W

Lu

0
>
 N A S A - S - 6 6 - 5 9 4 4 JVL 1

APOLLO LAUNCH OPPORTUNITIES IN 1969 THAT

PROVIDE A 1-3-5 DAY LAUNCH WINDOW FOR
ORBITER B SITES
24r !#
SUNSET

12

. .

LAUNCH
TIME,
A

'' JAN
.ai

-
FEB
I
MAR
1
APR
I

PACIFIC INJECTIONS
MAY JUNE
A
a- I

E.S.T.
HRS 24r
20
-- ATLANTIC INJECTIONS

16
12
8
Donald C. Cheatham
4 A s s i s t a n t Chief f o r
0 Engineering and Development
Piwe P A
Guidance and Control Division

Floyd V. Bennett
Assistant Chief
NASA-S-66.5206 IUN B e o r e t i c a l Mechanics Branch
APOLLO LAUNCH OPPORTUNITIES IN 1968 THAT PROVIDE A Guidance and Control Division
1-3-5 DAY LAUNCH WINDOW FOR ORBITER B SITES

12

8 -

4 - . .
LAUNCH I I I I: I
TIME, JAN FEE MAR APR MAY JUNE
EST HRS

"[I
20 j :

5
INTROrnCTION

STRA'BCX CONSIDEEATTONS

Spacecraft Systems

Guidance and Control System

b
aig Radar System
n

DJ Window System

k s c e n t Propulsion System

Mission Ian- Position Requirement

POWERED DESCENT DESIGN

Wing Phase

Objectives and Constraints

I g n i t i o n Logic

Guidance with Limited !throttle

Landing Radar U p d a t i n g

De
l
t
a V &@et

Descent Guidance Monitoring

Surmnzry of Braking Phase

Fi
n al Approach Phase

Objectives and Constraints

Determination of Hi-gate

Parameter h d e o f f s

Redesignation Footprint

Ianding Point Designator U t i l i z a t i o n

 APOLLO LUNAR MODULF: LANDING STRATEGY

De
lt
a V Buaget
1.0 INTRODUCTION
flmnnary of Final Approach Phase
The landing of t h e Lunar Module (IN) upon t h e surface of
t h e moon w i l l be t h e climax of t h e Apollo mission, although
Landing Phase t h e importance of t h e r e t u r n phases'is not t o be de-emphasized.
The IN landing approach w i l l be t h e f i r s t time t h a t t h e com-
Objectives and Constraints
p l e t e LM system w i l l have been operated i n t h e lunar environ-
ment. This a l s o w i l l be m a n ' s i n i t i a l face-to-face encounter
N o m i n a l Tkajectory with t h e exact nature of t h e t e r r a i n i n t h e landing a r e a and
of t h e problems of v i s i b i l i t y as they may a f f e c t t h e a b i l i t y
De
la V Budget
t
t o land t h e LM; although, these aspects of t h e landing w i l l
be simulated many times i n fixed-based simulators and p a r t i a l
LUNAR LANDING TouCKCKlWN CONTROL
p r e f l i g h t simulators. These simulations are extremely
important i n t h e preparations f o r the mission; but only
Objective and Constraints - Modes of c o n t r o l a f t e r t h e mission i s completed w i l l it be known how adequate
t h e simulations have been.
Sequence of events
Considering t h e e n t i r e LM descent after separation from t h e
Descent engine shut-off Comand Module i n lunar o r b i t , a t h e o r e t i c a l landing maneuver
could c o n s i s t of a Hohmann t r a n s f e r impulse on t h e back side
Ma
nua
l c o n t r o l of landing v e l o c i t i e s of t h e moon with a d e l t a V, o r change i n v e l o c i t y , of lo9
f t / s e c , followed 180° later by an impulsive v e l o c i t y change
Automatic c o n t r o l of landing v e l o c i t i e s of about 5622 f t / s e c as t h e LM approaches t h e lunar surface,
as i l l u s t r a t e d ih f i g u r e 1. The f l i g h t path angle i n t h e
ABORT AFTER TOUCBDOWN f i n a l portion of t h e approach would be zero degrees. Such
a t h e o r e t i c a l approach would require i n f i n i t e t h r u s t - t o -
SUMMARY weight r a t i o by t h e descent engine. This, of course, i s
an impossible and i m p r a c t i c a l approach. A f i n i t e t h r u s t -
to-weight r a t i o of t h e descent engine must be used and t h e
approach path must account f o r lunar t e r r a i n v a r i a t i o n s and
u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e guidance system. Since lunar t e r r a i n
v a r i a t i o n s of as much as + 20,000 f t . could be expected, and,
a l s o , u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e value of t h e l
u nar reference
radius, coupled with guidance dispersions, could add another
l5,OOO f t . t o t h e uncertainty, a conservative safe value of
5O,OOO f t . was chosen as a pericynthion a l t i t u d e . From a
performance standpoint, t h e choice o f 5O,OOO f t . as opposed
t o e i t h e r 40,000 or 60,000 f t . was quite a r b i t r a r y because
t h e difference from t h e standpoint of f u e l requirements w a s
very s l i g h t , as i n d i c a t e d i n figure 2 . The i n i t i a l t h r u s t -
to-weight of t h e LM descent engine w i l l be about three- tenths.
Combining t h i s thrust- to- weight with a perigee a l t i t u d e of
50,000 f t . leads t o t h e descent p r o f i l e , as shown i n f i g u r e 3 .
The separation and Hohmann t r a n s f e r maneuver requires s l i g h t l y
 l e s s d e l t a V due t o t h e pericynthion a l t i t u d e increase.
The powered descent p o r t i o n approaching t h e landing area,
however, requires a d e l t a V of 5925 f t / s e c , which i s a con-
siderable increase over t h e i n f i n i t e t h r u s t requirement. A
scaled t r a j e c t o r y p r o f i l e of t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l LM powered
descent i s shown i n f i g u r e 4, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e e n t i r e
descent takes approximately 220 n. m. The LM v e l o c i t y and
a t t i t u d e i s shown p e r i o d i c a l l y along the f l i g h t p r o f i l e .
T h i s t r a j e c t o r y has t h e predominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a
low f l a t p r o f i l e terminating with a f l i g h t path angle of
about 9 degrees. An obvious feature i s t h a t t h e crew, con-
sidering t h e location of t h e LM window, never have the
opportunity t o see where they a r e going. They can look
e i t h e r d i r e c t l y up, o r , i f t h e LM i s r o t a t e d about i t s
t h r u s t axis, can look down a t t h e surface, but they are
never able t o see i n t h e d i r e c t i o n they a r e going. If
t h e crew i s t o perform any assessment of t h e landing area
or out-the-window s a f e t y of f l i g h t during the approach, it
i s obvious t h a t the l a t t e r portion of the t r a j e c t o r y must
be shaped so t h a t a d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e of the LM can be
used during t h e approach. Shaping t h e t r a j e c t o r y awaJ
from t h e f u e l optimum approach w i l l result i n a penalty
i n f u e l requirements. Both t h e amount o f time t h e crew
w i l l require t o assess t h e landing area, and t h e range
from which the landing area can be adequately assessed
must be traded off against t h e amount of f u e l involved
i n t h e penalty of t h e shaping. It soon becomes obvious
. t h a t a s t r a t e g y i s needed t h a t w i l l trade off t h e system
c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h e spacecraft and t h e crew c a p a b i l i t i e s
against t h e unknowns of t h e lunar environment encountered
during t h e descent from t h e o r b i t , i n order t o insure t h a t
proper u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e onboard systems can be made t o
g r e a t e s t advantage. The development of t h i s strategy,
then, i s t h e subject of t h i s paper.
1.0 STWEGY CONSIDERATIONS
The LM landing s t r a t e g y can be defined as the science and
and art of spacecraft mission planning exercised t o meet
the lunar environmental problems under advantageous condi-
t i o n s . I n order t o plan s t r a t e g y , t h e objectives, t h e
problems t o be faced, and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c performance
of available systems need t o be w e l l known. As indicated
i n f i g u r e 5, t h e objectives of t h e M landing planning
strategy are t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e lunar environmental pro-
blems and t o plan the landing approach so t h a t the com-
bined spacecraft systems, including t h e crew, w i l l most
e f f e c t i v e l y improve t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of a t t a i n i n g a safe
landing. The major f a c t o r s t h a t must be considered i n
t h i s strategy are t h e problems brought about by t h e
o r b i t a l mechanics of t h e landing maneuver, t h e l i m i t a t i o n s
of t h e spacecraft systems (including l i m i t a t i o n s i n f u e l
capacity and payload c a p a b i l i t y ) , and t h e c o n s t r a i n t s of
t h e lunar environment ( i r c l u d i n g t e r r a i n u n c e r t a i n t i e s ,
v i s i b i l i t y , and determination of s u i t a b l e landing p o s i t i o n s ) ,
The o r b i t a l mechanics aspects have been discussed i n t h e
preceeding section. The l u nar environmental c o n s t r a i n t s
w i l l be discussed i n a subsequent section. The remainder
of t h i s s e c t i o n i s concerned with descriptions of t h e space-
c r a f t systems and t h e mission landing p o s i t i o n requirements.
Although all of t h e LM systems a r e important t o a t t a i n t h e
l
u n a r landing, those a f f e c t i n g the s t r a t e g y a r e (a) the
guidance and c o n t r o l system, (b) t h e landing radar, ( c ) t h e
spacecraft window, and (d) t h e descent propulsion system.
Spacecraft Systems
Guidance and c o n t r o l system - The guidance and c o n t r o l system
i s important t o t h e landing s t r a t e g y i n t h a t it has a d i r e c t
e f f e c t upon t h e a r e a over which t h e landing may be accomplished
and on t h e problems of landing a t a desired point. The func-
t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n and accuracies of t h i s system have been
discussed i n a preceeding paper. The e f f e c t of t h e guidance,
navigation, and c o n t r o l system of t h e LM on t h e landing begins
with navigation i n t h e lunar o r b i t . The accuracy of this
navigation, whether performed by t h e onboard system o r by
t h e Manned Space F l i g h t Network, determines t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s
at the start of t h e powered descent. Assuming t h a t t h e
guidance system w i l l be updated by landing radar t o e l i -
minate t h e a l t i t u d e dispersions, t h e landing dispersions
w i l l be a function of t h e i n i t i a l condition u n c e r t a i n t i e s
brought about from lunar o r b i t navigation coupled with t h e
i n e r t i a l system drift during t h e powered descent. A summary
of t h e guidance system c a p a b i l i t y f o r a t t a i n i n g a given
landing point on t h e moon i s presented i n f i g u r e 6a and
t h e associated assumptions i n f i g u r e 6b. Both t h e MSFN
and t h e spacecraft onboard navigation i n lunar o r b i t a r e
considered. The Apollo system s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a landing
CEP of 3000 f t . i s met i n e i t h e r case when t h e i n e r t i a l
system performs within s p e c i f i c a t i o n .
The 30- landing dispersion e l l i p s e s a r e shown i n f i g u r e 7
f o r cases where t h e lunar o r b i t navigation was done by t h e
MSFN and a l s o onboard t h e CSM. The e l l i p s e s a r e q u i t e
similar with t h e major axis f o r t h e MSFN case being s l i g h t l y
shorter and t h e minor a x i s f o r t h e MSFN being s l i g h t l y longer
than t h a t f o r t h e case u t i l i z i n g CSM onboard navigation. A
s p e c i a l case i n which t h e downrange distance was allowed t o
 be unconstrained i s a l s o shown on f i g u r e 7 - I n t h i s case
t h e downrange or major axis of t h e e l l i p s e i s primarily a
function of t h e t h r u s t u n c e r t a i n t i e s of t h e f i x e d - t h r o t t l e
p o s i t i o n of the descent engine that w i l l be discussed sub-
sequently. The crossrange a x i s i s equal t o t h a t of t h e 3C
e l l i p s e s f o r guidance t o a s p e c i f i c point and i s determined
by t h e method of lunar o r b i t navigation.
Landing radar system - The c o n t r o l of t h e LM during the
descent t o t h e surface can be provided automatically
through s t e e r i n g commands generated by the guidance system
and a l s o manually by the crew by i n p u t s through an a t t i t u d e
c o n t r o l l e r . The primary c o n t r o l system s t a b i l i z a t i o n u t i l i z e s
d i g i t a l a u t o p i l o t mode of the guidance computer. Figure 8
shows t h e a t t i t u d e t h r u s t e r f i r i n g combinations t o c r e a t e
controlmoments. The engines are l o c a t e d on an axes system
r o t a t e d about the LM descent engine t h r u s t a r e a 45' from the
spacecraft axes. They are operated as c o n t r o l couples f o r
t h r e e - a x i s a t t i t u d e control. As can be seen i n f i g u r e 8,
two p a i r s of control couples are a v a i l a b l e f o r each axis.
The method of providing t r a n s l a t i o n a l c o n t r o l while i n t h e
hovering condition i s t o tilt the spacecraft by means of
t h e a t t i t u d e control system. This produces a l a t e r a l
component of acceleration from t h e descent engine t h r u s t
i n t h e desired d i r e c t i o n which i s stopped by r e t u r n i n g t o
v e r t i c a l and reversed by t i l t i n g i n t h e opposite d i r e c t i o n .
During t h e descent t h e a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l system i s a l s o coupled
t o a slow moving gimbal actuator system of t h e descent engine
t o enable a means of trimming t h e descent engine t h r u s t direc-
t i o n so t h a t it passes through the LM center of gravity. The
trimming system reduces undesirable torques from the descent
engine i n order t o conserve RCS p r o p e l l a n t . The LH landing
r a d a r system i s important i n landing s t r a t e g y . As indicated
e a r l i e r , i t i s used t o eliminate t h e guidance system alti-
tude dispersions and, a l s o , t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s of knowing t h e
a l t i t u d e from t h e lunar surface p r i o r t o beginning the descent.
The LM landing radar i s a &-beam dopple system with the beam
configuration shown i n f i g u r e 9. The center beam measures
the a l t i t u d e , and t h e other t h r e e beams measure t h e t h r e e
components of v e l o c i t y . Two p o s i t i o n s of t h e landing radar
I antenna provide both a l t i t u d e and v e l o c i t y measurements over
I a wide range of spacecraft a t t i t u d e s . The f i r s t antenna
p o s i t i o n i s t i l t e d back from t h e t h r u s t axis by approximately
f o r t y - t h r e e degrees so t h a t t h e a l t i t u d e beam w i l l be n e a r l y
v e r t i c a l during the e a r l y portions of the descent and, hence,
w i l l s t i l l provide accurate a l t i t u d e information. A s t h e LM
approaches the landing maneuver, t h e antenna i s physically
switched t o the second p o s i t i o n making t h e a l t i t u d e beam
p a r a l l e l t o t h e X - a x i s of t h eL
M . The landing radar w i l l
begin t o provide a l t i t u d e measurements a t an approximate
a l t i t u d e of 40,000 f t . These a l t i t u d e measurements w i l l
be used t o update t h e i n e r t i a l system s t a r t i n g at an
a l t i t u d e of about 25,000 f t . The r a d a r v e l o c i t y updates
will begin at approximately 15,000 f t . The landing radar
accuracy i s given i n f i g u r e 10.
LM window system - The LM window, although perhaps not nor-
mally considered a system, i s a very important p a r t of t h e
landing s t r a t e g y because it i s through this window t h a t t h e
crew must observe t h e landing a r e a t o confirm t h e adequacy
of t h e surface f o r touchdown. The physical configuration
of t h e LM window i s shown i n f i g u r e ll. T h i s photograph
w a s made from within t h e LM cockpit showi-ng t h e l e f t hand,
o r t h e command p i l o t ' s , window. The window i s t r i a n g u l a r
i n shape and skewed so t h a t it provides maximum viewing
angles f o r t h e landing approach maneuver. Although t h e
window i s not l a r g e i n s i z e , t h e p i l o t ' s eye p o s i t i o n i s
normally very close t o t h e window so t h a t the angular limits
provided a r e q u i t e wide. These angular limits a r e displayed
i n f i g u r e l.2, showing t h e limits as viewed from the commander's
design eye p o s i t i o n . The p l o t shows t h e azimuth and elevation
v a r i a t i o n s of possible viewing l i m i t s referenced from a point
where t h e p i l o t would be looking dead ahead, with respect t o
LM body axes ( p a r a l l e l t o t h e Z-body a x i s ) , f o r t h e zero point.
It i s pogsible f o r t h e p i l o t t o see downward a t an angle of
about 65 from the normal eye p o s i t i o n and t o t h e l e f t s i d e
by approximately 800 . I f t h e p i l o t moves h i s head e i t h e r
c l o s e r t o t h e window, o r f u r t h e r back, these l i m i t a t i o n s change
slightly.
The guidance system i s coupled with t h e window system through
g r i d markings so t h a t t h e p i l o t can observe t h e intended land-
i n g a r e a by a l i g n i n g h i s l i n e - o f - s i g h t with t h e g r i d marking
according t o information displayed from t h e guidance system.
Figure ll i n addition t o showing t& window system, shows t h e
l o c a t i o n of the Display and Keyboard, which among o t h e r things
provide d i g i t a l readout information from t h e guidance system.
The procedures f o r u t i l i z i n g t h e s e i n t e g r a t e d systems f o r
landing s i t e designation and redesignation w i l l be discussed
l a t e r i n t h i s paper.
Descent propulsion system -The descent engine i s an extremely
important system t o the design of the LM descent s t r a t e g y .
I n i t i a l l y , t h e descent engine was capable of being t h r o t t l e d
over a range from 10 t o 1. Design considerations, however,
have made it necessary t o limit t h e t h r o t t l e c a p a b i l i t y t o
t h a t shown i n f i g u r e 13. This f i g u r e shows t h a t a t t h e start

of Dowered f l.ight, there i s an upper fixed p o s i t i o n of t h e
t h r o t t l e which would nominally provide about 9700 l b . of
t h r u s t . A s long as t h e t h r o t t l e i s maintained i n t h i s f i x e d
position, t h r u s t magnitude w i l l vary according t o t h e nominal
s o l i d l i n e . A t t h e start of t h e powered f l i g h t , t h e r e i s
expected t o be approximately 1 percent uncertainty i n t h e
t h r u s t a t t h i s f i x e d - t h r o t t l e s e t t i n g . The uncertainty grows
up t o 2 percent after approximately 300 seconds of fixed-
t h r o t t l e usage. The descent engine i s a l w a y s t h r o t t l e a b l e ,
I n t h e region of 6300 l b . of t h r u s t , t o approximately 1050
-1b. of t h r u s t . The change from a f u l l y t h r o t t l e a b l e engine
i n t h e upper region of t h e t h r u s t l e v e l t o a f i x e d - t h r o t t l e
position a f f e c t s t h e guidance procedures during t h e i n i t i a l
powered descent, as w i l l be explained later.
Mission Landing Position Requirement
Important s t r a t e g y considerations axe t h e types of require-
ments t h a t are placed on t h e landing position, as indicated
i n f i g u r e 14. The f i r s t consideration i s a requirement t o
land at any s u i t a b l e point within a specified =ea, w i t h the
implication t h a t t h e a r e a could be quite l a r g e . Obviously,
i f t h e asea i s l a r g e enough, t h e requirements on t h e guidance
system would be diminished considerably. The second type of
requirement i s t h a t of landing a t any s u i t a b l e p o i n t within
a reasonably s m a l l area, constrained i n s i z e primarily by
t h e guidance dispersions. T h i s would, of coKse, d i c t a t e
t h a t t h e s i z e of t h e area chosen w i l l be compatible with t h e
c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h e guidance and navigation system. The
t h i r d consideration i s t h a t of landing a t a prespecified
point, such as landing w i t h 100 f t . of the p o s i t i o n of a
surveyor spacecraft, o r perhaps another type of spacecraft.
It i s obvious t h a t t h i s l a t t e r consideration imposes t h e
g r e a t e s t requirements on the s t r a t e g y and a l s o t h e guidance
system, and would r e q u i r e some means of e s t a b l i s h i n g contact
with t h e intended landing p o s i t i o n during t h e approach. The
present s t r a t e g y i s primarily based upon t h e second consider-
ation, t h a t of landing i n areas of t h e s i z e compatible with
t h e guidance system dispersions. If, however, t h e landing
area. can be increased i n s i z e t o t h e point t h a t downrange
p o s i t i o n control i s not of primary importance, t h e associated
strategy i s not g r e a t l y d i f f e r e n t than t h a t f o r t h e require-
ment assumed because t h e t r a j e c t o r y shaping requirements
would be t h e same f o r t h e terminal portion of the trajectory'.
The subsequ.ent discussions of t h i s paper w i l l be based
primarily upon a landing a r e a s i z e compatible with guidance
system dispersions.
3. PCWEXED DESCENT DESIGN
After consideration of all t h e t r a d e o f f ' s t h a t could be
i d e n t i f i e d as worthy o f consider-ation during t h e LM powered
descent, a three-phase t r a j e c t o r y design l o g i c was chosen.
The l o g i c of t h i s three-phase t r a j e c t o r y design w i l l be
discussed i n t h e subsequent s e c t i o n s , but, t h e general l o g i c
i s indicated i n f i g u r e 1 5 - The f i r s t phase following powered
descent i n i t i a t i o n at 50,OOG f t . i s termed t h e Braking Phase.
This phase i s terminated a t what i s c a l l e d a Hi-gate position.
The second phase i s termed t h e F i n a l Approach Phase, and i s
terminated at what i s c a l l e d t h e Lo-gate p o s i t i o n , t h e start
of t h e Landing Phase. The t o t a l t r a j e c t o r y covers on t h e
order of 250 n.m. The l o g i c of t h e braking phase i s designed
f o r t h e e f f i c i e n t reduction of velocity. That i s , since there
i s no necessity f o r p i l o t v i s i b i l i t y of t h e landing area i n
t h i s phase, t h e a t t i t u d e s can be chosen so t h a t t h e spacecraft
would have e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of descent engine t h r u s t f o r
reducing v e l o c i t y . During t h e f i n a l approach phase, t h e
t r a j e c t o r y i s shaped t o a l l o w an a t t i t u d e from which t h e
p i l o t can v i s u a l l y acquire and assess t h e landing s i t e . An
additional requirement met'by t h i s phase i s t o provide t h e
p i l o t with a view of t h e t e r r a i n a t such a time t h a t he can
confirm t h e f l i g h t s a f e t y of t h e t r a j e c t o r y p r i o r t o committing
t o a landing. The landing phase i s flown very much as a VTOL
type o f a i r c r a f t would be flown on t h e e a r t h t o allow t h e
p i l o t vernier c o n t r o l of t h e p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t i e s at touch-
down. The a t t i t u d e chosen i s flown so as t o provide t h e crew
with v i s i b i l i t y f o r a d e t a i l e d assessment of t h e landing s i t e .
The scaled p r o f i l e of t h e design descent t r a j e c t o r y i s shown
i n f i g u r e 16 a.) and b ) , and includes an i n d i c a t i o n of t h e
spacecraft a t t i t u d e a t various milestones along t h e t r a j e c t o r y .
The f i n a l approach and landing phases together cover only about
2 per cent of t h e t o t a l t r a j e c t o r y range, although t h e time
spent within t h e s e phases w i l l be about 30 per cent of t h e
t o t a l time. The following sections w i l l discuss i n d e t a i l
" t h e l o g i c of t h e design o f t h e t h r e e phases and w i l l summarize
t h e d e l t a V budget f o r the descent.
Eraking Phase
_. .
Objectives and c o n s t r a i n t s - The objective of t h e braking
phase, as i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 17, i s t o provide e f f i c i e n t
reduction of t h e h o r i z o n t a l v e l o c i t y e x i s t i n g at t h e i n i t i a -
t i o n of t h e powered descent. During most of t h i s phase, t h e
a l t i t u d e i s high enough so t h a t t h e p i l o t does not have t o
worry about t h e t e r r a i n v a r i a t i o n s , and he can conduct t h e
reduction i n v e l o c i t y at a t t i t u d e s t h a t allow great e f f i c i e n c y .
The major c o n s t r a i n t o f t h i s t r a j e c t o r y phase i s l i m i t a t i o n s
imposed by t h e f i x e d - t h r o t t l e - p o s i t i o n t h r u s t of t h e descent
engine. It i s d e s i r a b l e t o use the maximum t h r u s t of t h e
descent engine as long as possible i n order t o provide e f f i c i e n t
u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e f u e l . There i s , however, an i n i t i a l segment
of the powered descent which i s flown at reduced t h r o t t l e t o
insure t h a t t h e descent engine gimbal t r i m mechanism has
nulled out of t r i m moments due t o center- of- gravity o f f s e t s .
I g n i t i o n Logic - The l o g i c f o r i g n i t i n g t h e descent engine
f o r i n i t i a t i o n of t h e braking phase i s as follows. F i r s t ,
t h e LM s t a t e ( p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y ) i s i n t e g r a t e d ahead i n
time. Next, the guidance problem f o r t h e braking phase i s
solved, but not implemented, continuously with the advanced
LM s t a t e s as i n i t i a l conditions. When t h e guidance s o l u t i o n
requires t h e l e v e l of t h r u s t equal t o the expected t h r u s t of
the f i x e d - t h r o t t l e p o s i t i o n , see f i g u r e 18, t h a t solution i s
chosen f o r i n i t i a t i o n of braking. F i n a l l y , when t h e LM
reaches t h e p o s i t i o n and v e l o c i t y s t a t e t h a t yielded t h e
proper t h r u s t solution, t h e guidance computer sends t h e
engine on signal t o t h e descent propulsion solution. I n
order t o prevent l a r g e moments due t o c. g. o f f s e t , t h e
engine i s i g n i t e d a t t h e low 10 percent l e v e l , instead of
maximum t h r u s t . This l e v e l i s held f o r some 28 seconds t o
trim t h e engine gimbal through t h e c.g. before increasing
t h r u s t t o t h e maximm, o r f i x e d - t h r o t t l e , s e t t i n g . This
low l e v e l of t h r u s t i n g i s accounted f o r i n t h e i g n i t i o n
logic.
Guidance with Limited T h r o t t l e - The general approach of
tlie braking phase, from t h e standpoint of t h e guidance
system, i s t o u t i l i z e t h e same type of guidance equations
t h a t a r e appropriate f o r t h e t h r o t t l e d phases which follow.
Thus, modifications i n t h e t a r g e t i n g are required t o allow
f o r t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e f i x e d - t h r o t t l e p o s i t i o n during
t h i s phase. It i s s t i l l d e s i r e d t o vary t h e s t a t e vector
of t h e LM from i t s value at t h e s t a r t of powered descent
t o the s t a t e s p e c i f i e d a t t h e hi- gate posFtion of t h e tra-
jectory. The guidance equations would normally determine
t h e t h r u s t l e v e l o r a c c e l e r a t i o n l e v e l and a t t i t u d e required
i n order t o make an e f f i c i e n t change i n t h e s t a t e . P r i o r
knowledge of t h e i n i t i a l thrust- to- weight of the descent
engine allows choice of i n i t i a l conditions and t h e guidance
equations t o be u t i l i z e d i n such a way as t o s e l e c t a time
t o go f o r t h e e n t i r e phase t h a t w i l l use t h e approximate
thrust-to-weight of t h e upper limit of the descent engine.
I n a c t u a l operation, t h e LM system during t h i s phase w i l l
respond t o comands of a t t i t u d e change, b u t as long as t h e
guidance system i s c a l l i n g f o r a t h r u s t above 6300 l b . , t h e
descent engine w i l l remain i n i t s fixed or upper limit
position. If t h e t h r u s t v a r i a t i o n of the descent engine
a t t h i s fixed t h r o t t l e p o s i t i o n were known exactly, t h e
t r a j e c t o r y could be preplanned t o obtain t h e desired h i -
gate s t a t e vector. I n view of t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s of t h e
descent engine, however, t h e t r a j e c t o r y must be planned
so t h a t the guidance system will begin t o c a l l f o r t h r u s t
l e v e l s i n t h e region i n which t h e descent engine can be
t h r o t t l e d (below 6300 l b s . ) p r i o r t o reaching Hi-gate
p o s i t i o n . This i s t o provide c o n t r o l over t h e v e l o c i t i e s
when t h e Hi-gate p o s i t i o n i s reached. The l o g i c of t h i s
guidance scheme i s shown i n f i g u r e 19. The f i g u r e shows
t h e p r o f i l e of t h e t r a j e c t o r i e s as a function of range,
and a l s o a p r o f i l e of t h e descent engine t h r u s t , both t h e
nominal value and t h a t Commanded by t h e guidance system as
a function of range. The nominal thrust- to- weight case i s
shown f i r s t , and t h e t r a j e c t o r y i s . e s s e n t i a l l y preplanned
by f l y i n g backward from t h e hi- gate p o s i t i o n , f i r s t of all,
using a t h r u s t i n t h e t h r o t t l e a b l e range t o go back f o r a
period of time; t h e period of t i m e being determined by t h e
-p o s s i b l e magnitude of t h e uncertainty of t h e descent engine.
This, i n e f f e c t , determines t h e f i c t i t i o u s t a r g e t t h a t can
be used i n the guidance system i n t h e first p o r t i o n of t h e
t r a j e c t o r y . The f i c t i t i o u s t a r g e t i s ' b a s e d upon t h e nominal
t h r u s t p r o f i l e when t h e descent engine i s i n the fixed- thrust
p o s i t i o n . The l o g i c of t h e guidance i s perhaps b e s t explained
by comparing t h e actual value of t h r u s t with t h a t commanded by
t h e guidance system, even though i n t h e upper t h r u s t region
t h e descent engine i s not responding t o these commands.
I n i t i a l l y , t h e guidance system i s t a r g e t e d t o a f i c t i t i o u s
t a r g e t upstream of t h e hi- gate state. The nominal t h r u s t -
to-weight v a r i a t i o n follows t h e s o l i d l i n e , and t h e guidance
system computes t h e commanded v a r i a t i o n of thrust- to- weight
shown on t h e figure. A t an intermediate position, t h e
guidance t a r g e t i n g i s switched from t h a t of t h e f i c t i t i o u s
t a r g e t t o t h a t of the hi- gate t a r g e t . The d i s c o n t i n u i t y
seen i n t h e commanded p o s i t i o n has no e f f e c t on t h e system,
since, i n t h i s region, t h e descent engine t h r o t t l e i s not
responding t o t h e guidance system. I f the thrust- to- weight
does remain nominal, t h e commanded thrust- to- weight m a g n i -
tude will gradually decrease mtil it i s within t h e region
i n which t h e descent engine can be t h r o t t l e d . This w i l l
nominally occur at t h e f i c t i t i o u s t a r g e t position. The
guidance system then has a number of seconds, p r i o r t o t h e
hi- gate position, t o match both t h e v e l o c i t y and t h e p o s i t i o n
desired a t hi- gate. From hi- gate on, t h e commanded t h r u s t
will be at o r below the m a x i m u m i n t h e t h r o t t l e a b l e range.
Figure 20 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e t h r u s t p r o f i l e s (commanded and
a c t u a l ) f o r low and high thrust- to- weight r a t i o s . I n t h e
case of t h e low thrust-to- weight r a t i o where t h e a c t u a l
value of t h e t h r u s t i s below t h a t of t h e expected nominal,
it i s seen t h a t t h e i n i t i a l commanded t h r u s t has t h e same
type of v a r i a t i o n as t h e nominal, p r i o r t o t h e switchover
p o i n t ; b u t , a f t e r t h e switchover p o i n t , t h e r e i s a delay i n
time and range i n g e t t i n g down t o t h e region where t h e
commanded t h r u s t reaches t h e t h r o t t l e a b l e region. This
p o i n t , then, i s only a few seconds p r i o r t o hi- gate. The
extreme low thrust-to- weight, then, would be t h a t i n which
t h e commanded t h r u s t would reach t h e t b z o t t l e a b l e region
t h r u s t exactly at the time t h e h i - g a t e p o s i t i o n was reached.
For the case where the thrust- to- weight i s higher than nomi-
n a l , t h e commanded t h r u s t w i l l reach t h e t h r o t t l e a b l e p o s i t i o n
a number of seconds p r i o r t o t h a t f o r nominal t h r u s t . This
allows a much longer time t o a f f e c t t h e desired velocity con-
d i t i o n a t the hi- gate position. This, however, means t h a t
t h e region p r i o r t o hi- gate i s being flown a t a much lower
thrust-to-weight r a t i o f o r a longer period of time than would
be desirable from a standpoint of f u e l e f f i c i e n c y . This i s
t h e case t h a t involves t h e g r e a t e s t penalty i n f u e l . Figure
2 1 shows t h e d e l t a V penalty vari&c,ion due t o fixed- thrust
uncertainties. The left- hand s c a l e i n d i c a t e s t h e d e l t a V
penalty, the horizontal scale shows t h e b i a s time of t h e
f i c t i t i o u s t a r g e t back from t h e hi- gate t a r g e t , and the r i g h t -
hand scale i s the thrust- to- weight uncertainty expressed i n f
percentages. The f i g u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e 2 2 percent un-
c e r t a i n t y of t h e descent engine w i l l require a b i a s time of
approximately 65 seconds and w i l l invoke a b i a s d e l t a V pen-
a l t y on the order of 45 f t / s e c . I n e f f e c t , t h e 45 f t / s e c . of
f u e l i s the penalty paid f o r reducing t h e landing dispersions
from t h a t associated with t h e range- free type of guidance, t o
t h a t i n which a desired p o s i t i o n a t hi- gate i s reached. The
magnitude of additional v a r i a t i o n i n t h e landing point t h a t
would be associated with range- free type of guidance i s
e s s e n t i a l l y t h e percentage uncertainty thrust-to-weight value
times t h e t o t a l range t r a v e l . For t h e case of 5 2 percent
average t h r u s t uncertainty and a nominal range of 250 n. m.,
t h i s results i n approximately + 5 n. m. of range uncertainty
which can be eliminated a t the- cost of 45 f t / s e c . of f u e l
penalty.
Landing Radar Updating - The. e f f e c t of landing radar (LR)
updating on t h e guidance commands i s important from t h e
standpoint of eliminating a l t i t u d e u n c e r t a i n t i e s , and t h e
r e s u l t i n g changes i n a t t i t u d e and t h r o t t l e required by t h e
change i n solution of t h e guidance equations. The e f f e c t
of landing radar update i s a continuing e f f e c t throughout
t h e t r a j e c t o r y once t h e i n i t i a l update a l t i t u d e i s reached;
and, therefore, some aspects of t h e following discussions
w i l l touch on the f i n a l approach phase as w e l l as t h e braking
phase.
The a l t i t u d e update i s i n i t i a t e d at 25,000 f t . , as determined
by the primary guidance system, and i s continued a t each two-
second i n t e r v a l f o r t h e remainder of t h e approach. Velocity
updates are i n i t i a t e d at about 15,000 f t . , when t h e v e l o c i t y
i s reduced t o about 1550 f t / s e c . The v e l o c i t y is updated a
a s i n g l e component a t a time, i n two-second i n t e r v a l s (6
seconds f o r a complete update). The a l t i t u d e updating i s
continued along with t'ne v e l o c i t y components. After each
complete (3components) v e l o c i t y updating, an a l t i t u d e up-
d a t e only i s performed, then the v e l o c i t y updating i s con-
tinued. The weighting f a c t o r s f o r LR a l t i t u d e and v e l o c i t y
updates a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 22 as l i n e a r functions of
t h e parameter being updated. These a r e l i n e a r approximations
t o optimum weighting based upon least- squares estimation.
The guidance commands f o r an i d e a l descent (no i n i t i a l con-
d i t i o n e r r o r s , no 7Mo- e r r o r s , no LR e r r o r s , no t e r r a i n varia-
t i o n s , no DPS u n c e r t a i n t i e s ) are shown i n Zigure 23. The
t r a j e c t o r y presented i n t h e figure i s not t h e nominal design
t r a j e c t o r y , but i s adecpate t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e e f f e c t s o f
landing radar update. This p a r t i c u l a r t r a j e c t o r y has a hi-
gate a l t i t u d e of 6100 f t . and a t h r o t t l e period of 80 sec.
p r i o r t o hi- gate. The p i t c h p r o f i l e e x h i b i t s a slope d i s -
c o n t i n u i t y at t h e f i c t i t i o u s t a r g e t point (TF) f o r t h r o t t l i n g
t h e engine, as shown i n p a r t (b) of t h e f i g u r e .
A t t h e hi- gate t a r g e t point (HG), t h e p i t c h angle undergoes
"lLe r a p i d pitchup t o t h e constant a t t i t u d e desired f o r f i n a l
I>_
near constant (about 35O of the v e r t i c a l ) . A t t h e low-gate
t a r g e t (TLG, about 500 f t . a l t i t u d e ) , t h e a t t i t u d e begins t o
change (nearly l i n e a r ) t o s a t i s f y t h e ne= v e r t i c a l a t t i t u d e
desired j u s t p r i o r t o the v e r t i c a l descent t a r g e t (TVD, about
100 f t . a l t i t u d e j , 10' o f f the v e r t i c a l . The p r o f i l e i s
terminated a t t h i s point.
The same t r a j e c t o r y has been analyzed f o r cases with i n i t i a l
condition e r r o r s , descent e n g i n e -t h r u s t u n c e r t a i n t i e s , M
IU
e r r o r s , landing radar e r r o r s and a t y p i c a l t e r r a i n p r o f i l e
approaching t h e landing s i t e . The t e r r a i n p r o f i l e used i s
shown i n f i g u r e 24 and i s applicable f o r an approach t o a
s i t e a t 0°20'N l a t i t u d e and 12'30'E longitude. Both a
proDer1y scaled p r o f i i e and an expanded a l t i t u d e s c a l e pro-
f i l e are shown.
An example e f f e c t of the t e r r a i n , i n i t i a l condition and system
e r r o r s i s shown i n f i g u r e 25. I n addition t o t h e e f f e c t of
t h e t e r r a i n t h e other i n i t i a l predominent e r r o r included was
an a l t i t u d e uncertainty of about minus 1600 f e e t . This case
i s considered somewhat extreme i n t h a t t h e a l t i t u d e uncertaizty
o f -1600 f e e t i s about a 3c~magnitudei f CSM landmark type
s i g h t i n g s have been maae on the landing s i t e and i n a d i r e c t i v e
such t h e t e r r a i n e f f e c t s a r e additive -with t h e i n e r t i a l system
a l t i t u d e uncertainty tending t o accentuate t h e p i t c h angle and
t h r u s t v a r i a t i o n s from t h e i d e a l case. The time h i s t o r i e s o f
p i t c h angle and t h r u s t magnitude are presented i n f i g u r e 25
and include t h e i d e a l case t o provide a b a s i s f o r comparison.
The p i t c h angle v a r i e s by s l i g h t l y more than 10 degrees at
a maximum p r i o r t o hi- gate and i s about equivalent a f t e r
hi- gate. The t h r u s t l e v e l shows generally t h e same l e v e l
of command. The p i t c h angle deviations a r e of concern because
of possible e f f e c t upon landing radar operation and because
of increased expenditure of descent engine p r o p e l l a n t s .
I n the event t h a t no landmark sightings near t h e landing s i t e
axe performed i n lunar o r b i t , l a r g e u n c e r t a i n t i e s (up t o 10,000
f t . on 3 r b a s i s ) i n t h e braking a l t i t u d e can e x i s t . I n v e s t i -
gations of the a b i l i t y of t h e LR t o update t h e s e l a r g e a l t i t u d e
u n c e r t a i n t i e s have indicated t h a t 100 f p s of a d d i t i o n a l d e l t a V
i s required. Furthermore, t h r o t t l e commands above 60 percent
and l a r g e a t t i t u d e deviations (up t o 70') occur i n some i n -
stances i n the t h r o t t l e down region p r i o r t o hi- gate. Further
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s problem i s proceeding.
Delta V Budget - The nominal f u e l expenditure during t h e braking
phase i s 5206 f t / s e c . To t h i s an a d d i t i o n a l 1 5 f t / s e c . i s added
t o account f o r possible mission changes t h a t would r a i s e t h e CSM
a l t i t u d e 10 n.m. For t h e random t h r u s t u n c e r t a i n t i e s of t h e
descent engine a 36random f u e l expenditure of 2 20 f t / s e c . i s
budgeted. I n a d d i t i o n , analysis has shown t h a t navigation
u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n a l t i t u d e , although eventually eliminated by
t h e landing radar, w i l l change f u e l consumption by about 60
f t / s e c . f o r a 3000 f t . uncertainty. TO account f o r t h i s , a
3 6 random f u e l expenditure of i 60 f t / s e c . has been a l l o t t e d
on the f u e l budget.
Descent Guidance Monitoring - An important f u n c t i o n of t h e crew
during t h e braking phase i s t o monitor t h e performance of the
guidance system onboard. This i s done by checking the s o l u t i o n
of the primary guidance system with t h e s o l u t i o n of p o s i t i o n
and v e l o c i t y obtained from the abort guidance system. As i n d i -
cated i n f i g u r e 26, t h i s i s accomplished by p e r i o d i c d i f f e r -
encing of t h e primary and abort guidance s o l u t i o n s of a l t i t u d e ,
a l t i t u d e r a t e , and l a t e r a l v e l o c i t i e s . The a l t i t u d e r a t e para-
meter i s perhaps t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t parameter t o monitor
because t h i s i s t h e one t h a t c a l lead t o a t r a j e c t o r y t h a t
v i o l a t e s the f l i g h t s a f e t y zonsiderations. Analysis has shown,
however, t h a t it w i l l take g r e a t e r than t h e extremes of 36 per-
formance of the abort and primary guidance s o l u t i o n s t o l e a d
t o an unsafe t r a j e c t o r y p r i o r t o the hi- gate p o s i t i o n . Because
t h e Mznned Space F l i g h t Network w i l l be very e f f e c t i v e i n
measuring t h e a l t i t u d e r a t e of t h e spacecraft, it a l s o w i l l
be very e f f e c t i v e i n providing an independent v o t e i n t h e
event t h a t onboard differencing i n d i c a t e s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
of a guidance f a i l u r e . The t o t a l procedures f o r t h i s guidance
monitoring are s t i l l i n t h e formative stages and a r e c u r r e n t l y
being i n v e s t i g a t e d i n simulations conducted by t h e Manned
Spacecraft Center.
Summary of Braking Phase - The braking phase, l a s t i n g about
$50 seconds, covers some 243 n a u t i c a l miles during which t h e
v e l o c i t y i s reduced from 5500 f t l s e c . t o approximately 600
f t / s e c . , and t h e a l t i t u d e from 50,000 f e e t t o about 9,000
f e e t . The a t t i t u d e during t h e phase i s normally such t h a t
the t h r u s t v e c t o r i s close t o being aligned w i t h t h e f l i g h t
path angle. I n t h i s a t t i t u d e , t h e p i l o t i s not able t o look
i n the d i r e c t i o n of t h e intended .landing area. I n t h e f i r s t
portion of t M s phase, t h e LM could assume any desired r o l l
a t t i t u d e about t h e X o r t h r u s t a x i s . Mission planning will
determine i f t h e i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e w i l l allow t h e crew t o look
down on t h e l u n a r surface t o check the progress over t h e
t e r r a i n . As t h e LM approaches t h e position at which landing
radar w i l l begin operating, t h e r o l l a t t i t u d e w i l l be such
t h a t t h e windows w i l l be o r i e n t e d away from t h e surface i n
order t o provide a more favorable a t t i t u d e f o r t h e landing
radar operation and t o prepare f o r t h e pitch-up maneuver a t
the hi- gate p o s i t i o n t h a t w i l l allow a view forvrard t o the
landing a r e a .
F i n a l Approach Phase
Objectives and Constraints - The f i n a l approach phase is
perhaps t h e most important phase, from the standpoint o f
t h e s t r a t e g y . It i s primarily i n t h i s phase t h a t t h e tra-
j e c t o r y i s shaped at a cost of f u e l , i n order t o provide
the crew with v i s i b i l i t y of t h e landing area. I n t h i s phase,
the crew begins t o be confronted with some of the possible
unknowns of t h e l un ar environment, such as t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
of reduced v i s i b i l i t y . The objectives of t h e f i n a l approach
phase a r e enumerated i n f i g u r e 27. The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e i s t o
provide t h e crew with out-the-window v i s i b i l i t y , and t o
provide adequate time t o a s s e s s t h e landing a r e a . The second
is t o provide t h e crew with an opportunity t o a s s e s s t h e
f l i g h t s a f e t y of t h e t r a j e c t o r y before committing t h e contin-,
u a t i o n of the landing. And t h i r d l y , t o provide a r e l a t i v e l y
s t a b l e viewing platform i n order t o b e s t accomplish t h e f i r s t
and second objectives. In o t h e r words, lnaneuvering should be
kept t o a minimum. The pr-ry c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e strategy
i n this pbase a r e again t h e d e s i r e t o keep t h e f u e l expenditure
t o a mininnun and t h e l i m i t a t i o n of t h e LM window. In the
event that t h e a s c e n t engine mst be used f o r a b o r t during this
approach t o t h e surface, t h e difference i n thrust- to- weight
between the descent and ascent engines must a l s o be considered
as a c o n s t r a i n t . The a s c e n t engines thrust- to- weight i n i t i a l l y
is only abaut one-half of that of t h e descent engine i n t h i s
phase. The a l t i t u d e l o s s during v e r t i c a l v e l o c i t y a u l l i n g a s
a f'unction of nominal t r a j e c t o r y a l t i t u d e and v e l o c i t y must be
included in t h e consideration f o r a s a f e staged a b o r t . The
o t h e r c o n s t r a i n t s that must be considered a r e t h e problems of
t h e l i g h t i n g of t h e lunar t e r r a i n , and i t s inherent c o n t r a s t
properties which m y make it d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e p i l o t t o s e e
and assess the t e r r a i n f e a t u r e s . The primary v a r i a b l e s that
m y be traded-off during t h i s approach phase include t h e
p i t c h a t t i t u d e , the a l t i t u d e a t which hi- gate o r t h e t r a n s i -
t i o n a l t i t u d e i s chosen, t h e f l i g h t path angle of t h e
t r a j e c t o r y , and t h e v a r i a t i o n of look angle t o t h e landing
a r e a (referenced t o t h e s p a c e c r a f t t h r u s t axis). Tnis
again considers t h e l w t a t i o n o f t h e LM window.
Determination of HI-gate - Perhaps t h e f i r s t f a c t o r that
must be chosen, i n order t o design t h e f i n a l approach
phase, is t h e hi- gate a l t i t u d e . Fi8m-e 28 lists t h e f a c t o r s
a f f e c t i n g t h e choice of t h e hi- gate a l t i t u d e . The f i r s t
f a c t o r i s t h e range from which t h e landing area caxn be
assessed adequately. If t h i s were t h e o n l y f a c t o r t o be
considered, it vould of course be unwise t o waste f i e 1 t o
provide t h i s a b i l i t y , i f t h e viewing range t o t h e t a r g e t
landing area was so g r e a t that t h e d e t a i l of the area could
n o t be observed. The second f a c t o r i s t h e time that t h e
crew w i l l require t o adequately a s s e s s t h e landing area.
A t h i r d consideration i s t h a t of f l i g h t s a f e t y requiremeqts
with regard t o t h e u n d e r t a i n t i e s of t h e t e r r a i n a l t i t u d e
considering the operating r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e landing r a d a r
and i t s a b i l i t y t o lu@ate t h e guidance system ( t h e i n e r t i a l
system), and a l s o considering t h e a b o r t b a u n k r i e s associ-
a t e d with the ascent engine ( s e e f i g u r e 3 ) . Prelimirnary
estimates were =de of a l l t'nese f a c t o r s and considering
a d e s i r e t o be a b l e t o g e t t o hi- gate, even i f t h e landing
r a d a r i s not updating t h e guidance system, the t h i r d r e q u i r e -
ment predominates, and f l i g h t s a f e t y d i c t a t e s the choice
of "gate a l t i t u d e . if f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of t h e landling
radar operations indicates. a high system r e l i a b i l i t y , then
t h e f l i g h t s a f e t y r e q i r e m e n t s w i l l be s a t i s f i e d and t h e
hi- gate a l t i t u d e w m l d be s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e
f i r s t two cor?siderations.
The f l i g h t s a f e t y o f ?he fLnal a - p p m c h t r a j e c t o r y w i l l
be l a r g e l y governed by t h e m g n i t u d e of t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s
i n a l t i t u d e above t h e t e r r a j n . R:gure 30 l i s t s t h e present
expected u n c e r t a i n t i e s . These u n c e r t a i n t i e s include that
of t h e guidance and navigation system which considering
that onboard lunar o r b i t navigation i s accomplished, t h e r e
w i l l be an a p p r o x i d t e 1500 f t of alti.tnde u n c e r t a i r t y on
a oce si- h s i s . E l ~ m caxcgaation
r is conducte& by t h e
I%mne&Space Flight Network, t h e -.mcer+ainty w i l l be ay-proxi-
m t e l y 500 f t l e s s . A t t h e present time, and l a r g e l y as a
r e s u l t of some of t h e data from t h e Ranger spacecraft
x k s i o n s , there i s a l a r g e u n d e r t a i n t y i n t h e lunar r a d i u s
mgnitude, both t h e b i a s and t h e random u n c e r t a i n t i e s .
Both of these q u a n t i t i e s a r e established a s one kilometer
o r approximately 3200 f t , Id b a s i s at t h i s time. Iunar
Surface TecLnology personnel have indicated that t h e i r
p r e s e n t c a p a b i l i t y 52 determining t h e slopes i n t h e a r e a s
of t h e =ria i s l l h i t e d t o an u n c e r t a i n t y o f approximately
23' on a 3 d b a s i s so t h i s is equivalent t o a 700 f t , I d
uncertainty, considering t h e ranges of u n c e r t a i n t y of t h e
landing p o s i t i o n . In addition, our present mission planning
allows f o r a t e r r a i n p r o f i l e along t h e approach p t h l i m i t e d
t o a general slope of 2 2' with l o c a l v a r i a t i o n s not t o
exceed +5 percent o f t h e nominal LM t r a j e c t o r y a l t i t u d e .
This r e s u l t s in a l t i t u d e b i a s e s of 700 t o 800 f r (3 I Y ) over
t h e ranges of u n c e r t a i n t y of t h e l a n d i i g p o s i t i o n .
The minimum hi- gate a l t i t u d e em be determined by combining
t h e a l t i t u d e 3 6 u n c e r t a i n t i e s and b i a s e s previously discussed.
The m e r in which t h e s e f a c t o r s a r e combined, however,
depends upon t h e navigational updating in o r b i t (with CSM
o p t i c s o r MSFN) and during t'ne powered descent (with LR).
Results f o r the various combinations a r e given i n f i g u r e 31.
The f i r s t case i s based upon MSFN o r b i t navigation and no
LR updating and represents t h e l a r g e s t hi- gate a l t i t u d e ,
32,600 f t . This extreme and impractical hi- gate results
from t h e f a c t that no t e r r a i n updating occurs anytime during
t h e mission; and t h e r e f o r e a l l of t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s and
biases a r e maxm
i um.
The second case d i f f e r s from t h e first only i n t h a t two
s i g h t i n g from o r b i t on a landmark, i n the proximity of t h e
landing site, a r e provided in order t o update t h e p o s i t i o n
( r a d i u s ) of t h e landing s i t e . This case assumes that o r b i t
navigation of t h e CSM s t a t e i s accomplished by MSFN and LR
updating during t h e powered descent i s not available. The
minimum hi- gate f o r t h i s case i s 6700 f t , a s u b s t a n t i a l
reduction over case 1. This i s because the landing s i t e
update eliminates t h e lunar r a d i u s b i a s and reduces t h e
random u n c e r t a i n t i e s in r a d i u s s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
The t h i r d case shows a moderate increase i n h i - g a t e a l t i t u d e
o-Jer case 2 due t o t h e mcderate increase i n PGNCS uncertain-
t i e s from onboard navigation (which includes t h e landing s i t e
update) as opposed t o MSFN navigation. The minimum hi-gate
f o r this case is 7500 f t .
The preceding a n a l y s i s has assumed that the crew would
immediately a s s e s s a c o l l i s i o n s i t u a t i o n and t a k e t h e appro-
p r i a t e action. Allowing a finite time, on t h e order of 1 0
seconds, f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n , an operational hi- gate
a l t i t u d e s a t i s f y i n g crew s a f e t y without LR i s approximately
9000 f t .
Parameter Trade-offs - Considering that t h e hi- gate a l t i t u d e
requirement has been s e t a t approximately 9000 f t , the major
trade- offs that a r e s t i l l needed t o be e s t a b l i s h e d include
t h e f l i g h t path angle, t h e acceptable look angle t o the
landing area, and t h e time required t o a s s e s s t h e landing
a r e a , &ch trade-off m y a f f e c t t h e s t a t e vector that i s
specified a t hi- gate, and t h i s change must be taken i n t o
account i n the t o t a l landing descent p r o f i l e planning.
Figure 32 shows t h e penalty of f u e l a s a f'unction of hi- gate
a l t i t u d e . The s e l e c t i o n of about 9 0 0 f t a s the hi- gate
a l t i t u d e costs about 250 fg/sec of d e l t a V. Because t h e LM
p i l o t can only see down 65 from his s t r a i g h t ahead viewing
positiog, it is desirable f o r t h e look angle t o be g r e a t e r
than 25 above t h e t h r u s t a x i s . Considering t h e v a r i a t i o n s
i n a t t i t u d e that nay come about through t h e guidance system
caused by f l y i n g over variable t e r r a i n , a desired look angle
of 35' has been chosen providing a nargin of loo over the
lower l i m i t of the window. The f l i g h t p a t h angle i s a l s o
important. The angle must not be t o o shallow i n order t o
g e t the proper perspective of t h e landing area a s it i s
approached, and, on t h e contrary, it mst not be too steep,
purely from the standpoint of t h e p i l o t being b e t t e r a b l e
t o judge t h e s a f e t y of t h e approach path. In f i g u r e 33,
t h e d e l t a V penalty f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n f l i g h t p a t h angle f o r
varicus look angles i s i l l u s t r a t e d . As can be seen from the
f i g u r e , the major d e l t a V penalty is incurred f o r increasing
t h e look angle. L i t t l e penalty i s p i a f o r varying t h e
f l i g h t path angle f r o m loo up to 20 f o r a given look angle.
The sum t o t a l of t h e trade- off i s that t h e hi- gate a l t i t u d e
will be approx%tely 9000 f t , t h e look angle t o t h e t a r g e t
aPProx-telY 10 above t h e lower limit of t h e wJndow, p d
t h e f l i g h t path angle w i l l be i n t h e order of 13 t o 1 5
throughout the n a j o r portion of t h e final approach phase.
The shaping accomplished i n the final approach phase costs
approximately 270 f t / s e c of equivalent f u e l . In order t o see
w h a t this h s provided, f i g u r e 34 shows a comparison of t h e
selected t r a j e c t o r y with that of t h e f u e l optimum showing
t h e variations of horizontal ana v e r t i c a l v e l o c i t y a s a
m c t i o n of time t o go. Figure 33 shows that t h e time t o
go from 9000 f t . a l t i t u d e down t o t h e lo- gate p o s i t i o n has
been increased by approximately. 45 seconds. In addition,
the v e r t i c a l velocity has been &ut by approximately a t h i r d
f o r equivalent a l t i t u d e s ; however, t h e primrry d i f f e r e n c e
shuws up i n the comparison of horizontal v e l o c i t y a t equiv-
a l e n t a l t i t u d e s , noting that a t 5000 f t t h e f u e l optimum
t r a j e c t o r y has a v e l o c i t y of about l
o00 f t / s e c , whereas t h e
selected t r a j e c t o r y has a horizontal v e l o c i t y of about
Redesignation Footprint - Even though an adequate perspective
of t h e landing area and adequate viewing time a r e provided b y
t h e s e l e c t i o n of t h e f l i g h t p a t h angle, t h e line- of- sight
. angle, and t h e hi- gate a l t i t u d e , it is s t i l l p e r t i n e n t t o
determine how much of t h e area the p i l o t needs t o survey.
This, i n turn, i s a function of how much f u e l t h e p i l o t vi11
have i n order t o change his landiqg s i t e i f he decides t h a t
t h e point t o which t h e guidance system i s taking him is
unacceptable. Assuming that it w i l l take t h e p i l o t a few
seconds t o g e t oriented t o t h e view in f r o n t , it appears that
t h e mximm a l t i t u d e f r m which he could consider a redesig-
nation would probably be l e s s thm 8000 f e e t . Figure 35 shows
t h e a v a i l a b l e f o o t p r i n t a s a f'unction of el required f o r
t h i s pu-pose. The perspective of t h e ' f i g u r e i s that of
lo o k i
n g d i r e c t l y from overhead the s p c e c m f t perpendicular
t o t h e surface where t h e spacecraft p o s i t i o n i s a t t h e apex
of the l i n e s . The nominal landing point, o r that point t o
which t h e spacecraft i s being guided by the automatic system,
i s t h e zero-zero range position. The s o l i d contour l i n e s a r e
t h e ranges that could be reached provided that t h e indicated
amount o f f u e l could be expended. For a d e l t a V expenditure
of approximately 100 f t / s e c , an a d d i t i o n a l 8000 f t downrange
could be obtained, and a p p m x i m t e l y 10,OOO f t in e i t h e r
d i r e c t i o n crcssrange. The horizontal l i n e a t t h e bottom of
t h e f i g u r e indicates t h e lower window limit, and t h e second
l i n e i n d i c a t e s t h e p o s i t i o n 5O above t h e lower window limit.
The other l i n e s i n d i c a t e t h e s i d e window v i e w l i m i t a t i o n s
experienced by t h e p i l o t o r comnrand p i l o t , on t h e l e f t . The
c o p i l o t m l a have a similar l i m i t a t i o n of s i d e vision toward
t h e d i r e c t i o n of the p i l o t , therefore, only t h e region
bounded by t h e inboard s i d e window limits would be comon t o
t h e f i e l d of view of both crew members.
The v a r i a t i o n of footprint+ c a p a b i l i t y as t h e a l t i t u d e i s
decreased during t h e descent i s indicated i n f i g u r e 36.
Contours of f o o t p r i n t c a p a b i l i t y a r e shown f o r an expenditure
of 100f t / s e c of f u e l a t a l t i t u d e s of 8ooO f t , 5000 f t J and
3OOO f t . The f o o t p r i n t c a p a b i l i t y n a t u r a l l y shrinks t h e
c l o s e r t h e approach i s made t o t h e landing area. However,
a given budgeted amount of fuel provides an area that sub-
tends very c l o s e l y t o t h e same angular view from the p i l o t ' s
viewing position. The present s t r a t e g y i s based upon having
a high p r o b a b i l i t y that t h e intended landing area will be
generally s u i t a b l e , and, f o r t h i s reason, t h e r e will be a
w p r o b a b i l i t y of requiring l a r g e redesignations of t h e
o
l
landing position.
It has Seen assumed that a maximum c a p a b i l i t y of designating
3000 f t domrange w i l l be required and this provision of f u e l
i s a l l o t b e d f o r redesignation a t 5OOO f t of a l t i t u d e . Approx-
imately 45 f t / s e c of f u e l i s required f o r this redesignation
c a p a b i l i t y . Figure 37 shows t h e f o o t p r i n t a v a i l a b l e f o r
t h i s f u e l allotment.
The LMpilot does n o t have t h e opportunity t o s e e t h e foot-
p r i n t a s viewed here, but i n s t e a d from t h e perspective
provided by t h e approach f l i g h t p a t h angle. The p i l o t view
from t h e hi- gate a l t i t u d e i s i n d i c a t e d i n f i g u r e 38. W r i n #
this phase, t h e spacecraft i s pitched 3 c k a p p r o x b a t e l y 40 , With each increment that t h e p i l o t makes in moving t h e hand
t h s , t h e horizon i s very near t h e - 40 elevation depression
angle. The landing s i t e i s a t approx-tely 55' depression
o r about 10' above t h e lower limit of t h e window. For
reference purposes a 3000 f t c i r c l e has been drawn about t h e
landing p o s i t i o n and t h e landing f o o t p r i n t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h .
a d e l t a V of 100 f t / s e c i s shown.
Landing Point Designator - The p i l o t will know where t o look
t o f i n d t h e intended landing area, o r the area which t h e
@dance system is taking him, by information earning from
the guidance system d i s p l a y and keyboard (DSKY). This i n f o r -
mation will be i n t h e form of a d i g i t a l readout that allows
him t o l o c a t e t h e c o r r e c t g r i d number on t h e window, comonly
c a l l e d t h e landing p o i n t designator (LPD). A f t e r proper
alinement of t h e g r i d , the p i l o t merely .has t o look beyond
t h e number corresponding t o t h e DSKY readout t o f i n d where
on t h e lunar surface t h e automatic system i s guiding t h e
spacecraft. The proposed g r i d configuration f o r t h e landing
p o i n t -d e s i g n a t o r is shown in f i g u r e 39.
The process of landing point designation and redesignation is
i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 40. The guidance system always believes
that it i s following t h e correct p a t h t o t h e landing s i t e . It
has t h e c a p a b i l i t y a t any time t o determine t h e proper look
angle o r line- of- sight t o the intended landing site. Because
of o r b i t a l navigation e r r o r s and a l s o drifts of t h e i n e r t i a l
system &ring t h e powered descent, t h e a c t u a l p o s i t i o n of
t h e spacecraft w i
ll n o t be t h e c o r r e c t position. Thus, i f
the p i l o t looks along t h e c a l c u l a t e d line- of- sight he would
see an area d i f f e r e n t from that o f t h e desired landing area.
Should t h e desired landing a r e a appear i n another portion of
t h e window, then t h e p i l o t , by taking a measurement of t h e
angle formed by t h e line- of- sight readout from t h e guidance
system and t h e new line- of- sight ( t o t h e desired point),
can input t h e change i n line- of- sight i n t o t h e guidance computer.
will be a cooperative t a s k between t h e p i l o t and t h e c o p i l o t
where t h e c o p i l o t will read t h e DSKY and c a l l out t o t h e
p i l o t t h e numbers corresponding t o t h e landing p o i n t designator.
The p i l o t will then o r i e n t his line- of- sight so that he can
look beyond t h e proper number on t h e landing p o i n t designator
and see where t h e guidance system i s taking him. If he i s n o t
s a t i s f i e d with t h i s p o s i t i o n , then he can i n s t r u c t changes i n
t h e guidance system b y incrementing his a t t i t u d e hand c o n t r o l l e r .
=ring t h i s portion of t h e approach, t h e guidance system i s
f l y i n g the spacecraft automatically so that t h e p i l o t ' s a t t i t u d e
hand c o n t r o l l e r i s n o t e f f e c t i v e i n lnaking a t t i t u d e changes.
c o n t r o l l e r i n a p i t c h i n g motion, t h e r e i s an i n s t r u c t i o n t o
t h e guidance system t o change t h e landing p o i n t by t h e equiv-
a l e n t of a half- degree of elevation viewing angle. Iateral
changes i n t h e landing p o s i t i o n would be =de by incrementing
the hand c o n t r o l l e r t o t h e s i d e i n a motion that would normally
c r e a t e r o l l i n g motion of t h e spacecraft. Ehch increment of
a hand c o n t r o l l e r i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n causes a 2' l i n e - o f - s i g h t
change l a t e r a l l y t o t h e landing a r e a . When t h e guidance system
receives these d i s c r e t e i n s t r u c t i o n s it r e c a l c u l a t e s t h e
p o s i t i o n of t h e d e s i r e d landing a r e a and comrnands t h e p i t c h
o r r o l l a t t i t u d e i n combination with a t h r o t t l e commnd
required t o reach t h e desired position. This r e s u l t s i n a
t r a n s i e n t response from t h e spacecraft until t h e new a t t i t u d e
and t h r o t t l e s e t t i n g commnds a r e responded to. A f t e r t h e
t r a n s i e n t has s e t t l e d out, t h e c o p i l o t would n o r m l l y read
t h e DSKY again and inform t h e p i l o t w h a t new number t o look
f o r t o f i n d t h e a e s i r e d landing area. The p i l o t would then
o r i e n t himself t o look a t this number and check t o s e e i f
his i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e guidmce system had been f u l l y c o r r e c t .
E not, some refinement i n landing s i t e s e l e c t i o n would then
be made.
The response of t h e s p a c e c r a f t t o redesignations of landing
p o s i t i o n is important. For example, i f the new s i t e s e l e c t e d
i s f i r t h e r downrange, t h e spacecraft will p i t c h c l o s e r t o
the verticral and reduction i n t h r o t t l e w i l l be made so that
t h e new p o s i t i o n will be more c l o s e l y centered in t h e p i l o t ' s
window. If, however, t h e s i t e chosen i s s h o r t of t h e o r i g i n a l
landing s i t e , then t h e spacecraft would have t o p i t c h t a c k
and increase t h r o t t l e i n order t o slow down and obtain t h e
new desired p o s i t i o n . These a t t i t u d e motions a f f e c t t h e l i n e -
of- sight and become important because of t h e danger of l o s i n g
s i g h t of t h e t a r g e t . Some t m i c a l responses t o changes i n
t h e landing point are shown i n f i g u r e 43. The v a r i a t i o n of
the l i n e - o f - s i g h t t o t h e landing s i t e (looking a n g l e ) w i t h
time from hi- gate i s shown f o r t h e nominal case, a redesignation
-
The guidance system will then recompute the location of t h e
desired landing area. When t h i s occurs the guidance system,
i n e f f e c t , begins a period of r e l a t i v e navigation where t h e
new landing point i s calculated in t h e present reference
frame and is not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by whatever i n e r t i a l
system o r other navigational e r r o r s that m y have occurred.
The accuracywith which t h e landing point designation o r t h e
redesignation process can be made i s a function of how
a c c u r a t e l y t h e line- of- sight can be interpreted, o r c o r r e c t l y
displayed t o the p i l o t .
There a r e several sources of redesignation e r r o r s , a s i n d i -
cated i n f i g u r e 41. These include t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n t e r r a i n
along the approach t o t h e landing s i t e , the guidance dispersion
e f f e c t upon a l t i t u d e (provided the landing radar updating i s
not c q l e t e ) , boresight i n s t a l l a t i o n , t h e i n e r t i a l measuring
u n i t . r e f e r e n c e misalinement, and t h e e r r o r s of application
by the spacecraft crew. The e f f e c t of the a l t i t u d e e r r o r s
whether from the t e r r a i n , o r from t h e guidance system a l t i t u d e
uncertainties, a r e shown graphically i n f i g u r e 42. In this
case, t h e guidance system assumes t h e landing s i t e i s a t t h e
sane elevation a s . t h e t e r r a i n over which t h e spacecraft is
flying; and, therefore, determines the line- of- sight through
that p o i n t . Fbwever, when t h e crew views this line- of- sight
t h e . i n t e r c e p t point with t h e lunar surface i s a t an e n t i r e l y
d i f f e r e n t point than t h e intended landing position. For
f l i g h t path angles of about 14O, t h i s r a t i o of downrange
e r r o r t o a l t i t u d e e r r o r i s approximately 4 t o 1. Altitude
e r r o r s do not a f f e c t t h e l a t e r a l dispersions. It i s obvious
that although the landing radar performs a very vital function
in redixing the a l t i t u d e dispersions of t h e guidance system,
there i s probability that t h e same landing radar function w i l l
update t h e i n e r t i a l system with a f a l s e indication of t h e
landing position a l t i t u d e .
The e r r o r s other than t h e a l t i t u d e type e r r o r s ( t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n
IIvSJ and the p i l o t application e r r o r s ) a l l tend t o be biases.
Preliminary t e s t i n g i n d i c a t e s that these e r r o r s could be of
t h e order of one-half degree. Again f o r t y p i c a l f l i g h t path
angles of about 14' t h i s half degree of application boresight
e r r o r w i l l lead t o redesignation e r r o r s downrange on t h e
order of 800 f t f o r redesignations occurring i n t h e a l t i t u d e
range of 5000 t o 8000 f t . These downrange e r r o r s will r e ~ c e
t o the order of 100 f t when the redesignations a r e made a t
a l t i t u d e s of l
o o0 f t or less. Tms, t h e r e i s a trade- off with
regard t o the p r o h b l e magnitude of t h e e r r o r s t h a t vary with
a l t i t u d e , especially if t h e approach t e r r a i n is l i k e l y t o
have l a r g e variations of a l t i t u d e s . The process of redesignation
downrange and redesignation uprange. The redesignations ocw
a t an a l t i t u d e of 5000 f t . For t h e nominal landing s i t e , the
line- of- sight look angle i s rnaintained between 35' and 30°
throughout t h e phase. For t h e 3000 f t long redesignation the
look angle i s increased over t h e nominal case varying between
45O and 35O ( a f t e r the r e s u l t i n g t r a n s i e n t response i s
completed). For t h e 3000 f t s h o r t redesignation t h e p i t c h b c k
motion of the spacecraft causes the line- of- sight angle t o
the very t a r g e t a r e a t o be decreaged t o approximately 20'
i n i t i a l l y , increasing t o about 28 f o r a short-time i n t e r v a l .
%st f o r this case, v i s i b i l i t y of t h e landing a r e a would
be l o s t f o r a portion of time since t h e lower window limit
is 25O. For this reason, it would be t h e n o r m 1 procedure
not t o redesignate short by more than t h e equivalent of about
2000 f t a t t h i s a l t i t u d e . A t lower a l t i t u d e s , s h o r t e r range
redesignations should be limited t o proportionally l e s s
magnitude. For crossrange redesignations, the e f f e c t on
t h e look angle is s l i g h t f o r redesignations up t o 3000 f t ;
however, t h e spacecraft will require a new bank a t t i t u d e
(which i s nominally zero f o r in-plane redesignations ). Thus,
t h i s f i g u r e does not present t h e t o t a l a t t i t u d e response
t r a n s i e n t s f o r the e f f e c t of s i t e redesignations.
An important aspect of the redesignation process i s t h e
problem of how t o account f o r the propellant f u e l expenditure.
There is no accurate procedure t o account f o r t h i s f i e 1 other
than t o interrogate t h e guidance system f o r t h e amount of
f u e l remaining.
The guidance computer load i s q u i t e heavy at this time, there-
f o r e , it i s probable that a r u l e of thu& approach m y be
u t i l i z e d , which, in e f f e c t , informs t h e p i l o t t h a t so m y
u n i t s of elevation and azjmuth redesignation c a p b i l i t y can
be u t i l i z e d . S u f f i c i e n t conservatism can be placed on t h i s
number t o insure that t h e p i l o t does not waste f u e l t o the
extent that the landing could not be completed. A t t h e same
time, t h i s would allow t h e p i l o t a rough assessment of
whether o r not the new landing area would be within t h e f u e l
budget.
D elt
a V kdget - The f i e 1 expenditure during t h e nominal
final approach phase w i l l be an equivalent t o 889 f t / s e c
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c velocity. To this number is added, f o r
budget purposes, a bias allowance of 45 f t / s e c f o r the landing
point redesignation capability, and a 3 g random allowance
of 15 f t / s e c f o r refinements i n t h e landing s i t e designation.
w r y of Final Approach Phase -
The final approach phase
covers about 5 1 / 2 n a u t i c a l miles during wbich t h e a l t i t u d e
i s decreased from 9 0 0 f t t o 5 0 f t , and t h e v e l o c i t y from
600 f t / s e c t o 50 f t / s e c . The time required n o m l l y w i l l be
about lo5 seconds during which.time t h e p i l o t will b v e a
continuous v i e w of t h e landing area. It i s during t h i s time
that assessments of t h e landing a r e a w i l l be made, and
required redesignations of t h e landing p o s i t i o n t o more
favorable landing t e r r a i n will be accomplished.
The Landing Phase
Objectives and Constraints - The b a s i c purpose o f t h e landing
phase i s t o provide a p o r t i o n of f l i g h t a t o lw v e l o c i t i e s and
at p i t c h a t t i t u d e s close t o t h e v e r t i c a l so t h a t t h e p i l o t
can provide v e r n i e r control of t h e touchdown maneuver, and
a l s o t o have the opportunity f o r d e t a i l e d assessment of t h e
a r e a p r i o r t o the touchdown. In order t o accomplish t h i s ,
t h e t r a j e c t o r y i s m r t h e r shaped a f t e r t h e f i n a l approach
phase. The guidance system i s t a r g e t e d so that the design
c o n s t r a i n t s of t h e lo- gate p o s i t i o n are m e t , b u t t h e a c t u a l
t a r g e t point w i l l be a t o r near t h e p o s i t i o n where t h e v e r t i c a l
descent begins. The final approach phase and t h e landing
phase a r e then combined with regard t o t h e m n n e r i n which
t h e guidance system i s targeted. The +argeting design mmld
sat-isfy t h e c o n s t r a i n t s of both t h e terminal p o r t i o n of the
final approach phase and t h e landing phase by proper
s e l e c t i o n of t h e t a r g e t i n g parameters. There will be a
smooth t r a n s i t i o n from t h e extreme pitch- back a t t i t u d e with
associated with t h e final approach phase and t h e near v e r t i c a l
a t t i t u d e of t h e landing phase.
In t h e final approach phase, t h e t r a j e c t o r y w a s shaped i n
order t o p i t c h the a t t i t u d e more toward t h e v e r t i c a l so t h a t
t h e approach conditions would allow the p i l o t t o view t h e
landing s i t e . The r e s u l t i n g p i t c h a t t i t u d e , approxTmately
40' back from t h e v e r t i c a l i s , however, s t i l l q u i t e extreme
f o r approaching t h e lunar surface a t o lw a l t i t u d e s , hence,
it i s necessary t o provide a d d i t i o n a l shaping in order t o
e f f e c t a more n e a r l y v e r t i c a l a t t i t u d e a t t h e termination o f
t h e t o t a l descent. Figure 44 shows a comparison of the
nominal a t t i t u d e s f o r those w t o phases. ,The objectives and
c o n s t r a i n t s of the landing phase design are presented i n
f i g u r e 45. The first objective i s t o allow t h e crew t o make
t h e d e t a i l e d assessment, and a f i n a l s e l e c t i o n , of t h e exact
landing point. In order t o accomplish this, t h e r e will be
some f l e x i b i l i t y i n t h e p r o p e l l a n t budget t o allow o t h e r than
a r i g i d following of the design t r a j e c t o r y . This leads t o
objective m b e r two, i n which it i s d e s i r e d t o allow some
maneuvering c a p a b i l i t y and adjustment of t h e landing point.
The c o n s t r a i n t s are f a m i l i a r ones including t h e f u e l u t i l i z a -
t i o n , t h e physical l i d t a t i o n s of t h e window, and i n t u r n ,
t h e l i g h t i n g and associated v i s i b i l i t y of t h e surface, t h e
v i s i b i l i t y associated with t h e l i g h t i n g , t h e a c t u a l t e r r a i n ,
and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of blowing d u s t maneuvering within the
desired a t t i t u d e limits i n order t o r e t a i n t h e advantages of a
f a i r l y s t a b l e platform, and l a s t , what i s termed t h e staged
a b o r t l i m i t i n g boundary. This boundary defines t h e circustances
under which an abort maneuver cannot be performed without the
ascent stage h i t t i n g t h e surface. This curve i s based upon a
combination of v e r t i c a l v e l o c i t i e s , a l t i t u d e s , and t h e p i l o t -
abort- staging system reaction time.
Nominal Trajectory - The v a r i a b l e s t h a t a r e a v a i l a b l e t o t r y t o
s a t i s f y a l l of these constraints and o b j e c t i v e s include v a r i a t i o n s
i n t h e approach f l i g h t path and t h e v e l o c i t i e s involved, t h e
a t t i t u d e of t h e spacecraft, and t h e a c t u a l touchdown control
procedures. The lacding phase p r o f i l e which has r e s u l t e d from
almost & years of simulating t h e maneuver i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n
figure 46. The lo- gate point i s a t an a l t i t u d e of approximately
500 f t . , a t a position about 1200 f t back from t h e intended
landing spot. The landing phase f l i g h t path i s a continuation
of t h e f i n a l approach phase f l i g h t path s o t h a t t h e r e i s no
d i s c o n t i n u i t y a t t h e lo- gate position. A t t h e s t a r t of t h i s
phase, t h e h o r i z o n t a l v e l o c i t y i s approximately 50 f t / s e c and
t h e v e r t i c a l veloc&ty i s 1 5 f t / s e c . The p i t c h a t t i t u d e i s
nominally 10 t o 11 throughout this phase, b u t r i g i d adherence
t o t h i s p i t c h a t t i t u d e i s not a requirement. The e f f e c t of
t h e p i t c h a t t i t u d e i s t o gradually reduce t h e v e l o c i t i e s as
t h e f l i g h t path i s followed i n order t o reach t h e desired
p o s i t i o n a t an a l t i t u d e of 103 f t from which a v e r t i c a l descent
can be made. Modification of this t r a j e c t o r y can be accomplished
simply by modifying the p r o f i l e of p i t c h a t t i t u d e i n order t o
e f f e c t a landing a t s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s t h a n that associated
with t h e nominal descent path. No a c t u a l hover p o s i t i o n i s
shown i n t h e approach p o r f i l e because t h e v e r t i c a l v e b c i t y
o r descent r a t e nominally does not come t o zero. The approach
i s a continuous maneuver i n which forward a n d l a t e r a l v e l o c i t i e s
would be zeroed a t approximately t h e 100 f t a l t i t u d e p o s i t i o n
and t h e descent v e l o c i t y allowed t o continue a t approximately
5 f t / s e c . This allows a very expeditious t y p e of landing, however,
i f a hover condition i s desired near t h e 100 f t a l t i t u d e mark.
It i s a very simple matter f o r t h e p i l o t t o e f f e c t such a hover
maneuver. The only disadvantage of t h e hover maneuver i s the
expenditure of f u e l . The t o t a l maneuver from t h e lo- gate p o s i t i o n
w i l l normally take approximately 89 seconds. If flown according
t o t h e p r o f i l e , the descent propellant u t i l i z e d w i l l be equiva-

l e n t t o about 390 f t / s e c of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c v e l o c i t y . During
t h e landing approach, t h e p i l o t has good v i s i b i l i t y of t h e
landing p o s i t i o n u n t i l j u s t before t h e f i n a l v e r t i c a l descent
phase. Figure 46 a l s o shows a nominal sequence of p i l o t views
of a 100 f t radius c i r c u l a r area- around the landing point.
However, even during t h e v e r t i c a l descent, t h e a r e a immediately
i n f r o n t of and t o t h e s i d e of t h e exact landing p o s i t i o n w i l l
be v i s i b l e . The IM f r o n t landing pad is v i s i b l e t o t h e p i l o t .
I n a d d i t i o n t o being able t o observe the intezded landing
s i t e , t h e p i l o t has ample view of much of t h e l u n a r surface
around h i m so t h a t i f t h e o r i g i n a l s i t e i s not s u i t a b l e he
can deviate t o t h e o t h e r landing position; provided t h a t t h e
new landing p o s i t i o n i s s b t a i n a b l e with t h e f u e l available.
The b a s i c system design w i l l allow t h e e n t i r e maneuver t o be
conducted automatically. However, t h e IM handling q u a l i t i e s
make it a s a t i s f a c t o r y vehicle f o r t h e p i l o t t o c o n t r o l manually.
The s a t i s f a c t o r y nature of t h e LN manual control handling
q u a l i t i e s has been demonstrated by fixed base simulation and by
f l i g h t simulation a t t h e F l i g h t Research Center using t h e Lunar
Landing Research Vehicle and t h e Langley Research Center using
the Lunar Landing Research F a c i l i t y . Simulations have shown
t h a t here should be no problems involved i f t h e p i l o t decides
t o take over from manual c o n t r o l a t any time during t h e terminal
portion of t h e f i n a l approach phase o r t h e landing phase.
Mu'ch concern has been generated with regard t o t h e problem of
v i s i b i l i t y during t h e landing approach. This f a c t o r has l e d t o
a c o n s t r a i n t upon t h e sun angle a t t h e landing site, a s w i l l
be discussed by t h e paper on S i t e Selection. I n the event t h a t
t h e p i l o t has some misgivings about t h e a r e a on which he d e s i r e s
t o land, t h e landing phase can be f l e x i b l e enough t o accommodate
a dog-leg type maneuver t h a t w i l l give t h e p i l o t improved view-
ing perspective of t h e intended landing position. Manual control
of t h i s maneuver should present no problem and could be executed
a t t h e option of t h e p i l o t . A t t h e present time, t r a j e c t o r y
i s not planned f o r an approach i n order t o Icaintain s i m p l i c i t y
of t r a j e c t o r y design, because of t h e expected ease i n which t h e
maneuver could be accomplished manually should t h e need be present.
Should, however, t h e dog-leg be i d e n t i f i e d as a requirement f o r
an automatic approach, it w i l l be incorporated.
A p r o f i l e of the a l t i t u d e and a l t i t u d e r a t e of t h e landing phase
i s shown i n f i g u r e 47. The a l t i t u d e r a t e i s gradually decreased
t o a value of about 5 f t / s e c a t t h e C l3 f t a l t i t u d e position f o r
v e r t i c a l descent. The descent r a t e of 5 f t / s e c i s maintained a t
t h i s point i n order+to expedite t h e landing. A t approximately
50 f t of a l t i t u d e (- 10 f t ) , t h e descent r a t e would be decreased
t o t h e design touchdown v e l o c i t y of 3 s f t / s e c . It i s not necessary
f o r this t o be done a t e x a c t l y 50 f t so t h a t u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n
the a l t i t u d e of t h e order of 5 t o 10 f t would n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a f f e c t t h e approach design. The value of 3% f t j s e c descent
r a t e i s then maintained a l l t h e way u n t i l contact with t h e
surface is e f f e c t e d and procedures i n i t i a t e d f o r cutoff of t h e
descent engine. The curve l a b e l e a staged- abort boundary shown
i n f i g u r e 47 i s applicable t o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e descent
engine has t o be c u t off and t h e vehicle staged t o a b o r t on
t h e ascent engine. It i s obvious t h a t this boundary must be
violated p r i o r t o e f f e c t i n g a normal landing on t h e surface.
However, with t h e c u r r e n t design, t h i s boundary i s avoided
u n t i l t h e p i l o t i s ready t o commit hiplself t o a landing so t h a t
it is only i n t h e region of below 100 f t t h a t he i s i n v i o l a t i o n
of t h e boundary.
Delta V Budget - A sunrmary of t h e landing phase f u e l budget is
given i n f i g u r e 48. The budget r e f l e c t s allowances f o r s e v e r a l
possible contingencies. For example, t h e p i l o t may wish t o p r o -
ceed t o t h e landing s i t e and spend some time i n s p e c t i n g it before
he f i n a l l y descends t o t h e surface. This would r e q u i r e t h a t the
spacecraft h e s i t a t e during t h e approach, and t h e penalty involved
i s t h e amount of f u e l expended. A period of 15 seconds of hover
t i m e w i l l c o s t about 80 f t j s e c of f u e l equivalent. There i s also
t h e p o s s i b i l i t y . t h a t t h e performance of t h e landing r a d a r may be
doubtful, i n which case t h e spacecraft crew might want t o hover
i n order t o v i s u a l l y observe and n u l l out t h e v e l o c i t i e s . It
has been found by means of f l i g h t t e s t s i n a h e l i c o p t e r , t h a t
v e l o c i t i e s can be nulled i n this manner within 1 f t / s e c a f t e r
l e s s than 15 seconds of hover time (another 80 f t / s e c of f u e l
expenditure). It would be possible t o update t h e i n e r t i a l
system i n this manner and allow t h e spacecraft t o proceed and
l a n d on t h e s u r f a c e with degraded landing r a d a r performance
during t h e f i n a l p o r t i o n of t h e descent. I f t h e r e a r e e r r o r s
i n t h e radar v e r t i c a l velocity, t h e r e w i l l be a d i r e c t e f f e c t
upon t h e time required t o complete descent and a random 2 65
f t / s e c of equivalent f u e l has b e e n . a l l o t t e d i n t h e f u e l budget.
Another descent engine f u e l contingency t h a t must be accounted
f o r i s the p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e p i l o t c o n t r o l technique
including t h e deviations from t h e planned f l i g h t p r o f i l e t h e
p i l o t might employ. Simulation experience has i n d i c a t e d a need
f o r an average a d d i t i o n of &I f t / s e c of f u e l and a random * 103
f t j s e c . It i s noteworthy t h a t only 30 seconds of hover time has
been budgeted and t h a t f o r s p e c i f i c a l l y designated purposes.
 Fuel Budget Summary
A summary of the t o t a l -24 descent f u e l budget i s given i n
f i g u r e 49. The budget i s divided i n t o t h a t required by t h e
baseline t r a j e c t o r y requirement t o t a l i n g 6582 f t / s e c , and
items, described a s Contingencies, t o t a l i n g 353 f t / s e c mean
requirement with an a d d i t i o n a l 2 143 f t j s e c random requirement.
This leads t o a t o t a l 7053. The inclusion of t h e RSS random
contingencies a s a f u e l requirement i s considered a conserva-
t i v e approach i n t h a t each of t h e random congingencies could
lead t o a f u e l savings a s well as a f e u l expenditure. The
present tankage would provide up t o 7332 f t / s e c of f u e l o r
about 282 f t / s e c more than t h e budget. Thus, t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
of a d d i t i o n a l landing f l e x i b i l i t y can be provided by f u e l tanks,
o r i n the i n t e r e s t of weight savings, some off- loading of f u e l
can be considered. The addition f l e x i b i l i t y i s equivalent t o
a hover time of about one minute o r t o a d d i t i o n a l downrange
landing redesignation c a p a b i l i t y of almost 2D,OM f e e t f o r a
redesignation at. 8,300 f t a l t i t u d e .
The f u e l budget s m a r y i s presented i n f i g u r e 50b a s a How-
Goes-It p l o t of t h e expenditure of f u e l both i n equivalent
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c v e l o c i t y and pounds a s a function of time and
events during t h e descent, The s o l i d l i n e give t h e b a s e l i n e
t r a j e c t o r y and r e s u l t s i n a f u e l remaining of 778 f t / s e c a t
touchdown. Adding t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of a l l of t h e budgeted con-
tingency mean values of f u e l i s represented by t h e dashed l i n e .
.When these contingencies a r e u t i l i z e d t h e time b a s i s of t h e p l o t
w i l l be incorrect, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the time between Lo-Gate and
Touchdown. The t o t a l time could extend t o a s much a s 12 minutes
(735 seconds) i n t h e event . t h a t a l l of t h e contingency f u e l were
u t i l i z e d f o r hovering over t h e landing s i t e .
3.0 LUNAR LANDING TOUCHDOWN CONTROL, AUTCMATIC AND MANUAL
Perhaps the most important s i n g l e operation i n t h e lunar landing
mission i s t h e a c t u a l touchdown maneuver. It i s during t h i s
maneuver t h a t t h e unce'rtanities of t h e lunar surface become a
r e a l problem. A recommended procedure f o r c o n t r o l l i n g t h e approach
has been developed. This procedure, developed p a r t l y through
simulation, involves reaching a p o s i t i o n a t about 100 f t above
t h e landing s i t e and descending v e r t i c a l l y t o t h e lunar surface,
. i
a s previously described. Diring t h e v e r t i c a l descent, t h e
l a t e r a l v e l o c i t i e s a r e nulled and t h e v e r t i c a l v e l o c i t y controlled
t o a prescribed value u n t i l t h e descent engine is cut off j u s t
p r i o r t o touchdown. The procedures f o r e f f e c t i n g descent engine
shutdown w i l l be discussed i n d e t a i l .
There a r e two control modes by which t h e landing operation can
be performed, a s indicated i n f i g u r e 51. The f i r s t i s completely
automatic. I n this mode, while t h e p i l o t may have used t h e
landing point designator t o s e l e c t t h e touchdown point, he is
not a c t i v e i n t h e a c t u a l c o n t r o l loop. The second mode i s manual,
but i s aided 5y automatic c o n t r o l loops, t h a t is, t h e p i l o t
has taken over d i r e c t c o n t r o l b u t he has s t a b i l i z a t i o n loops
t o provide favorable c o n t r o l response. I n addition, t h e manual
mode normally w i l l be used i n conjunction with a rate-of-descent,
comand mode t o f u r t h e r a i d t h e p i l o t i n control of t h e touch-
down v e l o c i t i e s . Within t h e manual landing mode, t h e p i l o t
has two options; (1) land v i s u a l l y , which would require t h a t
t h e r e be no v i s u a l obscuration a s might come from d u s t o r l u n a r
l i g h t i n g constraints, o r ( 2 ) because of such obscurations he
would control t h e landing through reference t o f l i g h t i n s t r u -
ments. Because of the expected good handling q u a l i t i e s of t h e
IM, t h e manual v i s u a l mode should be very s i m i l a r t o f l i g h t of
a VTOL a i r c r a f t here on e a r t h . No landing a t t i t u d e o r v e l o c i t y
c o n t r o l problem i s a n t i c i p a t e d and t h e control should be with-
i n one f o o t per second l a t e r a l v e l o c i t i e s . Manual-instrument
mode of control does have sources of error, however, t h a t may
degrade control and those t h a t have been considered include t h e
following: control system response, landing radar v e l o c i t y
measurement, landing r a d a r a l t i t u d e measurement, IMU accelero-
meter bias, IMU misalignment, d i s p l a y system f o r manual only,
t h e p i l o t , f o r manual only, and t h e center- of-gravity ( c . g . )
p o s i t i o n . Several of these parameters a r e l i s t e d i n f i g u r e 51
a s being of prime importance.
I n considering t h e control of t h e landing, emphasis has been
placed on t h e method of timing of s h u t t i n g off t h e descent
engine. Because of possible unsymmetrical nozzle f a i l u r e due
t o shock ingestion and a d e s i r e t o l i m i t erosion of t h e landing
surface, an o p e r a t i n g -c o n s t r a i n t of having t h e descent engine
off a t touchdown has been accepted. Probable e r r o r s i n a l t i t u d e
information from e i t h e r t h e i n e r t i a l system o r from t h e landing
r a d a r preclude t h e use of this information f o r t h e engine cut-
off function, even though t h e accuracy may be of t h e order of
f i v e f e e t , because of t h e d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t on touchdown v e r t i -
c a i v e l o c i t i e s . The need f o r an accurate, d i s c r e t e i n d i c a t i o n
of t h e proper a l t i t u d e t o c u t t h e descent engine off l e d t o t h e
adoption of probes extending beneath t h e landing pads rigged t o
cause a l i g h t i n t h e cockpit t o turn on upon probe contact with
the l un a r surface. The light- on s i g n a l informs the p i l o t t h a t
t h e proper a l t i t u d e -h a s been reached f o r engine cutoff. The
probe l e n g t h must be determined from a consideration of delay
times i n p i l o t response, descent engine shutoff valve closures,
and t a i l - o f f and t h e nominal descent v e l o c i t i e s . The sequence
of events i s shown i n f i g u r e 52.
The v a r i a t i o n of descent r a t e a t touchdown a s a function of
descent r a t e a t probe contact i s shown i n f i g u r e 53, and includes
t h e e f f e c t of p i l o t r e a c t i o n time. The curves a r e representative
of a 53-inch f o o t probe being used, coupled with a 0.25 second
t o t a l engine shutoff delay time. This engine delay time includes
t h a t time required f o r t h e e l e c t r o n i c s i g n a l to be generated,
t h e shutoff valves t o close, and t h e t h r u s t t a i l - o f f t o be
e s s e n t i a l l y completed. The heavy dashed l i n e on t h e chart
going up on a 45 degree angle i n d i c a t e d a combination of descent
r a t e a t probe contact, plus system delay and p i l o t r e a c t i o n
times, t h a t would cause t h e engine t o s t i l l be on a t touch-
down. If the desired f i n a l r a t e of descent has been achieved,
up t o 1.0 second p i l o t delay time can be t o l e r a t e d and s t i l l
have t h e descent engine o f f a t touchdown. A s shown i n f i g u r e 53,
t h e a c t u a l toucMown v e l o c i t y i s just s l i g h t l y more than t h e
descent r a t e a t probe contact, o r about four f e e t per second.
F a s t e r reaction time would i n c r e a s e t h e f i n a l touchdown velo-
c i t y , but not beyond present landing gear impact l i m i t . If
manual control allowed a s l i g h t l y higher than desired f i n a l
descent r a t e , and radar e r r o r s a t t h e time of f i n a l update a l s o
allowed a s l i g h t l y higher descent r a t e , t h e s e compounded in-
creases might y i e l d descent r a t e s on t h e order of 5 t o 6 f t / s e c .
These increased r a t e s coupled with t h e 0.6 second reaction time
would mean not meeting t h e c r i t e r i a of having t h e descent engine
off a t touchdown. One s o l u t i o n f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n would be t o
extend the probes t o allow more leeway i n p i l o t reaction time.
HrJWeVer, the advantages of longer probes m u s t be traded off
against a probable decrease i n r e l i a b i l i t y and an increased pro-
b a b i l i t y of touching down with g r e a t e r than acceptable v e r t i c a l
v e l o c i t i e s . A simulation study of this maneuver with t h e p i l o t
cutoff of t h e descent engine showed t h a t p i l o t reaction times
averaged about a.3 seconds, a s shown i n f i g u r e 54.
Pilot- in- the- loop and automatic c o n t r o l simulation s t u d i e s have
been conducted of the landing c o n t r o l maneuver. The p i l o t - i n -
the-loop studies were made using a s i a a t e d LM cockpit including
a l l t h e control a c t u a t o r s ( a t t i t u d e , t h r o t t l e and descent engine
c u t o f f ) . The simulation included t h e major sources of system
e r r o r s , such a s platform misalignment, accelerometer bias, instru-
ment display resolution, center- of- gravity o f f s e t s , and landing
r a d a r e r r o r s . The landing r a d a r e r r o r s a r e a prime f a c t o r in t h e
touchdown control process and t h e models assumed f o r t h e a n a l y s i s
a r e shown i n f i g u r e 55. The s p e c i f i c a t i o n performance of t h e
landing radar c a l l s f o r each of t h e t h r e e components of v e l o c i t y
t o be measured within 1 . 5 f t / s e c on a 3 W b a s i s . Currect pre-
d i c t i o n s are t h a t t h i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n w i l l be met i n l a t e r a l and
forward d i r e c t i o n s and b e t t e r e d by 3/4 f t / s e c v e r t i c a l l y . For
a conservative analysis, t h e predicted performance has been
degraded by a f a c t o r o r two.
The simulation r e s u l t s of landing v e l o c i t y manual c o n t r o l with
s p e c i f i c a t i o n performance by t h e l a n d i n g r a d a r a r e shown i n f i g -
ure' 56. The dashed l i n e s i n d i c a t e t h e present design c r i t e r i a
f o r t h e landing gear. The 0.9, 0 . s and 0 . 9 9 p r o b a b i l i t y con-
t o u r s a r e shown and a r e well within the design envelope. The
e f f e c t of changing t h e l e n g t h of t h e l m d i n g probes i s t o a d j u s t
t h e v e r t i c a l v e l o c i t y b i a s veloc'ity approximately 1 f t / s e c p e r
f o o t change. i n probe length.
The e f f e c t of landing r a d a r performance upon t h e landing v e l o c i t y
envelope i s shown i n f i g u r e 57. The 0.99 p r o b a b i l i t y contours
a r e shown f o r t h e cases of no r a d a r e r r o r s , s p e c i f i c a t i o n per-
formance, predicted performance, and degraded (predicted) per-
formance. The r e s u l t i n g contours show t h e almost d i r e c t depend-
ence of touchdown v e l o c i t y e r r o r upon t h e landing r a d a r v e l o c i t y
performance .
The comparative r e s u l t s between automatic and manual control of
t h e landing touchdown v e l o c i t i e s a r e shown i n f i g u r e 58. The 0 . 9
contours show t h a t automatic control r e s u l t s i n lower touchdown
v e l o c i t i e s , b u t t h e difference i s much l e s s pronounced f o r t h e
degraded r a d a r performance a s compared with t h e predicted r a d a r
performance. The f i g u r e does not, of course, r e f l e c t t h e advant-
age t h a t manual control provides i n c l o s e r s e l e c t i o n of t h e a c t u a l
touchdown p o s i t i o n i n t h e event t h a t t h e t e r r a i n i s not uniformly
satisfactory.
Additional a n a l y s i s of t h e s e same r e s u l t s f o r t h e c o n t r o l per-
formance f o r a t t i t u d e and a t t i t u d e r a t e s indicated t h a t c o n t r o l
within t h e present c r i t e r i a of 6 degrees and 2 degrees p e r sec-
ond can be expected on a 3 a p r o b a b i l i t y .
4.0 ABORT AFICER 'XXTCHDOWN
Although a n a l y s i s and simulation t e s t s i n d i c a t e a high p r o b a b i l i t y
t h a t t h e landing touchdown maneuver w i l l be within t h e l a n f i n g
gear design c r i t e r i a , t h e r e i s s t i l l an i n t e r e s t i n t h e a b i l i t y
t o a b o r t should t h e landing dynamics become unstable. The a b i l i t y
t o a b o r t w i l l be a function of when the need f o r t h e abort i s
recognized, the time required t o i n i t i a t e abort, t h e time involved
i n separation of t h e ascent stage, t h e t h r u s t buildup time of t h e
I ascent stage, t h e a t t i t u d e and t h e a t t i t u d e r a t e a t separation,
and t h e control power and c o n t r o l r a t e l i m i t a t i o n s of the ascent
stage.
A t staging, t h e c o n t r o l power of the ascent s t a g e i s about 35
deg/sec2 f o r p i t c h and roll a t t i t u d e maneuvers. Under emergency
manual c o n t r o l where t h e -p i l o t d e f l e c t s his a t t i t u d e hand c o n t r o l l e r
hard-over, t h e r e i s no a t t i t u d e r a t e l i m i t a t i o n . Normal manual
control commands a r e limited t o a O / s e c and automatic control
l i m i t e d t o 10°/sec i n p i t c h and S0/sec i n r o l l . These a t t i t u d e
r a t e l i m i t a t i o n s a r e important from t h e standpoint of determining
how quickly t h e ascent stage a t t i t u d e can be returned t o t h e
v e r t i c a l i n t h e event of an impending tipover.
An analysis was made of t h e boundary of over- turn conditions
from which a successful staged abort could be made. The r e s u l t s
of this analysis a r e shown i n f i g u r e 59. Two boundaries a r e
shown; one f o r emergency manual a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l which requires
t h e p i l o t t o put his hand c o n t r o l l e r hard over and t h e other
f o r a r a t e limit c o n s i s t e n t with automatic roll response ( j o / s e c ) .
Both boundaries apply t o t h e conditions under which an abort
a c t i o n must be recognized a s being required. The boundaries
allow a t o t a l of 1.4 seconds f o r t h e time required f o r t h e p i l o t
t o actuate t h e abort control, t h e s t a g i n g t o t a k e place, and
t h e ascent t h r u s t t o build up t o 9 percent of r a t e d t h r u s t .
I n addition t o t h e boundaries, t h e r e i s a l s o a l i n e i n d i c a t l n g
t h e n e u t r a l s t a b i l i t y boundary o r t h e s e t s of condition under
which t h e spacecraft would j u s t reach t h e t i p o v e r balance point
of about 40 degrees. The curve labeled Landing Gear Design
Envelope Maximum Enegry applies t o the improbable, i f not.im-
possible, case where t h e landing was made a t t h e corner of the
v e l o c i t y c r i t e r i a envelope 7 f t / s e c v e r t i c a l and 4 f t / s e c horizon-
t a l , and a l l of t h e energy was converted t o r o t a t i o n a l motion.
It is, therefore, highly improbable t h a t conditions w i l l be
encountered t h a t l i e t o t h e r i g h t of t h i s curve.
For t h e emergency manual control, t h e boundary indicated an
abort can be made a t an a l t i t u d e of about 63 degrees i f the
r a t e i s not g r e a t e r than 13 degjsec. This condition would take
more than 4 seconds t o develop a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l contact with
the l u n ar surface. For t h e other extreme of a t t i t u d e r a t e limit
(5O/sec) applicable only t o automatic r o l l a t t i t u d e control, t h e
boundary i s reduced about 13 degrees i n a t t i t u d e .
The p i l o t w i l l have i n d i c a t i o n of a t t i t u d e from kiis winsow
view and from the a t t i t u d e instrument display (FDAI). Both
of these a r e considered adequate sources of a t t i t u d e information
i n t h e event t h a t t h e spacecraft passes a 43 degree deviation
from t h e v e r t i c a l and an abort becomes necessary.
Considering t h e improbability of landing contact t h a t would
r e s u l t i n an unstable post-landing a t t i t u d e and t h e p r o b a b i l i t y
t h a t even i n such an event the p i l o t could i n i t i a t e a s a f e abort,
t h e r e does not appear t o be a requirement f o r an automatic abort
initiation.
The preceeding s e c t i o n s have described and explained the desi@.
o f the IM descent s t r a t e g y and t h e r e s u l t i n g t r a j e c t o r y desi=-.
From t h e p i l o t ' s standpoint t h e r e a r e a number of judgments
and decisions t h a t w i l l have t o be made i n t h e period from
H i Gate t o Lo Gate t o touchaown. It is believed t h a t t h e
s t r a t e g y allows a l o g i c a l sequence of events and decisions and
adequate time f o r t h e p i l o t function. This w i l l be p a r t l y
confirmed o r adjustments made through extensive simulations
with t h e I M Mission Simulators. The f i n a l confirmation w i l l ,
of course, be t h e r e s u l t s of t h e f i r s t I M landing approach.
I n order t o a i d i n the understanding of t h e l o g i c and proposed
sequence of decisions, a logic-flow chart has been prepared
t h a t i s applicable from t h e H i :Gate p o s i t i o n t o landing tauch-
down. These c h a r t s a r e presented i n f i g u r e s 63a) and b ) f o r
t h e information and use of persons i n t e r e s t e d i n d e t a i l e d
examination of t h e l o g i c and i n constructing t h e crew loading
time l i n e s . & t a i l s of these l o g i c flow c h a r t s w i l l not be
discussed f u r t h e r i n t h i s paper.
6.0 f l l " ~ ~ y
A IM descent s t r a t e g y has been presented which i s designed t o
take advantage of t h e 161 system and the IM crew i n order t h a t
t h e IM w i l l continually be i n an advantageous p o s i t i o n t o corn-
p l e t e the l u n a r landing. The t h r e e phases t r a j e c t o r y i s designed
t o maintain f u e l expenditure efficiency, except i n those regions
of the t r a j e c t o r y where such f a c t o r s a s p i l o t assessment of
t h e landing a r e a r e q u i r e a judicious compromise of f u e l e f f i c i e n c y .
The l u n a r landing s t r a t e g y has considered all i d e n t i f i e d problems
which might adversely a f f e c t t h e lunar landing and t h e r e s u l t i n g
design c a l l s f o r a f u e l expenditure budget of 7350 f t / s e c o f
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c v e l o c i t y . This budget. i s approximately 282 f t j s e c
l e s s than t h e current tank capacity of t h e I" This margin i s
considered ample f o r dealing with p r e s e n t l y unforeseen problems
which may be i d e n t i f i e d p r i o r t o t h e lunar landing.
 NASA-S-66-6025 MAY
Questions and Answers
THEORETICAL LM DESCENT
LUNAR EXCURSION MODULF DESCENT IMPULSIVE A V
Speaker: Donald C. Cheatham SEPARATION AN D
TRANSFER
AVc =109 fT/SEC
1. Mr. Kelly -
P r o b a b i l i t y p l o t s of landing v e l o c i t y show
constant v e r t i c a l v e l o c i t y f o r a l l p r o b a b i l i t i e s when
horizontal v e l o c i t y i s zero; is this c o r r e c t ?

ANSWER - Mr. Kelly and Mr. Cheatham discussed t h e data

a f t e r t h e meeting and resolved t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e
presentation form.

lMPULSlVE POWERED
TERMINATION
A V c = 5622 FT/SEC

FIGURE 1
TOTAL AVC = 5731
ERMINAL Y Oo

N A S A - S - 6 6 - 5 0 3 9 JUN

VARIATION OF POWERED-DESCENT
CHARACTERISTIC VELOCITY WITH
THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO

E,:o;:[ (PERICYNITION ALTITUDE, FT)

INITIAL
THRUST-TO-
WEIGHT
RATIO

01
I I
I
I
I
56 5a 60 62 64
FIGURE 2 CHARACTERISTIC VELOCITY, FPS
 NASA-S-66-6026 M A Y NASA.S-66 6418 JUN

THEORETICAL OPTIMUM LM DESCENT LM LANDING PLANNING STRATEGY

(T/W = .3, H p = 50,000 FT) 0 OBJECTIVE
SEPARATION AND TO A N T I C I P A T E THE L U N A R E N V I R O N M E N T P R O B L E M S
HOHMANN TRANSFER
AVc =
98 FT/SEC A N D T O P L A N THE L A N D I N G A P P R O A C H SO THAT THE
C O M B I N E D S P A C E C R A F T S Y S T E M S I N C L U D I N G THE
C R E W WILL M O S T EFFECTIVELY I M P R O V E THE PROBABILITY
O F ATTAINING A SAFE LANDING

M A J O R FACTORS
ORBITAL M E C H A N I C S P R O B L E M S
PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS O F SPACECRAFT SYSTEMS
LUNAR E N V I R O N M E N T - V I S I B I L I T Y , T E R R A I N
U N C E R T A I N T I E S , A N D IRREGULARITIES

THEORETICAL 0.3 6023 9"

-7
<,-, =
TOTAL A Vc 6023
TERMINAL Y 5 9 O
0 PREDOMINANT
GUIDANCE AND CONTROL
S C SYSTEMS

L A N D I N G RADAR
FIGURE 3 DESCENT PROPULSION
FIGURE 5
S C WINDOW

N A S A - S - 6 6 . 5 0 4 8 JUNE 1

NASA-S-66-6503 JUN
OPTIMUM POWERED DESCENT

h = 50,000 FT
h = 47,000 FT
e = 85O
n
= h 2 3 , 0 0 0 FT
LM LANDING ACCURACY AFTER THREE ORBITS

t = 120 S E C
et == 89O
0 SEC v = 4400 FT/SEC
t = 290 S E C
v = 5600 FT/SEC Y= 10 v = 2300 F T / S E C
Y=

h = 1 4 , 0 0 0 FT h = 5000 FT
e = 700 8= 66O
= 23,000 t = 330 S E C t = 380 S E C
h FT v = 1700 F T / S E C v = 960 F T / S E C

ACCURACY
L I I 1 I I
D O W N R A N G E (N MI)
FIGURE 6A
N A S A - 5 - 6 6 - 6 5 0 4 JUN NASA.S.65-1606

LM LANDING ACCURACY
AFTER T H R E E ORBITS(C0NT) ATTITUDE
ASSUMPTIONS & ERROR MODELSI1"l CONTROL OF LM
0 LANDING SITE AT 0" LATITUDE A N D 0" LONGITUDE
0 MSFN UPDATE PRIOR TO LUNAR O R B I T INSERTION
0 T W O LANDMARKS WITH T H R E E S l G H T l N G S PER
LANDMARK PER PASS NOTE:
IN DECENT THRUST CONFIG-
0 LM SEPARATION FROM CSM O N THIRD ORBIT, URATION MAIN ENGINE
PLATFORM ALINEMENT AT 15 MINUTES GIMBAL IS EMPLOYED FOR
BEFORE A MANEUVER TRIMMING THE PITCH AND
YAW MOMENT D U E TO
CENTER OF GRAVITY
ACCEL BIAS ,0017 FT/SEC2 ~~~~~~~~ .06 DEG SHIFTS
ALINEMENT .06 DEG GYRO DRIFT .03 DEG/HR
ACCURACY (ACT)
FIGURE 8
LANDMARK 7500 FT
FIGURE 68

ACCURACY

NASA.S.66.5050 JUNE 1
N A S A - 5 - 6 6 -6 5 2 2 JUN
LANDING RADAR
LM LANDlE4G 3 0 UNCERTAINTY ELLIPSE BEAM CONFIGURATION AND
AFTER THREE ORBITS ANTENNA TILT ANGLES
LANDING SITE 0" LAT 0" L O N G +x
POSITION NO. 2
N A V I G A T I O N IN N A V I G A T I O N IN ANTENNA TILT =
Oo
ORBIT B Y LM LUNAR ORBIT
BY M S F N
SITION NO. 1
15,000 \5000 0 2500 15,000 =
NNA TILT 43

L 7500
r 7500

I I I

10.000 o-2500
- 5000
G U I D A N C E TARGETED FOR 7500 FIGURE 9
N O N C O N S T R A I N E D RANGED" FIGURE 7
N A S A 5 . 6 6 . 6 4 7 9 JUN N A S A - S - 6 4 5 0 d 5 JUNE I

1M W I N D O W VIEWING LIMITS FROM

C O M M A N D E R ' S DESIGN E Y E POSITION
LM LANDING RADAR (30)
SPECIFICATION ACCURACY 80 7
0
<
,0 40 30 20 10 0 10
I I LATERAL
I ANGLE,
I I DEG

I ACCURACY
I
LOOKING

I I
ALTITUDE, FT PARALLEL
RANGE TO '"A, 'ZA
TO Z BODY
SURFACE

5 . 200
Z O O . 2000
2000 - 25,000
2 5 , 0 0 0 . 40,000
1.5% t 5 FT
1.5% i 5 FT
1.5% t 5 FT
2%
1 . 5 % OR 1 . 5 FPS
1 . 5 % OR 1 . 5 FPS
1.5% OR 1 . 5 FPS
N /A
2.0% OR 1.5 FPS
3.5% OR 3 . 5 FPS
2 . 0 % OR 2 . 0 FPS
N /A
ELEVATION
ANGLE, DEG -30 t I

FIGURE 10
FIGURE 12

-70

NASA-SW-5140 JUN NASA-S-66-3576 MAY 12

LM FLIGHT CONFIGURATION LM DESCENT ENGINE

THRUST CHARACTERISTICS
t UPPER LIMIT

3- UNCERT AINTY
. .

"

FIGURE 13 0'
FIGURE 11 TIME, S E C O N D S
 N A S A - 5 - 6 6 - 6 4 7 0 JUN

LM POWERED DESCENT
VARIATION OF LM L A N D i N G POSITION
REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN CONSIDERED TARGET SWITCHOVER
MAXIMUM THROTTLE h:43,000 F; - . LR UPDATE
ENGINE IGNITION h = 5 0 , 0 0 0 FT e=800
0 LANDING AT ANY SUITABLE POINT WITHIN
A SPECIFIED AREA h=50,ooo FT e=88o T=228 SEC
V-3385 eh=25;000
=71 FT
9=86O T = 2 8 SEC
T=O SEC V:5564 FT/SEC y"1.40 1 ~ 3 2 8SEC
VX2164 FT/SEC
V=SSOO FT/SEC y=".2D Y =-4.0°
0 LANDING AT ANY SUITABLE POINT WITHIN Y =oo
A SMALL AREA CONSTRAINED IN SIZE
PRIMARILY BY GUIDANCE DISPERSIONS*

0 LANDING AT A PRESPECIFIED POINT (SUCH t. D O W N RANGE

AS A SURVEYOR)

FIGURE 1 4 *PRESENT STRATEGY IS BASED UPON THIS REQUIREMENT FIGURE 16A

N A S A - S - 6 6 . 5 0 d d JUN

LM THREE-PHASED POWERED DESCENT

LM POWERED DESCENT ( CONT)

FICTITIOUS TARGET HIGH GATE

APPROACH h=16,000 FT
LR ALTITUDE UPDATE eT=400
= 6 6 . 5 O SEC
h = 8600 FT Low GATE
e=46O h=5DO FT
h=25,000 FT V=1067 FT/SEC T:454 SEC '1~558SEC
Y=-4.0° V-608 FT/SEC V=52
Y =-14.5O FT/SEC
"-~""""""","" "-"""-.~~""""- 1=-I7.O0

250 N M I ""(2""-
"""L""";;.""~".r-' 71~""-i . - "-~ "..@
-
0 BRAKING PHASE - ALLOWS EFFICIENT REDUCTION O F .

MOST O F VELOCITY 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
0 FINAL APPROACH PHASE - ALLOWS ACQUISITION A N D D O W N RANGE, N MI
ASSESSMENT OF SITE A N D CONFIRMATION
O F FLIGHT SAFETY B Y PILOT
0 LANDING PHASE-ALLOWS VERN'IER CONTROL OF FIGURE 15
POSITION A N D VELOCITIES FIGURE 168
N A S A - 5 - 6 6 - 6 4 7 6 JUN
N A S A - S - 6 6 - 6 4 2 5 JUN

BRAKING PHASE DESIGN T H R U S T B E H A V I O R F O R LIMITED

THROTTLE G U I D A N C E
0 OBJECTIVES ~o,ooo,
TRAJECTORY PROFILE T A R [ T i x S TARGET
0 REDUCE VELOCITY TO ACCEPTABLE LANDING /-HI-GATE TARGET
APPROACH MAGNITUDES ALTIT UDE
FEET SWITCHOVER
0 MAINTAIN EFFICIENT U S E OF PROPELLANT FUEL
REACH A PRESPECIFIED STATE VECTOR RANGE FINAL APPROACH
CASE I NOMINAL T / W AND LANDING
AT HI-GATE POSITION
( N O M IN A L)

---
1 2 , 0 0 0 -\COMMANDED
I I
. r , I I
10,000 J I I
CONSTRAINTS I -\ I
THRUST,LBS 8000 - I \ ' I
0 DESCENT E N G I N E IS NON-THROTTLEABLE I
IN MAX THRUST REGION
6000 - I \ I II
I I

0 MAXIMUM THRUST OF DESCENT E N G I N E

4000 - I
I
I
I
IS INlTlALLY=9700 LBS [T/W%3) 2000 - I
1
I
I I
0 I
0 FIXED THRUST UNCERTAINTIES MAY REACH 2 2 1/2%
FIGURE 17 RANGE
FIGURE 19

N A S A - 5 - 6 6 - 6 4 1 0 JUN N A S A - 5 - 6 6 - 5 0 4 2 JUN

THRUST F W " V l O R FOR LIMITED THROTTLE GUIDANCE

POWERED DESCENT IGNITION LOGIC
r BRAKING FlCTlClOUS TARGET
TRAJECTORY A L T : T : T F
/- HI-GATE TARGET
m
,-ACCELERATION PREDICTED AT LITEUP PROFILE FEET SWITCHOVER
0
EXAGGERATED CUR- /-COMMAND FINAL APPROACH
VATURE ESPECIALLY A N D LANDING
IN THIS REGION
0
0 CASE II THRUST, OMINAL
LOW T/W POUNDS
I
ACCELERATION 5000
COMMAND I I
I I ! \

COMMAND AT ,--ACTUAL
ITERATION

w TIME

FIGURE 18 IGNITION TIME IGNITION TIME

IGNITE
N A S A - S - 6 6 - 3 0 4 3 APR 5

AV P E N A L T Y D U E T O FIXED
GUIDANCE

\
THRUST UNCERTAINTIES
COMMANDS
-PERCENT T/W ERROR
"
AV PENALTY FOR
POWERED DEG
401 AV = 6281 FPS
80
DESCENT 20

AV HI-GATE 6100 FT -0
PENALTY PERCENT T/W
FT/SEC UNCERTAINTY

10,000
THRUST,
IDEAL CONDITION- LBS 5000

0200 300 400 500 600

0 20 40 60 80 100
BIAS TIME REQUIRED FOR FICTITIOUS TARGET, SEC
FIGURE 21 FIGURE 23 TIME FROM BRAKING.INITIATION, SEC

NASA-5-66-6A26 JVN
NASA-5-66-6513 JUN
L A N D I N G RADAR WEIGHTING FACTORS
FOR ALTITUDE A N D VELOCITY UPDATES TERRAIN PROFILE DURING
APPROACH TO LANDING SITE
.8 0 20' N LAT 12 50' E LONG
WVza WYya
VELOCITY
WEIGHTING .4 t3000

5
FACTORS EXPANDED ALTITUDE SCALE
t 2000
(DOWNRANGE)
ALTITUDE, + I O 0 0
0 400 800 1200 1600 FT
VELOCITY,FPS 0

-1000
25 20 15 10 5 0
ALTITUDE
WEIGHTING .4
FACTOR
ALTITUDE, 4000
FT 0
2 O SLOPE
k--L---""- SCALE0 PROFILE LANDING
SITE 7
FIGURE 22 -4000 t I I I
I I

0 8 000 16000 24000 25 20 15 IO 5 0

ALTITUDE, FT FIGURE 24 RANGE, N MI
 NASA-S-66-6441 JUN
PHASE 1I - FINAL APPROACH DESIGN
0 OBJECTIVES
GUIDANCE PROVIDE CREW VISIBILITY O F A N D ADEQUATE TIME
COMMANDS - 2000
80
u TO ASSESS LANDING AREA
FOR r : , r A V = 6 2 9 7 FPS PROVIDE CREW OPPORTUNITY TO A S S E S S FLIGHT SAFETY
PROVIDE A RELATIVELY STABLE VIEWING PLATFORM
POWERED 60
PITCH 0 CONSTRAINTS
DESCENT ANGLE, 40 0 FUEL LIMITATIONS
DEG
20 0 LM W I N D O W SIZE
0 T / W OF DESCENT A N D ASCENT ENGINE A N D REQUIREMENT
I 1 I , I I , FOR SAFE STAGED ABORTS
0 TERRAIN LIGHTING/CONTRAST PROPERTIES
THRUST, VARIABLES

IDEAL CONDITION-
LBS 5000 r F I- "_ h l , 0 PITCH ATTITUDE
0 TRANSITION ALTITUDE
0
TYPICAL ERROR ----- 200 300 400 500 600 0 FLIGHT PATH ANGLE
CONDITIONS LOOK ANGLE TO LANDING AREA REFERENCED TO
TIME FROM BRAKING INITIATION, S E C
A N D TERRAIN 27 THRUST AXIS
FIGURE 25

N A S A 5 - 6 6 - 6 4 0 3 IUN

LM P O W E R E D DESCENT GUIDANCE N A S A - S - 6 6 - 6 4 0 2 JUN

MONITORING
FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF HI-GATE
0 P U R P O S E OF M O N I T O R I N G
ALTITUDE
0 P R O V I D E A S S E S S M E N T OF T R A J E C T O R Y
0 FAILURE D E T E C T I O N A N D I S O L A T I O N
0 ASSURE SAFE ABORT

0 TWO T E C H N I Q U E S 0 RANGE FROM WHICH LANDING AREA

C A N BE ASSESSED
0 M O N I T O R I N G T R A J E C T O R Y B O U N D S OF P N G S A N D A G S
0 P E R I O D I C D I F F E R E N C I N G OF P N G S A N D A G S 0 TIME REQUIRED T O ASSESS LANDING AREA

0 ALTITUOE . ALTITUDE RATE M O S T S I G N I F I C A N T F O R A B O R T S A F E T Y 0 FLIGHT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS WITH

0 ALTITUDE RATE D E V I A T I O N S M O S T S E N S I T I V E T O FAILURE D E T E C T I O N REGARDS TO TERRAIN ALTITUDE
0 M S F N M E A S U R E M E N T OF ALTITUDE RATE S H O U L D BE S U F F I C I E N T FOR UNCERTAINTIES, LANDING RADAR
FAILED SYSTEM I S O L A T I O N OPERATING RELIABILITY, A N D ASCENT
ENGINE ABORT BOUNDARY
0 3 o G U I D A N C E D E V I A T I O N S WILL N O T E N D A N G E R F L I G H T P R I O R
FIGURE 28
TO HI- GATE FIGURE 26
NA5A.S-66.5051 JUN N A S A - S - 6 6 - 6 4 7 ! JUN

ABORT CAPABILITY BOUNDARIES DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM

6000 r
HI-GATE ALTITUDE WITHOUT LR UPDATING
5000 -
JUALTITUDE
ALTITUDE BIASES, FT MINIMUM
[ASSUME 4 SEC UNCERTAINTIES,* FT
4000 - D ELA Y IN STAGING) ORBIT I I I I I HI-GATE
NAVIGATION TERRAIN LUNAR LUNAR TERRAIN STAGED ALTITUDE
PGNCS
PROFILE RADIUS RADIUS PROFILE ABORT
-.
ALTITUDE 3000 -
IFTI MSFN 3700 4700 13,700 9800 4300 3500 32,600

MSFN
B LANDING 3700 700 1700 700 1800 6700
SITE UPDATE
PGNCS &

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

LANDING
SITE UPDATE
4500 1000 1700 800 !8 0 0

7500 I
FIGURE 29 * 3 U UNCERTAINTIES ARE ROOT-SUM. SQUARED
DESCENT RATE IFT/SECl
FIGURE 31

N A S A - S - 6 6 . 5 0 4 1 JUN N A S A . 5 - 6 6 . 6 1 3 3 JUN

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING T O
UNCERTAINTIES IN 250 r N O M I N A LH I - G A T E ~ O O GFT-

ALTITUDE ABOVE TERRAIN

200
0 GUIDANCE A N D NAVIGATION UNCERTAINTIES 11500 F T ALT 101 A V PENALTY
FOR HI-GATE 150
0 LUNAR RADIUS BIAS MAGNITUDE (3200 FT ALTl ALTITUDE AV
FPS
0 LUNAR RADIUS RANDOM MAGNITUDE (3200 FT ALT 1.)
VARIATION- 100
TYPICAL
0 PRESENT ABILITY TO DETERMINE MARIA (FUNCTION OF
LANDING FLIGHT PATH
AREA SLOPES (f3' 3-1 50
DISPERSIONS)
ANGLE = 15"
0 ALLOWABLE TERRAIN VARIATIONS WITHIN (FUNCTION OF
+ 2 O SLOPE A N D f 5 % O F N O M I N A L ALTITUDE LANDING
DISPERSIONS] 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10.000
HI-GATE ALTITUDE, FT

FIGURE M FIGURE 32
 NASA 5 6 6 6 4 2 0 IUN NASA-S-66.6579 JUN

AV PENALTY FOR LOOK ANGLE A N D FLIGHT OVERHEAD PROFILE OF FOOTPRINT CAPABILITY

PATH ANGLE (HI-GATE 9000FT) FROM 8000 FT ALTITUDE
D O W N RANGE
30XlO’I , r S l D E ,yAf”pOW

FT/ 5 E C
1100

- LOOK
ANGLE
TO
LANDING
SITE, DEG
3000 FT REFER-
ENCE
A V ,FPS

- 100 I
5
-
c

I
10
1

15 20
I
- 3 0 WINDOW
25
LOWER
LIMIT
1
25
L O W E R W I N D O W LIMIT

P O S I T I O N OVER SURFACE AT
TIME OF R E D E S I G N A T I O N
FLIGHT PATH A N G L E , D E G
FIGURE 33 FIGURE 35

N A S A - S . 6 6 - 6 I 9 5 JUN N A S A - S - 6 6 - 3 2 9 1 APR 1 6

COMPARISON OF DESIGN TRAJECTORY VARIATION OF FOOTPRINT

A N D FUEL OPTIMUM CAPABILITY WITH ALTITUDE
200 r 8 6 0 0 FT,ALT 7 20x103 DOWN RANGE

VERTICAL I FOOTPRINTS FOR

VELOCITY
FT/SEC
100
50
101 A- AV,=lOO

I I I 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
- N O M I N ADESIGN
L
1500 r TIME, S E C - - FUEL O P T I M U M
I
! ’

AAz=30
/ ‘\:;:% A T A L T z 3 0 0 0 FT
POSITION OVER SURFACE

FIGURE 34 TIME,SEC
FIGURE 36
‘‘L
-30
A T “ A L T = 5 0 0 0 FT
POSITION OVER SURFACE
A T A L T = 8 0 0 0 FT
 Z
0

0
CL

f
OI
? s
Y i
I
e <

w
L

0 0
m N
+ +
N A S A -S - 6 6 -6 4 7 4 JUN N A S A - S - 6 6 - 6 6 3 0 JUL 6

TIME HISTORIES OF LINE OF SIGHT TO LANDING

REDESIGNATION ERROR SOURCES POINT FOR ALTERNATE SITE SELECTIONS
AT 5000FT ALTITUDE

50 3000 FT L O N G 7

0 TERRAIN
NOMINAL
LOOK
0 G U I D A N C E ALTITUDE DISPERSIONS ANGLE 30
DEG
( N O N UPDATED) 20
3000 FT S H O R T
W I N D O W LIMIT
0 BORE SIGHT INSTALLATION 10 t I I I
50 100 150
0 IMU ALINEMENT TIME[SECI

0 APPLICATION ERRORS FIGURE 4 3

FIGURE 41

N A S A - 5 - 6 6 -6 6 2 6 J U L 6
NASA-S-66-6448 JUN
LANDING POINT DESIGNATOR E R R O R SOURCES LM CREW ATTITUDE
FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = 14" RELATIVE TO LUNAR SURFACE
APPARENT
3x103 LANDING
i- SITE1

2 Ir i '
!
LPD ERROR, D E G
/ A,... INTENDED
8.5 !
0.0 I
-0.5
-1 .o
I
l l ' ! l l ! l
-3 ERROR
0 5 15 20x10~
~~~~~

10
SLANT R A N , G E - T O - G O . F E E i LPD
I I I ! ERROR
o 2 1 3 4 5 ~ 1 0 ~
ALTITUDE, FEET N O T E : D O W N R A N G E E R R O R 1s
NOTE: C R O S S R A N G E ERROR = APPROXIMATELY 4 TIMES
D O W N R A N G E ERROR F O R ALTITUDE ERROR FINAL APPROACH PHASE LANDING PHASE
EQUIVALENT A N G L E FIGURE 44
FlGURE 42
 N A S A - S - 6 6 - 3 0 3 2 APP 5
NASA-S-66-6457 JUN
TRAJECTORY CHARACTERISTICS
LANDING PHASE DESIGN FOR LANDING PHASE
OBJECTIVES
A L L O W DETAIL A S S E S S M E N T A N D F I N A L S E L E C T I O N
FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = 1 7 O
0
THRUST ACCELERATION = 5 . 4 6 FT/SEC2
O F L A N D I N G POINT PITCH A N G L E , e , = l l o
0 ALLOW S O M E M A N E U V E R I N G CAPABILITY A N D
F O O T - P R I N T FOR L A N D I N G P O I N T A D J U S T M E N T 200 DESCENT RATE #ec
SCHEDULE *ec
CONSTRAINTS 150

0 FUEL UTILIZATION
ALTITUDE, 100 -
FT
0 W I N D O W A N D LIGHTING VISIBILITY

0 TERRAIN A N D P O S S I B L E DUST 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
DESCENT RATE, FT/SEC
0 LIMITED ATTITUDE FOR M A N E U V E R I N G FIGURE 47

FIGURE 45
0 S T A G E D ABORT B O U N D A R I E S

N A S A - S - 6 6 - 5 4 0 0 MAY 31
N A S A - 5 - 4 6 - 6 4 6 7 JUN
PILOT VIEW DURING LANDING PHASE LANDING PHASE FUEL BUDGET
BASELINE TRAJECTORY ALLOWANCE 390 FPS

0 = 1l0 HOVER POINT ON SURFACE 0 CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE, FPS MEAN RANDOM ( 3 4

e = 00
NORMAL E Y E
MANUAL CONTROL TECHNIQUE
t = 50 SEC LEVEL AND VARIATIONS 80 100
ENTER LINE
EFFECT OF LANDING RADAR
-- . . LUNAR
"" SURFACE
UNCERTAINTIES 80 65
500 FT 15 IFTJSECI 14 -p$"25
LANDING SITE INSPECTION 80
-LANDING
1200 900 600 300 0 -." FUEL DEPLETION MARGIN 40 -
DOWNRANGE, F E E T l o o FT
AT LANDING SITE
TOTAL 280 119 (RSS)
FIGURE 48
FIGURE 46
NASA-S-66-6505 J U N NASA-5-64-6403 J U N
SUMMARY OF LM DESCENT BUDGET
BASELINE TRAJECTORY ALLOWANCES LM LANDING TOUCHDOWN CONTROL
PHASE AV, FPS
DESCENT TRANSFER 97
MODES
POWERED DESCENT: BRAKING 5135 0 AUTOMATIC
FINAL APPROACH 932 0 M A N U A L -A I D E D BY AUTOMATIC C O N T R O L L O O P S
LANDING 390
- 0 VISUAL
SUBTOTAL 6554 0 I F R ( B E C A U S E OF DUST OR LIGHTING)
CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCES
MEAN 3. MAJOR SOURCES OF SYSTEM ERRORS
-
DESCENT TRANSFER INCREASE CSM ALTITUDE
0 L A N D I N G R A D A R VELOCITY MEASUREMENT
I O N MI 13
BRAKING: INCREASE CSM ALTITUDE I O N MI 15 0 IMU MISALIGNMENT
THRUST DISPERSIONS OF + 2% 48 0 DISPLAY SYSTEM A N D PILOT ( M A N U A L O N L Y )
NAVIGATION ALT DISPERSIONS (3000 FT3al 60 0 CG P O S I T I O N
FINAL APPROACH - LANDING SITE UPDATE 45 15
LANDING: MANUAL CONTROL VARIATIONS BO 1 0 0
EFFECT O F LR UNCERTAINTIES 80 65 CONSTRAINTS
LANDING SITE INSPECTION 80
0 L A N D I N G G E A R DESIGN LIMITS
FUEL DELETION MARGIN 40
SUBTOTAL 353 143 (RSS] FIWJRE5, 0 DESCENT E N G I N E REQUIRED T O BE OFF
FIGURE 49 BY T O U C H D O W N
TOTAL BUDGET 7050

NASA-S-66.6539 J U N

TIME HISTORY O F LM D E S C E N T FUEL EXPENDITURE NASA S.66.6466 JVN

DESCENT EE4GIr4E SHUTDOWN SEQUENCE

RSS RANDOM CONTINGENCY
UNASSIGNED CONTINGENCY
VELOCITY,
FT/SEC

17,200
6000 -
16,000
14,000 6 0 0 0 - 600
1 PILOT ACTIVATES DE CUT-OFF .2<1( - 6 6 I
FUEL
12,000
10,000
8000 4000
+
~ D E C AR E S P O N S E 0.10 S E C O N D S ]
L6S 6000 I

4000
t
2000 [ E N G I N E F U E L VALVES C L O S E 0.1s SECONDS ]
2000 I

NOMINAL TIME OF POWERED DESCENT, SEC

DESCENT COAST ,--FINAL APPROACH
-PHASE e”. PHASE
DESCENT ~ N ~ T ~ A T EBRAKING PHASE H’I Lb \OUCH
FIGURE 50
TRANSFER POWERED GATE GATE DOWN
DESCENT
NASA-S-65-9321

MANUAL E N G I N E C U T - O F F
5 3 IN. PROBE / ASSUMED LANDING RADAR E R R O R MODEL
LANDING DESCENl F O R LANDING C O N T R O L ANALYSIS
VELOCITY
CONTROL
USING PROBE FOR
DESCENT ENGINE I SPECIFICATIONT
CUT-OFF SIGNAL
DESCENT ENGINE
IVERTICAL

LATERAL
1.5 FT/SEC

1.5 FT/SEC

FT/SEC
I!
FIGURE 53 DESCENT RATE AT PROBE CONTACT FIGURE 55
FTISEC

NASA-5-65-9331
10 ir
1 .oo
0.90 '\
-\
0.80 - 9
0.654 S E C 7 & \ LANDING RADAR
LM 0.70
DESCENT ENGINE 0.60 -
8
CUT-OFF PILOT 0.50 MANUAL
REACTION TIME CONTROL
0.40 -
0.32 SEC
OF 7
\/ VERTICAL
4- LAND'NG VELOCITY,
PILOT 0.30 '0
.
VELOCITIES FTlSEC
, ---
REACTION
TIME(SEC) 0° WITH 6

0.20 - 0
'
0°
SYSTEM
ERRORS 5
0
'.

0.1 5

4
I I
0.10 I FIGURE 56 I I I 1
0.1 1.0 10 5 0 80 95 99 99.9 1.99
PROBABILITY OF PILOT REACTION TIME 0 1 2 VELOCITY,
HORIZONTAL 3 4
FT/SEC 5
FIGURE 54
BEING LESS THAN A GIVEN VALUE (%)
 NASA.S.66-6462 JUN
NASA-S-65-9330
BOUNDARY OF ACCEPTABLE ANGLES &
ANGULAR RATES FOR TILT-OVER ABORT INITIATE
LANDING GEAR

EFFECT OF - PREDICTED\ \
8
LANDING RADAR !ADED
80
ERRORS O N 70
7
VELOCITIES IN VERTICAL
VELOCITY,
60

MANUAL FT/SEC
6
50
ATTITUDE,p 40 INCLUDED FOR
CONTROL OF DEGREES
e 30
-
TIME, STAGING
-. . . - -. . .-
LANDING 5 20 RATE THRUST BUILD-UP
"ID
1 I M t U t L A T Ab

""
EXAMPLE
I 0 10 20 :IO 40 50 60 UNSTABLE
I I I
i FIGURE 59 ATTITUDE RATE, DEGREES CASE
FIGURE 57 I
1 2 3 . 4 5
HORIZONTAL VELOCITY, FT/SEC

N A S A -5 -6 5 - 9 3 2 9
--
- AUTO
MANUAL
COMPARISON
OF AUTOMATIC
AND MANUAL
CONTROL OF D
VELOCITIES
LANDING

FIGURE 58
c0
I
1 2
I

3
I

4
HORIZONTAL VELOCITY, FT/SEC
I
5
I
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the guidance system i s t o control t h e position

and v e l o c i t y of t h e vehicle. The navigation process involves
t h e determination and indication of position and velocity, ana
t h e guidance process involves controlling'these quantities i n
a closed-loop fashion. Fig. 1 shows a generalized functional
diagram of t h e guidance and control system. In order t o mini-
mize guidance errors the system must reduce t h e effect of inter-
f e r r i n g quantities, and it must respond quickly t o command s i g n a s .
An i n e r t i a l guidance system i s fundamentally mechanized as a
s p e c i f i c force measuring system using single a x i s accelerometers
which operate i n coordinates t h a t a r e determined by gyros.

The guidance system operates as a force-vector control system,

i . e . , t h e system must change t h e direction and magnitude of con-
t r o l l a b l e forces ( l i f t , drag, and t h r u s t ) i n such a way t h a t the
vehicle reaches i t s desired point in space and time. It i s
usual i n t h e theory of dynamics of r i g i d bodies i n t h r e e dimen-
sions t o separate the motion of t h e center of mass from t h e
motion of t h e body around the center of mass. Guidance is the
process of moving the center of mass of the vehicle along some
desired path. S t a b i l i t y and control a r e associated with motions
about t h e center of mass.

The guidance and control systems f o r a l l manned spacecraft have

involved a mix of spacecraft systems and ground systems. Fig. 2
shows t h e guidelines used i n t h e Apollo program f o r t h i s m i x of
spacecraft and ground systems:

(1) It is mandatory t h a t there be a ground navigation

c a p a b i l i t y provided i n earth o r b i t , cislunar space, lunar orbit,
during t h e lunar landing phases, and during t h e lunar rendez-
vous phases.

(2) It i s mandatory t h a t t h e spacecraft contain onboard

a completely self-contained navigation, guidance, and control
c a p a b i l i t y t o be =sed i n t h e event that t h e data l i n k with t h e
ground is l o s t .

( 3 ) The onboard system i s designed i n such a way t o take

maximum advantage of the gromd system and t o include a l l
necessary interfaces.

Fig. 3 shows t h e navigation, guidance, and control system which

evolved f o r t h e command module. The LEN system is very similar
and w i l l be discussed l a t e r . The primary navigation system i n
cislunar space i s t h e ground system. This consists of t h e manned
space f l i g h t network (MSFN) comprised of a number of tracking
s t a t i o n s around t h e world operating i n conjunction with t h e
Houston Mission Control Center (MCC). This system i s connected
t o t h e onboard system by way of t h e updata link and voice com-
munications. The updata link provides t h e navigation s t a t e
vector t o t h e Apollo guidance computer (AGC). The primary
guidance and control system consists of t h e AGC, t h e i n e r t i a l
measurement u n i t (IMU), t h e scanning telescope (SCT), sextant
(SXT), and t h e display and keyboard assembly (EKY).
The primary guidance and control system operates t h e reaction
control system (RCS) which i s used primarily f o r a t t i t u d e con-
t r o l i n space and during reentry. The AGC a l s o activates t h e
gimbal servos t o drive t h e service propulsion (SPS) engines.
I n t h e event t h e primary control system has a f a i l u r e , the backup
system (labeled i n Fig. 3 t h e S t a b i l i z a t i o n System) can a l s o
drive the reaction control system and t h e SFS gimbals. The SCS
( s t a b i l i z a t i o n and control system) provides an a t t i t u d e refer-
ence and a l s o has an accelerometer t o measure AV. The entry
monitor system (ENS) is a simplified backup guidance system t o
be used during t h e entry phase of t h e mission i n t h e event of
f a i l u r e of t h e primary system. A n i n t e g r a l p a r t of both t h e
primary system and the backup s t a b i l i z a t i o n system is t h e astro-
naut. He obtains information from t h e computer by t h e DSKY and
from t h e display panel. He comunicates with t h e computer through
t h e DSKY and is able t o control t h e system through t h e use of t h e
engine t h r o t t l e and a t t i t u d e hand controller.
The s t a b i l i z a t i o n system i s shown i n block diagram form i n Fig.
The basic function of t h i s system is:
(1) Drive t h e j e t drivers t o turn on and o f f t h e s m a l l
reaction thrusters.
( 2 ) Direct t h e gimbals of t h e service module engine t o
orientate properly t h e t h r u s t vector of t h e main engine.
Attitude information comes either. from t h e G&N system (guidance
and navigation system) or t h e AGAP ( a t t i t u d e gyro accelerometer
package). Rate information comes from t h e r a t e gyro package
(RGP) and i s displayed on t h e display panel. Rate and a t t i t u d e
information i s used i n conjunction with t h e manual controller
t o control t h e a t t i t u d e j e t s and t h e main engine gimbals. The
a t t i t u d e jets can be controlled through two paths, one path via
a deadband l i m i t e r , pseudo r a t e logic, and j e t s e l e c t logic t o
t h e j e t drivers and t h e other path direct by manual control t o
t h e j e t drivers. The term pseudo-rate means t h a t t h e output of
t h e switching amplifier (an on-off device) commands a vehicle
acceleration which neglects reaction j e t time delays and dynm-
ics. The short period output o f t h i s s i g n a l through a l a g
f i l t e r i s indicative of t h e vehicle rate. The time constant
of t h e l a g network determines t h e interval over which t h e out-
put i s a v a l i d indication of t h e vehicle rate. The gains and
time constant have been selected f o r the Apollo SCS t o provide
t h e desired s i g n a l f o r an average vehicle i n e r t i a during t h e
lunar mission. The configuration of t h e pseudo-rate feedback
f o r t h e Apollo SCS has been developed f o r limit cycle operation
During maneuvers t h e e f f e c t of t h e feedback should be t o pulse
t h e j e t s p r i o r t o t h e commanded maneuver r a t e being achieved,
. . thus r e s u l t i n g i n an over-damped response. To avoid t h i s , t h e
pseudo-rate feedback is switched out during manual maneuvers.
The guidance and navigation system is located i n t h e lower
equipment bay of t h e spacecraft, Fig. 5.
The c&N equipment i s shown i n a handling f i x t u r e i n Fig. 6.
The primary components of t h i s system are the EKY's, t h e gim-
b a l position indicators, sextant, scanning telescope, displays
and controls, power and servo assembly (EA), and computer.
The i n e r t i a l measurement unit is behind t h e panel and i s mated
with t h e o p t i c a l system on t h e navigation base. A precise
angular r e l a t i o n must be maintained between t h e o p t i c a l system
and t h e i n e r t i a l measurement u n i t ; t h i s angular r e l a t i o n i s
provided through t h e navigation base.
Fig. 7 is a schematic diagram of t h e gimbals of t h e M
I U.
The
s t a b l e member houses t h r e e single-degree-of-freedom 25 I R I G
4. gyros and three 16 PIPA 'accelerometers. The gyros maintain a
coordinate system with respect t o i n e r t i a l space in accordance .
with reference directions determined by t h e o p t i c a l system and
gravity. The accelerometers measure specific forces i n t h e
three coordinate directions of t h i s i n e r t i a l reference system.
The acceleration measurements a r e integrated i n t h e computer t o
give v e l o c i t y and integrated again t o give position. The p l a t -
form i s i s o l a t e d from t h e spacecraft by t h e three-gimbal system
shown i n Fig. 7. The three-gimballed platform was chosen
instead of a four-gimballed platform because it could be b u i l t
with smaller s i z e and weight. The only disadvantage of a t h r e e
gimbal platform i s t h a t of gimbal lock i n c e r t a i n orientations.
This i s readily avoided in Apollo by a simple subroutine i n the
computer program which torques t h e platform away from p o t e n t i a l
gimbal locks as t h e condition approaches.
Fig. 8 shows t h e Apollo i n e r t i a l measurement unit (IMU) w i t h t h e
resolvers on one of t h e outer gimbals removed. This u n i t i s
about t h e s i z e of a basketball and i s very similar t o a P o l a r i s
platform. The corrugations on t h e outer portion a r e coolant
l i n e s through which t h e coolant f l u i d flows t o maintain precision
temperature control of t h e M
I U.
Pig. 9 shows t h e IMU with t h e top removed. Three gimbals,
platform electronics, and t h e accelerometer and gyro package
can be seen i n t h i s picture.
Fig. 10 i s a photograph of t h e i n e r t i a l measurement u n i t and
the optical system (scanning telescope and sextant) mounted on
the precision navigation base which maintains accurate angular
orientation between t h e two subsystems. The o p t i c a l system i s
used t o align t h e i n e r t i a l system and f o r navigation i n earth
o r i b t , lunar o r b i t , and i n cislunar space. The i n e r t i a l meas-
urement unit i s used as a primary a t t i t u d e reference and i s used
f o r guidance purposes during all maneuvers and during reentry.
Fig. 11 shows the instrument panel i n front of the command p i l o t
of t h e CSM. The switches i n t h e panel t o t h e right control t h e
CM RCS and SM RCS propellant. The switch and d i a l at t h e top
r i g h t indicate t h e quantity of RCS propellant. The control
panel i n the center is t h e display and keyboard assembly (DSKY).
This w i l l be discussed i n more d e t a i l shortly.
The indicator with curved l i n e s and rays a t t h e top l e f t i s t h e
entry monitor system. This system i s discussed i n greater
d e t a i l near t h e end of t h i s paper where the entry phase of t h e
mission i s discussed. Directly below t h e entry monitor system
i s t h e FDAI ( f l i g h t director a t t i t u d e indicator), commonly called
t h e "8-hd1" or the "gyro horizon." The needles above, below,
and t o the r i g h t of t h e 8- ball i t s e l f a r e e r r o r needles. To
the l e f t of t h e FDAI a r e control switches f o r t h e SFS (service
module propulsion system). Below t h e SPS switches a r e t h e
a t t i t u d e set indicators and controls.
Directly below the FDAI i s t h e " A V Remaining" counter and t h r u s t
and direct ullage switches. A t t h e bottom a r e t h e control mode
select switches f o r t h e SCS (Stabilization and Control System).
It can be seen t h a t t h e modes available are:
(1) Monitor
(2) G&N a t t i t u d e control
( 3 ) G&N Liv
(4) G&N entry
(5) sCS l o c a l v e r t i c a l mode
(6) sCS a t t i t u d e control
(7) SCS QV
(8) SCs reentry
The t h r o t t l e control is t h e T-handle i n t h e lower left-hand
corner o f t h e photograph.
Fig. 1 2 shows t h e faceplate of t h e display and keyboard (DSKY).
The computer i n both t h e comand module and LEM a r e identical.
They a r e microelectronic computers which a r e designed by MIT
and produced by Raytheon. The Apollo computer i s a very power-
f u l lightweight computer with t h e l a r g e s t memory of any airborne
computer i n history. It has a memory of 36,000 words (each of
. . 16 h i t s ) and i s approximately equal t o an IBM 704 i n computa-
t i o n a l capability.
The DSKY provides t h e communication l i n k between t h e astronaut
and t h e computer. Through t h e D S m t h e astronaut can monitor
system a c t i v i t y , alter parameters, and d i c t a t e system modes.
In addition, the DSKY has indicator l i g h t s which.display system
and computer s t a t u s and alarm. The computer display on t h e DSKY
consists of three two-digit displays labeled "Program", Verb",
and "Noun" and three five- digit general word readouts. The two-
d i g i t displays a r e coded f o r various modes i n instruction. The
program display indicates t h e major operating mode of t h e com-
puter such as "lunar landing maneuver." The "verb" and "noun"
displays a r e used together and coded t o give numerous possi-
b i l i t i e s of meaningful phrases o r instructions. Examples of
t y p i c a l "verb" and "noun" displays are:
-
Verb -
Noun
Display value Velocity
Compute Abort velocity
Read in Landmark angle
When t h e computer wishes t o communicate a request f o r data o r
signal an alarm t o t h e astronaut, t h e "verb" and "noun" numbers
f l a s h until t h e astronaut takes action. He enters data t o the
computer through t h e keyboard which i s on t h e r i g h t hand side
of t h e display as seen here.
A schematic representation of t h e operation of t h e manned space
f l i g h t network tracking system (MSFN) i s shown i n Fig. 13. The
vehicle is illuminated by an 85 ft. antenna which provides
range, angles, and velocity. This information i s transmitted
t o t h e Mission Control Center i n Houston from which navigation
information i s determined. The vehicle can also be tracked by
30 ft. antennae which use three-way doppler information t o
provide position and v e l o c i t y data.