Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report - AS-504 Apollo 9 Mission

URN
MPR-SAT-FE-69-4 MAY S, 1969
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT-AS-504
APOLLO 9 MISSION
2̧
GEORGEC.MARSHALLSPACEFLIGHT
CENTER
MPR-SAT-FE-69-4
SATURNV LAUNCHVEHICLE
FLIGHT
EVALUATION
REPORT-AS-504
APOLLO9MISSION
PREPARED
BY
SATURN
FLIGHT
EVALUATION
WORKING
GROUP
!i_:z
AS-504 LAUNCH VEHICLE
MPR-SAT-FE-69-4
SATURN V LAUNCHVEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT- AS-504

APOLLO 9 MISSION
BY
Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
ABSTRACT
Saturn V AS-504 (Apollo 9 Mission) was launched at II:00:00 Eastern

Standard Time on March 3, 1969, from Kennedy Space Center, Complex 39,
Pad A. The vehicle lifted off on schedule on a launch azimuth of 90
degrees east of north and rolled to a flight azimuth of 72 degrees east
of north.
The S-IVB Third Burn test under contingency start conditions was not
completely normal; however, it was successful in increasing the S-IVB/
IU energy to attain escape velocity. The S-IVB/IU entered a solar orbit
with a period of 325.8 days.
The principal Detailed Test Objective (DTO) of this mission was com-
pletely accomplished° Nine of the eleven secondary DTO's were com-
pletely accomplished, and two partially accomplished. No failures,
anomalies or deviations occurred that seriously affected the flight or
mission.
Any questions or comments pertaining to the information contained in

this report are invited and should be directed to:
Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, Alabama 35812
Attention: Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation
Working Group, S&E-AERO-F (Phone 453-0357'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
TABLE
OFCONTENTS iii
LIST OFILLUSTRATIONS xiii
LISTOFTABLES xxiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xxviii
ABBREVIATIONS xxix
MISSION
PLAN xxxiii
FLIGHT
TESTSUMMARY xxxv
1 INTRODUCTION
I.I Purpose I-I
1.2 Scope I-I
2 EVENT
TIMES
2.1 Summaryof Events 2-I
2.2 Variable Time and CommandedSwitch 2-3
Selector Events
3 LAUNCH
OPERATIONS
3.1 Summary 3-I
3.2 Prelaunch Milestones 3_I
3.3 Countdown
Events 3-I
3.4 Pronellant Loading 3-2
3.4.1 RP-i Loading 3-2
3.4.2 LOXLoading 3-2
3.4.3 LH2 Loadinq 3-2
3.4.4 Auxiliary Propulsion System
J
..... PropellantLoading 3-3
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page ......

3.5 S-II Insulation, Purge and Leak 3-3
Detection
3.5.1 Forward Bulkhead Insulation/Forward
Bulkhead Uninsulated Circuits 3-3
3.5.2 ForwardSkirt 3-3
3.5.3 Sidewall 3-4
3.5.4 Cylinder I, Bolting Ring and
J-Ring Combined Circuits 3-4
3.5.5 Common Bulkhead 3-4
3.5.6 Feedline Elbow 3-5
3.6 Ground Support Equipment 3-5
3.6.1 Ground/Vehicle Interface 3-5
3.6.2 MSFC Furnished Ground Support
Equipment 3-5
4 TRAJECTORY
4.1 Summary 4-I
4.2 Tracking Data Utilization 4-2
4.2.1 Tracking During the Ascent Phase
of Flight 4-2
4.2.2 Tracking During Orbital Flight 4-2
4.2.3 Tracking During S-IVB Second Burn
Phaseof Flight 4-3
4.2.4 Tracking During S-IVB Third Burn
Phaseof Flight 4-3
4.3 Trajectory Evaluation 4-3
4.3.1 Ascent Trajectory 4-3
4.3.2 Parking Orbit Trajectory 4-9
4.3.3 S-IVB Second Burn Trajectory 4-10
4.3.4 Intermediate Orbit Trajectory 4-14
4.3.5 S-IVB Third Burn Trajectory 4-14
4.3.6 Escape Orbit Trajectory 4-14
5 S-IC PROPULSION
5.1 Summary 5-]
5.2 S-IC Ignition Transient Performance 5-I
5.3 S-IC Main Stage Performance 5-3
5.4 S-lC Engine ShutdownTransient ....
Performance 5-7
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS(CONTINUED)
Section Page
r-_ 5.5 S-IC stage Propellant Management 5-8
5.6 S-IC Pressurization Systems 5-9
5.6.1 S-IC Fuel Pressurization System 5-9
5.6.2 SZIC LOX Pressurization System 5-10
5.7 S_IC Pneumatic Control Pressure
System 5-14
5.8 S-IC PurgeSystems 5_14
5.9 POGO
Suppression System 5-14
6 S.II PROPULSION
6.1 Summary 6-I
6.2 S-II Chilldown and Buildup
Transient Performance 6-2
6.3 S-II Main Stage Performance 6-4
6.4 S-II Shutdown Transient Performance 6_13
6.5 S-II Stage Propellant Management 6-13
6.6 S-II Pressurization Systems 6-16
6.6.1 S-II Fuel Pressurization System 6-16
6.6.2 S-II LOX Pressurization System 6-18
5.7 S-II Pneumatic Control Pressure
System 6-21
6.8 S-II Helium Injection System 6-24
7 S-IVB PROPULSION
7.1 Summary 7-I
7.2 S-IVB Chilldown and Buildup Transient
performance for First Burn 7-2
7.3 S-IVB Main Stage Performance for
First Burn 7-6
7.4 S:IVB Shutdown Transient
Performance for First Burn 7-9
7.5 S-IVB Parking Coast Phase
Conditioning 7-9
Section Page
7°6 S-IVB Chilldown and Restart for _
Second Burn 7-11
7,7 S-IVB Main Stage Performance for
Second Burn 7-19
7.8 S-IVB Shutdown Transient Performance
for SecondBurn 7-26
7.9 S-IVB Intermediate Orbit Coast
PhaseConditioning 7-26
7,10 S-IVB Engine Chilldown and Buildup
Transient Performance for Third
Burn 7-26
7,11 S_IVB Main Stage Performance for
Third Burn 7-30
7o12 S-IVB Shutdown Transient Performance
for Third Burn 7-38
7.13 S-IVB Stage Propellant Management 7-39
7.14 S-IVB Pressurization System 7-40
7.14.1 S-IVB Fuel Pressurization System 7-40
7,14.2 S-IVB LOX Pressurization System 7-47
7.15 S-IVB Pneumatic Control Pressure
System 7-50
7,16 S_IVB Auxiliary Propulsion System 7-61
7o17 S-IVB Orbital Safing Operation 7-63
7o17.1 Fuel TankSafing 7-63
7,17.2 LOXTank Dumpand Safing 7-64
7o17o3 Cold HeliumDump 7-66
7.17.4 Ambient Helium Dump 7-66
7.17.5 Stage Pneumatic Control Sphere
Safing 7-66
7o17.6 Engine Start Tank Safing 7-66
7°]7,7 Engine Control Sphere Safing 7-66
8 HYDRAULIC
SYSTEMS
8oi Summary 8-I
8°2 S-IC Hydraulic System 8-I
8°3 S-If Hydraulic System 8-I ......
8.4 S-IVB Hydraulic System 8-I
vi
_- Section Page
9 STRUCTURES
9.1 Summary 9-I
9.2 Total Vehicle Structures Evaluation 9-I
9.2.1 Longitudinal Loads 9-I
9.2.2 BendingMoments 9_2
9.2.3 Vehicle Dynamic Characteristics 9-4
9.3 Vibration Evaluation 9-8
9.3.1 S:IC Stage and Engine Evaluation 9-8
9.3°2 S-II Stage and Engine Evaluation 9-13
I0 GUIDANCE
ANDNAVIGATION
I0.I Summary I0-I
I0.I.I Flight Program I0-I
10.1.2 Instrument Unit Components I0-I
10.2 Guidance and Navigation System
Description I0-I
10.2.1 Flight Program Description I0-I
10.2.2 Instrument Unit System Description 10-3
10.3 Guidance Comparisons 10-3
10.4 Navigation and Guidance Scheme
Evaluation I0-I0
10.4.1 Flight Program Performance I0-I0
10.4.2 Attitude Error Computations I0-II
10.4o3 ProgramSequencing I0-II
10.5 Guidance System Component Evaluation I0_II
]0.5.1 LVDCPerformance I0-II
10.5.2 LVDAPerformance I0-II
10.5.3 LadderOutputs I0:14
10.5.4 Telemetry Outputs I0_14
10.5.5 Discrete Outputs I0-14
10.5.6 Switch Selector Functions I0-14
10.5.7 ST-124M-3 Inertial Platform
Performance 10-14
II CONTROL
SYSTEM
s II.I Summary II_I

11.2 Control System Description 11-2
vii
Section Page .....

II.3 S-IC Control System Evaluation 11-2
Iio3.1 Liftoff Clearances II-2
II.3.2 S-IC Flight Dynamics II-3
II,4 S-II Control System Evaluation II-I0
ll.4.1 Attitude Control Dynamics and
Stability ll-10
Iio4.2 Liquid Propellant Dynamics and
Their Effects on Flight Control II-16
11.5 S-IVB Control System Evaluation 11-16
ll.5.1 Control System Evaluation During
First Burn . ll-18
II.5.2 Control System Evaluation During
ParkingOrbit 11-18
II.5,3 Control System Evaluation During
Second Burn II-18
11.5.4 Control System Evaluation During
Intermediate Orbit 11-37
11.5.5 Control System Evaluation During
Third Burn 11-37
11.6 Instrument Unit Control Components
Evaluation 11-47
SEPARATION
12oi Summary 12-I
12.2 S-IC/S-II Separation Evaluation 12-I
12.2.1 S-IC Retro Motor Performance 12-I
12.2o2 S-II Ullage Motor Performance 12-2
12,2o3 S-IC/S-II Stage Separation 12-2
12.3 S-II Second Plane Separation
Evaluation 12-9
12.4 S-II/S-IVB Separation Evaluation 12o9
12.4,1 S-If Retro Motor Performance 12-9
12.4o2 S-IVB Ullage Motor Performance 12-9
12.4.3 S-II/S-IVB Separation Dynamics 12-9
12.5 S-IVB/IU/LM/CSM Separation
Evaluation 12-10
12.6 Lunar Module Ejection Evaluation 12-10
viii
Section Page
13 ELECTRICALNETWORKS
13.1 Summary 13-I
13.2 S:IC Stage Electrical System 13-I
13.3 S-II Stage Electrical System 13-4
13.4 S-IVB Stage Electrical System 13-4
13.5 Instrument Unit Electrical System 13-21
14 RANGESAFETYAND COMMAND
SYSTEMS
14.1 Summary 14:1
14.2 Range Safety CommandSystems 14-I
14.3 Commandand Communications System 14_2
15 EMERGENCY
DETECTIONSYSTEM
15.1 Summary 15-I
15.2 SystemEvaluation 15-I
15.2.1 General Performance 15-I
15.2.2 Propulsion System Sensors 15-I
15.2.3 Flight Dynamics and Control Sensors 15-2
16 VEHICLE PRESSUREAND ACOUSTICENVIRONMENT

16.1 Summary 16-I
16.2 Surface Pressures and Compartment
Venting 16-I
16.2.1 S-IC Stage 16-I
16.2.2 S-II Stage 16-5
16,3 BasePressures 16-5
16o3oi S-IC Base Pressures 16-5
16.3.2 S-II Base Pressures 16-5
16.4 Acoustic Environment 16-9
16,4.1 External Acoustics 16-9
16,4.2 Internal Acoustics 16-12
17 VEHICLETHERMALENVIRONMENT
17.1 Summary 17-I
_- 17.2 S-IC Base Heating and Separation
Environment 17-I
ix
Section Page
17.2.1 S_IC BaseHeating 17-I
17.2.2 S_IC/S-II Separation Environment 17-6
17.3 S-It Base Heating and Separation
Environment 17-7
17.4 Vehicle Aeroheating Thermal
Environment 17-12
17.4.1 S-IC Stage Aeroheating Environment 17-12
17.4.2 S_II Stage Aeroheating Environment 17-16
18 ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
SYSTEM
18,1 Summary 18-I
18.2 S-IC Environmental Control 18-I
18.3 S-II Environmental Control 18-4
18.4 IU Environmental Control 18-6
18.4.1 Thermal Conditioning System 18-6
18.4.2 Gas Bearing Supply System 18-11
19 DATASYSTEMS
19.1 Summary 19-I
19.2 Vehicle Measurements Evaluation 19-I
19.2.1 S-IC Stage Measurement Analysis 19-2
19,2.2 S-II Stage Measurement Analysis 19-2
19.2.3 S-IVB Stage Measurement Analysis 19-7
19.2.4 IU MeasurementAnalysis 19-8
19.3 Airborne Telemetry Systems 19-8
19.3.1 S-IC Stage Telemetry System 19_9
19.3.2 S-II Stage Telemetry System 19-9
19.3,3 S_IVB Stage Telemetry System 19_9
19.3.4 IU Telemetry System 19-10
19,4 Airborne Tape Recorders 19-11
19.4.1 S-IC Stage Recorder 19-11
19,4.2 S-II Stage Recorders 19-11
19.5 RF SystemsEvaluation 19-12
19.5.1 Telemetry System RF Propagation
Evaluation 19-13
19.5.2 Tracking Systems RF Propagation
Evaluation 19-14 .....
19.5.3 CommandSystems RF Evaluation 19-16
19.6 Optical Instrumentation 19-20
..... Section Page

20 VEHICLEAERODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS 20-I
21 MASSCHARACTERISTICS
21.1 Summary 21-I
21,2 MassEvaluation 21-I
22 MISSIONOBJECTIVES
ACCOMPLISHMENT 22-I
23 FAILURES, ANOMALIESAND DEVIATIONS

23.1 Summary 23-I
23.2 System Failures and Anomalies 23-I
23.3 SystemDeviation 23-I
24 SPACECRAFT
SUMMARY 24-I
Appendix
A ATMOSPHERE
A.] Summary A-I
A.2 General Atmospheric Conditions
at LaunchTime A-I
A,3 Surface Observations at Launch
Time A-I
A.4 Upper Air Measurements A-I
A.4.1 WindSpeed A-I
A.4.2 WindDirection A-I
A.4.3 Pitch Wind Component A-2
A.4.4 YawWind Component A-2
Ao4.5 ComponentWind Shears A-2
A.4.6 Extreme Wind Data in the High
Dynamic Pressure Region A-2
Ao5 Thermodynamic Data A-2
A.5.1 Temperature A-2
A.5.2 Atmospheric Pressure A-2
A.5.3 Atmospheric Density A-3
A.5.4 Optical Index of Refraction A-3
Ao6 Comparisonof Selected Atmospheric
'J Data for all Saturn Launches A-3
xi
Appendix Page
B AS-504 VEHICLEDESCRIPTION
B.I Summary B-I
B.2 S-ICStage B-I
B.2.1 S-IC Configuration B-I
B.3 S_ll Stage B-6
B.3,1 S-II Configuration B-6
B.4 S-IVBStage B-9
B.4.1 S-IVB Configuration B-9
B.5 Instrument Unit (IU) B-14
B.5.1 IU Configuration B-14
B.6 Spacecraft B-14
B.6ol Spacecraft Configuration B-14
xii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
2-I TelemetryTimeDelay 2-2
4-I Ascent Trajectory Position Comparison 4-4
4_2 Ascent Trajectory Space-Fixed Velocity Comparison 4-9
4-3 Ascent Trajectory Acceleration Comparison 4-10
4-4 DynamicPressure and MachNumber 4-II
415 Acceleration Due to Venting - Parking Orbit 4-11
4-6 Ground Track 4-13
4-7 S-IVB Second Burn Phase Space-Fixed Velocity
Comparison 4-13
4-8 S-IVB Second Burn Phase Acceleration Comparison 4-16
4_9 Acceleration Due to Venting - Intermediate Orbit 4-16
4-10 S-IVB Third Burn Phase Space-Fixed Velocity
Comparison 4-17
4-11 S-IVB Third Burn Phase Acceleration Comparison 4-17
4-12 APSVelocity Increment 4-18
5-I S-IC Start BoxRequirements 5-2
5-2 S-IC Engine Buildup Transient 5-3
5-3 S-IC Steady State Operation 5-5
5-4 S-IC Outboard Engine Cutoff Deviations 5-7
5-5 S-IC Engine Shutdown Transient Performance 5-8
5-6 S-IC Fuel Ullage Pressure 5-10
5-7 S-IC Fuel Pump Inlet Pressure, Engine No. 2 5-II
5-8 SIIC Helium Bottle Pressure for Fuel Pressurization 5-11
5-9 S-IC LOXTank Ullage Pressure 5-12
,f ....
5-I0 S-IC LOX Suction Duct Pressure, Engine No. 2 5-13
5-II S-IC LOX Suction Duct Pressure, Engine No. 5 5-13
5-12 S-IC Center Engine LOX Suction Line Pressure 5-15
5-13 S-IC Control SpherePressure 5-16
xiii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
5-14 S-IC Prevalve Liquid Level, Typical Outboard Engine 5-17 ....
6-I S-II Thrust Chamber Jacket Temperature 6-2
6-2 S-II Engine Start Tank Performance 6-3
6-3 S-II Engine Pump Inlet Start Requirements 6-5
6-4 S-II Engine Thrust Buildup 6-6
6-5 S-II Steady State Operation 6-8
6-6 S-II LOXNPSP
History 6-II
6-7 S-II Inflight LOX Level History 6-12
6-8 S-II Engine ShutdownTransient 6-14
6-9 S-II Stage Thrust Decay 6-14
6-10 S-II PUValve Position 6-16
6-11 S-II Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure 6-18

6-12 S-II Fuel PumpInlet Conditions 6-19
6-13 S-II Engine No. 1LH 2 Inlet Pressure 6-20

6-14 S-If Engine No. 5 LH2 Inlet Pressure 6-20
6-15 S-II LOXTank Ullage Pressure 6-20
6-16 S-II LOXPumpInlet Conditions 6-22
6-17 S-II Engine No. 1LOX Inlet Pressure 6-23
6-18 S-II Engine No. 5 LOX Inlet Pressure 6-23
6-19 S-II Pneumatic Control Pressures 6-24
7-I S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements - First Burn 7-3
7-2 S-IVB Fuel Injector Temperature - First Burn 7-4
7-3 S-IVB Start Tank Performance - First Burn 7-5
7-4 S-IVB Buildup Transient - First Burn 7-6

7-5 S-IVB Steady State Performance - First Burn 7-8
7-6 S-IVB Shutdown Transient Performance - First Burn 7-12
7-7 S-IVB CVSPerformance 7-13
7-8 S-IVB Ullage Conditions During Repressurization

Using 02/H 2 Burner - First Restart 7-16
7-9 02/H 2 Burner LH2 Pressurant Coil Discharge .......
Conditions - First Restart 7-17
7-10 S-IVB 02/H 2 Burner Thrust and Thrust Chamber

Conditions - First Restart 7-18
xiv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)
Figure. Page
_- 7-11 S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements - Second
Burn 7-20
7-12 S-IVB Fuel Lead - Second Burn 7-21
7-13 S-IVB Buildup Transients - Second Burn 7-22

7-14 S-IVB Start Tank Performance - Second Burn 7-22
7-15 S-IVB Steady State Performance - Second Burn 7-23

7-16 S-IVB Shutdown Transient Performance - Second
Burn 7-27
7-17 LH2 and LOX Ambient Repressurization Sphere

Pressures and LH2 Ullage Pressure 7_28
7-18 S-IVB 02/H 2 Burner Thrust and Thrust Chamber
Conditions - Second Burn 7-29
7-19 S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements - Third

Burn 7-31
7-20 S-IVB Start Tank Performance - Third Burn 7-32
7-21 Effects of Extended S-IVB LH2 Lead _ Third Burn 7-33

7-22 S-IVB Buildup Transient _ Third Burn 7-34
7-23 S-IVB Transient Chamber Pressure and LH2 Injec-

tion Temperature - Third Burn 7-35
7-24 S-IVB Steady State Performance - Third Burn 7-37
7-25 Flow Diagram, Summary of' S-IVB Third Burn
Anomalies 7-40
7-26 S-IVB Third Burn Sequence of Events 7-41

7-27 S-IVB Gas Generator Chamber Pressure - Third
Burn Start Transient 7-42
7-28 S-IVB Thrust Chamber Jacket and Engine Area

Ambient Temperatures - Third Burn 7-43
7-29 S-IVB Engine Regulator Outlet Pressure 7-44
7-30 S-IVB Control Sphere Pressure - Third Burn 7-45
7-31 S-IVB Engine Valve Position - Third Burn 7-46
7-32 S-IVB Shutdown Transient Performance - Third
Burn 7-48
XV
Figure Page
7-33 S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure - First Burn and
Parking Orbit 7-48
7-34 S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure - Second and Third
Burn 7-50
7-35 S-IVB Fuel Pump Inlet Conditions _ First Burn 7-51
7-36 S-IVB Fuel Pump Inlet Conditions - Second Burn 7-52
7-37 S-IVB Fuel PumpInlet Conditions - Third Burn 7-53
7_38 S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure - First Burn and
Parking Orbit 7-54
7-39 S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure - Second Burn,
Intermediate Coast and Third Burn 7-55
7-40 S-IVB LOX Pump Inlet Conditions - First Burn 7-56
7-41 S-IVB LOX PumpInlet Conditions - Second Burn 7-57
7-42 S-IVB LOX Pump Inlet Conditions - Third Burn 7:58
7-43 S-IVB Pneumatic Control Performance 7-59
7-44 S-IVB APS Propellant Remaining Versus Mission
Time- Module No. 2 7-63
7-45 S-IVB APS Propellant Remaining Versus Mission
Time- Module No.1 7-64
7-46 S-IVB Cold Helium Supply History 7-67
7-47 S-IVB Ambient Helium Repressurization Spheres
Safing 7-68
7-48 S-IVBStart TankSafing 7-68
7-49 S-IVB PneumaticSafing History 7-69
8-I S-IVB Hydraulic System Actuator Positions - Third
Burn 8-2
8-2 S-IVB Hydraulic System Actuator Performance - Third
Burn 8-4
8-3 S-IVB Hydraulic Reservoir Performance - Third Burn 8_5
8-4 S-IVB Hydraulic System Temperature - Third Burn 8_6
8-5 S-IVB Pitch Actuator Signal and Position - Third
Burn 8-7 ......
xvi
f-
Figure Page
8-6 S-IVB Yaw Actuator Signal and Position - Third
Burn 8-7
9-I Longitudinal Loads at Maximum Bending Moment,

Center Engine Cutoff, and Outboard Engine Cutoff 9-2
9-2 Longitudinal Structural Dynamic Response Due to
Outboard Engine Cutoff 9-3
9:3 MaximumBending MomentNear MaxQ 9-4
9-4 First Longitudinal Modal Frequencies and
Amplitudes During S-IC Powered Flight 9-5
9-5 S_II Stage Response/Frequency Characteristics 9-7
9-6 AS_504 Lateral Analysis/Measured Modal Frequency
Correlation 9-8
9-7 S-lC Stage Structure Vibration Envelopes 9_I0
9-8 S-IC Stage Engine Turbopump Vibration Envelope 9-11
9-9 S-IC Stage Components Vibration Envelopes 9-11
9-10 S-IC Vibration Measurement Locations 9_12
9-11 S-If Stage Structure Vibration Envelopes 9_15
9-12 S-II Stage Engine Vibration Envelopes 9-17
9-13 S-II Stage Component Vibration Envelopes 9-18
I0-I Tracking and ST-124M-3 Platform Velocity
Comparison (Trajectory Minus Guidance) 10-4
10-2 Attitude Commands During Active Guidance Period 10-13
II-I Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn 11-4
11-2 Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn 11-'5
11-3 Roll Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn 11-6
11-4 Normal Acceleration During S-IC Burn 11-8
11-5 Pitch and Yaw Plane Wind Velocity and Free Stream
Angle:of-Attack During S-IC Burn II-9
11-6 S-IC Engine Deflection Response to Propellant
Slosh II-II
11-7 Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-II Burn 11_12
xvii
Figure Page •
]l_8 Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-II Burn 11-13
II-9 Roll Plane Dynamics During S-II Burn 11-14
]I-I0 S:11 Engine Deflection Response to Propellant
Slosh 11-17
II-II Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB First Burn 11-19

]I-12 Yaw Attitude Control During S-IVB First Burn 11-20
11-13 Roll Attitude Control During S-IVB First Burn 11-21
11-14 Pitch Attitude Control During Maneuver to TD&E
Attitude 11-22
]I_15 Yaw Attitude Control During Maneuver to TD&E

Attitude II-23
If-16 Roll Attitude Control During Maneuver to TD&E

Attitude II=24
ll-17 Pitch Attitude Control During Hard Dock II-25

ll-18 Yaw Attitude Control During Hard Dock II-26
ll-19 Roll Attitude Control During Hard Dock II-27
ll-2O Pitch Attitude Control During LM Ejection II-28
ll-21 Yaw Attitude Control During LM Ejection II-29
II-22 Roll Attitude Control During LM Ejection ll-30
II_23 Pitch Attitude Control During Alignment of S-lVB
to Local Horizontal Prior to Second Burn ll-31
II-24 Yaw Attitude Control During Alignment of S-IVB to

Local Horizontal Prior to Second Burn II-32
II-25 Roll Attitude Control During Alignment of S-IVB

to Local Horizontal Prior to Second Burn II-33
II-26 Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB Second Burn II-34

II-27 Yaw Attitude Control During S-IVB Second Burn II-35
II-28 Roll Attitude Control During S_IVB Second Burn II-36
II-29 Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB Third Burn II-39
ll-30 Yaw Attitude Control During S-IVB Third Burn ll-40
ll-31 Roll Attitude Control During S-IVB Third Burn ll-41
xviii
_-- Figure Page

11-32 Measured and Calculated Engine Positions at
Start of S-IVB Third Burn Prior to Oscillation
Buildup II-43
11-33 Measured and Calculated Engine Positions at End
of S-IVB Third Burn Oscillation Period 11-44
11-34 S-IVB Roll Torque - Third Burn 11-46

11-35 S-IVB Slosh Frequencies and Heights During
Third Burn II-48
12-I AS-504 CommandModule Accelerations 12-4
12-2 Instrument Unit Longitudinal Accelerometer 12-5

12-3 Longitudinal Acceleration at Command Module During
S-IC Thrust Cutoff (AS-503 and AS-504) 12-6
12-4 Longitudinal Acceleration at Command Module During
S-IC/S-II Separation (AS-502 and AS-501) 12-7
12-5 Average S-IC OECOThrust Decay, AS-501 Through
AS-504 12-8
12-6 AS-504 and AS-503 S-IC Intertank - Longitudinal

Acceleration 12-10
13-I S-IC Stage Battery No. 1 Voltage and Current,

BusIDIO 13-2
13-2 S-IC Stage Battery No. 2 Voltage and Current,

BusID20 13-3
13-3 S-II Stage Main DC Bus Voltage and Current 13-5

13-4 S-II Stage Instrumentation Bus Voltage and
Current 13-5
13-5 S-II Stage Ignition DC Bus Voltage and Current 13-6

13-6 S-II Stage Recirculation DC Voltage and Current 13-7
13-7 S-IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 1 Voltage,
Current, and Temperature 13-8
13-8 S-IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 2 Voltage,
Current, and Temperature 13-11
13-9 S-IVB Stage Aft Battery No. 1 Voltage, Current,
andTemperature 13-14
f -
xix
Figure Page
13_I0 S_IVB Stage Aft Battery No. 2 Voltage, Current,
andTemperature 13-17
13_II IU Battery 6DIO Voltage, Current, and
Temperature 13-22
13_12 IU Battery 6D30 Voltage, Current_ and
Temperature 13-23
13-13 IU Battery 6D40 Voltage, Current, and
Temperature 13-24
16-I S-IC Engine Fairing Compartment Pressure
Differential 16-2
16-2 S-IC Compartment Pressure Differentials 16-3
16-3 S-IC Compartment Pressure Loading 16-4
16_4 S-II Forward Skirt Pressure Loading 1616
16_5 S_IC Base Pressure Differential 16_6
16-6 S-IC Base Heat Shield Differential Pressure 16-7
16-7 S-II Thrust Cone and Base Heat Shield Forward
FacePressures 16-8
16_8 S-If Heat Shield Aft Face Pressures 16-8
1649 Vehicle External Overall Sound Pressure at
Liftoff 16-9
16-10 S-IC External Overall Fluctuating Pressure Level 16-10
16-11 S-IC and S-II External Overall Fluctuating
PressureLevel 16-11
16-12 S:II External Overall Fluctuating Pressure Level 16-11

16-13 S_IC Heat Shield Panels Internal Acoustic
Environment 16-12
16-14 S-IC Intertank Internal Acoustic Environment 16-13
16w15 S_11 Internal Acoustics History 16-13
17-I S-IC Base Heat Shield Thermal Environment 17_3
17_2 F_I Engine Thermal Environment 17-3
17_3 S-IC Heat Shield Forward Surface Temperature 17-4

17-4 S-IC Heat Shield Bondline Temperature 17-4 .....
XX
p_. Figure Page

17-5 S-IC Base Heat Shield Measurement Locations 17-5
17-6 S-IC Temperature Under Insulation, Inboard Side
Engine No. 1 17-6
17-7 S:IC Upper Compartment Ambient Air Temperature
During S-IC/S-II Stage Separation 17-7
17-8 S-II Heat Shield Base Region Heating Rates 17-8
17-9 S-If Thrust Cone Heating Rate 17-9
17-I0 S-ll Base Gas Temperature 17-10
17-II S-II Heat Shield Aft Face Temperatures 17-11
17-12 S-II Heat Shield Forward Face Temperature 17-13
17-13 S-IC Intertank Aerodynamic Heating 17-14
17-14 S-IC Forward Skirt Aerodynamic Heating-
Measurement C64-120 _ 17-15
17-15 S-IC Forward Skirt Aerodynamic Heating -
Measurements C322-120 and C323-120 17-15
17-16 Forward Location of Separated Flow 17-16
17-17 S-IC LOXTank Skin Temperature 17-17
17-18 S-IC Fuel Tank Skin Temperature 17-17
17-19 S-IC Intertank Skin Temperature 17-18
17-20 S-IC Forward Skirt Skin Temperature 17-18
]7-21 S-II Aft Interstage Aeroheating Environment 17-19
17_22 S-If Aft Interstage Aeroheating Environment,
Ullage Motor Fairing 17-20
17-23 S-If LH2 Feedline Aft Fairing Heating Rates 17-21

17-24 S-II LH2 Feedline Forward Fairing Heating Rates 17-23
17-25 S-II Body Aeroheating Environment, Forward Skirt 17-23
17-26 S-II Body Structural Temperature, Forward Skirt
Skin 17-24
17-27 S-II Aft Interstage Structural Temperature, Ullage
Motor Fairing 17-24
_- 17-28 S-II Body Structural Temperature, LH2 Tank

Insulation Surface 17-25
xxi
Figure Page
18-I S-IC Forward Compartment Canister Temperature 18-2
18_2 S-IC Forward Compartment Ambient Temperature 18-3
18-3 S-IC Aft Compartment Temperature Range 18-5
18-4 IU Environmental Control System Schematic 18-7
18-5 Thermal Conditioning System Methanol/Water
Control Temperature 18-8
18-6 IU Sublimator Performance During Ascent 18-8
18-7 Thermal Conditioning System GN2 Pressure 18-9

18-8 Selected Component Temperatures 18-10
18-9 Intertial Platform GN2 Pressures 18-12

18-I0 Gas Bearing System GN2 Pressure 18-12
19-I Telemetry Format 19-10
19-2 LVDC/LVDA Computer Word Flow 19-11
19-3 VHF Telemetry Coverage Summary 19-15
19-4 C-Band Radar Coverage Summary 19-17
19-5 Command and Communication System Coverage Summary 19-21
A-I Scalar Wind Speed at Launch Time of AS-504 A-IO
A-2 Wind Direction at Launch Time of AS-504 A-ll
A-3 Pitch Wind Speed Component (Wx) at Launch Time

of AS-504 A-12
A-4 Yaw Wind Speed Component at Launch Time of

AS-504 A-13
A-5 Pitch (Sx) and Yaw (Sz) Component Wind Shears
at EaunchTime of AS-504 A-14
A-6 Relative Deviation of Temperature and Density

From PAFB (63) Reference Atmosphere, AS-504 A-15
B-I Saturn V Apollo Flight Configuration B-2
B-2 S-IC Stage Configuration B-3
B-3 S-II Stage Configuration B-7
B-4 S-IVB Stage Configuration B-II ....
B-5 Instrument Unit Configuration B-15
B-6 Apollo Spacecraft B-18
xxii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-I TimeBaseSummary 2-3
2-2 Significant Event Times Summary 2-5
2-3 Variable Time and Commanded Switch Selector Events 2-16
4-I Total Velocity Deviations During S-IC/S-II Burn 4-5
4-2 Comparison of Significant Trajectory Events 4-6
4-3 Comparisonof Cutoff Events 4-7
4-4 Comparison of Separation Events 4-8
4-5 StageImpact Location 4-12
4u6 Parking Orbit Insertion Conditions 4-12
4-7 Intermediate Orbit Insertion Conditions 4-15
4_8 Escape Orbit Injection Conditions 4-15
4-9 Comparison of Heliocentric Orbit Parameters 4-18
5-I S-IC Engine Performance Deviations 5-6
5-2 S-IC Stage Propellant Mass History 5-9
6-I S-II Engine Performance Deviations (ESC +61 Seconds) 6-9
6-2 S-II Flight Reconstruction Comparison with
Simulation Trajectory Match Results 6-I0
6-3 Sull Propellant Mass History 6-17
7-I S-IVB Engine Start Sequence Events - First Burn 7-7
7-2 S-IVB Steady State Performance - First Burn
(STDV +60-Second Time Slice at Standard Altitude
Conditions) 7-9
7-3 Comparison of S-IVB Stage Flight Reconstruction
Data with Performance Simulation Results - First
Burn 7-10
7-4 S-IVB Burn Time Deviations 7-11
xxiii
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table Page
7-5 S-IVB Engine Start Sequence Events - Second Burn 7-19
7-6 S-IVB Steady State Performance - Second Burn
(STDV +6O_Second Time Slice at Standard Altitude
Conditions) 7-24
7_7 Comparison of S-IVB Stage Flight Reconstruction
Data with Performance Simulation Results - Second
Burn 7-25
7-8 S-IVB Engine Start Sequence Events _ Third Burn 7-36

7-9 S-IVB Steady State Performance - Third Burn
(STDV +6D-Second Time Slice at Standard Altitude
Conditions) 7-38
7-I0 S-IVB Third Burn Performance Comparison 7-39
7111 Comparison of S-IVB Stage Flight Reconstruction
Data with Performance Simulation Results - Third
Burn 7-47
7-12 S-IVB Stage Propellant Mass History 7-49

7-13 S-IVB Pneumatic Helium Bottle Mass 7-61
7-14 S-IVB APSHelium Bottle Mass 7_62
7-15 S-IVB APS Propellant Consumption 7-65
7-16 S-IVB Pneumatic Safing Conditions 7-69
9_I S-IC Stage Vibration Summary 9-9
9-2 S-II Stage Maximum Overall Vibration Levels 9-14
lO-I Inertial Platform Velocity Comparisons IO-6
I0-2 Guidance Comparisons I0-8
I0-3 Start and Stop Times for IGM Guidance Commands IO-12
I0-4 Parking Orbit Insertion Parameters 10-12
ll-I AS-504 Misalignment Summary ll-3
11-2 Maximum Control Parameters During S-IC Boost Flight ll-7
II_3 Maximum Control Parameters During S-II Boost Flight 11-15
ll-4 Maximum Control Parameters During First Burn II-37
II-5 Maximum Control Parameters During Second Burn 11-38 ........
xxiv
Table Page
_-_ II_6 Maximum Control Parameters During S-IVB Third Burn II_42
12-I S:IC/S-II Separation Event Comparison AS-503
VersusAS-504 12-3
13-I S-IC Stage Battery Power Consumption 13-3
13-2 S-II Stage Battery Power Consumption 13-7
13_3 S-IVB Stage Battery Power Consumption 13-20
13-4 IU Battery Power Consumption 13-25
14-I Command and Communications System, Commands
History, AS-504 14-3
15-I Performance Summary of Thrust OK Pressure Switches 15-3
15-2 Maximum
Angular Rates 15-4
15-3 EDSAssociated Discretes 15-4
16-I Sound Pressure Level Comparison of AS-504 With
AS-501, AS-502 and AS-503 Data 16-14
18-I TCS Coolant Flowrates and Pressures 18-6
19-I AS-504 Flight Measurement Summary 19-2
19-2 AS-504 Flight Measurements Waived Prior to Launch 19-3
19-3 AS-504 MeasurementMalfunctions 19-4
19-4 AS-504 Flight Measurements with Improper Range 19-7
19-5 AS-504 Questionable Flight Measurements 19-7
19-6 AS-504 Launch Vehicle Telemetry Links 19-8
19-7 Tape RecorderSummary 19-12
19-8 Signal Strength at Goldstone 19_19
21-I Total Vehicle Mass- S-IC Burn Phase- Kilograms 21-3

21-2 Total Vehicle Mass- S-IC Burn Phase- Pounds Mass 21-4
21-3 Total Vehicle Mass-S-ll Burn Phase- Kilograms 21-5
21-4 Total Vehicle Mass-S-t1 Burn Phase-Pounds Mass 21-6
21-5 Total .Vehicle Mass =S-IVB First Burn Phase-
Kilograms 21-7
21-6 Total Vehicle Mass-S_IVB First Burn Phase-
_-- Pounds Mass 21-8
XXV
Table Page
21_7 Total Vehicle Mass - At Spacecraft Separation -
Kilograms 21-9
21-8 Total Vehicle Mass - At Spacecraft Separation -
Pounds Mass 21-10
21-9 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Second Burn Phase -
Kilograms 21-11
21-10 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Second Burn Phase -
Pounds Mass 21=12
21-11 Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Third Burn Phase -
Kilograms 21-13
21-12 Total Vehicle Mass - S_IVB Third Burn Phase -
Pounds Mass 21-14
21-13 Flight Sequence Mass Summary 21_15

21-14 Mass Characteristics Comparison 21-17
22-I Mission Objectives Accomplishment Summary 22-2
23-I Hardware Criticality Categories for Flight Hardware 23-I
23-2 Summaryof Failures and Anomalies 23°2
23-3 Summary
of Deviations 23-3
A-I Surface Observations at AS-5O4 Launch Time A-3
A-2 Solar Radiation at AS-5O4 Launch Time, Launch
Pad 39A A-4
A-3 Systems Used to Measure Upper Air Wind Data A-4
A-4 Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region
for Saturn I Through Saturn I0 Vehicles A-5
A-5 Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region
for Apollo/Saturn 201 Through Apollo/Saturn 205
Vehicles A=5
A_6 Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region

for Apollo/Saturn 501 Through Apollo/Saturn 504
Vehicles A-6
A-7 Extreme Wind Shear Values in the High Dynamic
Pressure Region for Saturn 1 Through Saturn I0
Vehicles A-6
xxvi
Table Page
Pressure Region for Apollo/Saturn 201 Through
Apollo/Saturn 205 Vehicles A-7
Pressure Region for Apollo/Saturn 501 Through
Apollo/Saturn 504 Vehicles A-7
A-IO Selected Atmospheric Observations for Saturn 1
Through Saturn I0 Vehicle Launches at Kennedy
SpaceCenter, Florida A-8
A-ll Selected Atmospheric Observations for Apollo/
Saturn 201 Through Apollo/Saturn 205 Vehicle
Launches at Kennedy Space Center, Florida A-9
A-12 Selected Atmospheric Observations for Apollo/
Saturn 501 Through Apollo/Saturn 504 Vehicle
Launches at Kennedy Space Center, Florida A-9
B-I S-IC Significant Configuration Changes B-5
B-2 S-II Significant Configuration Changes B-IO
B-3 S-IVB Significant Configuration Changes B-13
B-4 IU Significant Configuration Changes B-16
xxvii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report is published by the Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group--

composed of representatives of Marshall Space Flight Center, John F.
Kennedy Space Center, and MSFC's prime contractors--and in cooperation
with the Manned Spacecraft Center. Significant contributions to the
evaluation have been made by:
George Co Marshall Space Flight Center
Science and Engineering
Aero-Astrodynamics Laboratory
Astrionics Laboratory
Computation Laboratory
Astronautics Laboratory
Program Management
John F. Kennedy Space Center
Manned Spacecraft Center
The Boeing Company
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company
International Business Machines Corporation
North American Rockwell/Space Division
North American Rockwell/Rocketdyne Division
xxviii
ABBREVIATIONS
_- ACN Ascension DCS Digital Command

System
ANT Antigua DTO Detailed Test Objective
AOS Acquisition of Signal EBW Exploding Bridge Wire
APS Auxiliary Propulsion System ECO Engine Cutoff
ASI Augmented Spark Igniter ECP Engineering Change Proposal
AUX Auxiliary ECS Environmental Control System
BDA Bermuda EDS EmergencyDetection System
BSC 02/H 2 Burner Start Command EMR Engine Mixture Ratio
CCS Commandand Communications ESC Engine Start Command

System
EST Eastern Standard Time
CDDT Countdown Demonstration Test
EVA Extra-Vehicular Activity
CECO Center Engine Cutoff
FCC Flight Control Computer
CG Center of Gravity
FM/FM Frequency Modulation/
CIF Central Instrumentation Frequency Modulation
Facility
GBI Grand Bahama Island
CKAFS Cape Kennedy Air Force Site
GFCV GOX Flow Control Valve
CM CommandModule
GDS Goldstone
CNV Canaveral
GG Gas Generator
COR Carnarvon
GMT Greenwich Mean Time
CSM Command and Service Module
GOX Gaseous Oxygen
CSP Control Signal Processor
GRR Guidance Reference Release
CVS Continuous Vent System
GSE Ground Support EQuipment
CYI Grand Canary Island
-- GTI Grand
TurkIsland
DEE Digital Events Evaluator
xxix
GWM Guam MAD Madrid
GYM Guaymas MCC-H Mission Control Center-Houston
HAW Hawaii MER Mercury (ship)
HDA Holddown Arm MFV Main Fuel Valve
HEP Hardware Evaluation Program MILA Merritt Island Launch Area
HFCV Helium Flow Control Valve MLV Main LOX Valve
HSK Honeysuckle (Canberra) MOV Main Oxidizer Valve
IGM Iterative Guidance Mode MR Mixture Ratio
IP&C Instrumentation Program and MSC Manned Spacecraft Center

Components
MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center
IRIG Inter-range Instrumentation
Group MSFN MannedSpace Flight Network
IS Interstage MSS Mobile Service Structure
IU Instrument Unit MTF Mississippi Test Facility
KSC Kennedy Space Center NPSP Net Positive Suction Pressure
LES Launch Escape System NASA National Aeronautics and

Space Administration
LET Launch Escape Tower
OAT Overall Test
LIEF Launch Information Exchange
Facility OCP Orbital Correction Program
LM Lunar Module ODOP Offset Frequency Doppler
LOS Loss of Signal OECO Outboard Engine Cutoff
LUT Launch Umbilical Tower OMNI Omni Directional
LV Launch Vehicle PAM/ Pulse Amplitude Modulation/

FM/FM Frequency Modulation/Frequency
LVDA Launch Vehicle Data Adapter Modulation
LVDC Launch Vehicle Digital PAFB Patrick Air Force Base

Computer
XXX
PCM Pulse Code Modulation SPS Service Propulsion System
PCM/ Pulse Code Modulation/ SRSCS Secure Range Safety Command

.... FM Frequency Modulation System
PMR Programmed Mixture Ratio SS Switch Selector
PSD Power Spectral Density SS/FM Single Sideband/Frequency

Modulation
PTCS Propellant Tanking Control
System STDV Start Tank Discharge Valve
PTL Prepare to Launch STP Special Test Pattern
PU Propellant Utilization SV Space Vehicle
PVC Pressure Volume Compensator T1 Time Base 1
RCS Reaction Control System TII Time to go in Ist Stage IGM
RDM Remote Digital Multiplexer T21 Time to go in 2nd Stage IGM
RED Redstone (ship) TAN Tananarive
RF Radio Frequency TD&E Transposition, Dockinq &

Ejection
RMS Root Mean Square
TDM Time Division Multiplexer
RP-I Designation for S-IC Stage
Fuel (kerosene) TEL 4 Cape Telemetry 4
RPM Revolutions Per Minute TEP Telemetry Executive Proqram
SA Service Arm TE× Corpus Christi (Texas)
SEC Seconds TLI Translunar Injection
SLA Spacecraft LM Adapter TM Telemeter, Telemetry
SM Service Module TMR Triple Modular Redundant
SMC Steering Misalignment TSM Tail Service Mast

Correction
TVC Thrust Vector Control
SNR Signal to Noise Ratio
UHF Ultra High Frequency
•.... SPL Sound Pressure Level
USB Unified S-Band
xxxi
UT Universal Time
VAB Vehicle Assembly Building

at KSC
VAN Vanguard (ship)
VHF Very High Frequency
WHS White Sands
xxxii
MISSION PLAN
AS-504 (Apollo 9 mission) was the fourth flight of the Apollo Saturn V
flight test program. It was to be the second manned Apollo Saturn V
vehicle with the spacecraft including, for the first time, the lunar
module (LM). The basic purpose of the flight was to demonstrate the
capability of the manned Apollo Command and Service Modules (CSM) in
earth orbit, particularly to evaluate LM systems capabilities, LM active
rendezvous techniques, and combined CSM/LMfunctions. Additionally,
two S-IVB restarts were scheduled to evaluate S-IVB restart capability
to simulate lunar mission requirements° The crew consisted of
Air Force Col. James A. McDivitt, Air Force Col. David R. Scott, and
Russell L. Schweickart.
The space vehicle was composed of the AS-504 launch vehicle consisting
of the S-IC, S-11, S-IVB and Instrument Unit (IU) stacked stages and
spacecraft consisting of the Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter (SLA),
LM-3, and CSM_I03.
The vehicle was to be launched from Complex 39, Pad A, of.the Kennedy
Space Center. The flight azimuth was to be 72 degrees east of north.
The vehicle mass at launch was to be about 2,940,728 kilograms

(6,483,195 Ibm). The S-IC and S-II stage powered flight times were to
be approximately 160 and 370 seconds, respectively. The planned S-IVB
first burn was to be about 114 seconds. The S-IVB/IU/LM/CSM was to be
inserted into a 185.2 kilometer (I00 n mi) altitude (referenced to the
earth's equatorial radius) circular parking orbit. The vehicle mass at
parking orbit insertion was to be about 134,895 kilograms (297,393 Ibm).
About I0 seconds after insertion, the S-IVB/IU was to assume a local

horizontal attitude until the maneuver to transposition, docking, and
spacecraft ejection attitude at about 2 hours, 34 minutes range time.
Following SLA jettisoning and separation, the CSM was to undergo trans-
position and docking with the LM early in the third revolution. LM
ejection was expected to occur at approximately 4 hours and I0 minutes
range time. For a nominal mission the S-IVB/IU was to revert to a
local horizontal attitude and initiate the S-IVB second burn at about
I 4 hours, 46 minutes range time. The 63 second S-IVB second burn was
to place the S-IVB/IU in a 2998 by 196 kilometer (1619 by 106 n mi)
intermediate orbit. The launch vehicle was to coast for approximately
80 minutes to demonstrate the S-IVB engine ability to cool down suffi-
ciently prior to a restart within one revolution. At approximately
xxxiii
6 hours and 7 minutes range time the S-IVB was to ignite for the third
time and burn for about 242 seconds° The third S-IVB burn was to propel
the launch vehicle into an earth escape trajectory (solar orbit). Follow-
ing third burn, the stage safing sequence, which included dumping resi-
dual propellants_ was to be initiated°
The CSMwas to perform four Service Propulsion System (SPS) burns prior
to LM activation. After LM activation, a CSM/LMdocked descent propul-
sion system burn and extra-vehicular activities were to be performed.
A fifth SPS burn was to circularize the orbit for the LM active rendez-
vous sequence° After the LM active rendezvous, the LM was to be jetti-
soned, and the ascent propulsion system would then burn to depletion.
The CSMwas to perform additional deorbit shaping SPS burns_ then was to
perform navigation sightings and other experiments prior to the deorbit.
An SPS burn was to deorbit the spacecraft, and CM splashdown was to occur
approximately 25 minutes later in the mid-Atlantic. Range time from
liftoff was to have been about 238 hours and 12 minutes to splashdown.
xxxiv
FLIGHT TEST SUMMARY
The second manned Saturn V Apollo space vehicle, AS-504 (Apollo 9 Mission),
was launched at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida on March 3, 1969 at
II:00:00 Eastern Standard Time (EST) from Launch Complex 39, Pad A. This
fourth launch of the Saturn V Apollo was the first Saturn V/Apollo Space-
craft in full lunar mission configuration and carried the largest payload
placed in orbit. The one principal, and nine of the eleven secondary
Detailed Test Objectives (DTO's) were completely accomplished. The other
two DTO's, S-IVB 80ominute restart and LOX/LH2 dump, were partially
accomplished.
The launch countdown was completed without any unscheduled countdown holds.
Ground systems performance was highly satisfactory. The relatively few
problems encountered in countdown were overcome such that vehicle launch
readiness was not compromised.
The vehicle was launched on an azimuth of 90 degrees east of north and

after 13.3 seconds of vertical flight, the vehicle began to roll into a
flight azimuth of 72 degrees east of north. Actual trajectory parameters
of the AS-504 were close to nominal except for the space-fixed velocity
at S-II Engine Cutoff (ECO) and the escape orbit injection parameters.
Space-fixed velocity at S-IC Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO) was 29.33 m/s
(96.23 ft/s) lower than nominal. At S-II ECO the space-fixed velocity
was 81.70 m/s (268.04 ft/s) lower than nominal. At S-IVB first cutoff the
space-fixed velocity was 0.87 m/s (2.86 ft/s) greater than nominal. The
altitude at S-IVB first burn cutoff was 0.31 kilometers (0.17 n mi) lower
than nominal, and the surface range was 66.77 kilometers (36.06 n mi)
greater than nominal. The space-fixed velocity at insertion was 0.61 m/s
(2.00 ft/s) greater than nominal. At intermediate orbit insertion the
total space-fixed velocity was 18.67 m/s (61.25 ft/s) greater than nominal.
The escape orbit injection parameters deviated significantly from nominal.
The value of C3 was 824,712 m2/s 2 (8,877,126 ft2/s2) which was 30,470,506
m2/s 2 (327,981,795 ft2/s 2) lower than nominal.
All S-IC propulsion systems performed satisfactorily. However, the

combined thrust of the five F-I engines was lower than predicted. At
the 35 to 38-second time slice, average engine thrust reduced to standard
pump inlet conditions was 1.21 percent lower than predicted. Average
reduced specific impulse was 0.174 percent lower than predicted. Center
Engine Cutoff (CECO) Was initiated by the Instrument Unit as planned.
Outboard engine cutoff was initiated by LOX low level sensors 2.8 seconds
later than predicted but well within the 3 sigma limit.
XXXV
The S_ll propulsion system performed satisfactorily during the entire
flight. Total stage thrust at 61 seconds after Engine Start Command (ESC),
was 0°20 percent below the prediction. Average specific impulse was 0.25
percent above prediction at this time slice. Average engine mixture
ratio was 0.33 percent above predicted. Low frequency performance
oscillations were experienced by the center engine near the end of S-II
burn and were similar to those on AS-503. Corrective action being planned
for AS:505 is to cut off the center engine before the oscillations are
expected. As sensed by the engines, ESC occurred at 164.17 seconds and
engine cutoff was at 536.22 seconds with a burn time only 2.27 seconds
longer than predicted.
The S-IVB J-2 engine operated satisfactorily throughout the operational

phase of first and second burns with normal shutdowns. S:IVB first burn
time was 123.84 seconds which was 10.3 seconds longer than predicted. The
engine performance during first burn, as determined from standard altitude
reconstruction analysis, deviated from the predicted Start Tank Discharge
Valve (STDV) +60-second time slice by 0.764 percent for thrust and -0.117
percent for specific impulse. The Continuous Vent System (CVS) performed
nominally during parking orbit, and the Oxygen/Hydrogen (02/H2) Burner
satisfactorily achieved LH2 repressurization for restart. Repressurization
of the LOX tank was not required. Engine restart conditions were within
specified limits. The restart was successful with no indications of any
problem. SoIVB second burn time was 62.06 seconds and was cut off by
a timer. The engine performance during second burn, as determined from
the standard altitude reconstruction analysis, deviated from the predicted
STDV +60-second time slice by -0.587 percent, for thrust and -0.182 percent
for specific impulse. The CVS performed nominally during the intermediate
orbit, and the 02/H? Burner successfully achieved restart prior to third
burn. Subsequen_ly_ the LH2 tank was satisfactorily repressurized by the
ambient repressurization system. Repressurization of the LOX tank was not
required. Engine conditions for the second restart (third burn) were
unusual as a result of the extended fuel lead experiment. This was a
planned experiment to evaluate the mission rule concerning failure of
both LOX and LH2 chilldown systems. The restart was successful; however,
the chamber pressure did indicate abnormal conditions during the start
transient. Mainstage performance was not as predicted due to various
anomalies which occurred during the burn. Third burn had a timed cutoff
as expected° The stage was properly safed; however, propellant dump was
not accomplished due to the third burn anomaly. During the early stages
of launch countdown the regulator discharge pressure was high and was
controlled by the backup system. Subsequently, the regulator pressure
was high during boost and coast phase, however, there were no adverse
effects on components or system functioning. The Auxiliary Propulsion
System (APS) pressurization system developed a helium leak in module No. 2 ......
at 4 hours and 25 minutes which ceased at 7 hours. However, the ullage
pressures in the APS were acceptable throughout the mission.
xxxvi
The hydraulic systems on all stages performed satisfactorily throughout
_- the flight, however, during S-IVB third burn the yaw actuator experienced
abnormal oscillations of 3 degrees peak-to-peak amplitude at 0.65 hertz.
The structural loads and dynamic environment experienced by the AS-504

launch vehicle were well within the vehicle structural capability. The
high altitude winds for this flight were the highest measured during any
previous Saturn launch. However, due to a wind bias trajectory, the
structural loads for AS-504 were well below the design limit values.
There was no evidence of an unstable coupled thrust-structure-feed system
oscillation (POGO) during S-IC powered flight. The low frequency
(16 to 19 hertz) oscillation anomaly observed on AS_503 also occurred on
AS-504 near the end of S-11 stage burn. The oscillations reached a
maximum level of approximately ±12.0 g at the center of the S-11 thrust
structure crossbeam.
The guidance and navigation system performed satisfactorily during all

periods for which data are available° The boost navigation and guidance
schemes were properly executed, and the desired parking orbit insertion
parameters were achieved with good accuracy. The third burn of the S-IVB
stage placed the S-IVB/IU in a heliocentric orbit. All target parameters
were satisfactorily achieved and all orbital operations were nominal.
System performance was unaffected by either the unexpected change in thrust
level during S-IVB third burn, or the failure to dump residual propellants
following the burn. The Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC), the Launch
Vehicle Data Adapter (LVDA), and the ST-124M-3 inertial platform functioned
satisfactorily.
The AS-504 Flight Control Computer (FCC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC) and
the APS satisfied all requirements for vehicle attitude control during
boost and orbital control modes. The preprogrammed S-IC boost phase yaw,
roll and pitch maneuvers were properly executed. The S-IC outboard engine
radial cant was accomplished as planned. S-IC/S-II first and second plane
separations were accomplished with no significant attitude deviations.
At Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM) initiation, pitch-up transients occurred
that were similar to those seen on AS-501 and AS-502. S-II/S_IVB separa-
tion occurred as expected and without producing any significant attitude
deviations. During first and second S-IVB burns, satisfactory control was
maintained over the vehicle. During the Command and Service Module (CSM)
separation from the S-IVB/Instrument Unit (IU) and during the Transpo-
sition, Docking, and Ejection (TD&E), the control system maintained a
fixed inertial attitude to provide a stable docking platform. During the
S-IVB third burn the control system experienced high amplitude oscilla-
tions in the yaw plane for the first lO0 seconds of burn. These oscilla-
tions were also evident in the pitch and roll planes. LOX and LH2
sloshing was coupled to the control oscillations. After the performance
shift, these oscillations damped out and pitch and yaw attitude control
xxxvii
was near nominal. However, a large roll torque had been developing and
it peaked at 386 N-m (285 ]bf-ft)_ At the performance shift the torque
changed from bidirectional to unidirectional (counter-clockwise). APS
control was as expected, except for the large demands placed upon the
system by the control oscillations. The APS propellants were depleted
as planned by an ullage burn after third burn.
In general, all AS-504 launch vehicle electrical systems performed satis-

factorily. Data indicated that the redundant Secure Range Safety Command
System (SRSCS) on the S-IC, S-11, and S_IVB stages were ready to perform
their functions properly on command if flight conditions during the launch
phase had required vehicle destruct. The system properly safed the S-IVB
SRSCSon commandfrom Bermuda (BDA)o The performance of the Commandand
Communications System (CCS) in the IU was satisfactory, except for a
degraded power amplifier output occurring late into the flight.
The Emergency Detection System (EDS) performance was nominal; no abort

limits were reached. The AS_504 EDS configuration was essentially the
same as AS-503.
The vehicle internal, external, and base region pressure environments

were generally in good agreement with the predictions and compared well
with previous flight data° The pressure environment was well below
design levels. The measured acoustic levels were generally in good
agreement with the liftoff and inflight predictions, and with data from
previous flights.
The AS-504 vehicle thermal environment was similar to that experienced

on earlier flights with the exception of minor changes due to trajectory
differences.
The Environmental Control Systems performed satisfactorily during the

AS-504 countdown. The IU Environmental Control System (ECS) exhibited
satisfactory performance throughout the flight.
The data system for the AS-504 launch vehicle consisted of 2179 active
flight measurements, 17 telemetry links, 3 tape recorders and tracking
by Offset Frequency Doppler (ODOP), C-Band and Command Communication
System (CCS)o All elements of the data system performed satisfactorily
except for 4 telemetry deviations which did not adversely affect required
data. The propagation of Radio Frequency (RF) transmissions from the
vehicle was satisfactory. The C-Band radar was commanded off at 27,213o5
seconds (7:33:03.5) and final loss of CCS signal was reported by Goldstone
(GDS) to have occurred at 48,066 seconds (]3:2l:06). The 87 ground
engineering cameras provided good data during the launch. However_ dense
cloud coverage precluded the acquisition of tracking camera data between
30 and 50 seconds.
xxxviii
I-
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
I.I PURPOSE
This report provides the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) Headquarters, and other interested agencies, with the launch
vehicle evaluation results of the AS-504 flight test. The basic objec-
tive of flight evaluation is to acquire, reduce, analyze, evaluate and
report on flight test data to the extent required to assure future
mission success and vehicle reliability. To accomplish this objective,
actual flight malfunctions and deviations must be identified, their
causes accurately determined, and complete information made available
so that corrective action can be accomplished within the established
flight schedule.
1.2 SCOPE
This report presents the results of the early engineering flight evalua-
tion of the AS-504 launch vehicle. The contents are centered on the
performance evaluation of the major launch vehicle systems, with special
emphasis on failures, anomalies, and deviations. Summaries of launch
operations and spacecraft performance are included for completeness.
The official George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) position at

this time is represented by this report. It will not be followed by
a similar report unless continued analysis or new information should
prove the conclusions presented herein to be significantly incorrect.
Final stage evaluation reports will, however, be published by the stage
contractors. Reports covering major subjects and special subjects will
be published as required.
1 -I/I -2
SECTION 2
EVENT TIMES
2.1 SUMMARYOF EVENTS
Range zero time, the basic time reference for this re_ort is ll:O0:O0
Eastern Standard Time (EST) (16:00:00 Universal Time LUT]). This time
is based on the nearest second prior to S-IC tail plug disconnect which
occurred at 11:00:00.6 EST. Range time is calculated aS the elapsed
time from range zero time and unless otherwise noted, is the time used
throughout this report. The actual and predicted range times are
adjusted to ground telemetry received times. Figure 2-I shows the time
delay/lead of ground telemetry received time versus Launch Vehicle
Digital Computer (LVDC) time and indicates the magnitude and sign of
corrections applied to range time in Tables 2-I, 2-2 and 2-3.
Guidance Reference Release (GRR) occurred at =16.97 seconds and start of

Time Base 1 (T I) occurred at 0.67 seconds. GRRwas established by the
Digital Events Evaluation (DEE_6) and T1 was initiated at detection of
liftoff signal provided by de-energizing the liftoff relay in the IU
at IU umbilical disconnect.
Range time for each time base used in the flight sequence program and
the signal for initiating each time base are presented in Table 2-I.
Start of T2 was within nominal expectations for this event. Start of

T3, T4 and T5 was initiated approximately 2.8, 5.1 and 16.0 seconds
later than predicted, respectively, due to longer than expected S-IC,
S-II and S-IVB burns. Reasons for the longer than expected burn times
are discussed in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of this document. Start of T6,
which was initiated by the LVDC upon solving the restart equation, was
5.3 seconds later than predicted. Start of T7, T8 and T9 was 5.3, 6.1
and 6.0 seconds later than predicted, primarily because of the impact
of the late start of T6.
A summary of significant events for AS-504 is given in Table 2-2.

Since not all events listed in Table 2_2 are IU commanded switch
selector functions, deviations are not to be construed as failures to
meet specified switch selector tolerances. The events in Table 2-2
associated with guidance, navigation and control have been identified
as being accurate to within ±0°5 seconds or accurate to within a major
computation cycle.
2_I
I
o
°_,i,
,i. 50
°_
E
_- O
w
i
cj
21Z
kLl
m -50
-100 o
0
SECOND
THIRD
BURNBURN
-I 500 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
RANGE TIME, 103 SECONDS

...... m ..... L ...............
] l i. . m J l n _ i I _ ]
I:00:00 3:00:00 5:00:00 7:00:00 9:00:00 11:00:00 13:00:00
2:00:00 4:00:00 6:00:00 8:00:00 10:00:00 12:00:00 14:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES :SECONDS
Figure 2-I. Telemetry Time Delay
The predicted times for establishing actual minus predicted times in

Table 2-2 have been taken from 40M33640, "Interface Control Document
Definition of Saturn SA-504 Flight Sequence Program" and from the
"AS-504 Mission Launch Vehicle Operational Trajectory," dated 13 February
1969, as revised by S&E-AERO-FMT-48-69. The following times were
changed:
ao "S-11Mainstage" was used rather than "S-II Engine at 90 percent

Thrust". S-11 mainstage is defined as occurring 3 seconds after
engine start command.
b. "S-IVB Mainstage" was used rather than "S-IVB Engine at 90 percent

Thrust" for all three burns. S-IVB mainstage is defined as
occurring 2.5 seconds after engine ignltion.
2-2
Table 2-1. Time Base Summary
y.... RANGE TIME

TIMEBASE SEC SIGNAL
START
(HR:MIN:SEC)
TO -16.97 Guidance Reference Release

Tl 0.67 IU Umbilical Disconnect
Sensed by LVDC
T2 134.28 S_IC CECO Commanded by LVDC
T3 162o30 S-IC OECO Sensed by LVDC
T4 536.25 Soll ECOSensedby LVDC
T5 664.87 S-IVB ECO(Velocity) Sensed
by LVDC
T6 16,577.24 Restart Equation Solution
(4:36:17.24)
T7 17,217.82 S-IVB ECOCommanded
by LVDC
(4:46:57°82)
T8 21,580.98 Initiated by LVDC5003.0
(4:46:57.82) seconds after equation con-
vergence (T6+5003.0 sec)
T9 22,281.53 S-IVB ECO Commanded by LVDC
(6:11:21.53)
c. The "Helium Heater Off" times were changed in T6 to reflect the same
flight sequence event used in T8.
d. The predicted start of T7 and T9 were changed to make these predic-

tions compatible with the switch selector cutoff commands which
initiate these time bases.
2.2 VARIABLE TIME AND COMMANDED

SWITCH SELECTOREVENTS
Table 2-3 lists known switch selector events which were issued during
flight but which were not programmed for specific times. The Water
Coolant Valve Open and Close switch selector commands were issued based
upon the condition of two thermal switches in the Environmental Control
System (ECS). The outputs of these switches were sampled once every
300 seconds, beginning at 480 seconds, and a switch selector command was
,-.... issued to open and close the water valve to maintain proper temperature
control.
2_3
Table 2-3 also contains the special sequence of switch selector events
which were programmed to be initiated by telemetry station acquisition
and included the following calibration sequence:
FUNCTION STAGE TIME(SEC)
Telemetry Calibrator In-Flight IU Acquisition +60.0

Calibrate On
TM Calibrate On S-IVB Acquisition +60.2
TM Calibrate Off SolVB Acquisition +61.2
In-Flight Calibrate Off IU Acquisition +65.0
In addition, known ground commands sent to the LVDC are included in this
table.
2_4
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary
RANGE
TIME TIMEFROM
BASE
ACTUAL ACT_PRED ACTUAL ACT-PRED

EVENT SEC SEC SEC SEC
I. Guidance Reference -16.97 0.02 TI-17.63 0.63

Release (GRR)
2. S-IC Engine Start -8.9 0.0 TI_9.6 0.0

Sequence Command
3. S-IC Engine No. 1 -6.0 0.0 TI-6.7 0.0

Start
4. S-IC Engine No. 2 -5_7 0.0 TI-6.4 0.0

Start
5. S-IC Engine No. 3 -6.1 0.0 TI-6.8 0.0

Start
6. S-IC Engine No. 4 -6.0 0.0 TI-6.7 0.0

Start
7. S-IC Engine No. 5 -6.3 0.0 TI-7.0 0.0

Start
8. All S-IC Engines -1.3 0.2 TI-2.0 0.2

Thrust OK
9. Range
Zero 0.0 TI=0.7 -
I0. All HolddownArms 0.3 0.0 TI-O.4 0.0
Released (First
Motion)
II. IU Umbilical Dis- 0.67 0o01 T1

connect Start of
Time Base 1 (TI)
12. Begin Tower Clear- 1.7" 0.I I.I* 0.I
ance Yaw Maneuver
13. EndYawManeuver 9.7* 0.0 9.0* 0.0
14. Begin Pitch and Roll 13.3" 1.8 12.6" 1.7
Maneuver
15. S-IC Radial Engine 20.6 0.0 20.0 0.0
Cant
f_ 16, End Roll Maneuver 33.0* 2.7 32.3* 2.7
*Accurate to within ±0.5 second.
2-5
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
RANGETIME TIME FROMBASE
ACTUAL ACT-PRED ACTUAL ACT-PRED

17o Machl Achieved 68.2 2.8 67.5 2.8

18o Maximum Dynamic 85°5 4.1 84.8 4oi
Pressure (Max Q)
19, Start of Time Base 2 134o28 0°07 T2

(T2)
20. S-IC Center Engine 134,34 0.07 0.06 -OoOl
Cutoff (CECO)
21. End Pitch Maneuver 158.0" loO** 23°7* Io0"*
(Tilt Arrest)
22° S-IC Outboard Engine 162o76 2.80 28.48 2.73
Cutoff (OECO)
!23o Start of Time Base 3 162o80 2°83 T3 -

(T3)
124. Start S_ll LH2 Tank 162.9 2.8 Ool 0.0
High Pressure Vent
Mode
25. S-11LH2 Recircula- 163.0 2.8 0.2 0.0
tion Pumps Off
26. S_11 Ullage Motor 163.27 2,8 0.47 -0.03
Ignition
27. S:IC/S-II Separation 163o45 2,77 0.65 -0.05
Command to Fire
Separation Devices
and Retro Motors
28. Separation EBWFire 163o45 2.77 0.65 -0.06
Signal
29. SilC Retro Motor 163o46 2.77 0.66 -0.06
EBW Fire Signal
30. S:IC Retro Motor 163o47 2.77 0.67 -0o13
Burn Time Initiation
(Thrust Buildup
Begin)

**Actual or predicted time is accurate to major computation cycle
dependent upon length of computation cycle.
2-6
Table 2_2. Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
_..... ACTUAL ACT-PREDACTUAL ACT-PRED

31. S_IIEngineStart 164.17 2.79 1.37 -0.04

Command (ESC)
32. S-II EngineIgnition 165.16 2.78 2.36 -0.03
(STDV Opens, Avg.
of 5)
33. S-II Mainstage 167.17 2.79 4.37 -0.04
34. S-II Ullage Motor 167.4 2.5 4,6 0.4
Burn Time Termina:
tion (75 percent
Thrust)
35. S-II Chilldown 169.2 2.8 6.4 0.0
Valves Close
36. Activate S-II PU 169.7 2.8 6.9 0.0
System
37. S-II SecondPlane 193.5 2.8 30.7 0.0
Separation (Jettison
S-II Aft Interstage)
38. Launch EscapeTower 198.3t 2.1 35.5f 0.7
(LET) Jettison
39. IterativeGuidance 204.6* 3.3_ 41.8" 0.5**
Mode (IGM) Phase l
Initiated
40. S_IILOX StepPres: 262.8 2.8 100.0 0.0
surization
141. S-II Low Engine Mix- 452.5 9.2 289.7 6.4
ture Ratio (EMR)
Shift (Actual)
_2. GuidanceSensedEMR 461.5" 15.2"* 298.7* 12.4"*
Shift; IGM Phase 2
Initiated and Start
of Artificial Tau
Mode
*Accurate to within +_0.5 second.

tBased on real=time_eport.
2-7

43. S-If LH2Step 462.8 2.8 300.0 0.0

Pressurization
44° End of Artificial 492.7** 16.7"* 329.9** 13.9"*
Tau Mode
45. Begin Chi Freeze; 527.1" -3.1"* 364.3* -6.0**

End of IGM Phase 2
46. S-II Engine Cutoff 536.22 5.06 373,42 2.23
(ECO)
47. Start of Time Base 4 536.25 5.09 T4
(T4)
48. S-IVB Ullage Motor 537,1 5.2 0.8 0.1
Ignition
49° S-II/S_IVB Separa- 537.2 5.2 0.9 0.I
tion Command to Fire
Separation Devices
and Retro Motors
50° S-II Retro Motor 537.3 5.3 1,04 0.3
Burn Time Initiation
(Thrust Buildup
Begins)
51. S-IVB Engine Start 537.28 5.08 1.03 0,01
Command (ESC)
52. S-IVB Fuel Chilldown 538.4 5.1 2,2 0.0
Pump Off
53. S-IVB Engine 540.82 5.66 4.57 0.57
Ignition (STDV Open)
54° S-IVB Mainstage 543.32 5.66 7.07 0.57
55. S-IVB PUMixture 545°2 5.0 9.0 0.0
Ratio 5.5 On
56. S-IVB Ullage Case 549.0 5.1 12.8 0.0
Jettison
2-8
Table 2-2, Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)

/f-

57. End of Chi Freeze; 551.0" 12.0"* 14,7" 6.9**

IGM Phase 3 Initi-
ated and-Start of
Artificial Tau Mode
58. End of Artificial 552.9** 3.4** 16.6"* -1.8"*
Tau Mode
59. BeginChi Bar 631.4" 15.4"* 96.2* 10.3"*

Steering
60. BeginChi Freeze; 657.8* 16.3"* 121.6" II.2"*

End of IGM Phase 3
61. S-IVB VelocityCut- 664.65 15.93 T5-0.23 -0.03

off Command
(Guidance Cutoff)
62. S-IVB EngineCutoff 664.66 15.93 T5-0.21 -0.01
(ECO)
63. Start of Time Base5 664.87 15.95 T5 -
(T5)
64. S-IVBAPS Ullage 665,2 15.9 0.3 0.0
Engine Ignition
65. S-IVB LOXTank Pres- 666.2 15.9 1.4 0.0
surization Off
166. Parking Orbit 674.65 15.93 9.78 -0.02
Insertion
67. Command Maneuver to 684.9* 15.9"* 20.0* -0.I**
Local Horizontal
Attitude
68. S-IVB LH2 Continu- 723.8 15.9 59.0 0.0
ous Vent On (CVS)
69. S-IVB APSUllage 751.9 15.9 87,0 0.0
Engine Cutoff

2-9
RANGE
TIME TIME FROMBASE
ACTUAL ACT-PRED ACTUAL ACT:PRED
70. First Orbital Navi- 767.7** 10.7"* 102.8" -5.3**

gation Calculations
71. Maneuver to Separa- 9241.0" 12.0"* 8576.1 -4.0**
tion Attitude
72. CSM/LMS-IVB Sepa- 9676.0 93.1 9011.1 77.1
ration Command
73. CSM/LMS-IVB Docking I0,927t 504 I0,262t _88
74. PU Inverter and DC 13,264.8tt 15.9 12,600tti 0.0
Power On
75. CSM/LMEjection 14,886t -97 14,221t -113
from S-IVB
76. CommandManeuver to 15,905.1" 12o2"* 15,240.2 :3.9**
Local Horizontal
Attitude
77. Restart Maneuver 16,452t - 15,787t
Enable (Ground
Command)
78. Begin S_IVB First 16,577.24 5.30 T6 -
Restart Prepara-
tions; Start of
Time Base 6 (T6)
79_ Begin Powered Flight 16,582® 16"* 15,917® 0.0
Navigation
80. S-IVB 02/H2 Burner 16,618.5 5°3 41.3 0.0
LH2 On
81. S-IVB 02/H2 Burner 16,618o8 5.3 41.6 0.0
Exciters On
82. S-IVB OJH2 Burner 16,619.2 5.3 42.0 0.0
LOX On (Helium
Heater On)
*Accurate to within +0.5 second°
*Based on real:time report.
ttDerived Time
®Accurate to within ±2.0 seconds.
2-10

EVENT SEC SEC $EC SEC
83. S-IVB LH2 Vent Off 16,619.4tt 5.3 42.2tt 0.0

(CVS Off_
84. S-IVB LH2 Repres- 16,625.3 5°3 48.1 0.0
surization Control
On
85. S-IVB LOXRepres- 16,625_5 5.3 48.3 0.0
surization Control
On
86. S:IVB Aux Hydraulic 16,796.2 5.3 219.0 0.0
Pump Flight Mode On
87. S-IVB LOXChilldown 16,826.2 5.3 249.0 0.0
On
88. SIIVB LH2 Chilldown 16,831.2 5.3 254.0 0.0
ON
89. S-IVB Prevalves 16,836.2 5.3 259°0 0.0
Closed
90. S-IVB PUMixture 17,027.4 5.3 450.2 0.0
Ratio 4.5 On
91. S-IVB APSUllage 17,073.6 5.3 496.3 0o0
Engine Ignition
92. S-IVB 02/H2 Burner 17,074.0 5.3 496.8 0.0
LH2 Off
93. S_IVB 02/H2 Burner 17,078.5 5.3 501.3 0.0
LOX Off (Helium
Heater Off)
94. Prevalves Close Off 17,136.3 5.3 559.4 0.0
95. S-IVB LH2 Chilldown 17,146.6 5.3 569.4 0.0
Off
96° S-IVB LOXChilldown 17,146,8 5.3 569.6 0.0
Off
_ 97. S-IVB Engine Re_ 17,147.20 5.26 :569.96 -0.05
start Command (2nd
ESC-Fuel Lead
Initiation) L................
ttDeri ved Time°
2-11
RANGE
TIME TIME FROMBASE

98. S-IVB APSUllage 17,150.3 5.3 573.0 0.0

Cutoff
99, S-IVB 2nd Ignition 17,155.54 5.80 578.30 0.50

(STDV Open)
I00. S-IVB Mainstage 179158°04 5.80 580.80 0.50
I01. PUProgrammed 17,160.2 5.3 583_0 0o0
Mixture Ratio Off
I02o Freeze Inertial 17,161.5" 8.6** 584.1" 3.1"*
Attitudes
103. S-IVB Engine Cutoff 17,217.60 5.26 T7-0.22 -0.02

(2rid ECO)
104. Start of Time Base 17,217.82 5.28 T7 -

7 (T7)
105. S-IVB APSUllage 17,218.0 5.3 0.2 0.0
Engine Ignition
106. S-IVB LH2 Vent On 17,218.2 5.2 0°4 0.0
(CVS)
107. Intermediate Orbit 17,227.60 5.26 9.78 -0.02
Insertion
08. First Orbital Navi- 17,234.2 6.7** 16.3 1.3_*
gation Calculations
109. S-IVB APSUllage 17,236.8 5.3 29.0 0.0
Engine Off
II0. CommandManeuver to 17,238.6" 5.9** 20.4* 0.2**
Local Horizontal
Attitude
III. Restart Maneuver 20,4174 31994 -
Enable (Ground
Command)
112. Begin Powered 21,579.0" 17.4"* 4361.1" 12.0"*
Flight Navigation
tBased on real-time report.
*Accurate to within +0.5 second.
**Actual or predicted-time is accurate to major computation cycle
_ dependent upon length of computation cycle.
2_12
f .... RANGE
TIME TIMEFROM
BASE
113. Begin S-IVB Re- 21,580.98 6.06 T8 -

start Preparations;
Start of Time Base
8 (T8)
114. S-IVB Aux Hydraulic 21,679.9 6.0 99.0 0.0
Pump Flight Mode On
115. S-IVB LOXChill- 21,709o9 6.0 129.0 0.0
down On
116. S-IVB LH2 Chill- 21,714.9 6.0 134.0 0.0
down On
117. S-IVB Prevalves 21,720.0 6.0 139.0 0.0
Closed
118. S-IVB PUMixture 21,781.2 6.0 200.2 0.0
Ratio 4.5 On
119. S-IVB 02/H2 Burner 21:826°9 6.0 246.0 0.0

LH2 On
120. S-IVB 02/H 2 Burner 21,827.2 6.0 246.3 0.0
Exciters On
121. S-IVB 02/H2 Burner 21,827.6 6.0 246.7 0.0

LOX On (Helium
Heater On)
122. S-IVB APSUllage 21,956.9 6.0 376.0 0.0

Engines Ignition
123. S-IVB 02/H2 Burner 21,957.4 6.0 376.5 0o0
LH2 Off
124. S-IVB 02/H2 Burner 21,962.0 6°0 381.0 0.0
LOX Off (Helium
Heater Off)
125. S-IVB LH2 Vent Off 21,965.3 6.0 384.4 0.0
(CVS)
_ 126. S-IVB Engine Re- 21,987.35 7.42 406.37 1.36
start Command (3rd
ESC-Fuel Lead
Initiation Ground
Command)
2-13
Table 2-2° Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
ACTUAL ACT-PRED ACTUAL ACTIPRED

127. S-IVB LH2 Chill- 22_030.3 6.0 449.4 0.0

down Off
128. S-IVB LOXChill_ 22,030.6 6.0 449,6 0.0
down Off
129. S:IVB APSUllage 22,033.9 6.0 453.0 0.0
Engine Cutoff
130. S-IVB 3rd Ignition 22,039°26 6.47 458°28 0.48
(STDV Open)
131. S:IVB 3rd Mainstage 22,041o76 6.47 460.78 0.48
132. PU Programmed Mix_ 22,043.9 6.0 463.0 0°0
ture Ratio Off
133, Freeze Inertial 22_044°6" 9.1"* 463.5* 2.9**
Attitudes
134o S-IVB Engine 22,281.32 5.99 T9-0°21 -0.01

Cutoff (3rd ECO)
135, Start of Time 22,281.53 6.00 T9
Base 9 (T9)
136. Escape Orbit 22,291.32 5.99 9.79 40.01
Injection
137° First Orbital Navi- 22,298.0* 7.5** 16.35" 1.3"*
gation Calculation
138. CommandManeuver to 22,302°0* 7.3** 19.4" -0.8**
Local Horizontal
Attitude
139. S-IVB Start Bottle 22,341.5 6.0 60.0 0.0
Vent On
140. S-IVB Start LOX 22,371.5 6.0 90.0 0.0
Dump
141. S-IVB Engine Helium 22,371o7 6.0 90°2 0o0
Control Valve Open
*Accurateto within ±0.5 second°

2-14
RANGE
TIME TIME FROMBASE
..... ACTUAL ACT-PREDACTUALACT-PRED

142. S-IVB Start LH2 23,051.3 6.0 769.8 0.0

Dump
143. S_IVB Engine Helium 23,051.5 6.0 770.0 0.0
Control Valve Open
144. S-IVB Aux Hydraulic 24,147.5tt 6.0 1866.0tt 0.0
Pump Flight Mode
Off
145. S-IVB Engine Pneu- 24,157.5tt 6.0 1876.0tt 0.0
matic System Vent
On
146. S-IVB Engine Pneu- 24,757.5 6.0 2476.0 0.0
matic System Vent
Off
147. C-Band Radar Off 27,214.7 - 4933.1
148. S:IVB APS Ullage 27,244.6 - 4963.1
Engine No. 1
Ignition
149. S-IVB APS Ullage 27,245.8 - 4964.2
Engine No. 2
Ignition
i150. S-IVB APSUllage 27,671 5389.5 -
Engine No. 2
Depletion
i151. S-IVB APSUllage 27,713 5431.5 -
Engine No. 1
Depletion
ttDerived Times.
2-15
Table 2-3. Variable Time and Commanded Switch Selector Events
................................... STAGE RANGETIME T"IME

....
FUNCTION (SECONDS) (SECONDS) REMARKS
Telemetry Calibrator Infliqht IU 2286,2 T5+162],4 TAN Rev

Calibration On
TMCalibrate On S-IVB 2286.4 T5+162]_6 TANRev
TMCalibrate Off S-IVB 2287.4 T5+1622.6 TANRev
Telemetry Calibrator Inflight IU 2291.2 T5+1626o4 TAN Rev

Calibrate Off
Telemetry Calibrator Inflight IU 3198.2 T5+2533,3 CRO Rev 1

Calibrate On
TM Calibrate On S-IVB 3198.4 T5+2533.5 CRO Rev 1
TMCalibrate Off S-IVB 3199.4 T5+2534_5 CRORev 1
Telemetry Calibrator Inflight IU 3203.1 T5+2538.3 CRO Rev 1

Calibrate Off
Telemetry Calibrator Inflight IU 5366.1 T5+4701.3 GYMRev 1

Calibrate On
TMCalibrate On S-IVB 5366.3 T5+4701.5 GYMRev 1
TMCalibrate Off S-IVB 5367,3 T5+4702.5 GYMRev 1
Telemetry Calibrator Inflight IU 5371.1 T5+4706,3 GYMRev 1

Calibrate Off
Telemetry Calibrator Inflight IU 7822.2 T5+7157.3 TAN Rev 2

Calibrate On
TMCalibrate On S-IVB 7822.4 T5+7157.6 TANRev 2
TMCalibrate Off S-IVB 7823.4 T5+7158.6 TANRev 2
Telemetry Calibrator Inflight IU 7827.2 T5+7162.4 TAN Rev 2

Calibrate Off
Telemetry Calibrator Inflight IU 8790.1 T5+8125. 3 CRORev 2!

CalibratorOn I
TMCalibrate On S-IVB 8790.3 T5+8125.5 CRORev 2

TMCalibrate Off S-IVB 8791.4 T5t8126.5 CRORev
2
Telemetry Calibrator IU 8795.] T5+8130.3 CRORev 2
Inflight Calibrate Off
IU CommandSystem Enable IU 8795.6 T5+8130.8 CRORev 2
Telemetry Calibrator IU 10,318.1 T5+9653.3 HA_.,I

Rev 2
Inflight Calibrate On ...............................................................................................
2-16
Table 2-3. Variable Time and CommandedSwitch Selector Events (Continued)
r-,,, 7,
Jf FUNCTION STAGE RANGETIME TIME FROMBASE REMARKS

(SECONDS) (SECONDS)
TM Calibrate On S-IVB 10,318.3 T5+9653.5 HAWRev 2

TM Calibrate Off S-[VB 10,319o3 T5+9654.5 HAWRev 2
Telemetry Calibrator IU I0,323.1 T5+9658.3 HAWRev 2
Telemetry Calibrator ]U 10,958.1 T5+I0,293.3 GDSRev 2

Inflight Calibrate On
TMCalibrate On S-IVB 10,958.3 T5+I0,293.S GDSRev 2

TM Calibrate Off S-IVB 10,959.3 T5+I0,294.5 GDS Rev 2
Telemetry Calibrator IU 10,963.1 T5+I0_298.3 GDSRev 2
Telemetry Calibrator IU 14,374.1 T5+13,709.3 CRORev 2

TMCalibrate On S-IVB 14,374.3 T5+13,709.5 CROReV3

TM Calibrate Off S-IVB 14,375.3 T5+13,710.3 CRORev 3
Telemetry Calibrator IU 14,379.1 T5+13,714.3 CRORev 3
Telemetry Calibrator IU 15,870.1 T5+15,205.3 ARIA 3 Rev 3

TM Calibrate On S_IVB 15,870.3 T5+15,205.5 ARIA 3 Rev 3
TM Calibrate Off S-IVB 15,871.3 T5+15,206.S ARIA 3 Rev 3
Telemetry Calibrator IU 15,875.1 T5+15,210o3 ARIA 3 Rev 3
TM Calibrate Off S-IVB 16,575.4 T5+15,910.6 GDSRev 2

Water Coolant Valve Open IU 17,315.2 T7+96.4 LVDCFunction
Water Coolant Valve Closed IU 17,615.8 T7+397. 9 LVDC Function

Command
PCMCoaxial Switch IU 20,595.3 T7+3376.5 Ground Command
LowGainAntenna Sequence
CommandCCSSwitch Low IU 20,595.3 T7+3376.5 Ground Con_nand

GainAntenna Sequence
Water Coolant Valve Open IU 21,526.9 T7+4309.0 LVDCFunction

Chilldowe Shutoff S-IVB 21,710.0 T8+129.1 Ground CommandSeQuence
ValveCloseOff for 2ndS-IVBRestart
Fuel Chilldown PumpOff S-IVB 21,729.2 T8+148.2 Begin Ground Command

Sequence for 2nd S-IVB
Restart
LOXChilldown PumpOff S-IVB 21,730.0 T8+149.0 Ground CommandSequence

for 2nd S-IVB Restart
Water Coolant Valve Closed IU 21,828.6 T8+247._ LVDCFunction
Chilldown Shutoff Valve S-IVB 21,952.8 T8+371. 8 Groun_ Con_lland Seqoence

CloseOff for 2ndS-[VBRestart
Prevalves Close Off S-IVB 2],953.5 T8+372.6 Ground Con_nandSequence

2nd S-IVB Restart
S-IVB Engine Cutoff Off S-IVB 21,954.3 T8+373.3 Ground

for 2nd Conmland Sequence
S-IVB Restart
/
2-17
Table 2-3. Variable Time and Cor_nanded Switch Selector Events (Continued)
FUNCTION STAGE RANGElIME rIME FROM

BASE REMARKS
(SECONDS) (SECONDS)
Engi ne Ready Bypass S- l Vii 21, _.,.. l T8+374.1 Ground Command

Sequence for 2nd
S-[VB Restart
S-IVB Eugiue Start Nn S-IVB 2],g_7.3 T8+406.4 Ground Comlnand

Sequence for 2nd
S-IVB Restart
Telemetry Calibrator IU 22,691_.1 T9_416.5 GWM

Rev 4
lnflight Calibrate On
TM Calibrate On S-IIIB 22,698.3 T9{416.7 G',II,!Rev 4

TM Calibrate Off S IVB 22,699.3 T9+417. 7 GWMRev 4
Telemetry Calibrator
inflight Calibrate Off IU 22,703.1 19+421.5 GWM
Rev 4
Engine Mainstage Control S-IVB 22,976.9 T9+695.2 GWMRev 4

Valve Open Off
Engine He Control Valve S-IVB 22,977.7 T9+696. l GWMRev 4

Open Off
Engine He Control Valve S-IVB 22,993.4 T9+711.6 GWMRev 4

Open On
Passivation Enable S-IVB 22,993.6 T9+712.0 GWM

Rev 4
Engine Mainstage Control S_IVB 22,994.1 T9+712. 8 GWMRev 4

Valve Open On
Start Bo_le Vent Control S-IVB 23,042.6 T9+761.0 GWM

Pev 4
Valve Open On
Engine Ignition Phase Control S-IVB 23,155.2 T9+874.6 GWMRev 4

Valve Open Off
Engine He Control Valve S-IVB 23,157.0 T9+875.4 GWMRev 4

Open Off
Passivation Enable S..IVB 23,172.5 T9+890.9 GWMRev 4

Engine Ignition Phase Control S-iVB 23,173.2 T9+891.6 GWMRev 4
Valve Open On
Engine He Control Valve S-IVB 23,175.1 T9+893. 4 LVDC Function

Oren On
S-IVB Engine Cutoff Off S-IVB 24,770.0 T9+2488.4 LVDC Function

Engine Ready Bypass S-IVB 24,770.9 T9+2489. 4 LVDC Function
Prevalves Close Off S-IVB 24,771.9 T9+2490. 3 LVDC Function

S-IVB Engine Start On S-IVB 24,772.8 T9+B491.3 LVDCFunction
Water Coolant Valve Ooen IU 24,883.4 T9+2551.9 LVDCFunction
Water Coolant Valve Closed IU 25,134.9 T9+2853. 4 LVDC Function

Command PCM Coaxial Switch IU 27,010.I T9+4728. 5 Ground Command
Omni Antenna Sequence
Command CCS Coaxial Switch IU 77,010.I T9+4728. 6 Ground Command

Omni Antenna Sequence
Command PCM Coaxial Switch IU 27,109.I T9+4827. 5 Ground Colnmand

HighGainAntenna Sequence
2-18
Table 2_3. Variable Time and Commanded Switch Selector Events (Continued)
FUNCTION STAGE RANGE

TIME TIMEFROM
BASE REMARKS
f- (SECONDS) (SECONDS)
Command CCSCoaxial IU 27,109.1 T9+4827,6 Ground Corm_and

SwitchFailure Safe Sequence
High Gain Antenna
Command PCMCoaxial IU 27,163.7 T9+4882-I GroundCommand
SwitchFail Safe Sequence
Low Gain Antenna
Command
CCSSwitch IU 27,163.7 T9+4882-2 GroundCommand
LowGainAntenna Sequence
Command
Inhibit C-Band IU 27,191.0 T9+4909.4 Ground Command
TransponderNo. 1 Sequence
Command
Inhibit C-Band IU 27,214.7 T9+4933.1 Ground Command
TransponderNo.2 Sequence
S_IVB
On Ullage Engine No. 1 S-IVB 27,244.6 T9+4963.0 LVDCFunction
S-IVB Ullage Engine No. 2 S-IVB 27,245.8 T9+4964.2 LVDCFunction

On
2-19/2-20
SECTION
3
LAUNCH OPERATIONS
3.1 SUMMARY
The AS-504 Apollo 9 terminal countdown (-28 hours) was started at

22:00:00 Eastern Standard Time (EST), February 26, 1969. However the
launch countdown was recycled to -42 hours because of the astronauts
medical condition. The count was resumed at 2:30:00 EST, March I, 1969.
The ground systems supporting the Apollo 9 countdown and launch performed
exceptionally well. There were no significant failures or anomalies.
Several systems experienced component failures and malfunctions, but
these problems did not cause any holds or significant delays in the
scheduled sequences of launch operations.
Damage to the complex and support equipment as a result of the AS-504

launch was minor and the slightest yet experienced.
3.2 PRELAUNCHMILESTONES
Launch vehicle checkout at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) began with the
arrival of the S-II-504 stage on May 15, 1968. The S-IC stage and the IU
arrived on September 30, 1968, and the S-IVB stage arrived on September 12,
1968. The Lunar Module (LM) -3 arrived June 14, 1968 and was reassigned to
this mission on August 19, 1968. The Command and Service Module (CSM) -103
arrived on October 5, 1968. After satisfactory checkout, the spacecraft
was mounted atop the launch vehicle on December 3, 1968. The space vehicle
was transferred to Launch Complex 39A on January 3, 1969. Space vehicle
checkout operations at the pad proceeded without any significant problems
that would impact launch readiness; however, because the astronauts
developed colds, the terminal countdown initiated on February 26, 1969
was interrupted. After medical clearance of the crew, recycle countdown
was started on March I, 1969, and the Apollo 9 was successfully launched
without any unscheduled holds, at ll:O0:O0 EST, March 3, 1969.
3.3 COUNTDOWNEVENTS
_ The AS-504 Apollo 9 terminal countdown was picked up at 22:00:00 EST,

February 26, 1969 (-28 hours). At i0:00:00 EST, February 27, 1969 (-16
hours) the scheduled 3-hour hold began, but at 10:30:00 EST during this
3-I
hold_ the space vehicle was recycled to -42 hours because of the
astronauts medical condition. Count pickup time was 2:30:00 EST,
March I, 1969.
The recycle countdown proceeded through launch scheduled as follows:

a. _28 hours_ 5.5-hour builtlin hold
b. -16 hours, 3-hour built-in hold
c. -9 hours, 6-hour built-in hold
Launch occurred at 11:00:00.6 EST, March 3, 1969.
3.4 PROPELLANT LOADING
3.4oi RP-I Loading
The RP-I system successfully supported the AS_504 launch countdown.

Replenish operations for launch were started at -13:10:00 and were
completed 44 minutes later at _12:26:00. Level adjustment operations
were initiated at _51 minutes and completed at -31 minutes, establishing
the required S-IC flight mass of RP-I. Approximately 802.6 m3
(212,035 gal) of RP-I was consumed in support of the launch countdown.
Following level adjustment, liquid sensor No. I failed to indicate a
steady dry condition. Consequently, the transfer line automatic drain
and inerting sequence was terminated before the transfer line was
completely drained and purged. Drain and purge of the transfer line was
completed manually. As was the case with all previous launches, the dry
chemical fire extinguisher system in Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT) Room4A
activated during liftoff, covering RP-I system components with powder.
3°4.2 LOX Loading
The LOX system supported the launch countdown satisfactorily. All phases
of the LOX loading operation were completed successfully and without
incident. The LOX fill sequence was started at -8:19:00, with all stage
replenish normal mode attained 2:57:00 later. Approximately 2203.1 m3
(582,000 gal) of LOXwas consumed in support of the launch countdown.
Several facility measurements which indicate operational status for
the LOX replenish pumpwere lost or exceeded redlines. However, in each
instance sufficient backup measurements were available to verify satisfac-
tory pump operation without interrupting the loading sequence. Launch
damage to the LOX system was minor. A LUT control distributor was split
open and some internal components damaged. In addition, several electrical
cables were damaged by blast and must be replaced.
3.4.3 LH2 Loading
The LH2 system successfully supported the launch countdown with no major
incidents. The fill sequence began with initiation of S-If loading at
3-2
-4:45:00 and was terminated 88minutes later upon achieving I00 percent
S-IVB LH2 load. A nominal loading time of 81 minutes was planned, but both
S-II and S-IVB fast-fill modes were terminated early, apparently by a
"- logic discrepancy. The Propellant Tanking Control System (PTCS) was
programmed to terminate fast-fill for S-II and S-IVB at 96 and 97 percent,
respectively. However, the fast-fill modes were terminated at 93 (S-II)
and 94 (S-IVB) percent of flight mass by signals from the stage stop fill
discretes. The early termination of fast-fill did not significantly affect
the loading operation. Approximately 1854.9 m3 (490,000 gal) of LH2 was
consumed in support of the launch countdown. Launch damage to the LH2
system was minor. A seam was split open on the LH2 disconnect tower
control distributor, but there was no damage to internal components.
3.4.4 Auxiliary Propulsion System Propellant Loading
Propellant loading of the S-IVB Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) was

accomplished satisfactorily_ Total propellant mass in both modules at
liftoff was 182 kilograms (401.2 Ibm) of Nitrogen Tetroxide (N204) and
116 kilograms (255,8 Ibm) of Monomethyl Hydrazine (MMH).
3.5 S-II INSULATION, PURGEAND LEAK DETECTION
The S-II-504 _tage was the first to utilize improved joint closeouts of
the external insulation. The joint closeouts for the insulation panels
were of the nylon wet-layup configuration and replaced the rubber doublers
used as closeouts on previous stages, The rubber doublers were susceptible
to excessive cracking at low temperatures. A marked improvement in
performance of the external insulation during ground hold and flight
reflected the improved quality of the new insulation. Hazardous gas
concentrations were low in all purge circuits.
3.5.1 Forward Bulkhead Insulation/Forward Bulkhead Uninsulated Circuits
The forward bulkhead purge circuits were set to provide a stage inlet
pressure of Io0 N/cm2 (1.5 psig). The forward bulkhead insulation circuit
and uninsulated circuit were interconnected as on the previous flight
vehicle. During propellant tanking the insulation circuit inlet pressure
remained steady at approximately 1.0 N/cm2 (1.5 psig) and the outlet
pressure was slightly positive at approximately 0.01N/cm2 (0.015 psig)
until launch. Inlet p_essure of the forward bulkhead uninsulated circuit
was steady at 1.5 N/cmZ (2.2 psig).
3.5.2 Forward Skirt
The forward skirt inlet pressure decreased from 0.7 N/cm2 (I.0 psig) at
_- the beginning of LOX loading to 0.5 N/cm2 (0.7 psig) at the beginning of
LH2 loading. This loss of pressure was caused by the LH2 tank chilling
during LOX loading. After LH2 loading the inlet pressure remained steady
at 0°4 N/cm2 (0.6 psig) until launch.
3-3
3.5.3 Sidewall
From an ambient set-up value of 1.47 N/cm2 (2.14 psig), the sidewall inlet
pressure declined gradually to 1.2 N/cm2 (I°8 psig) during LH2 tank chill-
down. During LH2 fill, the pressure further declined to 1.0 N/cm2 (1.5 psig)
but at the completion of LH_ loading it had recovered to 1.2 N/cm2 (1.8 psig)
where it remained until launch.
Following nearly the same profile as the inlet, the sidewall outlet
pressure decreased gradually from 1.2 to 0.7 N/cm2 (1.8 to 1.0 psig)
during LH2 tank chilldown. At the beginning of LH2 fill the2Pressure
changed from 0.82 N/cm2 (Io2 psig) to a minimum of 0.23 N/cm (0.34 psig)
but recovered to 0.4 N/cm2 (0.6 psig) in approximately 20 minutes, continu-
ing to increase to 0.6 N/cm2 (0.8 psig) at launch. There were no insula-
tion discrepancies identified by operational television inspection nor
was back purge required at any time.
Sidewall external temperature measurements generally ranged from 266 to

278°K (20 to 40°F) with two measurements as low as 236 and 228°K
(-25 and -50°F). Because of the high relative humidity, a heavy frost
layer formed on the insulation. Maximum temperature indicated in flight
was 300°K (80°F). Total heat flow into the hydrogen during flight was
164,479,000 watt-seconds (156,000 Btu), well below contract requirements.
3_5.4 Cylinder I, Bolting Ring and J-Ring Combined Circuits
Outlet pressure remained positive at approximately 0.03 N/cm2 (0.05 psig)

indicating integrity of the cylinder 1 bonded foam-block insulation which
was replaced prior to shipment to KSC. This repair utilized Lefkoweld 109
adhesive supported by a glass carrier cloth to bond the preformed foam
blocks to the tank wall. Inlet pressure remained steady at approximately
1.2 N/cm2 (1.8 psig).
3.5.5 Common Bulkhead
Inlet pressure remained at approximately 2.5 N/cm2 (3.6 psig) during the
period the bulkhead was purged.
The outlet pressure decreased from approximately 1.9 to 1.7 N/cm2

(2.7 to 2.4 psig) during LOX loading but recovered normally. At the
start of LH2 loading the pressure decreased to -2.1N/cm 2 (-3 psig) before
recovering after approximately 20 minutes. This is normal and is the
r_sult of thermal shrinkage of the purge gas.
Evacuation of the bulkhead was startedapproximately 3:40:00 prior to

launch. The redline limit of 2.1N/cmZ (3 psia) was reached in approxi-
mately 45 minutes. Pressure at liftoff was 0.21N/cm2 (0.3 psia) and did
not exceed 0.34 N/cm2 (0.5 psia) during flight.
3-4
3.5.6 Feedline Elbow
The feedline elbow circuit consisted of internal grooves cut into the
..... bolting support rings that retained the stainless steel elbows.
Inlet pressure varied between 1.9 and 2.0 N/cm2 (2.8 and 2.9 psig)
throughout the countdown. The outlet pressure remained reasonably steady
at 0.6 N/cm2 (0.8 psig) during the countdown.
3.6 GROUNDSUPPORTEQUIPMENT (GSE)
3.6.1 Ground/Vehicle Interface
Ground sYstems performance was highly satisfactory. The Holddown Arms

(HDA), Tail Service Masts (TSM), Service Arms (SA), and all other ground
equipment functioned well in support of AS-504 launch.
All HDA were released pneumatically. All HDA release occurred at 0.3
second. The drop and lanyard pull for each arm was sufficiently fast to
preclude detonation of the explosive nuts. The HDA service arm control
switches functioned properly. Blast damage to the HDA consisted mainly
of warped protective hoods and removal of some of the ablative coating.
The grout under the base of HDA No. 3 was blown in, allowing flames to
scorch some of the electrical cables inside the base.
TSM retraction was normal and all protective hoods closed properly. Mast
retraction times were 2.53 seconds for TSM I-2, 2.09 seconds for TSM 3-2,
and 2.34 seconds for TSM 3-4, measured from umbilical plate separation
to mast retract indication. The ablative coating applied to the TSM
provided adequate blast protection; only a top coating will be required to
restore the ablative protection.
SA systems performed within design limits during the launch sequence and
retraction was normal. Damage to the SA at launch was the slightest yet
experienced. There was some hydraulic fluid leakage in the SA No. 1
control console, however, there were no fires.
The SA No. 1 latchback "latched" indication was not displayed, and the
"unlatched" indication was not extinguished, on the firing room control
panel following liftoff. Postlaunch data reviews revealed that the
unlatched signal went off at 1.73 seconds and that the latched signal
went on at 1.77 seconds. Accordingly, it has been concluded that latchback
of the arm to the tower was achieved in the expected manner.
The accumulator level switch in SA No. 4 hydraulic withdrawal system did

_ not respond properly during performance of the automated pressure and
level check program from -14 to -8 minutes . The hydraulic level low
indication was so rapid that it was not sensed by the computer and the
accumulator bleed valve was therefore not commanded closed. The program
3_5
halted for corrective instruction after a 90-second lapse without sensing
low level. The bleed valve control switch was positioned manually° To
insure a full charge in the system_ the charging valve control switch
was manually placed in the open position for 3 seconds and was then
returned to the automatic mode.
3.6.2 MSFC Furnished Ground Support Equipment
3o6o2oi S-IC Stage Oriented. The S_IC stage GSE performed satisfactorily
during countdown and_ Blast damage to the mechanical support
equipment wa_minor. LUT storage racks incurred slight structural damage
and activation of the dry chemical fire extinguishing system covered the
hydraulic supply and checkout unit with white powder. There was no
appreciable launch damage to the electrical support equipment.
The only mechanical support equipment anomaly occurred during charging of the
the S-IC Gaseous Nitrogen (GN2) control bottles at -6:_0:00. The high
pressure fill regulator overshot the set pressure of 2172 ±34°5 N/cm_
(3150 ±50 psig) and the GN2 bottles were pressurized 34.5 N/cm2 (50 psi)
over the 2275 N/cm_ (3300 psig) redline. The vent valve was cycled and
the bottles repressurized to 2186 N/cm2 (3170 psig). Bottle pressure
stabilized at this value and the repressurization sequence was considered
satisfactory for continuation of the countdown.
An electrical support equipment anomaly occurred during S-IC pneumatic

systems preparation for launch° A relay in the LOX fill and drain heater
circuit failed and caused shorting of an adjacent relay in the engine
igniter circuit° The power module, containing both relays, was replaced
and the circuit retested with no recurrence of the problem.
3.6.2.2 S:II Stage Oriented° The S-11 stage GSE satisfactorily supported
countdown and launch. There were no significant failures or anomalies.
One minor problem was a defective relay in an amplifier sequencer rack
(leak detection circuit) that was removed and replaced prior to -28 hours°
Another minor discrepancy was a pneumatic control console (S-II insulation
purge) feedline flowmeter output drop to zero during telemetry checks.
It was determined that S-II telemetry transmitters caused Radio Frequency
(RF) interference in the flowmeter circuitry, however, the flowmeter output
is not mandatory during this brief telemetry check period. Only very minor
damage was incurred to the S_11GSE during launch.
3.6o2_3 S-IVB Stage Oriented° Overall performance of the S-IVB stage GSE
was satisfac--cTo-ry, The only system problems encountered were failures of
two dome regulators and a helium relief valve in the pneumatic console.
During prelaunch preparations, the 2206 N/cm2 (3200 psi) dome regulator
]ocated in the pneumatic supply console was replaced because of leakage°
3_6
The new regulator also failed after two operational cycles. At the same
time the 2206 N/cm2 (3200 psi) ambient helium relief valve failed open.
Both the regulator and relief valve required replacement. Blast damage
to the support equipment was generally minor. However, several LUT
....... equipment storage racks received considerable damage such as cracked
welds, broken latches and bent doors.
3.6.2.4 IU Stage Oriented. The Instrument Unit (IU) GSE performance

during countdown was satisfactory although a few minor anomalies occurred.
One of these was valve leakage in the GN2 supply system. Valve leakage
was detected in the GN2 high pressure system during the pneumatic console
regulator adjustment at -20 hours. The adjustment sequence was terminated
and the system repressurized for component isolation and inspection. The
leakage did not recur although the hardware was cycled a number of times.
The system also functioned properly through the rest of the count and
subsequent recycle. There was no launch damage sustained by the mechanical
or electrical support equipment.
3-7/3-8
/r
SECTION 4
TRAJECTORY
4.1 SUriN_ARY
The vehicle was launched on an azimuth of 90 degrees east of north.

At 13.3 seconds, the vehicle started a roll maneuver to a flight azimuth
of 72 degrees east of north. The space-fixed velocity at S-IC Outboard
Engine Cutoff (OECO) was 29.33 m/s (96.23 ft/s) lower than nominal.
The space-fixed velocity at S-ll Engine Cutoff (ECO) was 81.70 m/s
(268.04 ft/s) lower than nominal. The space-fixed velocity at S-IVB
first engine cutoff was 0.87 m/s (2.86 ft/s) greater than nominal. The
altitude at S-IVB first burn cutoff was 0.31 kilometer (0.17 n mi) lower
than nominal and the surface range was 66.77 kilometers (36.06 n mi)
greater than nominal.
The parking orbit insertion conditions were very close to nominal except
for the time of insertion itself. This was due primarily to the below
normal performance of the S-IC and S-11 stages. Parking orbit insertion
time was 15.93 seconds later than nominal. The space-fixed velocity
at insertion was 0.61 m/s (2.00 ft/s) greater than nominal and the flight
path angle was 0.0049 degree lower than nominal. The eccentricity was
0.000133 greater than nominal. The apogee and perigee were 1.26 kilometer
(0.68 n mi) greater than nominal and 0.49 kilometer (0.27 n mi) lower than
nominal, respectively.
The intermediate orbit insertion conditions were very close to nominal

except for the space-fixed velocity which was 18.67 m/s (61.25 ft/s)
greater than nominal. The flight path angle at intermediate orbit inser-
tion was 0.041 degree lower than nominal. The eccentricity was 0.00503
greater than nominal.
The escape orbit injection parameters deviated significantly from nominal.

The value ofm2C32was
30,470,506 824,712 m2/s_
/s (327,981,795 ft /s(2,877,126 ft2/s nominal.
) lower than 2) which was
The eccentric-
i ty was 0.6532 less than nominal, the inclination angBe was 0.054 degree
..... less than nominal, and the descending node was 0.242 degree greater than
nominal. Required escape velocity for the actual altitude reached at
escape orbit injection was 9,596.22 m/s (31,483.66 ft/s). The actual
velocity reached at escape orbit injection was 9,637.73 m/s
(31,619.85 ft/s) which was 41.51 m/s (136.19 ft/s) greater than required.
4-I
The total space-fixed velocity was 1,520.20 m/s (4,987.53 ft/s) lower
than nominal and the altitude was 106.05 kilometers (57.26 n mi) higher
than nominal.
The actual impact locations for the spent SulC and S-II stages were
determined by a theoretical free-flight simulation. The surface range
for the S-IC impact point was 32.10 kilometers (17.33 n mi) less than
nominal. The surface range for the S-II impact point was 6.23 kilometers
(3.36 n mi) less than nominal.
4.2 TRACKING DATA UTILIZATION
4.2.1 Tracking During the Ascent Phase of Flight
Tracking data were obtained during the period from the time of first
motion through parking orbit insertion.
The ascent trajectory was established by merging the launch phase trajec:
tory with the best estimate trajectory. The launch phase trajectory was
established by integrating the telemetered body-fixed accelerometer data,
and verified by Offset Frequency Doppler (ODOP) tracking data. The best
estimate trajectory utilized telemetered guidance velocities as the gener-
ating parameters to fit data from six different C-Band tracking stations.
These data points were fit through a guidance error model and constrained
to the insertion vector obtained from the orbital solution. Comparison
of the ascent trajectory with data from all the tracking systems yielded
reasonable agreement.
4.2.2 Tracking During Orbital Flight
Orbital tracking was conducted by the rlASA Manned Space Flight Network
(MSFN). C-Band radar stations furnished data for use in determining the
parking orbit, intermediate orbit, and escape orbit. There were also con-
siderable S-Band tracking data available during these periods of flight
which were not used due to the abundance of C-Band radar data°
The orbital trajectories were obtained by integrating corrected insertion/

injection conditions forward. The insertion/injection conditions, as
determined by the Orbital Correction Program (OCP), were obtained by a
differential correction procedure which adjusted the estimated insertion/
injection conditions to fit the C-Band radar tracking data in accordance
with the weights assigned to the data. After all the C-Band radar track-
ing data were analyzed, some stations and passes were eliminated
completely from use in the determination of the insertion/injection
conditions.
4-2
4.2.3 Tracking During S-IVB Second Burn Phase of Flight
f -
C-Band radar data were obtained from the stations located at Patrick Air
Force Base, Merritt Island, and Grand Bahama Island. These tracking data
were found to be incompatible with the restart and intermediate orbit in=
sertion vectors determined by the OCP, and were not used for the
trajectory determination.
The S-IVB second burn trajectory was obtained by integrating the corrected
restart vector forward utilizing telemetered guidance velocities. The
corrected restart vector was determined by a procedure which adjusted the
estimated restart vector in order to arrive at the same state vector at
intermediate orbit insertion as determined from the intermediate orbital
solution.
4.2.4 Tracking During S:IVB Third Burn Phase of Flight
C-Band radar data were obtained from Carnarvon during the period from
S-IVB second restart through escape orbit injection.
The S-IVB third burn trajectory was obtained by integrating the corrected
second restart vector forward utilizing telemetered guidance velocities.
The corrected second restart vector was determined by a procedure which
adjusted the estimated restart vector to fit the tracking data in a best
estimate sense utilizing the telemetered guidance velocities as generating
parameters. Comparison of the second restart vector and the resulting
escape orbit injection vector with those determined by orbital solutions
yielded reasonable agreement.
4.3 TRAJECTORY EVALUATION
4.3.1 Ascent Trajectory
Actual and nominal altitude, surface range, and cross range for the ascent
phase are presented in Figure 4-I. Actual and nominal space-fixed
velocity and flight path angle during ascent are shown in Figure 4-2.
The velocity deviation at S-11 Engine Cutoff (ECO) of 81.70 m/s
(268.0 ft/s) less than nominal was outside the 3-sigma tolerance of
_69.5 m/s (-228°0 ft/s). Lower propulsion performance levels than pre-
dicted on both the S-IC and S-II stages were the primary contributors to this
velocity deviation. A breakdown of the individual contributing sources is
presented in Table 4_I. This table shows that trajectory conditions at
the start of the S-II operation were a major contributor to reduced S-II
stage performance. The altitude deviation of -2.89 kilometers (-1.56 n mi)
_ was within the -3o value of -3.27 kilometers (-1.77 n mi). The major
contributor to the lower propulsion performance on both stages are
discussed in paragraph 5.3 (S-IC Propulsion) and paragraph 6.3 (S-It
Propulsion). Comparisons of total inertial accelerations are shown in
4-3
Figure 4-3. The maximum acceleration during S-IC burn according to the
postflight trajectory was 3.85 g. The accuracy of the trajectory at
S-IVB first cutoff is estimated to be _I.0 m/s (±3.3 ft/s) in velocity
components and ±500 meters (±1640 ft) in position components.
Mach number and dynamic pressure are shown in Figure 4-4. These para-
meters were calculated using measured meteorological data to an altitude
of 73.00 kilometers (39.42 n mi). Above this altitude the measured data
were merged into the U. S. Standard Reference Atmosphere.
Actual and nominal values of parameters at significant trajectory event

times, cutoff events, and separation events are shown in Tables 4-2,
4-3, and 4-4, respectively°
3000- 240- _ ACTUAL

_NOMINAL
S-II ECO
S-IC OECO //
2500- 200- S-IVB IST ECO I /
2ooo- 16o. _._ 1

. ,,"/ ) i _ J
= ALTITUDE _ / SURFACE RANGE,_ ' _
1000- 80-
z/
_
,
I
,
) /
/,/ _ i_ cross
RANGE
,
i
500-40. / _/ _,_', , '

0 O l _._--_ _ / I
0 lO0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 4-I. Ascent Trajectory Position Comparison
4_4
Table 4_I. Total Velocity Deviations During S:IC/S-ll Burn
.... a V DEVIATIONS
ACTUAL 3 SIGMALIMIT
m/s m/s
(ft/s) (ft/s)
_-IC Stage
WindsandAtmposheric 5
Density (16)
Stage Performance (Engine -14
TagValuesand Drag (-46)
Coefficient)
Mixture Ratio (+0.62 -13
Percent) (-43)
FuelDensity (+0.46 3
Percent) (I0)
LOXLoadat HolddownArm -4
Release-2150 kg (-4740 (-13)
Ibm)
LOXResiduals2561kg -6
(5645
Ibm) (-20)
Total S-IC Stage (Both -29 -44.5
Calculated and Observed) (-96) (-146.0)
S-If Stage
Initial Conditions -58.3 to -61.3
(Including S-lC AV, Low (-191.3) to (-201.1)
Altitude, and 1.0 Degree
Flight Path Angle)
S-ll Propulsion _12.2 to -15.2"
Performance (-40.0) to (-49.9)
Increased S-II GOX
Pressurant Residual of
343 kg (756 Ibm) at ECO -6.1 to -9.1
Increased Upper Stage (-20.0) to (-29.9)
Weight of 450 kg (992 Ibm)
Total Calculated -76.6 to -85.6
(_251.3) to (_280.9)
_- Total Observed -81.7 -69.5
(-268.0) (_228.0)
*Only 3 to 5 m/s (I0 to 16.5 ft/s) verified to be due to difference
in predicted and actual propulsion performance.
4-5
Table 4-2. Comparison of Significant Trajectory Events
EVENT PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM
FirstMotion RangeTime,sec 0.3 0.3 0.00
Total inertial Acceleration

m/s 2 10.78 II.01 -0.23
(ft/s 2) (35.37) (36.12) (-0.75)
Mach l Range Time, sec 68.2 65.4 2.8
Altitude,
km 7.86 7.78 0.08
(n mi) (4.24) (4.20) (0.04)
Maximum Dynamic Range Time, se¢ 85.5 81.4 4.1

Pressure
Dynamic Pressure, n/cm 2 3.020 3.285 -0.265
(Ib/ft 2) (830.740) (686.087) (-55.347)
Altitude,km 13.76 13.32 0.44

(nmi) (7.43) (7.19) (0.24)
Maximum Total
Inertial
Accelerationt S-IC Range Time, sec 162.84 l59.96' 2.88
Acceleration, m/s 2 37.72 38.50 -0.78

(ft/s 2) (123.75) (126.31 (-2.56)
S-If Range Time, sec 536.31 531.25 5.06
Acceleration, m/s 2 19.61 20.37 -0.76

(ft/s 2) (64.34) (66.83 (-2.49)
S-lVB Ist Burn Range Time, sec 664.74 648.81 15.93
Acceleration, m/s 2 7.84 7.68 0.16

(ft/s 2) (25.72) (25.20 (0.52)
S-IVB 2nd Burn Range Time, sec 17,217,68 17,212.41 5.27
Acceleration, m/s 2 12,16 11.79 0.37

(ft/s 2) (39.90) (38.68) (1.22)
S-IVB 3rd Burn Range Time, sec 22,133.00 22,274.41 -141.41
Acceleration, m/s2_ 16.58 35.61 -19.03

(ft/s_) (54.40) (116.83 (-62.43)
Maximum Earth-
Fixed Velocity: S-IC Range Time, sec 163.45 160.67 2.78
Velocity, m/s 2,388.99 2,407.41 -18.42

(ft/s) (7,837.89) (7,898.33) (-60.44)
S-If Range Time, sec 536.45 531.96 4,4g
Velocity, m/s 6,535,25 6,618.93 -83.68

(ft/s) (21,441.11) (21,715.65) (-274,54)
S-IV8 Ist Burn Range Time, sec 674.66 658.71 15.95
Velocity m/s 7,390,30 7,389.71 0.59

ft/s) (24,246.39) (24,244.46) (I.93)
S-IVB 2nd Burn Range Time, sec 17,218.20 17,214.06 4.14
Velocity, m/s 8,056,65 8,038.53 18.12
(ft/s) (26,432.58) (26,373.13) (59.45)
S-IVB 3rd Burn Range Time, sec 22,283.50 22,275.56 7.94

Velocity, m/s 9,120.68 10,646.93 -1,526.25
(ft/s) (29,923.49) I(34,930.87) (-5,007.38)
Apex: S-IC Stage Range Time, sec 266.03 270.26 -4.23

Altitude,km 109.70 I18.88 -9.18
(nmi) (59.23) (64.19 (-4.96)
Surface Range, km 319.22 333.15, -13.93
(n mi) (172.37) (179.89) (-7.52)
S-I! Stage Range Time, sec 593.58 563.26 30.32

Altitude,km 189.83 190.07 -0.24
(n mi) (102.50) (102.63 (-0.13)
Surface Range, km 1,900.81 1,745.11 155.70
(n mi) (I,026.38) (942.28) (84.08)
4-6
Table 4-3. Comparison of Cutoff Events
ACTUAL I NOMIHAL I ACI-ROM ACTUAL NOMINAL I ACT-NON

PARAMETER .................
S-IC CECO (ENGINE SOLENOID) S-IC OECO (ENGINE SOLENOID)
Range Time, sec 134.34 134,27 0.07 168.76 159,96 2.80
Altitude, km 41.59 45.14 -3.58 64.47 67.36 -2.89

4n ml) 422,40) (24.37) (-1.9]) (34.8]) (56.37) (-1.56)
Surface Range, km 45.56 47.38 -1.82 95.56 93.56 2.00

4n mi) 424.60) 425,58) 4-0,98) 451,60) 450.52) (1.08)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 1,929.23 2,008./2 -79.49 2,747,38 2,776.71 -29.33

4ft/$) (d,32g,49) 46,590,29) (-260.80) 4g,013.71) 4g,log.g4) 4-96.23)
FligHt Path Angle, den 22,577 23.468 -0.891 I8.539 1g.610 -I.071
Heading A_gle, d_ g 76,420 76.153 0.267 78.'338 78.271 0,064
Cross Range, km 0.20 0.I0 O.]O 0.43 0.22 0.21

4n mI) 40.11) (0.05) (0,06) (0,23) (0.12) (O.11)
Cross Range Velocity, m/s 7,18 2.97 4.21 9.40 7.44 1.96
4ft/s) 423.56) (9,74) 413,82) 430.04) {24.4_) 46.43)
S-If ECO (ENGINE SOCENOID) S-IVB IST ECO (ENGINE SOLENOID)
R_ge Ti_e, $ec 836,28 531.16 5.06 664,66 648,73 15.93
Altitude, km 186.56 I89.14 -2.58 191.04 191.35 -0,31

4n mi) 4100.73) 4_02.13) (-1.40) (I03.18) 4103,32) 4-0._7)
Surface Range, km 1,538.09 1,539.29 -I.13 2_401.63 2,334.86 66.77

4n mi) 4830.50) 4831,15) 4-0,61) 41,296,78) (_,260.72) 436.06)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 6,935.28 7,017.17 -81.70 7,791.g0 7,791.03 0.87

(ft/s] 422,753.54) 23,022.21) -268.04) 25,563.98) 25,561.1R) (2.80)
Flight Path Angle, den 0.9]8 0.464 0,454 -0,007 -0.002 -0.005
Heading Angle, deg 81.872 81.872 0,000 86.979 86.545 0,434
Cross Range, km 24.29 23.91 0.38 51.58 48.45 3.13

(n mi) (13.12) (12.9I) (0,21) (27,85) 426.16) (1.69)
Cross Range Velocity, m/! 168.91 170,60 -1.68 260.12 250.89 9.23
4ft/s I (554.17) (559,71) 4-5.51) (853.41) (823.13) 430.28)
S-IVB ZHD ECO 4EMGINE,.SOLENDID S-IVB 3RD ECO (ENGINE SOLENOID)
Range Time, sec 17,217.60 17,212,34 5.26 22,281.32 22,275.33 5.9g
Altitude, hm 200.30 200.94 -0.64 2,283.40 2,172.88 I]O.S2

(n mi) 4108.15) 4108.50) .(-0.35) 4i,232.94) 41,173.26) 459,68)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/_ 8,455.77 8_430.20 17.57 9_628.38 11,150.11 -1.521.73

4ft/$) 27,742.03) (27,684.38) 457.65) 31,589.17) (38,581.73) 4-4,992.58
Flight Path Angle, den 0.384 0.429 -0,045 -1.007 1.093 -2.100
Heading Angle, deg 112.544 112.921 -0.377 56.509 56.737 -0.228
Eccentticity 0.17952 0.17477 0.00475 1.01443 1.66680 -0.65237
C3 _ m2/s2 -49,748,466 -50,023,056 274,590 664,476 31,092,572 -30,428,09

{fhR/s 2) -538,48H,03" 4-538,4a3,884) _,g55,868 _7,152,_58) (334,077,660) [-327,525,300
Inclination, deg 32.303 32,490 -0.187 33.824 33.869 -0.045
Oescendtng Node, den 41.658 41.271 0.387 41.024 41,387 0.237
* C3 is twice the specific energy of orbit
C3 = V2 . R2_
where V = Inertial Velocity

p = Gravitational Constant
f
R = Radius vector from center of earth
4-7
Table 4-4. Comparison of Separation Events
ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM

PARAMETER
S_IC/S-II SEPARATION
Range Time,sac 163,45 160.68 2.77
A]titude,km 65.09 68.02 -2,93

(n mi) (35.15) (36.73) (-1.58)
SurFace Range, km 97,06 95.10 1.96

(n mi) (52.41) (51.35) (I.06)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 2,761.27 2,786.48 -25.21

(ft/s) (9,059.28) (9,141.99) (-82.71)
Flight Path Angle, deg 18,449 19.508 -1.059
Heading Angle, deg 75,337 75.260 0,069
Cross Range, km 0.44 0.23 0.21

(n mi) (0.24) (0.12) (0.12)
Cross Range Velocity, m/s 9.92 7_56 2.36

(ft/s) (32.55) (24.80) (7.75)
Geodetic Latitude, deg N 28,872 28.868 0.004
Longitude, deg E -79.657 -79.676 O.Olg
S-II/S-IVB SEPARATION
RangeTime,sac 537.2 532.0 5.2
Altitude, km 186.67 109.18 -2.51

(n mi) (100.79) (102.15) (-1.36)
Surface Range, km 1,544.|9 1,544.43 -0.24

(n ml) (833.80) (833.93) (-0.13)
Space-Fixed Velocity m/s 5,937.94 7,021.96 -84.02

(ft/s) (22_762.27) (23,037.93) (-275.66)
Flight Path Angle, deg 0.906 0.457 0.449
HeadingAngle,deg 81.907 81.901 0.006
CrossRange,km 24.45 24.05 0.40

(n mi) (13.20) (12.99) (0.21)
Cross Range Velocity, m/s 169.43 171.10 -1.67

(ft/s) (555.87) (561.35) (-5.48)
Geodetic Latitude, deg N 31.802 31.806 -0.004
Longitude, deg E -64.979 -64.976 -0.003
S-IVB/SPACECRAFT FINAL SEPARATION
Range Time, sac 14,886.0 14,983 -97.0
Altitude,km 194.89 193.54 1.35

(n mi) (105.23) (I04.50) (0.73)
Space-Fixed Veloclty, mTs 7,792.22 7,793.29 -I.07

(ft/s) (25,565.03) (25,568.54) (-3.51)
Flight Path Angle, deg 0,028 0.037 -0.009
HeadingAngle,deg 60.373 58.985 1.388
Geodetic Latitude, deg N -14.315 -10.638 -3.677
Longitude, deg E 135.624 141.644 -6.020
4-8
3_2
- 8_0o_o_
r ,
/ .28- 7000 = ,_ _/_ /-FLIGHT PATHANGLE /7_"
20" 5000 _
4000
_"a16-.o..a
_ ..... NOMINAL
12- _ = =: _/S-IC OECO
_ ° _ _,,7 -- s.ii
ECO
ACTOAL
V/S-IVB IST ECO
O-
=4
,ooo-
/
-lO00
0
/
lO0
I,
_
200 l
'\
300
Figure 4-2. Ascent TrajectorySpace-FixedVelocity Comparison
The free-flighttrajectoriesof the spent S=IC and S-II stages were

simulated using initial conditions from the final postflight trajectory.
400
_NGE TIME,SECONDS
The simulation was based upon the separation impulses for both stages and
nominal tumbling drag coefficients. No tracking data were available for
verification. Table 4=2 presents a comparisonof free=flightparameters
to nominal at apex for the S-IC and S-If stages. Table 4-5 presents a
500
_
600 700 800
comparisonof free=flightparametersto nominal at impact for the S-IC

and S-II stages.
/.... 4.3.2 Parking Orbit Trajectory
The acceleration due to venting during parking orbit is presented in

Figure 4-5. These accelerations were obtained by differentiating the
telemetered guidance velocity data and removing accelerometer biases and
the effects of drag.
4=9
40
ACTUAL
J ...... NOMINAL
35 _S-ICOECO
_S-ll ECO
_S-IVBIST ECO
30 i _
I
z5 i ! _ i l
N
_ 20
_: 15.
lO i
E
E
5¸ !
i
!
0 l O0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 4-3. Ascent Trajectory Acceleration Comparison
A family of values for the insertion parameters was obtained depending

upon the combination of data used and the weights applied to the data.
The solutions that were considered reasonable had a spread of about
5500 meters (±1640 ft) in position components and ±I.0 m/s (±3.3 ft/s)
in velocity components. The actual and nominal parking orbit insertion
parameters are presented in Table 4-6. The ground track from liftoff to
escape orbit injection plus 5650 seconds is given in Figure 4-6.
4.3,3 S-IVB Second Burn Trajectory
Comparisons between the actual and nominal total space-fixed velocity and
flight path angle are shown in Figure 4-7. The actual and nominal total
inertial acceleration comparisons are presented in Figure 4-8. Throughout
4-10
,o- i'iI 'i[ ! i ! i l
• 3.5- ! ! ! i i i i _ i _i ii i
-- ACTUAL
3.0- _DYNAMIC PRESSURE---'_,c-
_ ; ....... NOMIIIIAL
: ! : ",z!/ \.\ : F
Z.5- l#
-T " ........... 7_ ' '
• Ii • \\ /
# %
1.0- -_ ......... _' '
I
I
0,5- /
i I '
o-
0 20 40 60 80 1O0 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 4-4. Dynamic Pressure and Mach Number
.f.
RANGE
TIME,SECONOS
0 OO:30:OD O1:00:00 01:30:00 02:00:00 02:30:00 03:00:00 03:30:00 "04:00:00 .04:30:00

RANGE 3"IHE_
HOURS:HINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 4-5. Acceleration Due to Venting - Parking Orbit
4-11
Table 4-5. Stage Impact Location
PARAMETER ACTUAL I NOMINAL ACT-NOM

l
S-IC STAGE IMPACT
Range Time, sec 536.44 547.00 -10.56
Surface Range, km 641.97 674.07 -32.10

(n mi) (346.64) (363.97) (-17.33)
Cross Range, km 7.61 7.51 0.I0

(n mi) (4.11) (4.05) (0.05)
Geodetic Latitude, deg N 30.183 30.258 -0.075
Longitude, deg E -74.238 -73.917 -0.321
S-II STAGE IMPACT
Range Time, sec 1,225.35 1,216.40 8.95
Surface Range, km 4,469.24 4,475.47 -6.23

(n mi) (2,413.20) (2,416.56) (-3.36)
Cross Range, km 146.39 145.60 0.79

(n mi) (79.04) (78.62) (0.42)
Geodetic Latitude, deg N 31.462 31.462 0.000
Longitude, deg E -34.041 -33.977 -0_064
Table 4-6. Parking Orbit Insertion Conditions
PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM
Range Time, sec 674.65 658.72 15.93
Altitude, km 191.04 191.36 -0.32

(n mi) (103.15) (103.33) (-0.18)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 7,793.67 7,793.06 0.61

(ft/s) (25,569.78) 25,567.78) (2.00)
Flight Path Angle, deg -0.0058 -0.0009 =0.0049
Heading Angle, deg 87.412 86.977 0.435
Inclination, deg 32.552 32.561 -0.009
Descending Node, deg 42.538 42.570 -0.032
Eccentricity 0.000149 0.000016 0.000133
Apogee *, km 186=57 185.31 1.26

(n mi) (100.74) (I00.06) (0.68)
Perigee*, km 184.61 185.10 -0.49

(n mi) (99.68) (99.95) (-0.27)
Period, min 88.20 88.20 0.00
Longitude, deg E -55.166 -55.877 0.711
Based on a spherical earth of radius 6378.165 km (3443.934 n mi)
4-12
1 FIRST REVOLUTION 2 SECOND REVOLUTION 3 THIRD REVOLUTION
40 INTERMEDIATE __ p_
ORBIT INSERTION I :iv I _"
60 ill SC,L,
IF,NA
SEPARATION
l t
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 160 ]40 120 100 8(
g _ LONGITUDE, de S _ E
Figure 4-6. Ground Track
l ,4 _
],2"
,.-?
0.2.
-0.2
0 lO0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
TIME FROM T6, SECONDS
• .... J i i _e I
04:36:00 04:39:00 04:42:00 04:45:00 04:48:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 4-7. S-IVB Second Burn Phase Space-Fixed Velocity Comparison
4-13
the S-IVB second burn phase of flight, the space-fixed velocity and the
total inertial acceleration were slightly greater than nominal, and the
flight path angle was slightly less than nominal.
The trajectory parameters at S-IVB second cutoff are presented in

Table 4-3.
4°3.4 Intermediate Orbit Trajectory
The acceleration due to venting during the intermediate orbit is presented

in Figure 4-9. The actual and nominal intermediate orbit insertion
parameters are presented in Table 4-7.
4.3.5 S-IVB Third Burn Trajectory
Comparisons between the actual and nominal total space-fixed velocity and
flight path angle are shown in Figure 4-I0. The actual and nominal total
inertial acceleration comparisons are presented in Figure 4-11, These
trajectory parameters were reasonably close to nominal until approximately
550 seconds into Time Base 8 (T8)° Afterwards, the trajectory parameters
were considerably lower than nominal.
The trajectory parameters at S-IVB third cutoff are presented in Table 4-3.
4.3,6 Escape Orbit Trajectory
The escape orbit was hyperbolic with respect to the earth. The actual and
nominal escape orbit injection conditions are compared in Table 4-8.
The solar orbit attained by the S-IVB/IU differed considerably from the
predicted orbit as shown in Table 4_9. This difference was due to the
abnormal performance of the S-IVB during its third burn. A planned LH2
dump and LOX dump did not oqcur. The APS engines performed as shown
in Figure 4-12, increasing the velocity by 9°7 m/s (31o8 ft/s)o The APS
engines were fired by ground commandto increase the velocity.
4-14
Table 4-7. Intermediate Orbit Insertion Conditions
Range Time, sec 17,227.60 17,222.34 5.26
Altitude, km 200.88 201.57 -0.69

(n mi) (108.47) (108.84) (-0.37)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 8,459.30 8,440.63 18.67

(ft/s) (27,753.61) 27,692.36) (61.25)
Flight Path Angle, deg 0.498 0,539 -0.041
Heading Angle, deg 112.841 ]13.216 -0.375
Inclination, deg 32.302 32.490 -0.188
Descending Node, deg 41.657 41.271 0.386
Eccentricity 0.18070 0.17567 0.00503
Apogee*, km 3,095.76 2,998.26 97.50

(n mi) (1,671.58) (1,618.93) (52.65)
Perigee *, km 195.85 196.24 -0.39

in mi) (105.75) (I05.96) (-0.21)
Period, min 119.22 118.]4 1.08
Longitude, deg E :73.807 -73.545 -0.262
* Based on a spherical earth of radius 6378.165 km

(3443.934 n mi)
Table 4-8. Escape Orbit Injection Conditions
PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL ....I' " ACT-NOM
Range Time, sec 22,291.32 22,285.33 5.99
Altitude, km 2,281.56 2,175.51 106.05

(n mi) (1,231.94) (1,174.68) (57.26)
Space-Fixed
Velocity, m/s 9,637.73 11,157.93 -1,520.20
(ft/s) (31,619.85) (36,607.38) (-4,987.53)
Flight Path
Angle, deg _ -0.678 1.568 -2.246
Heading Angle, deg 56.555 56,811 -0.256
Eccentricity 1.0179 1.6711 -0.6532
C3, m21s 2 824,712. 3],295,218. -30,470.506.

(ft_/s 2) (8,877,126.) (336,858,g21. (-327,981,795.)
Inclination, deg 33.825 33.879 -0.054
Descending Node, 41.623 41.381 0.242

deg
4-15
14 I I I
' ACTUAL
-------_NOMINAL ........................
__ ZdTEOM_DmA7_
12" _-ORBIT ]NSERTION"
10 --
_ 6
U
2 I_E_EDIME
O_]T
INSE_ION
o 0 I_ 2_ 3_ S_ 600
II
7_
TIME FROM T6_ SECONDS

i 1 J l _J _
D4_36_00 04_3N_DO 0N_42_00 04_N$_00 0N_4B_00
_NGE TIM_ _M_R_$_$_
Figure 4-8, S-IVB Second Burn Phase Acceleration Comparison
3.2 =
2.4"
1.6"
0
17000 22000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
04:45:0Q 05 '.
00:00 05:15:00 05:30:00 05:'_5:00 06:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONI_S
Figure 4=9. Acceleration Due to Venting - Intermediate Orbit
4_16
\,
36
32 INJECTION
I0800" ACTUAL i 28.

- "T-No.lNAL--
ESCAPE ORBIT
INJECTION, _ /
8" ,0000'( I I __ 24
/ p
_ SPACE£FI XED VELOCITY l /.I

o 4.-,20°.
. f :- .- !--_.j! /
z ..j _
) // / /
II (
-z
-4" _ 7600" _ 12-

I -- u i _ ' i // X FLIGHT PATH
_7_2_- _-":-=-__- _ ! I
-12-6000 _ i 4
loo 2do 300 400 soo 600 700 Boo
TIME FROR T8, SECONDS
f ( t F _ I 0
06:00:00 06:03:00 06:06:00 06:09:00 06:12:00 0 lO0 200 300 4 )0 500 600 700 BOO
RA%4GE TIf(E, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS TIME FROM T 8, SECONDS
06:00:00 06:03:00 06:06:00 06:09:00 06:12:00
RANGE TIRE. HOURS:MINUTES:SECO@(OS
Figure 4-I0. S-IVB Third Burn Phase Space-Fixed Figure 4-11. S-IVB Third Burn Phase Acceleration
Velocity
Comparison Comparison
Table 4-9. Comparison of Heliocentric Orbit Parameters
Semimajor Axis, km 138,620,150 I13,074,150 25,546,000

(n mi) (74,848,893) (61,055,157) (13,793,736)
Radius of Aphelion, km
(n mi) 148,678,656 149,340,039 -661,383
(80,280,052) (80,637,]70) (-357,118)
Radius of Perihelion, km ]28,561,640 76,808,263 51,753,377

(n mi (69,417,732) (41,473,144) (27,944,588)
Eccentricity 0.07256 0.32073 -0.24817
Inclination, deg 24.390 22.272 2.118
Period, days 325.8 240.0 85.8
12 I
I
S-IVB APS ULLAGEENGINE
#I IGNITrON i
I0 .i
S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE#2 IGNITION
__ _ S_IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE#2 DEPLETED J
_- _ S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE #I DEPLETED /_ ,,
-
C2_
I i
j I /
2. j
0 ..................
27000 27200 27400 27600 27800 28000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
07:30:00 07:33:20 07:36:40 07:40:00 07:43:20
Figure 4-12o APS Velocity Increment
4-18
SECTION 5
S_IC PROPULSION
5.1 SUMMARY
All S_IC propulsion systems performed satisfactorily. However, the com-

bined thrust of the five F-I engines was lower than predicted. At the
35 to 38 second time slice, average engine thrust reduced to standard
conditions was 1.21 percent lower than predicted. Average reduced
specific impulse was 0o174 percent lower than predicted, and reduced
propellant consumption rate was 1.04 percent less than predicted. Engine
No. 1 exhibited an unexpected increase in performance starting at 85
seconds. The most probable cause for this is a fuel pump head decay due
to loss of lead from the front wear ring of the fuel pump.
Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) was initiated by the Instrument Unit (IU) as
planned°
Outboard Engines Cutoff (OECO) was initiated by LOX low level sensors
2°8 seconds later than predicted but well within the 3 sigma limits of
±6.0 seconds. The usable LOX residual at zero thrust was 2561 kilograms
(5645 Ibm) compared to the usable zero predicted, and the usable fuel
residual was 7276 kilograms (16,040 Ibm) compared to the usable 2585
kilograms (5700 Ibm) predicted.
5.2 S-IC IGNITION TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE
The fuel pump inlet preignition pressure and temperature were 32.1N/cm 2
(46°5 psia) and 266.9°K (20.8°F), respectively. These fuel pump inlet
conditions were within the F-I engine model specification limits (start
box requirements) as shown in Figure 5-I.
The LOX pump inlet preignition pressure and temperature were 55.3 N/cm2
(80.2 psia) and 96.1°K (_286.7°F), respectively. The LOX pump inlet
conditions were also within the F-I engine model specification limits as
shown in Figure 5-Io
Engine start:up sequence was nominal. A I_2-2 start was planned and
'_ attained. Engine position starting order was 5, 3-I, 2-4. Two engines
are considered to start together if their combustion chamber pressures
reach 68.9 N/cm2 (I00 psig) in a lO0-millisecond time period. Figure 5-2
5_I
FUEL PUMPINLET PRESSURE,psi_
20 40 60 80 lOG 120
ACCEPTABLE
240- STARTING
REGION 40
10 20 30 50 70 8_ 90
FUEL PUMP INLET PRESSURE, N/cm2
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia

60 80 1O0 120 140 160 180
I I
PREDICTED
106 STARTING ..........................
REGION 1
1o2 .......................
I I
;_ I _ ACTUAL 2 I
B5,3 Nlcm I
F'"
L_
_- i g6,1OK I -285
...........
(-286.7v)
............... I G
II I .-295
90 ....................... [
.......... _ ACCEPTABLE
86 STARTING
REGION
40 80 I10 I 130
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, N/cm2
Figure 5-7. S-IC Start Box Requirements
5=2
shows the thrust buildup of each engine indicative of the successful
I-2-2 start. The shift in thrust buildup near the 4,900,000 Newtons
(I,I00,000 Ibf) thrust level on the outboard engines is caused primarily
by ingestion of GOXand helium during startup from the LOX prevalves
(used as helium filled accumulators for POGOsuppression). The thrust
shift is absent on the center engine for which the POGOsuppression
system was not used. Engine No. 3 shows a spike of approximately
270,000 Newtons (60,000 Ibf) at the 1,330,000 Newtons (300,000 Ibf)
level. This spike is the result of inertial surge during buildup and
caused no problems and has been seen on previous flights.
_ _Jl _ .50
............
l,i_,,_
50 .I I _7 ,.,5
,f,z,// .,.
5.o L "_Z "1._
ENO'NENO._4_L____----ENG'NENO''
_,o /_ /
ENGINE
NO.
5_ _ ENGINE
NO.2
3.0 .......
// I
/J /D_ ENG,NE NO., .o.5o
:° '7! _ ill ....,.....
1.0 .....
#[I 1 .........
,...... I/
O
-4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 :2,0 -1.5 -l,O -0.5 O
R_ TI_, SECONDS
Figure 5-2. S-lC Engine Buildup Transient
The best estimate of propellants consumed between ignition and holddown

arms release was 38,770 kilograms (85,470 Ibm). The predicted con-
sumption was 39,150 kilograms (86,311 Ibm). The best estimate for liftoff
propellant loads was 1,466,931 kilograms (3,234,030 Ibm) for LOX and
641,099 kilograms (1,413,381 Ibm) for fuel.
5.3 S-IC MAIN STAGEPERFORMANCE
S-IC stage propulsion performance as determined by reconstruction was

satisfactory. Sea level performance parameters and the nominal predictions
5-3
are shown in Figure 5_3. All stage flight performance parameters were
within the predicted 3 sigma limits but the stage thrust was lower than
predicted as evidenced by low velocity and altitude at the end of S-IC
burn (see paragraph 4.1). Stage flight thrust at CECO was approximately
934,080 Newtons (210_000 Ibf).or 2.29 percent lower than predicted.
Preliminary analysis indicates the low thrust was due mostly to:
ao Lower than predicted engine sea level performance.
b. Higher fuel density than used in the prediction.
Stage thrust reduced to standard conditions at 36.5 seconds was 413,685

Newtons (93,000 Ibf) (I.21 percent) lower than predicted. This was
primarily due to:
CAUSE EFFECIQ_ STAGETHRUST

a. Use of erroneous tag values -177,920 Newtons
in the prediction due to an (-40,000 Ibf)
error in measuring specific
gravity and combustion
pressures at the Mississippi
Test Facility (MTF)o
b. Thrust bias between Saturn V -200,160 Newtons

flights and respective (_45,000 Ibf)
acceptance firings.
Individual engine parameters reduced to standard sea level conditions at

a 35 to 38 second time slice are shown in Table 5-I. Individual engine
deviations from predicted thrust ranged from 1.49 percent lower (engine
No. 4) to 1.05 percent lower (engine No. 3). Individual engine
deviations from predicted specific impulse ranged from 0.225 percent
lower (engine No. 4) to 0.150 percent lower (engines No. 2 and 3).
At approximately 85 seconds, engine No. 1 exhibited an unexpected increase

in performance. The increase is evident in engine combustion chamber
pressure, Gas Generator (GG) combustion chamber pressure, LOX discharge
pressure, turbine manifold temperature and turbopump speed. This per-
formance increase caused no problems on AS-504, but is under investigation.
Presently, the best "fit" of data (according to the engine contractor) is
obtained by a small decrease in fuel pump developed head from 80 to 120
seconds. The most probable cause of the fuel pump head decay is loss of
lead from the front wear ring of the fuel pump. The wear ring provides
dynamic seal between the fuel impeller front shroud and fuel pump inlet
assembly, therefore loss of this seal results in a decrease in fuel pump
efficiency and a loss in developed head. The wear ring consists of a
0.053 centimeter (0.021 in.) thick, 2.29 centimeters (0.90 in.) wide,
lead plating onto a brass forging. Loss of lead due to an inadequate
bond has occurred during Research and Development (R&D) engine and
5-4
7 S-IC CEC0 _ S-IC 0ECO
Ill
4o , _ r--- il
i
,/ .8.8 1.32 _ _ - _ 2.9
/ / --'_ "_ -----+

REC0RSTRUCiED
38 'REOICTED f-_// _ "_ 1.28 }
/' 8.4 '°_ Z.8
34 {_--- _ _ RECONSTRUCTED _ _ 1,16
7.6_ _ _.5 _
30 ; 6.8 1.04 _ _..3
(bl
|
cn
2,44 3.1
3.0
2.4C _ 3.0
2.3( -- 2.9 _
2.3_ 2.8 _
2.7 _"
2.5
2.5
120 140 160 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
RANGE TI_, SEC0_4OS NG_ Tl_, SEO_$
Figure5-3. S-ICSteadyStateOperation
Table 5-I. S-IC Engine Performance Deviations
AVERAGE
DEVIATION DEVIATION
PARAMETER ENGINE PREDICTED RECONSTRUCTED
PERCENT PERCENT
Thrus_03 N (103 Ibf) 1 6809 (1531) 6730 (1513) -1.18

2 6782 (1525) 6703 (1507) -1.18
3 6807 (1530) 6735 (1514) -I.05
4 6856 (1541) 6752 (1518) -Io49
5 6859 (1542) 6779 (1524) -1.17 -1.21
Specific Impulse
N-s/kg 1 2596 (264.7) 2592 (264.3) _0.151
(Ibf-s/Ibm) 2 2611 (266.2) 2607 (265.8) -0.150
3 2607 (265.8) 2603 (265.4) -0.150
4 2610 (266.1) 2604 (265.5) -0.225
5 2611 (266.2) 2606 (265.7) -0.188 -0.174
............ i ...................................................................
Total Flowrate
kg/s 1 2623 (5783) 2598 (5727) _0o968
(Ibm/s) 2 2598 (5727) 2573 (5672) -0.960
3 2612 (5757) 2587 (5703) -0.940
4 2627 (5791) 2592 (5715) -1.312
5 2628 (5794) 2602 (5736) -I.001 -1.04
Mixture Ratio I 2.2864 2.2812 -0.227

LOX/Fuel 2 2.2561 2.2519 -0.186
3 2.2704 2.2661 -0.189
4 2.2639 2.2590 -0.216
5 2.2906 2.2853 -0.231 _0.210
NOTE: Analysis was reduced to standard sea level and pump inlet conditions
at 35 to 38 seconds.
initial Qual II turbopump component testing. During R&D testing, this

lead loss has resulted in losses of from 12.2 to 58 meters (40 to 190 ft)
of fuel pump developed head. Theoretical analyses have determined that
a complete loss of the noted wear ring lead could result in a 29 to
71.6 meters (95 to 235 ft) developed head loss. Air-rig tests (fuel
pump) conducted with a front wear ring clearance simulating complete
loss of wear ring lead indicated a head loss of 67.1 meters (220 ft)o
As a result of wear ring ]ead loss, a double inspection process was

incorporated. These inspections required a "bake" wherein the wear
ring was exposed to-an elevated temperature which would aggravate any
bonding deficiencies, followed by an ultrasonic inspection to identify
areas of inadequate bonding of the lead to the brass forging. Of the
S-IC-504 stage engines, Noo's I, 2 and 5 did not incorporate the double
inspection wear rings. All F-I engines in AS-505 and subsequent vehicles
have wear rings which were inspected by the double inspection process;
therefore, a wear ring lead loss should not occur on subsequent vehicles.
5-6
5.4 S-IC ENGINE SHUTDOWNTRANSIENT PERFORMANCE
CECOwas initiated from a signal from the IU at 134.34 seconds as planned.

Cutoff signal to the outboard engines was initiated by LOX low level
sensors and occurred 2.8 seconds later than the predicted time of
160 seconds.
Most of the OECOdeviation can be attributed to a combination of higher

than predicted fuel density and lower than expected engine tag performance.
Figure 5-4 shows the relative contribution of each influencing parameter
to the cutoff deviation.
_70ECO, ACTIVATION OF ENGINE
SOLENOID VALVES
-3 SIGMA NOMINAL +3 SIGMA
153.935 159,965 165.995
PERCENT RANGETIME, SECONDS At
I00 ___ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::TOTAL, 2.795 SECONDS
-11.06 PROPELLANT-0.309SECONDS
LOADING,
-12.56 E MIXTURE
PATIO, -0.351SECONDS
FUEL
61.0 ........... DENSITY, 1.705SECONDS
THRUST AND
75.14 SPECIFIC IMPULSE_ 2.1 SECONDS
_ _ 2 _ 52
RESIDUALS, _0.350SECONDS
Figure 5-4. S-IC Outboard Engine Cutoff Deviations

Thrust decay of the F-I engines is shown in Figure 5-5. The decay
transient was nominal for engines incorporating the "Optimized Engine
Shutdown" (Rocketdyne ECP 444). This ECP was effective for S-IC_504
and subsequent S-IC stages. The "bulge" in engine No. 3 decay curve
starting at 5,900,000 Newtons (1,300,000 Ibf) thrust is believed to
be erroneous transducer response.
5-7
ENG NO. 1
ENG NO. 2 .......
. ENG
NO.3 .....
ENG
NO.5
............. 6
_i L
_,
ENG
NO.4 ...........
_. .2
2. O " "_'%" ' -
\_ .....
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1o4
TI_ FROMCUTOFF SIGNAL, SECONDS
Figure 5_5. S-IC Engine Shutdown Transient Performance

The total stage impulse from OECO to separation was I0_636,814 N-s
(2,391,251 Ibf:s) which is greater than the predicted cutoff impulse of
10,188,402 N-s (2,290,444 Ibf-s), but was within the 3 sigma limits.
5.5 S-IC STAGE PROPELLANT MANAGEMENT
Minimum residuals are obtained by attempting to load the mixture ratio

expected to be consumed by the engines plus the predicted unusable
residuals. Also, a small additional amount of usable fuel (fuel bias)
was loaded to minimize maximum residuals. An analysis of the usable
residuals experienced during a flight is a good measure of the performance
of the passive Propellant Utilization (PU) system. PU deviations were
larger than usual because of stacked tolerances, resulting in a consumed
mixture ratio shift of +1.83 sigma. This was within expected limits.
The LOX residual, at zero thrust, of 2561 kilograms (5645 Ibm) was
probably due mostly to early "breakthrough" of the LOX flow at the top
of the suction duct. An early "breakthrough" could trip the cutoff
sensors before the true liquid level reached the sensor. A good pre_
diction of the "breakthrough" is difficult especially since only one
other flight (AS-501) had a LOX cutoff and could be used for predicting
5_8
Table 5-2. S-IC Stage Propellant Mass History
LEVEL SENSOR
. EVENT PREDICTED DATA RECONSTRUCTED
LOX FUEL LOX FUEL LOX FUEL
Ignition kg 1,499,717 646,202 1,497,405 649,398 1,497,401 649,399

Command (Ibm) (3,306,308) (1,424,631) (3,301,214) (1,431,678) (3,301,203) (1,431,678)
Holddown kg 1,469,082 637,687 1,468,100 640,635 1,466,931 641,099

Arm Release (Ibm) (3,238,770) (1,405,858) (3,236,606) (1,412,358) (3,234,030) (1,413,381)
CECO kg 212,398 97,595 233,212 109,625 231,367 I09,908

(Ibm) (468,257) (215,161) (514,144) (241,681) (510,077) (242,304)
OECO kg 17,744 14,315 20,516 19,228 20,516 19,228

(Ibm) (39,118) (31,560) (45,230) (42,390) (45,230) (42,390)
Separation kg 15,557 13,220 18,539 18,278

....... (Ibm) (34,297) (29,146) (40,870) (40,297)
ZeroThrust kg 15,329 13,072 17,890 17,811

(Ibm) (33,795) (28,819) (39,440) (39,266)
NOTE: Predicted and reconstructed values do not include pressurization gas so they will compare
with level sensor data.
the AS-504 LOX "breakthrough" The higher than predicted fuel residual
at zero thrust was due mostly to propellant loading error and higher
consumed Mixture Ratio (MR) than expected for the actual flight fuel
density. (A summary of the propellants remaining at major event times
is presented in Table 5-2.)
5.6 S-IC PRESSURIZATION

SYSTEMS
5.6.1 S-IC Fuel Pressurization System
The fuel tank pressurization system maintained the required ullage

pressure in the fuel tank during the flight. Helium Flow Control Valves
(HFCV's) No..] through No. 4 opened as programmed and the fifth flow
control valve cycled five times between 6.5 and 45.5 seconds. HFCV No. 5
is not scheduled or expected to cycle anytime during the flight and
should not be needed. It is only planned as a backup for additional
pressurization flow if the flows from the other four valves are below
required minimum.
The low flow p_pressurization system was commandedon at :97 seconds and
performed satisfactorily. High flow prepressurization was accomplished
by the onboard pressurization system as planned. HFCV No. ] was commanded
on at -2.739 seconds. Ullage pressure decreased unexpectedly until HFCV
No. 5 was cycled on by the stage pressure switch at 6.5 seconds. HFCV No. 5
F cycled on four additional times (at approximately 15, 25, 35, and 43 seconds).
HFCV's No. 2, 3 and 4 opened as planned at 50.2, 96.0 and 133.0 seconds,
respectively. The fuel tank ullage pressure was below the predicted minimum
5-9
at approximately -I second to 55 seconds as can be seen in Figure 5-6, but
the fuel Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) requirement was maintained
throughout flight as seen in Figure 5-7. Helium bottle pressure, as shown
in Figure 5-8, generally stayed within expected limits.
%_7HFCV NO, 1 OPEN _ HFCVNO. 5 OPEN

HFCVNO, 5 OPEN _ HFCVNO. 2 OPEN
HFCVNO.5 OPEN _ HFCVNO. 3 OPEN
HFCVNO. 5 OPEN _ HFCVNO. 4 OPEN
HFCV NO. 5 OPEN
22
/ \ .....
\ // \ \// --
--J \ \ x/ \ % PREDICTEDMAXIMUM
I----'I--
Z --- 30
.
2 28
• 18- i\\ N
N FLIGHT
DATA
_ 16.-- ,
-. /_P DICTEDMIN MUM
_ _\,, "_ "22
..... I'"'_'"' ""_""_""_
.................... !_'""r''li
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ........................... r......
V] _13.4 TO 14.8 N/c_ J
14 i .... / t 9.4
To21.s - i -2o
40 I00
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 5_6. S-IC Fuel Ullage Pressure

Analyses indicate that the most probable cause of the low ullage pressure
was that the smaller HFCV No. 2 orifice was installed in HFCV No. 1 and
the No. 1 orifice was installed in HFCV No. 2. The five HFCV's were
replaced after stage acceptance firing (TBC ECP 0358).
The heat exchangers performed as expected.
5.6.2 S-IC LOX Pressurization System
The LOX pressurization system performed satisfactorily, and all performance

requirements were met. The ground prepressurization system maintained
ullage pressure within acceptable limits until launch commit. The
onboard pressurization system subsequently maintained u]lage pressure
5-10
OECO
CECO ,60
jr-- PREDICTED MAXIMUM
40 /
..... \ ,50
z: 30 _ I a.
....... 40
w
20 I -30 N
15---- -- NPSP RECUIRE_NT _

j L ..... 20 -J
L_ L_
LL &_
]0
......
-10
5
............
o o
0 20 _ 60 _ ]00 120 l_ 160
_NGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 5-7. S-IC Fuel Pump Inlet Pressure, Engine No. 2
2000- _\ \
-4 _ /-FLIGHT DATA
\\ _./ -2500
1600" _
_ -1500
800 \ _XI_M
N _ _ _ -I000
_REDICTED./# . _'_
400- ,,_ MIN MUM .. '_.._
-- 0
0 20 40 60 80 lO0 120 140 160
RANGETIE, SECONDS
Figure 5-8. S-IC Helium Bottle Pressure For Fuel Pressurization
5-11
within the GOX Flow Control Valve (GFCV) band during the flight The
heat exchangers performed as expected
The prepressurization system was initiated by opening of the ground

supply valve at -71 93 seconds The ullage pressure increased until it
entered the switch band zone which terminated the flow at -57 16 seconds
The ullage pressure increased approximately 0 52 N/cm2 (0.75 psia) above
the prepressurization switch setting to 18o75 N/cm2 (27.25 psia) This
overshoot was within expected limits, and was less than that for AS-501,
502 and 503 even though the ullage volume was smaller for this vehicle
This was accomplished by reducing the initial prepressurization flowrate
from approximately l 8 kg/s (4,0 Ibm/s) to 0 45 kg/s (l 0 Ibm/s)
The LOX tank ullage pressure history is shown in Figure 5-9. During
flight, the ullage pressure was maintained within required limits by
the GFCV and followed the anticipated trend
I 45
30 _ :
................... -40
_m I /_16 2 TO 17 6
o 26................... _. _"-, /_-'(23.5 TO 25.5 psig)
" SWITCH -35 _"

.... •. ]"'-,, • 20.5 TO 21.7 N/cm2
m ] ""q " ",, / I _" (29.7 TO 31.5 psia) _
...... -30 _"
-25
L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
RANGETI_, SECONDS
Figure 5-9° S-IC LOX Tank Ullage Pressure
:The maximum GOX flowrate was 23°85 kg/s (52.6 Ibm/s). After CECO, the
GOX flow requirements for the remaining four engines increased until
OECO.
The LOX pump inlet pressure met the NPSP requirements as shown in
Figure 5-10. This figure is for engine No. 2, but is typical of the
four outboard engines. Engine No. 5 LOX suction line pressure decayed
unexpectedly after CECOo This pressure is shown in Figure 5-II along
5-12
_7 l CECOI • 140
90 __ 0EC0
..... ] .
,120
"_" 80 , --...............
70 ............ 100
. FLI eHT DATA
,="' N ti 1111 a'_
=3
-40
I i-ZO
1o __._ /
.........
__._.. , NPSP IEQUIREJ_ENT
. I , ___J
................
J_7.
........
] .._3
0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 160
RANGE TIHE, SECONDS
Figure 5-]0. S-IC LOX Suction Duct Pressure, Engine No. 2
120- _CEC0
OECO..... I
j 180
160
IO0
= -120
I 1 O0
60' _
FLIGHT
DATA
J _'_
40 I _ ×
-_ = NPSP REQUIREMENT _'---_\ o._
20 ................ \ -40
-_'0
...... I I
o N ............ N__.
120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165
RANGE TI_E, SECONDS
Figure 5-11. S-IC LOX Suction Duct Pressure, Engine No. 5
5_13
with pump NPSPrequirements. No pressure decay at this time was
predicted, but did occur on both AS-503 and AS-504. The decay rates
on AS_503 and AS-504 were almost identical as shown in Figure 5-12.
Analysis indicates that the most probable cause of this decay is a LOX
leak, although the possibility of a natural phenomenonin the Pressure
Volume Compensator (PVC) duct causing the pressure decay cannot be eliminated
at this time. Investigation of these pressure decays is continuing.
5.7 S-IC PNEUMATIC CONTROLPRESSURESYSTEM
The pneumatic control pressure system functioned satisfactorily through-

out the S_IC flight.
Sphere pressure was 2199 N/cm2 (3190 psia) at liftoff and remained steady
until CECOwhen it decreased to 2123 N/cm2 (3080 psia). The decrease was
due to center engine prevalve actuation. There was a further decrease to
1848 N/cm2 (2680 psia) after OECO. This is shown in Figure 5-13. Pres-
sure downstream of the regulator initially was 524 N/cm2 (760 psia) _nd
decreased to 517 N/cm2 (750 psia) at 160 seconds. Regulator performa,.ce
was within limits of 527 _34 N/cm2 (750 ±50 psig). There were two
slight dips in outlet pressure at center engine and outboard engine
cutoff.
The engine prevalves were closed after engine cutoff as required° Engine
No. 5 prevalves closed at approximately 136 seconds. The prevalves for
the other four engines closed at approximately 164 seconds.
5,8 S-IC PURGESYSTEMS
Performance of the S-IC purge systems was satisfactory during S-IC

flight.
The turbopump LOX seal storage sphere pressure was within its limits of
1903 to 2275 N/cmz (2760 to 3300 psig) until ignition and 2275 to 689
N/cm2 (3300 to I000 psig) from liftoff to cutoff, Regulator outlet
pressure remained within the 59 ±7 N/cm2 (85 ±I0 psig) limits. Turbo_
pump LOX seal purge pressure at the engine interface was within the
required limits of 69 N/cm2 (I00 psig) maximumto 21N/cm2 (30 psig)
minimum° The radiation calorimeter purge operated satisfactorily
throughout flight.
The LOX dome and GG LOX injector purge system met all requirements.
5.9 POGOSUPPRESSION SYSTEM
The POGO suppression system performed satisfactorily prior to and during

S_IC flight. The system was initially turned on approximately 24 minutes
prior to launch to be sure the prevalves would fill with helium. Redline
measurements indicated that the four outboard lines filledas scheduled.
The pressure measurements downstream of the solenoid valves indicated
5-14
125,
- I00 _-....... I 160
120
_ DECAY
_T_--_
1.65 N/cm_/s \_\ ._
(2.4 psi/s)
25 40 w"
0 _
0 40 80 120 1600
z AS-503
RANGE
TIME_SECONDS
125 -
× 160 x
0
I00
8O
50'_
25 40
DECAY RATE
1.38 N/cm2/s
(2.0 psi/s)
0 _- 0
0 40 80 120 160
AS-504 RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 5-12. S-IC Center Engine LOX Suction Line Pressure
5-15
CECO ! .3600
o_oj ............
• ...........PREDICTED
4_J__XIMUM
..................
_ "3400
220C _ .3200
/ \ o
_IGHT DATA `-/ _ .3000 -
J
2000
2800
18oo ....
_-_-
_ _. 2600
P_DICTED
MINIMUM _ -_ 2400
1600
8 "_--_'--- 2200
1400 -_-
...... 2000
iz00
.............. _ .... _ nsoo
0 20 40. 60 80 100 120 140 160
_NGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 5-13. S-IC Control Sphere Pressure

that flow was properly established in the system. Eleven minutes prior
to launch, the system was turned on again and flow was established. The
temperature measurements did not change since the system still contained
helium from the earlier initiation. The four resistancethermometers
performedas expected during flight. In the outboard lines, the three
upper measurements went cold momentarily at liftoff indicating that the
LOX level shifted on the probes. The probes remained warm throughout
flight, indicating helium in the prevalveso Figure 5-14 shows a plot
of liquid level in the prevalve. At cutoff, the increased pressure
forced LOX into the prevalves. The fourth resistance thermometer, at the
lip of the valve cavity, was cold throughout flight as expected°
5-16
8L-S/LL-S
SECTION 6
S-t1 PROPULSION
6.1 SUMMARY
The S-II propulsion system performed satisfactorily during the entire

flight. This was the first flight with uprated J-2 engines of 1,023,091
Newtons (230,000 Ibf) nominal thrust installed. Total stage thrust, as
determined by computer analysis of telemetered propulsion measurements
at 61 seconds after Engine Start Command (ESC) was 0.20 percent below
prediction. Total engine propellant flowrate (excluding pressurization
flow) was 0.44 percent below and average specific impulse 0.25 percent
above predictions at this time slice. Average Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR)
was 0.33 percent above predicted. As sensed by the engines, ESC occurred
at 164.17 seconds and Engine Cutoff (ECO) at 536.22 seconds with a burn
time of 372.05 seconds, 2.27 seconds longer than predicted.
Low frequency performance oscillations were experienced by the center

engine near the end of S-II burn. These oscillations were similar to,
but appeared to be somewhat more severe than those occurring on the AS-
503. Corrective action being planned for AS-505 is to cut off the cen-
ter engine before the oscillations are expected.
The propellant management system met all performance requirements. The

system differed from AS-503 in that control of the engine Propellant
Utilization (PU) valves was closed:loop as was AS-501 and AS_502. All
future S-II flights are presently scheduled to utilize open-loop control.
The PU valve step from the high to low EMR position began at 440 seconds,
well within the predicted range of 429 ± 20 seconds. Cutoff was ini-
tiated by the LOX low level cutoff sensors located in the bottom of the
LOX tank sump. A lo5-second delay was incorporated for AS-504 between
initiation of cutoff by these sensors and transmission of the command to
the engines. Residual propellants remaining in the tanks at ECOsignal
were 2071 kilograms (4565 Ibm) compared to a prediction of 2060 kilograms
(4540 Ibm).
.... The performance of the LOX and LH2 tank pressurization systems was satis-
factory. Ullage pressure in both tanks was more than adequate to meet
engine inlet Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) requirements through-
out mainstage. Unlike all previous flights, the LOX ullage pressure
did not drop below the regulator band after the step to low EMR.
6-I
This was prevented by opening the LOX tank ullage pressure regulator
full open at 262°8 seconds (ESC + 98°6 seconds)°
6.2 S-II CHILLDOWNAND BUILDUP TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE
The prelaunch servicing operations satisfactorily accomp]ished the

engine conditioning requirements. Thrust chamber temperatures were
within predicted limits both at launch and engine start as shown in
Figure 6-1. Chamber temperatures increased during S-IC boost at rates
340
VS-II ESC
. 0 ENG. NO. 1
%/ENG. NO. 2
OENG. NOo 3 I00
300 _ _PREDICTEDUPPER {> ENG. NO. 4
50
LEVEL _ ENG.
NO.5
o 260_\_ _ \ 0
-50
220.....
LLI _
_- ............. I00 _-
m m
18o................ ESC
'J -150
u_ LAUNCH i -'_
REDLINE
140 _ _.
...... 4- _ ,/., - 200
-LOWER LEVEL
1 O0 -
__ _ ESC
+
r.IINXrIUM
60.......... _
-480 -360 -240 -120 0 120
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-Io S-If Thrust Chamber Jacket Temperature
6-2
of from 10.4 to 12.6°K/min (18.7 to 22.7°F/min), which agrees closely
with those experienced on previous flights. The general level of thrust
chamber jacket temperature for AS-504 was slightly colder than for AS-
"_- 503. Engine No. 2 approached the lower limit of the prediction band at
=19 seconds, reaching 94.3°K (-290°F). This lower jacket temperature is
ttributed to the close proximity of engine No. 2 with_the S-lC LOX vent
ine within the boattail. No impact on future stages is indicated by
this condition since there is no lower temperature limit at liftoff, and
the minimum engine start requirement is 88.7°K (-300°F). No change will
be made to the present prediction band for AS-505.
Both temperature and pressure conditions of the J-2 engine start tanks
were within the required prelaunch and engine start boxes as shown in
Figure 6-2. Start tank conditions at -33 seconds were 107 to II3.1°K
(=267 to -256°F) and 862 to 876 N/cm2 (1250 to 1270 psia). At S-II ESC
this_band increased to 110.9 to l18.1°K (-260 to _247°F) and 889 to 917
N/cm2 (1290 to 1330 psia). Heatup and self-pressurization rates during
the S-IC boost interval were 0,83 to 1.21°K (1.5 to 2.2°F) and I0 to
14.3 N/cm2 (14.5 to 20.8 psi), respectively. These values are in general
agreement with AS-503 results.
START TANK TEMPERATURE, °F
-300 -250 -200 -150
1050 I
0 ENG. NO. 1
V ENG. NO. 2 ENGINESTART BOX_
OENG. NO.4 PRELAUNCH

BOX
1ooo
- AOE,G.
ENG. NO. 3
NO. 5 .j ._
_ _IS-II ESC I
: _I V_PRELAUNCH (-33SEC) = 2:
_. 850 _ _ _-"
800
L.............. - ....
75080 90 I00 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
STARTTANK TEMPERATURE,°K
f
Figure 6-2. S-II Engine Start Tank Performance
6=3
All engine helium tank pressures were within the redline limit of 1931
to 2379 N/cm 2 (2800 to 3450 psia) established for prelaun_h pressuriza_
tion. The pressurization regulator in the Ground Support Equipment (GSE)
pneumatic servicing unit was reset to a nominal pressure of 2068 N/cmL
(3000 psia) in order to preclude exceeding the engine helium tank pres-
sure requirement of 2379 N/cmz (3450 psia) at ESC. This requirement had
been violated bY2one engine on the AS:503 flight with the subject regula-
tor set 138 N/cm (200 psi) higher.
The LOX and LH2 recirculation systems used to chill the feed ducts, turbo-
pumps, and other engine components performed satisfactorily. Engine pump
inlet temperatures and pressures at engine start were well within the
requirements as shown in Figure 6_3o
The LOX recirculation system performance was satisfactory throughout S_IC

boost. At ESC the engine pump inlet pressures were slightly higher than
predicted while the pump inlet temperatures were slightly colder than pre-
dicted. These pump inlet conditions, however, are an asset with respect
to engine start requirements. The AS-504 Countdown Demonstration Test
(CDDT) data evaluation led to the revision to the LOX pump discharge
temperature redline limit. The redline limit was revised from 98.7°K to
99.8°K (-282.0 to _280°F) maximum at -22 seconds. Performance of the LOX
recirculation system was similar to that of AS-503. At ESC, the LOX pump
discharge temperatures were 7.7°K to 8.6°K (13.9°F to 15.4°F) subcooled,
well below the lo7°K (3.0°F) subcooling requirement.
The LH 2 recirculation system performance was satisfactory throughout S-IC

boost. The LH 2 engine pump inlet temperatures and pressures agreed well
with predictions and reflect the effects of lower vacuum levels in re-
ducing heat leaks in the vacuum-jacketed lines.
ESC was received at 164.17 seconds, and the Start Tank Discharge Valve
(STDV) solenoid activation signal occurred l.O second later. The thrust
buildup envelope including each J-2 engine is shown in Figure 6-4. All
engines performed within the required thrust buildup envelope. Engine
thrust levels were between 880,748 and 925,230 Newtons (198,000 and
208,000 Ibf) prior to "PU Activate" command at 169.7 seconds.
6.3 S-II MAIN STAGE PERFORMANCE
Two analytical techniques were used to evaluate the stage propulsion

system performance. The primary method, propulsion reconstruction analy-
sis, used telemetered engine and stage data to calculate longitudinal
thrust, specific impulse, and stage mass flowrate. The second method
used was trajectory simulation which adjusted the propulsion reconstruc-
tion data using a differential correction procedure. This six-degree-
of-freedom trajectory simulation determined adjustments to thrust and
mass flow histories to yield a simulated trajectory which closely
matched the observed trajectory.
6_4
LH2 PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia
28 32 36 40 44
25
SAURATIO _ 5
o /. .......
_ _ °
-417
23 ---_
-419
m
z _---PREDICTEDESC
21.... ENVELOPE
0. FLIGHTDATA -423
20 ................ ENGINENO. 1 THROUGH
5
19 ................................
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
LH2 PUMPINLET PRESSURE, N/cm2

32 36 40 44 48
I01 -278
URA
IONCURVE
o 99 ,- | R _ "
,,_ _ START _ o
F--
_ REQUIREMENTS (3C
<
_< 97 ENVELOPE
_ _-
0. -286
__ 95 j _288
"'
-_
_=_
y I I
PREDICTED ESC
_290
--J
,-,_°"
93 //ENVELOPE ' -292
'_-294
_0.
ox ___ ____._-_ _'3 FLIGHT DATA x0.
_fCENGINE NO. I ..... 296 0
-J 91 L...... ( THROUGH5 -J
89 1 I •
21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
LOX PUMPINLET PRESSURE,N/cm2
Figure 6-3. S-II Engine Pump Inlet Start Requirements
6-5
_i S-11
-II ENG
ESC STDV OPEN COMMAND
_ S-II MAINSTAGE
I,2
1.0 ENGINE
NO.I THROUGH
5_
o8 /
z _- 0.16
m 012
= /. I,DIViDUALTHRUSTBUILDUP
ENGi"E
0.4 S S_ ENVELOPE - 0.08
_
0.2 _ /
¢
'0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
TIME FROM ESC, SECONDS
164 165 166 167 168 169 170
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6_4. S-ll Engine Thrust Buildup
6-6
Stage performance during the high EMRportion of the flight was very
close to predicted as shown in Figure 6-5. At a time slice of ESC +61
seconds, total vehicle thrust was 5,140,414 Newtons (1,155,611 Ibf),
..... which is only 10,017 Newtons (2552 Ibf) or 0.20 percent below the offi-
cial preflight prediction. Average engine specific impulse was 4162.9
N-s/kg (424.5 Ibf-s/Ibm) or 0.25 percent above the predicted level.
Propellant flowrate to the engines (excluding pressurization flow) was
1234.9 kg/s (2722.4 Ibm/s) which was 0.44 percent below prediction, and
the average EMR was 5.54 or 0.33 percent above preflight prediction.
The propellant utilization system was operated in the closed-loop con-

trol mode. Engine thrust chamber pressures began reaction to the PU
control valve travel at approximately 288 seconds after ESC. This action
reduced total vehicle thrust to 4,181,053 Newtons (939,938 Ibf) at ESC
+ 330 seconds. Thus a change in total vehicle thrust of 959,361 Newtons
(215,673 Ibf) is indicated between high (5.54) and low (4.61) EMRopera-
tion. Additional minor thrust reductions occurred during the last 35
seconds of S-II operation due to a performance decrease on the center
engine (associated with the oscillation period), and further movement
of the PU control valves. At ESC + 365 seconds total stage thrust was
down to 4,!61,698 Newtons (935,587 Ibf) at an EMR of 4.61.
As in previous flights, the disagreement between predicted and actual

performance increases at the lower mixture ratio levels. Vehicle thrust
and propellant flowrate at ESC + 320 seconds were below the predicted
performance by 127,886 Newtons (28,750 Ibf) and 37 kg/s (81.5 Ibm/s),
respectively.
Individual J-2 engine data are presented in Table 6-I for ESC + 61-second
time point. With the exception of engine No. 4, very good correlation
between prediction and flight is indicated by the small magnitude of the
deviations. Flight data reconstruction procedures were directed toward
matching the engine and stage acceptance specific impulse values while
maintaining the engine flow and pump data as a baseline.
The large disagreement on engine thrust and flow rate for engine No. 4
(J2070) stems from decisions made following stage acceptance testing at
Mississippi Test Facility (MTF). During static firing, this engine
operated 27,401 Newtons (6160 ibf) below its demonstrated performance
in engine acceptance testing. This performance shift was attributed to
the Gas Generator (GG) LOX bootstrap line resistance fluctuation phenom-
enon. A complete inspection was performed of the GG LOX injector, boot-
strap line, bleed valve, control valve, orifice, and high pressure duct.
No contamination, unusual restriction, or outlof-configuration conditions
were detected. The engine contractor r__orted only two previous cases
_-- of bootstrap line resistance change of this magnitude. In both cases the
problem did not recur upon subsequent operation. Therefore, it was
6-7
_TS-I[ ESC _7S-II ESC
_LOW EMRSHIFT _RECONSTRUCTED _LOW EMRSHIFT _ RECONSTRUCTED
_7S-IIECO --mnPREDICTED _vS-[IECO ----_ PREDICTED
5.2 1300
.......... _ i " I 6 [ ........ 2800
5.0 __ - 1200 % 2600
4.8 _ _ " !_
4.4 _ L_ 900
4.2 _ 800,
4.0 5.6
Do 3.6 _ 5.2
; 1
4.4 _ s.o
_ 4.8 _, \
u_ , 4.2 __ _ ._="_.
4.6
N 4.1 v, _ :"'_w_4.4
{ 4.0
=
m 4.2
0 50 I00 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 lO0 150 200 250 300 350 400
TIMEFROMESC.SECORDS TIMEFROMESC_SECONDS
150 200 250 300 350 400 450. 500 550 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
RA,GE
TIFE.
SECONDS RANGE
T_ME.
SECONDS
F_gure 5-5. S-If Steady State Operation

Table 6:1. S-II Engine Performance Deviations (ESC +61 Seconds)
PERCENT AVERAGEPERCENT
RECONSTRUCT
I0_ OE_IATIO_ DEVIATION
PARAMETER ENGINE PREDICTED ANALYSIS FROMPREDICTED FROMPREDICTE[
m,,
Thrust 1 1,028,656 (231,251) 1,032,125 (232,031) 0.34

2 1,02g,234 (231,381) 1,030,920 (231,760) 0.16
3 1,020,213 (229,353) 1,020,369 (229,388) 0.02 -0,20
Newtons (lbf) 4 1,025,947 (230,642) 1,004,755 (225,878) -2.07
5 1,046,302 (235,236) 1,052,245 (236,554) 0.56
Specific I 4147.2 (422.9) 4167,8 (425.0) 0.50

Impulse 2 4164.9 (424.7) 4153.1 (423.5) -0.28
3 4136.4 (421.0) 4153.1 (423.5) 0.40 0.25
N-s/kg (lbf-s/lt_} 4 4159.0 (424.1} 4166,8 (424.9_ 0.19
5 4155.0 (423.7) 4173,7 _425.6) 0.45
Flourate 1 !248.0 (546.8) 247.6 (545.93) =0.16

2 [247.1 (544.8) ZCB.3 (547,311 0.46
3 246.7 (543.0) 245.7 (041.71) -0._ -0.44
kg/s (Ibm/see) 4 246.7 (543.8) 241.2 (531.65) -2.23
5 251.8 (555.1) 252,1 (555.80) 0.13
Mixture 1 5.54 5.57 0.54

Ratto 2 5.46 5,50 0.73
LOX/FueI 3 5.49 5.49 0.00 0.33
4 5.55 5,52 -0.54
5 5.57 5.62 0.90
assumed that the performanceof this engine (J2070)would return to the

level exhibited during engine acceptance tests. Flight prediction was
made based upon this assumption. Actual operation of engine No. 4
during the AS-504 flight, however, was very similar to the static firing
level as measured during stage acceptance.
Data presented in Table 6-I is actual flight data and has not been ad-
justed to standard J-2 engine conditions. Considering data that has
been adjusted to standard conditions through use of a computer program,
very little ghanqe from the stage acceptancetest is indicated. Engine
No. 3 (J2069) is 2224 Newtons (500 Ibf) lower in thrust. All engines
are within 9.8 N-s/kg (I Ibf-s/Ibm)on engine specific impulse level.
These magnitudes were maintained throughout the S-II flight and are con-
sidered normal run-to-ru_ variations.
The postflight data analysis indicates that the AS-504 Augmented Spark
Igniter (ASI) system performed satisfactorily. Redesigned fuel and LOX
ASI line configurations were first incorporated on the J-2 engines of
AS-503. The ASI supply line and thrust chamber temperatures were nor-
mal, and over-all engine vibration levels were generally as expected.
- Predicted average performance characteristics of the stage propulsion

system are compared in Table 6-2 with data obtained from the propulsion
reconstructionand the trajectorysimulationanalyses. Results of the
trajectory simulation analysis indicate that the total average thrust
6-9
Table 6_2. S-II Flight Reconstruction Comparison with Simulation
Trajectory Match Results
PREDICTED PERCENT JEVIATION

FROM PREDICTED
--r'- ..... , ....
HIGH | .... TOTAL LOW TOTAL HIGH LOW TOTAL
PARAMETERS
Average Longitudinal R S_15R_848 1 4_378_565 4,23R_225 4_182_121 4_202_412 _8_45 _4_77 _8_IR
StaReThrust (Ibf) (1,152,912) I (982,E42) (I,II0,382) (935,682) (I,108,851)
Average Vehicle kR/S 1241.7 , ,_,_ _ 1186.1
Mass Loss Rate (Ibm/s) (2737.4) I (2291.71 (261A,8) (2180.0) (2603.])
k_e_age StaR_ R-s/kg 4155.1 i ¢284,_ A_6_.R

Longitudinal (lbf-s/ (423.7) I (428.7) (424,7) (429,2) (426,0)
Specific Impulse Ibm)
5]_JLATION TRAJECTORY MATCH PERCENT OER_ATION FROM P_EOICTED
HIGH J---------'----
LOW TOTAL ......
HIGH LOW TOTAL
MIXTURE I MIXTURE FLIGHT MIXTURE MIXTURE FLIGHT
PARAMETERS UNITS RATIO I RATIO AVERAGE RATIO RATIO AVERAGE
-- i .......
_Average Longitudinal N 5,132,380 I 4,177,77R 4,928_G54 -g.53 -4.41 _0.22
Stage Thrust (Ibf) (1,153,805)I (93R,202) (I,]07,g38)
Average Vehicle kg/s 1237.2 J R93.7 1185.3 -0.30 -4.40 -O.O6
Mass Loss Rate (Ibm/s) (2729.2) I (2190.8) (2613,2)
JAverage Stage N-s/kg 4146.3 I 4204.1 4128.0 -0.21 O. -0.16

:Longitudinal (lbf-s/ (422.8) j (428.7) (g24.0)
Specific Impulse Ibm)
and mass flowrate were 0.22 percent and 0.06 percent, respectively,
below predicted values. Deviations of the simulated trajectory from
the postflight observed trajectory were very small. Maximum variation
in velocit_ and acceleration were 1.6 m/s (5,4 ft/s) and 0,21 m/s 2
(0.69 ft/sZ).
The observed trajectory data indicate that vehicle velocity at the end
of S-If stage burn was 81.7 m/s (268 ft/s) less than the predicted. The
three major factors contributing to this velocity loss were a greater
than predicted vehicle mass, initial trajectory conditions at S:II igni-
tion and low S-II propulsion performance, The vehicle mass was heavier
than predicted due to excess S-IVB stage propellants and an additional
amount of GOX on the S-II stage as a result of the LOX step pressuriza-
tion sequence. The trajectory simulation showed that assumed deviations
between actual and predicted propulsion performance during the S-II burn
contributed approximately 12.2 to 15.2 m/s (40 to 50 ft/s) to the velo-
city variation. However, propulsion reconstruction analysis showed only
3 to 5 m/s (I0 to 16.5 ft/s) to be due to differences in predicted and
actual propulsion performance. In any case, the velocity loss is well
within the 3-sigma propulsion tolerance of 22.8 m/s (75 ft/s).
Low frequency oscillations (16-19 hertz) occurred in the engine para-

meters during the latter portion of powered flight and damped out shortly
before cutoff. These oscillations were similar to, but appeared to be
somewhat more severe than those observed on AS:503. Initial oscillation
in the engine parameters occurred intermittently over several short time
6-10
intervals in the center engine LOX pump inlet pressure beginning at 482
seconds (refer to paragraph 6.6.2). These short periods of oscillation
were also detected in the center engine crossbeam (at center engine
_ thrust pad) and LOX sump accelerometers at 482 and 487 seconds, respec-
tively. Continuous oscillation buildup at these locations began at
approximately 497 seconds and damped out at approximately 531 seconds.
Center engine thrust chamber pressure oscillations began at approxi-

mately 500 seconds, peaked at 506 seconds (predominant frequency 16.9
hertz), and damped out at 531 seconds. The peak-to-peak amplitude of
chamber pressure oscillations at 506 seconds was about 55.2 N/cm2 (80
psi), as compared to 41.4 to 48.3 N/cm2 (60 to 70 psi) maximum peak-to-
peak oscillations observed in the center engine chamber pressure on AS-
503. During the oscillation period, small amplitude oscillations (16 to
19 hertz) were also evident in the outboard engines chamber pressure
measurement. The amplitudes and frequencies of the center engine chamber
pressure oscillations are shown in the Vehicle Dynamic Characteristics,
Section 9, Figure 9:5.
The LOX NPSP was maintained at a high level during the latter portion of
flight by a LOX tank step pressurization sequence. A comparison of LOX
NPSP for all S_11 flight stages is shown in Figure 6:6. Higher NPSP, as
24
18Hz 34
22- _ 20Hz__ _ 32
2oW I
I7 Hz _ j AS-504 3o
AS-503 _ 28
--- .'_i_-._.
_.,_
_ _£_ __
AS-502 _ _AS-502 24 _"
AS- 22
14..... 20
AS-503" "_ I 18
12
16
I0 ....................
440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540
AS-501, 503 and 504 RANGE TIME, SECONDS
- L n_ ___ __z_ .... _ l l _H I _ J
490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590
AS-502 RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6:6o S-II LOX NPSP History
6-11
provided on AS-504, apparently is not a factor in eliminating the low
frequency oscillations° Cause of the low frequency oscillations has not
yet been conclusively identified. The problem appears to be associated
with inflight LOX liquid levels. Figure 6-7 shows the LOX level history
for all S-II flight stages. The LOX tank levels for AS-503 and AS-504
are near the same vehicle station at the onset of oscillation.
Corrective action being planned for AS-505 consists of shutting the

center engine off at 299 seconds after Time Base 3 (T3) (NASA Change
Order 1643). This time is approximately 40 seconds b_fore the oscil]a:
tion problem occurred on AS-504.
45.75 I I
[ ] ENGINEOSCILLATIONPERIOD
4 50 I I
45. 5
45.00
Z z
0 0
................. ' ,=C

44.75 '_ _-
2r2 _
_ 44,50 ................. _
44.25 " _-
AS-501 I
I
AS-503_
43.75 ± ......... 1724
420 440 450 480 500 520 540 560 580
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-7. S-II Inflight LOX Level History
6-12
1.2
_Z's-Ii
ECO 0.24
F- 1.0
'0 ENGINE NO. 1
A ENGINE NO.,2 0.20
z 0.8- []ENGINE NO.3
o ,_, 0 ENGINE NO.4 0.16 _
_ V ENGINE NO. 5 ._
0.4
0.2 "' .08

04
0 0,I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0,5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

TI_ FROMECO, SECONDS
L___l_ U I I__1 1 I l 1
536,2 536.4 536.6 536.8 537.0
RANGE TIME, SECONDS

Figure 6-8. S-ll Engine Shutdown Transient
D !
5 _is-II s ECO
_S-II 5 PERCENT THRUST .0
_3"_,_ .....
\ \ 0.2
-
0 ....... z ................................................... O
0 0.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

TIME FROM ECO, SECONDS
536.2 536.4 536.6 536.8 537.0

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-9° S-II Stage Thrust Decay
6-14
6.4 S-II SHUTDOWNTRANSIENT PERFORMANCE
Engine shutdown sequence was initiated by the stage LOX low level sen:
sors. This flight was the first to utilize a delay timer which resulted
in a ID5 second delay of ECO after the low level sensor dry indication.
At the time of ECO (536.22 seconds) all engines were operating at low
mixture ratio.
As in the static testing of the Battleship and S-II-501 stages, the 1.5
second timer resulted in engine performance decay prior to receipt of
cutoff signal. Total vehicle thrust, one second before cutoff was approxi-
mately 4,161,698 Newtons (935,587 Ibf) with a specific impulse of 4195.3
N-s/kg (427.8 ]bf_s/Ibm). Total vehicle thrust was down to 3,247,202
Newtons (730,000 Ibf) at cutoff° Again repeating static test experience,
the center engine was first to show effects of LOX depletion. The great-
est decrease in performance occurred in engine No. 3.
All engines were cut off by the stage propellant low level sensors system.
No engine mainstage pressure switch dropout cutoffs were received. The
lowest thrust chamber pressure at the time of cutoff was on engine No. 3
and was 317 N/cm (460 psia)o
Individual engine and stage thrust decay profiles are shown in Figures
6-8 and 6_9, respectively. Due to the performance decay prior to cutoff,
the postcutoff decay transient was considerably shortened. The time of
5 percent vehicle thrust occurred 0°28 seconds after ECO as compared to
0.41 seconds for the AS-501 flight. Vehicle cutoff impulse through the
5 percent stage thrust level was estimated to be 460,391N-s (103,500
Ibf-s). Guidance data indicates the total impulse from ECO to S-II/S-IVB
separation at 537.2 seconds to be 535,121N_s (120,300 Ibf-s) compared to
a predicted value of 840,269 N-s (188,900 Ibf-s) for this time period°
6.5 S-II STAGE PROPELLANT MANAGEMENT
The propellant management system performed satisfactorily during the pro_

pellant loading operation and properly controlled propellant consumption
during flight. The AS=504 stage employed a closed-loop PU system utiliz-
ing feedback signals from the tank mass sensing probes rather than fixed,
open-loop commands from the Instrument Unit (IU). (Openoloop operation
was used on AS-503 and is planned for use on AS-505 and subsequent vehi-
cles).
The facility Propellant Tanking Control System (PTCS) together with the
propellant management system successfully accomplished S-ll loading and
replenishment. During the prelaunch countdown all propellant management
subsystems operated properly with no problems noted. Operation of the
PU valves during the slew check was normal.
6-13
The only anomaly during CDDT was a suspected failure of the LOX overfill
liquid level monitoring point sensor, The GSE "revert" interlock for
this sensor was removed for the countdown since LOX liquid level could
_-_ be monitored through the use of other point sensors.
During the AS_503 prelaunch autosequence, the LH2 fill valve closure
command was sent lateo Along with a relatively slow fill valve closure
time, the closed position was not attained until -34 seconds, just four
seconds prior to "ready-for-launch" interlock. Consequently, for AS-504,
the fill valve commands were issued at start of autosequence to eliminate
this marginal condition. The LH2 fill valve again closed slower during
AS-504 launch (and CDDT) than during stage acceptance testing at MTF.
The closing time during launch countdown was 22.1 seconds (23.04 seconds
for AS_504 CDDT)_ This total closing time exceeds the MTF cryogenic accept-
ance test value of 20 seconds maximum; however, there is no cryogenic
closing time requirement at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). A review of the
closing time data from both CDDT and launch verifies that there is nothing
wrong with the valve itself. It is believed that the differences in clos-
ing times from earlier launches and MTF acceptance testing is due to
differences in actuation gas temperatures°
The "PU Activate" command was received 5.5 seconds after ESC causing the
PU valves to move from the nominal engine start position of 5.0 EMR to
the high EMR position, providing a nominal EMR of 5.5 for the first phase
of S-II Programmed Mixture Ratio (PMR). The closed-loop PU valve step
began at 440 seconds versus the originally planned time of 429 ± 20
seconds. This later than predicted PU valve step was primarily due to
errors in predicted engine flows° Actual shift of EMR began at 452.5
seconds. The engines reached an average low EMR of 4.61 at 491 seconds.
The PU control system responded as expected during flight and no insta-
bilities were noted. Figure 6-10 gives a comparison of actual versus
predicted PU valve position for AS-504 flight. The closed-looP PU error
at ECO was approximately -20.9 kilograms (-46 Ibm) LH2 versus a 3-sigma
tolerance of ± 665 kilograms (1465 Ibm).
The engine shutdown sequence was initiated by the LOX low level sensors
and after a 1.5 second timer delay, ECO occurred at 536.22 seconds. The
Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) sensed ECO and started T 4 at
536.25 seconds. Burn time was 2.27 seconds longer than expected. Based
on point level sensor data, propellant residuals (mass in tanks and sumps)
at ECO were 665 kilograms (1466 Ibm) LOX, and 1406 kilograms (3099 Ibm)
LH2 versus the predicted of 644 kilograms (1420 Ibm) LOX, and 1416 kilo-
grams (3120 Ibm) LH2o Table 6-3 presents a comparison of propellant masses
as measured by the PU probes, engine flowmeters and point level sensors.
The propellant mass measured by the point level sensors matches more
..... closely the trajectory results.
6-15
40 _ACTUAL
--wPREDICTED
................................................................................................ soll ESC'
'
20' _ .__
_S-II
PUVALVE
STEP
i-I s-ii ECO
° l
<
:=" -20
-3O
0 50 1O0 150 200 250 300 350 400

TIME FROMESC, SECONDS
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-10. S-11 PU Valve Position_
6.6 S-ll PRESSURIZATION SYSTEMS
The pressurization system function is to provide the necessary positive

pressure on the J:2 engines propellant pumps and to increase the struc-
tural capability of the tanks. Prior to launch, the LOX and LH2 tanks
are prepressurized by ground source gaseous helium. During powered
flight, the LOX tank is pressurized by GOX from the LOX heat exchangers.
The LH2 tank is pressurized by GH2 bleed from the thrust chamber hydrogen
injector manifold.
6o6oi S-II Fuel Pressurization System
The LH2 tank vent valves were closed at -94.7 seconds range time and the
ullage was pressurized to 24.1N/cm 2 (35.0 psia) i_ approximately 25
seconds. The ullage pressure decayed to 21.4 N/cm_ (31 psia) at 76°9
seconds when the first vent cycle began. One vent cycle occurred on the
No. 2 vent valve during the S-IC boost phase. The No. 1 vent valve did
not open° Vent valve No. 2 reseat occurred at 97.9 seconds at a pressure
6_16
Table 6-3. S-II Propellant Mass History
EVENT UNITS PREOICTEO POINTSENSOR PU SYSTEM ENGINE

, " ANALYSIS ANALYSIS FLOWMETER
It_NGE
TIME (BEST
ESTIMATE) IRTEGP_ATION
LOX LH2 LOX LH2 LOX LH2 LOX LH2
Ground 37],452 71,668 371,891 71,854

Ignition (Ikgbm) {818,911) (158,000) 371,430
(819,879)(]58,412) (818,862) 71,585
(]57,818) 370,795
(8]7,462) 71,379
057,363)
S-If Ignitiol kg 37],452 71,659 371,891 71,854 371,179 71.683 370,795 71,379
165.17 sec (lbm) (818,9]I) (157,981) (8]9,879) (158,412) (818,309) (158,033) (817,462) (157,363)
S-[IPU Valw kg 95,474 20,950 85,199 ]9.122 86,427 ]9,149 84,986 18.403
Step 440 se( (Ibm) (210.485) (46,187) (187,832) (42,156) (190,539) (42,217) (187,361) (40,572)
S-If ECO kg 644 1416 665 1408 1016 1390 665 1406
536.22 sec (Ibm) (]420) (3120) (1466) (3099) (2240) (3064) (1466) (3099)
S-If Residua kg 486 1350 550 _ 1344 901 1328 550 1344
After Thrust (1bm) (]071) (2977) (1213)i (2963) (1987) (2928) (1213) (2963)
Decay
ROTE: Propellantms, in tanks and sump only, Propellant trapped external to tanks
and LOX sum/_is not included
of 19.8 N/cm2 (28.7 psia). The differentialpressure across the vent

valve at this time was 19.4 N/cm2 (28.2 psid). LH2 ullage pressure de-
creased to 19.3 N/cm2 (28 psia) at S=II ESC. The differentialpressure
across the vent valve at this time was also 19.3 N/cm2 (28 psid). Figure
6=II presents the actual fuel tank ullage pressure for AS-504 compared
to predicted values from prepressurization until ECO. During S-IC boost
the LH2 tank vent valves were in the Iow pressure vent mode controlling
ullage pressure between 19 to 20.3 N/cmL (27.5 to 29.5 psid) referenced
to the vent valve sense line, and 1.3 seconds prior to ESC the LH2 tank
vent valves were switched to the high pressure vent mode, limiting the
maximum ullage pressure to 22.8 N/cm2 (33 psid).
LH2 tank ullage pressure was maintained within the regulator range of
19.7 to 20.7 N/cm2 (28.5 to 30 psia) during S=II boost until the LH2 tank
._ pressure regulator was stepped open at 462.8 seconds range time. Ullage
pressure increased to 21.6 N/cm2 (31.4 psia). The LH2 vent valves started
venting at 485 seconds and continued venting throughout the remainder of
the S-II flight closing at 537.7 seconds.
6-17
-ACTUAL _VENT VALVENO. 2 OPEN _SZVENTVALVE NO. 2 OPEN
------ PREDICTED _VENT VALVE NO. 2 CLOSED _S-II ECO
S-II
LH ESCPRESSURIZATION
2 STEP _VENT VALVENO. 2 CLOSED
--45
3O y
-4o ._
25
_ 20 LAUNCH
\_"_I L_ ........... J --30 _
#
REDLINE
J INIMUM
START
REQUIREMENT _25
I _20
-200 -I00 I00 200 300 400 500 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-11. S-II Fuel Tank U11age Pressure
Figure 6-12 shows LH2 inlet total pressure, temperature and NPSP compared
to prediction° The NPSP supplied exceeded the NPSP required throughout
the S-[I boost phase of the flight, and parameters were close to pre-
dicted values°
The LH2 inlet pressures of engines No. I and 5 during the low frequency
oscillation period are shown in Figures 6-13 and 6-14, respectively.
Center engine LH2 pump inlet pressure began oscillating at approximately
503 seconds, peaked at 507 seconds (frequency 16.7 hertz), and damped out
at about 522 seconds. Engine No. 1LH 2 pump inlet pressure shows only
slight evidence of oscillation.
6.6.2 S-If LOX Pressurization System
After a two-minute cold helium chilldown flow through the LOX tank, the
vent valves were closed at -185.4 seconds and the LOX tank u11age was
prepressurized to 26.9 N/cm2 (39 psia) in approximately 50 seconds. One
makeup pressure cycle was required after which the pressure remained
approximately constant at 26.9 N/cm2 (39 psia) until engine start.
Figure 6-15 presents the LOX tank ullage pressure for AS-504 as compared
to predicted from prepressurization until ECO.
6-18
25
_ ACTUAL _S-IIESC
_-
<o E ----- PREDICTED _ LH 2 STEP PRESSURIZATION _- "'-
"=:
_z 23 J I ...... _S-II ECO" t 1 _-
Z_ _ Z ZD
C_
.............. __,J
19 ............................................................................................. 28
23 u_
0
-419 o
22 / -420 "'
r-,," f F--_
_-_
LU_ -421
__ <
LUl---
--J_ Z_
_ 21 -_ -422
_'"
c_
20 _- L.............
2 .....
16
I0 _<
% .............. / \ 2
cJ 8 ",--
Z t-_
. 0
r_ 8
z MINIMUM
NPSP
RE('UIREMENT
6
4 \......
4
2 ---
0 50 I00 150 200 250 300 350 400
TIME FROM ESC, SECONDS
J_ i i . J.......k___J ...............
_ A_ _A
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-12. S-II Fuel Pump Inlet Conditions
6-19
o_ o
LOX ULLAGEPRESSURE_
psia LH2 INLETPRESSU_, psia LH2 INLETPRESSURE,psia
With the exception of the characteristic pressure slump associated
with the engine start, the ull_ge pressure remained within the regula-
tor range of 24.8 to 25.9 N/cm_ (36 to 37.5 psia) during burn until the
LOX regulator step open command was initiated. The LOX tank regulator
stepped full open at 262.8
(41.4 psia) maximum. seconds.
The vent valve Tank
cracking range rose
pressure to 28.5
of 27.6 to 29N/cm
N/cm2
(40 to 42 psia) was reached but not exceeded. No venting of the LOX
tank occurred. After2EMR shift, the ullage pressure began a slight decay
and reached 25.5 N/cm (37 psia) at ECO.
Figure 6-16 shows LOX pump inlet total pressure, temperature and NPSP.
The NPSP supplied exceeded NPSP requirements throughout the S-II boost
phase of the flight. As shown in LOX inlet temperature, the total magni-
tude of LOX liquid stratification did not exceed the prediction as it did
on AS-503. In addition, the abruptness of the temperature rise near
cutoff indicates less liquid disturbance than experienced on AS-503.
The LOX inlet pressures of engines No. I and 5 during the low frequency
oscillation period are shown in Figures 6-17 and 6-18, respectively.
Center engine LOX pump inlet pressure oscillations reached peak ampli-
tude at approximately 504 seconds (frequency 17.2 hertz), and damped out
at about 531 seconds. The LOX inlet pressure rose approximately 0.69
N/cm2 (I psi) then decreased approximatley 6.2 N/cm2 (9 psi) after the
oscillations started as compared to a relatively constant engine No. 1
inlet pressure. This phenomenon also occurred during the AS-503 flight.
The oscillations in LOX inlet pressure of the outboard engines started at
approximately 505 seconds. Oscillations are indicated by the engine No. 1
gimbal pad accelerometer at about the same time.
The engine contractor has performed J-2 engine pump tests with pressure
oscillations induced. A drop in LOX inlet pressure similar to that
shown in Figure 6-18 was also observed on these tests at a transducer
tap location similar to that used on the S-II stage center engine feed
line. Measurements made further upstream, however, showed the pressure
oscillations without the shift in level, indicating that the problem is
associated with tap location not actual line pressure deviation.
6.7 S-II PNEUMATIC CONTROLPRESSURESYSTEM
Performance of the pneumatic control pressure system was satisfactory.

Figure 6-19 shows main receiver pressure and regulator outlet pressure
of the system from before liftoff until ECO. The regulator outlet pres-
sure was 483 N/cm2 (700 psia) except during valve actuations. The main
receiver pressure was well above the predicted minimum allowable limits.
Pressure decay in the main receiver from initial pressurization at -30

seconds to initial valve actuation at 162.3 seconds was negligible. Pres-
sure decreased from 2110 N/cm2 (3060 psia) to 2093 N/cm2 (3035 psia) during
6-21
g7-9
SUOL%[pu03%eLUl dmnd XO] II-S "9L-9 aan6Lj
SON033S _3NII 39NV_
OSS OOS OS_ 00_ OS_ 00£ OS_ OOZ 0£[
SdN093S '9S3 NO_ 3NIl
00_ 0£_ OOC OS_ 00_ OSL 00[ 0£ 0
9 ...................
z
_ 1N3N3_III)3W
dSdN
N£NININ
"_ 9[ o
_Z
............................ 68
-_r 66_- ._r-
rT_C)
r_C;, ;:_CX
m_._ ................
968- I [6
o _6zo ;4
m #6_ I Z6
.........
F----
---_ T -r T £7
033[[-sz5
-_r- NOIIVZINNSS3ad
d3iS XOgz_ _
z -4
te %#
9)
_£
(NOIIVZI_NSSH_Id d31S XOI lflOHilM) a313IO3_{d
qvnz3v
ACTUAL
PREDICTED (WITHOUT LOX STEP PRESSURIZATION) _S-ll ECO
34.5
I
31.oll/ti ii:iL L_ _ _j.. , _,,,._j im_' ._
× 24.0 z
20.5......... _ 30
480. O0 490.00 500.00 510.00 520.00 530.00 540.00
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-17o S-II Engine No. 1 LOX !Inlet Pressure
this period. Receiver pressure decreased to 1999 N/cm2 (2900 psia) after
actuation of the recirculation system valves which were closed at 162.3
seconds. Pressure drop at engine cutoff was somewhat higher than seen
previously on AS-503. This was expected since the new prevalves, used
for the first time on AS-504, have a larger actuator volume than the
original prevalves. System receiver pressure decay was less than on
AS-503, which indicates the new valves have less piston leakage than
those previously used,
ACTUAL
PREDICTED (WITHOUT LOX STEP PRESSURIZATION)
PREDICTED(WITH LOX STEP PRESSURIZATION) _7 S-II ECO
34.5
_" 31,0 ......... '
27.5 _ '
-24,
20.! ........
480.O0 490.O0 500.O0 51O.O0
/
520.O0 530.00
_ -30
540.O0
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-18. S-11 Engine No. 5 LOX Inlet Pressure
6-23
S-II ECO
2800 _S-II ESC I I
ALLOWABLE
UPPERLIMIT 3600
_j
24o0 .....
-- T
ACTUALRECEIVERPRESSURE 3200
E
-_.2000 2800
_ ALLOWABLE
LOWER
LIMIT 2400 u_
u_ 1600
_ PREVALVES
_ CLOSED2000
o 1200 _ o
AIRBORNE RECIRCULATION "1600
LINE
VENT VALVES \ F-
CLOSED _._
800 1200
ACTUALREGULATOR
;URE _
800
400
'ALLOWABLE 400
LIMITS
o ] o
-I00 0 I00 200 300 400 500 600
RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 6_19_ S_11 Pneumatic Control Pressures
6.8 S-11 HELIUM INJECTION SYSTEM
The inflight helium injection system supplements natural convection re_

circulation in the LOX recirculation lines. This system injects helium
into the bottom of the return lines to decrease the return line fluid
density thereby increasing the recirculation driving force.
The performance of the helium injection system was satisfactory. Require-

ments were met and parameters were in good agreement with predictions,
The supply bottle was pressurized to 2137 N/cm2 (3100 psia) prior to
liftoff and by ESC was 545 N/cm2 (790 psia). Helium injection system
average total flowrate during supply bottle blowdown (-30 seconds to 1.3
seconds prior to ESC) was 1.93 SCMM (68 SCFM).
6_24
2
SECTION 7
S-IVB PROPULSION
7.1 SUMMARY
The J-2 engine operated satisfactorily throughout the operational phase

of first and second burns with normal engine shutdowns. Operation of the
J-_ engine during third bu_ was anomalous, as a result of the experi-
mental nature of the preplanned "out-of-specification" engine restart. As
a result of the third burn anomaly, the planned propellant dump through
the engine was not successful.
The engine performance during first burn, as determined from standard

altitude reconstruction analysis, deviated from the predicted Start Tank
Discharge Valve (STDV) + 60-second time slice by +0.764 Percent for thrust
and -0.117 percent for specific impulse. The first burn duration was
123.84 seconds from STDV open command. This time was 10.27 seconds longer
than predicted due to the performance of the lower stages and to SwlVB
total weight variation.
The Continuous Vent System (CVS) adequately regulated LH9 tank ullage
pressure between 13.1 and 13.5 N/cm2 (19.0 and 19.6 psia_ during parking
orbit, and the Oxygen/Hydrogen (O?/H2) burner satisfactorily achieved LH2
tank repressurization for restartT Repressurization of the LOX tank was
not required.
The engine first restart conditions were within limits. The restart at
full open Propellant Utilization (PU) valve position was successful and
there were no indications of overtemperature conditions in the Gas Gener-
ator (GG). SwlVB seco_ burntime was 62.06 seconds from STDV open command
and cutoff was by timer. The engine performance during second burn,
as determined from the standard altitude reconstruction analysis,
although well within specifications, deviated from the p_edi_£e_ESTDV
+ 60-second time slice by-O.587"percent for thrust and -O.IB2 percent for
specific impulse.
The CVS regulated the LH_ tank ullage pressure between 13.1 and 13.5 N/cm2
(19.0 and 19.6 psia) durlng intermediate coast, The 02/H 2 burner was
..... successfully restarted before third burn. The LH2 tank was satisfactorily
repressurized for third burn by the ambient repressurization system. Re-
pressurization of the LOX tank was not required.
7-I
Engine conditions for the second restart were unusual as a result of the
extended fuel lead experiment. This was a planned experiment to evaluate
the mission rule concerning failure of both LOX and LH2 chilldown systems.
The restart at full open PU valve position was successful. However, the
chamber pressure did indicate abnormal conditions during the start tran-
sient. Mainstage performance was not as predicted due to various anoma-
lies which occurred during the burn° Third burn had a timed cutoff which
occurred as expected at STDV +242.06 seconds.
Subsequent to third burn_ the start bottle was safed satisfactorily. How-
ever_ propellant dump did not occur as planned due to the third burn ano-
maly. The stage propellant tanks were satisfactorily safed by latching
open the vent valves. The stage ambient and cold helium spheres were
adequately safed as planned.
The stage pneumatic control system performed adequately during the

mission° During the early stages of launch countdown the regulator dis-
charge pressure was high and was controlled by the backup system° Prior
to liftoff, control was resumed by the regulator. Subsequently, the re-
gulator pressure was high during boost and coast phase, however, there
were no adverse effects on system components or functioning°
The Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) pressurization system developed a

helium leak in Module No. 2 at 4 hours and 25 minutes which ceased at 7
hours. However_ the ullage pressures in the APS were acceptable through-
out the mission.
7.2 S-IVB CHILLDOWN AND BUILDUP TRANSIENT PERFORMANCEFOR FIRST BURN
The propellant recirculation systems performed satisfactorily, meeting

start box requirements for fuel and LOX as shown in Figure 7-I.
The main fuel injector temperature (alternate for thrust chamber jacket
temperature) at launch was well below the maximum allowable redline limit
of 188o9°K (-120°F)o At S-IVB first burn Engine Start Command (ESC), the
temperature was 200°K (-IO0°F), which is within the requirement of 211
+ 27o5°K (179o9 +49.5°F) as shown in Figure 7-2. The chilldown and load-
ing of the engine Gaseous Hydrogen (GH2) start sphere and pneumatic con-
trol sphere prior to liftoff was satisfactory. Figure 7-3 shows the start
tank performance for first burn. At first ESC the start tank conditions
were within the required S-IVB region of 896.3 ± 68.9 N/cm2 and 133o2 +
44o4°K (1300 +I00 psia and -220 ± 80°F) for initial start. The discharge
was completed and the refill initiated at first burn ESC +3.95 seconds_
The refill was satisfactory and in good agreement with the acceptance test.
As a result of the J-2 engine control helium sphere's pneumatic connec-

tion with the stage LOXand LH2 ambient helium repressurization spheres,
there was a replenishing of the engine control sphere in flight. The
7-2
LH2 PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia
16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
25 [ i I I I i = i I -415
ITEM TIME FROMIST S-IVB
_-, ESCSECONDS
24 _ l O
o 3
2 so
3(STDV) _I I -417
4 I00
23 -- 127 (ECO) ] WI =
55"x_
22 , ,
II
19, _ ENGINESTARTLIMITS :i _ ): :'!I-423

_
lO 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
LH2 PUMP INLET PRESSURE,N/cm2

28 32 36 40 44 48 52
99
ITEM
TI.E J
1
' ESC SECONDSo /_ /
97_- 2 3 (STDV)
.... I
° 4 I00 / -286 o
5 127 (ECO) u_
i 95 / , _290
93 / / ['l_ ............ /
_ ® NO UPPER LIMIT. x
91 / --ENGINE START LIMITS-=-

.........................
-298
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
;P_ LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE,N/cm2
Figure 7-I. S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements = First Burn
7.3
INITIATION OF THRUST CHAMBERCHILLDOWN
TERMINATIONOF
S-[VB IST ESC THRUSTCHAMBER
CHILLDOWN
285 50
235 ...... _Z_ -----
_ "-I00
=__ --MAXIMUM STDV LIMIT ,-50

185
o MAXIMUMREDLINE LIMIT
MINIMUM
STD v y/ --150 _
o
z ATTO-19 SEC _ _
188.9°K (-120°F) -,_ _
"-200
13! J .......
\
--250
.-300
-1600 -1400 -1200 -I000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
TIME FROM IST ESC, SECONDS
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 7:2. S-IVB Fuel Injector Temperature - First Burn
7-4
engine control bottle pressure and start sphere temperature at ]iftoff
were 2205 N/cm2 (3200 psia) and 152°K (-186°F), respectively. LOX and
LH2 system chilldowns, which were continuous from before liftoff until
-_ just prior to S-IVB first burn ESC, were satisfactory. At ESC the LOX
pump inlet temperature was 91.7°K (-294.8°F) and the LH2 pump inlet tem-
perature was 21.6°K (-421°F).
-350 -300 -250 -200 -150
1000 m.... i l ............1400

-SAFE" RESTARTENVELOPE
900 ' I 1 I _-""Lt__

__ __ - 1300
ECO ---1S
ESC
........... 1200
f !
800 [ -II00
700 = - 1000
600 z _"
800
_."" 500 ! / 700 -,
" 400 // / 600F-

'_
,<
¢z} _ _ 500
300 " /,.._ 400

Y // ..... 300
200
200 _ / ,_
I00 ,,_ lO0
.....
, ..... 0
60 70 80 90 lO0 II0 120 130 140 150 160 170 l_O
_-_ START
TANK
TEMPERATURE,
°K
Figure 7-3. S-IVB Start Tank Performance - First Burn
7,5
The first burn start transient was satisfactory. The thrust buildup was
satisfactory and well within the limits set by the engine manufacturer
as shown in Figure 7-4.
Table 7-I shows the major sequence of events during the buildup tran-
sient. The PU valve was in proper null position prior to first start.
The total impulse from STDV to STDV +2.5 seconds was 1,087,545 N-s
(244,490 Ibf-s) for first start. This was greater than the value of
],018_029 N-s (228,862 Ibf-s) obtained during the same interval for the
acceptance test.
First burn fuel lead generally followed the predicted pattern and re-
sulted in satisfactory conditions as indicated by the thrust chamber
temperatures and the associated fuel injector temperatures.
7.3 S-IVB MAIN STAGE PERFORMANCEFOR FIRST BURN
Two analytical techniques were employed in evaluating S-IVB stage pro-

pulsion system performance. The primary method, propulsion reconstruc-
tion analysis, utilized telemetered engine and stage data to compute
longitudinal thrust, specific impulse, and stage mass flowrate. In the
second method, flight simulation, a five-degree-of-freedom trajectory
simulation was utilized to fit propulsion reconstruction analysis re-
sults to the trajectory. Using a differential correction procedure,
this simulation determined adjustments to the reconstruction analysis
of thrust and mass flow histories to yield a simulated trajectory which
closely matched the observed postflight trajectory.
® ACCEPTANCETEST DATA ADJUSTED TO FLIGHT

i
I i
l I
I i
| I
I .......
1.0 _IST BURNENGINEIGNITION(STDVOPEN)____ ..........i

z O.B _/IST BURN
MAINSTAGE ____..___F-_--_ 0.2
.AX,M M
m / MINIMUM 0.I
o.2
o ..... ] ......o
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 fi.O 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
TIME FROM IST ESC, SECONDS
u w
540.28 541.28 542.28 543.28 544.28

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 7-4. S-IVB Buildup Transient - First Burn

7-6
Table 7-I. SolVB Engine Start Sequence Events _ First Burn
TIME OF EVENT IN
RANGETIME (SECONDS)
EVENT PREDICTED ACTUAL
SwlVB Engine Start Indication 532.2 537.28
SwlVB STDVOpen Indication 535.16 540.82
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal-Switch 1 (on) 537.86 541.97
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal-Switch 2 (on) 537.86 542.01
S=IVB Engine Cutoff at the J-2 Engine 648.73 664.66
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal Dropout 651.34 664.68

Switch 1 (off)
S_IVB Thrust OK Signal Dropout 651.34 664.92

Switch 2 (off)
The propulsion reconstruction analysis showed that the stage performance

during mainstage operation was satisfactory. A comparison of predicted
and actual performance of thrust, total flowrate, specific impulse, and
mixture ratio versus time is shown in Figure 7-5. Table 7-2 shows the
specific impulse, flowrates and mixture ratio deviations from the pre-
dicted STDV + 60-second time slice. This time slice performance is the
standardized altitude performance which is comparable to engine accept-
ance tests. The 60-second time slice performance disagreed with the
predicted by 0.764 percent in thrust. Specific impulse performance for
first burn disagreed with predicted by _0.I17 percent.
The overall propulsion reconstruction of longitudinal thrust differed

from the predicted by 0.509 percent. Longitudinal specific impulse for
first burn was 0.28 percent less than predicted.
The flight simulation analysis showed an increase of_O.O12 percent, com-

pared to the prediction, in specific impulse. Other comparisons are
shown in Table 7_3.
The S-IVB burn time was 10.27 seconds longer than predicted. Table 7-4
shows that the primary contributors to the long burn time were devia-
_ tions in the preconditions of flight.
7-7
IST BURNSTDV + 2.5 SECONDS
_ lST BURNECO ..... PREDICTEDBAND
ACTUAL
I.I _ : __ _ 0.245_
0.205
_ 0.9. : ' ............... i m
i O.
185
1-
_- 0.8 .... i :
4700 ..............
_" 4600 470
' 460m
= 4500 ......
m 450
-_ 4400 u
_: _ __ 440_
4300 _
E -- _ 430 _
u_ 4200
4100
420
- 275
250 _ " _ _ _L _ ............... m ! ---- 600
550 _"
225 .... 500

0 _J
u- 450
...I
200 ...... ,_
400 o
o
I-- 175 "
_°××_ 5.2 • I
Nd 4.8
_ 4. --
I0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 I00 II0 120 130 140
TIME FROM STDV +2.5 SECONDS
560 580 600 620 640 660 680

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 7-5, S-IVB Steady State Performance : First Burn
7-8
Table 7-2. S-IVB Steady State Performance _ First Burn
(STDV +60-Second Time Slice at Standard Altitude Conditions)
I ...... PERCENT
.....
i"L lbH| . D_V. ___^.
.....
-_ PARAMETER PREDICTED RECONSTRUCTION t IAI%UN
DEVIATIONFROMPREDICTED
ThrustN 1,025,782 l,033,615 7833 0.764
(Ibf) (230,605) (232,366) (1761)
Specific Impulse
N-s/kg 4178.6 4173.7 _4.9
(Ibf-s/Ibm) (426.1) (425.60) (-0.5) -0,117
LOX F1owrate
(kg/s 207.35 209.45 2.10
(Ibm/s) (457.14) (461.76) (4.62) l.OI
Fuel F1owrate
kg/s 38.12 38.17 0.05
(Ibm/s) (84.03) (84.15) (0,12) 0.143
Engine Mixture '

Ratio
LOX/FueI 5.440 5.487 O.047 O.864
7.4 S-IVB SHUTDOWN TRANSIENTPERFORMANCEFOR FIRST BURN
S-IVB Engine Cutoff (ECO) was initiated at STDV +123.84 seconds by a

guidance velocity cutoff command which was 15.9 seconds later than pre-
dicted for first burn. The ECO transient was satisfactory and agreed
closely with the acceptance test and predictions as shown by Figure 7-6.
The predictedtotal cutoff impulse to zero percent of rated thrust was
217,749 N-s (48,952 Ibf-s) as compared to actual values of 221,326 N-s
(49,756 Ibf-s) from engine data and 229,284 N-s (51,545 lbf-s) from
guidance data. Cutoff occurred with the PU valve in the 5.5 position.
7.5 S-IVB PARKING COAST PHASE CONDITIONING
The CVS maintained the fuel tank ullage pressure between 13.1 and 13.5
N/cm2 (19.0 and 19.6 psia). CVS thrust and accelerationlevels are
shown in Figure 7-7. Continuous venting was initiated at 723.8 seconds.
Regulation continued, with the expected operation of the main poppet
f_ periodically opening, cycling, and reseating. Continuous venting was
terminated at i6,619.4 seconds.
7-9
Table 7-3. Comparison of S-IVB Stage Flight Reconstruction Data
With Performance Simulation Results - First Burn
PREDICTED FLIGHT RECONSTRUCTIONPERCENTDEV FROMPRED
PARAMETERS UNITS FIRSTBURN FIRSTBURN FIRSTBURN

FLIGHT FLIGHT FLIGHT
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
Longitudinal N 1,026,093 1,031,315

Vehicle Thrust (Ibf) (230,675) (231,849) 0°509
Vehicle Mass kg/s 245.96 247o91

iLoss Rate (Ibm/s) (542.25) (546.54) 0.791
iLongitudinal
Vehicle Nos/kg 4171o7 4160.1
Specific Impulse (Ibf:s/Ibm) (425.4) (424.21) -0.280
FLIGHT SIMULATION PERCENTDEV FROMPRED

m,
PARAMETERS UNITS FIRSTBURN FIRSTBURN

FLIGHT FLIGHT
AVERAGE AVERAGE
Longitudinal N 1,033,949 0,766

Vehicle Thrust (Ibf) (232,441)
Vehicle Mass kg/s 247.87 0.776

Loss Rate (Ibm/s) (546.46)
Longitudinal
Vehicle N-s/kg 4,172.24 0.012
Specific Impulse (Ibf-s/Ibm) (425.45)
Table 7-4. S-IVB Burn Time Deviations
_" BURN TIME

CONTRIBUTOR (SECONDS)
Performance of Lower Stages 9.81
Vehicle Mass at S-II/S-IVB Separation 1.81
S-IVB Engine Performance -O.31
Uncertainties in Performance _I.04

Total 10.27
Calculations based on estimated temperatures indicate that the mass

vented was approximately 1456 kilograms (3209 Ibm) and that the boiloff
mass was approximately 1519 kilograms (3346 Ibm).
7.6 S-IVB CHILLDOWN AND RESTART FOR SECOND BURN
The 02/H 2 burner system was used on AS-504 for repressurization during
first restart preparations and for ullage settling prior to second re-
start° The ambient helium repressurization system was retained as a
backup system and as the repressurization source for third burn. The
02/H 2 burner, mounted on the aft thrust structure, heats cold helium
used for repressurizing the propellant tanks.
Repressurization was satisfactorily accomplished by the 02/H 2 burner.

Burner Start Command (BSC) was initiated at 16,618.5 seconds. LOX tank
ullage pressure at BSC was approximately 29.0 N/cm 2 (42.1 psia); there-
fore, repressurization of the LOX tank was not required. The LHp re-
pressurization control valves were opened at BSC +7.0 seconds. =The
fuel tank was repressurized from 13.1 to 20.9 N/cm2 (19.1 to 30.1 psia)
in 180.4 seconds which yields a ramp rate of 2.52 N/cm2/min (3.66 psi/
min) as shown in Figure 7-8. Figure 7-9 shows the performance of the
02/H 2 burner pressurant coil. There were II.I kilograms (24.5 Ibm) of
cold helium used from the cold helium spheres during repressurization.
The burner continued to operate for a total of 460 seconds providing
nominal propellant settling forces. Thrust and burner chamber condi-
tions are presented in Figure 7_I0. The performance of the AS-504 02/H 2
burner during first restart preparations was nominal in all respects.
S The S-IVB stage provided adequate conditioning of propellants to the Jw2

engine for the first restart. The engine start sphere was recharged
properly and maintained sufficient pressure during coast. The engine
7-II
14 I i
3°0 -,
Q ACCEPTANCETEST ADJUSTED
12 -- TOFLIGHT CUTOFF --
ACCEPT_CE CUTOFFEMR = 5.0 2,5
i0 _ l J
_ 2oOm
_ F MAX
IMUM 1,5
6
1,0
4 ...............
_-- MINIMUM
2 _ 0,5
0 _ .................. 0
0 0.5 I_0 1.5 2°0 2,
TIME FROM IST ECO SECONDS
] ] _ i i k
664.5 665 665°5 666 666.5
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 7_6. S-IVB Shutdown Transient Performance - First Burn
control sphere gas usage was as predicted during the first burn; the
ambient helium spheres recharged the control sphere to a nominal level,
adequate for a proper restart.
Table 7-5, showing the major events during the start transient, indi_
cates that all events occurred as required and performance was as pre_
dicted.
The propellant recirculation chilldown systems performed satisfactorily

and met STDV requirements for fuel and LOX as shown in Figure 7-II.
Second burn fuel lead generally followed the predicted pattern and re-
sulted in satisfactory conditions as indicated by the thrust chamber
temperatures and the associated fuel injector temperatures shown in
Figure 7-12o The LHp chilldown system performance for second burn pro-
gressed satisfactoriTy. However, the fuel pump inlet temperature did
not reach a steady state level. The temperature was still decreasing
when chilldown was terminated by prevalve opening.
7-12
F, _7 LH2 CVS ON
25 i I i J
CONTINUOUS VENT NOZZLE PRESSURES
20 _ I 1 I l 30
-MAXIMUM PREDICTEDPRESSURE
= _ _NOZZLE'NO. 1 1
_ I 20 _
_ _ _NOZZLE
NO.2 _
10
fill _ ! i
300 l i i ........
i I
250 I _
l CONTINUOUSVENT THRUST (CALCULATED)
I | I I
-60
__L_ _-MAXIMUM PREDICTEDTHRUST

15o -II 504_-.-_: \ ] .4o
I00 20
50 --T
o_ 0
o.ooo
p_
o.oooloo
_ I _1 1 i
0.000075
0.000050
0.000025
i!
O.OOO000 :_
2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
O0:O0:OO 01:00:00 02:00:00 03:00:00 04:00:00
Figure7_7. S-IVBCVS Performance(Sheet1 of 3)
7-13
LH CVSON ON PERMANENTLY
25.0 .... _LH_ CVSOFF _ CV_
LHCVS
OFF
CONTINUOUS
VENTNOZZLE l
20.0 PRESSURES I ._,]30.0
-. g
z 15.0 20.0
NOZZLE
NO.1
I0.0
_ J I0.0
5.0
0
I|! MINIMUM
PREDICTI
oo
25O
CONTINUOUS VENT THRUST (CALCULATED)
3oo I 6o
THRUST
200
z 40
F3 504 FLIGHT _3
150
I00 20
5O
0 MINIMUM
PREDICTED 0
0.000800 STAGEAXIAL"ACCELERATION I
_ I (CALCULATED) \ I .............
o o.ooo6oo
_-
_ \ 1
0 . 000200 1 1' I ''"
o.oooooo_ Jm __ [ -
14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
L ..............
_VV J _ .................
t
4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00
RANGE
TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 7_7. S-IVB CVS Performance (Sheet 2 of 3)
7-14
x_7 LH2 CVS OFF _' LH2 CVS OFF
LH2 CVS ON _ CVS ON PERMANENTLY
...... 25 LH2 TANK"ULLAGEPRESSURE
L_
m I0 N
_" 10 N
5 \
2,500...... . VENTED THROUGHCONTINUOU

MASS ' ' S VENT
(CALCULATED)
I 1 I _--'--'-- - 5,000
2,000 r . / I .
/ 4,000
1,500 F/ E
_ / _ ,3,ooo
:_ u'}
,00" 0 rT.
2,000
500 ....... --- 1,000
0 _ -- 0
14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
.... I W__ .. l ._A

4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00
Figure 7-7. S-IVB CVS Performance (Sheet 3 of 3)
7-15
BURNER START COMMAND
LH2 REPRESS CONTROL ON
TERMINATION OF LH2 TANK REPRESS
35 _ BURNER
CUTOFF
50"_
_ 40
×
o 25 ....................... (NOREPRESS
REQUIRED) x
.............. 0
25 36
= PREDICTEDMAXIMUM_ _ __
20 ...........
_ .... PREDICTED
MINIM_ --
_,518 16,618 16,718 16,818 16,918 17,018 .....17,--i18

_NGE TIME, SECONDS
4:36:00 4:38:00 4:40:00 4:42:00 4144:00

Figure 7-8. S-IVB Ullage Conditions During Rep_ssurization

Using 02/H 2 Burner _ First Restart
7-16
_7 LH2 REPRESSCONTROLON
O.
0750
._ 0.150=
o.o5oo
_ o.loo
3 0.0250
o .... .0.050 o
_
u_
300 .,........... ______ I '_400

__MAX PREDICTION
200 /.... , . '_=
z 'MINPREDICTION -200
I00 ........
U3 D_
LLJ
t-t • - ...............
0 . • 0
400 ...... 1
MAXPREDICTION
0 350 ...... s .....

,oou= 0
300
. _ [
'" I 0 _
250 " l _ ..... " ..... --
\_ \_""_ _MIN PREDICTION

/
200 , , -1O0
16,518 16,618 ]6,71B 16,818 16,918 17,018 17,118
RANGETIME,SECONDS
I _ I : _'L I I
4:36:00 4:38:00 4:40:00 4:42:00 4:44:00
RANGETIME,HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
f .
Figure 7-9. 02/H2 Burner LH2 PressurantCoil Discharge

Conditions- First Restart
7-17
BURNERSTART COMMAND
BURNERCUTOFF
I00
m .20,0
_24.0
_- -12.0 m
LtJ t'_
-8.0
25
0 .......
................ I j.4.0
OoO m
z 0.0 _
C,3
C/3
ua 0o0 .................. LO. 0 ua
,oo /,,
I000
'1500
800. P'---.. . A .1ooo _"

::) _ F,.-
600 ......................................... _-
uJ 500 w
l--
F-
400
2OO ......................... LO
16,518 16,618 16,718 16,818 16,918 17,018 17,118
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
4:36:00 4:38:00 4:40:00 4:42:00 4:44:00
Figure 7_10. S-IVB 02/H 2 Burner Thrust and Thrust Chamber

Conditions - First Restart
7o18
Table 7-5. S-IVB Engine Start Sequence Events - Second Burn
TIME OF EVENT IN
EVENT RANGE
TIME(SECONDS)
PREDICTED ACTUAL
S-IVB Engine Start Indication 17,141.94 17,147.20
S-IVB STDVOpen Indication 17,149.74 17,155.54
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal-Switch I (on) 17,152.44 17,157,.02
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal-Switch 2 (on) 17,152.44 17,]57.06
S-IVB Engine Cutoff at the J_2 17,212.34 17,217.60

Engine
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal Dropout - 17,211.64 17,217.85

Switch 1
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal Dropout - 17,211.64 17,217.81

Switch 2
All previous stages had reached a pump inlet steady state condition when
the p_evalve opened. The higher than normal LH 2 pump inlet temperature due
to the lack of a steady state inlet temperature resulted in the pump
inlet conditions being outside of the start box at second ESC. At STDV
the fuel pump inlet conditions were within the start box. LOX pump
chilldown was completely satisfactory.
The second burn thrust buildup was satisfactory and within the limits set
by the engine manufacturer as shown in Figure 7_13. This buildup was
similar to the thrust buildup on AS-501, 502 and 503. The PU valve was
in the proper full open (4.5 Engine Mixture Ratio [EMR]) position prior
to the second start. The total impulse from STDVto STDV+2.5 seconds
was 1,012,806 N-s (227,688 Ibf-s). This was approximately the same as
the value of 1,018,029 N-s (228,862 Ibf-s) obtained during the same in-
terval for the acceptance test.
The LOX pump inlet temperature was 91.6°K (-294;9°F). The start tank
performed satisfactorily during the second burn blowdown and recharge
sequence as shown in Figure 7_14.
7.7 S-IVB MAIN STAGE PERFORMANCEFOR SECONDBURN
f The propulsion reconstruction analysis showed that the stage performance

during mainstage operation was satisfactory. A comparison of predicted
and actual performance of thrust, total flowrate, specific impulse, and
mixture ratio versus time is shown in Figure 7-15. Table 7-6 shows the
specific impulse, flowrates, and mixture ratio deviations from the pre-
dicted STDV + 60-second time slice. This time slice performance is
7-19
L_-L
uant] puooes - pea'] Len-I 9AI-S "_L-L aan6k=l
SGNOO3S:S3±nNIW:s_IrIOH
'3NI.L 39NV_
£S:£_:1z E£:£i_:_ L£:£#:_ 6i7:9_:1z kV:q'_:'17
I _t l I I I I t I o
SflN033S_3S3(]N_ HO_9 3WIt
8 9 # _ 0
OS_- - i 0
- (LO£-SV)
00_-- f13131f13_d
....
O£E- - IVRIOV
°
-_m 00£- -_'_
_m OOL _rrl
m=
•'u r"" .,_r =,
m OSZ- rn
_ OOZ-
E::m c::m
m_ OSL- _ m.-,
m O0L- OOZ ;_
O-
0S-
00£
N3dO AOJ.S Z_
i 00_
-4 08- - 03131(]3_d..... m =:
m ...4
08 .................... 00£
1.2
Q ADJUSTED
ACCEPTANCE
TOTESTDATA
FLIGHTSTDV .I MAXIMUM_
I.O _SECONDBURN
STDV START
OF550
ATEMR__
.... ) ® 0.2
o 0.8 _SECOND BURN

(ESC +8.342) MAINSTAGE
OF4.5
STARTAT EMR--- VO_
0.6
_
= ZTA O.IN
_o.,.............. _/\ .
J .- n
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 lO II ]2
TIME FROM 2ND ESC, SECONDS
4:45:48 4:45:50 4:45:52 4:45:54 4:45:56 4:45158

RANGETIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 7-13. S-IVB Buildup Transients - Second Burn
STARTSPHERETEMPE_TURE, °F
-350 -300 -250 -200 -150
I000 .... j.._..___ 1400

2ND ESC
_J I 1300
°°° [..................
./
SAFE START ENVELOPE
.......... 1200
800 ' _ ..........
{ lloo
"_2ND ECO
-- _
•
600 700 _ __ go0
iooo
_ BOO
/ 700
= 500 _/ /< ..... 600

400 m
< _)N 500 N
-
200
100
0
i> /
,°°
300
200
100
0
60 70. _ 90 I00 II0 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
START SPHERE TEMPE_TURE, °K
Figure 7-14. Start Tank Performance - Second Burn
7-22
/ )
ENGINEMIXTURERATIO, TOTALFLOWRATE,
kg/s SPECIFICIMPULSE, THRUST,lO3 N
LOX/FUEL N-s/kg
c o o o o o ° o o o o o o o o o o o -_ o
-_ _ o
'
_' ° ; a\i I
t 1 t , - --
__ mo
_ l / -_o
_--T--
° = _° i I N- _L
oN I Li ± f_
:Z ,.
0 ",,4
1
_¢'-_
r+_ ,.--+
,_ +.-<_
C"_ t"-"
e_ ,._+
e-
o o o o o o o o o o o o
SPECIFIC IMPULSE,
TOTALELOWRATE,
lbm/s lbf-s/lbm THRUST,lO3 lbf
Table 7_6o S_IVB Steady State Performance - Second Burn
(STDV +60-Second Time Slice at Standard Altitude Conditions)
2NDBURN FLIGHT PERCENT

PARAMETER PREDICTED RECONSTRUCTION DEVIATION DEVIATION
FROM PREDICTED
Thrust N 910,866 905,515 -5351 -0.587

(Ibf) (204,771) (203,568) (-1203)
Specific Impulse
N-s/kg 4207.8 4200.2 -7.60 -0.182
(Ibf-s/Ibm) (429.08) (428.3) (-0.78)
LOX Flowrate
kg/s 179.77 179.07 :0.70 _0.388
(Ibm/s) (396.32) (394.78) (-I.54)
Fuel F1owrate
kg/s 36.70 36.51 -0.19 _0,52
(Ibm/s) (80.91) (80.49) (:0.42)
Engine Mixture
Ratio
LOX/Fuel 4.898 4.905 0.007 0.143
standardized altitude performance which is comparable to engine accept-

ance tests. The 60-second time slice performance disagreed with the
predicted by -0.587 percent in thrust. Specific impulse performance
for second burn disagreed with predicted by -0.182 percent.
The overall propulsion reconstruction of longitudinal thrust was less

than predicted by 0.567 percent° Longitudinal specific impulse for
second burn was less than predicted by 0.49 percent.
The flight simulation analysis showed a decrease of 0.568 percent com-

pared to the prediction in specific impulse. Other comparisons are
shown in Table 7-7.
During the burn the engine2experienced shifts of 6672 Newtons (1500 Ibf)
of thrust due to 3.93 N/cm (5.7 psia) shifts in GG chamber pressure.
These shifts, also experienced on AS-503, are attributed to changes in
the GG system flowrate resistance on the LOX side and are not considered
abnormal.
7424
Tabl_e 7,7. Comparison of S-IVB Stage Flight Reconstruction Data
With Performance Simulation Results - Second Burn
1
PREDICTED FLIGHT RECONSTRUCTIONPERCENTDEV FROMPRED
PARAMETERS UNITS SECONDBURN SECOND

BURN SECOND
BURN
FLIGHT FLIGHT FLIGHT
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
Longitudinal N ' 898,002 892,896 -0.567

Vehicle Thrust (lbf) (201,879) (200,731)
Vehicle Mass kg/s 213.2l 213.04 -0.076

Loss Rate (Ibm/s) (470.04) (469.68)
Longitudinal _:
Vehicle N-s/kg 4211o8 4191o2 -0.490
Specific Impulse (Ibf-s/Ibm) (429.49) (427.38)
-,J
i
(Jl
FLIGHT SIMULATION PERCENTDEV FROMPRED
PARAMETERS UNITS SECONDBURN SECONDBURN

FLIGHT FLIGHT
AVERAGE AVERAGE
Longitudinal N 900,453 0.268

Vehicle Thrust (Ibf) (202,421)
Vehicle Mass kg/s 215.14 0.908

Loss Rate (Ibm/s) (474.3l)
Longi
tudinal
Vehicle N-s/kg 4,187.93 -0.568
Specific Impulse (Ibf-s/lbm) (427.05)
The helium control system for the J-2 engine performed satisfactorily
during mainstage operation. There was little pressure decay during the
burn due to the connection with the stage repressurization system.
Helium usage was estimated from flowrates during the burn and approxi-
mately 0.076 kilogram (0.168 ]bm) was consumed.
At second burn ESC_ the start bottle pressure was 904.2 N/cm2 (1311.5
psia). The b]owdown performance was satisfactory. Due to the short
duration of second burn the start bottle pressure at the end of second
burn was 736.4 N/cm2 (1068 psia). However, during the second burn coast
of 80 minutes, the start bottle pressure reached the required start box
requirements of 827.4 N/cm2 (1200 psia).
7°8 S-IVB SHUTDOWNTRANSIENT PERFORMANCEFOR SECOND BURN
S-IVB ECO was initiated at STDV +62°06 seconds by a timed cutoff command.
Second burn time was 0.54 second shorter than predicted. The transient
was satisfactory and agreed closely with the acceptance test and predictions.
The predicted total cutoff impulse to zero percent of rated thrust was
195,802 N-s (44,018 Ibf-s) as compared to an actual value of 191,440 N-s
(43,118 Ibf-s). Cutoff occurred with the PU valve in the null position.
The thrust during second cutoff is shown in Figure 7J16.
7.9 S-IVB INTERMEDIATE ORBIT COAST PHASE CONDITIONING
The fuel tank CVS was opened for the second coast at 17,218 seconds. The
fuel tank ullage pressure decayed normally and was regulated between
13.1 and 13.5 N/cm2 (19.0 and 19_6 psia) as seen in Figure 7-7. GH9
(358°2 kilograms [788.9 Ibm]) was vented through the propulsive ven_
system before it was closed at 21,965 seconds during this coast period,
and 372°6 kilograms (820°7 Ibm) of GH2 were boiled off.
7.10 S-IVB ENGINE CHILLDOWN AND BUILDUP TRANSIENT PERFORMANCEFOR THIRD

BURN
The ambient repressurization system was utilized to repressurize the

fuel tank for third burn as shown in Figure 7-17. The LH2 tank was
pressurized from 13.4 to 20.8 N/cm2 (19.4 to 30.2 psia). -Approximately
13.1 kilograms (28.9 Ibm) of helium were added to the LH2 tank during
repressurization.
The O_/H9 burner was successfully ignited prior to third burn to demon-
strat_ a-restart capability and to provide an acceleration for propellant
settling. Repressurization of the propellant tanks using the burner was
not attempted.
The burner was ignited at 21,827.6 seconds and burned satisfactorily for
134.4 seconds. Cutoff was commanded at 21,962.0 seconds. Thrust level,
chamber temperature and pressure during this period are presented in
Figure 7-18.
7_26
f Q ACCEPTANCE TESTADJUSTED 3.0
TO FLIGHT CUTOFF
12
2,5
L_
I0 _-
°
_-
NI"- MAXIMUM 2,0m
o
(_ 1,5
6 r_
MINIMUM _-
4 ............. -I ,0
2 -0.5
0 _ ...... ......... 0
0 0,5 1.0 1o5 2,0 2.5
TIME FROM 2ND ECO, SECONDS
J R __
4:46:58 4:46:59 4:47:00
Figure 7_16. S-IVB Shutdown Transient Performance - Second Burn
The engine start sphere was recharged properly and maintained sufficient
pressure during coast for the second restart. The engine control sphere
gas usage was as predicted during the second burn; the ambient helium
spheres recharged the control sphere to a nominal level, adequate for
the second restart.
The purpose of third burn was to demonstrate restart capability after an

80 minute coast and to demonstrate the mission rule related to a failure
of both chilldown
chilldown systems.
to condition Normally
the pumps prior theto engine
ESC. requires
To simulateLOXa and LH2
chilldown
system failure, after the chillpumps were spun up, the chilldown shutoff
valves were closed. An attempt was then made to restart the J-2 engine
under the simulated failure condition. A ground command initiated a
51.9-second fuel lead to condition the thrust chamber and _fuel pump
F inlet. At STDV, the resulting fuel pump inlet conditions were well
within the start and run boxes, indicating adequate conditioning of the
7427
8Z_L
eanssaad a6_tEn _Hl pu_ saanssaad
aaaqds uo£_zunssaada_ %ua_qmv XOl pue _Hq "LL-L aan6L3
SONOD3S:S31flNIN:S_nOH
'3NIZ 39NVB
OZ:LO:_ O0:LO:_Z O_:90:Z_ O_:90:Z_ O0:90:_Z
saNo_3s _t_± 30NW
_;'Ll_O_;_ £'LLO_ £'L66_ L_ £'LL6'_ [Z £" L£6'_L_
---- ...7- --_...... _ ................. OOS
r'- 0001. _ ""_ "- "o0
::_::,:>_ rrl
......... _ _ .- _ , _ _0001. rr_
_ oooz 00£1. ,-_,"_
c: :;:o
rm
-o _ .............. ........ O00Z
_
• OOSZ
'-_. 00£
r- 0001 _ _ r"
m _'_ _ O00L
_ :_
m m z
¢,o
oooz 00L c:: po
_;o;_ \\ _,-,,rrl
'_ _ O00Z
_
_._ooo_ ' _\_ £
O0£Z
"_ _- 0 0 ___
r-
...... OL "_,
;_ OZ m
lVfli3V - - ;_
m O_ G313Id3_{d------ m
0£
NOIiVZI_flSS3Hd3H iN31flNV dOiS Z_
NOILVZI_SS3_d3_ i_ViS
iN3IflNV 3S3 0_1_
/
BURNER BURNER
CHAMBERDOME CHAMBERDOME BURNER
TEMPERATURE,°K PRESSURE,N/cm2 THRUST, N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 _
)
_ _ _
m _ _J
J
N
BURNERCHAMBERDOME BURNERCH_BER DOME BURNER

TEMPE_TURE,°F PRESSURE,psia THRUST,Ibf
fuel pump inlet. The LH2 pump inlet temperature at STDV was 21.8°K
(-420°4°F). Due to the absence of chilldown, the LOX pump inlet tem-
perature was offscale high at STDV. The LOX pump inlet temperature was
ll6.5°K (-250°F) at STDV compared to an expected temperature of 91.5°K
(-295°F). The LOX pump inlet conditions were outside the start box and
this condition is related to the abnormal performance seen on third
burn. The LOX and LH2 pump inlet conditions are shown in Figure 7-19.
The start tank performed satisfactorily during the third burn blowdown
and recharge sequence: as shown in Figure 7-20.
The effect of the third burn fuel lead is shown in Figure 7-21 which
presents thrust chamber temperature and fuel injector temperature. The
abnormal propellant quality and the cold hardware conditions at STDV
could have been the source of the abnormal start condition which per-
sisted throughout third burn. Early engine injector development testing
by the engine manufacturer indicated that thrust chamber pressure oscilla-
tions could occur as a result of excessive chilling of thrust chamber and
injector.
The fuel injector temperature indicated that a saturated liquid or a low

quality two phase condition may have existed approximately 35 seconds
before STDV. At STDV the fuel flow was 6.3 kg/s (14 Ibm/s) which was
within 0.5 kg/s (I:I Ibm/s) of the predicted flowrateo
The third burn start transient was abnormal as shown in Figure 7-22.
The thrust buildup was within the limits set by the engine manufacturer,
but somewhat erratic as evidenced by Figure 7-23. A comparison of
second and third burn chamber pressure during the start transient is
shown in Figure 7-23. The higher Main Oxidizer Valve (MOV) plateau
during the start transient_ and the higher than normal injector tempera-
tures correlate with the engine manufacturer combustion instability
tests. Table 7-8 shows the major sequence of events during the buildup
transients. The PU valve was in proper full open position prior to
third start. The start impulse over the interval from STDV to STDV
+2.5 seconds was 974,841N-s (219,153 Ibf-s). This value was lower than
the 1,018,029 N-s (228,862 Ibf-s) impulse obtained during the corres-
ponding interval of the acceptance test.
7.11 S-IVB MAIN STAGE PERFORMANCEFOR THIRD BURN
The propulsion reconstruction analysis showed that the stage performance

during mainstage operation was not as expected. A comparison of pre-
dicted and actual performance of thrust, total flowrate, specific im-
pulse, and mixture ratio versus time is shown in Figure 7-24. Table 7-9
shows the specific impulse, flow rates, and mixture ratio deviations
from the predicted at the 60-second time slice.
7-30
/ /
LOX PUMP INLET TEMPERATURE, °K
' I 1 LH
2 PUMP
INLET
TEMPERATURE,
°K
X'-_- N" "2

I x i_ x
I I:_ne-.i- -o -_-
o _ _ o_ _ _ _>"
g =
o_._ _.,..___
co°_ _ .<_
I ,-i
m. i
_ _ ,_ _ LN
2 PUMP
INLET
TEMPERATURE,
°F
LOX PUMP INLET TEMEPRATURE,°F

-300 -250 -200 -I 50
I000
............ 1400
900 SAFE
RESTART
ENVELOPE
---- 1300
h'-- 3RD ESC 1200
700 - "1000
_ o900
z 600 ............................... LU
L_
°800
L_
w 500 o-
700
< 600
k--
400 c=
<
,,_ u3
_- -500
to
300 -400
200 < °300
- 200
100
- 100
0 0
80 90 1O0 110 120 130 140 150 160 ] 70 180
START TANK TEMPERATURE, °K
Figure 7-20, S-IVB Start Tank Performance - Third Burn
The 60-second time slice performance for third burn shows thrust was
2.57 percent lower than predicted and specific impulse 2.31 percent lower
than predicted. This reduced level of performance, which lasted until
STDV +99 seconds, is attributed to the presence of thrust chamber pres-
sure oscillations which began during the start transient. Table 7-10 is
a comparison of third burn results and engine manufacturer instability
tests. Figure 7-25 provides a flow diagram of the anomalies which
occurred during third burn.
7-32
35O
-140
-- , LIJ
310 -_
_:o
m 270 -40 _ a.
o
_:_ 230 _ __
<F- -_"_ --60 _J_-
tOLLJ F--rY
_- 190 _ _
_-F- 150 .................... --160_-_
................ i .....
!
240 ................. ACTUAL --
_, PREDICTED--60
200 *'_ \ ]
o \
-16o
_ 120 \ _"_
,-Z.
z_ \ \ .-260
_
uJ80
_- X \
\ _
_-_-
u-b. \
\ - -360
40
____ _ j
8 ACTUAL
-- EXTRAPOLATION -I 6
7 PREDICTED --
I __ -14
_ 5 _ TW( PHASE_ ,,_* -12 _E

_--
,-., 4
I >-" -IO
o
--J AS FLO ,/. -8 _=
0
u_ 3 ' -J
IJ..
_j I / -6
m 2 s / .........
%"_ -4 u_
1 / **_ 2
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
TIME FROM STDV, SECONDS
"_ 6:06:19 6:06:29 6:06:39 6:00:49 6:06:59 6:07:09 6:07:19
Figure 7-21. Effects of Extended S-IVB LH2 Lead - Third Burn
7-33
I0
Q ACCEPTANCE
TESTDATA Q -2.0
8 ADJUSTED
TOFLIGHT
STDV MAXIMUM_ Q
_3RDBURN
MAINSTAGE _ Io5
BURN
3RD STDV e
_:-STARTAT o
_
4.5 EMR 1,0
/ /"--MINIMUM
C o.5
2 ®_ I
_--_P ENVELOPE
IS FOR
........................................................................................................
NOTE:
5.0:I EMR
START 0
0,_ .........................
6]5 .....................
I.0 1.5. 2.0 2.5 3.0
TIME FROM3RD STDV, SECONDS
6:07:00 6:07:01 6:07:02 6:07:03

_NGE TIME, HOU_:MIN_ES:SECONDS
Figure 7-22. S-IVB Buildup Transient - Third Burn
Figure 7-26 presents a sequence of events during third burn. At approxi-

mately ESC +0°62 seconds a 69 N/cm2 (I00 psid) spike was noted in the
gas generator chamber pressure as shown in Figure 7-27. Due to slow res-
ponse time the magnitude of the pressure spikes cannot be measured by
flight instrumentation, however, correlation with a close-coupled trans-
ducer during the J-2 engine gas generator development testing indicated
the actual pressure may be as high as 3447.5 N/cm2 (5000 psid). This
7-34
if ¸- _
5OO
-700
SECOND BURr'
- 600
400
f BURN
-500
E
z 300 u_--
o -140o D.
_ 300- _ 400
_ -40 _
w _ 250- TIll
_ RD N_.,
BUR i--
<
c,- Lu _ --60
_ ""
_=200- __ 300
200 _
_ -I60 _- --
< _ 150 1 _
_-SECOND
i- ,_ BURN -260 _ m:
lOO _
z /"_ z 200
_" 50 I --360
Z_ :I:
100 __ -_ O .............................. ---J --

0 l 2 3 4 5 6
TIME FROMSTDV, SECONDS lO0
0 0
0 I 2 3 4 6 8
I t 1 1 I
6:07:19 6:07:21 6:07:23 6:07:25 6:07:27

"- Figure 7-23. S-IVB Transient Chamber Pressure and LH2

Injector Temperature - Third Burn
7-35
Table 7_8_ S-IVB Engine Start Sequence Events - Third Burn
TIME OF EVENT IN
RANGE TIME (SECONDS)
EVENT PREDICTED ACTUAL
S-IVB Engine Start Indication 22,024.92 22,030.93
S_IVB STDV Open _ndication 22,032°79 22,039.260
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal-Switch I (on) Not available 22,040.702
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal Switch 2 (on) Not available 22,040.785
S-IVB Engine Cutoff at the J_2 22,275°33 229281.32

Engine
S-IVB Thrust OK Signal Dropout Not available 22,281.509

Switch 1 (off)
pressure could "blow out" the gas generator spark plugs or severely damage
the combustor. It is speculated at this time that the erratic behavior
of the engine area ambient and thrust chamber jacket temperature measure-
ments shown in Figure 7_28 were caused by hot gases escaping from the gas
generator.
At STDV +50 seconds the engine pneumatic regulator pressure dropped

as shown in Figure 7-29. At this time it is believed that the high
vibration levels which accompany thrust chamber pressure oscillations
caused the helium control solenoid valve to fail closed. Control bottle
pressure did not decay after the loss of regulator pressure, as shown by
Figure 7-30. Helium usage was estimated from flow rates to be approxi_
mately 0.953 kilograms (2.1 Ibm) consumed during the burn; this value
includes helium consumed during the extended fuel lead.
After engine pneumatic regulator pressure was lost, the accumulator pres-
sure decayed to a level insufficient to keep the ASI LOX valve_ GG valve,
and LOX and fuel bleed valves fully open. The GG valve left the open
position at 93 seconds after STDV as shown in Figure 7-31. The LOX bleed
valve opened 6 seconds later, thus by_passing LOX flow back to the LOX
tank and resulting in an engine chamber pressure decrease at STDV +99
seconds of 138 N/cm2 (200 psid)° An average LOX flowrate of 21.3 kg/s
(47 Ibm/s) was returning through the bleed valve to the LOX tank. At
STDV +142 seconds the LH2 bleed valve opened resulting in an additional
7-36
9,4 --
-2.0
8.4 _ ...............
z ____-PREDICTED
BAND -I°8
...... m
o 7,4_-- '"' ACTUAL m
_- -1.6 o
6,4
1.0
I=
55 -550
50 '_
_" -500
,,_ _ 40
_ __. -400 _=_
ILl U_
o_ , '_ (j
u_z "-_ = -350
{_.)
30 m
250
200 -SOD
150 -_- '_'
o -300
_j 100 ............................... o
< ,n -200
_-_ 50 "I00
0
6,5
o
_" 6,0
r_ _
kLl
_: 5.5 J
°
_..a
L_
5,0 ___-'--u A _
;_LL
I..-4
o_ 4.5
zo
L_.J
4.0 ................
0 50 1O0 150 200 250 300
TIME FROM STDV +2.5 SECONDS
/-
I l J,, I
6:07:21 6:09:01 6:10:41 6:12:21

Figure 7-24. S-IVB Steady State Performance - Third Burn
7-37
Table 7:9. S-IVB Steady State Performance - Third Burn
(STDV +60-Second Time Slice At Standard Altitude Conditions)
PARAMETER FLIGHT** FLIGHT PERCENT

PREDICTED ACTUAL DEVIATION DEVIATION
FROM PREDICTED
Thrust N* 910,866 887,491 -23,375 -2.57

(Ibf) (204,771) (199,516) (-5,255)
Specific Impulse
N-s/kg 4207.8 4110.9 -96.9 _2.31
(Ibf-s/Ibm) (429.1) (419.2) (-9.9)
LOX Flowrate
kg/s 179.77 180.21 +0.24 0°25
(Ibm/s) (396.32) (397.30) (+0.98)
Fuel Flowrate
kg/s 36.70 35.69 -l.Ol -2.76
(Ibm/s) (80.91) (78.68) (-2.23)
Engine Mixture
Ratio LOX/Fuel 4.898 (5.049) 0.151 0.31
* Based on chamber pressure

** Same as predicted for second burn
34.48 N/cm2 (50 psid) decrease in chamber pressure. During the remainder
of mainstage the reduction in performance is due to the powered down con-
dition of the GG. The erratic behavior of the MOV and Main Fuel Valve
(MFV) position indication during burn can be attributed to the vibration
levels present during third burn. MOV and MFV discretes indicate that
the valves were fully open throughout third burn.
Table 7-II shows a comparison of the S-IVB stage flight reconstruction

data with simulation and predicted data for third burn.
7.12 S-IVB SHUTDOWNTRANSIENT PERFORMANCEFOR THIRD BURN
S_IVB ECO was initiated at STDV +242.06 seconds by a timed cutoff. The
ECO transient was unusual due to the drop in performance during mainstage
which resulted in a very low chamber pressure at cutoff as shown in
Figure 7-32. Because of the low closing pressure required by the MOV
and MFV there was sufficient accumulator pressure to close these valves
at cutoff. The cutoff transient total impulse was 194,467 N_s (43,718
Ibf-s) predicted as compared to 208,581 N-s (46,891 Ibf-s) from actual
engine data.
7-38
Table 7-10. S-IVB Third Burn PerformanceComparison
STDV + 60_SECOND DATA SLICE ENGINE MFGR. 5-SECOND STABILITY TEST

f \
PARAMETER SECOND THIRD DIFFERENCE UNSTABLE STABLE DIFFERENCE
BURN BURN
Chamber Pressure
N/cm2 483.2 470.8 -12.4 490.8 506.2 -15.4
(psia) (700.8) (682,9) (-17.9) (711.8) (734.2) (-22.4)
EMR 4.91 5.05 0.14 5.39 5.25 0.14
LOX Flowrate
kg/s 179.1 180.4 1,3 192.6 191,6 I ,0
(Ibm/s) (394.8) (397.7) I (2.9) (424.7) (422.4) (2.3)
Fuel F1owrate
kg/s 36.5 35.7 -0,8 35.7 36.5 -0.8
(Ibm/s) (80.5) (78.7) (-I .8) (78.7) (80.5) (-I .8)
LOXPumpSpeed 7806 8021 115 8313 8261 52
Fuel Pump Speed 25,707 25,646 -61 25,903 25,887 16
Fuel Turb. Inlet Temp

°K 870 857 -13 933 948 -I5
(°F) (1106) (1083) (-23) (1219) (1247) (-28)
7.13 S-IVB STAGE PROPELLANT MANAGEMENT
ON AS-504 the PU system was operated in the open-loop mode, which means
the LOX flowrate is not controlledto insure simultaneousdepletion of
propellants. The PU system successfully accomplished the requirements
associated with propellant loading.
A comparison of propellant mass values at the time of critical flight

events determinedfrom different analyses, is presented in Table 7-12.
The best estimate full load propellant masses as presented in Section
21 are also shown in this table for comparison and are seen to be 0.41
percent greater than predicted for LOX and 0.46 percent greater than
predicted for LH2. These deviations are within the required loading
accuracy.
During first burn the PU valve was positioned at null for start, then
shifted to the 5.5 EMR position for mainstage, and remained there, as
programmed during first burn. The PU valve was commanded to the 4.5 EMR
position I19.80 seconds prior to second burn start command, and remained
there for 132.BI seconds. At Time Base 6 (T6) +582.96 seconds the valve
was commanded to the null position (approximately 5.0 EMR) and remained
there throughout the remainder of the second burn operation. For the
.... second restart the valve was again positioned at the 4.5 EMRposition
for start and shifted to null (approximately 5,0 EMR) at T8 +462.95
seconds where it remained for the duration of the third burn. The actual
times are within 50 milliseconds of predicted.
7-39
IXPFRfMENT f_tl MIN CO/_SI
__ PROPI LI ANI
QUA[ IIY AND
HARDWA_E CONI).
ABNORMAL
I
DLTilNA_I(/N PRESSURE OSCIL I.ATIONS
1
VALVE FAILURES |
1
AND 5t)%
P_ RFORMANCE
[)I_OP
Figure 7-25. Flow Diagram_ Summary of S-IVB Third Burn Anomalies
7.14 S:IVB PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM
7.14.1 S-IVB Fuel Pressurization System
The LH2 tank prepressurization command was received at _97 seconds. The
pressurized signal was received 17 seconds later. At the termination of
prepressurization, the ullage pressure was at relief conditions, approxi-
mately 21.8 N/cm2 (31.6 psia) The pressure decreased slightly and was
at 21.4 N/cm z (31.I psia) at iiftoff, as shown in Figure 7-33.
A small ullage pressure collapse occurred during the first 20 seconds of

boost, and the pressure then returned to the relief level at 60 seconds
due to self-pressurization. Another ullage collapse occurred from 505
to 515 seconds, dropping pressure from 21.6 to 21.3 N/cm2 (31.3 to 30.9
psia). This was caused by the LH2 surface agitation induced by the S-II
center engine vibration period. The pressure recovered to 21.6 N/cm2
(31.4 psia) at ESC.
7-40
INITIATION OF FUELLEAD A
STDV
SIGNAL
GGPRESSURE
SPIKE L
ABNORMAL
MAIN CHAMBER
STARTTRANSIENT A
ENGINEHELIUM REGULATOR
PRESSUREDROPS A
PUACTIVATE A
ERRATIC
PRESSURE
SWITCH
NO.2 _ A
ENGINE REGULATOR FAILS
j ERRATIC
ASILOX PRESSURE
VALVE SWITCHNO. _
CYCLES _ A A
GGVALVE
OPEN
SIGNAL
DROPOUT
LOX
BLEED
VALVE
OPENS
LH
2 BLEED
VALVE
OPENS A
ENGINE
CUTOFF
ENGINE
READY
ONFAILURE
-50 50 I00 150 200 250

P I _ _ f _ m
6:06:29 6:07:19 6:08:09 6:08:59 6:09:49 6:10:39 6:11:29
Figure 7-26. S-IVB Third Burn Sequenceof Events

400
- 550
%
300 | - 450 ._
w
- 400
250
- 350
___ ,mE
o 300_:
200 o
_K
tJ_
,,_ 250 N
<
150
I00 --
................................ _ oo
-150
]00
5O
0.37 0.87 1.37 1.87 2.37 2.87 3.37 3.87 4.37 4.87 5.37
TIME FROMESC, SECONDS
L ] I I l L.
6:06:27 6:06:28 6:06:29 6:06:30 6:06:31 6:06:32
Figure 7-27. S-IVB Gas Generator Chamber Pressure - Third Burn

Start Transient
During first burn, the average pressurization flowrate was approximately

0.35 kg/s (0.76 Ibm/s) providing a total consumption of 42.3 kilograms
(93.2 Ibm). The ullage pressure was at the relief level throughout the
burn as predicted.
During 02/H2 burner repressurization for second burn, the LH2 tank was
pressurized from 13.1 to 20.7 N/cm2 (19.1 to 30.I psia). The LH2 ullage
7_42
aJnssaad a6_LLn aq_ 'spuo3as _E= AG±S PJ_q%_ UOL_ZLanssaadaJ &o UOL_U[W
-aa_ aq_ 8u_MotLo3 "uo_ez_Jnssaadaa 6u_anp _uv_ _H3 aq% o_ pepp_ aaaM
• nLLaq #o (mqL 6"8_) Sw_JSOLL_L'EL RLa_ew_xoaddv "uanq paLq_ aO# _Ue%
Len_ eq% ez_ansseadea o% paz_L_n s_M ma_sRs uo_z_anssaadaa _ua_qwe aqI j
• uJnq puo3as 6ULanp (wqL
£'£#) S_eJ6OLL_ £'£6 _0 L_O% e pepLAOad SLq± °UOL%_ado UOL%eZLanssa_daJ
aq_ u_ pasn aae_ mn_Leq #o (wqL £'#_) smeaSOL__ I'LL £Le_em_xoaddv "#S-L
aan6L3 UL u_oqs Se 3S3 uJnq puo3es %e (eLsd Z'O£) ZW3/N 8"OZ Se_ eJnssead
uJn£ PJH± - saan_eJadma± %ua_qwv
vaav aUL6U3pue _a_3£C aaqmeq3 _snaq$ £AI-S "SZ-L aan6#3
o9_- _ _. ILl .................... Z .........................
1H9113 )0_ _Ng _17
•-'4 rn
"_-
mz
!_/ r 00__
_m O#L _oN
> 0_8 00__ >
-_ o_ _=_
Otzt, . ,._a. & 00£
0I_£ 3"IV3S330
009 "-J
7O0
f NORMAL
600 .....
-400
500 .................
g -300
N
o
3oo -200
_
zoo.....
.100
100
0 ............................................ .O
-50 60 I00 150 200 250 300
TIME FROMSTDV, SECONDS
6:06:00 6:07:00 6:08:00 6:09:00 6:10:00 6:11:00 6:12:00
Figure 7-29. S-IVB Engine Regulator Outlet Pressure
decreased slightly to 20.4 N/cm2 (29.6 psia) at third STDV as a result

of ullage volume increase during fuel lead. The fuel pressurization
system operated normally during third burn considering the changing
engine performance. The total mass of GH2 added to the fuel tank was
54.8,kilograms (120.6 Ibm).
The ullage pressure decrease and subsequent stabilization after the LOX
bleed valve opened was the result of a new equilibrium condition being
achieved after the shift in engine performance. After the LH2 bleed
valve came open at STDV +142 seconds, these factors again changed, and in
addition, return flow through the bleed valve was being added to the LH2
tank. The cumulative effect of all those factors caused the ullage pres-
sure rise noted at that time.
Figures 7-35, 7-36, and 7-37 summarize the fuel pump inlet conditions
for first, second, and third burns, respectively.
The LH2 pump inlet Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) was calculated
from the pump interface temperature and local pressure. These values
indicated that the NPSP at first burn ESC was 10.5 N/cm2 (15.2 psia).
7-44
£#-L
uaas Rtleuuou ueq_ _e4614 aq o_ aJn_eJedwa_ aq% pasne3 s£ql °£[snoLA
-a_d passnos_p se LBABL a%e_s _p_a%s e 6u_qoea_ %ou a_n%e_adwa% _atu_
dmnd aq_ o_ anp SL 3S3 _e s_ua_aJLnba_ wnmLuLm _ee_ o_ dSdN dmnd tan_ .....
uanq puooas _o aanLL_ _ aql °_mO/N L'O seM 3S3 uanq puo3as _e dSdN aql
"pe_o_pead
q_LM _uamaa_6e £ao_3e_s£_es u[ seM dSdN u_nq aq_ %noq6no_q± "paaLnb
-aa _e4% eAoqe (Lsd #'0) Zm3/N L'£ sg_ dSdN eq% _u#od mnmLULm aq% %V
uan8 pa#q± - aanssead aaaqds LOa%UO3 _AI-S "O£-L aan6#3
SONO33S:S31NNIN:S_aOH
_3N11 39NVU
00:[1:9 00:0[:9 00_60:9 00:80:9 O0:LO:9 00:90:9
$0N033S '353 OU_ WO_3 3NIL
00£ O£Z OOZ OSL OOL 0£ 0 OS-
"OOL
-OSL
S['[
•008
OZ"
L'
9Z" L _ ' 0£8
0_:"L 006
:_0
_-4 C::C)
=_- OI_'t " N
om
_ S#'L O00L a,,_m
.OSOt
_ _ ££'L
_o /// 0£6 N '-
09" L OOLL
s/
OStL
OL'L
OOZL
3S3 _a£Z_
" ' I-
80 / _" -- _ "_
° \/
_ 60 /2"\. " li
50
Z
4O
30 MAIN FLOW VALVE

" MAIN OXIDIZER VALVE
20 GAS _ENERATORVALVE
LOX BLEED VALVE
10 LH2 BLEED VALVE

OXTDIZER IURBINE
BYPASS VALVE
0 _°--_ _..... _..................................... _'
-I0 .......
-20 0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
6:07:19 6:08:19 6:09:19 6:10:19 6:11:19

P_NGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 7-31° S-IVB Engine Valve Position - Third Burn
at the end of restart chilldown, raising the saturation at the pump in-
let. At STDV, the NPSP was 3.5 N/cm2 (5.1 psia) which was 0.4 N/cm 2
(0.6 psi) above start requirements.
The NPSP at third burn STDV was 4.6 N/cm2 (6.7 psia) which was 1.5 N/cm 2
(2.2 psi) above the required. At STDV +142 seconds, the LH2 bleed
valve opened, allowing a portion of the J-2 engine fuel flow to be
diverted back to the fuel tank. The high energy level of the returning
7-46
Table 7-11. Comparison of S-IVB Stage Flight Reconstruction Data
With Performance Simulation Results - Third Burn
s FLIGHT
RECON- PERCENT DEV. FLIGHT PERCENT DEV.
PREDICTED STRUCTION FROM PRED. SIMULATION FROM PRED.
THIRD BURN THIRD BURN THIRD BURN THIRD BURN THIRD BURN
FLIGHT FLIGHT FLIGHT FLIGHT FLIGHT
PARAMETERS UNITS AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
*Longitudinal N 908,100 686,116 -24.4 689,996 -24.0

Vehicle
Thrust (Ibf) (204,149) (154,245) (155,125)
Vehicle Mass kg/s 215.64 171.1 -20.6 169.2 -21.5

Loss Rate (Ibm/s) (475.4) (377.3) (373.1)
Longitudinal N-s/kg 4,212.0 4,008.7 -4.8 4062.6 -3.5

Vehicle (Ibf-s/Ibm) (429.5) (408.8) (414.3)
Specific Impulse
*Based on chamber pressure
flow caused the LH2 bulk temperature to rise. The resulting continual
increase in pump inlet temperature reduced the available NPSP at the
fuel pump interface. At STDV +196.4 seconds the rising pump inlet tem-
perature caused the NPSP to fall below run requirements; the NPSP then
remained below run requirements for the duration of third burn. Normally,
the violation of NPSPrun requirements would create a high probability of
cavitation at the pump inlet, leading to possible pump damage. However,
under the lower performance level due to the LOX and LH2 bleed valves
coming open, the probability of cavitation was significantly reduced.
7.14.2 S-IVB LOX Pressurization System
LOX tank prepressurization was initiated at -167 seconds and increased

the LOX tank ullage pressure from ambient to 28.1N/cm 2 (40.8 psia)
within 22 seconds as shown in Figure 7-38. Three makeup cycles were
required to maintain the LOX tank ullage pressure before the ullage
temperature stabilized.
During boost there was a relatively high rate of ullage pressure decay
caused by an acceleration effect and temperature collapse. Makeup cycles
were inhibited until 495 seconds. At that time, the LOX tank pressure
switch was enabled, thus initiating a makeup cycle which increased the
ullage pressure from 26.2 to 28.2 N/cm2 (38.0 to 41.0 psia). The LOX
tank ullage pressure was 28.1N/cm z (40.8 psia) at ESC.
7-47
I_0';
® ACCEPTANCE
DATAADJUSTED
TO °0.2
0.8 ® FLIGHT
C_OFF , ,
o ®
_0.6 .................................... 0
0.4
_ _ °0.1
0.2- 6 .L ...................
0 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2,80

TIME FROM 3RD ECO, SECONDS
a........... 1- L ....................
_.
6:11:21 6:11:22 6:11:23 6:11:24

Figure 7-32. S-IVB Shutdown Transient Performance - Third Burn
INITIATION OF PREPRESSURIZATION
_ IST
1ST ECO
ESC
30 _ 40
o_ 25
_ °_
tfl
30
20
v) (13
(z} L_
LU (D
-J 10 _
_M
_ 10 m
.J
5
0 0
-I000 I000 3000 5000 7000 9000 II ,000 13,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
0:00:00 01:00:00 02:00:00 03:00:00

Figure 7-33. S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure - First Burn and Parking Orbit
7-48
Table 7m12. S-IVB Stage Propellant Mass History
PREDICTED _ PU INDICATED PU VOLUMETRIC FLOW INTEG_L BEST ESTI_TE
! CCORRECTED_
EVENT LOX LH
2 LOX LH
2 LOX LH2 LOX LH
2 LOX LH
2
f ,.....
k9 85,686 19,737 85,823 19,742 86,028 19,871 86,137 19,761 86,040 19,826
S-IC Liftoff (Ibm) (188,906 (43,513 189,204 (43,522) (189,659](43,807 i189,900 143,566 (189,686) (43,709)
kg 85,6_ 19,737 85,771 119,717 86,026 19,871 86,137 19,761 86,040 19,826
First Ignition (ESC) (Ibm) (188,906)(43,513] 189,089 43,467) (189,654 (43,_71 189,9001 43,565) I189,6_) (43,709)
kg 62,480 15,425 _,'445 14,910 60,614 15,030 I 60,433 15,013 60,519 14,968
Fi_t Cutoff (ECO) (Ibm) (137,744)(34,000] 133,267 32,870) (133,632)(33,1351 133,232] 33 098)(133,421) (32,999)
kg 62,233 13,669 60,294 13,293 60,447 13,32D_ 60,2_ 13,387 60,322 13,321
Second Ignition (ESC) (Ibm) (137,202) 30,135 132,923 29,305) (133,2631(29,516)_i132,913 129,513)[132,988) (29,369)
kg 51,471 II,434 49,141 II,033 49,575 11,131 49,558 11,]39 49,577 II,I02
Second Cutoff (ECO) (Ibm) (113,474)(25,2081 I08,930 29,323) (109,295)(24,540) I09,25_ 24,558)[109,298) (24,476)
kg 51,367 11,064 49,339 10,675 49,494 I0,736 49,444 10,904 49,408 I0,668
Third Ignition (ESC) (Ibm) (I13,245)(24,391 I08,772 23,534) (I09,117)(23,669)!I09_005] 24,040)[I08,927) (23,520)
kg B538 2195 15,367 4060 15,473 4045i 15,473 4045 15,445 4060
Third Cutoff (ECO) (Ibm) (18,824) (4840 (33,877 8950 (34,112) 8917 (34,112] 8917 (34,061) (8951)
During parking orbit, at 9241 seconds, the maneuver to transposition and

docking attitude caused a rise in LOX ullage pressure from 26.8 to 29.4
N/cm2 (38.9 to 42.7 psia). This was greater than the 1.2 N/cm2 (1.8 psi)
predicted increase, as shown in Figure 7-38, possibly due to greater
than expected ullage heating.
Repressurizationof the LOX tank prior to second burn was not required.
The tank ullage pressurewas 29.1 N/cm2 (42.3 psia) at second ESC, satis-
fying the engine start requirements as shown in Figure 7-39. Pressuriza-
tion system performance during second burn was satisfactory. There were
no over-control cycles as compared to one predicted.
Repressurization of the LOX tank prior to third burn was not required.
During third burn the system responded to engine performance changes which
affected the otherwise normal operation. When the engine LOX bleed valve
opened at STDV +99 seconds, LOX was returned to the LOX tank through the
return line. This resulted in lower than normal net usage of LOX and
also added heat to the LOX bulk. Since the pressurizing helium flow
continued at a slightly increased rate, LOX ullage pressure increased
rapidly and reached relief pressure within 50 seconds Five Non Propul-
sive Vent (NPV) cycles occurred before ECO.
Heat exchangerperformancewas satisfactoryup to third burn but at that

time deviated somewhat from normal because of engine anomalies. Heat
exchanger outlet temperature decreased in response to LOX bleed valve
opening and then increased again after the LH2 bleed valve opened at
STDV +142 seconds. These temperaturechanges occurred in response to
turbine exhaust gases in the heat exchanger which vary with turbine
..... power level and mixture ratio changes caused by the opening of the bleed
valves.
The LOX NPSPwas 18.4 N/cm2 (26.7 psi) at first burn STDV. This was 2.7
N/cm2 (3.9 psi) above the required NPSPat that time. The LOX pump
static pressure during first burn followed the cyclic trends of the LOX
tank ullage pressure.
7_49
30.0 _ ....HELIUMREPRESSURIZATION
COLD I o
._40.
AMBIENT REPRESSURIZATION I I, I
25.0 _;_CVS OPEN
_7 NPV OPEN "_
.20.0 1 1 20.
15.0
_. _ _ - • _ -- 20.0 _
w
1o.o
j
-qO.O
5.C J
O.G 0.0
13,000 15,000 17,ODD 19,000 21,000 23,000 25,000 27,000
RANGE T_ME, SECONDS
04:00:00 05:00:00 06:00:00 07:00:00
RANGE TIME? HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 7-34. S-IVB Ullage Pressure - Second and Third Burn
The NPSP calculated at the engine interface was 16.8 N/cm2 (24.4 psia) at
second burn STDV. At all times during second burn, NPSP was above the
required level. Figures 7_40, 7-41, and 7-42 summarize the LOX pump con-
ditions for first burn, second burn, and third burn respectively.
At third burn STDV +99 seconds the LOX bleed valve opened and allowed
high energy LOX to return to the LOX tank. This resulted in a gradual
increase in the LOX bulk and LOX pump inlet temperatures, and caused a
small reduction in NPSP. However, the NPSP remained well above the
required level at all times.
The cold helium supply was adequate to meet all flight requirements. At
liftoff the cold helium spheres contained 172 kilograms (379 Ibm). During
the 123.8-second first burn 19.1 kilograms (42 Ibm) of cold helium were
consumed. During a 180.4-second 02/H 2 burner repressurization of the LH2
tank, II.I kilograms (24.5 Ibm) of cold helium were consumed. During a
62.06-second second burn, 8.8 kilograms (19.3 Ibm) of cold helium were
consumed. During a 242_second third burn, 42.3 kilograms (93.1 Ibm) of
cold helium were consumed. At third burn ECO the cold helium spheres
contained 90.8 kilograms (200 Ibm) of cold helium.
7.15 S-IVB PNEUMATIC CONTROL PRESSURE SYSTEM
The stage pneumatic control and purge system performed adequately during
all phases of the mission. During the early stages of the countdown at
7-50
LS-L
u_no %sJ.[-I - su0r%rpu0 3 :_eLUI dLund Lan_4_]AI-S "S£-Z aJn6.[_-I
SC]N033S '3N11 39NV_I
£Z9 0£9 SZ9 009 £LS 0S£
S(]NO33g '3g3 ISL NO_JJ 3NIl
017L Og[ 00[ 08 09 OIJ Og
£-
--4 "10
o rn
-4 OZ)-- o
"-rl 2_
[Z
0313103_d _ -_ r-
7vnIDV _ _ =
_r- OZ_o
-o 11_
m _ f_
;X3 rr_ --9
r'r'l --4 __ C)
--4
p.z
0£ £0
0 J _ 0
F-
I-" didN 03_Ifli3_ _ :3::
P_
-_z OL" A _-°z
dSdN 1VnI3V "--
033 ZSLZ_ O@ .j
N3dO AOIS N_fl£ ±SNI_Z_
3S3 ISLZ&
7£-L
uanB puoDas - suo[%_puo3 %atul dmnd Lan3 £AI-S "9£-L aanB£3
SGNO33S:S3±NNIN:S_nOH '3WI± 39NV_
O0:L_:# 0_:9_:_ 00:9#:_
.......
_ i __ z_
20
PREDICTED_7 3RDESC 50
_"
..... -- ACTUAL _ THIRD BURN STDV OPEN
LH2 BLEED VALVE OPEN
_ 15- _ 3RD
ECO ._
""
_
I
I !- 40 _.
m
z
= .... __ 30 z
5/ft.,,
0 _ l
REQUIRED NPSP
i
35 50
N
_ 30......................
: .... _
i-._ 40 i-
d
N_ 25 =m
_c20
_J%..... m,_
_ 0 "_ 0
15
24
i--o
LLI -418_ o
_ 22_ ...........
o-w _w
"r" ILl _
21 i . -422
0 35 70 I05 140 175 210 245 280 315 350
TIME FROM 3RD ESC, SECONDS
6:06:00 6:09:00 6:12:00

RANGE TIME, HOURS :MINUTES :SECONDS
Figure 7-37. S-IVB Fuel Pump Inlet Conditions - Third Burn
7-53
35 = 50
25 _ ..........
20 30
15 ....................................
_----PREDICTED 20 _
-----ACTUAL
lO
× _LOX TANK PRESS
INITIATED x
o 5 _ ISTECO
IST ESC _0 o
_MANEUVER TO TRANSPOSITZON AND DOCKING ATTITUDE
o I | I I 1 1 [ I I I I _ o
-1000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 lO,O00 12,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS,
L ...._ _ _ I I _ ..........
I ! J
0:00:00 l:O0:O0 2:00:00 3:00:00
Figure 7-38. S-IVB LOX Tank U11age Pressure - First Burn

And Parking Orbit
approximately -3:07:00, the regulator discharge pressure was high 420.6

to 427.5 N/cm2 (610 to 620 psia). As a result, the module outlet pres-
sure was controlled by the backup system, a pressure switch and shutoff
valve in the pneumatic power control module. Specified redlines pre-
cluded liftoff with the pressure above 427.9 N/cm 2 (585 psia), or with
the regulator malfunctioning; however, re-evaluation of the situation
resulted in raising the redline limit to 434.4 N/cm 2 (630 psia), and
defining backup operation as acceptable for launch.
Prior to liftoff, pressure control was resumed by the primary system

regulator. The regulator was regulating high during boost and higher
7-54
35 ..... PREDICTED
- 50
----- ACTUAL
E 30
z - 40 _.
25 .........
20 , , - 30 "_
LL,J
r,,"
LLJ
_17CSM/LM EJECTION m
z 2ND ESC z
2ND ECO
×
0 5
3RD ESC "-._ _ I0 X
LOX TANK NON-PROPULSIVE VENT LATCHED OPEN

0 i _ w _ I 0
13 300 15,000 17,000 19,000 21,000 23,000 25,000 27,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00

Figure 7-39. S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure - Second Burn,

Intermediate Coast and Third Burn
than normal during the majority of coast. The higher regulator outlet
pressure had no adverse effect on component or system functioning. Pneu-
matic control bottle temperature and pressure, and regulator outlet pres-
sure are shown in Figure 7-43. Bottle masses at pertinent times are
shown in Table 7-13. During third burn preparation, shortly after CVS
closure, the pneumatic control system went into backup mode. This backup
j-. regulation lasted approximately 205 seconds. During this time interval
the regulator discharge pressure dropped from 427 N/cm2 (620 psia) to
7-55
LOXPUMPINLET LOXPUMPINLET LOXNPSP, N/cm2
I TEMPERATURE,
°K TOTALPRESSURE,N/cm2
(.tl _.,,,_ 0 -"
fl)
4_ _
x too.
' _ _ I
_ r'_
_ c-_ Co
0 "_
d-
LOXPUMPINLET LOXPLOPTOTAL
TEMPERATURE,
°F INLETPRESSURE,psia LOXNPSP, psi
SECOND BURN STDV OPEN
,_..... 2ND ECO
2NDESC
25 -36
E
-32 °e-
U m
z _ vvv",v._
jV_vj,
-,
-- 2o -_v_w
'-^_ " _ L----ACTUAL
__ NPSP _-28 =
=.'_ -24 z_
_ 15 1 - ×
xo _REQUIRED -20 o
-J
- I0 = .......... / - --w_ _ 16
35 -°50
_ "-
..-- c,_,_ w_ _,. V_ ,,_._ _w,_ _
Z_ _'='_
_ 25 ACTUAL Nm.F_"
o__J PREDICTED LJ
XF-- OZ
oo
-J_ 20 ...... -30 _ _"
97
v "=187.5
F--o ,.
"-290.0
"'
_J
_J
Zh=
QA .......... 7,,,
r- -J_-'-292' 5 o-F-
_ -295.0_ _
{_ J,l
CLLU nl r,
X x_
c}_
-297.5 o,,,
.JF--
.JE-
- 300. O
88 , ---
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
TIME FROM 2ND ESC, SECONDS
4:46:00 4:46:30 4:47:00

._- Figure 7-41. S=IVB LOX Pump Inlet Conditions = Second Burn
7-57
THIRD BURN STDV OPEN
LOX BLEED VALVE OPEN
3RD ECO
3RDESC
25 .............. '36
.32 ,,-
2o
........
..... .28
m _ACTUAL
NPSP
l 5 ............ _-c_-_ ......
×
0 _ -20
J
lO ............ -_ MINIMUM.
. REQUIRED. o16
35 50
I_ J
o z
_. 25 ..................................................
_ PREDICTED _- m
_
_ ACTUAL _
_ 20 ................................... ,, 30 _
97
"-287.5
uJ "-290 0 _ ,,
ZL_
_ ":292.5
_
x_ "-297
"5 ×
OLLI
_ "-300.0
88 ...............................................
0 35 70 105 140 175 210 245 280 315 350
TIME FROMTHIRD ENGINE START COMMAND,SECONDS
6:06:00 6:09:00 6:12:00

Figure 7-42. S:IVB LOX Pump Inlet Conditions - Third Burn
7_58
ENGINE PUMP PURGE OFF
PREVALVESOPEN
350 ,_
L_
/.... _ "140
325 ......... ' '
CL C_
_
o 300 , 90 _
w ,_ 275 ....... "" ,,_u "i-"

==}
F=
C2_ LJA _.
,__ 225 ........ "'-60
20( L_
Q.
w 2450 I I I "3500m
'_ EDI
CTED
_(_,_
_ 2150 -"_\ /== MAXIMUM PR _ ,_
"3000 _
-_ ,1850 _ _ -" "
w \
c)_ _ ]550 _' ...... ,_
I-- m
(f;
I--- u_
c, _ 1250 ......
(.j m,.
Mi,iMU.
PREOICTEO -1500 N ._
_
950 r , _
E _j
o t,_ ,,.,
_ 650 _-lO00 Nm
- 430_ '600 m
_ '560
m 380 --_- .... _
u_ '520 "'
w _ 330 ................... _o_ .._
_= _ 440
•-J _: 280
0,,_ 0 _"_
_ 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 ] 4000 _ m
z u_
0_-_ RANGETIME, SECONDS
0:00:00 I :00:00 2:00:00 3:00:00

Figure 7=43. S_IVB Pneumatic Control Performance

_ (Sheet
I of 2)
7-59
09-L
(_ 30 ? %aaqs)
aauemao.,z,_ed Lo,4_.uo3 3[%emnaud _AIoS "E#-L a,4n6.[=l
, S(]N033S:
s31nNIN:S_INOH
_3H1139NV_J
O0:O0:L 00:00:9 O0:O0:S 00:00:_
o
u_:z SC]NO33S
'3HI1 39NV_I _
_ 000_8_ O00_9g 000_#_ O00_ZZ 000_0_ O00'SL 000_9[ O00_#L ;or-
O_S
m_,o9s _ .... L[ - osE
._ 009 z>
_ 0_#"_o
_
oooo, \ 1°£9
\_ (]313IG3ad HnHINIIN_ 0S6 "_
_o ' "_,,_ O£Zl_ °
r O00Z %d_........ ,r"=
rr3
_ r-
• OSSI.
:zr--
f _ 068[
=1= (]313
I(]Dad J
NnNIxvN
m OSL_ m
00££- O£_g
O0L- • OOZ
;:00 I r'rl'20
" _ SLg m r-"
c OS " "-'
-n
°= ;,,?N
-_
::F3
m
00_ "-_
m OOt :=
m 5g_ m
0£[
0S£
N3dO 3ALVA 9NIHD±V] )INVi gH]_S
NO 39_11d dNl_d 3NIgN3
(]3S0133ALVA SAD )INW.gHq
. _(]3S0133A7VA XO] _3N_ffI8_(335013
3ALVA 1311-4
_J3Nllfl_]
ZH/20 N3dO S3AIVA3_dZ_S
(]3S013IS008 IN3A 2HI (]NV XO] Z_
N3dO 3ALVA SAD _NVI _H] GNV NO 39_nd dN_Id3NIgN3 /A
(]3S073 S3klVA3_d
350]3 H3ISAS 1N3A SQO[INI]LNO3(]NV
N3dO S3ADVA lNVl]3dO_d _3N_JQ8_H/gO q]3SO]3 ISO01]S3AIVA IN3A _H] ONV XO'IZ_S
Table 7-13. S-IVB Pneumatic Helium Bottle Mass
BOTTLE MASS
TIME
kg Ibm
Liftoff 4.00 8.81

First BurnESC 4.00 8.81
First BurnECO 3.99 8.79
Second
BurnESC 3.43 7.56
Second
BurnECO 3.42 7.54
Third BurnESC 2.87 6.33
Third BurnECO 2,84 6.26
331 N/cm2 (480 psia). The regulator resumed normal regulation for the
duration of the mission after the dropout of the backup system"_ shutoff
valve. Possible causes of this regulator problem were helium supply
contamination or marginal mating between the regulator poppet and seat.
7.16 S-IVB AUXILIARY PROPULSION SYSTEM
The APS pressurization systems demonstrated adequate performance throughout

the flight and met control system demands as required until APS propellant
depletion. Module No. 2 developed a helium leak at approximately 4 hours
25 minutes. The leak ceased at approximately 7 hours. The average leak
rate was 3B51SCCM (235 SCIM). The probable cause of this problem was
leakage of one or more Teflon seals in the helium high pressure system
upstream of the regula#or. The Module NO. 1 regulator outlet pressure was
maintained
was 131 to at
134137 N_cmL
N/cm (190(199
to psia).
195 psia)Module
which No.
was2 below
regulator outlet
the 135 ± 2 pressure
N/cm
(196 ± 3 psia) regulation band. This is within instrumentation accuracy
and other system pressures verify proper regulation. The APS ullage pres-
sures in the tanks were acceptable, ranging from 129 to 132 N/cm2 (IB8 to
192 psia). The APS helium bottle masses during flight are presented in
Table 7-14.
The oxidizer and fuel supply systems performed as expected during the
flight. The propellant temperatures measured in the propellant control
'_..... module were as expected. The maximum temperature recorded was 323°K (121
°F). The bulk temperatures of the propellants in the bladder ranged from
302 to 308°K (88 to 95°F).
7-61
Table 7-14o S-IVB APS Helium Bottle Mass
BOTTLE MASS
EVENT kg Ibm
MODULE1 MODULE2 MODULE1 MODULE2
Liftoff 0,462 0,462 1.018 l.Ol8
First Burn ESC 0°462 0°462 1.018 1.018
First Burn ECO 0°462 0.46] 1.018 Io016
End First Ullage Burn 0o441 0.441 0.972 0.973
Separation 0o414 0.416 0.913 0.917
Start Second Ullage Burn 0°402 0,400 0.885 0.877
SecondBurn ESC 0°386 0o381 0o85l 0,840
SecondBurn ECO 0°385 0,377 0.848 0.831
End Third Ullage Burn 0,383 0.373 0.843 0.822
Start Fourth Ullage Burn 0°375 0°370 0.826 0.815
Third Burn ESC 0°360 0,352 0.793 0.775
Third Burn ECO 0.341 0,329 0.751 0°724
Start of Ullage 0o341 0°329 0.75l 0,724

Depletion Burn
End Ullage Depletion
Burn (7:4l;40) 0°233 0o217 0.514 0.478
The propellants in Module No. 2 (at position III) were depleted first as
shown in Figure 7-44. The fuel was depleted at 279671 seconds_ resulting
in a burntime of 425 seconds, while the oxidizer was depleted at 27,782
seconds. The fuel was also depleted first in Module No. 1 (at position 1)
at 27,713 seconds resulting in a burntime of 468.4 seconds, as shown in
Figure 7-45. The oxidizer was depleted at 27,850 seconds. Fuel was de-
pleted first in both modules because the propellants were loaded for a
7-62
I00 _ MANEUVER
TOT_NSPOSITION F220
AND DOCKING ATTITUDE
f- _
J_ _
_ CSM DOCK
LMEXT_CT
_' SECONDULLAGEBURN
I
. _180
_ Q G_
_ __ THIRDULLAGEBUm
FOURTHULLAGEBURN _
" _ V FISH ULLAGEBURN
,140
40 _ .... _ ,_
0
2D D_
O OXIDIZER
_FUEL "20
0 7200 14_400 21,600 28_800

RANGETIME, SECONDS
O0:O0:0O 02:00:00 04:00:00 06:00:00 08:00:00

_NGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 7-44. S-IVB APS Propellant Remaining Versus

Mission Time - Module No. 2
1.65 to 1.0 EMR while the attitude control engines normally operate at
a 1.60 EMR during minimum impulse bit pulsing. Also the oxidizer was
not off-loaded to account for the last ullage burn to propellant de-
pletion at the ullage engine EMRof 1.27 to 1.0. The fuel load for the
flight was maximum. Table 7-15 presents the APS oxidizer and fuel con-
sumption at significant events during the flight.
The attitude control engine chamber pressures normally ranged from 62 to

68 N/cm2 (90 to 98 psia) until loss of data. The ullage engine chamber
pressures were normal at 64 to 69 N/cm2 (93 to lO0 psia) during their
burns, including the burn to propellant depletion.
7.17 S-IVB ORBITAL SAFING OPERATION
7.17.1 Fuel Tank Safing
Due to the loss of pneumatic control of the engine valves, the LH2 dump
_- .... through the engine could not be accomplished. The CVS and NPV were
opened as programmed at third ECO +0.6 seconds and third ECO +1868
7-63
IST ULLAGEBURN
MANEUVERS TO
TRANSPOSITION AND 240
DOCKING ATTITUDE
lO0 CSM SEPARATION220
CSM DOCK
20O
2ND ULLAGE BURN
3RDULLAGEBURN 180
_80 4THULLAGEBURN
d (Z) 5TH ULLAGEBURN 160 <._
z z
140
4 120
4
d 40
1OD
60
(_) OXIDIZER
20 40
E] FUEL
l 20
0 7200 14,400 21,600 28,800
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
O0:O0:O0
......... 2:00:00
vv ............
4:00:00 6:00:00
,
8:00:00
Figure 7-45. S-lVB APS Propellant Remaining Versus

Mission Time - Module No. I
seconds, respectively. The LH2 residual mass at third engine cutoff was
4060 kilograms (8951 Ibm) and the LH2 ullage pressure was 21.8 N/cm2
(31.6 psia). The ullage pressure is shown out to 28,000 seconds in
Figure 7-7. The ullage pressure subsequently decreased to approxi-
mately 0.76 N/cm2 (l.l psia) at 40,800 seconds° The residual mass at
this time was approximately 2906 kilograms (6400 Ibm). At approxi:
mately 44,000 seconds, the ullage pressure started to rise. The ullage
pressure, NPV pressure and CVS pressure indicated that flow through the
CVS and NPV was restricted due to solidification of hydrogen in the vent
line. The ullage pressure was 2.5 N/cm2 (3.7 psia) at 47,400 seconds
(end of data) and was still increasing very slowly.
7.17.2 LOX Tank Dump and Safing
There was no LOX dump due to the loss of engine pneumatic control during
third burn. The LO× tank was satisfactorily safed by utilizing the LOX
7-64
Table 7-15. S_IVB APS Propellant Consumption
MODULE
N_. 1 MODULE
NO. 2
TIME PERIOD
OXIDIZER FUEL OXIDIZER FUEL
kg (Ibm) kg (Ibm) kg (Ibm) kg (Ibm)
Initial Load 19].0 (200.6) 57.9 (]27.6) 91.0 (200.6) 58.1 (128_2)
First J-2 Burn 0.5 (I.0) 0.3 (0.4) 0.4 (0.9) 0.3 (OZ6)
(Roll Control)
J-2 ECOto End of 7.2 (16.1) 5.7 (12.4) 6.7 (15.4) 5.3 (11.6)
First APS Ullage Burn
End of Ist Ullage 9.4 (20.6) 5.9 (13.0) 8.9 (18.8) 5.4 (12.0)
Burn to S-]VB/LM/CSM
Separation
From Separation to 4.8 (]0.5) 2.9 (6.5) 6.5 (14.5) 4.1 (9.0)
Start of 2nd Ullage
Burn
Start of 2nd Ullage 5.0 (II.I) 4.0 (8.7) 5.5 (12.0) 4.3 (9.6)
Burn to 2nd ESC
Second O-2 Burn 0.4 (0.8) 0.2 (0.4) 1.3 (2.8) 0.8 (1.6)
(Roll Control)
J-2 ECOto End of 1.0 (2.2) 0.7 (1.7) 1.5 (3.4) I 1 (2.2)
3rd APSUllageBurn
End of 3rd U11ageto 2.6 (5.9) 1.7 (3.8) 0.9 (1.9) 0.7 (1.4)
Start of 4th Ullage
Burn
Start of 4th Ullage 4.9 (10.6) 3.8 (8.4) 5.9 (13.1) 4.6 (10.2)
Burn to 3rd ESC
Third J-2 Burn 7.0 (15.4) 4.4 (9.8) 8.3 (18.2) 5.2 (11.6)
(Roll Control)
Third Burn ECOto 5.4 (II.8) 3.3 (7.1) 4.6 (I0.3) 2.9 (6.3)
Ullage Depletion
Burn
Ullage Depletion 42.0 (92.7) 24.5 (54.0) 39.4 (86.7) 22.6 (49.7)
Burn
NPV system. The ullage pressure was 28.9 N/cm 2 (41.9 psia) when the LOX
NPV valve was latched open at 23,042 seconds. The ullage pressure de-
cayed to 1.7 N/cm 2 (2.5 psia) in 7000 seconds. At 47,000 seconds, the
...... ullage pressure had decreased to 0.3 N/cm 2 (0.5 psia).
7_65
7,17.3 Cold Helium Dump
Cold helium was dumped through the 02/H 2 burner heating coils and into
the LH2 tank, and overboard through the fuel tank vents. This was used
to avoid the possibility of freezing the LOX tank vent system.
The first dump was initiated at 22,284.5 seconds and programmed to con-
tinue for 1872 seconds as shown in Figure 7-46. During this period,
the pressure decayed normally from 414 to 34.5 N/cm2 (600 to 50 psia).
Approximately 79 kilograms (174 Ibm) of helium were dumped overboard
during this period, leaving a residual of 10.4 kilograms (23 Ibm). During
the second dump beginning at 24,356 seconds and lasting 1728 seconds, an
additional I.8 kilogram (4 Ibm) were dumped,
7.17.4 Ambient Helium Dump
The ambient helium in the LOX and LH? repress spheres was dumped, via the
fuel tank. The 200-second dump star_ed at 24,156.5 seconds. The pres-
sure decayed from 1170 to 75 N/cm2 (1698 to 109 psia). Shortly after
the blowdown the bottle mass was 2.95 kilograms (6.51 Ibm). During dump
18.4 kilograms (40.6 Ibm) was dumped through the fuel tank and vented
through the fuel tank vents. The ambient helium repressurization bottles
pressure for dump is shown in Figure 7_47.
7.17.5 Stage Pneumatic Control Sphere Safing
The stage pneumatic control sphere was safed by initiating the Jo2 engine
pump purge and dumping helium through the turbopump seal vent. The safing
period of 3520 seconds satisfactorily reduced the potential energy in the
spheres. Initial and final sphere conditions are listed in Table 7-16.
Stage pneumatic dump is presented in Figure 7_43.
7.17.5 Engine Start Tank Safing
The engine start tank was safed during a 60-second period at 22,340
seconds. Safing was accomplished by o_ening the sphere vent valve. Pres-
sure was decreased from 817 to 60 N/cmz (I180 to 87 psia) with 1.92 kilo-
gram (4.33 Ibm) of hydrogen being vented as shown in Figure 7-48.
7.17.7 Engine Control Sphere Safing
The engine control sphere was not safed by the onboard sequence program
due to the third burn anomaly. The control bottle pressure did not res-
pond to any of the commands subsequent to third burn as shown by Figure
7-49. However, by the time data was lost, the engine control bottle
pressure had been reduced to 69 N/cm2 (I00 psia) due to helium leakage.
7-66
%_71ST
ESC _'3RDESC
_71STECO _3RD ECO
_TSTART CRVOREPRESSURIZATION _TSTART 1ST COLD HELIUM DUMP
_STOP CRYO REPRESSURIZATION _END IST COLD HELIUM DUMP
'_72ND ESC _START 2ND COLD HELIUM DUMP
_2ND ECO _END 2NDCOLD
HELIUMDUMP
2500
200(TI MAXIMUM
PREDICTED" -3OO0
150(
504FLIGHT
DATA
l
_________ _ ....
.... -2000 _.
_ lOOO MINIMUM PREDICTEDj <.,=<=

u_
-1000
500
0 ......
2 4 6 8 I0 12 14
• I RANGE
TIME, I000
I SECONDS I !
00:00:00 01:00:00 02:00:00 03:00:00 04:00:00

2500
2000 -3000
_J
u
504 FLIGHT DATA -2000 _.

c_
(d'}
1000
I -lOUD
500 I __ -_ _ -
MIIIIMUMPREDICTED
o I I --- o
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
RANGE TIME, lOOO SECONDS
04:00:00
, 05:00:00
,J
06:00:00
.....,
07:00:00 08:00:00
Figure7-46. S-IVBCold HeliumSupplyHistory
7-67
_REPRESS AMBIENT HE SAFING INITIATED
1200
3
"1500 ....
u 800 "_
-looo _
N
400' _
_._.._____ 500
0 -- --
24,200 24,300 24,400'

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
-[ J ! J..... J
06:43:00 06:44:00 06:45:00 06:46:00 06:47:00
Figure 7-47° S-IVB Ambient Helium Repressurization Spheres Sating

lOOO i . i
ENGINE STA'RTTANK SAFING INITIATED
Q Q ... Q -1200
80O
60O [3 0 PREDICTED
= 400 _. "600
-400
o-
200 "_..._ {3
• 200
22_300 22_310 22t320 22_330 22_340 22_360 22_,360 22_370 22t380 22_390 22_4OO
RANGE TIMEp SECONDS
.......................... 3L _ l i i
6:11:40 6:12:00 6:12:20 6:12:40 16:13:00 6:13:20 ........
Figure 7-48. S-IVB Start Tank Safing
7-68
Table 7-16. S-IVB Pneumatic Safing Conditions
INITIAL FINAL
PARAMETER CONDITIONS CONDITIONS
f-,
Press N/cm2 (psia) 1158 (1680) 241 (350)
Temp
°K (°F) 258 (465) 215 (387)
Massk9 (Ibm) 2.76 (6.07) 0.69 (1.52)
1250
_'_'_-_" _7 REPRESS SAFING INITIATED (IU)

'_ CONTROL VENT INITIATED (IU)
HELIUM CONTROL SOL ENERG (HOUSTON) -ISO0
lO00 ......
x_' REPRESS SAFING TERMINATED (IU)
CONTROL VENT TERMINATED (IU)
750 ....
-I000,._
_- 500
o.
250 SPHERES .....................
wFSTAOE
REPRESS SO0
0 ..... ,A
24g000 24_200 24m400 24,600 30DO00 35_000 40_000 45,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
L.... _'_' _ ' __m , ,

6:40:00 6:46:40 8:20:00 11:06:40
Figure 7-49. S-IVB Pneumatic Safing History
7-69/7-70
SECTION 8
HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS
8.1 SUMMARY
The hydraulic systems performed satisfactorily for the S-IC, S-If and
first two burns of the S-IVB stages. Except for the third burn of the
S-IVB stage all parameters were within the specification limits and
there were no deviations or anomalies. During the third burn the yaw
actuator experienced abnormal oscillations at 0.65 hertz with a 3 degree
peak-to-peak amplitude.
8.2 S-IC HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
Analysis indicates that all actuators performed as commanded during the

flight, with a maximum actuator deflection equivalent to 2.05 degrees
engine gimbal angle at approximately 78 seconds. All of the hydraulic
supply pressures and temperatures were within the operating limits.
8.3 S-ll HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
Reservoir fluid volumes, temperatures and accumulator pressures (indica-

tive of system supply pressures) were within predicted ranges. Tempera-
ture rise rates were close to the predicted rate.
Throughout the flight all servoactuators responded to commands with good

precision. The maximum difference between actuator command and position
was 0.I degree. Oscillations were present at the actuators starting at
503 to 505 seconds and continued for 20 to 25 seconds. The frequencies
of the oscillations for the eight actuators varied between 16.5 and 18
hertz. Peak-to-peak amplitudes varied from 8900 to 34,600 Newtons (2000
to 7800 Ibf). These oscillations are considered to be in response to
engine performance oscillations occurring at this time and are not the
result of actuator commands.
8.4 S-IVB HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
r All hydraulic systems performed within predicted limits during the first
and second burns. However, along with the other S_IVB anomalies reported
during third burn, the hydraulic system exhibited abnormal behavior.
8-I
>
Immediately after start of third burn the yaw actuator commenced to limit
cycle at an approximate maximum amplitude of 3 degrees peak-to-peak with
a frequency of 0.65 hertz as shown in Figure 8-1. This oscillatory motion
continued for the first lO0 seconds of third burn° Cycling ceased soon
after engine thrust degradation occurred during the burn.
2.00 ..... [
l.50 _ I
IO0
" -.......... m n
" t L
0 ..............
I _AUXlLIAR¥ _...........
_-I°00 HYDRAULIC .....
-I .50 PUMP
ON
_3RDESC
-2.00 _ 3RDECO
1.50 ----- PREDICTED

LIMITS
O.OO -_
o_ _.oo
oo._o -F......... _ _. ......_ __1_
" I..................
_ _
21,500 21,700 21,900 22,100 22,300 22,500

RANGETIME, SECONDS
6:00:00 6:05:00 6:10:00 6:15:00

PJ_NGE
Figure 8-I. S-IVB Hydraulic System Actuator Positions - Third Burn .......
8_2
Hydraulic system pressure and temperature measurements indicated normal
levels during the burn as shown in Figures 8-2 through 8-4. Low ampli-
tude pressure oscillations were present during the actuator cyclic actiw
ity which is normal for the resultant flow demand_
The response of the pitch and yaw actuators at third burn engine start
appeared normal. At 22,046.4 seconds, the yaw actuator response appeared
irregular. Later in the burn the command signals to the pitch and yaw
hydraulic servos started to cycle at a frequency of approximately 0.65
hertz. Nonlinearities continued to appear during the rest of the burn
at the higher thrust level but to a lesser exten_ in the pitch plane.
After thrust cutback, the control system oscillations dampened out.
During the period of high oscillations the pitch actuator maximum excur-
sion was 0.5 degree (peak-to-peak) with a maximum apparent amplitude
gain of I.I0. The pitch actuator appeared to lag the signal to a greater
extent when in the extend direction. The opposite was true of the yaw
actuator. The amplitude of the yaw oscillations approached 3 degrees
(peak-to-peak) with a maximum apparent amplitude gain of 1.31. Figures
8-5 and 8-6 show actuator signal and position activity over a short period
of time showing their response in greater detail. Throughout the high
activity, the yaw actuator position cycled about a bias which was the
same as that observed towards the end of burn when no dynamic activity
was noted. The signal bias was approximately 0.3 degree less during the
high activity.
The pitch actuator motion led the yaw actuator by approximately 61 degrees
during the period of high thrust, indicating engine motion was following
an elliptical path.
The static gains of the actuators were normal prior to third burn and
after the engine thrust had cut back and the oscillations had dampened
out. This indicates that the mechanical feedback networks within the
actuators were operating properly except possibly during the period of
high oscillations.
At 22,200 seconds the pitch actuator response appeared noisy and produced
an offset. At engine cutoff the offset was -0.34 degree. Actuator posi-
tion drifted back toward null over an extended period of time. It is
currently felt that abnormal actuator behavior (both pitch and yaw) was
due to an abnormal actuator environment.
8-3
3OOO
4000
2500 ...............................
_ _ _ _ _ _ ._
5 _
z HYDSYSTEM PRESS 3000
m
_2 2000 ...... ACCUMGN2 PRESS
1500 _ AUXILIARY 2000

HYDRAULIC
PUMP ON
1000
_
3RDESC
3RDECO
_ PREDICTED
1oo
.... : i J i i _iM_s
AFT BATTERY NO. 2 CURRENT
80 :
I
t_
E 60
m_
2(] I _
........... 1 .......
21,500 21,700 ' 21,900 22,100 22,300 22,500

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
6:00:00 6:05:00 6:10:00 6:15:00

Figure 8-2. S-IVB Hydraulic System Actuator Performance - Third Burn .......
'
8_4
200
_ 50 ............
u u_
" lO0 w
_ m
m
w RESERVOIR
OILPRESS
-- .]00 m
a. 50
...... 1 i i
AUXILIARY
HYDRAULIC
0 PUMP ON 0
3RDESC
lO0
...... _ 3RD
ECO
_ --_ PREDICTED
80 _ _ LIMITS
60-- I
'"
c_
I
w
r_
RESERVOIR
OIL LEVEL "I
w 40 _-- /
20
21,500 21,700 21,900 22,100 22,300 22,500

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
6:00:00 6:05:00 6:]0:00 6:15:00

s_" RANGE
Figure 8-3. S-IVB Hydraulic Reservoir Performance - Third Burn
8-5
360 i i J
PUMPINLET OIL TEMP........ _ .,_,._
340 ...... RESERVOIR
_- OIL TEMP-
_ f _ _\_" .160
320 __ACCUMULATORGN2 TEMPI I _._ _--_ _ _ L -120

_4 '_ _
300 ,_"_ ,80
280_ -. -40 F-
260 0
360 i i l _ i
PUMP
O_T_ET
LI_TEMP
340 I I I I I \ '" _' -]60
_YAW ACTRETURN
\LINE TEMP j , __
.320 o
_: 300 ...... N.,, _ _ AUXILIARY .80 _ _
_- 280 /I_,_
'//-_"J_?__-_
._" --" _ _ PUMP
HYDRAULIC
ON
3RD ESC -40 _
_'_-'-'_
...... _ PITCH ACTUATOR-
_ _ 3RD
ECO
SUPPLY LINE TEMP .......
'0
PREDICTED
LIMITS
! l |
21,500 21,700 21,900 22,100 22,300 22,500

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
6:00:00 6:05:00 6:10:00 6:15:00

RANGE TIME, HOURS :MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 8-4. S-IVB Hydraulic System Temperature - Third Burn
8-6
0.4
0.2 _\
_- SIGNAL i/ / /
g ol \.
2 o _/ \ " _/
EXTEND
< i/ I
o" -O.l
= -o.2
-'>J', _ _ --POSITION _V
\
\_ /
/
'
FREQUENCY= 0.68 HERTZ
GAIN = l,lO
=0.3 .................
NOTE: BIAS SHIFT DIFFERENT FROM CURVE IN FIGURE 11-33.
-0.4 1 I .....
22,132 22,133 22,134 22,135 22,136
_GE TIME, SECONDS
L . I I I I
6:08:52 6:08:53 6:08:54 6:08:55 6:08:56
Figure 8-5. S-IVB Pitch Actuator Signal and Position - Third Burn
o / ..z/' _', SIGNAL--_ , _'_ EXTE.O

\\
_
/
/ \ ' \1 lt
}
RETRACT
/ / \', !
r-- / /" _ POSITIO

\ //
_ -1 /I ,// , t /
FREQUENCY = 0.68 HERTZ

GAIN = 1,31
22,132 22,133 22,134 22,135 22,136

RANGETIME, SECONDS
t, I .... i I
6:08:52 6:08:53 6:08:64 6:08:55 6:08:56
_-'_. RANGE
TIME,hOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 8-6. S-IVB Yaw Actuator Signal and Position - Third Burn
8-718-8
_'- SECTION9
STRUCTURES
9.1 SUMMARY
The structural loads and dynamic environment experienced by the AS-504

launch vehicle were well within the vehicle structural capability. The
high altitude winds for this flight were the highest measured during
any previous Saturn launch; however, due to a wind bias trajectory, the
structural loads for AS-504 were well below the limit design values.
The maximum bending moment condition, 9.7 x 106 N-m (86 x 106 Ibf-in.),
was experienced at 79.4 seconds. The maximum longitudinal loads on the
S-IC thrust structure, fuel tank, and intertank were experienced at 134.3
seconds, Center Engine Cutoff (CECO). The maximum longitudinal loads on
the AS-504 vehicle structure above the intertank occurred at 162.8 seconds,
Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO), at the maximum longitudinal acceleration
of 3.85 g.
Vehicle dynamic characteristics generally followed the trends established

by preflight analyses. There was no evidence of an unstable coupled
'thrust-structure-feed system oscillation (POGO) during S_IC powered
flight. A 5.2 hertz longitudinal oscillation was excited by the S_IC
CECO transient and damped slowly, indicating that the structural
damping may be lower than expected.
The low frequency (16 to 19 hertz) oscillation anomaly observed on AS_503

also occurred on AS_504 near the end of S-II stage burn. The oscillations
reached a maximum level of approximately ±12.0 g at the center of the
S-II thrust structure crossbeam.
S-IC stage vibrations were generally as expected. The heat shield

vibration measurements agreed closely with the AS-503 data, verifying the
higher than expected levels measured on AS-503. S-II stage vibrations
were, in general, within the envelopes established by previous flights.
9.2 TOTAL VEHICLE STRUCTURESEVALUATION
_-_ 9.2.1 Longitudinal Loads
The longitudinal loads which existed at the time of maximum aerodynamic

loading (maximum bending moment), at CECOand at OECOare shown in
9-I
Figure 9-I. These loads were as expected with the maximum longitudinal
loads on the S-IC thrust structure, fuel tank, and intertank occurring
at 134.3 seconds (CECO) at a longitudinal acceleration of 3.6 g, and on
all AS-504 vehicle structure above the intertank the maximum longitudinal
loads occurred at 162.8 seconds (OECO) at an acceleration of 3.85 g.
Figure 9_2 shows longitudinal dynamic response time histories at the

S-IC center engine gimbal block_ at the instrument unit, and at the
command module during S:IC OECOo The dynamic response at OECOwas
slightly more severe than that experienced on previous flights, but not
sufficiently high to pose a threat to structural integrity.
9.2.2 Bending Moments
The lateral loads experienced during thrust buildup and release were
much lower than design because of the favorable winds experienced during
launch. The wind speed at launch was low, 6.9 m/s (13o5 knots) at the
18.3 meter (60 ft) level. The comparable launch vehicle and spacecraft
peak redline wind is 18.9 m/s (36.8 knots) and 14.4 m/s (28 knots),
respectively.
VEHICLE STATION, in.

J i i U i
3000 2000 I000 0
VEHICLE STATION, m
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 I0 0
t = 79,4 SEC
ACCELERATION : 2.04 G
SO --_CALCULATED LOADS AT RAXIMUM BENDING
t = 134.3SEC
ACCELERATION = 3.6 G IO
......... CALCILATED LOADS AT CECO
40--
t : 162.8 SEC
ACCELERATION: 3.85 G ""
CALCULATED
LOADS
ATOEC( ;°"_I 8 0
20 I 4
...... J
10
0 ._ _ _'_
Figure 9_I. Longitudinal Loads at Maximum Bending Moment,

Center Engine Cutoff, and Outboard Engine Cutoff
9-2
COMMAND MODULE
4.0_ ,_ VEHICLE
STATION
VEHSTA97.23
(3828 m
in.,, (METERS)
(INCHES}
.....
o 3.0
. r
\
Ill 107.8 4245.4
o 2.0 \ 7\,, Ill 9883890.3

w
_K V / "_. MEASS_ED
DATA
_ _%,_( ---- 96.0 3781.0
,""_
1.0
< L)'" \ /_ \ -- 91.3 3694.6
DYNAMIC
SIMULATION--_, k, / \ I_
III ,.7 _ --B_.8 33_0.3

-1 111 _C ___2.8
-- 81.9 3268.6
3222.6
162.8 162.9 163.0 163.1 163.2 163.3 163.4 163.5 163.6 _" ...... -- 78.8 3100.6
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
INSTRUMENT UNIT
4.0 _ 75.2 2962.9
3,5 _ (3250in.)
VEH STA 82.7 m -- _.
L"*_''"
...... 71.9 2832.0
68.6 2702.0
3.0' 67.1 2645.4
- 2.5
s*- ..... -_ 64.0 2519.0
r-2.0 .......... 60.6 2387.0
1.5
d
O.5o A IIIl' ....

'<",'v "".......,
-0.5
II
III
1,.
-......... 46.9 18_8.0
163 164 165 -- 43.6 1716.0
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
CENTER
ENGINE
GIMBAL
BLOCK -- 39.1 1541.0
4.0
__ VEHSTA2,54
(100m--
in.) -- 35.6 1401.0
3.0 -- 23,1 912.0

l
772.0
,o, J i 19.8
" 2.0 l
-- 19.1 752_0
-- 15.5 612.0
J
1.0 I 9.3 365.0
__ 1__8.7 225.0
YI 2.9 ll6._
-1,
161- 162 163 164 165 166

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
_--. Figure 9-2. Longitudinal Structural Dynamic Response

Due to Outboard Engine Cutoff
9-3
The high altitude winds which existed during the maximum aerodynamic
loading phase of.flight were approximately twice the magnitude of those
encountered during the AS-503 flight, and the highest measured during
any previous Saturn I or Saturn V launch. However, due to a wind bias
trajectory the maximum bending moment of 9.7 x 106 N-m (86 x 106 lbf-in),
experienced at 79°4 seconds, was less than 40 percent of the design
criteria. The calculated bending moment diagram shown in Figure 9-3
is based on loads computations using measured inflight parameters such
as thrust, gimbal angle, dynamic pressure, angle-ofiattack, and modal
accelerations.
9.2.3 Vehicle Dynamic Characteristics
9.2.3.] Longitudinal Dynamic Characteristics. Throughout the S-IC boost

phase of AS-504 flight the predicted first longitudinal mode frequencies
were present, as shown in Figure 9-4. Modal amplitude versus range time
is also shown. The measured frequencies, determined by spectral analysis
using 5-second time slices, agree well with the analytical predictions.
2000 1uO0 0
VENICLE STATION, m
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 O
-3oo I
t 79.4 SEC
4,16 DEG
B AVG= 0.65 DEG
30 _ _ .... CALCULATEDQUASI-STEADY
LOADS _- DESIGNLOADS
NORMALLOAD _ 0.08
_ •
-lOO:N /
0.04
I0 / i
/ _
- _'_, 0.02
o.........................
L......
' tll. kl I)\.I ,"
Figure 9-3. Maximum Bending Moment Near Max Q
9-4
The most significant structural responses during SJlC burn were observed
after CECO, and after OECO° CECO excited the first structural mode
frequency (5.2 hertz) of the AS-504 vehicle. The maximum command module
amplitude in this mode was 0.35 Gpeak at 135 seconds. Except for the
POGOoscillations on AS-502, this amplitude was larger than any measured
on previous flights. The decay of this CECO transient was slower than
would be expected, requiring about 13 seconds to damp° The slow decay
is attributed to low structural damping (about 0.5 percent critical
damping).
The S-IC OECO also excited the first longitudinal mode with a maximum
command module amplitude of 40°8 Gpeak occurring at 163.6 seconds. This
transient resulted in rough S-IC/S-II separation dynamics and is discussed
in greater detail in Section 12.
9.2.3.2 POGOEvaluation. The S-IC CECO and OECO thrust decay transients
excited the first longitudinal mode which damped slowly° There was no
evidence of POGOassociated with these transients. Since the CECO
transient produced a fairly strong response, had there been POGOinstabil-
ity it would have diverged at that time.
Longitudinal acceleration data show the first longitudinal mode exists at

low amplitudes throughout S-IC flight. Because of the apparent low dampu
ing, it is believed that there are enough random excitation forces to
keep this mode oscillating at a perceivable level throughout S-IC flight.
The lack of any significant inlet pressure buildup in the engine is further
indication of freedom from POGO, thus the helium accumulator fix is
believed to be working as expected.
During S-II powered flight_ the same anomaly (18 hertz oscillations)
occurred late in flight time that was evident on ASI503. Figure 9-5 shows
the frequency and amplitude trends with time of the structural and propul-
sion measurements required for POGO evaluation° The oscillations reached
a maximum level of approximately _12.0 g at the center of the Sill
thrust structure crossbeam. This anomaly is discussed in greater detail
in Section 6.
Test programs and analyses are proceeding on an expedited basis, yet

this 18 hertz anomaly has not been resolved. A recommendation has been
made and implemented to cut off the center engine of the S-II stage after
299 seconds of burn. This is the most positive method to avoid the
problem without major impact and within the technical understanding of
the anomaly.
There was no significant structural response or indication of POGOduring

S-IVB powered flight.
9_6
/ /
FREQUENCY, Hz
r t _ m _ FREQUENCY,Rz
CHAMBER PRESSURE,N/cm2 p-p _ _ _ _: _ _
= II
° "k °_ " "'"
-_ < ," I
r-_ _.
m N
CHAMBERPRESSURE.
psip-p CROSSBEAM
AMPLITUDE,
Gpeak
| I
LOX SUMP AMPLITUDE, Gpeak

9.2.3.3 Lateral Dynamic Characteristics. Oscillations in the first
four modes were detectable throughout S-IC powered flight. Spectral
analyses were performed to determine modal frequencies using 5-second
time slices. The frequencies of these oscillations agreed well with
the analytical predictions, as shown in Figure 9-6.
9°3 VIBRATION EVALUATION
9.3.1 S-IC Stage and Engine Evaluation
Structure, engine, and component vibration measurements taken on the S-IC

stage are summarized in Table 9-I and Figures 9-7 through 9-9. A total
of 44 single sideband vibration measurements were recorded of which 31
yielded valid data throughout flight° Measurement locations are shown
in Figure 9-10o
9.3.1.1 S-IC Stage Structure. Stage structure vibration data exhibited

composite RMS levels and spectra shapes within the data envelopes of
previous flights. The forward skirt structure RMS levels lagged those
measured on previous flights because the Max Q region occurred later in
flight for AS-504.
LEGEND
ANALYSIS MODE l _
ANALYSIS MODE 2
5 _ ANALYSIS MODE3
MEASURED
ANALYSIS
MODE
MODE_
4 _ .i _"
MODE
NUMBERN
4 .J J@
N J
J
_3 _-- ........... _..__.--
klJ
®
L_J _ _
1 @_- "....................
; "_'J I ?
! I
20 40 60 80 1O0 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-6° AS-504 Lateral Analysis/Measured Modal Frequency Correlation
9-8
Tabl 9_Io S-IC Stage Vibration Summary
MAXIMUM GRMS
OVERALL
PREVIOUS FLIGHT GRMS
MEASUREMENT DATA AS-5O4 LIMIT REMARKS
STRUCTURE
Thrust Structure
E023-I15 14.7 at O 12.5 at -1 22
E024-115 II.2 at O 7.5 at -I 25
E053-I15 6.9at 149.5 5.8at 155 17
E054-115 3.7 at 150 2.6 at 155 17
E079-115 3.3at 148 2.6at 158 17
E080-115 4.2at 148 2.9at 158 17
Intertank Structure
E020-118 7.7at 2 4.5at6 27
E021-I18 9.1at 4 6.3at-I 27
Forward Skirt
Structure
E046-120 Invalid 3.6 at 94 30 Located near command
E047-120 6.1 at 3.9 5.4 at 2.5 30 destruct vibration
isolated panel
ENGINE
Combustion Chamber
E036-I01 8.8at 20.5 49
E036-102 9.7 at 0 49
E036-103 8.3 at 53 49 AS-SO4 data were
E036-I04 8.4 at 106.8 49 questionable
E036-105 8.2 at 130.5 49
Turbopump
E037-101 41.5 at 20.0 41 AS_504 data were
E038_IOl 39.0 at l.O 41 questlbnable
E039-101 26.5 at 125.0 18.8 at 130.0 41
E040-101 12.5 at 132.5 17.3 at 123.8 41 AS-5O4 data contained
spikes at all analysis
tlmes
E041-101 19.7 at 152.0 20.9 at 158.0 41 Partial Failure
E041-I02 17.5 at 144.5 17.2 at 14.4 41 h
E042-102 9.6 at 86 Totally Invalid 41 r These measurements are
E042-I03 9.3 at 132.0 10.9 at 148.1 4] considered total
failures, however,
E042-104 11.2 at 79.0 9.9 at 69.3 41 F some maximum GRMS
levels could be
observed.
i
E042-I05 8.5 at 96.5 10.7 at 26.6 41
COMPONENTS
Engine Actuators
E030_IOI 9.4 at I11 4.1 at 161 30
E030-102 5.0 at 123 4.4 at 127 30
E031-lOl 6,2 at 136 6.7 at 118 30
E031-I02 7,8 at 107 5.8 at 36 30
E032-I01 15.1 at III 13,8 at 124 30
E032-I02 14.0 at 89 11.2 at 115 30
E033-101 8.8 at IO0 8.5 at 118 30
E033-102 7.0 at 127 5.6 at 109 30
E034-I01 5.0 at -I.0 5.3at 124 30
E034_I02 5.5 at 135 4.1 at 127 30
E035-I01 15.0 at 68 9.8 at 88 30
E035-102 10.5 at 127 7.1 at 109 30
Heat Shield Panels

El05-106 76.6 at -I 72.6 at 0 33
EI06-106 62.6 at -I 70.8 at 0 33
f_ E107-I06 68.0 at -I 74.4 at 0 33
Propellant Delivery
System
E025-118 2.7 at 132 1.3 at 5.5 9
E026-118 2.4 at 4.6 3.1 at I18 9
E027-115 10.4 at -0.5 7.7 at 112 22
E028-115 9.7 at 4.6 11.3 at 118 22
9-9
_PREVIOUS FRIGHT _AS_504 FLX_T
DATAENVELOPE DATA_VELOPE
FORWARD SKIRT STRUCTURE
6"
o -g *'_ _'--° '

........ 1 --
INTERTANK STRUCTURE
15
E
_IO°
z
THRUST STRUCTURE
15
0
0 20 40 60 80 lO0 120 ]40 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-7° S-IC Stage Structure Vibration Envelopes
9-10
ENGINE TURBOPUMP
60-
! I I I
........... .......
_ PP,
EVIOU$
OATA _ I_HT
ENVELOPE
40. . ._ AS_504
FLIGHT
f" _ _ - DATA ENVELOPE -
_J
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 ]60

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9_8o S-IC Stage Engine Turbopump Vibration Envelope

_PROPELLANT DELIVERY SYSTEM
15 _ENGINE ACTUATORS
HEA SHIELD PANELS

_100
] Tlr i _ I
_%,,_,.'_
PREYIOUS EIGHT
-_'_ DATA ENVELOPE -
50" , .......... _ AS-504 FLIGHT

_" DATA ENVELOPE
< 01 ...... _ _ F_ _---_

20 40 60 80 100 120 i40 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-9. S-IC Stage Components Vibration Envelopes
9_II
1 1 " "\ E047-120 E036-I03
E046-120 E036-104 E042-)03
0 .... STA ]401 5036-105 E042-I05 ....

-/_ _ _ - ---STA 1541 EO37-101_
EOE3-120 _T _
POS I
LOX TANK E035-101

E093-II9 _ • ---
..... STA 912 EO3I-IOI----

E033-102
F-1 ENGINE
EO25LII'8-
EOE6-118 FIN C E032-102
d.
--_'_J'/" EOEI-lINEOEO_118 POS IV\ . \ -Z" .POS Ill
411 INTERTANX
EOE-118
FINO
EOSg-ll8
--E,.O
I EOOO-iiN
_f--FA_'_.I! --- - ,os_-Bl°_-l°_,l
_EI07-I06
FIN A
..... EB61-l18 HEAT SHIELD

----STA 602 I X.EI06_IO6
E062-I181
FIN O
\
-- III-- STATION lie
E028-I15_
POS IV/" "POS I
FUEL TANK
E054-II5 -
E053-115 \ EOSO-1151
IV
Figure 9-10. S-IC Vibration Measurement Locations
9-12
9.3.1.2 F-I Engines. The F-I engine combustion chamber measurements
exhibited composite RMS levels that were 60 to 70 percent of expected
and are considered invalid. Generally, the valid turbopump measurements
compared closely with past flight data in both overall levels and
spectra shapes. The upper limit of the previous flight data envelope
_ for the turbopump was established by two AS-503 measurements which were
abnormally high.
9.3.1.3 S-IC Components. All S_IC component vibration measurements were

valid and the levels measured were generally similar to those on previous
flights. Four actuator measurements exhibited levels a little lower than
expected; however, the data appear valid. The heat shield vibration
measurements agreed closely with the previous data and; therefore,
verified the high vibration levels measured at liftoff on AS-503.
9.3.2 S-II Stage and Engine Evaluation
Comparisons of Grms values for AS-501, AS-502, AS-503 and AS-504 are
shown in Table 9-2 and Figures 9-11 through 9-13. The variations between
the four flights are considered normal°
9o3.2.1 $311 Stage Structure. In general, the S-ll stage structure

vibration levels were within the envelopes established by previous flights.
The engine No. 1 beam lateral vibration and thrust cone longerons normal
and longitudinal vibration levels were below the envelopes established by
previous flights.
9.3.2.2 S-II Stage J-2 Engines. The AS_504 vibration levels were lower
than the AS-503 engine measurements, recorded prior to S-II engine start,
and throughout the flight for the LOX pumps. These lower levels verify
the existence of suspected high level noise on AS-503 engine measurements.
9.3°2.3 S-II Stage Components. The much higher levels shown for the
container 206 normal response appear to be valid data. Comparison of
this data with qualification test levels shows that this container has
been tested at higher levels.
,f
9-13
Table 9-2. S-If Stage Maximum Overall Vibration Levels
STATIC
FIRING FLIGHT
ZONE
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
GRMS
RANGE
VEHICLE GRMS
RANGE VEHICLE LIFTOFF TRANSONIC MAXQ MAINSTAGE
Forward Skirt S-II-I,-2,-3 0.7 to 2.5 AS-501,2,3 0.7 to 9.1 0.7 to 3.7 l.l to 5.3 0.0 to 0.9
Containers S-II-4 1.2 to 3.1 AS-504 1.9 to 8.4 1.4 to 5.2 1.7 to 5.0 0.3 to 0.6
Fo_ard Skirt S-II-I,-2,-3 1.6 to 4.8 AS-501,2,3 1.2 to 13. 1.0 to 11.3 1.7 to 9.2 0.3 to 1.3
Stringers S-II-4 2.3 to 5.0 AS-504 1.9 to 9.0 1.9 to 8.1 3.5 to 7.8 0.4 to 1.0
Aft Skirt S-II-I,-2,-3 I0.1 to 31.7 AS-501,2,3 5.3 to 17.3 3.6 to 8.3 5.4 to 12.1 0.4 to 2.2
S-II-4 9.8 to 19.6 AS-504 16.6 7.3 10.9 1.8
Interstage S-II-I,-2,-3 Interstage not AS-501,2,3 3.1 to 16.0 2.0 to 6.5 2.6 to 7.2 I.I to 3.6
S-II-4 installed AS-504 6.9 to 18.3 2.8 to 4.7 4.0 to 7.3 0.7 to 1.1
Thrust Cone S-II-I,-2,-3 2.2 to 15.8 AS-501,2,3 0.3 to 7.0 0.4 to 2.6 0°3 to 2.2 0.3 to 3.8
Containers S-II-4 5.6 to II.8 AS-504 0.5 to 7.5 0.2 to 2.0 0.4 to 2.8 0.3 to 3.1
Thrust Cone S-II-1,-2,-3 4.1 to 12.3 AS-501,2,3 0.2 to 5.1 0.6 to 2.0 0.7 to 2.7 Io0 to 7.2
.__ Longerons S-II-4 5.3 to lO.l AS-504 0.4 to 1.9 0.I to 0.8 0.3 to 1.7 0.5 to 3.5
Engine Beam S-II-I,-2,-3 5.4 to 15.3 AS-501,2,3 0.5 to 1.5 0.3 to 0.9 0.4 to 1.0 5.3 to 13.9
S-II-4 3.1 to 14.9 AS-504 0.7 0.2 0°2 3.1
Engine Combustion S-II-I,-2,-3 invalid data AS-503 2.2 to 7.1 5.5 to 9.9 2oi to 7.7 7.0 to 9.6
Domes S-II-4 AS-504 0o0 to 2.5 0.0 to 2.0 0.0 to 3.9 2.8 to I0.I
LOX Pumps S-II-1,-2,-3 Invalid data AS-503 Not Evaluat d 3.5 to 4.5
S-II-4 AS-504 0.0 to 1.9 0.0 to 1.4 0.0 to 1.7 2.8 to 9.2
LH2Pumps S-II-I,-2,-3 Invalid data AS-503 Not Evaluat d 9.2 to 13.3

S-Ii-4 AS-504 3°0 to 7.3 0o0 to 2.2 1.5 to 3.7 8°8 to 19.9
LOXSump S-II-I,-2,-3 Instrumentation AS-503 0.7 to 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 to 0.7
Prevalves S-II-4 not installed AS-504 Invalid
Data
LH2 Prevaives S-II-I,-2,-3 Instrumentation AS-503 0.8 to 1.0 0.8 0.8 to 1.I 0.9 to 1.2
S-II-4 not installed AS-504 1.8 to 3.2 0.2 to 0.4 0.3 to 0.8 0.3 to I .4
NOTE: Values listed for AS-501, -502, -503 are based on PSD's. Values listed for AS-504 are based on
GRMS histories.
)RWARD
SKIRTSTRINGERSR._DIAL AFT SKIRTSTRINGERS.
RADIAL
_ 20
I
_CHI I _CHl
-- WMAXQ T8 _MAX Q
_S-II ESC
50A
16 _ S-If ESC
PMR SHIFT -- ----AS SOl, AS 502, AS 503 _ _ PMR SHIFT
_S-I[ ECO _14

_. o _ S-II ECO AS-504
I _i_l
_ ; AS-SO,
-- ---- AS-501, AS-502
I!r,, : Z
_, ! f,
..........._ ......_ _ , RTR_ RV
lO FORWARD SKIRT STRINGERS, TANGENTIAL THRUST CONE LONGERONS. NOR_L
-- AS-5O4
I -- _ AS-S04 _----AS-501.
AS-502.__
_ 8 _ --- - AS-SOS 8 AS-SOG
6 f 6 ' f -" '_ -- - -- - -
__ 4 4 F
_7_ _- ....... J _-_# -_ _ F,7 '_'I
-_ I0 FORWARD SKIRT STRINGERS. LONGITUDINAL THRUST CONE LONGERONS, LONGITUDIRAL

I i
= _ IAS'SO_
AS-5D_,-- _
---AS-SOl, RS-504
AS-50_ _ - --- AS-SO,
__z _.:._ _ ._ __._ ........
-50 o 50 _00 _so 200 250 _00 _so Ao0 ASO SO0 SSO _ -50 O SO mO _50 2O0 250 SOD SSO _00 ASO 500 SSO
RAJ_GETIE, SECONDS RANGE TIME. SECONDS
Figure9-II. S-If StageStructureVibrationEnvelopes(SheetI of 2)

NGINE NO.I BEAM, LATERAL
14
AS-504 .-
_-_ i----AS-501, AS-502, AS-503 -_ i. "_
z I f
o '_Z MAX Q I _... z
- s-If
_
PMR SHIFT
S-II ECO
i
I
L_
c_
> 4 J
#/ I ,
g_
2 .J _ ,
INTERSTAGE FRAMES, TANGENTIAL

8
-- AS-504
o _ -- AS-5O3
----
F-
_g [ i
_. [!,
INTERSTAGE FRAMES, RADIAL

20
AS-504
------AS-50I, AS-502, AS-503
18
16
14 ' •
o
F-
< 10
cf3
> I
_J
g 4 fl?
if' , o"
-50 0 50 IO0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-11. S-ll Stage Structure Vibration Envelopes (Sheet 2 of 2)
9-]6
COMBUSTION DOMES, LONGITUDINAL
12 .....
_/ MACH1 ------AS-504
AS-503
_7 S-II ESC ,'_-_ #,

,_ 8 _'PMRSHIrT z
lu
'< 6
}
_ 4 •
m
LHB PUMPS, RADIAL

20
E
o
_ •
x, [,
LOX PUMPS, RADIAL
18
16 ...........
f, j^, I
- /
/
o I'' - .... ,I
10 ,' U
,,
g 8 _
6 .. I . / Z
4.... _
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 400 500 550
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-12° S-II Stage Engine Vibration Envelopes
9-17
FORWARDSKIRT CONTAINER226 INPUT,NOR_L IO _MACH l' _S-IE ESC' _7S-11ECO
_ i I III
_N f' _ _! FORWARDSKIRTCONTAINER221 INPUT,NOR_L
',
FORWARDSKIRT CONTAINgR220"RESPONSE,
NdR_L FORWARDSKIRTCONTAINE'R
221"RESPONSE,
NORMAL
I i Illl
6 FORWARD'SKIRT
CONTAINER
22'3
INP_,NOR_L . 6 FORWARD
SKIRT CONTAINER
223 RESPONSE,
LONGITUDINAL
6 FORWARD
SKIRT CdNTAINE)223'RESPON'SE,
NORMAL 6 FORWARD
SKIIRTCONTAINER
225 RESPONSE,
NdR_L
-so o _II lOG_so _oo _o _oo _o _oo _so _oo s_o -so o so _oo ,_o _oo _so _oo _so _oo ,so SODsso
RANGE
TIME,SECONDS _NGE
TIME.SECONDS
Figure 9-13. S-II Stage Component Vibration Envelopes (Sheet 1 of 2)
"i i
0_-6/6L-6
OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL

' VIBRATION VIBRATION VIBRATION VIBRATION VIBRATION
ACCELERAT
ION , ACCELERATION, ACCELERATION, ACCELERATION, ACCELERATION,
Grms Grms Grms Grms Orms
N --N.
_°
;o mm
I,_ " N N N
o__ _ ,,°_-
, _ ; _- <_
_ _, -
Q o \_,
fD
,_°
OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL OVERALL
-'I VIBRATION VIBRATION VIBRATION VIBRATION VIBRATION VIBRATION
ACCELERATION, ACCELERATION, ACCELERATION, ACCELERATION, ACCELERATION, ACCELERATION,
_,_ Gins " Grins Grins Grins Grins Grins
o
_o _ _ o _ _ o _ _ o _ _ o _ _ o _
o
m _ _ _
< _
--m-- _
_ _
m _. o
°
"_ N N
o __=
-, ,_ _ __ ._
o _ _ _ "
.__ mo • _ .... _-
} li ?- "
_N
SECTION I0
GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION
I0.I SUMMARY
I0.I.I Flight Program
The guidance and navigation system performed satisfactorily during all

periods for which data are available. The boost navigation and guidance
schemes were properly executed, and the desired parking orbit insertion
_arameters were achieved with good accuracy. The third burn of the
S:IVB stage placed the S-IVB/IU in a heliocentric orbit. All target
parameters were satisfactorily achieved and all orbital operations were
nominal. System performance was unaffected by either the unexpected
change in thrust level during S-IVB third burn, or the failure to
dump residual propellants following the burn.
10.1.2 Instrument Unit Components
The Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC), the Launch Vehicle Data
Adapter (LVDA), and the ST-124M-3 inertial platform functioned satis-
factorily. The platform temperature and pressure experienced minor
deviations, but there was no apparent platform performance degradation.
There was also a problem with the H60-603 telemetry during the period
from S-II/S-IVB separation until CSM/S_IVB separation. Navigation and
guidance functions were not affected.
10.2 GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
10.2.1 Flight Program Description
The flight program controls the LVDC from Guidance Reference Release (GRR)
until the end of the mission. The program performs seven primary
functions: navigation, guidance, event sequencing, attitude control,
data management, ground command processing, and hardware evaluation.
y.... 10.2.1.1 Preflight Prepare-to-Launch Mode. At approximately -13 minutes,

the LVDC is commanded into the Prepare-to-Launch (PTL) mode by the RCA-IIOA
computer° This routine performs prelaunch functions and prepares the LVDC
for the flight mode.
10-1
]0.2.1.2 Boost Initialize. The flight program contains routines which
initialize navigation quantities_ and boost-to-parking orbit parameters.
The program also computes coordinate transformation matrices.
I0_2.1.3 Boost Routines° The boost routines perform navigation and

guidance_ event sequencing, and attitude control. Boost navigation
includes the computations and logic necessary to determine vehicle state
vectors during powered flight.
Boost guidance has two operating modes. These are pre-lterative

Guidance Mode (IGM), used from ]iftoff until shortly after Launch Escape
Tower (LET) jettison during S-11 stage operation, and IGM, used during
the remainder of boost to parking orbit. Pre-IGM guidance is a series
of preset commands which include a yaw maneuver for launcher clearance,
a roll maneuver to obtain the desired flight azimuth, and a pitch tilt
maneuver. IGM is a near optimum guidance scheme based on a flat earth
optimum steering function for planar motion of a point-mass vehicle.
Event sequencing is accomplished by the switch selector on an interrupt

basis.
Attitude control is accomplished in the minor loop section of the program

on an interrupt basis. The boost minor loop processes p]atform gimbal
angles and computes attitude commands to drive the gimbal angles to
their desired values.
10.2.1.4 Orbital Routines. The orbital program includes two monitor

routines. The first is t_e IU Hardware Evaluation Program (HEP), and the
second is the Telemetry Executive Program (TEP). Navigation, guidance,
event sequencing, attitude control, and ground command processing are
initiated from either HEP or TEPo The HEP routine was reduced to an
interruptib]e one-instruction loop because no hardware evaluation
functions were defined.
Once the vehicle acquires a ground station, TEP is entered. This routine
p_ovides time sharing telemetry of compressed and real time data. In
addition, various special data are telemetered on an interrupt basis.
Data from the LVDA are telemetered automatically.
Orbital guidance controls the vehicle attitude during the earth parking
orbit (T5) and after S-IVB second and third burn cutoffs (T 7 and T9).
Orbital navigation includes the computations necessary to determine

vehicle state vectors during coast periods. This is accomplished by
integration of space-fixed accelerations. These accelerations are obtained
by solving an approximate atmospheric drag equation, rotating prestored,
body_fixed vent accelerations through the gimbal angles, and so]ving
for gravitational accelerations.
10-2
Event sequencing in orbit is accomplished exactly as in the boost phase
with the added capability to receive time base updates and special output
sequence commands from ground stations.
F_ Ground command processing is accomplished by the Command Decoder interrupt

with the Digital Command System (DCS) routine.
10.2.1.5 Flight Program Differences° The significant changes to the

AS-504 flight program were:
a. S-II stage propellant utilization system operated closed loop.
b. Fixed attitude and fixed duration for S-IVB stage out:of-orbit burns.
c. Logic to provide three boost phases.
10.2.2 Instrument Unit System Description
The LVDC is a high-reliability general purpose randommaccess digital

computer which contains the logic circuits, memory, and timing system
required to perform mathematical operations necessary for navigation,
guidance, and vehicle flight sequencing. The LVDC is also used for
prelaunch and orbital checkout°
The LVDA is the input/output device for the LVDC. These two components
operate in conjunction to carry out the flight program. This program
performs the following functions:
a. Processes the inputs from the platform.
b. Performs navigation calculations.
c. Provides first stage tilt program.
d. Calculates IGM steering commands.
e. Resolves steering commands into the vehicle system for attitude
error commands.
f. Issues cutoff and sequencing signals.
The ST-124M-3 inertial platform assembly has a three-gimbal configuration,

with gas bearing gyros and pendulous integrating gyro accelerometers
mounted on the stable element, which provides an inertial space-fixed
coordinate reference frame for attitude control and navigation measurem
ments. Gimbal angles are measured by resolvers. Inertial velocity
is obtained from measurements of the angular rotation of the accelero-
meter measuring head.
10.3 GUIDANCE COMPARISONS
....... The postflight guidance hardware error analysis is based on comparisons

of the ST-124M-3 platform measured velocities with the observed post-
flight trajectory established from external tracking data. Figure I0:I
presents the comparisons of the platform measured velocities with
I0-3
t,=OL
RANGEVELOCITY CROSSRANGEVELOCITY ALTITUDE VELOCITY

_. DIFFERENCE,m/s DIFFERENCE,m/s DIFFERENCE,m/s
0
I
= l
_ '
I 0
2_
0 e I
_ m_m
_'_ !_
_ N
o N
v
m _NGE VELOCITY CROSS_NGE VELOCITY ALTITUDE VELOCITY
DIFFERENCE, ft/s DIFFERENCE, ft/s DIFFERENCE, ft/s
corresponding values from the final postflight trajectory. A positive
difference indicates trajectory data greater than the platform measure-
ment. The differences shown during S-IC stage burn probably reflect
more trajectory error than guidance. However, the differences are
S within the accuracies of the data compared.
The crossrange velocity difference built up to about 3.0 m/s (9.84 ft/s)
by S-II ECO, and then gradually reduced to 2.66 m/s (8.73 ft/s) by S-IVB
first cutoff. Altitude and range velocity differences at S-IVB first
cutoff were -1.42 m/s (-4.66 ft/s) and 0.31 m/s (1.02 ft/s), respectively.
The differences were within the accuracy of the data compared and/or
the 3 sigma hardware errors.
The velocity differences are shown through parking orbit insertion only.
Due to limited external tracking during the S-IVB second and third
burns, the C-band radar data were constrained to platform velocity
changes in;establishing the postflight trajectory. The'telemetered
platform velocities are set to zero during orbit, and accumulated during
S-IVB second and third burns. Since these velocity changes were used to
establish the trajectory, comparisons show no buildup in differences
during the burn times.
Velocities measured by the ST-124M-3 platform system at significant

flight event times are shown in Table I0-I, along with corresponding
values computed from the final Postflight Observed Trajectory and the
Preflight Operational Trajectory. The differences between the telemetered
velocities and postflight trajectory values reflect some combination of
small guidance hardware errors and tracking errors. The differences
between the LVDC and predicted trajectory values reflect off nominal
flight conditions and vehicle performance.
Comparisons of navigation (in the PACSS 13 coordinate system) positions,

velocities, and flight path angle at significant flight event times are
shown in Table 10-2. For the boost to parking orbit portion of flight,
the guidance LVDC and observed trajectory parameters are in relatively
good agreement. At parking orbit insertion, the velocity component
differences were -1.73 m/s (5.68 ft/S), 2.46 m/s (8.07 ft/s), and
0.12 m/s (0.39 ft/s) for altitude, crossrange, and range velocities,
respectively. The difference in total velocity was 0.86 m/s (2.82 ft/s).
These differences are well within the accuracy of the 3 sigma hardware
errors and/or the trajectory data.
The AS-504 vehicle was approximately 2.89 kilometers (1.56 n mi) lower in
altitude and 29.33 m/s (96.23 ft/s) lower in total velocity than nominal
at S-IC OECO. The burn time between T2 and T3 was about 2°76 seconds
longer than nominal. At S-II ECO the geocentric radius and total velocity
f .... were about 2.339 kilometers (1.26 n mi) and 81.70 m/s (268=04 ft/s),
respectively, lower than nominalo These deviations required about 10.3
seconds longer burn time duringthe S-IVB first burn. At S-IVB first cut-
off the radius was 36 meters (118 ft) greater and the total velocity was
0.87 m/s (2.86 ft/s) less than nominal.
10-5
Table I0-I. Inertial Platform Velocity Comparisons
EVENT DATA ..... VELOCITY m/s (ft/s)**
SOURCE ALTITUDE(Xm) CROSSRANGE

(_m) RANGE(Zm) "
S-IC Guidance 2191.97 3.63 1405.45
CECO (7191.50) (II.91) (4611.05)
134.34 sec
Postflight 2192.09 3.37 1405.50
Trajectory (7191.90) (II.05) (4611.22)
Preflight 2251.17 -I.50 1468.85
Trajectory (7385.72) (-4.92) (4819.06)
Guidance 2563.44 -0.97 2249°]8

S-IC (8410.23) (-3.18) (7379.20)
OECO Postflight 2563.00 -0.71 2249.28
162.76 sec Trajectory (8408.79) (-2.33) (7379.53)
Preflight 2596.71 -3.27 2257.40
Trajectory (8519.39) (-10.73) (7406.17)
Guidance 3448.46 -3.95 6778.73

(II_313.84) (-12.96) (22,239.93)
S-II
ECO Postflight 3447.07 -0,94 6779,16
Trajectory (11,309.28) (-3.08) (22,241.34)
536.22 sec
Preflight 3327.70 -0.49 6843.92
Trajectory (10,917.65) (-1.61) (22,453.80)
Guidance 3176.26 3.00 7596.83

S-IVB (109420.80) (9.84) (24,923.98)
First Cutoff Postflight 3174.84 5.66 7597.14
664.66 sec Trajectory (I0,416.14) (18.57) (24,925°00)
Preflight 3107.35 2.17 7587.14
Trajectory (10,194.72) (7.12) (24,892.19)
Guidance 3175.65 3.00 7598.80
Parking (10,418o80) (9.84) (24,930.45)

Orbit Postflight 3174.23 5.69 7599.08
Insertion Trajectory (10,414.14) (18.67) (24,931.36)
674.65 sec
Preflight 3106.67 2.17 7589.06
Trajec%ory (I0,192.49) (7.12) (24,898.49)
** PACSS 12 Coordinate System
10-6
Table I0_I. Inertial Platform Velocity Comparisons (Continued)
DATA VELOCITY m/s (ft/s)**

EVENT SOURCE ALTITUDE(Xm) CROSSRANGE(Ym) RANGE
Guidance _610.75 -54.75 274.05

S:IVB (-2003.77) (-179.62) (899.11)
Second
Cutoff* Postflight -610.84 :54.78 273.94
17,217.60 sec Trajectory (-2004.07) (-179.72) (898.75)
Preflight NA NA NA
Trajectory
Guidance -613.60 -55.00 275.35

Intermediate (-2013.12) (-180.45) (903.38)
Orbit Postflight -613.70 -55.05 275.25
Insertion* Trajectory (-2013.45) (-180.61) (903.05)
17,227.60 sec
Preflight NA NA NA
Trajectory
Guidance 2878.70 -197.20 1379.85

S-IVB (9444.55) (-646.98) (4527.07)
Third Cutoff* Postflight 2878.70 -197.20 1379.85
22,281.32sec Trajectory (9444.55) (_646.98) (4527.07)
Preflight NA NA NA
Trajectory
Guidance 2885.10 -197.85 1382.95

Escape (9465.55) (-649.11) (4537.24)
Orbit Postflight 2885.10 -197.85 1382.95
Injection
*sec Trajectory (9465.55) (-64911) (4537.24)
22,291.32
Preflight NA NA NA
Trajectory
• Values represent velocity change during respective time base.

•* PACSS 12 Coordinate System
NA - Not Available
fH
10-7
Table 10-2. Guidance Comparisons
POSITIONS
* VELOCITIES
* I FLIGHT PATH
meters m/s i. A_JGLE (deg)
EVENT DATA
SOURCE (ft) (ft/s)
Xs YS ZS R Xa Ys Zs Vs
Guidance 6,413,917 36,159 99,435 6,414,79C 712.06 125.65 1786.12 1926.93 22.5951
(21,043,035 (I18,6311 (326,230) (21,045,899) (2336.15) (412.24) (5859.97) (6321.95)
S-IC Postflight 6,413,976 36,116 99,508 6,414,850 712.31 125.40 1788.52 1929.23 22.5766
CECO Trajectory !(21,043,229 (118,491) (326,471 (21,046,095 (2336°98) (411.42), (5867.85) (6329.49)
134.34 sec
Preflight 6,417,490 36,002 101,411 6,418,393 770.13 121.04 1851.27 2008.72 23.4681
Trajectory i(21,054,759 (I18,118) (332,713 (21,057,719 (2526.66) (397.12) (6073.72) (6590.28)
Guidance 6,435,545 39,657 161,636 6,437_69_ 808.15 llg.80 2624.26 2748.49 18.5527
(21,113,993 (130,108) (530,302) (21,121,050 (2651.41) (393.04) (8609.78) (9017.36)
S-IC Postflight 6,435,53C 39,603 161,523 6,437,67g 807.26 120.06 2623.35 2747.38 18.5394
OECO Trajectory i(21,113,944 (129,931 (529,932) (21,120,993 (2648_49) (393.88) (8606.83) (9013.72)
162.76 sec
Preflight 6,438,505 39,083 158,543 6,440,576 866.59 118.56 2635.36 2776.71 19.6098
Trajectory (21,123,704 (128,225 (520,154) (21,130,498 (2843.14) (388.98) (8546.18) (9109.95)
0
QO Guidance 6,313,328 77,966 1,776,820 6,559,061 -1771.34 89.28 6703.33 5933.99 0.9254
(20,713,018 (255,794) (5,829,462 (21,519,229 (-5811.48) (292.91) (21,992.55) (22,749.31)
S-II Postflight 6,313,089 78,535 1,776,783 6,558,827 -1772.68 92.22 6704.46 6935.28 0.9177
ECO Trajectory 120,712,233 (257,661) (5,829,340 (21,518,462) (-5815.88) (302.55) (21,996.27) (22,754.17)
536.22 sec Preflight 6,315,786 77,823 1,776 726: 5,561,400 -1846.43 93.17 8769.25 7017.17 0.4638
Trajectory (20,721,083 (255,324) (5,829,153) (21,526,902)i (_6057.83) (305.68) (22,208.81) (23,022.20)
Guidance 5,998,574 88,974 2,662,20_ 6,563,39 -3161.25 82.71 7120.20 7790.86 -0.00002
(19,680,361) (291,909) (8,734,278 (21,533,442 1-10,371.56) (271.36) (23,360.24) (25,560.56)
S-IVB Postflight 5,998,068 89,907 2,662,436 6,563,031 -3162.94 85.19 7120.55 7791.90 -0.0066
First Cutoff Trajectory (19,578,700 (294,971) (8,735,027 i(21,532,277 i-I0,377.11) (279.49) (23,361.39) (25,563.98)
664.66 sec Preflight 6,028,479 88,189 2,593,707 6,563,35_ -3080.19 83.93 7155.81 7791.03 -0.0016
Trajectory (19,778,475 (289,334)i (8,509,536 i(21,533,322 i(-I0,I05.60) (275.37) (23,477.06) (25,561.13)
Guidance 5,966,531i 89,7961 2,733,239 6,563,39_ -3246.19 81.61 7084.04 7792.81 0.0014
(19,575,233) I (294,606) (8,967,319 (21,533,445 (-10,650.23) (267.75) (23,241.60) (25,566.96)
Parking Postflight 5,966,001 90,752 2,733,468 6,563,02( -3247°92 84.07 7084.16 7793.67 -0.0058
Orbit Trajectory (19,573,513 (297,744) (8,958,070 (21,532,239 (-10,655.90) (275.82)i(23,241.99) (25,569.78)
Insertion Preflight 5,997,24( 89,023 2,665,098 6,563,35( -3185.68 82.821 7120.63 7793.06 -0.0009
674.65 sec Trajectory (19,676,004 (292,069) (8,743,761) (21,533,379](-10,386.09) (271.72) (23,361.65) (25,567.78)
• PACSS 13 Coordinate System
/ S
Table 10-2. Guidance Comparisons (Continued)
POSITIONS
* VELOClTIES_ FLIGHT PATH
meters m/s ANGLE (deg)
EVENT DATA (ft) (ft/s)
SOURCE
Xs Ys Zs R Xs Ys is Vs Y
Guidance 2,394,204 169,576 6,128,16_ 6,581,444 -7851.76 14.56 3124.85 8450.74 0.3640
(7,855,000) (556,352) (20,I05,538)(21,592,664) (-25,760.37) (47.77) (I0,252.13) (27,725.52)
S-IVB Postflight 2,357,836 171,502 6,135,27¢ 6,574,979 -7872.56 13.84 3085.88 8455.77 0.3843
Second Trajectory (7,735,682) (562,669) i(20,128,839)(21,571,452) (-25,828.62) (45.42) (10,124.28) (27,742.04)
Cutoff Preflight 2,332,352 171,191 6,145,717 6,575,637 -7866.90 54.19 3051.59 8438.20 0.4287
17,217.60 sec Trajectory (7,652,073) (561,649) i(20,163,113)_21,573,613) (-25,810.05) (177.77) (10,011.79) (27,684.38)
Guidance 2,315,497 169,708 6,158,996 6,582,064 -7887.58 12.04 3040.19 8453.21 0.4765
(7,596,775) (556,785) (20,206,680)_21,594,698)
(:25,877.89) (39.50) (9974.38) (27,733.63)
Intermediate Postflight 2,278,942 171,754 6,165,709 6,575,640i -7908.96 ll.40 3001.32 8459.30 0.4977
Orbit Trajectory (7,476,844) (563,497) (20,228,703)[21,573,621) (-25_948.05) (37.39) (9846.86 (27,753°62)
Insertion
Preflight 2,253,493 171,720 6,175,813 6,576,351 -7901.99 51.80 2966.49 8440.63 0.5391
17,227.60 sec Trajectory (7,393,350) (563,386) (20,261,855)[21,575,954) (-25,925.18) (169.95) (9732.56) (27,692.35)
Guidance 5,179,326 -168,481 -6,942,380 8,663,166 7612.26 -46.11 5901.21 9631.88 -1.0534
116,992,539) (-552,759) 1-22,776,837)[28,422,461) (24,974.61) (-151.28) (19,360.93) (31,600.66)
S-IVB Postflight 5,210,165 -169,392 -6,917,030 8,661,398 7587.17 -42.95 5927.80 9628.38 -I.0066
Third Cutoff Trajectory i(17,093,717) (-555,749) 1-22,693,669)[28,416,661) (24,892.29) (-140.92) (19,448.16) (31,589.17)
22,281.32 sec Preflight 5,497,750 -190,638 -6,546,262 8,550,739 8672.82 i -51.19 7007.47 11,150.11 1.0926
Trajectory i(18,037,237) (-625,452) i-2_,477,238) 128,053,607) (28,454.13): (-167.94) (22,990.38) (36,581.74)
Guidance 5,255,355 -168,947 6,833,116 8,661,673 7586.69 -45.74 5946.79 9639.72 -0.7233
(17,241,978) (-554,288) 1-22,582,4011128,417,562) (24,890.72) (-150.07) (19,510.47) (31,626.38)
Escape Postflight 5,285,357 -169,885 -6,857,386 8,659,538 7562.68 -42.28 5974.10 9637.73 -0.6783
Orbit ITrajectory (17,340,410) (-557,366) 1-22,497,986)128,410,559) (24,811.94) (-138.72) (19,600.06) (31,619.85)
Injection Preflight 5,584,380 -191,150 -6,475,935 8,553,337 8645.52 -50.61 7053.501 II,157.93i 1.5680
22,291.32 seCiTrajectory (18,321,458) (-627,131) -21,246,507) 128,062,131) (28,364.56) (-166.05) (23,141.39) (36,607.37)
*PACSS 13 Coordinate System

At S-IVB second cutoff, the respective radius and total velocity
differences (trajectory minus LVDC) were _6.465 kilometers (-3.49 n mi)
and 5.03 m/s (16.5 ft/s) for the postflight trajectory, and -5.807 kilo-
meters (-3.14 n mi) and -12.53 m/s (-41.11 ft/s) for the preflight
trajectory.
At S-IVB third cutoff, the respective radius and total velocity

differences were _I.768 kilometers (-0.955 n mi) and -3.50 m/s
(-11o48 ft/s) for the postflight trajectory, and :112o427 kilometers
(-60.166 n mi) and 1518.23 m/s (4981.07 ft/s) for the preflight
trajectory. The comparisons with the postflight trajectory are relatively
good. However, due to excessive thrust variations during the third burn
this particular burn was considerably off nominal. Since both second and
third burn cutoffs were time cutoffs, the velocity and radius variations
were due more to performance variations than to guidance. In general,
the guidance system performed as programmed.
10.4 NAVIGATION AND GUIDANCE SCHEMEEVALUATION
10.4.1 Flight Program Performance
The flight program performed all boost and orbital navigation functions
properly. Accelerations were computed correctly throughout all of boost,
and no unreasonable accelerometer readings were indicated by the reason:
ableness tests or zero change tests.
The tower avoidance maneuver was executed properly. The maneuver to

remove the roll bias and the start of the time tilt pitch guidance were
both initiated at 13.3 seconds. The roll bias was removed at 33.0
seconds. Tilt arrest occurred at 158.0 seconds. The program detected
OECO at 162.8 seconds.
IGM is separated into three phases which are:

a. The first phase, beginning approximately 40 seconds into the S-II
stage burn and ending at the propellant Mixture Ratio (MR) shift.
b. The second phase, from MR shift until shortly before S-II stage cutoff.
co The third phase, beginning about I0 seconds after S-IVB first
ignition and ending a few seconds before cutoff.
Three phases are required due to the changes in thrust and vehicle mass
loss rate that occur at MRshift and again at S-II/S-IVB staging. During
periods of changing thrust and propellant flow rates artificial tau modes
or ramp functions are used to modify the time-to-go equations.
During the periods just prior to stage cutoff, attitude freeze or chi
freeze modes are used. These modes prevent the control system from
introducing vehicle rotations during staging, or during thrust decay ....
and buildup periods.
I0_I0
Chi bars are the steering angles required to null out the velocity
deficiencies in the predicted remaining burn time. These angles are
biased to enforce terminal position requirements. Prior to orbital
insertion, a chi bar steering mode is used° This mode enforces only
terminal velocity requirements without regard to position.
The active-guidance phases start and stop times are given in Table I0-3.
Included in this table are the start and stop times for the artificial
tau phases and chi freezes. There were 10.48 and -0.52 degree changes
in commanded pitch and yaw, respectively, when IGM computations were
initiated during S-II stage burn°
The Steering Misalignment Correction (SMC) (a correction factor for thrust

misalignments, etc.) was initiated at 223.2 seconds. The orbital
insertion conditions after S-IVB first burn are given in Table I0_4.
The orbital guidance rout}he was entered at the start of T5. The program
commanded the vehicle to local horizontal 20 seconds into the time base.
All following commands were proper, including the inertial attitude
freezes for S-IVB second and third burns. A heliocentric orbit was
achieved by the S-IVB third burn. Performance during IGM flight is
shown in Figure I0_2.
10.4.2 Attitude Error Computations
The minor loop performed as expected during flight. No unreasonable

gimbal angles were detected°
10.4.3 Program Sequencing
All programmed events occurred properly. Bit 1 in mode code word 26

that indicates the S-IVB stage engine-on command for third burn was set
by ground command approximately 60 seconds early. Since program
implementation is to change the state of the bit when the engine-on
command is issued, this bit was set back to zero when the engine-on
command was issued on time by the flight program.
10.5 GUIDANCE SYSTEM COMPONENTEVALUATION
10.5.1 LVDC Performance
The LVDCperformed as predicted for the AS-504 mission. No valid error

monitor words and no self-test error data have been observed that indicate
any deviation from correct operation.
10.5.2 LVDA Performance
_ The LVDA performance was nominal. No valid error monitor words and no
self-test error data indicating deviations from correct performance were
observed.
10-11
Table I0_3. Start and Stop Times for IGM Guidance Commands
EVENT IGM PHASES ARTIFICAL TAU* TERMINAL GUIDANCE ATTITUDE FREEZE

(sec) (sec) (CHI BARSTEERING) (CHI FREEZE)
(sec) (sec) ....
START STOP START STOP START STOP START STOP

First Phase IGM 204.6 461.5
Second Phase IGM 461o5 527.1 461.5 492.7 527.1 551.0

Third Phase IGM 551.0 657.8 551.0 552.9 631o4 657.8 557.8 664.8
* Times to nearest computation cycleo
Table 10-4. Parking Orbit Insertion Parameters
PARAMETER* PREDICTED POSTFL

I GHT TRAJECTORY
TRAJECTORY MINUS LVDC LVDCMINUS
PREDICTED PREDICTED
Inertial Velocity
m/s 7793.06 7793.67 0.61 7792.84 -0°22
ft/s (25,567.78) (25,569.78) (2.00) (259567.06) (-0.72)
Altitude
km 191.36 191.04 -0.32 191.41 0.05
(n mi) (103.33) (103.15) (-0.18) (103.35) (0.02)
Flight
Path Angle
deg -0.0009 -0.0058 -0.0049 0.0014 0.0023
Descending Node
deg 42.570 42.538 -0.032 42.570 O.000
Inclination
deg 32.561 32.552 -0.009 32.561 O.000
Apogee A1 t
km 185.31 186.57 1.26 191.77 6.46
(n mi) (I00.06) (100o74) (0.68) (103.55) (3.49)
Perigee Alt
km 185.10 184.61 -0.49 190.82 5.72
(n mi) (99.95) (99.68) (-0.27) (103.03) (3.08)
Eccentricity 0.000016 0_000149 0.000133 0.000075 0.000059
Period
Minutes 88.20 88.20 O.O0 88.19 -0.Ol
* Actual time 674.66

Predicted time 658.72
I0_12
10.0
_ BEGIN PITCH AND ROLL MANEUVER
IGM INITIATION
0 -_ - _ I END PITCHSENSED
GUIDANCE MANEUVER
EMR SHIFT
-]O.O- %7 BEGIN CHI FREEZE
k '' END OF CHI FREEZE
f .......-30.0
20.0 _ _ BEGIN ECO
STEERINGs_IVB
CHI BAR
' .' ... OPERATIONALTRAJECTORYI-_
_"
-40 .O _
- -----FLIGHT DATA I
-5o. -
o_°o \ [::
_=-80.0 ....
<_ -90.o
-100.0
_llO.O _ "_ _-_
-_2o.0 _ _ _ _' _ _ _'i
y' ' , ,
2.8 END AW MANEUVER
IGMINITIATION
%_7 GUIDANCE SENSED EMR SHIFT _:
2.4 _'7 BEGIN CHI FREEZE
" 7 ENDOF
1 BEGIN CHI
CHIBAR STEERING
FREEZE [ \
2,0 _l S-IVB ECO J
OPERATIONAL TRAJECTORY
1.6 _---FLIGHT DATA /
# _.z .I.... I / \--

I
0
o._ ...............
I If ",-_
0.4 ................ lJ
-0.4 ................... - ....
-0°8 ..........................
-I.2.................
-Io6
F ' I
_ O 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720

_NGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 10-2. Attitude Commands During Active Guidance Period
10-13
10.5.3 Ladder Outputs
The ladder networks and converter amplifiers performed satisfactorily.

No data have been observed that indicate an out-of_tolerance condition
between channel A and the reference channel converter-amplifiers.
10o5.4 Telemetry Outputs
Analysis of the available LVDA telemetry buffer and flight control

computer attitude error plots indicated symmetry between the buffer
outputs and the ladder outputs. The available LVDC power supply plots
indicated satisfactory power supply performance.
H60_603 telemetry data included an incorrect identifier bit during the

period from S-II/S:IVB separation until CSM/SLAseparation. Analysis
of telemetry data indicates the cause of the anomaly was within either
the RT4 logic chain in the LVDA (serial No. P22)_ or the RT4 input
circuitry in the 410K multiplexer (see paragraph 19.3.4).
A detailed evaluation of the LVDA logic chain, and a review of applicable

failure history have been completed. If the deviation cause is within
the LVDA, the most probable mechanism is a particle short in a flatpack
transistor. This is not the only mechanism which could have been involved,
but a review of the history indicates it as the most probable.
This is considered an isolated failure and the only corrective action

recommended is a real_time data handling procedural change for contingency
planning.
I0o5.5 Discrete Outputs
No valid discrete output register words (tags 043 and 052} were observed
to indicate guidance or simultaneous memory failure.
10.5.6 Switch Selector Functions
Switch selector data indicate that the LVDA switch selector functions
were performed satisfactorily. No error monitor words were observed
that indicate disagreement in the Triple Modular Redundant (TMR) switch
selector register positions or in the switch selector feedback circuits.
No mode code 24 words or switch selector feedback words were observed that
indicated a switch selector feedback was in error. In addition, no
indications were observed to suggest that the B channel input gates to
the switch selector register positions were selected.
10.5.7 ST-124M_3 Inertial Platform Performance
The inertial platform system performed as designed. The inertial gimbal ......
temperature fell below specifications, and the gas bearing differential
pressure and platform internal ambient pressure exceeded specifications;
I0_14
however, there are no indications of degraded inertial platform
performance as a result of these deviations. These deviations are
discussed in paragraph 18o4.
,_.... The accelerometer servo loops functioned as designed and maintained

the accelerometer float within the measuring head stops (±6 degrees)
throughout the flight. The accelerometer encoder outputs indicated
that the accelerometers accurately measured the vehicle acceleration.
The X, Y, and Z gyro servo loops for the stable element functioned as
designed. The operational limits of the servo loops were not reached
at any time during the mission.
10-15/I0-16
f-
i
SECTION II
CONTROL SYSTEM
II.I SUMMARY
The AS-504 Flight Control Computer (FCC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC),
and Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) satisfied all requirements for
vehicle attitude control through the intermediate orbit. Bending and
slosh dynamics were adequately stabilized. The preprogrammed S-IC boost
phase yaw, roll, and pitch maneuvers were properly executed. The S-IC
outboard engine radial cant was accomplished as planned.
The peak winds observed during the flight exceeded the 95 percentile
wind envelopes and were the highest observed on a Saturn flight. However,
less than I0 percent of the available engine deflection was utilized by
the response of the control system to disturbances. The maximum engine
deflection was caused by a wind shear at about 85 seconds.
S-IC/S-II first and second plane separations were accomplished with no

significant attitude deviations. At Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM) ini-
tiation, pitch-up transients occurred that were similar to those seen on
AS-501 and AS-502. FCC switch points 3 and 4 oroduced transient excur-
sions in yaw due to the steady-statelyaw error of 0.2 degree.! S-II/S-IVB
separation occurred as expected and without producing any significant
attitude deviations.
During first and second S-IVB burns, satisfactory control was maintained
over the vehicle. During the Command and Service Module (CSM) separation
from the S-IVB/Instrument Unit (IU) and during the Transposition, Docking,
and Ejection (TD&E), the control system maintained a fixed inertial atti-
tude to provide a stable docking platform.
During the S-IVB third burn the control system experienced high amplitude
oscillations in the yaw plane for the first I00 seconds of burn. These
oscillations were also evident in the pitch and roll planes but reached
a peak of ± 2.5 deg/s in yaw at about 22,135 seconds. LOX and LH2 slosh-
ing was coupled to the control oscillations. After the performance shift,
these oscillations damped out, and pitch and yaw attitude control was near
nominal. However, a large roll torque had been developing and it peaked
at 386 N-m (285 Ibf-ft). During the first burn the maximum roll torque
was 7.9 N-m (5.8 Ibf-ft). At the performance shift the torque changed
from bidirectional to unidirectional (counterclockwise).
II-I
APS control was as expected, except for the large demands placed upon
the system by the control oscillations. The APS propellants were de-
pleted by an ullage burn after third burn.
11.2 CONTROL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The control system on AS-504 was essentially the same as that on AS-503.
The flight program and the FCC were updated to provide the logic for
S-IVB third burn. The flight program was also modified to provide for
CSM/Lunar Module (LM) separation after S-IVB first burn.
li.3 S-IC CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION
The AS1504 control system performed satisfactorily during S-IC powered

flight. Less than lO percent of available engine deflection was used;
although the actual flight wind magnitude was at times greater than the
95 percentile wind.
As expected from this large wind some control variables did exceed the
preflight predicted 95 percentile wind envelopes; however, all dynamics
were well within vehicle capability. In the region of high dynamic
pressures, the maximum angles-of-attack were -3.3 degrees in pitch and
2.8 degrees in yaw. The maximum average pitch engine deflection was 0.4
degree and was caused by a wind shear. The maximum average yaw engine
deflection was 0.5 degree due to a wind shear. Absence of any divergent
bending or slosh frequencies in vehicle motion indicates that bending
and slosh dynamics were adequately stabilized.
Vehicle attitude errors required to trim out the effects of thrust un-
balance, thrust misalignment, and control system misal.ignments were well
within predicted envelopes. Vehicle dynamics prior to S-IC/S-II first
plane separation were we.ll within staging requirements.
11.3.1 Liftoff Clearances
The vehicle cleared the mobile launcher structure well within the avail-
able clearance envelopes. Reduction of the camera data showing liftoff
motion was not performed for the AS-504 flight, but simulations with
flight data show that less than 20 percent of the available clearance
was used. The ground wind was from the southeast with a magnitude of
6.9 m/sec (]3.5 knots) at the 18.3 meters (60 ft) level. The bottom of
the launch vehicle cleared the top of the tower with a separation dis-
tance of 13.5 meters (44.3 ft). Because the AS-504 vehicle was heavier
than previous Saturn V vehicles the time to clear the top of the tower
was 0.6 second greater°
Table II-I shows the predicted and measured misalignments, soft release
forces, winds, and the thrust to weight ratio.
11-2
Table II-I° AS_504 Misalignment Summary
.... PREFLIGHT
PREDICTED LAUNCH
PARAMETER PITCH YAW ROLL PITCH YAk!

.......... ROLL
Thrust Misalign_ +0_34 +0.34 +0.34 -0.14 -0.3 -0.05
ment, deg*
CenterEngine - 0.0 _0.17

Cant, deg
ServoAmpOffset, +0.1 +0.I +0.I - -

deg/eng
Vehicle Stacking +0.29 +0.29 0.0 0.089 _0.07 0.0

and Pad Misalign-
ment, deg
PeakSoft Release 316,000(71,000) _*

Force per. Rod,
N (lbf)
Wind 95 Percentile Envelope 6.9 m/s (13.5 knots) .

at 18.3 meters (60 ftl
Thrust to Weight
Ratio 1.206 1.186
* Thrust misalignment of 0.34 degree encompasseB the center engine cant.

A positive polarity was used to determine minimum fin tip/umbilical
tower clearance. A negative polarity was used to determine vehicle/
GSE clearances.
_* No data available to update predicted value.
11.3.2 S-IC Flight Dynamics
Table 11-2 lists maximum control parameters during S-IC burn. Pitch,
yaw and roll time histories are shown in Figures II-I, 11-2 and 11-3.
Dynamics in the region between liftoff and 40 seconds result primarily
from guidance commands. Maximum yaw and roll dynamics occurring in this
region were: maximum yaw rate, _0.6 deg/s at 12.4 seconds; maximum yaw
error, I.I degrees at ll.l seconds; and maximum yaw engine deflection,
0.4 degree at II.I seconds. The maximum roll rate was 1.3 degrees per
second at 15.3 seconds and the maximum roll error was -0.9 degree at
f ..... 14.6 seconds.
11-3
ENDYAW MANEUVER CECO
BEGIN TOWER CLEARANCE YAWMANEUVER _ MAXQ
BEGINRADIAL
S-IC PITCH ENGINECANT
AND ROLL MANEUVER _ OECO
TILT ARREST
_ MACH
ND ROLL
I MANEUVER
MEASURED
c_ .... SIMULATED
.... 40 _
_-
z _ ...... _COMMANDED
ATTITUDE, j ---
_.,o o -80 .........
1.6........
_I--_ -- q ____ ....
F--O _ I
_mz 0 .............. I ...................................
_ I,," m
_:3_v "I_ I# _ '
Z_:_
0.0
-O.40 20 40 50 80 l O0 120 40 160 .

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure ll-1. Pitch Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn
]I-4
S_7 BEGIN TOWERCLEARANCE
YAWMANEUVER _/ MAXQ
END YAW
BEGIN MANEUVER
PITCH AND ROLLMANEUVER _
_7 CECO
TILT ARREST
s" S_7 S-IC RADIAL ENGINECANT _ OECO
END ROLL MANEUVER
S_7 MACH1
z _ _ MEASURED SIMULATED
_ i -COMMANDED
ATTITUDE/
400
L_JO
0.8
t_ZlZ
_: -0,8
i ..................................................................................................
I--
_ 0,4 -
<,::- _ -0.4
I._Jw
oJ i ¢
o-
LtdOZ
-_ -0.4
0 20 40 60 80 IOO 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 11_2. Yaw Plane Dynamics During S-IC Burn
II-5
9-LL
u,xn_1
3I-S 6uLanG S3LmeUA'fl
aUeLd LLO_ "£-LL a_n6t3
$QN033$,_3N11 39NV_
...... 09[ 0"_[ OZ[ OOL 08. 09 O# OZ 0#. _ -40<
_-° :_
_
m _orrl
_
- U3 rrl---4:;;_
%7"0 m=m
.....
_, _-,,_-
,_ _,w _
.......... _ _ ,'_ 0 _ mr
oo,-
;x3---4
_:_
"_ rrl --t
frl
'9"L _
I' OOr-"
.... 'f _'o- N_ _-
=_ >
e_ tn
t_'O- _
o<_rq
--4 0
rrl :_ 0 0
'30n*I
_IIv1 Q3QNVNN03
_ ' "--_f_ - -;=<:_,--
_n'- _:_mZ3_
3(]NllllV ]VFI13V _ _m___
031VlnNI S ..... 03[Insv3N m ,::;,
[ HDVN
0330 _ 1NV3 3NIgN3 7VI(]V_I 31-S
_I3AFISNVIg770_ 0N3
" IS3_J_IV
1
0333
711 _
Z_ _I3An3NVN7"I0__I3AFI3NVW
I]NVH311d
MV/
N1938
0N3
b XVN _ _I3AFI3NVW_VA 33NV_IV3i3 _13M01Ni938 Z_
Table 11-2. Maximum Control Parameters During S-lC Boost Flight
f.... PITCH
PLANE VAWPLANE ROLL
PLANE
RANGE RANGE RANGE
PARAMETERS UNITS MAGNITUDE TIME MAGNITUDE TIME MAGNITUDE TIME
(sec) (sec) (sec)
AttitudeError deg 1.3 91.B I.I II.I wO.9 14.6
Rate deg/s -I.0 85.9 -0.6 12.4 1.3 15.3
Average
Gimbal deg 0.4 14.5 0.5 78.8 -O.l 77.2
Angle
Angle-of-Attack deg -3.7 55.2 2.8 77.5
Angle-of-Attack deg-N/cm2 _ 9.9 79.4 8.53 77.5

DynamicPressure (deg-lbf/inZl (14.4) (12.4)
Product
NormalAcceleration* m/s2 -0.439 92.8 0.425 79.4

(ft/s2) (-1.33) (l.3g)
• Subsequent to the yaw maneuver
In the region between 40 and II0 seconds maximum dynamics were caused by
the pitch tilt program, wind magnitude, and wind shears. The peak angle-
of-attack in pitch was -3.7 degrees at 55.2 seconds and the peak yaw
angle-of-attack was 2.8 degrees at 77.5 seconds. Peak engine deflection
in pitch was 0.4 degree at 90.1 seconds. The maximum pitch rate was -I.0
deg/s at 85.9 seconds and resulted from the combined effects of pitch
guidance and winds. Maximum pitch error was 1.3 degrees at 91.8 seconds.
Significant dynamics due to wind shears occurred in pitch and yaw between
80 and 90 seconds. Normal acceleration during S-IC flight is shown in
Figure 11-4. Subsequent to the yaw maneuver the maximum normal accelera-
tion is less than 0.05 g in pitch and yaw, The pitch and yaw plane wind
velocities and angles of attack are shown in Figure II-5. The winds are
shown both as determined from balloon and rocket measurements and as deri.ved
from the vehicle Q-ball. The wind used to bias the trajectory is also shown
for comparison. The control gain switches had the predicted effect on flight
dynamics.
Dynamics from 110 seconds to S-IC/S-II separation were caused by high alti-
tude winds, separated air flow, center engine shutdown, and tilt arrest.
The prominent pitch attitude error of 1.2 degrees and yaw attitude error
of 0.4 degree at 120 seconds is caused by the loss of fin stabilizing
action due to separated air flow coupled with a wind shear. The tran-
sient at Center Engine Cutoff (CECD) indicates that the center engine
cant was :0.17 degree in yaw and zero in pitch. At Outboard Engine Cut-
off (OECO) the vehicle had attitude errors as follows: pitch 0.2 degree;
11-7
BEGIN TOWERCLEARANCE YAWMANEUVER _ MAX Q
ENDYAWMANEUVER k)" CECO
_7 BEGIN PITCH AND ROLLMANEUVER _ TILT ARREST
S-IC RADIAL ENGINECANT
_7 END ROLLMANEUVER
_7 MACH I
0.8 MEASURED .... SIMULATED .0.08
o 0.4 - _ "0.04 o
-J
__ -0.4 '-0.04
-0.8 0.08
I
i
0._ ! ,
!
I
" i •
i -o.o8
i
0._ _'- ...... 0.04
u'J " 0
<
_L3 I=: t ! I, ,_
0
i
<>- -0.4 : _ _0.04 >-
0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS

Figure 11-4° Normal Acceleration During S-IC Burn
11-8
6-LL
YAWPLANEWIND PIICll PLANENIND

VELOCITY (POSITIVE VELOCITY (POSITIVE
TOWARDRIGIIT OF DOWNRANGE)> mls q<_<_<_
FLIGHT PLANE), I11/S _;om
:_m _i rnzrn
:I_z
, , _£
p_ z-<z
_ m
mm_c_
_:c>om m
::rJZ ;_
_ m
_ I m "_
'2 S _
_-m m
r_2_
r-
,,_ r_ --Io
--o ox
_ °
o
0 r'_ YAWPLANE
WIND PITCHPLANE
WIND
_'_-<C VELOCITY(POSITIVE VELOCITY(POSITIVE
_ TOWARD RIGHT OF DOWN RANGE), ft/s
(-F _ FLIGHT PLANE), ft/s
c_
"x3
C) --_
_ TOTAL YAWPLANE PITCH PLANE

_. --_. ANGLE-OF-ATTACK, ANGLE-OF-ATTACK ANGLE-OF-ATTACK
"_ _ deg (POSITIVE NOSE RIGHT), (POSITIVE NOSE UP),
cCI_ deg deg
C-)O
r_
tn_t
- F-
_'j
o - .:. ,i
yaw -0.2 degree; and roll -0.2 degree. These errors are required to
trim out the effects of thrust unbalance, offset center of gravity,
thrust misalignment, and control system biases. The maximum equivalent
thrust misalignments were -0.14 degree in pitch, -0.03 degree in yaw,
and -0.05 degree in roll.
Engine response to slosh is shown in Figure 11_6. The figure was de_
rived by passing measured engine deflection time histories through band-
pass filters, retaining only slosh frequencies. The small engine motion
at slosh frequencies other than at the time of known disturbances indi-
cates that slosh was adequately stabilized. The engine response to slosh
was approximately 0.I degree peak-to-peako The maximum slosh amplitude
in the S-IC fuel tank was -0.3 meter (_12 inches) in pitch at 81 seconds
and 0.27 meter (10.5 inches) in yaw at 85 seconds° The maximum slosh
amplitude in the S-lC LOX tank was 0.28 meter (II inches) in pitch at 80
seconds and 0.33 meter (13 inches) in yaw at 77.5 seconds.
11.4 S-11 CONTROLSYSTEM EVALUATION
The S-II stage attitude control system performance was satisfactory.

Analysis of the magnitude of modal components in the engine deflection
revealed that vehicle structural bending and propellant sloshing had
negligible effect on control system performance. The maximum values of
control parameters occurred in response to S-IC/S-11 separation distur-
bances and non-uniform J_2 engine thrust buildups. Attitude rates for
pitch, yaw, and roll were 0.2, -0.I and -0.9 deg/s, respectively, at
S-IC/S-II separation. The response at other times was also within ex-
pectations.
11.4.1 Attitude Control Dynamics and Stability
Between the events of S-IC OECO and initiation of IGM, the attitude com-
mands were held constant. Significant events occurring during that in-
terval were S-IC/S-II separation, S-II stage J-2 engine start, second_
plane separation, and Launch Escape Tower (LET) jettison° The attitude
control dynamics throughout this interval indicated stable operation as
shown in Figures 11-7, 11-8 and 11-9. Steady state attitudes were
achieved within 20 seconds from S-IC/S-II separation. The maximum con-
trol excursions occurred in the roll axis following S-lC/S:II separation
when -0.9 deg/s rate and _0.9 degree attitude error occurred, as shown
in Table 11-3.
At IGM initiation the FCC received thrust vector control commands to

pitch the vehicle up as shown in Figure 11_7. During IGM, the vehicle
pitched down at a constant commandedrate of approximately -0.1 deg/s.
During the transient interval following initiation of IGM guidance, the
engines deflected l.O degree in pitch as a result of a pitch-up command .....
of 1 deg/s.
11_10
S_7 ENDYAWMANEUVER CECO
_ BEGIN
BEGIN PITCH
TOWER ANDROLLMANEUVER
CLEARANCE
YAWMANEUVER _ TILTQARREST
MAX
_-.... _ END
S-IC ROLL
RADIAL ENGINECANT
MANEUVER
_7 MACH l
°'_ 1 J
_._o_
F--O _
_ cIJ
I I,
0.2
0.1
_z " t
°°
_ _A_o,A^._A 'v_v-_ v._.vo_v,vv,_v_V_
-o.2 W W
0 20 40 _ ao I00 120 140 160
_NGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 11-6. S_IC Engine Deflection Response to Propellant Slosh
II_II
AVGPITCH ENG PITCH ATTITUDE
DEFLECTION PITCHANGULAR PITCHATTITUDE AND COMMAND
(POSITIVESTEER RATE (POSITIVE ERROR(POSITIVE (POSITIVE
NOSEDOWN),deg NOSEUP), deg/s NOSEUP), des NOSEUP)_ des
° 7 I
I7 _ (.¢3
r.._
Z m I
L
_ rn
3 2
2 ' COMMANDED
ATTITUDE
, _ .... ACTUAL
ATTITUDE
1.O
Z_ .....
o_m _ S-IC/S-II SEPARATIONCO'AND MEASURED

H -0. _ S-If SECONDPLANESEPARATION .....
_ IGMPHASE1 INITIATED SIMULATED
-IH _ _ GUIDANCE SENSED EMR SHI_ .... 1 l [
1.0 _ _ S-IIBEGINEcoCHI
FREEZE
_ 0.5
-I,O
1.0
m_ 0.5
<_>_°_°_ -0.5
160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 11-8. Yaw Plane _namics During S-II Burn
II-13
S-IC/S-II SEPARATION
COMMAND R_7GUIDANCE
SENSED
EMRSHIFT ,
IGMPHASE
S-If 1 PLANE
SECONDINITIATED
SEPARATION _ S-II ECO FREEZE
BEGINCHI
MEASURED ---- SIMULATED
"_-._ _ 0.5 _- ...............

W "0 [
UJ _ .......... I --_'J C:.. v _ _,_-_/__V_

F,- _-I U.I
_N_
,,:JEI--- _t: -0.5 _ ........................
..J 0 C)
,::, 1.0
m
<"_ 0.5
;Z: _,--_ELI
,m[_I--- t:_
'-"
__11/I _ -0.5 ......
.JC) O
_u_ -1°0 ................

m 1.0
mE 0.5
0 LLI q_ _"
"= '.H> _" -0.5 ...................................

u.lZa _ 0 _
160 200 240 280 320 350 400 440 480 520 560
RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 11_9. R011 Plane Dynamics During S-II Burn
ll-14
f_
Table 11-3. Maximum Control Parameters During S_II Boost Flight
S-IC/S-II FIRST PHASE FIRST ARTIFICIAL S-If

PARAMETER SEPARATION IGM INITIATE TAU INITIATE CUTOFF
Pitch Plane
Attitude Error, deg 0.2 -2.0 0.3 -0.I

Rate, deg/s 0.2 1.1 -0.2 0.2
AverageGimbalAngle, deg 0.6 -0.9 -0.1 -0.I
Slosh Component of Average 0.06 0.04 0.03 -
Gimbal Angle, deg p-p
Yaw Plane
Attitude Error, deg _0.3 0.6 0.2 -0.4

Rate, deg/s 0.2 -0.2 0.I -0.I
AverageGimbalAngle, deg -0.5 0.4 0.I 0.0
Slosh Component of Average 0.02 0.02 0.02
Gimbal Angle, deg p_p
Roll Plane
Attitude Error, deg -0.9 -0.I -0.I -0.I

Rate, deg/s -0.9 0.I -0.I 0.0
Average Gimbal Angle, deg 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
These transient magnitudes are similar to those experienced at IGM ini-

tiation of flights AS-501 and AS-502.
A steady_state yaw attitude error of approximately 0.2 degree occurred

following S-II engine start. Consequently, flight control gain switching
points 3 and 4 produced transient yaw excursions. These transients were
approximately 0.2 deg/s maximum in yaw body rate and 0.2 deg/s maximum in
engine yaw deflection at switch point No. 3 and approximately 0.05 deg/s
yaw body rate and 0.05 degree engine yaw deflection at switch point No. 4.
The effects of initiating phase 2 IGM and associated tau mode were most
apparent in the pitch axis when a -0.2 deg/s pitch rate occurred. At S-II
stage engine cutoff the attitude errors were -0.4 degree in yaw and roll
and attitude rates were 0.2 deg/s in pitch, -0.I deg/s in yaw and 0.0
f_ _ deg/s in roll.
11-15
Simulated data are shown for comparison in Figures 11-7, 11-8 and 11_9.
Differences between this set and actual flight data are attributed
largely to uncertainties in J-2 engine thrust buildup or to engine and
thrust misalignments.
11.4.2 Liquid Propellant Dynamics and Their Effects on Flight Control
Estimates of liquid propellant dynamics were extracted from the capaci-

tance probe propellant level I0 samples per second measurements. The
slosh data show that the propellant slosh modes were excited primarily
at start of S-II boost and at initiation of IGM, as expected. The slosh
oscillations were stable and decayed throughout S-II boost. The LOX
slosh mode oscillations were more sustained than LH2 slosh. Slosh per-
turbations of significant magnitudes were not observed at Engine Mixture
Ratio (EMR) shift when steering commands were present.
A damping ratio of 0.02 is estimated for the LH2 slosh mode. Maximum
LH2 slosh amplitude at the probe was 4 centimeters (1.6 in.) and occurred
at approximately 170 seconds. The S-II stage slosh frequencies agreed
with those of previous flights. The LH2 slosh occurred near the calculated
uncoupled natural frequency.. The LOX slosh frequency varied between 0.5
and 1.0 hertz during most of the S-II boost period of flight. During the
time span (starting at 505 seconds) when low frequency oscillations
were excited in the vehicle, propellant oscillations were indicated be-
tween 0.5 to 0.8 hertz for LOX and 0.2 to 0.4 hertz for LH2 based on I0
samples per second data.
The presence of periodic sloshing modes in the engine deflections were

analyzed using bandpass filtering as shown in Figure ll-lO. The maximum
deflections were less than 0.06 and 0.02 degree peak-to-peak in pitch
and yaw, respectively.
ll.5 S-IVB CONTROLSYSTEMEVALUATION
The S-IVB TVC provided satisfactory pitch and yaw control during first
and second burns. The APS provided satisfactory roll control during first
and second burns.
During S-IVB first burn, control system transients were experienced at

S-II/S-IVB separation, guidance initiation,chi bar guidance mode initia-
tion, chi freeze, and J-2 engine cutoff. During second burn, control
system transients occurred at engine start and engine cutoff. These
transients were expected and were well within the capabilities of the
control system.
During third burn high amplitude yaw oscillations occurred during the .....
first lO0 seconds of burn. These oscillations were also evident in
11-16
\
i
.- j
0.4
Z
_7 IGMPHASE
I INITIATED
L_J --_ TRANSIENT
INTERVAL _7 GUIDANCE
SENSEDEMRSHIFT
.=J
u-
I-u 0.2
t
0.4
0
-" _ 02
...i
>--._
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure II-I0. S-II Engine Deflection Response to Propellant Slosh
the pitch and roll planes, but to a much smaller degree. After 145
seconds of third burn an unexpectedly large roll torque developed°
11.5.1 Control System Evaluation During First Burn
The S-IVB first burn attitude control system response to guidance com-
mands for pitch, yaw and roll is presented in Figures 11-II, 11-12 and
11-13, respectively. Maximum attitude errors and rates occurred at
ignition and guidance initiation° A summary of the first burn maximum
values of critical flight control parameters is presented in Table 1144.
The pitch and yaw effective thrust vector misalignments during first burn
were -0.3 and 0.48 degree, respectively.
As experienced on previous flights, a steady-state roll torque of 7.9 Nom

(5.8 Ibf-ft), counterclockwise looking forward, required roll APS firings
during first burn. This roll torque agrees with the roll torque of 8°5
N-m (6.3 Ibf-ft) experienced on AS-503.
The Propellant Utilization (PU) sensors indicated only LOX sloshing

occurred during first burn_ The propellant slosh amplitudes and fre-
quencies were comparable to those experienced on previous flights and
did not have an appreciable effect on the control system.
11.5.2 Control System Evaluation During Parking Orbit
The S-IVB/IU was controlled as expected during orbit. Significant events

during parking orbit were the spacecraft separation, TD&E maneuver, and
the maneuver to the local horizontal prior to second burn. The attitude
control response during the maneuver to TD&E attitude is shown in Figures
ll_14, llil5, and 11-16 for pitch, yaw and roll, respectively. Figures
11-17, 11-18, and 11-19 show the pitch, yaw and roll attitudes during
CSM/LM docking_ and Figures 11-20, II-21 and 11-22 show the same during
LM ejection from the S-IVBo The S_IVB/IU was successfully stabilized
for the docking with the LMo
Prior to second burn the inhibit was removed by ground command allowing
the vehicle to maneuver to the local horizontal. The control system
response for pitch, yaw and roll is presented in Figures II_23, II-24 and
11-25, respectively.
11.5.3 Control System Evaluation During SecondBurn
The S-IVB second burn attitude control system response to guidance

commands for pitch, yaw and roll is presented in Figures 11-26, 11-27
and 11-28, respectively. The effect of LOX propellant sloshing is very
pronounced on the pitch attitude, attitude error, angular rate, and _
II_18
_--, c_ -96
-98 _S-IVB ENGINE COM#_AND
START
(D _/BEGIN CHI BAR STEERING
"_c,
z -lO0
-102 t _-S-IVB
] ENGINE
CUTOFF
c_ -104
v- -106
_- -108 -
c_z_ -110 _ _ .... __ _

12_"lZl
3
=o2
(JO -1
_kLI
"3
e_
2
.-J_ 1
1.5
V-_ 0.5 % ^ [%
ol-- 0
_
0_- -0.5 ....
I--w .0
°> -1.5
ZlZ i--_ 525 540 555 570 585 600 615 630 645 660 675
<_u_ _zn
i--C_ RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure II-]I. Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB First Burn
11-19
3.0
= _s-IvBENGINE
z.5 START
[ r-Cd.MANDED'
ATTITUDE
_- _BEGIN CHI BARSTEERING
_._ ..... _'_ _
oo 2.0
I. 5 W-IV ENGINE CUTOFF_"y/
/ -_-.,_
c_ 0.5 / " / ATTITUDE_ N -_

F-
<_ -0.5
\"_-.,,,,y
/
>-_ -I.0
3
2
_- _ 0
o _-- _ '........... J'_,_ .........
LLI _2
_3 .......................................... .....
c_ 2
0 __ _"_ ........ ......

t_d
-2 "
z
0 " 1,5
)---4_
_c_ 1.0
oz
O-LU 0.5
F--
_o _ -1.5 .............................................................
>-_ 525 540 555 570 585 600 615 630 645 660 675
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure !I_12. Yaw Attitude Control During S-IVB First Burn
11-20
f--.
c_ 2.oo
== _7 S-IVB ENGINE START COIV_AND
_-_ 1.50 --_7-BEGIN CHI BAR STEERING--
o_o 1.00 _____S-lVB ENGINE CUTOFF
°
z
_23
0.50
0 J /4--...
-0.50
_-- -I.00
-J -I .50
o_ -2.00 .............................................................
3
0
_
k_A
2
m 1
F--
F.- -1
-J -2
..J (2n
12L
"l:J _3 .................................
OC
"-' 1
_ -2
t_
-H,-_ [iv
_'o Ip
m II I
_: IIIiI .......
lllp
525 540 555 570 585 600 6]5 630 645 660 675
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 11-13. Roll Attitude Control During S-IVB First Burn
/f .....
11-21
MANEUVERTO SEPARATION ATTITUDE
c_ 26
_ 23 "
0
_ 20
17 ............
14 "/" I
_- II \ _ /.--COMMAND
I_._.-ATTITUDE
(Xy)(By)
'\'/\
<
212 5 \\ .....!
F-- r_
_ Ill 2 ----
6
LLA
c_ 4
_
L--nO 2 S L-- _
_C) -2
1.00
-_ 0.50 ................
(D C_
< "o 0 --..._._ /

8 _ -o.5o
___< -] .oo .........................
Iiv
3,3
. Ill []
9
II 7
< lllp
9260 9300 9340 9380 9420 9460 9500 9540 9580 9620
9220
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
L-_ J l , , _ . ..t.. I I I _J
02:35:00 02:37:00 02:39:00
RANGE TIME, iIOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 11_14o Pitch Attitude Control During Maneuver to TD&E Attitude
11-22
_7 MANEUVER TO SEPARATION ATTITUDE
c_ ,v _
'14 #" --_ _ _ ..... _'="_ " --
.-
o 12 .&/
<_<_o68 # i/\ _-CO..lkND

(×z)
k._ ATTITUDE (Oz)
_ 4
_- //
>''_ 0
_2
0
6
_
c_
4
t_
2
_ 1.0
-_ 0.5
_- -0.5
_ -1.0
Iiv " ll_l

r7 tl
Ip llim
I03
63
Izl Im i II I II I I t
_- 111 6s
II mill I
o_ lllp sl
6O
IIIIv RmRIIIIM I H I
9220 9260 9300 9340 9380 9420 9460 9500 9540 9580 9620
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
02:35:00 02:37:00 02:39:00

Figure 11-15. YawAttitude Control During Maneuver to TD&EAttitude
11-23
4 _ MANEUVER
TO SEPARATIONATTITUDE
C)
_
o 3 .COMMAND
(Xx)
F- 0 --- _.....
< -1 ....................... _-_ ATTITUDE
J J (Ox)
o 6
_ 4 ..........
Iz)
o¢" 2 .........
F--
=2
0 ..........................
1.0
m
I--
< 0.5 .....
_ m
_ -0.5
-u -I .0 ..........................................
C) ......
58 33 9
_ma_K ImJn
llv los
CJ
63 6
__ III 66
IIIi
I m i
6O
IIIIv _l J_ll
9220 9260 9300 9340 9380 9420 9460 9500 9540 9580 9620
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
L.._ I I I I I 1 J a l l
02:35:00 02:37:00 02:39:00

Figure 11-16. Roll Attitude Control During Maneuver to TD&EAttitude
11-24
<
f-- _7 CSM/LM DOCKING
o
c_)
4.50
c_ 4.25 ........................
= 4.00 \
375 _-- COMMAND
i
(Xy)
_- 3.50 ,_,_. _ATTITUDE ( )
< 3.25
_- 3.00
2.75
2.50
3.00 ...........
2.00
r_
] .00 ..........
_- -2.00
-3.00 ....................................................
l .00
F--
< 0,50
.,j _ [" - _ __
_-o -0.50 ...........
_-_ IIV N560MS
m Ip 5
Ill ........ N360IIS II
L_ IIIii j ]00 MS n
flip 2B IJ _ J _3 L I 3
< IIID _____ 400 MS MS
140 ...................................................
]0900 70920 70940 70960 70980 77000 ]7020 If040 77060 77080
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
[ l
W7
_ l i l 1 J _________
I _ I
03:02:00 03:03:00 03:04:00
Figure 11-17. Pitch Attitude Control During Hard Dock
11-25
_ CSM/LM DOCKING
16o00
z
< 15.75 I I .....
o
c.)
15.50 ............... ATTITUDE
(Oz)
_
< 15.00 _
14.75.........
_- 14.50..........
_- v \_
< 14,25 CON4AND(Xz)
< o 14.00 [ 1
3.0(
(D
w 1.00
_ 0
-1.00
'< -2.00
< cu -3.00
1.00
_--. 0.50 ....................................
< < -1.00

>--DCC ----
iiv
= 5
_ Iii N360MS I
u_ llIl I t 100 MS [
_-
< lllp 2m It 81 I m3 |13
iiZiv 400 !49._.Ms.....................................................................................................
1o88o 10900 10920 10940 10960 logao 11000 11020 1104o 11o60
RANGETIME, SECONDS
03:02:00 03:03:00 03:04:00 11080

figure 11-t8. Yaw Attitude Control During Hard Dock
11-26
_CSM/LM DOCKING
z 2.50
_- 2.25
o _ @×
U
c_ FAT ITUDE ( ) .
m 1.50
_- 1.25
_-_- 1.00 _-_COMMAND
(X'x)
-J
_J_ 0.75
0
_-_ 0.50 ......................
3.0_
1.00 ......
C_
_-
I--
-I .00
._ -2.00
_J Co
o 0_ -q_ _nn
1.00
_._. 0.50
_J_ -0.50
-JF--
o ,< -1.00
C)
....................
Iiv 1560M_
z Ip 5 I
I II U 360MS I
_' IIIIl l 100MS 1
<'_ IIIp 12H d IH I l3 13
IIIIv____ ____400 140 MS .....................................

10880 10900 10940 10960 10980 11000 11020 11040 11060 11080
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
03:02:00 03:03:00 03:04:00
_-- Figure 11-19. Roll Attitude Control During Hard Dock
11-27
c_ _CSM/LM EJECTION FROMS-IVB
Z
4. 5O
o 4.25 LCOMMANDI
i _I
zo 4.00 ........ _x_,J.
Lu 3.75 I
3.50
_- 3.25'
<
=c 3.00 _ATTITUDE
(Or)
°
L _2.75
_'_
c=,
2.50
6
................................................................................ /
OC
c_
4
c_ 2
0
k--
-2
:z:
-4
_ -6 ...................................................................................................................................................
1o0
:::C
-J_ 0.5
z _ 0o0 _
_=& -0.5
o-_ -i.0 ..........................................................................................
IIV
_, Ip
Iii m I
EL. IIIii 11
co IIIp
< IIIi_ .............................................................................................................................
14875 14880 14885 14890 14895 14900 14905 14910 14915 14920 14925
S-if/ RANGETIME, SECONDS

L [ J
04:07:55 04:08:20 04:08:45
Figure II-20o Pitch Attitude Control During LM Ejection
11-28
_TcsM/LM EJECTION FROMS-IVB
....
z 15.75 I I
0
c_
Z
15.25 .,.
_
< 15.50
15.00 ATTITUDE
(e_)_
r23
_ 14.50
< 14.25
COMMANXz)
>-'CI .........
j 6.0
CD
4.0 ......
w 2.0
C3
)- -2.(
_ -4.C ......
_ t:n
_ -6.(
1.00
tn
<_-
_.J Cn
0.50
°_
Z 0.00_-- __ -_-_ -
_ -0.50
_< _ -I .o0 ..................................................
IIV
m Ip
u_ III II
III
IIt
14875 14880 14885 14890 14895 14900 14905 14910 14915 14920 14925
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
04:07:55 04:08:20 04:08:45

Figure II-21. Yaw Attitude Control During LM Ejection
11-29
_ CSM/LM EJECTION FROMS-IVB
z 2.50
2.25 _--_ ....................
2.00 (ex.
Z
c_ I .50
__ 1.25
< 1.00 COMMAND
(Xx)
J
J_
0 aJ
0.75
_'_ 0.50 ......................................................................
_" 3.00
0
=_ 2.00
LJ
1.00 __.._ _.___. ,....

0.00, ------
------
F-
_- -I .00
__ -2.O0 .......
J
o _ -3.00 ......................................................
=_ 1.00
_'--- 0.50 ..........
_ 0.00 _ _ __ -- -_
J..j _
l-_
-0.50
o4
=:=: -1.00 ....................................................................................
IIv
Iii lJ J
iiii I
o. III
III
14875 14880 14885 14890 14895 14900 14905 14910 14915 14920 14925
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
k _7 j j
04:07:55 04:08:20 04:08:45

Figure 11-22. Rol] Attitude Control During LM Ejection
11-30
F-,, _/ COMMAND
MANEUVERTO LOCAL HORIZONTALATTITUDE
10
-5 "-_--
o -20
_'_ " -35 ".'_>._ dr- --ATTITUDE (e)_)'
_*-4z
Y__ -50
< _ _---- COMMAND
(xy}
=co -65
_ -8o -. _ ..............
-95
-II0 .....
6
C:3 4
-6 ....
_ 1,0
N._. 0.5 ................
•_=
=: -,:, O- __ _-----'_ _--
_ -o. 5 -- - _ ...............
F-F-
_.._ -1.0 ......
, 173
am|ill I o o
IIV 80
z_ Ip II --|
24 olIHlilillaJ|HH I| | i I
W. [ii i i t_ ,.
'J- lllil O O ]_
58 3 ....
< IIIp I13 Bii|U li I

IIll_ il ila |o | il o ............
15,880 15,930 15,980 16,030 16,080 16,130 16,180 16,230 16,280 16,330 16,380
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
l ]_ I ............] J l ! I . ! I 1 ........ J
04:24:40 04:28:00 04:33:00
Figure 11-23. Pitch Attitude Control During Alignment of S-IVB to Local

f ..... Horizontal Prior to Second Burn
II-31
V COMMANDMANEUVERTO LOCAL HORIZONTAL ATTITUDE
15
11 ......
_-< 7 -zIATTITUDE (}'OZ"

I--_ I I
=cz 3 5 7 c°MMA"D
(×z)-
-.,_, . _._ _-- _ "_.
6
W .............
tZ_
_-.m 2
>'_ -4
_ _ 1.0
_ 0.5
_ (1)
_ -0.5
-I o0 ..............................................................................................................................................
173
WJJlm i u m
BO
fl__J li|nimliHliIH lii I i
z Ip 24
Ii I lil III
1111] _lJ n Ill
58 3
< I lip 173 _m Ill

II
IIIIv ....... ml llll
II i I :I
15_880 15,930 15,980 16,030 16_080 16_130 16_180 16,230 16_280 16_330 16_380
RANGE TIME_ SECONDS
04:24:40 04:28:00 04:33:00
Figure 11-24, Yaw Attitude Control During Alignment of S-IVB to Local

Horizontal Prior to Second Burn
1 1-32
_7 COMMAND
MANEUVER
TO LOCAL HORIZONTALATTITUDE
3.0
2o5 _
2.0
_-_<cz 1.0 --ATTITUDE (Ox)

...........
_ COMMAND
(×x)
-0.5_i.0
--- V i ........ 1
6
uJ 4
_-cn 2
czC
-J 0 -2
Om_
(3CLJ -4
--6 ..........
1.0
..#>0.5 .....
JLLI
-J I- -0.5
0,:_
17_1
MnH | _ A 0
IIV so
Ip Hi mNmMI
24
u_lIinJ_ulIimnH lm_ I
_i! HI
u_ iiiiI _il I {{
.58
_- lllp 17
3 _m I{1{
lilly__ _HJ}H { J |
15,880 15,930 15,980 16,030 )6,O80 16_130 16,]80 16,230 16,280 16,330 16_380
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
L-_ 1 n _... ] i a i I I [ I_
04:24:40 04:28:00 04:33:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES : SECONDS
Figure 11-25. Roll Attitude Control During Alignment of S-IVB to Local

r ..... Horizontal Prior to Second Burn
11-33
S-IVB 2ND ESC
S-IVB
2ND
ECO ....
d -150
.=C
-151 .............
-IbZ - .....
<z -152 __ --_ F COMMANDED

ATTITUDE
F- -156
=c
¢j -157 _ATTITUDE
' . _
3
w 2 .........
rJ( --2
-3 .................................................................................................................
'_ 2
:=<'°-
¢-.) L_ -10 - VNII_, --
1,5
o 1
_m 0.5
_ 0.0 ......... __
o_-
_.kd -0.5
_
I--t_
-100 ....................
< ""
I.,.-
_1.5 .............
=:_ 17,130 17,140 17,150 17,160 17,170 17;180 17,190 17,200 17,210 17,220 17,230
F-O_
_ _ RANGE
TIME_
SECONDS
I ! .. ...........
| .......................
[..... l I [ ._.
04:45:30 04:46:00 04:46:30 04:47:00
Figure 11-26. Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB Second Burn
11-34
S_:-LL
uJn_] puooas 8AI-S 8u£Jno I.Oa:l.uo3 apn':l._q.V MeA "L_-LL aanS.k3
$0N033S: S31NNIN:S_IFIOH"31411 39NV_I
O0:L_:lTO 0C:9_:_0 00:917:170 O_:St_:_O
19_
S(]N033S ' 3NIJ. 39NV_I _-<
O£_'L[ OZZ'LI. OL_'LL OO?_Zl. 06L'LL OBL'Lt OLL'LL 09L'LL OSI.'LI. O_I.'LI. O£:L'Li.I__
___0"0 mo
x_
S'O m'N3
:_o
O'L o_
rrl J,_
_ i0 :_:z
[ -_:_
m _
S-
A / "
rrl
_ L- 0
_
0
_ S- _:
3ONJ.IIIV_=_
/ -_
: N.I.IJ_I.V
G3ONVINN03
_ L- o
t _
Z _
033 GNZ _]AI-S A .....
J
3S3 GN_ 8AI-S ,_
S-IVB 2ND ESC
_7 S-IVB 2ND ECO
O.80 .....................
0.60
0.20
0.40 j\ F_ _ \
-0.20...... h _
-0.60 ......
o m -0.80
3
m
C2_ 2
_ ]
--I0 _1
-3 ............... "J
_ 2
_ m
-J_- ]
z-a
< 0 " "_ .... __ ..............................
_j_--J_ -1 1 ..............
IIv I 1 1
,_ Ip
z II _JI
InII I I P
__ III
P
IIIIv i(J)i |
]7,]80 ]7,]40 ]7,150 ]7,]60 ]7,]70 ]7,]80 ]7,190 ]7,200 17,2]0 ]7,220 17,230
RANGETIME, SECONDS
04:45:30 04:46:00 04:46:30 04:47:00
Figure 11-28. Roll Attitude Control During S-IVB Second Burn
11-36
Table II_4. Maximum Control Parameters During First Burn
IGNITION
PARAMETER ANDGUID. CHI CHI S-IVB
f.... INITIATION BAR FREEZE CUTOFF
PitchAttitude
Error,deg +2.1 +0.5 +0.3 +0.3
YawAttitude
Error,
deg -l.l -0.8 -0.6 -0.7
RollAttitude
Error,
deg +0.9 0 -0.5 -0.3
Pitch Rate, deg/s -1.2 +0.5 +0.3 0
Yaw Rate, deg/s +0.3 -0.2 0 0
Roll Rate, deg/s +O.l 0 0 0
Pitch Actuator Position, deg +I.I +0.8 +0.3 +0.3
YawActuator Position, deg -0.8 -0.8 -0.6 -0.5
Note: Attitude rates and actuator positions reflect measured values with
estimated biases removed; however, biases were not removed from
the data shown in Figures II-II, 11-12, and 11-13.
actuator position as seen in Figure 11-26. The LOX slosh was well
damped and was within the capabilities of the control system. The maxi-
mum attitude errors and rates occurred at S-IVB ignition. A summary of
the second burn maximum values of critical flight control parameters is
presented in Table II_5.
The pitch and yaw effective thrust vector misalignments during second
burn were -0.26 and 0°45 degree, respectively. The steady-state roll
torque was negligible during the short (62 sec) second burn.
II.5.4 Control System Evaluation During Intermediate Orbit
The attitude control of the S-IVB/IU was as expected during the inter-
mediate orbit. The vehicle correctly maneuvered to the local horizontal
following S-IVB second burn and maintained this attitude until the atti-
tude freeze for third burn.
11.5.5 Control System Evaluation During Third Burn
Evaluation of the AS-504 mission up to third burn ignition indicates nor-

mal control system operation. During third burn, however, abnormal con-
trol system performance was observed in three areas:
.... a. High amplitude oscillations occurred in the yaw plane during the
first I00 seconds of burn.
11-37
Table 11-5. Maximum Control Parameters During Second Burn
S-IVB
PARAMETER IGNITION CUTOFF
Pitch Attitude Error, deg :I.7 -1.6
Yaw
Attitude Error, deg -4.9 u4.5
Roll Attitude Error, deg +0.6 +0.8
Pitch Rate, deg/s- +1.8 +0.2
YaWRate, deg/s -1.6 +0.3
Roll Rate, deg/s +0.4 0

Pitch ActuatorPosition, deg +0.4 -0.I
YawActuatorPosition, deg -1.2 -0.9
Note: Attitude rates and actuator positions reflect measured values with
estimated biases removed; however, biases were not removed from the
data in Figures 11426, II_27 and II-28.
b. The pitch actuator was biased from the null position after the end
of third burn by 0.3 degree.
c. Roll control system firings indicate the presence of abnormally

high roll torques during the latter 150 seconds of burn.
The S-IVB third burn attitude control system response to guidance com_
mands for pitch, yaw, and roll is presented in Figures II_29, 11-30 and
II_31, respectively. The maximum control system values are tabulated
in Table 11-6.
The third burn control system oscillations occurred shortly after thrust
buildup and continued until the thrust chamber pressure decreased at
approximately 22,138 seconds. Although the oscillation occurred in
pitch, yaw, and roll, the oscillations were predominately in the yaw
plane. The oscillations of 0.6 to 0.7 hertz indicated a maximum atti-
tude excursion of 3 degrees peak-to-peak (p:p), maximum rate excursion
of 5 deg/s (p-p), and a maximum actuator oscillation of 2.6 degrees (p-p),
The average level of attitude error was erratic and in a direction which
is less negative than expected assuming nominal third burn center of gra-
vity offsets, and a thrust misalignment consistent with second burn.
After the chamber pressure decreased the attitude error stabilized at
the expected third burn value. The average actuator position was as
11-38
S-IVB 3RD IGNITION
sLIVB 3RDECO
_" -23.0
-23.5 ................
-24.0
-25.5 ............... _I "_-'#

_- -26.0 ........... _ _J
=:
c.)
-26.5 "'
_ -27.0
3
C_
:::3
i- _J
(-)0 ..............
< 2
m'-. 1 _ll
,,=:l_
"C_ 0 .........
-
C.J I._ I "'_ ' .... w- _ _ il,,lll
ir,li,-lll
I
i-i- -1 _i
_ -2 ..........
¢1i
0.75
_'_ 0.50 ....
c_ 0.25 I •
ooo
I---
_
LLI
-0.50 .........
'< '-' -0.75
:C (z'i
(._) _ 22,035 22_060 22,085 22,110 22,135 22,]60 22,185 22,210 22,235 22,260 22,285
i-C)
>-"_-
l:__v RANGE
TIMEi SECONDS
06:07:15 06:08:55 06:10:35
,I
_-. Figure 11-29. Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB Third Burn
11-39
0_- LL
uan@paFq2 8AI-S 6u_anG LOa_UO3apn_%V M_A "O_-LL aan6_3
SGNOD3S:S3LnNIN:SSnOH '3NIL 39NW
S_:OL:90 _S:80:90 SL:LO:90
SQNO33S'3Nl± 3DNV_
,-,,,4--I
..m{ O,
_ rnc)
xpo
t_--4
t- N_
>
rrl
......................... I 9-
0
L-
L
Z
033 OH{£8AI-S
S_7 S-IVB 3RD IGNITION
S-" _ S-IVB3RD ECO
0
-0.25
oJ -0.50
"K)
. -0.75
<o_-_"<F-z
_c_ -]o25-I'00
%___....__ .i_ _=_ ....... ._'_COMMANDED ATTITUDE
c_ -I .50
-1.75
ACTUALATTITUDE_" "_._ .._._-_r _'_
-2.00 ............................................ * t . .
1.50
w 1.00
_'x:_ 0.50
0
-J _
.J_
-0.50
o_
_ -I .00
-I .50 ,,
c_ 2
z'_
.il F--
...J LLI --I
o_ -2 ...................................
55 59
I I, Oilier _ MII|IHllll -IRIH | aOII

z Ip 52 .................
L_- 55 59
u'_ II KPHO| __'--" -- RH|OIIIIll-- ZRIIIO I I| II
< Illp 52
iiii V R|l|o I____ .....
22,035 22,060 22,085 22,110 22,135 22,160 22,185 22,210 22,235 22,260 22,285
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
_z, l _ , , , , gJ
06:07:15 06:08:55 06:10:35
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES: SECONDS
• INDICATES MORETIIAN MINIMUMPULSES
Figure 11-31. Roll Attitude Control During S-IVB Third Burn
11-41
Table 11-6. Maximum Control Parameters During S-IVB Third Burn
PARAMETER IGNITION S-IVB

CUTOFF
.... \
Pitch Attitude Error, deg -1.4 0

Yaw
Attitude Error, deg -4.2 -5.7
Roll Attitude Error, deg +0.5 -0.3
Pitch Rate, deg/s -1.4 +0.3

YawRate, deg/s -2.0 0
Roll Rate, deg/s +0.3 0
Pitch ActuatorPosition, deg +0.5 -0.2

YawActuatorPosition, deg -1.2 -I.0
Note: Attitude rates and actuator positions reflect measured values

with estimated biases removed; however, biases were not removed
from the data shown in Figures 11-29, 11-30 and 11-31.
expected during the entire burn and thus, is inconsistent with the
attitude error. The average value of actuator command current is also
inconsistent with the actuator position. During the oscillatory period
the actuator position was greater than commanded in the retract direc-
tion, resulting in a bias that represents an actuator gain increase.
The increased gain coupled with the large phase lag (40 to 50 degrees
at 0.6 hertz) between commanded and actual actuator position resulted
in the yaw response seen during third burn. Normal phase lag in both
directions is 25 degrees. Possible sources of phase lag are abnormal
actuator loads from engine side loads or abnormal actuator environment
(temperature or vibrations).
The pitch plane oscillations (maximum of 1.0 degree p-pin attitude

error) were at a much lower amplitude than the yaw oscillations. Be-
fore thrust chamber pressure decrease, the pitch phase lag was less
than the yaw lag and occurred in the opposite direction (the pitch lag
occurred in the extend direction whereas the yaw lag was in the retract).
It is currently felt that the pitch oscillations are the result of
coupling with the yaw dynamics.
Figures 11-32 and 11-33 show the calculated and measured pitch and yaw
actuator positions at the beginning of S-IVB third burn and at the end
of the peak yaw oscillations. The calculated engine position was ob-
tained by scaling the measured actuator current or command and passing
11-42
S"_ I_7 S-IVB3RD IGNITION
0.5
............ i
_ MEASURED
= o A I -, A_.,, A. _A_ ....

"'?°
.
="-
i'-o.1 V
V"v
g
a.
-1,0
1,O
EXTEND
" I
= i? ".'__ "M "
-2.0
22,040 22,050 22,060 21,070
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
6:07:20 6:07:30 6:07:40 6:07:50

RANGE TIME, HOURS :MINUTES: SECONDS
Figure II-32, Measured and Calculated Engine Positions at Start of

S-IVB Third Burn Prior to Oscillation Buildup
11-43
0.5 I I
S-IVB PERFORMANCE
)ROP
!
._ .......
MEASURED J RETRACT
----- CALCULATED
F-
-1.0 ...............................................
1.0
_ ,I ' !A ,_XT_.O
"2'°2,12o _2,13o 22,14o _2,1_0 ............

6o
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I ............l ...................... _. 1 ............. J -!

6:08:40 6:08:50 6:09:00 6:09:10 6:09:20
Figure 11=33. Measured and Calcu]ated Engine Positions at End of

S=IVB Third Burn Osci]lation Period
1144
it through a linear actuator model to obtain the proper phase and attenua-
tion characteristics. The measured attitude errors and rates were summed
in a linear model of the control system to verify that the control system
f was operating properly. These calculated commandsgave excellent agree-
ment with the observed commands (measured actuator currents).
Figure II-32 indicates that the pitch actuator position is following the
command as expected at the beginning of the burn, but that the yaw actua-
tor has a pronounced lag and behaves in a highly non-linear fashion.
Figure II_33 shows that during the peak oscillatory period, both actua-
tors are lagging the predicted position and indicate a slight gain over
the command. Following the thrust cutback at 22,138 seconds, the actua-
tors appear to behave in a linear fashion again and exhibit the proper
phase and gain relationships with the commands. Analysis of the accelero-
meter data from the IU (pitch, yaw, and longitudinal) verifies that the
actuator position measurements are valid and that the waveforms are not
due to a faultymeasurement. The apparent longitudinal oscillation seen
in the IU longitudinal accelerometer is due to the measurement being
offset from the center of gravity and sensing a component of angular
acceleration.
Flight data indicated that a bias in the magnetic amplifier resulted in

a small positive actuator position at the beginning of the burn which
was balanced by the negative thrust misalignment observed in first and
second burns. Figures 11-32 and II-33 show the bias removed to agree
with the attitude error signals telemetered in the LVDC guidance data.
The amplifier offset, however, is within the specification and is not
considered a deviation. It only becomes apparent due to the expanded
scales shown in the plots which show 3 percent of the full range of the
actuator movement.
After approximately 160 seconds of S-IVB burn the pitch attitude error
began to move in a positive direction. This drift in attitude error can
be attributed to an actuator bias of 0.3 degree which was present after
cutoff. After cutoff the actuator position slowly drifted toward zero.
The source of the pitch bias in unknown; however, the trend of the actua-
tor after cutoff is indicative of the presence of an abnormal environ-
ment during burn.
During the first I00 seconds of S-IVB third burn, the roll plane dynamics
oscillated at 0.6 hertz due to the pitch and yaw oscillations. Following
the thrust decrease, abnormally high roll torques were experienced.
Following the LH2 b!eed opening, the roll torque reached a maximum of
386 N-m (285 Ibf-ft}. A time history plot of the roll torque is shown
in Figure 11-34. The largest roll torque previously experienced was 54
f-_ N-m (40 Ibf-ft).
11-45
9_LL
ROLL TORQUE, Nom
.... i_0 C_) 0 C) 0 0
r_-4
r'n
o _'_
,,4 0 . 2
r_ rnm._
.
mm_
mmO
" _ -
ROLL TORQUE, Ibf-ft

LOX and LH2 slosh frequenciesand amplitudesat the probe during third
burn are presented in Figure II-35, The LOX slosh does not damp out as
in second burnbut .appearsto-_have coupled with and-driven the control
.......
system until the first thrust decrease, After the thrust decrease the
control system oscillationsdecreasedbut the LOX continuedto slosh at
0,6 hertz, The LOX slosh height was approximately twice the amplitude
seen on AS-503 and increasedwith burn time, LH2 sloshing during third
burn was driven by LOX sloshing,
11.6 INSTRUMENTUNIT CONTROL COMPONENTSEVALUATION
The overall performance of the control system was as expected, The prob-
lem associated with the telemetering of the real time guidance data had
no effect on the on-board guidance and control systems,
II_47
1.0 LOX SLOSHFREQUENCY _TS-IVB PERFORMANCE
DROP
N
=
m 0,5 1
LpREoICTEo
.....................................................................................................
I0 LOX
SLOSH
HEIGHT J 4
I I
v
2_c
........ 0
1.0
LH2 SLOSH FREQUENCY
r-q
z_
0.5 \ Z_'-_
°
CY
t_
e_
,, Z o RE
DCI TE
..............
8
20 L_2 SLOSH HEIGHT
2 12 _ _ ,-C
, 4 &
0 0
22,000 22,100 22_200 22,300
RANGETIME, SECONDS
.....u ..... m _ ....

l R
06:07:00 06:08:00 06:09:00 06:10:00 06:11:00
Figure 11-35. S-IVB Slosh Frequencies and Heights During Third Burn
11-48
f ..... SECTION
12
SEPARATION
12.1 SUMMARY
The AS-504 retro motor performance was satisfactory. The clearances

during first plane separation were adequate. The S-II ullage motors
performed as expected and maintained propellant seating.
During the S-IC/S-II first plane separation, the CommandModule (CM)

longitudinal accelerometer recorded an oscillating acceleration reach-
ing -0.8 go The Instrument Unit (IU) accelerometer showed oscillations
of the same frequency, 5.2 hertz, but of about half the amplitude. The
astronauts reported indications of a steady-state deceleration, but the
longitudinal measurements do not support this. The separation sub-
system performed nominally and did not contribute to these oscillations.
They were apparently a result of the dynamics of the Saturn V vehicle.
Second plane separation was satisfactory. There was no instrumented

coverage of the event for reducing the actual interstage motion.
The S-II retro motors and S-IVB ullage motors performed as expected,
providing for satisfactory S-II/S-IVB staging. There was no chamber
pressure data for these motors on this flight.
Command and Service Module (CSM) separation from the launch vehicle
occurred as predicted during parking orbit. Transposition, Docking,
and Ejection (TD&E) occurred with adequate attitude control of the
launch vehicle. The presence of the Lunar Module (LM) on this flight
did not create any difficulties,
12.2 S-lC/S-II SEPARATIONEVALUATION
12.2.1 S_IC Retro Motor Performance
AS:504 S-lC retro motor performance was satisfactory. Performance of

the retro motors located at Fin A, Position I and Fin C, Position IV
could not be analyzed since the chamber pressure measurements for these
motors were not recorded on the airborne tape recorder. However, tele-
metry data for these motors were sufficient to indicate that the motors
fired.
12-I
Telemetry data again indicated high chamber pressure values, which have
been determined from previous flights to be erroneous because of the
instrumentation used. AS_504 S:IC pressure data was adjusted to correct
for the instrumentation inaccuracy. This was accomplished by biasing
the pressure values using a characteristic velocity to match the total
integrated flowrates to known propellant weights. The average pressures
were slightly higher when compared to the nominal Thiokol model specifi-
cation of 1114 N/cm2 (1616 psia) for a 288°K (60°F) grain temperature.
With the exception of the apparently high chamber pressures, AS-504 S-IC
retro motors performed normally and provided a successful S-IC/S:II stage
separation.
12.2.2 S:II Ullage Motor Performance
The S=II ullage motors performed as predicted, within the required limits.
Chamber pressure data again indicated that motor web burn:through occurred
as predicted. Propellant seating was maintained as required.
12.2.3 S-IC/S-II Stage Separation
The AS-504 Apollo 9 astronauts reported that a rough S_IC/S-II stage

separation was experienced in that they were thrown forward out of their
seats and had to reach for the instrument panel or grasp their armrest
for support. Electricalcables were also observed rising from the floor
of the spacecraft indicating steady-state "negative g".
All data that has been reviewed for the AS-504 flight indicate that the
SNIC/S-II separation sequence was nominal, and that all separation tran-
sients measured were comparable to previous flights and within the levels
predicted in earlier analyses. Predicted and reconstructed dynamic
pressures at separation were 0.0348 N/cm2 (7.3 Ibf/ft 2) and 0.053 N/cm2
(II.I Ibf/ft2), respectively. Table 12_I presents the significant separa-
tion event times for the AS-504 flight and shows good correlation with
the predicted event times and those event times measured on the AS_503
flight.
All available longitudinal accelerometer measurements for the AS_504

flight gave no indication of any steady-state "negative g" condition
during S-IC/S_II separation. Figure 12_I shows that during separation
the CMwas experiencing approximately 5.2 hertz longitudinal oscilla-
tion about a mean slightly above the zero g level. This accelerometer
data shows a maximum peak amplitude of -0.8 g at 163.6 seconds with
damping of the oscillations beginning at approximately that time. It
should be noted that the CM negative acceleration peak occurred at a
later time than the peak LM response measured, indicating that the
\
12-2
Table 1241, S-IC/S-II SeparationEvent Comparison
AS_503 Versus AS_504
TIME OF OCCURRENCE TIMEFROM OECO PRED

PARAMETER SOURCE AND RANGE
TIME_
SEC SEC SEC
,f-" SAMPLE PERIOD
AS-503 AS-504 AS-503 AS-504 AS-504
SolC Stop SolenoidSignal KXXX 0.008 sec 153.793 162.776 0 0 0

(oEco)
S-IC EngineThrust Decay DXXX 0.008 to O.OlO sec 153.927 162.902 0.134 0.126 0.110
ReachesgO iPercent
S_IIUllage Motor Thrust DXXX 0.010 sec 154.345 163.332 0.552 0.556 0.630
BuildupBegins (Average)
S-IC SeparationCommandl KOOl- 0.008 sec 154.472 '163.451 0.679 0,675 0.7
If5
S-IC SeparationEBW Fire Calc (Tel ± 0.002 sec) 154.476 163.455 0.683 0.679 0.721
Signal
S-IC Retro Motor EBW Fire Calc (Tol.± 0.002 sec) 154.480 163.45g 0.687 0.683 0.725
Signal
S-IC EetroMotor Thrust Buildup DXXX 0.008 to 0.010 sec 154.495 '163.468 0.702 0.692 0.735
Begins (Average)
maximum LM response was not related to the CM negative longitudinal

accelerationtransient. Also shown in Figure 12-I are the CM pitch
andyaw measurements which indicate some coupling effect with the
longitudinalaccelerationand contributeto the total response to the
cutoff transient.
The IU low range longitudinal responses measured on the AS-503 and ASu
504 flights are presented in Figure 12-2. These curves show low ampli-
tude oscillations about a mean above the zero g level and also indicate
that no steady-state"negativeg" conditionexisted during separation.
Comparisonof the AS-5O4 IU accelerationcurve with the CM responses in
Figure 12-1 shows a gain factor of about 2 over the IU responses.
Figure 12-3 shows that the measured dynamic responsesfor AS-503 and AS-
504 correlateclosely with the dynamic responses simulated. These post=
flight calculated dynamic loads were computed using the predicted mass
characteristicsof each vehicle and measured flight parametersrecorded
during f!ight,.Figure 12-¢ presents similar data for the AS,501 and AS-
502 fiii_hts_ AS'5Ol CM'a_elerometer Curve_'shO_amplitudesof about
the same magnitude as measured on the AS-504 flight.
The average F-I Engine thrust decay curves for AS-501 through ASu504 are
presented in Figure 12-5. Also individualengine thrust decay curves are
presented for the lasti20 percent of the thrust for the AS=503 and AS_504
vehicles. The steeper slope of AS_504 thrust decayapparently
achieved a steady-state acceleration closer to the zero g limit at an
f_\ earlier time than on AS-503. This may allow greater "negativeg" to be
experienced before damping. During the last portion of the decay, both
curves are within the _ 3 sigma limits predicted for each flight.
12=3
_OECO %_7S-II ULLAGE MOTOR
_S-IC ENG. THRUST THRUST BUILDUPBEGINS
DECAYAT go PERCENT _ S-IC/S-II SEPARATIONCOMMAND
_MAXIMUMLM _ S-IC RETRO MOTORTHRUST
RESPONSE BUILDUP BEGINS
LONGITUDINAL
C)
m I
°2- . I .... ±- _ I
2
YAW
0
H
-J
2 PITCH
-2 _' Jv W w
163 164
RANGE
TIME,
SECONDS
Figure ]2-I. AS-504 Command Module Acce]erati0ns
12-4
0.75
AS-504
_7 S-If ULLAGE MOTOR

0.50 r_ ACCELEROMETER
THRUST BUILDUPBEGINS
s-.... _ S-IC/S-IISEPARATIONCOMMAND Aj
S_ICRETRO
MOTOR
_0.25 i _ TH.DST
BUILDOP
_EGI,SA/
A3-603 IULOWRANGELONGITUDINAL
_
//,
_o '/ AF r
tt,
V
Jtl
-0.25 .........
-0.50
0.75 A3-603IULOWRANGELONGITUDINAL
ACCELEROMETER
"_ AS-503
RANGE TIMES ADJUSTED TO
0.50 V_ ........... AS-504 TIMES #
'_ o.25
._o
AI A IAAA/
VVV_VV,,.
l/_
-0.25
_-- DUETORF
INVALID DATA I
-0.50 _ BLACKOUT
163 164 165 166 ]67
f..... RANGE
TIME,
SECONDS
Figure ]2-2° Instrument Unit Longitudinal Accelerometer
12-5
5.0 AS-_ _ S-ICEHG 90
I_CAYAT THmJST
PERCI"°liT ? S-lC/S-II
COI_AND SEPARATIDN
v
S-II LLLAGE
MOTOR _ S-IC RETROROTORTHRUST
THRUSTBUILDUPBEGINS v BUILDUPBEGINS
4.0 : :
I I I
,_ ..... _ASUREBACCELERATIOfl
_
3.0 _ ..... _ D_NARICSIMULATION
- X ....r_
o
..J
2.0 Xl /,'!\,,
1.o ...... _, f-;K / _'
o X',,i l ' ,
152._
]6_.9 ,63.0163._163.2163.3163.4163.5163.6
1,3.7
_,G_TIME.
S_CO,
OS
5.0
.... AS-503
4.0 _ __. --_ _ _ _

,%
3.0 ..... .\
o_ 2.0 /
,,, .._..,, ,,\ ',
153.7 '153.8 ]53.9 ]54.0 _54.1 154,2 ]54.3 154.4 154.5 ]54.6 .
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 12-3. Longitudinal Acceleration at Command Module During

S-IC Thrust Cutoff (AS.503 & AS_SO4)
12-6
5,0
• C
-I .(
148.4 148.5 148.6 148.7 148.8 148.9 149.0 149.1 149.2 149.3
RANGE TIME ' SECONDS
AJSOl I
I I 1 I lJ
I I I I I
4.( _""_ vF___I NOTE: FLIGHT DATA SCALED FROM

-AS-501
,,p' \ _ SMALL,AMPLITUDE
, , OSCILLOGRAPH
, , ,
,.o 'j_i
= I\ .... - ......
z
_\,-,,
2.0 I_"
o
..........
"; '_!/i _,L.,', 4 .. _,
" _ i ii k.." ,! _
,,,,_-,
_I
Ii s ,,
V
-]
.( - _
150_6 ; 150.8 . 151,0 151;2. 151,4 ...... I51,6 151;8 152.0 152.2 152.4
RANGETIME , SECONDS
Figure 12-4. Longitudinal Acceleration at CommandModule During

S-IC/S-II Separation (AS-502 & AS-501)
12-7
3 i
3 AS-504 -0.6 -- - ENGINE#I AS-503 *0.6
I \ N ...... ENGINE#2 I _,
/ --'--ENGINE #3 _\
............... ENGINE#4 \
z2 _ -
+3 SIGMA _ _ I 1 0.4
- _ _ +3 SIGMA
--/-- \" ._, _ _ ....
LIMITS _ _ - LIMITS \\ "_ --
0 ).0 0 " 0.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
TIMEFROMOECO,
SECONDS TIMEFROM
OECO,
SECONDS
8 _ r.....
_7 S-II ULLAGEMOTOR _7 RETROBuILDUPNOTO_BEGINsTHRUST

=1,6
THRUSTBUILDUPBEGINS
:--'_®_ _ S_7S-DECAyIC
ENGAT
90THRUSTpERCENT
_ SEPARATIONCOMMAND
6 _ -I ,4
z _2
UC}
4 o
(/3
"1.2
k_
N
-0.6
. _,F so,
i
2 F603 1502 .0.,
= O. 2
o...................
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
o
TIME FROMOECD, SECONDS
162.8 163.0 163.2 163.4 163.6

RANGE
TIME,SECONDS
Figure 12-5. Average S=IC OECOThrust Decay, AS=501 Through AS-504
12-8
Figure 12-6 presents a comparison of the AS-503 and AS-504 S-IC intertank
longitudinal acceleration measurements which show the separation dynamics
to be approximately the same for both vehicles and show no indication of
retro fire before S-lC/S-II separation° If the retro motor thrust build-
f ..... up did start before separation, the slope of the acceleration curve would
be less, and if separation had not occurred by I00 percent retro thrust,
then the vehicle would only attain approximately -0.4 g.
It appears that these separation transients are a dynamic characteristic

of the Saturn V vehicle. Consequently, similar separation dynamics can
be anticipated on future Saturn V flights.
12.3 S-II SECONDPLANE SEPARATION EVALUATION
S:II second plane separation was apparently nominal, as indicated by the

lack of disturbance to the S-II during separation. The simulation cal-
culation indicated a minimum clearance of 1.0 meter (39 in.), between
the interstage and engine No. 2.
12.4 S-II/S-IVB SEPARATIONEVALUATION
12.4.1 S-II Retro Motor Performance
The four retro motors mounted on the S-II stage performed satisfactorily
and separated the S-II stage from the S-IVB stage. No instrumentation
existed to measure the chamber pressure of the retro motors.
12.4.2 S-IVB Ullage Motor Performance
The ullage motors performed satisfactorily during S_II/S-IVB staging,

maintaining propellant seating, They were then properly jettisoned_ on
command. No instrumentation existed to measure the chamber pressure of
the ullage motors.
12.4.3 S-II/S-IVB Separation Dynamics
The analysis of separation dynamics was done by comparing the data from
the AS-504 flight to that of AS-503 and AS_501. Since the data compared
very closely, detailed reconstruction was not performed to determine pre-
cisely the lateral clearance used and the separation completion time.
From the comparative analysis performed it can be estimated that a de-
tailed reconstruction would yield a separation completion time of approxi-
mately 1.0 second and a lateral clearance utilization of less than 12.7
centimeters (5 in.). The S-II stage showed a low tailoff thrust level
and a light stage weight. The S-IVB angular rates were all small with
pitch and yaw rates less than ± 0.2 deg/s. The S-II angular rates reached
1.5 and 2.2 deg/s in pitch and yaw, respectively, by the end of separation.
12-9
12.5 S_IVB/IU/LM/CSM SEPARATIONEVALUATION
The separation of the CSM from the launch vehicle was as expected. The
Spacecraft LM Adapter (SLA) panels separated satisfactorily from the
launch vehicle. There were no large control disturbances due to the .....
separation. The available CSM data were not of a high enough sample
rate to provide useful analysis°
12.6 LUNAR MODULEEJECTION EVALUATION
The LM was satisfactorily ejected from the launch vehicle after the
docking maneuver was completed. There were no significant control dis-
turbances during the ejection. The available CSM data were not of
high enough sample rate to provide useful analysis.
4 ..... AS-504
'_ " C..-ACCELERATION

CURVESHOULDAPPROACH
#-O.4g AT A LOWER RATE IF RETRO
__ FIREOCCURREDBEFORE SEPARATION.
__
o _ RETRO
MOTOR
__ ,,
AS-503
_' / THRUSTBUILDU_
"_ _ _0.7
SEC_ l _ 0.4
Figure 12=6. AS-504 and AS-503 S-IC Intertank -

Longitudinal Acceleration
12-10
SECTION 13
ELECTRICAL NETWORKS
13.1 SUMMARY
The launch vehicle electrical networks are comprised of independently

battery-powered electrical systems for the four stages with inter-
connecting cabling to satisfy stage-to-stage electrical interface re_
quirements. Each stage electrical system distributes power to continuous
users such as instrumentation and communications, and responds to commands
initiated either by the stage or the Instrument Unit (IU) through the
stage switch selector.
In general, all AS-504 launch vehicle electrical systems performed satis-

factorily. The only deviation noted during the flight was the apparent
failure of the S:IVB forward battery heater.
13.2 S-IC STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The S-IC stage electrical power is obtained from two 28-vdc batteries and
is distributed to stage components through the power distribution system.
Battery No. l (IDlO) furnishes operational power and battery No. 2 (ID20)
instrumentation power. Batteries No. 3, 4 and 5, which furnished power
to the optical instrumentation system on AS-502 and AS-503 were deleted
on AS-504 along with the optical system.
The electrical system performance during S:IC powered flight was excellent.
Both battery voltages remained well within the design limits of 26.5 to
32 vdc and currents stayed below 39 percent of the 64 ampere limit for
battery No. l and below 60 percent of the 125 ampere limit for battery
No. 2, as shown in Figures 13-1 and 1372, respectively. (See Section 2
for Event Times reference.)
Batteries No. 1 and No. 2 power consumptions were only slightly less than
expected, as shown in Table 13-1. The batteries were not instrumented to
measure temperatures.
Seven 5-vdc power supplies provide closely regulated voltages for stage
instrumentation. These power supplies stayed within the required limits
of 5 +0.05 vdc during flight. No power supply voltage drops were experi-
enced as on AS_502 flight. Recirculation inverter operation was nominal.
There were 18 switch selector functions programmed for the S-IC stage.
All switch selector channels functioned correctly as commanded by the IU.
13-1
ACCEPTABLELIMITS
PREDICTED MAXIMUM ...... : : : : : : : : :: : : : ::: : : :::::::::::: :::::: ::::::::::::::::::I::::::::::::::::::I::::: ::::::::: :_ : ::::: ::: : :::::::: ::: : : : :
-ao >:+:.;,;,:+:_,:+:.:.:,:.:,:._:.:.:_',_.=c{_:_:,:::::
:::::
k:::::i:: :_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
30-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ' .....
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DATA ============================================== i_i[ i
30 -
CECO ________
OECO I
, ! I
i
I
20 ......
PREDICTED
_ 10 -----
AS-504 FLIGHT i /
DATA "
-BO o so
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 13-1. S-IC S_age Battery No. 1 Voltage and Current, Bus lD]O
The separation and retro motor Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) were armed and
triggered, as programmed. Charging times and voltages were within the
requirements of 1.5 second for the maximum allowable charging time and
4.2 _0.4 volts for the minimum allowable voltage leve] at the voltage
monitor measurements°
13-2
ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
|_:_:_'._.':_;_.:_:._.:._i_.:','_:._i_._i_:_i_ _i_:÷ -:::'._.'::
._:: _:_:_ ::_-:._: _:_:_ _ -- .J
_iiii::i::iiii{::iii ::::::::::::::::::::::!i::::i::::::iii 1 504 FLIGHT DATA' ;iiiiii_i::" _:::::: : :: i :: :::::::: ::::::i :: i:::: :: :::::::::: :::::::: ::::¢i::::
_ii_!!!;iiii!i?:!i;::_::;::ii
::!i;iiii::;!;i!::!l::!i;i;i;i;iiiiii::{;i;ii::ii;i;::!::i!;
::;::;i;i_!!ii_;i;!!;;i!i_;li;;;!i!_;;;;iliii;;;i!i!_
i !ii!i!;;!:;ii;;;i;_.;:!:!_!:i:;:i:i:!li:!!;;::;:i:i:i:i_:!iiii:
__ _
PREDICTED MINIMUM J
25 .............
150 _7 CECO ..................

OECO
PREDICTED
504 FLIGHT DATA _}
o
-I
O0 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
RANGETIE, SECONDS
Figure 13-2. S-IC Stage Battery No. 2 Voltage and Current, Bus ID20
Table 13-I. S-IC Stage Battery Power Consumption
POWER PERCENT
OF
BUS CAPACITY CONSUMPTION CAPACITY
BATTERY DESIGNATION AMP-MIN AMP-MIN
MAX EXPECTED ACTUAL
Operational
No.I IDlO 640 32.7 28.9 4.5
Instrumentation
No.2 ID2O 1250 321.0 294.4 23.5
NOTE: Battery capacities are based on iO minute discharge ;ime,
13-3
13.3 S-II STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The S_II stage electrical system utilizes four 28-vdc batteries, the
output of wh!ch_is distributedto_st'age_components through, the power
distribution system. Two of these batteries are connected in series to
furnish 56 vdc to :thefive LH2 recirculation pump inverters.
The electrical portion of the S-If separation system instal.led on the

AS-504 vehicle differed from AS-503 in that the all engine cutoff relay
circuitry, which is controlled by switchselector channel 18,was
powered by beth the main and instrumentation dc power buses, in contrast
to AS-503 which was powered only by the main dc power bus. This dual
bus capability would have permitted the AS-504 flight to switch to an
alternate flight sequence time for Time Base 4, alternate (T4a) for early
S-II/S-IVB staging, if the need arose due to the loss of the main battery.
The S-II electrical system performed satisfactorily during all phases of

the AS-504 flight. Battery bus voltages remained well within specified
limits throughout the flight, as shown in Figures 13-3 through 13-6.
(See Section 2, Table 2_2 and Table 2-3 for Event Times reference.)
Main bus current averaged 35 amperes during S-IC boost, and varied from
50 to 52.5 amperes during S-II boost. Instrumentation bus current varied
from 54 to 57 amperes during S-IC and S_II boost. Recirculation bus
current averaged 92 amperes during S-IC boost. Ignition bus current
averaged 27.5 amperes during the S-II ignition sequence.
Battery power consumption in ampere-hours and as a percent of rated

capacity, and battery temperatures, are shown in Table 13:2. Power
consumptions and temperatures' were very close to those seen on AS-503.
Five 5-vdc power supplies furnish closely regulated voltages for stage
instrumentation. These power supplies provided proper measuring voltage
to the telemetry and other instrumentation.
There was no evidence of intermittent operation of any of the temperature

bridge power supplies, such as that experienced on AS-503_flighto
The five LH2 recirculation inverters which furnish power to the recircula-
tion pumps operated properly during the J_2 engine chilldown period.
Performance of the EBW circuitry for the separation system was satis:
factory. Firing units charge and discharge responses were within pre-
dicted time andvoltage limits.
13.4 S_IVB STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The S-IVB stage electrical system contains three 28-vdc batteries and one
56-vdc battery which supply the Stage systems and components through the ....
power distribution system.
13-4
X_7 S-IC/S-II SEPARATION
COMMAND
x_7 S-II ENGINE IGNITION
.... _ 's=ii
ECO
UPPER LIMIT32 VDC _ ACCEPTABLELIMITS
_ B
:_ 24 I l; : I I I I
; : i
60
_
I_ 5 __ ,,Fw ' )
° 40 ............
j
_
...........
= TU
_ 30
20
'50 0 160 165 175 325 475 530_ 540
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 13.3, S-II Stage Main DC Bus Voltage and current \
UPPERLIMIT 32 VDC _ ACCEPTABLE

LIMITS
o _i_i_i_i_i_i_ill
::o:°::..,:.:.:.:,:.:
- iii!ii)ii))i)ii))i)i)iiiii;
26
i!iii ili ::::::::::_:::::
.:,:.:.:K.:':.:
................
7O
60
_ 50
f-. 40 -50 70 75 170 175 460 500 _540

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 13-4. S-II Stage Instrumentation Bus Voltage and Current
13-5
32 UP]SER
LIMIT 3]' VDC
o ii i i ij i i Ui i i i i i il i ili li li i I!ii i i i i
0
24
,IOO O IO0 200 300
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
S- I I ESC :::::::::::::::::
ACCEPTABLELIMITS
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
5O
0 ......
E 30
20 ....................
lO
O ....................
160 164 168 172 176
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 13-5. S-It Stage Ignition DC Bus Voltage and Current
The electrical system performed satisfactorily throughout all phases of

flight and responded normally to IU commands° Battery voltages and
currents stayed well within acceptable limits during boost and restart as
shown in Figures 13-7 through 13-lOo Battery temperatures remained below
the 322°K (120°F) limit for the powered portion of the flight (does not
apply after insertion into orbit). The highest temperature of 317°K
(II2°F) was reached on aft battery No. 2 during passivation after auxiliary
hydraulic pump turn off as shown in Figure 13-I0.
13_6
S-If LH2 RECIRC° •......
•-.%,..,
PUMPS OFF '"'""-'".'-',
>:<<<.>:,>>: ACCEPTABLELIMITS
6;
_"" 6( --- UPPER_

...................
LIMITL 60 VDC /
il i i fi i i iii !i i i iTi!Fi i i iTi f_ _ _ i i i ili !i

d 56 iiiiii2iiiiiiii!ii
iiliiiiiiiii)i!i
liiiliiiiiii
iiiiii!!ii
iiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiii
i i i!i i i ii i i li ii i ili i i i li i iliili ! :!i !!!ii i i i i i
52 ::i!::ii::iiiii::iii!
_i::iii]Cow_R
CiM]T 5i ?'DCiiiiiii}iiiili::iiii::)i::i}_i::iiigi::iiiiSiiiliiiiiiii::i::iiiiii
50 I 1 I
II0
E
z
90 ................................
70
_
o -I00 0 I00 200 300
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 13-6. S-II Stage Recirculation DC Voltage and Current
Table 13-2. S-II Stage Bat%ery Power Consumption

*POWER CONSUMPTION
BUS CAPACITY AMP-HR* PERCENTOF TEMPERATURE
BATTERY DESIGNATION
(AMP-HR) (sec) CAPACITY MAX_ M!N -
Main 2Dll 35 7.51 21.4 308.2°K 302.6°K

(95°F) (85°F)
Instrumentation 2D21 35 II.9 34°0 309.8°K 302.6°K

(98°F) (85°F)
Recirculation
No. I 2D51 30 5.44 18.1 304.3°K 301.2°K
(88°F) (82.5°F)
Recirculation
No. 2 2D5l 30 5.48 18.3 305.4°K 302.6°K
s-- and (9O°F) (85°F)
2D61
*Power consumption calculated from -50 seconds.
13-7
ACTUAL
EXPECTED VALUE DURING
PERIODS OF NO DATA
............................. EXPECTED NOMINAL
32 !ii_;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiriiiiiiii
_ ACCEPTABLE LIMITS .....
26 ii!ii!!i!ii!i:;:;:;ii::iF:!::i!i
o
> 24-
22 ...........................
2s
20- - @dl ®'fl
I
O_ ...............................
!ili!_!i_iii_!_i_i
!i!!i!:.!ill_ili:i!i}i_]iHi:iH
_i::::_:.]::
|::: ::::::::: ............... i]:i:;:i:i:i:;:i:_:i:i:i:i:i:i
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
295_;_ _:::"_._i"s;-i;_ ,-
-' 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 F-
0 0:50:00 1:40:00 2:30:00

RANGE TIME, HOURS: MINUTES : SECONDS
TRANSFER
TO INTERNAL _ FWDBATT 2 HTROFF
_D BATT2
FWDBATT 1 HTRON
UNIT ] IITR ON FI_DBATT1
FWDBATT 1 UNIT
UNIT 2
2 HTROFF
HTR ON
FWDBATT 1 UNIT 1HTR OFF
Figure 13-7. S-IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 1 Voltage, Current and Temperature
(Sheet 1 of 3)
13-8
6-CI.
(_ J.o _ _.aaqs)
aan:_aadwal pu_ :_uaa,_n3'aS_:_LOA i. "ON A'aa_:_eBpaeMao3 alSe%S8A1-S "L-Z[ aanS.L=l
SQNOD3S:S32NNIN:SBDOH
'3NIl 39NV_I
O0:O0:S 00:0[:_ O0:OZ:_ O0:O_:Z
I J I I
SON033S 000[ *3Nll 39NV_I
61 81. L[ 9/ _1. _1. _1, Zl. It 01. 6
oot i_i_::i::_i_i:.:::.::_::_]i_::_::_::i::_i_iii_i!
:: Ii:_:_;_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_i_i_::_:::i_ i_:.!:.:::.::i::i!iiii
_ _"° _ii _!_::!::!::_!i_i_i:::_::_::_::_i_::_:._:._:._:._:._:._:._i_
: 1=:::::::7:::::::::::7:::::::::7i :::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::: _
iiii:ii:i:!:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.':::_ :.:::::::;:::::::: :::.5":.':::
:: ::::::::: :::::::;; §[_ _-
==o_ _-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..,.!.....
....
_!_.i_:::':::_:::i
_.:::_iI::::::i::i_::::_i_:_::i::iI!i!_::_::_::i: ==
_ O_t" _
6
7_ ........... • , --=.i ° _ ol
0
7VNINON 03133dX3
VlVOON30 SO0i_3d 37313Z l_Nn t ZZV80M3 (_) ....
DNIWNO3flqVA03133dX3 37313 [ 1INN [ llV_ OM_ 0
7V_i3V - 37313_IH Z ilV@ OMJ 0
ACTUAL
Q FWDBATT 1 UNIT 2 HEATERCYCLE PERIODS OF NO DATA
Q FWDBATT 2 HEATERCYCLE EXPECTED
NOMINAL
i!i_!ii!i i _i!i _i_i i i}!_ii_::i _iACCEPTABLE

i i_i i LIMITS
30
"_ 32
28
o 26 ............
2_
24 ...................
22......................................
25
_2
Z
10
C4_
kU
325 i -120
_z
o 315 ili!!ii!ii#iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
I:._.._.:._.:.:.:L,:.:._.:,:.:.
,.--...-.-..............,..................
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:;:;:;:;:;:;_:;::::::::_::::::::::::::::::::<::::::::::::::::
iiiiiiiiiiii!iiiii
!!iii!ii!i_
!!:.:.:.:._
_ .....
_: 295 ................................................... _
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
RANGE TIME_ I000 SECONDS
5:50:00 6:40:00 7:30:00

Figure 13-7. S=IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 1 Voltage, Current and Temperature
(Sheet 3 of 3)
13-10
ACTUAL
{_ TRANSFER
TO INTERNAL
O PUMIXTURERATIO5.5 ON PERIODS OFNODATA
O PU PROGRAMMED
MIXTURE RATIO OFF EXPECTED NOMINAL
ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
32
30 i!i : : : : : : : : :. :. :. :. :. :. :. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. . . .i .i . . i iii i i i ]i i
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::_i:2-iiiii!i!::iiiili_ii::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: _::_ _]_!i_ ,;:i:_i:_:i:_ _i:_:_
_
_!il] iii::iiii;iiiiiii_
_;;_:;:i:_:;:_:;:_:;:_:_]:_::_i;:_::i_.,:::i_;_
;:_:_:_:i:;:;:_:_:_:;:_;;_;_;_;_;_;_ _;:_i__::_::_::;:_
...........................................................................
_;;_;_;_;_;;_;;_ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
_:;:;:_:;:_:_:_:;:_:_:_:_:;:
_- ............................
i_i:iiii_iiii!i!!_ii!;!ii:
i :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::iiiiil)i!;i!i;iiiiiii)}iiii)
0
26 :::.):.i:.:::.i:.i:.::i::i::iiiii!::ili::i
::i2ii::::::i::-iiii::i::iii
ili_i_i!i_i!i!;L!ili;ii;si
::::::::::::::;::::::::::::
:i_i!iiii_!ii:i_!iiiii_ii)i
",','.'.' ".'.">::<: :+ :.>>:::<,:.>:.:->,;
?iii::i::i::[ii::iii::iii::iiiii::i
i!;_!_;i!ili;;ili;!_:._:.!:.i
> i#i ]i; ]i i i :!i:;i!;i:! i:i;:i :i :i :i :i;:i i i i i ili i ;i_:i :i_:i!i !];!i i i i :!i :i i!i i]i i i i !i i i;i i : i: t;i i i !i!i i i ! !i ;i;i i : il i i i !i!i!i;:i:_:!:!:!: _: i:_=i:!:i:i:i ;_!i;_i i i i i i i i !ili;!;i ?:?:T"ii i!i!i i i i i i i i i ; I i i i il;i i i i i i]#!
24 ........................
22 ............................
lO
8 ............
6_
Z
L_
,_ 4
2
I"f
325
° 315
i i•i i i #i i i i'i i....................................................................................
._::!
...........................
..............
............. _i_;_;_i_i_i_i_:_ _i_i__``_.`````````_ _:::::_ :.:.:.:.::.::.:.:.::.:: ............................
;_;_ _;_;_;;_ ;_;_ ..........................................................
_!!_!#_!ii!i!iii!#
;:_:_:;:;_;_:;:;:_:;::' ,;,:,:,:,_:,:,:_:,:_:_:;:_:
-_o
............................
_'_"_"_""
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
,:,;.:,;-:.>:.:,>:,:.:,:.:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
...-..,............w.....-
,:.>:.:.:.:.:.:.:+:.:.:.:,:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:,:.: .:.:,:.:+:+:+:.:.:+:,:
..............
i !i!i i i i !i i!i i! i_i !i l;i i l;!i!i i i!i.._i_;_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_;!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_!_i_;_;_!_!_!;_!_!_;!_!_;!_!_i_ii_C_i]_]_!_i_]_];)_i_!_i];ii
.).. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. . . . . .#).ili.#!.#i.!i!.i i.!]i.!i:.;:;. . . . . . . . .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. . . . . . . ._:.: :.! . ... .. ... .. ... ............................
............. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
............................. _',';'_,;_'_'_,_;,,_' _:_;_:_:_:_:_:_:,:,:_:_:_:
_ ,too
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
305 .................. ............... ..............

)##)###)i
.............. "_.................:_:::"::_::_:__i_;i_i_i;i_i;i..............
;);il)!i_i_)Ci_i_i !C!_] i i )i i )i !i i i]!)i! i i i_)!i i )i)C)_i;i_)_ii!i i i)i !i!iC)_i!i_i!)i !i_i l
_i;i_i :...........................
i)_i!i i_i_i )!i!)_ii _i_i_i _)_)!i )_ii _i i i )_ii i _i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;: _ !:!:!:!:!:!:!:_:!:!:_:!:_:_:_:
_ "'
:_:_:_:_:;:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_ i!_)_!)_::i
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
RANGE TIME, I000 SECONDS
0 0:50:00 1:40:00 2:30:00

Figure 13-8_ S-lVB Stage Forward Battery No° 2 Voltage, Current and
Temperature (Sheet 1 of 3)
13-II
ACTUAL
_9PU INVERTERANDDCPOWER
ON EXPECTED
VALUEDURING
®PUMIXTURERATIO4.5 ON PERIODS
OFNO DATA
Q PU PROGRAMMED
MIXTURERATIOOFF EXPECTEDNOMINAL
iii!iiiii!iiiiiiii!iiiili!ilil ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
3_
30 liiiiiiiiliiiil ili I! iliill lii_i_iili i
-J
(_ 26
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
24
22 ......................................................................................................................................................................................
10
_
Z
6 .....
2
32"5 ..... ...........................................
'J °_ 5 :!:!:i:!:!:i:!:!:!:_:!:!_!i!:!_!:!:_i!_:!_!!_!_!_!!!!!_!_!!!!!!_!_!!_!!i!!!_!i!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_!!!!!i!.i!!!!!!!!7!_!.!.!i!!!!!_!!i._!!!_!_!.!.!.!!!!!i::.!.!_!.!.!_.!:!
o- 80 o.
t_J L_J
9 I0 II 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19

t _ _ I ............
2:30:00 3:20:00 4:10:00 5:00:00
Figure 13-8. S-IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 2 Voltage, Current and
_3-12
-- ACTUAL
"f @ PU MIXTURE RATIO 4.5 ON EXPECTED VALUE DURING
@ PU PROGRAMMEDMIXTURE RATIO OFF PERIODS OF NO DATA
PU"INVERTER
AND DC POWEROFF EXPECTED NOMINAL
........ i:i:i:!:!:i:i:i:!:!:!:
ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
•".',',°.'.'+','+'.'." j
32 ...... ,:..................................................................................
I
_'""'"'"'" "'"'"'"'"""'l
"'"""'"'"'""""""'"'"'""' ""<'"" ' "'" ":':"
...... i...... •......... • ......... i......... _ ••
30
o l iiiiiiliiiiiiiii i
°_ _iii!iiii__ili iiliiii i!i!
J 26 li_ii_i!
iili!!iil
ii_iii!ilijiiii
° ""'iii:i:i2:i:!:i:i:i:i:i:i:ii:i:i:i:i:i::°:i:
:_:i:_:_:_:i:_,_:i_:i:_:i:i:i:.:.:i,i[:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i_i
24
22 ..............
10
_ 6 ........... _
r_* 4 _-_] .... _ __ !
O_z 325 ..............;..........._......,..

_._._._._...._.._.._._.._.._._._..._._._!_,_._ .........
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.,.':_.'."
- 120 o u-
_; 315 :_iiillii!#lii#i#i#l#i! # ii::iil::iii::iiiii::ii
iiii::fiill_::_i_i::_iiii!_i::_ii!_::_::;!_!_!i::_#_!_!i_!::!::_i_::i!i_!_::_::_:_::_::_::::::::::i:i:i::#i
_-
_" :_?_,_:_?_:,,_?_:_:_:_:_:_;_
_::z:::_!_
_:_i_i_::_
_::_i_::_::_::_::_i_::_
_::_::_::_::_:_i::!::i
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
i:::::::::::::::::"
::::::::::!:::!::::
_oo
!:!::::::::::.:.:.:
".:.:+:.:.'.'°'."• '.' '.'.:.:...... """°'"'"'"'"'] "l'"''"'"'"'"""""'"
I '"'"'"'"" ....... "..... 1--
305 _:::_::::::::::
:_ "_;i::;? '!;:::;_;';_:;_;_:::
':':':':<':':':':"
5_;:':':':":':
:.>:.:.'.;:<<.:.:
:<,>;.:_:.',
',.:.::,:,:,:.:.:.'.!'..:.;
:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:,:,::?:._.:.:,:,?>: • .._,.,.>:,:,:.:.>.'., •..,,;.;<,:,
t,t,J 295 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

F- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 F-
5:50:00 6:40:00 7:30:00

Figure 13-8. S-IVB Stage Forward Battery No. 2 Voltage, Current and
13-13
ACTUAL .... EXPECTED
NOMINAL
EXPECTED VALUEDURING ACCEPTABLE
LIMITS
PERIODS OF NO DATA
3C
::::: ! i? __!'_N :ii:i: i!_:_:
i I:. Ii i;!ii i!ii'
I i
i_:.: !(i:i!:!:!:!:i:_:_:_:N: :i: :!:!:i!:!:!:_ _!:!i:_ i::i!!:_i:_ :i:i:i:!:i:!:i:!:!_
,
-J
0 26
24
22 .............................................
5O
., 4O
12L
E
ro
3O I
,._ 20 ...............
J I B
,___ [i_ r r- -_
0 _ - _ _" -- - _'-"-_ , _'_ "-'-'-_
335' 140
o o
_= 305
i_i!'.:,i
........ '_._,_:;.;"_=::_:'_:'.....................
_!_i:_;_ ::::+::_':"+
':i':ii',_,iiii:::ii_iiiii_.',::ii:ii
:._iiii; ,:,::.ii::::::,:,_',ii',i::_,i
-100 =.
_ _ _ _!:2:__;_i_; _;:_:_:!_:_:i:!_:_: _:i_::_:i _:_;_
_:_; "__::::::
.............................
_i_!i!_ o,-,
_- 295 ::..,.:..,;,:.:,_LLL::
',, ;-_,s:;;;::..;---:
_;_;:_a _:,i::,:,i::i_):.;:::.:.i:.i:.
::::::::::#:::::::-9:::::::::::
:i::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::
::_iii;::;i;i!i_];i;:._i_i:
.............................
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.............
-I000 0 lO00 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
00:00:0 0:50:00 1:4_:00 2:30:00

C) TRANSFERTO INTERNAL; AFT 1 UNIT 2 @ ULLAGEENGINE OFF

HEATERCYCLE (_ AFT BATT 1 UNIT ] HTR CYCLE
@ ENGINE START; ULLAGEENGINES ON @ AFT BATT 1 UNIT 2 HTR CYCLE
@ ENGINE CUTOFF
Figure 13-9o S-IVB Stage Aft Battery No. 1 Voltage, Current and
13-14
ACTUAL ..... EXPECTED
NOMINAL
EXPECTED VALUE DURING :i_i_i::i::::::i::iiiii_i_iii::i::::::::::i::::ili:i::
I ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
PERIODS OF NO DATA
..... " ;::;_:.:::!_;_::_:_;,;_::7

30 ::!::::iii i;i::_::_::_i_::_::_::_::_i_,
i:.i::____j2_; iiii "ij
_;iiiilJi::i;ill iiii?J77!TiiTi'iiiT
..........................
!i!;!!7__;_i
>
24
22 .......
50
_- 40
3O
o c-"____-_-_ ' __
325 , ...... ...... "
. _._;_;_i_7_7_i_i_i_i_#_ii_i_i_ii_?_ii_;_7_7_i_i_7_i_ii..._
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
UNIf:2l::i::i ::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
120 .
_-" i!iiii:_ii_iTi;iI! I i I ,,oo

_-:
295
9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
2:30:00 3:20:00 4:10:00 5:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS: MINUTES: SECONDS
(_) AFT BATT I UNIT l HTRON 0 ULLAGEENGINESON

(_ AFT BATT 1 UNIT 1 HTR OFF (_) ENGINE CUTOFFAND ULLAGE
(_) AFT BATT1 UNIT 2 HTRON ENGINESOFF
(_) ENGINE START
(_) AFT BATT 1 UNIT 2 HTR OFF
...... (_ AFT BATT2 UNIT 2 HTRON (_ AFT BATT 2 UNIT I HTRCYCLE
(_) AFT B/TFT2 UNIT 2 HTR OFF (_) APS (TYPICAL)
Figure 13-9. S-IVB Stage Aft Battery No. 1 Voltage, Current and
13-15
ACTUAL EXPECTED
NOMINAL
EXPECTED VALUE DURING iiiiiiii::i::iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiilililiiiiii
ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
PERIODS OF NO DATA
i i i i i i;i i i i i i i i!i i!i ili i i i i i i;i i i i i i:i i i i i i i i i i!i!.i.i. !.i. . . . . . . . . . .

:!:!, ## : : : : i:#: :i: !i=:
u _:;i_::_!!ii !i ==!ii)::ii :;i_::::::: :...............;:::
¢/)
0
" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.:,:,:.:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:-5:
!_iii_ili_iii!ii?!!!iiiiiii!
i!_!_!i!!!!ii?iiii!iiiii!_!_ i!ii!i!ilili
i?ii!i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iii i;i! _,;_,'_,',;_,_
',
24
22
40 \
o_o Q _o _,_.'_
N 20 ....
335 .................
[.....................
" =_-140 ,,
o
. 325 " 1
m ;_i_{_ UNIT 1 _i!i_i_::_ i::iiii_iiii::::ii::
iiiiiiii_:_iii_ii_::!i!i_i_iJNIT
2 '::!i_::iiiiiiii!i::!::ii::::i##ii##:#:il!::_i;i;::i::iii#::iiiiiii::i"
20
315 ::::i::
:::i:ii{iiiiiii::i::!::!::i::ii!::!::!!i::iiiili!i::i::i::_
_-!!::ili ::iiiii::i::iii::i::i::ii::iiii_::ii|':iii::ii_i!_N:_:_:_:_:?s_:;:_:_:{
::i::!!i!::!i_!'i::iiii::iiii_
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
t-
ii!!!_jiiiii!Ji_iil)i
Jill_ii!i i i i))i'::ii)i [iiii!#)#i#i)ilili
ii iliiiiii}ilil)i_i),
i#i#)iii_i#}il)i)iiiil-loo
_ ili
# 3osii_ili)_i!:.iiiii)iiii::i!i
ii::::::i::i;!i #i::#:i::::!_::/:!_
iiiiill
C,,::,::,i;!!i',_ i! iiii:;:_:_)il)!i!i!!
-8o_ taa
295 919-20 ::i::::_-i#

21................
22 23 ....24 25 iiii!iiiii::i::iii::iiii::i::iii
26 27 8
5:5'0:00 6:40:00 7:30:00

(_)AFT BATT 1 UNIT 1 ON @ ENGINESTART @APS CYCLING

(_) AFT BATT 1 UNIT 1 OFF (T) S-IVB ULLAGEENGINES (J_)MAINSTAGE& HE CONTROL
OFF SOLENOIDVLVCLOSE
AFT BATT 1 UNIT 2 ON
z_'_ (___AFT BATT l UNIT 2 @ ENGINESTARTON
kZ) AFT BATT 1 UNIT 2 OFF HTROFF ,_
ULLAGE ENGINES I & 2 O'
(_) S-IVB ULLAGE ENGINES (g_.)ENGINE CUTOFF
ON
Figure 13-9. S-lVB Stage Aft Battery No. 1 Voltage, Current and
13-16
13-17
ACTUAL
.... EXPECTED VALUE DURING
PERIODS OF NO DATA
_-_ EXPECTED NOMINAL
::iiii;iiiiiiiiiilililililili
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
62 ,,-- DO NOT APPLY _.

• ,,,, :::::::::::::::::::::: .,,.,-,,,,,
............ ,,,. :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,, ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..........................
,,,,;.:,:.:,,,.,w_,,, :_
.......................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::
o 60 i:._i?i!i}i!i:_i!i:.i_i;!i
!_!i:.i:i:ili!i:.i!!:.:.::._:.i
_ _:::._:: _.:::}:::Z _!-_:-!_!N _iSi--iiiiiiii-:i:iii iiJ_-;i;i;-;-;i;_'__:.................. =====================
_:_ iii,!:ii:iZ:iii:i:i:Zi iI!:IIII!_ZZZI!!Z:!:! ii!i_}:iiilZZiiiiiili ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :i:i:i:::::i:!:i:i:_:_:Z:_ ilili_ii!ii!iiii!_ii!_!iiii! :::::':':':::::_:':' " !ii!!!!ii_iii!ii_ii_i!!!i!!!
!i!!:i!!_!:::Zi!:iliiiiiii_iiili_iiiili}i,:ii!i ii!:!}!i!:ii!i:i:::i,ii!:il:::::::::!i!!ii!::!::!i!::::!:::
:iiiiZ:i:ii_!!iZiii!i!iiii!
:I:Z:Z:_:I:i:I:I:_:I:_:_: ::::::,:::,:,:::,:::.:_::::: !ili!i_ili_!_i3i_iiiiiiiii_i
,,., ,,,,. ,,.,,....,, .,.
F--
.............. :::::::::::::::::::::::: • ,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,, , ..,,.,,.,.,,..,,,.,.,,::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .>;,:.>:,;,:.:,:+>:
,:+:+:+;+:.:+:,:.:
oJ> == _!............................
_:_!_!_:_:_:_i_: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.: .: : : .:_: . . . . :::. .
:....................... _:'::::::::::::::::
....................................................
: ====ii: i::::::::::::::::::::::::::
_!i _!=.! : !i_i _!il :i!_i: :i!i:!i:i:!i::!!i: :i!:i?:i :i!:: : : : : : .i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.==========================
i i. _. i.i._.!i.!.i .i i. i.!._i. i.l :........................
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :_!i_: :_i_:i!i:!_:_i :i!_=!i_:_i_:i:i__:i:_:i:_:;=;i_:__::=ii:i:_i?:i;:=_i
:_:!:!i=:=i_::i:=ii:!::.i:=il
li)i_i_!ii i_!ii :_ili:i_il
,,,.,,,,,.,.,,,. ,,,,,.,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,.., ,, ,,,,,,,..,., ,,,, .,.,,,. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,.,, ,,,.,, ,,,.,,, , ,.,,., ,.,,.,,.,, .,..,,...,,,.,..,,,,..,;,:,;+:,:,;,:,>:,:,>:.:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::: <,:<+:.:,>:,,,+:: :,:,:-:,;,:::,:,'l :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::=========================== ............... .:,:,:-:,:,:.:,:-:,:,:,,,-.,,,,..,.,,,,,-,.,,.,,.,
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
,,.,,,,,,.,,,,.,,.,,. ,,,,,, ,,.,, ,, ,,,,,,. ,,,., .,,..,.,,, ,.,, ,,,., ,.,.,,,, ,,, .,.,.,, , ,,,,.,,,,,,,,,.,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,., ,,,.=,: ,,,,,.,,,,,..,.,,,. ;,:,:,;,:.:.:,:,:.:,:,:,:.:.
.,,,,,.,,.,...,,,,,, :::::::::::::::::::::::: :+>:.,+:.:+:,: ========================= ,;,>;,:,:,::,:,;,:.;,:,;.;
;.;+>:,:.:,>:.;,:.:,:: :.>:4.:+>>:+>:,>> :,:-:,:,:-:,:,:-:,:,:-:,:_:,_",.',','.','..-,,.' ..............
54 _:i_;i_i;:;i:ili:i_i:1!:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:.:.:.::.::...::-:
...........
..."..............
-...."-............-....-..'. ..".'"."...._ :::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :,::,::,:;,:,:,:.: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,:,:,:.:,:,:,:,:,:,:,>
,:.:,:,:+>:+:.>:,:,:,:
100
" 80
_ 20 I
.........................................................
o 325 .................................................................................................................................... -120 o

" 31_ :!!ii!il !ii i:i!ii!i! i!i!!::i!fi!i:!ii [i i:!ii_i_i:i!:_i _!:.i
!!i!!i_!i!il!!i!_!i!l__:i!ii_:!i!_!i:!ii _!ii_N!li_! _u_!_.! i:i!i i i i!ili i!ii i il i!i li _i i :!!:ili !i:i i i i i i!i i!i!_ii _"
m i!i.:.........._._.............................................._....,....._............
li!i!i!i!!ili_!ii!i!i !!ii i!i i!i i _ili_i i !i i i!_ii i i_i i i_!ii i!i !_ililiZi _ii::_ii _i!ili!i!i i i i il i!Zii:!ii i !i _ilili!!ii
_ii _ilili_i i !i!i i i i!i! iii:!
iii!!i!i!i
iisi; ::-I00 F--m
.............................. _i_i:_::::i:_i:_i::::_:_:!:_:_:::_i_/;:::i:;:::i:_:_:_:_:_:i:_::.:,..;
! ,_ii i i i_i !i _i i il i !i!i " i !i!i!ic,:.:,:,:+ ;;,. ,,_._ii i i
........................................ _. .,_ ._._ ........
305 _!_:i_i ============================= ........
__ !::i::ii====i:=i== _i==;_i:=!iii::
::i:=
;:: - 8o _
m 295 _::!i _2i_ _i_!_! _ii_?_; _ili:::.::ii::::::::ii::::!::::i:.i!::ii::::::!i::!::i_i_i_i:._:
9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
2:30:00 3:20:00 4:]0:00 5:00:00

_) AUXILIARY HYDRAULICPUMPCYCLE @:LOX CHILLDOWNPUMPOFF

0 AUXILIARY HYDRAULICPUMPON @ENGINE SHARINGGIMBAL MODE
@ LH2 CttILLDONNPUMPOFF @AUXILIARY HYDRAULICPUMPOFF ......
Figure 13-10. S_IVB Stage Aft Battery No. 2 Voltage, Current and
13_18
ACTUAL
PERIODS OF NO DATA
s _ EXPECTED
NOMINAL
:_i:_;i_i_:_:_:_:::ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
64
62 fNO DONOT
LOADAPPLY
CONDITION,LIMITS
.... :_
U :':':':+:':':':':
:_::_::_:::_: +:':'>:" _:'" ': ................ 1.............. ' ........ _ .............
_ii_i i i i!i!i!i!_i!i_! iEi
p- " 58__._:.:.:.:.?:.:.:.
_:_::.:.:::_:::,:. )' iii)iiiii)!iiii))ii)ii),
_;i _;_s_ _i_::_::_i_::_::_:;::_;_i_:;
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!!:!!!i
...................................................... i:i:.i:.iiiiiii:-ii!i!i!i!i!i_i
-.....-.....:,:,:,:: ;i:i:i:?:!:::i:i:_:_:i:_:i:i
==========================
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
J
> 56 i_:2_iiii;iii_!iii: _:z:i:s:s:s:s:z:;:_:i:_:!:_::,,
!iliiii::iiiiiiiiiii_ .............. .... !:i:: •.......... i i!)ii i)',i ,)i)',!ii'.........................................................
,i i )i','ji)
ii--:i:-:_:_:_:!:i:i:!:!;! :.:.:.:.:.:.-.:...-.....,. #::::::::::::###:::::::
!'}T:.'i:.i:.ii_J:J:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _i_i_i _;_;_!_! ::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : i : ): il): i : i !i:J: ): )i !: i: i : i i !i i i:!: i i i i i: i: i: i i!i: i: i: ili: i: i : _i_i_;_i_!_!_i_i_i_i_il
.,......... ,. :..,.. i:.............................
i#:i: i: i i: i ! i i: !ili!i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : .-,i:;i :#:_i_.............
;: i_;_i_i!_i i l)_)_: _i_)_!_i_i_i_:_ =========================
..............
54 ................
_<:::_::: _:::::::::: ....... ,.. ,....,.., _ _.:::::-: ,_:i:i:!_: ............. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............................
:::::::::::::::::::::::: _........................................
>>:,:+:.:.>:.:.:<<.:< _;;_.............................
,.,,.....:.:....... •
:+:.:.:.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . i.i_. i. i l)i i_)_i_i !)i i,._. . . . . . . . . . . . ).,i ),!i_,),_,!)il)i :)i.),.i). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,._.,:.,:.,:.,:.,:,:_:_:,: ,.:,.:,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:.:.:.:.:<.:<.>: _=!:i:i_i:i:i:i_i:i:i:i:_:
======================== i::i...............
:#:ii i ::ii :!i!::!::i#:i::ii ..............:i:i:i:!:!:i:i:i:i:!: _i:_:_ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
............................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::
lOO
_1 80 .......
60 r
_: 40 ...........
0
_z 325 u_
° _ ................... 120 o
315 .......................................................
,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.>:.>: ='::
:.:.:<.::.>>>:.:.:.:.>: :i:i:i:i:!:i:!:i:i:!:!_
:.:+;>::<.>:.:.:.:.:. _ _i:.i:.i:.!:.!ii:.i:.;:4!:iii . .
=====================
............... =========================== _
u.J _:_!_:_; _:::_ _:_:_:i:i:_:i:i:!:i: i_!iiilF!ii_iiiii!iii_i !i!i!ii_ii_!i_i!!i!i!_!:!i!!_!!!!!i!i:.ii!:::::::i::i::_ihlii_i!:!ii:!!i!!!i !iFiiii _i_i!_ii:i_!_!_!_!_!_! ::::::;:::::::_ t.,J
!.........................................
:#_i_: i !: !)!: i i: i: !i!i!i [i: !?i i i i)i _i;i_: i _:;i i:_:_=i:i:_:i:_:i:i:i:_:i:i, i:_i:!i!i_:;ii_:;::i!i:i_{::ii i i!;_::_:i
i i ! ::_ii :::::::::::::::::::::::::::
: : : : : : : : : : : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
i :i,i:i:!: i:!:i:i:!:!_! :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : i ::ilili i i !ili::i;:#ii :i:::i:i: _::i: : : !::i: : : i:_:.i: i: i: i !;:ii:i,::i_:!: _ 80
L_J
F- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 _-
5:50:00 6:40:00 7:30:00

0 AUXILIARY HYDRAULICPUMPON Q ENGINESHARINGGIMBALLOAD

@LH2 AND LOX CHILLDOt_I_PUMPSCYCLE (_ AUXILIARY HYDRAULICPUMPOFF
Figure 13-I0. S-IVB Stage Aft Battery No. 2 Voltage, Current and
13-19
Due to an apparent failure in the battery heater circuit_ forward battery
No. I, unit l, temperature dropped below 294°K (70°F) at 22,800 seconds
(06:20:00). At this temperature the battery heater should have cycled
on_ but did not. By 29,000 seconds (08:03:20) battery temperature had
dropped to 291°K (63°F) as shown in Figure 13-7, but the battery suffered
no degradation in performance as verified by data through 47,400 seconds
(13:10:00).
S-IVB stage battery power consumptions, in ampere-hours and as a percent

of rated capacity, are given in Table 13-3. Battery parameters, except
for the low temperature on forward battery No. l, unit I, were within
specifications" through 47,400 seconds (13:10:00).
Three 5-volt excitation modules provide closely regulated measuring volt-

age to instrumentation measurement transducers and signal conditioners.
All three excitation modules stayed within required limits of 5 _0.030 vdc.
However, the aft 5-volt excitation module (M0025-404) voltage read at the
lower limit of 4.97 as on AS-503 (on AS-503 it read out-of-limits due to
the narrower limits of 5 ±0.025 volts). These limits were extended to
5 ±0.030 on AS:504, The condition was caused by the use of different
grounds for the module and the multiplexer (M0069-404) reference voltage.
The calibration curve used in data reduction for the affected module will
be shifted approximately 20 millivolts for future flights to take care of
the problem. Seven 20-vdc excitation modules provide signal conditioning
power for event measurements (eleven such modules were used on AS-503).
These modules performed satisfactorily.
Table 13-3. S-IVB Stage Battery Power Consumption
POWER
CONSUMPTION
NOMINAL
CAPACITY EXPECTED2 ACTUAL
3 PERCENT
OF
BATTERY (AMP-HRS)I (AMP-HRS) (AMP-HRS) CAPACITY
FwdNo.I 228 ]05.6 85.47 38
Fwd
No.2 25 17.0 12.89 52
Aft No.1 228 63.0

_ 43.99 19
Aft No.2 67 67.9 59.84 89
IAmp-hour ratings are specification values.
2predicted nominal amp-hour usage based on a 7.5

hour flight.
3Actual usage for 8 hours based on available

flight data.
Predicted maximum amp-hour usage based on a 7.5
hour flight.
13-20
The LOX and LH2 chilldowninverters performedsatisfactorilyand met
their load requirements.
The switch selector functioned correctly and executed all IU commands

f .... through the sequencer at the proper times.
The Propellant Utilization (PU) system performed in a satisfactory manner

throughout the flight. ECP 3008 was implemented for AS-504 and subsequent
vehicles to minimize PU voltage and frequencypositive level shifts which
occurred on AS-503 during the PU hardover mode of operation. Positive
level shifts of less than 0.08 percent were noted on AS-504.
All EBW firing units responded as predicted. The ullage motor ignition
EBW firing units were charged at 494 seconds and fired at 537 seconds.
The ullage motor jettison EBW firing units were charged at 546 seconds
and fired at 549 seconds.
13.5 INSTRUMENT UNIT ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The IU electrical system utilizes three 28-vdc batteries and a bus net-
work to distribute power to the various IU components. AS-504 differed
from AS-503 electrically, as follows:
a. Four measuring racks were used on AS-504 (ten on AS-503).
b. Three batteries were used on AS-504 (four on AS-503).
c. One measuring distributor was used on AS-504 (two on AS-503).
d. Flight Control Computer (FCC) power input was removed from the
6D41 bus.
e. Command and Communications System (CCS) power input was switched
from 6Dll bus to 6D41 bus.
f. A spare connector on the control distributor was used for the
vehicle Overall Test (OAT) switch selector monitoring.
g. One Apollo interface cable was removed.
h. IU network cables were reduced in number from 182 to 126.
Design minimum IU life is 24,480 seconds (06:48:00) and battery perform-

ance during this period was nominal as shown in Figures 13-11 through
13-13. Actual battery life exceeded this time considerably. Battery
6D30 output was dropping off with the battery still providing power after
45,720 seconds (12:42:00). The CCS was still operating after 47,880
seconds (13:18:00)using battery 6D40 power. Battery voltages,currents
and temperatures remained within predictions until power began to fall
off due to battery depletion. Battery 6D40 registered the highest
temperature of approximately 328°K (130°F) at 45,720 seconds (12:42:00)
s-_ at which point current output had dropped off to 23 amperes from a nominal
output of over 30 amperes.
Battery power consumption in ampere-hours and as a percent of rated

capacity remainedwell within design limits, as shown in Table 13-4.
13-27
6011 BUS VOLTAGE
31"
30'
B9'
p_ 28'
26_
25
6010 BATTERY CURRENT

45-
35-
P_ 25-
BBID BATTERY TEMPERATURE

330 -]BO
-- -120
320
=100
-90
300
...... ._- 80
290 -60
-50
280
0 O.5 1 2 4 B 8 10 I2 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
RANGE TIME, lO00 SECONDS
OPERATINGLIMIT
.....PREDICTED 0 | _ | P | _ _ _ | _ _ _
-- ACTUAL hO0:O0 2:00:00 3:00:DD 4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00 9:DO:DO lO:O0:O0 lhO0:O0 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00
R_GE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure t3M1. IU Battery6010 Voltage, Current and Temperature

6D31
BUS GE I
::: :::: :::; ::: :::: :.>:.',:::..:: ::::l ;;:: :::::::: :::: ::::.::: ::;; :%.:::: :::: ::::::;:::;::::::::::
:::::;::: :::: :::::::: :::: :::: :;:t::::: :::_ ;:; ;;:: :;:: ::: ::::::::::::;
:;:;:::
:::: ;:;; ::: :::: ::: ::;:
_ _;:;:_;_::_:::_:;_:_::,:_::_:;:;iiliiiiiiil!iiiiiii__
ii!i_i_i_I_i_i_iiii_iiiiIiii_iiiiiiiiiIiii_i!ii_iiiiIiiiiiiii_iiiiiii_
l!iiliIIll!l If iliiiili!lili liiiliii If iiii[ II 1 iiiii!i!i!iiiiiii
6{)30 BATTERY CURRENT
°B_ i t
= ._..:
.r---_-
_ 25
45
20 il iI _ 1
6D30 BATTERY TEMPERATURE
BBo
!; I_ I
I
l
_so
120
320 _ i 1
: I i I
" II ._oo-
I i 1 '90
28';.
0 0.5 1 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
OPERATING
LIMIT RANGE
TIME,lOB0
SECONDS
......
PREDICTED _ I I I I I I | I _ _ _ _
1:00:00 2:00:00 3:00:00 4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00 9:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:0013:00:00 14:00;00
-- ACTUAL RANGE
TIME,
HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 13-12. IU Battery 6D30 Voltage, Current and Temperature

6D41 BUS VOLTAGE
3],
30-
29"
__ 28-
g
27°
26-
25"
6D40 BATTERYCURRENT
__ 40 .
35
w :,
._ 25
20 i '1
I[ II
290"
280• ---_jBATTERY
330"6D401 I [ =_
TEMPERATURE _ --T--T--F-T__ 60
TM50
0-5 2 4 6 8 lO _2 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
RANGE TIME, lO00 SECONDS
OPERATINGLIMIT
....... PREDICTED _ P I I I I _ I f _ _ I _ I
--ACTUAL l:O0:O0 2:00:00 3:00:00 4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00 9:00:00 IO:O0:O0 lhO0:O0 12:00:0013:00:00 14:00:00
Figure 13-13. IU Battery 6D40 Voltage, Current and Temperature

Table 13-4. IU Battery Power Consumption
POWER CONSUMPTION
CAPACITY AVERAGE ...........................................
CURRENT EST FLIGHT TIME
f BATTERY (AMP:HR) (AMPS) OFI00 PERCENT PERCENT OF
(HOURS) CAPACITY*
6DIO 350 21.5 16.1 78.7
6D30 350 29.8 12.7 108
6D40 350 30.6 12.5 109
*Battery conditions based on 12.8 hours of flight data
The 56-volt power supply supplies voltage to the gyro, accelerometer servo-
loops and accelerometer signal conditioner. All indications are that this
supply performed normally and its output remained well within the 56 ±2.5
volts dc limits. The 5-volt measuring reference voltage supply maintained
a constant voltage of 5.00 volts and performance remained nominal.
Data indicate that the IU switch selector performed nominally throughout
the flight.
13-25/13-26
S SECTION
14
RANGE SAFETY AND COMMANDSYSTEMS
14.1 SUMWLARY
Data indicated that the redundant Secure Range Safety CommandSystems

(SRSCS) on the S-IC, S:II, and S-IVB stages were ready to perform their
functions properly on command if flight conditions during the launch
phase had required vehicle destruct. The system properly safed the S-IVB
SRSCSon commandtransmitted from Bermuda (BDA). The performance of the
Command and Communications System (CCS) in the Instrument Unit (IU) was
satisfactory, except during the time period from 22,066.4 seconds
(06:07:46.4) to 23,418.8 seconds (06:30:18.8) when a CCS power amplifier
output was degraded.
14.2 RANGE SAFETY COMMANDSYSTEMS
The SRSCS provides a means to terminate the flight of the vehicle by

radio command from the ground in case of emergency situations in accord-
ance with range safety requirements. After successful insertion into
earth orbit, the system is deactivated (safed) by ground command. Each
powered stage of the vehicle was equipped with two commandreceivers/
decoders and necessary antennas. The SRSCS in each stage was completely
independent of those in other stages.
Three types of SRSCS commands were programmed for this manned flight as
follows:
a. Arm/fuel cutoff - Charging of the Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW)

firing unit and thrust termination.
b. Destruct _ Propellant dispersion by firing of the EBW.
c. Safe - Command system switched off.
During flight, telemetry indicated that the command antennas, receivers/

decoders, and destruct controllers functioned properly and were in the
required state of readiness if needed. Since no arm/cutoff or destruct
commands were required, all data except receiver signal strength remain-
ed unchanged during the flight. At 685 seconds the safing command was
_f .... initiated, deactivating the system. Both S-IVB stage systems, the only
systems in operation at this time, responded properly to the safing
command.
14-I
Radio Frequency (RF) performance aspects of the system are discussed in
Section 19, paragraph 19.5.3.1.
14.3 COMMANDAND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
The performance of the command section of the CCS was satisfactory. A

total of 45 known commands were transmitted from the ground stations.
All commands were accepted by the onboard equipment, although one data
word, sent at 23_172.8 seconds, had to be transmitted three times
before verification. The command system did not receive the first two
transmissions because of a command subcarrier dropout, caused by low
signal strength. However, the third transmission of the command was
received and accepted.
A terminate command was transmitted from the ship Vanguard to verify

that the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) tag bit problem
(Sections 10.5.4 and 19.3.4) did not impact the command capability.
Since the command system was not enabled at this time, no computer
reset pulse was transmitted, causing the ground station to automati-
cally retransmit the command three times. The address verification
pulses were received for each of these transmissions.
The restart enable commands for second and third S:IVB stage burns
were accepted.
Commands were sent to open the LOX and LH2 valves to dump propellant
after S-IVB third burn and were accepted by the command system. These
commands were sent after the valves failed to respond to the nominal
onboard programmed commands.
Table 14-I gives a summary of all transmitted commands. All commands

were verified.
A CCS power amplifier gave a degraded output from 22_066o4 seconds

(06:07:46.4) to 23,418.8 seconds (06:30:18.8) and recovered thereafter.
This degraded output caused loss of data on the CCS down link, but did
not impair capability to receive and act upon commands transmitted from
ground stations, and a total of I0 commands were successfully trans-
mitted during this period. Verifications for these commands were
received through the DP-I VHF link and the DP_IA UHF link and did not
affect successful accomplishment of this mission.
RF performance aspects of the system are discussed in Section 19,

paragraph 19.5.3.2.
14-2
Table 14-I. Command and Communications System,
Commands History, AS_504
RANGE
TIME STATION COMMAND NUMBER
OF
WORDS
SECONDS HR:MIN:SEC
6497.5 01:48:17.5 VAN Terminate 4

8794.8 02:26:34.8 CRO IU Command SystemEnable 3
8821.9 02.;27:01.9 CRO Terminate I
15,834.7 04:22:14.7 HAW RemoveInhibitManeuverNo. 4 2
16,453.8 04:34:13._8 RED S-IVB Restart Enable l
20,418.3 05:40:18.3 CRO S-IVB Restart Enable 1
20,594.9 05:43:04.9 CRO Set AntennaLowGain 1
21,709.0 06:01:49.0 GWM Chill S/O Valve Closed On 3
21,728.3 06:02:08.3 GWM LH2 Chill Pump Off 3
21,729.1 06:02:09.1 GWM LOX Chill Pump Off 3
21,952.0 06:05:52.0 GWM Chill S/O Valve Open 3
21,952.8 06:05:52.8 GWM Prevalves Open 3
21,953.5 06:05:53.5 GWM EngineCutoff Off 3
21,954.3 06:05:54.3 GWM Engine ReadyBypassOn 3
21,986.5 06:06:26.5 GWM Engine Start On 3
22,976.0 06:22:56.0 GWM EngineMainstageControl Valve Open Off 3
22,976.8 06:22:56.8 GWM EngineHeliumControlValve Open Off 3
22,992.7 06:23:12.7 GWM Passivation Enable 3
22,993.5 06:23:13.5 GWM Engine MainstageControlValve Open On 3
22,994.3 06:23:14.3 GWM Engine Helium Control Valve Open On 3
23,155.3 06:25:55.3 GWM Engine IgnitionPhase Control Valve Open Off 3
23,156.1 06:25:56.] GWM Engine Helium Control Valve Open Off 3
23,171.5 06:26:11.5 GWM Passivation Enable 3
23,172.4 06:29:32.4 GWM Engine Ignition Phase Control Valve Open On 5
23,174.1 06:39:34.1 GWM Engine Helium Control Valve Open On 3
24,075.0 06:41:15.0 TEX Engine Ignition Phase Control Valve Open Off 3
24,075.9 06:41:15.9 TEX Burner LOX Shutdown Valve Closed Off 3
24,093.7 06:41:33.7 TEX Passivation Enable 3
24,094.6 06:41:34.6 TEX Engine Ignition Phase Control Valve Open On 3
24,095.5 06:41:35.5 TEX EngineHeliumControlValveOpen On 3
24,328.0 06:45:28.0 TEX Passivation Enable 3
24,328.9 06:45i28.9 TEX Engine Helium Control Valve Open On 3
24,769.] 06:52:49.1 TEX S-IVB Engine Cutoff Off 3
24,769.9 06:52:49.9 TEX Engine Ready Bypass 3
24,770.9 06:52:50.9 TEX Prevalves Close Off 3
24,771.8 06:52:51.8 TEX S-IVB Engine Start On 3
27,009.7 07:30:09.7 GDS Set Antennas Omni l
27,108.7 07:31:48.7 GDS Set Antennas High Gain 1
27,162.4 07:32:42.4 GDS Set Antennas Low Gain 1
27,189.8 07:33:09.8 GDS C-Band No. I Inhibit 3
27,213.5 07:33:33.5 GDS C-BandNo.2 Inhibit 3
27,243.4 07:34:03.4 GDS S-IVB Ullage Engine No. I On 3
27,244.6 07:34:04.6 GDS S-IVBUllageEngineNo. 2 On 3
28,108.1 07:48:28.1 GDS CCS Inhibit 3
30,604.9 08:30:04.9 GDS CCS Enable 3
14-3/14-4
_" SECTION
15
EMERGENCYDETECTION SYSTEM
15.1 SUMMARY
The AS-504 Emergency Detection System (EDS) configuration was essen-

tially the same as on the AS_503 vehicle. The performance of the system
was nominal; no abort limits were exceeded.
15.2 SYSTEM EVALUATION
15.2.1 General Performance
The EDS provided for automatic abort during S_IC burn by monitoring two
parameters; two or more S:IC engines out and excessive angular rates,
In addition various parameters were displayed to the crew for manual
abort cues, as discussed later.
EDS differences between AS-504 and AS-503:
a, One discrete input signal from the EDS distributor to the Launch
Vehicle Data Adapter (LVDA)/Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC)
was deleted. This discrete functioned as a spacecraft separation
signal on AS-503 and was not required on AS-504.
b. The rate gyro timer, a 20-second timer which performed no function

on AS-503, was not installed on AS-504.
All launch vehicle EDS parameters remained well within acceptable limits
during the AS-504 mission. No overrate signals or unscheduled engine:out
discretes were received by the EDS distributor. Sequential events and dis-
crete indications occurred as expected.
15.2.2 Propulsion System Sensors
The S-lC stage utilizes three thrust OK sensors on each F-I engine. If
two of these three switches indicate a thrust drop below the mainstage
nominal level, an abort indication is given to the flight crew. From
liftoff until deactivation, either by the crew or the switch selector,
an indication of two or more engines_out results in an automatic abort.
The switch selector deactivated the two engines-out automatic abort at
f_ 133.4 seconds.
15-I
The S-11 and S-IVB stages utilize two thrust OK sensors on each J-2
engine. When both switches indicate low thrust an abort indication is
given to the crew, as already described for the S-IC stage.
Operation of all thrust OK sensors and associated logic was as expected.

Refer to Table 15_I for a summary of thrust OK pressure switch closing
and opening times.
S-IVB LOX and LH2 tank ullage pressures are displayed to the flight erew.
Tank pressure abort limits are based on the differential pressure across
the common bulkhead and apply only during orbital operations. Tank pres-
sures stayed below the limits of 24°8 and -17.9 N/cmZ (36 and -26 psid)
for PLoX-PLH2 during AS-504 orbital operations.
15.2.3 Flight Dynamics and Control Sensors
Nine (three per axis) control rate gyros sense angular overrate for the
EDS. When two or more gyros in any axis sense a rate in excess of pre-
set limits, a discrete indication is given in the Command Module (CM)
and from liftoff until the overrate automatic abort is deactivated,
either by the flight crew or the switch selector, an automatic abort is
initiated. The switch selector command which deactivates the overrate
automatic abort also changes the rate limit settings° This command was
given at 133.8 seconds. Table 15-2 tabulates the rate limits and
maximum measured rates for both the overrate automatic abort and manual
abort modes.
The angle_of-attack dynamic pressure is sensed by a redundant Q-ball

located atop the launch escape tower. One Q-ball vector sum output is
displayed in the CM; the other is telemetered from the Instrument Unit
(IU). The maximum delta pressure measured on AS-504 was approximately
0.69 N/cm2 (Io0 psid) between 75 and 85 seconds. This was only about
30 percent of the recommendedmanual abort limit of 2.2 N/cm2 (3.2 psid).
Failures of the launch vehicle stabilized platform result in discrete

indications in the spacecraft. No such platform failure indications
were initiated on the AS_504 flight.
Circuitry to provide engine cutoff in the event of abort is enabled by

a switch selector command and a timer. Launch vehicle engines EDS cut°
off enable occurs approximately 30 seconds after liftoffo The switch
selector command for AS-504 was given at 30.0 seconds, and the timer
command at 31.7 seconds after liftoff. The timer is set for 30 +2, -0
seconds after liftoff.
All discrete events and discrete indications to the crew occurred as

expected. See Table 15-3 for a compilation of EDS associated discretes ..........
15-2
/
j
m
N '
m _
_ o
_ N
m _
............. _ _ ; b b b b b b b b b b b b _°
Table 15-2. MaximumAngular Rates
PHASE PITCH YAW ROLL
Liftoff to 1.0 (4) deg/s 0.6 (4) deg/s 1.3 (20) deg/s
133.8 sec
133,8 sec to 1.2 (9.2) deg/s 0.3 (9.2) deg/s 1.0 (20) deg/s
SCSeparation
Note: Abort limits are shown in parentheses.
Table 15-3. EDS Associated Discretes
DISCRETE
MEASUREMENT DISCRETE
EVENT RANGE
TIME
K73:602 On EDS or Manual Cutoff of LV Engines Armed 30,7

(Switch Selector)
K74-602 On EDS or Manual Cutoff of LV Engines Armed 31.7

(Timer)
K81-602 On EDSS_IC One Engine Out 134.6
K82-602On EDSS-IC One Engine Out 134.6
K57-603 Off Q-Bail On Indication (+6D21) 151.5
K58-603 Off Q:Ball On Indication (+6D41) 151.5
K79-602 On EDS S-IC Two Engines Out 163.0
K80-602 On EDS S-IC Two Engines Out 163.0
K88-602Off SoIC Stage Separation 163.6
15-4
f SECTION
16
\
VEHICLE PRESSURE AND ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
16.1 SUMMARY
The vehicle internal, external, and base region pressure environments

were monitored by a series of differential and absolute pressure gages.
These measurements were used in confirming the vehicle external, internal,
and base region design pressure environments. The flight data were
generally in good agreement with the predictions and compared well with
previous flight data. The pressure environment was well below design
levels.
The vehicle internal and external acoustic environment was monitored by

a series of microphones positioned to measure both the rocket engine
and aerodynamically induced fluctuating pressure levels. The measured
acoustic levels were generally in good agreement with the liftoff and
inflight predictions, and with data from previous flights.
16.2 SURFACE PRESSURESAND COMPARTMENTVENTING
16.2.1 S-lC Stage
External and internal pressure environments on the S-IC stage were

recorded by 12 measurements located on and inside the engine fairings,
aft skirt, intertank, and forward skirt. Representative data from a
portion of these instruments are compared with previous flight data in
Figures 16-I through 16-3. Static pressure is presented as the difference
between measurement pressure and free stream static pressure (Pint-Pamb).
Pressure loading is the difference between structural internal and external
pressures defined such that a positive loading is in the outward direction.
The AS-504 S-IC engine fairing compartment pressure differentials, shown

in Figure 16-I, agree very well with previous flight data.
The S-IC engine and intertank compartment pressure differentials are

shown in Figure 16-2. The AS_504 engine compartment pressure differential
agrees well with previous data. The delay in the peak of the AS-504
intertank pressure differential was caused by the slower trajectory of
s ...... this flight. However, the trends and magnitudes of the AS-504 data show
good agreement with previous data.
16-I
_-9L
L_.L_Uaaa.S.4_G aan ssaad
%uaw_a_dtuo3 6UU.LV-I aUL6U3 3I-S "L-9L aan6.L3
SaN033S '3N11 39NV_
0_[ O_l OOL 08 09 O_ OZ
,_ _ ,_'
_ "T1
"11 -rl
rrl
_ [_ ;:0
m
rm
;z ('U.L 6L'Oq [) --I
-_ mCS"_ VIS H3A
; o4-0
_00 aflO_lHS
QNVQ SIHOIla SflOIA3_dZZ]2
_OS-SV ................
_-rl, _'-rl
3"_ 3"o
"-_ rrl _rcl
NL- 1 rrl
-_
:_ ('u._6L°OSt) :_
rrl
• _ mE:8"_VIS H3A [ z
r- _LL//9_G
-flO_HS
- r-"
1_-9L
SL_L_UBJa_L(] aJnssaJd %uam_J_dm03 31-S "Z-9L aJn6.L3
SflN033$']NIl 39NV_
O_L OgL O0L OB 09 O_ O_ 0
,,--_ _°O-
"x) :m_
u) 1_ "n
"om _'0- ('u._L_'O_L) _. _ - -'I
8"0- _
r'- _ _
r_
8"0
LN3N/_VdN03_NV±_3J.N
I
QNV8 SIH911J SnOIA3_d ....
_OS-SV..........
_/'0"
.._ c"F (._
_I m "\'-,,
\,_ // / BI '_
-.."m
_ !_ mE_7,VlS H3A B
-_ 8"0 __ _
_'L ........... --I_RL/_-_- " 8"0 .....,,,
IN3NI_VdHO3 3NIgN3
AS-504
_-__-_ PREVIOUSFLIGHTS BAND
ENGINE COMPARTMENT
1
k
% '
_o 2_
,_z
iooo_4-11_ _ _
VEH STA 5.89mi --_
i ! _._
.<_ (231 in) --.,.
_ " "__"_ _ 7- _
,_._. _ _'_
..................................................................................................................... _2
-'0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 16_3o S-IC Compartment Pressure Loading
]6=4
Figure 16-2 shows that the pressure differential experienced the
characteristic drop as the vehicle passed through Mach I. On previous
flights, Mach 1 occurred between 60 and 62 seconds, while on AS-504
Mach 1 occurred at'68 seconds. This resulted in a higher peak pressure
differential for the AS-504.
S..
The engine and intertank compartment pressure loadings are shown in

Figure 16-3. The intertank compartment pressure loading agrees well
with previous data. The AS-504 engine compartment pressure loading agreed
in magnitude and trend with previous flight data. However, the slower
trajectory flown on AS-504 delayed the data peak by I0 seconds.
16.2.2 S-II Stage
The pressure loading on the forward skirt of the Sill stage was determined
by 14 external absolute pressure measurements (one of which failed), and
one internal absolute pressure measurement.
A plot of the pressure loading acting across the forward skirt wall is
presented in Figure 16-4. The AS-504 flight data and postflight
prediction data are presented in the form of maximum-minimum data bands.
The AS-501 through AS-503 flight data bands are also shown for comparison.
Both flight and predicted pressures were obtained from the difference
between the external pressure values and a single representative internal
pressure. The forward skirt pressure loading flight data were well within
the design limits and agree with predicted values and previous flight
data.
16.3 BASE PRESSURES
]6.3.1 S-IC Base Pressures
Static pressures on the S-IC base heat shield were recorded by four
measurements, two of which were heat shield differential pressures.
Representative AS-504 data are compared with a band of previous flight
data.
S-IC base pressure differential is shown in Figure 16-5 as a function of

altitude. In general, the agreement is good between AS-504 base pressure
data and previous flight data.
S:IC base heat shield pressure loading is shown in Figure 16-6 as a

function of altitude. AS-504 data falls well within the band of previous
flight data. The heat shield pressure loading was well within the
1.38 N/cm2 (2.0 psid) design differential.
16.3.2 S-II Base Pressures
The S-II stage heat shield and thrust cone pressure environment was
determined by 6 absolute pressure measurements located on the aft face
16-5
CO_LETE DATA FAILU_ 9,= 2lO°-- _S Ill
.... POST_I_T PREDICTION POS Xo _ = 0 _ J = 90°
_-504 _I_T DATA 63,/5m

63.50m 63.25m
5 I DATA F_H PREVIOUS FLIGHTS 62.99_

61.54 62 98m
l_m "
_ l _MEASUREMENT VEHICLE STATION mCin.} ]
MAX Q D,08-21,
0109-219 63.68 /2s161
63.75 2510 j
0110-219 63.60 (2500) _
4 v sIc,SIISEPA .O O- O_
D,,12,. 124oot
6209D112=219 62.74 2470
c_E D113-219 61.54 (2423) l "_
U EXTERNAL_ DllA-219 63.25 (2490)
D116-219
D115-219 63.25
63.251249012490 " 5
^ 0117-219 63.25 (2490
D118-219_ 61 ._ (2440 X
X 3 D119-219 63.75 (2510)
D120-219 63.25 2490
)121-219 63.25 (2490 4
INTERN_D]63-219 62.20 (2449
'_ DESIGN LIMIT (STATIC PRESSURE)
VARIES _ 4.34 N/_2
(6.3 psid} to 4.69 N/_ 2 (6.8 psid) 3
2 DEPENDING ON VEH STA
_ 2%
0 i "0
0 25 50 75 I00 125 150 175
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 16-4. S-II Forward Skirt Pressure Loading
ALTITUDE, n mi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.6
-J ! AS-504 0.8 _J
_-
Z 0.4 - "_-_._............ PREVIOUS
FLIGHTSBAND- _-
J 0.4
,_,_- -0.2 .......... _LII (:L_

,_o -0.4_"
e') (/,)
_ -0.4 ---_ ............................. _ "_
0:_ VEHSTA2.81 m (II0.63 in.)
-0.6 ......................................... -0.8 _
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ALTITUDE, km
Figure 16-5° S=IC Base Pressure Differential
16-6
ALTITUDE, n mi
0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35
Z
0.4 r t
AS-504 _ z
f _ / _ 04
_
_z ! LDO047 106 02 _ _
* i i VEHSTA
2.81m _
__ _ (110.63
in.) _
_ 0 O _
m__O.
2
0 I0 20 30 40 50 60 70
ALTITUDE, km
Figure 16-6. S:IC Base Heat Shield Differential Pressure
of the heat shield; by 4 absolute pressure measurements located on the

forward face of the heat shield (3 of which failed), and by a single
absolute pressure measurement located on the thrust cone.
Figure 16-7 shows the static pressure variation with range time on the
forward face of the heat shield and in the thrust cone region. The
AS-504 flight static pressure in this region is approximately the same
as that measured during previous flights. The pressure peaks observed
on previous flights during interstage separation are also present in
the AS-504 flight data. The predictions are based on the AS-501 through
AS-503 flight data.
Figure 16-8 compares the AS-504 flight heat shield aft face static
pressure data with predicted values and prior flight data. In general,
the analytical predictions are in fair agreement with the flight data
from S-II Engine Start Command (ESC) (164.17 seconds) to Engine Mixture
Ratio (EMR) shift (452.5 seconds).
The slow decay of static pressure after interstage separation noted

during previous flights was also observed during this flight. The cause
of this trend is under investigation.
The pressure increases, observed over the aft surface of the heat shield
during S-II aft interstage separation, are probably due to engine exhaust
plume impingement on the interstage which causes increased reverse flow
and hence increased pressure.
16-7
FLIGHT DATA _7 S-II ESC -- FLIGI(TDATA _7 S-II ESC
__POSTFLIGHT _7 S-If SECOND PLANE SEPARATION CGM_IAND ----_ POSTFLIGHT _ S-If SECOND PLANE SEPARATION COI_AND
PREDICTION _ EMRSHIFT PRED[CTION V EMRSHIFT
0.09I PREVIOUS
FLIGHT
DATA VS-IIECO I PREVIOUS
FLIGHT DATA _zS-If
ECO
0.09
i ! _ _EH STA' i I ( 0162-206

o.o8 01oo-_o6 -- (i_29.92
41 4_I io.)__ ' I
'/R = 2.54m ) in.Z
(IO0
R = 2.16m _ A'_ I 0.08 _/on= _'x.\I_ -L_-- D095-206 --
o.07
_ _ () 0.07 I (85 In.)_,,_-
..... D161-206
t ,
|
| VEH STA _ _ -?o=_ "__ _'_0158-206
0.06
li 47.4m--41.4mI I \,I R : 1.91m(75in.,
_I (1866.14
in;) (1629.92
in.) I I ._ 0.06 0]57-206
x m DO
_ . (s3
i..)
" •" _ _ MAXIMUM "
0.04 --- ' _ _ ' -0.06
_T VII ] L- __8;_2o 6 I _ _ _-
<
_._ R = 3.30m (130 in.) _ -0.04 =_
0.02 MINIMUM [)
................... __,
_ *_
I I 1 "-_- ----Z-..-
--_---7
__.: o.o,
i_o _oo_o _o0_o _oo_so_DO_6o6oo -o.__7_
150 200 250 300 350 400
_
450 500
_7
550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
RANGE TIME_ SECONDS
Figure 16-7. S-ll Thrust Cone and Base Heat Shield Figure 16-8. S-11 Heat Shield Aft Face Pressures
Forward Face Pressures
/
i i'
16.4 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
16.4.1 External Acoustics
f AS-504 external fluctuating pressures were measured at six vehicle

stations located on the S-IC aft skirt, Fin D, S-IC intertank, S-II aft
skirt, and S-If forward skirt. All recorded data appear valid from
liftoff through S-IC boost.
Figure 16-9 presents liftoff sound pressure levels as a function of

vehicle body station. The S-II pressure levels show excellent agreement
between AS-504 and AS-503. The data scatter between these and AS-501
and AS-502 levels was due to changes in radial position at a fixed
vehicle station. S-II data indicate the highest levels were experienced
at Position IV, and the lowest at Position 11. A significant amount of
data scatter is evident only in S-lC measurements. A review of upper
stage and S-IC liftoff power spectra shows the only significant variation
occurs in high frequency content. A high frequency source, primarily
affecting the S-IC, is the supersonic core of the exhaust flow between
the engine exit planes and exhaust flow deflectors. In this flow region,
small thrust variations between flights may alter the total produced
acoustic energy more substantially than in the deflected flow, resulting
in larger deviations in high frequency data. A second factor in S-IC data
scatter is the time at which overall levels and spectra are computed.
Spectra computed at 1 to 3 seconds after liftoff show increases below
200 hertz. This increase may be caused by some turbulent mixing beneath
the Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT) deck due to vehicle motion and the
related development of low frequency sources. The AS-504 S-IC intertank
data computed from 1 to 2 seconds, showed this effect and it is responsible
393.7 787.4 1181.I 1574.8 1968.5 2362.2 2755.9 3149.6 3543.3
] I ! i _ AS-501
FFIN
DBASEL I 0AS-S02
J°
_ +I +
I 1
' I oA5-+03
®AS-5Q4
> +
..I_ ,,-s+IcAnSKIRT
t
i I
I
,S-llFWD SKIRT ....PREDICTED
_ " + I I -S IVB
=- ''" ' + -
_o_ 16C 8
_=, -....., 'S-ICINTERTANK FS.II AF SKIRT A SKIRT-IF
.ISK
VB_RT
_ • + IU
J.. O 8 A
0 I0 30 70
VEHICLEBODY STATION,m
Figure 16-9. Vehicle External Overall Sound Pressure

At Liftoff
16-9
for some of the level increase from previous flights which was computed
I to 2 seconds earlier.
Figures 16-10 through 16-12 present AS-504 overall fluctuating pressure

time histories for S_IC boost. A representative time history from
previous flights is also presented for comparison. Any significant
changes in the various flights are represented in the included time
histories. AS_504 overall time histories generally display a reduction
in level and maximum levels occur later in flight due to the slower AS-504
trajectory. Significant deviations, 5 to 6 decibels, from previous
flights occurred at the S_IC intertank and at Position II on the S-II
aft skirt. S-lC intertank data differ significantly in level from
0 to 35 seconds, and after 60 seconds of flight° The first period of
level increase was expected, due to the slowness of the AS-504 trajectory
since engine noise impingement is essentially a function of vehicle
motion. The increased levels after 60 seconds are unaccountable. The
level variation between AS_503 and AS-504 at Position II on the S-II aft
skirt appears to be caused by trajectory differences. The measurement
on the rear of fin D (B0004_114) was exposed to direct light fluctuation
J/
uJ FIND
180
c_ E
z u _ !AS-504---_
_ \ -_BO004-114
VEH
STA2.06m
(J_o
14(] _ AS-501
X
..J c,J
,,::C
_,_ 120.................
-_
uJ S-IC AFT SKIRT
> 180
L._ 0
t/3._
N . 160
E VEHSTA 3.05 m
z ,J _, (120,1 in.)-
<:-z_" ,_.}_ As-5°3Z
_-°t 14o ..... _----. I
-J
Lz- X AS-504
.. 1200 ........................................................
20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 ..........
O_
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 16-10. S_IC External Overall Fluctuating Pressure Level
16-10
/'
/
,.-H, S-ICINTERTANK
__ 180 I _ 180 S-II AFT
SKIRT
___ 180.................... ___ 160--- BOD38-2DD
_z ............................ VEH STA

(748.2 19.05
in.) m- _ __ -- VEH STA
(1664.6 42.28
in.)
_6
_ 140 _ ..... AS-504 _
_o_ 140---- ,..,_ -
_," - "- . - _-AS-50_ _" _ AS-54 _

>,=
120 I " _,_ 120 ""
_" S-II AFT

SKIRT _ S-II FORWARD
SKIRT
_-z (2494.5in.)
_ -- -_I, .... _-_'z_-- (1664.6 in.) __u _ , _ T_ I
_ 7- _ ._ _=o 140 _- AS-504 ",_ ..,.

× j l / i LAS-5O4 "I"-."I
---
-J. _× .,_ .-._ _.,
NN 126 NN 120
o_ 0 20 40 60 80 ]DO 120 140 o_ 20 40 50 80 100 120 140
RANGE
TIME,
SECONDS RANGE
TIME,
SECONDS
Figure 16-11. S-IC and S-It External Overall Figure 16-12. S-I[ External Overall
Fluctuating Pressure Level Fluctuating Pressure Level
from the exhaust flowo Since microphones are sensitive to light
variations, such effects may be indistinguishable from signals of
acoustic origin.
16.4.2 Internal Acoustics
16o4.2.1 Sc!C Stage. Internal acoustics were measured at two locations

on the S-IC stage One measurement was located in the intertank section
and the other in the thrust structure above the heat shield. The acoustic
data at these locations are shown in F_gures 16-13 and 16-14. Data from
both measurements agree with previous flight data except that the sound
pressure level in the intertank was lower in the Mach 1 and Max Q periods
than on previous flights°
16.4.2.2 S_llStage. The two internal microphones used on the S-It stage
are located on the forward skirt and thrust cone. Figpre 16-15 presents
the internal overall acoustic levels versus range time for AS-504.
Previous flight data are also shown for comparison. The internal
acoustics show good agreement with previous flight data during liftoff.
AS-504 internal and external acoustics are shown in Table 16-I and
compared with data from previous flights. The differentials between
corresponding external and internal acoustic levels are approximately
15 to 18 decibels at liftoff. The differentials for Mach I and Max Q
conditions are 18 decibels or higher because the greater high frequency
contents are more attenuated across the vehicle skin.
MAXIMUM
SPL _ ]VERALL
SPL ....
MEASUREMENT PREVIOUSFLIGHTDATA AS_504 .IMIT LE_ND
BOO5=IO6 144.6 at =1.0 144.8 at 0 169.0 --'--PREVIOUS FLIGHT

DATA
AS-504 FLIGHT
DATA
[_ SPL in db referenced to 2xlO "5 N/m2
160
A l
140 _
' I :-=-:
12ol ____
100
O 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS ....
Figure 16-13. S_IC Heat Shield Panels Internal Acoustic Environment
16-12
, HAX[MUM
SPL _ OVERALL
SPL
LIMIT
MEASUREMENT PREVIOUSFLIGHTDATA AS-504 LEGEND
B001-118 142.3 at 0.5 144.7 at O 157 _?;'_PREVIOUSFLXGHT

DATA ENVELOPE
_ AS-504FLI_T
DATA
[_ SPL in db referencedto 2xlO"5 N/m2
120
.....
O 20 40 gO 80 100 120 140 160

RANGETX_E_SECONDS
Figure 16-14. S-IC Intertank Internal Acoustic Environment
160 ....
_ FORWARD'COMPA'RTMENT I DESIGN LEVEL 140 db
150I 1 l 1 I I I
_ _MACH1
_V MAXQ
oo 130 _ _ j^ _ S-ll ESC
_"_
_v 120- -- ..... -
AS 504
----AS 502, AS 503
160
_ ---_--_ I----_
A T COMPARTMENT DESIGN LEVEL 1"61 db
_'_, 140 .....

(::)
i,-._ 130 : - i '" _ !

_ 120-- I _ ,
-20 0 20 40 60 80 1O0 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 16-15. S-II Internal Acoustics History
16:13
Table 16-I. Sound Pressure Level Comparison of AS-504
With AS-501, AS-502 and ASw503 Data
Maximum Overall db
ForwardCompartment Af_ Compartment ,
EVENT External Internal External Internal

(B016-219) (B017-219) (B037-200 & B038-200) _ (B039-206) ........
AS-504 AS_501/ AS-504 AS-501/ AS_504 AS-501/ AS=504 AS-501/
503 502/503 503 502/503
Liftoff 154,0 152.9 139.1 142.0 153,7 152.7 135.1 137.5
Transonic 154.2 156.5 125.5 133.0 140.9 147.8 109.8 129.0
MaxQ 149.9 151.2 131.6 138.0 143.7 152.2 114.1 129.0
NOTE: AS_503 and AS=504 acoustic measurement locations were different from previous flights.
16-14
s_ SECTION
17
VEHICLE THERMAL ENVIRONMENT
17.1 SUMMARY
The AS-504 S-IC base region thermal environment was similar to that
experienced on earlier flights with the exception of minor changes due
to trajectory differences. Since altitude was not gained as rapidly as
for previous flights and the total burn time was longer, there was a
small increase in total radiant heating. However, heat shield tempera-
tures and structural temperatures forward of the heat shield were
generally within the bands of previous data and well below design
allowances. Reversed flow of engine exhaust reached the heat shield
5 to I0 seconds later than for preVious flights, and the radiant heating
peak was displaced a proportionate amount; both are functions of altitude.
As has occurred on all flights to date, loss of M-31 insulation material
was again noted. Combined vibration and thermal ground testing has
indicated that loss of M-31 is not detrimental to vehicle performance.
S-IC forward skirt skin temperatures were higher during flight and
separation than on previous flights, due to removal of insulation from
this area. However, these increases were small and presented no problems.
Base thermal environments on the AS-504 S-II stage were similar to those
measured on previous flights and were well below design limits. The
base region probe temperatures and base heat shield heating rates were
lower than corresponding AS-503 values. The assessed cause was that the
AS_504 S-II stage engines were toed out slightly more than for previous
flights.
The aeroheating rates on the AS-504 S-11 stage interstage, body structure,
and fairings, though slightly lower, were similar to those on previous
flights.
17.2 S-IC BASE HEATING AND SEPARATION ENVIRONMENT
17.2.1 S-IC Base Heating
Thermal environments in the base region of the S:IC stage were recorded
by 29 measurements which were located on the heat shield and F-I engines.
17-1
This instrumentation included 6 radiation calorimeters, 16 total calori-
meters, and 7 gas temperature probes. Representative data from these
instruments are compared with the AS-502 and AS-503 flight data band in
Figures 17-I and 17-2. AS-501 flight data, which was significantly
different from subsequent flight data because of flow deflector effects
is not shown°
AS-504 S-IC base thermal environments are similar in magnitude and show
the same trends as those measured during the AS-502 and AS-503 flights,
as shown in Figures 17_I and 17-2. AS-504 radiation heating rates were
slightly higher than on AS-503, but agree more closely with AS-502.
Maximum values of radiation and total heating rate occur at altitudes
between 15 and 20 kilometers (8.1 and 10.8 n mi). The maximum total
heating rate measured in the AS-504 base region was 35 watt/cm 2
(30.84 Btu/ft2_s) recorded on the nozzle lip of engine I01. Center
engine cutoff (CECO) on AS-504 produced a spike in environmental data
with a magnitude and duration similar to previous flight data at CECO.
AS-504 base gas temperatures show good comparison with AS-502 and AS-503
flight data. In Figures 17-1 and 17-2, the thermal environments are
shown versus altitude to minimize trajectory differences. Similar
comparisons of heating rate versus flight time (not shown) illustrate
very clearly the trajectory differences between AS-504 and previous
flights. At a given time in flight, AS-504 was at a lower altitude than
previous flight vehicles. Therefore, initial gas recirculation into the
base (resulting from plume expansion and impingement which is principally
a function of altitude) occurred at a later range time and produced a
corresponding shift in the time of peak heating. AS_504 peak heating
rates agree closely with AS:502 in magnitude but occurred 5 to
I0 seconds later than AS-502 because of the trajectory difference.
The available heat shield temperature data is compared to previous flight

data in Figures 17-3 and 17-4o Instrumentation has been reduced since
AS-503. The two forward surface measurements, shown in Figure 17-3, are
generally within the band of previous data. However, C038-I15 (3.05
meters (120 in.) from the center on Position Line II) exceeded all previous
data for the last 30 seconds of flight. This is attributed to higher
radiant heating than that experienced during prior flights. C042-115
(Figure 17-5) is substantially cooler than C038_115 because it is located
in an area less exposed to radiant heating than surfaces on the position
lines where maximum heating occurs. In Figure 17_4, one bondline measure-
ment, C029-I06, shows thermal response attributed to local M:31 loss.
The reconstructed curve was calculated, assuming 0.407 centimeter
(0.16 ino) of M-31 was lost at I00 seconds, using the flight gas temperatur_
from C052-I06, flight radiation data from C151-I06, and the design heat
transfer coefficients. M-31 loss has occurred on every flight to date.
However, extensive combined vibration and thermal tests indicate that
M-31 loss during flight is not detrimental to vehicle performance. The t_o
other measurements were as expected.
17-2
'\
ALTITUDE,n mi ALTITUDE,n mI
5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40
25_ _ 5 10 ]5 20 25 30 35 40
zo _ ) c60-io6
-2o
_
.................
C61-1O6 _ 4c ii J_ CST-1Ol
-3o
C58-I05
i O A C
c2s-_o6-2s _ 3o _ C_-_D_
aO
=:+_ _ _- i i ! _ FLIGHTDATA
co oF , ..o_)I 5 t-- _AS-502A@(D
2_s
T_
_::
! ..,
J _r ........ _ FLIGHTDATA _AS-SO3
_ _ 0 _AS-5OZ At(D I C56-105 -2400 _ AS-SO4
I _AS-5O3
o INSTRUMENT
I AS-5O4 _ 1200..... _ Cl4-101
FAILED
800 ' 800 _ _ ....:' _ "" 800 _"
400 _.
0
20 40 60 80 20 40 6_0 80
ALTITUDE,
km ALTITUDE,
km
Figure 17-l. S-IC Base Heat Shield Figure 17-2. F-] Engine Thermal Environment
Thermal Environment
540 .500
500
.400
460.
PREDICTED
MAXIMUM /
420 _"_. / 300 _
n: J _ m.
AS-504 FLIGHT
DATA I J :_
C038-115 / - t
AS-504 FLIGHT DATA , _--_-_
\ ..---'-' y
300-
__---L. 2__ -_'_ .o,,.,,,,--" PREVIOUS FLIGHT
"_-_-_-- - DATA SAND
O 20 40 60 80 1O0 120 140 160

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-3o S-IC Heat Shield Forward Surface Temperature
I I HONEYCOMB/M-31
INTERFACE1
CD29-I06 -_,..._ / "/"

RECONSTRUCTED ASSUMING
LOSS OF 0.407 cm
l _f, o//
(0.16 in.) M-31 AT _-__ ,_
lOO
SECONDS _"
PREDICTED MAXIMUM _ fj i _ / ° _"
'- 400 PREV,OUSDATA

SA,
DFL,ONT
kn,I
,, _ _ - ......... .. -"" -_ co_o_o_
-i.
. . _ __ _ __ _oo
---S_. _,._ __ ..... _-
A$-504 FLIGHT DATA
I -0
0 20 40 60 80 lO0 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-4o S-IC Heat Shield Bondline Temperature
17-4
FIN C
C042-1
POS -_ /POS 111
FIN
D --FIN B
-C038-I15
m
C033-I06
--C032_|06
POS
11
POS I
C029-I06
FIN A
LOCATION CODE
HONEYCOm---- FORWARD
SURFACE 0
F
::::::i::_.59cm LOSS OF M-31 AS NOTED I

iiiiiil.o2i. BY TV CAMERA ON
!::iiii PREVI OUS FLIGHTS
===========================================
::::::j:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::--M31/HONEYCOMB
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
INTERFACE
.76cm O.301n.
THERMOCOUPLE
LOCATION 0.25 011(0.I in.) FROMAFT 0
SURFACE
Figure 17-5. S-IC Base Heat Shield Measurement Locations
17-5
Engine temperature data was normal. The thermal response of the turbine
exhaust manifold, under the insulation on the inboard side of engine No. I,
is shown in Figure 17-6. The measurement trace falls within the band of
previous flight data. Temperatures under the insulation on the gimbal
actuator and on the fuel discharge line were well below design allowables,
while gas temperature under the engine cocoons remained within the band
of previous flight data.
1ooo
_o- ti ...... , -_-' "

........ --"
....... #
AS;504 FLIGHTDATA
c137-1ol ,looo
/I y' _ PREVIOUSFLIGHT
DATA BAND
°_ I/ "/ / Boo
,- # / #
a: - -.
i @;
/i" ,"
/ _.: /
,OD
i / 200
/ I: /
_" 0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 O0 120 140 160 180 200
RANGE TI_E_ SECONDS
Figure 17-6, S-IC Temperature Under Insulation,

Inboard Side Engine No. l
17;2.2 S-IC/S-ll Separation Environment
Forward skirt compartment gas temperatures, shown in Figure 17-7, were

similar to those encountered during separation on previous flights. Two
spikes in the gas temperature were noted. The first spike was due to
the S-II ullage motor burn and the second spike was due to J-2 engine
plume. Peak temperatures, due to J-2 engine plume, 3.8 seconds after
separation may have reached slightly higher peaks than those shown, since
data at this point exceeded the upper limit of the transducers requiring
extrapolation between 3.5 and 4.5 seconds after separation ..........
17-6
AS-504 FLIGHT
DATA
A C164-120 _:_ _
PERFORMANCE
LIMIT 5340°F _\ j -2000
1200, I /
i \ "x .......
RANGELIMITOF -1600
TRANSDUCER
" UPPER LIMIT OF __ Y _ _. o
PREVIOUSFLIGHT DATA _ \ "-_ -1200
= X'\ g
I \_ _'-_<_ _. -Boo
i
,oo
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
TIME AFTER SEPARATION,SECONDS

I' l I .........
I
163 165 167 169 171
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-7. S-IC Upper Compartment Ambient Air Temperature During

S-IC/S-II Stage Separation
17.3 S-ll BASE HEATING AND SEPARATION ENVIRONMENT
Figure 17-8 presents total heating rate data recorded throughout S-II
boost by calorimeters located on the aft face of the base heat shield..
The postflight heating rate predictions and AS-501 through AS-503 flight
data are shown for comparison. As shown in Figure 17-8, the AS-504
flight data are in good agreement with the analytical predictions and
with previous flight data. The decrease in Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR)
at 452.5 seconds range time resulted in a reduction of about 25 percent
in heating rate on the aft face of the base heat shield. The ASl line
modifications, first installed on the AS-503 vehicle, were again verified
for the AS-504 vehicle.
Heating rates on the base heat shield, shown in Figure 17-8, indicate that
the AS-504 flight data maximums were lower throughout S-II boost than
f ..... during previous flights. This reduction in base heating rates is believed
due to the fact that the AS-504 S-II stage engines were toed out slightly
more than were the S-II stage engines during previous flights. The
initial engine precant angle employed, coupled with the degree of
structural compliance of the stages in question, caused this condition.
17-7
_S-II ESC
_S:II SECONDPLANE SEPARATION COMMAND

_ FLIGHT DATA
.... FLIGHT DATA FLIGHT DATA

6
5
I I 4
4
I i
c-J
E
u D I
3
R--
LU
<c
c_ 2_
C9 2 uJ
z MINIMUM L-
_
J
:c C721-206 C717-206
1 =1.35m l
(99 in.) (53 in.) r w
I
C858-206 THESECALORIMETERS
R = 1.33m JARE LOCATEDFLUSH WITH
0 (52.5
I
in. _-THEAFTFACE OFTHE 0
C722_206 BASEHEATSHIELD
R:I. 93m I
(76 in.
-I R= 1.96m
, = 90 ° O° (77 in.)
R 2.11m I
-2 (83in.)
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-8. S-II Heat Shield Base Region Heating Rates
The total heating rates measured on the thrust cone region are presented
in Figure 17-9. Predicted values together with AS-501 through AS-503
flight data maximum and minimum values are shown for comparison. The
AS-504 flight data agree well with the analytical predictions and previous ......
flight data, except as follows. As shown in Figure 17-9, the data band
of total heating rates for AS-50] through AS_503 flights is wider prior
to interstage separation when compared with the present flight data.
17-8
I PREVIOUS
FLIGHT DATA _
_7 S-ll SECOND
S-II ESC PLANESEPA_TION CO_ND
------POSTFLIGHT
PREDICTION X_ EMRSHIFT
f-. FLIGHT
_AS-504 DATA _ S-If
ECO
6 .....
C666-208 C821-206
VEH STA 45.8m (1803 in.) VEH STA 46.4m (1826 in.,
= 272° _ = 272°
5 R = 3.66m(]44
in.) R = 4.14m(163in.)
4 - ---4-.
VEH STA 44.1
3 .....
(1736.22 in.) / _,,
u
C688-208 C701-206
T VEH STA 45.2m (1780 in.) VEH STA 47.4m (1866 in.)
_XIMUM 0 = 272° _ = 270°
R = 3.]5m (]24 in.) R = 4.57m (180 in.)
_XIMUM
MINIMUM --/
MINIMUM
I,,
-2V
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
V550
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17.9. S-If Thrust Cone Heating Rate
The AS-504 flight base region gas recovery temperature=probe temperature

time history is shown in Figure 17=I0 together with AS-503 minimum and
maximum values. Note that the flight values are the probe temperatures
and not the gas recovery temperatures. The correspondingpredictedprobe
temperature histories are also shown in Figure 17-I0. The predicted gas
recovery temperature was calculated based on the above probe temperatures
and the measured base heat shield total heating rates. The recovery
temperature of the reversed flow gas was determined to be 822°K (I020°F)
prior to EMR stepdown, and 783°K (950°F) after EMR stepdown. The AS=504
= flight indicated prObe temperatures were slightly lower than the corre-
sponding AS-503 v_lues This was due to the reduction in base region
total heating rates previously discussed.
17-9
----_POSTFLIGHT _ S-II ESC
V
PREDICTION
I AS 503 FLIGHT
DATA _
_ S-If SECOND PLANE SEPARATIONCOMMAND
EMRSHIFT
y
AS 504
_FLIGHT DATA _ S-If ECO
1600
NOTE: THESE GAS TEMPERATUREPROBESEXTEND O.05m
(2 in.) ABOVETHE HEAT SHIELD AFT SURFACE
1400 C680-206
I I I
R = ].37m\ --2000
1200 ......C687-206_ _54 in.)I'37m :

C731-206_T- ?2_H_ I
R = 1.92m _ _
(54i..):__c730-2061
(76
in.)
-'_____:'7-_V'--'-c679_206
lO00 I @ = 90_'--"-_-"I@
= 0° R = 1.85m
(73
in.)
800 ,. MAXIMUM _' ....
600 /] RECOVERYTEMPERATURE _
/_//_ PROBE
\MINIMUM
TEMPERATURE
400 _-
200
oV
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 SSO
RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-10o S=II Base Gas Temperature
Temperatures recorded on the aft face of the base heat shield during the
AS=504 flight were well below design values, and compared favorably with
temperatures from previous flights. Figure 17-11 presents a comparison
of AS=504 flight data with data from previous flights and design temper-
atures. The maximum AS=504 temperature of 745°K (880°F) occurred at ......
452.5 seconds (EMR Shift), and was slightly lower than the previously
recorded maximum of 764°K (915°F). The design temperatures were calculated
using the maximum design environment.
17=I0
C710-206
THESESURFACETEMPERATURE C715_206 = Io35m
MEASUREMENTS ARELOCATED R = 2.54m (53.15 ino)
f_ FLUSH WITHTHEAFT FACE (I00ino) ]6
OF THE HEAT SHIELD C711J206 R = 1.9Om
R = 2.54m (74.80 in.)
(I00 in. )
DESIGN
PREDICTION @= 90c C713w206
= 1.32m
C714-206 (51.97ino)
PREV FLIGHTDATA R = 2.21m
(87.01 in.
AS-5O4 FLIGHT DATA
llO0
-1400
1000 --
900 "1200
800 000
o
o
700
600 600m
500
400 V S-II ESC
S_II SECONDPLANESEPARATIONCOMMAND 200
300 _ EMR
SHIFT
200 _ S_II ECO

I 1 --2DO
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-11. S-II Heat Shield Aft Face Temperatures
17_II
The effectiveness of the heat shield and flexible curtains as a thermal
protection system was demonstrated by the relatively low temperatures of
the heat shield (forward surface) thrust cone, center engine beam and
equipment container when compared to the high temperature on the heat
shield aft surface. The range of heat shield forward surface temperatures
measured on AS-504 was below design and similar to the range of temper-
atures measured on previous flights_ as shown in Figure 17_12. Maximum
AS-504 temperatures of 285°K (50°F), 274°K (30°F) and 343°K (155°F) were
recorded on the thrust cone, center engine beam, and 208 equipment
container, respectively. These temperatures are in good agreement with
previous flight data and are well below their respective design values.
17.4 VEHICLE AEROHEATING THERMAL ENVIRONMENT
17.4.1 S-IC Stage Aeroheating Environment
Aerodynamic heating environments were measured with thermocouples attached

to the backside of the structural skin on the S-IC forward skirt and
intertank. Generally, the aerodynamic heating environments were within
previous flight data bands, with the exception of skin temperature measure-
ments on the AS-504 uninsulated forward skirt. The forward skirt skin
temperature measurements were, however, below design limits.
Measured skin temperatures and derived heating rates for the S-IC inter-
tank are shown in Figure 17-13. Postflight simulations of skin temper-
atures and heating rates are also presented. These simulations are based
on analytically determined heat-transfer coefficients and recovery
temperatures until flow separation reaches the intertanko During the
period of flow separation a radiation heating environment, determined
from previous flight data (AS-502 and AS-503), is used in the simulation.
Good correlation was obtained between the flight data and the simulations.
The S-IC forward skirt skin temperatures and derived heating rates are
presented in Figures 17-14 and 17-15. Insulation was not installed on the
AS:504 S-IC forward skirt skin surface; therefore, skin temperatures
recorded by measurements C64-120, C322-120 and C323-120 were higher than
recorded on previous flights (ASJ501, AS-502 and AS_503). Postflight
simulations of skin temperatures and heating rates are presented in
Figure 17:15 for measurements C322-120 and C323-120_ These measurements
were located in a wake area downstream of the S-II ullage fairing. The
simulations are based on analytically determined heat-transfer coefficients
and recovery temperatures and protuberance factors, where applicable, from
wind tunnel test data. Protuberance heating effects on the S-IC forward
skirt could not be determined from the available flight data.
Flow separation on the AS_504 flight was observed, from Airborne Light
Optical Tracking System (ALOTS) data, to occur at approximately 118
seconds. The forward point of flow separation versus flight time is
plotted in Figure 17-16. The flow separation region dropped back and
re-established at a lower level after CECO. The effects of CECO on
the separated flow region during AS-504 flight were the same as
observed on AS-503.
17_12
C125-206 / C126-206
R = 2.03 m I---_. J R = 2.03 m
(79.92
_n.)_____)< (79.92
in.)
c124-206
R=2.03 m _,'-__ R:2.03 m
(79.92
i,.)__J (79.92
in.)
DESIGNPREDICTION j_ = 9"Oo__'j_ = 0
_[=-'=I PREVFLIGHT DATA
L THESESURFACETEMPERATURE MEASURE-
MENTS ARE LOCATED FLUSH WITH THE
AS-504 FLIGHT DATA FORWARD
FACE OF THE HEAT SHIELD
6O0
' ' ' '"
' 600
S-II SECONDPLANE
S-If ESC SEPARATION COMMAND
550 -- %_/ EMRSHIFT
S-II ECO I 500
500 i1 1 I I I t ._
• ,_
400
450 _ __
o __ 300 "o
"'
C_C
400
LLJ
F"" C_C
c_c
200 _
',' 350 <
r_
L_ r_
'- 300 _ _ _l loo,,,

_
250 o
200
f ..... I00
150 ,-200
loo '_ '_ ._F

150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-12. S-II Heat Shield Forward Face Temperature
17-13
35O
C62-118
o
_ ..... --i
C63o118
J
_.. -150 u_
O
50
w
250 0
_., FLI GHT DATA
____ _ _AS-501, AS-502
_AND AS=503
d
0 .............................. [ _ AS_504
.... AS-504 POSTFEIGHT

SIMULATION
FIN C FIN B
FIN A
C62-118 C63_118
2
C62-I 18
C63-118 m,
L. -|
0 "';:';':
LM _
0 40 80 120 160
RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-13. 5-IC Intertank Aerodynaraic Heating
17-14
_]L-LL
HEATINGRATE, watt/cm2 SKIN TEMPERATURE,°K

_I
._ ) IIi!J/I
i N
o _ //
_ I _F
_?_'
_,_ Cr) HEATING Btulft2-s
RATE, _
.. I I,_l_ ooo
..,o _ +'+m___ SKIN TEMPERATURE,°F
OOI_-_ z_ L_
mDzr-
_ _o
HEATING RATE, watt/c._ SKIS(TEMPERATURE."K
_rl o -%1
0
R-_ ,_,/.- _?!!I
"_\
C_. HEATING.RATE,Btulft2-s _ _____ ,_ SKIN TEMPERATURE,°F
,....a7K-
POINT OF FLOW SEPAPATION
NOTE: FO_ARD LOCATION -2000

OF FLOW SEPARATION
50 MEASURED FROM AS=504
ALOTS 70 MM FILM ..
S-ICCECO
40 ' o -1500
" iJ
COc_ o
_
o b
30 '_ 0 000
0 .lO00
ua
o o o o d
_0 O O_OCO
2O CD¢b _b 0
-500
10 0
o ...........................
o
0 100 II0 120 130 140 150 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-16o Forward Location of Separated Flow
LOX tank skin temperatures were well below the predicted maximum through-
out flight, as shown in Figure 17-17. There was a noticeable measurement
response when the LOX level passed corresponding thermocouples, which was
to be expected.
Fuel tank skin temperatures were well below the predicted maximum until
the end of flight when a significant increase in temperature was noted.
A maximum temperature of 344.82°K (161°F) was reached at the end of
flight, as shown in Figure 17-18. These temperatures were within
structural capability and caused no concern.
Intertank skin temperatures were below predicted maximum throughout flight

and within the previous flight data band, as shown in Figure 17-19.
As shown in Figure 17-20, the forward skirt skin temperatures were higher
than on previous flights° This was due to the removal of insulation from
the forward skirt of the S=IC stage. However, temperatures were well
below the predicted maximum throughout flight and reached a maximum of
313,15°K (104°F) at S=IC Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO),
17.4.2 S-II Stage Aeroheating Environment
Aeroheating rates on the S=ll stage were analyzed using the ASo504
postflight trajectory and angle-of-attack data obtained from Q=bal]
17-16
200
350
PREDICTED MAXIMUM _.._..
300 / 1O0
AS-5O4 FLIGHTDATABAND /
C173-119 C177-11! /
C176-119C175"119
C179-119_
\\ / / ..
PREVIOUSFLIGHT
r- DATABAND
zoo
...... _ _-_ i
_- / __ -IOO
.....
_
.....
_
ioo _ _
--300
0 20 40 60 80 1O0 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS

Figure 17-17. S-IC LOX Tank Skin Temperature
340 ............
-150
....
i PREDICTED
MAXIMUM
!._ / " _ - 125
320 ..... I
F- : / I" F--
31o loo
JdAS-504
JC080-117
FLIGHTDATABAND
C081-117 / / z /_/_/
// ,-'" ",S
_'- ./ / _ 75
290 /1.//71_ _///_ ,I/_/_ _Zz_.._

;/_ _
• 50
280
_" 00 120 140 16D
RANGETIN, SECONDS
Figure 17-18, S-IC Fuel Tank Skin Temperature
17-17
360
........... .... ' d

/
/_
340 ..... A /
PREDICTED
MAXIMUM._. ./[/"
_
o _i I o
PREVIOUS
DATABANDFLIGHT'" _ /<""
/ L _ _ /,_/---'_ _:
280 " _ _ _ :o6z-11D co63-1181

_AS-504 FLIGHT
DATA
BANDI ._
1
260 .................................
0 20 40 60 80 1O0 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure-17-19. S-IC Intertank Skin Temperature
IR;
's_IcoEco
-- i I" -i _.... ........... .220
360" _ ; .............. / _"

//
......... _ '" I _.',_' ... .180
/ I ...... " 1', .]40

320- : : _ /
-504 FLIGHTDATABAND' ......... , _ I ! ..... 100 _:
;064-I
ZO C322_120 / _
_067-120 C323_120 _ / //_
•..... I/.¢Y/'/_ FZ_, 60
,oo
..................................
280 _//_.,_
,_,-_
_'-_,:-',, _;;;
"_*.-'.
"-'_-_.-
..... , _
.-- _ ,
"-_._ PREVIOUSDATA
.
BANDFLIGHT
- ....
20
260
.... 20 40 60 go 100 120 140 1go
RANGE TIME_ SECONDS
Figure 17-20. S-IC Forward Skirt Skin Temperature
17-18
measurements. Atmospheric data were obtained from the final Meteoro-
logical Data Tape. The aeroheating rates were then calculated by means
of a digital computer program. These predicted rates were corrected to
calorimeter conditions for purposes of direct comparison with flight
data.
Predicted heating rates to calorimeters located on the S-II aft interstage

are compared to AS-504 flight data in Figure 17-21. The agreement of
flight data with predicted values and previous flight data is good. The
heating rate spike shown at 162 seconds is due to the S-I] ullage motor
plume. The heating pulses indicated at 30 and 138 seconds are under
investigation.
AS 504 7" PREVIOUS

__m--PREDICTION - ---FLIGHT DATA I FLIGHT DATA
3.0 , , , ,
VEH STA 43.5m
(1715.75_n.) c8oj-2oi _11' °2.4
Az 6 ............--'- I1"2t_1
2.5 ----VEH STA 43.2m .4fllllll_
(17olin.) c9o5-o2oo
/IIIIW
AZ1o--I _IIIII -2.0
VEH STA 42.0m /lllllllll
2.0 (]654 in.) C909-200 / IIIIIIIII
MACHI AZ ioo-J IIIIIIIII .o

1.5-- _ MAX
Q -- =
_ S-IC/S-II SEPARATIONCOMMAND -" "1.2
L_ L_J
_ 1.0 _
0.5 -_
MINIMUM
-0.5
-,.o0 ......................
25 50 75 100 125 150 175
_" RANGE
TIME,SECONDS
Figure 17o21. S-II Aft Interstage Aeroheating Environment
17-19
The heating rates on the forward conical fairing of an u11age motor on
the S_11 aft interstage are shown in Figure 17-22. Agreement between
predicted values and AS_504 flight data is very good, except for the
period from I00 to 140 seconds range time. As on previous flights, the
flight data is somewhat lower than the prediction for this time period.
The ullage motor fairing in question is located aft of the LOX vent valve
fairing, and displaced II degrees in azimuth. Depending on the varying
flow direction of the boundary layer over the ullage motor fairings, cold
gases from within the LOX vent valve fairing could lower the calorimeter
disk temperature and thus falsely indicate reduced heating rates. These
cold gases could result from boundary layer flow, under the aft portion
of the LOX vent valve fairing, being cooled by contact with the cold valve
components.
I FLIGHTDATA
PREVIOUS .... PREDICTION
POSTFLIGHT AS-504
FLIGHT DATA
3.0
ULLAGEMOTORFAIRING .......
TOTAL HEATING RATES
VEH STA 42.01m (1654 in.)
I l AzC8°3'2°°--23o°
!r
2.0 ...... _.ACHI .......
_/MAX Q
_E WS-IC/S-II SEPARATIONCOFI_AND _ -1.6

_ 1.5
1.o ...................... _ .........

_ a_
< 0.5.
_
= /_/
-0.5 ........... _-0.4
-1.o ----.- _ _ _ --0.8

0 25 50 75 I00 125 150 175
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-22. S-11 Aft Interstage Aeroheating Environment,

Ullage Motor Fairing
17-20
The heating rate pulse at liftoff, as shown in Figure 17-22, is assumed
to be due to radiation from the S-IC engines exhaust. The spike at about
162 seconds is due to radiation from the S-II ullage motor plume. The
.... pulses at 30 and 138 seconds range time are under investigation.
The heating rates sensed by calorimeters located on the aft boattail of

an LH2 feedline fairing are shown in Figure 17-23. The heating rate
sensed by calorimeter A, located just downstream of the cylindrical portion
of the feedline fairing, is considerably lower than that sensed by
calorimeter B, located further downstream on the aft conical fairing.
.... POSTFLIGHT AS-504 T PREVIOUS

PREDICTION _ FLIGHT DATA ],FLIGHT DATA
3.0
FLOW_
_ - 2.4
2.5
_MACH
1 t
ZMAX
Q -2.0
2.0 --_7S-IC/S-II SEPARATIONCOMMAND i_ I

C846-218 _ -1.6
I •5 C847-218
AZ98°-(_ - '
4_ AZ 135° _"-_ -1.2 __
w 1.0
_c T-(B) VEH
STA44.35m
,_ 0.8
_ \_ (1746in.) <
_
_- 0.5
< (1782.68
in.) z
0.4
L_
-0.5 -0.4
.o ----
-I -o.8
_'" 25 50 75 I00 125 150 175
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17-23o S-II LH2 Feedline Aft Fairing Heating Rates
17-21
This is due to the fact that calorimeter B is in a higher heating area
downstream of the reattachment shock, aft of the fairing joggle. The
predicted heating rate value for this location does not include the effects
of the reattachment Shock° As a result, the flight data for calorimeter B
is higher than the prediction. The cause of low heating rates sensed by
calorimeter A, during the time period from 75 to 125 seconds, is possibly
due to cool gases from within the fairing being driven out of the aft
joggle of the fairing, due to the rapidly lessening pressure outside of
the fairing.
The high heating rates indicated by both calorimeters between 150 and 162
seconds could be due to S-IC engine exhaust gas flowing forward along the
vehicle skin into this low pressure region. This phenomenon is presently
under investigation. The heating effects that would be due to the exhaust
gas are not accounted for in the predicted heating rate values. Due to
the short duration of additional heating, the added heat flux does not
raise the structural temperature significantly; about 2.78°K (5°F).
Good agreement is seen between the ASw504 flight data, predicted values,
and previous flight data for heating rates to calorimeters located on the
forward conical portion of the LH2 feedline fairing, as shown in Figure
17-24.
The heating rates to calorimeters located on the forward skirt of the S-II
stage are presented in Figure 17-25. Good agreement exists with previous
flight data and with predicted values. The heating rate spike due to the
S:II ullage motor plume is apparent in Figure 17-25, at about 162 seconds.
Representative AS-504 structural and fairing temperature data are shown

in Figures 17-26 through 17_28o In general, the AS-504 temperature data
agree well with previous flight data and with postflight predictions.
Flight data are compared with predicted values of forward skirt skin
temperatures in Figure 17-26. Ullage motor fairing temperatures are
shown in Figure 17-27. LH2 tank insulation surface temperature data and
predicted values are shown-in Figure 17-28.
17-22
} S
./
_7 MACH I
S-lC/S-II
_MAXQ SEP_AT_ON
CO_D
------ PREDICTION
POSTFLIGHT FLIGHT
AS-504DATA FLIGHTDATA
.LTPREVIOUS ------ PREDICTIOII
POSTFLIGHT-- _IC_HTDATA
AS-501i FtIC_TDATA
] PREVIOUS
3.0 _7 14ACHI I (_ VEIlSTA 62.7m (2470in.')

C_S-IISEPARATIOII
CGMSv_IID -2.4
AZ B3° (C820-Z19)
2.0--LH2 FEEDLINE -_-i_VEHSTA49.46m . 2.0
FAIRINGTOTAL j _ (1947.24in.)
HEATINGRATES, iCll48.218_
_fC850.21
ii
_ "-_
I.S _AZ 45° #_AZ 315°#

iI_VEHSTA48.54m _ _? _ 1.5 T
_.
-._ _. IAZ 4B°I

icss2-n8
_ • - _ I " -
-0. -0. --0.4
o 2s so 7s log I2_ Iso o 2s so 7s lOG 12s iso 17s

RANGE
TIHE,
SECONDS RARGE
TIHE-,
SECONDS
Figure17-24. S-If LH2 FeedlineForward Figure17-25. S-IfBodyAeroheating

FairingHeatingRates Environment,
ForwardSkirt
17-24
TRANSDUCER C891-218
f- ___ _ r_ VEH
AZ59STA
° 50.7m (1994 in.)
\ TANK WALL
7 S-IC/S-II SEPARATIONCOMMAND
S-II SECONDPLANE SEPARATION COMMAND

500 I I I I
501FLIGHT DATA -400
-- 502 FLIGHT DATA
450--- 503 FLIGHTDATA __
504 FLIGHT DATA
DESIGNPREDICTION i _-_ "_ _ 300
........... POSTFLIGHTPREDICTION /
/
_: 400 l I I J / ....................... ,.,_
o / o
/
c_c / z _ "200r_
w
_- 350 y
F-
ff as
J
tz3 _ t_s
/ .... lO0 ,..u
_- 300 " "" • "__
.,._'_" _ J 0
250 ., "- "_
200 " _ --100

0 25 50 75 lO0 i25 150 175 200
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 17=28. S-II Body Structural Temperature,

_ LH2 Tank Insulation Surface
17-25/17-26
,s- SECTION
18
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM
18.1 SUMMARY
The S-IC canister conditioning system and the aft environmental conditioning
system performed satisfactorily during the AS-504 countdown.
The S-II thermal control and compartment conditioning system maintained

temperatures within Lhe design limits throughout the prelaunch operations.
The IU Environmental Control System (ECS) exhibited satisfactory performance

throughout the flight. Coolant temperatures, pressures and flowrates were
continuously maintained within the required ranges !nd design limits. The
gas bearing pressure differential drifted 0.28 N/cmz (0.4 psid) above the
10o69 N/cm2 (15.5 psid) maximum, and the platform internal ambient pressure
remained above the 8.27.±1.03 N/cm2 (12.0 ± 1.5 psia) specification range
for most of the mission. These conditions had no detrimental effect on the
mission or other IU systems.
18.2 S-IC ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The ambient temperatures of the I0 canisters in the S-IC forward skirt

compartment must be maintained at 299.8 _II.I°K (80 ±20°F) during equipment
operation prior to J-2 engine chilldown, and between 324.8 to 277.6°K
(125 to 40°F) during J-2 engine chilldown. No. canister conditioning is
required after S-IC forward umbilical disconnect.
The ambient temperatures within the canisters remained within the required
limits during the countdown, as shown in Figure 18-I. Canister No. 6
recorded the lowest temperature, 290.6°K (63.3°F), during prelaunch. The
lowest canister temperature measured in flight was 277.5°K (39.7°F) in
canister No. 2, as shown in Figure 18-I.
During J-2 engine chill down, the thermal environment is at the most critical
point. Within this period the ambient temperature in the forward skirt
compartment dropped, as shown in Figure 18-2. The lowest temperature,
131.2°K (-223.6°F), was recorded at instrument C207-120 which is located
/f_. under a J-2 engine nozzle and recieved the maximum effect of the cold helium.
All other ambient temperatures were above the 205.4°K (-90°F) design
minimum.
18-I
TEHPERATUREj °K TEMPERATURE, °K
o_ _ oo o
240
/'-" • -40
g _ _ :'_= ._g
_ _oo _ _'_ _
L r AS-D04FLIGHTDATABAND
', - C164- 20 C165-120
! ! | I G206-THROUGH C209-120 "-160
! -200
i[l F (i
_- ,oo
,_o Ji _-____.
TiIV- i - T-FT-t
/ II --,DG
._2_.
-230 -D20 -210 -200 _190 -180 -170 -16G -150 -140 -130 -120
-2_0
-120 -II0 -100 -90 -80 =70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
ZO _ 120
RANGE
TI_, SECO_
Figure 18-2. S=IC Forward Compartment Ambient Temperature
18=3
The design requirements for the aft compartment are that the prelaunch
temperature be maintained at 299.7 ±8o3°K (80 ±I5°F). Aft compartment
prelaunch temperatures are shown in Figure 18-3. The lowest prelaunch
temperature recorded was 290.4°K (62.9°F) at instrument C203-I15. Although
this measurement was 1.2°K (2.1°F) below the minimum requirement, no .....
problem was experienced. During flight the lowest temperature was 270.4°K
(37.0°F) at instrument CI07-I15o
18.3 S_II ENVIRONMENTALCONTROL
The S-II stage Environmental Control System consists of two parts described
as follows:
a. The engine compartment conditioning system is designed to maintain an

inert and controlled temperature in the S-II/S-IC interstage when
propellants are on board. The system consists of lightweight plastic
ducting which distributes facility supplied GN2 throughout the compart-
mento The purge gas exits from the interstage through vent holes at
vehicle stations above the thrust cone, immediately below the thrust
cone, and in the S_IC forward skirt. The purge gas temperature is
controlled by the launch pad facility to produce an average ambient
temperature of 278 ±2.8°K (40 C5°F) as indicated by four thermistors
located on the S_II thrust cone. The purge gas flow rate is controlled
by facility valving to a nominal rate of 3.78 kg/s (8.33 Ibm/s).
bo Two similar, but independent, thermal control systems consisting of

fiberglass containers, distribution manifold, and umbilical disconnect
are employed. One system, with 3 containers, is located in the forward
interstage; the other system, with II containers, is located in the aft
interstage. The systems are designed to provide a controlled tempera-
ture and inert atmosphere for electronic equipment located in the
containers. Conditioned airfor cooling during ground checkout prior
to propellant loading, and warm GN2 for inerting and heating after
propellant loading are supplied through umbilical disconnects from the
launch pad facility. The conditioned gas is distributed from the
disconnects to each container by manifolds and flow control orifices.
The gas exhausts from the containers to the interstage through vent
holes in the container walls. Continuous flow is maintained until
umbilical separation at liftoffo During flight, the equipment
temperatures are maintained by thermal inertia and container insulation.
The environmental control system performed satisfactorily throughout the

launch countdown and flight. Temperatures in the forward thermal_control
system were similar to those of AS-501 and ASI502, and were generally
warmer than AS-503. The only instrumented container in the aft system
indicated temperatures nearly identical with previous vehicles. /_mbient
• 18-4
J ",
Figure 18-3. S-IC Aft Compartment Temperature Range

temperatures in the S-II/S-IC interstage prior to initiation of thrust
chamber chill were generally warmer but more uniform than those of the
AS-503. At liftoff and through early boost phases, the temperatures were
similar to previous vehicles. There were no indications of hydrogen or
oxygen in the S-II/S-lC interstage throughout the countdown.
18.4 IU ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The ECS maintained acceptable operating conditions for components mounted

within the Instrument Unit (IU) and the S-IVB stage forward skirt during
preflight and flight operations. The ECS is composed of a Thermal Condition-
ing System (TCS) and a Gas Bearing Supply System (GBS). A preflight purge
subsystem provided compartment conditioning prior to launch.
18.4.1 Thermal Conditioning System
The IU TCS, shown in Figure 18-4, Methanol/Water (M/W) coolant control

temperature cycled within the required 280.3 to 293.1°K (45 to 68°F)
temperature band, as shown in Figure 18-5. Initial sublimator startup
and sublimator performance parameters during ascent are shown in
Figure 18-6. Immediately after liftoff the Modulating Flow Control
Valve (MFCV) began driving toward the full heatsink position, as
commanded, which was achieved at approximately 30 seconds. The water
valve opened by switch selector command at 184 seconds, allowing water to
flow to the sublimator. Immediate cooling was evidenced by the rapid
decline in the coolant fluid temprature. At the first thermal switch
sampling, the coolant temperature was still above the actuation point
and the water valve remained open. The second thermal switch sampling,
at approximately 778 seconds, resulted in closing of the water supply
valve. Coolant flowrates and pressures were well within required ranges
as indicated in Table 18-I.
Table 18-I. TCS Coolant Flowrates and Pressures
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
PARAMETER REQUIREMENT OBSERVED OBSERVED
IU Coolant Flowrate 6.06 x I0 _4 6.25 x 10-4 6.44 x 10-4

F9-602 m3/s (gpm) (9.6 Minimum) (9.9) (10.2)
S-IVB Coolant (gpm)

FlO-6Olm3/s Flowrate ¢9.2i±2 i7.8
52 x ±0.4)
10-5 4.92 x (7.8)
10.4 5.17 x (8.2)
10-4
PumpInlet Pressure 10.80 to I].72 11.03 Iio51

D24_601N/cm2 (psia) (15.7 to 17.0) (16.0) (16.7)
PumpOutlet Pressure 28.89 to 33.23 30.06 32.40 ......

D17-601N/cm2 (psia) (41.9 to 48.2) (43.6) (47.0)
18-6
'f PREFLIGHTAIR/GN2 PURGE SUBSYSTEM
ORIFICE GAS BEARING ST-12_ INERTIAL ORIFICE ORIFICE ORIFICE

SUPPLY- ASSEMBLY HEAT EXCHANGER PLATFORMASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY
THERMAL
SWITCHES DI7-601 LAURCH VEHICLE
COULANT I OIGITAL CO)_PUTE
TEMPERATURE C15-60]
RE_OA_T
SENSOR i
METHA_(UL :DI1-603 LAUNCHVEHICLE _i
WATER _TA ADAPTER i
B24-E_)I ACCLK_ULATOR i
RETURN_ GN2 -- FLIGHT !I
---- --"I SOLENOID CUPTROL
EXPANSIOR VALVE B COMPUTER _1
GSE
BUPPLIEB
I "_E_
AIR OR C4_
2 CHEER _i
UMBILICAL ,PBEFLIGRT II
HEAT BIO-6O3 '
EXCHANGER GAS BEARING i;
PRESSURE '1
SWITCH !
COOL_T
WATER
SUPPLIEDGSE SOLE_IB REGULATOR GN2 STORAGESPHERE G_2
SOLENOID Ii'
_,_ S_LIRMTOR VALVE _ATER FILL VALVE ii
& h
." C6-60_ PORT ii

I
PRESSURE 2O-MICRO/_ i
ELECTRONIC BY_ASS
CONTROLLER _ MODULATING iI
ASSEMBLY FLOW BLEEDER C_2 STO2AGE SPHERE _:
CI1-60'
,ALVE ORIFICE
CONTROL ORIFICE
ASSE_LY REGULATOR
CALIB_TE !i
_2 S UPPLY
_ -- Fg-602m
EMERGENCY
VEN1
FIO-6OI -- RETURN ii
| SHUTOFF VALVE F j
QUICKBISCUPNECT(TYP) INSTRI_tENT
UNIT C26-601
S-IVB STAGE _'_"
LEGEND SUPPLY
_ _
I: METHANOL-WATER_L_T
METHANOL-WATER(GSE S(E_PLIED)
H
If
GASEOUSNIT_N (G_2)
P'-":*=_I
WATER AND WATER VAPOR !
CALIBRATELINE (_VE PRIOR TO FLIGHT) i
TEST POINT RETURM_ "-"
Figure 18-4. IU Environmental Control System Schematic

The TCS GN2 sphere pressure decay, which is indicative of the GN2 usage
rate, was approximately as expected for the nominal case, as shown in
Figure 18-7. The rapid drop in the first 1000 seconds, though not
predicted, is not considered an abnormal condition.
/_ ...... 24
-34
23
22 -32
21
I -30
2oi
19 "28
18 -26
17 -24
16
% 15 -22 0
-20
B
-18
. 12
II -16
lO -14
CONSUMPTION RATE
8 -12
7
-8
4 -6
3 BELOW300 PSIA -4
2
-2
0
2 4 6 8 lO 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

J J L J _ J • ! l± m
1:06:40 2:]3:20 3:20:00 4:26:40 5:33:20 6:40:00 7:46:40 8:53:20 lO:O0:O0
RANGE TIME: HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 18-7. Thermal Conditioning System GN2 Pressure
Selected component temperature curves are shown in Figure 18-8. All

temperatures of the platform and its associated equipment were nominal with
the exception of the inertial gimbal (C34_603). This temperature began to
decrease from 315.7°K (I08.6°F) immediately after liftoff, and fell below
the specified limit of 316 ±3°K (I09oi ±5.4°F) between 6000 and II,000
seconds. The temperature continued to decline steadily, reaching 309.2°K
(96.9°F) at 26,449 seconds_ Investigation has failed to reveal a specific
18-9
303
302 I 1 I I 1 t Illl t I ] 85
,-_,ACCEL. SIG. COND. C62-603
301 " *,_ STo124M ELECT. BOX C63-603
300 "_'"250VA INVERTER C67-603
o¢:_CONTROLCOMPUTER C69-602 80
299 2
4_
4
297 2 _ 75
295 / .
N294 70
292 . |
291 _'_- F_
290
289 L60
288 ,,_"
287 o "_"
286 :y @o _ -55
285 oo
284 --
283 0.2 0.4 0,6 0.8 1.0 2 4 6 8 IO 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 50
RANGE TIME, lO 3 SECONDS
1:06:40 2:I3;20 3:20:00 4:26:40 5:33:20 6:40:00

317
316 i .ST-12 M INTERNALGIMBALTEM'ERATURE
C34-603 II0 u_
314315
"" ' _° Ii
3]2 I
...... - " ".
_
_
I .I05
°
309 il II
296
295
294 __ "; " 70
293 .o ,o o ,o
GUIDANCECOMPUTER oc_ _ I_
292 -_- L_
_: (LOGIC PAGE) C53-603-- <_ _ P° [o°_ 65
__ 291 _oo GUIDANCE COMPUTER @
290 (MEMORY)C54-603 i _-
.... LVDA (2AIOA5)C55-603
289
288 o_o_ILVDA(2AIOAII)C56-1603
I I I I 60
O 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 l.O 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
RANGE TIME, 103SECONDS
[ I | I J L
0]:06:40 02:13:20 03:20:00 04:26:40 05:33:20 06:40:00
RANGETIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS ....
Figure 18_8. Selected Component Temperatures
18-10
cause for this deviation. However, the probable cause was wery likely
due to response to lower than expected environment which is not of a
serious nature and will be observed on future flights. The AS_504
platform had a newly designed M/W flow configuration in the spherical
..... covers, and used axial blowers (low flow). However, calculations
indicate that the cooling rate should be nearly identical to that of
previous cover configurations. It should be noted that AS-201 flight
cooled even more rapidly than AS_504 during boost, and it used axial
blowers (high flow).
,During preflight testing, the inertial gimbal temperature periodically

failed to rise to the specified minimum limit. This did not significantly
affect the platforma_curacy, and a waiver of the temperature requirement
was obtained before l_iaunch.
18.4.2 Gas Bearing Supply System
The gas bearing pressure regulator is required to maintain a GN2 pressure

differentialacross the platform bearing of I0.34 _0.34 N/cm2
(15.0 _0.5 psid). As shown in Figure 18-9, the pressure differential
drifted from the initial value of 10.48 N/cm2 (15.2 psid) at liftoff to
a value of I0.96 N/cm2 (15.9 psid) at 22,000 seconds. The upper limit of
the specificationvalue of 10.69 N/cmz (15.5 psid) was exceeded sometime
between 6000 and ll,O00 seconds. The platform internal ambient pressure
remained above the 8.27 _I.03 N/cm2 (]2.0 _I.5 psia) specificationrange
for most of the mission. Although similar occurrences have taken place
on the four previous missions, the phenomenon of gradual increase of the
pressure differential is, for the most part_ unexplained. The probable
cause was possibly due to regulator drift which is not of a serious
nature. The planned corrective action will be defined in IU Specifications
and Criteria document (0.3.5.3.3). The past occurrences of a slightly
high pressure differential have not been considered as an unacceptable
condition, as no serious detrimental effect on platform operation has
been identified.
The GBS GN2 sphere pressure decay is shown in Figure 18-I0 and is as
nominally expected. This is an indication of normal GN2 consumption by
the GBS.
18-11
IN FLIGHT SPECIFICATIONRANGE
12 ST-'124MGAS BEARING D#FE'RENTIALPRESSURE D1'I-603 L17
-io
_B I]-- eNe
I _ +N IN
I eN mmm++16 ° -14 '_
13
12 _.
. 9 -13 .
N .11 N
o. 7- -10 '_
+9
60 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
I I I I | I I 1 I
1:06:40 3:20:00 5:33:20 7:46:40 I0:00:00
2:13:20 4:26:40 6:40:00 8:53:20
Figure 18-9. Inertial Platform GN2 Pressures
24
23 __ .34
22
21
30
19 28
18 26
17
16 24
15 22
_ 14 120
13 ._
%+ Iz %
-ID
-lZ _
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
RANGETIME+ I03SECONDS
..... t l I l t .t I o i ...... I
I:06:40 2:13:20 3:20:00 4:26:40 5:33:20 6:40:00 7:46:40 8:53:20 10:00:00 \+
RANGE TIE. HOURS:NINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 18-10o Gas Bearing System GN2 Pressure
18+12
"f_ SECTION19
DATA SYSTEMS
19.1 SUMMARY
The data system for the AS-504 launch vehicle consisted of 2179 active
flight measurements, 17 telemetry links, 3 tape recorders and tracking
by Offset Frequency Doppler (ODOP), C,Band and Commahd Communication
System (CCS). This was the first flight on which airborne film cameras
were not utilized. All elements of the data system performed satisfac-
torily except for 4 telemetry deviations, discussed in paragraph 19.3.
A degraded CCS power amplifier output is also discussed in paragraph
19.5.3.2 which did not adversely affect required data.
The propagation of Radio Frequency (RF) transmissions from the vehicle

was satisfactory. Good tracking data were received and data indicate
satisfactory performance of the CCS except for the degraded power ampli-
fier output. Final loss of the Very High Frequency (VHF) telemetry RF
signal occurred at 39,260 seconds (10.54:20). The Ultra High Frequency
(UHF) telemetry
seconds signal The
(10.29.18). was reported
C-Band radarlostwasbycommandedoff
Goldstone (GDS)at 37,758
at 27,213,5
seconds (7:33:03.5) and final loss of CCS signal was reported by GDS
to have occurred at 48,066 seconds (13:21:06).
The 87 ground engineering cameras provided good data during the launch.
However, dense cloud coverage precluded the acquisition of tracking
camera data between 30 and 50 seconds.
19.2 VEHICLE MEASUREMENTSEVALUATION
The AS-504 launch vehicle had 2194 measurements scheduled for the flight.
A summary of these measurements, number per stage and overall performance
may be found in Table 19-I. Prior to the start of automatic countdown,
15 measurements were waived as a flight requirement (see Table 19-2);
three, however, provided valid flight data. Of the remaining 2179 mea-
surements which were active, 23 were judged to be total failures and
19 others partially failed (see Table 19-3). In addition, 2 were impro-
perly ranged (see Table 19-4) and II remain questionabl.e (see Table 19-5).
-_ Flight measurement reliability for the launch vehicle was 98.9 percent,
which compares very favorably with the 99.0 percent obtained on AS-503.
19-I
Table 19-I. ASI504 Flight Measurement Summary
S-IVB ......
MEASUREMENTS S-IC S-II STAGE INSTRUMENTTOTAL
CATEGORY STAGE STAGE PHASEI* PHASEII v UNIT VEHICLE
Scheduled 666 I018 288 288 222 2194

Waived 2 I0 3 3 0 15
Failures 5 13 2 5 0 23
Partial
Failures 14 5 0 0 0 19
ImproperRange 2 0 0 O O 2
Questionable 7 4 0 0 0 II
Reliability,
Percent 99.2 98.7 99.3 98.2 I00.0 98.9
*Notes: I. S-IVB Phase I period of performance is from liftoff to

parking orbit insertion.
2. S-IVB Phase II period of performancefor AS_504 was
from liftoff until initiationof restart preparations
for S-IVB third burn, T8, which occurred at 21,581
seconds.
19.2.1 S-IC Stage Measurement Analysis
There were 666 flight measurements scheduled for the S-IC stage. Two of
these measurements were waived prior to the start of automatic countdown
and provided no useful flight data (see Table 19_2). Of the remaining
664 active flight measurements, 5 were total failures and 14 partially
failed (see Table 19_3). In addition, 2 were improperly ranged (see "
Table 19_4) and 7 remain questionable (see Table 19-5). The flight
measurement reliability was 99.2 percent.
19.2o2 S_II Stage Measurement Analysis
There were lOl8 flight measurements scheduled for the S-II stage. Ten
measurements were waived prior to the start of automatic countdown of
which one provided valid data during the flight (see Table 19_2). Of
the remaining I008 active flight measurements, 4 provided questionable
data (see Table 19-5), 13 were considered to be total failures and 5
partially failed (see Table 19-3). The flight measurement reliability ......
was 98.7 percent.
19-2
Table 19-2. AS_504 Flight Measurements Waived Prior to Launch
MEASUREMENT
/_ fl_MBER MEASUREMENT TITLE NATURE OF FAILURE REMARKS
-lli Tml
S-IC STAGE
coog-I04 Temperature, Engine Gimbal Wires shorted in trans- Waiver LIA-I-51

System Return, Pitch ducer cable
Actuator
E085-I17 Vibration, LOX Inboard Measurement saturated full Waiver LIA-I-50

.I Tunnel scalenegative
S-II STAGE
DO30-201 LH2 Recirculation Pump "Transducer Failure ,Installation

Discharge Pressure
D030-202 LH_ Recirculation Pump Transducer Failure Installation

Discharge Pressure
D030-203 LM2 Recirculation Pump Transducer Failure Installation

Discharge Pressure
D030-204 LH2 Recirculation Pump Transducer Failure Installation

Discharge Pressure
DO30-205 LH2 Recirculation Pump Transducer Failure Installation

Discharge Pressure
D152-202 Lt_2Recirculation Pump Transducer Failure Installation

In]et Pressure
C714-206 Heat Shield Aft Surface Transducer Grounded

Temperature
C052-203 E3 LOX Return Line Transducer Grounded (NR Waiver No, 4-12)
Temperature
C121-218 LR2 Tank Insulation Transducer Intermittent Provided Valid Data

Surface Temperature DuringFlight
MO51-Z2B TLM Power Out F_KJ Low Power Indication CouplerComponentLeakage

Coupler #2 (WaiverI-N-SO4-6)
S-IVB STAGE
C0001_401 Temp-Fuel Turbine inlet Erratic During CDDT_and Valid Data During Flight
Offscale Low During
Countdown
COOOT-4Ol Temp-Engine Control Helium Erratic During CDDT and All Flight Data Question-
Launch Countdown able
C0159-424 Temp-LOX Circ Ret Line Erratic During CDDT and Valid Data During Flight
Tank Inlet Launch Countdown
y_
19_3
Table 19-3. AS-504 Measurement Malfunctions
TIME OF
FAILURE DURATION
MEASUNEhIENT MEASUREMENT
TITLE NATUREOP FAILURE (RANGE SATISFACTORY REMARKS
NUMBER
TIME) OPERATION
TOTAL
MEASUREMENT
FAILURES,
S-IC
STAGE
EO41-102 Vibration,Fuel Pump Data containedhigh Ignition None Causedby system

Flange,Longitudinal ampIitude,low frequency saturationdue to high
noise throughout level vibration{high
frequency)
E042-]02 Vibratton_Fuel Pump Data containedhigh Ignition None Causedby system

Flange, Radial amplitude,10_ frequency saturationdue to
noise throughout high level vibration,
EOA2-I03 Vibration,Fuel Pump Data containedhigh Ignition None Caused by system

Flange, Radial amplitude, low frequency saturationdue to
noise throughout high level vibration,
EO42-104 Vibration,Fuel Pump Data containedhigh Ignition None Causedby system

Flange, Radial amplitude,low f_equency saturationdue to Nigh
noise throughout vibration,
EO42-lO5 Vibration,Fuel Pump Data containedNlgh Ignition None Caused by system

Flange,Radial amplitude,low frequency saturationdue te
noise throughout high level vIbratton.
TOTAL MEASUREMENTFAILURES,S-IT STAGE
C730-206 HeatshieldGas Recovery Limitedto low side of 0 sac None Transducerfailure,

T at 225°F range
Dog9-206 HeatshieldForward Pace P i Full range until 123 sec.

I Minimum range after 138
138 sec None Transducerfailure,
SaC,
DI02-206 HeatshieldForward Pace P Full range until 44 sac. 44 sac. None Transducerfailure.
Zero range after 44 sac.
DllS-219 ForwardSkirt StaticP Constantpressureuntil 0 to 41 sec. Afl_er41 Responsenob as

41 sec. seconds. )redlctedduring first
41 seconds.
EDOI-gOI El Long Vib Combustion Noise spikes throughout 0 sec. None Intermittentconnector
Dome flight c_tacto s_s_ected.
EODI-2O2 E2 Long Vib Combustion Appears to be acoustic O sec. None

Dome data during S-IC burn;
low amplitudedata during
S-bE burn,
E001-204* E4 Long Vib Combustion Very low amplitudesigna| 0 sec. None Isolatedtimeslices
Dome with high noise level where spectrbmindicates
throughoutflight. )ossibilltyof valid
data.
EOOg-20] El Radia] Vlb LOX Pump Noise spikes throughout 0 sec. None :Intermittentangle
flight saturationsuspected.
EOOg-204* E4 Radial Vib LOX Pump Very low amplitudesignal O sac None Isolatedtime slices
with high noise level where spectrumindicates
throughoutflight possibilltyof valid
date.
EOO3-2Ol El Radial Vib Fuel Pump Excessivenoise during 0 sec. None Cause unknown.
S_lE buY_
EOO3-2O4 E3 RadialVib Fuel Pump Excessivenoise during 0 sac. None Cause unknown.
S-II burn
E336-ZO6 Aad Vib LOX Sump/P_evalve Excessivenoise during None Intemittent connector
S-ll burn contacts suspected.
E341-203 Rad Vib LH2 Prevalve/ No RACScalibrationdata 0 sac. None Failureof channel
FDLN and no flightdata signalconditioner
detectable, suspected.
....... ,_i
_
*Contractorconsidersmeasurementto be a partial failurebased on PSD's run at Contractor'sfacility.
19-4
Table 19-3. AS=504 Measurement Malfunctions (Continued)
TIME OF
MEASUREMENT FAILURE DURATION
NUMBER MEASUREMENTTITLE NATURE OF FAILURE SATISFACTORY REMARKS
(RANGE
TIME) OPERATION
f ..... TOTALMEASUREMENT
FAILURES.
S-IVBSTAGE,PHASEI
C0133-401 Temp - OxidizerPump Erraticexcept during Prior to Appeared Faultyconnector

Discharge secondburn. liftoff nomal only suspected.
during
secondburn.
KOOOS-40I Event - Mainstage Cycled during enginespark Duringspark Before and Susceptibleto spark
Control - Sol En ign|teroperation, igniter after spark igniter operation.
operation igniter
operations.
TOTAL MEASUREMENTFAILURES, S-IVB STAGE, PHASE IT (TO 21,581SEC)
C0392-403_* Temp - Hellum heater Offscalehigh at 18,100 18,100sec. Prior to Partiallyopen

support - I sec. On scale but erratic 18,1OO sec. transducersuspected.
at 18,250sec.
C2015-401** Temp-CrossoverDuct Did not respond properly During Prior to Sensor debonded.
ExternalWall #1 to heat increase, secondburn second
burn..
C2016-401** Temp-CrossoverDuct Did not respond properly During Prior to Sensor debonded.
ExternalWall #2 to heat increase, secondburn. second
burn.
NOTE: Phase I failuresnot rellsted.
MEASUREMENT/kNOHALIES,
S-IVB STAGE,POST-PHASEIT (AFTER21,581SEC)
C0010-403 Temp-EngineArea Offscalehigh at 22,045 22,045sec. Prior to Sensormay have

#znbient sec., returnedonscale at 22,045 sec. partiallyopened during
29,480but later drifted third burn.
offscalehigh.
C0199-401 Temp-ThrustChamber Went offscale hlgh at 22,150sec. Prior to Sensorlaayhave pulled

Jacket 22,1S0sec. 22,150 seco loose from thrust
chamber.
C020O-401 Temp-Fuel Injection Went offscalehigh at 22,040sec. Prior to Sensormay have

22,040sec. 22,040 sec. partiallyopended.
D003-403 Press-OxidlzerPump Data drops from 43 to ]O 22,069sec. Prior to Damage to transducer

Inlet psia at 22,069 sec. 22,069 sec. wiper arm suspected.
Offscalelow at 22,290.
D0104-403 Press-LN2 Press Module Went offscale high at 22,237 sec. Prior to Possible open
Inlet 22,237 sec. 22,237 sec, transducer.
GO03-4Ol Posltlon-MalnOxidizer Erratic during third During Prior to Potentiometerwiper may

Valve burn. third burn. third burn. have failed.
GOO04-40I Posltion-MainFuel Valve Erratic during third During Prior to Potentlometerwiper may
burn. third burn. third burn. have failed.
K0157-401 Event-MalnstageOK Continuousswitch chatter 22,103 sec. Prior to Possible transducer

Press Switch 2 from 22,103 sec to 22,103 sec. cable damage.
22,107 sec.& dropped out
at 22,107sec.
KO159-401 Event-H/SOK Press Continuousswitch chatter 22,083sec. Prior to Possible transducer

Switch2 Depress from 22,083 to 22,101 sec,; 22,083 sec. cable damage.
pickedup at 22,101sec.
and dropped out at
22,107sec.
**Thesemeasurementsfailedbetween the end of the MDAC defined Phase IT Period (spacecraftseparation),

and the end of the NASA defined Phase IT Period (TBB initiated).
19=5
Table 1943. AS-504 Measurement Malfunctions (Continued)
MEASUREMENT FAILURE DURATID_

NUMBER MEASUREMENT
TITLE NATUREOF FAILURE (RANGE SAT.ISFACTORY REMARKS
TIME) .......
TIMEOF
PARTIAL MEASUREMENT FAILURES, S-IC STAGE
(
kO01-118 Acceleration,LongitudinalDataoffscalenegativeat 0 sec. 151 sec. I Data valid after 12 sec,

ignition.
DOO4-114 Acoustic, Rear, Fin D System had high amplitude, 15 sec.

lowfrequency noise,
15 sec,
I Causedby system
saturationdueto high
COO3-1O4 Temperature_Turbine Measurementfailedat 28 sec, 28 sec. Probabletransducer

Manifold 28 sec. failure.
C013-104 Temperature_Helium Measurementnoisy after 30 sec. Probableopen

HeatExchanger Outlet 30sec. 30 sec. transducer.
vibration level.
C 32- Ol Temperature,Exchanger
BellowsHeat Data shifts at 14 sec. 14 sec. 14 sec. attachmentPr°bable
failure, transducer_eld
Partial
C177-I19 Temperature,LOX Tank Data noisy from 60 to 60 sec. lOO sec. Probabletransducer
Skin 12Dsec_ bondfailure.
Cllg-llg Temperature,LOX Tank Data noisy from 45 to 45 sec. 130 sec. Probabletransducer
Skin 75sec. bondfailure.
I)009-103 Pressure,Gas Generator Measurementfailedat 12 sec. Probabletransducer

C_ustion Chamber 12 sec. failure.
CIRS-lOl ExternaITemperature'
Aft Nozzle, flight.Data
low throughout Ignition 12 sec. attachmentPr°bable
transducerfailure.
DI51_l15 pressure,LOX Pump Inlet Measurementfailedat 65 sec. 65 sec. Transducerfailure.
0180-119 pressure,LOX Tank Lower Data reads high Ignition Partial Data offsethigh but
Bulkhead throughoutflight, can be corrected.
EO41-101 Vib Fuel Pump Flange Transientsand data Ignition Scatteredusefuldata.

Long. dropoutsthroughout
65sec. Partial
flight.
L018-I17 Fuel Slosh Positions 2 Probesappear to be Ignition Partial Data usablebut

and 4 connectedbackwards, reversed.
LOl9-ll7 Fuel Slosh Positions2 Probesappear to be Ignition Partial Data usablebut

add 4 connectedback_a_ds. ! .... Yeversed.
PARTIAL MEASDREMEMTFAILURES,S-I| STAGE
COG3-ZO5 E5 F_el Turbine Inlet _ Excessivenoise. 477 sec. 477 sec. PossibI_open transducer
C683-206 Heat ShieldAft Surf T Maximum value at 212 sec. 210 sec. 210 sec. Possibletransducer
MiniI_m valbe f)-om223 fail_re. Responsenot
to 520 sec. as predictedafter210
sec.
C711-206 Heat ShieldAft Surf T 340°F temp. dropat 258 258 sec. 258 sec. Responseas predicted
sec. after 258sec. except
for indicated bias.
c85g-200 U11age Rocket2 Fair Dropped to minimum value 69 sec. 69 sec. Transducerfailure.
Surf T at 69 sec, and remained
constant.
C861o200 Ullage Rocket4 Fo_ard Dropped to O.OO5 BTD/ft2 IO7 sec. 1D7 sec. Meat rate not as
Fair Q and remainedconstant. )redictedafter 107 sec.
19_6
Table 19-4. AS=504 Flight Measurements With Improper Range
NUMBER MEASUREMENT
TITLE OUTPUT TIME REMARKS
MEASUREMENT I NATUREOF I
S=IC STAGE
F047-I15 Flowrate, Joint Offscale High 0 to 55 sec Data valid after T+55 sec
Leakage
LO04=ll9 LOX Level, Position Exceeded Full- I00 sec Data valid at other times
IV scale 124sac
Table 19-5. AS-504 Questionable Flight Measurements

_EASUREMERT
NUMBER MEASUREMENT
TITLE REASONQUESTIONED REMARKS
S-IC STAGE
E037-I01 Vibration,LOX Pump MeasurementsE037-I01 and Unknown
Inlet Flange, EO38-101 appear to be
Longitudinal reversed at the transducer
E038-101 Vibration,LOX Pump

Inlet Flange, Radial
E036-101 Vibration,Combustion All 5 measurementsread Unknown

E036-102 Chamber Dome, approximately 60 percent
E036-I03 Longitudinal of predicted
E036-104
E036-I05
S-If STAGE
C803-200 Forward Skirt Heat 0.15 BTU/Sq ft spike at 0 output at I10 sec not
Rate Q 65 sec, low amplitude at as high as predicted,
max heatingtime (about I to 2 BTU/sq ft
C811-216 SystemsTunnel Heat 4.6 BTU/Sq ft spike at 0.1 BTU/Sq ft output at

Rate Q 65 sec, low amplitudeat 110 sec, not as high as
max heatingtime predicted (about I to 2
BTU/Sq ft
D101-206 Heat Shield Forward Read full range until 369.5 Response not as predicted
FaceP sec. Approximately 0.02 betweenISOand 200sec
psia after 370 sec
E336-206 Rad vib LOX sump/ Relative low signal output PSD plots are not as pre-
prevalve duringfirsthalfof S=II dicted. Spectrumcontour
burn. Signal on O'graph and GRMS (high) does not
responds to environment agree with previous patterns
except for additional spikes
during second half of S-If
burn
19.2.3 S-IVB Stage Measurement Analysis
The performance of the S-IVB stage flight measurements for AS-504 was
evaluated for two phases of flight. Phase I performance period was
from liftoff to parking orbit insertion, and Phase II was from liftoff
to initiation of restart preparations for S-IVB third burn which occurred
at 21,581 seconds. A summary of the measurement performances for these
__ two phases of flight is listed in Table 19-I. The scheduled flight
measurements numbered 288. Three measurements were waived prior to the
start of automatic countdown (see Table 19-2), two of which provided
19=7
valid flight data. Of the remaining 285 active flight measurements,
there were 2 total failures during Phase I and 5 during Phase 11 (see
Table 19-3). The respective measurement reliabilities for Phase I and
Phase 11 performance periods were 99.3 and 98.2 percent.
After Phase II an additional 9 measurements either malfunctioned or

went offscale during the third burn. All of these measurement problems
are believed to be attributable to the unusual conditions which prevailed
during the third burn. These measurement anomalies are listed in
Table 19_3.
19.2.4 IU Measurement Analysis
There were 222 flight measurements scheduled for the IU. All of the
scheduled measurements were active at the start of automatic countdown
and provided valid data during the flight. The flight measurement
reliability was I00.0 percent.
19.3 AIRBORNE TELEMETRY SYSTEMS
The AS_504 launch vehicle contained a total of 17 telemetry links

including the CCS link. A listing of these links_ stage assignment and
brief performance summary is shown in Table 19-6. Performance of all
telemetry systems was satisfactory except for four malfunctions as
described in subsequent sections. The AS_2 transmitter power amplifier
apparently developed a failure at approximately 180 seconds. A gating
probl,em in the S-IVB DPJlBO multiplexer occurred at liftoff. The IU data
from the Launch Vehicle Data Adapter (LVDA) incurred a temporary failure
Table 19-6. AS-504 Launch Vehicle Telemetry Links
FREQUENCY FLIGHTPERIOD PERFORMANCE

SUM_RY
LINK (MHz) MODULATION
STAGERANGETIME,SEC)
AF-I 240.2 PAM/FM/FM S-IC 0_403 Satisfactory except AS-2 failed at 180 sec
AF-2 252.4 PAM/FM/FM 0-403 Data Dropouts
AF-3 231.9 PAM/FM/FM 0_403
AP-I 244.3 PCM/FM 0-403 Range Time (sec) Duration (sec)
AS-I 235.0 SS/FM 0-403 163.45 I.I
AS-2 256.2 SS/FM 0-403 166.8 1.7
BF-I 241.5 P_/FM/FM S-II 0-762 Satisfactory

BF-2 234.0 PAM/FM/FM 0-762 Data Dropouts
BF-3 229.9 PAM/FM/FM 0-762
JBP-I 248.5 PCM/FM 0-762 Range Time (sec) Duration (sec)
BS-I 227.2 SS/FM 0_762
BS-2 236.2 SS/FM 0-762 163.45 5.0
CP-I 258.5 PCM/FM S-IVB Flight Duration Satisfactory

Data Dropouts
RangeTime (sec) Duration (sec)
163.45 1.0
DF-I 250.7 FM/FM/FM IU Flight Duration _-

DPol 245.3 PCM/FM Flight Duration Data Dropouts
DP-IA 2277.5 PCM/FM Flight Duration
DP-IB 2282.5 PCM/FM Flight Duration Range Time (sec) Duration (sec)
163.45 1.0
19-8
of a computer word bit in the "on", or "l" condition. A degraded power
amplifier output in the CCS downlink resulted in the loss of CCS telemetry
data during 3rd burn and part of the final coast. Except for a 2-second
S-II data dropout at approximately 64.5 seconds, all data dropouts were
f_ of a predictablenature.
19.3.1 S-IC Stage Telemetry System
The S-IC stage telemetry system consisted of 3 PAM/FM/FM, 1 PCM/FMand

2 SS/FM links. Except for the AS_2 single sideband link, which exhibited
a large power loss at approximately 180 seconds, the telemetry system
performance was satisfactory. Though the exact cause of the AS-2 power
loss is unknown, a transmitter power amplifier filament failure is
suspected. The only data dropouts noted were caused by the S-IC retro
motor firing at 163.45 seconds and S-If main engines effect at 166.8
seconds. These dropouts had durations of l.l and l.l seconds,
respectively. Data lost from the AF-I and AF-2 links during these
predicted RF blackout periods were later recovered from the airborne
tape recorder.
Two programmed inflight calibrations were performed and evaluations

indicate that all telemetry calibrations were within specification.
19.3.2 S-ll Stage Telemetry System
The telemetry system for the S-II stage consisted of 3 PAM/FM/FM, 2 SS/FM,
and 1 PCM/FMlinks. Performance of the telemetry system was satisfactory.
Only one complete data dropout occurred during the 762 seconds of
operation. This dropout occurred during S-IC retro motor firing at 163.45
seconds and lasted for approximately 5 seconds.
The PCMlink, BP-I, experienced two other intermittent data dropouts at

approximately 64.5 seconds and 193 seconds. Synchronization word in-
versions and faulty synchronization commands to the time division
multiplexers were found. High electrical noise can cause this type of
problem though signal strength data does not exhibit noise transients
at these times. Investigations of this problem are continuing.
Four programmed inflight calibrations were performed, and evaluations

indicate that the telemetry calibrations were within specifications.
19.3.3 S-IVB Stage Telemetry System
The S-IVB stage contained only one telemetry link, PCM/FM, on the AS_504
flight. From evaluations of received data, performance of the telemetry
system was satisfactory. However, a problem associated with the DP-IBO
multiplexer developed at liftoff. Measurement D0002-403, Pressure-Fuel
Pump Inlet, exhibited a large reduction in pressure at liftoff, as
received from the IU telemetry link DP-I. However, the same measurement
is redundantly telemetered through the CP-IBO multiplexer and indicated
19-9
no change in pressure. It is suspected that a gating problem developed
in the DP=IBO multiplexer at 3fitoff which affected only the one
measurement. Investigations of the problem are continuing.
19.3.4 IU TelemetrySystem ....
The IU telemetry system consisted of 1 FM/FM/FMand 3 PCM/FMlinks.

Performance of the telemetry links was satisfactory with two exceptions.
A failure developed in the circuitry which conditions data from the LVDA
for the DP=I telemetry link. At S-11/S-IVB separation, word 2 bit lO of
the 40 bit computer word failed in the "I" position and remained in this
state until spacecraft separation when it returned to normal. This
failure affected only the telemetry data. As shown in Figure 19-I, the
40 bit computer word is divided into 4 lO-bit words for telemetry. The
flow of this data from the LVDA to the telemetry system model 301 PCM
assembly is illustrated in Figure 19-2o
WORD I _RD 2 i WORD 3 WORD 4

8A and 2_ 9A _nd 24A I I_ and 25A lIA and 26A
PCM ChannelAsslg_nts
; DTi
F DATA
....
!- TAOREO ; g:k OA A
Bits _ I Bit Positions
Rt.
ReD. I I !
See
Below Accumulator
Bit Positions PIO Ope_and
Address Bits I
_ SeeW
Belo Acc_ulator Bit Positions _ AccumulatorBit Positions
Real Ti_ _gister Bit AssigtmR_nts Pari_ is Odd
LV_ Tel_et_ LV_ Tele_w_t_ Accu_lator Bit I is the sign bit

AccumulatorBit 2 is the MSB
RT5 Validity Real Ti_ Clock Bit 7 (MSB) Accu_lator Bit 26 is the LSB
RT4 _de Reg. 3(M3) Real Ti_ Clock Bit 6
RT3 _de Reg. 2(H2) Real Ti_ Clock Bit 5
RT2 _kxJeReg. l(M1) Real Ti_ Clock Bit 4
RTI AI Real Ti_ Clock Bit 3 (LSB)
Figure 19-1. TelemetryFormat

Investigations indicate that it is possible for the fault to have
resulted by a foreign particle in one transistor in the 410 Remote
Digital Multiplexer (RDM) of the DP-I telemetry link. If the failure
was in the 41O multiplexer, it was an isolated case as there is no
previous history of failure, No corrective action is contemplated. See
paragraph 10.5.4 for possible failure modes within the LVDA.
At approximately 22,066.4 seconds the second problem developed. Both

Guam and Carnarvon lost lock with the CCS, DP-IB, downlink at this time
and did not regain solid lock until 23,471 seconds. During this period
all CCS downlink data was lost. This deviation is believed to have
been caused by a temporarydegraded power amplifieroutput. Further
discussions of this problem may be found in paragraphs 14.3 and ........
19.5.3.2 ..... _!
The only other data dropout noted on this flight occurred at S-IC _etro
motor firing, at 163.45 seconds, for a duration of l.O second.
19_I0
19.4 AIRBORNE TAPE RECORDERS
Three tape recorders were installed on the AS_504 launch vehicle to

record real time data during predicted RF blackout periods. Recorder
assignments and their periods of performance are listed in Table 19-7.
The performance of all recorders was satisfactory.
19.4.1 S_IC S£age Recorder
The single tape recorder installed on the S-IC stage recorded data from
the AF-I and AF-2 telemetry links from 134.34 to 188.10 seconds. Evalua-
tion of the played-back data indicates that the tape recorder performance
was satisfactory and that all programmed data were received and acceptable.
19.4.2 S_II Stage Recorders
Two tape recorders were installed on the S-II stage to record telemetry
links BF-I, BF-2 and BF-3 and multiplexer BT-I. These data were recorded
from 74.63 to 174,66 seconds and from 495.25 to 559.44 seconds. All
recorded data were recovered during playback. An evaluation of played-
back data indicates that performance of the tape recorders was satisfactory
with all data acceptable.
19-11
Table 19-7. Tape Recorder Summary
I RECORDTIME PLAYBACKTIME
RECORDER LINK )(RANGETIME,
RECORDED
.._ SECONDS)(RANGETIME, SECONDS)
............................................................................................
START STOP START STOP
LAUNCH PHASE
S-IC Recorder AF-I,AF-2 134.34 188.10 188.10 242.04
S-II Recorder BF-I,BF-2 74.63 174.66 559.44 724.31

No. 1 495.25 559.44
S-II Recorder BF-3,BT_I 74.63 174.66 559.44 723.70

No. 2 495.25 559.44
19.5 RF SYSTEMSEVALUATION
The launch vehicle RF systems provide telemetry, tracking, and command

system transmission and reception. Not all of the data required to
perform a detailed RF analysis were available for this evaluation.
Based on available data, the overall performance of launch vehicle RF
systems was satisfactory and measured flight data, with few exceptions,
agreed favorably with expected trends. Telemetry propagation was good,
as was tracking performance. Data received indicate that the CCS
performance was satisfactory except for a degraded CCS power amplifier
output occurring during S-IVB third burn.
Final loss of VHF telemetry signals occurred at approximately 39,260

seconds (10:54:20) at Hawaii (HAW). The last usable data were recorded
at HAWat 31,500 seconds (8:45:00). Signal levels during the time period
from 31,500 seconds (8:45:00) to Loss of Signal (LOS) were at threshold
90 percent of the time. UHF telemetry data were recorded at GDS until
37,758 seconds (10:29:18). The C-Band radar was commanded off at 27,214
seconds (7:33:34). Final CCS signals were received at GDSat 48,066
seconds (13:21:06). Other stations viewing the vehicle during those
time periods lost signal at earlier times.
19-12
19.5.1 Telemetry System RF Propagation Evaluation
The RF performance of all 15 VHF telemetry links was excellent and

,y....... generally agreed with predictions. Main engine flame effects
causing 15 to 25 Decibel (db) attenuation were observed from II0 to
150 seconds at Cape Telemetry 4 (TEL 4) and Central Instrumentation
Facility (ClF). No significant effects were noted at Grand Bahama
Island (GBI). Several short periods of low RF signal strength on the
S-lC VHF telemetry links were experienced at TEL 4 and CIF between 133.6
and 138.6 seconds, causing severe data degradation during this time
period. Effects at GBI were minor. These periods of low signal
strength are similar to those which caused RF dropouts on AS-501 and
AS-502 shortly after center engine cutoff, however, total RF dropout
was not experienced on AS-504.
Effects due to staging at 163.5 seconds were as expected with all

telemetry link signals dropping to threshold at all sites. The duration
of the blackout period was approximately I.I seconds for the S_IC stage,
1.0 second for the S-II stage, and 1.0 second for the S-IVB stage and
1.0 second for the IU. All VHF telemetry data were lost at this time
except for that which could be recovered by onboard tape recorder
playback.
S-II stage ignition at 165.2 seconds caused S-IC VHF telemetry signal
strength to drop to threshold for a period of 1.7 seconds. The S-II,
S-IVB and IU links experienced 20 to 25 db attenuation at this time.
All links continued to experience periods of low signal strength with
antenna recovery occurring at approximately 175 seconds for S-IC links
AF-I, AF-2 and AF-3, 173 seconds for AS_I, AS_2 and AP-I, 170 seconds
for the S-II links and 168 seconds for the S-IVB and IU links. No
significant data were lost, however, since the antenna systems recovered
in sufficient time to obtain good recorder playback data.
S_II second plane separation at 193.5 seconds caused 20 to 25 db

attenuation on all upper stage VHF telemetry links at TEL 4 and CIF.
GBI data were not affected.
The performance of the S-IVB and IU VHF telemetry systems during orbit,
second burn, intermediate coast, third burn, and final coast was
satisfactory. The right hand polarized DF-I link received at HAW during
the second revolution dropped to threshold for 0.5 second at 10,365.5
seconds (2:52:45.5). Both the DP-I and CPpl links, right and left hand
polarization, averaged -75 to -87 dbm during this time period and for
most of the pass. During the AS-503 flight, al,l links dipped to or near
threshold for I0 seconds about this time frame. Further analysis will
be necessary to correlate these events.
HAW provided VHF telemetry coverage during final coast to 31,500 seconds
(8:45:00). Links CP-I, DP-I and DF-I were recorded to 39,260 seconds
(10:54:20), but the signals were at threshold 90 percent of the time.
19-13
The performance of the UHF telemetry system was satisfactory. UHF
telemetry was used to provide backup to the IU VHF telemetry and became
the primary acquisition system after VHF range limits were exceeded.
UHF signal strength degradation observed during the launch phase were
as expected and related effects are identified as follows: ....
_
a. Main engine flame effects caused approximately 7 db attenuation

between 124 and 141 seconds.
b. Signal strength dropped to threshold for approximately 0.3 second

due to S_IC/S_II staging at 163.5 seconds.
c. There were no observable effects at S-II stage engine ignition°
do Signal strength dropped approximately 50 db for Io5 seconds due

to S-II second plane separation at 193.5 seconds°
The performance of the UHF telemetry system during orbit, second burn,
intermediate coast, third burn and final coast was satisfactory. Last
UHF data were recorded at Goldstone at 37,758 seconds (10:29:18).
A summary of telemetry coverage from launch to approximately 39,600

seconds is shown in Figure 19_3.
19.5.2 Tracking Systems RF Propagation Evaluation
Sufficient data were not received to provide a complete assessment of

the ODOP and C-Band tracking systems. Based upon the limited data
available, however, RF performance of these systems appears to have
been satisfactory.
19.5.2.1 ODQPo The ODOP transponder was carried on the S-IC stage of
the vehicle, therefore, ODOP tracking was limited to the flight of the
first stage only. Signal strength data for the ODOP ground stations
were not available for analyses_ so evaluation was limited to performance
as indicated by the onboard data from the MARGO interrogating station.
S_IC main engine flame attenuation on the ODOP transponder uplink signal
strength seen onboard occurred from 80 seconds to S-IC/S-II separation.
Center engine cutoff effects caused the ODOP transponder to lose phase
lock at approximately 135 seconds, and remained out of lock until 148
seconds° This same effect was noted on AS_503, however, on AS_504 the
transponder remained out of lock for approximately I0 seconds longer.
At S_IC/S_II separation_ occurring at 163.5 seconds, the transponder
again lost phase lock and did not recover.until 180 seconds.
19.5.2.2 C-Band Radar. Available data indicate that the C-Band radar
performed satisfactorily during this flight although several ground
stations experienced tracking problems due to antenna nulls and phase
front disturbances°
19-14
7
I S-|C/S-]| SEPARATION _ GOODSIGflAL
_'_ "_,, D 60 120 10D 240 300 380 420 400 SNO 600 680 720
R_MGETIMC° SEEOflDS
_ _ _BOA
5-11 _-- _:: CT'4 !

tClE i
HIL !
t _ S°IC/S_SEPAR_TION DRAIT_- _NS_NTION
0 _; 1_0 1_0 240 3_0 3_0 4_0--2_0 5_o 8_0 8;0 7_0 7_0 8_0
RP,
NGE TIME_ SECONDS
: S-IC/S-II SEPARATION:..ORBITAL [HSERTION
it : jBoA
! t_11
s-]_/s-]u ( t • -,, CT41
- I _CIF i
I'- -" i , ...... 7NIL I I ....... ICY] _ -'IT,_ '" _CRO

o 2_o 400 7_o o_o ]_oo 1N_ '_ '
2150 '
2400 2640_-- 3120 3360 ' '
3600
J RANGETIME, SECONDS
.........00:04:00 . , , , .., _ , .....
_ , , ,
00:00:00 00:08:00 00:12;00 00:16,HO ON:EO:O0 00:24:00 00:36:00 O0:40:OO 00:44:00 00:52:00 00:56:00 01:00:00
RANGETIME, 0OURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
I----- .............. t GO[

E ]TEX
1............... _ DYH _ ....... -.:I808 -F::::_- --I cYI F-- ] TAN
i , , , , , -,/'
5]60 _o 6_Do s_o 812o o360 6600 884o 7o80 78_ 70'00 oi'Do o_0
...... RANOE
TIME,
SECONDS
01:26:00 01:30:00 01:34:00 01:38:00 01:42:00 01:46:00 01:50:00 01:54:00 01;58:00 02:08:00 02:12:00 02:16:00 02:20:00
E-................... _8BI
i i F _,[L
F ICRO_ E................ --]HAg i [_ ............. _TEX F------ _ ANG
t :... CSM SEPANATION i'" DOCKING _ I BOA
8400 00'40 8800 9120' " lO,ODO I0,300 I0',000 10,'800 11,()40 11,200 11,_100 11:760 12:ON0
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
t t l Ir, r,, /t _ t _ t I _ t I
02:20:00 02:24:00 02:28:00 02:32:00 02:48:00 02:52:00 02:56:00 03:00:00 03:00:00 03:08:00 03:12:00 03:16:00 03:20:00
RANGETIME_ HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
:.. SC/LV FINAL SEPARATION S=IVB END BU_ (00 SEC)" i I ......... _--]ANG
IF ....... ----]eRA
l :.......... --] GBI
I _- ------'_l OIL
I tT_ -- F----- ........ _RAW t-.......... -_TEX
, ,/I , , , , , , ,
]3.320 13,560 13,800 15,720 15,900 16,200 18,440 16,680 16,020 17,]60 17,_00 17o'640 17,880
RANGETIME, SECONDS
03: :00 03:46:00 03:50:0(_ 04:22:00 04:26:00 04:30:00 04:34:00 04:38:00 04:42:00 04:6:00 04:50:00 04:54:00 04:58:00
S-IVB 3NO BUD0 I t GYM
F " -_ TAN, , -_ f -I RiG

58,960 19,600 20,400 25,120 '
21,8_0 '
22,560 23,2DO 24,000 24 ,'720-m 25 ,,_40 v4 28,'DO0 32,400 36,'ON0 39o6ON
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
;
05:6:00 05: ;8:00 '
05:40:00 05:52:00' 06: o'
U:HO _
06:6:00 '
06:28:00 '
06:40:00 ;
06:2:00 07:04:00 ' " 08:00:00
.... 09:00:0010:00:00 ll:OO:O0
RANGETIME, HOURS:MINLITES:SECONOS
Figure 19=3. VHF Telemetry Coverage Summary
19-15
Merritt Island Launch Area (MILA) operators log indicated that a switch
between beacon track and skin track had to be made several times due to
weak beacon response. A tracking problem was experienced at 162 seconds
due to a balance point shift (distorted beacon return) which produced .......
antenna pointing errors.
A data dropout from 306 to 324 seconds was reported by the station opera-
tors at GBI. This dropout was attributed to balance point shifts.
Strip chart data from Bermuda (BDA) indicate that a strong signal was re-
ceived during the launch phase. During the second revolution a low
Signal-To-Noise Ratio (SNR) was observed at both BDA stations from 6147
(1:42:27) to 6166 seconds (1:42:40) due to high elevation angles. During
this period the vehicle was almost overhead and the required antenna
azimuth tracking rate exceeded the equipment capability. During revolu-
tion 3, the BDA FPQ-6 station reported transmitter shutdown at Acquisi-
tion of Signal (AOS) for 30 seconds. No reason was given for the shut-
down. During this pass the FPQ-6 antenna physically obscured the FPS-16
antenna resulting in 35 seconds of data loss at the FPS_I6 site. On the
fourth revolution, both BDA stations locked on a side lobe at AOS due to
lack of pointing information° The FPS-16 station acquired the main lobe
using Unified S-Band (USB) for designation. The FPQ-16 station used
FPS-16 and USB for designation. Once the main lobe was acquired, good
signal was received.
White Sands (WHS) strip chart data indicated a 1 second dropout, during
the second revolution, at 11,179 seconds (03:06:19) followed by a low
SNR until 11,196 seconds (03:06:36). This was due to high elevation angle
and an indicated attitude maneuver which occurred during this interval.
Preliminary data indicate that C-Band Systems I and 11 were commanded off
at 27,189.9 (7:33:09.9) and 27,213.5 seconds (7:33:03.5), respectively.
The SNR at HAWat this time was approximately 12 db°
The C-Band radar tracking coverage from launch to 27,217 seconds (7:33:22)
is shown in Figure 19_4.
19o5.2.3 CCS T_acki_. There is no mandatory tracking requirement of the

CCS; however, the CCS transponder has turnaround ranging capabilities and
provides a backup to the Command and Service Module (CSM) transponder used
for tracking in case of failure or desire for a cross check. Since the
same transponder is used for all CCS functions, discussion of the track-
ing performance of this system is included in the general discussion of
the CCS RF evaluation.
19.5.3 Command Systems RF Evaluation
The AS-504 command systems consisted of the Secure Range Safety Command
System (SRSCS) and the CCS. All indications were that these systems
19-16
GOODSISAL
$-IC/$_|1 ;.. Oi_]TAL INSEIII"|ION
,_R 9ELOU10 O_
• ; :::_GI_I
.... • I F"$_?
.. 'u_'°",l_V i NLA
._" ,-,8_ _ .....
.,A.
..... ,,_yl _ i ,' ' i _¥AN _ :v.I l m i_x.ALsz_._
C_0
o 2_o _o ..... 72o'
........ _o i_o i_ 216o E_ 2_ 312o _ _o
P-ANOE
TIHE, SECONDS
00:00:00 00:04:00 00:08:00 00_12:00 00:16:0_ O0:EO;O0 C0:24:00 00:36:00 00:40:00 00:44:00 00:52:00 O0:Sli:O0 01:00:00
RANGETI_, HOURS:MInUTES:SECONDS
, "-"_GBI, "_ VM
5O4O s2ee ss_ ST_O 6OOO 6_ 5_ 5725 5_ _ _ 792O 51'60
Q1:24:50 01:28:00 01:32:00 01i36:00 01:40:00 01:44_00 01:48:00 01:52:00 01:56:00 (]2:0 2:08:00 02:12:00 02:6:00
RANGET'tN£, HOURS:RINUTES:SECONDS
::.C:Td4
SEPARAT
10_ DOCKING "_ i : ......':*C,J_
• °'; REO , _ HLA
_Ns_nv_,SECO.OS
02:24:00 02:28:00 02:32:00 02:48;00 02:52:00 02:55:00 03:00:00 03:04:00 03:08:00 03:12:00 03:15:00 03:20:00 02:45:00 03:48:00
RANGETIHE, HOUI:tS:HKNUTES:SECOHO$
S-IV6 _D 2LU_ (eo$EC}

i , .... __o i
I _"SC/LV FINALSEPARATIOI4
RANGETIV_E_SECONDS
03:54:00 03:58:00 04:0E:00 04:0_:00 0_:20:00 04:24:00 04:28:00 04:32:00 04:36:00 04:40:00 04:44:00 04:45:00 04:52:00
RANGETIRE_ HOURS:HINUTES:SECONOS
:_C_O .... '...... __MS
_E Tx_,sEco.o$
i • i ¢ i I _ [ i t i 1 •
0S:1_:00 05:24:00 05:36:00 05:48:00 06:00:C0 06:12:00 06:24:00 06:35:00 06:_8:00 07:00:00 07:1;),'00 07:24:00 07:36:00
NANGETIV_, KOUAS:HINIJ'rES:SECONOS
Figure 19-4. C-Band Radar Coverage Summary
performedsatisfactorily,except for a degraded CCS power amplifieroutput

discussed below.
19.5.3.1 Secure Range Safety Command System. VHF telemetry measurements

received by the ground stations from the S-IC, S_II and S-IVB stages in-
dicated that the SRSCS RF subsystems functioned properly. Canaveral (CNV)
......and BDA were the command stations used for this flight. The carrier sig=
nal was turned off at CNV at 396 seconds. At BDA the carrier was turned
on at 392 seconds and turned off at 745 seconds. The system was safed
at 684 seconds.
19-17
A 0.5 second RF dropout occurred on the S-IC carriers at 161 seconds.
This dropout is similar to one which occurred at 116 seconds on AS-503
and is due to the CNV station switching transmitting antennas at these
times.
The S-IVB systems experienced 0.7 second of dropout at 163.45 seconds due
to S_IC/S-II staging. Momentary signal strength decreased to approxi-
mately 3.0 volts on Range Safety Receiver No. 1 at 288 and 293 seconds.
These signal strength decreases may be due to an unfavorable look angle
condition (Range Safety No. 1 antenna may have been obscured at these
times). Range Safety Receiver No. 2 signal strength shows no decrease
at these times.
19.5.3.2 Command and Communications System. Available data indicated

satisfactory CCS performance with the exception of degraded CCS power
amplifier output from approximately 22,066.4 seconds (06:07:46.4) to
23,418.8 seconds (06:30:18.8). A 1.5 second data dropout was experienced
due to S-IC/S-II staging at 163.45 seconds. An intermittent data dropout
of II seconds duration was experienced at 195.5 seconds due to S-II second
plane separation. During handover from MILA to BDA at 332 seconds, approxi:
mately 5 seconds of data were lost. Vanguard (VAN) ship datawere not
available to assess handover from BDA to VAN.
MILA reported side lobe tracking problems during the second revolution.
Carnarvon (CRO) reported tracking through the mechanical keyhole on the
first revolution, as did HAW on the second revolution. No problems, how-
ever, were experienced. The "Remove Restart Enable Inhibit" command,
necessary to enable restart preparations for the second S-IVB burn, was
scheduled to be transmitted from HAWat 16,200 seconds (04:30:00). The
command could not be sent at this time due to loss of signal at HAW. The
command was transmitted from Redstone (RED) ship at 15,454 seconds
(04:34:14).
The second burn phase was covered by MILA, GBI, and BDA with no anomalies
noted.
Prior to the second S-IVB stage restart, CRO data were noisy, necessitat-
ing a switch to low gain antennas at 20,595 seconds (05:43:15), 7 minutes
earlier than scheduled for this switch° The third burn of the S-IVB stage
was covered by CRO and Guam (GWM). The final coast period, after S-IVB
third cutoff was observed by GWM, Corpus Christi (TEX), GDS and CRO in
entirety or when not tracking the CSM.
The most significant CCSproblem was experienced during S-IVB third burn
and final coast, and was caused by a degraded CCS power amplifier output
which occurred at 22,066.4 seconds (06:07:46:4). A 40 percent drop in •
the power amplifier helix current was noted at this time and the current
remained low until 23,418.8 seconds (06:30:18.8) when it increased to its
19-18
original level, GWMand CRO, the stations tracking the CCS at this time
lost dewnlink lock when the current level dropped. The vehicle went over
...._ the horizon from CRObefore the amplifier resumed proper operation re-
_i sulting in CRO never re-establishing a downlink locke GWMre-established
intermittent downlink lock from 22,783.0 seconds (06:19:43.0) to 22,806.5
seconds (06:20:06.5), then lost lock again. Solid lock was established
again at 23,471.0 seconds (06:31:11.0). No valid CCS downlink data were
received during this period, however data were received from the redun-
dant DP-] VNF and DP-IA UHF links. The CCStransponder did not appear to
be affected by the degraded power output and remained in uplink lock
throughout most of this time period using telemetry antenna pointing data.
The degraded CCS power amplifier output did not affect the successful
accomplishment of this mission, however, since I0 commands (30 words) were
successfully transmitted and verified by DP-I VHF and DP-IA UHF telemetry
data during this time period. On future missions the UHF telemetry is
deleted therefore loss of the CCS telemetry during portions of trans-
lunar injection beyond VHF range would result in loss of data necessary
to verify commands and inability to maintain up]ink lock.
Starting at 27,010 seconds (07:30:10) a signal strength test was conducted

with GDS. Both the CCS and UHF telemetry antennas were switched and the
signal strength for each antenna position was recorded as shown in Table
19-8. This test was performed at the altitude where LM ejection would
occur during a lunar mission. At 27,162 seconds (07:32:42) the antennas
were set to low gain and remained in this position through the remainder
of the mission.
Table 19-8. Signal Strength at Goldstone
SIGNAL STRENGTH(DBM)
ANTENNA
POSITION CCS ] UHF m,i
Omni -106 -106
Low
Gain -93 -98
HighGain -88 -90
19-19
The planned CCS transmitter inhibit occurred at 28,108 seconds (07:48:28).
The system was re-enabled at 30,605 seconds (08:30:05) to assist Goddard
in tracking the S-IVB/IU and remained active throughout the lifetime of
the IU batteries.
The final signals were received at GDS and TEX at 48,066 seconds (13:21:06)
and 48,060 seconds (13:21:00), respectively. The elevation angles at
this time were I0 degrees for TEX and 25 degrees for GDS.
The CCS coverage from launch to 48,066 seconds (13:21:06) is shown in

Figure 19m5.
19.6 OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION
There was no onboard camera coverage on AS-504. In general ground

camera coverage was very good. Eighty-seven items were received from
Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and evaluated. One camera provided unusable
data due to bad time. Three cameras malfunctioned and one film was over:
developed in processing. As a result of the 5 failures listed above,
system efficiency was 94 percent.
Due to the extreme cloud coverage at launch, tracking cameras did not
acquire the vehicle between 30 and 50 seconds. Four long range tracking
items were not able to acquire at all.
19-20
GOODSISAL
NARBIRALSIGNAL
: $-XCIS-II SERARATION
:..ORBITAL INSERTION ST_RBELOWlO ON
i ' " ,OOA
0 ..........
'
240 '
480 '
720 060 "-----'1440 "_' 3120
1200 ' -'
3360 3600 _
__ 4 o'8o 4320
_--
P,ANGETIME, SECONDS
00:0:00 00:4:00 00:08:00 00:12:00 00:15:00 00: 00:24:00 00:52:00 00:55:00 01:00:00 01:04:00 01:8:00 01:1:00
RAHGETIME, HOUR_:MINUTES:SECOHDS
, VAN
.... RED , ........ ,BOA
_GDS _ HIL
,--------m CgO
_ _ silo 55_0 5_0 6_0 62_ 54_0 5120 5960
_40 _ 01'20
RA.GE
T,ME,
sECOHOS
01:;_0:00 01:24:00 0"1:28:00 01:32:00 0|:36:00 01:40:00 0'J:44:00 01:48:00 01:52:00 01:55:_0 02:28:00 02:32:00
RBHGETIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECOHDS 02:2,4:00
c ..... _ 'REO _ _NIL

i r-- ....... " BOA
:.. CSHSEPARATION :.. OOCKIHG _- .... : _VAN
9_0 9_0 08_' 10.080 10,320 10.550 lO.t]OO 11,b40 11;280 11o520 11,_760 12o000
RANGETIME, SECONO5
02:36t00 02:40:00 02:44:00 02:48:00 02:52:00 02:56:00 03:00:00 03:04:00 03:08:00 03:12:00 03:16:00 03:20:00
PJU4GE
:..SC/LV FINAL SEPARATION
'i ..............
_CRB i _ ,_ HAW
A_, .....
"i_
_ _ I -T ', .......
] _ ,
12,480 12o720 12,960 14,160 14"440 14,640 14,880 15,_120 ]5,360 15,600 15,840 16_080 16,320
RANGETIME, SECONDS
''
03:28:00 _
03:.2:00 _"
03:..i00 h'_ '
_:55:00 " '
04:00:00 '
04:04:00 '" '
04:08:00 04:1'2:00 04:1G:00
' M
04:20:00 ,
04:24:00 , ..... 04:32:00
04:28:00 M o
RANGETIME, HOURS:HINUTES:SECONDS
:..S-IV_ 2N0 8URN
•TEX_ _8OA _ ACN

-- -, -- _ ' HIL
16 ,,e_O 16,000 17.(NlO 17:280 17,'520 .17,760
_ 1,8,000 18,240 18,_0 18,720 18,950 lg ,200
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
,,
04:44:00 04: 3_6
:00 .....
04:40:00 04:48:00 IZ
04:5:00 04: 5_6
:00 ....
05:00:00 ,
05:0_:00 i
05:08:00 t
05:12:00 05:1_6:00 '
05:20:00
,.5-WB 3RB BURR
_ J_EX _ ......
TEX
I i - -- ,GDS
/ cs::z:_. , ' ....... Irrr
G_l_4
19,800 22,200 24,500 27,000 29)4_0 31,600

36,t_00 39,000 34,200
_1,400 43,200 46,200 48,600 50,400 53,400
RANGETI_, SECONDS
I ,_ I • ._ I * l ,r, t ,,t ..........
l, , I ,_......... I ,, ! _ M [
05:30:00 06:50:00 08:10:00 09:30:00 10:50:00 12:00:00 13:30:00 14:50:00
06:10:00 07:30:00 08:50:00 10:|0:00 | 1:30:00 12:50:00 14:00:00
Figure 19-5. Command and CommunicationSystem Coverage Summary
19-2]/]9-22
i li_ ;il
SECTION 20
VEHICLE AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS
A base differential pressure, static stability, and fin loading analysis

was not made on the AS-504 vehicle. The AS-504 had two base pressure
static measurements whereas the AS-503 had six valid measurements.
Because of the lack of instrumentation, a base differential pressure
analysis was not performed. However, the two available measurements
were in close agreement with previous flight data. This suggests that
the base differential pressures fell within acceptable limits.
The AS=504 vehicle, like prior Saturn vehicles, flew at very low
angles-of-attack during the period of interest. Because of this, a
reliable stability analysis could not be made.
A fin pressure loading analysis was not made due to the removal of
instrumentation on this vehicle.
\,
20-I/20-2
ii _i il
SECTION 21
MASS CHARACTERISTICS
21.1 SUMMARY
Postflight analysis indicates that vehicle mass during S-IC and S-II
boost phases was higher than predicted. The deviations are attributed
primarily to inexact initial propellant loads and greater than predicted
residuals at the end of S-IC burn. A longer than predicted S-IVB first
burn phase resulted in the vehicle mass at cutoff being less than expected.
The vehicle mass remained lower than predicted through spacecraft separa-
tion, second S-IVB burn, and during third S-IVB burn until the engine
performance decrease occurred. Vehicle mass at third burn completion was
8839 kilograms (19,487 Ibm) or 34.70 percent higher than predicted.
21.2 MASS EVALUATION
Postflight mass characteristics are compared with the final predicted

mass characteristics (MSFC MemorandumR-P&VE-VAW-69-22) which were used
in the determination of the final operational trajectory (MSFCMemorandum
R-AERO-FMT-20-69).
The postflight mass characteristics were determined from an analysis of

all available actual and reconstructed data from S-IC stage ignition
through S-IVB stage third burn cutoff. Dry weights of the launch
vehicle were based on actual stageweighings and evaluation of the weight
and balance log books (MSFC Form 998). Propellant loading and utilization
was evaluated from propulsion system performance reconstructions. Space-
craft data were obtained from the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC).
Deviations from predicted in dry weights of the inert stages and the
loaded spacecraft were all within 1.02 percent which is well within the
3-sigma deviation limits. Major items that contributed to these small
deviations were as follows:
a. Actual weight of vehicle components were slightly different from

predicted weight.
21-1
il
b. Vehicle insulation modifications.
co Deletion of an Azusa transponder and filter from the Instrument

Unit (IU)o
During S-IC stage powered flight, mass of the total vehicle was deter- _....
mined to be 1534 kilograms (3382 Ibm) or 0.05 percent higher than
predicted at ignition and 8826 kilograms (19,457 Ibm) or 1.07 percent
higher at S-IC/S-II separation° The mass above the S-I_ stage contri-
buted 933 kilograms (2056 Ibm) to the higher than predicted ignition mass.
The mass deviation at S-IC/S_11 separation was caused mainly by the S-IC
propellant residuals being 8039 kilograms (17,724 Ibm) greater than pre-
dicted. S-IC burn phase total vehicle mass is shown in Tables 21-I and
21_2o
During S-II burn phase, the total vehicle mass varied from 887 kilograms
(1956 Ibm) or 0.13 percent higher than predicted at start command to
668 kilograms (1472 Ibm) or 0.32 percent higher than predicted at S_11/
S-IVB separation. The initial mass deviation was due mainly to excess
propellant loads on both the S-II and S-IVB stages. The LOX step pres _
surization sequence initiated during S-II burn resulted in an additional
337 kilograms (741 Ibm) of LOX tank pressurant gas. This sequence was
not included in the mass prediction. Total vehicle mass for the S-II
burn phase is shown in Tables 21-3 and 21-4.
During S-IVB stage first burn, the total vehicle mass ranged from 488
kilograms (1076 Ibm) or 0.30 percent higher than predicted at start
command to 2405 kilograms (5302 Ibm) or 1.77 percent lower than pre-
dicted at the beginning of orbital coast: Excess propellants and a
slightly heavier than predicted spacecraft caused the initial mass
deviation. A longer than predicted first burn phase resulted in the
vehicle mass at cutoff being less than expected. S-IVB first burn phase
total vehicle mass is shown in Tables 21-5 and 21-6. Vehicle mass
during the spacecraft docking and separation maneuver is given in
Tables 21-7 and 21-8. During S-IVB second and third burn phases, the
total vehicle mass deviated from 2271 kilograms (5007 Ibm) or 2.50
percent lower than predicted at second start command to 8839 kilograms
(19,487 Ibm) or 34.70 percent higher than predicted at end of third burn
thrust decay° The engine performance decrease during third burn is the
primary cause of this large deviation. Tables 21-9 through 21-12 show
total vehicle mass from second S-I_B ignition through third burn thrust
decay.
A summary of mass utilization and loss, actual and predicted, from S-IC
stage ignition through S-IVB stage third burn is presented in Table 21-13.
A comparison of actual and predicted mass, center of gravity, and moment
of inertia, is shown in Table 21-14.
21-2
Tab]e 21-I. Total Vehicle Mass - S-IC Burn Phase - Kilograms
GROUteD IGNITION HOLDDOWN CENTER OUT80ARD, S-IC/S-II

EVENL_ ARM RELEASE ENGINE CUTOFF ENGINE CUTOFF SEPARATION
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT FRED ACT
_E T_..[- SE- -6,_4 =6e54 0.26 0e26 134,27 i34_34 159,96 162e76 160o68 -163.45
_-_IC STAGE mmY 133900. 1335'68. 133900. 133560,, 1339n0. 133568_, I}}900. 133568. 133900, 133568.
LOX ZN TANK 1478717_ i_76286® 1447345® 1445057. 19067ga 209574o 1039. 2033. 961o l_07e
LOX 8Ek_OW TANK 21000_ 21115_ 217_To 21874_ 21720o 21793e 16705o 1848_o 14596o 17252o
LCX ULLAGE GAS IBT. 207, 207. 217® 2565,, 2611_ }05_e 3232e _040® 3232_
RPl I_ TA_'!K' .641B89_, 645072_ 631691_ 635089_ 91509. I0389_. 8357,_ 13256® 7262. 12306.
RPl BELOW TANK _}13® 4._27, 5996, 6010, 5996* 5010® 5958_ 5972_ 5958_ 5972_
_._i ULLAGEI_AL._ 3}* 75o 3_, 75, 208' 2_5' 238, 283, 238, 28_
,'_2P_JRGE GAS _6. 29,_ 36. 29,, 20. 20. 20* 20. 20_ 20,,
_EJ._,LV"_
IN BOTTLE 28e_ 288. 2B8,_ 287,_ 114® 117,, 84. 79,_ 8_® 79_
FROST -- 6_5, 6_5,, 6}5® 535,_ 340® 940. 340. 340. 3,40. 340.
r,o RETRO"_,OTOR PROP 1027. 1027. 1027. 1027. 1027® I027,_ I027® 1027_ 1027® i027_,
OTHER
TOTAL S-IC STAGE 2282265®
2,,®2.o 2.. 2.,
2282_66_ 22431_5, 2244107® 448407_
2..
#794_I, 170943_
2.o 2..
1785_2_ 167667_ 175605_
TOTAL S-IC/5-11 IS 5291, 525B_ 5291_ 5258® 5291_ 5258_ 5291_ 5258® 5258® 5224_
_TOTAL $=Ii STAGE 482908® _83378. 482908® 483378= 482549_ 483120. 482549. _.83120. _82649= 483120_
TOT S-'_I/S_-IVB [5 35&5_ 8628. 36_5® 3528, 3_55_ 3628= 3_65. _628= 36_5= _628,
TOTAL S-IVB ST_A__E 117555. I18003® 117553. i18003_ I17507. I17912_ i17507_ 117912. 117507. I17912.
TOTAL I._STRU UNIT 1948, 1942_ 1948_ 1942® 19_.8_ 1942. 19<_8® 1942. 19_+8_ 1942®
TOTAL SPACECRAFT _7098_ 47188e 47098_ _7188® _.7098® _7188_ * 47098® _7188_ 47098. 47188_
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 65846_. 659396e 658465_ 659395. 658159. 659047. 658159. 659047_ 658126. 65901_.
--- .... " ............. - ....... T- ................................. "" ......................................... --
TOTAL'VEttICLE 29_0728. 29_+2252. 2901590_ 2903503. iI06566_ i158_88. 829102® 837579_ 825793® 83_619e
iiiiiiiiiiii!i!il
IiiiiiiiiD
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii!ii!ii
iiiiiili]!i
iii_ii!iii:i,;,
iiiii!iiiii_i
iiiiiiiiiii
..........
Table 21-2o Total Vehicle Mass S-IC Burn Phase Pounds Mass
GROUND IGNITION HOLDDOWN CENTER OUTBOARD 5-IC/5-II

...... EVENT5 ARM RELEASE ENGINE CUTOFF ENGINE CUTOFF SEPARATION
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED - ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
RANGE T Ir.'E-=SEC -8o_4 -6,34 0,26 0.26 134.27 154.34 159,96 162o76 160o68 163o45
_ T LC_.__iz%_G
E _Y _ 295200. 294468. 295200° 29_88,_ 295200. 294_688 295200_ 29446B • 295200,_ 29_4_8 (,
LOX I;._TANK 3260012. 325_5_. 3190849o 3185805o 420373_ z_820326 2290. 44820 2119. 28_i®
l_OX B E LO%._ T_ 46296 _ $6550_ 47921_ 48225® 4788_, 48045_ 55828_ 40748, 52178, 57989_
LOX _LLAGE GAS 411_ &56_ 456_ 47S_ 5654_ 5756e 6689_ 7126_ 6702_ 7125e
R_-I [N_/iq____ _41_122_ 14221_9,_ I_92659, 14G0152_ 2019_2_ 229055_ 18424, 29224, 160106 27131_
RPI BEsOW TANK 9509e 9559s 13219_ 132#9_ 13219, 13249_ 13136® 13165, 13136, 13166®
.___I ULL___E_.C_$_ 7_, 151 _ 7_. 165e 45B_ 5&O_ 524, _25_ 525_ 623®
9/.L_';.L _ ._ 80 T TI _ 656_ 655_ 636_ 632_ 251_ 257, 185. 17_ 184, 17_®
FROST I%00_ 1400_ 1400, 1400_ 750_ 750_ 750_ 750, 750, 750_
RET RC'.:OTOR P.ROP 226_ 2264_ 2264. 2264_ 2284_ 2264e 2264_ 226_ 2264_ 226_
mo
.==m OTHER 528® 528 _ 528, 528_ 528® 528, 528, 528, 528® 528
-_ TOTAL S_IC STAGE 50_1532_ 50_2858_ @945266, 49_7410, 988567, I056987_ _76863, _93596_ 559841_ 5871@3,
T CT_A'L S - I C/-Si-_-_ -_-S II&65_ I1591_ I1665, 11591, iI_65, I!591, i1665_ I1591_ I1592_ 11518.
.___T...$-II STAGE 1064629® 1065657_ 1064629_ i055667® i0_4059® I065097, 10_4059_ i055097_ 1064059_ I065097,
TOT $-:IlS-IV:_ IS 8C81, 7998_ 8081® 7998_ 8081, 7998, SOB1, 7998_ 8081_ 7998®
/_C_L&.LS=I_.L.,5/AGE ____ 2_915._ 2_0151® 259159_ 260151_ 259059, 259951, 259059, 259951, 259059® 259951_
TOTAL I_5"TR_ UNIT 4295® 4281_ A295, 4281_ 4295® 4281, 4295® 4281_ 4295_ 4281_
T 0 y.AL_$ .mA__C_EC
RA F T 10_.8__.4_L_10%051 _ I05S34, I0403!_ 103854® I040_I. 10385_® IOAOSI_ i0383_ 104031,
TOTAL UPP=,,,E__STAGE i%51¢_}. 1455719, 1451663. 1455719, I_50993, 1452949. Iz_50993_ 1452949, i_50920® 1452876_
O
_d.__C.L[._____ _9_85195. 6_4_6577_ 6396929_ 6401_2.® 2439561, 25099_6, 1827857. 18_6545_ 1820561® 18_0019,
/
Table 21-3. Total Vehicle Mass - S-ll Burn Phase - Kilograms
S=ZC IGNITXON 5-11 S-If S-If S=II/SmIVB

EVENTS IGNITION MAINSTAGE ENGIt_E CUTOFF 5EPARATIO_
• PRED ACT PRED .ACT PRED ACT PRED A.. PRED ACT
RANGF TIME--SFC -6.34 =6®34 162=39 lb5®17 164=38 Ib7el7 531,16 536,22 532=90 537.23
S-IC/_-_I_GS S_ALL 6_4, 614,

S-It/S-If IS LARGE 4061= 4033e _061e #033= 4061, #0330
S=IC/S_II IS PRQ_ 617= 611, 313= 308,
TOTAL 5-1C/S=II IS 5291_ 5258. 4374_ 4342, _CSI, 4053,
S_IJL___T_E DRY _8374® 38243= 58374, 38243_ 38374, 38243¢ 38376, 3_243o 38374_ 3_2_®
LOX IN TANK 371452o _71891= Z71452, 571891, 370904= 371537. 644, 6656 480_ 506_
LOX 8E£OW TANK 737e 737_ 7_7, 757_ 800= 800_ 800. 800® 800= SO0_
LOX ULLAGE GAS 189_ 165, 189o 165_ 192_ 167= 1925_ 226_= 1951. 226_,
Po LH2 IN TANK 71658_ 71864_ 71659= 71B54® 71425= 71635= 14i6. 1406_ i_46, 1340.
--= LH2 BELOW TAKK i05® i05, I05= 105_ !2S® 128_ i2_, !28, i2SJ 125.
!
LM2 ULLAGE GAS 77e 67, 77, 67e 79, 70_ 692, 682. 69_, ESL,
_NSULATION PURGE 5_ 54_
FROST 204_ 20_
START TANK GAS 14_ 14_ I_ 14= 2_ 2_ 2_ 2, 2. 2.
OT_ER _4_ 34® 36_ _4_ 34_ _4_ 34® 34, 34_ 34=
EOTAL $=II STAGE 482908® 483378® 482641. 483111, 481937® 482617® 44016, 44228_ 43789, 44006_
TOT S=II/S=IVB. I$ _665. 3628, 3665. 3628_ 3665_ _628_ _665° 3625_ }665_ _528_
TOTAL S-IV8 STAGE 117555, 11800_® i17507, i17912= I17507_ i17912_ II7507_ I17912. i17505_ 117910,
TOTAL INSTRU UNIT 19aB, 19_2, 19&_, 1942_ 1948= 19&2. 19_S_ 1942® 19a_, 19.=2_
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 47098® 47188, 47098_ _71&B= 4709_. 47168, 4_075. 43165_ &_Q75, 45165_
TOTAL UPPER .STAGE 170265_ 170760, 170219= 170669® 170219. 173659, 166196_ 166645= 156194®' 16_64_=
TOTAL VEHICLE 658465_ 659396, 65725_® 658122. 656216. 657320. 210211. 210875. 2099_3® 21065lo
--__m___ .........................................................................................................
Table 21-4. Total Vehicle Mass - S-II Burn Phase - Pounds Mass
S=IC IGNITION S-II 5_II S=II 5-11/S-IV_

EVENTS IGNITION MAZNSTAGE ENGINE CUTOFF SEPARATION
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
RANGE TIME--5EC =6_54 -6o34 162_9 165_17 164e38 167_17 5_i_16 536_22 5_2_.00 537.20
_-LC.I_I 15SMALL i_53_ 1353_

5-1C/S-II IS LARGE 8952o 8892o 8952_ 8892_ 8952_ 8892_
TOTAL S-It/S-If IS 11665. llSgl_ 9642e 9572_ 8952. 8892.
S_IL STAC_L]_]_ 84600® 84312, 84600® 84512, 84600, 84}12o 84600, 84512. 84600_ 84312,
LOX IN TANK _18911e 819879® 818911_ S19879, 817702_ 81909S. l_2Oe 14_6, 1058_ ii15-
LOX mEtOW [ALLK ..... 1625. 1625_ 1525, 1625® 176_ 176&, 176_ 1754a 17_, 1754,
LOX ULLAGE GAS 416. 564_ 415, 56_® 42_, 3_g, 4243, 4999_ 4258, 49_9.
D_. LH2 IN TANK 158000_ 158432¢ 157981® 158&12_ 157461, 157929, }120_ 3099_ 2968, 2954,
LH2 BELOW TANK 251, 231e 251, 231. 282_ 282, 282, 282_ 282, _=282_
LN_ ULLAGE GAS l&g® I_8_ I¢9, l&8_ 17_, 15¢, 152_, 1504. 1528, _.iv,
_NSULAT_ON PURGE 120_ 120_
F_I ................ _50, 450.
START TANK GAS 30_ 30_ _0_ 30_ 5, 5_ 5* 5. 5, 5,
Q_[HER TL_ 7_ TS_ 75, TS_ 76. 78_ 75. 75_ TL_
TOTAL 5-11 ST;k_E 1064629, I0_5667_ 1064040_ i065077_ 1012488, I065989_ 97037_ 97507_ 96539, 97017®
JTXIT_S-IL/_T.I_B [5_...... 8081_ 7998_ 8081, 7998® 8081_ 7998, 80SI_ 7998, 8081_ 7998_
TOTAL 5-_VS STAGE 259159, 260151_ 259059_ 259951_ 259059_ 259951_ 259059_ 259951_ 259054_ 2599a7®
T_TAL INS_RU UNIT _295_ 4281_ _295_ 42_1, 4295. 4281_ 429_. 4281_ 4295_ 42_!_
TOTAL SPACECRAFT I0383_, I04031_ i03834_ I04031, i03834_ i04051, 94954, 95!e2_ 9_g54_ 9516Z,
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 575869_ 576451. _75259_ 57_261_ 875269® 575261_ 38_599. 567592_ 3_6394_ 367_e8.
TOTAL VEHICLE 1451665, 1453719® 1448951_ 1450910® 1446709. 144g142® 46345_® 4_4899_ 462958_ _64405_
,,,/
! i_i
/
/
Table 21o5o Total Vehicle Mass = S-IVB First Burn Phase - Kilograms
S-lC IGNITXON S-IVB $-IVB $-IVB S-IVB

___JEVENT5 IBNITION MAINSTAGE ENGINE CLJTOFF E_D DECAY
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRE;) ACT PRED ACT
RANGE T I W_E==SEC =6o34 =(,=34 ,535 • 16 540,_82 537o66 54'_ _,32 6_8®T3 564®58 649®91 8_5®90
$-_V_B ST_E DR_Y . 11476o 11380® 11453= iI_57® I1453e 11557= 11592. 11296. 11392= 11296_
LOX XN TANK 85520® 85874o 85520= 85874o 85:368, 85755= 62300, 60339o ¢,2242e _,,,2_,
_ELOW TANK 166= 166® iSSe 166_ 180. 180. 180. 180. 180_ I_0.
LOX ULLAGE GAS 17= 23® 17= 23= 23= 2_ 90= 78,, 91= "8,_
LH2 _N TANK 1971_o 19_04® 19711_ 19800= 19659. 19753= 15_79. 14942o 1538gj 14928=
LH2 BELOW TANK 22. 22_ 28, 26, 26, 26. 26. 26. 26® 2(_,
LH2 ULtAGE GAS 21_ 18_ 21e 18, 22, 19, 5t+6 59= 5_, 59®
ULLAGE MOTOR PROP 5,_Q 5t+o 10,_ O®
APS PROPJELLANT 286 = 298 = 286 = 298 • 286, 2986 285 _ 296 = 285, 296
HELILJF_ IN BOTTLES 203. 200_ 203, 200_ 202_ 200. 185, 180® 185_ 180_
START TANK r._AS 2. 2_ 2, 2® Oe O® 3_ 3. 3_ 3,
FROST 45_ 136_ 0. 45. 0_ 45. 0® 45_ O. 45_
OTHER 25, 25_ 25_ • 25_ 25® 25_, 25® 25® 25, 25,
TOTAL S-IVB STAGE i17553e I18003_ i174_Ie i17835e I1724_= 117662. 89938= 87470. 89872. 8755#=
TO?AS INSTRU u_IT 19_8_ ig_2_ 19_8. 1942. 1948_ 1942_ 19_+8_ 19_2® 19_8. 19_2_
TOTAL SPACECRAFT _7098 _ _7188= 43075_ _31_5. _3075_ _3185_ _3075 _ _3155_ _3075® _3!55_
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 4904S. 49150® 45025® _5107_ _50_3_ 45107® _5025. _5107, ¢5023_ _5107_
TOTAL VEHICLE 166599= 187152= 162_6#® 16_9_2= 162287_ 162768* 154961. 132578= 134895= 132k90_
=_--=--=_= ..... --.............................................................. --..................................
Table 21-6o Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB First Burn Phase - Pounds Mass
$-IC IGNITION S-IVB S_IVB S-IVB S-IVB

EVENTS IGNITION MAINSTAGE ENGINE CUTOFF END DECAY
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
RANG_ TINE_-SEC -6_34 -6e34 535®18 540_B2 537_&6 54_32 64B_T3 664_&b &49_91 _65_90
5_WB STAGE.Jg/_Y 25_00, 25089_ 25289_ 25038_ 25249, 25038, 25114, 2490_, 25114_ _49_4_
_
LOX IN TANK IBB539e 189319_ 188559e 189319e 188203e 189013, 15734T, i}3024_ 137220_ 1328S4o
LQX _ELOW TANK _67_ _67_ 567_ _BT, 39T_ 39T, }97. 397e 39Te 397_
LOX ULLAGE GAS 37, 5Do 37o 50o 49, 52= " 199= 172_ 200_ 173_
LH2 BELOW TANK 4@® 48, 58_ 5B_ 58, 58_ 5B, 58_ 58_ 58,
LH2 ULLAGE GA$_ _ 47_ 40_ 47, 40, AT® 41_ i18_ 150_ I18_ 131,
ULLAGE MOTOR PROP i18, i18_ 22_ O®
A_S PRCPEL_NI -_0_ 557_ 6_0_ 657_ _0_ 6_7_ _28_ 652_ 62_ $92_
HEL_U_ IN BOTTLES _47, " 4_i® _7_ 4_I® _45, _#0. _07_ 397_ 407= _96®
h.) START TANK GAS _ 5, 5® 5_ i_ i, 7, 7, T_ 7_
Oo FROST
OTHER lOO_
)6_ _00_
56_ O_
56_ IO0_
56_ O_
56_ IO0,
56, O_
56, IO0_
55_ O®
55, I00_
56®
TO_AL .ST/_V2L_TA__ 259159® 260151, 258912, _59782_ 25_79® 259_00_ 198279_ 1928_8, 198133_ 19254B,
!OTA_ _NST_.._" UNIT _295_ _281_ %291_ _ _2SI{ 4295_ _281_ 4_95, 4281_ 4295e 4281_
TOTAL._LC.EEJRAFT lO_B3_, i04_31. 949_e 95162_ 94954_ 95162_ 94964_ 95162, 949_4_ 9_i_2_
[oTAL_PP_R $I_GE i08129_ I08_12_ 99259® 99_4_® 99259, 9944_. 992_9_ 99_45_ 99259_ 994_5_
TeTAL VEHICLE _&728S. 3&Ba&3_ll,,.l._158171" 359_25_ }5773$* 55884_. 297538. 2922SI, 297392e 292091,
/
Table 21-7. Total Vehicle Mass - At Spacecraft Separation - Kilograms
CSM C$M SPACECRAFT

EVENTS $EpARAT_D DOCKED SEPARATED
f .... PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
RANG_ TI_E--$EC 958_00 _650,00 i0423_00 10929,00 14983,00 14889,00
S-TVB STAGE DRY 11392, i1296_ I1392a i1296o I1392a i1296o

LOX IN TANK 62242® 60216o 62242o 60211, 622¢2_ 60189o
LOX BELOW TANK 166t _66_ 166o 166_ 166. 165,
LOX ULLAGE GAS 91= 128. 91o 134. 91= 155=
LH2 IN TANK 14522'® 139_8= 145220 13895e I_089= 13497,
LH2 BELOW TANK 22o 22e 22e 22, Z2= 22,
LH2 ULLAGEGAS @0_ iO6_ 80o 111. 930 131o
AP5 PROPELLANT 2340 2506 234= 250o 234o 250e
H_LIUM _N'BOTTLES 185_ 180_ 185® 180o 185, 180=
START TANK GAS 3o 3Q 3e 3. 5® 3,
FROST O, _5, 0= 45. O_ 45,
OTHER 25® 25g 25o 25, 25® ZS,
TOTAL 5=IVB STAGE 88962® 86_3Te 88962= 86339, 88541, 85961Q
TOTAL INSTRU UNIT 1948o 1942= 19¢8_ 1942, 1948, 1942,
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 15155e 15212o 41900o 42026® 640, 681_
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 17104, 17154, 43848. 43968o 2589. 2623,
TOTAL vEHICLE 106066® I03591o 132810= 130307, 91130o 88584=
21 -9
Table 21-8o Total Vehic]e Mass = At Spacecraft Separation - Pounds Mass
CSM CSM SPACECRAFT

. EVENTS SEPARATED DOCKED SEPARATED -
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
RANGE TXME=_$EC 9583000 9650000 10423o00 10929e00 14983o00 i#889,00
S-IV8 STAGE DRY 25114_ 24904_ 25114o 24904_ 25114u 24904o

LOX ZN TANK 197220o 132754, 137220o 1327420 137220_ 132695,
LOX BELOW TANK 367e 367a 367, 367, 367® 367,
LOX ULLAGE GAS 200, 2830 200e 2950 200_ 342,
LH2 _N TANK 32016o 308610 32016, 30633_ 310600 29755o
LH2 BELOW TANK 48o 48, 48= 48, 48e 48o
LH2 ULLAGE GAS 176o 2_3_ 176_ 2450 205® 289®
APS PROPELLANT 5156 552o 5.15e 552o 515o 552®
HEL|UM XN BOTTLES 407o 996o 407® 396_ 407o 996o
START TANK GAs 7e 7o 7_ 7_ 7® 7,
FROST 0= 10Oo O_ lOOo O= iO0o
OTHER 56e 56e 56o 56_ 56, 56o
TOTAL S=IVB STAGE 196127, 190561o 196127, 1903_5. 195200o 189511o
TOTAL XNSTRU UNIT 4295o 4281= _295e _281_ _295_ 4281o
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 33412e 33536e 92374e 92852_ 1412o 1502_
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 37707o 37817e 96669o 96933_ 5707e 5783_
TOTAL VEHICLE 23383_ 228378_ 292796_ 287278_ 200907_ 1952_
2] -]0
Table 21-9. Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Second Burn Phase - Kilograms
$=IVB 5=IVB S-IVB S-IVB

EVENT'S IGNITION MAINSTAG£ ENGINE CUTOFF END DECAY
PRED ACT PRED _ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
RANGE TI_IE==LEC 17149o7_ 17155e54 17152,24 17158o04 17212654 17217o80 17213e40 17218o70
S-_VB STAGE DRY I139_. I1298_ I1392_ I1296e 113920 I1295o I13926 I1296e
LOX IM.TANK 82067_ 80156, 81926_ 60023® 51291o 49397e 51245_ 49554®
LhX B_LOWTANK 166® 166= 180_ 180o 180® 1BO_ lBO® 180o
LOX ULLAGE GAS 241® 1936 243e 1946 258® 226® 259® 227o
LH_ IN TA_K 15643, 13295o 15592o 15254o 11408o iI076e 11400® iI0616
LH2 BELOW TANK 26, 26o 26o 26, 26® 26, 26® 26®
LH_ ULLAGEGAS liB, 151o i18o 159o 135o I81e 156® 182®
APS PROPELLANT 182® 205® 182® 205® 181® 202® 181® 202®
HELIU_I IN BOTTLES 175, 16B, 172® 167® 165® 159® 159® 158®
START TANK GAS 2® 2® 0® 0® 3® 3® 3® 3®
FROST O® 45® O® 45® O® 45® O® 45®
OTHER 25® 25® 25® 25® 25® 25® 25® 25®
TOTAL S_IVB STAGE 880_8® B5730e 87858® 85557® 75064® 72817® 75004_ 72740®
TOTAL XNSTRU UNIT 19_8® 1942® 19%8® 1942® 1948® 1942® 1948® 19¢2®
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 640, 681® _0® 681® 6_0® 681® 8_0_ 681®
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 2589® 2625® 2589, 2623® 2589® 2_23® 2589® 2_23®
TOTAL VEHICLE 90_25® B8_55, 90448® S_lBO® 77853® 75441® 77592® 7536_®
Table 21-10. Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Second Burn Phase - Pounds Mass
$-XVB S=IVB 5=IVB 5_IVB

EVE_q_TS IGNITION MAINSTAGE ENGZNE CUTOFF END DECAY
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
_A_G_ TX_==SEC 171¢9o7_ 17155.54 17152o2¢ 17158,04 17212_3_ 17217660 17215_0 17218070
S=IVB STAGE D_Y 25114_ 24904a 25114e 24904o 251140 24904_ 251140 24904e
LOX ZN TANK 136835_ 1326216 1355Z_ 1323296 i13077o i089016 112971, i08762_
l_X BELOW TANK 367_ 5_7m _97a 397_ 397_ 597, 597_ _97_
LOX ULLAGE GAS 531_ 425_ 53&_ 428o 559._ _98, 570_ 500_
LH2 IN TAN_ _Q0776, 29_ii_ 29965o 29219_ 25150_ Z_lS® 2513Z, 2_385,.
hH2 BELOW TA_K 58_ 58® 58_ 58_ 58_ 58, 58_ 58_
LH2 ULLAGE GAS 260* 554e 261_ 507* 298e _OOe _98e _01.
AP5 PROPELLANT _02_ 452_ _02, 452_ 400_ _ _00_ 44_
L HEL[U_ IN BOTT_E$ 381_ 370® 380, 369® _60_ 350_ 350_ 3_9_
START TA_:K GAS 5_ 5, I, I® 7_ 7_ 7_ 7_
FROST O_ 100. O, 100, O® I00, O, IO0_
OTHER 56_ 56_ 56® 56, 56_ 56_ 56, 56_
TOTAL 5-1V5 STAGE 194087® 189005_ 195595_ 188520_ 165_87_ 160555® 165555_ 1603_5®
TOTAL INSTRU UNIT 4295, 4281® _295_ 4281_ 4295_ _281, #295_ 4281_
TOTAL SPACECRAFT i_12® 1502_ i_12_ 1502_ I_12, 1502_ i_12_ 1502_
TOTAL UPPE'R STAGE 5707_ 5783_ 5707_ 5783® 5707® 5783_ 5707® 5783,
TOTAL VEHICLE 199794® i94786_ 199_00_ 194_03® 171194® 155318® 17105_® 16_i¢8®
% -. _4_
\
J
Table 21-11, Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Third Burn Phase - Kilograms
S-IVB S-IV8 S-IVB $-IVB

Vc,_T8 IGNITION MAINSTAGE ENGINE CUTOFF END DECAY
RRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
_.A,,__ TI,,_m-S_. 22032.79 22039.26 22035.29 22041®T_ 22275®33 22281eB2 222766_3 22282®32
S_IVB STAGE DRY 11392. 11296® 11392® 11296. iI_92_ 112960 11_92® 11296,
LOX IN TAN.K 51201, 49242, 51061. 49109® 8358e 15265_ 8_08_ 15202_
LOX BFLOWTANK 166, 166, 180, 180_ _80_ !SOs _80_ 180
LOX ULLAGE GAS 321_ 2956 321e 295e 359® 540e 359e 3#le
IN TANK 1103_ I0842. I0988, !0627® 2169, 4034® 2ISle 4020o
LH2 BELOW TANK 26, 26_ 26, 26e 2Se 26® 26o 26e
LH2 ULLAGS GAS 142e 209, 142, 2_2, 208, 290, 208e 291",
APS PROPELLANT 122e 171, 122o 171o 122e 1566 122e 15&_
HELIUm4 IN BOTTLES 136_ i_6. 135_ 1566 99a lOOe 99_ i00_
START TANK GAS 2, 2_ O_ Oe 3_ 3, 3* _
7_OST O" _5_ O. _5. Oo 456 O® 45_
OTHER 25= 25_ 25_ 25e 25_ 25e 25_ 25®
TOTAL S-_VB STAGE 74571_ 72256_ 74_93_ 7212_ 22942_ _1762e 22881_ _1686e
TOTAL IN.T,_ UNIT 1948. 1942_ 19#8_ 1942, i948, 1942_ 1968e 19_2e
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 640, 681, 6_0_ 681_ 840_ 681_ 6_0® 681®
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 2589, 2623, 2589, 2623, 2589, 2_23_ 2599_ 2623_
TOTAL VEHICLE 77159_ 74879® 76982_ 74747_ 25531_ 34385, 25_70_ 34309,
Table 21-12. Total Vehicle Mass - S-IVB Third Burn Phase - Pounds Mass
$-_VB S-[VB $-[VB S=[VB

EVENTS IGNITION NAINSTAGE ENGZNECUTOFF END DECAY
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
RAVAGE TI_._E==SEC 22032079 220_9_26 2203_®29 2206&o76 22275®33 22281e_2 22276o33 22282e32
S=[V_ $TASE DRY 251&_e 2_gO4e 251&4e 2490_e 25&&_e Z490_ 251&4e 24904®
LOX IN TANK 112878e 108560® 112570, 108266o 18427_ _365_e 18311e 3351.5e
L_X BELOW TANK _67m _67e 397e 397, _97e 397e 397e 3976
LOX ULLAGE GAS 708® 650e 708e 651_ 790_ 750_ 7900 751.
LH2 _N TANK 24_33_ 25462e 24223_ Z3429e 6782e 889_ 4764e 8883®
LH2 BELOW TANK 58e 58_ 58e 58_ 58e 58a 58e 58e
LH2 ULLAGE GAS _i2. 480. 31_e 488e 459e 640® 459, 641e
Am$ PROPEBLANT 269, 376_ 269_ _76_ 269_ _44_ 2696 344_
HFL[UM [5_ BOTTLES 299, 3DOe 298e 300e 219, 220e 219, 220_
% START TANK GAS 5_ 5e le le 7s 7e 7e 7e
FROST O, i00_ 0_ 10De 0, 100® O, 100®
OTHER 5_® 56_ 56_ 56_ 56, 58_ 56e 56®
TOTAL S=_V8 STAGE lB_O0_ 159Z98_ I_008_ 159DOSe 50578, 70023e 50_4. &9858®
TOTAL INSTR_ UNIT _295e #281_ 4295_ _281_ _295® _281_ 4295_ 4281_
TOTAL SPACECRAFT l_12_ 1502e l_12_ 1502_ l_12® !502, l_12_ 1502_
TOTAL UPPER STAGE _707_ 5785_ 5707_ 5783_ _707® 578_ 5707® 5785_
TOTAL VEHICLE 170107e 185081, 169715, 16_789e 58_85, 75806_ 56151® 75_39e
Table 21-13. Flight Sequence Mass Summary
ACTUAL PREDICTED
4'A_$ H_$TORY KG LB_4 KG LBY
5-1C STA3Ej__L_TAL 2282866, 5032858. 2Z82265e 5031532=

S-XC/S-Z_ _.NTERSTAGE-$_ALL 614. 1353, 61_ 1353,
__.CJ_-__X__T.E_$TASE_LARGE 46_4, 10238, _677, 10312®
S=ZX 5TAGE_ TOTAL 483378= i065687e _82908, 10646_9=
S'XI/SIIVB XNTERSTAGE 3628o 7998, 3685, 8081.
f-_ S=_VB STAGE_ TOTAL 118003o 260151, 117553o 259159®
J_H_EUMENT UNIT 1942, 4281* 1948, 4295=
SPACECRAFT ZNCLUO|NG LE5 47188= 10_031® _7098, 10383_,
IST FLT STG A¥ IGN 2942262o 6486578= 2940728= 6483196=

S-%C THRUST BUXLDUP -38758_ -85448, =39129o -86267=
1ST FLT STG HOLDDWN ARH REL _903504, &_011_0e 2901598® 6Z9_929=
$'_C FROST -29_® -650_ -29_ -_50=
_ S-XC MAINSTAGE PROPES_ANT -20_2#_ -_550882_ -2070872_ -_565_95,
S=_C N2 PURGE -8_ -20, =16_ =_7®
S-_C _NBD E,_GINE T=D® PROP =840= -1855e -821_ -1812_
S-_C |NBD;ENG EXPENDED PROP -18_= =_08_ -18_e _08_
$-|_ |NSULAT_ON PURGE GAS -5_ =120* -53= -120,
S'_ FROST -205= =_50e -20_ -_
S-IVB FROST =_0. -200_ -_ -100_
15T FLT STAGE AT S=_C OECOS S37579= 18_5_5, 829_0_ 1827858,

S=_C OTBD ENGINE T_Oe PROP -292S* -645_ =3275_ -_
S-_C/S-|! ULLAG_ RKT PROP =32_ =73_ =32_ -7_®
I$T FLT STAGE AT S_C/$_ SEP 83_619_ 18_0019= _25793= le2o5_2,

S-|C STAGE AT SEPARATION =lT_60_ -3871_ =1STS_6_ -_696_2_
S-_C/$-_ INTERSTAGE SMALL =613= -1353= -613_ =I353®
$-_C/$=|| ULLAGE RKT PROP -82_ =18_= -82e -18_
2NO FLT STAGE AT S-I| SSC 658316, _1339= 65T_29= t_9385=

$-|_ T_B® PROPELLANT =_90_ -1083_ =TOO= =154S_
S-i_ START TANK -10_ -25, -10_ -25®
$_1C/S_1 ULLAGE RKT PROP _93_ -1089= -499_ -iZO3_
2NO FLT STAGE HA|NSTAGE 557320= 1_9142® 65621_® 14_6708=

LAUNCH ESCAPE SYSTEM -_022_ -8869= -_022= -8870e
$-IC/$-_! |NTERSTAGE LARGE -_032_ =S892_ -_O&O* -8952,
$-_| NAINSTAGE • VENT|NG -_3_38_= -966_2. =_37920= -_&5_O®
2NO FLT STAGE AT S=|_ C_0=5_ 210875, _6_899, 210211e 465636=

$-_I TeO_ PROPELLANT -2_ -_90. =22_® -500e
$-_V8 ULLAGE PROPELLANT -1. -_® =1_ -5=
2NO FLT $TG AT S|_/S_VB SEP 210_51= _405o 209983_ _62933=

_-1_ STAGE AT SEPARATION =_005_ -97017_ =_3788_ -96539_
$-1|/$-|VB _NTERSTAGE=ORY =31_S_ =$9_8* =_18_® -7021_
$-tV_ AFT FRAME -2t= -4Se -21= -_8=

• -_V8 ULLAGE ROCKET PROP -_ =_® =Oi -_
$-|V8 DET PACKAGE =0= -$= =0, -3_
_RD FLT STG AT _$T $$C 16_992® 35933_ 16250_o _58Z_9_

S_VS ULLAGE ROC_E¥ PROP =_9_ _11G_ "39_ "88_
$=|V8 FUEL LEAO LOSS O_ O= O= Oe
_RD_EL_STGA___T_S_VB _GN 1629_2_ _59225® 162_6_® _58171,

S'IVB ULLAGE ROCKET PROP O_ O= -9. -22®
$-|VB T_B= PROPELLAN_ =170_ "378_ _18_, "_06®
3RD FLT STG AT MA_NSTAGE 162768= _5884_® _62267® _ST?38e

f ..... .-$_LVBULLAG_ ROCKET CA.5_S -GO_ -13_ -SO_ -1_5®
$-XVB MAXNSTAGE PROP' -_0128e -66423® =272_$e -60062=
3RD FLT STG AT 1ST S|VB COS _$2576_ 292281_ 15_961® 297538=
S-_VB T®D® PROPELLANT =85= -190, -_5= -1_5,
21-15
Table 21-13. Flight Sequence Mass Summary (Continued)
ACTUAL PREDXCTED
LMA_SS HXSTORY KG LBM KG LBM
3RD FLT STG AT END 1ST TO 132490_ 2920916 134895® 2973930

._S=I_B_.EN_._RO__EXPE_ __ =17_ -400 =lT* =40*
S=_V8 APS PROPELLANT -4_o =lOOo =50, _115,
8=XVB FUEL TANK LOSS ....... =6_ =_9_7_ _=_0= =Z$5_= ....
JETTXSON SLA PANELS -1158_ =2510_ =1175= _2590=

__C__5_LLEH_-e_ND SLA =Z681&o =S911SJ -26744o =_8962=
__&I__,T_A_8_D_K 10_59_ 228378o lO6065o 253834_

S/C TRANSPOSED Z681_ 59116J 26745_ 58962_-Q
$-XVB FUEL TAN_ LOSS ,, =97= -216, O* O=
_0 TRAN_ 130307, 287278, 132810= 2927966

S/C TRANSPOSED -26815, =59115= =2674_= =58962e
LE_ _14529_ =32035* -1_51_® =32DOGe
S-_V5 FUEL TANK LOSS -_TT_ =854_ -_1@_ =927_
LAUNCH VEH AT S/C SEP 8858_ 19529_= 91150= 20090_

S=_VB _TANK LOSS =1_8_ =372_ -415_ -918_
S=_VB LOX TANK LOSS O= O_ -2Oe =_$_
_=_V_ AP_ PROPELLANT -_ =100_ =50= =1_3®
$=_VB START TANK =O® =2_ =0= -2=
S-IVB O_/H2 BURNER =6_ =1_ =6. =1_*
_RD FLT STG AT _ND 55C , 88362® _9_80_, 90653_ _99811_

$-_V_ FUEL LEAD LOSS =7_ -18_ -7_ =_B®
3RO FLY STG AT 2NO 8_V8 _8N 88353_ 194786. 9062_ 199793=
S=_VB TeB_ PROPELLANT -171_ =_TO_ =175_ =389e
3RD FLY STG AT NA_NSTAGE 881_G_ 19_#03_ 90_ 199_00_

_=_V8 _AIN_TAGE PROP =12735e -28079_ -12792_ -28205=
S=_VB AP$ PROPELLANT -2e =_ =O= -2=
3RD FLT STG AT 2NO S_VB COS 75_1_ 166_18= 7TSS_* 17119_=
S-_VB T_O_ PROPELLANT =7_ =169= _5_, =122=
_RO F_T STG AT END 2NO T_D_ 7558_ _66_9_ T7597_ 171072_
5=_VB ENG PROP EXPENDED -17_ -ROe -17e =dOe
$-_VB FUEL TANK LOSS =56T* _812_ =355_ =?_e®
S-_VB LOX TANK LOSS =22= =50_ -2_ =Ta
5_VB APS PROPELLANT =5t= =70_ =58_ -13_o
$-_VB START TANK =0_ -2_ =0_ -2_
=_VB 02/H_ BURNER -6= =16= =6_ =1_=
3RD _LT 5TO AT 3RD $SC 749_5_ _65159, ......

T7168_ 170126_
5=_VB FUEL LEAD LOSS =3_* -78_ -e_ -19.
5_D FLT 5TG AT 3RD S_VB _GN ?_B?9® ISSOBle 77159= iTOlOT=
__=tVB _TART TANK -1_ =_. =1_ "_
S=_VB T=B_ PROPELLANT -150= =288_ -_7_= =5B$_
5RD FLT $TG AT _IA_NSTAGE 7_7_7® 16_TBO_ 76982_ 1697_6_

$=_VB M_ PROP 580 BURN ._=_B5%7o..-88951® =51450_ -I15_29_._
S-_VB APS PROPELLANT =14_ -52. O® O_
5RD _LT STG AT 3RD S|VB C05 5_365_ 7580_ 2555_ _6286_
____[_ T_D_ PROPELLANT _T_= -IB?_ -BO= "135_
_RD FLT STG AT END 5RD TeD, 3_509. 73839= 25_TO= 5_15_
S-|VB ENG PROP EXPENDED =_7® =_O® =17* =_
__IVB APS PROPELLANT O_ O_ -2= -_
SLA NoT JETTISONED -_80_ -t302= =$59_ -1_12_ .......
V_HtEJ=E__,_I_ST_UMENT UNIT =_9_ ,=_281_ -1947_ _295®
S=_VB STAGE -516_7e =69815_ -22860_ -50_99e" _i
21-16
Table 21-14. Mass Characteristics Comparison
MASS LONGITUDINAL RADIAL ROLL MOMENT PITCH MOMENT YAW MOMENT

E=G= (X STAll E=G. OF INERTIA OF INERTIA OF INERTIA
......... EVENT __ _ ...................................................................................
KILO O/O METERS METERS KG-_2 0/0 KG-M2 0/0 KG-M2 OlO
........................... _UNO$ _ OEVe INCHES DELTA INCHES DELTA XIO-G OEV* X10-6 DEV= XlO-6 DEV+
.............................................................................. £-L£ ....... HZ ................. _-
133900_ 9_79 0*0708
PRED 293200_ 373*2 2+7892 2*843 17*357 17_274
.5=ZC _T_GE__Iy__..___ ............................................
13336Ew 9+E06 0o025 0+0683 -0+0026
ACTUAl 294_6_ =0.24 _74_2 h_0_2+6925 -0,0966 2+638 -0.26 17_1_E -0,99 17,100 -_99
..................................................................... _--I--L ..... 1 ..... = ................ , .....
3291_ 61_628 0o1584
S=_C/S-II INTER- PRED 11663_ 1838e9 6o2_69 0=13_ 0e081 0=081
+_IP.J3_OTA E .... - .............................................
525E+ 61=623 -08002 081364 0=0000
.......... A CTUA 11591+ -0_62 1638,8 -OelO 682369 0=0000 0=136 -0_62 0,080 -0e62 0®061 -0=_0
38376, 688165 0=1116

PRED E6600= 1895+4 _83906 0+633 E.158 2;i73
i-lL _AgJL_R_ ..............................................
38263= kE*lOT -0=035 0_1093 -0o0021
..................... ACTUAL __8_3128 -0,33 189_+0 -1o39 6+3066 -0.0862 0+631 -0+33 2.151 -083_ 2_165 -0._3
36650 66+651 0,0597

S-li/S-IVB INTER- PRED 80818 2616_2 2=3537 0+085 0+046 0+066
._AEELT_J_& .... - .............................................
3628+ 86*_68 -0.005 0,0573 -0+002_
................ ACTUAL 799__ -1,02 2616,0 -0o19 2+2561 -0+0976 0806_ =1+02 0.0_3 -1.02 00066 -1802
_T_+ 72+534 0+1898

PRED 25300, 2855_7 7+4726 0+082 0*298 0+2_7
S_B. 5_J_Kt DgX____ .............................................
11380+ 72833_ 0+000 0,1898 0.0000
.............. _TUAE 260_L-0882 2855,7 0+00 7+6726 0.0000 0=081 =0,82 0°295 =0o82 0+296 -0882
19_3+ 62+413 0+4058

VEHICLE INSTRU_ENTPRED 6295+ 3246+7 1589755 0,016 08010 0+009
___ UNiT ..............................................
1962_ 82841_ 0_000 0=383? -080220
..................... ACTUA_ _281_ +0+32 3266+7 0,0015+1092 -0+8672 08016 -0,15 0.010 -6o19 08008 -3®75
67098_ 91+680 0+1092

PREO 10383#_ 3601_E 6,3011 0.085 I+562 I+599
_PJ_E CR__t X_/_I ..............................................
67_88, 91_663 0,002 0,1107 0.0016
___I5/_L_0_031___._,1_.._01,7_ _.O_,lQ 6,3_00 0+0588 O,OE5 -0°18 I+53E -0+2_ 1+566 -o.15
................ - ......................................................................................... .=__
KILO O/0 METERS HETER5 KG-M2 O/O KG-M2 O/o KG-M2 O/C
29_0728= 30_Z_9 0+0039

15T FLIGHT STAGE PRED 6_83195® 1190,9 081562 3_T85 56_+873 86_8782
2942262_ 30+235 -0+01_ 0o0038 -0+0031
2901598e _Q_W 0=0039

iST FLIGHT STAGE PRE_ 8_96826o 11E8,7 0_15_ 3+788 865+739 E65o6_8
RELEASE 2903603, 308179 -0.015 O+O0_0 C+000_

....... A_TUAL 6_GIIZ?L Q,Q7 IA8581 -Q,59 0_15_i Q+P.Q!_ 3.778 _Q._2_.gQ6_683 _,73 906Z529_ _L72
:_ 829102, 66®137 080!38

1ST FLIGHT STAGE PRED 1827658, 1816+4 0+3660 _o773 63E,578 _388691
CUTOFF SIGNAL 837579+ _5+833 -0_303 0+0133 -O+OOOW

A_T_A_ _6_+ io02 1806+6 -Ii+95 0°52_9 -0o0170 3+763 -0°21 _68.8E6 2°3_ _8+6_6 2°33
_579)_ #6_SO 0=0138

18T FLIGHT STAGE PRED 1820562+ 1822,0 0854_0 38771 _3_823& 63_81_7
AT.$_PARA/IOt_ ..... _zr_nTnr_t_nrrc ................ Tnnzr_ .... r_ .... _ tr--- C: ..... ._._='-_Z-- _
i_il
_!_ 83_619. 63+952 -0e326 0_0133 -080002
......................... A_[UAk=_QQ/_ l_l !_Q_I _n_9_ 0o5325 -0+0113 3*783 =0+20 6_5,_08 2,57 _W6+267 2,56
.................................................................................................................
657629= 55=638 0+0167
2HO FLIGHT STAGE PRED 1669383+ 2190,4 0+5799 1.017 131+771 131+787
CO_:AND 658316* 558851 08013 08016T 080000

......... AET_ALI92iI_3____I___l_ ........ _=_ELQ____+UOQO_+016-0=30 132®0_1 0_20 132+057 0,20
..................................................................................................................
./_ 2ND FLIGHT STAGE PRED 166670E= 2190+9 0+5799 leO05 131+650 131=666
/ _AL _t_ N&TACa_ ..............................................
637320_ 55,682 0¢011 0+0167 0_0000
_ _ _A_ I_LZLgI42+.___!___I,6 0,63 0+5600 080000 1,002 =0+2E 131,930 0+21 131+9_8 0_21
21-17
Table 21-14. Mass Characteristics Comparison (Continued)
_LO_11t 7o_694 0,0443

-2ND FLIGHT STAGE PRED 463436. 278S.2 1_74A8 O.901 85.975 43,991
21087_o 70.679 "0_015 0*0435 -0.0007

.................. E__T_&L._z_LE_...Q_3__._2_6 =0o59 1*7149 -0°0299 0.859 -0,24 44=218 0,55 44*23S 0*55
_0998}_ 70,722 0_04_3

2N0 FLIGHT STAGE PREO _62933. 2784=3 _.7448 0,_0_ _3,8_6 _3_84_
AT SEPARATION ..... T--=?_-_ ....... 0=34}8 -0*0005

AC!UAL _LS_Q_ _ _E}_ _Q_ !_22_ _Q_0_99 Q®899 -O*Z_ 44,072 0.56 44_086 0_6
_6_50_ 76_92S 0_0366

3RD FLIGHT STAGE PRED 558259, 3028_ l*_A13 0.181 12,740 _2_742
AT LST @TART SE_ ................. r-r-- . -r-=_r ........ - ..................
OENCE CO_,_HAND 162992, 76*927 0*003 0*0366 O=OOO0
ACTUAL }5_35, 0,_0 }OZ8*6 0.13 I,_447 U_OO_3 0.191 _0.08 12=77_ 0.25 12°775" 0,25
I_2_GA_ 76_92_ Oe030_

3RD FLIGHT STAGE PRED 358171* S028,5 1,4415 0*191 12_739 12_74_
1629_2* 76_929 O=O0_ 0_03_b J,0000

ACTUAL _922_* 0.29 3026_7 0*18 !?_A7 0,0033 9o191 -0°08 12.789 0_24 _2.77_ 0*25 _:
................ I_2_67_ 76*923 0,03_6

3_D FLIGHT STAGE PRED 5577_8_ _028_4 _*_4_3 0,191 12_737 I_740
AT L$: ;.%AINSTAGE ........................... . _T=C_ ..............
lG_Gao 7GmZG O.O0_0,0_ o,co00
ACTUAL _588_3. 0,3_ 5028°5 0,_2 $4_7 090033 0,181 -0°08 _2,768 0_25 12=772 0_2_
134961. 77,705 0_0436

3eD FLIGHT STAGE PRED _975_8, _059=_ _.719_ 0,_90 _2_06_ _2,0_
tqAL _5257Sm 77:810 O.lO_ 0_0_48 0,0012

ACTUAL 292281m _1.76 3063_ _lO 1,7670 0.0478 0,190 =O,lO 12,007 -0._ _2,0_0 _0_43
134895, 77_70_ 0,0_
AT IST EN_ THRUST ...... - .... =--: ..T__ .........................

DECAY* START COAST 1_2490, 77_8_3 0_105 0,0_48 0_00_2
ACTUAL 292091_ -1_77 _06_ 4_3 1=767_ 0.0478 0,190 =0,10 _2,004 -0_4 _2,007 -0,4_
I06065. ____ 75.56_ 0.0_67

RRED 253834* 2896_2 _0519 0_38 _®167 3_66
CSM SEPARATE_ ........................... . _-T- ..............
103591= 73.597 0.052 0_0270 0_0003
ACTUAL 228378_ -2.32 28_7,5 i_27 1.0555 0,01_6 0,138 -q_. 3,172 0_17 3=_70 0,11
...........................
E:Z_
.....
_76--_:¥_
.........
_¥:_.........
E_Z_--_7_---E_Z_:---_:_--'_Z_:-'6?_--
POUNDS DEV* INCHES DELTA !NCHES DELTA X_O-6 DEV° X_O-6 DEVt X_O_6 DE V,
.............. 13_i_- ..........].Z_O 0.............0j0571

RRED _92796. _0q7_2 2.2506 0_182 _0_4 ii_022
150307. 77.504 0o_04 0*0575 0.0004

ACTUAL 287278, -1,87 8051°3 _._0 2,2671 0_0_6_ 0o1_ -q,_ 10°97_ -_*_p _._0,9_9 -O_AY
PRED 200907. 2824=6 1_09_1 O*_l 0=976 0,976

SPACECRAFT SEP ............................ .. ?,T_- ....... 7%._=.=__ _ - ..... _.....
ARAYED 8858_* 71.727 -0_017 0°0287 0.001C
ACTUAL 19529_* -2*76 28_}.9 -0,70 1,1387 0,0895 0o111 =0o15 0°9820_60 0,978 0_4_
90633° .71.729 0_0278

_RD FL|GHT STAGE RRED 195811* 282A_0 1_0960 O,llO 0*967 0_96_
OENCE CO':t.lA;_D 88362_ 7_,726 -0_003 0_0288 0,0009

ACTUAL i?_80%o ~_0 _3_8 -0.12 1,1355 0,9393.0_i0 -0_12 .qt978 I°13 _0_97__ 1,09
...................... 90625.71_728 0_0278

3RD FLIGHT STAGE PRED 199793. 2825_9 1_0960 0_10 0=967 0=95_
AT 2ND |GNIT_ON ............... . ?--_ .... c_.T- .. - ..... c ..... ........... T .... -_ ....
88353_ 71_725 -0.00_ 0=0288 0°0009
ACTUAL I_7_6_ -Z_9. _8_8 -0_ !=135} 0_089_.0_0 _9_ 12 0®978 I_ _ 0_97_ i*_
_944_ 71.716 0*0279

3RD FL_GH7 STAGE PREO 199400* 2823a4 1_018 O*_O 0o961 08858
88180. 71.712 -0*003 0*0288 0,0008

ACTUAL I_4_Q}_ _ZP_ _B._3°) -O_l_ 1_!_3. 9,0339 0,1_0 -0,12 0,972 1,_0 0*968 _,07
..............................................................................................................
77§_ 7_20 0,0324
3RD FL|GH7 STAGE PRED 171194* 2819_6 _°2762 O.llO 0_905 0.900
AT_Z_D CUTOFF - ......... - ...................................
S_GNAL 75441* 71,629 0,009 0_0882 0°0008 ....
ACTUAL 166818_ -2_B4 28_0_0 _6 1_!_ 0.0_40 0*1_0 =0o14 0.918 _59 0,9_4 1,_5
77597. 71_619 0_0_24

3RO FLIGHT STAGE RREO 171072_ 28_9=6 1°27S2 0o_0 0_903 0,900
DECAY 75364* 71,629 0=009 0_0332 OeO008
Z1-18
Tabl_ 21=14. Mass Characteristics Comparison (Continued)
7716Bo ..... 71_60_ ..... 0.0516

5RD FL1GHT $TAG_ PRED 1T0126o 2818o9 1_2455 0.109 0_894 0*89Z
UENCE COMMAND 74915u 71.612 0.009 0,0328 0*0012

ACTUAL 16515_ _2.91 2819_5 Oa3a 1_2952 060476 Q.109 0o21 00909 1_70 OegO& 1_67
77159_ 71.600 0o0316

J_'_ PRED 170107. 2818_9 1_2455 0.10§ 0.89_ ..... 0e891 ........
3R0 FLIGHT STAG_ ..........................
AT _RD 1GNXTXON 74879o 71_608 0_007 0*5528 0_0"012
• ACTUAL 1650_1_ -2,94 2819o2 O*_l la29_2 0_0476 0o109 0o21 0*909 1o65 0*905 1".5n
7598_. 71,593 0o0316

SAD FLIGHT STAG_ PRED 16971&o 2818_6 1_2&55 0o109 o*sr_ ' 0e_89
AT _D MA_NSTA_ _ ...............
7_7_7. 71.60_ OeOll 0*0528 0_0012
ACTUAL 16_789_ -2.89 2819_G 0.#_ 1-®2932 0.0_76 O#lOg 0.21 0e907 1.70 _.90# 1.71
................. _........... _ ....... _ ................................. _._._ .....
_5_$_ 72_%72 0_0922
_RD F_GHT STAGE PAED 56_86. 2855*2 _5_05 0_10_ 0*702 o*&gg
AT _0 CUTOFF ...................
S_GNAL 3_585_ 72_018 -0_55 0.0_88 -0_0253
ACTUAL 7580&_ 3_.6_ 28_5_5 -17.8_ 2.710_ -0*9200 0_109 0_09 0.77_ 10.19 0.771 10®16
25_70e 72_78 0_0923

3RD FLIGHT STAGE _RED 56152. 2853_ 3_6560 0.109 0®702 O_69g
........
AT 3RO _ND THRUST .....................
D_CAY 5_50_* 72_011 "Oe_SS 0_0691 _0_02_I
ACTUAL 75659. _.70 2835.# -17o99 2.72_2 -0.9118 0_109 0.09 0_775 10_21 0_770 15.19
jf_,
21-19/21-20
SECTION 22
MISSION OBJECTIVES ACCOMPLISHMENT
Table 22-I presents the MSFC AS-504 detailed test objectives as defined
in the Saturn V Mission Implementation Plan, Mission D. An assessment
of the degree of accomplishment of each objective is shown. Discussion
supporting the assessment can be found in the indicated sections of the
Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report - AS-504, Apollo 9
Mission.
The one principal and nine of the eleven secondary detailed test objectives
were completely accomplished. The other two test objectives, S-IVB 80-
minute restart and LOX/LH2 dump, were partially accomplished. The
Out-of-specification restart conditions (an experimental start) is the
most probable cause for incomplete accomplishment.
22-1
Table 22-I. Mission Objectives Accomplishment Summary
DETAILED TEST OBJECTIVES
DEGREE
OF PARAGRAPHIN
NO. PRINCIPAL(p) SECONDARY
(S) ACCOMPLISHMENT DISCREPANCIES WHICHDISCUSSED
I Demonstrate S-IVB/IU attitude control Complete None 11.5.2

capability during Transposition, Docking 12.6
and Spacecraft (SC) Ejection (TD&E)
maneuver. (P)
2 Confirmlaunchvehiclelongitudinal Complete None 9.2.3

oscillation environmentduringS-IC 9.3.1.1
stage burn period. (S)
3 Verifythatmodifications
incorporated
in Complete None 5.9
theS-ICstage suppresslowfrequency 9.2_3
longitudinal
oscillations.(S) 9.3.1.1
4 ConfirmJ-2 engineenvironment
in S-II Complete None 17,3
stage. (S)
5 VerifyJ-2 enginemodifications.
(S) Complete None 6.3
6 Demonstrate 021H 2 burner repressuri- Complete None 7.6

zation system operation. (S)
7 Demonstrate
S-IVBrestartcapability.
(S) Complete None 7.6
8 Demonstrate 02/H2 burner restart Complete None 7.10

capability. (S)
9 Demonstrate dual repressurization Complete None 7,6

capability. (S) 7.10
lO Demonstrate 80-minute restart capability. Partial The experimental start 7.10

(S) wasachieved and 7.1l
accomplished the planned 11.5,5
S-IVB third burn. How-
ever, rough combustion,
a gas generator spike at
ignition, and control
oscillations resulted
in low performance at
start, performance loss
during the burn, and
loss of engine helium
control regulator
discharge pressure.
II DemonstrateS-IVB propellantdump Partial The S-IVB stagewas 7.17

and safing. (S) adequately "safed"
however propellant
dump was not achieved
due to loss of engine
helium control regulator
discharge pressure.
12 Verifytheonboard Colrmand Complete None 14.3

Communications System (CCS)/ground
system interface and operation in
the deep space environment. (S)
22-2
"_"
...... SECTION23
FAILURES, ANOMALIES AND DEVIATIONS
23.1 SUMMARY
Evaluation of the launch vehicle performance during the AS-504 flight

test revealed four areas of concern with a mission criticality category
of three. Modifications are planned to improve these problem areas on
future flights.
23.2 SYSTEM FAILURES AND ANOMALIES
Table 23-I defines the criticality categories assigned to the failures

and anomalies listed in Table 23-2. Since all studies and corrective
actions (ECPs) pertinent to these anomalies are not complete, Table 23-2
represents the action status of each item as of the release date of this
report. This table complies with Apollo Program Directive No. 19.
Reference paragraph numbers are given for sections in which the specific
problem area is discussed in more detail.
Table 23-I. Hardware Criticality Categories For Flight Hardware
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1 Hardware failure which results in loss of life of any

crew member. This includes normally passive systems
such as the Emergency Detection System (EDS), Launch
Escape System (LES), etc.
2 Hardware failure which results in abort of mission

but does not cause loss of life.
3 Hardware failure which will not result in abort of

mission nor cause loss of life.
23.3 SYSTEM DEVIATIONS
.......... Eight system deviations occurred without any significant effects on the
flight or operatiDn of that particular system. Table 23-3 presents
these deviations with the recommended corrective actions and a reference
23-I
Table 23-2. Sugary of Failures and Anomalies
FAILURE/ANONALY IDENTIFICATION RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION

AS-504 TIME OF
VEHICLE MISSI(]_ OCCURRENCE _CTION IEHICLE PARAGRAPH
ITEM SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CAUSE) EFFECT O_MISSIOM CRITICALITY EFFECTONNEXT MISSION (RANGE TIME) DESCRIPTION STATUS _FPECTIVITYREFEP£:!CE
l S-If g-ll hertz structure None 3 Under investigation Approx. Early center engine ECP AS-505 6.3, 6.6_
Propulsion/ oscillations, and SO0 sec. cutoff per ECP 6304. 6304 9.2.3.2
Structure16.5to20hertz Other possibilities Closed
oscillations in _are under investiga-
center engine tion forAS-506 and Open AS-506 and
pr@ssure pare- isubs, subs
meters and S-If
structural para-
meters. (Unknown)
2 S-IVB APEModuleNo. II None. Leak was 3 Potential loss of Beginning Changeof teflon ECP AS-505 7.16
Auxiliary helium supply not pronounced attitude control at approx, seal materia has 3160 and
Propulsion pressure decay, enough to effect during operation and/ 4:25:00 been approved Closed subs
System (One or more mission, or coast. (ECP3160) andan
teflon seals leak- additional leak
tog inhigh pm_ssure check atKSC
system upstreamof implemented.
regulator.)
(_ 3 S-IVB Stagepneumatic None 3 None -3:07:00 Modification

to regu.ECP AS-5D6 7.15
Stage regulator reading later
onsubsequent 3158 and
Propulsion
high prior tolift- vehicles. Closedsubs
off. (Possible
contamination or
marginal poppet to
seat mating.)
4 S-IVB Third burn performance

Propulsion variations from nominal
and I. Main chamber pros- Low performanceduring 3 None for mermal start 22,039.26 Modificationof Closed AS-505 and 7.10
Controls sure oscillations which third burn and as a conditions, seconds mission rules for subs 7111
probably resulted in result lower than pre- contingency start. 7.!7
partial failure of dicted cutoff velocity.
engine pneumatic system Failure to d_p LOX
and subsequent loss of and LH 2 through the
engine performance, engine.
2. Gas generator Loss of performance.

pressure spike at None 22,03g
start which possibly seconds
damaged gas generator.
3. Abnormal yaw and None. Greater than None anticipated 22,03g to II.5.5
pitchcontrol system normal ya_ andpitch 22,141
oscillation during disturbances during seconds
third burn. (Out-of- first IO0 seconds of
specification start third burn.
conditions which were
experimental).
to the paragraphs containing further discussion of the deviation. These
deviations are of no major concern, but are presented in order to
complete the summary of deviations experienced on AS_504.
Table 23-3° Summary of Deviations
VEHICLE ICORRECTIVE
ACTION PARAGRAPH
SYSTEM DEVIATIONS PROBABLE
CAUSE BEINGCONSIDERED REFERENCE
S-[C Propulsion Unexpectedperformance Loss of lead from fuel Double inspectionpro- 5.3
increaseof Engine No. I pump front wear ring cess, by engine mfr
i(within30 tolerance) due to inadequate tO assure proper lead
beginningat 85 seconds, bonding, bonding. Incorporated
on Engines No. 3 and
4 for AS-504 and all
subsequentF,l engines.
Vehicle Structures Slow damping rate of Low structuraldamping None anticipated. 9.2.3.1
longitudinal oscillations and coincidental tuning of AS-504 oscillations
after S-IC Center Engine engine cutoff rate with consideredto be worst
Cutoff (CECO). Ist longitudinal case.
structuralmode.
S-IC Propulsion Unexpecteddecrease of Orificeserroneously AS-BOB flow test. 5.6.I

fuel ullage pressure at interchangedon HFCV Configurationhas
engine start which No. l and No. 2 been verified.
caused Helium Flow producing a different
ControlValve (HFCV) He flow.
No. 5 to cycle.
S-IC Propulsion Engine No. 5 LOX Under investigation. None anticipated 5.6.2
suctionduct pressure LOX leak below prevalve
decayed unexpectedly is suspected.
after CECO.
S-IC/S-II Apollo 9 astronauts Separationappears None anticipated. 12.2

Separation reportednegative nominaland the dynamics
accelerationat S-IC/ apparentlyare character-
S-II separation. At istic of the vehicle.
163.57 secondsthe
oscillatingcharacter-
istics reached-0.8 g
peak amplitude,at
5.2 hertz.
IU(LVDA/Telemetry)H60-603 telemetrybit Launch VehicleData Real time data 10.5.4

erroneouslyset on Adapter (LVDA) telemetry handling pro- 19.3.4
from 537.2 to 9676 driver medel 410K ceduralchange.
seconds. All data multiplexeror inter-
recoveredwith bit connectingcircuitry.
affectingtelemetry
only.
IU ST-124M-3 ST-124M-3 platform Very likely due to Will be observed 18.4.1

Platform inertialgimbal response to lower than during A$-505 launch
temperaturewas expected ambient end wtll determine
below specification, environment(not of if furtheraction is
seriousnature), warrented.
IU ST-124M-3 ST-124M-3 alp bearing Possible regulator Test definedin IU 18.4.2

Platform differentialand drift (not of serious Specificationsand
ambient pressure nature). Criteria,paragraph
exceeded specifl- 0.3.B.3_3,to
cation. _orrect problem.
Effectlve for AS.505.
IU Command A degradedCCS power Under Investigation. Under Investigation. 14.3

and Communi- amplifieroutput 19.3.4
cation Systems occurred between 19.5.3.2
/_, (CCS) 22066.4and
2341B,8 seconds
causing loss of
down link lock.
23-3/23-4
F- SECTION24
SPACECRAFT
SUMMARY
All spacecraft systems performed essentially as planned. Thermal char-

acteristics of both spacecrafts varied within acceptable limits. Con-
sumables usage was maintained at acceptable levels. Communications
quality was generally satisfactory with two television transmissions
from the Lunar Module (LM).
Following a nominal launch phase, the spacecraft and S-IVB stage were
inserted into an orbit of 184.61 by 186.57 kilometers (99.68 by 100.74
n mi). After postinsertion checkout was completed, the Command and
Service Modules (CSM) were separated from the S-IVB, transposed, and
docked with the LM. The docked spacecrafts were separated from the S-IVB
at 4:08:06. Four service propulsion firings lasting 5.1, llO.O, 279.6,
and 27.9 seconds were made while the spacecraft'remained docked.
At approximately 43.5 hours, the LM Pilot and the Commander transferred

to the LM. A 369.7-second firing of the LM descent propulsion system
was initiated about 6 hours later; the two crewmen then returned to the
Command Module (CM) for the fifth service propulsion firing, which lasted
43.3 seconds. At approximately 70 hours, the LM Pilot and the Commander
again transferred for the LM Pilot's 47-minute extravehicular activity.
At approximately 89 hours, the Commander and the LM Pilot returned to

the LM for the third time to perform a LM-active rendezvous. The lunar
module primary guidance system was Used to conduct the rendezvous with
backup calculations being made by the CMcomputer. The phasing and in-
sertion maneuvers were performed using the descent propulsion system to
set up the rendezvous. The ascent and descent stages were separated,
followed by a reaction control coelliptic sequence initiation maneuver.
The ascent propulsion system was fired to establish the constant delta
height. The terminal phase of the rendezvous began on time, and the
spacecrafts were again docked at about 99 hours. The ascent stage was
jettisoned about 2.5 hours later. Shortly after, the ascent propulsion
system was fired to propellant depletion. The firing lasted 350 seconds
and resulted in an orbit of 6939 by 230.6 kilometers (3747 by 124.5 n mi).
The sixth service propulsion firing, to lower apogee, was delayed because
f_ the +X translation to precede the maneuver was not programmed properly.
However, the maneuver was rescheduled and successfully completed in the
next revolution at approximately 123.5 hours.
24-I
During the last three days, a 25_second seventh service propulsion firing
was made to raise the apogee, and a multispectral photography experiment
and landmark tracking were accomplished.
Unfavorable weather in the planned landing area caused the deorbit maneu .......
vet to be delayed for one revolution. The CM landed in the Atlantic
Ocean near the target of 23 degrees 15 minutes north latitude, 68 degrees
west longitude, as determined from the onboard computer. The total
flight duration was 240 hours, 31 minutes, 14.9 seconds.
For further details on the spacecraft performance, refer to the Apollo 9

Mission Report published by the NASA, Manned Spacecraft Center at
Houston, Texas.
24-2
APPENDIX A
ATMOSPHERE
A.I SUMMARY
This appendix presents a summary of the atmospheric environment at

launch time of the AS-504. The format of these data is similar to that
presented in previous launches of Saturn vehicles to permit comparisons.
Surface and upper winds and thermodynamic data near the launch time are
given.
Ao2 GENERALATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS AT LAUNCH TIME '
A low pressure disturbance southwest of Cape Kennedy, Florida, in the

Gulf of Mexico, was the principal cause of overcast conditions during
launch.
Ao3 SURFACE OBSERVATIONS AT LAUNCH TIME
At launch time, skies were overcast with 7/10 stratocumulus at l.l kilo-
meters (3500 ft), and I0/I0 altostratus at 2.7 kilometers (9000 ft).
Table A-I summarizes surface observations at launch time. Solar
radiation data are given in Table A-2.
A.4 UPPER AIR MEASUREMENTS
Data were used from four of the upper air wind systems to compile the
final meteorological tape. Table A-3 summarizes the data systems used.
A.4.1 Wind Speed
Wind speed increased with altitude, reaching a speed of 76.2 m/s (148.1
knots) at 11.73 kilometers (38,480 ft). There was a second peak in the
wind speed of 75.5 m/s (146.8 knots) at 63.0 kilometers (206,690 ft).
See Figure A-I for more information of the wind speeds.
A.4.2 Wind Direction
The surface wind was from the southeast, but changed to westerly at 4.0
kilometers (13,125 ft) altitude. Above 4.0 kilometers (13,125 ft) winds
remained generally from the west as shown in Figure A-2. A northeast
direction can be noted in Figure A-2 at 29 kilometers (95,145 ft). This
wind direction is assumed to be in error, due to the inaccuracy of
._-_ tracking the rawinsonde balloon at low elevation angles.
A-I
A.4.3 Pitch Wind Component
The pitch wind speed component was in the same direction as the bias
wind used for the vehicle (50_percentile wind) but exceeded the maximum
bias wind by 34.5 m/s (67.1 knots)° The maximum pitch wind speed com.....
ponent was a tail wind component of 74.5 m/s (144.8 knots) at 11.7 kilo-
meters (38,390 ft)o Above 11o7 kilometers (38,390 ft) the pitch wind
speed component decreased until it became a slight head wind component
of -13.8 m/s (_26.8 knots) at 28°75 kilometers (94,325 ft). It reverses
above this altitude and becomes a tail wind with a peak speed of
75.5 m/s (146.8 knots) at 63 kilometers (206,690 ft)o
A.4.4 Yaw Wind Component
The yaw wind speed component was usually below 20 m/s (38.8 knots) and
from the left except near the surface. See Figure A-4o
A.4.5 Component Wind Shears
The largest component wind shear (Ah = 1000 m) was a yaw shear of
0.0254 sec -I at 14.7 kilometers (48,160 ft). The largest pitch wind
shear was 0°0248 sec -I at 15oi kilometers (49,700 ft). See Figure A-5.
A.4.6 Extreme Wind Data in the High Dynamic Pressure Region
A summary of the maximum wind speeds and wind components is given in

Tables A-4, A-5, and A-6. A summary of the extreme wind shear values
is given in Tables A-7, A-8, and A-9.
A.5 THERMODYNAMICDATA
Comparisons of the thermodynamic data taken at AS-504 launch time with

the Patrick Reference Atmosphere, 1963 (PP_A-63) for temperature,
density, pressure, and Optical Index of Refraction are shown in
Figures Ai6 and Aw7 and discussed in the following paragraphs.
A.5.1 Temperature
Atmosphereic temperature deviations were small, being less than 5 per-

cent deviation from the PRAy63. At most altitudes, the temperature was
colder than_the PRA-63o
A.5.2 Atmospheric Pressure
The atmospheric pressure profile was less than the PRA-63 pressure pro w
fileo A maximumdeviation of -5.6 percent occurred at 28 kilometers
(91 _860 ft)o
A-2
A.5.3 Atmospheric Density
Atmospheric density deviations were small, being approximately 5 percent

deviation from the PRA-63. The extreme density deviation was -6.1
percent at 14 kilometers (45,930 ft).
A.5.4 Optical Index of Refraction
At the surface, the Optical Index of Refraction was 4.35 (n-l) x 10-6
units higher than the corresponding value of the PRAy63. The deviation
decreased w_th altitude, becoming a minimum of -4.05 (n-l) x 10-6 at
]2.75 kilometers (41,830 ft). Above this altitude the Optical Index of
Refraction stays less than the PRA-63 values.
A.6 COMPARISONOF SELECTED ATMOSPHERIC DATA FOR ALL SATURN LAUNCHES
Tables A:lO, A-If, and A-12 show a summary of the atmospheric data for
each Saturn launch.
Table A-I. Surface Observations at AS:504 Launch Time
TIME PRESo TEM- POINT VISI_ SKY COVER WIND

LOCATION AFTER SURE PERATURE DEW BILIIY AMOUNT TYPE HEIGHT I SPEED.........
T-O N/O_2 °K °K km (TENTHS) O_ BASE m/s OIR
(MIN) (psla) (°F) (°F) (STAT RI) M (ft) (KNOTS) (DEG)
Kennedy Space 0 I0.095 292.55 284,8! 16 l 7 Strato- 1070 4.1 130

Center, Station (14.64) (67.0) (53.0 (10) I0 cumulus (3500) l (8.0)
Mila,
Florida ! I Alto- 2740
stratus (9000)
Cape Kennedy -285 10.091 285.95 284.1:_ -- I ...... 3.0 360

Rawinsonde (14.64)(55.D)(51.8 _ (5.8)
Measurements
Pad39A 0 .... ! I -- I ...... 6.9 160

Lightpole
SE '! (13.5)
(20.4 m)* i I !
I
* Above Natural Grade
L I [
A-3
Table A-2o Solar Radiation at AS:504 Launch Time, Launch Pad 39A
DATE HOURENDING TOTAL NORMAL DIFFUSE

EST HORIZONTAL INCIDENT SKY
g-cal/cmZ g-cal/cm 2 g_cal/cm 2 ........
_ii
-- , ......
(MIN) (MIN)
,,,
(MIN)
3/2/69 0800 0.II 0.34 0.09

0900 0.38 0.71 0.20
I000 0.74 0.88 0.36
lIO0 1.00 0.98 0.44
1200 1.20 1.03 0.52
1300 1.26 1.05 0.53
1400 1.21 1.05 0.5]
1500 1.03 1.03 0.42
1500 0.81 0.98 0.36
]700 0.49 0.80 0.26
1800 0.62 0.20 0.60
1900 0.02 0 0.02
3/3/69 0800 0.07 0 0.07
0900 0.21 0.06 0.19
I000 0.48 0.24 0.38
II00 0.27 0.01 0.26
1200 0.26 0.01 0.25
Table A-3. Systems Used to Measure Upper Air Wind Data
RELEASE TIME
PORTION OF DATA USED
TYPE
OFDATA TIME START END
TIME AFTER................
(UT) T-O ALTITUDE TIME TIME
(MIN) M AFTERALTITUDE AFTER
T-O M T-O
(ft) (MIN) (ft) (MIN)
FPS-16Jimsphere 1615 15 0 15 16,500 70

(54,100)
Rawinsonde 1115 -285 16,750 -230 30,000 -187
(54,900) (98,420)
Arcasonde 1730 90 52,500 90 30,250 I00
(172,240) (99,240)
Viper Dart 1829 149 73,000 149 52,750 151
(239,500) (173,060)
A-4
Table A-4. Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region
for Saturn I through Saturn I0 Vehicles
MAXIMUM
WIND MAXIMUM
WINDCOMPONENTS
VEHICLE ..........
NUMBER SPEED DIR ALT PITCH(Wx) ALT YAW(Wz) ALT
_ .... m/s (DEG) km m/s km m/s km
(KNOTS) (ft) (KNOTS) (ft) (KNOTS) (ft)
SA-I 47.0 242 12.25 36.8 13.00 -29.2 12.25

(91.4) (40,200) 171.5) (42,600) (-55.8) (40,200)
SA-2 33.6 216 13.50 31.8 13.50 -13.3 12.25
(65.3) (44,300) (61.8) (44,300) (-25.9) (40,200)
SA-3 31.3 269 13.75 30.7 13.75 11.2 12.00
(60.8) (45,100) (59.7) (45,100) (21.8) (39,400)
SA-4 51.8 253 13.00 46.2 13.00 -23.4 13.00
(100.7) (42,600) (89.8) (42,600) (-45.5) (42,600)
SA-5 42.1 268 10.75 41.1 I0.75 -11.5 11.25
(81.8) (35,300) (79.9) (35,300) (-22.4) (36,900)
SA-6 15.0 96 12.50 -14.8 i2.50 12.2 17.00
(29.2) (41,000) (-28.8) (41,000) (23.7) (55,800)
SA-7 17.3 47 11.75 -II.I 12.75 14.8 12.00
(33.6) (38,500) (-21.6) (41,800) (28.8) (39,400)
SA_9 34.3 243 13.00 27.5 10.75 23.6 13.25
(66.7) (42,600) (53.5) (35,300) (45.9) (43,500)
SA-8 16.0 351 15.25 12.0 II.00 14.6 15.25
(31.1) (50,000) (23.3) (36,100) (28.4) (50,000)
SA-IO 15.0 306 14.75 12.9 14.75 10.8 15.45
(29.2) (48,400) (25..I) (48,400) (21.0) (50,700)
NOTE: The vehicle numbers are presented in order

of time of launch.
Table A-5, Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region for
Apollo/Saturn 201 through Apollo/Saturn 205 Vehicles
MAXIMUM
WIND MAXIMUM
WINDCOMPONENTS
VEHICLE ..................
NUMBER SPEED DIR ALT PITCH(Wx) ALT YAW(Wz) ALT
m/s (DEG) km m/s km m/s km
(KNOTS) (ft) (KNOTS) (ft) (KNOTS) (ft)
AS-201 70.0 250 13.75 57.3 13.75 -43.3 13.25

(136.1) (45,100) (111.4) (45,100) (-84.2) (43,500)
AS-203 18.0 312 13.00 II.l 12.50 16.6 13.25
(35.0) (42,60o) (21.6) (41,000) (32.3) (43,5o0)
..... AS-202 16.0 231 12.00 10.7 12.50 -15.4 10.25
(31.1) (39,400) (20.8) (41,000) (-29.9) (33,600)
AS-204 35.0 288 12.00 32.7 15.25 20.6 12.00
(68.0) (39,400) (63.6) (50,000) (40.0) (39,400)
AS-205 15.6 309 14.60 15.8 12.08 15.7 15.78
(30.3) (44,500) (30.7) (36,800) (30.5) (47,500)
Table A-6. Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region for
Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/Saturn 504 Vehicles
MAXIMUM
WIND MAXIMUM
WINDCOMPONENTS
VEHICLE
NUMBER SPEED ALT PITCH(Wx) ALT YAW(Wz) ALT
m/s DIR km m/s km m/s km
(KNOTS) (BEG) (ft) (KNOTS) (ft) (KNOTS) (ft)
AS_501 26.0 273 ]1.50 24.3 11.50 12.9 9.00

(50.5) (37,700) (47.2) (37,700) (25.1) (29,500)
AS-502 27,1 255 12.00 27.] 12,00 12.9 15.75
(52.7) (42,600) (52.7) (42,600) (25.1) (5l ,700)
AS-503 34.8 284 15.22 31.2 15.10 22.6 15,80
(67.6) (49,900) (60.6) (49,500) (43.9) (51,800)
AS-504 76.2 264 II.73 74.5 II .70 21.7 II .43
(148.1) (38,480) (144.8) (38,390) (42.2) (37,500)
Table A-7. Extreme Wind Shear Values in the High Dynamic Pressure
Region for Saturn I through Saturn lO Vehicles
(Ah = I000 m)
PITCHPLANE YAWPLANE
VEHICLE ......................
NUMBER SHEAR ALTITUDE ALTITUDE
km SHEAR km
(SEC-I) (ft) (SEC-I) (ft)
SA-I 0.0145 14.75 0.0168 16.00

(48,40o) (52,50o)
SA-2 O.0144 15.00 O.0083 16.O0
(49,200) (52,500)
SA-3 0.0105 13.75 0.0157 13.25
(45,100) (43,500)
SA-4 0.0155 13.00 0.0144 II.00
(42,600) (36,100)
SA_5 O.0162 17. O0 O. 0086 10. O0
(55,8oo) (32,800)
SA-6 0.0121 12.25 0.0113 12.50
(40,200) (41,000)
SA-7 0.0078 14.25 0.0068 II .25
(46,800) (36,900)
SA-9 0.0096 I0.50 0.0184 10.75
(34,500) (35,300)
SA-8 O.0065 I 0.00 O.0073 17.O0
(32,800) (55,800)
SA-IO 0.0130 14.75 0.0090 15.00
(48,400) (49,200)
NOTE: The Vehicle numbers are presented in order

of time of launch.
Ao6
Table A-8. Extreme Wind Shear Values in the High Dynamic Pressure Region
for Apollo/Saturn201 through Apollo/Saturn205 Vehicles
Y_ (Ah= I000m)
PITCHPLANE YAW
PLANE
VEHICLE .......
NUMBER SHEAR ALTITUDE ALTITUDE
km SHEAR km
AS-201 0.0206 16.00 0.0205 12.00

(52,500) (39,400)
AS-203 0.0104 14.75 0.0079 14.25
(48,400) (46,800)
AS-202 0.0083 13.50 0.0054 13.25
(44,300) (43,500)
AS-204 0.0118 16.75 0.0116 14.00
(55,000) (45,900)
AS-205 0.0113 15.78 0.0085 15.25
(48,100) (46,500)
Table A-9. Extreme Wind Shear Values in the High Dynamic Pressure Region
for Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/Saturn 504 Vehicles
(Ah = 1000 m)
PITCHPLANE YAWPLANE
VEHICLE
ALTITUDE SHEAR ALTITUDE
NUMBER SHEAR km km
AS-501 0.0066 I0.00 0.0067 I0.00

(32,800) (32,800)
AS-502 0.0125 14.90 0.0084 13.28
(48,900) (43,500)
_-_ AS-503 0,0i03 16.00 0.0157 15.78
(52,5oo) (51
,BOO)
AS-504 0.0248 15.15 0.0254 14.68
(49,700) (48,160)
Table A-10. Selected Atmospheric Observations for Saturn I through lO
Vehicle Launches at Kennedy Space Center, Florida
VEHICLE
DATA SURFACE
DATA INFLIGHT
CONDITIONS
VEHICLE DATE TIME (EST) LAUNCH PRESSURE TEMPERA- RELATIVE WIND* MAXIMUM WIND IN 8-_6 _ LAVER
NUMBER NEAREST COMPLEX N/cm_ TURE °C HUMIDITY SPEED DIRECTION CLOUDS ALTI?UDE SPEED DIRECTION
MINUTE PERCENT m/s deg m m/s _eg
SA-_ 27 Oct 6% 1006 34 }0.222 26.2 64 6.4 65 8/T0 cumulus 12.25 47°0 242
SA-2 25 Apr 62 0900 34 10.205 24.6 59 3.5 180 1/10 cumulus, 3/10 13.50 33.6 261
cirrostratus
SA-3 16 Nov 52 1245 34 10.793 23.9 54 4.0 250 2/10 cmulus, 4/10 13.75 31.3 269
cirrus
SA-4 28 _ar 63 1512 34 10.176 23.g 71 6.0 40 1/10 stratocumulus, 13.00 51.8 253
I/lO cirrus
SA-5 29 Jan 64 I125 370 10.278 17.8 59 9.0 38 4/10 stratocumulus, 10.75 42.l 268
2/10 cirrus
SA-6 20 May 64 1207 37B 10.142 28.7 64 7.0 150 I/lO cumulus, l/lO 12.50 }5.0 96
cirrus
SA-7 18 Sep 64 II23 378 10.173 29.5 55 5.0 70 1/I0 cumulus, 5/%0 11.75 17.3 47
altocumulus, I/lO
cirrus
SA-9 16 Feb 65 0937 37B 10.244 23.3 74 6.0 125 l/lO stratoc=mulus 13.00 34.5 243
_SA-B 25 May65 0235 370 70.186 22.8 93 4.4 140 I/I0 cumulus 15.25 %6.0 351
SA-IO 30 Jul 65 0800 37B 10.163 24.7 86 }0.7 185 1/10 cumulonimbus_ 14.75 15.0 306
2/10 altostratus,
5/10 cirrus
* Instantaneous readings from charts at T-O from anemometers on poles at 19.5 m (59.4 it) on launch complex 34, 20.7 m (63.1 it) on launch
complex 370. HeSghts of anemometers are above natural grade.
Table A-If. Selected AtmosphericObservationsfor Apollo/Saturn201 through
Apollo/Saturn205 VehicleLaunches at KennedySpace Center, Florida
VEHICLE
DATA SURFACE
DATA INFLIGHT
CONDITIONS
VEHICLE DATE TIME (EST) LAUNCH PRESSURE TEMPERA- RELATIVE WIND* CLOUDS MAXIMUMWIND IN 8-16 km LAYER
NUMBER NEAREST COMPLEX N/cm2 TURE °C HUMIDITY SPEED DIRECTION ALTITUDE SPEED DIRECTION
MINUTE PERCENT m/s deg m m/s deg
AS-201 26 Feb 66 1112 34 10.217 16.1 48 6.5 330 Clear 13.75 70.0 250
AS:203 5 Jul 66 0953 37B 10.173 30.2 70 6,3 242 8/10 cumulus, I/I0 13.00 18.0 312
ci rrus
AS-202 25 Aug 66 1216 34 10.166 30.2 69 4,1 160 l/lO cumulus, I/IO 12.00 16.O 231
altocumulus, I/IO
ci rrus
AS-204 23 Jan 66 174B 37B 10.186 16.1 93 4.2 45 3/10 cumulus 12.00 35.0 268
AS-205 II Oct 68 1003 34 IO.18O 28.3 65 11.5 90 3/10 cumulonimbus 15.60 14.6 309
_c= * Instantaneous readings from charts at T-O from anemometers on poles at 19.5 m (59.4 ft) on launch complex 34, 20.7 m (63.1 ft) on launch complex
37B. Heights of anemometers are above natural grade.
ko
Table A-12. Selected Atmospheric Observations for Apollo/Saturn 501 through

Apollo/Saturn 504 Vehicle Launches at Kennedy Space Center, Florida
VEHICLE
DATA SURFACE
DATA INFLIGHT
CONDITIONS
VEHICLE DATE TIME (EST) LAUNCH PRESSURE TEMPERA- RELATIVE WIND* CLOODS MAXIMUM WIND IN 8-16 km LAYER
NUMBER NEAREST COMPLEX N/cm_ TURE °C HUMIDITY SPEED DIRECTION ALTITUDE SPEED DIRECTION
MINUTE PERCENT m/s deg m m/s deg
AS-501 9 Nov 67 0700 39A 10.261 47.6 55 8.0 70 I/lO cumulus 11.50 26.0 273
AS-502 4 Apr 68 0600 39A 10.200 20.g 83 5.4 132 5/IO stratocumulus 13.00 27.1 255
AS-503 _21 Dec 68 0751 39A 10,207 15.0 88 1.0 36Q 4/I0 cirrus 15.22 34.8 284
AS-504 3 Mar 69 llO0 39A 10.095 19,6 61 6.9 160 lO/lO strato- II,73 76.2 264
cumulus
* Instantaneous readings from charts at T-O from anemometers on launch pad at 18.3 m (60.0 ft) on launch complex 39 A, Heights of anemometers
are above natural grade.
_S .'3Wit 35NV_
1 I I l 1 I i i I I I I Ill
I_JV(] (ZOtL L-ZOEL[) "(ZO[L L-ZSL9L) 3_3HdSWIt'9 t'_d_ _
i
rv L.)
CSI
5..
U
m:i "3GNlliTg
ALTITUDE, km
(1)
! I
F-" I
('_ :z I
:r
--4 ! 'i
-'J" _ i
3 "
0
-h V
t
-- ARCASONDE (I730Z-I740Z) '1_ VlPER DART (IB29Z-1831Z --
0
•._ II I I I I _ J _ I I ! I t
RANGE TIME, sec
ALTITUDE,
km
|
(-_ ,o _ _ _ _ _ _
o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o
i 0 " "_,
P_ _ N
Xv S _ -_ f
C) _ i
....
-16JXMSPHERE{1615Z-1710Z_INSONOE ( (I7_OZ-1740Z) DART (I_gZ-1831Z)

--{
s illl I 1 I 1 [ I I I I I i
0
RANGE
TIME,
sec
(._
&
o
J
/
(+0
ALTITUDE,I_
,,,d°
2_
e'-
er" _CASO_DE
(173_Z-1740Z) [I 8ZgZ-183"J
Z
--'I
__" l+ii + I _ t l ! J k +_ __ i
o
I_,_GETI_, sec
9L-V/_ L'_V
_70S-SV _aJaqdsow_v a3uaaa_a_l (E:9) _]3Vd moa4
,_.Lsuacl pue aan:_eaadmaj..4o UOL_e.LAaQeA.L_L_[ "9-V aan6.L3'
(%) AIISN3(]
30 NOIIVIA303AIIV-13_I (%) 3_l(llW3d1431
30 NOIIVlA3(]
3AI1V'13_l- ......
0L S 0 S- Of- O[ S O $- Ol-
--n 0£
017
L_
_ 0S
e._, _.. §
._ 09
"u
m
:_ OL
.1 \ L O[
N oB
O_ _ 0
-- 06
f j:
N _ S_
,_ - 0[L -
_°_°_" - oo_ (_ o_
-_ 0C[ -
)-- !
- OS
[ SS _-J-
O9
APPENDIX B
AS-504 VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Bol SUMMARY
AS_504, fourth flight of the Saturn series, was the second manned
Apollo Saturn V vehicle. The Apollo spacecraft was completely configured
and included, for the first time, the Lunar Module (LM). The vehicle
consists of five major units. From bottom to top they are: S-IC stage,
S-If stage, S-IVB stage, Instrument Unit (IU), and the Spacecraft. The
Saturn V Apollo vehicle is approximately 110.6 meters (363 ft) in length.
See Figure B-I for a pictorial description of the vehicle.
B.2 S=IC STAGE
B.2.1 S=IC Configuration
The S-IC stage, as shown in Figure B-2, is a cylindrical structure

designed to provide the initial boost for the Saturn V Apollo vehicle.
This booster is 42.1 meters (138 ft) long and has a diameter of I0.I
meters (33 ft). The basic structures of the S-IC are the thrust
structure, fuel (RP-I) tank, intertank section, LOX tank, and the forward
skirt. Attached to the thrust structure are the five F-I engines which
produce a combined nominal sea level thrust of 33,850,000 Newtons
(7,610,000 Ibf). Four of these engines are spaced equidistantly about
a 9.243 meters (30.33 ft) diameter circle. The four outboard engines
are attached so they have a gimbaling capability. Each outboard engine
can move in a 5 degree, 9 minute square pattern to provide pitch, yaw,
and roll control. The fifth engine is fixed mounted at the stage center=
line. In addition to supporting the engines, the thrust structure also
provides support for the base heat shield, engine accessories, engine
fairings and fins, propellant lines, retro motors, and environmental
control ducts. The intertank structure provides structural continuity
between the LOX and fuel tanks, which provide propellant storage; and
the forward skirt provides structural continuity with the S-II stage.
_. Propellants are supplied to the engine turbopumps by 15 suction ducts:

5 from the LOX tank, and I0 from the fuel tank. The fuel tank is a
semimonocoque cylindrical structure closed at each end by an ellipsoidal
B_I
Figure B-I° Saturn V Apollo Configuration
B-2
FLIGHT TERHINATIOH /_'"_
RECEIVERS ___ _7 M FORWAR9
.......... INSTRUHENTATIO_ _ _(10:06 FT)SKIRT
HELIUH
CYLINDERS(4) 19.53 M OXIDIZER
{64.08 FT) (LOX)
LINE L T._K
L
FORM T ZNTERTANK
BAFFLE 6.67 M SECTION
ANNULAR (21.87 FT)
iJ_
LINE
TUI'_HELS(s)
l
/
CENTER SUCTION 13.13 M FUEL
ENGINE LINES (5) (43.08 FT) (RP-11
TANK
FUEL TUNNEL 1
SUCTION THRUST
RING
HEAT
5.93 M
FT) THRUST
STRUCTURE
LONER
THRUST FIH C
F-I ENGINES
(5) -- HEAT SHIELD
INSTRUMENTATION FLIGHT CONTROL -- ENGINE

SERVOACTUATOR FAIRING
RETROMOTORS AND FIN
Figure B-2. S-IC Stage Configuration
B_3
bulkhead. Antislosh ring baffles are located on the inside wall of the
tank, and an antivortex cruciform baffle is located in the lower bulkhead
area. The configuration of the LOX tank is basically the same with _he
exception qf capacity. The LOX tank will provide storage for 1342 m
(47,405 ft _) including ullage. The fuel tank will hold approximately
827 m_ (29,221 ft _) including ullage. The mixture ratio between LOX and ....
RP:I is approximately 2.27:1 (LOX to RP-I).
The LOX and fuel pressurization systems provide and maintain the Net
Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) required for the LOX and fuel turbopumps
during engine start and flight. These systems also provide protection
from high pressures, which might occur in the LOX and fuel tanks. Before
engine ignition, the LOX and fuel tanks are pressurized from a ground
helium supply° During flight, LOX pressurization is accomplished by
gaseous oxygen obtained by using F-I engine heat exchangers to convert
oxygen from liquid to gas. The fuel tank is pressurized by gaseous
helium supplied by helium bottles located in the LOX tank. The LOX and
fuel feed systems contain LOX and fuel depletion sensors for purposes of
outboard engine cutoff during flight. The inboard engine was cutoff by
an IU signal.
Eight solid propellant retro motors provide separation thrust after S-IC
burnout. They are located inside the four outboard engine fairings and
are attached externally to the thrust structure. The S-lC and S-11 stages
are severed by linear shaped charges, and the retro motors supply the
necessary acceleration force to provide separation. Each retro motor
is pinned securely to the vehicle support and pivot support fittings at
an angle of 7.5 degrees from stage centerline.
Additional systems on the S-IC include:
ao The Environmental Control System (ECS) which protects the SIIC stage
from temperature extremes, excessive humidity, and hazardous gas'
concentrations.
b. The hydraulic system which distributes power to operate the engine

valves and thrust vector control system.
c. The pneumatic control pressure system which provides a pressurized

nitrogen supply for command operations of various pneumatic valves.
d. The electrical system which distributes and controls the stage

electrical power.
e. The instrumentation system which monitors functional operation of

the stage systems and provides signals for vehicle tracking during
S-IC burn.
B_4
f. The POGOsuppression system. This system provides gaseous helium
to a cavity in each of the LOX prevalves of the four outboard engine
suction lines. These gas filled cavities act as a "spring" and
serve to lower the natural frequency of the feed system and thereby
prevent coupling between engine thrust oscillations and the first
longitudinal mode of the vehicle structure.
The more significant configuration changes between AS-503 S-IC and

AS-504 S-lC are shown in Table B-l.
Table B-I. S=IC Significant Configuration Changes
SYSTEM CHANGE REASON
Propulslem F-l engine qualification

configuration
thrust To improvecombustionstabilityand
chamberinjectorincorporated, specificimpulse.
Minimumu11age volume and maximumpropellant To increasepayloadcapabilityof launch

load in tOX and fuel tanks, vehicle.
Early teeminationof LOX replenishingsystem. To accommodateKennedySpace Center ('KSC)

Replenishingwill be terminatedat the beginning launchoperations.
of automaticsequence(-187 seconds)ratherthan
the start of LOX prepressorization
(-72 seconds).
I
Adjustmentof engine hydrauliccontrolorifices. Optimizeengine thrustdecay transient.
Helium and LOX heat exchangerby-passlines TO raiseoutlet temperatureto within m_del

re-orificed, specificationlimits throughoutflight.
Structures LOX deliverysystem centerengine standpipe Originally,to preventvehiclemaximum

increasedby approximately88.9 cm (35 inches), accelerationfrom exceeding4.37 g's.
Subsequentto incorporation of this change,
LOX depletionhas become a secondarymode
of centerengine shutdown. The primary
mode Is by IU commandand limits the vehicle
maximumaccelerationtO 4.0 g's.
LOX tank taperedskins replacesteppedskins. To decreaseweight of launchvehicle.

Cantileverbaffleweb thicknessreduced.
Seventy-tworadial T stiffenersremoved.
Chord cross section area for three baffles near
helium bottles reduced. Y-rings scallopped.
Forwardskirt insulationnot installed. Aerodynamicheatingfrom AS-504 trajectory

is lower than that from previousflights
and permitsthe insulationdeletionwhile
still maintainingthe thermalstresssafety
factor of I._.
Data Deletedseparationand LOX tank film cameras, R&D instrumentation

which is no longer
baseregionTelevision(TV)camera,and required.
associated hardware such as batteries and
purge systems.
Measurementsreducedfrom 893 to 666. All
telemetrysystemstrain gageswere deleted.
B=5
B.3 S-11 STAGE
B.3ol S:II Configuration
The S-II stage shown in Figure B-3 provides second stage boost for the _-
Saturn V launch vehicle. The S-II stage has a cylindrical structure,
24.8 meters (81_5 ft) long and I0.I meters (33 ft) in diameter. Propul:
sive power is provided by five J-2 engines with a combined nominal thrust
of 5,115,455 Newtons (1,150,000 Ibf) at an oxidizer to fuel ratio of
5o5:1. The approximate weight of the basic stage is 38,238 kilograms
(84,300 Ibm) dry. Approximate weight of the aft interstage (including
ullage motors) is 5,307 kilograms (11,700 Ibm). The total nominal
propellant load is approximately 442,253 kilograms (975,000 Ibm). The
approximate weight of the fully loaded S-II vehicle is 485,797 kilograms
(1,071,000 Ibm).
The S-II airframe consists of a body shell structure (forward and aft
skirt and interstage), a propellant tank structure, and a thrust
structure.
Each of the shell structure units are of basically the same construction
consisting of a semimonocoque cylindrical shell fabricated from aluminum
alloy material. These units are stiffened by external hat-section
stringers and internal ring frames. These units provide structural
continuity between adjacent stages.
The thrust structure is a semimonocoque conical shell which tapers from

the stage diameter down to a 5.5 meters (18 ft) diameter. It is con-
structed in the same manner as the skirt section and is fabricated from
aluminum alloy material. Four pairs of thrust longerons (two at each
outboard engine location) and a center engine support beam distribute the
thrust loads of the five J-2 engines. A fiberglass honeycomb heat shield,
supported from the lower portion of the thrust structure protects the
stage base area from excessive temperatures during S:II boost.
Propellants are supplied to the J=2 engines from the LH2 and LOX tanks.
The LH2 tank is a cylindrical shell with the ends closed by a forward
elliptical bulkhead and an aft reversed elliptical bulkhead. The tank,
17.1 meters (56 ft_ long and I0.I meters (33 ft) in diameter, has a
capacity of 1069 ms (37,737 ftJ). The tank wall is composed of six
cylindrical sections which incorporate longitudinal and circumferential
stiffeners. Wall sections and bulkheads are fabricated from 2014 aluminum
alloy joined by fusioD welding. The LOX tank is of ellipsoidal shape.
It has a volume of 361 m3 (12,745 ft3). The tank is 6.7 meters (22 ft)
long and I0.I meters (33 ft) in diameter. The bottom of the fuel tank
is common to both tanks and serves as the forward end of the LOX tank.
B_6
f
FORWARDSKIRT
SYSTEMS
TUNNEL 5M
VEHICLE l-I/2 FT)
--[---- FORWARD
BULKHEAD
---T LIQUID HYDROGEN

TANK
17 1 M 1069 M3
(56 FT} (37,737 CU FT)
24°8 M LH2/LOX COMMON

I (81-I/2 FT) BULKHEAD
LIQUID OXYGEN
_6 7 M TANK
(22 FT) 361

(12,745.5
M3 CU FT)
_4 42 M AFTSKIRT
L(14-I/2 FT) THRUST
STRUCTURE
IT5 56 M
IF_STATION1541
VEHICLE --(33 10 IFT)M .! -I-_(18-I/4 FT) INTERSTAGE
Figure B-3 S-II Stage Configuration

This common bulkhead is a sandwich structure composed of aluminum facing
sheets and a fiberglass/phenolic honeycomb core. The fore and aft halves
of the LOX tank are formed from waffle-stiffened gore segments fabricated
from aluminum alloy. The stage propulsion system consists of five single
start J-2 engines utilizing LOX and LH2 for propellants. Each engine
attains a nominal thrust of 1,023,091 Newtons (230_000 Ibf) at an oxidizer ......
to fuel ratio of 5.5:1. The four outboard J-2 engines are mounted with
gimbal bearings and hydraulic powered actuator rods to provide thrust
vector controlo The fifth engine is mounted on stage centerline and is
not gimbaled.
The J-2 engine is a high performance, high altitude engine employing

a tubular walled, one-and-one-half pass, regeneratively cooled thrust
chamber. Propellants are fed through two independently driven turbo-
pumps. The ratio of fuel to oxidizer is controlled by bypassing LOX
from the discharge side of the oxidizer turbopump back to the inlet
side through a Propellant Utilization (PU) valve.
The propellant tanks are prepressurized from a ground regulated helium

source prior to liftoff to provide the turbopump inlet pressure required
for engine start. Prepressurization is terminated 30 seconds prior to
liftoff for both tanks. During the engine burn period, the LOX tank is
pressurized by flowing LOX through the heat exchanger in the oxidizer
turbine exhaust duct and the LH2 tank is pressurized by GH2 from the
thrust chamber fuel manifold. Both the LOX and LH2 propellant tanks
have vent valves for over-pressure protection.
Inflight separation of the S-IC/S-II stages is accomplished by a dual_

plane separation system° Both separation events are controlled by the
flight program stored in the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC)
which is located in the IU stage. First plane separation, occurring
at vehicle station 39.73 meters (1564 in.), is initiated by an ordnance
train. This train consists of an Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) firing
unit, an EBWdetonator_ and a linear shaped charge which severs the
tension plates around the periphery of the stage at the separation plane.
Four ullage motors on the S-If stage are fired to provide a propellant
settling force and retro motors on the S-IC stage are fired to provide
positive separation of the two stages. Second plane separation occurs
about 30 seconds later at vehicle station 44.7 meters (1760 in.) using
the same type of ordnance train.
Additional S-11 stage systems perform as follows:
a. The leak detection and insulation purge system detects hydrogen,

oxygen, or nitrogen leaking into the LH2 tank insulation or LH2
feedline elbows and provides a means for purging and diluting any
leakage into the insulation prior to liftoff.
Bm8
b. The ECS provides protection against hazardous gas concentrations and
also provides temperature control in the engine compartment and equip-
ment containers prior to liftoff.
c. The pneumatic control pressure system provides the actuating force

for the prevalves, recirculation valves, and propellant fill and
...._ drain valves.
do The propellant utilization system is used for propellant management

during propellant loading operations and S-II boost.
e. The engine actuation system provides engine gimbaling. The hydraulic

actuators_ which are part of the engine actuation system, receive the
gimbaling commandsfrom the flight control system in the IU.
f. The electrical system is used for supplying and distributing electri-

cal power to the various systems.
g. The Emergency Detection System (EDS) supplies engine mainstage OK and

LH2 ullage pressure signals to the IU and spacecraft.
h. The engine preconditioning (recirculation) system recirculates LOX

and LH2 and provides LOX helium injection prior to S-11 engine start.
i. The data system is used for obtaining and transmitting data for stage
performance evaluations.
j. The propellant dispersion system is provided for range safety.
k. The propellant feed system supplies propellants to the engines.
lo The propellant level monitoring system uses liquid level monitoring

devices to provide propellant low level cutoff signals to the engines
and also provides backup propellant loading information.
A major structural change between this and previous S-II stages is the
use of "light weight" structure on all major airframe sections.
No new systems were added for AS_504. The significant S-If stage con-
figuration changes between AS-503 and AS-504 are listed in Table B-2.
B.4 S-IVB STAGE
B.4.1 S-IVB Configuration
The S-IVB stage, as shown in Figure B-4, is a bi-propellant tank structure

designed to withstand the loads and stresses incurred on the ground and
during launch, preignition boost, ignition, and all flight phases. The
S-IVB stage has nominal dimensions of 18.0 meters (59 ft) in length and
_.... 6.6 meters (21.6 ft) in diameter. The basic airframe consists of the
B-9
Table B-2. S-II Significant Configuration Changes
_YSTEM CHANGE REASON
Structures Incorporate light weight structural design Weight reduction.

on fwd skirt, LHp tank_ LOX tank, thrust
structure_ aft sRirtand interstage.Modify s ....
the cork insulation on the aft skirt and
Interstage.
Separation Modify design of fasteners used on separa- Improve installation

tioe plane tension plates, proceduresand reliability.
Insulation Use wet lay-ups for close=out strips on LH2 Minimize cracking, purge
tank insulation (was rubber double_s), gas leaks, and repair opera-
tions that might delay launch.
Propellant Time delay from LOX low level sensore dry Increase stage performance
Management indication to engine cutoff command is by minimizing propellant
changed to 1.5 seconds (was zero seconds), residuals at engine cutoff.
Increase total nominal propellant load to Increase payload capability

442,253 kg (975,000 Ibm) from 421,841 kg of vehicle.
(930,000 Ibm)o
Incorporate PU computer valve drive Improve reliability.

circuit redesign.
Use PU system closed loop mode (was open Improve efficiency of

loopmode on AS-503). propellant control.
Propellant Install Parker prevalves (was LAD Improve reliability. Parker

Feed prevalves), prevalves are fully qualified,
Electrical Added instrument bus power for engine Permits early staging of
cutoff signal (was main bus power only). S-II/S-IVB by alternate flight
sequence Time Base 4a (T4a)
if main battery fails.
Engines J-2 engine nominal thrust uprated to Increase payload capability

1,023,091 Newtons (230_000 Ibf) from of vehicle.
I_000,850 Newtons (225_000 Ibf).
aft interstage, thrust structure, aft skirt, propellant tanks, and forward
skirt. The aft interstage assembly provides the load supporting structure
between the S-IVB stage and the S-II stage. The thrust structure assembly
is an inverted truncated cone attached at its large end to the aft dome
of the LOX tank and at its small end to the engine mount. This structure
provides support for engine piping, wiring and interface panels, ambient
helium shheres, and some of the LOX tank and engine instrumentation.
The aft skirt assembly is the load bearing structure between the LH2 tank
and aft interstage. The propellant tank assembly consists of a cylindri-
cal tank with a hemispherical shaped dome at each end. Contained within
this assembly is a common bulkhead which separates the LOX and LH2.
B-IO
3.11M
FORWARD SKIRT (10.2FT)
6.58M
(21.6
LH2 TANK
295 M3
(10,418 13.41 M
COFT) (44.0 FT)
18.0 M
(59.OFT)
2._13M
7.0 _)
AFT SKIRT
THRUST STRUCTURE 1.58M

(WITH ENGINE (5.2FEET)
ATTACHED) t
(33.0FT) rl
.- 10.1 M hi 1--
5,79 M
(19 FT)
AFT INTERSTAGE I
Figure B-4. S-IVB Stage Configuration
B-II
The forward skirt assembly extends forward from the intersection of the
LH2 tank sidewall and the forward dome providing a hard attach point
for the IU.
The S-IVB is powered by one J_2 engine similar to those on the S_ll stage.
The engine attains a nominal thrust of 1,023,091 Newtons (230,000 Ibf) ......
at a 5.5:1 oxidizer to fuel mixture ratio. The S-IVB J-2 engine also has
multiple restart capabilities. LOX is supplied to the engine from the
LOX tank by a 6_inch diameter low pressure duct. LH2 is supplied from
the LH2 tank by a vacuum-jacketed low pressure lO-inch diameter duct.
Prior to ]iftoff, both the LH2 tank and the LOX tank are pressurized by
ground supplied helium. During S_IVB J-2 engine burn periods, GH2 is
bled from the thrust chamber hydrogen injector manifold for LH2 tank
pressurization. GHe, extracted from the storage spheres located in the
LH2 tank, is warmed by a heat exchanger and used to pressurize the LOX
tank. Second burn (first restart) propellant tank repressurization is
accomplished utilizing the 02_H2 burner as a primary mode. The burner
supplies energy to the GHe, extracted from the GHe spheres located in
the LH2 tank, to provide LOX and LH2 repressurization. Ambient helium
spheres are available for backup pressurization if required. The ambient
helium spheres are used for LOX and LH2 tank repressurization preceding
the third burn (second restart). The 02-H2 burner is operated prior to
the third burn to demonstrate its restartable capability. However, it is
not used for propellant tank repressurization for third burn.
Pitch and yaw control of the S-IVB is accomplished during powered flight
by gimbaling the Ji2 engine and roll control is provided by operating
the Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS)o
The APS provides three axis stage attitude control and main stage pro-
pellant control during coast flight. The ullage engines are necessary
for the propellant seating which is required for engine restart. The
APS modules are located on opposite sides of the S-IVB aft skirt at posi:
tions I and 111. Each module contains its own oxidizer system, fuel system,
and pressurization system. Nitrogen Tetroxide (N204) is used as the oxi-
dizer and Nonomethyl Hydrazine (NNH) is the fuel for these engines.
Additional systems on the S_IVB are:
a. The hydraulic system which gimbals the J-2 engine.
b. Electrical system which supplies and distributes power to the

various electrical components.
c. Thermoconditioning system which thermally conditions the electrical/

electronic modules in the forward skirt area.
B:12
d. Data acquisition and telemetry system which acquires and transmits
data for stage evaluation.
e. A set of ordnance systems used for rocket ignition, stage separation,

ullage motor jettison and range safety_
The more significant configuration changes between AS-503 S-IVB and

AS-504 S-IVB are shown in Table B-3.
Table B-3. S-IVB Significant Configuration Changes
Instrumentation AS-502anomaliesinstrumentation ProgramrequiresAS-502anomalies

packagenot installed, instrumentation
on AS=503and
AS-505stagesonly.
Propellant Capabilityto command,throughthe Providefixed mixtureratiosof

Utilization switchselector,propellantutill= propellantsto the O-2 enginefor
zationmixutreratiosof 4.5:1, specificperiodsof time in place
5.0:1 and 5.5:1 (AS-503mixture of closed=looppropellantutiliw
ratiowas 4.5:1 and 5.0:1). zationmixture ratiocontrol.
ModifyPU valve by rotatingthe Reducein-runthrustshifts.

flow baffle30 degrees.
Structure Anti-flutterkit not installed. Kit was on AS_501and AS-503.

Not required for AS-504.
Propulsion ReviseLOX vent and reliefvalve Eliminatepropulsiverelief vent_

pressuresetting: ing duringseparationof Command
Crack 30.0 to 31.4 N/cm2 ServiceModule (CSM),CSM/LM
(43.5 to 45.5 psia) docking,and CSM/LMejection.
Total range 29.3 to31.4 N/cm2
(42.5 to 45.5 psia).
ReviseLOX Non PropulsiveVent Eliminatepropulsivereliefvent-
(NPV) latchingvalve pressure ing duringseparationof CSM,
setting: CSM/LVdockingand CSM/LM
Crack 28.6 to 30.0 N/cm2 ejection.
(41.5 to 43.5 psia)
Total range27.9 to 30.0 N/cm2
(40.5 to 43.5 psia).
Three S-IVB J-2 engineburns. DemonstrateS-IVB dual restart
First restart propellanttank capability.
repressurization performed by
•02-H2 burnerwith ambient'spheres
as backup and second restart pro-
pellant tank repressurization
performedby ambientspheres.
02_H2 burner will be activated prior
to second restartto demonstrate
burner restart capability but not
to repressurizepropellanttanks.
Third SwIV8 J-2 engine burn will Demonstrate S-IVB stage

"_-\ be precededby a 53 secondfuel flexibility.
lead (in lieu of 8 seconds). Chill-
down operationwill not occur prior
to third burn.
B-13
l li_i )
B.5 INSTRUMENTUNIT (IU)
8.5.1 IU Configuration
The IU, as shown in Figure B-5, is basically a short cylinder fabricated

from an aluminum alloy honeycomb sandwich material. The IU has a diameter ....
of 6.6 meters (21.6 ft) and a length of 0.9 meter (3 ft). The cylinder
is manufactured in three 120 degree segments which are joined by splice
plates into an integral load bearing unit. The top and bottom edges of
the cylinder are made from extruded aluminum channels bonded to the
honeycomb sandwich material. Cold plates are attached to the interior
of the cylinder which serve both as mounting structure and thermal con-
ditioning units for the electrical/electronic equipment.
Other systems included in the IU are:
a. The Environmental Control System (ECS) which maintains an acceptable

environment for the IU equipment.
b. The electrical system which supplies and distributes electrical power

to the various systems.
c. The Emergency Detection System (EDS) which senses onboard emergency

situationsfor automaticabort or display in the spacecraft.
d. The navigation, guidance, and control system which guides the launch
vehicle to its programmed inertial position and velocity.
e. The measurementsand telemetrysystem which monitors and transmits

signals to ground monitoring stations.
f. The flight program which controls the LVDC from seconds before liftoff
until the end of the launch vehicle mission.
The more significant configuration changes between AS-503 IU and AS-504

IU are shown in Table B-4.
B.6 SPACECRAFT
B.6.1 Spacecraft Configuration
The Apollo 9 mission was the first to use the design configuration of all
spacecraft components. The spacecraft, as shown in Figure B-6 includes
a Launch Escape System (LES), a CommandModule (CM), a Service Module
(SM), a Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter (SLA), and a LMo From the bottom
of the SLA to the top of the LES, the spacecraft measures approximately
24.9 meters (81.8 ft). The LES and SLA were essentially unchanged from
the Apollo 8 configurations. The CM and SM were also unchanged from the
Apollo 8 configurations, except for those items required to accommodate .....
operations with the LM. These changes notably included the addition of
B_14
ST-124M-3
ELECTRON I C ASSY DISTRIBUTOR
LVDA
POS. FLV[ CONTROL

IV_ COMPUTER
ST-124M-3
STABILIZED
PLATFORM AS POS
-/ III
GN2 BEARING
SUPPLY _TROL
SIGNAL
PROCESSOR
POS
II
Figure B-5. Instrument Unit Configuration

Table B-4. IU Significant Configuration Changes
Electrical Removed6 measuringracks,I measure ReductionIn telemetryin goln9 .......

Subsystem ing distributor, and l battery, from Researchand Development(R&D)
Calbe quantity reduced from 182 to to Operational Vehicle.
126.
FlightControlComputer(FCC)'Power The IKHz oscillatorsin the FCC

removedfrom6D41 Bus_ suseeptableto coolantpump
noise°
Command and Communications System CCS generated noise affecting FCC

_CoC_put power moved from 6Dll pitch and yew outputs to actuators.
Removed32 S-IVB Strainmeasure- Requiredfor AS-503only.

mente, 6 LTA and 2 Launch Escape
Tower acceleration measurements,
and associated wires°
Instrumentation Measurements reducedfrom377 to 222. Reductionin telemetryin going

and S1 and F2 Telemetry Links and from R&Dto Operational Vehicle.
C_untcatlons associatedcomponentsremoved.
Subsystems RemovedTape Recorder and VSWR
assembly, and added a directional
coupler.
R4-602,R5=602and R6-602have Duringcoast the ratesare so low
capabilityof switchingto a higher thata highergain is desiredto
gain. (Capability only but not used make the measurements
useful.
on AS-SO4 because the system uses a
latching relay. Second end third
burns would probably exceed the range
using the higher gain.)
Envlronmontal 7 heatersremoved. Cold plate Samenet resultusingmore

Cont_l thermalisolatorsadded, desirable,permanentapproach.
Subsystem Methanol/Water (M/W)pumppressure Help resolveAS-503problemof
switchsettingchangedfrom Switchingto pumpn_er 2 at
25.5 ±0.7 N/crr_ (37 +l psia) to power transfer.
22.8 ±0.7 N/cm2 (33 _I psla).
(Other ESEchanges).
M/Waccumulator enlarged from Allows filling earllerin
3090cm3 (189in3) to 6125 cm3 countdown.
(374 inJ)with improveddesign.
_rgency 20 secondtimerhas been physically No longerrequired.Not active

Detection removed, on AS-503.
System
Flight Inclusionof thirdS=IVBbure

Program capability.DigitalCommandSystem
(DCS)requiredto removeinhibit
for 2nd and 3_ burnswhich are at
fixed attitudesand for fixed
durations.
.......
Deletionof variableazimuthrequire
merits.
B_16
Table B-4. IU Significant Configuration Changes (Continued)
_-_ Flight Inclusionof DCS navigationupdate

Program capability.
(Continued)
Modification of orbital attitude
ti_eline.
SwitchSelectorsfor PU shiftdeleted
due to ClosedLoop PU operation(S-If
only).
Real time telemetryis executed

continuously in orbit.
Programmedsequenceto close LH2

continuousvents is enteredin _he
event of an 02=H2burnermalfunction.
I&C DPI TM link deletedfrom CCS RF link AS=504only.

and CPI TM link added to CCS RF link,
Navigation The ST=I24MPlatformend bell housings This was part of the platform
Guidanceand (outergimbalpivots)were smeller assemblyredesign(sphericalcover
Control than on previousvehicles. Blowers changeeffectiveon AS_503)In-
changedfrommini cube to axial low volvlngthe outer pivots,torque
flow. motorsand sllp ringassemblies.
a probe and latching mechanism in the command module docking tunnel to

permit rigid docking and crew transfer to the LM.
The Launch Escape Tower (LET) is the forward most part of the Saturn V
Apollo space vehicle. Basic configuration of the LET consists of an
integral nose cone Q-ball, three rocket motors, a canard assembly, a
structuralskirt, a titanium-tubetower, and a boost protectivecover.
The purpose of the three rocket motors is tower jettison,escape, and
pitch control. The LET is jettisonedshortly after S-If stage ignition
in normal flight.
The CM is designed to accommodate the three astronauts. The CM is a

conically shaped structure consisting of an inner pressure vessel
(crew compartment)and an outer heat shield. The CM is approximately
3.39 meters (ll.15 ft) long. Aluminum honeycomb panels and aluminum
longeronsare used to form the pressure tight crew compartment. Stain-
less steel honeycomb covered with an ablative material is used to con-
struct the outer heat shield. The unified side hatch is hinged to the
vehicle and provides quick opening and improved egress/ingresscapabili-
ties.
__ The SM is a cylindrical aluminum honeycomb shell with fore and aft

aluminum honeycombbulkheads. Six aluminum radial beams divide the SM
into sectors. These beams have a triangular truss between the CM and SM
B_17
LAUNCH ESCAPE SYSTEM
COMMAND
MODULE
LUNAR
MODULE---_.% -- ASCENTSTAGE
DESCENT STAGE
Figure B_6, Apollo Spacecraft
B-J8
with pads at the apex to support the CM. The SM also houses the Service
Propulsion System (SPS)which includes an engine and propellant tanks.
The SLA is a simple truncated cone measuring approximately 8.5 meters

(28.0 ft) long and having forward and aft diameters of 3.9 meters
(12.83 ft) and 6.6 meters (21.6 ft), respectively. There are four
_-_ attachment points in the aft section of the SLA for the LM. The SLA is
constructed in two sets of four panels, the panels being made from
aluminum honeycomb. At CSM/S_IVB separation the forward section panels
are jettisoned by a mild detonating explosive train.
The LM is a two-stage vehicle designed to descend two astronauts to the

lunar surface, carry equipment for lunar exploration and return the
crew to orbit through a rendezvous flight sequence. The lunar module
(LM_3) was the first to accommodate inflight manned operations, and there-
fore differed considerably from the Apollo 5 (LM:I) configuration. The
complete environmental control system was installed, whereas only those
components necessary for equipment cooling had been installed for Apollo 5.
The major changes to this system were therefore the addition of the suit
environmental circuits, oxygen supplies, and water management subsystem.
The entire complement of crew provisions, including the extravehicular
mobility unit, were included. The guidance and navigation system included
the abort guidance section and associated electronics and incorporated
computer software necessary for rendezvous navigation and control. The
landing gear was installed for the first time, together with the associ-
ated deployment pyrotechnics and circuitry, and the mission programmer
functions required for the unmanned LM-I mission were deleted. The
drogue mechanism, which interfaces with the command module docking probe,
was installed to permit passive docking after transposition.
B-19/B-20
MPR-SAT-FE-69-4
APPROVAL
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT
AS-504, APOLLO 9 MISSION
By Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group
The information in this report has been reviewed for security

classification. Review of any information concerning Department of
Defense or Atomic Energy Commission programs has been made by the
MSFC Security Classification Officer. The highest classification has
been determined to be Unclassified.
Stanley L. Fragge
Security Classification Officer
This report has been reviewed and approved for technical accuracy.
Lindberg
Chairman, Saturn Fl _ght Evaluation Working Group
U_7_r_'S_c_r_nd Engineering
DISTRIBUTION:
MSFC: S&E-AERO Mr.Palaoro, S&E-ASTN-DIR

Mr. Edwards, S&E-ASTN-DIR
Dr. yon Braun, DIR Dr. Geissler,S&E-AERO-DIR Mr. Stein,S&E-ASTN-A
Mr. Shepherd,DIR Mr. Jean, S&E-AERO-DIR Mr. Kingsbury,S&E-ASTN-M
Dr. Rees,DEP-T Mr. bahm_S&E-AERO-A (2) Mr. Earle,S&E-ASTN-P
Mr. Gorman, DEP-M Mr. Holderer, S&E-AERO-A Mr. Reilmann, S&E-ASTN-P
Dr. Stuhlinger, ADIR-S Mr. Dunn,S&E-AERO-ADV Mr. Thompson, S&E-ASTN-PA ;....
Mr. E1kin, S&E-AERO-AT Mr. Fuhrmann, S&E-ASTN-PM
E Mr. Wilson, S&E-AERO-AT Mr. Cobb, S&E-ASTN-PP (2)
Mr. Jones, S&E-AERO-AT Mr. Black, S&E-ASTN-PPE
Mr. Maus, E-DIR Mr. Reed, S&E-AERO-AU Mr. Wood, S&E-ASTN-PT
Mr. Smith,E-S Mr. Guest,S&E-AERO_AU Mr.Hunt,S&E-ASTN-S
Mr. Horn, S&E-AERO-D Mr. Beam, S&E-ASTN-SLA
PA M_. Crumin, S&E-AERO-DA Mr. Blumrich, S&E-ASTN-SA
Mr. P_van,S&E-AERO-DD Mr. Katz, S&E-ASTN-SER
Mr. Slattery_PA-DIR Mr. Lindberg, S&E-AERO-F (33) Mr. Showers,S&E-ASTN-SL
Mr. Baker, S&E-AERO:G Mr. Frederick, S&E_ASTN-SS
PM Mr. Hagood, S&E_AERO-P (3) Mr_ Furman, S&E_ASTN-SJ
Mr. Jackson, S&E-AERO-P Nr. Green, S&E-ASTN-SVM
Gen. O'Connor, PM-DIR Mr. Cummings, S&E-AERO-Y Mr. Brafton, S&E-ASTM-T
Dr. Mrazek, PM-DIR Mr. O.E_ Smith, S&E-AERO-Y Mr. Marmane, S&E-ASTN-VAW
Mr. Andressen, PM-PR-CM Mr. Lutonsky, S&E-ASTN-VAW
Co1.Teir,PM-SAT-IB-MGR S&E_CSE Mr. Devenish, S&E-ASTN-VNP (B)
Mr. Huff, PM-SAT-E Mr. Sells, S&E-ASTN-VOO
Dr. Speer, PM-_W)-MGR (4) Dr. Haeussermann, SBE-CSE-DIR Mr. Schulze, S&E-ASTN-V (2)
Mr. Belew,PM-AA-MGR Mr. Hoberg,S&E-CSE-DIR Mr. Rothe,S&E-ASTR-XA
Mr. Griner, S&E-ASTN-XSJ
Mr. Brown, PM-EP-MGR Dr. McDonough,S&E-CSE-A
Mr. Smith,PM-EP-J Mr. Aberg,S&E-CSE-S Mr. Boone,S&E-ASTN-XEK
V. J. Norman,PM-MO Mr. Fichtner,S&E-CSE-G
Mr. Stewart,PM-EP-F Mr. Vann,S&E-CSE-S S&E-QUAL
Mr. L. James, PM-SAT-MGR Mr. Mack, S&E-CSE-!
Mr. Bramlet, PM-SAT-MGR Mr. Hammers, S&E-CSE-! Mr. Grau, S&E-QUAL-DIR
Mr. Godfrey, PM_SAT:MGR Mr. Chandler, S&E-QUAL_DIR
Mr. Burns,PM-SAT-T S&E-ASTR Mr. Henritze, S&E-QUAL-A
Mr. Bell, PM_SAT_E Mr. Rushing, S&E-QUAL-PI
Mr. Rowan, PM-SAT-E Mr. Moore,S&E-ASTR-DIR Mr. Klauss,S&E-QUAL-J
Mr. Moody, PM-SAT-Q Mr_ Dlgesu,S&E-ASTR-A Mr. Brooks,S&E-QUAL-P
Mr. Webh,PM-SAT-P Mr. Stroud,S&E-ASTR-EA Mr. Landers,S&E-QUAL-PC (3)
Mr. Urlaub, PM-SAT-S-IB/S-IC Mr. Robinson, S&E-ASTR-ESA Mr. Peck, S&E-QUAL-QVS
Mr. Lahatte, PM-SAT-S-II Mr. Ericksoo, S&E-ASTR:ESA Mr. Brien, S&E-QUAL-R
Mr. McCullough, PM_SAT-S-IVB Mr. Darden, S&E-ASTR-F Mr. Smith, S&E-QUAL-R
Mr. Duerr, PM-SAT-IU Mr. Justice,S&E-ASTR-FA Mr. Wittmann,S&E-QUAL-T
Mr. Smith, PM-SAT-G Mr. Vallely,S&E-ASTR_FO
Col.Montgomery, PM-KM Mr. Mink,S&E-ASTR-FR S&E-SSL
Mr. Peters, PM-SAT-S-IVB M_. Mandel, S&E-ASTR-G
Mr. Wier, PM-SAT-IU Mr. Thomason,S&E_ASTR-G Mr. Heller,S&E-SSL-DIR
Mr. Ferrell, PM-EP-EJ Mr. Ferrell, S&E-ASTR_GSA Dr. Sieber, S&E-SSL-S
Dr. Constan, PM-MA-MGR Mr. Powell, S&E-ASTR-I
Mr. Riemer, PM-MA-QP Mr. Avery, S&E-_STRolM MS
Mr. Balch, PMoMT_MGR Mr, Kerr, S&E-ASTR-IR
Mr. Auter, PM-MT-T Mr. Threlkeld, S&E-ASTR-IT MS-H
Mr. Sparks,PM-SAT-G Mr.Boehm,S&E-ASTR-M MS-I
Mr. Ginn, PM-SAT-E Mr. Moore, S&E-ASTR-N MD-IP
Mr_ Haley, PM-SAT-S-IB/S-IC Mr. Lominick, S&E-ASTR-NFS MS-IL (G)
Mr. Higgins, PM-SAT-S-IVB Mr. Nicaise, S&E-ASTR-NGI MS-D
Mr. Odom, PM-SAT-S-II Mr. Taylor,S&E-ASTR_R
Mr. Stover,PM-SAT-S-II Mr. Wolfe,S&E-ASTR-S CC-P
Mr. Reaves, PM-SAT-Q
Mr.Wheeler, PM-EP-F S&ECOMP Mr.Wofford,
CC-P
Mr. Johnson, PM-SAT-T
Mr. Cushman,PM-SAT-T (iO) Dr. Hoelzer,S&E-COMP-DIR KSC
Mr. Prince, S&E-COMp-DIR
S&E Mr.Fortenberry, S&E-COMP-A Dr.Debus,CD
Mr. Cochran, S&E-COMP_RR Adm. Middleton, AP (5)
Mr. Weidner, S&E-DIR Mr. Houston, S&E-COMP_RRM Mr. Petrone, LO
Mr. Richard,S&E-DIR Mr. Craft,S&E-COMP-R Dr.Gruene,LV
Mr. Rigell, LV-ENG
Dr.Johnson, S&E-R Mr.SendIer, IN
Mr.Messer_ S&E-P S&E-ME Mr.Mathews, AP
Mr. Hamilton, MSC-RL
Mr. Siebel, S&E-ME-DIR Dr. Knothe,EX-SCI
PD Mr.Wuencher, S&E-ME-DIR Mr.Edwards, LV-INS
Mr. Fannin, LV-MEC
Mr. Orr, S&E_ME-M Mr. Pickett,LV-IT40
Dr. Lucas,PD-DIR Mr. Franklin,S&E-ME-T Mr. Rainwater,LV-TMO
Mr.Williams, PD-DIR (2) Mr.Bell,LV-TMO-3
Mr. Driscoll,PD-DIR S&E-ASTH
Mr.Goerner, PD-DO Mr.Lealmao, LV-GDC
Mr. Heimbumg, S&E-ASTN-DIR Mr. Preston, DE
Mr. Hellebrand, S&E-ASTM-DIR Mr. Mlzell, LV-PLN-12
Mr. O'Hara, LV-TMO
Mr. Brown, AP-SVO-3
Mr. Smith, AP-SVD
EXTERNAL
Headquarters, National Aeronautics & Space Administration Office of the Asst. Sec. of Defense for Research
Washington, D. C. 20546 and Engineering
Dr.Mueller, M Room 3E1065
Gen.Phillips, MA ThePentagon
Gen. Stevenson, MO (3 copies) Washington, D.C. 20301
_'_\ Mr.Hage, MO Attn:Tech Library
Mr. Schneider, MO-2
Capt.Freitag, MC Director of Guided
Missiles
Capt.Holco_,I_AO Officeof theSecretary of Defense
Mr.White, MAR (2copies) Room3EI3I
Mr. Day, MAT (I0 copies) The Pentagon
Mr. Wilkinson, M/_B Washington, D.C. 20301
Mr. Kubat, MAP
Mr. Wagner,MAS (2 copies) CentralIntelligenceAgency
Mr.Armstrong, MB Washington,D.C. 20505
Mr. Mathews, ML (3 copies) Attn: OCR/DD/Publicatioms (5 copies)
Mr. Lord, MT
Mr. Lederer, MY Director, National Security Agency
Ft. George Mead, Maryland 20755
Director, Ames Research Center: Dr. H. Julian Allen Attn: C3/TDL
NatiomaI Aeronautics & Space Administration
Moffett Field, California 94035 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Sandla Corp.
University of California Radiation Lab.
Director, Flight Research Center: Paul F. Bikle Technical Information Division
National Aeronautics & Space Administration P.O. Box 808
P.O. Box273 Livern)Dre,California94551
Edwards, California 93523 Attn: Clovis Craig
G_dard Space Flight Center U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Sandia Corp.

National Aeronautics & Space Administration Livermore Br, P. O. Box 969
Greenbelt_ Marylnd 20771 Livermore, California 94551
Attn: Herman LaGow_ Code 300 Attn: Tech Library
John F. Kennedy Space Center ConTnander,Armed Services Technical Inf. Agency

National Aeronautics & Space Administration Arlington Hall Station
Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 Arlington, Virginia 22212
Attn: Technical Library, Code RC-42 Attn: TIPCR (Transmittal per Cognizant Act
Mrs. L. B. Russell Security Instruction) (5 copies)
Di_ctor, Langley Research Center: Dr. Floyd L. Thompson Commanding General

National Aeronautics & Space Administration White Sands Proving Ground
Langley Station New Mexico 88002
Hampton, Virginia 23365 Attn: ORD BS-OMTIO-TL (3 copies)
Lewis Research Center Chief of Staff, U. S. Air Force

National Aeronautics & Space Administration The Pentagon
21DO0 Brookpark Road Washington, D.C. 20330
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 I Cpy marked for DCS/D AFDRD
Attn: Dr. Abe Silverstein, Director i Cpy marked for DCS/D AFDRD-EX
Robert Washko, Mall Stop 86-I
E. R. Joaash, Centaur Project Mgr. Commander-in-Chief
Strategic Air Command
Offutt AFB, Nebraska 88113
Manned Spacecraft Center Attn: Director of Operations, Missile Division
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Houston, Texas 77058 Commander
Attn: Director: Dr. Robert R. gilruth, AA Arnold Engineering Development Center
Mr. Low, PA Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee 37389
Mr. Arabian, ASPO-PT (15 copies) Attn: Tech Library (2 copies)
Mr. Paules, FC-S
d. Hamilton, RL (MSFC Resident Office) Commander
Air Force Flight Test Center
Edwards AFB, California 93523
Director, Wallops Station: R. L. Krieger Attn: FTOTL
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Wallops Island, Virginia 23337 Cocmnander
Air Force Missile Development Center
Director_ Western Operations Office: Robert W. Kamm Holloman Air Force Base
NationalAeronautics& Space Administration New Mexico 88330
150PicoBlvd. Attn:TechLibrary(SRLT)
Santa Momica, California 90406
Headquarters
6570th Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC)
Scientific and Technical Information Facility
P.O. Box5700 U.S.AirForce
Bethesda,Maryland 20014 Wrlght-Patterson Air ForceBase, Ohio 45433
Attn: NASA Representative (S-AK/RKT) (25 copies) Attn: W. E. Vongierke
Systems Engineering Group (RTD)
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800OakGrove Drive Attn: SEPIR
Pasadena,California 91103 Wright-Patterson, AFB,Ohio 45433
_ Attn: Irl Newlan,ReportsGroup (Mail111-122) AFETR (ETLLG=I)
H. Levy, CCMTA (Mail 179-203) (4 copies) Patrick AFB, Florida 32925
EXTERNAL(CONT.)
Director
U. S. Naval ResearcllLaboratory Cbrysler Corporation Space Division
WashingtonD.C. _B390 Huntsville Operation
Attn: Code 2027 13]2 N. Meridian Street
Huntsville, Alabama 35807 _
Chiefof NavalReserach Attn: J. Fletcher, Dept.4830
DeparU_nt of Navy M.L. Bell, Dept. 4830
Washington, D.C. 20390
Attn: Code 463
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company
Chief, Bureau of Weapons Missile & Space Systems Division/SSC
Departamnt of Navy 5301Bolsa Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20390 Huntington Beach, California 92646
l Cpy to RESI, ] Cpy to SP, Attn: R.d. MoOr(40copies)
l Cpy to AD3, ] CRy to REW3
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.
Commander Bethpage, Long Island, N.Y. 11714
U. S. Naval Air Missile Test Center Attn: NASA Resident Office
PointMugu,California93041 JohnJohansen
AMSMI-RBLD; NSIC (3 copies) International Business Machine

Bldg. 44_4 Missio_ Engineering Dept. Fl03
RedstoneArsenal,Alaban_1 35809 150SparkmanDr. NW
Aerospace Corporation Attn: C. B. Hansen (15 copies)
2400 East El Segundo
El Segunde_ Callfornia 90245 MartinCompany
Attn: D. C. Bakeman Space Systems Division
Baltimore_ Maryland 21203
Aerospace Corporation Attn: W. P. Sormners
Reliability Dept.
P. O. Box 95085
Los Angeles, California 90045 North
12214 American Rockwell/Space Division
S. Lakewood Blvd.
Attn: DonHerzstein Oowney, California 90241
Bellcomm, Inc. Attn: R. T. Burks (35 copies)
1100 Seventeenth St. N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Radio Corporation of America
Attn: Miss Scott, Librarian Defense Electronic Products
Data Systems Division
The Boeing Company 8500 Balboa Blvd.
P.O. Box 1680 Van Muys, California 91406
Attn: S. C. Krausse, Mail Stop A0-60 Rocketdyne
(30copies) 6633Canoga Avenue
J. B. Winch,Mail StopJA-52 CanogaPark, California 91303
(lcopy) Attn:T.L. Johnson(lOcopies)
The Boeing Company Foreign Technology Division

P.O. Box 58747 FTD (TDPSL)
Houston, Texas 77058 Wright=PattersonAir Force Base, Ohio 45433
Attn: H. J. McClellan, Mail Stop HH-05
(2 cop_es) _r. George Mueller
Structures Division
The Boeing Company Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
P.O.Orleans,
New Box g9100
Louisiana 70129 Research and Technology Division
Attn: S. P. Johnson, Mail Stop LT-84 Wrlght-PattersonAir Force Base, Ohio 45433
(lO copies) Mr. David Nargis
Mr. NormanSissenwine, CREW Aerospace Corporation
Chief,DesignClimatology Branch PostOfficeBOX 95085
Aerospace Instrumentation Laboratory Los Angeles, California 90045
Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories
L. G.Hanscom Field Mr.H. B.Tolefson
Bedford,Massachusetts01731 OLD-Atmospheric PhysicsBranch
Mail Stop 240
Lt/Col. H. R. Montague NASA-Langley Research Center
Det. II, 4th Weather Group Hampton, Virginia 23365
Eastern Test Range
Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 33564 Mr. Chasteen
Sperry Rand _
Mr.W.Davidsen Dept. 223
NASA Resident Management Office Blue Spring Road
MailStop8890 Huntsville, Ala.
Martin Marietta Corporation
Denver Division
Denver, Colorado 80BDl
EXTERNAL
ICONT.)
J. E. Trader
NASA Resident Manager's Office
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Corp.
5301 Balsa Avenue
Huntingto_ Beach, California 92646
L. C. Cur_an
North American Rockwell/Space Division
12214 Lakewood Blvd.
Downey_ California g0241
L. M. McBride
North American Rockwell/Rocketdyne
6633 Canoga Avenue
Canoga Park, California 91303
C. M. Norton
International Business Machines
1SO Sparkman Drive
Nuntsvi]le, Alabama 35804
N. G. Futral
North American Rockwe11/Space Division
69 Bypass HE
McA1|ester, Oklahoma 74501
C. Flor¢
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Corp.
Sacramento Test Center
11505 Douglas Avenue
Rancho Cardora, California 95670
s/6

Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report - AS-504 Apollo 9 Mission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report - AS-504 Apollo 9 Mission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

URN

MPR-SAT-FE-69-4 MAY S, 1969

SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

SATURN V LAUNCHVEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT- AS-504

Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group

Saturn V AS-504 (Apollo 9 Mission) was launched at II:00:00 Eastern

Any questions or comments pertaining to the information contained in

Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Section Page ......

s II.I Summary II_I

Section Page .....

16 VEHICLE PRESSUREAND ACOUSTICENVIRONMENT

..... Section Page

23 FAILURES, ANOMALIESAND DEVIATIONS

6-11 S-II Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure 6-18

6-13 S-II Engine No. 1LH 2 Inlet Pressure 6-20

7-4 S-IVB Buildup Transient - First Burn 7-6

7-8 S-IVB Ullage Conditions During Repressurization

7-10 S-IVB 02/H 2 Burner Thrust and Thrust Chamber

7-13 S-IVB Buildup Transients - Second Burn 7-22

7-15 S-IVB Steady State Performance - Second Burn 7-23

7-17 LH2 and LOX Ambient Repressurization Sphere

7-19 S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements - Third

7-21 Effects of Extended S-IVB LH2 Lead _ Third Burn 7-33

7-23 S-IVB Transient Chamber Pressure and LH2 Injec-

7-26 S-IVB Third Burn Sequence of Events 7-41

7-28 S-IVB Thrust Chamber Jacket and Engine Area

9-I Longitudinal Loads at Maximum Bending Moment,

II-II Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB First Burn 11-19

]I_15 Yaw Attitude Control During Maneuver to TD&E

If-16 Roll Attitude Control During Maneuver to TD&E

ll-17 Pitch Attitude Control During Hard Dock II-25

II-24 Yaw Attitude Control During Alignment of S-IVB to

II-25 Roll Attitude Control During Alignment of S-IVB

II-26 Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB Second Burn II-34

_-- Figure Page

11-34 S-IVB Roll Torque - Third Burn 11-46

12-2 Instrument Unit Longitudinal Accelerometer 12-5

12-6 AS-504 and AS-503 S-IC Intertank - Longitudinal

13-I S-IC Stage Battery No. 1 Voltage and Current,

13-2 S-IC Stage Battery No. 2 Voltage and Current,

13-3 S-II Stage Main DC Bus Voltage and Current 13-5

13-5 S-II Stage Ignition DC Bus Voltage and Current 13-6

16-12 S:II External Overall Fluctuating Pressure Level 16-11

17_3 S-IC Heat Shield Forward Surface Temperature 17-4

p_. Figure Page

17-23 S-If LH2 Feedline Aft Fairing Heating Rates 17-21

_- 17-28 S-II Body Structural Temperature, LH2 Tank

18-7 Thermal Conditioning System GN2 Pressure 18-9

18-9 Intertial Platform GN2 Pressures 18-12

A-3 Pitch Wind Speed Component (Wx) at Launch Time

A-4 Yaw Wind Speed Component at Launch Time of

A-6 Relative Deviation of Temperature and Density

7-8 S-IVB Engine Start Sequence Events _ Third Burn 7-36

7-12 S-IVB Stage Propellant Mass History 7-49

21-I Total Vehicle Mass- S-IC Burn Phase- Kilograms 21-3

21-13 Flight Sequence Mass Summary 21_15

A_6 Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region

This report is published by the Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group--

George Co Marshall Space Flight Center

Science and Engineering

John F. Kennedy Space Center

Manned Spacecraft Center

The Boeing Company