Sei sulla pagina 1di 128

HUNTSVILLE

ALABAMA

MPR-SAT-FE-66-i J (Supersedes

U
" (THRU)

N
July 14, 1966

MPR-SAT-65-14)

X69-75421
(ACC E$$} N_./B 0_I) ER)

_;
o _.

<k/

,ooo_,

(NASA'CR OR T__) (CATEGORYI AVAILABLE TO U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND CONTRACTORS ONLY

RESULTS THE OF TENTH SATURN LAUNCH , VEHICLE

[u]
.C,_BsTfIc_o _ c_a_
_Sk
"+ , / +. _ ,+1 -: 1_ ,t:_ 'v-

Sc_e_t;*;

SATURN

FLIGHT WORKING

EVALUATION GROUP

GROUP-4 _/

Down_r_W_L3 y_rvats;
Decl sf_ars. a
%,

"

',.,

".

MSFC - Fo_m 774 (Rev Ma_ 1_66)

_,

SECURITY This document

NOTE

contains irrformation affecting the national defense of the of the Espionage Law, Title 18, U.S.C. , Secto

United States within the meaning

tions 793 and 794 as amended. The revelation ol its contents in any manner an unauthorized person is prohibited by law.

MPR-SAT-FE-66-11

RESULTS

OF TIIE

TENTH By Saturn George C.

SATURN Flight Marshall

I LAUNCII Evaluation Space CT

VEIIICLE Working

TEST Group

FLIGHT

SA-IO

Flight

Center

AI3STIIA

This report presents the results neering evaluation of the SA-10 test Block third C). II series, Apollo SA-i0 was the fifth car W an boilerplate (BP-9)

of the flight. Saturn

early Sixth

engiof the to the and

vehicle

payload

in a series to carry a Pegasus payload (Pegasus The performance of each major vehicle system with special emphasis on malfunctions

is discussed and deviations.

This test flightof success for the Saturn the Saturn I program of the Pegasus third flight test the fourth flight system onstrate guidance guidance

SA-10 was I vehicles This was

the tenth consecutive and marks the end el the third flight test the mode, guidance test to demof the path the insertion This was prototype control satellite, guidance ST-f24

meteoroid to utilize test

technology the iterative the

utilizing

forboth stages, the closed during system S-IV was

andthe fifth flight loop performance burn. successful The and

performaneeofthe

velocity was very also the third flight production Instrument of systemwhiehg411 All missions plished. Any questions formation contained be directed to: Director, lfuntsville, Attention:

near the expected value. test of the unpressurized Unit and passive thermal

be used on Saturn lJ3 and V vehicles. the flight were successfully accom-

or comments in this report

pertaining are invited

to the inand should

George

C. Marshall Saturn Group

Space Flight

Flight

Center

Alabama Chairman, Working 876-4575)

Evaluation (Phone

R-AERO-F

GEORGE

C.

MARSHALL

SPACE

FLIGIIT

CENTER

MPR-_T-FE-66-1

July

14,

1966

[Supersedes

MPR-SAT-65-14)

/
CROUP 4 .j NOTICE_ THiS DOCT:,_NT CONTAINSINFORMATION Afi!-_Fl_S TtL: ff,"_TjlC_,L',,L OEFF_::_ t,_ THE UN,TED SI;',l_',,e_; ; J '.. ,,::., :- TIlE [SP_n._E LA";_ i_r,'_JilLIeT__.,, __:: ' ;']_ .,_i_ 79.], IIS V., '._lP"_II_ '-. ' "...'_ :_ ._.,",,r!;t_TS /t,_ inte rva_l_classifled ' ,,i

SATURN

FLIGHT WORKING

EVALUATION GROUP

22 .....

__ - 1_'__--

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Contributions elements of MSFC,

to this report dolm F.

were Kennedy

made

by various Center,

Space

Douglas Aircraft Company, Chrysler Corporation, IBM Corporation, Rocketdyne, and Pratt& Whitney. Without the joint efforts and assistance of these elem_'nts, this integrated report would not have been possible. The Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group is especiallyindebted to the following 10r their major butions: John F. Kennedy Space Center contri-

Douglas Aircraft Company Chrysler Corporation Space Division International Business Machines Corporation Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne George C. Marshall Research Space Flight Center Operations Laboratory Office

and Development

Aero-Astrodynamics Acre-Space Aerodynamics

Environment Division

Flight Evaluation and Operations Studles Division A strionics Labor atot_' Integration

Electrical Systems Division

Flight Dynamics Brmlch Guidance and Control Division Instrumentation and CommUnications Division Computation Laboratory

R& D Application Division Propulsion and Vehicle Engineering Laboratory Propulsion Structures Vehicle Division Division Systems Division

i!

oxTm

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS Page

SECTION

I.

FLIGItT l. 1 I. 2 1.3

"rEST Flight

SUMMAHY Test Results

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


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

l l 2 '> 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 l0 of Inertia ...................... 10 14 14 14 17 18 18 ....................... 18 18 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 24 25 .................... 25 25

Test Objectives Times of Events

SECTION SFCTION

II. III.

INTRODUCTION LAUNCH 3. 1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

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

OPERATIONS

Summary Prelauneh Atmospheric Countdown Propellant 3.5. 3.5.2 i S-I

................................................ Milestones ........................................ Conditions ...................................... ................................................ Loading Stage S IV Stage 3.5.2.1 .......................................... ........................................... .......................................... LOX .......................................

3.6 3.7

3.5.2.2 LIt2 ....................................... 3.5.2.3 Cold Helium ................................. Holddown ................................................. Ground 3.7.1 Support Equipment Mechanical Ground ..................................... Support Equipment ........................

3.8 SECTION IV.

3, 7.2 Electrical Support Blockhouse Redline Values

Equipment ............................. ....................................

MASS CHARACTERISTICS ......................................... 4. 1 Vehicle Mass ............................................. 4.2 Vehicle Center of Gravity and Moment

SECTION

V.

TRAJECTORY 5. 1 5.2 5.3 Summary Trajectory Insertion

................................................. ................................................ Comparison with Nominal .............................. Conditions (S-IV Cutoff + 10 Seconds) ....................... .................................................. ................................................ ....................................... Propulsion Performance

SECTION

VI.

PROPULSION 6. I 6.2 Summary

S-I Stage Performance 6.2.1 Overall Stage

6.3

6.2.2 Flight Simulation of Cluster Performance ..................... 6.2.3 Individual Engine Performance ............................. S-I Pressurization Systems .................................... 6.3. I 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 Fuel Pressurization System ............................... LOX Tank Pressurization System ........................... Control Pressure LOX-SOX Disposal Hydrogen Vent System ................................. System ............................... Purge ................................

Duct

6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

S-I Stage Propellant Utilization ................................. S-I Stage Hydraulic Systems .................................... Retro Rocket Performance ..................................... S-IV Stage Propulsion 6.7. t Overall S-IV ....................................... Stage Propulsion Performance

iii

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

(Cent'd) Page

6.7.2

Stage 6.7.2. 6.7.2,

Performance I 2 Engine Flight Engine

.................................. Analysis Simulation Performance ............................. ............................. ........................... ............................. ............................. ......................... ............................

25 25 26 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 31 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 38 38 38 38 ...................... 40 40 41 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 ........ 43 44 44 44 45 45 ................. 48 50 50 50 51 Analysis

6.7.3

Individual 6.7.3. I 6.7, 3.2 6.7.3.3 6.7.3.4

Engine Cooldown Start Transients Steady Cutoff State Transients

Operation

6.8

S-IV Pressurization 6.8. I LH 2 Tank 6.8.2 6.8. I. t LOX Tank

System ................................. PressurJ, zation .............................. LH2 Pump Inlet Pressurization Conditions ...................... ............................. ....................... ......................

6.8.3 6.9

6.8.2. t Helium bleater Operation 6.8.2.2 LOX Pump Inlet Conditions Cold Helium Supply .................................. System ................................ ......................................

6.8.4 Control Helium Propellant Utilization 6.9. I 6.9.2 Propellant Mass System Response

History ................................ ....................................

6.10 6. Ii SECTION VII.

6, 9.3 PU System Command ................................. S-IV Hydraulic System ..................................... U11age Rockets ........................................... AND CONTROL ....................................... ........................................

GUIDANCE 7. I 7, 2 7.3 System

Summary Control 7.3. I

.............................................. Description Analysis .......................................... S-I Stage Flight Control ................................ 7.3. i. i Pitch Plane ................................. 7.3. 7.3. 7.3. 1.2 I. 3 I. 4 Yau' Plane ................................. Control Design Parameters Roll Plane .................................

7.4

7.3.2 S-IV Stage Flight Control .............................. Functional Analysis ....................................... 7.4. l Control Sensors .................................... 7.4. i. i Control Accelerometers ........................ 7.4. I. 2 7.4. i. 3 7.4.1.4 7.4. 7.4. I. 5 1.6 Sloshing Angle-of-Attack Sensors ....................... Rate Gyros ................................. Control Acceleration Switch ...................... Resolver Chain Error Comparison and Actuator ................. Flight Control Computer ....................................... Flight Sloshing Flight Sloshing

7.5

Propellant 7.5.1 7.5.2

S-I Powered S-IV Powered System Guidance Guidance System

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

7.6

Guidance 7.6. I 7.6.2 Guidance 7.7. t 7.7.2

Performance Intelligence System Hardware

................................ Errors ........................... Comparisons ..................................

Performance Processor Platform

7.7

Guidance Signal ST-124 Stabilized Gas Bearing

and Digital Computer Analysis ........ System Hardware Analysis .......... System ..........................

7.8

ST-t24

GN2 Supply

iv

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

(Cont'd) Page

SECTION

VIII.

SEPARATION ................................................ 8. i Summary .............................................. 8, 2 S-I/S-IV Separation Dynamics ............................... 8, 2. l Translational Motion ................................. 8.2.2 Angular Motion ..................................... 8.3 Apollo Shroud Separation ................................... STRUCTURES ............................................... 9.1 Summary .............................................. 9.2 Results During S-I Powered Flight ............................. 9.2.1 Moments and Normal Load Factors ....................... 9.2.2 Longitudinal Loads .................................. 9.2.3 Bending Oscillations ................................. 9.2.4 S-I Vibrations ..................................... 9.2.4.1 Structural Measurements ....................... 9.2.4.2 Engine Measurements ......................... 9.2.4.3 Component Measurements ...................... 9.2.5 S-IV Vibrations .................................... 9.2.5.1 Structural Measurements ....................... 9, 2.5.2 Engine Measurements ......................... 9.2.5.3 Component Measurements ...................... 9.2.6 Instrument Unit Vibrations ............................. 9.2.6.1 Structural Measurements ....................... 9.2.6.2 Component Measurements ...................... 9.2.7 Apollo (Pegasus) Vibrations ............................ 9.2.8 Structural Acoustics ................................. 9.2.8.1 S-I Stage ................................. 9.2.8.2 S-IV Stage ................................. 9.2.8.3 Instrument Unit .............................. 9.2.8.4 Apollo .................................... 9.3 Observed Structural Deviations ............................... 9.4 S-I/S-IV Interstage ....................................... 9.5 Results During S-IV Powered Flight ............................ 9.5.1 Bending .......................................... 9.5.2 S-IV Vibrations During S-IV Powered Flight ................. 9.5.2. 1 Structural Measurements ....................... 9.5.2.2 Engine Measurements ......................... 9.5.2.3 Component Measurements ...................... 9.5.3 Instrument Unit Vibrations ............................. 9.5.4 Apollo (Pegasus _) Vibration ............................. 9.5.5 Apollo (Pegasus} Acoustics ............................ ENVIRONMENTAL TEMPERATURES AND PRESSURES ................... 10. I Summary .............................................. 10.2 S-I Stage Environment ..................................... 10.2. I Surface Pressures ................................... 10.2. 2 S-I Stage Skin Temperatures ,and Heating Rates ................ 10.2.3 Base Pressures and Tail Compartment Pressures .............

53 53 53 53 53 55 56 56 56 56 56 57 58 58 58 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66

SECTION

IX.

SECTION

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

(Cont'd) Page

10.2,4

t0.3

i0.4

Base Thermal Environment ........................... I0.2.4.1 Base Temperatures ......................... 10.2, 4, 2 Base Heating Rates ......................... 10.2.4.3 Engine Compartment Temperatures .............. t0.2.5 S-I/S-IV Interstage Environment ........................ 10.2.5.1 S-I/S-IV Interstage Temperatures and Pcessures t0.2.5.2 Detonation Pressures ....................... S IV Stage Environment ................................... 10.3. I Environmental Pressures ............................. 10.3.1.1 Common Bulkhead Pressure ................... 10.3. 1.2 Base Heat Shield Pressure .................... 10.3.2 Surface Temperatures and Heat Fluxes .................... 10.3.2.1 Hydrogen Tank Temperatures .................. 10.3.2.2 .4At Skirt Temperatures ...................... 10.3.2.3 Hydrogen Vent Line Temperature ................ 10. 3.2.4 Aft Skirt tleat Flux ......................... 10.3.2.5 .Aft Interstage Heat Flux ...................... 10.3.3 Base Temperatures and Heat Fluxes ..................... 10.3.3, 1 Base Thrust Structure Temperature ............. 10.3.3.2 Base Heat Shield Temperatures ................ 10.3. 3, 3 Base Heat Flux ........................... Equipment Temperature and Pressure Environment ................. t0, 4. I S-I Stage Instrument Compartment Environment .............. 10.4.2 Instrument Unit Environment ..........................

.....

66 67 67 67 6 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 7i 75 75 75 75 76 77 77 77 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 7S 78 80 80 80 80

SECTION

XI.

VEHICLE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ................................. 11. I Summary .............................................. 1i, 2 S-I Stage Electrical System ................................. l i. 3 S-IV Stage Electrical System ................................. 11.4 IU Stage Electrical System .................................. AERODYNAMICS ............................................. 12.1 Surnmaw .............................................. i2.2 Drag ................................................ INSTRUMENTATION .......................................... 13. i Summary .............................................. 13.2 S-I Stage Measuring Analysis ................................ 13.2.1 S-I Measurement Malfunctions .......................... 13.2.2 S-I Measuring Reliability ............................. 13.3 S-IV Measuring Analysis ................................... 13.3.1 S-IV Measurement Malfunction .......................... 13.3.2 S-IV Measuring Reliability ............................ 13.4 IU Stage Measuring Anaiysis ................................. 13.4. 1 IU Measurement Malfunctions .......................... 13.4.2 IU Measuring Reliability ............................. 13.5 Airborne Telemetry Systems ................................ 13.5.1 Telemetry Links ................................... i3.5.2 Data Acquisition ................................... ia. 5.3 Calibration ......................................

SECTION

XII.

SECTION

XIII.

vi

TABLE

OF CONTEWFS

(Concluded) Page

13.6

Airborne 13.6.1 13.6.2 13.6.3

Tape Recorders ................................... S-I Recorder . .................................... S-IV Recorder .................................... IU Recorder ...................................... ...................................... ....................................... ....................................... ....................................... ..................................... Sequential Cameras Cameras ........................

80 S0 S0 81 81 8l 82 83 83 83 84 84 84 84 85 85 85 85 .................. 85 8(; 87 ....................... 88 89 89 89 89 93 93 93 96

13.7

RF S_,stems Analysis 13.7.1 Telemetry 13.7.2 13.7.3 Tracking Television Instrumentation Engineering Tracking Tracking Tracking Telemetry

13.8

Optical 13.8. i i3.8.2 Orbital 13.9.1 13.9.2

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

13.9

and Telemetry Summars, ........................ Summary ................................. Summals" .................................

SECTIONXIV.

PEGASUS 14.1 14.2 14.3

................................................. .............................................. C Performance ................................... Attitude .......................................... Nonpropulsive Vent System Vehicle Attitude in Orbit Operation MALFUNCTIONS Performance .............................

Summary Pegasus Orbital 14.3. I 14.3.2

14.4 SECTION APPENDIX. XV.

Pegasus

....................................... AND DEVLATIONS

SUMIVb_,RY OF VEHICLE A. i A. 2 A. 3 A. 4 A. 5 A.6

DESCRIPTION Summary S-I Stage S-IV Stage Instrument Payload Pegasus

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

.............................................. .............................................. ............................................. Unit ......................................... ............................................... C Satellite .......................................

INDEX

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

vii

LIST

OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 3-1 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 5 3 5-4 5-5 5-(5 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6--6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11 6-12 6-t3 6-t4 6-15 6-16 6-t7 Effect Vehicle Vehicle S-I S-IV Earth Total Math Booster S-I of Wind Mass Mass Speed Cet_ter Center on LOX of Gravity of Gravity Load

Title ................................. Moment Moment of Inertia of Inertia for fur S-I Stage S-IV Stage ....... ......

Page 7 I0 10 14 14 14 t5 16 17 18 19 19 20 20 Parameters Sphere (S-I) .................... .............. 21 22 22 23 ....................... ....................... (S-IV Weight Stage) ................. 25 26 27 28 28 29 29 30

and Mass and Mass

Trajectory Trajectory Fixed Inertial Number

............................................... . ............................................ Velocity .......................................... ...................................... Pressure Track ............................... ................................. Buildup. Impulse ......................... .......................

Acceleration and Dynamic Ground

Trajectory Engine

Individual

and Stage Thrust

Thrust

Vehicle Vehicle Inboard Flight Deviation Gas

Longitudinal Mixture and Ratio

and Specific Flowrate Decay

and Total Engine

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

Outboard

Thrust

Simulation

Results Engine Tank Center

...................................... Performance and High Pressure Pressure

in Individual in Fuel and Flight

Pressure

Prelaunch LOX-SOX Hydraulic Total S-IV

LOX Tank

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

System Oil

Operation Level,

..................................... and Temperature (Engine Analysis)

Pressure,

Stage Systems

Performance Performance

Propulsion Best Estimate

Comparison and Cutoff

of S-IV-10 Start

Ignition Transients

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

Individual S-IV S-IV Engine Stage

Engine Cutoff Fuel Inlet

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

Transients Ullage

Tank

Pressure

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

LH 2 Pump

Conditions

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

viii

LIST OF

ILLUSTRATIONS

(Cont'd)

Figure 6-18 6-19 6-20 6-21 6-22 6-23 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-10 7-11 7-12 7-13 7-14 7-15 7-16 S-IV S-IV LOX Stage Helium Pump LOX Tank Heater Inlet Inlet Ullage Performance Pressure

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

Page 31 32 32 33 34 35 37 39 Actuator Position ......... 39 39 Actuator of Attack Design Actuator Position ................ Criteria Position ............ .......... .......... 39 40 40 -t0 41 .................... 41 42 ................ 44 44 ..................... ........... 45 47

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

Conditions Temperatures Utilization

..................................... .................................. Valve Position .........................

LOX Pump Typic_ Ullage Guidance S-I Stage Pitch Pitch Yaw Yaw

Propellant Rocket

Chamber

Pressure System

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

and Control Command Error, Wind Error, Wind

Angles Angular

..................................... Rate, and Average

Attitude Plane Attitude Plane

Velocity, Angular and

..................................... Rate, Free and Stream Average Angle with Average

Velocity

Comparison Roll S-IV Attitude Stage

of Vehicle Error, Attitude

Control Angular

Parameters Rate, and

Errors to Pitch

..................................... Plane Guidance Initiation ............................ Resolver Chain Error

Vehicle Pitch

Response

and Yaw Control and Predicted S-I

Accelerometers Pitch Flight System Difference Axis

Calculated Slosh ST-t24 Inertial During

Powered Platform Component

................................. Error Sources

Stabilized Velocity

(Aceelerometer-Tracking) Differences (Trajectory

Residual Inertial Velocity Component Analysis-Tracking)

.......................................... Guidance Parameters ......................

48 50 51 53

7-17 7-18 8-1 8-2

Yaw ST-t24

Plane Delta-Minimum Gas Bearing Sequence Distance System

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

Separation Separation

.......................................... and Incremental Velocities .......................

53

ix

LIST

OF

ILLUSTI_._.TIONS

(ConUd)

Figure 8-3 8-4


8-5

Title SA-10 S-IV


])egllsus

Page Separation ............................. .................... 5.t 54


o5

Angular AttiVade

Velocities Error During

During

Booster

Separation

_,p_lr;ltit)ll

Colnp_il'istlus

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

9-1 9-2 9-3 9-1 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 9 9 9-i0 9-11 9-12

Pitch SA-I0 Upper Vehicle S-I

Bending Thrust Pegasus

Moment Pafildup Support

and Normal Characteristics Response

Load

Factor

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

56 57 57 57 58

............................. to S-I Ignition ....................... Yaw . ....................

Bmding Vibrations

Frequencies

and Amplitudes,

Stage

......................................... During S-I ,qtage During S-I Pc, wered Powered Flight Flight ................... ...................

Component Instrument Pegasus Apollo S-IV

Vii)ration Unit Vibrations

60 61 62

Vibrations

.......................................... Unit View Strain Acoustics .............................. with Interstage Folded Flat .......

and

Instrument

62 63 64

Aft Interstage htierstage

Looking

Outboard

S I/S-IV Engine Flight

..................................... Vibrations During S-IV Stage Powered

and Structural Component ................................................... History and Access for Fluxes Forward Heat to of Upper Chute Shield Engine Face

65 and Gas Lower Tail Shrouds and Engine Shroud ..... 66 67 ............... 68 68 68 69 ........................ .......................... and Pressures During Powered 73 and Pressures During Orbit ........ 7,t 70 72

10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9

Temperatnre Heat Heat Total Heat Shield Fluxes tteat Shield

Temperatures Region and Access

...................... Chute

Inner Bell Structural

and Aspirator Temperatures

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

S-1%r Aft Interstage S-W S-IV Stage Stage Surface Base

.......................................... Temperature Temperature Environment Environment Temperatures

IU Ambient Flight

and Component

................................................... and Component Temperatures

i0-10

IU Ambient

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

(Concluded)

Figure ll-I 11-2 11-3 12-1 14-1 14-2 A-I A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 S-I S-IV Stage Stage Current Current Battery Force Roll Orbital Vehicle and Voltage and Voltage

Title ................................... .................................. Voltage, Base Drag Current, and inverter Voltage .......

Page 75 76 76 77 87 87 90 91 92 94 95

IU _age Axial SA-10 SA-10 SA-IO S-I S-IV

Temperature, and

Coefficient Rate Analysis l_tes

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

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

Roll

Configuration

Stage Stage

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

Instrument Payload

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

xi

LIST Table 1-I 3-I 3-II 4-I 4-II 4-III 5-I 5-II 5-III 5-IV 6-I 6-II 6-III 6-IV 7-I 7-II 7-III Times SA of Events ............................................ Milestones \Veights

OF Title

TABLES Page 3 6 ....................... 8 11 . ............................ 12 13 15 16 17 17 19 26 27 34 46

10 Prelannch Propellant Masses Flight

.................................... at Ignition Command

S-I-10 Vehicle SA-10 Mass Cutoff

............................................. Mass Summary

Sequence

Cha_'aeteristies Conditions L\'ents Impact Elements Stage

Comparison ........................................... ........................................... ............................................ Comparison Parameters, Performance

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

Significant Booster Insertion Average S-IV

................................. SA-10 ........................

Propulsion Analysis System ttistoD'

Stage

Engine

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

S-IV-10 Propellant C_idance Comparison Comparison Seconds

Propulsion Mass

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

Intelligence

Errors

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

of Inertial of Space Range Time)

Guidance Fixed

Velocities

(V i, Xi' Guidaoce

Yi'

Zi ) Cutoff

.............. {630. 252

47

Velocities

at S-IV

......................................... Parameters at Orbital Insertion (640,252

48

7-IV

Comparison Seconds

of Guidance Range Time)

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

49 59 79 86

9-I 13-I 14-I

Vibration Measurement Nonpropulsive

Summary

Malfunctions Vent

Performance

xii

ABBREVIATIONS

AND

SYMBOLS

Abbreviation ACK2 CDll CM CO CSM DDAS DOD E.F. EMI:" ESE E MR ETR GLOTRAC GSE IECO IETD 1GM iP LCC LES LOS MILA MISTRA MMC MOTS ms MSFN NORAD NPSP NPV OECO OETD PAFB PAM PCM PDM PRA PU RCS RSS SAO SCM SM SOX STADAN U.T. VCO M

Definition Automatic Command Command Cutoff Combustion Digital Data Department Gain Control Receiver

Destruct Module Stability

Monitor System

Acquisition of Defense Force

Earth Fixed Electro Motive Electrical Engine Eastern Global Ground Inboard Inboard Iterative Impact Launch Mixture

Support

Equipment Ratio

Test Range Tracking System Support Engine Engine Position Control Equipment Cutoff Thrust Mode Center System Launch Area Decay

Guidance

Launch Eseape Loss of Signal Merritt Island

Missile Trajectory Measurement System Mierometeoroid Capsule Minitrack Optical Tracking Station _tilliseconds Manned Space North American Net Positive Flight Air Suction Network Defense Pressure Command

Nonpropulsive Vent Outboard Engine Cutoff Outboard Patrick Pulse Pulse Engine Thrust Air Force Base Amplitude Modulated Code Modulated 1963 Reference Atmosphere Decay

Pulse Duration Modulated Patrick Air Force Base, Propellant Reaction Utilization Control System

Range Safety Signal Smithsonian Astrophysical Staadard Service Solid Cubic Module Meter

Observatory

Oxygen and Data Acquisition Network

Space Tracking Universal Time Voltage Controlled

Oscillator

xiii

CONVERSION INTERNATIONAL

FACTORS OF

TO UNITS OI" 1960

SYSTEM

Parameter acceleration area barometer density ener_, mass hforce heating impulse length rate flow rate prcssttrc

Multiply ft/s in2 robs slugs/ft3 Bin Ib s/f( lb Btu/ft2-s lb-s ft in 2 3. 048x10

By -1 (exact)

To Obtain m/s 2 m 2 N/cm 2 kg/m 3 watt-s k_/s N (Newton)

6. 4516xi0 -4 (exact) 1.00x10 -2 (exact) 5. 153788185xi02 I.0543503xi03 (thermal chemical}

4 5359237xi0 -I (exact) 4. 448221615 1. 1348931 4. 448221615 3. 048x10 2.54x10 -_ (exact) (thermal chemical)

watt/era N-s m m kg N-m

-2 (exact)

mass moment

[b s2/ft Ib-ft Ib-in

4.5359237xi0 -i (exact) i.355817946 1. 12964829x10 -1

N-m kg-m 2

moment power pressure

o[ inertia

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

1. 355817948 2. 9287508xl 6. 894757293x19 4. 788025898x10 1 57087468x102 5. 555555556x10 3. 048xt0 -1 0 -4 -1 -3

_v N/cm N/cm N/m 3 oK m/s m/s (exact) (exact) m3 m3 2 _

lb.." ft 2 specific temperature velocity weight lb_ft 3 F+459.67 ft/s knot':: volume ft 3 gallon':'_::

-I (exact) -1 -2 -3

5. 144444444x10 2 8316846592x10 3. 785411784x10

Note:

go = 9. 80665 ':: "::":

m/s

2 (exact)

knot (International) gallon (U. S. Liquid)

xiv

"-111r

,l_L.

MPI/-SAT-FE-66-11

RESULTS

OF THE TENTtt

SATURN 1 LAUNCH VEHICLE

TEST FLIGHT

SA-10

SECTION 1.1 FLIGHT TEST RESULTS

I.

FLIGHT

TEST SUMMARY The vehicle sea level longitudinal thrust of the S-I stage averaged between0.82 percent (engine analysis) and 0 86 percent (flight simulation) higher than predieted. Vehicle specific impulse averaged between 0.15 percent (engine analysis) and 0.39 percent (flight simulation) lower than predicted. Inboard and outboard engine cutoff occurred 1.79 seconds and 1.69 seconds earlier than predicted, respectively. Outboard engine cutoff was initiated by the backup timer 6.1 seconds after inboard engine cuteff. The S-IV stage average vehicle longitudinal thrust deviation was between 0.29 percent (engine analysis) and 0. 17 percent (flight simnlation) higher than predicted. The specific impulse deviation was between 0 01 percent (engine analysis) and 021 percent (flight simulation) lower than predicted The performance of all subsystems was as expected with the exception of the SIV stage fuel pressurization system. The pressurizationcontrol solenoid valve did not open when required during a portion of the flight. The overall performance of the SA-10 guidance and control systems was satisfactory. Vehicle response to all signals was properly executed including roll maneuver, pitch program, and path guidance ( utilizing the iterative stage flight. guidance scheme) during the S-W

Saturn launch vehicle SA-10, sixth of the Block II series vehicles and the third operational vehicle, was launched at 08:00 AM EST, July 30, 1965 This flight test was the tenth and last in a series of Saturn I rehicles to be flight tested. The flight test was the third in a series to launch a Pegasus satellite (Pegasus C) and was a complete success with all mission objeetires achieved. SA-10 was the sixth vehicle launched from complex 37B at Cape Kennedy, Florida, and represents the lffth launch of the Saturn/Apollo coni'iguration, This was the secondSaturnvehtele launchthat required no technical holds. All operations were normal and the only hold was the 30-minute build-in-hold, used to make launch time coincident with the beginning of the launch window. The major anomaly associated with countdown operations washigh surface winds; 8.7 m/s ( 169 knots) were prevalent during the hour preceding launch. The high surface winds resulted in an S-I stage LOX short load of approximately 725 kg (1600 Ibm). The actual trajectory of SA-10 was very close to nominal. The total velocity was 9.8 m/s higher than nominal at OECO and 1.06 m/s lower than nominal at S-IVeutoff. At S-IVcatofI the actual altitude was 0.04 kmlower than nominaland the range was 1.33 km tess than nominal. The cross range velocity deviated 0, 62 m/s to the left of nominal at S-IV cutoff, The S-IV stage and payload at orbital insertion (S-IVcutoff plus 10 seconds) had a space fixed velocity 0.7 m/s less than nominal, yielding a perigee altirade of 528.8 km and an apogee altitude of 531.9 km. Estimated orbital lifetime was 720 days, 5 days less than nominal. The performance of both the S-I and S-IV propulsion systems was satisfactory for the SA-10 flight,

Path guidance was initiated at 18.13 seconds after separation. Performance of the iterative guidance mode in the pitch plane and delta minimum in yaw was satisfactory in achieving insertion conditions very near those desired. The total space fixed veloeity at S-IV cutoff measured by the 8T-124 guidance system was 7592 02 m/s (7591.96 m/s was programmed for velocity cutoff), compared to a velocity of 7591 50 m/s determined from tracking. The difference between tracking and guidance was well within required tolerances Separation was executed smoothly with small control deviations Separation transients were relatively small and well within design requirements.

_,

mum

.....

--

Separation of the Apollo shroadoccurredatSt2, seeonds, functioning as plaxmed,

i0

The SA-10 vehicle experienced maximwn bending in the pitch plane at 74.2 seconds. A ma_ximum static moment of 655,901 N-m was experienced at station 23.8 m (936 in). The struetuxal flight loads on SA-i0 were generally as expected and no Pogo effects were apparent. The vibrations observed on SA-I0 were generally withinthe expected levelsandeompared well with SA-8. There was no evidence of S-I/S-IV interstage structural degradation during separation. The measured pressure and temperature environmerit on the S-I and S-IV stage of SA-10 were generally similar to those measured on SA-8. Calorimeters were flown for the second time on the engine bell and aspirator surface of engines 3 and 7. The heating rates from these calorimeters were higher on SA-10 thanon SA-9 and more nearly represent the actual enviromnent, The electrical system of SA-10 vehicle operated satisfactorily during boost and orbitalphases of flight and all mission requirements were met. The long life battery in the Instrument Unit (IU) provided power to the Pt and F6 telemetry links for !.40 minutes_ which well exceeds the one orbit requirement, Overall reliability of the SA-10 measuringsystem was 98.8 percent, considering only those measurementS active at liftoff. There were 1018 measuremerits active at liftoff of which 12 failed during flight. All airborne tape recorders operated satisfactorily. The onboard TVsystem for SA-10 wascancelled prior to flight. The altimetersystem andassociated returnpulse-shape experiment failed to operate. The MISTRAM trmasponder failed at 63 seconds of flight and provided no usable data. The photo/optical coverage for SA-10was good. tlowever, downrange cloud conditions prevented all of the 10.2 m (400 in) and 12.7 m (500 in) focal length cameras from recording usable data. The Pegasus C spacecraft performance was satisfactory. At approximately 640.252 seconds, the SIV stage, !amtrument Unit, Apollo shroud and Pegasus

were inserted into orbit with no appreciable pitch, yaw, or roll :'ate. The Pegasus wing deployment and all spacecraft systems worked properly and all measurements were initially within their predicted limits. A roll rate started to build up after wing deployment, as expected, and reached amaximum of 6.3 deg/s, as compared to 6.5 deg/s for SA-8 and 9.8 deg/s for SA-9. 1, 2 TEST OBJECTIVES Primary objectives of meteoroid data in

near

1. Collection and evaluation earth orbit - Achieved:

satellite

a. Determiuation of meteoroid pmmis for three thicknesses

penetration of of aluminum.

b. Measurement of satellite's radiation cnvironment and panel temperature to evaluate the validity of hit data. c. Determination of satellite's position orientation relative to time of hit occurrence. and

2. Continued demonstration of launch vehicle iterative guidance mode and evaluation of system accuracy - Achieved Secondary objectives

1.. Evaluation of the functional operation of the Pegasus meteoroid technology satellite's mechaJ_ical, structural, and electronics subsystems - Achieved 2. Evaluation of S-IV/IU/Service Module adapter (SMA) exterior thermal control coating - Achieved 3. Evaluation of boilerplate Command Module

(CM)/SMseparationfromtheS-IV/IU/SMA-Achieved 4. Evaluation of the S-IV stage nonpmpalsive venting system - Achieved. 1.3 TIMES OF EVENTS The times 1.-I. of events for SA-10 are contained in

Table

TABLE

1-I.

TIMES

OF

EVENTS

l>t Ml>tl_n :irst M_,ti,Jl_ Dls<'J L_) _i.4'9 !_ ? I I _1 TI_; 0

Z_2rIi

f "l_l

_.)EC() I'r[_

_1

CutL_f_ LTt3 4)

1_O SigmLI ! Umb Guida_cc l)_tct't_

i |nt r_J_JuecGuldant_

_[_7.25

_.

IJ

- 1. 7!_

i C_mpu_cv i ln_rti(Jrl

S_r_

_IV

CO !_I'_4_

_:ltJ._4 _4_.25

6:1:3.2_; 542, 57 _I_L1T

-2.:1:_ -_.:12 2.!7 _i42.0_

'J

C]o_cA_xiL_at'yNPV

I><_'t_

bll._o

17_1._

|_it_al_

P_I_

Wing

_Lr_

told

:_7_ t_t_

_74_ _7

_2_ 27

Z41_ L_

SECTION

II.

INTRODUCTION ( Douglas), and the IU stage ( IBM), and engine contractots (Rocketdyne and th_att & Whitney}. Therefore, the report represents the official MSFC position at this time. This report will not be followed by a similarly integrated report unless continued analysis or new evidence should prove the conclusions presented here partially or entirely wrong. Final evaluation reports may, however, be published by theMSFC laboratories and the stage contractors covering some of the major systems or special subjects as required.

This report presents the results of the early engineering evaluation of the SA-t0 test flight. Performanee of each major vehicle system is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations, The reportis publishedbythe Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group, comprised of representatives from all Marshall Space Flight Center laboratories, John F. Kennedy Space Center, MSFC's prime contraetots for the S-I stage (Chrysler), the S-IW stage

-SECTION 3.1 SUMMARY Ill.

:.-II::.";,:T:,'.L
LAUNCtt OPERATIONS 3.4 COUNTDOWN The launch countdown for SA-10 began Wednesday, No diffi-

SA-10 was the second Saturn launch that required no technical holds. All operations were normal and the only hold was the 30-minute built-in hold. This was not needed but was used to make launch time coincident with the beginning of the launch window 8:00 AM Two countdown EST. minor anomalies were detected during the developed in the flex at

July 28, at Ii:20 hours at T-1005 minutes.

culties were encountered and the count was held at T-605 minutes at 18:00 hours as planned. Countdown was resumed July 29 at 21:25 hours. Therc were no interruptions in the count until the planned 30-minute hold at T-30. However, a problem did exist in the S-I stage LOX fillline on the launcher. A leak developed in the flex connection between the fixed LOX overland line from the storage facility and the S-I fillmast. Minor countdown work-arounds were made to allow for replacement of the flex connection. A separation of the environmental conti'ol system duct tothe Pegasus payload occurred on the umbilical tower. Reconnection of this line was made without theimpact on the count. At the time of launch all mandatory range and field instrumentation was classified at "Go" with the exception of one S-I hydraulic temperature measurement which failed earlier in the count. Since this was considered a red line measurement, a waiver for de~

operation.

A leak

connection between the fixed LOX overland line from the storage facilityand the S-I fillmast, and a separation of the environmental control system duct to the Pegasus occurred at the umbilical tower. Both probterns were corrected without impacton the countdown,

Surface wind conditions were much higher than normal. The wind speed prevalent in the hour preceding launch was 9.3 m/s (18 "knots)at a height of 24 m. This high surface wind condition resulted in a LOX short load of approximately The ground support equipment 725 kg (1000 Ibm). sustained consid-

erably more

damage

than on any previous launch,

letion of this measurement by MSFC. 3.5 PROPELLANT LOADING

was required and granted

3.2 PRELAUNCH

MILESTONES

A chronological summary of events and preparations leading to the launch of SA-10 is shown in Table 3-I. 3.3 ATMOSPHERIC Launch CONDITIONS

3.5. t

S-I STAGE The function of the S-I stage propellant loading

system is totank accurately the LOX to achieve flight mission objectives.

and fuel required The propellants obtained

day weather conditions weresatisfactory,

requiredarebasedonpropulsionperformance from simulated flightpredictions.

lligh surface winds were prevalent in the hour preceding iaunchbut were not above the design wind limitations. Some specific atmospheric observations at launch i. were: Surface winds with - mean gusts wind speed for m/s one minfrom 2t0-

The

weight

of

LOX

tanked

by the loading

system

for a given pressure value windspeeddurtng loading.

is primarily dependent upon Forced air currents around stratification boiloff at the within surface.

ute was 6.2 m/s degree azimuth 2. Cloud

up to 9.8

theLOX tanks cause temperature the LOX columns and increased Also, tanks a higher because

coverage

- 0.5

cirrus

at unknown of 3050 of 460 m 2 m,

altiand

ullage pressure is present in the outer vaporized LOX flows through the interbefore being vented pressure differential to the re-

rude, 0.2 alto--cumulus 0. t eumuio-almbus 3. Ambient 4. Ambient 5. Relative

at abnseheight at a base height

connect to the center tank atmosphere. This ullage suits in the outer LOX levels in the center tank. Since

pressure temperature humidity

- tO. 163 N/cm * 299. - 71 percent 9K

being lower than the level the LOX loading system is a difference the apparent exists weight

connected only to the center tank, between the actual LOX weight and based on the density and height the center tank. This weight load, is shown with respect 3-1.

of the LOX column in decrement, or short speed in Figure

to wind

6. Visibility- 16 kin.

YVl_rl

inl_l

Irl--lln

TABLE

3-I.

SA-10

PRELAUNCH

MILESTONES

Date May June June June June June June June June June July July July 31, 1965 S-I-10 arrived via barge (S-IV-10

Event arrived 5/10/65).

1, 1965 2, 8, 9, 21, 22, 25, 29, 30, 6, 8, 9, 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 i965 1965 1965 1965

IU arrived. S-I S-IV erection erected. All umbilicM arrived. connections complete. complete.

IU erected.

SM _md SM adapter Pegasus Pegasus C arrived. C deployment arrived. full SM,

test

completed.

CM a_ld LES S-I and S-IV C,

tank CM,

pressure and adapter

tests

completed. erected.

Pegasus LES

erected. plug drop OAT systems tests completed with satisfactory quick-look

Swing arm, results. Q-ball Simulated Launch Flight RP-1

July July July !July July July July July July July

12, 13, 15, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,

1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965

installation LOX vehicle readiness loading and

complete. LH 2 loading

All

ordnance

installation with

complete. satisfactory results.

tests test

completed completed.

cryogenic test completed.

tanking

completed.

Countdown Countdown Countdown Begin IAltoff

Demonstration Demonstration Precount Count for start 2125. 0800.

Test, Test, I120

Precount. Count. and 1800.

Launch scheduled

...........

.,-

..................... ' ............

value indicated the LOX weight to be only 69 kg / 151 Ibm) less than required for a 3,6 m/s (7 knot) wind condition at ignition. However, the wind speed prey8.7 m/s (i6.9 knots) Figure 3-i reveals thatfor this windthehour the actual LOX weight approximately alent in speed precedinglaunch was should be apthe loading system. proximately 816 kg (1800 Ibm) less than indicated by Reconstructed weights shown in the table were determined from telemetered probe data in conjunction with the Mark IV computer program reeonstruction of propellant consumption din-lag holddown. The reconstructed fuel weight is within 136 kg (300 Ibm) of the weight required at igmition. The reconstructed LOX weight thml required isat725 kg (approximately high1600 ibm) ignition due to the winds. 3.5. 2 S-IV STAGE LOX less

.....

: .... _ ....

......

'_; ] , '*

I I ! i

7 " _ ]

FIGURE

3-1.

EFFECTOF

WIND SPEEDON LOAD

LOX 3.5.2.1

Environmental conditions for the time of SA-10 launch were forecast from meteorological data. These were used to establish propellant loading criteria that would permit a constant S-I stage weight to be mainrained for the allowable range of fuel temperature, The S-I-10 propellant loading tables were generated to provide the differential pressure values necessary lot theloading" computers totankthe LOX and fuelrequired for the actualfueldensityatlaunch. The differential pressure values given in the loadingtables compensate for the LOX short load at thepredicted launch wind speed of 3.6 m/s (7 knots) based on the mean surfacewinds for the month of July. The right scale of Figure 3-I shows thatas wind speed varies from the predicted value, the actual LOX weight is either more or less than the weight indicated by the LOX loading system, The total S-Ipropellant weights are listed in Table 3-II, Predicted propellant weights used to determine S-I stage performance were based on nominal LOX and fuel densities established from environmental conditions expected at launch. The propellant weight requirementa at ignition are based on the nominal LOX density and the actual fuel density at S-I stage ignition, Average fuel density at ignition, determined from fuel temperature in tanks Ft and F3 together with the density manometer reading in tank F4. was as predicted, Propellant loading system weights listed in the table were determined from the manometer readings immediately prior to propellant system pressurization, The fuel manometer value indicated the fuel weight to be only 68 kg (149 Ibm) more than required for the fuel density at ignition. The LOX manometer

The LOX system was successfully loaded with LOX by cooling down and filling in two phases: main fill and replenish. The automatic LOX loading system, in conjunction with the LOX main fill pump, was successfully utilized for loading the LOX tank. S-IV stage LOX system preeool was initiated by starting the LOX system preeool timer 4 hours and 9 rainutes prior So li[tof[. The LOX vent valves remaicmd open throughouttheloadingoperation.The LOX transfer line was precooled for approximately 8 minutes priortotheinitiation ofLOX main fill,hich occurred w when approx2mately318kg (700 Ibm) of LOX had been filled intothe tank. The LOX main fill linepressure reached a maximum of 147 N/em 2 (213psi) and stablitzed at 141 N/em 2 (204 psi), At appro_mately the 4-percent level, a stabilized loading rate of 0.0454 mS/s (720 gpm) was achieved. This loading rate was maintained until the 99-percent mass level was attained at approximately 21 minutes after the initiation of LOX transfer line precool. At this level, the loading system secured the main fill pump and closed the main LOX fill valve as scheduled. After countdown of the S-I and S-IV LOX replenish system was completed, the LOX replenishing operation was initiated 2 hours and 25 minutes prior to liftoff. During this operation, the LOX in the tank was allowed to boil off to the 99, 5-percent level. It was replenished to the 99.75-percent level at a rate of approximately 0. 0126 ma/s (200 gpm). This replenishing cycle continued until the start of the 150-second automatic count. At this time, the tank was pressurized, and final LOX replenishment was completed. The fill valve was closed manually when the loading panel observer noted that the fill valve had not been

_t._ b ,,-,....

,- A i_.

TABLE

3-11. S-I-10 PROPELLANT

WEIGHTS

AT

IGNITION

COMMAND

Weight Propellant Pred.

Requirements Prior (i) Ignition (2) 279,795 616,842 125,248 276,124 405,043 892,966

Weight >.P Loading System 279,726 616,691 125,316 276,273 405,042 892,964 (31

Indications Reconstructed (4) 279,070 615,244 125,376 276,407 404,446 891,651 -6_ -151 67 149 -i -2

Weight _xP Loading

Deviations

(51

Reconstructed 1!'0) -7Z5 -1598 t28 283 -597 -1315 -0. Z5 -0.26 0. i0 0, i0 -0.15 -0. 15

to Launch LOX (kg) (Ibm) Fuel (kg) (Ibm} 279,795 616,842 125,248 276,124 405,043 892,966

(_'0) -0.02 -0.02 0.05 o.05 0.00 0,00

Total (kg) (Ibm)

(11 Predicted

propellant weights were

based

on a LOX

density of 1129.78

kg/m 3 (70.53 Ibm/It 3) and a fuel

density of 804.77 kg/m 3 (50. 24 Ibm/ft 3). (2) PropeUant _eights required at igllition are based on a LOX density of 1129. 78 kg./m a 170.53 Ibm/it 3) and a prior to launch. readings immediately prior to

fuel density of 804.77 kg,/m 3 (50.24 Ibm/ft 3) determined (3) Propellant weights indicated by the leading system propellant system pressurization. (4) Reconstructed struction.

immediately

are based on pressure

propellant weights are based on discrete probe data in conjunction with the Mark

IV recon-

(5) Weight deviations are referenced to v_eightrequirements

at ignition.

automatically commanded

to close at the 100-percent

initialfill rate was

0. 0295 m3/s

(467 gpm),

Moni-

LOX level. The manual closing of the valve resulted in a I.X)Xoverload of 143 kg (316 Ibm). The LOX load indicated by the PU (84,524 Ibm). 3.5.2.2 LH 2 The fuel system was satisfactorilyloaded and roducedreplensystem was successLoading of LH 2 and 48 minutes system at liftotfwas 38,339 kg

toting of the LB 2 tank ullage pressure during this initial fill operation revealed that the tank pressure did not decrease below the prefiliambient pressure. At the 16-percent mass level, main fill was initiated,and the rate increased to 0. 121 m3/s (1915 gpm). When the 96-percent level was reached 33 minutes after the initiationofLH 2 precool, the mainfill valve was closed manually. LII2 replenish was then initiatedmanually, and the LH 2 loading system was placed in the autocycled between position) and the the matic mode. 99.25-percent The LH 2 level then (reduced replenish

with LH 2 by cooling down

and fillingin four stages:

initial fill., main fill, replenish) ish. The automatic fuel loading fully utilized into the S-IV prior to lifteff, The LH 2 transfer line had

for loading the LH 2 tank, stage was initiated 1 hour

99.5-percent mass level (replenish closed position). This replenishing cycle continued until the start of the f50-second by the PU automatic system COLD Prior coldhelium spheres to prevent down daring (900 they psi} cooled count. The was 7790 fuel load indicated Ibm). at liftoff HELIUM to the the initiation spheres theinitialpart of LH 2 loading, collapsing of LH 2 loading. the N/cm as 2 kg ( 17,174

been

preeooled

for

ap3.5. 2.3

proximately 10 minutes prior to the initiation of LH 2 initial fill. Cooldown of the LI-I 2 transfer line was accomplishedthrough thehelium preeool heat exchanger al_d the with /23 stage LH 2 tank. line and with Initial the fill was accomplished 2 open. The an LH 2 replenish to 28 psi), pressure LH 2 tank of 16 to 19 N/cm vents

wereprepressurizedto621 from

87

Cold helium loading was initiated approximately minutes before launch. After the spheres were at approximately was N/era to 2103 the75-percent increased 2 (3000 to, to 3050 and psi). LH 2 mass maintained The deof 2068 the pressure 2068 loadtemperature

was considerably hasoccurredpreviously, trieal sustained to 11.3 cables, by m/s 37B and the (18

moredamageto the swing arms particularly flexhoses,elecECS swing to 22 ducts. arms kalot) the was wind impact The due greater blowing of the to a steady from

tha_

submerged level, at, sign

damage 9.3 the

of 33.3 K at a pressure

south/southwest. complex

Scheduled minimizes

refurbishment

of launch damage.

N/cm 2 (3000 psi) was attained approximately 55 minutes following the initiation of LH 2 loading. At liftoff, the spheres were charged to 2146 N/cm 2 (3112 psi) at 22.7" K.

3.7.2

ELECTRICAL

SUPPORT

EQUIPMENT equipment the SA-10 responded countdmvn

3.6

tlOLDDOWN All combustion stabilitymonitor (CSM) systems

and

The electrical support performed normally during

and automatic sequence. performed m,'uximum below, Max Eng. No. Meas. No. G's Average (RMS) 15 12 13 16 14 10 13 14 G's 3.8 BLOCKIIOUSE Blockhouse critical conditions ments down. engine for REDLINE VALUES satisfactorily during launch of SA-I0. The and average vibration levels are recorded No damage was sustained by any functioning hardother than the tower cabling, which was burned during liftoff.

ware

excessively

(RMS) 25 20 22 30 45 13 40 25

i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

XE-57-1 XE-57-2 XE-57-3 XE-57-4 XE-57-5 XE-57-6 XE-57-7 XE-57-8

redline values are limits placed on and vehicle ignition and in the value parameters launch. blockhouse is exceeded is is to indicate These safe measure-

are mordWred When a redline

dewing cocmtand a eondiindicated, made. the If the

tion detrimental to the mission countdown is halted and disposition

problem is notconsidered detrimental to mission success, the eounklown is continued If the problem is of a more serious nature and cannot be corrected in time to continue launch is aborted the countdown after and rescheduled. a short hold, the

3.7 3.7.1

GROUND

SUPPORT

EQUIPMENT GROUND SUPPORT

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT The postlauneh

All values are within the redline limits and necessitated no holds for the Saturn SA-10 countdown. evaluation of the operational systems revealed that conAn S-I hydraulic the temperature and measurement waived exchange by failed MSFC facility

ground support equipment

early

in the countdown launch

was

siderably more damage was incurredthan on any previouslaunch. Damage to the launcher, engine service platform, holddown arms, environmental control system, pneumatic distribution system, and firing accessories was considered normal, with more damage to that equipment line. located north of the launcher center

through (LIEF).

information

Review of the SA-10 launch films revealed that the GH 2 vent disconnects on swing arm 3 operated properly at liftoff. Therefore, ithas been concluded thatthe malfunction which occurred on SA-8 was properly corrected. Thecorrection was made by increasing the pneumatic actuator pressure, which in turn increased the force available to achieve separation of the GH 2 vent disconnects.

The cable trays onthe north side of the umbilical tower at the I0.7 m (35 feet) level were damaged extensively and many of the cables badly burned. There

SECTION 4. i VEHICLE MASS

IV.

MASS

CHARACTERISTICS Table 4-III. The parameters and mass are plotted versus burning time in Figures 4-i and 4-2.

The totalvehicle mass Ibm)

was 511,159 kg (i,126,913 Ibm) at S.... -_----_ -_ --" " __ ._ _ _ ..... _/ / 10,324 kg (22,761 Ibm) separation). at significant is given Table flight in Table "" " "...... i i ] . __ . :, _ _ .... -_ ...... :-_ "_'_\ : ,-, ' : .... -,: -_

at first motion; 62,583 kg (137,972

IV ignitionand approximately

in orbit (dry weight after Apollo 4-I is a vehicle mass breakdown events. 4-II. tion A flight sequence summary

The predicted mass data presented in this secare derived from Reference 1. The propellant in the tables refer to total amount the propellant masses in the enmasses and PU estimate are based on acomsystem analysis, and from the composite

masses presented down toandincluding

gines. The S-IV stage positc of engine analysis are considered the best

standpoint. The best estimate of the total second flight stage as determined from the flightsimulation a_mlysis is presented in Section Vl and is considered the best estimate from the consumption GRAVITY standpoint. AND

4. ') VEHICLE MOMENT Longitudinal roll, pitch, and

CENTER OF OF INERTIA and yaw radial moments

center

of gravity, are given

and in

FIGURE GRAVITY

4-1. AND

VEHICLE

MASS CENTER OF

OF

of inertia

MASS MOMENT FOR S-I STAGE

INERTIA

FIGURE

4-2

VEHICLE

MASS CENTER OF GRAVITY INERTIA FOR S-IV STAGE

AND

MASS

MOMENT

OF

__ _-___It 10

--....

I_Ill

. L

TABLE

4-I,

VEHICLE

MASSES

11

----

1"_1

IVI,,TI

in_"

TABLE

4-II.

SA-i0

FLIGHT

SEQUENCE

gLASS

SUMMARY

ACTUAL _kSS HISTORY kg (Ibm) kg

PREDICTED

(Ibm)

S-I

Stage

Ground

Ignition '" Ground Ignition Ignition

453,288 I,OQ5 53,007 1,215 8,7_3 Ignitio:_ 517,348 -6,189

990,329 2,4L5 116,860 2,678 19,274 1,140,556 -13 6A3

_53,803 l,LOO 52,824 1,208 8,730 517,764 -6,056

1,000,663 2,426 116,457 2,bb] 19,267 1,141,476 -13,352

S-I/S-IV

Interstage

S-IV Stage _ Ground V_hicle Instrl_ent Payload Ist S-I _ Cround Stage Buildup

Ignition Unit _ Ground

Ignition _ Ground

Flight Thrust

Propellants

[st

Flight

Stage

_: First

Motion

511,159

1,126,913

511,708

1,128,124

S-I S-I S-I S-I S-I S-I S-I Seal

M_linstage Frost Fuel Lube

Propellants

-391,545 -454 -254 -Ii -83 -172 -960 -4 [ ] I

-863,209 -I,OOD -560 -24 -183 -379 -2,116 -1[) .273 -88 -291 -10 -302 258,468 -0

-392,331 -454 -256 -11 -&l -172 -945

-.864,943 -i,000 -586 -?A -90 -37q -2,081

Additive Oil (Oronite) Tail Purge Central

N 2 for S-IV Environmental IETD P:,rge

Propellants

S-I/S-IV Interst_ge S-IV Chilldown S-IV S-IV Payload _st Flight Chilldown Frost

Environmental LOX LH 2

Control

-123 -40 -132 -5

-123 -55 -107 -41 -137 117,035

-273 -121 -237 -90 -302 258,0t8

Environmental Stage

Control Signal

-137 117,239

@ Cutotf

S-I

N2

for

S-IV

Tail

Purge (To Separation)

-20 -1,523 -7 -6 -q 256)907 116,348

-4 -b71 -6 -2 -4 256,503 -1,47q

-IO -1] -5 -8

S-I OETD Propellants S-IV Chilldown Lax S-IV S-IV 1st Chilldown Ullage Flight LH 2 Rocket Stage _

_691 -3 -3

Propellants Separation 116,531

-?

S-I S-l/S-IV S-IV S-IV S-IV 2nd

Stage

a] Separation Interstage 0 LaX Separation

-52,917 -972 -12 -7 -40 62_583

-I16,663 -2,[_2 -26 -16 -88 137,972

-52,952 -977 -13 -A -63 62,339

-I16,739 -2,153 -28 -i0 -138 137,435

Chilldo_n

Chilldown LH 2 Ullage Rocket Flight Stage

Propellants

;_ Ignition

S-1V S-IV S-IV S-IV Launch

Hainstage Helium Ullage Ullage Escape

Propellants* Heater Rocket Rocket System Propellants Propellants Cases

-&5,388 -II -68 -126 -1,339

-100,064 -24 -150 -277 -2,953

-45,3[5 -[i -44 -130 -1,313

-99,903 -24 -97 -286 2,895

2nd

Flight

Stage

<_ Cutoff

Signal**

15,651

34,504

15,526

34,230

S-IV S-IV

Thrust

Decay

Propellants Below Pump Inlets

-ii -19

-24 -42

-Ii -19

-24 -42

Propellants

2nd Orbital

Flight Flight

Stage

_ Stage

End

of (After

Thrust Apollo

Decay** Sep)

15,621 k 10,324

34,438 22,761

15,496 10,323

34,i64 22,7>8

* **

Incltldes Predicted

Thrust Values

Buildup are for

propellants a Depletion

(to

90%

thrust)

Cutoff

Note:

IETD OETD

* -

Inboard Outboard

Engine Engine

Thrust Thrust

Decay Decay

.w 12

mT

|o-_m,.

....

A _

TABLE

4-111.

MASS CHAtt.-_-CTERISTICS

COMPARISON

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

13

SECTION 5, i SUMMARY The nominal. actual The

V.

TRAJECTORY

tra)ectory of SA-10 was very close to total velocity was 9.8 m/s higher them

.,

,,,

_--_

_:j 7 I I

nominal at OECO and I. 06 nV's lower than nominal at S-IVcutoff. AtS-IVcutoff the actual Mtitude was 0.04 kmlower than m/s than nominal and the range was 1.33 km less 0. 62 _ __

_"' " , "_

aomilml. 7'he cross to the left of nominal A theore12eal S-I booster

range velocity deviated at S-IV cutoff. trajectory that the

1 ., '

., ;. a : ._

rated

free flight indicates

of the sepaimpact ground Impact, asoccurred

range was 8.0 km strafing the tumbling at 725.8 seconds. The S-IV

longer than nominal. booster remainedintact,

I ]
.--_ -'I"_ '

/
,,_', :.,., 5-2. S-IV , "' ":' _' TRAJECTORY

payload

at orbital

insertion velocity altitude kin. less

(S-IV

cut-

"'

" .... FIGURE

of:[ + 10 seconds) tess than nominal,

had a space fixed yielding a perigee

0.7 m/s of 528.8 Estimated than nomi-

km and an apogee altitude of 531.9 orbital lifetime was 720 days, 5 days nat. 5.2 TRAJEC TORY COMPARISON

WITH

NOMINAL
'l

range (Ze) for the S-I

are compared phase of flight

graphically and inFigare

in Figure 5-1 5-2 for the S....

_,'-1 '-_ _,., . /

_ //iiJ_l

I . -._

IV phase. and nominal total earth fixed velocActual ActuM nominal and altitude, range and cross tries are shown graphically in Figure 5-3. Comparisonsof the actual and nominal parameters at the three cutoff events are shown in Table trajectory is presented in Reference 5-I. 2. The nominal

"-'

,.

,.

z,t

....

----

s _,, ,_i

[#

,i

?
:"_..... .... _t.......... ,/,/_ / : _Y:

Z't
[I / .... ]1 I

I
FIGURE 5-1. S-I TRAJECTORY FIGURE 5-3. EARTH FI.X2EI) VELOCITY

14

TABLE

5-I.

CUTOFF

CONDITIONS
S IV Ct)

,.

IECU Paranl_t_r At'tu_l I{ar4_c Time Allitudc I{angc Cr'o_, ('ro_b _ rtit (knlF [kin) I[angc, (mgt_ .'ixcd Z_ _klnl Z u (m.'_l Inl/s) Is_'c_ 142. zz 79,:IZ 65"._t -U._-' _.47 ;_564. 19 Nl>nli_[ 1-[4.01 :: 7!L 12 ti7.44 U. 31 Iu_:l_ 25:_._7 Act Nora A(-(tl;d 14'_.32 _9,50 7!). _, tl, 16 1u. 22 27;_-I,63

OECO i Numimd 150. Ul .'tb._4 79.70 0.37 11.97 2714._t7 Att-N(_m 1.11!J (.,.51, 0.32 _. 5:_ -I.T5 t_.7t_ A('t_d 6:1u.252 535.7t l_4Z. r,._

(Guidance N_prlllllal fi:1_.575 5;15.75 i_44.21 4(_.4{J 22LC.2_ T151.66

Sig_laO Act-Nora 2.;/2:_ -0.04 -1..13 0.55 0.(,2 - l. Ut,

-1.q9 U._IJ -u.4:l -U. 53 _1.91 7.52

4_i._J.5 -'2_._(; 7150,_iu

Vclu*:itY, V_h_('il_

Earth " xed Velocity Vct't_r Ele_':Lti{m (tl'g) Ea " h .'t>,ed V_|(_c'ily 'uc tier ,\ zin!uth ((k'g) Spa-t_ "i,_d [k_,ed 1" xuE VLu:llv Inel.tl_d _,n I'il_ (rn/_) Inl/_ I'ime,,I 2} _).49

;_!_. 51_i

35. 757

I). 75U

;P,. 69:;

:17. _36_,

U. 7Z5

O. Or4

U. UL_,

tl. u(l_

95. _,t2 2'_94. t;9 60.2_ 5o_._md.

95. iigl, _'_9U_2;I 59.'35

-0. IK_I t.4_ _1.33

95.?35 3,J5_.05 31.:1_

95.7_1 3U5[.17 31.1._

-u, t_4(_ i_._'_ iJz.',

11)5. :_74 75t_1.4I zcf,_:_:_

to.5. ;_S i 75tl;u_, A_,.5:;

t}. _JIt, -b..,:, _b.:tL_

:k_{d_r:lt_(,n 31(,li,,n

E;trth "it:d Vi,h,city Accura_ OECO O. 3 m/_

Altitud_ Ac(ur_('3 OEC() _ :lip nl

Altitude

and range

were

greater

than nominal durT.:.,L,........ ,_:,: .... _' -3 -_ ..... , r" .... _ :_ '_ I ._, , '

ing S-I and S-IV burn. The actual earth tixcd velocity was 9. 8 rn/s greater thannomilmlatOECO. ThelongitudinMaceelcration was slightly higher than nominal for the S-I and S-IV stage operations (Fig. 5-4).

nominal; S-IV stage cut off 2.32 seconds earlier stage The considerirN a 1.69-second early S-I than cutolt, tile S-IV stage had a 0.63-second shorter burning time. The actual space fixed velocity at the S-IV cuto/I sigh'M, given by the guidance computer ( 630.252l, was 0.5 m/s less than nominal. Slightly higher than nominal S-IV stage thrust and flowrate, along with the excess S-I cutoff velocity, account for the early S-IV cutoff. Mach number and dynamic pressure are shown in Figure 5-5. These parameters were calculated using measured meteorological data to an altitude of 55 kin. Above this Atmosphere altitude the was used. U.S. Standard Reference

_' , _"' _-,

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

I i " ..... _ I _.,._,"_'i_ ...... '

I ..... i i '
!

:........ , ._........ - -_ !
[

,.,

I _ : ] I _ i ] ,

1
i

' ! _//

! i [ ,/4/" _"

/!]
o_ .... ,

!
at siguificant event times arc given in Table 5-II. Apex, loss of telemet_,, and impact apply only to the discarded S-I stage. The S-IV cutoff signal was given by the guidance _, ............ FIGURE 5-4. TOTAL : "_ _, computer at 630.25z seconds; however, the solenoids for the propellant valves on the S-IV stage did not receive the signal until 0. 022 second later. The velocity increments imparted to the vehicle subsequent

!./,

--1"
i .................

'...... INERTIAL ACCELERATION

15

TABLE

5-II.

SIGNIFICANT

EVENTS

Event

paran_oter

_.e trial

Numilla[

A(2t-Nom

First

Motion

Range Total

Time Inertial

(see) Accelez'atiun I.m/s2?

0,49 lZ. 95

U.49 12. e2

0,0O 0. i3

Maeh

Ral_ge Altitude

Time (kin)

(see)

54. 865 7.22

54.76B 7.27

U, 639 -0. 65

Mmximuni

Dynamic

Pressure

Ratlge Dyr_mi Altitude

Time (kin) Time

I sec) ( N/cm 21

6b. 75 3, 41b 12. Z3

67.49 3. 267 11. [;4 144. 60. 11 07

1.26 0, 151 0. [i_ -1. 7_

pressure

,Maximunx Acceleration

Total {S-1

lnertial Stage)

Rallge

(sec) ( m/s2?

142,

32

Aeceteration

60, 40

o. 3:_

Maximum (S-[ Stage/

Earth

Fixed

Vel(_'ity

Range Velocity

Time (rtl/s)

(see)

1-t8.55 2730.70

150.31 2724.17

-1.76 b, 53

Apex

(S

1 Stage?

Range Altitude Range Earth

Time !kin) (klll) Fixed Time ikm) (kin) Inertia_

(see)

355.0 261._u 489,:/2

350.9 254.56 4/5.35 205& U :_ l_ 572. 52.4 934. -4.25 -1.07 b 0 o

2, I 7.24 :L }J7 -16.3 0. U 12,6 5. 6 0.07 0. 75

Velocity (see)

(m/s/

2041.7 572. 65.0 929.

Loss (S-I

el

Telemetry

Range Altitude Range Total Elevation

Stage]

Acceleratiort lrom Pad

(m/s2j {deg)

-4, -0.32

Altgle

Imixact

{S-I

Stage)

Range Range Cross Geodetic Longltade

Time (kin) Range

lsec) {kin) (deg)

725. 965.4 l_.b 27.

720.3 977.4 1(& 6

5,5 5. 0 -0. -0. -0, -2. -u. g_ 6 U061 Ogl 3',1 30 1

Latitude (deg) Time (see) (m/s (sec)

195_

27. 76, 632. 25.55 632.

2019 7510 6b

70. 6699 630.55 2) 25, 25 630.55 7153, t_5

bla.ximunl Acceleration Maximum Velocity

Total

Inertial Stage) Fixed Stage)

Range

(S-IV Earth IS-IV

Acceleration Range Velocity Time tm/s)

2.33 U. 63

7154.4_

to ;/ ........
I I j.... I I

the

guidance

cutoff stage

signal

are

given

below

for

the

S-I and S-IV respectively. , I

at OECO

and S-IV

guidance

cutoff,

VELOCITY

GAIN

(m/s)

..... ] "

Event OECO S-IV CO

Actual 5, 3 2.9

Nominal 5.3 3.1 i i

_, _:FIGURE 5-5. MACH NUMBER AND DYNAMIC

for the discarded S-I stage A theoretical tree [light from the reference trajectory was SA-10. seined no tracking for the coverage reentry A nominal tumbling phase.

truing trajectory initial was conditions computed at separation. There S-I stage was impact on asdrag The coefficient calculated

of the discarded

PRESSURE

16

locat/on relative to the launch site is shown 5-6. from the actual and nominal

in Figure

C (812 seconds range timc). tion of this impalsc metered were

The mag1_itudc anddirecdetermined from the tele-

Table 5-11Ipresents the booster impact location free flight trajectory,

output of the guidance system.

[ '?_/ t "-

' .... .......

i"

_'

The maximum variations, considering all from tions made, in position and velocity components soluthe insertion parameters quoted were 200 m in positions and 0.5 m/s in velocities.

_ _L

_:

_ _\ ] ; ,._ _" _

_'_ '(_ _- _ _.

' i __ "" :, i _:.

" tual

Table and tracking tween rations elements

5-IV nominal residuals

shows orbital wttich

a comparison insertion representthe

between elements. differences

the

acThe be-

the actual calculated given

tracking observations for theorbitdefined in the tabulation were on previous errors of the

and the obserby the insertion of the magni-

_- _-_*

tudes experienced average residual FIGURE 5-6. BOOSTER TILAJECTORY TRACK GROUND were vation approMmately measurements TABLE TABLE 5-III. BOOSTER IMPACT

Saturn flights. The range measurements

12 m and of the azimuth and eleapproximately 0.02 degree. INSERTION ELEMENTS

5-IV.

COMPARISON

PararneCer Surfact: Cross Geodetic LongUudc Runge "_Stlrtacc Time aange nangc <' (kmJ (km_ {degl

Actual 985.4 1_.8

(Cult)

Nominal 977.4 19.6 Z7.2019 70.7510 7z0.3

Act-Nora b.0 -0. 5iJu_:u Fiud

Event Time of Orbital Insertion i]lange Time sl:c_ Velocily Angle Im _J

Actual 64tA;z;2

Nora real t;1_.575

A, t-Nora -2.:_-'3

75._4.:i 0. 0052 535. 7

75t}5. _) -0. 00_m 5_t5. 7 1910._ 4_. IJ -'-'t,. :1 5:_I. _

-0.7 O. t}otlt_ o. o -lo o. :_ +0. u o. o

Latnudc ( clcgi (secl

27.1958 70.6699 725._

-U.0051 Flight -0+ 0_11 Altitude 5.5 Ground (angc aangc aangt_ ikm Ikm_ Veldt it) J :1_ _1 19_.'J t-.._ 22",. 7 531. L* (kin} Path l tlcgl

rangt2

t.s m_lstlred

flom

launch

site. i Cv_,_s ('ryes

5.3

INSERTION (S-IV

CONDITIONS + 10 SECONDS) solutions were made data at insertion, using the the Car-

Apt_g_

AlUtudc

[_,nI) "

CUTOFF

Insertioneondition Antigua and Grand

P_nod (,,:.u Inchmttion (dcgl


Ex,.c._._ c_l-uu[_tr _'431Ollt} i1_ Nt

_5. _ 2_. _
-o. _

_. :_ -'_, _
LI. 1

-0., 0. oo
-tl. 7

Turk

narvon downrange tracking, and the Merritt Island and Ascension tracking on the return pass over the Cape area. The data were used in various combinations and solutions In addition generate pulse ration the solving and not solving the orbital ephemeris, predicted tracking, for effective which was had a velocity drag. used to im-

Lifetime idays, 720 725 -5 The apogee a,ll pel'tgcc attitudes arc retcrcnted to a _pnt.r_cul cartn r_ui_ S:+TS._km.

of approximately time of the Apollo

-0, 3 m/s applied at the sepashroud from the S-IV/Pegasus

17

SECTION 6.1 SUMl_LARY The performance of both the S-1 and S-IV propul-

VI.

PROPULSION buildup times in the engines that received nalat the same time was 58 ms between 8. Figure 6-1 illustrates stage thrust the individual buildup. buildup and S-I ignition engines engine sig6 and thrust

sion systems was satisfactory for the SA-10 flight, SA-t0 was the sixth Saturn vehicle to employ [I-I engines power flight at a thrust the S-I stage. of the RLt0A-3 level of 836,000 N (188.006 lbf_ to

r....

SA-1O engines

also represents to power the

the sixth S-IV stage.

'*

'

'

'L

]
"/

stage from dictcd specific

averaged the engine from the impulse

0.82

percent

higher

than

predicted than preVehicle lower thm_ .......... - ..... :. . _ _/_%_ _/_b_"

analysis and 0.86 higher flight simulation analysis averaged 0.15 percent

predicted for the lower thanpredicted

engine azmlysis and 0. 39 percent for the flight simulation analysis. occurred 1.79 than predicted, was initiated secreby __ _ _ _ .... I engine sysand other

Inboard and outboard engine cutoff onds and l. 69 seconds earlier speetively. the backup cutoff. The tems, associated purge Outboard engine

cutoff

timer 6. 1 seconds after it_Joard performance of ati pressurization systems, systems was hydraulic satisfactory. of the S-IV the stage systems,

The propulsion within design limits

performance throughout

stage

was _._ ' "_ .. / F / / ' FIGURE 6-1. S-I : ENGINE / _ ----

_ .,. . , . .

powered

flight. The average vehicle longitudinal thrust devialion was 0. 29 percent higher than predicted from the engine analysis and 0. 17 percent higher thanpredicted from the flight simulation. The longitudinal specific impulse deviation was 0.01 percent lower than predicted from the engine analysis and0.21 percent lower

/
INDMDUAL THRUST

titan predicted from the flight simulation analysis. Satisfactory performalme was obtained from the individual engines, the LOX tank pressurization systems, the heliumheater, tems, and the pressurization exception valve did the 6.2 6.2.1 flight. S-I STAGE OVERALL PERFORMANCE STAGE PROPULSION the hydraulic nonpropulsive system that the not open systems, the PU sysvent system. The luel properly with the The control solenoid during a portion of

AND STAGE

functioned

BUILDUP altitude thrust shown in

pressurization when required

vehicle

longitudinal

Figure 6-2 averaged approximately 0.9 percent higher than predicted. The vehicle specific impulse (lower portion of Fig. 6-2) averaged approximately 0. i percent lower Vehicle are shown than total in predicted. propellant 6-3. 0.5 flowrate The percent and flight mixture mixture lower ratio ratio

PERFORMANCE The propulsion system of the S-I stage persat-

Figure

averaged

approximately

than pre-

formed satisfactorily. isfactorily, withno pressure transients mand was initiated The engine starting tolerances starting of the pairs.

The eight indicationofany

engines ignited abnormalehamber

dieted. The be attributed density. Average gine analysis marized

lower than predicted primarily to a lower

mixture ratio can than predicted LOX

on any engine, The ignition corn-').64 seconds before liftoff sig_aal. sequence was within the expected prescribed The largest 100 ms delay in the between thrust deviation

S-I

propulsion corrected 6-I.

parameters to sea

from level are

the ensum-

method

in Table

U_-

1.1.

18

................ FIGURE 6-2. VEH]C LE AND SPECIFIC LONGITUDINAL IMPULSE

! THRUST

kg

(1600

Ibm)

less

than

predicted

LOX load.

The

in-

creased power levels account for 1.2 seconds. The LOX levelin tank 04 which initiated the cutoff sequence was about 2.54 cm (1 in) lower than the average

TABLE

6-I.

AVERAGE

STAGE

PROPULSION

PARAMETERS,

SA-10

Parameter

Predicted

Engine Analysis

Dev. Percentage Fro. Predicted -0.11

Flight Simulation 511,132 1,126,853

Dev. Percentage Fro. Predicted -0.1l

LiftoffWeight

(kg) (Ibm}

511,707 1,128,121 6,790,517 1,526,569 2,682.3 5,913.5

511,132 1,126,853 6,846,414 1,539,135 2,709.1 5,972.6

Sea

Level

Thrust

(N) (lbf)

0.82

6,849, 180 1,539,757 2,715.2 5,986.1

0.86

Flow

Rate

(kg/s) (Ibm/s}

1.00

1.23

Sea Level Impulse Vehicle (142.22

Specific (scc) Weight sec Range Time) (kg) (Ibm)

258.2 130,585.68 287,892.15

257.70 126,159 278,134

-0. 15 -3.5

257.2 125,282 276,200

-0.39 -4.2

The engines. seconds second

engine

cutoff

sequence

was

normal

for

all

outboard

tanklevel

and

accounts

for

0.1

second

of the

Inboard engine cutoff (IECO) occurred earlier than predicted. Approximately of the differenceean be attributed to the

1.79 0.4 725.7

difference. The low levels also account for time differential between IECO and OECO being 6. I seconds with a backup timer cutoff instead of the predicted 6.0

19

seconds. Figure 6-4 shows the chamber pressure cays of the i_board and outboard engines,

de-

_-- ---=T::--b \
TM.

Previous analyses of all Saturn I Block II flights have indicated that the variation of the vehicle thrust as a function of time using telemetered engine measurements was consistent _ith the observed trajectory. It is theorized that this is a result of the clustered engines and that the effect is somehow a ftmct_on oi the flow from the inboard engines choking after approximately 65 seconds of flight. The cluster effect that was derived from SA-7 (lower part of Fig. 6-5) was assumed to be common to all Block II vehicles and produced reasonable solutions.

I I

T_/rji

I,,t_

"tnd_r_!

"fhr,j.,

1fC0

b) h

'

__

._

"
7_(g --

,_//

\ _'x J

65C:'

"

k.:-

"

-/

-C

*:( Ra,,ze

71m_

8(. f_,,

11 f )

12(_

_ .',.

l.n-,,l 3.2

T}r,:st

:, ,idt;rF

:) r .....

\
-0._ .........

THRUST DECAY FIGURE 6-4. iNBOARD AND OUTBOARD ENGINE 6.2.2 FLIGHT SIMULATION OF CLUSTER PERFORMANCE The vehiclelongitudinal sea level specific impulse, vehicle longitudinal sea level thrust, and total weight loss rate were derived from the telemetered propulsion system measurements in a simulation of the tracked trajectory. The simutation of the tracked trajectory was accomplished throughthe use of a sixdegree-of-freedom trajectory calculation incorporating adifferentialcorrection procedure. This program determined corrections to the level of the vehicle Iongltudinal sea level thrust, total weight loss rate and vehicle drag correction that would yield the best fit to the velocity and acceleration from the observed trajectory. The liftof[ weight as g'iven by the MSFC weight group was considered known,

_,_

, !____ i ,.,_

:.

_o

e,_

s0

_,,

:_

FIGURE

6-5.

FLIGHT

SIMULATION

RESULTS

Although the cluster effect shown in Figure 6-5 was used to alter the local thrust shape in the flight simulation program, it is possible that this effect could be some force other than a thrust shape deviatiom A change where this effect would act on the effective force of the vehicle in the trajectory computation program would not affectthe propulsion system evaluation results since the average sea level thrust is used as a reference.

2O

The solid line in upper portion o1" Figure 6-5 shows the total longitudinal force necessary to match the observed trajectory {assuming the mass history from the flight simulation analysis is correctl. This

treeme o
The dashed longitudinal Table line in this figure for SA-10. force 6-I presents in Section XII. The maximum deviations

along the longitudinal axis, which includes engine thrust, turbine exhaust, drag, cluster effects, etc. is the predicted total _of the average ,....

a summary

values and deviations of liftoff weight, sea ievel thrust, flowrate, sea level specific impulse and vehicle weight near inboard engine cutoff signal from the flight simulation method compared with the postflight engine analysis and predicted values, The a.xiM force coeflicient resulting from this solution along with the pre-

.:

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

_ ' ...... ......

of the simulated

tra-

jectory from the tracked trajectory were 0.5 m/s te velocity and 0.1 m/s 2 in acceleration. This is indiearive el the goodness of fit of the simulation. 6.2.3 INDIVIDUAL ENGINE PERFORMANCE FIGURE 6-6. DEVIATION IN INDIVIDUAL ENGINE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS (S-I) 6.3 6.3, S-I PRESSURIZATION 1 FUEL SYSTEMS SYSTEM inereased engine fuel

The performance of all eight engines was satisfactory, Reconstructed thrust levels for all engines were slightly higher than predicted except -for engine position one. The thrust levels for engine position two were estimated solely from the telemetered chamber pressure since t.be turbopmnp speed data for this engine were not valid. Therefore, the deviations from predicted may be slightly inaccurate for this engine, Significant discrepancies exist between reconstructed and telemetered chamber pressures for engine pesttions 4, 6, 7, and 8. Reconstructed engine specific impulses for all engines were below the predicted values. Figure 6-6 presents the percent deviation from predicted for the reconstructed thrust and specific impulse, ltigher thanpredicted thrusttevels have occurred during the past four flights, including SA-10. The higher than predicted thrust levels on SA-IO cannot be attributed to flight conditions. LOX pump inlet and fuel pump inlet pressures averaged within 0.7 N/cm 2 ( 1 psi} of predicted values, Fuel density was as predicted, The LOX pump inlet temperatures averaged O, 7K higher than predicted because of the high wind velocities at launch, This deviation represents an average decrease from the predicted LOX pump inlet density of 3,8 kg,/m 3 (0,24 Ibm/It3), A lower than predicted LOX pump inlet density of this magnitude should have decreased thrust by approximately 0, 5 percent,

PRESSURIZATION

Fuel tank pressurization provides tank structural rigidity as well as adequate pump inlet pressure,

Fuel tank pressurization to it. 72 N/cm 2 gauge (17 pstg) of a 3.7-percent ullage was accomplished in 7.6 seconds. The pressure in the fuel tanks {Fig. 6-7) agreed closely with the pressure seen on past flights andpredicted values. The fuel container pressure was 6, 9 N/cm z gauge (10 psig) at OECO. The number of fuel tank pressurization valves that were operational during SA-10 flight were: Time Interval (Range Time see) 0 to 39, 5 39, 5 to 54.5 54, 5 to 70,5 70, 5 to OECO Number of Scheduled Pressurization Valves 3 2 1 0

Pressurization valve number 2 was changed from normally closed on SA-8 to normally open on SA-10 to increase system reliability.

21

.............
m

When the GFCV is at its fully closed position (against stop}, the GOX flowrate will be about 7.94 kg,/s ( 17.5 ' rain a nominal 34.5 N/cm 2 (50 psi) in tileLOX tanks Ibm/s). This flow exceeds that nccessary to main-

....

i ,

.....

........ ......
! ......... \ _ .. =2;2, "- -_ j]. .....
L';, L '

)
_ ....... "
I : T ,

\ , :
,I ; ,

--

-4
[

FIGURE

6-7.

GAS PRESSURE IIIGH PRESSURE

IN' FUEL SPHERE

TANK

AND FIGURE 6-8.

............ PRELAUNCH LOX The GFCV TANK AND FLIGHT CENTER

6.3.2

LOX

TANK

PRESSURIZATION

SYSTEM

PRESSURE its full closed position at 5

Prepressurization

of the3.7-pereentLOXtank

reached

ullage to approximately 41.4 N/cm 2 (60 psi) was aocomplished in 75.6 seconds. The LOX tank vent a_d relief valves were closed at T-163 seconds range time. Helium bubbling started at -153 seconds. tank pressure (Fig. 6-7) rose The center LOX to 13.6

seconds range time and left its fullclosed stop at 93 seconds when the center LOX tank pressure was 33.5 N/cm 2 (51.5 psi). indicating proper response of the GFCV. 6.3.3 CONTROL PRESSURE SYSTEM

N/cm 2 (19.7 psi) at -103 seconds when helium hubbling was terminated and LOX tank prepressurization commenced. was selected LOX tanks valve closed dicator number daring was A 0.325-cm (0. 128 in) diameter to accomplish prepressurization in the reqmired 50 to 90 seconds. 2 took more the automatic found to be orifice of the Relief

The pneumatic control system supplies GN 2 at a regulated pressure of 517.1 _: 34.5 N/cm 2 gauge (750 50 psig) for operation of the LOX system pressure LOX control zation, The was 741 relief valves replenishing valves, and 1 and 2, the LOX vent valve, the control valve, suction line prsvalve engine tarbopump and gear box seal pressuripurging. pressure LOX pump

than 2 minutes to indicate sequence. The valve infaulty during the propellant action required that was taken because in the automatic the valve was op-

loading test. No corrective the closed signal was not sequence erating and it was properly, histories tank pressures used

calorimeter pressure

coniirmed

control

system

regulated

between 506.8 and 510.9 N/cm psig), well within the specified control N/cm equipment 2 (2900 psi) supply sphere at liftoff

2 gauge (735 and pressure band. pressure 1644.4 was N/cm higher were 2 and

Pressure center LOX

for are

prediction shown

andactaal 6-8. 1.17 The N/cm 2 this is control

The 1999.5

in Figure

The SA-10 LOX N/cm 2 (1.7 psi) maximum (53.5 psi) greater valve psi), it

tank pressure ol that used

compares within for prediction. was 36.9 Although GOX N/cm flow

(2385 psi) at 150 seconds wttichis considerably than SA-9 and SA-8 because fewer calorimeters purged. 6.3.4 LOX-SOX The S-I/S-IV DISPOSAL SYSTEM system any LOX or purges SOX

center LOX tank pressure at 35 seconds range time. than the set point is expected of the 1.7 system which 34.5

(GFCV),

2 (50 2.5

LOX-SOX area

disposal of

the which

represents

performance.

interstage

22

falls

from

tile S-IV

stage

engine

thrust

chamber

dur-

plumbing

at

approximately

35

seconds

prior

to

ing the ration.

chiildown Gaseous

cycle prior to S-I/S-IV stage sepanitrogen is supplied to the dispersal

S-US-IV stage from the S-IV

separation. The hydrogen is removed stage through three 0.3 m (12 in) di-

ring manifolds located m_der each of the S-IV stage engines to keep the area inert so that the engines ignitc in a noncombustible atmosphere. All of the zation of the measurements LOX-SOX disposal between the 0.57 fuel tank indicated successful operation equalispheres the focu"

ameter ducts that lead down the sides of the S-US-IV interstage and the S-I stage in the line with stub fins II, III, and IV. Prior to latmeh, low pressure helium from a ground source is used to purge the three ducts. A helium stage purge S-I triplex sphere assembly onboard the S-I The and

system. Pressure m 3 (20 ft _) nitrogen system and

supplies continues stage The powered

helium for purging after liftoff. through the chilldown operation flight. vent duet purge system duct psi)

pressurization

tril)lc'xspheres occurred at 70.5 tion was iedicated by an increase fuel pressurization from 844.7 N/era psi), flight just (Fig. The seconds sudden systems 2 (1225psi) 'j (t0

seconds. Equalizain pressure in the

hydrogen

operated

0.57 m 3 (20 ft a) spheres to 1123.8 N/cm 2 (1630 psi) higher than on SA-8

satisfactorily. pressure was stead)' decay psi) at 148 the system.

The hydrogen vent 1954.7 N/cm 2 (2835 of sphere pressure seconds indicated

purge supply at liftoff. A

6.9 N/cm 6-7). S-I/S-IV

to 450. 2 N/cm 2 (65;I expected operation of

vent

ports

were

blown

at

140.72 6.4 S-I STAGE PROPELLANT UTILIZATION propellant indication the proper conthe of pro-

by drop

exploding in S-l/S-IV

bridgewire interstage

(EBW) charges. A temperature at apthe initiation of Schamber pressure rapidly at 141.9 valves sec2, 3,

proximately IV LOX shown ends in

t41 seconds iudicated chilldown. The plenum Figure 6-9 the increased opening of

sumed the

Propellant utilization, the ratioof to propellant loaded, is an system performance system loading to tank

of

propulsion propellant pellant stage dieted.

and tim capubility

indicating

LOX-SOX

5, and 6 with the start of LOX-SOX disposal. A pressure surge at 144.12 seconds showed that valve humher 4 opened and at 145.(;2 seconds another rise in pressure pleting curred the early actuation). her was pared showed that valves t and 7 opened, cornthe sequenced operations. These events oc1.79 seconds earlier thanpredicted because of of time base 2 (propellant level sensor Maximum pressure in the plenum chain2i0.3 N/cm 2 gauge (305 psig) which comwith tbltt of SA-8 and SA-9. start

loads. Propellant utilization for the S-I-f0 was satisfactory and within 0.2 percent of preThe predicted and actual (reconstructed) perutilized during the flight arc

ceatofloaded propollat_ta shown as follows: Prelaunci_ Predicted Total Fuel LOX Day (%)

Flight 99. 23 98.42 99.59

(k_,)

favorably

99. 17 98.24 99. 58

:;"

"

L ,,,

The

propellant

loading

criteria

for

S-I-10

were for a The fuel

.... [
I ' i I J

......... _
.....

simultaneous depletion fixed mainstage total ratio density of LOX to fuel at ignition was the cutoff

of usable propellant loaded was

propellants consumption. dependent

on the

"................. I .... , i .... FIGURE 6.3.5 ] 6-9. L LOX-SOX VENT vent SYSTEM DUCT duct L OPERATION .... :

command. fourth Block II flight on which was atu

SA-10 LOX

starvation

of the oucboard

engines

tempted. and flight 1.8-second tion and

The LOX andsettings level cutoff probe fuel sequencer were determined time interval between any cutoff IECO, and an expected 6.0-second

heights a for actuatime in-

terval between any IECO initiated by the deaetuation switch on occurred.

and OECO. OECO was to be of the thrust OK pressure

HYDROGEN The hydrogen hydrogen

PURGE system the removes S-IV stage

any outboard engine when LOX starvation It was assumed, as for S-I-9 and S-I-8, of approximately outboard suction 321 kg lines was (707 Ibm) of LOX This is

purge through

that from

a total the

the

ehiildown

flowing

usable.

23

equivalent to approximately 0.28 m 3 (75 gall. The backup timer (flight sequencer) was set to initiate OECO 6.t seconds alter IECOif LOX starvation cutoff had not occurred within that time. To insure against fuel starvation, fuel depletion cutoff probes were locared in the F2 and F4 container sumps. The center LOX tank sump orifice diameter, which was 0. 47 m (18 5 in), was the same as for S-I-9 and S-I-_ Based on S-I-9 and S-I-8 flight results, a liquid level height differential between the center LOX taltk and the outboard LOX tanks of approximately 7.6 cm (3.0 in) at IECO was assumed for the prediction. The cutoff sequence on the S-I-t0 stage cornmenced with the signal from the LOX level cutoff probe in container 04 at 140.42 seconds. IECO signal was received 1.8 seconds later at 142.22 seconds. OECO was initiated by the backup timer 6.1 seconds after IECO, at 148.32 seconds. LOX starvation was not achieved. The average liquid level height dilferential between the center LOX tank and the outboard LOX tanks at IECO was approimately 7 1 cm (2.8 in) However, the level in tank 04 was approMmately 2.54 cm (1 itt) tower than the average level in the outboard LOX tanks when the cutoffprobe actuated. Therefore, there was approx2mately 181 kg (400 Ibm) more LOX onboard than predictedat IECO, which explainswhy LOX starvation was not achieved. Inboard engine cutoff was 1.79 seconds earlier than predicted. The shorter than predicted S-I-10 stage burntimecanbe attributedto the LOX load beiag approximately 725, 7 kg ( 1600 Ibm) less than required for the fuel density at ignition command (see Section III), and the stage performance being higher than prodicted(seePara. 6.2). The low LOX level in tank 04 also contributed approximately 0.1 second to the short burning time. The propellant residuals indicated that the reconstructed LOX residual was only 16.3 kg (36 Ibm) less than the prelaunch day prediction. Since the LOX residual was very close to predicted and LOX starvation was not achieved, it must be concluded that the usable LOX in the outboard engine suction lines is greater than the amount assumed for the prediction, This conclusion agrees with the flight results from S-I-9 and S-I-8. A fuel bias of 839 kg (1850 Ibm) was specified for SA-10. The fuel bias minimizes the total propellant residuals associated with thepossible variation in the actual stage mixture ratio front the predicted stage mixture ratio. If the specified propellant weights had been loaded and the performance had been as predicted, the fuel bias would have remained as residual fuel after cutoff. The reconstructed fuel residual was

220. 0 kg (485 lbm) less than the prelaunch day prodiction, ttowever, the reconstructed fuel load was approximately t36.1 kg (300 1bin) greater than required by the propellant loading tables for the fuel density at ignition command. The LOX load was approximately 725.7 kg ( 1600 lbm) less, Approximately 326.6 kg (720 ibm} more fuel would have been burned if an additional 725.7 kg (1600 lbmt of LOX had been loaded. It is concluded tlmt if the proper propellant loads had been onbeard, approximately 682.7 kg 1505 Ibm) of the fuel bias would have been used. Propellant utilization was analyzed front signals received from three types of probes located in the nine propellant containers. A system of 15 discrete level probes was located in each container. An electrical signM was initiated by each probe as it was uncovered by the liquid level. Propellant ievelcutoff probes were located in the LOX containers 02 and 04 and fuel containers F2 and F4. The cutoff probe signal times and setting heights from container bottoms were: Height (cm) (in) 69.7 69.7 80. 0 80. 0 27.45 27.45 31.50 31.50

Container 02 04 F2 F4

RT (see) 141.04 140.42 141.41 141.42

The continuous level probe located near the bottom of each propellant container indicated the liquid level from 28. 4 to130. 0 cm (lt.2 to51.2in) ofeontainer bottom. 6.5 S-I STAGE HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS

The fouroutboardH-t engines are timbal mounted to the S-I stage thrust structure. Controlled positioning of these engines provides thrust vectoring for vehicle attitude control and steering. Hydraulic actuatots allow positioning by gimbaling the four outboard engines in response to signals from the flight control computer. There are eight actuators, two for each outboard engine. Four independent, closed loop hydraulte systems provide the force required for each actuator movement. Each outboard engine is capable of a timbal of 8 degrees. Hydraulic system operation during the S-I-t0 flight test was satisfactory. Sufficient source prossures were maintained by each of the independent, closed loop systems. The oil temperatures remained within assigned limits, and the hydraulic oil level

24

"4

trends were as expected. Figure 6-10 shows bands of the hydraulic oil pressure, level, and temt_erature as measured on the four independentelosed loop hydraulic systems.

similarity celeration and S-I-t0 6.7

of burning times and stage longitudinal accm-vesduring retro rocketburning on S-I-S stages. PROPULSION S-IV STAGE PROPULSION

S-IV STAGE OVERALL

'i/

....

:
, ,_ .

6.7.1

PERFORMANCE propulsion performed Iactorily The S-IV the S-IV-10 system Except for asatisduring flight. temporary malfunction in the fuel pressurization system, all subsystems operated within design1 limitations. explainedtank pressurization in This n_alfuneThe fuel in detail paragraph 6.8.t. malfunction systenl is Liondid notaffect theaccomplishment of themission.

..... . '[ __ [ i -

_....... [

! ] ! _ ,_ _ "

:
k

'

6.7.2 STAGE }

PEIIFORMANCE almlyses were employed in re-

Two separate

[ i t_____ ..... FIGURE

_-----+---'---_- ........ J 2 ....

:.._A_______ 1_.

6-10. LEVEL,

HYDRAULIC OIL PRESSURE, AND TEMPEIIATURE

The first method, an engine analysis, used the telemetered engine parameters to compute stage longitaditml thrust, stage longitudi*mi specific impulse, and stage mass fiowrate. The effects of the 6-degree engine cant angle to the vehicle centerline, helium heater flowratas, helium heater thrust, 67 N (15 lbf}, and chilldown vent thrust, 667 N (i50 lbf), are ineluded in the presentation of stage performance parameters. Due to the nature of the analysis, clustering effect on stage longitudinal thrust, 2785 N (626 lbf), is not included unless specifically adjusted to compare results with the flight simulation, The'second method, a postflight simulation, used the thrust and mass flow shapes obtained from the engine analysis, adjusting the levels to simulate the actual trajectory as closely as possible. The simulation was constrained to the cutoff weight determined from capacitance probe data, point level sensor data, andmeasured stage dry mass, andincluded the cluster effects as an inherent part of the simulation. 6.7.2. l ENGINE ANALYSIS

6.6

RETRO

ROCKET PERFORMANCE

Four solid propellant retro rockets are mounted on the S-I stage spider beamand arranged 90 degrees apart and midway between the main fin position. The purpose of the retro rockets is to decelerate the S-I stage after itseparatos fromtheS-IV stage to prevent a possible collision between the two stages. The performance of the retro rockets on SA-I0 was satisfactory, Ignition signal to the .retro rockets occurred at 149.13 seconds andigrdtion of the individual rockets was further insured by the EBW voltage signals of each retro rocket. The retro rocket cornbustion chamber pressure measurements flown on previous flights were not installed on SA-10. Longitudinal acceleration measurements were used to evalaate the SA-I0 retro rocket performance. By comparing the longitudinal acceleration measurements of S-I-8 and S-I-10 and the average retro rocket burning time on SA-8, the average burning time of the SA-10 retro rockets was determined to be approximately 2.2 seconds. Nominal burning time of the retro rockets is 2.15 seconds. Chamber pressure buildup and decay transients for each rocket on SA-10 could not be determined due to the absence of the combustion chamber pressure measurements, but can be assumed normal due to the

The engine performance of the S-IV-10 flight was reconstructed from the start of LIt 2 cooldown to engine cutoff. Statistical confidence in the reconstructed values was established by the relative agreement of three independent computer programs. The calculated performance values deviated from the predicted values by the amom_ts shown in Table 6-II. Based on data obtained from the acceptance test of the S-IV-t0 stage, propellant depletion time had been predicted as 483.13 seconds from engine start

25

TABLE 6-II.

S-IV STAGE

ENGINE ANALYSIS

r.....
_ i

:c.: _,
I ; ! i ! i

- ,_ ...... , c

TPr-,

qn,,;

,,

.,......,..
Speciiic lltlpulae (see)

..._._0 .,_,=, <. ov,.,_.,, n


4zt_.376 429.377 O. UUI

LL_'JA
:

I
t .......- _ s.L r;,,

%
!
s_-, ,* '.....

t
!
' .

i
"'* "'

LOX

Flowrate

{kg2_)

7b.916

79.261

0.44

.....

--

'['olaL

l'lo_t'at_"

Ikg./s) (ibltl/s)

94.715
208.810

94.99Z
209.423

0. Z9
.... ........ , ,

:, M ixttlrt' |{atlo 4. 995 5. {)3_ 0. 5_

a, ,.,

i'
command. The actual depletion calculating the time to deplete siduals {454 kg or 10011bmLOX would have bee,, 484.9t seconds seconds longer than predicted. time, determined by the best estimate reand 87 kg or 191 Ibm

[
, .

_, .......

T- -T--i', ]
. . .7

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

u i,.thea e.agegeconsumpI. ou s burn time, orratee, 78


. L _,.{
>_

K
., ........

I
.... .1 ,

--_

--

within the predicted bands and shapes. Performance profiles comparing the prediction to the actual for thrust, flowrate, specific impulse, and mixture ratio are presented in Figure 6-11. The parameters shown are tmbiased for clustering effects, Thrust includes tim summation of the six-engine individual thrusts corrected for the 6=degree cant angle, 6. 67 N ( 15 lbf) helium heater thrust, 6.67 N (150 lbf) eooldown duct thrust, and 600 N (135 lbf) base pressure effects, but does not include the -2785 N (-626 lbt) clustering effect. Total flow includes the summation of the sixengine individual total flowrates and the helium heater total flowrate, which is 0, 022 kg/s (0. 05 Ibm/s), Specific impulse is the result of dividing cated thrust by the indicated total flowrate. 6.7.2.2 FLIGHT SIMULATION the indi-

_.._Q__ __ .... .... ..,:, ,..

J .

.,u

J _. 3 H

FIGURE

6-11.

TOTAL S-IV STAGE PERFOIIMANCE {ENGINE ANALYSIS)

the observed trajectory. The simulated trajectory, with adjusted propulsion system parameters ineorporated into it, was compared to the observed trajectory, and the following average {root-sum-square) and maximum differences were found: Average Slant Range Earth Fixed 0.3 m/s 0.6 m/s at 240 sec. Dev. blaximum Dev.

25 m

47 m at 300 see.

Velocity Altitude

32 m

54 m at :tt0 sec.

A six-deg-ree-of-freedom trajectory simulation program was used to adjust the S-IV propulsion system parameters obtained by the engine analysis, Using adifferential correction method, thissimulation program determined adjustments to engine analysis stage longitudinal thrust and stage mass flowrate that yielded a simulation trajectory which closely matched

The maximuminaecuracies in the simulated propulsion system parameters are estimated at 0.3 percent for specific impulse, and 0.2 percent for thrust and mass flowrate. These inaccuracies were caused by inaccuracies in the simulation technique and in observed trajectory data. An additional uncertainty is the accuracy of the best estimate of vehicle mass 1o which the simulation is constrained. Any inaccuracy

26

inthe best estimate of vehicle mass inaccuracies in thrust and mass specilic percent impulse. for eaehof By considering the propulsion

causes additional s+,,.,_,,, t,_+,.:'._, (_< _ .:,, ._ c__. this additional parameters. un-

flowrate, but not in

system

sis nd a simulated s geLo+ dlnalthrust, stage mass


flowrate, and stage longitudinal specific impulse. Table 6-ILl compares the predicted engine analyFigure 6-12 compares the predicted values to the postflight engine analysis, and trajectory results for each S-W stage flighttested. TABLE 6-lII. S-IV-10 PROPULSION simulation SYSTEM

:..'_

_ s-i,:-:

i_ s-iv ,,

H_I_ s-:,.-,,_

s-:',-_ s-iv-,, : =.:_(_(,, s)

s+iv-_

,;02

Lo,lgitudinal Thrust VehicLe

IN) (ll)_) (kg/s) (ll)mi._)

, ;195, 43:1 33,897

Etlgine 396,466 _9, 129 95.00 209.4z

FLight 296,127 89,053

!,Off i_' _

_ S+IVSIIV -_ S-]',-} S-iV-

" i

r=i I,[

S-I','-Y

S 1'." It'

Vehicle

Mass

94.71 20_._

95.06 _09. 5_

Longitudinal Sj)_:i[ic Average

Vehicle Impulse vMues I sec) between 425. 90 percent b thrtlst 425.60 and S-IV 424. cutoff. 9 9e 0 9 6

+IN+++++ +o +inin +
Definition Longitudinal cant angle and thrustoriginating of Propulsion vehicle thrust Parameters accounts for engine are the which fects. The s-w+s s-iv-, s-l_.-; factors s-;v-+ applied s-,v._ to this s-,,,.-_,. bar chart correction as includes helium atthe cooldown heater thrust, and vents due to leakage the same predictions do not those used in Table 6-Ilexcept for and engine analysis prior to S-IV-9 corrections due to clustering efof LH 2 through the engine cooldown valves during engine operation. Ullage rocket thrust and predicted aerodynamic base drag (600.5 N or 135 lbf thrust effect) are not included. The engine analysis thrust level count is adjusted for average clustering downward 2785 N (626 lhf) to acengine clustering effects derived Theflightsimulation effect as an inherent includes part of the include FIGURE PERFORMANCE 0. 17 percent higher 6-12. PROPULSION COMPARISON than predicted, impulse SYSTEMS (S-IV STAGE) and percent

fromprcvious the engine simulation, Vehicle

vehicles.

respectively, was 0.21

the longitudinal specific lower than predicted. The trajectory

mass

loss

rate

includes

all

stage

mass

simulation

technique

provides

flowratos, such as the sum of individual engine propellant mass flowrates, leakage of LH z through the cooldown valves_ and helium heater propellant mass flow. Longitudinal longitudinal ,. Eachof ters was flow rate thrust vehicle divided specific impulse mass is vehicle loss rate.

method of determining vehicle mass history, if the vehicle mass atany point or points in time on the trajectoryis aecurately known. Figure 6-13 presents the approach used to determine the best estimate of ignition and cutoff weight to which the flight simulation was constrained. The estimate in order probe probe "box" shown defines the region weight results at cutat igni-

by vehicle

that the best must lie within from capacitance tion. The tion results.

of ignition and cutoff to satisfy the analysis and point level sensor and engine analysis

the simulated

propulsion

system

parame-

off and capacitance

within 0. 5 percent of predicted. and stage longitudinal thrust

Stage mass were 0. 38 and

diagonal line represents Any point on the nominal

the flight simulaflight simulation

27

line provides however, ters vary andcutoff

tile same average directly _ith weight setected

"fit"

to the observed for tile propulsion

trajectory; parame-

cooldown dieted due

period to the

was early

1.69

seconds of

shorter the S-I

khan prostage. The was 146 kg/s/eng

values

cutoff

the magIfitude of tire ignition for the flightsimulation concriterion was applied best esUmate andtolerdetermined and 15,632 _ 2091bin) to

LH 2 consumption kg {3221bm), or ( 1. 351 lbm/s/eng). chilldo_n period flowrate 6.7.3.2 of 1.40 START Normal

during the chilldown period an average flm_ rate of 0.61 was The LOX consumption 84 kg (185Ibm), or {3.05 lb/s/eng).

straint point. A least square tile data presented, and tire ante of the ignition to be 62,551 24kg (34,463 exactly agree but is within best estimate _: 94 kg(137,902

during the all average

and cutoffweights_ere

kg/s/eng

_ 54 Ibm), respectively. This ctoes not with tile masses presented in Section IV the tolerances and is believed to be tile [rein a consumption sl3_tndt]oint,

TRANSIENTS start transients were noted for' all

engines. The engine thrust buildup to the level was achieved by all engines between

90 percent 1. 791 and

The nearest

nominal flight simulation solution which came to achieving the best-estimate point is shown it indicates 62, 57Z kg respectively, that the (137,951 ignition and cutIbm) and 15,626

2. 028 seconds after engine start command. Figm'e 6-14 shows the six engine start transients. Tile thrust overshoot was less than ing tire start transient cent thrust _as 89,899 pared to the predicted (18,210_2450 lbf-s). 5 percent for all engines durTile total impulse to 95 perN-s (20,210 lbf-s) , as comvalue of 81,136 i 10,898 N-s

in Figure 6-13. off weights were kg (34,451 Ibm),

Tt,:.

Siam,,

[,,L : ,

_< n_,'r

r,_.l:

I'

,:

_l,t

103

//-"
',
I I -/

i
I i :,,,

,,4I , .... .'

: ,_t c,a,::

n.,

:,_,.a , 5L_:,:,I. loo

l b. _ _.

, 157 .

//-

5 .

s_ >anTE: _ B_-st s:m,lt, IG & c,,t,,{_ w,.i,,.,t

L i ,J
! ] I _ i I

' I
I i-ao ;,t

_.ss :._rmtop l,'h ran. ,-_ ,n h tr.,,..,_ ..x

.i,. p

c*_lg[railzt pu:nt " (Cl,,_..st :,,g_._

FIGURE

6-13.

BEST

ESTIMATE

OFS-IV-IO WEIGIIT FIGURE 6-14. INDIVIDUAL TRANSIENTS STATE ENGLNE START

IGNITION 6.7.3 INDIVIDUAL The whichpoweredthe dm'ing engine levels levels 6.7.3.1 six

AND CUTOFF ENGINE &

PERFORMANCE RL10A-3 engines, All

6.7.3,

STEADY Satisfactory

OPERATION of flight. the Average engines spewith lbf).

Pratt

Whitney

performance the

S-IV stage,

functioned

satisfactorily and cutoff. andperformance

wasdemonstratod eific impulse a mean total These imam flight mum

throughout for the thrust

prestart, start, eventsoceurred ofalt engines established ENGINE The engine were during

steady state, as scheduled, consistent acceptance

engines was 430.26 seconds, level of 400,860 N (90,085 for ratio

with performance testing,

values are not corrected and minimum mixture were 5.34 and 4.95, mixture ratio occurred

cant angle. Maxlevels during the

COOLDOWN cooldown seconds period Ior was LOX. 39.72 The secLH 2

respectively. The maxiat a PU valve angle of 186 seconds at an angle rauge range of plus time_..

minus time,

22 degrees (approximately while the minimum occurred (approximately

ends

lor

LH 2 anti

10. l

15 degrees

471 seconds

2S

6.7.3.4

CUTOFF The

TRANSIENTS s 'rage cutoff was initiated by a

exception valve did the flight. Figure sures flight.

that the pressurization not open when required

control during

solenoid of

a portion

S-IV-f0

signal from the guidance computer at 630. 252 seconds. At that time, the vehicle was 198,679 km (1234.14 miles) signals, from the Tel2 receiving with a velocity which station, and telemetry was approximating that to reach correction after the N-s the stais made genera(10,828 This in2224 N-s .......... i '_ !

6-16

presents

the

LH 2 tank S-I

ullage and

presS-ix, '

during

prepressurization,

boost,

of light, required 6.64 tion from the vehicle. to ting the data, signal the total to 0percent

milliseconds When this cutoff impulse thrust

is 48,165

lb-s) , as determined from engine analysis. cludes the delay due to relay action, mid

: _--_-I! -_-_

ii " \ .... i ..... ]

_ / 7_

--" "

(500 lb-s) for the chtlldown duct impulse, but does not include engine cant angle. This value is within the lb-s) and is consistent with the value determined from predicted spread of 48,930 400 N-s (11,000-e 900 the velocity gains after cutoff which is 45,550 N-s ( 10,240 lb-s) (AV = 2.9 m/s). a smoothcutoff tr_msient, seconds tO per-

'

__j[L

_---v-'X_w

___:

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

_ ............. :_ _ _ _ ..... ' _ S-IV STAGE FUEL PRESSURE 6-16, the ' =i _ TANK i ": , . ULLAGE

Alleng-ines

experienced

cent thrust as shown in Figure decay between Allengines 6-15. 0. 104 after S-IV ent,qne cutoff command.

and reached 0. 118

i _) ;':": ___.__________a FIGURE 6-16.

' valve

As However, solenoid

shown

in

Figure

contro! 240 the

solenoid seconds. as the control in the control

cycled

properly

at approximately

at approximately 291 seconds valve failed to open as required, control inlet pressure valve cycle. data The indicated that

::_' :. ,,

preceding orifice

pressurization

solenoid valve was of the steppressurization

subsequently actuated at the time command, and closed propswitch psi). valve sensed an ullage

erly when the ullage pressure pressure of 21. 9 N/cm 2 (31.8 _, The command tion of a failure commands sure switch possibility ing the step interconnected may have failure of the control within ullage

to actuate

upon

_[,

can be attributed the pilot poppet of the low limit the valve was ftmetioning appears

to a temporary

contamina-

the control valve or to pressure switch which Inasmuch seconds likely. as Upon the presthe former energiz-

to open. to be more

at 231

solenoid vMve, Gft 2 pilot bleed, which is het_veen the step and control valve, flowed toward the control valve, causthus main to be dislodged, subsequently the

back

'i,, _. FIGURE 6.8 6.8.1 S-IV

-' ': 6-15.

Ti_,.

F,I,:

S-IV

Emin

C :,,!:

(,_)

ing an)' enabling TRANSIENTS poppet,

contamination present the pilot poppet, and to open. valve

S-IV

ENGINE

CUTOFF SYSTEM

PRESSURIZATION

hicle LIt 2 TANK During the system PRESSURIZATION S-IV-10 flight, the LH 2 tank presperformed satisfactorily, with the

The control performance.

malfunction However, the

did not affect veLH 2 pump inlet specification (340 seconds)

conditions range for because higher

were not within the engine a major portion of the flight

surization

of the control valve malfunction. In addition, pump inlet temperatures (0.1 to 0.2*K higher

29

than

previous

flights)

were

experienced and subsequent

as

a result higher

of heat
Pressur_

environmental input.

conditions

(N/cm2)
Total Fuel F_lmp l:_[t't Pressure

Pr_:ss_r, -]

(psi) I

27

37.5

psi).

During

ground

hold,

the

ullage

pressure _4 _6 i_ I

increased to 28.8 N/cm 2 (41.7 psi) at lfftoff. The ullage pressure to to 25.9 to N/cm to 2 supplied helium continued 11.2 increase from N/cm 29.7 {16.2 2 (43.1 psi) at initiation of engine cooldown. This rise The LH 2 tank was prepressurized with groundin ullage pressure is attributed to normal heat and mass transfer to the ullage.

2_ _ 23

i J - I i i

....

.,t --

/
_
_00 Start P,,mp Command lfll_.t 4(10 (s_-.) FacI Tt._,perat_;rt

_s * _2

and IV-t0

was approimately 23.2 N/cm 2 (33.7 psi) at SThe ullage pressure decreased during cooldown engine start command. Ambient helium makeup

t9
Time

_....._
tOO from S-IV Tt_[a[ 200 Engin,-

,_
_OC'

Of tile LH 2 tank was not tank pressure at initiation Fuel flight by tankpressurization tapping G H 2 off

required

because

of the high

of eooldown. was the aecomplishedduring supply aft of the

T,mpe ca t LJr e (g)

engine

22 21 _ Ti_

_L ! _oo start

,_ _oo (:o_.,,_..d (_,.) _,oo

main fuel shutoff valve, and routing tank pressurization system. Prior lenoid valve malfunction and the pressurization, bet_veen 21.1

in through the fuel to the conla'ol soinitiation of step

too 200 fro., S-IV E,_,_

the LH 2 tank ullage pressure cycled to 21.9 N/cm 2 (30.6 to 31.8 psi).
Prt.ss.re

F,:_-I Pump N_ Pos it ire S._t ion Pr,.ssurt t


(N/:m:') Prt, s_ fc (psi)

The initiation pellant utilization the step pressure lage pressure

of step system solenoid

pressurization by the proat 482.61 seconds opened valve, 'allowing the tank from 19.3 N/cm z (28.0 N/cm psij

10

, ,

----

--{

t4

increased

at initiationof step pressurization pr_ssuretoincreasetowardtheventsetting.

to 26.2

2 (38. O Theul-

a _

to i:!

The average GH 2 pressurant proximately 178K. The average psi) atS-IV-10stagecutefI. obtained during normal, control,

t_mperature.was appressurant flowrates and step pressuri-

4 6 2
100

6 N_7______._ _' [ ___200 300

/, -/*00

-- I | _
_fflO

zation were 0 0.054, Ibm/s), respectively. kg/s average 0.081, and 0.129 0. 179, and 285 The (0.118, ullage temperature was approximately 157K.

Time fro_ S-IV Engine Start

Cotm_i_nd ($e_)

During flight,36.7 kg (80.85 Ibm) of GI_ were used to pressurize the tank. The tem was on system 6.8. i. i performance of the nonpropuisive vent sysas expected. Section 14.3 contains details performance, LH 2 PUMP INLET CONDITIONS

FIGURE

6-17.

LH 2 PUMP

INLET

CONDITIONS

pressurization. The combination of the control solenoid valve malfunction and the higher pump inlet ternperature resulted in a lower NPSP than would normally have been expected. Assuming normal pressurization system operation (average ullage pressure of 21.4 N/cm z or 31 psi) the minimum NPSP would have been approximately 4. i N/cm / (5.9 psi) at step pressurization. Ifthe pump inlet temperature had been within thetempera_rerangeexperiencedon previous flights, the NPSP would have been 0.4 to 0.8 N/cm 2 (0.6 to 1.2 psi) higher. In considering both factors, the

pump

Based on engine performance data, the LH 2 inlet conditions were adequate, although mini-

mum required conditions were not achieved for a major portion of the flight (Fig. 8-17). Minimum NPSP was 2. 20 N/cml {3.19psi)atinitiationofstep

3O

minimum (6.5 (1.8.2 anti

NPSP 7. 1 psi).

would

have

been

4.5 and 4.9N/era 2

At approximately secondary on single

345 seconds

the helium heater heater remained oi S-IV powered

coil valve closed and the coil mode ior the remainder

LOX During

TANK

pI/.ESSURIZATION stage [light, system with the was cold operation satisfactory. helium from During the LOX the LOX S-I o1

flight. creased heater :11.9

After :145 seconds, the ullage pressure deat a slower rate than on the previous helium single N/era coil operation, psi) t00 slightly and finally seconds later. andstabilizcd stabilized The at 2 (46.2 ullage at 32.1 Thc :11.7

S-IV-10 pressm'ization was

the LOX The

tank

LOX tank

pressurized 147 seconds pressure

pressurethenincreased N/era 2 (46.5 psi) ullage pressure N/cm 2 (46 psi)

a ground source S-IVpoweredflight, tank tank boost,

prior to liitolt. was providcdto

between 4Gl and 492 seconds. then gradually decreased to until engine cutoff :it 630.25

by the helium heater. Figure6-18 shows ullage pressure during prepressurization, and S-IV flight.

seconds.

above

The LOX tank tRiage pressure profile discussed was elfected primarily by a drifting cold helium discharge inlet pressure pressure which caused from the helium 165 N/cm 2

regulator :2 "li_ __. _'_ 'Z I .... 4 *- I * :'_ " T_..._..I ; I _//-i .... _ ..... _ _ _ _ ; , ] i ! ...... ! . :_..j_. _ : " -- " _ i _ 1 i _ ; _ _ _L._ _ I _ ' ......... FIGURE 6-18. S-IV STAGE LOX TANK PlIESSURE ULLAGE heater

to increase

ends) to 188 N/cm 2 (272 psi) at engine cutoff (630.25 seconds). After the initiation of heater single coil (240psi, at S-lV engine start command (150.8:_secmode at 345 seconds, the helium heater itRet pressure remained above 179N/cm ration of heater operation. pressure surant at 431 shifted psi) _as flowrate reflected during 2 (260 psi) for the duThis high heater itflet i)resBeginning

Jl

in a higher-than-nornml single coil mc(tc.

seconds, the helimn from 181 N/era 2 (262 later. This

beater inlet pressure psi) to 184 N/cm 2 (267 shift resulted in a maxi, is

5 seconds

,...

mum single coil flowrate of 0.08"/ kgo's (0.1.8:1 bm_s) which is the largest single coil flowrate exlxq'ienced in any S-IV stage test (0.068 kg/s or 0.151bm/s nominal). This 3.4 N/cm 2 (5 psi) shift in heater inlet pressure was reflected in a 0.2 N/cm 2 (0.3 psi) increase in ullage pressure during this period. Although designed pressure, the single to establish the ullage coil mode of a stabilization pressure operation of LDX was tank

Throughout engines NPSP 10.3 _ere was N/em

flight, above

the total 32.9 N/era

inlet

pressures psi),

of the and the limit was of 22 not

2 (47.8

well above 2 (15 psi).

the minimum required The minimum NPSP

ullage

stabilized

at ap-

N/era 2 (32 psi), which occurred at cutoff. At theinitiation of the automatic count t47 seconds prior to lit:ell, the LOX Lank was prepressurized to approxi2 kg LOX presapprox-

proximately 32. I N/em 2 (46.5 psi). This does not constitute an ullage pressure control problem. This fact is particularly true st:lee the higt_ pressurunt flowrate was eombiaed with an above average helium heater combustion temperature which unique whieii by not maximized at 1322K (Fig. 6-19). Thus, the feets of a cold helium regulator high lion low cause tevel N/era sure side of its opcrating which triage was pressure temperature LH 2 tank the LOX tank of the upper z (47.3 psi). had continued conthinedcfdrifted to the combusmmsually to to the of 32.6 preslimit of an

mately 33.8 N/era 2 (49 psi), (,t. 5 Ibm) of ground supplied Between tank final imately steadily tank boost vent LOX

with al)proximately helium. prior times IJDX 2 (47.5 to liftofi, tank Mlage

122 and 92 seconds valve 2 cycled lout The replenishing.

due to continued psi)at

b.q.nd and caused were

a high

surethendecayed

to "12.8 N/era

sufficient

60 seconds prior to lit:off, to 33.4 N/era 2 (48.4 psi) ullage until

after which it rose at liltoff. The LOX during S-I start corn3:t. 1 flight, satisfrom during in a psi)

ullage pressure control switch If the regulator to drift beyond if complete regulator

to increase pressure the discharge design

pressure remained constant LOX prestart. At S-IV engine ullage psi). pressure During

mand, the N/cm 2 (48 the LOX tank

was approximately S-IV stage powered system performed decreasing 2 (44.9 psi)

190 N/cm tion had switch

2 (275 psi}, or occurred, the have

loss backup

el regulapressure sole-

pressurization

would

commanded

the cold

helium

factorily, with the ullage pressure 33. 1 N/era 2 (48 psi) to 30.9 N/cm the start transient, band between31.2 during steady-state

noid valve to close, thereby terminating helium pressurant flow. As the switch sensed the decrease in regulator manded tinued discharge the control pressure, valve to open, mode it would have cornand would have con-

and then cycling three times and 32.6 N/era 2 (45.2 and 47.3 operation,

in a "bang-bang"

of control,

31

_t,_,_:, (._

,k,: _:.

FI

t:

_ :,*: <)

below the decreased surization.

redline limit of 1367K. The temperature after the initiation of LH 2 tank step pres-

":'hF--I I- K- Y I I I I
_. _,, _,. : ,: _,, ,_: :.: :: :.: _.J--__J-_ ._ H_::.- :_ _ 0e....... :

T._

[,1 c.;

Helium heater heat flux ,,'as satisfactory for the fulldaration of S-IV powered flight, averagdngapproximately 56,565 watts (193j 000 Btu/hr) during single coil operation and 76,788 watts ( 262,000 Btu/hr} during double coil operation. The helium heater secondary control valve cycled three times during S-IV powered flight, with single coil mode of operation occaring 76.7 percent of the time. 6.8.2.2 LOX PUMP INLET CONDITIONS

,,,_ FL: ;i,_:__.,_,_

.,,: Ft,_ ,_,c,_.B_,_ :_) _

.....-.'t , , ! _ I
{_L.__ _; ": c ,:, : _ .:_ _ _, _ . r.:, .._ s-:,, s:,.: -,,,,:...... _"' " . _ I __------_-__ ., >,, _ .... _ _,,, fr :"' _

essary

The LOX supply system delivered the necquantity of LOX to the engine pump inlets,

tare conditions. The LOX pump inlet temperatures stabilized at the bulk temperature of 90.6K within 5 seconds _Lfter engine start. The temperature then inS-IV stage engine cutoff. Throughout S-IV operation. the inlet conditions, shownin Figure 6-20. were witt_in creased slwly, reaching an average I 91"7K bY

!_:ts_'-'

"_-'1

,_,,,Ib_

EiPn [hamh, r P:_x_lr,

pItS_,IL

Ips:_

35

Torn[

LOX Pump

Inlet

Pr_ss_r_"

0 . i , ! : 2-,_1 2 F Ti::,, _r,m S-IV Sta:t _,1, : n C.l_un,i;, 0. ::L 5_, "[i:ne

100 from S-Iv

200 E_l;Lfne

100 Star_

;00 Cor_l'aal_.! (s_)

%00

FIGURE

6-19. S-IV flELIUM PERFORMANCE

HEATER
Tempera 920 t :_re (OK) Total LOX P_mp Inlet -_ T(.mper_ture

As shown in Figure 6-19, the S-IV-10 flight demonstrated the operational capability oI the helium heater as an integral component of the S-IV stage LOX 6.8.2.1 HELIUM IIEATER OPERA TION tank pressurization system. Helium heater ignition was normal at S-IV engine start command, with the combustiontemperatare rising rapidly to above 556OK within three seconds. The combustion temperature continued to rise until it reached 1147K at 105 seconds after S-P ignition, and remained relatively constunt for the next 62 seconds. The combustion temperature then began to rise again, and reached a maximum of 1322"K at 341 seconds after S-IV ignla rise in the helium heater injector mixture ratio. lion. This rise in combustion temperatare was due to which was in turn caused by a low LH_ tank ullage pressure (see Set.on 6.8. lj. The combustion ternperature performed as expected for the existing conditions, and the ma.'dmum temperature of 1322K was

_Lo 9!._ ___ 90.5 0 I ).oo 200 300 --- c. c,. o Ti=o f,o_ S-_V e-x_,_es_a._t Co_a_d (s_,) ! :oc}

Pressure

2_ B 2_ _, 22 0

(N/cm ,';el 2) a _

Posi_ivt-

SlcCion

Press,:re

tk

Press,.re (psi) I I _ _

__2:z_]_ 100 200 Tm_, _o_ S-lV _,_.,' 6-20.

3_{) ,_00 S:_ Co_. (_.'_)

,00

r'IGURE

LOX PUMP INLET CONDITIONS

32

specified engine operating limits of temperature and pressure. Cold helium bubbling wasiuitiated 489 setonds prior to liftoff and continued satisfactorily until termination 188 seconds prior to liftoff. The LOX pump inlet temperatures decreased normally, anti at termination of told helium bubbling, were within the range of 77.2K to 79.4_K. This temperature range compared favorably to expected values. By prestart, the temperature range had increased (91.4 to 94.2 _K) and was within the required limits (90 to 95. 6K). At engine start, the inlet temperatures were between90.7 and 91.4'K. Figure 6-21 provides a time history covering LOX pump inlet temperatures during cold helium bubbling and LOX pump cooldown,

The total amotmt of cold heliu.m residuals in the hotties after S-IV engine cutoff was 18.9 kg (14.6 Ibm) based on indicated bottle pressure and temperature. This would indieato that 39.4 hg (86.8 Ibm} of helium wereeonsumed, basc<l onbottle conditions. Thisvalue is in good agreement with the integrated flmvrate of 38.6 kg (85.2 lbnQ. 6.8.4 CONTROL IIELIUM SYSTEM

,,.:,:E',,F,_,', : -_ ....... _,.,,p,,......... _; i .... I

r_,.,

a,L,,_:.:,,

The operation of the S-IV-10 pneumatic control system was satisfactory during preflight checkout and during flight. The control helium sphere was pressurized to appro_mately 201111 N/cm 2 (2950 psi) ; it decreased during powered flight to approximately 1844 N/cm 2 (2675 psi} at S-IV engine cutoff. The sphere temperature ranged from a maximum of 291 K at liftoff to a nlinimum of 273K at approximately 350 seconds. By S-IV engine cutoff, tim sphere temperaregulator operated within the desired band N/era 2, plus 31 and minus 17 N/era z (470 psi, lator varied between of 324 plus 45

336 and 323 N/em 2 (487 and 468

i' _ .

'"'_

.... i' ': ,

_'_'_:ii_'_'_""-

psi) S-IV PROPELLANT 6.9 during [light.

UTILIZATION

b-__l"l:'::'i"::'i:ii'"*'t"" _,,,.., T,....

=_,x _,_,,,_, r,_ .......... =., T.,;,,:........ "K) '_': _ -- -- -"_ __ ,,, ......

_ ....... 1o__.......

The propellant utilization {PU)system performed satisfactorily except for the failure of the LOX fill valve to close automatically, causing a LOX overload beforethe valve was closed manually (seeSeetion 1Ii). The desired propellant load was 38,196 kg (84,208 lbm) of LOX, and 7777 kg (17,145 Ibm) of LH 2. Atcording to the PU system fine mass strip charts, the Ibm} of LOX, and7790kg (t7,174 Ibm) of LH 2. The S-IV propellant mass at liftoff was 38,339 kg {84,524 were 454 LOX (1001 the pump LOX (including kg kg, cutoff l residuals kgabove ibm, of trappedIbm) of tank) and command in the inlets at 87 5 (l_ll or i lbnl}

ii
I

:.

: _ .._

.....
FIGURE 6-21.

_;:....... :;....... ?_............ _'_,,_

of LHa.
Based upon average rates of consumption, a LOX flowrate (including boiloff) of 79.4 kg/s ( 175. 1 Ibm/s} and an LH 2 flowrate {including boiioff and consumption due to pressurization) of 15.8 kg/s (34.8 Ibm/s), when added to the best estimate residuals of 454 kg (100llbm) of LOX and 87 kg (191 ibm} of LH2, would have caused S-IV depletion cutoff to occur 5.48 seconds later than the actual flight command cutoff time. Depletion cutoff would have occurred at 484.91 seconds burn t_me, as compared to the predicted cutoff time of 483.13 seconds burn time. II the S-IV-t0 stage had been permitted to continue to propellant depletion (LH 2 depletion cutoff), there would have been a residual of I8.6 kg 141 Ibm) of LOX, which is an equivalent PU efficiency of 99.96 percent.

LOX PUMP INLET TEMPERATURES

6.8.3

COLD IIELIUM SUPPLY

During S-IV stage flight, the cold helium supply was adequate. At SA-f0 liftoff, the pressure and temperature in the cold helium spheres were 2146 N/cm 2 (3112 psi) and 22.7K, respecl2vely, indicating a helium mass of 58.2 kg (128.4 Ibm). Based upon integration of the pressurant flowrate during S-IV powered flight, it was determined that 38.6 kg (85.2 Ibm} of helium were expended for LOX tank pressurization from liftoff to S-IV stage engine cutoff. No makeup pressurization was required during S-I boost,

- -' :-:-" :: :.-:.12_ 33

l_l_ilFl

I,_.i

Ill

_'-As without the PU curred a comparison, the control system, with if the flight of engine of mixture cutoff kg 113 had been ratio would ibm) (250

..... conducted (EMR) have by oc-

Y_

I Ini.

a LOX depletion a residual

i _ _ _ ....

, _

, _ . __

V __

of LH 2.

This nalysis a isderived eompari ope. " " T ,i from dotal


6.9. 1 PROPELLANT MASS IItSTORY

- " !

as deternlined by the composite sented in Table 6-IV below. liquid actual by for the propellant propellants weighted were mass onboard average within 0.64 above

best estimate, The vatues are the engine lilIoff, for

is pretor total The best 0.27 positioned the FIGURE

r.......... 6-22.

_,,_, st,,,, ......... , ,,, > TYPICAL VALVE for PROPELLANT POSITION engine mixture priwere variain the caused usage

inlet. as determined

at S-I

UTILIZATION PU valve

technique percent desired,

(composite LOX and

estimate),

a higher

LH 2 of the quantities TABLE G-IV.

ratio (EMR) to correct marily responsible for MASS HISTORY nonlinearities tions, and system. the in the initial initial

the error. The factors this PU valve excursion

PROPELLANT

system, open loop flow LOX mass error sensed mass error on SA-10 was

This

LOX Event kg ibm kg

LH 2 ibm

by loading as detected The

errors by the average

and by nonnominal PU system. engine mixture

cooldown

ratio

excursions

S-I Liitoff LH z Prestart LOX PresUart

38,441 38,441 38,441

_4,747 84,747 84,747

7,798 7,798 7,689

17,192 17.192

during flight varied between 5.34 and 4.95; these excursions are well within engine operation capabilities. 6.9.3 PU SYSTEM PU COMMANrD is designed to originate three

16,951 The commands: 1. system

S-D/

Ignition

38,357 38,100 454

84,562 83,996 i,001

7,652 7,599 87

I i6, 870 16,754 191

PUActivation Residual

PU system

gain

change

2. LH 2 tank step pressure 3. Arm all engine cutoff. theproper times;

These

mass

and accuracy

values are determined technique to the mass All three commandsoceurredat however, thethird command from the IU. The PUsystem aled to occur when was preceded by a signal

by applying a weighted average

accuracy values and to the flowrate integral, PU systern, and flightsimulation masses, 6.9.2 SYSTEM RESPONSE

gain change command the PU system

was sched-

indicated that the

S-IV-t0

The PU system responded properly during flight, and provided the PU valve movement to correct for mass errors inherent within

LOX mass haddecreased to 32,860 544 kg (72,445 1200 Ibm). The command was observed to occur at 217.85 seconds. The LOX mass at this time was 32,842 kg (72,405 ance ange. Ibm), which was within the toler-

necessary

the system. Figure 6-22 shows the typical movement of a PU valve during S-IV flight, At the time of PU system activation, the system sensed a positive equivalent LOX mass error, indieating an excess in LOX of 290 kg (639 Ibm), and

The LI_ tank step pressure command was scheduled to occur when the PU system indicated that the LOXmass had reached 11,255 544 kg (24,813 1200

II .ii-

. I

mi.

34

Ibm). This command was observed to occur at49t.38 seconds, at which time the LOX mass was 11,222 kg (24,785 ibm). This mass value was within tolerance. The Arm-all-engine cutoff command was scheduled to occur when the PU system indicated that the LOX mass had reached 878 * 227 kg (1936 * 500 ibm), or upon command of the IU. The IU command, which preceded the PU system command, occurred at 589.4 seconds. The PU system command was observed to occur at 624.94 seconds, at whteh time the LOX mass was 847 kg (1867 ibm). This mass was within tolerance.

.............. '

,....... ., 'J i T i

...........

.,,

. !

......

"

,
I

_
2

6.10

S-IV IIYDIIA ULIC SYSTEM

! _ ..

_ >._ :: .. FIGURE 6-23. .... CtlAMBER

tioned properly during S-IV-10 powered flight. Telemetry data of pressure, temperature, and position were similar to the previous flights. No system realfunction or incipient performance degradation was evident in the data received. Prior to engine start, the engines were satisfactorily positioned by the accumulator charge. At engine start, the pressurizedfluldof the hydraulie pumps recharged the accumulators to the bottomed position and maintained operating pressures above the aceumulator GN2 pressures. Allot these events were consistent with normal system operation, 6.11 ULLAGE ROCKETS

ULLAGE ROCKET PRESSURE

Ullage rocket performance was satisfactory, and all rockets jettisoned properly at 161.13 seconds, The ullage rocket ignition command was given at 149, 03 seconds, with chamber pressure of each of the four rockets increasing at a rate of approximately 19,016 N/em2/s (27,600 psi/s) as shown in Figure 6-23.

The pressure averaged approximately 675 N/cm 2 (980 psi) and was _ithin the nominal predicted operating band of 689 e 69 N/cm 2 ( 1000-_ 100 psi). The burn time at which the pressure was above 90 percent thrust or approximately 586 N/era 2 (850 psi) was 3.7 seconds, as compared to the required minimum bm'n time of 3.0 seconds. A comparison of the flight data with the manufacturer's data reveals that the overall pressure profiles during burning were typical for a grain temperature of 294Ko At burnout, the chamber pressures of all four rockets decreased simultaneously. Total stage ullage rocket impulse axis of the stage) was 183,711 N-s and the total ullage rocket impulse axis of the rocket) was 225,649N-s (parallel (41,300 (parallel (50,728 to the lbf-s), to the lbf-s).

35

C.A2::::=-.:;, .:.a
SECTION 7.1 SUMMARY The overall performance o[ tile gmdanee and control system _as as expected and very satisfactory. A maximum rollattitude error el -2.1 degrees occurred at 58 seconds due to the unbalanced aerodynamic forces caused by the S-I stage turbine eMlaust duct fairings. A vehicle roll deviation of -2.8 degrees developed during separation, mainly due tothe 0.51-degree totnl misnlignmcnt of the S-W ullage rockets, but _as quicMy reduced to zero when S-IV control became effective, The overall performance of the guidance system was very satisfactory. The vehicle's total space fixed velocity from tracking at S-1Vcutoff was 7591.50 m/s at an altitude of 535.706 km and a space fixed path angle of 90. 007 degrees. In each case tlm differences betw'een these values derived from precalculuted minus computer, precalculated minus tracking, and cornputer minus tracking fell well within the 3 u band indicating excellent overall guidance system accuracy, Tbc ST-lZ4 velocity components are in agreement with those indicated by the ASC-15 computer throughout fligi_t, The measured velocity differences are tim telemetered ST-124 accelerometer data minus tracking, The predicted differences are based upon the ST-t24 laboratory calibration test results. These predicted dil'ferences were adjusted for the ST-f24 stable eiemerit leveling and azimuth alignment errors determined at launch. In all cases, the measured velocity differences fall within the 3 a error bands. In addilion. there is rather good agreement between the measured and predicted velocity differences in the range und cross range directions. However, the agreement between the measured and predicted altitude velocity difference is rather poor. The observed space fixed velocity was 0.5 m/s less than the computer presetting. If the ST-lZ4 laboratory calibration data had been used to adjust the preset,space fixed velocity the resulting error would have been about 0.4 m/s greater than the desired cutoff velocity. The increase in vehicle velocity due to S-IV thrust decay, determined from guidance, was 0. 13 m/s tess than the predicted value of 3.04 m/s. Tracking indicates a 28 m/s velocity increase due to thrust decay; however, this is due to round-off error since guidance was used to construct the trajectory during the cutoff periods, VII, GUIDANCE AND CONTROL DESCRIPTION 7.2 SYSTEM

SA-10 was the fourth Saturn vehicle to employ a lnlly active ST-t24 guidance system. The principal functions of this system _ere: 1. To generate control and steering attitude error signals throughout flight. for vehicle

2. To issue timed discretes to the spacecraft, Instrmnent Unit, S-IV, and S-I stages for sequencing vehicle events throughout the entire flight period ineluding Pegasus wing deployment. 3. To compute active path guidance 4. To terntitmte engine shutdown and issue steering during S-IV stage path guidance space commands burn. for

and initiate fixed velocity.

S-IV

at the preset

The ST-t24 guidance systemconsisted of the ST24 stabilized platform assembly and electronics box, the GSP-24 guidance signal processor, and the ASC15 digital computer, Figure 7-1 shows the interrelationship between the components of this system and their integration with the elements of the vehicle's control system. The operational periods of these major guidance also indicated. and control system components are

The ST-124 guidance system generated attitude error signals (A?'s) by comparing the threeeommand resolver signals (X's) with the four ST-124 gimbal resolverpositionsignals (O's). Thcangular rateinformation required for damping vehicle disturbances was obtained from t e three axiscontl,ol h rate g)'ro package located in the Instrument Unit. Vehicle lateral acceleration control was accomplished inboththe pitch and yaw planes during S-Iflight by meansof two body fixed control accelerometers located in the Instrument Unit. In order to supply the total vehicle system with the basic tinting signals from a single source (ASC-15 computer), new time bases must be generated during flight. Thefirsttimebase started when the Instrument Unit umbilical separated from the vehicle and ended at S-I propellant level sensor arming. The second time base began at activation of the first propellant level sensor and terminated when the S-I thrust OK switches were ganged for backup of the normal OECO mode. The third time base commenced with OECO and continued throughout the remainder of powered

36

ELec__

AffP,Y,

t5 ac _ d: Po_e_ 4
25 Accel Signals Stab. & Oyro ST-124 _ ....

'

(a:attitud_
error signals)

I_ _ (_-Q' '

>

Gyros

Presectings End Path (i!p,y,_PL5

ASC-15

I --J

| Re|olver8

Ir''-_P,Y,R (dr mccicade

I S-IV Cutoff Velocigy Command -Sequencers


l

error

lig_l|

Sequencin_ Stgnals Co SC, IU. S-lV and S*I

Aecul.

33

to

L02

soc

(filters,

amplifies 8till ,roce.,or AI (actuator positioning I _ Contrel _te

[ _yro,_. Active th_ua_ou_ fligh_

command) To B-ZV Se_o

_oncrol

Actuators I 5 & 6)

Fligh_ Control 8ized a_ aeperar_on) Switch (ener-

.e---_

V_lval

(Ensinee

8e_o Vakvea (_ngines 1-4) To S-IV Control Aotuators' Yo _-_ Can_ral Actuators' Sago Vstvea (_#eea 1-45

FIGURE

7-1.

GUIDANCE

AND CONTROL

SYSTEM

37

flight (until S-IV guidance cutoff command). The final time base started when the computer sensed cutoff ( 0. 688 second actual compared to 0. 685 second predieted) after S-IV cutoff signal. Pilzh and yaw plane path guidance initiated at separation command plus 18.13 seconds. This was accomplished by unlocking tile brakes on the three command resolvers in the guidance signal processor, loading the ladder networks in the digital computer according to the measured guidance values, and issuing the computed correction sign',ds ()_) to tile coalmand resolvers in the guidance signal processor. The iterative guidance mode (IGM) was employed for tim pitch plane path guidance program to compute the required steering command (XZ) from the re',d time measured state variables each second. Tolerantes in engines and stage 'alignment, resolver chain errors, computational time lags, and other inherent conditions result in tile mtsaligmnent of the thrust vector with respect to the guidance plane. Pitch plane steering misalignment correction (SMC or )_ ) was ZC introduced shortly after guidance initiation to correct for this condition, Delta-millimum path guidance, where the vehicle isconstrained to a predetermined reference, was employed in the yaw plane. Both the cross range velocity and displacement were utilized to steer the vehicle back into the reference plane. The range of possible initinl conditions at the introduction of guidance necessitatedlimiting the cross range steering command (kCR) to 0.25 radian (14.3 aration for too long a time. degrees) to prevent sat-

control parameters were small throughout S-I stage flight. The maximum values observed near the Much 1 and maximum dynamic pressure regions were: r Parameters Units Magnitude

Attitude

Error

(deg)

0.8

Angle of Attack (free-stream} Angular Rate

(deg) (deg/s)

--0.9 .-1.0

Normal Acceleration Actuator Position Angle-of-Attack Dynamic Pressure Product L___

(m/s z)

.-0.5

(deg)

-1.3

(deg-N/cm

2)

3.2

The vehicle pitch and roll programs were provided by the ASC-15 computer, The pitch program (X), which consists of a third order time dependent polynomial with three time segments, began at 9.28 seconds and was arrested at 138, 99 seconds at 52.5 degrees program provides dynamic file. from the launch vertical (Fig. 7-2), This is identical to that of SA-8 and essentially a minimum angle of attack through the high pressure region, assuming a zero wind pro-

When the computer's space fixed velocity vector ceached the initial ASC-15 comptater presetting (Vs = 7546.00 m/s), the signal was issued to lock command modules, the steering commands were atrested, and path guidance was terminated. The tomputer then shiftedtoafaster cyelein whiehit searched for the cutoff velocity of 7592.00 m/s, space fixed, When this value was attained, the computer issued the guidance cutoff command which initiated shutdown of the S-IV engines. The final space fixed velocity achieved by the vehicle at the end of S-IV thrust deely was predicted to be 3.04 m/s higher than the relocity at guidance cutolf command. The actual velocit3, gained due to thrust decay was 2.9 m,/s. 7.3 7.3. CONTROL i ANALYSIS CONTROL

Signfficantfirst (0.9 to 1.3 Hz) rate and engine tween70 and 120 SA-9 and SA-8, guiar rate of 0.2

mode propellant slosh frequencies were indicated by the pitch angular actuator deflections (Fig. 7-3) beseconds. This sloshing is similar to but the peak to peak value in the andeK/s was smaller on SA-10.

S-I STAGE FLIGHT PITCH PLANE

Figure 7-4 shows the eomparison of the winds and angles of attack calculated from the onboard Q-ball measurements and a rawinsonde balloon release near launch time. The angle-of-attack wind (calculated from Q-ball angle of attack, attitudeangle, and trajeetory angle) is in fair agreement with the rawinsonde wind. The largest pitch wind compenentnear max Q was 10.2 m/s. 7.3.1.2 YAW PLANE

7.3.1.1

control

In the pitch plane, the performance system was very good. The magnitudes

of the of the

Performance of the control system in the yaw plane was very satisfactory (Fig. 7-5). Maximum control values for S-I powered flight were:

_vJ

_|

|lbJllJl_

If_,fm

38

Range Parameters Units Magnitude Time (sec} 78.5 ,, _7._..' /


J _ z

: 7_

p ......

_,
__.

Attitude Angle

Error oi" Attack

((leg)

-0.6

J_

,I

|
4

"

"

__

A____,____

'

(free-stream) Angular Normal Acceleration Actuator Position Ang'le-ot-A Dynamic track PresRate

(deE) (deg/s)

1.1 o. 3

75.5 80. 0

i% .....
_ ! _ /

, --_-

....
'_ F _ '2 r _) ,'_ _ ,

,
. .

"_,_

(in/s

2)

0.6

75.5

"

'ir"._ _ .i

-'-"

- : _ i ,

_+ _ --

, __,_ _ . i

(deg)

-0.7

78.5

___ ; _

_ _ ....

. '__ -

FIGURE (deg-N/cm 2) 3.5 76.5 RATE,

7-a. AND

PITCH

ATTITUDE

ERROR,

ANGULAR POSITION

sure Product

AVERAGE

ACTUATOR

7 ! ___I 7 -.- .+,_--_


! t"

'

'
" ,

"" .....

7 : =-^
"

.... .....

_
D N._, D,,_,d

-, .... _ -+-- ..... . ........

.......
/
/.

.......
.:. i ,i -i--_--_._-f -k I i I _ _" ........... i I____ J. l,..:i FIGURE 7-4. PITCH
,

4()

in

. , , _! PLANE

_0
' .... _ "/

//

, i ! i

_ .

--

..... WLND VELOCITY

;_,r,_, JI,)H (:,)n,,)_ahd .l_d I_ dl Air)t,,, , (h _) ((:W Vl,*,,d _r,m, R,.,r} _b ,,i_ }o>H l'r.er ,_,

: .i

_'''}

!)

! ]

l/

_ ;

I , .

! a

i! ] a .

!! :

.... , ......

.._____--

_ ...........

__,_.,,

, I

, I,

ii '

"

,',<, ......... . ,
I I_.).#, r.,,, f),,_

. ,

......

, ....
t '''_'-'-......

_'_'-_-*-"?"_"r

FIGURE

7-2

S-I

STAGE

COMMAND

ANGLES

FIGURE 7-5. YAW ATTITUDE ERROR. ANGULAR RATE, AND AVERAGE ACTUATOR POSITION

39

The winds are

rawinsonde shown

and in Figure

angle-of-attack 7-6. A elosc

yaw

plane

comparison misalignyaw wind rawinsonde 4


[,_t,,I A_, r.let, .k_t,,,_,_r P,:_Jt:, {:_,g

was obtained merit ol the

by assuming a 0o2-degree yaw Q-ball sensor. The maximum and 12 m/s from the

:_..<.,, s ......

P,,.......

v.,,,_

the onboard u-ball balloon release.

component

near

max

%_ was

9.8

m/s

computed

from

tl

....
.
. : -

:/{ , ....... .........


I
|

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

. .......

'+ I.,
L .. .

FIGURE

7-6. YAW PLANE WIND VELOCITY FREE STREAM ANGLE OF ATTACK CONTROL A comparison DESIGN of system PARAMETERS the SA-10 flight

AND

7.3.

I. 3

results for total

and

Block

II control

design

criteria

actuator deflection; sat'c, angle-of-attack The design values tional variation propulsion characteristics the design wind velocity

angleofattack; and dynamic presproduct is shown in Figure 7-7. are basedon a 95 percent nondirecwith 2 cr shears Two sigma and li percent in FIGURE variations

_ .G

. _ .... _........

in aerodynamics.

7-7.

COMPARISON WITH

OF

VEHICLE

CONTROL

system performance and were also considered v'.dues. The failing SA-10 either observed data are or

vehicle mass in arriving at well within the lower Block


r

PARAMETERS ;':.-' ", ." t L ]_-

DESIGN

CRITERIA

'

........

-v

"

% -_

design portionof It flights

values,

below

in the

_-_._'__ i ] " i

. _

__r-.--_..-_ , ' : i r -

_: ]i ': : 1

the envelope ....

on the previous

7.3.1.4

ROLLPLskNE SA-10 roll are control shown functioned in Figure as 7-8. expected. At 9.29

!,,,,<,,_ .f_f2'_,-_l+_. _ ....... , ;, -' "' _ " '" i " '_ -_-'i D--. FIGURE RATE, 7-8. ROLL . .... ........

_..-

-_ i

.... J

,L:4 ---'7

Roll

parameters

seconds the 95. 2 degrees the vehicle's the stabilized ver, 14.49 executed seconds

required launch-to-flight roll maneuver) program pitch and yaw axes axes. The required at a rate 7-2). (Fig.

azimuth (90 to began, rotating

_-"_-"-'-'-'=_--

.... ' EPd_OR,

'

_--i i ' ANGULAR

into coincidence with 5. 2-degree maneuwas completed at

of I deg/s,

ATTITUDE

AND AVERAGE

ACTUATOR

POSITION

4O

The S-I stage

roll

axis

maximum flight

control were:

values

measured

system. minimum 7-10).

The angle

velficle

pitch

program

(XZ)

reached (Fig.

propelled

of 41. [J degrees

at 180 seconds

Durtag l_,ll Munuuvcr

A[t_z It,Al M:mc_ver

Ath t_de Ern,r An_l_r Irate

{deRi (de_'s_

-2, 1 U.:,

G,.I.I,,

, 1-.:.

tl,

[q_ll P_ramet_r

ide_t __M'tglutulJ_

-I I"(Dll't "_ll'lud' ...........

I _ rr.:

, '_ i'

' I *_*

"

:,

:..

:-,,P

ror roll flow

As on previous (-2.1 degrees) attitude error aboutthe turbine

flights, a significant attitude erwas observed near max Q. This is attributed to unsymmetrical exhaust iairings (see Reference
D*t.i:}'r,,_r*r_

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

.\ral,

{ /)

i'

Ih:,

.'.11.:,c,

,..,,.,

_3

g':,_

7.3.2 3) .....

S-IV

STAGE

FLIGHT

CONTROL control flight. guidance errors transients path attitude system The during iniare 4,,
44

[\_:i'..

_:

"-/"_'" /" ._

'

_'7-

The performance was system S-I stage excellent responded separation The pitch, in Figure throughout properly

of the vehicle S-IV to powered the

and following yaw, 7-9. and roll

_,,i_i:':'.:,,
* v

'"_ _-q , ,
** ._

tiation. presented

:i """

","

..[[V

.....

FIGURE

7-10. PLANE

VEHICLE RESPONSE TO GUIDANCE INITIATION

PITCH

_]_'_'---_* .,.[ _ * "[ " I' '[ t* ] , .................. !_iV4_ i, [i; FIGURE , " .

*' ' _ : ' 1 [

_ : ..... ": ': ,

: . i

: : . :

N , *

In

the

yaw

plane,

the

ASC-15

computer

data

showed that the vehicle was slightly m/s and 800 m) at guidance initiation. the mand guidance corrections right and (nose system issued CW viewed ma_mum from of 4.'_ degrees

to the left (7, 2 Consequently, steering the rear) corndegrees at 172

)t X and 3.9

-----,-----4-----: } _ I . . ] S-IV STAGE initiation velocity

' "'1 '.

[ "i i

', '

' "

' i ';

seconds; i.e., XCR reached a maximum value of 5.7 degrees at 172 seconds. At this time the largest attitude error signals issued by the ST-124 to the rehicle (nose yaw yaw 0.5 flight left) control and 0.2 system degrees were CCW -3.0 roll. degrees The yaw of and maximum

7-9.

ATTITUDE

ERROB, S

At path guidance vehicle's space fixed thanpredieted than predicted. system to issue and

( 167.26 seconds), the was 0.16 percent higher 1.9 km higher the guidance command

and roU attitudes resulting from plane guidance were 5.5 degrees degree The CW, overall the both at 174 seconds.

the initiation (nose right)

its altitude was about This condition caused a nose up pitch

steering

performance At

of the guidance

system

correction (A Z) which peaked at 10. 9 degrees from the previous value of 52.5 degrees, at 180 seconds, During this form issued ror signal period (at 171 seconds), a maximum nose down of 1.7 degrees to the the ST-124 pitch attitude flight plater-

was excellent. indicated that

guidance initiation vehicle was slightly these 0 m/s

the computer to the left.

About 270 seconds later m/s and 800 m reached A slight yaw steady state

initial values of 7.2 and 144 m to the left. error caused the

vehicle

control

attitude

41

cross range the computer) S-IV cutoff; preealculated ters. The term ante after path peeled pitch

velocity and displacement to increase to -0.3 m/s these values cotnpare values trajectory of -0.

(measured and -180 with -tb7 1 and

by m at the me-

partial lead relief to 102 seconds, sho_ s the measured

in the pik'h fanctmned lateral

and ya'_ properly. accelerations,

planes from 33 Figure 7-11 translated

favorably

to file vehicle CG. Peak lateral accelerations of 0. 5 111t'82 ill pitch and 0.6 m/'s 2 it1 3,a_ were measured near max Q. In general, these telemetered values agree _ith flight simulatien results _ithin 0. I m/s 2. S-I

plane

steering

misalignmeni

correction

(XZC), initiation, guidance guidance. range,

introduced increased initiation This

some 6 seconds after guidfrom 0.9 degree shortly to 1.5 degrees _elt at the within end of the exwas

and S-IV propellant sloshil_g bellding modes X_el'e evident during _as portionsofthe active. time that

_md the first two vehicle in these measurenlents accelerometer control

variation

The S-IV s "rage steady state attitude errors und elvgine dellections _ere near the predicted values. The mean pitch attitude error increased from 0.3 degree |lose-up at 200 seconds to 0.4 degree at 625 seeends. The predicted steady stote attitude error histortes less, differed ill u nose-up the measured from llight values by 0.2 degree discrepancy can he ucand _ ..... _" or direction. Tile nlinor values

.........

,_4,_.__ _-"q_-_----_i_,e,,_/.._,.-._f* "-%o'_ J i"-/, ....... ...... " -

betx_eeu counted at center Tile

and predicted

, _ . "

.... _....
"

tot by small thrust vector oI gravity ellset different

misaligmnents from predicted.

_.--.:.._2.%_._7._ _ ..........

"* _" ' _"_"_"


. "

"
u

'

mean yax_ attitude error increasodtrom 0.2 degree nose-lelt at 1.80 seconds to 0.5 degree noseleft at 625 seconds. The predicted stead)state attilade error histories differed Irom flight values by 0. 1 degree is attributed error in a nose-left to the same direction. factors as This discrepancy the pitch attitude 7.4.1.2

FIGURE

7-11. PITCH AND YAW ACCELEROMETERS

CONTROL

ANGLE-OF-ATTACK Pitch and yaw

SENSORS angle-of-attack F16 Q-ball components angle-of-attack escape meters

disc relxmcy. The mean throughout roll attitude S-IV error was less flight, than 0. I were measured by a model

degree

s 'rage pe_ered

transducer mounted on the tip el the launch system (LESI and by Edeliff angle-of-attack mounted on booms at tile tips of fins Q-ball transducer functioned properly. 0.2-degree compare yaw misalignment well withthecaieulated

the ante about

Veluele steering commands space fixed velocity vector system reached 7"546.0 2.0 seconds before S-IV

were arrested when computed 0y the guidm/s. This occurred guidance cutoff cornX z was arrested just 0.13 degree time was 632.57

I and IL The When using a

en the Q-ball, results anglesof attack from

mand. The steering eonmmnd angle at 124.05 degrees (630.25 seconds), less thanpredicted, Predicted cutoff seconds,

measured uind data, trajectory parameters, andtelemetered attitude angles. The Edcliff meters did not function properly during any portion el the flight. It was impossible to lind any factors thatceuld correlate these measurements with the calculated er Q-bail angles of attack. was found since measurements, in in No explanation t_o previous the same for the discrepancy flight tests of these produced of -l.0 measured relidegree near

and end deg/s roll. 7.4 7.4.1 7,4.

The angular rates resulting from steering S-IV stage thrust decay were nearly zero. of S-IVthrust in pitch, decay -0.06 the angular deg/s fates _ere 0.01 in yaw and

arrest At the -0.04 deg/s

location,

able data, Maximum angles of attack in pitch and 1.1 degrees in yaw were the max Q region. was the second flight test

FUNCTIONAL CONTROL I. 1 CONTROL

ANALYSIS SA-1O SENSORS ACCELEROMETERS accelerometers Unit to provide determine of-attack of a network to the vector sum of the pitch and yaw angleQ-ball measurements for possible use in the This per-

future emergency detection system (EDS). measurement indicated probable satisfactory refinance for EDS use. tile telemetered signal As is on SA-8, sensitive the to

_hich

were

The two bed 3' fixed eonti'ol located in the Instrument

reduction of the lower

42

nonlinear

portion

of the

calibration

curve.

However, degree and

7-12.

The

calculated

resolver

error

_as

obtained

by h'om attiusing -

this applies to small angles is not considered a problem

tess than 1.0 for EDS use.

subtracting the the telemetered tude error was

calculated attitude obtained

pitch attitude error error. Tile calculated from a vector b_dance SlmCe fixed longitudinal steering values general for the

7.4.1.3

RATE

GYROS only two rate gyro packages; A =L 10 degTs range, 3-axis located in the Instrument

the guidance system lion, tile body fixed tions, and the (kz). resolver dicate Predicted error fair and have

measured pitch and calcttiated the same except guidance errors vehicle

acceleraa('celet-a command

telemetered

pitch

both control

SA-I0 carried functioned properly. rate gyro package

of pitch axis shape and inperiod during

agreement

Unit was used to provide pitch, yaw, and roll angular rate information for vehicle control throughout flight, The second rate gyro package, also a 3-axis of t0 deg/s range, was a control type unit being flown for development structure urea purposes and was located in the thrust

S-IV stage flight after axis resolver chain minor effect on the Since on laboratory were very the predicted

illittation. These pitch had only an extremely latitude at S-1%7 cutoff. chain was errors and roll attempted based axes be-

resolver

of the S-I stage,

measurements small,

in the yaw

no comparison

7.4.

I.4

CONTROL The

ACCELERATION

SWITCH

tween predicted and calculated values. 7.4.1.6 FLIGHT CONTROL COMPUTER ACTUATOR ANALYSIS AND

control acceleration switch on SA-t0

appeared to close about i.0 second later than predicted,whichis longer than that obselwed on SA-9 and SA-8. Laboratory tests of this switch located in the Instrument Unit indicated a switch closure initiation value of 0.303 g with a time delay of 0.4 second (time from sensing of g value to switch closed signal). Following is a comparison of the operation of this switch on the last three flights. A note of caution must be made when evaluating this tabulatiol_ since the measurement F55-80 '2is on a commutated channel, purer The commands issued by the control comto position the actuators were correct through-

out the entire controlled flightperiod of both stages. These engine positioning commands were well within the load, gimbal rate, and torque capabilities of the S-I and S-IV actuators. The performance of all eight satisfacS-I and all twelve S-IV stage actuators was tory.

Event Parameters Switch Setting (g) Predicted (see) Actual Delay (see) Delay After Separation Command (sec) Time Delay 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.4 i,4 _ 0.7 i.0 0.9 (maximum actuator deflection was grees; occurred near max Q) -t. 3 deTorque (N-m) Measured Design Limit 6,700 13,5t_0 1U,780 14,150 Z9,200 22,500 SA-8 0. 254 SA-9 0.254 SA-10 0. 303 Parameter Gimbal Rate (deg/s) Type of Data Measured Design Limit Liftoff l ll max Q 2 17 OECO 1 l1

Event 7.4. i.5 RESOLVER COMPARISON CHAIN ERROR Parameter Gimbal The is the angle erated by the by the ASC-15 total difference resolver between chain the input error angle in any axis angle genTorque (N-m) Measured Design IAmit 700 1180 420 commanded (deg/s) Rate Type of Data Ignition 3.3 18.8 Cutoff 0.4

Measured Design Limit

the output

ST-124 and computer

A comparison pitch of the axis pitch resolver

between chain

predicted error is shown angle

and as (z)

calculated a function in Figure

S-IV

Stage

(maximumaetuatordeflectionbetweenS-IV ignition measured and S-IV cutoff was 1.7 degrees; at 151 seconds)

command

resolver

43

.,:] C.4

A' *_1 - A< },,

[3

5]0

P'

0 _

[Z_]

[I]

,
I

I,.....,:
I

c.,,........ i. dl
I I

-o :
-0, }

,_ __
0
0

oo
0 0 0 0

OoooO

_Oo

0 _'"" 0

(2,

a,,

0 FIGURE 7.5 7.5.1 PROPELLANT 7-12. CALCULATED AND PREDICTEI) FITCH AXIS IIESOLVER CIIAIN PRIIOR

SLOSHING FLIGHT SLOSHING T , ........... :.1 ....


j,-

S-I POWERED

None of the S-I stage propellant tanks carried slosh monitoring instruments; however, both S-IV stagetanks were instrumented with a continuous level sensor for the S-IV propellant utilization system which also indicates S-IV slosh amplitudes. The pitch and yaw engine actuator positions were bandpassfiltered atthe slosh frequency; the resulting predominant frequencies are shown in the top portion of Figure 7-13. The maximum peak-to-peakresponse 85secondsand0.26 degree in yaw at 77 seconds(mid

: , _ .... ,. :-." .... . -" . ._ i .... ' ..... : --. o.-. ,I _.-,-_- -_ -::-- ...... ' _..... ... - -2oi "2 1"2 2"- _r " _ f" . ;---" "-j2_.z_" "_ --'_ - '/o. '"" ,, "L ,, ,, __ -_ '_ T '_', _ _ _. , ; i

......

4 m H

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

-..... ,.... .... _ -. !,'.,,Z:',,_':_?

of the engines Figure 7-131. was 0. 34 degree in pitch at die portion calculatedsloshing of to The S-IV LOX slosh amplitudes, from onboard slosh monitoring and theoretical t_-ansfer functions using engine deflec ................ tions, are con]pared with SA-8 at the bottom of Figure 7-13. As on SA-8 it appears that the actuator deflections result from the vehicle being driven by S-IV LOX tank sloshingfrom 75 to II0 seconds. 7.5.2 S-i%'POWERED FLIGHT SLOSHLNG

_'"]_I_' 2Z....

_x'--. , ,..... _" "--_ , ,*

', ';:,': i _ .....


i c , t _', J, ; k-

_%_'x i __ " .... ..............

The LOX and LH_ slosh amplitudes and frequencies were very similar to those measured on the SA-8 flight. The slosh amplitude history agrees _ith the pattern seen on prcvious flights, and the frequencies agree well with those predicted.

FIGURE

7-13.

SLOSII DURING S-I POWERED FLIGHT

4-t

7. G GUIDANCE The overall

SYSTEM perfornmnce

PERFORMANCE of the ST-124 l>latfornl and and ASC-15 guidance electronic computer/ of the rolein subse-

by laboratory launch. The retrained mediately from

measurements leveling and data iiftoff. ST-t24 flight test which

several t_eeks prior to azimuth errors were dewere awdlubie only ira-

system (ST-t24 stabilized box, guidance signal processor

before

was vet 7 satisfactory. Detmled analysis metered guidance system data is discussed quent 7o6.1 parts of this section, INTELLIGENCE errors the range,

cos

The predicted for the SA-10

inertial velocity differenwere based on laborator

calibration {Fig. 7-14 ERRORS are altitude, defined and as the ferences alignment 2"he

of the ST-124 stahilized platform system and TaMe 7-I). Additional velocity dildue k) aeeelerometer were used as determined band the standard system is 3 u error leveling from for for and each azimuth data. velocity detererrors launch

GUIDANCE

Guidanceintelligence differences between range inertial velocity ST-124aceelerometersand eters calculated The may errors scale directly errors, the sources from of

8T-124

cross by the param-

component

comparison

comtx_nents measured the corresponding tracking the guidance data.

with the actual milmd from the Examilmtion

inertial postllight of each

velocity trajectory inertial

differences atmlysis. velocity

conlponent in Figvelocand In

intelligence

errors component errors, attributed

difference ure 7-14 ity error prelaunch fact, ysis (oN, 3 a.

(aeeelerometer-traeking) indicates sources error that some of

displayed the indight

bedividedintotx_o and factor

general

categories;

system errors. and hias, are

The component those wt_ieh are element gyro

do not agree _ith the laboratory sources within the .3 _ limits.

to the guidance accelerometers. contributed by the stabilized mount, are:

The

system on which rates

in several cases (_Y/X, 6Y/Y, 6Z/X) errors acre smaller and uitltin the eight oY, /_Z, of the predicted oX/Y, errors oZ/X, oX/X, Y/X,

the anal3 cr limits larger ttmn SF7)

accelerometers

drift

whereas

were

(constant and g-dependent), platform nonorthogonality of the accelerometer rections, muth. errors, and misalignmentof with the exception information

leveling errors, measuring di-

the platform flight aziof the leveling and azimuth errors was obtained

The deviation

magnitude was

of

the to

predicted that which

lateral was

velocity actually

on expected

similar

Laboratory measl_red

(at _.rr_. _ prelaunch) sources

[]

Error from

sources trajectory

determined analysis

....

3"

Error

Band

patform About

Leveling X and Z {dog)

Azimuth Alignmeat (dog)

Accelerometer Misalignmen 0.006 (de_) MXz My x My z

Gyro Constant

Dr[t

Rates, (deg/hr) :X ;Y -Z

0,00

1--'1

@'_--

--

:i:i i
Gyro Dr[it Rates, K Depe_de_t

0000001 A A 2
0_01 -0.002 _ 0,004 -0.006 (deg/hr/_;)

w
Bias (m/s/s)

02it I 0 01-0.1 --. --0 20 AccelerometEr Scale Fact_)r (g/g)

0 30

ix/]/

-'x/V

:.Y/ii

-'Y/

:z/'_.

:.z/t/

Acce[erometer

0.I0
-0 20 ..... --::

0.0005_-----_--_-. 0005 0 0,0010 -0.0010 --

---- 0.00002
---0. 00002 0,0000a -0 00004 I _'_ "

--

0 2 -0 20 -0.30

FIGURE

7-i4o

ST-124

STABILIZED

PLATFORM

SYSTEM

EIhROR

SOURCES

3,;7;3ZT, T:.'.L 45

TABLE

7-I. GUIDANCE

INTELLIGENCE

EIDIORS

lmboramry Paramctcrs Pre-Launch

and Meas,

Error

Sour,:e_

3 c; Error

nertiai _._

Vei,_i-it_,' Dq[ierc__nce at s-IV A_A)( i _k_'i

cutoff

Im/s

EMablished from

"_Zi

I, System Errors a, platform Leveling 1} About X Axis 2) AbOut Z Axis b. Azimuth Alignment -1.39

p
0.005 0 0 x 10 "3 -0. 169 x 10 -2 0,697 x 10-2 0.091 x t0 -2 _:0.01 + o, 005 0. 2944 x 10 -2 -0. 180 x 10 -_ 0. 2139 x t0 -z 0. 2944 x l0 -2 -0. 193 x 10 -_ 0.2139 x l0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,38

,
o -0,90 0 0 -0.17 0. 09 O 0. 12

c. Accelerometer Misatigmnents 1) Range Accel Rotated Toward Z Axis Z) Altitude Accel Rotated Toward X Axis 31 Altitude Accel Rotated Toward Z Axis

0. z4 0

0.

0 0

0 0 0

i) yaw (X) Gyro (About XA_s} 2) Roll (Y) Gyro (About YAXIS} 3) pitch (Z) Gyro (About Z Axis} e, Gym Drift Rates, g-Dependent d, Gy_o Drift Rates, (About X Axis Duv to XJ I} Yaw (X) Gyro Constant 2) Yaw (X) Gyro (About X Axis Due toY} 3l Roll (y) Gyro (About Y Axis Due to X} 4} Roll (Y) Gyro (About Y Axis Due to _/) 5) Pitch (Z) Gyro (About Z Axis Dtue to X) 6) Pitch (Z) Gyro (About Z Axis Due to y} 2, Component Errors a. Accelerometer Bias 1} Range Acceleromctor

0,138 0, 125

-0,226 0.139 0. it2 _0.o75 .................. 0.075

0 0 -0,01

0 0 -0,01

0 (_ -1,57

t. 4 -t,

1.73 0

O.241 -0,086 -0, itl -0,045 0. 101 0,049

-0,043 0,080 -0,096 -0.028 0,0(J4 -0,120

0 9 0 0 -0.05

----

0 0 0 0 -0.05

0 0 0 0 -1.38

| 0 0 0 1.27

0,12 0.02_ . - , i-0.55 0

-0.02 -0,02 --0,21 -1,30 -0.3,1 0 0

:eS.0 x 10 -I -3.3 x t0 -4 5.20 x 10 -4 o, 33 0 0 _2. o x 10 -_ -0.84 x 10 -_ 1.3 x 10 -5 -1._ -0,38 x ltl -_ x 10 -_ -0.06 0 i-0,0!1 [ 0 0

I 0 9, 0

2) AH1tude Acceterometcr 3) Cross Range Accelerometer b. Accelerometer Scale Factor

-0.46x x 10-4 10-I _4.2

7._0 til -1.6 x x10-4"4

-(}" 03 0

II Rallge Accelerom_tor 2) Altitude Accelerometer

0 -0.01

0 0

i I

0 t)

/
observed but was optxmite in drift 7-14 in polarity rates rates (Fig. 7-15). Acomparisonof thcaceclerometer, inertial presented tracking, and The required change ditionisreflectcdinthedrift as shown ................ ",' _:] " in Figure to.produce this cola(6X, bX/X, oY/Y), 7-I. precalculated trajectory and total velocities is velocity eoml_ments, in Table 7-I1. The

and Table

velocity differences between the accelerometers and the tracking data indicate satisfactory consistency at thevarious flight times and all of the inertial velocity differences (accelerometer-trackingJ fail uithin the

l
/ i // . !

i i _-_ i

....... .=__

- ...... -- _ -

! ---_ "'J_'q"

L_. ! !L. '


! i

ponent

Figure 7-15 differences

compares the inertial (accelerometer-tracking)

velocity _ith

comthe

--'---_-3_-_ "--..

3 cr error i_ands. The indicated predicted velocity differences at S-IVcutoff arc the laboratory total reIocity differences from Table 7-I. Figure 7-16 sho_s
the residual inertial velocity together components with the velocity ( trajectury comlx, analysis-tracking}

, } ?

"

' .......... ! .......... _

i
:"

Ir-- .... <-k---Zk___.:_


i

.-a--__7------

...... ...... ..... __ "

---_:_-_-

........ /!
" -'-

d! ,

nent

differences

(aecelerometer-tracking

and

trajecis a using ac-

tory analysis results). simulation of the inertial the guidance errors indicatir_g shown Iall velocity differences

The trajectory analysis velocity components in Table well velocity

7-L trajectory

The

residual analysis

within

the tracking

FIGLnRE

7-15.

INERTIAL

VELOCITY

COMPONENT

cuFaeies, solution

a satisfactory

DIFFERENCE

(ACCELEROMETER-TRACKING)

to the measured

differences.
o o

TABI, E 7-II.

COMPARISON

OF

INERTIAL

GUIDANCE

VELOCITIES

(V i,

Xi,

Yi'

Zi)

Event R_ingc T_mc Type _I D:Lt_

"lotalVuLoc,i_ {in/s) A(lua_ Vei, Dill,

ILau_v Vch>city (nl/_,l Actual V_I. Diff.

A[tiLude Velotity (m./_J Actual Vc[. Dill .

Cro_

F.angc Vck_ctty I m,'s,= Vel. Dill,

A_'t_al

At tel_l_tllet_')" IECO 142.2_ "]'rackJ ng P rt_c :LlC01ated .,\_I_i Track l)rL'c'a[ Tr;_k A_ cdct onlelcr OE(.'O 14_. :Ig Accd - Track l'I'ackln/_ Pz'_dc_l;ILed Precal - Track Act:eler(,nl_Ler Guidance IniL_aLion I(17.21; Tracking l)r_:;dt'_ated Accc] - Track P r_.'al Accclcrometer S-IV (:uh)ll {;31_. Z:3Z Tr;_'king Pret :dcul;,t_I .\l t'_.-] - _I rztcl, Pru_.a] - 2rat k 3 u Erz_,_' Acceler_+meter Ol bi tid Inserhon _i4O. ;25z Tl'dC_llg pz'u,c'adc ulatt'd A_cel Prect[ Trac_ - J'l'_u'k Bat)d Track

33_I. I 3591. ;_ :)S&_, _J -9.1 -3, _! 377_. 9 ?,779.0 :t77_,7 -0. I -_.3 3_(;. Z :]_(].I 3_7,q.1 0, I -7, 0 noa!_. 8 "_{Jqil. 2 _liStl. 5 -0.4 1o.:1 _O. 7 b04l. _041.8 ,_05Z. 2 I -O. 4 10.4 4

ZO24. (_ 2024.3 2039.7 LL;_ 15.4 _ITD. _ 2179, (; 2193. 0 {J. _ 13.4 2Z6_, 3 226._,I -_2_0._. _.Z J2.7 739_, 0

_96(i.0 2965.2 _951. _, -0,2 14.-I 3086. 9 :_0_7.I :1069._ -U, 2 -17,3 3155. 5 3155.6 3137.7 -0, 1 - 17,i) 3147.7 3149.0 3170.4 0. I 2. 1 ii). 5 - 1. :1 21.4 _1. ;) 314(L I 5 7 I I I -1. 4 21.g

-5. 9 -G. z _4. 5 U,5 I. 7 -b, I -t;.I 4, _, _, :_ I._; 7. 1 -7, 5 5.7 I).4 I, -tl, ,_ -t;. 3 -0. I U. 0 0.;_ =1. D -o. 3 -0. ;i -U. 1 tl L) tl. 2

7;197.9 7400. O

'7400.4 74D0. 7402. 3 ,5 ft. I g.2

3147. 316_.

I _

......

S,_-PJ,,iT | ,LJL 47

......

:._ The

. __ space lixed range and altitude indicate velocity the dif-

f." ............ --i

, ' _.._ i , ...... ! _ !

" _.%:....... ' ........

! _ "/_ i ; ' : ! >_.._ r -i': /.!. :, ::? ......

ferences

(computer-tracking)

excellent

performance scheme in dilfer from proximately fixed velocity is the third

of the iterative guidance the pitch plane; i.e, while the preealcnlated trajectory twice the 3or error values,

mode (IGM) .55_ s and &Ys values by apthetotal space

..... [ i

....... =----------

vector difference is only' 0.5 m/s. This flight test in which the predicted and acrange each other velocity o[ differences catolf. fell at S-IV

ii ......... .............

tual space(: ( 1.81 cross fixed within 3 m/s)

, '_ i I* l FIGURE _
I

_._ " " 7 D.,_ 7....... _ --@-

t
I

in ASC-15

Table

7-IV, orbital made

tim

precalculated are

trajectory compared

and with

computor

parameters insertion. As at S-IV cutoff, band.

tracking at comparison

in the case of the the total measured

7-16.

RESIDUAL DIFFERENCES

INERTIAL

VELOCITY

errors {computer-tracking) fall within the 3 tr error total velocity' betweenS-fV

at orbital insertion all The increase in vehicle command very and erhital with well

COMPONENT

(TIIAJECTORY

cutoff

ANALYSIS-TRACKING) 7.6.2 GUIDANCE SYSTEM PERFOIt.MANCE

insertion was 2.9 m/s, which agrees the predicted increase of 3.04 m/s.

C OM PARISONS A comparison andASC-15 eomponents presented computer at S-IV in Table total the of the precMculated fixed with The trajectory is The satisfactory performance of the yaw plaBe in Figvelocm/s at atxmt (velocafter this

space cutoff 7-1IL

velocity andveloeity the tracking data velocity differences

(delta-minimum) ure 7-17. The ity and and 800 m) 270 seconds. ity, timeis und/or to these placement cutoff.

guidance scheme is shown ASC-15 computer cross range at guidance initiation to minimum values in all parameters command)

displacement

f7.2

(computer-tracking) for bands. The of 0.5 m/s _as

fall within the specified 3 a erspace fixed velocity differences result of a 0.1 m/s error in >is, s. to and

were reduced The increase

displacement,

and steering

a 1,2 m/'_ error The contribution the total cent or velocity 0.1 m/s), or

m {'s, of each error was

and a0.1 m/serrorinZ of the component errors as follows: percent or 0. 4 m/s),

due to the increasing increasing thrust conditions, increased

vehicle lateral CG offset vector misuligmnent. Due range m/s velocity' and -180 and dism at S-IV

,3.X s (20 pet'-

the cross to -0.3

&55 s (80 0 m/s),

.XZ s (0 percent

TABLE

7-III.

COMPARISON

OF

SPACE

FIXED

VELOCITIES Range Time}

AT S-IV

GUIDANCE

CUTOFF

(630.

252 Seconds

Data

Source

Vs Total Velocity

Tolad Velocity DiHerenee

Xs Range Velocity

Range Velocity Difference

_'s Altitude Velocity

Altitude Velocity Di[lerence

ZS Cross nange Veic<'ity

Cross ll;mge Velocity Dilference

(m/s) ASC-15 Computer Tracking preeal Trajectory 7592, O 7591, 5 7592.0

(m/s)

(m/s) 7183, 4 7183.3 7182, {i

(m/s)

(in/s) -Z45{L b -2455.6 -2459.0

Ira/s)

(m/s/ -;15.5 -35,6 -35.6

(m/s_

Computer-Tracking 3 _ Error Band

0. 5 -_0, 80 0.5

0. 1 _0, 40 -0. 7

1, Z _1.63 -3.4

0. 1 _1. el 0. 0

pre_':d Trai-Trackillg

-- " m .........

--

T"t.

|',11"11 _o ...u

48

TABLE

7-IV.

COMPARISON

OF

GUIDANCE

PARAMETERS

AT

ORBITAL

INSERTION

(640.252

Seconds

Range

Time)

Precalcalated Parameter Ullits Symbol Trajectory

ASC-15 Computer

Tracking Trajector)

Error Precal-Trk)

Total

Meas

Error

Estimated 3 a Error Da nd:'

Erroz <: :: Factor E__ 3a

Residual* Error ! 13:-3 a

':' ;'

(ASC-15-Trk) E

Total

Velocity Vector

m/s m

Vs RT

7595, 0 6,910,007

7594.9 6,910,005

7594,

0.7 43

0.6 41

20.85 +402 -313 +0. 01.1

0.71 0.10

'I'oi_d Radius

6, !)1)9. 964

Path

Angle

deg

0pL

90. 000

90.002

90. 013

-0. 013

-0. 011

-O. 012 +402 -313 +0. 55

0.92

Altitude

535,708

535, 710

535, 6(;7

.t I

43

(1, 1 i

Range

Velocity

m/s

'<S

7157.7

7158.5

7158.2

-0.5

0.3

-0,43 +1,98 - 1.8(; +1,79

0,55

AllJtude

Velocity

m/s

_'S

-2539.5

-2537.4

-253(i,

-3.6

-1. ,t

0.75

Cross

Range

Velocity

m/s

ZS

-35.4

-35,

-35. t

0. 0

0,4

-2, 53 +2,50

0.22

Ral_gc Displacement

XS

2,310,482

2,308,37-t

2,30_, 136

2,346

238

-202 +379

0.95

Altitu<k'

Displaccmcnl

YS

6,512,283

6,513,028

6,513,067

-78-1

-39

-323 +381

0, 12

Cross

l_ange

Displacement

ZS

-6,618

6,374

-6,671

53

297

-585 _1,92

0.78

C ross Range (Inerlaal) Cros_ Range ( Iner ti:d)

Velocity

m/s

Zi

-0.1

-0.3

-0.3

0.2

O.t_ +311

I)ispla(enlent

Z i

-188

-183

-397

209

21-I

-701

0.69

* Unsymnlctrical 3 o values are due t_ known biases in the ASC-15 collq[)uteF of ill tht! gklhJanc(2 : ':_Error fII(_II)FS greater than 1. O0 indicate that the total Inc:_urod crFor cN('ldt_ds the applicabl(-' ;" ";; _t3,'sidtlal _rr0rs t2xist only where the mcasttrcd error exceeds the 3 cr error.

system. 3 o OlYOr.

, .... -

,, _,

..... :.......

:,,

.....

,_........

_,_,,,

The command comparison

digital computer issued fuactions satisfactorily. program of the _as used

"all its sequencing The bit-by-bit the inl'light This

to ewduate

...........

L l I , lj i l , t C'

. ':_ I ' I ..... "-----. . , ....... :-_ L

operation

ASC-i5

computer

equipment.

analysisthe wasmadetoconfirm both physical equipment

the the and correct flightoperation program. of program, not was examined all ol on a computed by the All navigation and the exception readings and

"

Due guidance nature to the of analysis the computer the telemetry bit-by-bit basis; only thoseqnantities flight program were examined.

_,,._-., ')"" " ' :', ..

guidance quantities were examined with of minor loop telemetry (accclcrometer mode codes).

t
7-17.

t v'

t I II from

The Of this

total number,

number to entry 51,671

of computer into or the cutoff 98.1

telemett loop uas percent

5'

words 52,665. avail-

liftoff

_:_.
r i _

,.._1-, ,..,_ .......

were

able for examination by program. The remainder restart ol the bit-by-bit dropouts, Sixty percent

the bit-by-bit comparison was lost clue to staging and program after the staging of" the telemetry was examwas total

I _' ._I I FIGURE YAW PLANE DELTA-MEglMUM --...... .........

I I i I _"

ined by the bit-by-bit minor loop telemetry. ASC-15 computer considered was mated 2.6 percent dropouts. RF blackout From

program; Thus, 57,4

the remainder" percent of the

telemetry examined of the

during the time interval in this analysis. An estitelemetry the _ere data lost lost due to in the

This number includes during staging. this analysis, it flight was

concluded operated

that

the cor-

GUIDANCE 7.7 GUIDANCE SYSTEM

PARAMETERS HARDWARE

ASC-15 computer and rectly dm'ing flight.

program

7.7.2 7.7.1 GUIDANCE SIGNAL DIGITAL COMPUTER PROCESSOR ANALYSIS AND

ST-124 STABILIZED PLATFORM HARDWARE ANALYSIS

SYSTEM

tern

The overall performance hardware was completely digital seconds before), computer before was

of the g_aidance satisfactory, on SA-9, back liftoff continued through (rather on

sysThe guidthan SA-10.

was

The overallperformance satisfactory, Table 7-I which contributed

of the ST-f24 shows the various to the total

system error and

eountdownprocedureintrodueed a recycling of tile ance release 45 almost This much ertial off. rors 2 minutes approach closet'

wtliehforces

sources

predicted

measuredinertial velocity differences rot tern ured sources calibration ST-124

velocity components. are based upon the by laboratory in addition and azimuth

The predicted hardware orplatform sysmeaserrors,

determined tests leveling

gives to liftoff

updated "C" resolver readings and minimizes the possible inby the computer at liftall inertial velocity er-

to prelaunch alignment

velocity errors sensed This scheme eliminated at SA-10 liftoff, S-IV cutoff" this than occurred condition 2.32 was

and agree mined by and cross

with the inertial velocity deviations detertracking within the 3 a band for the range range values ( 0.7 m/s and 1.9 m/s, altitude 3 a band velocity velocity differ( 1.5 m/s) aldeviation does.

seconds attributed of both

earlier stages.

than

respectively). Tire predicted once does not fall within the though the measured altitude The range the predicted the

predicted; higher The insertion

to a slightly

predicted

performance

velocity component is unique in that both and measured differences fall well within and also agree closely with each other.

precalealated was 7595.0 7594.3 ability

space fixed velocity at orbital m/s; the value determined by m/s. The to achieve difference a desired of only orbital 0.7 in-

3 c_ band

tracking was m/s verifies sertion velocity

The three gyro stabilizing nalsindicated maximum values (pitch gyro) and 0.25 degree

servoloop error sigtess than 0.1 degree (yaw and roll gyros).

accurately.

Illl .._v 50 L -- .....

I I r_l_

The redundant gimbal servoloop error signal measureda maximum angle of 0. f degree. The three guidance aceelerometer servoloop signals' peak values were 0.35 degree (altitude accelerometer transient during liftoff) and 0.3 and 0. 15 degrees in the range and cross range accelerometer, respectively. All these measured values indicate normal servoloop operation. The range and cross range guidance aecelerometer eneoder outputs verified the satisfactory functional performance of these instruments. The three-phase system by inverter ages: Phase Phase Phase AB BC CA power supplied to tile ST-124 2 had the following average volt-

other by notmorethan 1.5 volts ac. The three phases averaged I15.2 volts ac and tile maximum difference was 1.25 volts ac between phases BC and CA. The 56-volt de supply averaged an acceptable 56 volts.

7.8

ST-124

GAS BEARLNG GNz SUPPLY

SYSTEM

~ 115 volts ae _ 116 volts ac _ 114.75 volts ac specified to average 115 I load and to differ from each

Phase voltages are volt ac under a balanced

The SA-10 gas bearing GN2 supply system, located in theInstrumentUnit x_ith the ST-124 stabilized platform system, provided dry andhig_fly filtered gaseous nitrogen at a reguJated" temperature, pressure, and flowrate to the ST-124 gas hearing components. This supply system consisted of one high pressure storage bottle, a heating and pressure regulating assembly, pressure limit switches, calibration and check valves, temperature and pressure gauges, and interconnecting tubing. The de'tailed arrangement of the system is presented in Figure 7-18.

Note: SCM = Standard SCM per Calculated Predicted Cttbic mii_ute Meter

/o.62s

ON

Sphere

SC2_'I =

=3
SCM (Usable) Check Valve (C)

(c) (p) = (S) (M)

_5.1 Temperature 287.0 28t*'3K to

= Specified * Measured

Filter tf--_____--P[!l Line Dis connect Quick Coupling

827.4

N/cm

2 S_.it

(S) ch '_ \ \, N/cm 2 (M)

Platform 10.55 i0.35

Manifold (M) N/cm2d Rate

Pressure Hand _ %,a ires _Hi_h 2206 N/cm 2 (S) Gauge [965.0

,_/cm2d + 0.35

(S)

2137.3

tc

GN 2 Consumption _, 0.0332 SC_'._4 (P)

Reference Ho_t_r_ _Th

prt,ss_irt, Line--_ ..... tat_ So ]e_.oid Valve/

Tempera[ure f"292.7 to Ref ......

Gauge 293.6K

(.0429 (M) T_p__

SC2,_

(C)

P ........

Z, .,.,o ;.=illL'=' lii;lli?;:IiiLl,< <=>


298 + 5K -(S)

=....=/
7.6

....
to

f.;0, .......... Go=.


(S) 2 (M) 12.6 N/cm

Pressure Gauge 7.6 tO 13.I N/cm"

FIGURE

7-18.

ST-124

GAS BEARING

SYSTEM

_-vv

_ almjJ_pL _ -

j_

51

Tile SA-10, SA-9, and SA-_ supply systems _ere modified some_hat from those employed on previous Saturn Block II vehicles because The of the change ST-124 to the unpressurizedlnstrumeotUnit. enclosure

-97 minutes S-IV LH 2 loading began perature dropped rapidly, reaching the uring range limit (293K) at about for -85 measurement remainedoffscale about

and the ternlower measminutes. The 68 minutes,

pressure was used as a reference instead of the IU ambient pressure to maintain the gas bearing supply differential pressure. routing a pneumatic This was accomplished by line from the ST-124 enclosure

then gradually increased to about 293.4K at liftoff. The measurement was again out of measuring limits from approximately 130 to 300 seconds of flight. The temperature of the GN 2 supplied to the inlet of the ST124 is estimated to range from about 293K at liftoff to around 290K at t75 seconds and back to 293K at

back to the GN 2 pressure regulator. TheST-124 pressure stabilizedplatformenclosare ambient

S-IV cutoff. The GN 2 temperature about The 5 to 8K ST-124 below

probably averaged and the ST-

was maintained within the desired pressure

the specified value of 298K.

range of 13. i N/cm 2 (19 psi) to 7.6 N/cm 2 (Ii psi) throughout flight. The actual pressure varied from 12.6 N/cm 2 (18.2 psi) at iiftoff 7.6 N/cm 2 (fl psi) to at S-IV cutoff. The performance of the supply system was saris-

inertial gimbal temperature

124 mounting frame temperature averaged about 4K lower than during laboratory tests.

This

is the first of the unpressurized

IU Saturn I

factory. The GN 2 storage bottle (0.028 m 3) was pressurized to 2137N/cm 2 (3100 psi) by the high pressure ground supply before liftoff. This value is wei[ within the specified launch requiEemet_tof 1941 t.o 2217 N/cm 2 gauge (2815 to 3215 psig). From iiftoff S-IV cutto off, the ST-124 gas bearing consumed 0.450 SCM (8.8 percent of the total usable supply of 5. i0 SCM (180 SCF). The average inllightconsumption rate of the gas bearings was 0.0429 SCM/min, or 29 percenL more than the predicted rate of 0.0332 SCM/min, based on the laboratot5, test of the ST-124. The gas consun]ption predicted for the Su\-10 flightwas approximutely 22 percent lower than the actual consu.mption for the SA-10 flight. This is comparable to thatobserved on SA-9 and SA-8. About two hours before liftoff, the average tern-

vehicles (SA-9, 8, and I0) in which the pressure bet_veen the regulator discharge and the ST-t24 cornpartment was measured as a differential pressure. Heretofore, thismeasurement has been a gauge pressure measurement at the measuring cross. In SA-10 the vent of the transducer at the measuring cross was teed into the reference line between platform and regulator giving a desired differential measurement across the platform. The approximately N/cm 2 differential(16 psid) measured must be reduced by approximately constant ll.l during flight

0.48 N/cm 2 (0.7

psi) to obtain the platform manifold pressure value. The 0.48 N/cm 2 (0.7 psit reduction is due to a 0.13 N/era 2 (0.2 psi) pressure drop caused by the filter between the measuring cross and platlorm inlet and additionally a 0.35 N/cm 2 (0.5 psi) pressure drop from the platform inlet to the manifold. This gives a

perature of the GN 2 supplied to the ST-124 was 295K (298 5K specified) and the measurement was displaying its characteristic thermostatic cycling At

measuredialet manifolddifferentialpressure of I0.55 N/era 2 (15.3 psi) , well within the specified value of 1O. 35 0.35 N/cm 2 differential(15 _:0.5 psid).

52

SECTION 8.1 SUMMARY

VIII.

SEPARATION =_,_ ,,, u.,,,. ,_..,I z, : i.:,:, _ =: _) [ s._-:: s.i,.,.,:.,_ _,_: ,, - - -s,-_ _,:........ :,:-: , , /," //-- -/
I.>.

Separationof the SA-IO vehicle was accomplished in the same manner as for previous Block II vehicles. The set, ration scheme was executed within the desired time frame. First motion between stages was observed within 0.05 second of separation command. The S-IV-t0 stage engines cleared the interstage within 0.87 second of separation command, which is just 0.01 second longer than for SA-8. Separation transients were relatively small and well within design requirements.

-- _'_ .... J \

s-:v _t ,_

I,,

.f

--_ 14

I _ [

'

R,,-. r ......

Separation ofthe

shroud ini ated was ai

"
:.,
ic

l-I
] _,_:,; [ :-,_ -_ ,, _iJ_:.i............. i / ] ,_-1 I i

812.00 seconds, 2.17 to the S-IV/Pegasus predicted. The velocity imparted seconds earlier than due to separation was -0.3 m/s. The separation and ejection system functioned as planned.

8.2 8.2.1

S-I/S-IV

SEPARATION

DYNAMICS MOTION

TRANSLATIONAL

I_ I I_" ,,

._ii,__'__ I

Ii
.z( _,,,

The actual separation sequence for the SA-10 vehicle is shown in Figure 8-1. First motion time and separationdistance were determinedfromaccelerometer data. This was the first Block II vehicle which did not have extensometers to measure the separation distance between stages. Separation was completed at 150, 0 seconds.

[] _"_,-x.._ _ v, _,, _, :, _,_,_-_ ": _-_ _' '_

-"'._ ',

1,, c_ ::.,..

t.t,, 1,, _-,,_,,r_ _

l,i _,

,_,

:_.

FIGURE

8-2.

SEPARATION

DISTANCE

AND

_:

i,;

'

This

required

clearance

corresponds

to less

than a stage

..... _. ,, J _zz/_/_,

shows the velocity increment and the total reIative velocity one sigma variationMOTION from 8.2.2 ANGULAR

imparted to each between stages. Figure

nominal.

8-2 also

' __' il"

' ,_II( .... T "i, .

FIGURE

8-L

SEPARATION

SEQUENCE

and SA-10 angular rates were well below the design values of one degree and one deg/s, respectively (see Figs. 8-3 and 8-4). At separation During commandand S-IV attitude after the separation errors period (149.13 to 150.0 seconds), very small S-IV attitude errors and angular rates were observed in pitch and yaw direction (-< 0. 2 deg/s). After separation the S-I pitch and yaw angular rates increased to a maximum of -2 deg/s (nosedown) and -0.8 deg/s (nose-left). respectively. These rates are approximately the same magnitude and direction observed on all Block II vehicles and could be attributed to a systematic misalignment of the retro rockets.

Figure 8-2 shows the SA-10 separation distance between stages compared to SA-8. The two stages had separated by 12. 1 m at S-IV ignition, which is 9.1 m greater than the specified minimum distance but is in good agreement with predicted nominal separation distance. The SA-i0 separation required0.14 m (5.5 in) of the 0.74 m (29 in) lateral clearance available,

53

....

Pitch

Attitude

Error

(deN)

1.2 "_...... :_, .. _-Sepafa[ion


m

Coglroand

i '?,: /]j: .......


r

\-

o.s
0,4 0

"x
I

_'_

.....

.... _ '

-O.g 146

I 150

Ignitiont 154 15g Range Time (see) S-IV

[62

166

., , _p

_._,. .... . 5: ,

y_w (Nose

Attit_de Right)

Error

(deE)

4/]

,'__--t, ,' ',.,

....

1.2 0.8

o.4
0 FIGURE 8-3. DURING SA-10 ANGULAR VELOCITIES BOOSTER SEPARATION roll after transient separation (CW has looking the same forward) characRoll Attitude -0.4 --._..I

I
I

[ [_'_ I ]

-08
The that S-IV-10 146 occurred

I i
150 154 Range Error (deE) 158 Time (see) 162 166

teristie shape as that of S-IV-9, 0.8 deg/s less than on S-IV-9. smaller tion. which roll transient The maximum resulted The from

bat is approximately S-IV-8 had a much

and was in the opposite direcS-IV roll rate was 3. I deg/s, the corrective action of the S-IV to a This

(cw from Rear 2.0 i l o -_ 0 -I. 0-2.o -3.0 t i


/

engines. 0. St-degree

initial excursion term ullage rocket

can be attributed misalignment.

misalignment was well within expected three sigma variations. The average S-IV roll moment during ul1age rocket problems cuxsion. The 2.75 ter burning was 397 N-m (293 ft-lb). No were experienced in controlling thisrollex-

146

150

154 158 Range Time (see) S-IV ATTITUDE ERROR

162

166

maximtLm occurred

S-IV

roll rate attitude error of 3.5 seconds af 2 FIGURE 8-4. DURING (Fig. 8-4). SEPARATION

degrees separation

approximately

command

54

8.3

APOLLO

SHROUD

SEPARATION

Apollo shroud separationoccurred onds, 2.17 seconds

at 812.00 secDuring the

earlier than predicted.

the Apollo boilerplate spacecraft separation from

S-IV stage, the vehicle tumble rate was very low. The low tumble rate induced negligible loads into Lhe Pegasus guide rails.............

on"

"

"

Predicted

command

and service

module

displace-

_ ....... , ....... .... " [..: ........ ........


,

ment and velocity relative to the S-IV stage were based on a 32-percent energy loss due to friction,determined from best results. The predicted velocity and displacement forzero tumble rates are presented in Reference 4. A comparison of the predicted and measured data, presented in Figure 8-5, indicates the 32-percent The ing dimensions energy from loss an to be a fairly were engineering close drawing estimate, usand do assembly the guide It is con_ . '--_FIGURE 8-5. displacements and velocities calculated

i " _"_' "

, __>.-_-" ' : -'

., - - [ ! ' .J_'_"

! _

. _tb

_-- -_" " '

not reflect manufacturing misalignment. The scatter rails is attributed to these eluded from this tion and ejection velocity termined m/s due

tolerances or in the data from inaccuracies.

_ _-" ( ., . " PEGASUS . _. :i ,

evaluation that the Pegasus separasystem functioned as planned, The to the S-IV/Pegasus, accelerometer, was separation. de-0.3

impulse imparted from the guidance to the Apollo shroud

SEPARATION

COMPARISONS

55

SECTION 9.1 SUM_L_RY The SA-10 vehicle experienced maximum 74.2 seconds. bending The

IX.

STRUCTURES Ti_..- I. : ....dv_ :. 6'K


p

in the pitchplane

at approximately

v, hi,l, _ T

s_,:l:, (,_ '

<_)

c s

u,_,_ r, _,,: (_'% : 2 -_

maximtm_ bending moment of 655,901 perienced at station 23. S m (9'36 in).

N-in was ex-

'

ally

The structural as expected The bending

flight loads and no POGO oscillations different from

on SA-10 were genereffects were apparent, observed SA-8. were generally _ell for the from _itb longithis on SA-10 were

. , i i : i '

t\
I [ (,) _: 1_,
I1' :._ p :.h

_-

=,,,:: _0_t ,_

not

sigltificantly The

vibrationsobserved the were e.vpected considered measurement appeared levels

on SA-10 and

/_

....... y,,; r->

within domes

compared except

i l

invalid

tudinalaxis measurement

on engine normal. were

1. Data

,
i

9oc.ncl:, I%-ncl:,

....

L
within the expected _i _="

_ -..
_

/ /

/x_ _.,'.,_,,, '"_ _


._ ,..,_,l_,r

The S-IV stage, limits. There structural 9.2 9.2.1 was no

vibrations

_ I

,.,_

evidence during S-I

of

S-I/S-IV

interstage FIGURE 9-t. PITCH NORMAL BENDING MOMENT LOAD FACTOR between moment this strain distribution. AND

degradation DURING

separation. POWERED LOAD FLIGHT FACTORS by at 9-1 and

RESULTS

MOMENTS Themaximum

AND NORMAL bending

There moment

is

poor agreement and the calculated

gauge The

moment

experienced occurred Figure moment

calculated twice as

maximu_m pitch moment large as the corresponding between has been suggested area.

was approximately strain gauge me-

the Saturn SA-10 vehicle during 74.2 seconds and was in the pitch presents the distribution of this

flight plane. bending

ment. Agreement calculated moment Therefore, be made it in this is

strain gauge moment and very good on past flights. that further investigagon

the corresponding normalloadfaetordistribution. The maximum bending moment on SA-10 was 655,901 N-m in the pitch plane at station 23.8 m {936 in). maximum moment is 92 percent of the maximum ment experienced by the SA-8 vehicle. This mo-

Ground winds are being investigated todetermine their effectsonthevehicle and will be presented later. 9.2.2 LONGITUDLNAL Measurements tudinal response LOADS used to evaluate vehicle longi-

The slope of the load factor distribution line indicates the rotational acceleration of the vehicle. The angle of attack (c_) and gimbal angle (fi)y,'hich prodated the depicted normal load factor, when nominal aerodynamic and weight data were usedin deriving the bending moment consideredl were distribution. The

lidlinto the following categories:

a. Structural acceleration measurements h. Engine urements c. ments. combustion chamber pressure meas-

gimbal angle agrees with the telemetered value while the angle of attack is 0. 6 degree higher than the telemetered value. This discrepancy has consistently shown up on tile last several flightsand no explanation is presently available, The strain gauge moment reading taken during m.

Engine LOX

and fuelpump

pressure

measure-

An investigation was

made

to compare

the calcuapplied

flight is represented

at its pickup station 23.9

lated response of the system

for the observed

56

forces during thrust buildup period. The buildup period is defined as the time interval from ignitionof the firstengine tovchicle liftoff. The engines were sehedulcd to ignite in pairs, with I00 ms delay between pairs to limit the vibratory force to 20 percent of the static thrust. Figure 9-2 shows the engine staggering times (ignition delay) to be less desirable than the ideal v',dues of 100 ms. The resulting dynamic response was is identical SA-8 13 percent of the maximum to previous Block ]J respenscs thrust, which except lbr

9.2.3

BENDING

OSCILLATIONS

The SA-10 flight data indicated no significant difference in banding oscillations from SA-8. The response amplitudes for SA-10 were low, in the range of 0 to t0 Hz, with the highest value of 0.06 Grin s recorded in the IU yaw plane at max Q. A filter bandwidth of 0.66 Hz was used for data evaluation. Both pitch and yaw conditions were investigated.

(7 percent).

Figure 9-4 (top half) represents the SA-10 flight bending frequencies at the S-IV, station 35.6 m (1400 in), and at IU, station 37.6 m (1479 for the yaw be attributed in), compared to dynamic test frequencies of the data scatter can condition. to the Some duster

.....
>,

_ _

far to the yaw

condition.

.... ......

'

1:

bending frequencies in the pitch condition were simimodes interacting with the main bending modes. Flight

......
FIGURE 9-2. SA-10

ill
TIIRUST BUILDUP I "_ s_,.__ 6 _:"_'_ ' ...... .... ............ supporting the _' '" V - _ | I [--t "_'_/| J-} _, .... } ' 7 .... I _ _ ! _ ____ ' ' _: v __ L ] ! : ''_:_,,_'_ . ....... -, .... _:. _., .: CHARACTERISTICS

The Pegasus during

response mounting the thrust

of

the

structure

bracket buildup

was determined for SA-IO period. The measured re-

sponse is compared Figure 9-3.

with the calculated response in

....

- --

FIGURE 9-3.
A cross vestigate

UPPER

PEGASUS

SUPPORT FIGURE used to inFigure 9-4 (bottom halfl shows the vehicle response at the same response amplitude stations in the yaw plane. The was low, in the range of 0 to 10 9-4. VEHICLE BENDLNG FREQUENCIES AND AMPLITUDES, YAW

RESPONSE correlation

TO S-I IGNITION analysis Preliminary is being

the possibility of Pogo having occurred durresults indicate no

ing the SA-10 flighL evidence of Pogo.

57

ttz,

and was lower for SA-8.

titan the

corresponding shows

response that the peak , : i t::3............ _" _ ..... .... I', !_ l ', _,, ' ' _ ._ _-_'" / "_.

amplitude

The figure

amplitude of 0.06 Grin s occurred at max Q. Vehicle response amplitudes at the S-IV station in the pitch plane were somewhat larger than in the corresponding yaw plane. Vehicle response amplitudes at the IU station in the pitch plane were larger than in the corresponding yaw plane from 0 to 40 seconds, but were smaller during the remainder of S-I powered flight. All accclerometers appeared to function normalty and

After separation of the S-I stage and jettisoning of the LES, the vehicle bending response was very low, 9.2.4 9.2.4. S-I VIBRATIONS 1 STRUCTURAL There were MEASUREMENTS six aeceierometers located on i ":_:::;_ _._ ] z:_

....

/. /; '. ....

the S-I stage structure. All telemetered vibration data appeared valid. The measured response of tile S-I structure was nornml throughout powered fligbt and did not exceed expected levels. The ma:4mum vibration wasinducedby theacoustie andaerodynamic noise environments present daring launch and max Q. Table 9-I lists the maximtm] vibration levels encountered at various S-I stage and Instrument Unit locations. A time history of the S-l-10 structural, engine, and component vibration envelopes are compared to S-I-8 in Figure 9-5. The unusually high vibration levels III and IV on SA-g were 9.2.4.2 not experienced on SA-10.

_________.__-_-

\
'\

..... :

i ; [ _-n,_ [_ j, [f\ J _,

I
,

,_', / '\ :.. i'\\

ENGINE MEASUREMENTS

: ...........

h3:_--.0.._o

There were 16 accelerometers located on the H-1 engines and engine components. All telemetered vibration data appeared valid except that from thrust chamber dome measurements Ell-2, Ell-4, El1-6, E33-3, E33-5, and E33-7. Response characteristics of valid measurements were generally as expected. Maximum excitation was self induced by the operating characteristics of the engines and reluted components,

FIGURE

9-5.

S-I STAGE VIBRATIONS

The longitudinal and lateral axis vibration data obtained on the thrust chamber domes were considered invalid except for the longitudinal axis measurement on engine 1 (E33-1). Response characteristics from this measurement were similar to those obtained from hardwire measurements made during static firing of Block II vehicles. Data from the E33-1 measurement also compared favorably with valid SA-6 data. The maximum SA-10 response amplitude was 10.3 Grms, during launch,

Acquisition of reliable telemetered data from thrust chamber dome measurements remains a problem. Comparisons between telemetered and hardwire data obtained from adjacent measurements on the engine domes have sho_,n large discrepancies during recent static firings of Block II vehicles. An acceptable explanation as to why these telemetered data were distorted has not been found; however, investigation is continuing. The vibration data obtained from turbine gear box measurements on all engines were considered valid. Gear box response on engines 4 and 8 appeared high near engine cutoff; however, similar increases in vibration have occurred during previous flights. The maximum vibration amplitude was 34.5 Grm s on the

58

TABLE

9-I.

VIBRATION

SUMMARY

Max A tea S-I STAGE STRUCTURAL Shear MEASUREMENTS panels Monitored

Level

Flight Period Remarks

( GrmsJ

Beain/Shear

13.7

LO

The maximum SA-I0 response amplitudes _ ere 2. S Grm s higher during launch and 0. (i Grins higher dm'ing max Q than the maximmn SA-8 response ampliindes. The cozllposit_ vibration levels measured on the shear pands I)et_,een [m lines I11 and IV (E13_i-9) ,acre equal to or lower than expected levels for this structure. The response el the exIerior spider beam spoke. measured along [in line 1, _as 9.3 Grin s higher during the critical flight periods than during the noncritical flight periods.

Spider

Beam

9.9

75 set,

ENGINE Thrust

M EASURE_,IENTS Chamber Domes 10.3 LO Invalid data except for the longitudinal ttrernent on engqile 1. This measurement la'orably with hard_ire nleas_lrements static firings ot Block II vehicles. This level _as 12 Grin s higher vihratioll measured on SA-8, than axis meascompares nlade tlul-ing

Turbine

Gear

Box

34.5

138 sec

the Inaximtm_

COMPONENT

MEASUREMENTS 3, 9 75 set' The maxin]um SA-8 response amplitude _as 6. 9 Grins in the pitch axis during max Q,

9A:] Distributor Moulltiag

INSTIIUM ENT STRUCTURAL Lower

UNIT MEASUREMENTS

Mountieg

Ring

7.8

LO

Measured between max on &_-8.

fin positions

Ill and

IV.

b. 2 Grin

Upper

Mounting

l{lng

5. t

65 see

Meast_red betv, een fin positions max on SA-8.

1?1and

IV.

8. 5 Grins

COMPONENT

MEASUREMENTS I. 2 LO 0.7 Grin s at LO on SA-_. SA-8 ms _as 67 sec. 2.4 Grm urement 3.5 Grins 2.2 Grin s lower than the level during SA-8 latmch. max during s ma during recorded I.4 Grin s at

ST-I')4 InertialGimbal

ST-124

Mtg Frame

and Support

6.7

70 see

for

this

meas-

Air

Bearing

Supply Panel

5. 1 2.3 4.7

LO LO 65 sec

max Q on SA-8. max Q on SA-8. support. 6.4 Grin s max

RF Assembly Guidance

Computer

Perpendicular to computer at LO on SA-_.

59

engine 4 gear box at 138 seconds. Grin s higher than the n_aximum was on

This level was

12 _.._.,,_.,..:_:_> , s_-,.

vibration measured Block IIseries wm'e arc instrushown ni

the first vehicle ill the Saturnl, which all eight time turbine history gear boxes The 9-5. envelopes

mented. Figure 9.2.4.3

CO.",lPONENT

MEASUREMENTS

_,_:,, r_:_, (,, >

component of the S-1 stage, The telemetered data appeared valid and tile measured vibration was normal throughout The in the powered
measurement

sA Jo

flight.
c _as ( _,,_... T_,. nc _,-.) to

I"rl s_-u
., !a_, i_o

located

on

T_he

ring

tranle

tower

skirl

of fuel

tat_k f at the attach

point

of

a ..._,.,_.,,_ t,].r,_) "t , i",'

;ompoatnts l._,,unt.... lt SRir_ (}$14 it) :,np, Ut, ....... _s^.u e'c ,h Ra:ige _'i_t. {a,..) ,,;,, ...... t:,'o 1,(. I I l,,;

tile 9A3 distrii0uk)r level reached 3.9 ing max Q. This 3. 8 Grnls for lJle

mounting bracket. The ma.\inlunl Grin S in the longitudinal a.'ds durleveL compared wiLh a maximum of same measurement nla(|e during

_'--------_" :* .,c,

;, :_lttit,':_Ii_s) j

(x,iap_n_nt _.,._t_d o. L., _,,t .._._ff _'_..--

C,.taH_ll_t Sph*r,>

SA-8 lllUX Q. The maimum SA-8 rcspottse amplitude was 6.9 Grin S ill [lie pitch a..-ds during max Q. The time history envelope is shown in I;igure 9-5. 9.2.5 S-IV V1B1LATtONS

t
..t

_ I'N

'-"""'f-, *._.,. ......... s*.,o


L

_'"_ '"'
_era:,,,. _:ms) CmP_nCqt _u_'_'d

(*")
'_l_ LH2 T*IIIK1"_; rd [k)m' (Vent V6[*' }

Two ward levels 9-6). eaing 9.2.5.2

measurements

were

made

on the forvibration favorably _cak-

ring of the from these

forward interstage. The measurements compared of structural

, c
A:lcratton

:_.
( m_ T

_, Rant;t

+(, Ti_o {_-, ) _.<,


o,, iAlx 1._,,_ &f:

_u
D*_

t,.c

_+c,

Ct>mp,,n,,nc,; M(:,/nted

There were no indications or failure throughout flight. ENGINE Twelve MEASUREMENTS measurements

_ _
20 _._) 60 _1_ Ioo 120

s^.,0 s^.s
V.0 }6('

_,,._,. ,_,- (_,-,/ were made on the FIGURE 9-6. S-I and inverter. components during the during launch a higher level define taken the monitored "aft skirt, on LH 2 unit. Theaft The skirtmeasurement vibration levels measured during was located atthe compared favorably the SA-8 flight (Fig. EBW with 9-6). at the to the cold COMPONENT STAGE VIBRATION FLIGHT at the levels those remaining measured measured DURING

engines. gear case

The accelerometers were housing o[ each engine, the and at the attach to engine 1. As vibration considered levels

located on the PU valve posi-

POWERED

tioner of engine 4, and LOX feedlines previous were stage 9.2.5.3 flights, low, and _ere powered flight,

points of the LH 2 established Irom on the engines dut'ing S-I

The vibration were comparable SA-8 flight,

levels to the for

the

except

negligible

(Fig. 9-6). The SA-10 flight indicated during launch because the data used to envelope were not the SA-8 flight. The data of SA-10 were same used as those to define from the

COMPONENT Sixteen

MEASUREMENTS were

the upper during the envelope helium

upper

obtained

measurements

regulator.

the S-IV stage at the thrust structure, tank dome, and aft LOX tank dome.

The thrust structure measurements were located at the cold helium regulator, PU computer, inverter, helium obtained heater, from and heat shield. the measurements No usable data were at the PU computer

the levels

point

The LHa tank measurements where the cold helium

were located sphere attaches

6O

lank did

skin. not

The provide

measurement usable tank skin data. were

in

the thrust The

direction

..... [ . t\ !_ _/_

' ..... , '

vibration levelsevels l than the on

normal

to the

lower

The located

forward at the

Ltl x tank LH 2 tank

dome vent

measurements valve. The

were vibration valve _ _-i _i Y/_ "_ i _ . /_'(__ " ',

levelswereslightlyhigher butwerewellwithin (Fig. 9-6), The aft LOXtank

thantheSA-8flightlevels the desig_n limits of the vent

dome

measurements tank levels vent

were valve

made and the favortlight corn" i '. l! _ . _/ U2"21

at the LOX PU probe, LOX feedline. The

the LOX vibration

compared

/Ax \
" " _

ably with the levels measured during the SA-S (Fig. 9-6). The vibration levels at the various

tion Instrument Unit (IU). to panels attached directly ameter wall instead The SA-10 vibration levels 9.2.6. measured 1

lo kll eriesto aproto po ofthe s f,y Components were mounted model prodc- L/
to the 3.05 m (120 in) di' FIGURE 9-7. DURING All the telemetered ments were also located rings. tunasduring was ex(Fig. was level SA-9 history The The vibration measured at 2.6 . ..... oI in pressurized levels correlated during SA-8 and SA-9 tubes as before. c|osely with the flights. S-I data made

:.

INSTRUMENT POWERED

UNIT

VIBRATIONS

FLIGHT These measureand SA-9 flights.

STRUCTURAL There were

MEASUREMENTS eight accelerometers

were valid. on the SA-8

on the upper Alltelemetered urod on the

(Apollo) and lower IU mounting data were valid. The vibration mounting rings was normal vibration when the occurred structure noise

of the upper longeron 6. launch.

MMC mounting The maximum The ma.,dmum

ring level SA-8

throughout

reached

Grin s during

powered flight. Maximum the cri_eal flight periods cited 9-7). by the acoustic

was 3.0 Grm s during max Q, and the level was 4.2 Grin s during launch. envelopes vibration are in shown the in Figure MMC 6. The 9-8.

maximum The time

and

aerodynamic

lower

motmting maximum

ring level

9.2.6

2 COMPONENT There were

MEASUREMENTS 16 aecelerometers located vibration on data

was

alsomeasuredat

longeron

variousIUeomponents.

All telemetered

reached 3.t Grin s during launch. level was 3.0 Grin s during max SA-9 time level history was 2.7 envelopes Grin s shortly are shown

The maximum SA-8 Q, and the maximum after launch. in Figure 9-8. The

appeared valid. The vibration measured on the guidance system was normal throughout powered flight. The vibration environment of the air bearing supply. RF assembly, and guidance computer was measured for the third time during the SA-10 flight. Maximum levels occurred during theeritical flightperiods when the IU skin to which the component mounting panels were attached was excited by acoustic and aerodynamic noise environments 9.2.7 APOLLO There (Fig. 9-7). VIBRATIONS located on rings,

9.2.8

STRUCTURAL

ACOUSTICS

9.2.8. I

S-I STAGE

The, internal acoustic environment was measaredinthelower S-Istage thrust structure. This measurement was considered invalid. It was also invalid during SA-8 but was considered reliable during SA-9. Analysis of the raw data indicated an apparent system. malfunction of the instrumentation

(PEGASUS) were

four accelerometers capsule (MMC)

the micrometeoroid

mounting

6t

FIGURE 9.2.8.2

9-8.

PEGASUS

VIBRATIONS FIGURE 9-9. APOLLO AND ACOUSTICS INSTRUMENT UNIT

S-IV STAGE Two microphones were flush mounted in-

ternally ment

and externally to the forward

interstage. Due

however,

the 5 db decrease

in the environment

measThe

to an instrumentation malfunction, neither measureprovided usable data during the flight, INSTRUMENT UNIT adjacent

ured during SA-8

was not present during SA-10.

9.2.8.3

variations inthe environment were due to the installation of acontrol motor upstream of this measurement location on vehicles SA-8 and SA- I0, and the difference in the angles of attack during these flights.

The internal acoustic environment

to the guidance system at station 37.6 m (1480 in) was measured with one microphone. The telemetered data were considered valid. The maximum level measured was Q. 138.5 The db during launch levels and 128.5 140 db _ during 130.5 max db, and is predicted were and

The flow fieldover the external skin in the vicinity of this measurement greatly infLuenced the local acoustic environment, The installation of the control motor induced caused shocks. the flow This to increase in turbulence excitation and angle were 1/max increased extended

respectively. The SA-8 levels 128.5 rib, respectively. The time shown in Figure 9-9. 9.2,8.4 APOLLO The Apollo stage ted near the The maximum during 5 _ measured ment was higher was than internal acoustic

were 138.0 db history enveiopo

through max Q during SA-10 due to the positive of attack in pitch. The SA-10 predicted levels 140 dbduring launch and 130.5 db during Mach Q. The 9-9. time history envelopes are shown

in Figure

environment

of

the

9.3

OBSERVED

STRUCTURAL

DEVIATIONS

was measured external skin sound launch. higher to

with one microphone locaat station 38.0 m ( 1495 in). level (139.5 db} was

or 9.4

There was no evidence of structural degradation component malfunction during the SA- 10 flight. S-L/S-IV Sixteen INTERSTAGE channels vehicle of instrumentation to monitor were utilized debonding

pressure

The Maeh 1/max Q environthan predicted and 3 to 5 db during SA-9. SA-S The through environment Mach 1; of

measured

comparable

that

on

the

SA-10

any panel

62

anoma|y channels perature

such as that observed on SA-5 and SA-7, Six were used to establish the interstagc ternand pressure environment (see Section

between fin planes IIand Ill. The primary purpose of the gauges was to measure any abrupt change in strain levels. A malfunction of a discommct assembly would have been reflected by a large compressive stress in theinstrtmlentedlcg of the bracket. Since no behavior of this nature no malfunction was indicated, occurred. it has been concluded The strain data recorded although into the it appears brackets. that at that Ho_-

10.2.5.1).The remaining ten channels (strain, breakwires, acoustic, and shock acceleration) were used to study the structural behavior before, after separation. Locatien of the special panel _}-10. debonding instrmnenkttion is during, and air interstage in Figure

sho_n

separation was very erratic, some tensile load was induced ever, normal disconnect tensile abrupt loading. to produce An

operalion

would

be expected

Biaxiai skin adjacent brackets,

strain between

gauges fin

were engine

installed I and IV,

on the

inner duct

to the external planes

GH 2 chiltdown

and fin planes

change

in strain

on both

brackets

oc-

If and HI at station 29.1 m ( 1145.7 in). The strain gauges appeared to tunction normally, and the strain histories followed the trends of the SA-8 data. The deviations after 80 than predicted noted seconds skin between of flight predicted can and actual The strains to lower be attributed

carted at 140.8 seconds vere between fin planes changes are considered vaUon of the A shock skin port blowout

after liftoff, being more seII and lbI. The abrupt strain a result of shock from acti-

panels. was installed on the inside

temperatures.

eircumferen-

accelerometer

tint leg of the biaxial strain after launch toapeak tensile skin temperature. in strain was IECO These tion. and OECO, dips There

gauge shows an increase strength at the maximum a gradual a compressive to the Poisson redaction dip at eilect,

of the interstage, bracket, between

adjacent to the disconnect supfin planes I and IV. As was the the acceterometer data exwtfich were damped by 1o_ These transients occurred at

Subsequently, recorded, with corresponding

case with the SA-8 data, hibitod full scale transients frequency approx2mately ends after oscillations.

resulted was also

from the loss of axial acceleraa sharp dip at separation result-

15 seconds and at 153 seconds (4 secseparation) ; they are attributed to the acAll shock other tt-ausients influences. The became of thrust

ing from the loss of loop restraint. Uniaxial strain gauges were locatedonthe bracket supporting the disconnect assembly at the following locations: between fin planes I and IV (area of previous debonding), and

celerometer being overdriven. can be explained by expected body loose bending andpicked

aeeelerometer that apparently up a longitudinal component

63

'_:' 1

s_. _ --

_.,_"""Pi_.." "'"_,_ _'iv


F,,_ PI_,, Fir, i'I,_-,, II 5 t_: _ a I,,' H'.

degree of certainty that no panel debonding occurred. From the flight data obtained on SA--8 and SA-10 it appears highly unlikely that the natural environment (luring separation could have causedthe panel debonding on SA-5 and SA-7. However, no data were ob-

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

_ _.,., [,i.,n, ' i! , _._,,-.. =1o

9.5 tainedRESULTS DURING S-IV POWERED from the acoustic measurements. 9.5. 1 BENDING
No significant body bending

FLIGItT

s:_ ! , ,

;: _

i,,:

p,r

_} ---

h:-:._ p,,d: ....

IFCO

o_(: inotion was re-

9,

5.2

S-IV VIBFbkTIONS

DURING S-IV POWERED

9.5.2.1 " :' ,


:_xc

STRUCTURAL

MEASUREMENTS

"_ _ " _...... 'r )",:_, _"_

-_:_ :"

The two measurements on the forward ring of the folxvard interstage indicated very low vibration FLIGHT levels, similar to S-IV-8, and were considered negligible during S-IV stage powered flight.

...... -'
' -"_' " .-t _':-[ I -

9----,
_l _ .

Engine measurements were made in the gear case housing of each engine. The vibration levels compared favoral)ly with the levels measured duringS-IV-Sstagepoweredflight were no indications of abnormal Two measurements were _Fig 9-12l. There turbepump operation. made on the PU valve

FIGURE on SA-8 SA-10.

9-11.

S-I/S-IV

INTERSTAGE

STRAIN on

positioner of engine 4. The vibrations showed slightly different trends when compared to the SA-8 flight Icyels. Thel.evels wore lower in the thrust direction and higher in the lateral direction than SA-8 (Fig. 9-t2). Thedata from the lateral direction measurement were invalid after 360 seconds. Although the levels were higher inthelateral direction,comparable levels were measured on the positioner during battleship tests, with no detrimental effect to the PU wdve. Accelerometers were located at the attach points of the LH 2 and LOX feedlines to engine 1. The data from the LIt 2 feedline measurement in the thrust direction wereinvalid. The vibration levcls on the feedlines compared Iavorabiy with the levels measured during the SA-8 flight (Fig. 9-12). The engine vibration environment was considered normal throughout S-IV stage powered flight, 9.5.2.3 COMPONENT Component taken at the thrust MEASUREMFNTS vibration structure, measurements aft skirt, were LH2 tank,

did not exhibit

the same

characteristics

Two breakwires were installed around the inside eiremnference of the interstage. Break'wire number 1 spanned only the panel in the area of previous debonding, with minimum overlap onto the adjacent panels. Breakwire number 2 covered the remaining seven panels making up the interstage. Breakwire number 1 indicated no breakage before, daring, or after separation. Breakwire number 2 shorted electrically at 140.8 seconds as a result of the blowout panel shock. This event was correlated with the strain data to verify that the integrity of the interstage had not been damaged. A similar occurrence happened on SA-8 also. Steps had been taken to prevent this from happening again, but these were apparently inadequate. In summary, the results of the evaluation of data, which wereobtained from instrumentation installed to determinestructaral behavior, have established ahigh

64

forward LH z tank dome, and aft LOX tallk dome. As established from previous flights, the vibration levels at the components mounted on the aft skirt (EBW

_( I

FTI

s,_ _

[Q7_

......

//_/.

sidereal Ltt 2 tank negligible dome (ventdm'ing S-IV stage powered flight. valve) were low, and were conunit) , LI_2 taD'k (cld beliun] sphere) ) and frv)ard

., _._,,.,,,,,. (c,_._) "" 72NsA-_._, _-_ _

_; ,.,,.., ),,,_-:.......

The vibration levels at the components mounted to the thrust structure (cold helium regulator, PU computer, inverter, helium heater, and heat shield) and aft LOX tank dome (vent valve, PU probe, and feedline) were comparable to levels measured during S-1_'-8 stage powered flight ( Fig. 9-12).

_/Zj/._:.);..?_;_f;_;.)_:;_:.<._.:/..<.7._<2._i;Z.;.)_ _y//_._/;;_:_._:_. _;:._.;<_2._/_//_:_j_;: ,'<<ZZ,'<_,'.'<,','.'HN,'H,'.:',.'..//N.:7,_/_ ..........',,>_--',.< ........ ..

_ _ #<_

<_

The vibrationlevels at the various components were low during S-IV stage powered flight.

,_,_,,i,., (_._

,._. ,,, _:<_,,,,u.,.

9.5.3

INSTRUMENT

UNIT VIBt/ATIONS sigrafieant vibrations in the IU flight, The vibration levels period were the same order of measured during the S-I main-

r-n ....

Z_ .......

]
There were no during S-IV powered measured during this magnitude as the levels stage period.

,>-

,,

_',:

........ '""' (:,_

, ,_ , ,,' _,,,:,.:.,,, ,., i" ,.:,_......... .,,_,_ ,,, r_.,_, s_,: .... .

_,_,

aPo ,,o (PEOASUS, VIBRATION


_.,,,,,. ,,,, <_,_ r .,._,_,,_,,,, (c_.) c.,_,,,,,,,,..,,,,_. _,.,, ,_>: ,,._ *_, _ r .... during The Apollo vibration S-IV powered flight. levels were negligible

"1

,).,,

_.:o

_,'_

,,%

,!.

_'_c

9.5. 5 APOLLO

(PEGASUS)

ACOUSTICS

FIGURE 9-12. ENGINE AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENT VIBRATIONS DUllING S-IV STAGE POWERED FLIGHT

during

The Apollo acoustics S-IV powered flight.

levels

were

negligible

65

SECTION 10. 1 SUMIvlARY

X.

ENVIRONMENTAL

TEMPEtGkTURES

ANI)

PRESSURES

T_mp_.r_tur_

!oK)

Engin,

Shro_d

ments SA-8

Measured on the flight.

S-I

pressure and temperature and S-IV stages of tile instrumentation on

environSA-I0 flight the S-I-10

_:o[ I _') 7c

./i.,,_ s.r.,t _ . __

r , , Pr_,.:to_ (_i_h M_, _,__,.,)

Thermal

vious Saturn I, Block II vehicles. Structural temperaturcs was drastically on the /orchard reduced of over heat flown on preside the that shield showed stage no evidence of water being present in this area for Calorimeters were flown for file second time on the

_,/__,._._,,_s,_,,.,. --_--

_" _,,

r_. _.-_.._:.._)-i: ,.>//_._

/./

engine bell and aspirator surfaces of engines 3 and 7.


]

: ,//, _0 ---_ .................... _//-i-

//
-

Analysis ing rotes

of data which

from are

these kigher

calorimeters and more

shows representativeheat-

i_
I

s_,,e.

stallation SA-9. 10.2 t0.2.1

ot the calorimeters

for

SA-10.
2_0

This is attributed to a_n improvement S-I STAGE ENVIRONMENT SURFACE Surface PRESSURES pressure similar instrumentation flown

in tile in)7P_

_ ]/

l
I ;

,
!

i
L

:(. on S-I-f0 flight


r_p_,:_ IuR)

.::

,_,
R*n_, l_,,.

_:
(,,_)

_._

l:,

,_

was

basically

to that

on previous

vehicles. Differential pressures measured across the spider beam fairing and across the tail shroud were in good agreement with previous flight results. Fin surface namic loading pressures indicated vel T little as a consequence of the relatively aerodysmall

Upper

an.: n_er

Iail

Shru,,d

39o . u_e_ _70 . s_:.,_,:_ ' i J ! ' Lo_er s_o_

]
[

. - (v_;,,_ s_,_,,,_,_/ "_- pl,.di, t,,d I ---, : ---

10.2.2

S-I

STAGE

SKIN

TEMPERATURES

AND

V_

1_[',:_,o_,_)

"

Aerody_mmic measurements with previous flown flight

heating on the results heating tail

data

from

thermoeouple and the There engine were on

] .

i\

i _

"

shroud :t0-1).

/Fig.

no other

aerodynamic

measurements

flown

_o l

.......... i
| _ . [ 2(} FIGURE 10-1.

i-'-F:
_0

._

! 1
:'
[ lO0 tIISTORY AND ' '
120 1/_0

tO. 2.3

BASE

PRESSURES

AND

TAIL

_.70

60

f 80 _,. (_._.)

COMPARTMENT Measured inside flight data. compartment Pressure above pressures

PRESSURES on agreed the S-I-10 base and

R._

TEMPERATURE TAIL SHROUDS SHROUD

OF ENG1NE

the tailcompartrnents

wellwith

previous frame com-

UPPER

AND

LOWEll

enviromnents in the thrust the firewall and in the engine

partment below the firewall were nearly uniform throughout flight, as expected. Pressure loading across tile heat shield was nominal with a maximum downward N/cm pressure differential at 58 seconds, of approximately 0.96 z occurring

t0.2.4

BASE Base

THERMAL thermal reduced 1 Block

ENVIRONMENT for over that Of the SA-f0 flown five was on major

instrumentation in number II vehicles.

considerably previous Saturn

66

regions assumed to have uniform heating (heat sb2eld inner and outer regions, flame shield, fin trailing edge, and engine shroud}, only the inner region was instrumented with heating rate sensors. This consistedo[ only one total and one radiation calorimeter. As on S-I-9, 15 total calorimeters were mounted on the engine bells and aspirator surfaces of engines 3 and 7. t0. 2. 4. t BASE TEMPERATURES

There were no other gas thermocouples flown on the heat shield or on any of the other major base areas normally instrumented. Two gas thermocopules were mounted on the access chute on the forward side of the flame shield (Fig. 10-2/. Temperatures recorded by these instruments were generally lower than on the data from inner or outer region thermocouples flown on SA-10 or on previous Block II flights. Maximum temperatures between 700 and 850K were recorded at 28 km altirude. 10.2.4.2 BASE ttEATING RATES

Gas temperatures measured on the heat shield outer region were in exceltent agreement with the Block I} data band. Maximum gas temperatures recorded in the heat shield outer region were slightly over 1200K at an altitude of 12 km (Fig. i0-2).

Temperature 1800

(OK) A=_., i o .... _

Only two calorimeters, one total and one radiation, were mounted in the inner region of the S-I-10 base. Measured heat fluxes generally show good agreement with previous Saturn I, Block 11 data (Fig. little 10-3J. The total heating rate indicated very heating at altitudes between 8 and 15 kin. This response flights and may be been noted on physical blockage of attributed to the SA-7 and SA-9 tow had radiant heat energy to the gauge (Ref. 5). The radiationresults rate measured heat S-I-10 flights. the from previous onBlock II was consistent with

1400 _ _:,,,_ _ L o .... _-_ : ::!:_] -_!_ =:,_._

/; i _
/:_:::_ Z_'[ "

:i:i:_ i::i_i:-_:!!!_ _._: _'_:_:_' [ | ---v--

600

Two total heat Rux calorimeters, one slug and one membrane, were mounted on the access chute for this flight (Fig. 10-3). These inslx'uments were 1oother, A maximum

Ba d 200 0 I 10 I I 20 30 Altitude I 40
(kin)

50

60

watts/era 2 occurred at liftoff. The exeeUent agreement between the heating rates from these calorimeters gives a high degree of confidence in the thermal environment for this region. Fifteen slug-type total calorimeters were mounted on the engine bells and aspirator surfaces of engines

00o troo
heat flux

of approximately

Temperature 1000

(oK) ! o

3 and 7. These measurements were first flown on S-I-9, but the installation was improved on S-I-10 to give the calorimeters better exposure to bolh radiant and convective environments. Heat flux data from some of _he measurements are shown in Figure 10-4. As expected, higher heating rates were indicated by data from the S-I-10 flight with the maximum hea_ng generally much better occurring sidered properly although i0.2.4. at liftoff. conthan those These data are S-l-9, obtained from

800

o o n _ o o d o o o o o o .-. _ _ m o :_ m o n _ac==_=_:_ _flj./O,_._

600

o o n o u m _8_a_ _ o i_

during the 15 calorimeters powered not respond It of the entire S-I-10 did flighL 3 ENGINE COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURES

400

200 0 i0 20 30 Altitude 40
(kin)

50

60 Gas temperatures in the engine compartment remained normal throughout flight,indicating that no excessive temperatures or firesoccurred on S-I-10.

FIGURE

10-2. HEAT SHIELD AND ACCESS GAS TEMPERATURES

CHUTE

67

......

,,,2_._re -]..

..........

.
?et.L

i i
c)

4L

:,

,,,

He_,t Flux

(_at_s.'cr

_- .......

r--

_!

"**

L_t_

_9! _ , ._, ,n

_._...

F'IGUIIE

10-4.

TOTAL IIFAT FLUXES BELL AND ASPIRATOR

TO ENG1NE

i AltLtud,-

Tvml>._ature

(!()

( Nrl_}

_'

I : /

_." a

-- _ _...--a --''_ '_

o /

......

/,/,o2 /7

,_-

,.... _#_

,,o "

o,
'_

,.

]
/

"
l: I It d, Altkt.::h 31 INn'} 4, q (_ / I _ _%, _2-_

_ _

FIGURE

10-3.

ttEAT

FLU.',._S

FOR

HEATSrtIELD

[]/S_'lt!_ i' ._" -b% ----a--z-_-

!L_. 4

"_

I \x_' "N--- _

Structural side than

temperatures

measured

on the

forward

/ _l'_" _/___/ _4
l

. _: ./

" r._"N" "_'. . "--_--

of INNERheat REGION shield on the previous Block SA-5 through

ANDflights CHUTE on were ACCESS(Fig. very different 10-5). S-I-10 II For SA-9. temperatures in this

i 7:: o _ .-.; _:-.O-_


h ,-_
'"

vehicles

area followed the pressure dependent curve of the _aturation temperatureof water whiehdecays with increasing altitude, thereby indicating that water and ice are prescntin this area. Temperatures for SA-10 did not fellow this trend but, instead, exceeded the boiling temperature of water at about 20 seconds and

[ :

_ ,

i _

FIGURE

10-5.

HEAT

SHIELD

FORWARD

FACE

STRUCTUItAL

TEMPERATURES

68

remained above maximum water temperature during the remainder of the flight. Maximum structural temperatures of approximately 450K were measured. Sudden drops in temperature were observed and are probably the result of ice falling on the heat shield from the LOX lines feeding the engines. Investigations to date disclose that there was no significant difference in the atmospheric conditions or in the countdown procedures for SA-IO that would account for the apparent absence of water. 10. 2.5 S-US-IV INTERSTAGE ENVIRONMENT _i .._____ _2 .... . /i_ ----_,. ........... . .!

SpeciM pressure and temperature measure10.2.5.1 TEMPERATURESpRESSURES ments wereANDS-I/S-IV for the second time in the S-I/S-IV flown INTEP_STAGE interstage area on SA-IO as part of an investigation to determine the catme of the interstage panel debonding phenomenon observed during S-IV separation on SA-5 and SA-7. Data from these measurements, flown on both the SA-8 and SA-10 vehicles, reveal either the cause of the panel failure this phenomenon occurred during these failed to or that

_]

.... T' > _ _._ , o _ 1 --.--_-|


i o o

.:: ' (:; _

........ _ ..... o _:a- _-+ _ +"_-_" - _ ...... ............... ...... J

o o _

/lights ....

Structural temperatures sors located on the external the interstage at station 28.5

were measured by senand intornal surface of m ( 1122 in). The tem-

perature rise/recorded by the external sensor, subsequent to ullage and retro rocket ignition command, was less than half that experienced on SA-8. A maximum temperature of 326K was recorded by this externai sensor at 156 seconds, which is not considered detrimental to the structure (Fig. 10-6 ). Pressure instrumentation in the S-IV-10 interstage area was similar to that of S-IV-8, consisting of one external static pressure measurement, two internal (compartment) pressure measurements, and a differential gauge to measure the pressure differeDce between the sealed honeycombcell and the interstage compartment. One of the internal pressure measurements (0 to 13.8 N/cm 2 range) is a total pressure sensor; thepressure orifice inside the compertinent faces forward and can detect any total head pressure that might arise from the main engine exhaust striking theinterstage during separation. Pressure time histories of data from these sensors are shown in Figure 10-6. Also shown are the internal and external pressures in the form of pressure coefficients, referenced to ambient conditions. As on SA-8 reduced data from the SA-10 total pressure sensor inside the aft interstage compartment indicated that no pressure rise resulted from engine exhaust gas impingement, Absolute honeycomb cell

FIGURE

10-6.

S-IV AFT INTERSTAGE

pressures, calculated by summing differential and compartment pressure data values, did not show any response to the expected constant voltune heating resuiting from retro and ullage rocket exhaust gases.

Reduced data Iron] all interstage measurements are in good agreement with SA-8 results, giving no direct clues as to the possible cause of the interstagc panel failure observed by onboard camera coverage of S-IV separation on the SA-5 and SA-7 flight vehicles. However, it can be concluded that the steady state environment, as measured on SA-8 and SA-10, during the separation process should not be severe enough to cause any problems.

10.2.5.2

DETONATION

PRESSURES

Detonation pressure switches located near the separation plane indicated that there was no detonationoroverpressurization of theboattall area during separation.

69

t0 l ENVIRONMENTALPRESSE...... S
I0.3.1. I COMMON BULKHEAD PRESSURE remained flight, as The common0.7 bulkhead (i. 0 psi) throughout absolute pressure less than N/era 2 expected. BASE Four failed plugged 10.3.2 to give during HEAT base useful most SHIELD PRESSURE sensors they S-IV appear flight.
:. , , ' ", ,v :

_ _ ._f_--'---. -- '"' :'2:_Y,,

_, : _---_--_ _ _ , --_

i j

10.3.1.2

pressure data; of the

( 0 to 0. 7 N/era heat smeld been to have

.____ ......
]_';'_'_-_

__._--....... %';-'_--,;'o__]c_

_.
/

]
..... ........... ,
,

measuring range) located on the S-IV base

,.:_ :
,...

_[,
1, . , i.

....

SURFACE FLUXES

TEMPERATURES

AND HEAT

I [ | """/:

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


o

L_:J_=__l__

10.3.2.1

HYDROGEN

TANK

TEMPEtlATURES

_---___

Hydrogen tank temperatures measured at stations 33.4 m and 32.4 m were considerably higher on S-IV-10 than on S-IV-8. This difference in measurcd temperatures between the two flights was ap40 K proximately 90 K at liftoff and decreased to about

: |

: .....
c

o _

,,

o _ _

<--_-_'--_ .... _ o .

= _

._ -

(Fig. during 10-7). the time The peak ternperatures we,'e recorded that absence of tank surface ice and frost is believed tobe the cause of the higher S-IV-t0 tank surface temperatures at liftoff. Data from a sensor ciable station crate located at temperature 33.4 properly m. station 30.8 m indicated no appregradient between this location and measurement did notop-

__@._& ,, ....

FIGURE 10-7. S-IV STAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE ENVIRONMENT The perature abrupt at 112.0 decrease seconds in ehitldown indicates This presence of hydrogen vent line tomof

The latter on S-IV-8. SKIRT

the presence

10, 3.2.2

AFT

TEMPERATURES

hydrogen in the vent line. is a result of the initiation 111. and agreed 10.3.2.4 AFT SKIRT 1 seconds range time,

of hydrogen prestart at

Aft skirt measured at station

externalandinternaltemperatures 29.4 m were nominal

well with those observed on S-IV-9 and S-IV-8 (Fig. 10-7). The external surface temperatures did not exhibit the perature aerodynamic 10, 3. 2, 3 anomaly level-off heating HYDROGEN observed on S-IV-8; occurred during portion VENT of the SA-8 LINE a sudden temthe maximum flight,

HEAT

FLUX

The

aft

skirt

surface

total

heat

flux

in the

TEMPERATURE located duct at on the station heatternthe with aft

vicinity of the LH 2 chilldown ured by three calorimeters 29.2 and 29.4m (Fig. 10-7). to undisturbed heat flux ratio mutely 1.7, measured 29.39 m. The disturbed measured at all three within expected levels,

vent fairing was measlocated between stations The maximum disturbed measured was approxiat station flux ratios were recent

underside

A temperature of the hydrogen

sensor was ehilldown

by the calorimeter to undisturbed heat calorimeter based upon

27.6 m to determine the effects of aerodynamic ing on the duct temperature (Fig. 10-7). This perature measurement behavior the aerodynamic heating rates was consistent obtained from

locations data from

wind tunnel tests of protuberance namic heating rates to flat plate tunnel ratios varied from for Mach numbers between 1.6 2.5

effects surfaces.

on aerodyThe wind location

interstage calorimeter for the significantaerodynamic heating portion of flight,

to 1.8 at this and 4.5.

7O

10.3.2.5

AFT

INTERSTAGE was

ltEAT located

FLUX board on the aft interat station 27.6 m of the duct on the the

The rapid rise calorimeter helimn heater

in heat beginning cycling

flux measured at 350 seconds to single coil

by the inis due to operation,

A calorimeter

stage beneath the Ltl 2 chilldown duct to measure the protuberance effects aerodynamic data arein tin-bed

which results in a higher peratare. The decrease calorimeter to a change which zation

helium in heat

heater exhaust ternflux of the inboard again due temperature, step pressuri-

heating rate to the interstate. The flight close agreement with the predicted undisrate during the period of maximum

atapproximately 500secondsis in helium heater e:diaust due to hydrogen tank

heating

decreased

aerodynamic heating ( Fig. 10-7), which indicates that the protuberance effect, of the duct on heating rates to the interstate is minimal. AND IfEAT

at 491 seconds. outboard in heat calorimeter flux beginning sho_ed an unexpected at approMnlatcly 45_ did not occm" on for this dsviation either is not

The decrease seconds. SA-6 or presently 10.4 temperatures general agreement on the previous measured with Block the II 10.4.1

10.3.3

BASE TEMPERATURES FLUXES BASE THRUST TEMPERATURE Thrust structure in observed .

This phenomenon SA-8 and the cause known.

10.3.3.1

STRUCTURE EQUIPMENT PRESSURE TEMPERATURE ENVIRONMENT AND

on

stiffener (Fig.

25 were trends 10-SJ

S-ISTAGE

INSTRUMENT

COMPARTMENT

temperature flights 10.3.3.

ENVIIIONMENT Two instrunmnt compartments and alld are located

") BASE Three time 6,

HEAT

SIIIELD

TEMPERATURES were shield, shield flown for between hot-face

above S-I partments merit which peraturelimits operation.

stage house

fuel tanks FI power supply

F2. These comtelemcttw equip-

the

second

temperature sensors on the S-IV-10 heat to measure the heat

must be maintained to insureoptimum Preflight cooling of

within specified terntelemetry equipment the compartn_ents air is and GN 2 from -550 minutes

engines

3 and

temperature. radiiof 51.0

Temperatures cm and 86.2 cm

recorded at heat shield were slightly higher than

accomplished by a ground source

pressurizing with from approximately

the corresponding temperatures on S-IV-8 (Fig. 1081. This observation is compatible with the higher heatfluxesmeasured on S-IV-10 as compared to those on tares S-IV-8 were at these recorded locations. farther cm, which obtained Much away from lower the temperacenter, at

through cotmtdown. No i_fflight cooling of the equipmerit is necessary since the temperatures created by operation of the equipmentin flight are not excessive. Preflight S-I-10 stage temperatures were similar instrument was satisfactory. the were within to temperature compartment The cooling preflight cooling and on and on

radii location 152.2 the heat flux distribution tests,

is in agreement on wind tunnel

with model

operating limits values experienced temperatures

past Saturn llights. operating limits are S-I

The preflight shown below.

Forward face temperatures, measured by a sensor located at a radius of 40, 6 cm, are in good agreement (Fig. observed consistent ured with 10-8). the temperature The slightly trend higher observed temperature on S-IV-8 level

INSTRUMENT

ENVIRONMENT ( K) pvclliilt Mmunuln M_mlunl 2_5 :_:_ -',.,_ :u-

TEMPERATURES ln_LrulnllI C[_mpartnlent r. _ _xcha-lz_ Op_z_tinKLum_ Mlnan_uln .Maximum z,J:_ z7_ :_1:_ zu UNIT

on S-IV-10, when compared to S-IV-8, is with the higher thermal environment measaft face. BASE The HEAT base beat FLUX shield calorimeter-absorbed

Lil_ll -'_., z:,.:

on the

10. 3.3.3

F1 _xcaa-l_j 10.4.2

INSTRUMENT

ENVIRONMENT

total heat flmx history and the transient response of the base heat flux to stage events were similar to those of SA-6 and SA-8. Theaverage level of absorbed heat fhtx for each of the calorimeters was slightly higher on S-IV-10 than it was on S-IV-8 (Fig. 10-8).

The Instrument Unit houses various electric al and electro-mechanical devices which perform guidonce, control, telemetering, and measuring operations during flight.

71

Heat l.O

Flu 1

(watts/cm 2) SimuLated Un d i s t u rb ed_ Flow _ _

Aft

lnterstage

Heat

Flux

History

/
[ 0 _

_..,,r_. _ "Actual

A --_S_a27.6 m [

R_nLe Tempevat.r. 300 - -- -" _-(OK) _ _* _ _'-_---_ _ Thrus! ScrqcttJ_e

Time

(s_:c) Temper_t:,re D C A B D Station 28.4 27.8 27.1 m m m

"-_--"_-B A * 4 O0 Time Aft (see) Face 'l'empcrat,,'e i

_
1 {;0 0 160 '1 2 O0 , 300 Rall_,e Temperature 700 Ill (OK) Base HeaL Sh[,'ld

_
/ O0 , [- O0 7O0

c 2;.2 m

_o _
_ o

o
Rad!,_s o Hi 86.2 2.17 ,.:r,, cm

k
:00 [ _

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

300 0

Command l O0

- _"'-

i 2 O0

"r ....... _O0 R. l: '.e 'l'Jiuu

T-- .... 4 O0 (sL.c) Fa,e

_ CO

, 00

; ,')0

Temperature

(OK)

Base

He,it

Shi,,ld

F(_r_._:'d

T_.mpeT;_t

re 40.64 -- -- -- SA-8 _ SA-_ { 700 ZX Radius 50.95 8'5.q5 I-2.17 Sk-C Radius cm

.,..'._"::i-'_'_ 350 2 <,0 0 ./_ 100 ., }t _: llI Flux (_,atts/cm _') g_s' He;it Shield 20C 300 Rallr2c ' 'l'imt' t 400 (see)

::.'.-

";/ r LOG

"'" ''-:: r _ 00

cm cm am & 8

}lest

Flux

H/story ZX

0 H Z_ _

._"

..

. --

- - ;:::'L:- if- ::'7:

[-

.:"

.} -'

:: /:"

_._

;.:

?:-t:.". i::::_l_

.k
0 [48 l_'0 152 l>4 I 6 160 200 l'irle 7.CO (s:ec) :PC Rii.i('

_u- :6" : ':':#:_;i:2

Of

t'C0

FIGURE

10-8.

S-IV STAGE

BASE

TEMPERATURE

ENVIRONMENT

72

Saturn

SA-10

was

the

third

of the

Block

II series

The

gTotmd

based

onboard

cooling

arrangement

vehicles to fly a prototype InstrumentUnit to be usedon Components were mounted interior wall. The Instrument ports during pressure to allow preflight escape conditioning

model Saturn on

of the production IB and V vehicles,

consistedofamanifold to various components used untilappro:dmately lag; then GN 2 was used system ponents. also The supplied purpose

routed from of the IU

tLm umbilical plate Precooled air was

panels attached to the Unitcontained four vent gases and the to unit and purge obtain during flow flight, ambient

15 minutesprior to LH 2 tankuntil umbilical separation. The cool of GN 2 to purge the change various from air cornto GN 2

of cooling within

and temperature

cooling and air supporting ponent

purging was combustion occurred.

to prevent the possibility of in the IU if electrical com-

A ground basedenvironmental control systemwas provided tomaintainan acceptable temperature within the Instrument Unit during preflight. During flight preparation heating, as port to accomplish and until required, the umbilical separation, was provided by the conditionIng mission,
(OK)

sparking

IU environmentalconditions of the iations they normal

were

similar

to those

cooling or ground supwas required

SA-8 and SA-9 llight, Minor temperature varoutside desired values were noted; however, were not considered operation. excessive or detrimental to equipment

equipment.

No inflight vehicle
Temperature 32O

31o ............
300 ,g ..... _ -"_

fi.7 A2 =Q:CZ....
"_-:" .......

.-=-...--_:....--_K ........................
]

..

.;..',

:.''-.'

:.," ,z;

_b

....

2gO

__

Gui

da

Compu Signal Gimbat

ter Processor ST-124 Frame

.-

Guidance --. ...... 270 _--_ .... Inertial ST-124 Azusa C-Band Battery ............. 3210 Range Preasure (N/cm 2) Time Battery i 400 (see) l 2

Mounting

' { 480 _:60 640

260

80

160

240

IS

.............. .
\ \
\, __ _ -..... ........... SA-10 SA-10

Control Control

Signal Computer

Processor

SA-8 Control Computer IU Ambient pressure

\0 0 80 160 240 Range 320 Time (see) &0O

i
480 560 650

FIGURE

10-9. IU AMBIENT

AND

COMPONENT

TEMPERATURES

AND

PRESSURES

DURING

POWERED

F LIGHq"

73

IU component

surface

temperatures

were

similar

cared given curred

for

SA-8

and

SA-9.

Evidence

to this

effect

is

to those recorded during The PCM/RF assembly 316"K corded which was the in the IU during

the SA-8 flight (Fig. 10-9). surface temperature reached surface SA-10 prior band in during temperature flight, toand Figure flight. daring 10-9 flight shows retile

by control on allthree

computer flights for

pressure drop which ocbetween 32 and 80 seconds. the seal leakage is corninto the on S-IB leakage during mounting seal will be used prevent this

l_ghest

A possible

explanation

partment warpage IU. A hermetic compartments, from reoccurring. The

introduced solder and which should

IU ambient were the as IU ambient Control cuffed again

temperatures The temperatures computer on SA-10

expected.

IU enviromnent of theIU enviromnental in Figure

in orbit 10-10.

was

nominal. during

The orbit

compartment but was less

seal severe

leakage than

oeindi-

results are

evaluation

presented

..... --...... .... -tmpa_Itature (c'K)

--.

--

CuidJnce C_pute Guldao_e SCEn_I Inertia'. G:mb_l ST-12.- ?'_._,,.nio_ Azu_i) C-Band B. tterv t

r Troce$sor 5f-124 Fr,lmt"

* " " "* Battery

3_0

,
b

"Nange -_!_

,
i

_
--. i

330

320

ix

..... ,
"=-----2-i _ _., "--4--_

,,o

Y_.<-%---_.2: .',.,,,....-" -_ t

.......... _ _oo ?" _ :_:__-...-,,-;,.-a-=..Zz_--4


/ LI n_erna [Amb ! un(

28C

go

Recei_'tng i

270C

Io00

2000

3000
Range

Stati

_OOe
Time (see)

5000

_000

,_oOc

8000

Fresaure

{N,icm) 2

! I!...........
I
5
IO00

i
&OO0 Kange T_e 5000 (aec) BOOr) !000

I
BOO0

i
2000

I
3000

FIOUllE

10-10.

IU AMBIENT

AND COMPONENT

TEMPERATURES

AND PRESSURES

DUllING

ORBIT

74

SECTION 11. 1 SUMMARY The erated phases of electrical flight and systems during all mission of the the SA-10 boost

XI.

VEHICLE

ELECTRICAL 1Dll The bus the de. [or

SYSTEMS voltage 1D21 Figure the varied current 11-1 IDI0 bus voltage shows and 1D20 from varied 27.7 from the to 28.4 from current 28.5 and volts de

1D20battery and

35 to 42 amperes to 2S. 7 voltage

vehicle and

opwere

dc volts

varied

satisfactorily

orbital

requirements

profiles

batteries.

met. The to the PI which well 11.2

long life battery in the IU provided power and F6 telemetry links for 140 minutes, exceeds the one orbit requirement, ELECTRICAL system for SYSTEM the SA-10 booster was

plies, livered supply

The output of the two 5-volt de measuring supone located in each measuring distributor, dea nominal 5 volts de. The master measuring was a nominal 5 volts de.

S-1 STAGE The electrieM the electrical of two

11.3

S-IV

STAGE

ELECTRICAL

SYSTEM

essentially The sisted

same

as SA-8o power source 28-volt for the zinc silver The booster oxide capacity conbatof expected The S-IV stage electrical the flight. system The performed consisted as

identical

throughout

system

teries, designated the batteries was During trical system tery current

as 1D10 and ID20. 2650 anapere-minutes, phase of night,

of five major trol battery), tation battery static inverter.

subsystem components: battery 1 (conbattery 2 (engine batter3'), instrumen1, instrmnentation battery 2, and the The current static inverter and voltages voltages for batteries are presented

the boost

the booster 1D10 de.

eleebatThe

operated satisiaetorily. The varied from 47 to 67 amperes

1 and 2 and the in Figure 11-2.

Volts

(de)

30

I
1D21 Bus------7

IDII Bus 27 26 20 40 60 80 I00 Range Time (sec) 120 140 160 180

S-I Fuel Press Valve Closed S-I Tape Recorder On Current tamps) I/S-I LOX/SOX High Press |/S-I & Fuel Press Valve Closed 2 Open

EBW Charge & Retro Fire /'_ During Shutdown Firing Connx Valve

70
60 f 50

IDIO Current _

ID20 Current--_

40
30 20 40 60 80 Range t00 Time (see) 120

/[_0 160 180

FIGURE

ii-I.

S-I STAGE

CURRENT

AND

VOLTAGE

75

11.4

IU STAGE

ELECTBICAL UniteleetricaI

SYSTEM system for SA-10 boost and system 62 ambearavperiod during The

The Instrument was similar orbital phase operated . .... . i_ ._' _f--ii II ::. .._ , .... i :: : _ _..: .:r .... :. ,,. _ . : i, . _--' ) , (8DI6) had peres except ing heater. 142 "ON" eraged averaged the

to that of SA-8, During the of flight, the 1U stage electrical One of the a current load during cycling The seconds. of the air bearing The The heater of approximately of the platform heater "ON" 8D10 was cycle part battery of

satisfactorily.

two 1U batteries air the load

period

15 seconds. cycle

69 amperes.

?:";....! "_ _I ,;..

8Dll bus voltage dropped "about 0.24 volt when the heater was on. During the "OFF" cycleof the heater, the average 8DII bus voltage was 28.8 volts. The other iUbattery (8D20) had a current load of 30 am-

t _--@-_ / ' i : I,'IGURE 11-2. S-IV " _ ] '

. :. 2 ...... STAGE CURRENT AND

peres with an average terminal voltage of 28.4 volts. The 8D20battery liletime was approximately 140 rainutes, Battery 8D20 was intentionally light loaded in order plete to po_er telemeters Pl and F6 during orbit. The 5-volt de measuring supply a cornand 56-

volt de supply timing devices operated voltages

operated at their nominal values. All and logic and mode switching devices are The batter)' temperature, shown in Figure 11-3 along

VOLTAGE Batteryperformance age and current re maining Tilt? two instrumentation andoutputof 29.6 volts S-IV was was satisfactory, with volt-

satistactoriiy. and currents 1 phase

with

inverter

voltages,

within predicted batteries were and a combined

tolerances. llormal, with eurrento116.2 ........ _..... ..... i _ _ , ..... ---.__Q

amps. During batterylcurrent tion batter),

powered flight, instrumentation 9.5 amps, and the instrumentawas 6.7 amps.

..

,
.

{
. i

2 current of

Performance During separation,

the inverter was satisfactory, indicated output voltage dropped band edge, indicating a false indication by retro rocket exhaust 119 causpro-

momentarily to the lower volts. This apparentdropwas edby ionizagionprodueed

2//
_.....

i J

_..., ........

ducts on the umbilical reeepticle. At PU the voltage dropped to a nominal 114.9 volts, remained until S-IV engine cutoff. All sponse safety, and EBW to flight responded (CDR) their firing termination to the units functioned commands. system turn-off performed (safe) command properly

activate, where it

"F/_----_ _--: I : ._,: '

__-4 -*k _

; .

' ":':" t t x':

in rerange satisin ............. _T ...... . \ i i :;.... ............... '" [


u i

respective

The

properly

receiver

1 indicated

a 20 percent

decrease

signal streng'_hlevel lasting for about 2 seconds. This decrease is attributed to a bad look angle, Blackout of CDR signal with strength the data from of 148 to 150 seconds the T/M signal and

:_

coincided thereforedoes during this

blackout

t ....... ; _ .

' , . .

notindicate time period.

a loss of signal At approximately

to the CDR 200 see-

,,. ,

_,............ ] _..............

onds, signal dropout occurred on both CDR sigTaal strength measurements. This dropout was expected and is attributed to the switchover of the Sterling antenna on Gr,'md Bahama Island.

FIGURE 11-3. IU STAGE BATTERY TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE, CURRENT INVERTER VOLTAGE

AND

76

SECTION 12. i SUMMARY The axial (drag) force coefficient was

XIL

AERODYNAMICS

higher

_ T _i_t _'_\ " ii

"

" "

lower than predicted during the supersonic portion of flight. thanpredicted peak during A base drag subsonic the of approximately regime of 218, 00O N flight and

ends by measurements shield.

on the heat

shiehl

and

the flame , i

_ x._

\._.,

12.2

DRAG

The

axial

force

coefficient,

obtained

as an outi h_ li!ii'!'_t

put of the propulsion system is in excellent agreement (Fig. 12-1). than predicted than predicted

performance with SA-8

evaluation, fligh! results was higher and lower

The axial force coefficient during the subsonic regime at sttpersonic Math numbers,

Base lated h'om and flame salts 12-1. (48,800


onds. ginning

drag

contribution

of the axial

force,

calcushield to re/ _ /

J/' ' ! - i '_ "

pressure measurements shield of 0m S-I stage,

on the heat is compared

from the SA-8 A peak base lbf) was

and SA-9 flight vehicles drag of approximately at approximately 70


thrklst seconds was

in Figure 218, 00O N 58 secof berefor on

measured

A at positive pressuFe approximately

obselwod because

\{_ ,

.//SA/JYf

....

circulation SA-10 was SA-8 thrust served

of engine generally

exhaust slightly

gases. Base drag lower than measured

_-/'. ........ FIGURE 12-1. AXIAL FORCE BASE COEFFICIENT DRAG AND

and SA-9 flights. of approximately at 83 seconds

A maximum positive 7600 N (1702 lbf) of flight (Fig. 12-1).

pressure was ob-

77

SECTION 13.1 SUMMARY

X2H.

INSTRUMENTATION 13.2.2 S-1MEASUR1NG RELIABILITY

There were 1018 telemetered measurements active at liftoff on SA-10. Twelve of the 1018 measurements failed in flight, resulting in an overall measuring system reliability of 98.8 percent. Three measurements x_ere scrubbed prior to launch. Allpreflight and satisfactory, andinflight calibrations were normal

Reliability of the S-I measuring system _as 99.7 percent, considering only those measurements active at liftoff compared to complete failures. The combustion chamber dome vibration measurements (E-11 and E-33 series) had a significantly higher than predicted output level. Test stand data on these measurements indicated that there is a significantly higher input level at frequencies above 3000 Hz than originally anticipated. This coupled with a peak in the transducer response, apg_arenfly results in overloading the ac amplifier in such a manner that it puts out increased amplitudes in the normal frequeney range (50 to 3000 Hz). 13.3 13.3.1 S-IV MEASURING ANALYSIS S-IV MEASUREMENT MALFUNCTION

Battery life was sufficient to give the planned orbital telemetl"y coverage. The last telemetry signal was received 2 hours and 28 minutes after liftoff, Airborne tape recorders stages operated satisfactorily, of attenuation effects caused firing. The onboard flight. The altimeter system and associated pulse-shape experiment failed to operate. RF performance of the 11 telemetry returnTV system in the S-l, IU, and S-IV and produced data free by retre and ullage rocket

was cancelled

prior

to

links

was

satisfactory, Tracking commitments were met by the C-Band radar, ODOP, and Azusa/GLOTRAC systems; the MISTRAM transponder In/led at 63 seconds. Excellent coverage was provided. Overall quality of the film obtained during launch was good. However, downrange cloud conditions prevented all of the 10.2 m (400 in) and 12.7 m (500 in) focal length cameras from recording usable data. 13.2 13.2. S-I STAGE MEASURING 1 S-I MEASUREMENT ANALYSIS MALFUNCTIONS

A total of 404 inllight measurements were scheduled for the S-IV stage. Two of the 404 incusurements were scrubbed prior to launch. Eleven of the 402 measurements active at launch failed completely; 10 measurements were only partially suecessful. Table 13-1 lists the S-IV stage measurement malfunctions.

13.3.2

S-IV MEASURING

RELIABILITY

tern was urements ures. 13.4 13.4.1

Reliability of the S-IV stage measuring sys97.3 percent, considering only those measactive at liftoff compared to complete fail-

IU STAGE MEASURING IU MEASUREMENT

ANALYSIS MALFUNCTIONS

A total of 376 inflight measurements were scheduled for the S-I stage. No measurements were scrubbed prior to launch. One of the 376 measurements active atlaanchfailed completely; 17 measurements were only partially successful. The number of inflight measurements were reduced by 145 from S-I-8. Table 13-I lists the S-I stage measurement malfunctions. Eleven of the S-I measurement realfunctions listed in Table 13-I were in the group of aspirator and engine bell calorimeters on engines 3 and 7. These malfunctions are attributed to the extremely severe environment,

A total of 241 flight measurements were scheduled for theIU. One measurement was scrubbed prior to launch. There were no lailures during flight. Table 13-I lists the single measurement malfunction.

13.4.2

IU MEASURING

RELIABILITY

Reliability of the IU measuring system was 100 percent, considering only those measurements active at liftoff compared with complete failures.

78

TABLE

13-I.

MEASUREMENT

MALFUNCTIONS

7(,}

13.5

AIRBORNE TELEMETRY

TELEMETRY LINKS

SYSTEMS

13.5. I

Transmission of all three S-IV telemetry links was goodthroug_out the flight.Thedata indicate that links DI and D3 were operational for at least 124 minutes "alter[iftoff, and link D2 for 119 minutes after liftoff. 13.5.3 CALIBRATION Preflight and inflightcalibration of all telemetry channels was satisfactory, and as planned. to receive inflight Telemeter SI was calibration. not scheduled

Data transmission

for flight testing Saturn

vehicle SA-I0 was effeeted by eleven radio telemetry systemlinks on the combined S-I, S-IV, and IU stages. (Spacecraft XIV instrumentation is presented were in Section ) The following systems utilizedon SA-10:

S-I STAGE Link F1 F2 Modulation PAM-FM-FM; PAM-FM-FM; FM-FM FM-FM S-IV lank DI D2 D3 STAGE Modulation PDM-FM-FM PDM-FM-FM PDM-FM-FM Link SI SZ Modulation SS-FM PCM-FM

13.6

AIRBORNE

TAPE

RECORDERS used for the SA-I0

The airborne tape recorders

flight were dual-track recorders capable of recording the mixer-amplifier outputs of two FM/FM telcmeters. During the playback mode the transmitter was switched from the mixer amplifier to the recorder. The purpose of the recorder is to record data during the periods when RE dropout is anticipated due to flame attenuation, retro and ullage firing, critical look 13.6.1 angle, etc. S-IRECORDER The S-I-10 stage contained one recorder

INSTRUMENT Link F5 F6 Modulation FM-FM; FM-FM-FM FM-FM; FM-FM-FM PAM-FM-FM

UNIT Link $3 Pl Modulation SN-FM PCM-FM which recorded the output of telemetl_j links F1 and F2. This recorder was in the record mode from 40.2 seconds to 175.2 seconds. Recorder transfer to playback mode was initiatedat 172.2 seconds. An elapsed time of I.4 seconds was required for the transfer from record mode to playback mode. The recorder beganplayback of good data at 176. 6 seconds and corn-

Links Pl and P2, PCM system, also functioned as digital data acquisition system (DDAS) for their respective stages. to encode The DDAS function of link Pl was simultaneously the digitally and transmit

pleted data playback at 310. 2 seconds. The playback contained 133.6 seconds (40.2 to 173.8 seconds) of good data. At completion of recorder playback, modNation was removed from telemeters Fl and F2. Operation of this airborne recorder and data contained in the playback from the effects of retro and flame 13.6.2 S-IV The RECORDER single (26. tape record recorder mode from and The onboard included recorder to 761.0 the S-IV to in was satisfactory, record are free attenuation.

output from the model 270 commutator in link F6 with the output from the multiplexer in link Pl. The DDAS function of link P2 was to encode digitally and transmit the output from the model 270 commutator in links F1 and purpose checkout DDAS and F2 at reduced sampling of the DDAS in links PI of the IU and was S-I-t0 also Insertion worked very information flight, format rates. The primat-y and P2 was preflight stage, of digital respectively. from data links into Pt the

available

stage 168.4

was

in the

142, 3 seconds was

P2 during

seconds

1 seconds), sequence. 731.0

the whole sec-

PCM output
13.5.2

satisfactorily.

S-IV-10 separation

DATA

ACQUISITION radio frequency power on all IU

the playback mode from onds (30 seconds).

seconds

Transmitted and dace

The S-IV tape recorder playback minutes, Itwas mand ter recorder

went into an unscheduled

S-I stage telemetry links was sufficientto prothe desired data coverage of all planned flight IU orbital telemetry links P1 and F6 transdata for at least 2 hours and 28 minutes. No telemetry flight, calibrations were executed during

mode similar to that on SA-8 between 59 0.4 second and 88 minutes, 50. 5 seconds. on SA-8, that this playback comby the IU and resulted in telemebeing switched Telemeters to the tape 2 amplifier. 1 and

periods. mitted inflight orbital

concluded, as was initiated 1 and playback

2 transmitters

8O

were returned to their preflight configuration as the IU voltage dropt_ed below the relay dropout voltage, This mMfunctionis explained in more detail in Referonce 6. 13.6.3 IO RECORDER

has ended on all previous Saturn fiightsJ. The reason for the decrease in attenuation at this altitade can probably be attributed tothe cessation of afterburmng due to a lack of oxTgen. No dalai were lost as a result of main engine flame attenuation. Retro rocket attenuation was very similar to that experienced on SA-S and SA-9. Ignition occurred at an altitude of 92.7 kin and the effects were vel b, different from SA-5, 6, and 7 in which the retro rockets were fired in the 60- to 75-kin altitude region. Data dropouts in SA-10 occurred on some of the links for short periods of time. However, the effects varied, depending on aspeet angle to the ground station and vehicle antenna locations. The main effect on the S-I stage links, with antennas located aft of the retro rockets, was rapid fluctuations in signal strength with very little averageattenuation. The IU and S-IV stage links, with antennas located forward of the retro rockets, experienced a 0.75-second dropout beginning approximately 0.75 second after retro roekct ignition and ending approximately 0.2 second prior to thrust termination, ttad separation taken place in the 60- to 75-kin altitude region, complete dropout _ould have occurred on alllinkssimuliancously with retro t_cket ignition, as on SA-5, 6, and 7. Since this was an early morning firing, the Elayer had not reached the peak of its activity. The effects of the FI and F2 layers are partially obscured by vehicle antenna nails caused by low aspect angles and by antenna searming at some of the ground stalions. Cape Tel 2 had a definite problem with scanning on this llight, similar to thatexperienced on SA-8 and SA-9. This antenna has not operated satisfactorily on any Saturn vehicle since SA-5. It was being modified during the flights of SA-6 and SA-7 and was not used. The original work was not satisfactory and the rework is behind schedule. At times, this scanning produced peak-to-peak variations in signal strength of 11 db (5 to 8 db more than it should be). This problem, eombined with the low aspect angle and possible lonespheric disturbances, caused lower than normal signal levels .at the uprange stations on all S-IV and IU links during S-IV powered flight. However, the use of diversity polarizal_on and redundant station coverage prevented any loss of data. The S-I stage and IU telemetry systems expertenced some rather abrupt changes in signal level between 134 and t4O seconds. This effect was not prosent on the S-IV stage links. Similar anomalies were experienced on SA-5 and SA-Tat very nearly the same altitudes, A completely acceptable reason has not been found for any of these occurrences, tlowever,

The S-IU-10 contained one onix)ard tape recorder that recorded the outputs of telemeters F5 (Mod B) and F6 (Mod AJ. This recorder was in the record mode from 141.2 seconds to 169.5 seconds, Recorder transfer to playback mode was initiated at 730.9 seconds. An elapsed time of 0.9 second was required for the tt_ansfer to the playback mode. The recorder began playback of gooddata at 731.8 seconds and completed data playback at 759.2 seconds. The playback contained 27.4 seconds { 141. -2 to 168.6 secends) of good data. Real time modulation was reapplied to links F5 and F6 at 761 0 seconds. Operation of this airborne recorder was good, and data conmined inthe playback record are free from the effects of retro and flame attenuation, 13.7 RF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

The RF systems on SA-I0 experienced several problems. The altimeter system and the associated return-pulse-shape experiment both [ailed tooperate. The MISTRAM system was operating at liftoff, but was intermittent after 63 seconds. "llm RF performanceof the telemetry system was satisfactery throughout powered and orbital flight with the exception of a short dropout at retro rocket ignition. Tracking ecrumitments were met by the C-band radar, ODOP, and Azusa/GLOTRAC systems, which provided excellent coverage, 13.7. I TELEMETRY

The RF performance of the telemeta'y system was satisfactory throughoutpoweredandorbital flight, The performance was degraded slightly by main engine flame attenuation, retro rocket attenuation, ionospherie effects, and ground station antenna scanmng, Lower thanpredieted signallevels during certain periods of flight, and an unexplained change in signal level between 134 and 140 seconds also were evident, However, no datawere lost except duringretro rocket ignition, and these losses were not as extensive as on SA-5, SA-6, or SA-7. Main engine flame attenuation during this flight was very similar to past Saturn flights with typical peak attenuation values of 20 to 25 db occurring at the Cape stations. The major attenuation elfects ceased at 126 seconds at an "altitude of approximately 57 km (within the region of 54 to 60 km where attenuation

81

tile possibility o[ voltage breakdown at some point in tilesystem is not being overlooked, especially since it happened in an 'altituderegion where bre'o.kdo_ns arc most likely tooccur. Fol_,_ardand reflected power

The MISTI_M I station received good data from 8 to 63 seconds, 70 to 80 seconds, 84 to it0 seconds, and 203 to 214 seconds. Except for these short per[belo_ thresho|d from 63 ods, the signal levels were

measurementa x_erc made on the IU telemetry [inks, The nleasurements showed no change in forw'ard pewor, but the reflected po_er increased by 3 to 6 db dur-ing this time. Another possibility is that tile anomaly _as caused by some type venting not apparent from the telemetered investigation, 13.7.2 TRACKING measurements, This is still m_der

to 568 seconds. At 568 seconds the system apparently recovered. The signal level was low from 568 to 720 seconds, but sufficientto provide reducible data. II station experienced good sikmal

"]'he MISTRAM levels from

308 to 32b seconds,

356 to 370 seconds, The signal _as below

and from 568 to 700 seconds. threshold at all other times. "/'he onboard measurements

sho_

that

the

loss of

MISTRAM

The tracking systems, with the exception of and the altimeter provided excellent data

phase lock at each station is a direct result of a drop in the transmitted power output of the range calibrate channels. C-Band Radar data sites power turned

t[n'oughout tiffs['light.The ODOP system performed exceptionally well and provided data to 720 seconds. The C-band radar and Azasa/GLOTR.AC systems exceeded C-bm_d radars, time from their respective tracking commitments. The ratktr system, experienced composed mostly of the FlXQ-6 no difficulties. The Azusa real for range because safety were of a problem invalid in the will not system coverof handover,

from

The C-band radar system provided good liftoff to 720 seconds. No two receiving simu.haneous MILA and GBI low or marginal (3. !.6) radars were

digital range data 508 to 660 seconds

experienced levels. The

gpotmd

station. However,

this discrepancy Azusa/GLOTRAC station GLOTRAC with the and at

off at 294and 323 seconds, respectively, as instructed by the operations directive. time of cutoff at both stations the range personnel believe "/'he signal level at the was good. ftowever, that it is best not to have

affect the metric data. The providedAzusa und/orthrec age short from liftoff interruptions at

to 883 seconds, separation ODOP

exception

more than five radars interrogating the transponder simultaneously. II this is the case, the rcNuirements should be reviewed to determine if the most advantageous use of the stations is being made. to it

The

prime

tracking

requirement

for

the

ODOP skin The MILA track for station was again preprogrammod the first 54 seconds. After this,

system was from liftoff to 150 seconds. sites fulfilled this requirement. The

As usual, all sign_ strength

was sufficient for gooddata beyond the point where the geomet_2 would permit a trajectory solution. Retro rocket firing caused all stations to drop to a marginal teveland break phase lock for periods varying from to 4 seconds, MISTRAM The vals system poriencod liitoff, termined, two MISTRAM data, but did sites the received overall sporadic interof the 2

switched to beacon track. This any possible tracking problems polarization ellipse. This system was attenuation, and

was done to prevent due to the tilt of the

flame

not affected by main engine retro rocket attenaatten was at the DAFB site was experienced where at ap-

generally a 17.5-db proximately The about liftoff.

about 8 db, except peak attenuation 150.5 seconds. C-band beacon U.T.,

of good

performance

expired

ever

Carnarven one hour

at after

not meet requirements. a transponder failure

The system exat 63 seconds after

13:59:10

approximately

The

reason for this problem has not been debut it is believed to be a power loss which

Azusa/GIAbTRAC The Azusa/GLOTRAC system provided excellent

may have originated in the calibrate channel. This system is not scheduled for any future Saturn flights, sothe problemisnotconsidered program. On most of the MISTRAM transponder serious for the Saturn previous flights, the

data from liftoffto 883 seconds except for a 2- to 4second loss at handover and a s|_rt dropout at separation. The complete coverage illustrates the advantages gained by repositioning the Azusa antenna prior toSA-7 toprovide higher gains for theGLOTRAC stations.

failed during preflight check-

out, but a change of transponders usually resulted in an acceptable flightperformance. This poor reliabilit.'}' finally resulted in an inflight failure,

82

AzusaMarklIwastheonly stationintheGLOTRAC network with an elevation angle above the radio her[zonuJltil 82 seconds. At this time, the Eleuthera stationbegantrackingand good two-stationcoverage was continued until 190 seconds. A momentary decrease in signM strenglh occurred at 186 secomls while tile ground antenna was looking into an undefined portion of the onboard antenna pattern. After this time, at least three-station coverage was maintained to 883 seconds. The Antigua station tracked the orbiting vehicle to 960 seconds. At times during this period, the system providedeomplete six-station coverage. Handover at 660 seconds caused a 2- to 4-second loss of data, but all stations except Azusa Mark iI recovered, Nomajor problems wereencounteredbythis systern. Main engineflame attenuation caused modulation of the signal, but no loss of data occurred, Altimeter

timing mark). All of the film from file tracking struments was time indexed. 13.8.1 ENGINEERING SEQUENTIAL CAMERAS

in-

Seventeen cameras werelocated on the launch pedestal to record tile GSE release events and vehicle first motion. The GSE release events include the eight holddox_n arms, t_vo short cable masts, the LOX and fuel fill and drain masts and the [Knit[on of the eight ft-1 engines (first frame of data showing tile hypergolic flash). The GSE on the launch pedestal appoured to operate normally. Two of the cameras recording holddown arm release did not operate, two cameras had unusable timing, and the release of one arm was obscured by smoke and ice. The three arm releases that were timed were well within the release tolerance of 50 milliseconds. All eight of the H-I engine ignitions were recorded ttmeable. The engines and heat shield appeared

and Tile altimeter system failed to operate on this flight. Although the exact reason is not known, it is thought to have been caused by a lack of receiver sensitivity. This problem could have been caused by a bad RF came connection, interface problems between the altimeter and the pulse-return-shape expertinent, or a malfunction in the front end of the reeeiver. It was known ten minutes prior to liftoff that the paise-return-shape experiment had [ailed. 13. 7.3 TELEVISION Problems external to the onboard TV system its cancellation prior to flight. Analyses thatthe mounting brackets would not withstand loads during flight,

to function normally during ignition and liltoff. The four Mifliken cameras recording these ignitions were time indexed for the first time in the Saturn program. Release and retraction of the two short cable masts were recorded and timed. One of the cameras wasnot timeindexed. No malfunctions were recorded. The release of the LON and fuel lilt and drain masts was not visible due to frost and ice at the release time; however, both masts appeared to retract normally and no malfunctions were observed in these areas. Vehicle first motion data were reduced from a camera specifically oriented on a holddown arm to record these data. Excellent results were obtained from this camera.

caused showed

the vibration 13.8

OPTICAL

INSTRUMENTATION

An engineering photo/optical instrumentation system of 85 cameras (65 fixed and 20 tracking) was installed throughout the Saturn launch-tracking complex to provide a detailed recording of the ground support equipment (GSE) and of vehicle release, operatton, and performance of SA-10 during its launch and flight. The overall quality of the film obtained during the launch was good; however, downrange cloud conditions at liftoiI were such that none of the 12.7-m or 10. 2-m (500 or 400 in) focal length cameras recorded usable data. Of the 85 cameras programmed to record the launch, two cameras malfunctioned, nine had no timing, and three had timing problems, i.e. erratic or overlapping time pulses. Allother cameras had usable timing and amajorityofthe 16-mm Milliken cameras were time indexed for the first time since the beginning of the Saturn program (time displacemerit between anexposed frameof data and its related

In addition to the 17 launch pedestal items, 11 cameras were located on the umbilical tower where they recorded the release of the four swing arms, exhaust and blast on the launch pedestal, and the forward section of the vehicle during ignition and liftoff. All cameras on the umbilical tower operated sat[sfactorily except for one camera, This camera was designated to record vertical motion for 5 to 7 meters but did nothave range timing on the film. The camera field of view did not include all of the targets on the vehicle. No usable data were reduced from this film. Nine cameras on the umbilical tower were or[ented to record the release and retraction of the four swing arms. All of the arms appeared to release and retract normally. Ice formation on the S-IV and S-I stages oI Saturn SA-10 was less than on Saturn SA-8.

83

13.8.2

TRACKING Fifteen

CAMEILAS based long from focal-length C-54 from tower. aircraft trackre-

tion

Network

(STADAN).

STADAN

is

composed

of

ground

the global Minitrack the Manned

network optical Space

of Minitrack receiving stations and tracking s 'rations (MOTS/, and of Flight Network tracking of DOD. (MSFN) stations. Additional which is a MSFN is tracking network (SAO).

ing

cameras

and

two cameras

corded theoperationof thevehicle the ignition ef the latmeh escape this system 'Mso recorded shift, exhaust flame pattern and retro ignition

lifteff throttgh Cameras in flame ullage,

g[nbal network supported by

of radar elements

the vehicle exhaust gro_th (plume),

support was provided by the optical tracking of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observato_2

Inboard observed.

and outboard engine cutoff sig_als The normal flareup (LOX and fuel after inboard 0.49 second. number rockets

were residengine

The ported 14:00 radar

last

C-band

beacon

signal

recorded at

was

re-

u',.ds from the inboard engines), cutoff, _ as observed and lasted Ignitions of retro were observed. simultaneously. tracking cameras. TRACKING rockets These

by Carnarvon, Australia, U.T. (one hour 'dter Iiftoff). tracking was skin track.

approximately All subsequent

four nite

one, three, and appeared to igwere observed

South visual

One photo Africa, sighting

contact MOTS was

was made station at reported

by the Johannesburg, 16:54 U.T., and one at Pretoria, optical been re-

Ne mMftmetions

by the SAO

by the

13. 9 ORBITAL SUMMARY 13.9. 1

AND TELEMETRY

South Africa, sightings over ceived. Minitrack

at 17:00 U.T. No additional the first five revolutions have

observations vehicle during

will

continue

to be made lifetime or

TRACKING

SUMMARY lifetime coverage of the SA-10 was orbiting for

on the orbiting until termination

the vehicle's

of the Pegasus

C experiment.

Duo to the long vehicle, radar tracking

requested

the first five revolutions only. This covers all tracking over these five aia_g at insertion Orbital ducted by the { 13: 10:40 of Space the 252

tt_eking summary revolutions begin-

13.9.2

TELEMETRY

SUMMARY

U. T. ). vehicle and Data was conand Pl

The

fast

links

to be recorded Madagascar, hours

were

links

F6 ap-

tracking NASA

SA-10

at q'ananarive,

at 15:28:38, after lifteff.

Tracking

Aequisi-

proximately

two and one-h',df

84

SECTION 14. i SUMMARY At 640. 252 seconds, ment the S-IV-t0 stage, Instru-

XIV.

PEGASUSC nonpropulsive vent valves opened at S-IV engine off and remained open, as designed. In addition, aux21iary hydrogen nonpropulsive vent valve cutthe opened

Unit, Apollo shroud and Pegasus

were inserted

at cutoff and closed three minutes later, as designed. At S-IV engine cutoff, the LH 2 tank ullage pressure began to decay, from 26.5 N/cm 2 (38.4 psi) at cutoff to 8.9 N/em 2 (12.9 psi) at cutoff plus 181 seconds, due to the venting from the auxiliary hydrogen NPV. One second after the auxiliary nonpropulsivc vent valve was closed, the Apollo shroud was separated, exerting a negative thrust on the S-IV stage. As a result, the LH 2 residual was forced toward the forward dome, causing an LI b boiloff rate that was

into orbit withno appreciable pitch, yaw, or roll rate. During orbitalflight,the configurationexperieneed the following: high capacity blowdown of tl}eLH 2 NPV tank, separation of the Apollo shroud, extension of Pegasus wings, and continuous nonpropulsive venting (NPV) until residual propellants were depleted, The Pegasus wing deployment and all spacecraft systems worked properly and ",ill measurements were initially within their predicted limits. The estimated total vented impulse was 107,208

greater than the capacity of the LH 2 NPV

system.

As

N-s (37,590 Ibf-s) from the hydrogen tank and 200, 116 N-s (44,988 Ibf-sl from the oxygen tank. The maximum roll rate of S-IV-t0 was 6.3 deg/s. The tumble rate of the vehicle at T+360hours(15 termined robe approximately angle of approximately 20 degrees, days) was det deg/s with a half-cone

anticipated, the LH 2 ullage pressure rose rapidly after Apollo payload separation, but did not reach thc main LH 2 vent valve relief pressure. The peak pressure of 17.7 N/cm 2 (25.7 psi) was reached at approximately 2000 seconds. After one orbit, Tel2 telemetry recorded an LItz tank ullage pressure of 8.9 N/cm 2 (13 psil, and at this time the ullage pressure was slowly decreasing. The LH 2 tank temperature probes indicated that the residtmls at this time were entirely gaseous. At S-IV engine cutoff, the LOX tank ullage pressure switch was transferred to the control of the cold

The Pegasus C is the first Pegasus spacecraft to have removable meteorite detector panels which can be recovered from 14. 2 PEGASUS orbit for purposes of analysis,

C PERFORMANCE separation was accom-

Pegasus/ServieeModale

helium

shutoff valve.

The

LOX

tank pressure

was

plished as planned at 811.95 seconds, 2.32 seconds earlier than predicted. Wing deployment was initiated at 871.05 seconds and was completed by 912.0 seconds. worked A description of the Pegasus Initially, 'all systems properly C is presented in on the spacecraft were within the Appendix.

maintained within the 31 to 33 N/em 2 (45 to 58 psi) design band by cycling the cold helium shutoff valve for as long as the cold helium pressurant was available. As a result, the LOX tank pressure NPV remained At stable for about 800 seconds after S-IV engine cutoff, in spite of the venting by the LOX system. theendof the firstorbit, the Tel 2 telemetry recorded a LOX tank pressure of approx2mately 17.2 N/cm 2 (25 psi). An estimate was made of the mass pulse vented during three periods: and im-

and all measurements

their predicted limits, 14.3 ORBITAL 14. 3.i ATTITUDE VENT SYSTEM

NONPROPUL,SIVE PERFORMANCE

i. S-IV 180 seconds 2. S-IV first orbit 3.

engine cutoff to S-IV engine cutoff plus

The SA-10 nonpropulsive venting (NPV) systern was identical to that flown on SA-8. This system was utilized to prevent the occurrence of excessive angular rates caused by the venting of residual propellants after S-IV engine cutoff. An auxiliary LP_ NPV system was also installed on SA-9, SA-8, and SA-10, which operates from cutoff to cutoff plus 180 seconds. This systemvents the high boiloffrates immediately aftor engine cutofl which are causedby the latent heat in the LH 2 tank insulation, Operation of thecomponentsof tern was as expected. The the S-IV NPV and sysoxygen

engine cutoff plus 180 seconds to end of

End of first orbit to tank depletion.

The masses were based upon the following residual propellants and gases at S-IV engine cutoff: t. lbm) 87 kg (191 Ibm) of LH2, plus 48.1 kg (i06

of ullage gas 2, 454 kg (1001 lbm) of LOX, plus 53.5 kg (I18 of helium.

hydrogen

Ibm)

of COX,

plus 60. 3 kg (133 ibm)

85

Masses ullagegas

presented within

in Table

14-I are

based

upon There

the is

excellentagreement in the tank and those

between

the residual from

and gas

mass

the tank

and vented TABLE

impulse. 14-I.

calculated

tank blowdown.

NONPROPULSIVE

VENT

PERFORMANCE

LH 2 TatS. Time Mass Vented Total Impulse N-s lbf-s) N-s lbf-s) Mass Vented

LOX

Tank Total Impulse

1)

Cutoff to Cutoff + 180 see Cutoff 1- 180 see to end of first orbit Endoftirst orbit to depiction

44 kg (96 Ibm) 75kg (165 Ibm)

56,488 (12,690 85,272 (19,170

GOX&

He

t07.5 (237

kg Ibm)

55,727 ( 12,525

N-s lbf-s)

2)

3)

16kg (36 Ibm)

25,488N-s (5,730 lbf-s)

::_GOX& ':' ':' GOX

He

88.9kg (196 ibm) 371.3 (818.6 567.7 (1,251.6 kg ibm) kg lbmJ

39,967 (8,995 10-t,422 (23,475 200,116 14"t,988

N-s lb-s) N-s lM-s) N-s lbf-s)

Totals

135 kg (297 ibm)

167,208 (37,590

N-s thf-s)

": Ullage

Gas

* ':, Residual

The

results presented

in Table

14-I show

that

SA-i0.

(SeeReference

6 for a more

detailed descrip-

after one orbit, 84.8 percent of the LH2 tank totalirapulse _ere vented. The estimated time required to vent the LH 2 and LOX tanks to 0. 6 N/cm 2 (1 psi) was about 4 to 6 hours for LH z and about 24 to 36 hours for LOX. This estimate correlates well with the recorded data. 14.3.2 VEHICLE The at ATTITUDE IN ORBIT

tion oi the SA-10

and SA-8 NPV

configuration. )

In determining Pegasus C vehicle, AGC records from try data. 14-1. signals, rate

the roll rate history of the SA-10 the data soar('es utilized were: the Miditrack beacon and telemegyro information, and solar sen_or are shown in Figure passes of Minitrack

The results of the analysis Approximately 80 sta/aon

activated

regular LOX and LH 2 NPV systems were the time of S-IV engine cutoff command auxiliary at S-IV then remained residuals, LH 2 NPV cutoff, was dosed. The system, in operregMar

datawereexamined, passes in which

)4elding some 60 te65 "readable" a period could be determined. AplYasses were the remaining Telemetry from the passes AGC

(630.252 seconds). The _hich was also activated ation for 180 seconds LOX and LH 2 NPV system the depletion of gaseous onds, later merit

proximately one-hag of these Green Mountain station, with from the other Minitrack was available valid data.

and

stations.

open to complete At 811.95 sec-

through T + 2_' hours; Rate tyro irfformatinn

8 records yielded was secured until

the Apollo shroud was jettisoned and 60 seconds the Pegasus wing extension began. The deploywas completed by approximately 912.0 seconds, On SA-9 GOX was wing. LIt z regular so that GH2, vented tlowever, flow instead to impinge on NPV of upon the deand were SA-8 in-

T + 2 hours providing 10 periods of data from various tracking stations. The average rate for each period is shown in Figure 14-2. The solar panel voltage data were obtained from a time history graph and represent periods an average of time of a series (10 of points taken over short to 15 minutes).

ployed the terchanged

Pegasus

SA-10 systems GOX,

LOX and

impinged less total 30-percent the rear), achieved on The predicted maximum roll rate for Pegasus C, considering possible vent system misalignments and predicted wing impingement effects, was 7.7 deg/s for the actual onboard fuel and oxidizer residuals.

upon the Pegasus wing. Since GH 2 imparts impulse than GOX, it was predicted thata reduction in roll acceleration (CW from from that observed on SA-9, could be

86

ROl 1,: R._I_: (deg/s)

i ,. . .

I _ ,

i +

i i +

i l ,

L I

i ,

i
I I :

, ,
! sh ' I i I ' i j,_
' _ ,

i i
I

!
,j_ , 7/t _ _ 'I _

_"
/.:"

k_; ,Ca, ,
i I ', ' p
:

' !
'

I I
i I ! I

I! } _ i i ! .: I
i

i
I

,t

: I ' !

: : + + +
+ '

I + !

I
t

I i I '

I I ! , i / .... : I ] 0 T_l .... t..,...!R_'., : [ ' ^ SO ,_Y _ "t.l I I I () _'_ '+OJt<_t,_.c j , ! ! +

.z

.,

+ ,,,-; _ 2 3
Hours

I 10
After

20
L_unch

30

il 40 50

, foe

, t+:_oe 2c,o 300

I l

FIGURE

14-I.

SA-10 ROLL

RATE ANALYSIS

,: /', '
....... S // .... ..........

::""

which is yielding baddata periodically. At tile present there are indications that the SA-10 cone angle will continue toopen up and cause thePegasus C to tumble similar to Pegasus A (SA-9) . The Pegasus B {SA-8) cone angle did notopen up enough to cause it to ttm_bie. 14.4 PEGASUS OPERATION The Pegasus C spacecraft systems are operating

! ; ..j

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

properly and all system temperatures are within thc permissible tolerance. OnAugust25 at01:54:40 U. T., the temperature of the detector panels ranged from 228K to 318K. The maximumtemperatere diiferentim on opposite sides of a detector panel was 15K. ROLL RATES As of August 23, 6.517 m 2 of the 0. 0381 mm (1.5 area was active. No panels had rail) detector panel been disconnected.

FIGURE

14-2.

SA-10ORBITAL

As can tx_seen, the actual maximum rate was only 6.3 dcg/s. This possibly indicates either a better thrust vector alignment, a smaller thrust imbalance, or a smaller jet impingement effect than was assented in making the "maximum" prediction, The Pegasus C roll rate history is very similar to thatof Pegasus B (SA-8). The initial rate increase was slightly higher for Pegasus C, but the maximum rate attained was only approximately 0, 2 deg/s less than the Pegasus B rate. After T + 12 hours, the Pegasus C roll rate began to decrease and was approximately 5.6 deg/s at T+360 hours (15 days). On August 20 a rapid readout was obtained and the in_ormation _rom lira solar sensors indicated that the halfcone angle was approximately 20 degrees. All solar sensors were operating properly except for sensor 3,

On the 0. 2032 mm (8 mid detector panels 13. 982 m2 of the detector panel area was active. Only 0. 468 m 2 of the panel area was inactive. On the 0.4064 mm (16 rail} detector panels 150. 282 m _ of detector panel area was active. The amoantof detector panelarea considered inactive _as 12.584 m 2, Hits are being recorded continually on all three detector panel sizes. The only significant change inthe Pegasus Bis the removable meteorite which can be recovered from orbit analysis. Pegasus C from detector panels, for purposcs of

87

SECTION

XV.

SUMRIARY OF MALFUNCTIONS

AND DEVL_,TIONS Propulsion

The flight test of Saturn SA-10 did not reveal any malfunctionsor deviations which could be considered a serious system failure design deficiency. Howor ever, a nmnber of deviatlons did occur and are summarized below:

i. The S-IV stage LH 2 pressurizationcontrol solenoidvalve did not open when required during a portion of S-IV powered flight (Para, 6.8. l/o

Instrumentation Launch Operations 1. Three measurements were scrubbed prior to launch. Twelve measurements failed during flight. Twenty-seven measurements were unly partially saccessful during flight (Table t3-1). 2. rlC, MISTRAM system did not meet performe requirements. The system transponder failed 63 seconds of flight time (Para. 13.7.2). radar system failed to and associated operate {Para.

1. A leak developed in the flex connection between the fixed LOX overland link from the storage facility and the S-I fill mast (Para. 3.4).

Z. The ECS duct to the Pegasus came apart the anlbilieal tower prior I.o launch (Para. 3.4).

at

anee after

3. Considerably more damage was done to the swing arms thanhasoccurred during previous liftoffs, particularly to the flex hoses, electrical cables, and ECS ducts (Para. 3.7.1). 4. The S-IV stage LOX fill valve was closed manually when it was noted that the fill valve had not been commanded to close automatically at the 100 percent LOX level (Para's. 3.5.2. I and 6.9).

3. The altimeter return-pulse-experiment 13.7.2).

4. Of the 85 cameras programmed to record the launch, 2 cameras malfunctioned, 9 had no timing, and 3 had timing problems (para. 13.8). 5. "Ihe Edcliff meters did not function properly during any portion of the flight (Para, 7.4. 1.2).

88

APPENDIX VEHIC LE DESCRIPTION

A. 1

SUMMARY of Saturn SA-10 was the sixth flight II, Saturn I vehicles. This was conflight of the Saturn I operational rethird to orbit a Pegasus meteoroid C). This in orbiting was the sixth consecutive satellites. The vehicle,

stab Stub

fins were attached mid_tay between fins It, ILl, anti IV also provided

the main enclosure

fins. and

The flight test of the Block sidered the third hides and the satellite Saturn (Pegasus I success

attachment for the three 0. 3048 m (12 in) diameter ducts used to exit ehilldown hydrogen from the S-IV stage. Four fairings between the larger fins anti stub fins enclosed theieboard engine turbine exhaust ducts. A. 3 S-IV STAGE moUnted lbf) 000 portion ft), RL10A-3 total thrust powered engines, at the flight. vehicle The providing of during engines

which measured approximately 57 m ( 188 ft) in length, consisted of four distinct units: the S-I stage, S-IV stage, scription operational Apollo of the Instrument spacecraft vehicle is Unit (/5P-9). presented (third flight) and deA-I. 400,340 60,960 boilerplate A pictorial in Figure

Six gimbal N (90,000 m I200, stage

an altitude

the S-IV

of powered

The only appreciable was the Pegasus C. orite detector panels by astronauts, A. 2 S-I STAGE while

change between SA-i0 and SA-8 Pegasus C has removable metewhich can be recovered in orbit Pegasus ]3 does not.

were mounted on the thrust structure outward cant angle trom the vehicle Each engine had a gimbal capability four-degree control. imately drogen The square S-IV

with a six-degree longitudinal axis. of aplus or minus and roll approxliquid hy-

pattern for pitch, yaw, stage (Fig. A-3) carried lbm} of usable

45,359 kg (100,000 and liquid oxygen.

A cluster of eight uprated tt-I engines the S--I stage (Fig. A-2) producing a total thrust of 6.67 million N (1. 5 million lbf).

powered sea level Each of

The thruststructureprovidedengine fer to the LH 2 anti LOX container. forward and LOX aft, were separated bulkhead.

thrust

trans-

the four outboard engines gimbni in a S-degree square pattern to provide pitch, yav,, and roll control, Inboard and outboard enbfines were canted 3 degrees and 6 degrees outwards, respectively, from the vehicle longitudinal axis to minimize the disturbing tooments that would be induced by an engine failure at criticaldynamie to the engines arrangement consisted four 1.78 pressure. Propellants through suction lines from were supplied the clustered These fuel and tanks tanks, a 2.67

The tanks, Ltt 2 by a common

The LH 2 fuel system ft 3) cylindrical container LH 2 flowed lines, each gine. The container. the LOX screen, suction inlet LOX system

consistedof a 120. 4 m 3 (4256 with a bulkhead at each end. through six suction to one RL10A-3 ca-

from the container of which connected

of nine propellant tanks. of four 1.78 m (70 in) diameter m (70 in) diameter LOX tanks,

consisted

of a 35.8

m 3 (2164

ft 3)

m ( 105 in) diameter center LOX tank. Each outboard tank (LOX and fuel) supplied propellants to one inboard and one outboard engine. The center LOX tank supplied change the outboard tanks system. Thrust and through the longitudinal LOX loads interwere

Vacuum jacketed from the container filter assembly line flange ends

suction tines transferred through the antivortex The lower to the LOX

and sump cone. were connected

flange

on each

engine.

carried by the pressurized tanks were retained atthe member (37,000 mounted for inflight called a spider lbf) thrust on the spider separation

LOX tanks. The propellant forward endby a structural beam, Four retro the stage, 164,576 rockets S-I stage N A nonpropulsive on SA-7, in addition and LH_ vent systems, vent (NPV) to the main to obviate system was installed LOX angupressure relief the excessive

solid propellant beam decelerated from the S-IV

lar ratesdue to the venting of residual propellant after S-IV cutoff. An auxiliary NPV system was installed in SA-9 to provide a large initialpressure decay in the LH 2 tank to assure that the main LH 2 vent system is not activated. The system flown on SA-8 was ideatical to that of SA-9 with the exception of intcrchanging the use of the LOX ventfor LH 2 andvice versa. The NPV system on SA-10 was identical to SA-8.

Four large fins and four stub fins were attached to the base of the S-I stage to provide flightstability plus support and holddown points at launch. Each large finprojected an area of approximately il,24 m 2 (121 ft 2) and extended radially about 2.74 m (9 ft) from the outer surface of the thrust structure. Four

89

I j=

LAUNCH ESCAPE SYSTEM

COMMAND MODULE

PEGASUS SATELLITE

"-=-= SERVICE MODULE _ INSTRUMENT UNIT

ULLAGE ROCKETS

-_-

S-IV STAGE 6 RL I 0A-3

57 5 _",i

RETRO ROCKETS

DIAMETER 6.5

S-ISTAGE LIFTOFFEIGHT: W 517,348 KG

8 H-I ENGINES
FIGURE A-l. SA-10 VEHICLE CONFIGURATION

9O

LOX/SOX DISPOSAL SYSTEM

INSTRUMENT COMPARTMENT (TYPICALF-I& F-2)

ANTI-SLOSHBAFFLES (70"DIATANKS)

ANTI-SLOSHBAFFLES (lOS'" LOX TANK) OIA

_,

CABLE TRU

,_

_ _;

HYDROGEN CHILL-DOWN DUCT

TURBINE HEAT SHIELD EXHAUST DUCT

FIGURE

A-2.

S-I

STAGE

91

LH2TANK

_
_.'_ \ L

(4)
DESTRUCT ANTENNA 14)

MANHOLE COVER _ COLD HELIUM

FOR,ARD INTERSTAGE

TUNNEL_

:YLINDRICAL LH2 TANK

AFT SKI RT

_.

BULKHEAD

ULLAGE ROC

BAFFLE

IULKHEAD

UMBILICALPANEL-----_ LH2 MAKEUP SPHERE-""-.

ST STRUCTURE

HELIUM HEATERAND AMBIENTSPHERE

SUCTION LINE(TYP,)

AFT INTERSTAGE

SHIELD

ENGINES(6) f HYDROGEN VENT STACK(3)

BLOWOUT PANEL_

FIGURE

A-3.

S-IV

STAGE

92

Four 15,390 N (34601bf) thrust solid propellant ullage rockets provided proper positioning of the propcllants prior m the S-IV stage ignition. A.4 INSTRUMENT UNIT

A.6

PEGASUSC

SATELLITE

The Instrument Unit (Fig. A-4) located between the S-IV stage and the payload, housed the guidance and control equipment plus telemetry and the main electronic tracking equipment. This is the third flight of the prototype model of the production Instrument Unit to be used on future Saturn vehicles. This Instrument Unit is identical to that flown on SA-9 and SA-8. No environmental protection is provided for the instrumenta_on during flight, The overall diametor, height, and weight of the IU are 3.9 m ( 154 in), 0.9 m (34 in), and 1350 kg (2980 Ibm), A. 5 PAYLOAD (BP-9), Module, shown in Figure Service Module, respectively.

The objective of the Pegasus C satellite is to provide continued engineering data about the nearearth meteoroid environment in which future manned space vehicles will operate. In the stored position with panels folded inside the Apollo Service Module the approximate overall dimensions of the satellite are 4.5 m (177 in) high, 2.2 m (85 in) wide, and 2.4 m (95 in) deep, The X-axis of the satellite is along thelongitudinalaxis of the vehicle, the Y-axis extends in a plane parallel with the deployed wings, and the Z-axis is perpendicular to the deployed _ings. The totM capsule weight i.s approximately 1400 kg (3080 Ibm). When deployed, the satellite has an overall wing span of 29 m (96 ft). The Pegasus is divided into two major parts: the center section and the wing assemblies (Fig. A-5). The satellite's framework is made of riveted ahiminum alloy extrusions. 2he center section is attached to the launch vehicle's second stage. It provides a mounting for the deployment mechanism, electronics cam_ister, solar power panels, and sensors, Each wing consists of seven hinged frames wNch provide mountings for208 panels ( 104 per wing). The hinges are spring loaded so that when released, the wings unfold in accordion fashion. A detector panel is composed of t_o flat plate capacitors of aluminum, Mylar, and copper bonded to each side of a one-inch thick foam core. The dimensions of the detector panels are appro:4mately 101.6 by 50. 8 by 2.54 cm (40 by 20 by 1 in). The capacitors have a target sheet thickness of 0.0381 mm (0. 0015 in), 0. 2032 mm (0. 008 in), and 0. 4064 mm (0. 016 in), and both capacitors in a given panel are of the same thickness. The total exposed detector area is approximately 200 m2; 8 m2 of the 0. 0381 mm material, 16 m2 of the 0. 2032 mm material, and J.76 m2 of the 0.4064 mm material. The Pegasus C has removable meteorite detecter panels which can be recovered from orbit for purposes of analysis.

The boilerplate Apollo A-5, consisted of a Command

spacecraft adapter, and launch escape system. BP-9 served to simulate the characteristics of an Apollo spacecraft whose ultimate mission is a manned lunar soft landing and return to earth, ThePegasusC meteoroid technology satellite was housed withintheService Module. The Service Module was attached to the payload adapter by six explosive nut assemblies and mounted on two guide rails (4.47 m or 176 in long, spaced 180 degrees apart) by three roller sleeve assemblies per rail. An additional explosive natislocated atthe forward end of the Pegasus C satellite. After insertion into orbit, the Command and Service Modules were ejected, exposing the Pegasus C satellite. The ejection and separation mechanism consisted of 4 negator springs, each exerring a constant force of 178 N (40 lbf) through a distance of 3.96 m (156 in), and 12 compression springs each having a spring constant of 840 N/cm (480 lbf/in) and a stroke of 4.3 cm (1.7 in).

93

GN 2 PURGE __ III GUIDANCE SIGNAL PROCESSORST- 124 STABILIZED PLATFORM GUIDANCE COMPUTER GN 2 STORAGE SPHERE

28 VOLT

GUIDANCE

COMMAND

RECEI_ DECODER FLIGHT CONTROL COMPUTE ST-124 ELECTRONICS BOX '-"

GUIDANCE COMMAND CONTROL DISTRIBUTOR

FIGURE A-4. INSTRUMENT

UNIT

MODULE

LI _I<AGE SERVICE MODULE _\ __ I INSERT _,_ CENTER SECTION SCISSOR STRUCTLrRZ ....... /_LATERAL SOLAR PANEL (2) ,--PAYLOAD -- INSTRLIMEN'T / ADAPTER ,/ [_IT _ IV III ,/

FORWARD GLrlDE RAIL .... SOLAR PANELS (2) -/"

,'_ ),

ASSEMBLY

"_,,_:z_-

87

,
[

MI CROMETERO ! D MEA SUR_M _NT CAPSULE

GLIDE

RAIL

(2)

--// //9

I[

WING PANEL (6- l ,, S/DE_ 2 ADAPTER _,\ RD_ENT

"_--.

DETECTOR PANEL

"-- S-IV

STAGE

S-IV

STAGE

RESTP_\_NT

BRACE

(_)

FIGUtlE

A-5.

PAYLOAI)

INDEX

A Acceleration control incrtial lateral roll 86 rotational

Angle

of attack pitch 42 Q-bali 38, sensor 3_, vehicle 38 wind 38, 40. 40 42 53 yaw 39, 42 39, 40,

36, 15 36

42,

43

42

longitudinal 56

15,

25

Angular motion

space fixed 43 structural 56 Accelcrometer Apollo 61, 62 body bending 57, 58, 63 body fixed 36 component 58, 60 control 36, 42 guidance 45, 47, 55 H-I engine 58, 60 instrument unit 58, 6l interstag_ 63 Pegasus 61, 62 S-I stage 58, 59, 60 S-IV stage 60, 61, 64 Acoustics Apollo 62 effects upon vibrations 58, 59 instrument unit 58, 59, 62 S-I stage 58, 59 S-IV stage 62 Acquisition AGC 86 data 80, 81, DDAS 80 PCM 80 systems Actuator deflection gimbal, position Aerodynamic 80, 82, 83, 84, 86

velocity 54 Angular rate 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 53, 85 pitch 38, 42, 53 roll 40, 42 S-I stage 53 S-IV stage 53 yaw Apogee 2, 42, 53

altitude I, 14, 15 Apollo 89, 93 jettison86 orbital insertion 2, 85 separation 2, 10, 55, 85 ASC-15 computer Atmospheric 36, 37, 38, 4l, 43, 45, 48, 50

conditions at latmch l, 5 U.S. Standard Reference 15 Attenuation effects, playback records 78, 80, 8l, 83 main engine flame 81, 82, 83 retro rocket flame 78, 80, 81, 82 ullage rocket flame 78, 80 Attitude angle 3_ orbital 85, Attitude error 86, 87 41, 42, .t3, 44

81,

82, 40, 24 40

83, 43

84

pitch and yaw 38, 39, roll 36, 40, 41, 42 signal 36 S-IV stage Axial force coefficient 21, 53, 54

38, 39, hydraulic 38, 39,

77

axial force coefficient 77 forces, effects 36 heating loading Altimeter Altitude 66, 66 2. 78, 70, 81, 71 82, 83, 88

strain gauge 63 Azimuth alignment error 36, 45, B Battery instrument unit instrumentation 50

apex 15, 16 apogee 1, 14, orbital t, 14 perigee l, S-IV cutoff

15

2, 75 75, 76

14, 15 1, 14,

15

tD10 1D20

75 75

96

INDEX

(Cont'd)

1Dll 8D10 8Dll 8D20 5-volt voltage Beam spider Bending

75 76 76 7(; measuring 75, 25, 76 66, 89 64 57 58 supply 75, 76

Cluster effects 20, 21, 20 21, drag 77 16 78 23, 25, 25, 26 performance Coefficient axial force tumbling, Combustion chamber chamber

dome vibration pressure 20, 9

26,

56

body 57, oscillation pitch plane

58, 63, 57 2, 56, 57, 9 25 24

stability monitor temperature 32 Control

pitch and yaw Blockhouse redline values Burn time retro 8-I rocket 15,

accelerometer 36. 42, -t3 GOX flow, valve 22 helium shutoff valve 85 LII 2 pressurization solenoid LOX replenish valve 92 pneumatic, pressure system 41 valve 22 2.')

stage

S-IV stage 15, 26, ullage rocket 35

33,

36

C Calibrations inflight preflight Calorimeter 80 80 2, 66,

rate g'yro 36, 43 system, S-I 38, 39, 40, system, S-IV-tl, -t2 Cooldown engine, engine, Cutoff LII 2 8, 28, LOX 7, 28, 30 33

67

altitude 14 conditions 14,

15

aft interstage 71 aft skirt 70 base heat sKield 71 heat flux 67 67 purge 22 radiation total 67 Camera coverage, coverage, coverage, engineering onboard tracking Center GSE release 83 H-I engine ig:qition launch 1, 78, 83 sequential TV 2, 78, 83, 84 83 83 83

events 15, 16 impulse 29 IECO 1, 18, 19, LOX OECO probe, S-I S-IV starvation 1, 14, 15, 63, 84 LOX level 15, 28, stage

20, 23, 16, 24 58

23, 24 18,

24, 19,

63, 20,

84 21, 23, 24, 36,

stage

1, 14, 15, 16, 27, 28, 29, 30, 3I, 32, 33, 38, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 52, 76, 85 27, 29 D 28

S-IV

weight

transients

umbilical tower 83 of gravity longitudinal and radial offset 48 vehicle 42, 48 duct Gtl 2 Ltt 2 S-IV vent impulse 29

l0 Deflection actuator Deviations summary Drag 28 axial force coefficient correction 20 tumbling, coefficient 21, 16 77 88 38, 39, 40, 43

Chilldown duct 63 28, 70, 71, 89 stage, LOX 23, thrust 25, 26

97

INDEX

(Cont'd)

Duct boattail chilldown ECS 88 69 29, 63, 70, 71 First Flame

stub trailing

23,

89 edge 67 83 time 53, G7, 77

motion sKield

hydrogen vent purge 23 turbine exhaust 36, 89 E Electrical bridgewire instrument 23, unit 25, 60, 76 76 system

Flowrate helium 25, 26, 31 LIt 2 28 LOX 28, 33 19, 19, 2(i, 21, 20 27 25, 26, 27

propellant 18, S-I GOX 22 S-1 stage S-IV Fuel bias 24 stage lS, 25,

S-I stage system 75 S-IV stage system 75, 7(1 Support equipment 9 system perlol'mance 2, 75 Engine actuator deflection :38, 39, 43, 44 attenuation, flame 78, 80, Sl, 82, 83 chamber pressure 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 56 cluster 20, 21, 25, 26, 27 cooldown 7, s, 28, 30, 33 cutoff transients 29 exhaust 77, 89 li-I 18, 24, 83, 89 ignition 18, 32, 57 individual performance 18, 21, 25, 26, 28, 89 mixture ratio 18, 19, 24, 28, 34 propellant mass flowrate 27 RLIOA-3 18, 28, 89 shutdown, S-IV 36 specific impulse l, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28 start transient 28 thrust 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 57, 89 turbopump gear box pressurization 22 vibrations 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65 Events cutoff 14, 15 significant 15, times Exhaust flame main retro tm'bine ullage Fin 42 plmm (plume) engine rocket 69 69 89 F 63 66 84 of 2, 3

density 7, 8 level cutoff probe 23 LH 2 boiloffrate 85 LH 2 chilldown duct 70, 71 LH 2 consumption 26 LH2 cooldown 5, 28, 30 LH 2 feedline 60, (14 LIt fill 2 and drain mast 83 LH 2 flowrate 28 LH2 fuel system 8, 89 LfI_ load B, 33 LH 2 loading 8, 52 LH 2 main fill valve 8 LI]2 mass level 9, 34 Lli NPV 2 system 85 LH 2 pressurization l, 29, 30, 88 LH 2 pump inlet 29, 30, 33 LH 2 replenish 8 LIt residual 26, 33, 34, 84, 85 2 LH2 slosh 44 LH 2 tank dome 60, 61, 65 LH 2 tank step pressurization 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 71 LH 2 tank temperature 70 LH 2tank ullage pressure 8, 29, LH 2tanking73 LH 2 transter LH 2 vent LH 2 vent LH 2 vent 8, line 70. 8 89

16

30,

3t,

32,

85

duct purge 2, 23 valve 61, 65, 85 impulse 18, 85, 21, 21 86 22, 23, 25, 29, 30

21, 36, 77, rocket 69

Lit 2 vented load 8, 24 pressurization

pump inlet pressure residual 84 weight 7,

pressure

98

INDEX

(Cont'd)

G GLOTRAC GH 2 9. 30, GN2 7b, 63, 81, 86 82, 83

ttelium cold. cold, cold. cold, 52 cold, bubbling 22. :_3 eonsamption 33 regulator 31., 60 residual 33 shutoff valve 85

gas bearing pressure pressure purge 73 temperature GOX flow control tlowrate 22 venting 85.

supply 35, 52 supply 22. 52 valve 86

51, 23

cold, supply 31. 33 control system 33 heater 18, 31, 60, 65 heater heater heater heater heater heater heater cornl3ustion temperature exhaust temt__,rature 71 flowrate 25. 26, 31 ignition 32 performance single thrusL coil 31 25, 26, 31 31 b. 9. 23, 33, 60. 61 32 27 31

22

Ground support equipment fill and drain mast _'3 holddownarm LOX overland swing arm umbilical tower Gravity center el 10. 42, and longitudinal Guidance aceelerometer iterative path 36. pitch signal 9, 83 link 5, 88 9, 8b 9, 48 radial 47, 51, 4_ 48, 50 (GSP) 36, 43, 10 55 83, 88

inlet pressure solenoid valve triplex Hydraulic actuator oil pressure system, system, S-I S-IV sphere 24

and temperature 18. 18, 24 35 I

24,

25

1, 2, 3_, 38, 48

and yaw 41, processor

37, 45,

38 47. 50, 51, 52

IECO (see Ignition

cutoff) 24 8

S-IV cutoff 48 ST-124 system system Gyro error rate signal 45, 46, 50 47, hardware

1, 36, 50

command 8, 18, 23, helium heater 32 propellant S-I stage S-IV S-IV Impact weight 24 7,

86 It

stage 93 weight 27,

28 17

booster 14, 15, 16, Impulse ehilldown duct 29 LH 2 vented LOX vented specific, specific, 85, 86 85, 86

fteat flux 67, Heat 68, 70, 71 77 shield 60, 65, base 70, 71 calorimeter heating rate inner outer pressure temperature Heating aerodynamic rate 2, 66, region region 66, 71 67 67, 67 70 66, 66, 67 67, 70, 68, 71 69, 7I 68

S-I 18, i9, 21 S-IV 18, 25, 26, 1, 18, 19,

27, 29,

28 27

specific, vehicle S-IV cutoff 29 ullage Insertion orbital rocket l, 2, 35 14,

48,

49, 89,

50, 94

85

Instrument Unit 2, 36, 42, battery 2, 75 description 93, 94 electrical system 76

99

INDEX

(Cont'd)

orbital

insertion 80.

2. 8o 71, 73. 74

density

7.

Is,

21 G9

telemetry temperature umbilical vent ports Instrumentation batteries malfunctions photo Interstage

82 and pressure 3{i, 73

feedline 60, G1. 64, fill valve 33. S8 [lowrate level 5. 28. 33 8, 19, S8 23, 24,

separation 73 75, 76, 78, 2. 7g 79. b3,

level eutolT probe load 5, 7, b, 19, ha, 8-t 8.i loading main mass fill 34, system 7 ;_;-_ 7

24 33

'optical

aft 63. 69 heat [[a.x 71 panel debonding {;2. {;3, 64, pressure I_:l, {;9 purge 22, 23 S-I 'S-IV 22, 2:_. 62. teml)evature vent port vibration Inverter voltage Iterative 23, 25 I;-I 51, 75 mode (IGM) J Jettison Apollo htuneh ullage 86 escape rocket system 35 L Lateral acceleration Launch anomaly 1, 5 83 control 30 _ LES) 58 1, 2, 38, 48 63, 63 (;!} 69

NPVsystem 85 outboard suction overland pressure propellant punl 1) inlet I)Uml) inlet pump inlet Pmnllinlet i)Uml) seal replenish

line

23 22 (PU) probe 32, 33 61

line 5, 88 reliel valve utilization conditions density pressure purge 7. 22, 22 31 21

21,

:tl, 21.

56 32. 33

temperature

guidance

residual 24, slosh 4-t

2(% 33, 23, 8_1 61. 65

34, 2.1

85

starvation cutoll suction line 24. tank tank tank tank vent vented weight LOX-SOX disposal dome 60,

pressure 22, pressurization

3t, 85 7. 31.

32.

33 32

pressurization system lb, 22. valve 7. 8. 22, 31. 61, 85 inlpuIse 5. 7 system 22, 2a 85. 86

camera coverage 1, 7b, complex 37B 1. 9 coaditions l, 5 damage 9 holds 1. 5, Launch Ltt 2 (see Load factor escape luel) 56 19, 24, 33 9 system 42, 58,

Mach number Malfunctions 93, 94 Mass summary

15, 88

16.

38,

77

(see weight) characteristics llowrate 26, 27 history 21, 27, loss rate 27 moment propellant

la 34 10 34

L|I z e;, 31/ LOX 5. 7. 8, longitudinal propellant LOX boilol'f 5 consumption cooldown 7,

55 24, 33

of inertia 10, 11.

S-IV stage tO, ll, 26. 27 vehicle 10. 11, 12. 26, 27 2t; 28. Mast 33 fill and drain 83

100

INDEX

(Cont'd)

Measurements, IU malfunctions IU reliability S-I system, S-I system, S-IV S-IV Milestones Minitrack MISTRAM MOTS 84 system, system,

performance 78, 78 malfunctions reliability mallunctions reliability 78, 78 78, 78 79 79 7'.)

orbital roll rate

insertion history

2, 85 2, 85 86. 87

performance

separation 85 tumble rate 87 wingdeploynmnt wing impingement Perigee altitude Pitch t, 14 38, 39, 42 38, 39 chain error 57 l. 41 3_ 2, 85, 86, 86, 87 93

5. 6 84, 86 78, 81,

82,

88

N Nominal trajectory Net positive Nonpropulsive

angular rate attitude error axis resolver bending path guidance program 38, rate 2. _5 85, 86, Pogo effects 2. 56, 66, 70 steering steering

43,

44

2, 56,

14, suction vent

17 pressure (NPV)

(NPSP) system

30,

31 30,

2, 18, 89

eemmand 43 misaligmlmnt 57

38,

42

LIt 2 85, 86, 89 LOX 85, ._6, 89 performance 85, 8(; O ODOP OECO Orbital 7_. (see 81, 82

Pressure base ellamber buildup 25 20, 22 25 1_, 20, 23, 25, 25, 56

chamber decay eembustionchamber control system detonation 69 86, 87 fin 66 fuel fuel

cutoff) 85,

attitude

decay and reentry 16, 17 insertion l, 48, 49, 50 insertion insertion, insertion, insertion, insertion, lifetime roll rate, telemetry conditions 17 Apollo 2, 85 1U 2, 85 Pegasus 2, 85 S-IV stage 2, 14, l, 14 Pegasus coverage 86, 78 P Path guidance initiation 1, 38, 87 85

pump 21, 56 tank 21, 22

GN 2 22, 23, 35, 51, 52 heat shield 66, 70 helium heater inlet 31 helium sphere, decay history 22, 69 instrument compartment instrument interstage unit 63, 73, 69 8. 56 29, 30, 31, 32, _5 74 23 71

LH 2 tank ullage pressure LOX main till line 7 LOX pump inlet 21, 31, LOX tank 22, 31, 85 plenum chamber 23 S-I stage 66 S-IV stage 66, ullage ullage 5, 22, rocket solenoid 69, 70 35 18,

41

pitch and yaw i, 38 termination 8, 36 Payload Pegasus 93, 95 l, 84, 89 93, 95 detecter 2, 87 93 panels 85, 86, 87

31 chamber valve

description meteorite mission operation

Pressurization control

29, 22

30,

88

engine turbopump fuel 18, 21, 22,

gear box 25, 30

101

INDEX

(Cont'd)

helium, Lit 2 tank LOX tank Pressurization fuel tank

flowrato 30, 88 step 7,

31 29, 71 33 25, 29, 30 30, 32, 34, 35, Q-bali angle sensor transducer 23, of attack 38, 39, 42 38, 40,

LH 2 1. 29,

pressurization 18, 31, 32,

39, 42

42

systems 18, 21, 22, 32 33 23 30 24, 2,1

Lit 2 tank 29, 30 LOX tank 18, 22, pneumatic S-Istage S-IV Probe eoutinuous discrete PU 61 Propellant consumption 23, level level stage control 21, 22. 1, 29,

R Radar alLimeter C-band Radiation 44 Rate angular 26 21, 25, 26, 27 36, 38, 39, 47 40, 42, 53, 85 control gyro 43 gs, rodrift 45, t6. calorimeter heat shield 78, 2, 7_3, 81. 81, 67 67, 68 52, 82, 84 83, 88

propellant level 24

depletion 25, 26 ilowrate 18, 19, level sensor 36 load 24, 33 loading system mass 10, It, mixture ratio residual slosh 38, 24, 42, 5. 27, 18. 33, 44

heating 66 pitch 2, 42, 38, 85 roll 2, 40, 42, 54, 85 roll, Pejgasus 86, 87 vehicle, tumble 55 yaw 2, Rawinsonde winds Recorder 42, 38. 85 39, 40

7, 8, 33, 19 34 34

23

system pressurization utilization (PU) system weight, Propellant ignition utilization(PU) 65 60 7, 8

7, 8 8. 10, 18, 23, 33, 34. 44 system

24,

30.

airborne attenuation instrument playback

tape 2, 78, 80 flame, eIfect unit 81 mode 80 81 22

78,

80

8, 10, 18, 23, 24, 30, 33, 34, 44

S-I stage 80 S-IV stage 80, Regulator control Resolver pressure

computer probe 61 valve 28.

Propulsion system S-Istage 1, 18, 19 S-IV stage t, 18, 25, Pump

26,

27.

28,

29

"C" readings 50 chain error 38, 43, command 36, 38 gimbal signal Retro rocket 36

44

engine turbopump gear box 22, 58, 60 inletconditions 29, 30, 32, 33 inlet density 21 inlet pressure 21, 31, 56 inlettemperature seal purge 22 Purge calorimeter helium 23 interstage LH 2 vent 22 22. duct 23 2, 23 22, 23 18 Roll 21, 32, 33

attenuation, flamc 81, 82 burn time 25 combustion exhaust 69 chamber pressure 25

ignition25, 69, 81, 84 performance 25 acceleration actuator angular attitude rate rate, 86 position rate 40, error 36, 40 42 40, 87 41

LOX-SOX disposal system, performance

2, 54, 85 Pegasus 86,

102

INDEX

fCont'd)

S Sensor angle of attack 27 level 55, time unit, 85 36 85 53 umbilical36, 36, 41, 73 53, 54, 56, 58, 35, 39, 40, 42 data 25 point level propellant Strain

misaligl_ment, vehicle 38, gauge airborne altimeter control electrical emergency fuel 8 guid,'mee helium, hydraulic 6:f System

pitch 42

38.

42

telemetry 2, 81, pressure

82, 22

81, 82 83

Separation Apollo 2, 10, command 54 lirst motion instrument Pegasus/SM S-I/S-IV transients Signal loss of telemetry

2, 75, 76 detection and control pneumatic lb, 24,

(EDS} 1. 36.

,t2, 50 33

43

control 35

1, 2, 23, 25, 63, 69, 82 1, 41, 53 15, 80 75,

Ll{ 2 8, 85, 86, 89 LOX 85. 86. 89 LOX/SOX disposal 22, 23 NPV 2, 18, 30. 85, 86, 89

16 81

photo/optical pressurization, pressurization, pressurization, pressurization,

2,

83,

84 21. 30 22, 23, 25, 29, 30

RFdropout 50, RFperforumnce telemetry Simulation 81

fuel 18, Ltl_ 29,

LOX 18, 22, 32 S-121, 22. 23

cluster performance drag 20, 21 flight 18, 20, 21 propulsion performance thrust shape 20, 21 trajectory Slosh Ll1244 LOX 44 propellant Spacecraft adapter 38, 42, 44 (see Apollo) 2, 93, 94 93, 94 module 2, 20. 21, 25,

20,

21

pressurization, S-IV l, 29. 30 propellant loading 8, 23, 57 propellant utilization l, 26, 27 S, 10. 34, propulsion purge 18 RF 81 television, tracking 82, onboard 83 2, 78, 83 44 18. 23, 2-t. 30, 3:]. analysis 20, 21

flight 26, 27

T Telemetry AGC 93, 9_f

BP-9 89, command launch service ST-124

93,

94

86 system 80, 81, 16 78 80 78, 83 67, 68 72 67 81 80, 81, 82, 84 82

escape system module 2, 93,

CLES) 94

airborne links 2, loss 15,

system 45, 50

aecelerometer 45, 47, 55 azimuth alignment error 36, error source 45 51, 52 error 43, 37, gas bearing supply guidance intelligence guidance leveling stabilized Stability combustion Steering command correction

orbital coverage RFblackout 50, RF performance Television Temperature 51, 52 2, 78,

44, 45, 41

45, 47,

46 50,

system t, 36, error 45, 50 platform 36,

aecess chute aft skirt 70

base 66, 67, 7/., combustion 32

moniLor 9

engine compartment engine shroud 66, 67 fin trailingedge 67 flame shield 67, 69 fuel 7

Static inverter 60, 75, 76 36, 42, 43, 48 4I

103

INDEX GN 2 52 heat shield 66, 67, 68. 69, 71 helium heater combustion 31 helium heater exhaust 71 helium triplex sphere 3:t instrument unit 73, 74 iuterstage LIt 2 tank LH 2 vent LOX pump Test Thrust chamber dome engine 21 engine engine helium buildup decay heater 58 18 20 25, 26, 27 tail shroud objeetives 69 70 line 66 2 70 21, 32, 33

(Cont'd) S-IV stage 1-t tracked 2,). 21 Turbine exhaust gear box duct 22, 36 58, 60 U Ullage pressure 31 30, 30 32 Lll 2 tank 29. LOX tank 31 S-IV stage 29, 35 pressure 69 59, 8-t 35 Ullage rocket burn time chamber exhaust igTlition 5, 8, 22

inlet

decay

level 18, 21 OK pressure S-I stage S-Ibuildup

switch 23, 36 21 19, 28 Valve 42 l, 18, 93 42, 83 83. 82, 88 84 48, 87 25, 26. 27 20, 21

impulse 35 jettison 35 misalig_ment performance thrust 27, 9:1 V 36. 35 54

18, 19, 20, 18, 57 1, t8, 26,

S-Ilongitudinal

S-IV stage 15, 25, S-1N: buildup 28 S-IV chamber 23 S-IV S-IV ullage vector Time first motion 53, Tracking altimeter, Azusa 81, C-band camera decay 36, longitudinal rocket 38, 27,

cold helium shutoff 85 GOX flow control 22 LH 2 main fill 8 65, 85 relief control 22 22 85 18. 29, 30 LH 2 vent 61, LOX pressure LOXprevalve

misalignment

radar 82, 82, 83 81,

LOX replenish control 22 LOX vent 7. 8, 22, 31, 61, LOXZSOX 23 pressurization, pressurization, propellant Vehicle description weight 19, 15. 89, 21

radar 78, 84, 88 84, 78, 86 81,

control solenoid fuel tank 21 28, 90, 34 91, 92, 93

Minitrack MISTRAM MOTS MSFN 84 84

82,

88

ODOP78, STADAN S-I stage Trajectory at orbital

81, 84 16

82

Velocity angular 54 at orbital insertion 48, 17 49 cross earth range 1, 14. fixed 14, 15

50 36, 38, 47. a6 42, 50 48

insertion 16, 17 26 48 21,

deviation 21 free flight 14, ground track observed 20, precaleulated simulated 20, S-I stage l-t

inertial, measured

error 45, 46, and predicted 14 36,

OECO l, 14 S-IV cutoff 1, 25, 26, 27 space vector wind fixed 38 40

1, 15,

38,

41,

.t7,

48,

50

104

INDEX

(Concluded)

Vent chilldown eooldown LII 2 duct Lll 2 line thrust 27 purge 70 25, 2, 23 26

Pegasus

61,

(32, 63

S-Istage 58, 59, 60 S-IV stage (;o, 6-1 W Weight llftoff 19, 9I loss rate 20 propellant 7, 8 S-IV cutoff 25, 27, 28 S-IV ignition 27, 28 vehicle 19, 21

LH 2 tank 8 Lll 2 valve 61, LOXvalve 7, Venting NPVpropellant Vibration Apollo 61, combustion

65, 85 8, 22, 31, 85

61,

85

62, 65 chamber

dome

78

Wind angleof attack 38, 39, 40 effect, LOX load 5, 7 rawinsonde 3g, 39, 40 velocity 40

component 60, (it, 6,t, 65 instrument unit 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65 interstage 6.1 levers 2, 5(i, 58, 59, 60, (il, 64, 65

105

DISTIlIB

UTION

1NTERNA DIR Dr. DEP-T Dr, DEP-A Mr. E-DIH Mr. I-DIR

R-AERO-G Mr. Baker

von Braun

R-AEItO-P Mr. Me Nair RO-Y Vaughan

Rees

R-AE Mr,

Gor man

R-AERO-YT Mr. O. R-ASTR-DIR Dr.

E. Smith

Maus

[taeusser

mann

Gem O'Connor__ Dr. Mrazek_ I-I/IB-MGR Col. James I-I/IB-T Mr. Fikes (131

(1)

II-ASTlt-E Mr. Fichtner R-ASTR-F Mr. Ilosentltien R-ASTIt-1 Mr. Mr. ltoberg PoweIl

I-MO-MGR Dr. I-V-MGR Dr. R-DIR Mr. R-AS-DIR Mr, Williams R-ASTR-NGI Mr, R-A E R O- DIR Dr, Mr, Geissler Jean R-ASTR-S Mr. Noel Nicaise Weidner R-ASTR-N Mr. Moore Rudolph R-ASTR-IMD Mr. Avery Speer (4_ R-ASTR-IE Mr. Price

R-A ERO-A Mr. Dahm R-AERO-AT Mr. Wilson

R-COMP-DIR Dr. lloelzer R-COMP-R Mr. Prince

R-AERO-D Mr. tlorn R-AERO-F Mr, Lindberg (35)

R-COMP-RR Mr. Cochran R-ME-DIR Mr. Kuers

106

DISTRIBUTION

(Cont'd)

INTERNAL R-ME-M Mr. Orr R-ME-T Mr. R-ME-X Mr.

(Concluded)

R-RP-DIR Dr. Stuhlinger R-TEST-DIR Mr. Mr. Heimb urg_-_(1 Tess mann___J )

Franklin R-TEST-C Mr. Wuenscher R-TEST-I Dr. Sieber Grafton

R-P& VE-DIR Dr. Lucas Mr. Pa[aoro

R-TEST-S Mr. Driscoil R-TEST-M Mr. Edwards MS-H Mr. Akens

R-P&VE-A Mr, Goerner

R-P&VE-M Mr. R-P& Mr. Kingsbury VE-P Paul {2) MS-IP R-P&VE-PPE Mr. MeKay (2) MS-1L R-P& VE-S Mr. Kroli Mr. Hunt R- P& VE-SVM Mr. Gassaway LVO- J_ Mr. Pickett Miss Robertson (8} Mr. Remer (2)

LVO- JA Mr. Rigell

R-QUAL-DIR Mr. Grau LVODr. JA Gruene

R-QUAL-A Mr. Henritze

EXTERNAL Headquarters National Aeronautics Washington, Attn: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. D. C. Hilburn, Shapley,

R-QUAL-DIE Mr. Corder R-QUAL-F Mr. Brooks R-QUAL-QVS Mr. Peck R-QUAL-R Mr. Brien Mr. Smith

& Space 20546 AAD ADA

Administration

Kerr, E Condon, KR Mueller, M

Gem Phillips, MA Capt. Freitag, MC Dr. Adams, R

107

DISTRIBUTION

(Cont'd[

EXTERNAL Mr. Dr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.

(Cont'd) Tischler, Newell, Garbarini, Johnson, Kerr, U Day, MAT RP S SE SV (10 copies) (8 copit,s} Center: Dr. H. Julian Alien

Director, National Wallops Director,

Wallops Aeronautics IsLand, Western

Station: R. L. Kriegcr & Space Administration 23337 Office: Robert W. Kam

Virgil_ia

Operations & Space

National Aeronautics 150 Pico Blvd.

Administration

Santa Monica, California

90,106

Director, Ames

Research

National Aeronautics @ Space Administration Moffett Field, C_difornia 94035 Director, Flight Research Center: Paul F. Bikle

Scientificand Technical Information Facility P.O. Box 5700 Bethesda. Attn: NASA Maryland 20014 (S-AK/RKT) (25 copiesl Representative

National Aeronautics St Space Administration P. O. Box 273 Edwards, California 93523 Goddard Space Flight Center National Aeronautics & Space Administration Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 Attn: tterman LaGow, Code 300 John F. Kennedy Aeronautics Space Center, Library, B. Russell Technical Mrs. L. INS-I Dr, INS-13 INSMr. -4 Mr. Director, National Langley' lIampton, Director, National Burns Jelen Collins Center: Floyd L. Space Center & Space Florida Code Administration 32899 ASO 3B

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena. Caliiornia 91103 Attn: h'l Newlan, Reports Group, (Mail it. Levy, IMniI 179-203) CCMTA 111-122) (4 copies)

Office Room The

of the Asst. & Engineering 3E1065 Pentagon D. C. Library

See.

of Defense

for

Research

National Kenned}' Attn:

Washing'ton, Attn: Teeh Director Office Room The

20301

of Guided of the 3E131

Missiles of Defense

Secretary

Pentagon D. C. 20301 Agency 20505 (5 copies} Agency 20755

Washington,

Langley Research Thompson Aeronautics Station Virginia Lewis Aeronautics Road 44135 Center & Space 77058 _ Space 23365 Research

Central Intelligence Washington, D. C. Attn:

Administration

OCR/DD/Publications Security Maryland

Center:

Dr.

Abe Silverstein

Director, National Ft. George Mead. Attn: C3/TDL

_ Space

Administration U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, University of California Radiation Administration Technical Information P.O. Box 808 Livermore, Attn: PM4 (3copies) U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Livermore Br. P. O. Box 969 Liverrnorc, Attn: Tech California Library 94551 Sandia Corp. Clovis California Craig Division 94551 Sandia Lab. Corp.

21000 Brookpark Cleveland, Ohio Manned National Houston, Attn: Spacecraft Aeronautics Texas Director:

Dr. Robert R. Gilruth Robert E. MeKann, Code Charles William MSFC Bldg. 2,

M. Grant, Code BMI (2 copies) E. Davidson, R-L Liaison Rm. Office 167 (1)

108

DISTRIBUTION

(Cont'd)

EXTERNAL Commander, Arlington Arlington, Attn:

(Cont'd) Armed Services Technical

Systems Engineering Attn: SEPIR Wright-Patterson Director U.S. Naval per Instruction) Cognizant Act Washington, Attn: Code (5 copies) AFB,

Group Ohio

(RTD} 45433

Information

Agency Research D. 2027 C. Laboratory. 20390

tlall Station Virginia 22212 (Transmittal Secta'ity

TIPCR

Commanding White Sands New Mexico Attn: Chief The

General Proving 88002

Ground (3 copies) Force

Chief of Naval Research Department of Navy Washington, D. C. 20390 Attn: Chief, Code Bureau 46:1 of Weapons of Navy D. C. 20390 1 Cpy to SP, t Cpy to AD3,

ORD BS-OMTIO-TL of Staff, Pentagon D. C. 20330 1 Cpy 1 Cpy marked marked U. S. Air

Department Washington, AFDRD AFDRD-EX for DCS/D for DCS/D

Washington,

1 Cpy to RESI, 1 Cpy to IIEW3 Commander

Commander-in-Chief Strategic Air Command Offutt AFB, Nebraska Attn: Director 68113 Missile Division

U.S. Point

Naval Mugu,

Air .,Missile California RSIC

Test Center 93041

of Operations,

AMSMI-RBLD; Commander Arnold Engineering Development Center Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee 37389 Attn: Tech Commander Air Force Flight Test Center Edwards AFB, California 93523 Attn: FTOTL Commander Air Force Holloman New Missile Development Air Force Base 88330 Library (SRLT) AF Missile Test Center Florida 32925 (3 copies) Center Library (2 copies) Bldg. 4484

(3 copies) 35809

Redstone Arsenal,

Alabama

Aerospace Corporation 2400 East El Segundo El Segundo, Califorma Attn: D. C. Bakeman Corporation Dept. 95085 90045 90245

Aerospace Reliability P.O. Box

Los Angeles, California Attn: Don Herzstein

Mexico

Attn: Tech Commander, PatrickAFB, MTGRY

Bellcomm, Inc. i100 Seventeenth St. N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Attn: Miss Scott, IAbrarian The Boeing Company P. O. Box 29100 New Orleans, Louisiana 70129 Attn: R. If. Nelson (3 copies) Chrysler Corporation Space Division Miehoud Operations Dept. 2712, Bldg. 350 P. O. Box 29200 New Orleans, Attn: Mr. Louisiana Leroy Smith 70129 (5 copies)

Attn: Technical Information IntelligenceOffice,

Headquarters 6570th Aerospace U. S. Air Force

Medical Division (AFSC) Base, Ohio 45433

Wright Patterson Air Force Attn: H. E. Vongierke

109

DISTRIBUTION

{Concluded)

EXTERNAL Chrysler

(Concluded) Corporation Space Division

Commander Dct. it, 4th Weather Code; ETQFW Patrick A FB, Florida Group 32925

Huntsville Operations Dept. 4800 1312 N. Meridian Street liuntsviite, Alabama 35807 Attn: H. Bader, Jr. (3 copies) Douglas Aircraft Company, Center Inc.

FFETR (ETLLG-I) PatrickAFB, Florida P. O. Box Palm T. C. 2691 Beach, Mayes Fla.

32925

West Attn:

33402 W. McAbee

Marshall Space Flight Bldg. 4481, Room 41 Huntsville, Attn: J. A. Alabama Tobias

& F.

35812 (15 copies_

Rocketdyne 6633 Canoga

Avenue

Canoga Park. California 91303 Attn: T. L. Johnson (3 copiesl NASA Resident Office Corp. 11714 North Space 12214 American & Information S. Lakewood Aviation Division Blvd. 90241 (2 copies) (1 copy) Systems Grumman Bethpage, Attn: John Aircraft Engineering Long Island, N. Y. Joharksen

Downey, California Attn: W. T. Scleich International Business Machine Pratt P.O. West Attm W.F. Parker System Design, Dept. 229 150 Sparkman Dr. NW Huntsville, Al,_ama 35808 Attn: R. E. Poupard (2 copies)

& _itney Aircraft Box 2691 Palm Beach, T. C Mayes Fla. & F. 33402 W. McAbee

Martin

Company

Radio Corporation Defense Electronic

of A meriea Products

Space Systems Division Baltimore, .Maryland 21203 Attn: W. P. Sommers

Data Systems Division 8500 Balboa Blvd. Van Nuys, California 91406

Foreign Technology Division FTD (TDBDP) Wright Patterson Air Force

Base,

Ohio

45433

RCA Service Company 2611 Leeman Ferry Road Huntsville, Alabama Attn: D. E. Wise

llO