M I S S I L E & SPACE S Y S T E M S D I V I S I O N

DOUGLAS A I R C R A F T COMPANY, I N C .
M 0 N I CA/ C A L I FO R N IA
S A N TA

W
 SATURN IB/S-IVB STAGE
SEPARATION CONTROLLABILITY REPORT

NOVEMBER 1964
D O U G L A S REPORT SM-46758
:SUPERSEDES SM-44138)

'REPARED BY: C.T. HAGSTROM

F L I G H T DYNAMICS C O N T R O L

P R E P A R E D FOR:
N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS AND
S P A C E ADMlNl S T R A T I O N
UNDER N A S A C O N T R A C T N A b 7 - 1 0 1

APPROVED B y : A.G. PUGLlSI

M A N A G E R , SATURN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

SPACE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IMISSILE & SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION

DOUGLAS A I R C R A F T COMPANY, I N C .
 PREFACE

The purpose of t h i s r e p o r t i s t o present t h e r e s u l t s of t h e Saturn I B separation

c o n t r o l a n a l y s i s f o r t h e revised 200,000 l b t n r u s t H-1 engine and t o update t h e

previous s e p a r a t i o n r e p o r t ( r e f e r e n c e 1) u s i n g t h e latest aerodynamic parameters .

The e f f e c t s of a 50 and 100 per cent dispersion i n t h e aerodynamic parameters are

included, as requested i n I t e m 4.4 of t h e a c t i o n items of t h e S-IVB Vehicle

Dynamics and Control Working Group Meeting reported i n MSFC Technical Direction

No. I-V-S-IVB-TD-64-12 dated March 17, 1964 ( r e f e r e n c e 2 ) . 5

This r e p o r t i s provided t o p a r t i a l l y f u l f i l l t h e requirements of Contract Number

NAS-7-101 as noted i n Douglas A i r c r a f t Company Report SM-41410; Data Submittal

Document Saturn S-IVB System, I t e m 3.8, dated March 1962.

ii
 ABSTRACT

This r e p o r t , using t h e latest aerodynamic, engine, and stage sequencing data

a v a i l a b l e , i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y of t h e Saturn S-IVB/IB s t a g e during

s e p a r a t i o n from t h e S-IB stage. Post separation a t t i t u d e t r a n s i e n t s and engine

d e f l e c t i o n t r a n s i e n t s are presented f o r a nominal condition using parameters

which are s l i g h t l y higher than t h e 90 per cent confidence l e v e l , 3u values

obtained from Saturn S-I f l i g h t data. Changes i n t h e s e t r a n s i e n t responses are

presented f o r i n d i v i d u a l and combined d i s p e r s i o n s of these parameters. The

results i n d i c a t e t h e c o n t r o l of t h e S-IVB s t a g e can be maintained under nominal

conditions and the system i s stable. Maximum a t t i t u d e s are produced by dis-

persions i n t h e aerodynamic pressure. A.100 per cent dispersion i n t h i s

parameter produced a 30° a t t i t u d e excursion. A t t i t u d e excursions of 50° and

9 6 O are obtained when t h i s case i s combined w i t h t h e minimum guaranteed t h r u s t

rise curve o r a p o s i t i v e 2 degree thrust misalignment, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Further

analyses t o e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r these worse case excursions are required

t o determine a l i m i t f o r t h e a t t i t u d e rate which can be used i n t h e emergency

d e t e c t i o n system.

DESCRIPTORS

S-IVB/IB

SEPARATION

CONTROLLABILITY

ATTITUDE

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Page

Preface. ........................... ii

Abstract ........................... iii

...........
List of Symbols, Definitions and Valu 3. viii

1. Introduction.......,................. 1

2. ................
Analysis Method and Parameters 1

3. Results. ........................... 3

4. ...............
Conclusions and Recommendations. 6

4.1 Conclusions. .......................... 6

4.2 Recommendations........................ 7

5. Bibliography ......................... 8

APPENDIX

Appendix
on the Initial Conditions for Pitch Angle and Pitch Rate ...
Statistical Analysis of the Saturn IB/S-IVB -Stage Separation
31

iv
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1.
Transient Responses ........................
Block Diagram Representation of t h e System used t o get Separation
12

2. ...............
S a t u r n I B Second Stage Configuration. 13

3. .........
Predicted J-2 Engine Thrust Build-Up Tdme History 14

4. .................
Ullage Motor Thrust T i m e History. 15

5. ...........
Normal Force Coefficient versus Angle of Attack 16

6. ......
Length of Aerodynamic Lever Arm versus Angle of Attack. 17

7.
and without One Ullage Motor Out..................
A t t i t u d e Angle versus Time from Separation f o r Nominal Case w i t h
18

8. ..............
Engine G i m b a l History f o r Nominal Case. 19

9.
........
Maximum Attitude Excursion versus I n i t i a l Dynamic Pressure f o r
Nominal Case and f o r Reduced I n i t i a l Attitude Rate. 20

10.
.
Maximum A t t i t u d e Excursion versus Time frm Separation t o 5-2
Engine S t a r t f o r Nominal Conditions and Varying Dynamic Pressure. 21

11.
Nominal Conditions. ........................
Maximum A t t i t u d e Excursion versus I n i t i a l Angle of Attack f o r
22
12.
Conditions except as Noted. .. .................
Maximum Attitude Excursion versus I n i t i a l P i t c h Rate f o r Nominal
,. 23

13. Maximum Attitude Excursion versus Engine G i m b a l Angle L i m i t f o r

Various Engine G i m b a l Rate L i m i t s Using Nominal I n i t i a l Conditions. 24

14.
Except for Three D i f f e r e n t Thrust Build-Up Curves .........
A t t i t u d e Angle versus Time from Separation f o r Nominal Conditions
25

15. A t t i t u d e Angle versus Time from Separation f o r Nominal Conditions

Hulidred Per Cent Dispersion of Dynandc Pressure ..........

Except f o r Three Different T h r u s t Build-up Curves and a One
26

16.
Per Cent Dispersion on t h e Aerodynamic Pressure ..........
Engine G i m b a l History f o r Nominal C a s e Except f o r a One Hundred
27

17.
Conditions Except f o r D i f f e r e n t Thrust Rise Curves. ........
A t t i t u d e Excursion versus I n i t i a l Dynamic Pressure f o r Nominal
28

V
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (cont'd)

Page

18, Attitude Angle versus Time f r a n Separation Showing the Effect of a

Thrust Misalignment on the Transient Response for Nominal C-ee e 29

19. Attitude Angle versus Time from Separation Showing the Effect of
Thrust Misalignment on the Transient Response for a Nominal Case
Except for a One Hundred Per Cent Dispersion on Aerodynamic
Pressure. 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 e e 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 e e 8 e 8 8 8 30

vi
I

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pege

. . . . ... .. ......
I 1.

2.
S-IB/S-IVB Separation Sequence.

Dynamic Pressure vs Time from Ignition. ... ........ .

9

10

I 3. Range of I n i t i a l Condition8 . . . ...... ... . 11

vii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS, DEFINITIONS AND VALUES

-
SYMBOL DEFINITION -
VALUE

X I n i t i a l Control Lever Arm 7.581 m

M I n i t i a l Vehicle Mass 133,165 Kg
I I n i t i a l Vehicle I n e r t i a 2
8,259,819 Kg-m

5 Auto p i l o t damping r a t i o 0.7

AO
P o s i t i o n Loop gain (K
e /KFB) 0.73 deg/deg

A1
Rate Loop gain (K./K
e m) 0.9 deg/deg/sec

Forward Motor Loop Gain

54 2.15 deg/sec/ma

K~~
Thrust Vector Control Feedback gain 6.64 ma/deg
A Aerodynamic Reference Area 2
33.3 m
Separation Time (See t a b l e 1)
tS

9 Dynamic Pressure (See t a b l e 2 )

T Main Engine Thrust (See c h a r t 1)

Aerodynamic Normal Force Coefficient (See c h a r t 3)

cN

4 P
Aerodynamic Lever Arm (See c h a r t 4 )

VARIABLE PARAMETERS

e A t t i t u d e Angle Degrees

e A t t i t u d e Rate Deg/sec

t Time Sec

6 Maximum engine angle Deg

LIM
Maximum engine r a t e De g /se c
'LIM

viii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Saturn IB/S-IVB s t a g e separation is possibly t h e most c r i t i c a l p a r t of S-IVB

~

stage f l i g h t . As a r e s u l t of t h e recent uprating of t h e H-1 engine's t h r u s t

1
from 188,000 pounds t o 200,000 pounds, and newer aerodynamic data, t h e previaus

separation r e p o r t (reference 1) can no longer be used as an accurate reference.

It i s t h e primary purpose of t h i s report t o discuse t h e r e s u l t s of t h e con-

t r o l l a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s made f o r t h e Saturn I B configuration using t h e latest

d a t a f o r t h r u s t buildup curves , aerodynamic coefficients , dynamic pressure ,

u l l a g e engine configuration, and separation sequencing. The main body of t h e

r e s u l t s are based on "nominal" parameter values which r e s u l t i n s m a l l a t t i t u d e

excursions. However, i n order t o completely cover t h e range of s e p a r a t i o n

problems some of t h e more s i g n i f i c a n t parameters such as t h r u s t b u i l d up were

i n v e s t i g a t e d over a three sigma range. I n order t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e required

aerodynamic dispersions of f i f t y per cent and one hundred per cent required

by reference 2; t h e dyneunic pressure w a s found t o be t h e most s u i t a b l e parameter

t o vary.

2. ANALYSIS METHOD AND PARAMETERS

The maJor p a r t of t h i s a n a l y s i s w88 made by d i g i t a l simulation o f t h e S-IVB

configuration. The dynamic equations used i n the simulation include r i g i d body

dynamics only. The a u t o p i l o t included an a t t i t u d e and rate of change of a t t i -

tude feedback. The hydraulic system was approximately by a f i r s t o r d e r servo

with rate and p o s i t i o n limits. No sloshing e f f e c t s were included i n t h e r i g i d

body equations. An snalog simulation of the i d e n t i c a l problem was made t o

check t h e r e s u l t s .

1
 Figure 2 i s a drawing o f t h e second stage configuration which includes t h e S-IVB

i
stage, t h e LEM, and t h e Service Module. Figure 3 shows t h e latest 5-2 Engine

t h r u s t t i m e h i s t o r y taken from reference 3, Also included i n figure 3 i s t h e

2
f
referenced t o t h e nominal value of 65.5 kg/m f o r q a t separation t h a t was

given i n reference 5.

i n S-IVB/IB separation s t u d i e s , The analysis w a s extended by parameterizing

these conditions i n order t o give a more complete p i c t u r e of the Separation.

The Appendix p r e s e n t s a s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of i n i t i a l conditions experienced

on t h e S-IV stage at separation for Saturn I f l i g h t s , and an e x t r a p o l a t i o n of

t h i s data t o t h e S-IVB/IB stage. This analysis shows that the nominal 3 rigma

values ured i n t h i s study for eo and e, are slightly conservative.

2
 Also included i n Table 3 i s a l i s t o f t h e nominal values used f o r t h e engine

gimbal angle l i m i t , t h e engine gimbal r a t e l i m i t ( r e f e r e n c e '71, and t h e assumed

t h r u s t misalignment e r r o r . The t h r u s t misalignment e r r o r includes t h e e r r o r s

due t o t h r u s t vector misalignment, missile c e n t e r o f g r a v i t y o f f s e t , t h r u s t

o f f s e t , and gimbal o f f s e t ,

3, RESULTS

The s e p a r a t i o n t r a n s i e n t response data given i n f i g u r e s 7 through 17 r e f l e c t

v a r i a t i o n s i n dynamic pressure, t h r u s t buildup c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , u l l a g e motor

conditions, t h r u s t vector misalignment, and i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e conditions. Two

types o f r e s u l t s are given, a c t u a l t r a n s i e n t response, and response t r e n d

summaries. The nominal i n i t i a l conditions a r e i n d i c a t e d i n Table 3 ,

Figure 7 shows a t t i t u d e excursion versus t i m e from s e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e "nominal"

case, T h i s response i s compared t o a separation t r a n s i e n t using t h e same

i n i t i a l conditions, b u t w i t h one ullage engine out, The p a r t i c u l a r ullage motor

out i s positioned so t h a t a maximum disturbing moment i s produced by t h e re-

maining n o t o r s thereby r e s u l t i n g i n an a t t i t u d e excursion of 2.0 degrees g r e a t e r

than t h e nominal case, The engine deflection f o r t h i s a t t i t u d e excursion i s

shown i n f i g u r e 8,

The e f f e c t of dynanic pressure on maximum a t t i t u d e excursion a t separation has

been p l o t t e d i n f i g u r e 9, I n i t i a l a t t i t u d e rates of one degree p e r second and

zero degrees p e r second were used, The upper curve, which r e s u l t e d from t h e

higher a t t i t u d e rate, shows considerably l a r g e r a t t i t u d e excursions and i s more

s e n s i t i v e t o a change i n i n i t i a l dynamic pressure than t h e lower curve, As much

as 30 degrees of a t t i t u d e angle i s obtained f o r a dynamic pressure of twice t h e

3
It
nominal" value. Although t h i s i s a large a t t i t u d e excursion, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y

t h a t t h e s e i n i t i a l conditions w i l l occur, based on t h e s t a t i s t i c a l study i n

t h e Appendix, i s small.

Figure 10 shows t h e e f f e c t of t h e separation sequencing on maximum a t t i t u d e

excursion. The t h r u s t buildup curve of f i g u r e 3 was used, and the t i m e from

s e p a r a t i o n t o engine s t a r t was parameterized. It i s seen t h a t with nominal

dynamic pressure, sequencing changes have almost no e f f e c t on attitude excursion.

However, t h e a t t i t u d e excursion i s quite s e n s i t i v e t o coast t i m e f o r cases which

have one hundred per cent excursion on dynamic pressure.

Figure 11 shows a t t i t u d e excursion versus i n i t i a l angle of a t t a c k f o r three sets

of i n i t i a l conditions.

Figure 1 2 i s comparable t o f i g u r e 11 except t h e maximum a t t i t u d e excursion i s

p l o t t e d versus i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e p i t c h rate f o r an i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e angle of

1 degree and a parameterized angle of a t t a c k .

Figure 13 r e p r e s e n t s t h e e f f e c t s o f changing gimbal l i m i t s on a t t i t u d e excursion

and on t o t a l c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y and for three values of engine gimbal l i m i t rate

( = 5 , 10, and 1 5 degrees/sec. )

Because t h e t h r u s t build-up curve has a very s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e a t t i t u d e

excursion experienced during separation, it i s necessary t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e

effects of both of t h e minimum three sigma and minimum guaranteed t h r u s t build-

up curves shown i n f i g u r e 3 , Figure 14 shows t h e r e s u l t i n g t r a n s i e n t response

using t h r e e d i f f e r e n t t h r u s t buildup h i s t o r i e s , A s much as 4 degrees of added

a t t i t u d e excursion r e s u l t s from using t h e worst case t h r u s t buildup compared

t o t h e nominal t h r u s t buildup.

4
 Figure 1 5 i s s i m i l a r t o f i g u r e 14, except t h a t one hundred per cent dispersion

on dynamic pressure was used for f i g u r e 15. While t h e v e h i c l e remains s t a b l e

( t r a n s i e n t responses r a p i d l y converge) it is evident that t h e a t t i t u d e excursion

i n c r e a s e s as t h e dynamic pressure increases. It should be noted t h a t an a t t i -

tude excursion of 50 degrees occurs f o r t h e absolute worst case. This worst

case c o n s i s t s of a one hundred per cent dispersion on t h e aerodynamic pressure

and minimum guaranteed t h r u s t buildup time h i s t o r y . The gimbal h i s t o r y f o r

t h e minimum case i s shown i n figure 16.

Figure 17 i s a summary p l o t of a t t i t u d e excursion versus i n i t i a l dynamic pres-

sure f o r t h e t h r e e dLfferent t h r u s t buildup curves.

Figures 18 and 19 show t h e e f f e c t of steady s t a t e a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l e r r o r s on

t h e separation t r a n s i e n t s due t o a 2 degree t h r u s t misalignment r e s u l t i n g from

an unsymmetrical t h r u s t and a c g offset. Figure 18 shows t h e r e s u l t i n g t r a n -

s i e n t response caused by both p o s i t i v e ( t h r u s t misalignment moment which a c t s

i n t h e same d i r e c t i o n as t h e aerodynamic moment) and negative misalignment e r r o r s

f o r t h e nominal case. These t h r u s t misalignment e r r o r s were simulated by
I
equating t h e engine e r r o r t o an equivalent moment of t h e v a r i a b l e t h r u s t times

t h e v a r i a b l e c o n t r o l l e v e r arm.

The p o s i t i v e t h r u s t misalignment which gives an i n c r e a s e i n t h e d e s t a b i l i z i n g

moment causes a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e i n t h e i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e excursion but converges

s l i g h t l y faster f o r t h e nominal case seen i n f i g u r e 18.

A p o s i t i v e t h r u s t misalignment e r r o r of 2 degrees causes an a t t i t u d e excursion

of about 96' f o r nominal conditions except f o r a one hundred per cent dispersion

on t h e aerodynamic pressure. See figure 19. While t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e s e

I 5
 conditions occurring simultaneously i s extremely low, t h e r e s u l t s must not

be neglected.

It i s obvious t h a t a t t i t u d e rates of greater than 9 degrees per second are

experienced f o r extreme disturbance cases such as seen i n f i g u r e 19. Also,

t h i s rate i s s l i g h t l y exceeded for nominal conditions except f o r one hundred

per cent d i s p e r s i o n of dynamic pressure. T h i s r e s u l t s i n a s e r i o u s problem

due t o t h e f a c t t h a t a t t i t u d e rates of 6 degrees per second may t r i g g e r an

emergency a b o r t , (Emergency Detection System -- EDS) as o u t l i n e d i n MSFC

Ground Rules Document I-CO-VB-4-230 .

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions

a. Separation c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y of t h e Saturn I B / I V B Stage i s acceptable

(15 deg 8 taken from f i g u r e 1 4 ) when considering t h e i n i t i a l conditions
of 8 = 1 deg; 8 = 1 deg/sec; Q = bo; "Slow" 3 u t h r u s t rise; nominal
dynamic pressure and aerodynamic normal f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t ; and no
t h r u s t misalignment. A t t i t u d e excursions g r e a t e r than 45 degrees a r e
unacceptable f o r t h e present guidance platform.

br The separation a t t i t u d e excursion using t h e above conditions but w i t h

twice t h e nominal dynemic pressure o r aerodynamic normal f o r c e and t h e
minimal guaranteed t h r u s t r i s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s unacceptable ( 51
deg 8 ) w i t h t h e present platform (See f i g u r e 15) .
C. The separation a t t i t u d e excursion using t h e nominal conditions i n
Table 1, but w i t h twice the nominal dynamic pressure o r aerodynamic
normal f o r c e c o e f f i c i e n t and 2O t h r u s t misalignment i s a l s o unacceptable
(96 deg 8 ) with t h e present platform (See f i g u r e 19).

6
 d. "he p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e "nominal" i n i t i a l conditions f o r t h e a t t i t u d e
rate and angle w i l l occur i s unlikely.

e. Small deviations (from 1.25 seconds t o 1.84 seconds) i n t h e time from

separation at which t h e engine s t a r t s i g n a l i s i n i t i a t e d causes l e s s
t h a n 2 degrees of a d d i t i o n a l deviation i n t h e a t t i t u d e excursion (See
figure 10) f o r a system experiencing "nominal" i n i t i a l conditions.

4.2 Recommendations

a. For a simultaneous application of s e v e r a l 3 sigma disturbances and

v a r i a t i o n s , unacceptable a t t i t u d e deviations are experienced. Addi-
t i o n a l analyses should be conducted t o e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b i l i t i e s t o
t h e s e excursions and recommend design changes i f necessary (See
figure 19) .
b. Further a n a l y s i s w i l l be required t o determine a value f o r t h e a t t i t u d e
rate t o be used as p a r t of the emergency d e t e c t i o n system.

7
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Douglas Report SM-44138, "S-IVB Stage Separation Report ,I1 dated J u l y , 1963.

2, MSFC TD No, I-V-S-IVB-TD-64-12, "Action Items from t h e Fourth Meeting of

t h e Vehicle Dynamics and Control Working Group," dated March 17, 1964.

3. NAA/Rocketdyne I n t e r f a c e Meeting Notes, "5-2 Engine S-I1 and S-IVB I n t e r -

f a c e Meeting," dated February 4, 1964.

4. NMIRocketdyne "5-2 Engine S-II/S-IVB I n t e r f a c e Meeting," dated June 23,

1964 ,

5. MSFC Memorandum R-AERO-DCC-4-64, "Saturn I B Separation - Control Phase ,I1

dated February 11, 1964.

6 , MSFC Memorandum R-P&VE-VOI-64-16, "SA-201 F l i g h t Sequence ,"dated May 5 ,

1964 .
7. Douglas Report Ds-2163, "Model Specification Saturn S-IVB Stage ,I1 dated
February, 1963.

8. MSFC MPR-SAT-63-9 "Summary of Saturn I Block 1 Flights," dated June 26,

1963,

9. "The Elements of P r o b a b i l i t y Theory," Harold Cramer , John Wiley and Sons,

New York, dated October, 1955.

10. Douglas Report s14-46569, "An Engine Out C o n t r o l l a b i l i t y Study of t h e S-IB

Stage of t h e Saturn I B Vehicle !lode1 DSV-bB, dated April, 1964.

11. MSFC Ground Rules Document I-CO-VB-4-230, dated August 20, 1964.

8
 TABLE 1

S-IB/S-IVB SEPARATION SEQWCE

T - 6.4 sec. Cutoff inboard engines

T - 0.4 sec. Cutoff outboard engines

T - 0.1 sec. Ignite ullage motors

T I n i t i a t e separation cutting and retro motors

T + 0.02 sec. Cutting complete

T + 0.03 sec. Retromotor thrust buildup begins

T + 0.20 sec. S-IVB roll control system activated

T + 1.60 sec. Begin 5-2 chilldown (engine start signal)

T + 2.70 sec. 5-2 Thrust Buildup Begins ( I n i t i a t e engine

gimballing)

5-2 engine at 90% thrust

9
 TABLE 2

DYNAMIC PRESSURE VERSUS TIME FROM IGIVITION

TIME DYNAMIC PRESSURE

Seconds lb/ft' Ks/m2

~~ ~~~

-6 23.8 114 0 .
-2 16.55 79.5
0 13.7 65.6
2 10.6 51.0
4 8.15 39.1
6 6.20 29.8
8 4.75 22.8
18 1.20 5.77
25 0 0

10
 TABLE 3
RANGE OF INITIAL CONDITIONS

NOMINAL
VALUE

2
I n i t i a l Dynamic Pressure, Bo 65.6 Kg/m2 t o 131.2 Kg/m 65.6
I n i t i a l Angle of Attack cyo -1' t o +4O +40
* I n i t i a l A t t i t u d e Angle, 8, -lo t o +lo +lo

* I n i t i a l A t t i t u d e Rate io -l0/scc t o +lO/sec +lo/sec

Thrust Vector Misalignment ($1 -2' t o +2' O0

Time of Zero Dynamic Pressure 25 sec

Nominal Engine Parameters

Engine G i m b a l Angle Limit OLim = '

7
Engine G i m b a l Rate Limit eLim = 8O/sec

*Note: See appendix f o r discussion of i n i t i a l values of 8 and 8 using t h e

previous Block 1, Saturn 1 f l i g h t s t o determine s t a t i s t i c a l values

11
FIGURE 1
12
 !
SATURN 1 B SECOND STAGE CONFIGURATION

STA. 2700

I STA. 2345

II STA. 2049
CENTER OF PR ESSU RE
STA. 1987

s -
I
t
STA. 1697

i
! ULLAGE
MOTORS
-C.G., STA. 1379
I

- SEPARATION PLANE
STA. 1187
GIMBAL
STA. 1087

J-2 ENGINE

FIGURE 2
I
I
I
\
\
1
b

\ \ v)

\ \ 0
L
0
0
W
v)

I
k
U
I-
U J
W
L
U
L
W
aE
z
LL
W
I
I-

-r
FIGURE 3
14
 8
s z
m
0
0
cv
0
0
2
( S a l ) l S n l l H l UOIOW 33Wlln

FIGURE 4
15
16
.k N O l l V l S (SLI313W) YWV t13A313IWVNAaOU3V A0 H13N31 d37

FIGURE 6
FIGURE 7
18
W rr N 0 N

(S33U330) 313NW lW8W13 3N13N3 - Y

FtGURE 8
19
 MAXIMUM ATTITUDE EXCURSION VERSUS INITIAL DYNAMIC PRESSURE
FOR NOMINAL CASE AND FOR REDUCED INITIAL ATTITUDE RATE

I
I

I
I
I
I
7-
~

I MlNAL
i
/

I
i 1
I
I
I

I w
1
I

I 2 I
n
I 40 60 80 100 20 140
1
I
qo- INITIAL DYNAMIC PRESSURE ( K g h 2 )

i
I
I
I

I
I

I FIGURE 9
20
MAXIMUM ATTITUDE EXCURSION VERSUS TIME FROM SEPARATION TO J-2 ENGINE
START FOR NOMINAL CONDITIONS AND VARYING DYNAMIC PRESSURE

40

35

30

25

20

If!

10 0

NOMINAL START
5

I
0
1.o 1.25 1.5 1.6 1.84 2.0 2.25
t -TIME FROM SEPARATION TO J-2 ENGINE START (SECONDS)

FIGURE 10
21
MAXIMUM ATTITUDE EXCURSION VERSUS INITIAL ANGLE OF ATTACK
FOR NOMINAL CONDITIONS

16

12

4
/

0
A

I
-a

-1 2
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
cyo- INITIAL ANGLE OF ATTACK (DEGREES)

FIGURE 11
22
 I

W
.-(
m
3
03
9
FtGURE 12
23
I MAXIMUM ATTITUDE EXCURSION VERSUS ENGINE GIMBAL ANGLE LIMIT FOR
VARIOUS ENGINE GIMBAL RATE LIMITS USING NOMINAL INITIAL CONDITIONS

32

28

24

20

I
16

i2
qy’
8

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
& L I M I T - ENGINE GIMBAL ANGLE L I M I T (DEGREES)

FIGURE 13
24
 -J-
e
wz
z
a
W
n
3
-
I-
I-
I-
<

FIGURE 14
25
I
1
I

I
I
I

j
i

I
I
I

i
I
i 0
W

i
I FIGURE 15
26
n
w
U
a
z
3
I

FIGURE 16
27
 0
W
+

0
W

FIGURE 17
28
I-
I-
<

FIGURE 18
29
 W
m

N
m

00
N

w
N

a 0
W
v)

I
W

W
rI-
4

1-,
c
N
d

co

e
I-
a

0
C

FIGURE 19
 APPENDIX

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SATURN IB/S-IVB STAGE SEPARATION

ON THE INITIAL CONDITIONS FOR PITCH ANGLE AND PITCH RATE

INTRODUCTION

This appendix has been w r i t t e n i n order t o compare t h e range of f i n a l first s t a g e

conditions which occurred on t h e f i r s t f i v e Saturn I f l i g h t s with t h e i n i t i a l S-IVB

conditions used i n t h i s report. The a c t u a l i n i t i a l conditions were transformed i n t o

s t a t i s t i c a l deviations which are a function of s t a t i s t i c a l confidence l i m i t s . It i s

r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e Saturn I may r e s u l t i n d i f f e r e n t conditions of separation due t o

i t s lower t h r u s t c a p a b i l i t y ( t h e H-1 engines w i l l be uprated from 1 8 8 ~t o 200K

pounds of t h r u s t f o r t h e Saturn I B f l i g h t s ) d i f f e r e n t i n e r t i a , and d i f f e r e n t aero-

dynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Consequently, a method w a s developed t o e x t r a p o l a t e Saturn

I data t o Saturn IB.

The method of a n a l y s i s consisted of using t h e f i n a l conditions from t h e f i r s t f i v e

Saturn I f l i g h t s . Using these values a s t a t i s t i c a l confidence i n t e r v a l of 90 per

cent w a s chosen a r b i t r a r i l y f o r determining t h e t h r e e sigma i n t e r v a l f o r f i n a l con-

d i t i o n s of t h e Saturn I B f i r s t s t a g e , (equivalent t o t h e i n i t i a l conditions f o r

i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e angle €lo and i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e rate 8, of t h e S-IVB second s t a g e ) .

It should be noted t h a t s e v e r a l assumptions were made i n order t o c a r r y out t h i s

analysis. These assumptions include t h e following:

a. The p i t c h and yaw axes of t h e vehicle a r e syrnrnetrical thereby making it

p o s s i b l e t o increase t h e sample s i z e from f i v e t o t e n by including both
t h e p i t c h and yaw values.

b.’ The values were assumed t o be d i s t r i b u t e d such t h a t t h e a c t u a l mean value

for eo and bo was zero.

c. A confidence i n t e r v a l of 90 per cent w a s chosen because t h e sample s i z e

of 10 w a s considered t o be very s m a l l .

31
I

PROCEDURE AND CALCULATIONS

The following t e n samples a,re given f o r both eo and bo where t h e p i t c h and yaw

samples are orthogonal and t h e r e f o r e considered independent.

I I

(Sample No.

0.08 0.01
0.06 0.03
0.03 0.21
0.05 0.29
0.07 0.09
0.20 0.05
0.05 0.04
0.09 0.10
9 0.11 0.10
10 0.45 0.09

The preceding samples were taken from the f l i g h t evaluation r e s u l t s given by

t h a t t h e means of eo and eo were both zero.

Using t h e equations found i n reference 9 f o r determining t h e a c t u a l range f o r t h e

variance corresponding t o a given confidence l i m i t we have:

2
2 < -ns <
,2
xP *I P
= 1 - -100

or
 where:

S - Standard deviation f o r t h e sample

(+ = S t a t i s t i c a l standard deviation

n = Sample s i z e

p = Level of significance

X2 - Chi Squared Distribution

and

p' = 100 - 1/2P

p" = 1/2 p

and

L = l
where
-
I X = mean value of samples

X,Y = individual samples

F i r s t looking a t 8 we have

= ,/- = 0.168
e' 10

For 90 per cent confidence p = 10

1 then

p' = 100 - (1/2)p = 100 - 5 = 95

p" = ( 1 / 2 ) p = 5

33
U s i n K t h e tables f o r Chi Square D i s t r i b u t i o n

Xpt2 = 3.940 or Xp, = 1.99

Xptt2 = 18.307
r 1

P' J w e are primarily i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e

maximum l i m i t .

therefore

4
u<- = 0.268
X
P'
or

3 ~ = 0.804 degrees f o r 9

Using similar methods of c a l c u l a t i o n s and a 90 per cent confidence i n t e r v a l t h e

following r e s u l t s were obtained f o r 60 .

0 degrees/sec (Assumption No. 2 )
%I=
S = 0.130 degrees/sec
8
a = 0.208 degrees
e
The t h r e e sigma value f o r t h e i n i t i a l p i t c h rate i s 0.624 degrees/second with

90 p e r c e n t confidence.

From t h e r e s u l t s of these c a l c u l a t i o n s , f o r a 90 p e r cent confidence i n t e r v a l , it

i s seen t h a t on t h e Saturn I-S-IV stage the three sigma value f o r t h e i n i t i a l

a t t i t u d e angle (eo) was 0.804 degrees and t h e three sigma value f o r t h e i n i t i a l

p i t c h rate ( 60) also f o r 90 per cent confidence was 0.624 degrees per second. In

o t h e r words t h e r e i s only a t e n p e r cent chance of a value f a l l i n g o u t s i d e the

confidence i n t e r v a l o r a f i v e per cent change of a value f a l l i n g o u t s i d e t h e maximum
side of t h e i n t e r v a l .

34
It should a l s o be pointed out t h a t because t h e arreumption of lumping both the

p i t c h and yaw values t o g e t h e r wa8 made; both the p i t c h and yaw axis w i l l experience

t h e samc i n i t i a l condition of t h e above determined values. The major reason for

a t t a c k i n g t h e problem in t h i s manner is due t o t h e extreme s e n s i t i v i t y on t h e

confidence i n t e r v a l f o r d i f f e r e n t sample sizes.

In order t o show some c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e end conditions of t h e first f i v e

Saturn I f l i g h t s and the forthcoming Saturn I B flights, t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n s caused

by aerodynamic manents and unsymmetrical t h r u s t decay were canpared.

A comparison of Saturn I and Saturn IB aerodynamic a c c e l e r a t i o n s is:

Saturn I B

2
0.12 x rad/sec /rad

6.24 x 10-2/f’t-sec 2

-
Saturn I

2
0.226 x rad/aec /rad
I
-T= 8.37 x 10°2/ft-sec 2
I
As a r e s u l t of the lower T / I r a t i o f o r t h e Saturn IB, unsymmetrical t h r u s t t a i l -
o f f w i l l produce lower v e h i c l e accelerations and t h u s lower a t t i t u d e e r r o r s and

a t t i t u d e rates at separation than on Saturn I ( r e f e r e n c e 10.) The lower acceler-

a t i o n due t o aerodynamic f o r c e f o r t h e Saturn IB v e h i c l e w i l l a l s o r e s u l t i n lower

a t t i t u d e disturbances at separation from winds o r angle of a t t a c k e r r o r s . Thus,

it appears t h a t t h e s t a t i s t i c a l range of standard deviations f o r i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e

angle and rate used f o r S-IB/S-IVB separation a r e conservative.

35