hic|e

'.L-

, ,-,_ __ t,_,v_.

- .......

-

a_)

( _P,Y,R, End Path Guidance Cutoff Command Resolvers Guidance I Comlwnd9 I (dc attitude error signals) AcceI. g Y g Oimba t I ,Y,Z

I
I Cutoff S-IV Co_mmnd Velocity Flight

]Sequencers
Sequencing Signals to St, IU, S-I1/ and S-I C_puter AcceI. 33 to IO0 see

(filters,

amplifies Signal Processor Control Control Gyro Sate Pkg.

& dist.

control

sig)_

_.i (actuator positioning _ =

Active tl,ro_q_hout flight col_a nd) TO S-_V Control Actuators'

S_itch (crierSized at separation)

_

To S-IV Control Actuators' Servo Valves (Engines L'-4) To S-I Control Serx-c Valves Actuators' (Engines l-&)

FIGURE

7-I.

GUIDANCE

AND

CONTROL

SYSTEM

qB, 4o

I _,,.[.;IN and ended at S-I propellant level sensor arming. second time base began at activation of the first pellant "thrtkst •normal level sensor OK" switches OECo mode. I- I I,/I.i The pro_ n |tkL 7.3 7.3. 7.3.1.1 CONTROL 1 ANALYS1S FLIGHT PLANE pitch was plane, very good. the performance magnitudes of the CONTROL

and terminated when the S-I were ganged for backup of the The third time base commenced the remainder of cutoff command. S-IV cutoff was signal, initiated This was the three processor, computer

S~I STAGE PITCH In the

with OECO and continued throughout powered flight until S-IV guidance The final Pitch at separation accomplished time and base yaw started plane path with

control control flight.

system

The

of the

guidance

parameters The maximum dynamic

were small throughout S-I stage values observed (in the Mach t pressure region) were:

command plus by unlocking

17.77 seconds. the brake8 on

to maximum

command resolvers loading the ladder

in the guidance signal networks in the digital

l_ramete

r

Units

_nilud¢

RT

(sct'_) _

according to the measured guidance values and lssuing the computed correction signals (_) to the cornmend resolvers in the guidance signal processor. The iterative for the pitch plane the required time measured ances errors, guidance path mode (IGM_ was program employed to compute the real Tolerchain inherent thrust plane

Attitude error Angle el attack (_r_ _troaml
Angular rate Normal accele ration

|deg) (degJ
2)

o. 9 -1.4
-0.7 -0, 7

67.0 64. 0
6:L 6 63.6

(deg/_

( m/s

Acttlator position Angle-oi_attack
Dynamic pressure product (deg

_deg)
N/cm 2)

-1.1
4.8

74.2
64.0

guidance

steering state and

• commands (XZ .) from variables each 1000 ms.

in engine

stage time

alignment, lags and

resolver other of the Pitch

The vided

vehicle

pitch

and

roll

programs The pitch

were

pro-

computational

by the

ASC-15

computer.

program

conditions resulted vector with respect steering introduced for this

in the misMignment to the gmdance plane.

(×z} which polynominai seconds degrees program and from

consists of a third order with three time segments, was arrested at t38.38 thelaunch vertical (see developed for a zero

time-dependent began at 8.65 seconds at 52.5 Fig. 7-2}. This profile during

misalignment correction shortly alter guidance condition,

(SMC or XZC4 was initiation to correct

was

wind

Delta minimum path guidance, is constrained to a predetermined ployed in the yaw plane. and displacement were back into the reference initial conditions cessitatedlimiting (XcR) aration

where reference,

the vehicle was em-

S-Iburn. at 8. 66

The 14.89_Jegree seconds and reached

roll program (Xy) began zero at 23. 55 seconds.

Both the cross range velocity utilized to steer the vehicle plane. The range of possible

Signfficantfirst mode propellant slosh frequencies (0.9 to l. 1 Hz) between 60 to ll0 seconds were indicared by the pitch angular rate and engine actuator deflections (Fig. 7-3). SA-9; however, on SA-8 lar rates Figure angles of _0. 41 deg/s This sloshing is similar to _e resulting maximum anguare smaller. of the winds the onbeard Q-

at the introduction of guidance nethe cross range steering command to prevent sat-

to 0, 25 radian ( i4. 3 degrees) for too long a time. the computer's space fixed

When

velocity

vector

and

7-4 shows the comparisons of attack calculated from

reached the initial ASC-15 computer presetting (VS = 7626 m/s), the "lock command modules" signal was issued, the steering commands path guidance was terminated. were arrested The computer and then

Ball and a rawinsonde time. The angle-of-attack

balloon release near launch wind {which was calculated angle, and irawith the rawin-

using Q-ball angle of attack, attitude, jectory angle) is in fair agreement

shifted to a faster cycle in which it searched for the cutoff velocity of 7672. 06 m/s, space fixed. When this value was attained, the computer issued the guidance cutoff command which initiated shutdown of the S-IV engines. by the vehicle The final space fixed velocity at the end of S-IV thrust decay achieved was pre-

sonde wind. Part of this discrepancy is due to a QBall miaalignment of 0.23 degree nose up in the pitch plane. The largest pitch wind was 15.4 m/s, occurring a few seconds before max Q. 7.3. 1.2 YAW PLANE The pertormaoce plane was very values for the of the satisfactory. control system in The maximum were:

dicted to be 3. 1 m/s ance cutoff command. to thrust decay was

higher than the velocity at guidThe actual velocity gained due 2.98 m/s.

the yaw control

S-I power

flight

IlL

_J,

kk

I e-iii.kl_kl"rll

ALl

41

iP

..... Attitude Angh_

fur error ol aUJt'i¢,

UI_JL_ (d_g) loegj

M;J_l, ude -0, 6 t.l -0.3

]_T {::'ec I ) _. 0 75,5 71L 4 1 ] i

....

.....
i . _c_ " _ '

i;"_'_'_,•
", "I I . ut_,_ "

:
:_L.

"

"

i {tret,._lxeano ] Angular ratu

ldeg/'_)

Act_lator

poMtion

{deg) Idc_R-.Nj t-tl,21 ( m/*.*.21

0.7 5,3 0.6

75, _ _'5. 5 72. 5

,

. , ,/

,7

.

. ,

, . I L _ .

/_ iiKlt. - o| - _tlack dy_lit" pt'e_ur_ I'*_dv.ct l Normal atce[uraD.on

-.

_ .......

, r,

_..;. _

....

I p , , I

---"_q I-=:1" I
' _ ......... ['11 ' ' ......

FIGURE
COMPONENT

%4.

PITCH
AND FREE

PLANE
STREAM

WIND VELOCITY
ANGLE OF

_ " First is indicated / /

ATTACK mode propellant sloshing by the yaw angular rate [0. 9 to and engine 1. t Ilz] actua

for deflections daring the mid-portion of S-I powered flight (Fig. 7-51. A_ in pitch, the sloshing _as mort"

predomitmnt
on SA-9.

from 75 to 110 seconds

but smaller

than

,

%,
: ' , :,., :........
:

".

.. ':>_ .;._!,,_....

i

..............

FIGURE I_TE,

7-5. AND

yAW

ATTITUDE

ERROR,

ANGULAR POSITION pl..::: V,'Ht,I
l'ltt\

AVERAGE

ACTUATOR

FIGURE

7-2.

S-I STAGE

COMMAND

ANGLES winds
Of

The rawinsoodc and angle-of-attack ya_ are shown in Figure 7-6. Tiue tna.ximum
m/'t_ _,','a_ nleas_Lred s¢.,veral s(.c()[it]_ qftt_l

_.:*. 3

"

' :-

'

' i: :':",/:':'_:
B

"'_

[

FIGURE RATE,

7-3. AND

PITCH

A'rTITUDE

Ei¢ROR,

ANGULAR

FIGURE

7-6.

YAW

PLANE

WIND

VELOCITY

AND

AVERAGE

ACTU._TOR

POSITION

FRF E STREAM

ANGLE

OF ATTACK

42

_.,

....

7.3.1.3

Control

Design

Parameters

A comparison of the SA-8 flight results ,and Block II control system design criteria for total actuatordeflcction, angle of attack, and dynamic pressure angle-of-attack are basedona shown in Figure 7-7. product is 95 percentnondireetional The design values wind velocity with 2 _ shears and 11 percent variation in aerodynamics. Two sigma variations in propulsion system performance and vehicle mass characteristics were also considered in arriving at the design values. The SA-Sdata arewell withinthe designvalues, failing either below or in the lower portion of the envelope ohsel-_ed on the previous Block H flights.

coincidence with the stabilized degree roll program, executed was completed ai 23.55 seconds

axes. The 14.89at a rate of i deg/s, (Fig. 7-2).

_ r;..:_,:,:::::-: , __

[ )_ ..... _._ I :

............. _=---._" -...._:_ 4..._. _-i"_

--_...:...._ _ " .......

_ _?-;

, i i_-__ " " " " , :

, .... _.).. . _r _ _. ._ _. : _; -_. _. i '" "i l" , i

r,,_ V-t .:_,_. ..... _._l, [ ._ _ ......

. _:"- _

(v.,

1,,r I,...,i

P_l, h _,,,i y.,_)

I

4
0 --

_
zlo

[ ._._=y--_s:g_ _

_
i

FIGURE

7-8.

ROLL ATTITUDE

ERROR,

ANGULAR

_, "_ t ...._. r.,,.. _.,, _
.......... _ .....

RATE, AND AVERAGE ACTUATOR POSITION The roll axis maximum control values measured
during _--I stage propelled flight ,,,ere:

1_"

_

Engme , , *o ii .t,_, 2,, [i,n, I|rrl

deflectmn

rcU

_ I

O._

'_

........... ,........... _,_,...... ._ ..... ,._.,_,,, _"_=_-_

(-t.

Ason previousflights, significant a attitude rror e 8 degrees) wasagainobserved near max Q. This

=,,

_ ,

dynamic flow about the turbine exhaust fairings (see Ref. 3). The SA-8 and SA-9 roll angles were of similar magnitude but smaller than SA-7's -3. 5 degrees, due to the increase in roll control gain from 0. 2to 0.3. 7.3.2 S-IV STAGE FLIGHT CONTROL roll attitude error is attributed to unsymmetrical

__,_

aero-

FIGURE 7-7. COMPARISON OF VEHICLE CONTROL PARAMETERS WITH DESIGN CRITERIA 7.3. 1.4 Roll Plane

The performance of the vehicle control system was excellent throughout S-IV powered flight. The system responded properly to the transients during S--Istage separation and following path guidance initiation. The pitch, yaw, and roll attitude errors are presented in Figure 7-9. At path guidance initiation (166.69 seconds), the vehicle's space fixed velocity was 0. 5 percent higher than prodicted and its altitude was about 1.9 km higher than predicted. This condition caused the guidance system to issue a nose down pitch steering command correction seconds. (_ X Z) which peaked at 6.0 degrees at 174 During this period (at 169 seconds), the

Immediately aRer liftoff, SA-8 rolled clockwise to a steady state attitude error of about 0. 2 degree (Fig. 7-8). This indicated a thrust misalignment in roll eqnivsient to 0. 05 deg'ree engine defleetion for each S-I stagecontrol engine. At 8.66 seconds the required launch-to-flight azimuth (roll maneuver) program began, rotating the vehicle's pitch and yaw axes into

43

.,7,

:,'_ _r[I ; '_ . ,:

'/.ii ": ...... _

,.... : ..'. ,_ : ! --

_ - ] I . : [ _
*

i.e.

kC R

roached

a maximum

value

of 0.8

degree

at

169 seconds. At this time the largest attitude brror signals issued by the ST-I')4 to the vehicle flight c-ontrol system were 0. 2 degree nose left yaw and 0.2 degree CW roll. The maximum yaw and roll attitudes rcsultingfromtheinitiationofyawplane 0.8 dega'ee nose left and 0. 8 degree
seconds.

guidance CCW, both

were at 169

I_-_ _---:_

=

_

......
i

".. : ".. • _, :',,'_-_-_r ' -

', : : : r-:

The overall performance of the guidance system was excellent. At bnuidance initiation the computer indicatedthat 250 seconds 92 m reached the vehicle later these 0 m/sand80 was slightly to the left. AIx)ut initial values of 1.1 m/s and m to the left. A slight va_

FIGURE ST-124 attitude eontrol reduced (Fig. v.
-

7-9.

S-IV

STAGE

ATTITUDE

ERRORS

steady state attitude error caused the cross range relocity and displacement (measured by the computer) to increase to -0.3 m/s and -122 m at S-IV cutoff; thesovaluescompare trajectory values The pitch of-0. favorably 2 m/s with the preealculated and -17_ meters. misalignment correction

platform issued a maximum nose down pitch error signal of l . 6 degrees to the vehicle flight system. 7-10). _.......
r

The

vehicle

pitch

program

(X Z)

was piano steering term (XZC) . introduced some 6 seconds after guidance initiation, increased from 1.05 degrees shortly after guidance initiation to 1. 15 degrees at the end el path

to a minimum

of 46.5

degrees

at 174 seconds

_....
,

_-._._,,,q,_,-_l
" i ....L "" ........... t e

-i

-

range guidance. This variation was well within the expected and The The S--IV stage steady engine deflections were near mean pitch nose-upat200 state attitude errors the predicted values.

_' •....... : '...........

attitude error increased from 0.30 degree seconds to 0. 48 degree at 620 seconds. steady state attitude error flight values by 0. 11 degree The minordiscrepaney histories or less, }Jetween difin a the

,,,.:.,_, ........ x..........,, _," _, .,,,. o ,
,i

_',,, ; • ......... a.=,:_, __._:, c._,-_3 q
, F = , _ ¢. :r .,_)

The predicted fered from nose-updircotion.

_ ......... ........... _ ] f"

_

measured and predicted small thrust vector

values can be accounted for _" misaligmments and a center of

/

_

The meanyaw

attitude

error

increased

from

O. 15

/a_', :, _.,, ,, ./. _ ..., :,,,, _.,,,. _ .....

left at 620 seconds. tudeerrorhistoriesdiffered degree in a nose left

The fromllight direction. factors This as the
values tJy 0. 23

discrepancy pitch attitude

is

i,_,,

",._f/" i'::, '

_,:,,

'

i

i

attributed to the same error discrepant T. The degree mean througdaout roll attitude S-IV

_....... '""" _"'_ FIGURE 7-10. PLANE VEHICLE RESPONSE TO GUIDANCE INITIATION PITCH

error

was

less flight.

than

0.2

stage

powered

Vehicle that Intheyawplarm, the vehicle theASC-15eomputerdata was slightly to the left (I. showed I m/s and

steering

commands

were

arrestc_l

when

the space fixed velocity vector computed by the guidante system reached 7626 m/s. The steering command angle 0.38 degree _Z was arrested at 122.55 degTees, more than predicted. This occurred just about Due burn,

92 m) at guidance initiation. anee system issued maximum

Consequently, the guidsteering command eor-

reetions of 0.6 degree _/X and 0. 6 degree Xy ( nose right and CCW viewed from the rear) at f69 seconds;

2 seconds before S-IV guidance cutoff command. to the increasingyaw attitude error during S-IV

44

the computer's cross range velocity reached a stead), state'valueof0.3m/sieftandthecrossr,'mge displacement increased to 122 m left at S-IV cutoff, The angular rates restdting from steering arrest and S-IV stags thrust decay were nearly zero. At the end of S-IV thrust decay the angular rates were -0. 1 deg/s in pitch, -0.05 deg/s in yaw, and 0.03 deg/s in roll• 7.4 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

For the first time s network was added to determine the vector sum of the pitch and yaw ungle-ofattack measurements for possible emergency detection system use in the future. For small angles of attack (± 2 degrees) the telemetered vector is especially sensitive to the lower nonlinear portion of the calibrationctu've (D193-900); however, for angleslarger than 2 degrees, this measurement should be satisfactory. 7.4. l. 3 ILa.TE GYROS The vehicle's tioned properly: three rate k%'ro packages ftmc-

7.4, 1 7.4.1.1

CONTROl. SENSORS CONTROLACCELEROMETERS

The two body fixed control aceelerometers locatedin the Instrument Unit (to provide partial load relief in the pitch and yaw planes from 35 to 100 seconds) functioned properly. Figure 7-11 shows the measured lateral accelerations (translated to the rehicle CG). Peak lateral acceleration of -0. 7 m/s 2 in pitch and 0.6 m/s2in yaw were measured neat" max Q. In general, these telemetered values agree with flight simulation results within 0. t m/s 2. S-I and S-IVpropellant sloshing and the first two vehicle bending modes were evident in these measure monte during portions of the time that acceleronmtor control was active.

1. A • l0 deg/s range, 3-axis, control rate package, located in the Instrument Unit, was used to provide pitch, yaw, ml(I roll angular rate information for vehicle control throughout flight. 2. The second rate gyro package, also a 3-a.xis ± 10 deg/s range, is a control type unit which is being flo_m for development purposes and is located in the thrust structure area of the S--l stage. The roll rate g)'ro apparently functioned properly, but because of the commutated measurement, the data were generally unusable. 3. Three ± 100 deg/s measuring rate gyros, required for vehicle motion analysis in case of a failure, are located in instrument compartment 12 at the forward end of the S-I stage.

,

, . :

.

....
_r_r _._¢_(%?Jt .....
3,

1
':

i
The _ 10 deg/s rate g3,ros indicated that the first four bending modes and the first torsional mode were excited duringportions of the S-I stage powered flight.

:

7. 4. l. 4 CONTROL •_ f " FIGURE 7-11. : .........

ACCELERATION

SWITCif

PITCIt AND YAW CONTROL ACCELEROMETERS SENSORS

Tltis is the second flight test which provided suitable data to evaluate the performunee of the control acceleration switch located in the Instrument Unit (SA-9 was the first). Laboratory tests on this switch indicated a switch closure initiation value of 0. 256 g with a time delay of 0.30 second (time from sensing of g value to switch closed signal).

7.4.1.2

ANGLE-OF-ATTACK

Pitch and yaw angle-of-attack components were measured by a Q-ball article-of-attack transducer mounted on the tip of the latmeh escape system. These measurements compared well with the angles of attack calculated from measured wind data, trajectory parameters, andtelemeteredattitede angles {Figs, 7-4 and 7-6). Maximum angles of attack of -1.42 degrees in pitch and 1.1 degrees in yaw were measured in max Q region,

Theswitch closed at 149.64 seconds; this is 0, 68 second after the vehicle longitudinal acceleration dropped below the switch setting and nearly 0. 72 second after separation command at 148.92 seconds. Taking into account the apparent time delay due to commutation of the measurement and the start of physical separation of the S-I stage, the actual time delay (0.8 second) is almost 0. 3 second longer than the predicted delay.

45

7.4.1.5

RESOLVER CHAIN ERROR COMPARISON

The total resolver chain error in any axis is the angle difference between the output angle generated by the ST-124 and the input angle commanded by the ASC-15 computer, A comparison between predicted and calculated pitchaxis resolver chain error is shown as a function of the pitch command resolver angle (Xxz) in Figure 7-12. The calculated resolver error was obtained by subtracting the calculated pitch attitude error from the telemetered attitude error. The calculated attitude error was obtained from a vector balance using the guidance system measured space fixed acceleration,

the body fixedpiteh and longitudinal accelerations, and the telemetered pitch steering command (Xz). Predieted and calculated values of pitch axis resolver error have the same general shape and indicate a positive bias of almost 0. 2 degree until 75 seconds and about 0. I degree thereafter. These pitch axis resulver chain errors had only an extremely minor effect on the vehicle altitude at S-IV cutoff.

Since the predicted resolver chain errors (based onlaboratery measurements) in the yaw and roll axes werevery small (less than 0.05 degree), no comparison was attempted between predicted and calculated values.

= l_t_l

" _X+_t " +_"P<

A++ Pt "_= Pt

= "rch.:+_,.tcrt, = C+tLculdt_,d O

d

Pit,

h .\ltlt+Jdt.

I rr++r F_rrt_r

P1t_

h .+,Itlt,tch+ S-[ b-IV +4t_. _+t,i_,"

(:++l_ul.,t,'d [ +,Icu}at_-d Me+_+itred

0

t_

l'itch _138.5

Program to"166.7

Arrcst s_,t)

O --

if+ l.+4++,,r,,t;,rv

0-4

_

_

_]

_

\

I:'_< tual-Commanded}

o _', _

to

u

_

so\

60

70

s0

,,o

too

.Ll+

+_+

-0.4

FIGURE 7-12. 7.4.1.6

CA LCULATED AND PREDICTED AND

PITCH AXIS RESOLVER

CHAIN ERROR of

FLIGHT CONTROL COMPUTER ACTUATOR ANALYSIS

The following tabulation presents a summary the maximum measured actuator flight data. Event Parameter Type of Data IAftoff I.4 Max Q 5.6 17 6,500 29,200

The commands issued by the control computer to position the actuators were correct throughout the entire controlled flight period of both stages. These cngioepositioning cornmands were wellwithin the Load, gimbal rate. and torque capabilities theS-I and Sof IVactuators.The maximum actuator command signals (At} issued by the control computer were ± 0.8 ma during S-I stage powered flight and ± 0. 4 ma between S-IV ignition and S-IV cutoff. Vehicle propellant sloshing frequencies (from 0,93 Hz at 70 seconds to 1.10 Hz at ll0 seconds) and other significant vehicle funclions (IECO, OECO, control system gain program changes, path guidance termination, etc. ) were all rcadily observed.

OECO 0.5

Gimbal Rate Measured (deg/s) Design Limit Torque (N-m) Measured Design Limit

5,70_

8, 100 was -0. 4

S-I stage (maximum actuator degree; occurred near max Q) Parameter Type of Data

deflection Event

Ignilion Gimbal Rate (deg/s} Measured Design Limit Measured Design Limit 1.4 15 206 1,180

Cutoff O.4

The S-Istage

telemetered

attitude error,

angular Torque (N-m) 371

rate. and lateral acceleration signals were analyzed with anopen loop analog simulation of the control aystern filter and shaping networks. The difference betweenthetelemeteredand simulated data is within 0.2 degree, which is within the accuracy of the flight measurements,

S-IV Stage (maximum actuator deflection between SIV ignition and S-IV cutoff was 0. 8degroein roll; measured at 152.3 seconds)

46

7.5 7.5.1

PROPELLANT S-I None POWERED

SLOSHING FLIGHT SLOSHING propellant tanks carried stage senwhich

7.5.2

S-IV The

POWERED LOX and

FLIGHT LH 2 slosh

SLOSItING amplitudes and fre-

t

of the S-l stage

quencies were very similar to those measured on the SA-9 flight. The slosh amplitude history agrees with the pattern seenon previous flights agree well with those predicted. 7.6 GUIDANCE The overall SYSTEM and the frequencies

slosh tanks

monitoringinstruments; were instrumented

however, both S-IV with a continuous level system

sor for the also indicate The pitch

S-IV propellant utilization S-IV slosh amplitudes. and yaw engine slosh are actuator

PEItFORI_LANCE of the ST-t24 guidance box, was

positions

were

performance

bandpass filtered at the predominant Irequeneies

frequency; the resulting shown in the top portion peak-to-peak 0.41 degree response in pitch and

system (ST-124stabilized guidance signal processor very satisfactory. guidance system quent 7.6. 1 parts of this

platform andelectronic and ASC-15 computer)

of Figure 7-t3. The maximum of the engines to sloshing was

Detailed analysis data is discussed section. INTELLIGENCE intelligence errors

ofthe telemetered in detail in subse-

0.32 degree inyaw at about 85 seconds of Fig. 7-13). The S-IV LOX slosh culated from onboard slosh monitoring transfer functions pared with SA-9 using engine at the bottom

( middle portion amplitudes, caland theoretical

GUIDANCE Guidance

ERRORS are defined as the cross by the para-

deflections, are comof Fil,mre 7-13. As on

SA-9, it appears that the actuator deflections result from the vehicle being driven by S-IV LOX tank sloshing from 75 to 110 seconds.

differences between the range, altitude, and range inertial velocity components measured ST-124 aeeoleromcters and the corresponding meters calculated from tracking data.

.............. , .............. , .................. [,.... "1 ,, ,, ,......... :v,., - ................ _...,, _-..,......... .. ",,I __ _ J.H x i.:,., 0._ -_ - ,,..,:, ,.,,_ o _.. ;" _

A
I "7 ....._._

The sources of the guidance intelligence errors may be divided into two general categories, component errors and system errors. The component errors, scale factor and bias, are those which are attributed directly to the guidance accelerometers. The system

...............

*'_, % "_-

;--_ ] i _--

.... -= -_g" _Ya. ,___-'a_ _ _:=-" _ _ _ •,_ ..... '.....

errors contributed the aceelerometers

by the stabilized clement on which mount are: _,_yro drift rates (con-

...............................

" .... • )

:'1 ....... ,,,. t..._ "" ' ..... _ .......... ,._ • ........

orthogonatity stant and g-dependent), accelerometer leveling of the platform measuring errors, direcnont_on8 and misalignment of the platform flight azimuth. Withthe exception of the leveling and azimuth errors, ments several weeks prior to launch. The leveling and azimuth errors were determined from data which were available only immediately before liftoff.

,,

_....,

;_,

."

_',, _ ,,,,

,,,%

The predicted for theSA-8 flight

ST-f24 test

inertial based

velocity

differences call-

were

on laboratory

,..] I

i

_

,_,.,,,....,, ............ ..... /,.._'.'.'_'._._"_-','_"-,, •__ "" '/

bration ofFig. ST-t24 the 7-14). 7-1 and due to errors

stabilized (Table Additional platform velocity system differences and azimuth launch data. alignment The S'I'componwith the from

accelerometer leveling were determined from

124 system ent is used ,_. .2, _.......... .--_;.:.-....... ...... ,-.-,, S-I POWERED error

3 o error band for each velocity as the standard for comparison differences analysis. determined

actual inertial velocity the postflight trajectory

FIGURE

7-13.

SLOSH DURING FLIGIIT

Figure 7-14 shows the laboratory and measured values for each parameter listed in Table 7-1.

_,

TABLE

7-1.

GUIDANCE

INTEI,LIGENCE

ERRORS

Parameter

Symbol

Units

(1) Laboratory Meas. Error_ Sources Prelaanch and Establlshedfrom Error Sources Traj. Analysis

bmrtial 3e Error Band Lab. AXI

Velocity

Difference _Yi

at S-IV Cutoff

(m/s)

AZi Lab. T. Anal.

T. Anal. Lab.

T. Anat.

I. System Errors a, Platform Leveling 1} About X Axis 2) About Z Axis b. c. Flight Azlmath Alignment Mlsallgnmonts Rotated + Z Ax_$ Rotated + X Axis Rotated + Z Axis Toward Toward Toward

deg LX LZ Az A deg deg MXz My× Myz -0, 0040 -0,0029 0, 0007 - 0, 0040 -0,0029 -0, 0007 -0, 0027 0. 0048 -0. 0014 0, 0016 0.0010 -0.0049

_0, 005 0 0.20 _0, 010 00. 0014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,3_ 0 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 0 0 -0.63 0 0 -0.21 0 0.15 U -0, 10 0. 05 0 -0, 63

Aceelerometer

1} Range (X) Acvel, 2) Altitude 3) Altitude (Y)

Accel,

(Y) Accel,

d.

Gyro Drift Rates, l) yaw (X) Gyro

Constant (AbouiX Axisl

deg/hr 6X .6Y -0,063 0.000 -0,039 0,058

_0. 075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.01 0.76 0 -0.73

2l Roll (Y( Oyro (About Y Axis)

e,

Gyro Drift aat_s, g-Dependent 3) Pitch(Z) Gyro (About Z Axis) 1) Ya_ (X) Gym (About X Axi_ Due to X) 2) Ya_ (X) Gyro (About x Axis :D R011 (Y) Gyro (Abot_t y AMs 4) Roll (Y) Gyro (Aboat Y Axis D,ae to Y) Due ix> -XI Due to _)

deg/hr/g 5Z 6X/_ 5 X/Y 6 y/_ 6 Y/Y 6 Z/_ _$ Z/Y 0,057 -0.146 -0,032 0. 072': -0.208" 0.177 0,035 0.055 -0,156 0.020 -0.028 -0,141 0.030 0.055

±0, 050 0 0 0 0 0 -0.09 0,08 -0.01 0 0 0 0 -0.02 0.13 -0.72 0 0 0 0 -2.44 -0.42 -0.69 0 0 0 0 -0.50 -0.06 0 -0,08 0.08 -1.00 -_.51 0 0 0 -0,08 -0. 05 -0.30 -1.08 0

#

5) pitch 6) Pitch 2.

(ZI (Z)

Gyro (About Z Axis I._e reX) Gyro (AboutZ AMS Due toY)

o

Component Errors a. Accelerometer Bias tl Ituagc (XJ Accelevometcr 2) Alti0lde (Y} A_celorometer 3) Cros_ Range (Z) Aecelerometer b. Accelerometer Scale Factor

m/s/s Bx By Bz g/g SF x SFy SFt. I. 32 x t0 -s 0.31.\ 10-5 2.64 ,'. 10 "6 -1.02 3,21 2.64 x l0 "s x 10 -$ x i0 -5 0 1.55 x 10 -4 -4.45 x 10-4 -2.01 5.55 -4.08 .x 10 "4 x 10 "4 _; 10 -4

±5 x 10 .4 0 0 0 _2 x i0 -s 0. 10 0 0 -0. 08 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0, 12 0 0 0 0. 10 0 0 0.35 0 0 0 -0.28 0 0 -0.25

1) Range (X) Accelerometer 2) Altitude (Y) Accelerometcr 3) Cross Raage (Z) Acculerometcr

(l)

Memo polarity

R-ASTR-G-213-65datedApri17, reversed Irom above melllontndum

19115

Total Dill(m/s) 0.35 -0.0l -3.72 1.23 -3.07 -3.7_

.......

3 _ Error Band

8

measured error sources Laboratory (or prelaunch)

0

from trajectorydetermined analysis, Error sources

Platform Leveling About X and Z (deg) 0.O10 LX 0.005 ____----_-LZ

Azimuth Alignment: (deg) 0.020 • AzA 0,010' .,_.._...i-..

Accelerometer Hisaligrunent (deg) 0.0028' Mx z 0.0014 ........ My x -------Myg --

Gyro Drift Rates, Constant (deg/hr) O. 150] I____ O.075 F----_ _X 5Y _m_m 5Z _

2
-0.005 -0.Ol0 ........... 0.010 -0.020 ......... 0.00t4 ..... -0.0028" -0.0042 _)' ....... ,_{ _ -_ 0.075" -0.150

Gyro

Drift

Rates,

g Dependent

(deg/hr/s)

Accelerometer

#1as

(m/s/_)

Accelerometer

Scale

Factor

(g/g)

0.20

_X/X

_x/_

_Y/X

_Y/_

5z/_

_Z/_

0.0010.

0.00004.

SFx

SFy

SFz

0.i0

010005

..........

0.00002'

I

I

IllIl

llllllIIIII

I_

1

o
.0.I 0

ff_
"0"0005I

o
Illl .....

HI
IO.OO002

o
..... I II_II

-0.20

......

N'L- ........
FlGURE 7-14.

-O.OOlO

-0.00004

-0.30 ST-t24STABILIZED PLATFORM SYSTEM ERROR SOURCES

_J. _vi_r

IIL/r

I_1 !

IAL

Examination of each inertial velocity component dffference (accelerometer-tracking) in Table 7-I indicares that the significant inflight velocity error sources do not agree with the laboratory and prelaunch error sources within the 3 o limits in the case of roll and pitch gyro g-dependent drift rates, and the range and altitude accelerometer scale factor. This analysis generally indicates the that the pitch gyro g-dependent drift rates were largestinertial least predictable altitude vnloclty and contributed the difference. Although

the altitude accelerometer scale factor error was beyond the 3 o limit, its effect at S-IV cutoff was minor. A comparison of the aceelerometer, tracking and

precalculated trajectory, inertial velocity components and total velocities is presented in Tabie7-[I. The velocity differences between the accelerometers and the tracking data indicate satisfactory consistency inertial at thevariousflight times. Only the cross range velocitydifference (accelerometer-tracking)fallsoutside the 3 _ band.

TABLE

7-II.

COMPARISON

OF (Xi,

INERTIAL _'i, Zi)

GUIDANCE

VELOCITIES

Event Range Time (sec) Data Source

Total Velocity Act. Accelerometer Tracking Precal. Traj. Accel. Precal. -Track. -Track. 3775. 6 3588. 3588. 3573. 8 7 3 0. 1 - 15.4 (m/s) Diff.

Range Velocity Act. 2031.7 2031.7 2033.4 0 1.7 2186.3 2186. 4 2186.8 0 - t7.4 -0. 1 0.4 2271.3 2271.2 2274.0 0.1 -14. 5 7479. 7479. 7482. -0.4 _0.7 14.5 4 3 5 0. 1 _0.5 3.2 7482.0 7481.8 7485. 2 -0. 3 14.6 0. 2 3. 4 0. I 2. 8 3144. 3144. 3124. (m/s) Diff.

Altitude Velocity Ack 2958. 3 2958.2 2938.4 0.1 - 19.8 3078.2 3078.2 3056.5 0 -21.7 0 0 0 0 -20. 0 3090.2 3091.3 3121.5 -1.1 _1.5 30.2 3088.5 3089. 7 3119, 8 -1.2 30. I (m/s) Diff.

Cro6s Velocity Act -0..5 -0. 1 -5. 3

Range (m/s) Diff.

IECO 142.000

-0.4 -5.2 -0. 5 -0. 1 -5.6 -0.4 -5.5 -1. 1 -0. 6 -6. 4 -0.5 -5.8 -0. 3 3.8 -0. 2 -4.1 1_1.9 4 0 o0. 3 3. 8 -0.2 -4. 1 -4.0

Accelerometer OECO 148. 050 Tracking Precal. Traj. Accel. Precal. -Track. -Track.

3775. 6 3758.2

Guidance Initiation 166. 690

Accelerometer Tracking Precal. Accel. Precal. Traj. -Track. -Track.

3878, 3876. 3864.

6 5 0

Accelerometer Tracking S-IV Cutoff Precal. Accel. Traj. -Track.

8092. 8093. 8107.

6 0 5

624. 151

3 a Error Band Precal. -Track. Accelerometer Orbital Insertion 634. 151 Tracking Precal, Traj. Accel. Precal. -Track. -Track. 8094.4 8094.7 8109. 3

50

- -

--, • | IP_,I.,

Figure 7-15 compares the inertial velocity cornpoaent differences (accelcremeter-tracking) with the 3 e error bands. The indicated predicted velocity differences atS-IVcutoffarethe laboratory total velocity differences from Table 7-I. Figure 7-16 shows the residual inertial velocity components (trajectory analysis-tracking) along with the velocity component differences (accelerometer-tracking and trajectory analysis results). The residual velocity differences fall well satisfactory
u red velocity

,._ _,_o_z¢_.f ...... ,.-_) c._,) _ _ o_co _ -t ! "_ _.., T_=,_,,_ _bo

s-_ I _oc, I I ! ! _*"...... ]

_ ._ _. v._o_._D,_..._. c_o _..) J! !_" _c_ u.,. T,., ,___
I -_____

_'"_"

within

the tracking

accuracies,

indicating

a

trajectory
difIe rences,

avalysis

solution to the meas-

._

r_

I

I

FIGURE 7-15. INERTIAL VELOCITY COMPONENT DIFFERENCES (ACCELEROMETER - TRACKING) 7.6.2 GUIDANCE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS

FIGURE 7-16. RESIDUAL INERTIAL VELOCITY COMPONENT DIFFERENCES {TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS - TRACKING) The contribution of all individual errors to the total guidance system error is tabulated in Table 7-l-v" forvarious trajectory parameters at S-IV cutoff. The upper portion of the table presents a detailed breakdownof the total measured errors for the most significantparameters. Comparison of the total measured errors (ST-124 stabilized platform system errors + schemeerrors+S-IVcutofferrors) withthe 3 _ values reveals that only the cross range velocity (space fixed and inertial) exceeded the 3 cr error band at S-IV cutoff. This cross range velocity error, though target than the 3 ¢rband, was within -0.72 m/s of the value predictedbasedon laboratory ST-f24 system calibrationdata. The ralhergoodagreement between the predicted and actual cross range velocity error demonstrates satisfactory performance of the ST-124 in this parameter. The total space fixed cross range velocity difference of -3.79 m/s was caused primarily (93 percent) by the ST-124 system error. Table 7-I presentS a detailed listing of the error sources which contributed to this ST-124 system error. The scheme errors shown in Table 7-IV consist of nevigationand computation errors. The error values listed for S-IV cutoff were due to either small time delays

A comparison of the precalculated trajectory and ASC-15 computer space fixed velocity and velocity components atS-1V cutoffwifhthetracking data is presented in Table 7-][IL The velocity differences (cornputer tracking) fall withinthe specified 3 (7error bands with the exception of cross range velocity difference which is approximately 2.1 times larger than the 3 _r value but in good agreement with the predicted error, The total space fixed velocity difference of 0.51 m/s was apportioned amongits three components as follows: AX s (22 percent of 0.12 m/s), AY s (61 percent or 0.32 m/s), and AZ s (7 percent or 0.04 m/s). The space fixed range and altitude velocity differences ( computer tracking) indicate the excellent performance of the itsrattve guidance mode (IGM) scheme in the pitch planet i.e., while AX s and _Ys vary widely from the precaiculated trajectory values, thetotal space fixed velocity vector difference is only 0.51 m/s. This is the second flight test in which the predicted and actual space fixed cross range velocity differences fell within 3 o (± i. 81 m/s) of eachother at S-IV cutoff,

- -

°

TABLE

7-HI.

COMPARISON

OF SPACE (624.

FIXED

VELOCITIES Range Time)

AT S-IV

GUIDANCE

CUTOFF

151 Seconds

lYala Source

Vs Total Velocity <m/sl 7672.08
7671.57

-xv s AX s AY s _ Cross Total Xs Range Ys Altita_ Cr_ss Range Velocity Range Velocity Altitude Velocity Range Velocity IMfferenee Velocity Difference VelOcity Difference Velocity Differer_e tm/sJ (mls_ (m/s_ Im/sJ (m/s? (m/sl (m/sJ 7258.53
7258.40

ASC-15 Compamr
Tracking

-2483. 31
-2482.26

-87.83
-84.04

Preeal.

Traj.

7672.06 0. 51

7255.20 o. 13

-2492.

98 -1.05

-87.56 -3.79

Compater-Tracldng
3 a Error Band

.0.70

.0.40

.1.63

±1.81

precal.

Traj.

- Tracking

0.49

-3.20

-10.

72

-3.52

TABLE

7-IV.

GUIDANCE (624.

SYSTEM

ERRORSAT Range

S-IV Time)

CUTOFF

COMMAND

151 Seconds

Erzcr-'-* Err, r parJmetet Un_t_ S_o| [ ETr"_ ,_ i_a_:,I

a_.,u_ml*_

T.,.,_ _,_,_, ,,_
T oea! Ra!i_hs Ue. tor

o, ....
+

_

_,_

0o:
:.

,,_,
-

_7_._ _
: -261 0.(_-

R_n_t' V" 1°' It'2"

'"'_

_:[_ .

f_-i2

D

O Ol

C.II

-t,.,_ -1 ,

|

0 2_-

_

--

_250 &x+ _5 . _l)[ 2: +'1 [ -:o.

!
I

--

..... _ .............

-

.+.__++t>
_ Cr,+s+ x+n+tSA++ Gtlldnn¢e 'vatm P:_r:_mt'ter+

+_

] °+ +
i
+ + AZ + l ++':l_t+ ; S_mboL

:

[

i
I

.........
.....
Prts+ttill+ j

_

+:

°
o +SO-IS C+mmll+t+t

i

-""
-527 _ra+kim_

I +,.:+ + ,

+....
+] LI

i ++
+
J

+ -+-+
,
I [ C

+

I)tspta.,.-

..... '....... ++

-t22 Pr+_.lh,,t.,_+_' Tr+Jc_tor+

-:Ol Error

i
g

c. 'r Error

+
Error D i Compr.Tr.

Try]error+

pl+s+L-_r+

pr*..-+lc.3rlr

Radi.,+

i+ttor

Y'¢I

+,,Sg_ ap+ + 7

6.aS:,+q6

+

n,ag+',_0%5

('*88e,.5_,.L

-I ....

+ :

l

ma,ll,.s V+.tor Rate of Chan_e

m/_

l

Y_r

-0.,, _ _

(_.5 _. Evro_ g3.__ 0.+,t

-o.q,: F_t[ogs TO 0.63 _ +

-l.O

o.to -

[

t

+5

o.t,:

_.es td_*a I Er r.,r. !f- Io[_ I D._O _

: ssc,_sa+v pa rametors 6:_ _a_,nc_. _,_to[ [ v t-loL ig_

L'_xts m_$

S._bo I _

3o Error +0.21 _,335 -16l +1.,_ +1._2

Ba

D_ o.+_

[B-J_!

!
i 1

--R'l'Ji_ $ Ve_ tot _ RltO change g,l,ti,_sof Ve.tor

-m+_

_ _/t_ _%e_

0.("+ 13.11_

0.G_ 0._g

(..OC_i 0.(i l

-"

._* Uns}_L_L_aL ] ,-_*l_._,e$ due [_*ll_ are _lJ_eS _n ghe ASC-I% comotl[_ or i_ [11_ cuid.,;1_e-.-stem. t _ Error f:lctvrs zre _er t a. l.O_ in,li_._te that the total m,-_.:,re.I fret, r e_aeld s (i,_ appl_ _h}e I _e_ll.r _'e_id'!31 errtlt_ egts_ on[- _!ll're ttl_- _l',l_IS_l'J error _._eectl th(-3_r,'.r.

---I

ITI

" --

It-

(total, range, and altitude velocity) or bias conditions existingin either the guidance hardware (range, altirude. andcross range displacement) , or were a result of unidcal vehicle conditions {space fixed, cross range velocity}. The errors attributed to the ST-124 system are equal to the total measured error {computertracking} minus the scheme and S-IV cutoff errors, The error factor is the ratio of the total measured errorto the applical}le 3 a value. The residual error isthe differencehetween total measured error and the
absolute applicable 3 _value.

updated "C" resolver readings much closer to liftoff and minimizes the possible inertial velocity errors sensed by the computer at liftoff. This scheme eliminuted all inertial velocity errors at SA-8 liftoff.

c+....._.., v.to,., ._, _,._,+.. ...... Rtaht_ c.J,) ,o) c.,_._. ._p+_.,,,,,t _._ m _I it
(Po*tt+_ o.... i i

s.,,. <="""
i

The lowerpartof son of the principal

Table 7-1%"presents a compari"in-plane" guidance system para-

0 -0._ -_.0 (_ -'_ _ V

_ .,_ m,. .,__ _i *'°_* t" "" _ _.. :''] ,_+_ z_ i

meters (ASC-I 5 computer prcsettings, precalculated trajectory, andASC-15 computer) andtracking at S-IV cutoff command. Thevelocityerror, the radius vector error, and the radius vector rate of change error fail well within the 3 o error band in each case. In Table 7-V, ASC-15 computer tracking at orbital the precaleulated trajectory parameters are compared insertion. As in the case and with of the

v_ ._ _L_s,+,._ c_. i

comparison made at S-IV cutoff, the total measured errors (computer-tracking) at orbital insertion all fall within the 3 o error band except the cross range cross range velocity was significantly larger than the 3 a e rror band although it was in fairly good agreement withthe predicted value. The increase in vehicle total velocity between S-IV cutoff command and orbital insertionwas 2.98 m/s which agrees very well with the predicted increase of 3.10 m/s. The satisfactory performance of the yaw plane (delta-minimum) guidance scheme is shown in Figure 7-17. The ASC-15 computer cross range velocity and displacement atguidance initiation {-1.1 m/s and-105 m) were reducedto minimum values at about 400 seconds. The increase in all parameters (velocity, displacement, and steering command) after this time is due to the increasing vehicle lateral CG offset and/or increasing thrust vector misalignment. Due to these conditions, the cross r_nge velocity and displacement increased to -0. 3 m/s and -122 m at S-IV cutoff. 7.7 7.7.1 GUIDANCE SYSTEM HARDWARE GUIDANCE SIGNALPROCESSORAND DIGITAL COMPUTER ANALYSIS

+!]
o ._., _0

j ,_,

: I :_ _c, _.

_

,

,

i \ ,_ ,'_ ,,,..,_: ,,_o_, :o ,_,_+ t$ *-.,,J.- <+_ +-._

:I
FIGURE

,oo

3_c :_ _,o,_T,_, c,. _ "_

._ i i

7-17. YAW PLANE DELTA MINIMUM GUIDANCE PARAMETERS

S-IV cutoff occurred 4.43 seconds earlier than predicted; this condition _s attributed to the higher than predicted performance of both stages. The precalculated space fixed velocity at orbital insertion was 7675.18 m/s; the value determined by tracking was 7674.46 m/s+ The difference of only O. 72 m/s verifies our ability to achieve a desired orbital insertion velocity accurately. The digital computer issued all its sequencing command functions satisfactorily. The total delay (including the data acquisition system) between the predicted and actual sequencing times was 0. 002 second for the S-I stage sequencer and 0.014 second for the Instrument Unit sequencer. The bit-by-bit comparison program was used to evaluate the infltght operation of the ASC-15 computer equipment. This analysis was made to confirm the

The overall performance ofthe guidance system hardware was completely satisfactory. The countdown procedure introduced on Kk-9, which forces a recycling of the digital computer back through guidance release 45 seconds before lifteff (rather than almost 2 minutes before), was continued on SA-8, This approach gives

-

__.

53

_n

TABLE

7-V. COMPARISON

OF GUIDANCE

PARAMETERS

AT ORBITAL

INSERTION

(634.i51 SECONDS

RANGE

TIME)

Parameter

Precalculated ASC-15 UnitsSymbol Trajectory Computer

Tracking Error Total Mass Error EsUmated TrajectoryI Precal-Trk) (ASC-15-Trk) 3o Error E Band 7674.48 0.72 -15 -0.008 -21 -3.10 -10.75 -3.50 8,409 -3,046 -991 -4.01 0.60 -5 -0.010 -10 0. 45 - 1.10 -3.78 -8 -18 -492 -4.07 _0.85 +402 -313 +0.014 -0. 012 +402 -313 +0, 43 -0. 55 + 1.98 -1.86 +1.79 -2.53 +250 -202 +379 -323 +381 -585 +1.92 -2.26 +311 -701

Erro_ _,+ Factor Residttal *++ E Error 3_ [E-3_t 0.71 0.02 0o 83 0.03 0.82 0. 59 1.49 0.04 0.06 0, 84 1.80 i. 81 1.25

TotalVelocity TotalRa_as Vector Path Angle Altitude Range Velocity Altitude Cross Velocity Range Velecity

m/s m deg rn m/s m/s m/s m rn m i m/s

VS RT 0S h XS YS ZS XS YS ZS 7. i

7675.18 6,884,642 90.000 50%570 7230.13 -2574. 09 -86.91 2,308,591 6,485,869 -46,969 -0. 16

7675.06

6,884, 65'_6,884,657 89.998 509,581 7233.68 -2564.44 -87.19 2_300, 174 6,488,897 -46,470 -0. 22 90.008 509,591 7233.23 -2563.34 -83.41 2,300,182 6,488,915 -45,978 3.85

Range Displacement Altitude Cross Displacement Range Displacement

J
Cross Range Velocity (Inertial) Cross Range Displacement (Inertial)

m

Zl

-180

-124

442

-622

-566

0.81

:' Unsymmetrical 3o valuesare dae to known biasesin theASC-15 computer or in theguidancesystem. ':'*rror Factors greaterthan i.00 indicate E thatthe total measured error exceeds theapplicable 3orerror. "+_'Residualerrors exist ':+ onlywhere themeasured error exceeds the 3(r error.

correct operation of both the physical equipment and the _light program. Due to the nature of the analysis program, not all of the guidance computer telemetry was examined on a bit-by-bit; only those quantities computed by the flight program were examined. All navigation and guidance quantities were examined but minor loop telemetry, which includes aceelerometer readings and mode codes, was not examined since these are comlmter input quantities, The total number of computer telemetry words from liftoff to entry into the cutoff loop was 52,248. Of this number, 51,244 or 98.1 percent were available for examination by the bit-by-bit program after the staging dropouts. Fifty-nine (59.0} percent of the telemetry was examined by the bit-by-bit program, the remainderbeingminorloop telemetry. Thus, 57.9 percent ofthetetal ASC-15 computer telemetry during the time interval considered was examined in this analysis. An estimated 2.0 percent of the telemetry was lost due to dropouts. This number includes the data lost in the RF blackout during staging. From this analysis, it was concluded that the ASC-15 computer and flight program operated cotrectly during flight, 7.7.2 ST-124 STABILIZED pLATFORM IIARDWARE ANALYSIS SYSTEM

range accelerometer). All these measured v_tIues indicate normal servoloop operation. The range and cross range guidance accelerometer encoder outputs verified the satisfactory" functional performance of these instruments. The three phase pow'er supplied to the ST-t24 system by Inverter number 2 bad thefollowing average voltages: Phase AB Phase BC Phase CA 114.8 volts ae 115.5 volts ac 1 t 5.0 volts ae

Phase voltages are specified to average 115 =_1 volts ac under a balanced load anti to differ from each otherby not more than t. 5 volts ac. The three phases averaged 115. l volts ae and the maximum difference was 0.7 volt ac between phases AB and BC. The 56volt dc supply averaged ms acceptable 55.2 volts. The measured ST-124 internal ambient pressure of 7.45 N/cm 2 ( 10.8 psi) did not quite remain within its specified lower limit of 7.6 N/era 2 (ll. 0 psi) by 0.14N/cmZ(0.2psi). Thisconditioninnoway affected the performance of the ST-124. The inflight temperature of the ST-124 inertial gimbal was 5 ° K colder than during laboratory calibration. Ifitisassumedthat the guidance aceeleromcters experienced the same internal temperature shift, then the range and altitude velocity errors would have been significantly affected by the change in the accelerom-. eter scale factorerrors. A temperature shift of 5 degrees would resultin an error of 0.75 m/s in the range veloeity and 0. 31 m/a in altitude velocity at S-IV cutoff. The cross range velocity error resulting from such a temperature shift would be negligible because of the near zero acceleration experienced by the Z aecelerometer. The tra)eetory analysis solution to the range andaltitudevelocityerrorsindicatesan accnlerometer internal temperature change of about -1 degree appears possible. At liftoff, the maximum temperature of the ST124mounting framewas 295°K, some 2 degrees higher thanthe Instrument Unit ambient temperature, as expected. 7.8 ST-t24 GAS BEARING GN2 SUPPLY SYSTEM

The overall performance of the ST-t24 system was satisfactory. Table 7-I shows the various error sources which contributed to the total predictedand measured inertial velocity component differences (aeeelerometer-traeking). The predicted velocity differences (based upon the hardware error sources determined by laboratory platform system calibration tests plus prelauneh measured ST-124 leveling and azimuth alignment errors) agree withthe inertial velocity deviations determined by tracking within the 3 u band for the range and altitude values (± 0.5m/sand ± 1.9 m/s respectively). The predicted and measured altitude velocity differences do not agree within the 3 a band (_ 1.5 m/s) although the measured altitude velocitydeviationfallswithin the 3 aband. The range velocity component is unique in that both the predicted and measured differences fail well within the 3 a band and also agree closely with each other, The three goyro stabilizing servoloop error signals indicated maximum values ranging from ± 0.15 degree (pitch gyro) to ± 0.25 degree (yaw and roll gyros}. The redundantgimbal servolooperror signal measured a maximum angle of -0. 01 degree. The peak values of the three guidance accelerometer servoloop error signalswcreO. 7degree (altttudeaeeelerometer transient during ignition) and :_ 0.35 degree (range and cross

The SA-8 gas bearing GNz supply system (located inthe Instrument Unit along with the ST-t24 stabilized platform system) provided dry andhighly filtered gasetins nitrogen at a regulated temperature, pressure, and flowrate to the ST-124 gas bearing components. This supply system consisted of one high pressure

55

storage sembly,

bottle, a heating and pressure regulating aspressure limit switches, calibrationand check

valves, temperature and pressure gauges, and interconnecting tuhing. The detailed arrangement of the system is presented in Figure 7-18.

SCH = Standard -. . (est) m Escia_ated

Cubic

Hecer

f Lh?_:lor . "_ \ _z?__+5_ (s) )
(esC_ Hand Calibration Gauge Pressure _ Valve "_'_ _ _ -? 1%1 2 ,_, N/cm (S) _21_ ,/cm \ _

_Co. P_es,._e ,P - HighP.e...rs
(S) (C) (M) _ = Specified = Calculated = Hsasured f_

!

. I

/2

(S)

\k

_2.41

to 7.45

N/cm z

(C)J

o,.,,ere /
Filter

;
Pressure Regulator .._

"["'"
13._ nlcm2_d (s) 13.6 N/oaZd (M) _ aeate_ Ass_bty

/
_ 0.0_,6

co.=,.o. ,..e
SQ41min (C)

_TU

Umbilical Plate

FIGURE 7-18.

ST-124

GAS BEARING SUPPLY SYSTEM ground supply before liftoff. This value is well within the specified launch requirement of t941 to 2217 N/cm t g (2815to3215psig). From tiftoff to S-IV cutoff, the ST-t24gasbearingconsumed0. 482SCM (9.5 imrcent) of the total usable supply of 5.10 SCM ( 180 SCF). The average inflightconsumption rate of the gas bearings was 0. 0463 SCM/min, or 5.5 percent less than the predicted rate of 0. 049 SCM/min, based on the KSC pressure dropoff test with the ST-124 installed in the IU. However, it should be noted that the inilight GN2 consumption was 20 percent higher (SA-9 was 25 pereenthigher) than KSC laboratory pressure dropoff test results. The cause of this rather large difference in GN z consumptionbetween laboratory and flight results has not been determined for either SA-8orSA-9. About two hours before liftoff, the average ternperature of the GN2 supplied to the ST-124 was 295"K (298 • 5*K specified) and the measurement was displaying its characteristic thermostatic cycling. At -120 minutes S-IV LH2 loading began and the temperature dropped rapidly, reaching the lower measuring rangclimit(293°K) at about-l10 minutes. The measurement remained off scale for about 10 minutes, then gradually increased to atxmt 294"K lint returned to the measure limit of 293 ° at liftoff. The

The SA-9 and SA-8 supply system were modified somewhat from those employed on previous Saturn Block II vehielesbeeause of the change to the uupressurizedlnstrament Unit. The ST-124 enclosure pressure was used as a reference ( instead of the IU ambient pressure) to maintain the gas bearing supply differential pressure. This was accomplished by routing a pneumatic line from the ST-124 enclosure back to the GN_ pressure regulator, The ST-124 stabilized platform enclosure ambient pressure was constant at 12.41 N/cm z (18.0 psi) duringlaunch eountdownand the first 20 seconds of flight, The pressure decreased as expected; it reached 7.45 N/om2(10. Spsi) at S-IV cutoff. The pressure at cutoff was approximately 0.14 N/cm 2 ( 0.2 psi) below the desired minimum value of 7.58 N/cm z ( t l. 0 psi), but this may well be due to instrumentation system error, The desired minimum pressure is based on providing an ample range of safety abovethe 5.52 N/cm _ (8.0 psi) critical minimum ambient operating pressure of the ST-124 gas bearing components, The performance of the supply system was satisfactory. The GN2 storage bottle (0,028 m3) was pressurizedto2148N/em z (.2115 psi) by the high pressure

measurement remained off scRle throughout flight. The temperature of the GN2 supplied to the inlet of the STI24 is estimated to range from about 293°K at ifftoff toaround 288°K at S-IV cutoff. The GN2 temperature • probably averaged about 8 to 10°K below the specified valueof298°K. The ST-124 inertial gimba] temperature and the ST-124 mounting frame temperature averagedabout 5°Klower thanduring laboratory tests. This temperature shift apparently had a minor effect onthe ST-124 accelerometers, increasing their scale factor errors in the neighborhood of +1 x _0 -5 g/g.

The preset pressure regulator differential pressure {between the gas bearing supply pressure measuredatST-124inletandthe reference ST-124enclosure

pressure of 12.80 N/cm2) was 13.55 N/cm2 differential { 19.65 psid). The regulator was set at this value to provide the specified differential pressure of 10.42 • 0.35 N/cm 2 differential (15.0 ± 0.5 psid) at theST-124inletmanifold. Prior to liftof[, the average pressure differential (gas bearing supply pressure minus ST-124 enclosure pressure) measured 13.79 N/cruZ differential;inflight, fl_ecorrespending average pressure differential was 13.79 N/era 2 differential 20 seconds after liItoff and 13.58 N/cm 2 differential at S-IV cutoff. The estimated ST-124 inlet manifold differential pressure was 10.35 N/cm 2 differential during early flight and 10.56 N/cm 2 differential at S-W cutoff, well within specified ST-124 inlet manifold supply pressure requirement of 10.07 to 10.77 N/cm 2 dlfferenthLl (15.0 • 0.5 paid}.

m

57

SECTION VIII.

STAGE SEPARATION

R,lalivc Lu,_tgitudinalTra_s!attun I I I

#m)

Separationof time Skak-8 vehicle was accomplished First motionbetween stages was observed within 0.05 secondofseparationcommand. The S-W stage engines cleared the interstage command. Separation within 0.86 second of separation transients were relatively small

15

Sep_raeion B_,.s

...._-_ SepJrat*_ _,sEa.,.v,_t -$A-_ s_pd,_.., ....

,0 _ _' _. _,
]_,F,.5 I

andwe,desigu within requirements,
Separation of the Apollo shroud was initiated at 805.97 seconds, 4.22 seconds earlier than predicted. The velocity imparted to the S-W/Pegasus due to separation functioned m/s. The system was -0.22 as planned.separation and ejection

i

ii - j-/-lit_
[&q o I._ ", l_.0

_// ¢_" I

!
i
i'll." | ]1(, _'.[_ i',2. 0

R ..... r_. ,_. ," _ _: _,, l,_,,, v, _,_) 1 i l

8.2. i

TRANSLATIONAL The actual distance

MOTION sequence for the SA-8

:_' 0 !1/ ,[ _'_ _--

separation

shiclcis shoin

separation

was determined

8-,,rstmotion time
from extensometer

I I
I

i

and accelerometer data. Figure 8-2 shows the sepagreater than the specifiedminimum distanceand is greaterthanthepredicted nominalseparationdistance. separated by 12 m at S-IV ignition two stageshad Figure 8-2 also shows thevelocity rationdistancebetween stages. increment is 9.0 m Thewhich imparted to each stage inaddition the total to relative velocity between stages.

-zo "_' JO I i_. _

IIv,.'.: i"_. i ",_ ]_.__

i

v/_Is_"T '_'.0 l_'. _O.O _

i --_ 1 _rwc l_' _' _' _ _,_ _ _ _:.

FIGURE
I i

.....

8-2. SEPARATION DISTANCE INCREMENTAL VELOCITIES

AND

* _ ............
I"

After separation the pitch and yaw angular rates of the S-I stage increased to -2 and -i dcg/s ( Fig. 8-3 ). This is approximately the same magnitude and direction observed on all Block II vehicles and could be attributed ............... rockets. : to a systematic misalignment of the retro

'_ [, {{ -_--_--_

'

.......

.... -'

_

i{ ii {, __l__

Very small S-W stage pitchand yaw rateswere observedduringtheseparationperiod(Fig. 8-3). The roll transient occurring at separation has the same characteristic shape and opposite direction as that of S-IV-9; however, the magnitude is only 38 percent of that seen on S-IV-9. The maximum S-IV-8 roll rate was 1.1 deg/s and can be attributed to a 0.13-degree total ullage rocket misalignment. No problems were experienced in controlling these roll excursions. Figure 8-4 shows the attitude error suiting from the separation transient. signals re-

FIGURE 8-i. 8.'2.2

SEPARATION SEQUENCE

ANGULAR MOTION were well berespectively,

Attitude angles and angular rates low design values of t degree and I deg/s, at the start of separation,

58

P.t. _, ,_.,_.,t,.r

v,-t._,.Iv

Id.+_fl)

c*N,,,, ,*,,_

imparted

to shroud

the

S-IV/Pegasus,

determined

from

the

I

Apollo

separation.

+, 1
s....................
W_a,,_,,l.. v,ao_._ Cd.-_/.r (* _......_htj •

"
-,_g_'_ guidance aceelerometers,
Pitch (Nose 1.2 Attitude Up) Error (deg)

was

-0.22 m/s

due tothe

1
,

:

^A

L
I I

^ ..........

_

0.8

1
"

I

Separat i ] 146

io I 150 l_Range Time [58 (st'c) 1_2 160

+- :
i-l_ -2

J +,++___., •
-VZX_

",Z "
.... __ e t.

"

"-i_ _

t+

r_

^

: ^ I_,o y_ (Nose Attitude Right) ] I Error (deg)

a_._* I,m.+ts,-,)

j I

_,A . b-IV _t_g,%A-M l_,,_,$l,- r _a "+B.o_l,: SA-. S-IV S_e

1.2

"4

0.8

lgnitit_n

,-t
]]

I
i
l

FIGURE

8-3.

ANGULAR

VELOCITIES

DURING

0.4

"

8.3

APOLLO Apollo

SEPARATION SHROUD SEPARATION shroud separation occurred at 805.97 see-

0 .0._ ' -0.8

I _ I 150

_

_
I 154 15 _

'

'i Separati°n 146

[62

Ibb

ends, or4.22 seconds earlier than predicted. During the Apollo boilerplate spacecraft separation from the S-IV stage, the vehicle tumble rate was negligible. The low tumble rate induced negligible loads into the Pegasus guide rails, Roll A_it,de
(CW From Rear)

Range Time (se_)

Error (deg)

t. 2

Predicted spacecraft displacement and velocity relative to the S-IV stage were baaed upon a 32 percent energy loss due to friction, determined from test results. A comparison of the predicted and measured data, presented in Figure 8-5 indicates the 32 percent energy loss to be a fairly close estimate. The displacements and velocities were calculated using di-

0.8 , , _t o._ 0-0._ I
146

s-+v It /t" _i.°"71/%

\
' tin
150 154 158 162 166

mensions from an engineering flectmanufact_ring tolerances ments. The scatter in the data attributed to these inaccuracies. this evaluation system thatthe as Pegasus planned. functioned

drawing and do not reor assembly misalignfrom the guide rails is It is concluded from separation and ejection impulse The velocity

-0. _ I s,,p_r_

Range _tme (see) FIGURE 8-4. S-IV ATTITUDE ERROR DURING

SEPARATION

59

--_.245m

_---

_

Roller 1.2788m ---_

9

F 1.2623m

Guide _Rail ---_1.0886m_

i;

Sta. I -_.1905m1_----; i 40.274 m Displacement 5 Q Measured _Measured (m)

Sensor

Switch m

Sta. 44.340

Value, Value,

Guide Guide

Rail Rail

1 2 /

js

]

/

2 f
f

I

_'_

Predicted

0806 Relative 1.4

807 Velocity (m/s)

808 Range Time

809 (sec)

810

811

I

1.2

ft__v

lo
0.8 I 0.6 _

_*

j>.<

_

Predicted

I t
I

0.4 0.2

L

0 806

807

808 Range Time

809 (sec)

8 I0

811

FIGURE 8-5. PEGASUS SEPARATION COMPARISONS

60

SECTION IX.

STRUCTURES

9.1

SUMMARY

_o.

,

,

The SA-8 vehicle experienced maximum bending in the pitch plane at approximately 64. l seconds. A maximum static moment of 720.0O0 N-m was experienced at station 23.9 m ( 942 in). The LOX stud strain valid data foronly the first of polarity. The structural expected and measurements reproduced 42 seconds due to reversal

_:'

L.,-,_ r...... , ._,.t.........

_(

//

A: ,_,r.:.,r

.......... / ,,

as

flight loads on SA -8 were generally no POGO effects were apparent. on SA-8 were ,,

The bending oscillations observed not significantly different from SA-9.

The vibrations observed on SA-8 were generally within the expected levels and compared well with those of SA-9. Combustion chamber dome vibration measurements were invalid. The limits. There structural 9.2 9.2.1 9.2.1.1 S-IV stage vibrations were within expected

e

, , , _........ "...... _--'

t

FIGURE 9-1. SA-8 PITCH BENDING MOMENT AND NORMAL LOAD FACTOR 9.2.1.2 MEASURED VALUES

was no evidence of S-I/S-IV degradation da ring separation.

interstage Very little information was obtained from the LOX stud and tension tie measurements on SA-8. Of the 16 tensiontie scrubbed prior measurements onthe vehicle, 7 were to flight, 3 produced bad data during

RESULTS DURLNG S-I POWERED FLIGHT MOMENTS AND NORMAL LOAD FACTOR CALCULATED VALUES

flight and 3 were questionable. The LOX stud measurements produced good data up to approximately 42 seconds but had the polarity reversed due to an installation error. The reversed polarity caused the data to be useless after 42 seconds. The evaluation of the bending momenta and axial loads on the S-I stage was limited to the data from the LOX stud measurements. Strain measurements were made only at the LOX stud and tension ties located at the base of the spider beam at station 23.9 m ( 942 in). For the first 42 seconds the data received for SA-8 agree well with predicted and appear to follow the same general trends. The moments and axial loads obtained for the first 20 seconds were extremely low and correlate well with the wind speed and wind shear recorded for SA-8. 9.2.2 LONGITUDINAL LOADS Measurements used to evaluate vehicle longiresponse fall into the followingcategories: 1. Structural acceleration measurements 2. Engine combustion chamber pressure measurements 3. Engine LOX and fuel pump pressure rheasurements

The Saturn SA-8 vehicle experienced the maximumbendingmomentinthepitchplaneat approximately 64.1 seconds. The distribution of this moment is presented in Figure 9-1 together with the normal load factor, Figure 9-1 was obtained from accelerometer readings originating in the IU. An angle of attack (_ p) of t. 8 degrees a_d a gimbal angle {/3 ) of 0.92 degree was used at 64. 1 seconds along with nominal aerodynamic and weight data to computethebendingmomentandloadfactor. The gimbal angle was held constant and the angle of attack was varied so that the load factor line passed through the telemetered acceleration point shown in Figure 9-1. The value for _p used in this load analysis gree higher than the telemetered value. is 0.4 de-

tudinal The maximum static moment of 720, 0O0 N-m was experienced at station 23.9 m ( 942 in). This was 64 percent of the maximum moment experienced on SA-9. The slope of the load factor distribution line indicates the rotational acceleration of the vehicle,

61

A frequeneyanalysis was performed on measurements with suitable response to determine predominant frequeneies and amplitudes. In addition, a cross correlationanalysiswas performed to investigate the relationship of the vibrations of each measurement. The first three predicted modes ofvibration could not be isolated using the bandwidth available for frequency analysis. These modes are characterized by motion of the S-I stage propellant masses and no significant movement of the structural masses. The first mode obtainable from the frequency analysis exhibits the same characteristics as the predicted fourth vehicle mode, essentially a main beam mode having a 17 Hz frequency. The second mode obtained from the irequency analysts corresponds to the fifth vehicle mode, a main beam second mode having a 25 Hz frequency. An investigation was made to compare the calculated response of the system for the observed applied forces during thrust buildup period. The lmlifdup period is defined as the time interval from ignition of the first engine to vehicle liftoff. The engines were scheduied to ignite in pairs, with 100 ms delay between pairs to limit the vibratory force to 20 percent of the static thrust. Figure 9-2 shows the engine staggering times (ignition delay) to be closer to the desired 100 ms than previous flights, giving a dynamic response of only 7 percent of the maximum static thrust. This compares to 13 percent on previous Block II flights,

_.,_,...... _.._ ,_, . _V _ ! \ _......... " .... _ __j_. !/1 f_ ./L i_J_ _ _._ _r ! - _y' v_d _ _" _ _ Vv'v-J " -V I ! ', ]] , i ...... '......... , i ,i i J , : __ _...... : ;' -:......... _ FIGURE 9-3. UPPER PEGASUS SUPPORT RESPONSE TO S-I IGNITION

I I '•

A cross correlation analysis is being used to investlgate the possibility of POGO having occurred during the SA-8 flight. Pre.liminsry results indicate no evidence of POGO. 9.2.3 9.2.3. BENDING OSCILLATIONS i BODY BENDING

The SA-8flight data show no significant dlfference from the SA-9 flightvehicle. The same instrumentaUonwasusedonSA-8 as was used on SA-9, with the highest accelerometer located on the Instrument Unit. The response amplitude for SA-8 was higher tAmn that for SA-9, with a maximum amplitude on the InstrumentUnitof0.05 g at a frequency of 0 to 10 Hz. However, thisis eonsidereda low amplitude response. A filter bandwidth of O.66 Hz was used to evaluate the data. Mostof the accelerometers responded throughout flight and indicated the expected flight results. However, during the first 150 seconds, three accelerometers appeared and be questionable. to be misaligned. to one appeared Two exhibited excessive noise However, the data received from these accelerometers

........ _ _ _ _ ! ._ _ __ _ _ , _1, _ -. ' _ , _ ____ / :

_,,_.._ I _

_, '_'_ ! _ ,_,

_.°........ . ............. _ ! _[_ [ _...... A t -_' _- _-_'T_-I ..... _"' '_ _'_ ._ _ [ -_ _ ' _.. '_'1 ....

Figure 9-4 presents a eomparsion of SA-8 flight frequencies with SA-8 dynamic test frequencies for vehicle station 37.6 m (1479 in) and station 35.6 m (t40Oln) and xhow good agreement. Figure 9-4 alse

.o. 1 ........... ' "_-_ ,_1

:,-b--r" = I
_ .,-....P"

.....

',I i k

_"_"'',"

the pitch accelerometers located in the IU and In the S-IV stage, stations 37.6 m (1479 in)and 35.6m (1400 ,n)orespectively.These f|_res reflect peak amplitudes occurring in the regions of Mach ! and

FIGURE 9-2. SA-8 THRUST BUILDUP CHARACTERISTICS Tberesponseofthe structure supporting the Pegasus mountingbracket was determined for SA-8 during the thrust buildup period. The measured response is compared with calculated in Figure 9-3.

After separation of the S-[ stage and jettisoning of the LES, oscillograph records indicate negligible response levels. 9.2.3.2 FIN BENDING

Predlctedanalysis of the SA-8 fins indicated that the aeroelastic stability margin was sufficient to

62

............. _ / : _'_ l! "'__' _i I' _I---" I-" i( "_ ' / _i : ' -_-"_'_

between coupling

the frequencies

occurred

near

the

velocity

of the two modes was insufficient dynamic

to produce butthe

flutter. correspondingtomaximum

pressure,

i

'

.... '....
_

f

....... ," -"'" "'¢"t .....

/

_.

"
[st Torsion

- -_i -

--

'

'
I

'

J

r

i

I

7

./,

/ ................

io

_-

,

!

_L .............

_ _

_

i

FIGURE .*oo FIN BENDING AND TORSION MODES 9-5. 400 *,on 800 {0oo 120o 9.2.4 9.2.4. S-I VIBRATIONS t STRUCTURAL MEASUREMENTS

FIGURE 9-4. VEHICLE BENDING FREQUENCIES AND AMPLITUDES, PITCH preclude any possibility of instability. Evaluation of the data taken from fin measurements on the flight of SA-8eonflrms the ana]ysts results. Six accelerometersweremountedon FinIlandoperated throughout the boost period. Data weresllghtly clipped for a portion of the flight but were considered satisfactory for the evaluation, Data, in the frequency range of O to 50 Hz, were analyzed for variotls time periods during boost. The cross power spectral density analysis indicated predominant frequencies of 29, 36, and 43 Hz at the time correspondingtomaximum dynamic pressure. These frequencies correspond well with frequencies obtained from previous flights and with frequencies obtained from vibration testing of the fin. The first mode obrained from testing exhibited a frequency of 29 Hz and was predominantly a bending mode. The second and third modes exhibited frequencies of 38 and 45 Hz, and werepredominantlytorsiotmlmodes. Theflight remflts agree very well with remzlts of the vibration tests, Predominant modal frequenciesversusvehicleveloctty are shown in Figure 9-5. This figure illustrates the trends of the first bending and first torsion modes toward frequency coalescence. The minimum spread

Therewere 17 accelerometers located on the S-I stage structure. All telemetered vibration data appeared valid except that from the rear spar flange on Fin 1L Vibration levels measured on the shear panel located between Fin Lines HI andIV were anusually higb; however, the response of the remaining S-I structure was normal throughout powered flight anddld not exceed expected levels. The maximum vibration was induced by the acoustic and aerodynamic noise environment present during launch and max Q. Table 9-Ilists the maximum vibration levels encounteredatvarious S*l stage locations. A time historyof the S-I-8 structural, engine, and component vibration envelopes are compared to S-I-9 in Figure 9-6. 9.2.4.2 ENGINE MEASUREMENTS

There were 29 accelerometers located on the H-I engines and engine components. A comparison of overall S-I-8 and S-I-9 engine vibration levels are shown in Figure 9-6. All telemetered vibration data appeared valid except the combustion chamber dome measurements (Etl & E33 series). The measured vthration of the engine components was slightly higher than expected throughout powered flight. Maximum vibration was self induced by the pressure chamber oscillations caused by the propellant combustion.

63

TABLE 9-L

VIBRATION SUMMARY

Area

Monitored

Max

Leuel

Flight Per led Remarks

(Grms)

STRUCTUP_L

MEASUREMENTS

Shear

Beam/Shear

Panels

22

120

sec

Max. response at LO and _3s

bt.t_eee similar lII& 22G's. seconds.

fin ttl

lines SA*9. IV

I & II _as 10. c G's The measurement exceptionally a max r, spo_se

between fin lines high response Of of 25 g*s at 127 Shroud Panel 23 52 sec Critical periods'of than non-critica! was clipped at 26 Measurement 8.7 82 see The SA-8 SA-_ for Retro ehan is

sho_d an SA -_ sbo_ed

flight periods. z's.

had 6._ times Max reopens,

higher durin_

respen_e SA-q

Rear Spider

Spar Beam

FlanGe

invalid levels _ere spider about I g lower beam meas. onlv. C.7 G's tha_

response the interior

Retro

Rockets

6.1

78

sec

rocket #3 max Levels

had on

max SA-9.

response.

lo_er

ENGINE Thrust

MEASDR_dEBTS Chamber Domes data. Large discrepancy from bet_eelt adjacent _clcmet('red

fn_alid data and

hardwire

data max (enGine

meas_trements. _hich x3s &.5 G's

Turbine

Gear

Box

22.8

55

sec

Engine higher Max at

02 exhibited rha_ SA-_ inlet i_

vibration #6)

Fuel Heat

Suction Exchanger

Line

2.9 17.2

B5 85

se_ sec

flange

perpendicular direction.

to

flo_. 2@.I G max in

SA-8 max yaw direction Ha× [1._ 12 level g _x g's

longitudinal on SA-9.

COX

Line

on

Eng.

G6

15.2

26

sec

_t collector on SA-_. than :tots SA-g. _ith

man:fold

parallel

to

llo_.

Fuel on tag

Wraparound #6

Line

39

3g

sec

higher static

SA-8 no

max

_ibr_ions damage

measured resulting.

during

structural

_ONENTMEASURI_dENTS

Hard Mounted Panel F-2 Shock Panel Mounted F-I

Instr.

14,5

64

sec

I g higher on panel.

than

KA-9.

27.2

kG

(60

[bs)

of

components

I_SKr_ 3.2 Mounting b.9 LO 73 sec 1.2 g lower on panels. 6.1 g max than on SA-W 9.l kg (20 lbms) of components

9A3 Distributor Bracket (F-l)

SA-9.

hSSTRm_'r _ITt
STRUCTURAL Lower MEASURt_ENTS Mounting Ring 8.4 67 sec Measured SA-9. between fin positions lll& IV. _ K max. o_

Upper

Mounting

Pin

8.5

LO

Measured SA°9 max

between levels

fLii positions during Mach

]II I.

& IV,

Clnse

to

COMPONENT M_ StmOdENTS
ST-f24 ST-12& Support Inertial Mtg. Frarae timbal & l.& 9 57 L0 see 1.8 f.5 g max g higher on SA-9 than at holddown. Q response. of Did not iuurease gimb_l

SA-_ i max

the vibration from SA-9. Supply Panel Computer Support 3.5 2.2 6.& 6> 64 LO sec sec 3 g max g max during

level

significantly

ineTti:li

Air

Bearing

max

Q

on Q

$A-9. on SA- c. support. 6.2 g max o_ SA-9.

RFAssembly Guidance

2.8

during to

max

_erpendivnlar

compllter

64

{Z_ _, "

9.2.5 9.2.5.

S-IV

VIBRATIONS MEASUREMENTS

i

I

i STRUCTURAL

[ "r

_

ring of the forward interstage. The vibration history exhibited the expected characteristics,

time in that

i
...... _' o _ _ .... t......... .... r_. _,,_ _......

I

the levels were highest during launch and max Q periTwo measurementsnowere made on the forward ods of flight. There were indications of structural weakeningor failure throughout flight. S-IV-8 struetural vibrations Figure 9-7. are compared to previous flights in

:

.

.

.

,

,

--

_m rs*._)

FIGURE

9-6.

S-I

STAGE

VIBRATIONS

.......
a.n_,. T,.(_,)

,0_

_0

,_o

,L:

were

invalid.

Acquisition

of reliable

data from

these .. ...... ,..._

_'-_ _' ....

measurements remains a problem. Comparison between telemetered and hardware data obtained from
large discrepancies between the two. An acceptable explanation as to why these data were distorted is not available at this Lime; however, the problem is being

(z;] '_T_f '"

_"

S.........

" "'

>

investigated.
9.2.4.3 COMPONENT MEASUREMENTS

There were eight accelerometers
various vibration measured powered components in the S-I stage. data appeared valid. The on the components flight and did not occurred supporting

located on
0 _ _ ,._ _ ,o _ ""_" _'" _'*_ _;_ _,'o _o

All telemetered vibration levels

were normal throughout exceed expected levels.

FIGURE

9-7.

VIBRATIONS POWERED

DURING FLIGHT

S-I STAGE

Maximumvibration periods whenthe

during the critical flight vehicle structure was ex-

9.2.5.2

ENGINE Twelve

MEASUREMENTS measurements were made on the en-

cited by the acoustic ments, S-I-SandS-I-9

and aerodynamic noise environcomponent vibration envelopes

are compared in Figure 9-6.

gines. The accelerometers

were located on the gear

65

i

case housing of each engine, the PU valve positioner of engine 4, andat the attsch points of the LH2 and LOX feedlines to engine 1. As established from previous flights, the vibration levels on the engines were low and considered negligible during S-I stage powered

.... '........... "_! [ _t i

' _

+[T:.j,, • _/_ _ _......... i :

9.2.5.3

COMPONENT

MEASUREMENTS

• :] |

Sixteen measurements were monitored on the S-IV -8 stage at the thrust structure, aft skirt, LH2 tank,

night.

forward LH2 tank dome, and aft LOX tank dome. The thrust structure measurements were located at the cold helium regulator, PU computer, inverter, helium heater, and heat shield. The aft skirt measurement was made at the exploding bridgewire (EBW) unit. The LH 2 tank measurements were made at the attach point of the eoldhelium sphere to the tank skin. The measurement in the thrust direction did not provide usable at the LH2 tank vent valve. The aft LOX tank dome measurementswere made at the LOX PU probe, LOX tank vent valve, and LOX feedline.

_t_ 'ii "

,. ,_.-

--%,

J

{
,._. •.....
I

_

,,

,

•,,'_........... _'_ _ t i ' i I _L ': =i " ,
"

[ [

I

i

data. The vibration levels tank dome measurements The forward LH2 measured at the various cornwere ponents were well within expected limits during S-I stage powered flight and would not contribute to operational maltunctions. The S-IV-8 aft skirt vibrations were lower than the vibrations measured at the ullage rockets on previous flights. S-IV -8 component vibrations are compared to previous flights in Figure 9-7. 9.2.6 INSTRL_IENT UNIT VIBRATIONS

__.

:'

,"

FZ//-///_. '_" _" _ _.......

]_,

J.<

_+,

v

FIGURE 9-8. INSTRUMENT UNIT VIBRATIONS DURING S-I STAGE POWERED FLIGHT appearedvalid. ThevibraUonmeasured on the ST-124 guidance system was normal throughout powered flight anddid not exceed expected levels except for a measurement on the ST-t24 mounting support. Maximum levels occurred during the critical flight periods when the 1I/ skin, to which the component mounting panels were attached, was excited by the acoustic and aerodynamic noise environment (Fig. 9-8). 9.2.7 APOLLO (PEGASUS) VIBRATIONS

The Saturn SA-8 vehicle was the second of the BlockIIseries to fly a prototype model of the production Instrument Unit. Components were mounted to panels which were attached directly to the 3. 048 m (120 in) diameterwall instead of in pressurized tubes asbefore. The SA-S vibration levels correlated closely with the levels measured during SA-9 flight. S-1U-8 vibrationenvelopesare eomparedtoSA-9inFigure 9-8. 9.2.6. i STRUCTURAL MEASUREMENTS

There were eight accelerometers located on the upper (Apollo) and lower IU mounting rings. All telemetered data were valid. The vibrations measured on the mounting rings were normal throughout powered flight and did not exceed expected levels. Maximum vibrations occurred during the critical flight periods when the structure was excited by the acoustic and aerodynamic noise (Fig. 9-8). 9.2.6.2 COMPONENT MEASUREMENTS

Therewere fouraccelerometers located on the micrometeoroiddetection satellite mounting rings. All the telemetered data were valid. The vibration levels measuredon this structure compared closely with the SA-9 levels; hence, a norm for these measurements has been established. The vibration of the upper MM C mounting ring was measuredattongeron 6. The maximum level reached 3.0 Grin s during max Q. The comparable SA-9 level was 4. 2 Grms during launch. The time history envelope is shown in Figure 9-9. 9.2.8 9.2.8.1 STRUCTURAL ACOUSTICS S-I STAGE environmentwas measAll of the telemetered

various

There were IU components.

16 accelerometers located on All telemetered vibration data

The S-I stage acoustic ured with three microphones.

66

..........

k"

'

I t -_

: ' [ i

: _ ........ i........ i ' I i ,

I J [

::

! I I 1 -_r !1

were inconsistent with previous data; however, these data were obtained from a magnetic tape which is believed to be of inferior _ality. Preliminary investigationofdata obtained from another tape indicates the SA-8 acoustic levels were more consistent measuredieted, andwithSA-9measuredlevels. The with prement is being studied further. 9.2.8.4 APOLLO

, t%, X'" iI "_'_--_-"T "°

t-_" + __ _ .............

I '

...... _"_*'_ +|, " _'_ ............ FIGU]RE 9-9. PEGASUS V/BRATIONS i +,_ T r i i -....... _ !

The internal acoustic environment of the Apollo stage was measured with one microphone at station38.2 m ( 1503 in). The maximum level measuredduringlaunchwasl40.7dbanddaringMachllt was 135.5 db. The predictedlevelswere i39.5 and 130.0 db, respectively. The SA-9 levels were 140.0 and 132.5 c_, respectively. 9.3 S-I/S-IV INTERSTAGE

acoustic data were valid except for an internal measurement in the thrust structure area. The remaining S-Istage acoustic measurements were normal throughout powered ffight. Themaximum noise occurred during launch and max Q as anticipated. Theacoustlc environment measurements internal to the thrust structure at station 4.4 m (172 in) are considered invalid after lifteff. The data were unusually high and had abnormal characteristics which were particularly noticeable after 70 seconds of flight, The internal acoustic environment in the lnstrumerit compartments of fuel tank F1, at station 23.4 m (920in), reachedamaximumof i35.5_ during launch andl31.0_odurlngmaxQ. The predicted levels were 136.0 and 131.0 db, respectively. The SA-9 levels were 136.6 and 132.5 d_, respectively, The internal acoustic environment in the instrumerit compartment of fuel tank F2, at station 23.4 m (922in), reaehedamaximumof133.3db daring launch and 127.5 db during maxQ. The predicted levels were 136.0 and 133.0 _, respectively. The SA-9 levels were 135.5 and 133. Oc_, respectively, 9.2.8.2 S-IV STAGE

Fifteen additional channels of instrumentation were utilized on the SA-8 vehicle to monitor any panel debonding anomaly such as that observed on SA-5 and SA-7. Six channels were used to establish the interstage temperature and pressure environment (see Section 10.2.6.1). The remaining nine channeLs ( strain, breakwires and shockacceLeration) were used to studythe structuralbehaviorbefore, duringandafter separation. Location of the special aft interstage panel debonding instrumentation is shown in Figure 9-10. Biaxtal strain gauges were installed on the inner sklnadjacenttothe exterr_tl engine GH2 chitldown duct brackets, between fin planes I and IV and fin pLanes II andHIat station 29.1 m (1145.7 in). The strain data are presestedinFigure 9-11. These gauges appeared to functionnormally and the strain histories generally followed the trends of the predicted strain enveLopes. The deviations noted between predicted and actual strains after 80 seconds of flight can be attributed to lowerthanpredictedskin temperatures. The clrcumferential leg of the biaxial strain gauge shows an increaseafterlaunchtoapeaktensilestrainatthemaXlmum skin temperature. Subsec_ently a gradual reduction in strain with a compressive dip at IECO and OECO, corresponding to the Poisson effect, was recorded. These dips resulted from the Loss of axial acceleration. There was also a sharp dip at separationresulting from the loss of hoop restraint. A unlaxial strain gauge was located on the bracket supportingthe disconnect assembly between fin planes I and II (area of previous debond) and between fin pLanes II and IH. The primary purpose of the gauges was to establish any abrupt change in strain levels. A malfunction of a disconnect assembly would have been reflected by a large negative strain (compressive stress) in the instrumented leg of the bracket. Since no behavior of

Two microphones were fLush mounted internaliy and externally to the forward interstage. Due to an instrumentation maHtmction, neither measurement provided usable data during the flight, 9.2.8.3 INSTRUMENT UNIT

The internal acoustic environment adjacent to the guidance system was measured with one micruphone at station 37.8 M ( 1490 in). The SA-8 reduced data

67

FIGURE 9-10.

S-IV AFT I_TERSTAGE

VIEW LOOKING OUTBOARD WITtI INTERSTAGE

FOLDED

FLAT

_;" , _ _.z_. -_'_°" [ : _0 _ _:: i ,/" I .._'-_

_° '_'"" _" _" ,-,_ ._.. ,, _ _._

this nature was indicated, It has been concluded that nomalfnnetionoec_rred. The strain data recorded at separation was very erratic although it appears that some tensile load was induced into the brackets. However, normal disconnect operation would be expected to produce tensile loading. I _ There at was an seconds after abrupt change in strain on both brackets 140. 6 liftoff, more severe betweenfinplaneslIandHI. The abrupt strain result changes

1_ ...... _ ..... [

I __._

,,

, _ -./"'4
J ;

______;_

_ !

[ !

[ /I I/
_

il [ _ J

! _i
_ _, f

activation of ll_e blowout panels. are considered to have beena

of shock from

,,,,, .,

_. :F.._,,',o. _ _ " ..i. .'. e" .." I i _ .... _[ • _,-. -,,-. ,,.o

Anaecelerometer was installed on the inside skin of the interstage adjacent to the disconnect support bracket between fin planes I and II. After activation of theblowoutpanels,thisaccelerometerpicked up a longitudinal component, indicating hattheaccelerot metermountingbeeameloose. Anunexplainedphenomenonalso occurred in thisaceelerometer;fullscale transients were observed at II.5 seconds after liftoff and 4 seconds after separation. The transients were overdrivenaccelerometer.All other transients an inthe damped by low frequencyoscillations,ndicating i data can be explained by expected shock influences. Two break'wires were installed around the inside circumference of the interstage. Breakwire number I spanned only the panel in the area of previous debondingwithminimumoverlapontotheadjaeent panels.

:'=:....... -"; ..... F _'" ....... "_ 1 [ .... ].,... ._":_':::L'--_.. ] _. , _[ ..... "_ i I _!" | /_b._]_.j " .ooo _ L_"_'_"_._/__I "_--_..Z..%-.-_ "_ _

I1 I j_ ? _ "_i I ]

_"- ' ......•i _ _ -_. ,_o A=_A ! _,_ _ _ ._ ,.,,_ ,_, L _-_ -'
FIGURE 9-11. S-I/S-IV INTERS'rAGE STRAIN

I

]

_' 4_°

68

Breakwire

number2

covered

the

remaining

seven number

panI in-

.

.._,r.,_,.._ _._ ] j i _ r:,,

c,..,_ ,:,_.-

elsmakinguptheinterstage. dieated no breakage tion. Breakwirenumber2 sbconds as a result event was correlated the integrity of the In summary, instrumentation have before,

Breakwire

during, or after separaelectrically shortedat 140.6 of the blowout panel shock. This with the strain data to verify that interstage had not been damaged. results installed of the evaluation of data to determine structural degree of confidence

_,,,hr:,tt,,,

_:

e,,v,._,,_ ,,_ ,, r._..,_ :... _,,, ,._ .-._._r _"_' • ........ ¢t:_s) p.v..,, _.......... t_.-,.L D:..,_ .....

_,

the

from

behavior that 9.4

established debonding DLr///NG

a high occurred, S-IV

:7
. -_ k-,:, _,.. 1 ........

r,,_,_ _,,.,,...... :_, .:,.,,.) ,, (.c ,.,. ,

no panel RESULTS

POWERED

FLIGHT

9.4.

f

BENDING
I

No did

significant during

body fligbtbeeause separation.

bending

motion

was obmoments
" _

z,,_ A,.t,..,, ,,, ,c,.._.

_;_.

_,:L ....... c._,.,..,.. M .......... -T..... _. .....

",.

servedontheS-IV-8 not occur

disturbing

94 ,,vIBT o os-,voweD RA lO,,S, E
FLIGHT 9.4.2. I STRUCTURAL MEASUREMENTS of the forward interstage indicated very. low vibration The two measurements on the forward ring levels andwere considered negligible duringS-lV stage powered flight. The levels were expected this location due to its remoteness from which are the source of vibrations. 9.4.2.2 ENGINE Engine MEASUREMENTS to be low at the engines, ' -' 1 _

_ S;*-_ rl i#,; /////'////.//////././/J/////J///L_////J//i/f///f///////_

, E:] r_,..-?, .r2._,_. * ,_ ........... :,..0 } q

r

r

_,.,,,e,.,,,-,.,..........._... _,: w_ _,,. _,

__----yz777W/'___ _',,, ::,,

,7, _ '"*:' _ .....

7:.

.,

._,,

FIGURE

9-12.

VIBRATIONS POWERED

DURING FLIGHT

S-IV

STAGE

Aecelerometers measurements were made in the gear of the LHz and case, PU valve positioner, and at the LHz and LOX feedline. These vibration envelopes are shown in Figure 9-12. The engine vibration environment was considered normal throughout S-IV stage powered flight. 9.4.2.3 Oeeasinnalhighnoise data from gear case levels were attributed vibrationlevelsappearednormal powered The flight, vibration levels measured on the PU valve Levels measurements. were observed These in the Component takenatthethrast ward LH2 tank high noise The stage COMPONENT

were LOX feedline

located

at the 1.

attach The

points vibra-

to engine

lion levels were slightly higher than rite levels measured during acceptance firing of the stage; however, the magnitude of vibration was within the design requirements for the feedline. MEASUREMENTS vibration measurements were

to electrical problems. throughoutS-IV

structure, dome, and

aft skirt, LH_ tank, foraft LOX tank dome. These

vibration levels were low during S-IV stage powered flight and should not contribute to operational malfunctions (Fig. 9-12). The vibration levels of the components mounted to the thrust structure ( cold helium regulator, PU cornputer0 inverter, heliumheater, and heat shield) eompared favorably with the levels established from previous flights. The component measurements aft LOX tank dome were the LOX PU probe, on the LOX vent

positioner of engine 4 were high (ll Grins) in the lateral direction as compared to 4 Grin s in the thrust direction. Static test data also showed high vibration levels onoccasionsatthls location with no detrimental effeettothe levels sidered PU valvepositioner. Therefore, direction are thehigher not conmeasured in the Lateral to be detrimental,

69

valves, and the LOX feedline. The increasing vibration levels observed be[ore cutoff are considered norreal and are attributed to the decreasing mass in the LOX tank. Thevibrationlevels were less than 2 Grin s throughout S-IV stage powered flight. 9.4. 3 INSTRUMENT UNIT VIBRATIONS

magnitudeas the levels measured stage period. 9.4.4 APOLLO (PEGASUS)

during the S-I main-

VIBRATION levels were negligible

The Apollo vibration during S-IV powered flight. 9.4.5 APOLLO (PEGASUS)

ACOUSTICS levels were negligible

There was no significant vibration in the IU during S-IV powered flight. The vibration levels measured during this period were the same order of

The Apollo acoustics during S-IV powered flight.

70

SECTION

X.

ENVIRONMENTAL

TEMPERATURES

AND

PRESSURES

i.0. I

SUMMARY The aerothermodynamic environment measured .,_ ......... .. _v

measuredonpreviousSaturn

I, Block

]I flights.

Ther-

:. a

_

__

gion were generally vious environments flight data. ms[ on SA-8 for the was nearly first time

similar to those indicated The flame shield thermal in most areas of the S-I-8 the same as the SA-9 as part

by preenvironbase re-

__ z. o _s _ /_ I _._ _ 7 _ _

u

environment

:_r_

on S-/V-8

of an experiment _. • ,.6 _ _-sA-: _ sA-_ :_ __ __ _I . |

to determine

the interstage

panel debondingphenome-

non observed during S-IV separation on SA-5 and SA-7. Datairom these measurements furled to reveal either the cause Pressure of the panel failure measurements and temperature or that this phenomenon were flown

10.2

S-I STAGE

ENVIRONMENT

Msastlredpressure

environiTLents

in

the

area

2o

4o

_o

80

lOC

t2o

i_o

ofthe tical sults

spider beam fairing (Fig. I0-i) showed no crideflations from the expected values orfrom reof previous flights. A maximum pressure differSpaS,., s,_ (P¢ orn _rtn_ezll _. C ----" PAmb_t}

_._.,

r,,_

i_-.)

ential of approximately 2.5 N/cm 2 ( crushing load) was measuredaerossthe fairing at 64 seconds. Throughout flight, very little deviation is noted from the data

[" - --

r._i_ _ (NY' ] S.-k-8

ll_ _]

x_t.... '

: P,,. .....
Ill / ":"_ ' '

fairing showed abnormally high values as compared to internal absolute pressures inside the spider beam bands ofpreviousflightS. During the first 44 seconds, previous flight data (Fig. 10-1). This deviation is not and istheorized to he the result of a plugged pressure considered representative of the actual enviromuent

l._ _----_ _ i ° "_.,,._,

/ S_^I_ " ." -_

_ _'_ i ! L._

_._._..._

!

t0.2.2 SKIN TEMPERATURE AND HEATING a'ter 44 p°rtwhichseemst°have ]seconds, c|earede°mp|ete|y
RATES

-:.o ............... "t° --i--0 :0

-- _-40 60 Hangs: "l ira,-

i_'-si-[---_
8c (st.<) lV,_ 1:0 l_O

Temperatures

measured

on

the

SA-8LOX were Skin FIGURE 10-1. SPIDER BEAM FAIRING PRESSURE

tanks, 60-dagree tank fairings, and tail shroud generally withinthe band of previous flight data.

temperaturesmeasuredon the side panels and leading edge oft he large fins were in excellent agreement with provionsflightdata. The fin thermal environment ohtained from Saturn I flight data has been consistently less severe than originally predicted, which has permitted the use of a fln leading edge made of aluminum (instead of the heavier stainless steel) and a further reduction IB tins. of 90 kg of thermal protection on the Saturn

ENVIRONMENT 10.2.3 BASE PRESSURES comThe

Measured pressure on the S-I-8 base paredwellwith previous flight data (Fig. 10-2). heatshield experieucedaminimumpressureofapproximately 0.7 proximately N/cm 8

2 below ambient at an altitude of apkin. At approximately 13 kin, the

7i

FIGURE

10-2. S-ISTAGE BASE PRESSURES temperaturesrecorded intheheat shieldouter region were slightly under 1200°K at an altitude 12 kin, of whileintheinner regiona maximum value of appreximately II50°K was recorded justprior to S-Istage IECO. Engine shroudandfintraflingedge temperagas tures agreed well with those measured on previous flights.Temperatures recorded in these two areas reached peak valuesbetween 1000"K and 1100°K near the altitude of 25 kin. Flame shield gas temperature data obtained from both a short probe measurement (mounted flush with surface) and a Long probe measurement (mounted 5.5 cm aft of surface) were generally below the average valueobtainedbypreviousflight data (Fig. 10-3). As expected, temperatures measured with the long probe sensor were higher than for the short probe sensor. At altitudes above 20 kin, this difference in temperature averaged about 150°K for SA-8 as compared to approximately 200°K on SA-9. A maximum temperatureofapproximately2050°Kwasmeasuredby the long probe at an altitude of approximately 8 km, after which the temperature decreased to steady values of between 1700*K and 1730"K after f0 kin. Temperature data from the short probe were below the Block If data band between the altitudes of 7.5 and 17 km and generally fell in the lower portion of the band at altitudes above 25 km.

average pressure on the heatshieldrose tovalues aboveambientdueto recirculationf thehot engineexo haust gases. As expected,the greatestvariationin the base pressure occurred on the flame shieldnear thecenterwhere pressuredropped to 2.5 N/cm 2 below ambient atapproximately 2.5 km (Fig. t0-2). Thereafter, pressureincreasedsteadilyand reacheda maximum leveling-off value of approximately I.7 N/cm z aboveambientnearanaltitudeof35km. Flame shield pressuredataare incloser agreement withSA-9 data thanwithprevious Block H flight results, which is attributed to the relatively similar trajectories flown by SA-8 and SA-9. 10.2.4 BASE THERMAL ENVIRONMENT

Thermocoupleand calorimeter data from the S-I stage base region show that the thermal environmeat in most areas of the SA-8 base region were very similar to those indicated by the previous Saturn I, Block II data. As is customary, the base area was divided into five major regions of assumed uniform beating: heat shield inner and outer regions, flame shield, fin trailing edge, and engine shroud, 10.2.4.1 BASE TEMPERATURES

Gas temperatures measured on the heat shield inner and _uter regions are in excellent agreement with the Block H data band. Maximum gas

72

FIGURE t0-3. FLAME

SHIELD GAS TEM PERATURES FIGURE 10-4. INNER REGION HEATING RATES

10.2.4.2

BASE HEATING RATES

deviations yet been

f Ref. 3), but no conclusive information has obtained to account for these phenomena.

Heating rates to the S-I-8 base region in some instances were higher than expected. This is true primarilyof the heat shieldtotal heating rates, Both total and radiationeating h rates are presented[or each of the five major areas ofthebase regionin Figures 10-4 through10-7. Totalheatflaxesto theheat shieldinner region were higher thanpreviouslyrecordedataltitudesabove 20kin (Fig.10-4). However, radiation heat ratesand the previouslydiscussed gas temperatures indicate good correlation with previous flight results. Data from one radiation calorimeterinthisregionhave indieated, for the first time in Block H flights, an unrealistically sharp drop in the level of incident radiation (Fig. 10-4). This drop occurred between the altitudes of 5 and 25 km and values are not considered representative of the actual environment. A similar occurrence was observed on the S-I-8 outer region, as inprevinusflights. Based on laboratory tests, several possibleexplanationshavebeenofferedtoexplain these

Heating rates to the heat shield outer region are similar,in many respects,tothose recorded forthe inner region (Fig. I 0-5). The one radiation heating measurement near fin H again seems to be givingan erroneous indication as it also didonthe SA-7 and SA-9 flights. Total and radiation heating rates to the S-I-8 flame shieldweregenerafly ower thanthosemeasured l on previousflightsFig. I0-6). Since thegas tern{ perataresinthis regionwere alsolower than recorded on previous flights, itis concludedthatthe overall flame shield thermal environment recorded on SA-8 was less severe than indicated for the previous [our Saturn I Block II vehicles. Both total and radiation heating rates from the SA- 8 fin trailing edge were in excellent agreement with previous flight data. The only difference between the SA-8 fin trailing edge heating rates and the Block l] 73

t, [.L _.,

7]_. t_tt._2

i.e,.¢,.,=

_o,

r,.,= _,t.

_=)

SA-8hada maximum peak heat flux of 13.5 watts/cm 2 as compared to a maximum peak of 12 watts/cm 2 for Bl6ck upper II vehicles. limit of the Between Block 50 and band 60 km altitude from the 5 .... _--_ _. "

;.;

.; _ '_! •

[ i i ,, i

.

'" .. _ , .

' i :_.

- "_:' : '

II data

decreased

ILl

_ 1V

i

Total

Heat

Flux

(vatts/c_

2)

I

20

*:

T !

,7 l 1 ' ,

'
to Total Heat Flux (_tts/(_ 2)

b:, '6)'5(6- 4 "
I

, J

1V

5

30 25
&ltitude ( k.'_)

] -? --

_0a_l:_t_. H_at_ri.x (_rt21I i s/c=
30

!

I

20

_,___ I-- --

i

r

_

!;

!: ....

[5

0 10 20 Flux (uatts/cm

I)at_

B_nd 30 (k_)

40

50

Altitude 10 5 _ f --Radiation I_eat 2)

0 0

Io

2c

]o Aft Lt,,d< (tom)

4o

50

6O !

FIGURE

10-5.

OUTER

REGION

HEATING

RATES

ts

........

were the ducing rates most

ingoodagreementwith inflight flight calibration data. These

previous method SA-8 engine

results shroud

based in

on re-

generally

used

heating zo__i:2_____i__:_t_a____I.:__ o o to 20 3o _]_.de FIGURE 10-7. ENGINE (_) HEATING RATES 40 so

Measured are shown total Figure fluxes in h_at 10-7. to Since engine the results shrond from of the Block II flights have disclosed unrealistirates, it is concluded that data on the engine shroud SA-8 and SA-7 flights.

cally low radiation heating reliable incident radiation havebeen received only

for the

SHROUD

74

10.2.5 t0.2.5, l

TAIL COMPARTMENT

ENVIRONMENT

ENGINE COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURES

Gas temperatures in the engine compartment remained normal throughout flight, indicating no excessive temperatures or fires occurring on S-I-8. Structural temperatures in the forward side of the heat shield, as for previous flights, followed the pressure dependent curve of the saturation temperature of water, signifying that water and ice were again present in this area as on previous [lights. 10.2.5.2 ENGINE COMPARTMENT AND THRUST FRAME COMPARTMENT PRESSURES Pressure environments in the thrust frame

Pressure instrumentation in the aft interstage area consisted of one external static pressure recasurement, two internal (compartment) pressure messurements, and a differential gauge to measure the pressure difference between the sealed honeycomb cell and the interstage compartment. Pressure time histories of data from all these measurements are shown in Figure 10-8, The internal and external pressure data are shown, differenced from ambient, in Figure 10-9. Noevidence of ullage and retro rocket plume effects was oblained by the external static pressure sensot, which was located near the LH2 vent line between finpositionsIandIVatstation28.6 m (1127 in). Data measured by this sensor during the earlier portion of [light indicate a maximum pressure variation of approximately 0.75 N/cm 2 below ambient occurring at 60 seconds (Fig. 10-9). Measured pressures were lower than predicted because the effects of prOtuberances were not considered in the predictions. The pressure sensor was actually in the low pressure base region generated by the vent line support bracket. The pressure environment inside the aft interstage compartmentwasmonitoredby a static pressure sensoriocatedat station 28.7 m (1129 in) between fin positions I and IV and a total pressure probe located at station 29.0 m ( 1145 in) bet_veen fin positions II and HI. The lattermeasurement isa total pressure sensor ( 0 to 13.8 N/cm 2 range) in that the pressure orifice inside the compartment is facing forward, having the ability to detect any total head pressure that might arise from the main engine exhaust striking the interstage during separation. Reduced data from this sensor indicate no pressure rise resulting from engine exhaustgasimpingement. A maximum pressure variation of 0.26 N/cm 2 above ambient was recorded on SA-8 at approximately 85 seconds indicating that the pressure environment_ats similar to that measured in the same general vicinity in previous flights (Fig. 10-9). The ceil-to-compartment pressure differential reachedamaximumvalueofapproximatelyI3.2 N/era 2 near S-I stage cutoff, which was within expectedlevels and well below design limits (Fig, t0-8), Absolute honeycomb cell pressures, caloulatedby summing differential and compartment pressure data values, did not show any response to the expected constant volume heatingresultingfrom retro and ullage rocket exhaust gases. 10.2.6.2 DETONATION PRESSURES Detonatinnpressure switches located near the separationplane revealed that there was no detonalion or overpressurization o[ the boattail area during separation.

compartmentabovethefirewalland partment below the ilrewall

in the engine cornwere nearly uniform

throughout t e flight, as expected. Maximum pressures h of approximately 0.6 N/cm 2above ambient were meas ured in the engine compartment just before maximum dy_mmic pressure. The pressure loading across the heat shield agreedwell with the results oi the previous flights; a maximum downward pressure differential of 0.95 N/cm 2 occurred at 58 seconds. Dilferenttal pressures across the tail shroud are generallyindicatedasburstingloads (insideto outside) througho_t flight, with values not exceeding 0.4 N/em 2. Resultsare ingood agreement with previous flight results, 10.2.6 10.2.6.1 S-I/S-IV INTERSTAGE ENVIRONMENT TEMPERATURES

S-I/S-IV INTERSTAGE AND PRESSURES

Temperature and pressure measurements were flown for the first time on the S-I/S-IV interstage aspartof an experiment to determine the cause of the interstage structural failure observed after S-I/S-IV separattenonSA-5andSA-7 ( see Seetion 9. 3). Camera film analyses indicated that the same panel debonded on both the SA-5 and SA-7 flights, Structural temperatures were measured by sensorslocated on theextereal and internal surface of the interstageofstution28.5m(lI22 in). The structural temperature rise recorded by the external sensor, subsequent to ullage and retro rocket ignition command, was somewhathigher thanpredicted ( Fig. 1{}-8). Maximum temperature recorded by this external sensor was 336°K, occurringat 151 seconds, which is not considereal detrimental to the structure,

75

AfL Temperature (OK)

InEerst_ge O

Temperature External Internal - Sta - Sta 28.5 28.5

m

++0I I
3001 I
0 20 40 60 80 160

o%olo°!i I [ _ooooo_
120 140 160 146 148 150 152 154 Range _ Time (see) Dr, bonded Roll Out of on SA-5 & SA-7

I I o' o I I ° _ot°Y°T'Y°r'r . ,..__=____ o_o_o_o I I o]

¥

_ IV

0 O _

]|on_'ycomb Internal Internal External

bilillbll
_ Aft AP Sta 28.5 m m m m Sta 29.0 Sta 28.7 S[._ 28.6

lnterstage

Aft Interstage Envirmlmental Press.re

[
Cell Pressure (Calculi, ted) Press.re | [

neycomb

1, I I I I t

mbient

"l Ti
Honeycoml +, )if urential PFeSE

ili
and 60 80 Range i00 Time (sec) 120 140 160 180 INTERSTAGE ENVIRONMENT

Ullage Command

Rocket

T

(Pcon_p.,rtment 0.4 S-I/S-IV

-

Pamhient lnterstag,_

)

_

{N/cmZ) I Pressure I

Comp.*rtrr*ent

I

i

i.._._..

_Simulated

I

--

,

T

-0._

-

"

-0.4 20 40 60 Range Time 80 (sec) 100

I IZO

140

Sta.

28.75

IV

(P_:xt_.rnai 0.8

-

Pambient S-l/S-IV

)

-

(N/crag) Inter_tage Surface Pressure

-0. ZO 40 60

_ 80 {see)

[ I00

120

140

Rarlgt_ Tirn_

$y_. Pressurt" (N/cm 2} BASE HEAT SltlELD PRESSt_E (2'

Radius 22.2 59.0

(cm)

0"3

I

_

"_,

_l O

I'llagi__ CO

-O Retr° [, Ignit I i°n

i

Idi

I

O" O

132.995"9

°11 lD
80 100 120 140

o

o

_ o, I I I
, _ 0 o _ OQ 150 155 180 Range Time (sec) 200 300 400 50G 600 700

FIGURE

10-9.

S-IV

STAGE

PRESSURE

ENVIRONMENT

77

10.3 S-IV STAGE 10.3.1 10.3.1.1

ENVIRONMENT PRESSURES PRESSURE

ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMON BULKHEAD

enginebell. shouldbe notedthatthe accuracy of the It flight dataprecludesdetermining accuratevalue for an basethrust. Avalueof601N (135 lbf) was usedinthe determirmtion of the S-IV-8 preflight predicted trajectory. 10.3.2 10.3.2.1 SURFACETEMPERATUREANDHEATFLUX HYDROGEN TANK TEMPERATURES

The common bulkhead absolute pressure remained less than 0.3 N/cm 2 (0.43 psi) throughout flight, as expected. 10.3.1.2 FORWARD INTERSTAGE SURFACE PRESSURES EXTERNAL

Forward interstage suriace pressures were measured at station 36,2 m (1425 in), 30 degrees from the fin Ill toward the fin IV position, in verify flow field assamptions used in aerodynamic heating analyses of the S-IV stage. Results were in good agreement with SA-9 data, indicating that the assumption of a two-dimensiorml shock being generated by the interstage would be conservative in predicting heat transfer rates.

LH2 tank temperatures measured on S-IV-8 were within expected levels and similar to those experienced on the S-IV-9 (Fig. 10-10). Maximum recordedtemperatures at station 32.4 m (1277.5 in) on SA-8were265°Kascomparedto256°KonS-IV-9. The sensoratstation33.4 m (i315 in) recorded maximum temperateresof 285°K on S-IV-8, compared to 284°K on S-IV-9. 10.3.2.2 AFT SKIRT TEMPERATURES

10.3.1.3

BASE HEAT SHIELD PRESSURE

Base pressure measurements, with a range of 0 to 0.7 N/cm 2 ( 1 psi), were flown for the first time ontheS-1V-Sheat shield. Thehase pressure data show the effects of LOX chilldown gas on the compartment pressure and reveal the effect on base pressure of and retro rocket gas impingement after the heat shield clears the interstage (Fig. 10-9). Pressure data from one sensor did not follow the ambient pressure decay inthe mannerexpected, which is attributed to possible measurement inaccuracies or to a possible plugged line in the measuring system, Pressure tothose obtained shock tube tunnel below the usual levels during S-IV burn were similar from the six engine 1/i0 scale model tests. The pressures measured were expected measurement accuracies so

Aft skirt external and internal skin tempereturedataareshown in Figure 10-10. Data trends fromthe two sensors agree with those of S-IV-9 up to 100 seconds, after which temperature data from the external sensor levels off. It appears that the sensor was subjected to half the aerodynamic heating rate experiencedonSA-9. Thereasonfor the reduced heating rate is still unexplained at this time. 10.3.2.3 HYDROGEN VENT LINE TEMPERATURE

A sensor located on the hydrogen vent line at station 27.6 m ( 1087 in), between fin positions [ and IV, wasflowafor thefirsttime on S-IV-8 to determine the temperature of this protuberance arising from aerodynamicheating. Datawereobtained until 93 seconds, atwhich time the measurement failed (Fig. 1010). 10.3.2.4 AFT SKIRT HEAT FLUX

it is difficult to determine the actual force on the heat shield. However, they do indicate that the pressures are not significantly higher than the test results and, most likely, may be lower, Pressure data from sensors located at radial distances of 59.0 cm ( 23.2 in) and 95.9 cm ( 37.8 in) were used to determine the contribution that the base pressure makes to total stage thrust (Fig. 10-9). It was assumed that,the radial pressure distribution was linear (based upon the 1/10 scale model shock tube test) with ambient pressure at the outermost edge of the heat shield. Using these assumptions, the thrust due to base heat shield pressure averaged approximately 534 N ( 120 lbf) during S-lV-8 powered flight. This value does not include the effects on base thrust of a posslbl e pressure distribution along the RL10A -3

Calorimeters located on the aft skirt near an LH2 chilldown duct were flown for the first time on S-IV-8 to determine the effects of external protuberances on the local heating rates to the vehicle. The sensors were located between fin positions I and IV nearthe cooldown duct forebody fairing. Comparison of flight data with tmdisturbed heat flux predictions disclosesthe expectedhigher beat flux levels resulting from protuberance effects (Fig. 10-10).

10.3.3 10.3.3.1

BASE TEMPERATURESAND

HEAT FLUXES

BASE THRUST STRUCTURE TEMPERATURES Thrust structure temperatures measured no. 26 at station 28.4 m ( 1118 in), 27.8 m

on stiffener

78

Temperature

(OK)

LH 2 Tank

Temperature

300

-

[

20o , _,__

O

i

-,n_ _

I i

o sA_8ta33.4 S m ZI SA-8 Sta 32.4 m
SA-9 Band

r00 0 20 40 60 Range Tc_ ,erag_zre (OK) 400 O J Aft SA-8 Time 80 (set)

I lO0

120

1_0

Skirt Temperature

l
Exterior Sta SA-B Interior

T
29.4 m m Sta 29.4

I
| _|

I
[
i

300

0

20

40

60 Range Time

80 (see)

100

L20

140

Temperature 400

(oK)

Hydrogen

Vent

Line Temperature I

300

• "

_

O

it i

;X_ seo_oi a i-_

O

_t,_J, al
200 0 20 40 60 Range Time Heat Flux (wattslcm 2) Aft Skirt 80 (set)

. _ata Dropoot
.I00 120 [40

Heat Flux

5ta

29.2 m

1 r
i

O

0

0

}
O
120 140 (set) Time TEMPERATURE

I

I _- Separation l Plane

o
0 60 80 I00 Range

FIGURE

I0-I0.

S-IV

STAGE

SURFACE

ENVIRONMENT

79

(1096 in), 27.2 m (1070 in), and 27.1 m(106H were in good agreement with previous flight results well as with predintions basedupona three-dimensional heat transfer analysis measured at the forward 27.8 (1096 in} correlated

in) as

ports(Fig. 10-12 inRef.:3) toallowescape and purge flowduringl_reflightconditioningandto ambient pressure andtemperature within ing flight.

of cooling allow tile unit dur-

(Fig. 10-li). Temperatures locations, 28.4 ( t 118 in) and relatively well with those

predicted daring the initial 150 seconds of S-IV burn time;afterthistime,however, temperatures decreased atagreater rate than predicted. These trends arc as observed 10.3.3.2 on previous BASE Three Block II flights, TEMPERATURES were flown for

A ground based environmental control system was provided to maintain an acceptable temperature within the Instrument Unit during preflight. During flight preparation and until umbilical separation, cooIingorheatingas required, was provided by the ground support equipment. No inflight conditioning wa_ required to accoml)lish the vehicle mission.

HEAT

SHIELD

temperature

sensors

the first time on the S-IV -8 heat shield between engines 3 and 6 to measure the heat shield hot-face temperatare. with The hot-face the experimental temperature temperature rise compares rise for the well first

The ambient

cooling

arrangement umbilical Unit.

consisted

of a

manifold routed from the components inthe Instrument usedasacoolant to LH 2 tanking; until then

plate to various Precooled air was 15 minutes as a coolant also supplied The change air sl)arkmg prior until air/ from trom should

50 seconds of S-IV flight; thereafter, peraturesarelowerthanthoseobtained

measured ternexperimentally

approximately GN 2 was used

by utilizinga constant incident heat flux (Fig. 10-ll). This isattributedtothe fact that the experimental heat shield absorbed heat fluxes were from a radiative source rather than a com'ective source as expected in flight. The actual absorbed heat fluxes in flight were therefore much less sensitive to a changing hot-face temperature than the experimental results.

umbilical separation. The system GN 2 to purge various components. airtoGN2coolingandpurgingwastoeliminatc the Instrument occur. Unit in case electrical

Instrument Unit environmental to and during flight were ve_, similar

conditions prior in trend and mag-

about

Baseheat 50°Khigher

shield forward face temperatures were than measured on S-IV-6, after 350 is compatible on S-IV-6 than

seconds (Fig. I0-1t). This observation with heat fluxes being generally higher on S-IV-8, as discussed below. 10.3.3.3 BASE HEAT FLUX absort_cd heat

nitudetothoseofthe SA-9 flight. Ambient and cooling duettemperatures were slightly higher than the desigcn valuesof278 to 289°Kbut were not considered excessire or detrimental temperatures to normal were equipment vels" prior expected. com10-12. similar operation. in trend Component

andmagnitudetothoseexperiencedonSA-9 10-12). Ambient temperatures fluxes to the flight (Fig. 10-12) were as

flight (Fig. to and during

Calorimeter

heat shield, as for S-IV-6, were generally no greater than 1.7 *,vatts/cm 2 during S-IV flight. The response ofthecalorimeters to stage events was similar to that of S-IV-6. A transient mately 2 seconds after heat ullage flux occurred at approxirocket iKnition, followed zero, and then after main engine

The control signal putercomponentpressuresarc These which

processor and control shown in Fig-ure

components are mounted in sealed coml)artments are pressurized to 3.4 N/cm a gauge (5 psig) mainconditions. observed on both

bya drop in heat flux to approximately a subsequent rise about 2 seconds ignition 10.4 signal ( Fig. 10-11). UNIT Unit

shortly afterequipmentassemblyanddesignedte tainthispressurefor24hoursundervacuum Control eomputerbox pressure drops

INSTRUI_|ENT The Instrument

ENVIRONMENT houses various electrical guid-

SA-8 and SA-9 indicate that a seal leak started at upproximately 60 seconds lor SA-8 and at :_2 secomls for SA-9 (Fig. 10-12). The pressure decay may be attributedtoleakagecausedbydeflectionofthecontrolcomputersealingsurfaces. sure seal could have This degradation of the presbeen caused by tightening of the

and electro-mechanical devices which perform ance. control, telemetering, and measuringoperations during flight, Saturn vehicles Instrument Components terior wall. to SA-8 was the second fly a prototype Unittobeused of the Block of the attached contained

If series production to the infour vent

mounting bolts during installation or by dynamic conditionsinflight (vibration, bending, etc. ). The cootrol computer pressure Sl)ecification is 13.8 :L1.4 N_m 2 (20 • 2 psi) ;however, is3.4 the minimumacceptable N/cm being 2 (5 psi). investi_,-ated occurring The SA-10 operamounttingpressure

model

on Saturn

IB and V vehicles,

are mounted on panels The Instrument Unit

ingprocedures are preventthisdeviationfrom

in an attempt to on future flights.

8O

Temperature 3_0_.__ ___ 200

(OK) m_ I .... _ I

Thrust

Structure I

Temperature _ " 0 , O A B D 28.4 m 2'7.8 27.0 m m

.. __I

I00

120

i IToolF
240 360 480 600 Range Time (see) Base

720

.u._
T 1 I IIl
I

Temperature

(OK)

Heat Shield Aft Face Temperature

_oo r
600
400

oI_,,_tts/e,,_'] r a . -'-_ - 2 _---Experiment t
-"
- -Jff

T I

_

---

j

200 ' 0

_
I00

T _d_-._4_--_--? o ° o-IV 200 300 Range Time 400 (see) 500 600 III Base Heat Shield Forward Face Temperature _TS ensor

Temperature

(OK)

4°°
200 , 0

_oo

L T--I
tO0 200 Flux (w_ ;ts/cm2)

,

L_t
300 Range Time

I
400 (see)

i
500

I
IV 600

Heat

Base Heat Shield Absorbed

Heat Flux

I

_ :'_"_;= {:'::_:4_ __.:.:--:_.f.L.!.."_=-. _i:_

ool_Toi
160 200

(

145

155

300 Range Time 8-1V STAGE

°°' °°
_ SA-6 400 (see) 500 BASE TEMPERATURE

o o _,
600

FIGURE

I0-II.

EI_Tn_ON_IENT

8i

Temperature 320

(_) .__

......

--6- ......

/..._

300

r

__

--

290

.........

__

kmbient

280 270 _

_Internal

.... --.--...... ----.... .....

260 0 80 160 240 320 Range Time (sec)

Guidance Computer Guidance Signal Processor Inertial Gimbal ST-124 ST-124 Mounting Fr_e Azusa C-Band Battery I Battery 2 I I l 400 480 560

_0

Pressure 15
--

(N/cm 2)

%

%.

I0

,.

-_,

".. °'°''"--| ........... L° H°.._.. ............ lJ ............ b ......... l...........

5 "\'_ \ 0 0 _. 80 160 240 -SA-8 Control ------ SA-8 Control ...... --.--320 Range Time SA-9 Control Signal Processor Computer Computer 560 640

IV Ambient Pressure 400 480 (sec) TEMPERATURES

FIGURE 10-12.

INSTRUMENT

UNIT AMBIENT AND COMPONEI_r

Ah33 PRESSURES

82

SECTION

XI. VEHICLE

ELECTRICAL

SYSTEMS

11.1

SUMMARY

11.3

S-IV STAGE ELECTRICAL

SYSTEM

Theelectrical systems of SA-8 vehic|e operated satisfactorily durlngtheboostandorbital phaseof flight andall mission requirements were met. The long life battery in the IU provided power to the Pl and F6 telemetry links for 140 minutes, which well exceeds the one orbit requirement, II.2 S-I STAGE ELECTRICAL The electrical was essentially system SYSTEM

The S-IV stage electrical system performed as expected throughout the flight. The system consisted offive major subsystem components: battery 1 (control battery), battery 2 (enginebattery), instrumentationbattery 1, instrumentationbattery 2, and the static inverter. The current and voltages for batteries I and 2 and the static inverter voltage are presented in Figure 11-2. ............., ,, .................. / .....

for the S-I stage of SA~8

the same as SA-9. .,_, •

...... '....
The electrical power source for the S-I stage consisted oftwo identical 28-volt zincsilver oxide batteries, designatedas 1D10 and ID20. The capacity of the batteries was 2650 ampere-minutes. During the boost phase of flight, the S-I stage _

:LZ; .............
._ _ • __ _:... . ".......... _

.........,
_:L2LJ.

,o, .............................
to m

[_.,.., .+-__

'

[

|4

electrical system operated satisfactorily. The iDle 1D11 bus voltage varied from 27.2 to 28.0 volts de. battery currentvaried from 54 to 70 amperes dc. The The iD20 batterycurrentvaried from 43 to 52 amperes dc and the 1D2i bus voltage varied from 27.7 to 28.0 volts dc. Figure 11-1 shows the current and voltage profile for the IDI0 and ID2O batteries.

"_:'-_ :[ _J_-_-i ........

..... I......
,.......

.....

--i ...... ?--_: _ .... ;_, _ .......

! I '7
"' .................... FIGURE 11-2. S-IVSTAGECURRENTANDVOLTAGE

Battery performance _s satisfactory, withvoltage andcurrentremainingwithinpredicted tolerances. _ ! '0_- ...... ..... .,,[""_T-°'-_ [ ! _ _ - , ....[ ....['----] _+___---4 . -_ _ _ "_t'_ _ _ . The two instrumentation batteries were normal, with anoutputof 28.5 volts and a combined current of 20.0 amperes. During S-IV powered flight, the current of instrumentaUonbattery 2 was 6.5 amperes. The dffference in battery currents was expected because the batteries were not electrically identical. The performance of the inverter was satisfactory. During sel_aration, the output voltage dropped tothetower band edge, indicating that the voltage was less than 109 volts. Similar data degradations occurredcnprevlousflights. These data degradations have beenattrilmtedteionizationoftheumbflical GSE monitoring Dins by the retro rockets' exhaust. This drop

,0

_

_

FIGURE ii-i.

S-I STAGE CURRENT AND VOLTAGE

The output of the eight 5-volt dc measuring supplies, located two each in the measuring distributors, deliveredanominal5voltsdc, The master measuring supply was a nominal 5 volts dc.

83

inmonitoringvoltage was determined to be a false indication since there was no evidence of change in the controlbattery 1 Ioadprofile. A much smaller change inthe im.erter voltage at PU activate, produced a noticeable change in the control battery. 1 load profile, The inverter supplied sufficient power to the PU systern. All EBW firingunits functioned properly in response to their respective commands. The range safety flight termination system performed properly and responded to the turn-off (safe) command at approximately 630 seconds, llowever, at 147 seconds, command destruct receivers (CDR) 1 and 2 indicated a slight decrease in signal strengl_h level lasting for about 0.3 second. This decrease is attributed to flame attenuation. At 171 seconds, a 0.2-second signal drop-

telemeters Pl and F6 during a complete orbit. The 5-volt dc measuring supply and 56-volt de supply operatedattheirnominal values. All timing devices and logic and mode switching devices operated satisfactorily. The batte_' temperature, voltages, and currents are shoxvn in Figure 11-3 along xvilh inverter 1 phase voltages.

j..,: .... ,,_ ,_,_ ,,, ....

_

]

-

hal. This dropout is attributed to the switch-over to the Sterling antenna on Grand Bahama Island. At 395 seconds CDR 2 signal decreased slightly for approxi395 seconds does not appear to have been caused hy range antenna or station switching. It is suspected that this signal loss was due to stage antenna positioning with respect to the range station. Following the dropout, the signal strength recovered to the pre-dropout level where it remained until systems turn off.

_'"'" _.........
V,,lt s (d,)

it.4

ru STAGE ELECTmCAL SYSTE_i

'°"

i

I

i

I.: _ I

1

-i

comment is the instrumentation of Manned Spacecraft Center's reaction control system package and the subsequentaddition to the IU electrical system. The extemperature measurements. _ ." :,, r-- ---_,_, :_'
v,.tr_ b,_ _. It.,, g_S)

_,,,_.. ....... .,, r

1

!

] i .... , ..... '.... ] , _ i

During the boost and orbital phase of flight, the IU stage electrical system operated satisfactorily. One of the two IU batteries { 8DI0) had a current load of approximately 70amperes except during cycling of the platform air bearing heater. The air bearing heater cycle periodaveraged t35 seconds. The "ON"' part of the period averaged 18 seconds. The 8D10 battery load during the "ON" cycle of the heater was 79 amperes. The 8Di 1 bus voltage dropped about 0.2 volt when the heaterwason. During the "OFF" cycle of the heater, the average 8Dll bus voltage was 28.7 volts. The other IU battery (8D20) had a current load of 25 amperes with an average terminal voltage of 28.3 volts. The life of 8D20 battery was 140 minutes. Battery 8D20 was intentionally light loaded in order to power

i
_ t

I

i
' i

L

_,'

_'
_0_ H, t_....r...,

_
",'.t,_,

"_ F iH, _,__ ,,_ t

k ,, _J _ _. _'_': __ .... i ', ....

_ _ ..... ._ _ {-..... )_ : _ __L _ __ 4 _ __ ] _' .... _,.... r........

FIGURE 11-3. IU STAGE BATTERY TEMPERATURE VOLTAGE, CURRENT AND INVERTER VOLTAGE

84

SECTION

XII.

AERODYNAMICS

12.1

SUMMARY Theaxial drag force coefficient and lower was than A peak higher than

(Fig. 12-1). Apeakbasedragofapproximately250,000 N ( 56,250 Ihf) was measured at approximately ends. A positive pressure thrust was beginning circulation at approximately of hot engine 73 seconds exhaust gases.

57 secobsem'ed of re-

predicted during subsonic duringsupersonicportionsofflight.

predicted base drag measured on the

because

of approximately 250,000 N ( 56, 250 Ihf) was at approximately 57 seconds by measurements heat shield and the flame shield.

Pressure and lower flight 12.3 surfaces

environments of fin IIwere obtaining

measured within

on the upper levels. per unit

.... ]i! I . I |

expected loading

precluded DRAG

pressure

/,'1

;Y\!-., _L I

',2__

'

a.gleo, at okwi roliableaccur cy. ....
put of the propulsion system performance evaluation, , -[1 ...... *................. -agreesweilwithSA-9flight results {Fig. 12-I). The axial force coefficient was higher than predicted during the subsonic regime during the supersonic of flight and lower portion of flight. than predicted

i-{
i L I
......

L_!

': _ ',

revised was results been

from whathas discovered results with which combined

been

shown

in the past. fore

An error tunnel being shield [/" j,(,," i ..... -..[ "!_I_ _,_,. : "'.\."S ,-.. ,:_ .... ......... drag heat

recently

in the analysis in the the flight revised measured

of wind

base generally pressures less

than before. the This revised to give new predicted foredrag curve drag has

shown here. The difference between the original predicteddragcurveandthe flightdetermined drag cut've, by itself, causes a 17 m/s change in S-I cutoff velocity ..... Base dragcoatribution to axial force, calculated frompressure measurements on the heat shield of the S-I stage, are in good agreement with 8A-9 results

FIGURE

12-1.

AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENT BASE DRAG

AND

85

SECTION

XRI.

INSTRUMENTATION

13.1

SUMMARY There were 1157 telemetered measurements ac-

13.2.2

S-I MEASURING

RELIABILITY system was

Reliability of the S-I measuring active at liftoffompared c Fifteen S-I stage to have a questionable

tire at lifteffon SA-8. 99.4percent. to launch.

Only 7 of the 1157 failed, resystem reliability of were scrubbed prior

99.6 percent, considering only those measurements to complete failures.

sulting in an overall measuring Nine measurements

measurements were conside red status. These measurements paragraphs. heat

All preflight and inflight mal and satisfactory.

calibrations

were

nor-

are

discussed

in the following

C190-5, C191-2, Battery life was sufficient to give the planned orbital telemetry coverage, The overall performance of the onboard RF systerns wasgenerally good, and was similar to previous flights.However, some telemetry receivedatthe D stationduring the S-IV interference was noted on the Cape telemetry 2 and hangar powered effects portion were of the flight, present dur-

and C192-2 (temperature

shield radiationcalorimeters} had questionable output drops beginning at about 40 seconds. Otttputcharacteristicshave notbeen logicallyexplained as either true readings or instrument malfunctions. The fact that the normal measurement, C194-I (temperature heat shield, totalcalorimeter), also exhibited this trend to a lower degree tends to discredit a proposed theory thatthe instrument convective cooling. dicative of blocking windews were coming out to permit However, the behavior may be inof calorimeter view.

ing

No E-layer ionization this night flight. Airborne tape recorders satisfactorily,

The on the S-I, producing the retro IU, and S-IV of meats ed. stages operated data free This

8 thrust has

chamber higher

dome output

vibration levels than on static

measurepredicttests as

had somewhat

occurred static

previously

attenuationeffectscausedby kets. Main SA - 9. The sistedof engine flame

and ullage

roc-

attenuation

was

similar

to

wellasonflightvehicles. pared for S-IB-2 this discrepancy. C204-19,

Experiments are tests in an attempt

being preto isolate

( tempel_ature little change

stub fin base in output. strain tension

total

calori-

photo/optical instrumentation 79 cameras that provided fair

system conquality cover-

meter)

had very

age. Of the 79 cameras launch, 3 cameras failed, unusable timing board TV system provided Pegasus wing deployment. 13.2 13.2.1 S-I STAGE

programmed to cover the 4 had no timing, and 4 had fog on the excellent film. coverage The onof the

Theoutputs from three urements were questionable.

tie meas-

due to edge

13.._

S-IV

STAGE

MEASURING

ANALYSIS

MEASURING

ANALYSIS MALFUNCTIONS

13.3.1

S-IV

MEASUREMENT

MALFUNCTIONS measurements were Two of the 406 meas-

S-I MEASUREMENT

scheduled scheduled A total of 521 inflight measurements were for the S-I stage. Seven of these 521 measprior to launch. at launch failed Two of the completely; Table

A total of 406 infiight for the S-IV stage. scrubbed initially

urementswere urements were 407, D603-404, it was observed Five of

prior to launch. Five measscrubbed, but :gof these (C653after data. failed

urements were scrubbed 514 measurements active 14measurementswereonlypartially 13-I lists the S-I Thirty-eightadditional measurements, stage

and D603-406) were reinstated that they produced valid flight active at launch

successful.

the 404 measurements

measurement malfunctions, measurementswereblockhouse

completely; 10 measurements were only cessful. Table t3-I lists the S-IV stage malfunctions.

partially sacmeasurement

86

TABLE

13-1.

MEASURE),iENT

MALFUNCTIONS

_7

13.3.2

S-IV

MEASURING

RELIABILITY sysmeas-

Links on digital

P1 and

P2,

PCM system

system, (DDAS)

also

fuectioned recncodout-

dataacquisition

for their

tern

x_s

Reliability of the S-IV stage measuring 98.8 percent, considering only these

spective stages. TheDDAS ingandtransmissionufthemodel put of links l-ates. The F1, F2, primary

function

was digital 270 commutator

urements active at liftoff ceml)ared to complete failures. Two additional S-IV measurements, engine 4 thrust chamber ferentialpressure, parametervalues measurements. 13.4 13.4.1 IU STAGE pressure and engine 6 actuator B difproducedtrenddataonly. Absolute cannot be determined on these trend

F3, and F6 at i)orl)o_e o[ the

reduced sampling, link P2 DDAS was the link checkout I)1 ,_f

preflight checkoul (if the S-I-'_ stage, _ith DDAS heing primarily used for preflight the IU. DDAS information P1 and P2 during flight. the PCM output fol_nat 1.,. _.. DATA

was also araitahte fr_nn link Insertion of digital data into worked ve15 _ satisfactorily.

MEASURLNG

ANALYSIS ACQUISITION l_diofrequency power on all S-I MALFUNCTIONS Transmitted were scruhbed completely failed and IU stage telemetry links was sufficient to prtnluce the desired data coverage of all plammcd flight periods. Transmission throughoutthcflil_ht. mitters, at least multicoders, 100 minutes Battexs' links flights. Dataaequisitionhy meaosofthc having predetcction reof al I three The and after S-R" telemetls' data indicate VCO'swere Iiftt)if. lilfi_ s was good that all operational trausfur

I'U MEASUREMENT

scheduled prior during

A total of 239 inflight measurements for the IU. No measurements were and ne measurements Only Tahle 3 measurements 13-I lists failed flight. lmrtialiy

to launch

during flight. malfunctions, I'L 4.2

time IU measurement

IU MEASURING Reliabi|ity of

RELIABIIJTY nletry the ITS measuring only with those complete S£STEMS system measurements [allures. was

life was F6 and Pl T ealih_ttions

sufficient to give orbital teletile planned coverage. No inwere executed during or-

Ilighttelemetl bital

100 active

percent, at liftoff

considering compared

I:L 5 AIRBORNE 13.5.1

TELEMETRY LINKS

cording excellent 13.5. :1

system at sites data results. CA LII31La-TION All and

fl_is capacity

i)rodueed

TELEMETRY

Data transmission hiele SA-8 was effeeted linksontheeorabinedS-I, craIt instrumentation systems following were

for fl ight testing Saturn veby 13 radio telemetr 3, system S-IV, and Kl stages. (Spacein Section on SA-g: i4.) The utilized

normal

prefii_,dlt and satisfactory.

ilfflit,d_t calibrations were An amplitude modulation the integrution next launch first inflight callproblem and will if hardware test $2 were not

is presented

transientseenatthebeginningof bration is a minor design be corrected before the schedules scheduled permit. to _eceive

S-I STAGE Link FI F2 F3 Modulation PAM -FTbI-FM; PAM-FI6I-FM; PAl_l-Fbl-Fbl; FM-FM FM-FM FId-FM Link SI $2 P2 Modulation SS/FM SS/FM PCM/FM

Telemeters S1 and inflight ealihration. RECORDERS

1._. 6 AIRBORNE

TAPE

The airborne fiightwere dual-track the ndxer-amplifier

tape recorders used recorders ealx'thle outputs of two I.'M/FM

for rime SA-8 of recording telemeters.

S-IV STAGE Link D1 D2 D3 Modulation pDM-lrM-FM PI_t-I_I-F_I PCM -FM -Fbl

During the playl)ack mode time tl,'ansmitter was switched from the mixer-amplifier to tile recorder. The purpose of time recorder is to record data during the periods when RF drolx)at is anticipated due to flame attenuati,m, retro and ullage firing, critical look angle, etc. 13.6. I S-I RECORDER Time S-I-$ stage contained one recorder which

INSTRUMENT UNIT Link F5 F6 blodtdation FM-FM; FM-FM; PM-FM-PM Fbl-FM-FM Link S3 Pl Modulation SS-FM PCM-FM reeordedtheoutputoftt, recorder was in the to 174.9 seconds. lcmeterlinks record mode transfer 1.'1 and F2. This from 39. l seconds to I)layhack mode

PAM-I_I-FM

Recorder

_8

was

initiated

at 174.9

seconds. for the transfer

An elapsed from

time

of t mode

13.7

RF SYSTEMS Theoverall the SA-8

ANALYSIS of the RF systems ongood, and was similar some interference was at the Cape telemetry

second

was required

record

to playback mode. The gooddata at 175.9 seconds

recorder began playback of and completed data playback

board

performance was generally

"at3t0.7 seconds. The playback contained 134.8 seeends (39.1 to 173.9 seconds) of good data. At cornpletion of recorder playback, from telemeters Ft and F2. recorder was satisfactory, are free of playback record flame attenuation, 13.6.2 S-IV modulation was removed Operation of this airborne and the data contained effects in the and of retro

toprevious flights. However, noted on the telemetry received 2 and hangar of the flight. ket attenuation

D stations during the S-IV powered portion Main engine flame effects and retro rocwere similar effects to SA-9 were and as expected. during this present

No E-layer ionization night flight. 13.7.1 TELEMETRY

RECORDER

st_tge 168.1 S-IT-8

The single tape recorder onboard the S-IV was in the record mode from 142.1 seconds to seconds (26.6 seconds), and included the whole separation sequence. from 724.9 The seconds recorder to 754.9 was in the seconds

through stations. for Cape

Telemetry' signals were received from liftoff orbital insertion and beyond by the downrange Reception was good at most stations except telemetry 2 and hangar D.

playback mode (30 seconds).

station TheS-IVtaperecorder went into an unscheduled aration. playback mode between 56 minutes, I second and 87 minutes, 39 seconds. No playback of data occurred since the recorderhad previously completed the acheduled playback. The probable cause of the recorder goingintotheplaybackmodeatthistime to the dropout of an Ill relay was attributed in the playback circuit, 3.5 level of 13.5 and 5.5 volts. that a relay was of on bus

The Cape telemetry experienced problem At approximately

2 station and the hangar D s following first stage sop 170 seconds, the signal

level began to drop rapidly ( 15 to 25 db loss in signal level) andremainedlowforthe remainderof the flight. This low signal level resulted in noisy data at these uprange stations from approximately 215 seconds on some to lossofsignalonsomeoftheS-IVstagetelemetry and from 235 seconds to loss of signal links, of the

IU relays K33andK34operateatavoltage to 14.5 volts and dropout between At least the same one IU measurement type as relay

IU telemetry links. Records from the Cape telemetry 3 station indicate good quality data for a considerably longerperiod that the Cape of time. telemetry Signal strength records indicate an average 2 station received

indicated

K33 and K34 that

8DI1 dropped out at 55 minutes. It is highly probable that the IU relay K34 dropped out at approximately 56 minutes and caused the S-IV tape recorder the playback mode through the closed thrust to go into switches

powerlevel sufficient for better quality data than what was recorded, llowever, antenna scanning caused the instantaneous power levels to drop into the region noisy data could be expected. where

and the locked up relay (407A4K2). Stop playback would occur when either S-IV relay K1 or K2 dropped out. This would result from the loss of bus voltage +4Dll. 13.6.3 IU RECORDER The corderthat F6. This S-IU-8 contained one onboard tape re-

Theantenna scanning system is utilized to provideautomatictracking. Thus, thenutating probe prorides a small error sigq_al as an input to the antenna serve system. This error signal would normally represent a 1 to 3 No change in signal level. However, thesystem, as it operated on SA-8 and SA-9, scanned asmuchas the lowlevel noisy data. 12 to 20 _, signal Since peak to peak. Combined with strength, this scanning caused the SA-9 was the first vehicle to be

recorded the outputs of telemeters F5 and recorder was in the record mode from 139.8 Recorder transfer to playat 724.9 seconds. An elapsed required for the tr3.nsfer to the playback of good data playback at 27.4 seconds

seconds to 168.1seconds. back mode was initiated time of 0.9 second was

tracked by this antenna, the scanning problem was thought to be a temporary condition. Also, since the data quality on SA-9 was good despite this scanning problem, the problem SA-8 flight. _s not emphasized prior to the

playback mode. The recorder began data at 725.8 seconds and completed 753.2 seconds. The playback {139.8 to 167.2 modulation was seconds) reapplied

contained

of good data. Real time to links F5 and F6 at 754.8 good, free of

aspect

Thelowlevel signal strength angle history. Beginning

was a result of the at 170 seconds, the

seconds. Opcrationofthis airborne rccorderwas and data contained in the playback record are the effects oi retro and flame otto[motion,

prol_agationimthto the Cape telemetry 2 station began toappro_ch 0 degree {directly off the tail of the vehicle), reaching 0.3 degreeat 230 seconds. This aspect

89

angle is precisely the location of a 35 c_ null in the antenna patterns. At 300 seconds, the aspect angle increased to 5.6 degrees and continued to increase thereafter. However, the range had increased by this timesothatthe improvementinantennagain was pattially offset by the increase in range, When the aspect angle approaches 0 degree, a numberofinaccuraciesoceur. First, the antenna pattern indicates a gain of -35 db. However, this could just as easily be-50 db. Secondly, the aspect angle accuracy degrades rapidly as 0 degree is approached, becoming indetcrmixmte at that specific angle. This again would result in an undetermined antenna gain. The deep null exists at this point because of the physical characteristics of the Saturn I vehicle. After 300 seconds, when a partial recovery should have been effected, the vehicle was in the F-layer of the ionosphere. It is believed that there is some interactionbetweentheS-IV stage exhaust plume and the ionosphericlayers. Since this was a night firing, the E-layer was not present and sibmal levels did not encounter the degradations e.xperienced by previous rehicles, Main engine flame attenuation during SA-8 _as very similar to past vehicles. Flame effects caused a telemetry signal attenuation of approximately 25 db, which ceased at approximately 126 seconds (altitude of about 55 kin}. These effects occurred within the rangc experienced by previous vehicles. Retro rocket exhausteffectswere very similar to SA-9, which also separated at approximately the same altitude. Some telemetry links experienced short periods of blackout, while others did not drop below the threshold level, llowever, more linkswere received daring this period than were lost. Asexpected, the antennas located forward of the retro rockets experienced the greatest problem. The S-I stage links had modulation effects only with very little average attenuation. The modulation was generalty less than 10 db, which was very low for this period, The telemetry data received from the downrange sites were very good. The only anomaly encountered was at theGBI station, where a ground antenna pointing problem apparently existed. 13.7.2 TRACKING

C-Band Radar The C-Band radar records indicate a smooth tracking performance. All sites except GBI, which used an FPS-16, were equipped with the new FPQ-6 radarwith circular polarization. This eliminated the polarization nulls experienced during previous flights and resulted in excellent tracking. The MILA station was preprogrammed to use skin tracking during the earlyportionofthe flight. Thiswas done to circumvent any possible tracking problems due to the tilt of the polarization ellipse. Prior to the SA-8 flight, it was believed that the tilt angle would reach a point early in flight which would prevent tracking at this station. No evidence breakdown, similar existed on SA-8. MISTRAM The MLSTRAM I site at Valkaria experienced difficulty in tracking after 300 seconds. Since handover from MISTRAM I to blISTRAM II had not taken place until 330 seconds, approximately 30 seconds of data loss resulted. The MISTRAM I site never fully recovered. MISTRAM IItrackedpassively fromapproximately 120 seconds to 330 seconds at which time it beeameactive and provided excellent tracking performance thereafter. The reason for this dropout at MISTRA2Vl I is still unknown. The look angle at this time was rapidly approaching the edge of the onboard receiving antenna pattern and this was prohably a contributing factor to dropout. However, the polarization tracker appears to have been on track during this period. Consequently, the metric solution from the MISTRAM system will very likely be below normal after 300 seconds. An investigation is continuing to determine the cause or causes of this difficulty. This degradation could be avoided if. as previously suggested, "the bIISTRAM I site should hand over to MISTRAM II prior to 300 seconds. " The si_lal decay prior to this dropout was very gradual and extended over a period ofl00 seconds. There was ample time to accomplish handever before the loss of signal, l[owever, since the MISTRAM system is being deleted after the next flight, this proi_lem is insignificant. ODOP Excellent performance was obtained on the ODOP of the onboard to that eecurringon antenna systems

SA-5 and SA-6,

The tracking performance during the SA-8 flight was excellent. The only problems encountered wereaprolongeddatadropouton the MISTRAM system and a loss of some data on the altimeter,

system. The only problems which occurred were a direct result of flame modulation and a loss of phase lock during retro rocket ignition. Both effects were expected.

9O

Azusa/GLOTRAC The performance of the Azusa/GLOTRAC systern was better on SA-8 than on any previous flight, The onlydegradationtosignal strength, other than main engine flame modulation and retro rocket effects, was a minor antenna lobing problem during the first 40 seconds. Thisdegradedthedataqualityslightly. Main engine flame attenuation occurred between t l 0 and 125 seconds, and ceased at an aitit_tde of 55 kin, similar to telemetry attenuation. The Azusa Mk II site continuedtotrack the vehicle until 660 seconds, at which time it handedover to one of the downrange GLOTRAC stations. A three station solution was maintained until after 800 seconds. The final GLOTRAC trajectory was constructed using data from the following stations: Station I (Azusa) Atlantic Antigua Bermuda Eleuthera Grand Turk Altimeter TheaitimeterdatalorSA-8were not useful from 215 to 418 seconds, nor after 522 seconds. Data quality was apparently bad due to an antenna null. At about 500 seconds the vehicle exceeded the range of the altimeter. A modification to the timing circuit of the altimeter will be made prior to SA-10 to extend the altimetermeasuringrange from 460 km to 540 kin. This modificationwfll allowthevehicietobe within the altimeter range until after S-IV cutoff. A modification was made prior to SA-8 to eliminatethe 100mbiasexperiencedonSA-7and SA-9. The SA-8 altimeter data contained no bias; therefore the modification is considered adequate. Van 9 (Cape) Grand Bahama radar Grand Turk radar Merritt Island radar Antigua radar

13.8

OPTICAL

INSTRUMENTATION

A photo/optical instrumentation system of 79 cameras was installed throughout the Saturn launch tracking complex to provide a film recording of the ground support equipment (GSE) and vehicle (luring the launch of SA-8. Conside ring that the launch was at 2:35 AM EST, the overall quality of the photo/optical instrumentation was good. Of the 79 cameras programmed to cover the launch, 3 cameras failed, 4 had no timing, and 4 hadunusabletimingduetoedge fogonthe film. Eleven redundant camera requirements have been deleted since the program is now operational. 13.8.1 ENGI/qEERING SEQUENTIAL CAMERAS

Seventeen cameras were located on the launch pedestalto record the GSE release events and the rehicle first motion. Releaseoftheeight holddown arms, two short cable masts, LOX and fuel fill and drain masts and ignition of the eight H-t engines was recorded. The eight holddown arms appeared to operate normally, The timing on one camera was erratic, but the release and retraction of all the holddownarms was timeable and well within the release tolerance of 50 milliseconds. Six of the eight tt-t engine ignitions were record ed and timeable. The cameras designated to record ignition of engine positions t and 2 were obscured by accumulated water on the quartz windows. The cameras programmed short cable masts II and IV release One camera on the film. to photograph the had no useful data.

did not run and the other had bad timing

The LOX and fuel fill drain mast retracted mally at 0. 098 and 0. 195 seconds, respectively. Vehicle first motion receivedfromgourholddown from the two first motion

nor-

13.7..3

TELEVISION

"IV performance onthe vehicle was excellent. The camera was mounted inside the payload adapter looking forward and provided exceptionally clear piclures of the shroud separation and Pegasus wing deployment at signal levels between -85 and-90 ¢_m. 13.7.4 COMMAND

was defined by the record arm cameras, since film cameras was not usable.

Thedestructandexperimental command perrefinance was as expected. Out of approximately 3400 commands, only three were not verified. These were during retro rocket ignition and it is notknowndefinitely ffthe lackofverificatlonwas due to the command not being received or due to a telemetry dropout,

Inadditiontothe launch pedestal items, 12 cameras were located on umbilical tower 37B where they recorded the release of the [our swing arms, exhaust andblaston the launch pedestal, and the forward sectionofthevehlcle during ignition and liftoff. All cameras ontower 37B operated satisfactorily and obtained usable data. A camera located at the tt8-foot level was used to determine vehicle vertical displacement for the first 5.4 m of flight. Eight cameras on the umbilical tower were oriented to cover the release and retraction of the four

91

swingarms. perly except Thepneumatic release was

All of the arms

appeared

to function

pro-

Orbital

tracking

of

the

SA-8

vehicle

was

con-

the LII 2 vent line on alia release failed to operate required. These releases respectively. lengths. liftoff.

number three, and a lanyard occurred at

ducted by the NASA Space Tracking lion Network (STADAN), composed work of Minitrack stations and Tracking Stations (MOTS), and Flight Network (MSFN), a global tracldngstationsandutilizingavailable The last radar C-Band beacon

and DataAeqaisiof the global netl_linitrack the Manned network of Optical Space radar

1.09 and 1.19 seconds, thevehicleasitliftedfromthelaunch ed foradistanceoftwovehicle functions were observed 13.8.2 TRACKING

Launching of pad was recordNo other real-

DOD elements. track of the odJitSouth Africa, after liftoff). track. five revolu-

during

CAMERAS

ing vehicle was at approximately All subsequent

reported 08:20U. radar

by Pretoria, T. ( 45 minutes was skin

length,

Tracking was aeeomplished by 15 long focal ground based cameras. Operation of the veignition in this of the system retro rockets recorded the flame pattern

tracking

hicle from liftoff through was covered. Cameras vehicle (plume),

lions

No optical sii,fl_tings over the first have been received by MSFC. M initgtckobservations orbiting vehicle termination TELEMETRY will during

exhaust flame shift, exhaust and retro rocket ignition.

on Inboard and outboard engine cutoff signals were observed indicating a nolnnat flare-up after inboard engine cutoff, which lasted 0.59 second. Outboard engine ended thrust decay was after recorded outboard on infrared engine cutoff 1, 3, and film and l. 06 seconds signal. or

the

continue to be made the vehicle's lifetime B experiment.

until

of The

Pel.msus

1:;. 9.2

SUb1MARY

perly Ignitionofretroroeket observed. These rockets ously. Rocket number camera sites, 13.9 numbers 4 was fora appearedtoignite simultane2 could not be seen from the

The S-R _-S telemetl 5' system ftmctioned profor one orbit, as designed. Data were acquired shorterperiodoftimethanon the previous flights

due to low instrumentation battel5' voltage. All high level data are of questionable validity after 10._ rainutesand invalid aRer 109 minutes. All low level data are questionable after 99 minutes and Oae data the following no. no. no. 1 at 100 minutes 2 at 109 minutes 3 at 106 minutes F6 and I)1 at hours after of three times: lowlevel f. systemsbecameinvalidat Low level Low level Low level system system system

ORBITAL TRACKING SU"MMARY I TRACKING

AND

TELEMETRY

13.9.

SUMMARY 2. of the SA-8 orbiting was requested only 3.

vehicle,

Due to the long lifetime radar tracking coverage

forthefirst five revolutions. This tracking summary covers all tracking over these five revolutions beginning at insertion (07:45:35. t51 UT).

The fast links to be recorded were lird_s Tananarive, Madagascar, tnvoandone-half liftoff.

92

SECTION

Xl_r.

PEGASUS

B

14.1

SUMMARY At 634.15f seconds, the S-IV-8 yaw, stage, Instrument into Durthe

defuse a panel. All hit indications are recorded in the hit register but may not be recorded in the memory if the hit rate in most with the The peratures the all exceeds the memoD" these hits shorted capability. can still panels. Itowever, be identified inserted or roll rate. experienced instances, intermittently

Unit, orbit ing

ApolloshroudandthePegasuswere with no al)preeiable pitch, orbital flight, high the

configuration

following: separationof

capacity biowdownof the LH 2 NPV lank, the Apollo shroud, extension of Pegasus nonpropulsive venting were depleted. The (NPV) Pegasus worked within

thermistor oftheelectronics

readings indicate that file temhave remained ,,'ell within In like manner, well w'ithin their is actually

wings, and continuous until residualpropellants wing deployment properly and all their predicted

des|gin range of 272°K to 322°K. other components monitored are

and all spacecraft systems measurements were initially limits.

design limits. The subsystem, as a whole, operating ve_" similarly to Pegasus A. The functioningofthe shown to those a very IR earth noticeable A. on Pegasus sensors

on Pegain this

The estimated N-s (:_6,050 lb-s)

total from

vented

impulse tank

was and

160,422 178, 445

sus

B have

improvement Physically, so that an incorrect

the hydrogen

comparison

N-s (40, t00 lb-s) from the oxygen tank. The maximum roll rate of S-IV-8 was 6.5 deg/s compared to 9.8 deg/s for S-R_-9 indicating the interchange of the LOXand LII 2 NPVlines ful. The precession opening Pegasus 14.2 at A. PEGASUS B PERFORMANCE was accomtime. Wing a slower was apparently quite successcone angle of the Pegasus B is rate than did the cone angle of

improvementconsistedofaslightincreaseinthethreshoLds of the dc discrimination signal signals earth" would signal. Somedifficultieshavearisen solar sensors, continuously, occasionally. Beginning with cultieswereeneountered on acquisition. however. One gives while another gives with not as easily cause

spurious "on-

the

Pegasus readings readings

B

incorrect incorrect

plished

Pegasus/ServieeModule separation as planned at 806 seconds range

orbit 49 (May 28, 1.932Z) diffiwith PAi_,I and PCM readouts 1, 1930Z, it was determined

deploymentwasinitiatedat865.9secondsandwaseompleted by 905.9 seconds. A description of the Pegasus B is presented in the Appendix. Initially, all systems on the spacecraft worked properly and all measurementswerewithinthcirpredictedlimits. Signal levels werehigherthanwere received from Pegasus A. The temperatures were in|tally higher than they were on PegasusA dueto a longer percentage and deployment via an onboard time in sunlight, Pegasus camera

On June

that PCM was lost whenever clock two was in operation and normal ff clock one was in operation. PAM was normal with either clock selected. Approximately three weeks after was test completely. forapproximatelyoneorbit severaL passes the system is The launch on June 15, 1965, the PAM The PAM si6mal was regained on July 5. Since that time have been received, but on a continuous basis. Pegasus B have

of PAM data not operating

Shroud wings were

separation observed

of the TV

radiationmeasurementsfor

mountedinsidethepaylcadadapterandlookinginrward, Excellent TV coverage was obtained, The hit detector electronics on Pegasus B are

obtained almo3t period just prior trometerappears sistent that flux mill|volts) 14.3 14.3.1 of with readings have

continuous data coverage during the to launch until the present. The specrobe working well and data are confrom Pegasus A. It is suspected (70.5 and 72 0 for been the two channels interchanged.

results

essentially the same as for Pegasus A except for the fonowingimprovements: the capacitors are individually fused, and a switching relay is provided which allows the 28-volt bus detector logic group. single shorted of a complete detector area to be applied This permits directly to a given the defusing of a

ORBITAL

ATTITUDE VENT SYSTEM

capacitor rather logic group, thus due to panel

than the disconnecting minimizing the loss

NONPROPULSIVE PERFORMANCE As an addition

shorting. to the main LOX and LH 2 vent in to systems, a nonpropulsive stalledontheSA-7, SA-9, vent (NPV) system was inand SA-S vehicles to prevent

all

Spurioushit indications occur simultaneously three_ hit registers whenever command is sent

93

the the on

occurrence venting of SA-9 and

of excessive angular rates caused by residual propellants after S-IV engine LH2 NPVsystemwasalso x_hieh operates from euteff installed to plus SA-8,

The SA-8 14-1 and differs Ltlt NPV lines producedby

NPV cozffiguration from that of SA-9 were interchanged of the

is shown in Figure in that the LCXand to reduce gases the upon roll the

cutoff.

An auxiliary

impingement

vented

180 seconds. immediately latent heat

This system vents the high boiloff rates after engine cutoffwhichare caused by the in the LH 2 tank insulation.

Pegasus panels. The relationship the Pegasus wings is depicted NPV system was designed

of the vent ports to in Figmre 14-2. The the vehicle roll to

to limit

Nonproptllsive GH Vent 2 Tube Assy

Nonpropulsive C_X Vent Tube Assv

Auxiliary GH2 Vent Auxiliary Nonpropuls_ve CH_ Vent Valve

Nonpropulsive Tube Assy

Nonpropulsive CR2 Vent Valve

Nonpropulsive Vent Line

GOX

I
Fin Line I [ Fin Line II

FIGURE 9deg/sandthetumble

14-1.

NONPROPULSIVE

VENT

SYSTEMS

SA-8

CONFIGURATION As

to 6 deg/s, to insure the strucpayload, of the S-IV-8 NPV

separated, exertinga negative thrust on the S-IV.

tural integrityof the Pegasus , Operation

a result, the LH 2 residual was forced toward the forward dome, resulting in an Lll2 boiloffrate greater than the capacity of the LH_ NPV system. As anticipated, the LH 2 ullage pressure rose rapidly after Apollo payload separation, but did not reach the main LH 2 vent valve relief pressure. The peak pressure of i5.5 N/cm 2 {22.5 psi) was reached at approximately 2000 seconds. After one orbit the Tel 2 telemetry recorded an LH 2 tank ullage pressure of 7.2 N/cm 2 (10.5 psi) and at this time the ullage pressure was slowly decreasing. The LH 2 lank temperature probes indicated that the residuals at this time were entirely gaseous.

of the components

system was as expected. The oxygen NPV valves opened at remained open, as designed. In hydrogen NPV valve opened minutes later, as designed. At

regular hydrogen and S-IV engine cutoff and addition, the auxiliary at cutoff and closed 3 S-IV engine cutoff the

LH 2 tank ullage pressure began to decay from 26.4 N/cm 2 (38.4 psi) at cutoff, to 8.6 N/era _ ( t2.5 psi) at cutoff plus 180 seconds due to the venting from the auxiliaryhydrogen NPV. One second after the auxiliary NPV valve was closed, the Apollo payload was

94

At S-IV

engine

cutoff

the

LOX tank

ullage

pres-

L _ I __ v,-.t

maintained within the 31 to 33 N/cm 2 (45 to 48 psi) helium shutoff valve, The LOX tank pressure was design band by cycling the cold helium shutoff valve sure switch was transferred to the control of the cold for as long as the cold helium pre ssurant was available. forabout 1200 the LOX after S-IX: engine remained in stable seconds cutoff spite As a result, tank pressure of the venting by the LOX NPV system. At the end of the first tankpressure orbitof approximately telemet_" the Tel 2 7.2 recorded LOX N/cm* (25.0 a psi}.

COX Y_,nr

vented

during An !. 2.

three

periods.

estimate was made of the mass and impulse S-IV engine cutoff to plus 180 seconds S-IV engine orbit cutoff plus 180 seconds to the

t_.s. "

_i

end of the first

3. u,.. r_.. c. 2 ¢o.t_.,,,,,,_ vo.r
t

End

of the

first

orbit

to tank

depletion. residual

The masses propellants 1. ullage gas

were based upon the following and gases at S-IV engine cutoff. 84kg (185 Ibm) of LH 2 plus

k..tl u,_._ ..... top vte_

52 kg (114

Ibm)

FIGURE

14-').

NONPROPULSIVE VENT SA-8 CONFIGURATION

SYSTEMS

2. GOX plus

443kg(9771hm} of LOXplus 60 kg (133 lbm) of helium. presented in Table

55 kg (122

lbm)

The results, after one orbit

14-I.

show

that

83, 6 percent

of the LI! 2 tank total

impulse

TABLE

14-I.

NONPROPULSIVE

VENT

PERFORMANCE

LII 2 Tank Mass 1) Cutoff to C/0 41.8 (92.2 75.7 (166.9 Vented kg Ibm) kg Ibm) Total hnpulse N-s lb-s) N-s lh-s) Mass Vented

LOX Tank Total kg Impulse N-s lb-s)

53,177 (11,950 80,990 (18,200

GOX & lie 108.1 (238.3 ibm)

52,356 (11,770

+ 180 seconds 12) Cutoff 4 180 seconds to end of first orbit 3) End of first orbit to depletion

17. l kg (:17.7 Ibm)

26,255 N-s ( 5900 lb-s)

*GOX & Ele 91 kg (200 Ibm) _.,:$GOX: 348.5 (769 Ibm) kg

36,831 N-s ( 8280 }b-s) 98,128 (22,060 N-s th-s)

Totals

134.6 (296.8

kg Ibm)

160,422 (36,050

N-s ib-s)

547.6 ( 1207.3

kg Ibm}

187,315 N-s (42, 110 lb-s)

* -_: *

Ullage Gas Residual

95

and 28 vented.

percent of the The estimated 0.6

LOX time

tank total impulse were required to vent the lAl 2 was about 6 hours esti-

the SA-8 roll moments exeeedtlmse duringtheorbitalventingperiodshown, velocity total fore, smaller data from 12,000 seconds impulse in roll the resultant (a maximum From the was smaller roll angular

evaluated for SA-9 the roll angular on imlicates that the than on SA-9. Therevelocity for SA-n w:_s

and LOXtanksto

N/cm

2 (1 psi)

for IAt 2 and about 25 to 35 hours for LOX. This mate correlates well with the recorded data. 14.3.2 VEHICLE ATTITUDE IN ORBIT

of 6. 5 dog/st. of roll angular velocity and

combination

TheS-IV-8 atedat624.15seconds. Instrument into od)it. were activated

engine cutoff command was initiTen seconds later the S-IV-8/ shroud/Pegasus was LOX and LH2 NPV of engine cutoff. injected systems The auxi-

data and S-IV oxygen and hydrogen tank pressure temperature measurements, itispossibletodetermine approximate from NPV pingement. indicate hours) contributions to the system misalignments Extrapolated hydrogen observed and from tank

Unit/Apollo The regnaiar at the time

roll rate flow iradata

pressure

liaxT LH 2 NPV S-IV cutoff, was

system, which was also activated at in operation for 180 seconds and then LOX and Lll 2 NPV system redepletion of gaseous resitkeApolloshroudwasjettisoned

that alter approximately approxinmtely 99 percent

15,000 seconds (4. Z of the total impulse

closed. The rekmlar mainedopentocompletethe duals. At 806 seconds,

fromhydrogen residualshadbcenvented. At this time oxygen tank data indicated that 75,620 N-s (17,0(10 lbf-s) oIthe LOXimpulse remained to be vented. Betwcen 15,000 seconds (i8 hours) the roll its maximum of 6.5 ( 4.16 hours) and 64, 800 sec_mls rate increased from 6.0 deg/s to deg/s. During this time interval vented contribute (99 percent) little or no vent system) of 0.5 (leg/._

and 60 seconds later the Pegasus wing extension began, The deployment was completed hy 905.9 seconds. OnSA-8the LOXand LH_ regular flow NPV temswere interchanged. Inthe newconfigurationgaseoushydrogen, insteadofgaseoos wasventedandimpingedonthedeployed oxygen sys-

the hydrogen tank was completely and the LOX tank venting would

(as on SA-9), Pegasus wing.

roll (because of the change in the SA-_ to the roll rate increase. The increase

Sincegaseoushydrogenimpartslesstotal impulse than gaseous oxygen, it_ras predicted that a 30 percent reductionin rollacceleration (CW from the rear), from that observed on SA-9, could be achieved, Asexpected, ._A-8experienced the early decayed earlier higher aecelera-

roll rate was, therelore, probably due to LOX NPV system misalignment. Based on 75, 620 N-s (17, 0_m [bf-s) vented impulse and an angular velocity change of 0.5 deg/s during this period the ave rage unbalanced momcntand NPV system equivalent misaligmnent was calculated degree, to be 0.019 N-m (0.014 ft-lbI) and |l.:/P, respectively.

tions than SA-9 during The roll acceleration tank depletionoceurs Figure the SA-9 roll

part of orbital venting, nmch sooner since LtI2 than LOX tank depletion.

Prior 14-3 compares the SA-8 moment. These culwes roll moment to were generated Though

to Pegasus

wing

extension,

roll roll This

rate

data

indicated that essentially no upJ)aianeed wereactingontheorbitaleonfiguration.

moments suggests

fremubservedehangesinroliangularvelocity.

that the combilmtion of LH 2 and LOX venting system misalignmentswere at least smaller than 0.5 degree. llowevcr, due to the shoat time that the orbiting body tem misalignments, equivalent it is not possible angles to accurately during Ibis

-'l

_

....

[ [

....

] !

--

_ I

determine

misalignment

:.._ ' -,_,,. " _ .... "-

[

_"i ....

_

.... _ ___

....

is inthis

configuration,

incoml)inationwith

small

sysLOX LtI_

tankimpulse LOXdepletion. The misalignment If it wasassumed is calculated that aItcr the

--

:..

system misalit,mmcnts, then the contribution ol NPV system misalignme.nt to the total roll rate of 6. 5 deg/s was 1. O!J deg/s or 16. _5 pt.reent, if it is assumed that

:---I ! --•

"_'! ..... .............. !

-" ....... J

i_-________ " _.

then the LOX system misalikmments misalignm(,nt or 7.7 to cancclledbyhy- total 0.5dcg.'s was the drogcnapproximately system prior percent 15,000 of seconds. roll rate was caused by misaligmm-2nts and the renmining6.0dcgjsby it al)pcarsthatbetwcen plume produced impingement. and NPV by systt'm Therefore, 115. _ tx'rccnt misalignnl 7.7 percent

FIGURE

14-3.

S-IV-8

ORBITAL ROLL

MOTION

the total meats.

roll

wece

EQUIVALENT

MOMENT

96

An analysis of data from rate gyro telemetry, MinitrackAGC, telemetry AGC, and solar panel voltage indications provided a history of the orbiting vehicle roll rate. The predominant angular motion of the .vehicle during the first two weeks of flight was a roll rate. The vehicle reached a maximum roll rate of 6.5 deg/sapproximately 26 hours after insertion. Pitch/ yaw (tumble) rates could not be discerned in the records analyzed. Ten days after insertion the roll rate

had decreased to 5.5 deg/s. The roll rate observationsfromeach of the available sources are presented inFigure 14-4for the first 10 days following insertion. Assumingthe angular momentum vector lay %_olly along the spin axis at the time of maximum roll rate and that the angular momentum of the system _s conserved, thevehiclehada tumble rate of approximately 1.0 deg/s after ten days of flight and was performing agyroscopicpreeessional motion with a half cone angle of approximately 30 degrees.

Roll 10

R._[L- (de_/s) ........ I

1

2i

3

5

6

8

IC.

DaYS After LaLmch

I¸ ii i ti
.... ! " 1% 0 H.initrack Tvlcwetry panel Indications ., 1 500 1000 AGC AGC ___

I"1 $ol._r . 0.1 0.5 Ti_e After [0 L_tmch (hr) 50 Voltage [ 1_

FIGURE 14-4. 14.4 PEGASUS OPERATION

SA-8 ROLL RATE OBSERVATIONS The 1 _ rail panels have also encountered a shorting problem; 10 panels containing 73 of the 358 detectors have been disconnected because of exeessh, e current flow. Some of these panels began drawingcurrent after anindicatedhit, while others apparently began to leak so gradually that no bits registered. Initially, the temperatures of all systems were operating properly and were slightly higher than expected bat within their predicted limits. Due to the equatization caused by spin around longitudinal axis of the S-IV stage, the temperature variations were the sameforbothsidesof the panels. However, this condition changed. The large variations in temperature are caused by passages of the satellite through the earth's shadow. The +Z side of the detector imnels on

At the present time, the 1.5 rail detectors are all [unetioning normally. No panels have been disconnectedbecauseofexeessive leakage current. The observedpuncturos appeartobe randomly distributed and the rate is slightly lower than that measured by Explorers 16 and 23. The 8 rail panels have encountered a shorting problem which has necessitated the disconnecting of 31 of the 34detectcrs. A panel of 8 detectors was reconnectedeventhough itis still drawing some current, Thus, ! 1 detectors are presently active. The puncture rate in the 8 rail panels appears to be between that in the 1.5 rail and 16 rail, as expected,

97

March 8 had maximum temperatures of about 360°K, while the maximum of the -Z side was only about 300*K. Thus, the extremes for the two sides are different, and a maximum temperature difference across the panels of about 90°K existed on that day. Data indicate that the orientation of the spacecraft is such that the sun is directly incident only on the +Z side with file -Z side receiving the earth refleeting solar energy, 14.5 PEGASUS TELEVISION Shroud separation were observed COVERAGE the Pegasus TV camera

mounted inside tbe payloadadapterandlookingforward. Excellent TV coverage was obtained. Just after shroud separation several bits of loose materials were observed floating about in the field of view of the camera. A study of the loose material observed on the TV film was undertaken in an effort to determine the origin of the debris. The studies indicated that the material appeared to be ice which may have formed on the S-IV hydrogen tank forward dome or on the hydrogen vent ducting, and was shaken loose during the flight. The acceleration of the orbital unit, when the service module was )ettisoned, resulted in the loose material appearing in the field of view of the TV camera.

wings

anddeploymentof via an onboard

98

SECTION XV.

SLWIMARY

OF MALFUNCTIONS

AND DEVIATIONS

The flight test of Saturn SA-8 did not reveal any - malfunctions or deviations which could be considered a serious system failure or design deficiency. However, a number of deviationsdidoccur and are summarized. Correetivemeasures were recommended by the

2. The temoerature of the gas bearing supply for the stabilized platform was approximately 5°K lower than expected (Para. 7.8).

Structures MSFC Laboratory concerned for items marked with an asterisk. Each item is listed in the area where the deviation and/or malfunction occurred. Launch Operations 1. LOX vapor periodically broke the theodolit_ line of sight to the ST-t24 alignment window (Para. 3.4). * 2. The GH2 vent disconnect on swingarm 3 failed to separate pneumatically at liftoff (Pare. 3.7). _: P ropul si on Instrumentation 1. percent S-I stage engine position 7 thrust lower than predicted (Para. 6.2.3). was 1.32 I. launeh 2. Abnormal chamber pressure buildup was recordedonS-Iengine8, between approximately 0.7 and 0.9 second after ignition sihmal (Para. 6.2.3). Guidance and Control 1. Indications are that the GNz consumption to gas bearing is 20 percent higher than expected (Para. 7.8). (Paras. 2. 3. Nine measurements (Para. 13.1). Seven measurements were scrubbed prior to 1. urements Polarity reversedon (Para. 9.2.1.2),::: LOX stud strain meas-

2. urements

Combustion chamber were im'alid (Para.

dome vibration 9.2.4.2).

meas-

Environmental

Temperatures

and Pressures con-

t. Seal leakage occurred inthe pressurized trol computer compartment (Para, 10, 4).

failed

(Para. partially

I:L 1). failed

Twenty-sevenmeasurements 13.2, 13.3, and 13.4),

4. Of the 79cameras programmed to cover the launch, 3 cameras failed, 4 had no timingand 4 had unusable timing ( Pare. 13, 8).

99

APPENDIX VEHICLE A. 1 SUMMARY Theftighto[ oftheBlockII, Saturn SA-8 was the fifth was flight test DESCRIPTION II, III, and fort.he exit the A.3 SatarnIvehieles. This considered three chilldown inboard R" also 0.0348 provided m (12 larger turbine enclosure in) fins diameter the and S-IV stub ducts. from and attachment ducts stage. fins used enclosed to Four

hydrogen engine

fairingsbetweenthe

the second flight of the Saturn I operational vehicles andthe secondtoorbita Pegasus meteoroid technologT satellite (Pegasus B). This was the fifth consecutive Saturn ! success in orbiting satellites. The vehicle, which measured approximately 57 m ( tSB ft) in length, consisted of four distinct units: the S-I stage, S-IV stage, operational boilerp|ate Apollo description The only appreciable Instrument spacecraft change Unit (second (BP-26). between this flight) and A pictorial A-I. and vehicle

exhaust

S-R r STAGE engines, prox iding 4_t0, :140 at an altitude oI 60, 9(;t_ m

Six gimbai RLttlA-3 N (90,000 lb) total thrust

(200,000ft), poweredthevehicle duringthe S-IV stage portion of pnwered flight. The engines wel'e mounted onthe angle thrust from structure the vehicle with a six-degree axis. outward Each cant engine
('

of the vehicle

is presented

in Figure

longitudinal

SA-Oisutilizationof the LOX vent for LII 2 venting and vtceversain the S-IV stage nonpropulsive vent (NPV) system. A.2 S-I STAGE A duster of eight uprated H-I engines powered level Each

had a gimhal capability,)l squarc pattern |or pitch, S-IV st:_gc IFig. kg (100,01}l)lbl oxygen.

:_l)lus .r mituts !l,tlF-tlcgl't 3a_. auai rcdl c.ntr.I.

The

A-3) carried appr,,ximat(.lv [,t tlslI|)_c liquid }ltth'l,g('ll

35. :lS!t ;_rld lititlli:

the S-I stage (Fig. thrust of 6, 67 million of the four outboard

A-2) producing newtons (1.5 engines gimbal

a total sea million lb).

The transfer mon

thrus* structure i)rovided engine to the IAq2 and LOX container. The and LOX aft, were separated

thrust tanks,

in a ± 8 degree-

LII 2 forward bulkhead.

by a com-

squarepatterntoprovide pitch, yaw, and roll control, Inboard and outboard engines were canted 3 degrees and 6 degrees oatx_ards respectively from the vehicle IongitudinaI axis to minimize the disturbing moments that would be induced by an engine failure at critical dynamic engines pressure. Propellants through suction lines were supplied to the from the clustered arThese tanks fuel tanks, confour

The LH 2 (rueD system consisted of a 120.4 m a ( 4256 ft 3) cylindrical container with a hulkhcad at each end. LH_ flowed from the container through six suction lines, each of which connected to one RLIOA-:; engine.

,

rangement of nine propellant sisted of four 1.78 m (70 in) 1.78 m (70 in) diameter

tanks. diameter

The container.

LOX system consisted ofa Vacuum jacketed suction the container assembly, and

:;5. 8 m a _2164 it a) lines t_nslVrred

in) diameter LOX tanks and a 2.67 m (105 center LOX tank. Each outboard hlnk

the LOX Irom screen, filter

through the anti-vortex suml) cone. The lower connected to the L()X in-

(LOX and fuel) supplied propellants to one inboard and one outboard engine. The center LOX tank supplied the outboard tanks through the LOX interchange system. Thrust surized at the spider and longitudinal loads were LOX tanks. The propellant carrtedby the prestanks were retained member called a lb) thrust solid beam from

suction line flange chris were let flange on each engine.

on

A nonpropulsivc SA-7, in addition

vent (NPV) to the nmin

system pressure

was installed relief LOX

forward end by a structural beam. Ftmr 164, 576 N (37,000 retro the stage. large fins and four stub rockets S-I stage

and LIt 2 vent systems, t_)obviate the excessive angular rates due to the venting of residual propellant after S-IV cutoff. An inSA-gto provide auxiliary a large NPV system initial pressure was installed decay in the

propellant decelerated the S-IV

mounted on the spider for inflight separation

Four to the base plus support fin projected

fins

were

attached

LII 2 tank to assure that the main LIt 2 vent system is not activated. The system flown on SA-8 was identical to that ol SA-9 with the exception of interchanging the use of the LOX vent for LI[ 2 and vice versa.

of the S-I stage to provide flight stability and holddownpoints at launch. Each large an area of approximately 11.24 m 2 (t2t m ( 9 ft) Four fins. from the stub fins Stub fins

ft 2) and extended radially about 2.74 outer surface of the thrust structure. wereattachedmidway betweenthe

ullage pellants

Four 15, 390 N (3460 lb) rockets provided proper prior to the S-IV stage

thrast solid propellant positioning of the proignition.

main

I00

LAUNCH ESCAPE SYSTEM

COMMAND ODULE M PEGASUS ATELLITE S SERV ICEMODULE ! NSTRUMENT UNIT

S-IV STAGE ULLAGE ROCKETS -_r_. --_ 57 3 M 6 RL]0A-3 Engines

RETRO ROCKETS

DIAMETER 6.5

N

S-I STAGE Weight at Ignition 518,571 KG

8 H-1 ENGINES

FIGURE

A-1.

SA-8

VEHICLE

CONFIGURATION

101

LOX "SOX DISPOSALYSTEJd S

INSTRUMENT COMPARTMENT (TYPICALF-| &

ANTI-SLOSH BAFFLES (70" DIATANKS)

ANTI-SLOSHAFFLES B (]05'"DIA LOXTANK)

CABL CHILL-DOWN DUCT

HEATSHIELD

TURBINE EXHAUST DUCT

FIGURE

A-2.

S-I

STAGE

I02

_ [ANK L, 2 DOME _ _ _" _._._._ ' L "_"*"_

ACCESS DOOR

_TELEMETI'_Y _

ANTENNA 14,

COMMANDDESTRUCTANTENNAr4)

MANHOLE COVER ------.._ COLDHELIUM S

"_-

_

_

FOR,ARD ,NTERSTAGE

w._ AFT SKIRl ._

CYLINDRICAL LH2 TANK COkIMONULKHEAD B

ULLAGE

;AFFLE

UMBILICAL PANEL_ LH2 MAKEUP SPHERE-----.

STSTRUCTURE

HELIUM HEATER AND AMBIENT

SUCTION LINEITYP.]

AFT INTERSTAGE

f

HYDROGEN VENT STACKI3.

BLOWOUT PANEL

I_

FIGURE

A-3.

S-IV

STAGE

103

A. 4

INSTRUNIENT

UNIT

A.6

PEGASUS The

B SATELLITE of the Pegasus future B satellite near manned is to eatXll space

objective

the and

The Instrument Unit (Fig. A-4) located between S-IV stage and the payload, housed the gmidance control equipment plus telemetr T and the main This is the seeond flight of tile production Instrument Saturn vehicles. This Instruto that flown on SA-9. No en-

providecontinuedengineeringdataaboutthe meteoroid environment in which

eleetronictrackingequipment. of the prototype model Unittobeusedonfuture merit Unit is identical

vehicles will operate. In file stored position folded inside the Apollo Service Module mate overall dimensions of the satellite (177 deep. tudinal in) high, 2.2 m (85 the in) wide satellite theYaxis and The axis X axis of ofthevehicle,

with panels the approxiare 4.5 in 2.4 m (95 in) the longiin a plane is percapsule When of 2'.)

vironmentalprotectionisprovided tion during flight. The overall weight 1350 A.5 of the IU are kg (2980 PAYLOAD Theboilerptate consisted ofa ibm), 3.9 m (154 respectively,

for the instrumentadiameter, height, and in), 0.9 m (34 in), and

is along extends

parallel with the deployed wings anti the Z axis pendicular to the del)loyed wings. The total weight is approximately deployed, the satellite m (96 ft). has

1400 kg (3080 Ibm). an overall wing span

A-5,

Apollo (BP-26), CommandModule, and launch escape the characteristics

shown Service

in Figure Module, BP-26 Apollo lunar

center

The Pegasus is divided into two major parts, section anti wing assemblies ( Fig. A-5) .

the The

spacecraftadapter sel_'ed to simulate spacecraft soft landing

system. of an is a manned

satellite's fr, mlework is alloy extrusions. Thecenter

made of riveted aluminum section is attached to the a m_mnting cannister.

wlmse ultimate mission and return to earth,

launehvehicle's second stage. It provides for the deployment mechanism, electronics solar power panels, and sensors. Each wing eonsistsofseven providemountingsfor208panels hinges arc spring loaded so that, fashion. wingsunfold inaecordion

was

The Pegasus housed within attached

B meteoroid the Service

technology satellite Module. The Service adapter by six exrails on two guide

hinged frames (104 per wing). when released, A detector

which The the is

Modulewas

to the payload and mounted

plosivenutassembltes

panel

(4. 47 m or 176 in long, spaced 180 degrees apart) by threerollcrsleeveassembliesperrail. An additional explosive nut is located at the forward end of the Pegasus B satellite. After insertinninto orbit, the Cornmend and Service Modules were ejected, exposing the a Pegasus B satellite. TheejeeUonandseparationmeehanism consisted of 4 negator springs, each exerting constant 3.96 m havinga a stroke force of t78 N (40 lbf) through (156 in), and 12 compression spring of 4.3 constant cm (i.7 of 840 N/cm in).

composed of two flat plate capacitors of aluminum, Mylar, and copper bonded to each side of a tree-inch thick foam core. The dimensions of the detector panels are approximately 101.6 by 50.8 by 2.54 em (40by 20by 1 in). The capacitors have in), in), a target sheet thickness of 0.0381 mm (0.0015 in), and 0. 4064 mm (0. 016 in a given panel exposed detector 0.20:12 mm (0.008. and both capacitors

a distance of springs each lbf/in) and

are of the same thickness. The total area is apl)roximatel) 200 m2:8 m2 the i6 m 2 of the 0.20.'t2-mm 0. 4064_mm material.

(480

of the 0. 0381-mm material, material, and 176 m _- of

104

GN 2 PURGE 111 GUIDANCE SIGNAL

GUIDANCE

COMPUTER

GN 2 STORAGE

SPHERE -- ST-124 STABILIZED PLATFORM

28 VOLT

GUIDANCE COI_%AND GUIDANCE COMMAND .CONTROL DISTRIBUTOR

DECODER

FLIGHT CONTROL ST-124 ELECTRONICS

BOX

\_--_-

FIGUREA-4,

INSTRUMENT

UNIT

FIGUREA-5.

PAYLOAD

REFERENCES I. " Memo R-P_VE-VAW-65-62, May 3, 1965. "Final Predicted Mass Scott. Operational Trajectory," by P. B. Pack and G. W. Solmou. Characteristics of the Saturn I.

SA-8 Vehicle (U), by Mr. 2. 3. NASA TMX-53262, May

17, 1965, "SA-8

MPR-SAT-FE-65-6,

April 30, 1965, (Confidential), "Results of the Eighth Saturn I Launch Vehicle Group. of the Group. of the Sixth Saturn I Launch Vehicle Fifth Saturn I Launch Vehicle

Test Flight SA-9," by the Saturn Flight Evaluation Working 4. MPR-SAT-FE-64-15, Test 5. Flight SA-5," April by the 1, 1964, Saturn 7, Flight 1964, Flight 25, (Confidential}, Evaluation (Confidential), Evaluation 1964, "Results Working

MPR-SAT-FE-64-16, Test Flight SA-6,"

August by the

"Results Working Group.

Saturn

6.

MPR-SAT-FE-64-i7, Vehicle Test Flight

November SA-7, Data " by the Book,

{Confidential), Flight Evaluation

"Results Working

of the Seventh Group.

Saturn

1 Launch

Saturn " July 6,

7.

*_SA-8 Saturn Vehicle Section, R~Pg_ VE. DAC Report DSV-4, SM-47229,

1964,

(Confidential),

hy Technical

Handbooks

and Manuals

8.

August Missile

1965,

(Confidential) Systems

"S-IV-8

Stage

Flight

Evaluation

Report

Model

" by Douglas

& Space

Division.

107

INDEX

A

Angle attitude glmbal 45 61 space fixed 39

Acceleration body fixed 46 history 32 inertial, total lateral 39. 45. 15. longitudinal

path,

15. 46 45.

16 46 61

Q-ball 41 roll 39 S-I stage, command Angle-of-Attack free stream 61, 42 85

42

measurements, roll decay 96 rotational 61 space fixed 46 Accclcromctcr

structural

pitch and yaw 45 product 43 Q-ball 41 sensor 45 transducer 45 wind 41, 42 Angular rate 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 58, 94 Apogee altitude t, 14, 18 Apollo acoustic environment

altitude, scale /actor 50 Apollo 66 body bending 62, 63 components 63, 65, 66 control 1, 45 fin 63 guidance 55. 59 II-1 cngqnes 63 instrument unit 62, 66 intcrstage 68 Pegasus 66 readings 61 S-I stage (;3,64 S-IV stag_ 66 ST-t24 39, 47 Acoustic environment Apollo 67, 70 instrument unit 67 S-I stage 67 S-IV stage Acoustics effects Actuator command deflection hydraulic pneumatic, upon 67, 70 65. (;6. 67, 70 Arm

67.

70

command module 104 launch escape system t04 orbital insertion 2, 93, 96 separation 2, 18, 58. 59, 93 service module 104 test objectives 2. 104 vibrations 66, 70 swing i, 3, 5, 8, 99 ASC-eomputer 32, 39, 41, 44, 46. 51, 52. 53, 54. 55 Atmospheric conditions US Standard Attenuation at launch Reference 5 15

vibrations

effects, playback record 86. 89, 90 main engine flame 86. 88. 89. 90 retro rocket flame RF dropout 88 ullage Attitude rocket flame 86. 86, 88, 88 89. 90

signal 46 41. 42, 43, 27 pressure 9

46

position 42, 47 Aerodynamic forces, effects 39 heating effects on gas temperatures Altitude acceicrometer apex apogee orbital 15, 16 scale factor 50 22

angle 45, 58 control 27 orbital 93, 94, 95. 96, 97 roll 44 steering 27 yaw Attitude 44 error 59 42, 43. 44, 45

1, 14, 18 insertion 14 i8

pitch and yaw 39. roll 39. 43. 44 signal 39. 44 S-I stage 46 S-IV stage 44 steady state 44

perigee t. 14. S-IV cutoff 14 vehicle 14

109

INDEX

(Cont'd)

Axial drag force load 85 coefficient 61 error error 39, 18 47, 55 22, 85

coverage,

vehicle

first

motion 91

91

engineering sequential holddown arm 91 onboard traeldng umbilical TV 2, 92 tower 10. 93 91 13

Azimuth alignment residual

Center of gravity longitudinal B offset Chamber dome 44

vibrations

86 30, 99

Battery bus

voltage

89

pressure pressure,

22, 23, 26, 27, S-IV 29, 30

capacity 83, 84 instrument unit 2, 84 instrumentation 83, 84 S-I stage 83 S-IV stage 83, 1D10 tDll 1D20 1D21 8D10 8Dl1 8D20 Beam spider Bending body 62, 63, fin 62, 63 mode 63 oscillations pitch plane vehicle 61 Blockhouse redline Burn time IECO 2, 69 28, 61, 71, 100 83 83 83 83 84 84, 84 89 84

thrust, ignition 22, 23 Chilldown duct 33, 67, 78, 100 hydrogen LOX 25, 26. 78, 26, 78 100

S-I stage 26 S-IV stage 25 vent thrust 2_ Coefficient axial base (drag) force drag 85 22, 85

drag 17 Combustion chamber chamber stability Command module 62 61 steering dome pressure monitor 2 41 1, 45 46 25 measurements 28, 5, 8, 61 22 63

61,

Control acceleron'eter attitude 1, 27 9 computer 27,

valves 20, 21

5,

equipment supply pressure LOX replenish valve 25 pressure rate gyro 32, 44, 78, 80 sensor 45 S-I stage, S-IV C stage, system 1, 39, flight flight 25 45 41, 39, 27, 42, 43, 39. 43,

retro rocket 28, 29 S-I stage 15, 27 S-IV stage 15. 30, vehicle 10, 30, 32

100 45, 41. 100 100

44, 40,

vehicle, system Cooldown

Calorimeter 78 heat shield 80, purge 25 radiation Camera coverage, coverage, 73, 86

86

engine, Ltt 2 8. 30, 32, 34 engine, LOX 7, 8, 32, 34, Countdown l, 5. 9, 53 holds 1, 5, 9 operation 5 Cutoff 2, 91, 93 92 impulse IECO 20, 33 21, 22, 26, 27,

35,

36

launch Pegasus

46,

50,

72,

92

1 tO

INDEX

(Cont'd)

instrument unit LOX starvation OECO

32, 21,

33 26, 21,

27 24, 25, 26, 27, 41,

specific impulse start transients thrust thrust thrust thrust turbine

22, 32 32,

32 100 88 10U 25

1, 15, 16, 20, 46, 67, 92 75 stage

19, 21, 22, buildup 32 chamber 22, decay 20, 2t, exhaust duct

S-I stage S-IV

25, 33 39,

1, 14, 15, 16, 36, :17, 39, 41, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 94,

95, 96 S-IV stage, mass 32 vehicle, mass 31 vibration levels 70

turbopump vibration Events

gearbox pressurization 63, 64, 65, 66, 69 16

l)

significant 15, times of 2, 3 Exhaust en_dne, gas $5

Deflection actuator 41, 42, 43, 46 Deviations summary Drag axial force base 85 tumbling, vehicle, Duct boattail 75 chilldown 33, hydrogen 26, purge 26 turbine exhaust 67, 100 :19, JOU I00 coefficient 85 17 21 Fin 99

gas pressure 72, 75 inboard engine 21 plume 90, 92 systems 22 turbine 22, 39, fO0 Exploding bridgewire 25, 66, 84

eoeftieicnt correction

F

bending leading

63 edge

71

main 28, 100 pressure 75, 85 skin stub First Flow temperature 26, 100 71

E

trailing motion rate

edge 72 time 1, 10,

16,

58,

91

Engine actuator deflection attenuation, main

41, 42, .i.t, 47 flame 86, 88, 89,

90 99 75

helium 28, 35 pressurant 33, S-I stage mass

36 15,

20.

28,

29,

30

cllamber pressure 27, 32, 61, 88, cluster, effects 2l compartment, cooldown 32 cutoff transients exhaust gas 72, tt-I 19, hydraulic ignition,

S-IVstage mass 15, 31 vehicle, total 20 Flame shield base drag 85 heating pressure rate 73, 72 71, LH2) 74 73

pressm'e and temperature 32, :rl 75. 85 38

22, 27, 63, 91, tO0 system, performance main 19, 80

Fuel

temperature (see also bias 27

ignition pop 5, 8, 22, 23 mixture ratio (EMR) 20, 27, 30, performance, RL10A-3 19, shroud shroud shutdown individual 19, 22, 28, 29, 78, 100 74 71, 72

32, 37 28, 29, 32, lO0

density 5, 22 igniter23 load 27 main valve pump tank, tank, pressure acoustic 23 22. 6I measurements 24, 25 67

heating rate temperature 39

pressurization

111

INDEX

(Cont'd)

G

Heater helium 19, 28, 35, 66, 69

GLOTRAC GH 2

90 duct 67 1, 5, 57, 55, 99 80 56, 99 56, 57 34, 38,

Heating

rate

ehilldown vent GN 2 24, 25,

disconnect

base 73 engine shroud 74 fin trailing edge 73, flame shield flux 74 74 74

74

gas bearing purge 23 temperature COX flow flow GSP-24

supply

and pressure 24, 25

heat shield 73, radiation 73 vehicle Helium cold, cold, 78 bubbling regulator

control valve rate 25

24, 35 66 and temperature 8, 34, 35, 36

guidance signal processor Gravity eentp-, olfset 53

39

cold, cold, flow

residual 36 supply pressure rate 28, 35 35, 36 26.

Ground support equipment 3, 91 holddown arms 91 LOX fill and drain mast 91 swing arm 3, 92 monitoring tower 91 55, 59 52 41 33 39, 53, 97 40, 54 43, 44, 46, 51, 52, pins 83, 84 umbilical umbilical Guidance aceelerometer

heater shutoff sphere triplex Hydraulic actuator lanyard

19, 28, 31, valve 95 temperature sphere 27 1,5, 8 25,

66,

69

36

error 47, 48, 51, initiation 50, 53 signal processor S-IV cutoff 32, system Gyro rate 1, 45, 47, 55.

oil level and temperature pump 27. 38

28

performance

source pressure 28 S-I stage system 19, 27, 28 S-IV stage system 28. 38

I

H Ignition command Heat aft skirt base 80 flux 35, helium helium 78 73, 74, 78, 80 helium main pop, It-I engine 26 heater 19, 35 91 80 5, 91, 8, 22, 92 100 80 23

engine 22. 23, main propellant 90,

exchanger 8 beater, flux 35 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 86

retro rocket 75, S-I stage 19. 62 S-IV stage 32, thrust chamber ullage Impact rocket

shield 64, 66_ 71, transfer rate 78 Heat shield base drag 85

46, 58, 22, 23 38, 75,

base heat flux 80 calorimeter 80, 86 heating rate 73 inner outer region region 71, 71, 72, 72, 73 73, 74

booster 14, 15. 16, 17 Impulse specific, deviation l, 29 specific, specific, longitudinal 19, 28 S-I stage 20, 22

pressure 71, 72, 75, 85 temperature 71, 72, 75, 80

specific, S-IV stage 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 specific, vehicle 19, 21, 31

112

INDEX

(Cont'd)

total, ullage vented Insertion

cutoff 33 rocket, longitudinal 93 96

38

Launch escape system LII 2 Ix)iloff 34, 94 chilldown 26, 7S, cooldown leedline 8, 30 66. 6.(1 93. 95. 96

ILES$

45,

(i2,

104

100

Apollo, orbital 2, 93, conditions 1, 17, 18 instrument unit, orbital

2, 93,

96

impulse

orbital 50, 53, 54 Pegasus, orbital 2, 93, 96 Instrument unit I, 5, 39, 45, 55, 56, 61, 100, 104 accclerometor 39, 62, 66 acoustic environment 67 ambient pressure and temperature 80, 82 component pressure and temperature 80, 82 control rate gTro 39 duct temperature 80 long life batter), 2 measurements 88 orbital insertion 2, :13, 96 umbilical, separation 39, 80 vent port 80 vibrations 62, 66 Instrumentation mall-unctions:)9 photo optical 2, 86, 91 Interstate aecelcrometer aft 87, 68, breakwire degradation forward 65, 68 75, 76 68. 2 69 Load

loading _. 56 main fill8 NPV system 93, 94, 96, 100 pressurant temperature ,andl]ow rate 33 pressure decay 94, 100 pressure relief system I00 pump inlet"VL 3-I,;_7 replenish 8 residual 37, 94, slosh ;14, -t7 suctiou line 100 tank depletion tank dome 69 96 96 95, 96

tank pressure measurements tank pressurization 33, :14

tank temperature 78, !)4, 96 tank ullage pressure 8, 33. "14,it4 transfer line 8 vent vent vent duct purge system 26 line 75, 78, 92, 93, 94 valve 34, 66, 94 8, 26, structural 93, 96. 2, 61 100

venting flight, 69, 71, 75

6.(), 78 67, 68. 75, 78 75 67 75, 76 LOX

panel debonding pressure 2, 67. separation 2fi,

longitudinal (it, 100 normal, factor 61 relief l S-I stage 100 bubbling 9 ehilldown 26,

strain gauge 67 structural behavior temperature 2, vibration 69 Inverter 69 static 8:t. 84 ST-t24 55 lterative guidance 67,

78

cooldown 35, 36 density 7, 22 fecdliae 66. 69, 70 fill and drain mast 91 level j cutoff probe 21, 26, 27

mode

(IG/_II

2. 41.

51

Jettison LES 62 ullage rocket 38 L Launch camera

load 8, 27 loading 26 main fill 7, 8 main valve 23 mass error ',17 precool pressure system 8 21, 22, 24, 25, 34, 61

coverage 91

91,

92

pressurc relief system 25, 100 propellant utilization _ PU) probe 66, 69 pump inlet 9, 21, 22. 24, 34, 35, 36, 37 pump seal purge 25 replenish system 7, 8, 25

pad 37B 4,

I13

INDEX

(Cont'd)

slosh 35, starvation stud strain

47 20,

21, 96 23,

26,

27 61, 66, 69 96 36 99

propulsion radiation reliability structural tank 66,

21, 69 73, 93 86, 63. 96 73, 30. 63, 30, 93, 86 64, 32, 96 65. 37 86 88 65, 66

measurements 24,

tank depletion tank dome 22, tank tank impulse pressure

93, 94, 95, 96 24, 25, 35, 95, 37, 24. 34, 95 96 95 35,

temperature 2, thrust chamber vibration 22, Milestones 5, 6 Mixture Moment mass, ratio 20. 61, 27,

tank pressurization tank residual 27, temperature 7, transfer line 8 ullage pressure

9, 36, 34, 35,

inertia

10 10

vapor 1, 5, 99 venting 96, 100 vent valves 25, 34, weight LOX/SOX disposal sphere 7 system 24

66.

69,

70

pitch and yaw, inertial roll 10, 13, 39, 96 static 61 Motion angular 58 1, 10, 58 16,

purge

25,

26

time, first translational

5_,

91

M

N

Mach number 15 ,Malfunctions Mass summary 99 (see also weight) characteristics, vehicle error, flight ignition helium LOX 37 simulation 32 heater, 38

Nonpropulsive vent system description 95 LH 2 system 93, 96 LOX system 93, 96 performance 95 0 propellant 37, 38 10 11, II, 37, 28. 38 29, 30, 31, 37 31 Orbital Apollo, attitude insertion 93, 94, 2, 93, 95, 96,

2, 19, 28, 33, 93, 94, 95. 96, I00

10,

11,

43

history 31. 32, moment, inertia propellant S-I stage tO, 62

96 97 2. 93, 96 96, 104

S-IV stage 10, vehicle 31, 32 Measurements acoustic 67 angie-o f-attack

insertion 50, 53, 54 instrument unit, insertion Pegasus, insertion 2, 93, venting 96

45 p

combustion combustion

chamber dome 61, 63 stabilitymonitor 22 27 65 Path guidance initiation 39, 43 termination 46 at orbital lifetime Pegasus acoustics 57, 61, 96 camera insertion 1, 14 70 coverage 93, l

component 65 engine chamber pressure engine dome vibrations feedline 69 fin bending gas bearing 63 supply,

Payload pressure 57

gear case 69 longitudinal load 61 malfunctions 86, 87 pressure 2, 27, 30,

98

114

INDEX

(Cont'd)

hit detector electronics mission 2, 4, 104 operations 97, orbital insertion panels payload radiation 97, 94 measurements 98 98 98 2, 93,

93

LH z tank ullage 33, 34 LOX main fill line 8 104 LOX main relief LOX pump 61 LOX pump inlet LOX tank LOX tank NPSP 33, OK switch pneumatic S-I stage system 21, 22, 100 24, 34

96,

93

24, 25, 34 ullage 34, 35 34 21, 26

separation 59, 93, solar sensor 93 temperature 97, vibration 66, 70 Perigee altitude Pitch plane 1, 18 98

actuator 9 33, 7t, 72

S-IV stage 33, 71, 72, 78 spider beam fairing 71 8T-124, ambient 55, 56 surface 71. 78 tail shroud 75 thrust frame compartment time history 75, 76 ullage 24, 34, 35, '94 ullage rocket chamber Pressurization engine turbopump fuel tank LH 2 step LH 2 tank 24 33, 33, 34 34 34, 35. 36

angle-of-attack 45 angular rate 41, 45 attitude error 39, 42, axis resolver error beJKling 2, 61 control accelerometer gyro path drift rate 50 guidance 39 46

43,

44,

46

75

39,

100

38 25

gearbox

program, progTam, steering

S-I stage 39, 41 S-IV stage 44 command 41, 43, 46 41, 43, 44

steering correction wind velocity 42 POGO effects Pressure 2, 61, 62

LOX tank 24, NPSP 33 prelaunch 24

S-I stage, system 24 S-IV stage, system 33 ullage, prepressurization 24 Probe 27, 29, 19. 22 30, 99 continuous level 27 discrete level 27 LH 2 tank temperature LOX level cutoff 21, Propellant consumption 26 flow rate 20 level cutoff probe 27 94 26, 27

base 71, 72 boattail area chamber chamber,

75

22, 23, buildup

chamber, decay 21, 22, 27 cold helium regulator outlet cold helium supply 35 combustion chamber 28, 6t control equipment, detonation 75 dynamic 16, 43. 63 engine compartment fin. distribution 85 flame fuel shield pump 22, 72 61 supply 25

35

75

level sensor 41. 47 loading 5. 26, 32 mass history 32, 37 mass, mass, S-I S-IV stage stage 62 liftoff 30, 47 8, 69 ID, 32, 36, 37, 47, 37 32, 37

GN z 25, 38 heat shield 71, 72, 75, 78, 85 instrument unit, ambient 82 instrument interstage LH 2 decay LH 2 main LH 2 replenish unit, 67, 75, 100 relief line component 76, 78 100 82

mixture ratio 20, 27, residual 27, 30, 94 slosh 4t, 42, 45, 46, temperature, utilization weight, weight, grain (PU) ignition S-I stage 28 system 7 5

system 8

115

INDEX

(Contfd}

Propulsion system activate 84 performance 43 S-I stage S-IV Purge calorimeter fuel injector 25 23, 24 26 Roll system 25, 26 stage 1, l, 19, 19, 26 28, 30, 84

exhaust 75, 83 flame attenuation gas impingement ignition 28, 75, 58 28, 75 impulse 29 misalignment performance plume effects pressure propellant acceleration angle 39 angular attitude control excursion 41, 45

2, 78 90,

86, 91,

88, 92

89,

90

29

LH 2 vent duct system LOX dome 23, 24 LOX pump seal 25 LOX: SOX disposal

28, 29 grain temperature decay 96

28

Q

velocity 96 error 39, 43, to0 58

44

Q-ball angle-of-attack misalignment 41 R

gyro drift rate 50 moment 39, 9G program 39, 41 rate 39, transient 45, 58 50, 58, 93, 94, 97

Radar C-band skin Ranger cross Rate angular 39. 41, 42, 45 45. 46. 58, 94 control, gyro 39, gyro drift 50 heating 71, 74 pitch 50, 93 roll 39, 45, 50, tumble yaw 93 Recorder instrument 59. 97 90 90 Separation 1, 14, 55 i8, 41, 44, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 2, 25, 26, 39, 4"5, 58, 83, 89, 93, 100 58, 59, 39, 62, 67, 68, 75, S track

angular velocity 59 Apollo shroud 2, 18, dynamics 58 instrument Pegasus Simulation 59, unit, 60

93 80

umbilical

58.

93,

94,

97

flight mass, mass,

21, 22, 30 flight 38 vehicle 29 21, 32 22 22

unit

89 89

post flight trajectory Stability

onboard tape 2, 86, 88, playback mode 88, 89 S-I stage 86. 88, 89 S-IV stage 86, 89 transfer Resolver chainerror command ST-124, Retro rocket burn time signal 41, 39 gimbal 28. 29 39 89 46

combustion monitor 5, 8, Steering command 41, 44, 46, 53 vehicle 27, 53 Strain ST-t24 gauge system 67

l, 5, 39, 41, 44, 51, 52, 55 accelerometer 39, 47, 57 alignment window ambient pressure error 49, 53 system 41, 44 55. 1, 5, 99 55, 56

46,

47,

48,

49,

chamber pressure time decay transient 28

history

28,

29

gas bearing supply steering command

56

116

INDEX

(Cont'd)

temperature 57 velocity 39, 47, vibration 66

48

fin. leading edge 71 fin skin 67, 71, 78 fin trailing edge 72 44 24, 25, 34 46, 51, flame shield 2, 71, 72, 73 GN 2 57, 99 heat shield 71, 72, 75, 80 instrument unit 80, 82

Systems control 25, 36, 39, fire detection 8 fuel tank pressurization

GN 2 gas bearing supply 55, 56 guidance and control l, 39, 41, 43, 44, 52, 53, 54, 55 hydraulic 19, launch escape LCC recorder Lll 2 loading LIt 2 pressure Lli 2 vent 26, LOX loading LOX precool LOX pressure LOX replenish LOX vent 93 8 :}4, 93, 8 8 24, 8 25, 34, 35, 100 100 100 27, 28, 38 (LES) 45 8

LH 2 pressurant 33 LIt 2 tank 78, 94 LH 2 vent line 78 LOX 7, 71 LOX pump inlet IA3X tank 71 LOX, SOX propellant sensor S-1-8 S-I-8 72, 75 base 9, 36

system 25 grain 28, 38 75, 2, 78 71, 72 26, 67, 75, 76

S-I/S-IV interstag_ 2, 25. S-IV-8 71, 78 S-IV-8 base 78, 80, 81 94, 3,t 34, 36, 37, 96, 100 S-IV-8 ST-t24 surface 57 75 71 78, 79

LOX SOX disposal nonpropulsivc vent

25, 26 19, 28,

33,

93, 33, 28,

pressurization 19, 24, 25, 28, propellant loading 5, 8, 26 propellant utilization 8, 10, 84 28, 44, 19,

structural tail shroud

tmlk fairing 71 ullage 24, 38 Test objectives Thrust chilldown chamber chamber, chamber, 2, vent 14 28 purge 23, 24

propulsion 1, 19, 26, ST-t24 1, 5, 39, 41, 52, 55 TV onboard 2, turbine exhaust 93 22

30, 43 46, 47,

48,

49,

51,

dome 86 fuel igniter ignition 22

T Telemetry AGC 55, 97 86, 89, 91, 92

chamber chamber, correction

pressure 88 S-IV stage 25, 21 30

30

deviation 19, 21, frame compartment,

pressure

75

battery life 86, 92 flame attenuation 89, links 2, 88, 90, 92 rate [D'ro 97 RF systems 86, 89 S-I stage, toss 16 VCO 88 Television AGC 97 2, 93 coverage 76, 91 78

90

helium heater 28 ll-I engines 19, 22 OECO 16, 20 OK pressure switch 21, 26, retro rocket 29 S-I stage 15, 20, 22, 27 S-I buildup i9, 62 S-I decay 16, S-I longitudinal S-I pressure S-IV S-IV S-IV stage cutoff decay 15, 16 16, 20, 1 85 29, 33, 30, 41, 32, 45 28, 29, 31 66, 78 21 41

onboard Pegasus

Temperature aft interstage engine enbdne

compartment shroud 72

75

S-IV longitudinal 1, 21, ullage rocket 100

117

INDEX

(Cont'd)

vector vector Time first

27,

41 44 Valve 16, 58, 91

V

misalignment motion 91 radar 90, 97 92 1. 10,

Tracking altimeter C-band

fuel, main 23, 34 GOX flow control 24. helium shutoff 95 LH 2 main fill 8

25

GLOTP_*C 90 Minitrack 92. MISTRA M 90 MOTS 92 MSFN ODOP orbital 92 90 92

LH 2 vent 34, 66 LOX replenish control 25 LOX pressure relieI 25 LOX vent 8, 23. 25, 34, 66, LOX/SOX NPV 94 propellant 26 utilization 16 32, 36,

69,

7u

66,

69

STADAN 92 Trajectory booster 17 deviations from free flight 17

S-I, propellant suction line 25 Vehicle nominal 1, 14 first mass motion time characteristics roll 55 96 with

1,

10, 16, 43

58,

91

nominal observed predicted simulated

14, 15 21, 22. 30, 32 29 21. 22, 30, 31

Velocity angular altitude

comparison component, component, cross range

nominal

1,

18

S-I, powered 14 S-IV, powered 14 tracking 17 Turbine exhaust duct fairing exhaust pressu_e 22

39

earth error excess

fixed

inertial ST-124 1. 14, 53, 54, 14, 15,

48. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 39 18. 41, 44, 45. 47, 51, 52, 55 16

48, 50, circular 17 18 insertion 15 cutoff fixed 43 28 32,

53, 54 18

U

gain

impulse orbital Ullage gas temperature 24 8 34, 24 95 wind Vent 94 86 38 chilldown LH 2 tank pressure LOX tank pressure prepressurizafion pressure pressure Ullage rocket attenuation burnout chamber 38 pressure 35 decay 2, OECO S-IV space

53, 39,

54 41 39, 41, 43, 44, 51, 52,

l, 15, 18, 53, 54

GH2diseonnect bose 8, 9 hydrogen, LH 2 tank 8 duct

t,

5, 8,

99 26

purge

system

exhaust gas 75 flow rate 31 grain temperature igrdtion 38, 75, jettison 38 impulse 38 misallgnment performance plume effects pressure surge 39, 38 75 38 38 80

LH 2 line 75, 78, 92 LH 2 system 26, 93, LII 2 valve 34, 66 LOX 93, 100 LOX valve 8, 25, nonpropulsive 58 ports 25, 80

100

34.

66,

69,

70 33, 93, 94, 96,

system

19, 28, 100

118

INDEX

{Concluded)

Vibrations Apollo 66, combustion component 70 chamber dome 61 65, 69 66, 69, 70 Weight (see fuel 7 ignition also 7 mass)

W

measurements

engine 65, 66, 69 gear case housing 65, 66, instrument unit 66, 70 interstage LOX dome Pegasus propellant 65, 22 69

liftoff 20, 21 loss rate 21 valve 69, 70 Wind angle-of-attack pitch 41 41, 41, 43 42 42 69 LOX 7 propellant 7. 10 12, 20, 21, 22

66, 67, 70 utilization

S-I stage 65, 66 S-IV stage 65, 66, summary Voltage bus 84 5-volt 64

S-IV cutoff 29 vehicle 10, ll,

measuring

supply 55

83

ra_insonde velocity yaw 42

solar panel 97 ST-124 inverter

119

DISTRIBUTION

INTERNAL D1R Dr. DEP-T Dr. Bees DEP-A Mr. E-DIR Mr. I-DIR Dr. Gen. Mrazek O'Connor I-L/IBCol. I-L!IB-T Mr. Fikes (13) MGR James _ (I) Maus Gorman yon Braun

R-AERO-G Mr. Baker

R-AERO-P Mr. McNair R-A ERO-Y Mr. Vaughan

B-AERO-YT Mr. O. R-A STR-D|R Dr.

E.

Smith

Haeussermann

Mr. R-ASTR-E Fiehtner R-A STR- F Mr. R-ASTR-I Mr. bit. Hobcrg Powell IIosenthien

I-MO-MGR Dr. I-V-MGR Dr. R-DIR Mr. R-OM-V Mr. R-SA-DIR Mr. Davidson R-ASTR-S Mr. R -A ERO-DIR Dr. Geissler Mr. Jean R-A ERO-A Mr. Dahrn R-COMP-DIR Dr. Hoelzer R-COMPR Noel Messer R-A STR- NGI Mr. Nicaise Weidner R-ASTR-N Mr. Moore Rudolph R-A STR-IMD Mr. Avery Speer (4) R-ASTR-IE Mr. Price

,Mr. Prince R-COMPRR Mr. Cochran R- ME-DIR Mr. Kuers R-ME-D (35) Mr. Eisenhardt

R-A E RO-A T Mr. Wilson R-A E RO-D Mr. Horn R-AERO-F Mr. Limtaerg

120

DISTRIBUTION

(Cont'd)

INTERNAL "I_-ME-M Mr. Orr

(Concluded)

H- RP-D1R Dr. Stuhlinger

R-TEST-DIR Mr. Heimburg-_ Tessma_ -(1}

R-ME-T Mr. R-ME-X Mr.

Mr. Franklin

R-TEST-C Mr. Grafton Wuenscher R-TEST-I Dr. Sieber

H-P& VE-DIR Dr. Lueas Mr. Palaoro

R-TEST-M Mr. Edwards R-TEST-S Mr. Driseol[

R-P&VE-A Mr. Goerner R-P& VE-M Kingsbury

Mr.

R-TEST-SB Mr. Reilman MS-H Mr. Akens MS-IP Mr. MS-IL Miss Robertson LVODr. LVOMr. JA Gruene JA Rigell (8)

R-P&VE-P Mr. Paul _2)

R-P&VE-PPE Mr. MeKay f2) Remer f2)

R- P& VE-S Mr. Mr. Kroll Hunt

R-P& VE-SVM Mr. Gassaway

R- QUA L- DIR Mr. Grau

R-QUA L-A Mr. Henritze R-QUA L-DIE Mr. Corder R-QUA Mr. R-QUA Mr. L-P Brooks L-QVS Peek

LVO- J F Mr. Pickett EXTERNA L

Headquarters National Aeronautics Washington, Attn: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. D.C. Hilburn,

& Space 20546 AAD

Administration

Shapley, ADA Kerr, E Condon, KR

R-QUAL-R Mr. Brlen Mr. Smith

Dr. Mueller, M Gea. Phillips, MA Capt. Freitag, MC Dr. Adams, R

121

DISTRIBUTION

(Cont'd)

EXTERNAL Mr. Dr.

(Cont'd) Tischler, Newell, RP S S¢_.D SE SV (10 copies) U MAT (8 copies)

Director, National Wallops

Wallops Aeronautics Island,

Station: Virginia

R, 23337

L, Krieger Administration

& Space

Dr. Tepper, Mr. Garbarini. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mr. Director, National Moffett Director, National Kerr, Day, Ames

Director, Western Operations National Aeronautics & Space 150 Pico Blvd. Santa Moniea, California

Office: Robert Administration

W.

Kamm

90406 Information Facility

Scientific Research Center: Dr. H. Julian Allen P.O. Box Aeronautics & Space Administration Field, California 94035 Flight Research Center: Paul F. Bikle Aeronautics & Space Administration 93523 Center & Space 20771 Code

and Technical 5700

Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Attn: NASA Representative Jet Propulsion Laboratory 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, Attn: Irl [l.

(S-AIC_RKT)t25

copiesi

P. O. Box 273 Edwards, California Goddard National Space Flight Aeronautics

California 91103 Newlan, Reports Group, Lees', (Mail Sec. 179-203i

(Mail CCMTA for

111-122) (4 copi(,s) Research

Administration 300

Office Room The

of the Asst. & Engineering 3E1065 Pentagon D. C. Library

of Defense

Greenbelt, Maryland Attn: Ilerman LaGow,

John F. Kennedy Space Center National Aeronautics & Space

Administration

Washington, Attn: Tech Director Office

20301

Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 Attn: Technical Library, Code ALSO 3B Mrs. INS-1 Dr. INS-13 Mr. INS-4 Mr. Director, National Langley Hampton, Director, National L. B. Russell

of Guided of the

Missiles of Defense

Secretary

Burns Jelen Collins Research Center: Floyd & Space Administration 23365 Research Road 44135 Center: Dr. Abe Silverstein L. Thompson

Room 3E131 The Pentagon Washingl_n, D. C. 20:_01

Central Intelligence Agency Washington, D. C. 20505 Attn: OCR/DD/Publications

(5 ¢opi_.s)

Langley Aeronautics Station Virginia Lewis Aeronautics

Director,

National

Security Maryland

Agency 20755

Ft. George Mcad, Attn: C3/TDL

U.S.

Atomic

Energy

Commission, Radiation Division 94551

Sandia Lab.

Corp.

& Space

Administration

University

of California

21000 Brookpark Cleveland, Ohio

Technical Information P.O. Box 808 Livcrmore, Califorma Attn: Clovis Craig

Manned Spacecraft Center National Aeronautics & Space Administration tiouston, Texas 77058 Attn: Director: Dr. Robert R. Gih'uth Robert Charles W. E. E. McKann, M. Grant, Davidson, Code Code R-L PM4 (3 copies) BM1 (2 copies) (MSFC Liaison)

U.S. Atomic En('rh_' Commission, Livermore Br, P. O. Box 969 Livermore, Attn: Tcch California Library 94551

Saodia

Corp.

I "2'2

DISTRIBUTION

(Cont'd)

EXTERNAL

{Cont'd) Services Agency Technical

Systems Engineering Attn: SEPIR Wright-Patterson Director

Group AFB, Ohio

(RTD) 45433

Commander, Armed Inl()r mation Arlington Hall Station

Arlington, Virginia 22212 Attn: TIPCR (Transmittal per Cognizant Act Security Instruction) f5 copies) Commanding General

U.S. Naval Research L,q.boratory Washington. D. C. 20390 Attn: Code 2027 Chief of Naval Research 20390

White Sands Proving Ground New Mexico 88002 Attn: ORD BS-OMTIO-TL (3 copies) Chief of Staff, The Pentagon Washington, I Cpy 1 Cpy Commander-in Strategic Air D. U. C. S. Air 20330 for for DCS/D DCS/D AFDRD AIZDRD-EX Force

Department Washinffton, Attn: Code

of Navy D. C. 463

Chief, Bureau of Weapons Department of Navy Washington, D. C. 20390 1 Cpy to SP, 1 Cpy to AD3, 1 Cpy to RESI. 1 Cpy to REW3 Commander U.S. Naval Point Missile Division AMSMI-RBLD; RSIC (3 copies) Bldg. 4484 Redstane Arsenal, Alabama 35809 Aerospace Corporation 2400 East El Sagundo E1 Sagundo, California Attn: D. C. Bakeman Aerospace Corporation Reliab lilt3" Dept. P.O. Box 95085 Center Los Angeles, Caliiornia Attn: Don Herzstein Bellcomm, Inc. ll00 Seventeenth Washington, Attn: Miss Office, The Boeing P. O. Box New Orleans, Company 29100 Louisiana 70129 H. Nelson (3 copies) 90045 Mugu,

marked marked

-Chief Command

Air

Missilc

Test 93041

Center

OffuitAFB, Nebraska 68113 Attn: Director of Operations, Commander Arnold Engineering Arnold Air Force Atta: Tech Library

California

Development Center Station, Tennessee 37389 (2 copies)

Commander Air Force Flight Test Center Edwards A FB, California 93523 Attn: FTOTL

90245

Commander Air Force Missile Development Holloman Air Force Base New Mexico 88330 Attn: Tech Library (SRLT)

St.

N.

W.

Commander, AF Missile Test Center Patrick AFB, Florida 32925 Atta: Technical Information Intelligence MTGRY Headquarters 6570th Aerospace U. S. Air Force Medical Division Base, f3 copies)

D. C. 20036 Scott, Librarian

{AFSC) Ohio 45433

Attn:

R.

Wright Patterson Air Force Atta: H. E. Vongierke

Chrysler Corporation Space Division Michoud Operations Dept. 2712, Bldg. 350 P. O. Box 29200 New Orleans, Louisiana 70129 Attn: Mr. Leroy Smith (5 copies|

12"3

DISTRIBUTION

(Concludt_l

_

EXTERNAL Chrysler

[Concluded) Corporation Space Division

Rocketdyne 6633 Canoga Avenue Canoga Park, Calilornia Attn: T. L. Johnson 91303 (3 copies)

Huntsville Operations Dept. 4800 1312 N. Meridian Street lluntsville. Alabama 35;507 Attn: It. Bader, Jr. (3 copies) Douglas Aircrafl Company, Inc.

Forci_m Technology Division FTD (TDBDP) Wright Patterson Air Force Commander Det. 11, 4th Weather Co:le; ETQFW Patrick A FB, Florida AFETR Patrick Corp. 11714 (ETIA,G-1) AFB, Florida Group 32925

Base,

Ohio

45433

Marshall Space Flight Center Bldg. 4481. Room4l tluntsville, Alabama 35_12 Attn: J. A. Tobias _15 copies) NASA Rcsident Office Grumman Aircraft Engirlcering Bethpage. Long lsland. Attn: Jotm Johanscn International Business N. Y.

32925

Machine

System Desi#n. Dept. 229 150 Sparkman Dr. NW lluntsvillc, Alabama 35808 Attn: 1t. E. Poupard (2 copies)

Martin Company Space Systems Division Baltimore. Atta: W. North Space 12214 Downey. Attn: W. W P. Maryland Sommers Aviation Division Blvd. 90241 BC-05 _1 copy} (2 copies) Systems 21203

American & Inlormation S. Lakewood California

T+ Schleich, F Parker

Pratt &, Whitney P. O. Box 2091 West Attn: Palm T. C.

Aircral't Florida 33402 McAbee

l_each, Mayes

& F. W. of America Products

Radio Corporation Defense Electronic Data 8500 Systems Balboa

Division Blvd. California 91406

Van Nays,

RCA St, crier Company 2611 Leeman Ferry Road Ilmltsville, Alabama Attn: D. E. Wise

124

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful