I/

APOLLO NAVIGATION
GROUND AND ONBOARD CAPABILITIES
SEPTEMBER 1,1965

NATlC3UAL AERONAU ADMINISTR

G O D D A R D SPACE FLIGHT CENTER GREENBELT, MARYLAND

APOLLO NAVIGATION WORKING GROUP

TECHNICAL REPORT

Chief, Mission Analysis Office Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland

U John P. Mayer
Chief, Mission Planning and Analysis Division Manned Spacecraft Center Houston, Texas

Contributors

EARTH ASCENT PHASE P. G. Brumberg, Chapter Chairman, GSFC B. Bryant, GSFC EARTH ORBIT PHASE
E. R. Schiesser, Chapter Chairman, MSC P. T. Pixley, MSC W. York, MSC

TRANSLUNAR PHASE P. H. A. C. S. Z. D. B. Mitchell, Chapter Chairman, MSC Bond, MSC Shaper, MSC G r a m m e r , MSC

CSM LUNAR PARKING ORBITS W. D. Kahn, Chapter Chairman, GSFC J. A. Behuncik, GSFC V. R. Bond, MSC J. L. Cooley, GSFC A. Marlow, GSFC S. J. Paddack, GSFC D. S. Woolston, GSFC LEM OPERATIONS PHASE S. 0. Mayfield, Chapter Chairman, MSC A. C. Bond, MSC S. Z. Shaper, MSC R. H. Kidd, MSC TRANSEARTH PHASE P. H. A. C. S. Z. D. B. Mitchell, Chapter Chairman, MSC Bond, MSC Shaper, MSC G r a m m e r , MSC

Contributors (Continued)

REENTRY PHASE
R. E. Coady, Chapter Chairman, GSFC J. H. Adams, MSC A. Cohen, MSC C. A. Graves, J r . , MSC R. T. Groves, GSFC J. W. Tolin, J r . , MSC

Acknowledgement Special mention is merited for James C. McPherson f o r his untiring efforts in critically reviewing all phases of the manuscripts and proofs.

Bodo Kruger ANWG Co-Chairman Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland

James F. Dalby

Houston, Texas

CONTENTS Page 1.0 2.0 3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

................................. CHANGES AND ADDITIONS.......................... EARTH ASCENT PHASE ............................ 3.1 Introduction................................. 3.2 Description of Phase ........................... 3.3 General Discussion............................ 3.4 Procedure and Results ......................... 3.5 Conclusions ................................. 3.6 Future Studies ............................... 3.7 References ................................. EARTH ORBIT PHASE ............................. 4.1 Introduction................................. 4.2 Description of Phase and Procedures ................ 4.3 Results .................................... 4.4 Conclusions ................................. 4.5 References ................................. TRANSLUNARPHASE ............................. Introduction ................................. Assumptions ................................ Results .................................... Discussion of Results .......................... Conclusions ................................. Appendix A. Coordinate Systems ................... Appendix B. Trajectories ........................ Appendix C. Components for Assumed A P r i o r i Knowledge . . Appendix D. Check Out Procedures ................. References ................................. CSM LUNAR PARKING ORBITS....................... 6.1 Introduction ................................. 6.2 Description of the Lunar Orbit Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Ground Navigation System ....................... 6.4 Level of Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION

1-1

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

6-1 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-6

CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.5 6.6 7.0

8.0

9.0

................................. ................................. LEM OPERATIONS PHASE .......................... 7.1 Introduction ................................. 7.2 Procedures and Assumptions ..................... 7.3 Results .................................... 7.4 Conclusions ................................. 7.5 References ................................. TRANSEARTH PHASE ............................. Introduction ................................. Assumptions ................................ Results .................................... Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary .................................. Conclusions ................................. Appendix A. Coordinate Systems ................... Appendix B. Trajectories ........................ Appendix C. Components of Assumed A P r i o r i Knowledge . . Appendix D. Check Out Procedures ................. References ................................. REENTRY PHASE ................................ 9.1 Introduction ................................. 9.2 Assumption and Procedures ...................... 9.3 Results and Conclusions ........................ 9.4 Level of Confidence ........................... 9.5 Acknowledgment .............................. 9.6 References .................................
Conclusions References

6-6 6-7 7-1 7-1 7-3 7-4 7-9 7-9 8-1

9-1 9-1 9-1 9-6 9-7 9-7 9-8

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Apollo Navigation Working Group (ANWG) is to coordinate the analysis and study of problems of the Apollo missions from the navigations point of view. Emphasis isplaced on the total system rather than on the onboard and ground systems individually i~ order that the optimum combination of them can be achieved. This report presents the results of studies of navigation systems capabilities. The ultimate goal of these studies is to verify the adequacy of the combined onboard and ground systems and to recomment corrective actionif needed. In this, the first issue of this report, the results of ground network navigation studies are given. It was the consensus that the publication should not be delayed until the studies of the onboard and the combined systems a r e completed. The publication of the results from these studies is therefore left for future issues of this report. The lunar mission has been divided into seven consecutive phases, each of which has been analyzed under conservative assumptions. The results, therefore, a r e conservative compared with the results of an analysis of a continuous mission. Note that the results a r e given in 30- values. The analysis was based on a ground tracking network performance a s specified in 65-AN-1.0 "Apollo Missions and Navigation Systems Characteristics." The units used a r e consistent with the rules of 65-AN-1 .O. Scales in both English and metric units a r e included on diagrams and graphs with the exception of logarithmic scales, which a r e given only in English units. The term speed uncertainty, a s used in this report, means the uncertainty of only the magnitude of the velocity vector in contrast to velocity uncertainty, which reflects both the uncertainty in orientation and magnitude.

2.0 CHANGES AND ADDITIONS

This document is the first publication of the "Apollo Navigation - Ground and Onboard Capabilities" document. In future issues, this sectibn will consist of a summary of the additions and revisions to the document.

3.0 EARTH ASCENT PHASE

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The earth ascent of the Apollo mission begins at liftoff of the launch vehicle and terminates with abort initiation o r the GO/NO-GO decision. The launch is separated into two phases. The first is from liftoff to S-IVB cutoff and represents the powered flight phase. The second is from S-IVB cutoff to t h e G 0 / ~ 0 - G O decision and represents the hold phase. The hold phase is studied in this chapter.

3.2

DESCRIPTION OF PHASE

i
1

The Apollo space configuration will be launched from Merritt Island, Launch Complex 39, Cape Kennedy, on a launch azimuth of 72 degrees to 108 degrees. The operational launch azimuths have a daily range of 26 degrees within this range of azimuths. Referring the 26 degrees to time, they amount to a daily launch window of at least 2-1/2 hours, based on the requirement for insertion tracking using one ship. (Reference 1). A minimum of 2-1/2 to 3 minutes of tracking is obtainable following termination of the powered flight phase of the trajectory. The nominal orbit is circular at an altitude of 100 n m (185 km). An elliptical trajectory is not ruled out, in which case perigee may be a t 85 nm (157 km) and apogee a t 150 nm (278 km). Cutoff of the powered flight phase occurs approximately 1440 nm (2667 km) downrange from the launch area. Figure 3.1 shows the position coverage of the insertion tracking ship relative to the ground track of six launch azimuths. The ship would be near point A for northerly launch azimuths and point C for southerly launch azimuths. During a month, the ship would have to travel approximately 350 nm (648 km) to adequately cover the 36 degree range of launch azimuths, but it would not move significantly during the day of launch. Also shown a r e coverage circles for Cape Kennedy, Bermuda, Sgn Salvador and Antigua. During the powered flight phase of the earth ascent, the Apollo Saturn configuration utilizes closed loop inertial guidance. No steering commands a r e sent from the ground during this phase a s they were for Projects Mercury and Gemini. Consequently, the ground stations can only perform monitoring during the powered flight phase.

These a r e five sources of trajectory data available during this phase. The ground tracking systems (land based and ship based) consists of AZUSA, C-band and the Unified S-band Systems. Two sources of on-board position and velocity measurements a r e available to the ground station via the telemetry link; one from the Inertial Guidance Computer in the Saturn Vehicle and the second from the Apollo Guidance Computer i n the Spacecraft. As the data is received, it is processed and used to compute data quality parameters which a r e used to select the best source. The selected source is then used to compute trajectory monitoring, guidance monitoring and trajectory planning parameters. During the powered flight phase, coverage from the ground stations is sufficient and in part redundant (Figure 3.1) and land based coverage of the flight essentially terminates at cutoff of the S-IVB a s it occurs 1440 nm (2667 km) downrange. Antigua can view the cutoff and insertion phase, but only for launch azimuths greater than 95 degrees. The insertion ship then becomes, for most launch azimuths, the primary site for the insertion phase. Four data sources a r e available to the ship at this time; shipboard C-Band and Unified S-Band, and telemetry data from the two on board inertial guidance systems. With this information, the GO/NO-GO decision will be made. Important questions that must be answered are:
1. What data r a t e s and tracking a r c s (time) a r e required for shipboard tracking to make the GO/NO-GO decision?
2. What criteria a r e to be used in selecting the best data source for the GO/NO-GO decision?

3. What data o r combination of data a r e to be transmitted from the ship to the Mission Control Center?

Of the studies required to answer these questions, the analysis of the C-b,and capability from the insertion ship was chosen first and is presented in this Chapter. Measurement noise and bias and station e r r o r s over three different time a r c s for various data sampling r a t e s were used. The assumptions used in this study a r e given below and discussed in more detail in paragraph 3.4.

1. Trajectory Parameters (circular orbit) (reference 2)

Velocity 25568 ft/s (7793 m/s) Flight path angle 0.0 degrees Altitude 100 nm (185 km) Launch Azimuth 108 degrees
2. Data Type and Uncertainties, C-Band Shipboard Radar, L a Values (reference 3)

NOISE Range Azimuth Elevation 30 feet 0.4 m . rad. 0.4 m. rad.

BIAS 60 feet 0.8 m. rad. 0.8 m. rad.

3. Ship Location and Biases, l Values c Latitude 21' 15' North + 0.3' o r 0.3 nm bias Longitude 48' 45' West 0.3' o r 0.3 nm bias

4. The data was not degraded due to any other uncertainities than those given above. It was assumed that the data had been corrected for ships motion, speed, local vertical and refraction.

3.3

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The studies using the before mentioned assumptions were generated with the Short Arc Digital Program (reference 4). This program uses range, azimuth and elevation data to compute the orbit of the spacecraft in the form of inertial position and velocity vectors. The Short Arc method is based on a least squares curve f i t to a truncated Taylor's s e r i e s expansion of the inertial position from the center of the earth to the spacecraft. It utilizes the two-body equations of motion to obtain the expansion a s a function of initial position and velocity (drag and oblateness t e r m s a r e neglected). Time a r c s of twenty, forty and sixty seconds were used for the present study, with the solution referenced to the mid point of the time a r c . The Short Arc Program was selected to study the insertion phase because this method was used to compute the actual GO/NO-GO decision for the Mercury Missions and a similar method is currently used in Gemini. Possibly, a Short Arc o r similar method will be selected for Apollo. The results of this study should apply regardless of the method selected.

In Project Mercury, the GO/NO-GO decision was made following shutdown and separation of the spacecraft from the booster. In l e s s than a minute, the tracking data was evaluated t o decide if the mission should continue o r be aborted. The GO decision was based on the insertion velocity magnitude, flight path angle and altitude, and an orbit lifetime of 1-1/2 orbits with a minimum perigee of 75 n. mi. (139 km). Any orbit outside of these constraints would have resulted i n a NO-GO decision and subsequent abort. F o r the Gemini Missions, the GO/NO-GO decision is similar. However, the spacecraft has on board propulsion t o obtain orbital velocity, should analysis of the tracking data indicate an underspeed at insertion. The earth insertion phase for Apollo is somewhat more complicated than for Mercury and Gemini. The nominal Saturn V launch phase to the earth parking orbit insertion consists of S-IC, S-11, and S-IVB burns with the f i r s t S-IVB cutoff occuring approximately 12 minutes after liftoff. Guidance and sequencing a r e under the programmed control of the launch vehicle computer and inertial reference system. The spacecraft crew and ground personnel monitor the programmed sequence of events, the performance of the vehicle systems and the achieved trajectory. The orbit insertion verification comes from the first S-IVB cutoff data. If necessary the spacecraft crew can: 1. Override automatic event sequence timing 2. Select back-up modes 3. Cut off the S-IVB propulsion to prevent overspeed, o r 4. Initiate abort sequences including selection of the appropriate guidance program. 3.4 PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

The studies for this Chapter have been concerned with determining the e r r o r s in speed, flight path angle, altitude, position vector and velocity vector based on shipboard C-band tracking. A total of 40 Monte Carlo runs were made with the Short Arc Program for each of the uncertainty combinations listed below. Five data sampling r a t e s were considered: l0/sec, 5/sec, 2/sec, l / s e c and lO/min over tracking a r c s of 20, 40 and 60 seconds. Table 3.1 lists the combinations of uncertainties that were studied for the three tracking intervals. E r r o r f r e e radar data (range, azimuth and elevation) were generated f o r the insertion ship and used in the Short Arc Program t o determine the accuracy of the Program. The e r r o r s caused by round-off and truncation a s well a s mathematical models e r r o r s , were found to be negligible. F o r this study the uncertainties were then added to the data a s follows:

1. NOISE: The noise was added to the data via a random number generator. Forty separate runs were made, each with a different random number s t a r t e r for the three r a d a r parameters.

2. NOISE AND + BIAS: Positive biases i n all three r a d a r quantities (range, azimuth and elevation) were added simultaneously with the noise.
3. NOISE AND - BIAS Same runs a s 2, except with negative biases.

4. NOISE, BIAS, AND STATION ERROR: To the noise and bias were added e r r o r s in the latitude and longitude of the ship of k0.3'. The positive and negative signs indicate the e r r o r direction used for placement of the ship.

Table 3.1 MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES

1. Noise 2. Noise and + bias

STATION LO CATION UNCERTAINTIES

0
0 0

3. Noise and - bias

4. Noise, - bias
5. Noise, + bias
6. Noise, + bias
7. Noise, + bias

{ + latitude { longitude + latitude {- longitude - latitude + longitude {

+

+ latitude - longitude

8. Noise, + bias

- latitude - longitude

As indicated above, selective combinations of noise, bias and station e r r o r studies were made. The data given i n the figures present the most conservative results obtained thus f a r in the study.

The 3 ~results a s shown on the graphs a r e based on the expected shipboard C-band tracking accuracies. The noise and data bias uncertainties used f o r this study were based on the results of the performance of the two C-band tracking ships used in support of the Mercury - Atlas 9 (MA-9) mission. The average noise of the ships' observations and the noise values used for the Apollo insertion ship studies a r e given in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 STANDARD DEVIATIONS (NOISE) OF SHIPS' OBSERVATIONS Data Type Range (feet) Azimuth (m. rad.) Elevation (m. rad.) Range Tracker (RTK) 48. 0.68 1.20 Twin Falls Victory (TFV) 27. 0.32 0.40 Apollo Insertion Ship 30.0 0.4 0.4

The data biases (not shown) on MA-9 ships' observations were roughly double the noise figures. Therefore in this study, data biases of 60 feet in range and 0.8 m. rad. in angles were used for the insertion ship. The 10total e r r o r in ship position for this study was assumed to be 0.4 n. mi. (0.74 km). This value is more optimistic than those on MA-9, but with the Insertion Ship's Inertial Navigation System, and other navigational aids, it should be attainable. The above assumptions, based on actual shipboard C-band tracking, make the results presented i n this Chapter realistic. But, if the new Apollo ships perform as well as expected, these results a r e conservative. The 108 degree launch azimuth was chosen because it gave low elevation angles and maximum values of slant range for the insertion ship. Antigua was also able to view the spacecraft a t insertion for the 108 degree launch azimuth. All of the studies for the ship were also made for Antigua using the same assumptions with only the geometry being different (Figure 3.1). Table 3.3 gives the values of the tracking data over the longest a r c used in the studies.

Table 3.3 TRACKING COVERAGE INSERTION SHIP Time From SIV-B Cutoff (see)
0 20

- 108 DEGREE

LAUNCH AZIMUTH ANTIGUA

Range (nm)

Azimuth tdeg.)

Elevation tdeg.)

Range

(nm)

Azimuth tdeg-)

Elevation (deg.)

501.
449. 405. 373.

259. 251. 242. 232.

7.6

320. 368. 426. 488.

62. 73. 80. 86.

15.9 1 3.O 10.3 8.0

9.4
11.2 12.7

40
60

From Table 3.3, it can be seen that the spacecraft is approaching the ship while for Antigua, the converse is taking place. Since essentially the same results were obtained from Antigua and the ship, only the ship results a r e given. It should be noted, however, that because of the close agreement, a somewhat greater level of confidence is placed on the study. It was mentioned previously that the GO/NO-GO decision was based on three critical orbital parameters. They were: speed, flight-path angle and altitude. Figures 3.2 through 3.4 give the 3 c uncertainties in these parameters a s a function racking sampling rates and a r c length of data. The position and velocity vect rs a r e not used for the earth orbit insertion decision but rather the scalar components given above. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 give the 30- e r r o r s in the position and velocity. They have been included to show the relative comparison between the scalar and vector e r r o r s .

I%#@-

In Figures 3.2 the 30 uncertainty in speed is given a s a function of five different data rates. The graphs a r e presented for 20, 40 and 60 second tracking intervals. It is shown that bias on the measurement and station location contribute little to the uncertainty in speed, but noise on the other hand, contributes significantly t o this uncertainty. Furthermore, there is a significant improvement in accuracy if the tracking interval is increased from 20 seconds to 40 o r 60 seconds.

In Figures 3.3, the 30- uncertainty in flight-path angle i s given for various data r a t e s and tracking time a r c s . High data r a t e s do not give significant im provement to this parameter for tracking intervals of 40 seconds and longer. Station location biases do not affect the e r r o r in this parameter. In Figures 3.4, the 3auncertainty in altitude is given for various data r a t e s and tracking intervals. Again, station location biases have little effect, and noise is not significant. Data bias e r r o r s cause the greatest uncertainty in the altitude, and increasing the tracking a r c o r data r a t e will not reduce this e r r o r . Increasing the data rate above 2/sec does not significantly reduce the uncertainties. In Figures 3.5, the 30-uncertainty in position is given for the various data rates and tracking time intervals. It i s noted that the station location bias causes the greatest uncertainty, and the effect of measurement bias, though significant, is smaller. Measurement noise has no effect. In addition, data r a t e s and tracking interval have no effect. In Figures 3.6, the 3a uncertainty in velocity is given for the various data r a t e s and tracking intervals. The greatest uncertainty i s caused by the measurement bias for tracking intervals of 40 t o 60 seconds. The effect of measurement noise and station location bias can be significant and the uncertainty is sensitive to both data r a t e s and tracking interval. The results of this study have been checked with similar runs made with the ERRAN e r r o r analysis program, Mission Analysis Office, Goddard Space Flight Center. The results of the two programs agree t o within *lo%. Checks have also been made with the operational Gemini "Real-Time Program" at GSFC , with even closer agreement.

3.5

CONCLUSIONS

The results presented in this Chapter pertain t o the tracking intervals and data r a t e s of the earth insertion phase, based on the expected accuracies of a shipboard C-band radar. From the enclosed graphs, the following conclusions may be made.
1. A 40 second tracking interval is significantly more accurate than a 20 second tracking interval, both for speed and flight path angle (Altitude e r r o r is insensitive t o both tracking interval and data rate.) Therefore the GO/NO-GO decision should be based on a tracking interval which is longer than 20 seconds.

2. Data rates of 5/sec give essentially the same results a s lO/sec for a tracking interval of 40 seconds. F o r a 60 second interval, a 2/sec data rate is adequate. 3. Table 3 . 4 summarizes the approximate uncertainty percentage contributed by measurement noise, measurement bias, and station location bias to the three critical insertion parameters f o r a tracking interval of 40 seconds.

'

Table 3 . 4 Uncertainty Measurement Noise Measurement Bias Station Location Bias

Speed
95% 5% 0%

Flight Path Angle

-40% -60%

Altitude
-10%

85%

0%

"5%

4. Table 3.5 summarizes the percentage of uncertainty contributed to the insertion position and velocity for a tracking interval of 40 seconds.
Table 3.5 Uncertainty Measurement Noise Measurement Bias Station Location Bias Position Velocity
"20% -60% -20%

5%

-45% -50%

3,6

FUTURE STUDIES
1 . Expansion of-the present study to a tracking interval of 90 seconds. 2. Investigation of the use of data from other sources (paragraph 3 . 2 ) in making the GO/NO-GO decision. 3. Obtaining results of the Bermuda GO/NO-GO decision based on C-Band data for Gemini 3 , 4 and 5.

3.7

REFERENCES

1. MSC, Mission Planning and Analysis Division, "Trajectory Studies f o r u s e i n Determining Tracking Requirements f o r P r o j e c t Apollo." NASA P r o j e c t Apollo Working P a p e r No. 1114, March 9, 1964.

2. J. L. Cooley, GSFC Report No. X-513-64-359, the Apollo E a r t h Parking Orbit," Nov. 24, 1964.

"The Influence of Venting on

3. "Radar Tracking Ship Performance During MA-9," X-554-63-161, Operations Branch, Goddard Space Flight Center, July 31, 1963.

Data

4. IBM Demonstration Report, "Project Mercury Bermuda P r o g r a m System," August 22, 1961.
5. MSC-GSFC, ANWG Report No. 65-AN-1 .O, "Apollo Missions and Navigation Systems Characteristics," Feb. 5, 1965.

LONGITUDE, (degrees )

45

90 75 70 65

85

80

40

35

30

25

V)

% 20

-0

i? - 15

w '

I -

10 5 North 0
South

North 0

South

10
TlON SHIP TO COVER THE 36 DEGREE CHANGE I N

15

20 90 75 70 65 60

85

80

55

50

45

40

35
LONGITUDE (degrees)

30

25

20

15

10

West

East

Figure 3.1

mls
LEGEND

ft/s
0 NOISE

30 -

100 -

90 l o MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES
NOISE

NOISE AND BIAS NOISE, BlAS AND STATION BlAS

LAUNCH AZIMUTH 108' ELEVATION 2 7.50 ALTITUDE 100 nm ( 185 k m )

RANGE ELEVATION AND AZIMUTH ANGLES

80 -

BIAS

30 ft 0.4 m. rad.

60 ft 0.8 m. rod.

70 48' 45' W

aw 20 -

lo STATION POSITION AND UNCERTAINTY

V)

60

c Z -

5 c e

50

40-

b M

10-

30 -

20 -

10 -

02lsec

I 0 I lOlmin llsec

I
5lsec DATA SAMPLING RATE
Figure 3.2a-Speed uncertainty,

I
10 1sec

20 second tracking interval.

mls
LEGEND

ftls 100
0 NOISE
NOISE AND BlAS 0 NOISE, BlAS AND STATION BlAS
l o MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES

LAUNCH AZIMUTH 108O ELEVATION 2 7.5ALTITUDE 100 nrn ( 185 km)

NOISE RANGE ELEVATION AND AZIMUTH ANGLES

BIAS

30 ft 0.4 rn. rod.

60 ft 0.8 m. rad.

l o STATION POSITION A N D UNCERTAINTY

2 1 0 15' N) 48' 45' W

2 0.3' or 0.3 nrn

2lsec

3
I
5 1sec DATA SAMPLING RATE
Figure

01 I lOlmin llsec

10 1sec

I 1
3.2b-Speed
uncertainty,

40 second track ing interval

3 0 UNCERTAINTY I N SPEED

LEGEND

0 NOISE

0
1o MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES NOISE 30 ft 0.4 m. rad.

NOISE AND BlAS NOISE, BlAS AND STATION BlAS

LAUNCH AZIMUTH 108" ELEVATION 1 7.5" ALTITUDE 100 nrn ( 185 km)

I )

i? 3

RANGE ELEVATION AND AZIMUTH ANGLES

BIAS 60 ft 0.8 m . rad.

l o STATION POSITION AND UNCERTAINTY

48" 45' W

I
2lsec
Figure 3.3a-Flight

0 I I 10lmin l l s e c

I
5lsec
path angle uncertainty,

I
10 1 sec
20 second tracking interval.

0 NOISE
NOISE A N D BlAS 0 NOISE, BlAS A N D STATION 91AS

LAUNCH AZIMUTH 108O ELEVATION 2 7.5' ALTITUDE 100 nm (185 k m )

lo MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES
NOISE 30 ft BIAS 60 ft
m. rad.

RANGE ELEVATION A N D AZIMUTH ANGLES

0.4

0.8

m. rad.

la STATION POSITION A N D UNCERTAINTY

DATA SAMPLING RATE

Figure 3.3b-Flight path angle uncertainty,

40 second tracking interval

-.
LEGEND

I
0 NOISE

0 NOISE,
la MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES
NOISE RANGE ELEVATION A N D AZIMUTH ANGLES BlAS

O.NOISE AND BlAS BlAS AND STATION BlAS

LAUNCH AZIMUTH 108" ELEVATION 2 7.5O ALTITUDE 100 nm ( 185 km)

30 ft 0.4 m. rad.

60 ft 0.8 m. rad.

0.35

la STATION POSITION AND UNCERTAINTY

:A

i:: C )

? 0.3' or 0.3 nm

2 0.30 a

4 0.25 -

I -

LL

- 0.20-

c Z

0 I lOlmin 2lsec

llsec

5 1sec DATA SAMPLING RATE

lolsec

Figure 3 . 3 ~ - F l i g h t path angle uncertainty, 60 second tracking interval.

nm 2.00 LEGEND

km 3.50 0 NOISE

>
NOISE A N D BlAS 0 NOISE, BlAS A N D STATION BlAS 1 a MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES

LAUNCH AZIMUTH 108' ELEVATION 7.5' ALTITUDE 100 nm ( 185 km)

3.00 RANGE ELEVATION A N D AZIMUTH ANGLES

1.50 -

NOISE 30 ft 0.4 m , rad.

BIAS 60 ft 0.8 m. rad.

2.50 A

l o STATION POSITION A N D UNCERTAINTY

n
n
V

:A z: i: }

0.3' or 0.3 n m

5 2.00 -

w I r

GO

1.00 -

?I 1.50 z

5 e

5 1.00 b

0.50

0.50 u

0-

I 0
I

I
2lsec

I
5 1 sec DATA SAMPLING RATE
Figure 3.4a-Altitude uncertainty,

9
10 1sec
20 second tracking interval.

10lmin llsec

nm
LEGEND

2.00
0 NOISE
NOISE AND BlAS 0 NOISE, BlAS AND STATION BlAS
la MEASUREMENT UNcERrAlNTrEs

1
LAUNCH AZIMUTH 108O ELEVATION 2 7 . 5 O ALTITUDE 100 nrn ( 185 km) NOISE 30 ft 0.4 rn. rod. BIAS 60 ft 0.8 rn. rad.

r
RANGE ELEVATION AND AZIMUTH ANGLES la STATION POSITION AND UNCERTAINTY

0-1
2lsec

lOlrnin l l s e c

I
I

5lsec DATA SAMPLING RATE

10 1 sec

Figure 3.4b-Altitude uncertainty, 40 second tracking interval

3 0 UNCERTAINTY I N ALTITUDE
C-'

+
ul

N
u l

0 ul 0

0 NOISE

LEGEND LAUNCH AZIMUTH 1 8 0' ELEVATION 2 7 5 .' ALTITUDE 100 nm ( 185 km)

la MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES
NOISE RANGE ELEVATION AND AZIMUTH ANGLES

0
BlAS

NOISE AND BlAS NOISE, BlAS A N D STATION BIAS

30 ft 0.4 m. rad.

60 ft 0.8 m. rad.

2 1 0 15' N) 4 ' 45' W 8

la STATION POSITION A N D UNCERTAINTY

0.3' or 0.3 nrn

A
h

v
V

Q
5lsec DATA SAMPLING RATE
10 1 sec

Figure 3.5a-Position

uncertainty,

20

second tracking interval.

LEGEND

nm
0 NOISE
NOISE A N D BlAS 0 NOISE, BlAS A N D STATION BlAS l a MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES RANGE ELEVATION A N D AZIMUTH ANGLES NOISE 30 ft 0.4 rn. rod.

LAUNCH AZIMUTH 108' ELEVATION 2 7.5" ALTITUDE 100 nrn ( 185 krn)

BIAS 60 ft 0.8 rn. rad.

l a STATION POSITION A N D UNCERTAINTY

Ilr

a Y

l O l m i n llsec

2lsec
Figure 3.5b-Position

5lsec DATA SAMPLING RATE

uncertainty,

4 10 1 sec
40
second tracking interval.

LEGEND

0 NOISE
NOISE AND BlAS 0 NOISE, BlAS AND STATION BlAS
lo MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES

LAUNCH AZIMUTH 10aO ELEVATION L 7.5O ALTITUDE 100 nrn ( 185 km)

RANGE ELEVATION AND AZIMUTH ANGLES

lo STATION POSITION AND UNCERTAINTY

NOISE 30 ft 0.4 m. rad.

BIAS 60 f t 0.8 m. rad.

210 15' N) 4E0 45' W

2 0.3' or 0.3

nrn

m Y
Y

b
5lsec DATA SAMPLING RATE
60
second tracking interval.

1
10 1sec

lOlmin l l s e c

2lsec

Figure 3 . 5 ~ - P o s i t i o n uncertainty,

mls

IOlmin llsec

2lsec

5lsec DATA SAMPLING RATE

20 second tracking interval.

10 1sec

Figure 3.6a- Veloci ty uncertainty,

ftls

-- -u
.
? 2 W m , < .

LEGEND
I

6 NQlSE

- w 200 -

0 NOISE,
lo MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES NOISE 30 ft 0.4 m. rod. BIAS 60 ft 0.8 m. rod.

NOISE AND BIAS BlAS AND STATION BIAS

LAUNCH AZIMUTH l e g 0 ELEVATIBN 1 7.5O ALTITUDE 180 nm ( 185 km)

RANGE ELEVATION AND AZIMUTH ANGLES lo STATION POSITION A N D UNCERTAINTY 48" 45' W

A V

I
21 sec

I
5lsec DATA SAMPLING RATE
uncertainty,

1lsec

Figure 3.6b-Velocity

40 second tracking interval

3 a UNCERTAINTY I N VELOC lTY

g I

5
V,

w I

4.0 EARTH ORBIT PHASE

! 4.1

INTRODUCTION

1.

The earth orbit phase a s discussed below begins with the go decision to grbit and ends a t the initiation of translunar injection. During earth orbit, ground estimates of the orbit will be used to detect any deviations from the nominal o r current flight plan. For unacceptable deviations, the S-IV-B guidance targeting may be updated. Onboard (S-IV-B and SC) knowledge of the orbit will be compared with the ground and the onboard values updated a s necessary. Other earth orbit functions dependent on ground navigation a r e abort planning, site acquisition, and spacecraft platform alignment (Reference 1).

4.2
4.2.1

DESCRIPTION OF PHASE AND PROCEDURES Geometry

The nominal orbit is circular at 100 nm (185 km) altitude with a launch azimuth in the range from 72 to 108 degrees. The results of this report should not change for slightly elliptical orbits (85 perigee - 150 apogee). The relationship of r a d a r locations and the ground track for possible orbits is shown by Figure 4.1. The circles indicate the a r e a in which a vehicle in a 100 nm (185 km) orbit has an elevation greater than five degrees to the radar. One revolution is covered on each plot. It is noted that for azimuths between 85 and 95 degrees that Carnarvon, at about 45 minutes from insertion, is the f i r s t land based system to track. The Canary system tracks for azimuths l e s s than 80 degrees and Ascension tracks when the azimuth is greater than 100 degrees. Tracking times a r e shown on Figure 4.2.

4.2.2

Study Procedure

Tracking coverage plots (Figures 4.1) were used a s a basis for the selection of orbits which would result in a representative sample of the variation in tracking coverage. Three orbits were chosen with launch azimuths of 72, 90, and 108 degrees. Accuracies for 72 degree launch azimuth orbits a r e available from past postflight analysis (References 2 , 3 ).These numbers would directly apply to Apollo C-band tracking if the venting uncertainty were very small and the s a m e drag uncertainties were experienced. A profile of orbit uncertainty was computed a s a function of time from insertion for the three azimuths, including USBS tracking and the effect of venting uncertainties. Orbit accuracy was estimated with the use of statistical e r r o r analysis procedures based on the assumption that the e r r o r model biases were not accounted for in the orbit determination process. In actual orbit determination some of the systematic e r r o r s a r e accounted for through empirical weighting of the data. It would be optimistic to assume an e r r o r model and then to compute orbit accuracy based on the assumption that the biases of the assumed model were all properly accounted for, since this would be equivalent to assuming that a l l actual biases a r e properly accounted for in orbit determination. In general, assuming that the biases of the e r r o r model a r e not accounted f o r could be either pessimistic o r optimistic. For example, if the e r r o r model included ten percent of the actual e r r o r s but only half of the effect of the actual e r r o r s were accounted f o r in the orbit determination process, then the results would be optimistic. If instead the e r r o r model included 90 percent of actual e r r o r s and half were accounted f o r in orbit determination, then assuming none were accounted for would be pessimistic. The method used in this study s e e m s to provide fairly realistic results. The overall procedure f o r checking the station e r r o r and other assumptions was to compute the expected orbit accuracy fw the 72 degree launch azimuth orbit and to compare the results with actual Mercury and Gemini experience. The results for the three orbits were then computed with the influence of the venting uncertainty included.

4.2.3

Data

The selection of data r a t e s was based primarily on past Gemini and Mercury analysis and experience. When the results would be unaffected, l e s s data was used in the study than would be processed during a mission, primarily to make the study easier and l e s s costly. Uncertainties for the orbit based on &ta

frgm the first station and then from the f i r s t two stations were computed, after which the best set of three radars over the last one and a half revolutions was used to compute the uncertainties. C-band data wereused during earth orbit a t the rate of one set of range, azimuth, and elevation every six seconds. Very little is gained by processing data at higher rates. USBS Doppler and angle data were used a t six second intervals along with one range value per pass. E r r o r analysis results seem to show that using frequent range values along with the Doppler and angles does not improve the orbit accuracy (Reference 4). The use of USBS Doppler and range f o r arbit determination should be studied further. When two tracking systems were available at a station, only one was used. Present results indicate that little is to be gained by using data from more than one radar a t a station. Also, the predicted orbit accuracy for the USBS appears to be about the same a s the realized accuracy for existing C-band r a d a r s (Reference 4 , 5). Onboard landmark angle sightings will likely be made for onboard check out purposes, but no onboard angle observations will be used in the ground orbit determination.

4.2.4

Error Model

The noise and bias used on the observables along with values for the station position uncertainty a r e listed in Table 4.1 and were taken from Reference 6. The noise was adjusted to account for the smoothing effect obtained by accumulating Doppler count over six second intervals. The observation bias values of Table 5-1, Reference 6, were used. For operational convenience, it was assumed that the bias values represent the composite effect of a number of sources including refraction, local vertical, and instrumentation, even though each source results in a differently behaved systematic e r r o r in the observable. This procedure has enough flexibility for generating useful earth orbit uncertainties. Very few, if any, e r r o r analysis programs a r e capable of properly handling the various sources of e r r o r individually. In general, the orbit e r r o r s experienced for actual flights over various tracking situations a r e in reasonable agreement with orbit uncertainties based on the above e r r o r model. Prediction Model: The influence of the uncertainty in the earth's gravi, tational parameter, LL , though small, was included for computing ground navigation uncertainty. The uncertainty due to drag for a 100 nm orbit is negligible. Uncertainties in venting thrust of 1.0 and 10.0 pounds were considered. During

c1

A-

rl

X
- h

~
-

g r 3l

r l w d ' r l r l 4 0 r l m r l

8 0
P I

boo

" ! q ' ? ' ? q y y c ' ?

r l , , * m r l m w r l r l

8 :
,
a,

32 s o 2: rn
0 * . ' 3.!+

r l r l r l d ' m r l r l w , ,

. N i : d : d : ? 6 4 4

m z
c ,

C-

P: W

a'",

4
0
PI PI

.Z$ gs
B
ag
Y

d '

d '

0.

: b ? q y y d : y q y y y
rl
A

U2

W 4

l2 $5 -4 aa
&I

Ln

LC

" ? ? c ? ? h ? c ' ? ? ? " ! " !

1.2
aw
a ,

m ,

w d ' w m w m d ' C i l w c D
rl rl rl

. ," o

E a ,
C,

U2

r l w z w I N = = F Q Q r n m m " Q m m * P I P I P I m P I ~ P I U I P I P (

oC,

B-IFr-IFrDFrZ-IFrDFrF,

l2 U2

4 Z Z Q S u
* 4 a u 2

p
*

past Gemini and Mercury missions, the e r r o r in predicted position and velocity over several revolutions was due primarily to the e r r o r in the initial position and velocity. The contribution of earth gravitational and atmospheric drag uncertainties appeared small in comparison. In contrast, for Apollo earth parking orbits, a large S-IV-B venting uncertainty would have a significant influence on prediction accuracy. The present l a value for the uncertainty is 0.65 pounds, which is ten percent of the total vent force. Therefore, a one pound uncertainty is about the correct size and ten pound uncertainty is pessimistic. The S-IV-B computer uses its estimate of position and velocity a t insertion and equations of motion to compute position and velocity during the earth orbit phase. The e r r o r in onboard navigation would be due to the e r r o r in the initial conditions and the e r r o r in the prediction equations. The largest part of the error in onboard knowledge of the orbit will likely be due to the initial conditions at the end of launch. Present estimates of these e r r o r s were used to compute onboard navigation uncertainties. The onboard system is not able to measure and account for deviations from nominal venting acceleration so that it suffers from the same venting uncertainty a s the ground. It was assumed that the onboard system, when updated, would receive the components of the most recently computed position and velocity vectors. The onboard system then predicts forward to the time of injection.

4.3

RESULTS

The results based on a realistic venting uncertainty of one pound a r e discussed first and given for 72, 90, and 108 degree launch azimuths. The results for a pessimistic venting uncertainty of ten pounds for the 72 degree launch azimuth are then discussed. This is followed by a comparison of actual Mercury accuracy with statistical e r r o r analysis results and additional comments on the influence of a one pound venting e r r o r . Figures 4.3 through 4.8 present 30- orbit uncertainties for the 72, 90, and 108 degree launch azimuth orbits. That i s , the accuracy during the flight is expected to be well within the values presented in these figures. The influence of a one pound venting uncertainty was included. The vertical lines show the instantaneous improvement in the orbit a s it is updated over each station. The lines which run across the page show how the initial e r r o r s propagate with time. F o r example, for the orbit computed45 minutes after insertion, the 3u uncertainty in predicted position at 160 minutes from insertion would be 6 nm (11km) (Figure 4.3). However, for the orbit computed at 140 minutes from insertion, the position uncertainty a t 160 minutes would be 1.3 nm (2.4 km). These numbers a r e three times the root sum square of the lcr component e r r o r s in position and velocity.

The c r o s s correlation between position and velocity should be accounted for when using the numbers in other work.

If the orbit is updated every 45 minutes, then the largest 30- orbit uncertainty any time after 45 minutes from insertion is 3.5 nm (6.5 km). This is t r u e for all launch azimuths. The corresponding velocity values a r e 21 ft/s (6.4 m/s).
The results (Figure 4.4) indicate that for launch azimuths l e s s than 80 degrees the orbit based on the Canary data can be used for an early comparison with onboard results. Present results indicate that the orbit based on Canary data is not useful for updating the onboard computers. For the 108 degree launch azimuth, the earliest time for a useful orbit is 15 minutes (Ascension). After 15 minutes, for the 108 degree azimuth, the orbit should always be known within 30bounds of 4 km o r 2 nm and 5 m/s o r 15 ft/s (Figure 4.7). Figures 4.9 and 4.10 show 72 degree launch azimuth orbit uncertainties, but with a ten pound venting uncertainty. For the one pound vent uncertainty, updating the orbit every 45 minutes meant that after 45 minutes from insertion, for all launch azimuths, the 3 a uncertainty was less than 3.5 nm (6.5 km) and 21 ft/s (6.4 m/s) . The corresponding values for a ten pound vent uncertainty a r e 30 nm (55 km) and 180 ft/s (55 m/s). The actual e r r o r s for orbits computed during a typical Mercury flight (MA-6) a r e presented in Figures 4.11 and 4.12. For comparison, one sigma results from the statistical e r r o r analysis a r e also presented for a similar orbit and similar tracking. The straight lines merely connect local uncertainty o r e r r o r points and do not represent propagated e r r o r s . The actual velocity e r r o r s a r e in good agreement with the estimated e r r o r s . The MA-6 position e r r o r of 0.23 nm (0.42 km) around 140 minutes is about three times the 10-estimate, but it should be noted that the tracking capabilities have improved since the MA-6 era. More recent results (Reference 7) indicate that for the first Gemini flight (GT-1) the e r r o r in this region was 0.08 nm (0.15 km) Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show how the e r r o r in predicted position and velocity due to e r r o r s only in ,u o r venting increase with time (perfect initial conditions). u In actual practice the e r r o r due to , does not appear s o dominant, possibly because the orbit determination program may adjust the semi-major axis slightly to account for the e r r o r in the orbit period due to p , o r because the actual e r r o r i n p may be less than the l c value quoted. The results show that the one pound ~ vent uncertainty becomes important after about one hour.

CONCLUSIONS

Fer the expected tracking and venting uncertainties, the results indicate that the accuracy of the ground navigation i s sufficient to perform the functions described in the introduction, i.e., updating of the onboard computer and flight ilan verification. Because of the expected rate of decline in the accuracy of the onboard mavigation (Reference 8) and the rate of improvement of that of the ground, it is cencluded that a ground update should be made 45 minutes from insertion if navigation accuracy i s the sole consideration. Additional time before updating :raight be desired to obtain confidence in the orbit determination results. In this case, updating might be delayed until two land stations have tracked, for example, until over Hawaii, 70 minutes from insertion for the 90 degree azimuth orbit. Furthermore, because of the time required to process the tracking data, cempute the update, etc., it may not be desirable to track and update with the same station. The procedure in this case would be to track with two stations and update from the following station. For launch azimuths l e s s than 100 degrees the first update would then occur a t 80 minutes (near the end of the f i r s t revolutien) and for launch azimuths greater than 100 degrees i t would occur after 45 minutes over Carnarvon, assuming that Pretoria is available. Mission plan verification can best be done with orbits computed during the second half of the first revolution. Rough verification will be possible from the ship results combined with either Canary or Ascension within 15 minutes from insertion, except for launch azimuths from 80 to 98 degrees where only ship tracking is available during the f i r s t half of the revolution. The navigation update a r e a is under consideration by many groups concerned with Apollo. The above discussion is meant only to s e r v e a s an aid to this planning. Further, the picture may change depending on the achieved accuracy for onboard and ground navigation. Future postflight analysis of early Apollo missions will provide valuable results needed for the evaluation of navigation updating procedures. The problem of updating guidance targeting may be considered in future revisions. Further, the effect on the midcourse fuel cost of performing injection with expected navigation e r r o r is a n important part of the problem. Such work should be included in future revisions. For example, if the difference in required midcourse fuel is small for onboard v e r s u s ground navigation, the difference between the two systems is l e s s interesting.

REFERENCES MSC Internal Note No. 64-FM-6 1 , "Real Time Computer Requirements for Apollo Lunar Landing Missions," Mission Planning and Analysis Division (MPAD), Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, 1964. Schiesser , E ., lfAccuracy of the Mercury Tracking and Computing Complex," Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) Memorandum, ousto on, Texas, May 16, 1963. Jackson, J. C ., "Manned Spaceflight Network Performance Analysis for MA-9," Report No. X-551-63-108, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, June 6, 1963. Pixley, P . , "Comparison of USBS and C-Band Earth Orbit Tracking," , Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) Memorandum for ~ i s t r i b u t i o n May 4, 1965. Marlow, A., "Error Analysis for Apollo Earth Parking Orbits Using RangeRate and Angle Measurements ," Report No. X-513-65-42, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, January 1965. MSC- GSF,C, ANWG Report No. 6 5-AN- 1.0, "Apollo Missions and Navigation Systems Characteristics," Feb. 5, 1965. Corbett, B., "Accuracy of Earth Orbit Determination," Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) Houston, Texas, Memorandum to Chief, MPAD Feb. 3, 1965. Bissett-Berman Corporation,"Apollo Note Number C-6,'' October 23, 1964. Cooley, J., "The Influence of Venting on the Apollo Earth Parking Orbit," Report No. X-513-64-3 59, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, November 24, 1964.

Longitude, deg.

EAST

Figure 4.lb-Second

revolution

TIME FROM INSERTION (minutes)

CYI USBS CRO FPQ-6

WHS LPS-16 BDA FPS-16

CRO FPQ-6

HAW FPS-16

BDA PRE FPS-16 MPS-25 WHS ASC FPS-16 FPS-16

CRO FPQ-6

Figure

4.3-3

a v e h i c l e position uncertainty for a

72O launch azimuth earth parking orbit

One pound venting uncertainty.

ftls
MEASUREI
I
I

STATION LCCATlON UNCERTAINTIES SAMPLING

MEASUREMENT

/
GYI 4.6 7.1 104

IAT. ISEC. I I LONG. I SEC. I 1 0

I
R

I Pcr mss 60 1

~m R

HAW
1.4 1.4 1.6 R
M)

1.6 1.5 5.1 I per 6 r r 30 I t Angler 141 100 R 1 per 6 s n 120 l l 0.4 m rad

141

PRE -MPS-25 CYI MPS-26

Ml fl
0.2 m rad

I p r 6 set fl

II
1
T

1
n
1 1

1
13l
~ n o l e q 11 oer 6 r n

1
/
0.2 m rad 0.4 m rad

TIME FROM INSERTION (minutes

CYI USBS

CRO FPQ-6

WHS FPS-16 BDA FPS-16

CRO FPQ-6

HAW FPS-16

PRE BDA MPS-25 FPS-16 WHS ASC FPS-16 FPS-16

CRO FPQ-6

Figure 4.4-3 c v e h i c l e velocity uncertainty for a

72'

launch azimuth earth parking orbit. One ~ o u n d venting uncertainty.

CYI
rad

I BPS-26 1
1.6 1.0 1.2 137 R Angler 1 per 6 rec 1 per 6 r c ?Q l i 0.2 m rad 5.1 104 Angles
I per 6

rc
0.2 m rad

0.4

GTI

TPQ-18

wli 0.4 m rad

Up .arth

1.0 pund 1.M x 10" li3/r2

CRO FPQ-6 HAW FPS-16

ANT FPQ-6

PRE MPS-25 ASC FPS - 16

CRO FPQ-6

HAW FPS-16

ANT FPQ-6 WHS FPS - 16

PRE MPS - 25

WHS FPS - 16

ASC FPS - 16

Figure

4.5-3

crposition uncertainty for a

90 launch azimuth earth parking orbit. One pound venting uncertainty.

ftls

lmr
CYI
R

1 MPS-26 1
1.6

5.1

104

Angles

l per 6 rec 1 per 6 rec

fl

0.2 m rad

0.4 m rad

M
0.2 m rad 0.4 m rad

Mn I

GTI

/ TPQ-18
1.0 1.2

137
Angler

l per 6 rec

TIME FROM INSERTION (minutes

CRO FPQ-6

HAW FPS-16

ANT FPQ-6 WHS FPS - 16

PRE MPS-25 ASC FPS- 16

FPQ-6

FPS-16

FPQ-6 WHS FPS - 16

MPS-25 ASC FPS - 16

launch azimuth earth parking orbit. One pound venting uncertainty.

Figure

4.6-3 ~ v e l o c i uncertainty for a 90' t~

T I M E FROM INSERTION (minutes)

ANT FPQ-6 FPQ-6 FPS-16

MPS-25 ASC FPS - 16

Figure

MPS-18 WHS FPS 16

MPS-25

USBS

USBS

MPS-25

4.7-3 position

uncertainty for a 1 0 8 O launch azimuth earth ~ a r k i n g orbit. One pound venting uncertainty.

3
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

.
'! I

0 I, F

W
1 1 1 1 1

'! I
1 1 1

8
1 0
IF,

z
1 1 1 1

1 0

Ee E

mls

ftls

MA-6AV

\ \

la ESTIMATE

\ \

4
GTI TPQ-I8 1.0 1.2 131

~ n g b I per 6 rec
0.2 m rad

0.4 m

rye,,, round 1.0

.1 . t ~10"

MA-6AV
- 4 , 1
\
/
- I C -

10 ESTIMATE OF UNCERTAI NTY

CYI

1 50 CRO

1 1 1 1 1 100 150 HAW WHS BDA WHS BDA CRO TIME FROM INSERTION (minutes)

200 ASC

PRE

CRO

250

Figure 4.12-Comparison of actual Mercury v e l o c i t y errors A V over each station with l o . statistical error analysis results (72' launch azimuth). One pound venting uncertainty.

DEVIATION I N VELOCITY

=?

5.0 TRANSLUNAR PHASE

5.1 INTRODUCTION The translunar phase of the Apollo lunar mission is defined a s beginning at the end of the injection burn and ending at the beginning of deboost into the lunar parking orbit. During this phase the MSFN (Manned Spaceflight Network) will be the prime source of navigation data. The purpose of the study presented in this chapter is t o evaluate the capability of determining the translunar orbit using data from the MSFN. Several operational modes (e.g., single and multiple station tracking) have been simulated in this study and some conclusions concerning the operational use of the MSFN have been reached. The study was conducted with certain assumptions concerningthe accuracy of the MSFN and with a linear e r r o r analysis program based on a weighted least squares 'filtering technique. \(Reference1) This e r r o r analysis program was used to evaluate the capability of determining an orbit with data of the assumed characteristics and with a filter which ignored the assumed biases. Further discussion of the assumed data characteristics i s contained in the paragraph below. It should be noted that the Apollo real time orbit determination program will account for some bias effects by adjusting the measurement data weighting scheme or by solving for the known biases explicitly or, more probably, by using some combination of these two techniques. Consequently, the results reported below a r e considered to be conservative and a r e subject to change a s further studies a r e conducted. 5.2 ASSUMPTIONS

The assumptions on which this I study was based a r e consistent with Reference 2. For convenience, however, the uncertainties in station locations, gravitational constants of the earth and moon, and the noise and biases of the MSFN data a r e shown on each graph a s they a r e applicable. Other assumptions which should be noted are:
1. The translunar trajectory is of the free-return type with a perigee of 80 - 108 nm and aperilune of 80 f 5 nm. Figure 5.1 is an illustra-

tion of this trajectory showing the planned maneuvers.

2. The results for tracking ship capabilities assume two co-located ships at 20 degrees north, 130 degrees west with USB systems; the difference

between them being in the level of uncertainty with which their locations a r e known and the noise and biases of their data.

5.3

RESULTS

To facilitate the studying and reporting of the MSFN performance, the translunar phase has been divided into five legs. These legs begin and end with one of the planned maneuvers (e .g., injection, transposition and docking, midcourse correction, and lunar deboost), and a r e defined a s follows: Leg 1- From end of injection burn to initiation of transposition and docking. Leg 2 - From end of transposition and docking to initiation of f i r s t midcourse correction. Leg 3 -From end of first midcourse correction to initiation of second midcourse correction. Leg 4 - F r o m end of second midcourse correction to initiation of third midcourse correction. Leg 5 -From end of third midcourse correction to initiation of deboost into lunar parking orbit. Each of these legs is nominally associated with a time from injection a s shown by the upper scale of the schematic below. The lower scale of this schematic defines the time scale which is used in preparing the graphs of the results of this study.
INJECTION TIME SCALE FOR TRANSLUNAR PHASE

I
0

ENTRY INTO LSOl

PERILUNE ARRIVAL I

LEG 1 LEG 2 LEG 3

'i

( 3 M I N TO 24 M I N )

@.. .. ::

( 1 hr to 2 hr)

I
50 hrs 20 40 50 hr

LEG 5 TIME SCALE FOR LEGS1,2AND3 0

60 hr 10 hr

TIME SCALE FOR LEGS 4 AND 5

The uncertainties that a r e depicted in the graphs a r e computed at various times in the legs and an explanation of the annotation of these computations is given on the following page.

t t

0 This statement on a graph indicates that the uncertainties a r e of the orbit parameters at the beginning of the leg. This statement indicates that uncertainties a r e of the orbit parameters at 30 minutes after the time against which they a r e plotted. This illustrates the accuracy with which an update of the onboard system can be made after a period of tracking, data processing etc. This statement indicates that the uncertainties a r e computed at the LSOI (Lunar Sphere of Influence). This statement indicates that the uncertainties a r e computed at the nominal time of arrival at the perilune.

+ 30 min.

Entry into LSOI

Perilune Arrival

In all of the above cases the uncertainties a r e plotted on the same time scale a s the r a d a r coverage periods and, thus, one can determine how the MSFN navigation capability varies with tracking time and with tracking coverage.

5.3.1

Leg 1 - Navigational Accuracies at Injection

The results of the analysis for this leg illustrate the MSFN performance in the determination of position and velocity at injection and show the effects of these uncertainties in predicting the vehicle's position and velocity at the nominal time of entry into the LSOI. The following eight cases (operational modes) were considered in the analysis.
: Case 1 Two C-band r a d a r s tracking; the f i r s t from three t o seven minutes and the second from seven t o 24 minutes.

Case 2: The same a s Case 1 with two USB Systems replacing the C-band radars. Case 3: Three C-band r a d a r s tracking; the first from three to seven minutes, the second from seven to fourteen minutes and the third from fourteen to 24 minutes. Case 4: The same as Case 3 with USB Systems replacing the C-band radars. Case 5: Ship A (USBS) tracking from three to 24 minutes.

Case 6: Ship B (USBS) tracking from three t o 24 minutes. Case 7: One USB System tracks from 1 0 to 24 minutes. Case 8: Ship B tracks from three t o ten minutes and the USB System of Case 7 tracks from 10 t o 24 minutes. The uncertainties i n position and velocity l o r Cases 1 through 8 a r e ~ ~ referenced t o t = 0 (Figures 5.2a, 5.2b, 5 . 3 and 5.3d, respectively). The uncertainties in position and velocity for Cases 1 , 2, and 5 through 8 a r e propagated to the LSOI where entry into the LSOI is assumed t o occur 50 hours after injection (Figures 5.2e and 5.2f). 5.3.2 Leg 2 - Navigational Accuracies for the F i r s t Midcourse Correction

The results of the analysis for this leg of the translunar phase illustrate the accuracy with which the position and velocity of the vehicle can be predicted 30 minutes in advance and a t the LSOI. The following seven cases (operational modes) were considered i n the analysis for this leg. Case 1: Texas tracking with no a priori knowledge at the beginning of track. Case 2: Case 1 with a p r i o r i knowledge. Case 3: Texas and Antigua tracking simultaneously with no a p r i o r i knowledge a t the beginning of track. Case 4: Case 3 with a priori knowledge. Case 5: Madrid, Ascension and Canary tracking simultaneously with no a priori knowledge at the beginning of track assumed. Case 6: Madrid, Texas, and Ascension tracking simultaneously without a priori knowledge. Case 7: Madrid and Ascension tracking simultaneously without a priori knowledge. The uncertainties i n position and velocity a r e propagated to t + 30 minutes for all seven cases (Figures 5.3a and 5.3b) and propagated to the LSOI for cases and 5.3d). 1 , 3, and 5 through 7 (Figures 5 . 3 ~

5.3.3

Leg 3

- Navigational Accuracies at the Second Midcourse Correction

The results of the analysis for this leg illustrate the accuracy in predicting the vehicles1 state vector thirty minutes in advance of MSFN tracking and at the LSOI. Three cases were simulated in the analysis for this leg and a r e a s follows: Case 1: Texas, Canberra, and Madrid alternating after each radar has tracked for several hours and with no a priori knowledge. Case 2: The same a's Case 1with a priori knowledge. Case 3: Texas, Antigua, and Hawaii alternate at the end of each hour and no a priori knowledge is assumed. The analysis for this case extended over a five hour interval which is sufficient to study the effects of a more frequent alternation of stations. The uncertainties in position and velocity (Figures 5.4a and 5.4b) a r e propagated to t + 30 minutes for all three cases and to the LSOI for Case 1 only.

5.3.4

Leg 4

- Navigational Accuracies for the Third Midcourse

Correction

The results of the analysis for this leg illustrate the accuracy in predicting the vehicular position, velocity, and selenocentric radius 30 minutes in advance of MSFN tracking and at perilune. Two cases were simulated in the analysis for this leg and a r e a s follows: Case 1: Three radars tracking simultaneously with no a priori knowledge. Case 2: The same a s Case 1 with a priori knowledge. The uncertainties in position, velocity, and selenocentric radius a r e propagated t o t + 30 minutes (Figures 5.5a through 5.5c, respectively) and t o perilune (Figures 5.5d through 5.5f). In all cases the orbital parameters are referenced to a selenocentric coordinate system.

5.4.1

Leg 1

The first four cases (Figures 5.2a and 5 . 2 ~ ) represent multiple tracking. As might be expected, three stations a r e shown to be better than two. However, general conclusions concerning the relative merit of C-Band radar and USB Systems cannot be made because the e r r o r s vary so markedly with tracking time and period o r propagation. The results from the next four cases (Figures 5.2b and 5.2d) a r e markedly poorer than for the first four. It is interesting to compare Ship A, which is equivalent t o a land station in tracking capability, with the HAW USBS at seven minutes. The only difference between these two solutions is their viewing angles (the vehicle is setting for HAW and rising for the ship). HAW yields a better local uncertainty (at t o )but a worse propagated uncertainty (at t,,,, ) . Similarly, GST tracking from 10 minutes to 24 minutes yields a better solution at to than does Ship B, which tracks from 3 to 24 minutes, but at t,,,, Ship B's solution is considerably better. This makes it difficult to determine which tracking situation yields the best solution since a great deal depends upon the propagating effects. A USBS solution is greatly enhanced after a second station has viewed the vehicle. The GST and Ship B combination i s better than Ship A alone and much better than either GST o r Ship B alone. Notice also that the Ship A, Ship B yor GST solution does not improve significantly after ten minutes of tracking.

5.4.2

Leg 2

In the hour to hour and a half following transposition and docking, the three station solution is clearly better (Figure 5.3a) than that of two station or a one station, even when the other two solutions use a priori knowledge. Within 25 minutes, the three station solution can predict the position at t,,,, to within 486 nm (900 km). This is with no a priori knowledge at the beginning of track. Tracking an additional hour only improves position uncertainties to 270 nm (500 km). The corresponding velocity uncertainty at t,,,, is less than 14 ft/s (4 m/s) after 25 minutes and less than 7 ft/s (2 m/s) after 1 hour and 25 minutes of tracking.

5.4.3

Leg 3

Stations were alternated during the 48 hour period between first and second midcourse corrections. It is seen that by the time a second station tracks,

the effect of a priori information is overcome and the position uncertainties a t t + 30 varies between 13.5 nm (25 km) and 54 nm (100 km) all the way out to the LSOI (Figure 5.4a). F o r the last ten hours of the leg, the uncertainties at t + 30 and the uncertainties propagated to LSOI a r e nearly the same. The velocity uncertainties at t + 30 show a slightly decreasing characteristic after two stations have tracked, going from 5 ft/s (1.5 m/s) to 0.7 ft/s (0.2 m/s) (Figure 5.4b). If a more rapid reduction in the uncertainties of the orbital parameters

is desired then a t least three stations should t r a c k alternately with a period of

approximately one hour.

5.4.4

Leg 4

In this leg the uncertainty in knowledge of position and velocity at t + 30 can be brought below 27 nm (50 km) and 20 ft/s (6 m/s), which implies an uncertainty of 73 nm (136 km), 295 ft/s (90 m/s) and 16 nm (30 km) in position, velocity, and altitude respectively at perilune arrival. It is observed that the uncertainties for the case with poor a priori knowledge and the case with no a priori knowledge converge to the same level of uncertainty by the end of about four hours. 5.4.5 Leg 5

In this leg after 2-1/2 hours of tracking the knowledge of position and velocity a t perilune can be known to within 400 nm (720 km) and 3000 ft/s (900 m/s). Little of this uncertainty is in perilune altitude (uncertainty 2.7 nm (5 km)) and ground speed (uncertainty 16.5 ft/s (5 m/s)). The uncertainties in perilune conditions a r e very interesting because it is now likely that the third midcourse correction will be made one hour p r i o r to perilune arrival and must guarantee a perilune altitude to within 5 nm (9.3 km) of nominal. By the time of loss of sight, o r 20 minutes before perilune arrival, the uncertainties in perilune conditions a r e less than 54 nm (100 km) in position, 197 ft/s (60 m/s) in velocity, 3.3 ft/s (1m/s) in speed, and 0.5 nm (1km) in altitude. During the last four hours, the use of angular measurements speeds up the convergence. However, if a realistic a priori knowledge had been carried over from the previous 56 hours of tracking then angular measurements may not have been necessary.

5.5

CONCLUSIONS

The assumed noise, systematic biases, and uncertainties in location for the ship1 tracking data (Ship B) degrades by a factor of 2 the accuracy with which s position and velocity can be determined over the accuracy resulting from a ground station with a tracking geometry identical to the ship's. In comparing the graphs of Figures 5.2a, 5.2d, 5.4a, and 5.4d, i t i s observed that alternating the tracking assignments of stations significantly reduces the uncertainties in the state vector. The results for leg 5 /(Figures 5.6a through 5.6d) show that angle measurements taken at lunar distance a r e useful for rapid convergence. However, the results depicted on these same figures show that all four operational modes (with and without angles, with and without a priori knowledge) converge to the same uncertainty level before perilune arrival. After tracking f r o m injection t o initiation of transposition and docking the uncertainties in position and velocity at injection a r e 0.4 nm (OT74 km) and 10 ft/s (3.0 m/s) i f data from land based USB Systems a r e used and 17 nm (31 km) and 300 ft/s (91 m/s) if ships data a r e used. These uncertainties, when projected to the LSOI, a r e 165 nm (306 km), 9 ft/s (2.7 m/s) and 1400 nm (2600 km), 30 ft/s (9.1 m/s) respectively. The uncertainties in position and velocity for the f i r s t midcourse correction are 44 nm (82 km) and 20 ft/s (6.1 m/s) resulting in uncertainties of 270 nm (500 km) and 6 ft/s (1.8 m/s) when projected to the LSOI. The uncertainties in position and velocity for the second midcourse correction a r e 13.5 nm (25 km) and 2 ft/s (0.6 m / ~ ) . The uncertainties in position, velocity, and radius for the third midcourse correction a r e 25 nm (46 km), 22 ft/s (6.7 m/s) , and 8.5 nm(15.7 km) , respectively, and the corresponding uncertainties at perilune a r e 71 nm (130 km), 280 ft/s, (85 m/s) and 16.5 nm (31 km). The uncertainties in position, velocity, radius, and lunar ground speed at perilune arrival, based on tracking up to 20 minutes before perilune arrival can be known to within 54 nm (100 km), 175 ft/s (53 ,m/s), 2 nm (3.7 km), and 7 f t / s (2.1 m/s).

5.6 5.6.1

APPENDIX A, COORDINATE SYSTEMS Station Location Coordinate System

The coordinate system is earth centered with the X-axis through the prime meridian, the Z-axis in the direction of the earth's angular momentum vector, and the Y-axis such a s t o form a righthand orthogonal system.

5.6.2

Vehicular Coordinate System

The coordinate system is an earth o r moon centered (depending on the reference body) non-rotating system with the X-axis pointing toward the vehicle at time t = 0, the Z-axis in the direction of the orbital angular momentum vector, and the Y-axis such as to form a right-hand orthogonal system.

5.7 5.7.1

APPENDIX B, TRAJECTORIES Trajectory A (For analysis of Legs 1, 2, and 3)

This trajectory is an earth referenced conic section generated from the following initial conditions.

At Time 0

Inclination to earth equatorial plane 32.47O

Radius (nm) 3613.15728

Tangential Velocity (ft/s) 35325.436

Radial Velocity

(ft/s)
4087.31952

Latitude 14.16943ON

Subvehicle Point Longitude 157.934OW

The vehicle is ascending in its orbit a t t = 0.

5.7.2 Trajectory B (For analysis of Legs 3 and 4) This trajectory is a moon referenced conic section generated from the following initial conditions:

Vehicle with Respect t o Moon At Time 0 Inclination t o moon equatorial plane 177O Radius (nm) 27013.2246 Tangential Velocity Iiadial Velocity (ft/s) 318.935

(ft/s)
-4154.373

Latitude 2.26ON

Subvehicle Point Longitude 54.2OW

L

This t r a j e c t o r y will have a perilune latitude of O.OO, a perilune radius of 1022.87556 nm, and a total flight time of 10 hours from LSOI to perilune arrival. The vehicle is ascending i n its orbit at t i m e t = 0. Moon with r e s p e c t t o the E a r t h Earth-Moon Distance 207,577.08 nm Sublunar Point 15ON, 125OE Moont s Orbital Inclination t o Earth's Equator 28.67'

The moon is ascending in its orbit about the earth.

5.8

APPENDIX C, COMPONENTS FOR ASSUMED A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE

Position (nm)
D
X

Velocity (ft/s)
0
D.
X

D.

D.

Leg 2 .51 .13 .51 Leg 3 .66 .54 1.42 Legs 4 & 5 10.8 10.8 21.6 6.56 6.56 13.12 .34 .44 2.09 3.84 3.64 5.54

5.9

APPENDIX D, CHECKOUT PROCEDURES

The e r r o r analysis program that was used to obtain the results presented in this chapter has been thoroughly checked out during the past two years. In addition, results from the program compare favorably with orbital accuracies based on r e a l time data (Ranger and Gemini) for earth orbits. The s a m e assumptions were made for this study a s were made in the comparison and therefore the results presented in this chapter a r e considered to be conservative estimates of the capability of the MSFN.

5.10

REFERENCES

1. "Description of Orbit E r r o r Analysis Program," Volumes 1 and 2, BissettBerman Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., July and August, 1965.
2. MSC-GSFC, ANWG Report No. 65-AN-1 .O, "Appolo Missions and Navigation

Systems Characteristics," Feb. 5, 1965.

-VEHICLE N O LONGER VISIBLE FROM EARTH

3RD MIDCOURSE CORRECTION CHANGE OF COORDINATE SYSTEM FROM EARTH CENTER TO M O O N

/ '

MIDCOURSE CORRECTION

krn
NO A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE TRAJECTORY A
C - BAND HAW USES Angles R

174 243

1P"6ssec

30 f l 0.2 m rad 0.lftls 0.8 m rad

60 ft 0.4 m rad 0.07ftls 1.6 m rad

GST Angles R 115 USBS 131 Angles C - BAND ANT

US~S

112

121

ic
1 per 6 sec

O.I~~IS 0.8 m rad

0.07nls 1.6 m rad

1per6sec

20 n 0.15 m rad 0.1ttls 0.8 m rad

40 n 0.3 m rad
0.07nls 1.6 m rad

LEGEND:

0 =C-BAND
HAW, CAL CASE 1
ANT CASE 3

O=C-BAND HAW, CAL,

a = U S E S . HAW. GST CASE 2 A = U S B S , HAW. GST, ANT CASE 4

01 00:00
I
I

00:05

M:lO

00:15

00:20

00:25

00:30

TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes ) HAW '14' GST

) TRACKING
T = O min), Leg 1.

Figure 5.2a-Translunar

Iniection. Position Uncertainties (Referenced to time

nm
TRAJECTORY A

80 -

NO A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE

40 r

70 -

35

2 C

60 -

30-

50 LEGEND: 0 - S H I P A (USBS) CASE 5 0 - S H I P B I U S B S ) CASE 6 * = S H I P B (3-10 mi"), GST (10-24 mi", CASE 8

2 -

25-

I--

40 -

ZO-

b 15-

30 -

A = GST CASE 7

10 -

20 a

5I
I

10A

"
I

0
I

0(005 00:lO

0 0O:OO

00:15

00:20

0025
SHIP A GST

00:30

TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes)

Figure 5.2b-Translunar

lniection. Positions uncertainties (References to time

T = 0 min), L e g 1 .

- L

",% ? Z ?

3 Q C

LL

gza;
x
\D
a, L

m ",z - F z - - : sm F ECE=_ECE

22 .ZZZ;

3E

E
0 0

Z
0

22
Q m

- - - a L ,
L

w L

2%
I

Em

,, U ,@ Q Q
0 3

* -

* w

saw*

"

L L e c ? i L L C i . L LC ? p

67

5
x

o -m -

a-

CY

U Z

'2

8
b=

"

z5.
b
m

a Y

5
3
0

-"

x
I

5
Z 0

z =;
Z

P Z v 3 ( 1 ) g & s

4 , 2 : 2 1 'n

2 C

4t m

2 I :

2 0

'

5 Q

NO A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE TRAJECTORY A

u -,+h p
=

1.06 x 10" ft9s2

LEGEND: 0 - S H I P A (USES) CASE 5 0 - S H I P B (USES) CASE 6 O = S H I P B 13-10 min), GST 110-24 min) CASE 8

A =GST
CASE 7

100 -

50 -

0 0O:OO
I I

00:05

0O:lO

00:15

00:20

0025
SHIP A B

00:30

TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes)

' jTRACKING
T = 0), L e g 1.

Figure 5.2d-Translunar

Iniection. Velocity uncertainties (Referenced to time

TRAJECTORY A

4
0 .C-BAND
HAW, CAL CASE 1 ~ = U S B S HAW. GST CASE 2 .

A-USBS AT 10 min STARTING

V.SHIP B USBS AT GST.

IGSTI CASE 7
USE8

D.SHIP 5 A CASE
SHIP B
CASE 6

SHIP B TRACKING CONSIDERED OUT TO 10 rnin.

GST FROM 10-24 mln.

0 00:OO 00:05 0O:lO

00:15 00:20 TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes)

00:25

00:30

HAW

"

g!

SHlP A SHlP B

TRACKING

Figure 5.2e-Translunar

Injection. Position uncertainties (Propagated to LSOI), L e g

1.

NO A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE TRAJECTORY A

ftls

250

LEGEND:

0 -C-BAND

HAW, CAL CASE 1 0 - U S B S , HAW. GST CASE2 STARTING AT 10 min IGSTI CASE 1 B USBS AT GST ' CASE 8

A .USkS V .SHIP

D-SHIP I A CASE

a .SHIP

B USE 6 SHIP B TRACKING CONSIDERED OUT TO 10 mln. GST FROM 10-24 min.

00:05

00:lO

00:15

00:20

00:25

0: ON

TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes)

GST SHIP A B

TRACKING

Figure 5.2f-Translunar

Iniection. Velocity uncertainties (Propagated to

LSOI), L e g 1.

km

350 A P R l O R l KNOWLEDGE

u p =0 . 7 3 n m , a V = 7 . 5 4 f t l s
TRAJECTORY A

300 -

250

200
'DATA CHARACTERISTICS FOR )-WAY DOPPLER

150
LEGEND:

0
=

TEX ONLY, NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. CASE 1

TEX ONLY. WlTH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. CASE 2 NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. CASE 3 TEX + ANT 13-WAY DOPPLER I, WlTH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, CASE 4 MAD + ASC 13-WAY DOPPLER) + CYI 13-WAY DOPPLERI, NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, CASE 5 (3-WAY DOPPLER) t TEX 13-WAY DOPPLER), NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. CASE 6 (3-WAY DOPPLERI, NO A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE. CASE 7

100
A=

0 - + ANT 13-WAY DOPPLER), TEX

b = MAD + ASC \ - MAD + ASC

50 -

01 0O:OO
I I

I
I

I
03:30 04:OO 04:30 05:M

00:30

01:OO

01:30

02:OO 02:30 03:OO TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes TEX

")

TRACKING ASC CYI

Figure 5.3a-First

mi dcourse correction.

Position uncertainties

(Propagated to t t

30

min), L e g

2.

mls
STATION LOCATION
,.mLn-um\. .,n,,,rLc,.v

35 r
1
MEASUREMENT
. .

.
>InIIuN >Y>I~M

7 '
IR) NOISE. 1 0 134 128
1 nar 1 rrr

ftls

A PRIOR1 KO N,h , !, Up=O.73nrn, a , = 7.54ftls

o ,In,
o
lft) lper6sec 1per 15 m i n O.lRls WR 0.8 m rad R R Annlr.
MENTS RATE

--. .......,,--

.
128 0.W7Rls 120 R 1.6 m rad

BIAS, 1 0

TRAJECTORY A
I

MAD

USES

90
I
118

C I
a
TEX USES

_
I
nngles

u.8 m raa

I
l per b sec

.07Rls 1MR 1.6 m r d O.lRls 0.1 R l s o.ln/s

\ I 'EX I
98

USES 141

1
105 358 417 112

1
k
lper6sec l p e r 6 sec lper6sec 1per6sec

1
k k
k
X

I
O.lRls

0.2flls 0.2flls o.~fl/r 0.2ftls

II

0
.CYI
USES USES 115 131 'ANT 253 453

""
.ASC USES

-340
r,,mr+h
.DATA CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3-WAY DOPPLER

' z
.1.06
10" f t 3 / s 2 LEGEND:

70-

20 -

V)

Y 60-

I -

2
0
=

50-

15-

40-

TEX ONLY. NO A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE, CASE 1 TEX ONLY, WITH A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE. CASE 2
NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. CASE 3

3 b A

rn

0- TEX + ANT 13-WAY DOPPLER).

TEX + ANT 13-WAY DOPPLER I , WlTH A PRlORi KNOWLEDGE, CASE 4 MAD + ASC (3-WAY DOPPLER) + CYI (3-WAY DOPPLER), NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, CASE 5
+ ASC 0 - W A Y DOPPLER)
t

V-

h = MAD
=

TEX 13-WAY DOPPLER). NO A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE, CASE 6

MAD + ASC 13-WAY DOPPLER), NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. CASE 7

TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes 1 TEX

4;;
ASC CYl
midcourse correction.

}
J

TRACKING

Figure 5.3b-First

Velocity uncertainties (Propagated to t

30), Leg 2.

Ism,TRAJECTORY A
I

I
NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE

STATION SYSTEM STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES

MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES

DOPPLERI, NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, CASE 3

t

LEGEND:

0- TEX ONLY,
C Y I ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLERI, NO PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, CASE 5 TEX ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLERI. NO PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, CASE 6
t

- TEX + ANT ( 3 - W A Y

NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, CASE 1

A =MAD

ASC 13-WAY DOPPLERI

M A D + ASC 13-WAY DOPPLERI

MAD

ASC 0 - W A Y DOPPLERI, NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. CASE 7

.DATA CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3 - WAY DOPPLER

- --

0 L 01:15
I

01:OO

01:30

01:45

I
1

02:OO

02:15

02:30

02:45

03:oO

TIME FROM INJECTION CUTOFF (hours: minutes)

ANT TEx MAD ) CYI

TRACKING

Figure 5 . 3 ~ - F i r s t midcourse correction. Uncertainties in position (Propagated to

LSOI), Leg 2.

mls

= M A D + ASC I3'WAY DOPPLERI. NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. CASE 7

NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE TRAJECTORY A

TIME FROM INJECTION CUTOFF (hours: minutes)

MAD ASC

Fi

TRACKING

Figure 5.3d-First

midcourse correction. Velocity uncertainties (Propagated to LSOI), Leg

2.

A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE

up=1.66 nm, uv=4.92 ftl s

TRAJECTORY A

LEGEND:

0 =PROPAGATED TO L O NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE S I , = PROPAGATED TO t + M MINUTES. NO A P l R KNOWLEDGE R l O

A =PROPAGATED TO t t 30 M U E . A S M G A P l R KNOWLEDGE CASE 2 I T S SU N N I R l O V =SWITCHING EACH HOUR BWE TEX, ANT, HW E EN A:
NO A P l R KNOWLEDGE PROPAGATED TO t R l O
t

30 min CASE 3

00:OO

1O:OO

20:OO

30:OO

40:OO

50:OO

60:OO

TIME FROM INJECTION, (hours: minutes) TRACKING CASE 1 AND 2 MAD

1
TRACKING CASE 3
Figure
5.4a-Second

midcourse

correction.

Position Uncertainties,

Leg 3.

mls (

ftl s

1
up'1.66 nm, uv=4.92 ftls
TRAJECTORY A A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE

LEGEND:

0 =PROPAGATED TO
LSOI, NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE
=

PROPAGATED TO t + 30 MINUTES, NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE SWITCHING EACH HOUR BElWEEN TEX. ANT. HAW; NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE PROPAGATED TO t + 30 min CASE 3

AZPROPAGATED TO t + 30 MINUTES, ASSUMING A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

0O:OO

1O:OO

20:OO 30:OO TIME FROM INJECTION, ( hours: minutes

40:OO

5O:OO

60:OO

E ,
'$
&; ,:<:

MAD

]
3.

TRACKING CASE 1 AND 2

f@

p p
TRACKING CASE 3
@

$$$ TEX

ANT HAW

Figure 5.4b-Second midcourse correction. Velocity uncerta.inties, Leg

0 =26.45 nm,

TRAJECTORY B

1500 -

A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE a, = 16.07 f t l s

*ASC USES

u,, m,,,
=

'DATA CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3- WAY DOPPLER LEGEND:

1000 -

1.06 x 10" ft31s2

0-NO KNOWLEDGE A PRIOR1

CASE 1 O = W I M A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

500

O2:00 03:OO 04:00 05:OO 06:OO 07:OO 08:00 09:OO 1O:OO 11:OO

0 00:OO

01:00

TIME FROM ENTRY INTO LSOl (hours: minutes ) CANBERRA MADRID GUAM CARNARvoN ASCENSION

]TRACKING

Figure 5.50-Third

midcourse correction. Position uncertainties (Propagated to t

30 min), L e g 4.

ftls

A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE u p - 2 6 . 4 nm, 0,-16.07 f t l s

400-

Ir
'DATA CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3- WAY DOPPLER

TRAJECTORY B

5 300 -

S W
LEGEND:

>

2 0=NO A
PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 1 P R l O R l KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

v ,

2 200 I0=WITH A

Z 2 5 0

50 -

= 100 -

001:OO 02:OO 03:OO

0 0O:OO

04:OO 05:OO 06:OO 07:OO TIME FROM ENTRY l NTO LSOl (hours: minutes CANBERRA MADRID CARNARVON ASCENSION

08:OO

09:OO

10:OO

11:OO

TRACKING

Figure 5.5b-Third midcourse correction.

Velocity uncertainties (Propagated to t t 30 min), Leg

4.

STATION

SYSTEM

STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES MEASUREMENT MEASUREo ,(it)

SAMPLING RATE 1 per min 1 per 15 min lpermin 1per15min 1 per min lpermin O.lftls 6Oft O.lftls 0.lftls 0.lftls 0.1 f t l s 60 ft NOISE. l o

UNCERTA lNTl ES BIAS, l o .O7itls 120 it .O7flls 120 ft O.Zftls 0.2flls 0.2ftls

o x (ftl
0,

lft)

MENTS R

CNB MAD R 'GUA 633 197 *CRO USBS USBS 141 197 210 USES 410 535 USBS 128 102 121

USES

207

197

200

A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE up=26.45 nm, u,=16.07 f t l s

k
ri

TRAJECTORY B
*ASC

318

344

fi

1 per min

1000
I

I 'DATA CHARACTER1STlCS FOR 3- WAY DOPPLER

LEGEND:

0=NO A
PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 1 PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

500 -

0 =WITH A

0 00:OO 02:W 03:OO M:00

01:OO

05:OO

06:OO

07:OO

08:OO

09:OO

10:00

11:oo

.
CANBERRA MADRID GUAM CARNARVON ASCENSION

TIME FROM ENTRY INTO LSOl (hours: minutes)

TRACKING

Figure 5 . 5 ~ - T h i r d midcourse correction.

Radius uncertainties (Propagated to t

30 min), L e g 4.

STATION LOCATION STATION

1
MEASUREMENT

CNB
197
I I I I

1
/
'07
2W
1

1
k
R
I

1
/
lpermin I O . l f t l s 1~ e 15 minI r M)fl '
I

I
i( R
l p e r min 1 per 15 min O.1ftls M) ft

I
I

.07flls 120ft .07ftls 120 ft 0.2 111s

I
I
O.2ftls

MAD
USBS *GUA 'CRO *ASC USBS

128

102

121

I
USBS
410 197 210 338 197 535 633 1 per min lpermin

1
R

1
ri i

1
1
344
=

1
I
1 per min

I
/

0.1f t ~ s
0.lftls 0.1ftls

1
USBS 141

I
u,, ,
2.01 x 1 0 1 0 f t 3 1 ~ 2

O.Zftls

*DATA CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3 - WAY DOPPLER

LEGEND:

TRAJECTORY B

I
I
I

0L
02:OO 03:OO

oooloo

01:OO

05:OO 06:OO 07:OO 04:OO TIME FROM ENTRY INTO LSOl (hours: minutes

08:OO

09:OO

10:OO

11:00

CANBERRA MADRID GUAM CARNARVON ASCENSION

TRACKING

Figure 5.5d-Third

midcourse correction. Position uncertainties (Propagated to perilune), Leg

4.

A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE 0 ~ ~ 2 6 . 4 nm, 0,=16.07 5 ftls

TRAJECTORY B

g:
I

ftls

j
I
I I

5 2000

V)

i 5

loo0

b
I
-

500 02:OO 03:OO 04:OO

l5OnI
I

0O:OO

01:OO

05:OO

06:OO

07:OO

08:OO

09:OO

10:OO

11:OO

TIME FROM ENTRY INTO LSOl (hours: minutes) CANBERRA MADRID CARNARvoN ) T R A C K I N G G~IW~ ASCENSION
midcourse correction. Velocities uncertainties (Propagated t o perilune), Leg

Figure 5.5e-Third

4.

I
STATION LOCATION MEASUREMENT

I
k
R

CNB MAD R 'GUA USBS USBS USES USES

USES

207 128 410

633

197 102 535 210

R

2M) 121

lpermin 1 per 15 min lpermin 1per 15 min l p e r min l p e r min l p e r min 0.lftls 60 ft 0.lftls 0.lftls O.lftls

0.1ftls 60 ft

.07ftls 120 ft .07ftls 120 ft 0.2ftls 0.2ftls 0.2ftls

A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE a -26.45 nm, a,=16.07 f t l s P

k

ri

TRAJECTORY B
'CRO 'ASC

197 141
338
344

197

I *DATA CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3 - W A Y DOPPLER

LEGEND:

0= N O A
P R l O R l KNOWLEDGE CASE 1 PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

0 =WITH A

00:00

01:OO

02:OO

03:OO

04:OO

05:OO

06:OO

07:OO

08:OO

09:OO

1O:OO

11:OO

TIME FROM ENTRY INTO LSOl (hours: minutes)

CANBERRA MADRID GUAM CARNARVON ASCENSION

midcourse correction. Radius uncertainties

TRACKING

Figure 5.5f-Third

(Propagated t o perilune), L e g

4.

km 3500 A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE

up=26.45 nrn, 0,= 16.07ftls

TRAJECTORY

3000 r

up-=

2.01 x 1010 ft31s2

LEGEND: WlTH A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE, WITH ANGLES CASE 1

0=

WITH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, NO ANGLES

CASE 2

.WITHOUT A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, WlTH ANGLES

0 = WITHOUT A
PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE. NO ANGLES

CASE 3 CASE 4

03:30

03:OO

02:30

02:OO 01:30 01:M) 00:30 TIME TO GO TO PERILUNE, (hours: minutes)

0:O OO

CANARY l SLAlUD MADRID ASCENSION

Figure 5.6a-Perilune. Position uncertainties (Propgated to ~erilune),Leg 5.

TRACK l NG

mls
A P R l O R l KNOWLEDGE

up= 26.45 nm, a, = 16.07ftls

TRAJECTORY B

LEGEND:
=

WlTH A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE. WlTH ANGLES

CASE 1

WlTH A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE, NO ANGLES

CASE 2

WITHOUT A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, WlTH ANGLES

CASE 3

WITHOUT A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, NO ANGLES

CASE 4

03:30

03:OO

02:30

02:OO 01:30 01:OO 00:30 TIME TO GO TO PERILUNE, (hours: minutes)

00:OO

1
CANARY l SLAND MADRID ASCENSION
J

TRACKING

Figure 5.6b-Peri lune. Velocity uncertainties (Propagated to perilune), Leg 5.

km
A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE

u p'26.45 nm, u,= 16.07ftls

TRAJECTORY B

60 -

50

40 LEGEND:
=

30 -

WITH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, WlTH ANGLES

CASE 1

20 -

WlTH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, NO ANGLES

CASE 2

WITHOUT A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, WlTH ANGLES

CASE 3

WITHOUT A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE, NO ANGLES

CASE 4

10 &
I

0: O 4 O

03:30

0: O 3 O

02:30

0: O 2 O 01:30 0: O 1 O 00:30 TIME TO GO TO PERILUNE, (hours: minutes 1

0O OO :

CANARY l SLAND MADRID ASCENSION

1
(Propagated t o perilune), L e g 5.

TRACKING

Figure 5.6~-Perilune. Radius Uncertainties

rnls
A PRiORl KNOWLEDGE

ftls

a. = 26.45 nm, ,,
Q,,
=

16.07 fl ts

TRAJECTORY B

100 -

50 LEGEND:
=

WITH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. WlTH ANGLES

CASE 1

WlTH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. NO ANGLES

CASE 2

WITHOUT A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. WlTH ANGLES

CASE 3

0 * WITHOUT A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. NO ANGLES

03:OO 02:30 01:OO 00:30 TIME TO GO TO PERILUNE, (hours:minutes
( i

CASE 4

04:OO

03:30

02:oO

01:30

0O:oO

>

MADR l D ASCENSION

j
5.

TRACK'NG

Figure 5.6d-Perilune.

Ground speed uncertainties (Propagated to perilune), Leg

6.0 CSM LUNAR PARKING ORBITS

6.1

INTRODUCTION

Error analysis studies were made for the CSM lunar parking orbit phase of the Apollo Mission for the purpose of evaluating the capabilities of the ground navigation system. This system makes use of the Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN). For the studies involving the ground navigation system, the Sept. 1 7 , 1969 reference trajectory was used (Reference 1, page 3-11). In order to evaluate the capabilities of the ground navigation system during the CSM lunar orbit phase, the following critical periods must be studied in detail:
1. From lunar parking orbit insertion to the beginning of CSM/LEM separation.

2. From the end of CSM/LEM separation to the beginning of CSM/LEM rendezvous

3. From the end of CSM/LEM rendezvous to transearth injection.

Although the present chapter emphasizes only the first period, the accuracies stated a r e indicative of those to be expected for any two orbits of the CSM. The first revision of this ANWG document will cover other portions of the CSM lunar orbit phase of the Apollo Mission in detail. Future studies will also consider the capabilities of the onboard navigation system which relies on an optical instrument much like a sextant to make sightings of lunar landmarks (References 5, 6, and 7).

6.2

DESCRIPTION OF THE LUNAR ORBIT PHASE

At the end of the burn of the Service Propulsion System, the spacecraft (CSM/LEM) is inserted into a lunar parking orbit. The inclination of the parking orbit is determined as a function of the landing site location, a region on the visible side of the moon bounded by selenographic longitude *45O and selenographic latitude *5O. The nominal parking orbit will be circular with an altitude above the moonls surface of 80 + 5 nm (148 zt 9 km). It is required that the vector from the moon's center through the chosen landing site lie in the lunar parking orbit plane during the period of time that the LEM lands on and lifts off the lunar surface.

The maximum allowable deviation of the landing site vector from the plane of the parking orbit is 0.5O (Reference 1 , page 3- 7).

The coordinates of the landing site chosen for the Sept. 17, 1969 reference trajectory a r e (Reference 4, pages 2-8 and 2-9): . Selenographic Latitude: 2.24ON

Selenographic Longitude: 13.OOO W For this reference trajectory, the CSM/LEM is inserted into a lunar parking orbit on the back side of the moon. The spacecraft will be occulted by the moon for approximately 22 minutes after insertion. Following this initial occultation period, the spacecraft will be visible to various tracking stations of the MSFN for a period of 77 minutes 18 seconds and occulted for a period of 45 minutes 42 seconds. Tracking coverage for the various tracking stations of the MSFN is given for the first 6 hours, 30 minutes after the spacecraft is inserted into the lunar parking orbit (Figure 6.1). Near the end of the second lunar parking orbit, or approximately 3 hours 48 minutes after lunar orbit insertion, CSM/LEM separation occurs. Knowledge of the state vector at the time of CSM/LEM separation depends upon the tracking of the CSM during this first period. This state vector, when propagated through the thrusting period of the LEM, will then represent the a priori knowledge for the LEM descent transfer trajectory. The ability of various tracking station combinations of the MSFN to determine the state vector during this first critical phase of the CSM lunar orbit operations is investigated in detail.

6.3

THE GROUND NAVIGATION SYSTEM

The accuracy with which the state vector of the spacecraft is determined at the beginning of CSM/LEM separation is dependent on such factors as: a. Tracker

- spacecraft geometry

b. Types of measurements made c. The a priori knowledge about the condition of the state at the time of CSM/LEM lunar orbit insertion d. Frequency with which measurements a r e made

e. E r r o r s due to: Measurement noise Measurement biases Station location biases Equations of motion biases. It is assumed that linear filter theory can provide a statistical estimate of the state vector uncertainty which reflects the effects of the various e r r o r sources inherent in a measurement. One of the most commonly used linear estimators is the minimum variance filter (or Kalman - Schmidt filter). This linear estimator properly accounts for all the biases without updating and provides a (theoretically) optimal estimate of the state vector. This estimation procedure is recursive, i.e., data points a r e processed successively in their natural time order. The recursive procedure gives the optimal estimates at each data time. Two e r r o r propagation computer programs using the minimum variance filter were used to generate all the e r r o r analysis studies in this chapter (References 3 and 8). Station location biases and the speed of light bias were accounted for in both programs, whereas measurement biases were accounted for in only one of these programs (Reference 8). The one sigma values of bias and noise used for the analysis, taken from ~ e f e r e n c e are given on each 1, graph presented. The present versions of these computer programs do not include the effects of e r r o r s in the equations of motion, such a s the biases in the moon's gravitational constant and in the coefficients in the moon's gravitational potential function. Present plans call for these to be included in future studies.

6.3.1

E r r o r Propagation in Spacecraft Position and Velocity Using One Tracking Station

Figures 6.2a and 6.2b show the three sigma e r r o r s in spacecraft position and velocity1 with and without the assumption of a priori knowledge of the state at lunar orbit insertion. Without a priori knowledge the errors in the state vector a r e greater than when a priori knowledge is available. Range rate measurements from a single tracking station a r e used to improve estimates of the energy dependent variables such as velocity magnitude, semimajor axis, and orbital period. On the other hand, very little information about the orientation of the spacecraft's orbital plane can be extracted from these measurements. This information about the orientation is, however, implicitly contained in the a priori knowledge of the state. Therefore, the e r r o r s in the state vector will be smaller whenever a priori knowledge is available.
'These minimum variance error propagation computer programs require an initial statistical estimate of the state vector. Therefore, for analysis with no a priori knowledge, a very poor initial estimate i s used.

6-3

If a single tracking station is used for determining the-errors in the state vector a t the time of CSM/LEM separation, the results depend on what initial a priori knowledge about the state is available. A summary of the three sigma e r r o r s a t the time of CSM/LEM separation is given in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 30 E r r o r s of the State Vector at Time of CSM/LEM Separation Using Measurements From One Tracker Type of Measurement
R

Was a P r i o r i Knowledge Used? No Yes2

3 Sigma Position E r r o r 70,000 ft. (21 km) 50,000 ft. (15 km)

3 Sigma Velocity E r r o r 30.0 ft/s (12.1 m/s) 25.0 ft/s (7.6 m/s)

6.3.2

E r r o r Propagation in Spacecraft Position and Velocity Using Three Tracking Stations

Wherever possible, a tracking station complex composed of three Unified S-Band Systems tracks the CSM/LEM up to CSM/LEM separation. The tracking station complex is composed of one 85-foot USBS which tracks the spacecraft in the two-way Doppler mode and two 30-foot USBS which track the spacecraft in the three-way (or passive) Doppler mode. Figures 6.3a and 6.3b show how the tracker-spacecraft geometry influences the RMS e r r o r s in the state vector. The 85-foot USBS at Canberra tracks the spacecraft in the two-way Doppler mode and the 30-foot USBS at Carnarvon and another 30-foot USBS, either at Guam o r at Hawaii, track the spacecraft in the three-way Doppler mode. Solutions a r e presented for both combinations. Because of the better geometry of the Canberra - Carnarvon - Hawaii combination, the three sigma e r r o r s in spacecraft position and velocity a r e smaller than for the Canberra - Carnarvon - Guam combination. At the time of CSM/LEM separation, the three sigma errsrlls in spacecraft position and velocity a r e a s follows:

*A

priori knowledge for study is: Three sigma error in position: 51 141.6 f t Three sigma error i n velocity: 102.3 ft/s

(15.5 km)

(31 m/s)

( s e e Reference 2 )

USBS Combination Canberra - Carnarvon - Hawaii Canberra - Carnarvon

3 Sigma Position E r r o r 28,000 ft. (8500 m) 35,000 ft. (10700 m)

3 Sigma Velocity Error 20 ft/s (6.1 m/s) 26 f t / s ( 7.9 m / s )

- Guam

The a priori knowledge which was assumed i s 3 sigmaposition error: 51,141.6 ft (15500 m) 3 sigma velocity error: 102.3 ft / sec (31 m/s) . Figures 6.4a and 6.4b illustrate how the effect of measurement bias e r r o r s causes the e r r o r s in spacecraft position and velocity to increase. Using the tracker combination of Canberra - Carnarvon - Hawaii the three sigma e r r o r s at CSM/LEM separation are: With/without Measurement Bias Without With 3 Sigma Position E r r o r 1000 ft. (300 m) 28,000 ft. (8500 m) 3 Sigma Velocity E r r o r 0.7 ft/s (0.2 m/s) 20 f t / s (6.1 m / s )

A s may be readily seen, the measurement bias e r r o r s a r e the major contributors to the e r r o r s in spacecraft position and velocity.
Increased sampling rates (Figures 6.5a and 6.5b) will not decrease the e r r o r s in spacecraft position and velocity for this case. Only measurement noise will decrease with an increased sampling rate; the measurement bias e r r o r s will remain unaffected. At the time of CSM/LEM separation, the three sigma e r r o r s in spacecraft position and velocity remain almost unchanged whether sampling rates of one measurement per minute or ten measurements per minute a r e used. The relatively close agreement between the curves of Figures 6.5a and 6.5b shows that increased sampling rates (for this tracking interval) cannot alone reduce e r r o r s in position and velocity in the presence of large bias e r r o r s . For the results presented in Figures 6.6a and 6.6b, the spacecraft was tracked by the Canberra - Carnarvon - Hawaii complex of USBS tracking stations for the first tracking period of approximately 77 minutes 18 seconds. The resulting e r r o r s in spacecraft position and velocity propagated to the beginning of the second tracking period are the a priori knowledge of the state at this time.

Then two cases were compared. On one, the spacecraft was tracked by the same complex for the second tracking period. On the other, the spacecraft was tracked by only the Canberra tracking station for the second tracking period. The resulting e r r o r s in spacecraft position and velocity a r e practically the same for these two cases. Thus the number of tracking stations may be reduced on the second tracking period without degradation of the results.

6.4

LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE

A comparison of results between two different minimum variance e r r o r programs (References 3 and 8) has been made for the treatment of the effects of station location biases and the speed of light bias. For example, the two programs were in agreement on the results presented on the lower curves of Figures 6.4a and 6.4b to within 10 ft. and . O 1 ft/s, respectively, at all points. The e r r o r analysis studies for the ground navigation system for which the effects of measurement bias e r r o r s were evaluated have not been verified directly. However, the results a r e in general agreement with those obtained in other independent studies performed at GSFC and MSC.

6.5

CONCLUSIONS

For the ground navigation system, the propagation of three sigma e r r o r s in spacecraft position and velocity during the first critical period of the CSM-lunar parking orbit phase of the Apollo Mission has been described. From all the results presented, it is quite evident that the measurement bias e r r o r s inherent in the data from the ground navigation system significantly influence the accuracy of the estimate of the spacecraft's position and velocity vectors. For example, the effect of measurement bias e r r o r s (Figures 6.4a and 6.4b) at the time of CSM/LEM separation (3 hours 48 minutes after lunar orbit insertion) has increased the e r r o r in spacecraft position and velocity by almost a factor of 30 (from 1,000 ft. to 28,000 ft. and from 0.7 ft/s to 20 ft/s respectively). One possible means of offsetting such effects could be the combining of data from the onboard navigation system with data from the ground navigation system. In past e r r o r analysis studies it has been found that by solving for the measurement bias e r r o r s their effect on the knowledge of the state vector is decreased. This does not mean that such results can be obtained by a r e a l time orbit determination program (ODP). Difficulty of uncoupling the effects of measurement bias e r r o r s might degrade rather than improve the knowledge of the state. Therefore, it is a qualified recommendation that some selected measurement bias e r r o r s should be solved for in order to reduce their effects on knowledge of the state vector, (subject to verification by simulating the processing of data with an operational ODP).

REFERENCES MSC-GSFC , ANWG Report No. 65-AN-1.0 "Apollo Missions and Navigation Systems Characteristics," February 5, 1965. Mayfield, S. 0. and Bond, A. C., MSC Internal Note No. 65-FM-47, "Convergence and Non-convergence in Lunar Orbit Determination, Accuracy of Lunar Orbit Determination," April 20, 1965, page 10. Philco Corporation, User's and Programmer's Manuals for Interplanetary E r r o r Propagation Program prepared for Contract NAS5-3342. Design Reference Mission - Apollo Mission Planning Task Force Vol. I Mission Description, October 30, 1964. Sears, Norman E.; "Primary G&N System Lunar Orbit Operations," (U), MIT/IL, R446, Vol. I , April, 1964. MSC Internal Note No. 65-ET-2, "Positional Uncertainties in Lunar Landmarks," NASA-MSC, Jan. 5, 1965. Bond, V. R., MSC Internal Note EG-65-4, "Orbital Determination by I11 Defined Lunar Landmarks ,If February 1 , 1965. Woolston, D. C. and Mohan, J .,"Program Manual for Minimum Variance Precision Tracking and Orbit Prediction Program," GSFC Report X-640-63144, July 1, 1963.

MAD

CNB

CNV

BDA

CYI

II
1:39:16\
6

ASC

Q)

CRO

CO

GUA

/0:21:58
OCCULTED

c-39' 1:38:29\

/2:24:58

E-32'

3:42:14\

-2Z0
OCCULTED

HAW OCCULTED

/0:22:12

E-17'

1
C S M l l E M SEPARATION

GYM OCCULTED

0:22:14\,0:24:56 I 2

1
I 3

TEX OCCULTED

I
4
TIME (hours)

I
I 5
6 7

I 1

Figure 6.1-CSM

station contact times for Sept.

20, 1969 traiectory

10,000,000

ORBITAL PARAMETERS Equator Of Date Coordinates-Mwn Centered

T
XI X, X,

=
= = =

1,000,000
n

Sept. 17. 165.63936 -919.37695 -415.86151

1969 nm nm nm

!7!170009 XI -5208.3665 f t l s X, = -817.04316 f t l r X, = -268.21399 f t l s

E! I -

8 a v,
W

z 100,000
I -

z Q, a i
6
z
c9

3
b

10,000

....~.U... C K I N W .. A
1000 o 1

OCCULTED

~ T ....................... B ..................I OCCULTED 3 4

C A 6

T I M E F R O M L U N A R ORBIT I N S E R T I O N (hours)
Figure 6.2a-Effects of a priori knowledge on error propagation in spacecraft position for a single station measuring range rate

,000.

I STATION SYSTEM

I STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES LONG. l b 2.2" ,:;:H E ' 216.5

I MEASUREMENTS la SAMPLING RATE

I MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES NOISE, l a 0.03 f i l s ' BIAS, 1 , 0.1 R l s

LAT. l a CNB USES 1.9"

1 per m i n

' Adjusted

for a sampling rate of 1 measurement per minute

ORBITAL PARAMETERS Equator of Date Coordinates-Moon Centered T = Sept. 17. 1969 X,=165.63936nm X, =-919.37695 n m X3 =-415.86151 nrn INSERTION ERRORS ( 1 c l Position Velocity
= =

!7! 170049 X=-5ME..665ftls = -817.04316 ft/s X, -268.21399 f t l s =

x i

17047.2 11 34.1 f t l s

-H Elevation angle Z 5'

CANBERRA POOR A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE

/

/ 1

/*

I/

/A

CANBERRA PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE

10

::$ .:.>:.:.x. ~ ~ ....f.' ~ & E R ' occ u'LT~ D ] ~ M ~ $ E$ L

x Km GI:::?i:::z.
:"

TIME FROM LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION (hours)

Figure 6.2b-Effects of a priori knowledge on error propagation in spacecraft velocity for a single station measuring range rate

10,00,000

I
STATION SYSTEM

I
LAT. l o CRO CNB USBS USBS 1.9" 1.9" 1.4" 6.4" LONG. l U 2.2" 2.2" 1.6" 6.6"

I
STATION LOCATION UNCERTA lNTl ES Ift) 216.5 216.5 141.1 105.0 MEASURElo lvlENTS SAMPLING RATE

I
MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES NOISE, l o 0.03 ftl; 0.03ftl; 0.03 11' 1s 0.03 ftl; BIAS, l o 0.2 f t l s 0.1ftls 0.2 R l s 0.2 f t l s

R R R R

1 per m i n

lpermin

HAW
GUA

USBS
USBS

1 per m i n 1 per m i n

Adjusted for a sampling rate of 1 measurement per minute ORBITAL PARAMETERS

1,000,000
I
h

Equator of Date Coordinates-Moon Centered T X,

x2 =
X,

.
=

Sept. 17. 1%9 165.63936 nm -919.37695 nm - 415.86151 n m

!7!1m049 X, -52ffl.3665 f i l s X, -817.04316 f t l s t, -268.21399 M I S

--

d
u

INSERTION ERRORS (1u ) Position = 17047.2 ft Velocity = 34.1 f t l s

0 I -

5
z
V)

HORlZON
Elevation angle
I

2 5"
I I

100,000
r

;4 ;

I -

Q, ai
5
z
3
b c7

-a
I

CAN BERRA CARNARVON GUAM

-

1u
1 0,000

\; ,
B'

\\I /I
1

\\

\r

CANBERRA CARNARVON HAWAII

1 000

OCCULTED

b -.-. z : m : OCCULTED b l
6

2 3 4 5 TIME FROM LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION (hours)

Figure 6.30-Effects

of tracker geometry on error propagation i n spacecraft position for three trackers measuring range rate

10,000

I
STATION SYSTEM

1
STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES LAT. l a LONG. lb

1
la
(11) MEASUREMENTS

I
SAMPLING RATE

I
MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES NOISE, l a BIAS. 1 c

CRO CNB HAW GUA

USBS USBS USBS USBS

1.9" 1.9" 1.4" 6.4"

2.2"
2.2" 1.6" 6.6"

216.5 216.5 141.1 105.0

R R R R

1 per m i n
1 per m i n

0.03 A/; 0.03 Al; 0.03 fil; 0.03 fil;

0.2 A l s 0.1 f i l s 0.2 f i l s 0.2 f i l s

1 per m l n 1 per m i n

Adjusted for a sampling rate of 1 measurement per minute ORBITAL PARAMETERS

1000
h

Equator of Date Coordinates-Moon Centered

I n

T ~ w t .17, 1969 X , = 165.63936nm X, = -919.37695 n m X3 -415.86151 n m

77h 170249 ~=-5208.?665ftls X: = -817.04316 f i l s X = -268.21399 f t l s ,

INSERTION ERRORS ( l o )
v

Position Velocity

17M7.2 A 34.1 f i l s

Elevation angle 2 5'

9 L loo
V)

0 1

,
r
1
#

W
I-

z 2 c e
? J
m
b

CANBERRA CARNARVON GUAM

-\

CANBERRA CARNARVON HAWAII

C
1 0

d
\1

1'
I

TIME 'FROM LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION ( hours)

Figure 6.3b-Effects of tracker geometry on error propagation in spacecraft velocity for three trackers measuring range rate

1,000,000

STATION SYSTEM LAT CRO USBS USBS USBS

STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES

LONG

MEASURE MENTS HEIGHT l u

SAMPLING RATE

MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES NOISE. 1 U BIAS. IU

lftl

CNB

HAW

1.9" 1 9" 1.4"

2 2" 2 2" 16' .'

Adlusted

216 5 216.5 141.1

k
R

1 per mln 1 per man 1 per r n ~ n

0.03 f l l s ' o 03 f i l s ' 0.03 IS'

0 2 fllr

o I 111s o 2 111s

far a sampllng rate of 1 measurement per minute

ORBITAL PARAMETERS Equator of Date Cmrdlnates-Mmn Centered T = Sept. 17. 1969 X, = 165.63936 nm X, = -919.37695 n m X, -415.86151 n m

71hlm)49 X, -5B3.3665 nlr x, -817.~16n ~ s X, -268.21399 n l s

--

INSERTION ERRORS (1ai Position velocity

h

-- 31lO47.2 n 41 .
fils
I

h
V

H W Elevation angle b ' 5

G z I L

\ \

\I I

', :
1
I

\I I
I

\
NOISE MEASUREMENT BIAS STATION LOCATION - UNCERTAINTIES -

b
pr)

CAN BERRA CARNARVON HAWAII

b

/ ', -\

\ I

, \ / q
\
I

'

NOISE STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES

1 OO0

OCCULTED

TIME FROM LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION (hours)

Figure 6.4a-Effects of measurement bias errors on propagation o f errors i n spacecraft position

000

ORBITAL PARAMETERS

Equator of Date Cmrdinatss-Mmn Centerd

100

-5208.3665 I l l s

MEASUREMENT BIAS STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES

10

.1

2 3 4 5 TIME FROM LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION ( hours)

Figure 6.4b-Effects

of measurement bias errors on propagation of errors in spacecraft velocity

ORBITAL PARAMETERS Equator of Date Coordinates-Moon Centered T X, X, X, Sept. 17. - -919.37695 1969 165.63936 nm nm
=

=
=

-415.86151 nm

77h17~9 X, -52C8.3665 f t i s X, -817.04316 f t l s k, = -268.21399 f t l s

. .

INSERTION ERRORS ( 1 ul Position Velocity

=
=

17047.2 11 34.1 f t l s

SAMPLING

RATE

3
LUNAR ORBIT

4
I N S E R T I O N (hours)

TIME
Figure 6.5a-Effects

FROM

of sampling rates on propagation of errors in spacecraft position for three trackers measuring range rate

10,000

I
STATION SYSTEM LAT l g 1.9" 1.9" 1.4" STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES LONG 1 6 2 2" 2.2" 1.6" MEASUREla MENTS

-SAMPLING
RATE

MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES NOISE 1 U BIAS. 1 U 0.2ft1s 0.2 f t l s 0.1 f t l s

0 1 ftls

CRO

- (ftl USBS USBS USBS 216.5 216.5 141.1 R R

R

lpermln 10 per m l n 1 per m l n 10 per m l n 1 per m l n 10 per m l n

003ft1s' 0 1 Rls 0 03 f t l s 0 1ftls 0.03 f t l s 0.1 M l s

CNB
HAW

o2

ft~s

0 2 ftls

Adjusted for a sampllng rate of 1 measurement per mlnute

1000

ORBITAL PARAMETERS Equator of Date Cwrd~nates-Moon Centered T = Sept. 17, 1969 X, - 165.63936 nm X, = -919.37695 n m X, = -415.86151 n m INSERTION ERRORS I 1 u ) Posltlon = 17047 2 ft Veloc~ty= 34.1 f t l s 77h17~9 X, = -5208.3665 f t l s X 2 = -817.04316 f t l s X, = -268.21399 f t l s

I n

'2. uU

g 8
J

HORlZON
Elevation angle 1 5O

z
V)

100

?,
7

SAMPLING RATE 1o MEASUREMENTS/MIN

L

W
I -

Z 4 o i

I
a

e z
b
C)

SAMPLING RATE 1 MEASUREMENT/MIN 10

'0

3 4 TIME FROM LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION ( hours)

2

Figure 6.5b-Effects

of sampling rates on propagation of errors i n spacecraft velocity for three trackers measuring range rate

STATION

SYSTEM

STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES

LONG,

MEASUREMENTS HEIGHT 1 U lftl

SAMPLING RATE

MEASUREMEN1 UNCERTAINTIES NOISE, lo BIAS, I U

CNB CRO HAW

USES USBS USES

1.9" 1.9"

2.2"

2.2" 1.6"

216.5 216.5 141.1

R
R R

1 per m i n 1 per m i n
1 per rnin

0.03 f t l s ' 0.03 111s' 0.03 f t l s '

0.1 f t ~ s 0.2 f t l s 0.2 f t l s

1.4"

Adjusted l o r a sampling rate of 1 measurement per m i n u t e

1
I

ORBITAL PARAMETERS Equator of Date Coordinates- Moon Cenlered r = Sept. 17. 1969 771 i 7 w 9 X I = 165.63936 n m x, = -5208.3665 f t i s X 2 = -919.37695 n m x;, = -817.04316 f t l s X, = -415.86151 n m i, -263.21399 f t l s =

I
I

Elevation angle

L' 5

I
TRACKING WITH THREE STATIONS REQUIRED N O DIFFERENCE FOR O N E OR THREE STATION TRACKING

>

CANBERRA CARNARVON HAWAII

-POORA PRI'ORI KNOWLEDGE

TIME FROM LUNAR ORBIT INSERTION (hours) Figure 6.60-Error propagation i n spacecraft position when tracking the spacecraft with one or three trackers after the f i r s t complete occultation period

ORBITAL PARAMETERS

- CARNARVON
,POOR
A PRIOR1 K N O W L E D G E

....... E~;=I]
0

_ _...I ....

occu LTE D ~ 2

? -...
3

~
4

.
5

i
6

TIME F R O M LUNAR ORBIT I N S E R T I O N (hours)

Figure

6.6b- Error

propagation in spacecraft velocity when tracking the spacecraft with one or three trackers after the first complete occultation period

7.1

INTRODUCTION

The LEM operation phase is defined for this study as beginning with the separation of the LEM from the CSM and terminating with the docking of the LEM with the CSM. For the present, this study investigates only the free fall portions of both the descent and ascent trajectories and makes no utilization of onboard data concerning the position and velocity of the LEM. All results a r e based on data obtained by the MSFN (Manned Spaceflight Network) alone. The study concerning the descent trajectory starts immediately subsequent to insertion into the descent trajectory and ends at perilune arrival. The study concerning the ascent trajectory starts immediately subsequent to ascent burnout and ends at the nominal time of rendezvous. The thrusting maneuvers that occur subsequent to ascent burnout and prior to rendezvous a r e taken into account only insofar a s execution errors a r e assumed for each maneuver,

7.1.2

Use of the MSFN

During periods when tracking occurs, it is assumed that three USBS stations are simultaneously tracking the LEM. One station is the transmitting station (master) and the other two a r e passive trackers (slave 1 and slave 2). The transmitting station obtains two-way Doppler while the passive trackers obtain three-way doppler. All of the observations a r e taken at a rate of one observation per six seconds. Angular data, due to its geometric dilution at lunar distances, 'was not used. The predominate procedure for this study was to not use range measurements. Data reliability is assumed to be 1 0 0 percent, i.e., no data is assumed lost due to loss of lock, station failures, o r transmission troubles. Noise and biases on the data, uncertainty in the gravitational constant of the moon, and station location uncertainties that were assumed for this study a r e presented sn the figures in which they a r e applicable, and a r e consistent with Reference 1. When results a r e presented in tabular form, reference will be made to the data characteristics that were assumed for those results.

7 . 1 . 3 Areas of Investigation

A. USBS tracking station geometry relative to the LEM's orbit

In this study three different sets of three stations were chosen to track the LEM in order to investigate the influence that the different station geometries have on the results. These three sets and their geometry relative to the LEM's orbit plane are:
1. Goldstone (master), Antigua (slave I ) , and Hawaii (slave 2). These

stations have a very good east-west separation but a poor northsouth separation. The sublunar point (the point where the earthmoon line pierces the earth) at the epoch time for each trajectory for which these stations a r e tracking the vehicle was assumed to be 20N latitude and 90W longitude. The LEM's orbit plane (which is assumed for this entire study to be in the earth-moon plane) is in approximately the plane of the stations.
2. Madrid (master), Canary (slave I ) , and Ascension (slave 2). These stations have a good north-south separation but a poor east-west separation. The sublunar point at the epoch time for each trajectory, for which these stations a r e tracking the vehicle, was assumed to be 20N latitude and 40' E longitude. The LEM's orbit plane is approximately perpendicular to the plane containing these stations.
3. Canberra (master), Carnarvon (slave l ) , and Guam (slave 2).

These stations have both a fairly good east-west and north-south displacement. The sublunar point at the epoch time for each trajectory for which these stations a r e tracking the vehicle was assumed to be 20N latitude and 165O longitude. E B. Landing sites

The longitude of the landing site determines the length of the tracking interval previous to perilune arrival and subsecpent to ascent burnout. Therefore, descent to and ascent from three different landing sites were investigated in this study. They are 4 5 ' ~ longitude, 0' longitude, and 45' E longitude in the selenographic coordinate system. Varying the latitude of the landing site has little effect on the tracking, and, hence, it was kept fixed at 0'.

C.

Error Analysis Techniques

This study was conducted with certain assumptions concerning the accuracy of the MSFN and with a linear e r r o r analysis program (Reference 2) based on a weighted least squares filtering technile. This e r r o r analysis program was used to evaluate the capability of determining an orbit with data of the assumed characteristics and with a filter which makes certain assumptions concerning the biases. Most of the study was conducted to evaluate the capability of determining an orbit with data containing noise and biases and with a filter which ignored the assumed biases. This filter will henceforth be referred to a s Filter-1 In making this evaluation the e r r o r analysis program computed the uncertainties in the orbital parameters taking into account that there a r e biases on the data which a r e being ignored by the filter. It should be noted that the Apollo real time orbit determination program will account for some bias effects by adjusting the measurement data weighting scheme o r by solving for some biases explicitly or, most probably, by using some combination of these two techniques. Consequently, the results obtained with Filter-1 a r e considered to be conservative and subject to change a s future studies a r e conducted.

The concluding portion of the study was conducted to evaluate orbital accuracies with two other filters which assume:
1. The MSFN measurements a r e corrupted by random noise and biases,

and, in this case, the biases a r e solved for in the same manner a s the position and velocity. This procedure, referred to as an optimum filter, should produce the smallest residuals in the orbit determination. It will hereafter be referred to as Filter-2.
2. The MSFN measurements a r e corrupted by random noise and biases. In this case, selected biases a r e solved for in the same manner as the position and velocity, but the remaining biases a r e ignored. This procedure will be referred to as Filter-3. This filter offers a compromise between filters 1 and 2.

3. Filter-3 was studied for a case such that the data it processed actually was bias free. The results which this case produces serve as a gauge by which to measure the results obtained from the other filters.

7.2 7.2.1

PROCEDURES AND ASSUMPTIONS Geometry of the Descent and Ascent Trajectories (Figure 1)

The LEM will separate from the CSM and initiate its Hohmann descent trajectory (80 nm apolune to an 8 nm perilune) as it reaches a point a little more than 180' fromthe chosen lunar landing site in the second lunar orbit of the CSM. The chosen landing site will lie between h5O latitude and h45" longitude in the selenographic coordinate system. The period of the trajectory is approximately two hours so that, depending upon the landing site, the LEM will come into view of the earth 15 to 45 minutes prior to perilune arrival. At perilune the vehicle begins initiation of the powered descent. The plane of the LEMfs orbit will be the same as the CSMfs lunar orbital plane, which will lie within 15O of the earth-moon plane. The following description of the ascent trajectory represents the type that is likely to be chosen when navigational aid, either in a primary o r back up role, is to be based on MSFN data. The LEM ascends to an orbit having a perilune of 8 nm and an apolune of 30 to 70 nm. At apolune the LEM initiates a maneuver to circularize the orbit. Approximately 20 to 30 minutes after the LEM reappears from behind the moon (allowing time for an update of the LEMfs position and velocity, based on MSFN navigation) it initiates a rendezvous transfer maneuver. Rendezvous with the CSM occurs at an 80 nm. altitude and approximately 150' from the transfer maneuver. A midcourse correction will probably be made between the transfer maneuver and rendezvous. 7.3 7.3.1 RESULTS Outline of Results A. Descent Phase

-4

Figures, 2 Tables.

Figures 7.2 - 7.4 present the position and velocity uncertainties at perilune arrival, a s a function of tracking time, that result from different tracking geometries and different landing sites. Figure 7.5 presents the position and velocity uncertainties at perilune arrival, a s a function of tracking time, that result from an analysis with Filter-1, Filter-2, Filter-3, and Filter-3 for which the data contain no biases. Table 7.1 breaks down the position uncertainties at perilune arrival into the components altitude, range, and track. Altitude is in the direction of the radius vector; track is parallel to the orbit angular momentum vector; and range completes a right-hand orthogonal system.

Each row in Tables 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 and each curve on a figure represents a particular set of assumptions labeled by case numbers. These cases a r e defined in Table 7.6. Table 7.2 shows the one sigma uncertainties of the biases, a s a function of tracking time, that result when the biases a r e solved for in the same manner a s the position and velocity.
B.

Ascent Phase

- 3 Tables

Table 7.3 presents the uncertainties in the LEM's position and velocity vectors at four key points along the ascent trajectory. These points are: 1. to (ascent burnout)
2*
tcircu~ation

(the time of the circularization maneuver)

ttra n s f e r

(the time of the rendezvous transfer maneuver) (the nominal time of rendezvous)

rendezous

Points 1 and 2: Columns 1-2 and 3-4 show how well insertion conditions can be known and circularization conditions can be predicted. These uncertainties a r e based on tracking data obtained between ascent burnout and 5 minutes prior to loss of sight (the 5 minutes being allowed for updating the LEM computer and verification of this update). Points 2 and 3 : Columns 5-6 and 7-8 show how well the circularization conditions can now be known and how well the transfer conditions can be predicted. These uncertainties a r e based on the additional tracking data obtained between the time the LEM is reacquired after being occulted by the moon and up to 5 minutes prior to the transfer maneuver. Points 3 and 4: Columns 9-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 11-12, 15-16, 19-20, respectively, show how well conditions at transfer can be determined and how well rendezvous conditions can be predicted. Execution e r r o r s were taken into account for each maneuver. Table 7.4 presents a regrouping of selected cases from Table 7.3 in order to facilitate a comparison. Table 7.5 presents uncertainties in the LEM's position and velocity -after the transfer maneuver, assuming that the LEM guidance computer has been updated with MSFN navigation data prior to transfer.

7.3.2

Discussion of Results A. Descent Phase

The configuration of Goldstone, Antigua, and Hawaii represents the poorest station geometry of the three tracking station sets that were considered for this study, provided the tracking interval is at least 10 minutes. Figures 7.2 through 7.4 show that the uncertainties in position and velocity that were computed from the data obtained by Goldstone, Antigua, and Hawaii a r e consistently greater than the uncertainties that were computed from the data obtained by the other two station sets. As these stations lie approximately in the LEM's orbit plane, little knowledge of the out-of-plane component can be obtained from their data. An inspection of Table 7.1, cases 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 (see Table 7.6) will verify that the uncertainty in the track (out-of-plane) component of position is not reduced as significantly a s the in-plane components with increased tracking time. The configuration of Madrid, Canary, and Ascension represents the poorest station geometry for a tracking interval of 5 minutes. Table 7.1, cases 2, 5, 8, and 11 will show that the uncertainty in the range component of position consitututes a large part of the total position uncertainty that is computed from 5 minutes of tracking data. The range component, during these 5 minutes, is approximately perpendicular to the plane containing the stations. These stations have very little east-west separation, and, consequently, the data they obtain in 5 minutes contain very little information concerning this component. However, after about 10 minutes the earth's rotation plus the LEM's motion offsets the lack of east-west separation and the uncertainty in the range component is significantly reduced. Table 7.1, cases 1-9, all without a priori knowledge, show that the uncertainty in the track component of position is not significantly reduced with increased tracking time. In an effort to reduce the uncertainty in this component, cases 10, 11, and 12 were investigated assuming a priori knowledge of the LEM's position and velocity. A comparison of cases 1, 2, and 3 with cases 10, 11, and 12, respectively, will show that, the respective cases give approximately the same results. In addition, case 13 was investigated to ascertain the significance of range measurements. It is the same as case 7 except the data from the master station includes range measurements at a frequency of one observation every 15 minutes. A comparison of these two cases will show that range measurements offered very little additional information regarding the track component.

Figure 7.5 is presented in order to allow a comparison of the results obtained from the three filters that were explained in section 7.2.3 C. The uncertainties that result when Filter-1 processes data that contain biases represent the upper bound in this comparison. The uncertainties that result from the data processing of Filter-2 show that, a s the knowledge of the biases i s improved, they approach the minimum case, i.e. Filter-3 with no biases on the data. If only the 3-way doppler biases a r e solved for with Filter-3, the improvement over Filter-1 is a s much a s 50 per cent of the improvement of Filter-2 over Filter-1. The question may arise a s to why special emphasis was placed on three-way doppler biases. Table 7.2 gives the one sigma uncertainties of the biases a s a function of tracking time. This table shows that the uncertainties in the biases of the gravitational constant of the moon, two-way doppler bias, and three-way doppler bias a r e significantly reduced with increased tracking time. The uncertainties in the biases of station location showed little o r no improvement and therefore the station location biases need not be solved for. Furthermore, it is not necessary to solve for the bias of the gravitational constant of the moon because it will be significantly reduced a s a result of missions prior to the Apollo lunar missions. As seen from the preceeding paragraph, the 3-way doppler biases have a predominating effect, and, therefore, it was logical to place emphasis on them.
B.

Ascent Phase

The position uncertainties presented in Table 7.3 and referenced to the time of rendezvous a r e of particular interest. These uncertainties represent the predicted rendezvous miss that results from MSFN navigation and the execution e r r o r s assumed for each maneuver. It should be noted, however, that these uncertainties a r e inertially referenced and a r e based on the knowledge of the LEM1s position and velocity alone. The uncertainty in the relative range of the LEM and CSM is a subject f o r future studies. Table 7.3, cases 17, 18, and 19 give the position and velocity uncertainties that result when ascent is from 45OW longitude. No a priori knowledge of the LEM's position and velocity at ascent burnout was assumed. The execution e r r o r s for the circularization maneuver and the transfer maneuver were assumed to be 9.8 ft/s in each component of the velocity vector. Cases 20, 21, and 22 give the position and velocity uncertainties that result when ascent is from O0 longitude. Cases 23, 24, and 25 give the position and velocity uncertainties that result when ascent is from 45OE longitude. The assumptions concerning a priori knowledge and execution e r r o r s for cases 20-25 a r e the same a s those f o r cases 17, 18, and 19.

The importance of the tracking station geometry relative to the geometry of the LEM's orbit plane was noted in the results presented for the descent trajectories. The same trend can be noted for the ascent trajectories. Comparing cases 17, 20, and 23 with either cases 18, 21, and 24 o r cases 19, 22, and 25, respectively, will verify that the data obtained from Goldstone, Antigua, and Hawaii yield larger uncertainties in the LEM's position and velocity than those that were computed from the data obtained by either of the other two station sets. Cases 26, 27 and 28 a r e the same respectively a s cases 23, 24, and 25 except that the execution e r r o r s for the maneuvers were reduced from 9.8 ft/s to 0.1 ft/s in each component of the velocity vector. A comparison of the results will show that the uncertainties, presented at times after a maneuver has been performed, a r e larger for the cases with larger execution e r r o r s , a s one would expect. Cases 29, 30, and 31 a r e the same respectively a s cases 26, 27, and 28, except that a priori knowledge of the LEM's position and velocity at ascent burnout was assumed for the former cases. The a priori covariance matrix used was assumed to represent the LEM's launch cutoff conditions; however, it is felt to be optimistic. A comparison of the results will show that the a priori knowledge that was assumed did not significantly reduce the uncertainties at rendezvous, in spite of the optimism. Case 32 is the same a s case 29 except that range measurements from Goldstone were included. A comparison of the results will show that range measurements add very little to the knowledge of the LEM's position and velocity a t the nominal time of rendezvous.
-

Cases 33 and 34 a r e the same, respectively, as 1 7 and 19, except that Filter-3 was used in the former cases. Also, cases 35 and 36 a r e the same, respectively, as 17 and 19, except that Filter-2 was used in the former cases. A comparison of case 33 with cases 17 and 35 and a comparison of case 34 with cases 19 and 36 (refer to Table 7.4) will illustrate the advantages of solving for the 3-way doppler biases.

C.

Confidence Level

The results of this analysis were checked against the results obtained from a previous analysis in which the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Orbit Deter--~ ~ ous mination Program was used (Reference 3). The - ~ E e n d e z v flight plans and the data assumptions for each of the analyses were somewhat different, but, when tracking intervals and propagating times were similar, the r e s a t s w e r e in close agreement.
-

7.4

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that north-south station separation is more beneficial than east-west separation.
A combination of range measurements with the Doppler data obtained by the master station, in those cases for which the combination was made, gave no additional information concerning the position and velocity of the LEM.

Because using Filter-2 resulted in a 50 percent decrease in two-way doppler bias, study of the effect of this bias needs to be made to determine whether o r not it should be solved for in the real time Apollo ODP.

7.5

REFERENCES

1. MSC - GSFC, ANWG Report No. 65-AN-1.0 "Apollo Missions and Navigation Systems Characteristics," February 5, 1965.

2. "Description of Orbit E r r o r Analysis ~ r o g r a m , "Volumes 1 and 2, Bissett - Berman Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., July and August, 1965.
3. J. D. Alexander, A. C. Bond, and S. 0. Mayfield: MSC Internal Note

No. 65-FM-6, January 25, 1965.

Table 7.2 Descent One Sigma Uncertainty in Biases a s a Function of Tracking Time. (Biases solved for)

u
'moan

(ft3/s2)

Station Sets

2-Way Doppler Bias ( f t / s )

3-Way Doppler Slave 1 Bias, ( f t / s ) 3-Way Doppler Slave 2 Bias ( f t / s )

0 Min. 10 Min. 10 Min. 40 Min. 0 Min. 20 Min. 40 Min. 0 Min. 10 Min. .I8 .19 .19 .20 .20 .20
.ll .ll .ll

20 Min. 20 Min. 10 Min. .14 .12 .14 .12 .12 .12 .06 .07 .06 .05 .05 .06 .20 .20 .20 15x10' 14X109 16x10' .10 .10 .10 .06 .08 .07
STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES

40 Min. 6x10' 6x10' 6x10'

0 Min.

20 Min. .13 .14 .13

40 Min.
.ll .ll .ll

ANT, GST, HAW MAD, CYI, ASC CNB, CRO, GUA

20x10' 20x10' 20x10'

20x10' 20x10' 20x10'

Tracking Time Min. ANT (Slave 1) g,ft. uxlft. q,ft. uy, ft. q,ft. uy,ft.

GST (Master)

HAW (Slave 2) my,ft. uz,ft.

4 , ft.
115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115
CYI (Slave 1) uX,ft. uy,ft. uZ,ft. uX,ft.

0 10 20 40 131 131 131 131 112 112 112 112

Tracking Time Min.

112 112 112 112 MAD (Master)

uX,ft. uy,ft. uZ, ft.

12 1 121 12 1 121

174 174 174 174

243 243 243 243

ASC (Slave 2) uy,ft.

240 240 240 240

u=,ft.

0 10 20 40 128 128 128 128 102 102 102 102 2 53 2 53 2 53 2 53

CNB (Master)

121 12 1 121 12 1

453 453 4 50 447

CRO (Slave 1)

417 417 417 417

141 141 141 141

340 340 340 340

GUA (Slave 2)

358 358 358 358

Tracking Time Min.

q ,ft.
207 207 204 20 1 197 197 197 197

q, ft.

q ,ft.
200 200 200 200

uz, ft.

uy, ft.

uZ, ft.

ux, it.

my,

ft.
197 197 197 197 2 10 210 2 10 210 197 197 197 197 410 410 410 410 535 535 532 52 9

uz, ft.

0 10 20 40

633 633 633 633

Table 7.3 Ascent Three Sigma Uncertainties in Position and Velocity

Table 7.4 Ascent Three Sigma Uncertainties i n Position and Velocity

I
After tracking from transfer to Transfer +5 min. Referenced to Transfer +10 min. Referenced to
'trensfer t.en~ezvous ttrsnrfer trendezvous

rI
tcircu~.riz.tion ttrmns+er

After tracking from ascent burnout to 5 min. prior to f loss o sight Referenced to After tracking from acquisition to transfer Referenced to
ttra",fLr

Transfer +20 min. Referenced to

tre"dclvour

Case No.
V

to

tcircu~.riz.tion

V
R (nm)
V (ft/s) V (ft/s)

R (nm) R (nm) (ft/s) Col. 10 Col. 12 150.6 5. 11 25.6 128.9 13.4 24.6 9.4 26 . 16 . 23 . 28 . 1. 61 14.8 75.8 15.1 9.8 73 . 126.0 Col. 13 124.0 15.2 55 . 4.2 16.2 52 . 39 . 51.2 1. 61 73.8 30.5 10.5 Col. 11 Col. 14 Col. 15 13.0 6.2 2.9 14.3 42 . 2.3
V (ft/s)

(ft/-s) Col. 4 Col. 8 124.0 8.1 41 . 27 . 11.7 4.1 23 . 19.7 19.1 27.6 8.9 8.9 194.8 99 . 31 . 31 . 1. 23 26 . 2.4 144.6 128.9 100.4 50 . 16 . 16 . 13.8 13.8 66.9 58.1 66.9 3.7 16.7 37 . 1. 61 22.7 5. 41 Col. 5 Col. 6 Col. 7 Col. 9

R V (nm) ( f t / s ) R (nm) R V (nm) ( f t / s ) R (nm) R (nm)

V (ft/s)

R (nm) Col. 16 135.8 36.4 19.4 112.2 30.5 16.4 Col. 17 8.4 50 . 1.4 7.1 3.1 0.8

V (ft/s)

R (nm) Col. 18 100.4 57.1 10.8 60.0 36.4 69 . Col. 19 16.1 21 . 1.6 10.7 13 . 0.9

V (ft/s)

Col. 1

Col. 2

Col. 3

Col. 20 64.0 61.0 10.5 43.3 38.4 6.6

17

31.9

183.0

43.3

33

58 .

150.6

65 .

35

58 .

134.8

6.5

19

97 .

10.8

1. 81

34

45 .

61.9

53 .

36

4.1.

5. 90

49 .

Table 7.5 Ascent Resulting Three Sigma Position and Velocity E r r o r s if the Lem Guidance Computer is Updated a t the Transfer Maneuver Based on MSFN Navigation (Execution E r r o r s a r e Included)
REFERENCED TO: Transfer Maneuver + 10 Min. Transfer Maneuver + 15 Min. Transfer Maneuver +25 Min. R (nm) R (nm)
V (ft/s)

Case No.

End of T r a n s f e r Maneuver

Transfer Manuever + 50 Min.* R (nm)

V (ft/s)

R (nm)

V (ft/s)
V (ft/s)

V (ft/s)

17 18 19 20 21 58.1 116.1 74.8 75.8 228.3 8.1 6.0 73 . 86 . 78 . 8.4 12.0 57 . 55 . 55 . 2.3 22.0 13.3 1. 43 12.6 71.8 66.9 65.9 116.1 94.5

99 . 12.2 12.4

133.8 55.1

(nm) 18.1 13.1 13.9 97.4 104.3 104.3 109.2 107.3 111.2 232.2 110.2 56.1 55.1 121.0 89.5 93.5 281.4 151.5 27.4 15.4 15.9 22.2 15.9 16.0 36.0 22.4 22.0 24.8 8.9 10.4 22.5 26 . 4.4 10.2 8.1 57.1 54.1 5.5 55 . 79 . 80 . 79 .

87 . 96 . 11.0 30.9 15.4

13.9 22.4

45.4 45.0 45.0 47.1 46.2 46.5 65.3 50.7 49.7 35.5

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 91 . 9.6 78 . 21 . 4.4 10.2 47 . 36 . 15 . 39 . 37 . 55 . 55 . 144.6 203.7 75.8 87.6 157.4 72.8 98.4 280.4 152.5 143.7 200.7 76.8 87.6 148.6 71.8 80.7 148.6 62.0 81.7 156.8 57.1 54.1 59.0 62.0 59.0 126.0 123.0 165.3 60.0 69.9 141.7 59.0 66.9 140.7 55.1 52.2 55.1 52.2

89 . 10.7 13.1

79 .

259.8 236.2 238.1 242.1 232.2 232.2 255.8 239.1 239.1 83.6 30.5 37.4 86.6 32.5 89 . 10.2 22.5 1. 44 14.1 14.4 14.1 139.7 131.9 157.4 62.0 71.8 103.3 56.1 64.0 103.3 88.6 87.6 88.2 87.2 13.9 15.9 24.9 13.0 14.4 24.9 44.4 44.2 44.3 44.2 38.4 85.6 232.2 231.2 231.9 231.2

31 32 33

9.4 1. 33

34 35 36

31 . 26 .

31 . 2.4

*Nominal time of rendezvous

Table 7.6 Data Characteristics and Definition of Cases Data Characteristics station Measurement Sampling Rate
1 per 6 sec 1 per 15 rnin 1 per 1 per 1 per 1 per 1 per 1 per 1 per 1 per

Station Location Uncertainties Bias

la
ux

Noise 1u 0.1 ft/s 60 f t 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

uy

(ft) 112 115 174 128 253 141 207 197 410

(ft) 121 131 243 102 453 340 197 210 535

u z (ft)

it
GST ANT HAW MAD CM ASC CNB CRO GUA (when applicable)

0.1 ft/s, 120 f t

,

115 121 240 121 417 358 200 197 633

A

it
it
ft ft

k
k
R

6 sec 6 sec 6 sec 6 sec 6 sec 6 sec 6 sec 6 sec

ft/s
ft/s

ft/s
ft/s

O,$ft/s
&l ft/s 0.1 ft/s 0.1 ft/s

I
1
1

0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

ft/s ft/s

ft/s
ft/s

ft/s ft/s ft/s

ft/s

CASE DEFINITIONS Case 1

Descent to perilune of 45 O longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; W no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-1. Descent to perilune of 45'W longitude; MAD, CM, and ASC tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-1. Descent to perilune of 45OW longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-1. Descent to perilune of 0' longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-1. Descent to perilune of 0" longitude; MAD, CM, and ASC tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-1. Descent to perilune of 0" longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-1. Descent to perilune of 45' E longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-1.

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Case 7

Case 8

Descent to perilune of 45" E longitude; MAD, CYI, and ASC tracking; -no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-1.
--

Case 9

Descent to perilune of 45" E longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-1. Descent to perilune of 45" W longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; a priori knowledge assumed:

Case 10

- altitude, y - range,

- track; Filter-1.

Case 1 - Descent to perilune of 45" W longitude; MAD, CYI, and ASC tracking; 1 a priori knowledge assumed (same as in Case 10); Filter-1. Case 12

Descent to perilune of 45" W longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; a priori knowledge assumed (same a s in Case 10); Filter-1. Descent to perilune of 45 E longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; GST takes range measurements in addition to doppler data; Filter-1. Descent to perilune of 45" W longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-3, three-way doppler biases a r e solved for. Descent to perilune of 45" W longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-3. Descent to perilune of 45"W longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; Filter-3, data contain no biases. Ascent from 45" W longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors assumed to be 9.8 ft/s in each component of the velocity vector; Filter-1. Ascent from 45' W longitude; MAD, CYI, and ASC tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution e r r o r s same a s for case 17; Filter-1.

Case 13

Case 14

Case 15

Case 16

Case 1 7

Case 18

Case 19

Ascent from 45' W longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same as for case 17; Filter-1. Ascent from 0' longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; ,no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same as for case 17; Filter-1. Ascent from 0' longitude; MAD, CYI, and ASC tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same a s for case 17; Filter-1. Ascent from 0' longitude, CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same as for case 17; Filter-1. Ascent from 45' E longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same a s for case 17, Filter-1. Ascent from 45O E longitude; MAD, CM, and ASC tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same a s for case 17; Filter-1. Ascent from 45' E longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same a s for case 17; Filter-1. Ascent from 45'E longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors assumed to be 0.1 ft/sec in each component of the velocity vector; Filter-1. Ascent from 45' E longitude; MAD, CM, and ASC tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution e r r o r s same a s for case 26; Filter-1. Ascent from 45' E longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same as for case 26, Filter-1. Ascent from 45' E longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; a priori knowledge assumed is :

Case 20

Case 21

Case 22

Case 23

Case 24

Case 25

Case 26

Case 27

Case 28

Case 29

x - altitude, y - range, z 26; Filter-1. Case 30

I d

- track;

execution e r r o r s same a s for case

Ascent from 45O E longitude; MAD, CYI, and ASC tracking; a priori knowledge assumed (same a s for case 29); execution e r r o r s same a s for case 26; Filter-1. Ascent from 45" E longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; a priori knowledge assumed (same a s for Case 29); execution e r r o r s same a s for case 26; Filter-1. Ascent from 45O E longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; a priori \ knowledge assumed (same a s for case 29); execution e r r o r s same as for case 26; Filter-1. Ascent from 45O W longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same as for case 17; Filter-3, three-way doppler biases a r e solved for. Ascent from 45O W longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution errors same as for case 17; Filter-3. Ascent from 45" W longitude; ANT, GST, and HAW tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution e r r o r s same as for case 17; Filter-2. Ascent from 45" W longitude; CNB, CRO, and GUA tracking; no a priori knowledge assumed; execution e r r o r s same as for case 17; Filter-2.

Case 31

Case 32

Case 33

Case 34

Case 35

Case 36

BEGINNING OF FREE FALL DESCENT TRAJECTORY BEGINNING SF FREE FALL DESCENT TRAJECTORY \ t o BEGINNING OF FREE FALL DESCENT TRAJECTORY

MOON

'
MOON

-ACQUISITION

TRACKING OD SELENOGRAPH l C LONGITUDE EARTH DESCENT TO OD LONGITUDE CSM ORBIT CIRCULARIZATION MANEUVER t 57
/
\

LONGITUDE

EARTH

EARTH

45" E SELENOGRAPHIC LONGITUDE

DESCENT TO 45" EAST LONGITUDE.

DESCENT TO 45' WEST LONGITUDE.

CIRCULARIZATION ClRCULARlZATlON MANEUVER t 5 7 mi" RENDEZVOUS END

CZM DRRIT. -. .. . . , ,

- -

RENDEZVOUS

, /

I
BEGIN TRACKING
t l hrsmin

M R :;\t

CSM ORBIT 80 nm

t 2 hr 13 min

BEGIN

TRACKING ENDS I F UPDATING

'
TRACKING ENDS TRACKING ENDS I F UPDATING MIDCOURSE TRACKING ENDS I F UPDATING
11 h i 5 7 m i n

TRACKING ENDS

t 1 hr 32 min
TRACKING ENDS
t l hr37min

LAUNCH CUTOFF, -/t o

TRACKING ENDS I[ UPDATING EARTH

RENDEZVOUS TRANSFER

11 hr 43 mi"

'
Figure

I
7.1

t I hr 23 min

MANEUVER
11 hr52min

EARTH

EARTH ASCENT FROM 45' EAST LONGITUDE.

ASCENT FROM 45" WEST LONGITUDE.

ASCENT FROM 0' LONGITUDE

1 1
I
STATION LOCATION YNCERTAINTl Es, a,(ft) GST 'ANT 'HAW MAD 'CYI
I I

I
a,,(ft) 121 131 243 102
I
I

1
o,(ft) 115 121 240 121 1per6sec 1per6sec
I

I
SA![iiNC NOISE, O.lftls 0.1ftls 0.lftls 0.lftls
I

MEASUREMENT uNCERT[lNTIEs

1 I
MY E-; A J

1
I
BIAS, 1 0 0.1 f t l s 0.2ftls O.2ftls 0.1 f t l s 0.2 f t l s

1
la
0.lftls O.1ftls

USBS USBS USBS USBS USBS

I

112 115 174 128 253 141 207

ZOO

k
1per6sec 1per6sec

k ri ri

453 340 197 210 535 633 197 358

417

k
I I
k k k k

1per6sec

'ASC

I
197 410

USBS

lper6secl 1 per 6sec 1per6sec 1per6sec

/
l
0.1 IS 0.1ftls 0.1ftls

0.2ftls

1
I
0.1 f t l s O.2ftls 0.2 f t l s CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3-WAY DOPPLER ="01 lo'' f13'sz

I
CNB .. .

I I USBS 1 ..-.
USBS USBS

1 1

1 1

/ 1

'CRO 'GUA

0 GST + ANT

( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER) + HAW ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER), CASE 1.

MAD + CYI (3-WAY DOPPLER) + ASC ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER), CASE 2.

0 CNB + CRO ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER) + GUA ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER),

CASE 3.

0L 10
I

20 TRACKING TIME

30
(minutes

40

1
14 minutes

Figure 7 . 2 ~ ~ - 3 a p o s i t i o n uncertainties (Filter-1) a t perilune of 4' W. longitude. Tracking starts 5 after insertion into the descent traiectory.

150

100

M A D + C Y I (3-WAY DOPPLER) + ASC ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER), CASE 2.

uv moon ="01
CASE 3.

10'0 n 3 1 s 2

0 CNB + CRO ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER) + GUA ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER),

50

TRACKING TIME (minutes)

a t perilune of

Figure 7 . 2 b - 3 ~ v e l o c i t ~ uncertainties (Filter-1)

45" W. longitude. Tracking starts 14 minutes

after insertion into the descent traiectory.

1
STATION LOCATION

MEASUREMENT

'ANT 'HAW MA0

USBS

115 121 174 243 102 121 417 358 2W 197 633 453 340 197 210 535 240 Q ,
128

131

ri

1per6sec lper6sec lper6sec

1 per 6 s e c 1 per 6 s e c 1 per 6

0.1ftls 0.lftls 0.lftls O.lftls 0.lftls s 0.lftls

O.2ftls O.2ftls 0.lftls

I

I
USBS USBS USBS
I

1
1 1 I

1
I I

I
1
I

I I
253 141 207 197 410

1 1

I I

I
*CYI 'ASC CNB *CRO *GUA USBS USBS USBS

O.2ftls O.2ftls 0:lftls

1per 6 sec

I
USBS

I
I
0.1 f t l s loer6sec 0.lftls O.2ftls

1
0.2ftlspl CHARACTERISTICS FOR )-WAY DOPPLER up -2.01 x lolo n 3 1 s Z

1 I I
0

I I I

1 I 1 1 1

1I 1 1 1 1

1I 1 1 1 1

1I I I 1 1

ri k k k k k

II I I I I

1I 1 1~ 1 1

I I I I I

GST + ANT ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER) + HAW ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER), CASE 4. MAD + CYI (3-WAY DOPPLER) + ASC ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER), CASE 5.

TRACKING TIME ( minutes )

uncertainties (Filter-1) a t perilune of 0" longitude. Tracking starts 29 minutes after insertion i n t o the descent trajectory.

igure 7.3a-3aposition

STATION LOCATION

MEASUREMENT

GST + ANT (3-WAY DOPPLER) + HAW ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER), CASE 4. MAD + CYI (3-WAY DOPPLER) + ASC ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLER), CASE 5.

CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3-WAY DOPPLER lo'' n 3 ' S Z moon

0 CNB
t

CRO (3-WAY DOPPLER)

t

GUA (3-WAY DOPPLER), CASE 6.

I
I

10

20

40

50

TRACKING

30 TIME ( minutes
0 '
longitude. Tracking starts

Figure 7.3b-3avelocity

uncertainties (Filter-1) a t perilune of

29 minutes after

insertion into the descent traiectory.

ftls

mls

90 -

80 -

70 -

0 GST + ANT
MAD + CYI (3-WAY DOPPLER) ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLERI + HAW ( 3 - W A Y DOPPLERI, CASE 7.

60 -

50 + ASC

CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3-WAY DOPPLER

m00"'2.01

0 CNB t CRO 13-WAY DOPPLERI + GUA (3-WAY

(3-WAY DOPPLER), CASE 8. DOPPLER), CASE 9.

1010n3's2

40

30

I
I

20 -

10 I
I

L
10
Figure 7.4b-3avelocity

20

30
TRACKING TIME (minutes)
uncertainties (Filter-1) a t perilune of

40

50

45' E.

longitude.

Tracking starts 43 minutes after insertion into descent traiectory.

100
STATION SYSTEM . STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES MEASURE: SAMPLING MEASUREMENT UNCERTAI NTl ES NOISE, l a BIAS, l a

nm
a,cft)
CNB 'CRO R R USES USES

50 a,(ft) 197
R

90
207 197 1per6sec 1 per 6 sec 410 535 633 210 197 0.1ftls 0.1 ftls 200 lper6sec 0.1ftls

o,(tt,
MENTS RATE

0.1 ftls 0.2 ftls 0.2 ft 1s

80
* GUA
USES

40 * CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3 - WAY DOPPLER

70
b

upmoon =2.01 x i o l 0 n31s2

Z 0

60

V)

30-

Z -

50

-ALL BIASES EXIST, FILTER ASSUMES O N L Y NOISE AFFECTING DATA, CASE 3. -ALL BIASES EXIST, FILTER ASSUMES NOISE A N D THREE- WAY DOPPLER BIASES AFFECTING DATA, CASE 14. -ALL BIASES EXIST, FILTER ASSUMES NOISE A N D ALL BIASES AFFECTING DATA, CASE 15. - N O BIASES EXIST, CASE 16.

V)

f\3

t n

Z -

W C

40

s 5

20-

30

10

20

10

10

20

30

40

50

TRACKING TIME ( m i n u t e s )
u n c e r t a i n t i e s a t p e r i l u n e of 4 ' W. longitude, r e s u l t i n g from d i f f e r e n t assumptions 5 made concerning a n orbit determination scheme.

Figure 7 . 5 1 - 3 u p o s i t i o n

ftls
1
STATION
Ux(ft J Uy(ftJ
I I

I
SYSTEM
Oz(ftJ
I

I
STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES MEASUREMENTS SAMPLING RATE

I
.
NOISE, 1 0
0.1ftls 0.1ftls 0.1ftls

I
MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES

BIAS, 1 0
0.1 f t l s 0.2 ft l s 0.2 ftls

CNB

USBS USBS
197 410 535 633 R 1per6sec 210 197

207

197

200

lperbsec 1per6sec

* CRO
R GUA USBS

I o;,
CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3-WAY DOPPLER 2.01 x 10l0 ft31s2

b -ALL BIASES EXIST, FILTER ASSUMES O N L Y NOISE

0
A
0

AFFECTING DATA, CASE 3. -ALL BIASES EXIST, FILTER ASSUMES NOISE A N D THREE WAY DOPPLER BIASES AFFECTING DATA, CASE 14. -ALL BIASES EXIST, FILTER ASSUMES NOISE A N D ALL BIASES AFFECTING DATA, CASE 15. - N O BIASES EXIST, CASE 16.

TRACKING TIME

(minutes)

Figure 7.5b-3ovelocity

uncertainties of 45' W. longitude, resulting from different assumptions made concerning an orbit determination scheme.

8.0 TRANSEARTH PHASE

8.1

INTRODUCTION

The transearth phase of the Apollo lunar missions is defined a s beginning at the end of the injection burn and ending at the reentry into the earth1-satmosphere. During this phase the MSFN (Manned Spaceflight Network) will be the prime source of navigation data. The purpose of the study presented in this chapter is to evaluate the capability of determining the transearth orbit by using data from the MSFN. Several operational modes (e.g., single and multiple station tracking) have been simulated in this study and some conclusions concerning the operational use of the MSFN have been reached. The study was conducted with certain assumptions concerning the accuracy of the MSFN and with a linear e r r o r analysis program (Reference 1)based on a weighted least squares filtering technique. This e r r o r analysis program was used to evaluate the capability of determining an orbit with data of the assumed characteristics and with a filter which ignored the assumed biases. Further discussion of the assumed data characteristics is contained in the paragraph below. It should be noted that the Apollo real time orbit determination program will account for some bias effects by adjusting the measurement data weighting scheme o r by solving for the known biases explicity or, most probably, by using some combination of these two techniques. Consequently, the results reported below a r e considered to be conservative and a r e subject to change as further studies a r e conducted.

8.2

ASSUMPTIONS

The assumptions on which this study was based a r e consistent with Reference 2. For convenience, however, the uncertainties in station locations, gravitational constants of the earth and moon, and the noise and biases of the MSFN data a r e shown on each graph a s they a r e applicable. Other assumptions which should be noted are:

(1) Injection will occur from an 80 5 nm. lunar parking orbit and on the back side of the moon. Figure 1 is an illustration of a transearth trajectory showing the planned maneuvers.

(2) The vehicle is occulted by the moon for the first 20 minutes after injection, and each midcourse correction burn causes the loss of 5 minutes of tracking data.

8.3

RESULTS

To facilitate the studying and reporting of the MSFN performance, the transearth phase has been divided into five legs with the exception of leg 2; these legs begin and end with one of the planned maneuvers (e.g., injection and midcourse corrections). Leg 2 ends a t entry into ESOI (earth's sphere of influence) which is an artificial break established for the purpose of analysis and should logically be considered a part of leg 3. The legs of the transearth phase a r e defined a s follows: Leg 1 correction. Leg 2

From end of injection burn to initiation of first midcourse

From end of first midcourse correction to entry into ESOI.

Leg 3 - From entry into ESOI to initiation of second midcourse correction. . Leg 4 - From end of second midcourse correction to initiation of third midcourse correction. Leg 5 - From end of third midcourse correction to reentry (400,000 feet altitude). Each of these legs is nominally associated with a time from injection a s shown by the upper scale of the schematic below. The lower scale of this schematic defines the time scale which is used in preparing the graphs of the results of this study.

INJECTION ENTRY INTO ESOl TlME SCALE F R O TRANSEARTH P A E HS

REENTRY

I
1
20 40

I
I
I
60 1
I 80 hr

TlME SCALE FOR LEGS 1 AND 2 TlME SCALE F R O LEGS 3 4 AND 5 ,

13 hr

I 20

I
40

I
60

I
80 hr

The uncertainties that a r e depicted in the graphs a r e computed at various times in the legs and an explanation of the annotation of these computations is given below. t=O This statement on a graph indicates that the uncertainties a r e of the orbit parameters at the beginning of the leg. This statement indicates that the uncertainties a r e of the orbit parameters at 30 minutes after the time against which they a r e plotted. This illustrates the accuracy with which an update of the onboard system can be made after a period of tracking, data processing, etc. This statement indicates that the uncertainties a r e computed at the nominal time of reentering the earth's atmosphere.

t + 30 min.

Reentry

In all of the above cases the uncertainties a r e plotted on the same time scale a s the station coverage periods and, thus, one can determine how the MSFN navigation capability varies with tracking time and tracking coverage.

8.3.1

Leg 1

- Navigational Accuracies at Injection

The results of the analysis for this leg illustrate the MSFN performance in the determination of position and velocity at transearth injection and the effects

of the uncertainties in predicting the vehicle's position and velocity 30 minutes in advance of MSFN tracking. Five cases (operational modes) were simulated in the analysis for this leg and a r e as follows: Case 1: Range, range rate, and angular measurements a r e used and a priori knowledge is assumed. Case 2: The same a s case 1without a priori knowledge. Case 3: The same a s case 2 except that angle measurements a r e taken for only the first 15 minutes. Case 4: Madrid and Ascension tracking simultaneously with angle measurements from Madrid for the first 15 minutes and no a priori knowledge assumed. Case 5: Same a s case 4 with Texas added. The uncertainties in position and velocity a r e referenced to t = 0 (Figures 8.2a and 8.2b) and propagated to t + 30 minutes (Figures 8 . 2 ~ and 8.2d).

8.3.2

Leg 2

Navigational Accuracies for Entry into the ESOI

The results of the analysis illustrate the uncertainties in position and velocity at t .t 30 min. (Figures 8.3a and 8.3b). Two cases were simulated for the analysis for this leg and a r e as follows: Case 1: Three stations tracking simultaneously and a priori knowledge is assumed. Case 2: The same as case 1without a priori knowledge.

8.3.3

Leg 3

Navigational Accuracies at the Second Midcourse Correction

The results of the analysis illustrate the uncertainties in position and velocity at t + 30 min. (Figures 8.4a and 8.4b).

Two cases were simulated: Case 1: Goldstone, Canberra, and Madrid alternately tracking in the 2-way doppler mode and no a priori knowledge is assumed. Case 2: Same a s case 1with a priori knowledge assumed.

8.3.4

Leg 4

- Navigational Accuracies

for the Third Midcourse Correction

The results of the analysis show the uncertainties in the spacecraft's position, velocity, and geocentric radius at t + 30 min. (Figures 8.5a through 8 . 5 ~ ) . Two cases were simulated: Case 1: Three stations tracking simultaneously and a priori knowledge is assumed. Because of its long viewing period, the USBS at Guam was used in the two-way doppler mode. Case 2: Same a s case 1 with no a priori knowledge assumed.

8.3.5

Leg 5

- Navigational Accuracies

at Reentry

The results of the analysis illustrate the uncertainties in position, velocity, geocentric radius, and ground speed at reentry. (Figures 8.6a through 8.6d). It should be noted that, although the trajectory assumed for this analysis can be viewed from ground located stations up to five minutes before reentry, i t is entirely possible for reentry to occur such that the vehicle cannot be viewed from the ground for the last 30 minutes o r more before reentry. Two cases were simulated: Case 1: Madrid tracks the vehicle for the first 17 minutes and Guam tracks the vehicle up to five minutes before reentry. No a priori knowledge of the vehicle's position and velocity is assumed. Case 2: Same a s case 1 with a priori knowledge assumed.

8.4

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The results, presented below, represent how well the MSFN can do f o r a likely station and data utilization plan and suggest means for improving this utilization plan. Where improvement in navigational accuracy s e e m s desirable, there a r e many avenues open which were not explored such as:
(1) Utilization of onboard data

(2) A more rigorous use of a priori knowledge (3) Solving f o r the three-way doppler biases
(4) Utilization of more multiple station tracking data
(5) Alternating assignments more frequently between the stations using two-way doppler.

8.4.1

Leg 1

The reason the one station solution with a priori knowledge information is so accurate is that the a priori knowledge accounts only f o r injection e r r o r s and not f o r the uncertainties p r i o r to the injection bum. The case was run f o r the purpose of determining the value of a priori knowledge for the one station tracking situation. Leg 1 also demonstrates that with the filter used the processing of angles, after fifteen minutes, is a detriment rather than an aid.

8.4.2

Leg 2

The last 11 hours in the lunar sphere of influence a r e interesting in that they exhibit the possible fluctuations in solution accuracy due to station geometry. ANT, HAW, and GST offered a good geometrical view of the vehicle. The switch from ANT to CNB a t 8 hr. and 30 min. resulted in a n increase in position uncertainty because the vehicle was effectively in the same plane a s CNB, GST, and HAW. (Figure 8.3a). A corresponding change in the slope of the velocity uncertainty curves can be seen in Figure 8.3b. These figures also show that the difference between the assumed and no a priori knowledge has little effect after about two hours of tracking.

This leg was separated from leg 2 for computational reasons only. In the long span of time ]available, the effect of a priori knowledge decreases. Because of the excessive amount of data available, the three station solution procedure was dropped in favor of sequential one station solutions. A more rapid reduction of uncertainty could be effected by use of simultaneous tracking o r more rapid switching between stations. For results see Figures 8.4a and 8.4b.

8.4.4

Leg 4

During this ten hour span, the three station solution procedure was resumed. A comparison of the uncertainties in position and radius (Figures 8.5a and 8 . 5 ~ )show that the major uncertainty is in the orientation of the radius vector.

8.4.5

Leg 5

There is little choice in selection of stations during this leg. For the analysis all available data was used. Even without a priori information the uncertainties in position, velocity, radius, and speed at reentry a r e less than 0.54 nm. (1km), 7 ft/s (2 m/s), 0.3 nm (0.5 km) and 2 ft/s (0.5 m/s), respectively. This accuracy was achieved by 40 minutes of tracking in the last hour, and little improvement was achieved during the last twenty minutes. However, continuous coverage for the first 40 minutes may not always be available for all incoming trajectories. This, and its effect, must be investigated.

8.5

SUMMARY

By the time of the first, second and third midcourse corrections and by the time of reentry the ground will know the position and velocity uncertainties to:

Position Uncertainty

(Out-of plane position cornponent uncertainty) 47.5 nm (88 km) 7.3 nm (13.5 km) 21 nm (39 km) 0.75 nm (1.4 km)

Velocity Uncertainty

By time of first midcourse correction By time of second midcourse correction By time of third midcourse correction By time of reentry

49 nm (90 km)
1 nm 1 (20 km)

39 ft/s (12 m/s) 0.82 ft/s (0.25 m/s)

7 ft/s (2 m/s)

22 nm (40 k m ) 0.8 nm (1.5 km)

10 ft/s (3 m/s)

For the midcourse corrections the answers a r e referenced to the time of the maneuver and tracking was terminated 30 minutes prior to each maneuver to allow time for the ground to compute and execute an update and time for the vehicle to align for the maneuver.

8.6

CONCLUSIONS

The results that a r e presented in this study represent how well the MSFN can do for a likely station and data utilization plan and suggest means for improving this utilization plan. The results for leg 1 (Figures 8.2a and 8.2b) indicate that three stations, tracking in the 3-way doppler mode, a r e no better than two in determining the orbit subsequent to injection and prior to the first midcourse correction. This leads to the conclusion that the biases on the data (being ignored by the ODP) a r e cancelling the usefulness of the data from the third radar. Therefore, the following table is presented to show that when the biases a r e accounted for, in the ODP, three stations a r e much better than two, a s expected.

Orbit Determination Program Time After injection (hr:min) Ignores biases (Figure 8.2a) MAD, ASC 35, (nm) 15.1 14.0 MAD, ASC, TEX 3uP (nm) 40.4 14.6 Solves for all Biases Listed on Figure 8.2a MAD, ASC ~ CP T (nm) 14.1 5.3 MAD, ASC, TEX 30- (nm) P 10.4 2.6

00:35 2:35

A p r i o r i information is not a critical factor in determining the orbit when several hours of tracking is available (based upon the results for legs 2 through 5)The uncertainties in position and velocity f o r the f i r s t midcourse correction a r e 54 nm (100 km) and 39 ft/s (11.5 m/s), assuming no a priori knowledge. The uncertainties in position and velocity f o r the second midcourse cor1 rection a r e 1 nm (20 km) and 0.9 ft/s (0.3 m / ~ ) . The uncertainties in position, velocity, and radius for the third midcourse correction a r e 23 nm (43 km), 6 ft/s (1.8 m / s ) , and 1.2 nm (2.2 km) , respectively.

Based upon the f i r s t 40 minutes of tracking, the uncertainties in position, velocity, radius, and ground speed at reentry a r e 0.8 nm (1.5 km), 10 ft/s (3.1 m/s), 0.25 nm (0.46 km), and 2 ft/s (0.6 m/s), respectively.

8.7 8.7.1

APPENDIX A - COORDINATE SYSTEMS Coordinate System for Station Location

The coordinate system is earth centered with the x-axis passing through the prime meridian, the z-axis in the direction of the earth's angular momentum vector and the y-axis such a s to form a right-hand orthogonal system.

8.7.2

Vehicular Coordinate System

The coordinate system i s an inertial earth o r moon centered (depending upon the reference body) coordinate system with-the x-axis pointing toward the vehicle, a t time t = 0, the z-axis in the direction of the orbital angular momentum vector and the y-axis such a s to form a right-hand orthogonal system.

8.8 8.8.1

APPENDIXB-TRAJECTORIES Trajectory A

This trajectory is a conic section generated from the following initial conditions. Moon Referenced AT TIME 0 Radius (nm) 1022.973 Inclination to Moon's Equator 175.95O Velocity (ft/s) Tangential 8008.566 The vehicle is ascending in its lunar orbit. Moon with Respect to Earth E-M Distance (nm) 207577.08 Inclination of Moon's Orbit to Earth's Equator 28.67O Sublunar Point att=O 10N, 15OW Radial 202.4777 Subvehicle Point Latitude Longitude 1.44's 149.48 O W

The moon i s ascending in its orbit.

8.8.2

Trajectory B

This trajectory is a conic section generated f r o m the following initial conditions Earth Referenced

AT TIME
0

Radius (nm) 17 8,762.8906

Inclination t o Earth1s Equator 37.92

O

Subvehicle Point Latitude Longitude 25.781N 123.4'

Velocity (ft/s) Tangential 703.01224 And the vehicle is ascending in its orbit. Radial -1897.105752

8.9 APPENDIX C

- COMPONENTS

OF ASSTJMED A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE Velocity (ft/s)

Position (nm)

0,

*Y
0.09

ci
2.21

0'

. -

0.06 Leg 2 1.62 Leg 3 .59 Leg 4 2.16 Leg 5 14.04

0.42

.95

1.48

1.62

4.32

6.56

6.56

16.40

8.35

41.94

0.39

1.44

6.89

2.70

4.32

3.28

3.28

16.40

14.04

8.64

6.56

6.56

13.12

8.10

APPENDIX D - CHECK OUT PROCEDURES

The e r r o r analysis program that was used to obtain the results presented in this chapter has been thoroughly checked out during the past two years.

In addition, results from the program have been compared to orbital accuracies based on real time data (Ranger and Gemini) f o r earth orbits and were found to compare favorably therewith. The same assumptions were made for this study a s were made in the comparison and, therefore, the results a s presented a r e considered to be conservative estimates of the capability of the MSFN.

8.11

REFERENCES

1. "Description of Orbit E r r o r Analysis Program," Volumes 1 and 2, BissettBerman Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., July and August, 1965. 2. MSC-GSFC, ANWG Report No. 65-AN-1.0, "Apollo Missions and Navigation Systems Characteristics," February 5, 1965.

INITIATION OF BURN CSM PARKING ORBIT

1ST MIDCOURSE CORRECTION

2ND MIDCOURSE CORRECTION

3 D MIDCOURSE R

EARTH ATMOSPHERE

Figure 8.1-Geometry

for earth transfer orbit

fi

n
I

n
L

0 00:OO
I

00:lO

00:20

00:30

OO:M

00:50

01:OO

01:lO

01:20

01:30 01:M

0
I

01:50
TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes)

02:OO

02:lO

02:20

02:30

02:40

Figure 8.2a-Navigational

accuracies for transearth iniection.

P o s i t i o n uncertainties (reference t o t=O min.) leg.

1.

mls

ftls TRAJECTORY A

5m

r
LEGEND:

0-MAD ONLY.
4 -MAD
ONLY, NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE.
+

WITH A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE. WITH ANGLES CASE 1

-MAD ONLY. NO A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE. WITH ANGLES CASE 2

CASE 3 CASE 4

A
=MAD NO A PRIORI. CASE 5

ASC (3-WAY DOPPLER). NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE..

0 - l E X (3-WAY DOPPLER) + MAD + ASC 13-WAY DOPPLER).

ANGLE DATE u s m FOR FIRST 15 mtn

MI:MI
00:30 00:40 0030

MI:10

00:20

01:OD 01:lO 01:20 01:30 01:40 01:50 TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes )

02:OO

02:10

02:20

02:30

02:40

: $
Figure 8.2b-Velocity uncertainties (reference to t

TEX

}
= 0 min.)
leg

TRACK

5000 A P R l O R l KNOWLEDGE

km

4000 TRAJECTORY A

U p = . 4 3 nm, 0, =2.82 f t l s

2000 -

700 LEGEND:

600 0 -MAD
Q

ONLY, WlTH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. WITH ANGLES CASE 1

-MAD ONLY. NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE, WlTH ANGLES CASE 2

500 A
=MAD
t

-MAD ONLY, NO A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE.

CASE 3

ASC 13-WAY DOPPLER). NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE.

t

'
ASC (3-WAY DOPPLER). CASE 5

CASE 4

0 - T E x 13-WAY DOPPLER) + MAD NO A PRIORI,

400 -

ANGLE DATE USED FOR FIRST 15 rnin

300 -

200 -

100 I

0 0O:OO 00:20 00:30 00:40 00:50 01:OO

0O:lO

01:lO

01:20

01:30

01:40

01:50

02:OO

02:lO

02:20

02:30

O2:N

TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes)

'
MAD ASC
T U
)

TRACKING

,
+ 30 rnin.)
leg

Figure 8 . 2 ~ - P o s i t i o n uncertainties (propagated t o t

mls

I
q
TRAJECTORY A
STATION LOCATION MEASUREMENT

3000 -

ftls

A P R l O R l KNOWLEDGE 0, =.43 nm, 0 , -2.82 f t l s

2500

E. 2 1500 up
-2.01 x lo10n31s=
'CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3-WAY DOPPLER b

2000

? 1000 5

\
LEGEND:

V)

W
O .MAD
-MAD ONLY. NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE.. .MAD
+

Z CASE 3

+
.MAD ONLY. NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE. W I M ANGLES CASE 2

ONLY. WITH A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE. WITH ANGLES CASE 1

i 5
\

5 U
\ \
\
\
ANGLE DATE USED FOR FIRST 15 m l n

d A

ASC 13-WAY DOPPLER). NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE,. DOPPERI + MAD + ASL ,,-WAY CASE 5 DOPrltKl,

CASE 4

0-TD: 13-WAY

100-

\
.

NO A PRIORI,

50

TIME FROM INJECTION (hours: minutes) TEX Figure 8.2d-Velocity uncertainties (propagated t o t t
J

30 min.) leg 1

A P R l O R l KNOWLEDGE

900
TRAJECTORY A

fils

u p=4.91 nm, 0,=18.70

800

700

600
'CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3 - W A Y DOPPLER

500

400

LEGEND:

0 =NO A

PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

0 = W I T H A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 1

300

200 -

02:00

03:OO

04:OO

05:N

06:OO 07:OO 08:N 09:OO TIME FROM INJECTION, (hours: minutes)

1O:OO

11:OO

12:OO

13:OO

ANT CNB

Figure 8 . 3 ~ - P o s i t i o n uncertainties (propagdted t o t + 30 min.) leg 2. Navigational accuracies for e n t r y into ESOI.

mls

ftls
STATION LOCATION MEASUREMENT MEASURESAMPLING RATE NOISE* l o BIAS, l o UNCERTAINTIES STATION
U,I~~I
I

1
SYSTEM UNCERTAINTIES

up'4.91
o,(n)
MENTS
I
I

A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE nm, 0, -18.70 ftls

TRAJECTORY A
u,I~)
I

GST

USES

112

121

115

r,
-=

2.01 x 1010n31~2

'CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3- WAY DOPPLER LEGEND:

0-NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

0 .WllH A ~ P R I O R IKNOWLEDGE CASE 1

02:OO

I
1

I
I

03:OO

04:OO

05:OO

M:00

07:00

08:OO
(hours:

09:OO
minutes )

10:OO

1l:OO

12:oO

13:OO

TIME FROM INJECTION,

TRACK lNG
$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

GST ASC HAW' ANT ~CN B uncertainties (propagated to t

I
+ 30 min.)
leg

Figure 8.3b-Velocity

2.

GOLDSTONE MADRID
accuracies for second midcourse corrections. Position uncertainties (propagated to t

Figure 8.4a-Navigational

+ 30 min.)

leg

3.

ftls

mls

I
A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE TRAJECTORY B

200,000

600

LEGEND:

0=NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

0 *WITH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 1

1O:OO 20:00 30:OO 40 :00 5O:OO 6O:OO

0O:OO

TIME FROM ENTRY INTO ESC;I (hours: minutes)

MADRID Figure 8.4b-Velocitv uncertainties ( ~ r o ~ a a a t e d t to

+ 30 rnin.)

lea 3.

U =5.6 nm, U,=17.06 ftls

A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE

TRAJECTORY B

*CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3-WAY DROPPLER

LEGEND.

0=NO A
PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 2 PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 1

0 =WITH A

0
53:OO 54:OO

I
I

>

52 :00

55:OO

56:OO

57:OO

58:OO

59:OO

60:OO

61 :00

62:OO

63:OO

TIME FROM ENTRY INTO ESOl (hours: minutes

M " CRO ' MAD

accuracies for third midcourse correction. Position uncertainties (propagated to t

}
+30 min.) leg 4.

TRACKING

Figure 8.5a-Navigational

ftls

mls

I
a =5.6 nm, u,=17.06

I
P
A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE ftls

9-

7
TRAJECTORY B

6 -

0.wA
PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE CASE 2 A PRIOR1 KNOWEDGE CASE I

0.WllH

3 -

1
I

I
I I I I I

54:OO 55:OO

0 52 :00

53 :00

56 :00 57:OO 58:oO 59:OO TIME FROM ENTRY INTO ESOl (hours: minutes)

6O:OO

61 :00

62:OO

63:OO

MAD
Figure 8.5b-Velocity uncertainties (propagated to t

+ 30 min.)

leg

4.

I
SYSTEM
1 I

I
STATION LOCATION UNCERTAINTIES MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES

I
STATION

\ \

\
*CHARACTERISTICS FOR 3 - W A Y DROPPLER

\
LEGEND:

a\
0-NO A
PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 2 PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 1

\
0 =WITH A

a P -5.6
TRAJECTORY B

A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE nm, a1.6 ;70 ftls

TIME FROM ENTRY INTO ESOl (hours: minutes)

MAD
Radius uncertainties (propagated to t

Figure 8.5~-Navigational accuracies for third midcourse correction.

+30 min.)

leg 4.

LEGEND:

0 =NO A
PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE CASE 1

0= W
I A ~PRIORI KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

TIME TO REENTRY (minutes)

GUAM MADRID
accuracies for reentry. Position uncertainties to reentry) leg

)
5.

TRICKING

Figure 8.6a-Navigational

ftls

1
TRAJECTORY B

m 1s

A PRIOR1 KNOWLEDGE Op=21.7 nm, Or=16.07 ftls

150 LEGEND:

0 =NO A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 1 0 - A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE CASE 2 WITH

100

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

TIME TO REENTRY (minutes )

%

@gjgg&gFg$gg& g@$$g>#p@@@gB

~+" ~*6*~v ~ ~ F;**+ ** *w*v ,&a;$%&$&2~*z@;@$&&$s+~&&w~w&$&<$~&&$&d;$ , $

m+x Vh+*
t"

'+W

V. * "

5.

.... " V " *

GUAM MADRID

TRACKING

Figure 8.6b-Velocity uncertainties (propagated to reentry) leg

Figure 8 . 6 ~ - R a d i u s uncertainties (propagated to reentry) leg

5.

mls 100

A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE up-21.7 nm, a,=16.07 f i l s TRAJECTORY B

> ftls

LEGEND:

g
0 -NO A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE CASE 1 0 -WITH A PRlORl KNOWLEDGE CASE 2

200-

t t

c e

Y n

50

5 150 d a -

re

40

100

30

V)

W VL

20

z z
50 40

I -

50-

U Z

E5

10

O-

0 60

30 TIME TO REENTRY (minutes

20

10

el

.
speed uncertainties (propagated to reentry) leg

Figure 8.6d-Ground

5.

9.0 REENTRY PHASE

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the navigational problems encountered during the earth reentry phase of an Apollo lunar mission. The navigational accuracies a t the point of atmospheric reentry that a r e required to complete a safe single pass reentry a r e defined by a reentry corridor. It will be the function of the midcourse navigation and guidance system to s t e e r to a point in this corridor that will ensure a safe reentry. Safe reentry will be defined to mean a reentry within a corridor that prevents undershoot and its accompanying excess aerodynamic loads o r overshoot and an uncontrolled exit back into space. Throughout the reentry phase, the onboard inertial navigation system will be the primary method of navigation. In addition, operational requirements on the lunar mission specify that the Command Module be tracked by r a d a r during a skip-out portion of the reentry trajectory (Reference 1). However, the tracking system to be used has not been specified at this time; therefore, no tracking e r r o r s a r e presented for this phase. Emphasis will be placed on the capabilities of the onboard inertial system and the Manned Space Flight Network will be discussed in future revisions t o this document. The problems associated with positioning the ship and tracking during reentry a r e discussed from the point of view of the Command Module range capabilities and communications "blackout" during reentry.

9.2

ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCEDURES

9.2.1 Definition of Reentry Phase The aerodynamic portion of the phase is assumed to begin when the Command Module reaches an altitude of 400,000 feet (122 km). This phase is assumed to terminate a t an altitude of 24,000 feet (15 km) . The reentry trajectory that the Command Module will follow is a function of the steering commands that a r e generated by the onboard guidance system which i n turn a r e a function of the onboard navigational measurements combined with the targeting data in the Apollo Guidance Computer.

9.2.2 Reentry Corridor The reentry corridor is defined by the conditions a t the beginning of the earth's atmosphere (assumed 400,000 feet altitude) that will allow a safe reentry of the Command Module. It is the function of the midcourse guidance system to s t e e r to a point within the reentry corridor such that the estimates of the position and velocity combined with the uncertainties in these quantities a r e still within the corridor. The concept of the reentry corridor was discussed by Chapman (Reference 2) and is presented pictorially by Figure 9.1. The numerical values that define the corridor f o r the Apollo Command Module a r e presented in Figures 9.3a to 9.3h. The technique that was used to compute the reentry corridor is described i n Reference 3 which was the source of the information presented here. The reentry corridor is formed by overshoot and undershoot boundaries, a s the lower and upper limits, respectively. The overshoot boundary as used in this report is formed by the reentry conditions (inertial velocity and flight path angle) that will enable the spacecraft to be captured by the earth's gravitational field and atmosphere on the first attempt. Both positive and negative lift overshoot boundaries a r e shown on the figures. The u s e of negative lift has the effect of increasing the corridor width t o allow for more flexibility a t the reentry interface. The conditions on both of these overshoot boundaries result i n equilibrium glide conditions when the flight path angle passes through zero. Equilibrium glide is defined t o be the condition when the time r a t e of change of flight path angle equals zero ( 9 = 0). Thus, with an equilibrium condition a t the point when the flight path angle equals zero, it is possible t o prevent the altitude from increasing and thus an uncontrolled skip out. The negative lift overshoot boundarv is defined bv a lift vector down attitude from reentry to the point when the flight path angle equals zero. The positive lift overshoot boundary is based on a l i f t vector up orientation from the reentry interface until zero flight path angle, but with lift vector instantaneously r e oriented to 1 5 degrees from the lift vector down attitude at zero flight path angle. This approximate l i f t vector down attitude is required to maintain an equilibrium glide condition. The 15 degree orientation from the l i f t vector down position is to compensate for the finite time required to roll from the lift vector up (positive lift) to the lift vector down attitude (negative lift). The undershoot boundary is defined a s the reentry conditions that will not exceed a specified "g" limit between the reentry interface and the point that the flight path angle equals zero.

To account for atmospheric density deviations from the 1962 U. S. Standard Atmosphere, the effect of density deviation was evaluated using the change of density defined in Reference 7. This density deviation i s also presented in Figure 9.2 of this report. The effect of a negative deviation of the atmosphere on the overshoot boundaries is to reduce the width of the corridor. For the undershoot boundaries, however, the corridor is reduced by either a positive or negative density deviation depending on the reentry velocity. The reentry corridors a r e shown in Figures 9.3a through 9.3d, in terms of reentry inertial flight path angle for lift-to-drag ratios (L /b ) of 0.2, 0.3, 0.34, and 0.4, respectively. An alternate means of describing the reentry corridors is vacuum perigee altitude. The corridors a r e presented in Figures 9.3e to 9.3h for the same values of lift-to-drag ratio.

9.2.3 Unusual Problems During Reentry There a r e two unique problem areas in the acquisition and tracking of the Command Module from the ground during the reentry phase.
1. The Command Module will have the capability to move in a lateral direction a s well a s down range.

2. There will be communications blackout during a significant portion of the flight. The lateral capability of the Command Module is desirable from a guidance point of view but adds to the difficulty of placing a tracking ship along the flight path. The lateral capabilities of the Command Module for lift-to-drag ratios of 0.3 to 0.4 a s a function of range a r e presented in Figures 9.4a to 9.4g. These results also show the predicted communications blackout boundaries that can be expected during the flight. It should be noted that the problem of predicting the onset and termination of communications blackout has not been completely resolved at present (Reference 4); therefore, these curves should be used with caution. Furthermore, the lateral capabilities of the Command Module a r e based on current estimates of the spacecraft aerodynamic characteristics which a r e also subject to revision. However, these curves may be used for present planning purposes and will be updated a s more current information becomes available. Lift-to-drag ratios of 0.3 and 0.4 were chosen because they bound the nominal ratio of 0.34. There is a requirement for the Command Module to be tracked during a skip-out phase of the reentry trajectory. However, the equipment t o be used by the tracking ship during reentry has not been specified at the present time. Consequently, the discussion of the tracking ship will be deferred until future revisions of this document.

9.2.4

Capabilities of the Onboard Inertial Navigation System

Throughout the reentry phase the primary means of navigation will be the self-contained, onboard inertial navigation system. I t is the purpose of this section to discuss the e r r o r s in indicated position at the termination of the r e entry trajectory. In order to prevent the necessity of a classified appendix to this volume, the results of the inertial guidance system e r r o r analysis will not be presented here. The reader is referred to Reference 6 for the absolute values of the system performance. Position e r r o r s have been computed separately for each hardware e r r o r source and a r e tabulated in Reference 6 for reentry t r a jectories of 1500 and 5000 nautical mile total range. A discussion of the results will be presented here, however. Assumptions and Method of Analysis The following assumptions a r e pertinent to the analysis and interpretation of data contained in Reference 6.
1. The position and velocity uncertainties due t o the various Inertial

Measurement Unit e r r o r t e r m s a r e predicted uncertainties. No steering e r r o r s were assumed. The uncertainties in position were computed separately for each sensor e r r o r t e r m using an a r r a y of e r r o r equations and the input position and acceleration profile from the trajectory data. These equations take into account the effect of the position e r r o r on the gravity vector computation.
2. The Inertial Measurement Unit was aligned prior to reentry.
3. The data in the e r r o r tables (Reference 6) a r e given relative to local

vertical axis (altitude, track, range) at an altitude of 50,000 feet.

4. An "open loop" method of analysis was used to propagate inertial system e r r o r s t o termination of a reentry trajectory. "Open loop7' in this case means that the e r r o r s in position and velocity were not propagated through the guidance equations which would cause erroneous steering commands. Reference 5 gives a description of the type of analysis used. A comparison of this technique with a complete flight simulation computer program indicated a difference of about 20 percent, item for item, and about 10 percent for the total root-sum-square.

The onboard inertial navigation system consists of the following components.

1. Inertial Measurement Unit

2. Display and Control Unit

3. Digital Guidance Computer

The navigational uncertainties due to hardware e r r o r s in the Inertial Measurement Unit will be discussed in this chapter. The following local coordinate system i s defined for the termination of the reentry trajectory and is applicable to the following discussion of the onboard system.
Y (ALTITUDE)

The X-axis is in the local horizontal along the velocity vector, Y is the local vertical (up) and Z completes the right-hand triad. The accuracy of the onboard inertial system is a function of the components in the system. The component e r r o r sources considered in the analysis a r e accelerometer e r r o r s and gyro e r r o r s and a r e tabulated below. Accelerometers
1. Bias

2. Scale Factor

3. Non-Orthogonality

4. Acceleration Squared Sensitive Indication Gyros

1. Null Bias Drift

2. Acceleration Sensitive Drift

3. Acceleration Squared Sensitive Drift

The following generalized e r r o r models were used for the study:

1. Accelerometer Error Model

AA, = B + (SF)AI + (GSEN)A: where

+ (N0)Aj

A, = Sensed acceleration along accelerometer input axis AJ = Sensed acceleration along J~~axis normal to A,
B = Accelerometer bias e r r o r

SF = Accelerometer scale factor error GSEN = Accelerometer sensitivity to input acceleration squared N = Accelerometer input axis misalignments O
2. Gyro Drift Model

4 = BIAS + (ADIA)A, + AD(,,)

where BIAS = Null bias drift

, )

A :

ADIA = Acceleration sensitive drift A=(,,)

(,A)

= Acceleration squared sensitive drift

3. Initial Platform Misalignment

9.3

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

It was found that the errors in the components of the inertial system themselves contribute little to the final position e r r o r s as compared with the initial condition errors or the initial platform misalignment error. The misalignment about the vertical propagates primarily into track errors; the misalignment about the downrange axis propagates into track errors; and the misalingment about the track axis propagates into altitude and range errors.

The seven inertial component e r r o r sources that were considered (see page 9-6) were assumed to be uncorrelated. The accelerometer with the input axis along the vertical does not propagate any of the accelerometer e r r o r sources into a track error, whereas the accelerometer with the input axis normal to the trajectory plane does not propagate any of the accelerometer e r r o r sources into altitude o r range errors at touchdown. The accelerometer with its input axis along the range axis does not propagate any of its e r r o r sources into track e r r o r s at final touchdown. The gyro with its input axis normal to the trajectory plane does not propagate any of its e r r o r sources into track errors at final touchdown. The accelerometer bias errors cause the largest final position e r r o r s of the inertial components with the null bias drift and the gyro acceleration sensitive drift the next largest e r r o r sources, respectively.

9.4

LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE

The e r r o r analysis technique that was described is termed an "open-loop" e r r o r analysis. The errors a r e integrated based on a pre-stored guided reentry trajectory that is generated with a perfect stable platform and initial conditions. This technique had been compared with what is termed a "closed loop1' e r r o r analysis. The "closed loop1' e r r o r analysis uses a guided reentry with an imperfect stable platform and initial conditions to generate steering commands. Hence, the steering commands a r e based on indicated position and velocity. The difference between the two analyses is about 20 percent, item for item, and better than 10 percent for the total root-sum-square.

9.5

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The editor wishes to acknowledge the contributions to this chapter by Messrs. James Adams and Aaron Cohen of the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas. They contributed the data on the reentry corridors and Inertial Guidance System e r r o r analysis, respectively.

9.6

REFERENCES

1. Program Support Requirements tion (p. 1410.01), April, 1965.

- Apollo/Saturn

V, Vol. 1 , General Informa-

2. Chapman, D.R., "An Analysis of the Corridor and Guidance Requirements for Supercircular Entry into Planetary Atmospheres," NASA Technical Report R-55, 1960. 3. Adams, J.H., "Apollo Rentry Corridors, " Manned Spacecraft Center Memorandum 65-FM5-32, June 29, 1965. 4. Lehnert, R. and Rosenbaum, B., "Plasma Effects on Apollo Reentry Communication," NASA Technical Note D-2732, March, 1965.
5. Harter, G. A., "Inertial Guidance," (Chapter 12) edited by G. R. Pitman, J r . , J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.
6. Cohen, A,, "Apollo Reentry Guidance Requirements," Manned Spacecraft Center, Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, 1965.

7. Smith, 0. E. and Chenoweth, H. B., "Range of Density Variation from Surface to 120 km Altitude, " NASA Technical Note D-162, July, 1961.

SKIP OUT CANNOT BE PREVENTED

PERIGEE OF OVERSHOOT BOUNDARY TRAJECTORY

BOUNDARY TRAJECT

' \

\
' \ \

' .

1
\\\

Figure

9.1 -Reentry corridor.

DENSITY DEVIATION (percent)

Figure 9.2-Altitude versus density deviation

I
10 11 REENTRY INERTIAL VELOC lTY

I
12

kmls

I 9

I 13

Figure 9.3a-Reentry

corridor a s a function of reentry inertial velocity,

L /D = 0.200.

OVERSHOOT BOUNDARY

---- 1962 U.S.

1962 U. S STANDARD ATMOSPHERE . STANDARD ATMOSPHERE ( - DENSITY DEVIATION) 1962 U.S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE (+DENSITY DEVIATION) NOTE: L / D = 0.300

UNDERSHOOT BOUNDARY

\
\

'\ .

-.
---

. .
------G 8

POSITIVE LIFT

--- 10 G
1
35

-8.0
25

20

30

I 40

45

f t l s x lo3

REENTRY l NERTlAL VELOC ITY

corridor a s a function of reentry inertial velocity,

Figure 9.3b-Reentry

L / D = 0.300.

-0.5

I
OVERSHOOT BOUNDARY

---- 1962 U. 1962 U. -- -- 1962 U.

S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE (-DENSITY DEVIATION) S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE (+DENSITY DEVIATION ) NOTE:
8

- 2.0
1n-n
3,

-4.5
UNDERSHOOT BOUNDARY

-6.5 -

.
8G

POSITIVE

-7.0 -

-7.5 -

----- -

---- lOG -,
4

12 G

-x n .

f t l s x lo3

REENTRY INERTIAL VELOCITY Figure 9.3~-Reentry corridor a s a function of reentry inertial velocity,

L / D = 0.340.

( s a a ~ b f)3NV H l V d - 1 H 3 1 U l V l l t l 3 N I AtllN33Y ~

nm
OVERSHOOT BOUNDARY NEGATIVE LlFT

50 -

------- - _ _ _
8G

- -- _ _- POSITIVE LlFT - -_ _ _10 G 12 G

NOTE: L/D = 0.300

0-

-50 -

-100 -

----

1962 U. S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE 1962 U.S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE (-DENSITY D N W I O N ) 1962 U. S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE (+DENSITY DEVIATION)

- 150 -

-200 -

- 250 -

-300 UNDERSHOOT BOUNDARY

I .

20
I

25

30

35

40

45 ft I S x lo3

I
9

I
10

I
11
REENTRY INERTIAL VELOC lTY

I
12
13

I 8

kmls

Figure 9.3f-Reentry corridor as a function of vacuum perigee altitude,

L / D = 0.300.

OVERSHOOT BOUNDARY NEGATIVE LIFT

NOTE: L/ D=0.34
1962 U. S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE

---- 1962 U. S.

STANDARD ATMOSPHERE ( - DENSITY DEVIATION)

----

1962 U.S. STANDARD ATMOSPHERE (+DENSITY DEVIATION)

- 350 I
25 20

UNDERSHOOT BOUNDARY

I
30

I 35

I
40 4 !

REENTRY INERTIAL VELOCITY

Figure 9.3c~-Reentry corridor as a function of vacuum perigee altitude,

L / D = 0.340.

400,000 TOTAL DOWN RANGE DISTANCE = 1500 NAUTICAL MILES LIFT TO- DRAG RATIO= 0.3

100 -

INITIAL CONDITIONS

- 200,000

ALTITUDE = 400,000 ft GEODETIC LATITUDE = 0.0 DEGREES LONGITUDE = 0.0 DEGREES INERTIAL VELOCITY = 36,000 f t l s FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = -6.0 DEGREES AZIMUTH = 90.0 DEGREES

50-

CODE -

500
I
I

1 -BEGIN VHF BLACKOUT 2 -BEGIN S-BAND BLACKOUT 3 -BEGIN C-BAND BLACKOUT 1' -END VHF BLACKOUT 2' -END S - BAND BLACKOUT 3' -END C - BAND BLACKOUT
I I I

1000
I

1500
I

2000
I

2500 km
I

Oo L 0 250
I

0 750 DOWN RANGE lo00

I
I

500
I

1250
I I
I

1500 nm
I

50

100

150 TIME (seconds 1

200

250

300

350

400 500

Figure 9.4a-Total

down range distance

=I500 nautical

miles. Lift-to-drag ratio

=0.3.

nm 400
II

TOTAL DOWN RANGE DISTANCE = 3000 NAUTICAL MILES LIFT-TO- DRAG RATIO-0.3 ALTITUDE

400,000

350 -

300 -

- 300,000

250 -

200 -

- 200, 000

150 I N I T I A L CONDITIONS

CODE -

100 -

50 -

1 -BEGIN VHF BLACKOUT 2 -BEGIN S - BAND BLACKOUT 3 -BEGIN C - BAND BlACKOUT 1' -END VHF BLACKOUT 2' -END S - BAND BLACKOUT 3' -END C - BAND BLACKOUT

- 100,000
ALTITUDE = 400,000 ft GEODETIC LATITUDE = 0.0 DEGREES LONGITUDE = 0.0 DEGREES INERTIAL VELOCITY = 36,000 f t l s FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = -6.0 DEGREES AZIMUTH = 90.0 DEGREES

0 3000
I
I

OO
I I

1000 500
I I

2000 1000
I

4000
I

5000 km
I

0 100 200

1500 DOWN RANGE

I

2000
I
I

2500
I
I

3000 nm
J

300 400 TIME (seconds

500

600

700

800 950

Figure 9.4b-Total

down range distance

= 3000 nautical miles. Lift-to-drag ration =0.3.

ALTITUDE TOTAL DOWN RANGE DISTANCE =5W NAUTICAL MILES LIFT-TO- DRAG RATIO-0.3 ft
1 BEGIN VHF BLACKOUT 2 -BEGIN S - BAND BLACKOUT 3 -BEGIN C - BAND BLACKOUT 1' -END VHF BLACKOUT 2' -END S- BAND BLACKOUT 3' -END C - BAND BLACKOUT

nm 350 -

- 400,000

- 300,000

- 200,000

100 -

I N I T I A L CONDITIONS ALTITUDE = 400,000 ft GEODETIC LATITUDE = 0.0 DEGREES LONGITUDE = 0.0 DEGREES INERTIAL VELOCITY = 36,000 f t l s FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = -6.0 DEGREES AZIMUTH = 90.0 DEGREES
I
I
I 1

- 100,000

I
I

I
I

10,000 km 1000
I
I

0
I

0
I

2000 400

3000 DOWN RANGE

I

4000
I I

5000
1

6000 nm 800 1000 1200 1470

200

600 T I ME (seconds 1

Figure 9 . 4 ~ - T o t a l down range distance

=5000 nautical

miles. Lift-to-drag ratilo

= 0.3

DOWN RANGE
I
I I

50

100

150
TIME (seconds)

200

250

300

350

400 500

Figure 9.4d-Total

down range distance

= 1500 nautical

miles. Lift-to-drag ratio =0.4.

I
I I

0
10 0

200

300 400 TIME (seconds )

500

600

700

800 900

Figure 9.4e-Total

down range distance

= 3000 nautical

miles. Lift-to-drag ratio

~0.4.

I
I
I

loo0

2000

3000
DOWN RANGE

4000

5000 nm

TIME (seconds)
down range distance

Figure 9 . 4 f - T o t a l

= 5000 nautical

miles. Lift-to-drag ratio

= 0.4.