Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
e.-
GEORSE 8.,
U
MPR- SAT- FE- 69-9 SEPTEMBER 20, 1969
)N NUMBER) (THRU_
APOLLO !1 MISSION
('NASA-_ N-X-625:58) SATURN _3 L _I U t_'_
C !I_ VkHICLE _'4'? O- 70 _ :"3i
F t. I O•H T _: V A L U A T I_0 i_I_ _'__'_p i3 i::t.T : A S- 5 0 5 A.'v' i" ___
L ,.I_"
-_ i 1
MIS.,.S[L._ (NASA) Z6# p
u n c Ia s
_O/Z _' "_ _ ___'_ 74
MPR-SAT-FE-69- 9
APOLLO 11 MI SSION
PREPARED BY
SATURN FLIGHT EVALUATION WORKING GROUP
_i_ _:!:!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_iii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
:_
APOLLO II MISSION
BY
ABSTRACT
Section Page
INTRODUCTION
I.I Purpose
1.2 Scope
EVENTTIMES
2.1 Summaryof Events 2-I
LAUNCHOPERATIONS
3.1 Summary 3-I
iii
TABLEOF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
Section Page
4 TRAJECTORY
4.1 Summary
4.2 Tracking Data Utilization
4.2.1 Tracking During the Ascent Phase
of F1 i ght 4-2
Tracking During Orbital Flight 4-2
Tracking During the Injection Phase
of F1 ight 4-2
4.2.4 Tracking During the Post Injection
Phase of Flight 4-3
S-IC PROPULSION
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
6 S-II PROPULSION
7 S-IVB PROPULSION
STRUCTURES
9.1 Summary 9-I
9.2 Total Vehicle Structures Evaluation 9-I
9.2.1 Longitudinal Loads 9-I
9.2.2 Bending Moments 9-2
9.2.3 Vehicle Dynamic Characteristics 9-3
9.2.3.1 Longitudinal Dynamic Characteristics 9-3
9,2.3.2 Lateral Dynamic Characteristics 9-12
I0 GUIDANCEANDNAVIGATION
10. 1 Summary I0-I
I0.I,I Flight Program I0-I
10.1.2 Instrument Unit Components I0-I
10.2 Guidance Comparisons I0-I
10.2.1 Late S-II Stage EMRShift 10-4
10.3 Navigation and Guidance Scheme
Evaluation 10-9
10.4 Guidance System Component Evaluation I0-I0
10.4.1 LVDCPerformance I0-I0
10.4.2 LVDA Performance I0-I0
10.4.3 Ladder Outputs I0-I0
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
Secti on Page
I0.4.4 Telemetry Outputs I0-I0
10.4.5 Discrete Outputs I0-13
I0.4.6 Switch Selector Functions I0-13
10.4.7 ST-124M-3 Inertial Platform I0-14
II SYSTEM
CONTROL
II .I Summary II-I
II .2 S-IC Control System Evaluation II-I
II ,2.1 Liftoff Clearances 11-2
II ,2.2 S-lC Flight Dynamics 11-2
II .3 S-II Control System Evaluation 11-6
II .4 S-IVB Control System Evaluation 11-13
II .4.1 Control System Eval uation During
First Burn 11-13
II ,4.2 Control System Evaluation During
Parking Orbit 11-13
II .4.3 Control System Evaluation During
Second Burn 11-14
II .4.4 Control System Evaluation After
S-IVB Second Burn 11-15
12 SEPARATION
12.1 Summary 12-I
12.2 S-IC/S-II Separation Evaluation 12-I
12.3 S-II/S-IVB Separation Evaluation 12-I
12.4 S-IVB/IU/LM/CSM Separation Evaluation 12-I
12.5 Lunar Module Docking and Ejection
Evaluation 12-2
13 ELECTRICALNETWORKS
13.1 Summary 13-I
13.2 S-IC Stage Electrical System 13-I
13.3 S-II Stage Electrical System 13-2
13.4 S-IVB Stage Electrical System 13-3
13.5 Instrument Unit Electrical System 13-6
14 RANGESAFETYAND COMMAND
SYSTEMS
14.1 Summary 14-I
14.2 Secure Range Safety CommandSystems 14-I
vii
TABLEOF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
Section Page
14.3 Commandand Communications System 14-I
15 EMERGENCY
DETECTIONSYSTEM
15.1 Summary 15-I
15.2 System Evaluation 15-I
15.2.1 General Performance 15-I
15.2.2 Propulsion System Sensors 15-I
15.2.3 Flight Dynamics and Control Sensors 15-I
16 VEHICLEPRESSURE
ENVIRONMENT
16.1 Summary 16-I
16.2 Base Pressures 16-I
16.2,1 S-IC Base Pressures 16-I
16.2.2 S-II Base Pressures 16-I
16.3 Surface Pressure and Compartment Venting 16-5
16.3.1 S-IC Stage 16-5
16.3.2 S-II Stage 16-5
17 VEHICLETHERMALENVIRONMENT
17.1 Summary 17-I
17.2 S-IC Base Heating 17-I
17.3 S-II Base Region Environment 17-4
17.4 Vehicle Aeroheating Thermal Environment 17-7
17.4.1 S-IC Stage Aeroheating Environment 17-7
17.4.2 S-II Stage Aeroheating Environment 17-8
18 ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
SYSTEM
18.1 Summary 18-I
18.2 S-IC Environmental Control 18-I
18.3 S-II Environmental Control 18-2
18.4 IU Environmental Control 18-2
18.4.1 Thermal Conditioning System 18-2
18.4,2 Gas Bearing Supply System 18-7
19 DATASYSTEMS
19.1 Summary 19-I
19.2 Vehicle Measurement Evaluation 19-I
19.3 Airborne Tel emetry Systems 19-2
viii
TABLEOF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
Section Page
19.4 RF Systems Evaluation 19-6
19.4.1 Telemetry System RF Propagation
Evaluation 19-6
19.4.2 Tracking Systems RF Propagation
Evaluation 19-6
19.4.3 CommandSystems RF Evaluation 19-8
19.5 Optical Instrumentation 19-12
2O MASSCHARACTERISTICS
20.1 Summary 20-I
20.2 Mass Evaluation 20-I
22 FAILURES, ANOMALIESANDDEVIATIONS
22.1 Summary 22-I
22.2 System Failures and Anomalies 22-I
22.3 System Devi ati ons 22-I
23 SPACECRAFT
SUMMARY 23-I
Appendix
A ATMOSPHERE
A.I Summary A-I
A.2 General Atmospheric Conditions at
Launch Time A-I
A.3 Surface Observations at Launch Time A-I
A.4 Upper Air Measurements A-I
A.4.1 Wind Speed A-I
A.4.2 Wind Direction A-I
A.4.3 Pitch Wind Component A-2
A.4.4 Yaw Wind Component A-2
A.4.5 Component Wind Shears A-2
A.4.6 Extreme Wind Data in the High Dynamic
Region A-3
A.5 Thermodynamic Data A-3
A.5.1 Temperature A-3
A.5.2 Atmospheric Pressure A-IO
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Appendix Page
A.5.3 Atmospheric Density A-IO
A.5.4 Optical Index of Refraction A-13
B. 1 I ntroducti on B-I
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
xi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS(CONTINUED)
Figure Page
7-I S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements - First Burn 7-2
7-2 S-IVB Steady-State Performance - First Burn 7-4
7-3 S-IVB CVS Performance - Coast Phase 7-6
7-4 S-IVB Ullage Conditions During Repressurization
Using 02/H2 Burner 7-9
7-5 S-IVB 02/H2 Burner Thrust and Pressurant Flowrates 7-I0
7-6 S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements - Second Burn 7-11
7-7 S-IVB Steady-State Performance - Second Burn 7-13
7-8 S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure - First Burn and
Parking Orbit 7-15
7-9 S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure - Second Burn and
Translunar Coast 7-16
7-10 S-IVB Fuel Pump Inlet Conditions - First Burn 7-17
7-11 S-IVB Fuel Pump Inlet Conditions - Second Burn 7-18
7-12 S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure - First Burn
and Parking Orbit 7-19
7-13 S-IVB LOXTank Ullage Pressure - Second Burn
and Translunar Coast 7-21
7-14 S-IVB LOX Pump Inlet Conditions - First Burn 7-22
7-15 S-IVB LOX Pump Inlet Conditions - Second Burn 7-23
7-16 S-IVB Cold Helium Supply History 7-24
7-17 S-IVB APS Propellants Remaining Versus Range Time,
Module No. 1 and Module No. 2 7-26
7-18 S-IVB LOX Dumpand Orbital Safing Sequence 7-28
7-19 S-IVB LOX Dump 7-30
8-I S-IVB Hydraulic System - Second Burn 8-3
8-2 S-IVB Engine Driven Hydraulic PumpSchematic 8-4
9-I Release Rod Force Time History Comparison 9-2
9-2 Longitudinal Load at MaximumBending Moment,
CECOand OECO
9-3 MaximumBending Moment Near Max Q
9-4 First Longitudinal Modal Frequencies. During
S-IC Powered Flight 9-4
xi i
_ LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS(CONTINUED)
Figure Page
9-5 Longitudinal Acceleration at CMand IU 9-6
9-6 Peak Amplitudes of Vehicle First Longitudinal
Mode for AS-504, AS-505, and AS-506 9-7
9-7 Frequency and Amplitude of Longitudinal
Oscillations During S-IC Boost 9-8
9-8 Frequency and Amplitude of Longitudinal Oscillations
During S-II Stage Boost 9-9
9-9 S-IVB AS-506 and AS-505 17- to 20-Hertz Oscillations
Comparison 9-9
9-10 AS-506 S-IVB First Burn MaximumResponse 9-10
9-11 AS-506 and AS-505 First Burn Response 9-10
9-12 Comparison of 45-Hertz Oscillations During AS-505
and AS-506 Second Burn 9-11
9-13 AS-506 Lateral Analysis/Measured Modal Frequency
Correlation 9-12
I0-I Trajectory and ST-124M-3 Platform Velocity
Comparison (Trajectory Minus Guidance) 10-2
10-2 Trajectory and ST-124M-3 Platform Velocity
Comparison Second S-IVB Burn (Trajectory Minus
Guidance) 10-3
10-3 AS-506 Characteristic Velocity Error 10-9
I0-4 Attitude CommandsDuring Active Guidance Period I0-II
I0-5 Attitude Angles During S-IVB Second Burn 10-12
II-I Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn 11-3
11-2 Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn 11-4
11-3 Roll Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn 11-5
11-4 Normal Acceleration During S-IC Burn 11-8
11-5 Pitch and Yaw Plane Wind Velocity and Free-Stream
Angles-of-Attack During S-IC Burn 11-9
11-6 Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-II Burn II-I0
11-7 Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-II Burn II-II
11-8 Roll Plane Dynamics During S-II Burn 11-12
11-9 Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-IVB First Burn 11-14
xiii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS(CONTINUED)
Figure Page
II-I0 Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-IVB First Burn 11-15
II-II Roll Plane Dynamics During S-IVB First Burn 11-16
11-12 Pitch Plane Dynamics During Coast In Parking Orbit II -17
11-13 Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-IVB Second Burn _I-17
11-14 Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-IVB Second Burn 11-18
11-15 Roll Plane Dynamics During S-IVB Second Burn 11-18
11-16 Pitch and Yaw Plane Dynamics Following
Translunar Injection 11-19
11-17 Pitch, Yaw and Roll Plane Dynamics During the
Maneuver to TD&EAttitude 11-20
11-18 Pitch, Yaw and Roll Plane Dynamics During the
Maneuver to Slingshot Attitude 11-21
13-I S-IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 1 Voltage
and Current 13-4
13-2 S-IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 2 Voltage
and Current 13-4
13-3 S-IVB Stage Aft Battery No. 1 Voltage
and Current 13-5
13-4 S-IVB Stage Aft Battery No. 2 Voltage
and Current 13-5
13-5 Battery 6DIO Voltage, Current, and Temperature 13-7
13-6 Battery 6D30 Voltage, Current, and Temperature 13-7
13-7 Battery 6D40 Voltage, Current, and Temperature 13-8
16-I S-IC Base Heat Shield Pressure Loading 16-2
16-2 S-II Heat Shield Aft Face Pressure 16-3
16-3 S-II Heat Shield Forward Face Pressure 16-3
16-4 S-II Thrust Cone Pressure 16-4
16-5 S-II Forward Skirt Pressure Loading 16-6
17-I S-IC Base Heat Shield Measurement Locations 17-2
17-2 S-IC Base Heat Shield Total Heating Rate 17-3
17-3 S-IC Base Heat Shield Gas Temperature 17-3
17-4 S-II Heat Shield Aft Face Heat Rate 17-4
xiv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)
Figure Page
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
xvi
LIST OF TABLES(CONTINUED)
Table Page
I0-I Inertial Platform Velocity Comparisons 10-5
I0-2 Guidance Comparisons 10-6
10-3 Guidance Components Differences 10-8
10-4 Start and Stop Times for IGM Guidance Commands I0-I0
10-5 Parking Orbit Insertion Parameters 10-13
10-6 Translunar Injection Parameters 10-13
II-I AS-506 Misalignment and Liftoff Conditions
Summary 11-6
11-2 MaximumControl Parameters During S-IC Burn 11-7
11-3 MaximumControl Parameters During S-II Burn 11-13
11-4 MaximumControl Parameters During S-IVB First
Burn 11-16
11-5 MaximumControl Parameters During S-IVB Second
Burn 11-19
13-I S-IC Stage Battery Power Consumption 13-I
13-2 S-II Stage Battery Power Consumption 13-2
13-3 S-IVB Stage Battery Power Consumption 13-3
13-4 IU Battery Power Consumption 13-6
14-I Commandand Communication System GDSCommands
History 14-2
18-I TCS Coolant Flowrates and Pressures 18-6
19-I AS-506 Measurement Summary 19-2
19-2 AS-506 Flight Measurements Waived Prior to
Launch 19-3
19-3 AS-506 Measurement Malfunctions 19-4
19-4 AS-506 Launch Vehicle Telemetry Links 19-5
20-I Total Vehicle Mass - S-IC Burn Phase - Kilograms 20-3
20-2 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IC Burn Phase - Pounds
Mass 20-4
20-3 Total Vehicle Mass - S-II Burn Phase - Kilograms 20-5
20-4 Total Vehicle Mass - S-II Burn Phase - Pounds
Mass 20-6
20-5 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB First Burn Phase -
Ki I ograms 20-7
xvii
LIST OF TABLES(CONTINUED)
Table Page
20-6 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB First Burn Phase -
Pounds Mass 20-8
20-7 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Second Burn Phase -
Kilograms 20-9
20-8 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Second Burn Phase -
Pounds Mass 20-10
20-9 Flight Sequence Mass Summary 20-I 1
20-10 Mass Characteristics Comparison 20-13
21-I Mission Objectives Accomplishment Summary 21-I
22-I Summaryof Deviations 22-2
A-I Surface Observations at AS-506 Launch Time A-2
A-2 Solar Radiation at AS-506 Launch Time, Launch
Pad 39A A-3
A-3 Systems Used to Measure Upper Air Wind Data
for AS-506 A-9
A-4 MaximumWind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure
Region for Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/
Saturn 506 Vehicles A-9
A-5 Extreme Wind Shear Values in the High Dynamic
Pressure Region for Apollo/Saturn 501 through
Apollo/Saturn 506 Vehicles A-IO
A-6 Selected Atmospheric Observations for Apollo/
Saturn 501 through Apollo/Saturn 506 Vehicle
Launches at Kennedy Space Center, Florida A-13
B-I S-IC Significant Configuration Changes B-2
B-2 S-II Significant Configuration Changes B-2
B-3 S-IVB Significant Configuration Changes B-3
B-4 IU Significant Configuration Changes B-4
xviii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Program Management
xix
ABBREVIATIONS
XX
Hawaii MR Mixture Ratio
HAW
HDA Holddown Arm MSC Manned Spacecraft Center
HFCV Helium Flow Control Valve MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center
xxi
RED Redstone (ship) TMR Triple Modular Redundant
RF Radio Frequency TSM Tail Service Mast
RMS Root Mean Square TVC Thrust Vector Control
RP-I Designation for S-IC Stage USB Unified S-Band
Fuel (kerosene) UT Universal Time
SA Service Arm
VAN Vanguard (ship)
SC Spacecraft VHF Very High Frequency
SDO Secondary Detailed WHS White Sands
Objective
SLA Spacecraft LM Adapter
SM Service Module
SMC Steering Misalignment
Correction
SPL Sound Pressure Level
SPS Service Propulsion System
SRSCS Secure Range Safety
CommandSystem
SS/FM Single Sideband/Frequency
Modulation
STDV Start Tank Discharge Valve
SV Space Vehicle
T1 Time Base 1
Tli Time to go in Ist Stage
IGM
T2i Time to go in 2nd Stage
I GM
TAN Tananarive
TCS Thermal Conditioning
Systern
TD&E Transposition, Docking and
Ejection
TEl Transearth Injection
TEX Corpus Christi (Texas)
TLC Translunar Coast
TLI Translunar Injection
TM Telemeter, Telemetry
xxi i
MISSION PLAN
The AS-506 flight (Apollo II Mission) is the sixth flight of the Apollo/
Saturn V flight test program. The primary objective of the mission is
to land astronauts on the lunar surface and return them safely to earth.
The crew consists of Neil Armstrong (Mission Commander), Lt. Col. Michael
Collins (CommandModule Pilot), and Lt. Col. Edwin Aldrin, Jr. (Lunar
Module Pilot).
The AS-506 flight vehicle is composed of the S-IC-6, S-II-6, and S-IVB-6N
stages; Instrument Unit (IU)-6; Spacecraft/Lunar Module Adapter (SLA)-I4;
and Spacecraft (SC). The SC consists of Commandand Service Module (CSM)
-107 and Lunar Module (LM)-5.
Vehicle launch from Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is along a
90 degree azimuth with a roll to a variable flight azimuth of 72 to 108
degrees measured east of true north. Vehicle mass at S-IC ignition is
2,941,221 kilograms (6,484,282 Ibm). The S-IC stage powered flight is
approximately 161 seconds; the S-II stage provides powered flight for
approximately 389 seconds. Following S-IVB first burn (approximately
144 seconds duration), the S-IVB/IU/SLA/LM/CSM is inserted into a 183.8
by 186.5 kilometer (99.2 by 100.7 n mi) altitude (referenced to a spherical
earth) Earth Parking Orbit (EPO). Vehicle mass at orbit insertion is
135,669 kilograms (229,099 Ibm).
xxiii
During the 3 day translunar coast, the astronauts perform star-earth
landmark sightings, Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) alignments, general
lunar navigation procedures and possibly four midcourse corrections. At
approximately 76 hours, a Service Propulsion System (SPS), Lunar Orbit
Insertion (LOI) burn of approximately 359 seconds inserts the CSM/LM into
a Ill by 315 kilometer (60 by 17O n mi) altitude parking orbit.
Following lunar landing, the two astronauts execute a 2.66 hour simulta-
neous lunar Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA). After the EVA, the astronauts
prepare the ascent propulsion system for lunar ascent. The total lunar
stay time for Apollo II is approximately 22 hours.
xxiv
FLIGHT TEST SUMMARY
xxv
Specific impulse was 0.16 percent lower than predicted. Total propellant
consumption from Holddown Arm (HDA) release to OECOwas low by 1.12 per-
cent. Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) was commandedby the IU as planned.
OECO, initiated by the LOX low level sensors, occurred 0.55 second later
than predicted.
xxvi
The structural loads and dynamic environments experienced by the AS-506
launch vehicle were well within the vehicle structural capability. The
longitudinal loads experienced during flight were nominal. The maximum
bending moment condition, 3.75 x 106 N-m (33.2 x 106 Ibf-in.), was ex-
perienced at 91.5 seconds and was lower than that experienced on any
previous flight. Low level first mode longitudinal oscillations similar
to those of previous flights were evident during each stage burn but
caused no problems.
The AS-506 Flight Control Computer (FCC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC)
and APS satisfied all requirements for vehicle attitude control during
the flight. All maneuvers were properly accomplished. All separations
occurred as expected without producing significant attitude deviations.
xxvii
Base thermal environments were similar to those experienced on earlier
flights with the exception that S-II heat shield aft radiation heating
rates were approximately 20 percent higher than the maximumvalues mea-
sured during previous flights. Aerodynamic heating environments were
not measured on AS-506,
xxviii
SECTION1
INTRODUCTION
I.I PURPOSE
1.2 SCOPE
This report presents the results of the early engineering flight evaluation
of the AS-506 launch vehicle. The contents are centered on the performance
evaluation of the major launch vehicle systems, with special emphasis on
the deviations. Summaries of launch operations and spacecraft performance
are included for completeness.
1-I/I-2
SECTION2
EVENTTIMES
2.1 SUMMARY
OF EVENTS
Range zero time, the basic time reference for this report, is 9:32:00
Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) (13:32:00 Universal Time [UT]). This time
is based on the nearest second prior to S-IC tail plug disconnect which
occurred at 9:32:00.6 EDT. Range time is calculated as the elasped time
from range zero time and, unless otherwise noted, is the time used
throughout this report. The actual and predicted range times are ad-
justed to ground telemetry received times. The Time-From-Base times are
presented as vehicle times. Figure 2-I shows the time delay of ground
telemetry received time versus Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) time
and indicates the magnitude and sign of corrections applied to correlate
range time and vehicle time in Tables 2-I, 2-2 and 2-3.
Range time for each time base used in the flight sequence program and the
signal for initiating each time base are presented in Table 2-I.
Start of T2 was within nominal expectations for this event. Start of T3,
T4 and T5 were initiated approximately 0.6 second late and 3.5 and 0.I
seconds early, respectively, due to Variations in the stage burn times.
These variations are discussed in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of this document.
Start of T6, which was initiated by the LVDCupon solving the restart
equation, was 0.9 second later than predicted. Start of T7 was 1.0 second
earlier than predicted. T , which was initiated by the receipt of a
ground command, was starte_ 63.2 seconds later than the predicted time.
2-I
320
280
240 4
F
/
,/
. 200
/
_ 160
120 /
i--
/
/
80
J
40 ,......--
I
I
0 S_
0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22
I I I I I i I
0:00:00 I:00:00 2:00:00 3:00:00 4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00
Table 2-3 lists the switch selector events which were issued during the
flight but were not programed for specific times. The range times are
adjusted to ground telemetry received times. The water coolant valve
open and close switch selector commands were issued based on the condition
of two thermal switches in the Environmental Control System (ECS). The
outputs of these switches were sampled once every 300 seconds, beginning
at 180 seconds, and a switch selector command was issued to open or close
the water valve. The valve was opened if the sensed temperature was too
high and the valve was closed if the temperature was too low.
2-2
Table 2-I. Time Base Summary
RANGE TIME
TIME BASE SEC SIGNAL START
(HR:MIN:SEC)
Table 2-3 also contains the special sequence of switch selector events
which were programed to be initiated by telemetry station acquisition
and included the following calibration sequence:
2-3
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary
RANGE TIME TIME FROM BASE
EVENI DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACT-PRED ACTUAL ACT-PRED
SEC SEC SEC SEC
2-4
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
RANGE TIME TIME FROM BASE
EVENT DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACT-PRED ACTUAL ACT-PRED
SEC SEC SEC SEC
2-5
Table 2-2 Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
CUTOFF COMMAND
CALCULATIONS*
2-6
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
72 S-IVB LH2 VENT OFF (CVS OFF) 9320.4 0.9 62.2 0.0
2-7
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
2-8
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
Z14 S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NC. I 20547.6 63.3 3080.0 0.0
CUTOFF COMMAND
115 S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. 2 20547.8 63.5 3080.2 0.O
CUTOFF COMMAND
2-9
Table 2-3. Variable Time and CommandedSwitch Selector Events
2-10
Table 2-3. Variable Time and CommandedSwitch Selector Events (Continued)
Acquisition
GYM during by
TLC
TM Calibrate Off IU 27,372.0 T8 +9904.1
2-11/2-12
SECTION3
LAUNCHOPERATIONS
3.1 SUMMARY
3.3 COUNTDOWN
EVENTS
3-I
Table 3-I. AS-506 Prelaunch Milestones
3-2
the RP-I level display was not a critical measurement, the disposition
of the electronics unit was "use as is" However, the level indication
was stable during the final 8 hours of countdown.
The RP-I system vent trap closed prematurely during replenish operations
at -13 hours, causing entrapped air to be pumped through the S-IC fuel
tank. There were no serious consequences. The air, which is filtered
to about 50 microns, was immediately vented from the stage. All subse-
quent system functions were normal, and replenishment was completed
sati sfa ctori ly.
About 7 minutes after liftoff, during automatic line drain and purge
operations, the S-IC liftoff indication was lost causing an LH2 system
revert. Drain and purge operations were completed manually using the
S-II/S-IVB fill line purge valve. Although this is not the normal manual
configuration, a satisfactory purge was obtained. A change in the pro-
pellant system logic is presently being considered which will isolate the
system from external influence onc_ the liftoff signal is received.
3-3
3.4.4 Auxiliary Propulsion System Propellant Loading
The HDA's were released pneumatically at 0.3 second. HDA No. 1 protective
hood did not close and the adjustable head and upper link received some
blast damage. However, damage to the interior of HDA No. 1 was not greater
than to any other arm. Warpage of the HDA protective hoods was negligible.
As on AS-504 launch, the secondary Service Arm Control Switch (SACS)
actuator arm on HDA No. 2 was broken off.
TSM retractions were normal and all protective hoods closed properly.
The RP-I mast cutoff valve in TSM I-2 opened at liftoff, indicating a
loss of valve GN2 control pressure. The cause of pressure loss is being
investigated.
a-4
occurred on previous launches. Hydraulic oil leakage from SA No. 2
upper and lower hinge areas was detected during postlaunch inspection
and was observed to have leaked into SA No. I. Investigation will be
conducted to determine the source.
b ,
The GH2 dome regulator in the S-II stage pneumatic servicing console
indicated erratic leakage during the -9 hour countdown hold and was
replaced with a spare regulator. The new regulator was not adjusted
to the high side tolerance of the 810 +.10.3 N/cm z (1175 +_15 psia)
setting, as planned. During S-II start tank pressurization, the
low regulator setting resulted in the start tank pressures being
lower than the desired prelaunch values. At the prelaunch commit
point (-33 seconds), S-II Engine No. 1 start tank pressure was
2.8 N/cm 2 (4 psi) below the redline requirement. The countdown was
continued since the Central Instrumentation Facility (CIF) observer
verified that the measurement was not below redline at -45 seconds.
3-5
The regulator pressures will be set to 827 +_10.3 N/cm2 (1200 +15 psia)
for subsequent vehicles and this will alleviate the prelaunch low
pressure conditions.
C,
The S-II LH 2 heat exchanger delta pressure controller mode of con-
trol did not operate properly and the point sensor mode of control
was initiated after the beginning of start tank chilldown. This
mode of operation was utilized throughout the remaining portion of
the countdown. Also, the heat exchanger would not refill properly
during the start tank and thrust chamber chilldown sequences. How-
ever, the liquid level was sufficient to perform the required stage
systems chilldown. The deviation will be investigated.
A total of 201 cameras were installed for the AS-506 launch of which 119
were committed to engineering data, and 82 to documentary coverage.
Three cameras failed to acquire data. Upon review of film coverage of
the GSE at launch, the following conditions were observed:
a. S-II stage forward SA umbilical covers did not secure upon SA with-
drawal from the vehicle.
b,
HDA No. 1 protective hood failed to close and the other three HDA
hoods appeared to close late.
3-6
SECTION4
TRAJECTORY
4.1 SUMMARY
The space-fixed velocity at S-IC Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO)was 8.5 m/s
(27.9 ft/s) greater than nominal. The space-fixed velocity at S-II Out-
board Engine Cutoff was 22.8 m/s (74.8 ft/s) less than nominal. The
space-fixed velocity at S-IVB first guidance cutoff was 0.2 m/s (0.6 ft/s)
less than nominal. The altitude at S-IVB first guidance cutoff was 0.2
kilometer (0.I n mi) lower than nominal and the surface range was 1.7
kilometers (I.0 n mi) less than nominal.
The actual impact locations for the spent S-ICi and S-II stages were de-
termined by a theoretical free-flight simulation. The surface range for
the S-IC impact point was 0.2 kilometer (0.I n mi) greater than nominal.
The surface range for the S-II impact point was 91.7 kilometers (49.5 n mi)
less than nominal.
4-I
The event times reported in this section reflect the event as seen at the
vehicle in order to enable direct comparison with times in the Guidance
and Navigation section.
4.2 TRACKINGDATAUTILIZATION
Tracking data were obtained during the period from the time of first
motion through parking orbit insertion.
C-Band radar data were obtained from the ship Redstone during the early
portion of the injection phase of flight. These tracking data were found
to be invalid and were not used in the trajectory determination.
4-2
4.2.4 Tracking During the Post Injection Phase of Flight
Tracking data from seven C-Band radar stations furnished data for use in
determining the post TLI trajectory. The available S-Band tracking data
were not used due to the availability of the C-Band radar data.
Actual and nominal altitude, surface range, and cross range for the ascent
phase are presented in Figure 4-I. Actual and nominal space-fixed velo-
city and flight path angle during ascent are shown in Figure 4-2.
3000- 240- 1
_ACTUAL
------NOMINAL
S-IC OECO
2500- 200- 1
s-if OECO /
S-IVB FIRST ECO
E 2000-
160-
ALTITUDE_ ._'_ /
== 1500- _120-
p-
)" /
cJ
-_ 1 000- 80-
/ SURFACE RANGE_ //_
// /
500- 40-
/ _ "__4 -_- CROSS RANGE
I i
0_ 0= I
0 lO0 200 300 400 500 600 700 8OO
4-3
Comparisons of total inertial accelerations are shown in Figure 4-3.
The maximumacceleration during S-IC burn was 3.94 g.
Mach number and dynamic pressure are shown in Figure 4-4. These para-
meters were calculated using meteorological data measured to an altitude
of 56.0 kilometers (30.2 n mi). Above this altitude the measured data
were merged into the U.S. Standard Reference Atmosphere.
32- 9000
_ACTUAL
28- 800( ------ NOMINAL
_7 S-IC OECO
J
_7 S-II OECO
_7 S-IVB FIRST ECO
j_
24- 7000 _ _J
ii ...... /
20- '_ 6O
E
_ SPACE-FIXED
I,.-
VELOCITY
_16- 500
\ ............
/ .................
Z
-i-
,,12" x 40
I'---
"-r- I
,,,_J
LI_.
8-
,t FLIGHT PATH
/
/........ :______
01 I00
/ I
-4- I
4-4
4_
Lll
ACTUAL
-- ---- NOMINAL
S-IC OECO
0
0
_- 2
t,l r_
..J w
I,L ._J
(=3 o
l=
_7
II
7O0 8OO
0 I00 200 300 400 50O 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
The free-flight trajectories of the spent S-IC and S-II stages were simu-
lated using initial conditions from the final postflight trajectory. The
simulation was based upon the separation impulses for both stages and
nominal tumbling drag coefficients. No tracking data were available for
verification. Table 4-I presents a comparison of free-flight parameters
to nominal at apex for the S-IC and S-II stages. Table 4-4 presents a
comparison of free-flight parameters to nominal at impact for the S-IC
and S-II stages.
4-5
4.0" 16
A
3.5- 14
--_-- NOMINAL
_'_ _ ACTUAL
3.0- 12
DYNAMIC PRESSURE-_
E
(_}
i
z 2.5"
,
L_
cz')
:::D
(.z)
,, 2.0- Z
i
r-, "-r
Y
f
J
/ -
_: 1.5-
j/
1.0-
0.5-
/ ,-
0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 160
Comparisons between the actual and nominal space-fixed velocity and flight
path angle are shown in Figure 4-6. The actual and nominal total inertial
acceleration comparisons are presented in Figure 4-7. Throughout the
S-IVB second burn phase of flight, the space-fixed velocity and the flight
4-6
Table 4-I. Comparison of Significant Trajectory Events
Maximum Earth-Fixed
162.3 161.6 0.7
Velocity: S-IC Range Time, sec
269.1 270.4 -I .3
Apex: S-IC Stage Range Time, sec
4-7
Table 4-2. Comparison of Cutoff Events
I
PARAMETER ACTUAL NOM
NOt41 NALIAC [ ACTUAl NOMINAL ACT-NOM
Flight Path Angle, deg 22.957 23.406 -0.449 19.114 19.635 -0.521
Cross Range Velocity, m/s 5.4 -0.2 5.6 12.6 4.3 8.3
(it/s) (17.7) (-0.7) (18.4) (41 .3), (14.1) (27.2)
Flight Path Angle, deg 0.897 0.772 0.125 0.608 o.661 -0.053
Cross Range Velocity, m/s 111.9 114.5 -2.6 174,1 176.9 -2.8
(ft/s) (367.1) (375.7) (-8.6) (571.2) (58o.4) (-9.2)
S-IVB IST GUIDANCE CUTOFF SIGNAL S-IVB 2ND GUIDANCE CUTOFF SIGNAL
Flight Path Angle, deg 0.015 -0.002 0.017 6.913 6.959 -0.046
C3 = V2 . _L
R
4-8
Table 4-3. Comparison of Separation Events
S-IC'S-II SEPARATION
S-II/S-IVB SEPARATION
S-IVB/CSM SEPARATION
11,723 11,704 19
Range Time, sec
4-9
Table 4-4. Stage Impact Location
i
path angle were close to nominal with deviations more noticeable towards
the end of the time period.
4-10
Table 4-5. Parking Orbit Insertion Conditions
* Based
(3443.934 OnnamSP.
herii_ cal earth of radius 6378.165 km
4-11
C) FIRST REVOLUTION
LONGITUDE, deg
14-
_ACTUAL
------NOMINAL
S-IVB ENG NE IGNITION
/
v
(STDV OPEN)
12-
TRANSLUNAR INJECTION
I0- A
..J
,2
b.- SPACE-FIXED
VELOCITY
!
/
CD
Z
6-- ×
/ I
I
!
.--J
t
! /
c_J
/ /
/
2-
/ FLIGHT
ANGLE
_ATH
Z J
0= J
/
0 I00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 I000
I I I I I
1.4
ACTUAL
------ NOMINAL
_I.0-
E
z
0 Z !
0
H
I
<_0.8-- 1--
L_J
.J
L_ ...1
£.) Lu
4:= £.)
I (.)
0.6-
4_
0.4 _
0.2_
O_
I00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 lO00
TIME FROM T6, SECONDS
I IV
02:35:00 02:38:00 02:41:00 02:44:00 02:47:00 02:50:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
! .. 0
I
! 0
I r_
I 0
0
I C_J
c,'3 0
C) C"
o.
Z
bO
.o
0
"--4...,. 0 I_r) °r--
_Z 0
O,J o
I I--_"
I _0 I
I
I
I
I
Ii 0
0
c'J c/3
r'_
o.
Z
0
or)
r0
t-
°t--
-o
Z
! 0
°. z_
I °r--
I---
I {:7)
I a 0 Z 0
l O0
I.--
o --I
°.
l .o w
o. r,_
0 0
0 0
%
_0 __
Z '-r-
r--
I,I
0
0
I--
0 0
.o _.-
.0 0
r 0 ..C:
I-- 0 o. 0")
0
.ti
r'--"
0 c_
CO
0
0
..
0 I
I
0
0
"0
0
or-'
LJ--
0
0
.o
"0
0
0 ',,0 o,,I O0 ¢'J O0
i,,--
0t- 0
c- 's- z v
p--
o 0
O
v
,r-)
c'- -J
E
:E
4-)
c- o
c-- 4-) _--. %
'-a ch
c_ Q; "" E_
c- e_ .i-)
,t- ..q-
S. E
u Q_
E 4..)
O
I >_
4-) O_ c-
-q- _) O :h _n
_'-,-" "0 0') I--
Iu
,r--
u i/I _ E .It
r_
u
I--- P" -_..lla -_ .ll-!
o I-- c
,,y 0 Q
C_)
I--
P" I_. t=: 0 0
E ,-- " Z >_ A
N E L
i= =1 =_ E
¢1 -.-., Q; E 0 0"1 -1,... N I/1
i 0
E " X ¢1 _ .,- e- {j Ul "-.
=l x _ E c,;
I.-- "CI I.i. 4._
:3 I 4;
JE .P -,-- (1) E r_ .,J
The S-IVB/IU closest approach of 3379 kilometers (1825 n mi) above the
lunar surface occurred at 78.7 hours into the mission. The trajectory
parameters were obtained by integrating forward a vector (furnished by
Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) which was obtained from Unified S-Band
(USB) tracking data during the active lifetime of the S-IVB/IU. The actual
and nominal conditions at closest approach are presented in Table 4-8.
Figure 4-10 illustrates the influence of the moon on the S-IVB/IU energy
(velocity) relative to the earth, particularly as the spent stage passes
through the lunar sphere of influence. Some of the heliocentric orbit
parameters of the S-IVB/IU are presented in Table 4-9. The same para-
meters for the earths orbit are also presented for comparison.
4-17
ATTITUDE (LOCAL HORIZONTAL REFERENCE SYSTEM)
218 ° PITCH
0° YAW
170 ° ROLL
0 5 I0 15 20 25 35
4TH DAY
2,4"
I 5TH_ DAY
LUNAR I 1 !i I
I I
2o12/il E.co0,TERI I
I
1.6
1 I
I I I
t l I
_- 30 I
1.2=
I
_.1
I
48 HR I
O.
72 HR
0.4-
0,0
4-18
Table 4-8. Comparison of Lunar Closest Approach Parameters
4-19/4-20
SECTION5
S-IC PROPULSION
5.1 SUMMARY
The fuel pump inlet preignition pressure was 31.6 N/cm2 (45.9 psia) and
within F-I Engine Model Specification limits of 30.0 to 75.8 N/cmL (43.5
to II0 psia). The fuel pump inlet preignition temperatures were not
available since these measurements were deleted from the S-IC-6 and
subsequent stages.
The LOX pump inlet preignition pressure and temperature were 58.5 N/cm2
(84.8 psia) and 96.1°K (-286.7°F) and were within the F-I Engine Model
Specification limits as shown in Figure 5-I.
Engine startup sequence was nominal. A I-2-2 start was planned and
attained. Engine position starting order was 5, I-3, 4-2. Two engines
are considered to start together if their combustion chamber pressures
reach 68.9 N/cm2 (I00 psig) in a lO0-millisecond time period.
5-I
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia
60 8O I00 120 140 160 180
110
-265
106
PREDI CTED-
--STARTING
o REGION
-275
1o2 F-- ....... I o
I
ACTUAL I
= I!
96.1°K (-286.7°F I
:EZ 58.5 N/cm2 (84.8 psia)
i,i I
_- 98 I
I I -285
I I L
I I
9 _ I I
x
o
__1
[ I -295
i
90":
Figure 5-2 shows the thrust buildup of each engine indicative of the
successful I-2-2 start. The shift in thrust buildup near the 5,250,000
Newtons (1,180,000 Ibf) level on the outboard engines is caused by in-
gestion of helium from the LOX prevalves during startup. The thrust shift
is absent on the center engine since the POGO suppression helium accumula-
tor system is not used on this engine. Engine combustion chamber pressure
oscillograms show 79- to 80-hertz oscillations of approximately 445,000
Newtons (I00,000 Ibf) peak-to-peak amplitude during buildup. These os-
cillations are characteristic of normal F-I engine thrust buildup. Engines
No. 1 and 5 show normal inertial surge chamber pressure spikes of approxi-
mately 48.3 N/cm 2 (70 psi) and 50.3 N/cm2 (73 psi), respectively, at 3.45
seconds after their individual start solenoids were energized. Engine
No. 4 data indicate a large chamber pressure spike (approximately 80 per-
cent of the mainstage level) at 3.42 seconds after engine No. 4 start
solenoid energization. The unusual magnitude of this spike is believed
to have been the result of a data,problem and is a characteristic of the
flight pressure transducer. Static firings of the F-I engines have
exhibited similar pressure spikes (measured with the flight pressure
transducer) during the buildup transient, but failed to indicate the same
5-2
7.0
......- .......... ._ _": : ..... _ .",<_I
• _.- _-'---_ -_'_.
-I .50
' i
ENGINE NO. 5-_. // /
• 6.0' - _ i ,
,*" _.I i /i "I .25
. //I -I .00
z
• _--ENGINE NO. 2 4-
4.0 .:
-0.75
_3.0
_-- .: / I
I
• . _--ENGINE NO. 4 I-.-
0.50
: /
2.0 " II
I I
:" : I
1.0 i i I_
ENGINE NO., 3-_ _ _I;i 0.25
0
1
,- ....... - __=___s
.,,_...._
" 0
-4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -I .5 -I .0 -0.5 0
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
The F-I engines performance levels during the AS-506 flight showed the
smallest deviations from predicted levels of any S-IC flight.
5-3
• i7-_
E
l
_m
m_
m_
o_
rm_
,..J°
\
c-
cD
8
8
\
, _
\
I
I,-,q
|
2_ z
•_ co co
o o t. _ L.
e- STAGE THRUST, 106 Ibf
fo
--h
o
\
rD
0.; \
I
,t
\
(/) °
\
,7
"I
N e,_ w Po N r-_ N
,m, o_ CO
AVERAGE
RECONSTRUCTION DEVIATI ON DEVI AT I ON
PARAI.IETER ENGINE PREDICTED ANALYSIS PERCEHT PERCENT
NOTE: Performance levels were reduced to standard sea level and pump
inlet conditions at 35 to 38 seconds.
5-5
Engine cutoff impulse was approximately 10,612,096 N-s (2,385,694 Ibf-s)
or II percent higher than predicted for the outboard engines and approxi-
mately 2,659,605 N-s (597,903 Ibf-s) or 7 percent lower than predicted
for the center engine. The impulse values stated for the outboard
engines are for the period from cutoff signal to stage separation, and
the impulse value for the center engine is for the period from cutoff
signal to zero thrust of the center engine. The flight cutoff impulse
is based on chamber pressures. At cutoff, chamber pressure was high for
engines No. I, 3 and especially 4, and low for engine No. 5. These
chamber pressure deviations yielded sufficient thrust to account for the
cutoff impulse deviations.
The S-IC does not have an active Propellant Utilization (PU) system.
Minimum residuals are obtained by attempting to load the mixture ratio
expected to be consumed by the engines plus the predicted unusable resi-
duals. An analysis of the usable residuals experienced during a flight
is a good measure of the performance of the passive PU system.
OECOwas initiated by the LOX low level sensors as planned, and resulted
in residual propellants being very close to the predicted values. The
residual LOX at OECOwas 18,041 kilograms (39,772 Ibm) compared to the
predicted value of 18,177 kilograms (40:074 Ibm). The fuel residual at
OECOwas 13,954 kilograms (30,763 Ibm) compared to the predicted value
of 14,354 kilograms (31,645 Ibm). A summary of the propellants remaining
at major event times is presented in Table 5-2.
LEVEL SENSOR
EVENT PREDICTED DATA RECONSTRUCTED
LOX FUEL LOX FUEL LOX FUEL
NOTE: Predicted and reconstructed values do not include pressurization gas so they will compare
with level sensor data.
5-6
5.6 S-IC PRESSURIZATION
SYSTEMS
Fuel tank ullage pressure was within the predicted limits throughout
flight as shown in Figure 5-4. HFCV's No. 2, 3, and 4 were commanded
open during flight by the switch selector within acceptable limits.
Helium bottle pressure was 2137 N/cm2 (3100 psia) at -2.8 seconds and
decayed to 331N/cm 2 (480 psia) at OECO. Total helium flowrate and heat
exchanger performance were as expected.
Fuel pump inlet pressure was maintained above the required minimum Net
Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) during flight.
The LOX tank ullage pressure during flight, shown in Figure 5-5, was main-
tained within the required limits throughout flight by the GFCV. The maxi-
mumGOXflowrate to the tank (at CECO)was 24.9 kg/s (55.0 Ibm/s). The
heat exchangers performed as expected.
The LOX pump inlet pressure met the minimum NPSPrequirement throughout
flight. The engine No. 5 LOX suction duct pressure decayed after CECO
similar to previous flights as shown in Figure 5-6. The cause of these
decays is still unknown.
5-7
_7HFCV NO. 2 OPEN
XTHFcv N(). I OPEN I
22 '_THFCV NO. 3 OPEN 32
_THFCV NO. 4 OPEN /-'PREDICTED MAXIMUM
/ I I \ / I s
\ I \ __.I 30 ._
-_. \ / \I "_I
F
28 m
e_
Q..
.._/
._ \/ v 26 _
z
z \
I---
I-- '\
\
24 _
16 _
\ /
\ /
\ J _ A / _
..... _ 22
\_" I I / _'"
PREDICTED MINIMUM
14 _ _7, I I T _z
0 20 40 60 80 1O0 120 140 160
Sphere pressure was 2151N/cm 2 (3120 psiaZ at liftoff and remained steady
until CECO when it decreased to 2068 N/cmL (3000 psia). The decrease was
due to center engine prevalve actuation. There was a further decrease to
1810 N/cm 2 (2625 psia) after OECO.
The engine prevalves were closed after engine cutoff as required. The
engine No. 5 prevalves closed at approximately 137 seconds. The pre-
valves for the other four engines closed at approximately 163 seconds.
Performance of the S-IC purge systems was satisfactory during the flight.
The turbopump LOX seal purge storage sphere pressure was within the limits
of 1862 to 2275 N/cm2 (2700 to 3300 psia) until ignition and 2275 to 689
N/cm 2 (3300 to I000 psia) from liftoff to cutoff. The radiation calori-
meter purge system was not installed on S-IC-6 nor subsequent vehicles.
5-8
AdlVE #RESSDRE
3O RELIEF SWITCH
BAND DURING FLIGHT
1,1
r_
tz_
22
cz_
w
c_
(i_
........... . ......... -30 o_
L._ N
CD
"_
_.__ _ _-- 16.7 to 18.3
PREPRESS N/cm2
SWITCH BAND ,/_/j ,_,_ >!."
-.,-.z_ =__J
"" (24.2 to 26.5 psia) _/7_>-F ....... __.
z
- I.-,
I--
I .15
5-9
I
S_7CECO
_- AS-505 120
_70ECO
80 _.=....- _,
I00
c_J
E
,I
(.}
o _,, _-AS-504
z 60 r_
CZ_
8O CZ)
rY
_" " /-AS-506 r_
cz) I
CZ_
c_ 0
r_
F--
0
6O
-_ 40 0
r-_
F--
Z 0
0
_=_ CZ)
F-
(..) X
0
cz_
x
C)
" 20
2O
_7 _7
0 0
-5 0 5 I0 15 20 25 30
TIME FROM CECO, SECONDS
! ! I I I I I I
130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
5-10
SECTION 6
S-II PROPULSION
6.1 SUMMARY
OECO, initiated by the LOX low level cutoff sensors, was achieved following
a planned 1.5-second time delay. A small engine performance decay was
noted just prior to cutoff similar to AS-505, but was less severe than that
observed on AS-504 due to only four engines operating at cutoff. Residual
propellant remaining in the tanks at OECO signal was 3388 kilograms
(7471 Ibm) compared to a prediction of 2623 kilograms (5783 Ibm).
6-I
The performance of the LOX and LH2 tank pressurization systems was
satisfactory. Ullage pressure in both tanks was more than adequate to
meet engine inlet Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) requirements through-
out mainstage. As commandedby the IU, step pressurization occurred at
261.6 seconds for the LOX tank and 461.6 seconds for the LH2 tank.
The low start tank pressures at -33 seconds resulted from the start tanks
being pressurized at 783 to 792 N/cm2 (!135 to 1148 psia) instead of the
required 810 +_10.3 N/cm 2 (1175 +_15 psia). It had been planned to set
both the GSE S-II pneumatic console dome regulator and the start tank supply
regulator at the high side of the tolerance. The dome regulator was
replaced during the -9 hour launch countdown hold Without adjustment to
the high limit (refer to paragraph 3.6.2). Another factor contributing to
the low start tank pressures was that the pressure gauge used to set the
regulators was reading approximately 7.6 N/cm2 (II psi) high. It is planned
to revise the pressurization regulator settings to provide a higher pressure
level for subsequent stages. It has also been recommended that the minimum
pressure line of the prelaunch redline box be lowered approximately
6.9 N/cm2 (I0 psi). Review of all previous launch data indicates a lower
prelaunch pressure is compatible with the engine start box.
6-2
START TANK TEMPERATURE, °F
-300 -250 -200 -I 50
1050 , ,
0 ENG. NO. 1 500
_7 ENG. NO. 2
[] ENG. NO. 3 ENGINE START BOX.
I000-- 0 ENG. NO. 4 - PRELAUNCHIBOX- \
ENG. NO. 5
=" 950
I_ /-
.............
S_ 400 °
"_
_ t I mm
_ I---
__ 850 ', o [] _....:_---'_ -
i.--
800
PRELAUNCH (-33 SEC)
750 II00
80 90 I00 II0 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
All engine helium tank pressures were within the prelaunch and engine start
limits of 1931 to 2379 N/cm z (2800 to 3450 psia). The helium supply line
was manually vented at -277 seconds versus being vented at -30 seconds on
previous launches. This allowed adequate time to monitor for leakage prior
to the -19 second launch commit. No pressure decay of any significance
occurred during this time period.
Engine No. 2 helium tank pressure decayed at a sharper rate than expected
after S-II ESC. The decay assumed a more normal rate after approximately
30 seconds of operation. This condition has occurred on previous flights
and has been coincident with shifts in the engine helium regulator outlet
pressure. Engine regulator outlet pressure measurement was not provided
on AS-506 so it can only be assumed that a regulator outlet pressure shift
also occurred. On AS-505 flight, engine No. 5 regulator outlet pressure
shifted from 281 to 276 N/cm z (408 to 400 psia) at approximately 63 seconds
after ESC. On AS-504 flight, engine No. 3 regulator outlet pressure shifted
from 279 to 276 N/cm2 (405 to 400 psia) at approximately 43 seconds after
ESC. Between ESC and regulator shift the decay rates were higher than
expected, but following the shiftthe decay rates of all engines were
comparable.
6-3
The higher than expected helium tank decay rates experienced to date are
not critical for the S-II mission. Even if the initial decay rate continued
throughout S-II burn, the supply pressure would be adequate to meet system
demandswith sufficient margin. The cause of this deviation has been
assessed as internal leakage through the engine helium regulator.
The LOX and LH2 recirculation systems used to chill the feed ducts, turbo-
pumps, and other engine components performed satisfactorily during prelaunch
and S-IC boost. Engine pump inlet temperatures and pressures at engine
start were well within the requirements as shown in Figure 6-2. The LOX
pump discharge temperatures at ESCwere 7.5 to 8.9°K (13.5 to 16.1°F)
subcooled, which is well below the 1.7°K (3°F) subcooling requirement.
S-II ESCwas received at 163.04 seconds and the Start Tank Discharge Valve
(STDV) solenoid activation signal occurred 1.0 second later. The engine
thrust buildup was satisfactory and was within the required thrust buildup
envelope. The stage thrust reached mainstage level at 166.2 seconds.
Engine thrust levels were between 861,496 and 895,080 Newtons (193,672
and 201,222 Ibf) prior to "High EMRSelect" commandat 168.5 seconds.
6.3 S-II MAINSTAGEPERFORMANCE
Stage performance during the high EMRportion of the flight was very
close to predicted as shown in Figure 6-3. At a time slice of ESC+61
seconds, total vehicle thrust was 5,141,516 Newtons (1,155,859 Ibf) which
is only 10,094 Newtons (2269 Ibf) or 0.20 percent below the preflight
prediction. Total propellant flowrate (including pressurization flow) was
1239 kg/s (2731 Ibm/s) which was 0.13 percent below prediction. Stage
specific impulse,,including the effect of pressurization gas flowrate, was
4150.2 N-s/kg (423.2 Ibf-s/Ibm) which is 0.07 percent below the predicted
level. Stage propellant MRwas 0.36 percent above prediction.
At ESC+297.58 seconds (460.62 seconds) the center engine was shut down in
order to prevent buildup of the low frequency oscillations that were
observed on AS-503 and AS-504. This action reduced total vehicle thrust
by 1,031,685 Newtons (231,932 Ibf) to a level of 4,093,107 Newtons
(920,167 Ibf). Of this total, a thrust reduction of 1,017,255 Newtons
(228,688 Ibf) was directly due to CECOand the remaining 14,430 Newtons
(3244 Ibf) decrease resulted from the sum effect of fuel step pressurization
(ESC +298.6 seconds) and loss of acceleration head.
6-4
:1o '3WNIV_d3dN31 137NI dNNd gH7 :1o '3WfllVd3dN31 137NI dNfld X07
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
°_
. \\
O-
r_
_" 0 CO C_D
E
U
r_
H- L_
L_ I
c- _O
rF z _-_ C.D
_z °_
r_ I.LI .--IZ
c-
_"' _ L __ ._ ' L_
D
L_ r_
_ -- _ _ C_
X
O
I
kO
C_
Oh C_
CO .r--
_,o '3_fllV_3dN3I 137NI dNnd gH7 )Io '_fllY_l_dN31 137NI dNfld X07
X_7 S-ll ESC V S-II EMRSHIFT _7S-II ESC _S-II EMRSHIFT
.... PREDICTED .... PREDICTED
X_ S-ll CECO _S-II OECO _RECONSTRUCTED _7S-II CECO _7S-II OECO _RECONSTRUCTED
5.4 1400
- 1.16 3OOO
5.0 1300
2800
1.08
4.2 F--
II00
2400 _
0.92
_c 0
3.8 0.84
I000 22OO_
#- I r_
i
I F--
L
0.68
3.0 8OO
4.4 5.6
ku
--J _Z3 o F
440
2 4.3 I
< 5.2
Q.) I
430
_- 4.2 Lz- I
4.8
_E __.J I
420 _ -_. ta.I U- I
N_' 4.1 _-.. 4.4
_m i D---O
L_._
c,3 __1
410 _
(z3_
4.0 4.0
0 50 1O0 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 1O0 150 200 250 300 350 400
TIME FROMESC, SECONDS TIME FROMESC, SECONDS
V , , , i , VV,_ , , , , , W'_'
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
RANGETIME, SECONDS RANGETIME, SECONDS
Data presented in Table 6-I are actual flight data and have not been
adjusted to standard J-2 engine conditions. Considering data that have
been adjusted to standard conditions through use of a computer program,
very little difference from the results shown in Table 6-I is observed.
The adjusted data show all engine thrust levels to be within 0.40 percent
of those achieved during vehicle acceptance test.
Three minor engine performance shifts were observed during S-II burn.
Engine No. 1 experienced two performance increases, each approximately
6672 Newtons (1500 Ibf), during the first 35 seconds of mainstage operation.
PERCENT PERCENT
INDIVIDUAL AVERAGE
ENGINE PREDICTED RECONSTRUCTED DEVIATION DEVIATION
PARAMETER
6-7
A thrust decrease of about the same magnitude occurred in engine No. 2
after 64 seconds of mainstage operation. These shifts are indicative of
changes in the Gas Generator (GG) oxidizer system flow resistance and are
not considered detrimental to engine operation.
Amplified main chamber pressure processed with a 25 hertz low pass filter
revealed no high amplitude, low frequency oscillations as experienced on
AS-503 and AS-504. As in the flight of AS-505, CECOprecluded any
oscillation buildup.
6.4 S-II SHUTDOWN
TRANSIENTPERFORMANCE
Engine shutdown sequence was initiated by the stage LOX low level sensors.
The LOX depletion cutoff system again included a 1.5-second delay timer.
As in the AS-504 and AS-505 flights, this resulted in engine performance
decay prior to receipt of the cutoff signal. Due to early CECOhowever,
the precutoff decay was greatly reduced compared to AS-504 without CECO.
Only engine No. 1 exhibited a significant thrust chamber pressure decay,
decreasing 77.9 N/cm2 (113 psi) in the final 0.25 second before cutoff.
All other outboard engines thrust chamber pressure decays were of the
order of 20.7 N/cm2 (30 psi).
The facility Propellant Tanking Control System (PTCS) and the propellant
management system successfully accomplished S-II loading and replenishment.
During the prelaunch countdown, all propellant management subsystems
operated properly with no problems noted.
6-8
paragraph 10.2.1), and the remainder is due to variations between the
actual and predicted flight performance. The IU commandcaused the PU
valves to be driven to the low EMRposition, providing an average EMRof
4.34 (versus a predicted average EMRof 4.33) for the low mixture ratio
portion of the flight.
The actual shift from high to low EMRoccurred 9.5 seconds late when com-
,pared with the final propulsion prediction. The additional 3.5 seconds
result! from a propulsion and characteristic velocity presetting mismatch
that was known prior to flight.
LH2 tank ullage pressure, actual and predicted, is presented in Figure 6-4
for autosequence, S-IC boost and S-II boost. The LH2 tank vent valves were
closed at -96 seconds and the ullage was pressurized to 24.8 N/cm2 (36 psia)
in approximately 27 seconds. One makeup cycle was required at -40 seconds
as a result of thermal pressure decay. Venting occurred during S-IC boost
as anticipated. One venting cycle'was indicated on vent valve No. 1 between
93 and I00 seconds. There was no indication that vent valve No. 2 opened.
6-9
Table 6-2. S-II Propellant Mass History
ENGINE FLOWMETER
EVENT
INTEGRATION
RANGE TIME UIIITS PREDICTED PU SYSTEM ANALYSIS (BEST ESTIMATE)
LOX LH2 LOX LH2 LOX LH2
Ground kg 371,672 71,668 371,899 71,718 370,778 71,615
Ignition ( I bin) (819,397) (158,000) (819_896) (t58,111) (817,425) (157,885)
NOTE: Table is based on mass in tanks and sump only. Propellant trapped external to tanks
and LOX sumD is not included.
I I I I I I
_7 VENT VALVE NO. 1 OPEN _7 VENT VALVES OPEN ACTUAL
PREDICTED
_7 VENT VALVE NO. 1 CLOSE _7 VENT VALVE NO. 1 CLOSE
(NOTE : PREDICTION COINCIDES
_7 S-II ESC _7 S-II OECO, 548.22 WITH DATA) --45
3O I
J 4O
25
_35
5 2O
\M REDLINE 30
_z9
\ _ MINIMUM START
REQUIREMENT
_25
<,
.J
15
_20
I0 --15
-200 -I00 0 I00 200 300 400 500 600
6-10
Differential pressure across the vent valve was kept below the low-mode
upper limit of 20.3 N/cm 2 (29.5 psid). Ullage pressure at S-II engine
start was 19.6 N/_m2 (28.5 ,psia) meeting the minimum engine start require-
ment of 18.6 N/cm z (27 psia). The LH 2 tank valves were switched to the
high vent mode immediately prior to S-II engine start.
LH2 tank ullage pressure was maintained within the regulator range of
19.7 to 20.7 N/cm2 (28.5 to 30 psia) during burn until the LH 2 tank
pressure regulator was stepped open at 461.6 seconds. Ullage pressure
increased to 22.1 N/cm2 (32 psia). The LH2 vent valves started venting
at 477 seconds and continued venting throughout the remainder of the S-II
flight. Ullage pressure remained within the high-mode vent range of 21 to
22.7 N/cm2 (30.5 to 33 psia).
Figure 6-5 shows LH 2 total inlet pressure, temperature and NPSP. The
• z_
parameters were close to predicted values. The NPSP supplied exceeded
that required throughout the S-II burn phase of the flight.
LOX tank ullage pressure, actual and predicted, is presented in Figure 6-6
for autosequence, S-IC boost and S-II burn. After a two-minute cold helium
chilldown flow through the LOX tank, the vent valves were closed at -185.3
seconds and the LOX tank was prepressurized to the pressure switch setting
of 27.1 N/cm 2 (39.3 psia) in approximately 42 seconds. One pressure makeup
cycle was required at -125 seconds as a result of pressure decay, which was
followed by the slight pressure increase caused by LH2 tank prepressuriza-
tion. Ullage pressure was 26.9 N/cm2 (39 psia) at engine start.
The LOX regulator remained at its minimum position until 240 seconds
because the ullage pressure was above the regulator range of 24.8 to
26.5 N/cm 2 (36 to 38.5 psia). A slight decrease in ullage pressure prior
to LOX regulator step pressurization indicated normal performance of the
LOX regulator. LOX step pressurization (261.6 seconds) caused the usual
characteristic surge in ullage pressure followed by a slower increase until
LOX tank ullage pressure reached a maximum of 28.3 N/cm2 (41 psia) at
383.4 seconds when the No. 1 vent valve cracked. Ullage pressure was
27.9 N/cm 2 (40.5 psia) at CECO. Vent valve No. 1 reseat occurred at
27.9 N/cm2 (40.5 psia) after EMR shift. The LOX tank vent valve No. 2 did
not open.
LOX pump total inlet pressure, temperature and NPSP are presented in
Figure 6-7. The NPSP supplied exceeded the requirement throughout the
S-II boost phase. The total magnitude of LOX liquid stratification was
greater than predicted, but was similar to AS-505. The 1.5-second time
delay in the LOX low level cutoff circuit makes it very difficult to
predict an accurate cutoff temperature.
6-11
S-II ESC LH2 STEP PRESSURIZATION, 461.6
19 --28
23
- -419 "o
0
W 22 - -420
r_
_- 421 _-
i, i _
i---
"'F-- _a<
._J=_ Zr_
Zr'1
H W 21 - -4_L H ,,,
r_
r_
-r-w _
-423 m ,,,
--J I---
2O
12
--16
10 -I 4
t'M
_ 8 -12
u_
Z
! -I0
!
_r_ 6
z
- 8 Z
PSP REQUIREMENT
--MINIMUM N - 6
- 4
i , , , '
163 263 363 463 563
6-12
I I I I
_7 S-II ESC _7 S-II CECO
ACTUAL
_7 LOX STEP PRESSURIZATION S_7 VENT VALVE NO. 1 CLOSE
--- - PREDICTION
_7 VENT VALVE NO. 1 OPEN S_7 S-II OECO -45
3O I
-40
z J "_,
25; Q
-35
c_
L_ c/3
C_
RMINIMUM START
REQUIREMENT -30 N
J 20 5
_..I
x
o -25 o,
15
--2O
Pressure decay in the main receiver from facility supply vent at -30 seconds
to the initial valve actuation at 168 seconds was negligible. Main receiver
pressure was 2086 N/cm 2 (3025 psia) at S-II engine start.
6-13
izL-9
Z
"o Z
"U
z
,-.i.
C')
=1
r'o
66_ - l
6B
O6_ - --
---It O6 --I f'-
mo Z6_ - -- mo
"-_x
"_x
-o
96_ - --
z
[6
--tm
c-- --t
m
r-
g6_ - --
_6_ -
/ _6
'--Im
r"
c::: -.-..I
o
o
C6_ --_
NOli31C]3_Id - -- --
I 9vnlDv --
I #6
g_
NO I.LVZI_flSS3_ d
0330 lllS Z_ d31S X07 Z_
L7
0_- 0333 I I-S Z_
"_r-
;_3 el)
rrlX
O0
(./3_-#
\ f
3S3 II-S/_--
f 6_
_r
;::_0
mx
_Z
;x3 r'-
l'q l-q % _r
Iz17-- mm
-o --I
u_ cD
L_
--J,--I 917 l _o
I--
L.,f CC
0£
SECTION 7
S-IVB PROPULSION
7.1 SUMMARY
S-IVB second burn duration was 346.9 seconds which was 1.7 seconds less
than predicted. The engine performance during second burn, as determined
from the standard altitude reconstruction analysis, deviated from the
predicted by -0.56 percent for thrust and +0.05 percent for specific
impulse. The S-IVB stage second burn ECO was initiated by the LVDC at
10,203.07 seconds.
Subsequent to second burn, the stage propellant tanks were safed satis-
factorily, with LOX dump imparting a 17 m/s (55.8 ft/s) velocity change
to the stage.
7.2 S-IVB CHILLDOWN AND BUILDUP TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE FOR FIRST BURN
The thrust chamber temperature at launch was well below the maximum allow-
able redline limit of 172°K (-150°F). At S-IVB first burn Engine Start
Command (ESC), the temperature was 164°K (-164°F), which is within the
requirement of 150 ±61.1°K (-189.6 ±IIO°F).
7-I
FUEL PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia
16 20 24 28 32 36 4O 44
25 I -415
24 1 0
2 20 I -417
3 48
4 ECO
o
23
-419_
c_
F- 22 .....
I -42t _
4
I
l
l (.,
3 (i',',:_2
!.
f
21
EL
2O I I
I,
-425
19
I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
FUEL PUMP INLET PRESSURE, N/cm 2
1 0
98 2 4O -284
3 66
4 68
5 ECO I
w 96
I -288
<=
cL I
I
/
k--
94
I • -292 _
I
92
/
/, I_
l
_ENGINE
251
START LIMITS_
J
I
J
-296
9O
-300
88
I
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, N/cm 2
Figure 7-I. S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements- Fi rst Burn
7-2
The chilldown and loading of the engine Gaseous Hydrogen (GH2) start
sphere and pneumatic control sphere prior to liftoff were satisfactory.
The engine control bottle pressure and temperature at l iftoff were
2124 N/cmL (3080 psia) and i63°K (-i69°F), respectively. At first ESC
the start tank conditions were within the required S-IVB region of
896.3 +_68.9 N/cm2 and 133.1 +_44.4°K (1300 +_I00 psia and -220 ±80°F).
The discharge was completed and the refill initiated at first burn ESC
+3.7 seconds. The refill was satisfactory. The first burn start tran-
sient was satisfactory with thrust buildup within the limits set by the
engine manufacturer. This buildup was similar to the thrust buildups
observed on the AS-501 through AS-505 flights. The PU valve was in
proper null position prior to first start. The total impulse from first
Start Tank Discharge Valve (STDV) open to STDV+2.5 seconds was
857,243 N-s (192,716 Ibf-s). This was more than the value of 833,615 N-s
(187,404 Ibf-s) obtained during the same interval for the acceptance test.
First burn fuel lead generally followed the predicted pattern and resulted
in satisfactory conditions as indicated by the thrust chamber and fuel
injector temperatures.
7.3 S-IVB MAINSTAGEPERFORMANCE
FORFIRST BURN
The helium control system for the J-2 engine performed satisfactorily
during first mainstage ooeration. Since the engine bottle was connected
with the stage ambient repressurization bottles there was little pressure
decay. Approximately 0.19 kilogram (0.42 Ibm) of helium was consumed during
first burn.
The PU valve position shifted slightly away from the null position during
engine operation. This shift was in the closed (high Engine Mixture Ratio
[EMR]) direction and amounted to 0.7 degree during first burn and 0.6
degree during second burn. These shifts are approximately the same as
those observed on the AS-505 flight and the S-IVB-508 and S-IVB-509 accep-
tance tests. Valve position shifts during engine operation have occurred
only in engines with PU valves containing rotated baffles. The magnitude
7-3
ENGINE MIXTURE TOTAL FLOWRATE, SPECIFIC IMPULSE, THRUST, 106 N
RATIO, LOX/FUEL kg/s N-s/kg
r,o rO --_ PO _ 0 0
0 (.0 C) (D 0
0 o'i o o o o_0 Lo
I I
Ill '
.
I I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
-0
mm-_
"0 :I=,
!
iii ," ! :
,l",, Z
Ill ' i I
it,,
II/ II
ii
1 I
--I_1
C'3 0'_
OC_
.._ _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 _ 0 0"I _ --'
_ 0 _
FLIGHT PERCENT
PARAMETER PREDICTED RECONSTRUCTION
DEVIATION DEVIATION
FROM PREDICTED
Thrust
N 899,399 901,223 1824
(Ibf) (202,193) (202,603) (410) 0.20
Specific Impulse
N-s/kg 4202 42O4 2
(Ibf-s/Ibm) (428.5) (428.7) (O.2) 0.05
LOX Flowrate
kg/s 177.94 178.24 O. 30
(Ibm/s) (392.30) (392.95) (0.65) 0.17
Fuel Flowrate
kg/s 36. O9 36.14 0.05
(Ibm/s) (79.57) (79.67) (0.10) 0.14
Engine Mixture
Ratio
LOX/Fuel 4.930 4.932 0.002 0.04
of the flow forces for a PU valve with a rotated baffle (determined from
recent engine manufacturer testing) combined with the PU electronics gain
factor (feedback to control) results in an expected valve displacement of
approximately 0.75 degree.
It was concluded that the shift in valve position during the AS-506 flight
was due largely to the increased flow forces resulting from the rotated
baffle and possibly partly due to an electrical phase change. This ob-
served 0.6 to 0.8 degree shift in valve position during null PU operation
is expected to occur on AS-507 and subsequent flights.
The LH2 CVS performed satisfactorily, maintaining the fuel tank ullage
pressure at an average level of 13.4 N/cm2 (19.5 psia).
7-5
_FIRST ECO
2O
E
(.)
15
LJ
r_
2O r_
DO
O0 o_
L_
r_
I0 oO
l,i
__
r_
L_
._J i,i
N I0 ..J
N
0
5 N
N
Z 0
Z
oO
o0
0
0
4O0
Z 4 N--
75
300 I re..=
F- i
(/)
-i-
i /--PREDICTED
_ 200 5O -r-
.J
I---
o
I---
l--
I00 25 0
I--
>
(J
0
3
!
0
Z
0 2
I,i
1
C_)
> 0
0 I000 2000 3000 4000 5OOO
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
,, V I I I
0:00:00
0:30:00 I:00:00 1:30:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 7-3.
S-IVB CVS Performance - Coast Phase (Sheet 1 of 2)
7-6
S_TSTART OF T6
S_TSECOND ESC
2O
E
o °r=.
15
20
or)
or)
l,i
'" 10
i,i
I0 J
/IF
.-J
N
N
N
N 5 O
0
Z Z
O")
Or}
:_,
0 0
400
Z
75 4-
300
_2
::::)
CIC
-r- 50 ,Y
200 -I-
F--
.-J
F--
0 I--
F-
25
u_ I00
cz')
C..)
0
3
!
0
2
0
0
> 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 I0,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
,,, _ . , l , n '_;7 _7
1:30:00 2:00:00 2:30:00
7-7
Calculations based on estimated temperatures indicate that the mass vented
during parking orbit was 966 kilograms (2130 Ibm) and that the boiloff
mass was 1081 kilograms (2383 Ibm).
7.6 S-IVB CHILLDOWN
ANDRESTARTFORSECONDBURN
The engine start sphere was recharged properly and maintained sufficient
pressure during coast. Between first and second burns, the rate of pres-
sure increase was less than predicted. Also the start bottle relief valve
regulated higher than the nominal setting.
The engine control sphere gas usage was as predicted during the first burn;
the ambient helium spheres recharged the control sphere to a nominal level
adequate for a proper restart.
The second burn start transient was satisfactory with thrust buildup
similar to the thrust buildup on flights AS-501 through AS-505. The PU
valve was in the proper full open (4.5 EMR) position prior to the second
start.
The total impulse from STDVto STDV+2.5 seconds was 794,114 N-s (178,524
Ibf-s). This was less than the value of 833,615 N-s (187,404 Ibf-s) ob-
tained during the same interval for the acceptance test.
7-8
S_7 HELIUM HEATER ON, 9320.2
LH2 AND LOX CRYOGENIC REPRESS VALVES OPEN, 9326.3 and 9326.5
S_TTERMINATION OF LOX TANK REPRESS
N
E
f_
Z
30
:::D
c_
v')
L.U or)
4O cz)
n,l
r_
r_
a,i
--
_.1 25
_---PREDICTED MINIMUM .-I
-._1 X
C_
.__I
3O
2O
25 36
20 _
-r
._./
--r-
16
I0
-I00 0 1 O0 200 300 400 5O0
TIME FROM HELIUM HEATER ON, SECONDS
| , V , , !
02 : 34 : O0 02:36:00 02:38:00 02:40:00 02:42:00 02:44:00
RANGE TIME, FIOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
7-9
HELIUMHEATER
ON, 9320.2
LH2ANDLOXCRYOGENICREPRESS OPEN,9326.3 AND9326.5
VALVES
S_TTERMINATION
OF LOXTANKREPRESS
S_7TERMINATION
OFLH2TANKREPRESS
S_7HELIUM
HEATER
OFF
0.I0
- 0.20
0 O. 08
0
0.15 ,,,
0.06
0 ..---___.._
0
Z -0.I0 _
0.04 Z
=E: ,,=:Z
=Z) F--
L_'T" _J
0.02 -0.05 ','_-c_
-r..j
0
O. 020
0 0.04
F- 0
F--
"' 0.015 ca
E
rY__3
-_r--
0
-- _ 0.010 0
LL._/ 002
. _
,, :_,g
Z
Z
-- x O. 005
_0
-r._j
0
\ --Ix
_..10
-r" -.1
200
Z
-40 4-
..Q
150
F--
c_ _2
v')
r_
-I-
F- I00
r_
-20 i
I---
i,i
z
L..U
50 Z
tY"
L
r_
EE)
__
-0
-I00 0 I00 200 300 400 50O
TIME FROM HELIUM HEATER ON, SECONDS
g7
, _7 , _7, _7 , , _ ,
02:34:00 02:36:00 02:38:00 02:40:00 02:42:00 02:44:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
7-10
_0 '3_NIV_3dW31 137NI dWNd 73N3 3o '3_NIV_3dW31 137NI dWNd X07
O o c'-
o
c_
i l I ! I I I I i I I
r_7
cO
. ol
L c-
O
_9
!
t_
0 ro _..
CO
i---
r,,"
u7 Z z
z_
w
_®
w
I c_J
N W L_
Q_
Q_ ®_
_..1
I--
L._
_.J
<.\\_ ._J
Z e_ _ x
Z _ 0
eJ _-
Q_ Q_ __ 4-_
CO
CI_
,.-a, ._1
L_
_ 4-_
0
N m
\
_ m
_m
k.--
,d
o !
I O 1 l
o C7__ O
O N
_o '3Wn.LV_3dN3/ .L31Nt dWnd 13fl_ _Io '3_InlV_i3dW31 137NI dNfld X07
7.7 S-IVB MAINSTAGE PERFORMANCE FOR SECOND BURN
The 172-second time slice performance for second burn thrust was 0.56 per-
cent lower than predicted. Specific impulse performance for second burn
was 0.05 percent higher than predicted. A shift in performance at the null
PU valve position (-1.5 degrees) occurred during second burn. A shift in
the Gas Generator (GG) system resistance is suspected as being the cause
of the down shift of 6859 Newtons (1542 Ibf). Also, during second burn
several PU valve system resistance shifts are believed to have occurred.
S-IVB second burn duration was 346.9 seconds which was 1.7 seconds less
than predicted.
The PU system was operated in the open-loop mode. The PU system success-
fully accomplished the requirements associated with propellant loading.
During first burn, the PU valve was positioned at null for start and re-
mained there, as programed, for the duration of the burn. The PU valve
was commanded to the 4.5 EMR position 119.9 seconds prior to second burn
start command, and remained there for 246.1 seconds. At second ESC +126.2
7-12
ACTUAL %_7 SECONDESC
ACTUAL _7 SECOND ESC
PREDICTED _7 SECONDECO
PREDICTED _7 SECOND ECO PREDICTED BAND
PREDICTED BAND
220
i.C
0.22 - 480
- 470
210
O. 9 0.20 - 460 .g
i _c I-.-
0.18
_- 0.8 0 190 _-- - 420 o_
-410 _
43CD
380
170
- 435 5.2
c_
z
c_ 4.9
J
430
uo
_200
_ 4.6
I 425
_ w
4150
_o 4.3
_J__
! 420
4.0
_I00 300 350
5O 1O0 150 200 250 300 350" 0 50 1 O0 150 200 250
TIME FROM STDV + 2.5 SECONDS TIME FROM STDV +2.5 SECONDS
I I I I I I I I I
2:50:00 2:44:00 2:46:00 2:48:00 2:50:00
2:44:00 2:46:00 2:48:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
PU INDICATED
EVENT UNITS PREDICTED (CORRECTED) PU VOLUMETRIC FLOW INTEGRAL BEST ESTIMATE
seconds the valve was commanded to the null position (approximately 5.0
EMR) and remained there throughout the remainder of the flight.
7-14
Following the termination of prepressurization, the ullage pressure
reached relief conditions, approximately 22.0 N/cm2 (32.0 psia) and re-
mained at that level until just after liftoff as shown in Figure 7-8. A
small ullage collapse occurred during the first 5 seconds of boost, and
then returned to the relief level at 70 seconds due to self pressurization.
All during the burn the ullage pressure was at the relief level, as pre-
dicted.
The LH2 ullage pressure was 21.4 N/cm 2 (31.0 psia) at second burn ESC as
shown in Figure 7-9. Significant venting during second burn occurred at
second ESC +280 seconds when step pressurization was initiated. This
behavior was as predicted.
The LH 2 pump inlet Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) was calculated from
the pump interface temperature and total pressure. Throughout the burn,
the NPSP had satisfactory agreement with the predicted. Figures 7-10 and
7-11 summarize the fuel pump inlet conditions for first and second burns,
respectively.
_71NITIATION OF PREPRESSURIZATION
S_7 FIRST ECO
3O
4O
L)
"_
z
25
30 u_
c_ | ,,,
1,1
lO
lO
-I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RANGE TIME, I000 SECONDS
, , , , I
Figure 7-8. S-IVB LH 2 Ullage Pressure - First Burn and Parking Orbit
7-15
25
i_7 CRYOGENIC" REPRESSURIZATION
/I. ,. S_7 SECOND ECO, 10,203.07 l
S_7 OPEN CVS, 10,203.8 i .30
2O CLOSE LATCHING NPV, II,103.1
I
E
it,' , S_7 CLOSE CVS, II,104.1
z I Ii _7 OPEN LATCHING NPV
I I _7 CLOSE LATCHING NPV
I,I
_" 15 I _- OPEN CVS ' _"
(.9
i,i
r_
r_ Ill\
.| I,i/f ' ,//r- ......
J_'#" .---.j--_m
.20 __
i,i
I0 .
I @
-- 5
f" I,-/" J=" _/" I "J
/ X _._ _" PREDI CTED BAND
_s/ \I "
0 0
9 II 13 15 17 19
I I _ ooo
I_ 7 I _ I
2O i I I
E I PREDICTED' BAND
_15
Z
20 _-
i,I
"7 i,i
Pc"
L/3
(j')
LIJ
"' 10 c_
i,i
I.a.J
(..g
_J
lO ,
_J
5 c_
-'r" -r-
...J
.._J
0 .......
19 21 23 25 27 29
RANGE TIME, I000 SECONDS
I I I I I
Figure 7'9. S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure - Second Burn and Translunar Coast
7-16
LL-L
--o -o
r-"
8_- - t8 "13
i--i
z z
I-" r-
l-rl r-rl
-H
--I
--9 88 --4
m
0_tT- -
-o
l-rl
rrl
;;o
3::
--I _8 ---4
c
c:
po 8L_- - po
rrl
m
o o
-rl ¸ 178
£L _r
_-4F- z-1-
_-I _- r--Po
r_
¢--
08- O_ po-o
rTq
m
8_- 000
oo0 r----4
pO ;_==
r-_
Frl r-- 9£:- S_
z
(./i
0_- cb
I-o
0£
! 0
r
I _-
I-o
Z
-CJ
I,n
OL-
L 0L
z
-o
(_
-13
z
,..1°
lVnlDv j
0_-
£L
033 .LS_]
I-Iz_
z'zss 'N3dO AOIS N_Jn_]IS_I4 A
'%3 IS_JI3Z_
S_7SECOND ESC, 9848.2
_7 SECONDBURN STDV OPEN, 9856.2
S_7 SECONDECO
15
- 2O
E
Z 10
r_ ACTUAL r_
-I0 V_
r_
Z Z
j'- (M
--r- 2E
.d ._J
25 - 36 _JLLI
,::_ ,-_
_--_
/--ACTUAL I"-- C3
OOr)
0I.._
I-.- 1._
- 32 I'--" _"_
I,JJ
IJ..I r", r'_
2O :E ""
- 28 t.-, i_,,.
_-I'-- I..iJ
I.LI 0.,,I ,.,....I
OJ.--I
_NOMINAL PREDICTED - 24 -r- z
15 ,. i J i
v'
0
24 I..I..
0
LLI
F'F
"--I
- -418 ¢",r"
I-- 23 , , . i , , , I--"
rY r,,,"
LIJ
r'.
LLI
I--" 22 - -420
t--" F--
LIJ
.--I ..J
Z Z
"1- "-m"
.--I 20 -J
I J [ I i , J
2:44:00 2:46:00 2:48:00 2:50:00
RANGETIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
7-18
7.10.2 S-IVB LOX Pressurization System
During S-IC boost there was a relatively high rate of ullage pressure decay
caused by an acceleration effect and subsequent thermal collapse, the decay
necessitated one makeup cycle from the cold helium spheres as shown in
Figure 7-12.
35 5O
n_
or-
E
u
-_ 30 ___MAXlMUM PREDICTED Q.
Z
- 4O
rY
25 -'K _- ACTUAL _0
i,I
_---MINIMUM PREDICTED rY
1,J
rY
- 3O i,J
,., 20
..J
X
× 15 - 2O 0
0
=J
I0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
RANGE TIME, I000 SECONDS
I ,
Figure 7-12. S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure - First Burn and
Parking Orbit
7-19
One makeup cycle was also required during S-II boost. Although ullage
cooling continued during this period, the major cause of the decay again
appears to be response to the vehicle acceleration. The LOX tank ullage
pressure was 27.7 N/cm2 (40.2 psia) at ESC.
During the coast period between first and second burns the LOX ullage
pressure decreased from 29.0 to 25.0 N/cm2 (42.1 to 36.2 psia) which was
approximately 5 percent below the predicted minimum. Although this decay
was not a problem, it was greater than usual. The ullage pressure decay
could have been the result of a combination of factors, including bulk-
head heat transfer rate, initial coast ullage temperature, localized
boiling rates, and perturbations of the stage. The above possibilities
are still under investigation. The decay could also have been the result
of leakage through the LOX vent system although a leak of this magnitude
could not be detected by stage instrumentation, this possibility cannot
be completely eliminated.
Repressurization of the LOX tank prior to second burn was required. The
tank ullage pressure was increased from 25.0 to 27.9 N/cm2 (36.2 to 40.4
psia) prior to second ESC. At ESC the pressure was 27.7 N/cm2 (40.2 psia)
satisfying engine start requirements as shown in Figure 7-13.
The LOX NPSPcalculated at the interface was 16.81 N/cm2 (24.38 psid) at
first burn STDVopen. The minimum NPSPduring burn was 17.1 N/cm2 (24.8
psid) at I00 seconds after ESC. This was 11.4 N/cm2 (16.6 psid) above the
required NPSPat that time.
The LOX pump static interface pressure during first burn followed the
cyclic trends of the LOX tank ullage pressure. The NPSPcalculated at the
engine interface was 16.02 N/cm2 (23.24 psid) at second burn ESC. At all
times during second burn, NPSPwas above the required level. Figure 7-14
and 7-15 summarize the LOX pump conditions for the first burn and second
burn, respectively.
The cold helium supply was adequate to meet all flight requirements. At
first burn ESC the cold helium spheres contained 171 kilograms (378 Ibm)
of helium. At the end of the first burn, the helium mass had decreased
to 147 kilograms (325 Ibm). At second burn ESC the spheres contained
132 kilograms (292 Ibm) of helium. At the end of second burn the helium
mass had decreased to 75 kilograms (166 Ibm). Figure 7-16 shows helium
supply pressure history.
7-20
SECOND ESC
SECOND ECO, 10,203.07
_TLOX TANK NONPROPULSIVE VENT OPENED, 10,204.0
S_TLOX TANK NONPROPULSIVE VENT CLOSED, 10,354.0
_TMANEUVER TO TRANSPOSITION, DOCKING, AND EXTRACTION
_/CSM/S-IVB SEPARATION
S_TSTART LOX DUMP, 18,187.6
S_'END LOX DUMP, 18,295.8
_TLOX TANK NONPROPULSIVE VENT OPENED, 18,490.8
35 5O
3O
4O
25 m_
,._
r,..,
e_ ACTUAL f- MAXIMUM _REDICTED 30
m 20
u.l
-_%.1
_N 15
1If" 2o
× 10
MINIMUM PREDICTED ._.1
lO
0
9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 !8 19
RANGE TIME, I000 SECONDS
S_7 I ! !
2:30:00 3:30:00 4:30:00 5:30:00
2O
_15
20 r_
LU
r_
C_
C_
L_
I0
x
MAXIMUM PREDICTED.
MINIMUM PREDICTED
0 0
19 21 23 25 27 29
! ! !
Figure 7-13. S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure - Second Burn and
Transl unar Coast
7-21
LOX NPSP, N/cm2
LOX PUMP INLET LOX PUMP TOTAL INLET
TEMPERATURE, °K PRESSURE, N/cm2
o DO PO O0 CO
0 0 _ 0 _ 0
0
.--I°
I
e- (
o I
l
I
.=_
I --I .--I .--I
o I m _0 _-I
0 _
0
I
I
---I O0 0"1
O_ m --I .._
C_ 0
0 m r,-.
0
0 Z 1-11
X 0 m
_'_
m
-tl
c-
2N o_
o"1
"0 Po
!
I k,
r_ "s
CD I
I
i-'rl
0 I
0
,.._°
z I
...,.1 °
I
0
0 I
e_ I
I
I
,,..I °
I
tn "M I
c- I I ! I
I I I I I
r_O _ _ h_ hO 0 0 0 0
LOX PUMP INLET LOX PUMP TOTAL INLET LOX NPSP, psid
TEMPERATURE, °F PRESSURE, psia
SECOND ESC, 9848.2
2O -30
E
(&
Z
15
20
a_
z 10 Z
X
REQUIRED
\
x
C) 0
._I .--I
lO
0 0
E
35 I 50
(.J
Z r'-,
3O
,::_ rr'
I'-" --'_ I I"-- --'_
OOO 4O O(X'}
I--oO
I--- On
I.l.I
-- PREDICTED
25 _-cL.
r_ I..-
--295 c_ I---
_',_C
i , ,,S 7
2:44:00 2:46:00 2:48:00 2:50:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
7-23
_7 FIRST ECO
3000
2000 _
1500 n_
E
u
2000 C)_
z
W
C_
cz)
Cz_
W
C_
r_
1000
I000
5OO
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
I I
0:00:00 2:00:00 4:00:00
7-24
7.11 S-IVB PNEUMATIC
CONTROL
SYSTEM
The APS ullage engines were turned on at approximately 700 seconds and 9775
seconds for propellant settling and were turned on a third time at approxi-
mately 20,268 seconds to provide additional impulse for the slingshot
maneuver.
Ullage Pressure
N/cm Z 131 to 133 131 to 133 128 to 130 131 to 133
(psia) (190 to 193) (190 to 193) (186 to 188} (190 to 193)
Propellant Manifold
Pressure
133 to 135 133 to 135 130 to 131 131 to 132
tl/cm2
(psia) (193 to 196) (193 to 196) (188 to !go) (190 to 192)
Regulator Outlet
Pressure
N/cm 2 128.2 to 134.4 128.2 to 134.4 134 to 135 134 to 135
(psia) (186 to 195) (186 to 195) (194 to 196) (194 to 196)
7-25
_7 FIRST ESC, 549.2
1_7 FIRST ECO, 699,34
S_7 SECOND ESC, 9848.2
_7 SECOND ECO, 10,203.07
1_7 LOX DUMP
_7 APS ULLAGE BURN
90 -200 90
II - 200
8o -175 80 - 175
70
6o
PREDICTED BAND_]'____
CTU 150
125 _
_ _ 60
70
PREDICTED BAND_ _
I
150
125
OXIDIZER ==
5 --,._ _ <_ =<
I J I00
f_
Oh
40 '_,..__ L ___ ,.-H __ 40
c:c
75 a. _" 75
PREDICTED BAND
_
-5O
---_ _ 50
20 20
25
I0 -25 I0
0 0 0 0
0 8000 16,000 24,000 32,000 0 8000 16,000 24,000 32,000
Figure 7-17. S-IVB APS Propellants Remaining Versus Range Time, Module No. 1 and Module No. 2
Table 7-5. S-IVB APS Propellant Consumption
Initial Load 92.16 (203.00) 57.20 (126.00) 92.08 (203.00) 57.20 (126.00)
First Burn 0.43 (0.95) 0.35 (0.76) 0.43 (0.95) 0.33 (0.72)
(Roll Control)
ECO to End of 7.30 (16.07) 5.52 (12.18) 7.27 (16.02) 5.53 (12.17)
First APS Ullaging
End of First Ullage 4.48 (9.88) 2.77 (6.11) 2.38 (5.24) 1.48 (3.27)
Burn to Start of T 6
Second Ullage Burn 6.12 (13.50) 4.80 (IO.58) 5.57 (12.27) 4.34 (9.57)
Second Burn 0.59 (I.29) 0.38 (0.84) 0.II (o.25) o.07 (0.16)
(Roll Control)
ECO to LOX Dump 4.03 (8.88) 2.52 (5.55) 7.55 (16.64) 4.72 (io.41)
LOX Dump 1.27 (2.80) 0.79 (1.74) 3.18 (7.00) 1.98 (4.37)
LOX Dump to Third 1.78 (3.92) I.II (2.45) 1.45 (3.20) 0.91 (2.00)
Ullage Burn
Third Ullage Burn 18.06 (39.82) 14.45 (31.85) 19.09 (42.09) 15.09 (33.27)
Third Ullage Burn 4.60 (10.14) 2.97 (6.55) 4.27 (9.42) 2.67 (5.89)
to Loss of Data
Total Usage 49.52 (I09.08) 36.16 (79.72) 51.41 (113.34) 37.19 (81.99)
The LH2 tank was satisfactorily safed using three programed vent cycles
utilizing both the Non Propulsive Vent (NPV) and CVS as indicated in
Figure 7-18. The LH2 tank ullage pressure during safing is shown in
Figure 7-9. At second ECO, the LH2 tank ullage pressure was 22.4 N/cm2
(32.4 psia) and after three vents had decayed to approximately zero. The
mass of GH2 and LH2 vented agrees well with the 1174 kilograms (2589 Ibm)
of liquid residual and pressurant in the tank at the end of powered flight.
7-27
LH2 TANK CVS OPEN
I I
COLD HELIUM DUMP
I
AUX HYDRAULIC PUMP ON
LOX DUMP
! |
,A, ,
13 , I'4 ' '
15 _' l'z ' 1'9 '
I0 II
RANGETIME, I000 SECONDS
I '_v ' _, ' '
2:50:00 3:25:00 3:50:00 4:50:00 5:25:00
RANGETIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
At 195 seconds after the end of LOX dump the LOX NPV valve was opened for
the duration of the mission. LOX tank ullage pressure decayed from 15.5
N/cm2 (22.5 psia) at 18,490.8 seconds to zero pressure at approximately
24,000 seconds.
Cold helium was dumped through the 02/H2 burner LH 2 heating coils and into
the LH2 tank, and overboard through the tank vents.
Three separate programed dumps totaling 3537 seconds were made starting at
10,264 seconds, as shown in Figure 7-16. During these periods, the pressure
decayed from 365 to 17 N/cm2 (530 to 25 psia). Approximately 73.9 kilograms
(163 Ibm) of helium were dumped overboard.
The ambient helium in the LOX and LH2 repress spheres was dumped through
the fuel tank. The 60-second dump was commanded on at 10,204.8 seconds
and started at 10,221.6 seconds when the LH2 tank pressure switch dropped
out and allowed the repress valve to open, The pressure in the fuel
repress spheres decayed from 2124 to 579 N/cm2 (3080 to 840 psia) and
15.6 kilograms (34.4 Ibm) of helium were dumped.
The stage pneumatic control sphere was safed by initiating the J-2 engine
pump purge and flowing helium overboard through the pump seal cavities.
7-29
sqL '±Sn_Hl s/mq[ wq[ _SS'_4 X04
0
'31V_M073 alnbl7
°0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,
0 0 c_J _ C'q oJ
,-- CO '4_ _
I",,,
0
o")
0
0
co ,0
:/
0,
i ) p.,,,
oO
0
E
Z
0
cO
I--
_
c,O
Z
0
'--_
Z
j_ I /I
I
Z Z
// O0
r',,
c,J
,--" Z
,.
.0
°,
X
0
_1
_o-
_-i /_/ ,,
i h I ] I
_-_ Z
°°
0
I '"
I--- I '"
I--.
0
0
c,_ I
g_
/ °-
"k_.l
0 _ 0
I '" I '" d-; . D_
I
I o_
°_,-
C4N
t_
t . 0
(M
"/f'
0
°,
m
i P_
D' o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C_
0 _0 I_
0 0 0 0 0 fO 0J r- 0 0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0
o_ N
00
The engine control sphere safing began at 18,505 seconds. The helium
control solenoid was energized to flow helium overboard through the
engine purge system. The pressure decayed from 1379 to 103.4 N/cm 2
(2000 to 150 psia) and 0.680 kilogram (1.50 Ibm) of helium was vented
during the 1300-second safing period.
7-31/7-32
SECTION8
HYDRAULICSYSTEMS
8.1 SUMMARY
The S-IVB hydraulic system pressure exceeded the upper limit by 0.6 per-
cent just after second burn ignition and remained at this level until
202 seconds into the burn. At this time a step decrease in system pres-
sure to a normal operating level occurred. The pressure remained at
this level for the remainder of the burn. Other than this minor devia-
tion system performance was nominal and no other problems were noted.
The manufacturer of the S-IVB engine driven hydraulic pump states that
the pump has an output pressure "drift-up" characteristic that could
account for this excess pressure. The abrupt pressure changes noted
during the burn are probably due to frictional hysteresis within the
engine driven pump pressure/flow-regulating mechanism. The pump manu-
facturer does not consider this condition to indicate impending mal-
function of the engine driven pump.
8.2 S-IC HYDRAULICSYSTEM
The performance of the S-IC hydraulic system was satisfactory. All servo-
actuator supply pressures, and return pressures and temperatures were
within required limits.
8.3 S-II HYDRAULICSYSTEM
8-I
ranged from 304 to 319°K (88 to II5°F) compared to a predicted 300 to
328°K (80 to 130°F). The reservoir fluid temperatures and rate of in-
crease of these temperatures compared well with predicted values.
The S-IVB hydraulic system performance was nominal during S-IC/S-II boost
and S-IVB first burn. The supply pressure was nearly constant at 2503
N/cm2 (3630 psia) as compared to an allowable of 2425 to 2527 N/cm2
(3515 to 3665 psia). System flow requirement was provided by the engine
driven hydraulic pump during first burn as indicated by a rise in system
pressure after ignition and an auxiliary pump motor current draw of 19.5
amperes. Power extraction by the engine driven pump during burn was
3.64 kw (4.88 horsepower).
The auxiliary hydraulic pump was turned on at 9497.2 seconds during second
burn prestart preparations. System operation was normal with output pres-
sure at 2487 N/cmZ (3610 psia) as shown in Figure 8-I. After second ESC
at 9848.2 seconds, as the engine driven pump commencedoperation, the
system pressure increased to 2542 N/cm2 (3688 psia) which exceeded the
upper limit of 2526 N/cm2 (3665 psia) by 0.6 percent. At 10,050 seconds
system pressure dropped below the upper limit to 2505 N/cm2 (3632 psia)
and remained steady until 10,233.1 seconds when the auxiliary pumpwas
turned off. At 10,050 seconds, as the system pressure dropped, the
auxiliary pump motor current increased from 20 to 30 amperes indicating
that the auxiliary pump assumed an increased share of the hydraulic load.
System temperatures, actuator positions and auxiliary pump current loads
were normal during the burn and therefore this slight excess in system
pressure did not appear to cause any problems.
The pump manufacturer states that the engine driven hydraulic pump has a
"drift-up" characteristic which, when combined with uncompensated thermal:
expansion in the pump compensator mechanism, makes a rise in output pres-
sure during second burn highly likely. It should be noted that the pre-
dicted upper limit of output pressure does not make allowance for this
pressure increase. The excessive system pressure after S-IVB second
8-2
150
PRESSURE I
_- 50 8o_
c_
' 3OOO
2000
cz_
4O
25
1500 q
.2000 0
1 340
I i II _HYDRAULIC
I
PUMP INLET_
I fl
co
8O
AFT BATTERY NO. 2
_'CURRENT LOAD
.300 80 _
L...... ,I_._._.F-_.._l_--___ RESERVOIR
OIL
= 60 m
N
P__
.... r TEMPERATURE
,=, 28o '40 w
4O I--
260
2O .... I
240
9250 9450 9650 9850 10,050 10,250 10,450 9250 9450 9650 9850 10,050 10,250 10,450
RANGE TIME, SECONDS RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I !
IKE SPRING
__OUTPUT
PRESSURE
--COMPENSATOR
VALVE SPOOL
PUMP
INPUT
SHAFT --COMPENSATOR
VALVE SPRING
----PRESSURE
ADJUSTMENT
PUMP
YOKE _PUMP INLET
8-4
SECTION 9
STRUCTURES
9.1 SUMMARY
The AS-506 first burn peak amplitude I+0.07 g at 19 hertz) was about 20
percent of the AS-505 peak amplitude _0.3 g at 19 hertz). The second
burn oscillations peaked at approximately ±0.12 g (13 hertz) at 10,172
seconds.
9-I
at the IU. The slow-release rod forces measured during liftoff are pre-
sented in Figure 9-I.
The lateral loads experienced during thrust buildup and release were much
lower than design because of the low-level winds experienced during launch.
The wind speed at launch was 3.3 m/s (6.4 knots) at the 18.3-meter (60-ft)
level. The comparable launch vehicle and spacecraft redline winds were
18.9 m/s (36.8 knots) and 15.4 m/s (30 knots), respectively.
mLmL__
AS-502
AS-503
500 INVALID DATA _I -- AS-504
--._ AS-505
AS-506
400
z -\. \ . %
_o 3oo
-60
o
r_
o
2OO
- .\\!!, ',,
1 O0 \
' "\\
0
'\ \\', ,0
0 0.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
TIME FROM RELEASE, SECONDS
I I I I I I I I I I
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 o0 1 .I 1.2
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
9-2
VEHICLE STATION, in.
! !
40'00 3000 2000 1000
VEHICLE STATION, m
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 I0 0
5O
t = 91'.5 SEC
ACCELERATION = 2.34 g
-I0
.......... t = 135.2 SEC
ACCELERATION = 3.71 g
4O
.... t = 161.6 SEC
ACCELERATION = 3.94 g
q,_
30
'6,_o
o
0
..,,J .........7., r--,
--, 20
G
4
x
),,--i
x
I0
The inflight winds that existed during the maximum dynamic pressure phase
of the flight were low, 9.6 m/s (18.7 knots), at the ll.4-kilometer
(37,400 ft) level and were increasing steadily at higher altitudes, as
shown in Figure A-I. The maximum bending moments on AS-506 were less than
the bending moments experienced on any previous Saturn V vehicle, less
than 15 percent of design criteria. As shown in Figure 9-3, the maximum
bending moment of 3.75 x 106 N-m (33.2 x 106 Ibf-in.) was imposed on the
S-IC LOX tank at 91.5 seconds. Bending moment computations are based upon
measured inflight parameter_ such as thrust, gimbal angle, angle-of-attack,
dynamic pressure, and accelerations.
9-3
VEHICLE STATION, in.
_30
z--- 0.06
3
20 0.04 _j
TOTAL
NORMAL
OAO
/
_I0
J 0.02
I
\
LEGEND
IO ffI_MLT313 rlK_l _IUU_
CO_IMAND"
MODU'L
E
MEASURED
FIRST MODE 0
N
-r- 6
(J
J
LaJ
C)" 0
i,i
4(
I,
9-4
The S-IC CECO and OECO transient responses measured at the Command Module
(CM) and the IU are shown in Figure 9-5. The decay of the CECO amplitudes
is comparable to previous flights, indicating that the vehicle damping in
the first mode is similar. Peak amplitudes of first mode oscillations
versus body station for the 135- to 138-second time slice are shown in
Figure 9-6. The amplitudes of several measurements on AS-504, AS-505, and
AS-506 are shown in this figure as well as a fit of the predicted first
vehicle longitudinal mode through the data points.
The most significant vehicle responses during the S-IC stage boost phase
were detected by the IU longitudinal (A2-603) measurements and the S-lC
intertank lon_itudinal (AI-II8) measurements. As shown in Figure 9-7,
oscillations _4.7 to 5.2 hertz) began at approximately 102 seconds, peaked
at 107 seconds, and damped by 125 seconds. The peak amplitude measured
at the IU was ±0.07 g at 4.8 hertz. Except for AS-502, oscillations in
the same frequency band, but at lower amplitudes, have been observed on
other previous flights with an amplitude of ±0.05 g measured on AS-505 at
115 seconds. F-I engine chamber pressures in the 4- to 5-hertz region
were below the 0.4 N/cm 2 (0.5 psi) noise floor. The observed oscillations
were a response of the first longitudinal mode to flight environmental
excitations. POGO did not occur during S-IC boost.
During the S-II stage boost phase, a small response buildup was observed
by the S-IVB stage gimbal block longitudinal accelerometer (A12-403) at
252 seconds. The AS-506 amplitude peaked at _0.037 g at 15.5 hertz, as
shown in Figure 9-8. A similar response was observed during the AS-505
flight, ±0.035 g (15 to 16 hertz), at 293 seconds. The S-II crossbeam
amplitude on AS-505 was ±I.0 g. The crossbeam on AS-506 was not instru-
mented; however, since the AS-506 oscillations also occur in the high-
gain S-II crossbeam mode (15 to 16 hertz), the AS-506 crossbeam response
is estimated to have been ±I g (15.5 hertz), which is well below the design
limits.
9-5
_7 S-IC CECO
_7 S-IC OECO
COMMANDMODULE COMMANDMODULE
5 5
4
"__v'_A^ A A ^ ^I_AA^^^^ AAAAAI
3
VVVVV
"v VVVV_VVVV_
0
F--
:C
mY
z0
<
m_
2
1
; DATA DROPOUT
L_J
.J 0
l,t
,=C
-2 -2
-3 -3
5 i
,
4
z
i DATA
o I
0
B -DROP( pUT-
V- AAAAAAAAAA AAAAA
:C
rv v _UVVV Ivvvv_ VVV¥1 m_
i,i
_J
L_ L_
:^
_ A A A i, A A_Am,
V VVVV VyVvv _'
_7 -I _7
134 135 136 137 138 139 161 162 163 164 165
RANGE TIME, SECONDS RANGE TIME, SECONDS
3200 Oral S
8O A0002-603 _
PREDICTED LM
I
2800
7O AS-504 /
AS-505 A !
c=
.r-
E AS-506 ii !
=- z I
O
C) 2400 I
_- 60
I-- I
f-- tz_
I
I.J_l
W ..,..I
.=4
(._)
2000 PREDICTED
MODE SHAPE ---_I
:= 50
LAJ I
I
I
1600 4O I
I
I
I
1200 I
3O
I
. I
AOOl -I 184
8OO 20 _ E093-I 19 /_
I E058-I 18
400 10
I ' 1
LE092-117
E057-I 15 _k I
dD E083-115
0 , , , I _ J
-0.5 O 0.5
ACCELERATION, Gpeak
9-7
0.08
'1 I I I I I I I 8
0.0'
0.0,
6 uJ
u-
'/A
X/ I
P AMPLITUDE i_
0.02 r,d, "_
- AJ
UENCY
\i
0.00
0.04
0.03
o.o2
0.01
0.0 4
80 I O0 120 140
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
9-8 •
20 0.04 LONGITUDINAL ACCELERATION - S-IVB GIMBAL BLOCK (A0012-403)
19
18 /
17-
cm
i-.- o.02
i 16-
FRE[ UENCY • -_
15-
14"
13.
12 0.0
200.0 220.0 240.0 260.0 280.0 300.0
0.30
/
0.20
/ AS 505
Z
o
0.I0
0
_J _FZ'L
I--
-o.lo f
__1
-0.20
-0.30
N 22
AS-506
>2 2O
AND AS-505
..__.....--.-----
r_
16
580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-9. S-IVB AS -506 and AS-505 17- to 20-Hertz Osci I I ati ons
Comparison
9-9
ACCELERATION,GIMBALBLOCK(A0012-403)
0.I
o.ot,lm ,,M,,q
-0.I
r_,r,
-0.20
580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650
0.15 .....
E
0.10
0.05
TIME
35
FREQUENCY, HERTZ
9-I0
During S-IVB second burn, small longitudinal oscillations began on the
engine gimbal pad (A12-403) at about 10,164 seconds and peaked (_0.12 g)
at 10,172 seconds at the first longitudinal mode frequency of 13 hertz.
These oscillations were damped out by 10,184 seconds. Similar 13- to
16-hertz oscillations occurred on AS-505 and other previous flights at
approximately the same levels and range time.
The chamber pressure responses were in the noise floor in the 17- to 20-
hertz region during first burn and the 13- to 16-hertz region during second
burn. The LOX pump inlet and discharge pressure measurements showed in-
significantly low amplitudes throughout both S-IVB burns as did the longitu-
dinal accelerometers in the IU and CM.
The data show typical buildup and decay periods of low-level oscillations
without indications of propulsion/structural coupling. Since these oscil-
lations have been observed on previous flights, it is assumed that they
are characteristic of the stage and could be expected on future flights.
The 45-hertz oscillations that occurred just after the LH2 steD pressuriza-
tion event on AS-505 were not detected on AS-506. The AS-506 Non Propulsive
Vent (NPV) pressures showed very small, ±0.35 N/cm2 (±0.5 psia), pressure
oscillations after step pressurization, as shown in Figure 9-12. The IU yaw
L_
-2 0
-0.2
10,151.0 10,151.5 10,152.0 10,152.5 10,153.0
6 I0 "_
LU
4 LJ
2
C_
C_ 0
0 _-
AS-505 IU ACCELERATION_YAW (A007-603)
0.2
45-HERTZ OSCILLATION
9-11
acceleration measurement (A7-603) showed no response to these small pres-
sure oscillations. In sharp contrast to this condition were the relatively
large, _+1.4 N/cm2 (_+2psia), NPV pressure oscillations observed on the
AS-505 flight and the resulting 45-hertz vibration indicated by the A7-603
measurement. Therefore, it is assumed that the 45-hertz vibration did not
occur on the AS-506 flight.
LEGEND
ANALYSIS MODE 1
I0 i i
ANALYSIS MODE 2
COMMANDMODULE ANALYSIS MODE 3 _'_
I I ANALYSIS MODE 4
MEASURED MODE(_)
MODE NUMBER N
/
/
N
-r- j'"
6
• J'
>-
/"
Z
L_
J
W ,..J
r_
,, 4
Jd o
--@ F-@---
C_
9-12
SECTIONI0
GUIDANCE
ANDNAVIGATION
I0.I SUMMARY
The actual S-II Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR) shift occurred approximately
9.5 seconds later than indicated by the final stage propulsion prediction.
About 4 seconds of this deviation was attributed to the change in Launch
Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) nominal characteristic velocity presetting
predictions and variation in actual from predicted flight performance.
Approximately 5.5 seconds of the deviation are attributed to improper
scaling in the flight program calculation of characteristic velocity.
The LVDC, the Launch Vehicle Data Adapter (LVDA), and the ST-124M-3 iner-
tial platform functioned satisfactorily. The platform-measured crossrange
velocity (Y) exhibited a negative shift of approximately 1.8 m/s (5.9 ft/s)
at 3.3 seconds after liftoff. The probable cause was the Y accelerometer
head momentarily contacting an internal mechanical stop. Although this
had negligible effect on the launch veh'icle, investigation to determine
the cause of the velocity shift is continuing.
10.2 GUIDANCECOMPARISONS
I0-I
Z-OL
_< 0 o _<
z
m j
o
L- '-rlO
"rio
o _
m_ o
zz _ [ mrn
mm f
-_m_ 9 J
_r"-
f
---o
m c'_
0_L
.,...._------ m-q
_-_
_, _-_ m_
Ar_
J
J _g
-_ d
..,<
_OL-
N
=N 9-
C"_ r--
/ L-_m_
3 ---4
_ 0 0 _
C:_ ¢")
--too 8- -qO
l_Co
Fm_
NN 9- J
L-_ m
A
v 0 m°
z
_ 9--
o-
-:_sooq aq:_ q:_.Lm eLq.L:_eduJoa :_ou S:_.L_p aA.[:_.LSUaS-fi e:_eaLpUL pLnoM saAJna eq_
'sJo,_Ja u_o_._eLd _o :_tnseJ aq:_ aq o:_ pamnsse a JaM seauaJe_.Lp ,_LaOLaA
eq:_ _f "eA.L:_.LSOd _ueM ueq_ pue UO.L_._U6._ Jaa_=_e spuoaes 9£ :_noqe ,_o_ (s/:_#
/'0) s/m 8"0- ueq_ sseL set4 UO.La_ejaLaaae a6ueJsso,_3 aq3, pue 'uJnq puoaas
aJLa_Ua eq:_ Jo,4- aAL_LSOd a_aM eueLd qa%Ld eq_ U.L SUOL%eJa[aaae aql "s_J.L,_p
6U.L:_esuaduJoa 6U.La,eaLpU.L edoLs asJeAeJ uaq_ pue umm.LXem e o:_ dn pL.[nq saaua
-4a_.Lp aq:_ '4eAaMOH ":_.Lap O:_ anp _uetuU6LLeSLm mao_eLd o_ pa_nq._at_e
aq :_q6Lm saauaJe#_..[p _LDO[eA eq:_ _o UO.L_JOd euJos "(I71) uo.L:_aa._ui ,_eunL
-sueJ 1 Ja:$_.e ,40_DaA a_e_s e o_ Se.L_.LDOLaA uUo#_eLd pa,_a_.amaLa:l, eq_ 6U.L
-ULeJ_SUO9 pue UO.L_nLOS t_.LqJo 6U.L_ed O:_ 6U.LZ.L/eLa,.LU.L A'q pe_3nJ_sUO9 sea
£Jo_ae£eJ_ :_q6.LL_sod aq_ _o UO.[qLJod u_nq puoaes eql "SJO_DeA e_e_s
UO.L:_n/os Le_.LqaO :_q6.[L_a, sod pue 3(]A1 U.L saauaJe_#.Lp _3aL_aJ 8-0L aJn6L4
U.L u,_nq £AT-S puoaes aq3, Jo_ uMoqs suosLJedtuo3 _.LDO[eA tuJo=_:_e[d eql
Velocities measured by the ST-124M-3 platform system at significant flight
event times are shown in Table I0-I along with corresponding values from
both the observed postflight and operational trajectories. The differences
between the telemetered velocities and the observed postflight trajectory
values reflect some combination of small guidance hardware errors, track-
ing errors, and interpolation of data to specific event times. The differ-
ences between the telemetered and operational trajectory values reflect
off-nominal flight conditions and vehicle performance.
The S-II stage actual EMRshift occurred approximately 9.5 seconds later
than indicated by the final stage propulsion prediction. About 4 seconds
of this deviation was attributed to the change in IU LVDCnominal charac-
teristic velocity presetting predictions and variation in actual from
predicted flight performance.
About 5.5 seconds of the late EMRshift deviation was due to improper
LVDCscaling. The EMRroutine is entered when a time-to-go quantity Tl_,
becomes zero or negative. The Tli was larger than predicted because
calculated characteristic velocity, upon which Tli is based, was smaller
than predicted.
10-4
Table I0-I. Inertial Platform Velocity Comparisons
10-5
Table 10-2. Guidance Comparisons
POSITIONS VELOCITIES
FLIGHT PATH
(METERS) M/S
DATA ANGLE (BEG)
EVENT (FT) (FT/S)
SOURCE
Xs Vs Zs R Xs Ys is Vs "i
Guidance 6,437,364 39,169 159,182 6,439,450 841.25 121.94 2630.38 2764.32 19.1484
(21,119,961) (128,507) (522,251 (21,126,804) (2760.01) (400.07) (8629.86) (9069.29)
S-IC Postflight 6,437,247 39,441 159,164 6,439,335 839.62 123.11 2630.64 2764.13 19.1143
OECO Trajectory (21,119,577) (129,400) (522,192) (21,126,426) (2754.66) (403.90) (8630.71) (9068.67)
Operational 6,437,901 38,968 157,58( 6,439,948 861.66 115.11 2614.93 2755.64 19.635
Trajectory (21,121,724) (127,847) (517,0141 (21,128,437) (2826.97) (377.66) (8579.17) (9040.81)
Guidance 6,289,965 79,413 1,860,94_ 6,559,961 -1891.78 88.17 6651.61 6915.96 0.6139
(20,636,368) (260,541) (6,105,471 (21,522,182) (-6206.63) (289.27) (21,822.87) (22,690.16.)
Postflight 6,289,873 80,367 1,859,72( 6,559,537 -1891.43 90.43 6651.87 6916.14 0.6075
OECO Trajectory (20,636,067) (263,670) (6,101,444] (21,520,790) (-6205.48) (296.69) (21,823.72) (22,690.75)
I S-II
Operational 6,283,160 79,489 1,884,67! 6,560,214 -1917.77 90.69 6668.07 6938.96 0.661
1
Trajectory (20,614,043) (260,791) (6,183,310](21,523,012) (-6291.90) (297.54) (21,876.87) (22,765.62)
o
! Guidance 5,891,469 91,789 2,891,28! 6,563,335 i -3433.60 76.86 6993.63 7791.43 -0.00148
(-11,265.09)
(19,328,968) (301,144) (9,485,842](21,533,251) i (252.17) (22,944.98) (25,562.43)
First Postflight 5,890,834 93,058 2,892,01 6,563,105 -3432.48 78.03 6993.87 7791.17 0.01511
S-IVB ECO Trajectory (19,326,885) (305,310) (9,488,2451 (21,532,498) (-11,261.42) (256.00) (22,945.77) (25,561.58)
Parking Orbit Postflight 5,856,252 93,832 2,961,27( 6,563,052 -3515.97 76.90 6954.42 7793.07 0.01205
Insertion Trajectory (19,213,427) (307,846) (9,715,472)(21 ,532,323)I(-II,535.33) (252.30) (22,816.34) (22,567.81)
Operational 5,855,466 92,623 2,963,43E 6,963,309 -3520.02 75.77 6952.42 7793.10 -0.00142
Trajector_ (19,210,845) (303,882) (9,722,567)(21 ,533,166) (-II,548.62) (248.59) (22,809.78) (22,567.91)
Operational -2,322,832 -142,124 -6,148,429 6,574,110 7284.60 -26.96 -2756.71 7788.81 O. 03622
Trajectory (-7,620,838) (-466,286) -20,172,011) 21,568,603) (23,899.61) (-88.45) (-9044.32) (25,553.84)
Table I0-2. Guidance Comparisons (Continued)
TIME BASE 6
TRANSLUNAR INJECTION
10-8
During the calculation of BNVC, DVCi2 lost significant information due
to round off. The scaling factor required 28 bits of information. The
LVDC maintains only 25 bits of information. The three least significant
bits of information were lost by computer underflow. Another bit was lost
due to the binary arithmetic and hardware algorithm for division. As a
consequence, the apparent increase in BNVC per computer cycle was less
than the actual increase in BNVC. The total S-II characteristic velocity
error at the time of actual EMR shift was about 92.6 m/s (303.8 ft/s).
The deviation in EMR shift time caused no performance perturbation.
Figure 10-3 gives the differences between S-II stage correct BNVC values
and those computed by the LVDC flight program. Investigation is being
conducted to improve scaling in IU LVDC velocity calculations.
The flight program routine causing S-II EMR shift to be commanded was
entered later than predicted in the OT. This deviation is discussed in
paragraph 10.2.1.
120 390
360
330
100 / ._
_ _ / 300 __
/ Ir 270
_= 80 /f
._/ 240
/_f 210 ,,J
, / ,
60 / 180
150
40 120
o o
O,
90
20 60
0 / 30
1O0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
10-9
Table 10-4. Start and Stop Times for IGM Guidance Commands
STEERING
TERMINAL
IGM PHASE ARTIFICIAL TAU MISALIGNMENT CHI FREEZE
EVENT* GUIDANCE
(SEC) (SEC) CORRECTION (SEC)
(SEC)
(SEC)
Third Phase IG!_ 548.2 691.64 555.57 562.43 562.43 691.64 665.15 691.64 691.64 699.26**
Fifth Phase IGM 9974.58 10,201.92 9974.58 9980.37 10,199.70 10,174.47 10,201.92 I0,201.92 I0,203.56"*
* All times are for the start of the computation cycle in which the event occurred,
The LVDC performed as predicted for the AS-506 mission. No valid error
monitor word and no self-test error data have been observed that indicate
any deviation from correct operation,
The LVDA performance was nominal. No valid error monitor words and no
self-test error data indicating deviations from correct performance were
observed.
Analysis of the available LVDA telemetry buffer and flight control com-
puter attitude error plots indicated symmetry between the buffer outputs
and the ladder outputs. The available LVDC power supply plots indicates
satisfactory power supply performance, The H60-603 guidance computer
telemetry was completely satisfactory.
I0-I0
_7 S-IC CECO _7 S-II EMR SHIFT
_7 S-IC/S-II SEPARATION _7 S-II/S-IVB SEPARATION
_7 IGM INITIATION _7 BEGIN CHI BAR STEERING
_7S-IC CECO _7S-II EMR SHIFT
_7 S-II CECO S_7 GUIDANCE CUTOFF
_TS-IC/S-II SEPARATION _TS-II/S-IVB SEPARATION
_71GM INITIATION _OPERATIONAL TRAJECTORY ..... LVDC
_7BEGIN CHI BAR STEERING
1.4
_TS-II CECO S_TGUIDANCE CUTOFF
tA_
_OPERATIONAL TRAJECTORY
---LVDC
I0
1.2
I
I
0
I
I
1.0 I
-I0 I
I
I
-20 I
0.8
-30
-40 0.6
/
c_
-50
o #
l
o.4 I
-6O 8 !
S /
(
-70 I
\
0.2 /
/
p- /
-80 /
/
/
/
-90 /
/
,!
\ /"
-I00 /
/
/
-0.2
l
-II0
6 'I
I I I d /f
I
o
o 4 I /_
,
l,i
r_
F- !
.9 /
, ._ V
<E 2 I I_
0 ii,
V"
-2
-16 i
-2O
-_ -24
\
i.-
-28
_ -32
-36
-4O I
-44
9840 9880 9920 9960 I0,000 10,040 10,080 10,120 I0,160 10,200
I0-12
Table 10-5. Parking Orbit Insertion Parameters
Inertial Velocity
7793.1 7793.1 0.0 7793.3 0.18
m/s
(25,567.9) (25,567.9) (0.0) (25,568.5) (0.6)
(ft/s)
Descending Node
123.100 123.088 -0.012 123.102 0.002
deg
Inclination
32.531 32.521 -0.010 32.532 O.OOl
deg
No valid discrete output register words (tags 043 and 052) were observed
to indicate guidance or simultaneous memory failure.
Switch selector data indicate that the LVDA switch selector functions were
performed satisfactorily. No error monitor words were observed that indi-
cate disagreement in the Triple Modular Redundant (TMR) switch selector
register positions or in the switch selector feedback circuits. No mode
code 24 words or switch selector feedback words were observed that indica-
ted a switch selector feedback was in error. In addition, no indications
were observed to suggest that the B channel input gates to the switch
selector register positions were selected.
Inertial Velocity
m/s 10,831.1 10,834.3 3.2 I0,832.7 1.6
(ft/s) (35,535.1) (35,545.6) (10.5) (35,540.4) (5.3)
Descending Node
deg 121.866 121.847 -0.019 121.855 -0.011
Inclination
deg 31.379 31.383 0.004 31.382 0.003
c3
m2/s2 -1,408,484 -1,391,607 16,877 -1,406,545 1939
(ft2/s 2) (-15,160,796) (-14,979,133) (181,633) (-15,139,924) (20,872)
10-13
10.4.7 ST-124M-3 Inertial Platform
The Y gyro was relatively unperturbed, but the X and Z gyros showed signi-
ficant activity. This indicates a forcing function, probably vibration,
mainly along the platform Y axis.
The X, Y, and Z gyro servo loops for the stable element functioned as
designed. The operational limits of the servo loops were not reached at
anytime during the mission.
10-14
SECTIONII
CONTROL
SYSTEM
II.I SUMMARY
The AS-506 control system, which was essentially the same as that of AS-505,
performed satisfactorily. The Flight Control Computer (FCC), Thrust Vector
Control (TVC), and Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) satisfied all require-
ments for vehicle attitude control during the flight. Bending and slosh
dynamics were adequately stabilized. The prelaunch programed yaw, roll,
and pitch maneuvers were properly executed during S-IC boost.
Satisfactory control of the vehicle was maintained during first and _econd
S-IVB burns and during coast in Earth Parking Orbit (EPO). During the
Commandand Service Module (CSM) separation from the S-IVB/IU and during
the Transposition, Docking and Ejection (TD&E) maneuver, the control
system maintained the vehicle in a fixed inertial attitude to provide
a stable docking platform. Following TD&E, S-IVB/IU attitude control
was maintained during the maneuver to the slingshot attitude and during
the LOX dump and LH2 vent.
11.2 S-IC CONTROL
SYSTEMEVALUATION
The AS-506 control system performed adequately during S-IC powered flight.
The vehicle flew through winds which were less than 95 percentile for July
in the maximumdynamic pressure region of flight. Less than I0 percent of
the available engine deflection was used throughout flight (based on
average engine gimbal angle). S-IC outboard engine cant was accomplished
as planned.
II-I
All dynamics were within vehicle capability. In the region of high dynamic
pressure, the maximumangles-of-attack were 1.6 degrees in pitch and 1.4
degrees in yaw. The maximumaverage pitch and yaw engine deflections were
0.2 degree and 0.3 degree, respectively, in the maximumdynamic pressure
region. Both deflections were due to wind shears. The absence of any
divergent bending or slosh frequencies in vehicle motion indicates that
bending and slosh dynamics were adequately stabilized.
Vehicle attitude errors required to trim out the effects of thrust imbal-
ance, thrust misalignment, and control system misalignments were within
predicted envelopes. Vehicle dynamics prior to S-IC/S-II first-plane
separation were within staging requirements.
11.2.1 Liftoff Clearances
The launch vehicle cleared the mobile launcher structure within the avail-
able clearance envelopes. Camera data showing liftoff motion were not
available for the AS-506 flight, but simulations with flight data show
that less than 15 percent of the available clearance was used. The ground
wind was from the south with a magnitude of 3.3 m/s (6.4 knots) at the
18.3 m (60 ft) level.
The predicted and measured misalignments, slow release forces, winds, and
the thrust-to-weight ratio are shown in Table II-I.
At Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO), the vehicle had attitude errors of -0.3,
0.I, and 0.0 degree in pitch, yaw, and roll, respectively. These errors
are required to trim out the effects of thrust imbalance, offset Center
of Gravity (CG), thrust vector misalignment, and control system misalign-
ments. The maximumequivalent thrust misalignments were 0.II, -0.05 and
-0.02 degree in pitch, yaw, and roll, respectively.
11-2
I
,,)
OwO
,,')
, o s.-
J L.._ I
....-f,
J
..J
W
Z_
_Z
/ W
. ,<-" og_ Pc)
C °
I
Z
O--
_D "=--_ -- gQ Z
_ZO_
/ _
4._
",-
WZ_
_OW
f
0 0 0 03 0 CO
I ! 0 0
I I I I
Z _--_ (U
::C F-- "C_
MEASURED ...... SIMULATED
2
W CZ_ ,,
r-_ 0 _-..
_ CL F-- r_ _i I
ACITUALIATTITUDEI
I-------'I- 1
F--ZC_
0
I/ r/_COMMANDED
__I I..I _I ATTITUDE
I_ A /
_'L_ i k/"-r'-'_'_'-'-- "-T_ " - "._"
_m'-_- ',_,-..,
_
Z3= _- CZ)
"_:00
>- (-) Z
-I
! : I
i
C_
0.8:
C_ i
C_C
WL_
CZ)
I,I0 _ i
r-_ Z (IJ
F.- i,i
__, ,',;Ill" .-
b-F--F._
IU
>__c_ -o.811
0.4 A
H
C_
0
vF--
"I- 0
LLJ C._
C_C
L_
>-Z
0 -0.4
L_L_
0.4
Z_
u.JOZ
¢'_ _--_ L_
_-0.4
I
la.l (f) t._
_7 R7
0 20 40 60 8O I00 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure ]I-2. Yaw P1 ane Dynamics During S-IC Burn
11-4
£-LL
v u
_-_ 0 r'-
¢_ rrl oo
11) _" _-_m
rr_ --I Z
17"0 mz
8"0-
_ =EIO
r'-
m;x_
.
m--I
_m
O0
"-_0o
I
I
8"0 ;_--I
i i
! I I
I 9"L
1 I 1 I I
30AJ'IIJ'V03aNVNNOD---,f
I i I I ' ,_
30AIIllV 7VA13V "--_ /
III!"
031VqANIS a3aASV3N
The normal accelerations observed during S-IC burn are shown in Figure 11-4.
Pitch and yaw plane wind velocities and angles-of-attack are shown in
Figure 11-5. The winds are shown both as determined from balloon and
rocket measurements and as derived from the vehicle Q-ball.
11-6
Table 11-2. Maximum Control Parameters During S-IC Burn
Acceleration
Between the events of S-IC OECO and initiation of IGM, the vehicle atti-
tude commands were held constant. Significant events occurring during
this interval were S-IC/S-II separation, S-II stage J-2 engine start,
second plane separation, and Launch Escape Tower (LET) jettison. The
attitude control dynamics throughout this interval indicated stable opera-
tion as shown in Figures 11-6 through 11-8. Steady-state attitudes were
achieved within 20 seconds from S-IC/S-II separation. The maximum control
parameter values for the period of S-II burn are shown in Table 11-3.
At IGM initiation, the TVC received FCC commands to pitch the vehicle up.
During IGM, the vehicle pitched down at a constant commanded rate of
approximately -0.I deg/s. The transient magnitudes experienced at IGM
initiation were similar to those of the AS-504 and AS-505 flights.
11-7
8-LL
_ _ _0"0- _ >_
m C'_
POm "_
_ r-->
_ 0 :_
_ 0
_0"0 _'0
,-'4 o
-r-
o- - _,"W" "In "" ""
"i' i m
1_' W *d ,'_'_ Wv'_p'_VlPlni "_
o >.-,--
,...4
#0"0 - 17"0
80"0 - 8"0
031VlNNIS 03WNSV3W
l .f--I
*.-.__
I: I
n=l
I
_p
._=
I I_i_
8
¢)-
c.-
_x _ n_
o
6ap 6ap '(IHgI_
'(dn 3SON 3Al±ISOd) 3SON 3AlllSOd)
gap '_3V±±V-30 > u
_3V±LV-JO-31DNV NDVLIV-30-3]DNV
3NVld H311d 3NV3d MVA -319NV IVLOL
c-- I_
°r="
_= or-
S=
o__, c"O
wC'_
_'_ I
_0
c-
._ _-=
w_ o:
I
I
I
i=.,=
I r--"
I"
I g_J
.r--,
LI-
C:)"
_×_
u u
u
11-9
0L-LL
nl Z_,
£'0-
---I m
:_m:_mm
-_
(,,_ (_ "_
.-I
r Ir _--_ _-,---=-.l_m_ w_.,.-----._, _
_'_'1 0 m_
£'0 -'_m
_mm
_- r., _-... - O
I"D "O _-.4
e::l O --.I
_ (y_ (,...)
L- _/') J.-.i "1-
--t
_--_ _:_
_o
0 rn t:::_
(2)
m
r---
_ v
l [_
cl_ o --I
¢.-_ "-r-
_-._
--4
('-)
t <'--'1
0 m-_
=_ .--I
mm
_m
031vlnNIs
03anSV3N
I,I L_LJ
0.5
L_O
G.J
A
I-- I..IA "t_ 0
_')m -0.5
_0_-_
>- ,.-J _
-] .0
1.0
LU
LLJ _ V_
_o_ 0 5
i,I-_
r-_ _._ _ 0
0 F-- _--_
v_-1-
-_o_ -0.5
-1.0
'"m 1.0
Zl_
_- 0.5
Lt.l e'_ I__
1. II.A
_ :_,,, 0
>--om IP"-"-
_ -0.5
¢'_ _..1 t.ul
LLI I.x- LX.I _
>"'_
,=_ C21 0'_
-1 "
0
160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560
II-II
AVERAGE
ROLLENGINE ROLLBODYRATE ROLLATTITUDEERROR
DEFLECTION
(POSITIVECCW (POSITIVECWVIEWED (POSITIVECWVIEWED
VIEWED
FROMREAR),deg FROMREAR),deg/s FROMREAR),deg
i ! I I ! !
='J 0
• . o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o o
w=.__ . .
.=n. m I
.,E,...
t _ I G") i i
Or_IOI-rlO _--_
°
E_
_ '
"
_-_
't-,
I-I-I
_
0 , _-
('D m 0 _0
t --13:
_-_ O_
r_
3 -8_ °
_o
-_,.
I
I
I
c- o
I
_p I
(31
_rrl
0
COO
r-_--
Ln --4m
m_
0
Table 11-3. Maximum Control Parameters During S-II Burn
The S-IVB TVC system provided satisfactory pitch and yaw control during
powered flight. The APS provided satisfactory roll control during first
and second burns.
During S-IVB first and second burns, control system transients were ex-
perienced at S-II/S-IVB separation, guidance initiation, Engine Mixture
Ratio (EMR) shift, chi bar guidance mode, and J-2 engine cutoff. These
transients were expected and were within the capabilities of the control
system.
The S-IVB first burn attitude control system response to guidance commands
for pitch, yaw and roll are presented in Figures 11-9, II-I0 and II-II,
respectively. The maximum attitude errors and rates occurred at IGM and
chi bar steering initiation. A summary of maximum values of the critical
flight control parameters during S-IVB first burn is presented in Table 11-4.
The pitch and yaw effective thrust vector misalignments during first burn
were 0.22 and -0.33 degree, respectively. A steady-state roll torque of
61.4 N-m (45.3 Ibf-ft), counterclockwise looking forward, required roll
APS firings during first burn. The steady-state roll torque experienced
on previous flights has ranged between 27 N-m (20 Ibf-ft) counterclockwise
and 54.2 N-m (40.0 Ibf-ft) clockwise.
11-13
_7S-IVB ESC
S_71GM PHASE 3 INITIATED
S_7BEGIN CHI BAR STEERING
_7CHI FREEZE INITIATED
S_TS-IVB FIRST CUTOFF
,., 2 O0
r", t-...4
{_r)
_ l .00
I--
_o,,, 0.00
_ r-._'
(./.)
t...._
m,,'(_,
r.. LI,,j
_
,,, _ -I.00
:_ _ 1.00
__,'_z -I.00
1.50
1.1..I
_ o.oo
,,,=z::,,-',,
_
_
v}i,l
"' -I . 50
,-,o _ 530 57O 610 650 690 730
.,,,..
r-. (./,,)
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
The S-IVB second burn attitude control system response to guidance commands
for pitch, yaw and roll are presented in Figure 11-13, 11-14 and 11-15,
respectively. The maximum attitude errors and rates occurred at guidance
initiation and EMR shift. A summary of maximum values of the critical
flight control parameters during S-IVB second burn is presented in Table
11-5.
The pitch and yaw effective thrust vector misalignments during second burn
were approximately 0.25 and -0.35 degree, respectively. The steady-state
roll torque during second burn ranged from 42.1 N-m (31.1 Ibf-ft) at the
low EMR to 52.3 N-m (38.6 Ibf-ft) at the 5.0:1.0 EMR.
11-14
_L-LL
_Ts-IVB ESC
_71GM PHASE 3 INITIATED
S_7BEGIN CHI BAR STEERING
_TCHI FREEZE INITIATED
OW _7S-IVB FIRST CUTOFF
C_CL_ 1.50
_wr_
__1 oO _"
-JO0
0 C__ c'E
r_" v I__
r_ -I .50
W
I-- LLJ _
1.00
_J
0.00
/ /
I .00
,.-I oO _-
.-I00 530 570 610 650 690 730
0 c, r-,. -
P,," _ LL
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
11-16
INITIATE MANEUVER TO LOCAL HORIZONTAL
w
LLJ>
O
4 ° O'
:D
o.o
-r r',,"
Dl---
I---gL _
D 0.0
_o_
-3.0
2.0
-JI---
D_
ZO_
0.0
_m,,,
I.-- I-..- m
I--z
0_'30
I--- 0 rm
D _
0.0
-]. 5
984O 9920 I0,000 10,080 10,160 10,240
RA.GE
T ME,SECONDS
I S_7 I I
02:44:00 02:45:20 02:46:40 02:48:00 02:49:20 02:50:40
11-17
S-IVB EMR SHIFT
S-IVB
S-IVB SECOND CUTOFF
SECOND ESC
OA 1.5
>
D O0 I--
F-o-r"
0.0
OW
-I .5
1.0
0.0
<
UA',' -% "- V • r" _r--_r
13: F-- O0
(D
>-O_Z
-I .0
m -I .5
_LL-
_W
_O--J
0.0 _-J
_ZO
l--OZ
-1.5
9840 9920 lO,O00 10,080 10,160 10,240
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
1_7' I I I_F' I I I I I I_ I
02:44:00 02:45:20 02:46:40 02:48:00 02:49:20 02:50:40
D _-- LL
_'-,0 r_ 0"_
0.0 "_
0 ,,._. --_,,,
-I .5
>0 0.5
0.0
I''_T--r m"_ _F- " "V"
.-JF- ,_
-0.5
9840 9920 I0,000 10,080 10,160 10,240
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
,_' n n ,'_7 , , I , , _ ,
02:44:00 02:45:20 02:46:40 02:48: O0 02:49 : 20 02 : 50 : 40
RANGE TIME, HOURS :MINUTES :SECONDS
11-18
6L-LL
uo_%3afuI JeunLsueJ$
6ULMOL[03 S3LmeURO aUeLd MeA pue q3%L d "91.-/[ aJn6.L-i
SGNOD3S:S3inNIN:S_nOH '3NIl 39NV_
SO:Z§:ZO
I I I ! l ! !
' ,4,,
O'L rn
0"_- g_=,
rmO
_o :_:=,
_ j. _ i .... 1 _ ._
...-4
-ro--. I
--I r'rl
0"# ,-,_.
("D m
2 ;_ ":3
O'L-
-1-
0"0
¢'_ --I r--
O'L _m
0"#-
...... J _ i _ . - l_ocb
N-r-
C
o.o
0"_ ""
rD
_'-"_ '---I
---I _
qVINOZIaOH qV30q Ol _I3AII3NVN 31VIIINI/_, <m
%
...J
hlJ
0.0
I--- p--4
,-.-q v)
• "r" F--O
-4.0
o_ z,i 1.0
_..JO
r,,- L.LI
0.0
-1.0
e._. LL1
OV')
4.0
0.0 J
I_ _.-.4 I---
I...- 0 (-_
I-- _. _---_
-4.0
1.0
i
0.0
-I .0
0
4.0 1
J_
0.0 ___-
I--
_i) _z ,-,,"
-4.0
.._.1
l.O
0.0
.-.J
01._
-l .0
17,380 17,420 17,460 17,500 17,540 17,580
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I I I _ I I I I l !
i I
Figure ll-18. Pitch, Yaw and Roll Plane Dynamics During The
Maneuver to Slingshot Attitude
ll-21/ll-22
SECTION12
SEPARATION
12.1 SUMMARY
Commandand Service Module (CSM) separation from the Launch Vehicle (LV)
occurred as predicted during translunar coast. The Transposition, Docking,
and Ejection (TD&E) maneuver occurred as expected. Attitude control of the
LV was maintained during each separation sequence.
The S-II retromotors and the S-IVB ullage motors performed satisfactorily
and provided a nominal S-II/S-IVB separation. Dynamic conditions at
separation were within staging, limits with separation conditions similar
to those observed on previous flights.
12-I
12.5 LUNARMODULE
DOCKINGAND EJECTIONEVALUATION
12-2
SECTION13
ELECTRICAL NETWORKS
13.1 SUMMARY
The voltage for Battery No. 1 (Operational) and Battery No. 2 (Instrumen-
tation) remained within performance limits of 26.5 to 32.0 vdc during
powered flight. Battery currents were near predicted and below the maximum
limit of 64 amperes for both Battery No. 1 and Battery rlo. 2. Battery
power consumption was well within the rated capacity Of 640 ampere-minutes
for both Battery No. 1 and Battery No. 2, as shown in Table 13-I.
The two measuring power supplies remained within the 5 +_0.05 vdc design
limit during powered flight.
POWER
CONSUMPTION*
RATED PERCENT
BUS CAPACITY OF
BATTERY DESIGNATION (AMP-MIN) AMP-MIN CAPACITY
13-I
All switch selector channels functioned correctly, and all outputs were
issued within their required time limits in response to commandsfrom
the Instrument Unit (IU).
The separation and retromotor EBWfiring units were armed and triggered
as programed. Charging times and voltages were within tile requirements
of 1.5 seconds for maximumallowable charging time and 4.2 +_0.4 volts
for the allowable voltage level.
All battery bus voltages remained within specified limits throughout the
prelaunch and flight periods, and bus currents remained within required
and predicted limits. Main bus current averaged 36 amperes during S-IC
boost and varied from 49 to 57 amperes during S-II boost. Instrumentation
bus current averaged 23 amperes during S-IC and S-II boost. Recirculation
bus current averaged 97 amperes during S-IC boost, and ignition bus current
averaged 31 amperes during the S-II ignition sequence. Battery power
consumption was well within the rated capacities of the batteries as
shown in Table 13-2.
13-2
The five temperature bridge power supplies and the three 5-vdc instru-
mentation power supplies all performed within acceptable limits. The five
LH2 recirculation inverters that furnish power to the recirculation pumps
operated properly throughout the J-2 engine chilldown period.
All switch selector channels functioned correctly, and all outputs were
issued within their required time limits in response to commandsfrom the
IU. Performance of the EBWcircuitry for the separation system was
satisfactory. Firing units charge and discharge responses were within
predicted time and voltage limits. The commandEBWfiring units were in
the required state of readiness if vehicle destruct became necessary.
13.4 S-IVB STAGEELECTRICALSYSTEM
The voltages, currents, and temperatures of the three 28-vdc and one
56-vdc batteries stayed well within acceptable limits as shown in
Figures 13-I through 13-4. Battery temperatures remained below the 322°K
(120°F) limit during the powered portions of flight. (This limit does not
apply after insertion into orbit.) The highest temperature of 316.5°K
(II0 F) was reached on Aft Battery No. 2, Unit I, after S-IVB first burn
cutoff. Battery power consumption is shown in Table 13-3.
All switch selector channels functioned correctly, and all outputs were
issued within their required time limits in response to commandsfrom
the I U.
RATED POWERCONSUMPTION**
CAPACITY PERCENTOF
BATTERY (AMP-HRS)* AMP-HRS CAPACITY
13-3
(DTRANSFER TO INFE_AL
(_FORWARD BATTERY NO. 2 HEATER CYCLE ON ACTUAL
fli!!iiii!iiiiii_!_ii_iiiiiiiiii
_i_i_i_!i!i!il!iii!i!i!iiiii!
ii_iii_i!iiiiiii
iiii_iiiii!iiiiiill
iiiiiiiii!!iiiii_
iiiiiiiili_iii!ii
iiiiiiiii!i!iiiiil
i_iiiiiiiiiii!
ii!iiiiiiiiiiiii
_ iii_,_i'_i
iii_iiiii
iii:,ii;i'Jii_:
ii!iiiiii_:!ii
!_i::i_!_!;iCi
i::i;!::Yiii
i::!;!;i;_ iiiiii!iiiiiiili!iiii
i;!;!;i!_:_!::i_
!::!_;:iiC!ii::ii
!;!;!i
:'_
iiiiiii iiii!iiiiiii!i!iii
iiii_iiiiii
I_i;i_i_i
iiiiiiii!_i
i!iiiilJiiiiiiiii
i_i_iii!ii!i il;ii_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
i_i_!i!iiiiii
_i_i_!iiiii!ii
ii_i_i_iiiiii
iiii_iJiiii !iNiiii .. _ i_ii_ili:ii:i:iil
24
22
I i
25
o ....
-I O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 _5 26 27 28 29
RANGE TIME, 1000 SECONDS
..... O 00:33:20 0I
01:6:40 I I
01:40:00 I 02:] I3:20 .....02:46:40 03:20:00 13
03:5:20 I 2I
04:6:40 I i
05:00:00 I 05:3:20
/ I 06: OI6 :40 ' I
06:40:00 i 07: I 3:2O ' 4
07:6:40 I
-00:16:40 DO:]G:40 00:50:00 01:23:20 01:56:40 02:30:00 03:03:20 03:36:40 04:IO:O0 04:43:20 05:I6:40 05:50:00 00:23:20 06:56:40 07:30:00 08:03:20
PAMGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 13-I. S-IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 1 Voltage and Current
C) TRANSFER TO INTERNAL
_) S-IVB ESC
_2G:
. 28
........
........
24!
22
I I
10_
" 6i ® _
® (Z L
-- _ -,_ _..__,
_ 2_ ' ]
o: i
-1 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
RANGE TIE, IO00 SECONDS
.... ' ' ' 2o ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 2 ........ ' ' i _ , _ ,
0 00:33:20 01:06:40 01: ._ :OO 02:13:20 02:46:40 03:20:00 03:o3:20 04:26:4D 05:00:00 05:33:20 06:06:40 06:40:00 07:13:20 07:46:40
-00:16:40 00:16:40 00:50:00 01:23:20 01:56:40 02:30:00 03:03:20 03:36:40 04:10:00 04:43:20 05:16:40 05:50:00 06:23:20 06:56:40 07_30:00 08:03:20
Figure 13-2, S-IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 2 Voltage and Current
13-4
(_ I[RANSft R 1(I INTI RNAt
I_ S-IVD ESC
ACCEPTAOLE LIMITS
(_ CONIROL VALVLS CYCt IN6 (1YPICAL) _
I_) PASS[VATIUN ENADEE
32
+ 04++
_:++_:":i:+:
_i _ _ i_! .........................................
+_:..'.'.::!:i:
_ _ +::+::+::+::ii+i.::+::+i+::+i+i+il
.:.:.:.:.:.:........................................
+_ _...........
_+: :_:+:i:i:+::.+
.:;:+:i:+:!:+:+:,:i:!:+:+:!++:!:++:+:!:i
_i__ :i:!:i:+:!:+:._++:+:+:!:!:+
i:+:i:i:+:+:!
_i;_ '..................................
.........................
+imm :_: _!_ _..............
22
60 f
o _..J' .....
n
---- -- ........
-I 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
, ,
0 , 31
00:3:20 , 0]: 0 I 6:40 I 01:4 I0 :O0 I 02:],3;20 ...........
02:46:40 03:B0:O4 03:53:20 04:26:40 05:00:00 3I
05:3:20 ' I
06:06:40 I 4I
06:0:00 ' I3
07:1:20 ' I
07:46:40 '
-00:16:40 00:16:40 00:50:00 01:23:20 01:56:40 02:30:00 03:03:20 03:36:40 04:10:00 04:43:20 05:16:40 05:50:00 06:23:20 06:56:40 07:30:00 O4:03:20
Figure 13-3. S-IVB Stage Aft Battery No. l Voltage and Current
C) TRANSFER TO INTERNAL
62
5D i_ __)
.... i_:"
_._. i _F_':_._II ': / I!_:
:::1
I
_ ! i!: _i:?,: •( _._,_,_,_
:i :::: I .i; !2:ii!:i ::: Ji:.:_t__L_ 2
_ i : }: ! :lii [iiii
52
. , , l
_=_oI_ I,_I I|II I !! I I<_']_I_ I l'J',l] i I _ I | 1| | I | I |
°o!--!
RANGE TIME, 1000 SECONDS
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I
O 00:33:20 01:06:40 01:40:00 02:13:20 02:46:40 03;20:00 03:53:20 04:26:40 05:00:OO 05:33:20 06:06:40 u6:40:00 07:]3:20 07:46:40
-00:]6:40 00:]6:40 00:50:00 01:23:20 O] :56:40 02:30:00 03:03:20 03:36:40 04:10:00 04:43:20 05:16:40 06:60:00 06:23:20 06:56:40 07:30:OO 08:03:20
Figure 13-4. S-IVB Stage Aft Battery No. 2 Voltage and Current
13-5
The three 5-vdc and seven 20-vdc excitation modules all performed within
acceptable limits. The LOX and LH 2 chilldown inverters that furnish power-
to the LOX and LH2 recirculation pumps performed satisfactorily and met
their load requirements.
Performance of the EBW circuitry for the separation system was satisfac-
tory. Firing units charge and discharge responses were within predicted
time and voltage limits. The command destruct EBW firing units were in
the required state of readiness if vehicle destruct became necessary.
The 56-vdc power supply maintained an output voltage of 55.7 to 56.6 vdc,
well within the required tolerance of 56 ±2.5 vdc.
13-6
t:I,LILI11
[!iiilI_[!!i!
_'I_'I_
))_I_ii
_ JT
;:lJlll llil[i
40
351111 IIIIII)
_3olltl, ILlllll
] _I
° -
I ' m t_oo
°
LLL 'II 13o
320_ FI2D
33011
III
_31Oliii
_3oou
IA_
0 0.5 1 2 4 6 8 lO 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
--- PREDICTED l i t I i i _ i i .J
_ACTUAL 00:33:20 02:46:40 05:00:00 07:1:20 09:26:40
01:40:00 03:53:20 06:06:40 08:20:00 10:33:20
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
>
29
I"
L'k l
i, __,_: iiiili!iilii!!ilii!_iiiIiiiil)i!i!iiIi
-28
_II:;_
[I:I
II . : :_ i_!H:ii_i)itiiilH!iiii!it
": ii!ii!ii:i!Iii_i)i)i!i)iii!H
25 I
II]i [L Li il lili_
_351 I
__ 4°
25
30 _. -_'. I!
'i
ii
330 1
320 I
31o111
i, ! IIIII I i I _120_
'fill : :_.'
._ )F!!°_
i l]lli _o
°
0 0.5 2 4 6 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
RANGE TIME, lOOO SECONDS
OPERATING LIMIT
--- PREDICTED
ACTUAL
'
00:33:20 ' 02: ;6
:40 ' 05: oo
:00 ' ;
07:3:20 ' '
09:26:40 '
01:40:00 03:53:20 06:06:40 08:20:00 I0:33:20
RANGE TI ME, HOURS :MINUTES :SECONDS
13-7
31
4O
3O
25
15
OFF SCALE TO
340°K (152.6°F) "_
33o I l! - 130
-120 u_
o
320 J
-llO
_31o I I -100
I-- -90 _-
J
_; 300
.80
-70 _:
290 -- -60
280 '#I
"50
0 0.5 1 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
OPERATING LIMIT RANGE TIME, lOOO SECONDS
----- PREDICTED _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ACTUAL 00:33:20 02:46:40 05:00:00 07:13:20 09:26:40
Ol:4O:OO 03:53:20 06:06:40 08:20:00 I0:33:20
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
13-8
SECTION14
RANGESAFETYAND COMMAND
SYSTEMS
14.1 SUMMARY
14-I
station. A total of 50 commandwords were attempted by the GDSWing
Stati on.
*One word is normally required to switch antennas. These commands were repeated due to the uplink being
out of lock or missed verification pulses at the ground station because of noisy telemetry.
14-2
of noisy telemetry due to low downlink signal strength. Acceptance of
the commandwas verified by an increase in signal strength and by the
antenna position measurement (K132-603) indicating the CCScoaxial
switch was in the low-gain antenna position.
The commandto enable the CCSat 34,160.0 seconds (09:29:20.0) was not
transmitted by the ground station because the 70-kilohertz subcarrier
was off. This meant that the CCSdownlink was inhibited from 34,105.3
seconds (09:28:25.3) (CCS disable command) until the enable commandtrans-
mitted at 34,554.9 seconds (09:35:54.9) was accepted. This mode was
verified by the signal strength level during this period (see paragraph
19.4.3.2). Since the downlink was inhibited during this period, no AVP's
and CRP's were received for the antenna switching commandsand the dis-
able commandwas not transmitted during this period.
14-3/14-4
SECTION15
EMERGENCY
DETECTIONSYSTEM
15.1 SUMMARY
The performance of the AS-506 Emergency Detection System (EDS) was normal,
and no abort limits were exceeded.
15.2 SYSTEMEVALUATION
The AS-506 EDS configuration was the same as on AS-505. All launch vehi-
cle EDS parameters remained well within acceptable limits during the
AS-506 mission. EDS related sequential events and discrete indications
occurred as expected.
As noted in Section II, none of the triple redundant rate gyros gave any
indication of angular overrate in the pitch, yaw, or roll axes. The maxi-
mum angular rates were well below the abort limits. The roll rate abort
limit is 20 deg/s; a switch selector commanddeactivated the overrate
automatic abort and changed the pitch and yaw rate abort settings from
4 deg/s to 9.2 deg/s at 134.8 seconds.
15-I/15-2
SECTION16
VEHICLEPRESSURE
ENVIRONMENT
16.1 SUMMARY
The S-IC stage base pressure environments were monitored by two heat
shield differential pressure measurements. S-II stage base pressure
environments were monitored by two absolute pressure measurements on the
heat shield and one on the thrust cone. The flight data were generally
in good agreement with the postflight predictions and compared well with
previous flight data. The pressure environments were well below design
levels.
The S-IC stage base heat shield pressure loading was recorded by two
differential pressure measurements. Both measurements show good agreement
with previous flight data as shown in Figure 16-I. Pressure loading is
the difference between internal and external pressures (Pint-Pbase) defined
such that positive loading is in the burst direction. The heat shield
loadings were well within the 1.4 N/cm2 (2.0 psid) design pressure loading.
The S-II stage base heat shieid and thrust cone pressure environment was
recorded by two absolute pressure measurements on the heat shield and one
absolute pressure measurement on the thrust cone.
Except for the absence of a more significant drop in measured aft face
pressure at S-II Center Engine Cutoff (CECO), Figure 16-2 shows good
agreement between the postflight predicted and AS-506 flight heat shield
aft face static pressure history. It is seen that the AS-506 pressure
falls within the AS-501 through AS-505 data band. The predicted pressure
drop after S-II CECOis based on the computed total pressure loss resulting
16-I
ALTITUDE, n mi
5 I0 15 20 25 30
0.4 l l
E
U - 0.4 Z
"_
(__
zz 0.2
---- AS-505
._r- AS-506 O.2-J
__J u_
n_ STA 2.81 m L_._
r_r_
I,I.Q
c_c__ ::) I
m ..... ___._ _II,(J.63 in.) V') 4.J
ct3 4-} :__. -- 0 Cz') (-"
LI.J .r--
I.I-I °r"
r,,.," r_
C_C_. CL -.,-._
- -0.2
-0.2
0.4
O,J
E - 0.4
U
C..') _
zz 0.2
E) _J /" _V_------/--AS-506
AS-504 D0047-106 - 0.2--_
._.J _,_ Ill
STA 2.81 m l.a.l ..J_
i.I.ir'l r,,." r_
rY" i__
_° _ "
(110.63 in.) I
I L°''-o_-_ I (I')4.-)
_'_ 0 U (.I) ,c"
(._ e-" LI.J • I"
r_r_
- -0.2
-0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
ALTITUDE, km
from the reverse flow passing through a shock wave above the nozzle
lip of the inoperative center engine. Based on AS-505 flight data, a
somewhat smaller but still measurable drop was expected for the
D158-206 measurement. The further pressure reduction occurring after
Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR) shift is predicted from the reduction of the
maximum pressure in the J-2 engine exhaust plume interaction regions.
Figure 16-3 shows the static pressure variation with range time on the
forward face of the base heat shield. It is seen that the AS-506
measured static pressure on the forward face of the heat shield, while
within design limits, exceeds the postflight prediction and was
16-2
S-II ESC X_ S-II CECO X_7 S-II OECO
_7 S-II ESC
V S-II SECOND PLANE X_ EMR SHIFT
SEPARATION
7 S-ll SECONDPLANE SEPARATION
TRANSDUCER(D158-206)
VEH STA 40.9 m (1608 in.)
RADIUS 1.91 m (75 in.)
AZIMUTH
351
69 __
"_/_-_"
/_-'_L._/_\ I PREVIOUS
FLIGHT DATA
X_7
_7
S-II
EMR SHIFT
CECO
I FLIGHT DATA
PREVIOUS __\_"_%v / - - -- - POSTFLIGHT PREDICTION _7 S-II OECO
0.07 I I I - 0.I0
FLIGHT DATA _ = 9o_''--L_ _ : o°
---- POSTFLIGHT PREDICTION - /"
0.06
0.07 - 0.I0
I_//TRANSDUCER (D150-206) --0.08
0.04 I r E
#. -0,04 _
D..
I r I
! I
u_
0.03 o.o2
-0.04 _-
l -- 0.02
I
=<
0.02 0.01 I
- 0.02
O II 1"_- -0
0.01
, V 'V o
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 16-2. S-II Heat Shield Aft Face Pressure Figure 16-3, S-II Heat Shield Forward Face Pressure
approximately 30 percent higher than that measured during the AS-501 and
AS-502 flights. No pressure measurement was available at this exact
location during the AS-503 through AS-505 flights. This condition is
believed to be a localized effect due to variable leakage through the J-2
engine nozzle flexible curtains.
Figure 16-4 shows the AS-506 static pressure variation on the thrust
cone, The measured AS-506 thrust cone static pressures agreed well with
predicted values and with previous flight data.
_7 S-II ESC
_7 EMR SHIFT
FLIGHT DATA
POSTFLIGHT PREDICTION
_7 S-II OECO
0.07 I0
0.06
VEH STA 43.1 m (1698 in.)
AZIMUTH 2 deg O8
TRANSDUCER
RADIUS 3.30 (D187-206)
m (130 in.)_ ___ m
m
0.05
E
u 06 "_
z 0.04
l,J r_
r_
0.03
ULJ 0.04
r-/ r_
0.02
rY_
0.02
o.o !
I
o !
-o.ol 7 R7
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 55O 600
16-4
16.3 SURFACE PRESSURE AND COMPARTMENT VENTING
16-5
LIFTOFF _7 MAXIMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE
INTERNAL MEASUREMENT:
D163-219
/- --7
I
!
_=0 = 90
E
o 4 i
--6
I
i
X
--5 _-_
4)
GJ X
r_
' 3 ! !
c--
ore- _4 t-
.r--
i
v
I
I 'I]
v
i
z
Z
c: 2 _3
r-%
0
.=J m 0
i,i
,,, A il _2 _"
_0 O0
1,1 I| I
fs I
r_ rv"
t
--I
: i _,
I 0
t,
0
' -
25 50
] ,,2,,
75
\i/
1O0 125 150
r
I
175
16-6
SECTION 17
17.1 SUMMARY
The AS-506 S-IC base region thermal environments have similar magnitudes
and trends as those measured during previous flights. Maximum values of
total heating and gas temperature were recorded at approximately 20 kilo-
meters (10.8 n mi) altitude with maximum values of 25 watt/cm2
(22.2 Btu/ft2-s) and 1200°K (1695°F), respectively.
Thermal environments in the base region of the S-IC stage were recorded by
two total calorimeters and two gas temperature probes which were on the
heat shield at the locations shown in Figure 17-I. Data from these
instruments are compared with the AS-502 through AS-505 flight data band
(Figures 17-2 and 17-3) and are shown versus altitude to minimize trajec-
tory differences. AS-501 flight data, which showed less severity than
subsequent flight data because of flow deflector effects, are not shown.
As shown in Figures 17-2 and 17-3, the AS-506 S-IC base heat shield thermal
environments have similar magnitudes and trends as those measured during
the previous flights. Maximum values of total heating and gas temperature
data were recorded at approximately_ 20 kilometers (10.8 n mi) with maximum
values of 25 watt/cm2 (22.2 Btu/ftZ-s) and 1200°K (1695°F), respectively.
Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) on AS-506 produced a spike in the data with a
magnitude and duration similar to previous flight data at CECO. The
AS-506 gas temperature data are similar to previous flight data. However
the AS-506 and AS-505 gas temperature data do not show the decrease
between 4 and 9 kilometers (2.2 and 4.9 n mi) which the AS-502 through
AS-504 flight data indicated.
17-I
Ambient gas temperatures inside the engine cocoons remained within the
band of previous flight data.
C149-I06
TOTAL CALORIMETER
C050-I06
GAS TEMPERATURE
f (0.64 cm (0.25
FT OF SURFACE) in.)
POS I
POS II
C026-I06
TOTAL CALORIMETER
\
FIN A
C052-I06
GAS TEMPERATURE
VIEW LOOKING AFT (6,35 cm (2.50 in.)
AFT OF SURFACE)
17-2
_o '3_n1V_3dW31 SV9 Jo '3_nlV_3dW31 SV9
(3J
c"
(./3
4J
_J
mr-
QJ
e (1; S--
e:_ "1--)
S----
I E
• (/)
(Y3 r_
o
o
r"
CM O CO _o ,_P
(3J
_Io '3_l_rd3dH31 SV9
E_
°1"
_Lr) LL
[_i_!],
s-_In_Q
s-2%$/n_Q
'31_rd 9NI±V3H lV±Ol '31_rd 9NIIV3H 7VI01
_3 _N mcr_
r..=..
o4.._
C_
•f,--
IJ._
17-3
17.3 S-II BASE REGION ENVIRONMENT
The S-II base heat shield flight environments were, in general, in good
agreement with previous flight data and were well below design limits.
S-II heat shield aft face convective heating rates, aft radiation heating
rates, and base gas temperatures are presented in Figures 17-4 through 17-6,
along with previous flight data and postflight predictions. The postflight
predicted heat shield convective heating rates are based on hot flow 1/25
scale S-II stage model test data. Postflight predictions for the other
two figures were accomplished by the same analytical methods that have
been described in previous flight evaluation reports.
! !
l &
E
u
4-
"'_V 'Y ]
rr_
2
l
w
F-- F--
rY
z 1 Z
i,i
-r
I I,i
-r
-I -I
! !
VV V
150 2O0 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 6O0
17-4
V S-II ESC
I PREVIOUS
V S-II CECO
FLIGHT DATA
V EMR SHIFT
FLIGHT DATA
S-II OECO
PREDICTION
,
I I I I I
_j_ TRA_sDUCER
(C692-206)
- ,_ --VEH STA 41.4 m (1630 jn
X RADIUS 2.54 m (I00 in )
o 9o° I _ = oO--AZIMUTH 0 deg T
c_
E
I I
(J
+_ 2 4_
w
--_-Z ........... _ _
/ Z
Z
b-"
w -r
0 0
-1
-I
Figure 17-5 shows that the incident radiative heat flux during the AS-506
flight was greater than predicted and approximately 20 percent higher than
the maximum values measured during flights AS-501 through AS-505. The
most probable cause for this increase is engine misalignment or engine
gimbaling, neither of which are accounted for in the postflight prediction
of the incident radiative heat flux.
!7-5
V S-II ESC
S-II CECO X_ S-II OECO
I000
1200
900
40O
300
0
200
I00
0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
predicted temperature was calculated for the aft surface using base
heating rates predicted for the AS-506 flight. The predicted maximum
postflight temperature was 818°K (IOI4°F) which compared favorably with
maximum postflight temperatures predicted from previous flights, and was
well below the maximum design temperatures of I066°K (1460°F) for the
no-engine-out case and III6°K (1550°F) for the one control engine-out
case.
17-6
The effectiveness of the heat shield and flexible curtains as a thermal
protection system was again demonstrated on this flight as on previous
flights by the relatively low temperatures recorded on the thrust cone
forward surface. The AS-506 maximummeasured thrust cone forward surface
temperature was 266°K (20°F), essentially equal to that recorded during
previous flights. The measured temperatures were well below design values
and in good agreement with postflight predictions.
17.4 VEHICLEAEROHEATING
THERMALENVIRONMENT
E 40
1500
z
o
z
o
30
I---
0 0 o
o 1000
,.=, J
o ( po
20 ©0
) 0)00 :_Jd
D
0
cb 5OO
0
10
17-7
17.4.2 S-II Stage Aeroheating Environment
17-8
SECTION18
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
SYSTEM
18.1 SUMMARY
The S-IC canister conditioning system and the aft environmental condi-
tioning system performed satisfactorily during the AS-506 countdown.
The ambient temperatures of the 4 canisters in the S-IC forward skirt com-
partment must be maintained at 300 +_II°K (80 +20°F) during equipment
operation prior to J-2 engine chilldown and 325 to 278°K (125 to 40°F)
during J-2 engine chilldown. No canister conditioning is required after
S-IC forward umbilical disconnect.
The canister conditioning system was supplied with air/GN 2 (gaseous nitro-
gen) at a flowrate of 17.24 kg/min (38 Ibm/min) and a temperature of
299°K (79°F) through the S-IC forward lower umbilical and at a flowrate
of 15.42 kg/min (34 Ibm/min) and a temperature of 301°K (81°F) through
the S-IC forward upper umbilical during AS-506 countdown prior to J-2
engine chilldown. During J-2 engine chilldown, the flowrate and tempera-
ture of the GN2 supplied to the forward upper umbilical was increased to
18.82 kg/min (41.5 Ibm/min) and 311°K (IO0°F), and the temperature of the
GN2 supplied to the forward lower umbilical was increased to 314°K (I05°F).
No instrumentation was installed in the canisters on AS-506; therefore,
18-I
no evaluation of the actual temperatures within the canisters was possi-
ble. No failure of any electrical/electronic equipment installed in the
canisters was reported.
The design requirement for the aft compartment is that the ambient tem-
perature for prelaunch be maintained at 300.0 +8.3°K (80 +I5°F). Aft
compartment prelaunch ambient temperatures are shown in Figure 18-2.
The lowest prelaunch temperature recorded was 287°K (58°F) at instrument
CI07-I15. This low temperature occurred prior to LOX loading and did not
cause any problems. Aft compartment ambient temperatures for flight are
also shown in Figure 18-2. The lowest temperature recorded was 285°K
(54°F) at instrument C203-I15.
18.4 IU ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
18-2
AS-506 FLIGHT DATA
260 I i
,0
-----_ f c208-120,
250
-2O
v 240, h
o 0
I--- -40 p-
_ 230 \
o_
_- C206-I 20
I---
-6O
220
210 -8O
_r.'MINIMUM PERFORMANCELIMIT
_ _ _ _r_ .I J
2(
-I 80 -160 -I O0 -80 -60 -40 -20
280
AS-506 FLIGHT DATA "40
I I I I
260
\ PREDICTED MAX i MUM
, \
f -0
240 _ '. \
"-40
o /
c206-12o
" --_..._-:_ _" "-120
180
"-160
160
RANGE
TIME, SECONDS
Figure 18-I. S-IC Forward Compartment Ambient Temperature
18-3
c_ ._0 '3_nlD"d3d_31
-_ ' 3_NI_Fd3dH3.L -lo °3_n.1_"d3dH31 o c_
o
i
i ._o I E
i
i
_
._.
iI It / i
I _
-N-
,! Ill x I
I )
,_. I Illl
T I i Itll E
I Jill
I/ll w_
I/ll o
i
Illl I _ !
oO
'T I 'T
I
j I
li ! I
I I
I
rl I
II }
s N _//"
"- Ii I oO
( ", ,/ i/
z IIII _
co !
I
I IIii _ ( o o
o _ _ _ N N
o_
"_o ' 3_AlV_3d_31 i,
_o ' 3Unl_3d_P_t _ '3_IW3dH31
292
I I I i - 65 '
291 -M-W CONTROL TEMP C15-601_
290
o
284
283 - 5O
u2.5
SUBLII_ATOR W'ATER
32.0 3_
- 1.5 i INLET PRESSURE D43-601 I" \
22
_I.0
_o.5
•= o o2
lO
SUBLIMATOR'HEAT .ESTIMATED
8 --REJECTION RATE - I
. 6 I 20,000
/
4 l/
"30'000
"I0,000 1
_- 2
1 0
lO0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 lO00 llO0 1200 1300 1400 1500
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
_7 , R7 , _ , , ,
0:05:00 O:lO:O0 0:15:00 0:20:00 0:25:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Coolant flowrates and pressures were well within required ranges as in-
dicated in Table 18-I.
An after mission experiment was performed in which the water supply valve
logic was inhibited (valve closed) to determine the effect of loss of
sublimator cooling. This was initiated approximately 5 hours after
liftoff. The Methanol/Water (M/W) supply temperature exceeded the
maximum scale range of 293°K (68°F) at about 23,200 seconds (Figure 18-4).
The TCS GN2 sphere pressure decay which is indicative of GN2 usage rate
was as expected for the nominal case as shown in Figure 18-5.
18-5
Table 18-I. TCS Coolant Flowrates and Pressures
294
M)W C'ONTROL'TEMPEP_TUI_E ('C15'-601') 70
293 I
292
291 65
290
:_
o
289
" /1 I , 6o_
" 288
I--
_ 287
_ 286
285 I-.-
284 L
283
282
281
28O 45
:_0.04 I Sl]BLiMAT'ORWATER F'LOWRATE (F'l-6()l)- 0.2
_oo2
_E 0 ' o N
_J
% 3.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1'-4 ,'_
0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 1416 ]8 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
I I t I i I I l I I I I I I ;
18-6
23
22 -3200
21 . -3000
20
2800
19
18 2600
%
17
-2400
16
NOMINAL EXPECTED DECAY
15 2200
14
/ 2000
13
Z
-1800
12
%
II 1600
L_J I0
-1400
9
8 -1200
7 I000
6
800
5
4 6OO
4O0
2OO
0
0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I:00:00 3:00:00 5:00:00 7:00:00 9:00:00 II:00:00 13:00:00
2:00:00 4:00:00 6:00:00 8:00:00 I0:00:00 12:00:00
All component temperatures remained within their expected ranges for the
duration of the mission (Figure 18-6). The ST-124M internal gimbal
(inertial) temperature (C34-603) went below operational temperature
range 313°K (I04°F) (marginal operation) at about 4 hours. Lower tempera-
ture operation was also observed on AS-504 and AS-505, and is due to a
change in internal platform configuration (including axial blower) effect-
tive on AS-504 and subsequent. No degradation of platform performance has
been noted. The component temperatures all climbed as expected during the
ECS experiment and C34-603 went above its upper operating limit 319°K
(II5°F) at about 9 hours (Figure 18-6).
The GN2 pressure differential across the ST-124M platform gas bearings
drifted from an initial value of 10.48 N/cm 2 (15.2 psid) at liftoff to
11.24 N/cm2 (16.3 psid) at 23,200 seconds (see Figure 18-7). The upper
limit of the specification value 10.7 N/cm2 (15.5 psid) was exceeded at
about 2500 seconds. The phenomenon of upward drifting of the pressure
differential has occurred on AS-501, AS-503, and AS-504 flights. Exten-
sive analysis and laboratory testing has indicated that the pressure
18-7
:lo '3_Nl_d3_31
_-Io '3_NL_d3d_31
• . . ...,...,_,,..,_;.;._;,; • .
iiiiii
iiiillii
ii
o _ i_i:!:_:i:i::i:i:i:i:_
o '_:i::_!:i:i:i:_::i:i:i:!: %
•
,,%°
• t,
0.o.
":_:':':':':':':":':':'!'
"=:"_-';°_ "°°°
• • o
1
iiiiiiiiii_i_i!!i _ *. ee
:i:i:i:i:!:_:_:i:
:::::;!;!_o
".. 5
:,:.:.:-:o
:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:
_vooa c.._ >- ¢'_,,I c'_J
:::::::::::::::::::::::::: 0
•".'.'.'-'-','-',; ";':': 0
I
.:.:-:-:-:.:-:.:,,:...-:0
i_iiiiiiiiiiiil
ii_iii!_ cO
::::2:2:::::::::: :,:,2.:-:0
i:_:_:_:i:i:i:::
i_!iiiiig uJ_
°° ":-:-:,:.:,:.:.:-:-:-:-:0
:':"'""/""-"0
%°°°IOo
:i:i_:i:!:!::::_
• - -:-:0:,
i:i:=!:i:i:i b-l:_
___.: ..-...
f • _ ..... •o., :_
% .1-:-:-:.:,:.1.:,:£.:.1.:,:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
,..,.....:,:.:.:.:.:.:,;.; 0 I
)6 '3_nlV_13dH31 _o '3_NL_3cIH3J
11.5
GAS BEARING PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL DII-603
16 "_
11.0
i!iiii_iii
ii!ii_ii!ii!
iiiiii{i!i -
- I0.5
i::i::i::::ii::i
iiii!iiii;:_.iiii!!iiii:
15
ii!::::_ ..... >>',:.:,:
m
I0.0
9.5
, II I I I _:"_:I"..... __ 14 _"
13.0 -19
12.5 _._
....l.....
PLATFORM L_J ......
_..i l.....L 1....L....i.......t' ..... l..................
INTERNAL AMBIENT PRESSURED12-603 i
_
//
,--I-m--I--
! _ -18
12.0
tI1"-!+
....
.....
,.....................
.....
+!......
-Ii,........
---
...
::!
,.....
..........
_
:....
.........
II.5
II.0 -16
-I 5 ._
10.5
lO.O C_
-14 .
9.5
_= 9.0 -13
8.5 -12
8.0 ii_ii_-_!_i!_i_i_ii_i_i_!_i_
_ _ _-_6_C'Vt:i'GHT OPE
RATIN_
RA_6E
_:.i:f.:i_i-,i_!{iii
-II
7.5
7.0 I0
6.5
2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
RANGE TIME, lO00 SECONDS
ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I
The GBS sphere pressure decay shown in Figure 18-8 was as expected. This
was an indication of normal GN2 consumption.
18-9
22 -3200
-3000
2O
2800
18 2600
°.
2400
16
's
22Q0
_s 14
2000
% 1800
12 I
m,-
_" " ,./NOMINAL EXPECTED DECAY 1600
UO
u_ I0
1400
8 1200
lO00
-800
6OO
4OO
2OO
0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
RANGE TIME, I000 SECONDS
18-I0
SECTION19
DATASYSTEMS
19.1 SUMMARY
The 75 ground engineering cameras provided good data during the launch.
The AS-506 launch vehicle had 1370 measurements scheduled for flight.
Eight measurements were waived prior to the start of the automatic count-
down sequence leaving 1362 measurements active for flight. Of the waived
measurements, five provided valid data during the flight.
19-I
Table 19-I. AS-506 Measurement Summary
Tables 19-2 and 19-3 tabulate by stage the waived measurements, totally
failed and partially failed measurements. None of the listed failures
had any significant impact on postflight evaluation.
19.3 AIRBORNETELEMETRY
SYSTEMS
Performance of the CCS telemetry was generally satisfactory except for the
period during translunar coast from 27,128 seconds (07:32:08) to 35,779
seconds (09:56:19). This problem is discussed in detail in paragraph
19.4.3.2. Usable CCSdata were received at GDSto 35,214 seconds (09:46:54).
19-2
Table 19-2. AS-506 Flight Measurements Waived Prior to Launch
MEASUREMENT
NUMBER MEASUREMENT TITLE NATURE OF FAILURE REMARKS
S-IC STAGE
D004-I02 Pressure, Fuel Pump Transducer offset and not KSC Waiver I-B-506-3. Meas-
Inlet l responsive to pressure urement provided valid data
throughout powered flight
S-II STAGE
!
C_ D008-201 El LOX Turbine Inlet Transducer drift Flight data usable
Pressure
DI04-201 Engine Hydraulic Noisy transducer Flight data usable
Reservoir Pressure
DI04-202 Engine Hydraulic Noisy transducer Flight data usable
Reservoir Pressure
S-IVB STAGE
TIME OF
MEASUREMENT MEASUREMENT SATISFACTORY
NATURE oF FAILURE FAILURE REMARKS
NUMBER TI TLE OPERATION
(RANGE TIME)
162.5_ 7.0
193.5 8.0
17,470 See 19.4.3.2
27,128 'DP-IB See 19.4.3.2
30,264 only See 19.4.3.2
34,020 See 19.4.3.2
35,214 j See 19.4.3.2
19.4 RF SYSTEMS EVALUATION
The performance of the eight VHF telemetry links was excellent and gener-
ally agreed with predictions. VHF telemetry links AF-2, AF-3, AS-I, AS-2,
BF-3, BS-I, BS-2, CF-I and CS-I were deleted on AS-506.
The performance of the S-IVB and IU telemetry systems was nominal during
orbit, second burn and final coast, except for the CCS problem discussed
in paragraph 19.4.3.2.
GYM reported VHF LOS at 17,800 seconds (04:56:40) and GDS reported CCS
LOS at 35,779 seconds (09:56:19).
Analysis of data received to date indicates that the C-Band radar functioned
satisfactorily during this flight, although several ground stations experi-
enced some tracking problems.
The only problems reported during launch occurred at Cape Kennedy (CNV),
Merritt Island Launch Area (MILA), and Grand Turk Island (GTK). All three
stations lost track due to balance point shifts (erroneous pointing infor-
mation caused by a sudden vehicle antenna null or a distorted beacon
return). CNV and MILA went off track momentarily at I00 and 395 seconds,
respectively. GTK had dropouts due to balance point shifts at 241 seconds
(momentarily), from 535 to 538, from 555 to 570, from 572 to 580, from
594 to 599 and from 606 to 614 seconds. The highest elevation angle
encountered by GTK during this period was 3 degrees. MILA went off track
from 440 to 480 seconds due to interference from an electrical storm.
Bermuda (BDA) did not report any problems during launch.
19-6
BEGIN S-IVB RESTART PREPARATIONS
S-IVB SECOND IGNITION
PARKING ORBIT INSERTION
TRANSLUNAR INJECTION
GYM
TAN
CYI
VAN
BDA
ClF
I t
I i I i t I f
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400
MER
I CRO
I TAN
CYI
VAN
TEX
I I I I I I I I I
5400 6000 6600 7200 7800 8400 9000 9600 1O, 200 10,800
I I I I , , i x_7 ,V,V ,
01:30:00 01:40:00 01:50:00 02:00:00 02:10:00 02:20:00 02:30:00 02:40:00 02:50:00 03:00:00
I TEX
I HAW
GYM
I I I I I I I t I I
7200 10,800 14,400 18,000 21,600 25,200
t I I I I I I I I I I
02:00:00 03:00:00 04:00:00 05:00:00 06:00:00 07:00:00
19-7
Problems experienced during earth orbit included tracking on a sidelobe
by Vanguard (VAN) (revolution 2) and a phasing problem experienced by GTK
(revolution 2). This type phasing problem is experienced when a ground
station receives two closely spaced beacon returns; one generated as a
result of its own interrogation and one resulting from the interrogation
of the beacon by another ground station.
GTK lost track during translunar coast from 27,126 seconds (07:32:06) to
29,260 seconds (08:07:40) when attempting to phase away from the beacon
return pulse of another ground station. PAFB indicated final LOS at
42,912 seconds (11:55:12).
A summary of available C-Band radar coverage showing AOSand LOS for each
station is shown in Figure 19-2.
Signal fluctuations were noted at HAW, GBM, GDS, and GYM from about
II,I00 seconds (03:05:00) to II,340 seconds (03:09:00) when the CSM was
maneuvered to an inertial attitude. This inertial attitude was maintained
during CSM separation, docking and Lunar Module (LM) ejection.
HAW lost track during translunar coast from II,756 seconds (03:15:56) to
18,516 seconds (05:08:36) when the vehicle disappeared over the horizon.
19-8
BEGIN S-IVB RESTART PREPARATIONS
S-IVB SECOND IGNITION
PARKING ORBIT
TRANSLUNAR INSERTION
INJECTION
VAN FPS-I 6
BDA FPQ-6
BDA FPS-I 6
PAFB FPQ-6
MILA TPQ-18
CNV FPS-16 CRO FPQ-6
i i I I I I I I
600 1200 18OO 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400
I _ , I I I I I I I I
00:00:00 00:I0:00 00:20:00 00:30:00 00:40:00 00:50:00 01:00:00 01:I0:00 01:20:00 01:30:00
VAN FPS-16
BDA FPQ-6
PAFB FPQ-6
MILA TPQ-18 CRO FPQ-6
t , I I I , I I I I I
54OO 6000 6600 7200 7800 8400 9000 9600 10,200 10,800
I I I I , , , V ,
01:30:00 01:40:00 01:50:00 02:00:00 02:10:00 02:20:00 02:30:00 02:40:00 02:50:00 03:00:00
HAW FPS-16
ASC TPQ-18
ANT FPQ-6
BDA FPQ-6
PAFB FPQ-6
I I t I I I I I [ I
7200 10,800 14,400 18,000 2_,600 25,200 28,800 32,400 36,000 39,600 43,200
I I I ! ! I I i I t I
02:00:00 03:00:00 04:00:00 05:00:00 06:00:00 07:00:00 08:00:00 09:00:00 I0:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00
19-9
A ground commandwas transmitted at 17,466.6 seconds (04:51:06.6) to
initiate Time Base 8. The vehicle was placed in a slingshot attitude
and the LOX dump followed. These events produced signal strength
fluctuations from 17,470 seconds (04:51:10) to 19,060 seconds (05:17:40.)
at all stations tracking the CCS. The most severe fluctuations were
experienced at GBMand resulted in 25 dropouts during this time period.
These signal fluctuations were smooth and are believed to have been caused
by changing vehicle antenna gains as the look angles to the ground stations
varied with the changes in vehicle attitude (referenced to the ground
station).
A sharp drop in downlink CCSsignal was noted at HAW, GBM, GDSand GYMat
27,128 seconds (07:32:08). The onboard antenna system, which had been on
the low gain since 19,034 seconds (05:17:14) was switched to the high gain
mode at 27,368 seconds (07:36:08) to improve signal quality. Signal
strength picked up and was maintained at a high level until 30,264 seconds
(08:24:24) at which time the signal level again dropped. In an attempt
to improve signal quality the CCSRF was switched OFF/ONtwo times and the
CCSantennas were switched several times. However, signal level fluctuated
intermittently at low levels until LOS at 35,779 (09:56:19). Figure 19-3
shows the fluctuations in signal level experienced at the HAWsite. The
GDSwing station experienced similar fluctuations at corresponding times
as shown in Figure 19-4.
CCS RF OMNI
CCS RF OFF
HIGH GAIN 0 OMNI
CCS RF ON
i
-113
E
_Q
-123
-103 . .
-lS3
27,000
i,
28,000 29,000 30,000
Hyll .. ,
31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 36,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I I I I I I
7:30:00 8:00:00 8:30:00 9:00:00 9:30:00 I0:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
19-I0
CCS RF OMNI
ON _LOW GAIN
HIGH GAIN
OFF _CCS RF OFF
OMNI
CCS RF ON
-I O0
-150
-160 __
27,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 36,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I I I I I I
7:30:00 8:00:00 8:30:00 9:00:00 9:30:00 I0:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
The above indicates that the problem was present on low gain, high gain
and omni antenna; therefore, it is concluded that the drop in signal level
was caused by a malfunction of the CCS coaxial switch. On AS-505, a
similar problem in the CCS antenna system occurred only while transmitting
on the high gain or low gain antenna.
Test performed in IBM Report Number 69-223-0007 also concluded that the
CCS coaxial switch (the only electromechanical component which is common to
all CCS antennas) caused the failure. The general characteristics of the
CCS operation, as observed on AS-505 and AS-506, was duplicated by a simu-
lated leak in the hermetically sealed portion of the coaxial switch case.
In addition, engineering tests have demonstrated that the coaxial switch
will leak following vibration levels seen on AS-505 and AS-506.
19-11
Directional antenna tests did not duplicate the failure. Power amplifier
tests showed a leak in the power amplifier would cause a total failure;
this results in total loss of CCSdownlink with no possible recovery.
A summary of CCScoverage showing AOS and LOS for each station is shown
in Figure 19-5.
19-12
BEGIN S-IVB RESTART PREPARATIONS
S-IVB SECOND IGNITION
PARKING ORBIT INSERTION
TRANSLUNAR INJECTION
m CYI
n VAN
MI LA CRO n GDS
WING STA.
I I I I I I I I I - I,
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000
I n_ 7 I I I I I i I I
00:00:00 00:10:00 00:20:00 00:30:00 00:40:00 00:50:00 01:00:00 01:I0:00 01:20:00 01:30:00
m _DS
m VAN
m BDA
m GBM
ml_ MILA
I i I I I I I I I
5400 6000 6600 7200 7800 8400 9000 9600 10,200 10,800
I I I I I I I _7 i_ 7 _ I /
01:30:00 01:40:00 01:50:00 02:00:00 02:10:00 02:20:00 02:30:00 02:40:00 02:50:00 03:00:00
n HAW , , HAW
II_ MILA
I I I I I I I I I
7200 10,800 14,400 18,000 21,600 25,200 28,800 32,400 36,000 39,600
I I I I I I I I I I
02:00:00 03:00:00 04:00:00 05:00:00 06:00:00 07:00:00 08:00:00 09:00:00 10:00:00 II:00:00
19-13/19-14
SECTION20
MASSCHARACTERISTICS
20.1 SUMMARY
Postflight analysis indicates that total vehicle mass was within 0.50
percent of the prediction from ground ignition through S-IVB stage final
shutdown. This very small deviation signifies that the initial pro-
pellant loads and propellant utilization throughout vehicle operation
were close to predicted.
20.2 MASSEVALUATION
Deviations from predicted in dry weights of the inert stages and the
loaded spacecraft were all less than 0.75 percent which was well within
the 3-sigma deviation limit.
During S-IC powered flight, mass of the total vehicle was determined to
be 2906 kilograms (6407 Ibm) or 0.09 percent lower than predicted at
ignition, and 1366 kilograms (3011 Ibm) or 0.16 percent lower at S-IC/
S-II separation. These small deviations are attributed to less than
predicted S-IC propellant load, S-IC dry stage mass, and mass of the
upper staging. S-IC burn phase total vehicle mass is shown in Tables
20-I and 20-2.
During S-II burn phase, the total vehicle mass varied from 898 kilograms
(1981 Ibm) or 0.13 percent lower than predicted at start commandto 875
kilograms (1930 Ibm) or 0.42 percent higher than predicted at S-II/S-IVB
separation. Most of the initial deviation may be attributed to a less
than predicted S-II propellant loading, and the deviation at separation
20-I
was due mainly to higher than predicted S-II propellant residuals. Total
vehicle mass for the S-II burn phase is shown in Tables 20-3 and 20-4.
Total vehicle mass during both S-IVB burn phases, as shown in Tables 20-5
through 20-8, was within 0.45 percent of prediction. A deviation of 143
kilograms (317 Ibm) or 0.09 percent at first start command was due mainly
to a slight excess of S-IVB propellants. Lower than predicted propellant
residuals at end of first burn resulted in a 607 kilogram (1340 Ibm) or
0.44 percent deviation. Total vehicle mass at spacecraft separation was
832 kilograms (1834 Ibm) or 4.62 percent less than predicted.
A summary of mass utilization and loss, actual and predicted, from S-IC
stage ignition through completion of S-IVB second burn is presented in
Table 20-9. A comparison of actual and predicted mass, center of gravity,
and moment of inertia is shown in Table 20-10.
20-2
Table 20-I. Total Vehicle Mass - S-IC Burn Phase - Kilograms
RANGE TI ME--_E C -8 ,. q, 0 -6o40 .30 °30 135.28 135.20 161,.08 161.63 161.,80 162.30
S-IC _TAGE DRY 130975. 130522. 130975. 130522. I _0975. 130522. 130975. 130522. 130975. 130522.
LOX IN TANK 1579518. 1578371. 1558229. 1558728o 190236. 195782. 1399. 1280,, 931. 935.
LOX BELOW TANK 2]000. 21108. 21737. 2 1868. 21720. 21851. 18778. 18761 . 14883. 14717.
LOX ULLAGE GAS 187. 169. 207. 235. 2587. 28{19. 31160. 3611. 3088. 3616.
RPI IN TANK ¢52551. 642018. 632357. 631857. 91469. cl 3r) 78. 8396. 8008. 7305. 8759.
RP! BELOW TANK 5313. 4301. 5996,, 5983. 5596. 5983. 5958. 5958. 5958. 5956.
RPl ULLAGE GAS X5. 73. 35. 76. 21 1. 226. 250. 259. 241. 250,,
N2 PURGE GAS X6. 36. 36. 38. 20. 70. 20. 20. 20. 20.
HELIUM IN BOTTLE 289. 289. 289. 28&. 113. 13G. 83. 112. 83. 112.
TOTAL S-ICIS-II IS 5200. 5208. 5200. 5206. 5200. 5206. 5?00. 5208. 5166. 5173.
TOTAL S-II STAGE 481"003. 47998q. 481003. 575964. qR07q_5. 4797(16. 480755. 47971]6. 480745. 479708.
TOT S-II/S-IVB IS 3665. 3883. 3665. 3663. 3665. 3863. 3665. 3663. 3665. 3863.
TOTAL S-IVR STAGE 118911. 119119. 118911. 119119. 118820. 1191129. 118820. 119029. 118820. 119029.
TOTAL INSTRU UNIT I953. 1939. 1953. 1939. 1953. 1539. 1953. 1939. 1953. 1939.
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 45754. _9735. 49794. _9735. 49794. q 9735. 597911. 49735. 49795. 597 35.
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 660526. 859826. 660526. 859826. 860177. 655277. 660177. 659277. 68015, q- 659245.
TOTAL VEHICLE 2941221. 2938315. 2902328. 2899008. 11115110. 1110189. 828692. R27292. 824991. 823625.
"£8LSIBI "h6L818! "_98£Z8! "h569_8[ °LhbLtphZ "0S£9_1_Z °t/lZl6£9 °LES8619 "SLBLLW9 "_uZhSh9 3]:JIH]A ]VIOl
"bg£_SI;| "69[SSh[ "LShESh[ "ZIIb_Shl "LSh[SII[ °ZhtIS_h[ "LZ_hShI "_[zgshI °LZ._hShI "ZIZgStI| 35¥1.% _3ddN 1¥101
"9h960[ °LLL61]I "gb96UI °LLL60I "9h960[ "LLL6U[ °9h960I "LLL60[ "9hgbOI "LLL6UI IJV_333VdS -lVI01
°SLZt *90[h "SLZh "9Ulh °SLZh °9L}£tl "SLZh °90[h "SLZh °9U£$t IINR (I_ISNI ]VIOl
°£Ibzgz "hSSIg_ °EIbZ9Z =hS619_ °£[bzg_ "hS6I_ "£I9_9Z "hSI_9_ "£I9_9Z "h5[_9_ 35VIS UAI-5 "lVlOl
"9L08 "1808 "9L08 "[808 "gLUe °I80t_. "9L08 "1808 °9L08 "I_O_ SI BAI-5/IJ-S 101
°OLSLSO[ "I986SOI "OLSLSO[ °1986SOI "OLSLSO'[ "[98GSO[ "Oh[8SO[ "[£1_090[ "OtI[8SO[ "[_l_090[ ]9V1_ II-S "lVlOt
"hDblI "06£II "LL#II "EghI[ "LL_[[ "[9ell "LLIILI .'£ghII "LLh[I "E9hI[ SI II-SI3I-S lVlOI
"b6£zg£ "9Zt£9£ "6DhOL£ "ZISILE "06Uh66 "80bDBb "I669£6h "gz£_hBt "_tgEzo_ "LLOBZOS ]5¥I_ 3I-S 1VlOt
• 8ZS "SZ.S " 8ZS "8,_5 "8_.S "SZS "SZS "SZ.S °8_S °SZS _3HIO
"OSL "OSL "OSL "OSL "OSL "OSL "0Oh[ "OOh[ °OOhI "OObI iSU_3
"Lh_ "_B| °8t;_ °EYl "ODE °Gh_ °DE9 "9E9 °L£9 "9E9 J'lllOt_ NI WI_II]H
°Eh -£_ -£1; -[1_ "£h . "Eh "Ot_ "U_ "U8 "08 S¥9 39_1_d ZN
"ISS "[ES "OSS "DES "86h "hgh "891 "LL "I9I "LL SV9 ]gVl'IN [d_
"80I£I "9£[£I "80[EI "9_[£I "I&l£I "&I_EL "I6I£1 "bIEEI "ISbB "bOSh WNVJ ROl]8 [d_ !
0
"006_I "SOl91 "SS9LI "6U58[ "8615DL "55910_ "hB6_Gtl "96Ih5£I "SDtSI_[ "[gS91_I XNil NI Id_ o,J
"£L6L "65L9 "096L "SbL9 "E6[9 "£OLS "81_ "95_ "ZL£ "II_ $V9 39VllN XOl
"5hbZt "9ZEZ£ "I569£ °D669£ "hLIBb "hBt_Lh "[IZSb "[Z6Lh "gisgh "96Z9b XNVl R0]38 XOl
"650Z "ISOZ "[ZBZ *I_8U_ *O£tzSZh *86[6[h *98h681£ "86LZ6IE "OSZ6SZE "85519ZE WN¥1 NI XOl
"IESLBZ "DSLBSZ " [_.5LSZ "05LBBZ °[E618Z °OSLBBZ "[15LBZ , "05LBSE "[ESLBZ "USLB8_ _.l:IU _]gvI_ ]I-S
OE" ZgI 08"19[ k9"I9[ 80" IgI 0Z'5£ I 8Z°5£[ 0£" Ok" Oh'9- Oh"9- 335--3WI1 39NVU
ssEH spunod - asEqd uJn8 3I-S - ssEH ato._qaA LE:_Ol "_-0_ atqEl
Table 20-3. Total Vehicle Mass - S-II Burn Phase - Kilograms
RANGE TI ME--SEC -6.qD -G. (I0 ]63.54 ]Gq.OD IG5.50 I66.20 551.72 548.22 552. qO 549.00
o S-TI STAGE DRY 36250. 36158. 3625n. 36158. 3625D. XGlS8. 3625n. 38158. 36250. _lSR.
!
o'I LOX IN TANK 371_72. 370778. 371672. X7{]77R. 371221]. 370325. 657. 816. Sqq. 730.
LOX BELOW TANK 7_7. 737. 737. 737. 800, 8110. 787. 787. 787. 787.
LOX ULLAGE GAS 188. 1R8. IRR. 18R. 190. 191. 2"_37. 2335. 23{10. 2335.
LH? IN TANK 71668. 71615. 71660. 71608. 71449. 71396. I966. 2572. 1916. 2531.
LH? BELOW TANK I05. I05. 112. liP. 128. 128. 123. 123. 123. 123.
LH? ULLAGE GAS 77. 77. 77. 77, 77. 78. 704. 715. 7oq. 735.
INSULATION PURGE 54. sq.
FROST 70li. 2114.
START TANK GAS 14. ]4. ]q. ]q. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.
OTHER 34. 34. 34. 34. 3 q. 34. "_q. 34 . 3 4. 34 .
TOTAL S-II STAGE 4A]0113. 479964. 480745. 4797flG. 4R0]51. 4791 12. 428&2o 43564. _2702. 4343&.
TOT S-II/S-IVB IS ]665. 3663. 3665. 366.X. 3R65. 3_63. 3565. 3663. 3465. 3&63.
TOTAL S-IVB STAGE llBgll, llqllg, llBB20. 119029. 118820. llqr179. 118820. 119029. 118818. 119026.
TOTAL INSTRU UNIT I951. 1939. 1953. 1939. 1953. 1939. 1953. 1439. 1953. 1939.
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 497_q. 49735. 49794. 49735. 4979 4. 49735. 4574 3o _15693 . 4574 3. W5693.
TOTAL UPPER STAGE ]74324. |74456. 174233. 174365. ]74233. 174365. 170182. 170324. 170180. 170322.
TOTAL VEHICLE 660526. 659626. 659259. 658363. 658 _53. G57fi 59. 7 tXO_q. 2l 3888. 212882. Z| 3757.
" bSZIL,; "hZ£GBh "ZbSILh "ZB969b "OSb6hb[
=$6 bSLE "£HISL£ "OOSSLI "88|5L£ "OL hhg£ "8[Ih8£ "OIhhBS "BIIhH£ "OIghB_ "YI£hSE 39VIS _3ddN ]VIOl
"9£LOOI "LhBOO[ "9£L00I "LbBOOI "9W9601 "LLL60[ "9h_60[ "LLL601 "g_9601 "LLL_DI 13V_333Vd$ ]VIOl
"_LZh "90£_ "SLZh "90£h "SLZh "90£h "_LZh "90£h "SLZh "9U£b IINA A_ISNI ]VIOl
"SO_Z9Z "6h619/ "£1 hZ9_ "hS619_ "_|tZ9Z "hS6IgZ "£Ih_9_ "_S6[9_ "£19_9_ "_$IZ9_ 39V15 8AI-S lVlOl
"9LOB "I_08 "gLOB "IBO8 "gLOB "IBOB "SLOB "IBOB "9L08 "|_08 Sl BAI-S/II-5 I01
"65L$6 "IhIh6 "_h096 "h6_h6 "[gZ9SUI "ZSSebOI "OLSLSU[ "lgB6so[ "OhIBSO[ "l_tOgOl 39VIS ll-S ]VIOl
• 5L "gL ""Ji "gi "gL "gL " 9L "gL "gL "gL _I3HIO
°S "S "S "_, "S "S "0£ "U_ "DIE "O£ SV9 XNVl IBVIS
• OSh "O_b IS 0__4
"OZ[ "O_I 39 _llld NOIIV]_SNI LO
"I_91 "£SSI "[_91 "ISb[ "Ii [ "OL[ "65[ I
"69[ "6g[ "bgI SV9 39V]l_ LHI
"ZLZ "ZLZ. "ZLZ C)
"_LZ "ZBZ "ZBZ "8hZ "Bh_ "[k_ "I£Z HNVl M0339 ZHI c_
"6LSS "hZZh " [LgS "S[[h "_O_LS| "BISLS[ "BgBLS[ "_86Lb[ "S_BLS[ "O00@_[ WNVi NI _H1
"LhI5 "851S "Lh|S "SIt "Sit "SIh SV9 39Vllfl XOl
"9ELI "9£LI "9£L[ "9_L[ "hSL| "hgL [ "S_91 "S_g[ "szg[ "S_9[ HNVl RO'l_B XO]
"609! "66!I °OOBI "Bbh[ "gZh9 [8 "[OhBI_ "SEhLIB "L6_E6Id "SZhLI8 "Lb(bItJ )_NVI NI XO]
"hIi6L "_166L 'hIL6L "8166L "h|L6L "B[b6L "hIL6L "8166L "hIL6L "8166L ABQ 39V15 II-S
O0"6hS O_'ZSS ZZ'Bh_ ZL" [55 UZ'99[ 0S°$91 OU'h9_ _5"_91 oh'g- oh'g- 3 3S--3W II 39NV_
ss_H spunod - as_qd uanEl II-S - ss_IAl aLD.LqaA L_Ol "17-0_ aLq_l
Table 20-5. Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB First Burn Phase - Kilograms
RANGE TI MF--SE C -6.qO -6.40 555.,78 552.7n 55A. 2D 554.7n 699o49 699.34 699.,68 699.54
___
S-IVB STAGE DRY 11340. 11273,. 11317. 1125(1. II317. II?5D. 11255. II189. 11255,, 11189.
LOX IN TANK 86q34. 87149. 86934. 87149. 8R773. 86993,, 61359. 61120. 61327. 61052.
o
LOX BELOW TANK IGG. 166. IGG. l&&. 180. 180,, 180. 180. 180., 180.
I
LOX ULLAGE GAS 17. 16. 17. IG. 22., 17. 105,, 67. lOS. _7.
LH2 IN TANK 19709. 19758. 197(15. 13731. 19644. 19708. 14530° 14]69° 14516. 14]56.
LH? BELOW TANK 27,, 22. 26. 26. 26. 26. 26. 2E. 26. 26.
LH2 ULLAGE GAS 2n. 19,, 20,, 19. 20., 20. 65. 52. E6. 52.
ULLAGE MOTOR PROP 54. 5_. IO. In. I. I. I. 1. I. 1.
APS PROPELLANT 28_. 298. 2RG. 29R. 286o 298. _R5° 297,, 285° 297.
HELIUM IN BOTTLES 20_1. 200. 20D. 200. 199. 200° ITR° 176. 178,. 17E.
START TANK GAK 2. 2. _. 2° {_. D. _° 3. 3. 3.
FROST ] __G. 13&. 45. 45. 45,, 45. 45,, 45. 45. 45.
OTHER 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 75. 25. 25. 25.
TOTAL S-IVR SIAGF 118911. llqllq. 118754. 118939. llRSq4. I187G4. 88058° 87550. _8{)13° 87469.
TOTAL INSTRtJ UNIT 1953. 1939. 1953. 193'q. 1953. lq]9. 195_. 1939. 195_° 19]9.
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 45743. 45693. 45743. qs&q3. 45743° 45693° 45743. 45693,, NS7q]. 45693.,
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 49697. 47&32. 47_97. 47&32. 47697. 47_32. 47697. 47632° 476970 _7632.
z,--
TOTAL VEHICLE lG&EnB. 166751,, 1REqSt]. 166571. ]AEPqD. 16_X96. 135755., I._51 82. l ]5709° 13_102.
Table 20-6. Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB First Burn Phase - Pounds Mass
RANGE TI ME--SEC -6.40 -Go =40 555.70 552.211 SSR. 20 554o7n 699,.49 &99.34 649.68 699.54
S-IVB STAGE DRY 2500II. 2=4852. 24944. 24801. 24949. 24801. 24_14., 24667,, 24814. 24667.
LOX IN TANK Iq1656. 192130. IqIG5R. 197130. ]91.X02. 191767. 135773. 134747. 135203. 134597.
LOX' BELOW TANK 367. 367. 367° 367. 397. 347. x97. 397. 397. 397,,
LOX ULLAGE GAS T_R. 36. 36. 36. 49° 38° 231,, 147,. 232,,. 147°
LH? IN TANK 43452. 435G0. 434w2. 43499. 43X18. 43449. 370X3. 31678. 32002- 31649.
LH2 BELOW TANK _R. 48. 5B. 5R. 54. 58,, .58. 58. 58,, 56.
LH9 ULLAGE GAS qX° 41. 43. 42. 44. 44. 144. llq. 145° 115.
ULLAGE MOTOR PROP 116. liB. 27. 22. 0. O° tl. O° O. O.
APS PROPELLANT G30. 65R. 630. 65R. _30. 65_. R2B. 655. G28. 655.
HELIUM IN BOTTLES _ql. 442. 441. 442° 4_9. qql. xgx. XBq. 392. 389.
START TANK GA_ 5° 5. 5° 5,, 1. 1. 7. 7. 7° 7.
r_
c) FROST 306. 300. 100. 1DO. 100. TriO. 1011. 100. 100. 100.
I
OTHE R 56. 56. 56. 56 . 5 6. 56. 5 G. 56. 5 6. 56 .
Co
TOTAL S-IVR STAGE 262154. 262613. 7618n7° 267216. ?G1344. 761830. 194135. 1911015. 194r135° 192837.
TOTAL INSTRU UNIT 4306. 4275. 4306. 4275. 4306. 4275° 4306,, 4275. 4306° 4275.
TOTAL SPACECRAFT I008_7. 100736° 100847° 100736. I Q0847. IOQ736o I00_47. I00736. I00847. 100736.
.,,2----
TOTAL UPPER STAGF I05153. I05011. 105153. IOSOll° 1II5153. I05011. I_fi153° IO_OIIo 105153. lOSOll.
TOTAL VEHICLE 367307. 367624° 366960. 3672P7. 3_6497. 366641. 299288. 298026° 299188. 797848.
Table 20-7. Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Second Burn Phase - Kilograms
SPACECRAFT
S-IVP S-TVB S-I VR _-IV9
SEPARATION
EVENTS IGNITION MAINSTAGF ENGINE CUTOFF END DECAY
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PREO ACT PRED ACT
RANGE TIME--SEC 985S.S0 985G.20 9858.00 9858.70 10704.0G 10203.07 10204°27 I0203.27 15004.40 15_73o00
S-IVB STAGE DRY 11255. 11189. 11255. II189. 11255. I1189. 11755. 11189. 11255. 11189.
LOX IN TANK Gl2qO. 60985. gi074. G0857. 2191., 2.X08. 21GO° 2247° 2160. 2224.
0 LOX BELOW TANK IgG. IGG. 180. 180. 180° 180. 180. 180,, 1G6. IG6.
I
',.o LOX ULLAGE GAS 170. 12G. 174. 128. 280. ?I!5° 280. 20_. 280. 124.
LH? IN TANK 13257. 13275. 13192,, 13224. 900. 944. 886,, 932. 886. 391°
LH2 BELOW TANK 26° 2G. 2G. 2G° 26° ?G,. 2G. 26. 22. 22,,
LH? ULLAGE GAS lqg. IG?. IBT. 170. 331. 2RG. 331. 28G° 331. 15&.
ULLAGE MOTOR PROP O. O. n. O. O. O. O. O. O. O.
APS PROPELLANT 1R1;. 24G. 183. 246. 179. :_37° 179° 237. 144. 722.
HELIUM IN BOTTLES I_5. IGO. 1W5. 159. 83. 1.98. 83. 108,, 8_X. 17.
START TANK GAS 2. 2. O. O. 3. 3. 3. _. 3. O.
FROST 4_ . 45. 45. 45 . 45. _5 . 4 5. 45. 4 5. 45.
OTHER 25. 25. 2_. 25. 25. 25,, 25. 25 . 2 5. 25.
TOTAL S-IVR %TAG_ 89711. 8G419° 86_97. 8G251. 15500° 15557° 15454° 15983. 15401. 14583.
TOTAL INSTRU UNIT 1953. 1939. 1953,, 1939. 1953,. I939° 1953,. 1939° 1953. 1939.
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 457W3. 45G93° W5743. 45693. 4574 3. 4_93. 45743. 4S693. 626. G2g°
.... ,r
TOTAL uPPER STAGE 47_a7° 971=::;32. 47G97. _7632. 47G97. 47G32° _7697. 47G32. 2579. 25G5.
TOTAL VEHICLE 134_f_8. 1 3qo_G. 134194. 133883° 63 1,9 6. £3189,, G3151. 6._11G. 17980. 171q8°
i
I
"508L£ "6E9GE "9t IGEI "EZZ6E I "80_6£I "hZEG£1 "[gISG_ "9hSS6Z "IZSS6Z "_I£_6_ _]_IH3A ]VIOl
"ssgs "9Y95 "IIOSOI "_SISDI "IlOSOI "ESISU[ "IlOSOI "ISISOI "IIOSOI "£SISOI 35V15 B3dciN 7VlOl
"OBZI "08El " 9ELDDI "LOBOOI "9£L00I "L_BOOI "9ELODI "L_8OO[ "9ELDO[ "L_BOOI 13VB333Vd5 lVlOI
"SLZ_ "90£t "SLZ_ "90_ "SL_ "9OE_ "SLZt "9UE_ "5LZt "9OE_ IINN N_ISNI 7VlOl
"OSIZ£ "ES6££ "5£ItZ "OLOhk "86ZhE "ILIhk "OSIOGI "EGgObl "OISOSI "$91161 3_JVlS _^I-S lIlOl
0
"95 "9S "95 "5S "9, "9S "95 "5S "95 "9S _3HIO
I
"OO! "OO[ " 00 I "301 "OJ I "DO[ "UOI "OOI "OOI "OOl IS0_3
c:)
"0 "L "L "L "L "L "[ "[ "S "S SV9 _NVl I_VIS od
"BE "ZB[ "LEZ "ZBI "LE_ "ZBI "OSt "6IE "ESE "G[E 531110_ NI WNII3H
"OGh "8 IE "ZZS "5GE "_S "5Gk "_S "£O_ "ZhS "£0_ INVll3dO_d 5dV
"0 "0 "O "D "O "0 "0 "U "0 "O dO_d _010W 39VllN
"5b£ "6_L "[E9 "6ZL "[_9 "6_l "S/E "_Et "BgE "EEb SV9 39VlIN _HI
"8b "8b "BS "85 "85 "BS "85 "8S "8S "_S _NVl M0138 _HI
"£9B "_SBI "bSU_ "_S61 "[_UZ "S8_I "SSI6Z "_8DGZ "99ZBZ "9_g6Z _NVl NI _HI
"blZ "LI9 "ESt_ "L[5 "£5t_ "L I9 "£B_ "EBE "8L_ "t_LE SV9 39VllN XO7
"L9£ "LgE "LGE "L6E "L6E "LGE "L6£ "LBE "L9£ "L9£ XNVl fl0338 X03
"_DGb "_gLt "ESGb "ZgLb "6805 °IEB_ "99[t£[ "S_9_EI "DS_t£I "OIOSEI _NVl NI XO]
"L99bZ "bIBbZ "L99tZ "b[B_ "L99bZ "_I8_ "L99_Z "_[8_ "L99tZ "_I_t_ _0 39V15 OAI-S
UO'£_SI O_'tO_JSI L_'EO_UI L_'bOZOI LO'LD_DI 9D'tO_O[ 0L'8586 OD'BSB_ D_'QSB6 OS"SSB6 33S--3WII 39NVB
sseH spunod - aseqd uan8 puooas 8AI-S - sseH ato£qaA te_Ol "8-0_ atqel
• • • " • i¸!iiii_: • _
Table 20-9, Flight Sequence Mass Summary
PPE D] CTFD AC TU AL
MASS HISTORY KG LBM KG LBM
IST FLT GIG HOLDDWN ARM REL 7gr12328° 63985x7. 2899008 ° 63912718.
S-IC FROST -295 . -KSO . --295 . -650.
S-IC MAINSTAGE PPOPFLL_A, NT -2071872. -_567_97. -2069957° --qS63qTqw
_-IC N2 PURGF - 17. -37. -17. -37.
S-IC INBD ENGINE T.D. PROP -q 17. -27r122 ° --q08 ° -20n3.
_-IC INB_ ENG EXPENDED _ROP -I 85. -qll8. -190. --418.
S-II INSULATION PURGE 6A_ -Sq. -1 20. -54. -1 _0 °
S-II FROST -204. -_50. -204. -qSO.
S-IVR FROST -91 . -2nO. -91. -200.
?ND FLT STAGE AT S--TI SSC GSSqq7. 1qSX8 _X2° 6585q7. lq518q7°
ZND FLT STAGE AT S-II TEN 659750. lqS"Sq 18. 658363. lqSlqql°
2O-ll
Table 20-9. Flight Sequence Mass Summary (Continued)
PRE D1 CTEf_ AC TU AL
MASS HI%TO_Y K G LRM KG LBM
3RD FLT STG AT ]ST STVB IGN 1F, 6q 50. 366960. 16_;571. 367227,
S-IVB ULLAGE PROPFLLANT - IO. - 22. - IN. -22.
_-IvR START TANK -2. -4. --2. -_.
S-IV_ T-B- PROPELLANT -lqB. -437. -IF,3. -3_0°
3GO FLT STG AT ]ST SIVR COS 135755. 29928R. 135182° 298076.
S-IVR I.D. PROPELLANT -i15. -49. -8I ° -]78°
3RD FLT STG AT 2NO SIVR IGN 13qq08° 296318. 1340_G. 295!;21 °
S-IVB START TANK -2 . -4 . -2 . -4 .
%-IVR T.B. PROPELLANT -2 12. -q _,8 . -- 1Gl . -3SG.
3RD FLT STG AT ?Nn STVB COS 63196. 139324° G31Bq. 1393(19o
S-IVB T.n. PROPELLANT -45 . -I r'IO ° -74 . -I G3,,,
20-12
Table 20-10. Mass Characteristics Comparison
EVENT
KILO 0/0 METERS METERS K G--M2 0/0 KG-M2 OlO KG--M2 0/0
POUNDS DEV. INCHES DELTA INCHES DELTA XlO-G DEV. X10-6 DEV. XlO-6 DEV.
3625 I° 98. II 5 . 18 75
PRED 799I 8. 1894.3 7. 3829 .GOD 2.0 27 2.038
S-II STAGE. DRY
I'D 36158. q8.DGq -.051 .1875 .OOO0
0
I ACTUAU 79719. -°25 1892.] -2.00 7°3829 °DO00 .597 -.50 1.997 -1°97 2,.,009 -l.qO
C_
3GGG. 65-8G0 .0573
PRED 8081. 2592°9 2.2561 o065 .093 .Oq_
S-IIIS-IVB INTER-
STAGE.TOTAL 3650. 65o936 .076 .0598 o_025
ACTUAU 8095° -.qq 25_5.9 3.00 2.3537 .0976 .065 -.94 .Oq3 -._q .Oqq -.q_
SPACECRAFT, TOTAL
9862&. 91o&58 .DOS .1099 °_Olq
ACTUAU 107200. -.21 3608.6 .20 q°3267 .05q7 .088 -1.70 1.5q9 -.21 l._O -.30
L8 ° 9_6° _ L8 ° Z£6°ht £_'- [L8" OOIO'- _OSI'Z L£'£ - 8"5bLZ Otl" "StIS IL_ NVN13V
£001)'- 9hSO" 580 °- _IU'IL "068£IZ 3VN9IS 3JOLR3 IV
39¥15 IH9I]_ ON_
0_5. t_b gt;S=tb SLS" Zn 91 °Z Z "66LZ "Z8969_ 03Od
6tl SO" 66D" [L
SO'- TOb'S£[ SO'- L8£'$£I S£'- _L6" ZOO0 °- TO£L ° Z£" 5"66(_ E['- "£ Sb6_[ "lV flI3¥
OOOO'- SB IO ° 800" L98"55 "IghLS9 ]flVlSNIVW iV
39VLS iHgII_ ONZ
SLY, 5£ ! _.gb" S[ I LL6 ° £0£L ° "OZbISt| Q:l_d
$8 IO ° "tS£8S9
SO'- OZS*S£I SO"- 905"S£I L_'- S_6" _OO0"- IO£L" 9£" 0"66 IZ £I'- *OSBIS bI rIVOl3Y
OOO0 °- S_IO" 600" hSS'SS "6tS8S9 ONVWHO3
33N3FtOtS l_VlS iV
L6S" 5£ I W8 S" S£ I 686" £0£L ° "I£8£S_I 031_Jd 319V15 IH9113 ONZ
58 IU ° "Lhfs6S9
5£'- zbg'sEb 9E'- 8ZL'S£t I£'- 889"E ZEIO" £9tS" I£'I I'S£81 91 °- "98LSIUI ]Vni31
EOO0" 6£ [O ° ££D ° ZIg'gh "LZgEZ_ NOIIV_Vd3S iV
39VI$ 1H91]J I$I
9£Z'LEt 0££'L£ b 869°£ I££S" "t6LBIBI O_d
S£ IU" "Z66bZ_
Z£'- SLt'Ohb ££'- IIS'O_t IE'- 689"£ OtO0 ° [L£S" LZ'Z s'ezez 9I'- "Oi@IZk_I IIVFli3 V
[DUO" "b6Z LZ,8 "iVNglS 330iF13 0
C'd"
--_ ...... 3NIgN30_VOBIFIO IV
BZ6 ° lit. _I 0"_ 00/'£ z[[_" S'LZeZ "hS69ZSI O-_ttd 39V1S IHglI-_ ISl
5£ In" IZ_'9_ "£bggZg
N_
60 °- bSZ't|6 60 °- £6Z'bI6 ££'- £OL'£ 0000" SSSI" SI'- O'_61I II =- "ZZZI6£9 "IVnlOv
0000" oh oiJ" too'- 9LZ'OE "01066i_ 3SV333_
W_ NROOO'IOH iV
£bO'S[ 6 [8 I'SI 6 SIL" £ $95&* I'_61I "S£$8S£9 O_l_d 39V.I.S IHgi]_ IS[
Oh OO" 08_'0£ "L_;ZObZ
60"- 0_t'516 60"- 6IS'ST6 ££'- OOL'£ DO00" 9Lt_" ZI °- _'tGII 60"- "SLt_LLt:9 .qVfllOV
OOOO " 8£ OU" EO0"- Z££'0£ "LI£B£bZ NOIIINgl iV
39VI$ IH9II3 i_I
TI£'916 6b£'916 £[L'£ 9L_I" £'t6II "08_t_9 03_Cl
8£ UU ° S££'0£ "O_Z I_6Z
9I'-- 68S.ZI 9I'- I6S'ZI ZO" L6I" 6SZO" £6S9"I 1£" 6"ZLO£ bb'- "SbSL6_ _VR13¥
LOOD" ZLhU = BUD" DSO'BL "ZOIS£I 15V03 1_Vi$ • _VO3Q
ISR_Hi UN] ISI iV
"88166Z 03_ .39VIS IH9114 Q_JE
OI 9"ZI II 9_'ZI L6 I" b££8" I S= ZLO£
99b0" ZbO'SL "OILS£ I
SI °- Z6S'ZI hi'- b6S'ZI ZO" L6I" 6s_o ° £6s8-1 lz" L'ZLOE _b'- "_ZOSSZ 3vrliov
LOO0" ZL t;O" SO0" 9bO'BL "£8IS£t IVN
.... 9IS 4.i01n3 15I Iv
"88Z66£ Qd_d 35VI$ 1H9113 0_£
[I9"ZI ZI9"ZI L6I" bE£_'I S'ZLO£
99t0" l leO" 8L "S SLS£ I
SO'- Iltz'EI SO'- ZIt'EI _0" 86[" £ZI_" _BIS'I IE'- S'gEO£ OI" "ItB99E _IVNIOV
£000 ° 98E[J" 800"- LZI'LL "L6£99 [ ]gVISNIVW ISI iV
39V15 IH91]30_i_-
I
90"- ZIt;'£I 90"- £1_'£I _;0" 8bI" EZIO ° ZSIS'I _£'- t'gEo£ 8D" "LZZLS_ lVrllov 0
tOO0" 98£U" I_OO °- _nZI'LL "_LS991 NOIIIN91 iS[ iV (xl
35VIS IH9113 0_
90"- £Ib'£I 90"- S[h'£I 170° B6I ° £Z[O ° ZBIS"I I£'- 9"9£0E 60" "$9EL9£ rlVnl_V
£000" 98£U" 800 °- O£[°LL "_£999I ONVNWO3 33N3R
--_)3S 1_1$ 15I iV
]9VI$ IH9I]3 O_£
ZZt'£I £_h'£I 86I" 6SOS'I 6"9£0E "8hOLg£ O_Jd
ZB£O" 8£I'LL °I6h99I
Z6" Zgt_'tb Z6" 6118"th £h'- IL8 ° UOID'- ZOSI'_ ZS'£- t'96LZ _b" °LSZILt ]IVI]I3V
£OOO °- 9hSU" ObO'-- 6_O'IL "6 S££I _ NOIiV_Vd35 iV
39V1$ iHgI13 ONZ
°A30 9--01X "A3O 9--0 Ix. "A3O 9--OIX Vll30 S3HDNI Vll3O S3H3NI "A3U SONROd
010 ZN-gN OlD ZH-9_ 0/0 ZW-BH S_313W SB3i3W OlO O]IH
IN3A3
EVENT -- -- --
KILO 0/0 METERS METERS KG--M2 010 KG-M2 OlD KG-M2 -010
POUNDS DEV. INCHES DELTA INCHES DELTA X10-6 OEV. XI0-6 DEV. X10--8 DEV.
Table 21-I presents the MSFC Principal Detailed Objectives and Secondary
Detailed Objectives as defined in the Saturn V Mission Implementation
Plan, Mission G, Revision C. An assessment of the degree of accomplish-
ment of each objective is shown. Discussion supporting the assessment
can be found in the indicated sections of the Saturn V Launch Vehicle
Flight Evaluation Report - AS-506, Apollo II Mission.
4.1
Launch on variable 72 to 108-degree Complete None 4.3.1
4.3.2
flight azimuth and insertion of
S-IVB/IU/SC into a circular earth 11.4.2
parking orbit (PDO). 4.1
None 4.3.3
Restart the S-IVB during either the Complete
7.6
second or third revolution and in-
10.3
jection of the S-IVB/IU/SC onto the II .4.4
planned translunar trajectory (PDO).
21 -I/21-2
SECTION22
FAILURES,ANOMALIESANDDEVIATIONS
22.1 SUMMARY
22.2 SYSTEMFAILURESANDANOMALIES
Ten system deviations occurred, none of which had any significant effect
on the flight or operation of the particular systems involved. Table 22-I
presents these deviations along with the corrective actions being con-
sidered and references to paragraphs containing additional discussion of
the deviations.
22-I
Table 22-I. Summary of Deviations
S-II Lower than planned Ground Increase GSE regulator nomi- 3.6.2
J-2 engine No. 1 start
Propulsion tank pressure below pre- Support Equipment (GSE) nal setting and relax pre-
launch commit redline to 6.2
launch commit (-33 regulator setting.
seconds) redline, more closely approximate
actual requirements.
ST-124 platfom crossrange Vibration caused the Y accel- Under investigation, but had 10.2
IU/ST-124
Inertial erometer to have a level no effect on operation of
velocity exhibited negative
shift or to touch a mechani- launch vehicle. I0.4.7
Platform 1.8 m/s (5.9 ft/s) shift
3.3 seconds after liftoff. cal stop.
22 -2
SECTION 23
SPACECRAFT SUMMARY
The purpose of the Apollo II mission was to land men on the lunar surface
and to return them safely. The crew was Neil A. Armstrong, Commander;
Michael Collins, Command Module (CM) Pilot; and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr.,
Lunar Module (LM) Pilot.
The space vehicle was launched from Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida,
at 9:32:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), July 16, 1969. The activi-
ties during earth orbit checkout, Translunar Injection (TLI), trans-
position and docking, spacecraft ejection, and translunar coast were
similar to those of Apollo I0. Only one midcourse correction, performed
at about 27 hours Ground Elapsed Time (GET), was required during trans-
lunar coast.
23-I
at 109:24:19 (10:56:19 p.m. EDT, July 20, 1969). The LM Pilot egressed
soon thereafter, and both crewmen used the initial period on the surface
to become acclimated to the reduced gravity and new surface conditions.
A contingency sample was taken from the surface, and the television
camera was deployed so that most of the LM was included in its view field.
The crew took numerous photographs, erected a U.S. flag, and activated
the scientific experiments, which included a solar wind detector, a
passive seismometer, and a laser reflector. The LM Pilot spent consider-
able time evaluating his ability to operate and move about, and despite
the limitations imposed by the pressurized suit, he was able to translate
rapidly and with confidence. Approximately 24 kilograms (54 Ibm) of bulk
surface material were collected to be returned for analysis. The crew
reentered the LM at 111:39:00, with surface exploration lasting 2 hours,
31 minutes.
Ascent preparation was conducted efficiently, and the ascent stage lifted
off the surface at 124.5 hours A nominal firing of the ascent engine
placed the vehicle into an 83 by 17 kilometer (45 by 9 n mi) orbit.
After a rendezvous sequence similar to that of Apollo I0, the two space-
craft were docked at 128 hours. Following transfer of the crew, the
ascent stage was jettisoned, and the Commandand Service Modules were
prepared for transearth injection.
The return flight started with a 150-second firing of the service propul-
sion engine during the 31st lunar revolution at 135.5 hours. As in trans-
lunar flight, only one midcourse correction was required, and passive
thermal control was exercised for most of transearth coast. The possi-
bility of inclement weather necessitated moving the landing point 398
kilometers (215 n mi) downrange. The entry phase was normal, and the CM
landed in the Pacific Ocean at 195:18:35. The landing coordinates, as
determined from the onboard computer, were 13.3 degrees north latitude
and 169.4 degrees west longitude.
After landing, the crew donned biological isolation garments and were re-
trieved by helicopter and taken to the primary recovery ship, USS Hornet.
The crew then entered the Mobile Quarantine Facility, which arrived at
the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston on Sunday, July 27, 1969. The
CMwas taken aboard the Hornet about 3 hours after landing. The lunar
samples arrived at the Receiving Laboratory the day after landing.
23-2
APPENDIXA
ATMOSPHERE
A.I SUMMARY
A high pressure cell, in the Atlantic Ocean off the North Carolina coast,
along with a weak trough of low pressure located in the northeastern Gulf
of Mexico caused light southerly surface winds and brought moisture into
the Cape Kennedy, Florida area, which contributed to the cloudy conditions
and distant thunderstorms that were observed during launch.
At launch time, total sky cover was 9/10 with I/I0 cumulus at 0.7 kilo-
meter (2400 ft), 2/10 altocumulus at 4.6 kilometers (15,000 ft) and 9/10
cirrostratus at an unknown altitude. Surface observations at launch time
are summarized in Table A-I. Solar radiation data are given in Table A-2.
Data were used from three of the upper air wind systems to compile the
final meteorological tape. Table A-3 summarizes the data systems used.
Wind speed was light in the lower levels. In the maximum dynamic pressure
region a peak speed of 9.6 m/s (18.7 knots) was observed at 11.40 kilo-
meters (37,400 ft). At higher altitudes the wind speed increased stead-
ily, as shown in Figure A-I.
The surface wind was from the south, but with altitude shifted clockwise
through west, north and then stayed easterly above 16 kilometers (52,490
ft) altitude, as shown in Figure A-2.
A-I
Table A-I. Surface Observations at AS-506 Launch Time
WIND
TIME PRES- TEM- DEW VlSI-
AFTER SURE_ PERATURE POINT BILITY AMOUNT SKY COVER HEIGHT SPEED DIR
LOCATION T-O N/CM z °K °K KM (TENTHS) TYPE OF BASE M/S (DEG)
(MIN) (PSlA) (°F) (°F) (STAT MI) (KNOTS)
i
180
Kennedy Space 0 10.203 302.6 297.0 16 1 Cumulus 700 1.0
Center, Station (14.80) (85.0) _75.0) (I0) (2400) (2.0)
Merritt Island, 2 iAlto- 4600
:lorida cumulus (15,000)
9 Cirro- high
stratus
18O
Cape Kennedy 13 10,195 303.0 297.5 ........ 1.0
Rawinsonde (14.79) (85.6) 75.7) (2.0)
Measurements
175
Pad 39A Lightpole 0 .............. 3,3
SE 18.3 m * (6.4)
(60.0 ft)
The surface pitch wind speed component was a tail wind of 0.3 m/s (0.6
knots). A maximum tail wind of 7.6 m/s (14.8 knots) was observed at
11.18 kilometers (36,680 ft) altitude. Head winds were observed above
15.0 kilometers (49,210 ft) altitude. See Figure A-3o
The yaw wind speed component was a wind from the right at the surface to
approximately 9.0 kilometers (29,530 ft) altitude. Winds from the left
prevailed above this altitude to 16.3 kilometers (53,480 ft) with a peak
yaw wind speed of 7.1 m/s (13.8 knots) at 12.1 kilometers (39,530 ft)
altitude. Above 16.3 kilometers (53,480 ft) yaw winds were from the
right. See Figure A-4.
The largest component wind shear (Ah = I000 m) in the altitude range of
8 to 16 kilometers (26,247 to 52,493 ft) was a pitch shear of 0.0077 sec -I
at 14.8 kilometers (48,490 ft). The largest yaw wind shear, in the lower
levels, was 0.0056 sec-I at 10.3 kilometers (33,790 ft). See Figure A-5.
A-2
Table A-2. Solar Radiation at AS-506 Launch Time, Launch Pad 39A
A.5.1 Temperature
A-3
SON033$ '3WI1 3ONV'd
If)
I I I I I I I I Ill I
/ i I
CO
E
°r--
p-
c-
c-
r0
__J
o
ro
\ (D I
\ w r_
\
\ .r--
S-
r0
(/3
L "T
i
,_- <'_ o cO _ '_ _
m_ '3GnlII7V °_
I.L
ALTITUDE, km
f _
I
]
i
I
k =
III I I I I I I I I I I I'
RANGETIME, SECONDS
"rl
c-
"S
i'D
ALTITUDE, km
I
co °_°
J
,._0 /
,-Jo
f
o
o')
"o
o
j t
0
3
z_
I 0
O7
i'D
I'-
o_
III I I I I I I I I I I I
fl) _ _ o_ _ _o o_ .....
oo o° o o_ o_ o_
o
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
-'h
co
I
ol
0
=rl
CQ
c-
("b
ALTITUDE, km
!
,,<
¢).,,
:Z
=E:
o oz
,.-,,
C.r)
J
Af,.r-- _J
('b
C)..
C_
0
,,_3:
o
!
.,.4
_-
:D'-
(1")
I
0
Oh
60
58
56 ¸ _, 150_
54 _
52 F#
5O
140
46 _
42 . 130
40
38
\
36
_.f
34
325%
_-#3o_
_: 28
J
22 _
I00
i
20 _
18 _
90
16
80
12
lO w
70
60
61_I',,_
4 50
"_ Ah = I000 METERS
I 4o
2 _. 1 30
20
0
0 .004 .008 .012 .016 0 .004 .008 .012 .016
Figure A-5. Pitch (Sx) and Yaw (Sz) Component Wind Shears
At Launch Time of AS-506
A-8
Table A-3. Systems Used to Measure Upper Air Wind Data for AS-506
RELEASE TIME
PORTION OF DATA USED
START END
TIME
TYPE OF DATA
TIME AFTER
TIME TIME
(UT) T-O ALTITUDE ALTITUDE
AFTER AFTER
(MIN) M M
T-O T-O
(FT) (FT)
(MIN) (MIN)
I i
Table A-4. Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region for
Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/Saturn 506 Vehicles
A-9
i
Table A-5. Extreme Wind Shear Values in the High Dynamic Pressure Region
for Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/Saturn 506 Vehicles
(Ah = I000 m)
VEHICLE
NUMBER ALTITUDE ALTITUDE
SHEAR SHEAR
KM KM
(SEC-I) (SEC-I)
(FT) (FT)
Atmospheric density deviations were small, being less than 5 percent de-
viation from the PRA-63 from the,surface to 29.8 kilometers (97,770 ft)
altitude. Density deviations increased above this altitude and reached
a peak of 10.3 percent at 46.0 kilometers (150,920 ft). Surface atmos-
pheric density was -2.1 percent of the PRA-63 surface density.
A-IO
6O
58
56
54
/ (
52
5O
f
48
46
(
44
/
\ /
42
40
k
f i
38
36
>
34
/ o
32
__ 3o /
<
I--
_ 28
26
f
24
22
< (
20
18
J
16
( P
14
12
I0
8
/ L_
<
6
0
-2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2
! 0 2 4 6 8 I0
I
12
-4
A-II
60
58
56 150
54
52
5O
48
140
46
44
42
130
40
38
36
34
12o
32 8
3O
28
110 _
26
24
22
100
2O
18
90
16
14
8O
12
7O
6O
4 5O
4O
2
' 30
20
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 -14 -12 -I0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
A-12
A.5.4 Optical Index of Refraction
At the surface, the Optical Index of Refraction was 12.9 x 10-6 units
lower than the corresponding value of the PRA-63. The deviation became
less negative with altitude, becoming a maximumpositive deviation of
2.43 x 10-6 greater than the corresponding value of the PRA-63 at 14.3
kilometers (46,920 ft). Above this altitude the Optical Index of Re-
fraction approximates the PRA-63 values.
A.6 COMPARISON
OF SELECTEDATMOSPHERIC
DATAFORSATURNV LAUNCHES
VEHICLE DATE TIFIE LAUNCH PRESSURE TEMPERA- RELATIVE WI_4D* CLOUDS MAXIMUM WIND IN 8-16 KM LAYER
NUMBER NEAREST COMPLEX N/CM 2 TURE °C HUMIDITY SPEED DIRECTION ALTITUDE SPEED DIRECTION
MINUTE PERCENT M/S DEG KM M/S DEG
AS-501 9 Nov 67 0700 EST 39A 10.261 17.6 55 8.0 70 I/IO cumulus 11.50 26.0 273
39A 10.200 20.9 83 5.4 132 5/10 stratocumulus ]3.00 27.1 255
AS-502 4 Apr 68 0600 EST
AS-503 21 Dec 68 0751 EST 39A 10.207 15.0 88 1.0 360 4/10 cirrus 15.22 34.8 284
AS-504 3 Mar 69 II00 EST 39A 10.095 19.6 61 6.9 160 lO/10 strato- 11.73 76.2 264
cumulus
*Instantaneous readings from charts at T-O from anemometers on launch pad at 18.3 m (60.0 ft) on launch complex 39 (A&B). Heights of anemometers
are above natural grade.
A-13/A-14
APPENDIXB
B.I INTRODUCTION
AS-506, sixth flight of the Saturn V series, was the fourth manned
Apollo Saturn V vehicle. The AS-506 launch vehicle was configured the
same as the AS-505 with significant exceptions as shown in Tables B-I
through B-4. The basic AS-506 Apollo II spacecraft structure and
components were unchanged from the AS-504 Apollo 9 configuration except
lunar module crew provisions were accompanied by portable life support
systems and associated controls required to accommodate extra vehicular
surface activity. The basic vehicle description is presented in Appendix B
of the Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report AS-504, Apollo 9
Mission, MPR-SAT-FE-69-4.
B-I
Table B-I. S-IC Significant Configuration Changes
B-2
Table B-3. S-IVB Significant Configuration Changes
B-3
Table B-4. IU Significant Configuration Changes
Added measurements:
Flight Launch pad choice from target Pad choice can be loaded with target-
Program tape. ing parameters from tape via the RCA-
IIOA. Eliminates necessity for re-
assembly of flight program due to
change of launch pad.
Deletion of program recogni- The program will not prevent a time base
tion of critical pairs of update from altering the time separation
switch selector commands. between any pair of switch selector com-
mands. It will be the responsibility of
ground controllers to maintain such re-
quirements if they exist.
B-4
Table B-4. IU Significant Configuration Changes (Continued)
Deletion of LH2 propel- The S-IVB residual LH2 dump was deleted,
lant dump. since velocity change requirements could
be satisfied otherwise.
MSFC--RSA, Ala
B-5/B-6
MPR-SAT-FE-69-9
APPROVAL
The information in this report has been reviewed for security classifica-
tion. Review of any information concerning Department of Defense or
Atomic Energy Commission programs has been made by the MSFC Security
Classification Officer. The highest classification has been determined
to be unclassified.
Stanley L. SFragge - I
Security Classification Officer
/_ Ire_c_ori_Sclence
" " and En-1
g'neering
Roy E. Godi_ey
Saturn Program Manager
DISTRIBUTION:
Headquarters, National Aeronautics & Space Administration Office of the Asst. Sec. of Defense for Research
Washington, D. C. 20546 and Engineering
Room 3EI065
Dr. Mueller, M
The Pentagon
Mr. Petrone, MO
Washington, D.C. 20301
Gen. Stevenson, MO (3 copies)
Attn: Tech Library
Mr. Hage, MO
Mr. Schneider, MO-2
Director of Guided Missiles
Capt. Freitag, MC
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Capt. Holcomb, MAO Room 3E131
Mr. White, MAR (2 copies)
The Pentagon
Mr. Day, MAT (I0 copies)
Washington, 0. C. 20301
Mr. Wilkinson, MAB
Mr. Kubat, MAP
Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Wagner, MAS (2 copies)
Washington, D.C. 20505
Mr. Armstrong, MB
Attn: OCR/DD/Publications (5 copies)
Mr. Mathews, ML (3 copies)
Mr. Lord, MT
Director, National Security Agency
Mr. Lederer, MY
Ft. George Mead, Maryland 20755
Attn: C3/TDL
Director, Ames Research Center: Dr. H. Julian Allen
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Sandia Corp.
Moffett Field, California 94035
University of California Radiation Lab.
Technical Information Division
Director, Flight Research Center: Paul F. Bikle
P. O. Box 808
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Livermore, California 94551
P. O. Box 273
Attn: Clovis Craig
Edwards, California 93523
Commanding General
Director, Langley Research Center: Dr. Floyd L. Thompson
White Sands Missile Range,
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
New Mexico 88002
Langley Station Attn: RE-L (3 copies)
Hampton, Virginia 23365
Commander
Manned Spacecraft Center
Arnold Engineering Development Center
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee 37389
Houston, Texas 77058
Attn: Tech Library (2 copies)
Attn: Director: Dr. Robert R. Gilruth, AA
Mr. Low. PA
Commander
Mr. Arabian, ASPO-PT (15 copies)
Air Force Flight Test Center
Mr. Paules, FC-5
Edwards AFB, California 93523
J. llamilton, RF (MSFC Resident Office) Attn: FTOTL
G. F. Prude, CF-33 (3 copies)
Commander
Director, Wallops Station: R. L. Krieger
Air Force Missile Development Center
National Aeronautics & Space Administration Holloman Air Force Base
Wallops Island, Virginia 23337 New Mexico 88330
Attn: Tech Library (SRLT)
Director, Western Operations Office: Robert _. Kamm
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Headquarters
150 Pico Blvd.
6570th Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC)
Santa Monica, California 90406
U. S. Air Force
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433
Scientific and Technical Information Facility
Attn: H. E. Vongierke
P. O. Box 5700
Bethesda, Maryland 20014
Systems Engineering Group (RTD)
Attn: NASA Representative (S-AK/RKT) (25 copies)
Attn: SEPIR
Wright-Patterson, AFB, Ohio 45433
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
AFETR (ETLLG-I)
Pasadena, California 91103
Patrick AFB, Florida 32925
Attn: Irl Newlan, Reports Group (Mail 111-122)
H. Levy, CCMTA (Mail 179-203) (4 copies)
EXTERNAL (CONT.)
Director
U. S. Naval Research Laboratory Chrysler Corporation Space Division
Washington, D.C. 20390 Huntsville Operation
Attn: Code 2027 1312 N. Meridian Street
Huntsville, Alabama 35807
Chief of Naval Research
Attn: J. Fletcher, Dept. 4830
Department of Navy M. L. Bell, Dept. 4830
Washington, D.C. 20390
Attn: Code 463
New Orleans, Louisiana 70129 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433
Attn: S. P. Johnson, Mail Stop LT-84
(lO copies) Mr. George Mueller
Structures Division
Mr. Norman Sissenwine_ CREW Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
Chief, Design Climatology Branch Research and Technology Division
Aerospace Instrumentation Laboratory Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433
Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories
L. G. Hanscom Field Mr. David Hargis
Bedford, Massachusetts 01731 Aerospace Corporation
Post Office Box 95085
Lt/Col. H. R. Montague Los Angeles, California 90045
Det. II, 4th Weather Group
Eastern Test Range Mr. H. B. Tolefson
Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 33564 DLD-Atmospheric Physics Branch
Mail Stop 240
Mr. W. Davidson NASA-Langley Research Center
NASA Resident Management Office Hampton, Virginia 23365
Mail Stop 8890
Martin Marietta Corporation Mr. Chasteen
Denver Division Sperry Rand
Denver, Colorado 80201
Dept. 223
Blue Spring Road
Huntsville, Ala.
4
EXTERNAL (CONT.)
J. E. Trader
NASA Resident Manager's Office
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Corp.
5301 Balsa Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92646
L. C. Curran
NASA Resident Manager's Office
North American Rockwell/Space Division
12214 Lakewood Blvd.
Downey, California 90241
L. M. McBride
NASA Resident Manager's Office
North American Rockwell/Rocketdyne
6633 Canoga Avenue
Canoga Park, California 91303
C. M. Norton
NASA Resident Manager's Office
International Business Machines
150 Sparkman Drive
Huntsville, Alabama 35804
N. G. Futral
NASA Resident Manager's Office
North American Rockwell/Space Division
69 Bypass NE
McA11ester, Oklahoma 74501
C. Flora
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Corp.
Sacramento Test Center
I1505 Douglas Avenue
Rancho Cardora, California 95670
W. Klabunde
Northrup
6025 Technology Drive
Huntsville, Alabama 35804
516