Launch Vehicle Operational Environments

Alvar M. Kabe1 and Randolph L. Kendall2

1
Vehicle Systems Division, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA, USA
2
Launch Systems Division, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA, USA

limits will be discussed. It should be noted that there are

1 Introduction 1 other considerations such as ground transportation loads, pro-
2 Flight Profile and Associated Environments 1 pellant loading thermal conditions, pre-launch ground wind
3 Establishing Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft loading, and propulsion/structure interaction stability issues
Structural Design Adequacy for that must be taken into account in launch vehicle design;
Launch Environments 5 however, this article will focus only on the launch and flight
environments.
4 Day-of-Launch Operational Considerations 11
5 Summary 11
References 11 2 FLIGHT PROFILE AND ASSOCIATED
ENVIRONMENTS

1 INTRODUCTION
There are many different operational environments that a
launch vehicle and its payload are subjected to during launch
and flight, and that must be considered for the design and safe
operation of the system. These include environments such as
wind loading, acoustic vibration, and vibration due to engine
thrust. Furthermore, the relative influence of each of these
environments varies significantly during the different phases
of flight. This chapter will first describe the various environ-
ments, and which are critical at different times of flight. The
derivation and modeling of the forces, as well as the processes
for analysis of the vehicle and spacecraft designs to ensure
their ability to withstand the launch environments will also be
described. Finally, day-of-launch operational considerations
for flying a launch vehicle safely through the atmosphere
while staying within its structural and control system design
During launch and ascent, a launch vehicle and its payload
will experience severe environments, many of which are self-
generated (Fleming, 1991; Kabe, 1998). These environments
cause the launch vehicle and its payload to experience severe
forces that cause structural deformations and vibrations. The
vibrations increase the deformations, which in turn pro-
duce the internal structural loads and stresses that represent
the principal design requirements for most of the launch vehi-
cle and spacecraft structure. Complicating matters is the fact
that the self-generated environments are a function of the
phase of flight and the vehicle configuration at that time of
flight.
For the purposes of this discussion we will consider three
broad phases of flight; however, within each there are multiple
events that must be addressed. Figure 1 shows a typical flight
profile and the sequence of events responsible for the environ-
ments during each phase of flight. The first is the liftoff phase,
which is followed by the atmospheric and post-atmospheric
phases of flight. The liftoff phase typically ends 10–15 s after
liftoff. The atmospheric phase of flight generally ends when
the launch vehicle has reached an altitude of approximately

Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
 2 Operational Environment
Figure 1. Typical launch vehicle flight profile.
60 000–70 000 ft. The post-atmospheric flight phase includes
all events that occur after the atmospheric phase up through
spacecraft separation, or the initiation of on-orbit events. On-
orbit deployment of a space system and subsequent events
are not included in this discussion, but it should be noted that
deployment of appendages and other on-orbit activities, such
as docking and station keeping, could produce design loads
in some structural components.
There are distinguishing factors between the three phases
of flight mentioned above. During the liftoff phase significant
loads are produced by the interaction of the launch vehicle and
ground. During the atmospheric phase of flight there are sig-
nificant interactions between the atmosphere and the launch
vehicle. Finally, during the third phase the load producing
events are primarily dependent on the launch vehicle and its
payload. However, although the air density is too low to pro-
duce structural loads, it is still sufficient to produce extreme
thermal loading and result in damage to the vehicle, if not
properly protected, and to its payload if the payload fairing
is jettisoned too early.
2.1 Liftoff phase
The liftoff phase, as defined herein, begins a few seconds
before the vehicle lifts off the pad, and can encompass three
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
distinct events: liftoff, liftoff abort, and post-liftoff acous-
tics. During these events, the launch vehicle and its payload
will experience severe loading from numerous sources. These
loads are a function of the structural design of the launch
vehicle and its payload, the integrated structural dynamics
properties of the system, the launch vehicle’s exterior geom-
etry and surface area, the launch pad, the manner in which
the launch vehicle is attached to the pad, and the manner in
which the vehicle is released from the pad.
As a launch vehicle rests on its launch mounts, grav-
ity causes the coupled launch vehicle/launch pad system to
deform. In addition, ground winds will cause the vehicle to
bend, and vortexes shedding off the vehicle will cause it to
oscillate. The direction of loading depends on the direction of
the ground winds, which can change during the countdown.
In addition, vortexes shedding off of nearby buildings and
launch support structure may also impinge on the vehicle.
The propulsion system may comprise any combination of
liquid-fueled engines and solid rocket motors. Engine and
motor ignitions and thrust produce significant loads with
broad frequency content. If the launch vehicle is a “hold-
down” type (typical for liquid fuelled engines), a retention
mechanism prevents the vehicle from lifting off while the
engines buildup thrust; computerized checks, which take only
a second or two, can be performed to verify the proper per-
formance of the engines. The retention mechanism is then

released, any ground-lit solid rocket motors are ignited, and
the vehicle rises off the launch pad. If the vehicle is a “fly-
away” type, it begins to rise as soon as the thrust overcomes
the vehicle weight.
At ignition, the exhaust from liquid rocket engines and
solid rocket motors will cause a sudden increase in pressure in
the launch duct. The launch duct is typically designed to direct
most of the exhaust away from the vehicle. Pressure waves
exiting the duct, referred to as “exit waves,” will reflect back
towards the launch vehicle. However, some pressure waves
will bounce off the bottom of the launch duct underneath
the vehicle and move directly up along the vehicle. These are
referred to as “inlet waves.” The increased pressures from the
inlet and exit waves are referred to as “ignition overpressure
waves.” Because these waves are not symmetrical as they
travel up the vehicle, they create differential pressure loading
on the vehicle. For some systems the ignition overpressure
loading can be severe, necessitating attenuation with a water
suppression system.
It is worth noting that because the ignition overpressures
are generated by the sudden injection of the exhaust gases into
the air, long exhaust ducts which confine the exhaust plume,
while leading the hot gases well away from the vehicle, can
actually increase the ignition overpressures. The overpressure
is also dependent upon the rapidity with which the thrust
builds up at ignition, with the consequence that solid motors
(which tend to have a faster thrust buildup) will generate
higher overpressures than liquid engines.
In addition to dynamic loads, the engines produce
extremely high temperature exhaust plumes, up to several
thousand Kelvin. Most of the exhaust plumes flow away from
the vehicle through the launch duct. However, a significant
amount will reflect upwards toward the vehicle from the bot-
tom of the launch duct and from the surface of the launch pad
as the vehicle lifts off. As a result, the aft end of the vehicle is
subjected to an extremely severe base-heating environment,
both from direct exposure to the plume as well as the radiative
and conductive effects. Therefore, the aft end of the rocket
must be insulated by a thermal protection system that can
withstand this high base-heating environment and prevent
destruction of the vehicle.
At the moment the launch vehicle separates from each
of its launch mounts, and depending on the deformed shape
of the vehicle/launch pad system (caused by gravity, wind
loading, thrust), the vehicle can experience twangs or snaps,
which will cause additional oscillations. In addition, depend-
ing on where in a wind-induced oscillatory cycle the vehicle
is when the engines are ignited, the launch vehicle interface
to the launch mounts could re-contact while separating as the
vehicle rises off the pad.
The phenomena described above generally excite the low
frequency (60–70 Hz and below) modes of vibration of the
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
Launch Vehicle Operational Environments 3
system and, hence, the loads that are produced are referred
to as the low frequency loads. The one exception is the igni-
tion and operation of liquid engines and solid rocket motors,
which will also produce acoustic excitation with energy
content from 30 to 10 000 Hz. The low frequency portion,
below 60–70 Hz, is partially accounted for in low frequency
loads analyses by inclusion of ignition overpressure forc-
ing functions. The energy content not accounted for in the
“low frequency” analyses has to be accounted for by direct
acoustic impingement analysis and testing at the subsystem
level.
The environments described above will act on the system,
cause it to deform and oscillate, and produce internal loads
and stresses. In addition, the acoustic environment will pen-
etrate the launch vehicle and payload fairing, and impinge
directly on the payload and launch vehicle internal compo-
nents. The severity of the loading will depend, for example,
on the payload fairing design and any added treatment used
to attenuate the acoustic environment.
As mentioned, there are two additional events that have
to be considered as part of the liftoff phase. The first is the
liftoff abort event and the second is the post-liftoff acous-
tic event. The liftoff abort event will include all the loading
environments experienced during liftoff except for the igni-
tion of solid rocket motors and loading associated with the
separation of the vehicle from the launch mounts. The partial
buildup of thrust will also cause deformations and oscilla-
tions in the vehicle and pad. When the engines are suddenly
shut down, the system will experience transient loads that will
be in addition to the gravity, ground wind, engine ignitions,
ignition overpressure, and acoustic loading.
The post-liftoff acoustic event typically occurs after the
vehicle has risen one to two hundred feet and acoustic waves
that are reflected off the ground, launch pad, and nearby
structures envelope the vehicle. The environment tends to
be fairly broad band and, thus analyses are performed for
the 60–70 Hz and below range, whereas the higher frequency
acoustic loading needs to be compared to those during liftoff
and atmospheric flight for criticality, and possible assessment
and inclusion in the acoustic test environments.
2.2 Atmospheric flight phase
A launch vehicle can reach speeds of over 500 m s−1 in the
atmosphere. These high speeds cause severe pressure on the
launch vehicle skin, which in turn will cause the vehicle to
deform and experience significant loads. This pressure load-
ing is a function of vehicle speed, which increases with flight
time, and the density of air, which decreases as the vehicle
increases its altitude. Therefore, the dynamic pressure will
increase to a maximum, and subsequently decrease to nearly
 4 Operational Environment
zero once the vehicle has reached space. Also, once an alti-
tude of 60 000–70 000 ft is reached, the air density will have
decreased sufficiently to where the external pressure load-
ing may no longer be a structural loading issue. The exact
altitude would depend on the launch vehicle configuration
and speed. The loads a launch vehicle will experience due
to this pressure loading are a function of its angle of attack,
stiffness and mass properties, and the resulting rigid body
accelerations.
As a launch vehicle approaches and passes the speed of
sound it will experience shock waves, shock wave oscil-
lations, separated flow turbulence, and attached boundary
layer turbulence (NASA SP-8001, 1970; Fleming, 1991).
The interaction of these phenomena can produce significant
oscillations and can represent a critical loading environment
for some spacecraft and launch vehicle structure. This load-
producing environment is referred to as buffet. Although the
maximum buffet loads tend to occur during the Transonic
time of flight, that is, when the vehicle approaches and passes
through Mach 1, buffet loads at other times of flight, such as
the period of maximum dynamic pressure, are not negligible
and have to be considered in combination with the other load
producing phenomena. For design and analysis purposes, the
buffet environment is typically divided into the low frequency
regime, where quantitative analyses are used to predict loads,
and the high frequency regime where the buffet loading mani-
fests itself as an acoustic environment. The boundary between
these two regimes tends to be in the 50–70 Hz range.
As a launch vehicle flies through the atmosphere it will
encounter turbulence, or gusts (Hoblit, 1988; Kim, Kabe and
Lee, 2000; NASA-HDBK-1001, 2000). Turbulence consists
of relatively short duration wind features that change a launch
vehicle’s relative wind angle of attack. This change in angle
of attack occurs sufficiently fast so that the lower frequency
vibration modes of the system are excited. The combination
of the angle of attack change and the elastic mode response
can produce significant loads. The frequency content of this
phenomenon depends on the speed of the launch vehicle and
the shape of the turbulence/gust wind profile; typically the
energy content is below 10 Hz. In addition, turbulence tends
to be the greatest when entering and exiting a jet stream.
In order to maintain vehicle stability while flying through
turbulence, the control system will gimbal the engines. The
resulting side forces will cause a change in the vehicle’s angle
of attack and, hence, the loads it will experience. In addition,
the engine side forces will produce loads.
Other environments that a launch vehicle and its payload
will experience during atmospheric flight include aerody-
namic heating, those associated with venting, and liquid
engine and solid rocket motor thrust oscillations. In addi-
tion, loading associated with changes in the launch vehicle
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
configuration, such as jettison of solid rocket motors, and
propellant tank temperature and pressure changes must also
be considered.
The launch vehicle skin must be protected with insula-
tion against aerodynamic heating, which can degrade internal
components such as wires under tunnel covers. In addition to
the base heating that occurs during liftoff, base heating can
also occur later during ascent, particularly for multi-engined
vehicles, as the exhaust plume expands under the lower ambi-
ent pressures, and wake recirculation brings hot gas back
around the engine bay.
Since a launch vehicle rises rapidly into thinner air, the air
contained within its payload fairing and other compartments
will have to vent out. During the period where the external
static pressure is decreasing more quickly than the various
electronic boxes, compartments, and area under the payload
fairing can vent, a differential pressure will exist that must be
accounted for. In addition, this relatively rapid airflow itself
may need to be considered in the design of the vehicle and
payload.
Liquid engine and solid rocket motor thrust contain oscil-
lations superimposed on the steady state thrust. The liquid
engine thrust oscillations tend to contain broad frequency
content, whereas the more severe solid rocket motor oscil-
lations are typically narrow band and associated with the
internal acoustic modes of the solid rocket motor (Dotson,
Womack and Grosserode, 2001). Should these oscillations
coincide with the axial modes of the system, which are con-
tinually increasing in frequency due to decreasing propellant
mass, severe vehicle oscillations can result.
Separation of solid rocket motors would be an example
of a configuration change. Here, the separation may be such
that non-symmetric forces are applied to the launch vehicle
because of timing differences between the separations of mul-
tiple solids. In addition, the sudden change in launch vehicle
mass and reduction in aerodynamic drag associated with the
separated solid rocket motors will be compensated for by a
corresponding increase in acceleration of the launch vehicle.
Finally, the temperature and internal pressure of propellant
tanks can vary as a function of flight time. Stresses produced
by these changing conditions must also be considered.
2.3 Post-atmospheric flight phase
From a loads and dynamics standpoint, the post-atmospheric
flight phase has the simplest environments, since they are
associated primarily with the launch vehicle. These envi-
ronments fall into two main categories: engine and motor
ignitions and shutdowns, and staging and separation events.
Since the air density past 60 000–70 000 ft of altitude is still

several percent of an atmosphere, some aerodynamic load-
ing may have to be considered in the analyses; however,
these effects typically are minor compared to the vehicle
self-generated environments.
In addition, since a vehicle’s speed at this point in flight
can reach several thousand meters per second, even in a rela-
tively low-density region of the atmosphere, the high speeds
can still produce a significant heating environment. Both the
peak heating rates as well as the integrated heat loads over
time need to be taken into account in design of the ther-
mal protection system for the portions of the vehicle that are
critical for these heat loads.
2.4 Staging and separation events
Staging and separation events can include the jettison of solid
rocket motors, stage separation, payload fairing separation,
fuel tank separation, and spacecraft separation. Typically,
attached solid rocket motor and payload fairing jettisons
occur during powered flight. As such, the sudden change in
mass will result in a corresponding increase in vehicle accel-
eration. This sudden change in system acceleration becomes
a loading event that needs to be considered. Staging typically
occurs after liquid engines have been shut down, or solid
rocket motors have decayed to the point where any residual
thrust is inconsequential. Once the system is at or near zero
acceleration, the stages are commanded to separate. Separa-
tion systems impart loads to both the launch vehicle and its
payload that need to be assessed. In addition, the clearance
between the separating bodies must be assessed to establish
that no recontact will occur.
2.5 Engine ignitions and shutdowns
Finally, engine ignition and shutdown forces can produce
design loads for many parts of a spacecraft and its launch
vehicle. The variability that occurs from flight to flight of
“identical” engines needs to be considered. During ignition,
the sudden increase in thrust will cause broadband excitation
of the system. The rate and characteristic of thrust increase
will vary from flight to flight and thus, a family of thrust
transients needs to be used in the analyses. Conversely, the
shutdown of a liquid engine can be accomplished in one
of three ways. The engine(s) can be commanded to shut
down by closing the oxidizer and fuel valves. However, if
performance requirements dictate that all the propellant be
expended then the engine(s) will either experience a fuel or
oxidizer depletion shutdown. In either case, the mixture ratios
during depletion will be such as to possibly lead to burping
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
Launch Vehicle Operational Environments 5
of the thrust. This can cause severe loads in the system. Solid
rocket motors tend to shut down more gracefully and over a
relatively long period of time; therefore, their shutdowns do
not generate critical environments.
3 ESTABLISHING LAUNCH VEHICLE
AND SPACECRAFT STRUCTURAL
DESIGN ADEQUACY FOR LAUNCH
ENVIRONMENTS
Given an understanding of the above operating environments,
the next step is to design, analyze, and test the launch vehicle
and its spacecraft payload to ensure that they can withstand
these environments. The structural design of launch vehicle
and spacecraft structure has to account for loads produced
by steady state loading (static), and low frequency (typically
below 60–70 Hz), mid-frequency (typically 50–100 Hz), and
high frequency (90–10 000 Hz) excitation (Figure 2). Design
and qualification of structure to the high frequency range
is accomplished by test, and the design, therefore, is to
the test environments, which envelope historical flight data
adjusted by analysis for the configuration of interest. The
high-frequency-regime tests include acoustic and shock tests.
Types of hardware whose design is driven by the acoustic
environment include large surface area structure such as solar
arrays. The shock environment tends to be critical to elec-
tronic components and possibly local structure near ordnance
devices.
The mid-frequency range can yield the design require-
ments for lightweight appendage type structure whose first
resonance is above the low frequency range and, therefore,
its modes of vibration are not included in the low frequency
loads analyses to be described in the next section. The design
of these items, which typically have relatively small surface
areas, has to involve a conservative set of design require-
ments because analytical prediction of the flight loads is
highly uncertain due to the inability to generate structural
dynamic models of sufficient accuracy for this frequency
range; note that the issue is not frequency, but the type and
number of modes. These design requirements are specified
as weight versus acceleration load factors, and are suffi-
ciently conservative to provide high assurance of not being
exceeded by the actual flight environment. Because these
load factors are used solely for the design of lightweight
items, the weight penalty associated with the conservatism is
small.
Steady state loading and the low frequency excitation
regime yield the design requirements that impact the weight
of the structural subsystem to the greatest extent. Fortunately,
 6 Operational Environment
Figure 2. Ranges of mechanical vibration and design environments.
the state-of-the-art allows for the development of accurate
structural and structural dynamic models that can be used to
predict responses and recover internal loads. However, these
loads are a function of the dynamic properties of the inte-
grated spacecraft/launch vehicle system. Therefore, design
changes in one element can result in load changes in all ele-
ments, and modeling errors in one element can result in load
prediction errors in all elements. Because the dynamic prop-
erties of each element depend upon the structural design of
that element, the design and analysis process has to be iter-
ative. As a result, a formal Load Cycle Process has been
developed to manage the acquisition of data and analyses
needed to design and verify the structural adequacy of launch
vehicles and spacecraft for launch (Figure 3) (Fleming, 1991;
Kabe, 1998; Kabe, Kim, and Spiekermann, 2003/2004; Air
Force Space Command, 2008).
3.1 The Load Cycle Process
Typically, launch vehicles are designed to accommodate
many different types of spacecraft and, therefore, their
designs tend to be more robust than those of the payloads.
To facilitate the discussion, we will describe the Load Cycle
Process in the context of the design of spacecraft structure,
with the understanding that the principles also apply to launch
vehicles.
The spacecraft design process begins with Preliminary
Design Load Factors, which are simple acceleration profiles
that are based on past experience with similar launch con-
figurations; insight into both sides of the launch vehicle/
spacecraft interface can be of considerable value in their
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
development. These acceleration profiles are used to estab-
lish the initial sizing of the load-carrying structure. Once the
preliminary design and corresponding drawings are com-
plete, a finite element model is developed. This model is
used to derive a loads analysis structural dynamic model,
which will typically be in the form of a Hurty/Craig–Bampton
model (Hurty, 1964, 1965; Craig and Bampton, 1968), and
internal load recovery equations typically referred to as
Load Transformation Matrices (LTMs). Additional Response
Recovery Transformation Matrices (RRTMs) that yield dis-
placements and other desired quantities are also developed.
The spacecraft organization then sends to the launch vehi-
cle organization the spacecraft Hurty/Craig–Bampton model
and the LTM and/or RRTM for use in the Preliminary Design
Load Cycle.
The Preliminary Design Load Cycle is the first time loads
are computed with a coupled launch vehicle/spacecraft sys-
tem. For each load cycle, the launch vehicle organization
develops launch vehicle models that correspond to liftoff
and the other times of flight (events) at which either the
launch vehicle or a particular spacecraft may experience
critical loads. Typically, 10–20 distinct events are consid-
ered; these include liftoff, liftoff abort, post-liftoff acoustics,
several atmospheric flight times, maximum acceleration,
engine/motor ignitions and shutdowns, and jettison events.
For each event, the spacecraft model is coupled (Hurty, 1964;
Craig and Bampton, 1968; Benfield and Hruda, 1971) to the
launch vehicle model that corresponds to that particular time
of flight. This coupling of dynamics models yields a system
with dynamic properties that are different than those of either
component, which is why loads need to be developed at the
coupled system level.
 Launch Vehicle Operational Environments 7

Figure 3. The Load Cycle Process (GSE&I – General Systems Engineering and Integration; IV&V – Independent Verification and
Validation).

The launch vehicle organization will have developed
unique methodologies to analytically model the physics of
each event. Custom computer programs to numerically solve
the corresponding equations of motion will also have been
developed. For nonlinear events like liftoff, the nonlineari-
ties are accounted for by numerically solving the equations of
motion in a stepwise linear manner (Henkel and Mar, 1988).
The computed system responses are used with the spacecraft
and launch vehicle LTMs and RRTMs to establish launch
vehicle and spacecraft loads and other response quantities of
interest. The spacecraft loads are sent to the spacecraft organi-
zation, and the launch vehicle loads are sent to the appropriate
area of the launch vehicle organization for structural margin
assessment.
The spacecraft organization will next assess their prelimi-
nary design against the just-computed loads. This assessment
typically supports the spacecraft Preliminary Design Review,
or its equivalent. Areas with negative margins are redesigned,
and electronic boxes, payloads, and other components are
often moved to refine the design, and any required configu-
ration changes are implemented. The drawings and the finite
element models are updated, and the entire loads analysis
process is repeated. The last design load cycle is typically
referred to as the Final Design Load Cycle, and its results
support the Critical Design Review, or its equivalent. After
it is confirmed that the structure has adequate margin against
these loads, the design is released for manufacturing and
subsequent structural testing.
Once the spacecraft has been manufactured, numerous
tests need to be performed in support of the last pre-launch
loads analyses and demonstration of flightworthiness. These
tests should include a mode survey test, static strength and
proof tests, acoustic tests, random base shake tests of com-
ponents (not the entire spacecraft), shock tests, and thermal
vacuum tests. Some tests, like qualification tests, must be
performed on dedicated test articles; however, test like accep-
tance random vibration, acoustic, shock, and thermal vacuum
tests need to be performed on the actual flight hardware. Mode
survey tests are used to measure the structural dynamic prop-
erties of the spacecraft and the dynamically complex launch
vehicle substructures, such as the upper stage, payload fair-
ing, and engines; test criteria are specified in Air Force Space

Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
 8 Operational Environment
Command (2008). The data from these tests are used to adjust
the finite element models that will form the basis of the last
loads cycle, the Verification Load Cycle. It is also possible
to develop from mode survey test data empirical models that
can be used directly in loads analysis. The mode survey test
is typically followed by static strength tests, in which the
envelope of the Final Design Load Cycle loads and the Pre-
liminary Design Load Factor derived loads are applied to the
actual hardware to demonstrate that the structural capability
meets requirements.
The Verification Load Cycle is performed as a final check
on the adequacy of the spacecraft structural design, and sig-
nificant portions of the launch vehicle. Other portions of the
launch vehicle may have their final margins computed on
the day of launch, just prior to launch, as part of the day-of-
launch placarding process. The day-of-launch calculations,
however, use many of the loads established in the Verifica-
tion Load cycle. Because of the complexity of the analyses,
the loads analysis methodologies and analysis data, if not
verified during previous load cycles, should also be indepen-
dently validated and verified. An independent organization
should also perform independent loads analyses to verify that
the predicted loads are error free. As with the earlier load
cycles, the spacecraft loads are sent back to the spacecraft
organization for final flightworthiness assessment, which typ-
ically includes comparing these loads to those applied during
the static strength tests. The validated and verified launch
vehicle loads are used in a similar assessment of the launch
vehicle.
3.2 Low frequency loads analyses
and qualification of hardware
As discussed previously, the structural design of launch vehi-
cles and spacecraft has to account for loads produced by
steady state loading (static), and low frequency (typically
below 60–70 Hz), mid-frequency (typically 50–100 Hz), and
high frequency (90–10 000 Hz) excitation. The steady state
and low frequency excitation regimes tend to yield the design
requirements that have the greatest impact on the weight of
the structural subsystem. Fortunately, this is the regime for
which relatively accurate models and analysis approaches can
be developed and, thus, optimization of the structural design
to reduce weight is possible.
The analysis approaches and methodologies can be
divided into three general categories that tend to coincide
with the three phases of flight described in Section 2. The
first category includes the liftoff, liftoff abort, and any other
event that occurs while the vehicle can still interact with
the ground or ground support structure. The second category
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
includes all events that involve the vehicle’s interaction with
the atmosphere and, hence, are referred to as atmospheric
flight loads events. The third category involves those events
where the interactions with the atmosphere are negligible,
and all excitation is generated by launch vehicle operations.
3.2.1 Liftoff loads analyses
Liftoff is a nonlinear, short-duration, transient event. Forces
acting on the vehicle include gravity, ground winds, liquid
engine and/or solid rocket motor ignition transients, nozzle
side forces, ignition overpressure pulses, launch pad interface
forces, and forces due to other temporary mechanical devices
such as umbilicals and ground wind dampers. The liftoff event
requires a nonlinear simulation to define the interface forces
between the launch pad and launch vehicle (Henkel and Mar,
1988). The response of the system can either be derived in the
nonlinear simulation, or the interface forces from this simu-
lation can be applied to a linear analysis where all the other
forces that were used in the nonlinear analysis are applied
with the pad interface forces to the unconstrained coupled
system model. Because of the need to define launch pad inter-
face forces, the displacements at the pad interfaces need to
be computed accurately. Because of modal truncation, resid-
ual flexibility effects need to be included, and the full mode
acceleration response recovery approach must be used (Craig,
1981).
Liftoff analyses usually retain modes of vibration up to
60–70 Hz. This cutoff strains the ability to generate mod-
els of sufficient accuracy. Acoustic excitation has frequency
content to 10 000 Hz. Therefore, only the ignition overpres-
sure pulse, which is the “low” frequency component (below
60–70 Hz) of the acoustic excitation can be included in the
simulations. The acoustic impingement that acts directly on
a spacecraft is also not included. Therefore, the spacecraft
stresses due to direct acoustic impingement must be calcu-
lated in a separate, usually component level, and conservative
analysis, and the results combined with those obtained in the
liftoff simulation.
Although a spacecraft acoustic test is a critical part of the
qualification of the system for flight, the test does not induce
the total load that the primary and some secondary structures
may experience during liftoff. However, large surface area
components will experience their critical loads in an acoustic
test, which should include frequency content to 10 000 Hz.
However, other structures should be qualified by static test-
ing. The test loads should be the combined low frequency
transient values obtained in the liftoff simulation, and the
loads obtained in the direct acoustic impingement analysis,
provided that they are higher than loads from other events. If
not, the higher loads should be used in the strength test.

It should be noted that the maximum acoustic environ-
ment might not coincide in time with the maximum transient
liftoff loads. Therefore, the acoustic levels associated with
the liftoff (and liftoff abort) transient event should be used in
the analysis. The acoustic test should also be used to verify
the accuracy of the methodology used to predict this portion
of the total load.
The liftoff abort event starts the same as the liftoff event;
so the above discussion is directly applicable, except for the
ignition of any solid rocket motors and the separation of the
vehicle from the pad. The liftoff abort analysis begins exactly
the same as the liftoff event analysis. However, once the liquid
engines have reached full thrust, rather than igniting any solid
rocket motors and allowing the vehicle to begin rising, the
liquid engines are shut down. This shutdown represents a
short duration transient that in combination with the gravity,
ground wind, and ignition overpressure pulse could produce
critical loads in some structure.
Once a launch vehicle rises off of its pad, acoustic energy
will reflect off of the pad and the adjacent ground, and off of
nearby ground support structure. This acoustic energy, which
has energy content from 30–40 Hz to 10 000 Hz will envelope
the launch vehicle. The energy content above 60–70 Hz has
to be dealt with by component level analysis, and random
and acoustic testing. The low frequency content needs to be
accounted for by an all-up coupled launch vehicle/spacecraft
random response analysis, component level acoustic analysis,
and static strength testing. Since this event occurs only a few
seconds after liftoff, the transient analyses can be performed
with the unconstrained liftoff model.
3.2.2 Atmospheric flight loads analyses
Atmospheric flight loads can produce the design conditions
for major portions of the launch vehicle and spacecraft struc-
ture. Because of the complexity of the analyses, atmospheric
flight loads are predicted by combining the results from sep-
arate and distinct analyses (Macheske, Womack and Binkley,
1993; Sako, Kabe and Lee, 2009). The analyses are typically
performed for discrete times of flight (or Mach Numbers),
with models that represent the coupled system at the analy-
sis time of flight. Parameters that differ at the various times
of flight, and thus result in model changes, include the fluid
levels in the launch vehicle tanks, tank pressures, remaining
propellant in solid rocket motors, and vehicle configuration.
As a minimum, the transonic and maximum dynamic pressure
times of flight should be analyzed. However, it is not unusual
to perform the analyses at many more Mach Numbers; 6–12
would be typical. Critical contributors that need to be consid-
ered include static-aeroelastic (wind only) loads, atmospheric
turbulence/gusts loads, buffet loads, control system-induced
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
Launch Vehicle Operational Environments 9
loads, thrust and thrust oscillation loads, drag loads, and
jettison event loads.
Static-aeroelastic, or wind only, loads are due to that por-
tion of the vehicle’s angle of attack that varies relatively
slowly with time. Because the change in angle of attack is
slow, the system’s elastic modes of vibration are not excited.
However, rigid body translational acceleration effects need
to be included, whereas rotational acceleration effects are
often excluded by assuming the vehicle is trimmed. If these
effects are not negligible, they need to also be addressed. The
vehicle’s angle of attack is made up of three components: its
rigid body angle of attack, the change in this angle of attack
due to the wind, and the local incremental component due to
the elastic deformation of the vehicle under load. Aeroelastic
effects will increase the vehicle’s deformation and its loads.
The analysis must also include the thrust and drag effects. It
is most efficient to compute the static-aeroelastic loads with
the same structural dynamic model that is used to compute
the buffet and turbulence/gust loads.
The computation of static-aeroelastic loads requires infor-
mation that is derived in a closed-loop, high fidelity,
6-degree-of-freedom flight trajectory simulation that analyt-
ically flies the vehicle from launch to orbit. Measured wind
profiles should be used in these simulations. The computed
information, as a function of altitude, or Mach Number,
or flight time, will include the vehicle’s rigid body angles
of attack (pitch, yaw, roll), six center-of-gravity rigid body
accelerations, and dynamic pressure. This data can then be
used, in conjunction with the model, to derive the static-
aeroelastic loads. For design purposes, these analyses need
to be repeated for a large family of measured wind profiles,
and statistical load enclosure values should be computed to
the desired reliability requirements. On the day of launch,
however, the static-aeroelastic loads are derived based on the
wind profiles measured close (1–2 h) to the time of launch.
Hence, these loads are treated as deterministic, with a penalty
assigned to account for the possible change in the wind from
the time it is measured to the time the vehicle is launched.
Loads due to the rapidly changing, non-persistent wind
features are referred to as turbulence and/or gust loads
(Hoblit, 1988; NASA-HDBK-1001, 2000; Kim, Kabe and
Lee, 2000; Sako et al., 2000; Spiekermann, Sako and Kabe,
2000). These wind features are in addition to the compo-
nents considered in the static-aeroelastic analysis, and they
can excite the elastic modes of vibration, as well as yield loads
due to the rigid body motion of the vehicle. The magnitude
of the external loading will depend on the launch vehicle’s
speed, air density, total angle of attack, and the particular wind
features through which the vehicle flies. In a turbulence/gust
analysis, the vehicle’s angle of attack consists of three com-
ponents: the rigid body angle of attack, the change in this
 10 Operational Environment
angle of attack due to the wind, and the local incremental
component due to the elastic deformation of the vehicle. All
three are a function of time and will vary as a function of the
turbulence/gust profile and vehicle’s deformation as it oscil-
lates. Aeroelastic stiffness and damping effects, as well as the
launch vehicle’s control system need to be simulated in the
analyses. The control system will provide for the proper side
forces required to maintain vehicle stability. Typically, the
fully integrated structural dynamics, aeroelastic, control sys-
tem equations are numerically integrated to obtain the time
histories of the response quantities of interest for each forcing
function considered.
There are two primary forcing functions used in gust
analyses of launch vehicles: synthetic profiles (NASA-
HDBK-1001, 2000), and turbulence extracted from measured
wind profiles (Sako et al., 2000). The intent of synthetic pro-
files is to use a limited set that provides enveloping loads
equivalent to those that would be obtained if a large number
of simulations were performed with actual turbulence. The
turbulence methodology involves using a large number of
measured profiles and then computing statistical enclosures.
The equations of motion and the computation of responses
are identical irrespective of which forcing functions are used
(Kim, Kabe and Lee, 2000).
Loads due to the formation of shock waves, shock wave
oscillations, flow separation, attached turbulent boundary
layers, and the interaction between these phenomena are
referred to as buffet loads (NASA SP-8001, 1970). As a
launch vehicle approaches and passes Mach 1 (transonic time
of flight) shock waves form on the vehicle. These will interact
with flow separation in regions of geometric discontinuities,
like a payload fairing’s boattail. It is not possible to analyt-
ically derive buffet forcing functions that are required for
loads analysis. Until wind tunnel tests are performed, buffet
forcing functions must be estimated from forcing functions
derived for similar launch vehicle configurations that have
flight experience.
Wind tunnel tests must be performed to establish the
fluctuating pressures associated with buffeting. These tests
involve scaled, rigid models of the vehicle. Pressures are
measured circumferentially and at a large number of vehi-
cle axial stations. The density of instrumentation rings is the
greatest in areas where shock waves are expected to inter-
act with flow separation. Tests are performed for various
Mach Numbers, up to the limit of the wind tunnel capabil-
ity, and usually for various combinations of pitch and yaw
angles of attack. Surface forcing functions are derived by
assigning to the pressure measurements areas that account
for correlation between transducer stations. Surface forcing
functions can also be reduced to centerline forces, which are
often used in loads analysis. Depending on the loads analysis
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
approach, the forcing functions are either retained as time
histories, or converted to Power Spectral Densities (PSDs)
and Cross-Spectra.
There are two approaches for computing buffet loads:
frequency domain and time domain. The “time domain”
procedure (Kabe, 1984) is based on the assumption that a
random response analysis with stationary random forces, and
a numerical time-domain solution, if long enough in time,
will yield response time histories from which appropriate
statistical results can be obtained. Indeed, it can be shown
(Broussinos and Kabe, 1990) that the results are consistent
with solving the problem in the frequency domain with the
excitation Power and Cross-Spectral Densities derived from
the buffet force time histories. The time domain solution
has the advantage that the resulting loads are in the form of
time histories and can be post-processed, even in nonlinear
combination equations. Once the response time histories are
available, the root mean square values are computed. These
are equivalent to the standard deviation, and also equivalent
to the square root of the area under response PSDs obtained in
the frequency domain solution. Loads to the desired statistical
enclosure level are then established by taking the appropriate
number of standard deviations.
In addition to the static-aeroelastic, turbulence/gust and
buffet loads, other sources of excitation may be present.
Both liquid engines and solid rocket motors can contain a
vibratory component superimposed on the steady state thrust.
Solid rocket motor thrust can contain discrete frequency
oscillations associated with the internal acoustic modes of
the system (Dotson, Womack and Grosserode, 2001). These
oscillations can be severe and need to be addressed as a
potential contributor to the total loads experienced by both
the launch vehicle and its payload. Since the excitation fre-
quencies are narrow band, errors in location (frequency) of
the axial modes of the system can yield significant under-
predictions. Therefore, for this event the analyses need to
not only account for the potential variability in the forcing
functions, but also for the potential errors in the structural
dynamic model of the system. Thrust oscillations in liquid
engines tend to be random and with broad frequency content.
The pressure oscillations used to generate the analysis forc-
ing functions are best developed from flight data of similar
systems. Until flight data becomes available, ground test data
should be used, properly adjusted to the flight conditions.
3.2.3 Post-atmospheric loads analyses
Post-atmospheric loads analyses typically involve the com-
putation of loads due to engine ignitions and shutdowns,
and jettison and separation events. Since the density of the
atmosphere during this phase of flight is low, its impact on

loads is minor; however, the aerothermal environment can
be significant because of the speed of the vehicle. Because
of flight-to-flight variability, post-atmospheric loads analyses
must be performed with families of forcing functions to estab-
lish meaningful statistical loads. The best source for engine
ignition and shutdown forcing functions is pressure measure-
ments in the engine chamber, preferably from actual flights.
These can be converted to thrust and, with actuator displace-
ment data, side forces that are time correlated to the thrust
transient. Loads should be computed for each transient in the
family. Peak values should be extracted, both positive and
negative, and statistical positive and negative loads should
be computed to the desired enclosure and confidence lev-
els. Similarly, test data should be used to establish the force
profiles of separation devices, both those that cause the sepa-
ration (ordnance, springs, rocket motors) and those that retard
the separation, such as connector pull forces and friction.
4 DAY-OF-LAUNCH OPERATIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS
There are extensive operations on the day of launch that are
designed to protect the vehicle and increase the probabil-
ity of a successful mission. Hundreds of parameters can be
monitored as the vehicle is prepared for launch; these fall
into two primary categories. The first involves parameters
that have established red lines, and would include items such
as temperatures, pressures, voltages, ground wind speed and
direction, and so on. The second category involves day-of-
launch analyses and derivation of vehicle flight parameters
just prior to launch.
As described previously, during atmospheric flight a
launch vehicle and its payload will experience severe struc-
tural loads and thermal/pressure conditions. If a launch
vehicle and its payload are sufficiently robust, then reliability
requirements for flight loads can be met without performing
day-of-launch load placard calculations (Strauch et al., 1989;
Smith, Adelfang and Batts, 1990; Norbraten, 1992; Solanyk,
1993; Kabe et al., 2000). However, many launch vehicles
can only achieve the required level of structural reliability by
restricting the winds through which they are allowed to fly.
Measuring the winds close (within 1 or 2 h) to the planned
launch and deriving (or selecting from an existing library) a
steering profile that results in lower vehicle loads relative to
the measured winds can improve launch availability.
Once the steering parameters have been established, the
launch vehicle is analytically “flown” through the measured
wind, and altitude histories of angles of attack, dynamic
pressure, acceleration, and control parameters are computed.
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
Launch Vehicle Operational Environments 11
These are used to establish day-of-launch loads, which are
combined with pre-day-of-launch calculated loads such as
buffet and turbulence/gust (Macheske, Womack and Binkley,
1993; Sako, Kabe and Lee, 2009). The total load is computed
to a desired statistical enclosure and confidence level, and
then compared to the vehicle allowable strength values. In
addition, the computed engine gimbal angles are compared
to allowable values, and the predicted dynamic pressure at
the time of fairing jettison is also compared to allowable val-
ues. If any of these allowable values (placards) are exceeded,
the vehicle is not flown. If sufficient time remains before
the launch window closes, the process of deriving steering
parameters and determining whether any of the placards are
violated is repeated. If there is insufficient time, the launch
is aborted, and the vehicle is prepared for the next available
launch opportunity.
5 SUMMARY
There are numerous operational environments that a launch
vehicle and its payload are subjected to during launch and
flight. These include both external environments, such as
ground wind loading and atmospheric pressure, as well as
self-induced, such as vibration due to engine thrust. The
relative influence of these environments varies significantly
during the different phases of flight, necessitating differ-
ent and unique analysis approaches. This chapter described
the various environments, as well as the approaches used
to establish the viability of launch vehicle and spacecraft
designs to survive the launch and flight environments. In
addition, day-of-launch operational considerations for flying
a launch vehicle safely through the atmosphere, while staying
within its structural and control system design limits was also
discussed.
REFERENCES
Air Force Space Command (2008) Independent structural loads
analysis. Space and Missile Systems Center Standard SMC-S-004
(13 June 2008).
Benfield, W.A. and Hruda, R.F. (1971) Vibration analysis of struc-
tures by component mode substitution. AIAA J., 9(7), 1255–1261.
Broussinos, P. and Kabe, A.M. (1990) Multi-mode random response
analysis procedure. Aerosp. Tech. Rep. SSD-TR-90-53.
Craig, R., Jr. (1981) Structural Dynamics: An Introduction to Com-
puter Methods, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Craig, R.R., Jr. and Bampton, M.C.C. (1968) Coupling of substruc-
tures for dynamic analyses. AIAA J., 6(7), 1313–1319.
 12 Operational Environment
Dotson, K.W., Womack, J.M. and Grosserode, P.J. (2001) Struc-
tural dynamic analysis of solid rocket motor resonant burning.
J. Propul. Power, 17(2), 347–354.
Fleming, E.R. (1991) Spacecraft and launch vehicle loads, (Chapter
6), in Flight Vehicle Materials, Structures, and Dynamics, vol. I,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, NY.
Henkel, E.E. and Mar, R. (1988) Improved method for calculating
booster to launch pad interface transient forces. AIAA J. Space-
craft, 25(6), 433–438.
Hoblit, F.M. (1988) Gust Loads on Aircraft: Concepts and Appli-
cations, AIAA Education Series, AIAA.
Hurty, W.C. (1964) Dynamic analysis of structural systems by com-
ponent mode synthesis. Tech. Rep. No. 32-530, JPL Cal Tech.
Hurty, W.C. (1965) Dynamic analysis of structural systems using
component modes. AIAA J., 3(4), 678–685.
Kabe, A.M. (1984) Multi-shaker random mode testing. AIAA J.
Guidance, Control, and Dyn., 7(6), 740–746.
Kabe, A.M. (1998) Design and verification of launch and space
vehicle structures. AIAA Paper 98-1718.
Kabe, A.M., Kim, M.C. and Spiekermann, C.E. (2003/2004) Loads
analysis for national security space missions, Crosslink, The
Aerospace Corporation.
Kabe, A.M., Spiekermann, C.E., Kim, M.C. and Lee, S.S. (2000)
A refined and less conservative day-of-launch atmospheric flight
loads analysis approach. J. Spacecraft Rockets, 37(4), 453–458.
Kim, M.C., Kabe, A.M., and Lee, S.S. (2000) Atmospheric flight
gust loads analysis. J. Spacecraft and Rockets, 37(4), 446–452.
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Online © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470686652.eae317
Macheske, V.M, Womack, J.M., and Binkley, J.F. (1993) A statis-
tical technique for combining launch vehicle atmospheric flight
loads. AIAA Paper 93-0755.
NASA SP-8001 (1970) Buffeting during atmospheric ascent, NASA
Space Vehicle Design Criteria (Structures). May 1964, revised
November 1970.
NASA-HDBK-1001 (2000) Terrestrial Environment (Climatic)
Criteria Handbook for Use in Aerospace Vehicle Development.
Norbraten, G.L. (1992) Day-of-launch I-load updates for the space
shuttle. AIAA Paper 92-1274.
Sako, B.H., Kim, M.C., Kabe, A.M. and Yeung, W.K. (2000) Deriva-
tion of forcing functions for Monte Carlo atmospheric gust loads
analysis. J. Spacecraft Rockets, 37(4), 434–442.
Sako, B.H., Kabe, A.M. and Lee, S.S. (2009) Statistical combination
of time-varying loads. AIAA J., 47(10), 2338–2349.
Smith, O.E., Adelfang, S.I. and Batts, G. (1990) Wind models for the
NSTS ascent trajectory biasing for wind load alleviation. AIAA
Paper 90-0481.
Solanyk, V., Jr. (1993) Launch vehicle reliability and launch
availability relationships resulting from winds-aloft launch con-
straints, AIAA Paper 93-0757.
Spiekermann, C.E., Sako, B.H. and Kabe, A.M. (2000) Identify-
ing slowly varying and turbulent wind features for day-of-launch
flight loads analyses. J. Spacecraft Rockets, 37(4), 4426–4433.
Strauch, R.G., Merritt, D.A., Moran, K.P., May, P.T., Weber, B.L.
and Wuertz, D.A. (1989) Doppler radar wind profilers for support
of flight operations. AIAA Paper 89-0713.