MPR-SAT-FE-66-4 February 28, 1966 (Supersedes MPR-SAT-FE-65-6)

LAUNCH VEHICLE TESTFLIGHT RESULTS OFTHEEIGHTHSATURN

SA-9 I

[U]

NMIONAL ERONAUTICS A ANDSPACEDMINISTRATION A

M.qFC

* Form

774

(Rev

ltebrulry

1981)

mt contains 79: is_

affecting ion of it

GEORGE

C. MARSHALL

SPACE

FLIGHT

CENTER

MPR-SAT-FE-66-4

RESULTS

OF THE By Saturn EIGHTH

SATURN I LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST Flight Evaluation Working Group

FLIGHT

SA-9

[U]

ABSTRACT

This report presents the results of the early engineering evaluation of the SA-9 test flight. Fourth of the Block II series, SA-9 was the third Saturn vehicle to carry on Apollo boilerplate (BP-16) payload and the first in a series to carry a Pegasus payload. The performance of each major vehiclesystem is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations. Thetest flight of SA-9 proved the capability of all vehicle systems. This was the first flight test of the Pegasus meteoroid technology satellite, the first flight test to utilize the Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM), the second flight test to utilize the ST-124 guidance systemforboth stages, and the third flight test to demonstratethe closed loop performance of path guidance during S-IV burn. The performance of the guidance system was successful and the insertion velocity closely approached the expected value. This also wa_ the first flight test of the unpressurized prototype production Instrument Unit and passive thermal control system, which will be used on Saturn IB and V vehicles,

:T w *_ :;'_ _ I
.q

._ }-_ _,_

_ i_ _ ._

ear

All missions of the flight were successfully plished. Ulv &/_ _accom-__ssifl.d _ t _t0 Any questions or comments pertaining to the information contained in this report are invited and should be directed to: Director, Huntsville, Attention: George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Alabama Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group R-AERO-F (Phone 876-4575).

GEORGE

C. MARSHALL

SPACE

FLIGHT

CENTER

M PR-SAT-FE-66-4

February (Supersedes

28, 1966

MPR-SAT-FE-65-6)

RESULTS

OF TIIE EIGHTH

SATURN

I LAUNCH

VEHICLE

TEST

FLIGIIT

SA-9

SATURN

F LIGIIT WORKING

EVA LUATION GROI"

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Contributions to this report were made by various elements of MSFC, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Douglas Aircraft Company, Chrysler Corporation, IBM Corporation, Rocketdyne, and Pratt & Whitney. Without the joint efforts and assistance of these elements, this integrated report would not have been possible. The Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group especially is indebted to the following for their major contributions: John F. Kennedy Space Center Douglas Aircraft Company Chrysler Corporation Space Division International Business Machine Corporation Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Research

and Development strodynamics

Operations Laboratory

Aero-A

Aero-Space Environment Office Aerodynamics Division Flight Evaluation and Operations Studies Division Astrionics Laboratory Systems Integration

Electrical Division

Flight Dynamics Branch Guidance and Control Division Instrumentation and Communications Division Computation Laboratory Division Engineering

R&D Application

Propulsion and Vehicle Laboratory Propulsion Structures Vehicle Division Division

Systems

Division

TABI.E

OF CONTENTS I _:'t_.t_,

,'-;E('TI{)N

I.

FI,IGIIT l. 1 1.9 1.3

TEST

Sb_IMARY Results

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

t I 2 :; 4 3
5

Fli_4ht "l't.st

T{'st Objectives .............................................. Times of l','vcnl_, .............................................. .................................................. .............................................

SECTION SECTION

II. [II.

INTR()I)[TCTION I,_kUNCI[
;_. [

OIH';IL.VFIONS

SunlallIl]"

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

",_.3 :;. 4 :'..3

Allllos|)herie Couutdowu l_rol)cllaut :;.5.1 3.5.2

Conditions ......................................... .................................................. l,-_tling ............................................

.3 5 7 7 7

S-I St:tgo .............................................. S-IV Skt_4c"............................................. ................................

;_. G 3.7 :L _ SI"CTION IV.

3.5.:_ LoadiH:_ 53"stcm Malfunctions I Iel d(Iown .................................................. Ground _q)l)ort Equil)ment 131ocldlous(_' Rcdline Values

S S S :J of Inertia ....................... :J 1:1 1"I ................................ see) ............................ 13 16 17 17 17 17 l!J l!) 21 2t 22 2:_ 2:1 23 24 25 26 26 26 2(; 26 29 ::0 " ............... ;:0 3o it0 :_0 +I0

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

MASS CI1ARACTI.;RIST1CS ........................................... 4. t Vehicle Ma_ ................................................ 4.2 Vehicle Centt'r of Gl_tvity and Moments

SECTION

V.

TIL,'kJECTORY 5. t 5.2 5.?, Summal hlsertion T Tl_ljector3_

................................................... .................................................. Comparison Conditions with (S-IV Nomitxd Cutoff

SECTION

VI.

PROPULSION (;. 1 6.2 Suult'na (i. 2. t 6.2.2 /;.:I Yy S-I Stage

................................................... .................................................. l)t, rforlnance ()re-rail Flight ......................................... Stage Prolmlsion Performance .......................... Simulation of Cluster Performance." ....................... E'ngine Performance ............................... Systems ......................................

6.2.3 h_dividual S-1 Pressurization 6.:t. 1 _i.::.2

Fuel Prt.ssurization System ................................. LOX Tank l_ressurization System .............................

4i. 4 6.5 6. (i 6.7

6.:L:I Control Pressure System ................................... 6.:I.4 L()X-SOX I)L_posal System .................................. 6.3.5 l[ytlln_gen Vt:nt Duet l)urgc .................................. S-I Sta.t;-e Pr_q_tdlant Utilization .................................... S-I St_lI4c Ilydraulic Systems ...................................... Retro Rocket Performauec ....................................... S-IV 6.7.1 1;.7.2 Stage Prol)ulsiou System Overall Performance Cluster 6.7.2.1 (i. 7.2.2 Inlivitkutl li. 7. :L 1 {i. 7. :l. 9 _i. 7. :'. :i (;. 7. ::. I l)cr[onuance ..................................... ..................................... .....................................

(;. 7.:;

Engine Atmlysis .................................. Flight Simulation ................................. l';ngine Perform:m('t_ ............................... Engine Cuo|d,wn _,._l't T_,'ansicnts Steady Cutoff ................................. ...................

State ()l)ct,'aLioa .............................. Traaaic'nts .................................

iii

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(Cont'd) Page

6.8

S-IV Pressurization System ....................................... 6.8. I 6.8.2 LH 2 Tank Pressurization ................................... 6.8. l. I LH 2 Pump Inlet Conditions ........................... LOX Tank Pressurization .................................. 6.8.2.1 6.8.2.2 6.8.3 6.8.4 Cold Helium Ilelium Utilization Control llelium Heater Operation ............................ LOX Pump Inlet Conditions .......................... Supply ....................................... .................................... .................................. System System

31 :;l ;;2 ";2 :;2 :;3 33 34 :;4 35 36 36 36 36 38 38 38 40 40 40 41 42 42 43 44 44 44 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 48 48 48 52 53 53 55 56 58 58 58 58 59 61 61 61 61

6.9

S-R r Propellant 6.9.1 6.9.2 6.9.3

Propellant Mass System Response PU System

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

Command

6. l0 6. It SECTION VII.

S-IV Hydraulic Ullage Rocket AND

System .......................................... Performance ....................................... ...........................................

GUIDANCE 7.1 7.2 7. :l

CONTROL

Summa_................................................... System Description ............................................. Control 7.3.1 Amalysis SI Stage 7.3.1. i 7.3.1.2 7.3. 7.3. t. 3 l. 4 .............................................. Flight Pitch Control ................................... Plane ..................................... ......................................

YawPiane

Control Design Parameters .......................... Roll Plane ......................................

7.4

7. "L 2 S-D,' Stage Flight Control ................................... Functional Analysis ............................................ 7.4.1 Control Sensors ......................................... 7.4.1.1 Control Aeeeierometers ............................ 7.4.1.2 7.4.1.3 7.4. t. 4 7.4.2 Resolver Angle-of-Attack Sensors ............................ Rate Gyros ..................................... Control Acceleration Switch .......................... Chain Error Comparison ............................

7.5

7.4.3 Flight Control Computer and Actuator Analysis .................... Propellant Sloshing ............................................ 7.5. i 7.5.2 S-[ Powered S-i3, Powered r Flight Propellant Slosh ........................... Flight Propellant Slosh ..........................

7.6

Guidance System Performance ..................................... 7.6. t Gui(k'InceIntelligence Errors ................................ 7.6.2 Guidance System Performance Comparisons ...................... Guidance System llardware ....................................... 7.7. I Guidance Signal Processor and Digital Computer Analysis ............ 7.7.2 ST-t24 Stabilized Platiorm System Ilardware Analysis ............... ST-t24 Gas Bearing Supply System .................................. .................................................... ................................................... Dyn.'_|nics Translatiomfl Anbndar ........................................... Motion ..................................... .........................................

7.7

7.8 SECTION VIII.

SEPARATION 8. I 8.2 Summary. Separation 8.2. t 8.2.2

Motion

SECTION

IX.

STRUCTLrRES 9. i 9.2 Summary Results 9.2. t

..................................................... ................................................... During S-I Powered Flight .................................. Moments and Nornml Load Factors ............................

iv

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(Cont'd) Page

9.2.1. 9.2.1.2 9.2.2

Calculated Measured

Values Values

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

61 61 62 62 62 63 63 63 64 64 64 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 69 69 69 ....................... 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 7 75 75 76 76 77 77 77 78

Longitudinal Loads ....................................... 9.2.2. i A ceelerometer Data ............................... 9.2.2.2 Strain Data ..................................... Bending 9.2.3.1 Oscillations ...................................... Body Bending ...................................

9.2.3

9.2.4

9.2.3.2 Fin Bending ..................................... S-I Vibrations .......................................... 9.2.4.1 Structural Measurements ............................ 9.2.4.2 Engine Measurements .............................. ........................... ........................... 9.2.4.3 Component Measurements S-IV Vibrations ......................................... 9.2.5. i Structural Measurements 9.2.5.2 Engine Measurements 9.2.5.3 Instrument 9.2.6. l 9.2.6.2 Pegasus Structural 9.2.8.1 9.2.8.2 9.2.8.3 9.2.8.4

9.2.5

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

9.2.6

Component Measurements ........................... Unit Vibrations .................................. Structural Measurements ........................... Component Vibrations Acoustics S-I Stage S-IV Stage Instrument Apollo Measurements ....................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... Unit .................................. .................................. ...........................

9.2.7 9.2.8

Adapter

9.3

Results 9.3.1 9.3.2 9.3.3

During S-IV Powered Flight ................................ S-IV Loads ............................................ S-IV Bending ........................................... S-IV Vibrations During S-IV Powered Flight ...................... 9.3.3. I Structural Measurements ............................ 9.3.3.2 Engine Measurements .............................. 9.3.3.3 Instrument Pegasus Component Measurements ........................... Unit Vibrations .................................. Vibrations TEMPERATURES ....................................... AND PRESSURES

9.3.4 9.3.5 SECTION X. ENVIRONMENTAL 10.1 10.2

Summary .................................................. S-IStage Em, lronment .......................................... 10.2.1 Surface Pressures ....................................... 10.2.2 S-I Stage Skin Temperatures and Heating Rates .................... 10.2.3 Base Pressures ......................................... tO. 2.4 Base Temperatures ...................................... ...................................... Em, ironment ............................ 10.2.5 Base Heating Rates i0.2.6 Engine Compartment

10.3

19.2.7 S-I/S-IV Interstage Pressures ............................... S-IV Stage Environment ......................................... 10.3. l Surface Pressures 10.3.2 Base Temperatures and Temperatures ...................................... and Pressure .......................... ......................

10.4

Equipment I0.4.1 10. 4.2

Temperature

Environment

S-I Stage Instrument

Instrument Compartments Unit .........................................

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

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(Coat'd) ]_age

SECTION

XI.

VEHICLE 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4

ELECTRICAL Summary S-I Stage S-IV Stage IU Stage

SYSTEM

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

_0 _0 St} 50 st R2 _2 $2 _2 _:l ,_'_ _3 _:,' S3 s:_ _3 _:_ s2 8:1 s:_ 83 't3 85 85 _5 _5 _5 s6 :_6 .s6 _6 57 s7 ._7

. ............................................ Electrical System .................................. Electrical System System ................................. ................................... Electrical

SECTION

XI1.

AERODYNAMICS 12.1 12.2 12. :;

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

Sunlmary .............................................. Fin Pressure Distribution ................................... Drag ................................................. ........................................... .............................................. Measuring Analysis S-I Measurement S-I Measuring ................................. Malfunctions ......................... ............................ ................................ Malfuneti<ms ........................ Reliability . ........................

SECTION

XIII.

INSTRUMENTATION I:L 1 l'l. 2 Summary S-I Stage 13.2.1 13.2.2 1,2.3

Reliability

S-IV Stage Measuring Analysis 13.3.1 S-IV Measurement 13.3.2 S-lq Measurement IU Stage 13.4.1 13.4.2 Airborne 1:;. 5.1 13.5.2 13.5.3

i:L 4

Measuring Analysis ................................. IU Measurement Malfunctions ......................... Measuring Telemetry Telemetry Reliability Systems Links ............................... ................................. ..................................

13.5

Data Acquisition .................................. Calibration ...................................... Tape Recorders ................................... S-1 Recorder ..................................... S-IV Recorder IU Recorder .................................... ..................................... ...................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ....................................... ..................................... Summary ........................ and Telemetry

13.6

Airbornc 13.6.1 13.6.2 13.6.3

13.7

RF Systems Analysis I:L 7.1 Tclenmtry 13.7.2 13.7.3 i'L 7.4 Tracking Television Command Instl'umentation Tracking

13.8 13.9 SECTION KW.

Optical Orl)itat

_s _l} s9 _u ,_9 79 ................ _)1 !_2 93

PEGASUS 14.1 14.2 14.3

A ................................................. .............................................. A Performance .................................... Altitude .......................................... Vehicle Altitude in Orbit ............................. Performance

Summa_" Pegasus Orbital 14.3.1 14.3.2 Pegasus Pegasus

14.4 14.5 SECTION X_,'.

Nonpropulsive Venting System Operation ........................................ Television Covel-age AND

................................. DEVIATIONS .......................

SL_IMARY

OF _X'L_LFUNCTIONS

94

TA BL E OF

CONTENTS

(Coi_cludedJ Page

:YPP I':NDIX

............................................................. A. I Summary ................................................... A. 2 S-I .Stage ................................................... A. 3 S-IV Stage ....................................... A.4 Instrument Unit .............................................. A. 5 Payload .................................................... A.6 Pegasus A Satcl]ite............................................ .........

95 95 95 95 96 96 96 I02 i03

REFERENCES INDEX

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

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

vii

LIST Figure 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 Vehicle Vehicle S-I S-F Earth Total Mass, Mass, Center Center

OF

ILLUSTRATIONS Title Page" Moment Moment of Inertia of Inertia ................ ................ 9 9 13 13 13 14

of Gravity', of Gravity,

and Mass and Mass

Trajectory Trajectory Fixed Inertial

................................................ ............................................... Velocity ............................................ .......................................

Acceleration

5-5 5-6 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 6-16 6-17 6-1_ 6-19

Maeh Booster

Number

and

Dynamic Ground Thrust

Pressure Track

................................ ................................... ................................... Impulse .........................

15 16 17 17 18 18 19

Trajectory Engine Longitudinal Mixture Outboard Simulation

Individual Vehicle Vehicle Typical Flight

Buildup

Thrust

and Specific Flowrate Decay

Ratio

and Total Thrust

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

Engine Results

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

......................................... S-I Engine Stability and lligh Performance Parameters .................

Deviations Engine Gas

in Individual 3 Ignition

20 20

Combustion Tank

................................ Pressure Spheres .....................

Pressure Gas

in Fuel Pressure

22 22

LOX Tank GNz Supply LOX/SOX llydraulie Typical Total

......................................... Control Pressure ............................

and Rebqilated System Oil Operation

23 25

....................................... Level, and Temperature Chamber (Engine Propulsion Pressure ........................ ......................

Pressure, Rocket

25 26 28 ................. 30 :_l 31 31 32

Retro S-IV

Combustion

Stage

Performance Stage

Analysis) Systems

......................... Performance

Comparison Individual S-IV S-IV Engine Stage

of S-IV Engine Cutoff Fuel Inlet

Start

Trunsients

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

Transients Ullage

Tank

Pressure

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

LII 2 Pump

Parameters

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

viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 6=20 6-21 6-22 6-23 6-24 6-25 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-10 7-11 7-12 7-13 7-14 7-15 7-16 7-17 7-18 7-19 7-20 7-21 S-IV Stage LOX Tank Ullage S-IV Helium Heater Title Pressure

(Cont'd) Page

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

32 33 34 34 36 37 39 41 41 41 42 42 Pal,'amcters ..... 42 42 43

Perlormance

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

LOX Pump Inlet Conditions Cold Helium Typical Ullage Bubbling

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

Performance

Propellant Rocket

Utilization

Valve Post|on

Chamber

Pressure System

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

Guidance Pitch Pitch Pitch

and Control

........................................ Vector Angle ............................ Actuator Stream Post|on ............... ............

Program Altitude

and Pitch Velocity Error, Angular

Rate,

and Average and Free and Average Stream

Plane Wind Velocity" Component Error, Angmlar Rate, and Free

Angle o1 Attack Position

Yaw Altitude

Actuator

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

Yaw Plane Wind Velocity Comparison Roll Attitude

Angle of Attack with Vehicle Design

.................... Control

of SA-9 Control Error, Angular Errors

Parameters Rate,

and Average

Actuator

Position

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

S-IV Stage Attitude Vehicle Pitch Response

.......................................... Guidance Initiation .........................

to Pitch Plane

43 44

and Yaw Control anti Predicted

Acceleromcters

.................................. Chain Error .............................. Flight ....................... ....................

Calculated

Pitch Axis Resolver S-I Powered During Flight

45 47 47 47 4._ 50 ............. - Tracking} . . . 52 52 53 56

Slosh Amplitudes Engine Response

During

to Sloshing

S-I Powered

Root Locus

for S-IV LOX Tank Sloshing Parameters System Error

at 80 Seconds ........................ During S-IV Powered Flight ..............

S-IV LOX aml LII2 Sloshing ST-t24 Inertial Residual Yaw Plane Gas Bearing Stabilized Velocity Inertial Platinrm Component Velocity

Sources

.......................... - Tracking) 3' Analysis

Differences Component Guidance

(Accclcrometer Differences

(Trajectol

Delta Mininmm

Parameters

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

Supply System ..........................................

ix

I,IST

OF

II.I,UST1L\TII)N.N

(Ctmt'tt)

Figure S-| 8-2 ,u-:; ",-4

!}-1

'Fith' St,l)a l'a t[C)ll ,qeqtl L" riot' ............................................ Separatit)n Angldar l}isLtl_ce Velocities Ilurill_
]_t'll(lill:4

P:i.c. .3.......................... ........................... 7j!_ -m '"'

. ...................... t;|

;llld Illt, l't,llltrllta] During B,).ster

\'t,hlcitit.> 8t,par:ttion

S-D,' Altitude
,%\-9 gzt_

Separnti(m
7_|lllllt!llt :llld

....................................
N(tl'lllitl I,(_a(i l':l('l_l

(,)-2 9-:; !1-4 '3-3 9-(i _.1-7 9-8 9-D 9-10 111-1 10- 9 1_1-3 11_-4 It)-5 10-6 IO-7 10-s 10-9 lO-lll t(I-11 111-12 ll)-l;_

Stl.'atla

(,:ltl_t'

]_t.'l|(tillg

MomcJlt

at Stati,m

23. !_ m , :t 12 i_I) I Nt.g, lcctin_4

Ccntel"

"F:HII.) . ,

i;2 li:;

Maximum Axktl Vehicle S-I S-IV

D3 namic

I_.eSl)OnSe

, ..................................... (',,lltt'l" Tanl.) ...............

Lt)ztd at Station Bending.

2:L It nl ( 942 i}_) ( NeRlurtinr4 aml ;\ml)liltl(It's,

_,:; i;_ i; I

greclueneit'_,

I)ilt'h .......................

81atge Vibt'ati,_n._ Vibratioils

............................................ .q-I ,%[atgt, I_owere(I I}ul'ing S-[ I.'li=.ht ......................... l}mvcl't.d l"tiKht .................

])tll'ing

dlt; t;; I_7

[i;strunlcnt [)c_astls S-W Tanl.

l_niL Vil;l'atimL_

St:IRe

V ih FlILiolls ............................................. During S-IV I:_caln .qta;4c l:ait'ing ]{:llt,s P,)_ered l.:li_.ht ........................ ..........................

Vibrations Skirt

d!, 7u -1+

and Spider :\t'r<)tlvllallli(

Pl't.ss_.ll',-s

tilLc'gl'lttt'(I Tcml)eralure S-I Stab;e Ileat Flame

+ I|cztting, [or the

................................ l,cnding I-:d_4c :ltl<l ."4ide Panel ........

COmllal'ist)n Base Gas Pressure

l.arre, u Fin

71 ,1 72 7"

. ........................................ ..................................... .................................... I':(Igc (;zt._ Tclllpt,l';Itut'es l,atc> Rates ............................... ............................... ....................

SIdeld Shiehl

Tt'ml}el_ttures -l'eml)enttures Fill Rcgi(m Trailing Ileating IlcatinR

Gas

]':nRillt' ,qht'_Jud and Ilcat Ileat Shield Shit'h| Illllt'r

7:! 7 7:. 7-I 7 1 75 ;-_

()utt, r Region

I-_llgillt.' .'Shlx)ud Ilealing, glarer' Tail S-[_/ ,%hield T,)tal Shroud Forward

Rntt's

...................................... l_.ates ................................... ...............................

Ileatin.g :tlltl Aft

Pressures

Slalg_' Pl't'._,'_tll'C' I"-I1 _.il'olllllt'lll.

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

LIST Fig-are 10-14" 10-15 10-16 i0-17 11-1 11-2 11-3 12-I i4-1 14-2 14-3 i4-4 A-I A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 S-IV S-IV Stage Stage Surface Base Temperatures Region

OF

ILLUSTRATIONS Title During S-I Stage

(Concluded) Page Flight ..................... 76 77 78 .......................... 78 80 80 and Inverter Voltage ............ 81 a2 90 91 ........................... ........................... 91 92 97 98 99 t00 101

Temperature Ports

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

Instrument Instrument S-I S-IV Stage Stage

Unit Vent

......................................... Tcmpel'atures (Inflight)

Unit Amhicnt Current Current

and Voltage and Voltage

........................................ ....................................... Voltage, Drag Current,

IU Stage Axial SA-9 SA-9

Battel5_

Temperature, and Base

Force Orbital Orbital

Coefficient Rol] Moment Roll Vent Vent Rates

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

.......................................... ............................................ SA-9 SA-9 Configuration Configuration

Nonl)ropulsive Nonpropulsive SA-9 S-I S-IV Vehicle

Systems Systems

Config_l_tion

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

Stage ...................................................... Stage ..................................................... Unit .................................................

Instrument Payload

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

xi

LIST OF TABLES Table l-I :3-I 3-II 4-I 4-II 4-Ill 5-I 5-U 5-IiI 5-1V 6-I 6-H 6-1II 6-IV 6-V 7-I 7-II 7-1II Title Times of Events ................ Prelaonch S-t-9 Vehicle Milestones ................................ Page 3 6 ........................... 7 10 It i2 14 15 16 16 18 27 28 29 35 49 51

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

Propellant Masses

Weights

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

SA-9 Flight Mass

Sequence

Characteristics

Comparison

Cutoff Conditions Significant Booster Insertion Average Retro

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

Events ............................................... Impact Elements ................................................ Comparison ..................................... Parameters ..............................

S-I Stage Propulsion Parameters

Rocket

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

S-IV Stage PropellantConsumption ................................... S-IV-9 Propulsion System Performance ................................ Propellant Guidance Comparison Mass History .......................................... ....................................... Velocities ............................. Cutoff (621. 659 Seconds

Intelligence of Inertial

Errors

Guidance

Comparison of Space Fixed Velocities at S-IV Guidance Range Time) .................................................. Comparison of Guidance Parameters Time) ...................................................... S-I Stage Maximum Vibration Instrument Measurement Nonpropulsive Summary Bending Moment at Orbital Insertion

53 (631,659 Seconds Range 54

7-IV

9-I 9-If t0-I 13-I i4-I

Data ...............................

62 65

.............................................. Temperatures ..............................

Unit Component Malfunctions

79 84 93

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

Vent Performance

xii

ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation AGC BP CDR CM CO CSM DDAS DOD EB W E.F. EMF EMR ESE ETR GLOTRAC GSE IECO IETD IGM [p LES LOS LOX MISTRAM MOTS ms MSFN MSL NORAD NPSH NPV OECO OETD PAFB PAM PCM PDM PRA PU RC RCS RPS RSS SAO SCM SM SOX STADAN T/M uSA U.T. VCO

AND SYMBOLS Definition Automatic Gain Control Boilerplate Command Destruct Receiver Command Module Cutoff Combustion Stability Monitor Digital Data Acquisition System Department of Defense Exploding B ridgewire Earth Fixed ElectroMotive Force Engine Mixture Ratio Electrical Support Equipment Eastern Test Range Global Trackinl_ System Ground Support Equipment Inboard Engine Cutoff Inboard Engine Thrust Decay Iterative Guidance Mode Impact Position Launch Escape System Loss of Signal Liquid Oxygen Missile Trajectory Measurement System Minitrack Optical Trackil_; Station Milliseconds Manned Space Flight Network Main Structure Level North American Air Defense Command Net Positive Suction Itead Nonpropulslve Vent Outboard Engine Cutoff Outboard Engine Thrust Decay Patrick Air Force Base Pulse Amplitude Modulated Pulse Code Modulated Pulse Duration Modulated Patrick Air Force Base, 1963 ReferenceAtmosphere Propellant utilization Rough Combustion Reaction Control System Repeated Pressure Surges Range Safety Signal Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory StandardCubic Meter ServiceModule SolidOxygen Space Trucking and Data Acquisition Network Telemetry Umbilical Swing Arm Universal Time Voltage Controlled Oscillator

xiii

CONVERSION INTERNATI()NAL

FACTOI{S OF

TO UNITS (H: lb_;o

SYSTI-'M

Paixt meter acceleration area barometer (lensity energ3" mass force heating impulse lengl.h rate flow rate pressure

MuLtiply [t/s 2 in 2 robs _lug/ft Btu lb s/it Ill

/ _

By _. 04_,x10 ft. 4516x10 t. 00xl0 3 5.15:17_1 -1 (exact) -4 (exact) " (exact) _5x102 ehemical_

To Obtait. m..'s z Ill 2 , , cmi,:4 qn 2 watt-s k_'_ N ( Newt, hi (tht'rmal 'ht'l_li('al) xxatt, cnv N-s m m I_ N -m -I N-m k;4 -m2 0 -4 0 -I -3 kw N :('m z N clu _" N ,cm :_ o -1 *K m/s m3

1. 0542_50:_x10 _"(thernla| 4.5:'59237x10 4.44S2211;15

,) ,p

-t (exact)

Btu, lb-s It in

ft"-s

l.t.

4sJ.,t

4.4-I _;221 li 15 :;. (}-lhxll} -I (exact) 2.54xt0 -2 (exact) -t (exact)

mass noment

ll) s2/ft lb-[t ll)-in

4.5:;592:'7x10 1. 355S17948 1. 129_4829x10 2 1..q55_17948 2.92_7508xl (;..,i94757293xl 4. 788025898x10 1. 57087468x102 5. 555555556x1 :,_. 048xlU

uoment Jower )rcssure

of inertia

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

specific

weight

lb/ft

tempex,'ature velocity volume

* F+459.67 ft/s ft 3

-t (exact) 0 -2 (exact)

2.8:116,_46592xl

NOTE:

go = 9. 80665

m/s t (exact)

xiv

GEORGE

C. MARSHALL

SPACE

FLIGIIT

CENTER

M PR-SA

"F-FE -66 -4

RESULTS

OF

TIlE

EIGIITll By Saturn

SATURN Flight

I LAUNCII Evaluation

VEHICLE Working

TEST

FLIGIIT

SA-.q

Group

SI'CTION

I.

FLIGtlT

TEST

SL_IMARY

1.1

FLIGIIT Saturn

TEST launch

RESULTS vehicle SA.-9, first fourth operational of the Block

sion systems was satislaetory ft_r the SA-9 flight SA-'_ was tile lourlh Saturn vehicle to employ II-1 ongincs at a thrust level of S36,000 N ( 18S, 000 lbfi tu powerthe flightofthe The avcraged 0.6 S-I stage. SA-!t also represented to powL, r tile the fourth RLIlIA-:; vehicle hetween (sea engines S-IX' stage. stage and I)rc-

II series was The

vehicles

and

the

vehicle, 16, 1!165. to launch a a complete

launeht_'d at 9:37 AM EST, Fel,ruary flight test was the first in a series satellite with all (Pegasus A) and luissions achieved, was

Pegasus stleeess

longitudirml 0.4 percent level

thlnast of the S-I (engine analysis) hibd)er than

percent

simulation)

SA-9 waslhefourthvchielclaunchedfrtnutromplex :/7B, Eastern Test Range (ETR). Cape Kennedy, Florida, anti represents tile third launch of a Saturn/ Apollo configuration. The countdown that lasted hold came of SA-9 was interrupted hy and 37 minutes. and lasted indicated chargedand two holds Tile first a total of 1 hour at T-S0 minutes monitoring B bat(el was 3,

dieted, Vehicle specific impulse avel_lge(I 0.2 percent higher than predicted, as indicated by both S-I engine analysis and flight simulation. The vehicle longitudinalthrust 0.08 percent simulation) uf the S-R" stage avez_gcd between (engine analysis) above predicted. from (flight of all test. performancc of file SA-9 g_ittanee and and 0.5 percent (flight Tile specific impulse (engine below was almlysis) predicted. as expected

for 30 minotes. At thi_ time, possible malfunctioning in tile (ff the reehargcd Pegasus. toverify The proper battery

deviationavelnlgctl to 0.14 percent Tile performance flight overall for the The

0.2_ percent simulation) subsystems

ehargingcircuit

disof the

operation

batter3' control eircuit. Since this procedure 30 minutes, it was decided to utilize the 30-minute originally was called built-in planned at T-26

required preplanned

hold at this time rather than as at T-30 minutes. The second hold minutes anti lasted for 1 hour anti resulted flight from safety a power computer. failure Tile normally

eontrol system was togetherwith control rate control for aecomlllishod controlhlopfrom

satisfactols'. rate _,_-ros, stages.

The ST-124 system, provided attitude and Partial load relief was active in the Vehieleresl)onse

both

7 minutes. This hold to tile ETR real-time eountwasresumcdatg:ll through liftoff, As,_ resultofhighS-I the actual flight path

by control accelerometers 35 to 100 seconds.

ESTandprocceded

to all sigllals was properly executed including roll maneuver, pitch l)rog_m, and path gui(lance during the S-IV stage flight. During tile counterclockwise r011 created moment, by the the S-I unbalanced turl)inc exhaust aerodynamic ducts caused forces a roll

and of SA-9

S-IX" stageperformanec, deviated front nominal,

The total earth fixed velocity was :;5.4 nl/s higher than nominal at oft(board engine cutoff (OECO) anti 0.5 m/s lower than nominal at S-IX r cutoff. At S-IV eutoffthealtitudcwas 0.34 km lower than nominal anti file rangewas range at S-IV (S-IV velocity cutoff. cutoff 19.16 The kmless 0.9 S-IV than nominal. m/s payload to the left at orbital fixed Tile (.'rossdeviate(I + 10 see) of nominal insertion 0.:] velocity

attitude error of -1.7 degrees near 56 seconds. An exteinaal (nose (Iox_al) pitch moment similar to that of SA-7, xvifll a maximum value of 670,000 N-m at 70 seconds and an cxtt, rnal yaw molncnt (n_bst. left) with a nlaxinlilnl requircdto during value simtdatc stage of 2711, 000 N-Ill thcSA-'Jflight flight. at 7(I set'cuds, control pur:m)eters was

the S-I

had a space

m;'s less than nominal, yielding a perigee altitude of 4!)6.5 km and an apogee altitude o1 745. II kin. Estimatedlifetimewas 11_8 clays, 62 daysle_s than nomihal. The perlormancc of hoth the S-I and S-Iv" propul-

Sel)arationwas executed smoothly with small controldeviations. Thevehielcattitudecrrorsan(langldar rates were well helow tlesii_n values. First motion [)ctwecll stages Wits ol_st.l_-cd with[ll 0.07 .%t.eond (if Scl)aration ciJniu/and and the S-IX r stagc clcared the

interstagc O.01 second later than predicted, relative lethe observed first motion time. The two stages had separated by 10.6 m at S-l_ 7 ignition, which is 7.6 m greater than the specified minimum design requirement of 3 meters. Path g_idance was initiated 17.5 seconds after separation. Performance of the adaptive guidance mode in the pitch plane and delta minimum in yaw achieved satisfactory insertion conditions. The total measured ST-L24 guidance system space fixedvelocity at S-D/cutoff_s 7678.98 m/s (7679.0 m/s was programmcd for vcloci_, cutoff). The total velocity at cutoff from tracking was 7678.5 m/s. The SA-9 vehicle experienced maxinmm bending in the yaw plane at approximately 64.1 seconds. A maxinmm static momeetof 1,125,000 N-mwasexperlenced at station 23.9 m. The structural flight loads on SA-9 were generally as expected and no Pogo effects were apparent, The vibrations observed on SA-9 were all within the expected levels and compared well with those of SA-7. The coafig_aration of the SA-9 Instrument Unit (IU) was changed. As a result the IU vibration levels during flight were somewhat higher than those experienced in the SA-7 flight. Ilowever, this increase was expected,

airborne tape recorders (one in the S-l, one in the IU, andone in the S-IV stage) was very satisfactory. The playback records were free of attenuation effects caused by the retro and ullage rockets. Main engine flame attenuation was less severe than on SA-7 andretrorueketeffeetsweregreatlyimproved over previous flights because of higher altitude at separation. The photo/optical instrumentation system consisted of 96 cameras that provided fair quality eoverage. Onlyfourof the cameras provided unusable data. The Pegasus A spacecraft performance was highly satisfactory. At approximately 631.66 seconds, the S-IVstage, Instrument Unit, Apollo shroud, and Pegasus wereinsertedintoorbitwithnoappreeiable pitch, yaw, or roll rate. Pegasus wing deployment _as successful and all spacecraft systems operated properly. After wing deployment, a roll rate started to build up and reached a maximum of 9.8 deg/s at the end of GOX venting. This is believed caused hy the venting COX impinging on the Peg'asus wings. I. 2 TEST OBJECTIVES Demonstrate the functional operations of meteoroid technol_d3, satellite mechanical, and electronic subsystems - Achieved Evaluate meteoroid - Achieved data sampling in near

1. the Pegasus struetural, 2. orbit

Measuredpressureandtemperatareenvironments onthe S-I-9and S-IV-9 stages were generally similar, or less see ere, than those measured on prey lous Saturn I, Block Ilvehicles. The integrated aerodynamic heating rate was approximately 27 percent lower than that observed on previous flights. This decrease is attrihuted to the steeper trajectory flown by SA-9. SA-9wasthe first of the Block II vehicles to fly a prototype model of the production Instrument Unit. This IUis environmentally controlled during preparations for flight by the ground support equipment, and incorporates no inflight environmental control system. The maximum anti mimimum IZr component temperatures measured prior to and during flight were within allowable operating ranges. The SA-9 electrical systems operated satisfacterily during boost and orbital phases of flight and all mission requirements were met. The power supply to the three rate gyro measurements was a constant 25 amperes for 139 minutes, well exceeding the one-orbit requirement. Overall reliabUity of the SA-9 measuring system was 98.9 percent. Only 16 of the 1244 measurements on the vehicle at liftoff failed. Operation of the three

earth

3. Evaluate closed loop guidance accuracy and demonstrate iterative guidance mode (first flight utilization of iterative guidance scheme) - Achieved 4. Evaluate S-IV/IU/Serviee Module adapter exterior thermal control coating - Achieved 5. Demonstrate S-IV system - Achieved stage nonpropulsive

(SMA)

venting

6. (CM)/SM 7. and passive

Demonstrateboilerplate Command Module separation from S-IV/IU/SI_IA - Achieved Demonstrate redesigned thermal control system unpressurized - Achieved rd

control

8. Demonstrate - Achieved 9. Demonstrate

S-IV propulsion

and vehicle

S-I/S-IV

separation

Achieved 10. Demonstrate - Achieved launch escape system tiES)

jettison

it. control

Demonstrate - Achieved Evaluate

S-I

propulsion

and vehicle

1.3

TIMES OF EVENTS The times ofevents in Table l-I below. for the SA-9 flight are con-

12.

launch

environment

- Achieved

tained

TABLE

1-L

TIMES OF EVENTS

b:veilt

i actual

Time

From Mouo l----

Tirol*From fTi)

Grad.

Tin_" From OECO (TB3)

Time uteri _ CT

From _TIJ4) ....

S-IV

LO Sibrlml

( Umb

Disc}

--

(;uid._nc_.. [:ac-_,cts LO C_aidanc_ Brakes Pitch Computes Hvlca_c'd Commnnd Zero Time /Ti)

[
I

O. 30 O. 32 n 55 a. _;

8.30 0.32 8. 53 _. s5

0 0 0 _. 0l

-~--0 8. 23 _. 54

i I

Hell [Iol] [_)ck

Comimiand Complc_'d Moduh:s

_*. *_7 23. !, 13_. I;

8.86 23 { 3_ _6 .}_

0, Ol O. 04 6.02

--- -

_. 55 2:1. 53 13 _. 32

I_'vc{ ]ECO OECO

Se'nst'

(TB

2)

l:}_. 61l t41L 22 l.iA. 3({

139. |11 l{O 70 146. 70

-0.5if -(I 4_ -]. 14 -I. 10

L39.02 14o.(;2 14_._2

----

-7 GU -6. o0 -0

Computt*r

IN:lectors

OECO

ITD :il

145.60

14(/. 70

....

tillage

P,oekcts

[{,,nil{. Ignition Sihmal

_eparati,)n,'lletro

= 1.16. 32 I 145.42

147. 41 147. 51

-l.

09

.... ....

o. 71 o. _1

-1.09

Open S-iV Signal

S-IV Start

Accumulators Commal_{ IJllage/LES

117

22

148.31 l,t!t. 21 1351.51 163. 8_; 63u. Ol

-1.0!) -1. 0!) -l. 09

.... .... .... .... 629.93 ...... 6:I9. 9:1 ...... .....

1 ;1 "2. 51

{ 1-4_. 12 15_',. 42 163. I Signal CO L'rB 4) 8

to Jettison _idanc.

12. _l 1_. 14 -19.04 o. G!I 0

Introdtlce S-IV

o. 04 -5. 33 -_. 35 -_ :)_*

Guidance _-'nsc

Cutoff S-IV

3_1. ;I; 622.35 (/31 66

Computer [nst_rtion

_30.70 I;40. Ol

Clnse ]_itial

At_iliary l_gaSL_

NP_ _ Ports
E

_o2.40 S_.p.[ _03. 12

tst0.70 _11.70

-_. :tO -8.28

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

t80. 1_1.0

Forward

I{cstraint

I Initiate

Apollo

Shroad

SL.D.

80:1. 5Iii

_1 i. _O

-8.30

......

181.

Energize End Wing

Wing

Deployment

Motors stop)

863.40

871

70

=8.30

......

241

L_ployment

motors

...........

SECTION

II.

L'NTRODUCTION

Saturnlaunch February TestRange, vehicle 16,

vehicle

SA-gwas

latmched

,.)::17 EST,

This

report

is

published

by

tile

Saturn

i.'light

1965, from launch c,mlplcx :;7B, I.:a_t_.rn Cape Kt.tmedy, Florida. _'t-_L the. ,'ia;_t_ flight tested in the Saturn I [ll't,_r;llll, x chich.. The perforlll:llWt'

Evaluation Working Group, comprised tivesfromalltheMarshallSpaceFlightCenter laboratories, John F. Kennedy Space MSFC primeeontructors for the S-I for [lie S-IV stage (l_uglas Aircraft

of represenKa(MSFC) Center (KSC), , tile sh'tge (Cins.sler) Co. ), and for

to be

represents file first S;tturn [ operational major ufission_Jf Ihis test was to ex'al|tl;t|(, of Ulecompletelaunehvehielesystem and to place into orbit tile Peg_tsus nohig) sntt.llite. SA-9 represents'tithe of the lgltln('|l Apolh) rt.hJcle, boilerplate (BP-I_;)

(two live stages) a met('_Jroid techthird flight Lest _ilh tht. Saturn 1

IU stage (11_M), and engine eontraet,_rs {Roeketdyne and Pratt & Whitney) . Therefore, Ule report represents file official MSFC position at this time. This report rep(ll't prove will the not be followed presented by a similarly here part[all)
ho'we_.'er,

integrated shotlld ,lr enthe Ill;13 _,tage or

Ull]eS_ ('(_ntintlef|Iiiitllysis eon('|usion._

or ni'w evi([l_.nee

"this relmrtpresents the results neel'ingevtluationoflheSA-gtestllight.

,_f lhe ('at'l._ ,'n_tI)erform;tn(._ , x_ith special

tirely wronR. lie I)ttl)ltshe(I

Filial[ evaluation l'e|),II't._, liy the .X|SFC lahoratories of tile

and major

of each majorvehie|e system is discussed eml_hasis ell m:llfonetions and deviati,ms,

ontraelx_rs eorering some special stlbjeeis aS require-i|.

aystelnn

SI':CTION llI.

k._UNCII

OPEP_S, TR)NS

3.1

SUMMARY The Saturn launch Ill, vehiele 1965, .%_.-9 w:ls [rt)l_/ launehedat 371], F|erit'[a. minutes I)ln)At

suited

in an

easterly

surface

wind

flow

over

Flori('la.

The trajectory high pressure sufficient eentl_H launch at 9:4o 1. 2. "I. 4. 5.

of file low level center was over

winds water.

produced by this Tile effect was cool air :_nd give ,)[ c'l,)uds at were made

'a::_ EST, Eastern Vehicle (23:25 ceeded

Fehruary

(-oml)lex

to modifya

shallowdometff

Test Range (ETR), countdown opel_ttion_ EST, Fel)ln.tary 15, in normal sequence

Cape K_.nnedy, begun at T-515

Florida a low scattered layer time. The folh)wing ohsel_-ations EST at Cape Kennedy. - 1024.4 mean sealevel

t965). ()perations until "F-_n minutes.

this time, concern with Ol)el_. tion of the B battery charging circuit on the Pegasus caused an unscheduled hold. charge trol It was decided to discharge it to verify proper opel.-ation This procedure, required the battery and reof the baticl5' cont erification 30 luinutcs. of

Pressure Temperature l)ewpoint Relative Surface degree

CIon(I

in millibars

- 2(.)6.5K - 291.5K humidity - 74 percent (10 knots) from 110-

circuit.

including appr,)ximately

properopel_ltion,

The "_0-minute huld planned for T-:In minute: was taken out of sequence and tJl)erutitms again proccedcd in a normalmanncr ETR real-time hold was until flight q:55 EST. A pt_wer faklure safety coml)uter occurred The coml_ater out; onc h,)ur and procccdcd of the with a

wiud_ - 5.1 mjs azimuth

co_t_,l'a_e -

called at T-26 minutes. reinserted and checked were required at 9:11 EST

i)rogram ant! seven Countdo'_vn normally

6.

on[_.-tent]l

stl_ltoeunlnlus height

minutes

for thi._ i)r,_ccdurc.

with 7.

792

ul (2600 - 16 km

ft)

base mi)

was resumed through liftoff. During curred in

Visibility COUNTDOWN

(9.9

countdown the propellant

ol)erations transfer

a nmlfunction systems _hen

oethe

3.4

LOX replenish tank pressure outatt08.2 N/cm2gauge (157 did notdelay The position loading operations

complete switch dropped psig). This malfunction or halt the countdown,

ed

into

The Saturn/Pegasus two phases, each Part T-545 and

launch countdown is dividperformed at diIferent time

intervals: ccedcd to 545 minutes

I began at T-1035 minutes anti prominutes; Part 171 was initiated at Tcuntinued through launch.

combustion 3 measured

stability monitor on S-I engine acceleration levels in excess of This was deto that expertlaunch of SA-7.

100 Grin s during the ignition sequence. terminedtobean ignition "pop" similar encedatthesamcenginepositiononthe After vehicle Iiftoff, a tents system sepal.'ated at several flooded. sustained IIowever, by ground

Termi_m_l countdown activities began Febtxtary 15, i965, at 21:55 EST following the L-1 day activities. Vehicle countdown operations began at 23:25 EST at r-515 minutes. All operations were normal and tel_owed I)lannedprocedures when the count t_s until T-80 minutes(6:40 EST) halted. At that time monitoring B batte_ 5" chargdecided to (lischal_ge

water

ring in the launch joints. As a result with this exception, support equipment not affect the

thelauneherwas launch damage (GSE) was anticipated 3.2

indicateda possible inalfunctioninthe ingcireuitofthe Pegasus. It was the battel 5. and battery control verification, was decided hold at this recharge circuit.

the lightest SA-8 launch

to date and _'ill schedule, MILESTONI.:S 23, and October A chronological leading to the

it to verify t)l)eration of the This procedure, including

PRELAUNCH Between arrived

required approximately 30 minutes. It to utilize the planned 30-minute built-in time _,'ather than at T-30 minutes. The ESTand all operations were EST when the ETR real-time a power failure. (8:04 EST), and The reinsertion A the

stages

October at KSC.

30, 1964, sumamry launch

all of

eountwas resumed atT:t0 again normal until 7:55

events anti preparations is shown in Tahle 3-I. 3.3 ATMOSPIIERIC A high pressure

of SA-9

fligl_t safety computer experienced hold was called at T-26 minutes computer program was reinserted. a_fleheekout countdown reqniredonehour was resumed tl_r(xtgh li[toffat

CONDITIONS center in North Carolina re-

and sevcnminutes. The at 9:11 EST and proceeded .q:37 EST, Feinxml5 16, 1965.

normally

TABLE

3-I.

PRELAUNCH

MILESTONES

Date October October November November November ,November 23, 30, 3, 1964 1964 1964 S-IV arrived via aircraft arrived

Event and off-loaded at Hangar to Hanger AF dock A F. area and off-loaded.

S-I and IU-9 S-I erected S-I umbilical S-1 power

via barge

and secured. connected.

1O, 1964 12. 13, 1964 1964

applied. _dule and adapter arrived via aircraft and

Apollo Spacecraft Service off-loaded to Hanger AF. S-IV S-IV Power and 1U erected. umbilical applied connected. to ]U. completed

November November November November November December December December December Dt.cember December December January Januat-y January January January 5. 12, 13, 14,

19, 20. 23. 24. 25. 8, 14, 16, 17, 21. 29, 30,

1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964

S-I ftF cheeks Power applied

to S-IV stage. completed. of S-IV, IU. and S-I completed Test completed. test Test completed. completed and power applied.

IU RF cheeks Electrical S-I/1U Launch Launch Pegastls Pegasus

mate

Power-Trans[er vehicle Sequence

EBW functional Mal[unction arrived checkout

A (payloadl A hangar

via aircraft. started.

1965 1965 1965 1965 1965

ST-124 ilLstalled. Pegasus Pegasus Command Pegasus A hangar A erected module A e[ectrical checks completed. vehicle. vehicle, vehicle completed.

on launch erected mate

on launch

15,

with launch

January 21, 1965 Jauna_" January Fcbruat'r February PebruatT February Februar3, 22. 25. 1965 1965

Space vehicle EBW Space Plug vehicle

ftmctionaltest completed. completed. Overall Test completed.

RF checks

Drop and Swing Arm Ordnance Overall

+ 1. 1965 5, t965

S-I/S-IV All

Installations Test

completed.

_.stems

completed. Test completed.

12, 1965 15, 16 1.65 1965

Countdown D_.monstration Terminal LAUNCII countdown started.

3.5 3.5.1

PROPELLANT S-I STAGE

LOADING

loading system (+0.010 reconstructed fuel weight

percent deviation) and file ( -0. 024 percent deviation).

TheS-Ipropellantloadingsystemisdesigned to tank accurately a given weight of LOX and fuel. The designgoalofthe system is :e O. 25 percent of the total propellant load. The propellants required to achieve mission objectives are based on propulsion performance obtained from simulated flight predictions, The propellant weights at tabulated in Table 3-II. The agreementbetweenthepredicted of launch with both the weight TABLE ignition command are table shows excellent fuel weight on the day indicated by the fuel S-I-9 PROPELLANT

The LOX weight indieatedby the LOX loading systemwas approximately 1159 kg (2555 ibm) more than the reconstructed LOX weight. LOX temperatures at ignition and during flight were slightly warmer than thel)redietedtemperaturesusedin generating the LOX loading data. The higher teml)el,'atures account for approximately 227 kg (500 Ibm) of the 1159 kg (2555 Ibm) difference between the reconstructed and LOX loadingsystemweights. Itowever, the effective weight deviationiswithinthe tolerance of tile loading system. Reconstructed weights are consideredthe bestestimate of the actual prol)ellant load. WEIGHTS AT IGNITION COMMAND

3-[I.

Predicted Propellant Prelaunch Day (1) 273,881 124,614 398,495 603,804 274,728 878,532 Launch Day (2) 274,074 124,429 398,503 604,229 274,320 878,549

Actual KSC-LOC (3) 273,894 124,442 398,335 603,832 274,347 878,179 Reconstructed (4) 272,734 124,400 397. 134 601,277 274,254 875,531

Deviation KSC-LOC Dcv % Dev -180 13 -168 -397 - 27 -370 -0. 066 0. 010 -0. 042 -0. 066 0. 010 -0. 042

(5) Reconstructed Dev % Dev -1339 29 -1369 -2952 - 66 -3018 -0. 488 -0. 024 -0. 343 -0. 488 -0. 024 -0. 343

LOX (kg) Fuel {kg) Total (kg) LOX (Ibm) Fuel (Ibm) Total (Ibm}

(1)

Prelaunch day predicted propellant weights were based on an average LOX density (70.55 lbm/ft 3) and an average fuel density of 811.66 kg/m 3 (50.67 lbm/ft 3) , weights were based on an average LOX density fuel density of 811.66 kg/m 3 ( 50.67 Ibm/ft 3) . are based on loading system pressure values

of t 1.q0.10 kg/m 3

{2) Launch day predicted propellant (70.55 lbm/ft 3) and an average (3) KSC-LOC launch. propellant weights

of i l.q0. l0 kg/m 3

immediately

prior

to

(4) (5) 3.5.2

Reconstructed

propellant

weights are based on the Mark IV reconstruction to launch day predicted (PU) weights. system indicated

and discrete

probe data.

Weight deviations S-1VSTAGE

are referenced

LOX load

of

38,07fi

kg

The oxidizer system was successfully loaded with LOX by cooling down and filling in two phases: rmlin fill and replenish. The automatic LOX loading system ineonjunctionwith the LOX main fill pump was successfully utilized for loading the LOX tank. S-IV stage LOX system precool was initiated by starting the precool timer 5 hours, 19 minutes prior tolfftoff. At the beginning of the 150-second automatic count, the LOXtank was pressurized and final replenishment was completed. The propellant utilization

(83,947 Ibm) at this time. The best estimate o[ the LOXloadedis38, 064 kg (83,917 Ibm). This estimate was determined from a combination of PU system analysis, engine analysis, and flight simulation. The fuel system was satisfactorily loaded with LIf2 by cooling down and filling in four stages: initial fill, mainfill, replenish, and redueedreplenish. The automatic fuel loading system was successfully utilized for loading the LH2 tank. Loading of LH 2 into the S-IV stage was initiated 2 hours, 5 minutes prior to liftoff.

At the beginning of the 150-second automatic count, the fuel load indicated by the PU system was 7774 kg (17,138 Ibm). As in the ease of LOX, the best estinmte of the fuel loaded was determined from a eombinationof results from the PU system analysis, engine analysis, and flight simulation. The best estimate of the fuel loaded is 7757 kg ( 17, 1Ol Ibm). Prior to the initiation of LI-I2 loading, the cold helium spheres were prepressurized to 620.5 N/era 2 (900 psi) to prevent tile spheres from collapsing as they cooled during the initial part of LH2 loading. Cold helium loading was initiated approximately t 22 minutes before launch. After the spheres were submerged at approximately the I3-I2 75-percent mass level, the pressure was increased to, and maintained at 2068 N/cm 2 (3000 psi). The design load temperature of 23.3"K at a pressure of approximately 2068 N/era 2 (3000 psi), was reached 59 minutes after the start of LH2 loading. At liftoff, the spheres were charged to 2096 N/cm 2 (3040 psi) at 20.8"K. 3.5.3 LOADING SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONS

The fire detection system operated with no temperature rise indicated.

satisfactorily

The launch control center (LCC) recorder system operation was satisfaetolT with no discrepancies or failures occurring. 3.7 GROUND SUPPORT EQUIt_IENT been light exception

Launch damage at LC 37B has always andthatcausedbythelaunchofSA-9, withthe of water damage, was the lightest to date.

DuringoperationoI the launch _ter system after vehicle liftoff, the northeastern terns ring separated atseveraljointsandfloodedtheiaterierofthclauncher, the launcher automatic ground control station (AGCS) bridge, and AGCS levels to a lesser degree. The electrical support equipment (ESE) also reeeived extensive water damage shortly after liftoff. Several cables and distributors in the launcher and in the pneumatic control distribution room in the AGCS were damaged and required dtTing or replacement. No impact on SA-8 schedule is anticipated. The Lll 2 tack vent on umbilical swing arm (USA) 3 disconnected properly, and did not require the hydraalie lanyard backup, This backup was utilized during the SA-7 launch. Theventingaiterliftoff of the S-IV LOX umbilical drain lines, as observed during the 8A-7 launch, deeurred again. The venting is not considered detrimental to the stage, facility, or systems. 3.8 BLOCKHOUSE REDLINE VALUES

Only one malfunction occurred in the propellast transfer systems. Automatic replenish of both the S-I and S-IV stages was interrupted when the replenish tank pressure complete sensing switch opened at 108.2 N/era 2 gauge ( i57 psig), causing the system to revert to a storage tanks pressurized complete status, This nmlfunction was caused by the inabilit3' of the replenish tank pressurization system to nmintainthe combined S-I and S-IV replenish requirements. The condition was further aggrevated by an initially small replenish tank ullage volume { replenish tank topped to 28,000 gallonspriortostart el sequence). The pressure switchwas overridden and S-l/S-IV LOX relJlenish was reinitiated satisfactorily. This malfunction didnotdelay loading operations or halt the countdown. 3.6 HOLDDOWN combustion stability monitor on acceleration level greater than S-I ignition sequence. This is Section VI, Propulsion.

The S-I stage engine 3 detected an 100 Grin s during the discussed in detail in

Blockhouse redlinevalues are limits placed on certain critical engine and vehicle parameters to indicare safe ignition and launch conditions. The measurements are monitored in the blockhouse during countdown. These specified limits apply to parameters whlchmeasureareasof the propulsion system critical to its operation. No holds were necessary because of redline limits being exceeded.

SECTION 1 I-. VEHICLE MASS

IV.

MASS

CHARACTERISTICS 4.2 VEHICLE AND CENTER OF OF GtL4VITY INERTIA of gravity and given in Table l)lottcd versus

MOMENTS

(1, tt0,

The total vehicle mass wa._ 941 Ibm) at first motion, 61,823 ignition, inorbit

507,, 9t4 kg kg (i36,296

roll

and

Longitudinal and pitch moments

radial center of inertia are (and mass) are 4-1 and 4-2.

ll)m) at S-IV (22,700 lbm)

and al)l)roximately 10,300 kg (dry weight after Apollo sel)ara-

4-IIl. The pat.'ameters burning time in Figqtres

tion). Table 4-I is abreakdownof vehicle mass during significant flight events. A flight sequence sumnmr 3, is given in Table 4-II. scntcd in this section The predicted mass data preare derived from Reference 1. " " ' I ,

total amotmt down to and based including tht_ best the engines. The S-I'V propellant masses sktge onin the lz_l)les estimate, to The masses arepresented refer which is a composite simulation analysis. of engine, PU system, and flight

_"_. _ "_- ---._3//"

//_

".

j.....

I
!

"
I L

i '

l
I !

:
/

__

i
s-iv F., :... ,

FIGURE

4-1. VEIIICLEMASS, AND MASS MOMENT

CENTEROF GRAVITY, OF INERTIA

FIGURE

4-2. VEtlICLE 5L3_SS, CENTEROF GRAVITY, AND MASS MOMENT OF INERTIA

TABLE

4-L

VEHICLE MASSES

Io

TABLE

4-1I.

SA-9

FLIGHT

SEQUENCE

MASS

SUMMARY

MASS H1STORY kg S-L Stage _ Ground Ignition S-l/S-IV Interstage _ Ground Ignition S-IV Stage @ Ground Ignition Vehicle Instrument Unit C_ Gro.nd Ignition Payload _ Ground Ignition Ist Flight S-I Thrust ist Flight Stage _ Ground Ignition

ACTUAL (Ibm) (84,8n6 2,413 116,075 2,677 18,671 1,124.602 -13,661 1.110,941 -847,746 -I,000 -552 -32 -134 -379 -2.092 -273 -I18 -306 -IOn -302 257,907 -14 -1.520 -16 -7 -5 O 256.345 -117,766 -2.140 -37 -14 -92 136,296 -99,046 -24 -146 -277 0 -2,842 33,961 -24 -42 33.895 22,782 kg

PREDICTED (lbm) 988,O13 2,382 116.448 2,664 18,730 1,128,237 -13.575 I,I14,662 -8&q,719 -L)OOC -555 -32 -13& -379 -2,107 -273 -96 -224 -90 -302 25c,751 -l& -1.495 -II -4 -8 O 258.219 -119.003 -2.109 -21 -ll -138 136,937 -100.471 -2A -97 -279 -I -2,85A 33.211 -24 -42 33.145

446,741 1,095 52,651 1,214 8.469 5L0,170 -6,197 503,(!73 -384,53l -453 -250 -l& -61 -172 -e49 -124 -59 -137 -45 -137 I17,O40 -6 -690 -8 -3 -2 0 116,33l -53.418 -920 -18 -6 -42 61,877 -44,985 -II -66 -126 0 -1,289 * 15.400 -II -l" 15.370 10,297

448,155 1,O80 52,820 1,208 8,4_6 511,759 -6,157 505.b02 -385,426 -453 -252 -14 -61 -172 -956 -124 -44 -101 -41 -137 117,821 -6 -678 -5 -2 -4 0 117,126 -53.979 -957 -I0 -5 -62 62,113 -45.573 -II -44 -126 -I -1.296 15.O64 -II -I c 15.O34

Buildup Stage

Propellants

_ First Motion

S-I Mainstage Propellants S-I Frost S-1 Fuel Additive S-I [abe Oil (Oronite) S-I N 2 for S-IV Tail Purge S-I Environmental Control S-I IETD Propellants S-I/S-IV Interstate Environmental S-IV Chilldown LOX S-IV Chilldown LH 2 S-IV Frost payload Environmental [st Flight Stage

Control

Control Signal

_ Cutoff

S-I N 2 for S-IV Tail S-10ETD Propellants S-IV Chilldown LOX

P_rge (To Separation)

S-IV Chilldown LH 2 S-IV Ullage Rocket Propellants S-IV Frost Ist Flight Stage _ Separation

S-I Stage _ Separation S-I/S-IV Interstage _ Separation S-IV Chilldown LeE S-IV Chilldown LH 2 S-IV Ullage Rocket Propellants 2rid Flight Stage _ Ignition

S-IV Mainstage Propellants _ S-IV Helim. Hearer Propellants S-IV Ullage Rocket Propellants S-IV Ullage Rocket Cases S-IV Belittm, Pne_atic Launch Escape System 2nd Flight Stage _ Cutoff Signal**

S-IV Thrust Decay Propellants S-IV Propellants Below primp Inlets 2nd Flight Orbital Stage _ End of Thrust (After Decay *_ Sep)

Plight

Stage

Apollo

* Includes Thrust Buildup Propellants (to 90% thrust) *_ Predicted Values are for a Depletion C,,tnff Note: IETD - Inboard OETD - Outboard Engine Engine Thrust Thrust Decay Decay

II

SECTION 5. t SUMMARY

V.

TRAJECTORY :"i,',:,':'
..... i ..,

The nominal

actual

trajectory be.cause

of

SA-9 S-I

deviated and S-IV

from stage
_4i41[ .......

....
I''tJ'lJ'_--_ffi

primarily

o1" high

_ _ "/z _ ,/ q I "

than nominal at outboard engine cutoff (OECO) and 0.5 m/s lower than nominal at S-IV cutoff. At S-IV l_erforman('e. The total veh,citv was :15.4 m/s higher inal, the l_tnge was 19.16 kin less than nominal,and the cross-range velocity deviated 0. !! m/'s to the left of nominal. A theoretical free flight trajectory of the separated

7_ ..... ,L ( _....

,/_ /F/j_,/

S-1 booster indicates that the 21.6 km longer than nominal, tumbling booster 7i8.95 seconds TheS-R + i0 sec) nominal, an apogee llt_8 5.2 days, remained range time.

impact g round range was lI it is assumed that the iutctet, impact occurred at '......... insertion (S-IV cutoff FIGURE 5-2. _..... S-IV TRAJECTORY

r payload

at orbital

had a space fixed velocity 0.3 m/s less than yielding a perigee altitude of 496.5 km and altitude of 745.0 km; estimated lifetime was 62 days less than nominal. WITH NOMINAL _'r_'' _/ - " ,

TRAJECTORY

COMPARISON

Actual and nomiltal altitude, range, and cross range (Ze) are compared graphically in Figure 5-1 for the S-I phase of flight and in Figure 5-2 for the S-IV are shown graphically in Figure 5-3. Comparisons of

i ",.,,: ,_>,_, , . / i i

"

the actual and nominal parameters during the three cutoff events are shown in Table 5-I. The nominal phase . A etalal and nominal tota l earth fixed ve loe itie s trajectory is presented in Reference 2.

._"

"[ /_ /_'fi///

'! i

'

1:o

t_o
_ i.,,[

I .i, ,_l.l,

. ,.

u,,

i_ ....
_i . l!l

_
.....

-_

...........
"'" "/"

2 '/
" /

,_

FIGURE

5-1.

S-I

TRAJECTORY

FIGURE

5-3.

EARTH

FIXED

VELOCITY

13

TABLE

5-I.

CUTOFF

CONDITIONS

|ECO

qJECII

_-Ik

i tp

PARAM ET_R R:tIk_t ['_m- i _t,c) Altltud_* |kin) l_tn_ "{l_la:l Cr,,ss Cl_ss N:ll'_ge. Z | k,l_| Z till's) "

A_'Lu_tl

N..uir_l[

At'_-Num -ql. 4, |._t2 _l'lrl -II. 2:1 -0.1 i.

._,t'taltl

[_l,ml_._[

A't-N_Is:

l_,ctu.'J N,::_a_tl I -\ct-N,Inl _f ;,_.tmcc _:=E_,D

14_t. 22 _0. ll2 I;4"7:; -u. _.2 7.7

t4@. 71) 7-.10 I;4"l/;f o. ol 7._

I
I k !

14_. 56 _!L 115 7.;.nn -D- 1_ 5.5

14_. ? _'7. _J4

-I.14 1. II

'
"_.t, II- 1_ _,.-, -|.i.'I -- 24 o. 1,

'
1 i i

,__'I 1_,%t_ 4'qL 71_

,: :,_.lPl _ll'l_-117 -I'- 14

1
_ |_;T.*:[ J'1% _':: -"25 I , ;_._'1;.2_ _ |_-_..-5

i
-I!a.l _I

N_ttlg_ *t'elo_tt_.

-cl._ .

F:arl_

FLxed Vehx-lk_

imp5|

2_i.!,

250,i.'_

5i,.2

21_!;._

_111_2.4 i

:15.4

i "_27,4.-_ r

72.-,_._ _

-IL5

[-];_.v;tt J_n Idcg} Earth Azim_ Space FixedVeh'tty I drg| Vec|or t0Y,.4t_ 1115 41

'
-,.l_l I 2_;75.1 Ira.% 11 Time. ,nf _.0_ _'c. N_te: 2_"27,4 n 3111b._ 'l i 1O5.4_P I_ 5(

i
114.:_4 114 41 -_'.'_T

! ]

-_._t

I"ixel _.'el_cit_* (ms_ ArcNeratioa M_ti_ll

[ -',._1_ [

LT_,Ial Inertial Based

on First

Ea rth tixe,t _elocity :tccuracy at OE('I) i_ = 0.:1 m/_; at S-I_" C( 1. * _. -, IlL"_. Ahitudc Aecur'ae_ at OECll IS t 21_ m at S-IV CO. _ II1(1 w_.

Altitudeand range were greater than nominal during S-I and S-IV burn. The actual earth fixed velocity was 35.4 m/s greater than nominal at OECO. This excess velocity can be attributed to high performance and light liftoff weight of the S-I stage. The longitu-

_,_,__................... -: I _ ! I i _ ,_,, i

_ ,:) ': ,: ' _" _._' o_ " v " !i _ i i ] I i '_. , i i

dinal acceleration was higher Ahan nominal for the entire S-I and S-IV stage operation (Fig. 5-4) " The S-IV stage cut off 8.35 seconds earlier than nominal with a 1.14-second early S-I stage cutoff. This resulted in a 7.2t-second shorter burning time of the S-IV S-IV cutoff signal total spacethe guidance The actual given by fixed velocity at the stage. computer (621. 659 see) was 0.5 m/s less than nomitrajectory, which matches the velocity at insertion deduced from orbital tracking. High S-IV stage thrust and flowrate and a light S-IV ignition weight, together with the excess S-I cutoff velocity, account for the

! _i _ _...._..-_"_ t _f ] [ i [ i _'-"_.......... T l

_1-- " i

I ! , )

/,

/_

,'

]_

._,_" _

] _

. i

early S-IV cutoff. Mac_ number and dynamic pressure are shown in Figure 5-5. These parameters were calculated using measured meteorological data to an altitude of 27 km. Above this altitude the U. S. Standard Reference Atmosphere was used. A comparison of actual and nominal parameters atsignificanteventtimes is given in Table 5-II. Apex, loss of telemetry, and impact apply only to the discarded S-I stage.

_ _ --o _ -[ ] I I , ] i i_, _ if"

FIGURE

5-4.

TOTAL

INERTIAL

ACCELERATION

14

TABLE

5-It.

SIGNIFICANT

EVENTS

Event First Motion

Parameter Range Time (see) Total Inertial Acceleration Range Time (see) Alntu_e Ikam) Dynamic Pressure Range Time (see) Dynamic Pressure Attitude [kin) Range Time Acceleration

Actual 0.08 13.18 53. 208 7.10 66. O 3. 313 11.64 140.34 60.66 145. 70 2701. ! 351.0 263. 29 476. 32 1990. 3 573.0 59. 72 911.42 -3.91 -0. 368 718.9 961.30 18.26 25. 8155 71. 3491 621.71 25.68 622. O 7257.6

Nominal 0.98 12.94 53. 894 7.25 65. I 3. 332 11.14 140.82 59.32 146.84 2665.8 346. 6 252 96 467.01 1991.5 573.0 40. 34 911.86 -27.58 - 1. 576 712. I 939. 96 18.20 25. 6790 71. 5500 690. 06 25.65 632.13 7258. O

Act-Nora -o 0.24 -6. 686 -6. 15 O. 9 -O. el9 0.5 -0. 4b 1. 14 -1. 14 35.3 4.4 1O. 3:J 9.31 -1.2 -19.38 -0.44 23.67 1. 208 6. 21.34 O. 0_ -0.0_35 -0. 2009 -6.35 O. 03 -10. 13 -O. 4

(rn/s I

Maeh 1

Maximum

(N/cm z)

5Laxirnum Total Inertial {S-I Stage i Maximum Earth Fixed (S-I Stage) Apex (S-I Stage)

Aecel.

/see) (m/s 2)

Velocity

Range Time (see} Velocity /m/s) Range Time (sec I Altitude (kin) Range fkm) Earth Fixed Velocay

(res)

LOss of Telemetry

(S-I Stage)

Range Time (secl Altitude (kin) Range (km) Total Inertial Acceleration Elevation Angle

/m/s;

from Pad (deg)

Impact

(S-I Stage)

Range Time (8ec I Range (kin) Cross Range (kin) Geodetic Latitude Idegl Longitude (deg) Acce|. Range Time Acceleration (see) (m/s 2)

Maximum Total (S-IV Stagel Maximum Earth (S-IV Stage)

Inertial

Fixed Velocity

Range Time (see) Velocity (m/s)

The .,,h ,_,, .... _ ,, ,, ...... '_ _,, ....... _._ L....... _......... ,_.._) o_0 _:o! t I ! I / i_ i _l t z_ ! ! r/ ] f : _ _ ..... " _ "/_ 2 ,,_ ,_ 7,/r/ '/ i i ii I I i I i I i i Event computerat

S-IV

cutoff 621.659

signal seconds.

was

given However,

by the the

guidance solenoids do not reThe velothe termS-I and respec-

for the propellant ceive the signal city increments

valves on the S-IV stage until 0. 022 second later. imparted are to the vehicle from

inating thrust decays S-IV stagesatOECOand tively. Velocity

shown below S-IV guidance

for the cutoff,

Gain

(m/s)

Actual

Nominal

OECO

2.4

5.2

S-IV ...... '' "') The cay FIGURE 5-5. MACIt NUMBER AND DYNAMIC was is not

CO actual is less actually based velocity than gain nominal.

3.3 from S-I outDoard engine

3.

t de-

Although on SA-9,

a depletion the nominal

cutoff value

experienced on a depletion

PRESSURE

cutoff.

15

A theoretical forthcdiscardedS-I the Patrick (O. 18)

free

flight

trajectol

3' was

comlJUted from
time.

from
the

Antigna
lit'st ,Jl%il

and
}iv

{;r:lnd

"]'ark,

I_crmuda;
:lID1 _]t'lYi[[

,mL,,al'd
_'l:tfift,

l":,[h"

stageusinginitialcond[tions radar tit ISO ._c.'oUdS

dar altinmtcrlkda

at in_.rti,,n;an,
C;iuilar'_Oll

ld:a:_ .,I,taincd

dul'iI_4

l':t[lgc

The radar tracking became ing by less reentl 3" no therefore, assumed than data

invalidat 500 second._. At deviated from eomlmncnts. on vehicle trackDuring attitude;

addition, the orHit;ticphenll:ris t;_.,[t,, ;t.ncF:it,. Ih,. prcdictedtrackin;4hadaxcl,_citx imi,ulsc ,>i -o.::5 _,_apl_licdatthc the direction telemetered SCl>urati,mtimc,,ftheAi.dl,, {_0:L 5 scc). The ol this imlmlne ,,utput ,>1 the were de/ermined gui(Lance _y_tcm. s,,urccs These _hr,md ma;4nitude fr,,in and S-IV/Pegasus

thistimc thecomputedtrajectot310 m in position were available tumbling phase.

a nominal for the dive

drzlg c,_.'fficient was The calculated impact site is shown in Figure booster impact location free flight trajectol3',

fr,:,m the S, Jluti,n!_

location relative 5-6. Table 5-1II from the actual

to the launch presents the and nominal

were obtained l rmn solving for effective maximum

poneUt and

all data drag.

any

with and wi0_,>ut >,duti,ms indicate

deviations
200 m ill

of 11.5 m/b positi,m _crc

in any _(.l,Jcit 3 c,mlc,)nlllOllenL

_d _'_ "i .......... + I [ I _:

The

tracMng

residuals rcshluMs tracking

within

the expected

ranges. These between file actual

represent ob._elaati,,ns

the differcnccs and ,,bst.rea-

: !,_

_i _
.._'"

_
I

_.
;

] _,}).

.... . _
_

)
!_.

!
!

a,o,'a e,,,oa, o' rc errors

were aplJr,Jxhuateiy sLx meters Table andnom[na[

[or all

t'a,l.

]'_

;t!id i

i J)

._:

d_._rec ina._,,,,th =,,dcl_,,_ii,,, l,,ea_,,,'cll,e,l,_. ",l_.

o_,,,._r,,aiti,,,ete,'re_i,iu,.s _,,,..,,,m;.,_ _,'_.,'a_cd :
5-IV shows a comparison ,)rbiLai inscrtionelenlents. between the actual

FIGURE

5-6.

BOOSTER TRAJECTORY TRACK

GROUND

TABLE

5-IV.

INSERTION

ELEMENTS

COMI>ARISON

Parameter

Ac ta_l

No min;d

Aft

Nora

TABLE

5-IIL

BOOSTER

I_.IPACT
Nolllinal Act-Norr

Tjmtl

ol OFl_ikt| Time _ecJ Vuict'ily

[
]
i

I
6:11.65_ i 6.1u.t,_5 _.:i4,.

Parameter

Actual
{cale)

]_e
_--

[
7, ,

--

l_pac-_incd I n_,'s

I
_ i --49_. I i ! 50_,o _L i

_urface
Range,:; (kin)
Cross

961.29

939.69

21 .60

}'light A,,_le l_tfl,

itttdc(kin}

_ t)

--

i Range (kin)
18.3 18.2 0.1 ,trod It_mge lkm ) 1_5. [ [ t_z4.! lt,.I

Latitude Longitude (deg)

Range

(deg)

25.8155!

25.8790

-0.06._

i _c,.,_,,,g_.v,.io,
i __v's)

a_

!
2."& 1

!
: -'30. _' - ,_,'J

71. 3491

71. 5500

-0. 200 (`

!?.0og_'_.:,luted,- ,_,,u I
perigee l_-rl,)d Altitudv I rain) {kin/ _

_4a._
496. 5 _,7. I

_47. I
4'_o. 9 97.1

:. t
O. 4 t_, 0

* Surface range Time (see) 5.3

is measured 718o95

[rum

launch 712.00

site 6.96

Ext',_._ Ctrcttlar VeI_2i ty tm/_J t__&. "lnclinatin (&.gj _m i

_7.3

Zl.7_ ii_

_i7.7

:it. T7 tzr,_

- u. ol -,;-.'

tL4

INSERTION CONDITIONS (S-IV CUTOFF + I0 SEC) Insertioncondition solutions were derived from following data used in various combinuations: data

the

* The Apogee and Perigee altitudes are referenced to a slCnerical earth of radius 6378. 165 kin.

i6

SECTION 6. I SUI_{MARY

VI.

PROPULSION Engine level analysi_ revealed thlxlst that tile velli('lc local sc:l 6-2)

longitudinal

(U|)l)t.r

porti,m

,)f Fig.

The l)erformance pulsion systems was The SA-9 flight was flight of the Saturn vehicle to employ

of both the S-I and S-IV prosatisfactory for the SA-9 flight, considered the first ol)eratiomtl

averaged 0.4 hide specific averaged hicle dicted. ratio 0.2 mixture Vchiele ;ire

percent higher than pre(lictod. The reimpulse (lower p,n'tion _Jl"Fig,. 6-2) i)ercent l'Alio t,tul higher than predicted. The re_'.'a_ G. 2 pLq'ccnt lower 0ran prepr, ocllant flow lxlte and mixture 6-3.

vehicles. It was the fourth Saturn H-I engines at a thrust level of die S-I stage. of the RL10A-3 SA-9 en-

836,000 N (188, 000 lbf) to power also represented the fourth flight gines to power the S-IV stage. The vehicle sea level

shown

ill Figure

longitudiJml

thrust

of

the

.................... .... ! _____-_-

_-,

sis) and 0.6 percent (flight simulation) higher than S-I stage ave Vehicle between raged predicted. specific 0.4 percent impulscaveraged (engine 0.2 atomy-. per-

i] _/_'-

.!

of all pressurization

systems,

purge

s.vstems,

hydrau-

,,.

lie systems,

and other

associated

systems

was

sat(s-

'

'

,.
within phase. design limits throughout the stlge powered light From engine analysis tlle average vehicle thrust was the specific higher impulse than predicted by 0.08 was 0.28 percent beFIGURE

Jl
6-1.

/
......... ENGLNE ) TIIRUST BUILDUI

longitudinal pereentand low the indicated

predicted level. Tile fligllt simulation method a thrust deviation 0.51 percent higimr than specific impulse deviation 0.14 percent

INDIVIDUAl.

predietedanda

lower than predicted. Satisfaetm 5, perfornmnee was obtained from the individual engines, the tallfl_ pressurization systems, system, 6.2 S-I STAGE PERFOR2,1ANCE I systems, the helium beater, the hv(h,'aulic . the PU system, and file nonproptdsive vent
_l.. ".......

"" _' I

:'.... I , i : " I -

-'

..

6.2.1

OVERALL

STAGE

PROPUI.SION

......

i i

1 [ i ; '"

, ..... _ I _ ..... _ _'< [

PERFORMANCE The propulsion satisfactorily. seconds before system Ignition liftoff of the command signal. S-I stage perwas initiated Engine thrust

formed -3.39

_,M_I.

,.ii '

" ,>, -,.) .... .... ,_ _--! !

=._,. .......

buildup was satisfactory antes in engine position ber pressure buildup

except for pressure disturb3 (Para. 6.2.3). The chain .............. for all engines othelw,'ise was

r: ....

expeeted between thrust

tolerances starting buildup

of the prescribed pairs. Figure 6-1 engine.

100 ms delay illustrates the shown for

of each

Tim buildup

engine 3 is based on a combination of chamber presnornaal; the engine skqrting st!qut.qlce was within sure data and turbopump speed since the chamber pressure measurement failed shortly after ignition. The largestdeviationin the thrust buildup times of tile enginesthat received ignition 37 ms (engines 6 and 8). signal at the same time was

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

....

il

FIGURE

6-2.

VEtlICLE LONGITUDINAL AND SPECIFIC _IPULSE

T[IRUST

17

Average S-I propulsion parameters from the engine analysis method for the SA-9 flight are summarized in TaJ_le 6-I and show excellent agreement with the TABLE 6-I. AVERAGE S-I STAGE

values ( Para.

obtained 6.2.2).

from

the

flight

simulation

method

PROPULSION

PARAMETERS

% Parameter Predicted Liftoff Weight (kg) (Ibm) (N) (lbf} 505. 602 1. 114. 662 6. 773,716 1,522,792 2,690.8 5,932.4 Engine Analysis 503,850 1,t10,800 6. 800. 802 1,528,881 2. 696.0 5. 943. 6 O. 19 Dev. From Predicted Flight Simulation 503. 850 1,110,800 6,814,751 1. 532,017 2,701.1 5,954.6

% Dev. From Predicted

-O. 35

+O. 35

Sea

Level

Thrust

0.40

0. 61

Flow

Rate

(kg/s) (Ibm/s)

0.37

Sea

Level

Specific (sec) 256.7 257.2 0. 19 257.3 0.23

Impulse

Weigbt at 140 see FIT {IECO0.22 sec) (kg) (Ibm)

127,273 280. 590

125,460 276,593 -1.42

124,889 275,333 -1.87

"F

- ,_---[

-]

_i

...........

+0

++

+.

....
+ _ + + T

4 ......
+ : ]

+
_ g

i,,_,
+ ++ _

+
+

_'r I

-*
...........

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

"_'' i

,m_

i+

__

-_

FIGURE

6-4.

TYPICAL THRUST

OUTBOARD DECAl"

ENGINE

"

i '....

I , ,',0 A ,_,

FIGURE

6-3.

VEHICLE TOTAL

bIIXTURE

RATIO

AND

occurred at 140.22 seconds of second sooner than predicted. inIluenccd by scvel_l factors. sity and the lower than predicted between the outboard and center increase dicted burning LOX pump time inlet to IECO. pressure,

flight; this was 0.48 The burning time was The lower LOX denLOX level differential LOX tanks acted to The higher the higher than than prepre-

FLOWRATE

The engine cutoff sequence was normal for all engines. A typical thrust decay of an outboard engine is presented in Figure 6-4. The cutoff sequence was initiated located at f38.60 seconds by the liquid level in LOX tank 2. h_board engine cutoff sensor fIECO)

dieted power levels, the lower fuel density, and an approximate 1361-kg short load of propellants acted toshortenburning time. The net effect was to shorten IECO by O. 48 second. Outboard occurred at 145.56 seconds. engine cutoff (OECO)

18

It was predicted that the center LOX tank orifice .would produce a ld.51-cm (6.5 in) differential between the center and outboard LOX levels at inboard engir_ cutoff. Probe data indicate that an average differential of 7.62 cm (3 in) was obtained; this made approximately 363 kg (800 Ibm) of center tank LOX available for consumption prior to inboard engine cutoff. The 6 seconds predicted differential between IECO board engines would cavitate at approximately 6 seconds after IECO. The lower than predicted LOX level

deviations for thrust and specific imlmlse. The larg(st thrust deviation from predicted x_ts position 2, whichaveraged3. Opercenthigher than predicted. The largestdevtationinspecific impulse xras also on position 2 and was 0.4 percent higher than predicted.

_:fr_,_v,.u.._t_.dt_.,tV+h,d,-rot+. (tm_,: n _

dif_erent_i,to _ingdecreased_O_consumable wbile more the ava,abie re= consumption prior IECO, _._,+econd_ afar_o dueoLOX t depletion
6.2.2 L F IGHTpERFORMANcESIMULATION OF CLUSTER

LOXheutboardOECO, s for o engines+ init'-+ t

'_+ -,_' + .
........... _0m _+ .
,

, ,
i i

i _,,,+-_,I i

_/_///_ /_,

l_ _>:_ _ _....

_! '! n
/Z

.....
!u0

\_f'_
i h0

i
_u : o

.....
I .o

Thevehiele longitudinal sea level specific impulse, vehicle longitudinal sea level thrust, and total weight Ioss rate were derived from the telemetered propulsion system measurements in a simulation of the tracked trajectory. The simulation of the tracked trajectory was accomplished through the use of a sLxting a difierential degree-of-freedomtrajectory correction calculation procedure. ineorporaThis program determined corrections to the level of the vehicle longitudinal sea level thrust, total weight loss rate, and vehicle drag correction that would yield the best fit to the velocity and acceleration from the observed trajectory. The lfftoff weight as given by the MSFC weight group was considered known. Table 6-1 presents a summary of the average values and deviations of sea level longitudinal thrust, specific impulse, andweightdataderivedl)y comparing results of the flit.dat simulation with the postRight engine analysis and predicted values. The cluster effect in the local thrust variation, shown in Figure 6-5, is incorporated into the flight simulation results. The effective longitudinal force acting on the vehicle is shown in the upper portion of Fibmre 6-5. The drag coefficient resulting from this solution is presented in Figure 12-1. The maximum deviations of the simulated trajectory were 0.1 m/s2inaceelcration, 0.4m/sinvelocity, and 7 m in slant distance. This is indicative of the goodness of fit of the simulation, 6.2. :_ INDIVIDUAL ENGINE PERFORMANCE

! ....

_,

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

L,+,,_.,_....,t_*.,[ ['_L, (._C_,,_t ........ _ _ :_3:, .m _ I [ i J i I

i

I ! \ i t

T I

--

+:

\I
\ l i i ,e.:

! +

, i

-_'

I
[

-_

: .'_,

i _'o

_,,

__J

FIGURE

6-5.

FLIGHT

SIMULATION

RESULTS

Individual i)urformanccofall eight II-I engines was satisfactory. All enl.dnes operated with slightly higher thanl)redictedperformancc levels except engine position 3. Figure 6-6 shows the engine-to-engine

The engine ix)sition 3 thrust level was approximately i.2 percent lower than predicted and that of position2was3.0pereenthigher thanpredicted. These are considered significant deviations from the overall average increase. Although small variations in turbopump inlet and thrust chamber exit conditions may be expected from engine to engine, deviations [rompredicted values should be in the same direction fur all engines, and of approximately the same magnitude. The deviations noted in positions 2 and 3 were unusual and have not been explained. The analysis of flight data indicates that there were no engine realfunctions or irregularities with the exception of a main propellant ignition "lX)l)" experienced by engine position 3. This i)op (lid not affcct the i)crformancc o1 the engine in position 3 (luring flight.

19

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

_"....

:_ ..............

During

tile time

interval

between

S-I

s[mge

ignition

and liftoff, engine clmmber pressure

l)ositiou :' iudivated disturhanc'es. Tile

c,)mbustion. c,nnl)ustion

r-]

['")

sivt' vll)l_Itions 4 at l)c stabilityh)inemonitor (CSM)for onapl)roximately recorded ms e._ce_engine :; l}rime during tim st_lrt transient. The CSM records engine [-_ _ L(}X tloelc _ ih l._tions _ln(I initiates unginc cutoff

!1
! i [ L_J : , _ _ ....

tl

when 100 Ills of vibration lu0 (;ruls have occurl-od. ()ulv lre(lu(Jnei_s in cxee-_._ of;)(io _11(I (i,)t)q) fly l)etwt.en are counted in the accumulation ,)f 11)o tns ,)[ ._u('h t)l)el_ttioll. chamber further chanlbcr I_ecutlse i)r_ssttr(2 of tile ('onll)llsliiJn l'oU_hllL'Sb tl_nsduc(q: failed alld recorde(I the i_o

(lat:t. Figure pressure

5-7 show_ file (klk_ from both the and the CSM tlurin_4 this l)erio(I.

i i

"' t_

! .i 2;

i . ,

..../ / i

FIGURE

6-6.

DEVIATIONS PI':RFORMANCE

IN LKDIVIDUAL PAILAMI.YFL'RS

S-I

,.. ] ' [ '_1 "_.... " i '.... ) [il I' _

_'_ " i / _ : ' " " .... i

'"

ENGINE

The cause of the higher Umn l)redieteO perfornlante cann()t hu determined lrom the availallle ,lata. During tile earl)- portion of the flight the thrust levels for sLx of the eight dieted or lower. creasedabovethe der o/the Bight. engines The were approximately then a s p reinremainduring thrust levels gradually

i ' ' ...........

'_-"

" ..

"

" -

'....

predicted levels during tile This phenomenon also occurred

the K_t-6 and SA-7 flights. is that the e ngincs do not reach ance sible cause during the explanation exhaust el

One l)ossihie explanati(m a steady suite l)erIormAnother increases during llOSbe-

FIGURE

G-7.

I-NGINI: :} IGNITION STAB ILITY ignition The _s

Ct)MBUSTIt)N

140 seconds of burning. is that turbine power beeotne lower

Thrustehaml)er rily l'or:i05 ms. main ously with otherl)ressul'e her The
file

recorded _ceurred

satisfaeto_imu]ta.neof any
ehanl-

pressures

file late

distut4)ance

portion formance steady do not

flight. The propulsion predictions assume that exhaust

system flight perfl_e ellgirtes reach and

prolr_llant ignition. nleasurcnlentb0tweenUle

The lack thrust

state performaneea[terS;0 consider an)' turbine the greater pressures N/cm

seconds of flight effects. tile than

anti tilL" pump inlet prevents further o,:currence was ix)sitively identified
ohat_lher l)l'OSs_rc n_easurc_'lTtlent, lint[

correlation. b) the CSM,

anolJll_'l" Ion-

During llUn,,i ) inlet dit'tud (1.-t

ilortit)n of the flight, were slightly higher

LOX pre;it

gitudinal

(|,)me

vilJrution

measurement. a main

2 t)).- 2 i)._i nlztxinlUlll)

I,t'('aus(-el

Thistylle(,fdisturbanceisllrOl)erlyternled

higher thanpredietedLOXtankl)ressurehistotS,, llowever, the small magnitude of d_e deviations can account for otfly a small portion of the i_ower level increase (about
:tud

propellant ignition "l)Op." A pup occurs at Pc prime when the main fuel first enters tile combustion chamber. A satisfactol'y ignitionl]ame nmsthave been established prior to this time I)y the hyl)er_.olit' sourer' i_t_iIt'r ('Fri('t[t) nlore nonexistent, will form. Ignition 1;llulllinuln). a mixture If tilt' ignition t)[ raw in ,)ue or conl-

1330 N or densities

300 lbf thrust

per These

engine). small

Both

I,OX

luel

k))'el'e :q)prn.\imatt'ly lower performance,

I, (i kg_/m a I t). 1 variations

Ibm/It result

3) iowerthanpredicted. iu a slighUy

l)artments(,fthcl)alflediujectorisweakor LOX and RP-I

2.o

then

nlLISt eerie

fronl

another

compartment

and is demass ef pro-

transporter

used

for

nlovcment

of

the

engine

[)laces

I?lyed. pellant

D_:tunationofthis rcla[ively htrgt, results in the pop phenomenon,

the engine horizontal, with hypergol container down.

file tul'bol_ump In clustering,

up anti the the engine

ClusterstatictestsandRoeketdyne Anlerican, Inc.)production shownany eases of main

acceptance

_Div. tests

of North have not pops. Nu-

could be placed in any number of positions, but alx_ys horizontal. The booster was shipped from the Manufacturing Engineering L.abol.'atory to the Static Test Tower East in a horizontal position with fin t down. In this position, engine 3 was and the hypergol container top used of the when engine. file stage This was 45 degrees off top center was 45 degrees from the shipping to rehtrbishlnent. erection and attitude btanufaeturing During launch, the _l was returne(I for for

propellant

ignition

merous thrust chan_ber ignitionpops edbutwere not considered serious early were in the eel T of ignition low; also, phase the _dlen causes

have been recordsince the)' occurred chamber were not pressures similar, to determine results were inten-

same

R&Dtestsby the cause obtained tion.ally

Roeketdyne have this I,henmnenon.

been made Similar

Engineering Laboratory shipment to Cape Kennedy

nifty when an igniter fuel pOlJl_t.l was blockt'd or partially restricted, of the furnace-brazed baffled

stavle was horizontal with engine on top with the hypergol eont.n.iner could become lodged ages during shipment ever, all engines Theprol)al)le bloclcage of the are cause igniter in the igniter and restrict subject of the fuel

1 dowll ;lnd engine up. A contami|kant fuel system igniter flow. nlishap. a restriction The o})stlxtction passIlow-

Thehistory

injector

(as installedoncngine3) shows that the occurrence of random bursts of instability increases with the lenbdh of service of the injector. The oriented possibility was studied. of the disOne of turbaneebeingtest-time

to this 11Ol x_ls ) system.

or

the eight injectors installed on SA-9, engine 1, had (i34 seconds of operation and 8 starts. Engine 4 had file least time with 462 seconds and 7 starts. Engine 3 appeared was average with therefore, 553 seconds that test and time _ starts. was not reIt concluded,

caused an unsatisfactory flame in at least one injector compartment. The substance (s) which restricted the passage (st is unknown. It is fortunate that this inci(lent occurred in an engine flat face with a baffled it injector. that On the the obsolete injector, is doubtfnl

lated to the incident. A similar pop necurred on engine :l o1 S-I-7 during launch. The test and checkout procedurcsusedat CapeKcnnedy were reviewed. The reviewshowed ecdures were that no special the stage treatment or or unusual progiven engines.

perturbations wuuld have damped so quickly, if at all. It is considered that engine "_ pressure distu|q)ances on both stages S-I-7 amt S-I-9 were coincidental. It is recomnlended that the igniter fuel passages

Earl), in the Saturn I program, a GX 2 purge x_s requiredforthe igniterfuel systemto clear completely the igniter luel passages after a test. llowever, test experience has shown that if the test x_s of sufficient duration, quately igniter purges gines. the fuel that follows the hypergol would adeflush the system. Consequently, fuel system is no longer required. were not performed on an), Block Beginning Therewere 8-1-9. unitized conlxtiner ages The with S-IB-I, fuel sevend S-I-7 was system the a purge after first a purge of the Igniter fuel If booster en-

leading from the hypergol container to the injector facebeinspectedortestedto insure that they are clear of all ol)shxtctions anti cont:lminants prior to launch. 6.3 6.3. S-I i PRESSURIZATION FUEL Fuel SYSTEMS SYSTEM provides increased engine fuel difference system only 1 for prepresand pres-

PRESSURIZATION tank i)ressurization

tank structural rigidly, pump inlet pressure. between previous the S-I-9 Block fuel

as well as adequate The only significant tank pressurization systems is that tank

will he performtesting, S-I-7 to have and the between

ed on the igniter

static booster

II vehicle

similarities

surizingvalve

I _msusedoverfuel

injector, lathe unitized injector the hypergol is weltlud to the injector and intcrrutl i)assthe container and the injec-

surization; all threevalves were used on previous vehicles. The system opel_ted as expected with no major deviations from predicted performance. The fllel ilressurization system pressure for the is designed to of

areprovidedbetween

tor. This design improvement eliminated several potential leakage points. No special significance can be attached to this improvement because popsofthisrmtureoncluster static tests tests on S-I-7, 8, 9, or t0, although were identically equipped with the there were no or contractor all the stages injector,

maintain a constant ullage 11 N/en) 2 gauge (1(; psig)

of approximately first 70 seconds

flight. During this time the fuel container pressurizing switchwill apenandcloseanyofthe three pressurizing valves which are active to maintain the tank pressure betweenapproximatclyl0.3an0 and 17 psig). At 70 seconds, to the in the equalize 11.7 N/cm 2 gauge (t5 the flow of pressurant GN 2 remaining and allowed to

unitized

Another similarity inthctwo stages is the attitude or position in which engine';, in both cases, was transported from Rocketdyne to Cape Kennedy. The shipping

Iucl hanks is termimated and the spheres is joined in one system with GN 2 in the LOX/SOX

spheres.

21

Fuel tank prepressurization to 1 i. 5 N/era 2 gauge (16.65 psig) of a 6-percent ullage was accomplished in 10.1 seconds on SA-9. This may be compared to 11.96 N/cm _ gauge (17.35 psig} with a 5.4-pereent ullage in 3.25 seconds on SA-7. The pressure in the fuel tanks was similar to the pressure recorded on past flights and the predicted value (Fig. 6-8). The fluctuations in pressure during system operation are normal and are expected as manifestations of the action of the fuel container pressurizing switch. These pressureoscillationsaretr'ansmittedtethefuel pumps, but havenegligibleeffectonengine performance. The tank pressurization valves operating during SA-9 flight were: Time Interval (Range Time-See) -. 0 to 39.3 39.3 to 54, :l 54.3 to 70.3 70.3 to OECO Number of Pressurization Valves Operating 3 2 1 0

range time. Subsequently, aerodynamic heating effects became dominant and caused the temperathre to in-creaseto266Kby the end of flight. The overall systern performed as predicted, h_ general, system gas temperatures were lower than during the SA-7 flight because of lower ambient temperatures. 6.3.2 LOX TANK PRESSURIZATION SYSTETd

Pressurization of the LOX tanks provides increased tank structural rigidity anti adequate LOX pump inlet pressures. Prelaunch pressurization is achieved with helium from a gl_ound source. From vehicle ignition command to liltoif, an increased helium flow is used to maintain adequate LOX tank pressure during engine start. This was the first flight with a GOX flow control valve (GFCV) set point of 34 N/cm 2 (50 psi) ; previous Block II GFCV set points were 41 N/cm 2 (60 psi). This also was the first vehicle in which LOX suction line helium babbling was accompllshed after the LOX tank vent valves were closed. Operation of the LOX tank pressurization system during prelaunch and flight was satisfactory. Prepressurization of the 6.3-percent ullage to approximately 41 N/cm 2 (59 psi) was accomplished in 67 seconds. Ilellum bubbling started at -151 seconds range time. Predicted and measured LOX tank pressure during flight are shown in Figure 6-9. The cenat -103 seconds when helium bubbling _s ended, and LOX tank prepressurization commenced. The time allowed for pressurization was 50 to 90 seconds. At thebeginningandendoftheflight actual tank pressures werea maximumof2 N/ (3 psi) below the predicted pressures. During flight, in the interval of about 30 to 90 seconds range time, the actual pressures were approximately 1.4 N/era 2 (2 psi) above the predicted pressures.

.u

......

_, _ _

; .........

;
I

_'_ _.... i

........... _.,) ] L _, 4 .i _, I : :,. L : , _ i _ _./

___._u__ ..... _... ...... ........... :'""_ I_

' i

r....... ,,,,_ _ :_' I

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

i_

...... t
-, ....

_
:=:

....
i._

I
lbo

..........

FIGURE 6-8.

GAS PRESSURE IN FUEL TANK AND HIGH PRESSURE SPHERES

Gas temperature in the 0.57 m 3 (20 ft 3) spheres and the nitrogen manifold reflect normal operation. The ullage gas temperature in fuel tank F-3 was initially 293"K and decreased to 262K at 104 seconds

..... 7_ ..

FIGURE 6-9.

LOX TANK GAS PRESSURES

22

The board

measured

pressures appeared

of the

center

and

out, ....... -'_"._ i _o i ,_! i ..... tL _

:.iv t

LOX tanks

to be equal

at 40 to 80 secouly in cases of no indications of LOX tank presassumed that the

,_., ] "_ _-k _ 4 I _'_-_-_ _ _ _---" _'_.._ " " I ] _

r ...... --

_.:,

_uds: however, this would be I)ossil)lc significant venting. Since there were ventingand the traces of the outboard sures
center

were almost LOX tank 0.3 N/era

identical,

it was was ; this

mately

pressure 2 ( 0.5 psi)

in error by approxiis approximately one of the center 6-9, was represmeas-

percent of the measured value. LOXtankpressure, presented constructedby sure between ured outboard adding center the and

The curve in Figure

measured outboard pressure.

differential tanks to the

LOX tank

L
_............
r''' _

'
_, _'. ......
' " r ] " "

The maximum N/cm 2 (54.8 psi) this is greater

eenter LOX tank pressure at 36 seconds range time. than the 34.5 :_ 1.7 N/cm

was 37.8 Although 2 (50 4 2.5

, _ '

psi) set point of the GFVC, it is within the designed parameters of the system operation. The flow of COX will be about 7.9 kg/s (17.5 lhm/s) when the GFCV is in its most closed position. This flow exceeds that which is necessary to maintain (50 psi) in the LOX tanks during This bility a nominal a portion 34.2 N/cm 2 of the flight.

_" ! _:,' _-----_I _, ' ' _ i ..... _ _ ...... L

valve setting is commensurate and temperature requirements, to overall CONTROL The system PRESSURE control pressure for operation I and 2, the

with system sta ..... and is not de .....

trimental 6.3.3

performance. SYSTEM pressure of the system LOX sup2 ehilldown. system Pressure equalization between the 0.57 m3 system the (20 it3) nitrogen spheres of the fuel tank _daen was pressurization spheres occurthe two systems shown by an inFIGURE 6-10. GN_ SUPPLY AND REGULATED CONTROL PRESSURE

pneumatic :e 50 psig)

plies gauge

GN 2 at a regulated (750 relief valves

of 517 =e 34. 5 N/em LOX vent valve,

pressure

and the 0. 028 m 3 ( 1 fl 3) triplex range time equalization

LOX replenishing valvecontrolvalves, surization, purging. factortly The was i324 recorded

control valve, the suction line preengine turbopump gearbox presLOX pump seal operated satis-

red at 70.5 seconds were juined. This

calorimeter purging, and Thecontrol pressure system throughout the flight, supply sphere pressure (Fig.

crease in pressure in the fuel prcssurizatit)n system 0.57 m 3 (20 ft 3) spheresto 1138 N/era 2 (1650 psi) and by a decrease in temperature in the 0.02_ m 3 ( ift $) spheres of the LOX-SOX system ( Figs. 6-_ and 6-11).

6-10)

at OECO The S-I/S-IV interstage vent ports were blox_a

N/cm 2 (1920psi) ; 1276 N/era 2 ( 1850 psi) was during SA-70ECO. The higher final pres-

sure at OECO for SA-9 was caused by a higher initial sphere pressure of 2013 N/cm z (2920 psi) at liftoff, compared with 1965 N/cm rates 2 (2850 psi) for SA-7. The flights sphere pressure decay were almost identical. The between throughout pressure regulated 517 and for SA -7 and SA-9

open at 138.76 seconds range bridgewire (EBW). Initiation was indicated by a sudden stage temperature at 139.95 Fig. 6-11). Plenumchamber of Fig. 6-11) showed increased that valve LOX-SOX seconds 143.52 valves disposal.

time by the electrical of S-IV LOX chilldox_m in S-I/S-IV inter-

deerease

seconds (upper portion of pressure (lower portion rapidly after surge 4 opened the opening after and after that upof 142.2

supply 525 N/cm

pressure 2 gauge

(Fig. (750

6-10) and 761

was psig) this in by

A pressure number

S-I stage was measured

powered flight. Although in absolute, it is presented pressure was controlled

seconds another 1 and 7 opened,

rise in pressure showed completing the sequenced

gauge because the control a gauge regulator, 6.3.4 LOX-SOX All LOX-SOX interstage data disposal DISPOSAL indicated system

SYSTEM successful used from operation the the S-IV of the S-I/S-IV stage

erations, t_Iaximum pressure recorded in the plenum chamber was approximately 212 N/era 2 gauge (308 psig) ; the pressure in the SA-7 plenum chamber was similar. 6.3.5 IIYDROGEN The hydrogen VENT vent DUCT duet PURGE system removes

to purge

of LOX or SOX resulting

purge

23

the chilldownhydrogen flowingthroughthe S-IV stage plumbing approximately35 seconds prior to S-I/S-IV stage separation. The hydrogen flows from the S-IV stagethroughthree 0.3 m ( 12 in)diameter ducts that lead down the sides of the S-I/S-IVintersiage and the S-I stage in linewith stubfinsIf,HI, and IV. Prior to launch, low pressure helium from a ground source purges the three ducts. A helium triplex sphere assemblyortboardtheS-Istagesupplies GHe forthe purge after liftoff. This purge continuesthroughthe chilldown operation and S-I stage powered flight, The hydrogen vent satisfactorily. Atlfftoff, inthe spherewas286"Kwith duct purge system operated thetemperatureofthe helium a pressure of 2013 N/cm 2

usable. The backup timer (flight sequencer) was set toinitiate OECO 6.I seconds afterIECO ifLOX starvationcutoffhad not occurred withinthattime. To if_sureagainst fuelstarvation, fueldepletion cutoff sensors were locatedinthe F2 and F4 containersumps. The cutoffsequence on the S-I-9 stage began with thesignal from theLOX levelcutoff probe in container 02 at 138.60 seconds range time. IECO was initiated by the flight sequencer 1.62 seconds laterat 140.22 seconds range time. This time interval bad been 2 seconds on previous flights but was changed to 1.60 seconds to compensate for the LOX liquid level cutoff probes. These probes had been set at a level lower than that determined from the flight prediction for a two-second time interval. OECO occurred at 145.56 seconds range time, 5.34 seconds after IECO. The flight sequencer was set to initiate OECO 6. i seconds after IECO. Since the actual interval between IECO and OECO _s less than6, l seconds, a LOX starvation cutoff is indicated. Severalpressuremeasureraents lathe outboard engine chambers also indicate a LOX starvation cutoff. At least two of these engine measurements showed that thrustdecayhadbegunprior to the cutoff setting of the flight sequencer. The predicted time interval between IECO and OECO for a LOX starvation cutoff xwas 6.0 seconds. This predicted time interval was based upon a 16.5era (6.5 in) liquid level differential at IECO between the center LOX tanks and outboard LOX tank levels, The actual LOX level differential at IECO was approximately 7.6 cm (3 in) and was determined from continuous level probe data. The smaller than predicted LOX level differential at IECO implies that 363 kg (800 Ibm) less LOX than predicted were available for consumption after IECO, and partially accounts for the earlier than predicted OECO. Another contributing factor to the earlier than prelictedOECOwastheaverage LOXlevel in the outboard tanks at IECO. This average LOX level was slightly less than predicted at IECO, which indicates that less LOX thanpredictedwas available for combustion after IECO. Probable causes of the lower than predicted average LOXlevelwere: a) there was a time delay in the response of the LOX level cutoff probe; and b) at IECO the LOX levels in the two tanks without cutoff probes were lower thantheLOX levelsin thetwo tanks containing the cutoff probes. A fuel biasof 839 kg (1850 Ibm) was specified for S-I-9. Fuelbiasassures a minimum of propellant residuals with theanticipated variations the total of vehicle mixture ratioat stage shutdown. Ifthe proper propellant leads, called for in the propellant loading tables for the Iuel density at ignition command, had been loaded, and if performance had been as predicted, the fuelbiaswottldhavebeenleft as a residual after cutoff.

(2920 psi). The SA-7 flight readings at liftoff were 297K and 2041 N/cm 2 (2960 psi). The pressure at OECO was 445 N/cm2(645psi)forSA-9and 441 N/cm 2 ( 640 psi) for SA-7. The temperature of the gas in the sphere at OECO was 211K for SA-9 and 218K for SA-7. The sphere temperatures were lower for SA-9 flights because of lower ambient temperatures, 6.4 S-1 STAGE PROPELLANT UTILIZATION

Propellant utilization, defined here as the ratio of propellant consumed to propellant loaded, is an indicationofthe propulsion system performance and the capability of the propellant loading system to tank the proper propellant loads. Propellant utilization for the S-I-9 stage was satisfactory, altho_agb slightly higher than predicted. The predicted and actual percent of loaded propellants utilized during the flight are shown below: Propellant Total Fuel LOX Predicted 99. 15 98.20 99.58 (V,o) Actual 99.22 98.23 99. 63 (%)

The loading of the propellants (LOX and fuel) on SA-gwas similar tothat for S-I-5 and S-I-6 and called for a simultaneous depletion of the usable propellants for a fixed to_d mainstage propellant consumption, The ratio of LOX to fuel loaded was dependent upon the fuel density at ignition command. SA-9 was the second flight which a LOX staron ration cutoffof the outboard engineswas attempted. the LOX levelcutoff probeheights and flight sequencer settingswere chosen to give a predictedintervalof 6.0 secondsbetween inboardenginecutoff(IECO) and outboard engine cutoff (OECO). OECO would be initiatedbythethrustOKpressare switch of any outboard engine should LOX starvation of its turbopump occur, It was assumed that a total of approximately 315.7 kg (696 Ibm) of LOX from the outboard suction lines was

24

A comparison siduals indicates

of reconstructed that approximately

and

predicted 136 kg

fuel (309

relbrn)

mainedadequate, fled limits, and throughout are shown

oil temperatures desired stage 6-12. oil levels flight.

were were These

within

speci-

maintained parameters

more fuel were consumed than mately 64 kg (140 Ibm) of this lower thanpredicted LOX residual. approximately consumed.

predicted. Approxiare explained by the This indicates that bias were that

the S-I-9 in Figure

73 However, kg (160 Ibm) of the fuel reeonstruetedloadsindieate

,:[

...........

loaded than required by the propellant loading lesstables. therewereapproximately1361kg(30001bm) LOX ltad this 1361 kg (3000 thin) of LOX been loaded, indications are that al)proximatcly 612 kg (1350 Ibm) more fuel would liave been burned. Analysis of flight data indicates that had the proper propellant lbm} loads of the been fuel

_[ :.,,I .... ] [ :"/t .... [ ,,,, _'(......... _

] ---! "..:...

" _ '_ l t_.... " - " - _' _

. _.....

,...... , .... ' .... .' -- - _k _", !.\,,,

'

_- _ _

bias would have been onbeard, approximately Propellant received from nine propellant probes is listed l. cated

burned. 680 kg (1500

utilization was analyzed the three types of prohes containers. below: 15 discrete container. probe as

from signals located in the of these

........... ......... ' : "

_ - "\ ...... " " 'l_, ....

A description

A system of in each propellant

level probes Anelectrical it was uncovered

was 1osignal by the

:_ ,.,

was initiated by each passing liquid level.

,! l__ FIGURE _ 6-11. ,_ _ _ "0" :...... _ _ ]__,

....

2. Propellant level cutoff probes were located in LOX containers 02 anti 04 and in containers F2 and F4. The cutoff container Container (cm) prol_ signal times bottoms were: Ifei_ht (in) and setting heights from

L()X/SOX

SYSTEM

OPERATION

Range

Time "_I " ' I . ,_

(see)

04 F2 F4 3. The

64.16 81.69 81.69 continuous

25.26 32. 16 32. 16 level prohe

138. 612 138. 980 138. 906 located near the

,_, .....

i ....

-!. I

.... J-

.....

] ".......

! .............. _..., '2 ..,

_ " : ' ..... '

i
i

bottom of each fromwithin28.4to tainer bottom. wereused

propellant container indicated the level 130 em( 11.2 to 51.2 in) of the conThe data from these probes were in with reconstructed probe flowrates data, cutoff

'_ .......... _"[ t [_-_i _

in conjunction

togdagreement anddetermine The as

propellantdiscrete with residuals. cutoff and left onboard

_i_ "" L i . ,..., ,,:. .... I :.......

_ : _ I

were

S-I propellants follows:

at engine

End of Thrust I)ltOP. (kg) IECO (Ibm) (kg) OECO (Ibm', Decay (kg) (Ibm) The number throughout Fuel 6.5 5537 12203 HYDRAULIC 2702 5958 2087 4603 were almost magnitude of the source pressure in position one remained below its predicted values flight; exactly the as other three source The pressulnes source prespredicted. FIGURE ti-12, LEVEL, llYDRAULIC OIL PRESSURE, AND TEMPERATURE

LOX

6487

14317

1348

2971

1016

2245

S-I STAGE

SYSTEMS for gimbaling the S-I enSource pressures re-

sure of the hydraulic system of engine the other stmrce pressures by as nmch gauge (240 psig) during S-I-9 perienced a pressure decrease

1 varied from as 165 N/cm z and exexpected

gines

The hydraulic systems performed satisfactorily.

stage operation greater than

25

from liltoff to stage shutdown, lIowcvcr, fills p:_rticular source pressure remained within the _lssigned limits and the magnitude of its decrease during flight was not sufficient to warrant concern. The oil levels and temperatures at this position substantiate normal operation. Flight data indicated an oil temperature rise and subsequent decay of approximately 2.8K l_etween 80 to 100 seconds of flight and gradual decrease through the remainder of S-I-9 stage operation. Such an pccurrenee indicates unusually high demands for pitch andyat_,movements in this engine position, and should be seen in the source pressure and oil level traces, Neither of the latter parameters showed abnormal drops or variations during this period. Measurement error appears to be the most probable cause of the temperature variations observed. 6.6 RETRO ROCKET PERFORMANCE

Measured, calculated, values are shown in Table 6.7 6.7.1

andpredicted 6-II. SYSTEM

performance

S-IV STAGE PROPULSION OVERALL

PERFORMANCE

The performance of the S-IV propulsion systemwas within design limits throughout S-1V-9 flight. Satisfactory performance was obtained from the indivldual engines, the tank pressurization systems, the helium heater, thehydrattlic systems, the PU system, and the nonpropulsive vent system.

6.7.2

CLUSTER

PERFORMANCE

structing

Two separate analyses were utilized in reconthe S-IV stage six-engine performance.

Ignition of the four 151,240 N (34,000 lbf) thrust solid propellant retro rockets occurred as planned and performance was satisfactory. The chamber pressure measurement on rocket nun_ber t experienced a realfunction shortly after ignition. The fact that this was a measuring failure rather than a malfunction of the retro rocket is clearly indicated by (a) sel_araUon film, (b) stz_tin gauge measuren_eats, (e)vibl.-ation measurements, (d} selxarationextensometers, and (e) S-Istagc_ttiitudq.t_,.*:_tvior_htring rctro fire. Theeombustion ('ham_. ," I_t':'_.<_tr_ on tht, _',n_tining rockets . showed normal buildup, steady-state, and decay characteristics. Theavez_gethrustof the motors was slightly lower thannominaland the burning times were greater than nominal. These parameters indicate that the propellantgraintemperatures were lower fl_an expectedatthetimeof ignition. A typical chamber pre_sure for the SA-9 t_etro rockets is shown in Fii,qtre 6-13.

The first method, an engine analysis, used the telemetered engine parameters to compute clustered thrust, specific impulse, and mass flow. A correction factor was used to account for the helium Ileatur flow rates, the helium heater thrust, the chilldown vent thrust, and the six-degree engine cant angle from the vehicle center line. The second method, a postflight simulation, used thethrustand mass flow shapes obtained from the engineanalysis, adjustingthelevelstosimalatetheactaal trajectory as closely as possible. This simulation was constrained to the cutoff xveigbt determined from capecitanceprobe data, point level sensor data, and measured dr3"-stage mass. To coml_are the postfligdat sirenlationresults with the engine analysis results, a cerrection factor for base pressure and engine cluster effects must be applied. Cluster effects were determinedfrom previous nib_ht analyses (S-IV-5, -6, and -7) and resulted in a retktetion in thrust of 2785 N (626 lbm). The predicted trajectory was based on a thrust withthis correction applied, and is called the "biased predicted." 6.7.2.1 ENGINE ANALYSIS Based upon evaluation of burn time _ith

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

!

_ , "_ ! _ _. i l
r

respect to propellant consumed during powered flight phase, the analysis of cl,_ta from the S-IV-9 flight indieated that stage longitudbu_l specific impulse deviated from prcdictcdl)y 0.28 percent :tnd that stage Ioncent. These v_llues _tre Iiase(J on I)iased i)redieti_)ns.

:l

__:_"

-,_'=

gitudinal

thrast

deviated

from

predicted

by O.{J_ p_r-

FIGURE 6-13. TYPICAL RETRO ROCKET COMBUSTION CHAMBER PRESSURE

Engine analysis performance characteristics were reconstructed from LH2 eooldo_vn through engine cutoff. Three independent computer programs were used to groin statistical confidence in the reconstructed values and profiles.

26

TABLE

6-1I.

RETRO

ROCKET

PARAMETERS

Retro 1" * Burning Fetal Time (see) (N-s) (lb-s) (N) (lb) _verage Pressure (N/era z) (psi) RT (see) t
/

Rockets 3 2.30 331,393 74,500 144,122 32,400 858 1,245 t 46.42 4 2.27 325,832 73,250 143,678 32,300 858 t, 245 146.42 Total ':: =::

PREDICTED*

2 2.31 332. 282 74,700 143,678 32,300 858 1,245 146.42

I I
2.15 331,393 74,500 154,131 34,650

Impulse

_verage

Thrust

Firing

Command

146.42

Definition 1.

of Terms: time - Time interva| between the intersection points on the zero thrust Line described by

Burning

a line tangent to the rise of thrust at the point of inflection extended by a line tangent tothc decaying thrust curve at a point of inllection line. 2. 3. 4. Total impulse thrust pressure values It). prevent 1 i)revcnt_ determination determination. of parameter values. were - Area - Total under thrust-versus-time divided by burning curve. time. curve temperature

to intersect the zero extended to intersect

thrust line and the zero thrust

Average Average

impulse under

- Area based

pressure-versus-time grain

divided of 289K

by burning

time. of 76.2 km

:'., Predicted (250,000 * * Bad data

on a propellant

and an altitude

":__ ::_ Rocket

Basedondata oftheS-IV-gstage,

obtained propellant

from

the acceptance time

firing had been

and their timate

effects propellant

on LOX residuals

Rowrate. at

Using engine

the best cutoff and

esthe

depletion

predictedas 483.84 seconds burn time. Extrapolation ofthenightdata indicates that had depletion occurred, it would have been a LOX depletion. Based on a LOX residual of 391 kg ( 86:" Ibm), redat478.5 sccondsburntime, cuhif[ would have uccuror 5.34 seconds short difference the predicted (4.16 LOX

burn time discussed above, engine analysis is unable toaccouni for 175 kg (387 lbm) of the "best estimate" propellant consumption shown in Table 6-1II. The best estimate propellant consumption value averagcoftheconsumptionvaluesobLainedfrom analysis, simulation is the weighted engine

of predicted. Themainportionofthis sec) is due to the variation between

PU system analysis, and Right trajectory based upon the estimated accuracy of each values present-

load at engine ignition 38, t26 kg (84,053 lbm) and the actual LOX load at engine ignition 37,796 kg (83,325 Ibm) as determined by the engine analysis. The remaining 1.18 tions between seconds canbe attributed to slight variapredicted and actual pump inlet conditions

analysis method. The propellant consumption determinedby each analysis method are also ed in Table 6-IH. The discrepancy between the engine

atmlysis

and

27

TABLE (S-I STAGE

6-IIL

S-IV

STAGE STAGE

PROPEIA,ANT CO COMMAND) '

fercnce engine

between analysis

file flight i)rolJably

simulation is due to small

m(,th,)(I tile [light

and

the in

CONSUMPTION-:: LO TO S-IV

vat'i_tions silnu-

theenginethrust lation method. Tile resulting

shallethatwasusedin

stage

longitudinal stage

thrust, luass

stage llowrate,

lonand

I I ! t:nh_in,'

gitudinal
lit, st

specific

itnllulse,

i _
;I.()X I k_;)

Pl'
S_ strln l Flight

engine mixture are compared

rat[() are prescntc(] in Figure 6-14 and with tile unbiased iJredicted values. Table

_
.;7. tit,4 :]7, _;_J7

:'.7, I_

i ]

tIbnl)

-::. ,_4,,
75[J2 11% 7:;!1

"::.,,12
'_, t;_al IIi, _'_!J

"-'.m('
7, *,:H Ii; 32:_

::':,_;z4 "2 _,4;

7. ti::z ll;. %_21_

(i-l_ z comlmres the thlnast vehielu' mass loss rate and longitudinal ",chicle specific inl[)Lll St" [l'(Jlll tilt' t'n:4ine analysis with tilt' hiased predicted values :tnd tile flight
S [Ululation results.

t,,,_Ill[_l) ,_ i
rol:tl I ka_

45

q _11

42,. :I1 II

45.2:1>

.t_'+, 7_ 2

"theft,

_ alut's

r_.lt, r tcJ pl_pt'lla.tu

abo_t-

tl_t punqb, . : ,

i
.

r ,

,:i

-.

b....

thePU bl'ation

system shift in

analysis the

prohably

is a result sensor empb"

of a callcalihl_a-

_. ...... !'-. [

.. \-,_ .... "_-__--_. ! = _ _J_'-L-':-:_-__ _-__ _ _:_

LOX mass

6.9). The which was this shift most likelyflight (Scetion cause of revealed affected the tion point, prior to full calillration point; however, thcrc is no way to determ[he precisely the magnitude of this shift using available flight data. The accuracy of the LOX mass sensor readout at full load conditions is therefore

t
.... " t__

.......

..

.....

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

secure from the effects of measurement ulalfunctions because of the large number of engine uleasurements questionable. The engine analysis is statistically more madeduringa flig, htand the use of several indellendent methods for determining propellant consumption. No anonmlies were observed inenginepe_'formance during duuht the accuracy of the engine flowrates. is noreastmto

_ ..... _ "' _

___ ;

___

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

the S-.'-9 l]ight and the.foretherc

I//--_._

Tile tile flii.d_t

flight yielded

simulation an

method

used

to reconstruct value of 95.2 FIt;17RE 6-14. T(ITAI. S-IV STAGE (I'JN(]IN_ ANAI.YSIS) PERFt_RMANCE

average

fiowrate .

kg/s (209.8 lb/s) valneol_14, gkg/s

as compared (20_.t.g lh/s)

t_an engine analysis 11 i_ h'lt that tin: [til-

2_

TA BI.E

f-IV.

S-W-q

I)R()PI

_I,SION

SYSTEM

compared

to the

observed

trajectory. and maximum

The

folh)wing

[)]':ttF()RMANCE::: Engine Predicted ] Loagitudimd Vehicle Thrust iN) (Ibf) Vehicle Mass loss Rate (kg/s) (Ibm/s) Lougituditml Vehicle Specific pulse =:,Average S-IV cutoff, Definition Longitudinal angle, and originating 1.112 through operation. dynamic are not vehicle includes of Propulsion thrust helium Parameters for thrust, caused valves engine cant Im(see) values 426. 5 between 425. 3 90 percent S-R: 425. thrust 9 and 94. 5 "_08, 4 94.90 209. 2 95. 16 209. 8 395,460 88,903 395,785 88,976 397,493 89,360 Analysis Flight Simulation

average (root-sum-square) were found: Parameter Slant Earth range fixed 0.4 nl/s il. Average _41 m 1135 ft}

differenccs

Maximum 160 m 1526 ft)

veloci_Altitude The maximum system specific

16 ft/s} It)

0.8 -454

m/s

_2.81

ft) ft)

128 m 1421 iaaccuraci,,s

m (-1490

in Ill,. _imulat,_l

lU'Oi,ul_ion

parameters impulse

arc estimated and 0.2 percent arc and

at O. 3 percent for for thrust and mass caused by inaccurin observed trajecthe estitnated

flowrate. These inaccuracies lcies in simulation technique tom, data. vehicle vehicle and An additiolml factor mass mass

is wl_ethcr

at cutoff is accurate. Any inaccuracy in causes a(iditioltal inaccuracies in thrust but not in specific error was impulse. for for It is proeach oI i_zrcentuge U.3 percent

mass

flowrate,

estimated flint the nmximum pulsion system parameters parameter. S-IV-9 within predicted This percentage

inchnies

the accurucy

accounts heater

mass at cutoff, which was 36 kg (= 80 lbln). Table and simulated rate, 6-15 engine for each flight stage and stage compares analysis S-R 7 fligl_t

cstimaled as I)emg 6-W comparcsthe longitudinai longitudinal the predicted thrust, specific values simu-

and thrust

at the cooldown vents the cobdne cooldown Ullage rocket thrust

IWleakage of during engine acre-

stage mass flow impulse. Figure to the postflight results lation

,'rod predicted

anti trajectory stage.

base drag 11;00. 5 N or 135 liJf thrust effect) included. The engine analysis thrust level is N (626 lift) to account for cnaveraged from previous ve-

adjusted downward 27_5 gine clustering effects hicles,

_ood

The specific agreement

impulse of with preflight

tile S-1_'-9 predictions,

stage was in llowt.ver,

stage mass si)cctivcly, predicted.

flowrate and stage longitudinal thrust, rewere 0.67 and 0.51 i)erccnt higher than These differences from the predicted values

Vehicle mass loss rate includes all stage weight flowrates, such as the sum of individual engine propellant weight flowrates, leakage of LII 2 throughthe eooldo_q_ valves, and helium heater propellant weight flow. Ullage rocket floe'rate is not included.

for thrust and mass flowrate can be explained partly by stage propellant mixture x,'atio that was higher fllan predicted due to PU system excursions during the early portion of S-Iq flight (pars. 6.7.3.3). Also, slight errors in the estimate of S-IV mass at cutoff could cause slight errors ill the :imulation results [or thrust

Longitudinal tudinal thrust

vehicle specific impalse is vehicle longidi_dded by vel_iele mass loss rate.

6.7.2.2

FLIGIIT

SI/vlULA TION simu-

and mass flow, but not specific impulse. For exnmlfle, if the simulation was constrained to a cutoff mass that was in error by 0.3 percent, there would be a corresponding 0.3-percent error in the simulation thrust and alass flowrato. The trajectory simulation technique provides an

A six-degree-of-frcedomtrajectory lationprogram wa._ used to adjust system parameters obtained by Usingadifferentialcurrectionmethod, program lhrust:tnd trajectot determined st_tge T flint adjustments

the S-IV propulsion the engine analysis, this simulation to stage longitudinal

accurate method of determining vehicle mass histo_T, if the vehicle mass at an)" point in time on the trajectory is accurately known. From the combination of eapaeitaneeprobe tieally stage hasbccn lima). determined mass, the dctermined data, pothtlevel sensor _lta, almlydry mass ullage gas mass, and measured best estimate of S-IV-9 cutoff to lie 15, 404:1::]6 kg (33.

nmss flowrate th:tt yichled a simulated closely matched the uhscrved trajccpropulit, was

top-.
stun

The simulated trajectory, with adjusted system parameters incorporated into

961 --*s0

29

Byusing 15,404 kg (33,96i Ibm) as thevalue for the mass of the simulated vehicle at guidance signal cutoff, it was determined that the ignition mass would have tohavebeen61, 800_181 kg (136,246 400 Ibm), to provide an acceleration historythatwould correspend to the acceleration historyof the observed trajectory, This ignition mass derivedfrom the trajectorysimulation techniqueis23 kg (50 Ibm) lower than the best estimate of ignition mass from allsources, Speciii," Impt_tse(see) . 430 _ _2q _ _ g 42s _ _ 427 426 425 424 423 _22 s-iv-5 rhrust (1ooo N) 40s _ 4c_ _o2 400 _e 396
394

All engine events occurred as scheduled, and per_ formance levels of all engines were consistent with those established during acceptance testing. 6.7.3.I ENGINE COOLDOWN

The engine cooldown period_as 40.3 secends for LH 2and 9.4 seconds for LOX. The LOX consumption for cooldown was approximately 83,4 kg (I84 Ibmj, or an average mass flowrateof I.48 kK/s (3.262 Ibm/s} per engine. The LH2 consumption for cooldown was approximately 140. 8 kg (310 lbm_, or an average LH 2 mass flowra_e of 0.581 kg./s (I.Z6 lbmfsj per engine. The above values reflect only cagine analysis resets and not the "best eshmate" wdues presented in the S-IV PU System. Section 6.9. Helium bubbling to subcool the liquid oxygen in the oxidizer inlet ducts _as satisfactorily completed priorteliftoff. Oxidizerconditions at the engine pump inlets were normal, ranging from 91.9 to 93.3"K at prestartand 90.4 to 91.7*K at S-R r engine start command. The minimam oxidizertemperaturelevels duron SA-7 and approximately 0.6*K the flights of SA-5 and SA-6. At start, thefuel pump inlet pressure 23 N/cm 2 ( 33 psi1. and was higher the three previous flightS. higher than during the time of engine was approximately than during any of

s-iv-6

s-iv.7

s-iv-9

392 _06 t___

S-IV-5 $-IV-b S-IV-7 S-IV-9

6.7.3.2 START TRANSIENTS ing prestart were comparable to the levels

obtained

SassFto_R.t_(kg/s) 96.8 964 qs. 0 95.6 95.2 94.s 94.4

94.0

Normal starttransientsere noted forall w engines. The engine thrust buildup to the 90-percent level was achievedby allenginesbetween I.78 and 2.04 seconds after startcommand. For comparison, the chamber pressure transientsat start are shown in Figure6-16. The individual enginechamber pressures and thethrust overshoots during engine starttransient were negligible. Engine thrust overshoot values were less than 5 percent on allengines. 6.7.3.3 STEADY STATE OPERATION The engines performed satisfactorily

'g3.s 93.2
97.2 S-IV-5 S-IV-6 S-IV-7 S-IV-9

(The correction factors applied to this bar chart are the same as those used in Table 6-13/with the exception of predictions made prior to S-IV-9 flight. These predictions not includecorrections do due to clusteringeffects. ) FIGURE 6-15. CObiPARISON OF S-IV STAGE PROPULSION SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE 6.7.3 INDIVIDUAL ENGIIqE PERFORMANCE

throughout flight. The average of the individual engine specific impulse was 429.9 seconds and the average of the totaled individual engine thrust was 400,037 N ( 89,932 Ibf). During flight, maximum and minimum propellantmixture ratio levels were 5.35 and 4.88, respectively. The maximum propellant mixture ratio occurred at a PU valve angle of -20.3 degrees, while the minimum occurred at an angle of 19.3 degrees. 6.7.3.4 CUTOFF TRANSIENTS

The six pratt and Whitney RLIOA-3 engines, which powered the S-IV stage, functioned satisfactorily during prestart, start, steady state, and cutoff,

Engine cutoff was initiated bya guidance signal at 621.66 seconds. The six-engine cluster experienced a smooth thrust decay, reaching 5 percent

30

r........ _.._:) '"_ I 1

r,,........ (p,_)

6.8 6.8.1

S-IV PRESSURIZATION

SYSTEM

/
i : ; ' --_ r* _ - _ ] J , ! ..... i ]

. _6o _2_

LH2 TANK PRESSURIZATION During the S-IV~9 flight, the LH 2 tank pressurization system performed satisfactorily. Figure prepressurization, S-I boost, and S-IV flight. The LHz tank was prepressurized with ground-supplied helium from tl.2 to 26.0 N/cm 2 (16.2 to 37.7 psi). The ullage pressure increased to 27.3 N/cm 2 (39.6 psi) as a result of replenishing. The ullage pressure continuedtoincrnasc number theLtl 2 vent valve o[ 28.8 N/era t to 2 vent setting opened twice, ( 41.8 psi). The atliftoff-39 seconds and at liftoff -2 seconds. Because of the complex thermodynamic process existing in the ullage and the limited instrumentation available, it is difficult to ascertain if boiloff is contributing to this latter pressure rise.

._.,, "_-----

__

. _h_
. ]20

_'" I

f / t /// /r - /- /_ v

I .L __ __ _e ,0

FIGURE 6-t6.

INDIVIDUAL ENGINE START TRANSIENTS

_ '

' I

// .

! \

within 0.12 to 0.17 secondsalter engioeCO, as shown in Figure 6-17. Subsequent to guidance cutoff signal, the total stage cutoff impulse based on guidance aecelerometer data was 48, 806 N-s (10,972 lb-s), as cornpared toa predicted nominal impulseof48,672N-s

I
i.

; ] .[ :i _j

;' . .

(io,lh-s), o42
pr(,_,,re tN/_F _}

o[__

i '
..... _......

"2

ii _:;--

Pr' "_"1" (psi)

i ..... __ !

I I

i I ]

! i

,20

FIGURE 6-18.

S-IV STAGE FUEL TANK ULLAGE PRESSURE

"_\ , ! [ _,,,

"

The ullage pressure decreased during cooldown and was approximately 22.3 N/cm z (32.4 psi) at SIV-9 engine start command. Ambient helium makeup of the LH s tank was not required because of the high tank pressure 28.8 N/cm 2 (41.7 psi) at initiation of cooldown. Proper fuel tank pressurization was accomplished during flight by tapping GH_ off the engine supply aft of the main fuel shutoff valve, and routing it through thefuel tank prepressurization system. Prior to initiation of step pressurization, and on sigmal from the propellant utilization system at S -IV engine start com mand plus 335.66 seconds, the LH_ tank ullage pressure cycledbetween 20.9 to 21.9 N/cm 2 (30.3 to 31,7 psi). The initiation of step pressurization opened the stoppressure solenoid valve, allowing the tank pressure to approach the vent setting. The ullage pressure increased from 21.2 N/cm _ (30.7 psi) at initiation of step pressurization to 26.8 N/cm _ ( 38.8 psi) at S-IX'-9 stage cutoff.

_q"'

i I

"

i [
f_

_\

[ c 0_

-,,v

.._:.

[ [ .,,,. ,, ,._ ,,_,, ,_._ 0 ._ _'"" '_'" ':-" "" """ ' ' "'" ' """' '_' _

FIGURE

6-17.

S-D r ENGINE CUTOFF

TRANSIENTS

31

Theavez,'ageprcssuranttemperaturewas approximately 175K. The average pressurant flowrates obtainedduringnormal, control, anti step pressurization were0. 052, 0. 080, and0. 129kg/s (0. 115, 0. 177, anti 0. 285 Ibm/s}, respectively. The average ullage ternperature was approximately 148K. During flight, 37.4 kg (82.5 Ibm) of Gtl 2 were used to pressurize the tank. The performance tern was as expected. of the Section nonpropulsive 14.0 contains CONDITIONS vent sysdetails of

conditions were not achieved [,Jr UplJr,*xintutt'l 3 60 seconds. Minimum net p,#sitivc suction pressure (NPSP) was 4.6 N/tin 2 (6.7 psi) at hlitiati,m ,,I _t, i. pressurization, which was u. 9 N/(m 2 (1 .:; tJb[) IJCI'Iw the minimum requirement. 6.8.2 LOX TANK PRESSURIZATION

system performance, 6.8. l. 1 LII2 PL_I P INLET pump inlet entirefli_,qht

DuringS-IV-9 stage flight, the (_lJttt';ItiOll ')i the LOX tank preszurization s3stem ;_a_ _ati_tact,_tS. hnmediately before liftoff the [.ON Lank '.',:_ }n',---urizedx_ith cold Gltefrom a ground _,mrcc. l)urinA S-IX" powered flight, pressure was i)ruvi(Icd t_J the L(AX taltk bytheheliumheater. ullage pressure and S-W flight. Fi-_ure 6-20 shows during prepressurization, the LOX tank S-I boost,

Basedon engineperformancedata, the LH 2 conditions were adequate throughout the (Fig. 6-19), although minimum required

I
i
I/% i I -

_/
t i

'
-_-i i

!
, " z

y! -_ L I

I--

Lii _ ii

I': _

FIGURE - _r_--__--i .... _!i _ ] q

6-20. S-IV STAGE PRESSURE

LOX TANK

ULLAGE

}. _ _

_'" -_.'_:: :??,'.: ..... -_ .... _, __ i I

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

..... q_

was well above rite minimum rc.quircd limit of 10.:_ N/cm 2 (15 psi). At the initiation of the automatic count (147.5 see prior to liftoff), the LOX tankwas preprcssurized to approximately 33.6 N/cm 2 (4_. 7 psi) withapproximately 2.13 kg (4.7 lbna) of ground-

I,

[ _
i

i
_ [ .... J

b i
I ! I ] ! / f ....

i
{

'
" __

supplied helium. Between 117 and 109 seconds prior to liftoff, the

" \{

ij \ \1 . I_x ! ; y

!II
-57- \-

I
_ -_ r

:I
....
"

LOXtankullagepressurethendecayedto ly31.5 N/cm _ (45.7 psi) at approximately al_proximate60 seconds prior liftoff

tvo,t,aI,.eoyde

:.... Y

_/_x! .,,L:

to liltoff, after which it leveted off until ltftoff. may have been caused by pr,_pcllant slt#_hil_g.

prossure that ecreasocnrre.,ollo.v,

i
FIGURE 6-t9.

-Iw
INLET PARAMETERS

i
demonstrated

.EL ,I, A EROPE TIO"

As shown in Fig_are 6-21, the S-1Xr-9 flight of the helium the operational capability

Ltl 2 PUMP

32

.......... ,...... iJ---[---f---]------_

., .,,,-. _ l--

temperatures during acceptance test and therefore should exhibit higher temperatures during flight. In addition to this the ullage pressure cycles were such thata relativetyhigh mixture ratio was induced, prior to step pressurization, which would result in higher combustion teml)eratures.

,. I_t_ i . ......
,.*,

....

mately 61,500 watts (210, 000 Btu/hr) (luring single coil operation and 85, 600 watts ( 290,000 Btu/hr) (luring |lelium heater heat fluxwas satisfactory[or the proximately 8800 watts (.20,000 Btu/hr) higher than normal, resulted from tile high combustion temperafull duration helium heater secondal 3, coil control valve approxitare. The of S-IV powered flight, averaging cycled .2.5 times during S-W powered flight, with single-coil mode occurring during 43.8 percent of this time, and two-coil mode occurring the remainder of

._
f._ ......

__, - ............. '............. "...................

,_ ,t..... ,...... t._.l.., ....

.... .

is t,

, -

6.8.2.2

LOX PUMP

INLET CONDITIONS

I
i ..... .... ,, .:' . ": " _:_.i_ i':_ .I'L :.._'.?.i,, ......... , .-_ " _ .... "....... " "_ :'.................... ................. l --_--z_N "J /_/ _ ./ l i _ [ I

__
I The delivered the necessary quantityLOX supply to system of LOX the engine Imml) inlets whilemaintainingthe required pressure and teml)erastabilized at ture conditions.the bulk telnperature The LOX I_amp of 90.72K within inlet temperature five seconds .... ,,., _........ _............ //_ _f_/_ / ,,_ after engine start. The temperature then

of 92.06*K by stage cutoff. Throughout increasedslowly, S-IVandreachedamaximunltempel,'atureS-W operation, the inlet conditions, shown in Figure 6-22, were within specified temperature and pressure limits. Cold helium bubbling was initiated 486 seconds prior to liftoff, secondscontinued to liItoff. and satisfactorily The until termination at 188 prior LOX pump iulet temperatures decreased normally and, at termination of coldheliumlmbbling, werewtthmthe range of ,_. K to 80.3"K. This temlmrature range compared favorably with expected values. By pros(art, the temperatares had increased to between 91.8*K and 93. t'K, a value that is within the required limits of 90.3"K to 97.2"K. At engine start, tim inlet temperatures were between 90.:'K and 91.60K. Figmre 6-2.2 provides a time history of LOX pump inlet tenlperatures during cold helium bubbling and LOX pump eooldown. 6.8.3 COLD HELII._I SUPPLY

,_. _ ..... :_- ,,. _ _ ...... ,., _ FIGURE 6-21. S-IV HELIUM PERFORblANCE HEATER

heaterasan integral component of the stage LOX tank pressurization system. Helium heater ignition was normal at S-IV engine start command; the combustion temperature rose rapidly to above 556'K within three seconds. The combustion temperature continued to rise for 115 seconds of S-IV powered flight, and then cycled in a band between II80*K and 1354"K. This temperature was slightly higher than normal, hut _._s within the desired limits of 533K to 1367"K. The higher combustion temperature can be attrihuted to the fact that the heater exhibited higher combustion

During S-IV stage flight, the cold helium supl)ly was adequate. At SA-9 liftoff, respective pressures and temperatures in the cold helium spheres were 2120 N/era 2 (3075 psi) and 20.8*K, respectively, |udieatingaheliummassof 57.5 kg (126.9 Ibm). Based upon integration of the pressurant flowrate during S-I boostandS-lVpowered flights, it was determined that 35.6 kg(78.55 Ibm) ofhelium were expended for LOX tank ullage pressure replenishment during S-I powered

:13

flight, and35.4 kg (78.1 Ibm) were consumed for LOX tank pressurization during S-IV powered flight. The total amount of cold helium residuals in the bottles afterS-IVenginectttoffwas20.9 kg (46.1 Ibm), based on the bottle pressure and temperature that was indicated. This value, which would indicate that 36.6 kg (80.8 lbm) of helium were consumed, is in close agreement with the 35.6 kg (78.55 lbm) calculated by integrating the flowrate.

493 psi), decreasing briefly to 300 N/cm _ (435 psi) at initiation of both L/] 2 and LOX prestart. The regulatoroperatedwithinthe desired band of 324 N/cm2; plus 31 and minus 17.2 N/em 2 (470 psi, plus 45 and ninus 25 psi), except forthe normal spikes occurring at prestart periods. .... , ...................... -, ....

_7"" "--'

'-

t
|

{ _"

"

;;_,.1% .,._:',.,,__:"; ;................ ...

t
LlI i I __-1
6-23. COLD HELIUM PERFORMANCE BUBBLING

,.]

"-,i,_ ._L.

}.

__

FIGURE ' ........ _ >..:,...................... . "............

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

T,_ r,_

S.JV St,.

,'._,-,

i i Z_,*,.} ..........

: -,.

. _

FIGURE B. 8.4

6-22.

LOX PbZMP INLET CONDITIONS HELILrbI SYSTEM

CONTROL

The operation of the S-IV-9 pneunmtic control system was satisfactory during both preflight checkout and flight. The control helium sphere _s pressurized to approximately 2030 N/cm _ (2940 psi) ; it decreased duringpowered flight to approximately 1786 N/cm 2 (2590 psi) at S-IV engine cutoff. The slhere temperature rangedfrom a maximum of 294"K at liftoff to a minimum of 269"K approximately 200 seconds after S-R r engine start. By the time of S-IV engine cutoff, thespheretemperaturehadincreased to 274"K. Theoutletpressureofthecontrolhelium regulator variedbetween321 N/crn 2 and 340 N/em 2 (466 psi and

satisfactorily, The residuals ahove the pump inlets at command cutoff were 391 kg (863 Ibm) of LOX (includes 5 kg or ll Ibm of LOX trapped in the tank) and 115 kg (253 Ihm) of Lit 2 ( includes 4.5 kg or t 0 Ibm of Ltt 2 trapped in the tank). If the S-1%r-9 flight had been permitted to run to propellant depletion, the propellantutilizationat dclfletion cutoff signal would have been 99.92 percent of the usable propellants loaded. The residual at depletion cutoff would have been 37.6 kg ( 83 Ibm) of LH 2. As a comparison, analysis indicated that had the flight been conducted without the control of the engine mixture ratio (EMR) 1)3"the PU system, the propellant utilization efficiency rate would have been approximately 99.85 percent. The residual then would have been 68. Okg (150 Ibm} of LOX. During flight, the residual LOX mass determined by the PU system differed substantially from the rcsidual LOX mass determinedby the liquid level sensors.

34

They differed by approximately 109 kg {240 Ibm). Based upon the mass indicated by the PU system, a comparison was made between the mass loaded prior teloading test and the mass loaded prior to prelaunch loading. This comparison revealed on apparent mass shift equivalent to a probe capacitance of 0.27 picofarad. These readings were considered empty callbration readings since the LOX tank was at ambient conditions and had nitrogen atmosphere. When there is no LOX mass in the tank, the fine mass value read prior to the loading test should be 42 percent of the first leg on the saw tooth scale. Prior to loading for launch, the reading of 48.5 percent indicated a high LOX mass residual of 82 kg (i81 lbm). After the measuring instruments were corrected, the residual LOX nmss determined by the PU system dffferedby 54 kg ( It 9 Ibm) from the mass determinedby the liquid level sensor. This difference was within the combined accuracy bands of the two measuring systems, Three possible causes the empty PU system were of the calibration suggested. inside bridge shift in

2. Anaccumulation of moisture on the LOX mass sensor feedthrough resulted in a de resistance change, causing an apparent PU capacitance shift. Any such shiftprobably would skew the PU output so that a discrepancy of 82 kg (181 lbm) would occur at engine cutoff and a lesser discrepancy would occur at engine ignition. 3. A miscalibration by the PU system could have resulted in either constant or skewed PU system output shifts. The most probable cause of the shift appears to be the existence of extraneous material inside the mass sensororthedamagetothePUsystemwiringorbridge. It would take a large amount of moisture to cause the observed empty calibration shift. Further, the empty calibration shift occurred during a period when there was no possibility of miscalibration occurring.

1. Either extraneous material sensor or damage to the PU system

the mass or wiring

6.9.1

PROPELLANT

MASS HISTORY

caused an actual change in the PU system output capacitance. An actual capacitance change would result in a constant mass output shift of 82 kg ( 181 lbm) out flight. TABLE 6-V. through-

The propellant mass history at various event times as determined by the best estimate is presented in Table 6-V. The values are for total liquid propellant mass above the inlet.

PROPELLANT

MASS HISTORY

LOX EVENT kg S-I Liftoff LH 2 Prestart LOX Prestazt _-IV Ignition PU Activation Residual 38,015 38,015 38,015 37,938 37,652 91 91 91 91 91 ibm 83,809 83,809 83,808 83,639 83,008 200 200 i 200 200 200 --, kg 7, 747 53 7,746 7,641 7,596 7,548 53 53 53 53

LHz Ibm 17,079 17.077 16,846 16,747 16,640 117 117 117 a 117 117

391 36

863 80

115 11

253 25

35

6.9.2

SYSTEM

RESPONSE when (luring PU valve by the of

Thcl)Usystemgainchangewasscht.dult, the PU system indicated that

the

I,t)X

dto_Jccur _nass had

S-IV-9 movement system.

The PU system lnespon(led properly flight and provided the necessary to correct Figure during 6-24 S-IV the mass errors caused shows stage the typical flight.

decreased to :;2,799 544 Thecommandwasohservedtooccur (S-IV-9 ends). (72,153 The stage The lhln), engine LOX which skart was mass

kg (72, ::09 _: 1201)lhnt). at 21:'.n.3 _ek'onds command was was 148. 12 ._cc32, 72_ kg l_m_c. schvlthat the time the

movement

at this within

a PU valve

tolcv:mce was

LIt 2 tank step occur when

pressure the

conlmand

'

'

"

"

uled lbnt).

to

PU system ohserved

indicated to occur mass was

Thiscommandwas at which time

at 4_4.15 I1,290 kg

seconds, I\ i , / I i , l /
i ,

tile

LOX

, i --- ! [ ] i i _L__t .....

r., , ....

I -_

_ Thearmall engine cutoff comlnand to occur when tile PU system indicated mass had reached 79.3 .L 227 kg (1749 Hponeomi3landoftilelU. The IU command, was scheduled that the LOX :_ 500 lima) ,n" which prc-

i : L

I ! L

_-_-i .....

..

: ,

! i

] _A
i

_
" "

..

_... ....

....

FIGURE I;-24. TYPICAL PROPELLANT UTILIZATION VALVE POSITION At senseda in LOX valve, the time positive of 226 causing of PU system activation, the system equivalent LOX nmss error (excess kg or 500 Ibm) and positioned a higher the PU to assume mixture

eede(l the PU system command, _,ceurred at 5_2.23 seconds. The PU system commaml _as ,)hsct_'_.d to oecurat 616. 51 seconds, at which time the I.OX mass was s42 kg ( 1857 Ibm}. This mas_ w:lr. _ ilh in Icd_'rallCt-.

6. l0

S-In/

llYDIL_tULIC

SYSTEM of all six en-ines func-

the engines

Thehydraulic

systems

ratio. The factors prinmrily responsible for this PU valve excursion were nonlinearities in the system and the initial LOX mass error sensed in the system. This initial mass the loading error system, on SA-9 _s within the accuracy of

tioned properly (luring merry data of pressure, were similar to l)revious tionsor incipient dent in file data

S-IV-9 ix>wered flight. Telctemperature, and positi,m flights. No system malfuncdegnldations w,.re eel-

performance received. start,

The average

engine

mixture

ratio

excursions and are

durwell

Prior to engine

tile engines

were

satisfachJAt engine pUml)S rcp_)sitiuns the accumconsist-

ing flight varied hetween 4.88 and within engine operation capabilities, 6.9. :l PU SYSTEM PU COMMAND is designed

5.35,

rily positioned by the accumulators' clmrge. start, tile pressurized flmv o[ the hydmmlic chamgcd tile accumulators to their bottmned and maintained operating pressures there ulator Gll 2 pressures. All these events tent with normal systeln operation. were

Tile cornma ntis: t. 2.

system

to orighmte

three

ft. II PU system Lll t tank all gain step engine change c,)mluand eomnland command at the proper times; Itxml the pressure cutofI occurred x_,ns preceded

ULI_4.GE

ROCKET

PERFORMANCE

3. Arm All three

Ullage rocket with all rockctsjettiscming ct ignition monitored

perf,,rmance in-ol,rriy.

was satisfacto_ T Th. nlla_4,, rock-

commands the third

eonllnatnl w;|s given at 141$, :;3 sc.eunds, ;Is in the IU. The chamber pressures of all of al)l)roxiluately to ;12,500 i)si/_)

however, IU.

by a sig]ml

four rockets increased at a rate 16,900 to 22,400 N/cmZ/s (24,500

:IG

( Fig. 6-25). was recorded;

The expected initial pressure overshoot however, the mainstage pressure aver-

aged approximately 670 N/era 2 ( 9"/0 psi), which was slightly lower than the predicted 690 N/era 2 ( 1000 psi). By 148.8 seconds, the pressure of locket No. 3 lind decreased to approximately .24 N/em 2 (56 psi) less than the averagesatisfactory. other The burn time of rocket of the three. However, the pressure was No. 3 (pressure above 90 percent thrust or approxi-

..... --

..... __

....

l....... , !

_-[ , I .... ._ t

,,,

[ .

[ _ _

mately with N/cmZrequiredpsi)minimum burn time as coin(850 was 3.8 seconds, pared 585 the of three seconds.

j
....... i _ ]

i
_

It
I At rockets .... burnout, the chamber pressures of all four decreased simultaneously. A comparison of rocket ignition data shows that of 294"K. It the overall pressure profiles during were typical the flight data for a the manufacturer with grain tempel,_ture

,
'fk" ....

t I

,I

......

_ _ ,.:. _,_ ,_ _ ULLAGE ROCKET PRESSURE CHAMBER

rocket pressure sensing lines were empty when installed, rather than filled with oil. Rocket thrust data show thatthc total longitudinal impulse (pal.'allel to the axis of the stage) was 182, 822 N-s ('41,100 lbf-s). This impulse was within 1.2 percent of predicted nominal. The ullage between i58.46 rockets were successfully and 158.48 seconds. jettisoned

FIGURE 6-25.

.27

SECTION 7. l SUMMARY

VII. GUIDANCE

AND CONTROL

The overall porformanceofthe guidance and control system on SA-9 was very satisfactory. The vehiele responded properly to the simultaneously executed roll and pitch programs, which begun shortly niter liftoff. As expected, a counterclockwise roll moment (due to the unbalanced aerodynamic forces caused by the S-IV stage turbine exhaust duets) geecrated a vehicle maximum roll attitude error during S-I stage powered flight of -1, 7 degrees at 56 seconds. Although the thrust vector misalignments on SA-7 andSA-9 were very nearly equal during S-I burn, the maximum roll angle observed on 8A-9 was 50 percent smaller than on SA-7. This reduction in roll angle was due principally tothe increased roll control gain factor on SA-9. The roll torque due to the thrust vector misnlignment caused a 0.2-degree clockwise roll attitude error shortly after liftoff. The roll angle before and after IECO was constant at 0.7 degree. These angles aresomewhatlarger thanthose observed on SA-7, lint much smaller than the SA-6 roll angles of one degree after liftoff and three degrees after IECO. A vehicle roll deviation of 3.1 degrees developed daring S-I stage separation, caused mainly by the 0.75-degree total misalignment of the S-IV ullage rockets. The pitch and yaw attitude errors and angular rates were nearly zero dttrin_ this time. When the S-IV control system became effective about two seconds after separation, the roll angle was rapidly reduced. During this correction, the maximum roll rate observed was 3.9 deg/s, The control systemperformed very well throughoutS-IV stage propelled flight. The system responded properly to the initiation of pitch and yaw plane path guidance at 163.9 seconds. The overall performance of the guidance system was very satisfactory. The vehicle's total space fixed velocity at S-IV cutoff, recorded by tracking, was 7678.50 m/s at an altitude of 499. 728 km and a space fixed path angle of 90.033 degrees. The ,_ffereneee in value among the precalculated minus computer, computer minus tracking, and precalculated minus tracking were all within the 3(r limits for the velocity vector. However, they exceeded the 3 a band for the computer minus tracking and precaleulated minus tracking for the altitude and pitch angle deviations, The inertial velocity components measured by the ST-1_4 aocelerometers are in excellent agreement with those indicated by the digital computer. With the

exception of the range component, the measured and predicted velocity differeecesfall within the 3 crerror band but disagree widely witheachother. In the range direction, the measured and predicted velocity differences agree rather well but fall outside the 3 _ band by a factor of 2.0 and 1.4, respectively. The actual space fixed velocity and altitude at orbital insertion, determined from tracking, were 7681.82 m/s and 499.619 kin. The corresponding precalculated and computer values differ from the actual data by only 0. 26 and -0. 33 m/s and by 0. 358 and -0.;385 kin. The total space fixed velocity differences are well within the accuracy of the h_cking data ( 0.5 m/s) but the altitude differences are quite signifieant comparedte the 0. t00-km altitude accuracy (2 a). 7.2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SA-9 was the second Saturn I vehicle to employ a fully active ST-124 guidance system. The principal functions of this system are to: I. Generate art/rude error signals control and steering throtzghout flight. for vehicle

2. Issue timed diseretes to the spacecraft, Instrument Uait, S-IV, and S-I stages for sequencing vehicle events throughout the entire flight period ineluding Pegasus wing deployment. 3. Compateand issue steering commands tire path guidance during S-IV stage burn. 4. Terminate path guidance gine shutdown at the preselected for ae-

and initiate S-IV caspace fixed velocity.

The 8T-124 guidance system consists of the STl')4stabillzed platform assembly and electronics box, the guidance signal processor, and the digital cornpater. Figure 7- i shows the interrelationship between the components of this system and their integration with the elements of the vehicle control system. The operational periods of these major guidance and control system components are also indicated. The ST-124 guidance system generates attitude error signals _tp's) by comparing the three command resolver signals (X's) with the four ST-124 gimbal resolver position signals (O's). The angular rate information required for damping vehicle disturbances isobtainedfromthe three-axis control rate gyro package located in the Instrument Unit. Vehicle lateral acceleration control is accomplished in both the pitch

38

I) 2)

a( & dc power Accel & Gyro Stab St.: II ST[ 2:_

_.fl(,r " '-

i'l,

is)

il

Gyros

End Path --_ | Accel. X Y Z G,]idnnc_*

(P,Y,RJPL) 11--7:Clmba[ l Re_L.['..er_

,, "

R:'S_

lvers

P ..... j Comp,ttur I C,_al_d_

d-___z_____j , ,--"--IV_ G_idroc I _" .....]I _i

"_____. ( (

P,Y,R (d_- atLitudc

S-IV Ctl_of

Vc[ocity f Commd nd

Fli"ht St, O_!el_

LI
I
t'[ q { _:_ go S-IV

I
Fli.glt

C,nt:,.l

C, mtr.l At t't'I .

A,t,ve 33 to

ir, IOO sec

S qllt'lll S i!_n:llS SC, and IIF. S-I

C'lt_klu/t'Y

(fiLter_ & Jilt,

amplifies .,_ntt'.,[ si,) (,)nrr,,_ Si'n,l p l-or t_s_..y i ( _ctHaLOr pi%'; i L it'Oil_; .* _ _':_mmDllt!) T_ Sorvo S-IV C:n!r,_l Valves Ac_uato:s' (Engines 9 & 6) Cot,tr.I G.r, A,t oHt ivt. tl Rate Pkg. r_ u,_tl-

fl__llt

Flight [izt'(I $'.:itch

C,_ntr.,1 ;IL (e_.r-

_'--"-'l [ (

:tt

Se;\,_ V_l,,'_'s (Engine: 1-_) To S-IV C:_l:tt'._l Actu..tl,t_' To Se,'. S-I C,mt:ol Act..itor_' (Engines ]-'_)

" Valvo_

FIGURE 7-I. GUIDANCE AND CONTROL

SYSTEM

39

and yaw planes during S-I flight fixed controlaccelerometerslocatedin Unit.

by means ef tx_o body the Instrument

at the end _-IV thrust ,h'ca3 ',_:h prc, hctcd to tJu 3.1 m/s higher than the vc.locik_ :d guJ,ian,'v (ul_l! command. 7.3 7.3. 7.3. CONTROL ANALYSIS CONTI_OL

To supply the total vehicle system with the basic signals from a single source (the digital computer), new time bases must be generated during flight. The first time base starts _hen the IU tmlbilical separates from the vehicle and ends at S-I propellant level sensor arming. The second time base begins at activation of the first propellant level sensor and terminates when the S-I "thrust OK" switches are ganged for backup of the normalOECO mode. The third and final time base commences with OECO and continues throughout the remainder of the flight. Pitch and ya_ plane path guidance is separation command plus 17 seconds. This plished by unlocking the brakeson the three resolvers in the guidance signal processor, the ladder nelworks in the digital computer to the measured guidance values, and issuing putedcorreetionsignals (_) to the command in the guidance signal processor. initiated at is accomcommand loading accolxling the c0mresolvers

1 S-1 STAGE FLIGIIT I. 1 PITCH PLANE

In the pitch plane, the put'refinance el the control system was very good. The magnitudes ul the control parameters _crc small tlwoughout S-I _tagc flight. The maximum values ohservc,i (i, lhe Much 1 1o maximum dynamic pr_,s_urc r_.gion] _ ere: R_J_gc Tight _ _e)

Parameter Attitude (deg) error

Magnitude

0.6

65.

Angle of attack (free stream) Angular

((leg)

-l. 4 - t. o

(J2. n 6_. 0

The iterative guidance mode (IGM/ is employed for the pitch plane path guidance program to compute the reqnired steering commands (_Z / from the rouessured real time "state variables," each 1000 ms. Tolerances in engine and stage alignment, _'esoLver chain errors, computational time lags, and other inherent conditions result in the misulignment of the tlu'ustveetor with respectto the guidance plane. Pitch plane steering misalignment correction (SMC or XZC ) is introduced shortly alter guidance initiation to correct for this condition, Delta minimum path guidance, where the vehicle is constrained to a predetermined reference, is employed in the yaw plane. Boththe cross-range velocity and displacement are utilized to steer the vehicle back into the reference plane. The range of initial condilions at the introduction of guidance necessitates limiting the cross-range steering command (_CR) to 0.25 radians ( 14.3 degl to prevent saturation for too long a time.

rate (deg/s)

Normal aecclet_ation (m/s 2) Actuator (deg) position

-0._i

64.2

-1.3

63.0

Angle-of-attack dynamic pressure product _deg-N/cm z) As in SA-7, the digital

4..3 computer

62. provided the

pitch program using a 6-term erate the required pitch rate.

time polynomial to genThe SA-9 vehicle began conat 5_.

a programmed pitch ever at 8. t_6 seconds, _hich tinued until 137.8 seconds ahen it was arrested degrees from the launch vertical (Fig. 7-e1.

When the computer's space fLxed velocity vector reaches the initial digital computer presetting (Vs = 76;_3 m/s), the signal is issued to lock command modtdes, the steering commands are arrested, and path guidanceis terminated. The computer then shifts to a faster cycle in which it searches for the cutoff velocity ef 7678.95 m/s, space fixed. When this value is attained, the computer issues the guidance cutoff command that initiates shutdown of the S-IV engines, The final space fixed velocity achieved by the vehicle

The pitch program for the vehicle during S-I stage was biased for the average of the mean winds of the months December, January, February, and Mal_eh. The increase in pitch attitude error to 0.4 degree at 137 seconds ( Fig. 7-3# is due to the _halxe of the tilt program polynomial. First mode slosh frequencies (0. 9 to 1. I Hz) of the propellants during the S I _tage propelled flight are indicated by the pitch angular rates and engine actuator deflections (Fig. 7-3). The slosh forces are largest t_etween 75 and fl0 seconds; the resulting allgular rate_ are, 0.2 deg/s.

40

................. .... " ...... -.... .... .... - , i , " . ". ' i' "t :. ....... zf ! _ _........ .... ;'1"L,:.[-_] " [ I,.. !" . _
F

The angle-of-attack

wind was calculated

using Q-bail

angle of attack, attitude angle, and trajectory angle; it wind, The is in good agreement with the rawinsonde largest pitch wind was 26 m/s, observed during the max Q region (Fig. 7-4). During the maximum dynamic pressure region (60 to 80 secI, the angle of attaekdeterminedfrom the rawinsonde wind waswithin O.3degree o that calculated from both the Q-ball and the fin angle-of-attack meters data. The agreement between the Q-ball and fin meters is good until 120 seconds (30 see longer than the agreement of these same measurements on SA-7). An external nose down pitch moment, similar to that experienced on SA-7, having a maximum value of 670,000 N-m at 70 seconds, was required to simulate the SA-9 flight control parameters.

FIGURE 7-2. PITCH PROGRAM AND PITCH VELOCITY VECTOR ANGLE

:
i _ ,

7
.

:% ,
. ....... ,

"t , :
, . . ! ' i

7.

raw PLANE

Theperfornmnce of thecontrol system in the yaw plane was very satislactory. The maximum control values for the S-I powered flight were: (seel

[,, _ [ .....

' ' I ........ _ '

_---'_

_ _, "

:_L_' o 1T t I

..... I .

Parameter Attitude error (deg_ Angle of attack _free stream)

Magnitude

I.......... __. f _

j I -',

, , ,._ -'_J_'_

i I_

-0.6

64.1

(deg)

-2.9 0.6

64.0 65.4

FIGURE 7-3. PITCH ATTITUDE ERROR, ANGULAR RATE, AND AVERAGE ACTUATOR POSITION

Angular

rate

(deg,/s)

Normal acceleration (m/s 2) Figure 7-4 shows a comparison of the rawinsonde wind, the angle-of-attack wind and theangle of attack. Actuator (deg) position

-1. I

64. t

- 1.7

64.3

" ,'} ,._ _

";"-'" :':"- '.... . i i _

-" j

i_ !

'

:. I j : . - -_'

Angle-of-attack dynamic pressure product (dog-N/era 2) 9.3 64. 0

!_ : .ar'l. ., -: '. " " .e--'- : x. .,_ . _ _.../k..._Y . . _,. ::;6'.

"' ";---:'. ' '-" :: .. " "

First mode slosh frequencies (0.9 to 1. l Hz) of the propellants during S-I powered flight are indicated in the yaw angular rates mad engine actuator deflee! _ 7...'.'.:" . .,. ? ; lions ( Fig. 7-5). The yaw angular slosh forees rate resulting from

'[

! __

"

-.

these maximum

( 75 to 110 sec} was O. 1

I I'i

......

"[_

ir I

dens. The

rawinsonde and angle-of-attack yaw plane winds are shown in Figure 7-6. The maximum wind (23 m/s) occurred at 70. 3 seconds. As in previous moment is required Block II vehicles, an external yaw (in addition to the angle-of-attack

FIGURE 7-4. COMPONENT

PITCH PLANE WIND VELOCITY AND FREE STREAM ANGLE OF ATTACK

41

winds) to simulate the telemetered control system performance. This required external moment had a valae of g70,000 N-m at 70 seconds.

Total Average Actuator n'[lt'ction(d,.g) _v,.ctor Sum of Pitch _nd Ya_|

M_x

/--

Bla_k

]l

Design

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

_0

40

60 R_g_-Time (sot)

_0

100

I C0

--.*

_:

r._

i-'r,.v

Strvam

Anglr

of

Anack

{d<'_)

8 ! I _[__ i ,_,,.,I,_. _ 1

::

,
o __
Dynamic dC

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

". ! '_'... :_-..; ', ,' !..": * "" , ".'i . I '/"_-40 bO 80

I_ange Pr_sur." Time (se,) Prudent Angl,'-ol-Attac_

lOlb (dt_-Ni<'m

_20 2}

'

Jr

....

T _',_

_ _

s_

-I
v....

- ,. ! .' .,_. i_.,z4,. _ ,,__>__ _

"" ..... , ..............

_o
10

"_

_ -'

'

_, !

"

P%I,t

_i__'_A " "

'/

I_.

it--

!_-_--

_ _

i[_

"_"

:"

-_'_:_'_

....

r3'

2.0

40

_.s_ _i_ t_,'O

o0

80

100

220

"_

" .........

"

' .......... i...... _

FIGURE 7-7. COMPARISON OF SA-9 CONTROL PARAMETERS WITH VEHICLE DESIGN CONTROL PARAMETERS (Fig. 7-8). This indicates a thrust misalignment roll equivalent to 0.05-degree engine deflection in for

FIGURE 7-6. YAW PLANE WIND VELOCITY AND FREE STREAM ANGLE OF ATTACK 7.3.1.3 CONTROL DESIGN PARAMETERS

A comparison of the SA-9 flight resultsand deflection, angle of attack, and dynamic pressure augle-of-attack product is shown in Figure 7-7. The design valuesarebasedona 95 percent nondirectional wind velocity with 2 o shears and 11 percent variapalsion system performance and vehicle mass characteristics are also considered in arriving at the design val_es. The SA-9 data are slightly higher than for SA-7 but well withinthe design values, 7.&1.4 ROLL PLANE SA-9 rolled clockwise to a steady state attterror of 0.2 degree by 7 seconds range time

,_.'_';::::',:'-a;.7.,

........

:: .:.,:_ 'L _'_l' _

/--_
7" ". '" i_ L :i / __ .......

tade

FIGURE 7-8. ROLL ATTITUDE ERROR, ANGULAR RATE, AND AVERAGE ACTUATOR POSITION

42

each

S-I stage

control

engine.

At 8.86

seconds

the

At path guidance

initiation

(163.9

see),

the re-

required launch-to-flight azimuth roll maneuver pro gram began; the vehicle% pitch and yaw axes were rotated into coincidence with the stabilized platform axes. The 15-degree roll program, executed at a rate ofl deg/s, was completed at 23.9 seconds (Fig. 7-8). The roll axis maximum control during S-Ipropelled flighiwere:
During Aniimle error parameter {dog) Ron Maneuver

hicle_s space fixed velocity was almost one percent higher than nominal. This condition caused the guidance system to issue a nose down pitch steering cornmand correction (AXz} , which peaked at 2.5 degrees at 170 seconds. During this period (at 166 sec}, the ST-124 platform issued a maximum nose down pitch attitude error signal of 1.1 degrees to the vehicle flight control system. The vehicle pitch program angle (Xz) was reduced to a minimum of 49.2 degrees at 170 seconds { Fig. 7-10).

values

measured

Alter

Roll

Maneuver

Magnilal&, 1.3

Range

Time

Magmtude L.7 [

Range 5G. 0

Time Pitch Altxl .d. _ rr.:r [._ i:_ (*t"_ A ,170 "" @_-," " i_(. I _" a,_* P - _<** Tin, i .... "" :,t, " " _t. i" "'-'i2_r _llO

|0. Is

Angular

rgtl-

(dcg/_} Engin,. d'flectlon roll (dug)

-1.2 0.2

11.7 10.0

-0.5 -0.4

I I

52.9 56.0

0 [ -

i_k

,, I, "

""

i r,tt i.t i.,,

A significant attitude error (-1.7 deg) was also observed between Mach rand max Q (Fig. 7-8]. This roll attitude error is consistent with previous Block lI flights and is attributed aerodynamic flox_=about the turbine exhaust fairings to(see SA-7 report). The inereasein roll control gain (from 0.2 on SA-7 to 0.3 on SA-9) reduced this roll attitude error from -3.5 degrees on SA-7 to -1.7 degrees on SA-9. The roll attitude error bias "after the control gain change at I lO seconds indicates a 0.07-degree thrust misalignment in roll (or each control engine. 7.3.2 S-IV STAGE FUGHTCONTROL _ _

p,,._,_ ...........,:,.,, i..: .... _,,, -_ ......... _,._. _,..._ "'.'% '_-v '.' """ ...... ,...... = ....... ' _4 _z -_o
l

t, _ . _ , Y< .
" _:,r,

i i-- '-_
,a

_.,, _. -#

\(, J.

"

The performance of the vehiclecontrol system was excellent throughout S-IV powered flight. The system responded properly to the transients during S-I stage separation and after path guidance initiation. The pitch, yaw, and roll attitude errors are presented in Figure 7-9.

,....

i7o

I.a

.... I<_o :.0 *'"" _'' '"'_

2i,-

:20

Z _o

'

FIGURE 7-10. VEHICLE RESPONSE TO PITCH PLANE GUIDANCE INITIATION In the yaw plane, guidance guidance the computer data showed that

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

_ .... l

I .....

_ '

'" 'i" : ._

4.
:'

I ii
.'

", ...........

, ':' ':, ,

,
,

! .!i

the vehicle tothele[t see).0m/sand m,at was ( 163. 9 -riO0 the initiation Consequently.
system issued maximum steering corrections of 5 "5 degrees x and 6 3 degrees -_ (nose right and x X Cl viewed from rear} at 170 and 171 seconds, resp_ctivcly, i.e. XCR reached a maximum value of 8. 8 degrees at 171 seconds. During this time (at 167 sect, the largest attitude error signals issued by the ST-124 to the vehicle flight control system were 2.3 from rear}. The maximum yaw and roll attitudes resuiting from the initiation oI yaw plane guidance were 8.2 degrees nose right at 173 seconds and 0.5 degree OW at 169 seconds.

,-;7,:":'_.;.::_ ' <_'_--_'_1 [_ 'i' i : '"' .... ,.p_---_---?

' i.

] " ,_ = 2.,.,..[--t- I _: "'' _ -1-4 i I ' ' : I M . , ,). .!. ! _ ..... " _ .... l '

I,!i ''

' I i - .--- ._ - -t

" '

! _

i _

' t

'i' "_' _

de ees oseleftaod0.I rollCCW n yaw degree vtewed

FIGURE 7-9.

S-IV STAGE ATTITUDE

ERRORS

43

was

The overall excellent.

performance At guidance was

of the guidance system initiation the computer to the left of the planned these initial values of 0 m/sand -80 meters. the cross-range velocity by the computer at S-IV and -122 m; these v;dues (predicted)

7.4 7.4, 7.4.

FUNCTIONAL I 1.1 CONTROL CONTROL

ANALYSIS SENSORS ACCELEROMETERS control Unit (to accelerometers provide partial loload

indicated trajectory; -12.0m/s

that the vehicle

250 seconds later and -ll00mreached caused measured -0o 3m/s

Slight perturbations and displacement cutofftoincrcaseto

cated

Two body fixed in the Instrument

compare very favorably values of -0, 2 m/s and The pitch plane

with the I_ominal -173 meters, misalignment

relief in the pitch and yaw planes from 35 to 100 secl functioned properly. Peak lateral acceleration of -0.6 m/s 2 in pitch and -1. I m/s 2 in yaw was measured near max Q. Figure 7-11 shows good agreement

steering

correction

term (kzc) introduced some 6 seconds alter guidance initiationincreased from 1.05 degrees to 1.16 degrees at the range, The engine ues, of 0.3 based attitude seconds S-IV stage steady state attitude errors and valfrom end of path guidance, well within the expected

between the ferred tothe suits. S-I

measured lateral accelerations (transvehicle CG) and the flight simulation reand S-IV propellant sloshing and the first el the evidentdurmg control _as portaons active.

twobending modes were time that accelerometer

deflections The mean

were very pitch attitude

near the predicted error increased

; ....

degree at 585 seconds. Preflight predictions, on sinmlation results, indicated that the pitch error varied from 0.40 degree nose up at Z50 to 0.45 degree at 580 sc_conds. The minor

. i

t _'

data can discrepancies be accounted betweenthellightdata small thrust the predicted for by and vector misalignments el gravity offset different from predicted, and a center The degree seconds. crease 0.47 ancy mean noseleft The from yaw attitude error increased from 0.12

"_-_--"_.%._'_ i i

/_l_,,_.._ " V__4_ "

at250secondsto0.30 preflight simulation 0.2 degree nose left

nose leIt predicted at

at 600 an into 7.4,

FIGURE

7-11. PITCH AND YAW CONTROL ACCELEROMETEILS SENSORS angleof-attack FI6 Q-hall components angle-of-attack escape meters Both of angle

250 seconds

degree nose isalsoattributed The mean throughout Vetlicle steering fixed roll

left at 600 seconds This discrepto the factors mentioned above. attitude S-IV error was flight, were computed arrested when less than 0. l

1.2

ANGLE-OF-ATTACK Pitch and yaw

were

measured

by a model

degree

powered commands vector

transducer mounted on the tip of the launch system (LES) and by EdclifI angle-of-attack mounted systems on booms at the tips with of the lins I and If. by the guJdcompared well computed

the space ance two

velocity

system seconds

reached belore

7633 S-IV

m/s. This occurred about guidance cutoff command, z was arrestedat less than predicted. 120.05 Due

attack. This misalignment upwash region,

comparison included for the Q-ball, and

0.2-degree pitch SA-7-determined During the max Q oI attack indicated

The steering commandanglex degrees, just 0.6 .) degree

factors for the fin motors. the ma.ximum pitch angles

to the increasing yaw attitude error during S-IV burn, the cormputer*s cross-rartge velocity reached a steady state value of-0.3 m/s and the cross-range displacemeat increased to -122 m at S-IV cutoff. The angular rates resulting from nearly werc steering arrest

were -1.37 degrees (Q-ball) and -l. 34 degrees (fin meters). Maximum yaw angles of attack _ere -2.86 degrees (Q-ball) and -2.1 degrees (fin meters). 7.4. 1.3 IL_TE GYROS

and S-IV stage thrust decay were end el S-IV thrust dc_'ay the rates pitch, -0. 05 deg/s in yaw, and

zero. At the -0. 1 de,g/s in in roll.

packages tioned

A description of is listed below. properly.

the All

three three

SA-9 rate [lack;l_t.s

gyro func-

0. 03 deg/s

44

1. A * 10 deg/s range, 3-axis, contro rate gyro package, located in the IU, was used to provide pitch, yaw, and roll angular rate information for vehicle control throughout flight, 2. The second rate gyro package also is a 3-axis 10 deg/s range, and control type unit which was flown for developmental purposes and was located in the thrust structure area of the S-I stage. The roll rate gyro apparently functioned prOperly, but because of the eommutated measurement the data generally were unusable. 3. Three 100 deg/s measuring rate gyros, required for velficle motion analysis in case of a failureD are located in instrument compartment 12 at the forward end of the S-I stage, Thecontrol rate gyros indicated thatthe first four bending modes and the first torsional mode were excited during portions of the S-I stage powered flight. The IU control rate gyro package futmtioned properly in the control loop. 7.4. l. 4 CONTROL ACCELERATION SWITCH

On SA-9, theswitch signaled closed at 147.4 seeomis; thisis almost 0. 9 second after the vehicle longitudinal acceleration dropped below the switch setting and nearly 1.0 second after separation command at 146.42 seconds, if the apparent time delay due to commutationofthe measurementand the start of physteal separation of the S-I stage is considered, tho actual time delay of 0. 8 second was 'about 0. 2 second longer than predicted. Switch settings on SA-8 and SAt0 are 0.254 and 0.303 g; the corresponding laboratory measured time delays (g value sensed to switch closet8 are approximatoly 0. 3 and 0. 4 seconds. Since the vehicle longitudinal acceleration curve on SA-8 and SA-10 will be similar to SA-9, the acceleration switch can be expeered to signal closed at about 0.5 to 0.6 seconds after separation command. 7.4.2 RESOLVER CHAIN ERROR COMPARISON

The total resulver chain error in any axis is the angle difference between the output angle generated by the ST-124 and the input angle commanded by the digital computer. A comparison of predicted with calculated pitch axis resolver chain error is shown as a function of the pitch command resolver angle (kz) in Figure 7-12. The calculated resolver error was obtained by subtracting the calculated pitch attitude error from the telemetered attitude error. The calculated attitude error was obtained from a vector balance using the

suitable

This is the first flight test which provided data to evaluate the performance of the con-

trolacceleration switch located in the IU. Laboratory tests on this switch indicated a switch closure inftiation value of 0.254 g with a time delay (time from sensing of g value to switch closed signalj of almost 0.6 second,

Resolver

Chain

Error

0:)

{deR)

cal

= &'l:P t A '*Dr

" = =

/'_'='Pc Telemetered Calculated Pitch Pitch Attitude Attitude Error Error [_ O -Calculated Calculated Predzct_d S-[ Sta_e S-IV Staee

0.4

A'_

Pc

0 o.z
10 20 30 40

0 0
90 1 O0 1 t0 120 I

-0

0 O O

00 (3 O

0 0 13

0 00_

Ra._e T,5_ _,ec_

-I).,

FIGURE 7-12.

CALCULATED

AND PREDICTED

PITCH AXIS RESOLVER

CHAIN ERROR

45

guidance system measured space fixed acceleration, thebody fixed pitch andlongitudinalaccelerat:ioas, and the telemetered pitch steering command (Xz). predieted and calculated valuesofpitch axis resolver error have the same general shape and indicate a bias of approximately 0. 2 degree. The pitch axis resolver chain errors had only an extremely minor effect on the vehicle altitude. Since the predicted resolver chain errors (based on laboratory measurements) inthe yaw and roll axes are very small Iless than 0. 1 deg) no comparison of predicted and calculated values was attempted, 7.4. 3 FLIGHT CONTROL COMPUTER AC TUATOR ANALYSIS AND

engine posilioding commands were well within the load, gimbal rate, and torque capabilities of the S-I and S-IV actuators. Except for the sizeable_-IV actearer deflections (2. 6 deg) during S-I stage separation, due to the vehicle roll deviation, the S-IV dngine gimbal angles were quite small (_ 0.25 deg) throughout flight. The S-I stage telemetered attitude error, angular rata, and lateral acceleration signals were analyzed with anopenloop analog simulationof the control systern filter and shaping networks. The difference between the telemetered and simulated data was within 0.2 degree, which is within the accuracy of the flight measurements. The performance of all eight S-I stage and all twelve S-IV stage actuators was satisfactory. The following tabulation preeenta a summary of the maxi mum measured actuator flight data: S-I Stage* max Q 2.0 17 10, 600 29,200 S-IV Stage _:'_ Igmtion Cutoff 4 15 330 l, 180 0.5

The commands issued by the control computer to position the actuators were correct throughout the entire controlled flight period of both stages. These ... Parameter Gimbal rate (deg/s) Torque (N-m)

Type o[ Data Measured design limit Measured design limit

Liftoff 2.0 6,200

OECO 0.5

16,400

375

"* Maximum actuator deflection was l. 7 deg; occurred near max Q. ** Maximum actuator deflection between S-IV ignition and S-IV cutoff 149. 9 sac. 7.5 PROPELLANT SLOSHING FLIGHT PROPELLANTSLOSH

was 2.6

deg in roll; measured

at

7.5. I

S-I POWERED

SI stage sloshing was monitored (similarly to the previous Saturn I vehicles) by means of differential pressure measuremenLs in three of the nine propellant tanks (LOX tank 02, fuel tank F4, and cantar LOX tank). S-IV stage sloshing was monitored by fl_e continuous level sensors of the S-IV propellant utilization system. In Figure 7-13 the peak-to-peak slosh amplitudes are pre_entcdas envelopes of values calculated from onboard slosh monitoring and theerctical transfer functions using engine deflections, The pitch and yaw engine deflection frequencies are predominantly first mode sloshing from 70 to 120 seconds. The maximum peakoto-peak response of the engine to sloshing was 0.55 degree in pitch and 0. 25 degree in yaw at 85 seconds (Fig. 7-14). Wind oscillations of 2 to 4 m/s were observed from 70 to 80 seconds. The frequency o[ these windoscillations was well within the range of predicted first slosh modes

during this time, thus contributing to the vehicle response. Wind oscillations of the same order of mugnitade were observed from 80 to 90 seconds on SA-7; however, the frequency of these oscillations was only 0. 5 Hz, and the response of the engines to sloshing was 0.1 degree. Attempts to simulate the propellant sloshing amplitudes and to obtain the correct vehicle response have been unsuccessful. The most plausible exl_anation for the higher than expected vehicle response on SA-9 seems to be a system instability which occurs when the S-IV LOX tank slosh frequency moved through the 0.9 to 1.0 Hz range. The lower predicted fre quency, for first mode S-IV LOX sloshing (calculated on equivalent cylindricaltank theory, whichhas proved inadequate for this fill level), used in the control systern deaign produced a stable condition for the S-IV LOX tank. The higher (corrected) frequency observed in flight and calculated on equivalent spherical tank theory produces a marginally stable condition in the S-IV LOX tank (Fig. 7-15). After passing this marginally stable region the propellant damps at

46

Sl,,shinJL Frequencies

_te_tned

fr_

EnSJne DefIec(:*_,_

.-;

approximately (Fig. 7-13). xn Figure t]igb( 7-14 of S-1V-9.

the predicted The predicted were based

rate for the slosh slosh frequencies on da'ta obtained

baffles shown after the

2.o vr,.<:i,t<.,_i_ _.t..i,. t. 6 t.z -----_-tvC,l_t,'-r Lli, S-

I,OX _'" "_i

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

Lox

--"

%v'-.5 _ L4

o.s
_-I '_i+hl m.,[.i," ,,u.- (,,,_+ _ i.,. i) p, .*_ ,,, p<.,_ (, m)

,2-:---_'2; .....
_0 -

I
I

i
!

.....

_,_.'.'.'g ....
0.4

o
X

r, .... .
ya,

I
i

" I
; ; i, -_; -.i,..: "_liTl_- ; _, l.ll. 1_1 p, ,L l ], i, , *_ ( i,.} 14L, _ll_hll _IIL tlclllS _ i

'<

--_

--

] R.,n_.

I I,.,,

_ , ;

_, _;ll[lrt_

]l .I SI_._I, /_;_llt

_,

{p_>:,k _.. p, tk_

Is_<'.h

--

t';:,

_ p=,_. _ ,, ,_,,.i :. : _ ,; 1, ._ 0.2

$A-_

s-]

_!<,._: _,.:,1 ,,q.

.r,

;)Xlp.

l,;

#/ z

_ \x

_o

4 r_

,, _

"i_

i i)(l R.nc,

I ZO rlm_-

I 4(i (s_-_)

.] o

1.....
12

"" /_L, ....

'....

::

'_'

FIGURE

7-14. DURING

ENGINE

RESPONSE

TO SLOSHING FLIGHT

S-I POWERED

s-l%"

] II2 St,i.:,

_lnl_ll_tlh

. p, .l_ :1) Ill _k {l ]elI

FIGURE

7-13.

SLOSH

AMPLITUDES FLIGHT

DURING

S-I

FIGURE

7-15.

ROOT

LOCUS AT

FOR S-IV

LOX

TANK

POWERED

SLOSHING

80 SECONDS

47

7.5.2 S-IV POWERED SLOSH

FLIGHT

PROPELLANT

7.6 GUIDANCE

SYSTEM

PERFORMANCE

The overall performance of the ST-124 guidance The LOX sloshing amplitude and frequency during S-IV powered flight are shown in Figure 7-16. The sloshingamplitudehistoryagrees withthepattern seenonprevious flightsandthe frequencies agree well with predictedvalues, The LH i sloshingampliaxdeand frequencyduring S-IV powered flight are also shown in Figure 7-16. The lack of disturbingmoments in thepitchand yaw planes during separation resulted in a lower initial LH2 slosh amplitude during the S-IV-9 flight than was seen on previous flights. The LH1 slosh frequencies agree closely with the predicted values, :.,, s_,.-_,.: F:<._,,,,,. -_--_-1 ] t i i. __
LTh_oltti.aI I_ ]']o,],,

system (ST-124 stabilizedplatform and electronic box, guidance signalprocessor, and digital computer} was very satisfactory.Detailedanalysis'of the telemetered guidance system data is discussed in subsequent parts of thissection. 7.6.l GUIDANCE INTELLIGENCE ERRORS"

Guidance intelligence errors are definedas the differences between the range, altitude, and crossrange inertial velocity components measured by the ST-i24accelerometers and the corresponding parameters calculated from tracking data. The sources of the gtadance intelligencerrors e may be divided into two general categories: component errors and system errors. The component errors, the scaleguidance and bias, are thoseThe system errors factor accelerometers. attributed directly are to attributed to the stabilized element on which the ac(constant and g dependent), platform celerometers meant. These include leveling errors, gyro drift rates

.....

_ _._r,.,... __,,

_ ' i

"n_,

I ,_

I i ,.,: ,.,. ...... _u,:, _-,.)

I ,,,.....

.]

s_.._, .<L:_,: '_ ) .....

:'-t

,:_.u.: _-: _ i ...... -- -----'- _ s_ ....... s,_-: 0 O0 Sh_ e ,,

nonorthogonality of the acceleromcter measuring directions, and misalignment of the platform flight azimuth. With the exception of the leveling and azimuth errors, the above data were obtained by laboratory measurements several weeks prior to launch. The leveling and azimnihdeviationsweredetcrmined from data which were available only immediately before liftoff. The predicted ST-124 inertial velocity errors for the SA-9 flight test were based on laboratory calibrationof the ST-t24 stabilized latform system (Table p 7-1and Fig. 7-17). Accelerometer levelingand azimuthalignment velocity errors weredeterrnined from the data on the system errors availableatlaunch. ST-124 system 3 ly error band for each velocity ponent was used as the standard for comparison the actual inertial velocity differences. In Figure 7-18 the differences between The corawith

_
\

" o n, --O

'"

[k._._:_.L_..-:... I ! -X._-_'.'._--] ""@ --_-_h_--_--7

' _' _ - - i"

o lo%[0

l.,

f ,': i_'l_l f'_J-_ _-fffi_+__-_l_?-.-_-_. o ,_:, _,. ,.r_, _. _:,,,. ........ .,_ _,_ _.,_+.:. I _ ".,,v,, -<', !

_ ,0,,"

_,.q ,,__ <H) i " !

the tele-

I
_-i_" i ! i --.

!
,
I'Ll l'rob_

t H_
: " /

_ I _" _ j -] -_I ! i

0._

I_<_:., --_

, ."/ [ht.,_rt'l],;_l

metered ST-124 accelerometer (iner_2all velocities measured from vehicle first motion and the corresponding velocity components determined from MISTRAM tracking data are compared with the predieted 3 a error difference. Differences between the telemetered velocity data and tracking are listed for principal event times in Table 7-II. with the excep-

o.-_

OlO0

200

_._

_00

I Hodt T_,,," ,-<) _

IS[ 1,00

I 500

[
600

FIGURE 7-16. S-IV LOX AND LH l SLOSHING PARAMETERS DURING S-IV POWERED FLIGHT

tionofthe range direction, the and predicted velocity component differences measured within the 3 a erfall ror band hut disagree widely with each other. In the range direction, the measured and predicted velocity differences agree rather well but fall outside the 3 a band by a factor 2.0 and 1.4, respectively.

48

TABLE " Parameter 1. System Errors a. Platform Leveling 1) About X Axis 2) b. c. AboutZ Axis

7-I.

GUIDANCE INTELLIGENCE

ERRORS ) [r,i,_Xtial Vt'locit\" Di! l'crence aX,. I_d) 'rra) [ } Lab . ZYi Traj at ,)-I V C( ) ( hi/Is . -XZi Lab "_ "rraj__

Symbol

Units

Laboratory & ! Error Sources Prelaunch Established From Meas,Errors! Trajectory Analysis

deg LX LZ AzA deg deg Z AXIs X Axis Z Axis MXz Myx Myz dng/hr bX 5Y 5Z deg/hr/g 5X/X 5X/Y 5y/x 5y/Y _Z/_ i 5Z/Y 0.174 -0.015 0.050 0.015 -0.067 0.025 0.152 -0.034 0.03 -0.048 -0.166 0.011 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0.09 0.03 0 0 0 0 0.87 -0.30 0 0 0 0 2.29 -0.13 0 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.63 0.41 0.17 -0.57 0 0 0 0 0. 164 -0.041 -0.024 0. 135 -0.081 0. 027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 -0.34 -0.06 -0.50 0 0. Ol -1.01 0 -0. 0031 -0. 0004 -0.0033 -0. 0031 -0. 000-t -0. 0033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 05 0 0 0. 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0068-a:0.005 0.00570.005 0. 002-0, 007 0. 0003_ 0.0035 -0. t)065 0 0.32 0 0 0.19 0 0 -0.72 0 0 -0.40 0 -0.39 0 0.25 -0. 02 0 -0, 85

Azimuth

Alignment

Accelerometer Misalignments 1) Range Accel. Rotated Tow,ard 2) Altitude Accel. Rotated Toward 3) Altitude Accel. Rotated Toward Gyro Drift Rates, Constant 1) Yaw (X) Gyro (About X Axis) 2) Roll(Y) Gyro (AboutYAxi'_) 3) Pitch (Z) Gyro (About Z Axis)

d.

e.

Gyro Drift Rates, g - Dependent I) Yaw (X) Gyro (About X Axis due toX) 2) Yaw,(X) Gyro (About XAxis due to Y) 3) Roll(Y) Gyro (About Y Axis due toX) 4) Roll(Y) Gyro (About Y Axis due to Y) 5) Pitch (Z) Gyro (About Z Axis due toX) 6) Pitch (Z) Gyro (AboutZ Axis due toY)

2.

Component Errors a. Accelcrometer Bias 1) 2) 3) b. Range Acceleromctcr Altitude Acceleromct_r Cross-Range Accelerometer Scale Factor SF x SFy SF z Bx B Y Bz

m/s/_ 0.00036 0. 00007 0.00020 g/g 0.000016 0.000010 0.000033

0.00004 -0. 00044 0.00013

0.22 0 0

0.03 0 0

0 0.04 0

0 -0. 27 0

0 0 -0.12

0 0 0. 08

Accelerometer 1) 2J 3) Altitude Cross-Range

Range Aceelerometer Accclerometer

0. 000075 0. 000072 0. 000033

0.12 0 0

0.56 0 0

0 0.03 0

0 0. 22 0 I F

0 0 0

0 0 0

_.

Total Error (m/_)

0.7;)

0.90

0.26

1.36 i

0.02

-1.79

........... 3 -_ Platform Leveling About X and Z (deg) 0.010 LX ..... _

Deviation Azimuth Alignment 0.020

Laboratory (or prelaunch) measured error sources Acce[erometer Hisalignment 0.0030

f'-3 Errors determined from trajectory analysis Gyro Drift Rates, Constant (deg/hr) O.150 _ I': _Y _Z

(deg)

(deg)

0.005

LZ .............. _

0.O10

AzA ................. 0.0015

, ............................... f_!. 0.075 ...............................

MX

Z MYx

MYz

-0.005 ............................. 0.010 .................

-O.01G

o
Drift

-0.020

o o
0.0015 -0.0030 Accelerometer

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

0.075

-0.150

o
o

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

A
Factor (Percent)

Gyro

Rates,

g Dependent

(deg/hr/g)

Bias

(m/s 2)

Aecelerometer

Scale

0.20

_xl';_Xl_, " ",Y/_ ,!_Y/V /Z/_' _,z/_

0.0020

0.00008

FI

O. 10

O.OOLO

Bx

Bv

Bz

0.00004

0.05

0.0005

0.00002

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

o
-0,05 .............. .................. -O,lO

_
," , ....................

_
-0,0005 -O.OOIO

o IILo H
................................... 0.000(12

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

Ill
O. 16( FIGURE 7-17. ST-124

"
PLATFORM SYSTEM

-0

00004

STABILIZED

ERROR

SOURCES

TABLE

7-II.

COMPARISON OF INERTIAL GUIDANCE VELOCITIES

Event Range Time Data Source

TotalVelocity(m/s) Actual Vel. Diff.

Range Velocity(m/s) Actual Vel. Diff.

Altitude Velocity(nVs) Actual Vel. Diff.

Cross-Range Vel. {m/s) Actual Vel. Diff.

(see)
Accelerometer Tracking Precalculated Accel-Track Track-Precal Accelerometer Tracking Precalculated Accel-Track Track-Precal Accelerometer Guidance IaiUat_on (163.863) Tracking Precalculated Accel-Track Track-Precal Accelerometer S-IV Cu_ff ( 621. 659) Tracking Precalculated Accel-Track Track-Preeal Accelerometer Orbital Insertion (631. 659) Tracking Precalcalated Accel-Track Track-Precal 8093.1 8091.8 8118.5 1.3 -26.7 8091.1 8089.6 8116.6 1.4 -26.9 7485.8 7484.9 7492.6 0.9 -7.7 3849.4 3849.2 3818.3 0.2 30.9 7483.0 7482.0 7469.9 t. 0 -7.9 3076.0 3074.7 3125.8 1.3 -51.1 3749.0 3748.8 3714, 1 0.2 34.7 2211.6 22tl.4 2206.7 0.2 4.7 3077.5 3076.3 3127.4 1. '3 -51. I - 0.4 1.5 - 0. 1 -1.9 1.6 3583.4 3583.2 3531.2 0._ 52.0 2129.1 2128.9 2121.2 0. 2 7.7 3150. 6 3150.5 3116. I 0.1 34.4 - 0.3 1.6 - 0.1 -1.9 i. 7 1992,4 1992.2 1969.9 0,2 22.3 3085.7 3085. 6 3048.7 0. 1 36.9 -12.0 -11.3 - 11.9 -0.6 0. 5 2978.4 2978, 3 2930. 6 0.l 47,7 -11.6 - 11.0 -11.1 -0. 6 0. 1 -tl,4 -10.9 -10.6 -0.5 -0.3

IECO (140.22)

OECO ( 145. 563)

L__J,

: ;,,

_"

J" ' |"

....

-......

,_I]L, , V ,,11

i
.i i,]_, , , i]) ,n ._

,
T
l

.... '$7 ,

._

j,.:,

.:: ! u,:: .....

" '

FIGURE 7-1_. DIFFEI?,ENCES D_t_iled

INEJITLAL VELOCITY COMPONENT (AC C E LEROME TER- TRACKING1 of each inertial velocit)" iudicates _ourees do the eases roll gyro gyro g de-

-z

"-"_'_----... i

"

[
examination I compnent dilfezx_tlce (Luea_urcd-traektltg) that the szgnilieant iallightvelocity el'roe not of agree platform _sith theprellighterror leveling, azimuth drift soutx:esin alignment, rates, pitch

I,'IGURE

7-19.

RESIDUAL

INERTIAL

VELOCITY

COMPONENT

DIFFERENCES ANALYSIS-TRACKING)

(TItAJECTORY

constant

and g dependent

pendent drift scale [actor. the above

rate, range accelerometer It should t)e t)oted, however, error source values

bias, and that all of (dutermined

(tlx)m A_C

theprecalculatcd 15 computer dalai

tl'ajecto_'y _ith

and

rite tulcmetered tracking data

computed

file orl)ital

by trajectory analysis) fall within the _-angeo[ the pre{light error data the 3 c_ tolerance, except the g depeitdeat coil and pitch gyro drift rat_s and tll_2 raegc aeeeleron)etev scale lhctor. This amdy_is generally indicates that the g dt_pendent gyro drift rates were the leastpredictubleandlargest inertialvelocity ecruportent error sources (they principally alfected aftitude and czx_ss-range celeronmter scale Figure7-19 llent rot error cuz'ves curves using errors). The effc_2ts of file acfactors were the least signilicant, the actual the reconstructed determined Table these velocity tempoor-

is presented in Table 7-IIL The velocity tliiTcrenees (computer - tracking) all fall _ithin the specified 3 a error band except the space l_.xcd range" velocity dtlfercnee, xxhieh i_ approximately 2,6 time_ larger tban ;;o value. Tim total space fixed velocity diilcrcnce o[ 0.4t_tn/_ was _pportioncd among its three components, as follows: AN s (t_l percent or O. 391 m/_), "Yst lb [uatx'ont m/s), The
lei'ences _r[orlnl)_oce

or

0. 006 nits},

and AZ_

( 1 percent

or

O. 003

compares _ith the

space
(colnputcr

fixed
-

|'ungc ilmrative

and

altitude indicate gaidanee

velocity olode

difIG,'yl}

velocity

tt,'acking)

the excellent

posttlight

guidance

of

the

system errors The differences within (shaded 7.6.2 the areal. GUIDANCE PAILISONS

shown in between

7-I mid Figure 7-18. two eat'yes are well from the tracking da'La

scllenle in _Jlc pik'h plar_e, i.e. vary widely teem the precalculated the total velocity vector diflerencc This is the cro_s-raoge first llight test vcloezly error cutoff.

xsllllu, AN s ;i!_,i AY tvajuctory value_, is only 0.4_ m/s.

accuracies

expected

ill which the Slxtee lixed fell xsithin the 3 o" oft'or

SYSTEM

PERFOILMANCE

COM-

band

at S-IV Only

the range velocity diIferencc ..XX _as Mgs outside the error, 3 _r band. though As larger noted earlier, this thu|) the ;3 a band

A comparison and space lixed

ol the velocity

space

fixed

total

velocity enroll

nilieantly run,go

component_

at S-Iv"

velocity

52

TABLE

7-1H. COMPARISON

OF SPACE FIXED VELOCITIES AT S-IV GUIDANCE 621.659 SECONDS RANGE TIME)

CUTOFF

Total Data Source Total Velocity {mrs) ASC-i5 Orbital Computer Tracking 7678.98 7678.50 Velocity Difference (m/s) Range Velocity (nqs} 7269.46 7268, 44

Range Velocity Diflcrcnce tin!s) Altitude Valoaity tin/s) -2472.65 -2474.22

Altitude Velocity IMflerenee m/sl Cross Ve|oci_. Range

Cross Velocity

l_a nge

IMfference

tm,'s)
-87.82 -_6.18

Ira!s)

precal. Computer 3 a Error Precal.

TrajeOtor

767t_.

95 0.48 *0.7i 0.45

726it.

71 l 02 0. 40 -7.73

-249_.

15 l. 57 xl. -23.93 60

-87.32 -1.64 1.80 -1.14

- Tracking Band Tracking

of 0.4m/s, dicted data. ST-124

was

within

0.3 m/s

of the value

pre_4..) R <_" ...,, ..... ....... _ _'_ _ "_' _,.).:.,.,._ ....

based on laboratory ST-124 system calibration The total space fixed range velocity difference system error. 7-IV, the prccalcalated and telemetered

' . _ '_-'...... ' _,

In Table

......
_ ,_,\_ -* ' L-, __
y.tw and IL.H Se,t,:n,:,

!l
t i[

(ASC-15 computer) guidance system parameters are case of the comparison made at S-IV cutoff, the total compared with tracking atorbital tracking) at orbitalin the insertion. As measured errors (telemetry insertion all fall x_ithin the 3 a error band except the range velocity. Again, only the range velocity was significantly larger than the 3 e error band although it was in fairly good agreement with the predicted value. The increase in vehicle velocity bet_'een S-IV cutoff command and orbital insertion was 3.17 m/s, which agrees very well with the predicted increase of 3.10 m/s.

. t...
_ _ ..... 1,_

'_

t :..........

_'

"_

_:' :

._

(delta-minimum) guidance scheme is shown in Figure 7-20. TheASC-t5 computer cross-range velocity and displacement at guidance initiation (-12.2 m/s and -1100 m) were reduced to mimmum values at about

i _ I ! ,t'_ : t '! _ _ .... "......... '"_ _::'_!

400 seconds. The increase in all command} after this.... parameters (veloc ity, displacement, and steering ttmeis due to the increasing vehicle lateral CG offset and/or thrust vector misalignmenL Dueto these conditions, the cross-range velocity and displacement increased to -0.3 m/s and -l'>2m (remaining within the 3 a band) at S-IV cutoff, 7.7 7.7. GUIDANCE SYSTEM HARDWARE I GUIDANCE SIGNAL PROCESSOR TAL COMPUTER ANALYSIS AND DIGI-

FIGURE 7-20. YAW PLANE DELTA MINIMUM GUIDANCE PARAMETERS procedure used on SA-7 was altered on SA-9 to force a recycle of the digital computer back through guidance release 45 seconds before It/toil. This change gave updated "C" revolver readings much closer to litte[f and reduced by a factor of four the possible inertial velocity errors sensed by the computer at liftoff. This new approach actually eliminated all inertial velocity errors at SA-9 liftofI.

tem

The overall performance of the guidance syshardware was satisfactory. The countdown

53

_,

TABLE

7-1V. COMPARISON OF GUIDANCE PARAMETERS AT ORBITAL (631. 659 SECONDS RANGE TIME)

INSERTION

Parameter

Units SymJml

Precalcula_d Trajectory

ASC-15 Computer

Tracking Trajectary

Error Precal-Trk)

Total Meas Error (ASC-iS-Trk) E 0.33 0.349 -0.013

3 a Error Band

Error* Factor E I_-jjI 0.46 1. 15 -1. 18

* I Residual :__:: :: _ Error ]E-3_J

Total Velocity Radius Vector Path Angle

m/s km dog

Vs R 0s

7662.08 6875. 049 90. 013

7682.15 6875. 022 90. 014

7681.82 6874.673 90. 027

0.26 0. 376 -0. 014

_-0.71 _30'_ +0.011

0.047 0.002

Range Velocity Altitude Velocity

J

m/s s

Xs Ys 7s

7235.58 -2579.39 -86.67 2306. 538 499. 977 6476.417 -47. 031 -0.25

7244.60 -2554. 13 -87.18 2283.796 500. 004 6484. 450 -45. 958 -O.40

7243.76 -2555.57 64 2283. 609 499._85. 619 6484. 148 -45.572 I.49

-5.18 -23.82 1.03 ')2.9')9 0. 358 -7.731 -1. 459 -1.74 ,

0.84 1.44 I.54 O. 187 0. 385 0.302 -o. 396 -1.89

e0.40 _1.60 _I.80 +241_:_ -211 _.302 +371" -331 +393_" -571 +I.7{/_' -2.10 +3.)6 -686

2.10 0. 96 0.86 0. 78 1.27 0. 81 0.67 -0.99

0.44

Cross-Range Velocity Range Dis_aceme_t Altitude .... Altitude Displacement Displacement km m/skin km km m/s

Xs h Ys Z s

0. 083

i/

Cross-Range

Cro_s-Range Velocity (ll,ertial) Cross-Range Displacement (/nertia])

Z. * Z i

-171

-125

530

-701

-655

-0.95

Unsymmetrical 3 (_ values are due toknown biasesintheASC-15 computer. * Error factorsgreaterthan I. indicate 00 thatthetotal measured error exceeds the 3 o"error band. _:: Residualerrors existonlywhere themeasure error exceeds the 3 {r ** error band.

After approMmately 56 seconds of flight, a bit in the digital computer's telemetry word counter dropped out and remained zero for the rest of the flight. This malfunction had no effect on the flight performance of the guidance system; however, it did delay the cornputer data reduction effort slightly. The dropped bit was in the word that served as identilication for the digital computer data. As a result, incorrect scale factors wore used in the conversion of the data to decimal form. This problem was corrected by reconstructing the proper identifying word, resulting in complete recovery of the computer data. The possihie cause of the malfunction has been isolated to a series connection of elements in the guidance signal processor and the telemetry multiplexer. However, thereis no way to isolate the failure to any particular element oI the series connection, S-IV cutoff occurred 8.35 seconds predicted; this condition was attributed performance of both stages, earlier than to the higher

amount. T',tble 7-I shows the various error sources that contributed to the total range velocity difference. Note that the predicted difference, based upon laboratory ealibrati0n tests, agrees quite well with the dii[erenee determined by the trajectory analysis method. On SA-7, the largest inertial velocity errors in all three components were caused by erroneous platlorm leveling signals issued during the vehicle holddown period. This error source was eliminated on SA-9 by switching the platform leveling pendulums out of the circaitprter to the start of the holddown period. Azimuth alignment error (affecting only the crossrange ve|ocity) was the second significant error contril)ution discovered after the SA-7 flight &-st; this error source was greatly reduced on SA-9 by more exact alignment of the ST-t24 cross-range acceleronleter.

The SA-9 predicted total velocity at orbital insertion (7682.05 m/s) included the revised (since SA-7 flight) velocity increment resttlting from S-IV stage thrust decay. The value determined by tracking was 7682.15 m/s, a difference of merely -O. 10 m/s. This verifies the ability to achieve very accurately a desired orbital insertion velocity, The digital computer issued all its sequencing command functions satisfactorily. The total delay (including the data acquisition system) between the predicted and actual sequencing times was 0. 004 second for the S-I stage sequencer and 0. 013 second lor the Instrument Unit sequencer, The total number of computer telemetry words from liftoff to entry into the cutoff loop at 620 seconds was 52,080. Of this number, 51,660 or 99.19 percent were available for examination by the bit-by-bit comparison program. The remainder was lost due to restart of the bit-by-bit program in second stage. Slightly over 59 percent (59.7 percent) of the telemetry were examined by the bit-by-bit program; the remainder were minor loop telemetry. Thus, 59.20 percent of the total flight computer telemetry during the Ume interval considered were examined in this analysis. An estimated 1. lI percent of the telemetry were lost due to dropouts, 7.7.2 ST-t24 STABILIZED PLATFORM HARDWARE ANA LYS1S SYSTEM

The three gyro stabilizing servoloop error sigrials indicated maximum values ranging from _ 0. 1 degree (yaw g)'ro) to 0.2 degree (roll gyro). The redundant gimbal servoloop error sigr_l measured a maximum angle of 0. 05 degree. The three guidance aecelerometer servoloop error signals peak values were :L 0. 05 degree (range and cross-range acceler~ ometer) and _ 0. 1 degree (altitude accelerometer). All these measured values compare favorably with inflight data from previous flight tests and fall welt within the expected ranges. The range and cross-range guidance aeeelerometerencoder outputs verified the satisfactory functional performance of these instruments; a limited amount of these data were checked and indicated the same equivalent velocity pulse count as the accelerometer (velocity) measurements and the digital computer data. The three phase power supplied to the ST-124 system by inverter 1 had the following average voltages: Phase AB Phase BC Phase CA 1t-5. 3 volts 116. 5 volts 114.4 volts ac ac ae

These voltages should average 115 :_ I volt ac under abalanced load and differ from eachother by not more than 1.5 volts ac. The phase voltage deviations and the phase-to-phase differences were caused by the unbalanced load. (Note that the overall average voltage was 115.4 volts ac while the phase-to-phase maximum difference was 2. ! volts ac.) The measured ST-124 internal ambient pressure N/cm 2 (t0. 0 psi) exceeded its specified lower

The overall performance of the ST-124 system was very satisfactory; only the range velocity cornponent exceeded its 3 _ error band by a significant

6.9

55

limit

7.2

N/em

2 (10.5

psi)

hy

almost

0.35

N/cm 2

7.8

ST-124 The

GAS SA-9

BEARING bearing

SUPPLY supply with

SYSTEM system Ilueat_-d in

t0. 5 psil. formance

This conditionin of the ST-124.

no _ay degraded the perIt is quite possible thata he attribuof theda 'ta

gas

significant portion ted to the accuracy acquisition The system, inllight

of the total error could tolermme (2= 5 percent)

the Instrument platform system) eous nitrogen and [lowrate

Unit along provideddry

the ST-l?4 _tabilized and highly liltered gasprc,,_ure, components. high pres._ure a_and dein Fig-

at a regulated to the ST-124 system consisted

tempcrature, gas bearing el one

tcml_arature

o[

the

8T-124

inertial

This storage sembly, check tailed are 4

supply

gimbal _as calibration. erometers the range significantly eter scale degrees raalge

4 degrees colder If it is assumed experienced the velocity

than during laborato_, that the guidaoce aeeelsame errors temperature would have shift, been

bottle, a heating pressure limit valves, arrangcmentof the

and pressure switches, tubing, system

regulating calibration etc. The

interconnecting

and altitude

is presented

'affected by the change in the acceleromfactor errors. A temperature shift of would result in an error of 0.56 m/s and 0. 25 m/s cutoff the in altitude vdocit'y, error re-

7-21. The SA-9gasbearing supply _ystem_as modilted Saturn anprespressure

in the

velocity At S-IV

somewhat from Blockll vehicles surized was used pressure) ential Z 1U.

those employed on previous because of the change to the the ST-lX4 enclosure

cross-range

velocity

On SA-9,

suiting because the Z

from a temlmrature shift would be negligible of the near zero acceleration experienced by aeeelerometer. The trajectory analysis errors change solualtitude velocity temperature feasible. indicates of about

as a reference tinstead of to maintain the gas bearing This was accomplished enclosure the ST-124 regulator.

the IU ambient supply diflerby routing a }Jack to the

pressure.

tion to the range and that an aeeelerometer degrees The ing frame appears maximum was only range is being

pneumatic line from gas bearing pressure

more

The ST-124stabilizedplatform temperature 292K, of changed of the ST-I_4 several to 248 degrees The to 298"K mountbelow measurefor SA-8 the pressure ing The launch pressure _as constant decreased at lZ. 4 N/em first

enclosure

ambient dlt'7.25

z _ 1;. 'J l,_iJ it reached

eountdox_nandthe

20 seconds

of flight.

measurement ment range and SA-10.

298 to 318K.

as exqpected;

N/cm 2 ( 10.5 psi} at S-IV cutoff. The pressure at cutoff was approximately 0. 35 N/cnl 2 (0.5 psil beto_ the

N,_tt"

: SC_I SCF = = Standard S,.andard Ccbi_ C_bi_ Meter F,_,gt

Hand Calibration Va }_,,re

LP

_ [793 N/cm- gauge

(S)

22o6 _a_ge(s) _/o,2

1_/ . -11--

' _k

HI' (S) (C> LP (M)

= = = ; =

Hi_h Pressure Specified Calculated Lo_ Pressure Measured

\
] \ _

/_7.63 ._-?/_> .._2

,'7.25 .-qrieice N/tin
2 a (C)

gb

S_itch

'

It

',

"_f#"

"._"

0.028 .3
GN) Ground Sphere _

[
Fitter
& Hea_er Pressure Assembly" Re_ulatr

_j

\
\ /

0.033 SC_Imin(S)
GN 2 Manifold Consumption Rate

_X

_O_C)

Inlet

13.5 N/cra2d (S) 13"6 H/cra2d (M)

I'-_

10.42 + 0.035

Nlcr.2d y

(S)_

FIGURE

7-21.

GAS BEARING

SUPPLY

SYSTEM

56

desiredminimumvalueof7.63 desired ample critical ST-124 The tern sire (0.028 gauge before launch to3200 gas was gas minimmn pressure is range of safety above minimum ambient gas bearing performance not satisfactory ft 3) was consumption m3_ 1.0

N/cmZ(ll. based the 5.55 operating

0psi). on providing

The an

heater ambient

was

continuously

operative. dropped

However,

all four

temperatures

sharply

at commence-

N/em 2 (8.0 psi) pressure of the

merit of LH 2 loading from 289.0K at -67. 6 minutes

an average of 293.4K to and -60 minutes, respec-

components, of rate. the gas The bearing supply sysexcesbottle N/cm 2

lively. The average IU temperature x, as never higher than 292.2K. This low IU ambient temperature is believed platform GixI2 ap to have from the the that to resulted in such was the great unable first heat tothe temperature. Saturn flight loss ST-124 the It in apparently GN 2 storage to 2127 theGN 2 tubing the heater-regulator GN 2 heater this was heater. minimum

due to the pressurized

to bring

speeified

(3085 psig) by the high pressure ground supply liftoff. This value is well within the specified requirement of 1793 to2206 N/cm 2 gauge (2600 psig). From ltftoff to S-IV cutoff, the ST-124 consumed 0. 498 SCM or 10 percent of

should be noted that test of this particular The sure sure was later ferential and 13.5 was preset pressure the

regulator gas

differential bearing supply

prospres-

bearings

(between

measured

the total usable average inflight was 0. 048 predicted explanation About pcrature o[ rate

supply of 5. t0 SCM (180 SCF). The consumption rate of the gas bearings or 0. 0364 problem before 31 percent has been larger found. the average tamthan the of SCM/min. No satisfactory

the specified ST-t24 enclosure N/era z differential (19.5 psid). sot atthis pressure value of 10.42 toprovide * 0. 35 N/em

pressure_ The regudifPrior bearpresthe 2 difIerenrial

SCM/min, of this one hour

the specified

liftoif, to the

( JS. 0 _: 0. 5 psid) at the ST-124 inlet manifold. to liftoff, the average pressure differential (gas ing supply pressure minus ST-124 enclosure sure) measured t3.5 N/era 2 differential; inflight,

the GN 2 supplied

8T-124

gas bear-

ings was 295K (298 _: 5"K specified) and the measuremont was displayingitscharacteristic thermostatic cycling. At -65 minutes tbe temperature begins to drop limit rapidly, (292.5K) reaching at about off scale system indicate the -57 lower measuring range minutes. The measureflight. The block-

corresponding average pressure diiferential was13. 54 N/cm 2 differential 20 seconds after lfftoff and 13.72 N/cm 2 differential at S-IV cutoff. The ST-124 inlet manifold ferential ential differential during early at S-IV cutoffD pressure flight well was 10.46 N/cm z difmad t0. 67 N/cm 2 differspecified ST-124 10.42 in-

mentremained house monitoring lion data both

throughout

within

and inflighl power eonsun_pthat the gas bearing supply

let manilold supply pressure requirement of 0.35 N/cm 2 differential ( t5. 0 *_ 0.5 psid}.

57

SECTION VIII. SEPARATION 8.1 SUMMARY flights. Only the roll angular rate of the S-I_'-9 stage increased significantly during the separation process. The roll excursion was approximately 70 percent of thevalue observed on the S-IV-7 flight. The direction of the roll excursion was opposite to that observed on SA-7 and is attributed to a total resultant ullage rocket misalignment of 0.75 degree in roll. 8.2 8.2. i SEPARATION DYNAMICS MOTION

Separation of the SA-9vehicle was accomplished in the same nmnner as in previous Block II flights, The chamber pressure Propulsion) indicated a loss of retro of pressure rocket t (see shortly after

startofthrastbuildup. All other available information indicates thatthis retro rocket performed as expected and that the separationtime history was near predicted. First motion between stages was observed within 0.07 second of separation command. The S-IV stage engines cleared the interstage 0.01 second later than predicted, relative to the observed first motion time. (For one retro rocket out the time difference between predictedand actual clearance would have been about 0.22 see. ) The two stages had separated by 10.95 m at S-IV ignition, which is 7.95 m greater than the specified minimum design requirement of 3 m ( l 0 ft}.

TRANSLATIONAL

The actual separation sequence for tile SA-9 vehicle is shox_ in Figure 8-1. Separation command was givenat 146.42 seconds and first motion was observed at 146.49 seconds. Firstmotlon time was established from extensometers and accelerometer data which were ingood agreement in both time of separation and separation distance. Maximum deviation between the two methods of obtaining separation distance was 2 cm. Figure 8-2 shows the separation distance between the two stages. Shown for comparison is the SA-7 separation distance. The t_l,o stages had separated by 10.95 matS-IV ignition, which is 7.95 m greater than the specified minimum distance but is in agreement with the predicted nominal separation. Figure 8-2 shows thevelocityincrement forbothstages in addition to the total relative velocity between stages.

The vehicle attitudes and angular rates were well below design _,alues at separation; however, angular rates for the separated S-I stage increased during the separation period. A systematic pitch and yaw deviation of the S-I stage has been observed on all Block lI

Enable Level

S-I propellant Sensors

I35.32

Ope_ Interstag,, and Initiate

LDX

Vent Ports Prestart

138.72

S-[

Inbo_*rd

Engil_.

Cutotf _ompu_r) C_ltoff

1&0.22 145.60

(SCnSod S-I

by

guidance Eng_nt:

Outboard

UllagL

Motors

Burn

(90%

Thrust)

[_6.3b 1_6_2

150.D5

S_ra_i_

E_mm_J_ 146.49

First

M,_tion

B_tween

Sta_

RL.tr_

H_tors

Burn

(t,O'_

Thrust)

i46.61

14_.J_

S-IV

Clear

S-IfS-IV

lnterstage

""

S-IV

l_nitit_n 1JO 14C 145 l_b Range Time l_ 2 (See) 14_ [49

FIGURE 8-I. SEPARATION

SEQUENCE

58

_- _,.p_r it;

,_ ('_l..t

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

,.} _ ........... !..........

lO

1i

--

_v

--

< .

I_,.:

,....

"; I'--/ - I

......................... ' '"'" '"

_"

....

-z [3

[3

Ranl_e TL_

(._e()

FIGURE

8-2. SEPARATION DISTANCE INCREMENTAL VELOCITIES

AND

FIGURE

8-3. ANGULAR VELOCITIES BOOSTER SEPARATION small S-D/

DURING

A lateralclearance analysis indicated that the SA-9 separation required 0.056 m (2.2 in) of the 0.74 m (29 in)available lateral clearance corresponding to a probability of 0.88. 8.2.2 ANGULAR MOTION rates deg/s, were well be-

Very

stage pitch and yaw rates were

observedduringtheseparationpertod (Fig. 8-3}. The roll rate was t.5 deg/s (CCW from rear} and can be attributed to a 0.75-degree total ullage rocket misalignment. _ownforcomparison in Figure 8-3 are the angular rates experienced on the SA-7 flight. The roll rates for the S-IV stage characteristic shapes of both vehicles but are opposite have the same in direction. 70 percent

Attitudeanglesandangular lowdesignvaluesof at the start I degreeandl of sepa ration,

respectively,

ThcS-IV-9rollmagnitodeisapproximately

After separation the pitch and yaw angular rates oftheS-I stage increased to -2 and -1 deg/s, respectively (Fig. been observed tributed rockets rates system 8-3). onall This magnitude and direction Block II vehicles and could total misalignment of the 0.2 degree in the pitch No S-I booster in the due to a failure have be atretro plane roll

of that observed on S -IV-7. No proble ms we re experienced in controlling these roll excursions. Total ullage reckct misalignments of approximately 2.7 degrees could be tolerated without the roll attitude error and angular rate signal being saturated. the attitude transients rite simulated with the actual are listed values. in the error signals reand disturbances. values, fibre. which Conditions

to a systematic of approximately were obtained

Figu re 8-4 contains suiting from separation Shownasadashedlineare agree used quite for the well simulations

and 0. t5 degree of this

in the yaw plane. measurement,

telemetry

59

Initial Pitch (Nose F 0.5 1 Attitude Up) " I I (deg)

Conditions

Attire,de Error 0.01 deg Angular Rate 0 deg/s Vector Misalig_ent Slosh Height 12.5 em disturbing moment 0.02 deg (5 in)

,___Thrust [ l_x I I No

o--0

]
4 Time 6 from 8 I0 12 Separation (sec) 14

.....
16

Initial Yaw Attitude (Nose Right) I (deg)

Conditions

Attitude Error 0.01 deg Angular Rate 0 deg/s [ILU_L V=LLUL Misali5nment LOX Slosh Height 12.5 cm No disturbing moment , ---'_/'-_ ....... _---t J

(5

0.01 deg in)

.....

r ..... _ _-_

-I 0 2 4 Time 6 From 8 i0 Separation 12 (sec) 14 16

Simulated Actual

Initial Roll Attitude (CW from Rear) i -(deg)

Conditions

Attitude Error 0.6 deg Angular Rate 0.03 deg/s Thrust Vector Misalignment -0.07 Total Ullage Rocket Misalignment

deg 0.75

deg

o \
-2 -3 -.v,

.........

-4 0 2 4 Time 6 From 8 I0 12 Separation (sec) DIJR_G 14 16

FIGURE

8-4. S-_ ATTEUDE

SEPARATION

GO

SECTION 9.1 SUM_IARY

IX,

STRUCTURES station with the exception of that portion of the toad carried by file center LOX tank. Body loads are determincd by calculating (from strain readingsl the load in the LOX stud tension tie joints and resolving these into bending and axial loads.

The SA-9 vehicle experienced maximum I)ending in file yaw plane at approximately 64. i seconds, A maximum static moment of 1, 125,000 N-m was experi eneed at station 23.9 m. The structural flightloads on SA-9 were generally perThe

-.] _ _ 1 -.._ "\ '_, , , _..

axial load as expected dataverifiedthatallfour and no Pogo effects formed properly.

retro rockets were apparent.

identical

to those observed observed

on SA-7. on SA-9 were all within _- _ ,i _, _ _4 i _ i ._ I _ that all struti ;

._.

_o" _.

....

The eft)rations

the expected IUlevels and levels were well with those of compared SA-7. Tim vibration somewhat higher than The SA-7 due to the IU configuration on bending oscillations observed on SA-9 were change. This increased tural 9.2 vibration level was expected,

..'%._,<... _'_.)
2, _

_. it, ,',"

The S-IV stage load data indicated components functioned properly. RESULTS DURING S-I POWERED

:"

_' II 1
FLIGHT

IO TSA O ,i LLO.FA TORS

9.2. I. I CALCULATED VALUES FIGURE The Saturn SA-9 vehicle experienced the maximumbending moment inthe yaw plane at approximately 64.1 seconds. The distribution of this moment is presented in Figxtre 9-t, together with the normal load factor obtained from the accelerometer readings of the IU measurements. Body bending or dynamics waseonsideredas either increasing or decreasing the static moment. The effects of the dynamics are denotedbythedashedlines. The maximum static moment of i, 125, 000 N-m was experienced at vehicle station 23.9 m (942 in). The slope of the load factor line indieatesthe rotational acceleration of the vehicle. The difference t)etween the lead factor value at the IU aeeelerometer station and the telemetered value can be considered the effects of dynamics. The telemetered aceelerationis shownasthecireledpointinFigure 9-1. 9.2.1.2 MEASURED VALUES 9-t. SA-9 YAW BENDING MOMENT AND NOI_IAL LOAD FACTOR

The maximum bending moment observed on SA-9 ispresented in Table 9-I, together will1 a comparison ofsimilardataobtuinedfor SA-5, SA-6,andSA-7. The bending moments determined from the strain gauge (neglectingcenterLOXtank) inthepitch and yaw plane andthe resultantmoment are presented in Figure 9-2. As indicated by this figure, the yaw bending moment was the major contributor to the resultant bending moment. Vehicle deflections and bending moments were measul_ed on the ground during the RF checkout of SA-9. Analysis ofthewind data showedgoodagreement with the standard wind profile over a two seconds inlarval. Dueto the lack of a zero deflection reference, camera measurements were related to a lower wind speed. A comparison of leveling moment and delta deflection was made for a 5.96 m/s wind at the 18.3 m level. The bending moments were determined from strain gauge readings and the deflections measured by a camera viewing the nose. These values are cornpared with the predicted values below:

The bending moment and axial load data reeeived on the S-1 stage of SA-9 indicated normal performanee. Strain gauge measurements were made only at station 23.9 m [ 942 in) of the S-I stage at the LOX studs and tension ties located at the base of the spider beam, The body loads can be measured at this

61

FIGURE

9-2.

STRAIN

GAUGE

BENDLNG

MOMENT

AT STATION (NEGLECTING

23.9 m ( 942 in) CENTER TANK)

{Correc_'d [or coatribuUon o[ center LOX tank.)

iated forces period

An investigation was made to compare the caicuresponse of the system Ior the observed applied during the thrust buildup period. The buildup is defined as the time interval from ignition of vehicle liftoff. in pairs, with the vibratory The engines were a 100 ms delay beforce to 20 percent the engine

Station Delta deflection at

Measured

Predicted

the first engine to scheduled to ignite tween pairs to limit of the

station 45.44 m ( 1789 in) 0. 795 cm (0. 313 in) 0.721 cm (0.284 in)

static thrust, Figure

9-:I shows

staggering times ( ignition delay) to be erratic; however, the maximum response was only 13 percent of the static thl'ust. Longitudinal oscillations that built up during the

Bending station (942

moment at 23.9 m in) 57,800 N-m ( 512, 00O in-lb LOADS DATA used to evaluate the 56, 774 N-m ( 502,497 in-lb

period from 40 to 80 seconds after liftoff were not si6mificantly different from those recorded on vehicles SA-6 and SA-7. An attempt was made to correlate peak amplitude frequencies o[ LOX and fuel pump inlet pressure, engine chalnber pressures, and longitudinal accelerations. No similarities were evident and the existence of Pogo oscillationswas not apparent.

9.2.2

LONGITUDINAL ACCELEROMETER Instrument

9.2.2. i

readings

longitudinal structural response were from accelerometers located inthe Instrument Unit. A ccelerometers for the Apollo capsule and holddown installed on this flight, arms were not

9.2.2.2

STRAIN

DATA

Axial loads at station2:L 9 nl(942 in) were determined for SA-9 and clearly indicated the specific

62

.........

'

"I/ .......

R.,.

: .......

I_=_1,1

FIGURE

9-3.

MAXIMUM

DYNAMIC

RESPONSE i _Lo I :i 7 ....

I*:: i,t, I. : .

flight events. 9-4, followed

The axial loads on SA-9, shownin Figure the same general trends as the longitudi (Section arc also the axial V). The axial loads during shown in Figure 9-4. This load values during IECO,

_...... i

hal accelerations the cutoff phase figure presents

! 1., ::, r......

I,-

: .

OECO, and retro rocket firing. By using the axial load data duringthe retro rocket firingtime interval, it _s possible to verify that all four retro rockets fired. In calculating the average retro to the axial load contribution rocket thrust, of the retro corrections rockets for spider and an

FIGURE

9-4.

AXIAL

LOAD

AT STATION CENTER 9-5 shows

23.9

( 942 in) for data

(NEGLECTING Figure

TANK) a comparison in the test. pitch The

evaluation.

outboard engines thrust decay, beam (using a weight of 1360

inertia of the kg or _0O0 Ibm

of the SA-9 plane with

vehicle bending frequencies those obtained from dynamic

acceleration of 1.17 g), and the 12-degree cant of the retro rockets were included. The retro rocket thrust was calculated during the time interval from 146.6 to i48.8 seconds. An average thrust of 145, 000 N (32, 500 lbf) was calculated per retro rocket. This was less than the nomir_l value of approximately However, fire. it does 151, O00 N indicate

amplitudes of resln)nsc for these acceicromcters are shown in the lower l)art of the fi6mre. The frequencies md amplitudes were determined from the pitch accelerometers located in the TIT and on the S-R r stage, at station 37.6 m (1479 in) and 35.6 m (i400 in), respectively. All aecelerometers lnd the data received results. ingofthe gible 9.2.3.2 appeared within to function normally the ranges of expected stage and jettisonindicated a negli-

(34, 000 lbf) per that all four rockets rocket. did 9.2.3 9.2.3.1 BENDING BODY The significant flightvehicle.

were

OSCILLATIONS B ENDING SA-9 body bending flight data show no

Afterseparution LES, oseilIogruph response FIN level. BENDING

of the S-I records

difference from that obtained from A filter bandwidth of 0.667 tlz

the SA-7 wasused

ating

Ail fin accelerometers during flight; however,

appeared to be operthe vibl_tion levels

63

,:

--

! i

j.....": ! !
0 ! +0 ~

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

"

i0

!
I"

R .......

_i

;
i

s-iv

._

. _, r _.,:.r

_' r

FIGURE

9-5. VEHICLE BENDING FREQUENCIES AND AMPLITUDES, PITCH

FIGURE

9-6. S-I STAGE

VIBRATIONS

exceeded the calibration range during the periodsoI Mach I and maximum dynamic pressure. Various time sliceswere analyzedover thefrequencyspan of 0 to60 Hz. The power spectral densities indicated the frequeney content tobeapproximatelythesame as recorded on previous flights; the predominant frequencies were 30, 37, 40, and 44 Hz. 9.2.4 9.2.4.1 S-I VIBRATIONS STRUCTURAL MEASUREMENTS

9.2.4.2

ENGINE

MEASUREMENTS

There were 29 accelerometers locatedon theH-I enginesand engine components. An envelope of the vibrationlevelsobserved on the engine incasurements is shown in Figure 9-6. All telemetered vibrationdata appeared valid with the exception of thc combustion chamber dome measurements and one COX line measurement. The measured vibrations of the engines and engine components were normal throughout powered flight and did not exceed expected levels. The maximumlevels for these measurements are presented in Table 9-II. Maximum vii)ration was selfinducedbythecombustionprocess. The chamberpressure oscillations were transmitted directly to the engine domes and various components. The vibration levels were stationary throughout flight. The combustion chamber dome data were considered invalid due to the vast difference existing behveen adjacent hardwire and telemetered data. At present, thereasonior this discrepancy is undetermined; however, it appears that some type of external environmentpeculiar to the dome structure is influencing the telemetered signal.

There were 17 accelerometers located on the S-I stage structure. All but three of these roansurements appeared to function properly. The measured response o_ the S-I stage structure was normal throughout powered flight and did not exceed expected levels. Maximum vibration was induced by acoustic and aerodynamic noise em-ironments present during launch and max Q. Slightly higher levels, attributed toanincreaseinangleofattaek, were measured on the upperbooster structure during max Q. The maximum vibrationlevelsencounteredonSA-garegiven in Table 9-1I. A time history of the structural vibration level is shown in Figure 9-6.

64

TABLE

9-II.

VIBRATION

SUMI_IARY

Max Area Mord toted

Level

F[ight Rvmarks period

(Gr.a_ ) S I STAGE STRUCTUIiA Shear _hr_d L I_[EA_UREMENTS Pai_cls _I <Z4

Beam/Shear PaP_:|

kaunch Ma_h !

Con_parcs M_.

w|lh SA-7 - Coml_ar_ _itb hA-7

ct(_d

R_ar

_]xzr Fl_u_gu

3.-_ 9.b

LO k

max

t_

IbJ_pon_e lo_r

by _ Grin s than :SA

Spider Beam Rctro Itoekc.(_uIAvort Brackel_ ENGINE ! _: _

ma_ 14

4. _ Grin _ hzgher than 5A -T

6._

ma_

Z _ Grin _ hi_hc r than SA-7

MEASUREMENTS Chamber Dom_ _J_ invalzd

Combustion

Tttr_atl_(;_'arC_s_ Ftz_lSu_:tJon Li_ O_U_t F[an_ Eng (_

t_

_Jo _

On

F_

4_ 4 Grn_

|owcr

thattn_a_. on SA

_. I

Lev_| izldirection o! lh)_. _olllp_rcd tu ;_.0 Grin _ un 5A-7.

Inlet Flax_t_

I.9

L_.v_l pcrp_,_dicuJ.lrto l|_, l._ Grin _ u_i_A-7o

con_l_r_l

to

||_t E_J:han_cr Ent_ _ COX Lt_ Eng _; Outlel F[ang_ Inlet Flangu F_e! Wr'_paround Eag COMPONENT 6 MEANIJRE M_'NTS LLn_

20. 3

Ya_

diz_o_.

I_IGrin _ hi_h_r than SA-;.

II.4 9. I

pcrpcndi_alar Grin _ on tiA-7o

PJ I[o_and con_paJ'_

t*_I]

27

_ _ sec&

CO

Zo3 L_ m _ Jo_r

tha_15A-7.

ilard Mortared Inst. Pinata|F -_ Shock Mo_mt_d In_t. Panel F ]

_;.t_ 4.4

max

_4

5. I Grin _ |_wer 1.2 (Jrm_ hi_er

tlxunt__, n_ -_ than 5A-; th:m m_ max. on F 2.

launch

9.2 Gr_nJ[o_er 9A3 Di_t rib_tor Bracket 5. | latl_clz ComForod to m_x.

Measuri__g ]NSTRUMENT STRDC

ol_SA-7

o_ 7_ 0 Grva_

ffNIT T_ORA L MEA_BRE._IENT5

Lower Upper COMPONENT

Mounting

Ring

t_.o _._ MENTS

m_:Q M_ch I

Compat_

to 6.2 Grin s on SA_ a_ rnaxQ

Mortaring Ri_ MEASURE Sy s len_

4.7 Grin _ higher than SA-7

Gaida_c_

Incrtla/Gi mbld ST-I_4 _uj_rt Str_t_re

I.8 $

holddo_ n nza_ t_

!.:_Grrn_ on SA-7

ST- 124 Mounbng Air Bearing RF A ss_mhly

Rin_

'-_ :i 3 l_

max max max

1.0 Grin _ on SA

Supply

Q pc_rp_*Icllc_lar mca_tl_ti_g_n_| [o p

Guid_II__or_ptll_r C

|atzn_h

65

9.2.4.3

COMPONENT

MEASUREMENTS

9.2.5.2

ENGINE MEASUREMENTS

There werecightaccelerometers located on various components. All telemetered vibration data appeared valid. The vibration levels measured on the components were normal throughout powered fli_,dlt and did not exceed expected levels. Maximum vibration occurred during the critical flight period when the supporting vehicle structure x_s excited by the acoustic and aerodynamic noise environment. The maximum levels observedare presented in Table 9-II and an envelope of the levels in Fii_mre 9-6. 9.2.5 9.2.5.1 S-IV VIBRATIONS STRUCTURAL MEASUREMENTS

Measurements were taken on t/iv thrus!. chamber dome and on the gear case housing of each engine. Based upon the results of the SA-7 flight, tile vibration levels of the S-l_'-9 engines were as expected. TheSA-9 levels were below the noise threshold of the telemetlT system and therefore were considered negligible at these locations during S-I stage powered flight. 9.2.5.3 COMPONENT MEASUREMENTS

Ninevibt,'ation measurements were taken on the structure of the S-IV stage. The aecclerometers werelocatedonvariouscomponentsofthethrust structare and LII! tank, and for disrussionthe measurements imve been divided into these two areas. The vibration levels on the thrust structure were comparable to file levels (luring the SA-7 flight. The vibrations on the I.il 2 tank e.'xhibited the expected clmracteristics. The vibration levels were higi_er during the critical flight periodslmtwercconalmmbletothoseo4)serx, edonSA-7, Envelopes of these vibration levels are presented in Figure 9-7.

The component measurements were divided into components on the LH 2 tank, the fol_vard interstage, and the aft skirt and thrust structure. The accelerometersonthe aft skirtandthrust structure components were located on the helium heater aml at the base of the ullage rocket, inverter, PU computer, and sequencer (pitch and yaw direction). Except for the vibration lcvelsat the inverter, all the vibration levels at these components were lower than those occurring on the same components during S-I stage powered fligtat of SA-7. The data from the ullage rocket measurements were considered questionable after 69 seconds. At that time, thevibrationlevel abruptly decreased in ma_,mirude by approximately 50 percent. At present, there is no explanation for this anomaly. A comparison of the SA-7 and SA-9 vihration era, elopes is shown in Figxtre 9-7. 9.2.6 INSTRUMENT UNIT VIBRATIONS

I I

. i I

'

to fly a prototylm model of the production Instrument Unit tube used on Saturn I-B anti V vehicles. Compon3. 048-m (120 in) diameter _ll instead of in pressurcnts were mounted to Imnels attached directly to the izedtubesasonpreviousflights. Therefore, thelevels observed on SA-9 are not dircctIy comparable to previces flights. Envelopes of the IU vibrations arc simwn

i
" : '!.

I
...........) r ......

J
it...

[
I

,r,,.,-,,, /,, f::%x I ........ , ' _:_ _r_ .... , ..... / -'d''( : ,.,, : , , , _,, L.,, ., . ' :'

.1 -_ ..,
)

in 2.6.1 9, Fi_,,re

9_8. STRUCTURAL

MEASUREMENTS

Therewere eightaccelerometers located on the upper (Apollo) and lower IU mounting rings. All telemetereddatawercvalid. Tile vibrations measured onthe mounting rings were normal throughout I)owcred flight and (lid not exceed expected levels. Maxinmm

(
--'/ ' _x .......... FIGURE 9-7. i !. . ) aerodynamic enviromnent.

',....... r.......

vibrations structure occurred was MEASUREMENTS acoustic when the COMPONENT during the critical flight periods 9.2.6.2 excited by the and There were 16 acceleromcters located on various IU components. All telemetered vibxnltlon data appeared valid. The vibration measured on the guidance system was normal throughout powered flight

S-IV VIBRATIONS DURING S-I STAGE I_OWERED FLIGIIT

lili

and did not exceed expected levels. vibration of the other components "bcencslud_lished. TheSA-9flight_s the vlbrations of the gas bearing

The norm for the measured has not thefirst in which RF assembly,

........ "[ i [ i

, ....
I

supply,

the guidance skin, which mounting and IU occurred tocomputer the were measured. periods panels Maximum levels during the componentflight critical when were attached, was excited by the acoustic and aerodynamic noise enviromnents.

t_" ,.

__

:........

[" _/_

FIGURE

9-9.

PEGASUS

VmRATIONS

I ............. ' .... ' "' ........ _

9. 2.8.1

S-I STAGE The S-I with three stage aeoustic enviromnent was microphones. All the telemetered

measured

acoustic data were valid. The noise levels measured on the S-I stage were normal throughout powered flight and did not exceed expected maximums. Tile maximum noise occurred during launch and nmx Q as anticipated.

' :_'_ i-'!_-._ _ : "/__; __._>,_" ..... :..... __ _";/_^ I [ i .

framearea

at station

4.4 m (172 in) reached

a maxi-

mum of 146 db launch and 1:_6.5 levels

(referenee2x 10 -s N/era 2) during (I]) during max Q. The iire(licted

FIGURE 9-8. INSTRUMENT UNIT VIBRATIONS DURING S-I STAGE POWERED FLIGHT 9.2.7 PEGASUS VIBRATIONS

were 145 and 1.q5 db respectively. The internal acoustic environment ill tile instrument compartment of fuel tank 1, station 23.36 m ( 920 in), reached a maximum of 136.5 db during launch and 132.5 dbduring t_u'tx Q. The predicted levels were 136.5 and 132.5 db, respectively. The SA-7 levels were 137.0 and 130.5 db, respectively. The inteimal acoustic enviromnent in the instrumeat compartment of fuel tank 2, station 23.42 ( 922 in), reachecl a maximum of 135.5 till during launch and 133.0 lib during max Q. The predicted levels were 127.0 anul 1:13 dl), respectively. TheK_t-7 levels were 136.0 and 1"_3 dl), respectively. 9.2.8.2 S-DJ STAGE On the S-IV st,age thrust
coustic measurements were taken to

There were fouraecelerometers located on the micrometeoroid capsule support structure. All tile telemeteredt'lata were valid. The norm for the vibration levels measured on this structure has not been established since SA-9 is the first vehicle cm which these measurements were made. The vibl-ation of tile upper mierometeoroid capsule mounting ring (tripod support leg) was measured at
ltmgcr_n 6, The nlaxin_unl leve| Feachcd 4. 1 Grill s

structure,
deternlino

two athe ill-

duringlauneh. The vibration of the lower micrometeoroid capsule mounting ring (boilerplatc ring stiffener) wasalsomeasured at hmgeron 6. The aaaximum level reached 2.7 Grin s during launch. Tile time-history envelopes are shown in Figatre 9-9.

tcrrm] fluctuating s(mnd pressure levels. The micrephones wcro located at the gimbal hlocl:, of engine 4 and hctwcen tile sequencer and PU computer inside tilt, thrust stlxmture. Tile S-IX: stage acoustics exhibited the expected chaln(ctcristics. The omxiomm levels

I;7

measured the gimbal pertaining from 9.2.8. the "l

during

holddown

and liftoff

were

138 db on No data obtained

readings strain ever,

front

the

rosette

strain

gauge.

The

axial howcon"

block and 136 db on the sequencer. to the S-D/ thrust structure were SA-7 flight, UNIT acoustic was enviromrmnt with one in). level

gauges exhibited the same characteristics; the individual strain magnitudes differed

siderably. A eomlmrison stt_ain dakt and rt2{.,t)rded (InLet. adjacent microNu corrclaticm discrepancies are explained

was made between recorded pitch and yaw anglc-of-attacl: could I)e estat>lished. predicted by the and meas-

INSTRL%IENT The internal system

The ure(I strain

between partly

to the g_idance phone were lannch

measured

characteristics

at station 37.6 m ( 1480 valid. The maximum was 139.0 db and 129.5

The acoustic data measured during max Q. The rib, rcspt+etix ely. (luring the S-D r

of the gauges. are reasonably 2_q3*K to 3390K;

The temperature compensating gauges constant throughout the l.'ange from however, beyond thesel)oints, 1) quickly. be added the apAs an to cornIh'ior to can vary

ttb during

predicted levels No appreciable stage 9.2.8.4 powered

were 139. tl and l:_0.0 noise was measured flight, ADAPTER acoustic

parent strain effect begins to develo example, 0.325 x 10 -3 cm/em must pensatc liftoff, radic'Mly or from

for the apparent strain at 228"K. temperature conditions over the tank

APOLLO The

from a rib area to the center of the waffle, Ol)l)osite sides of the Lank. Depending on what conditions are (frost forming or water

internal

environment

of the

the

humidity

Apollo station ured Mach

adapter was 37.9 m(1493

measured with one microphone at in). The maxinmm levels measand were 132.5 db during 142 and 13{I db,

running off), the temperature differential over the surfacecaneasiiyvalb'from I 1. l*Kto 55._;*K. I_ring flight, because the in) differential tempel_tturcs of unevenaerodylmmicheating. skin temperature from 190"K to in the indicated e<)ul(I exceed 55.6"K During flight, m (12._!1 creating

during launch were 140.0 1. The predicted levels

respectively, 9.3 9.3.1 RESULTS S-IV DURING LOADS S-IV POWERED FLIGHT

LII 2 tank recorded variations

at station _2.7 25._*1g,, thereby stlntin.

large 9.3.2

S-IX' BENDLNG daring was at-

structural there

Data from the S-IV stage indicate that all nlajor components functioned as designed. Since no camera coverage of, or instrumentation

Body 1)ending motions were not obsel'ved fl_e S-IX; stage portion of flight of ,_k-9. This trihuted separation. 9.3.3 S-I_" Vfl3RATIONS FLIGItT DURLNG to the lack of disturbing aloments

was

at S-I/S-IX"

in the aft interstage, it was not possible to determine if there was a recurrence of the aft interstage panel debonding that occurred emphasis gauges on the was SA-5 placed attd SA-7 flights. the

S-IX r POWERED

Particular data from

on analyzing on the cylindrical

the strain

nlounted

9. :L 3.1

STRUCTURA

L MEASUREMENTS structure SA-7 SA-7 llight, expected. andwere sLage flight

wall of the LH 2 tank. There were six uniaxial temperature compensated strain gauges located extetalally at station32.7 m(t2H9 in), which is 38. t eel (15 in} aft ofthepointwherethe to the cylindrical indication during proxiomtely individual fin planes strain the was on wame of fins the Ltt 2 tank forward dome is welded section. To obtain a bending nlode flight, these _,_uges were located apthe fin planes and patternof the tank. I, II, and D/ were axis longitudinal centered withinan The gauges on the oriented of the to record stage, w'hile

The vii)ration levels of the thrust dnringS-IVpowered flightwerecoml)at-abletothe flight levels. Based levels on the restdts of the the vibration Theselevelswere considered structural is shown 9.3.3.2 of the Ltl 2 tank were as low ( less than 0.2 Grins)

negligible. vibration in Figmre ENGINE

An envelope of the S-IV levels during S-IV powered 9-10. MEASUREMENTS taken case was case

along

gauges on the plane of fin HI were oriented parallel, perpendicular, angle The data flight, to the longitudinal that all axis

a rosette that and at a 45of the stage.

degree

chamber indicated with six gauges periods functioned period and was great the stress engine. thrust lopes SA-9 during occasional of intermittent

Measurements were dome and at the gear No useful information gear at the

at the thtnast housing of each provided 2, by the 2 or at the

measurements

of engine

operation. During most of (luring most of rite powered variationbetweenthe predicted

the prelaunch flight, there stresses and

chamber dome of the composite are shown

of engines i, time histories 9-10.

and 6. Envefrom SA-7 and

in Fi_,mre

68

c._s ":' [ i

_-___._ sA-7 ' rh_,,_t St,"....... "_ "1/x_'.,/7./_/_ _/,y/r/_/2_A f/_jtT_

_ V |

sA-_

Thevibration levels on tile thrust chamber dome wereeomparable to the levels on SA-7. However, the levels from engine 4 were lower than expected, as were the levels from engine i during SA-7 flight. The vibration levels on the gear case were cornparable to the SA-7 stage levels, except on engines 1 and 4 during the first 300 seconds. The data from engines i and 4 measurements show high levels during this time interval; however, toward the end of S-IV powered flight, the levels decreased to the expected levels. Data from engines 1 and 4 appearednoisy duringmostofthe S-IV portion of flight, thereby contrthuting to the high levels. It was concluded gine vii)rations were as expected. 9.3.3.3 COMPONENT MEASUREMENTS that the en-

_r.'l/il._r_ ;fi,2_ .......... _/_/./Sf./. _ .,),. 600

10: 1.

.'_:

30. 4t.o R_,,_:,_ _,. (_.._) [ i l'h,-_,srch_.,._ Do,,_. ]

_,

___ ..... o I Dfi %_'_ I0

//////_///f///l/l/Jll__/l_'-:/jl/2 [ I ] 2_I 3[![J 400 a,,,_, ru., _,)

5D0

'

600

There were ten component measurements taken on the S-IV stage of SA-9. The measurements were divided as noted in paragraph 9.2.5.3. The ribrationlevelsat these components compared favorably with the levels measured on SA-7. Envelopes of SA-7

t' ' ___f _/;'_2:) z/;f/_/j'/:'/)_/'_ A ://fl//////'./_a/_//fiff/_ I ] o ---I 1_ _

I -Comt______ i and Thrust ............ Struct,lre All Skirt l

9-10. !andSA-9compositetinlehistoriesareshowninFigure The LH2 tank measurements _"_-,_ I _,m) _0o

attach ofhe hel,um the it, point t sph,..reL ta,

were h)catcd

at the

: 30o R.,_,- r_,

--"'_ _0o (_,_<)

:_t,

skin. The forward interstage measurement was 1oeated at the base of the telemetry rack. Based upon the results of SA-7 flight, the vibration levels at these components were as expected. The SA-u levels were belowthenoisethresholdof tile telemetl_" system, and were therefore eonsklered negligible throughout S-IV
stage powered fli_t.

too

200

300
Range Time

ao{)
(see)

see

6_e

duringS-1V powered flight. The vibration levels measured duringthis period were of the same order of magThere was no significant nitade as tile levels measured (luringvibration mainstage IV the S-I in the period. 9.3.5 PEGASUS VIBRATIONS the Pegasus S-IV powered support flight. structure

FIGURE 9-10. S-IV VIBRATIONS DURING S-IV STAGE POWERED FLIGItT

Thevibrationof was negligible during

69

SECTION t0.I SUMMARY

X.

ENVIRONMENTAL

TEMPERATURES

AND

PRESSURES

r,

ments similar,

Measured and temperature on the S-I-gpressure and S-IV-9 stages were or less severe, than those measured

environgenerally on pre-

0_

--

_ s,,

"

_ i

[:_] I

s,-;. s_,. z , ........ i' '_

"

" _ .... _ - _-:..i

m -_----_ '"!

dynamic heating rate was approximately 27 percent lower than that observed on previous flights, which is attributed to the steeper trajectory flown by SA-9. Heating rate and gas temperature data on the S-I base agreed well with previous flight results.

stage

_,_,,. _
z.8

_..............
:

_ , .........
_ r

:)
T r 3

E.gicompa me.t rat. s no d tem indica fires

existingin the base of the vehicle. FifteenHy-Cal slope typetotal calorimeters,flown forthe first time on SA-9, were mounted on the bell and aspirator surfaces of engines 3 and 7. Data from these measurements seem irregularities tO.2 l0.2.1 questionable since instrument mounting were observed prior to flight. ENVIRONMENT PRESSURES

:
.... _--_ _ - _ I i : ! i _

.[
! _

-I/r\'_, -*-- " ' J.' _ i _. _ _ _,- ..... 'i ,' _ "

: .... ---4- _ "_ " - ' |

I [ ' ' ' L

S-I STAGE SURFACE

!!

[/,'
']I" /I_

_
_ _

i
[

i!
|

.... _
skirt pected, Surfacepressuresontheforw_rdS-I-gtank indicated negative pressure coefficients, resultingfromflowexpansion as ex,_k J" _ /,/ behind the adap-

/;
.., _ . ........

'"!!\___I
. _ ! z V _, , , , i --T "_--___ _., ,_, _'" :....... _ _

twomeasurementshadeither trlcal connections reversed firmed on SA-9.

their pneumatic or elecfor _dt-7; this was con-

I _e

On the spider beam fairing, a peak pressure differential of 2.7 N/cm _ (crushing load} was measured at 63 seconds, compared to a maximum value of 2.4 N/cm 2 measured at 60 seconds on SA-7 (Fig. 10-1). iO.2.2 S-I STAGE SKIN TEMPERATURES AND HEATING Because RATES trajectory flown by

FIGURE 10-1.

TANK SKIRT AND SPIDER BEAM FAIRING PRESSURES

'_ _ _, / "...... _ _["" _

- _ , _, [ i '.

...........

;............. '

of the steeper

.... \Nt

( Fig. t0-2 showsaltitude velocity omparisons),aeroc sA-gascomparedto that of previous Block II vehicles than on previous flights. Simulation of heating rates on the SA-9 taft shroud (arbitrarily ehosonas a representative location} reveals that the integrated aerodynamic lower than for previous flights (Fig. 10-2). A t'_aximum temperature of approximately 375"K ,,'as measured on the tail shroud at 140 seconds. Maximum fin skin temperatures (approximately 375K near cutoff) averaged approximately 20K lowex on SA-9 (Fig. 10-3). Fin leading edge temperatures weregenerany consistent with previous Block II flight results.

./t

.... _ 'i _ ":_'"'_" _ _" ' i

'

. o__

,_ / ,.......................

._]

FIGURE

10-2.

INTEGRATED AERODYNAMIC HEATING RATES

7O

'
175

""_
"

"!

_ i{-- _-="-:"
d "-'-' --

, i I ',
/J" , ! '

,:

-- iI _,'-"-_. 1!

,_I

/'"

_,"

'_,

.....

_._ ! _,'_
i

__.:
A| _ u1[ud_' (I,_)

"_"_' r"_ _'_) FIGURE 10-3. TEMPERATURE COMPARISON FOR THE LARGE FIN LEADING EDGE ANVDSIDE PANEL I0.2.3 BASE PRESSURES

FIGURE Flame

10-4. shield

S-I STAGE BASE PRESSURE gas temperatures obtained for both

Measured pressures on the S-I-9 base (heat shield and flame shield) werewithinorjust below those measuredonpreviousBloek II flights. The heat shield experienced the greatest vacuum pressure (approximately 0.8 N/era 2 below ambient) at an altitude of approximately 8 kra. At approximately 14 kin, pressure onthe heat shield rose to values above ambient due to reeirculation of hot exhaust gases (Fig. 10-4). The greatest variation in base pressure occurred on the flame shield (near the center) where a minimum value of 2.8 N/era 2 below ambient was observed at approximately 2.5 km (Fig. 10-4). Thereafter, pressures increased steadily and reached maximum values of approximately 1.8 N/cm _ above ambient at 40 kin. 10.2.4 BASE TEMPERATURES

the shertprobe (flush with surface) and the long probe (5.5 cm aft of surface) measurements fell within the SA-5, SA-6, and SA-7 databands (Fig. 10-6). As expeered, temperatures measured with the long probe thermocouple were about 200"K higher than for the short probe measurements for all "altitudes above 20 kin. Maximum values of 2100*K for the long probe and 1600*K for the short probe were measured in the flame shield region. Engine shroud gas temperatures were unusually lower than those measured on SA-7 (Fig. 10-7). No explanation is available for this deviation and there is no evidence of instrument malfunction. Gas temperatures on the fin trailing edge agreed well with those measured on previous flights. A maximum fin base gas temperature of approximately 10800K occurred at 28kin (Fig. 10-7). 10.2.5 BASE HEATING RATES

Heat shield and flame shield gas temperaturesareshowninFig_aresl0-5andl0-6, respectively, Maximum temperature on the inner region of the heat shieldwasapproximatelyll00*Kat60km. In the outer heat shield region a maximum value of approximately li40*K was reached at the same altitude,

Base heating rates on the S-I-9 basewere as expected, with restflts generally falling within the databand measured on previous Block II vehicles. As customary, the base area is divided into five major regionsforthermal analysis: inner lmat .M_iuid, outer heat shield, flame shield, tin t_,'ailing edge, and t.n_inc

71

Temperature 2200 Temp<'ratq:r_ (l_<) _Jter Region

(K) I

SA+9

.--SA-5

SA-_

nd S_-7

Data Band

' _-_ _+'7

80C

}
1600

"i _'___''_'_'
_" " " "" """+\

_0_

-'_

k_

SA-.,

_,A.6 and SA-7

Data

Band

T_erot_lre 12.......

_t'K)

AlL_l:ud_'

(_) Band

_t.oer "

R_ton _, , i ..... ,

_,,ot- _._00 +

+.i_
".... "TM + '

- t
'

+ __::--b+---.._+ :" + -'+." _.oo

2_ IO 20

"

--

+"-_.-_70 1 _ + -_ +

++-++,
"%..=+ .+.,+ III

,
200.......

"+'+:+:@:," " ,_-. --_

_O 50 _O (km)

i+
Altitude

J
(k_)

i _ _
30 Att Lcude

o + ,o+ + +
FIGURE J.0-6. FI_._ME SIIIELDC,_STE_[PE_._TI.T_ES

FIGURE

10-5.

HEAT SHIELD GAS TEMPERATURES

Temperature

(_K) _ngine Shroud

Temperal:ure

(oK) Fin TraLin_ Edge

1_00

1_I_

14OO

SA-9

_i_Data

_and

f'r_: _-6

_"ud; SA-7

,+
:oo
I0 20

30 ALCt_ude

I
(loa)

40

50

60

..0 '+ 2_+

,.
_
4 0

++
20

IO

, +

30 Altitude

t+O

....

50

60

(k_)

FIGURE

10-7. ENGINE

_IiROUD AND FIN TRAILING

EDGE

GAS TEMPERATURES

72

shroud regions. are pre.sented

Both total and radiation heating rates for four of the five regions in Figures

zot.l ue.: Vt,,x (_tt_/m2)

diation) forthefin trailing edge (fin IV) and the flame shield (center) fell generally within the SA-5, SA-6, the flame shield total heat flux fell somewhat below and SA-V data band" From 25"km altitude and abve' what less severe environment. and 20 kin. the observed radiation 20 25 --_ 15 {o ----' i ! " i ....

_it--:iS

4 2 _ _'_;i,. _ t _iv _'_-"_"_ _"i: 4"_ i.... _ --

Betweenliftoff

for previous flights (Fig. 10-8). Data obtained from a slug-type radiation calorimeter on the heat shield outerregion,as on SA-7, show a sharpdropoutbetween approximately questionable
To_.al Heat Fl,,x

0_ o

_ Lo

s^-5. sA-6 _.d SA-; D.t., aa_ _ sA-5s. -_ _.d sA-; _ _d 2o AIt it _ldv (kr_) _c 30 _. sA-_ I i Wr

_0

5 and (lower
( ......

25

kin; this of Fig.

dropout 10-9).

is highly

a_di_ti.)_ _.,t _h,_ (_tt_/c_ 2) ao

35

portion
/,m 2) ,

{[

I
SA-?

r_

S^

}}
5 _

i
:

._ _. _
.71i

--

6 and

____ ......

=_

Oaca

Baod

i -:x:i
,J 9 /

I [
]

,,, ;
:b:

_--'_,

to

2n Altttt_de

30 (k_

40

_.O

60

0 0 Altitude (k_)

Radi:_tlon

ltuat

Flux

(_at_s/cm

2)

FIGURE _0-_.._r S.fELD _m_ OUTER

. s^-5. s^-_ ..a s_._ _.t._ v._.a ,_t # _o _._[." _o i ] _ I ' . 4:iZOT_;_ _l :_; _ ._ ._ _ --_x _ ..... . ---. -----_Radiation tlEATING RATES shroud, heating rates to the SA- 9 engine

as for all prey ious Block H vehicles except SA-7. also indicate a dropout between 5 and 25 km (Fig. 10-10). T emperatu number from SA-5 and SA-6 were Therefore, noisy and had alarge re data of dropouts near cutoff. an accurate evaluation of the conduction loss constant and heat rates by the inflight calibration method was

/
0 l0 1 z0
Altitude

{
I ]0
(k_)

obtainedRadiation heat .rates for SA-5calibration ,..thepre.i hta.orato.-)and SA6 not possible.
ao _0 so method (Fig. t0-t0) also show the dropout between 5 and 25 km and also indicate questionable high radiation heat rates occurring at higher altitudes. Initial speculations on the sensor might were have that the sapphire window come out during flight,

FIGURE

10-8.

{tEAT SHIELD INNER REGION HEATING RATES

73

possibly as a result of heavy localized vibration. However, laboratorypostflight simulation tests of a similartypecalorimeteriudicatethatthisdeviationis more closely related to a possible obscuring of the calorimeter view during the time the dropout was observed, This blocking of the calorimeter view has been theorized to be the result of soot particles covering the calorimeter window or some heat shield insulation material blowing over the sensor. U nfortunately, such evidence will remain inconclusive unless new facts are gathered from future flights.

For the first 20 lun, flame shield total heat rates remained well within the previous SA-5, SA-6, and SA-7 data bands. Thereafter, the SA_9 data indicate a less severe enviromnent (Fig. lO-ti). Values of surface emissivity and absorptivity used in the heat transfer calculations were based upon results obtained from a postflight simulation of a similar gauge flown on SA-7.

?oCat Focal Heat. Flux ( ..... /cm 7) 130

Heat

Flux

{_atts/cm I

2) i SA-9 I !

20
SA-_ Tlight ,_ %. . anti SA-b Pre/ % Calibration , +-_

. m-_ 4 '
1) llC _..... ,,

a ' '"

1
_ --

1 !
! _'_

.......
--

id t. _

,4

)1

(]

'_'-

-.,,,

,> . =>)

x_

,):,

0 Radiation 30

10 Heat Flux

20 (_atts/c_

Altitude 2)

30

(_)

40

50

50

80

"_ t _"_ ,. ,.!

__

_ .1

'

l_z

7o_4
SA-9 $A-5 aml ) _Itrhc SA-!, )'_'_, Data __T{ i._1 x. r (;":_. (_ ,4 i _ _ ] Calin_:i,,n and SA-7

_._

I,'_ [

SA-5

'i

SA-6

Band

3-<._,: .,

._

,:_ __

i L:::

"_

' ((5
_

i
,\, . l .... ., -,.,,_k<, \. .,,,-._-, ,,

, ,., - ,. , -_,., _,l),,.,L<:'.',':>::.':?_:

,,

""
.w "[;" 0 _+SA-7 Data 50

"
60

-_-':::
20

','_i
5O

L'k 10_

. 20 i w
ALtitude

I 30
(ko)

i z,O

_o

16

30 ALtitudo

I
([_a)

4D

6O

FIGURE 10-10.

ENGINE SHROUD HEATING RATES

FIGURE 10-11.

FLAME SItlELD RATES

TOTAL

HEATING

74

10.2.6

ENGINE COMPARTMENT Temperatures

ENVIRONMENT

remained cessive

Gas temperatures in the engine compartment normal throughout flight, indicating no extemperatures or fires occurring on S-I-9.

tooutside) throughoutflight and differential pressures did not exceed 0.4 N/cm 2. Results are in good agreement with measured data from previous flights. In previous flight reports the taft shroud loading was representedincorrectlyasa crushing (outside to inside) loadbecausethe locationsofthe"high" and "low" pressure ports of the transducer were interpreted to be opposite their actual location. 10.2.7 S-I]S-IV INTERSTAGE PRESSURES Pressure

Structural temperatures in the forward side of the heat shield again indicated the presence of water or ice as they followed the saturation temperature of water. Engine Compartment and Thrust Compartment Pressures Frame

Aft Interstate

Compartment

Pressure environments in the thrust frame compartment above the firewall and in the engine compartment below the firewall were nearly uniform throughout flight, as expected. Maximum pressures of 0.6 N/cm 2above ambientwere measured just before max Q (Fig. 10-12). Pressure loading across the heat shield was generally similar to or less severe than on previous flights,

The aft interstage compartment pressure was monitored during S-I flight by the helium heater chamber pressure transducer. A maximum pressure variation of 0.21 N/cm 2 below ambient was measured at 60 seconds, which is in good agreement with results of SA-6 and SA-7 (Fig. 10-13).

_, _.............. _......... r........ (_ ._:, " - .... [-[ i [

I,/-',
!'/

_'

_i

_,,._,[:T]:qi,:j..'.; L;_ ?
_ " I1 i

,,

I I

; s........

] '

J . I

/" _']
; g

_Iint,i11..f_,I3

(P H.I: :_rlrl. nl

P,. _._al [)

....

i_.'_ ::,:,,_ :%.:

_,i] ,_, F

,............. _
I
i

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

_
tl

.:!
i c

J
2ii _,f_ 1.1 _l 1111 121_ |4C O O i

--

FIGURE

10-12.

TAIL SHROUD FORWARD AND AFT PRESSURES FIGURE 10-13. S-IV STAGE PRESSURE ENVIRONMENT

( Fig.

Differentialpressuresacrossthe tail shroud area 10-12) generallyindieatedburstinglcads (inside

75

Detonation

Pressures switches there was area located near no detonation during sepa-

The ured

difference in initial heating and predicted is believed differences in nlaximum

rates between measto account for the retemperaturt_s.

Detonation pressure the separation plane indicate oroverpressurizationoftheboattail ration.

Common BuLkhead

spective

_
Pressure

_
"" ___

-_r_,._-:

_,*

mained
as expected.

at approximately The common

bulkhead N/era 2 throughout O. 3 absolute pressure flight, re

,.,,,

_
_,, T.....

_--=_-_i ;!)_

i:

10.3

S-IV

STAGE

ENVIRONMENT

10.3.1

SURFACE PRESSURES TEM PERATL_IE$ Forward Forward Inte rstage lnterstage at station flown flow analyses

AND
tL(

'

.,, 4 ...... ...........

external :16.2 skin for

surface m (30 the first S -IV deg

presfrom on

sures core. S-IV-9, used

were This was

measured measurement, made

fin llI toward

IV) on the external to verify heating

of the honeycomb time field of the assuml)tions stage.

|
'_

_ ] [ i .!.... _._r_'__' "'"_' .........

_ "_"_ ' .... i

: '

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

in aerodynamic

Measured pressures fail between predicted (lakt based on two-dimensional (wedge) and three-dimensional (conical) shock wave theories (Fig. 10-i3). Results indicate that the assumption of a two-dimensional shock beinggeneratcdbytheinterstagewouldbe in predicting heat transfer Iicients vary approximately power). data from measurements interiorskia of the forward made on interstage rates as (heat local conservative transfer coefpressure l-aised

,,. L

.... VJ ,_._... i

"

"

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

_ .........

_....... '

"

"

. ,:_',,-,-,

to the 4/Sth

Temperature theexteriorand

_'_ 0 ' ........ FIGURE 10-14. TEMPERATURES

,_

._

generally correlated well with postflight simulations (Fig. 10-14). Foravard interstage exterior temperatureswcreconsiderablycoolerfor el the previous Block If flights. S-IV-9 than for any

S-IV STAGE SURFACE DURING SI STAGE FLIGHT

LH 2 Tank

Temperatures measured mont.he m on the measured mwas stations The durforcylinand

Aft Skirt

Temperatures interior and exterior core at station 29.4 Good eorpredictions

ing flight

LH_ tanktemperatureswere by sensorslocatedat station33.4 and 30.8 between for

skin

Sensorsloeatedon the of the aluminum honeycomb

ward dome, and stations 32.7 drical section. Agreement predictedtemperaturesatstation33.4 vex 3' good; however, correlation 30.8mwaslesssuccessful temperature trends agree, temperatures arc dieted. Measured showvery er flight, may have little

m measured temperatures relation between measured wasobtainedforthefirst after, temperatures dicted (Fig. 10-14). Ull_tge Surface Rocket

on the aft skirt. and l)ostflight

generally 32.7 and general recorded

120 secondsof flight. Theregenerally fell slightly below pre-

(Fig. but the approximately temperatures during tank ice

10-14}. maximum

25"K less than preat these two stations the initial 20 seconds section period, cylindrical during this

Fairin_

Temperature on the leading obtained of the edge sur-

increase

temperature

indicating that the been covered with

face of the ullage rocket fairing was sor located on the internal surface

by a senfairing on

76

fin II. Data from this sensor, together with the predictedtemperaturehistory, areshowninFigure 10-14. The maxi_num recorded temperature is near the norainal ablation temperature (383K) of the thermo-lag T-230coveringthefairing, indicating that the thermal protection system performed as designed. i0.3.2 BASE TEMPERATURES Base Thrust Structure Temperatures

transfer analysis used to determine the cloth closure hot face temperature and predict the actual sensor temperature. Maximum observed sensor temperature is 642K, which is approximately 56"K cooler than on S-IV-7. Sensor A was hotter than sensor B by up to 155*K on S-IV-7; but on S-IV-9, sensor B was hotter than sensor A by up to 72K. Since the sensors were between the layers of the curtain, they did not measure the hot face temperature. Theoretical cloth closure hot face and sensor tempera tares were obtained for two limiting cases: perfect contact between cloth closure layers and no contact (thermal radiation only) between cloth layers. For perfect contact, all cloth layers, including the sensor, were essentially at the same temperature as obtained onthehot face for the radiation only case. Therefore, the theoretical values shown in Figure 10-t 5 represent the maximumhot face temperatures and the maximum and mimimum sensor temperatures expected. Since the flight data fall within the analyticul extremes, there is an indication that a condition of partial contact existed between the closure layers; this could have led to the reversal of sensor primacy between the sensors of S-IV-7andthose on S-1V-9, as noted above. Based on the assumption that the cloth closure experienced no greater heat stage than the 1. i shield, it 2 measured on flux base heat _ttts/cm the S-IV-6 was concluded that the maximum closure temperature was 981K (Fig. 10-15). Since the cloth closure was designed towithstand 1090K, the temperature remained within the design limit throughout the SA-9 flight.

Thrust structure temperatures located on stiffener 26 at stations 28.4, 27, and 27.1 m were in goodagreementwith previous flight results as well as with predictions based upon a three-dimensional heat transfer analysis (Fig. 10-15). Temperatures measured at the forward locations (28.4 and 27.9 m) correlated relatively well with predicted during the initial 150 seconds; after this time, however, temperatures decreased at a greater rate than predicted. These trends are as observed on previous Block H flights,

'_'__[ ' .........

1 ....... _-_ ! ' _ .....

.... :'-' ....... '-'," ....... 2... [ . _ '" " "" ,v _ _ _i '.....

I..... " ...... ; t_ i I i _ -I '

L_
_

'

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

,'T.......... ....

'

,.................... I '

' i

!
"'" :

_.

.-_

10.4 10.4.1

EQUIPMENTTEMPERATUREANDPRESSURE ENVIRONMENT S-I STAGE INSTRUMENT COMPARTMENTS

-."" _"'_ _ _ _--t"_f_

i_ ', _=__

''"' ..... !.,: ]

...... -....... 10-15. S-IV STAGE TEMPERATURE

FIGURE

BASE REGION

Two pressurized instrument compartments arelocated immediately above S-I stage fuel tanks F1 and F2. These compartments contained power supply and associated telemetry equipment that must be maintained within specified temperature limitsto insure optimum telemetryequipment operation.These temperaturelimits aregivenbelow. From T-525 seconds,

Cloth Closure Temperatures Two resisUtnce-type temperature sensors were installed in the cloth closures of engines 3 and 6 to determine whether the closures stayed within the maximumdesigntemperature of 1090K. Each sensor was contained in a sleeve consisting of two layers of fiberglass cloth. Flight data from the two sensors, identified as sensors A and B, are presented inFigure 10-15. Also shown are the results of a three-dimensional heat

Temperature

Limits

(_K)

Component

Preflight
(Min) (Max)

Actual Ltftoff Tcmp 293

Operating (Min) (Max) 293 313

F2 Instrument Compartment F1 Instrument Compartment

293

295

295

297

297

273

323

77

a ground source satisfactorily providedpreflight cooling to maintain the temperature within these limits, No inflight cooling of the compartments was necessary since theheatloads created by the equipment were not sufficient to create excessive temperatures during equipment operation, 10.4.2 INSTRUMENT UNIT

A cooling system was providedto maintain an acceptable temperature within the IU prior to flight_ During preparation for flight and until umbilical separation the IU is cooled, or heated as required, by the ground support equipment. No inflight cooling is required to accomplish the vehicle mission. The onboard cooling arrangement consists of a manifold that is routed from the umbilical plate to various components in the Instrument Unit. Precooled air is used as a coolant for the IU until approximately 15 minutespriorto LH2 tanking; then GN2 cools the IU until umbilical separation. The system also supplies air/GN 2 to purge various components. Purging and changing from air to GN2 cooling is done to eliminate air from the IU. H electrical component sparking should occur, combustion is not supported. Maximum and minimum IU component temperatures measured prior to and during flight are shown in Table 10-I together with the temperature limits recorded during first orbit. Measured temperatures and pressures indicate no abnormal trends during flight. The highest temperature during the first orbit was noted onbattery i at approximately 2750 seconds, after which the measurement saturated.

SA-9wasthe first of the Block H series vehicles to fly a prototype model of the production InstromentUnit. Componentsaremountedonpanels attached to the interior wall instead of in pressurized tubes as on previousvehieles. The IU contains four vent ports (Fig. i0-16) to allow the escape of cooling and purge during proflight conditioning, andventing during flight,

IV

I1

Ambient air temperatures were satisfactory and showed throughout flight (Fig. 10-17),

measured in the IU no unexpected trends

,
i_
PoTt Locate.on

_e5 2_

)
_' ' ;" +':' l,,_.. TI_:" ..... -'+ "_" *'_" _'

Flight Direct lvok ng aft

piirg Si;,_-

:75

In c_ x 13 m C_rl_er r.mdi_:s 1._ _'m Tot_l '_'e_t tXrea q&?. 21_ cm_

_ ports [oc:tted 90 Apa[t i6._2 off Fil_ lin_,s and 2/_ cm below' forward end, Sial; ion 37. 13 m

_r_

FIGURE i0-17. FIGURE 10-16. INSTRUMENT UNIT VENT PORTS

INSTRUMENT

UNIT AMBIENT

TEMPERATURES

(INFLIGHT)

78

TABLE

10-L

INSTRISblENT

UNIT

COMPONENT

TEMPERATURES

Preflight Compo_m Min Guidance Guidance Inertial Azusa Battery Battery Computer Signal Processor Gimba| Internal No. 1 No. 2 303 302

Temp M,'_x

(KI

FHght Temp Min 311 295 315 295 Max 31{_ 307 315 312 315 306

fK)

Orbital Min 312 297 309 290 315 305

Temp (KI Max 333 316 315 333 344::' 324

Hedline

Temp (_K)

328 35s 315 373

305 304

304 303

* Measurement

saturated

79

SECTION ii.I SUMMARY

XI. VEHICLE

ELECTRICAL ii.3

SYSTEM ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

S-IV STAGE

The electrical systems for SA-9 vehicleoperated satisfactorily during theboost and orbital phase of flight and allmission requirements were met. The three rate gyro measurements were telemeteredfor 139minutes;durationoftelemetering exceeded theone orbitrequirement, 11.2 S-I STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

The S-IV stage electrical system performed as expected throughout flight. Several changes were made inthe electrical ystem. The major electrical s differenceetween SA-7 and SA-9 _s the installation b of S-IVB point levelsensor control unitsand the use of crystalcan relays in the sequencerand propellant utilization electronics assembly, which are more reliable. The electrical power system consisted of five major subsystem components: battery 1 (control battery), battery 2 (engine battery), instrumentntion battery 1, instrumentation battery 2, and the static inverter. The current and voltages for batteries i and 2 and the static inverter voltage are presented in Figure 11-2. _.................. .... _,. ...... ,....... , _..[. ......... ] ] .... . 7 i' _ .: i_ i ;

The electrical systemfor the S-I stage of SA-9 was essentially the same as that for SA-7. The main difference was the deletion of the eight recoverable movie cameras and two television systems, The S-I stage electrical power source consisted of two identical 28-volt zinc silver oxide batteries, designated battery was as IDt0 and ID20. 2650 amp-rain. The capacity of each

Durthgtheboostphase of flight the S-I stageelec.......... trical system operatedsatisfactorily. IDI0 battery The current varied from 60 to 72 amps. The IDII bus voltage varied from 27.2 to 27.9 voltsdc. The ID20 ,,; batterycurrentvariedfrom 58t060 amps and the 1D2I _. "' ...... bus voltage varied from 27.8 to 38 volts dc. Current

and voltage proxies IortheI t0and batteries t,0

, _ ............... ....... ......

-_--| ,.. _

"' I t

l
,

.....

T,.,

........
..__ , [ i L,, _

i
T

i
,

1
[ _]

/A

..........

FIGURE 11-2.

S-IV STAGE CURRENT VOLTAGE

AND

FIGURE

11-1.

S-I STAGE

CURRENT AND VOLTAGE

The output of the S-I stage 5-volt measuring supplies, located two each in the measuring distributors, delivered a nominal 5 volts de. The master measuring supply was not telemetered but could be monitored from the calibration voltage. The master supply was nominally 5 volts de.

Battery performance was satisfactory, with voltages and currents remaining within predicted toleranees. The two instrumentation batteries were norreal, with an output of 29.5 volts and a total current of 16.7 amps. During S-IV powered flight, the current of instrumentation battery 2 was 6.4 amps. The difference in battery currents was expected because the batteries were not electrically identical.

8O

The performance of the inverter was satisfactory. During separation, the output voltage dropped to the lower band edge, indicating that the voltage was less than 109 volts. Similar data degradations occurred on the SA-6 and SA-7 flights. These data dropouts icalGSE monitoring pins caused by the retro rockets. havebeenattributedto This drop in monitored ionization wa-_ determined umbilvoltage effects on the to be a false indication since there was no evidence of change in the battery 1 load profile. A much smaller change in the inverter voltage at PU activate produces a noticeable change in the battery l load profile. The inverter supplied sufficient power to the PU system. All exptodiogbridgewire tioned properly in response nmnds. ( EBW} firing units functo their respective corn-

T,_p .......... _ .... [ ..... :/4-fl: _ : /_[

F 1 _

i _

! _

ii' ," _ v._, ) .....

}:'

_:
[

.,

L _. .... r......

,:_

_ .--

:._

._ _ [ " ! " , _ [ _:t -r,

i .... _

[ i

i !

'

'_' ' _; _' -" _ ,_ "i I 2_,L '__ ..............

_ _,_, i

Tim range safety flight termination system performed properly and responded to the turn-off (safe} command at approximately 640 seconds. However, at 147 seconds, command destruct receivers 1 and 2 indicated a slight decrease in signal strength level lasting forabout 0.3 second. System capability was not jeopardized since the signal strength decreased onlyto

I ! _ _ ,', *_i_ _'" ,

"_:." t ! ........................ _ , _ I ...... I ...... T ...... ! i

about elowoccurred Atbothseconds, t tion.on measurements a second signaldropout

ofthe system signal. This dropout is attributed to the switch over to the Sterling antenna on Grand Bahama Island. 11.4 KI STAGE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

,,r-!
.... L_

FIGURE 11-3. IU STAGE BATTERY TEMPERATURE, VOLTAGE, CURRENT, AND I_VERTER VOLTAGE ampsexeeptforthecyclingoftheST-124 heater, which had a period of 115 seconds with an "on" cycle of 15 seconds. The 8D20 battery current was constant at 25 amps. The voltage and current profiles for these batteries are shown in Figure 11-3, together with inverter 1 phase voltages. The 8D10 battery life was 43 minutes. rate gyro measurements were on the F6 which was powered by the 8D20 battery. batterylifeof 139 minutes well exceeded the requirement. The three telemetry The 8D20 one orbit

The InstramentUnit electrical system was essentially the same as on SA-7. The main differences werethe addition of control commands to the Pegasus for deployment and a TV transmitter to monitor deployment. The 2650 amp-rain battery used on SA-7 was replaced by an 1850 amp-rain battery on SA-9. The two 28-volt batteries had individual heaters on SA-9, whiehbroughtthebatteries up to operating ternperatures prior to launch. This was required since therewasnoenvironmentalcontrol in the SA-9 IU charing Right. The operating temperatures of the IU batteries are shown in Figure 11-3. Duringthe boost and orbital phase of flight the IU stage electrical system operated satisfactorily. The 8DI0 battery current was essentially constant at 69

The commandvoltage supply, 5-volt dc measuring supply, and the 56-volt de supply operated at nominal values.

81

SECTION XI1. 12.1 SUMMARY

AERODYNAMICS

As in previous Block H flights, with the exception of SA-6, it was not possible to make valid analyses of aerodynamic stability parameters on SA-9 because of the relatively small angles of attack and resulting engine deflections encountered during flight. The axial (drag) force coefficient was higher than predicted during the subsonic regime of flight and lower than predicted during the supersonic portions of flight. A peak base drag of approximately 240, 000 N ( 54, 000 lbf) was measured at 56 seconds by measurements the heat shield and the flame shield. 12.2 FIN PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION on

"_-"

'

"

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

.... i ! : ' I ! y I 4, .

." ,

surfaces

Pressure environment on the upper and lower of fin II was similar to that measured on SA-7.

Because of the small angles of attack encountered duringthe SA-9flight, the pressure leading per unit angle of attack 12.3 could not be obtained DRAG The total aerodynamic axial force coefficient ![ .... with reliable accuracy,

obtained from the upper portion of is compared to The the flight analysis the predicted in Figure 12-1. axial force coefficient is obtained as an output of the propulsion system performance evaluation. When the local thrust time variation is not precisely known, the exact apportionment between engine performance and drag is difficult to determine. The results presented here represent the best estimate of the correct drag. Base drag contribution to axial force was calculated from pressure measurements on the heat shield and the flame shield of the S-I-9 stage and is shown in thelower portion of Figure 12-1. A uniform pressure distributionwasassumedtoactonthe heat shield; consequently, anaverage pressure obtained from the five measurements was used throughout flight. Leading on the flame shield was obtained from a combination of both measured and theoretical data. A peak base drag

\//_ ..........

....

FIGURE 12-1.

AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENT AND BASE DRAG

of approximately 240, 000 N ( 54, 000 lbf) was observed at 56 seconds. A positive pressure thrust was observed beginningat 71 seconds because of recirculation of hot engine exhaust gases. The effect on the flame shield after the flow from the inboard engines has become choked was incorporated in the local thrust variation rather than being considered as an effect on the drag force.

82

SECTION xm. 13.1 SUbIMARY

INSTRUMENTATION 13.3 13.3. i S-IV STAGE MEASURING ANALYSIS S-IV MEASUREMENT MALFUNCTIONS

There were 1249 telemetered measurements active at liftoff of SA-9. Only 15 of the 1249 failed, resulting in an overall measuring system reliability of 98.8 percent. Telemetry coverage from Cape area stations was longer than in pastflights due to the higher altitude trajectory, Allpreflightand and satisfactory. inflight calibrations were normal

A total of 405 inflight measurements was scheduled for the S-IV stage. Six of the 405 measurements were scrubbed prior to launch. Four of tile 399 measurements active at launch failed completely; 14 measurements were only partially successful. Table 13-I lists the S-W stage measurement malfunctions. 13.3.2 S-IV MEASURING RELIABILITY

Batterylifewas sufficient metry coverage planned.

to give the orbital

teleReliability of the S-IV stage measuring system was 99.0 percent if only those measurements active at liftoff are compared to complete failures. 13.4 IU STAGE MEASURLNGANALYSIS

Airborne tape recorders on the S-I, IU, and S-IV stages operated satisfactorily, producing data free of attenuation effects caused by the retro and ullage rockets. Main engine flame attenuation was less severe thanthat of SA-7 and retro rocket effects were greatly improved ever previous flights due to the higher altirude at separation, The edof 96 Onlyfour onboard Pegasus 13.2 13.2.1 photo/optical instrumentation system consistcameras that provided fair quality coverage, of the cameras provided unusable data. The TV system provided excellent coverage of the wing deployment, S-I STAGE MEASURING ANALYSIS S-I M EASUREMENT MALFUNCTIONS

13.4.1

IU MEASUREMENT

MALFUNCTIONS

A total of 217 inflight measurements _s scheduledfortheIU. No measurements were scrubbed prior to launch, none failed completely during flight, and none failed partially during flight. However, one measurementwasquestionable, C123-802, air bearing supply temperature. The indication supply temperatare was off scale for the entire flight, but there is some question if the measurement failed or the measured temperature was outside the measuring range of the instrument. 13.4.2 MEASURING RELIABILITY

A total of 634 inflight measurements was scheduled for theS-I stage. Only one of the 634 measurements was scrubbed prior to launch. Eleven of the 633 measurements active at launch failed completely; four measurements were only partially successful, Table 13-Ilists the S-I stage measurement malfunction, 13.2.2 S-I MEASURING RELIABILITY

Reliability of the IU measuring system was 100percent if only those measurements active at liftoff are compared with complete failures. SA-9 Was the first vehicle in which there were no apparent failures in the signal conditioner of the S-I and IU measuring systems. t3.5 13.5.1 AIRBORNE TELEMETRY TELEMETRY LINKS SYSTEMS

Reliability of the S-Imeasuring systemwas 98.3 percent if only those measurements active at lffteff are compared to complete failures. The probable cause of the failure of measurement F39-9 was pickupofa 400-cps frequency which resulted from not grounding the gyro or signal conditioner.

Datatransmissionfor flight testing Saturn vehicle SA-9 was effected by 13 radio telemetry systam links on the combined S-I, S-IV, and IU stages. The following systems were utilized on SA-9:

83

TABLE

i3-1o

MEASUI_EMEINT

MALFUNCTIONS

S(.rul)bcd

Priur

to La_llch

(7)

M_aSo S-I 5-IV E:_6U-I Cq_09-40_ Ct_l

No. 1

Title ,_t _lir_ T_'l_loJ_ Temp. T_nlp. T_nlp. Temp. Pr_. Pre_. LOX A[t Ti_' Lot C S_I. Sta. 7.71 19.7 4_ Ez_ i _ ]_.t. ldxt Del_l:tlvc Nu uuq_at gaug_ darin_ not acce_iltle

Remarks I(sr retniir loadlI_t_ c_ck.

T_ak, I/S Skin, .'Sk_,j

p_'o_cllan_ by reLru lJy r_tJ'o

400

p_Ltch _ov_r_d P_tch c_v_rL'd high d_ta

roc'ket rocket

[airing. lairing. Ic_ding lll_. zlot _ r_p|_c_d chc_'k.

C672-4_)9 Ct_l_ 40_

Air ]iS LOX D_|[ D_l[,

Tank

Ullage,

Of_ _c_c lnv_lid

L_uril_g propeJlant lh_ _r_lJ. _hl_h |el|

D6(JJ_Su.-, D64J-401

- LH_ IJ_jector_ - Actuator

t_[ter

A _'ng

L_z'elx_Ji[ Failuz-_ _ 15J

_ral_Klcer

c't_ald

S- |

C29/.-_

T_n_p A_pir._tar C;_|ori_l_Le r Ten,p l'_'Jl_po H.S. Tul'binc plz_io_

Suri_cel

To_ll LIni-_ _oJ_ab| e o_pul

C4-:_ C5-_

l_arh_ Bcarthg

_ _!_

No _abic Nu _abi_

data 0_ta

S_[_

C',l_:_ D|-3 DT0-1! E33_-9 E33_ EII_-6 F:_9-9 _-la." E_;23 E621_ 401 40_ | 1

T_'n_po

Ga._ C._ner_toJChali_lsu'r

Chan_l_cr p L'_._ll'_ !_1 Loz_,Jt Longl!

i'Jo u_aol_ |_utiun Po_slbl_ 1_ r_|_ah|_

data ,,pop,, 0_lna_d i_re.,_r_ L_':ln_du_-cr |h_-. [rom roc.ket to iransducer,

Uollll_u.-_tlO_ pr "essuJ'_ Vil_ Vib. Vibo A_,. V|b VJb. Vib. Vile. Tank

I[<_Lro ]_ocket O.' Support_

I_rok_J', dzita data

'[Y,_nk 0_ _upport, GO.X Line Vc'| ThL_t Thrus_ lthl| Contl_l

._o rc|iab|_ Op_ cable

Ijet_ _e_ l_z|cm_u-b"

_milter _igJ_ll

iol|o_'cr

and accclez'onl_t_r.

(pa_._eng_'_ Donl_, Ya_ Eng 1

Err_nc_-_ No o_ltput _o output

Cl_n_L, er Frame

A_y. Enl_ :_

E6_4-411,t [:604 407

t_e;_r Ca_c_ "thrust

No data

- l_JO_ no_sc

Stractar_ Axis

Gin_ba| 1_ PartlaU_' _h_lL _n data (1_ d_lta _c_c _Ii_h_|y _L_ _pp_" i_trun_c_tatioJl rar_gc ll_n_ 70 a_r _4 _c. Trend onl_ _ a/te_" _hl_ range.

portal Ya_

S_.cessful M_a_ur_d 125 second_.

S !

C3_-0C

C_nter

LOX re

Tmak

Ul|age

Gas

Ten_perato C234-9

GO.'q. Temp Upstream Control Valve Thrust Fuel Chamber pump

COX

Flow 1_ l_gher shift in data aiter _4 see. pressure amh[enl Trend peak vent only a/ter this tzme

D1 7 DI:tL[_

Pre._sure

thins

_xpectod

at Pc prim_ por_ on transducer, ambient corre.tion_,

mieL p_._ure

lnd_cutthn o1 l_gged ma_J_ data co_'i'e_to Eng I Inj. _ Eng Eng Eng 1 :t 4 Failed Failed IFail_.i Failed F_Ji_d Failed at 6t_u seconO_ at IECO at 250 at 2_2 at 350 _t z_0 _et'ond_ second_ _cond_ secol_ds

_-p,_

C600-_0! C7_-4|7 D1_04-401 D604-40Z D604-404 D604-_I)_ L_)9-404 D644-406 E623-402 E_2:|-404 E623-40_ Dr,00-40.5 D643-40_ D644 T402

T_mp. Temp pre_s PresSo Prc_. Pre_. Pr_. Pre'_o Fib Vib

Turbine lie. Htr,

Inlet,

LH 2 IJl_, Injector, Injector, Injector, Injector, Inlctl

Dii'f - LOX Dif! Dif| Dff| - LOX LOX LOX Pump

Eng I; Eng 4

- LOX l)if[ Thr_t

ll_r_ noi_<_ _i_r Data Z 4 _ _L,out

142 seeond_

Actuator Chamber

B I End, 6 Don_l Dome Dom_ Eng A, Eng 2 Eng _ng El_g 5 5

_r_ high selmration inv_|id _par,_tio_l w_r_ _er_ w_zre _'e.p|z_ced rcpl_c_'cl replaced invalidating hwaJidating |nval_datir/g th_ cahbrat_ol_s. Ihc" calthration_. the c_libratio_s. a|L_" _epar,_tion

No data D_ta

_fter

- Thz'_l_L Chamber Chan_ber

_pparent.iy afler

V_lJ _ Thrust Pl'_ Press ._re_o

No data Dei_,cLJv_ Dell.cLive Delecti_,e

_ Thrust D_||. Dl|!

Chan_l)er_ _ Actuator AcL_tor

_nlpli_r_ _mpti[icr_ _mFliliers

B_ Eng

84

S-I STAGE Link FI F2 F3 PAM Modulation -FM-FIVl ; FM-FM FM-FM ; FM-FM S-IV Link D1 D2 D3 INSTRUMENT STAGE Moduhltion PDM-FM-FM PDM -FM -FM PDM - FM -FM UNIT Link St $2 P2 Modulation SS/FM SS/FM PCI_I/FM

13.5.3

CA LIBRATION

All preflightand inflight calibrations were satisfactory. This was the first flight test that an SS/FM brat|on amplitude The single each time amplitude of the first type system was infli_itcalibrated. The callconsisted of 1700 Ilz, 40 percent of full scale signal, which lind a duration of 1.5 seconds. sideband (S3) received an inflight calibration the FM/FM modulation inflight systems tl_nsient calibration were calibrated. The seen at the beginning is a minor design in-

PAbI-FM-FM; PAM-FM-FM

tegration problem and will be corrected before the next launch if hardware test schedules permit. Telemeters S1 and S2 were not scheduled to receive inflight calibration. 13.6 AIRBORNE TAPE RECORDERS

Link F5 F6

Modulation FlVl -FM; FM-FM; PAM; Links FM -FM -FiM FM-FM-FM

Link $3 PI

Modulatio_n SS-FM PCM-FM

The purpose of the tape recorders data during the periods when RF dropout

is to record is anticipated

due to flame attenuation,retro and ullage firing,critical look angle, etc. Data deg_adation that occurred on previous flights due to flame attenuation at S-I/S-IV separationwasless sevcrethanon any previous Saturn

FM-FM PCM DDAS system, also (DDAS) functioned for their on re-

Pt and P2, acquisition The stages.

flight. 13.6.1 S-I RECORDER The S-I airborne recorder v,_s in the re-

digital spective

data

system

function was

digitalen-

codingand transmission of the model 270 commutator outputoflinksFl, F2, F3, and F6 at reduced sampling rates. The primary purpose of the link P2 DDAS _"as preflightcheckout ofthe S-I-9 stage_ the link Pl DDAS was used primarily DDASinformationwas rily into the PCM 13.5.2 DATA for preflight checkout of the fU. also available from link PI and inserted satisfacto-

cord mode from 39.3 seconds to 172.4 seconds. Recorder transfer to playback mode was initiatedat 172.4 seconds. A time lapse of one second u_s required for the transfer from record mode to playback mode. The rccorderbegan playbackof good data at 173.4 seconds and completed data playback at 305.5 seconds; 132. l seconds of good data were contained in the playback. At completion removed from of recolxler playback, modulation ,_xts telemeters Fl and F2. Opel_tion of was satisfactory and data con-

P2 during flight.Digitaldater were output format, ACQUISITION

Transmitted

radio frequency power

on all

thisairborne recorder

S-land IU stage telemetry links was sufficientto prodace the desired data coverage of all planned flight periods. Coverage from Cape area stations was longer than in past flightsdue to the i_igheraltitude trajectory. Transmissionofall throughout the flight. All andvoltage upte at that time control were oscillators after from liftoff. Ascension 125 minutes threeS-IV transmitters, (VCO) The last Island. the orbital No |height orbital teleteleflight, relinks was good multicoders, were operational data recorded

tainedinthe playback record are free of riteeffects of retro and flame attenuation. t3.6.2 record 25.5 passing mode seconds S-IV RECORDER TheS-IVonboardtape from 140.3 to 165.7 of usuable S-IV-9 data was recorder seconds. recorded, sequence. was in the A total of encomThe

the complete

separation

Battery metrycoverage metry

life was sufficient (F6 and Pl} were

to give planned. during of the this

S-IV recorder _s in the playback mode from 722.4 to 752.4 seconds. The initiation of playback occurred at S-IV cutoff plus 100 seconds, as cont_,'astod to the S-IV-7 flightinwhich tape recorder playback occurred at S-IV cutoff was initiated data from ing could playback. plus 12 seconds. The recorder playback later in the S-IV-9 flight in order that t00 s_,conds _ithdut of nonpropulsive loss ventdue to recorder

calibrations Data acquisition

executed

by means sites with

predetection capacity

the first

cording excellent

system data

at results,

produced

be transmitted

85

13.6.3

IU RECORDER

Normal

RF power

levels

were

indicated

by the

The IU airborne recorder was in the record mode from 138.7 seconds to 165.6 seconds. Recorder transfer toplaybackmodewasinitiated at 722.4 seconds. An elapsed time of 0.9 second was required for the transfer to the playback mode. The recorder began playback of good data at 723.3 seconds and cornpleted data at 749.7 seconds. The recorder playback contained 26.4 seconds of good data ( 138.3 seconds to 164.7 seconds). Real time modulation was reapplied totelen_eterllnks F5 and F6at 752.4 seconds. Operat/onofthisairborne recorder was good and data contained in the playback record were free of the effects of retro and flame attenuation. 13.7 RF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

forward telemetry RF monitor on the S-IV stag_. Re- . fleeted power remained a nominal l0 percent of scale (0. t volt), with only one exception: at separation, three sharp spikes appeared in the data, indicating that the reflected power increased to a maximum level of 34 percent. This level represents an approximate voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR) of 2.2:1. During the flights of SA-6 and SA-7 the reflected power levels reacheda maximum of 70 percent, which is an approximate 5:1 VSWR. The forward and reflected power measurements on the IU indicated a similar trend. However, the VSWR _s as high as 67:1 in one case. By 108 minutes after lfftoff, the S-IV-9 instrumentation batter), voltage had decreased to about 26 volts, and it continued to decrease at the rate of approximately 0.1 volt per minute. Second orbit data from Ascension Island at 123 minutes after liltoff thdicatedthat at acquisition, the transmitter power was rapidlydimthishing. TeIemetryceasedentirely during the Ascension pass. Data from Hawaii were noisy comparedto other orbital data available at the time of this analysis. Orbital data from Bermuda indicated greater degradation on system D3 than on the other two links. 13.7.2 TRACKING C-Band Radar

The overall performance of the onboard RF systems on SA-9 was excellent. Main engine flame attenuationw_sless than for SA-7, and because of the higher altitude at separation, retro rocket effects greatly improved over previous flights. Ionosphere effects were observed during at least three different intel_,als, and especially noted on telemetry data. t3.7. t TELEMETRY Telemetry through orbital stations, attenuation at the uprange station was as signals were received from insertion, and beyond by the

liftofI

downrange Flame

anticipated, causing 30 to 35 db of attenuation over a 30-second period, and ceasing at 120 seconds or 54 km. Extensive thresholdeonditions were observed on SA-7 during the flame attenuation period. However, retro rocket effects were quite different for SA-9. Attenuationlevelsof20to 35 db were present but no extensive threshold conditions were evident at any of the telemetry sites. In fact, several sites experienced a partial recovery of 15 to 20 _ during retro burn and some righthand polarized links show little or no attenuation at all during this period. Lauocb escape system (LES) ignition and jettison resulted in signal fluctuations at Cape Tel 2 at approximutely 158 seconds,

The AGC data received from the operating radars were excellent. The Cape radar had the usual polarization dropout, from 60 to 82 seconds for this flight. No other sites experienced difficulties. Flame attenuation was totally absent but slight modulation was present. Retro rocket effects were negligible, consisting, for the worst case, of a 10-_a attenuation spike at ignition and nearly full recovery for the duration of the burn. Azusa/GLOTRAC The Azusa/GLOTRAC data were extremely good on this flight. Little or no effects were observed due to main engine flame: Azusa Mk II had 10-db attenuation during retre rocket firing, but no station experienced unlock during retro rocke_t firing. Simultaneous tracking from at least three station s was maintained from 150 to 663 seconds and from 668 to 817 seconds, giving about 662 seconds of usable tracking data. Theunlockconditionbetween663and668 seconds at all stations resulted from a transfer from the Mk fl transmitter to the downrange transmitter. Azusa/ GLOTRAC data from this flight considerably exceed data obtained on previous flights.

Signaldegradationonbothright and left circularly polarized nignals was observed at lhe uprange stations atthreedifferentintervals: 160 to 200 seconds, 220 to 250 seconds, and 310 to 400 seconds. Ionospheric interactionwiththeS-IV plume in the propagation path isconsideredthedominatinginfluence. The downrange stations did not appear to be affected,

86

ODOP The ODOP systems performed as expected. Some of the Cape stations remained phase locked until 690 seconds. Intermittent loss of data due to phase unlock occurred during retro rocket burning between 147and t52 seconds. Attenuation varied between 25 and 40 c_o duringthis 0eriod. Flame modulationand attenuation were approximately 15 to 18 db, accompaniedby noise modulationatMandy, Pluto, and Metro. Tango experienced modulation only. OnboardAGC data indicateanunlockcondition from 146.6 to 148.9seconds during the retro barn. MISTRAM The AGC data acquired indicate an iraprovement over previous flights. Attenuation levels of 40 db occurred at MISTRAM I during retro rocket burn but still remained 20 db above threshold. The degradation lasted 3 to 4 seconds. MISTRAM II had effects similar to SA-7 with attenuation spikes to threshold at ignition and at termination. The signal during the retro rocket burn, however, was attenuated only 5 to i0 rib. Becauseofa faulty memory core, the only usable metric data from blESTRAM I were range rate data. Handover, programmed for 230 seconds, did not occur until 690 seconds with MISTRAM II losing the signal at 720 seconds. An unexplained occurrence at 280 seconds caused loss of AGC and metric data from bothMISTRAM I &II sites for approximately 5 seconds. Altimeter The altimeter on SA-9 performed properly and supplied good data although it was not expected to dosobeeause of the altitude flown. The bias observed on SA-7 was also observed on SA-9. The source of thisbtashas been isolated and will be corrected prior to the SA-8 flight test. After theflight of SA-6, modifications were made on the radar altimeter to increase its sensitivity and stability. The automatic tracking circuitry was also made slightly sensitive to the shape of the radar return. The modifieationsweretoprovide sufficient sensitivity and stability for operation at an altitude of 500 km as required on SA-9. The increased sensitivity also allowed more accurate determination of return signal strength, and the sensitivity of the tracking circuitry to the return signal shape allowed evaluation of the return signal characteristics, Since the characteristics of radar return pulses fremhighaltitudes are not fully known, a return signal

of one microsecond duration was selected to calibrate the altimeters for SA-7 and SA-9. The altitude bias error in the altimeter data represented a variation of the return pulse characteristics from those of the simulated return pulse used to calibrate the altimeter. Basedonanalysisofthe data from SA-7 and SA-9, the characteristics of the simulated return pulse have been adjusted. Altitude bias error in altimeter daha from SA-8 and subsequent flights should he significantly reduced since altimeters to be used in future nights will be calibrated with the adjusted simulated return imlses. This calibration represents a single, simple adjustmerit. 13.7.3 TELEVISION

Good television AGC curves indicate that good data were received throughout the flight. Flame attenuation of 15 db occurred at the Mandy station between 113 and 124 seconds. Retro rocket ignition and burn caused 20 db attenuation for about 5 seconds but did not cause a loss of signal. After separation, data continued tobe received from l_Iandy until 690 seconds. Picture quality throughout the flight _s excellent. Antigua receivers provided excellent coverage of the Pegasus paneldeployment. Slight fading occurred just prior to deployment but improved and provided good quality to 980 seconds. 13.7.4 COMMAND

From the available data, the command system appears to have performed successfully. Intorrogattons were conducted from the Cape and AscensionIsland. Telemetry data received from Cape Tel 2 indicate that 35i of the 352 transmitted words were received onboard. No degradation of command data was noted during the flame and retro rocket periods. I3.8 OPTICAL INSTRUI%IENTATION

A photo/optical instrumentation system of 96 cameras was installed throughout the Saturn launch tracking complex. The overall quality of the photo/ optical instrumentation coverage obtained from the flightwas fair. Of the 96 cameras programmed to record the flight, only 4 did not provide usable data. Timing from camera start was recorded on all lint four cameras; however, usable time indexing {time displacement between an exposed frame and its related timingmark) was recorded on all of the tracking system cameras and 14 of the fixed camera locations.

_7

Seventeen

cameras the

were aft

located

on the

launch

Tracking Excellent era, but

with

cameras

in two aircraft

_a>

u_t.,I.

pedestaltorecordtheground release events and launch (vehicle recorded were II and Iv', and

support section

equipment (GSE) of the vehicle at

results were _)lAained the other had excessive f_cal_lenl4th,

b 3 one aircr._t caincamera illoVOnlent. tracking4

first motion). The GSE operations the holddown arms, short cable masts the LOX and fuel fill and drain to operate of the arms at 0.088 the release was masts, norunus-

Fifteenlong cameras ]iftoff tower. exhaust ignition,

gr,_und-bas,.:d,

recorded_l)erati_m,ffthexehiele through jettison of the launch Cameras flame in this pattern, system retro stage rocket separation.

system fl',,m escape s3_tem the vehicle ullage r,J(-kct and

Theeightholddownarmsappeared really. able; second Timing the other range on three 5 arms time, well films released within

recorded

(:_0.007) tolerance

anti S-I/S-IX'

of 50 milliseconds. The cameras _rmsts II and assigned to photograph the IV recorded no malfunctions at Both the masts time appeared of release short of the

13.9

ORBITAL SL_IMARY

TILA-CKING

AND

TEI.EMETRY

cable

masts during liftoff. normally; however, were obscured The normally LOX at

to retract the masts

vehicle,

Due to the long radar tracking

lifetime coverage

of

the SA-9 orbiting was requested for tracking summary revolutiuns beginItals() first was includes 24 hours. conducted the

by smoke and 0.285 fuel and

anti ice. fill and drain masts retracted range engine time. ig-

the first five revolutionsordy. This covers all tracking over these five ningat optical insertion sightings ( 14:47::;4. reported seconds during SA-9

659 U. T. ).

0.205

No nxovement nition cameras the rain was

of the heat

shield

during"

Orbital by the Network network

traekingofthe

vehicle

perceptible. were obscured the

Lenses on two by accumulated to launch. on each Engine

of the four _ter from These procamera lens positionone on two of

NASA Space (STADAN), of Minitrack

Tracking and Data Acquisition which is composed of the global stations and Minitrack optical Flight tracking

during

day prior

blems will be solved by a drain for SA-8 and subsequent vehicles. ignition_.s the cameras. Vehicle eras on not timed due

trackingstations(MOTS), Network (MSFN),

antltheMannedSimce a global network of radar

to unusable

timing

stations that utilizes available Department (DOD) elements. Additional tracking providedby the SmithsonianAstrophysieal (SAO), The and the NorthAmericanAir |ast radar C-Band by U.T. beacon Defense track

of Defense SUl)port was Observatot3" (NOIL_D).

first holddown

motion arms

was

received III for

from this

two

cam-

I and

purpose. of the orbiting at All last vehicle was approximately subsequent telemetry at Prett)ria, liftoff. Several MOTS optical sightings and t2 optical the tnvo reported 15:t9 radar Pretoria, (42 rain x_s skin _mth Africa, after liftofD. track. The

In cameras the)"

addition were

to the located the

launch pedestal cameras, 12 on umbilical tower 37B where arms, exhaust and blast on

recorded

4 swing

tracking

the launch pedestal, hieleduringliftoff. satisfactorily located at vehicle flight. the

and the forward section of the veAll cameras on tower 37B operated data. used the A camera to determine first 6.4 m of

links to be SouthAfrica,

recorded twoantl

were [inks F6 and Pl one-half hq_urs aftcr

and obtained usable lt8-foot level was displacement for

vertical

Baker Nurm observations were first 24 hours. Stellar magnitudes were of the properly. orient4 swing Launchonthe Minitrack orbiting observations vehicle (luring of the Pegasus for the NORAD Pegasus and observations

reported reported

during were

ed

Eighteamerasontheumbilicaltower to cover the release and retraction All arms appeared to function

six for the Apollo module. No were reported over this period. will continue to be made vehicle lifetime or until experiment.

arms.

ing of the vehicle as it lifted from the recorded foradistance of approximately lengths. No malfunetionsduringliftoff

launch pad was three vehicle were observed,

termination

88

SECTION 14. t SUMMARY At 631.66 stmnnent seconds,

XIV.

PEGASUS

A This is due

panels consisting of 6 to 8 detectors. the S-IV-9 stage, the Inand the Pegasus

prinlarilytoinsufficientelectrical separation between the impacted detector and tileremainder of the deteeters in the panel. This loss of information will prevent certain validity tests from being made and also will prevent the determination of whether the hit occurred on the front or back side of the wing. Itis believed that the primal3: objective, i.e., obtaining puncture frequency in three thicknesses of almninum, can stillbe met.

Unit, tileApollo shroud,

wereinsertedintoorbitwith noappreciable pitch, yaw, or roll rate. During of_oitalflight, this spacecraft confignzrationexperiencedthe following: high cal2acity blowdownofthc LJ{ NPVtank, jettisoningof the Apollo 2 shroud, extension of Pegasus wings, and continuous nonpropulsivevcnting (NPV) untilresidual propellants were depleted. The Pegasus wing deployment and all spacecraft systems worked properly and all measurements were initially ithin their predicted limits. The w estimated total vented impulse was 179, 000 N-s (40, (38, 000 lb-s) 600 lb-s) from thehydrogen from the oxygen the Lank and tank. This 173, 00O N-s vented im-

14.3

ORBITA

L ATTITUDE

14.3.1

VEIIICLE

ATTITUDE

IN ORBIT

pulse, and GOX onthe the major

in particular Pcg'asuswings, portion of the

impingement is believed forces By Sl00 was

of the vented to have created anti moments seconds cyclical 0.25 (leg/s; was after with the

The

vehicle

was

inserted

into

orbit

at

observed

imposedonthcorbitingvehiclc.

631.66 seconds rang(, time with-0. II -0.96 degree yaw, and -0.70 degree e rrors,

degree l)iteh, roll attitude

lifo)If, lhe pitch and yaw moment nutximum aml)litudes of approximately roll rateatthis time was 2.45 deg/s ing. Accordingtotclemetryandsolarsensor the motion propellants file pitch of the vehicle had increased motion at the in roll remained

and

inercasreadings,

At S-IV engine systemwasopened. an estimated vented, anti 56,000 the roll

cutoff, the high capacity Duringthenextl80-secondperiod, N-s (12,500 rate increased lb-s) from

GH 2 NPV of GH 2 was minus 0.09

depiction to 9.80 around

of residual (leg/s, while 0.25 _as other deg/s, gradaxes,

and yaw

deg/s to plus 0.21 deg/s. capacity LH 2 NPV system

At 802.4 seconds, the high was closed and maintained of tile orbital rates were venting. observed At the x_as

ually

The angular transferred

momentum of the spacecraft from the X axis to the

inoperative during the remainder No noticeable changes in angular from S-IV cutoff 803.5 seconds, Pegasus vehiele'sattitude. approximately

and the spacecraft whichis normal the satellite are

is now in a flat spin ahout the Z axis, to the detector panels. The X axes of along the longitudinal axis of the vc-

to Apollo shroud separation time. the Apollo shroud that houses with no ath,'erse separation effects veloeitT Theshroud 1.3 m/s.

was jettisoned

to the

hicle, the Y axes extend in a plane parallel with the deployment wings, and file Z axes are perpendicular to the deployed wings. As of March t2, the spin rate about 14.2 the Z axis was approximately 2 deg/s.

Duringappreximately shroud separation the

roll

the next 60 seconds following angular acceleration was

PEGASUS

A PERFORMANCE spacecraft was sec range time) A description of Initially, and all limits, for a short properly predicted impaired

initiated and was the all

Wingdeptoyment of the Pegasus at T + 14.4 minutes (863.4 completed in 39.6 seconds. is presented spacecraft within unit were memory in the their was on the of the worked

positive, indicating that the re6nflar NPV system's thrust misalignment effects had functioned in oppositionte the GH 2 higl} Calmcity NPV system's threst rotsalignment effects. Evaluationofthe seconds lb) ment acting indicated on the represents roll a roll an spacecraft angular aceelez,'ation moment of 0.4t thrust from N-m 803 to 863 ( 0.3 This Ittooof

Pegasus systems

Appendix.

measurements Readout

configuration.

misalignment

timefollowinginsertionduetoissuance command sequence by the was corrected and readouts arc now being At present, received most

receiving of the

of an improper stations. This memory register

0.5 degree for an equivalent regular NPV system, whichincludesthecmnbinedeffectsof the regular LOX and Lll 2 NPV system. It should be noted that the Pegasus wings did not deploy untiI during seconds system 863.4 seconds and the only source of roll moment tween 803 seconds and 863.4 been ment. re_,mlar LOX/LH_ NPV the interval beappears to have thrust misalign-

on schedule. of the hit nor words words received have

neither panel identification tion, particularly those

pulse verify informaresulting from hits in

89

During

operation

of the high capacity

OH2 NPV

A_r_s..Equiv_levtto[IM.... I i. ...... , ] ' _]_ ! ! -i

{8-.,) _ -. t,,_._,.._ i i _j__ ........ _.... _ " | _: ' ;_..... _ s.. ......

C[_-!t)

system, a roll moment of -0.85 N-m (-0.626 ft-lb) would have had to occur to account for the observed roll acceleration. Since both NPV systems (the high capacity and the regular system) were in operation during this interval, the indicated high capacity system's misalignment moment would be -1.27 N-m (-0. 934 ft-lb). This moment indicates an approximate 0. t2-degree angular thrust misalignment of the high

- ..... i _ _ _,:

....

_....

_ u.2'.

At 863.4 seconds, the Pegasus wing extension was initiated, andwascompletedby 903 seconds. The roll rate decreased sharply during wing deployment due to the increase in roll moment of inertia. During this period of approximately 40 seconds, maximum oscillations in roll of 0.58 deg/s peak to peak amplitudes at 0.06 Hz were observed. These oscillations resulted in a maximum angular roll acceleration of 0. t i deg/s 2 (Pegasus design limit is 0.15 deg/s z) and were most probably caused by the structural bending frequency of the Pegasus wings. However, limited availability of the payload design data prevented confirmation of the causes of this frequency. By 1100 seconds these oscillations had damped out. The upper portion of Figure t 4-i presents the roll-moment histor3' dnring the observed increase in Pegasus attitude; this history was determined from rate gyro data. Inspection of rate g_,ro data during the period of 1200 seconds to 3000 seconds indicates a roll acceleration of approximately 0.5 x 10 -3 deg/s _. Duringthis period, it was assumed that there were two major factors contributing to the roll acceleration: the GOX NPV flow impingement on the Pegasus wings, and the angular misalignment of the GOXand GH2 NPV system, The moment due to this equivalent GOX/GH_ NPV systern misalignment was previously established at approximately 0.42 N-m ( 0.308 ft-lb). The roll acceleration du ring this period yields a total required roll tooment of approximately 1.02 N-m ( 0.75 ft-lh), as shown in the upper portion of Figure 14-1. In assuming thatthc equivalent GOX/GH s NPV system misalignment effects remained unchanged between 803 and 3000 seconds, the moment required from the COX impingement on the Pegasus wings was approximately 0.59 to 0.62 N-m (0. 435 to 0. 455 ft-lb). The SA-9 vent configurations are discussed in Section 14.3.2. Gas dynamic calculations of the NPV plume impingement on the Pegasus wings confirmed that this magnitude of moment, which isshownin the lower portion of Figure 14-1, couldbe generated by GOX impingement. In assumingthat the equivalent NPV systemcffects remained unchanged from 803 to 3000 seconds range time, the data presented in Figure 14-1 indicate that approximately 40 percent of the roll rate increase resulted

0:

_ :......

. _:..... :_.......

s,,.._,_,.,,: v,,J,, ._ ,,_ _-_-> ......... -,-,) o ,_ / _,6 -,,_, G.,_ pi-,,-rF,,< _ ...... *_ .... tcvv ,s,.. ::.... _ _. ,. , " " . ... _ -.0.2 ] i
_.

_" "_ i.,.

"h t ",,,_ ,:,_ "'_ ' :_ "-' :" "",i ',)91',ii' ._,( :"i_.i_ ,: . ::,* ,,_u=c,. ,_._s..,- . ,.,:, ._ _, ,.... ,,_ ,.., .............. .... , , :: ,,_ . ._........ -; c _'_ _" ': _ ........... " '"p_, ...,r, (N l::-

t.a

. _;

u.:

._ ,_1_ T.ln_ Illl.l_t.

FIGURE 14-1.

SA-9 ORBITAL

ROLL MOMENT

from NPV misalignments and 60 percent from the GOX impingement. These results are based on assumptions thatflowwas constant during the time period of 803 to 3000 seconds, andthat a major contrilmtion to the resuiting motion was NPV misalignment. These misalignment effects were evaluated during the time period of 803 to 863.4 seconds and were extrapolated through the initial region of LOX impingement on the Pegasus wingsupto 3000 seconds range time. The roll angtflar rates, as determined from telemetry records, are presented in the upper portion of Figure 14-2. After the termination of the S-I_'/IU telemetry, the attitude rate history of the orbiting SA-9 vehicle was determined by the analysis of Minitrack signal strength (AGC) records and the telemetered rapid attitude readout of the spacecraft infrared and solar sensors. Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) also performeda radar signature analysis to determine the vehicle angmlar rates. Radar signal strength (AGC) records were not available for angular rate determination.

90

14.3.2

NONPROPULSIVE PERFORMANCE

VENTING

SYSTEM

A..,,_..-,,L,,..,,,,,.__, . :'-'_ [ [ _ i

.. 1 _ -_ ' - _-j_'_: -_ / _:_ _

' 'I ' , .! ! .....

." // .,'._ .-_ /_ . /

....

- _"

As an addition to the main LOX and LH 2 vent systems, a nonpropulsive vent (NPV) system was installed on the SA-6, SA-7, and SA-9 vehicles to prevent occurrence of excessive angular rates caused by venting of residual propellants after S-IV engine cutoff. Inaddition, an auxiliary venting system _as installed that was not on the two preceeding flights. The aaxiliary system was installed as a blowdmw_ system that would vent rapidly the LH 2 residuals from cutoff to cutof/plus 180 seconds. The NPV configuration is shown lnFigure 14-3. The relationshipof the vent ports with respect to the Pegasus wings is depicted in Figure 14-4. The NPV system was designed to limit the vehicle's angular rates to 6 deg/s, to insure the structural integrity of the Pegasus payload.
I_ rill_ss_ _

+'_" _':" ,+,,,+t,:,_, ,

_' ,,,,/." E.,_.:".,,.,;....

,:,

,_"

I_,w Af_'r

l_lu_cJ,

FIGURE 14-2.

SA-9 ORBITAL

ROLL RATES

"

The longitudinal axis (X axis) oft he spacecraft initially migrated about a small cone angle, and then the spacecraft spin stabilized about that axis within 24 hours. MinitrackAGCanalysisandcomputations made from the solar sensor rapid attitude readout data indicate that the vehicle spin rate increased from the 2.5 dcg/s to 9.8 deg/s one day after launch, which agrees closely with the independent GSFC determination. The maximum roll rate obtained was approximately 9.8 deg/s in a clockwise direction as seen from the rear of the vehicle. Analyses of Minitrack AGC and rapid attitude readout show the spin rate decreased to approximately 8 deg/s at the end of one week. The lower portion of Figare 14-2 shows the vehicle spinratu history through the first week of vehicle lifetime as defined by the various methods of analysis, Due to the spacecraft's natural tendency to seek to rotate about its axis of maximum inertia, the angular momentumwasgraduallytransferredto the other axes causingthe coneangle to open up. The last rapid attitude readings on March t2 indicated that the precession cone angle had completely opened, and that the motion is now predominantly a fiat spin about the Z axis, which is normal to the meteoroid detector panels, The spin rate on March 12 was approximately 2 deg/s,

FIGURE 14-3.

NONPROPULSIVE VENT SYSTEMS SA-9 CONFIGURATION

Operation of the components of the S-IV-9 NPV system was as expected. The re_,mlar hydrogen and the regular oxygen nonprolmlsive vent valves ol_enad at S-IV engine cutoff and remained open, as designed. In addition, the auxiliary hydrogen nonpropulsive vent valve opened at cutoff and closed three minutes later, as designed. At S-IV engine cutoff, the LH2 ullage pressure began to decay. The pressure decayed from 26.8 to 8.6 N/cm 2 (38.8 to 12.5 psi} at S-IV engine cutoff plus 180 seconds (801.6 sec range time) due to the LII2 venting of the auxiliary hydrogen NPV. One secend after the auxiliary nenpropulsive vent valve was closed, the Apollo payload was separated, exex_ing a negative thrust on the S-IV. A s a result, the Gii 2 residual was forced toward the forward dome, creating an LItz boiloff rate that was greater than the CalXacitT of the LIt 2 NPV system. As anticipated, the 1.2t2 ullage pressure rose rapidly after Apollo payload

91

helium I)ottles at S-IX" engine cutoff. such as this would maintain the LOX a longer period.

A higher residual tank pressure for

I vented

An

estimate was made during three periods:

of

tile mass

and impulse

::, _._=_; _0_ _,_

l.

S-IV engine 180 seconds

cutoff

to S-W

engine

cutoff

plus

first i

orbit cutoff to plus orbit tank based lS0 see,rods depletion. to end of residual

2. End 3. S-IV ofengine first Tile propellants masses

were

on the following cutoff: 52.5kg

anti gases 113kg(250 Ibm) gas

at S-R y engine ofLll 2 plus

:" , . .'_Xt _'_:: '"_'"_ " _,,.,. ,,_v,*,,,: _,,. :r,,., , * :, ,:0:_ -o-_r,_,,,,,__.v::n

t.

(115

Ibm)

of ullage

2. 372 kg ( 820 lhnl) of GOX plus

of LOX plus 63.5 kg ( t40

45.4 Illm)

kg ( 10o lhnl) of helium.

The residual propellant masses used for this analysis were the host data available at the tirol. ,)l tilt" stn(ly. The differences between these values and those lll'enot deemed in Tal,h_ t4-1, significant. show th;tt sented in Pal_a. 6.9 The results, are

pr('sentcd

FIGURE

i4-4.

NONPROPUL-SIVE SA-9 CONFIGURATION

VENT

SYSTEMS

afteroncorbit, s2.5 percent of the LII 2 rank toted impulse and 33.(i percent of the LOX tank total iml)ulse were vented. The estinmted time that was required to vent the Lll 2 anti LOX tanks to 0.69 N/cm 2 ( 1 psi) was 3 hours for LIt z and 12 hours for LOX. This estimate correlatedwell two hours After after withthe liftoff. nf vartous alternatives to reduce recolxlcd daL_at approximately

separation, but relief pressure. (26.6 range psi) time.

did not reach the main Lll 2 vent valve The peak pl, essure of i8.3 N,'cm 2 approximately one orbit, the Antigua t716 seconds telemetry N/cm 2 slowly

wasreachedat After

recorded a maximum LH2 ullage pressure of 7.9 (It. 5 psi) ; at this time the ullage pressure was decreasing. The LH 2 tank temlm_ture uniform in that their respective readings entirely gaseous residual,

evaluation

probes were indicated an

the roll late, it was decided means of reducing the effect

that tile most practical of the impingement on

future vehicles, without making major hardware changes, was to interchange the LOX and LI] 2 nonpropulsive the LOX tank ullage presto the control of the cold LOK tank pressure was design 2 (45 to 48 psi) vents. to the SIV-9, This should reduce the roll rate in proportion impulse produced after S-IV engine cutoff plus Thus, with the that same the residuals roll as on the have Table 14-I shows l.-atc would

sure

At S-IV engine cutoff, switch was transferred shutoff within valve. The

helium maintained

180 seconds. I)een reduced assumed that vented g._ses imum roll

31 to 33 N/era

bandby repeatedly cyclingthc shutoff valve for as hmg ascold helium pressurant was available. As a result, the LOX tank pressure remained stable for about 980 seconds after S-IV engdne cutoff in spite of the GOX ventingby the LOX orbit, the Antigua pressure isab(mt data NPV system. telemetry At the end of the first recorded a LOX tank

hy tile ratio of 27,500/3s, fi00, if it is all roll is caused by interaction of the with the Pegasus wings. Using a maxof 10 deg/s on tile S-IX;-9 flight, the systems

rate

maximum roll rate with the LOX and Lll 2 NPV interchanged would have been 7. t deg/s. 14.4 PEGASUS Atprosent, tioning normally. OPERATION the t.5-mil No l_anels detectors have been are

of approximately 17.9 N/cm 2 (26 psi), which 4.14 N/era 2 (6 psi) higher thanthe comparable the S-IV-7 flight. The higher pressure in the cold

from

all

func-

readingwasattributedtothehigherresidual

disconnected

92

TABLE

14-f.

NONPROPULSIVE

VENT PERFORMANCE LOX Tank

LH2 Tank Time Mass Vented Mean Temp Total Impulse Mass Vented GOX & He: 91 kg (200 Ibm)

Mean Temp

Total Impulse

Cutoff to CO + 180 sec Cutoff+ 180 sec to end offirst orbit End of first orbit to depletion

45,4 kg (I00 Ibm) 100 kg (220 Ibm)

105K

55,000 N-s (12,500 Ibf-s) 91,f00 N-s (20,500 Ibf-s)

1050K

57,800 N-s (13,000 lbl-s)

6tOK

22 kg (45 Ibm)

167K

31,100 N-s (7, 000 lbf--s)

*COX & He: 36 kg (80 Ibm) **COX: 364 kg

89K

21,300 N-s (4, 800 lbf-s) 92,500 N-s

78"K

Totals * Ullage gas

167.4 kg (365 Ibm) * _,' Residual

t77,200 N-s (40, 000 lbf-s)

49t kg (t, 060Ibm) (780 Ibm)

t7l, 600 N-s (38, 600 (20, 800 lbf-s)

because of excessive leakage current. The observed punctures appear to be distributed randomly and the rate is slightly lower than that measured by Explorers 16 and 23. The 8-milpanelshaveencountereda shorting prohlem whichhas required that 31 of the 34 detectors be disconnected. A panel of eight detectors _s reconnected although it is still drawing some current. Thus, 11 detectors are presently active. The puncture rate in the 8-rail panels appears to be between that in the t. 5 rail and t6 rail, as expected. The 16-mfl panels have also encountered a shortingproblem; i0 panels containing 73 of the 358 detectorshavebeendisconneeted because of excessive current flow. Some of these panels began drawing current after an indicated hit, while others apparently began to leak so gradually that no hits registered, After insertion into orbit the temperatures of all systems were operating properly and were slightly higher than expected, but within their predicted limits. Dueto the equalization caused by spin ar0und longitu dinalaxis of the S-IV stage, the temperature variations were the same for both sides of the panels. However, by March8, 1965 ( 20 days after insertion), there were largetempcraturevariationsinthe panels on the same side. In the +Z direction the temperature varied eyclically [rum a minimum of 250"K to a maximum of 3650K, and in the -Z direction from a minimum of 230"K to a maximum of 300*K. These large cyclical

variationsin tempel"ature were caused by ixassages of the satellite through the earth's shadow. A maximum temperature difference across the panels of about 90"K existed on that day. These data indicate that the orientationofthe spacecraft is such that the sun is directly incident only on the +Z side with the -Z side receiving the earth reflecting solar energy.

14.5

PEGASUS TELEVISION

COVERAGE

Shroud

separatior,

and

deployment

of

the

PegasuswingswereobservedbyanonboardTV camera mounted inside the payload adapter that was looking forward. Excellent TV coverage was obtained. Just after shroud separation several bits of loose material were observed floating about in the field of view of the camera. A study of the loose material observed fiim was undertaken to determine the origin bris. The studies indicated that the material to be ice that may have formed on the S-IV on the TV of the deappeared hydrogen

tank fol-w_rd dome or on thc hydrogen vent dueting, andwasshakenloose during the flight. When the service modulo was jettisoned, the acceleration of the orbital unit resulted in the loose material appearing in the field of view of the TV camcra.

93

SECTION XV.

SLrMMARY OF MALFUNCTIONS

AND DEVIATIONS

The flight test of Saturn SA-9 did not reveal any malfunctions or deviations which could be considered a serious system failure or design deficiency. However, a number of deviations did occur and are summarized. Corrective measures were recommended by the MSFC Laboratory concerned for one of the items listed. This is marked with an asterisk. Each item is listed in the area where the deviation and/or malfunction occurred. Launch Operations i. Automatic replenish of both the S-1 and S-IV stages was interrupted when the replenish tank pressure complete sensing switch opened at 108.2 N/cm 2 gauge (i57 psig), causing the system to revert to a storage tanks pressurized complete status (Para. 3.5.3). 2. The northeasterntorus ringof the launch water 1. Total ullage rocket misalignment in roll ( Para. 8.2.2). Structures i. The vibration levels of the fin vibration accelerometers exceeded the calibration range during Mach t and max Q (Para. 9.2.3.2). Instrumentation t. There were 15 telemetry, andtSmeasurementsthatwereonly ful (Para. t3.2). 2. Seven launch (Para. measurements 13.2). measurement partially failures successof 0.75 degree

were

scrubbed

before

system separated at several joints during operation after vehicle lifteff and flooded the interior of the launcher (Para. Propulsion 3, 7).

3. Range rate data were the only usable metric data from MISTRAM I due to a faulty memory core ( Para. 13.5.2). 4. An unexplained occurrence at 280 causcdlossofAGCandmetriedatafrombothMISTRAM I & II sites for approximately 5 seconds ( Para. 5. Four cameras (Para. 13.6). did not provide seconds 13.5,2). data

1. MalnignitionpoponS-Iengine3 2. S-I engine 2 thrust averaged than predicted (Para. 6.2,3).

(Para. 3 percent

6.2.1). higher

usable

3. The total S-IV burn time was 5.34 seconds shorter than predicted due to slight variations in thrust and flowrate and a lower than predicted LOX load at ignition (Para, 6.7.2.1). 4. The NPSP of the S-IV stage LH2 tank dropped belowthe minimum requirement for approximately 60 seconds (Para. 6.8. l). 5. Calibration shift in S-IV equivalent to a probe capacitance ( Para. 6.9). Guidance and Control stage PU system of 0.27 pico-farad

1. Readout of the memory unit was impaired for a short time following insertion due to issuance of an improper command sequence by the receiving stations (Para. 14.2). 2. Insufficient spacing between same panelpreventedeertain validity madeandalsoprevented determination of the wing was hit ( Para. 14.2). detectors in the tests from being of which side

1. The alUtude determined by tracking at orbital insertion differed from the precalculated and computer values by -0. 353 kra, which Is greater than the expected _0.100-km altitude accuracy (Para. 7./) .

3. A large roll rate of 9.8 deg/s built up due to NPV misalignments and COX impingement on the wings (Para. 14.3.1).* 4. Some panels experienced shorting problems and therefore had to be disconnected (Para. 14.4).

94

APPENDIX VEiIICLE A. 1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION fuel tanks, four 1.78-m (70 in) diameter and a 2.67-m (105 in) diameter center LOX tanks LOX tank.

The flight of Saturn SA-9 was the fourth flight test of the Block II, Saturn I vehicles. This was considered the first flight of the Saturn I operational vehicles and the first to orbit the Pegasus meteoroid technology satellite (Pegasus A). This was the fourth consecutive Saturn I success in orbiting satellites, The vehicle, which measured approximately 57 m (188 it) inlength, consisted of four distinct units: the S-I stage, S-IV stage, operational Instrument Unit (first flight) and Apollo boflerplate (BP-16) spacecraft. A pictorial description of the vehicle is presented in Figure A-1. The changes that distinguish this vehicle from the SA-7 flight vehicle include: 1. Deletion of the eight recoverable cameras and two tetevision systems on the S-I stage and the addition of file Pegasus television. 2. Reduetionofthe S-I stage propellant loading achieve lower S-IV stage propellant residuals. tom. 3. Modified nonpropulsive to

Each outboard tank (LOX and fuel) supplied propellants to one inboard and one outboard engine. The center LOX tank supplied the outboard tanks through the LOXinterchange system. Thrust andlongitudinalloads werecarriedby the pressurized LOX tanks. The propellant tanks were retained at the forward end by a structural member called a spider beam. Four 151,240-N (34, 000 lb) thrust solid pro|)ellant retro rockets mounted on the spider beam decelerated the S-I stage for inflight separation from the S-l_' stage. Four large fins and four stub fins were attached to the base of the S-I stage to provide flight stability plus support and holddown points at launch. Each large fin projected an area of approximately 11.24 m2 (121 ft 2) and extended radially about 2.74 m (9 it) from the outer surface of the thrust structure. Four stub fins were attached nxidway between the nmin fins. Stub fins [I, Eft, and IV also provided enclosure and attachment for the three 0. 0348 m ( 12 in) diameter duets used to exit chilldown hydrogen from the S-IV stage. Four fairingsbetweenthe larger fins and stub fins enclosed the inboard engine tul_)ine exhaust ducts. A.3 S-IV STAGE

LtI 2 tank venting- sysInstrument area. Unit equip-

4. Installation of excess meat in the forward interstage

5. First flight test of redesigned Instrument Unit structure (no inflight pressure control), 6. Introduction utilizing the ST-124 7. First flight

(light weight) temperature or

of the iterative guidance guidance system, test of the Pegasus

scheme

A satellite, boilerplate

Sixgimbal mounted RLi0A-3 engines, providing400, 340 N ( 90,000 lb) total thrust at an altitude of 60, 960 m (200,000 it), powered the vehicle during the S-IV stage portion of powered flight. The engines were mounted onthe thrust structure with a six-degree outx_rd cant angle from the vehicle longitudinal axis. Each enginehada gimbal capability of a plus or minus four-degree square pattel'n for pitch, yaw, anti roll control. The S-IV stage (Fig. A-3) carried approximately 45, 359 kg (100,000 lb) of usable liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The thrust structure provided engine thrust transfer to the LH a and LOX container. The tanks, Lit z forward and LOX aft, were separated by a common bulkhead. The LH2 (fuel) system consisted of a cylindrical container with a bulkhead at each end. LH2 flowed from the container through six suction lines, each of which connected to one RL10A-3 engine. The LOX system consisted of a 35.7 m3 (1262 ft3) container. Vacuum-jacketed suction lines transferred the LOX from the container through the antivortex screen, filter assembly and sump cone. The lower

8. Uninstramented used as the satellite's A-2 S-I STAGE

modified Apollo protective shroud.

A elusterofeight upruted lt-i engines powered the S-I stage (Fig. A-2) producing a total sea level thrust of 6.67 million N ( 1.5 million lb). The four outboard engines were gimbal-mounted to provide pitch, yaw, and roll control. All engines were canted to minimize the disturbing moments that would be inducedby an engine faflureat critteal dynamic pressure. Propellants were supplied to the engines through suctionlinesfromanarrangementofninepropellant tanks, Thesetanksconsistedoffour 1.78-m (70 in) diameter

suction line flange ends were inlet flange on each engine,

connected

to the LOX

nut is located at the toYward end of the Pegasus A satellite. After insertion into orbit, the Command and Service Modules were ejected, exposing the Pegasus' A satellite. The ejection and separation mechanism consisted of 4 negator springs, each exerting a constant force of 178 N (40 lbf) through a distance of 3.96 m (156 in), and 12 compression springs each havinga spring constant of 840 N/cm (480 lbf/in) and a stroke of 4.3 cm ( 1.7 in). A.6 PEGASUS A SATELLITE

A nonpropulsivevent (NPV) system was installed on SA-7, in addition to the main pressure relief LOX and LH2ventsystems, to obviate the excessive angular rates due to the venting of residual propellant after S-W cutoff. The system flown on SA-9 was identical to that of SA-7 except for the addition of an auxiliary NPV system. The purpose of the attxiliary NPV system was to provide a large initial pressure decay in the LH 2 tank to assure that the main LH 2 vent system was not activated. Four 15,125 N (3400 lb) thrust solid propellant ullage rockets provided proper positioning of the propellants prior to the S-1Xr stage ignition, A. 4 INSTRIJ_IENT UNIT

provide

The objective of the Pegasus A satellite is to engineering data about the near-earth meteor-

oidenvironmentinwhichfuture manned space vehicles will operate. In the stored position with panels folded inside the Apollo Service Module. the approximate overall dimensions of the satellite are 5.3 m (208 in) high, 2. t m (84 in) wide, and 0.24 m (9.5 in) deep. The X-axis of the satellite is along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the x'-axis extends in a plane parallel with the deployed wings, and the Z-axis is perpendicular to the deployed wings. The total capsule weight is approximately 1400 kg (3080 Ibm). When deployed, the satellite has an overall wing span of 29 m (96 ft). The Pegasus is divided into two major parts: the center section and the wing assemblies (Fig. A-5). The satellite's [ramework ismadeof riveted aluminum alloy extrusions. The center section is attached to the deployment mechanism, electronics cannister, solar power panels, and sensors. Each wing consists of seven hinged frames which provide mountings for 208 panels (104 per wing). The hinges are spring loaded so that when released the wings unfold in accordion fashion. A detector panel is composed of two Ilat plate capacitors of aluminum, mylar, and copper bonded to each side of a 2.54-era (l in) thick foam core. The dimensions of the detector panels are approximately 101.6 by' 50.8 by 2.54 cm (40 by 20 by I in_. The capacitorshave a target sheet thickness of 0.0381 mm (0.0015 in), 0.2032 mm (0. 008 in), and 0. 4064 mm (0. 016 in), and both capacitors in a given panel are of the same thickness. The total exposed detector area is approximately 200 mZ: 8 m2 of the 0.0381 mm material, 16 m2 of the 0. 2032 mm material, and 176 m2 of the 0.4064 mm material.

ThefnstrumentUnit(Fig. A-4) located between the S-IV stage and the payload, housed the guidance and control equipment plus telemetry and the main elecironic tracking equipment. This is the first flight of the prototype model of the production Instrument Unit to be used in future Saturn vehicles. This IU differs from previous models inthat no environmental protection is provided for the instrumentation during flight. Components are mounted on panels attached to the interior wall instead of in pressurized tubes as before. The overall diameter, height, and weight of the IU are 3.9 m (154 in), 0.9 m (34 in), and 1200 kg (2650 Ibm), respectively,

A.5

PAYLOAD

The Apollo boilerplate (BP-16), shown in Figure A-5, consisted of a Command Module, Service Module, spacecraftadapter and launch escape system, BP-16 served to simulate the characteristics of an Apollo spacecraft whose ultimate mission is a manned lunar soft landing and return to earth. The Pegasus A meteoroid technology satellite was housedwithinthe Service Module. The Service Module was attached to the payload adapter by six explosive nutassemblies andmountedontwo guide rails (4.47 m or 176 in longj spaced 180 deg apart) by three roller sleeve assemblies per raft. An additional explosive

96

LAUNCHESCAPESYSTEM

COMMAND MODULE PEGASUS SATELLITE t SERVICE MODULE INSTRUMENT UNIT

ULLAGEROCKETS __ RETROROCKETS

57. M 3 IS- STA !6 RLI0A-3ENGINES GE

DIAMETER M 6.5

WEIGHT IGNITION AT 510, 70KG 1

]1

S-I STAGE

I
_k-9 VEHICLE CONFIGURATION

8 H-IENGINES
FIGURE A-i.

97

LOX SOX DISPOSAL YSTEM S

INSTRUMENT COMPARTMENI _TYPICALF-I & F.?!

ANTI-SLOSH BAFFLES _lO" OLATANKS}

FI-SLOSUAFFLES B (105" DIALOX TANK)

CABLE

BYDROGEN CBILL-DOWN DUCT

HEAT SNIEL[

TURBINE EXHAUST DUCT

FIGURE

A-2.

S-I

STAGE

98

99

GN 2 PURGE m, GUIDANCE SIGNAL PROCESSOR

DUCT

GUIDANCE

COMPUTER

CN 2 STORAGE _

SPHERE ST- 124 STABILIZED PLATFORM

28 VOLT

GUIDANCE

COMMAND DECODER FLIGIIT CONTROL ST-124 ELECTRONICS BOX i .... ""

GUIDANCE COMMAND CONTROL DISTRIBUTOR

I.'1(;I }'1'; A-I,

IX_I'III'MI';XT

[ ,kl'i

MODULE COF_ND SCISSOR LINKAGE SERVICE

MODULE _\
CENTER SECTION STRUCTURE /I-__ LATERAL SOLAR PANEL (2) /-- PAYLOAD TNSTRt_MENT ADAPTER [TNIT IV /lll

INSERT

/
GUIDE RAIL ASSEqBLy MICROMETEROYD _EASUR_4 ENT CAPSULE FORWARD SOLAR PANELS GUIDE (2) RAIL (2) J I i

/
i i

WING ADAPTER _ INSTRUMENT UNIT

PANEL PANEL \- S-IV STAGE

(6-I/2

S IV STAGE RESTRAINT (DEPLOYED BRACE (8) POSITION)

g
FIGURE A-5. PAYLOAD

REFERENCES

1.

Scott, R. : Revised Fi,_. '_redicted Mass Characteristics VAW-65-13, January 2 ._, _a65 (Confidential}. Wittcnstein, January 29, Results Working Results Working Gerald: SA-9 Final 1965 ( Cor_,.'idential). Predicted Trajectory Part

of the Saturn

I, SA-9 Vehicle.

Memo

R P&VE

2.

I Nominal

Trajectory.

NASA

"I'MX-53203,

3.

of the Fifth Strum I Launch Vehicle Group, April t, 1964 (Confidential). of the Sixth S,'tturn I Launch Vehicle Group, Augus : _, 1964 (Confidential).

Test

Flight.

MPR-SAT-FE-64-15,

Saturn

Flight

Evaluation

4.

Test Flight.

blPR-SAT-FE-64-16,

Saturn

Flight

Evaluation

5.

Results of the Seventh Saturn I Launch Vehicle Test Flight. Working Group, November 25, 1964 (Confidential). Saturn Block R Design Criteria. MTP-M-S$_I_{-E-61-2, neering Laboratory, May 12, 1961 (Confidential). SA-9 Saturn S-IV-9 Stage ( Confidential}. Vehicle Flight Data Book. Test Technical Writing

MPR-SAT-FE-64-17,

Saturn

Flight

Evaluation

6.

Vehicle

Systems

Integration

Office,

P&VE Engi-

7. 8.

and Handbook

Section, Douglas

October Aircraft

15,

1963 (Confidential). August 19, 1964

Plan Model

DSV-4.

DAC SM-46065,

Co.,

102

INDEX A Acceleration history lateral 30 44, 46 14, 61 63 67 45, 46 Angle attitude gimbal

41, 46

43,

89 89

pitch 38, 40, 43, 44, roll 38, 43) 44, 89 trajectory yaw 38, 43, Angle-of-attack fin-mounted pitch Q-ball vehicle 58 56 62, 63, 66 winds Angular Pegasus and yaw sensor 40 41, rate 42 90 41, 44, 44 89

longitudinal roll 89, 90 rotational 49, Aecelerometer body bending

sensor 44, 41, 68

41, 44

44,

82

components 66, control 1, 44 fin 63, 94 first motion guidance 48, H~I engines instrument longitudinal Pegasus 67 scale S-I factor stage 64 time 55, 64 am[ 62 52,

pitch 40, 44, 45, 59, 89 roll Z, 38, 42j 44, 45, 58, separation S-I stage 59 46 44, 96

59,

89,

90,

91, 92,

94

56

S-IV Apogee

cutoff

S-IV stage 63, 66 ST-124 48, 55 Acoustics Apollo adapter 68 effects upon vibrations instrument unit 68 S-I stage 67 S-IV stage 67 Acquisition AGC data DDAS 85 PCM data 85 systems 85, 86, Actuators deflection gimbal, posilfion Adaptive pitch 42, 44, 42 mode 40 82 temperatures 66, 82 67 22 87 46 25 86, 87, 90, 91, 94 64, 66, 67

altitude Apollo 68, Arm

1, 13, 16 89, 91, 95, 88, 53 95

96

hoiddown 62, swing 8 ASCI5 computer Atmospheric conditions US Standard Attenuation effects, main retro engine rocket

at launch Reference

5 14 2, 85

playback flame [lame 86

records

2, 83, 85, 86, 87 83, 85, 86, 87

RF dropout 85, telemetry 86 tracking Attitude error Pegasus separation spacecraft vehicle, vehicle, 40, 86 43, 90 58, 89, control

hydraulic 40, 41, guidance

44, 59. 91

45, 60

46,

59,

89

and yaw 2,

Aerodynamic axial force forces, beating heating

coefficient 38

effects

at insertion

89 41, 42, 44, 45, 59,

effects on gas rate 2, 70 64,

1, 38, 40, 89, 95 82

noise environment stability parameters Altimeter data radar Altitude 87 87

Axial drag coefficient forces 82 load Azimuth 61, 48, 62, 49 63

apex 15 apogee 1, 13, orbital perigee vehicle insertion l, 13, 14

B 16 1, 13, 16 53, 94 Battery capacity _t0, 81, 83, 77, 85, 80, 86 86

instrumentation

103

INDEX Pegasus IDI0 1D20 1D11 1D2I 8DI0 8D20 Beam spider 63) 70) 95 Bending body 44, 45, 61, 63, fin 63, moment 64, 68 61, 62 61, 62 61, 62 80 80 80 80 81 81 l, 5

(Co/It'd] Coefficient axial (drag) force 82 base drag _2 dl'ag 16) Combustion ehamberdome stability Commutator Control accelerometer 1, 44 design parameters 42, flight computer 40, 46 helium helium heater shutoff valve valve 33, 92 46 34 '_3 42, 43 monitor 85 19 64 5, b, 20

S-I stage 80

68

oscillations 63 pitch and yaw 44, yaw plane, Blockhouse redline Burn time

pneumatic, rate gyros

pressure 1, 2, 44, 38, 34

system 45, 80 40, 41,

maximum 8

S-I stage flight S-IV pneumatic S-IV stage flight valve, GOX llow valve, vehicle, Cooldown

values

38, 43 ._2.2:5 2 23 39 31

IECO 18 retro rocket 26, 27 S-I 14, t8, 38 S-IV 14, 26, ullage rocket ")7, 37 28, 94

LOX replenish system 38,

engine, engine, exhaust Couatdown C

LH 2 26, 29, 30, LOX 30, 33, 34 vent 78

Calibrations irfflight3, 85 8 LOX mass sensor 28 preflight Calorimeter Hy-Cal Camera coverage coverage, coverage, coverage, coverage, coverage, holddown onboard recoverable, tracking umbilical 83, 70 88 2, 61, 83, 87, 88, 88 93 exhaust flame 85

holds 1 _ 5 mal[unetions Cutoif

l,

5,

events 15, 30, 31 IECO 18, 19, ')4,38 b 63 impulse 28, 29 LOX starvation 24

OECO l, 13, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, 40, 63 probe, LOX level 25 probe, sequence propellant 18 40, 52, 53, 89, 91, 92 mass 29, 30 D Deflections 80, 95 actuator vehicle Deviations summary Drag aerodynamic axial base coefficient Duct boattail S-IV, 76 turbine exhaust 38 82 16, 42, 62 94 base 19 29 44, 46 25

Baker-Nunn

S-IV stage t, 2, i3, 14, 15, 27, ZS, 31, 33j 34, S-IV stage,

launch facility 88 Pegasus 93, 95 swing arm 88 liftoff 88

vehicle arm 88 80 movie

television 80, 83, 87, 95 83, 87, 88 lower 88

Center of gravity offset 53 longitudinaland radial 9, 12 Chilldown S-IV stage LOX 23, Cloth closure engine 77 24

104

INDEX E Electrical bridgewire IU systems support 23 81 8 2 t 80 81 83, 64 85, 86, 87

(Cont'd) LH LH LH LH LH LH LH LH LH LH LH L} cooldown loading mass 8 level 8, 35 91, 92 valves 29

NPV system sloshing 48 system 95

equipment

system performance S-I stage system 80 S-IV Engine allenuation, component flame 2, vibrations stage system 80,

tank heating rates 76 tank strain gauges 68 tank tank temperatures vents 8, 91, 66, 8 91, 92 76 92, 6_, 95 69

tank vibrations transfer line

eooldown 30 cutoff transients 30, 31 lI-I 17, 19, ignition pop 20, 64, 19, 20, 95 21 17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 94 30, 36

L_ ullage pressure 3I, L]_ vent valve 31, 92 pumps pump tank, 22 inlet pressures 30 21, G 71, 72 G LOTRAC GN 2 cooling beater 86 78 57

individual performance

tanks 21, 22, 31, 95 pressurization 22

mixture ratio t7, 18, 28, position 3 19, 20, 21 RLIOA-3 I, 17, 30s 95 shroud, gas temperatures vibrations 68, 69 Events cutoff 15, 30, 31 significant 15 times of 3 Exhaust gas tempcratm'es turbine 1, 20, 38 F Fin accelerometers aogle-of-attack 63, 64, 94 meters 41, 71, 71, 72

pressure and tempcraturc 57 pressure supply sphere 23 triplex GOX flow spheres 23

control

valve 2, 89,

22, 90

2:3

impingmncnt 44, 72 82

line vibration 64 venting 2, 89, 92 Ground support equipment holddown arms 62, 88,

base gas temperatures bending 63, 64, 68 main 95 pressure distribution

95 8

82 64, 76, 77

launcher 8 LOX umbilical

drain

lines

pressure measurements skin temperatures 70 strain gauges 68 slab First 24, motion 95 time 23 1, 58, 88

swing arm 8 umbilical connection umbilical Guidance acccleromcter data 38 31, monitoring

pneumatic pins 81

system

78

Flowrate S-I COX

48,

55,

56

S-I pressurant 21 S-I stage 18 S-IV engine cooldown S-IV S-IV Fuel pressurant stage 28, 32 29 30

error 38, 48, 49, 52, 55 iterative 2, 40, 52, 95 S-IV cutoff 15, 52, 53, ST-124 system Gyro rate I, 2, 44, 45, 80, 90 rate, measurement 80, 81 system 2.38, performance 38, 55 50, 44, "53, 56, 48, 53 57, 81, 95

48,

bias 24 till and drain mast 88 LH 2 boifoffrate 31. 91

105

INDEX H Heater GN z 57 helium 17, ST-124 Heating aerodynamic base, engine flame rate 71, shroud shield_ 26, 29, 81 70 73 73, 74 rates 7I, flux 33 73, 74, 82 3 "), 33

(ConUd) tetra S-I 20, rocket 24 rocket 13, 94 individual engine S-I 1, 17 1, 17, 26, 19 28, 29 36 16 26

S-IV 2, 58 ullage Impact booster Impingement vent 92, Impulse specific, specific_

cycling

helium heater LH 2 tank 76 iteat tail shroud shield drag 70 82

specific, S-IV S-IV cutoff 31 vehicle Inclination orbital 18, 13 19

base

base temperatures im}er 71_ 73 movement 88 outer 71, 73 pressures 75, 82

71, 72_ 75

Insertion orbital i, 13, 16, 53, 93, 94 orbital time 1 ullage gas temlverature Instrument Unit 9fi electrical system 81 recorder 83, 86 umbilical separation 78 93

Helium cold, bubbling 22, 30, 33 cold, residual 92 cold, sphere vibrations cold, supply pressure control outlet pressure 69 and temperatutre 34 :33

8, 24, 33, 34

Instrument Unit acccleromeVer sound intensity

measurements 66 68

66

heater 26, 29, 32, 33 heater combustion temperature heater heat flux 33 heater ignition 33 heater vibrations 66 pressurization flowrate 34 sphere slorugc triplex shutoff Holddown arms Holds l, ltydraulic actuator 5 gimbals 25 temperature _phero 33 sphere 24 valve 92 62, 88, 95 34

temperatures 78, 79 vibration levels 66, 67, 69 Instrumentation batteries, ETR 1, 5 malfunctions photo/optical one and 95 83, 87, 88 two 80

Interstage debonding 68 pressure, aIt 75 pressure, compartment 76 75 pressure, forward purge :_3 separation S-I, S-IV temperature 26 ! vent Inverter ST-124 ports 55 $1 j 58 23, 23 Z4 23, 76

hmyard backup 8 oil Icvel_ 25, 26 oil temperature source pressure S-I system 25 S-IV system 25, 25

26, 36 I

static 80,

IECO Ignition

(_ce

cuter0 Jettison 33 plvpellmlt 20, 21, 94 LES ullage 63, 86 rocket 36, :37

helium heater pops, m.qin

10fi

INDEX L Lateral motion acceleration separation

(Cont'd) M Mach number Malfunctions summary 14, 94 12 15, 40

control clearance 88

38 59

Launch camera coverage conditions 5 holds 1, 5 malfunctions 1, 8 pad 37B 1, 4, 5 Launch escape jettison 2, performance LH 2 (see fuel) Loads aMal center flame normal, S-IV stage tail shroud vehicle, vehicle, LOX dome 20 fill and drain levels 24, 25 main fill 7 mass NPV masts 61, system 63, 86 2

Mass (see weights_ characteristics helium 33

history, propellant 35 history, vehicle 29 loss rate 29 LOX S-IV 34, 35, 36 cutoff 29

S-IV ignition 9, 30 utilization 24 vehicle Mast 61 61 LOX short 9, 10, 29 88

6'_, 63

LOX tank shield 82 factor 68 75

fill and drain cable 88

Measurements combustion stability forward interstage 62 strain gauge 61, structural 61-69 Measurements, 88 IU, IU, reliability total 83 83 83 83 62, monitor vibration 68 5, 8, 20, 66, 69 64

body 61 longitudinal

performance

S-I system, reliability S-I, total 83 S-IV system, reliability S-IV, total 83 Milestones Minitrack MISTRAM 19 32, 33 Mixture 23, 5, 6 88, 91 87 ratio 30 S-IV 36

34, 35, 36, 92 system 89, 91 systems 7, 30 22, 23, 92 relief valves 23 control system 33, 34 30, 33 18, orifice 2Z,

oxidizer pressures pressure

pressurization pressurization pump cooldown pump inlet 27, pump pump pump inlet inlet seal

excursions_ S-IV 34 Moments 32, 62 bending, pitch and roll, roll _9, 90 vehicle, MOTS 88

pressure temperature purge 23

20, 30,

22, 33

30,

distribution inertia 61

61 12

replenish residual sloshing starvation S-I tanks S-IV tank

system 25, 27, 32, 46, 24 95

5, 7, 8, 23 34, 35, 92 47, 48

maximum

N 7, 35 Nominal 32 8 O 32, 91 ODOP 23 AGC coverage system 87 87 trajectory Nonpropnlsive 16 vent system 32, 89, 90, 91, 93

loading ullage

pressure

transfer umbilical vent 91, vent valves LOX-SOX disposal spheres

line 95 drain line 92 22, system 21 23,

purges

107

INDEX OECO Orbit decay insertion payload tracking vehicle (see amt cutoff) reentry elements it 13 88 lifetime t, 13 P Payload Pegasus 96 1, 89 89, coverage 67 89, g7 system 16 40, 6 .) 41 26 92, 93 90, 93 93 15, 16 16

(Cont'd) surface 76 71, 75 transients interstage 56 compartment chamber 37 23 75 30, 76 31

S-I stage 70, S-IV chamber S-IV forward ST-124 system tail shroud 75 thrust frame ullage rocket Pressurization engine helium, inflight step 31,

1, 13,

turbopamp

gearbox

flowratc 34 fuel 'tank 31 32, 33 systems .)2, 23 32 23 25 "_5 cutoff 25

performance television vibrations

Pressurization fuel true: _l, LH 2 tank 31 LOX tank 22, pneumatic Probe continuous discrete propellant

_ving deployment Performance retro S-IV Perigee altitude Pitch S-I Pogo stage, rocket pl_pulsion 1, 13, 26,

control level level level

program 61, 75 .)lj

Propellant automatic loading systems boostcr consamption ')4 30, 31, 62 34 dmtsities depletion depiction outlet flowrate ignition loading mixture 30, 62 20 requirements time l?, pops 7, 8 ratio 24, 25, 19, 17, 27 2,7, 28 20, 28, 21 30 24 t_

oscillations Pressu_ aft interstage chamber 20, chamber cold helium

26, 30

buildup

regulator

cold helium supply 33 common bulkhead 76 detonation switches 76 engine compartment 75 engine fuel pumpinlet22, fin measurements 76 flame forward forward shield 7t, 82 76 70 inters[age tank skirt

residuals, S-I 24, 25 residuals, S-IV 27, 28 sensor data 34 sloshing 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, g8 48 S-I stage utilization _4 S-IV stage consumption suction lines 24, tanks 25, 95 utilization probe utilization system weights, Pump ignition 95 25 (PU) command 7, 17, 24, 7 34, 36, 46

GH 2 supply sphere 31 heat shield 71, 75, 8 .) hydraulic source 25 interstage compartment LH_ pump LiI2 tank LII_ ullage inlet 31, 31, 32 91, 9.) 32

75

inlet 33, 34, 62 LOX, speed,

conditions

32,

33

LII 2 vent recording 32 LOX pump inlet 20_ 22w 30m 3_, LOX tank 32, 92 LOX ullage 32, plenttm chamber vegulatc_J supply 33 23 23 26 70

cooldown 33, 34 turbopump 17

Purge calorimeter disposal

seal system

.)3 23 .)3, 24

repeated surges "_3 retro rocket chamber spider beam fairing

hydrogen vent duct LOX pump seal 23 igniter fuel 21

108

INDEX (Cont'd)

Q
Q-ball angle-of-attack

s
Separation 24, 38, 58, 59, 60 camera coverage 88 command 40, 58 lateral clearance 59 minimum clearance 58 television coverage 87 transients 59 Signal loss of telemetry 14, 15 RF dropout 81 RF performance 86 telemetry 86 Simulation cluster per[ormance 19 drag shape 82 flight 17, 19 propulsionperformance flight analysis20 thrustshape 19, 20 Slosh LH2 48 LOX 48 propellant 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48 Sound level measurements 67, 68 pressure levels 67, 68 Spacecrait (see Apollo) BP-16 96, i01 command module 96, 101 service module 96, 10t ST-124 2, 38, 48, 50, 53, 56, 57, 81, 95 guidance system 38, 39, 40, 43, 44 platform functions 38, 39 steering corrections 38,,40, 43, 44 Stability aerodynamic 82 combtmtion 20 Steering vehicle 38 Strain gauge 611 62, 671 68 Surface absorptivity 74 emissivity74 Hy-Cal calorimeter 70, 74 vehicle, environment 64, 70 Systems cooling, IU 78 electrical IU stage 81 electrical stage, S-I 80 electrical slage, S-IV 80 environmental control 81 fire detection 8 fuel tank pressurization 21, 22, 23 gas bearing supply 56 guidance and control 38

sensor

41, 44 R

Radar altimeter 16, 87 C-band system 86, 88 Grand Turk 16 skin track 88 Radiation calorimeter 70, 73, 74 engine shroud 73, 74 to heat shield 71, 73 Range cross 13, 14, 16 slant29 surface 16 Rate, angular 41, 59, 89, 90 Rate, gimbal 46 Ratep gyro t, 2, 44, 45, 80 Rate, heating aerodynamic 70 base 71, 73 engine shroud 73, 74 flame shield 74 LH 2 tank 76 tail shroud 70 Rate, spin 9i Rawinsonde winds 41 Recorder instrument unit 83, 85 ov_oard tape 83, 85 S-I stage 83, 85 S-IV stage 83, 85 transfer signal 85, 86 Regulator control pressure 23 Resolver chain error 40, 45, 46 command 38, 40, 45 Retro rocket 26, 27, 63 burn time 26, 27 flame attenuation 83_ 85, 86, 87 ignition 26 propellant grain temperature 26 thrust level 26, 63 Roll acceleration 89, 90 angular rate 58, 89, 90 error 38, 58, 59 moment 89, 90, 91 torque 38

109

INDEX

( Cont_dl

hydraulic

17,

25,

36 31 22, 32

S-I-9 S-I-9 S-IV

base

70,

71 gas 71, 73

LH 2 tank pressurization LOX replenish 8, 23 LOX tank pressurization measuring 83 ODOP 87 pressure, propellant propellant RF S-IV ST-f24 vehicle vent, vent, 86 pneumatic guidance control hydrogen 34 38 38, 39 purge 24 17,

inner and outer region forward interstage 76 77 75, 77 76, 37 77

S-IV stage base tail shroud 70 thrust structure 31 24, 34, 36, ullage ullage ullage vented Thrust chamber chamber, chamber, corrections dome 22 rocket

pneumatic con_ol loading 7, 8, 24 utilization (PU)

23,

lairing

7, 8, 17, 46, 81

rocket grain mass 93 64

S-I stage S-IV 26 19

17,

19,

20,

21

nonproptflsive

32, T

89,

90,

91_ 93

H-I engines 1, 17 individual engines NPV system retro rocket 89 26,

17, Z7

19,

30,

95

Telemetry flame

55, 83, attenuation

86, 87, 88 85, 86

structure 77, 95 S-I buildup i7, 62 S-I S-I decay 18, longitudinal simulated 24 1, 17, shape 19 18, 19, 20, 95

IU links 85, 86 multicoder 85 RF performance RF systems transmitter VCO 85 Television 80, AGC curves Pegasus Temperature aft skirt 76 cloth closure cold helium comlmstion33 engine 86 85, 83, 87 86 86 87, 93 93m 95

S-I S-IV S-IV S-IV

buildup 30, 58 decay 40, 44 longitudinal 1, 30 29,

17, 37,

26, 38,

28, 96

29,

30,

95

S-IV overshoot ullage rockets vectoring vector Time camera 40

coverage

misalignment indexing 87

38,

4Z,

43,

44,

58,

59

77 supply 8, 24, gas 33, 70, 34 75

first motion insertion l, Tracking altimeter booster c-band data 16, 16 radar

1, 14, 58, 13, 88 87 86

88

compartment

engine shroud gas 71, 72, 73 fin leading edge 70, 71, 76 fin skin 70, 71 fin trailing edge 71, [lame shield 71, 72 forward interstage 72, 76 73

GLOTRAC Minitrack MISTRAM

86 90 87 16

GN 2 22, 57 heat shield 71, 72, 75 helium heater combustion helium sphere 34

33

orbital 88 residuals, insertion Tracking networks DOD duct 38 88 86 88 GLOTRAC Minitrack MOTS 88 MSFN 88 NORAD 88 SAO 88 STADAN 88 Tracking systems Azusa 86 GLOTRAC 86

hydraulic oil 25, 26 inboard engine turbine exhaust instrument unit 78, 79 LH 2 tank 76 LOX pump inlet LOX tank 7 30, 33

plenum chamber 23 prepellant tank 8 retro rt_ket propellant sensors, resistance 77

grain

26

110

INDEX MISTRAM orbital radar Trajectory angle 41, 44 booster free flight nominal powered, S-I powered S-IV powered Transients S-IV chamber 13, 16 from nominal 13_ 16 13 13 pressures U Ullage rocket 36, 38, chamber pressui_2 fairing temperature gt_in tcmperaturo ignition 36 jettison 37 Unitized injector 21 V Valve GO2{ flow control 22_ ')3 helium heater secondary coil hydraulic hydrogen systems sequence vent vent 23 91 nonpropulsive 33 36 91 59 37 76 37 30, 31 deviations 13, 16 88 16 87

(Concluded} LH z t_mk 8, 91, 92, 95 92 92 8 32, 91 92 89, 90, 91, 93

LH 2 and LOX NPV LOX 91, 92 LOX LOX LOX LOX oxygen pressure residual total impulse transfer umbilical valve 22,

line 95 drain line 23, system 32, 91 17j

nonpropulsive

nonproptflsive

valve

relief Lll 2 system propellant 91, 92

Vibrations Apollo, structural 66 cold helium sphere 69 combustion chamber dome

measurements 69 66

64, 68, 69

component measurements 64, 66, forward inberstage measurements gas bearing supply 67 66, 67 68 gear case housing guidance computer

helium heater 66 H-I engines 64 instrument component instrument inverter LH z tank unit 66 66, 68, 69 63 61, 66,

panels 69

67

longitudinal 6"), Pegasus 67, 69 RF assembly S-I S-IV S-IV stage, stage stage, 67

structure

64 66 69 68, 69

oxygen nonpropulsive LOX replenish control LOX tank PU 36 vent 32_ 92

component measurements thrust structure 66, 68, dome, 80 supply W 80 measurements

summary 65 thrust chamber 91 Voltage 1Dr1 5-volt and

LH 2 vent 31, 92 LOX vent 22, 23, Velocity comparison cross range earth excess, fixed

32,

1D21 bus

measuring

with nominal 1, 13, 14, 38, 48 1, 13j 14, 40, 44, 52, 53, 55, 1, 13, 14 14 decay 15 48, 52, 53, 38, 40, 43, 55 44,

56 Weights fuel 7, ignition 52, 53 8, 24, 7 25

S-I cutoff

gain from engine thrust inertial components 38, space vector Vent fixed 1, 2, 44, 5') 13,

14,

liftoff 18 LOX 7j 8, 19, 25, propellant 7, 18 S-IV-9 vehicle Winds (see

27

hydrogen, hydrogen, hydrogen

duet purge system 24 nonpropulsive valve 91 total impulse 92

simulated 29 9, 19, 35 atmospheric)

III

DISTRIBUTION DIR Dr. DEP-T Dr. DEP-A Mr. E-DIR Mr. I-DIR Gen. Maus Gorman Rees yon Braun R-AERO-P Mr. McNair R-AERO-Y Mr. Vaughan

R-AERO-YT Mr. O. E. Smith

R-ASTR-DIR Dr. Haeussermann R-ASTR-E Mr. Fichtner R-ASTR-F

O'Connor

Dr. Mrazek I-I/IB-MGR Col. James I-I/IB-T Mr. Fikes I-MO-MGR Dr. Speer I-V-MGR Dr, R-DIR Mr. Weidner Rudolph (4) Mr. Hosenthien

R-ASTR-I (13) Mr. Mr. Hoberg Powell

R-ASTR-IE Mr. Price

R-ASTR-IMD Mr, Avery

R-ASTR-N Mr. Moore

R-A S- DIR Mr. R-SA-DIR Mr. Davidson DIR Williams

R-ASTR-NGI Mr. R-ASTR-S Mr. Noel Nicaise

R-A ERO-

R-COMP-DIR Dr. Hoelzer R-COMP-R

Dr. C, eissler Mr. Jean

R-A ERO-A Mr. Dahm

Mr.

Prince

R-COMP-RR R-A ERO-AT Mr. Wilson Mr. Cochran

R-ME-DIR R-A ERO-D Mr. Horn R-AERO-F Mr. Lindberg (35) Mr. Kuers

R-ME-D Mr. R-ME-M Mr. Eiseahardt

R-AERO-G Mr. Baker

Orr

112

DISTRIBUTION R-ME-T Mr. Franklin R-ME-X Mr. Waenscher R-P&VE-DIR Dr. Lucas Mr. palaoro R-P& VE-A Mr. Goerner R-P&VE-M Mr. Kingsbury R-P& VE-P Mr. Paul R-P&VE-PPE Mr. McKay R-P&VE-S Mr. Kroll Mr. Hunt R-P& VE-SVM Mr. Gassaway R-QUA L_DIR Mr, Graa R-QUAL-A Mr. Henritze

(Cont'd) R-TEST-C Mr. Grafton R-TEST-I Dr. Sieber R-TEST-M Mr. Edwards R-TEST-S Mr. Driseoll R-TEST-SB Mr. MS-H Mr. Akena Reilman

(2)

MS-IP Mr. Remer (2) MS-IL Miss Robertson _15) LVO-DIR Dr. Gruene LVO-2 Mr. (2)

Rigeli

LVO-3 Mr. Pickett

EXTERNAL R-QUAL-DIE Mr. Corder R-QUAL-P Mr. Brooks R-QUAL-QVS Mr. peck R-QUAL-R Mr. Brien Mr. Smith R-RP-DIR Dr. Sttthlinger R-TEST-DLR Mr. Heimbarg Mr. Tessmann Headquarters Nalional Aeronautics

and Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546 Attn: Mr. Hilburn, AAD Mr. Shapley, ADA Mr. Kerr, E Mr. Condon, KR Dr. Maeller, M Gen, Phillips, MA CapL Freitag,MC Dr. Adams, R Mr. Tischler, RP Dr. Newell, S Dr. Tepper, SAD Mr. Garbarini, SE Mr. Johnson, SV (10) Mr. Kerr_ U Mr. Day, US

113

DISTRIBUTION EXTERNAL Director, National bloffett Director, (Cont'd) Ames Research Center: Dr. H. Julian Aeronautics trod Space Administration Field_ Flight CaliiornJa Research 94035 Center: Paul F. Bikle Allen

(Cont'd)

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, Attn: Irl H. Office California 9i103 Group CCMTA for (41 Newlan, Reports (Mail 111-122) Levy (Mail Asst.

National Aeronautics P.O. Box 273 Edxxards, Goddard Natiomd Greenbelt, Attn: California Space Flight

and Space 93523 Center and Space 20771 Code 300

Administration

179-2031, Sec.

of the

of Defense

Research and Engineering Room 3E1065 Administration The Attn: Pentagon D. C. Library Missiles of Defense 20301 Teeh Washington,

Aeronautics Maryland LaGow, tlerman

John F. Kennedy National Aeronautics Kennedy Space Attn: Teclmical Dr. Mr. Mr. Director, National Langley Hampton, Director,

Space Center and Space Administration 32899 ASO 3B, Mrs. L. B. Russell

Director of Guided Office of the Room 3E131 The Pentagon Washinl._on, D. C.

Secretary

Center, Florida Library_ Code

Burns, INS-1 Jelen, INS-t3 Collins, Langley Aeronautics Station Virgitua Lewis INS-4 Research Center: Floyd ,and Space Administration 23365 Research Center: Dr. Abe Silverstein L. Thompson

20301

Central Intelligence Agency Washington, D. C. 20505 Attn: OCR/DD/Pubiications Director, National Ft. George Mead, Attn: C3/TDL S_curity Maryland

(5l Agency 20755

National Aeronautics and Space 2 t000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, Ohio 44135 Manned Spacecraft Center

Administration

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, University of California Radiation Technical Information Division P. O. Box Clovis 808 California Craig 94551 Livermore,

Sandia Lab.

Corp,

National Aeronautics and Space Houston, Texas 77058 Attn: Director, Dr. Robert R. Robert Charles Director, National Wallops Director, National 150 Pieo Santa E. M. McKann, Grant, Station: Vil_inia Code Code R. 23337

Administration Gflrath PM4 BM1 L. (3) (2)

Attn:

U.S. Atomic EnergS, Commission, Livermore Dr, P. O. Box 969 Livermore, Alto: Tech California Library 04551

S_mdia

Corp.

Wallops Aeronautics Island,

Krieger

and Space

Adealnistration Commander, Information W. Kamm Armed Services Agency Technical

Western Aeronautics Blvd.

Operations Office: Robert altd Space Administration 90406 Information Facility

Arlington Hall Station Arlington, Virginia 2")217Alia: TIPCR (Transmittal pet" Cognizant Security Instruction} Commanding White Sands General Proving (5)

Act

Monica,

Culitornia

Scientific and Technical P. O. Box 5700

Grotmd (3)

Bethesda, Marykmd 20014 Attn: NASA Itepresentative

(S-AK/RKT)

(25)

New Mexico 88002 Attn: ORD BS-OMTIO-TL

114

DISTRIBUTION EXTERNAL Chief of Staff, D. (Cont'd) U. C. for for S. Air 20330 DCS/D DCS/D AFDRD AFDRD-EX Force Chief,

(Cont'd)

Bureau D.

of Weapons of Navy C. 20390 1 Clay to SP, I Cpy to REW3

The Pentagon Washington, 1 Cpy 1 Cpy marked marked

Department Washington, i Cpy

to RESI,

i Clay to AD3, Commander

Commander-in-Chief Strategic Air Command Offutt AFB, Nebraska Attn: Director 68113 Missile Division

U.S. Point

Naval Mugu,

Air Missile California RSIC (3}

Test Center 93041

of Operations,

AMSMI-RBLD; Commander Arnold Arnold Attn: Engineering Air Force Tech Library Development Center Station, Tennessee 37389 (2) Bldg. 4484 Arsenal, Redstone Aerospace 2400 East El Scgunde, Flight Test California Center 93523 Aerospace Reliability P.O. Missile Development Air Force Base 88330 Library Center Box Attn: D. C.

Alabama

35809

Corporation El Segundo California Bakeman Corporation Dept. 95085 90045 90245

Commander Air Force Edwards AFB, Attn: FTOTL Commander Air Force Holloman

Los Angeles, California Athi: Don Hcrzstein Bellcomm, Inc. it00 Seventeenth Washington, D. Scott, Company Atlm: Office, The Miss Boeing

New Mexico Attn: Tech

(SRLTI

St. C.

N.W. 20036

Commander, AF Missile Test Center Patrick AFB, Florida 32925 Attn: Technical Informalion Intelligence MTGRY (3)

Librarian

P.O. Box 29100 New Orleans, Louisiana Atto: R. H. Nelson (3) Division Base, (AFSC) Ohio 45433 Chrysler Miehoud Dept. Corporation Operations Bldg. 350

70129

Headquarters 6570th Aerospace U.S. Air Force Wright Attn: Patterson H. E. Medical Air Force Space Division

2712,

Vongierke Group AFB, Ohio (RTD) 45433

P, O. Box 29200 New Orleans, Louisiana Atta: Mr. Leroy Smith

70129 (5) Space Division

Systems Engineering Attn: SEPIR Wright-Patterson

Director U. S. Naval Washington, Attn: Code Chief

Research D. C. 2027

Laboratory 20390

Chrysler Corporation Huntsville Operations Dept. 4800 1312 N. Meredian St. Huntsville, Attn: H. Douglas Marshall Bldg. Alabama Bader, Jr. Aircraft Space 4481, Room Flight 58

35807 (3) Inc. Center

Company,

of Naval D. 463

Research C. 20390

Department Washington, Attn: Code

of Navy

Huntsville, Alabama Attn: J. A. Tobias

35812 (15)

115

DISTRIBUTION EXTERNAL (Concluded)

_Concluded)

NASA Resident Office Grumman Aircraft Engineering Bethpage, Attn: John Long Island, N. Y. Johansen Machines 229

Colp, 11714

Pratt Suite Attn:

& Whitney 4, Holiday J. C.

Aircraft Of Iice Center 35801 Jr. _2)

Huntsville,

Alabama Hammond,

International Business System Design, Dept.

Radio Corporation Defense Electronic Data 8500 Systems Balboa

of America Products

150 Sparkman Dr. NVV Huntsville, Alabama 35808 Attn: Martin Space R. E. Poupard (2)

Division Blvd. Calilornia 91406

Van Nays,

Company Systems Division 21203 RCA Service Company Road

Baltimore, Attn: W. North

Maryland P. Sommers Aviation

2611 Leeman Ferry Huntsville, Alabama Attn: D. E. Wise Systems Roeketdyne 6633 Canoga Canoga Park, T. L. Arm: Avenue

American

Space and Information Division 12214 S. Lakewood Blvd. Downey, California 90241 Attn: A. W. Shimiztt F. Parker (2) (1)

California Johnson (3)

91303

116