Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report - AS-508 Apollo 13 Mission

F
111111111111111111
'_
GEORBEC
" _:i:,i_i!iiiiiiiiiii!!iii!!
) : <:::::::::::::::::::::_
_::::( 1:13)/:!:!:i:1¸
U N
MPR- SAT- FE- 70- 2 JUNE 20, 1970
f5 L A U _,!C }4 V Ei H t (..:L L- iq ? 0- 7 0_ 3 Z
A _;-
..... q "u+:,
:q APOLLL} L_
Un C ] _ s
(_,c}/]. 0257075
!7: i:i:i_:i:i:
::::::_:::::::
1 ::::::%:::;:
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT AS- 508
APOLLO 13 MISSION
I (THRU) ....
(PAGES)
x - 6 d,¢__"
T,,'h
(NASadR OR TMX OR AD NUMBER)
PREPARE/_
SATURN FLIGHT EVALUATION WORKING GROUP
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
MSFC - Form 774 (rev October 1967)

GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
MPR-SAT-FE-70- 2
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE
FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT- AS-508
APOLLO 13 MI SS ION
PREPARED BY
SATURN FLIGHT EVALUATION WORKING GROUP

AS-508 LAUNCH VEHICLE
MPR-SAT-FE-70-2
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT - AS-508
APOLLO 13 MISSION
BY
Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
ABSTRACT
Saturn V AS-508 (Apollo 13 Mission) was launched at 14:13:00.00 Eastern

Standard Time on April II, 1970, 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 72.043 degrees
east of north. The launch vehicle successfully placed the manned space-
craft in the planned translunar injection coast mode despite a premature
S-II center engine cutoff. The S-IVB/IU impacted the lunar surface at
2.5 +0.5 degrees south and 27.9 ±O.l degrees west at 280,601.0 seconds
(77"56:41.0) which was 65.5 +7.8, -4.8 kilometers (35.4 +4.2, -2.6 n mi)
from the target of 3 degrees south and 30 degrees west. Impact velocity
was 2579 m/s (8461 ft/s).
All Mandatory and Desirable Objectives of this mission for the launch
vehicle were accomplished except the precise determination of the lunar
impact point. It is expected that this will be accomplished at a later
date. No failures, anomalies, or rdeviations occurred that seriously
affected the 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-CSE-LF (Phone 205-453-2575)
TABLEOF CONTENTS
Page
Page
iii SECTION 4A LUNAR IMPACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi 4A.I Summary 4A-I
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
ix 4A.2 Time Base 8 Maneuvers 4A-I
LIST OF TABLES
xi 4A.3 Trajectory Evaluation 4A-5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
xii 4A.4 Lunar Impact Condition 4A-5
ABBREVIATIONS
xv 4A.5 Tracking 4A-8
MISSION PLAN
FLIGHT SUMMARY xviii SECTION 5 S-IC PROPULSION
xxii 5.1 Summary 5-I
MISSION OBJECTIVES ACCOMPLISHMENT
FAILURES, ANOMALIES AND DEVIATIONS xxiii 5.2 S-IC Ignition Transient
Performance 5-I
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 5.3 S-IC Mainstage Performance 5-3
l-I
I.I Purpose 5.4 S-IC Engine Shutdowh Transient
l-l Performance 5-7
1.2 Scope
5.5 S-IC Stage Propellant Management 5-7
SECTION 2 EVENT TIMES
2-I 5.6 S-IC Pressurization Systems 5-8
2.1 Summary of Events 5.6.1 S-IC Fuel Pressurization System 5-8
2.2 Variable Time and Commanded 5.6.2 S-IC LOX Pressurization System 5-9
Switch Selector Events 2-I
5.7 S-IC Pneumatic Control Pressure
System 5-I0
SECTION 3 - LAUNCH OPERATIONS
3-I 5.8 S-IC Purge Systems 5-I0
3.1 Summary
3-I 5.9 S-IC POGO Suppression System 5-I0
3.2 Prelaunch Milestones
3-I 5.10 S-IC Hydraulic System 5-I0
3.3 Countdown Events
3-I SECTION 6 S-II PROPULSION
3.4' Propellant Loading
3-I
3.4.1 RP-I Loading 6.1 Summary 6-I
3-3
3.4.2 LOX Loading
3-3 6.2 S-II Chilldown and Buildup
3.4.3 LH2 Loading
3-3 Transient Performance 6-2
3.5 Insulation
3-4 6.3 S-II Maintstage Performance 6-3
3.6 Ground Support Equipment
3-4 6,4 S-II Shutdown Transient
3.6.1 Ground/Vehicle Interface
3.6.2 MSFC Furnished Ground Support Performance 6-6
3-4
Equipment 6.5 S-ll Stage Propellant Management 6-8
3-5
3.6.3 Camera Coverage
6.6 S-II Pressurization System 6-8
SECTION 4 TRAJECTORY 6.6.1 S-II Fuel Pressurization System 6-8
4-I 6.6.2 S-II LOX Pressurization System 6-10
4.1 Summary
4-I 6.7 S-II Pneumatic Control Pressure
4.2 Trajectory Evaluation System 6-12
4-I
4.2.1 Ascent Phase
4-B 6.8 S-II Helium Injection System 6-14
4.2.2 Parking Orbit Phase
4-I0
4.2.3 Injection Phase 6.9 S-II Hydraulic System 6-14
4-11
4.2.4 Post TLI Phase
PRECEDING PAGE BLAF_K NOT FILW_ED
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (]CONTINUED)
Page Page
SECTION 7 S-IVB PROPULSION 9.4.1 LVDC and LVDA Performances 9-11

7.1 Summary 7-I 9.4.2 ST-124M-3 Inertial Platform 9-14
9.4.3 Ladder Outputs 9-17
7.2 S-IVB Chilldown and Buildup 9.4.4 Telemetry Outputs 9-17
Transient Performance for 9.4.5 Discrete Outputs 9-17
First Burn 7-2 9.4.6 Switch Selector Functions 9-17
7.3 S-IVB Mainstage Performance
for First Burn 7-2 SECTION I0 - CONTROL AND SEPARATION
7.4 S-IVB Shutdown Transient lO.I Summary I0-I

Performance for First Burn 7-5 10.2 S-IC Control System Evaluation 10-2
7.5 S-IVB Parking Orbit Coast 10.3 S-II Control System Evaluation 10-4
Phase Conditioning 7-5
I0.4 S-IVB Control System Evaluation 10-7
7.6 S-IVB Chilldown and Restart 10.4.1 Control System Evaluation During
for Second Burn 7-7 First Burn 10-7
7.7 S-IVB Mainstage Performance 10.4.2 Control System Evaluation During
for Second Burn 7-7 Parking Orbit 10-8
10.4.3 Control System Evaluation During
7.8 S-IVB Shutdown Transient Second Burn 10-8
Performance for Second Burn 7-11 10.4.4 Control System Evaluation After
7.9 S-IVB Stage Propellant S-IVB Second Burn I0-I0
Management 7-11 10.5 Instrument Unit Control
7.10 S-IVB Pressurization Systems 7-13 Components Evaluation 10-16
7.10.1 S-IVB Fuel Pressurization 10,6 Separation 10-17
System 7-13
7.10.2 S-IVB LOX Pressurization System 7-15 SECTION II ELECTRICAL NETWORKS AND
7.11 EMERGENCY DETECTION SYSTEM
S-lVB Pneumatic Control System 7-22
7.12 S-IVB Auxiliary Propulsion II.I Summary II-I
System 7-22 11.2 S-IC Stage Electrical System II-I
7.13 S-IVB Orbital Safing Operations 7-26 II.3 S-ll Stage Electrical System 11-2
7.13.1 Fuel Tank Safing 7-27
7.13.2 LOX Tank Dump and Safing 7-27 11,4 S-IVB Stage Electrical System 11-3
7.13.3 Cold Helium Dump 7-27 II.5 Instrument Unit Electrical
7.13.4 Ambient Helium Dump 7-29 System 11-8
7.13.5 Stage Pneumatic Control Sphere
Safing 7-29 If.6 Saturn V Emergency Detection
7.13.6 Engine Start Tank Safing 7-29 System (EDS) 11-13
7.13.7 Engine Control Sphere Safing 7-29
SECTION 12 VEHICLE PRESSURE AND
7.14 Hydraulic System 7-29 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
SECTION 8 STRUCTURES 12.1 Summary 12-I
8.1 Summary 8-I 12.2 Base Pressures 12-I

12.2.1 S-IC Base Pressures 12-I
8.2 Total Vehicle StruCtures
Evaluation 8-2 12.3 Acoustic Environment 12-5
8.2.1 Longitudinal Loads 8-2 12.3.1 External Acoustics 12-5
8.2.2 Bending Moments 8-2
8.2.3 Vehicle Dynamic Characteristics 8-2 SECTION 13 VEHICLE THERMAL ENVIRONMENT
8.3 Vibration Evaluation 8-15 13.1 Summary 13-1

13.2 S-IC Base Heating 13-1
SECTION 9 GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION
13.3 S-ll Base Heating 13-1
9.1 Summary 9-I
9.1.1 Performance of the Guidance and 13.4 Vehicle Aeroheating Thermal
Environment 13-6
Navigation System as Implemented
in the Flight Program 9-I
9.1.2 14 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS
Instrument Unit Components 9-I SECTION
9.2 Guidance Comparisons 9-I 14.1 Summary 14-I
9.3 S-IC Environmental Control 14-I

Navigation and Guidance Scheme 14.2
Evaluation 9-4 14.3 S-II Environmental Control 14-2
9.4 Guidance System Component 14.4 IU Environmental Control 14-3
Evaluation 9-ll 14.4.1 Thermal Conditioning System 14-3
14.4.2 ST-124M-3 Gas Bearing System 14-7
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
SECTION 15 DATA SYSTEMS
15.1 Summary 15-I
15.2 Vehic!e Measurements Evaluation 15-I
15.3 Airborne VHF Telemetry Systems

Evaluation 15-2
15.4 C-Band Radar System Evaluation 15-2
15.5 Secure Range Safety Command

Systems Evaluation 15-6
15.6 Command and Communication
System Evaluation 15-8
15.7 Ground Engineering Cameras 15-8
SECTION 16 MASS CHARACTERISTICS
16.1 Summary 16-I
16.2 Mass Evaluation 16-I
SECTION 17 SPACECRAFT SUMMARY 17-I
APPENDIX A ATMOSPHERE
A.I Summary A-I
A.2 General Atmospheric Conditions

at Launch Time A-l
A,3 Surface Observations at Launch

Time A-I
A.4 Upper Air Measurements A-I

A.4.1 Wind Speed A-3
A,4.2 Wind Direction A-6
A.4.3 Pitch Wind Component A-6
A.4.4 Yaw Wind Component A-6
A.4.5 Component Wind Shears A-6
A.4.6 Extreme Wind Data in the
High Dynamic Region A-6
A.5 Thermodynamic Data A-6

A.5.1 Temperature A-6
A.5.2 Atmospheric Pressure A-15
A.5o3 Atmospheric Density A-15
A.5.4 Optical Index of Refraction A-15
A.6 Comparison of Selected

Atmospheric Data for Saturn V
Launches A-15
APPENDIX B AS-508 SIGNIFICANT CONFIGURATION

CHANGES
B.l Introduction B-l

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page Figure Page
2-I Range Time to Vehicle Time 6-6 S-II LOX Tank Ullage Pressure 6-12
Conversion 2-2 6-7 S-If LOX Pump Inlet Conditions 6-13
4-I Ascent Trajectory Position 7-I S-IVB Start Box and Run
Comparison 4-2 Requirements - First Burn 7-3
4-2 Ascent Trajectory Space-Fixed 7-2 S-IVB Steady State
Velocity and Flight Path Performance - First Burn 7-4
Angle Comparisons 4-3
7-3 S-IVB CVS Performance -
4-3 Ascent Trajectory Acceleration Coast Phase 7-6
Comparison 4-3
7-4 S-IVB Ullage Conditions During
4-4 Dynamic Pressure and Mach Repressurization Using 02/H2
Number Comparisons 4-4 Burner 7-8
4-5 Ground Track 4-9
7-5 S-IVB 02/H2 Burner Thrust
4-6 Injection Phase Space-Fixed and Pressurant Flowrates 7-9
Velocity and Flight Path Angle 7-6 S-IVB Start Box and Run
Comparisons 4-10 Requirements - Second Burn 7-I0
4-7 Injection Phase Acceleration 7-7 S-IVB Steady State
Comparison 4-11 Performance - Second Burn 7-12
4A-I S-IVB/IU Unscheduled Velocity 7-8 S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure -

Change 4A-3 First Burn and Parking Orbit 7-14
4A-2 Accomulated Longitudinal 7-9 S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure -
Velocity Change During Second Burn and Translunar
Time Base 8 4A-4 Coast 7-15
4A-3 Lunar Impact Trajectory Radius 7-I0 S-IVB Fuel Pump Inlet
and Space-Fixed Velocity Conditions - First Burn 7-16
Profiles 4A-6
7-11 S-IVB Fuel Pump Inlet
4A-4 Comparison of Projected Lunar Conditions - Second Burn 7-17
Impact Points 4A-7 7-12 S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure -
4A-5 Summary of CCS Tracking Data First Burn and Parking Orbit 7-18
Used for Post-TLI Orbit
7-13 S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure -
Determination 4A-IO
Second Burn and Translunar
5-I S-IC LOX Start Box Requirements 5-2 Coast 7-19
5-2 S-IC Engines Thrust Buildup 5-3 7-14 S-IVB LOX Pump Inlet
Conditions - First Burn 7-20
5-3 S-IC Stage Propulsion
Performance 5-4 7-15 S-IVB LOX Pump Inlet
Conditions - Second Burn 7-21
5-4 F-l LOX PomP Bearing Jet
Pressure, Engine No. 2 5-6 7-16 S-IVB Cold Helium Supply History 7-23
5-5 S-IC Stage Fuel U11age Pressure 5-8 7-17 APS Helium Bottle Temperature
and Regulator Outlet Pressure 7-25
5-6 S-IC Stage LOX Tank Ullage
Pressure 5-9 7-18 S-IVB LOX Dump and Orbital
Safing Sequence 7-26
6-I S-II Engine Start Tank
Performance 6-2 7-1g S-IVB LOX Dump Parameter
Histories 7-28
6-2 S-II Engine Pomp Inlet Start
Requirements 6-4 8-I Longitudinal Acceleration at
CM and IU During Thrust Buildup
6-3 S-II Steady State Operation 6-5 and Launch 8-3
6-4 S-II Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure 6-9 8-2 Longitudinal Load at Time of
6-5 S-ll Fuel Pump Inlet Conditions 6-II Maximum Bending Moment, CECO
and OECO 8-3
vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)
Figure Page Figure Page
9-6 Crossrange Velocity Measured

8-3 Maximum Bending Moment Near
Max Q 8-4 by the ST-124M-3 Inertial
Platform 9-15
8-4 Comparison of Longitudinal
9-7 ST-124M-3 Acceleron_ter
Responses During S-IC Boost 8-5
Pickoff 9-15
8-5 Longitudinal Acceleration at
CM and IU at S-IC CECO and OECO 8-5 lO-I Pitch and Yaw Plane Dynamics
During S-IC Burn 10-3
8-6 Comparison of S-II Engine No. 5
Thrust Pad Acceleration With 10-2 Angle-of-Attack During S-IC
Burn 10-5
Previous Flights 8-6
10-3 Pitch and Yaw Plane Attitude
8-7 Comparison of S-ll Engine No. 1
Thrust Pad Acceleration With Errors During S-II Burn I0-6
Previous Flights 8-6 I0-4 Pitch and Yaw Attitude Errors
8-8 S-II Pre-CECO Thrust Chamber During S-IVB First Burn I0-7
Pressure Characteristics 8-7
I0-5 Pitch Attitude Error During
Parking Orbit 10-9
8-9 Comparison of S-II LOX Sump
Acceleration With Previous I0-6 Pitch and Yaw Attitude Errors
Flights 8-7 During S-IVB Second Burn I0-9
8-I0 S-II Stage Center Engine LOX I0-7 Pitch Attitude Error During
Feed System 8-g Translunar Coast lO-ll
8-11 Center Engine LOX Pump Inlet 10-8 Yaw Rate Gyro Switch lO-14
Pressure Shift and Beam
Vibration 8-9 I0-9 Pitch and Yaw Control System
Response to Loss of Attitude
8-12 Center Engine Gain During S-ll Reference 10-15
Osci lIati ons 8-I0
ll-l S-IVB Stage Forward No. 1
8-13 S-II LOX Ullage Pressure 8-I0 Battery Voltage and Current 11-4
8-14 Comparison of AS-507/AS-508 II-2 S-IVB Stage Forward No. 2
S-II Engine No. 5 LOX Line
Battery Voltage and Current 11-5
Characteri sti cs 8-I 1
ll-3 S-IVB Stage Aft No. l
8-15 S-ll Engine Inboard/Outboard Battery Voltage and Current 11-6
Power Ratio 8-11
11-4 S-IVB Stage Aft No. 2
8-16 AS-508/AS-507 Longitudinal Battery Voltage and Current II-7
Accleration Response
Comparison During S-II II-5 IU Battery 6DI0 Voltage,
Oscillations 8-13 Current and Temperature II-9
8-17 AS-508/AS-507 Acceleration and II-6 IU Battery 6D20 Voltage,

Pressure Characteristics From Current and Temperature II-I0
S-II CECO to OECO (8 to 14
11-7 IU Battery 6D30 Voltage,
Bandpass Filter) 8-14
Current and Temperature 11-11
8-18 S-IVB First Burn Spectral
11-8 IU Battery 6D40 Voltage,
Analyses 8-16
Current and Temperature 11-12
8-19 S-IVB Second Burn Spectral 12-I S-IC Base Heat Shield
Analyses 8-16 Differential Pressure 12-2
8-20 S-IVB Aft Interstage Skin 12-2 S-II Dase Heat Shield
and Stringer Vibration 8-17 Forward Face Pressure 12-3
9-I Trajectory and ST-124M-3 12-3 S-II Thrust Cone Pressure 12-3
Platform Velocity Comparison
Boost-to-EPO (Trajectory 12-4 S-II Heat Shield Aft Face
Minus Gui dance) 9-2 Pressure 12-4
12-5 AS-508 Acoustic Instrumentation 12-6

9-2 Trajectory and ST-124M-3
Platform Vel oci ty Compari son 12-6 External Overall Sound Pressure
Second S-IVB Burn 9-3 Level At Liftoff 12-6
9-3 LH 2 Continuous Vent Thrust 12-7 Vehicle External Overall

During Parking Orbit 9-8 Fluctuating Pressure Level 12-7
9-4 Attitude Commands During 12-8 Vehicle External Fluctuating
Boost to EPO 9-9 Pressure Spectral Densities 12-9
9-5 Attitude Commands During 1.3-I S-IC Base Heat Shield Total
S-IVB Second Burn 9-I0
Heating Rate 13-2
vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)
Figure Page
13-2 S-IC Base Gas Temperature 13-3
13-3 S-IC Ambient Gas Temperature

Under Engine Cocoon 13-4
13-4 S-I[ Heat Shield Aft Heat Rate 13-5
13-5 S-II Heat Shield Recovery

Temperature 13-5
13-6 S-II Heat Shield Aft Radiation

Heat Rate 13-7
13-7 Forward Location of Separated

Flow on S-IC Stage 13-7
14-I S-IC Aft Compartment Temperature

Near Battery 12KlO 14-2
14-2 IU TCS Coolant Control Parameters 14-3
14-3 IU Sublimator Performance During

Ascent 14-4
14-4 IU TCS Hydraulic Performance 14-5
14-5 IU TCS GN 2 Sphere Pressure

(D025-601) 14-5
14-6 Selected IU Component

Temperatures 14-6
14-7 Comparison of AS-507 and AS-508

IU Temperatures 14-7
14-8 IU Inertial Platform GN2

Pressures 14-8
14-9 IU GBS GN 2 Sphere Pressure

(D010-603) 14-9
15-1 VHF Telemetry Coverage Summary 15-5
15-2 C-Band Radar Coverage Summary 15-7
15-3 CCS Coverage Summary 15-10
A-l Surface Weather Map

Approximately 7 Hours Before
Launch of AS-508 A-2
A-2 500 Millibar Map Approximately

7 Hours Before Launch of AS-508 A-3
A-3 Scalar Wind Speed at Launch

Time of AS-508 A-5
A-4 Wind Direction at Launch Time

of AS-508 A-7
A-5 Pitch Wind Velocity Component

(W x) at Launch Time of AS-508 A-8
A-6 Yaw Wind Velocity Component
(W z) at Launch Time of AS-508 A-9
A-7 Pitch (Sx) and Yaw (S z) Component

Wind Shears at Launch Time of
AS-508 A-lO
A-8 Relative Deviation of Temperature

and Pressure From the PRA-63
Reference Atmosphere, AS-508 A-13
A-9 Relative Deviation of Density

and Absolute Deviation of the
Index of Refraction From the
PRA-63 Reference Atmosphere,
AS-5O8 A-14
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page Table Page
1 Mission Objectives Accomplishment 9-I Inertial Platform Velocity

Comparisons (PACSS 12 Coordinate
2 Summary of Anomaly
System) 9-5
3 Summary of Deviations
9-2 Guidance Comparisons (PACSS 13) 9-6
2-I Time Base Summary 2-3
9-3 State Vector Differences at
2-2 Significant Event Times Su_wnary 2-4 Translunar Injection 9-7
2-3 Variable Time and Commanded 9-4 AS-508 Guidance System Accuracy 9-11
Switch Selector Events 2-I0
9-5 Parking Orbit Insertion Parameters 9-12
3-I AS-508/Apollo 13 Prelaunch 9-6 Translunar Injection Parameters 9-12
Milestones 3-2
9-7 Start and Stop Times for IGM
4-I Comparison of Significant Guidance Commands 9-12
Trajectory Events 4-5
lO-I Maximum Control Parameters
4-2 Comparison of Cutoff Events 4-6 During S-IC Flight IO-2
4-3 Comparison of Separation Events 4-7 I0-2 AS-508 Li ftoff Mi sal ignment
4-4 Stage Impact Location 4-8 Summary I0-4
4-5 Parking Orbit Insertion Conditions 4-9 I0-3 Maximum Control Parameters
During S-II Burn I0-6
4-6 Trans Iunar Injecti on Condi ti ons 4-12
I0-4 Maximum Control Parameters
4A-I Comparison of Time Base 8 During S-IVB First Burn I0-8
Vel oci ty Increments 4A-4
I0-5 Maximum Control Parameters
4A-2 Comparison of Attitude Time During S-IVB Second Burn lO-lO
Line, Time Base 8 4A-5
ll-l S-IC Stage Battery Power
4A-3 Comparison of Orbit Parameters Consumption I l-l
After the Unscheduled Delta V 4A-7
ll-2 S-II Stage Battery Power
4A-4 S-IVB/IU Lunar Impact Parameters 4A-B
Consumption I I-2
4A-5 Summary of Lunar Impact Times 4A-9
ll-3 S-IVB Stage Battery Power
4A-6 S-IVB/IU CCS Tracking Network 4A-ll Cons _npti on II-3
5-I S-IC Individual Engine ll-4 IU Battery Power Consumption 11-8

Performance 5-5
15-I AS-508 Measurement Summary 15-3
5-2 S'-IC Stage Propellant Mass
15-2 AS-508 Flight Measurements
History 5-7
Waived Prior to Flight 15-3
6-I S-II Engine Performance 6-7
15-3 AS-508 Measurement Mal functions 15-4
6-2 S-II Engine Performance Shifts 6-7
15-4 AS-508 Questionable Flight
6-3 S-II Propellant Mass History 6-9 Meas uremen ts 15-6
7-I S-IVB Steady State Performance - 15-5 AS-508 Launch Vehicle Telemetry
First Burn (STDV +130 Second Links 15-9
Time Slice at Standard Altitude
15-6 Command and Communi cation System
Conditions) 7-5
Commands History, AS-508 15-9
7-2 S-IVB Steady State Performance -
16-I Total Vehicle Mass, S-IC Burn
Second Burn (STDV +130 Second
Phase (Kilograms) 16-3
Time Slice at Standard Altitude
Condi ti ons ) 7-11 16-2 Total Vehicle Mass, S-IC Burn
Phase (Pounds) 16-3
7-3 S-IVB Stage Propellant Mass
History 7-13 16-3 Total Vehicle Mass, S-II Burn
Phase (Kilograms) 16-4
7-4 S-IVB APS Propellant Consumption 7-24
ix
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table Page
16-4 Total Vehicle Mass, S-If Burn

Phase (Pounds) 16-4
16-5 Total Vehicle Mass, S-IVB First
Burn Phase (Kilograms) 16-5
16-6 Total Vehicle Mass, S-IVB First
Burn Phase (Pounds) 16-5
16-7 Total Vehicle Mass, S-IVB Second
Burn Phase (Kilograms) 16-6
16-8 Total Vehicle Mass, S-IVB Second
Burn Phase (Pounds) 16-6
16-9 Flight Sequence Mass Summary 16-7
16-10 Mass Characteristics Comparison 16-9
A-1 Surface Observations at AS-508
Launch Time A-2
A-2 Solar Radiation at AS-508 Launch

Time, Launch Pad 3gA A-4
A-3 Systems Used to Measure Upper Air
Wind Data for AS-508 A-4
A-4 Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic

Pressure Region for Apollo/Saturn
501 through Apollo/Saturn 508
Vehicles A-11
A-5 Extreme Wind Shear Values in the

High Dynamic Pressure Region for
Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/
Saturn 508 Vehicles A-12
A-6 Selected Atmospheric Observations

for Apollo/Saturn 501 through
Apollo/Saturn 508 Vehicle Launches
at Kennedy Space Center, Florida A-15
B-I S-IC Significant Configuration
Changes B-l
B-2 S-II Significant Configuration
Changes B-2
B-3 S-IVB Significant Configuration
Changes B-2
B-4 IU Significant Configuration
Changes B-3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report is published by the Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group,

composedof representatives of Marshall Space Flight Center, John F.
KennedySpace Center, and MSFC's prime contractors, and in cooperation
with the MannedSpacecraft Center. Significant contributions to the
evaluation have been made by:
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Science and Engineering
Central Systems Engineering

Aeto-As trodynami cs Laboratory
Astrioni cs Laboratory
Computati on Laboratory
Astronautics Laboratory
Program Management
John F. Kennedy Space Center
MannedSpacecraft Center
The Boeing Company
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company
International Business Machines Company
North American Rockwell/Space Division
North American RockwelI/Rocketdyne Division
xi
ABBREVIATIONS
ACS Alternating Current Power ECS Environmental Control System

Supply EDS Emergency Detection System
AOS Acquisition of Signal EMR Engine Mixture Ratio
APS Auxiliary Propulsion System EPO Earth Parking Orbit
ARIA Apollo Range Instrument ESC Engine Start Command
Aircraft
Eastern Standard Time
ASC Accelerometer Signal Condi- EST
tioner ETW Error Time Word
BDA Bermuda EVA Extra-Vehicular Activity
CCS Command and Communications FCC Flight Control Computer
System FM/FM Frequency Modulation/
CDDT Countdown Demonstration Frequency Modulation
Test FRT Flight Readiness Test
CECO Center Engine Cutoff GBS Gas Bearing System
CG Center of Gravity GFCV GOXFlow Control Valve
CM Command
Module GDS Goldstone
CNV Cape Kennedy GDSX Goldstone Wing Station
CRO Carnarvon GG Gas Generator
CSM Command and Service Module GOX GaseousOxygen
CVS Continuous Vent System GRR Guidance Reference Release
CYI Grand Canary Island GSE Ground Support Equipment
DEE Digital Events Evaluator GSCU Ground Support Cooling Unit
DO Desirable Objective GWM Guam
DTS Data Transmission System GYM Guaymas
EBW Exploding Bridge Wire HAW Hawaii
ECO Engine Cutoff HDA Holddown Arm
ECP Engineering Change Proposal HFCV Helium Flow Control Valve
xii
ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
HSK Honeysuckle Creek MSFN Manned Space Flight

Network
HSKX Honeysuckle Creek Wing
Station MSS Mobile Service Structure
IGM Iterative Guidance Mode MTF Mississippi Test Facility
IMU Inertial Measurement Unit M/W Methanol Water
IU Instrument Unit NPSP Net Positive Suction

Pressure
KSC Kennedy Space Center
NPV Nonpropulsive Vent
LET Launch Escape Tower
NASA National Aeronautics and
LH 2 Liquid Hydrogen
Space Administration
LM Lunar Module
OAT Overall Test
LOI Lunar Orbit Insertion
OCP Orbital Correction Program
LOS Loss of Signal
OECO Outboard Engine Cutoff
LOX Liquid Oxygen OMPT Operational Mass Point
LV Launch Vehicle Trajectory
LVDA Launch Vehicle Data OT Operational Trajectory

Adapter PAFB Patrick Air Force Base
LVDC Launch Vehicle Digital
Computer PCM Pulse Code Modulation
LVGSE Launch Vehicle Ground PCM/ Pulse Code Modulation/

Support Equipment FM Frequency Modulation
MAD Madrid PEA Platform Electronics Assembly
MADX Madrid Wing Station POI Parking Orbit Insertion
MCC-H Mission Control Center - PMR Programed Mixture Ratio

Houston
PRA Patrick Reference Atmosphere
MILA Merritt Island Launch
PTCS Propellant Tanking Control
Area
System
ML Mobile Launcher
PU Propellant Utilization
MMH Monomethyl Hydrazine
RF Radiofrequency
MO Mandatory Objective RFI Radiofrequency Interference
MOV Main Oxidizer Valve
RMS Root Mean Square
MR Mixture Ratio
RP-I Designation for S-IC Stage
MSC Manned Spacecraft Center Fuel (kerosene)
MSFC Marshall Space Flight

Center
xiii
r
ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
SA Service Arm
SC Spacecraft
SCFM Standard Cubic Feet per
Minute
SLA Spacecraft/LM Adapter

SM Service Module
SPS Service Propulsion System
SRSCS Secure Range Safety Com-

mand System
SS/FM Single Sideband/Frequency

Modulation
STDV Start Tank Discharge

Valve
SV Space Vehicle
Time Base 1
T1
TCS Thermal Conditioning
System
TD&E Transposition, Docking and
Ejection
TEl Transearth Injection
TEX Corpus Christi (Texas)

TLI Translunar Injection
TMR Triple Module Redundant

TSM Tail Service Mast
TVC Thrust Vector Control
UCR Unsatisfactory Condition

Report
USB Unified S-Band
UT Universal Time
VA Volt Amperes
VAN Vanguard (ship)

VHF Very High Frequency
xiv
MISSIONPLAN
The AS-508 flight (Apollo 13 Mission) is the eighth flight in the Apollo/
Saturn V flight program, the third lunar landing mission and the first
landing planned for the lunar highlands. The primary mission objectives
are: a) Perform selenological inspection, survey, and sampling of
materials in a preselected region of the Fra Mauro formation; b) deploy
and activate the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP III);
c) develop man's capability to work in the lunar environment; and
d) obtain photographs of candidate exploration sites. The crew consists
of James A. Lovell (Mission Commander),John L. Swigert, Jr. (CommandModule
Pilot), and Fred W. Haise, Jr. (Lunar Module Pilot).
The AS-508 launch vehicle is composedof the S-IC-8, S-II-8, and S-IVB-
508 stages, and Instrument Unit-508. The Spacecraft (SC) consists of
Spacecraft/Lunar Module Adapter (SLA)-I6, Command and Service Module
I(CSM)-IO9, and Lunar Module (LM)-7.
Vehicle launch from Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is along a
90 degree azimuth with a roll to a flight azimuth of approximately 72
degrees measured east of true north. Vehicle mass at ignition is
6,505,746 Ibm.
The S-IC stage powered flight is approximately 164 seconds; the S-II
stage provides powered flight for approximately 392 seconds. Following
S-IVB burn (approximately 144 seconds duration), the S-IVB/IU/SLA/LM/CSM
is inserted into a circular lO0 n mi altitude (referenced to the earth
equatorial radius) Earth Parking Orbit (EPO). Vehicle mass at orbit
insertion is 300,263 Ibm.
At approximately I0 seconds after EPOinsertion, the vehicle is aligned

with the local horizontal. Continuous hydrogen venting is initiated
shortly after EPOinsertion and the Launch Vehicle (LV) and CSMsystems
are checked in preparation for the Translunar Injection (TLI) burn.
During the second or third revolution in EPO, the S-IVB stage is
restarted and burns for approximately 356 seconds. This burn injects
the S-IVB/IU/SLA/LM/CSM into a free-return, translunar trajectory.
XV
Within 15 minutes after TLI, the vehicle initiates an inertial attitude
hold for CSM separation, docking and LM ejection. Following the attitude
freeze, the CSM separates from the LV and the SLA panels are jettisoned.
The CSM then transposes and docks to the LM. After docking, the CSM/LM
is spring ejected from the S-IVB/IU. Following separation of the com-
bined CSM/LM from the S-IVB/IU, the S-IVB/IU will perform a yaw maneuver
and an 80 second burn of the S-IVB Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS)
ullage engines to propel the S-IVB/IU a safe distance away from the
spacecraft. Subsequent to the completion of the S-IVB/IU evasive maneuver,
the S-IVB/IU is placed on a trajectory such that it will impact the lunar
surface in the vicinity of the Apollo 12 landing site. The impact tra-
jectory is achieved by propulsive venting of liquid hydrogen (LH2), dumping
of liquid oxygen (LOX) and by firing the APS engines. The S-IVB/IU impact
will be recorded by the seismograph deployed during the Apollo 12 mission.
S-IVB/IU lunar impact is predicted at approximately 77 hours 45 minutes
after launch.
During the three day translunar coast, the astronauts will perform star-
earth landmark sightings, Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) alignments,
general lunar navigation procedures and possibly four midcourse correc-
tions. One of these maneuvers will transfer the SC into a low-periselenum
non-free-return translunar trajectory at approximately 28 hours after TLI.
At approximately 77 hours and 25 minutes, a Service Propulsion System
(SPS), Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI) burn of approximately 356 seconds
inserts the CSM/LM into a 59 by 170 n mi altitude parking orbit.
Approximately two revolutions after LOI, a 23.l-second SPS burn will

adjust the orbit into a 9 by 59 n mi altitude. The LM is entered by
astronauts Lovell and Haise and checkout is accomplished. During the
twelfth revolution in orbit at 59 hours, the LM separates from the CSM
and prepares for the lunar descent. The LM descent propulsion system is
used to brake the LM into the proper landing trajectory and maneuver the
LM during descent to the lunar surface.
Following lunar landing, two 4.0 hour Extravehicular Activity (EVA) time
periods are scheduled during which the astronauts will explore the lunar
surface, examine the LM exterior, photograph the lunar terrain, and
deploy scientific instruments. The total stay time on the lunar surface
is open-ended, with a planned maximum of 35 hours, depending upon the
outcome of current lunar surface operations planning and of real-time
operational decisions. After the EVA, the astronauts prepare the LM
ascent propulsion system for lunar ascent.
The CSM performs a plane change approximately 24 hours before lunar

ascent. At approximately 137 hours and 16 minutes, the ascent stage
inserts the LM into a 9 by 44 n mi altitude lunar orbit, and rendezvous
and docks with the CSM. Following docking, equipment transfer and
xvi
decontamination procedures, the LM ascent stage is jettisoned and tar-
geted to impact the lunar surface between Apollo 12 and Apollo 13 landing
sites. Seismometer readings will be provided from both sites. Following
LM ascent stage deorbit burn, the CSMperforms a plane change to photo-
graph future landing sites. Photographing and landmark tracking will be
performed during revolutions 40 through 44. Transearth Injection (TEl)
is accomplished at the end of revolution 46 at approximately 167 hours
and 29 minutes with a 135-second SPSburn.
During the 73-hour transearth coast, the astronauts will perform naviga-
tion procedures, star-earth-moon sightings and possibly three midcourse
corrections. The Service Module (SM) will separate from the Command
Module (CM) 15 minutes before reentry. Splashdown will occur in the
Pacific Ocean approximately 241 hours and 3 minutes after liftoff.
After the recovery operations, a biological quarantine is imposed on

the crew and CM. An incubation period of 18 days from splashdown
(21 days from lunar ascent) is required for the astronauts. The hard-
ware incubation period is the time required to analyze certain lunar
samples.
xvii
FLIGHTSUMMARY
The sixth mannedSaturn V Apollo space vehicle, AS-508 (Apollo 13 Mission)

was launched at 14:13:00 Eastern Standard Time on April II, 1970 from
Kennedy Space Center, Complex 39, Pad A. Except for high amplitude, low
frequency oscillations which resulted in premature S-II Center Engine
Cutoff (CECO), the basic performance of the launch vehicle was satis-
factory. The high amplitude oscillations were not transmitted above
the S-II stage. Despite the anomaly, this eighth launch of the Saturn V/
Apollo successfully performed all the mandatory and desirable launch
vehicle objectives. All aspects of the S-IVB/IU lunar impact objective
were accomplished successfully except for the precise determination of
the impact point. It is expected that the final impact solution will
satisfy the mission objective.
The launch countdown support systems performed well. However, several

systems experienced component failures and malfunctions that required
corrective action. All repairs were accomplished in time to maintain
the launch schedule and no unscheduled holds were experienced. Damage
to the pad, mobile launcher, and support equipment was minor.
The vehicle was launched on an azimuth 90 degrees east of north. A roll

maneuver at 12.6 seconds placed the vehicle on a flight azimuth of 72.043
degrees east of north. Trajectory parameters were close to nominal during
S-IC stage and S-II stage burns until early shutdown of the S-II center
engine. The premature S-II CECOcaused considerable deviations for certain
launch vehicle trajectory parameters. Despite these deviations, near
nominal trajectory parameters were achieved at parking orbit insertion and
at Translunar Injection (TLI) although the events occurred 44.0 and 13.6
seconds later than predicted, respectively at a heading angle 1.230 degrees
later than nominal. CommandService Module (CSM) separation occurred
38.9 seconds later than predicted, causing some deviation in trajectory
parameters at this time. The earth impact locations for the S-IC and
S-II stages were determined by a theoretical free-flight simulation.
The analyses for the S-IC and S-II stages showed the surface range for
the impact points to be 7.6 kilometers (4.1 n mi) and 8.6 kilometers
(4.6 n mi) greater than nominal, respectively.
xviii
At 280,599.7 ±0.I seconds (77:56:39.7) vehicle time the S-IVB/IU impacted
the lunar surface at approximately 2.5 ±0.5 degrees south latitude
and 27.9 ±0.I degrees west longitude, which is approximately 65.5
+7.8, -4.8 kilometers (35.4 +4.2, -2.6 n mi) from the target of 3 degrees
south latitude and 30 degrees west longitude. Impact velocity was
2579 m/s (8461 ft/s). The mission objectives were to maneuver the S-lVB/
IU such that it would have at least a 50 percent probability of impacting
the lunar surface within 350 kilometers (189 n mi) of the target, and to
determine the actual impact point within 5 kilometers (2.7 n mi) and the
time of impact within 1 second. Preliminary results of the seismic
experiment indicate that the S-IVB/IU impact signal was 20 to 30 times
greater in amplitude and four times longer in duration than the Apollo 12
Lunar Module (LM) impact.
All S-IC propulsion systems performed satisfactorily, as did the hydraulic

system. Stage thrust, specific impulse, total propellant consumption
rate, and total consumedmixture ratio (averaged from liftoff to OECO)
were 0.26, 0.20, 0.06, and 0.24 percent higher than predicted, respective-
ly. Total propellant consumption from holddown arm release to Outboard
Engine Cutoff (OECO)was low by 0.06 percent. CECOwas commandedby
the IU as planned. OECO,initiated by the LOXlow level sensors, occurred
0.4 second earlier than predicted.
The S-II propulsion system performance was satisfactory throughout flight

except for the premature CECOwhich occurred 132.4 seconds early due to
high amplitude, low frequency oscillations in the propulsion/structural
system. OECOoccurred 34.5 seconds late as a result of the early CECO.
Stage thrust, propellant flowrate, and propellant mixture ratio were 0.19,
0.25, and 0.18 percent lower than predicted, respectively, at the standard
time slice 62 seconds after engine start. The specific impulse at this
time slice was 0.09 percent higher than predicted. The IU commandto
shift Engine Mixture Ratio from high to low upon attainment of a pre-
programed stage velocity increase occurred 32.2 seconds later than pre-
dicted primarily because of the early CECO. The engine servicing, re-
circulation, helium injection, valve actuation, and LOXand LH2 tank.
pressurization systems all performed satisfactorily. S-II hydraullc
system performance was normal throughout flight.
The J-2 engine operated satisfactorily throughout the operational phase

of S-IVB first and second burns with normal engine shutdowns. S-IVB
first burn duration was 9.3 seconds longer than predicted, primarily
due to the performance of lower stages. The engine performance during
first burn, as determined from standard altitude reconstruction analysis,
differed from the predicted by +0.29 percent for thrust while the specific
impulse was near that predicted. The Continuous Vent System (CVS) ade-
quately regulated LH tank ullage pressure at an average level of 19.3
psia during orbit an_ the Oxygen/Hydrogen burner satisfactorily achieved
LH2 and LOXtank repressurization for restart. Engine restart conditions
xix
were within specified limits. The restart with the propellant utilization
valve fully open was successful. S-IVB second burn duration was 4.9 seconds
less than predicted. The engine performance during second burn, as
determined from the standard altitude reconstruction analysis, differed
from the predicted by -0.24 percent for thrust and 0.09 percent for specific
impulse. Subsequent to second burn the stage propellant tanks and helium
spheres were safed satisfactorily. Sufficient impulse was derived from
LOXdump, LH2 CVSoperation and APSullage burn to achieve a successful
lunar impact. An additional velocity change of 7 to I0 ft/s was experienced
during the unanticipated APS firings at 70,150 seconds (19:29:10). The
S-IVB hydraulic system performance was satisfactory throughout the mission.
The structural loads experienced during S-IC boost phase were well below
design values. The maximumQ region bending momentwas 69 x 106 Ibf-in.
at the S-IC LOXtank, which was 25 percent of design value. Thrust cut-
off transients experienced by AS-508 were similar to those of previous
flights. The maximumdynamic transient at the IU resulting from S-IC
CECOwas ±0.20 g longitudinal. At OECOa maximumdynamic longitudinal
acceleration of _0.28 g and ±0.85 g was experienced at the IU and Command
Module (CM), respectively. The order of magnitude of the thrust cutoff
responses are considered normal. During S-IC stage boost phase, 4 to 5
hertz oscillations were detected beginning at I00 seconds. The maximum
amplitude measured in the IU at 125 seconds was +_0.04g. Oscillations in
the 4 to 5 hertz range have been observed on previous flights and are
considered to be normal vehicle response to flig.ht environment. AS-508
experienced low frequency (14 to 16 hertz) POGO oscillations during S-II
stage boost. Three distinct periods of structural/propulsion coupled
oscillations exhibited peaks at 180, 250, and 330 seconds. The third
period of oscillations resulted in LOXpumpdischarge pressure variations
of sufficient magnitude to activate the center engine thrust OKpressure
switches and shut down the engine 132.4 seconds early. All oscillations
decayed to a normal level following CECO. Analysis of flight data indicates
that no structural failure occurred as a result of the oscillations.
Flight measurements also show that the oscillations were confined to the
S-II stage and were not transmitted up the vehicle. The structural loads
experienced during the S-IVB stage burn were well below design values.
During first burn the S-IVB experienced low amplitude 18 to 20 hertz
oscillations. The amplitudes measured on the gimbal block were comparable
to previous flights and well within the expected range of values. Simi-
larly, S-IVB second burn produced intermittent low amplitude oscillations
in the 12 to 14 hertz frequency range which peaked near second burn cutoff.
Three vibration measurements were made on the S-IVB aft interstage. The
maximumvibration levels measured occurred at liftoff and during the
Mach 1 to Max Q flight period.
The guidance and navigation system performed satisfactorily resulting in

accurate parking orbit and TLI parameters. Guidance parameters were
modified to compensate for the early S-II CECO,and the S-IVB burn was
lengthened to compensate for the additional gravity losses during S-II
burn. The Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC), the Launch Vehicle
xx
Data Adapter (LVDA), and the ST-124M-3 inertial platform functioned
satisfactorily. Crossrange velocity, as measured by the inertial platform,
exhibited a negative shift of approximately 0.65 m/s (2.13 ft/s) at
approximately 3.4 seconds, introducing a 0.5 m/s (1.6 ft/s) velocity error.
The velocity shift probably resulted from the accelerometer head momentarily
contacting a mechanical stop due to the high vibration levels after liftoff.
The effect on navigation accuracy was negligible. A similar crossrange
velocity shift was exhibited on AS-506. At 68,948 seconds (19:09:08), the
LVDC exhibited a memory failure due to 6DIO battery depletion, and the
flight program essentially ceased operation.
Vehicle control system performance was satisfactory during the flight. At

Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM) initiation a pitchup transient occurred
similar to that experienced on previous flights. All separations were
normal. During the CSM separation from the S-IVB/IU and during the
Transposition, Docking and Ejection (TD&E) maneuver the control system
maintained a fixed inertial attitude to provide a stable docking platform.
Following TD&E, S-IVB/IU attitude control was maintained during the evasive
maneuver, the maneuver to lunar impact attitude, and the LOX dump and APS
burns. An unscheduled decrease in range rate of approximately 2 to 3 m/s
(7 to I0 ft/s) was experienced for approximately 60 seconds beginning at
70,150 seconds (19:29:10). This unscheduled maneuver had no adverse effect
on lunar targeting.
The launch vehicle electrical systems and emergency detection system

performed satisfactorily throughout all phases of flight. Operation of
the batteries, power supplies, i nverters, exploding bridgewire firing
units, and switch selectors was normal. AS-508 was the first flight
for which significant data were available to battery depletion.
Vehicle base pressure, base thermal and acoustic environments, in general,

were similar to those experienced on earlier flights. The environmental
control system performance was satisfactory.
All elements of the data system performed satisfactorily throughout the

flight. Measurements from onboard telemetry were 99.9 percent reliable.
Telemetry performance was normal and Radiofrequency (RF) propagation
was generally good although the usual problems due to flame effects and
staging were experienced. Usable VHF data were received to 14,280 seconds
(03:58:00). Command systems RF performance for both the secure range
safety command systems and the Command and Communications System (CCS)
was normal. Usable CCS telemetered data were received to 70,380 seconds
(19:33:00). CCS signal carrier was tracked until lunar impact. The only
significant problem encountered during the mission was signal interference
between the IU CCS and the LM unified S-band during translunar coast.
This problem was caused by the necessity to power the LM before S-IVB/IU
lunar impact. Good tracking data were received from the C-band radar
with Carnarvon reporting final loss of signal at 44,220 seconds (12:17:00).
The 67 ground engineering cameras provided good data during the launch.
xxi
MISSIONOBJECTIVESACCOMPLISHMENT
Table 1 presents the MSFCMandatory Objectives and Desirable Objectives

as defined in the Saturn V Mission Implementation Plan, "H" Series
Missions, Apollo 12, 13, 14, and 15; MSFCDocumentPM-SAT-8010.5
(Revision C), dated February 9, 1970. An assessment of the degree of
accomplishment of each objective is shown. Discussion supporting the
assessment can be found in other sections of this report as shown in
Table I.
Table I. Mission Objectives Accomplishment
MSFC MANDATORYOBJECTIVES (MO) DEGREEOF PARAGRAPHIN

NO. AND DESIRABLE OBJECTIVES (DO) ACCOMPLISHMENT DISCREPANCIES WHICH DISCUSSED
1 Launch on a flight azimuth between Complete None 4.1, 9.1.1

72 and 96 degrees and insert the
S-lVB/IU/SC into the planned circular
earth parking orbit (MO).
Restart the S-lVB during either the Complete None 4.2.3, 7.6
second or third revolution and
inject the S-IVB/IU/SC onto the
planned translunar trajectory (MO).
Provide the required attitude control Complete None 10. 4.4

for the S-lVB/IU/SC during TD&E (MO).
Perform an evasive maneuver after Complete None 10. 4.4

ejection of the CSM/LM from the
S-IVB/IU (DO).
Attempt to impact the S-IVB/IU on Complete None 4A.l

the lunar surface within 350 kilometers
of 3 degrees South, 30 degrees West (DO).
Determine actual impact point within Probably Analysis not 4A.l

5 kilometers and time of impact within Complete Complete
one second (DO).
Vent and dump the remaining gases and Complete None 7.13
propellants to safe the S-IVB/IU (DO).
xxii
FAILURES,ANOMALIES
ANDDEVIATIONS
Evaluation of the launch vehicle data revealed no failures, one anomaly

and three deviations. The anomaly and the deviations are summarized
in the following tables.
Table 2. Summaryof Anomaly

RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION
ANOMALY IDENTIFICATION
OCCURRENCE ACTION VEHICLE! PARAGRAPH

ITEM VEHICLE EFFECT ON
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION (CAUSE) MISSION (RANGE TIME DESCRIPTION STATUS EFFEC- REFERENCE
SECONDS) TIVITY
None 330.6 Addition of an accumulator Accumu- AS-509 8.2.3

S-II High amplitude oscillations in the
in the LOX feed line of ]ator and 6.3
Structure/ 14 to 16 hertz range during S-II
center engine to lower the presently Subs
Propulsion mainstage were sufficiently severe
to cause the center engine to shut natural frequency of the being
line, and hence decouple installed
down 132 seconds early. (Oscilla-
the line from the cross- in AS-509
tions of this frequency are an
beam mode which should in
inherent characteristic of the
turn suppress the high
present configuration of the S-IT
amplitude vibrations.
stage, although the high amplitude
occurring during AS-5G8 flight was
not expected.)
Investigation of an addi- No fim
tional safety cutoff action
device is unde_ay. Leading yet on
candidate is a structural vibration
vibration detection system, detection
system
Table 3. Summary of Deviations

PARAGRAPH
ITEM VEHICLE REFERENCE
SYSTEM DEVIATION PROBADLE CAUSE SIGNIFICANCE
5.3
Contaminant restrictions )rebably none, Several F-I turbopumps have
1 S-IC Unexpected shifts in engine NO. 2
withln the bearing jets. _:xperienced similar shifts during engine
Propulsion turbopump bearing jet pressure
;tatic tests without problems. The occur-
rence of this type bearing Jet pressure
discrepancy during flight is not considered
detrimental to F-I engine turbopamp relia-
0ility. No shifts have occurred since Incor-
oration of an improved cleaning procedure.
The only remaining flight engines rot incor-
orating the improved cleaning procedure
are engines S/N F205g and S/N F2061.
4A,
APS firings in pitch and yaw The stage would not necessarily have
UnscheduledS-IVB/IU velocity change 10.4.4
S-IVB/IU due to Flight Control Com- impacted the lunar surface within
of 7 to IO ft/s at 70,150 seconds 7.12
Control the prescribed limits If the velocity
puter output resulting from
(19:29:10).
loss of yaw rate feedback change had been in a different direc-
and in response to the atti- tion with respect to the flight path.
The direction of the resultant
tude error signal after loss
of attitude control. Celocity increment is unpredictable.
9.1.2
This deviation had negligible effect on
IU At approximately 3.4 seconds the The velocity shift resulted
from the accelerc4neter head launch vehicle operation.
crossrange velocity measurement
exhibited a shift of 2.13 ft/s, momentarily contacting a
mechanical stop due to the
resulting in a velocity error
high vibration levels after
of approximately 1.64 ft/s.
liftoff.
xxiii/xxiv
SECTION1
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-508 flight (Apollo 13 Mission).
The basic objective of flight evaluation is to acquire, reduce, analyze,
evaluate and report on flight data to the extent required to assure
future mission success and vehicle reliability. To accomplish this
objective, actual flight failures, anomalies and deviations are identified,
their causes determined, and information madeavailable for corrective
acti on.
1.2 SCOPE
This report contains 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 ir, cluded.
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. Reports
covering major subjects and special subjects will be published as required.
l-I/1-2
SECTION2
£VENTTIMES
2.1 SUMMARY
OF EVENTS
Range zero time, the basic time reference for this report is 14:13:00
Eastern Standard Time (EST) (19:13:00 Universal Time [UT]) April II,
1970. Range time is the elapsed time from range zero time and, unless
otherwise noted, is the time used throughout this report. All data,
except as otherwise defined, presented in "Range Time" are the times at
which the data were received at the telemetry ground station, i.e.,
actual time of occurrence at the vehicle plus telemetry transmission
time. The Time-From-Base times are presented as elapsed vehicle time
from start of time base. Vehicle tittle is the Launch Vehicle Digital
Computer (LVDC) clock time, and differs from actual time of occurrence
by any clock error that may exist. Figure 2-I shows the conversion
between range and vehicle times.
Range times 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 times
approximately of 34_6
T , Tand
l, _ .0andseconds
T3 were late,
nominal. T4 and T_auewere
respectively, to initiated
variations
in the stage burn times. The variations, discussed in Sections 6, 7 and
8, affected the start of all subsequent time bases. Start times of T6 and
T 7 were 18.2 and 13.6 seconds late, respectively. T8, which was initiated
by the receipt of a ground command, started 239.3 seconds late.
A summary of significant events for AS-508 is given in Table 2-2. The

events in Table 2-2 associated with guidance, navigation, and control were
nominal and are accurate to within a major computation cycle.
The predicted times for establishing actual minus predicted times in

Table 2-2 were taken from 40M33628, "Interface Control Document Definition
of Saturn SA-508 Flight Sequence Program", and from the "AS-508 H-2 Mis-
sion Launch Vehicle Operational Flight Trajectory", dated December 18,
1969 and updated January 19, 1970, except as noted.
2.2 VARIABLE TIME AND COMMANDED SWITCH SELECTOR EVENTS
Table 2-3 lists the switch selector events which were issued during the
flight but were not programed for specific times. The water coolant valve
open and close switch selector commands were issued based on the condition
2-I
300 i /
28O
/
/
260
/
240
220
/
8
200 /
"E
180
/
/
160
F--
_, 14o
L_
>
cz_
z
__ ioo
120
/
"
F-- 80 /
_ 6o
4O
/
2O J
i
0 2 4 6 8 lO 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
RANGE TIME, lO00 SECONDS
I r I I I I I
0 l:O0:OO 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
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 2-I. Range Time to Vehicle Time Conversion
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 or close
the water valve. The valve was opened if the sensed temperature was too
high, and was closed if the temperature was too low. Data indicate the
water coolant valve responded properly to temperature fluctuations.
The IU command to shift Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR) from high to low
occurred 32.2 seconds late, mainly due to the early S-II stage Center
Engine Cutoff (CECO), as discussed in paragraph 6.5. This command is
issued upon attainment of a preprogramed velocity increase as sensed by
the LVDC. The program logic delays the EMR shift and provides for
Translunar Injection capability with one S-II engine out.
2-2
Table 2-I. Time Base Summary
RANGE TIME
SEC SIGNAL START
TIME BASE
(HR:MIN:SEC)
-16.96 Guidance Reference Release

TO
0.61 IU Umbilical Disconnect

T1
Sensed by LVDC
1 35.33 Downrange Velocity > 500 m/s

T2
at T 1 +134.7 seconds as
Sensed by LVDC
163.64 S-IC OECO Sensed by LVDC

T3
592.66 S-II OECO Sensed by LVDC

T4
750.05 S-IVB ECO (Velocity) Sensed

T5
by LVDC
8768.11 Restart Equation Solution

T6
(02:26:08.11)
9697.40 S-IVB ECO (Velocity) Sensed

T7
(02:41:37.40) by LVDC
15,479.43 Initiated by Ground Command

T8
(04:17:59.43)
Tab.le 2-3 also contains the special sequence of switch selector events
which were programed to be initiated by telemetry station acquisition
and included the following calibration sequence:
Function Stage Time (Sec)
IU Acquisition +60.0
Telemetry Calibrator
[n-Flight Calibrate ON
FM Calibrate ON S-IVB Acquisition +60.4
TM Calibrate OFF S-IVB Acquisition +61.4
IU Acquisition +65.0
In-Flight Calibrate OFF
2-3
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary
RANGE TIME TIME FROM BASE
ITEM EVENT DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACT-PRED ACTUAL ACT-PRED
SEC SEC SEC SEC
I GUIDANCE REFERENCE RELEASE -17,0 0,0 -17.6 O,l

(GRRI
2 S-IC ENGINE START SEQUENCE -8.9 0.0 -9.,5 0,0

COMMAND (GROUNDI
3 S-IC ENGINE NO.5 START -6.7 0.0 -7.3 0,0
6 5-IC ENGINE NO,l START -6.3 0.0 -6.9 0,0
5 IS-IC ENGINE NO,3 START -6.2 0,0 -6.8 0,0
6 S-IC ENGINE NO.6 START -6.0 O,O -6.6 0.1
7 S-IC ENGINE NO,2 START -6.0 0,0 -6.6 0.0
8 ALL S-IC ENGINES THRUST OK -1.6 0.I -2,0 0,2
9 RANGE ZERO 0.0 -0,6
I0 ALL HCLODOWN ARMS RELEASED 0.3 0,0 -0,6 0.0

(FIRST MOTION}
II IU UMBILICAL DISCCNNECT, START 0.6 -0. I 0,0 0,0

OF TIME BASE I (TI)
12 BEGIN TOWER CLEARANCE YAW 2.3 0,6 1.7 0.7

MANEUVER
13 END YAW MANEUVER IO.O -0.9 9.4 -0°9
16 BEGIN PITCH AND ROLL MANEUVER 12.6 0.I 12.0 0.1
15 $-IC OUTBOARD ENGINE CANT 20,6 -0.I 20,0 0.0
16 END ROLL MANEUVER 32,1 1.7 31.5 1.8
17 _ACH 1 68.6 -0.2 67,8 -0.2
18 qAXlMUM DYNAMIC PRESSURE 81.3 -4,0 80,7 -3.9

(PAX Q)
19 _-IC CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF 135.18 -0,09 134.57 -0.05

(CECOI
20 _TART OF TIME BASE 2 (T2} 135.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0
21 END PITCH MANEUVER (TILT 163.3 1.3 27,9 1.2

ARREST}
22 S-IC OUTBOARD ENGINE CUTOFF 163.60 -0.40 28.2? -0.3 8

IOECO}
23 START OF TIME BASE 3 IT31 163.6 -0.4 0,0 0°0
2-4
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary (Continued)
RANGE TIME TIME FROM _ASE

ACTUAL ACTUAL ACT-PRED
EVENT DESCRIPTION ACT-PRED
SEC SEC SEC SFC
0.1 0.0
163,7 -0,4
24 _TART S-IT LH2 TANK HIGH
PRESSURE VENT MOOE
-0.4 O. 2 0.0
25 _-II LH2 RECIRCULATION PUMPS 163.8
OFF
0.5 0,0
164.I
26 5-1I ULLAGE MOTOR IGNITION
0.7 O,O
164,3
27 _-IC/S-II SEPARATION COMMAND
TO FIRE SEPARATION DEVICES
AND RETRO MOTORS
-C.4 1.4 0,0

28 S-IT ENGINE START SEQUENCE 165.0
COMMAND IESC)
-0.4 1.4 0,0

165.0
29 -If ENGINE SOLENOID ACTIVAT-
ION (AVERAGE OF FIVEI
-0.4 2.4 0,0

30 _-II IGNITICN-SIDV OPEN 166.0
4.4 0.0
31 ;-IT MAINSTAGE 168.0
4.4 -0.2
32 S-If ULLAGE MOTOR BURN TIME 168.1
TERMINATION (THRUST REACHES
75%)
-0.4 6.4 0,0

170,0
33 S-II CHILLD_WN VALVES CLOSE
-0.4 6.9 0,0

34 S-IT HIGH (5,5) EMR ON I70,5
-0.4 30.7 0,0

35 S-If SECOND PLANE SEPARATION 194,3
COMMAND IJETTISON S-II AFT

INTERSTAGE|
201,0 0.6 37.4 1,0

36 AUNCH ESCAPE TOWER {LET|
JETTISON
-0.5 60.9 -0,I

3? ITERAIIVE GUICANCE MODE | IGM| 204,5
PHASE I INITIATED*
-0.4 I00.0 0,0

38 S-IT LCX STEP PRESSURIZATION 263.6
-132.36 |61,00 -132.00

3 <) S-IT ENGINE #5 SOLENOID DEAC- 330.65
TIVATIUN SIGNAL IKI-205I
(CECOt
462.6 -0,4 299.0 0.0

40 S-ll CENTER ENGINE CUTOFF
CCMMAND
-0,4 300.0 0.0

41 S-I! LH2 STEP PRESSURIZATION
32.2 37t.0 32.5

42 GUICANCE SENSED TIME TO BEGIN
EMR SHIFI |IGM PHASE 2 INI-
IIAIED & SIART OF ARIIFI-
CIAL TAU MODEl*
*Time is accurate to major computation cycle

dependent upon length of computation cycle.
2-5
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary(Continued)
RANGE T|MF TIME FROM BASE
ITEM EVENT DESCRIPTIUN ACTUAL ACT-PREP ACTUAL ACT-PRED
SEC SEC SEC SEC
_3 _-II LOW ENGINE MIXTURE RATIO 537,5 33.7 373.8 34.0

{EMR) SHIFT (ACTUAL)
64 _ND OF ARTIFICIAL TAU M_DE* 545.8 32.8 382.2
45 _-II OUTBUARC ENGINE CUTOFF 592.64 34.53 429.00

(OECO)
46 S-IT ENGINE CUTOFF INTERRUPT, 592.7 34.6 0.0 0.0

START OF TIME BASE 4 (TAT
(START OF IGM PHASE 3)
47 S-IVB ULLAGE MOTOR IGNITION 34.5 0.8 0,0
48 S-II/S-IVB SEPARATION COMMAND 34.5 0.9 0.0

TO FIRE SEPARATION DEVICES
AND RETRO MOTORS
49 _-IVB ENGINE START COMMAND 593.6 34.5 1.O 0.0

IFIRST ESC)
50 :UEL CHILLDGWN PUMP OFF 594.8 34.5 2.2 0.0
51S-IVB IGNITION ISTDV OPEN) 596,9 34.8 4.3 0.3
52 S-IVB MAINSTAGE 599.4 34.8 6.8 0.3
53 START OF ARTIFICIAL TAU MODE* 600.2 34.7 7.5 0.I
54 S-IVB ULLAGE CASE JETTISON 605.4 34.5 12.8 0.0
55 END OF ARTIFICIAL TAU MODE* 611.2 36.9 18.5 2.4
56 3EGIN TERMINAL GUIDANCE* 716.q 44.6 124.2 lO.l
57 END IGM PHASE 3" 743.2 45.3 150.5 10.7
58 BEGIN CHI FREEZE* 143,2 45,3 150.5 I0.7
59 S-IVB VEICCITY CUTOFF COMMAND 749.83 44.06 -0.22 -0.02

(FIRST GUIDANCE CUTOFF)
IFIRST ECOI
60 S-IVB ENGINE CUTOFF INTERRUPT_ 750.0 44.0 0.0 0o0

START OF TIME BASE 5 |T5)
61 _-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. I 750.3 44.0 0.3 0.0

IGNITION COMMAND
62 S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. 2 750.4 44.0 0.4 0.0

IGNITION COMMAND
63 LOX TANK PRESSURIZATION OFF 751.2 44.0 1.2 0.0
64 PARKIhG ORBIT INSERTION 75q.8 44.0 9.8 0,0

2-6
RANGE TIME T|M E FROM BASE

ITE_ EVENT OESCRIPTION ACTUAL ACT-PRED ACTUAL ACT-PRED
SEC SEC SEC SEC
65 3EGIN MANEUVER TO LOCAL 770.1 43.7 20,I -0,3

HORIZONTAL AITIIUOE*
66 _-IV8 CONTINUOUS VENT 809.0 44,0 59.0 0.0

SYSTEM (CVS) ON
67 _-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. [ 837.0 44,0 87.0 0.0

CUTOFF COMMAND
68 _-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. 2 837.1 44.0 87.1 0.0

CUTOFF COMMAND
69 3EGIN ORBITAL NAVIGATION* 850.4 44.0 100.3 -O,l
70 3EGIN S-IVB RESTART PREPARA- 8768.1 18.2 0.0 0°0

TIONS, START OF TIME BASE 6
(T6l
7| _-IVB 02/H2 BURNER LH2 ON 8809.4 I8.2 41.3 0.0
72 _-IV8 021H2 BURNER EXCITERS ON B809.7 18.2 41.6 0.0
73 S-IVB 02/H2 BURNER LOX ON 8810.1 18.2 42.0 0.0

IHELIUM HEATER ONI
74 S-IV8 CVS OFF 8810.3 18.2 42.2 0,0
75 S-IV8 LH2 REPRESSURIZATION 8816o2 18.2 48.1 0o0

CONTROL VALVE ON
76 S-IVB LOX RERRESSURIZATION 8816,4 I8o2 48.3 0.0

CONTROL VALVE ON
77 S-IVB AUX HYDRAULIC PUMP B987,1 18.2 219.0 0.0

FLIGHT MODE ON
78 S-IVB LOX CHILLDCWN PUMP ON 9017.1 IB.2 249.0 O.O
79 S-|VB LH2 CHILLDOWN PUMP ON q022.1 18.2 254.0 0.0
80 S-IVB PREVALVES CLOSED 9027.1 18.2 259.0 0.0
81 S-IVB PU MIXTURE RATIO 4.5 ON 9218.2 18.2 450.l 0.0
82 S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. 1 9264.4 18.2 49b.3 0.0

IGNITION COMMAND
83 S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. 2 9264.5 I8,2 496.4 0.0

IGNITION COMMAND
84 S-IVB D2/H2 BURNER LH2 OFF 9264.9 18.2 496.8 0.0

(HELIUM HEATER OFFI
85 S-IVB D2/H2 8URNEW tOX OFF 9269.4 18.2 501.3 0.0

2-7
Table 2-2. Significant Event Times Summary (Conti nued)
MI__
'A_PRED ACIUAL AC T-PRED
EVENT DESCRIPTION ACTUAL
SEE SEC SEC SEC
18.2 569,4 0.0

5-1VB LH2 CHILLDOWN PUMP OFF 9337.5
9337.7 18.2 569.6 O.O

;-IVB LOX CHILLDDWN PUMP OFF
q338.1 18.2 570.0 0o0

IVB ENGINE RESTART CCMMAND
{FUEL LEAD INITIATION)
(SECOND ESC)
18.2 573.0 0.0

IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. I
CUTOFF COMMAND
18.2 573.1 0.0

;-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. 2
CUTOFF COMMAND
9346.4 18.5 578.3 0.3

;-IVB SECOND IGNITION ISTDV
OPEN)
18,5 580.8 0.3

,-IVB MAINSIAGE
18.3 680.6 0.1

!NGINE MIXTURE RATIO (EMR)
SHIFT
9618.I 18.2 850.0 0°0

$-IVB LH2 STEP PRESSURIZATION
ISECOND BURN RELAY OFFI
9668.3 14.1 900.2 -6.0

!GIN TERMINAL GUIDANCE*
9695.7 14.2 927.6 -_.0

CHI FREEZE*
9697.17 13.55 -0.23 -0,03

IVB SECOND GUIDANCE CUTOFF
CDMMAND |SECONO ECO)
13.6 0°0 O.O

IVB ENGINE CUTOFF INTERRUPT 9697.4
START OF TIME BASE 7
q6_7.9 13.b 0.5 0,0

-IVB CVS ON
9707,2 13.6 9.8 O.O

RANSLUNAR INJECTION
9848.0 13.3 150.6 -0.3

EGIN MANEUVER TO LOCAL
HORIZONTAL ATTITUDE*
9848.0 13.3 150.6 -0.3

_EGIN ORBITAL NAVIGATION*
13.6 150.9 0.0

5-IV8 CVS OFF
14,5 900.9 0°9

3EGIN MANEUVER TO TRANSPOSI-
TION AND COCKING AIIITUDE
(TO_EI*
II198.9 38.9** 1501,5 25.3

;SM SEPARATION
I1948.8 188.8"* 2251._ L75,3

SM DOCK
CILV FINAL SEPARATION 14460.8 0.8"* 6763.3 -12.8

**The predicted time for establishing this actual
minus predicted time has been taken from the
Apollo 13 Final Flight Plan, Revision B, dated
March 16, 1970
28

ACTUAL ACT-PRED ACTUAL ACT-PRED
EVENT DESCRI PIION SEC SEC SEC SEC
108 START OF TIME BASE 8 (T8| 239°3** 0°0 0,0
log S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO, I 239.3** 1,2 0.0

IGNITION COMMAND
lIO S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO, 2 15480.8 239*3"* [°4 0°0
IGNITION COMMAND
It! S-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO, I 15560,6 239°3** 81,2 0°0
CUTOFF COMMAND
IIZ S-[VB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO, 2 15560.8 239.3** 81,4 0.0
CUTOFF COMMAND
It3 INITIATE MANEUVER TO LOX DUMP 16060.0 240.0"* 580°6 0°7

ATTITUDE*
16479,6 239°3"* lO00.O O.O

llq _-IVB CVS ON
I
t15 3EGIN LOX DUMP 16759,k 239,3 **! 12BO,O 0.0
t16 I-IVB CVS OFF 1677q,4 239.3** 1300®O 0,0
t|T END LOX DUMP 16807.4 239.3** 1328°0 0,0
lIB 42 NONPROPULSIVE VENT INPV| ON 16886,6 239,3** 1401,0 0.0
119 INITIATE MANEUVER TO ATTITUDE 20887.8 187,8"* 5608.3 -51.5

REQUIRED FOR FINAL S-IVB
APS BURN*
120 5-1VB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO, I 21599,5 -0.5** 6120.0 -239.8
IGNITION COMMAND
t21 5-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO, 2 21599°7 -0 • 5** 61Z0,2 -239.8
IGNITION COMMAND
IZ2 S°IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO. 1 2lB16.5 -19.5"* 6337.0 -258.8
CUTOFF COMMAND
123 5-IVB APS ULLAGE ENGINE NO, 2 21816.7 - 19 • 5** 6337.2 -258.8
CUTOFF COMMAND
2 80601. O 70l .0"* 765121.6 661.7

12k S-IVBIIU LUNAR IMPACT
(77:56:41.0 (73;38;41.6)
HRS:MIN:SEC (HRS :MIN'S ECt

**The predicted time for establishing this actual
minus predicted time has been taken from the
Apollo 13 Final Flight Plan, Revision B, dated
March 16, 1970.
2-9
Table 2-3. Variable Time and Commanded Switch Selector Events

FUNCTION STAGE (SEC) (SEC) REMARKS
S-II 535.3 T 3 +371.6 LVDC Function

High (5.5) Engine Mixture
Ratio Off
Low (4.5) Engine Mixture S-If 535.5 T3 +371.8 LVDC Function

Ratio On
IU 781.2 .VDC Function

Water Coolant Valve Open T5 +31. l
Telemetry Calibrator IU I079.0 T5 +329.0 Acquisition By Canary

Revolution l
Inflight Calibrate On
TM Calibrate On S-IVB I079.4 T5 +329.4 Acquisition By Canary

Revolution l
S-IVB I08Q.4 T5 +330.4 Acquisition By Canary

TM Calibrate Off
Revolution l
IU 1084.0 T 5 +334.0 Acquisition By Canary

Revolution l
Inflight Calibrate Off
IU 3223.0 T 5 +2473.0 Acquisition By Carnarvon

Telemetry Calibrator Revolution l
S-IVB 3223.4 T5 +2473.4 Acquisition By Carnarvon

TM Calibrate On
Revolution l
S-IVB 3224.4 T 5 +2474.4 Acquisition By Carnarvon

TM Calibrate Off
Revolution l
IU 3228.O T 5 +2478.0 Acquisition By Carnarvon

Revolution l
IU 6703.0 T5 +5953.0 Acquisition By Canary

Revolution 2
S-IVB 6703.4 T5 +5953.4 Acquisition By Canary

TM Calibrate On
Revolution 2
S-IVB 6704.4 T 5 +5954.4 Acquisition By Canary

TM Calibrate Off
Revolution 2
IU 6718.0 T5 +5958.0 Acquisition By Canary

Telemetry Calibrator Revolution 2
IU 88O5.4 T6 +37.3 LVDC Function

Water Coolant Valve Closed
IU 9988.6 T 7 +291.2" Acquisition By Hawaii

Telemetry Calibrator Revolution 2
S-IVB 9989.0 T 7 +291.6 Acquisition By Hawaii

TM Calibrate On Revolution 2
S-IVB 9989.9 T7 +292.6 Acquisition By Hawaii

TM Calibrate Off
Revolution 2
IU 9993.6 Acquisition By Hawaii

Telemetry Calibrator T 7 +296.2
Revolution 2
T 7 +2783.3 LVDC Function

Water Coolant Valve Open IU 12,480.7
IU 12,780.2 T7 +3082.8 LVDC Function

Water Coolant Valve Closed
LVDC Function
Water Coolant Valve Open IU 15,180.2 T 7 +5482.7
15,479.4 T8 +0.0 CCS Command

Start of Time Base 8 (T 8)
IU 15,480.9 LVDC Function

Water Coolant Valve Closed T8 +I.4
T8 +2700.B LVDC Function

IU 18,180.3
Water Coolant Valve Open
IU 18,480.8 LVDC Function

u_=r _nnl_nt Valve Closed T_ +3001.3
2-I0
Table 2-3. Variable Time and Commanded
Switch Selector Events (Continued)
RANGE TIME TIME FROM _ASE

FUNCTION STAGE (SEC) (SEC) REMARKS
Water Coolant Valve Open IU 21,180.4 T 8 +5700.9 LVDC Function
_Jater Coolant Valve Closed IU 21,480.8 T 8 +6001.2 LVDC Function
S-IVB Ullage Engine No. 1 S-IVB 21,599.5 T 8 +6120.0 CCS Command

On

On

Off

Off
2-11/2-12
SECTION3
LAUNCH
OPERATIONS
3.1 SUMMARY
The ground systems supporting the AS-508/Apollo 13 countdown and launch

performed satisfactorily. System component failures and malfunctions
requiring corrective action were corrected during countdown and no
unscheduled holds were incurred. Propellant tanking was accomplished
satisfactorily. Launch occurred at 14:13:00 Eastern Standard Time (EST),
April II, 1970_ from Pad 39A of the Kennedy Space Center, Saturn Complex.
Damageto the pad, Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT) and support equipment was
considered minimal.
3.2 PRELAUNCH
MILESTONES
A chronological summaryof prelaunch milestones for the AS-508 launch is

contained in Table 3-I.
3.3 COUNTDOWN
EVENTS
The AS-508/Apollo 13 terminal countdown was picked up at T-28 hours on

April 9, 1970, at 24:00:00 EST. Scheduled holds in the launch countdown
sequence were 9 hours 13 minutes duration at T-9 hours and 1 hour duration
at T-3 hours 30 minutes. Launch activities were directed from Launch
Control Center (LCC) Firing RoomI. Launch occurred on schedule at
14:13:00 EST, April II, 1970.
3.4 PROPELLANT
LOADING
3.4.1 RP-I Loading
The RP-I system successfully supported the launch countdown without

incident. S-IC stage replenishment was initiated at approximately T-13
hours and level adjust at T-I hour. The air vent trap (A4120, P/N 76K00072)
closed prematurely during replenish operations causing a quantity of fill
line gas residuals to be pumpedthrough the S-IC stage fuel tank. This
problem also occurred during the Countdown Demonstration Test (CDDT) and
is under design investigation.
3-I
Table 3-I. AS-508/ApolIo 13 Prelaunch Milestones
ACTIVITY OR EVENT
DATE
June 13, 1969 S-IVB-508 Stage Arrival
June 16, 1969 S-IC-8 Stage Arrival
June 18, 1969 S-IC Erection on Mobile Launcher 3
Command and Service Module (CSM)-I09 Arrival

June 26, 1969
June 27, 1969 Lunar Module (LM)-7 Ascent Stage Arrival
June 28, 1969 LM-7 Descent Stage Arrival
June 29, 1969 S-II-8 Stage Arrival

Instrument Unit (IU)-508 Arrival
July 7, 1969
July 17, 1969 S-II Erection
July 18, 1969 Spacecraft/Lunar Module Adapter (SLA)-I6 Arrival
July 31, 1969 S-IVB Erection
IU Erection
August l, 1969
Launch Vehicle (LV) Electrical System Test
August 29, 1969
October 21, 1969 LV Propellant Dispersion/Malfunction Overall

Test (OAT) Complete
December 4, 1969 LV Service Arm OAT
December lO, 1969 Spacecraft (SC) Erection
December 15, 1969 Space Vehicle (SV)/Mobile Launcher Transfer to

Pad 39A
January 19, 1970 SV Electrical Mate
January 20, 1970 SV OAT No. l (Plugs In)
FebFuary 26, 1970 SV Flight Readiness Test (FRT) Completed
March 16, 1970 RP-I Loading
March 25, 1970 Countdown Demonstration Test (CDDT) Completed

(Wet)
March 26, 1970 CDDT Completed (Dry)
April 9, 1970 SV Terminal Countdown Started
April II, 1970 SV Launch On Schedule
3-2
3.4.2 LOXLoading
The LOXsystem satisfactorily supported the launch countdown. The fill

sequence was nominal beginning with start of S-IVB stage loading at T-8
hours 22 minutes. LOXloading was completed and replenishment initiated
on all stages at T-5 hours 41 minutes.
During the countdown, at approximately T-2 hours 5 minutes, the S-IC

stage LOXvent valve No. 2 stuck in the open position. A procedure to
cycle the vent valves at 15 to 20-minute intervals had been in effect
since completion of S-IC fast fill at approximately T-5 hours 41 minutes.
LOXvent valve No. 2 had been successfully cycled about 15 minutes prior
to sticking. The problem was resolved by closing LOXvent valve No. 1
and applying a GN2purge through the sticking LOXvent valve No. 2. After
88 seconds of purge and 13 cycles of the close commandswitch, the LOX
vent valve No. 2 returned to the closed position. The LOX vent valve No. 2
was left in the closed position for the remainder of the countdown, and no
further problems developed. An investigation to determine the cause of
the problem is underway.
3.4.3 LH2 Loading
The LH2 system successfully supported launch countdown. The fill sequence
was nominal beginning with start of S-II stage loading at T-5 hours 33
minutes. LH2 loading was completed and replenishment initiated at T-4
hours 4 minutes.
During S-IVB stage loading, major excursions occurred on the LH2 fine and
the LH2 coarse mass measurements. As loading progressed the system
recovered allowing the countdown to continue normally. The system again
operated abnormally beginning at T-3 seconds and lasting through tower
clearance. This system was known to be a potential problem from previous
testing. An alternate loading procedure had been prepared prior to start
of the launch countdown but was not required to complete the countdown.
3.5 INSULATION
The S-II-8 was the first stage to utilize spray-on foam as the external
insulation for the LH2 tank sidewalls and forward skirt. This is discussed
further in Appendix B. The performance of the stage insulation, including
Ground Support Equipment (GSE) purge and vacuumsystems, was satisfactory
with no parameters exceeding redline limits. Detailed inspection of the
external insulation, using operational television, indicated that the
spray-on foam performed satisfactorily. The total heat leak through the
insulation to the LH2 tank was well below the specification value.
3-3
3.6 GROUND
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
3.6.1 Ground/Vehicle Interface
In general performance of the ground service systems supporting all stages

of the launch vehicle was satisfactory. Overall damageto the pad, LUT,
and support equipment from the blast and flame impingement was considered
minimal. Detailed discussion of the GSEis contained in KSCApollo/Saturn V
(AS-508) "Ground Support Evaluation Report"
The ground Environmental Control System (ECS) performed satisfactorily

throughout countdown and launch, with one exception. With ground ECS
flowrate and temperature at maximumvalues, the S-IC aft flight battery
compartment temperature, with specification limits of 80 +_I5°F, dropped
to 61°F. The low temperature had been anticipated from CDDTperformance
and a waiver had been approved permitting limits of 50 to 95°F for the
compartment temperature during the AS-508 launch (see paragraph 14.2).
The Holddown Arms and Service Arms (SA) satisfactorily supported the
launch and caused no countdown holds or delays. Because of a Digital
Events Evaluator (DEE)-6 failure at T-l second, SA retract times and
valve actuation times are not available. However, the SA control panels
indicated that all retract and withdrawal firing systems actuated, and
that all arms fully retracted and latched.
Overall performance of the Tail Service Mast system was satisfactory.

Valve actuation and retract times are not available because of the DEE-6
failure. Television observation and.panel lights indicated that all
three return valves opened, the masts retracted together and hoods closed
within the 4.0 second maximum allowed from aft umbilical plate separation.
3.6.2 MSFC Furnished Ground Support Equipment
The S-IC stage mechanical and electrical Ground Support Equipment performed
satisfactorily during launch operations with only one minor system failure
encountered. At T-14 hours a gradual increase in GN2 primary pressure,
from 3540 to 3650 psig, was noted on the S-IC pneumatics console. Invest-
igation indicated possible internal leakage in the dome loading regulator
(P/N A9927). The regulator was replaced and the system retested satis-
factorily. Subsequent analysis of the removed regulator could not confirm
the failure. No further action is planned.
At T-I.156 seconds the DEE-6 began displaying erroneous data. This

condition existed until 1800 seconds when the problem cleared and the
output was normal. Permanent record data from magnetic tape was also
erroneous. It is suspected that the problem occurred in the "W" Time
Multiplex Communication Channel (I/0 Channel) since the only area affected
was outputting of data to magnetic tape and printers. The cause of failure
is unknown at this time, but is apparently due to launch vibration.
Blast damage to the equipment was considered minimal.
3-4
3.6.3 Camera Coverage
Upon review of the film coverage the following conditions were observed:
a. S-II stage intermediate SA No. 4 umbilical door (station 1772) did

not secure upon SA withdrawal from the vehicle.
b • S-II stage forward SA umbilical cover (between stringer 68 and 69)

did not secure upon SA withdrawal from the vehicle, This condition
also occurred during the AS-506 and AS-507 launches.
3-5/3-6
SECTION4
TRAJE
CTO
RY
4.1 SUMMARY
The vehicle was launched on an azimuth 90 degrees east of north. A roll

maneuver at 12.6 seconds placed the vehicle on a flight azimuth of
72.043 degrees east of north. The reconstructed trajectory was generated
by merging the ascent phase, the parking orbit phase, the injection phase,
and the post Translunar Injection (TLI) phase trajectories. The analysis
for each phase was conducted separately with appropriate end point
constraints to provide trajectory continuity. Available C-Band radar and
Unified S-Band (USB) tracking data plus telemetered guidance velocity data
were used in the trajectory reconstruction.
The trajectory parameters were close to nominal through S-IC and S-II
stage burns until the early shutdown of the S-II center engine. The
premature S-il Center Engine Cutoff (CECO)caused considerable deviations
for certain trajectory parameters. S-II Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO)
occurred 34.5 seconds late as a result of the early CECO. The S-IVB burn
time was extended by the guidance unit so that the vehicle achieved near
nominal earth parking orbit insertion conditions 44.07 seconds later than
predicted at a heading angle 1.230 degrees greater than nominal. The
trajectory parameters at TLI were also close to nominal although the event
itself was 13.56 seconds later than nominal. The trajectory parameters
at Command Service Module (CSM) separation deviated somewhat from nominal
since the event occurred 38.9 seconds later than predicted.
The earth impact locations for the S-IC and S-II stages were determined
by a theoretical free-flight simulation. The analysis for the S-IC
stage showed the surface range for the impact point to be 7.6 kilometers
(4.1 n mi) greater than nominal. The analysis for the S-II stage showed
the surface range for the impact point to be 8.6 kilometers (4.6 n mi)
greater than nominal.
4.2 TRAJECTORY
EVALUATION
4.2.1 Ascent Phase
The ascent phase spans the interval from guidance reference release through
parking orbit insertion. The ascent trajectory was established by using
4-I
telemetered guidance velocities as generating parameters to fit tracking
data from five C-Band stations and two S-Band stations. Approximately
20 percent of the tracking data were eliminated due to inconsistencies.
The launch phase portion of the ascent phase, (liftoff to approximately
20 seconds), was established by constraining integrated telemetered
guidance accelerometer data to the best estimate trajectory. The launch
phase trajectory was initialized from launch camera data.
Actual and nominal altitude, surface range, and crossrange 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. Actual and
nominal comparisons of total inertial accelerations are shown in Figure 4-3.
The maximumacceleration during S-IC burn was 3.83 g. The early shutdown
of the S-II center engine resulted in subsequent longer burns of the S-II
and S-IVB stages. These extended burn times compensated for the early
S-II CECOand the vehicle was inserted into a near nominal parking orbit.
Mach number and dynamic pressure are shown in Figure 4-4. These parameters
were calculated using meteorological data measured to an altitude of
80.5 kilometers (43.5 n mi). Above this altitude the measured data were
merged into the U. S. Standard Reference Atmosphere.
3000- 240' 1
Jltl 1 t
--ACTUAL
_S-IC OECO
------NOMINAL -- !
2500- 200" 1 __ _S-II OECO .X
_S-IVB FIRST ECO
(NOMINAL) .-_-_""-'--"
-- _S-IVB FIRST ECO-- _--_ /
E 2000- 160
11
(ACTUAL)
ALTITUDE_
'/ / //7
1500" uJ
r_
_
120
/ SURFACE RANGE ,,
/
m I000" < 80
/ ///
"-CROSS RANGE
500" t
40
J f ,
O"
'N _ g7
I00 200 300 400 500 600 700 80O
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 4-I. Ascent Trajectory Position Comparison
4-2
-r'--
o
D_ o t_
c-
ilLL I .....
-_,_ o
r..
_o
p.. - c-
0
i \,X 0
J
tJ_l
\k
m_mm_mv
"i',,,,, /
°i,,,-
' 1 _., (13
--._ _ _
_3 \ .J
-(._ o (1.; c.-
::::z (J 0
I i .o_ u_ rO u'} 03
_ / ! - rO u.i
I
_,_ /
f
I"\
N
0
•._
o
c_)
\ ,_,
b--
_ c-
I
t
...... _ _ <_:
e-" 4--_
!
o
eq ea _ _
o o
o o o o zslm 'NOIIV_31333V
_M
s/m 'A±I30]3A 03XI_-33VdS I
, _, "_ °r-
6 ' NOIIVa3"I333V
6ep '3]gNV HIVd IHgIl_
°r-
I.a_
3,5- 1
lJl
_ACTUAL
\ ------ NOMINAL
3.0" 12 _
Z
E
U
2,5- I0 L
DYNAMIC PRESSURE_
/ I
/
'"2.0" 8_
tY_
i,i
r_
_
(=)
1.5-
Z
-r-
6r
/
=E
J
j
1.0, a m
MACH NUMBER C
0.5"
/ J \
2_ _- J
J J \
J
I
0
0 20 40 60 80 lO0 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 4-4. Dynamic Pressure and Mach Number Comparisons
Actual and nominal values of parameters at significant trajectory event

times, cutoff events, and separation events are shown in Tables 4-I,
4-2, and 4-3, respectively.
The free-flight trajectories of the spent S-IC and S-II stages were
simulated using initial conditions from the final postflight trajectory.
The simulation was based upon the separation impulses for both stages
and nominal tumbling drag coefficients. No tracking data were available
for verification. Table 4-I presents a comparison of free-flight
parameters to nominal at apex for the S-IC and S-II stages. Table 4-4
presents a comparison of free-flight parameters to nominal at impact for
the S-IC and S-II stages.
4-4
Table 4-I. Comparison of Significant Trajectory Events
EVENT PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM
First Motion Range Time, sec 0.3 0.3 0.0
Total Inertial Acceleration, m/s2 I0,35 10.41 -0.06

(ft/s2) (34.15) (-0.19)
(g) (i.o6) (o.oo)
Mach 1 Range Time, sec 68.4 68.6 -0.2
Altitude, km 8.1 7.9 0.2

(n mi) (4.4) (4.3) (0.1)
Maximum Dynamic Pressure Range Time, sec 81.3 85.3 -4.0
Dynamic Pressure, N/cm2 3.12 3.23 -O.ll

(Ibf/ft2) (651.6) (674.6) (-23.0)
Altitude, km ]2.5 13.6 -I .1

(n mi) (6.7) (7.3) (-0.6)
Maximum Total Inertial

Acceleration: S-IC Range Time, sec 163.70 163.18 0.52
Acceleratioh, m/s 2 37.60 37.53 0.07

(ft/s2) (123.36) (123.13) (0.23)
(g) (3.83) (3.83) (o.oo)
S-ll Range Time, sec 537.00 463.09 73.91
Acceleration, m/s 2 16.25 17.65 -I .40

(ft/s2) (53.31) (-4.60)
(g) (1.66) (-0.14)
S-IVB Ist Burn Range Time, sec 750.00 705.84 44.16
Acceleration, m/s2 6.66- 6.53 0.13

(ft/sZ) (21.85) (21.42) (0.43)
(g) (0.68) (0.67) (o.o1)
S-IVB 2nd Burn Range Time, sec 9,697.23 9,683.67 13.56
Acceleration, m/s 2 14.03 13.89 0.14

(ft/s2) (46.03) (43.57) (0.46)
(g) (1.43) (1.42) (o.oi)
Maximum Earth-Fixed
Velocity: S-lC Range Time, sec 164.10 164.51 -0.41
Velocity, m/s 2,383.8 2,379.0 4.8

(ft/s) (7,820.9) (7,805.1) (15.8)
S-ll Range Time, sec 593.50 559.02 34.48
Velocity, m/s 6,492.7 6,558.5 -65.8

(ft/s) (21,301.5) (21,517.4) (-215.9)
S-IVB Ist Burn Range Time, sec 750.50 715.76 34.74
Velocity, m/s 7,389.3 7,389.5 -0.2

(ft/s) (24,243.1) (24,243.8) (-0.7)
S-IVB 2nd Burn Range Time, sec 9,697.80 9,683.80 14.00
Velocity, m/s 10,433.6 I0,429.8 3.8

(ft/s) (34,231.0) (34,218.5) (12.5)
271.7 270.3 1.4
Apex: S-IC Stage Range Time, sec
I16.9 I14.6 2.3
Altitude, km
(n mi) (63.1) (61.g) (I .2)
Surface Range, km 325.9 322.0 3.9

(n mi) (176.0) (173.9) (2.l)
632.2 600.3 31.9
S-II Stage Range Time, sec
190.7 189.4 1.3
Altitude, km
(n mi) (103.0) (102.3) (0.7)
2,035.0 1,919.7 I15.3

Surface Range, km
(n mi) (1,098.8) (1,036.6) (62.2)
NOTE: The Range Time used are times of occurrence at the vehicle,
reference Figure 2-I.
4-5
,)
Table 4-2. Comparison of Cutoff Events
PARAMETER i ACTUAL
I
NOMINAL I ACT-NOM
ACTUAL
S-IC OECO
NOMINAL
(ENGINE SOLENOID
ACT-NOM
S-IC CECO ENGINE SOLENOID)
135.27 -0.09 163.60 164.00 -0.40

Range Time, sec 135.18
66.5 0.9
43.5 42.6 0.9 67.4
Altitude, km (0.5)
(23.5) (23.0) (0.5) (36.4) (35.9)
(n mi)
94.2 0.2
44.9 44.3 0.6 94.4
Surface Range, km (50.9) (O.l)
(n mi) (24.2) (23.9) (0.3) (51.0)
13.1 2,744.0 2,739.9 4.1

Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 1,928.9 1,915.8
(6,285.4) (43.0) (9,002.6) (8,989.2) 03.4)
(ft/s) (6,328.4)
19.250 0.230
23.612 23.442 0.170 19.480
Flight Path Angle, deg
75.356 0.340
76. 609 76.369 0.240 75.696
Heading Angle, deg
0.3 0.7
0.5 0.I 0.4 l.O
Crossrange, km (0.3)
(O.l) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2)
(n mi ) (0.3)
i 15.4
8.1 23.4 8.0
II .l 3.0
Crossrange Velocity, m/s (26.2) (50.6)
(ft/s) (36.4) (9.8) (26.6) (76.8)
S-ll CECO (ENGINE SOLENOID) S-II OECO (ENGINE SOLENOID
.132.37 592.64 558.11 34.53

330.64 463.01
Range Time, sec
-19.8 189.1 187.6 1.5
159.6 179.4
Altitude, km (lO1.3) (0.8)
(86.2) (96.9) (-I0.7) 002.1)
(n mi)
1,786.4 1,651.7 134.7
552.0 1,105.1 -553.1
Surface Range, km (891.8) (72.8)
(298.l) (596.7) (-298.6) (964.6)
(n mi)
6,891.8 6,958.6 -66.8

3,919.6 5,652.5 -1,732.9
Space-Fixed Velocity, mls (22,830.1) (-219.2)
12,859,6) 18,544.9) -5,685.3) (22,610.9)
(ft/s)
3.264 O.657 0.699 -0.042

Flight Path Angle, deg 4.158 0.894
~2.620 83.348 82.565 0.783

Heading Angle, deg 76.956 79.576
32.0 27.1 4.9

6.4 13.7 -7.3
Crossrange, km (14.6) (2.7)
(3.5) (7.4) (-3.9) (17.3)
(n mi)
-64.3 183.2 176.8 6.4
Crossrange Velocity, m/s 44.7 I09.0
(601.0) (580.1) (20.9)
(ft/s) (146.7) (357.6) (-210.9)
IGNAL S-IVB 2ND GUIDANCE CUTOFF SIGNAL

S-IVB 1ST GUIDANCE CUTOFF
44.07 9,697.15 9,683.59 13.56

749.83 705.76
Range Time, sec
324.0 328.4 -4.4
191.6 191.4 0.2
Altitude, km (174.9) (177.3) (_2.4)
(103.5) (103.3) (0.2)
(n mi)
2,840.2 2,646.8 193.4

Surface Range, km
(1,533.6) (1,429.2) (104.4)
(nmi)
10,836.6 2.9
7,791.4 -0.6 I0,839.5
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 7,790.8 (9.6)
25,562,3) ( -1.9) (35,562.7) (35,553.1)
(ft/s) 25,560.4)
7.182 7.224 -0.042

0.004 -O.OOl 0.005
59.443 59.425 0.018
89.713 88.484 ] .229
Heading Angle, deg
69.3 60.2 9.1

Crossrange, km
(37.4) (32.5) (4.9)
(n mi)
297.0 275.6 21.4

Crossrange Velocity, m/s
(ft/s) (974.4) (904.2) (70.2)
0.9758 0.9760 -0.0002

Eccentricity
-1,463,628 -1,447,169 j -16,459
C3, , m2/s 2
-15,754,361)
(ft2/s 2) -15,577,197) J(-177,164)
31.818
Inclination, deg 31.834 J -0.016
122.996
Descending Node, deg 123.030 J. -0.034
NOTE: The Range Times used are times of occurrence at the vehicle,
*C3 is twice the specific energy of orbit
C3 = V2 .
where V = Inertial Velocity

: Gravitational Constant
R = Radlus Vector FrOm Center of Earth
4-6
Table 4-3. Comparison of Separation Events
T
PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL J ACT-NOM
S-IC/S-II SEPARATION
Range Time, sec 164.3 164.7 -0.4
68.0 67.2 0.8

Altitude, km
(n mi) (36.7) (36.3) (0.4)
96.0 95.7 0.3

Surface Range, km
(n mi) (51.8) (51.7) (O.l)
2,754.3 2,749.5 4.8

Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s
(ft/s) (9,036.4) (9,020.7) (15.7)
19.383 19.145 0.238

75.693 75.353 0.340

Heading Angle, deg
1.0 0.3 0.7

Crossrange, km_
(O.5) (0.2) (0.3)
(n mi)
23.6 8.2 15.4

(ft/s) (77.4) (26.9) (50.5)
28.864 28.869 -0.005

Geodetic Latitude, deg N
-79.666 -79.670 0.004

Longitude, deg E
S-II/S-IVB SEPARATION
593.5 559.0 34.5

Range Time, sec
189.2 187.7 1.5

Altitude, km
(n mi) (I02.2) (101.3) (0.9)
1,791.8 1,657.5 134.3

Surface Range, km
(967.5) (895.0) (72.5)
(n mi)
6,961.6 -65.7
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 6,895.9
(ft/s) (22,624.3) (22,839.9) (-215.6)
0.650 0.689 -0.039

83.380 82.599 0.781

Heading Angle, deg
32.2 27.3 4.9

Crossrange, km
(17.4) (14.7) (2.7)
(n mi)
183.7 177.3 6.4

(ft/s) (602.7) (581.7) (21.0)
32.087 31.940 0.147

-62.380 -63.791 I .411

Longitude, deg E
S-IVB/CSM SEPARATION
11,198.9 II ,160.0 38.9

Range Time, sec
6,866.8 131.1
Altitude, km 6,997.9
(3,778.6) (3,707.8) (70.8)
(n mi )
7,628.9 7,667.7 -38.8

Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s
(ft/s) (25,029.2) (25,156.5) (-127.3)
45.030 44.741 0.289

72.315 71.988 0,327

Heading Angle, deg
26.952 26.764 0.188

-129.677 -I 30.188 0.511

Longitude, deg E
4-7
J
Table 4-4. Stage Impact Location
PARAMETER ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM
S-IC STAGE IMPACT
546.9 544,3 2.6

Range Time, sec
658.0 650.4 7,6

Surface Range, km
(n mi) (355.3) (351,2) (4.1)
12.1 7.3 4.8

Crossrange, km
(n mi) (6.5) (3.9) (2.6)
30.177 30.197 -0.020

-74.065 -74.153 0.088

Longitude, deg E
S-II STAGE IMPACT
1,258.1 1,241.4 16.7

Range Time, sec
4,533.7 8.6
Surface Range, km 4,542.3
(2,452.6) (2,448.0) (4.6)
(n mi)
150.1 149.1 1.0

Crossrange, km
(n mi) (81.0) (80.5) (0.5)
31.320 31.316 0.004
-33.289 -33.383 0.094

Longitude, deg E
4.2.2 Parking Orbit Phase
Orbital tracking data for six passes was obtained from four C-Band
stations and one S-Band station of the NASA Manned Space Flight Network.
The parking orbit trajectory was calculated by integrating corrected

insertion conditions forward to 8950 seconds. The insertion conditions,
as determined by the Orbital Correction Program, were obtained by a
differential correction procedure which adjusted the estimated insertion
conditions to fit the tracking data in accordance with the weights assigned
to the data. The venting model, utilized to fit the tracking data, was
derived from telemetered guidance velocity data from the ST-124M-3
guidance platform.
The actual and nominal parking orbit insertion parameters are presented
in Table 4-5. The ground track from insertion to S-IVB/CSM separation
is given in Figure 4-5.
4-8
Table 4-5. Parking Orbit Insertion Conditions
ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM

PARAMETER
759.83 715.76 44.07

Range Time, sec
191.6 191.4 0.2

Altitude, km
(103.5) (103.3) (0.2)
(n mi)
7,793.0 -0.5
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s 7,792.5
(25,565.9) (25,567.6) (-I .7)
(ft/s)
0.005 0.000 0.005

90.148 88.918 1.230

Heading A_gle, deg
32.525 32.539 -0.014

Inclination, deg
123.084 123.125 -0.041

Descending Node, deg
0.0001 0.0000 0.0001

Eccentricity
185.7 185.2 0.5

Apogee*, km
(I00.3) (100.0) (O.3)
(n mi)
183.9 185.1 -I .2
Perigee*, km
(99.3) (99.9) (-0.6)
(n mi)
88.19 88.19 0.00

Period, min
32.694 32.692 0.002

-50.490 -52.552 2.062

Longitude, deg E
*Based on a spherical earth of radius 6,378.165 km (3,443.934 n mi).
® FIRST REVOLUTION SECOND REVOLUTION

8O
c
S-IVB/CSM
/SEPARATION k
f I I _ml _,_
INSERTIONx r,-
:
4c "_'_
--Q
j
-(ST_V i
O_EN;
INJECTION ._ It _ • _...._ ..
_ 20
j.
"7
__
,,..I
O
®, ,, '?
2G
4C
j/"
_'TIME B'ASE 69'
6C
I
2O 4O 60 80 I00 120 140 160 80 160 40 20 I00 80 60 40 20 0
LONGITUDE, (leg
Figure 4-5. Ground Track
4-9
4.2.3 Injection Phase
The injection phase trajectory was generated by the integration of the

telemetered guidance accelerometer data. These accelerometer data were
initialized from a parking orbit state vector at 8950 seconds and were
constrained to a state vector at TLI obtained from the post TLI trajectory.
There were no tracking data available during S-IVB second burn.
Comparisons between the actual and nominal space-fixed velocity and

flight path angle are shown in Figure 4-6. The actual and nominal total
inertial acceleration comparisons are presented in Figure 4-7. The
space-fixed velocity and flight path angle were greater than nominal with
deviations more noticeable towards the end of the time period, The actual
and nominal targeting parameters at S-IVB second guidance cutoff are
presented in Table 4-2.
16, II, E
i t
14" 10,800- i
i
i !
I i ! T
12'
I0-
10,400-
I0,000-
----_
.....
i
J_--
L
! Ii
i
4----_7
| |
I
--
_
S-IVB
(STDV
ACTUAL
NOMINAL
ENGIN E IGNITION
OPEN)
TRANSLUNAR INJECTION
__
/
8- 9600-
I I I
6- o 9200 L i I
4" x 8800' .....4-4-----4---

I
-J
L_ | , L
2- m 8400
', t
O- 8000- i '
It /
-2- 7600
i i
0 I00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 I000
SECONDS
TIME FROM T 6, _7
I I I _ _ I I ___
2:26:00 2:29:00 2:32:00 2:35:00 2:38:00 2:41:00
Figure 4-6. Injection Phase Space-Fixed Velocity and Flight

Path Angle Comparisons
4-10
1,6 1
1.4
Io2,
1.0.
_'Jul
.0.8-
0.4"
0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 lO00

I00
TIME FROM T 6, SECONDS
I i _-_
2:26:00 2:29:00 2:32:00 2;35:00 2:38:00 2:41:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS'MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 4-7. Injection Phase Acceleration Comparison
4.2.4 Post TLI Phase
The post TLI trajectory spans the interval from translunar injection to
S-IVB/CSM separation. Tracking data from three C-Band stations and
three S-Band stations were utilized in the reconstruction of this
trajectory segment. The post TLI trajectory reconstruction utilizes the
same methodology as outlined in paragraph 4,2.2. The actual and nominal
translunar injection conditions are compared in Table 4-6. The S-IVB/CSM
separation conditions are presented in Table 4-3.
4-11
Table 4-6. Translunar Injection Conditions
Range Time, sec 9,707.15 9,693.59 13.56
Altitude, km 337.9 342.4 -4.5

(n mi) (182.5) (184.9) (-2.4)
Space-Fixed Velocity, m/s I0,832.1 10,828.4 3.7

(ft/s) (35,538.4) (35,526.2) (12.2)
Flight Path Angle, deg 7.635 7.676 -0.041
Heading Angle, deg 59.318 59.299 0.019
Inclination, deg 31.817 31.833 -0.016
Descending Node, deg 122.997 123.031 -0.034
Eccentricity 0.9772 0.9772 0.0000
C3, m2/s 2 -1,376,274 -I,376,265 -9
(ft2/s 2) (-14,814,090) (-l4,813,993) (-97)
reference Figure 2-I
4-12
SECTION4A
LUNARIMPACT
4A.I SUMMARY
All aspects of the S-IVB/IU Lunar Impact objective were accomplished

successfully except the precise determination of impact point. The
final impact solution is expected to satisfy the mission objective.
At 280,599.7 +_0.I seconds (77:56:39.7) vehicle time the S-IVB/IU
impacted the lunar surface at approximately 2.5 +_0.5 degrees south
latitude and 27.9 +0.I degrees west longitude, which is approximately
65.5 +7.8, -4.8 kilometers (35.4 +4.2, -2.6 n mi) from the target of
3 degrees south latitude and 30 degrees west longitude. Impact
velocity was 2579 m/s (8461 ft/s). The mission objectives were to
maneuver the S-IVB/IU such that it would have at least a 50 percent
probability of impacting the lunar surface within 350 kilometers
(189 n mi) of the target, and to determine the actual impact point
within 5 kilometers (2.7 n mi) and the time of impact within 1 second.
Preliminary results of the seismic experiment indicate that the S-IVB/

IU impact signal was 20 to 30 times greater in amplitude and four times
longer in duration than the Apollo 12 Lunar Module (LM) impact.
4A.2 TIME BASE8 MANEUVERS
The Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) evasive burn, Continuous Vent Sys-
tem (CVS) vent, LOXdump, and APS lunar impact burn occurred as planned
and were close to nominal. Following CSM/LMejection, the vehicle was
maneuvered to an inertially fixed attitude as required for the evasive
APS burn. After the evasive attitude was attained, Time Base 8 (T_) was
initiated 239.3 seconds later than nominal at 15,479.4 seconds (04T17:59.4)
and the APSullage engines burned for 80 seconds to provide the required
spacecraft/launch vehicle separation velocity. At 16,060.0 seconds
(04:27:40.0), the stage maneuvered to the CVS/LOXdumpattitude. The
initial lunar targeting velocity change was accomplished by meansof a
300-second duration CVSvent and 48-second duration LOXdump. The S-IVB/
IU was targeted to a lunar impact of 9.0 degrees south latitude and
72.3 degrees west longitude (selenographic coordinates); however, this
impact point was not sufficiently close to the desired target. A maneuver
consisting of an attitude change and an APSullage engine burn to occur
at 21,600 seconds (06:00:00), in order to improve the targeting, was
4A-I
defined at approximately 18,000 seconds (05:00:00) at the Huntsville
Operations Support Center (HOSC). The maneuver was based on a post-
Translunar Injection (TLI) tracking vector sent from the Mission
Control Center (MCC)and received at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)
prior to T8 as planned. The maneuver considered actual event times and
velocity increments of the APSevasive burn, CVSvent and LOXdump. The
velocity increments were obtained in real-time by telemetered acceler-
ometer measurements. At 19,200 seconds (05:20:00), the maneuver command
was transmitted to MCC,and at 20,887 seconds (05:48:07), the command
was uplinked to the IU. The S-IVB/IU maneuvered -I degree in pitch and
-3 degrees in yaw. The resulting attitude was 182 degrees in pitch and
-8 degrees in yaw, referenced to the local horizontal system. At this
attitude and at approximately 21,600 seconds (06:00:00), the APSullage
engines burned for a duration of 217 seconds, as commanded.
At 27,900 seconds (07:45:00) a tracking vector, which included data

subsequent to the 217-second APS burn, was sent from the MCCto MSFC
as planned. This vector was integrated out to lunar distance and indi-
cated that the stage would impact the moonwithin 200 kilometers
(108 n mi) of the desired target. This vector indicated that no addi-
tional targeting maneuvers would be required to assure that the spent
stage would have at least a 50 percent probability of impacting within
a 350-kilometer (189-n mi) radius of the target.
Tracking vectors were received at reguiar intervals, and indicated that

the S-IVB/IU would impact approximately 200 kilometers (108 n mi) south-
west of the target site. At 70,150 seconds (19:29:10), a shift was ob-
served in range rate tracking data a_d was interpreted as a velocity
change due to a propulsive force acting on the spent stage. This
velocity change is discussed in paragraph 10.4.4. Figure 4A-I shows a
decrease in range rate of approximately 2 to 3 m/s (7 to I0 ft/s)
beginning at 70,150 seconds (19:29:10). The decrease in range rate
lasted approximately 60 seconds. The projected impact location of all
subsequent tracking vectors out to actual lunar impact were slightly
east of the target. The velocity change altered the predicted lunar
impact point approximately 5 degrees in latitude, 150 kilometers
(81 n mi), closer to the target. Analysis of the projected impact
points before and after the unscheduled velocity change indicates that
a velocity change of approximately 2.5 m/s (8.2 ft/s) at an attitude
of 181 degrees pitch and -33 degrees yaw would cause an identical
perturbation to the translunar trajectory. It should be noted that
this is a representative perturbation effect and that there exists a
family of such perturbations that would result in the same impact
conditions. However, if the velocity change had occurred in less
favorable directions the stage would not have impacted within the
prescribed limits.
Table 4A-I shows the actual and nominal velocity increments along the
S-IVB/IU longitudinal body axis. Figure 4A-2 shows the velocity change
4A-2
1470
OOQ •
• o 6 ..oo oe
1468
• I
I MADRID DATA
E
I"
f--
I
r_
1466 t
I,I
I
r_
I • _e
1464 I
1462
2156
2154
I GUAM DATA
I
I
2152 I"
I
t/1 I
E I
2150 I I-
W
I
I I
L_
C_O I I
Z I
I
r_
2148 I I
I
i I
I I
2146 ! I
70,100 70,200 70,300 70,400 70,500
69, )00 70,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I i I I I I I I I i
19:30:00 19:35:00
19:25:00
Figure 4A-I. S-IVB/IU Unscheduled Velocity Change
4A-3
Table 4A-I. Comparison of Time Base 8 Velocity Increments
APSEvasive Burn (80 seconds 2.98 2.90 0.08

duration), m/s (ft/s) (9.78) (9.51) (0.27)
CVSVent (300 seconds 0.44 0.50 -0.06

duration), m/s (ft/s) (1.44) (1,64) (-O.2O)
LOXDump(48 seconds 8.73 8.30 0.43

duration), m/s (ft/s) (28.64) (27.23) (l.41)
APSLunar Impact Burn 9.12 9.21" -0.09"*

(217 seconds duration), (29.92) (30.22) (-O.3O)
m/s (ft/s)
*Based on actual velocity increments from APS evasive burn, CVS, and
LOX dump. Calculated in Real-Time.
**Actual -Cal cu I ated.
24 T
GROUND
I COMMANDEDAPS
ACTUAL [ I_
NOMINAL
20 REAL-TIME CALCULATED--
E m __
t
I
cz_ r
i
z
NOMINAL,'F"I I "- LOX DUMP
16
0
_J
> 12
I_ CVS
I
I II
r I
'
I
I
]I,
NOTE: NEW NOMINAL
'I
t.--
8 1CALCULATED BASED ON
V----
ACTUAL APS EVASIVE
.J I I
BUPJq, CVS AND LOX
l_- APS I
L_ EVASIVE I DUMP VELOCITY
F"-
I INCREMENTS
L
J 4
UVER
0 4OO 800 1200 1600 2000 6000 6400 6800 7200

TIME IN TIME BASE 8, SECONDS
Z I I I I
04:1_:59.4 04:31:19.4 04:44:39.4 05:46:59.4 06:11:19.4
Figure 4A-2. Accumulated Longitudinal Velocity Change During Time Base 8
4A-4
profile during T8. Table 4A-2 shows the actual and nominal attitudes at
which the various events during T8 were performed. The difference between
the actual and nominal attitudes Tor the APSlunar impact burn is the
magnitude of the commandedmaneuver at 20,887 seconds (05:48:07).
4A.3 TRAJECTORY
EVALUATION
Figure 4A-3 shows the radius and space-fixed velocity (earth centered)
profiles from the APSlunar impact burn to lunar impact. Table 4A-3
shows the actual and nominal orbit parameters following the unscheduled
velocity change. The orbit parameters are two-body calculations. The
orbit parameters indicate a slightly lower energy orbit than nominal
which is consistent with the actual impact location being further east
than the target site. An increasing underspeed condition causes the
impact point to move in a west to east direction.
4A.4 LUNARIMPACTCONDITION
Figure 4A-4 shows various impact points relative to the target and
seismometer locations. There are three significant comparisons to be
madefrom this figure. First, comparison of the impact point of the
TLI IU state vector (with actual velocity increments modeled through
the APS lunar impact burn) with the projected impact site, prior
to the unscheduled velocity change, shows the approximate projected
error in the IU state vector at TLI. Second, comparison of the impact
Table 4A-2. Comparison of Attitude Time Line, Time Base 8

EVENT
PITCH YAW PITCH YAW PITCH YAW
APS Evasive Burn, deg 176 40 176 40 0 0

183 -5 183 -5 0 0
CVSVent, deg
183 -5 183 -5 0 0
LOXDump, deg
APS Lunar Impact But'n, deg 182 -8 183 -5 -l -3
NOTE: Attitudes referenced to Local Horizontal System.
4A-5
400,000
350,000
J
300,000
RADIUS FROM EARTH
I
250,000
="
!
200,000
o
150,000 <
J
E
SPACE-FIXED VELOCITY
lO0,O00
50,000
0 0
21,600 50,400 79,200 I08,000 136,800 165,600 194,400 223,200 252,000 280,800
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I i I I I l
06:00:00 14:00:00 22:00:00 30:00:00 38:00:00 46:00:00 54:00:00 62:00:00 70:00:00 78:00:00
RANGETIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 4A-3. Lunar Impact Trajectory Radius and Space-Fixed
Velocity Profiles
point, prior to the unscheduled velocity change, with the target site
shows the actual miss distance due to real-time targeting. Third, a
comparison of the actual impact point with the target and seismometer
locations illustrates actual miss distances. The miss distances with
other impact parameters are shown in Table 4A-4. A summary of impact
times recorded by the various tracking sites is shown in Table 4A-5.
The average of the recorded times was used as the best available time of
impact, and is considered accurate to within O.l second.
Preliminary results of the seismic experiment are that the overall

characteristic of the seismic signal due to S-IVB/IU impact is similar
to that of the Apollo 12 LM impact signal. The S-IVB/IU signal was 20
to 30 times greater in amplitude and four times longer in duration
(approximately 4 hours versus 1 hour) than the Apollo 12 LM impact.
A period of 30 seconds elapsed between time of impact and arrival of
4A-6
Table 4A-3. Comparison of Orbit Parameters After the Unscheduled Delta V

PARAMETER
266,092 267,411 -1319

Semimajor Axis, km
(n mi) (143,678) (144,390) (-712)
O.97585 0.97605 -0.00020

Eccen tri city
31.8317 31.8498 -0.0181
Inclination, deg*
-1,497,990 -1,490,600 -739O
C3, m2/s 2
(-16,124,162) (-16,044,617) (-79,545)
(ft2/s 2)
170.1472 170.1475 -0.0003
Right Ascension of Ascending
Node, deg
249.655 248.623 1.032
Argument of Perigee, deg
47 25 22
Perigee Altitude, km
(25) (13) (12)
(n mi)
519,381 522,040 -2659
Apogee Altitude, km
(280,443) (281,879) (-1436)
(n mi)
*Referenced to earth's equatorial plane.
ACTUAL
0
IMPACT
SITE
i,i
TLI IU STATE VECTOR

Q
-4 TARGET SEI SMOMETER--
<_g
0 PROJECTEDIMPACT
,,i SITE PRIOR TO
-8 UNSCHEDULED
VELOCITY CHANGE
-12
-36 -32 -28 -24 -2O
-48 -44 -4(
SELENOGRAPHICLONGITUDE, deg
Figure 4A-4. Compari son of Projected Lunar Impact Points
4A-7
Table 4A-4. S-IVB/IU Lunar Impact Parameters
PARAMETERAT IMPACT ACTUAL NOMINAL ACT-NOM
13,426" 13,395 31
Stage Mass, _bm) (29,599)* (29,532) {67)
Moon Centered Space-Fixed Velocity, 2579 2580 -I

m/s (ft/s) (8461) (8464) (-3)
Path Angle Measured from Local 13.2 12.0 1.2

Vertical, deg
Heading Angle (North to West), deg 100.6 lO0.O 0.6
Tumble Rate, deg/s 121" N.A. N.A.
Selenographic West Longitude, deg 27.9 +0.I 30.0 -2.1 _+0.1
Selenographic South Latitude, deg 2.5 +0.5 3.0 -0.5 _+0.5
Impact Time, HR:MIN:SEC** 77:56:39.7 77:45:00 00:11:39.7
Distance to Target, km 65.5 +7.8 0 +7.8

(n mi) -4.8 65.5 -4.8
(35.4 +4"21 (o) (35.4 +4.2_

-2.61 -2.61
Distance to Seismometer, km 0
139.1 +5.4 139.1 +5.4
(n mi) -3.8 -3.8
(o) (75.1 +2.9_
(75.I +2._)
-2. -2.11
*Stage dry weight - all residual propellants assumed dissipated.

**Actual time (Signal delay time = 1.323 sec).
the seismic wave at the seismometer. Peak intensity of the seismometer

signal occurred approximately 450 seconds after impact. In addition
to the seismic data, the Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment (SIDE)
recorded an increase in the ion count 22 seconds after impact.
A more accurate determination of the impact location and related analyses

is continuing.
4A.5 TRACKING
Approximately 75 hours of S-IVB/1U tracking data, from TLI to lunar

impact, were obtained. Prior to activating the LM communication system,
both Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC)
4A-8
Table 4A-5. Summary of Lunar Impact Times
TRACKING STATION RECORDED IMPACT TIME, HR:MIN:SEC

GREENWICH MEAN TIME RANGE TIME
APRIL 15, 1970
Madrid 01:09:41.025 77:56:41.025
Ascension 01:09:41.04 77:56:41.04
GSFC (ETC 3) 01:09:41.01 77:56:41.01
Goldstone 01:09:41.02 77:56:41.02
Hawaii 01:09:41.015 77:56:41.015
MILA 01:09:41.026 77:56:41.026
Average 01:09:41.023 77:56:41.023
NOTE: Signal Delay Time = 1.323 sec
Actual Impact Time = 77:56:39.7 ±0.I sec
monitored and analyzed the data in real-time; however, after the CSM
problem began, only GSFC continued to analyze real-time data and pro-
vide tracking vectors. Figure 4A-5 shows the data considered by GSFC
in the orbit and impact location determinations. Table 4A-6 lists the
tracking sites, their configuration sizes, and abbreviations used.
An increase in the spent stage tumble rate after the unscheduled velocity
change caused the range rate data to be relatively noisy, which hindered
an accurate determination of the actual impact point to date. There
was a temporary tracking frequency conflict between the LM and IU which
resulted in the loss of some tracking data. The frequency conflict
was solved by driving the IU frequency off-center in order to differ-
entiate between the LM and IU signals, as discussed in paragraph 15.6.
The final solution of the actual impact coordinates are expected to be
accurate to within 0.I0 degree in latitude, and 0.05 degree in longi-
tude which is within approximately 3.4 kilometers (1.8 n mi).
4A-9
2-WAY
F-_ 3-WAY *DUAL MODE
I
...J
C)
7200 21,600 36,000 50,400 64,800 79,200 93,600 I08,000 122,400 136,800 151,200 165,600 180,000 194,400 208,800 223,200 237,600 252,000 266,400 280,800
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I ! I i, I I | I I I I P ! I I I I I I l
02:00:00 06:00:00 I0:00:00 14:00:00 18:00:00 22:00:00 26:00:00 30:00:00 34:00:00 38:00:00 42:00:00 46:00:00 50:00:00 54:00:00 58:00:00 62:00:0(_ 66:00:00 70:00:00 74:00:00 78:00:00
Figure 4A-5. Summary of CCS Tracking Data Used for Post-TLI

Orbit Determination
Table 4A-6. S-IVB/IU CCS Tracking Network
CONFIGURATION ABBREVIATION
STATION
Main Site - 85 ft dish MAD

Madrid, Spain
MADX
Wing Site - 85 ft dish
Main Site - 85 ft dish HSK

Honeysuckle Creek,
Wing Site - 85 ft dish HSKX
Aus tra I i a
Main Site - 85 ft dish GDS

Golds tone,
Wing Site - 85 ft dish GDSX
Cal i forni a
30 ft dish MIL
Merri tt Island,
F1 ori da
30 ft dish CYI
Canary Island
30 ft dish ACN
Ascension Island
30 ft dish CRO
Carnarvon,
Austral i a
30 ft dish GWM
Guam Island
30 ft dish HAW
Hawaii
30 ft dish GYM
Guaymas, Mexi co
30 ft dish TEX
Corpus Christi,
Texas
30 ft dish ETC 3
Goddard Experimental
Test Center
4A-II/4A-12
SECTION5
S-IC PROPULSION
5.1 SUMMARY
All S-IC propulsion systems performed satisfactorily and the propulsion

performance level was very close to predicted. Stage site thrust (averaged
from liftoff to Outboard Engine Cutoff [OECO]) was 0.26 percent higher
than predicted. Total propellant consumption rate was 0.06 percent higher
than predicted with the total consumedMixture Ratio (MR) 0.24 percent
higher than predicted. Specific impulse was 0.20 percent higher than
predicted. Total propellant consumption from Holddown Arm (HDA) release
to OECOwas low by 0.06 percent.
Center Engine Cutoff (CECO)was initiated by the Instrument Unit (IU) at

135.18 seconds as planned. Outboard engine cutoff, initiated by LOX low
level sensors, occurred at 163.60 seconds which was 0.40 second earlier
than predicted. This is a small difference compared to the predicted
3-sigma limits of +5.58, -3.89 seconds. The LOXresidual at OECOwas
38,921 Ibm compared to the predicted 39,403 Ibm. The fuel residual at
OECOwas 27,573 Ibm compared to the predicted 31,957 Ibm.
There were three unplanned events that occurred during the S-IC countdown
and boost, although they did not cause launch delay or problems during
flight. These events were:
a. LOXtank vent and relief valve temporarily stuck open during countdown.
b. The planned I-2-2 start sequence was not attained.
c. Engine No. 2 LOXpumpbearing jet pressure exhibited unexpected shifts

and operated at a higher level than predicted.
S-IC hydraulic system performance was normal throughout the flight.
5.2 S-IC IGNITIONTRANSIENTPERFORMANCE
The fuel pumpinlet preignition pressure was 45.7 psia and within F-I
Engine Model Specification limits of 43.5 to II0 psia.
The LOXpumpinlet preignition pressure and temperature were 82.5 psia

and -285.1°F and were within the F-I Engine Model Specification limits, as
shown in Figure 5-I.
5-I
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia
60 8O I00 120 140 160 18O
.-265
PREDICTED
STARTING -
REGION
•-275 ou_
o !
I
L_J
(3_c I
I-..-
I
ACTUAL
I " 97.0°K (-_85 I°F)
56.9 N/cm L (82.5)sia) I. --285
I-- !
!
I I -_
I I
H
I I
I
c_. --295
L_ I
x
11 mJ
3
__ ACCEPTABLE
STARTING
REGION -- 305
I I
.0 ;0. 7 0 1 _O
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, N/cm2
Figure 5-1. S-IC LOX Start Box Requirements
The planned I-2-2 sta, rt was not attained since engines No. 2 and 4 combus-
tion chamber pressures did not reach I00 psig within the desired lO0-milli-
second time period. See Figure 5-2. Engine No. 4 reached I00 psig chamber
pressure 0.303 second slower than predicted and 0.317 second later than
engine No. 2, resulting in a I-2-I-I start. Structurally, a I-2-2 start
is desired for minimizing the start and liftoff dynamics caused by thrust
buildup of the engines. Each F-I engine has distinctive starting charac-
teristics requiring individually programed start signals in order to
minimize the dispersions in achieving the planned start sequence. Deter-
mination of start signal presettings is one objective of static firing
the S-IC stage. Engine No. 4 was replaced after the stage static firing.
Consequently, only single engine firing data for engine No. 4 was available
for determining the start signal presetting. It is well known that pre-
settings based only on single engine firings are inaccurate, therefore the
AS-508 I-2-I-I start was not unexpected. The I-2-I-I start caused no
problems.
5-2
7,0"
_.._-_--=_ _ _ _ _"::"'--_
_ .5o
I. ,-- .- f, /
/ I ./
6,0"
/t /
/ "' ! .25
5,0' ENGINE NO. 5--,_ _/'
/ ....
/
/ fENGINE NO. 4
.oo
Z / ! i
O
4.0 f:' I #
0
ENGINE NO. I-- / ! I--ENGINE
NO.2 _2
' ,7
! i
i.75 m
e_
!
== 3.0 b.-
F--
/ i
/ ; / I /
_I--ENGINE
. , NO. 3
).50
2.0- m 2
/
//' !Y l Li ).25
1.0
:_ I i"
/ . , ;
0
-4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -I.0 -0.5 0
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 5-2. S-IC Engines Thrust Buildup
5.3 S-IC MAINSTAGE PERFORMANCE
S-IC stage propulsion performance was very close to the predicted level,
as shown in Figure 5-3. The stage site thrust (averaged from range time
zero to OECO) was 0.26 percent higher than predicted.
Total propellant consumption rate was 0.06 percent higher than predicted
and the total consumed propellant MR was 0.24 percent higher than predicted.
The specific impulse was 0.20 percent higher than predicted. Total
propellant consumption from HDA release to OECO was low by 0.06 percent.
For comparison of F-I engine flight performance with predicted performance,

the flight performance has been analytically reduced to standard conditions
and compared to the predicted performance which is based on ground firings
and also reduced to standard conditions. These values are shown in
Table 5-I at the 35 to 38-second time slice. Individual engine deviations
from predicted thrust ranged from 0.199 percent lower (engine No. 2) to
0.397 percent higher (engine No. 3). Individual engine deviations from
specific impulse ranged from 0.038 percent lower (engines No. 2, 4, and 5)
to 0.038 percent higher (engines No. 1 and 3).
5-3
s/wq[ vOL '31VUMO73 ]9VIS mq[Is-$q[ _OE ']SlfldNI 315133dS 39V15
co u_ m
_ e4 e.i
3_
\
\
\ o
(J
E
\
",'x
\
f..
¢7
o
,r'-
m
l %
c._
o
N
N N N N
_ _ _ ,.2 £3_
6_/s-N EOt ']slnawI 31aiD]as 39VIS
s/B_ _Ot '31VUMO13 39VIS
sq[ 90[ 'ISflUH1 39V15
(f--
\,
i',
____. t_
I
\\ .o! °r-"
Ix.
\
\ I o
\ !
cm
w
i\i'
\\
I.
z_
oc)
_uJ
l!
oo
uJw
uo
OIIV'8 3unlxIW 73h3/XO7

N 9Or 'ISN_HI 39V15
5-4
Table 5-I. S-IC Individual Engine Performance
RECONSTRUCTION DEVIATION AVERAGE

ENGINE PREDICTED ANALYSIS PERCENT DEVIATION
PARAMETER
PERCENT
1514 1520 O. 396

Thrust,
103 Ibf 1504 1501 -0.199
1510 1516 O. 397 0.053
1516 1513 -0.198
1512 1510 -0.132
264.5 264.6 0.038

Specific Impulse,
Ibf-s/Ibm 264.9 264.8 -0.038
264.8 264.9 0.038 -0.008
266.0 265.9 -0.038
264.7 264.6 -0.038
Total Flowrate 5724 5746 0.384

5680 5670 -0.176
Ibm/s
5702 5722 0.351 0.052
5698 5689 -0.158
5713 5705 -0.140
Mixture Ratio 2.272 2.268 -0.176

2.256 2.255 -0.044
LOX/Fuel
2.260 2.257 -0.133 -0.088
2.261 2.260 -0.044
2.242 2.241 -0.045
NOTE: Performance levels were reduced to standard sea level and pump inlet conditions.
Data was taken from the 35 to 38-second time slice.
Engine No. 2 (S/N F2058) LOX pump bearing jet pressure stabilized initially
at 468 psia, approximately 88 psi higher than that demonstrated during
acceptance and stage static tests. At I0 seconds, the jet pressure sharply
increased 48 psi to a level of 516 psia and remained stable at that level
until 88 seconds, at which time it sharply decayed 78 psi and remained
stable at a pressure of approximately 438 psia until OECO. At no time did
the pressure exceed the ground test redline value of 555 psia, see
Figure 5-4.
The F-I turbopump has three shaft bearings. Each bearing is cooled during
operation by fuel which is routed from the fuel pump discharge volute,
through the bearing coolant valve which filters the fuel and reduces fuel
pressure to the desired level and then through three jets, for each
bearing, which direct the fuel onto the bearing surfaces.
5-5
800
l
5OO
i
I
I xIMuM
P RFO,R I I
IMIT
I NCE
400
I -600
/---,PREDICTED MAXIMUM
>,.\_, N\N N",_ '_\\ '_\"q. n_
300 vl
-400
I.J_l ....... _ AS-508 FLIG__HT__

_DA_/TAJ ...... c_
_n 200
\ -- PREDICTED MINIMUM
I
!
-200
I00
_-J MiNiMUM' PERFORMANCELIMIT I
0_ i
I',1 L .0
; L I
!
L L
: ! I
t i
i
-20 0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 160 180 200
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Fi gure 5-4. F-I LOX Pump Bearing Jet Pressure, Engine No. 2
The bearing jet pressure changes, experienced by engine No. 2, were

probably due to contaminant restrictions within the bearing jets. It is
postulated that one of the nine jets was restricted prior to attaining
the stabilized operating level, which would account for the initial level
being higher than expected. At I0 seconds another jet could have become
restricted, resulting in the pressure increase. At 88 seconds the initial
restriction could have become dislodged resulting in a pressure decrease.
Similar turbopump bearing jet pressure changes have been experienced during
single engine testing without any accompanying turbopump problems. Several
turbopumps which experienced_a pressure increase were disassembled prior
to subsequent testing and disclosed no hardware damage; however, machining
particle contamination of the jet assembly was found. Consequently, an
improved manufacturing cleaning procedure was instituted. No similar jet
pressure increases have occurred since incorporation of this cleaning
procedure. The only remaining flight engines not incorporating the improved
cleaning procedure are engine S/N F2059 installed in stage S-IC-II, and
engine S/N F2061 installed in stage S-IC-9. Engines S/N F2059 and S/N F2061
acceptance and stage test data indicated normal turbopump bearing jet
pressure characteristics.
5-6
The turbopump bearing coolant system incorporates redundancy by having
three jets for each bearing. Furthermore, machine particle contamination,
as previously noted, is usually associated with the number two bearing
which receives additional coolant fluid from the number one bearing
drainage. The occurrence of a bearing jet pressure discrepancy during
flight, similar to that experienced by engine S/N F2058 during the AS-508
flight, is not considered detrimental to F-I engine turbopump reliability.
5.4 S-IC ENGINESHUTDOWN

TRANSIENTPERFORMANCE
Center engine cutoff, initiated by a signal from the IU, was at 135.18
seconds as planned. Outboard engine cutoff, initiated by LOXlow level
sensors, occurred at 163.60 seconds which was 0.40 second earlier than
predicted. This is a small difference compared to the predicted 3-sigma
limits of +5.58, -3.89 seconds.
Thrust decay of the F-I engines was normal.
5.5 S-IC STAGEPROPELLANT

MANAGEMENT
Outboard engine cutoff was initiated by the LOXlow level sensors as

planned, and resulted in residual propellants being very close to the
predicted values. The residual LOX at OECO was 38,921 Ibm compared to
the predicted value of 39,403 Ibm. The fuel residual at OECO was
27,573 Ibm compared to the predicted value of 31,957 Ibm. A summary of
the propellants remaining at major event times is presented in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. S-IC Stage Propellant Mass History
PREDICTED, LBM LEVEL SENSOR RECONSTRUCTED, LBM

DATA, LBM
EVENT
LOX FUEL LOX FUEL LOX FUEL
Ignition 3,306,503 1,434,963 1,431,365 3,304,734 1,431,384

Command
Holddown 3,240,439 1,416,385 3,233,269 1,412,475 3,236,952 1,412,322

Ann Release
CECO 509,112 234,432 496,929 226,836 502,675 226,924
OECO 39,4O3 31,957 42,808 27,681 38,921 27,573
Separation 34,633 29,582 33,854 25,098
Zero Thrust 34,144 29,007 33,457 24,453
NOTE: Predicted and reconstructed values do not include pressurization gas so they will compare
with level sensor data.
5-7
5.6 S-IC PRESSURIZATION
SYSTEMS
5.6.1 S-IC Fuel Pressurization System
The fuel tank pressurization system performed satisfactorily. The low

flow prepressurization system was commandedon at -97 seconds. High
flow pressurization, accomplished by the onboard pressurization system,
performed as expected. Helium flow control valve No. 1 was commandedon
at -2.7 seconds and was supplemented by the high flow prepressurization
system until umbilical disconnect.
Fuel tank ullage pressure was within the predicted limits throughout
flight, as shown in Figure 5-5. Helium flow control valves No. 2, 3, and
4 were commandedopen during flight by the switch selector, within accept-
able limits. Helium bottle pressure was 3000 psia at -2.8 seconds and
decayed to 520 psia at OECO. Total helium flowrate and heat exchanger
performance were as expected.
Fuel pump inlet pressure was maintained above the required minimum Net
Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) during flight.
_HFCV NO. 1 OPEN, -2.7 _HFCV NO. 3 OPEN, 95.9

o
20-
. _ / -
J
J
-30
cq
---.._ _ 25
z
16" f
r_ /
LLJ
r_
20
cz_
PREDICTED MINIMUM
• AS-508 FLIGHT 1,1

<_g
-15 <,
l.--
z
la_
-_o _
-5
_7 -0
0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 5-5. S-IC Stage Fuel Ullage Pressure
5-8
5.6.2 S-IC LOXPressurization System
The LOXpressurization 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 ullage pressure within the
GOXFlow Control Valve (GFCV) band during flight. The prepressurization
system was initiated at -72 seconds. Ullage pressure increased to the
prepressurization switch band and flow was terminated at -57 seconds. The
low flow system was cycled on two additional times at -37 and -II seconds.
At -4.7 seconds the high flow system was commanded on and maintained
ullage pressure within acceptable limits until launch commit.
The LOXtank ullage pressure during flight, as shown in Figure 5-6, was
maintained within the required limits throughout flight by the GFCVo The
maximumGOXflowrate to the tank, at CECO,was 55.6 Ibm/s. The heat
exchangers performed as expected.
20" \ _ _XIMUM PERFORMANCELIMIT
" f 11
, PREDICTED MAXIMUM
\
16___% ....... "_
-_-
MINIMUM PERFORMANCELIMIT -15
PREDICTED MINIMUM S-508 FLIGHT
z
8 1 z
VENT AND RELIEF VALVE PRESSURE SWITCH BAND

20.48 TO 21.72 N/cm2 (29.70 TO 31.50 _sia)
4
VENT AND RELIEF VAL_E MECHANICAL RELIEF BAND
16.20 TO 17.58 N/cm" (23.19 TO 25.50 psia)
0
I L -0
20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 5-6. S-IC Stage LOX Tank Ullage Pressure
5-9
During the prelaunch activities the LOXtank vent and relief valve stuck
in the open position for about 41 minutes beginning at -2 hours and 5
minutes. The valve closed at -I hour and 24 minutes and no further
problem occurred during the remainder of the countdown or during flight.
See paragraph 3.4.2 for additional details.
LOXpumpinlet pressure was maintained above the required minimum NPSP

during flight.
5.7 S-IC PNEUMATIC

CONTROL
PRESSURE
SYSTEM
The control pressure system functioned satisfactorily throughout S-IC

flight.
Sphere pressure was 2997 psia at liftoff and remained steady until CECO
when it decreased to 2845 psia. The decrease was due to actuation of
the center engine prevalves. There was a further decrease to 2445 psia
after OECO. The engine prevalves were closed after engine cutoff as
requi red.
5.8 S-IC PURGESYSTEMS
Performance of the S-IC purge systems was satisfactory during flight.
The turbopump LOXseal purge storage sphere pressure was within the limits
of 2700 to 3300 psia until ignition, and 3300 to I000 psia from liftoff
to OECO.
5.9 S-IC POGOSUPPRESSION

SYSTEM
The POGOsuppression system performed satisfactorily during S-IC flight.
Outboard LOXprevalve temperature measurements indicated that the prevalve

cavities were filled with helium prior to liftoff as planned. The measure-
ments in the outboard prevalves went cold momentarily at liftoff, indicating
LOXsloshed on the probes. They remained warm throughout flight, indicating
helium in the prevalves. At cutoff, the increased pressure forced LOXinto
the prevalves once more. The two measurements in the center engine prevalve
indicated cold, which meant LOXwas in this valve as planned.
5.10 S'IC HYDRAULIC
SYSTEM
The performance of the S-IC hydraulic system was satisfactory. All

servoactuator supply pressures were within required limits. The engine
control system return pressures were within predicted limits, and the
hydraulic control system valves operated as planned.
5-10
SECTION6
S-II PROPULSION
6.1 SUMMARY
Engine No. 5 cut off earlier than planned because of high amplitude
oscillations in the propulsion/structural system; otherwise, the S-II
propulsion system performance was satisfactory. The S-II Engine Start
Command (ESC), as sensed at the engines, occurred at 165.0 seconds.
Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) occurred at 330.65 seconds or 132.36 seconds
earlier than planned. Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO) occurred at 592.64
seconds or 34.53 seconds later than predicted.
Total stage thrust at the standard time slice (62 seconds after S-II ESC)
was 0.19 percent below predicted. Total propellant flowrate, including
pressurization flow, was 0.25 percent below predicted and stage specific
impulse was 0.09 percent above predicted at the standard time slice.
Stage propellant mixture ratio was 0.18 percent below predicted. Engine
thrust buildup and cutoff transients were normal.
Low amplitude oscillations were observed on all engines during S-II boost
prior to CECO. Net engine performance levels of outboard engines were
not affected.
The propellant management system performance was satisfactory, except for

sporadic wet indications of the overfill point sensors prior to launch.
The system used open-loop control of the engine Propellant Utilization (PU)
valves, similar to the AS-507 flight. The Instrument Unit (IU) command to
shift Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR) from high to low was initiated upon
attainment of a preprogramed stage velocity increase as sensed by the
Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC). Due mainly to early CECO the
guidance sensed EMR shift occurred 32.2 seconds later than predicted.
S-II OECO, initiated by the LOX engine cutoff sensors, was achieved
following a planned 1.5-second time delay. Residual propellant in the
tanks at OECO signal was 6057 Ibm, compared to the prediction of 6026 Ibm.
6-I
The performance of the LOXand LH2 tank pressurization systems was within
predicted limits. Ullage pressure in both tanks was more than adequate
to meet established engine inlet propellant requirements throughout
mainstage. As commandedby the IU, step pressurization occurred at
263.6 seconds for the LOXtank and 463.6 seconds for the LH2 tank.
The engine servicing, recirculation, helium injection and valve actuation

systems all performed satisfactorily.
S-II hydraulic system performance was normal throughout the flight.

6.2 S-II CHILLDOWN
ANDBUILDUPTRANSIENTPERFORMANCE
The engine servicing operations required to condition the engines prior to

engine start were satisfactorily accomplished. Thrust chamber temperatures
were within predicted limits at both prelaunch and engine start. Thrust
chamber chilldown requirements are -200°F maximumat prelaunch commit and
-150°F maximumat engine start. Thrust chamber temperatures ranged between
-296 and -274°F at prelaunch commit and between -240 and -212°F at engine
start. Thrust chamber temperature warmup rates during S-IC boost agreed
closely with those experienced on previous flights.
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-I.
START TANK TEMPERATURE, OF
-300 -250 -200 -150
1050 I l i
© ENGINE
ENGINE
NO.
NO.
1
2
I
ENGINE START BOX
5OO
[] ENGINE NO. 3
J \--
\
I000 --<_ENGINE NO. 4--
PRELAUNCH BOX
w ENGINE NO. 5 S ._
\
. 950 f '- l "
m f_ [] _S-II ESC m
900 i
- _ } T i ,I
_ V 3 _PRELAUNCH (-33 SEC) z
850 i _\ m/_PRESSURIZATION J
8OO
750 !I00
80 90 I00 II0 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
START TANK TEMPERATURE, OK
Figure 6-I. S-II Engine Start Tank Performance
6-2
Start tank temperatures at the conclusion of chilldown were approximately
18°F colder than on AS-507. This performance resulted from operating the
A7-71 Heat Exchanger Unit, with all ullage vents open continuously, from
the initiation of start tank chilldown at -22 minutes. The start tank
system performance was entirely satisfactory.
Prelaunch and S-IC boost start tank temperature and pressure heat-up rates
were normal and within the spread reported for AS-507. No indications of
start tank relief valve operation were noted.
All engine helium tank pressures were within the prelaunch and engine
start limits of 2800 to 3450 psia. Engine helium tank pressures ranged
between 3190 and 3075 psia prior to launch (at -19 seconds) and between
3300 and 3175 psi a at S-II ESC.
The LOXand LH2 recirculation systems used to chill the feed ducts, turbo-
pumps, and other engine components performed satisfactorily during
prelaunch and S-IC boost. Engine pumpinlet temperatures and pressures
at engine start were well within the requirements as shown in Figure 6-2.
The LOXpumpdischarge temperatures at S-II ESCwere approximately 16.5°F
subcooled, well below the 3°F subcooling requirement_
Prepressurization of the propellant tanks was accomplished satisfactorily.

Ullage pressures at S-II ESCwere 39.3 psia for LOXand 28.0 psia for LH2.
S-II ESCwas received at 165.0 seconds and the Start Tank Discharge Valve
(STDV) solenoid activation signal occurred 1.0 second later. The engine
thrust buildup was satisfactory and within the required thrust buildup
envelope. All engines reached their mainstage levels (pressure switch
pickup) within 2.8 seconds after S-II ESC.
6.3 S-II MAINSTAGE

PERFORMANCE
The propulsion reconstruction analysis showed that stage performance,

during mainstage operation, was satisfactory except that engine No. 5
was shut down prematurely because of high amplitude, low frequency
oscillations in propulsion and structural systems. These oscillations
occurred in the frequency range of 14 to 16 hertz. Thrust chamber pressure
oscillations reached an amplitude of approximately +_236 psi. High
amplitude oscillations in the LOX feed system activated the thrust OK
pressure switches and in turn initiated engine cutoff. Indications are
that the oscillations caused no engine damage. See paragraph 8.2.3 for
more detail.
A comparison of predicted and reconstructed performance of thrust, specific

impulse, total flowrate, and mixture ratio versus time is shown in
Figure 6-3. Stage performance during the high EMR portion of flight
(prior to CECO) was very close to predicted. At the time slice of ESC
+62 seconds, total stage thrust was 1,160,765 Ibf which is 2184 Ibf
(0.19 percent) below the preflight prediction. Total propellant flowrate,
6-3
LH 2 PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia
28 32 36 40 44
25 SATURATION CURVE' / "-415
•
_ 2a
"
j_
/
/ 17 N
-_
=
START
_ /// \' REQUIREMENTS
22 _ 'ENVELOPE'
Z PREDICTED ESC z
21 ENVELOPE ! --
FLIGHT DATA
ENGINES NO. l THROUGH 5 N
N 20 =
-425
19
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
LH 2 PUMP INLET PRESSURE, N/cm 2
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, psia"

32 36 4O 44 48
Vo 101 ' "_F'P_TURATION_ CURVE

LL.
L_ 99 / I ,/ °
REQUIREMENTS
< --284
•_ ENVELOPE
x "-286
F--
"
_.
,., 95
,,j "-288 --
_-"'
z "-290 '"
.J
_-4 Z
-' / ESC _"_
93 x
/PREDICTED _'-292
_NVELOPE _-
a.
"< / I l
FLIGHT DATA -294 a.
_
o r--_-t_ ENGINES NO. x
"_ 91 ;L ___ 1 THROUGH _1 -296 o-J
-J _ -298
89
I I
21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE, N/cm 2
Figure 6-2. S-IT Engine Pump Inlet Start Requirements
6-4
--- PREDICTED
X_TS-II EMR SHIFT
7 S-I! ESC S-II EMR SHIFT --- PREDICTED
--RECONSTRUCTED
--RECONSTRUCTED
S-II CECO S-II OECO /S-II OECO
5.4 1400
-3000
-1.16
r
5.0 1300
-2800
-1.08
4.6 --2600
z -I.00 _ _ 1200
_o 4.2 _o _ II00 --2400

I -0.92
I
o
I
__ 3.8 0.84 _ o .-2200
:zz I _ I000
F-
I I
i I =-2000 _
=_ 3.4 0.76 _
L
!
_ -.._. ---,% -0.68

< _ 900 I
I
I
3.0 -1800
8oo I
-0.60
2.6 --'_ -1600
7O0
-0.52 -1400
I 2.2
(jl 600
4.4
5.6
= ]
7
oq
'----"I'
-440 _: c_ !
4.3 !
-_ _ 5.2 i
I
-430 _ I
u., 4.2
i,-4_
ry-
! _ _4_
l
!
!
I
4.1 -420 _ _ _
I
=_ _ 4.4 _- -_.._..
-410
4.0
50 I00 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 4.0
TIME FROM ESC, sECONDS 0 5O lO0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
TIME FROM ESC, SECONDS
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 ,V, , ,V, , , ,V,V,_
RANGE TIME, SECONDS 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-3_ S-I! Steady State Operation

including pressurization flow, was 2740.6 Ibm/s; 0.25 percent below
predicted. Stage specific impulse, including the effect of pressurization
gas flowrate, was 423.5 Ibf-s/Ibm; 0.09 percent above predicted. Stage
propellant MR was 0.18 percent below predicted.
At ESC +165.6 seconds, 132.4 seconds earlier than planned, the center
engine was shut down by thrust OK pressure switch dropout. This action
reduced total stage thrust by 233,917 Ibf to a level of 924,762 Ibf. The
EMR shift from high to low occurred 372.5 seconds after ESC; 33.7 seconds
later than predicted. The change of EMR resulted in further stage thrust
reduction and at ESC +421.6 seconds the total vehicle thrust was
689,491 Ibf; thus, a decrease in thrust of 235,271 Ibf was indicated
between high and low EMR operation. S-II burn duration was 427.64 seconds,
which was 34.93 seconds longer than predicted, due primarily to early CECO.
Individual J-2 engine data, excluding the effects of pressurization

flowrate, are presented in Table 6-I for the ESC +62-second time slice.
Good correlation between predicted and reconstructed flight performance
is indicated by the small deviations.
The performance levels shown in Table 6-I have not been adjusted to
standard J-2 altitude conditions and do not include the effects of
pressurization flow. Considering data that have been adjusted to standard
conditions, very little difference from the resu.lts shown in Table 6-I
has been observed. The adjusted data show all engine thrust levels to be
within 0.81 percent of those achieved during stage acceptance test.
Typical minor engine performance shifts were observed during analysis of

stage flight data. Available flight instrumentation does not permit a
detailed investigation of the cause for each performance shift. However,
the more familiar ones can be recognized by their characteristic effects
on basic flight parameters (see Table 6-2).
6.4 S-II SHUTDOWN TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE
S-II OECO was initiated by the stage LOX depletion cutoff system. The LOX
depletion cutoff system again included a 1.5-second delay timer. As in
previous flights (AS-504 and subs), this resulted in engine thrust decay
(observed as a drop in thrust chamber pressure) prior to receipt of the
cutoff signal. However, due to early CECO, the precutoff decay was
greatly reduced as compared with AS-504 without CECO. Only engine No. 1
exhibited a significant thrust chamber pressure decay, decreasing II0 psi
in the final 0.4 second before cutoff. All other outboard engine thrust
chamber pressure decays were approximately 42 psi.
At S-ll OECO signal (592.64 seconds), total stage thrust was down to
635,725 Ibf. Stage thrust dropped to 3 percent of this level within
0.94 second. The stage cutoff impulse through the 3 percent thrust level
was estimated to be 193,024 Ibf-s.
6-6
Table 6-I. S-II Engine Performance
PERCENT PERCENT
ENGINE INDIVIDUAL AVERAGE
PARAMETER NUMBER PREDICTED RECONSTRUCTED DEVIATION DEVIATION
234,462 233,602 0.37

Thrust, Ibf
232,817 232,956 0.06
234,034 233,060 0.42 0.19
230,056 230,216 0.07
231,580 230,933 0.28
425.2 425.5 0.07

Specific
424.9 425.9 O. 24
Impulse,
424.6 425.0 0.09 0.15
Ibf-s/Ibm
423.5 424.1 0.14
424.5 425.4 0.21
Engine 551.4 549.0 - 0.44

Flowrate, 547.9 546.9 - 0.18
551.2 548.3 - 0.53 - 0.34
Ibm/s
543.2 542.8 - 0.07
545.6 542.9 - 0.49
5.54 5.54 0.00

Engine
Mixture Ratio, 5.64 5.64 0.00
5.58 5.55 - O.54 - 0.22
LOX/Fuel
5.56 5.57 0.18
5.53 5.49 0.72
NOTE: Values do not include pressurization flow.
Table 6-2. S-II Engine Performance Shifts
ENGINE NO. PERFORMANCESHIFT (MAGNITUDE REMARKS

AND TIME OF OCCURRENCE)
-2300 Ibf in-run thrust shift at Shift in Gas Generator

255 seconds (ESC +90 seconds) (GG) oxidizer system
resi stance.
4 +1500 Ibf in-run thrust shift at Shift in GG oxidizer

215 seconds (ESC +50 seconds) system resistance
|
-1600 Ibf run-to-run shift in Shift in GG oxidizer

thrust from engine acceptance system resistance
All Outboard In-run low frequency thrust During center engine

Engines oscillations at ESC +164 high amplitude
seconds oscillations. (See
paragraph 8.2.3 for
more detail.)
NOTE: None of the shifts are considered to be unusual in either

magnitude or cause.
6-7
6.5 S-ll STAGE PROPELLANT MANAGEMENT
The propellant management system performed satisfactorily during the

propellant loading operation and during flight, except as noted below.
The S-II stage employed an open-loop system utilizing fixed, open-loop
commands from the IU rather than feedback signals from the tank mass
sensing probes. Open-loop PU is also planned for all subsequent vehicles.
The launch facility Propellant Tanking Control System (PTCS) and the
propellant management system properly controlled S-II loading and
replenishment. However, during the prelaunch countdown, both LOX and
LH 2 overfill point sensors sporadically indicated wet. An investigation
of this problem is now in progress.
The open-loop PU system responded as expected during flight and no

instabilities were noted. Open-loo p PU system operation commenced when
"High EMR select" was commanded at ESC +5.5 seconds, as planned. The PU
valves then moved to the high EMR position, providing an average EMR of
5.50. The IU command to shift EMR from high to low was initiated at
ESC +369.7 seconds (32.2 seconds later than predicted) upon attainment of
a preprogramed velocity increase as sensed by the LVDC. These deviations
are attributed to the early CECO and to a smaller degree engine perform-
ance variations from predicted, and larger than predicted propellant
loading of the upper stages. The IU command caused the PU valves to
be driven to the low EMR position, providing an average EMR of 4.35 which
was 0.02 less than predicted.
OECO was initiated by the LOX tank propellant depletion system (with a
1.5-second ECO time delay) 34.5 seconds later than predicted due to the
previously mentioned deviations. The open-loop PU error at OECO was
approximately +38 Ibm LH2 versus a 3-sigma tolerance of +_2500 Ibm LH2.
Based on corrected PU system data, propellant residuals (mass in tanks
and sump) at OECO were 1797 Ibm LOX and 4260 Ibm LH 2.
Table 6-3 presents a comparison of propellant masses as measured by the

PU probes and engine flowmeters. The best estimate propellant mass is
based on integration of flowmeter data utilizing the propellant residuals
as determined from PU system data corrected for nominal tank mismatch at
OECO. Best estimates of propellant mass loaded correlate with the post-
launch trajectory simulation within the accuracy of the measurements
utilized. These mass values were 0.07 percent more than predicted for
LOX and 0.13 percent more than predicted for LH2.
6.6 S-II PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM
6.6.1 S-II Fuel Pressurization System
LH2 tank ullage pressure, actual and predicted, is presented in Figure 6-4
for autosequence, S-IC boost, and S-II boost. The LH2 vent valves were
closed at -96.2 seconds and the ullage volume pressurized to 35.3 psia
6-8
Table 6-3. S-11 Propellant Mass History
ENGINE FLOWMETER
PU SYSTEM INTEGRATION
EVENT PREDICTED, LBM ANALYSIS, LBM (BEST ESTIMATE), LBM
LOX LH 2 LOX LH2 LOX LH2
834,558 159,500 834,004 159,778 835,116 159,700

Ground Ignition
S-II ESC 834,558 159,486 832,068 158,905 835,116 159,700
78,725 20,921 76,270 21,367

S-II PU Valve 77,929 21,513
Step
S-II OECO 1801 4225 1800 4263 1797 4260
1555 4117 Data not Data not 1643 4187

S-II Residual
After Thrust usable usable
Decay
NOTE: Table is based on mass in tanks and sump only. Propellant trapped
external to tanks and LOX sump is not included.
I !
35 1 I I 1 I I I I I
--- PREDICTED
X_7S-II ESC X_VENT VALVE NO. 2 OPEN
'-- ACTUAL -
VsI' CECO
3or_TL, 2 STEP
PRESSURIZATION--_VENT
--
VALVES
(POST OECO)
CLOSE
Zs1' OECO It
-X_7 VENT VALVE NO. 1 iPEN
25
==
\ o_
2O LAUNCH
REDLINE
"MINIMUM START
._,1 REQUIREMENT
..J
15
10
I
I0
V
5
-I00 0 1O0 200 300 400 500 600
-200
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-4. S-II Fuel Tank Ullage Pressure
6-9
in approximately 22.5 seconds. One make-up cycle was required at
-41.1 seconds. The LH2 tank vent valves opened during S-IC boost,
limiting tank pressure; however, no main poppet operation was indicated.
Differential pressure across the vent valve was kept below the low-mode
upper limit of 29.5 psi. Ullage pressure at engine start was 28 psia
exceeding the minimum engine start requirement of 27 psia. The LH 2 tank
vent valves were switched to the high vent mode immediately prior to
S-II engine start.
LH2 tank ullage pressure remained slightly above its predicted value
during S-II mainstage operation prior to step pressurization. The
indicated ullage pressure was comparable to the pressure in this interval
during S-II-8 static firing.
The LH2 tank regulator was commanded open at 463.6 seconds and ullage
pressure increased to 31.6 psia. The vent valves started to vent at
467.7 seconds and continued to vent throughout the remainder of the S-II
burn. Ullage pressure remained within the high mode vent range of 30.5
to 33.0 psia.
Figure 6-5 shows LH? total inlet pressure, temperature and Net Positive
Suction Pressure (NPSP) for the J-2 engines. The parameters were close
to predicted values. The NPSP exceeded the minimum requirement throughout
the S-II burn phase.
6.6.2 S-II LOX Pressurization System
LOX tank ullage pressure, actual and predicted, is presented in Figure 6-6
for autosequence, S-IC boost, and S-II burn. After a 2 minute cold helium
chilldown flow through the LOX tank, the vent valves were closed at
-185.3 seconds and the LOX tank was prepressurized to the pressure switch
setting of 38.3 psia in approximately 32.5 seconds. At approximately
-78 seconds, the pressure increased to 39 psia because of the LH2 tank
prepressurization. LOX ullage pressure was 39.3 psia at engine start.
After the ullage pressure recovered from the initial drop at engine start,
the pressure was controlled within the LOX pressure regulator range of
36 to 38.5 psia until step pressurization. Step pressurization increased
the ullage pressure to 38.2 psia. This was slightly lower than predicted
as discussed in paragraph 8.2.3. In addition the LOX tank ullage pressure
experienced a slump of 0.4 psi just after step pressurization. Review of
S-II-8 static firing ullage pressure data also shows a slight slump of
about 0.15 psi after step pressurization. This pressure slump was the
result of the interaction of colder heat exchanger outlet temperature,
smaller ullage volume and a slight variation in regulator response
compared to previous flights.
6-I0
V S-II ESC TLH2 STEP PRESSURIZATION
X_7 S-ll CECO S-II OECO

PREDICTED
ACTUAL
-----MINIMUM NPSP REQUIREMENT
25
ENGINES -36 _._
_z
u
23
/
I l
OU'_BOARDi -34 _
/
z_ 21 _m J .30 =
_ _--....i ....
"_ CEN,TER EriGINE 28 _ _
19
23 m,
--41g o
0
--420
22
--421 '_,
i _,i_ ,--, ,,,
_,,, 21 CL.
__ v jr
-'r- L.I.J
-r- L.._ - - 423 -- F-
-.-J F--
20
12
/ 0iTBOARi ENGI'NES
-16
l0 -14
C jr
i -.12 °r--
t_
z _'-CENTER ENGINE
-lO
r_
cf)
"'
,./) 6 - 8 r_
r_ Z
- 6
4
-4
2
50 lO0 150 200 250 300 350 400 4bO
0
TIME FROM ESC, SECONDS
, ,V, , ,V , , 600
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-5. S-ll Fuel Pump Inlet Conditions
6-II
35 ........ ME_UREMENT D257-207
_-7 S-II ESC _ S-If CECO ' ' PREDICTED
'
Y
ACTUAL
_ LOX STEP PRESSURIZATION _ EMR SHIFT I 1

3O
_ S-II OECO
"-- \\
25
_AUNCH \
d REDLINE
MINIMUM START
REQUIREMENT 3O ,_
2O
c...
-.,,)
<,
815
20
I0
I0
7 Z7 V
-200 -I O0 0 1O0 200 300 400 500 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 6-6. S-ll LOX Tank Ullage Pressure
The ullage pressure recovered from the initial slump more slowly than it
had during the S-II-8 static firing. The slow recovery of the ullage
pressure is a result of early CECO. The heat transfer area within the
LOX tank remains relatively constant after CECO but with only four engines
supplying pressurant, instead of five, a slower ullage pressure buildup
occurred.
The ullage pressure reached a maximum of 39.7 psia at EMR shift. As a

result of EMR shift, the pressure began to decrease and had reached
35.5 psia at OECO. No LOX tank venting was observed. LOX pump total
inlet pressure, temperature and NPSP are presented in Figure 6-7.
6.7 S-II PNEUMATIC CONTROL PRESSURE SYSTEM
The pneumatic control system functioned satisfactorily throughout the

S-IC and S-II boost periods. Bottle pressure was 3030 psia at -30 seconds
and due to normal valve activities during S-II burn, pressure decayed to
approximately 2620 psia after S-II OECO.
Regulator outlet pressure during flight remained at a constant 715 psia,

except for the expected momentary pressure drops when the recirculation
or prevalves were actuated closed just after engine start, at CECO and
OECO.
6-12
_:L-9
SUO.L_Lpu03 :[aLUI dwnd XOq II-S "L-9 a.xn6L3
$0N033S '3WI± 39NV_

009 OSS OOS OS_ OOP OS£ 00£ OS_ 00_ OS[
%' , , ,
I
/?,
N0335 '3S3 HO_4. 3HI
OS_ 00_ OS£ 00£ OS_ 00_ OSL O0 L O_ 08
i
t_L_
!
- i
BL-
Z
_ Emm,l_, im
9L .
_ 9_- 3NIN3 _31N33 Z
-J° £')
m-..,,,--/ 0z %
0£-
i
S3NIN30_VOBINO
i a I il,z
06
L6Z- -
96Z- - I
f L6
--It" I
--Ir--
_ s6z-- l-rlO
_6 _x
r-
_ c6z- .-.tm
c=.-t
" ZGZ- -
o
o
L6Z- -
OGZ- -
$6
£Z
9£- sz
1
-_l'-
-or-"
_o
m x 8£ i
mx
(.I)
t-. z
L_ u_,--.
CZ
_r-
ram Of'- x_r-
mm
,,, "-4 3NIN3 _31N33
0
\ 6_ _-_
.w,,. M _0
l'l --I
,- _- r_r"
9_-
S3_19N3 puV0BJ.n0 ££
0330 II-S_,
NOIIVZI_QSS3_d .
IN3H3_l_b3_ dSdN WHININ .... d31S XO]___
3vn13v ,,,
0313103_d 3S3 II'S//_
6.8 S-ll HELIUM INJECTION SYSTEM
The performance of the helium injection system was satisfactory. Require-

ments were met and parameters were in agreement with predicted values.
The supply bottle was pressurized to 3050 psia prior to liftoff and by
ESC the pressure was 700 psia. Helium injection system average total
flowrate during supply bottle blowdown (-30 to 163 seconds) was 72.5 SCFM.
6.9 S-II HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
S-II hydraulic system performance was normal throughout the flight. System
supply and return pressures, reservoir volumes, and system fluid temper-
atures were within predicted ranges. Reservoir fluid temperatures were
close to the predicted rate of increase. All servoactuators responded to
commands with good precision.
Except for CECO-induced transients, forces acting on the actuators were

well below a predicted maximum of 19,000 Ibf. The maximum force in tension
was 8450 Ibf acting on the pitch actuator of engine No. I. The maximum
force in compression was 7150 Ibf action on the pitch actuator of engine
No. 2. All measurements showed the effects of the center engine oscilla-
tions and the resulting CECO. The greatest effect was noted on actuator
differential pressure measurements where oscillating loads up to
20,800 Ibf (0 to peak) were indicated. These loads were induced by the
structural accelerations. There was no evidence of contribution to the
oscillations in the actuator command data.
6-14
SECTION7
S-IVB PROPULSION
7.1 SUMMARY
The J-2 engine operated satisfactorily throughout the operational phase
of first and second burn and had normal shutdowns. S-IVB first burntime
was 152.9 seconds which was 9.3 seconds longer than predicted, primarily
due to the performance of lower stages. The J-2 engine thrust performance,
during first burn, differed by 0.29 percent from the predicted (Start
Tank Discharge Valve [STDV] open +130 seconds) as determined from standard
altitude reconstruction analysis. Specific impulse was near that predicted.
The S-IVB stage first burn Engine Cutoff (ECO)was initiated by the Launch
Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) at 749.83 seconds.
The Continuous Vent System (CVS) adequately regulated LH2 tank ullage
pressure at an average level of 19.3 psia during earth orbit, and the
Oxygen/Hydrogen (02/H2) burner satisfactorily achieved LH2 and LOXtank
repressurization for restart. Engine restart conditions were within
specified limits. The restart with the Propellant Utilization (PU) valve
fully open was successful.
S-IVB second burntime was 350.8 seconds which was 4.9 seconds less than
predicted. The engine performance during second burn, as determined from
the standard altitude reconstruction analysis, differed from the predicted
(STDV+130 seconds) by -0.24 percent for thrust and 0.09 percent for
specific impulse. Second burn ECOwas initiated by the LVDCat _9697.17
seconds.
Subsequent to second burn, the stage propellant tanks and helium spheres
were safed satisfactorily. Sufficient impulse was derived from LOX dump,
LH2 CVSoperation and Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) ullage burn to
achieve a successful lunar impact. An additional velocity change of
7 to I0 ft/s was accumulated during the unanticipated APSfirings at
70,150 seconds (19:29:10).
The S-IVB hydraulic system performance was satisfactory during its
complete mission.
7-I
7.2 S-IVB CHILLDOWN
ANDBUILDUPTRANSIENT
PERFORMANCE
FORFIRST BURN
The propellant recirculation systems performed satisfactorily, meeting

start and run box requirements for fuel and LOXas shown in Figure 7-I.
The thrust chamber temperature at launch was well below the maximum
allowable redline limit of -130°F. At S-IVB first burn Engine Start
Command(ESC), the temperature was -151°F, which was within the require-
ment of -189.6 +_IIO°F.
The chilldown and loading of the engine Gaseous Hydrogen (GH2) start
tank and pneumatic control sphere prior to liftoff was satisfactory. At
first burn ESCthe start tank conditions were within the required region
of 1325 ±75 psia and -170 +_30°Ffor start. The discharge was completed
and the refill initiated at first burn ESC+3.8 seconds. The refill was
satisfactory and in good agreement with the acceptance test.
The engine control bottle pressure and temperature at liftoff were

2964 psia and -173°F. LH2 and LOXsystems chilldown, which was continuous
from before liftoff until just prior to first ESC, was satisfactory. At
first ESC, the LOXpumpinlet temperature was -295.5°F and the LH2 pump
inlet temperature was -421.8°F.
The first burn start transient was satisfactory. The thrust buildup was
within the limits set by the engine manufacturer. This buildup was similar
to the thrust buildups observed on AS-506 and AS-507. The PU valve was in
the null position prior to first start, but, as expected, shifted 0.6
degree during start. The total impulse from STDVopen to STDVopen +2.5
seconds was 189,441 Ibf-s for first start.
First burn fuel lead followed the predicted pattern and resulted in
satisfactory conditions as indicated by the thrust chamber temperatures
and the associated fuel injector temperatures.
7.3 S-IVB MAINSTAGE

PERFORMANCE
FORFIRST BURN
The propulsion reconstruction analysis showed that the stage performance

during mainstage operation was satisfactory. A comparison of predicted
and actual performance of thrust, specific impulse: total flowrate, and
Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR) versus time is shown in Figure 7-2. Table 7-I
shows the specific impulse, flowrates and EMRdeviations from the predicted
at the STDV+130 second time slice.
The performance of the J-2 engine helium control system was satisfactory
during mainstage operation. The engine control bottle was connected to
the stage ambient repressurization bottles and therefore, there was little
pressure decay. Helium usage was approximately 0.32 Ibm during first
burn.
The PU valve position shifted 0.6 degree during first burn and 0.5 degree
during second burn. These shifts are approximately the same as those
observed on previous flights.
7-2
_o '3_fllV_3dW31 137NI dWnd 73a3
_o '3_n1Va3dN31 137N1 dNnd X07

oh
! | o
I I I I
! c"
$-
rr_
4._
°l-,-
I_I-
t/"l
c"
E
(]J
c,a E
% \
\
n
\
u_ o.. r_
o.. O")
I.,.-
R o I'
I"-,-
i-- l-- X
z O
z rr_
.._a
z
\ o_ $_
._i
\ ,.j
_.a ILl rm
'T
_-_ _v
O LI'_ C_
6_J 7"
o
I'--
(ii
,f,--
°r--
I I,
i
i
i l i i
I I I I I I
do '3an1Va3dW31 137NI dWnd X07 30 _3_f11V_3dH31 137NI dWlTd 73n3

6)I/S-N tOL s/6_
' 31V_IM07-1 7VIOl
N _0[ 'iSN_HI '3S'INdWI Dl-l133aS
0 0 0 0 ':::t O0 _ _ 0
0 _ 0 04 04 _ _ 0 c-
O,J Oq 04 0,.I
0
rm ,..o
0
iI rl
I
_rm
(...) rw"
I I i c) °_.,.
,=_ C).. I I I
I
I
I ( I ' l i, I
o
(D
0
I ' I' I ! o.J
I Ii II II E
rm
!II lI 0
! Z
0
4-
I
0
h-. r-_ <D
m
I 0
CD
L I_ I I c,";
I, ,I
! -1-
I ocO i
P_
I I
L_
I li I I--
I I=.- @
I I I , ii 0
Z 4._
m
r_
oO I C)
oo (.__
L_ L;.J II! I ,I b-
'.,,0
T
J--- F--
oO_zD I i Ii : !I _l I I o m
m-" r,,,"
1.1_
' I! ,I ii ,I _
r,_ rm lJ i i
!
>>
II ' r_
i ,) , I 0
i \
2_
\ 0
0 it.
0
c) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT,
o.J o O0 L.O _ Or) O,J _ 0 0 O_ CO r". _ L.O •
_4 ,g
mqL/s-_qL s/wqL 8H7/X07 ' OI_LV;d

'3S7ndNl 31JIO3dS '31VWMO7J 7VI01 3WnlXIN 3NIgN3
;q[ _0[ 'ISn_HI
Table 7-I. S-IVB Steady State Performance - First Burn
(STDV +130 Second Time Slice at Standard Altitude Conditions)
PERCENT
FLIGHT
PARAMETER PREDICTED RECONSTRUCTION DEVIATION
DEVIATION
FROM PREDICTED
199,577 574 O.288

Thrust, Ibf 199,003
Specific Impulse,
426.8 427.2 0.4 0.094
Ibf-s/Ibm
LOX Flowrate,
388.07 0.42 0.108
Ibm/s 387.65
Fuel Flowrate,
79.05 0.47 0.598
Ibm/s 78.58
Engine Mixture -0.486

4.933 4.909 -0.024
Ratio,
LOX/Fuel
7.4 S-IVB SHUTDOWN TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE FOR FIRST BURN
S-IVB first ECO was initiated at 749.83 seconds by a guidance velocity

cutoff command which resulted in a burntime of 152.9 seconds. This was
9.3 seconds longer than predicted due to the performance of lower stages.
The ECO transient was satisfactory. The total cutoff impulse to zero
percent of rated thrust was 44,319 Ibf-s which was 3700 Ibf-s less than
predicted. Cutoff occurred with the PU valve in the null position.
7.5 S-IVB PARKING ORBIT COAST PHASE CONDITIONING
The LH 2 CVS performed satisfactorily, maintaining the fuel tank ullage

pressure at an average level of 19.3 psia. This was well within the 18
to 21 psia band of the new inflight specification.
The continuous vent regulator was activated at 809.0 seconds and was
terminated at 8810.3 seconds. The CVS performance is shown in Figure 7-3.
The thrust between I000 and 1500 seconds was below predicted but is
within allowable performance limits.
Calculations based on estimated temperatures indicate that the mass vented

during parking orbit was 1880 Ibm and that the boiloff mass was 2010 Ibm.
7-5
_7 START OF TIME BASE 6
o_
LH 2 TANK CVS CLOSED
2O
3O
2O or}
c_.
I0 --
N N
"I o _-
0
80
30O z
6O
200
- 2oo m F--
_- 4o
100
!
-_ [ lOO _.
c_
_ 20 it -...... I
o o
,:_ 3
,:=c
,_, 0
i
I
I I
i
1
c_
,_
_ 0
600O 7000
L
8000 9000 10000
4000 5000 5000
0 1000 2000 3000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
! l
• _7 i i 2:00:00 2:30:00
1:30:00
00:00:00 00:30:00 01:00:00
Figure 7-3. S-IVB CVS Performance - Coast Phase

7.6 S-IVB CHILLDOWN
ANDRESTART
FORSECOND
BURN
Repressurization of the LOXand LH2 tanks was satisfactorily accomplished

by the 02/H2 burner. Helium heater "ON" commandwas initiated at 8810.1
seconds. The LH2 repressurization control valves were opened at helium
heater "ON" +6.1 seconds and the fuel tank was repressurized from 19.5 to
30.4 psia in 190.7 seconds. There were 25.8 Ibm of cold helium used to
repressurize the LH2 tank. The LOXrepressurization control valves were
opened at 02/H2 burner "ON" +6.3 seconds and the LOXtank was repressurized
from 38.5 to 40.0 psia in 65.2 seconds. There were 1.7 Ibm of helium used
to repressurize the LOX tank. LH2 and LOXullage pressures are shown in
Figure 7-4. The burner continued to operate for a total of 454.8 seconds
providing nominal propellant settling forces. The performance of the AS-508
02/H2 burner was satisfactory as shown in Figure 7-5.
The S-IVB LOXrecirculation system satisfactorily provided conditioned
oxidizer to the J-2 engine for restart. The LOXand fuel pump inlet condi-
tions are plotted in the start and run boxes in Figure 7-6. At second ESC,
the LOXand fuel pumpinlet temperatures were -295.0°F and -418.6°F, respec-
tively. Fuel recirculation temperature at ESCwas slightly out of the
start box. This condition has occurred on previous flights and a change to
the second ESCrequirement is under consideration. Fuel recirculation
system performance was adequate and conditions at the pump inlet were satis-
factory at second STDV open. Second burn fuel lead generally followed the
predicted pattern and resulted in satisfactory conditions as indicated by
thrust chamber temperature and the associated fuel injector temperature.
The S-IVB-508 stage was the first stage to have a start tank helium recharge
capability using the LOX ambient repressurization system (bottle No. 2).
Since the start system performance was nominal during coast and restart, no
helium recharge was required. The start tank performed satisfactorily
during second burn blowdown and recharge sequence. The engine start tank
was recharged properly and maintained sufficient pressure during coast.
The engine control sphere first burn gas usage was as predicted; the ambient
helium spheres recharged the control sphere to a nominal level for restart.
The second burn start transient was satisfactory. The thrust buildup was
within the limits set by the engine manufacturer and was similar to the
thrust buildup on AS-506 and AS-507. The PU valve was in the proper full
open (4.5 EMR) psoition prior to the second start. The total impulse from
STDV open to STDV open +2.5 seconds was 174,932 Ibf-s.
The helium control system performed satisfactorily during second burn

mainstage. There was little pressure decay during the burn due to the
connection to the stage repressurization system. Approximately 1.09 Ibm
of helium was consumed during second burn.
7.7 S-IVB MAINSTAGE PERFORMANCE FOR SECOND BURN
The propulsion reconstruction analysis showed that the stage performance

during mainstage operation was satisfactory. A comparison of predicted and
actual performance of thrust, specific impulse, total flowrate, and EMR
7-7
_7 02/H 2 BURNER ON
S$7 LH2 AND LOX CRYOGENIC REPRESS VALVES OPEN
S_7 TERMINATION OF LOX TANK REPRESS
S_7 TERMINATION OF LH2 TANK REPRESS
S_7 02/H 2 BURNER OFF
45-
- 3O
oj
E
"F_ U
c).
Z
28
A . , - ......
40 r_
c/)
o')
i,i 26 cz)
i,i
r_ I
r_
CL
I 0-
i,I
i,i
(.D I
C._
_J 35 24
..3
._.I
zD --3
I
S
x _REDICTED MINIMUM x
0
_-I
-22 0
I __J
3O
35 24
_,_EDI CTED MAXIMUM ... ......
•_
u_
30 20 _Z
C}.
i,i
r_
uO
cz)
/J /// N
i,i
// ,,m,
CL
25 I
r j r_
I,I
// / /_'%,, 16 "'
f .J
--3
.J
.J
_ PREDICTED MINIMUM
.//_ f c_a
C_
I
_- 20 .J
._J _f
'12
15
-I00 0 I00 200 300 400 500
TIME FROM 02/H 2 BURNER START, SECONDS
, _, _7 , _7 , , V
2:25:00 2:27:00 2:29:00 2:31:00 2:33:00 2:3b:00
Figure 7-4. S-IVB Ullage Conditions During Repressurization

Using 02/H 2 Burner
7-8
6-L
a_n6.L-I
se%eaMotJ%ueanssaadpu_ %snaql ,_auan_l8H180 AI-S 'S-L
SONOD3S:S31NNIN:SWnOH '3011 39NV_
00:S8:8
00:E£:8 O0:t_:8 00:68:8 00:L8:8
!
SON033S 'NO _3N_NB 8H180 WO_J 3011

OOL-
001/ OOE 008 O0
0
OL Z
m
OS
m --I
'-r"
.-4
O8
F
OOL --I
c
cz_
--I
O_
z
0£1.
O_
0
L
i-.. -.r
om
x I"-
i--,-1-
LO"0
om .-._=
x _ SO0"0
Z
80 "0 0
_'-vl
r'- --_ =E:
o
_- OLO'O
_3m, I,_ l'rl
EO "0 ,--4
m
0
.--I
o SLO'O-
-rm
°1 SO "0
I'--" '-l-
I_
-r'm
r"
ro r- £80"0" .--I _-"
.--I_ 2
3:=,13= _.-rl
:7 r--
OL'O 0
r-- ..,,._ z_-"
o OSO" 0 - _--;:_
=_ 1:_
"_ .--I
i,m I'-rl
--4 L J SL "0
m "-4
0
•--4 £LO'O
0
08 "0
_-HO _I31V3H WQI73H /_

SS3_d3_l >INV1 8H7 -I0 NOIIVNIN_I31 A
SS3_Ic13_I >INVI XO] JO NOIIVNIN'd31 Z_
N3dO
S3A-IVA SS3_Id3_I 310390A_13 XO-I (INV
NO _31V3H 8HI
NRII3H
LOX PUMP INLET TOTAL PRESSURE, N/cm 2
20 25 30 35
I I I I
-280 I
ITEM TIME FROM SECOND

ESC, SEC
0 / 98
/
8 (STDV)
/
lO0
200
-285
300
ECO / 96
/
L_ ./
////
-290 - 94
(
/
/
/ Z
H
J c_
2 -92
I_,, 5 4
-295 "6 u o o3
,/o/I
--._.EENGI
NE.._START_
BOX -------------" 9O
-300 i
55
25 3O 35 40 45 50
LOX PUMP INLET TOTAL PRESSURE, psia
FUEL PUMP INLET TOTAL PRESSURE, N/cm 2
I0 15 20 25 30
I I I I
-414 - '1 I
ITEM TIME FROM SECOND
-25
ESC, SEC
1 ,0
-416 2 8 (STDV)
3 lO0 24
4 200
5 300
-418 6 ECO
23
i
w L_
I
L_
F--
-420 I L_
F--
22
L 20 o I
H
o o5 I
4
-422 t 'I ,
I 21 O_
d d
u_ I I L_-
-424 / I-.,----ENGINE
L --i
START BOX.---._ I 2O
19
-426 5O
I0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
FUEL PUMP INLET TOTAL PRESSURE, psia
Fi gu re 7-6 • S-IVB Start Box and Run Requirements - Second Burn
7-10
versus time is shown in Figure 7-7. Table 7-2 shows the specific impulse,
flowrates and EMR deviations from the predicted at the STDV +130 second
time slice.
7.8 S-IVB SHUTDOWN TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE FOR SECOND BURN
S-IVB second ECO was initiated at 9697.17 seconds by a guidance velocity

cutoff command for a burntime of 350.8 seconds. This burntime was 4.9
seconds less than that predicted.
The ECO transient was satisfactory. The total cutoff impulse to zero
thrust was 46,235 Ibf-s, which was 2224 Ibf-s less than predicted. Cutoff
occurred with the PU valve in the null position.
7.9 S-IVB STAGE PROPELLANT MANAGEMENT
The PU system was operated in the open-loop mode, which means the LOX flow-
rate is not controlled, to insure simultaneous depletion of propellants.
The PU system successfully accomplished the requirements associated with
propell ant loading.
A comparison of propellant mass values at critical flight events, as

determined by various analyses, is presented in Table 7-3. The best
estimate full load propellant masses were 0.19 percent greater for LOX
and 0.36 percent greater for LH2 than the predicted values. This
deviation was well within the required loading accuracy.
Extrapolation of propellant level sensor data to depletion, using the

propellant flowrates, indicated that a LOX depletion would have occurred
approximately 9.26 seconds after second burn velocity cutoff.
Table 7-2. S-IVB Steady State Performance - Second Burn

(STDV +130 Second Time Slice at Standard Altitude Conditions)
PERCENT
FLIGHT
PARAMETER PREDICTED RECONSTRUCTION DEVIATION
DEVIATION FROM PREDICTED
198,536 -467 -0.235

Thrust, Ibf 199,003
Specific Impulse 0.094

426.8 427.2 0.4
Ibf-s/Ibm
LOX Flowrate,
387.65 386.54 -I .II -0.286
Ibm/s
Fuel Flowrate,
78.58 78.24 -0.34 -0.433
Ibm/s
Engine Mixture
4.933 4.940 0.007 0.142
Ratio,
LOX/Fuel
7-II
S-IVB SECONDESC ACTUAL
S-IVB SECONDECO PREDICTED BAND
220
900
z
c_
8O0 0
r--
700
I
F-
6O0
4300_
...J
r-,
425O
Lz_
4200
L
4150 l,l
220
I/I
f
200
0
180 ._J
i,
I---
0
160
I00 150 200 250 300 350
TIME FROMSTDV +2.5 SECONDS
_]7 i i i ,_ |
02:36:00 02:38:00 02:40:00 02:42:00
Figure 7-7. S-IVB Steady State Performance - Second Burn
7:12
Table 7-3. S-IVB Stage Propellant Mass History
PU INDICATED FLOW INTEGRAL

PREDICTED* PU VOLUMETRIC BEST ESTIMATE**
(CORRECTED)
EVENT UNITS
LOX LH2 LOX LH2 LOX LH2

LOX LH2 LOX LH2
191,588 43,585 191,615 43,892 192,123 43,418 191,890 43,657

S-lC Liftoff Ibm 191,532 43,500
191,615 43,892 192,123 43,418 191,890 43,657

First S-IV8 Ibm 191,526 43,500 191,588 43,585
ESC
First S-IVB
132,826 31,590 132,799 31,336 132,738 31,445
ECO Ibm 131,552 31,398 132,641 31,420
132,413 29,386 132,598 29,506 132,564 29,290 132,525 29,397

Second S-IVB Ibm 131,317 28,857
ESC
Second S-lVB
4336 2252 4102 1977 4102 1977
ECO Ibm 1233 1451 4381 2280
* The predicted mass values have been adjusted for the actual burn times according to the predicted flowrates.
** The Best Estimate masses shown do not include mass below the main engine valves, as presented in Section 16.
During first burn the PU valve was positioned at null for start and
remained there, as programed, for the duration of the burn. The PU valve
was commanded to the 4.5 EMR position 119.9 seconds prior to second ESC,
and remained there for 230.5 seconds. At second ESC +110.6 seconds the
valve was commanded to the null position (approximately 5.0 EMR) and
remained there throughout the remainder of the flight. The actual times
were within 28 milliseconds of predicted.
7.10 S-IVB PRESSURIZATION SYSTEMS
7.10.1 S-IVB Fuel Pressurization System
The LH2 pressurization system met all of its operational requirements.

The LH2 pressurization system indicated acceptable performance during
prepressurization, boost, first burn, coast phase, and second burn.
The LH2 tank prepressurization command was received at -96.7 seconds and
the tank pressurized signal was received 12.5 seconds later. Following
the termination of prepressurization, the ullage pressure reached relief
conditions, approximately 31.9 psia, and remained at that level until
liftoff, as shown in Figure 7-8. A small ullage collapse occurred during
the first 90 seconds of boost. The ullage pressure returned to the relief
level by 130 seconds due to to self pressurization.
During first burn, the average pressurization flowrate was approximately

0.66 Ibm/s providing a total flow of 98.7 Ibm. All during the burn the
ullage pressure was at the relief level, as predicted.
7-13
INITIATIONOF PRESSURIZATION
_7 S-IVB FIRSTESC
_7 S-lVB FIRSTECO
4O
35 24 _E
,,-,, Z
_2 30 L_
I 20 ,,-
I
I
,," 25
I PREDICTED BAND I
,r---..z l- IJ
16 _..F
[ _. "" li -_1
- 20 _..1
---"--- a ....,__ _ ,-. __;_...... ;,
12
-r-
.-J
"-J 15 -'_ --'_- -_-
8
I0
-I000 0 lOOO 3000 5000 7000 9000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
00:00:00 00:30:00 Ol :00:00" Ol :30:00 02:00:00 02:30:00
Figure 7-8. S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure - First Burn and Parking Orbit
The LH 2 tank was satisfactorily repressurized for restart by the 02/H 2

burner. The LH2 ullage pressure was 31.0 psia at second burn ESC, as
shown in Figure 7-9. The average second burn pressurization flowrate
was 0.64 Ibm/s until step pressurization when it increased to 1.27 Ibm/s.
This provided a total flow of 273.3 Ibm during second burn. Significant
venting during second burn occurred at second ESC +280 seconds when step
pressurization was initiated. This behavior was as predicted.
The LH2 pump inlet Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP) was calculated
from the pump interface temperature and total pressure. These values
indicated that the NPSP at first burn ESC was 16.2 psi. At the minimum
point, the NPSP was 7.2 psi above the required value. Throughout the burn,
the NPSP had satisfactory agreement with the predicted values. The NPSP
at second burn ESC was I.I psi which was 3.4 psi below the required value.
The NPSP requirement was met by second STDV open. Figures 7-10 and 7-11
summarize the fuel pump inlet conditions for first and second burns.
7-14
_S-IVB SECOND ESC _AMBIENT HELIUM DUMP, 13,297.9
_OPEN LATCHING NPV, 13,297.9
_/S-IVB SECOND ECO
_OPEN CVS
_OPEN LATCHING NPV 9699.1 OPEN CVS
CLOSE LATCHING NPV, 14,197.4
CLOSE CVS
_CLOSE CVS
_CLOSE LATCHING NPV, 10,597.4 _OPEN LATCHING NPV, 16,883.6
4O
. OM
2O
r";"
• 3o
1 / _ PREDICT ' BAND

1 l"j _ 10 ,%,
_'-- 0
0
9000 11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000 19,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
05:00:00
02:30:00 03:00:00 03:30:00 04:00:00 04:30:00
Figure 7-9. S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure - Second Burn and

Translunar Coast
7.10.2 S-IVB LOX Pressurization System
LOX tank prepressurization was initiated at -167 seconds and increased

the LOX tank ullage pressure from ambient to 40.8 psi within 20 seconds,
as shown in Figure 7-12. Four makeup cycles were required to maintain the
LOX tank ullage pressure before the ullage temperature stabilized. At
-96 seconds the LOX tank ullage pressure increased from 39.9 to 42.5 psia
due to fuel tank prepressurization. The pressure then gradually decreased
to 42.1 psia at liftoff.
7-15
LH2 PUMP INLET TEMPERATURE, °F LH2 PUMP TOTAL INLET LH2 NPSP, psid
PRESSURE _ psia
0
I I ' .
Do Do ._
.,..i°
o Do
0
c-
o_
0
<.---
0
fD
I I I
0 PO -n "n -rl
0
I
Im t:_ m
i=.-i
< --4
4_
0 Z
L_
c- "n
fD E_
_ .-.-I
C_
"0
E --t r- r_
I
m --I
O_
m
rn _=,
m r'-"
fD
0 !
I I
!
r'rl
0
0
I
O- z !
ral,
Lr_
c+ l
0
I
P_
I ' I
I
..._, I i i
°i i
"S
4::. I i ,
c-
t' i
I
I '
i
!
'
i
Do Do P_ _ Do Do Do P_
r_ (.o Co 0 Do .._ 0'_ 0 4:=, Co Do
LH2 PUMP INLET TEMPERATURE, OK LH0 PUMP TOTAL INLET LH2 NPSP, N/cm 2
PRESSURE, N/cm2
ZmO/N '3NNSS_Wd
139NI 1VIOL dNNd _HI _o '3wn±V_3dW3W ±31NI dWNd _H7
c-
0 c_
0
0 0
0 r_n
°°
.° c-
oJ O
I
0 _._
C_
I
c-
0 O
0 _._ °r'-
_g °r--
I,i c-
0_ O
I-- °° .°
i,i
,! :<
k--
i,i
C_
I °°
zr,l /
P_
E
0
-i
I--.
L 0 _
0
°°
0
-r
i,.6.1
t--
I'
I_I_
_0
ZZ2:
000
L.LJ L_ L._
0
0 P_
I °°
0
tD
'--_ h o _
°°
0 °I...-
0 0 0 _'_ 0
I I ! I I I
e_sd '3WASS3_d
p_sd 'dSdN _H7 137NI 7V101 dNnd _H7 3o '3WN±VB3dH3± ±3INI dNfld ZH7
SJ7 LOX TANK REPRESS INITIATED
S_Ts_IVB FIRST ESC
S_7 S-IVB FIRST ECO
_TCRYOGENIC REPRESS INITIATED
5O
ACTUAL
30
U
40 Z
...-" #
# n,l
r_
r_
!
_o
oo
!
m _ t,a
1,1
r_ 30 rv"
r_ 20 _-
I
w
.J
20 ><
x
0 .-,I
..J
m_
10
I0
-I000 0 I000 3000 5000 7000 9000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
00:00:00 Ol :00:00 02:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES :SECONDS
Figure 7-12. S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure - First Burn and
Parking Orbit
During boost there was a normal rate of ullage pressure decay caused by
an acceleration effect and ullage collapse. No makeup cycles occurred
because of an inhibit until after Time Base 4 (T4). LOX tank ullage
pressure was 37.1 psia just prior to ESC and was increasing at ESC due
to a makeup cycle.
During first burn, three over-control cycles were initiated, exactly

matching the predicted three cycles. The LOX tank pressurization flowrate
variation was 0.25 to 0.33 Ibm/s during under-control system operation.
This variation is normal and is caused by temperature effects. Heat
exchanger performance during first burn was satisfactory.
During orbital coast the LOX tank ullage pressure experienced a decay
similar to, though less than, that experienced on the AS-506 and AS-507
flights. This decay was within the predicted band, and was not a problem.
7-18
Repressurization of the LOX tank prior to second burn was required and
was satisfactorily accomplished by the burner. The tank ullage pressure
was 40.0 psia at second ESC and satisfied the engine start requirements,
as shown in Figure 7-13.
Pressurization system performance during second burn was satisfactory and

had the same characteristics noted during first burn. There were no
over-control cycles, as compared to a prediction of from zero to one.
Flowrate varied between 0.33 and 0.39 Ibm/s. Heat exchanger performance
was satisfactory.
The LOX NPSP calculated at the interface was 25.6 psi at first burn ESC.
The NPSP decreased after start and reached a minimum value of 23.9 psi
at 1 second after ESC. This was II.I psi above the required NPSP at that
time.
The LOX pump static interface pressure during first burn followed the
cyclic trends of the LOX tank ullage pressure. The NPSP calculated at the
engine interface was 22.9 psi at second burn ESC. At all times during
second burn, NPSP was above the required level. Figures 7-14 and 7-15
summarize the LOX pump conditions for the first burn and second burn.
The run requirements for first and second burn were satisfactorily met.
• S-IVB
S-IVB SECONDESC
SECONDECO, LOX TANK NONPROPULSIVEVENT
_TBEGIN LOX DUMP
_TLOX TANK NONPROPULSIVEVENT
sol
! - 3O
oJ
,o
or--
40 --'_'1_ E
U
_
C_ 30 - 20
r EXPECTEDBAND
i,l
r_
r-I
_ 20 -"==----
y
ACTUAL - _
i,i
_D
..J
-.1 ..J
X -I0 X
0
_ 10 -J
o
0
9000 11,000 13,000 15,000 17 000 19,000
RANGETIME, SECONDS
,
03:00 : O0 04:00:00 05:00: O0
Figure 7-13. S-IVB LOX Tank Ullage Pressure - Second Burn

and Translunar Coast
7-19
LOX PUMP INLET LOX PUMP INLET TOTAL LOX NPSP, psid
TEMPERATURE, °F PRESSURE, psia
A_
"-I"I t.D _ k,O _0 o.)
ml° 0 C) _
0 co
0 C)
0
c-
O-
0
(I)
I
C)
(./) (.z') (.z)

0 I I i
l-,q 1,_ I..-i
I l::_a _a laa
I
F--q
0
I "rl -_"I -rl
4_
C_ 0 I o"_ (./) (.,'_
.--I '--I ---t
t-
O
X
::_
m
c')
--H I i'_ cr_ I=rl
C-') --I C._
0
(") l--
I
r'_ _
c- o
m
"o
I
I"0
C)
o'_ CO I
c'_
0
0
Z
0
"1
rrl
, i
I
I
._J°
..a°
o
I
0 0
'-s
'i
(,n
P_
o
I
I
4:=, I
_° 0
I
(./)
t-l- o I
CO
c-" 0
L.D _0
-s 0
LOX PUMP INLET LOX PUMP INLET TOTAL LOX NPSP, N/cm2
TEMPERATURE, °K PRESSURE, N/cm2
@w3/N '3WASS3Nd o '3anLVa3dW31
'dSdN xoq IV±O± 13INI dNAd XOI 137NI dWnd X07
0 Lo 0
0 c_J 0 00 4O oJ oJ ,-- c-
0
k'nd 0 ¢,3 o3 c,3 o4 o4 cr_ O_ o_
0 O
0 0
.,
'_" c-
,.
c_ 0
J
T
0 q_
I 0
L.O
7
03 O0
I
I
I
I 0 c-
uo 0
I 0
rm 7 4-_
I z
0 Q._ ° I""
r--,
I "'
r_
c_3
I - CM _
°° Q,_
CD" t"--
I "'
r_ 7 _
I
, J _"
°° _
C"
I
iL
0 C/')
z e_
L_J
o E
0 -1- _
0 _-"
C,3 t--- (--_ I i

r_
_ _: x
I h m p._ __.1
i
I..1.1
Z
000
:::_ Z
I ,,_.1
_£ '" m
{--) c..D _..3 0
L.LI _J L_J
I I--
0
I
I _4
I 0
I
I 0
0
°,
I
°.
L. 0 cM Cn
o
0 0 0 CD 0 C) LO 0 L.t.
c,d
I I I I
e.Lsd ' 3;_ASS3Wd 40 ' 3;_fllVa3dW3.L

.LSd ' dSdN YO] 7V101 137NI dNnd X07 137NI dNRd X07
The cold helium supply was adequate to meet all flight requirements.
At first burn ESC the cold helium spheres contained 381 Ibm of helium.
At the end of the second burn, the helium mass had decreased to 175 Ibm.
Figure 7-16 shows helium supply pressure history.
7.11 S-IVB PNEUMATIC CONTROL SYSTEM
The pneumatic control and purge system performed satisfactorily during

all phases of the mission. Pneumatic regulator operation was nominal at
all times. The LOX chilldown pump motor container purge pressure was
lower than on previous flights. The low pressure was probably due to
contamination of the sintered orifices that control the pressure. The
lower pressure did not effect LOX chilldown pump performance.
7.12 S-IVB AUXILIARY PROPULSION SYSTEM
The APS demonstrated close to nominal performance throughout its flight

and met control system demands out to propellant depletion at approxi-
mately 19.5 hours.
The APS propellant supply systems performed as expected during the flight.
Propellant temperatures ranged from 71 to 96°F. The propellant usage, as
shown in Table 7-4, approximated the nominal prediction out to 12 hours
47 minutes. At this time the APS yaw engines were erroneously fired as a
result of the loss of the primary yaw gyro. When the backup yaw gyro
took over, the yaw engine firing rate which had'built up in magnitude and
duration subsided to normal limit cycle pulsing operation. At 13 hours
and 42 minutes the APS received an erroneous signal from the IU to return
to the TD&E attitude. Following this unscheduled maneuver the APS main-
tained limit cycle operation until 19 hours and 9 minutes. At this time,
more erroneous signals were received from the IU. At 70,150 seconds
(19:29:10) a yaw engine in each module went on steady state and the pitch
engines were fired in alternating series of pulses until propellant
depletion. This APS activity was sufficient to cause a stage velocity
change of 7 to I0 ft/s. All the erroneous firing signals received
from the IU were after normal stage life time. For an additional
discussion of the results of these erroneous firing signals see
paragraph 10.4.4.
The APS propellant pressurization was satisfactory throughout the flight.

However, Module 1 regulator outlet pressure started to increase at
approximately 3 hours and by 7.5 hours the regulator outlet pressure had
increased to 203 psia and then reached a maximum of 204.5 psia at I0 hours
(Figure 7-17). Examination of the helium bottle temperature and regulator
outlet pressure and the vehicle orientation indicates that solar heating
was responsible for these pressure changes. A similar thermal effect on
the regulator outlet pressure was experienced during the regulator qualifi-
cation tests and also at approximately 5.5 hours after TLI on the AS-505
flight.
7-22
S-IVB FIRST ECO END COLD HELIUM DUMP, I0,597.0
START CRYOGENIC REPRESS START COLD HELIUM DUMP, 13,359.4
S-lVB SECONDESC END COLD HELIUM DUMP, 14,196.6
S-IVB SECONDECO START COLD HELIUM DUMP, 16,884.8
START COLD HELIUM DUMP, 9716.0 END COLD HBLIUM DUMP, 18,684.4
3500 2400
3000 "_
2000
2500
1600
E
2000 u
1200
f
c_
c_
1500
800
lO00
4OO
5OO
0
0
0 4OO0 8000 12,000 16,000 20,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
i
.
00:00:00 02:00:00 04:00_00
Figure 7-16. S-IVB Cold Helium Supply History
7-23
Table 7-4. S-IVB APS Propellant Consumption
MODULE 1 MODULE 2
TIME PERIOD OXIDIZER, FUEL, OXIDIZER, FUEL,

LBM LBM LBM LBM
204.8 126.1 204.3 126.1

Initial Load
0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3
_irst Burn (Roll
Control)
12.9 10.2 12.9 10.2
ECO to End of First
APS Ullage Burn (86.7 sec)
8.2 3.5 2.6
End of First Ullage 13.8
Burn to Start of Second
Ullage Burn
9.1 II .7 9.2
Second Ullage Burn II .5
(76.7 sec)
0.2 0.4 0.2
Second Burn (Roll 0.4
Control)
16.0 I0.I 14.4 9.0
ECO to Start of
Evasive Ullage Burn
II .9 9.4 II _9 9.4
Evasive Ullage Burn
(80 sec)
5.1 12.0 7.5
From End of 8.1
Evasive Ullage Burn
to Start of Lunar
Impact Ullage Burn
at 6 Hours
26.7 22.0 30.7 24.6
Lunar Impact Ullage
Burn (217 sec)
17.9 II .2 18.1 II .3
From End of Lunar
Impact Burn to Loss
of Yaw Gyro at Approx.
12 Hours 47 Minutes
12.4 19.2 12.0
Propellant Usage During 20.1
Unstable Period During
Loss of Yaw Gyro to
Repeat of TD&E Maneuver
at 13 Hours 42 Minutes
9.8 6.1 13.3 8.4
Propellant Usage From
13 Hours 42 Minutes
to 19 Hours 9 Minutes
21.8 55.7 21.4
From 19 Hours 9 Minutes 55.2
to Propellant Depletion
Note: The APS propellant consumption presented in this table was determined from
helium bottle conditions (pressure, volume, temperature).
7-24
_FIRST ULLAGE ENGINE BURN
_LOSS OF PRIMARY YAW GYRO
_TSECOND ULLAGE ENGINE BURN
_REPEAT OF TD&E MANEUVER
ULLAGE. S_;'APS PROPELLANT DEPLETION
6-HOUR ENGINE EVASIVEULLAGE
LUNAR IMPACT BURN ENGINE BURN
380
24O 380 240t
360
360 _.
c
", 340
140
34o 14o! /
I 320
MODULE 2-_ f MODULE 2
..-e-----
_
320
300
=_
__
/ 300 __
:E / 280 _-
280 _-
40 __ 40 260
m ___..___ 260 _ I , l
240 _ I, _ 240
MODULE I_ i
220 --
-60 ' 220 '_ N -60 MODULE 1
w _
200 :=
200 = ,,-H,
180
180
-160
-160
220
150
"--.I 150
I
220
_ F MODULE 145
210 145 . - 210
s_ MODULE 2--
MODULE I_ __ __ j
w_
14O o.
o-
200
_ _ 2oo
140 N N _'r" '_I_ II y_:-.-
135
o
/
_ _,.., L._ 135 N _ "_'] II'_ _ II U" _
13o
ODULE 2 / 130 __ _ 190 _MOOULE 2 MODULE l -/
19o
' I • 125 I_ I
125
180 43,200 50,400 61,200 64,800 72,000

0 7200 14,400 21,600 28,800 36,000 36,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I_ I I T I I0:00:00 12:00:00 14:00:00 16:00:00 18:00:00 20:uO:O0

O1:00:00 03:00:00 05:00:00 07:00:00 09:00:00
08:00:00 I0:00:00 II:00:00 13:00:00 15:00:00 17:00:00 19:00:00
02:00:00 04:00:00 06:00:00
Figure 7-17. APS Helium Bottle Temperature and Regulator Outlet Pressure
Nominal primary regulator operation is 196 +_3 psig with a lockup of
203 psig. The higher regulator pressure of 204.5 psia observed during
this flight does not present any system operation problems. A thermal
analysis of the AS-508 flight indicated that the APS regulator temperature
was maintained above -IO°F for approximately 6.5 hours beyond TLI.
The APS ullage pressures in the propellant ullage tanks ranged from 187
to 202 psia. The helium bottle temperatures ranged from -30 to +140°F.
The performance of the attitude control thrusters and the ullage thrusters
was satisfactory throughout the mission. The thruster chamber pressures
ranged from 95 to 102 psia. The ullage thrusters successfully completed
the three sequenced burns of 86.7 seconds, 76.7 seconds and 80.0 seconds
as well as the ground commanded 217 second lunar impact burn. The planned
ullage burn at 9 hours, to impact the lunar target area, was not required.
7.13 S-IVB ORBITAL SAFING OPERATIONS
The S-IVB high pressure systems were safed following J-2 engine cutoff
in order to demonstrate this capability. The thrust developed during the
LOX dump was utilized to provide a velocity change for the lunar impact
maneuver. The manner and sequence in which the safing was performed is
presented in Figure 7-18.
_|_ __..._ .......................... --4---- i

LH2 TANK CVS OPEN
LOX TANK NPV VALVE OPEN ..... .,,m

.... ,..............................
LH2 TANK LATCH NPV VALVE OPEN _. .J iN ........ _--_ .............

COLD HELIUM DUMP .J_l ........ _-J-- ............
AUX HYDRAULIC PUMP ON j_ ----. ...... j .............. -.,--- _ n
AMBIENT REPRESS HELIUM DUMP___
J-2 ENGINE START TANK DUMP --m- ...... I........ J
STAGE CONTROL HELIUM DUMP ....

I i i
_S ULLAGE ENGINES ............................. I---I ...... LV#
LOX DUMP
.................
............
^ _ k/L1 I
9_5 lo.o lo.s 11.0"v1_._ 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 1s.5 16.0 16.s 17.0 _7.5 18.0
& I _ I I I | i
02:40:00 03:00:0_ 03:40:00 04:00:00 04:20:00 04:40:00 05:uO:O0
_GE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 7-18. S-IVB LOX Dump and Orbital Safing Sequence
7-26
7.13.1 Fuel Tank Safing
The LH2 tank was satisfactorily safed by accomplishing three programed

vents, as indicated in Figure 7-18, utilizing both the Nonpropulsive
Vent (NPV) and CVS. The LH2 tank ullage pressure during safing is shown
in Figure 7-9. At second ECO, the LH2 tank ullage pressure was 32.4 psia
and after three vent cycles had decayed to approximately zero. The mass
of GH2 and LH2 vented agrees with the 2510 Ibm of liquid residual and
pressurant in the tank at the end of powered flight.
7.13.2 LOXTank Dumpand Safing
Immediately following second burn cutoff, a programed 150 second vent

reduced LOXtank ullage pressure from 38.6 psia to 18.0 psia, as shown
in Figure 7-13. Data levels were as expected with 73.6 Ibm of helium
and 128.9 Ibm of GOXbeing vented overboard. As indicated in Figure 7-13,
the ullage pressure then rose gradually due to self-pressurization, to
23.0 psia at the initiation of the TD&Emaneuver.
The LOXtank dumpwas initiated at 16,759.4 seconds (04:39:19.4) and was
satisfactorily accomplished. A steady-state liquid flow of 375 gpmwas
reached within 15 seconds. Gas ingestion did not occur during dump. The
LOXresidual at the start of dumpwas 3923 Ibm. Calculations indicate
that 2330 Ibm of LOXwas dumped. During dump, the ullage pressure
decreased from 23.2 psia to 22.8 psia. LO× dumpended at 16,807.4 seconds
(04:40:07.4) as scheduled by closure of the Main Oxidizer Valve (MOV).
A steady-state LOXdumpthrust of 760 Ibf was obtained. The total impulse
before MOVclosure was 31,000 Ibf-s, resulting in a calculated velocity
change of 28.5 ft/s. Figure 7-19 shows the LOXdump thrust, LOX
flowrate, oxidizer mass, and LOX ullage pressure during LOXdump.
The predicted curves provided for the LOXflowrate and dump
thrust correspond with the quantity of LOXdumpedand the actual
ullage pressure.
Seventy-two seconds following termination of LOX dump, the LOXNPVvalve
was opened and remained open for the duration of the mission. LOX tank
ullage pressure decayed from 22.2 psia at 16,880 seconds (04:41:20) to
zero pressure at approximately 31,000 seconds (08:36:40).
Sufficient impulse was derived from the LOX dump, LH2 CVS operation, and
APS ullage burn to achieve a successful lunar impact. For further
discussion of the lunar impact refer to Section 4A.
7.13.3 Cold Helium Dump
A total of approximately 170 Ibm of helium was dumped during the three
programed dumps, which occurred as shown in Figure 7-18.
7-27
S_TSTART OF LOX DUMP
S_TTERMINATION OF LOX DUMP
8OO
_g
• 3000
4- 600
PREDICTED./
• 2000 z
400
uO
r_
-r-
200
,/
! _-ACTUAL
-I000 -r
p-
0 -0
75
F-
5O
__ • 30
• 2o
F
__
0
..J
"_. 25
,>,\ • 10
.=.1
I.,t_
×...
>< E
o..Q / _- ACTUAL -..I .-_
._.1 _---
0
| I .0
8000
E
r-J
m--.
3000
6000 _o
c::
/--TOTAL LIQUID AND GASEOUS
2000
=E:
4000-- _TANK
i,i
r_ N
N
I000
r_ 2000 X
H 0
X
0
TOTAL LIQUID MASS REMAININGJ
0 , I I I I I 0
25
16 _
14 _ _
,=_ ;I.LI 20 .._1 r_
12 __..)
(._
><ILl
X
15 (_,'Y
16,770 16,780 16,790 16,800 16,810 ._J 13..

._I 13_
16,760
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
_7
04:39:20 04:39:40 04:40:00
RANGETIME, HOURS:MI NUTES:SECONDS
Figure 7-19. S-IVB LOX Dump Parameter Histories
7-28
7.13.4 Ambient Helium Dump
Approximately 30.0 Ibm of ambient helium in the LOX and LH2 repressuriza-
tion spheres was dumped via the fuel tank. The 62 second dump occurred
at 13,298.4 seconds (03:41:38.4). The pressure decayed from 3000 to
380 psia.
7.13.5 Stage Pneumatic Control Sphere Safing
The stage pneumatic control sphere was safed by initiating the J-2 engine
pump and by flowing helium overboard through the pump seal cavities for
3600 seconds. This activity began at 15,480 seconds (04:18:00) and
satisfactorily reduced the pressure in the sphere from 2870 to 1750 psia.
7.13.6 Engine Start Tank Safing
The engine start tank was safed during a period of approximately 150
seconds beginning at 13,298.4 seconds (03:41:38.4). Safing was accom-
plished by opening the sphere vent valve. Pressure was decreased from
1250 to I0 psia with 4.20 Ibm of hydrogen being vented.
7.13.7 Engine Control Sphere Safing
The safing of the engine control sphere began at 16,760 seconds (04:39:20).
The helium control solenoid was energized to vent helium through the engine
purge system. The initial pressure in the sphere was 3080 psia, and it
decayed to about 700 psia in 65 seconds. At this time gaseous helium
from the ambient repressurization bottles began flowing to the engine
control sphere. Helium from the control sphere and repressurization
bottles continued to vent until 17,810 seconds (04:56:50). During this
time, the pressure in the repressurization bottles had decayed from
700 to 150 psia. The control sphere pressure had decayed to 130 psia.
Subsequent to the closing of the control solenoid, the control sphere
repressurized to 170 psia without any noticeable decay in stage ambient
repressurization bottle pressure. During the I050 second safing period,
a total of ll.Ol Ibm of helium was vented overboard.
7.14 HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
The S-IVB hydraulic system performance was satisfactory during its complete
mission (S-IC/S-II boost, first and seconds burns of S-IVB, and orbital
coast).
7-29/7-30
SECTION8
STRUCTURES
8.1 SUMMARY
The structural loads experienced during the S-IC boost phase were well below
design values. The maximumQ region bending momentwas 69 x 106 Ibf-in. at
the S-IC LOXtank which was 25 percent of design value. Thrust cutoff
transients experienced by AS-508 were similar to those of previous flights.
The maximumdynamic transient at the Instrument Unit (IU) resulting from
S-IC Center Engine Cutoff (CECO)was eO.20 g longitudinal. At Outboard
Engine Cutoff (OECO)a maximumdynamic longitudinal acceleration of ±0.28 g
and +_0.85g was experienced at the IU and Command Module (CM), respectively.
The order of magnitude of the thrust cutoff responses are considered normal.
During S-IC stage boost phase, 4 to 5 hertz oscillations were detected

beginning at I00 seconds. The maximumamplitude measured in the IU at
125 seconds was +_0.04g. Oscillations in the 4 to 5 hertz range have
been observed on previous flights and are considered to be normal vehicle
response to flight environment.
AS-508 experienced low frequency (14 to 16 hertz) POGOoscillations during

S-II stage boost. Three distinct periods of structural/propulsion coupled
period of oscillations resulted in LOXpumpdischarge pressure variations of
sufficient magnitude to activate the center engine thrust OK pressure
switches and shut down the engine 132 seconds early. All oscillations
decayed to a normal level following CECO. Analysis of flight data indicates
that no structural failure occurred as a result of the oscillations. Flight
measurements also show that the oscillations were confined to the S-II stage
and were not transmitted up the vehicle.
The structural loads experienced during the S-IVB stage burns were well
below design values. During first burn the S-IVB experienced low ampli-
tude, 18 to 20 hertz oscillations. The amplitudes measured on the gimbal
block were comparable to previous flights and well within the expected
range of values. Similarly, S-IVB second burn produced intermittent
low amplitude oscillations in the 12 to 14 hertz frequency range which
peaked near second burn cutoff.
8-I
Three vibration measurementswere madeon the S-IVB aft interstage. The
maximumvibration levels measured occurred at liftoff and during the
Mach l to Max Q flight period and were considered normal.
8.2 TOTAL VEHICLE STRUCTURES EVALUATION
8.2.1 Longitudinal Loads
The structural loads experienced during boost were well below design values
with the exception of the S-If POGO phenomenon discussed in paragraph 8.2.3.
The AS-508 vehicle liftoff occurred at a steady-state acceleration of 1.2 g.
Maximum longitudinal dynamic response measured during thrust buildup and
release was +_0.18 g and _0.40 g at the IU and CM, respectively, as shown
in Figure 8-I. Both values are lower than the respective values of ±0.25 g
and _+0.55 g measured on AS-507.
The longitudinal loads experienced at the time of maximum bending moment

(76 seconds) were as expected and are shown in Figure 8-2. The steady-state
longitudinal acceleration for AS-508 was 1.9 g as compared to 2.03 g on
AS-507.
Figure 8-2 also shows that the maximum longitudinal loads imposed on the
S-IC stage thrust structure, fuel tank, and intertank occurred at CECO
(135 seconds) at a longitudinal acceleration of 3.6 g. The maximum
longitudinal loads imposed on all vehicle structure above the S-IC
intertank occurred subsequent to OECO (164 seconds) at an acceleration
of 3.8g.
8.2.2 Bending Moments
The I-2-I-I engine start sequence (see paragraph 5.2) on AS-508 introduced
lateral responses similar to those measured on AS-507. The maximum
response level at the CM was approximately _+0.17 g (O.ll8 Grins) as compared
to the AS-507 maximum of approximately _+0.15 g (0.I04 Grins). The _+0.17 g
was 50 percent of the preflight predicted 3-sigma value of +_0.34 g.
The inflight winds that existed during the maximum dynamic pressure phase
of the flight peaked at I08.1 knots at 44,540 feet. As shown in Figure 8-3,
the maximum bending moment imposed on the vehicle was 69 x 106 Ibf-in. at
approximately 76 seconds. This moment loading was approximately 25 percent
of design value.
8.2.3 Vehicle Dynamic Characteristics
8.2.3.1 Longitudinal Dynamic Characteristics. During S-IC stage boost

phase, the sign_ificant vehicle response was the expected 4 to 5 hertz first
longitudinal mode oscillations. These oscillations began at approximately
lO0 seconds and continued until CECO. Maximum amplitudes at the S-IC
intertank sensor (AOOl-ll8) reached +0.03 g at 133 seconds and the IU sensor
(A002-603) recorded +_0.04 g at approximately 125 seconds (Figure 8-4).
8-2
NSTRUMENTUNIT
2
Z
0
A
r_
L_
-.J
L_J
C.)
C-)
0 L
COMMAND
MODULE
3
Z
0
_=_ 2
F--
c:C
- o __. .w • - o--o _"-o - "e
L_J -- -r - • j •
_i__,-of " • ._o°_- ,; ,_ r,,.,
C-) 0
C_)
-2 0
RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-I. Longitudinal Acceleration at CM and IU During

Thrust Buildup and Launch
VEHICLE STATION , in.
2000 I000 0
4OOO 3000 ii!
VEHICLE STATION m
I00 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 I0
5O
t : 76 SEC
ACCELERATION= 1.9 g
I0
.... t = 135 SEC
4O ACCELERATION= 3.6
--.m t = 164 SEC
4-
ACCELERATION: 3.8 g
3O
1 _o
6 ,=C
o
2O ,=C
I0
Figure 8-2. Longitudinal Load at Time of Maximum Bending Moment,

CECO and OECO
8-3
VEHICLE STATION, in.
4000 3000 2000 I000 0
I I | _
VEHICLE STATION, m
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 I0
I I I
..... DESIGN LOADS
_-250 -- AS-508 LOADS ..s_' "x
t = 76 SEC I \_
ANGLE OF ATTACK = 2.8 DEG .-_" \
'_ AVERAGE GIMBAL = 0.27 DEG E
200 ANGLE \ o_
I ! '\ o.06
_15O _ ---.__ I \
_ ! _w'/--TOTAL NORMALLOAD FACTOR _\
,.=, z _. \ 0.04 =_
I00 // WITH STRUCTURAL--_ - _ \ _-

., DYNAMICS \
i S" \
0.02
5O
. ...____ LQUASI-STEADY __
0.0
Figure 8-3. Maximum Bending Moment Near Max Q
This is appreciably less than the peak amplitude of +_0.07 g measured on

AS-507. Spectral analysis of chamber pressure measurements show no
detectable buildup of structural/propulsion coupled oscillations. POGO
did not occur during S-IC boost.
The AS-508 S-IC CECO and OECO transient responses shown in Figure 8-5
were similar to those of previous flights. The maximum dynamics at the
IU resulting from CECO was _+0.20 g. At OECO a maximum dynamic longitudinal
acceleration of ±0.28 g and +-0.85 g was measured at the IU and CM,
res pecti vel y.
AS-508 experienced low frequency (14 to 16 hertz) POGO oscillations during

S-II stage boost. Three distinct periods of structural/propulsion coupled
period of oscillations resulted in LOX pump discharge pressure variations of
sufficient magnitude to activate the center engine thrust OK pressure
switches and shut down the engine 132 seconds early. All oscillations
decayed to a normal level following CECO.
Analysis shows that the vibration environment observed on AS-508 was

similar to AS-507 during S-ll.stage burn prior to 327 seconds, see
Figures 8-6 and 8-7. The oscillations are also apparent in the
propulsion parameters as shown in Figures 8-8 and 8-9.
8-4
...................
AS-505 (AMPLITUDE) _ AS-508 (AMPLITUDE)
...... AS-506 AMPLITUDE) AS-508 MEASURED (FREQUENCY)
AS-507 AMPLITUDE) ..... AS-508 ANALYSIS (FREQUENCY)
8
0.08
I A002'-603
INSTRUMENT UNIT
0.06
lI %_,%
O. 04
|1 , ', °=
0.02
/'-1_ ,,i.._ •
........
• ..."
I',, ...
\ •
/ "- ............................... L "" ,io

lO0 105 110 115 120
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
0.04
AO01-118 /
S-IC INTERTANK
._ 0.03
I I
7
>:
o 0.02
I
/
#
i I -5
0.01 -- \ I
L4
0 130 140 150
80 90 lO0 IIO 120
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Responses During S-IC Boost

Fi gure 8-4. Comparison of Longitudinal
i
4 INSTRUMENT UNIT
J v .# w v _
_3 2
v V
136
V v v v
137 1.,i8
134 135
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
4 j INSTRUMENT UNIT
2 \ OUT
l
\\m_DATA
DROP
0
-I
,_ 4 ". _ DATA DROP OUT _ COMMAND MODULE
= __ 0
..:-,__ ---- r._,.._.j
_ -_.,'_i_z'.
,_-_
167
i -2163 164 165 166
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
at S-IC CECO and OECO

Fi gure 8-5. Longitudinal Acceleration at CM and IU
8-5
AS-504 MAXIMUM
............. AS-505 } ENVELOPEI BANDPASSFILTER: 14 TO 20 Hz
..... AS-507 BANDPASSFILTER: 14 TO 20 Hz
_AS-508 BANDPASSFILTER: 12 TO 18 Hz
7 g AT 330.6 SEC
12.
AS-_O_
s-ii _ECO MEASUREMENT
NO. E363-206 _"
AS-507 S-II CECO

10
LJ
--J i
A
I
' " i
I "t
I I :*
't / I
V p,.... ...... X
,,._., ,.... ............... _1"" '_ ""l,,-i...# r_. t
",..
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
S-II BURN TIME, SECONDS

I I i I ,_7 , , , _7, i !
160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560
RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-6. Comparison of S-II Engine No. 5 Thrust Pad Acceleration

With Previous Flights
MAXIMUM
AS-504}
AS-505 ENVELOPE I BANDPASS FILTER: 14 TO 20 Hz
AS-507 BANDPASS FILTER: 14 TO 20 Hz
--AS-508 BANDPASS FILTER: 12 TO 18 Hz
1.5 AT 330.6 SEC

_7AS-508 S-II CECO
....
t_
_AS-507 S-ll CECO
MEASUREMENTNO. E361-206 -16
\ AS-507 :REQUENC_
1.0
o
v
o
, !
!
o.5 fl. I ! -_4 g
I'--
r! i _ !
, I
t
t.EI t
-.,J !
I
0 ___;: _._.::.:,:.,_,
.... I,. :.._../
0 50 I00 150 200 250 300 350 400
S-ll BURN TIME, SECONDS
200 300 400 500

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-7. Comparison of S-II Engine No. 1 Thrust Pad Acceleration

With Previous Flights
8-6
....... AS-507 BANDPASS FILTER: 14 TO 20 Hz
CENTER ENGINE THRUST CHAMBER PRESSURE (D013-205)

6 _. I I
ZO_l
OE _7AS-508
LII CEC6 236 PSI AT 330.6 SEC -7.5 _ "_
I
_JTAS-507 S-II CECO <,o.
I I P--%
-s.0_
....j
o_
/
"_'% I -2,5 N*'
• /
V) O
'_ i.., /
r_ I
0
ENGINE NO. 1 THRUST CHAMBER PRESSURE, D013-201

(TYPICAL OF ENGINES NO. I, 2, 3 & 4)
6
-7.5 _ "G
29 PSI AT 330.6 SEC
<,.
<,=
._j
H_
c_-_ 3
I -5.o_-_
%
_o
_o -2.5_o
I./)_
_o
J --0 a.
_0
120 160 200 320
0 40 80 240 280
%17
I i I I _ ! I , I Y !
I
160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-8. S-II Pre-CECO Thrust Chamber Pressure Characteristics
AS-504_ MAXIMUM
ENVELOPE } BANDPASS FILTER: 14 TO 20 Hz
..... AS-505J
_-_AS-507 BANDPASS FILTER: 14 TO 20 Hz
8
_AS-508 S-If CECO II
MEASUREMENT NO. E362-206 ,
_/AS-507 S-II CECO
1 -17
5.7g AT 330.6 SEC ,,_
6 _, i _,
.C N
.- _ I -16 .
I >-
I
- FREQUENCY I
I t
4 L_ I | -IS
AS-508 FRE( UENCY I I i,,a,.

I I
I I
I
._,, I -14
2 ! I
I%,, t
I
\ / \._ . , I
I
d- k_
400
0 50 I00 150 200 250 300 350
i , , _, , , _ , , ,
2OO 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Comparison of S-II LOX Sump Acceleration With Previous Flights

Figure 8-9.
8-7
Oscillations similar to those experienced on AS-507 had been expected on
AS-508 because both configurations had similar dynamic response character-
istics. However, at 327 seconds the center engine LOX inlet pressure
dropped: indicating a growth of the cavitation field (see Figure 8-10).
Oscillations started building up around the POGO loop following the
pressure drop, as shown in Figure 8-11. By 329 seconds the inlet pressure
amplitudes had exceeded ±20 psi, and the pump was in deep cavitation. At
this point, engine gain (ratio of engine thrust oscillations to LOX inlet
pressure oscillations) had increased from 85 to 200 Ib/psi, triggering a
rapid divergence (see Figure 8-12).
At 330 seconds the crossbeam oscillations reached a peak amplitude of

approximately ±33.7 g. The 20 g peak accelerometer was saturated at this
point so the acceleration levels are reconstructed values. Corresponding
chamber pressure oscillations of approximately ±236 psi (Figure 8-8) re-
flected LOX pump discharge oscillations of sufficient magnitude to trip
the thrust OK pressure switches, and shut off the center engine. The
crossbeam limit load was exceeded during peak oscillations, however, data
show that no structural or engine failures occurred as a result of the
oscillations.
The only significant difference between AS-507 and AS-508 that can be
related to the divergent oscillations was an approximate 3 psi difference
in Net Positive Suction Pressure (NPSP). This was due mostly to an
approximate 3 psi reduction in LOX ullage pressure on AS-508 (see
Figure 8-13), about 2 psi lower than predicted. The lower NPSP decreased
the inboard line frequency (see Figure 8-14), which increased line gain
by approximately 20 percent. The lower NPSP also reduced phase lag
through the engines by I0 degrees. Both of these changes seen in the
flight data are confirmed by ground test results.
The net effect of these two changes raised the inboard loop gain by 2
decibels. It also allowed the outboard loop to contribute half of the
total forcing function out to 327 seconds. By comparison, the AS-507
outboard loop contribution dropped from 50 percent of the total to 20
percent between 300 and 310 seconds, as shown in Figure 8-15. At this
time, the AS-507 oscillations started to decay.
The character of the changes indicate that the reduced ullage pressure
contributed to making the AS-508 vehicle mqre unstable than AS-507
brought it to the point of cavitation, where divergent oscillations
began. These oscillations then took over to force the system deeper into
cavitation and thus to the ±33.7 g level recorded on the crossbeam at
CECO. The ullage pressure difference is considered to be only one of many
S-II stage-to-stage minor variations that could contribute to the type of
instability experienced on AS-508. Although slightly lower than predicted,
the S-II LOX ullage pressure was well within the established limits prior
to the time the large vibrations occurred.
8-8
TANK SL_P
COUPLED
PRESSURE
i y
TRANSDUCER
PREVALVE
REVERSE - FLOW
COLLAR FORMS
THROAT, SHIFTS
INLET PRESSURE
REJ_UREHENT, AND
CHOKES MAIN FLOW
(CAUSED BY LEAKAGE
CAVITATION CAUSED BY MOMENTARYDROP IN
THROUGH INDUCER
VAPOR PRESSURE
TIP CLEARANCE
CLOSE PUMP INDUCER

PRESSURE
TRANSDUCER
PUMP
Figure 8-10. S-II Stage Center Engine LOX Feed System
SATURATED
CENTER ENGINE BEAM ACCELERATION (E363-206) /SIGNAL
20
c_
_. I0
_ 0 'NV_
._1 o
_g -10
-20
------TRANSDUCER
ENGINE 5 LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE (D267-205) --]
FAILED
50-
25
_ o
_,o
_ -25
-50
I I I I I I I
_61 162 !63 164 165 166 167
1 1 I 1 1 1 L,
326 327 328 329 330 331 33_
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-11. Center Engine LOX Pump Inlet Pressure Shift and Beam Vibration
8-9
300
A AS-508 /
260
Q AS-507
I
/ z_
/
220
/
q.-
..D /
,-'-- _
_Y_ _GROUND TEST

180
140 _ +3_ GAIN /

i,i AS-507 MAX
Z
_=_
(__
/
:7
I,i
100
-3_ GAIN ""

6O
0 4 8 12 6 20 24 28 32
LOX PUMP INLET PRESSURE OSCILLATION (APos) PSl
Figure 8-12. Center Engine Gain During S-II Oscillations
42,
40
_AS-507 __
(D258-207) _-_
38
i- \ _
36
(AVERAGE OF D257-207 & D258-207)
34 i I J
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 55O

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-13. S-II LOX Ullage Pressure
8-10
/
AS-508 //
.
Z
LIJ_
O-
X
0
AS-507
___
LU
_J
r_
l,
N
IJ_I-r
Z
_J 25-
O
._J
20.
;00
Figure 8-14. Comparison of AS-507/AS-508 S-II Engine No. 5

LOX Line Characteristics
_7 AS-508 CECO
_7AS-507 CECO
_-- engine thrust vector
_= thrust pad velocity vector
4 F---_- V0
PERCENT OUTBOARD=
--
FI.V I + 4 -
0
I00 r-_
r¢
r-_ I 20 0
< 80 mr_
0
r_ 40 z
507 --_
60
0
l _.._f 508
I 60 zi,l
z 40
L._
0 80 r_
r¢
w 20
_z I00
I I
400 _50 5OO
5O 200 250 O0 350
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-15. S-II Engine Inboard/Outboard Power Ratio
8-11
North American Rockwell (Space Division and Rocketdyne) does not agree
that the reduced LOXtank ullage pressure made a significant contribution
to the change in the dynamic response of the LOXfeed system. They
have offered the hypothesis that the generation of bubbles at the pump
inlet is keyed to a specific vibration level on the center engine cross-
beam. While such a phenomenonhas been created in the laboratory at levels
of vibration of one or two orders of magnitude higher than the 3 to 4 g
observed just prior to the AS-508 instability, it is considered doubtful
that this mechanism alone explains the difference in behavior between
AS-507 and AS-508. A review of the crossbeam vibration levels shows that
similar magnitudes were observed on AS-507 at the same time in flight
and that similar levels had been reached and maintained for several seconds
on AS-508 prior to the time that the gross instability occurred. As
Rocketdyne contends, it is true that the small difference in NPSPwould
have a minor effect on the overall system stability; but, inasmuch as the
system is marginally stable to begin with, only a minor change is necessary
for the loop to become unstable. NARhas not proposed an explanation for
the different behavior of AS-508 other than a random response to the
vibration levels on the order of 3 to 4 g. In any case, the effect of the
mechanismwas to increase the compliance of the LOXfeed system
(lowering the inboard LOXline natural frequency) to where there was a
high degree of coupling between the feed system and the crossbeam. The
actual mechanismwhich caused the increase in compliance is not important
to the solution of the problem, since the planned fix, installation of an
850 cu in. accumulator on the inboard LOXline, renders any typical
variations in system compliance (an estimated I00 cu in. on AS-508)
unimportant.
The response of the CMduring the period of peak oscillation has been
reviewed and is shown in Figure 8-16. The peak response is about +0.12 g
and is associated with the transient of CECO. This level is very near
the _+0.II g for the CECOtransient on AS-507. The CMenvironment during
S-II stage burn was no more severe than during prior low frequency oscilla-
tions resulting from S-II stage operation.
An accumulator is being installed on the center engine LOXline in AS-509

to "de-tune" or uncouple the structural and propulsion system elements and
thereby suppress oscillation buildup. The accumulator system has already
been tested during static firings on S-II-IO and S-II-12. Examination
of possible attendant problems using a center engine LOXaccumulator is
continuing, along with an intense review of the characteristics of the
1ow frequency osci I I ati on phenomena.
The POGO Working Group also recommendedthe study of limit monitor systems
which would provide for automatic engine shutdown if response levels exceed
predetermined levels. The concept is such that a vibration detection
__ystemwould monitor structural response and would initiate cutoff if
vibrations approached a dangerous level. Of several proposed systems, the
leading candidates are two systems based on; a G Limit Switch Acceleromter,
and a Piezoelectric type Accelerometer. The only function of the vibration
8-12
0.II g AS-507
COMMAND MODULE 0.12 g AS-508

CKOO26A
_- A002-603
INSTRUMENT UNIT NOISE
FLOOR { AS-508
AS-507
A0012-403 0.18 g AS-507
THRUST PAD 0.18 g AS-508
3.7g
_AS-507 33.7 g
AS-508
THRUST PAD I !
0 5 lO 15 20 30
ACCELERATION, Gpeak
Figure 8-16. AS-508/AS-507 Longitudinal Acceleration Response Comparison

During S-II Oscillations
detection system would be to preclude a Category 1 failure in the event

that the accumulator system should perform in an unexpected manner.
Analysis of AS-507 and AS-508 flight data shows that oscillations of very
low amplitude in a frequency band of 20 to 22.5 hertz are evident throughout
S-II burn. The AS-508 peak oscillations (+_0.15 g) were noted on engine No. 1
thrust pad between 548 and 558 seconds. The peak amplitude outside of this
I0 second interval was approximately _0.06 g. A stability analysis shows
a very weak 21 hertz instability at about the 30 inch LOX liquid level,
The oscillations were confined to the aft section of the S-II stage and
did not transmit up the vehicle.
Prior flights have noted the existence of I0 to II hertz low level

oscillations just prior to OECO. This same phenomenon was noted on AS-508
with the amplitudes being higher than on AS-507. The peak response of
_0.27 g recorded on the LOX sump was approximately double the +0.12 g
level measured on AS-507 as noted in Figure 8-17. A stability analysis
shows a weak II hertz instability late in the S-II burn,
Both the II and 21 hertz oscillations are confined to the outboard struc-
tural/propulsion coupled loop and are not harmonically coupled to each
other. Neither of these responses are affected by the addition of the
accumulator to the center engine LOX line. Evaluation of these two
responses is continuing.
8-13
V AS-508 S-II CECO
X_AS-507 S-il CECO
_ AS-508 S-ll OECO
0.21 X_lAS-507 S-II OECO
ENGINE NO. II
THRUST PAD
(E361-206)
7_] o.1
ENGINE NO. 1
0.17 g ._ THRUST PAD
L (E361-206)
0 --I 0
0.09 g
c.,._ 0
ENGINE NO.5
THRUST PAD
(E363-206)
0.4
oI
1.0 ENGINE NO. 5 I
L_
±3
0.2
O
" 0.25 g_
::C c_.
L_
THRUST PAD
(E363-206) 0.I g_..__ [

LOX SUMP
(E362-206)
0.4
0.27 gF_ LOX SUMP
(E362-206)
__2\
Co _ _ 0.2
I
_2
L_
I
_g 0
u_
ENGINE NO. 1 c_
THRUST CHAMBER -I0 '_ _,_ 3

(B013-201) _-_ I ENGINE NO. l 5 __-_
I THRUST CHAMBER _ ^ - _ :_ < g
L_F--
_-_ 3
V I I I 1_71
_°vz 0
300 320 340 360 380 400
V L I I I I Y S-II BURN TIME, SECONDS

200 250 300 350 400
S-ll BURN TIME, SECONDS I I I i I i I
I L i I I I 450 470 490 510 530 550 570
350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-17. AS-508/AS-507 Acceleration and Pressure Characteristics From S-11

CECO to OECO (8 to 14 Bandpass Filter)
During S-IVB first burn, low frequency (18 to 20 hertz) longitudinal
oscillations similar to those observed on previous flights were again
evident on AS-508. The AS-508 amplitudes (_0.05 g at gimbal block) were
well below the maximum measured on AS-505 (+_0.30 g) and within the expected
range of values. Spectral analysis shows the structural mode frequency
present in the LOX pump inlet and chamber pressures (Figure 8-18). However,
there is no significant buildup in the chamber pressure at the structural
frequency.
During S-IVB second burn, intermittent 12 to 14 hertz oscillations were

measured beginning approximately 90 seconds prior to cutoff. The oscilla-
tions peaked approximately I0 seconds prior to cutoff with +_0.07 g measured
at the gimbal pad. This compares to ±0.12 g on AS-507. Spectral analysis
of the gimbal acceleration and chamber pressures reveal two closely spaced
frequencies present in both measurements (Figure 8-19). The two frequencies
have been identified as two coupled modes (longitudinal/pitch and longitu-
dinal/yaw) with natural frequencies approximately 0.5 hertz apart. The
coupling of these two modes produced the beating phenomenon observed in
the data. This characteristic was observed on past S-IVB flights near
second burn cutoff.
8.3 VIBRATION EVALUATION
One skin and two stringer vibration measurements were made on the S-IVB aft
interstage during the AS-508 flight. Figure 8-20 shows that the vibration
levels were slightly lower than measured on AS-507. The maximum levels
occurred at liftoff and during the Mach 1 to Max Q flight period, as
expected.
8-15
O.ll___A L. ! n _J R_ L.I I I
A12-403
GIMBAL ACCEL
: 640 650 660 670 680

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
s-
c_
GIMBAL ACCEL _ I GIMBAL ACCEL
T - 667 B
i
0.018 A12-403 __ A
o 0.027 A12"4_13 --- _- - SECONDS_
F- J ! T -64s
0.012 rA, SECONDS__
L_
,.-H 0.006 0.00_
< 0 c 1
_ 0.22 LOX INLET PRESS I
D3-403
0.21 D4-403
0.II
c_ 0.07 __
c_
=- 0 o
CHAMBER PRESS O. 7501CHAMBER PRESS {
- 0.21
r_
'_ o
0.02
0 16 24 32 8_ 16 24 32
FREQUENCY, Hz FREQUENCY, Hz
Figure 8-18. S-IVB First Burn Spectral Analyses
A B
9661 9682 9703
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
_9695 TO 9697
0.I
_O.Ol
0.001
0.0001
0.1
0.01
1 lO
Figure 8-19. S-IVB Second Burn Spectral Analyses
8-16
ii
40_
I I I I I
_SKIN MEASUREMENT E220-402
36 i i
_AS-508 _.NII
32 I
I
mm_
Cx _ AS-507
C_ i
28 C_
_- MAXIMUM
C_ !
1
Cx
0¢ .it.-
E 24 vJ
N v,,,"
IV/ i
Ol E//
_ 20
O0
I
-.j -.1
,,, 16
O0
! <x_
(11
CO
12
-- MINIMUM
!
\\'I_
STRINGER MEASUREMENTS
--E219-402 AND E221-402
I i i i
0 u "
7O 8O 9O I00 120 130 140
-20 -lO 0 lO 20 30 60. llO
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 8-20. S-IVB Aft Interstage Skin and Stringer Vibration

SECTION9
GUIDANCE
ANDNAVIGATION
9.1 SUMMARY
9.1.1 Performance of the Guidance and Navigation System as Implemented
in the Flight Program
The guidance and navigation system performed satisfactorily throughout

the mission. The parking orbit and Translunar Injection (TLI) parameters
were within 3-sigma tolerances.
Guidance parameters were modified to compensate for the early S-II Center
Engine Cutoff (CECO), and the S-IVB burn was lengthened to compensate for
the additional gravity losses during S-II burn.
9.1.2 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. Crossrange velocity as measured by the inertial platform,
exhibited a negative shift of approximately 0.65 m/s (2.13 ft/s) at
approximately 3.4 seconds, introducing a 0.5 m/s (1.64 ft/s) velocity
error. The velocity shift probably resulted from the accelerometer
head momentarily contacting a mechanical stop due to the high vibration
levels after liftoff. The effect on navigational accuracy was negligible.
A similar crossrange velocity shift was exhibited on AS-506.
At 68,948 seconds (19:09:08), the LVDCexhibited a memoryfailure

due to 6DIO battery depletion, and the flight program essentially
ceased operation.
9.2 GUIDANCE
COMPARISONS
The postflight guidance error analysis was based on comparisons of the

ST-124M-3platform system measured velocities with the final postflight
trajectory established from external tracking data (see paragraph 4.2).
Velocity differences for boost-to-Earth Parking Orbit (EPO) are shown
in Figure 9-I. A positive difference indicates trajectory data greater
9-I
than the platform measurement. The velocity differences at S-IVB first
Engine Cutoff (ECO) were 1.27 m/s (4.17 ft/s), 3.64 m/s (11.94 ft/s),
and -0.35 m/s (-1.15 ft/s), for vertical, crossrange, and downrange
velocities, respectively. These differences are relatively small and
well within the accuracy of the compared data and the preflight measured
hardware errors. The 3.64 m/s (ii.94 ft/s) difference in crossrange
velocity includes an initial bias in the platform measured value of at
least 0.5 m/s (1.64 ft/s), discussed in paragraph 9.4.2. Since the
measured velocities were used to construct the postflight trajectory,
the difference curve does not show the initial bias as such, however,
the guidance velocities were constrained to tie in with tracking data
after the vehicle reached sufficient altitude for the tracker to pick
up track.
S_TS-IC OECO
_7S-II OECO
S_TS-lVB FIRST ECO
2
6
c-3_ 4 _.
o,E 1
.._ 0 f
c:l_ t.Ll 0 _
-2 _
I--- I..u. _] _L_4
E_ I.J_
.-4 _
LIJ_
-2 '-6 ::::" _
12
3 J
o f
o u_ J
f 8
_E 2 ff
6 >
zz 1 J 4 _
i._ i.J.i
N_ o 0 _
-1
2 6
H
_E
2
_ 0 0 uJ_
ZL_J
__ -1 ZL_.
L_ -4 _._
O_
_7 _, _7 .-6 _
-20 I00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
RANGETIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-I. Trajectory and ST-124M-3 Platform Velocity Comparison

Boost-to-EPO (.Trajectory Minus Guidance)
9-2
The platform velocity comparisons for the S-IVB second burn are shown in
Figure 9-2. Although the postflight trajectory during this period of
flightwas constructed using the measured velocities, the difference
profiles are consistent with those for the boost-to-parking orbit tra-
jectory. The vehicle was essentially flying along the platform vertical
axis during the second burn phase. The differences shown could be
caused by a relatively small platform misalignment due to a pitch gyro
drift. The velocity difference curves for both burn phases have been
simulated with a combination of hardware errors that are well within
preflight measurements and/or 3-sigma hardware errors.
S_Ts-IVB SECOND ECO _-
- , v _ --2 _z
C3_ LL.
_J --6 LIJ J"--_
I-'- IJ- :_.C_
_ -2
4 uJ_-
2 _uJ
0 zz
/
-2 cz) LJ
C/)LL
cz_
=o_ -]
(.._
0
0 v
,-2
-4 _
-6 °_
o,_ LJJ
__
-10_
Z_J -12 _ u_
_L_4
Zt_- -4
-14 o_
-16
-5 -18
-20
-6
-22
-7 9_00
9500 9600 9700
9300 94OO
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
i I
i
02:41:40 02:43:20
02:36:40 02:38:20 02:40:00
02:35:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS: MINUTES : SECONDS
Figure 9-2. Trajectory and ST-124M-3 Platform Velocity Comparison

Second S-IVB Burn
9-3
Platform velocity measurements at significant event times are shown in
Table 9-I along with corresponding values from both the postflight and
Operational Trajectories (OT). The differences between the telemetered
and postflight trajectory values reflect some combination of small
guidance hardware errors and tracking errors. The differences between
telemetered and OT values reflect differences between predicted and
actual flight environment and vehicle performance. The values shown
for the S-IVB second burn mode represent velocity change from Time Base 6
(T 6) to TLI. The characteristic velocity determined from the platform
velocities during the second burn was very close to nominal. LVDC
characteristic velocity was 0.24 m/s (0.79 ft/s) higher than the post-
flight trajectory and 0.09 m/s (0.29 ft/s) lower than the OT. However,
the LVDC velocity increase due to thrust decay after S-IVB cutoff was
about 0.75 m/s (2.46 ft/s) higher than the OT.
Comparisons of navigation (PACSS 13 coordinate system) positions, velo-

cities, and flight path angle are shown for significant flight event
times in Table 9-2. The guidance (LVDC) and postflight trajectory
values are in good agreement for the boost-to-parking orbit burn mode.
Approximately 500 meters (1640 ft) of the crossrange position error
may be attributed to the initial velocity bias. The total position
and velocity differences are well within expected accuracy. The parking
orbit trajectory was perturbed by a low vent thrust (the curve essen-
tially follows the minimum predicted vent thrust) from time of orbital
navigation (ECO +lO0 seconds) to approximately 2500 seconds (00:41:40)
similar to AS-507 (see Figure 9-3). The state vector deviations at
EPO together with low initial vent thrust caused oscillatory buildup
in velocity component differences between the LVDC and postflight
trajectory during parking orbit. At T 6 the differences in geocentric
radius and total velocity were -2847 meters (-9340 ft) and 2.24 m/s
(7.35 ft/s), respectively. Table 9-3 presents the state vector dif-
ferences at TLI between the LVDC and both the postflight trajectory
and OT. The position component differences are large, but the velo-
cities and geocentric radius are in good agreement.
9.3 NAVIGATION AND GUIDANCE SCHEME EVALUATION
The navigation and guidance functions were accomplished satisfactorily.

The apparent crossrange velocity shift at liftoff, described in para-
graph 9.4.2, had negligible effect on the overall navigational accuracy.
The Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM) phase times-to-go (TII, T21, and T3I)
and the performance indications (Tau l and Tau 2) were adjusted properly
when the acceleration decreased at S-II CECO. The adaptability of the
expanded IGM to an unexpected performance change was demonstrated by
the modification of the guidance parameters independent of any engine-
out discrete data. Had the flight program sensed no discretes indicating
9-4
Table 9-I. Inertial Platform Velocity Comparisons
(PACSS12 Coordinate System)
EVENT DATA SOURCE VELOCITY - MIS (FT/S)
VERTICAL CROSSRANGE DOWN RANGE
(_) (_) (_)

2612.26 12.20 2231.33
Guidance (LVDC)
(8570.41) (40.03) (7320.64)
2612.13 13.66 2230.59

S-IC Postflight Trajectory
(8569.97) (44.82) (7318.20)
OECO
2604.90 -1.83 2242.12

Operational Trajectory
(8559.87) (-5.99) (7356.05)
3645.04 -9.38 6785.00

Guidance (LVDC)
1,958.79) (-30.77) (22,260.50)
3646.13 -6.01 6784.55

S-II Postflight Trajectory
(11,962.36) (-19.72) (22,259.04)
OECO
3480.13 -2.96 6810.35

(11,417.73) (-9.72) (22,343.67)
3374.44 3.95 7648.50

Guidance (LVDC)
(11,071,00) (12.96) (25,093.50)
3375.71 7.59 7648.15

S-IVB First Postflight Trajectory
(11,075.15) (24.90) (25,092.37)
Cutoff
3232.05 1.90 7610.45

(10,603.84) (6.22) (24,968.66)
3373.75 3.95 7650.20

Guidance (LVDC)
(11,068.73) (12.96) (25,099.08)
3375.09 7.68 7649.79

Parking Orbit Postflight Trajectory
(11,073.13) (25.19) (25,097.75)
Insertion
3231.45 1.91 7611.89

10,601.86) (6.26) (24,973.38)
3145.35 167.78 -232.29

Guidance (LVDC)
(10,319.39) (550.46) (-762.11)
3144.60 167.41 -239.34

S-IVB Postf]ight Trajectory
Second (10,316.92) (549.27) (-785.26)
Cutoff*
166.77 -236.51
Operational Trajectory 3145.92
(10,321.28) (547.15) (-775.96)
3149.35 168.10 -232.00

Guidance (LVDC)
(551.51) (-761.15)
(I0,332.51)
3148.60 167.79 -239.03

Translunar Postfli ght Trajectory
(550.50) (-784.24)
(I0,330.06)
Injection*
167.04 -236.26
3149.18
(I0,331.95) (548.04) (-775.14)
|,,
Base 6.
*Values represent velocity change from Time
9-5
Table 9-2. Guidance Comparisons (PACSS 13)
VELOCITIES FLIGHT PATH

POSITIONS
M/S ANGLE (DEG)
METERS
DATA
(FT) (FT/S)
EVENT SOURCE
Vs Z$ Vs
Ys Zs
Xs [
849.53 132.51 2606.48 2744.63 19.4777
Guidance 6,438,5181 40,068 160,856 6,440,652
(2787.17) (434.74) (8551.44) (9004.69)
(21,123,746) (131,456) (527,742) (21,130,747)
134.07 2605.74 2743.98 19.4799
40,213 160,822 6,440,613 849.43
S-IC Postflight 6,438,480 (9002.55)
(21 ,130,621 ) (2786.85) (439.85) (8549.03)
OECO Trajectory (21,123,621) (131,932) (527,632)
118.61 2606.32 2740.25 19.2487
39,559 160,819 6,439,745 837.84
iOperational 6,437,615 (8990.31)
(21,127,773) (2748.81) (389.15) (8550.93)
Trajectory (21,120,785) (129,787)_ (527,621)
77.34 6572.71 6892.46 0.6508
82,467 2,043,886 6,561,173 -2073.51
Guidance 6,234,157
(21,526,157) (-6802.85) (253.74) (21,564.01) (22,613.06)
(20,453,272) (270,561) (6,705,662)
80.36 6572.30 6891.78 0.6571
83,525 2,043,735 6,561,281 -2072.43
S-II Postflight 6,234,306
(21,526,511) (-6799.31) (263.65) (21,562.68) (22,610.82)
OECO Trajectory (20,453,761) (274,032) (6,705,167)
88.00 6684.35 6958.78 0.6990
79,949 1,897,926 6,559,826 -1932.96
Operational 6,278,758
(-6341.72) (288.70) (21,930.27) (22,830.63)
Trajectory (20,599,599) (262,301) (6,226,792) (21,521,738)
73.00 6866.95 7791.57 -0.0016
94,118 3,099,452 6,563,359 -3680.79
Guidance 5,784,653
(21,533,329) (-12,076.08) (239.50) (22,529.36) (25,562.89)
(18,978,521) (308,787) (I0,168,807)
76.101 6866.74 7790.80 0.0038
95,665 3,099,286 6,563,588 -3679.50
First S-IVB Postflight 5,784,978
(-12,071.86) (249.69) (22,528.67) (25,560.38)
ECO Trajectory (18,979,586) (313,860) (I0,168,261) (21,534,083)
-3451.37 76.80 6984.89 7791.43 -0.0006
5,884,096 92,064 2,906,360 6,563,382
Operational (25,562.45)
(302,048) (9,535,303) (21,533,407) (-II,323.38) (251.97) (22,916.29)
I Trajectory (19,304,776)
O_ -3762.80 71.87 6824.46 7793.40 -0.0003
Guidance 5,747,430 94,843 3,167,921 6,563,358
(-12,345.14) (235.79) (22,389.96) (25,568.90)
(18,856,397) (311,165) (I0,393,440) (21,533,326)
-3761.42 74.97 6824.19 7792.53 0.0053
5,747,768 96,4201 3,167,747 6,563,593
Parking Orbit Postflight (25,566.05)
(316,338) (10,392,870) (21,534,099) (-12,340.63) (245.96) (22,389.09)
Insertion Trajectory (18,857,508)
-3534.69 75.63 6944.85 7792.99 0.0000
5,849,162 92,826 2,976,017 6,563,382
Operational (25,567.55)
(304,548) (9,763,834) (21,533,407) (-II,596.76) _ (248.14) (22,784.93)
Trajectory (19,190,164)
4291.66 -I14.43 -6503.00! 7792.34 0.0278
Guidance -5,481,236 -I03,293 -3,619,347 6,569,196
(14,080.25) (-375.43) (-21,335.30) (25,565.42)
-17,983,058) (-338,888) -II,874,499) (21,552,480)
-I16.95 -6487.97 7794.58 0.0175
-I05,283 -3,638,169 6_66,349 4318.34
Time Base 6 Postflight -5,465,307
(14,167.78) (-383.70) (-21,285.98) (25,572.76)
Trajectory (-17,930,796) (-345,418) (-II,936,250) (21,543,139)
-I15.04 -6508.93 7793.31 0.0299
-I03,217 -3,612,411 6,568,126 4284.43
Operational -5,484,533
(14,056.52) (-377.41) (-21,354.74) (25,568.60)
Trajectory (-17,993,875) (-338,638) (-11,851,743) (21,548,968)
215.77 624.17 10,839.68 7.0703
Guidance 1,209,140 -120,274 -6,591,207 6,702,276! I0,819.55
(35,497.21) (707.91) (2047.80) (35,563.25)
(3,966,993) (-394,601) (-21,624,696) (21,989,093)
216.48 652.14 10,839.49 7.1822
Second S-IVB 1,238,978! -122,694 -6,584,901 6,701,570 I0,817.69
iPostflight (35,562.64)
(-402,538) (-21,604,005) (21,986,777) (35,491.II) (710.23)! (2139.56)
ECO Trajectory (4,064,888)
215.15 653.27 10,836.64 7.2237
-120,094 -6,588,245 6,705,978 I0,814.79
Operational 1,245,288
(22,001,240) (35,481.60) (708.89) (2143.26) (35,553.28)
Trajectory (4,085,590) (-394,010) {-21,614,978)
217.62 711.54 10,832.46 7. 5229
Guidance 1,317,280 -ll8,110 -6,584,528 6,716,039 10,806.88
(22,034,249) (35,455.64) (713.98) (2334.45) (35,539.57)
(4,321,784) (-387,501) -21,602,781)
218.43 739.47 10,832.10 7.6347
Translunar Postflight 1,347,108 -120,517 -6,577,940 6,715,543 10,804.62
(22,032,623) (35,448.23) (716.63) (2426.07) (35,538.38)
Injection Trajectory (4,419,645) (-395,398) -21,581,169)
216.96 740.40! 10,828.44 7.6758
Operational 1,353,383 -117,932 -6,581,275 6,720,025 10,800.92 !
(22,047.327) (35,436.10) (711.82) (2429.14) (35,536.39)
Trajectery (4,440,233) (-386,917) -21,5g2,111)
Table 9-3. State Vector Differences at Translunar Injection
OPERATI ONAL POSTFLI GHT

PARAMETER TRAJ ECTORY TRAJE CTORY
MINUS LVDC MINUS LVDC
36,103 29,928
AXs , meters
(ft) (118,448) (98,189)
178 -24O7
AY s , meters
(ft) (584) (-7897)
3253 6588
AZs , meters
(ft) (10,672) (21,614)
3986 496
AR, meters
(ft) (13,077) (1627)
-5.96 -2.26
AX s , m/s
(ft/s) (-19.55) (-7.41)
-0.66 O. 81
AYs , m/s
(ft/s) (-2.16) (2.66)
28.86 27.93
AZ s , m/s
(ft/s) (94.68) (91.63)
-4.02 -0.36
AVs , m/s
(ft/s) (-13.19) (-I .18)
the cutoff of an engine, the guidance reaction would have been the same;
the discrete is now employed only for setting a mode code bit for telemetry.
In the version of IGM used last on AS-505, the reaction to a thrust-loss
was initiated by sensing the engine-out discrete and sampling acceleration
for three computation cycles to determine the validity of the discrete.
With recognition of the discrete, the result is a slower reaction to
thrust loss which perturbs the guidance outputs longer than in the ex-
panded IGM.
The pitch and yaw guidance commands showing the reactions to the S-II
CECO as well as the balance of first burn are shown in Figure 9-4. The
second burn pitch and yaw guidance commands are shown in Figure 9-5.
Although the vehicle was inserted into parking orbit 44 seconds late,
it was farther down range than predicted and, therefore, nearer the
point at which T6 should begin. This difference in range angle caused
9-7
360 I
BEGIN ORBITAL _ I I 8o
GUIDANCE NOMINAL PF-70-M-26
MAXIMUM I S&E-ASTN-
320
I ®®0
MINIMUM
(CALCULATED FROM
2-7-70
70
_GUIDANCE ACCEL. /
PROGRAMMED
280
I I
6O
240
5O
z 200
40
c_c
_- 160
3O
120
2O
8O
x4
10
4O
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I i I ! l i I i i f i I
0 00:16:40 00:33:20 00:50:00 01:06:40 01:23:20 01:40:00 01:56:40 02:13:20 02:30:00 02:46:40
Figure 9-3. LH 2 Continuous Vent Thrust During Parking Orbit
the time from T 5 to T 6 to be 25.9 seconds less than predicted. The

close agreement between achieved and targeted TLI parameters, as shown
in Table 9-4, is indicative of satisfactory T6 initiation.
All orbital guidance functions were accomplished satisfactorily. At

49,353 seconds (13:42:33), an unplanned Transposition, Docking and
Ejection (TD&E) maneuver was performed as discussed in paragraph
10.4.4. This maneuver was verified by postflight simulation. The
inertial attitude acquired was quite different than that at the actual
TD&E maneuver performed because the vehicle radius vector from earth
was in a different direction relative to the inertial coordinate frame.
From this occurrence at 49,353 seconds (13:42:33) until the program
ceased functioning at 68,948 seconds (19:09:08), the vehicle attitude
remained inert|ally fixed.
9-8
_POSTFLIGHT SIMULATION
S-IC CECO _-iI EMR
II OECOSHIFT .......... LVDC
S-I C OECO
IGM INITIATION GCS NO. 1
_s-iI CECO
0
\
-20
\
-1-
-40
\
F--4
C2_
Z
< -60
\
\
0
-80
I--
I--
-I00
i
-120
2
>-
1
I
r-_ I
0 f
o
-I
L_
-2
I---
I--
I--- -3
-4 I
-5 7OO
0 I00 200 300 400 500 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 9-4. Attitude Commands During Boost to EPO
9-9
S_TS_IVB IGNITION
S_TEMR SHIFT
_TEND ARTIFICIAL TAU POSTFLIGHT SIMULATION
_TGCS NO. 2 ........... LVDC
2O
16
c_)
_-
I-.....4
12
< 8
'" 4
E 0
\
-4
_, °°
_ 5
120
"U ...._
jv
/
< 4 f
/
Z
/
_- 3
0
I..ul
/
C21 /
_ 2 f
F-
I--
/
i
i /
B_ ° /
0
9320 9360 94O0 9440 9480 9520 9560 9600 9640 9680 9720
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
, V, , ,_7 _ , , , I , _7 ,
02:35:20 02:36:40 02:38:00 02:39:20 02:40:40 02:42:00
Figure 9-5. Attitude Commands During S-IVB Second Burn
9-10
Table 9-4. AS-508 Guidance System Accuracy
TARGETED* GUIDANCE GUIDANCE ACHIEVED

EVENT PARAMETER
ACHIEVED** MINUS TARGETED
Firing Azimuth (deg) 72.04392

GRR
72.04344
Flight Azimuth (deg)
32.53843 32.53842 -0.O0001

Inserti on Inclination (deg)
123.1270 123.1268 -0.0002
Descending Node (deg)
6,563,366 6,563,358 -8
Radius (m)
7793.043 7793.043 0.0
Velocity (m/s)
0.0 -0.0004959 -0.0004959
Path Angle (deg)
31.82763 31.82876 O.OOll3

Injection Inclination (deg)
123.0412 123.0406 -0.0006
Descending Node (deg)
Twice Specific Orbital 0.0

-1,363,732 -1,363,732
Energy (m2/s2)
0.977440 0.977421 -O.O00019
Eccentricity
-147.4838 -147.4877 -0.0039
Argument of Perigee (deg)
*Obtained from LVDC Boost Initialization and Restart Telemetry.
**Determined from Navigator State Vector for an Unbiased Cutoff.
The orbital insertion parameters after S-IVB first burn are shown in
Table 9-5. The TLI parameters after S-IVB second burn are shown in
Table 9-6. The difference between the LVDC and OT total energy (C 3)
is due essentially to a 0.75 m/s (2.46 ft/s) higher velocity gain, due
to thrust decay, than that used to establish the OT. The postflight
trajectory includes the measured thrust decay.
The active guidance phases start and stop times are shown in Table 9-7.
The first phase of IGM guidance was nominal until S-II CECO. All IGM
parameters adjusted correctly for the change in stage performance.
At 68,948 seconds (19:09:08) the LVDC lost its ability to access memory
due to 6DIO battery depletion, and the program essentially ceased opera-
tion. This simultaneous inability to correctly access either memory
module is discussed in paragraph 9.4.1.
9.4 GUIDANCE SYSTEM COMPONENT EVALUATION
9.4.1 LVDC and LVDA Performances
No LVDC or LVDA performance component malfunction was indicated prior to

the LVDA power supply output decay. At 48,027 seconds (13:20:27), bit 8
of the Error Monitor Register was set. The cause has not been identified.
9-11
Table 9-5. Parking Orbit Insertion Parameters
OPERATIONAL POSTFLIGHT
PARAMETER TRAJECTORY TRAJECTORY GUIDANCE OMPT LVDC
(OMPT) (kVDC) MINUS OT MINUS OT
(OT)
7792.99 7792.53 7793.40 -0.46 0.41

Space-Fixed Velocity,
(25,567.55) (25,566.05) (25,568.90) (-I .50) (I.35)
m/s (ft/s)
6,563,382 6,563,593 6,563,358 211 -24

Geocentric Radi us,
(21,533,407) (21,534,099) (21,533,326) (692) (-81)
meters (ft)
0.0000 0.0053 -0.0003 0.0053 -0.0003

123.1253 123.0840 123.1247 -0.0429 -0.0006

Descending Node, deg
32.5386 32.5247 32.5384 -0.0139 -0.0002

Inclination, deg
0.000012 0.000135 0.000091 0.000123 0.000079

Eccentricity
Table 9-6. Translunar Injection Parameters
LVDC
PARAMETER OPERATIONAL POSTFLIGHT GUIDANCE OMPT
MINUS OT
TRAJECTORY (OT) TRAJECTORY (OMPT) (LVDC) MINUS OT
10,832.10 10,832.46 3.66 4.02

Total Velocity, m/s 10,828.44
(35,539.57) (II.99) (13.18)
(ft/s) (35,526.39) (35,538.38)
6,716,039 -4482 -3986

Geocentric Radius, 6,720,025 6,715,543
(22,032,623) (22,034,249) (-14,704) (-13,078)
meters (ft) (22,047,327)
122.9970 123.0408 -0.0340 0.0098

Descending Node, deg 123.0310
31.81 70 31.8285 -0.0159 -0.0044

Inclination, deg 31.8329
0.9772267 0.9774900 0.0000102 0.0002735

Eccentricity 0.9772165
212.4406 212.5109 -0.0657 0.0046

Argument of Perigee, deg 212.5063
-1,376,274 -1,359,565 -9 16,700

-1,376,265
C3 ' m2/_2 2"
[ft /s ) (-14,814,467) (-14,814,574) (-14,634,236) (-I07) (180,231)
Table 9-7. Start and Stop Times for IGM Guidance Commands
STEERING
MISALIGNMENT
EVENT* IGM PHASE ARTIFICIAL TAU CORRECTION TERMINAL GUIDANCE CHI FREEZE
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
START STOP START STOP START STOP START STOP START STOP
First Phase IGM 2O4.5 534.7 223.9
Second Phase IGM 534.7 592.7 534.7 545.8 591.7
Third Phase IGM 592.7 743.2 600.2 611.2 607.4 742.4 716.9 743.2 743.2 763.2
Fourth Phase IGM 9352.4 9449.1 9363.0
Fifth Phase IGM 9449.1 9695.7 9449.1 9478.4 9695.0 9668.3 9695.7 9695.7 9846.6
*All times are for the start of the computation cycle in which the event occurred.
9-12
No degradation of performance was observed. The first indication of
LVDC degradation was the first of a series of intermittent B memory
failures at 68,856 seconds (19:07:36). At 68,877 seconds (19:07:57)
the first of a series of A memory failures was telemetered. Both A
and B memory failures continued for approximately 91 seconds before
the simultaneous A and B memory failures at 68,948 seconds (19:09:08).
The only indication of the simultaneous memory failures was telemetered

via the LVDA Data Output Multiplexer (DOM) output of the interrupt
storage register, which was the last LVDC or LVDA data telemetered.
The only interrupt set was the simultaneous memory failure interrupt.
The execution of only the interrupt storage register read command
indicates that the LVDC program entered the interrupt processor pro-
gram module and then ceased to function before responding to the inter-
rupt.
At the time of the simultaneous memory failures, the LVDA power supply
outputs to the LVDC were as follows:
Output; Volts
+20 +15.9
+12 + 9.2
+ 6 + 5.92
- 3 - 3.06
The LVDC temperatures were as follows:
Temperature °F
Measurement Function Monitored Indicated Redline
C53-603 Buffer Oscillator 125.2 143.6 Max

C54-603 Memory 110.3 116.6 Max
Two error monitor register bit 3 indications of triple modular redundant

interface output latch logic signal disagreements occurred at 20,907 sec-
onds (05:48:27) and 20,967 seconds (05:49:27). As in previous flights,
these signal disagreements were associated with the digital command sys-
tem operation. The indications were expected and are acceptable opera-
tion.
At approximately 42,100 seconds (11:41:40), error monitor register bit 5

was set, indicating the voltage of one of the input buses was below the
minimum usable level. The 6D41 voltage went below 24 volts at 41,560
seconds (II:32:40). In addition to the continuous error monitor register
bit 5 indications of low 6D41 voltage, error monitor register bit 8
indications were telemetered every computation cycle beginning at
48,027 seconds (13:20:27) and continuing for approximately 400 seconds.
9-13
These indicate logic signal disagreements at the data latch through which
data are transferred between the LVDAand LVDC. Real time telemetry data
for the entire period were not analyzed. No error time word was telemetered
following the continuous error monitor register bit 5 indications of low
input voltage conditions at 42,100 seconds (11:41:40). This may preclude
any determination for the cause of the error monitor register bit 8
i ndi cations.
9.4.2 ST-124M-3 Inertial Platform
The ST-124M-3 Stabilized Platform Subsystem (ST-124M-3 SPS) performed

satisfactorily until loss of 6DIO battery power at approximately 66,000
seconds (18:20:00).
At approximately 3.4 seconds, during a period of high radially directed

vibration, the crossrange velocity measurement exhibited a shift of 0.65 m/s
(2.13 ft/s), resulting in a velocity error of approximately 0.5 m/s
(1.64 ft/s) as shown in Figure 9-6. The shift is significant because of
its similarity to the negative shift experienced shortly after the liftoff
of AS-506. Contact of the oscillating accelerometer head with a mechanical
stop has been postulated as the cause of the AS-506 negative shift. This
can not be confirmed because the accelerometer head position was measured
with a sampled measurement. A measurement change effective on AS-508
provided continuous measurement of the accelerometer head position via an_
FM/FMchannel. The FM/FMdata were telemetered via the DF-I telemetry link
on a 59-hertz response channel. Although the telemetry channel response
was sufficient to accurately reproduce head deflections at frequencies up to
59 hertz, a signal conditioning dc amplifier within the measuring rack used
to condition the measurement for the telemetry system attenuates all signals
above 20 hertz. The raw telemetry data from the ¥-accelerometer head
position show a burst of oscillations between 2.0 and 3.0 seconds at fre-
quencies ranging from 32 to 36 hertz. The maximumhead deflection from the
raw telemetry data measured +4.34 degrees. Taking into account the rolloff
characteristics of the amplifier at 35 hertz, this becomesan actual head
deflection of +5.95 degrees. Since the stops are specified to be 6 degrees
(+0, -0.5), it is concluded that the probable cause of the velocity shift
was the'accelerometer head momentarily contacting the mechanical stops.
Figure 9-7 is a reconstructed FM trace of the head deflection from 2.0 to
2.9 seconds. There are five points (3 positive and 2 negative) where the
5.5 degree points were exceeded. The observed maximumamplitude of the
output count deviation was 41 counts (2.05 m/s [6.72 ft/s]) occurring at
2.52 seconds. Other output pulse count deviations shortly after this time
exceeded 35 counts. The signs of the velocity deviations and the times of
direction changes can not be determined because of the lack of telemetry
of the other output pulse train from the crossrange accelerometer.
The crossrange accelerometer reasonableness test constant is 2 m/s (6.56 ft/s)

during the first I0 seconds of flight. This would limit the acceptable
velocity change over a nominal computation cycle length to 1.7 m/s (5.6 ft/s).
The maximumcrossrange velocity change, sampled by the LVDA, in the first
I0 seconds of the AS-508 mission was -0.65 m/s (-2.13 ft/s).
9-14
CROSSRANGE VELOCITY, m/s
ACCELEROMETER HEAD DISPLACEMENT, deg
_ o
o
!
I
I * I _n
I 0 8
CnO'_
!
II -,J°
I __ I
I >
I E
I I CD
I r_ I
%
I I
\
.,.4.
ec_ --I
c- '_._--_- _-1--
a -_ -_-_ I
II _ _ 0
I I
...4 +
II
""_ r- "-'-" _
(./) (.(3
------.--. . _D
I
..J
/
,--t
tD --_ z
L.___d -_ o ---t
I c+C_
I m
i I
I
3> ___<
(-_ I o
(._ I nn-_ \
('b | I, -_tD
o \
cI) I I
I -_c-
o 0 -_ t
I
(I)
(-F I |
(I) 0-
I '_ -'--'---" I
_< \
i
._°
o -.--T _ (I)
o L. O9
--h .r,, *1
- I i
I PO
I I
| ,- _ _
I Co
CO
I
I
I
I
!
The presence of radially-directed vibration having significant energy at
frequencies near 37 hertz (the resonant frequency of the accelerometer
loop) is characteristic of the present Saturn V configuration during the
first I0 seconds of flight. Nothing presently exists to preclude the
occurrence of crossrange velocity shifts, such as those experienced on
AS-506 and AS-508, during the early portions of future missions. The
probability of any significant overall navigation accuracy degradation
because of such a shift is negligibly small; the probablility of permanent
accelerometer impairment is practically nonexistent.
The performance of the stabilization gyro servo loops was nominal until
loss of power at the end of the IU life. Telemetry data indicated
typical gyro pickoff deflections during the vibration period around lift-
off. Pickoff deflections noted at Command Service Module (CSM) separa-
tion were:
X gyro 1.6°P-P
Y gyro O.32°P-P
Z gyro 1.36°P-P
At CSM docking the deflections on all three gyros were approximately

O.15°P-p.
Oscillations of O.25°P-P at approximately 5 hertz were in evidence on

the X gyro pickoff before and after S-IC CECO. Spurts of 2.5 hertz at
O.I°P-P were noted on the Y gyro pickoff prior to S-II CECO.
As the vehicle battery power decayed, the X and Z gyro servo loops started
to oscillate, as expected, at 69,000 seconds (19:10:00). The Y gyro
oscillations were less severe and came in spurts starting at approxi-
mately 69,900 seconds (19:25:00).
The inertial gimbal temperature (Figure 14-8) began decreaslng snortly

after liftoff as experienced on previous Saturn V flights. A low of
IOI.9°F was reached at approximately 17,000 seconds (04:43:20). After
this time the temperature began increasing, but stayed within specified
limits as did the three platform associated electronic boxes until loss
of environmental cooling at approximately 50,000 seconds (13:53:20).
At 67,000 seconds (18:36:20) all ST-124M-3 SPS box temperatures were
still within specified limits but rising. Decaying IU battery power at
this time caused additional data to be erroneous.
The gas bearing differential and internal ambient pressures remained

within specified tolerances through 60,000 seconds (16:40:00). With
loss of sphere pressure, these parameters decayed to 2.2 psid and 1.8
psia, respectively. See Figure 14-9.
9-16
9.4.3 Ladder Outputs
The ladder networks and converter amplifiers performed satisfactorily.
At 68,948 seconds (19:09:08), the time of the LVDCmemory failure, the
ladder amplifiers for the pitch and yaw attitude error channel drifted
to full scale positive values. Full scale at this time was approxi-
mately 11.8 degrees due to the decaying supply voltages. The roll
ladder output did not drift, indicating that it was the last serviced
by the minor loop. The flight control subsystem responded to the
attitude error input by commandingpitch and yaw thruster firings to
balance the attitude error signals, as discussed in paragraph 10.4.4.
9.4.4 Telemetry Outputs
Analysis of the LVDAtelemetry buffer and flight control computer atti-

tude error plots indicate symmetry between the buffer outputs and the
ladder outputs. The LVDCpower supply plots indicate satisfactory power
supply performance. The H60-603 guidance computer telemetry was satis-
factory.
9.4.5 Discrete Outputs
No valid discrete output register words (tags 043 and 052) were observed
to indicate guidance failure.
9.4.6 Switch Selector Functions

Switch selector data indicate that the LVDAswitch selector functions
were performed satisfactorily. No error monitor words were observed
that indicate disagreement in the triple modular redundant 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,
noindications were observed to suggest that the B channel input gates
to the switch selector register positions were selected.
9-17/9-18
SECTIONI0
CONTROL
ANDSEPARATION
I0.I SUMMARY
The AS-508 control system, which was essentially the sameas that of AS-507,
performed satisfactorily. The Flight Control Computer (FCC), Thrust Vector
Control (TVC), and Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) satisfied all require-
ments for vehicle attitude control during the flight. Bending and slosh
dynamics were adequately stabilized. The prelaunch programed yaw, roll,
and pitch maneuvers were properly executed during S-IC boost.
During the maximumdynamic pressure region of flight, the launch vehicle

experienced winds that were less than 95-percentile April winds. The
maximumaverage pitch and yaw engine deflections were in the maximum
dynamic pressure region.
S-IC/S-II first and second plane separations were accomplished with no
significant attitude deviations. Related data indicate that the S-IC
retromotors performed as expected. At Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM)
initiation, a pitchup transient occurred similar to that seen on previous
flights. The S-II retromotors and S-IVB ullage motors performed as
expected and provided a normal S-II/S-IVB separation.
Satisfactory control of the vehicle was maintained during first and second
S-IVB burns and during coast in Earth Parking Orbit (EPO). During the
Commandand Service Module (CSM) separation from the S-IVB/IU and during
the Transposition, Docking and Ejection (TD&E)maneuver, the control
system maintained the vehicle in a fixed inertial attitude to provide a
stable docking platform. Following TD&E, S-IVB/IU attitude control was
maintained during the evasive maneuver, the maneuver to llunar impact
attitude, and the LOXdumpand APSburns.
An unscheduled decrease in range rate of approximately 2 to 3 m/s (7 to

I0 ft/s) was experienced for approximately 60 seconds beginning at
70,150 seconds (19:29:10). This unscheduled maneuver had no adverse
effect on lunar targeting.
I0-I
I0.2 S-IC CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION
The AS-508 control system performed satisfactorily during S-IC powered

flight. The vehicle flew through winds which were less than 95 percentile
for April in the maximum dynamic pressure region of flight. Less than
lO percent of the available engine deflection was used throughout flight
(based on average engine gimbal angle). The S-IC outboard engines canted
as planned.
All dynamics were within vehicle capability. In the region of high

dynamic pressure, the maximum angles-of-attack were -2.9 degrees in pitch
and 1.4 degrees in yaw. The maximum average pitch and yaw engine deflec-
tions were 0.4 degree each and occurred in the maximum dynamic pressure
region. Both deflections were due to wind shears. The absence of any
divergent bending or slosh frequencies in vehicle motion indicates that
bending and slosh dynamics were adequately stabilized.
Vehicle attitude errors required to trim out the effects of thrust

imbalance, thrust misalignment and control system misalignments were
within predicted envelopes. Vehicle dynamics prior to S-IC/S-II first
plane separation were within staging requirements.
Maximum control parameters during S-IC burn are listed in Table I0-I.
Pitch and yaw plane time histories are shown in Figure I0-I. Dynamics
in the region between liftoff and 40 seconds result primarily from guidance
commands. In the region between 40 and II0 seconds, maximum dynamics were
caused by the pitch tilt program, wind magnitude, and wind shears.
Dynamics from II0 seconds to separation were caused by high altitude winds,
separated air flow aerodynamics, center engine shutdown and tilt arrest.
The transient at Center Engine Cutoff (CECO) indicates that the center
engine cant was 0.13 degree in pitch and 0.24 degree in yaw.
Table I0-I. Maximum Control Parameters During S-IC Flight
PITCHPLANE YAWPLANE ROLLPLANE

PARAMETER AMPLITUDE RANGETIME AMPLITUDERANGE
TIME AMPLITUDE RANGE
TIME
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
Attitude Error, deg I. 32 90.7 1.07 II .5 -0.78 14.1
Angular Rate, deg/s -0.92 92.0 0.44 5.5 1.6 14.8
Average Gimbal Angle, 0.36 14.0 O. 36 II .3

deg
Angle-of-Attack, deg -2.88 69.9 1.44 82.1
Angle-of-Attack 7.83 75.4 4.47 82.1

Dynamic Pressure (1635.34) (933.58)
Product, deg-N/cm2
(deg-lbf/ft 2)
Normal Acceleration -0.48 88.9 0.57 88.0

m/s 2 (ft/s 2) (-1.57) (1.87)
10-2
_-0L
"g-OL a,_nS.L3 U.L UMOqS aap "13p_:_p-_.o-saLBuP auPLd t_e_ pup q3_.Ld "g-OL aLqe_L
U.L uMoqs a,_e ..4..-I.Oq..4.bL
":l.e O.L:_P_ %q6.LaM-o%-%sn,_q% aq% pup 'spu.LM 'sa3,_o#
asealaa MOLS 's%uawuB.LLeS.LLU paanseew pup pa_3.Lpaad aq/ "_'LaA.L_nadsaa 'LLOJ
pup 'Me_" 'q3_.Ld U.L aaJ6ap 0"0 pup 'LL'0- 'E:0"0- aJaM _ue3 aU.L6ua p,_eoq_no
Ja_#p S_UaUJU6.LLPS.LLUJo_3a^ _snaq_ _uaLPA.Lnba aq.L .s_uatuu6.LLeS.LLU tua_s_'s
LOa_UO3 pup _UatUU6.LLPS.Lm Jo_3aA :_sn_q_ '(99) _:_.LAPJ9 _0 aa_ua3 _as_._.o
'a3UPLpqW.L :_sn,_q_ _o s:_oa_a aq_ :_no _U.La:_0:_ paa.Lnbaa aap saoa,_a asaq.L
• _'LaA.L_3adsea 'LLO,_ pup 'tAp_ 'q3_.Ld U.L aa,_6ap g0"0- pup 'SL'0- '80"0- aaaM
3_up3 au.L6ua p,_poq_no o_ aO.Lad S_UaWU6_LPS.LW JO_3eA _sn,_q_ 3,uaLPA.Lnba
aq_ _Pq_ a_.P3.Lpu.[ spuO3aS 0g pup _O_.LL uaaM_aq saoaaa apn_.[_D,p aqj.
u,_n_] 31-S 6U.LJn(] S3LU_PU£(] aUPLd MPA pup q3%.Ld • L-0L a,_n6.L3
S(]N033S '3WI1 39NV_I
0_ L 0g 00 L 08 09 0_ OZ 0
09L
A z_ A z_ ZE ,&./ DI
I I...z_ _'0- 6"_ O =E:
,------t"-4
,", m --I
I1) ¢--
. "2, 0"0
O'1
I"_ rrl
II
PO
O
8"0
Z m "_
0 ;:_ _--._
0
mOO
i
! ^... C=
.-_ ,--_. _:::,
-..._" "o --'1
0 ----I
V
/ ,, 8"0
I'D --I _
_m
m
I I 9"L
031VlnWIS
03_flSV3W
L H3WA
0330 3I-S_
LS3_J_JV1111 a3An3NVW qq0a ON3/_S
0333 3i-s INV3 3NIgN3 G_VO_Ino/;s
0_ L ' H3J_IMS NIV9 ON033S A _3An3NVW qqO_IHDIId NI939A
£0L 'HDJ.IMS NIV9 ZS_II4Z_
_3Afl3NVW MVA GN3_
o xw A _3An3NVW MVA N193_
Table 10-2. AS-508 Liftoff Misalignment Summary
PREFLIGHT PREDICTED LAUNCH
PITCH YAW ROLL PITCH YAW ROLL

PARAMETER
±0.34 ±0.34 ±0.34 -0.08 -0.15 -0.02

Thrust Misalignment, deg*
0.13 0.24
Center Engine Cant, deg*
±0.29 _0.29 0.0 0.03 -0.04 -0.03

Vehicle Stacking and Pad
Misalignment, deg
0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.04 -0.06 0.06

Attitude Error at Holddown
Arm Release, deg
Peak Soft Release 415,900 (93,300)

Force Per Rod, N (Ibf)
Wind 14.4 m/s (28.0 knots) 6.3 m/s (12.2 knots)

at 18.3 meters at 18.3 meters
(60 feet) (60 feet)
1.178 1.199
Thrust to Weight Ratio
*Thrust misalignment of 0.34 degree encompasses 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.
**Data not available.
10.3 S-II CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION
The S-II stage attitude control system performan'ce was satisfactory.

Analysis of the magnitude of modal components in the engine deflections
revealed that vehicle structural bending and propellant sloshing had
negligible effect on control system performance. The maximum Control
parameter values for the S-II burn period are shown in Table 10-3. The
maximum values of pitch and yaw control parameters occurred in response
to initiation of Phase I IGM. The maximum values of roll' control param-
eters occurred in response to S-IC]S-II separation disturbances. The
control responses were within expectations.
Between the events of S-IC Outboard Engine Cutoff (OECO) and initiation
of IGM, the attitude commands were held constant. Significant events
which occurred during that interval were S-IC/S-II separation, S-II stage
J-2 engine start, second plane separation and Launch Escape Tower (LET)
jettison. The attitude control dynamics throughout this interval indicated
stable control, as shown in Figure 10-3. Steady-state attitudes were
achieved within 20 seconds after S-IC/S-II separation.
At IGM initiation, the vehicle was commanded to pitch up and then down.
The transient amplitudes experienced were similar to those of previous
flights. At the premature S-II CECO, the Instrument Unit (IU) detected an
engine out condition and issued compensating attitude commands. These
commands were similar to those issued under normal CECO conditions;
however, the amplitudes were larger to correct for deviations from the
prescribed trajectory. In the pitch axis, an attitude error of -1.9
degrees and a rate of +1.2 deg/s were introduced by the guidance response
10-4
_-OL
uJnH 3I-S 6u#Jn0 _3e%%V-_O-eL6uV • _-0 L eJn6 #_-I
SON033S '3NIl 39NVW
O#L OZ[ 00 L 08 09 0t, o_

09[
A A z&
I AI
", i]_,'
,L !,_, _,,f L,
! /
,
_ _-_ --_
r-_
v, I' I
mr'-
o
!
v
; vl -rl
i
,, .r
V
!
I",,
/
L- _>-<
fD "0 "_ _
0 _"_ _-
(._ I--
_--_ m "0
---I I I-"
_--_ 0 3_,
_-rlZ
I
!
Z.--I
0--I
Fq
V r'rl C_
-'4
II
Z
II
M ^j
(._ r"- ("_
--I i
_-._ C) "o
_ '-.rl r-
r_j L-
r"rl _
3::= :z
_" --.4 rrl
0--4
|
\ .A 0 -o
&
031VIRWIS
l.lV£-O NOel Q3lVl_OlV3.
03303z-s&
N3AR3NVN llON 0N3
o3_3 3i-s ,& LNV3 3NI9N3 GaVOHI_O
L HOVN _
OZL 'H311MS NIV9 QN033S A a3AR3NVN llOa/HOlld N1938
£OL 'HDIIMS NIV9 LS814
0 xw { a3A_3NVN MVA 0N3/_k
a3A_3NVW MVA N193_/_k
Table 10-3. Maximum Control Parameters During S-II Burn

PARAMETER AMPLITUDE RANGETIME AMPLITUDE RANGETIME AMPLITUDE RANGETIME
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
Attitude Error, deg -1.9 210 0.7 208.0 -0.6 165.0
Angular Rate, deg/s 1.2 2ll -0.3 209.0 0.9 165.5
Average Gimbal Angle, -0.9 208 0.5 202.5 -0.6 165.5

deg
S_7 S-IC/S-II SEPARATION COMMAND

_7 S-ll SECOND PLANE SEPARATION COMMAND
S_7 IGM PHASE l INITIATED
_7 S-II CECO
_7 IGM PHASE 2 INITIATED, S-II LOW EMR SHIFT
S_7 S-II OECO
-a
o
_-_
l
_F---
-l
0 k _-'_
/
Q_to
F-o
r_ v -2
MEASURED DATA
SIMULATED
-o |.
0.5
-r |_
°"
,,,,,, 0 r -m-
,,,o /---
_. -o.5
I-.- _'-,
I-.- F.-
>-v 200 300 400 500 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure I0-3. Pitch and Yaw Plane Attitude Errors During S-II Burn
to the decrease in thrust. The flight control computer issued a +_0.3

degree, one-cycle command to the actuators. In yaw, a constant offset of
0.2 degree of all engines existed throughout the remaining burn. This
offset is attributed to a combination of vehicle CG offset and imbalanced
thrust from control engines.
I0-6
L-Of
uJn8 _SJL_ _AI-S 6u_Jno sJoJJ3 apn%#_V Mel pue 43_d "lz-O [ aan6.t3
SGNOD3S:s31nNIW:S_flOH '3W11 39NVa
0£:60:00
OS:_[:O0 0[:_[:00 0_:[[:00 OS:O[:O0 OL:O[:O0
• I I 1 I
' z_Z_ Z_ SGN033S '3HI± 3DNVa z_
OLS
OLL O£L 069 0S9 0[9
S'L- zm.<
o p_ 3m,
(z_ po :E_
mo
O'[- ;_o ,-I
-1--o.- I
S'O-
V --I o') c
0"0
ll) 1"17
............. S'O
0"[
0"_- :Z m "I_
1 1 0"[-
0
rrl
C
;lJ
0 C')
_o-_-
_--i
0"0 _ o-_
<m
O'Z
O_
6"9[L '3ONVOlfl9 7VNIN'd31 N1938/_
_01n3 3NIgN3 8AI-Sz_ NOILVIIINI 39NVOIn9/_
3Z33_3 IH3z_ _6S (,,_,, NO 3QON N'dn8 £AI-S/_
"it-O/ alqe/ U.L pa%uasaJd S.L saa%ameaed [oJ%uo3 %46LL=L Le3.L%LJ3 _.0
senle^ Lunm.LXemuanq %SJ.L_L aq:_ _.o /_aeLutuns V "UO.L:_e.L:_.LUL NgI %e paJJnD30
se:_e_ pue s,_oJJa epn:_.L:_:_e LunLU.LXem eq.L -aJn6.L_ eq:_ UL pa%e3.LpU.L a,_e
UO.L%e,_ado tua%s/_s [oa%uo3 0% pa%e[aa s%ueAa %Ue3.L#.LU6.LS aql "it-O[ aan6.L4
u.t pat_uasead a,_e saoaae apn:_.t_%_ t4eR pue q3%.td uanq :_sa.tj. _]AI-S aql
uan£ %SJ.L3 5U.LJn(] UO.L%enLeA3 Lua%sRs [o,_%uo3 l'iz'O/
•Lua%sRs LO,_%uo3
aq% _LO Sa.L%.Lt.Lqede3 aq_ ULq%.LM tram eJa_ pue pe:_3adxa a,_at4 s%ue.LSUea:_
aSaql ":_o%n3 au.L6ua g-[_ pue 'epotu anuepLn6 [eU.LLLUa:_ '%_L.LqS (aN3) O.L:_e_J
aJn%x.L N aU.L6U3 _UO.L%e.L%.LU.La3uep.Ln6 'uo.L%eaedas _]AI-S/II-S %e pa3ua.Laadxa
_aM s%ua.LSUe,_% Lua%s/_s [OJ_.U03 _su,_nq puo3as pue %SJ.L_L _]AI-S 6ULJn(]
• suJnq puo3as pue

%SJ.L:_ 6u.Lanp LOJ%UO3 ltOJ /_JO:_3%LS.L:_eS pap.LAoad SdV aql ":_qB.LL_L paaaMod
6U.L_np LOJ:_uo3 M_/¢ pue q3%.Ld /_0%3e_LS.L:_S pap.LAO,_d tua:_sRs 3A1 _]AI-S aq_L
NOILVrlqVA3 1431S},S 70alNO3 £AI-S iT"Of
• e:_ep U.L sa3uaaa_L_L.Lp U.Lem aq% Jo_ :_unoaoe S3.L%S.L

-aa%3eJeqo dnpL.Lnq %sn_q% au.L6Ua pu_ 'S%UaLUU6.LLe JO_DeA %snaq% 'UO.L%_3OL
aU.L6Ua U.L Sa.L%U.Le%Ja3url "/_%.LA.L%OeLua%SRS lO,_%uo3 %sa%ea_6 :_o SUO.L6a_
aq% U.L aaa6e e%ep asaql "e%ep UOL%e[nLULS pue %q6.L[_L sa_edLuo3 £-0[ aan6.L4
Table 10-4. MaximumControl Parameters During S-IVB First Burn
PARAMETER AMPLITUDE
RANGE
TIME AMPLITUDE
RANGE
TIME AMPLITUDE
RANGE
TIME
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
603.9 -I .08 614.0 -I .I0 621.1
Attitude Error, deg 1.92
-0.35 6O4.3 -0.63 594.1

Angular Rate, deg/s -I .30 605.4
1.31 603.5 -0.77 606.0

Average Gimbal Angle,
deg
The pitch and yaw effective thrust vector misalignments during first burn
were +0.20 and -0.29 degree, respectively. As experienced on previous
flights, a steady-state roll torque of 15.0 N-m (II.0 Ibf-ft) counter-
clockwise looking forward, requred roll APS firings during first burn.
The steady-state roll torque experienced on previous flights has ranged
between 61.4 N-m (45.3 Ibf-ft) counterclockwise and 54.2 N-m (40.0 Ibf-ft)
cl ockwi se.
Propellant sloshing during first burn was observed on data obtained from
the Propellant Utilization (PU) sensors. The propellant slosh did not
have any noticeable effect on the operation of the attitude control system.
10.4.2 Control System Evaluation During Parking Orbit
The APS provided satisfactory orientation and stabilization during parking

orbit. Following S-IVB first cutoff, the vehicle was maneuvered to the
in-plane local horizontal and the orbital pitch rate was established. The
pitch attitude error for this maneuver is shown in Figure 10-5.
10.4.3 Control Syst#m Evaluation During Second Burn
The S-IVB second burn pitch and yaw attitude errors are presented in
Figure 10-6. The significant events are indicated in this figure. The
maximum attitude errors and rates occurred at guidance initiation. A
summary of the second burn maximum values of critical flight control
parameters is presented in Table 10-5.
The pitch and yaw effective thrust vector misalignments during second
burn were approximately +0.25 and -0.29 degree, respectively. The
steady-state roll torque during second burn ranged from 11.3 N-m
(8.4 Ibf-ft), counterclockwise looking forward, at the low EMR to
12.9 N-m (9.5 Ibf-ft) at the 5.0:1.0 EMR.
10-8
6-OL
uJn_ puooas _Al-S 6u.[JnG sJoJJ3 apn%.[%:_V Met, pue qa%.[d "9-OL eJn6.[_-I
S(]NO33S:S3J.nNIN:S_InOH '3HIJ. 39NW
0#: L#:ZO O0:O#:ZO OZ:O£:ZO 0#:98:Z0
' .&Z_' ' ' ' _ ' z_/_

z_ S(]N033$ '3W11 39NV_I
0086 00/6 0096 00£6 00#6
_m,,. zm-,<
0"[- u_-
mO
\
:;:10 3m,
! _'0- _
-r- o .--.t
--t L_ c:
_.m
¢.._ _
_'0 mm
0"[
IO'Z-
O'L- 0 ;:_o _-.-_
mOO
pO'l-
0 C
v "_ ,.-I
0--I
Mr _
O'L
_---IC
<m
O'Z m
0"£
Jaoln3 3NION3 8AI-Sz_ IJlHS aW3Z__
NOIIVIIINI 33NVGIflg,/&
g'8996 '33NVGIn9 3Z33_3NI938
7VNIN_31 IHDZ_ 6"£#E6 ',,8,, NO 3QOWNanB BAI-S/N
%.[qJo 6u.[>lJed 6u.[Jn(] aoaa3 apn%#%%V qa%_d "£-OL aanBLj
S(]N033S '3Nil 39NVa

000 [. oo6 008 OOL 009
O--4
ill 0 "E- ..-I
_: ---I
"L- m--.l
._, ----.._ _.,._ c) E:
-'V" -...... :o
\
mm
_rrl
"L
v::_3
,, O
0 .£ £L
11)
IVINOZIaOH 3NVld-NI 1V301 01 _3An3NVH/_k (Z3
Table 10-5. Maximum Control Parameters During S-IVB Second Burn
PITCH PLANE YAWPLANE ROLL PLANE
PARAMETER AMPLITUDE RANGE TIME AMPLITUDE RANGE TIME AMPLITUDE RANGE TIME
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC)
] .99 9356.5 -i.36 9346.0 -I .17 9496.6

Attitude Error, deg
-l. 38 9357.5 0.41 9348.9 0.II 9350.8

Angular Rate, deg/s
Average Gimbal Angle, l.30 9357.1 -1.07 9346.3

deg
Propellant sloshing during second burn was observed on data obtained from
the PU sensors. LOX sloshing can be observed on pitch attitude control
parameters during the first I0 seconds of S-IVB second burn; however, the
LOX sloshing had no noticeable effect on the operation of the attitude
control sys tem.
10.4.4 Control System Evaluation After S-IVB Second Burn
The APS provided satisfactory orientation and stabilization from Translunar

Injection (TLI) through the APS ullage burn for lunar target impact. Each
of the planned maneuvers was performed satisfactorily. Several events
that occurred beyond, the normal lifetime of the IU are explained below
because of their possible effect on future S-IVB lunar impacts.
The pitch attitude error for significant events during translunar coast
is shown in Figure I0-7. Significant events related to attitude
control system operai_ion during coast are noted.
Following S-IVB second cutoff, the vehicle was maneuvered to the in-plane
local horizontal at 9848 seconds (02:44:08) (through approximately-27
degrees in pitch and'-4 degrees in yaw) and an orbital pitch rate estab-
lished. At 10,598 seconds (02:56:38), the vehicle was commanded to
maneuver to the separation TD&E attitude (through approximately 120, -40,
and -180 degrees in pitch, yaw, and roll, respectively).
Spacecraft separation which occurred at Ii,198.9 seconds (03:06:38.9)

appeared normal, as indicated by the relatively small disturbances induced
on the S-IVB. Pitch attitude error data for spacecraft docking was not
available for analysis; however, the APS control engine burn history
indicated that larger than normal disturbances were experienced at
spacecraft docking which occurred at 11,948.8 seconds (03:19:08.8).
At 14,940 seconds (04:09:00), a maneuver was initiated to the evasive

ullage burn attitude. This involved maneuvering from the TD&E yaw
attitude of -40.3 degrees to +40.0 degrees. At 15,481 seconds (04:18:01),
the APS ullage engines were commanded on for 80 seconds to provide the
necessary separation distance between the S-IVB and the CSM.
I0-I0
tt-Ot
(_
SONO33S:SqlflNIN:S_flOH ' 3NI1 39NV_
0_:£0:_0 0#:[0:£0 00:00:£0 0_:8£ :_0 Oil: 9S: _0

I | , ,
SON033S '3NI1 39NV_ O--4

OOC)
i.-_ -r
OO8'OL OfL'Ot OOZ'O[ O§9'OL O09'Ot OSS'Ot OOS'OL --I
OO0'LL 086'0L O06'Ot OSS'OL 9- ,--, 3m,
rm ..-I
#-
Z---I
Or--
7-
rnl_
0 z-- m
u v_
Z . C,
£b
u_
SQNO33S:S3±flNIN:SaROH '3Nl± 39NV_
00:_:_0 Ot:£_:_O 0_:_:_0

O#:S#:ZO OS:##:ZO
I
Z_'
S_N033S '3Nl± 39NV_
O--4
0#66 SL66 0686 £986 0#86 £L86 06L6 =4
m-4
_---- [
mm
........ _J ¢-m
\ j
NOIL33e3 3qnaowavNn7/A
NOI1VaVd3S1JVaO33VdS/A
_n111iv 3_o10i aaAnaNvw31VIIINI/_
7VINOZIaOH7V307 01 a3Afl3NVW31VIIINIz_
INITIATE EVASIVE MANEUVER INITIATE MANEUVER TO LOX DUMP ATTITUDE
APS ULLAGE ON START LOX DUMP
_APS ULLAGE OFF _tEND LOX DUMP
2
,,,_ f
F--z
I-- "'
-2!
<_ 14,900 15,000 15,100 15,200 15,300 15,400 15,500 15,600 15,700 15,800 15,900
F--
-r" M-4
u_ RANGE TIME, SECONDS
F--O
_-_ ,_ , , _, _ , ,
04:08:20 04:11:40 04:15:00 04:18:20 04:21:40 04:25:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS :MINUTES :SECONDS
rv(_.
,,,,,, l
_0
F-z 0
J
I-- -2
_m 16,000 16,050 16,100 16,150 16,200 16,250 16,300
t--0
_-_ RANGE TIME, SECONDS
| _ ! ! I
04:26:40 04:28:20 04:30:00 04:31:40
o - 1
_ -1 L -_ ........
A • ___" .'. __ , "= ,..,
" -- ]
i
::::,
C)
i--.7
-2
I---Ld
F--_ -3
I--' 16,750 16,760 16,770 16,780 16,790 16,800 16,810 16,820 16,830 16,840 16,_50
,.._.3,
(..f")
I.--0 RANGE TIME, SECONDS
(::_..
v
l _7 , _ , , , ,
04:39:10 04:39:30 04:39:50 04:40:10 04:40:30 04:40:50
Figure 10-7. Pitch Attitude Error During Translunar Coast (Sheet 2 of 2)
The maneuver to LOX dump attitude was performed at 16,060 seconds

(04:27:40). This was a two-axis maneuver with pitch commanded from 176.7
to 183.0 degrees and yaw from 40.0 to -5.4 degrees referenced to the
in-plane local horizontal. LOX dump occurred at 16,759.4 seconds
(04:39:19.4) and lasted for 48 seconds.
At 20,887 seconds (05:48:07), a ground command was sent to perform a

maneuver to the desired attitude for the APS ullage burn for lunar target
impact. The vehicle was commanded to pitch -I degree and yaw -3 degrees.
At 21,600 seconds (06:00:00), the APS ullage engines were commanded on
for 217 seconds to provide AV for lunar target impact.
10-12
Auxiliary Propulsion System propellant consumption for attitude control
and propellant settling prior to the APSburn for lunar target impact was
larger than the mean consumption predicted for module I, and the same as
the meanpredicted for module 2. The total propellant (fuel and oxidizer)
used was 57.9 kilograms (127.7 Ibm) and 52.5 kilograms (115.7 Ibm) for
modules 1 and 2, respectively. This was 39 and 35 percent of the total
available in each module (approximately 149.7 kilograms [330 Ibm]).
APS propellant consumption is tabulated in Section 7, Table 7-4.
At approximately 46,050 seconds (12:47:30), the yaw attitude error started

to diverge and was followed by an oscillatory motion with increasing
amplitude until the attitude error limited at +_2.5 degrees. The frequency
of this oscillation was approximately 0.077 hertz. This control system
instability was indicative of loss of rate feedback in the control system
loop. Examination of the active rate gyro during this interval indicated
that the yaw rate gyro was not sensing the vehicle oscillations in order
to provide rate damping in the control system. As a result, instability
occurred until the vehicle angular rate increased to a sufficient amplitude
(difference between the active and reference rate gyro greater than
1.65 deg/s) to initiate an automatic switchover from the active to the
spare rate gyro. Switchover to the spare rate gyro was observed at
46,233 seconds (12:50:33) after which the control system oscillations were
rapidly damped, as shown in Figure 10-8. The loss of the active yaw rate
gyro was caused by a loss of power from the 6D40 battery.
At approximately 49,353 seconds (13:42:33), the TD&Emaneuver was performed

for a second time. The maneuver was not planned, but apparently occurred
due to inherent characteristics of the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer
(LVDC) located in the IU. A counter in the LVDCoverflows at approximately
32,768 seconds in Time Base 8 (T8) (48,247.4 seconds [13:24:07.4]), after
which the counter reverts to counting backwards. Certain functions such
as normal switch selector commandsare inhibited from occurring again;
however, the TD&Emaneuver was mechanized such that at the appropriate
time in the reverse count it would be initiated a second time. The
maneuver was verified through evaluation of the control system attitude
errors, angular rates, and APSengine firings. This TD&Emaneuver did
not degrade Commandand Communication System (CCS) tracking or the lunar
impact attitude.
Loss of attitude control was experienced at approximately 68,950 seconds

(19:09:10) with the pitch and yaw attitude errors diverging to a maximum
value of approximately 11.8 degrees, as explained in paragraph 10.5. As
a result of the large attitude errors, the APScontrol engines fired to
establish pitch and yaw body rates of approximately -2 deg/s. These rates
were maintained to offset the constant attitude error signals. Figure 10-9
shows the pitch and yaw attitude control system responses for this time
period.
10-13
>- 2
F--
c.)
0
F--
'" 2
Z
3_
NN o
_N
-./ LI.I m
< >"_ -2
.lJ II
o
AAAAhA.--.
n
_ -2
!!v
,vvvv!vl
_._'0 -L
45,900 46 000 46,100 46,200 46,300 46,400 46,500

RANGE TIME, SECONDS
i I i J
12:45:00 12:48:20 12:51:40 12:55:00
Figure 10-8. Yaw Rate Gyro Switch
At approximately 70,150 seconds (19:29:10) the yaw control rate gyro

signal indicated that a failure occurred resulting in loss of rate feedback
in the control system, caused by insufficient electrical power in the
6DIO battery. Loss of the yaw rate feedback, combined with the large
attitude error signal, caused two yaw (Iii and IIIii) control engines to
come full on in order to establish the necessary rate to offset the
attitude error signal. With loss of the yaw rate feedback, the control
system could not correct for the rate imparted to the vehicle by the yaw
control engines and commanded the yaw engines to remain full on. After
approximately 86 seconds, module 1 fuel depleted at 70,235 seconds
(19:30:35). Fuel normally depletes first since the oxidizer to fuel
loading ratio is approximately 1.64 (near that of the attitude control
engine operating ratio), but the APS ullage engines operate at an oxidizer
to fuel ratio of 1.27. Following fuel depletion, the oxidizer will provide
a thrust of approximately 44.48 Newtons (I0 Ibf) (normal thrust is 654.8
Newtons [147.2 Ibf]). Module 2 fuel depleted at 70,256.5 seconds
(19:30:56.5), approximately 21.5 seconds after module 1 fuel depleted.
10-14
£L-oL
a3uaJa$a_t apn_.L_%V .4o ssol 0%

asuodsa_t ma_s,_S LOJ%UO3Mei pup q3%.Ld "6-Ot aan6.L4
$0N033S : S31RNIW: s_InOH ' 3Nll 39NVkl

017: LZ:6L O0:SL:6L OZ:80:6L
OZ:SZ:6L
I I
I
S(1N033S '3Hll 39NVkl
00£' 69 00£' 69 00L'69 006'89

OO['OL 006'69 00L'69 _;0-<
OL- O>3m
£n --4 _-"
mm
£- 3=-
;U -"-_ Z
u_ i,
u--)O I,---
0 "r" (.n I--"
--.--" --I Pm
S
Q. rrl
OL _ct
_n
SL-
Z rrl '-<
Ost-
0-
£ £
/ OL
.'- -; ,,, i': _J
£L
OL- z ;_ ..._
O'_ --I --4
_- I"_ rrl f')

-r"
u
0 "_'_ 0 "_
(.nff_
_m
£L-
OL-
zm'-_
o :x_ _.-_
i _- tn :_ '-4
mO('D
0 __._.>
c] o--4
tn ,--4
ID_ _-.-_ ---I
OL m-._-
<m
St
Because only one yaw engine was burning for 21.5 seconds, a significant
amount of roll torque was applied to the vehicle causing the roll rate
to increase to approximately 27 deg/s. Roll rate feedback was lost
shortly after the yaw rate feedback, and therefore was not present to
prevent a large roll rate. Module 1 and module 2 oxidizer depletion
times were 70,276 seconds (19:31:16) and 70,294 seconds (19:31:34),
respectively. It is quite possible_ that the full on yaw/roll APS control
engines provided significant translational AV, which changed the lunar
impact point. A complete evaluation of the potential AV contribution of
the attitude control engines is presently being performed.
10.5 INSTRUMENT UNIT CONTROL COMPONENTS EVALUATION
The Flight Program Minor Loop implemented all guidance commands, providing
satisfactory attitude error outputs through the Launch Vehicle Data Adapter
(LVDA) to the FCC. No valid Minor Loop Error Telemetry occurred during
the mission.
The yaw command rate gyro input to the control computer ceased to operate
because of insufficient battery voltage. The yaw channel of the control
system began oscillating with no rate input at 46,050 seconds (12:47:30),
as indicated by yaw attitude error and yaw reference rate gyro telemetry.
At approximately 46,233 seconds (12:50:33), the Control Signal Processor

(CSP) sensed a sufficient voltage difference (7.4 volts) between the
command channel and reference channels to select the properly functioning
spare gyro channel. Upon switching to the spare rate channel, the control
system ceased oscillation, as shown in Figure 10-8.
At 68,948 seconds (19:09:08), the LVDC lost its ability to access memory,
due to 6DIO battery depletion, and the flight program essentially ceased
operation. Because of the cessation of Minor Loop output to the LVDA
digital-to-analog converter (ladder register), the ladder amplifiers for
the pitch and yaw attitude error channel drifted to full scale positive
values. (Full scale at this time was approximately 11.8 degrees because
of the decaying supply voltages.) The roll ladder amplifier did not
drift, indicating that it was the last serviced by the Minor Loop. The
Flight Control Subsystem responded to the attitude error input by commanding
sufficient pitch and yaw thruster firings to cause rates which balanced the
attitude error signals. The resulting rates were approximately -2 deg/s
about the pitch and yaw axes, as shown in Figure 10-9.
This condition persisted until the 6DIO battery depleted to the extent
that a yaw comparator relay relaxed, allowing the rate input to the FCC
to switch to the command gyro which had no output. The spare yaw rate
gyro had been in use because of the previous depletion of the 6D40 battery
which powered the command yaw gyro. The FCC reacted to the sudden loss
of the yaw rate input by firing the APS yaw thrusters continuously to
depletion. Enough coupling occurred to cause perturbation of the pitch
10-16
rate gyro which, along with the FCC, was powered by the depleting
_6D30battery. The subsequent oscillating pitch rate signal caused
alternate firings of the pitch thrusters. These conditions prevailed
until oxidizer depletion at 70,294 seconds (19:31:34).
The APS thrust imparted a rotational velocity of approximately 12 deg/s

to the vehicle and changed the translational velocity by approximately
2.5 m/s (8.2 ft/s). Simulations verify the capability of the APS to
change the translational velocity by this amount.
The observed sequence of events was dictated largely by the sequence of

battery depletion. Had a different battery load allocation been imple-
mented, then the pitch channel may have been firing continuously with
the yaw channel oscillating. The translational and rotational velocity
changes would then be quite different because pitch impulse is one-half
that of the yaw channel.
A different battery depletion sequence would also cause the loss of a

different set of LVDA power supplies at the depletion of the second
battery, possibly causing different attitude error output.
The final velocity change, due to uncontrolled APS thrusting, can be

eliminated by deactivating the FCC at the end of the IU mission. The
feasibility and means of best accomplishing this are presently being
evaluated.
10.6 SEPARATION
S-IC/S-II separation and associated sequencing was accomplished as planned.

Dynamic conditions at separation fell within estimated end conditions, and
well within the staging limits. The AS-508 measured longitudinal acceler-
ation of the S-IC dropped stage was similar to previous vehicles. Pitch
and yaw gyro data showed no disturbances, indicating a clean severance of
the stages.
The AS-508 flight was not instrumented for monitoring second plane
separation. To give an indication of thedynamics of second plane
separation, based on available flight data, the dynamics of both the
second stage and the separating interstage were calculated. The calculated
dynamics of separation show no significant differences from previous
flights.
The S-II retromotors and the S-IVB ullage motors performed satisfactorily
and provided a normal S-II/S-IVB separation. Dynamic conditions were
within staging limits with separation conditions similar to those observed
on previous flights.
Separation of the CSM from the LV occurred as planned. There were no

large control disturbances noted during the separation. The attitude of
the LV was adequately maintained during the docking of the CSM with the
Lunar Module _LM). The CSM/LM then successfully spring ejected from the
LV. There were no significant control disturbances during the ejection.
10-17/10-18
SECTIONII
ELECTRICAL
NETWORKS
AND
EMERGENCY
DETECTION
SYSTEM
11.1 SUMMARY
The AS-508 launch vehicle electrical systems and Emergency Detection

System (EDS) performed satisfactorily throughout the required period
of flight. Operation of the batteries, power supplies, inverters,
Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW)firing units and switch selectors was normal.
AS-508 was the first flight that significant data were available to
battery depletion.
11.2 S-IC STAGEELECTRICAL
SYSTEM
The S-IC stage electrical system performance was satisfactory. Battery

voltages remained well within performance limits of 26.5 to 32.0 vdc
during powered flight. The battery currents were within predicted
limits and below the maximumlimit of 64 amperes for each battery.
Battery power consumption was well within the rated capacity of each
battery, as shown in Table II-I.
Table II-I. S-IC Stage Battery Power Consumption
POWERCONSUMPTION*
RATED PERCENT
BUS CAPACITY OF
BATTERY DESIGNATION(AMP-MIN) AMP-MIN CAPACITY
IDIO 640 28.1 4.4

Operational
Instrumentation 1D20 640 86.1 13.5
*Battery power consumptions were calculated from power transfer

until S-IC/S-II separation.
II-I
The two measuring power supplies remained well within the 5 +_0.05 vdc
design requirement.
All switch selector channels functioned properly, and all outputs were
issued within required time limits in response to Instrument Unit (IU)
commands.
The separation and retromotor EBW firing units were armed and triggered
as programmed. Charging times and voltage limits were within predictions.
The command destruct EBW firing units were in the required state-of-
readiness if vehicle destruct had been necessary.
11.3 S-II STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The S-II stage electrical system performed satisfactorily. Battery

voltages remained within specified limits throughout the prelaunch
and flight periods. Bus currents also remained within required and
predicted limits. Main bus current averaged 38 amperes during S-IC
boost and varied from 49 to 57 amperes during S-II boost. Instrumenta-
tion bus current averaged 22 amperes during S-IC and S-II boost.
Recirculation bus current averaged 97 amperes during S-IC boost.
Ignition bus current averaged 29 amperes during the S-II ignition
sequence. Battery power consumption was well within the rated capacity
of each battery, as shown in Table 11-2.
The five temperature bridge power supplies, the three instrumentation

power supplies, and the five LH2 inverters all performed within accept-
able limits.
issued within required time limits in response to the IU commands.
Table 11-2. S-II Stage Battery Power Consumption
POWERCONSUMPTION* TEMPERATURE (°FI

RATED
PERCENT
BUS CAPACITY OF
BATTERY DESIGNATION (AMP-MR) AMP-HR MIN
CAPACl TY MAX
Mai n 2DII 35 8.50 24.3 98.0 87.0

I nstrumentati on 2D21 35 4.94 14.1 83.5 80.0
Recirculation No. 1 2D51 30 5.74 19.1 85.5 79.5
Recirculation No. 2 2D51 30 5.78 19.3 88.5 82.5

and
2D61
*Battery power consumptions were calculated from power transfer until S-II/S-IVB
separati on.
11-2
Performance of the EBW circuitry for the separation system was satis-
factory. Firing units charge and discharge responses were within pre-
dicted time and voltage limits. The command destruct EBW firing units
were in the required state-of-readiness if vehicle destruct had been
necessary.
11.4 S-IVB STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
The S-IVB stage electrical system performed satisfactorily. The battery

voltages, currents, and temperature remained within normal range beyond
the required battery lifetime. Forward No. 2 battery depleted at 31,400
seconds (08:43:20) after supplying 122.9 percent of the rated capacity.
Battery voltage and current plots are shown in Figures II-I through 11-4.
Battery power consumption and capacity for each battery are shown in
Table 11-3.
The three 5-vdc and seven 20-vdc excitation modules all performed within
acceptable limits. The LOX and LH 2 chilldown inverters performed satis-
factorily and fulfilled load requirements.
issued within required time limits in response to IU commands.
Performance of the EBW circuitry for the separation system was satis-
factory. Firing units charge and discharge responses were within
Table 11-3. S-IVB Stage Battery Power Consumption
POWER CONSUMPTION
RATED
CAPACITY PERCENT OF
BATTERY (AMP-MR) AMP-HR* CAPACITY
!
300.0 234.79 78.3

Forward No. 1
Forward No. 2 24.75 30.42** 122.9
Aft No. 1 300.0 205.32 68.4
75.0 33.30 44.4

Aft No. 2
Actual usage to 70,380 seconds (19:33:00) is based on flight

data.
The battery voltage fell below the minimum operating limit

of 24.5 volts at 31,400 seconds (08:43:20). Calculation
of actual power consumption was terminated at this time.
11-3
3,.ua4_n3pue e6e3,.LOA
£Jaq._.e8L "ON pJe_o-I e6eq.S _]AI-S "L-L[ aJn6£_-I
$0N033S:S31NNIW:SaNOH '3HI1 39NV_
O0:O0:£L 00:00:7L 00:00: LL 00:00:0 L

00:00:6L
LL OL 69 89 L9 99
11'
r
i
I l 1 I ! I
::::::l_m==========================_:!:i:i:it_4"
....
.L
_!:.:!:!_____"""" :.'. _; .... ............
SONO33S:S310NIH:S_ROH "3Nil 39NVH r--'
00:00:6 00:00:8 O0:O0!L 00:00:9 00:00:0 00:00:.# 00:00:_ 00:00:7 00:00: I. 0

I 1 I I I i I I I I
$0N033S O00L '3W11 39NV_I

SE_ "#E: £E 7E: L£ 0£ 67 87 LZ 97 SZ 177 _7 ZZ LZ 07 6L B[ L[ 9L SL "#L £L Z[ L[ OL 6 B L 9 S # £ 7 L 0 L-
I II I II !| ] J ' I ' --_

--SL _m
joz
---®F ® -,-7 --P-- I i _<

77
"#7
.-.-• :::.:..:.:.:.....
:::: :.::::: :::::::l:i:!:!:......
........_"'"":::!:i i:!:!: :i:!: :.:.1.:..'.'.'.
.... ::::::::::::::::::::::
.......... i...... i:i:i: :':':';::::::::'.'.'."
. .... :!:!:! :.:o:.
'""_ <................-...:.:.
"""'"'"' -'. ""' :::::: ::i:i !:!:i: :7:!: ::::::::.:.:_.:.:.: _z
... ::::::::::::::::::::::: 97 m
................,r.:.'.:_'.__"{.',"
: _ "+_ ,'"-i_!T. • " "."_7." _'-:,:,"'-'_"'"'" ".._r'. F:;:': "":-'...........
..... "-'- """ '"" _ _'"' ""_-'"" -'. .... '.-.-.,-.-.-."
-"_":_'_:".'"'"_"":'';';" :.'T:_:::_'±_ _:17::::: o[: <
:::7:. .;:.1.:.
:::::: :.:.:.: .:::::: :-iT:i!f!i!i!ii
...."" ::::: ii::i:: ;ii;:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:""""""
9:.:.:. iii:,iii '-- -"'::".... ii:i:i:i
!i!!i!!ti_; ",',"-'-'-'.-'-'-'-'
_i!::.:.:.:,_'_"
,°°°,%, ,%%•
.i:i:i;::-:-:-:':-:':':"-'""
E:i:!:!: ::::::,.........'.........i:!:!:
""'-'-',-'.'-"
;!:i:i::::;::::::::
,,.,
::::::::_::::: ...........
i.....:.:.:._:.:.:..,.......,
:i:i".,,.,,,_-.'.',
t....i:i:!:!:_:i:i:i
_
"o'*•.1,•, '-•o_
7VNI3V_ (nl) 3NXS 30 100 IN3M W3X37d117nw LOE® 37313 W31V3H AW311V8 _ "ON O_VM_03® 440 H31V3H 7 IlNn 1_311V8 7 "ON OHVM_03(D
0313103_d,--- 37313 W31V3H AW3J.1V8L "ON OWVMHO3® 318VS10 8S5 _ _0 H31V3H 1_311V8 L "ON OHVMBO_(_)
SIINI7 378Vld393V ::1:::1:1 37313 tl31V3H 7 IINN 1t1311V8 L "ON OaVMWO.4
C) 3..40 L "ON 113.-IV5 391,,'_:1
(_ tl3MOd 7VNW31NI Ol _I34SNV"dI(D
(_) TRANSFER TO INTE_ALPOWER
(_) RANGE SAFETY NO. 2 OFF
(_) PU INVERTER POWER OFF
(_) PU INVERTER POWER ON :-:-:.:-:-:-:-:ACCEPTABLE
LIMITS
® PU 4.5 TO I ON ....... PREDICTED
(_) PU PROGRAM MIXTURE RATIO OFF _ACTUAL
(_) FORWARD NO. 2 BATTERY DEPLETION
" 28
26 ...... - .... -.-..-. •
ua 2422 "'"'" "'"'" '"° "°" '""
_8 ® \ I
4
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
-I 0
RANGE TIME, I000 SECONDS
.-J I I I I I I l I
I I I
0 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 I0:00:00
Figure ll-2. S-IVB Stage Forward No. 2 Battery Voltage and Current
:::::i::::::::::: ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
PREDICTED
-- ACTUAL
OTRANSFER TO INTERNAL POWER ®BURNER FIRING @TYPICAL a) AFT NO. 1 BATTERY HEATER CYCLE
®AFT BATTERY NO. 1 UNIT 2 HEATER CYCLE Q PASSIVATION b) AFT NO. 1 BATTERY UNIT 2 HEATER CYCLE
®ULLAGE ENGINES ON c) AFT NO. 2 BAI'TERY HEATER CYCLE
®ENGINE START
®AFT NO. 2 BATTERY UNIT 2 HEATER CYCLE d) AFT NO. 2 BATTERY UNIT 2 HEATER CYCLE
(_)ENGINE CUTOFF
®AFT NO. 1 BATTERY HEATER CYCLE (_AFT NO. 2 BATTERY HEATER CYCLE @ 301 MULTIPLEXER WENT OUT OF SYNC (IU)
> 321
30
28 ]i]ii.-,T.:i_-_.",,_+; ..-._:r ___:_:E_:_:::__::_::_:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::7 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :i:!:_::i
26
24!
22
50,
.IST BURN
_ 40
30 2ND
BURn']
._i.O "_MPACT
iBURI1 "
_ 20 I}" "-_ _, _-_
1o r 'I'-_< ,
o ¢>"--'I r-'_..-- +, ..lll].,_CL q,_ T'r" I" L.U' "t.r " _= " _; --|j" .... .i' ""
-I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
.=_
I | I I I I I I I !
0 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
u 32 ,_-... m.-.-.-.,r ...._._.-.-.-_.-.-.._,>>;.;t:.;-.-.,L->>;4->;-> <-:. > ]<. > > i :-.-.-,r.-.'. ",f .'. ".'.[. ".'. ". 1-". "-'-]. "-"-"-]-:. >> ]->2-". ",-". "-'--r.-.-.:._-.-.-.-.r .-.-<. ! - • -_.L[.:---f:.:_-_-J.-_....-.i-_:.'-:
"_ 3O =======================================================
_ +,, d_: ;_--_ L_ :_:+::::: ...............
....__._._..._
" ........ _ _.
"'""" _..'_
........ """ "'""" '" "._.",.m_+
"'" "'"'"$"_.,"" """. ""-_'.'
"" ......." " "' ..... :.':'.:.....::.!.:.:......i"
""" ""'": I...............................
......."_.-.-..b."
"'"" "''"_
....... "'"'"{...'"'"'_" "_lI:'"'"'l'_'""
" 28 •-'" "-"""
:,:.:..:.:.:. :: "--
::-T:::"'"_::::
"" :.::_:.:.:.:
- "'"'"" .OZ.:."'":I....
"'"""[.'..:.t:...
"'""" "'"""t...
"'"""U_'.:I.
"'"""" "'""""'"" "'""" "'"'" :.::i:i:f. "'""":f-.-.-]-.--.-_.-...t.-.l
"'""" ""-"" ""'"""'"'" ""'"" .... _.. "'"""f"'""""'"'"'H'""
...........
26 i_t::::_:_:::::_:--:!li:i:_:':i:i:i_i:i:_
+. 24
22
u_
? /-FIRI,GS!
rFIRINGS4
APS APS
4
APS'
FIRINGS
30"
- - = ; ., .I,411,1
/
°, / 2
,_11 r'_ Imr'lr'lr'm £ 1 i'hr_nii"l,_hlr' _i,.l""lr-l-: t r"'_. 7'4n m
..II
o_1 [IF' ,r 'lJ" "% LF I-I]1 l1 T"'IC, LAG_P"'lmf"lD,_r-_ L 68 69 70 71
35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

I I / I I I I II l I
lO:O0:OO II:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00 19:00:00
Figure 11-3. S-IVB Stage Aft No. 1 Battery Voltage and Current
Q TRANSFER TO INTERNAL POWER ®AUX HYDRAULIC PUMP ON
Q LOX AND LH 2 CHILLDOWN PUMPS OFF Q LOX AND LH2 CHILLDOWN PUMPS ON
Q ENGINE START ®AFT NO. 2 BATTERY HEATER CYCLE (NOT DATA) "_'_'_C PREDICTED
:1:::1:::1111ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
Q AUX HYDRAULIC PUMP OFF ®NO LOAD - LIMITS DO NOT APPLY ACTUAL
®AUX HYDRAULIC PUMP CYCLE _301 MULTIPLEXER WENT OUT OF SYNC (IU)
641
62 i
60 '_'_'"
]oo
60
_i012_oo
_I.Z J ._I_ L L 1 L 1 _1. .1___

0 l:O0:OO 2:00:00 3:00:00 4:00:00 5:00:00 6:00:00 7:00:00 8:00:00 9:00:00
>
cD
I00
8O
6O
4O
70 71
_D 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
35 36 37 38
I I t I I I I I I
!
II:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00 17:00:00 18:00:00 19:00:00
I0:00:00
Figure 11-4. S-IVB Stage Aft No. 2 Battery Voltage and Current
predicted time and voltage limits. The command destruct firing units
were in the required state-of-readiness if vehicle destruct had been
necessary.
11.5 INSTRUMENT UNIT ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Battery 6D20 was added to the IU electrical system on the AS-508 vehicle
to provide power for operating the Command and Communication System (CCS)
transponder and power amplifier until S-IVB/IU lunar impact.
The IU electrical system functioned normally. All battery voltages and
temperatures increased gradually from liftoff as expected. Batteries
6DIO, 6D30, and 6D40 remained within normal range beyond their expected
lifetime. Batteries 6DIO, 6D30 and 6D40 depleted after supplying
106.3, 107.4 and 108.0 percent, respectively, of their rated capacity.
AS-508 was the first flight that significant data were available to
battery depletion. The performance of guidance, navigation, and con-
trol systems was affected by battery depletion, as discussed in Sec-
tions 9 and I0. The 6D20 battery operated satisfactorily throughout
flight. The CCS which was powered by battery 6D20 was operating when
the S-IVB/IU impacted the lunar surface. Battery power consumption,
capacity, and lifetime for each battery are shown in Table 11-4.
Battery voltages, currents and temperatures are shown in Figure 11-5
through 11-8.
The 56-vdc power supply maintained an output voltage of 55.8 to 56.6 vdc,
well within the required tolerance of 56 ±2.5 vdc.
Table 11-4 IU Battery Power Consumption
POWER CONSUMPTION
RATED BATTERY
CAPACITY PERCENT OF LIFETIME
BATTERY (AMP-NR) AMP-HR CAPACITY (HOURS)
i
6DIO 35O 372 106.3 18.4"
322** 92.0** **
6D20 35O
6D30 35O 376 107.4 19.1'*
6D40 350 378 108.0 11.3"
Actual battery life was assumed to end when bus voltage fell
below the nominal limit of 28 _2 volts.
The CCS transponder, powered by the 6D20 battery, was operating

at S-IVB/IU lunar impact which occurred at 280,601 seconds
(77:56:41). Power consumption until S-IVB/IU lunar impact was
calculated based on nominal operation.
11-8
aJn%eJadma± pue %uaJJn3 'a6e%lOA Ol(]9 /[Ja%%e9 FII "S-LL aan6 L-I
SflNO33S:s31nNIN:S_QOH ' 3NIl 39NV_
00:00:0_ O0:O0:SL O0:O0:OL O0:O0:S 0 qvnl3v-----

!
! I | | I I I | I a I | | I I l i • 0313103_d ....
SilNI9 39@VId333V_
SON033S O00L '3WI± 39NV_
9 _ 0 O" L 9"0 Z'O
_Z 69 99 _9 09 LS _S LS 8_ S_ _ 6_ 9_ _£ 0£ L_ _ L_ BL SL _L 6 OBZ
-_ OS
rrl o6z
-o
r_
OL j/ 00£,
fr
-. 06 OL_
PO f
f
- OLL / OZ_ _o
o
m OE:L 0_
OL
' ±NOdOSa
'' V±VQ
' '''(]3Si]V3 A 1 SL r-.
pa
r'--
r--
I
m
O_ Z
\ S_
"0
0£
S_
S_
I ........... " ..... "'"-'" ""°-"" "' ' " "I ' " ":': :': .... :':':':" :':°:'>: :':':':': "; : : : ::::':::" : : : : : ::::::::: :::::::::' 0
!i!i
iiiiiiiiiiii i]!iliiiilIiii!ii
i!iiiilIii!iiiiliIiiiiiii!lliiii!i!ilililililiIiii!iii!iii!i
ii!iIiiii!iiiiiiilililil]iiiiliiii!ililililillilili
iillililililIiliiiiiiili!i!i!iili!i!iiiilI!i --I
iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii!tiiiiiiiliJ_iiiiili_t_i!ilililii
liiiiiiiii!
i_iiiiiiiiiii
itiiiiiiili
l!ii_iiii
i_itiiiiiil
i_l_i_i_i,li_ii
Iiiii]ii!illiiiiiliiiiiii
31
3O
°> 29
iiii!iiiiliiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiili!iiiiiiiliiiiiiii!
_J 27
o> 26
i;)ii!i-iliii.i-!-it:i.-i-i:-ilfii!ii?ill;iiiiiiii
25
25
_ 20
15
Z
,,, 10
_ 5
C)
0
._. 330 130 "

o o
320
r_
310
I---
90
r,,,"
"" 300
r_ 70 a.
,,, 290
i-.- I---
50
280
0.2 0.6 1.0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72
RANGE TIME, 1000 SECONDS
ACCEPTABLE LIMITS
----- PREDICTED I I I I I I I I _ I | I I I I i I |
ACTUAL 0 5:00:00 I0:00:00 15:00:00 20:00:00

Figure II-6. IU Battery 6D20 Voltage, Current and Temperature
31
3O iiii!iiii
iiii!!ii _!_i_!_i_i_!_i_iiiiii_iiiiiiiiiiiiii
_::i=_:i:::-:-:-:_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_i'-
_.
U
ii!iiiiii
iiiiii!iil .>5>"...-._ ;:1::i_i:
!!iiiiii_!i!!ii!iii!i!i!_<iiiiii!ii
<'.'>.11 .....
29
:::::2::i
iii_iiii!i
[.;_;i[_ii
>>L....
;>'.'Z5
-.-...-.-
iiiiii!iii
iiiiiiiill
iiiii!iii!
iiiiiiiil
_i_i_i_i_i
iiiiiii!i!
iii!iiiii 11:1:::2:
r,i
28
i'-">;"
i_iiiiii
iiiiiii!i
i>'< .4.
iiiiii!iil
iiiiiiiii!
iiiii!ii!i
iiiiiii
iiiiiiil
iiiiii!iiliii!iiii!iiiii!iliiiiiiiii",',','iiiiiii !
iiii!!il _111[[i[i
F--
_J
0
27 iiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiill iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
_iiii!iii_
i!iiiii!i
iiiiiiiill
iiiiiiiii
iiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!ii _iiiiili! iiiii!ii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiilili!i
i!_i_i_i_i_
iiiiiii!_
26
25
35
3O
E
25 • m m_.m nm _..,I
J m=,m, .,,,,,== ..,,,_'
zi,l 20
rv"
15 i
I0
130
330 / o
II0
° 320 J r,,,"
t,1
_" 310 f 9O
J
r_
'==: 300 70
i.i
r-,
_- 290 5O
63 66 69 /2
280 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 6O
0.2 0.6 1.0 0 3 6
RANGETIME, I000 SECONDS
_ACCEPTABLE LIMITS ! ! | . i
-- --IPREDICTED _ t I I I ! I I I [ I I I I I I 20:00:00
---'-ACTUAL 0 5:00:00 I0:00:00 15:00:00
Figure 11-7. IU Battery 6D30 Voltage, Current and Temperature

31
30
U
29
¸ ii!iiiil
_iiii_!i_iil i!ii:_i!t
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilililil
ii!:i:_ili
iiiiiiii
!iiiiii
iiiilt!iii
iiiiiiii:_i:!ili
!:iii!!iiil
!:ii:iii!ii
iii!iii!i
iiii:i!i:!i
ii!ili!!ii
ii!iiii!iil
iii!iiiil
iiii!!!i!il
!!iiiii!i:ii
!!iiiiiii
iiiiiii,-....:-:.
'_:::::::::
i!!ii::i::!::::::.:.:.
!ii:i:ii:i!!i
:.:.:.:_:.:.:_:.::::
28
!:::::::._
iiiiiii
!iiiiiii ili:,iiii',',','"_:':':':':_i!'_ii-_:_
...... ...-.-.-.
_,:,:,::::...
_5',i',t_
:,i:,ilili'
_-.:::._::_:-.:'"':'
',,-...:.:..
iiii'.!'.t',
i',i:,!iiii
ii!iii!_!i_i_._t_iiii!_i!ii_:_.i_i_ii:_!_t._iti_
,?:,:? iiiiiii,iiii!'_i',i
_ii',i:,ilti::
I---
27
_ ,:_:_:.:::_
::::::::::::::::::::
ii:i::i_
_-.-.-::.' _:,iiiii
,-.-...."::":::
_'_'-'"r" iii_i
iii:,iiiii:,
ii':i',i'_i
ii',i:,i:,ii
i'_i',i'-i'_i',
'_'''':'-.-:-.,.,_
!tii':i'_i',
i?,i',!,i
i:,tiii'.i':!
iii',t'_i',i',
ii:,ii!iii
t',i!i',i',i',',i,tlittil
iiii':!':i
_!',i',i,il
_iiiltiii'.
'"?':'
_:,itiiiii_':':""'
i',iiiii
iiiiiii'.i',i,i'_i,-.
0
26
::_::::::::
ii_i:_! ii!iiiii
_::_:_:::: ii::i::iiii
iliiiiii
iii::iiii)iiiiiiiil
•t%..*,* .m.1.°***.
:iiiii::iii
iiiiiit
iliiii:i
iiiiii!ii
iiiiiiiiiii
iiii!iiii
!iiiiiiiii
i::i!iii!i
iiiiiiiii!:iiiiiiii
!ii_ii
_iiiiiiiii
_iiiiiiii
iiiii!ii
i!i::iiiiii
i!iiiiii!!
ii!!ii::ii
liiiiiiiii
ii!iiil
iiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiii
\
25
35
30
ram%
E
25
--i
T'
_
e_
"
20
15
\
PO
lO
I
330 130
-,i o
o 320
L_
_J
_- llO _2
r_
310
m--" I 90 _
rY' 30O
L_
r, 70 _
290
50 _
280
0.2 0.6 l.O 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72
_ACCEPTABLE LIMITS RANGE TIME, I000 SECONDS

_-- PREDICTED i l , i I I I I I I ' * , , , i i m z | J
5:00:00 ]0:00:00 ]5:00:00 20:Ou:O0

_ACTUAL 0
Figure II-8. IU Battery 6D40 Voltage, Current and Temperature

The 5-vdc measuring power supply performed normally, maintaining a
constant voltage within specified tolerances.
The switch selector, electrical distributors, and network cabling per-

formed normally.
11.6 SATURN V EMERGENCY DETECTION SYSTEM (EDS)
The performance of the AS-508 was normal and no abort limits were
exceeded. EDS related events and discrete indications occurred as
expected. S-II and S-IVB stage tank ullage pressures remained within
the abort limits and displays to the crew were normal. The performance
of all thrust OK pressure switches and associated voting logic, which
monitor engine status, was normal insofar as EDS operation was con-
cerned. However, variations in the LOX pump discharge pressure tripped
the S-II stage center engine thrust OK pressure switches causing early
shutdown of the S-II stage center engine. This problem is discussed
in detail in paragraphs 6.3 and 8.2.
The dynamic pressure at maximum angle-of-attack as sensed by the

_Q-ball mounted atop the escape tower was 0.65 psid at 75 seconds.
This pressure was only 20.3 percent of the EDS abort limit of 3.2 psid.
As noted in section I0, none of the rate gyros gave any indication
of angular overrate in the pitch, yaw or roll axis. The maximum
angular rates were well below the abort limits.
11-13/11-14
SECTION12
VEHICLEPRESSURE
ANDACOUSTIC
ENVIRONMENT
12.1 SUMMARY
The S-IC base heat shield was instrumented with two differential pressure
measurements. The AS-508 flight data show good agreement with data from
previous flights.
In general, the S-II heat shield forward face and thrust cone static
pressures agree favorably with previous flights. The heat shield aft
face pressure was somewhat higher than seen on previous flights but
was consistent with the outbeard engines being gimbaled more inboard on
the AS-508 flight.
Acoustical measurements were madeat 12 locations on the S-IVB interstage
and aft skirt. Generally, AS-508 acoustic flight data agree favorably
with data from previous flights. The six measurements located near ve-
hicle position IV experienced a data dropout at liftoff.
12.2 BASEPRESSURES
12.2.1 S-IC Base Pressures

The S-IC base heat shield was instrumented with two differential (internal
minus external) pressure measurements. The AS-508 flight data, Figure
12-I, show good agreement with data from previous flights. A maximum
differential pressure of 0.18 psid occurred at an altitude of approxi-
mately 4 n mi.
The S-II stage base heat shield forward face pressure was below the
data band of previous flights, prior to interstage separation, as shown
in Figure 12-2. However, a measurement bias is suspected as the cause
because of the inconsistency of this measurementwith the values indi-
cated by the thrust cone and heat shield aft face pressure sensors prior
to J-2 engine ignition (see Figures 12-3 and 12-4). A bias of this
magnitude is caused by ambient condition changes and transducer calibra-
tion inaccuracies. This measurement bias is not considered to be a
problem.
12-I
ALTITUDE, n mi
5 I0 15 20 25 30
0.4 l I I I I I
FLIGHT DATA
.J
NOTE : INSTRUMENT
AS-506
FAILED ON AS-507- I I :(:5-)_ ._I V
zu ........ AS-507 0.4 .-s
bJ_
0.2 --------- AS-508 I I I-- "0
bJ D0046-106 J _" °f-.
VEH STA 2.81 m r_ e'l

(110.63 in.) -0.2 L,.,
i I.L -,
mJ
i.i Jo OJ
r_c)_ r'_
:::) l
oo _-)
0 f
i
ILl rl
oo c- 0 r'," o..
ILl .r'-
(,z) ..I.J
(/) c-
IJJ °r--
-0 2_ _
-0.2
0.4
.=_
F-E
If.
_@:C-iv 4 "-_
z u 0.2
I.L.I _
rY z
:D0O4,_lO6
__ A__D .t--
I.L ,, VEH STA 2,81 m(llO.6 3 in,) 0.2 "'

I It.
GJ
Q _n
C_ u_
rva.. 0
0 "'_
c_ C-
m,_ DL. ILl o_="
2,,"o-
C)_v
-0.2
0 I0 20 30 40 50 60
ALTITUDE, km
Figure 12-I. S-IC Base Heat Shield Differential Pressure
The AS-508 thrust cone pressure, prior to interstage separation, shows

good agreement with data from previous flights as shown in Figure 12-3.
After interstage separation the indicated pressure was higher than seen
on any previous flights, but was still within acceptable limits. The
postflight analytical values of heat shield forward face and thrust
cone region pressures were obtained from analytical values of the heat
shield aft face pressures using correlations derived from AS-501 through
AS-507 flight data.
12-2
S-II IGNITION
INTERSTAGE SEPARATION
_TS-II CECO
_7EMR SHIFT
_7S-II OECO
0.05
-0.06
0.04
I PREVIOUS FLIGHT DATA
"7,
o.03 -- FLIGHT DATA

. -0.04 _]
mr
F" --- POSTFLIGHT ANALYSIS
&,_
g 0.02
n_
--0.02
w 0.01 mm
..... I ..... J-. • --0
1 _7 _7 g7
-o.oi_7
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 60O
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Base Heat Shield Forward Face Pressure

Figure 12-2. S-II
S-II IGNITION
INTERSTAGE SEPARATION
_7S-II CECO
EMR
S-II ;HIFT
)ECO
0.05
I PREVIOUS FLIGHT DATA

_FLIGHT DATA -0.06
0.04
.... POSTFLIGHT ANALYSIS
0.03
-0.04
% n:
_n
0.02
II
-o.o2
_= o.oi u_
c_
i,I
r,1
mm_mln
-0 _
_ O
-0 .O!
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 12-3. S-If Thrust Cone Pressure
12-3
- ANSDUCER
_Ts-II IGNITION
INTERSTAGE SEPARATION I D158-206
S-ll CECO
_7EMR SHIFT
_7S-II OECO
0.07 0.I0
0.06
I 0.08
0.05
O.Ol
-0.01
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 12-4. S-II Heat Shield Aft Face Pressure
The heat shield aft face pressures observed on AS-508 were, in general,
higher than those measured on previous flights. Prior to interstage
separation, the heat shield aft face pressure data was equal to the maxi-
mum pressure recorded at this pressure transducer location during the pre-
vious flights, as shown in Figure 12-4. After interstage separation the
pressure was approximately 0.01 psia above pressures noted during pre-
vious flights. This higher flight pressure is consistent with the nominal
AS-508 steady-state J-2 engine deflection patterns which show that the
engines were gimbaled further inboard on AS-508 than on previous flights.
After Center Engine Cutoff (CECO), the pressure dropped 0.02 psia and re-
mained constant until Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR) shift. This expected
CECO pressure drop was not recorded by transducer D158-206 on previous
flights; however, it was clearly indicated by all other aft face pressure
measurements of previous flights.
12-4
SECTION13
VEHICLETHERMAL
ENVIRONMENT
13.1 SUMMARY
The AS-508 S-IC base region thermal environments exhibited trends simi-
lar to those seen on previous flights with magnitudes, in general,
lower than those seen on AS-507.
The base thermal environments on the S-II stage were similar to those
measured on previous flights and were well below design limits. Both
the total heating rate measurement and the recovery temperature probe
for the base heat shield indicated higher magnitudes than those seen on
AS-507. This could be expected since the outboard engines were gimbaled
further inboard than on AS-507.
Aerodynamic heating environments and S-IVB base thermal environments

were not measured on AS-508.
13.2 S-IC BASEHEATING
Thermal environments in the base region of the S-IC stage were recorded
by two total calorimeters and two gas temperature probes which were lo-
cated on the base heat shield. Data from these instruments are compared
with AS-506 and AS-507 flight data and are presented in Figures 13-I and
13-2. The AS-508 S-IC base heat shield thermal environments exhibit
similar trends and are less severe than those measured on previous flights.
The maximumrecorded total heating rate, 18 Btu/ft2-s, occurred at approxi-
mately II n mi. The maximumrecorded gas temperature, 1628°F occurred at
approximately 12 n mi. In general, Center Engine Cutoff (CECO)on AS-508
produced a spike in the thermal environment data with a magnitude and
duration similar to previous flight data.
Ambient gas temperatures under the engine cocoons (measurements C242-I01

through C242-I05) were within the band of previous flight data and within
the predicted band. These temperatures are shown in Figure 13-3.
13.3 S-II BASEHEATING
Figure 13-4 presents the AS-508 total heating rate throughout S-II burn
as recorded by transducer C722-206 on the aft face of the base heat shield.
The postflight analytical curve for this transducer and the previous
flights data band are also shown for comparison. The analytical heat
rate represents the theoretical response of the transducer to the total
13-I
8-_:L
a%_l 15UL%_aH /_%ol Pta.LqS %_aH as_ 3I-S "L-E:[ aJnS£=l
mff '3aNIIIqV
O8 09 O_ 08 0
0 '. A iO
_o--t
c --I c-_ ---t
--hr-- S
r-I-
I_"r-
! m
" O[ _,
---I OL --I
80S-SV -- ;;o SL
LOS-SV .... --t ---t
I"rl O8 _
90S-SV ....
08
VIVQ IHgI]_
90L-6i7L3
$8 1 O_
0 0
90L-983-
o:_ -.-I PJ 0
¢-I-o
e- '--I c-l- 3:=
"h I-"
¢-I- E_ --r-
iN)-r-
I I'-I'1 'V OL r_
OL --I
--I
•
Z
PO
SL,
.--t
"--I
!.
08 m
I-r'l
O8
I
$8
90L 983
I +
ij $8
O_ O_ 08 OL
LW u '3aflZlZ4V
The postflight analytical values of heat shield aft face pressures are
evaluated using a semi-empirical correlation between heat shield aft face
static pressures and heating rates. This correlation is based on 1/25
scale model hot flow test results and AS-501 through AS-507 flight data.
The effects of the S-IC/S-II stage interstage separation, CECO, and EMR
shift are included in the analysis.
12.3 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
12.3.1 External Acoustics
AS-508 external fluctuating pressures were measured at 12 vehicle stations

located on the S-IVB interstage and S-IVB aft skirt. Figure 12-5 shows
the instrument numbers and locations of the 12 pressure transducers. Six
instruments, B0033-402 through B0038-404, indicated data dropouts at
around liftoff. These instruments are located near vehicle Position IV_
the remaining instruments, located on or near vehicle Position III, show
no data dropouts during this time period. The data dropouts lasted
approximately 6 seconds and did not appear to be a direct result of the
AS-508 external acoustic environment at liftoff. The cause of the drop-
outs has not been determined.
The vehicle overall sound pressure levels at liftoff are shown in Fig-
ure 12-6. AS-5D8 liftoff data show good agreement with previously meas-
ured data.
Figure 12-7 presents overall fluctuating pressure/time histories for

S-IC boost. AS-507 flight data and Saturn V 4 percent scale model test data
are included for comparison. AS-508 overall time histories were generally
comparable to AS-507 data. Similar trends were evident in the two sets of
data and agreement was good during periods of peak noise. The differences
in fluctuating pressure between AS-507 and AS-508 during periods of low
aerodynamic noise are believed to be caused by the difference in calibra-
tion levels of the two flights. AS-508 data are believed to be more
accurate. However, it should be noted that the temperature limit of
the transducers appears to have been exceeded after I00 seconds due to
aerodynamic heating. Effects of the heating on the validity of the data
beyond I00 seconds are not known.
The Saturn V 4 percent scale model test data (Mach = 0.6 to 1.45) show
good agreement with data from I0 of the 12 flight instruments. Lower
fluctuating pressure levels during flight were shown by instruments
B0031-402 and B0032-402 which were located just aft of the S-IVB auxil-
iary propulsion system on Position III. Power spectra at or near maxi-
mum aerodynamic noise generally show good agreement with respect to shape
and decibel level between AS-507 and AS-508 flights (see Figure 12-8).
12-5
r
INSTRUMENT VEHICLE STA. INSTRUMENT VEHICLE STA._
NUMBER METERS (IN.) NUMBER METERS (IN.)
B0028-402 64.72 (2548) B0034-402 64.87 12554)

B0029-402 65.38 (2574) B0035-402 65.76 (2589)
B0030-402 65.76 (2589) B0036-402 69.24 (2726)
B0031-402 68.86 12711) B0037-404 70.38 (2771)
B0032-402 69.42 (2733) B0038-404 70.71 (27841
BOO33-a02 64.24 (2529) B0039-404 70.71 (2784_
POS. II POS. I
2832
B0039-40
2746
S-IVB AFT
SKIRT
B0032-402
" S-II/S-IVB
INTERSTAGE
B0030-402 --STA. 2519

B0029-402
B0028-402
POS. Ill POS. IV
B0033-402--
Figure 12-5. AS-508 Acoustic Instrumentation
,,-i 170
l i ----- PREDICTED
PREVIOUS FLIGHT
DATA
AS-508 FLIGHT DATA
L_
..J (Z)- POS. Ill
-65 ° FROM POS. III
TOWARD POS. IV
_-_ 160 [] -7 ° FROM POS. Ill
r_ E TOWARD POS. IV
cL_
zLo
oo _ _ _
u_ 150
x
.-J_
•_C •
r_LL
L_J,I
Ov
I
140 AT'k
[
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600
VEHICLE BODY STATION, in.
External Overall Sound Pressure Level At Li ftoff

Figure 12-6.
12-6
o
I
.__ I!, M
' J , J.
!
-_- 7, 5 o
It I if
I o c,J
o
i !J i'- {
/, ,/ i
I
§
l-"
c-
r- C/)
v
'T _k F--
>
_('\ --'F.-
i _.I
'T
i
Ug
I o
fl
k r_
,L _f o
c-
"-'4"
7
qp '(_m/N £-OLX_ '_38) 0

qp '(_m/N 9-O[X@ '33W)
73A37 3NNSS3_d
13A31 3aNSS38d I 73A3] 3WNSS3Wa r--"
9NIIVRI3073 77VW3AO 9NIIVNI3013 71VW3AO I,
9NIIVR13N13 77V_3AO
o r-
I I Q.)
>
,) - .) 0
T/ r---"
n_
c-
f,-
(lJ
.l.b
k I \
X
I.i.I
I
J
c:E
I--
L_J .,2{I °i'-
I--
J,
I
'T ,\ o
l----
°r-"
f i,
f
Y _:m.
o
--- --._
,g ,g ' I N
qp '(_mlN £-OtX_ "_-13_I) qp '(_m/N £-O!.XZ "_43_1)

73A37 3_flSS3_cl
73A37 3_NSS3_d 13A37 3_NSS3_d
9NILVNI3nlJ -IlV_3AO 9NIIVQ13Nq3 77V_3AO
9NIIVN13N13 llV_3AO
12-7
(_ .4o _ _aaqs) LaABq aJnss_d 6UL_en_3nL-I LL_JBAO L_UJaZx3 al3.LqaA "/_-_t aJn6L-I
SON0335 '3NIl 3ONW

SONOD3S '3_li 39NVB
09L O_ L O_ L O0 L 08 og OY OZ 0
OgL O)L OZL OOL 08 09 O_ OZ
OZL
OZ L
Or-;
' , ,O_w,.,v! &me '%..
c j'
_o_-6_9o8 r e _o_-g£oon
I
I
i 08[
#
Og[
I F- _
F -....
_;_..__ - _,. _,_
CO
I
CX,l
--T ' 09[ ,,_ 2

±noao_o
v,voJ :--
OBL _
VlVO ±S3i A _W IN33B3d _ VIVG IS31 A IVS iN33B3d

LOS-SV------ LOS-SV ....
80s-sv-- 80S-SV --
OZL _
!F" _=<
mm
._I__/__L-L ! _ : _ _ I__\_
r 0_, Or-r--
I er_
:zm_
I i!i ,_ I 09t _ -_ J.NOdO_(] V.L'_O, -,_
i ! i IflOdO_O VlVQ J v
OBL gO_-_EO08,
_ ] 08 L
i_Jl)4SI_V BAI-S 39V.LS_3iNI BAI-S 'II-$

6-_[
PRESSURE SPECTRAL DENSITY

PRESSURE SPECTRAL DENSITY
PRESSURE SPECTRAL DENSITY (REF. 2xlO -5 N/m2), db/Hz
(REF. 2xlO -5 N/m2), db/Hz
(REF. 2xlO -5 N/m2), db/Hz
o _
,.-rl
,.,..I ° II I < :_, I -T1 I
1
m ii i -rl II
I ! 0-4:_
•-rl ii I
-n LI
Cn
I
r-
L_n
OO E)
,_- .,_
o_,_- -,-=o-
_ _" 7-_ _-
--r" --,,a0--
rD _m
- -"m m
.,--.l -_ -_
I'O _ _ ___
I - _: -=
OO
I
<
I"1)
-. \
,--,1°
( \
Z
,-.I -4
-<
(1) 1
rTl
x
f
rl-
g.
'-s / L_-_ ....
/
-T'I
.--I
.... i =,
VIt/')
(... ! I P,
(--)
_0 0
(-i" -I_ 0 i
c-
--.I°
PRESSURE SPECTRAL DENSITY PRESSURE SPECTRAL DENSITY PRESSURE SPECTRAL DENSITY

(REF. 2xlO -5 N/m2), db/Hz (REF. 2xlO -5 N/m2), db/Hz
I'D (REF. 2xlO -5 N/m2), db/Hz
(._
L/I o_o
_
E:
_D
zm_
'-rl II I -rl II I
LF)
3=_ (J) {J'1
i'- -_I o --r" _: O
....
r--o00 _:_- -= _.
r'- O_ 0
--0 m
r_
(-l-
m
-S - _
_- -..,I
Eg
(._
P,
m
(-I-
.-=I,
_! -
I'D
/
Z
-"1
(./') / --4
:3"
/
/
--[--
c-l-
]
/ /
0 / O
(,o
/
r_
.L .L
O
-- PO ro
oo
S-IVB AFT SKIRT
S-II, S-IVB INTERSTAGE
140 140
IIAS
5'o8'
'""" i llJlll [{{IB00_7-404I
>-
I.--
N
::C:
130
T- 2sEc I .....
L11111 Boo34-4oz
iJJiJ
---As-so, _AS-508_
>-
_"-
N
130
| AS-508
IT : 79 SEC
i
_ l lJlill I I
r i ------AS-507
II Ii --AS-508_J
i
C,_
_7
..O
I IOAFPL = 144.18 db
=,-_ , , ,_ , , }ll[II i! ill illllll
! I' _!
.--IcJ
120 _ 120
<E
c_ "-.-,. <=#. II ! ] ll_iil _I :i! lilIIlt
b =
_JU')
II I 111Iiill FffCFF
_ h--k_l i IIlll]i L_J LC}
'
II i i !if:!
i :[ ! :
i l llil!I IF" . Ill]iIi

110 _- , llO
c/)CD
X il i I'Ii!!_I!! !I I!I II
AS-57 IilH lJlll [ llJl _,,.I)IIIII C_C_
!Ill
_ , IJl(lll
100 • 100
IJT=77SEC Jl!lll I i!lil |_ I!tlll _L--
( 'i Ill{ll
it
_.I L.u
cCC_
C__v
I IOAF_L
L :I 1,_3.15_b ......... ] I I tlill
90 I i I Jlilll ........... 90
140 , _ _ _,_r_,
[III11 t1111 1 ) B0038-404
14o! lAS-S'o8'
'""" B0035-402
AS-507 __ , AS-508 _I • : ------AS-507
I,,I
.....
T : 79 SEC
_ IIT = 7S SEC I
_ 1301 IOAFPL = 146.11db _ 130 OAFPL = 148.23db i _/Si
z_
=_-o I/ I I I llll, illill Ill II lllIl kiJH I )$)Iil

._ I/ I I JliJlll _" _IIIH 120 ' ! i!l_
!]llIIl
lJiJl
hO =_, • 1I / I I IIllll 110
I
"°III ml, u")O
I!lll
0 _' II I I I llllll !!!!!! ..... i \'', llill AS-507 I
. lO01 IAS-507 j:::: lO0 T = 77 SEC ,H "_, I,II,ll,ll
_ j IT = 77 SEC i!!! OAFPL = 149.77 db
_ l IOAFPL = 150.04 db II .... L _v
9o I I !IIIiIl
i)_11 _ IllJt
90!! I I I I[IIU
14Q i ) i itl)il
------AS-507 >- _ 140 AS-508 ........
111lli ]
i1111B°°39-4°_
|i------AS-507
>- N ) AS-508 -_
t I lllll--AS-5Os_J _ T = 79 SEC iilk _AS-508--
"" 0 T = 79 SEC _ 1301 _OAFPL = 153.09db
_ 13 OAFPL = 150.74db-
Ill[ill tlllll
,,JLlIIIl I IIIHI ttlIt
ii Illil IIII _L IIIUI i!iiH

III111 : 1"1_\! IIIUI II!IH ! lilll
_= Ill Ilii- -", l lll ,
mo
_ II0 I lit III1 111111"q, Illh,
ILjjj I,I,t,U
_ I00 _S-507
T = 77 SEC
-'"FnAFPL
_ 152.35db-
I I Illll
tL""'
I[IU
Itlll
I 1t1111 _
I IIIIII
11l_
, t116
m ,.Z I00
_b_
_-_
9o/!
||OAFPL
AS-507
lIT = 77 SEC
= 151.02 db
) I I ltllll
i .....
L L 1 Ill
lllll r lll_
l lll[
90 1000 • _ 000 100 1000 lO 000
10o 1 lO
1 lO
Figure 12-8. Vehicle External Fluctuating Pressure Spectral Densities (Sheet 2 of 2)

L
ALTITUDE, n mi
I0 20 30 4O
|
1200 I 1600
C50-I06
Uu.
1000 o
0 1200
u_
"'
c_ 800
8OO F-
F-
r_
w
c<
L_
600 r_
- 4OO _EZ
_] C50-I 06
o0 0
200
A q
D
2400
1600
C52-I06 ! FLIGHT DATA
1400 2000
.... AS-506
I, .... AS-507
1200 0 1600 o ----=-AS-508
0
1000
//
1200 _
< 800
800
_ 00 /
4oo
4oo
0
200
i
0
0 20 40 60 80
ALTITUDE, km
Figure 13-2. S-IC Base Gas Temperature
13-3
X_TS-IC CECO
_/_S-508 FLIGHT DATA

300
I
400 J
PREDICTED MAXIMUM-_ I
o
360 _ 200
,,.y.
L.I.J j /-C242-I 02 0"

I'---
PREVIOUS FLIGHT DATA AND " __//-C242-I03
280
C242_I04--_ 7 _ C242-105 . -_-'_'"
240
0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 160
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
Figure 13-3. S-IC Ambient Gas Temperature Under Engine Cocoon
thermal environment reflected by thermal math models. Key flight para-

meters relating to engine performance, engine position and reference
temperatures are used in the postflight analysis. The math models are
based on both theoretical and empirical postulates. The AS-508 heating
rate was within the previous flights data band up to approximately 450
seconds, at which time the AS-508 heating rate exceeded the previously
measured values. The AS-508 flight heating rate was expected to be higher
throughout S-II burn because the outboard J-2 engines were gimbaled further
inboard for nominal steady state flight. Figure 13-4 also shows that the
heating rate increased through S-II boost up to Engine Mixture Ratio (EMR)
shift.
Figure 13-5 shows the AS-508 flight data and postflight analysis of the
heat shield recovery temperature transducer C731-206. The analytical
temperature curve represents a calculated transducer reading based on math
models using key flight parameters. The gas recovery temperature is an
analytically derived value computed from the flight measurement data.
The measured flight temperature was higher than that recorded during pre-
vious flights. Note that the flight values are the probe temperatures
and not the gas recovery temperatures. The temperature data show that
13-4
eq.e_ _BH _;V P La._qS _aH II-S "i7-CL eJ n 6 .L_H
aJn%_Jad_al RJ_AOOa_ Pla_qS %_aH II-S .S-_L _JnSLj
SQNOD3S '_111 39N_
soNoo3s
'3wll
3_NVa 0o£ OSZ OOZ OSL
oog OSS 005 0_ 00) 0S£
0O9 OSS OOS OS_ 00_ OS_ 00_ OSZ OOZ OsL _Z-
00_-_ _ _ _x z_
! OL
[-
ooz
I DO_
I =
oo_
OOP 009
I___
l 009
II
g
008
I T
.
, I I ,,"rw-
If.- ,
I 008
I i I
_"_ "_ Y .._ oo6 .... __.____ I L._
J I
oo_[ L.. I Or)
I ' 000 [
L ._1
39NV_ _33_QSNWl OOLL
009[- MO138 VIVG IH917_ -"
j , , i OOZL
"_ SISAlVNV IHgll_iSOd--- SISA]VNV 1Hglq_ISOd ------
VlVO 1H91]_ --
_iVO lH9133 S_OIA3_d i

_33flOSNVBI
3UnlV'd3dl_31
A_3AO03_ SV9 -.
0333 II-S/2,,
_] 003o II-s
0330 II-SA NOIIWVd3S 39VlSB3iNI/_
'19o_-L_Lo
/ vlvo
0330 II-S _ _ _.o,^3._I
NOIIV_VdHS 39VIS_31NI/_,
I_IHS _W3z_S NOIIINgl II-Sz_S
I 141HS _W3/_ NOIIINgl II-S/_, 90Z-_L3
..-----
3_V-I_053HI
HO_ "NI _ k731VWlXO_ddV
O30N31X3 SI 3HO_d 3H1 :310N
the analyzed gas recovery temperature was II80°F prior to CECO, 1420°F
after CECO, and 1230°F after EMR shift. This is approximately lO0°F,
170°F, and 160°F higher than the corresponding AS-507 values. The in-
creased gas recovery temperature is consistent with the AS-508 steady
state J-2 engine deflection pattern which indicates that the engines were
gimbaled more inboard than during the AS-507 flight. Flight data at 175
seconds are considered invalid, because a considerable increase in heat
transfer coefficient or gas recovery temperature would be required to
produce the indicated temperature. Transducer C722-206, located in
the same quadrant, did not reflect increases in the heat transfer co-
efficient or recovery temperature.
Figure 13-6 shows the AS-508 flight data and postflight analysis of the
heat shield aft radiation heat rate. The analytical radiation heat rate
represents the heat rate at the transducer location and is derived from
a math model. The model uses flight parameters such as engine performance
and position to calculate the incident radiation. AS-508 flight data
compare favorably with previous flight data, noting the effects of early
S-II CECO on the heating rate trends.
There were no structuraltemperature measurements on the base heat shield

and only three thrust cone forward surface temperature measurements in
the base region. A maximum postflight predicted temperature was deter-
mined for the aft surface of the heat shield using predicted base heating
rates for the AS-508 flight. This postflight predicted temperature was
I057°F which compared favorably with previous flights; being well within
the maximum design temperatures of 1460°F for no engine out and 1550°F
for one control engine out. The maximum measured temperature on the
thrust cone was IO°F. The measured temperatures were well below design
values and in good agreement with postflight predictions.
13.4 VEHICLE AEROHEATING THERMAL ENVIRONMENT
Aerodynamic heating environments were not measured on the AS-508 vehicle.

Due to the similarity in the trajectory, the aerodynamic heating environ-
ments are believed to be approximately the same as previous flight
environments. Flow separation on the AS-508 vehicle, as observed from
ground optical data, occurred at approximately 116 seconds. The forward
point of flow separation versus range time is presented in Figure 13-7.
The effects of CECO on the forward point of flow separation during the
AS-508 flight were similar to previous flights. It should be noted
that at higher altitudes the measured location of the forward point
of flow separation is questionable due to loss of resolution in the
ground optical data.
13-6
HEATING RATE, watt/c m2
POINT OF FLOW SEPARATION - VEHICLE STATION, m
i I
,_°
r..)
CQ "rl
.,.l°
c_
"S
('b
C_
!
[] c)
c)
(._
I
ml o'_
"-rl C)
0
_> o_ I
I
7 _(_-_
moo _ _
C)..
m_
I-" ('D
0 r_l:Z
o
c_
o P.
! r--
('I) C,_
_z
o
-h :_ _" OC
!
OO C/1 -'h
I
rn
CI)
"0 --4
'-S I °_
CZ_
DJ c> C_-
c-F m ,...i °
m
DJ
C}-
,,--t° 0
o
'-rl o
Z
0
_E
m -<
0
vC> (-I-
!
v
I
('D
c_ HEATING RATE, Btu/ft2-s
(-F
_Q
n)
POINT OF FLOW SEPARATION - VEHICLE STATION, in
SECTION 14
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS
14.1 SUMMARY
The S-IC stage forward compartment ambient temperatures were maintained

above the minimum performance limit during the AS-508 countdown. The
S-IC stage aft compartment environmental conditioning system performed
satisfactorily except that the temperature in the vicinity of battery
12KIO dropped below battery qualification limits during LOX loading.
However, the temperature was within limits at liftoff.
The S-II thermal control and compartment conditioning system apparently

performed satisfactorily since the ambient temperatures external to the
containers were normal and there were no problems with the equipment
in the containers.
The Instrument Unit (IU) Environmental Control System (ECS) performed

satisfactorily for the duration of its mission. Coolant temperatures,
pressures, and flowrates were continuously maintained within the required
I imi ts.
14.2 S-IC ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The S-IC stage forward skirt ECS has three phases of operation during
prelaunch operations. When onboard electrical systems are energized,
but prior to cryogenic loading, conditioned air is used to maintain the
desired environment. When cryogenic loading begins warmed GN2 is substi-
tuted for the conditioned air. The third phase uses a warmer GN2 flow to
offset the cooling effects caused by S-II stage J-2 engine thrust chamber
chilldown. All three phases functioned satisfactorily as evidenced by
ambient temperature readings. Measurement C206-120 recorded a -87°F
during the S-II stage J-2 engine thrust chamber chilldown sequence. This
was above the allowable limit of -90°F.
The S-IC stage thrust structure compartment ECS had ECP-579 incorporated.
This ECP reorificed the distribution manifold and the main compartment
vents to keep the ambient temperature near battery 12KIO within the
batteries qualification limits of 80 +_I5°F. However, after start of LOX
loading the ambient temperature near this battery decreased to a low of
61°F indicating that the ECP fix was not successful (see Figure 14-I).
14-I
_TLOX LOADING INITIATED
310
9O
3O5
8O
QUALIFICATION /-.---AS-508 DATA
- / &A.
300 1 .IMIT / (HARDWIRE) o
o
70
295 / OC
- I--
L I
F-- ........ :D
" 290 _ 60 ,,,

F- _MINIMUM LIMIT PER KSC
F WAIVER G-B508-14
285
- 5O
28O r-I HOUR HOLD

4O
/
I I I I I I I
275 ____ -6 -5 -4 '3.5_-3.5-3 -2 -I '0
COUNTDOWN
TIME, HOURS
Figure 14-I. S-IC Aft Compartment Temperature Near Battery 12KIO
However, KSC waiver G-B508-14 lowered the acceptable temperature limit

to 50°F. All other ambient temperature measurements in this area were
normal and ranged from 75.0°F at CI07-I15 to 55.2°F at C203-I15.
14.3 S-II ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The engine compartment conditioning system maintained the ambient temper-

ature and thrust cone surface temperatures within design ranges through-
out the launch countdown. The system also maintained an inert atmosphere
within the compartment as evidenced by the absence of H2 or 02 indications
on the hazardous gas monitor.
No equipment container temperature measurements were taken. However,

since the ambient measurements external to the containers were satisfactory
and there were no problems with the equipment in the containers, it is
assumed that the thermal control system performed adequately.
14-2
14.4 IU ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
14.4.1 Thermal Conditioning System
Performance of the IU Thermal Conditioning System (TCS) was satisfactory

throughout its flight. The temperature of the Methanol/Water (M/W) coolant
supplied to the coldplates and internally cooled components was contin-
uously maintained within the required 45 to 68°F temperature band.
Figure 14-2 shows TCS temperature control parameters over the total time
span for which data were received. Sublimator cooling was nominal as
evidenced by normal coolant temperature cycling through 46,100 seconds
(12:48:20). The last cooling cycle started at about 48,180 seconds
(13:23:00).
Sublimator performance during ascent is shown in Figure 14-3. The water
valve opened at approximately 183 seconds, allowing water to flow to the
sublimator. Full cooling from the sublimator was not evidenced until
approximately 520 seconds at which time the coolant temperature at the
temperature control point began to decrease rapidly. The low cooling
rate during the first 300 seconds after the water valve opened is typical
of a slow starting sublimator. At the first thermal switch sampling, at
293
292
I 1 111111
M/W CONTROL TEMPERATURE (C15-601) •65
291
fLOSS 'OF 'POWER TO SOLENOID' 1
o
290 I_TER
VALVE
OPEN I
_- 288
i [
I I T
6o
287
/ I
.55
285 [
,, / L l /
i I
284v I
283 . I ,li_I
303
m
o_ 298 , _ II. _" _----
-- 293 ' ' , , _ .....
_ L_..
_ J_L II /
-i
_288 ,: ' ' .."'I i
273 ' I ,I Jl V
1.5-::
o,, k
I
*:]t li
., II _1
L.J_ .Li
" !! II
0
0 5 I0 15 20 25 30 35
-_o
L 14C _o s_ 6o 6s ;o ;_
i I
! I |
LO 5:00:00 IO:O0:O0 !5:00:00 20:00:00
Figure 14-2. IU TCS Coolant Control Parameters
14-3
292 65
J
291 jv
jf
290
289 _ ---- OPEN THERMAL -- '60 °u-

..... _ ................ CLOSED SWITCH
288 I TEMP
M/W CONTROL TEMP C15-601 I--.
287
286 .55
____ WATER VALVE ___-- FIRST THERMAL __ WATER VALVE _ i--
F- 285
OPEN SWITCH SAMPLING CLOSED
284
283
I "I I -i i i:i j--
50
2.5 I I I
SUBLIMATOR WATER
_ 2.0
•INLETjPRESSURE D43-601 _ __ ........... ,2 N
_ 1.0
0.5 I',. -----

_- 0
10
i I
8 I
,SUBLIMATOR
[
HEAT
l
t
/ * '- _ "" i""" - -
I---
REJECTION RATE t
_ 6 i
#
4 d
I---" _1
_
:::t2 _:
2
0
0 I00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 11 O0 1200 1300 1400 1500
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
'
00:05:00 00:I_ :00 '
00:15:00 00: 210:00 00:25:00
RANGE T I ME, HOURS: MINUTES : SECONDS
Figure 14-3. IU Sublimator Performance During Ascent
approximately 483 seconds, the coolant temperature was still above the
water valve actuation point and the valve remained open. The second
thermal switch sampling occurred at approximately 781 seconds and the
water valve was closed.
Hydraulic performance of the TCS was as expected throughout the flight.

System flowrates and pressures are shown in Figure 14-4. Note the decay
in pump outlet pressure (and hence fluid flowrate) beginning at about
40,000 seconds (11:06:40). This corresponds with the decrease in pump
voltage as battery output power became depleted.
The TCS GN_ sphere pressure decay which is indicative of GN2 usage rate
was within, the expected range (see Figure 14-5).
All component temperatures remained within their expected ranges through-

out the primary mission (see Figure 14-6) and continued under ECS control
until loss of power. The Launch Vehicle Data Adapter (LVDA) and Launch
Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) began heating from internal power
dissipation after the coolant pump stopped circulating M/W. The IU
exterior about position III was in the shade and the Flight Control
Computer (FCC), panel 16, began a cooling trend at about 50,000 seconds
14-4
50
.,J ............. . ............... PUMP OUTLET PRESSURE (D17-601)
30-......................... ....
J'.
..
I = '
M/W CIRCULATION
' '
CEAsEs
-- 40 ._
...
. 20.
-- i
20 N
io- PUMP INLET PRESSURE (D24-601)
"-io
0
10
.....i ...-D
......
2Z_ - L i .........
.....
IU M/W FLOWRATE (F9-602) J
I 8_
E
- ....
i11111
I I ""'= LOSS OF NEAS RACK A402
6 d
i,--
S-IVB M/W FLOWRATE I I(FlO-601) \ 'I I 1 t 4 _

:3=
0
0 5 lO 15 20
IiLILI[I
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
z _
0
R_GE TIME, I_0 SE_NDS
! ! ! I
5:00:00 10:00:00 15:00:00

,O
R_GE TIME, HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
Figure 14-4. IU TCS Hydraulic Performance
23
32
22 ._-_° L
30
21 _ w_
20 "_r'..
28
19 "
26
18 I N
24
17 l RATE
w
16 1 %
MINIMUM EXPECTED USAGE 22
15 _ t
r_
1
\ 20 _
%
I 18 %
%12
_I0 _, 14 m
_- 8 ,w
"10
-8
_, -MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE USAGE RATE
-6
%
-4
2_
-2
1
0 0
0 3 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 /5
RANGE TIME, 1000 SECONDS
! I I I I
0 5:00:00 I0:00:00 15:00:00 20:00:00
RANGE TIME, HOURS :MINUTES :SECONDS
figure 14-5. IU TCS GN2 Sphere Pressure (D025-601)
14-5
355 , ,
175
•,,,LVDA
()AI0 11) 56-60
350 __eeeeLVDA (2A lOA5) C55-603 --
.......,".. 17O
ooooLVDC MEMORY C54-603 165
A-AALVDC LOGIC C53-603 160
345 -- 1 " --
f
L ./ 155
340 150
t 145
W
335 140
135
330
130
.J
o 125 _
. 325
120
,.v.
ll5
_ 320
llO _"
#
_: 315 los _=
I.-. / I00
L_
_"
310
95
90
305 _, _ /
P 85
300 80
75
295 _- -¢'t_
_
70
65
290 \I n 60
FINAL COOLING CYCLE
I I ]
285
335 I I I I I
_twDeST-124M IG C634-603
I 135
-140
330 --mBmBFCC C69-602
AAAAST-124M PEA C63-603 : 130
oooo250 VA INVERTER C67-603 i, 125
325 --aammASC C62-603
120
320 t 115
•_" "" "II0
' 105
' I00
310
o_ \ 95
_ 90 _
_ 305 t-" ",'.,,_ "_'_"- ---- -" " " :"
,:c
_\' 80 ,.=,
300- ,. _,
75 )
i` _ " .... *":. /%.': "_ " P_ :Lo " 70
65
290 .... _ " . ,,_ -"". 60

,,,,..
55
285
,50
-45
28O
- 40
- 35
275
p FINAL COOLING CYCLE 3O
I I I
270 0 68 /2
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64'

I
I , I I I
0 5:00:00 I0:00:00 15:00:00 20:00:00

Figure 14-6 Selected IU Component Temperatures
14-6
(13:53:20) due to heat loss to the IU structure (see Figure 14-6). The
entire IU interior was shaded after 50,400 seconds (14:00:00) upon return
to the Transposition, Docking and Ejection (TD&E) attitude.
The thermal radiation shrouds added on AS-508 were effective in shield-

ing the components from solar heating. This is illustrated by the AS-507
and AS-508 comparisons in Figure 14-7. The platform on panel 21 and the
Accelerometer Signal Conditioner (ASC), Platform Electronics Assembly (PEA),
AC Power Supply (ACS) on panel 20, which showed strong solar heating effect
after 15,000 seconds (04:10:00) on AS-507, were also in line with the
direct solar rays on AS-508 during TD&E attitude (14,500 to 14,900 seconds
[04:01:40 to 04:08:20]), and LOX dump attitude (16,200 to 17,000 seconds
[04:30:00 to 04:43:20]) through lunar impact attitude (ending at 43,850
seconds [12:10:50])•
14.4.2 ST-124M-3 Gas Bearing System
The Gas Bearing System (GBS) performance was satisfactory throughout the
mission. Figure 14-8 shows platform pressure differential and internal
ambient pressure. The GBS GN2 supply sphere pressure decay was within
the expected range as shown in Figure 14_9.
335 I l
aaola ASC C62-603 ASJS07 140
330 - oooo INT GIMBAL C34-603 AS-507. 135

AAAA INT GIMBAL C34-603 AS-508
130
325 mmim ASC C62-603 AS-508 125
120
320 115
oo_ oooO O_o
ooo
• II0
315
I05
lO0
310 #
- /
95 u.
o
90
; 305
85
p..
80
75
3oo /
595N,,, < _P 65
50
55
285
50
45
280
,40
275 ,35
30
2700 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 6O 64 68 /2

I I I I
5:00:00 10:00:00 15:00:00 20:uO:O0
Figure 14-7. Comparison of AS-507 and AS-508 IU Temperatures
14-7
PRESSURE, N/cm 2
PRESSURE, N/cm 2
- 9.
, L ,m_n--
m_
-rl
cQ
c-
N-
• _
; -N
m_
Co .,-4
s _
c i
m
....J
I
Co
"U z
('-I- u_
Z c_
PO
¢D
(V3
C-
-$
(1)
./
PRESSURE, psid
PRESSURE, psia
23 - 32
22 L_]
- 30
21\
20 28
19
\ 26
17 _ \ 24
t
16 l
15
I
_ \ \
22
-20 '_
14 Il 'w
13L-J_ _MINIMUM EXPECTED USAGE Pd_TE -18 %

%, 12 "/
. 11 -16
lO \ -14
_ 9 ,% (}_
_- 8
7 10
6
5
4
3 _•_( MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE iSAGE RATE _ -6
4
2
1
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 150
I I I I .....
5:00:00 I0:00:00 15:00:00 20:00:00
Figure 14-9. IU GBS GN2 Sphere Pressure (D010-603)
14-9/14-10
SECTION15
DATASYSTEMS
15.1 SUMMARY
All data systems performed satisfactorily throughout the flight. Flight

measurements from onboard telemetry were 99.9 percent reliable, matching
the high performance of AS-506 and AS-507.
Telemetry performance was normal. Radiofrequency (RF) propagation was

generally good, though the usual problems due to flame effects and staging
were experienced. Usable VHFdata were received to 14,280 seconds
(03:58:00). The 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 launch phase had required destruct.
The system properly safed the S-IVB on a commandtransmitted from Bermuda
(BDA) at 760.0 seconds. The performance of the Commandand Communications
System (CCS) was excellent. The only significant problem encountered
during the flight was signal interference between the Instrument Unit (IU)
CCSand the Lunar Module (LM) Unified S-Band (USB) system during translunar
coast. This problem was caused by the necessity to apply power to the
LM early. Usable CCStelemetry data were received to 70,380 seconds
(19:33:00). Ascension (ACN), Goddard Experimental Test Center (ETC 3),
Goldstone (GDS), Hawaii (HAW), Madrid (MAD) and Merritt Island Launch
Area (MILA) were receiving CCSsignal carrier at S-IVB/IU lunar impact
at 280,601 seconds (77:56:41). Good tracking data were received from
the C-Band radar, with Carnarvon (CRO) indicating final Loss of Signal
(LOS) at 44,220 seconds (12:17:00).
The 67 ground engineering cameras provided good data during the launch.
15.2 VEHICLEMEASUREMENTS
EVALUATION
The AS-508 launch vehicle had 1385 measurements scheduled for flight; six
measurementswere waived prior to start of the automatic countdown sequence
leaving 1379 measurements active for flight. Of the waived measurements,
five provided valid data during the flight. A summaryof measurement
reliability is presented in Table 15-I for the total vehicle and for each
stage. Measurement reliability was 99.9 percent. This reliability is the
same as on AS-506 and AS-507, when the highest reliability for any Saturn V
flight was attained.
15-I
The waived measurements, totally failed measurements, partially failed
measurementsand questionable measurementsare listed by stage in
Tables 15-2, 15-3, and 15-4. None of the listed failures had any
significant impact on postflight evaluation.
15.3 AIRBORNE
VHFTELEMETRY
SYSTEMS
EVALUATION
Performance of the nine VHFtelemetry links was generally satisfactory

with only minor exceptions. A brief summaryof these links is shown in
Table 15-5.
All inflight calibrations occurred as programed and were within specifi-

cations.
Data degradation and dropouts were experienced at various times during

boost, as on previous flights, due to the attenuation of RF signals.
Signal attenuation was caused by main flame effects, S-IC/S-II staging,
S-II ignition and S-II second-plane separation. Magnitude of these effects
was comparable to that experienced on previous flights. S-IC main flame
effects caused a temporary loss of VHFtelemetry data on the S-IC stage.
At S-IC/S-II staging, signal strength on all VHFtelemetry links dropped
below threshold for approximately 1.0 second. Signal degradation due
to S-II ignition and S-II flame effects was sufficient to cause tem-
porary loss of VHFtelemetry data on the S-IC and S-II stages. S-II
VHFdata were lost during S-II second-plane separation. In addition,
there were intervals during the launch phase where some data were so
degraded as to be unusable. Loss of these data, however, posed no problem
since losses were of such short duration as to have little or no impact on
flight analysis.
The performance of the S-IVB and IU VHFtelemetry systems was normal during
earth orbit, S-IVB second burn and final coast. Usable VHFtelemetry data
were received to 14,280 seconds (03:58:00). A summaryof avilable VHF
telemetry coverage showing Acquisition of Signal (AOS) and LOSfor each
station is shown in Figure 15-I.
15.4 C-BANDRADARSYSTEMEVALUATION
The C-Band radar operated satisfactorily during flight, although several

ground stations experienced some of the usual tracking problems.
As on previous flights, MILA experienced phase front disturbances during

launch (erroneous pointing information caused by a sudden antenna null or
a distorted beacon return). However, the AS-508 disturbances were not as
severe as experienced on previous flights and tracking continuity was
maintained.
The BDA FPS-16 radar could not track from 342 to 348 seconds due to
interference of the BDA FPQ-6 radar transmitting signal.
15-2
Table 15-1. AS-508 Measurement Summary
• i
SoIVB INSTRUMENT TOTAL

S-IC S-II
MEASUREMENT UNIT VEHICLE
STAGE STAGE STAGE
CATEGORY
m_ mm_
_m_
290 228 1385

288 579
Scheduled
l 0 6
Wai ved l 4
0 l 0
0
Fai Iures
6 0 l:l
Parti al 3
Fai Iures
0 6
0 0 6
Questionable
lO0.O 99.9
I00.0 lO0.O 99.7
Reliability,
Percent
Table 15-2. AS-508 Flight Measurements Waived Prior to Flight
NATURE OF FAILURE REMARKS

MEASUREMENT MEASUREMENT TITLE
NUMBER i
S-IC STAGE
Measurement provided valid data

Output erratic during
D127-I15 Pressure, LOX Suction Line,
initial CDOT LOX Ioad- during flight.
Engine No. 1 Waiver MICH-508-2.
ing and the latter
portion of detanking.
S-II STAGE
Erratic under c_ogenic Measurement provided valid data

C604-218 LH 2 Tank Ullage Temperature during flight.
conditions.
Failed to meet calibra- Relay failure; measurement provided

D010-202 E2 LOX Turbine Outlet Pressure
tion requirements for valid data during flight.
'RACS HIGH MODE'.
'RUN MODE' was satis-
factory.
Did not meet the ±4 Torque shift; measurement provided

D267-201 El LOX Pump Inlet Pressure
)ercent full scale valid data during flight.
accuracy at ambient.
Did not meet the *4 Torque shift; measurement provided

D267-205 E5 LOX Pump Inlet Pressure valid data until S-II CECO when the
percent full scale
accuracy at ambient. over-pressure range of the trans-
ducer was exceeded.
S-IVB STAGE
Pickup coil malfunction Data was low with a high noise

F0004-424 Flow Rate - Oxidizer Circulation level.
Punwp
15-3
Table 15-3. AS-508 Measurement Malfunctions
TIME OF
MEASUREMENT
MEASUREMENT TITLE FAILURE DURATION
NUMBER NATURE OF FAILURE
(RANGE SATISFACTORY REMARKS
TIME) OPERATION
TOTAL MEASUREMENT FAILURES_ S-IVB STAGE
F0005-404 Data erratic at 40 40 seconds -300 to

Flow Rate - LH 2 Caused by signal
Circulation Pump seconds, off scale low at +40 seconds discontinuity in
lO0 seconds.
frequency converter.
PARTIAL MEASUREMENT FAILURES, S-IC STAGE
AO01-118 Acceleration, Longitudinal Data noisy 4 to 12 152 second

seconds
C003-I04 Temperature, Turbine Measurement failed off 58 seconds 58 seconds Probable transducer
Manifold scale high failure
K047-I15 Thrust OK Pressure Switch Switch cycled off one 12 seconds 163.9
No. 3 Engine No. B time seconds
PARTIAL MEASUREMENT FAILURES, S-II STAGE
C003-201 El Fuel Turbine Inlet Failed off scale high at 506 seconds 0 to 506 Failure probably caused
Temperature 506 seconds seconds by an open circuit in
the transducer lower
leg circuit
C648-219 Failed off scale low at
H2 Pressure Regulator 390 seconds 0 .o 390 Failure was probably
Out Temperature 390 seconds seconds caused by an open
circuit in the trans-
ducer high side
circuit
PARTIAL MEASUREMENT FAILURES, S-IVB STAGE
C0007-401 Temperature - Engine Data dropped 90°F and -23 seconds Prior to Caused by high resist-
Control Helium became erratic between -23 seconds ance short circuit in
-23 seconds and liftoff and after probe
liftoff to
end of dat
C0138-403 Temperature - Accumulator Data was erratic to off Slow varia- During Caused by a fractured
GN 2 scale high during periods tions quiescent sensor element
of vibration such as observed periods
during auxiliary hydraulic during CDDT (low or no
pump operation vibration)
C0257-409 Temperature - Fuel Tank Data was 25°F lower 31BO seconds 0 to 3150 Distortion of probe,
Continuous Vent 2 than C0256-409 during seconds; due to decrease in
the orbital period 7000 to electrical insulation
8900 across sensor element
seconds; or change in bridge
trend from resistance
8900 to
9700
seconds to
end of
data
D0218-408 Pressure - Differential Data indicates an 800 seconds 0 to 800 Possible improper
LH2 Chill down Pump accumulation of a 2.2 seconds temperature compensator
psi increase between resistor in transducer
800 and 8920 seconds
)0225-403
Pressure - Cold Helium Data was approximately 600 seconds Prior to Caused by a negative
Control Valve Inlet 200 psi low during 600 second_ shift in the amplifier'
S-IVB first burn and during zero balance circuit
S-IVB
second burr
D0256-403 Pressure - Ambient Helium Data decreased 1.1 per- Data is

Drifting Probably moisture in
Pneumatic Sphere cent from -20 to -18 began prior usable connector caused a
minutes; drifted slowly to liftoff after low impedance to
lower to 7.1 percent of compensa- ground
full scale at 30,000 tion for
seconds drift
15-4
PARKING ORBIT INSERTION
BEGIN S-IVB RESTART PREPARATIONS
S-IVB SECOND IGNITION
CYI
VAN
BDA
_MILA
CRO
CIF r
3500 4000 4500 5000
lOOO 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 500
RANGE TIME, SECONDS ....J
J
1:23:20
1:06:40
00:16:40 •00:33:20 00:50:00
0
RANGE TIME: HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
__ CYI
1
_VAN
HAW i
BDA
MILA
(_
i TEX CRO
!
i GYM
8500 9000 950.0 lO, O0
$500 6COO 6500 7_00 75'00 8000
5000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
2:46:40
.J.- .j.. L. 2:30:00
l:40:O0 1:56:40 2:13:20
1:23:20
RANGE TIME_.__,HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
GYM
!
, , , (_ , , ($ ,
21,000 21,500 22,000
lO,5OO
' ll_O00 ll,5OO 12,00O 12,500 16,000 16,500
l0,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS |
6:06:40
3:03:20 3:20:00 4:26:40 5:50:00
2:46:40
Figure 15-1. VHF Telemetry Coverage Summary

Table 15-4. AS-508 Questionable Flight Measurements
MEASUREMENT
NUMBER MEASUREMENTTITLE REASON QUESTIONED REMARKS
S-lVB STAGE
B0033-402 Acoustic - Station 2529, Between Measurement indicated Cause of data dropouts are
98-99 Ext. unexplained data drop- undetermined.
outs during the early
portion of the boost
phase.
B0034-402 Acoustic - Station 2554, Between
98-99 Ext.
98-99 Ext.

98-99 Ext.
B0037-404 Acoustic - Station 2771.5, Between

98-99 Ext. I,
B0038-404 Acoustic - Station 2784, Between Measurement indicated Cause of data dropouts are
98-99 Ext. undetermined.
unexplained data drop-
outs during the early
portion of the boost
phase.
The only problems reported during earth orbit were side lobe tracking
and dropouts when attempting to track through the zenith. CRO's first
attempt to acquire the vehicle at 3162 seconds resulted in tracking on
a side lobe. The main lobe was acquired at 3246 seconds and no other
problems were experienced during the remainder of the pass. Both the
FPQ-6 and FPS-16 radars at BDA experienced dropouts when the vehicle
passed directly over the stations. The resulting high azimuth rates
exceeded the azimuth tracking rate capability of the antennas and
respective dropouts of 30 and 29 seconds occurred.
During translunar coast, the BDA FPQ-6 radar experienced an unexpected

signal fade, almost to the noise level, at a slant range of 16,000 miles.
This signal fade appeared to be caused by a ground station problem, since
the MILA TPQ-18 and BDA FPS-16 strip charts indicated a good signal level
during this period of time. CRO indicated final LOS at 44,220 seconds
(12:17:00).
A summary of available C-Band radar coverage showing AOS and LOS for
each station is shown in Figure 15-2.
15.5 SECURE RANGE SAFETY COMMAND SYSTEMS EVALUATION
Telemetered data indicated that the command antennas, receivers/decoders,

Exploding Bridge Wire (EBW) networks, and destruct controllers on each
powered stage functioned properly during flight. They were in the required
state-of-readiness if flight conditions during the launch had required
15-6
PARKING ORBIT INSERTION
BEGIN S-IVN RESTART PREPARATIONS
S-IVB SECOND IGNITION
ImBVAN/FPS-16
mmm BDA/FPQ-6
GDA/FPS-I6
Ill MILA/TPQ-18
PAFB/PPQ-6
1 CRO/FPQ-6
I CNV/FPS-16
5_o 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
_7 h i
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I I I
00:16:40 00:33:20 00:50:00 I:06:40 1:23:20
RANGE TIME, HOURS: MINUTES: SECONDS
VAN/FPS-16
mm BDA/FPS-16
BDA/FPQ-6
mm CRO/FPQ-6 HAW/FPS-16 I
I MILA/TPQ-18
5OOO 55oo 6000 6500 7000 1500 8000 85OO 9000 9500 lO,OOO
I I i
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I R_ , R_ R_ ,
2:13:20 2:30:00 2:46:40
1:23:20 1:40:00 1:56:40
BDA/FPS-16
BDA/FPQ-6
MILA/TPQ-18
IIHAW/CPS-16
lO,50O 11,000 II,500 12,000 12,500 {_ 26,000 26,500 27,000 27,500 28,000
I0,000
RANGE TIME, SECONDS 7:46:40

t I I (( r I
3:03:20 3:20:00 7:13:20 7:30:00
2:46:40
RANGE TIME, NOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS
I CRO/FPQ-6
L I BDA/FPS-6 MILA/TPQ-18
t • ((
28,000 37,000 37,'500 4% 401000 40j500 41,000 43,000 43,'500 44,_00 44,;00 4s,ooo
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
= I
L I )# '
,_--.--(_ t _II:06:40 II:23;20 II:56:40 12:13:20 12:30:00
7:46:40 I0:16:40
Figure 15-2. C-Band Radar Coverage Summary
15-7
vehicle destruct. Since no arm/cutoff or destruct commands were required,
all data except receiver signal strength remained unchanged during the
flight. At approximately 120 seconds, a momentary dropout occurred on the
receiver signal strength measurements, as expected, when the command
station switched transmitting antennas. Power to the S-IVB stage destruct
system was cutoff at 760.0 seconds by ground command from BDA, thereby
deactivating (safing) the system.
15.6 COMMAND AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM EVALUATION
The performance of the CCS was excellent. No onboard equipment malfunctions

occurred. The thermal shrouds designed to prevent the IU components, par-
ticularly the CCS cabling and components, from overheating apparently
performed satisfactorily. The only significant problem encountered during
the flight was signal interference between the IU CCS and the LM USB
during translunar coast. This problem was caused by the necessity to apply
power to the LM early. Application of power to the LM was not scheduled
until after S-IVB/IU lunar impact.
The RF portion of the CCS performed satisfactorily during boost, earth

orbit and Translunar Injection (TLI), with minor exceptions. Downlink data
dropouts occurred during S-IC/S-II staging and at S-II second-plane
separation, as on previous flights. Station handovers were accomplished
with very little data loss. Performance during the second S-IVB burn
could not be evaluated, since CCS ground station .data were not available.
During translunar coast, the CCS RF performance was normal. The last CCS
telemetry data were received at 70,380 seconds (19:33:00) due to 6D30
battery depletion. The CCS maintained two-way lock until S-IVB/IU lunar
impact. The only dropouts (other than those at station handovers) occurred
at Honeysuckle Creek (HSK) at 207,600 seconds (57:40:00) while the ground
station crew attempted to find the best offset frequency for the uplink
transmitter. An offset frequency was necessary to prevent interference
with the LM USB system which uses the same nominal frequency. The frequency
which provided the least interference was the CCS center frequency,
2101.8 megahertz, plus 57.4 kilohertz. ACN, ETC 3, GDS, HAW, MAD, and
MILA indicated LOS at S-IVB/IU lunar impact at 280,601 seconds (77:56:41).
A summary of CCS coverage giving AOS and LOS for each station is shown
in Figure 15-3.
The command section of the CCS operated satisfactorily. All commands

transmitted to the IU were accepted by the onboard equipment on the first
attempt. No retransmission of commands was necessary as on most previous
flights. The CCS command history is shown in Table 15-6.
15.7 GROUND ENGINEERING CAMERAS
In general, ground camera coverage was good. Sixty-seven items were

received from KSC and evaluated. Two cameras had timing losses. As a
result of these two failures, system efficiency was 97 percent. Only a few
tracking items were included in the 67 items because of low cloud coverage.
15-8
Table 15-5. AS-508 Launch Vehicle Telemetry Links
FREQUENCY FLIGHT PERIOD PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

LINK (MHz) MODULATION STAGE (RANGE TIME, SEC)
AF-I 256.2 FM/FM S-IC 0 to 414 Satisfactory
_P-I 244.3 PCM/FM S-IC 0 to 414 Data Dropouts
Range Time (sec) Duration (sec)
135.2 (intermittent) 3.4

164.4 1.2
167.7 O.9
BF-I 241.5 FM/FM S-II 0 to 640 Satisfactory
BF-2 234.0 FM/FM S-II 0 to 640 Data Dropouts
BP-I 248.6 PCM/FM S-II 0 to 640 Range Time (sec) Duration (sec)
166.0 2.0
194.3 2.0
CP-I 258.5 PCM/FM S-IVB Flight Duration Satisfactory
CS-I 253.8 SS/FM S-IVB 0 to 780 Data Dropouts
Range Time (sec) Duration (sec)

164.4 1.0
DF-I 250.7 FM/FM IU Flight Duration Satisfactory
DP-I 245.3 PCM/FM III Flight Duration Data Dropouts
DP-IB 2282.5 PCM/FM IU Flight Duration Range Time (sec) Duration (sec)
(CCS) 164.3 (VHF) 1.0
165.0
195.5 I DP-IB 5.5
6.0
Table 15-6. Command and Communication System Commands History, AS-508
COleMAND NUMBER OF WORDS REMARKS

RANGE TIME TRANSMITTING
STATION MODE DATA
SECONDS HItS :MINS : SECS
GDS .LVDC Sector Dump for TLI I 2 Accepted

11,022.O 03:03:42.0
State Vector
GDS Evasive Maneuver Attitude 1 0 Accepted

14,940.3 04:09:00.3
GDS Initiate Timebase 8 1 0 Accepted

15,479.2 04:17:59.2
GDS Lunar Impact Attitude 1 6 Accepted

20,887.4 05:48:07.4
Correction
6 18 Accepted
20,949.3 05:49:09.3 GDS Single Word Dump for
Lunar In,pact Correction
Command
15-9
RaemuJns aBeJa^o3 $33 "E-St aanS_3
SGNO33S:S31flNIW:S_nOH '3W11 39N_J
00:00:08 O0:O0:SL O0:O0:OL 00:00:59 00:00:09 O0:O0:S_ 00:00:0S O0:O0:S_ 00:00:0_ 00:00:S£ 00:00:0£ O0:O0:S_ O0:O0:OZ O0:O0:SL O0:O0:OL O0:O0:S 00:00:_
i i • ! i i ! w i i i i i • !
' Ik ' SON033S '3WI± 3_N¥_
000'8[ O0_L
000"88_ O00'OL_ 000'_5_ 000'_£_ O00'9L_ 000'86t O00'OBL 000'_9[ O00'_L O00'gZL O00'80L 000'06 O00'_L O00'_S 000'9£ I
I I | I I I I I I I I I I I
£313 £D13 £313 £013
W19 W19
I
i NV NOV III N3V
_SH III X'ASH X)ISH

II
WA9 • WM9
XS00
XS09 XSO9
vqIW I
V71N V71W V71W II
rOB
S09 S091
OU3 n X31_
OU3 _
OVW
II
XOW XOVW
MVHim MVH_ MVH
imMVH MVH_
SONOD3S:S310NIW:S_nOH '3W11 39NW

O0:O0:Z 00:0£:[ OZ:_Z:L
O0:OE:Z
! # #
, &
SGNO33S '3W11 38NW
O0_L O0_S
0006 I 0
I I
NVA_ I
_
o_D LO
V08
V7IW
w_9
SGNOD3$:S31FINIW:S_nOH '3WII 39NV_

00:0£:00
O0:O0:L
xx
$0N033S '3WIl 39NW O08L
009£
._SH_
Nv^
ou3
voo
VTIW
lOVdWI _VNn7 nl/BAI-S_

NOI1930NI WNnlSNV_I,(II
NOIIINI 0N033S 8^I-$/t;_
SNOIIVWd3Bd I_VIS3B BAI-S NI93B_
NOII_3SNI lIB_O 9N1_6'¥dT_
SECTION 16
MASS CHARACTERISTICS
16.1 SUMMARY
Total vehicle mass, determined from postflight analysis, was within 1.30
percent of prediction from ground ignition through S-IVB stage final shut-
down. Despite an early S-II stage Center Engine Cutoff (CECO), the small
variation indicates that hardware weights, propellant loads and propellant
utilization during powered flight were close to predicted values.
16.2 MASS EVALUATION
Postflight mass characteristics are compared with final predicted mass

characteristics (MSFC Memorandum S&E-ASTN-SAE-70-4) and the final opera-
tional trajectory (MSFC Memorandum S&E-AERO-FMT-4-70).
The postflight mass characteristics were determined from an analysis of

all available actual and reconstructed data from S-IC ignition through
S-IVB second burn cutoff. Dry weights of the launch vehicle are based on
actual stage weighings and evaluation of the weight and balance log books
(MSFC Form 998). Propellant loading and utilization was evaluated from
propulsion system performance reconstructions. Spacecraft data were
obtained from the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC).
Differences in dry weights of the inert stages and the loaded spacecraft
were all within 0.45 percent of predicted, which was well within acceptable
I i mi ts.
During S-IC burn phase, the total vehicle mass was lower than predicted by
4013 Ibm (0.05 percent) at ignition, and by 3278 Ibm (0.17 percent) at
S-IC/S-II separation. These differences are attributed to S-IC stage dry
weight and propellant loading which were less than that predicted. S-IC
burn phase total vehicle mass is shown in Tables 16-I and 16-2.
During S-II burn phase, the total vehicle mass was greater than predicted
by 1449 Ibm (0.I0 percent) at ignition, and by 1338 Ibm (0.29 percent) at
S'il/S-IVB separation. These differences are due primarily to S-II and
S-IVB stage propellant loading which was higher than predicted. Total
vehicle mass for the S-II burn phase is shown in Tables 16-3 and 16-4.
16-I
Total vehicle mass during both S-IVB burn phases, as shown in Tables 16-5
through 16-8, was within 1.30 percent of the predicted values. A difference
of 752 Ibm (0.2 percent) from predicted at first burn ignition was due
largely to a greater than predicted propellant loading. The difference
at completion of second burn was -1123 Ibm (0.79 percent) and resulted
directly from an early S-II stage CECO. Total vehicle mass at spacecraft
separation was 861 Ibm (2.23 percent) lower than predicted.
A summaryof mass utilization and loss, both actual and predicted, from
S-IC stage ignition through spacecraft separation is presented in
Table 16-9. A comparison of actual and predicted mass, center of gravity,
and momentof inertia is shown in Table 16-10.
16-2
Table 16-I. Total Vehicle Mass, S-IC Burn Phase (Kilograms)
GROUND IGNITION HOLDDOWN CENTER OUTBOARD S-It/S-If

EVENTS ARM RELEASE ENGINE CUTOFF ENGINE CUTOFF SEPARATION
............................................................................................
PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
..............................................................................................................
RANGE TIME--SEC -8,70 -5.70 0,30 Oa30 135,27 135,18 164.00 153,60 164,80 164,40
DRY STAGE 13063#. 130586° 130534. 130588. 130634. 130588. 15063#. 130588. 130634. 139588.
LOX IN TANK 1478704. 1477908° 1447978. 1446462. 209086. I06172. i001. 914. 889. 874°
LOX BELOW TANK 21100. 21094° 21859. 21854. 21843° 21837. 15871. 16740. 14819. 14482.
LOX ULLAGE GAS 189. 191. 210. 227. 2590. 276_° 3118. 3412. 312_. 3420.
FUEL IN TANK 646575. 644951. 535455. 634622. 100340. 95934. 8537. 6548. 7459. 5415.
FUEL BELOW TANK 4313. &313. 5996. 5995. 9995. 5995. 5V58. 6958. 5968. 5_58.
FUEL ULLAGE GAS 34, 32° 34. 36, 2t0, 216° ZW2, 250= 243, Zbl,
N2 PURGE GAS 36° 35. 35. 36° 19° 19. 19. 19. 19. 19.
HELIUM IN BOTTLE 288. 288. 288. 285. 112o 104. 806 70. 7g. 69.
FROST 535. 635. 535. 535. 340. 340. 340. 340. 340* 340°
RETROROCKET PROP 1025, 1026. 1025. 1026. 1026° i025. 1026° i026. i025. 1026.
OTHER 239° 239. 239. 239. 259. 239. 239° 239. 239. 239.
..............................................................................................................
TOTAL STAGE 2283779° 2281306. 2245406. 2241950. 472440. 466262. 168071. 166110. 154836. 152597°
TOTAL S-IC/S-II IS 5199. 5195. 5199. 5195. 5199° 51950 5199o 5195. 5155. 51520
TOTAL S-If STAGE 487516. 487944. 487515. 48794_. 487395. 487722. 487395. 487722. 487395. 487722.
TOT S-II/S-IVB IS 3674. 3665. 3674* 3665. 3574. 3555. 3674° 3665. 367_. 3565.
TOTAL S-IV} STAGE i18714. 118985. I18714. I18985. I18623. I18_94° i18623, i18894. I18623° I18894°
TOTAL INSTRU UNIT 2033, 2042° 2033° 2042° 2633, 2042, 2033, 2042, 2033° 2042,
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 49939° 49997° 49939. 49997. 49939° 49997. _9939. 49997° 49939. 49997.
...................................... - .......................................................................
TOTAL UPPERSTAGE 657177. 667830. 667177. 667830. 656865. 667517= 555855. 667517° 666832° 667484°
TOTAL VEHICLE 2950955° 2949136. 2912583° 2909780. i139305° 1133780. 834937* 833628. 831568. 830181.
Table 16-2. Total Vehicle Mass, S-IC Burn Phase (Pounds)
GROUND IGNITION HOLDDOWN CENTER OUTBOARD S-IC/S-II

EVENTS ARM RELEASE ENGINE CUTOFF ENGINE CUTOFF SEPARATION
............................................................................................
PRED ACT PREO ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT PRED ACT
.............................................................................................................
RANGE
TIME--SE -0.70 -5.70 0.30 O.30 135.27 135.18 154.00
DRY STAGE 288006. 287899. 286000. 287899. 288000. 287899. 288000. 287899° 288000. 287899.
LOX IN TANK 3259985. 3258229° 3192246. 3188772° 460956. 454531. 2207. 2015. 1961. 1927.
LOX BELOW TANK 46518. 46505. 48193. @8180. _8156. 48144. 37195. 36906. 32672. ._1927.
LOX ULLAGE GAS 418. 422° 463° 5ODe 5710. 6139° 6875. 7524° 5888° 7539.
FUEL IN TANK 1425454. 1421874. 1403155. 1399162. 221213. 21_704. 18821. 14436. 154_6. 11961.
FUEL BELOW TANK 9509. 9510. 13219. i_220° 13219. 13220. 13135. 13137. 13135. 13137.
FUEL ULLAGE GAS 75. 71. 75. 79. 454. 477. 535. 553. 537° 554.
N2 PURGE GAS 80. 80. 80. 80° 43. 43. 43. 43. 43. 43°
HELIUM IN BOTTLE 636e 636, 636. 628. 248. 230. 171. 15_. 176. 153.
FROST 1400. 1400. 1400. 1400. 750. 750. 750. 750. 756. 750.
RETROROCKET PROP 2264, 2254, 2254° 2254, 226_° 2254, 2264° 2254° 2254, 2264,
OTHER 528, 528, 528, 528, 528, 528. 528, 528. 528, 528,
....................................................... - ......................................................
TOTAL STAGE 5034871, 5029_20, 4950274, 4942654° 1041553, 1027932° 370535, 366210, 363403, 358685,
..............................................................................................................
TOTAL S-IC/S-II IS 11464. I145_= iI_64° 11_54. I145_. i1454, i146_. I1454. I1391. I1381.
TOTAL S-If STAGE 1075010. i075733° 1075010. I075733. 107_522° 10752_5. 1074522. 1075245° 107_522. i075245.
TOT 5-II/S-IVB IS 8100. 8081. 8100. 8061. 8100. 8081. 8160o 8081. 8100. 8081.
TOTAL S-IV6 STAGE 261721. 262317° 261721° 262317° 261521. 262117° 261521. 262117. 261521. 262117.
TOTAL INSTRU UNIT 4482. 4502. 4482. 4502° 4482° 4502. 4482. 4502. 4482. 4502°
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 110097° 110226. 110097. 110226. 110097. I10226. i16097, ii0226. 110097. I10226°
..............................................................................................................
TOTAL UPPERSTAGE 1470874. 1472313. 1470874. 1472313. 1470185° 1471625° i_70186° 1471625_ I_70113. 1471552°
TOTAL VEHICLE 6505746. 6501733. 5421148. 6414967. 2511739. 2499557. 1840721. 1837835. 1833516° 1830238.
16-3
r
Table 16-3. Total Vehicle Mass, S-II Burn Phase (Kilograms)
S-IC IGNITION S-If S-If S-ll S-III$-IVB
EVENTS IGNITION MAINSTAGE ENGINE CUTOFF SEPARATION
PRED ACT PRED ACT PREO ACT PREO ACT PREO ACT
RANGE TIME SEC 6,70 6,70 166,40 166 O0 168 60 Z68 00 556,11 592 66 559,10 593,70
S-IC/5-11 SMALL 15 61#, 612, O. 0, O. O,

S-IC/S-II LARGE IS 3968, 3972. 3968. 3972, 3968, 3972,
5-IC/S-II PROPELLANT 616, 610, 312. 309, O, . O,
..............................................................................................................
TOTAL 5-IC/5-II IS 5199, 5195, 4281, 4281* 3968, 3972,

..............................................................................................................
DRY STAGE 35402, 35356. 35602, 35_56* 36402, 3_356, 35402, 35356. 35402, 35356,
LOX IN TANK 378549, 378802, 378549, 378802, 378082, 378335, 8%6, 815, 698, 097,
LOX BELOW TANK 737= 737, 737= 737, 800. 800, 767. 787, 787, 767,
LOX ULLAGE GAS 142, 169, 142. 169, 144, 171+ 2357. 2543. 2366. 2550,
FUEL IN TANK 723_7+ 72438, 72341, 72432, 72128, 72218, 1916, 1932* 1863, 1879,
FUEL BELOW TANK 104, 104= 111, 111, 127= 127, 123+ 123. 123. 12_,
FUEL ULLAGE GAS 62* 66, 62, 66, 63, 66, 686, 805+ 689, 808=
INSULATION PURGE GAS 17= 17, O, O, O, O,

FROST 204, 206, O. O, O, O=
START TANK 13, 13, 13, 13, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. 2.
OTHER 34, 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 36, 34, 36, 3_,
TOTAL S-If STAGE 487616, 487964, 687395, 487722, 486785, _87_13, 42127, 42400, 61967, 42239.
TOT 5-II/5-IVB IS 3674, 3665, 3674, 3665, 3674, 3665. 3676= 3665. 3676, 3665=
TOTAL S-IVB STAGE 118714, 118985, 118623, 118894, 118623, 118894, 118623, 118894, 118621. 118892,
TOTAL IU 2033, 2042. 2033, 2042, 2033, 2042, 2033, 2042, 2033° 2042,
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 49939= 49997= 49939= 49997, 49939, 69997, 45855, 45919, 45855, 65919°
................................................ - ..............................................................
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 174360, 174690+ 174270, 1745991 176270= 174599, 170166, 17052;, 170186, 170819=
TOTAL VEHICLE 667177o 667830, 665946, 666603, 668024, _65685, 212314, 212921, 212151. 212788,
Table 16-4. Total Vehicle Mass, S-II Burn Phase (Pounds)
..................... sZicIGNITION sZii sZii sZii sZii/sZivB

EVENTS IGNITION MAINSTAGE ENGINE CUTOFF SEPARATION
....................... . ...................................................................
......................
RANGE TIME--SEC
: ........
6,70
z..........
6,70 166
_........
60 166
_........
O0 168
_...........
40 168,00
,..............
558,11 592
_........
64 559
V10..........
593,70
............................................................................ - ...............................
S-It/S-If SMALL IS 1354, 1351. O, 0, O, O.

S-IC/5-II LARGE IS 8750, 8757, 8750, 8757, 8750. 8757,
5-IC/S-II PROPELLANT 1360, 1346, 689= 682° O, O.
............................................................................................................
TOTAL S-IC/S-II IS 11664, 11454, 9439° 9439, 8750+ 8757°

................................................... - .........................................................
DRY STAGE 78050, 77947, 76030, 77947, 78050, 77947, 78050, 77947, 78050, 77947,
835116, 836588, 835116. 833529, 834087, 1801, 1797, 1541= 1537,
LOX IN TANK 834558°
LOX BELOW TANK 1625. 1625. 1625. 1625. 1764. 1764. 1736. 17_6. 1736. 1736,
tOX ULLAGE GAS 314, 374, 314, 376. 318, 378, 5198, 5608° 8213° 5623,
FUEL IN TANK 159500, 159700, 159486, 159686, 159015, 159215, 6225, 42§0° 6109, 4146,
FUEL BELOW TANK 231. 231. 265, 265° 282, 262, 2/2, 272, 272. 272,
FUEL ULLAGE GAS 138, 146. 138. 146, 1_9. 147, 1513, 1776. 1521. 1783.
INSULATION PURGE GAS 38, 38. O. O. O, O,
FROST 450. 450, O* O, O. O*
START TANK 30. 30, 30. 30. 5. 5. 5* 5. 8. 5.
OTHER 76, 76, 76° 76, 76, 76, 76, 76, 76, 76,
TOTAL S-If STAGE 1075010, 1075733, 1076522. 1075245. 1073179. 1073901. 92876, 93677. 92523. 93123.
TOT 5-1I/S-IVB IS 8100, 8081, 8100, 8081, 8100, 8081, 8100, 8081. 8100, 8081.
TOTAL S-IVB STAGE 261721, 262317, 261521. 262117, 261521. 262117, 261521. 262117° 261516, 262112,
TOTAL IU 6482, 4502, 4482, 6502, 4482, 4502, 4482, 6502, 4482, 6502,
TOTAL SPACECRAFT 110097, ii0226, 110097, 110226. 110097, 110226. I01096, I01235, i01094, 101235,
..............................................................................................................
TOTAL UPPER STAGE 384400, 385126° 384200, 384926, 384200, 384926, 375197. 375935, 375192. 375930.
TOTAL VEHICLE 1470876, 1672313. 1468161, 1469610° 1666128, 1467586. 468073. 469412. 467715. 46905_.
...................... _ .......................................................................................
16-4
Table 16-5. Total Vehicle Mass, S-IVB First Burn Phase (Kilograms)
...................... S
Z...................
IC IGNITION S
Z..................
IVB S
Z.................
IVB $
Z..............
IVB S
Z...........
IVB
EVENTS IGNITION MAINSTAGE ENGINE CUTOFF END DECAY
RANGE TIME--SEC -6,70 -6,70 562°10 596,90 564°60 599+40 705,77 749,83 706,00 750,00
i1362, I1383, I1339° I1360, I1339, i1360, l1278, 11299° 11278° I1299,
DRY STAGE 61890. 60018,
LOX IN TANK 86710, 86873, 86708, 86873, 86581, 86744, 61518, 80082,
LOX BELOW TANK 186, 16b, 186, Ibb, 180, 180, IBO, 160, 180, 180°
LOX ULLAGE GAS 17, 20, 20, 20, 23, 21, 105, 71, 105, 71,
FUEL IN TANK 19709, 19780, 19704, 19772, 19657° 19729, 14838, 18281, 14624, 18231°
FUEL BELOW TANK 21, 21, 2b, 26, 26, 26° 26+ 26, 26, 26.
FUEL ULLAGE GAS 20, 19, 20, 19. 20° 21, 84, 77. 64, 77,
ULLAGE ROCKET PROP 53, 53, 9, 8,

AP5 PROPELLANT 265° 300, 285, 300, 285, 300, 283, 297, 283, 297*
HELIUM IN BOTTLES 201, 200* 201, 200* 200* 199. 179* 175, 179. 175,
FROST 138, 13b, 45, 85, 45. 45° #5, 85, 45, _B,
2, 2. 2° 2, O° O, 3, 2, 3, 2=
START TANK GAS _= _ _5, 25, 25, 25° 25, 25, 25, 25*
OTHER _' =_° " - ...................................................
..........................................................
TOTAL S-IVB STAGE 118718. 11_985, l1855b, 118822, 118388. 118_55. 88385° 86485, 88308° 86847°
2033° 2042, 2033, 2042, 2033, 2082, 2033, 2042, 2033, 2042,
........... _.................... _T .... _;_;:.... _3;;_ ++8+8 8,,81 +,_88 ,,,+= +,888 +,,,,
TOTAL UPPERSTAGE 47888, _tvo=, _-_" .................................................. _..-
TOTAL VEHICLE 266603, 188946= 186445= 168/84, IbbZ76, 1668160 13623_o 134_48, 136197° 138 08°
Table 16-6. Total Vehicle Mass, S-IVB First Burn Phase (Pounds)
.....................
_-T_
.T_;TTT;_
......... ;i_;;
..... s-IVB S-lVB S-IVB
_--_w lung,= I_mlTI_N MAINSTAGE ENGINE CUTOFF END DECAY
EVENTS ........ _ .......................................................
RANGE TIME--$EC -8,70 -6.70 582,10 596.90 564,60 599,40 705.77 789,83 706.00 750,00
• _999, 2_U_6, 24999, 2_04@, 24884. 2_91_. 24864, 24912*

DRY STAGE 25050, 2509/. _ ........ _ _o_ 191238. i_5025, 132371. 135564, 132310,
LOX IN TANK 191165, 191523, I911_v, Iv_ao _" 397, 397°
LOX BELOW TANK 367, 367, 367, 367, 397. 397. 397, 397.
LOX ULLAGE GAS 39, 46, 48, 48, 52, 48, 2_3, _57, 233, 157.
FUEL IN TANK _3_52, 43609, 43_41, _3591, 43338, 43498, 3226_, 31397, 32241, 31_75,
FUEL BELOW TANK 48, 48, 58, 58, 58, 58. 58. 58, 58, 58,
FUEL ULLAGE GAS 85, 43, 45° 43. _6. 47, 143, _70, 18_, 170.
ULLAGE ROCKET PROP 118, liB, 22, 19°

APS PROPELLANT 030, 8bZ° 630, 882, _0, 682, 626+ 656, 626, bSb,
HELIUM IN BOTTLE& 845° 442, 444, 4_2, _83, 4_0, 396, 388. 398° 388*
FROST 300. 300° i00, i00, I00, i00, i00, I00, I00, 100,
5, 1, I, 7, 5, 7, 5,
START TANK GAS 5, ._° 5_" 57, 56, 57, 56, 57, 56, 57,
OTHER SO, _ " .... _ ...............................................................
TOTAL S-IVB STAGE 261721+ 262317, 261373, 261959. 261001, 261590. 196769, 190667° 194687, 190_8_,
........................... ] ...... ]-_ _ , _oz. _82, _o2, 8_82, _5o2. _882, 8_02,
TOTAL IU 8_82, 450_, .^_82 ,n;o_5, i01094, 1012_, i01094, I01235° I01094, I012_5,
TOTAL
8_ACECR_[
!...... ____L--_:]:--:_:: .................................................... _;"
TOTAL UPPERSTAGE 105576° I05737* I05578, I057_7, i05576, I05737. I05576, I057_7, 105576- I051_ °
OTAL VEHICLE 387297, _88054, 386989, 387698, 3865/7, _87327, 300_85, 29640_, 3002S3. 296321°
16-5
Table 16-7. Total Vehicle Mass, S-IVB Second Burn Phase (Kilograms)
S-IVB $-IVB 5-IVB S-IVB SPACECRAFT

EVENTS IGNITION HAINSTAGE ENGINE CUTOFF END DECAY SEPARATION
RANGE TIME--SEC 9327o90 9346e40 9330,4U 9348.90 9683*62 9697,17 9683,80 9697.40 14460,00 I4460,80
DRY STAGE 11278, 11299, 11278. 112996 11278. 11299, 11278o 11299° 11278* 11299°
LOX 1N TANK 61388o 59945o 61269. 59824* 2093, 1694, 2065* 1667, 1992e 16_3e
LOX BELOW TANK 166, 166. 180o 180. 180. 180, 180o 180° 166° 166=
LOX ULLAGE GAS _66, 136, 167o 136, 269, 2040 270, 204. 270e 104o
FUEL IN TANK 13509o 13294o 13463° 13251° 1020° 874e 1009, 864, 410, 703.
FUEL BELOW TANK 26o 26o 26o 26e 26o 26o 26o 26, 21e 21o
FUEL ULLAGE GAS 158o 151o 158o 152. 272, 248, 273, 248, 2730 136,
APS PROPELLANT 229= 246, 229. 246, 227= 241, 227. 241. 192, 2380
HELIUM IN BOTTLES 150= 164e 150, 164° 88o 107, 88, 107, 88e 13o
FROST 45° 45. 45° 45. 45, 45_ 45, 450 45, 45,
START TANK GAS 2e 2,. O° O, 3, 2, 30 2, 30 2,
OTHER 250 25, 25= 25. 25, 25, 25m 25e 25o 25,
Table 16-8. Total Vehicle Mass, S-IVB Second Burn Phase (Pounds)
16-6
Table 16-9. Flight Sequence Mass Summary
PREDICTED ACTUAL
KG LBM KG LBM
MASS HISTORY
2283778, 5034871, 2281305, 5029#20.

S-IC STAGEo TOTAL
5199, 11#64, 5195, Ii#54,
S-IC/S-II ISt TOTAL
487616, i075010, #8794#. i075733,
S-II STAGE9 TOTAL
3674, 8100, _065, 8081,
S-II/S-IVB IS, TOTAL
I18714, 26172£, IIS984, 26Z317,
S-IVB STAGE_ TOTAL
2033, 4482, 2042, 4502,
INSTRUMENT UNIT
49939, II0097, 49_97, II0226,
SPACECRAFT, TOTAL
29b0955, 6505746, 2949135, b501733,

1ST FLT STG AT IGN
-38372, -84597, -59356, -86766,
THRUST BUILDUP
2912582, 6_21148, 2909779, 6414967,

1ST FLT STG AT HDAR
-294, -650, -294, --650,
FROST
-2076024, -4576852, -2074484, -_573457=
MAINSTAGE
-16, -37, -16, -37*
N2 PURGE GAS
-808, -1785, -853, -1881,
THRUST DECAY-IE
-189, -418, -189, -418,
ENG EXPENDED PROP
-17, -58, -17, -58,
$-II INSUL PURGE
-204. -450, -204, -450,
5-II FROST -90. -200, -90. -200,
5-IVB FROST
O, O, O. O,
THRUST DECAY-OE
854936, 1840721, B33627, 1837895,

1ST FLT STG AT OECO
-5235, -7132, -5413, -7524,
THRUST DECAY-OE
-33, -73, -35, -75,
$-IC/S-II ULL RKT
831868, 1835516, 830181, 1830238.

1ST FLT STG AT SEP
-164836, -56340B. -162697, -558585,
STG AT SEPARATION
-614, -1354, -612, -1351,
S-IC/S=II SMALL IS
-83, -184, -85, -184,
S-IC/S-II ULL RKT
666134, 1468575, 666788, 1470017,

2ND FLT STG AT SSC
O, O. O, O,
FUEL LEAD
-187, -414, -184, -407,
$-IC/S-II ULL RKT
665946, 1468161, 666b03, 1469010®

2ND FLT STG AT IGN
-597, -1518, -598, -1319,
THRUST BUILDUP
-ii, -25, -ii, -25,
START TANK
-312. -689, -B09, -682,
S-IC/S-II ULL RKT
665024, 1466128, 60508A, i_67584,

2ND FLT 5TG AT MS
-444600, -980176, -444655, -980297,
MAINSTAGE
-4083, -9003, -4078, -8991,
LES
-3968, -8750, -3972* -8757,
$-IC/S-II LARGE IS
-57, -126, -57, -126,
TD & ENG PROP
212B14, 46807_* 212921, 469412,

2ND FLT STG AT COS
-160, -353, -160, -354,
THRUST DECAY
-2, -5, -2, -5,
S-IVB ULL RKT PROP
212151, 467715° 212758. 469053,

2ND FLT STG AT SEP
-W1967, -9252J, -42239, -93123,
STG AT SEPARATION
-3193, -7040, -518_, -7019,
S-II/S-IVB IS DRY
-480, -I060, -481, -1062,
S-II/S-IVB PROP
-21, -48, -21, -48,
S-IVB AFT FRAME
-io -3, -I. -2.
$-IVB ULL RKT PROP
-i, "_, -i, -B,
S-IVB DET PKG
166485, 367038, 166828, 367795,

3RD FLT STG AT 55C
16-7
Table 16-9. Flight Sequence Mass Summary(Continued)
PREDICTED ACTUAL
MASS HISTORY KG LBM KG LBM
3RD FLT STG IST SSC 166485, 367038, 166828, 367795.

ULLAGE ROCKET PROP -39, -88, -41, -9Z,
FUEL LEAD -0, -i, -3, -8,
3RD FLT STG 1ST IGN 1664_5, 366949° 166784, 367696.

ULLAGE ROCKET PROP -9, -22, -8, -19,
START TANK -I, -4, -1, -4,
THRUST BUILDUP -156, -345. -156, -}46.
3RD FLT STG IST MS 166276, 366577, 166616, 367327,

ULLAGE ROCKET CASE -61, -135, -61, -135,
MAINSTAGE -29979, -66093, -32106, -70782,
APS -1, -4, -2. -6.
3RD FLT STG 1ST COS 136234, 300345, 134446, 296404,

THRUST DECAY -37. -82, -37, -83,
3RD FLT STG 1ST ETD 136196, 30026B, 134408, 296321,

ENGINE PROP -18, -40, -18, -40,
FUEL TANK LOSS -1038, -2289, -847, -1868,
LOX TANK LOSS -31, -69, -5. -12,
AP5 -54, -121, -51, -113,
START TANK -0, -2, O, O,
02/H2 BURNER -7, -16, -7, -16,
3RD FLT STG 2ND SSC 135046, 297726, 133479, 294271,

FUEL LEAD -9, -22, -12, -27.
3RD FLT 5TG 2ND IGN 135036, 297704, 133466, 294244,

START TANK -i, -4, -i, -4.
THRUST BUILDUP -150, -332, -1riO, -332,
3RD FLT STG 2ND MS 134883, 297368, 133314, 293908.

MAINSTAGE -71461. -157fi45, -70398, -155202,
APS -I, -4. -4, -10,
3RD FLT STG 2NO COS 63420, _39819, 62911, 138696.

THRUST DECAY -39, -86, -37. -820
3RD FLT STG 2ND ETD 63381, 139733° 62874, 138614,

JETTISON SLA -1164, -2567, -1164, -2567,
CSM -28893. -63699, -28936. -63795,
S-IVB STAGE LOSS -388. -857, -282. -623,
STRT TRANS/DOCK 32935. 72610, 32490, 71629,

CSM 28893. 63699, 28936, 63795,
END TRANS/DOCK 61828, 136309. 61427, 135424,

CSM -28893, -63699, -28936. -63795,
LH -15171, -33448, -15192. -33493,
S-IVB STAGE LOSS -335, -740, -260, -57fi,
LAU VEH AT S/C SEP 17427, 38422, 17037, 37561,

S/C NOT SEPARATED -625, -1380, -625, -1380,
IU -2033, -4482, -2042. -4502,
S-IVB STAGE -14768, -32559. -14369, -31679,
16-8
Table 16-10. Mass Characteristics Comparison
MASS LONGITUDINAL RAOIAL ROLL MOMENT PITCH MOMENT YAW MOMENT

C.G. (X STA,) C,G, OF INERTIA OF INERTIA OF INERTIA
EVENT
KILO 0/0 METERS METERS KG-M2 0/0 KG-M2 0/0 KG-M2 0/0
POUNDS DEV. INCHES DELTA INCHES DELTA XZO-8 DEV. X10-6 DEV. XIO-6 DEV.
130635. 9.328 0.0594

PRED 2_8000. 387.2 2.3409 2.510 16.537 16.463
__---
S-IC STAGE DRY .....
130589, 9.326 0,000 0,0594 0,0000
ACTUAL 287899, -0,03 367,2 0,00 2,3409 0,0000 2,509 -0,03 16,531 -0.03 16,45T -0,03
5200. 41.628 0.1528

PRED i1464. 1638.9 6.0108 0.132 0.079 0.079
__---
S-IC/S-II I_TER- - .....
STAGE. TOTAL 5195. 41.628 0.000 0.1526 0.0000
ACTUAL ii_54. -0.08 1638.9 0.00 6.0108 0.0000 0.132 -0.08 0.079 -0.08 0.079 -0.08
35403. 47.932 0.1772

PRED 78050. 1887.1 6.9778 0.575 2.004 2.017
S'II STAGE,DRY
35356. 47o922 -0.010 U.1772 0.00U0
ACTUAL 77947. -0.12 1886.7 --0.39 6.9778 0.0000 0.575 -0.12 2.002 --0.12 2.014 --0.12
I
_D
3674. 66.466 0.0589
PRED 81UO. 2616.8 2.3194 0.065 0.044 0.045
$-II/S-IVB INTER-
3665. 66.466 0.000 0.0589 0.000_
STAGE,TOTAL
ACTUAL 8081. -0.22 2616.8 0.00 2.3194 0.0000 0.065 -0.22 0.044 -0.22 0.044 -0.22
11362. 72.567 0.2306

PRED 25050. 2857.0 9.0801 0.082 0.300 0.300
S-IVB STAGE,DRY
1138#. 72.567 0.000 0.2306 0.0000
0.19
ACTUAL 25097. 0.19 2857.0 0.00 9.0801 0.0000 0.082 0.19 0.301 0.19 0.301
2035. 82._07 0.4721

PRED 4482. 3244.4 18.5884 0.019 0.010 0.009
VEHICLE INSTRUMENT
UNIT 2042. 82.407 0.000 O.#7BO 0.0059
0.45
ACTUAL 4502. 0.45 3244,4 0.0018.8215 0.2330 0.019 0.45 0.010 0.45 0.009
49939. 91,559 0.1106

PRED 110097. 3603.9 4.3566 0.092 1.594 1.597
SPACLCRAFX,TOTAL
49998. 91.539 0.000 0.1128 0.0021
3603.9 0.00 4.4_18 0.0852 0.091 -0.62 1.593 -0.05 io596 -0.05
ACTUAL ii0226. 0.12
Table 16,10. Mass Charac_teristics Comparison (.Continued)
MASS LONGITUDINAL RAOIAL ROLL MOMENT PITCH MOMENT YAW MOMENT

C.G. (X STA,) C.G, OF INERTIA OF INERTIA OF INERTIA
EVENT
KILO 0/0 _ETERS METERS KG-M2 0/0 KG-M2 0/0 KG-M2 0/0
POUNDS DEV. INCHES DELTA INCHES _ELTA XlO-6 DEV, XlO-6 DEV. XlO-6 DEV.
2950957. 30.338 0.0039

PRED 6505747, 1194.4 0,1565 3.598 879,643 879.363
IST FLIGHT STAGE
AT IGNITION 2949156. 30.366 0.028 0,0042 0.00G2
ACTUAL 6501753. -0.05 1195,5 i,i0 0.1655 0.0090 3,582 -0.45 879.541 0.01 $79,461 0.01
2912584. 30,285 0.0042

IST FLIGHT STAGE PRED 6421149. 1192,3 0,1655 3o635 _BO,40_
AT HOLDDOWN A_M
RELEASE 2909780. 3U.312 _,027 u,u_42 u,OOuu
ACTUAL 6414967, -U,09 1193.3 1,06 0,1655 OoO000 3,617 -0,4_ 880,506 0,00
834937, 46,450 0,0140

IST FLIGHT STAGE PRED 184072l, 1828.7 0,5515 5.618 442.12_ 4_2.050
AT OUTBOARD ENGINE ...............
CUTOFF SIGNAL 833628, 46,566 0,i15 U._144 _,UUU4
O_ ACTUAL &837834, -0,15 1833,3 4.55 0,_700 0.0165 3.602 -0,43 439,100 -0._7 439,025 -0.67
!
(D 831669, 46,592 0.014U

PRED 18_5516. 1834,5 0.b515 3,616 437.783 437.707
IST FLIGHT STAGE
AT SEPARATION 830181, 46.717 0,124 0,0144 0,0004
ACTUAL 1830236. -0.17 !839.2 4.91 0.5700 0.0185 3,600 -0.43 434,443 -0.75 434.367 -0,75
666135, 55,778 0,0177

2ND FLIGHT STAGE PRED 1468575, 2195.9 0,7002 0,966 15_.060 136.075
AT START SEQUENCE
COMMAND 666789, 55.788 0,010 0.0177 -0,0000
ACTUAL 1470017. O.lO 2196.3 0,39 0.7000 -0.0002 0,966 0.02 136.254 0,14 136.268 0.14
665025. 55.790 0.0177

PRED 1466128, 2196.4 0.7002 0,954 135.941 135.956
2ND FLIGHT STAGE
AT MAINSTAGE 665685, 55,800 O,OlO 0,0177 -O.Ou_O
ACTUAL 1467584, O,!O 2196.8 0.39 0,7000 -0,0002 0.955 0.04 136,136 0.14 136,150 0.14
212315. 71.15l 0.0556

PRED 468073. 2801,2 2.1103 0.852 44.524 44.538
2ND FLIGHT STAGE
AT CUTOFF SIGNAL 212922, 71,IB6 -O,Ol_ 0._536 U,OOGO
ACTUAL 469411, 0,29 2800.6 -0.59 2.1103 0.0000 0.852 0.03 44.692 0.38 44.705 0._7
Table 16-10. Mass Characteristics Comparison (Continued)
MASS LONGITUDINAL RADIAL ROLL MOMENT PITCH MOMENT YAW MOMENT

C.G. (X STA.) C.G. OF INERTIA OF INERTIA OF INERTIA
EVENT KG-M2 0/0 KG-M2 0/0

KILO 0/0 METERS METERS KG-M2 0/0
POUNDS DEV. iNCHES DELTA INCHES DELTA X10-6 DEV. X10-6 DEV. XZO-6 DEV,
212152. 71.171 0.0536

PRED 467715, 2802-0 2,1103 0.852 44,415 44.430
_____ --------------
--_--------
___---
2ND FLIGHT STAGE 71.155 -0,016 0,0586 0,0000

212759.
AT SEPARATION 0.29 2801,B -0,63 2,1103 0.0000 0.852 0,03 44.584 0.38 44,597 0,38
ACTUAL 469052,
77.150 0,0374
166488. 1,4735 0,200 13,443 13,443
30B7,4 ___----
3RD FLIGHT STAGE PRED 367038,
AT 1ST START SEQ-
77.152 0,002 0,.0373 -0,0001
UENCE COMMAND 166829. 0,i0 1.4686 -0,0049 0,200 0.08 13,468 0,17 13,465 0.17
ACTUAL 367795. 0.21 3037,5
0°0374
166446, 77,150 1,4735 0,200 13,444 13,444
PRED 366949, 3037,4 _____ -------
__----m--
3RD FLIGHT STAGE 0,002 0,0373 -0,0001

186784. 77.152
(_ AT 15T IGNITION 0,I0 1,4686 -0,0049 0,200 0,08 13,467 0,17 13,467 0,17
I ACTUAL 367696, 0.20 3037.5
0,0374
166277, 77,152
1,4735 0.200 13.4#2 13.4#2
PRED 366577, 3037,4 _____ -------
__----
3RD FLIGHT STAGE 0,002 0,0373 -0,0001

166617, 77,154
AT 1ST MAINSTAGE 0,I0 1,4686 -0.0049 0,200 0,08 13o465 0,17 13o#6# 0,17
ACTUAL 367327, 0,20 3037,5
0,0455
136234, 78.041 1,7929 0.199 12.645 12,6#5
3RD FLIGHT STAGE PRED 300345, 3072.4 ____-
AT 1ST £UTOFF 5IG" - ..... 0.079 0,0459 0,0004

NAL 13_447, 78,120 3,12 1,8096 0,0173 0,199 0,06 12,599 --0.35 12.599 -0,36
ACTUAL 296404, -i,30 3075,6
0,0455
136197- 78,042
1,7923 0,199 12,6#4 12.6#4
BRD FLIGHT STAGE PRED 300263, 3072,5
AT 1ST END THRUST ..... 0°079 0,0459 0,0084
DECAY, START COAST 134409, 78,121 B,12 1,8096 0,0173 0,199 0,06 12.598 -0,35 12.598 -0,35
ACTUAL 296321, -1.30 3075,6
0,0454
135046, 78.0#9
1,7887 0,198 12,641 12,6_I
3RD FL'GHT STAGE PREO 297726. 3072.8
AT 2ND START SEQ- - .... 0,079 d,0460 0,0006
UENCE COMMAND 133479, 78,1.29 3,14 1,8146 0.025S 0,199 0,15 12,595 -0,35 12,595 -0,35
ACTUAL 294271. -1,15 3075,9
Table 16-10. Mass Characteristics Comparison (Continued)
MASS LONGITUDINAL RADIAL ROLL MOMENT PITCH MOMENT YAW MOMENT

C.G. (X STA.) C.G. OF INERTIA OF INERTIA OF INERTIA
EVENT
KILO 0/0 METERS METERS KG-M2 0/0 KG-M2 O/O KG-M2 0/0
POUNDS DEV. INCHES DELTA INCHES DELTA X10-6 DEV, XZO-6 DEV. x10-6 DEV.
135037, 78,048 0,0454

PRED 297704, 3072,7 1.7887 0,198 12,643 12,643
3RD FLIGHT STAGE
AT 2ND IGNITION 133467. 78,128 0,079 0,0460 0,0006
ACTUAL 294244, -l,15 3075.9 3.14 1.8146 0,0258 0.199 0.15 12,597 -0,35 12,597 -0,56
134884. 78.053 0,0456

PRED 297368, 3072,9 1,7973 0,198 12,640 12.640
3RD FLIGHT STAGE
AT 2ND MAINSTAGE 133314, 78,133 0,079 0,0460 0,0004
ACTUAL 293908, -i,15 3076,1 9,14 1,8146 0,0172 0,199 0,15 12,593 -0.36 12.593 -0,36
63421, 85,690 0,0948

3RD FLIGHT STAGE PRED 139819, 3373,8 3,7355 0.197 5.380 5.360
----m--m
--..J AT 2ND CUTOFF
Oh SIGNAL 62911. 85,886 0,195 0,0965 0,0014
I
ACTUAL 138696, -0,79 3981,3 7,69 3,7918 0,0563 0,198 0,15 5.174 -3,48 5,173 -3,48
63382. 85.699 0.0952

3RD FLIGHT STAGE PRED 139733, 3374,0 3,7492 0,197 5,351 5.350
AT 2NO END THRUST ---------- -------
DECAY 62874, 85,895 0,196 0.0963 0,0010

ACTUAL 138614, -0,79 3381,7 7,72 3.7918 0,0426 0,198 0,15 5,164 -3,48 5,164 -3,48
32936, 78,776 0.0834

PRED 72610, 3101,4 5.2851 0.142 1.695 1.693
CSM SEPARATED
32490, 78,952 0,175 0.0828 -0,0006
ACTUAL 71629, -1.34 3108,_ 6,91 5.2600 -0.0251 0,142 0.34 1.6_5 -2,94 1.642 -2.99
61829. 85,204 0,1286

PRED 136309. 335_.5 5,0637 0,188 4.737 4.733
CSM DOCKED
61427, 85,364 0,160 0,1284 -0,0002
ACTUAL 135424, -0,64 3360.8 6,31 5,0558 -0,0078 0.189 0,19 4,588 -3.14 4,583 -3,16
17428, 73.658 0,1566

PRED 38422, 2899.9 6.1682 0,i11 0.620 0,617
SPACECRAFT SEP-
ARATED 17037. 73,758 O,O99 0,1499 -0,0066
ACTUAL 37561, -2,23 2903,8 3.92 5,9053 -0,2628 0,iii 0,21 0,610 -i,59 0,606 -1,79
SECTION 17
SPACECRAFT SUMMARY
The Apollo 13 mission, planned as a lunar landing in the Fra Mauro area,
was aborted because of the abrupt loss of service module cryogenic oxygen
pressure at approximately 56 hours. After entering the lunar module and
powering up the lunar module systems, the crew shut down all command and
service module systems not required for the abort mission. A circumlunar
profile was executed as the most efficient means of earth return, with
the lunar module providing power and life support until transfer to the
command module just prior to entry.
The space vehicle, with a crew of James A. Lovell, Mission Commander;

Fred W. Haise, Jr., Lunar Module Pilot; and John L. Swigert, Jr.,
Command Module Pilot; was launched from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, at
2:13:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (19:13:00 GMT) April II, 1970. Two days
before launch, the Command Module Pilot, as a member of the Apollo 13
backup crew, was substituted for his prime crew counterpart, who was
exposed and found susceptible to rubella (German measles). The only
unexpected occurrence during launch was an early shutdown of the S-II
center engine, with no appreciable effect on the flight. The activities
during earth orbit checkout, translunar injection, and initial translunar
coast were similar to those of Apollo II and 12. Soon after the spacecraft
was ejected, the S-IVB was maneuvered using the auxiliary propulsion system
to impact on the lunar surface and provide seismological data. The first
midcourse correction inserted the spacecraft into a non-free-return
trajectory.
At approximately 56 hours, the pressure in cryogenic oxygen tank 2 began

to rise at an abnormally high rate, and soon thereafter, the tank abruptly
lost pressure. The pressure in tank 1 also dropped but at a rate suffi-
cient to maintain fuel cell 2 in operation for approximately 2 more hours
The loss of primary power in the command module required an immediate
abort of the mission. The crew powered up the lunar module, and the first
maneuver following the incident was made with the descent propulsion
system to place the spacecraft once again on a free-return trajectory. A
second maneuver performed with the descent engine 2 hours after passing
pericynthian reduced the transearth transit time and moved the earth
landing point from the Indian Ocean to the South Pacific. Two small
transearth midcourse corrections were required prior to entry. After
the service module was jettisoned, the crew observed and photographed
the bay 4 area where the cryogenic tank anomaly had occurred, remarking
17-I
k,
that the outer skin covering had been severely damaged and a large portion
was missing. The lunar module was jettisoned 1 hour before entry, which
was performed nominally using the primary guidance and navigation system.
Landing occurred at 142:54:41 within sight of the recovery ship. The
touchdown point was reported as 21 degrees 38 minutes 24 seconds south
latitude and 165 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds west longitude. The crew
was retrie;_ed and aboard the recovery ship within 45 minutes after landing.
For further details on the spacecraft performance, refer to the Apollo 13

Mission Report published by the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston,
Texas.
17-2
APPENDIXA
ATMOSPHERE
A.I SUMMARY
This appendix presents a summaryof the atmospheric environment at launch

time of the AS-508. The format of these data is similar to that presented
on previous launches of Saturn vehicles to permit comparisons. Surface
and upper levels winds, and thermodynamic data near launch time are given.
A.2 GENERAL
ATMOSPHERIC
CONDITIONS
AT LAUNCH
TIME
At launch time, a cold front extended from a low pressure cell in the
North Atlantic, becoming stationary through northern Florida and along
the Gulf Coast to a low pressure area located in southern Louisiana.
See Figure A-I. The frontal intensity was weak in northern Florida but
becamestronger in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico-Louisiana area.
Surface winds in the Cape Kennedy area were light and variable, as shown
in Table A-I. Generally, winds in the lower part of the troposphere were
light, permitting the sea breeze to switch the surface wind to the east
southeast by early afternoon.
Wind flow aloft is shown in Figure A-2 (500 millibar level). The maximum
wind belt was located north of Florida giving less intense westerly wind
flow over the Cape Kennedy, Florida area.
A.3 SURFACE
OBSERVATIONS
AT LAUNCH
TIME
At launch time skies were overcast with 4/10 altocumulus at 5.8 kilometers
(19,000 ft), and I0/I0 thin cirrostratus with bases at an estimated
7.9 kilometers (26,000 ft). All surface observations at launch time are
summarized in Table A-I. Solar radiation data are given in Table A-2.
A.4 UPPERAIR MEASUREMENTS
Data were used from four of the upper air wind systems to compile the
final meteorological tape. Table A-3 summarizes the wind data systems
used. Only the Rawinsonde and the Loki Dart meteorological rocket data
were used in the upper level atmospheric thermodynamic analyses.
A-I
F
140 ° 135 ° 130 ° 125° ]20 ° 115 ° 110 ° 105 ° 100 ° 95 ° 90 ° 85 ° '80 ° 75 ° 70 ° 65 ° 60 ° 55 °
45 °
50 °
45 ° 40 °
40 °
35 °
35 °
30 °
30 °
25 °
4Lo_
25 ° _ "_z
SURFACE WEATHER MAP AT 1200 Z

APRIL 11, 1970 - ISOBARIC, 20 °
FRONTAL, AND PRECIPITATION
PATTERNS ARE SHOWN IN STANDARD SYMBOLIC FORM. 80 °
95 ° 90 °` 85 °
Figure A-I. Surface Weather Map Approximately 7 Hours

Before Launch of AS-508
Table A-I. Surface Observations at AS-508 Launch Time

WIND
TIME PRES- TEM- DEW VISI- HEIGHT
LOCATION AFTER SURE PERATURE POINT BILITY AMOUNT SKY COVER OF BASE SPEED
T-O N/CM 2 °K °K KM (TENTHS) TYPE METERS M/S OIR
(MIN) (PSIA) (°F) (°F)I (STAT MI) (FEET) (KNOTS) (DEG)
MILA (SSB) 0 lO.ll9 297.6 288.7 16 4 Alto- 5790 1.5 130

Kennedy Space (14.68) (76.0) (60.0) (lO) cumulus (19,000) (3.0)
Center, Florida lO Cirro- 7925t

stratus (26,000)ti
4.0 O8O
Cape Kennedy lO lO.ll5 295.5 290.5
Rawinsonde (14.67) (72.1) 63.3) (7.8)
Measurements
6.3 105
Pad 39A Lightpole 0 --
SE 18.3 m (12.2)
(60.0 ft)*
*Above natural grade.

tEstimated.
A-2
170 ° 165 ° 160 ° 150o1140o130°120°t10°100°90° 80 ° 70° 60° 50 ° 40 ° 35° 30°
50 °
40 °
,35 °
40°
30°
30o
25 °
:15°
500 MILLIBAR HEIGHT

15°CONTOURS AT 1200Z
105 ° 100 ° 95° 90<' 85° 80° 75°
APRIL II, 1970
CONTINUOUS LINES INDICATE HEIGHT CONTOURS IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.
DASHED LINES ARE ISOTHERMS IN DEGREES CENTIGRADE.
ARROWS SHOW WIND DIRECTION AND SPEED AT THE 500 MILLIBAR LEVEL.
(ARROWS SAME AS ON SURFACE MAP).
Figure A-2. 500 Millibar Map Approximately 7 Hours

Before Launch of AS-508
A.4.1 Wind Speed
The wind speed was 4.0 m/s (7.8 knots) at the surface, and increased to
a peak of 55.6 m/s (108.1 knots) at 13.58 kilometers (44,540 ft) o The
winds began decreasing above this altitude, reaching a minimum of 1.0 m/s
(1.9 knots) at 26.60 kilometers (87,270 ft) altitude. Above this altitude
the wind speed continued to increase, as shown in Figure A-3.
A-3
Table A-2. So ar Radiation at AS-508 Launch Time, Launch Pad 39A
HOUR TOTAL NORMAL DIFFUSE

DATE ENDING HORIZONTAL INCIDENT SKY
EST G-CAL/CM2MIN G-CAL/CM
2 MIN G-CAL/CM2 MIN
April II, 1970 05OO 0.00 0.00 0.00

0600 0.00 0.00 0.00
0700 0.02 0.01 0.02
0800 0.14 0.03 0.13
0900 0.21 0.00 0.21
I000 0.51 0.21 0.36
II00 1.01 0.85 0.30
1200 1.2O 0.91 0.37
13OO 1.25 0.71 0.59
14OO 0.85 0.27 0.61
1500 0.63 0.20 0.47
1600 0.52 0.15 0.42
17OO O.42 0.23 0.31
Table A-3. Systems Used to Measure Upper Air Wind Data for AS-508
RELEASE
TIME
PORTION OF DATA USED
START END
TYPEOF DATA TIME
TIME AFTER
TIME TIME
(UT) T-O ALTITUDE ALTITUDE
AFTER AFTER
(MIN) M M
T-O T-O
(FT) (FT)
(MIN) (MIN)
FPS-16 Jimsphere 1930 17 17 15,225 69

(49,950)
Rawinsonde 1923 I0 15,250 6O 24,75O 91
(50,032) (81,200)
Loki Dart 2058 105 61,75O I05 25,OO0 131
(202,589) (82,020)
Super Loki 2143 150 80,500 152 62,000 1 70

(264,104) (203,410)
A-4
=rl
.._°
cQ
c-
ALTITUDE, km
I
c:'
!!,'i, '! !
o J
: i
_p i
-$ _IW L
'! '
i _i _i, l_i,! 11 lil_liilLi!
i i ,i \ !_II il I lllliil!_llILi
L I !i I ! ,
I i ! ! L_ i,
ii iI _i 'I 1
i i_ _' 111 , |I
• ! I .....
c-
c_ ,,,i _ Li i, 111 i _* ,i !|i! _I ' ,

---I i SUPER
..Jo
LOKI (2145Z-2203Z)
3 (2013Z.2044Z)_J_ --LOKI DART (205BZ-2124Z
_FPS-16 J IMSPHERE I
o
--h
IIIL_ I I L 1 L L
lo0_,,_.,,c_0_L
I _
i
0
CO
A.4.2 Wind Direction
At launch time the surface wind direction was easterly and shifted
clockwise to a westerly direction within the first 3 kilometers (9840 ft)
of altitude. The wind direction stayed westerly with increasing alti-
tude until the wind speed became light and variable above 18 kilometers
(59,050 ft). Figure A-4 shows a complete wind direction versus alti-
tude profile.
A.4.3 Pitch Wind Component
The pitch wind velocity component (component parallel to the horizontal

projection of the flight path) at the surface was a head wind of 3.9 m/s
(7.6 knots). The pitch component became a tail wind with altitude, re-
sulting in a maximum tail wind of 55.6 m/s (108.1 knots) observed at
13.58 kilometers (44,540 ft) altitude. See Figure A-5.
A.4.4 Yaw Wind Component
The yaw wind velocity component (component normal to the horizontal pro-
jection of the flight path) at the surface was a wind from the left of
0.8 m/s (1.6 knots). The peak yaw wind velocity in the high dynamic
pressure region was a wind from the left of 15.0 m/s (29.1 knots) at
12.98 kilometers (42,570 ft). See Figure A-6.
A.4.5 Component Wind Shears
The largest component wind shear (Ah = I000 m) in the altitude range of_
8 to 16 kilometers (26,247 to 52,493 ft) was a yaw shear of 0.0178 sec -I
at 14.0 kilometers (45,850 ft). The largest pitch wind shear, in the
lower levels, was 0.0166 sec-I at 15.4 kilometers (50,610 ft). See
Figure A-7.
A.4.6 Extreme Wind Data in the High Dynamic Region
A summary of the maximum wind speeds and wind components is given in

Table A-4. A summary of the extreme wind shear values is given in
Table A-5.
A.5 THERMODYNAMIC DATA
Comparisons of the thermodynamic data taken at AS-508 launch time with

the annual Patrick Reference Atmosphere, 1963 (PRA-63) for temperature,
pressure, density, and Optical Index of Refraction are shown in Figures A-8
and A-9 and discussed in the following paragraphs.
A.5.1 Temperature
Atmospheric temperature differences were small, being 5 percent or less

deviation from the PRA-63. Surface air temperature was slightly cooler
than the PRA-63. Above 23.0 kilometers (75,460 ft) the temperature was
warmer than the PRA-63. See Figure A-8.
A-6
_0N0935 "3WII 391afa
i ] 1 I k I
p_
!
-rl
,,_o
¢....
("b
::I:=,
I
,r.,,T'l
...I.
¢-I.-
,,,-i
°
::3
11)
.,..l
o
('3
,.,.,,I.
c-)
o
I
CO
(.-.I-
><
v
(.-I..-
r'-"
L
I. s0_,ER,_0Ki,
_I
o
...-I
,,,..l
° RANGE TIME, SECONDS
I'D
0
-'h
::I:::=
(J3
!
(...T'I
O
CO
"-T1
--I°
CQ
C-
('D
I
C_
ALTITUDE,
a
SUPERLOKI(2145Z-2203Z) -,
"_FPS-16 JIMSPHERE
(I930Z-2022Z)_ RAWINSONDE(2013Z-2044Z)_IJ LOKIDART (2058Z-2124Z)
llillll I I I 1 I 1 1
RANGE
TII,
E, SECONDS
0J
c--
cy-)
"o
c,-
°_
c-"
OJ
o,
vOj 0
E 7"
_= ('11:1.r"
_-l--
•l_ c--
c-- _i
x--J
v4.-_
C_
o_
I.m_
Table A-4. Maximum Wind Speed in High Dynamic Pressure Region for
Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/Saturn 508 Vehicles
MAXIMUMWIND MAXIMUMWIND COMPONENTS
VEHICLE
NUMBER SPEED ALT PITCH (Wx) ALT Yaw (Wz) ALT
M/S DIP KM M/S KM M/S KM
(KNOTS) (BEG) (FT) (KNOTS) (FT) (KNOTS) (FT)
AS-501 26.0 273 11.50 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 27.1 12.00 12.9 15.75

(52.7) (¢2,600) (52.7) (42,600) (25.1) (51,700)
_S-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 11.73 74.5 II.70 21.7 11.43

(148.1) (38,480) (144.8) (38,390) (42.2) (37,500)
AS-505 42.5 270 14.18 40.8 13.80 18.7 14.85

(82.6) (46,520) (79.3) (45,280) (36.3) (48,720)
ASo506 9.6 297 11.40 7.6 II.18 7.1 12.05

(18.7) (37,400) (14.8) (36,680) (13.8) (39,530)
A5-507 47.6 245 14.23 47.2 14.23 19.5 13.65

(92.5) (46,670) (91.7) (46,670) (37.9) (44,780)
55.6 252 13.58 55.6 13.58 15.0 12.98
AS-508 (108.1) (44,540) (108.1) (44,540) (29.1) (42,570)
A-II
Table A-5. Extreme Wind Shear Values in the High Dynamic Pressure Region
for Apollo/Saturn 501 through Apollo/Saturn 508 Vehicles
(Ah = I000 m)
PITCH PLANE YAW PLANE
VEHICLE
NUMBER ALTITUDE ALTITUDE
SHEAR SHEAR
KM KM
(SEC-I) (SEC-I)
(FT) (FT)
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 0.0103 16.00 0.0157 15.78

(52,500) (51,800)
AS -504 0.0248 15.15 0.0254 14.68

(49,700) (48,160)
AS -505 0.0203 15.30 0.0125 15.53

(50,200) (50,950)
AS-506 0.0077 14.78 0.0056 I0.30

( 48,490 ) (33,790)
AS-507 0.0183 14.25 0.0178 14.58

(46,750) (47,820)
AS-508 0.0166 15.43 0.0178 13.98

(50,610) (45,850)
A-12
SGN033S '31111 39NV_
o _ o o o o° o _ o o o ooo
I 1 1 1 1 1 I IIII
(Z_'ZLZ-ZS_OZ)
lllVo I)1O7
l_ _ (ZetTOZ-Z_Z6[) 30NOSNIMY'd '
09
.......................
__ :.... T. ___-_._.
...... ,_ ..... 7......... .--4-._..'--
. .- L r..
O0
"00
c- _(')
rO ,
r_
_ m
o
• , .- -- -- .................
%
4-_ _-
• I,-- ( 4-
. i I t ' I : , _ .... i .
--i_-?',--,,,_........ --_........... _-7 ...... 1-- :- 17_- --_ ......... _.... 7 " !-- _ (1.)_
-_ F_ ..... T-_/---I ; ' [ 7---- _ _ !. ' '. , i , , , i 0r,- ,_

i I ''_.. __ 4---_ .... -'------_-- ..... --4 .... :_--__ " " ' , ' - _------T ............ _ .....
*I ....T_-_ . ! _ :_ ,_,.___.J_LL_ . . :. _ .......................
t..-
, _ ; _ ............ i __........... ---L •r-: ......................
d_
° i"-
.__ .... ' i , i ! _ , i i , _ ....... ' ' ----÷_-'_-_ ..................
m_ ' 30fi1117_
=rl
o=J°
ALTITUDE, km
o_ ............. _
I_VT nADT #9_7__19_7_
IIII I I I I I I I I I I
_ o_ o_ _ _ _ o° _o o o_ o_
RANGE TIME, SECONDS
A.5.2 Atmospheric Pressure
Atmospheric pressure deviations were less than one percent from the
PRA-63 pressure values from the surface to 27.2 kilometers (89,160 ft)
altitude. The pressure then became greater than +I percent of the PRA-63
values with altitude, as shown in Figure A-8.
A.5.3 Atmospheric Density
Atmospheric density deviations were small, being within 8 percent of

the PRA-63 for all altitudes. See Figure A-9.
A.5.4 Optical Index of Refraction
At the surface, the Optical Index of Refraction was 5.65 x 10 -6 units

lower than the corresponding value of the PRA-63. The deviation became
less negative with altitude, and it approximates the PRA-63 at high
altitudes as is shown in Figure A-9.
A.6 COMPARISON OF SELECTED ATMOSPHERIC DATA FOR SATURN V LAUNCHES
A summary of the atmospheric data for each Saturn V launch is shown

in Table A-6.
Table A-6. Selected Atmospheric Observations for Apollo/Saturn 501 through

Apollo/Saturn 508 Vehicle Launches at Kennedy Space Center, Florida
VEHICLE DATA SURFACE DATA INFLIGHT CONDITIONS
RELATIVE WIND* MAXIMUM WIND "IN 8-16 KM LAYER

TIME LAUNCH PRESSURE TEMPERA- HUMIDITY CLOUDS
VEHICLE DATE NEAREST COMPLEX N/CM2 TURE °C PERCENT SPEED DIRECTION ALTITUDE SPEED DIRECTION
NUMBER
MINUTE MIS DEB KM M/S DEG
11.50 26,0 273

AS-501 9 NOV 67 0700 EST 39A 10.261 17.6 55 8.0 70 I/I0 cumulus
13.00 27.] 255

10.200 20.9 83 5.4 132 5/10 stratocumulus,
AS-502 4 Apr 68 0700 EST 39A
1/I0 cirrus
15.22 34.8 284

AS-503 _l Dec 68 0751 EST 39A 10,207 15.0 88 1.0 360 4/10 cirrus
11.73 76.2 264

10.095 19.6 61 6.9 160 7/10 stratocumulus,
AS-504 3 Mar 69 llO0 EST 39A
lO/IO altostratus
14.18 42.5 270

lO.190 26.7 75 8.2 125 4/10 cumulus,
AS-505 18 May 69 1249 EDT 39B
2/10 altocumuIus,
lO/lO cirrus
If.40 9.6 297

10.203 29.4 73 3.3 175 ]/lO cumulus,
AS-506 16 Jul 69 0932 EDT 39A
2/I0 altocumulus,
9/I0 cirrostratus
14.23 47.6 245

AS-507 i14 Nov 69 I122 EST 39A I0.081 20.0 92 6.8 280 lO/lO stratocumulus
with rain
13.58 55,6 252

10.119 24.4 57 6.3 I05 4/10 altocumulus
AS-508 n Apr 70 1413 EST 39A
lO/IO cirrostratus
*Instantaneous readings from charts at T-O from anemometers on launch pad at 18.3 m (60.0 ft) on launch comples 39 (A&B). Heights of anemometers
are above natural grade.
A-15/A-16
APPENDIXB
AS-508 SIGNIFICANTCONFIGURATION
CHANGES
B.I INTRODUCTION
AS-508, eighth flight of the Saturn V series, was the sixth mannedApollo
Saturn V vehicle. The AS-508 launch vehicle configuration was essentially
the same as the AS-507 with significant exceptions shown in Tables B-I
through B-4. The basic AS-508 Apollo 13 spacecraft structure and components
were unchanged from the AS-504 Apollo 9 configuration except Lunar Module
(LM) crew provisions were accompanied by portable life support systems and
associated controls required to accommodateextra vehicular surface activ-
ity, similar to AS-507, Apollo 12. The basic vehicle description is
presented in Appendix B of the Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation
Report, AS-504, Apollo 9 Mission, MPR-SAT-FE-69-4.
Table B-I. S-IC Significant Configuration Changes
REASON
SYSTEM CHANGE
This type injector inhibits

Propulsion Engine No. 4 gas generator incorporates unstable combustion pressure
high ap LOX injector. oscillations (buzzing).
Eliminate stress corrosion.

Servoactuators redesigned to eliminate
materials susceptible to stress corrosion.
To meet required temperatures
Environmental Aft compartment ECS reorificed. at battery location
Control
Sys tern
R&D instr_jmentation which is
Data Servoactuator return pressure and
no longer required.
temperature measurements deleted.
Eliminate single point failures.
GSE Modified LOX dome purge and GN2 primary
regulation modules of pneumatic console.
Prevent sense tube failures and
Redesigned LOX dome purge regulator and
poppet deformati on.
added orifices to LOX dome purge module
in pneumatic console.
B-I
Table B-2. S-II Significant Configuration Changes
SYSTEM CHANGE REASON
Structure Conversion to a flame retardant spray-on To reduce manufacturing costs,

polyurethane foam insulation on LH2 tank effect stage weight savings,
forward bulkhead, forward skirt, and LH2 improve insulation efficiency,
tank sidewall areas. and eliminate prelaunch helium
purging and leak detection of
these circuits.
Redesign of LH2 tank outlet feedline To overcome previous stage

elbows using 2014-T6 aluminum alloy problems with lap welds resulting
rings with 6061-T6 tube assemblies. in cracks and potential leak
These materials were machine welded conditions.
together and welded onto the LH2 tank
lower cylinder.
Launch Vehicle Deletion of prelaunch stage leak To eliminate the LVGSE leak
Ground Support detection function for propellant tank detection equipment as a result
Equipment common bulkhead, LH2 tanR forward of high confidence level in stage
(LVGSE) bulkhead uninsulated area, and the structural integrity. The remain-
tank J-ring area. Gas purging ing leak detection functions were
capability will be retained. eliminated by the above change to
spray-on foam insulation.
Table B-3. S-IVB Significant Configuration Changes
SYSTEM CHANGE REASON
Propulsion Installation of redundant cold helium To improve reliability and mission

shutoff valves to the LOX tank confidence by eliminating single
pressurization system. point failure in the LOX pressur-
ization system.
Provided a backup helium supply to To make helium available from the

the J-2 engine start tank. LOX ambient repressurization
sphere for the J-2 engine start
tank in the event of start tank
depletion during coast, and
provide preprogramed recharge
sequence for same.
LH2 prepressuri zation module orilice Provides assurance of mission

modifications. completion in the event the
continuous vent regulator fails
open and eliminates single point
failure involving the regulator.
Auxiliary Propulsion System forebody To maintain acceptable temperature

thermal isolation insulation limits of the Auxiliary Propulsion
System forebody mounted components
when flight mission time is
increased for Lunar Impact Mission.
Electrical Thermal protection of electrical To increase operating time for

components for Lunar Impact Mission. Lunar Impact Mission
Added one event - Start Tank To provide talkback on operation

Recharge Valve Arm On K200-404. of start tank recharge backup
system.
B-2
Table B-4. IU Significant Configuration Changes
CHANGE REASON
SYSTEM
Modification of the EDS distributor. To provide ground control after

Emergency
Detection Automatic Abort Enable Backup to the spacecraft separation. This insures
Spacecraft Manual Abort Enable is the ability to command from the
provided for abort conditions prior ground.
to Time Dase 7.
Command and Changed Fail Safe position of CCS To allow tracking of the CCS to
Communications Coaxial Switch to the Omni Antenna lunar impact.
front the lli-Gain Antenna.
Environmental Thermal radiation shrouds over cable To protect the cables, CCS, and
other heat sensitive equipment from
Control trays and down ihside of the IU
the direct solar radiation in space
over the components.
during Translunar Coast after space-
craft separation.
Removal of thermal isolators between To improve the heat flow from the
cold plate No. 24 and the IU structure. cold plate to the IU structure
The cork outside the IU, in the area especially for operation after loss
of cold plate No. 24, has been painted of coolant flow during translunar
white. coast. The white paint is to
decrease the effect of external
solar heating and heat loss to space
when in shadow.
Thermal switch settings for S-IU-508 Switch settings were determined from
Environmental Control System (ECS) preflight test data.
determine water valve operation:
Open at 59.2°F
Close at 60.O°F
CCS components and 6D20 battery all on To help provide heat balance for the
cold plate No. 24. battery which will act as a heat
sink for the CCS power amplifier.
To increase radiative heat control

Tape added to RTG.
especially after spacecraft separa-
tion.
Note: CCS change and networks addition To allow tracking of the CCS to
Instrb_entation
of fourth battery. Lunar Impact.
and
Communications
To measure low frequency vibrations
Three platform vibration measurements
were added to the DFI telemetry link: transmitted to the platform support
from the IU structure.
E7-603 VIB ST-124M SUPPORT, LONG
E8-603 VIB ST-124M SUPPORT, TANG
E9-603 VIB ST-124M SUPPORT, PERP
To allow addition of the three

Three platform accelerometer measurements
were deleted from the DFI telemetry link: vibration measurements on this
telemetry link.
H17-603 Z ACCELEROMETER
H21-603 X ACCELEROMETER
H25-603 Y ACCELEROMETER
Add fourth battery 6D20. (See Instru- To provide an independent power

Networks source for the CCS power amplifier
mentation and Communications.)
and CCS transponder. This will add
a nominal B4.8-hour operation
capability for the CCS.
Cable modifications and additions. In support of EDS, CCS changes, and

additional vibration measurements
on the ST-124M support.
B-3
Table B-4.
IU Significant Configuration Changes (Continued)
SYSTEM
CHANGE
REASON
FIight Program
Accelerometer processing - Reasonableness
test constants are changed at liftoff +I0 This change limits the maximum effect
seconds and are independent for each axis. of possible accelerometer head contact
with the mechanical stop.
The Evasive Maneuver Yaw Attitude is 40
degrees and signed opposite from yaw To guarantee at least a 40 degree
attitude during TD&E. angle of separation and increase the
distance between the SC and S-IVB/IU.
Lunar impact requirements -
Fhese changes increase the probability
TLC orbital routines initialized at of lunar impact.
T7 +150.9 seconds rather than T 7 +20
seconds.
State vector is stored and the meas-

ured velocity components are zeroed
at T 7 +150.9 seconds.
Inertial hold attitude is maintained

until T 7 +150.9 seconds when horizontal
hold begins.
Measured velocity component telemetry

is continued after T 7 +]50.9 seconds.
DCS command for a second APS ullage

burn has been added and includes
variables for burn start time, burn
duration, and attitude change before
the burn.
The Communications Maneuver and TD&E

Inhibit and Update Commands from
T 8 have been deleted.
MSFC--RSA, Ala
B-4
MPR-SAT-FE-70-2
APPROVAL
SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT
AS-508, APOLLO 13 MISSION
By Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group
The information in this report has been reviewed for security classifi-
cation. 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 b_en reviewed and approved for technical accuracy.
George_l_. McKay, Jr. /

Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group
Director, Science and Engineering
Roy E. Godfrey
Saturn Program Manager
i
DISTRIBUTION :
S&E-AERO S&E-ASTN
MSFC:
Dr. E. Geissler, S&E-AERO-DIR Mr. K. Heimburg, S&E-ASTN-DIR

Dr. E. Rees, DIR
Mr. W. Dahm, S&E-AERO-A Mr. E. Hellebrand, S&E-ASTN-DIR
Mr. J. Foster, DIR
Mr. B. Dunn, S&E-AERO-ADV Mr. R. Schwinghamer, S&E-ASTN-M
Mr. R. Cook, DEP-M
Mr, R. Elkin, S&E-AERO-A_ Mr. J. Earle, S&E-ASTN-SDD
Dr. E. Stuhlinger, AD-S
Mr. H, Wilson, S&E-AERO-AT Mr. K. Reilmann, S&E-ASTN-PJ
E Mr, I. Jones, S&E3AERO-AT Mr. H. Fuhrmann, S&E-ASTN-EM
Mr. T. Reed, S&E-AERO-AU Mr. W. Cobb, S&E-ASTN-SA
Mr. Maus, E-DIR Mr. S. Guest, S&E-AERO-AU (2) Mr. P. Black, S&E-ASTN-SAS
Mr. R. Ryan, S&E-AERO-D Mr. C. Wood, S&E-ASTN-P
Mr. Smith, E-S
Mr. J. Cremin, S&E-AERO-MO (2) Mr. R. Hunt, S&E-ASTN-A
PA Mr. J, Lindberg, S&E-AERO-M (io) Mr. J. Riquelmy, S&E-ASTN-SDF
Mr. R. Jackson, S&E-AERO-P Mr. Katz, S&E-ASTN-SER
Mr. R. Cummings, S&E-AERO-T Mr. N. Showers, S&E-ASTN-A
Mr. B. Slattery, PA-DIR
Mr. O. E. Smith, S&E-AERO-Y Mr. J. Furman, S&E-ASTN-AA
Mr. J. Sims, S&E-AERO-P Mrs. L. Mowel], S&E-ASTN-ADD
PD
Dr. J. Lovingood, S&E-AERO-D Mr. W. Grafton, S&E-ASTN-T
Dr. W. Lucas, PD-DIR Mr. W. Vaughan, S&E-AERO-Y (2) Mr. R. Lutonsky, S&E-ASTN-SAE
Mr. H. Sells, S&E-ASTN-SO
Mr. W. Mrazek, PD-DIR
S&E-CSE Mr. K. Rothe, S&E-ASTN-E
Mr. E. Goerner, PD-DO-DIR Mr. R. Griner, S&E-ASTN-XSJ (2)
Mr. F. Digesu, PD-DO-E
Dr. W. Haeussermann, S&E-CSE-DIR
Mr. O. Hoberg, S&E-CSE-DIR S&E-QUAL
PM
Mr. J. Aberg, S&E-CSE-S
Mr. W. Vann, S&E-CSE-A Mr. D. Grau, S&E-QUAL-DIR
Mr. L. James, PM-DIR
Mr. R. Wolf, S&E-CSE-I Mr. H. Rushing, S&E-QUAL-PI
Mr. C. Andressen, PM-PR-MGR
(4) Mr. E. May, S&E-CSE-L Mr. P. Hughes, S&E-QUAL-P
Dr. F. Speer, PM-MO-MGR
Mr. G. McKay, S&E-CSE-LF Mr. J. Landers, S&E-QUAL-PC
Mr. L. Belew, PM-AA-MGR
Mr. C. Brooks, S&E-CSE-V Mr. S. Peck, S&E-QUAL-F
Mr. W. Brown, PM-EP-MGR
Mr. C. Hagood, S&E-CSE-A Mr. W. Brien, S&E-QUAL-Q (2)
Mr. T. Smith, PM-EP-J
Mr. R. Devenish, S&E-CSE-SC Mr. A. Wittmann, S&E-QUAL-T
Mr. Norman, PM-MO
Mr. Boffola, PM-EP-F
S&E-ASTR S&E-SSL
Mr. R. Godfrey, PM-SAT-MGR
Mr. R. Smith, PM-SAT-MGR Mr. G. Heller, S&E-SSL-DIR
Mr. Stroud, S&E-ASTR-SC
Col. B. Montgomery, PM-SAT-MGR Mr. W. Sieber, S&E-SSL-S
Mr. Robinson, S&E-P-ATM (4487)
Mr. L. Bell, PM-SAT-E
Mr. Dale, S&E-ASTR-SCC
Mr. J. Moody, PM-SAT-Q A&TS-MS
Mr. S. Erickson, S&E-ASTR-SE
Mr. H. Hughes, PM-SAT-P Mr. J. Darden, S&E-ASTR-SD
Mr. M. Urlaub, PM-SAT-S-IB/S-IC A&TS-MS-H (2)
Mr. D. Justice, S&E-ASTR-SDA
Mr. W. Lahatte, PM-SAT-S-II A&TS-MS-IP
Mr. D. Vallely, S&E-ASTR-SDC
Mr. C. Meyers, PM-SAT-S-IVB A&TS-MS-IL (5)
Mr. E. George, S&E-ASTR-SDI
Mr. F. Duerr, PM-SAT-IU A&TS-MS-D (2)
Mr. C. Jones, S&E-ASTR-SI
Mr. R. Sparks, PM-SAT-G Mr. C. Mandel, S&E-ASTR-G
Mr. G. Peters, PM-SAT-S-IVB
Mr. G. Ferrell, S&E-ASTR-GSQ CC-P
Mr. T. Ferrell, PM-EP-EJ
Mr. O. Duggan, S&E-ASTR-I
Mr. J. Stamy, PM-MA-MGR Mr. Wofford, CC-P
Mr. J. Boehm, S&E-ASTR-M
Mr. Riemer, PM-MA-QP Mr. J. Lominick, S&E-ASTR-GMF
Mr. J. Balch, PM-MT-MGR KSC
Mr. J. Taylor, S&E-ASTR-R
Mr. H. Auter, PM-MT-T
Mr. F. Wojtalik, S&E-ASTR-S
Mr. C. Blevins, PM-SAT-S-IB/S-IC Dr. K. Debus, CD
Mr. A. Higgins, PM-SAT-S-IVB Dr. H. Gruene, LV
S&E COMP
Mr. C. Stover, PM-SAT-S-II Mr. I. Rigell, LV-B
Mr. J. Reaves, PM-SAT-Q Mr. Sendler, IN
Mr. W. Fortenberry, S&E-COMP-A
Mr. A. Wheeler, PM-EP-F Mr. Mathews, AP
Mr. W. Cushman, PM-SAT-T (12) Mr. R. Cochran, S&E-COMP-R
Mr. R. Craft, S&E-COMP-RR Gen. Morgan, AA
Mr. M. Marchese, PM-MA-QR Dr. A. Knothe, RS
S&E-ME Mr. D. Edwards, LV-INS
S&E Mr. L. Fannin, LV-MEC
Dr. M. Sievel, S&E-ME-DIR Mr. Youmans, LV-OMO-3
Mr. H. Weidner, S&E-DIR (2) Mr. H. Wuenscher, S&E-ME-DIR Mr. J. Bell, LV-TMO-A
Mr. L. Richard, S&E-DIR Mr. Lealman, LV-GDC (5)
Dr. W. Johnson, S&E-R-DIR Mr. Mizell, LV-PLN-12 (2)
Mr. G. McDonough, S&E-DIR Mr. O'Hara, LV-OMO
Mr. J. Perris, AP-SVO-3
Mr. Smith, AP-SVO
Mr. W. Jelen, IN-DAT-I
XTERNAL
Headquarters,
NationalAeronautics &SpaceAdministration
Office of the Asst. Sec. of Defense for Research
Washington,
D.C.20546 and Engineering
Room 3EI065
Dr.Petrone,MA The Pentagon
Gen.
Stevenson,MO Washington, D. C. 20301
Mr.Schneider,
ML Attn: Tech Library
Capt.Holcomb,
MAD
Mr.White,MAR Director of Guided Missiles
Mr.King,MAT Office of the Secretary of Defense

Mr.Campbell,
MAB Room 3El31
Mr.Wagner,MAS(2copies) The Pentagon
Mr.Armstrong,
MTX Washington, D. C. 20301
Mr.Lederer,MY Central Intelligence Agency
Director,
Ames Research
Center: Dr.H.JulianAllen Washington, D. C. 20505
National
Aeronautics&Space Administration Attn: OCR/DD/Pubiications (5 copies)
MoffettField,California94035 Director, National Security Agency
Director, Flight Research Center: Paul F. Bikle Ft. George Mead, Maryland 20755
National Aeronautics & Space Administration Attn: C3/TDL
P. O. Box 273
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Sandia Corp.
Edwards, California 93523
University of California Radiation Lab.
Technical Information Division
Goddard Space Flight Center
P. O. Box 808
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Livermore, California 94551
Greenbelt, Maryland 20771
Attn: Herman LaGow, Code 300 Attn: Clovis Craig
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Sandia Corp.

John F. Kennedy Space Center
National Aeronautics & Space Administration Livermore Br, P. O. Box 969
Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 Livermore, California g4551
Attn: Technical Library, Code RC-42 Attn: Tech Library
Mrs. t. B. Russell
Commander, Armed Services Technical Inf. Agency
Director, Langley Research Center: Dr. Floyd L. Thompson Arlington Hail Station
National Aeronautics & Space Administration Arlington, Virginia 22212
Attn: TIPCR (Transmittal per Cognizant Act
Langley Station
Security Instruction) (5 copies)
Hampton, Virginia 23365
Lewis Research Center Commanding General

National Aeronautics & Space Administration White Sands Missile Range,
New Mexico 88002
21DO0 Brookpark Road
Attn: RE-L (3 copies)
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Attn: Dr. Abe Silverstein, Director
Chief of Staff, U. S. Air Force
Robert Washko, Mail Stop 86-I
E. R. Jonash, Centaur Project Mgr. The Pentagon
Washington, D. C. 20330
l Cpy marked for DCS/D AFDRD
Manned Spacecraft Center
National Aeronautics & Space Administration l Cpy marked for DCS/D AFDRD-EX
Houston, Texas 77050
Headquarters SAC (DPLBS)
Attn: Mr. J. McDivitt, PA
Mr. D. Arabian, ASPO-PT (15 copies) Offutt AFB, Nebraska 68113
Mr. G. Paules, FC-5
Mr. J. Hamilton, RL (MSFC Resident Office) Commander
G. F. Prude, CF-841 (2 copies) Arnold Engineering Development Center
Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee 37389
Attn: Tech Library (2 copies)
Director, Wallops Station: R. L. Krieger
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Commander
Wallops Island, Virginia 23337
Air Force Flight Test Center
Scientific and Technical Information Facility Edwards AFB, California 93523
Attn: FTOTL
P. O. Box 5700
Bethesda, Maryland 20014
Commander
Attn: NASA Representative (S-AK/RKT) (25 copies)
Air Force Missile Development Center
Holloman Air Force Base
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
New Mexico 88330
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Attn: Tech Library (SRLT)
Pasadena, California 91103
Attn: Irl Newian, Reports Group (Mail 111-122)
Headquarters
6570th Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC)
Systems Engineering Group (RTD) U. S. Air Force
Attn: SEPIR Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 Attn: H. E. Vongierke
AFETR (ETLLG-I)
Patrick AFB, Florida 32925
EXTERNAL (CONT.)
Director
U. S. Naval Research Laboratory Chrysler Corporation Space Division
Washington, D.C. 20390 Huntsville Operation
Attn: Code 2027 1312 N. Meridian Street
Chief of Naval Research
Attn: J. Fletcher, Dept. 4830 (2)
Department of Navy
Washington, D.C. 20390
Attn: Code 463
I
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company
Chief, Bureau of Weapons Missile & Space Systems Division/SSC
Department of Navy 5301 Bolsa Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20390
Huntington Beach, California 92646
I Cpy to RESI, I Cpy to SP,
Attn: G. J. Soldat (40 copies)
I Cpy to AD3, I Cpy to REW3
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.
Commander
Bethpage, Long Island, N.Y. I1714
U. S. Naval Air Missile Test Center Attn: NASA Resident Office
Point Mugu, California 93041 John Johansen
AMSMI-RBLD; RSIC (3 copies) International Business Machine

Bldg. 4484 Mission Engineering Dept. FI03
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35809 150 Sparkman Dr. NW
Huntsville, Alabama 3580_
Aerospace Corporation Attn: C. N. Hansen (15 copies)
Reliability Dept.
P. O. Box 95085 Martin Company
Los Angeles, Call fornia 90045 Space Systems Division
Attn: Don Herzstein Baltimore, Maryland 21203
Attn: W. P. Sommers
Bellcomm, Inc.
1100 Seventeenth St. N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 North American Rockwe11/Space Division
Attn: Miss Scott, Librarian 12214 South Lakewood Boulevard
Downey, California 90241
The Boeing Con_oany Attn: D. R. Binns (35 copies)
P. O. Box 1680
Huntsville, Alabama 3S807 Radio Corporation of America
Attn: S° C. Krausse, Mail Stop JD-12 Defense Electronic Products
(20 copies) Data Systems Division
F. B. Williams, Mail Stop JA-51 8500 Balboa Blvd.
(1 copy) Van Nuys, California 91406
The Boeing Company Rocketdyne

P.O. Box 58747 6633 Canoga Avenue
Houston, Texas 77058 Canoga Park, California 91303
Attn: H. J. McClellan, Mail Stop HH-05 Attn: H. K. Georgius (lO copies)
(2 copies)
The Boeing Company Foreign Technology Division

P. O. Box 29100 FTD (TDPSL)
New Orleans, Louisiana 70129 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433
Attn: E. R. Malthesen, Mail Stop LS-65
(10 copies) Mr. George Mueller
Structures Division
Mr. Norman Sissenwine, CREW Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
Chief, Design Climatology Branch Research and Technology Division
Aerospace Instrumentation Laboratory Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433
Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories
L. G. Hanscom Field Mr. David Hargis
Bedford, Massachusetts 01731 Aerospace Corporation
Post Office Box 95085
Lt/Co1. H. R. Montague Los Angeles, California 90045
Det. 11, 4th Weather Group
Eastern Test Range Mr. H. B. Tolefson
Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 33564 DCD-Atmospheric Physics Branch
Mail Stop 240
Mr. W. Davidson NASA-Langley Research Center
NASA Resident Management Office Hampton, Virginia 23365
Mail Stop 8890
Martin Marietta Corporation Mr. Chasteen
Denver Division
Sperry Rand
Denver, Colorado 80201 Dept. 223
Blue Spring Road
Huntsville, A1a.
EXTERNAL (CONT.)
J. E. Trader
NASA Resident Manager's Office
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Corp.
5301 Balsa Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92646
L. C. Curran
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
150 Sparkman Drive
N. G. Futral
69 Bypass NE
McAllester, Oklahoma 74501
C. Flora
ucDonnell Douglas Astronautics Corp.
Sacramento Test Center
11505 Douglas Avenue
Rancho Cardora, California 95670
W. Klabunde
Northrop
6025 Technology Drive
David L. Christensen
UARI, P. O. Box 1247
A. T. Ackeman
MAS-BELLCOM
5/6

Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report - AS-508 Apollo 13 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-508 Apollo 13 Mission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F

SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

SATURN FLIGHT EVALUATION WORKING GROUP

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

MSFC - Form 774 (rev October 1967)

SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE

FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT- AS-508

SATURN FLIGHT EVALUATION WORKING GROUP

SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT - AS-508

Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group

Saturn V AS-508 (Apollo 13 Mission) was launched at 14:13:00.00 Eastern

Any questions or comments pertaining to the information contained in this

Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

iii SECTION 4A LUNAR IMPACT

PRECEDING PAGE BLAF_K NOT FILW_ED

SECTION 7 S-IVB PROPULSION 9.4.1 LVDC and LVDA Performances 9-11

7.4 S-IVB Shutdown Transient lO.I Summary I0-I

SECTION 8 STRUCTURES 12.1 Summary 12-I

8.1 Summary 8-I 12.2 Base Pressures 12-I

8.3 Vibration Evaluation 8-15 13.1 Summary 13-1

9.2 Guidance Comparisons 9-I 14.1 Summary 14-I

9.3 S-IC Environmental Control 14-I

SECTION 15 DATA SYSTEMS

15.1 Summary 15-I

15.2 Vehic!e Measurements Evaluation 15-I

15.3 Airborne VHF Telemetry Systems

15.4 C-Band Radar System Evaluation 15-2

15.5 Secure Range Safety Command

15.7 Ground Engineering Cameras 15-8

SECTION 16 MASS CHARACTERISTICS

16.1 Summary 16-I

16.2 Mass Evaluation 16-I

SECTION 17 SPACECRAFT SUMMARY 17-I

A.I Summary A-I

A.2 General Atmospheric Conditions

A,3 Surface Observations at Launch

A.4 Upper Air Measurements A-I

A.5 Thermodynamic Data A-6

A.6 Comparison of Selected

APPENDIX B AS-508 SIGNIFICANT CONFIGURATION

B.l Introduction B-l

Figure Page Figure Page

4A-I S-IVB/IU Unscheduled Velocity 7-8 S-IVB LH2 Ullage Pressure -

Figure Page Figure Page

9-6 Crossrange Velocity Measured

8-17 AS-508/AS-507 Acceleration and II-6 IU Battery 6D20 Voltage,

12-5 AS-508 Acoustic Instrumentation 12-6

9-3 LH 2 Continuous Vent Thrust 12-7 Vehicle External Overall

13-2 S-IC Base Gas Temperature 13-3

13-3 S-IC Ambient Gas Temperature

13-4 S-I[ Heat Shield Aft Heat Rate 13-5

13-5 S-II Heat Shield Recovery

13-6 S-II Heat Shield Aft Radiation

13-7 Forward Location of Separated

14-I S-IC Aft Compartment Temperature

14-2 IU TCS Coolant Control Parameters 14-3

14-3 IU Sublimator Performance During

14-4 IU TCS Hydraulic Performance 14-5

14-5 IU TCS GN 2 Sphere Pressure

14-6 Selected IU Component

14-7 Comparison of AS-507 and AS-508

14-8 IU Inertial Platform GN2

14-9 IU GBS GN 2 Sphere Pressure

15-1 VHF Telemetry Coverage Summary 15-5