I

:~ ., '"" •. ;-; :":r'?

. '"
'a.
.
; /'
I ,I
!
I

I ,. ,
/
/
I

/ AN
-
I
I
I
I OT5
I
I IatC»C .,Ice F IF

IMf crof". 'r 101 ",' 11

ParQglider
I ···'·Y
I
I
I
I
i
I
I ; ;

I,:
rJ
,

1'1
I ;

~I

I ~.
 I
I
I
I
I
I
II THIS BROCHURE SUMMARIZED THE RESULTS OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO
INVESTIGATE THE "ROGALLO FLEX WING" FOR USE IN DRY LANDING BOOSTER
I RECOVERIES. THE STUDY WAS INITIATED JAN 20,1960 AND CONCLUDED WITH
I

I
I A TECHNICAL REPORT AND THIS MATERIAL PRESENTED AT NASA MARSHAL
!I SPACE FLIGHT CENTER AUGUST 15, 1961
I
I
I
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
The development of the Flexible Wing represents a major advance in the field of aerodynamic structure,
providing an extremely lightweight, aerodynamic lifting surface. Ryan engineering evaluation has lead to various
applications for the wing.
I
The Report presents the results of a technical and economic feasibility study to evaluate dry land recovery I
of the Saturn booster (employing the Rogallo Flexible Wing), and is submitted in accordance with the requirements I

of NASA Contract NAS-8-I50I. Both the C-l and C-2 Saturn booster configurations were analyzed at the request of
NASA with major emphasis directed toward the C-2. The investigations may be considered applicable to any other I
booster configuration, falling within the spectral burn-out conditions for the C-l and C-2.
I
I
I
I
I!
I:
 I
I
I
I
II
I -,
''< "~

I PROGRAM TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL

FEASIBILITY OF THE ROGALLO
I "FLEX WING" FOR SATURN
OBJECTIVE
I S-l BOOSTER DRY LAND RECOVERY ,
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
The study program considers the preliminary design of a complete recovery system based on the flexible I
wing concept. This design provides minimum attachment and modification to the booster. Therefore the recovery
system is a package type item and is not integral to the booster. Based on the preliminary design, a complete
operational and cost analysis of the booster recovery cycle evaluates the economic advantages of such a system as
I
compared to a non-recoverable booster.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I ":.' ,. . .. ,
I .,. . - _.}: . /Ri· . SYSTEM
I 2. METH .•. _. •.*.... "··,WITHMINI M
I MOD
. 3. C . &. &OST ANALY
I
I DEVELOPMENT PR
I
I PROGRAM SCOPE
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
Unlike the conventional wing composed of a rigid skin and a forming structure, the Flex Wing is composed
of a membrane of flexible material attached to three supporting members. The center keel and the two side members,
or leading edges, are joined at the foremost point to define a triangular envelope. The edges of the flexible membrane
I
are continuously attached to the leading edges and keel, which may be either inflatable or conventional as in a rigid
aircraft structure. If a rigid structure is used, a spreader bar may be used to force the wing leading edges to the I
desired fixed sweep angle rather than experience the aerodynamic variable sweep angles of free floating leading edges.
The wing suspension lines may attach directly to the booster, or to a control bar, which in turn is attached to the
booster. * Movement of the booster center of gravity longitudinally or laterally by the suspension lines controls
I
glide angle and provides coordinated turns.

*Control bar provides a favorable load distribution (and therefore lighter weight). It also improves
booster attitude during glide and landing maneuvers.

I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I LEADING EDGE-,

I MEMBRANE~

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fl.EX WING CHARACTERISTICS
I
I
I

I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
A large portion of the study was directed toward wing characteristics that would satisfactorily accomplish
the mission. The study also was to determine whether a recovery system designed for the C-l booster would be
satisfactory for the C-2. Wing geometry and configuration called for decision as to whether a rIgid or inflatable type
I
leading edge and keep should be employed. Analog and computer investigations determined stability and control
requirements for C. G. wing separation distances and landing flare reqUirements. Solutions to these problems pro-
vided the basis for preliminary design, permitting a complete definition to be made of the booster recovery cycle and
I
subsequent economic evaluation of this system against a non-recoverable system.
I
I !

I
I
I
 N 62 I I 50~
I "")

I
I ~
/
, I

I ~~- <
1. REQUIREIl W!NG--G£OMETRY ~/ / 'f

I
/ /
. ../ . ~

2. RELATrE AD~NT OF RIGID~~JA.Lf

I
3. STAOlflnrAND CONTROL ' ~~ENTS ,, "
I -~

.:t
4. LANDING FLAIR REQUIREMENTS ' /~1
I
5. DESIGN DEFINITION . / u/ f
I
6. DEFINITION OF THE BOOSTER RE-USE CYCLE 4'", ., ./-~
I
M
I -"
" '"
\ . ",-To. - .,' .- . '-" ~ ._... "''-.'' '-" '."-__
.
"- '" -> . . .b")ep
I
>= ./'"-

I PROBLEM AREAS
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
Basic wing aerodynamic data for the performance and stability and control investigations were derived
from wind tunnel tests conducted by Langley Research Center and Ryan. The figure shows estimated lift/drag ratio
and maximum lift coefficients for both rigid leading edge and inflatable leading edge booster recovery systems used
I
in the study analysis. Uncorrected data of the expected booster configuration obtained from a Ryan conducted wind
tunnel test is also shown. Corrections to this substantiate the estimated data used in the performance study. I
The higher the lift/drag ratio, the more favorable the gliding range. The rigid leading edge configuration
is superior aerodynamically because of lower sweep angles obtainable by spreader bar. Inflatable v.i ngs, where I
spreader bars are not used tend to seek higher sweep angles and, therefore, reduce lift/drag ratios.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~/ESTIMATED RIGID 1........,.1' 1l~,tiIIRII.

I UNCORRECTED
EOOE MODEL
t
I LIFT
I ,,'

ESTIMATED INFl.ATABl.f:
'

DRAG
.- L£ADlNG~'!":>~'.. V----.L.-.____
I ------- ---

I CL-MAX. RIGID= 1.15

I CL MAX .INFLAT ABLE =.95

I
I o· _10 20 30 40 50
-ANGLE OF ATTACK - a - DEGREE
I
I LIFT DRAG RATIO vs ANGLEOFATJACK ", )-; ..,',
.'~'~ '

I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
Studies of the booster burnout cover velocity ranges of 2000 to 3000 ft. per sec. at low altitudes for the
C-2, and 8000 to 8500 ft/sec at high altitudes for the C-l. Trajectory studies of these burnout conditions indicate that
the C-2 recovery requires a high dynamic pressure deployment capability, while the C-l deployment will occur at I
very low dynamic pressure. Due to higher energy of C-l missions, re-entry will occur at a considerable distance
down range from launch site. Dry landing for these missions must occur at an offshore island installation. The
C-2 missions, in contrast, may be studied for return flight to launch site. Booster missions within this burnout-
I
velocity-altitude-spectrum should yield conclusions similar to those studied.
I
I

I
I
I
I
I 280,000

I 240,000
I -
......
~ C-l

I -
'7'C)
><
L.a.I
200,000

c
I ==
~ 160,000
I -.==....
--'
<

0 I

z: 120,000 • ESCAPE
I 0:::
:::)
a::lI
a:::: IJ SATELL ITE t.
k
•

I .....
L.a.I
V)
o .
C)
80,000 8 + RE-ENTRY
a::lI
C-2 A DYNA SOAR
I
40 ,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
I BOOSTER BURNOUT VELOCITY (FT./SEC.)
I BOOSTER BURNOUT STUDY CONDITIONS
I
I -
 I
I
I
I
I
A typical C-l recovery trajectory is illustrated in the picture. Wing deployment mayor may not occur
at booster burnout. Deployment of the wing at booster burnout may provide a degree of stability to the booster as I
exit occurs. A positive system, however, of maintaining wing-booster separation distance must be provided.
Wing deployment at this time also results in a slight decay of the re-entry energy, thus tending to reduce both booster
loads and re-entry heat flux. Under most C-l missions this energy reduction is not Significant.
I
If wing deployment occurs at apogee, or in the space free atmosphere, a wing erection system and booster
orientation is required. The advantage of such a deployment is the relative ease by which the deployment may be
I
made.

Wing deployment after re-entry will result in reduced wing temperature, and therefore lighter weight
I
at the expense of the booster dissipating a Significant portion of the re-entry energy. This dissipated energy is also
unavailable for maneuvering flight, thus reducing the landing foot print area. I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I 500

I 400

I -"---....

...-/'

I
"

- ' ... ".",...t,..,, ~

.
, .:.........
" ~"'--

I
TIME EVENTS
I 1 0 LAUNCH
2 129.3 BURN OUT/ WING
I DEPLOYMENT
3 249.3 APOGEE
4 359.3 RE -ENTRY
I 11 NAUTICAL MILES 5 589.3 ENTER GLIDE PHASE
USE REMAINING ALTITUDE
I SAMPLE C-l CONFIGURATION (DYNASOAR)
FOR EXECUTION OF GLIDE
TO LANDING SITE.
I
I
 I I

I
I
I
I
I
Peak re-entry load factors for the C-l re-entry and escape missions, are illustrated in the figure as
a function of wing loading and wing trim angle of attack. Wing deployment occurred at booster burnout. These load
factors are normal to and along the trajectory flight path. At higher angles of attack, represented by the C L Max
I
and high drag curves, the resultant load factor is significantly reduced. This is due to a more effective reduction
of the re-entry energy by higher drag at the higher altitude. By properly orienting the booster along the flight I
path, loads may be directed most favorably to the booster. The vertical load factor of four, or less, is the maximum
allowable for the C-l and C-2 configurations. The allowable longitudinal load factor is higher than the values ex-
perienced. The C-l trajectory therefore requires a lower wing loading to minimize loads imparted to the booster. I
I
I
I,
I
I
.,
I
I
I G-1 RE-ENTRY & ESCAPE MISSION

I
I
16 .. LID MAX .

~><
I
I
a::::
0
t-
<:.,j
<:
12 '"
Cl MAX.
- z
o
t-
I

a::::
<:.,j
-12
HIGH DRAG
-
~

c:::::l
--~~ _ c:::::l

I <:
0
....... 8 <
c....... -8
....... .......
<:
<
I -a:::: -~ -c
c.,:)
HIGH DRAG :z:
t- LID MAX.

-
L.Io.I ::;:)
>- 4
II
t::: -4
I c:.:l
:z:
0
.......
I ! I

o 8 16 24 o 8 16 24
I WING LOADING wIs (LB. 1FT. 2 ) WING LOADING wIs (LB./ FT.2 )
I
PEAK LOAD FACTORS vs WING LOADING
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
The trajectory shown is for the C-l Dynasoar mission along the 110° range boundary aximuth. This par-
ticular trajectory is within the effective atmosphere of a much larger segment of the flight than the other C-l
trajectories studied. Therefore, the aerodynamics provide a much larger landing footprint area, representing a
I
maximum for the C-1. The wind profiles are based on two sigma conditions, 97% maximum expected, occurring in
the Cape Canaveral area, and are considered acting continuously along the flight path. Turns are initiated at booster I
burnout. Except under extreme wind conditions, dry land recovery for the C-l cannot be made without some form
of augmentation or retrieval system.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(J STA. 3
. ,

FLOIUOA
~.
I (;RAND BAHAMA ISLAND

I', :

: •
I t,

I ,,
,
"

." "
I •
,-
• •,
". C-t DYNA-SOAH l\l/S:-;ION

I
110" LAL'NCH A/t~ll;nl

2xlO~' li~ln)

~
4\10')

... I I ~ ITT

I
~CALF.

. .
"

C-1 GLIDE CAPABILITY

I
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
The re-entry temperature (stagnation conditions) for the critical C-l re-entry missions are shown as
a function of wing loadings and angle of attack. Stagnation line temperatures along the leading edge will be several I
hundred degrees lower, with still lower membrane temperatures. Increasing angle of attack and decreasing wing
loading produces decreasing temperatures. This is caused primarily by energy decay of the recovery occurring
at the higher altitudes. Stagnation temperature for this critical condition may be kept within the limits of metals
I
(1900 to 2000°). Although not shown, cable temperatures will be higher and may require some form of protection.
Temperatures are computed according to acceptable procedures, and adjusted according to experimental data, and
are shown for a I-foot radius nose section with an emissivity of .9. Conclusions from this analysis indicate that
I
for high energy re-entries, low wing loadings for low temperature results are required.
I
I
I

I
I
I
2,400 22.5°
I ANG~lE~O~F~An!!AC~K~-~1iT""'--
I 2,200

I -
01.&.. 2,000
--:'
C-l RE-ENTRY MISSION
I
Q..
:E
LI.J

~ 1,800
I ::z:
<=:)
Q..

I 9..... 1,600
c:c
:z:
I c.!:J

~
V')
1,400
I
1,200
I
1,0000
I 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
WING LOADING w/s - (LB./FT. 2 )
I
STAGNATION POINT TEMPERATURE vs WING LOADING
I
I
 I I

I
I
I
I
I
Shown here is the wing temperature distribution for the critical C-1 Satellite mission. This was computed
for wing loadings of 3.96 at an angle of attack of 40 0 • The angle of attack is a design compromise. Lower angles I
produce higher stagnation temperatures, but higher angles result in higher membrane temperatures because of
proximity of the oblique shock wave to the wing surface. Temperature distribution is shown for the wing root and
four wing chord stations, the data being based on the flow parameters experienced for this type of membrane shape. I
The wing surface radiates from both sides. Shown is a stagnation temperature of 1600 0 falling along the leading
edge stagnation line to about 1100 0 • Eighty percent of the membrane falls within 1,000 0 to 4,000 0 temperature,
and is found to decrease toward the tip.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I OF TEMPERATURE
1,600

I OF
1,400 1,600
I
1,200 1.400 1,600
I
1.000
I ,
800
1,400 1,600 •,,
I ,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I WING SURFACE TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION
I
 I
I
I
I
I
The trajectory profile used for the C-2 mission analysis is shown here. A stabilizing parachute is
I
deployed at booster burnout in place of wing deployment, which, if deployed at this time would produce (because of
severe dynamic pressures) loads exceeding the booster limits. During coasting of booster to somewhat higher
altitude and at lower velocities approximately 18 seconds after burnout, the wing is deployed and the turning maneuver
I
commanded. After completion of approximately 180 0 turn, the wing booster system is allowed to glide back toward
the launching area. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -
I 100
.'

I I- 80
,...,'-'-
I I

c::>

><
60
80
I L.U
0
::::>
t:::
40
l-
--' 20
I <

0 - 48 TIME EVENT
I 30
• 20 1. :\
40 1 0 LAUNCH
2 116.4 BURN OUT / CHUTE
t4~ 10 24 DEPLOYMENT
I ~4t 0
,.f>4,fa 10
~) ,'\ . 3 134,4 CHUTE SEPA RA TION ,/ WING
DEPLOY ME NT TUR N EXECUTION
8 \~
l'-t 20 ~\)~ i- 4 176 4 APOGEE
I If) ',J 30
o
~~~ 5 254 4 "COMPLETE TURN AROUND
f'! ~~~ I ENTER GLIDE PHASE

I 6 425 .0 COMPLETE FLYBACK USE

REMAININ G ALTITUDE FOR
C-2 MISSION PROFILE EXECUTION OF LANDING PH ASE
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The wind profiles used for all C-l and C-2 wind analyses are based on 2 sigma conditions occurring within
the Cape Canaveral area. These winds were applied along the trajectories throughout the glide. 95% winds are
shown to display the severity of the two sigma wind condition.
I
I
I
I! I

I
I
I
r _. - - -- ----

,I
I 60, ,"
I
I 50

I
....: 40
.....
I
I
I
20
I
I 10

I
I 80 ?:~". ." 160 200 140
WINDVEIJJCtTY:- Fl./SEC.
I ALTITUOEv~!f~~ 'INO"VELOCITY
;~~t~ '. ,.'/~ ,:.
I '- "','

I
 I
I
I
I
While the C-1 recovery system apparently will be designed to meet re-entry loading and temperature I
conditions, optimization of the C-2 recovery is primarily based on dry landing considerations. The figure shows the
return glide range as a function of wing loading and wind conditions for the critical C-2 re-entry test mission and
Dynasoar mission. The shaded area represents land recoveries, and the clear area represents water recoveries.
I
The return range is measured from the launch site. All tail winds and zero wind conditions result in dry landing.
For the head wind conditions, a wing loading range between 10 and 16 will provide some dry landing. This analysis
is applicable to all C-2 missions except the Dynasoar mission, as illustrated in the figure. This mission, however,
I
will allow dry landing recoveries under 95% wind. Under head wind conditions, the low sin~ing speeds occurring
with lower wing loading result in a more adverse wind effect during return glide. At higher wing loadings and there-
fore lower LID, the resulting higher sin!dng speeds are insufficient to offset the lower glide range. The intermediate
I
wing loadings, therefore, present a compromise between these two extremes.
I
I
I
I
I
~I
I
I
800,000
I
- - - C-2 RE-ENTRY TEST MISSION
I C-2 DYNA-SOAR
WIIIIlIII!III II III IIUlIP

600 ,000
I ~
L.I..
TAIL WIND '
•
I L.A.J
c..::l
z:
<I: 400 ,000
ex:

I L.A.J

-c...o
C
- -'
ZERO WIND
I z:
ex:
;:::::)
I-- 200,000
L.A.J

I c:::

I
I ° 1\\II\I,,'\ I\\\I\\\lll'"
\I""" Il
l\\t\\n\\IlI\ \lUI10
I\IIHlllll1l1l 11111111111111111 111 11 1111 11 1J1J1I11 111II1 I I

HE AD WIN D
III/ II IUI/IlI/IIIIII!

~ \\,\\\\\\\

200,000
I I _
L....-_ _ _...._ _ _ _......

4 8 · 12
_ _--..1...._ _ _--..I....
1
' _

16
__ --'

20
I WING LOADING (LBS 1FT 2)
GLIDE RANGE vs WING LOADING
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As previously stated, all C-2 missions with the exception of the Dynasoar mission will allow for dry land
recoveries under all launch aximuths. Dynasoar mission will allow for dry land recoveries only under reduced
winds (95%). The system energy while under zero and tail wind conditions may be dissipated off shore in turn maneu- I
vers. The vehicle need not penetrate the land area, as shown on the figure.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I N

I t

I /
/
·1 · 1,-\ t"\( t! A I nIl'" H

I ~ .. .
~

I
I
I
I
I ~. j

\' )~
" l'\l 'C"il.'lL\llll i

I : ..
C-2 FLY BACK CAPABILITY
I
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
The limits of the available materials are illustrated here as a material efficiency factor versus temperature.
This material efficiency factor represents the ultimate unit failure load divided by the material density. As seen from I
the figure, metal foil presents the highest strength weight over the temperature range to about 1800°. Foil, however,
is not as flexible for folding as fabrics. To increase the handling qualities, dacron material with Polyester coating,
as shown, would be adequate for the C-2 temperature environment. For the operating range between 450 and 1, OOO°F
I
ceramic fibers (not shown) with proper coating appear to offer considerable promise. In the higher temperatures,
however, wire mesh or foil with silicone coating may be required. I

I
I
D
I
I
I - --c - 1 ------.- -._- ----------- ------
I 6,000 -- c - 2- -I
I I
AM 355 FOIL 350 KSI
5,000
I >-
c...,;)
z: RENE 41 FOil 290 KSI
I -
u..I

- 4,000
c...,;)
LoI-
L0l-
u..I

I --J
<
- 3,000
0 ::
u..I

I t-
<
DACRON POL VESTER COATING
:IE
SILICONE COATED RENE 41 WIRE MESH
I 2,000 ••
I ••••
~
1,000 ••
I ••

I
200 450 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
I TEMPERATURE - FO
MATERIAL EFFICIENCIES vs TEMPERATURE
I
I J
 I
I
I
I
I
A comparison of the construction of the rigid leading edge and flexible leading edge in terms of wing plus
I
cable weight are here presented. The number of cables used in the analysis -- 8 per supporting member -- is a deter-
mined optimum from previous analysis. All material has been worked to maximum stress levels allowable. The
effect of available material thicknesses has not been considered. Typical aircraft construction material has been
I
selected and the structure was designed by limiting buckling criteria. This structure also includes a wing spreader
bar and attachment fittings. The inflatable design includes a completely pressurized system with nitrogen supply of I
5,000 pSi, decreasing to 5 psi during inflation. Total wing load is assumed equal to 400,000 lbs., which is eqUiva-
lent to a limit load factor of 4 at a gross weight of 100,000 lb. A margin of safety of 25% is included in the analysis.
The figure clearly illustrates the significant weight reductions that may be obtainable with inflatable leading edge
I
and keel designs.
I
I
I
I
 - - - - -

I
I
I
RIGID LEADING EDGES"
I 10.000

I -
V') , INFLATABLE LEADING EDGES
I -sa
QC
--'
t-
:::c 1,000 NW == 400,000
I L.W
3:
......
I --'
QC
c::c
(".)

+ 100
I c.!:J
a!:
3:

I
I 10
0 50 100 150 200 250
I KEEL LENGTH (A) FT.

I WING PLUS CABLE WEIGHT vs KEEL LENGTH

INFLATABLE LEADING EDGE
I
I
 I
I
I
The preliminary design was, at the request of NASA, oriented towards a C-2 recovery system. The
wing concept comparison shown on the figure, therefore, is for the C-2 missions only. Design for the C-l mission
may have resulted in an entirely different flexible wing concept due to the higher re-entry energies and down range
I
recovery distance.
I
The comparison shows the higher LID's that may be obtainable with the rigid leading edge type of design.
This, of course, is due to the spreader bar which positions the wing to a more favorable aerodynamic configuration.
The higher LID's will provide dry landings for all C-2 missions except the Dynasoar misSion. Therefore, range I
augmentation or a retrieval system is not required with the rigid leading edge design. The weight of the complete
recovery system is 2% higher for the rigid leading edge than for the inflatable leading edge. This recovery system
weight includes wing, suspension system, control system, and landing system, and is expressed as a function of the
I
total gross weight recovered.

Packaging of a rigid leading edge design is much more difficult than an inflatable deSign. Experience at
I
Ryan has shown that inflatable deSigns, because of their flexibility, can be almost as densely packaged as a parachute
of equivalent Sinking speed. I
Deployment characteristics of the rigid and inflatable leading edge designs have not been fully evaluated.
The rigid leading edge lends itself to a high "q" (dynamic pressure) type of deployment because of ability to control I
the wing angle of attack during this phase. Experience has shown that the inflatable leading edge design, however,
is extremely difficult to control during deployment. It is believed, therefore, that this type of system will lend itself
only to a low "q" deployment. I
Because of the dry landing capability and high "q" deployment of a rigid system, this system is required
for accomplishing the basic C-2 missions.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I RIGID LE INFLAT ABLE lE
I MAXIMUM GLIDE LID = 3.85 LID =2.5
DRY LANDING CAPABILITY NO DRY LANDING
I FOR ALL C - 2 MISSIONS CAPABILITY
EXCEPT DYNA - SOAR
I
STRUCTURE WEIGHT 8% RECOVERED WEIGHT 60/0 TO 8% RECOVERED WT.
I
I PACKAGING MORE DIFFICULT . COMPARATIVEL Y
SIMPLE
I DEPLOYMENT HIGH "G" DEPLOYM·ENT ., LOW "G"
I CAPABILITY DEPLOYMENT
CAPABILITY
~,' i.

I REQUIRED FOR
MISSION
I
RIGID LEADING EDGE
I vs
INFLATABLE LEADING EDGE
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The basic design features for the C-2 recovery system are the rigid leading edge and keel; wing with
fabric membrane; and cable suspension system, supported to a rigid control bar, which in turn is supported at
specific booster attach fitting locations. This system has the proper cabling for c. g. shift for pitch control and I
coordinating turning.
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
(1.10YSTAld
I KEEL 50% C KEEL (1.10 YSTALL)
.50% KEEL
~(MAX LID) / (MAX LID)
\
/ MEMBRANE ~-lt.--'"', - I fa = 19 °
I --=--~
~ LEADING EDGE
___

~ l-'
/

~=29rr - 'i :
i.
W
\ \ I I

I // ./
._~
\
\ \
.',
I /
I "
!

I ,//
////

I
)(I!:::t:r~~ ~NTROL BAR KEEL CABLES/ \ ' V"
FlXED" &~r ' " .
" :IT~:~ONTROL
I \rI ~ PITCH CONTROL CABLES PITCH CABLE CABLE
°
~ROLL CONTROL CABLES ROLL CONTROL CABLES
r---.J.......,--+!--------:;;,.",·a B=0 FOR
I ~~

- -- ..,-= -
,
""t+-"""'-:;.-:-::=::::---- •.
(MAX LID)
II - --- . a B=+5°FOR
I I I ~J CG TRAVELS 1.10 YSTud
STA STA FA STA
34~~OSTA. 791309
I 22 187
STA. 387

I RIGID LOADING EDGE DESIGN CONFIGURAliON

I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lllustrated here is the deployment mechanism suggested for the C-2 design. During deployment the
spreader bar and deployment pulley traverse the keel on a special keel structural track. Movement of this mech-
anism is by the tangential loads applied (during deployment) to the pulley by a wing supporting cable. The spreader I
bar in the fully extended position provides a wing sweep of 50°.
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
/ UADING EDGE
I
I WING
SPREADER BAR

I
I
I KEEl

I
I
I DETAIL "A"

I
I DEVELOPMENT MECHANISMS
I
I J
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conventional structure has been used in the leading edge and keel design. All material is of high strength
and designed to meet buckling characteristics of the section. Load paths for the membrane leading edge and keel
cabling and spreader bars have been provided to minimize bending and torsional deflection.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I i

I
nrl
I
I
I MEMBRANE
I
I
I
I "'" /'--- - 10.0 L i / _ - MEMBRANE LEADING EDGE SECTION
I , I f "": I
.125 4.5
I
I ~~=J-.l 12.0
l ~_ _
I
I
,~

.125 4.25
L=< _
I ~8.6 -/
KEEL Sl AIION
I SECTION DESIGN
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
The wing is folded at the 50% keel and leading edge length to allow storage between the fuel tankage and
within this same volume, but within a separate tankage area. Cabling which connects the wing and control bar is
I
crossed over the tank and held by tension wires. Both wing and control bar are supported at the booster structural
spider frames. The booster stability parachute is stored within a temperature insulated container mounted in the
thurst nozzle mounting area. Upon command it is deployed. At the proper time sequence the wing is forcibly
I
ej ected and deployed into the flying configuration. Air loads from the wing separate the control bar from the booster
storage area. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d
I
I
I t

I ''1
',I
')
I
,

I LEADING EDGE (CONTROL BAR)

I LEADING EDGE (WING) SPREADER BAR

(CONTROL BAR)
I SPREADER BAR (WINGl' . \ K~EL (CONTROL BAR)
I KEEL (WING)
I .. _-

I
I MEMBRANE (WING)
I
I PACKAGING & DEPLOYMENT
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The packaging and ejection of the recovery system are shown in the plan view. Rotation of the aft 50%
of the wing, provided by the upper head of the forward ejection hammer, occurs during initial ejection. Shortly
I
after impact, the lower head of the forward ejector and the aft ejector contact the forward 50% section. This com-
pletely separates the wing from the booster.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I WING &FAIRING DOOR EJEGTOR WING &FAIRING DOOR EJECTOR
I STA. 191.30 / / MEMBRANE AFT KEEL FORWARD KEEL
II /
I
I ; ""1 \ ..
" >..

I
I
I
I PACKAGING &EJECTION
I
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
The suggested nose gear and rear main gear uses conventional landing skis. The nose gear, mounted on
the forward booster and containing a tungston contact surface for minimum drag, is extended on command by a
I
pneumatic system. The aft main gear is also retractable and provides a copper contact surface for maximum drag.
Utilizing these two different contact surfaces will give a degree of directional stability to the booster during ground
run. If this directional stability is marginal, use of a nose wheel in place of the ski is proposed. The rear main
I
and outrigger extension schematic is also shown.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STA. 781.3 (REF.) STA. 189.5 (REF.) STA. 118.0 (REF.)
I I I

I FmlNG INCLUDES
BOOSTER TIE
DOWN LUG
I
OlEOS LATCH IN
I 15.0 STROKE OOWN PosmON

I 24.0 STROKE
I
~~
l ~~~~
1--·
- - - - - -- 107.50 - -- - \ - - - - - 1

I COPPER BOTTOM
AFT MAIN
I TUNGSTEN BonOM PRESSURE BOTTLE

PRESSURE
-~ ~-j-L . - ~[ ~ ~
I 1-·- - 50.50 .. I AIR MOTOR REGULATOR PRESSURE REGULATOR
AIR MOTOR
I NOSE GEAR
OLEO
OLEO
OLEO 1lE0
I
REAR MAIN AND OUTRIGGER SCHEMATIC
I LANDING GEAR
'I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The outrigger skis are used to provide lateral support to the booster during the ground run. A tungston
contact surface is provided for min. drag. The system is retractable and stored within the booster container.

I
I
I
I
I
STA. 118.0 (REF)
I I B. L. 88.25 (REF)

I LOCALLY DISHED TO ACCOMODATE GEAR

I DOWN POSITION LATCH "'~-_I------

o I
EXPLOSIVE BOLT

I 1-- ,--
I /

-------.
~~

.
- - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... '"
---- --___.
_------ ---
.
--_.
----- - ~'_r' .\
AIR MOTOR .~"~' -~
I --------_-/ ,I
-.... ..r----i.•• _/ .'~ \!
I
/

II
, ~.

I TUNGSTEN BOTTOM
.
I .\

1---2---
\ 60.00 -----1

I
I OUTRIGGER SKI SYSTEM
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
Shown here is the control cabling which provides c. g. shift for the turning and pitch maneuvers. Three
I
separate hydraulic motors are required, all driven by a single hot gas motor. A single hydraulic motor provides
pitch control cable actuation. The remaining two hydraulic motors, when actuated differentially, provide c. g. shift
for the turning maneuver, and, when driven in unison and in conjunction with the pitch control hydraulic motor, pro-
I
vide booster attitude orientation in the flight path.
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
I /
/
/

I
POWER
I
I OUTRIGGER________../ / //'
/
/
/

I
/
/
/
/
/
/

I
/
/
/

POWER /

I ~ROll CONTROL
I
~PITCH CONTROL
I

I
I /
/
/
///'~BOOSTER
//

I
I CONTROL CABLING
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The control power unit suggested for the system considers the conventional hot gas motor with hydraulic I
driven power motors. Fuel is provided by the helium pressurized hydrazine tank.

I
I
I
I
I
I
PITCH CONTROL SPROCKET CHAIN ROLL CONlROL CABLE
I HOT GAS MOTOR

I HYDRAZITE TANK
HELIUM TANK

I ROLL CONlROL CABLES ~=-:::::::~~::;j

I ROLL CONTROL WINCH 2 REQ'D. - ~~~~~~~-~:~-!~~=~~=~l=~~~--~-~~~-~-4..JL-~ - -::::J

ROLL CONTROL HYD. MOTORS 2 REQ'D. _______ CENTER BEAtA
I HOT·GAS MOTOR ~--
PRESSURE REGULATOR
I HYD. FILTER
GAS GENERATOR ~ ~ - - ---------~
\.
'.'

.
r "~

THROTTlE VALVE: ~~ LEADING EDGE BEAM

I HYD. PUMP

I
I
I /
PITCH CONT. CABLE
EXHAUST BY PASS VALVE ROLLER CHAIN
/
I SERVO VALVE
SELF PRESSURIZING RESERVOIR
CONTROL SYSTEM
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
The static longitudinal stability of the wing booster system is illustrated here by the wing position angle {3
as a function of wing angle of attack O!. Three separate c. g. positions are shown: the booster maximum forward
and aft with residual fuel, and the neutral or zero fuel case. The area of negative or diving moments is shown in
I
the left side of any particular c. g. trim line, while the right side is presented by positive or upsetting moments. As
seen from the figure, the system is completely stable from an angle of attack of 30{3 or lower. Any disturbance,
such as a gust which brings momentary angle of attack change from trim position, will be compensated by the proper
I
restoring moments. Between 30 and 40 degrees, one degree of neutral stability exists, and near C L maximum
longitudinal stability again is reached. The separation of each of the c. g. trim lines illustrates the high tolerance
requirement placed on knowing the c. g. position if a satisfactory glide angle (and therefore angle of attack) is required.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 60
,
I
aw
I ~~
5°0 AFT NEUTRAL 5% FWD
\
3
~
50 - .--'-"---.
I
I
NEGATIVE
I MOMENT .- POSITIVE MOMENT
I
I
I 20

I
10 "--_--'--__ -----"-
1 _ _-1...
1 _ _- ' - - _ - - - II

I 90 95 100 105 110

WING POSITION - /J - NEG
I
STATIC TRIM REOUIREMENTS
I
I
 I
I
I
Requirements for stability augmentation for the C-2 recovery system are illustrated in this figure. They
do not, however, apply to all flexible wing recovery systems. Different missions and applications of the wing call
for different stability requirements.
I
1. Dynamic analysis indicated a slight phougoid during glide mode, though subsequent analysis leaves I
some doubt of its existance. This phougoid is believed detrimental to the landing maneuver because of the long
period oscillation about the flight path.
I
2. The c. g. boundary limits experienced by any reSidual fuel will be sufficient to offset the desired
flight path if c. g. is not known and proper corrections made. A system is required, therefore, to provide the correct
angle of attack in the flight path regardless of center of gravity location.
I
3. A pitch rate equivalent to 1. 5 ft/sec. is incurred on landing if booster attitude is not controlled.
Although not sufficient reason in itself for stability augmentation, this is one of the advantages to be gained by use
I
of such a system.
I
4. Wind tunnel data analysis indicates that the C-2 recovery system possesses a marginal degree of
lateral stability at high angles of attack. To accomplish dry land recovery, turn maneuvers at high lefts are required.
I
5. Characteristic of all high altitude vehicles is the decrease in wing damping at high altitudes. Low
lateral stability at high angles of attack require stability augmentation if high lift turns are necessary.
I
6. Spiral divergence, characteristic of all winged vehicles, must be eliminated.
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
1. PHOUGOID --
I
I
I 2. CG TRAVEL - - - --
I
I 3. PITCH RATE. EQUIVALENT
TO 1.5FT./SEC. ON LANDING
I
I 4. DIFFICULTY AT FLYING HIGH LIFT TURNS - - - - --
5. INSUFFICIENT DAMPING AT HIGH ALTITUDE
I AT HIGH LIFT
I
6. SPIRAL DIVERGENCE ••_ - --=_::::-.i
I
I
REQUIREMENTS FOR STABILITY AUGMENTATION
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
A typical landing profile for the recovery system as a function of altitude and horizontal approach and I
landing distance is given in this figure. Approach speed is 110 lmots, with 60 feet per second sink speed. The booster
is oriented to the ground horizontal attitude by the flight control reference system. Flare is initiated at approxi-
mately 250 ft. altitude. Flare is controlled automatically from the ground by a programmed rate of sink as a
I
function of altitude. Booster touchdown occurs between 60 and 70 lmots and 2 to 5 ft. per second sink speeds.
Booster ground contact attitude is 5° or less. The wing is allowed to stay attached for approximately 280 feet
ground run distances to provide booster directional stability during ground run. Thereafter (and at a velocity of
approximately 40 lmots) the wing is released from the booster and falls back to the ground. The booster total
landing ground run distance is approximately 653 feet.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
v.;,~.' _ "

I 500 :~. HO KNOTS

.!
60 FT./SEC.
I
I Cr~
'0/ .
L.&.I

I § 300
t:::
~
~~ 100 KNOTS .
ct
I
I
200
f FT SEC
./
~ 90 KNOTS
T.D.
60·70 KNOTS
f?rl -'~ 2·5 Fl./SEC. 40 KNOTS
100 i~l ~ 20 Fl./SEC. r : =- 553 Fl:-
I r--2 ~ Fl; 1 .
.' ... j

I O~~~~~~~--~--~--~~~~~~~
o 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,400 1.800 2,200 2,600 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600
I HORIZONTAL DISTANCE

I LANDING PROFILE
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
Landing ground run distance for 30 ft. per second head wind, tail wind, and no wind conditions are
I
shown on this figure as a function of the ground friction coefficient. The copper contact surface for the main gear
landing skis provides the greatest retardation, and distances, therefore, can be estimated using this value. Check-
ing with the Figure, it is seen that ground run distances of over 1,000 feet are not expected.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I 0.8

I 30 FT.jSEC. ZERO WINO 30 FT./SEC. TAIL WINO

.....
HEAD WIND
I ~
c..,)
......
0.6
......
I L.I.J
C)
c..,)

::z:

I 52
~
a::
COPPER
0.4t-----~r-----~--------l1t: ,.__-
......
I
I TUNGSTEN
0.2 t--------~---_:___-~-

I
o 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
I LANDING GROUND - RUN
I FRICTION COEFFICIENT vs LAND ING GROUND-RUN
I
I
 II
I
I

II
II
I!
II
I
II
Various operational stages of the booster reuse cycle for cost evaluation are shown here. I

d
I
I
I TRANSPORT FROM FAB.
TO STORAGE STORAGE
I DEPLOYMENT

I
I
I
I
TRANSPORT
LAUNCH
I TO STORAGE
TURN & GLIDE
I TRANSPORT TO REFURBISHING
SITE
I ~ ~ ~ , ===-=::;::==n1
I
I BOOSTER RE-USE CYCLE ~
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
The probability of booster reuse in a program of 12 firings a year is shown as a function o.f the number of
I
boosters required. Probability values are based on the accumulative reliability of the various segments and
components of the total recovery system and its mission. Analysis indicates that maximum booster reuse probability
is .732, while minimum probability reuse is .579. These values represent expected fabrication and refurbishing
I
requirements to sustain a program of 12 firings per year.
I
I
I
I
I I

II
I
I
I
1.000
I
I 0.800
I - 0.732

I
-
c..
~
V')
~
a:::

0.600 ANTICIPATED RANGE OF PR

~
I

0:::
0.579
I .......
C)

>-
to-
I .....I
al
c:z::
0.400
al
~\,
I C)
0:::
c.. ~~ "4~
~
0.200 S~~ -1~4'
I @-
¢'S 4>4-'l'
I 0
I 2 4 6 8
BOOSTERS PER YEAR
10 12 14

I
PROBABILITY OF RE-USE vs BOOSTER FABRICATION AND REFURBISHING RATES
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
An additional expression of the probability of reuse is the number of launches per booster required for
a given program. For this program of 12 firings a year, the launches per booster varied from 2.38 for a probability
of reuse of .579, to 3.74 launches. This boundary of launches per booster is used in the economic evaluation study.
I
Ii I
I

I
I
I.
I
I
I
5.0
I
I
4.0
I a:::
LA.J
~
V)
0
I 0
QQ

a:::
LA.J
3.0
I 0-
V)
LA.J
ANTICIPATED RANGE OF
:::z=
LAUNCHES PER BOOSTER
I c..;)
z:
:;:,
4:

I --' 2.0
~ \\~'t FARNICA TIOI(
I ~\\~\~~\~
\\t~ NATE
I 1.0
2 4 6 8 10 12
I BOOSTER PER YEAR
I LAUNCHES PER BOOSTER vs BOOSTER FABRICATION
I AND REFURBISHING RATES
I
 I
I
Comparative cost study results for three different percent refurbishing rates are shown here as a function
I
of average launches per booster vs. booster program savings. The refurbishing rate is expressed as a percent
of the original booster cost. A refurbishing rate of 20% is expected for the recovery program because of its auto-
matic features and simplicity of the landing maneuver. Cost estimates used in this evaluation are:
I
Recovery system development 15,000,000 I
Recovery operating equipment costs
Storage facility
Launch check equipment
147,000
300,000
I
Deploy-glide and Landing
Landing facilities 10,000,000
Flight & landing control equip. 1,350,000
Inspection and Refurbishing facilities 3,000,000
Booster transportation equipment 500,000
Personnel requirements per year 3,300,000
Recovery system unit cost
Booster unit cost
375,000
9,000,000
I
I
I

I
 I
I
I PROGRAM COST WITHOUT .RECOVERY =1.3 BILLION
PROGRAM DURATION 12 YRS.
I LAUNCH RATE 12 YRS.
I 4.5
:1
!

CI:
La.I
1-.
E=60
....._.- ..-._-----_.
E=40 E= 20
---
V)
=
= _.-..... _._-----------------
I :
L.r.I
3.5
CL..

I .....
V)
:z:
~ 2.5
I S
.....
c,.s:,
I cc
~ 1.5
cc
I
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
I BOOSTER PROGRAM SAVINGS (MILLIONS)

I
I
I AVERAGE LAUNCHES PER BOOSTER vs BOOSTER PROGRAM SAVINGS
il
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Additional savings obtained from use of the recovery system are represented by percent in booster
dollars per pound of payload in orbit VS number of launches per booster. As shown, considerable savings accrue I
regardless of rate of refurbishment.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
50
I 45
I t::::
al
cc: 40
C)

I :z:
-
c
35
ex:
I C)
--'
>-
30
ex:
CL.
I '-'-
C)
25
20
I al
--'
't:A-
-
E-0.60
:z: 15
I -
V')
c..:::s
:z:
10 - MOST PROBABLE RANGE · .-
I -
:>
ex:
V') 5
I ~
0
0 I

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

I LAUNCHES PER BOOSTER
I PERCENT SAVINGS OF PAYLOAD COST WITH ARECOVERY
SYSTEM vs LAUNCHES PER BOOSTER
I
I
 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For other missions, the recovery system weight will increase only slightly. It should also be remembered
that the sink speeds of 5 ft. per second or less are possible for any recovery system. I
The conclusions of the booster recovery program are based primarily on the C-2 missions.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I PHA
~~~
EI
ANAL YSIS & DEVElOPMENT
I ENGINEERING
WINO TUNNEl MODELS
I 1/ 6 SCALE MODEl
STABILITY CHUTE TESTS
FULL SCALE GROUND DEPLOY
I MOCK UP
e~~~S~Ei&;IJ
I ANALYSIS & DETAIL DESIGN
FABR ICATION
I SYSTEM STATIC & ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS 'M&& ..

FLIGHT TESTS
I GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
PHASE I
I .6- -

PHASE /I -- - . - - .6

I DESIGN FREEZE +
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
I
I
I
 I
I
I CONCLUSIONS
I
I 1. C - 2 DRY LOAD RECOVERIES ARE POSSIBILITIES
I 2. PACKAGING WITHIN C - 2 COUNTERS IS POSSIBLE
I 3. PACKAGE "TYPE" RECOVERY SYSTEM INSTALLATION IS POSSIBLE
I
4. RECOVERY SYSTEM WEIGHT EQUALS 8% OF RECOVERED WEIGHT
I
I 5. SINK SPEEDS EQUAL TO 5FT./SEC. OR LESS ARE POSSIBLE

I
I RECOMMENDATIONS
II
1. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
I
I